Stimmen der Götter: Orakel und ihre Rezeption von der Spätantike bis in die Frühe Neuzeit 9783825346157, 3825346153

Citation preview

lucia m. tissi · helmut seng chiara o. tommasi (Hg.)

Orakel und ihre Rezeption von der Spätantike bis in die Frühe Neuzeit

G   ötter

Stimmen der Götter

     rakel sind in der antiken Religiosität weit ver    breitet; auch in Kaiserzeit und Spätantike haben sie ihre Faszination nicht verloren. Das zeigt sich etwa in Orakelsammlungen wie den Chaldaeischen Orakeln, der Orakelphilosophie des Porphyrios und der Tübinger Theosophie oder aber in der Diskussion über ihren Inhalt und sogar ihren Gebrauch in rituellem Zusammenhang. Daneben sind Orakel in narrativen Gattungen wie Geschichtsschreibung und Roman präsent, auch noch in byzantinischer Zeit. Die Frühe Neuzeit greift vor allem auf theologische Orakel zurück, aber auch auf die Gestalt der Sibylle als Verkünderin von Orakeln, um die eigenen Vorstellungen an die antike Tradition anzubinden. Diese Form der Rezeption beschränkt sich nicht auf Texte, sondern umfasst dazu die bildenden Künste. Der vorliegende Band nimmt ausgewählte Fallbeispiele in den Blick.

tissi · seng tommasi (Hg.)

tissi · seng · tommasi (Hg.) Stimmen der Götter

Stimmen der

Universitätsverlag

isbn 978-3-8253-4615-7

win t e r

Heidelberg

bibliotheca chaldaica Herausgegeben von Helmut Seng Band 8

Stimmen der Götter Orakel und ihre Rezeption von der Spätantike bis in die Frühe Neuzeit Herausgegeben von

lucia m. tissi helmut seng chiara o. tommasi

Universitätsverlag

winter

Heidelberg

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar. Gedruckt mit freundlicher Unterstützung der Università di Pisa und der Sociétés Anciennes Médiévales et Modernes de l’Université Libre de Bruxelles.

isbn 978-3-8253-4615-7 Dieses Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. © 2019 Universitätsverlag Winter GmbH Heidelberg Imprimé en Allemagne · Printed in Germany Druck: Memminger MedienCentrum, 87700 Memmingen Gedruckt auf umweltfreundlichem, chlorfrei gebleichtem und alterungsbeständigem Papier. Den Verlag erreichen Sie im Internet unter: www.winter-verlag.de

Inhalt Vorwort der Herausgeber. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Aude Busine: Avant-propos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Lucia Maddalena Tissi: The Fortunes and Reception of Oracular Texts. Some Methodological Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Crystal Addey: Oracles of Fire: The Formation and Reception of the Chaldaean Oracles . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Helmut Seng: Zuschreibungen der Chaldaeischen Orakel von Porphyrios bis Patrizi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Christine Hecht: Eusebios liest Porphyrios. Fragmentierung und Kontextualisierung der Orakelphilosophie . . . . . 91 Regina Fichera: Le θεῖος φιλόσοφος et les oracles dans les Vies de philosophes et de sophistes d’Eunape de Sardes . . . 105 Sara Lanna: Gli oracoli di Ammone nel Romanzo di Alessandro: osservazioni filologiche e storico-religiose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Ángel Ruiz Pérez: Rebukes in Greek Oracles from the Imperial Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Claudio Schiano: Pagan Prophecy and Prediction of the Future: an Uncomfortable Topic in Sixth Century Alexandria . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

6

Inhalt

Laura Carrara: The Tübingen Theosophy: Some Philological Notes on Chronology and Structure . . . . . . . . . . . 193 Giulia Maria Paoletti: Il ms. Bas. A.VII.1: appunti sulla storia di un florilegio oracolare . . . 215 Enrico Magnelli: Crooked Oracles or Naive Inquirers? Theodore Prodromus, Rhodanthe and Dosicles 9, 184-240 . . . . . . . . 239 Chiara Garganese: La Cappella del Battista nel Duomo di Siena: un oracolo che si fa forma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 Chiara Ombretta Tommasi: A Rewriting of Theos. § 27 Erbse = I 24 Beatrice in Bodin’s Colloquium Heptaplomeres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 Jean-Michel Roessli: Inspiration divine ou possession démoniaque ? John Twysden (1607-1688) et la défense des sibylles et des Oracles sibyllins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 Namensregister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309

Vorwort der Herausgeber „Fortune et réception des textes oraculaires dans l’Antiquité tardive et le monde médiéval“ war der Titel einer Tagung, die von Lucia Tissi und Aude Busine am 5. und 6. September 2016 an der Université Libre de Bruxelles durchgeführt wurde. Der vorliegende Sammelband geht auf diese Veranstaltung zurück. Beginnend mit systematischen Überlegungen einleitenden Charakters nehmen die insgesamt 14 Beiträge ihren Ausgang von den bedeutendsten Orakelsammlungen der Antike: den Chaldaeischen Orakeln, deren Ursprung und Zuschreibungen thematisiert werden, sowie der Orakelphilosophie des Porphyrios und der Tübinger Theosophie, die selbst bereits erste Stufen der Rezeption darstellen, insofern sie Orakel unterschiedlicher Provenienz zusammenstellen und kommentieren. Hier stehen vor allem die philosophisch-theologischen Inhalte im Vordergrund; andere Beiträge befassen sich mit der Überlieferungsgeschichte. Daneben sind die Orakel aber auch als Texte mit typischen Gattungscharakteristika von Bedeutung, deren Rezeption und Imitation in Spätantike und Mittelalter untersucht wird. Die frühe Neuzeit greift die Orakel wissenschaftlich und kreativ auf; schwerpunktmäßig werden hier die Sibyllinischen Orakel behandelt, einschließlich eines kunstgeschichtlichen Beitrags zum Bildprogramm der Kapelle Johannes des Täufers im Dom von Siena. Die Herausgeber danken den Verfassern der einzelnen Beiträge für ihre Mitarbeit. Für die Erstellung des Registers ist Dr. Marco Donato zu danken. Die Druckkosten haben die Universität Pisa und die SOCIAMM übernommen und damit das Erscheinen dieses Buches ermöglicht. Dafür gilt ihnen besonderer Dank. Paris – Frankfurt am Main – Pisa, im August 2019 Lucia Maddalena Tissi Helmut Seng Chiara Ombretta Tommasi

Avant-propos Ce livre est issu du colloque international « Fortune et réception des textes oraculaires dans l’Antiquité tardive et le monde médiéval » qui s’est tenu à l’Université Libre de Bruxelles du 5 au 6 septembre 2016. En se concentrant sur la réutilisation et la réception des oracles, cette réunion scientifique avait pour but d’appréhender les textes oraculaires non seulement dans le contexte de la divination mais aussi en tant que production littéraire. Dix-huit spécialistes venant de Belgique, d’Allemagne, d’Italie, d’Espagne et du Royaume-Uni se sont penchés sur des sujets aussi variés que la transmission textuelle des oracles, la persistance de thèmes classiques dans les oracles chrétiens, les problèmes d’authenticité ainsi que la fabrication de faux oracles. L’événement, co-organisé par Lucia Tissi et moi-même, a été rendu possible grâce au généreux soutien du Fonds national de la Recherche scientifique (F.R.S.-FNRS), de l’Université Libre de Bruxelles (U.L.B.) (Rectorat et Faculté de Philosophie et Sciences sociales). Le livre a été publié grâce à une contribution financière de l’Université de Pise et le Centre de recherche histoire, arts, cultures des Sociétés Anciennes Médiévales et Modernes (SOCIAMM) de l’Université Libre de Bruxelles (U.L.B.). Je voudrais profiter de l’occasion pour remercier chaleureusement toutes les personnes qui ont pris par à ce projet, et plus spécialement Lucia Tissi pour son efficacité et son dévouement. Aude Busine

Lucia Maddalena Tissi

The Fortunes and Reception of Oracular Texts. Some Methodological Problems 1 Late antique oracles and Classical scholarship In dealing with Delphic oracular production, Lisa Maurizio has pointed out that oracular texts have been neglected, not only by modern historians, who dismiss them for their lack of documentary evidence, but also by literary historians, for whom Delphic tales appear to fall into the amorphous category of folklore, or, if an oracle is in hexameter, it appears to be a paltry descendant of Homer. And, whether the oracle is in verse or not, these tales, to the extent they are regarded as monotonous and repetitive moralizing, are not considered a genre, a status which might compel inquiry, and appear unworthy of literary exegesis.1

Maurizio’s critical remarks, as well as her idea of the oral circulation of oracles and of the process of rewording texts by rejecting the fallacious concept of ‘authenticity’ have been extended to late antique oracles.2 However, while oracles dating from the Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic periods have attracted considerable scholarly attention, misleading interpretations not withstanding, late antique oracles have long been understudied. A first attempt to approaching these writings critically3 was provided in 1854 by Gustav Wolff who, in a fascinating pamphlet entitled De novissima oraculorum aetate, examined the textual outputs of some oracular sanctuaries dating from the Imperial age.4 Some thirty years later, in 1889, another German scholar, Karl Buresch, after 1

Maurizio, “Delphic Oracles ...” 308. Bonnechere suggests not rejecting the concept of authenticity, but approaching it with caution. 3 In the Epistola ad Joannem Millium Richard Bentley quoted fifteen oracles under the title χρησμοὶ καὶ θεολογίαι Ἑλλήνων φιλοσόφων: Bentley II 249-254. 4 Two years later he devoted a book to Porphyry’s De philosophia ex oraculis haurienda (containing an edition of the fragments). 2

10

Lucia Maddalena Tissi

engaging in archaeological explorations in Asia Minor, published a rather haphazard collection of late antique oracles originating from Claros, including the oracular inscription from Kaisareia Troketta.5 It seems likely that a revival of interest in this kind of text was inspired by German Romantic sensibility.6 However, Late Antiquity remained marginalised and largely overlooked in the scholarly tradition. Not surprisingly, the voluminous book Histoire de la divination dans l’antiquité by Auguste Bouché-Leclercq, first published in Paris between 1879 and 1882,7 concentrated mostly on Greek and Italic oracular shrines in the Classical and Hellenistic periods. In 1916, a short but inspiring article authored by Pierre Batiffol introduced for the first time – though in a nuanced manner – a new attitude to late antique oracles, which were presented as ‘oracles professeurs de théologie’.8 Twelve years later, a British-American philologist, Arthur Darby Nock, devoted an essay to the fact that, in the late fourth century A. D,. public and political oracles were outnumbered by theological ones, which were no longer conceived for the sake of the polis but, rather, mirrored the inner spiritual quests and doubts of individual citizens. As is widely known, Nock’s influential observation has played a significant role in the interpretation of late antique oracles conceived as theological texts.9 Shortly after the Second World War, in 1947, the Norwegian scholar Samson Eitrem published an essay entitled Orakel und Mysterien am Ausgang der Antike, which was mainly devoted to mystery cults in the early Christian era. At the time, however, as we will see, scholars still overlooked the topics of divination and of late antique oracles. This disdain for oracular topics reveals cultural preconceptions and biases. Actually, on the basis of a rigid Cartesian dichotomy between 5

The essay also contains an appendix reporting the florilegium of the “Oracles of the Greek Gods” from the codex Tub Mb 27. 6 I am thinking, for example, of Heinrich Heine’s book Die Götter im Exil published in 1853, but also of Friedrich Schiller’s Die Götter Griechenlands, published in Der Deutsche Merkur in 1788. Cf. Gigli. An investigation of this mythologem and of the reception of oracular wisdom in the modern era in Häfner (cf. also the reviews of Häfner’s study by Mulsow and Dieter) and in Pellizzari. 7 The book was reprinted several times: Bruxelles 1963, Darmstadt 1978, Grenoble 2003. 8 Batiffol 193. 9 Nock, “Oracles théologiques”; Pricoco and Tommasi Moreschini. Cf. also Sfameni Gasparro “Gli oracoli teologici ...” and Suárez de la Torre, “Apollo, teologo cristiano”.

The Fortunes and Reception of Oracular Texts

11

thought and action,10 divination11 was dismissed as an irrational practice belonging to the realm of magical and theurgical rituals, in antithesis to rational philosophy. Late antique oracular texts were usually disregarded and seen as signs of socio-cultural decline and decadence compared to other literary writings. Nevertheless, thanks to the development of anthropological approaches,12 Classical scholars started to turn their attention to practices of divination in the Greek and Roman worlds, comparing them to those performed in other cultures. Initially scholars mostly sought to gather evidence on specific oracular sites and practices and to provide a historical synopsis of the evolution of divinatory praxeis.13 As a consequence of new archaeological excavations, moreover, the material culture – as well as the ritual organisation of oracular shrines – were also explored in depth.14 In 1974, the collective volume Divination et rationalité15 put forward an innovative reflection on the function of divination in ancient societies and on the role of oracular wisdom. Thanks to this seminal work, divination at last came to be situated within its proper intellectual and socio-cultural context from a historical perspective. Thereafter, we observe a surge of articles, monographs and conferences devoted to the social, political and cultural impact of divination on ancient Mediterranean societies.16 On the one hand, many studies addressed specific kinds of divination, such as sortes, 10

On this dichotomy, which opposes rational philosophical conceptions to religious rituals, cf. Mazur 42f. 11 Speaking of oracles means dealing with divination, of course; and divination, in turn, involves a series of procedures, techniques, figures, and topics. One should keep in mind that divination was a more or less well-developed practice in primitive and modern societies and that it is still present, to some extent, in contemporary ones. 12 Evans-Pritchard; Adler - Zempléni; Retel-Laurentin 323-351; Belayche - Rüpke. A full bibliography can be found in Johnston, “Introduction” 2 n. 2 and 9 n. 20. Moreover, a whole issue of Kernos 26 (2013) has been devoted to divination. 13 Cf. Amandry, Delcourt and Roux and the recent encyclopaedia articles in Burkert Suárez de la Torre - Graf and Hoffmann - Vultaggio - Neuber. On ancient oracular shrines in general cf. Flacelière, Vanderberg, Stoneman. 14 A full bibliography of the archaeological excavations of Delphi, Claros and Didyma can be found in Moretti 237-258. 15 Vernant - Vandermeersch - Gernet - Bottéro - Crahay - Brisson - Carlier Grodzynski - Retel-Laurentin. 16 Cf. for example Johnston - Struck’s book, which provides an overview of ancient divination. Rosenberger’s book is the outcome of a conference held at Erfurt University in October 2011, focusing on the interconnections between divination and processes of individualisation or de-individualisation.

12

Lucia Maddalena Tissi

dices, dream divination and many other practices.17 Within this framework, the Delphic sanctuary was understandably assigned a leading role, but attention was also paid to other sanctuaries, specifically Dodona, Didyma and Claros.18 On the other hand, semiotic approaches encouraged further investigation into the significance of divinatory practices. In addition, Lisa Maurizio, Sarah Iles Johnston and Julia Kindt have contributed extensively to a re-conceptualisation of the transmission of oracular texts.19 More recently, scholars have focused on hermeneutic questions such as the meaning and function of ainigma(ta), in oracular language.20 Such studies, undertaken by outstanding scholars, mostly focused on the Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic periods. Only after the so-called ‘explosion of Late Antiquity’,21 did late antique literature start attracting a good deal of attention, but oracular texts continued to be disregarded. In the last decade, the Belgian scholar Aude Busine has provided an overview of late antique sanctuaries and an excellent compendium of the Apollonian oracular texts scattered in the writings of both Christian and ‘pagan’ authors, as well as of practices and oracular traditions dating from the second to the sixth century A. D. Busine’s work Paroles d’Apollon represents the first effort to cast light on a neglected topic and it seems to have inspired new studies devoted to late antique divination.22 Furthermore, investigations on works such as the so-called Tübingen Theosophy, a late antique oracular collection dating from the end of the 5th c. A. D., reedited by Erbse in 1995 (first edition 1941) and more recently by Beatrice in 2001,23 and the new and unfortunately still unpublished edition of De gestis in Perside by Bringel, containing ora17

On the significance of signs cf. Manetti and Georgoudi - Koch Piettre - Schmidt (ed.). On dreams cf. Miller and Shulman - Stroumsa (ed.). For further bibliography cf. Walde. For the sortes cf. van der Horst; and Luijendijk - Klingshirn. 18 On Delphi cf. Parke - Wormell, Fontenrose, The Delphic Oracle; on Dodona cf. Parke, The Oracles of Zeus, Dieterle, Eidinow, 56-71 and Georgoudi. Cf. also Parke, Greek Oracles. On Didyma cf. Günther and Fontenrose, Didyma; on Claros, Merkelbach - Stauber, “Die Orakel des Apollon von Klaros” and Moretti - Bresch Bonora - Laroche - Riss; on Claros and Didyma cf. also Parke, The Oracles of Apollo, Oesterheld and Rodríguez Somolinos. A collection of oracles in Latin and Greek authors in Hendess. 19 Cf. Maurizio, “Delphic Oracles ...”, Kindt and Johnston, Ancient Greek Divination. 20 Cf. Wohlleben and Beta. 21 Giardina. 22 Stoneman. 23 New studies are: Carrara - Männlein-Robert and Tissi, Gli oracoli degli dèi greci.

The Fortunes and Reception of Oracular Texts

13

cular excerpta,24 are further significant signs of a growing interest in the study of late antique oracles. Finally, within this oracular revival, two recent studies must be discussed: Crystal Addey’s monograph on Divination and Theurgy in Neoplatonism, which examined the function of divination among Neo-Platonist philosophers, and Anthony Ossa-Richardson’s The Devils’ Tabernacle, which, in the wake of the Warburg Institute tradition, focused on the function(s) of oracular texts in Renaissance literature and in the modern era. Such an outburst of interest in late antique oracles is further witnessed by the numerous conferences held over the last two decades. To quote only a few recent examples, in 1995 Jean George Heintz organised a conference in Strasbourg on Oracles et Prophéties dans l’Antiquité, while in 2012 Helmut Seng organised an international conference at Frankfurt on Theologische Orakel in der Spätantike.25 In spite of this growing interest in late antique divination, no one, I would argue, has ever thoroughly investigated late antique oracles as literary texts.26 This disregard stems from a widespread lack of appreciation for this kind of literature, which – like magical texts – is often considered a sub-literary genre27 and therefore ignored. Oracular texts constitute instead a significant piece in the mosaic of late antique literature. From a methodological point of view, a literary and historical investigation into late antique oracular outputs will break new ground by showing that we are dealing with late antique oracular poetry.28

24

On this work cf. Bratke and Bringel; on oracular excerpta cf. Tissi, “Frammenti superstiti ...”. 25 Heintz (ed.) and Seng - Sfameni Gasparro (ed.). 26 Some investigations on the influence of oracular poetry in late antique literature in Agosti, “Reliquie argonautiche ...” and Gigli Piccardi; for a literary approach to the Chaldaean Oracles cf. Agosti, “Annotazioni ...”. 27 Furley - Bremer (I 49) apply this label to the magical hymns considered as records of an “underground branch of religions”. It seems that divination has been neglected by scholars for the same reasons. 28 Gagné’s observations (97) on oracles from the Classic and Hellenistic eras also apply to late antique ones.

14

Lucia Maddalena Tissi

2 Wandering oracles. Some hermeneutical problems Therefore, when dealing with oracular texts, we have to address methodological and hermeneutical issues while facing significant theoretical problems. First, we are dealing with a fluid and uncertain tradition that is comparable to that of magical texts which Arthur Darby Nock has labelled as ‘working copies’.29 The ‘mercurial’ and permeable character of such a tradition allowed some relevant oracular texts to circulate and spread across the whole Mediterranean area.30 Suffice it to think of the famous inscription found in Oenoanda in Northern Lycia, dating from 260 A. D.,31 which is also attested to in Lactantius’ Institutiones divinae I 7, 1 and in the Tübingen Theosophy § 13 Erbse = I 2 Beatrice;32 or again of the bogus oracle found in an inscription from Saint Irene’s Church in Ikaria (9th-10th c. A. D.) which ‘travelled’ throughout the Mediterranean area.33 With reference to later in time, one may recall the survival and political use of Leon VI’s oracles, which crop up many centuries later during Charles V’s reign:34 according to Giovanni Acciaiuoli, who composed a poem of 1000 verses35 about the expedition against Tunis led by Charles V in 1535, when the Christian prisoners were released, they hailed the Emperor as a saviour on the basis of oracles alluding to the Oracula Leonis. Moreover, an impressive number of literary collections of theosophical oracles circulated as florilegia and were disseminated throughout the Mediterranean area (e. g. Chresmodiai hellenikai).36 Consequently, oracular texts were variously altered – completely or partly modified through omissions, interpolations and varia-

29

Nock, “Greek Magical Papyri”. On the concepts of fluidity and permeability in relation to Delphic oracles cf. Maurizio, “Delphic Oracles ...” 323. 31 SEG XXVII 933 = Merkelbach - Stauber, Steinepigramme 17/06/01. On the dating cf. Hall; concerning this oracular inscription cf. also Guarducci and Livrea. A study of this inscription can be found now in Tissi, Gli oracoli degli dèi greci 313-321. 32 Merkelbach - Stauber, “Die Orakel des Apollon von Klaros” 42-45. 33 Agosti, “Reliquie argonautiche ...”; Busine, “The Discovery of Inscriptions” 247250. 34 This text has been studied by Deisser. 35 Cf. Zoras. 36 On this collection partially transmitted in the De gestis in Perside cf. Tissi, “Frammenti superstiti ...”. 30

The Fortunes and Reception of Oracular Texts

15

tions,37 depending on the context and on the purpose of the authors who cited them. Categories such as ‘authenticity’ and ‘genuineness’, which are all too often used as key parameters on the basis of positivist notions, cannot be retained as valuable criteria to explore these texts.38 Accordingly, we cannot be sure that allegedly ‘genuine’ oracles have not somehow been censored or doctored. Flexibility and versatility are, instead, essential concepts: the circulation of oracles implies oral transmission and persistent re-wordings and we cannot exclude performative moments as a means of communication (performance implying re-composition).39 Secondly, texts must be considered not only in relation to their quotation context or compositional genesis, but also as literary components belonging to a specific genre: a largely unexplored approach to this date.40 Oracular texts underwent continuous metamorphosis, which prevents us from fixing them in a definitive form.41 If we do wish to catch their protean shapes, we should rather follow their “movements” across space(s) and time(s). Their faces may suddenly change and, to our great surprise, we can discover, for instance, the Seven Sages consulting Apollo about a question, which in other sources is posed by the Argonauts.42 Moreover, not only do people consulting oracles change identities, but the texts too change, since they are fluid, permeable and often ungraspable like currents in a stream. No wonder, therefore, if we feel frustrated at discovering oracles announcing the destruction of a pagan temple by a celestial light (φλογόεν με βιάζεται οὐράνιον φῶς), i. e. by 37

Nagy 27 describes re-workings in the oral tradition as multiform to distinguish them from variations as deviations from an original text. Cf. Maurizio, “Delphic Oracles ...” 323 n. 42. 38 Same discussion in Parke - Wormell xxi; Parke, Oracles of Apollo 104; Maurizio, “Delphic Oracles ...” and Delphic Narratives 98-132; Kindt. Busine, “Le problème de l’attribution ...” 206, remarks that the criterion of authenticity cannot be applied even to oracles attested in inscriptions. Although given oracular texts can be considered to stem from a sanctuary this does not mean that their text is the genuine one: the Urtext can hardly be reconstructed. Moreover, for a modern mentality an apparent paradox emerges: the divine voice of the oracular god(s) are modified and forged like “profane” texts. This contradiction is due to our secular approach. 39 Rossi. 40 Gagné. 41 This includes quotations adapted to the context, as in many cases of Neoplatonists citing the Chaldaean Oracles. 42 Theos. § 53 Erbse = I 54 Beatrice. Cf. Agosti, “Reliquie argonautiche ...”.

16

Lucia Maddalena Tissi

thunder,43 converted into a prophecy about the coming of a celestial man (φλογόεις με βιάζεται οὐράνιος φώς),44 namely Christ. From our cultural-historical perspective we are interested in detecting what is regarded as the oracular authorship, be it divine or human,45 and in tracing the oracles’ intricate, seductive and ambiguous history. As regards the human writers of these texts we are normally forced to accept their anonymity. Furthermore, it may happen that anonymous oracular poetry was later collected by some authors using pseudonyms, as in the case of the Commentarius de templo Athenarum mistakenly attributed to Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria.46 3 Transforming oracles and providing exegesis As already noted, transforming oracles by copying-cutting-pasting them was a typical procedure established from ancient times, as the famous episode of Onomacritus shows.47 For Late Antiquity, many cases could be quoted, but suffice it here to recall just three fascinating and representative examples drawn from three historians, which give us an idea of the way oracles were perceived and received.

43

Cf. Porph., De phil. ex or. p. 170-172 Wolff = fr. 338F Smith ap. Eus., PE VI 2, 2 - 3, 1. 44 The oracle is pronounced by Apollo. The oracular text in the Tübingen Theosophy Theos. § 16 Erbse consists of 9 verses. These verses have been combined with a Christological section in some manuscripts to form an oracle of 26 verses in its longer version. Beatrice (“Monophysite theology ...”) argues that the original oracle was the longer one (I 5 Beatrice), contra Daley. 45 According to ancient conceptions, the authors of oracles were the god(s) who used human beings as media. For certain philosophers, like Oenomaus or Lucianus, the oracles were produced by human priests to deceive people. 46 CCCPG 2289; cf. the edition of the text in Delatte 107-111 and von Premerstein. Two different redactions are known: the first can be found in the Vat. gr. 1198 (XVI c. A. D.), ff. 65r-69r, a copy of Vat. gr. 1896 (ff. 220r-227r), the second in the Bodl. Roe 5 (XVII c. A. D.), ff. 149r-155v.. The work is transmitted also by the Athenian manuscript EB 431 p. 157-160 (XVIII c. A. D.) and by the manuscript Moné Prousou 10, f. 149r-150r (Euritania, XVIII c. A. D.). Cf. also Paoletti in this volume, p. 217. 47 Herod. VII 6, 3 reports that he inserted an oracle in Musaeus’ collection. Cf. Martínez 226.

The Fortunes and Reception of Oracular Texts

17

In his work New History, Zosimus (5th c. A. D.), who was hostile to Christianity, which he defined as a δόξα,48 offered a grim portrait of the Emperor Constantine,49 charging him with having played a part in the decadence of the Empire through his weak political choices. For Zosimus, Constantine’s decision to move to Byzantium was nothing but the result of the hostility of the Roman aristocracy. The Emperor enlarged and embellished the New Rome, often with blasphemous operations,50 in order to lead a frivolous life. The reference to Byzantium gives Zosimus the opportunity for a digression about the City. Καί μοι πολλάκις ἐπῆλθε θαυμάσαι πῶς εἰς τοσοῦτο τῆς Βυζαντίων πόλεως ηὐξημένης ὡς μηδεμίαν ἄλλην εἰς εὐδαιμονίαν ἢ μέγεθος αὐτῇ παραβάλλεσθαι, πρόρρησις ἐκ θεῶν οὐδεμία περὶ τῆς εἰς ἀμείνονα τύχην αὐτῆς ἐπιδόσεως τοῖς πρὸ ἡμῶν ἀνθρώποις ἐδόθη. Καὶ ταύτην ἐκ πολλοῦ τὴν ἔννοιαν ἔχων, πολλάς τε βίβλους ἱστορικὰς καὶ χρησμῶν συναγωγὰς ἀνελίξας, χρόνον τε ἐν τῷ περὶ τούτων ἀπορεῖν δαπανήσας, ἐνέτυχον μόλις χρησμῷ τινὶ Σιβύλλης εἶναι λεγομένῳ τῆς Ἐρυθραίας ἢ Φαεννοῦς τῆς Ἠπειρώτιδος. It has often indeed occurred to me to wonder how, given that the city of the Byzantines has grown so that no other can compare with it for prosperity and size, no prophecy was ever delivered to our predecessors by the gods about the fortune that awaited her. With this thought in mind, for a long time I have pored over many volumes of histories and collections of oracles and, having spent my time at the research of these, with difficulty I came across an oracle delivered by the Sibyl of Erythrae or by Phaenno of Epirus. (Trs. Parke, “The attribution ...” 441, revised).51

Zosimus II 37, 1 quotes 21 hexameters transmitted in a corrupt state. Even if this kind of prophecy seems to be fictional, the forecast being a post eventum one, it shows the plausibility of this kind of research and 48

Zosimus II 29, 3. Cf. especially Zosimus II 29-39; on this portrayal of Constantine cf. Paschoud, Cinq études 24-62. 50 Cf. the statue of Rhea from Cyzicus which was placed by Constantine in the Tetrastoon, stripped of its two lions and converted into a woman in the act of praying, the Tyche of Constantinople (Zosimus II 31, 2f.). Cf. Paschoud, Zosime 243f.; Borgeaud 183. 51 Zosimus II 37, 2. Cf. also I 58, 1: Zosimus promises to cite the oracles on the decline but he will not undertake this effort. However in his work, as Paschoud has underlined (Zosime 175), he only quotes a sign forecasting the decline of the Empire (IV 21, 2f.), a prophecy by a priest (IV 36, 5) and a Sibylline oracle on the fall of the Empire following the suppression of the celebration of the Ludi Saeculares (II 5, 5f.). 49

18

Lucia Maddalena Tissi

the existence and fortune of oracular collections in the 5th century A. D. Furthermore, the oracle quoted by Zosimus is a collage of two different texts. The first, mistakenly associated with Nicomedes II (149-125 B. C.) but actually referring to Nicomedes I (279-255 B. C.), is composed of 14 verses and concernes the Galatians and their hostility towards the city; the second one, probably an Apollonian oracle, is composed of 7 verses, recording the god’s answer about a plague.52 More interestingly, after this quotation, Zosimus provides an exegesis by explaining that the oracles make allusions in the form of enigmas (τοῦτο τὸ λόγιον πάντα μὲν ὡς εἰπεῖν ὑπεμφαῖνον ὄντως καὶ ἐν αἰνίγμασι).53 He tries to justify the long time that lapsed between the delivery of the oracle and its fulfilment (the Fortune of the City), by a simple explanation: human time is nothing compared to divine time.54 Ταῦτα δὴ οὖν ἔκ τε τῶν τοῦ χρησμοῦ ῥημάτων καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἐκβάντων ἐτεκμηράμην· εἰ δέ τῳ τὸ χρησθὲν ἑτέρως ἔχειν δοκεῖ, ταύτῃ νοείτω. Therefore I argue these things on the basis of the words of the oracle and of the events that follow; if whosoever considers the oracle otherwise, let him do so. (Trs. Tissi).

Four points can be underlined: firstly, we have an allusion to a consultation of oracular collections, real or fictitious; secondly, what Zosimus presents as a single oracle, actually turns out to be composed by two different texts;55 thirdly, the language of the oracles is enigmatic and obscure; finally, Zosimus plays the role of an exegete who rejects other interpretations that could be provided, possibly alluding to the one found

52

Cf. Parke, “The attribution ...” 443 who accepts Mendelssohn’s emendation ὦ Μεγαρήιον ἄστυ (the only manuscript reads ὦμε γὰρ εἴσασίν τε; Paschoud adopts Gilles’ conjecture οἵ με γὰρ εἴσασίν τε). The oracle indicates, in his opinion, the shrine in a Megarian city identified as Calchedon; moreover, he suggests that these final lines may derive from a response from Apollo Chresterios of Calchedon to his own citizens for some troubles that occurred, possibly linked with the Gallic invasion. Parke suggests that the first 14 lines started circulating beyond Calchedon after the two Gallic contingents crossed Asia with the aim of discouraging the King from using the Gauls to settle internal dynastic feuds. 53 Zosimus II 37, 2. 54 A full commentary in Paschoud, Zosime 255-259. This explanation, by contrast, may allude to the misfortune of Zosimus’ era. 55 Probably he found the two texts already combined and altered in his source.

The Fortunes and Reception of Oracular Texts

19

in his source.56 In any case, his desire for a pertinent oracle is not merely an instance of antiquarian interest in aetiologies, but it also illustrates the strong fascination that oracles exercised over erudite people.57 Another historian, this time a Christian one, Sozomen (380-447/448 A. D.), wondering about the Jews’ incredulity concerning Christ’s second coming (παρουσία), recalled that even pagan oracles alluded to it: Εἰ γὰρ καὶ Σίβυλλα καὶ χρησμοί τινες τῶν ἐπὶ τῷ Χριστῷ συμβεβηκότων τὸ μέλλον προεμήνυσαν, οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο δήπου πᾶσιν Ἕλλησιν δυσπιστίαν ἐγκαλεῖν ἔστιν. ὀλίγοι γάρ, οἳ παιδείᾳ διαφέρειν ἐδόκουν, τὰς τοιαύτας ᾔδεσαν προφητείας, ἐμμέτρους τε ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ οὔσας καὶ σεμνοτέραις ‹ἢ› πρὸς δῆμον λέξεσι πεφρασμένας. ἦν δὲ ἄρα, ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ, τῆς ἄνωθεν προμηθείας ἐπὶ συμφωνίᾳ τῶν ἐσομένων μὴ μόνον ἰδίοις προφήταις ἐνηχῆσαι τὸ μέλλον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὀθνείοις ἐκ μέρους, ὥσπερ εἴ τις μελοποιὸς διὰ χρείαν παραξένου μέλους τὰς περιττὰς τῶν χορδῶν ἐπιδράμοι τῷ πλήκτρῳ ἢ ταῖς οὔσαις ἑτέρας προσθείη. For though the Sibyl and some oracles announced beforehand the future of events concerning Christ, we are not on this account to attribute unbelief to all the Greeks. For there were few, who, appearing superior in culture, knew such prophecies which were, for the most part, in verse, and in a diction much more splendid than that employed by common people. Therefore, in my judgment, this was the result of heavenly foresight, accomplished for the sake of the agreement of future generations, in order to echo the future not just through our prophets, but also partly through foreign prophets. Similarly a musician, for the sake of an extraordinary melody, may treat the additional chords lightly with his plectrum, or add others to those already existing. (Trs. Hartranft revised).58 56

Moreover, this text was recalled many centuries later by John Tzetzes who quotes lines 1-6 (Historiai VII 143, 550-555 p. 277 Leone) and 9-11 (Historiai IX 288 817819 p. 378 Leone). 57 The most famous oracle about the City, spread out in the 6th c. A. D., recurs in Hesychius of Miletus and in Stephanus of Byzantium; it was re-used by Eustathius (Hsch. Mil., FGrH 390 F 1, 3; Stephanus Byzantius, Ethnika β 190 p. 189, 15-18 M. = II 497 Parke - Wormell = Q44 Fontenrose; Eustathius, Commentarii in Dionysii Periegetae orbis descriptionem 803 = GGM II 357). In the Theosophy (§ 19 Erbse = I 16 Beatrice) we detect an oracle on Byzantium probably inspired or maybe drawn from the ‘Patria’ of the City. Furthermore, in the sixteenth century, an anonymous copyist introduced the Oracula Leonis with a short history from Byzas to Leon VI focusing his attention on Septimius Severus, who received a revelation about the future of the City after an astrological consultation. This revelation is said to have been inscribed on the column of the Xerolophos. Cf. Dagron 74-77 and Dagron Paramelle. 58 Soz., Hist. eccl. I 1, 7f. I believe that by “certain oracles” Sozomen is not specifi-

20

Lucia Maddalena Tissi

Sozomen underlines the significance of oracles: oracles have, in his view, an initiatory value that can only be understood by a few cultured individuals.59 Finally, in the 6th c. A. D., John Malalas (491-578 A. D.), not only peppered his work with oracles associated with mythical or historical characters of the Greek and Roman tradition,60 but also admiringly mentioned a certain Timotheos as a prolific transmitter of oracles and chronicles.61 Whoever this Timotheos may be62 (the name appears to be fictive, particularly considering that he is mentioned along with another Christian chronicler Theophilos),63 Malalas’ approach seems to have been to draw upon oracular collections and pagan oracular wisdom – as Roberto has pointed out – as though they anticipated Christian revelations, within the context of a new, Christian historical vision. cally alluding to Virgil’s fourth eclogue (Grillet - Sabbah 111 n. 1), but rather to ‘pagan’ oracles in general. On the image of the plectrum cf. Plut., De def. orac. 436 e 10 - f 1 “Apollo pizzica la ψυχή della sua profetessa come si pizzicano le corde di uno strumento” (Pisano 16). The image is quite common among Christian authors, e. g. in the prooemium, rich in prophetic evocations, in Paulinus of Nola, carm. 15, 29 Hartel = Nat. 4, 29 Dolveck. 59 On Sozomen cf. Mazza 255-318. Cf. also the oracles of the paideia mentioned by Eusebius (PE V 18, 1), the oracles, taught in schools. On the use of oracles by another Christian author of the same period, Socrates of Constantinople, cf. Nieto Ibáñez, “Los oráculos griegos ...”. 60 On the use of oracular theosophy by Malalas cf. Roberto 215-218 and Schulz. 61 Malalas, Chron. VI 11 p. 158 Dindorf = 122 Thurn; VI 13 p. 159 Dindorf = 123 Thurn; X 2 p. 228 Dindorf = 174 Thurn; XVIII 8 p. 428 Dindorf = 357 Thurn. Jean-Michel Roessli has pointed out to me that the same figure appears in chapter 6 of the Golden Legend by Jacobus de Voragine (13th c. A. D.) dedicated to the story of the Nativity of Christ. Jacobus’ source is unknown, but it probably depends on Stephen of Bourbon (13th c. A. D.) who summarized the account in the Laterculus imperatorum Romanorum Malalianus, a 7th c. A. D. Latin chronicle attributed to Theodore of Canterbury who translated and adapted Malalas’ chronicle. 62 On this author, who probably lived in Alexandria in the first half of the 5th c. A. D., and may be considered a source of the Theosophy (cf. Malalas, Chron. X 5 p. 232 Dindorf = 176 Thurn and Theos. § 51 Erbse = I 52 Beatrice) cf. Croke 14, Jeffreys, “Malalas’ Sources” 172 and “The Beginning ...” 518; according to Beatrice xlix the name may allude to Severus of Antiochia. On Timotheos and Theophilos cf. Jeffreys, “Malalas’ Sources” 194; Mecella respectively 358 n. 29 and 366 n. 50. Cf. also Roberto, “Influence of Julius Africanus’ Chronographiae ...”. 63 Timotheos provides a symbolical exegesis (Malalas, Chron. I 3 p. 5 Thurn), and rationalist interpretations of myths; he is a source of Orphic and Pythagorean doctrines and oracles.

The Fortunes and Reception of Oracular Texts

21

4 Christian appropriation of pagan oracles Malalas’ example is representative of Christian appropriation of pagan oracles, which seems to mirror a larger phenomenon. It is a matter of fact that the significance of oracular texts in Late Antiquity stems from a new interpretation of sacred texts, like the Chaldaean Oracles, largely promoted by Neoplatonic philosophers. Oracles underwent in late antique culture, in Athanassiadi’s words, “shifts of authority” turning from political to philosophical issues.64 Through the spread of the Chaldaean and Sibylline oracular collections,65 they came to be employed both by Christian and ‘pagan’ authors as signs of divine revelation.66 As is well known, when we speak of ‘pagan’ culture we are not referring to a single system in opposition to Christianity, but to “polymorphic communities who would never have defined themselves as such.”67 Even though, during the 4th and 5th centuries A. D., the ancient pagan world appeared to be fading, since its gods seemed to have been defeated by the one Christian God, ‘pagan’ thought was remarkably persistent, as many scholars have already remarked.68 Throughout this cultural transition, the evolution of divination as a concept and praxis is representative of the tension between continuity and discontinuity. Christian authors such as Lactantius and Eusebius of Caesarea attempted to reconcile pagan wisdom with the Christian religion. Oracular texts, having no fixed tradition, were particularly liable to forgery and alterations. This new conception of oracles as containing sophisticated theological systems was richly exploited both by Neo-Platonic philosophers and by Christian authors. Without going so far as to say that oracular shrines disseminated a new theological system,69 the upsurge of theosophical oracular texts defi64

Cf. Athanassiadi, “Philosophers and Oracles”. On this topic cf. also “The Fate of Oracles ...” . 65 On the Chaldaean Oracles cf. Seng, Un livre sacré and Seng in this volume; on the Sibylline oracles cf. Lightfoot, Brocca, Suárez de la Torre, “Sibylles, mantique ...” and Roessli, Les Oracles sibyllins and “Les Oracles sibyllins”. Also book 14 of the Palatine Anthology may convey an idea of oracular collections. On the composition of this book cf. Buffière 41-43. 66 The oracles contained in the Greek Patristic texts have been investigated by Forbes and Nieto Ibáñez, Cristianismo y profecías. Cf. also Moreschini. On the role of prophecy in Early Christianity cf. Aune. 67 Busine, Religious Practices 3 n. 14; Jones. 68 Bowersock - Brown - Grabar (ed.); Cameron; Busine, Religious Practices. 69 Didyma and Claros are significant sources of oracular texts, cf. Robinson, Rodríguez Somolinos, Oesterheld, and Stoneman. The ancient sources attribute but

22

Lucia Maddalena Tissi

nitely mirrors a new cultural and spiritual koinè. Furthermore, we witness the transformation of oracles into a kind of literature that is no longer bound to a shrine or to oracular consultations.70 This transition from one culture to another gave rise to a cultural phenomenon that might be labelled, to coin a new term, ‘cultural manticisation’. This expression has a threefold meaning: it describes, firstly, the re-use of mantic wisdom through the creation of theological and theosophical oracles; secondly, the re-interpretation of certain texts as prophetical ones,71 through allegorical exegesis and, finally, the fact that the work of poets, exegetes and philosophers could be regarded as divinatory.72 More specifically, on the one hand oracular poetry strongly influenced late antique poetics (and was in turn influenced by it);73 on the other hand, Neo-platonic philosophers wrote treatises on mantic or even collected oracles, giving them a didactic or philosophical function: many oracles stem from philosophical contexts as literary fictions with philosophical content (e. g., Porphyry’s Philosophy from Oracles).74 In the 5th c. A. D., as we have seen, the historian Sozomen emphasised the initiatory significance of oracular texts by asserting that they are intelligible only to a few learned individuals. Moreover, the sacralisation of books spread in both pagan and Christian contexts. In the Christian context this process is reflected by the interpretation of the prophetic word of the Old Testament as the annunciation of Christ: the true Christian oracles were opposed to the deceitful pagan ones. Pagan oracular texts were, therefore, adapted with textual emendations in order to reveal Christian concepts. In certain cases new, Christianised ‘pagan’ oracles were created ex nihilo. The spread of Christian oracular collections75

very few theological oracles to Claros and Didyma, cf. Graf 70-77 and Seng, “Theologische Orakel ...” 277f. Cf. two new catalogues of late antique oracles from these sanctuaries in Busine, Paroles d’Apollon and Oesterheld (with the methodological objection in Seng, “Theologische Orakel ...” 278 n. 99). 70 Bendlin 201 = 238. 71 Busine, “Usages divinatoires ...”. 72 On poetry and prophecy cf. Chadwick and Leavitt (ed.). 73 See above, n. 26. 74 On this collection cf. Tanaseanu-Döbler, Theurgy in Late Antiquity 56f.74 and “Porphyrios und die Christen ...” and Sfameni Gasparro, “La costruzione teosofica ...”. 75 Busine, “Gathering ...”. On oracular collections cf. also Fichera in this volume, p. 106 n. 13.

The Fortunes and Reception of Oracular Texts

23

such as the aforementioned Theosophy, where pagan texts merged with Christian ones, is significant proof of this cultural attitude. Nevertheless, not only were some pagan oracles employed for their features linked to Christianity, but some ancient oracular shrines were reused too. The conversion of an oracular sanctuary into a church, marvellous and fictional discoveries of oracles containing Christian truths, and the silence of a pagan demon derived from the presence of the corpse of a Christian saint – were habitual occurrences in Late Antiquity.76 To sum up, the Christian answer to the pagan revival of oracles as sacred texts which was probably in turn influenced by the diffusion of charismatic and prophetic practices among Jewish and Christian communities,77 took the form not only of destructive arguments, but also of a re-interpretation of oracular wisdom within a new system of thought. The contrast between fake pagan oracles and true Christian ones was balanced by an agreement between pagan and Christian witnesses. A twofold modus operandi was at work: the discovery of pagan texts as hiding in nuce Christian elements and the forging of new pagan oracles of Christian significance. The popularity of oracular texts persisted also in Byzantine culture as confirmed by the tradition of quotations of oracles linked to mythical or historical characters from the Greek and Roman traditions (e. g. Chronography by John Malalas, 6th c. A. D.,78 and George Kedrenos, 11th c. A. D.) and the role of the the Chaldaean Oracles in Michael Psellus’ work (11th c. A. D.).79 Oracular collections and texts are attested even later, as proven by those attributed to Emperor Leon (9th c. A. D.).80 76

For the first case cf. for instance Theos. § 53 Erbse = I 54 Beatrice; Socr., HE IV 8 (but also the ironic description of the discovery of some oracular bronze tablets in Luc. Alex. 10); for the second case consider the episode in which the Emperor Julian is eager to obtain an oracle from Apollo of Daphne who instead remaines silent through fear of his neighbour Babylas the martyr, whose tomb is therefore removed (Socr., HE III 18; Soz., Hist. eccl. V 19, 4-19, drawing upon the Speech on S. Babylas by John Chrysostomus 67-91 Schatkin). Cf. Agosti, “Reliquie argonautiche ...”; Hahn - Emmel - Gotter (ed.), Busine, “The Discovery of Inscriptions” and “From Stones to Myth” with further bibliography. Cf. also Brubaker 227-230 about the miniatures showing Julian’s descent into a pagan sanctuary accompanied by a kind of sorcerer, probably identifiable as Maximus of Ephesus. 77 Cf. Sfameni Gasparro, “Gli oracoli teologici ...”. 78 Cf. Paoletti and Magnelli in this volume. 79 Cf. Athanassiadi, “Byzantine Commentators ...” and Seng, “Chaldaeerrhetorik ...”. 80 This can be traced down up the High Middles Ages, with the Oracle of the Tiburtine Sibyl, for instance, and other collections of oracles. Cf. Brocca - Piron.

24

Lucia Maddalena Tissi

Contrary to the opinion that pagan oracles and their sanctuaries were in decline,81 they actually survived and, in certain instances, adapted to new cultural contexts. It ought to be said that oracular language is an ancestral mode of expression and communication, belonging to the dawn of human history. During the Renaissance there was a resurgence of interest in oracles, thanks also to Plethon who published a collection of Chaldaean Oracles82 which he attributed to Zoroaster.83 The enduring popularity of oracles is evident not only in the spread of Latin translations of Greek works,84 miscellanies of oracular materials,85 theological analyses of oracles,86 and the proliferation of theoretical writings on oracles and divination,87 but also in the iconographical Nachleben of oracular figures in Italian Renaissance art. One famous example88 might be the Sibyls shown in the floor decoration of Siena Cathedral, together with Hermes Trismegistos, and alluded to in the iconographic program for the Chapel of Saint John the Baptist in the left transept (built in 1480). The Sibyls, shown with the texts of their oracles, drawn from Lactantius’ Divinae Institutiones, are represented as prophetesses who foretold the coming of Christ and a new age of salvation.89 Oracles, therefore, offer some fascinating insight into late antique and Byzantine culture, and the construction of religious identity.

81

Cf. Plutarch’s De defectu oraculorum and cf. Levin. Cf. the edition by Tambrun-Krasker; a fundamental work is Tambrun’s monograph, especially 53-104. Cf. also the bibliography given in Seng, Un livre sacré 31f. 83 Cf. Dannenfeldt and, more broadly on the reception of Zoroaster and the oracles attributed to in the Renaissance, Stausberg. 84 E. g. Eusebius’ Praeparatio evangelica, translated by George of Trebizond in 1450 (revised by Antonio Cornazzano in 1470); Plutarch’s De defectu oraculorum, translated by Adrien Turnèbe in 1556. Cf. also the translations of the Chaldaean Oracles in the works of Marsilius Ficinus, Augustinus Steuchus, Francesco Patrizi (cf. Seng, “Übersetzungen ...” and Un livre sacré 32-35, who lists eleven Latin translations of Plethon’s collection, two of Psellus’, two of Patrizi’s). 85 Cf. Alessandri and Rhodiginus. 86 E. g. Pico della Mirandola and Peucer. Divination, considered by these two authors to be of demonic origin, is opposed to Christian prophecy. 87 Cf. e. g. the works of Leonico Tomeo and Pomponazzi. Cf. also Marrone on Poliziano. 88 Another example would be Michelangelo’s Sibyls in the Sistine Chapel. 89 Cf. Garganese and Roessli in this volume. 82

The Fortunes and Reception of Oracular Texts

25

5 Conclusions In conclusion, considering the complexity of the questions associated with oracular texts, two conceptual axes can be retained: fortunes and reception. These key words refer to the history of such texts, their success, their reinterpretation and how they were used. It is necessary to investigate the historical vicissitudes of each oracular text and its impact on later literature, i. e. the ways in which it was assimilated by the public and interpreted in different historical periods. “Reception is always as much the mark of distance as it is of the desire of emulation and continuity.”90 Studying textual transmission means reconstructing the historical framework of a text, its use and (good or bad) fortunes across time. The first issue to be investigated concerns the oracle itself (its context, cultural roots, and possibly its dating); the second issue concerns the use of the text in later literature. Late antique oracular texts contribute to shedding light on identity formation and relations between different cultures. A reconstruction of the fortunes and reception (or even persistence) of oracular texts, in light of their interpretation across different cultural contexts, must attempt to answer questions such as the following: does the use of oracular texts mirror an ancient trend or should we, rather, speak of a real ‘revival’ of oracles in Byzantine culture? What is the function of oracular wisdom in late antique philosophy? How were these texts used and perceived by the literary sources? How did the transition from the ‘pagan’ to the Christian world influence the reception of oracular texts? The study of oracular texts is an exercise in treading on thin ice. As already mentioned, not only is the tradition we are dealing with a loose and uncertain one; but the journey of oracular texts is also almost impossible to reconstruct step by step. In some cases, an oracular divinatio is an envisaged hermeneutic tool. Nonetheless, exploring the extent to which these texts mirror an ancient trend or an actual revival of oracular language allows us to set off on an amazing voyage into an undiscovered world waiting to be revealed.

90

Elsner - Hernández Lobato 7.

26

Lucia Maddalena Tissi

Bibliography 1 Editions, commentaries, translations Anthologia Palatina Anthologie grecque. Première partie. Anthologie Palatine. Tome XII (livres XIII-XV). Texte établi et traduit par F. Buffière. Paris 1970. De gestis in Perside Das sogenannte Religionsgespräch am Hof der Sasaniden. Herausgegeben von E. Bratke. Drei wenig beachtete cyprianische Schriften und die „Acta Pauli“. Von A. Harnack. Leipzig 1899. (TU 19, 3). Bringel, P.: Une polémique religieuse à la cour perse : le De gestis in Perside. Histoire du texte, édition critique et traduction. Ph. D. thesis Université de Paris IV 2007. (unpublished). Greek hymns Furley, W. D. - Bremer, J. N.: Greek Hymns. Selected Cult Songs from the Archaic to the Hellenistic period. I-II Tübingen, 2001. (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 9-10). Greek oracles Oracula Graeca quae apud scriptores Graecos Romanosque exstant collegit paucasque observationes selectas praemisit R. Hendess. Halle1877. John Malalas Chronography Iohannis Malalae Chronographia. Recensuit I. Thurn. Berlin – New York 2000. (Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae 35). Oracles from Claros and Didyma Rodríguez Somolinos, J.: Los oráculos de Claros y Dídima. Edición y comentario. Madrid 1991. (Tesis Doctoral). Merkelbach, R. - Stauber, J.: „Die Orakel des Apollon von Klaros.“ Epigraphica Anatolica 27 (1996) 1-54. [= Merkelbach, R.: Philologica. Ausgewählte Kleine Schriften. Herausgegeben von W. Blümel, H. Engelmann, B. Kramer, J. Kramer, C. E. Römer. Stuttgart – Leipzig 1997. 155-218.]. Merkelbach, R. - Stauber, M.: Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten. I-V Stuttgart 1998-2004. Plethon Magica logia Μαγικὰ λόγια τῶν ἀπὸ Ζωροάστρου μάγων. Γεωργίου Γεμιστοῦ Πλήθωνος Ἐξήγησις εἰς τὰ αὐτὰ λόγια. Oracles chaldaïques. Recension de Georges

The Fortunes and Reception of Oracular Texts

27

Gémiste Pléthon. Édition critique, traduction et commentaire par B. Tambrun-Krasker. La recension arabe des Μαγικὰ λόγια par M. Tardieu. Athens – Paris – Bruxelles 1995. Porphyry De philosophia ex oraculis haurienda Porphyrii De philosophia ex oraculis haurienda librorum reliquiae. Edidit G. Wolff. Berlin 1856. (repr. Hildesheim 1962). Porphyrii Philosophi fragmenta edidit A. Smith. Fragmenta Arabica D. Wasserstein interpretante. Stuttgart – Leipzig 1993. Sibylline Oracles Roessli, J.-M.: Les Oracles sibyllins : origines païennes et appropriations chrétiennes. Prologue ; Livres I, 324-400 ; VI ; VII, VIII, 217-500. Turnhout (forthcoming). (Corpus Christianorum. Series Apocryphorum). Sozomen Historia ecclesiastica Sozomène, Histoire ecclésiastique. Livres I-II. Texte de l’édition J. Bidez. Introduction par B. Grillet et G. Sabbah. Traduction par † A.-J. Festugière. Annotation par G. Sabbah. Paris 1983. (SC 306). The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen comprising a history of the Church from A.D. 323 to A.D. 425. Translated from the Greek. Revised by C. D. Hartranft. New York 1890. Theosophia Fragmente griechischer Theosophien herausgegeben und quellenkritisch untersucht von H. Erbse. Hamburg 1941. (Hamburger Arbeiten zur Altertumswissenschaft 4). Theosophorum Graecorum fragmenta iterum recensuit H. Erbse. Stuttgart – Leipzig 1995. Anonymi Monophysitae Theosophia. An attempt at reconstruction by P. F. Beatrice. Leiden – Boston – Köln 2001. (VChr Suppl. 56). Die Tübinger Theosophie. Eingeleitet, übersetzt und kommentiert von L. Carrara und I. Männlein-Robert. Unter Mitwirkung von V. Clausing-Lage, A.-L. Engelbach, C. Rüth, O. Schelske, F. Schulz. Mit einem Beitrag von H. Seng. Stuttgart 2018. (Bibliothek der griechischen Literatur 86). Tissi, L. M.: Gli oracoli degli dèi greci nella Teosofia di Tubinga. Commento e studio critico dei testi 12-54 Erbse. Alessandria 2018. (Hellenica 72). Zosimus Historia nova Zosime, Histoire nouvelle. Tome I Livres I et II. Texte établi et traduit par F. Paschoud. Paris 2000.

28

Lucia Maddalena Tissi

2 Authors of the 16th century Alessandri, Alessandro: Dies geniales. Rome 1522. Peucer, Caspar: Commentarius de praecipuis divinationum generibus. Wittenberg 1553. Pico della Mirandola, Gianfrancesco: De rerum praenotione libri novem pro veritate religionis/ contra superstitiosas vanitates editi. Strasbourg 1507. Pomponazzi, Pietro: De naturalium effectuum causis, sive de incantationibus, opus abstrusioris philosophiae plenum, et brevissimis historiis illustratum atque ante annos XXXV compositum, nunc primum vero in lucem fideliter editum. Adjectis brevibus scholiis a Gulielmo Gratarolo. Basel 1556. Caelius Rhodiginus, Ludovicus: Lectionum antiquorum libri XXX. Basel 1542. Tomeo, Niccolò Leonino: Trophonius, sive, De Divinatione. In: Nicolai Leonici Thomaei Dialogi. Venice 1524. 3 Secondary literature Addey, C.: Divination and Theurgy in Neoplatonism. Oracles of the Gods. Farnham – Burlington (Vt.) 2014. Adler, A. - Zempléni, A.: Le bâton de l’aveugle. Divination, maladie, et pouvoir chez les Moundangs du Tchad. Paris 1972. Agosti, G.: “Reliquie argonautiche a Cizico. Un’ipotesi sulle Argonautiche orfiche.” Incontri triestini di filologia classica 7 (2007-2008) 17-36. Agosti, G.: “Annotazioni per uno studio letterario degli Oracoli Caldaici.” In: Bottari, F. - Casarsa, L. - Cristante, L. - Fernandelli, L. (ed.): Dignum laude virum. Studi di cultura classica e musica offerti a Franco Serpa. Trieste 2011. 3-25. Amandry, P.: La Mantique apollinienne à Delphes. Essai sur le fonctionnement de l’oracle. Paris 1950. Athanassiadi, P.: “The Fate of Oracles in Late Antiquity: Didyma and Delphi.” Δελτίον Χριστιανικῆς Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἐταρείας 15 (1989-90) 271-278. Athanassiadi, P.: “Philosophers and Oracles: Shifts of Authority in Late Paganism”. Byzantion 62 (1992) 45-62. Athanassiadi, P.: “Byzantine Commentators on the Chaldaean Oracles: Psellos and Plethon.” In: Ierodiakonou, K. (ed.): Byzantine Philosophy and its Ancient Sources. Oxford 2002. 237-252. Aune, D. E.: Prophecy in early Christianity and the ancient Mediterranean world. Grand Rapids 1983. Batiffol, P.: “Oracula hellenica.” Revue biblique 13 (1916) 177-199. Beatrice P. F.: “Monophysite Christology in an Oracle of Apollo.” International Journal of the Classical Tradition 4 (1997) 3-22. Belayche, N. - Rüpke, J.: “Divination et révélation dans les mondes grec et romain.” Revue de l’histoire des religions 2 (2007) 139-147. Bendlin, A.: “Vom Nutzen und Nachteil der Mantik: Orakel im Medium von Handlung und Literatur in der Zeit der Zweiten Sophistik.” In: Elm von der Osten, D. Rüpke, J. - Walde, K. (ed.): Texte als Medium und Reflexion von Religion im römischen Reich. Stuttgart 2006. 159-207. (Potsdamer altertumswissenschaftliche Beiträge 14). [= Bendlin, A.: “On the Uses and Disadvantages of

The Fortunes and Reception of Oracular Texts

29

Divination. Oracles and their Literary Representations in the Time of the Second Sophistic.” In: North, J. A. - Price, S. R. F. (ed.): The Religious History of the Roman Empire. Pagans, Jews and Christians. Oxford 2011. 175-250]. Bentley, R.: The Works. Collected and edited by A. Dyce. II London 1836. (repr. Hildesheim 1971). Beta, S.: Il labirinto della parola. Enigmi, oracoli e sogni nella cultura antica. Torino 2016. Bonnechere, P. : “La ‘corruption’ de la Pythie chez Hérodote dans l’affaire de Démarate (VI, 60-84). Du discours politique faux au discours historique vrai.” Dialogue d’histoire ancienne supplément 8 (2013) 305-323. Borgeaud, P.: La Mère des Dieux de Cybèle à la Vierge Marie. Paris 1996. Bouché-Leclercq, A.: Histoire de la divination dans l’Antiquité. Paris I-IV 18791882. (repr. Bruxelles 1963; Darmstadt 1978; Grénoble 2003). Bowersock, G. W. - Brown, P. - Grabar, O. (ed.): Late antiquity. A guide to the postclassical world. Harvard 1999. Bratke  De gestis in Perside. Bringel  De gestis in Perside. Brocca, N.: Lattanzio, Agostino e la Sibylla maga. Ricerche sulla fortuna degli Oracula Sibyllina nell’Occidente latino. Roma 2011. (Studi e testitardo antichi 11). Brocca N. - Piron, S.: “Anciennes Sibylles et nouveaux oracles. Remarques sur la diffusion des textes prophétiques en Occident, VIIe-XIVe siècles.” In: Gioanni, S. - Grévin, B. (ed.) : L’Antiquité tardive dans les collections médiévales. Textes et représentations VIe-XVIe siècles. Roma 2008. 261-304. Brubaker, L.: Vision and Meaning in Ninth-Century Byzantium. Image as Exegesis in the Homilies of Gregory of Nazianzus. Cambridge 1999. Buresch, K.: Klaros. Untersuchungen zum Orakelwesen des späteren Altertums. Nebst einem Anhange des Anecdoton ΧΡΗΣΜΟΙ ΤΩΝ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΩΝ ΘΕΩΝ enthaltend. Leipzig 1889. (repr. Aalen 1973). Burkert, W. - Suárez de la Torre, E. - Graf, F.: “Divination.” Thesaurus cultus et rituum antiquorum III (2005) 1-51. Busine, A.: Paroles d’Apollon, Pratiques et traditions oraculaires dans l’Antiquité tardive (IIe-VIe siècles). Leiden – Boston 2005. (RGRW 156). Busine, A.: “Gathering Sacred Words. Collections of Oracles from Pagan Sanctuaries to Christian Books.” In: Piccione, R. M. - Perkams, M. (ed.): Selecta colligere, II. Beiträge zur Technik des Sammelns und Kompilierens griechischer Texte von der Antike bis zum Humanismus. Alessandria 2005. 1-17. (Hellenica 18). Busine, A.: “The Discovery of Inscriptions and the Legitimation of New Cults.” In: Dignas, B. - Smith, R. R. R. (ed.): Historical and Religious Memory in the Ancient World. Oxford 2012. 241-256. Busine, A.: “From Stones to Myth: Temple Destruction and Civic Identity in the Late Antique Roman East.” JLA 6 (2013) 325-346. Busine, A.: “Le problème de l’attribution de textes oraculaires au sanctuaire de Claros.” In: Moretti, J.-C. (ed.): Le sanctuaire de Claros et son oracle. Actes du colloque international de Lyon, 13-14 Janvier 2012. Lyon 2014. 201-210. Busine, A. (ed.): Religious Practices and Christianization of the Late Antique City (4th – 7th cent.). Leiden – Boston 2015. (RGRW 182).

30

Lucia Maddalena Tissi

Busine, A.: “Usages divinatoires du Livre : une « anti-exégèse » ?”. In: Hoffmann, P. - Le Boulluec, A. - Soares Santoprete, L. G. - Timotin, A. (ed.): Exégèse, révélation et formation des dogmes dans l’Antiquité tardive. (forthcoming). Cameron, A.: The Last Pagans of Rome. Oxford 2011. Carrara - Männlein-Robert  Theosophia. Carrara, L. - Meier, M. - Radtki-Jansen, C. (ed.): Die Weltchronik des Johannes Malalas. Quellenfragen. Stuttgart 2017. 329-355. (Malalas Studien 2). Chadwick, N. K.: Poetry and Prophecy. Cambridge 1942. Croke, B.: “Malalas, the man and his work.” In: Jeffreys, E. - Croke, B. - Scott, R. (ed.): Studies in John Malalas. Sydney 1990. 1-25. Dagron, G.: Constantinople imaginaire. Études sur le recueil des ‘Patria’. Paris 1984. Dagron, G. - Paramelle, J.: “Un texte patriographique, le Récit merveilleux, très beau et profitable sur la colonne du Xèrolophos (Vindob. Suppl. Gr. 171, fol. 143v-163v).” Travaux et Mémoires du Centre de Recherche d’Histoire et Civilisation byzantines 7 (1979) 491-523. Daley, B. E.: “Apollo as a Chalcedonian: A New Fragment of a Controversial Work from Early Sixth-Century Constantinople.” Traditio 50 (1995) 31-54. Dannenfeldt, K. H.: „The Pseudo-Zoroastrian Oracles in the Renaissance.“ Studies in the Renaissance 4 (1957) 7-30. Deisser, A.: “Les oracles des Léon VI le sage, leur origines et leur postérité.” Kernos 3 (1990) 135-145. Delatte, A.: “Le déclin de la Légende des VII Sages et les Prophéties théosophiques.” Le Musée belge 27 (1923) 97-111. Delcourt, M.: L’Oracle de Delphes. Paris 1955. Dieter, M.: review of Häfner, Götter im Exil. Sehepunkte 6 (2006). http://www.sehepunkte.de /2006/01/9429.html. Dieterle, M.: Dodona. Religionsgeschichtliche und historische Untersuchungen zur Entstehung und Entwicklung des Zeus-Heiligtums. Hildesheim 2007. (Spudasmata 116). Eidinow, E.: Oracles, Curses and Risk among the Ancient Greeks. Oxford 2007. Eitrem, S.: Orakel und Mysterien am Ausgang der Antike. Zürich 1947. Elsner, J. - Hernández Lobato, J. (ed.): The Poetics of Late Antique Literature. Oxford 2017. Evans-Pritchard, E. E.: Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azanda. Oxford 1937. Flacelière, R.: Devins et oracles grecs. Paris 1961. Fontenrose, J.: The Delphic Oracle. Its Responses and Operations with a Catalogue of Responses. Berkeley – Los Angeles – London 1978. Fontenrose, J.: Didyma. Apollo’s Oracle, Cult, and Companions. Berkeley – Los Angeles – London 1988. Forbes, C.: Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity and its Hellenistic Environment. Tübingen 1995. (WUNT II/75). Furley - Bremer  Greek hymns. Gagné, R.: “Poétique de la chrèsmodie. L’oracle de Glaukos (Herodote VI 86).” Kernos 26 (2013) 95-109. Georgoudi, S. - Koch Piettre, R. - Schmidt, F. (ed.): Les raisons des signes. Présages, rites, destin dans les sociétés de la Méditerranée ancienne. Leiden – Boston 2012. (RGRW 174).

The Fortunes and Reception of Oracular Texts

31

Giardina, A.: “Esplosione di tardoantico.” Studi Storici 1 (1999) 157-180. Gigli, D.: “Gli dèi in esilio: evoluzioni di un mitologema dalla Grecia ad Heinrich Heine.” In: Audano, S. - Cipriani, G. (ed.): Aspetti della Fortuna dell’Antico nella Cultura Europea (Atti della Decima Giornata di Studi. Sestri Levante, 15 marzo 2013). Campobasso – Foggia 2014. 31-52. (Echo 13). Gigli Piccardi, D.: “Ancora su Nonno e la poesia oracolare.” Aitia. Regards sur la culture hellénistique au XXIe siècle 2 (2012). http://aitia.révues.org//496. Graf, F.: “Apollinische Divination und theologische Spekulation. Zu den Orakeln der Tübinger Theosophie.” In: Seng, H. - Tardieu, M. (ed.): Die Chaldaeischen Orakel: Kontext – Interpretation – Rezeption, Heidelberg 2010. 63-77. (Bibliotheca Chaldaica 2). Guarducci, M.: “‚Chi è dio?‘ L’oracolo di Apollo Klarios e un’epigrafe di Enoanda.” Rendiconti delle sedute dell’Accademia Nazonale dei Lincei, Classe die Scienze morali, storiche e filologiche VIII 27 (1972) 335-347. Günther, W.: Das Orakel von Didyma in hellenistischer Zeit. Tübingen 1971. Häfner, R.: Götter im Exil. Frühneuzeitliches Dichtungsverständnis im Spannungsfeld christlicher Apologetik und philologischer Kritik (ca. 1590-1736). Tübingen 2003. (Frühe Neuzeit 80). Hahn, J. - Emmel, S. - Gotter, U. (ed.): From Temple to Church. Destruction and Renewal of Local Cultic Topography in Late Antiquity. Leiden – Boston 2008. (RGRW 163). Hall, A. S.: “The Klarian oracle at Oenoanda.” ZPE 32 (1978) 263-268. Heintz, J.-G. (ed.): Oracles et prophéties dans l’Antiquité. Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg 15-17 Juin 1995. Paris 1997. (Travaux du centre de recherche sur le Proche-Orient et la Grèce antiques 15). Hendess  Greek oracles. Hoffmann, A. - Vultaggio, C. - Neuber, C.: “Orakel.” RAC XXVI (2015) 206-350. van der Horst, P. W.: “Sortes: Sacred Books as Instant Oracles in Late Antiquity.” In: Rutgers, L. V. - van der Horst, P. W. - Havelaar, H. W. - Tengels, L. (ed.): The Use of Sacred Books in the Ancient World. Leuven 1998. 143-174. Jeffreys, E.: “Malalas’ Sources.” In: Jeffreys, E. - Croke, B. - Scott, R. (ed.): Studies in John Malalas. Sydney 1990. 167-216. (Byzantina Australiensia 6). (repr. Leiden – Boston 2017). Jeffreys, E.: “The Beginning of Byzantine Chronography.” In: Marasco, G. (ed.): Greek and Roman historiography in late antiquity. Fourth to Sixth Century A.D. Leiden 2003. 497-527. Johnston, S. I.: “Introduction: Divining Divination.” In: Johnston - Struck (ed.) 1-28. Johnston, S. I.: Ancient Greek Divination. Malden (Mass.) – Oxford 2008. Johnston, S. I. - Struck, P. T. (ed.): Mantikê. Studies in Ancient Divination. Leiden 2005. (RGRW 155). Jones, C. P.: “The Fuzziness of ‘Paganism’.” Common Knowledge 18 (2012) 249-254. Kindt, J.: “Delphic oracle stories and the beginning of historiography: Herodotus’ Croesus Logos.” CP 101 (2006) 34-51. Leavitt, J. (ed.): Poetry and Prophecy. The Anthropology of Inspiration. AnnArbor 1997. Levin, S.: “The Old Greek Oracles in Decline.” ANRW II 18, 2 (1989) 1599-1649. Lightfoot, J. L.: The Sibylline Oracles. With Introduction, Translation, and Commentary on the First and Second Books. Oxford 2007.

32

Lucia Maddalena Tissi

Livrea, E.: “Sull’iscrizione teosofica di Enoanda.” ZPE 122 (1998) 90-96. Luijendijk, A. - Klingshirn, W. E. (ed.): My Lots are in Thy Hands. Sortilege and its Practicioners in Late Antiquity. Leiden – Boston 2018. (RGRW 188). Manetti, G.: Le teorie del segno nell’antichità classica. Milano 1987. Marrone, D.: “Tassonomia umanistica nel Panepistemon di Angelo Poliziano: la divinatio nella classificazione delle discipline.” In: Seng, H. (ed.): Platonismus und Esoterik in byzantinischem Mittelalter und italienischer Renaissance. Heidelberg 2013. 129-148. (Bibliotheca Chaldaica 3). Martínez, J.: “Onomacritus the Forger, Hipparchus’ escapegoat.” In: Martínez, J. (ed.): Fakes and Forgers of Classical Literature. Falsificaciones y falsarios de la Literatura Clásica. Madrid 2011. 217-226. Maurizio, L.: Delphic Narratives: Recontextualizing the Pythia and her Prophecies. Diss. Princeton 1993. Maurizio, L.: “Delphic Oracles as Oral Performances: Authenticity and Historical Evidence.” CA 16 (1997) 308-334. Mazur, Z.: “Unio Magica: Part II: Plotinus, Theurgy, and the Question of Ritual.” Dionysius 22 (2004) 29-56. Mazza, M.: Le maschere del potere. Cultura e politica nella tarda antichità. Napoli 1986. (Collezione di opere giuridiche e storiche 1). Mecella, L.: “Ἦν γὰρ μυστικὸς ἀρχιερεὺς καί βασιλεύς: Giovanni Malala e il ruolo del principato augusteo nella storia universale.” Paideia 68 (2013) 349-374. Merkelbach - Stauber  Oracles from Claros and Didyma. Miller, P. C.: Dreams in late antiquity. Studies in the imagination of a culture. Princeton 1994. Moreschini, C.: “Le citazioni oracolari nel De trinitate dello Pseudo Didimo di Alessandria.” In: Seng - Sfameni Gasparro (ed.) 305-327. Moretti, J.-C. (ed.): Le sanctuaire de Claros et son oracle. Actes du colloque international de Lyon, 13-14 Janvier 2012. Lyon 2014. Moretti, J.-C. - Bresch, N. - Bonora, I. - Laroche, D. - Riss, O.: “Le temple d’Apollon et le fonctionnement de l’oracle.” In: Moretti (ed.) 33-49. Mulsow, M.: “Christlicher Humanismus im Zeitalter der philologischen Kritik. Zu Ralph Häfners magistralem Werk Götter im Exil.” IASL online. http://www.iaslonline.lmu.de/index.php?vorgang_id=1375. Nagy, G.: Poetry as performance. Homer and beyond. Cambridge 1996. Nieto Ibáñez, J. M.: “Los oráculos griegos y su uso apologético en Sócrate de Constantinopla (HE III 23, 50-59).” Vetera Christianorum 44 (2007) 83-96. Nieto Ibáñez, J. M.: Cristianismo y profecías de Apolo. Los oráculos paganos en la patrística griega (siglos II-V). Madrid 2010. Nock, A. D.: “Oracles théologiques.” REA 30 (1928) 280-290. Nock, A. D.: “Greek Magical Papyri.” JEA 15 (1929) 219-235. Oesterheld, C.: Göttliche Botschaften für zweifelnde Menschen. Pragmatik und Orientierungsleistung der Apollon-Orakel von Klaros und Didyma in hellenistisch-römischer Zeit. Göttingen 2008. (Hypomnemata 174). Ossa-Richardson, A.: The Devil’s Tabernacle. The Pagan Oracles in Early Modern Thought. Princeton 2013. Parke, H. W.: The Oracles of Zeus. Dodona, Olympia, Ammon. Oxford 1967. Parke, H. W.: Greek oracles. London 1967.

The Fortunes and Reception of Oracular Texts

33

Parke, H. W.: “The attribution of the oracle in Zosimus, New History 2. 37.” CQ 32 (1982) 441-444. Parke, H. W.: The Oracles of Apollo in Asia Minor. London – Sydney– Dover (N. H.) 1985. Parke, H. W. - Wormell, D. E. W.: The Delphic oracle. I-II Oxford 1956. Paschoud, F.: Cinq études sur Zosime. Paris 1975. Paschoud, Zosime  Zosimus. Pellizzari, D.: L’esilio e il ritorno degli dèi pagani nei racconti dell’Ottocento. Pisa. 2017. (Studi di letterature comparate, seconda serie 23). Pisano, C.: “La voce della Pizia: tra mito, rito e antropologia.” I Quaderni del ramo d’oro on line 6 (2013-2014) 8-20. http://www.qro.unisi.it/frontend/sites/ default/files/Pisano_La_voce_della_Pizia.pdf. Premerstein, A. von: “Ein pseudo-athanasianischer Traktat mit apocryphen Philosophenspruechen in Codex Bodleianus 5.” Εἰς μνήμην Σπυρίδωνος Λάμπρου. Athens 1935. 183-186. Pricoco, S.: “L’oracolo teologico.” In: Garzya, A. (ed.): Metodologie della ricerca storica sulla tarda antichità. Atti del I Convegno dell’Associazione di studi tardo-antichi, Napoli 16-18 ottobre 1987. Napoli 1989. 267-285. Retel-Laurentin, A.: “La forza della parola (Nzakara, Africa).” In: Vernant, J.-P. Vandermeersch, L. - Gernet, L. - Bottéro, J. - Crahay - Brisson - Carlier Grodzynski - Retel-Laurentin 323-351. Roberto, U.: Teosofia pagana e cronaca universale cristiana: Giovanni Malala e Giovanni di Antiochia. In: Blaudeau, P. - Van Nuffelen, P. (ed.): L’historiographie tardo-antique et la transmission des savoirs. Berlin – Boston 2015. 209-225. (Millennium-Studien 55). Roberto, U.: “The Influence of Julius Africanus’ Chronographiae on Malalas’ View of Ancient History.” In: Carrara - Meier - Radtki-Jansen (ed.) 49-70. Robinson, T. L.: Theological oracles and the sanctuaries of Claros and Didyma. Harvard 1981. (PhD dissertation). Rodríguez Somolinos  Oracles from Claros and Didyma Roessli, J.-M.: “Les Oracles sibyllins.” In: Pouderon, B. - Norelli, E. (ed.): Histoire de la littérature grecque chrétienne des origines à 451. II: De Paul apôtre à Irénée de Lyon. 2Paris 2016. 511-534. Roessli, Les Oracles sibyllins  Oracula Sibyllina. Rosenberger, V. (ed.): Divination in the Ancient World. Religious Options and the Individual. Stuttgart 2013. Rossi, L. E.: “Gli oracoli come documento di improvvisazione.” In: Brillante, C. - Cantilena, M. - Pavese, C. O. (ed.): I poemi epici rapsodici nonomerici e la tradizione orale. Atti del convegno di Venezia 28-30 settembre 1977. Padova 1981. 203-220. Roux, G.: Delphes. Son oracle et ses dieux. Paris 1976. Schulz, F.: “Theosophische Weissagungen bei Malalas.” In: Carrara - Meier Radtki-Jansen (ed.) 329-355. Seng, H.: „Übersetzungen der Chaldaeischen Orakel in der Frühen Neuzeit.“ In: Kofler, W. - Schaffenrath, F. - Töchterle, K. (ed.): Pontes V: Übersetzung als Vermittlerin antiker Literatur. Innsbruck 2009. 82-98. Seng, H.: „Chaldaeerrhetorik bei Michael Psellos.“ In: Criscuolo, U. (ed.): La retorica greca fra tardo antico ed età bizantina: idee e forme. Convegno Internazionale Napoli 27 - 29 ottobre 2011. Napoli 2012. 355-369. (Collectanea 31).

34

Lucia Maddalena Tissi

Seng, H.: “Theologische Orakel zwischen Metaphysik und Ritual.” In: Seng Sfameni Gasparro (ed.) 145-170. Seng, H.: Un livre sacré de l’Antiquité tardive: Les Oracles Chaldaïques. Turnhout 2016. (Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études – Sciences Religieuses 170). Seng, H.: “Theologische Orakel in Kaiserzeit und Spätantike.” In: Carrara Männlein-Robert 263-301. Seng, H. - Sfameni Gasparro, G. (ed.): Theologische Orakel in der Spätantike. Heidelberg 2016. (Bibliotheca Chaldaica 5). Sfameni Gasparro, G.: “Gli oracoli teologici tra ‘pagani’ e cristiani: temi e problemi a confronto.” In: Seng - Sfameni Gasparro (ed.) 329-350. Sfameni Gasparro, G.: “La costruzione teosofica e polemica anticristiana nel De Philosophia ex oraculis haurienda: sulle tracce del progetto porfiriano.” In: Seng, H. - Soares Santoprete, L. G. - Tommasi, C. O. (ed.): Formen und Nebenformen des Platonismus in der Spätantike. Heidelberg 2016. 163-198. (Bibliotheca Chaldaica 6). Shulman, D. - Stroumsa, G. G. (ed.): Dream Cultures. Explorations in the Comparative History of Dreaming. New York – Oxford 1999. Stausberg, M.: Faszination Zarathushtra. Zoroaster und die Europäische Religionsgeschichte der Frühen Neuzeit. I-II Berlin – New York 1998. (RGVV 42). Stoneman, R.: The ancient oracles. Making the gods speak. New Haven – London 2011. Suárez de la Torre, E.: “Sibylles, mantique inspirée et collections oraculaires”. Kernos 7 (1994) 179-205. Suárez de la Torre, E.: “Apollo, teologo Cristiano.” ASR 8 (2003) 129-152. Tanaseanu-Döbler, I.: Theurgy in Late Antiquity. The Invention of a Ritual Tradition. Göttingen – Bristol (Conn.) 2013. (Beiträge zur Europäischen Religionsgeschichte 1). Tanaseanu-Döbler, I.: “Porphyrios und die Christen in De philosophia ex oraculis haurienda.” In: Männlein-Robert, I. (ed.): Die Christen als Bedrohung? Text, Kontext und Wirking von Porphyrios’ Contra Christianos. Stuttgart 2017. 137-175. (Roma æterna 5). Tissi, L. M.: “Frammenti superstiti di una silloge oracolare cristiana: il caso delle cosiddette ΧΡΗΣΜΩΔΙΑΙ ἙΛΛΗΝΙΚΑΙ.” Byzantion 87 (2017) 349-374. Tissi, Gli oracoli degli dèi greci  Theosophia. Tommasi Moreschini, C. O.: “La nozione di ‘Oracoli teologici’ nella recente considerazione critica (con una postilla landolfiana).” ASR 6 (2013) 191-208. Vanderberg, P.: Mysteries of the Oracles. The last secrets of Antiquity. New York 1982. Vernant, J.-P. - Vandermeersch, L. - Gernet, L. - Bottéro, J. - Crahay, R. - Brisson, L. - Carlier, J. - Grodzynski, D. - Retel-Laurentin, A.: Divination et rationalité. Paris 1974. Walde, C.: Die Traumdarstellungen in der griechisch-römischen Dichtung. Munich 2001. Wohlleben, D.: Enigmatik – Das Rätsel als hermeneutische Grenzfigur in Mythos, Philosophie und Literatur. Antike – Frühe Neuzeit – Moderne. Heidelberg 2014. (Bibliothek der klassischen Altertumswissenschaften 146). Wolff, G.: De novissima oraculorum aetate. Berlin 1854. Zoras, G.: Ἱωάννου Ἀξαγιωλου Διήγησις Συνοπτικὴ Καρόλου τοῦ Ε’ (κατὰ τὸν βατικανὸν κώδικα 1624). Athens 1964.

Crystal Addey

Oracles of Fire: The Formation and Reception of the Chaldaean Oracles The Chaldaean Oracles is a term applied to a mystical set of oracular utterances written in hexameters which were composed in the mid to late second century A. D.; they were frequently used by Neoplatonists, from Porphyry onwards, and attained the status of a sacred text within Neoplatonism.1 This (now fragmentary) enigmatic text includes ethical and ritual instructions for the ascent of the soul set against a complex metaphysical and cosmological background which exhibits the influence of Middle Platonism; it was attributed in antiquity to a father and son, named Julian the Chaldaean and Julian the Theurgist respectively, who were said to live at the time of Marcus Aurelius.2 Recent scholarship has focused especially on the metaphysics, cosmology and theology which underlie the Chaldaean Oracles; however the ritual formation (including the possible institutional context and location or provenance) of the Chaldaean Oracles themselves has received far less attention.3 The 1

The precise dating of the Chaldaean Oracles remains contested although dating of mid to late second century A. D. is generally accepted: cf. Johnston, Hekate 2 n. 5 for a summary of the relevant scholarship. 2 Proclus, In Tim. I 408, 12; Dodds, “New Light ...” 263 = 693; Majercik 1; Athanassiadi, “The Chaldaean Oracles” 149; Finamore - Johnston 161. Julian the Chaldaean and Julian the Theurgist: cf. Lewy 5, who notes the Neoplatonists’ method of quoting the Chaldaean Oracles, frequently ascribing oracles to both Juliani by naming the authors as ‘the Chaldaeans’, ‘the theurgists’ or ‘one of the theurgists,’ suggests a tradition affirming the collaboration of father and son in composing the Oracles; Tanaseanu-Döbler, Theurgy 22. Cf. also Seng in this volume. 3 Although cf. Dodds, “Theurgy ...” 55-57.65-69 (= The Greeks 283-285.295299.300f.308-311) and Pagan 56f.; Saffrey, “Les Néoplatoniciens ...” 218-220 = 7274; Hadot, “Théologie ...” 43-52; Seng, “Langage ...” 68-73. An important exception with regard to the possible institutional context, location and provenance of the Chaldaean Oracles is the excellent work of Athanassiadi, “The Chaldaean Oracles” and “Apamea ...”, to which I am indebted within this analysis. On the Chaldaean theological, metaphysical and cosmological system cf. Lewy 67-176; Majercik 1-30; Hadot, “Bilan ...”; Finamore - Johnston 161-173; Seng, Un livre sacré, 41-93.

36

Crystal Addey

mystical and ritual instructions contained in the Oracles comprise our earliest evidence for theurgy: the elder Julian (‘the Chaldaean’) may well have invented the term ‘theurgy’;4 indeed, although the precise term ‘theurgy’ (θεουργία) does not appear in the extant fragments, the related plural form of the noun ‘theurgist’ (θεουργοί) does. Furthermore, these terms are not found in any earlier extant literature, except for brief allusions in Nicomachus of Gerasa and Julius Pollux.5 Thus, the Oracles are generally treated as co-extensive with theurgy in modern scholarship. Although this picture must be qualified slightly, given that Iamblichus identifies the roots of theurgy jointly in the Egyptian, Chaldaean and Greek religious traditions, the Chaldaean Oracles were clearly crucial in the formation of theurgy as practised by the Neoplatonists. This article will examine the original form of the Chaldaean Oracles, their oracular nature and formation, the context and circumstances of their production, and their reception within Neoplatonism and in the work of the Byzantine commentator Michael Psellus. This study will argue (1) that the Chaldaean Oracles comprised an oracle collection (rather than a continuous poem or hymn); (2) that the Chaldaean Oracles may have been composed in the Temple of Zeus-Belos in Apamea, Syria (following the thesis of Polymnia Athanassiadi); (3) that the original context of the Chaldaean Oracles was in all likelihood a Chaldaean mystery cult, possibly associated with an oracular sanctuary; and (4) that a central point about the Chaldaean Oracles has been largely overlooked: namely, that the Oracles themselves were considered to be the paradigmatic example of theurgic divination by Porphyry, Iamblichus and Proclus (and, later, by Michael Psellus); the Oracles are formative for the theory and praxis of theurgy and the place of divination within it.

4

Bidez 369 n. 8; Dodds, “Theurgy ...” 55 (= The Greeks 283.300). Excerpta ex Nicomacho p. 277, 7 Jan (written in the 160’s A. D.; it is important to note that the use of the term ‘theurgy’ rests on a conjecture of a corrupt passage); Julius Pollux, Onomastikon I 14, 4: this work was written between 166 and 176 A. D. and lists theurgists among cultic personnel and ritual specialists (including seers and other oracular roles). Cf. Tanaseanu-Döbler, Theurgy 21. Cf. also OC 153; Lewy 461-466; Majercik 21. As Johnston, Hekate 80 notes, the very existence of this tradition is far more important than its somewhat dubious validity, for later commentators believed that the roots of theurgy lay (at least partially) in the Oracles and in the other works of the Juliani; consequently, their understanding and definition of ‘theurgy’ must have relied heavily on these sources. 5

Oracles of Fire

37

1 The Transmission and Reception of the Chaldaean Oracles Firstly, some methodological reflections on the transmission and survival of the Chaldaean Oracles are needed since these issues frequently affect interpretation. The term ‘Chaldaean’ was not applied to the Oracles until several centuries after their composition; earlier authors generally referred to them as the sacred or ‘god-given oracles’ (τὰ θεοπαράδοτα λόγια), or (most frequently) simply as ‘the oracles’ (τὰ λόγια).6 Approximately 226 fragments survive in the quotations of later authors such as Proclus and Damascius, who often cite the Oracles as confirmation of their metaphysical principles.7 The collection was used frequently by Neoplatonists: Porphyry, Iamblichus and Proclus all wrote lengthy commentaries on them,8 but these are lost (aside from a few short fragments of Proclus’ work).9 However, it is vital to note that Neoplatonic use (from Porphyry or Iamblichus onwards)10 of the Chaldaean Oracles was not merely textual or metaphysical: the Oracles were crucial for their practice of theurgic ritual as well. Indeed, the Oracles’ characterisation of the Empyrean or intelligible realm as ‘fiery’ is closely connected with the terminology of divine light and illumination which was used by later Neoplatonists to characterise divine possession, divination rituals and contact with the divine, especially within a theurgic context. Iamblichus’ account of divination in De mysteriis often utilises Chaldaean concepts and terminology, most especially his account of ritual receptivity, daimonology and oracles which he explicitly attributes to Chaldaean prophets.11 In fact, Iamblichus closes his account of divina6

Cf. for example Marinus, Vita Procli 26, 9.12.26.31; 38, 17. Cf. Lewy, 443-447; Athanassiadi, “The Chaldaean Oracles” 149; Seng, “Oracles chaldaïques” 358f. 7 Cf. for example, Proclus, In. Crat. 20, 23 - 21, 3 (citing OC 87 and 108). 226 fragments are given in the edition of des Places (227 in the fifth edition, 2010): this includes isolated words, dubia and obvious spuria, omitting well-attested expressions. Cf. Tardieu, “Concordance”; Seng, Un livre sacré, 37-39; Seng, ΚΟΣΜΑΓΟΙ 32-34; Majercik 45f.; Finamore - Johnston 161. 8 Marinus, Vita Procli 26, 15-18. 9 Proclus, Excerpta Chaldaica (De philosophia Chaldaica) I-V. 10 Porphyry’s approach towards theurgy is difficult to ascertain and somewhat ambivalent in the extant sources. For a detailed examination of the relevant issues and the argument that Porphyry held a far more positive attitude towards theurgy than is commonly recognised, and may have practised theurgic ritual himself, cf. Addey, Divination 83-169.283-290. 11 Iambl., De myst. III 6 p. 112, 10-18; 113, 7-13 P. = 84, 19 - 85, 1; 85, 9-16 S. - S. L.; III 13 p. 130, 6-17 P. = 97, 17 - 98, 3 S. - S. - L.; III 31 p. 176, 1 - 179, 11 P. = 131, 27- 134, 19 S. - S. - L. (especially p. 176, 1f. P. = 131, 27 - 132, 2 S. - S. - L.:

38

Crystal Addey

tion in De mysteriis III with the assertion that the infallible truth of oracles and virtue in souls allows “ascent to the intelligible fire” (ἡ πρὸς τὸ νοητὸν πῦρ ἄνοδος) for the theurgists, “a process which must be proposed as the goal of all foreknowledge and of all theurgic practices” (ὃ δὴ καὶ τέλος δεῖ πάσης μὲν προγνώσεως πάσης δὲ θεουργικῆς πραγματείας προτίθεσθαι.), couching the theurgic goal of ascent in Chaldaean terminology.12 Meanwhile, Marinus relates of Proclus:13 Αὐτοῖς τε τοῖς θείοις λογίοις ἐντρεφόμενος, ἐπὶ τὰς ἀκροτάτας τῶν ἀρετῶν, ὡς πρὸς ἀνθρωπίνην ψυχήν, ἀνέδραμεν, ἃς ὁ ἔνθους Ἰάμβλιχος ὑπερφυῶς θεουργικὰς ἀπεκάλεσεν). Nourished by the divine oracles, he ascended to the height of excellence in relation to the human soul, which the inspired Iamblichus called in his sublime manner the “theurgic”.

Theurgic excellence or virtue was considered the culmination of the cultivation of the hierarchy of virtues. Moreover, when Marinus relates Proclus’ theurgic expertise he refers to the latter’s “more divine forethought and providence for things in the second rank” (πρόνοιαν ἤδη καὶ τῶν δευτέρων ἐτίθετο θειότερόν τινα),14 a reference which partially alludes to Proclus’ divinatory expertise, and then reports that the philosopher made use of the “conjunctions and supplications of the Chaldaeans, together with their divine and ineffable revolutions” (ταῖς γὰρ τῶν Χαλδαίων συστάσεσι καὶ ἐντυχίαις καὶ τοῖς θείοις καὶ ἀφθέγκτοις στροφάλοις ἐκέχρητο), a reference to theurgic ritual practice and the use of the iynx or strophalos, a ritual tool sacred to the Chaldaean Hekate.15 Marinus also reports that Proclus caused rains by using an iynx in a theurgic ritual in order to release Attica from a drought, and that he was purified by Chaldaean rituals and experienced epiphanies of Hekate.16 One of Proclus’ hymns may be addressed to the gods of the Chaldaean Oracles and another hymn addresses Hekate, the Mother of the gods (Rhea) and Ἐρῶ δή σοι καὶ πρὸς ταῦτα λόγον ὅν ποτε ἤκουσα, Χαλδαίων ποτὲ προφητῶν λεγόντων and p. 179, 4-11 = 134, 12-19 S. - S. - L.). Cf. also II 4, p. 77, 18 - 78, 2 P. = 58, 20-23 S. - S. - L. 12 Iambl., De myst. III 31 p. 179, 5-11 P. = 134, 13-19 S. - S. - L. 13 Marinus, Vita Procli 26, 19-23; trs. Edwards, “Neoplatonic Saints ...”, with emendations. 14 Marinus, Vita Procli 28, 6f. 15 Marinus, Vita Procli 28, 8-10 ; OC 206; Psellus, Opusc. phil. II 38 p. 133, 16-23 O’ M. Cf. Seng, “Langage ...” 56-59. 16 Marinus, Vita Procli 28, 15-21. Cf. Dodds, “Theurgy ...” 59 = 288.304.

Oracles of Fire

39

Zeus, deities associated closely with the Oracles; these hymns show us theurgy in action.17 Proclus also cites the Oracles in relation to theurgic ritual instruction: in his Commentary on Plato’s Republic, Proclus cites Fragment 146 as confirmation of the shapes of the god’s epiphanies and maintains that the Oracles never attribute metamorphosis or change to the divine but rather demonstrate the different ways of participating in the divine, in an account of ritual receptivity.18 He also cites the Oracles in a discussion of the vehicle of the soul, which he claims can be purified and re-established in its own domain, drawn up by the aerial, lunar and solar light or ‘beams’.19 The subsequent transmission of the Chaldaean Oracles is also intriguing: the eleventh century Byzantine philosopher Michael Psellus acted as a major link in their transmission and generally treats the Chaldaean Oracles with great respect, although his approach is somewhat ambivalent and complex.20 Since our evidence of the Chaldaean Oracles is fragmentary, it is difficult to distinguish clearly between their original formation and their Neoplatonic and Byzantine receptions. John Dillon famously characterised the Oracles, together with contemporary Gnostic and Hermetic material, as the “Underworld of Platonism” but modern scholarship on the Chaldaean Oracles could be just as appropriately designated as such, given the extremely fragmentary extant evidence and

17

Proclus, hy. IV4 (To all the gods); hy. VI (To the Mother of the Gods, Hekate and Ianus-Zeus). Cf. van den Berg 110f.224f.252-261. 18 Proclus, In Remp. I 111, 1-11 = OC 146. For an analysis of OC 146-148 in relation to divine epiphanies and their place within theurgic ritual, cf. Johnston, “Riders ...” 19 Proclus, In Remp. I 152, 17f. 20 Psellus, Opusc. phil. II 38 = Ἐξήγησις τῶν Χαλδαϊκῶν ῥητῶν. Cf. also the edition of O’Meara; Westerink. Psellus’ approach towards the Chaldaean Oracles exhibits ambiguity: he takes his distance from them and makes disparaging comments more than once; cf. Seng, “Chaldaeerhetorik ...”. However, the Byzantine philosopher also writes about the Oracles extensively, including the ritual practices associated with them. There are serious hermeneutical problems involved in any attempt to assess Psellus’ attitude towards the Chaldaean Oracles and Greek philosophy more broadly, given the Orthodoxy of eleventh century Byzantium: cf. Kaldellis, Hellenism 196-209: “... a basic problem in the understanding of Psellus’ works [is] ... namely the degree to which he had to lie or at any rate dissimulate to protect himself when speaking publicly, especially when he was addressing imperial and ecclesiastical audiences ... A good general rule for dealing with this problem is this: when an author living in an age when people are persecuted for heterodoxy expresses contradictory sentiments regarding religion, the burden of proof ... lies with those who would uphold his piety” (205).

40

Crystal Addey

the consequent gaps in our understanding.21 Much of what can be said of the Chaldaean Oracles is consequently hypothetical and speculative and this study will be no exception in this regard.22 Modern scholars have called the Oracles the “Bible of the Neoplatonists.”23 Certainly, they attained a status akin to Plato among late Neoplatonists as a source of divine truth and wisdom. However, the “Bible” designation might be misleading given that other texts, such as the Orphic Hymns and the works of Plato, Homer and Hesiod, were also revered and considered to be sacred by the Neoplatonists, who held that divine truth was transmitted in a pluralistic and polyvalent rather than in a monolithic fashion.24 2 The Oracular and Ritual Context of the Chaldaean Oracles: Formation and Composition Turning to the ritual context and production of the Chaldaean Oracles, I will argue that this context can be regarded as oracular in nature with oracles transmitted through a divinely inspired prophet as a set of discrete utterances with a shared metaphysical basis. In other words, the Chaldaean Oracles was originally an oracle-collection containing oracles uttered by a divinely-inspired prophet (or prophets). The original designation used by the earliest authors to denote the Chaldaean Oracles – τὰ λόγια – points in this direction and implies a collection of oracles rather than a continuous poem or hymn.25 The extant Oracles collections and commentaries of Psellus and Plethon also present the Chaldaean 21

Dillon 392-396; Majercik 4. As Tanaseanu-Döbler, Theurgy 22 n. 7, notes: “This metaphor of the underworld is highly misleading, considering the affinity of the Oracles with the traditional hexametric form of oracles and their display of Hellenism. Also, their reception by people like Pollux shows that they could be regarded as respectable literary products in their time.” 22 Cf. Seng, “Oracles chaldaïques …” on the problems of interpretation associated with the reception of the Chaldaean Oracles. 23 Athanassiadi, “The Chaldaean Oracles” 152 n. 15; Dodds, “New Light ...” 263 = 693; Majercik 2. For the origin (first attestation) of this expression attributed to F. Cumont, cf. Seng, Un livre sacré 19f. 24 Contra Athanassiadi, “Apamea ...” 117-120.126-129, who treats the Oracles as the canonical ‘Holy Book’ of the Neoplatonists, which decisively influenced the Koran and, in a broader sense, monotheistic tendencies to treat certain books as sacred to the exclusion of all others, and contra Dodds, Pagan 122f., who sees the Chaldaean Oracles and their role within Neoplatonism as a replacement of reason by authority. 25 Cf. also Tanseanu-Döbler, Theurgy 25; Seng, “Oracles chaldaïques” 358.

Oracles of Fire

41

Oracles as a collection of discrete oracles of varying lengths.26 The way in which Proclus introduces several fragments, attributing their utterances to “the gods” plural also suggests a collection of oracles uttered by a range of deities.27 Most frequently, Hekate and Apollo have been thought of as speakers of the oracles.28 In particular, Damascius attributes various fragments to the “oracle-giving god” (ὁ χρησμῳδῶν θεός), which refers to Apollo and confirms the oracular context of the formation of the Chaldaean Oracles.29 Proclus also maintains that a wider range of gods were discussed in the “books of the theologians and the theurgists” (αἱ βίβλοι πλήρεις εἰσὶ τῶν θεολόγων καὶ τῶν θεουργῶν), with the latter referring to Chaldaean literature; thus, it is possible that a wider range of gods may have been attributed with uttering the Chaldaean Oracles, including Zeus, Osiris, Dionysos, Helios, Pan and Artemis.30 As stated, a persistent tradition seen in Iamblichus, Proclus and the emperor Julian ascribes their composition to Julian the Chaldaean and

26

Psellus: see above, n. 20; Plethon: cf. the edition of Tambrun-Krasker - Tardieu, collection p. 1-4 (numbered oracles) and the commentary of Plethon p. 4-19. Plethon’s text is a revised, restructured and abridged version of Psellus’ collection: cf. Tambrun-Krasker - Tardieu xi; 37-47; Tanseanu-Döbler, Theurgy 25. For Plethon cf. also Lewy 473-479; Athanassiadi, “Byzantine Commentators ...” 245-247; Burns 158-179 and Tambrun 53-104. 27 Cf. Proclus, Th. Pl. V 32 p. 119, 10-12 S. - W. = OC 102; V 35 p. 130, 2-7 S. W.= OC 72; Athanassiadi, “Apamea ...” 21; Tanseanu-Döbler, Theurgy 25f. Proclus cites and paraphrases various fragments from the Chaldaean Oracles and attributes these oracular utterances (in each case) to “one of the gods” (φησὶν ... τις θεῶν): cf., for example, In Remp. I 135, 31 - 136, 1 (OC 8); In Remp. I 137, 21-23 (OC 55); In Remp. I 152, 17f. (cf. OC 61); In Tim. II 312, 22-28 (OC 111); In Crat. 33, 16 (OC 43); Tanaseanu-Döbler, Theurgy 26. 28 Cf. Lewy 6. This has been contested, though, by Seng, “Theologische Orakel ...” 148-150. Hekate’s name is mentioned in the following fragments: OC 32.35.50.52. 221. Cf. also OC 53.72.147; fragmenta dubia: 211.219f.222.224. OC 71 (= Proclus, In Crat. 98, 14f.) seems to refer to Apollo. Cf. Johnston, Hekate 4. 29 Although Apollo’s name is not explicitly mentioned in the extant fragments, Damascius cites several fragments which he attributes to the “oracle-giving god”: De princ. II 106, 10 W. - C.; In Parm. I 20, 2; 94, 19 W. - C. - S.: Φησὶ ... ὁ χρησμῳδῶν θεός; In Parm. II 35, 1 W. - C. - S.: ὁ χρησμῳδῶν (“the oracle-giver”). As Lewy 6 notes, the oracle-giving god par excellence is Apollo: thus, he seems to be considered as one of the speakers of the Chaldaean Oracles. Proclus, In. Crat. 101, 3-7 (OC 133) links a theurgist with Apollo. 30 Proclus, In Tim. III 131, 24 - 132, 2, citing OC 226 (dubium). For the discussion of authenticity, cf. Majercik 221 with further bibliography.

42

Crystal Addey

Julian the Theurgist.31 The Suda describes Julian the Theurgist as the author of oracles in hexameter verses (λόγια δι’ ε̕πῶν), and of works on θεουργικά (theurgy) and τελεστικά (statue animation and divination), and Julian the Chaldaean as his father and a philosopher who wrote four books on daimones.32 It is important to note that the dating of the Chaldaean Oracles places them within a time when oracles, both institutional and private, were flourishing, and when public oracular sanctuaries were often disseminating lengthy philosophical and theological utterances.33 The term ‘Chaldaean’ could potentially refer to three possible origins of the Oracles and the Juliani:34 (1) a geographical-ethnic origin in Mesopotamia; (2) a ‘spiritual’ ancestry with the original Chaldaeans (the priests and diviners of Babylonian temples), or (3) a professional label31

Iul. Imp., Epist. 12 (urging Priscus to send him the writings of Iamblichus on his namesake); Or. V [VIII] In matrem deorum 172 d - 173 a (cited below, p. 54); Theiler 3 = 254; Lewy 3-6; Hadot, “Théologie ...” 44. 32 Suda Ι 433, II 641, 32-34; Ι 434, II 642, 1-4 Adler. Cf. Lewy 3 n. 1; 4 n. 2; Dodds, “New Light ...” 263 = 693; Majercik 1f. Lewy 247 states that the latter of Julian’s works cited by the Suda “... certainly contained instructions concerning this craft (statue animation and divination) and practised himself the art of ‘consecrating’ during the campaign against the Marcomans which marks the beginning of his and his father’s celebrity.” In relation to the term ‘Chaldaean’, it is important to remember that much of the surviving context of the extant oracles is Greek: they are recorded in the Greek language and the gods whom the oracles have been attributed to, Hekate and Apollo, are primarily Greek deities. 33 Cf. also Hadot, “Théologie ...” 42f. 34 In Classical Antiquity, ‘Chaldaeans’ were viewed as ‘priests’, the attendant staff at Babylonian temples: cf. Herodotus I 181-183; Arrian, Anabasis VII 16, 5f.; 17, 1-4; Diodorus Siculus II 29, 1-3. The Aramaic term Kaldo (‫šܘ‬RW) = ‘Chaldaea’ originally referred to the Neo-Babylonian Empire (which ended with the reign of Nabonidus, 556-539 B. C.) and, consequently, all the inhabitants of lower Mesopotamia were Chaldaeans. However, since the word ‘Chaldaean’ (Χαλδαῖος) was used to designate the members of the Babylonian priesthood (and, by extension, all Mesopotamian diviners, astrologers and sages) it came to be a title of honour for Greeks who studied in the Babylonian schools. Thus, although the term Chaldaean originally referred to the geographical area of Mesopotamia (and particularly its priests and diviners), by the Roman Republican period the word had come to be used as a general label for diviners, astrologers and magicians of all varieties: cf. Lewy 425-427; Uzdavinys 21f.. Muscolino cxxxi; Seng, “Oracles chaldaïques” 359f.367f. and cf. also the detailed discussion in Tanaseanu-Döbler, “Weise oder Scharlatane?”; Athanassiadi, “Julian the Theurgist” 196-198, argues that the Juliani were Roman citizens whose family was originally from Syria or Babylon: “... the combination of an indigenous and a Roman element constituting a common pattern in the onomastics of Roman Syria ... Accordingly, I would argue that the name Chaldaeus is in fact the family name of the two Julians” (197).

Oracles of Fire

43

ling of the Juliani as ‘magicians’, ‘astrologers’ or ‘diviners.’ The Neoplatonists consistently (although not exclusively)35 associate theurgy with the Chaldaeans (and with the Chaldaean priestly tradition of Assyrian origin in particular):36 for instance, Iamblichus relates theurgy to “the ancestral teachings of the Assyrians” (τὰ Ἀσσυρίων πάτρια δόγματα) and to the “sages of Chaldaea” (οἱ Χαλδαίων σοφοί), whom he treats synonymously.37 Eunapius, Julian and even Augustine (in an account of Porphyry’s lost work De regressu animae) see the Chaldaeans as authorities on theurgy.38 Consequently, the term ‘Chaldaean’ (as applied to the Oracles) is often understood metaphorically to refer to the elder Julian’s ‘spiritual’ affinity with Eastern wisdom, but it has also been argued that Chaldaea was the actual homeland of Julian pater.39 Several scholars have argued for a Syrian origin for the Oracles and for the Juliani. This claim is partially supported by the occurrence of the expressions ‘Ad’ and ‘Adad’ (the latter of which is the Greek transcription of the Syrian Hadad) in Chaldaean material preserved by Proclus.40 These possible Syrian connections may relate to the oracular

35

Iamblichus’ De mysteriis also refers to Egyptian and Greek religious traditions and practices. 36 On the close connections between theurgy and traditional religious practices (Chaldaean, Greek and Egyptian) – and, therefore, the close relationship between theurgists and priests – cf. Addey, Divination 277-280. 37 Iambl., De myst. I 1 p. 4, 11f. P. = 3, 12-14 S. - S. - L.; I 2 p. 5, 8 P. = 3, 25f. S. S. - L. Cf. also III 31 p. 176, 1f. P. = 131, 27 - 132, 2 S. - S. - L.; VI 7 p. 249, 3-5 P. = 185, 6-8 S. - S. - L.; VII 4 p. 256, 3-9 P. = 190, 10-16 S. - S. - L.; IX 4 p. 278, 6-9 = 205, 27- 206, 4 S. - S. - L.; Uzdavinys 21f.; contra Saffrey, “Abammon ...”, who understood the term in a metaphorical sense with the specific meaning of those who are adept in magic. 38 Iul. Imp., Or. V [VIII] In matrem deorum 172 d - 173 a (cited below, p. 54); Eunapius, VS VI 49-97 p. 28, 19 - 37, 26 Goulet = VI 6-9 p. 27, 11 - 36, 13 Giangrande, especially VI 69f. p. 32, 8-20 Goulet = VI 7, 1f. p. 30, 1-12 Giangrande; VI 70f. p. 32, 14 - 33, 2 Goulet = VI 7, 8f. p. 31, 6-17 Giangrande; Augustine, De civ. X. Cf. Seng, “Oracles chaldaïques” 360f. 39 Cumont 476; Bidez 75. 40 Proclus, In Parm. VII p. 58, 33 - 60, 9 K. - L. (cf. also p. 326f. Steel). See below p. 50 with n. 63. Seng, “Oracles chaldaïques” 361-366 urges caution in seeing the Chaldaean Oracles as Syrian and examines the history of the reception of the Oracles by those who have held that they were originally written in a ‘Chaldaean’ language (Aramaic or Syriac). Although this paper argues that the Oracles were produced in Syria, this does not in any sense entail the assumption that they were originally written in a Chaldaean language rather than Greek, given that by the Roman imperial period Syria was bilingual and used Greek alongside the native language.

44

Crystal Addey

context within which the Oracles were produced, an issue discussed below. As we have seen, the Oracles were believed to have been spoken by the gods through a divinely possessed prophet, possibly Julian the Theurgist. According to Psellus, Julian the Chaldaean had prayed to the gods to obtain for his son an archangelic soul, which he then put into contact (συνέστησε) with all the gods (τοῖς θεοῖς πᾶσι) and also with the soul of Plato which dwelt with Apollo and Hermes.41 Psellus’ report indicates that a wide range of gods were considered to speak to Julian the Theurgist and transmit the Oracles to him.42 The mention of Julian being in contact with the soul of Plato occurs only in the eleventh-century work of Psellus and is difficult to evaluate. Is the statement intended metaphorically (the oracular utterances of Julian attained and were akin to the wisdom of Plato) or does Psellus literally mean that Julian conversed with the soul of Plato? The former metaphorical sense may be suggested by the context within which Psellus writes, given that he includes this anecdote within a treatise on the golden chain of Homer, which Neoplatonists interpreted allegorically as referring to the line of philosophers extending from Pythagoras and Plato through to themselves. Psellus may possibly get his information about the Juliani from Proclus’ commentary on the Chaldaean Oracles and, although he generally follows Proclus closely and faithfully, he may have misunderstood a metaphorical statement made by Proclus as a literal one.43 Certainly, the more literal interpretation would be somewhat unusual for ancient Mediterranean divination, which was more frequently held to entail communication with deities rather than the dead.44 A scenario where the 41

Psellus, Opusc. phil. I 46, 43-51 (On the Golden Chain); cf. Lewy, 224; Dodds, “Theurgy ...” 55-57.65-69 = 283-285.300f.; 295-299.308-311 and Pagan 56f.; Athanassiadi, “The Chaldaean Oracles” 150-152 with n. 3; Athanassiadi, “Julian the Theurgist” 194-196; van den Berg 67; Van den Kerchove 153-156. Cf. also Seng in this volume, p. 63-66 (with Greek text and German translation). 42 Although Psellus does not actually mention the Chaldaean Oracles by name, this is how the text is interpreted by Saffrey, “Les Néoplatoniciens ...”. 43 Hadot, “Théologie ...” 27-34 = 44-52, argues that Psellus’ statement does not refer to the formation of the Chaldaean Oracles themselves (rather, presumably, to other writings of Julian the Theurgist) since the Neoplatonists do not attribute the Oracles to the soul of Plato but to the gods themselves; he cites several passages of Proclus which seem to indicate that the latter distinguished clearly between the teaching of Plato and the Chaldaean Oracles: cf. In Tim. III 257, 3-5; Th. Pl. I 4 p. 20, 1-25 S. - W. 44 Although necromancy is attested in antiquity, how commonly it was practised has been disputed. Cf. Johnston, Ancient Greek Divination 97f.; Johnston, “Delphi and the Dead” 287-297. For an alternative view, cf. Faraone 255-282. Although a few

Oracles of Fire

45

ritual included two human intermediaries one of whom was deceased – in the case of the Oracles, the (deceased) soul of Plato as mouthpiece of the gods and the divinely-inspired prophet – was also unusual in antiquity. However, it seems as though Plato’s soul is divinised in Psellus’ account, in a similar sense to the manner in which the soul of Plotinus is presented in the Oracle on Plotinus (attributed to Apollo) in Porphyry’s Vita.45 Psellus’ anecdote may imply that Plato is conceived of as an archangelic or angelic soul (just as the soul of Julian the Theurgist is described as archangelic in his account), an advanced theurgist, in accordance with the notion of angelic souls which is present within the Chaldaean Oracles themselves, as well as within theurgic iterations of Neoplatonism.46 It is also difficult to assess whether Julian the Theurgist is supposed to have received the Oracles from the soul of Plato and the gods when he was a child or once he reached adulthood, although Psellus’ account suggests the latter;47 it is important to note that independent practitioners were known to use children as seers or mediums in ancient divinatory rituals.48 However, Psellus’ statement must be treated with caution. The Neoplatonists believed in the legitimate character of the inspiration and therefore regularly quote the Oracles of the Dead existed in the Graeco-Roman world, they were only rarely consulted – usually when a family member had a question relating specifically to a deceased relative or ancestor. Several Greek oracles were dedicated to deceased heroes, such as the Oracle of Trophonios at Lebadeia and that of Amphiaraus in Oropus (the latter used dream incubation). However, Psellus’ account – and the oracular context of the Chaldaean Oracles in a broader sense – is very different in tone and character from the evidence for necromancy and the Oracles of the Dead attested in Greek and Latin literary and philosophical sources and (in the case of necromancy) in the so-called “Greek Magical Papyri”. 45 Porphyry, Vita Plot. 22, 23f.: the oracle describes Plotinus as “daimon, once a man, but now nearing the diviner lot of a daimon” (δαῖμον, ἄνερ τὸ πάροιθεν, ἀτὰρ νῦν δαίμονος αἴσῃ θειοτέρῃ πελάων). Psellus’ comment about the soul of Plato might also represent a Christianising interpretation, especially given the Christian veneration and sanctification of the dead. However, this is made far less likely by Psellus’ statement that the idea is “nonsense” (Opusc. phil. I 46, 46), a typical condemnation of Neoplatonic notions clearly made to reassure his Christian readers 46 OC 137f.; Iambl., De myst. II 2 p. 69, 6-13 P. = 51, 24 - 52, 6 S. - S. - L.; II 6 p. 83, 1-5 P. = 62, 13-18 S. - S. - L. Cf. Moreira. 47 Psellus, Opusc. phil. I 46, 43-51. Cf. Seng in this volume, p. 65 n. 8, who notes that Psellus’ account suggests that the prophetic function of the younger Julian seems to have begun before adulthood. 48 On the use of young children and “simple-minded” humans as seers, cf. Iambl., De myst. III 17 p. 142, 4-9 P. = 106, 18-23 S. - S. - L.; III 24 p. 157, 14-17 P. = 118, 1418 S. - S. - L.; Hopfner; Johnston, “Charming Children” 98-115.

46

Crystal Addey

oracles as utterances of the gods without mentioning the Chaldaean prophets who, in their view, played a secondary role in delivering the oracles.49 This increases the methodological problems involved in any attempt to ascertain their original oracular context. Whether the Chaldaean Oracles originally took the form of a continuous poem or a set of discrete oracles is difficult to ascertain,50 but available evidence points towards a collection of separate oracles uttered on different occasions. The key evidence from the Oracles is fragment 217: Δηλοῖ δὲ καὶ τὸ λόγιον ταῦτα διδάσκον· πάσας μὲν γὰρ ἔχει γλυκερὸς πόθος, ὥς κεν Ὄλυμπον ἀθανάτοισι θεοῖσι συνέμποροι αἰὲν ἔχωσιν· οὐ πάσαις δὲ θεμίς ἐπιβήμεναι τῶνδε μελάθρων ... Εἶτα τοῦ λαμβάνοντος τοὺς χρησμοὺς διὰ πλειόνων ὲκδοθέντας ἐρομένου, τίς οὖν ἐστιν ὁ τυγχάνων τῆς εἰς θεοὺς ἀνόδου, καὶ εἰ ὁ τὸν θυτικὸν βίον μάλιστα προστησάμενος, ἐπάγει πάλιν ὁ θεός· oὐχ ὅστις σπλάγχνοισιν ἐπίφρονα θήκατο βουλήν ἤδη καὶ πρὸς Ὄλυμπον ἀποσκεδάσας τόδε σῶμα ᾖξεν ἀειρόμενος ψυχῆς κούφαις πτερύγεσσιν, ἀλλ’ ὅστις σο[φ]... And it is clear that the oracle teaches these things: “A sweet desire takes hold of all (souls) to dwell forever on Olympus as companions to the immortal gods. But not all are permitted to set foot in these halls.” When the person who had received the oracles, which had been delivered to him most fully, asked who it was, then, who achieved the ascent to the gods, and if it was the individual who especially preferred the life of the haruspex, the god added again: “It is not whoever has thoughtfully placed his intention on the entrails (of sacrificial victims) who will immediately go to Olympus after the dissolution of the body, rising aloft on the light wings of the soul, but whoever [is wise...]”51 49

Lewy, 6. Cf. also Athanassiadi, “Julian the Theurgist” 194. Cf. Lewy 36f.; Potter, 226; Seng, ΚΟΣΜΑΓΟΙ 14 with n. 13. 51 OC 217 (= Proclus, In Remp. II 126, 14-26), trs. Majercik with slight emendations. At the end of the excerpt, there is a lacuna of approximately 100 letters in the unique 50

Oracles of Fire

47

In citing this fragment, Proclus includes an oracle, a question addressed to the god (asking for clarification regarding the first oracle) and the second oracle given in response. The use of the phrase ἐπάγει πάλιν ὁ θεός indicates that both oracles were derived from the same deity and possibly from the same oracular sanctuary: it was common for enquirers to pose subsequent questions to the oracle if they wished to receive further clarification or information relating to their original oracular response. Proclus’ gloss and report of the question put to the god is intriguing, most especially the phrase “when the person who had received the oracles, which had been delivered to him most fully” (εἶτα τοῦ λαμβάνοντος τοὺς χρησμοὺς διὰ πλειόνων ἐκδοθέντας ἐρομένου): we should note that the term χρησμός is a far less common designation for the Chaldaean Oracles (and Proclus generally introduces them as τὸ λόγιον) but it was used occasionally.52 This phrase is intriguing since it refers to oracles in the plural being received; it is possible that Proclus might actually be referring to the ritual formation of the Chaldaean Oracles themselves through the prophet Julian the Theurgist here.53 The authenticity of this fragment has been doubted by Kroll although he did not provide any arguments to support his view.54 However, I would like to argue for its authenticity as a genuine fragment of the Chaldaean Oracles: firstly, as Ruth Majercik notes, the vocabulary shares certain parallels with the undoubted fragments.55 Furthermore, Proclus’ method of introducing the first oracle (as τὸ λόγιον) matches his customary method of introducing excerpts from the Chaldaean Oracles, as already MS: thus, the end of this verse and possibly the next verse(s) are missing. Lewy 33, suggests that the final sections contained a definition of the wisdom that procured immortality after death. 52 Hierocles, In aureum carmen p. 112, 9 Koehler, referring to OC 120; John Philoponus, In Arist. cat. p. 6, 13 B., referring to OC 176; Lydus, mens. IV 101 p. 141, 111 W. referring to OC 215 (dubium). Cf. also Seng, “Ein Orakelzitat ...” 92-95 who argues against attributing OC 215 to the Chaldaean Oracles, partially because of the use of the term χρησμός. Toulouse 178 assumes that OC 217 cannot be Chaldaean because this use of the term would be exceptional in Proclus, but he also reads the first designation – τὸ λόγιον – as not definitely proving Chaldaean origin and his analysis assumes that there is no evidence that the Chaldaean Oracles were given in question and answer form. For this evidence, see n. 59 below. 53 Lewy 33 n. 90 reads ‘most fully’ as suggesting that the Oracle had a continuation and that it is quoted by Proclus in an abridged form. 54 Proclus, In Remp. II 126, 14 app. crit. “oraculum a Chaldaicis alienum” (Kroll). 55 Cf. Majercik 219, noting that μελάθρων (plural form of ‘hall’) in line 4 is analogous to αὐλή (‘court’: OC 202); ἀποσκεδάσας in line 9 is used in a post-mortem context but relates to σκίδνασθαι (to be scattered: OC 204). She also notes the verbal parallel and similarities in content between this fragment and OC 107, discussed below.

48

Crystal Addey

noted by Hans Lewy who assumed its authenticity.56 Even more significantly, the stance which the fragment takes towards inductive divination matches the approach displayed in one of the undoubted fragments precisely. As we have seen, OC 217 states that it is not the haruspex who will attain the ascent to the gods, but the one who is wise. This valuation of inductive divination matches the criticism of OC 107 which condemns inductive (or technical) forms of divination, including augury, haruspicy and possibly astrology, contrasting these skills with the piety achieved through virtue, wisdom and good order: Μὴ τὰ πελώρια μέτρα γύης ὑπὸ σὴν φρένα βάλλου· οὐ γὰρ ἀληθείης φυτὸν ἐν χθονί ... Ἀστέριον προπόρευμα σέθεν χάριν οὐκ ἐλοχεύθη. Αἴθριος ὀρνίθων ταρσὸς πλατὺς οὔποτ’ ἀληθής, οὐ θυσιῶν σπλάγχνων τε τομαί· τάδ’ ἀθύρματα πάντα, ἐμπορικῆς ἀπάτης στηρίγματα. Φεῦγε σὺ ταῦτα, μέλλων εὐσεβίης ἱερὸν παράδεισον ἀνοίγειν, ἔνθ’ ἀρετὴ σοφία τε καὶ εὐνομία συνάγονται. Do not cast into your mind the huge measures of earth, for the plant of truth does not exist on earth ... Τhe starry procession has not been brought forth for your sake. The wide-winged flight of birds is never true, nor the cuttings and entrails of sacrificial victims. All these are playthings, the props of commercial fraud. Flee these things, if you would open the sacred paradise of piety, where virtue, wisdom, and good order are brought together.57

The close correspondence in attitude towards haruspicy (and inductive forms of divination in general) and the contrast with wisdom in both cases suggests that fragment 217 is a genuine Chaldaean oracle.58 It is important to note that although the Chaldaean Oracles are scornful of inductive divination, their original formation and the tradition of the Juliani both suggest a more positive attitude towards inspired forms of divination which is also in line with Neoplatonism. An important methodological issue arises here, for Neoplatonist commentators often cited excerpts from the Chaldaean Oracles as confirmation of their metaphysical principles without including their introduction or full content. 56

Cf. Lewy 31-33, who considers this oracle authentic, noting the customary manner in which Proclus introduces the fragment. 57 OC 107, trs. Majercik. Line 6 of this fragment is also cited by Proclus, In Tim. III 124, 31. 58 For OC 107 cf. also Lewy 220.254-257 and Tardieu, “Le paradis chaldaïque ...”.

Oracles of Fire

49

If the fragment is genuine – and I argue for its authenticity – it certainly demonstrates that the literary form of the Oracles was much more variable than the quotations of the Neoplatonists might lead us to suppose. Furthermore, this suggests a possible question and answer format (typical of oracles in general) in their original form.59 Indeed, although the Neoplatonists often omit the interrogative formula when citing fragments of the Oracles, there are numerous traces of a question and answer format in the extant fragments, such as the god directly addressing the enquirer either in the second-person singular or plural, as well as numerous ritual instructions.60 4 The Location and Provenance of the Formation of the Chaldaean Oracles Another important question is whether the Oracles emerged from a public temple or from a private ritual, although the public-private distinction as applied to Mediterranean religions is extremely blurred. Polymnia Athanassiadi has argued convincingly that the Oracles originated from the oracular temple of Zeus Belos in Apamea to which the Juliani may have been attached on the basis of the following evidence: (1) the fact that the Middle Platonist philosopher Numenius lived in Apamea and striking similarities have been detected Numenius’ work and the metaphysical conceptions seen in the Oracles.61 The Middle 59

Cf. also Lewy 34. Cf. Lewy 34-37. The god addresses the questioner directly: OC 1.7.9a.15.47.101107.110-112.115.128f.132.135.142f.146-150.157f.163-166. Further oracles which offer advice, injunctions or prohibitions: 2.17.97.113.116.121.124.130.133f.140f. 145. The god speaks in the first person, possibly suggesting a direct address to the enquirer given that this was a common formulation within oracular responses: OC 72. Proclus’ gloss on OC 48 suggests that this oracular fragment may also have issued instructions to theurgists. This list has omitted the dubious fragments (211226) because their authenticity as Chaldaean has been questioned. 61 The clearest parallels between Numenius and the Chaldaean Oracles are found in the theological statements of the two systems: Numenius’ transcendent First God is mirrored in the First Father of the Oracles: cf. OC 3; 5 (First Father entrusts its power to Second Father / Intellect); 7 (the latter fragment is almost identical with Numenius, fr. 17). Cf. Numenius, fr. 11.12.13.15.19 (all on the relationship between the First God and the Second God, the latter identified with the Demiurge). Cf. the discussion in Seng, “Oracles chaldaïques” 375-377. Although Hadot, “Bilan ...” 708 concludes: “il ne faut pas exagérer la parenté entre Numénius et les Oracles”, the parallels indicated above suggest a close correspondence between Numenius and the Oracles which seems to go well beyond a common source or the shared Middle Pla60

50

Crystal Addey

Platonic milieu and background of the Oracles is widely recognised by scholars;62 (2) the fact that in Apamea and Palmyra the name Bel served as an epithet of the cosmic deity Adad, whose identification with the Second Father of the Chaldaean Oracles is reported by Proclus; he also connects the terms Ad and Adad (which he equates with the First Father and Second Father respectively) with the Syriac language (and, by implication, with Syria);63 (3) the presence of the letter sequence KLDY in several Palmyrene funerary inscriptions, which some archaeologists think stands for ‘Chaldaean’; (4) a bilingual inscription discovered on an altar in Vaison-la-Romaine in Provence addressed to the god Bel, “lord of the νοῦς,” which states that the dedicator Sextus set up the altar to Bel: Εἰθυντῆρι Τύχης Βήλω Σέξστος θέτο βωμὸν τῶν ἐν ̓Απαμεία μνησάμενος λογίων. To the governor of Fortune, Belus, Sextus has dedicated an altar in remembrance of the oracles found at Apamea.

The parallel Latin reads: Belus Fortunae rector mentisque magister ara gaudebit quam dedit et voluit. Belus, governor of Fortune, lord of the Nous will rejoice in the altar that Sextus has dedicated to him with all his heart [lit. “which he has given and wanted”].64 tonic milieu and background; indeed, Dodds, “New Light ...” 270f. = 699f. argued that “these agreements must seem too many and too specific to be accidental ... Some sort of bridge must have linked the two systems, but I find it hard to be quite sure which way the traffic ran. It could even have been a two-way traffic, since so far as our scanty knowledge goes Numenius and Julianus may well have been contemporaries” (271 = 700); Athanassiadi, “Julian the Theurgist” 199: “... the resemblances between the two texts suggest personal contact in a common milieu: for, if one listens carefully, one may hear a continuous dialogue between two individuals with distinct talents and vocations who have blossomed in the same environment.” Athanassiadi also argues (199f.) that Numenius, fr. 11 describes the prophet’s visitation by the Second God (Bel-Hadad). 62 Cf. for example Dillon 392-96; Majercik 3-5; Tanaseanu-Döbler, Theurgy 22-25. 63 Proclus, In Parm. VII p. 58, 33 - 60, 9 K. - L. (cf. also p. 326f. Steel). Cf. Athanassiadi, “Apamea ...” 122. Proclus’ testimony is discussed in Saffrey, “Les Néoplatoniciens ...” 220-225 = 74-79 and Seng, “Ἅπαξ ...” 38-41. 64 IG XIV 2482 and CIL XII 1277; trs. Athanassiadi; Athanassiadi, “The Chaldaean Oracles” 153-156; “Apamea ...”

Oracles of Fire

51

Although the identification of these oracles with the Chaldaean Oracles is uncertain, the combination of the plural form of λόγια (with a regular oracle we might rather expect the singular form of this term) with the phrase “in Apamea” allows for the interpretation that Sextus was instructed by the Chaldaean Oracles to build the altar for Bel. The presence of this inscription on an altar built for the god Bel also suggests a ritual context concomitant with the Chaldaean ritual tradition. Furthermore, the particularly vicious and complete desecration of the temple and its surroundings in Apamea by the Christians at the end of the fourth century and the transfer of a significant Christian relic (a socalled fragment of the cross of Christ) to Apamea at this time, points to the importance of this temple and the flourishing of traditional polytheistic religious practices in Apamea. When this is combined with the philosophical importance of Apamea (see below), this may further indicate that this temple was the location where the Chaldaean Oracles were produced and stored. On the basis of this evidence, it is possible that the Juliani were philosopher-priests linked with the Temple of Zeus Belos in Apamea (possibly known to and interacting with Numenius himself), in which the oracle collection was located which has come to be known as the Chaldaean Oracles. The evidence set out above is circumstantial and so any conclusion regarding the provenance of the Chaldaean Oracles remains speculative. For instance, Helmut Seng has examined the Palmyrene inscriptions (no. 3 above) and the uncertain meaning of the designation KLDY within them, noting that evidence from Palmyra is not necessarily significant for Apamea itself (especially since Palmyra also had a Temple of Bel).65 He also raises the issue of several other late antique references to oracles from the Temple of Zeus-Belos at Apamea which are definitely not to be identified with the Chaldaean Oracles, particularly those recorded by Cassius Dio as given to the emperors Septimus Severus and Macrinus.66 Yet if the Chaldaean Oracles were an oracle-collection linked with a mystery cult located at the Temple of Zeus-Belos at Apamea (see below for further discussion), then this accounts for Dio’s lack of mention of them and his citation of oracular responses not associated with the Chaldaean Oracles.67 Furthermore, already in the classical period, 65

Seng, “Oracles chaldaïques” 368-374. Cassius Dio LXXIX [LXXVIII] 8, 5f.; 40, 3f. Cf. Seng, “Oracles chaldaïques” 379; Balty, “L’oracle d’Apamée” 5-14 and “Le sanctuaire ...” 791-799. 67 It is important to note that Cassius Dio does not write as though he has visited the oracle of Zeus-Belos at Apamea himself but has heard about the oracles he quotes indirectly at least third-hand. 66

52

Crystal Addey

Herodotus had called the priests in oracular temples of Zeus-Belos Chaldaioi (Χαλδαῖοι).68 Arrian relates the involvement of the Chaldaeans with the oracle of Bel: he says that Chaldaean priests, on the basis of an oracle of Bel, warned Alexander the Great not to enter Babylon; interestingly the term used for the oracle here is λόγιον.69 Thus, the Chaldaeans had been closely associated with oracular temples of Zeus-Belos since at least the classical period. The evidence cited above assembled by Athanassiadi, when taken together, means that this hypothesis is possible and extremely attractive, especially given the flourishing religious atmosphere surrounding this temple Bel at Apamea and its longevity in the face of increasing Christianisation; the concurrent philosophical atmosphere is also extremely suggestive, with many Neoplatonists either originating from or moving to Apamea.70 Iamblichus’ decision to set up his school in Apamea may have been influenced by the latter being associated with the Chaldaean Oracles.71 Amelius’ decision to move to Apamea after Plotinus’ death may well also be relevant here, given the former’s reputation for piety and religious devotion.72 If the Oracles originated from a sanctuary located elsewhere, a temple of Zeus, Apollo or Hekate in Syria (or Asia Minor) remains the most likely source of the Oracles: a traditional religious context seems most probable.73 However, we cannot rule out the possibility of a private theurgic ritual context. Again, given the incorporation of traditional religious practices within the scope of theurgy in Neoplatonism, either a

68

Herodotus I 181-183. Arrian, Anabasis VII 16f. 70 As well as Numenius, the Stoic philosopher Posidonius (ca.135 - ca. 51 B. C.) was also a native of Apamea; he was unique among the Stoics for his extraordinary range of interests and knowledge: cf. Smith 122-127 on the philosophical atmosphere of Apamea. He argues for an Epicurean community in the city under the Roman empire on the basis of the inscription about Aurelius Belius Philippus. 71 Fowden 41 notes that epigraphic evidence demonstrates that the process of Christianization started considerably later in the Apamea region than round Antioch, which indicates the predominant polytheism of Apamea. 72 Porph., Vita Plot. 2; however, it is important to note that Amelius greatly admired Numenius and that this may represent his chief reason for moving to Apamea (Vita Plot. 17). 73 Cf. also Tanaseanu-Döbler, Theurgy 25: “ ... the Oracles develop their worldview in close connection with the Greek religious tradition and thus aim at a Hellenised educated public (given also the mostly hexametric form and the preference of Ionic word variations).” 69

Oracles of Fire

53

public or private ritual context is perfectly compatible with the picture of theurgy presented by Iamblichus and his successors. One of the barriers which seems to have discouraged scholars from viewing the Chaldaean Oracles as an oracle-collection, and from postulating an origin in a public oracular institution such as the Temple of Zeus Belos in Apamea, is the complex yet broadly unified metaphysical and cosmological system which emerges from many of the surviving fragments and suggests a certain continuity or at least a common philosophical background to the collection. However, this perceived difficulty partially arises from the anachronistic (modern) separation of philosophy and religion: on the contrary, in the imperial Roman and late antique periods, philosophers were often also priests who served at oracular sanctuaries. Plutarch of Chaeronea is the most famous example as a priest at Delphi, but many others are attested in epigraphic evidence, including a priest of the Temple of Bel called Aurelius Belius Philippus who was also the Head of the Epicurean school in Apamea (διάδοχος ἐν Α ̕ παμεία τῶν ̕Επικουρείων) in the second or third century A. D.74 Furthermore, an inscription from Didyma (ca. second or third century A. D) mentions Philidas as both a prophet and Epicurean philosopher (προφήτης, φιλόσοφος, Ε ̓ πικούρειος), a priest of the oracle of Apollo at Didyma.75 If these Epicurean philosophers were priests at oracular sanctuaries, even given the Epicurean school’s general rejection of divination, it is even more likely that Platonist philosophers may have held priestly offices or cultivated close friendships with priests in their

74

If Numenius was personally acquainted with this priest it may have affected his positive evaluation of the Epicureans, who in his view follow their founder closely without innovation or deviation: cf. Numenius, fr. 24, 22-36. 75 Aurelius Belius Philippus, whose theophoric name bears Greek, Roman and Semitic influence: Rey-Coquais 39-84; Smith 120-130 dates the inscription to the second or third century A. D. although Rey-Coquais argued for a later date on the basis of the congeniality of Julian’s reign to philosophers especially those from Apamea; however, as Smith notes, by Julian’s reign Epicureanism was virtually extinct and the lettering and style of the inscription do not preclude a date of the second or third century A. D. The inscription about Philidas was first published by Le Bas - Waddington, n° 239. It appears in Rehm - Harder, n° 285: Appointment was by lot, but a carefully prepared shortlist of candidates must have been drawn up, for the prophet had duties which necessitated the expenditure of substantial sums of his own money and Philidas, who, so the inscription claims, was descended from Ajax, was evidently a member of one of the leading families which in the Roman period supplied most of the prophets.

54

Crystal Addey

local vicinity.76 We certainly know that this was the case with Proclus, who was friends with the priest, seer and theurgist Nestorius, and that Iamblichus himself was descended from Syrian priests.77 Furthermore if the Chaldaean prophets who were responsible for the Chaldaean oracle collection formed a mystery cult then the shared metaphysical, philosophical and theological schema of the Oracles becomes even easier to account for. The emperor Julian characterises the Chaldaean revelation as a mystery cult and seems to refer to one of the Juliani: Εἰ δὲ καὶ τῆς ἀρρήτου μυσταγωγίας ἁψαίμην, ἣν ὁ Χαλδαῖος περὶ τὸν ἑπτάκτινα θεὸν ἐβάκχευσεν ἀνάγων δι’ αὐτοῦ τὰς ψυχάς, ἄγνωστα ἐρῶ, καὶ μάλα γε ἄγνωστα τῷ συρφετῷ, θεουργοῖς δὲ τοῖς μακαρίοις γνώριμα· And if I should also touch on the secret teaching of the Mysteries, in which the Chaldaean, divinely frenzied, celebrated the God of the Seven Rays, that god through whom he lifts up the souls of men, I should be saying what is unintelligible, indeed wholly unintelligible to the common herd, but familiar to the blessed theurgists.78

That Julian’s account here faithfully reflects the Chaldaean system rather than representing a later Neoplatonic interpretation is confirmed by the injunction in fragment 110 to seek out the ‘channel’ or ‘solar’ ray of the soul (ψυχῆς ὀχετόν) and to discover how to elevate the soul through this solar ray by using ritual action.79 Several fragments of the Oracles explicitly refer to theurgic ritual practices and characterise the praxis using mystery cult terminology.80 Furthermore, the Suda characterises Julian the Chaldaean as the preserver and safeguard of “the Chaldaean initiations” (τὰ τελεσιουργικὰ Χαλδαϊκά).81 Eunapius’ Vitae Sophistarum presents Sosipatra, a female philosopher, prophetess and theurgist who 76

For a detailed discussion of the case of Aurelius Belius Philippus and the issue of the possible conflict between his priesthood and his Epicurean allegiance (with regard to the Epicurean rejection of divination and famous injunctions against involvement in politics or public affairs), cf. Smith 127-130. 77 Cf. Addey, Divination 280. 78 Iul. Imp., Or. V [VIII] In matrem deorum 172 d - 173 a. 79 For the identification of the “channel” (ὀχετόν) with “solar ray”, cf. Lewy 189 and n. 45; Majercik 183. 80 OC 132f.135. Scholars who have worked most extensively on the Chaldaean Oracles have placed them within the context of a mystery cult: cf. Bidez 73-81; Lewy 38f.177.210f.; Majercik 5; Tanseanu-Döbler, Theurgy 31. 81 Suda Ι 433, II 641, 33f. Adler.

Oracles of Fire

55

married Iamblichus’ student Eustathius, as trained and initiated by Chaldaean prophets, who characterise the Chaldaean tradition as a mystery cult.82 Proclus also frequently describes the Chaldaean tradition as a mystery cult using the terminology of “initiations and mysteries.”83 This view of the Chaldaean Oracles correlates closely with the Neoplatonic views of theurgy as a mystery cult.84 Furthermore, viewing the Chaldaean tradition as a mystery cult is perfectly compatible with locating the oracle-collection in the Temple of Zeus-Belos in Apamea, given that we have evidence which links oracles with mystery cults in antiquity: for example, epigraphic evidence attests to the initiation of clients into a mystery cult prior to consultation of the Oracle of Claros, and there also seem to have been links with mystery cults at the Oracle of Didyma and the Oracle of Trophonios in Boeotia.85 5 Conclusion To conclude, the formation of the Chaldaean Oracles represents a form of inspired divination, the utterances of a prophet-theurgist who was thought to be divinely inspired. In this respect, they represent an important example of theurgic divination; indeed, they were viewed by Porphyry, Iamblichus and Proclus as the paradigmatic example of theurgic divination.86 The Oracles’ terminology of fire, particularly its characterisation of the Empyrean or intelligible realm as ‘fiery’, is directly related to the Neoplatonic terminology of divine illumination used to characterise divine possession, divination rituals and contact with the divine; for Iamblichus and Proclus, divine possession was considered to be supra-rational and to provide (at its apex and culmination, for those 82

Eunapius, VS VI 63-73 p. 31, 6- 33, 11 Goulet = VI 7 p. 30, 1 - 32, 3 Giangrande. Cf. Becker 287.291-299; Lanzi; Tanaseanu-Döbler, “Sosipatra” 129f.; Addey, “Sosipatra” 148-150. Cf. also Fichera in this volume. 83 Cf. for example Proclus, In Remp. I 110, 8 - 111, 2. 84 Cf. for example, Proclus, In Crat. 100, 20 - 101, 5; Iul. Imp., Or. V [VIII] In matrem deorum 172 d - 173 a (cited above, p. 54). Cf. also Addey, Divination 33f. 85 Oracle of Claros: Merkelbach - Stauber n° 2; cf. Oesterheld 54; Macridy, “Altertümer ...” 165.170, n° 2.4 and “Antiquités ...” 46-52, n° 2.15.16.20; Busine 193f. Didyma: Fontenrose 125-130. Cf. also Addey, Divination 55-57 for a more detailed discussion of the evidence linking oracles and mystery cults. 86 It should be noted that this does not negate or exclude the importance of Greek and Egyptian forms of divination for Porphyry, Iamblichus and Proclus, since (as noted above) all of these Neoplatonists held that divine truth was transmitted in diversified and polyvalent (rather than monolithic) contexts.

56

Crystal Addey

who have cultivated their receptivity to the requisite level) a vision of intelligible reality.87 Consequently, the emphasis on cosmological, metaphysical and divine matters in the extant fragments, and the ritual instructions for ascent to the divine, are probably typical of theurgic oracles and divination, although the lack of surviving evidence makes this difficult to establish with certainty. Given the role of the Chaldaean Oracles as a form of theurgic divination, there is substantial evidence that they originally constituted an oracle-collection comprised of a set of discrete oracles, rather than a continuous poem. This situates the Oracles within a well-established tradition of oracle collections in Greece, Asia Minor and the Mediterranean. The Oracles could have been produced in either a public temple or in the course of a private theurgic ritual: current evidence points towards a provenance in the Temple of Zeus Belos in Apamea, although this remains somewhat uncertain. Furthermore, the Chaldaean tradition which lies in the background of the Oracles can be plausibly contextualised as a mystery cult which may have been located and based in an oracular sanctuary. As the paradigmatic example of theurgic divination for Porphyry, Iamblichus and Proclus, the ‘oracles of fire’ became central not only to the development of Neoplatonic metaphysics but also to the development and use of divination and theurgy within the later Platonic tradition.

87

Iambl., De myst. III 31 (especially p. 176, 1f. P. = 131, 27 - 132, 2 S. - S. - L. and p. 179, 4-11 P. = 134, 12-19 S. - S. - L.); Proclus, In Crat. 31, 7-19. Cf. also Lewy 201-204; Addey, Divination 215-282.

Oracles of Fire

57

Bibliography 1 Editions, translations, commentaries Damascius Dubitationes et solutiones de primis principiis. Damascius. Traités des premiers principes. Texte établi par L. G. Westerink et traduit par J. Combès. I-III Paris 1986-1991. In Platonis Parmenidem Damascius. Commentaire du Parménide de Platon. Texte établi par L. G. Westerink (†), introduit, traduit et commenté par J. Combès avec la collaboration de A.-P. Segonds. I-IV Paris 1997-2003. Eunapius Vitae Sophistarum Eunapii Vitae Sophistarum. I. Giangrande recensuit. Rome 1956. Becker, M.: Eunapios aus Sardes, Biographien über Philosophen und Sophisten. Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar. Stuttgart 2013. (Roma æterna 1). Herodotus Historiae Herodoti Historiae. Vol. I libros I-IV continens. Edidit H. B. Rosén. Leipzig 1987. Iamblichus De mysteriis Jamblique. Réponse à Porphyre (De mysteriis). Texte établi, traduit et annoté par H. D. Saffrey et A.-P. Segonds. Avec la collaboration de A. Lecerf. Paris 2013. Iamblichus: De mysteriis, Translated with an introduction and Notes by E. C. Clarke, J. M. Dillon and J. P. Hershbell. Atlanta 2003. (Writings from the Greco-Roman World 4). Inscriptions from Didyma Wiegand, T.: Didyma. Zweiter Teil: Die Inschriften. Von A. Rehm. Herausgegeben von R. Harder. Berlin 1958. Julian Opera

L’empereur Julien. Œuvres complètes. II Discours de Julien empereur. 1 Texte établi et traduit par G. Rochefort. Paris 1963.

58

Crystal Addey The works of the Emperor Julian. With an English translation by W. C. Wright. I London – New York 1913.

Marinus Proclus, ou sur le Bonheur. Texte établi, traduit et annoté par H. D. Saffrey et A.-P. Segonds. Paris 2001. Neoplatonic Saints. The Lives of Plotinus and Proclus by their Students. Translated with an introduction by Mark Edwards. Liverpool 2000. Numenius Numénius. Fragments. Texte établi et traduit par É. des Places. Paris 1973. Oracles from Claros Merkelbach, R. - Stauber, J.: „Die Orakel des Apollon von Klaros.“ Epigraphica Anatolica 27 (1996) 1-54. [= Merkelbach, R.: Philologica. Ausgewählte Kleine Schriften. Herausgegeben von W. Blümel, H. Engelmann, B. Kramer, J. Kramer, C. E. Römer. Stuttgart – Leipzig 1997. 155-218.]. Oracula Chaldaica Oracles Chaldaïques avec un choix de commentaires anciens. Texte établi et traduit par É. des Places. Paris 1971. Deuxième tirage revu et corrigé 1989. Troisième tirage revue et corrigé par A.-P. Segonds 1996. The Chaldean Oracles. Text, translation and commentary by R. Majercik. Leiden 1989. (SGRR 5). Plethon Magica logia Μαγικὰ λόγια τῶν ἀπὸ Ζωροάστρου μάγων. Γεωργίου Γεμιστοῦ Πλήθωνος Ἐξήγησις εἰς τὰ αὐτὰ λόγια. Oracles chaldaïques. Recension de Georges Gémiste Pléthon. Édition critique, traduction et commentaire par B. Tambrun-Krasker. La recension arabe des Μαγικὰ λόγια par M. Tardieu. Athens – Paris – Bruxelles 1995. Porphyry Vita Plotini Plotini opera. I Porphyrii vita Plotini. Enneades I-III. Ediderunt P. Henry et H.-R. Schwyzer. Paris – Bruxelles 1951. (Museum Lessianum Series Philosophica 33). Plotinus with an English translation by A. H.Armstrong. I Porphyry on the life of Plotinus and the order pf his books. Enneads I. 1-9. London – Cambridge (Mass.) 1966. Proclus De philosophia Chaldaica Philosophia Chaldaica. Extraits du commentaire de Proclus sur la philosophie chaldaïque. In: des Places, Oracles 206-212 (  Oracula Chaldaica).

Oracles of Fire

59

Hymni

Proclus’ Hymns. Essays, Translations, Commentary by R. M. van den Berg. Leiden – Boston – Köln 2001. (Philosophia antiqua 90). In Cratylum Procli Diadochi in Platonis Cratylum commentaria. Edidit G. Pasquali. Leipzig 1908. (repr. Stuttgart – Leipzig 1994). In Parmenidem In Parmenidem VII. Parmenides usque ad finem primae hypothesis nec non Procli commentarium in Parmenidem. Pars ultima adhuc inedita interprete G. de Moerbeka. Ediderunt praefatione et adnotationibus instruxerunt R. Klibansky et C. Labowski. London 1953. (repr. Nendeln 1973). (Plato Latinus 3). Procli in Platonis Parmenidem commentaria edidit C. Steel. Tomus III libros VI-VII et indices continens. Textum Graecum recognoverunt brevique adnotatione critica instruxerunt L. Van Campe et C. Steel. Ultimam partem ex Latino in Graecum vertit C. Steel. Oxford 2009. In Rempublicam Procli Diadochi in Platonis Rem Publicam commentarii. Edidit G. Kroll. I-II Leipzig 1899-1901. (repr. Amsterdam 1965). In Timaeum Procli Diadochi in Platonis Timaeum commentaria. Edidit E. Diehl. I-III Leipzig 1903-1906. (repr. Amsterdam 1965). Theologia Platonica Proclus, Théologie Platonicienne. Texte établi et traduit par H. D. Saffrey et L. G. Westerink. I-VI Paris 1968-1997. Psellus Opuscula philosophica Michaelis Pselli philosophica minora. I edidit J. M. Duffy. Stuttgart – Leipzig 1992. II edidit D. J. O’Meara. Leipzig 1989. Suda

Suidae Lexicon edidit A. Adler. I-V Leipzig 1928-1938.

2 Secondary literature Addey, C.: Divination and Theurgy in Neoplatonism. Oracles of the gods. Farnham – Burlington (Vt.) 2014. Addey, C.: “Sosipatra: prophetess, philosopher and theurgist. Reflections on divination and epistemology in late antiquity.” In: Evans, R. (ed.): Prophets and Profits. Ancient Divination and Its Reception. London – New York 2018. 144-161. Athanassiadi, P.: “The Chaldaean Oracles: Theology and Theurgy.” In: Athanassiadi, P. - Frede, M. (ed.): Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity. Oxford 1999. 149183.

60

Crystal Addey

Athanassiadi, P.: “Byzantine Commentators on the Chaldean Oracles: Psellos and Plethon.” In: Ierodiakonou, K. (ed.): Byzantine Philosophy and its Ancient Sources. Oxford 2002. 237-252. Athanassiadi, P.: “Apamea and the Chaldaean Oracles: A holy city and a holy book.” In: Smith, A. (ed.): The philosopher and society in late antiquity. Essays in honour of Peter Brown). Swansea 2005. 117-143. Athanassiadi, P.: „Julian the Theurgist: man or myth? The state of the question.“ In: Seng - Tardieu (ed.) 193-208. Balty, J.: “L’oracle d’ Apamée.” L’antiquité classique 50 (1981) 5-14. Balty, J.: “Le sanctuaire oraculaire de Zeus Bêlos à Apamée.” Topoi 7 (1997) 791799. Becker  Eunapius. van den Berg  Proclus, Hymns. Bidez, J.: La vie de l’Empereur Julian. Paris 1930. (repr. 1965). Burns, D.: “The Chaldean Oracles of Zoroaster, Hekate’s couch, and Platonic Orientalism in Psellos and Plethon.” Aries 6 (2006) 158-179. Busine, A.: Paroles d’Apollon. Pratiques et traditions oraculaires dans l’Antiquité tardive (IIe-VIe siècles). Leiden – Boston 2005. (RGRW 156). Cumont, F.: La Théologie solaire du paganisme romain. Paris 1909. Dillon, J. M.: The Middle Platonists. 80 B.C. to A.D. 220. Ithaca (N. Y.) 21996. (London 11977). Dodds, E. R.: „Theurgy and its Relationship to Neoplatonism.“ JRS 37 (1947) 55-69. [= Dodds, E. R.: The Greeks and the irrational. Berkeley 1951. 283-311]. Dodds, E. R.: „New Light on the ‚Chaldaean Oracles‘.“ HThR 54 (1961) 263-273. [= Lewy 693-701]. Dodds, E. R.: Pagan and Christian in an age of anxiety. Some aspects of religious experience from Marcus Aurelius to Constantine. Cambridge 1965. Faraone, C.: “Necromancy goes Underground: The Disguise of Skull and Corpse Divination in the Paris Magical Papyri (PGM IV 1928-2144). In: Johnston, S. I. - Struck, P. T. (ed.) 255-282. Fowden, G.: “The Pagan Holy Man in Late Antique Society.” JHS 102 (1982) 33-59. Finamore, J. - Johnston, S. I.: “The Chaldaean Oracles.” In: Gerson, L. (ed.): The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity. Cambridge 2010. 161173. Fontenrose, J.: Didyma. Apollo’s Oracle, Cult, and Companions. Berkeley – Los Angeles – London 1988. Hadot, P.: “Bilan et perspectives sur les Oracles Chaldaïques.” In: Lewy 703-720. Hadot, P.: “Théologie, exégèse, révélation, écriture dans la philosophie grecque.” In Tardieu, M. (ed.): Les règles de l’interprétation. Paris 1987. 13-34. [= Hadot, P.: Études de Philosophie Ancienne. Paris 1998. 27-58]. Hopfner, T.: „Die Kindermedien in den griechisch-ägyptischen Zauberpapyri.“ In: Recueil d’études dédiées à la mémoire de N. P. Kondakov. Prag 1926. 65-74. Johnston, S. I.: Hekate Soteira. A study of Hekate’s roles in the Chaldean Oracles and related literature. Atlanta 1990. (American Classical Studies 21). Johnston, S. I.: “Riders in the Sky: Cavalier Gods and Theurgic Salvation in the Second Century AD.” CPh 87 (1992) 303-321.

Oracles of Fire

61

Johnston, S. I.: “Charming Children: The Use of the Child in Ancient Divination.” Arethusa 34 (2001) 97-117. Johnston, S. I.: “Delphi and the Dead.” In Johnston - Struck (ed.) 283-306. Johnston, S. I: Ancient Greek Divination. Malden – Oxford 2008. Johnston, S. I. - Struck, P. T. (ed.): Mantikê. Studies in Ancient Divination. Leiden – Boston 2005. (RGRW 155). Kaldellis, A.: Hellenism in Byzantium. The Transformation of Greek Identity and the Reception of the Classical Tradition. Cambridge 2007. Lanzi, S.: “Sosipatra, la teurga: una “holy woman” iniziata ai misteri caldaici.” Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni 70 (2004) 275-294. Le Bas, P. - Waddington, W. H.: Voyage archéologique en Grèce et en Asie Mineure. III Paris 1870. Lecerf, A. - Saudelli, L. - Seng, H. (ed.): Oracles Chaldaïques : fragments et philosophie. Heidelberg 2014. (Bibliotheca Chaldaica 4). Lewy, H.: Chaldaean Oracles and Theurgy. Mysticism Magic and Platonism in the Later Roman Empire. Troisième édition par M. Tardieu avec un supplément « Les Oracles chaldaïques 1891-2011 ». Paris 2011. (1Le Caire 1956, 2Paris 1978). Macridy, T.: “Altertümer von Notion,” JÖAI 8 (1905) 155-173. Macridy, T.: “Antiquités de Notion II.” JÖAI 15 (1912) 36-67. Majercik  Oracula Chaldaica. Moreira, J. C.: “The Pure Human Soul in Iamblichus: Divine or Angelic?” In: D’Amico, C. - Finamore, J. F. - Strok, N. (ed.): Platonic Inquiries. Selected Papers from the Thirteenth Annual Conference of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies. Westbury 2017. 175-186. Muscolino, G.: “Magia, stregoneria, teosofia e teurgia. La trasformazione del Neoplatonismo.” In: Porfirio. La filosofia rivelata dagli oracoli con tutti frammenti di magia, stregoneria, teosofia e teurgia. Testi greci e latini a fronte, Monografia introduttiva di G. Girgenti, Saggio interpretativo, traduzione, note e apparati di G. Muscolino. Milano 2011. cxvii-ccxi. Oesterheld, C.: Göttliche Botschaften für zweifelnde Menschen. Pragmatik und Orientierungsleistung der Apollon-Orakel von Klaros und Didyma in hellenistisch-römischer Zeit. Göttingen 2008. (Hypomnemata 174). Potter, D.: Review of R. Majercik, The Chaldean Oracles. JRS 81 (1991) 225-227. Rehm - Harder  Inscriptions from Didyma. Rey-Coquais, P.: “Inscriptions grecques d’Apamée.” Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 23 (1973) 39-84. Saffrey, H. D.: “Abammon, Pseudonyme de Jamblique.” In: Palmer, R. B. Hamerton-Kelly, R. G. (ed.): Philomathes: Studies and Essays in the Humanities in Memory of Philip Merlan. The Hague 1971. 227-239. Saffrey, H. D.: „Les Neoplatoniciens et les Oracles Chaldaïques.“ REAug 27 (1981) 209-225. [= Saffrey, H. D.: Recherches sur le néoplatonisme après Plotin. Paris 1990. 63-79. (Histoire des doctrines de l’antiquité classique 14). Seng, H.: ΚΟΣΜΑΓΟΙ, ΑΖΩΝΟΙ, ΖΩΝΑΙΟΙ. Drei Begriffe chaldaeischer Kosmologie und ihr Fortleben. Heidelberg 2009. (Bibliotheca Chaldaica 1).

62

Crystal Addey

Seng, H.: „Chaldaeerrhetorik bei Michael Psellos.“ In: Criscuolo, U. (ed.): La retorica greca fra tardo antico ed età bizantina: idee e forme. Convegno Internazionale Napoli 27 - 29 ottobre 2011. Napoli 2012. 355-369. (Collectanea 31). Seng, H.: “Ἅπαξ ἐπέκεινα und δὶς ἐπέκεινα.” In: Lecerf - Saudelli - Seng (ed.) 31-46. Seng, H.: Un livre sacré de l’Antiquité tardive: Les Oracles Chaldaïques. Turnhout 2016. (Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études – Sciences Religieuses 170). Seng, H.: “Oracles chaldaïques. Une fiction féconde.” In Aufrère, S. - Möri, F. (ed.): Alexandrie la divine. Sagesses barbares. Echanges et réappropriations dans l’espace culturel gréco-romain. Actes du colloque scientifique international, Fondation Martin Bodmer Cologny – Genève, 27-30 août 2014. Genève 2016. 357-387. (357-79). Seng, H.: “Theologische Orakel zwischen Metaphysik und Ritual.” In: Seng, H. Sfameni Gasparro, G. (ed.): Theologische Orakel in der Spätantike 2016. 145-170. (Bibliotheca Chaldaica 5). Seng, H.: „Ein Orakelzitat bei Johannes Lydos, De mensibus IV 101 p. 141, 1-11 Wuensch (OC 215 dubium des Places).“ ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ 40 (2016) 429-446. Seng, H.: „Langage des dieux et langage des hommes dans les Oracles Chaldaïques.“ In: Hoffmann, P. - Soares Santoprete, L. (ed.): Langage des dieux, langage des démons, langage des hommes dans l’Antiquité. Turnhout 2017. 53-77. (Recherches sur les rhétoriques religieuses 26). Seng, H. - Tardieu, M. (ed.): Die Chaldaeischen Orakel: Kontext – Interpretation – Rezeption. Heidelberg 2010. (Bibliotheca Chaldaica 2). Smith, M. E.: “An Epicurean Priest from Apamea in Syria.” ZPE 112 (1996) 120-130. Tambrun, B.: Pléthon. Le retour de Platon. Paris 2006. Tanaseanu-Döbler, I.: Theurgy in Late Antiquity. The Invention of a Ritual Tradition. Göttingen – Bristol (Conn.) 2013. (BERG 1). Tanaseanu-Döbler, I.: „Weise oder Scharlatane? Chaldaeerbilder der griechischrömischen Kaiserzeit und die Chaldaeischen Orakel.“ In: Seng - Tardieu (ed.) 19-42. Tanaseanu-Döbler, I.: “Sosipatra – Role Models for ‘Divine’ Women in Late Antiquity.” In: Dzielska, M. - Twardowska, K. (ed.): Divine Men and Women in the history and society of late Hellenism. Crakow 2013. 123-147. Tardieu, M.: „Concordance.“ In: Lewy 679-691. Tardieu, M.: „Le paradis chaldaïque (fr. 107 et 165).“ In: Lecerf - Saudelli - Seng (ed.) 15-29. Theiler, W.: Die chaldäischen Orakel und die Hymnen des Synesios. Halle 1942. (SKGG 18, 1). [= Theiler, W.: Forschungen zum Neuplatonismus. Berlin 1966. 252-301]. Toulouse, S.: “Que le vrai sacrifice est celui d’un cœur pur. À propos d’un oracle ‚porphyrien‘ dans le liber XXI sententiarum édité parmi les œuvres d’Augustin.“ Recherches Augustiniennes 32 (2001) 169-223. Uzdavinys, A.: “Chaldean Divination and the Ascent to Heaven.” In: Curry, P. Voss, A. (ed.): Seeing with Different Eyes: Essays in Astrology and Divination. Cambridge 2007. 21-34. Van den Kerchove, A,: “Le mode de revelation dans les Oracles Chaldaïques et dans les traités hermétiques.” In: Seng - Tardieu (ed.) 145-162. Westerink, L. G.: “Proclus, Procopius, Psellus.” Mnemosyne 10 (1942) 275-280.

Helmut Seng

Zuschreibungen der Chaldaeischen Orakel von Porphyrios bis Patrizi Im Zusammenhang mit den Chaldaeischen Orakeln (= OC) wird häufig die folgende Anekdote zitiert, die bei dem byzantinischen Universalgelehrten Michael Psellos überliefert ist:1 ... οἱ ἐπὶ τοῦ Μάρκου Ἰουλιανοί· ὁ μὲν γάρ τις αὐτῶν πρεσβύτερος ἦν, ὁ δὲ νεώτερος. περὶ δὲ τοῦ νεωτέρου, ἵνα τι μικρὸν ἐκκόψω τὸν λόγον, καὶ τοιοῦτον ἐπιθρυλλεῖται φλυάρημα, ὡς ὁ πατήρ, ἐπεὶ γεννῆσαι τοῦτον ἔμελλεν, ἀρχαγγελικὴν ᾔτησε ψυχὴν τὸν συνοχέα τοῦ παντὸς πρὸς τὴν τούτου ὑπόστασιν, καὶ ὅτι γεννηθέντα τοῖς θεοῖς πᾶσι συνέστησε καὶ τῇ Πλάτωνος ψυχῇ Ἀπόλλωνι συνδιαγούσῃ καὶ τῷ Ἑρμῇ, καὶ ὅτι ταύτην ἐποπτεύων ἔκ τινος τέχνης ἱερατικῆς ἐπυνθάνετο περὶ ὧν ἐβούλετο. ... die Iulianoi zur Zeit des Marcus Aurelius. Einer von ihnen war älter, einer jünger. Über den jüngeren aber, um einen kleinen Exkurs einzuschieben, wird auch Geschwätz dieser Art herumerzählt: Als sein Vater im Begriff war, ihn zu zeugen, habe er zum Zusammenhalter des Alls um eine erzengelhafte Seele für die Bildung von dessen Wesen gebetet; und nach seiner Geburt habe er ihn mit allen Göttern und der Seele Platons in Kontakt gebracht, die sich bei Apollon und Hermes aufhielt; und durch diese epoptische Schau der Seele Platons habe er sie mittels hieratischer Technik befragt, worüber er wollte.

Proklos erwähnt die Theurgen zur Zeit des Marcus Aurelius ohne Namen;2 nach Johannes Malalas vollbrachte damals „Iulianos der große Chaldaeer“ Wundertaten.3 Als Vater und Sohn nennt die Suda Iulianos den Chaldaeer4 1

Opusc. phil. I 46, 43-51. Proklos, In Remp. II 123, 12 und In Crat. 72, 10f.; cf. Kroll 71. 3 Malalas, Chron. XI 30 p. 282 Dindorf = 213 Thurn; cf. Kovács 125. Gemeint ist hier der jüngere Iulianos; siehe unten Anm. 6. 4 Suda Ι 433 II 641, 32-34 Adler: Ἰουλιανός, Χαλδαῖος, φιλόσοφος, πατὴρ τοῦ κληθέντος θεουργοῦ Ἰουλιανοῦ. ἔγραψε περὶ δαιμόνων βιβλία δ’. ἀνθρώπων δέ ἐστι φυλακτήριον πρὸς ἕκαστον μόριον, ὁποῖα τὰ τελεσιουργικὰ Χαλδαϊκά. Dass es sich nicht um eine generische Bezeichnung als Chaldaeer in Sinne von „Magier“ handelt 2

64

Helmut Seng

und Iulianos den Theurgen, der unter anderem λόγια δι᾿ ἐπῶν verfasste,5 Orakel in Hexametern.6 Damit sind höchstwahrscheinlich die OC gemeint. Noch deutlicher ist in dieser Hinsicht ein Beleg bei Psellos, der sich auf Prokopios von Gaza beruft, einen christlichen Autor an der Wende vom 5. zum 6. Jahrhundert:7 Τῆς δέ γε Χαλδαίων ἱερατικῆς τέχνης οἶδα μὲν ὡς οἱ πλείους ὑμῶν ἀνήκοοι καθεστήκατε. ἀρχαία γὰρ αὕτη καὶ πρεσβυτέρα φιλοσοφία καὶ τοῖς πλείοσιν ἄγνωστος· τὸ γὰρ σέβας τούτων μυστηριῶδές τε καὶ ἀπόρρητον. Ἰουλιανὸς δέ τις ἀνὴρ ἐπὶ Τραϊανοῦ βασιλέως ἐν ἔπεσι τὰ τούτων ἐξέθετο δόγματα, ἃ δὴ καὶ λόγιά φασιν οἱ τὰ ἐκείνων σεμνύνοντες. τούτοις οὖν ὁ φιλόσοφος ἐντυχὼν Πρόκλος, ἀνὴρ κρείττονος μὲν τετυχηκὼς φύσεως, πᾶσαν δὲ φιλοσοφίαν ἠκριβωκώς, Ἕλλην δ’ ἄντικρυς, χαλδαΐσας ἀθρόον τὰ ἐκείνων ἐπρέσβευσε καὶ τὰς Ἑλληνικὰς ἀποδείξεις “λόγων καταιγίδας” ὠνομακώς, ὡς ὁ Γαζαῖος Προκόπιος ἱστορεῖ, ἐπὶ τὴν ἱερατικὴν ἐκείνην τέχνην ὅλοις ἱστίοις ἀπένευσεν. Von der hieratischen Technik der Chaldaeer aber, das weiß ich wohl, haben die meisten von euch noch nie gehört. Dabei handelt es sich um eine altehrwürde Philosophie aus der Antike, die den meisten unbekannt ist; denn das Ehrfurchtgebietende daran ist geheimnisvoll und unaussprechlich. Ein gewisser Iulianos aber, ein Mann zur Zeit des Kaisers Traianus, legte deren Lehren in Hexametern dar, die denn diejenigen, die deren Dinge verehren, als Orakel bezeichnen. Auf diese stieß nun der Philosoph Proklos, ein Mann, der durchaus hervorragendes Talent besaß, die ganze Philosophie sorgfältig studiert hatte und ganz offen Heide war. Sogleich wurde er Anhänger der Chaldaeer und Verehrer ihrer Lehren; und indem er die Beweisführungen der griechischen Philosophie als Wirbelstürme von Worten bezeichnete, wie Prokopios von Gaza berichtet, nahm er mit vollen Segeln neuen Kurs Richtung hieratische Technik.

Angesichts der Zuschreibung von Orakeln, allem Anschein nach der OC, an den jüngeren Iulianos, ist gut möglich, die Nachricht von der Schau (so Cazelais 279), zeigt die Formulierung Ἰουλιανῷ τῷ καλουμένῳ Χαλδαίῳ bei Sozomenos, Hist. eccl. I 18, 7 (siehe auch unten Anm. 14). 5 Cf. auch die Formulierung τοὺς θεούς, ἐν οἷς ἔπεσι λέγουσι πρὸς τὸν θεουργόν bei Dam., De princ. II 105, 1f. W. - C., zitiert unten S. 76. 6 Suda Ι 434 II 642, 1-7 Adler: Ἰουλιανός, ὁ τοῦ προλεχθέντος υἱός, γεγονὼς ἐπὶ Μάρκου Ἀντωνίνου τοῦ βασιλέως. ἔγραψε καὶ αὐτὸς Θεουργικά, Τελεστικά, Λόγια δι’ ἐπῶν· καὶ ἄλλα ὅσα τῆς τοιαύτης ἐπιστήμης κρύφια τυγχάνουσιν. ὅτι τοῦτόν φασι δίψει ποτὲ καμνόντων τῶν Ῥωμαίων, ἐξαίφνης ποιῆσαι νέφη τε ἀγερθῆναι ζοφώδη καὶ ὄμβρον ἀφεῖναι λάβρον ἅμα βρονταῖς τε καὶ σέλασιν ἐπαλλήλοις· καὶ τοῦτο σοφίᾳ τινὶ ἐργάσασθαι Ἰουλιανόν.οἱ δέφασινἌρνουφιν, τὸνΑἰγύπτιονφιλόσοφον,τοῦτο πεποιηκέναι τὸθαυμάσιον. 7 Psellos, Orat. for. 1, 283-295. Cf. die Diskussion in Seng, ΚΟΣΜΑΓΟΙ 134-141; dort auch zur Verwechslung der Kaiser.

Zuschreibungen der Chaldaeischen Orakel von Porphyrios bis Patrizi

65

der Götter und der Befragung der Seele Platons auf diese zu beziehen: Als eine solche Zusammenarbeit von Vater und Sohn, dessen Rolle als die eines spirituellen Mediums gedeutet worden ist,8 könnte die Produktion der OC inszeniert oder imaginiert worden sein.9 Gerade der Orakelgott Apollon und der Götterbote Hermes kommen als Übermittler himmlischer Botschaften in besonderer Weise in Betracht; neben dem Corpus Hermeticum stehen die Apollon zugeschriebenen „oracles professeurs de théologie“, wie Pierre Batiffol formuliert.10 Auffällig ist die herausgehobene Erwähnung Platons, dem hier gleichsam göttlicher (oder zumindest engel-, wenn nicht erzengelhafter) Status zukommt. Vergleichbar wäre der nach seinem Tode als δαίμων zu den δαίμονες auffahrende Plotin, der dort auf Platon und Pythagoras trifft.11 Vielleicht ließe sich die Seele Platons, der ja mit den Göttern weilt, als deren Sprachrohr gegenüber dem menschlichen Fragesteller verstehen. Den Botschaften, die der jüngere Iulianos empfängt, eignet somit nicht nur göttlich legitimierte, sondern auch philosophisch begründete Autorität. Allerdings wird Platon sonst gerade nicht mit den OC in Verbindung gebracht.12 Insofern müssen letzte Zweifel bleiben, ob die Anekdote in der vorliegenden Fassung auf diese zu beziehen ist. Jedenfalls gehört sie in den Zusammenhang der legendarischen Tradition zu den Iulianoi,13 wie erstmals bei dem Kirchenhistoriker Sozomenos in der ersten Hälfte des 5. Jahrhunderts belegt. Auch dessen Notiz, Iulianos der Chaldaeer habe 8

Saffrey, „Les Néoplatoniciens ...“ 218-220 in Anlehnung an Dodds, „Theurgy ...“ 56.65-69 (= The Greeks 284.295-299) und Pagan 56f.; ähnlich Athanassiadi, „The Chaldaean Oracles ...“ 151f. und La lutte 48-54; cf ferner Van den Kerchove 153156. Die Befragung des Gottes mittels eines Mediums (wie etwa der Pythia) gehört zu den geläufigen Orakelverfahren; cf. auch OC 97 und OC 211 (dubium). Psellos (Opusc. phil. II 38 p. 136, 5-8 O’M.) unterscheidet zwischen der Schau durch denjenigen, der das Ritual ausführt (αὐτοψία) und durch eine Mittelsperson, an der das Ritual vollzogen wird (ἐποπτεία). Die Darstellung in Opusc. phil. I 46, 43-51 lässt vermuten, dass an eine solche Funktion des jüngeren Iulianos nicht erst im Erwachsenenalter zu denken ist; zur Vorliebe für Kindermedien cf. Hopfner und Johnston. 9 Smith 91-96 hält die Zuschreibung für erfunden: zunächst als Zuweisung an einen bekannten Magier, dann in Aufteilung auf Vater und Sohn aufgrund des unterschiedlichen Charakters von kosmologischen und soteriologischen sowie andererseits theurgischen Orakeln. Das ist zwar nicht definitiv auszuschließen, aber höchst spekulativ. 10 Batiffol 193. 11 Porphyrios, Vita Plotini 22. 12 Cf. Hadot, „Théologie ...“ 27-29 und Seng, „Langage ...“ 68f. 13 Cf. Seng, ΚΟΣΜΑΓΟΙ 142-150 und Athanassiadi, „Julian the Theurgist“ 203-208, jeweils mit weiterer Literatur; Kovács 123-135.

66

Helmut Seng

durch die Kraft von Worten einen Stein mit der Hand zertrümmert,14 findet keinen Widerhall bei den späteren Neuplatonikern wie Proklos oder Damaskios. Den weiteren Kontext bilden die Überlieferungen zum theurgischen Wirken des Proklos bei Marinos15 oder anderer Philosophen bei Eunapios.16 Insofern besteht kein Anlass, in der Anekdote des Psellos eine erst mittelalterliche Erfindung zu sehen. Auf diesen selbst lässt sich die Erwähnung Platons jedenfalls nur schwerlich zurückführen,17 da er zwischen der griechisch-platonischen Philosophie und der chaldaeischen Lehre der Iulianoi einen entschiedenen Gegensatz konstatiert, wie in Orat. for. 1, 283-295 gesehen.18 Diese Gegenüberstellung entspricht völlig den Unterscheidungen in der neuplatonischen Tradition der Antike, so sehr die Übereinstimmungen herausgestellt werden19 und so sehr die moderne Forschung die OC als Ausfluss des Platonismus betrachtet, wenn auch in seiner unterirdischen Variante.20Unter Ausschluss Platons jedoch benennt die Anekdote gerade die drei Autoren der OC, die in den Zeugnissen immer wieder auftreten:21 (1) nach dem Beinamen des älteren Iulianos die eponymen Chaldaeer; (2) nach dem Beinamen des Sohnes die Theurgen; (3) die Götter. Die entsprechenden Belege gilt es im Folgenden näher zu betrachten, bevor in aller Kürze (4) auf Mischformen und Mehrfachzitationen sowie (5) auf weitere Varianten der Zuschreibung einzugehen ist.22 Zu berücksichtigen sind dabei wörtliche Zitate, einzelne Ausdrücke und Paraphrasen bzw. Referate. Nach (6) einer kurzen Zusammenfassung ist schließlich als Ausblick (7) auf die Zuschreibungen der OC an Zoroaster durch Plethon und deren modifizierte Formulierung durch Patrizi einzugehen. 14

Hist. eccl. I 18, 6f. (siehe auch oben Anm. 4). Hierzu kurz Addey in diesem Band, S. 38f. 16 Cf. auch Fichera in diesem Band. 17 Es sei denn im Sinne eines Missverständnises; cf. Addey in diesem Band, S. 44. 18 Cf. auch den Paralleltext Opusc. theol. I 23, 46-52 (im Anschluss an einen Abriss chaldaeisch-neuplatonischer Lehre). 19 Z. B. bei Proklos, Th. Pl. I 4; cf. auch Saffrey, „Accorder ...“ 20 Cf. Kroll, „Die Zeit ...“ 355, der den OC “unterirdisches Dasein” zuspricht, oder die bekannte Formulierung “Platonic underworld” bei Dillon 384. 21 Kurz zur Frage des Titels und der Autorschaft auch Seng, ΚΟΣΜΑΓΟΙ 11-13, Seng, „Oracles chaldaïques“ 359-361 und Seng, Un livre sacré 20-23. 22 Cf. auch Lewy 443-447. 15

Zuschreibungen der Chaldaeischen Orakel von Porphyrios bis Patrizi

67

1 Chaldaeer So geläufig die Bezeichnung Chaldaeische Orakel in der modernen Forschung ist, die darin Michael Psellos und Francesco Patrizi folgt,23 so selten ist sie in der Antike. Streng genommen gibt es nur einen Beleg, Proklos, In Parm. 800, 19 C. Hier leitet die Formulierung τῶν ἐν τοῖς Χαλδαϊκοῖς λογίοις κειμένων das Zitat von OC 37 ein. Dazu kommt die Verwendung des Ausdrucks ohne Zitat in der Suda (nach Damaskios):24 Τοιγαροῦν ὁ Πρόκλος ἠξίωσεν αὐτὸν ἔτι νέον ὄντα τῆς τῶν Χαλδαϊκῶν λογίων ἀκροάσεως. So hielt ihn nun Proklos, obwohl er noch jung war, der Vorlesung über die Chaldaeischen Orakel für würdig.

Nahe kommt schließlich τῶν Χαλδαίων τὰ λόγια bei Aeneas von Gaza, Theophr. p. 45, 6 Colonna, der ihre Verwendung durch Porphyrios bezeugt.25 Der Bezug auf die Chaldaeer (im Plural) oder im Ausnahmefall den Chaldaeer (im Singular)26 im Zusammenhang mit den OC ist ebenfalls selten; die Häufigkeit wechselt allerdings von Autor zu Autor.27 Wenn von Chaldaeern die Rede ist, dann meist in zwei typischen Zusammenhängen. Entweder sind Experten der Astronomie gemeint28 oder Vertreter einer östlichen Weisheit; der ethnische Aspekt kommt insbesondere in der zweiten Verwendung zum Ausdruck.29 Damit wird auch die 23

Siehe unten S. 83f. Suda Η 60, II 550, 6f. Adler = Damaskios, Vita Isid. fr. 351 Zintzen = 145 B Athanassiadi. 25 Diese Zeugnisse sind nicht berücksichtigt bei Van Liefferinge 15f. und, ihr folgend, Cazelais 278, die den Titel auf Psellos zurückführen. Culdaut 49 erwähnt Psellos, führt aber 48 die erste Sammlung der OC auf Wilhelm Kroll zurück. 26 Nur bei Iul. Imp., Or. V [VIII] In matrem deorum172 d - 173 a (siehe unten S. 68f.) und Lydos, mens. II 8 p. 26, 16; IV 53 p. 110, 21; IV 159 p. 175, 9 W., dazu ὁ Χαλδαῖος ἐν τοῖς λογίοις II 8 p. 28, 3f. W. Cf. Seng, „Ein Orakelzitat ...“ 91f. und siehe unten S. 72. 27 Die Rede ist hier und im Folgenden von Autoren, die sich auf die OC beziehen. Zur Semantik des Ausdrucks Chaldaeer cf. Tanaseanu-Döbler, „Weise oder Scharlatane?“. 28 So etwa Iambl., De myst. IX 4 p. 278, 6-9 P. = 205, 27 - 206, 4 S. - S. - L. 29 Cf. Porph., fr. 323F und 324F Smith (Hebräer, Ägypter, Phönizier, Assyrer – gleichgesetzt mit den Chaldaeern in der Erläuterung fr. 324F 8f. Smith – Lyder); ferner Lewy 444 und Dörrie † - Baltes † - Pietsch - Lakmann 309-313. 24

68

Helmut Seng

gelegentliche Alternative „Assyrer“ verständlich.30 An die OC lassen bei Porphyrios nur τῶν Χαλδαίων τὰ λόγια (nach dem Zeugnis bei Aeneas von Gaza) denken. Weniger klar ist, ob οἱ Χαλδαίων σοφοί, die Iamblichos erwähnt,31 auf einen Zusammenhang mit den OC weisen. In De myst. III 31 p. 176, 1-2 P. = 131, 27 - 132, 2 S. - S. - L. eröffnet Iamblichos Ausführungen zur Theurgie mit den Worten: Ἐρῶ δή σοι καὶ πρὸς ταῦτα λόγον ὅν ποτε ἤκουσα, Χαλδαίων ποτὲ προφητῶν λεγόντων. Ich werde dir nun dazu eine Ausführung mitteilen, die ich einmal gehört habe, als einmal chaldaeische Propheten sprachen.

Auch hier bleibt zu fragen, was davon auf die OC zurückzuführen ist. Die Aussage, die Chaldaeer bedrohten die Götter nicht, anders als die Ägypter,32 mag sachlich zutreffen, lässt sich jedoch kaum als Selbstaussage der OC vorstellen.33 Auch an der zitierten Stelle De myst. I 1 p. 4, 11 P. = 3, 13 S. - S. - L., werden Chaldaeer und Ägypter einander gegenübergestellt. Damit ist deutlich, dass eine ethnische Auffassung dominiert. Wo hingegen in De mysteriis paraphrastisch auf die OC angespielt wird, werden die Chaldaeer oder sonstige Quellen nicht genannt.34 Ein bemerkenswertes Zeugnis findet sich bei Kaiser Iulianus:35 Εἰ δὲ καὶ τῆς ἀρρήτου μυσταγωγίας ἁψαίμην, ἣν ὁ Χαλδαῖος περὶ τὸν ἑπτάκτινα θεὸν ἐβάκχευσεν ἀνάγων δι’ αὐτοῦ τὰς ψυχάς, ἄγνωστα ἐρῶ, καὶ μάλα γε ἄγνωστα τῷ συρφετῷ, θεουργοῖς δὲ τοῖς μακαρίοις γνώριμα· 30

Siehe Anm. 29 und cf. Proklos, In Parm. 647, 6-9 C.; dazu In Tim. II 50, 20 ἡ τῶν Ἀσσυρίων θεολογία (mit Zitat von OC 67f.), aufgenommen II 50, 30 mit τὰ λόγια. Zu den chaldaeischen Schriften des Psellos gehört auch eine ἔκθεσις κεφαλαιώδης καὶ σύντομος τῶν παρ’ Ἀσσυρίοις δογμάτων (Opusc. phil. II 41). Iambl., De communi mathematica scientia 21 p. 66, 25-27 F. spezifiziert: ... Ἀσσυρίοις ... τοῖς τε παρ’ αὐτοῖς λεγομένοις Χαλδαίοις (οὕτω γὰρ οἱ μαθηματικοὶ παρ’ αὐτοῖς λέγονται). 31 De myst. I 1 p. 4, 11 P. = 3, 13 S. - S. - L. 32 De myst. VI 7 p. 249, 3-5 P. =185, 6-8 S. - S. - L. 33 Denkbar wäre freilich ein Verbot. 34 Cf. De myst. III 28 p. 168, 6 P. = 126, 10 S. - S. - L., De myst. II 7 p. 84, 7-9 P. = 63, 14-17 S. - S. - L., De myst. V 18 p. 223, 15-17 P. = 166, 24-27 S. - S. - L., dazu Cremer 79 Anm. 346; 100.125-126; De myst. II 4 p. 75, 10-14 P. = 56, 23-27 S. - S. L., dazu Tardieu, „L’oracle de la pierre mnouziris“ 104f.; De myst. II 7 p. 84, 6-9 P. = 63, 13-17 S. - S. - L. (mit Anm. 5); De myst. II 7 p. 84, 14-17 P. = 63, 23-25 S. - S. - L., dazu Seng, Un livre sacré 99 Anm. 14. 35 Iul. Imp., Or. V [VIII] In matrem deorum 172 d - 173 a.

Zuschreibungen der Chaldaeischen Orakel von Porphyrios bis Patrizi

69

Wollte ich aber auch an die unsagbare Mystagogie rühren, die der Chaldaeer im Taumel verkündet hat, von dem siebenstrahligen Gott, durch ihn hinan die Seelen führend, dann werde ich Unerkennbares sagen, und gar sehr unerkennbar dem Abschaum, den seligen Theurgen aber bekannt.

In höchst ungewöhnlicher Weise ist hier vom Χαλδαῖος im Singular die Rede,36 zugleich von μυσταγωγία und zusätzlich von den Theurgen – aber nicht von λόγια und nicht von den Göttern. Auch bei Proklos sind die Chaldaeer vor allem Astronomen und wie bei Iamblichos oft in Gegenüberstellung zu den Ägyptern,37 aber auch den Indern38 oder den Griechen39 ethnisch gefasst; instruktiv ist In Tim. I 208, 18-20: Ἰνδῶν μὲν Βραχμᾶνες, Μάγοι δὲ Περσῶν, Ἑλλήνων δὲ οἱ θεολογικώτατοι, οἳ καὶ τελετὰς κατεστήσαντο καὶ μυστήρια· Χαλδαῖοι δὲ ... Von den Indern die Brahmanen, die Magier von den Persern, von den Hellenen die ausgezeichnetsten Theologen, die auch die Weihen und Mysterien begrünet haben; die Chaldaeer aber ...

Hier erweist der Kontext die Chaldaeer als ethnische Gruppe, innerhalb derer eine besonders fromme Elite nicht bestimmt werden muss.40 Nur in seltenen Fällen schreibt Proklos den Chaldaeern spezifische Formulierungen zu, und zwar in astronomisch-kosmologischen Kontexten; so In Tim. III 83, 14-16: ἐν τοῖς ὑπερκοσμίοις ... ἐκεῖ γὰρ ὁ ἡλιακὸς κόσμος καὶ τὸ ὅλον φῶς, ὡς αἵ τε Χαλδαίων φῆμαι λέγουσι καὶ ἐγὼ πείθομαι. im Hyperkosmischen ... Dort nämlich ist die Sonnenwelt und das totale Licht, wie die Sprüche der Chaldaeer verkünden und ich glaube.

Dazu tritt In Tim. III 111, 19-22:

36

Siehe auch unten S. 72. In Remp. II 56, 21f.; 236, 2-4 (hier auch unterschieden von αἱ τῶν θεῶν φῆμαι); 318, 12f.; 343, 4f.; In Crat. 32, 6f.; In Tim. III 124, 23f. 38 In Crat. 32, 7. 39 In Crat. 32, 8. 40 Cf. auch Iul. Imp., Contra Galilaeos fr. 38 Masaracchia: Ἁβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰακὼβ, οἳ ὄντες αὐτοὶ Χαλδαῖοι, γένους ἱεροῦ καὶ θεουργικοῦ. 37

70

Helmut Seng Οὕτω δὲ καὶ ὁ ἱερὸς λόγος ὁ παρὰ Χαλδαίοις συνάπτει τοῖς μηναίοις καναχισμοῖς τὰ ἀέρια, τῷ πυρὶ τὸ οὐράνιον ἀπονέμων κατὰ τὴν τῶν στοιχείων εἰς τὸν κόσμον διαίρεσιν. So verbindet auch die Heilige Rede bei den Chaldaeern mit den Rauschungen des Mondes den Bereich der Luft, wobei sie dem Feuer den himmlischen Bereich zuteilt, entsprechend der Verteilung der Elemente in den Kosmos.

Hier sind der ἱερὸς λόγος und wohl auch die φῆμαι mit den λόγια identisch.41 An anderer Stelle ist zwischen Formulierungen der chaldaeischen Theurgen und denen der Götter unterschieden, In Remp. II 220, 11-15:42 Ἀλλὰ τῶν παρὰ Χαλδαίοις θεουργῶν ἀκούσας, ὡς ἄρα ὁ θεὸς ἐμεσεμβόλησεν τὸν ἥλιον ἐν τοῖς ἑπτὰ καὶ ἀνεκρέμασεν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ τὰς ἓξ ἄλλας ζώνας, καὶ τῶν θεῶν αὐτῶν, ὅτι τὸ ἡλιακὸν πῦρ κραδίης τόπῳ ἐστήριξεν. Sondern wir haben es von den Theurgen bei den Chaldaeern gehört, dass der Gott die Sonne mittenein unter die sieben geworfen habe und an ihr die sieben anderen Zonen aufgehängt habe; und von den Göttern selbst haben wir gehört, er habe das Feuer der Sonne an der Stelle des Herzens festgemacht.

Diese Unterscheidung hat ihren guten Sinn: Während die Formulierung κραδίης τόπῳ ἐστήριξεν als Hexameterschluss aus einem Orakel stammen dürfte (OC 58), ist die vorangehende Aussage einem Werk mit dem Titel Ὑφηγητικά entnommen, wie Damaskios bezeugt.43 Die letzte Stelle, die hier anzuführen ist, bezieht sich auf Ilias 14, 291: Dort heißt es, der Vogel, der bei den Menschen κύμινδις heiße, werde von den Göttern als χαλκίς bezeichnet. Dazu bemerkt Proklos, In Crat. 35, 3-5 (OC 210):

41

Das Wort καναχισμός findet sich sonst nur in OC 61c = Proklos, In Tim. III 61, 18f. 42 Auch In Remp. II 220, 23 (οἱ θεουργικοὶ λόγοι καὶ θεοί φασιν; siehe unten S. 77). 43 Dam., In Parm. III 129, 3-5 W. - C. - S. Der Titel ist auch bei Proklos, In Tim. III 124, 33 belegt, siehe unten S. 76. Auch wenn die Formulierung bei Proklos ἀκούσας lautet, hat er die Ὑφηγητικά offensichtlich gelesen. In derselben Weise verstehen lässt sich auch λόγον ὅν ποτε ἤκουσα, Χαλδαίων ποτὲ προφητῶν λεγόντων bei Iamblichos, De myst. III 31 p. 176, 2 P. = 132, 1f. S. - S. - L. (siehe oben S. 68), zumal als Element der ägyptisch-priesterlichen Maskerade (anders Athanassiadi, „Le théurge ...“ 51 Anm. 31).

Zuschreibungen der Chaldaeischen Orakel von Porphyrios bis Patrizi

71

Ἀμέλει καὶ Χαλδαῖοι οὕτως αὐτὸ καλοῦσι παρὰ θεῶν ἀκούσαντες. Bestimmt nennen auch die Chaldaeer den Vogel so, weil sie es von den Göttern gehört haben.

Die Einleitung ἀμέλει ist nicht nur ein Indiz dafür, dass es einen Beleg nicht gibt, sondern auch ein Ironiesignal.44 Ein deutlich anderer Sprachgebrauch ist bei Marinos festzustellen, der am ersten Todestag des Proklos die Gedenkrede hielt. Seine Verwendung von χαλδαϊκός und Χαλδαῖοι zielt einerseits auf philosophische Lehren, andererseits auf theurgische Verfahren.45 Gegenüberstellungen sind nicht ethnisch ausgerichtet; vielmehr ist „orphisch“ der komplementäre Begriff.46 An einer Stelle ist die Rede von τὰ λόγια καὶ τὰ σύστοιχα τῶν Χαλδαίων συγγράμματα;47 Schriften des Proklos bezeichnet er als τάς τε ἄλλας Χαλδαϊκὰς ὑποθέσεις καὶ τὰ μέγιστα τῶν ὑπομνημάτων εἰς τὰ θεοπαράδοτα λόγια.48 Hier ist gewissermaßen die Sekundärliteratur zu den Orakeln, zu denen die bei Proklos und Damaskios dem oder den Theurgen zugeschriebenen Ὑφηγητικά gehören dürften, auf die Chaldaeer zurückgeführt. Zitate aus dieser wie den Primärtexten fehlen jedoch. In Übereinstimmung mit Marinos benutzt auch Damaskios häufig das Adjektiv χαλδαϊκός, um sich auf chaldaeische Inhalte zu beziehen (einschließlich der χαλδαϊκὴ θεολογία des Iamblichos49 und seiner eigenen Schrift oder Schriften zum Thema),50 und verweist auf die Chaldaeer, um einzelne Ausdrücke, nicht aber explizite Textausschnitte zu zitieren,51 einmal auch in der Formulierung Χαλδαίων παῖδες.52 Gegenüberstellun44

Cf. LSJ s. v., dazu Seng, „Ilias 14, 291 und die Chaldaeischen Orakel.“ Vita Procli 18, 29; 28, 8.16. 46 Vita Procli 18, 29; 26, 4.56. 47 Vita Procli 26, 18f. 48 Vita Procli 26, 25f. 49 De princ. I 86, 6 W. - C.; allgemeiner 154, 14 W. - C.: ἐν τοῖς Χαλδαϊκοῖς. 50 In Parm. I 9, 7; 12, 2; III 5, 5 W. - C. - S.; cf. Taormina 282-284. 51 De princ. III 30, 14 W. - C. δὶς ... ἐπέκεινα; In Parm. I 8, 26 - 9, 1 W. - C. - S. πηγάς τε δὴ ἅμα καὶ ἀρχάς. 52 Dam., De princ. II 210, 9 W. - C. Die Formulierung findet sich auch bei Lukian, Dial. mort. 21 [11] 1 und Sext. Emp., Adv. math. 5, 83; sie steht neben θεουργῶν παῖδες bei Proklos, In Crat. 101, 27f. oder dem vor allem bei christlichen Autoren häufigen Ἑλλήνων παῖδες und weiteren Formulierungen wie ποιητῶν παῖδες, ἰατρῶν τε καὶ στρατηγῶν παῖδες oder zweimal γεωργῶν παῖδες bei Synesios, Epist. 41 p. 62, 19 G., De regno 19 p. 44, 13f. T. sowie De prov. II 6 p. 127, 1 T. und Enc. calv. 14 p. 45

72

Helmut Seng

gen sind zum Teil ethnisch geprägt,53 zielen jedoch wie die Zusammenstellung mit der orphischen54 und pythagoreischen55 Tradition auf Formen der Weisheit.56 Ein explizites Zitat nennt hingegen Simplikios im Zusammenhang mit den Chaldaeern: OC 51, 3 leitet er ein mit der Formulierung:57 ... ἀπὸ τῶν λογίων δὲ τῶν Χαλδαίοις ἐκδοθέντων τὰ περὶ τῆς πηγαίας ψυχῆς εἰρημένα. ... aus den Orakeln, die den Chaldaeern erteilt worden sind, was über die Seele gesagt worden ist.

Johannes Lydos bietet neben chaldaeischen Einzelausdrücken ein Doppelzitat (OC 28 und 29):58 ... ὡς καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ Χαλδαῖος ἐν τοῖς λογίοις· τῆσδε γὰρ ἐν τριάδος κόλποις ἔσπαρται ἅπαντα, καὶ πάλιν· τῆσδε γὰρ ἐκ τριάδος πᾶν πνεῦμα πατὴρ ἐκέρασσε. ... wie auch der Chaldaeer selbst in den Orakeln: In den Schößen dieser Trias ist alles gesät, und wiederum: aus dieser Trias hat der Vater jeden Lebenshauch gemischt.

Bemerkenswert ist, dass hier der Chaldaeer nicht nur im Singular erscheint,59 sondern auch als Sprecher des Orakelwortlauts, als dessen Urheber gewöhnlich die Götter gelten, die Chaldaeer hingegen als Empfänger. Umgekehrt fehlen bei Lydos die Götter als Orakelsprecher.60 Ob dieser Sachverhalt Schlüsse über die religiöse Orientierung des 217, 9 T. Sie bezeichnet nicht unterschiedliche Generationen von Chaldaeern bzw. Theurgen (so Athanassiadi, „Le théurge ...“ 48). 53 De princ. II 212, 16 W. - C. Ägypter und Phöniker. 54 De princ. II 210, 10; 212, 15 W. - C.; Vita Isid. § 126, 5 Zintzen = fr. 85 A 5 Athanassiadi (cf. auch die θεόλογοι De princ. II 174, 5 W. - C.). 55 De princ. II 20, 6 W. - C. 56 Cf. auch De princ. II 174, 3-7 W. - C: φιλόσοφοι – θεόλογοι – Χαλδαῖοι. 57 In Phys. p. 613, 1f. H. Zu ἐκδοθέντων cf. auch die entsprechende Formulierung bei Dam., De princ. III 119, 3f. W. - C.(zitiert unten Anm. 86). 58 De mens. II 8 p. 28, 3-7 W. Cf. Seng, „Ein Orakelzitat ...“ 91f. 59 Siehe auch oben S. 67 mit Anm. 26. 60 Cf. Seng, „Ein Orakelzitat ...“ 90-92.

Zuschreibungen der Chaldaeischen Orakel von Porphyrios bis Patrizi

73

Lydos erlaubt, mag offen bleiben; er dürfte freilich der religionspolitischen Lage in justinianischer Zeit entsprechen.61 Damit ist zunächst ein Abschluss erreicht, bis in der Ἐξήγησις τῶν Χαλδαϊκῶν ῥητῶν des Psellos (Opusc. phil. II 38) die OC regelmäßig als χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον bezeichnet werden, wenngleich nicht in allen Handschriften62 und durchgängig nur in einer einzigen.63 Ob die Formulierung somit lediglich auf einen Kopisten zurückgeht, ob Psellos den Begriff ad hoc prägt,64 oder ob er auf eine Tradition zurückgreift, in der die jeweiligen Orakel als χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον bezeichnet werden, lässt sich nicht sicher entscheiden; doch die Übereinstimmung mit dem isolierten Beleg bei Proklos spricht für Letzteres. Selbst die Tatsache, dass in der anderen Handschriftenfamilie der Psellosschrift statt χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον der Ausdruck κείμενον verwendet ist, der terminus technicus für einen überlieferten Wortlaut, der kommentiert wird,65 könnte für einen Anschluss an den Doppelausdruck bei Proklos, In Parm. 800, 19 C. sprechen. Die häufig erwähnten Chaldaeer stehen bei Psellos als Vertreter einer philosophischen Weltanschauung und theurgischer Praktiken, und in den entsprechenden Kommentaren und Zusammenfassungen werden zahlreiche Ausdrücke zitiert, die den Orakeln zuzuschreiben sind oder sein könnten. Somit ergibt sich folgender Befund: Die OC werden mit den Chaldaeern weniger oft in Verbindung gebracht, als man erwarten möchte. Insbesondere werden regelrechte Zitate nur dort auf sie zurückgeführt, wo zugleich der Begriff λόγιον gebraucht wird, jeweils einmal bei Simplikios und Johannes Lydos, wie gesehen. Dass es sich dabei um τῶν Χαλδαίων τὰ λόγια handelt, auf die Porphyrios sich nach dem Zeugnis des Aeneas von Gaza bezieht, kann kaum bezweifelt werden. Insofern ist die übliche Bezeichnung als Chaldaeische Orakel auch durch die frühe Bezeugung in den Quellen gerechtfertigt. Zu fragen bleibt, wer diese Chaldaeer sind. Attraktiv ist zwar die Vermutung einer Gemeinschaft von chaldaeischen Theurgen, 61

Cf. Kaldellis, der aus den wissenschaftlichen Interessen des Lydos vielleicht zu direkt Schlüsse zu seiner Religiosität zieht. Ebenso fehlt bei Lydos das Wort θεουργός, außer De mens. II 10 p. 31, 19 W. im Zitat von OC 153 und IV 102 p. 142, 4 W. zur Erläuterung des lateinischen Wortes pontifex. 62 Cf. des Places 156f. und O’Meara 126f. im kritischen Apparat. Während O’Meara in seiner Ausgabe χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον vor dem Orakelzitat stets wiedergibt, verzichtet des Places darauf. 63 Parisinus graecus 1182. Cf. im Einzelnen den kritischen Apparat bei O’Meara. 64 Siehe auch oben Anm. 25. 65 Cf. LSJ s. v. κεῖμαι V 5.

74

Helmut Seng

auf die sich die Orakel zurückführen ließen;66 doch ist deren Existenz nicht zu erweisen.67 Am nächsten liegt daher der Bezug auf den älteren Iulianos. Sein Beiname „der Chaldaeer“ gibt der Sammlung den Titel (wenn es nicht sogar umgekehrt ist) – selbst wenn als Verfasser der λόγια δι᾿ ἐπῶν sein Sohn gilt. Durch den Plural wird die Autorität einer ethnischen Gruppe beansprucht, die im Geruch besonderer Weisheit steht.68 Ob Iulianos selbst zu dieser Gruppe gehört, oder auch, ob er ein Sternenkundiger ist und deshalb „der Chaldaeer“ heißt,69 lässt sich nicht beantworten.70 Deutlich ist aber umgekehrt, dass der Buchtitel vermag, Interesse zu wecken und Autorität zu beanspruchen, und insofern eine pragmatische Funktion hat.71 Ebenso verständlich wird, wenn dem Chaldaeer oder den Chaldaeern Ausdrücke zugeordnet und Lehren zugeschrieben werden, die sich auf die Orakelsammlung beziehen, oder auch einfach das Adjektiv χαλδαϊκός benutzt wird, das freilich auch die diesbezüglichen Kommentare und Erörterungen der Neuplatoniker bezeichnet.72 Das mag selbst für die bei Marinos genannten weiteren Schriften gelten; immerhin stehen genügend Titel von Büchern zur Verfügung, die den Iulianoi zugeschrieben werden.73 66

Cf. Athanassiadi, „The Chaldaean Oracles ...“ 153-156 („The Apamean Connection“); Athanassiadi, „Apamea and the Chaldaean Oracles ...“; Athanassiadi, La lutte 31-70; Athanassiadi, „Julian the Theurgist“ 196-203; jetzt auch wieder Addey in diesem Band, S. 49-55. 67 Cf. Tanaseanu-Döbler, Theurgy 38 Anm. 109 und Seng, „Oracles chaldaïques“ 367-379. 68 Statt von Chaldaeern spricht Proklos auch von Barbaren (In Parm. 731, 8 C.; In Tim. III 249, 12; 250, 9; In Remp. I 91, 20; Th. Pl. VI 11, p. 51, 25 S. - W.) oder βάρβαρος θεοσοφία (In Remp. II 225, 4; 255, 21f.); cf. auch ὑπερόριος θεοσοφία (In Tim. II 57, 10). 69 Die Zitate aus den Ὑφηγητικά und den Ζῶναι befassen sich mit astronomischkosmologischen Fragen, siehe den folgenden Abschnitt. 70 Zumindest scheint die Interpretation des Ausdrucks Chaldaeische Orakel „au sens de magiques, de divinatoires ou d’astrologiques“ bei Cazelais 278 zu eng. 71 Cf. etwa Cazelais 280. 72 Cf. auch χαλδαϊκὴ θεοσοφία bei Dam., In Parm. III 144, 2 W. - C. - S. 73 Neben den in der Suda zu den Iulianoi genannten Werken (siehe oben Anm. 4 und 6) und den erwähnten Ὑφηγητικά cf. die Notiz zur Schrift des Porphyrios Εἰς τὰ Ἰουλιανοῦ τοῦ Χαλδαίου (Suda Π 2098 IV 178, 22 Adler = Porph., fr. 362T Smith) oder zu Ἰουλιανὸς ὁ τὰς Χαλδαϊκὰς γράψας ὑποτυπώσεις (Basil. minim., Schol. in Gr. Naz. PG 36, 90 a = Porph., fr. 364aF Smith). Cf. weiterhin οἱ τῶν θεουργῶν ἀκρότατοι ... ὡς Ἰουλιανὸς ἐν ἑβδόμῳ Τῶν Ζωνῶν bei Proklos, In Tim. III 27, 9f. Auch die Formulierung τὰ Ἰαμβλίχου πάντα μοι τὰ εἰς τὸν ὁμώνυμον ζήτει bei Iul.

Zuschreibungen der Chaldaeischen Orakel von Porphyrios bis Patrizi

75

2 Theurgen Noch seltener als den Caldaeern werden den Theurgen wörtliche Orakelzitate zugeschrieben.74 Proklos, In Crat. 98, 14f. zitiert OC 71: ... ἁρμονίᾳ φωτὸς γαυρούμενος, ὥς φησί τις τῶν θεουργῶν. ... mit der Harmonie des Lichtes sich brüstend, wie einer der Theurgen sagt.

Differenzierter formulieren weitere Zeugnisse, etwa Proklos, In Crat. 20, 26-30 (OC 87): Τρανέστερον δὲ οἱ θεουργοὶ διδάσκουσιν, καὶ αἱ παρὰ τῶν θεῶν αὐτῶν φῆμαι· ἀλλ’ ὄνομα σεμνὸν καὶ ἀκοιμήτῳ στροφάλιγγι κόσμοις ἐνθρῷσκον κραιπνὴν διὰ πατρὸς ἐνιπήν Deutlicher aber lehren die Theurgen und die Sprüche bei den Göttern selbst: doch der Name, heilig und in unermüdlichem Wirbel springend in die Welten, auf des Vaters reißenden Zuruf.

Entsprechend auch Proklos, In Remp. II 242, 8-12 (OC 142): Ταῦτα καὶ τῶν θεῶν εἰπόντων πρὸς τοὺς θεουργούς· ἀσωμάτων γὰρ ὄντων, φασίν, ἡμῶν σώματα τοῖς αὐτόπτοις φάσμασιν ὑμῶν εἵνεκεν ἐνδέδεται· Dies sagen auch die Götter zu den Theurgen. Denn unkörperlich, sagen sie, sind wir; unsere Körper sind in Erscheinungen, die ihr mit eigenen Augen seht, euretwegen gebunden.

Auf dasselbe Orakel bezieht sich Proklos, In Remp. I 39,18: ... τὰ λόγια πρὸς τὸν θεουργὸν λέγοντα. ... die Orakel, die zu dem Theurgen sprechen. Imp., Epist. 12 p. 19, 2f. Bidez dürfte sich auf Schriften eines der beiden Iulianoi beziehen. 74 Cf. auch Theiler 1f. = 253f. und Seng, „Langage ...“ 70-73.

76

Helmut Seng

Sehr schön ist die Äquivalenz der Zitationsformeln zu sehen, einschließlich der von Theurgen im Singular und Plural. Dam., De princ. II 105, 1-3 W. - C. (OC 1) lautet: Μαρτύρονται δὲ οὖν καὶ οἱ αὐτοὶ τοὺς θεούς, ἐν οἷς ἔπεσι λέγουσι πρὸς τὸν θεουργόν· Ἔστιν γάρ τι νοητόν, ὃ χρή σε νοεῖν νόου ἄνθει etc. Sie führen nun aber selbst die Götter als Zeugen an, wie sie in Hexametern zu dem Theurgen sagen: Denn es gibt etwas Intelligibles, das du mit der Blüte des Intellekts [denken musst.

Typischerweise also, wenngleich nicht ohne Ausnahme, werden die Theurgen als Empfänger, nicht als Sprecher der Orakel dargestellt. Den markantesten Sprachgebrauch zeigt der Theurg im Singular. Zweimal wird er als Adressat der göttlichen Orakel genannt; sonst aber ist er selbst Autor astronomischer und kosmologischer Äußerungen. Bei Proklos, In Tim. III 124, 32f. und bei Damaskios, In Parm. III 129, 4 W. - C. - S. wird ihm die Schrift Ὑφηγητικά zugeschrieben.75 Proklos referiert (In Tim. III 124, 32 - 125, 2): Ὁ θεουργὸς ἐν Τοῖς Ὑφηγητικοῖς λέγων περὶ τοῦ τρίτου πατρός· ἔπηξε δὲ καὶ πολὺν ὅμιλον ἀστέρων ἀπλανῶν, τὸ πῦρ πρὸς τὸ πῦρ ἀναγκάσας πήξει πλάνην οὐκ ἐχούσῃ φέρεσθαι. Der Theurg sagt in den Ὑφηγητικά über den dritten Vater: Er befestigte aber auch eine große Schar von Fixsternen, indem er das Feuer zum Feuer hin sich zu bewegen zwang, durch eine Befestigung ohne unklare Bewegung.

Damit stimmen die ausführlicheren Angaben überein, die sich In Tim. I 317, 22-26 und In Tim. III 132, 26 - 133, 10 finden, wo nur der θεουργός genannt ist. Damaskios notiert (In Parm. III 129, 1-5 W. - C. - S.): Ὅτι οἱ θεοὶ καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ θεουργὸς τὴν αἰσθητὴν τοῖς μαγικοῖς πατράσιν ὑποτίθεται δημιουργίαν. Σαφῶς γοῦν τὸν τρίτον τά τε ἄλλα διακρῖναί φησιν ἐν τοῖς Ὑφηγητικοῖς,76 καὶ τὸν ἥλιον μεσεμβολῆσαι τοῖς ἑπτὰ κοσμοκράτορσι.

75

Cf. auch Lecerf - Saudelli 82f.; dort auch die weiteren Belege. Bei Ruelle II 203, 29f. ὑφηγηματικοῖς; weder bei ihm noch bei W. - C. - S. findet sich ein Hinweis im kritischen Apparat. 76

Zuschreibungen der Chaldaeischen Orakel von Porphyrios bis Patrizi

77

Die Götter und der Theurg selbst ordnen die wahrnehmbare Schöpfung den magischen Vätern unter. In den Ὑφηγητικά sagt er jedenfalls deutlich, dass der dritte sowohl das andere gesondert als auch die Sonne mittenein unter die sieben Weltherrscher geworfen habe.

Die Formulierung zur Sonne entspricht Proklos, In Tim. III 63, 23-24; 132, 33 sowie In Remp. II 220, 11;77 dazu kommt In Remp. II 220, 23: οἱ θεουργικοὶ λόγοι καὶ θεοί φασιν, wo die Doppelformulierung präzise die Differenzierung von Theurgen und Göttern wenige Zeilen vorher aufnimmt.78 Dieser charakteristische Sprachgebrauch legt nahe, den Theurgen im Singular nicht verallgemeinernd, sondern als Benennung einer spezifischen Person zu verstehen, nämlich des jüngeren Iulianos.79 Zudem dürfte αὐτὸς ὁ θεουργὸς im Unterschied zu den Göttern darauf hinweisen, dass die μαγικοὶ πατέρες keinem Orakelzitat entstammen, sondern den Ὑφηγητικά.80 Die pluralischen Formulierungen hingegen sind generalisierend und somit weniger präzis. Thematisch verwandt ist In Tim III 80, 12-17: Καὶ μήποτε καὶ ὁ θεουργὸς ἑλικοειδῆ τὸν χρόνον ὑμνήσας ὡς νέον ἅμα καὶ πρεσβύτην καὶ εἰς τοῦτο ἀπέβλεπε τὸ μάλιστα διὰ τῆς τῶν πλανήτων κινήσεως τῆς καθ’ ἕλικα γιγνομένης ἡμῖν ἐμφανῆ γίγνεσθαι τὰ μέτρα τῶν χρονικῶν παντοίων περιόδων. Und vielleicht hat auch der Theurg, der die Zeit als gewundenförmig besang, als jung und alt zugleich, auch darauf geschaut, dass durch die windungsgemäße Bewegung der Planeten uns die Maße jeglicher Art von Zeitumläufen sichtbar werden.

Hier ist der Theurg ohne Werktitel genannt ist; die Parallele In Tim. III 20, 22-26 bietet wiederum die Theurgen im Plural:

77

Mit der Quellenangabe τῶν παρὰ Χαλδαίοις θεουργῶν; siehe oben S. 70. Die Formulierung θεουργικοὶ λόγοι scheint sonst nicht belegt. 79 Cf. auch Psellos, Opusc. phil. I 3, 140-143: ὥσπερ τὸν Ἑπτάκτιν ὁ Ἀπουλήιος ὅρκοις καταναγκάσας μὴ προσομιλῆσαι τῷ θεουργῷ· οὗτος δὲ ἦν Ἰουλιανὸς ὁ συστρατεύσας Μάρκῳ τῷ βασιλεῖ ἐπὶ Δάκας στρατεύοντι. Allerdings gehört diese Notiz zur legendarischen Überlieferung; in Scripta minora II 130, 9-17 sind Apuleius und Iulianos der Chaldaeer Konkurrenten. 80 Cf. Kroll 39; ferner die Besprechung der Stellen bei Lecerf - Saudelli 71-77, die zwischen Orakeln und Äußerungen der Theurgen nicht vollständig unterscheiden. 78

78

Helmut Seng Ἀλλ’ οὐχ οἱ θεουργοὶ ταῦτα φαῖεν ἄν, οἵ γε καὶ θεὸν αὐτὸν εἶναί φασι καὶ ἀγωγὴν αὐτοῦ παρέδοσαν ἡμῖν, δι’ ἧς εἰς αὐτοφάνειαν κινεῖν αὐτὸν δυνατόν, καὶ ὑμνοῦσι πρεσβύτερον καὶ νεώτερον καὶ κυκλοέλικτον ‹τοῦτον› τὸν θεὸν καὶ αἰώνιον. Aber die Theurgen dürften das nicht sagen, die doch auch sagen, Chronos sei ein Gott und uns eine Herbeirufung für ihn überliefert haben, durch welche es möglich ist, ihn zu einer unmittelbar sichtbaren Erscheinung zu bewegen, und diesen Gott als älter und jünger und kreisgewunden besingen, und als ewig.

Allerdings weist ein dritter Beleg auf ein anderes Werk, aus dem Proklos, In Tim. III 27, 9-13 referiert: Καὶ οἱ τῶν θεουργῶν ἀκρότατοι θεὸν καὶ τοῦτον (sc. τὸν χρόνον) ὕμνησαν, ὡς Ἰουλιανὸς ἐν ἑβδόμῳ Τῶν Ζωνῶν, καὶ τοῖς ὀνόμασι τούτοις ἐσέμνυναν, δι’ ὧν ἐκφαίνεται ἐν τοῖς μετέχουσι τὰ μὲν πρεσβύτερα ποιῶν, τὰ δὲ νεώτερα, καὶ πάντα κύκλῳ περιάγων. Auch die herausragendsten Theurgen haben die Zeit als Gott besungen, wie Iulianos im siebten Buch der Zonen, und mit diesen Namen verherrlicht, durch die er in den Wesen erscheint, die an ihm teilhaben, indem er die einen jung macht, die anderen alt, und alles im Kreis herumtreibt.

Die bildhafte Sprache, die sich in den Ὑφηγητικά und den Ζῶναι findet, passt sehr wohl zum Verfasser der λόγια δι᾿ ἐπῶν, die an zwei Stellen sogar ohne eigene Markierung zitiert werden.81 Die Theurgen im Plural sind hier entweder einfach verallgemeinernde Formulierungen oder aber die zusammenfassende Bezeichnung für die beiden Iulianoi.82 Präziser ist τοῖς ἐπὶ Μάρκου (γενομένοις) θεουργοῖς bei Proklos, In Remp. II 123, 12 und In Crat. 72, 10f.; auch hier sind Iulianos der Chaldaeer und Iulianos der Theurg gemeint. Lässt dieser Blick auf die Ὑφηγητικά und die Ζῶναι einen hinreichend präzisen Sprachgebrauch erkennen, so liegt die Vermutung nahe, dass auch bei anderen Zitationen die Theurgen spezifisch für den jüngeren Iulianos oder vielleicht für Vater und Sohn gemeinsam stehen.83 81

Proklos, In Tim. I 317, 24: κυρτῷ σχήματι (cf. OC 63) sowie κυκλοέλικτον (OC 199, In Tim. III 20, 25; paraphrasiert als ἑλικοειδῆ In Tim. III 80, 13). 82 Cf. auch In Remp. II 220, 11: τῶν παρὰ Χαλδαίοις θεουργῶν (zitiert oben S. 70). 83 Gelegentlich auch θεολόγοι: Proklos, In Tim. II 9, 17-19 (mit Zitat von OC 60, 1 und OC 60, 2); II 82, 3-6 (mit Zitat von OC 8, 2f.); II 129, 27 (mit Anspielung auf OC 50 und 51); III 55, 30f. (mit Zitat von OC 185). Allerdings sind damit meist die Orphiker bezeichnet.

Zuschreibungen der Chaldaeischen Orakel von Porphyrios bis Patrizi

79

3 Die Götter Wie in den vorangehenden Abschnitten gesehen, sind regelmäßig die Götter als Orakelsprecher genannt. Die zitierten Belege nennen die Chaldaeer oder Theurgen als Adressaten; meist fehlen solche Präzisierungen jedoch und es heißt einfach οἱ θεοί φασιν oder φησί τις θεῶν.84 Ein Bedeutungsunterschied zwischen Singular und Plural besteht nicht: So führt Damaskios etwa OC 18 sowohl auf den χρησμῳδῶν θεός zurück85 als auch auf οἱ θεοί.86 Ungebräuchlich ist ὁ θεός, und niemals wird ein Fragment der OC einem spezifischen Gott zugeschrieben, selbst wenn Rede in der ersten Person vorliegt.87 Den verbalen Formulierungen entspricht das Adjektiv θεοπαράδοτος,88 als Epitheton nicht nur zu λόγια89 und den ὀνόματα βάρβαρα,90 sondern auch zu φήμη91 und φῆμαι im Plural,92 zu σοφία,93 θεολογία94 und μυσταγωγία;95 οἱ τῆς θεοπαρα84

Cf. Dam. In Parm. II 98, 1f.; III 60, 2 W. - C. - S. (zu OC 82; 50); Proklos, In Remp. II 99, 1 (zu OC 99); ferner Iul. Imp., Or. V [VIII] In matrem deorum 178 d (zu OC 129); Proklos, In Alc. p. 40, 2f. C. (zu OC 135); In Crat. 20, 27; 31, 12; 35, 4f.; 51, 26f. (zu OC 87; 145; 210; 19); In Remp. I 137, 23; 176, 22f.; II 143, 27; 220, 18; 242, 8f. (zu OC 55; 45; 95; 58; 142); In Tim. II 50, 20f.; 300, 14; 312, 28; III 325, 32 - 326, 1 (zu OC 67; 41; 111; 181); Th. Pl. V 24 p. 87, 25 S. - W.; 119, 10f.; 130, 3f. S. - W. (zu OC 114; 102; 72); In Parm. VII p. 58, 27f. K. - L. (zu OC 9); Dam., De princ. II 106, 10 W. - C.; In Parm. I 20, 9-12; 67, 19f.; 94, 19 und II 34, 18f.; 34, 6f.; 126, 11f.; 101, 9f.; IV 126, 3f. W. - C. - S. (zu OC 2; 19; 83; 76; 80; 197; 63; 163). Cf. auch Lewy 443-447 und Brisson, „La place ...“ 119f. zu Proklos 85 In Parm. I 20, 2 W. - C. - S. Zur Formulierung cf. Seng, „Ein Orakelzitat ...“ 93-95. 86 In Parm. I 104, 4f. W. - C. - S.; cf. auch οἴ τε ἐκδεδωκότες θεοὶ τὰ πολυτίμητα λόγια (De princ. III 119, 3f. W. - C.). 87 Zuschreibungen insbesondere an Apollon und Hekate bei Lewy 3-65 im Rahmen des Versuchs, „New Chaldæan Oracles in Porphyry’s work ‚On the philosophy of the oracles’“ (Lewy 3) zu finden; dagegen Dodds 264-267 = 694-697; Hadot, „Bilan ...“ 712; Busine 201; Tissi 41; Seng, „Theologische Orakel ...“, insbesondere 147-151. 88 Ausgehend von Ps.-Dionysios Areopagita findet sich die überreiche Verwendung dieses Ausdrucks bei christlichen Autoren (ebenso θεουργός und θεουργικός). 89 Proklos, De prov. 21, 1 Boese = 29, 1f. Isaac; Marinos, Vita Procli 26, 26. 90 Psellos, Opusc. phil. II 38 p. 132, 27f. O’M. zu OC 150. 91 Dam., In Parm. III 36, 8 W. - C. - S., mit Bezug auf OC 35. 92 Proklos, In Remp. II 236, 4 (siehe Anm. 37) und In Crat. 59, 19 mit Bezug auf den isolierten Ausdruck ἅπαξ ἐπέκεινα (OC 169). Nicht beweiskräftig ist φήμη für sich. Bei Proklos Th. Pl. V 22 p. 82, 15 S. - W. bezieht sich παλαιὰ φήμη auf OC 1, In Crat. 84, 21 auf die orphische Überlieferung, In Remp. I 108, 5 auf das Parisurteil, In Alc. p. 183, 16 C. auf ein Sprichwort (Ps.-Platon, Theages 122 b 2), In Alc. p. 42, 11 C. auf mythische Überlieferung, die zuerst bei Ovid belegt ist (Met. 4, 480; cf. Met. 11, 647).

80

Helmut Seng

δότου μετασχόντες μυσταγωγίας96 könnte sich auf eine astronomischkosmologische Schrift des Iulianos beziehen.97 Selten werden die Orakel durch Genitivus subiectivus98 oder das Adjektiv θεῖος bezeichnet.99 Als Sonderfall ist ein Beleg im Turiner Parmenideskommentar zu nennen (IX 1-11): Οἱ δὲ ἁρπάσαι ἑαυτὸν ἐκ πάντων τῶν ἑαυτοῦ εἰπόντες δύναμίν τε αὐτῷ διδόασι καὶ νοῦν ἐν τῇ ἁπλότητι αὐτοῦ συνηνῶσθαι καὶ ἄλλον πάλιν ‹ν›οῦν καὶ τῆς τρίαδος αὐτὸν οὐκ ἐξελόντες ἀναιρεῖν ἀριθμὸν ἀξιοῦσιν, ὡς καὶ τὸ ἓν λέγειν αὐτὸν εἶναι παντελῶς παραιτεῖσθαι. Ταῦτα δέ πως μὲν λέγεται ὀρθῶς τε καὶ ἀληθῶς, εἴ γε θεοὶ ὥς φασιν οἱ παραδεδωκότες ταῦτα ἐξήγγειλαν, φθάνει δὲ πᾶσαν τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην κατάληψιν. Die aber sagen, er habe sich aus allem, was sein ist, entrissen, schreiben ihm eine Kraft und einen Intellekt zu, die mit ihm in seiner Einfachheit geeint sind, sowie wiederum einen anderen Intellekt. Dabei nehmen sie ihn aus der Trias nicht heraus und behaupten, er hebe jede Zahl auf, sodass sie auch strikt ablehnen, ihn „das Eine“ zu nennen. Das ist zwar irgendwie recht und wahr gesagt, jedenfalls wenn Götter dies verkündet haben, wie diejenigen sagen, die es überliefert haben, doch kann alles menschliche Begreifen es nicht erfassen.

Hier ist OC 3 paraphrasiert und auf die Götter zurückgeführt, unter dem Vorbehalt: Wenn es denn wirklich Götter sind. Offensichtlich bringt der Verfasser des Kommentars den OC nicht dieselbe Ehrfurcht entgegen wie die Neuplatoniker seit Iamblichos, sondern zeigt eine Haltung kritischen Interesses, wie es für Porphyrios belegt ist.100 Die παραδεδωκότες sind nach den bislang erzielten Ergebnissen mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit die Iulianoi. 93

Dam., In Parm. III 83, 1 W. - C. - S., bezogen auf OC 8, 2f.; OC 5, 2f.; OC 37, 1f.; gefolgt von OC 57 mit der Zitationsformel ὥς φησι τὸ λόγιον. 94 Proklos, In Tim. I 318, 22f., bezogen auf den Ausdruck πηγαῖος, der in den chaldaeisch-neuplatonischen Systemen häufig verwendet wird; cf. OC 42, 3; Proklos, In Tim. I 408, 12f., bezogen auf δὶς ἐπέκεινα (cf. OC 169), OC 53 und OC 94. 95 Proklos, In Remp. I 111, 1f., bezogen auf OC 146; als chaldaeisch gesichert durch den Anschluss: καὶ ὅσα τούτοις ἐφεξῆς τὰ λόγια προστίθησιν (In Remp. I 111, 13). 96 In Remp. II 217, 15f. 97 Siehe oben S. 76-78. 98 Iul. Imp., Or. VIII (V) In matrem deorum 178 d, bezogen auf OC 129, und Dam., In Princ. II 1, 14 W. - C., ohne konkreten Bezug; auch In Tim. III 36, 21f. κατὰ τὴν ... τῶν θεῶν ὀμφήν zu OC 185. Cf. auch Seng, ΚΟΣΜΑΓΟΙ 13 mit Anm. 11. 99 Marinos, Vita Procli 26, 19f. 100 Cf. etwa Seng, „Langage ...“ 73-76; zur Verfasserfrage Chase 1358-1371.

Zuschreibungen der Chaldaeischen Orakel von Porphyrios bis Patrizi

81

4 Mischformen und Mehrfachzitationen Einige Mischformen der Zitation waren bereits zu erwähnen: Die Rede der Götter oder der Orakel zu den Chaldaeern und Theurgen, die „Theurgen bei den Chaldaeern“ oder die Orakel der Götter. Zahlreiche Mehrfachzitationen derselben Orakel zeigen, dass eine Vielfalt herrscht, die im Einzelfall widersprüchlich scheinen könnte. Tatsächlich aber wird vielmehr deutlich, dass Präzision der Terminologie zumindest nicht durchgängig angestrebt wird. Umgekehrt ist die Zitation als chaldaeisch kein unumstößlicher Beweis. Besonders deutlich wird dies im Fall von OC 216: Das Fragment im Umfang von vier Versen wird von Lydos als chaldaeisch angeführt, ebenso mehrmals einzelne Ausdrücke aus v. 4. Gerade dieser jedoch wird von Olympiodor als orphisch zitiert.101 5 Weitere Varianten Gelegentlich werden Formulierungen wie βάρβαροι, βάρβαρος θεοσοφία oder ὑπερόριος θεοσοφία gebraucht.102 Hier ist im Einzelnen nicht immer ersichtlich, ob Zitate aus den OC oder den Begleitschriften wie Ὑφηγητικά oder Ζῶναι vorliegen. Auch die Rede von den θεολόγοι ist nicht eindeutig; meist bezieht sich der Ausdruck auf die Orpheus zugeschriebenen Schriften, gelegentlich aber auch auf die Chaldaeer bzw. Theurgen.103 Hier ist nicht immer leicht zu unterscheiden. Von besonderer Bedeutung sind der Orakelkommentar und die Referate des Psellos, einschließlich der Exzerpte aus der Χαλδαϊκὴ φιλοσοφία des Proklos.104 Zwar gibt Psellos eine neuplatonische Interpretation der OC wieder, sodass die philosophischen Aussagen nicht unbedingt auf die OC selbst zurückzuführen sind. Hier bedarf es 101

Cf. auch Seng, „OC 216 (dubium) des Places ...“ 813 mit Anm 4; 824.827f. Siehe oben Anm. 68. 103 Siehe oben Anm. 83 und cf. etwa Proklos, In Remp. II 138, 10: τὸν θεολόγον Ὀρφέα oder Proklos, Th. Pl. V 10 p. 33, 22f. S. - W.: ὁ τῶν Ἑλλήνων θεολόγος Ὀρφεύς im Gegensatz zu den βάρβαροι. 104 Der Titel ist nicht über alle Zweifel erhaben. Psellos exzerpiert auch Iambl., De myst. II 4f. p. 70, 17 - 79, 13 P. = 53, 8 - 60, 2 S. - S. - L. als Ἰαμβλίχου ἐκ τῆς χαλδαικῆς φιλοσοφίας περὶ διακρίσεως (Vaticanus graecus 1026, f. 229v, cf. Sicherl 134). Dass dies der Originaltitel ist, darf angesichts der spärlichen Bezugnahmen auf die Chaldaeer als unwahrscheinlich gelten. Cf. zum Titel zuletzt S. - S. - L. IX-XXI. 102

82

Helmut Seng

detaillierter Analyse. Jedoch enthalten die genannten Texte eine nicht geringe Zahl von auffälligen Ausdrücken, deren chaldaeische Herkunft durch die Zuordnung bei Psellos als bezeugt gelten kann,105 selbst wenn damit noch kein letztgültiger Beweis erbracht ist.106 6 Zusammenfassung Bei der Zitation der OC herrscht eine gewisse Vielfalt. Dasselbe Orakel (oder auch ein Zitat aus Schriften des Theurgen Iulianos) kann mit verschiedenen Formulierungen zitiert werden. Daraus ergibt sich auch, dass die Zitationen klare Differenzierungen, etwa zwischen eigentlichen Orakeln und sonstigen Äußerungen der Theurgen, nicht immer zulassen. Allerdings beziehen sich, soweit ersichtlich, τὸ λόγιον bzw. τὰ λόγια sowie οἱ θεοί φασιν und ähnliche Formulierungen stets auf die Orakel selbst, auch wo sie nicht zur Zitation eines wörtlich wiedergegebenen Fragments dienen und stattdessen neuplatonische Exegese referiert wird. Bei Verweisen auf die Chaldaeer und Theurgen hingegen muss nicht mehr als neuplatonisch-chaldaeische Lehre gemeint sein. Allein die explizit den Ζῶναι oder Ὑφηγητικά des Iulianos zugeschriebenen Zitate und Referate, die zudem in Prosa formuliert sind, lassen sich von den Orakeln als solchen trennen. Inhaltlich und überlieferungskontextuell werden diese Schriften jedoch mit den OC zusammengeschaut. In diesem Traditionszusammenhang mag der ältere Iulianos beanspruchen, als Exponent der Chaldaeer und ihrer Weisheit zu sprechen, ob er sich den Beinamen selbst zulegt oder aufgrund seiner Tätigkeit und seiner Schriften erwirbt. Sein Sohn, der die λόγια δι᾿ ἐπῶν verfasst oder redigiert, heißt als Ritualspezialist der Theurg und könnte den Begriff selbst geprägt haben. Gemeinsam sind Vater und Sohn die beiden Chaldaeer und die beiden Theurgen par excellence.107 Innerhalb des corpus ist es nicht möglich, verschiedene Kategorien von Orakeln nach Provenienz zu unterscheiden, etwa ältere theurgisch105

Sofern nicht ohnedies weitere Belege hinzutreten. Selbst ein chaldaisierender Zusammenhang kann begründen, eine bestimmte Formulierung auf die OC zurückzuführen, cf. etwa OC 93. 107 Der Verdacht, dass es sich in Wahrheit nur um eine Person mit zwei Beinamen handelt, die erst im Laufe der Rezeptionsgeschichte zu Vater und Sohn wird, lässt sich zwar nicht ausschließen, aber angesichts der Quellenlage noch weniger wahrscheinlich machen. Umgekehrt sind die Χαλδαῖοι kaum als Autorenkollektiv vorzustellen, denen die Orakel zu Recht oder fälschlich zugeschrieben werden. 106

Zuschreibungen der Chaldaeischen Orakel von Porphyrios bis Patrizi

83

rituelle von späteren metaphysischen,108 solche des Theurgen im Singular von denen der Theurgen im Plural oder die der Theurgen von denen der Chaldaeer.109 Bei der Zuschreibung von Orakeln werden diese Ausdrücke synonym gebraucht. Eine sukzessive Textentstehung ist nicht auszuschließen; doch fehlen Hinweise darauf, dass die OC als eine „collection vivante“ zu verstehen sind.110 Fehlerhafte bzw. widersprüchliche Zuschreibung lässt sich bereits in der Antike nachweisen,111 bleibt jedoch ein Ausnahmefall, soweit ein Nachweis möglich ist.112 Umgekehrt lassen sich Interpolationen nicht grundsätzlich ausschließen, doch sind solche nicht nachweisbar. 7 Ausblick So umfänglich Psellos den Titel Chaldaeische Orakel bezeugt, so vollständig ist jeder Chaldaeerbezug bei Plethon getilgt, dessen Orakelsammlung freilich ganz auf Psellos beruht.113 Plethon scheidet manche Orakel aus, ändert den Text anderer und ersetzt den Kommentar vollständig. Zudem schreibt er die Orakel den Magiern zu, den Schülern des Zoroaster, den er in der Nachfolge Plutarchs 5000 Jahre vor dem troianischen Krieg datiert.114 Entsprechend lautet der Titel seiner Sammlung: Μαγικὰ λόγια τῶν ἀπὸ Ζωροάστρου μάγων. Magische Orakel der Magier in der Nachfolge Zoroasters.

108

Angenommen von Saffrey, „Les néoplatoniciens ...“ 218-220 (zustimmend Brisson, „La place ...“ 110f.); cf. etwa Majercik 2 oder Athanassiadi, „The Chaldaean Oracles ...“ 158 Anm. 39. 109 Siehe auch oben Anm. 52. 110 So Cazelais 283f. Cf. auch Geffcken 276f. Anm. 94, Hadot, „Bilan ...“ 706 und Van den Kerchove 158-162. 111 Auf die Frage der dubia bzw. moderner Fehlzuschreibungen ist hier nicht im Einzelnen einzugehen. 112 Cf. noch Psellos, Opusc. phil. II 38 p. 128, 18 O’M. (zweifelhaft als OC 166), nach Plotin I 9 [16] 1f. 113 Grundlegend Tambrun 53-104; cf. auch Tardieu, „Pléthon ...“; Athanassiadi, „The Chaldaean Oracles ... “ und „Byzantine Commentators ...“; Brisson, „Pléthon ...“. 114 Plethon, Μαγικὰ λόγια p. 19, 20-22 T. - K. nach Plutarch, De Iside et Osiride 369 d 10 - e 1. Cf. auch Tardieu, „Pléthon ...“ 146f. Anm. 11 und Stausberg, Faszination 60f.

84

Helmut Seng

Ein Anhaltspunkt, auf den Plethon hätte zurückgreifen können, ist nicht ersichtlich;115 methodisch passt sein Vorgehen zum eigenwilligen Umgang mit der mythischen Überlieferung116 und den Texten Platons,117 die er nach seinen Vorstellungen umarbeitet. Die Frühdatierung der jetzt auf Zoroaster zurückgeführten Orakel macht sie zum Zeugnis einer ursprünglichen Weisheit vor Judentum, Christentum und Islam, denen Plethon die baldige Ablösung durch die allverbindende Religion voraussagt, die durch die Orakel bezeugt sei.118 Durch Plethons Teilnahme am Konzil von Ferrara und Florenz, 1438 bis 1439, wurden die OC dem Westen bekannt; Zoroaster avancierte zur ältesten und damit höchsten Autorität noch vor Hermes Trismegistos.119 Für Marsilio Ficino, Agostino Steuco und Francesco Patrizi, um die wichtigsten Autoren zu nennen, waren die OC Zeugnis einer prisca theologia, einer ursprünglichen Religion und Philosophie, in der das Christentum vorgebildet war.120 Allerdings ist Patrizi auch Psellos bekannt, und damit die Bezeichnung Chaldaeische Orakel. Entsprechend tituliert er seine über Psellos und Plethon freilich weit hinausgehende Sammlung Chaldaeischer Orakel, die 1591 in Ferrara erscheint, Zoroaster et eius cccxx oracula chaldaica und beruft sich dafür in der Einleitung auf Proklos und Psellos (f. 3v b - 4r a). Johann Heinrich Ursin jedoch führt 1659 den Nachweis, dass die OC philosophiegeschichtlich in das 2. Jahrhundert nach Christus gehören; im selben Jahr schreibt Peter Lambec sie Iulianos dem Theurgen zu, der in diese Zeit zu datieren ist. Wissenschaftsgeschichtlich ist das ein wichtiger Fortschritt; die Begeisterung für die OC kühlt damit jedoch merklich ab.121 115

Zwar ist eine vermittelnde Quelle nicht auszuschließen; laut Georgios Scholarios, später Patriarch Gennadios II, soll Plethon Zoroaster, und damit sind wohl die OC gemeint, durch den Juden Elissaios (zu diesem cf. Gardette 147-164) kennengelernt haben; cf. Woodhouse 23-28.51.59; Tardieu, „Pléthon ...“ 144-148; Brisson, „Pléthon ...“ 135-138; Hladký 191-204. Doch auch, wenn dies nicht pure Polemik ist, erklärt es nicht die Zuschreibung der nach Psellos chaldaeischen Texte an Zoroaster. Zu möglichen Anhaltspunkten cf. noch Beck 523f. mit Anm. 83 und Tambrun 62f. 116 Cf. Tambrun 146-153. 117 Cf. Pagani, „Un nuovo testimone ...“, „Damnata verba“, „Filosofia e teologia ...“. 118 Tambrun 116-118. 119 Cf. Stausberg, Faszination 122-124; Tambrun 243f. 120 Grundlegend Stausberg, Faszination 83-393; cf. auch Moreschini auch die kurzen Angaben bei Seng, ΚΟΣΜΑΓΟΙ 28-31; „Oracula Chaldaica“ 552-554; Un livre sacré 31-35, jeweils mit Literaturangaben. 121 Cf. Stausberg, Faszination 389-393.975 sowie „Von den Chaldäischen Orakeln zu den Hundert Pforten ...“; ferner Jeck 313f.

Zuschreibungen der Chaldaeischen Orakel von Porphyrios bis Patrizi

85

Literaturverzeichnis 1 Ausgaben, Kommentare, Übersetzungen Damaskios Dubitationes et solutiones de primis principiis. In Platonis Parmenidem Damascii successoris dubitationes et solutiones de primis principiis, in Platonis Parmenidem. C. A. Ruelle. I-II Paris 1889. (ND Amsterdam 1966). Damascius, Traités des premiers principes. Texte établi par L. G. Westerink et traduit par J. Combès. I-III Paris 1986-1991. [Zitierte Ausgabe]. Damascius, Commentaire du Parménide de Platon. Texte établi par L. G. Westerink (†), introduit, traduit et commenté par J. Combès avec la collaboration de A.-P. Segonds. I-IV Paris 1997-2003. [Zitierte Ausgabe]. Iamblichos De mysteriis Jamblique, Réponse à Porphyre (De Mysteriis). Texte établi, traduit et annoté par H. D. Saffrey et A. P. Segonds † avec la collaboration de A. Lecerf. Paris 2013. Johannes Lydos De mensibus Ioannis Lydi Liber de mensibus. Edidit R. Wuensch. Leipzig 1898. (ND Stuttgart 1967). Iulianus Imperator In matrem deorum Giuliano imperatore, Alla madre degli dei. Edizione critica, traduzione e commento a cura di V. Ugenti. Congedo 1992. (Testi e studi 6). Epistulae L’empereur Julien, Œuvres complètes. I 2 Lettres et fragments. Texte revue et traduit par J. Bidez. Paris 21960. Contra Galilaeos Giuliano Imperatore, Contra Galilaeos. Introduzione, testo critico e traduzione a cura di E. Masaracchia. Roma 1990. (Testi e commenti 9). Oracula Chaldaica Oracles Chaldaïques avec un choix de commentaires anciens. Texte établi et traduit par É. des Places. Paris 1971. Deuxième tirage revu et corrigé 1989. Troisième tirage revue et corrigé par A.-P. Segonds 1996. [Zitierte Ausgabe]. The Chaldean Oracles. Text, translation and commentary by R. Majercik. Leiden 1989. (SGRR 5). Patrizi, F.: Zoroaster et eius cccxx oracula chaldaica. Ferrara 1591.

86

Helmut Seng

Platonismus Dörrie, H. †, Baltes, M. †, Pietsch, C. unter Mitarbeit von M.-L. Lakmann: Die philosophische Lehre des Platonismus. Theologia Platonica. Bausteine 182-205: Text, Übersetzung, Kommentar. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 2008. (Der Platonismus in der Antike VII). Plethon Magica logia Μαγικὰ λόγια τῶν ἀπὸ Ζωροάστρου μάγων. Γεωργίου Γεμιστοῦ Πλήθωνος Ἐξήγησις εἰς τὰ αὐτὰ λόγια. Oracles chaldaïques. Recension de Georges Gémiste Pléthon. Édition critique, traduction et commentaire par B. Tambrun-Krasker. La recension arabe des Μαγικὰ λόγια par M. Tardieu. Athen – Paris – Bruxelles 1995. Porphyrios Fragmenta Porphyrii philosophi fragmenta edidit A. Smith. Fragmenta Arabica D. Wasserstein interpretante. Stuttgart – Leipzig 1993. Anonymus Taurinensis In Parmenidem Fragments du commentaire de Porphyre „Sur le Parménide“. In: Hadot, P.: Porphyre et Victorinus. I Paris 1968. 59-113. Proklos In Alcibiadem Proclus, Sur le premier Alcibiade de Platon. Texte établi et traduit par A.-P. Segonds. I-II Paris 1985-1986. In Cratylum Procli Diadochi in Platonis Cratylum commentaria. Edidit G. Pasquali. Leipzig 1908. (ND Stuttgart – Leipzig 1994). In Parmenidem Procli in Platonis Parmenidem Commentaria. Edidit C. Steel. Recognoverunt brevique adnotatione critica instruxerunt C. Steel, C. Mace, P. d’Hoine. I Oxford 2007. In Rempublicam Procli Diadochi in Platonis Rem Publicam commentarii. Edidit G. Kroll. I-II Leipzig 1899-1901. (ND Amsterdam 1965). In Timaeum Procli Diadochi in Platonis Timaeum commentaria. Edidit E. Diehl. I-III Leipzig 1903-1906. (ND Amsterdam 1965). Theologia Platonica Proclus, Théologie Platonicienne. Texte établi et traduit par H. D. Saffrey et L. G. Westerink. I-VI Paris 1968-1997.

Zuschreibungen der Chaldaeischen Orakel von Porphyrios bis Patrizi

87

Psellos Opuscula philosophica Michaelis Pselli philosophica minora. I edidit J. M. Duffy. Stuttgart – Leipzig 1992. II edidit D. J. O’Meara. Leipzig 1989. Orationes forenses et acta Michaelis Pselli Orationes forenses et acta. Edidit G. T. Dennis. Stuttgart – Leipzig 1994. Scripta minora Michaelis Pselli scripta minora magnam partem adhuc inedita edidit recognovitque E. Kurtz. Ex schedis eius relictis in lucem emisit F. Drexl. II Milano 1941. Simplikios In physica In Aristotelis physicorum libros quattuor priores commentaria edidit H. Diels. Berlin 1882. (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 9). Sozomenos Historia ecclesiastica Sozomenus, Kirchengeschichte. Herausgegeben von J. Bidez (†). Eingeleitet, zum Druck besorgt und mit Registern versehen von G. C. Hansen. Zweite, durchgesehene Auflage Berlin 1995. (GCS NF 4). Suda

Suidae Lexicon edidit A. Adler. I-V Leipzig 1928-1938.

Synesios Opuscula Synesii Cyrenensi opusula. Nicolaus Terzaghi recensuit. Roma 1944. Epistolae Synesii Cyrenenis epistolae. A. Garzya recensuit. Roma 1979. 2 Sekundärliteratur Athanassiadi, P. : La lutte pour l’orthodoxie dans le platonisme tardif. De Numénius à Damascius. Paris 2006. Athanassiadi, P.: „Julian the Theurgist: Man or Myth.“ In: Seng - Tardieu (ed.) 193208. Athanassiadi, P.: „The Chaldaean Oracles: Theology and Theurgy.“ In: Athanassiadi, P. - Frede, M. (ed.): Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity. Oxford 1999. 149183. Athanassiadi, P.: „Byzantine Commentators on the Chaldaean Oracles: Psellos and Plethon.“ In: Ierodiakonou, K. (ed.): Byzantine Philosophy and its Ancient Sources. Oxford 2002. 237-252.

88

Helmut Seng

Athanassiadi, P.: „Apamea and the Chaldaean Oracles: A holy city and a holy book.“ In: Smith, A. (ed.): The philosopher and society in late antiquity. Essays in honour of Peter Brown. Swansea 2005. 117-143. Athanassiadi, P.: „Le théurge comme dispensateur universel de la grâce: entre les Oracles chaldaïques et Jamblique.“ REAug 61 (2015) 41-68. Batiffol, P.: „Oracula hellenica.“ Revue Biblique 25 (1916) 177-199. Beck, R.: „Tus spake not Zarathuštra: Zoroastrian pseudepigrapha of the GrecoRoman world.“ In: Boyce, M. - Grenet, F. (ed.): A History of Zoroastrianism. III 493-565. Leiden – New York – København – Köln 1991. (HdO 1/8/1/2/2). Brisson, L.: „La place des Oracles chaldaïques dans la Théologie platonicienne.“ In: Segonds, A.-P. - Steel, C. (ed.): Proclus et la Théologie Platonicienne. Leuven – Paris 2000. 109-162. Brisson, L.: „Pléthon et les Oracles Chaldaïques.“ In: Cacouros, M. - Congourdeau, M. H. (ed.): Philosophie et sciences à Byzance de 1204 à 1453. Leuven 2006. 129-142. Busine, A.: Paroles d’Apollon. Pratiques et traditions oraculaires dans l’Antiquité tardive (IIe-VIe siècles). Leiden – Boston 2005. (RGRW 156). Cazelais, S.: „Quelques remarques sur la réception d’un pseudépigraphe: les Oracles chaldaïques.“ LThPh 61 (2005) 273-289. Chase, M.: „Porphyre de Tyr. Commentaires à Platon et à Aristote.“ In: Goulet, R. (ed.): Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques. Vb Paris 2012. 1349-1376. Cremer, F. W.: Die chaldäischen Orakel und Jamblich De mysteriis. Meisenheim 1969. (BzKPh 26). Dillon, J.: The Middle Platonists. A Study of Platonism 80 B.C. to A.D. 220. London 1977. Dodds, E. R.: „Theurgy and its Relationship to Neoplatonism.“ JRS 37 (1947) 55-69. Dodds, E. R.: The Greeks and the irrational. Berkeley 1951. Dodds, E. R.: „New Light on the ‚Chaldaean Oracles‘.“ HThR 54 (1961) 263-273. [= Lewy 693-701]. Dodds, E. R.: Pagan and Christian in an age of anxiety. Some aspects of religious experience from Marcus Aurelius to Constantine. Cambridge 1965. Dörrie - Baltes - Pietsch  Platonismus. Gardette, P.: Etudes imagologiques et relations interconfessionnelles en zone byzantino-ottomane. Istanbul 2007. (Analacta Isisiana 92). Geffcken, J.: Der Ausgang des griechisch-römischen Heidentums. Heidelberg 1920 (ND Darmstadt 1963). Hadot, P.: „Bilan et perspectives sur les Oracles Chaldaïques.“ In: Lewy 703-720. Hadot, P., „Théologie, exégèse, révélation, écriture dans la philosophie grecque.“ In: M. Tardieu (ed.): Les règles de l’interprétation. Paris 1987. 13-34. [= Hadot, P.: Études de Philosophie Ancienne. Paris 1998. 27-58]. Hladký, V.: The Philosophy of Gemistos Plethon. Platonism in Late Byzantium, between Hellenism and Orthodoxy. Farnham – Burlington (Vt.) 2014. Hopfner, T.: „Die Kindermedien in den griechisch-ägyptischen Zauberpapyri.“ In: Recueil d’études dédiées à la mémoire de N. P. Kondakov. Prag 1926. 65-74. Jeck, U. R.: Platonica Orientalia. Aufdeckung einer philosophischen Tradition. Frankfurt/ Main 2004.

Zuschreibungen der Chaldaeischen Orakel von Porphyrios bis Patrizi

89

Johnston, S. I.: „Charming Children: The Use of the Child in Ancient Divination.“ Arethusa 34 (2001) 97-117. Kaldellis, A.: „The religion of Ioannes Lydos.“ Phoenix 57 (2004) 300-316. Kovács, P.: Marcus Aurelius’ Rain Miracle and the Marcomannic Wars. Leiden – Boston 2009. (Mnemosyne Supplements 308). Kroll, W.: De oraculis Chaldaicis. Breslau 1894. (ND mit einem Nachtrag Hildesheim 1962). (BphA VII 1). Kroll, W.: „Die Zeit des Cornelius Labeo.” Rheinisches Museum 71 (1916) 309-357. Lecerf, A. - Saudelli, L., „« Sources » et « principes » : universalité et particularité dans les Oracles Chaldaïques.“ In: Seng - Sfameni Gasparro (ed.): 47-88. Lewy, H.: Chaldaean Oracles and Theurgy. Mysticism Magic and Platonism in the Later Roman Empire. Troisième édition par M. Tardieu avec un supplément « Les Oracles chaldaïques 1891-2011 ». Paris 2011. (1Le Caire 1956, 2Paris 1978). Majercik  Oracula Chaldaica. Moreschini, C.: „Gli Oracula Chaldaica nel Rinascimento italiano: alcune osservazioni.“ ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ 33 (2009) 143-169. Pagani, F.:„Un nuovo testimone della recensio pletoniana al testo di Platone: il Marc. Gr. 188 (K).“ Res publica litterarum 29 (2006) 5-20 Pagani, F.: „Damnata verba: censure di Pletone in alcuni codici platonici.“ Byzantinische Zeitschrift 102 (2009) 167-202. Pagani, F.: „Filosofia e teologia in Giorgio Gemisto Pletone: La testimonianza dei codici platonici.“ Rinascimento 48 (2008) 3-45. Saffrey, H. D.: „Les Néoplatoniciens et les Oracles Chaldaïques.“ REAug 27 (1981) 209-225. [= Saffrey, H. D.: Recherches sur le néoplatonisme après Plotin. Paris 1990. 63-79]. Saffrey, H. D.: „Accorder entre elles les traditions theologiques: une charactéristique du néoplatonisme athénien.“ In: Bos, E. P. - Meijer, P. A. (ed.): On Proclus and his influence in medieval philosophy. Leiden – New York – Köln 1992. 35-50. [= Saffrey, H. D.: Le néoplatonisme après Plotin. Paris 2000. 143158]. Seng, H., ΚΟΣΜΑΓΟΙ, ΑΖΩΝΟΙ, ΖΩΝΑΙΟΙ. Drei Begriffe chaldaeischer Kosmologie und ihr Fortleben. Heidelberg 2009. (Bibliotheca Chaldaica 1). Seng, H.: „Oracula Chaldaica.“ In: Walde, Christine (ed.): Die Rezeption der antiken Literatur. Kulturhistorisches Werklexikon. Stuttgart – Weimar 2010. 549-556. (Der Neue Pauly. Supplemente 7). Seng, H.: „Oracles chaldaïques : une fiction féconde.“ In: Aufrère, S. - Möri, F. (ed.) : Alexandrie la divine. Sagesses barbares. Échanges et réappropriations dans l’espace culturel gréco-romain. Genève 2016. 357-387. Seng, H.: Un livre sacré de l’Antiquité tardive: Les Oracles Chaldaïques. Turnhout 2016. (Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études – Sciences Religieuses 170). Seng, H., „Theologische Orakel zwischen Metaphysik und Ritual.“ In: Seng Sfameni Gasparro (ed.) 145-170. Seng, H.: „Ein Orakelzitat bei Johannes Lydos, De mensibus IV 101 p. 141, 1-11 Wuensch (OC 215 dubium des Places).“ ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ 40 (2016) 429-446. Seng, H.: „OC 216 (dubium) des Places – Fragmentum Orphicum 353 Kern. Probleme und Interpretationen.“ In: Soares Santoprete, L. G. - Van den

90

Helmut Seng

Kerchove, A. (ed.): Gnose et manichéisme entre les oasis d’Égypte à la Route de la Soie. Hommage à Jean-Daniel Dubois. Turnhout 2017. 813-828. (Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études – Sciences Religieuses 176). Seng, H., „Langage des dieux et langage des hommes dans les Oracles Chaldaïques.“ In: Hoffmann, P. - Soares Santoprete, L. G. (ed.): Langage des dieux, langage des démons, langage des hommes dans l’Antiquité. Turnhout 2017. 53-77. (Recherches sur les Rhétoriques Religieuses 26). Seng, H.: „Ilias 14, 291 und die Chaldaeischen Orakel.“ In: Seng, H. - Soares Santoprete, L. G. - Tommasi, C. O. (ed.): Hierarchie und Ritual. Zur philosophischen Spiritualität der Spätantike. (Bibliotheca Chaldaica 7). Seng, H. - Sfameni Gasparro, G. (ed.): Theologische Orakel in der Spätantike. Heidelberg 2016. (Bibliotheca Chaldaica 5). Seng, H. - Tardieu, M. (ed.): Die Chaldaeischen Orakel. Kontext – Interpretation – Rezeption. Heidelberg 2010. (Bibliotheca Chaldaica 2). Sicherl, M.: Die Handschriften, Ausgaben und Übersetzungen von Iamblichos De mysteriis: eine kritisch-historische Studie. Berlin 1957. (TU 62). Smith, R.: Julian’s Gods. Religion and Philosophy in the Thought and Action of Julian the Apostate. London – New York 1995. Stausberg, M.: Faszination Zarathushtra. Zoroaster und die Europäische Religionsgeschichte der Frühen Neuzeit. I-II Berlin – New York 1998. (RGVV 42). Stausberg, M.: „Von den Chaldäischen Orakeln zu den Hundert Pforten und darüber hinaus: Das 17. Jahrhundert als rezeptionsgeschichtliche Epochenschwelle.“ Archiv für Religionsgeschichte 3 (2001) 257-272. Tambrun, B.: Pléthon. Le retour de Platon. Paris 2006. Tanaseanu-Döbler, I.: „Weise oder Scharlatane? Chaldaeerbilder in der griechischrömischen Kaiserzeit und die Chaldaeischen Orakel.“ In: Seng - Tardieu (ed.) 19-42. Tanaseanu-Döbler, I., Theurgy in Late Antiquity. The Invention of a Ritual Tradition, Göttingen – Bristol (Conn.) 2013. Taormina, D. P.: „I Greci a scuola degli Egizi e dei Caldei. Giamblico e la materia primordiale.“ In: Seng, H. - Soares Santoprete, L. G. - Tommasi, C. O. (ed.): Formen und Nebenformen des Platonismus in der Spätantike. Heidelberg 2016. 259-291. (Bibliotheca Chaldaica 6). Tardieu, M.: „Pléthon lecteur des Oracles.“ Μῆτις, 2 (1987) 141-164. Tardieu, M.: „L’oracle de la pierre mnouziris.“ In: Seng - Tardieu (ed.) 93-108. Theiler, Willy: Die chaldäischen Orakel und die Hymnen des Synesios. Halle 1942. (SKGG 18, 1). [= Theiler, W.: Forschungen zum Neuplatonismus. Berlin 1966. 252-301. (QSGPh 10). Tissi, L. M.: „Un oracolo tratto da Porfirio nella Teosofia di Tubinga. (§ 27 Erbse = I 24 Beatrice).“ In: Gigli Piccardi, D. - Magnelli, E. (ed.): Studi di poesia greca tardoantica. Firenze 2013. 37-64. Van den Kerchove, A.: „Le mode de révélation dans les Oracles chaldaïques et dans les traités hermétiques.“ In: Seng - Tardieu (ed.) 145-162. Van Liefferinge, C.: La Théurgie. Des Oracles Chaldaïques à Proclus. Liège 1999. Woodhouse, C. M.: George Gemistos Plethon. The Last of the Hellenes. Oxford 1986.

Christine Hecht

Eusebios liest Porphyrios. Fragmentierung und Kontextualisierung der Orakelphilosophie Die Orakel, die der Platoniker Porphyrios (ca. 234-301/305 n. Chr.)1 in seiner Schrift De philosophia ex oraculis haurienda zitiert,2 haben eine doppelte Rezeption erfahren, erstens durch Porphyrios selbst und zweitens durch christliche Autoren. Denn dieser Text des Neuplatonikers ist nicht als Ganzes auf uns gekommen, sondern nur in Fragmenten bei christlichen Autoren. Die größten Teile der Schrift übermittelt Eusebios von Caesarea, in seinem apologetischen Werk Praeparatio Evangelica.3 Während Porphyrios die Orakel anführt, um an diesen seine philosophischen Konzepte aufzuzeigen, fügt Eusebios die Zitate aus De philosophia ex oraculis haurienda in seine Praeparatio Evangelica im Zuge seiner Kritik am Polytheismus ein. Manchmal bewahrt der Christ nur den Text des Orakels, den Porphyrios zitiert hat, und nur wenig oder gar nichts von Porphyrios’ Interpretation. Daher ist die Intention des Philosophen oft nicht klar erkennbar und eine genaue Textanalyse notwendig. Die Orakel, die Porphyrios zitiert, werden von verschiedenen Gottheiten gesprochen und berühren verschiedene Themenbereiche, wie z. B. welche Rolle σύμβολα bei der Ausstattung von Statuen und der Interpretation von Opfern spielen, astrologische Fragestellungen, die Besänftigung von bösen Dämonen oder den Stellenwert von Christus und den Christen. Die Provenienz der Orakel ist oft nicht klar.4 1

Zur Lebenszeit des Porphyrios cf. Becker, Contra Christianos 3-15. Grundlegende Literatur zur Schrift De philosophia ex oraculis haurienda: Johnson, Religion and Identity; Busine, „The discovery of inscriptions ...“ und Paroles 233295; dazu Wintjes; Tanaseanu-Döbler, Theurgy 57-74, „‚Denn auf der Erde ...‘“ und „Porphyrios und die Christen ...“; Addey 18-24; Sfameni Gasparro; ferner Girgenti Muscolino. 3 Zu Eusebios: Johnson - Schott (ed.) und Johnson, Eusebius; Nieto Ibáñez 42-52 (zur christlichen Orakelkritik allgemein 59-149); ferner Addey 106-113. 4 Zur Provenienz der Orakel in De philosophia ex oraculis haurienda cf. Busine, Paroles 252-256; Johnson, Religion and Identity 76. 2

92

Christine Hecht

Der vorliegende Beitrag fokussiert darauf, wie die christlichen Autoren, die aus De philosophia ex oraculis haurienda schöpfen, besonders Eusebios, den Text des paganen Philosophen zitieren. Eine eingehende Analyse von fr. 307F Smith soll die Stimme des Porphyrios von der der christlichen Autoren, die seine Texte rahmen, unterscheiden, und auch das Orakel an sich sprechen lassen.5 Dabei spielen auch Aspekte der Polemik eine Rolle, die im Zusammenhang mit der Textanalyse zum Tragen kommen sollen.6 Fragment 307F ist nach der Anordnung von Smith das erste, in dem ein Orakel zitiert wird.7 In den Fragmenten davor (fr. 303F-306F Smith), die dem Anfang von De philosophia ex oraculis haurienda zuzuordnen sind, stellt Porphyrios seinen Text als Erlösungs- und Heilsschrift vor, erläutert seine textkritische Vorgehensweise und betont die Exklusivität seiner Abhandlung. Dadurch, dass Porphyrios Orakel wiedergibt und seine Schrift wiederum von Eusebios zitiert wird, entsteht eine dreifache Textstruktur. Demgemäß ist auch mit drei verschiedenen Aussagen zu rechnen. Die drei verschiedenen Ebenen werden hier durch Einrückung deutlich gemacht.8 Porph., De phil. ex or. fr. 307F Smith = Eusebios, PE V 5, 7 - 6, 2 γράφει δὲ ταῦτα ὁ δεδηλωμένος ἐν οἷς ἐπέγραψεν Περὶ τῆς ἐκ λογίων φιλοσοφίας, ἔνθα μαρτύρεται μὴ τὰ ἀπόρρητα τῶν θεῶν ἐκφαίνειν, ἐπομνύμενός τε αὐτὸς καὶ παραγγέλλων κρύπτειν καὶ μὴ εἰς πολλοὺς ἐκφέρειν τὰ λεχθησόμενα. τίνα δὲ ἦν τὰ τοιαῦτα; τὸν Πᾶνα Διονύσου φησὶ θεράποντα 5 εἶναι, τοῦτον δὲ τῶν ἀγαθῶν ὄντα δαιμόνων ἐπιφανέντα ποτὲ τοῖς κατʼ ἀγρὸν γεωπονοῦσιν. τί χρῆν ἀγαθὸν ὄντα παρασχεῖν ἢ πάντως ἀγαθοῦ τινος παρουσίαν τοῖς τῆς θεοφανείας τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ κατηξιωμένοις; ἆρʼ οὖν ὑπῆρξεν ἀγαθόν τι τοῖς θεαταῖς τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ δαίμονος, ἢ κακὸν εἰλήχασιν δαίμονα ἔργῳ τῆς πείρας ᾐσθημένοι; φησὶν γοῦν ὁ θαυμάσιος μάρτυς τοὺς τῆς ἀγαθῆς 10 ταύτης θέας ἠξιωμένους ἄθρουν θάνατον ὑπομεῖναι λέγων ὧδε· 5

Bei Wolff fehlen hier und oft Einleitungen, die im Folgenden aber berücksichtigt sind. Zuletzt hat Ariane Magny auf die Problematik der rhetorisch überformten antiken Zitierpraxis und die christlich-apologetische Tendenz der Kirchenväter hingewiesen (Magny 27-33.149-155). Zur Zitationstechnik des Eusebios cf. auch Inowlocki. 6 Zur Polemik in porphyrianischen Texten: Becker, „Polemik ...“. 7 In einer derzeit entstehenden Übersetzung (die hier aufgegriffen ist) und Kommentierung der Schrift behält die Autorin die Reihenfolge der Fragmente ein, wie sie die christlichen Autoren, also vor allem Eusebios und Augustin, in ihrem jeweiligen Werk präsentieren. Zur Rekonstruktion des Werks cf. auch den Vorschlag von Wintjes. 8 Alle Übersetzungen altsprachlicher Zitate in diesem Beitrag stammen von der Verfasserin.

Eusebios liest Porphyrios „Ἤδη δὲ καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις οἱ μὲν θεράποντές τινων ἀνεδείχθησαν, ὡς ὁ Πὰν τοῦ Διονύσου· δεδήλωκεν δὲ τοῦτο ὁ ἐν Βραγχίδαις Ἀπόλλων διὰ τούτων· ἐννέα γὰρ εὑρέθησαν ἀποθανόντες· πυνθανομένων οὖν τῶν τὸν ἀγρὸν οἰκούντων τὴν αἰτίαν ἔχρησεν ὁ θεός· 15

20

25

χρυσόκερως βλοσυροῖο Διωνύσου θεράπων Πὰν βαίνων ὑλήεντα κατʼ οὔρεα χειρὶ κραταιῇ ῥάβδον ἔχεν, ἑτέρῃ δὲ λιγὺ πνείουσαν ἔμαρπτε σύριγγα γλαφυρήν, Νύμφῃσι δὲ θυμὸν ἔθελγεν· ὀξὺ δὲ συρίξας μέλος ἀνέρας ἐπτοίησεν ὑλοτόμους πάντας, θάμβος δʼ ἔχεν εἰσορόωντας δαίμονος ὀρνυμένου κρυερὸν δέμας οἰστρήεντος. καὶ νύ κε πάντας ἔμαρψε τέλος κρυεροῦ θανάτοιο, εἰ μή οἱ κότον αἰνὸν ἐνὶ στήθεσσιν ἔχουσα Ἄρτεμις ἀγροτέρη παῦσεν μένεος κρατεροῖο, ἣν καὶ χρὴ λίσσεσθ’, ἵνα σοι γίγνητʼ ἐπαρωγός.“ Ἀκήκοας οἷα τοῦ δαίμονος, οὗ φησιν ἀγαθοῦ, τό τε σχῆμα καὶ τὰς πράξεις ὁ ἐν Βραγχίδαις ἐδίδαξεν Ἀπόλλων·

Es schreibt (aber) Folgendes der genannte (sc. Autor) in seinem Werk, welches er Über die Philosophie aus Orakeln betitelte und in welchem er beteuert, die Geheimnisse der Götter nicht zu verraten, indem er sich selbst mit einem Schwur verbürgt und rät, sie (d. i. die Geheimnisse) zu verbergen 5 und das, was gesagt werden wird, nicht vielen preiszugeben. Was war aber das derartige? Er sagt, dass Pan Diener des Dionysos sei, dass dieser aber von den guten Daimonen sei, und er einst denen, die auf dem Acker pflügen, erschien. Was sollte denn einer, der gut ist, oder jedenfalls die Anwesenheit irgendeines Guten denen, die der göttlichen Erscheinung des Guten für wertgeachtet 10 werden, gewähren? Kam also den Betrachtern des guten Daimon etwas Gutes zu, oder haben sie einen schlechten Daimon erhalten und haben (dies) durch den Akt der Erprobung (d. i. des eigenen Erlebens) gelernt? Es sagt wenigstens der bewundernswerte Zeuge, dass diejenigen, die dieses guten Anblicks für wertgeachtet wurden, einem plötzlichen Tod entgegenblickten, indem er so 15 spricht:

20

25

„Bereits wurden aber auch bei anderen Gelegenheiten manche als Diener irgendwelcher (sc. anderer) aufgezeigt, wie Pan [als Diener] des Dionysos; es hat aber dies Apollon von Branchidae durch diese (sc. Verse) gezeigt; denn neun (sc. Personen) wurden tot aufgefunden; als also die, die das Feld bewohnen, nach dem Grund fragten, weissagte der Gott: Der goldgehörnte Pan, Diener des starken Dionysos, schritt über die bewaldeten Berge und hatte in der starken Hand einen Stab, in der anderen aber hielt er eine schrill tönende, glatte Syrinx und bezauberte den Nymphen das Herz; indem er aber eine schneidende Melodie spielte, versetzte er alle

93

94

30

Christine Hecht Holzfäller in Schrecken, Entsetzen hielt sie aber, als sie auf die frostige Gestalt des erregten, wahngetriebenen Daimons blickten. Und jetzt hätte alle das Ende eines frostigen Todes ergriffen, wenn ihn nicht, mit einem schrecklichen Groll gegen ihn in der Brust, die Jägerin Artemis von der starken Gewalt abgehalten hätte, welche man bitten muss, damit du einen Helfer bekommst.“ Du hast gehört, wie Apollon von Branchidai die Gestalt und die Taten des Daimons, welchen er gut nennt, lehrte.

Das Orakel bietet eine poetische Beschreibung von Pan und seinem Einfluss. Die Situation, in der das Orakel gesprochen wurde, gibt Porphyrios in den Zeilen 12-14 an:9 Orakelsprecher ist Apollon von Branchidai (ὁ ἐν Βρανχίδαις Ἀπόλλων). Branchidai wird mitunter von antiken Autoren als Name für den Kultort Didyma an der Westküste Kleinasiens gebraucht.10 Didyma galt in der Antike neben Delphi als die wichtigste Orakelstätte Apollons. Der Anlass der Orakelbefragung ist der Tod von neun Personen (ἐννέα γὰρ εὑρέθησαν ἀποθανόντες). Diejenigen, die das Orakel befragen, sind Bewohner des Landes (τῶν τὸν ἀγρὸν οἰκούντων). Die Toten stammen ebenso aus ländlicher Gegend. Denn auch Eusebios spricht von „Landarbeitern“ (τοῖς κατʼ ἀγρὸν γεωπονοῦσιν, Z. 5f.), denen Pan erschienen sei. In seiner Antwort (Z. 15-25) gibt der Orakelgott (ὁ θεός, Z. 14) ein Beispiel von Holzfällern, die durch ein Lied und die Gestalt des Schrecken erregenden Gottes Pan beinahe gestorben wären, wenn ihnen nicht Artemis zur Hilfe gekommen wäre. Der Orakelgott erzählt im Vergleich zur tatsächlichen Begebenheit eine abgewandelte Geschichte, die als adhortatives Exemplum für die Orakel Befragenden dienen soll. Im Orakel kommen die Personen also nicht um, da Artemis ihre Retterin geworden ist. Insofern könnte man meinen, dass der Orakelgott die Frage vielleicht nicht richtig verstanden habe. Aber betrachtet man den letzten Vers des Spruches, wird das Anliegen des Orakelgottes klarer. Während der Hauptteil des Orakels (Z. 15-24) als Narrativ im Vergangenheitstempus gehalten ist, ist der letzte Vers (Z. 25) als allgemeine Aussage, allgemeingültiger Hinweis im Präsens formuliert und spricht in einer Apostrophe ein Gegenüber in der 2. Person Singular an: ἣν καὶ χρὴ λίσσεσθ’, ἵνα σοι γίγνητʼ ἐπαρωγός. Die Botschaft Apollons an diejenigen, die das Orakel befragen, lautet also, 9

Die Zeilenangaben beziehen sich, soweit nicht anders angegeben, auf den griechischen Text. 10 Cf. Neudecker 760. Zu Didyma cf. auch Johnston 483.486; zu diesem Orakel Fontenrose 217f., unter R 45 (von ihm als nicht authentisch angesehen).

Eusebios liest Porphyrios

95

dass man bei Gefahr auf dem Land oder im Wald Artemis anrufen müsse, um Hilfe zu erfahren.11 Durch die präsentische Formulierung erscheint sie wie ein allgemeiner Ratschlag, was zu tun ist, wenn im ländlichen Milieu Gefahr droht. Apollon schlägt durch seine Erzählung von den Holzfällern dadurch eine Brücke zu den neun Toten und damit zu seinen Bittstellern, indem er ein ähnliches Setting wählt, in dem sich auch die Toten befunden haben. Denn diese stammen ebenfalls aus ländlicher Gegend (Porphyrios: τῶν τὸν ἀγρὸν οἰκούντων, Z. 13f.; Eusebios: τοῖς κατʼ ἀγρὸν γεωπονοῦσιν, Z. 5f.). Die Gefahr kann durch Pan verkörpert werden, was der Orakelgott durch das Narrativ als mögliche Erklärung für den Tod der neun Landarbeiter anführt. Pan ist als Hirtengott für Feld und Wald zuständig und wurde sowohl als Schutzgottheit verehrt, aber auch wegen seiner Tod bringende Wirkung, des so genannten panischen Schreckens gefürchtet.12 Artemis hat als Göttin der Jagd dasselbe Einflussgebiet,13 wird aber hier von ihrem Bruder Apollon als heilbringende Konkurrentin zu Pan dargestellt. Insofern stellt die Antwort Apollons ein wohlwollendes Orakel dar, das den Fragenden einerseits eine mögliche Interpretation des Geschehenen anbietet und andererseits eine Möglichkeit aufzeigt, künftig bei Gefahr – in Feld und Wald – Hilfe zu finden. Soweit es der Textausschnitt, den Eusebios aus Porphyrios zitiert, erkennen lässt, wollte der Platoniker ein Beispiel dafür geben, dass es eine Götterhierarchie gibt.14 Als Beispiel führt Porphyrios hier Pan als Diener des Dionysos an: Ἤδη δὲ καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις οἱ μὲν θεράποντές τινων ἀνεδείχθησαν, ὡς ὁ Πὰν τοῦ Διονύσου. (Z. 11f.). Den Beweis (δεδήλωκεν δὲ τοῦτο, Z. 12) dafür liefert das daraufhin zitierte Orakel. Dies betrifft allerdings nur den ersten Vers des Orakels (Z. 15). Porphyrios rezipiert das Orakel also, soweit der fragmentarische Zustand des Textes eine Deutung zulässt, als Nachweis für ein Diener-HerrVerhältnis unter Göttern.15 Er geht im erhaltenen Text nicht auf die eigentliche Pointe des Orakels ein, nämlich dass eine lebensgefährliche Bedrohung durch das Anrufen der Göttin Artemis abgewandt werden 11

Anders Fontenrose 218, der meint, dass der letzte Vers die Frage der Landbewohner nicht beantworte. 12 Wernickel 1347-1481; zu Pan cf. Herbig. 13 Nilsson 481-500; Schreiber 558-608. 14 Ebenso Johnson, „Eusebius the Educator“ 116; Tanaseanu-Döbler, „‚Denn auf der Erde ...‘“ 177. 15 Im erhaltenen Text spielt vor allem in fr. 326-329F Smith von De philosophia ex oraculis haurienda die Hierarchisierung der Götter eine Rolle.

96

Christine Hecht

kann. Eusebios hat nicht mehr Kontext gegeben. Es ist möglich, dass der Philosoph mehr über den Inhalt des Orakels gesprochen hat. Es ist aber auch denkbar, dass er sich nur auf den ersten Vers des Orakels bezogen hat. Es gibt Beispiele für beide Fälle in den überlieferten Fragmenten seiner Schrift. Im fr. 307F Smith kontextualisiert Porphyrios außerdem das Orakel, nennt also, wie bereits erwähnt, den Orakelgott und die Orakelstätte, den Anlass der Befragung und die Orakelbefragenden. Eusebios’ Hauptanliegen ist es, Porphyrios in einem negativen Licht darzustellen. Das ist die äußerste Ebene der dreifachen Textstruktur. Eusebios’ Frage τίνα δὲ ἦν τὰ τοιαῦτα; („Was war aber das derartige?“, Z. 4) hat einen ironischen und polemischen Charakter, im Sinne, dass Porphyrios gar nichts Göttliches biete, aber vorgebe, dies zu tun. Dann wiederholt Eusebios Porphyrios’ Aussage, dass Pan ein Diener des Dionysos ist (Z. 4f.; entspricht in Porphyrios’ Kommentar Z. 11f., im Orakel Z. 15). Er fügt auch die Behauptung ein, dass Porphyrios gesagt habe, dass Pan einer der guten Dämonen sei (im zitierten Text kursiv; Z. 4f.). Er wiederholt diesen Aspekt nach dem Zitat (Z. 26, ebenfalls kursiv). Allerdings wird im Textabschnitt, den Eusebios hier aus Porphyrios zitiert (Z. 11-25), Pan nicht als „guter Dämon“ bezeichnet. Δαίμων im Orakel (Z. 21) meint ihn, aber es erfolgt keine positive oder negative Attribuierung. Eine Prüfung der Fragmente von De philosophia ex oraculis haurienda ergibt, dass die Wendung ἀγαθὸς δαίμων weder im hier zitierten Porphyrios-Fragment noch in der gesamten Schrift De philosophia ex oraculis haurienda vorkommt.16 Das Problem ist, dass für Eusebios als Christen ein Dämon generell ein negatives Wesen ist: Eusebios, PE IV 5, 4 Τὰ μὲν γὰρ παρ’ ἡμῖν θεῖα λόγια οὐδ’ ὅλως ἀγαθὸν οὐδέν’ ὀνομάζει δαίμονα, πάντας δὲ πονηροὺς εἶναι τοὺς τῆς λήξεως ταύτης καὶ δὴ καὶ τῆς προσηγορίας μετειληφότας, ὡς οὐδ’ ἕτερον θεὸν ἀληθῶς καὶ κυρίως πλὴν ἕνα τὸν πὰντων αἴτιον. Denn unsere göttlichen Orakel nennen einen Daimon überhaupt nie gut, sondern sagen, dass alle, die dieses Los sowie diese Bezeichnung erhalten haben, schlecht sind, da kein anderes Wesen wirklich und richtig Gott ist, außer dem einen Grund von allem.

16

Cf. Tanaseanu-Döbler, „‚Denn auf der Erde…‘“ 177f.

Eusebios liest Porphyrios

97

In fr. 307F Smith benutzt der christliche Autor den Begriff ἀγαθὸς δαίμων bzw. nur ἀγαθός penetrant häufig (oben fett gedruckt). Insgesamt erscheint in den wenigen Zeilen des Eusebios um das PorphyriosZitat herum das qualitative Merkmal ἀγαθός acht Mal, wenn man den Satz des Eusebios, der nach dem Zitat folgt (Z. 26f.), hinzuzählt. Es scheint sich also um eine bewusste Manipulation der Aussage des Porphyrios durch den Christen zu handeln. Sicherlich, da Eusebios nur ausschnittsweise zitiert, ist es nicht auszuschließen, dass er den Platoniker hier paraphrastisch wiedergibt. Er selbst stellt es zumindest als Aussage des Porphyrios dar. Auch in den Fragmenten 308F und 309F Smith aus De philosophia ex oraculis haurienda behauptet Eusebios, Porphyrios habe die aus der Sicht der Christen lasterhaften Tätigkeiten wie Leidenschaft, Musik, Krieg, Jagd etc. „guten Dämonen“ zugeschrieben.17 Aber auch hier erscheint der Terminus nur beim christlichen Autor, nicht im Zitat des Porphyrios selbst. Aus anderen Werken des Porphyrios, etwa aus De abstinentia und Ad Marcellam geht hervor, dass Porphyrios zwischen bösen, Verderben bringenden und guten Dämonen unterschied. 18 In De philosophia ex oraculis haurienda spielen böse Dämonen (πονηροὶ δαίμονες) eine Rolle.19 Insofern ist es denkbar, dass Porphyrios auch das positive Pendant behandelte. Dennoch: Eusebios akzentuiert das qualitative Merkmal „gut“ hier so stark, dass eine strategische Absicht des Christen offensichtlich ist. Dass Eusebios die Aufmerksamkeit des Lesers bewusst lenkt, lässt sich nicht nur an der Markierung dieses Attributs ablesen, sondern auch an der Zitierweise des Bischofs. Nach der polemischen Frage τίνα δὲ ἦν τὰ τοιαῦτα; (Z. 4) folgt eine mit φησὶ eingeleitete indirekte Rede (Z. 4-6). Pan wird in der Partizipialkonstruktion durch das an dieser Stelle an sich redundante Demonstrativpronomen τοῦτον betont (Z. 5). Es handelt sich um eine Einfügung des Eusebios, durch die er die im Partizip folgende Aussage, also dass Pan als guter Daimon bezeichnet wird, hervorhebt. Dass das ganze polemisch gefärbt ist, zeigen auch die daran anschließenden ironisch-sarkastischen Fragen, was denn eigentlich ein guter Daimon leisten müsse (τί χρῆν ἀγαθὸν ὄντα παρασχεῖν ἢ πάντως ἀγαθοῦ τινος παρουσίαν τοῖς τῆς θεοφανείας τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ κατηξιωμένοις; Z. 6f. 17

Porph., De phil. ex or. fr. 308F; 309F Smith = Eus., PE V 6, 2 - 7, 5. Cf. Tanaseanu-Döbler, „‚Denn auf der Erde ...‘“ 177f. 18 Porph., De abst. II 38-43; Ad Marc. 21. Zur Dämonologie des Porpyhrios cf. Wolff 214-299; Timotin 208-215; Brisson. 19 Porph., De phil. ex or. fr. 326F; 327F; 329F; 346F Smith.

98

Christine Hecht

und ἆρʼ οὖν ὑπῆρξεν ἀγαθόν τι τοῖς θεαταῖς τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ δαίμονος, ἢ κακὸν εἰλήχασιν δαίμονα ἔργῳ τῆς πείρας ᾐσθημένοι; Z. 7-9). Außerdem diskreditiert Eusebios Porphyrios, indem er ihn als ὁ θαυμάσιος μάρτυς (Z. 9) bezeichnet. Die Absicht des Eusebios an dieser Stelle ist eindeutig. Er bettet dieses Porphyrios-Fragment in seine Kritik am paganen Götterkult in der Praeparatio Evangelica ein. In Buch IV und Buch V, aus dem fr. 307F Smith stammt, schreibt er den paganen Götterkult schlechten Dämonen zu. Jesus Christus stilisiert er hingegen als Heilsbringer, der diesem Treiben ein Ende gesetzt hat. Seine Thesen untermauert Eusebios mit Zitaten paganer Autoren und führt auch den Platoniker Porphyrios an.20 Eusebios stellt es im vorliegenden Text, fr. 307F Smith, als absurd dar, dass Porphyrios von guten Dämonen spreche, diese aber negative Wirkungen hätten. Dies fasst er prägnant im letzten Satz seiner Einleitung zum Porphyrios-Fragment zusammen: „Es sagt wenigstens der bewundernswerte Zeuge, dass diejenigen, die dieses guten Anblicks für wertgeachtet wurden, einem plötzlichen Tod entgegenblickten, indem er so spricht.“ (Z. 12-15 in der deutschen Übersetzung). Dabei lässt er außer Acht, dass diejenigen, die laut Zitat Pan erblickt haben, gar nicht gestorben sind, und von denjenigen, die tatsächlich gestorben sind, letztendlich nicht bekannt ist, ob ihnen Pan begegnet ist. Eusebios betont vor allem die Unstimmigkeit zwischen der Erscheinung einer Gottheit und der darauf folgenden negativen Wirkung. Allerdings spricht Porphyrios in seiner Einleitung zum Orakel nicht von einer Erscheinung Pans. Den Tod der neun Personen erwähnt er m. E. als sachliche Hinführung zum Götterspruch, aber ohne weitere Stellungnahme. Der Christ Eusebios zitiert den porphyrianischen Text nicht nur tendenziös, sondern auch bewusst ungenau beziehungsweise mischt verschiedene Textebenen ineinander. Er lenkt die Aufmerksamkeit des Lesers durch die Betonung bestimmter Wörter mit der Absicht, dass der Rezipient durch die Brille Eusebs das Zitat liest. Auf die Aussage, die für Porphyrios wichtig ist, nämlich die Götterhierarchie, geht er nicht weiter ein, sondern rezipiert mehr das Orakel beziehungsweise den Umstand der Orakelbefragung,21 um den paganen Götterglauben zu diffamieren. Die positive Dimension des Orakelspruches behandelt der Kirchenvater absichtlich nicht.22 Eusebios gibt sich weiterhin den 20

Becker, Contra Christianos 368 Anm. 1. Cf. Busine, Paroles 344f. 22 Eine ähnliche Beobachtung macht Inowlocki 291 hinsichtlich der Behandlung der jüdischen Autoren durch Eusebios: Immer wieder unterschlägt dieser in der 21

Eusebios liest Porphyrios

99

Anschein, die Meinung des prominenten Platonikers Porphyrios wiederzugeben. Dabei baut er hinsichtlich des Götter- oder Dämonenglaubens eine Konkurrenz zum paganen Philosophen Porphyrios auf. 23 Die Intention des Porphyrios hingegen, weshalb er das Orakel zitiert, ist eine andere. Soweit es der zitierte Text erkennen lässt, legt er das Narrativ des Götterspruches nicht weiter aus, sondern gebraucht allein die Aussage, dass Pan Diener des Dionysos ist, wohl im Rahmen seiner Ausführungen über Götterhierarchien. Die wohlwollende, helfende Dimension des Orakels selbst geht durch die verschiedenen Rezeptionen durch den Platoniker und den Christen nahezu verloren. So liegt es letztendlich am Leser der Praeparatio Evangelica, die verschiedenen Ebenen des Textes zu durchschauen und erneut die Orakel, die uns Porphyrios in erster und Eusebios in zweiter Instanz überliefert haben, zu verstehen und zu interpretieren. Es handelt sich hier um eine Form der Polemik, die darauf abzielt, den Gegner zu diffamieren, indem widersprüchliche Aussagen im Werk des intellektuellen Gegners herausgestellt werden. Dabei bedient sich der christliche Autor der penetrant häufigen Wiederholung eines bestimmten moralisch besetzten Terminus (ἀγαθός). Dieser kann spezifische Reaktionen im Rezipienten seiner Schrift hervorrufen, besonders in Kombination mit einem – wie gezeigt – im christlichen Kontext eindeutig negativ konnotierten Begriffs, nämlich δαίμων, sei es dass Porphyrios diese beiden Wörter zusammengestellt hat oder nicht. Eine einfachere bzw. offensichtlichere Form der Polemik verwenden christliche Autoren, wenn sie ihren Gegner direkt als ihren „Feind“ bezeichnen.24 Hierfür findet sich ebenfalls ein drastisches Beispiel in den Fragmenten von De philosophia ex oraculis haurienda: Fr. 306F Smith = Firmicus Maternus, De errore profanarum religionum 13, 4 Nam ita esse Porphyrios, defensor sacrorum, hostis dei, veritatis inimicus, sceleratarum artium magister, manifestis nobis probationibus prodidit. Denn dass es so ist, hat Porphyrios, der Verteidiger der Opfer, Feind Gottes, Gegner der Wahrheit, Lehrer verbrecherischer Künste, durch für uns offensichtliche Beweise verraten. Demonstratio positive Ausgänge von Ereignissen, die für die Juden ungünstig waren. 23 Zur „Ordnungskonkurrenz“ zwischen Christen und paganen Philosophen cf. Männlein-Robert. 24 Zum Feindbild in der Auseinandersetzung zwischen christlichen Autoren und paganen Philosophen im 3./4. Jahrhunder nach Christus cf. Männlein-Robert.

100

Christine Hecht

Firmicus Maternus, Autor des 4. Jahrhnderts nach Christus, stammte aus einer angesehenen Familie in Sizilien.25 In Rom übte er eine Anwaltstätigkeit aus. Nach der Abfassung seines astrologischen Werkes Mathesis konvertierte er zum Christentum und verfasste zwischen 343 und 350 die apologetische Schrift De errore profanorum religionum. Darin klagt er die pagane Religion als verbrecherisch an und fordert deren Vernichtung. In dieser Schrift bezeichnet er Porphyrios explizit als „Feind“. Er benutzt dafür Zuschreibungen, die in einem Christen negative Emotionen hervorgerufen haben müssen.26 Die Bezeichnung hostis dei und veritatis inimicus machen deutlich, dass sich der Konflikt auf eine transzendente Wahrheit bezieht. Durch diese explizit negative Beschreibung seines Feindes Porphyrios und durch die polemische Abgrenzung geht der Autor implizit davon aus, dass er das positive Gegenstück dazu ist. Porphyrios ist als eine Person bezeichnet, die eindeutig positiv konnotierte Bereiche, also „Gott“ (deus) und „Wahrheit“ (veritas), in das Gegenteil umkehren. Die Beschreibung als defensor sacrorum ist insofern negativ, als Opfer, welche Porphyrios in De philosophia ex oraculis haurienda beschreibt, vom christlichen Standpunkt aus, zurückgewiesen werde sollten. Diese Exklusion des Platonikers Porphyrios kann insofern identitätsbildend wirken, als Firmicus Maternus den Philosophen von der christlichen Sicht ausschließt. Die rhetorische Technik des Eusebios in fr. 307F Smith besteht hingegen in einer redundanten und übertriebenen Betonung von bestimmten Schlüsselwörtern und der Einbettung dieser Wörter in einen anderen, christlich geprägten Kontext. Er vermischt den Sinn verschiedener Textebenen und verdeckt zu Gunsten seiner eigenen Argumentation die ursprüngliche Intention des Platonikers. Umdeutungen und Neuinterpretationen ermöglichen es dem Christen, sein eigenes Konzept plausibel zu machen. Dadurch verbreitet er Skepsis bezüglich des Philosophen. Ex negativo empfiehlt er seine eigene christliche Lehre. 27 25

Zu Firmicus Maternus: Hübner - Wlosok; außerdem Busine, „De Porphyre à Franz Cumont“. 26 Den Zusammenhang zwischen Polemik und Emotionen hat Becker, „Polemik ...“ 111-136 für die porphyrianische Schrift Contra Christianos analysiert. 27 Der vorliegende Beitrag ist im Zusammenhang mit den laufenden Forschungen im Teilprojekt G01 des Sonderforschungsbereichs 923 „Bedrohte Ordnungen“ an der Universität Tübingen: „Platonismus und Christentum in der Spätantike – Porphyriosʼ Interpretation, Verteidigung und Neuordnung paganer Kultpraxis: Eine Bedrohung der christlichen Ordnung?“ entstanden. Für wertvolle Anregungen während der Abfassung des Manuskripts danke ich der Teilprojektleiterin Frau Prof. Dr. Irmgard Männlein-Robert (Tübingen).

Eusebios liest Porphyrios

101

Literaturverzeichnis 1 Ausgaben, Kommentare, Übersetzungen Eusebius Praeparatio evangelica Eusèbe de Césarée, La préparation évangélique. Livres IV-V, 1-77. Introduction, traduction et annotation par O. Zink. Texte grec révisé par É. des Places. Paris 1979. (SC 262). Porphyrios Contra Christianos Porphyrios, Contra Christianos. Neue Sammlung der Fragmente, Testimonien und Dubia mit Einleitung, Übersetzung und Anmerkungen von M. Becker. Berlin – Boston 2016. (Texte und Kommentare 25). De philosophia ex oraculis haurienda Porphyrii de philosophia ex oraculis haurienda librorum reliquiae. Edidit G. Wolff. Berlin 1856. (ND Hildesheim 1962). Porfirio. La filosofia rivelata dagli oracoli. Con tutti i frammenti di magia, stregoneria, teosofia e teurgia. Testi greci e latini a fronte. Monografia introduttiva di G. Girgenti. Saggio interpretativo, traduzione, note e apparati di G. Muscolino. Milano 2011. Fragmenta Porphyrii philosophi fragmenta edidit A. Smith. Fragmenta Arabica D. Wasserstein interpretante. Stuttgart – Leipzig 1993. 2 Sekundärliteratur Addey, C.: Divination and theurgy in Neoplatonism. Oracles of the Gods. Farnham – Burlington (Vt.) 2014. Becker, M.: „Polemik, Bedrohungskommunikation, Emotion. Porphyrios und sein Umgang mit der christlichen Bedrohung in Contra Christianos.“ In: Männlein-Robert (ed.) 111-136. Brisson, L.: „What is a Daimon for Porphyry?“ In: Brisson, L. - O’Neill, S. Timotin, A. (ed.): Neoplatonic Demons and Angels. Leiden – Boston 2018. 86-101. (Studies in Platonism, Neoplatonism, and the Platonic Tradition 20). Busine, A.: Paroles d’Apollon: pratiques et traditions oraculaires dans l`Antiquité tardive (IIe-VIe siècles). Leiden – Boston 2005. (RGRW 156). Busine, A.: „De Porphyre à Franz Cumont: La construction des ‘religions orientales’ de Firmicus Maternus.“ In: Bonnet, C. - Pirenne-Delforge, V. - Praet, D. (ed.): Les religions orientales dans le monde grec et romain: cent ans après

102

Christine Hecht

Cumont (1906-2006). Bilan historique et historiographique. Colloque de Rome, 16-18 novembre 2006. Bruxelles – Rome 2009. 413-426. Busine, A.: „The discovery of inscriptions and the legitimation of new cults.“ In: Dignas, B. - Smith, R. (ed.): Historical and religious memory in the ancient world. Oxford 2012. 241-256. Fontenrose, J.: Didyma: Apollo’s Oracle, Cult, and Companions. Berkeley – Los Angeles – London 1988. Herbig, R.: Pan: der griechische Bocksgott. Versuch einer Monographie. Frankfurt am Main 1949. Hübner, W. - Wlosok, A.: § 515 „Firmicus Maternus (Iulius Firmicus Maternus iunior)“ in HLL V (1989) 84-93. Inowlocki, S.: Eusebius and the Jewish Authors. His Citation Technique in an Apologetic Context. Leiden – Boston 2006. (Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 64). Johnson, A. P.: „Eusebius the Educator: The Context of the General Elementary Introduction.“ In: Inowlocki, S. - Zamagni, C. (ed.): Reconsidering Eusebius. Collected Papers on Literary, Historical, and Theological Issues. Leiden – Boston 2011. 99-118. (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 107). Johnson, A. P.: Religion and Identity in Porphyry of Tyre. The Limits of Hellenism in Late Antiquity. Cambridge 2013. Johnson, A. P.: Eusebius. London – New York 2014. Johnson, A. P. - Schott, J. (ed.): Eusebius of Caesarea. Tradition and innovations. Cambridge (Mass.) – London 2013. Johnston, S. I.: „Oracles and divination.“ In: Eidinow, E. - Kindt, J. (ed.): The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek Religion. Oxford 2015. 477-489. Magny, A.: Porphyry in Fragments. Reception of an Anti-Christian Text in Late Antiquity. Farnham – Burlington 2014. Männlein-Robert, I.: „Ordnungskonkurrenz: Polemik und Feindbild in konkurrierenden Ordnungen. Der platonische Philosoph Porphyrios und sein Kampf gegen die Christen“ In: Frie, E. - Meier, M.: Aufruhr – Katastrophe – Konkurrenz – Zerfall. Bedrohte Ordnungen als Thema der Kulturwissenschaften. Tübingen 2014. 117-138. (Bedrohte Ordnungen 1). Männlein-Robert, I. (ed.): Die Christen als Bedrohung? Text, Kontext und Wirkung von Porphyrios’ Contra Christianos. Stuttgart 2017. (Roma Æterna 5). Neudecker, R.: „Branchidai.“ DNP II (1997) 760. Nieto Ibáñez, J. M.: Cristianismo y profecías de Apolo. Los oráculos paganos en la Patrística griega (siglos II-V). Madrid 2010. Nilsson, M. P.: Geschichte der griechischen Religion. I Die Religion Griechenlands bis auf die griechische Weltherrschaft. München 21955. (HbdA 5.2.1). Schreiber, T., „Artemis.“ In: Roscher, W. H. (ed.): Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie. I 1 Leipzig 1886. 558-608. Sfameni Gasparro, G.: „Tra costruzione teosofica e polemica anticristiana nel De Philosophia ex oraculis haurienda: sulle tracce del progetto porfiriano.“ In: Seng, H. - Soares Santoprete, L. G. - Tommasi, C. O. (ed.): Formen und Nebenformen des Platonismus in der Spätantike. Heidelberg 2016. 163-198. (Bibliotheca Chaldaica 6).

Eusebios liest Porphyrios

103

Tanaseanu-Döbler, I.: Theurgy in Late Antiquity. The Invention of a Ritual Tradition. Göttingen – Bristol (Conn.) 2013. (BERG 1). Tanasenau-Döbler, I.: „‚Denn auf der Erde können sie sich nicht aufhalten, sondern nur auf heiliger Erde‘: Bemerkungen zum Verhältnis der Götter zur Materialität in Porphyriosʼ Philosophia ex oraculis haurienda.“ In: Seng, H. Sfameni Gasparro, G. (ed.): Theologische Orakel in der Spätantike. Heidelberg 2016. 171-204. (Bibliotheca Chaldaica 5). Tanaseanu-Döbler, I.: „Porphyrios und die Christen in De philosophia ex oraculis haurienda.“ In: Männlein-Robert (ed.) 137-175. Timotin, A.: La démonologie platonicienne. Histoire de la notion de daimōn de Platon aux derniers néoplatoniciens. Leiden – Boston 2012. (Philosophia Antiqua 128). Wernickel, K.: „Pan.“ In: Roscher, W. H., Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie. III 1 Leipzig 1902. 1347-1481. Wintjes, A.: „Die Orakel als Mittel der Offenbarung bei Porphyrios“, in: Seng, H. Tardieu, M. (ed.): Die Chaldaeischen Orakel: Kontext – Interpretation – Rezeption. Heidelberg 2010. 43-62. (Bibliotheca Chaldaica 2). Wolff  Porhyrios.

Regina Fichera

Le θεῖος φιλόσοφος et les oracles dans les Vies de philosophes et de sophistes d’Eunape de Sardes À partir de la fin du XIXe siècle, l’interprétation du rôle des oracles tardifs a évolué de manière évidente. La théorie du déclin et de la disparition des oracles sous l’Empire romain1 a été dépassée en faveur d’un changement au sein de la pratique oraculaire. Précisément, l’oracle tardif prend une dimension privée et témoigne d’un grand intérêt pour les aspects philosophiques et religieux.2 La philosophie, qu’il vaut mieux appeler « théosophie »3, devient au cours de cette période une forme de pietas spiritualisante en quête d’un face-à-face avec le dieu, qui est de plus en plus éloigné de l’homme par une transcendance absolue qui est, cependant, comblé par une nouvelle structure hiérarchisée du monde divin.4 Dans ce milieu, il se dégage un nouveau type d’oracle – qualifié par Arthur Darby Nock d’« oracle théologique » – qui est le résultat de cette « réforme du culte », pour reprendre l’expression forgée par Polymnia Athanassiadi.5 D’une part, sous l’influence de la philosophie, les oracles subissent un processus de « privatisation » :6 de moins en moins consacrés aux problèmes du salut public, ils répondent aux doutes existentiels del’individuet, comme des « professeurs de théologie » (tels 1

Selon Lobeck 91-97, la décadence des oracles était due à la « superstition » de l’époque tardive. Cette thèse a été réfutée par Wolff puis par Pricoco. Il est impossible, en fait, de parler de centres oraculaires décadents car Lucien, Philostrate et Eusèbe témoignent de leur activité au moins jusqu’à l’époque de Constantin (Wolff 3). Pour un aperçu des centres oraculaires de l’époque impérial, cf. Levin. 2 Cf. Wolff ; Batiffol (en particulier 192-199) ; Nock ; Robert ; Pricoco ; Busine, Paroles (surtout 110-126); Lightfoot 39 ; Seng ; Tommasi Moreschini ; Addey pour le lien entre les oracles et le néoplatonisme. 3 Gigli Piccardi, « Ancora su Nonno ... » 2 n. 7. 4 Sfameni Gasparro, « Gli oracoli caldaici ... » 218 ; cf. Saloustios XIII 5 p. 26, 9-12 Nock. 5 Athanassiadi 50. 6 Selon Wolff 2s., cette transformation a été la conséquence de facteurs politiques, ainsi que de transformations religieuses.

106

Regina Fichera

que Battifol les définit),7 véhiculent des questions philosophiques et théologiques ;8 ils sont interrogés sur l’identité et la fonction de la divinité – qui est souvent dissimulée derrière la multiplicité des noms divins9 –, sur la signification de certains rites et sur le salut de l’âme. D’autre part, on peut remarquer que la philosophie a été soumise – tout comme l’ensemble de la littérature de l’époque tardive – à un processus de « manticisation » – ainsi que Lucia Maddalena Tissi l’a défini10 – qui a élevé la littérature au rang d’écriture sainte révélée par la voix du dieu.11 Le divin transmet la vérité théologique sous forme d’énigmes, en répondant ainsi au besoin tardif d’exégèse mystique d’inspiration pythagoricienne.12 Le regain d’intérêt pour la rédaction de collections oraculaires13 et la présence presque contagieuse des oracles dans différents genres littéraires14 et contextes culturels constituent la preuve du rôle 7

Batiffol 193. Cf. Gigli Piccardi, « Ancora su Nonno ... » 1. Pour une histoire des études sur l’« oracle théologique », cf. Pricoco 267-278 et Busine, Paroles 2-7. 9 On trouve souvent des éclaircissements sur l’identité du dieu, demandés par les fidèles : le corpus des inscriptions de Talmis en Nubie, siège oraculaire du dieu solaire Mandulis (Bernand n° 166), rapporte la révélation rassurante du dieu au soldat Maxime, qui avait demandé à Mandulis s’il était vraiment le Soleil. De même, l’auteur du graffiti du Memnonion d’Abydos, d’époque romaine, a aussi des doutes sur la véritable identité d’un dieu : « Certains disent que tu es Asclépios ; moi, par contre, que tu es Dionysos ; d’autres, que tu es Phœbus et Hermès et Harpocrate » (Rutherford 181). Cf. Sfameni Gasparro, « Oracoli e teologia ... » 149. 10 Tissi, « Introduzioni e commenti ... » 227. 11 Athanassiadi 49. 12 Sur la pratique pythagoricienne qui consiste à interpréter mystiquement les rites religieux et la littérature profane, cf. Athanassiadi 48 ; sur l’association entre lecture allégorique et interprétation des oracles, qui a déterminé une poétique fondée sur l’énigme, cf. Struck et Gigli Piccardi, « Ancora su Nonno ... » 3. 13 Je pense à la Theosophia Tubingensis (l’anthologie de textes oraculaires de la fin du Ve siècle transmise par le cod. Tub. Mb. 27, édité par Erbse et Beatrice ; cf. Carrara dans ce volume), au recueil fragmentaire d’oracles païens commentés par Porphyre, parvenu par tradition indirecte et appelé De philosophia ex oraculis haurienda (édité par Wolff et Smith ; sur la question de la datation et de la répartition des livres cf. Busine, Paroles 236-242 ; cf. aussi Hecht dans ce volume) et aussi à la sylloge de réponses clariennes (De oraculo Apollinis Clarii) du IIIe s. attribuée à Cornelius Labeo (cf. Macr., Sat. I 18, 21 ; Mastandrea 159-192). Pour d’autres recueils d’oracles remaniés et réinterprétés dans un sens chrétien, cf. Tissi, « Introduzioni e commenti ... » 230s. 14 On le trouve aussi bien dans le genre biographique (comme on le verra) que dans l’épopée. Sur le lien entre la poésie oraculaire d’époque impériale et l’épopée tardive, cf. Gigli Piccardi, « Phanes ... » ; « Ancora su Nonno ... » ; « L’oracolo della ven8

Le θεῖος φιλόσοφος et les oracles

107

central joué par l’oracle dans la culture tardive. En effet, celui-ci trouve sa place non seulement dans la littérature païenne, qui s’en sert pour soutenir ses doctrines philosophiques ou alors le dénigre comme le résultat d’une fausse superstition,15 mais il est aussi instrumentalisé par le christianisme à des fins polémiques ou apologétiques16 et utilisé par la tradition juive sous la forme de la révélation sibylline.17 Dans ce paysage culturel et religieux, la capacité divinatoire devient une prérogative fondamentale du philosophe néoplatonicien : elle lui confère un rôle important dans l’affirmation de sa nature divine parce qu’elle contribue à la création du dialogue entre l’homme et dieu et, par conséquent, elle mène à la participation et à la connaissance du divin.18 Le but de cette étude est ainsi d’analyser le rôle particulier que les oracles jouent dans les Vies de philosophes et de sophistes d’Eunape de Sardes19 afin de démontrer de quelle manière l’œuvre témoigne des transformations subies par les pratiques oraculaires dans l’antiquité tardive. L’œuvre biographique d’Eunape, à la différence des fragments de l’Histoire, a été objet d’une attention particulière seulement à partir de la moitié du XXe siècle. Dans les principaux commentaires aux Vies d’Eunape – c’est-à-dire ceux de Maurizio Civiletti et de Matthias Becker à l’édition de Giuseppe Giangrande et celui qui accompagne la plus récente édition de Richard Goulet – la sagesse oraculaire est prise en compte dans l’énumération des pouvoirs surnaturels des personnages.20 L’intérêt des commentateurs pour les références aux oracles vise plutôt à recenser les différents formes et techniques de la divination ou à déterminer, sur la base des pratiques oraculaires décrites par l’auteur, ce qui, à l’époque, était toléré ou interdit par la législation impériale, dans la mesure où l’attention portée aux prophéties est considérée comme partie intégrante de la réalité du biographe.21 Cependant, les Vies d’Eunape représentent aussi une source précieuse pour la compréhension du lien étroit entre les oracles et la philosophie qui se profile dans cette époque et mérite d’être analysé. demmia ... » ; cf. aussi Addey 71-75 sur l’Homeromanteia, à savoir le recours aux vers homériques rapportant les mots des dieux et des héros comme réponses oraculaires. 15 C’est le cas du pamphlet de Lucien consacré à la critique féroce du faux prophète Alexandre d’Abonuteichos (Lucian., Alex.) ou du Γοήτων Φωρά d’Oenomaos de Gadara, visant à dénigrer l’usage de la mantique (cf. Busine, Paroles 333s.). 16 Cf. Busine, Paroles 318-431 et Nieto Ibáñez. 17 Sfameni Gasparro, « Oracoli e Teologia ... » 140s. 18 Sur la relation entre la divination et le néoplatonisme cf. Addey. 19 Dorénavant VS. 20 Civiletti 22.26.50 ; Becker 56s. ; Goulet, Eunape I 393. 21 Civiletti 376-378 ; Becker 199 et 270-277 ; Goulet, Eunape I 351-363.

108

Regina Fichera

Dans cette biographie collective (396-399 apr. J.-C.),22 Eunape décrit les philosophes qui sont héritiers de l’enseignement de Plotin et élèves directs (Aidésius de Cappadoce, Sôpatros d’Apamée, Eustathe de Cappadoce) ou indirects (Sosipatra d’Éphèse et son fils Antonin, Maxime d’Éphèse, Priscus de Thesprotie, Chrysanthe de Sardes) du maître Jamblique. Au sein de ces vies – modèles parfaits de sainteté païenne, qui se profilent comme la combinaison de paidéia et nature divine – l’extraordinaire sagesse oraculaire des protagonistes constitue le trait distinctif du θεῖος φιλόσοφος, au même titre que la beauté, la noblesse des origines, la paideia classique et la compétence oratoire.23 En effet, le philosophe eunapien jouit de qualités herméneutiques incomparables par rapport à l’interprétation des oracles. Eustathe de Cappadoce, par exemple, est capable de reconnaître la fausse nature divine d’un signe et d’en corriger la mauvaise interprétation donnée par les plus grands experts de l’art prophétique, selon lesquels il annonçait une visite imminente du philosophe en Grèce. Après les avoir écoutés et mis à l’épreuve, en leur posant des questions sur la dimension, la couleur et la figure des signes divinatoires, Eustathe les contredit : « En vérité, ces signes n’annonçaient pas ma visite » (« ἀλλὰ ταῦτά γε » εἶπεν « τὴν ἐμὴν τήνδε ἐπιδημίαν οὐκ ἐμαντεύετο »).24 Les mêmes habilités d’interprétation sont possédées par Porphyre, si l’on s’en tient à l’interprétation de Civiletti, selon laquelle Eunape raconte que Porphyre dit avoir eu du succès par rapport à un oracle « hors du commun ».25 La capacité du philosophe à comprendre la nature véritable ou fausse des σημεία divins est l’effet de son appartenance au chœur 22

Pour la datation, cf.Civiletti 13 (surtout n. 2), Becker 30s., et Goulet, Eunape I 9698. 23 Sur l’importance des anecdotes oraculaires chez Eunape, cf. Cox 244s. 24 VI 51 p. 29, 4s. - Goulet = VS VI 6, 3 p. 27, 24s. Giangrande. 25 Αὐτὸς μὲν οὖν φησι [...] ἐπιτυχεῖν χρηστηρίῳ μηδενὶ τῶν δημοσίων VS IV 11 p. 9, 17-19 Goulet = IV 1, 11 p. 8, 18s. Giangrande. Civiletti, fidèle à l’interprétation de Sodano 218, traduit cette expression « fuori dal comune », en tant que différent des réponses publiques communes et donc incompréhensible au peuple (cf. 311 le commentaire y relatif). De même Becker 83 : « Er selbst behauptet ... dass ihm eine außergewöhnliche Prophezeiung zuteil geworden sei ». Le sens de cette phrase est tout aussi obscure pour Goulet, qui traduit plus littéralement « il dit donc lui-même [...] qu’il n’est tombé sur aucun des oracles publics » et admet des difficultés s’agissant de la compréhension de ce que dit Eunape. Ainsi traduits, ses mots ne s’accordent pas avec ce que Porphyre soutient dans son œuvre Περὶ τῆς ἐκ λογίων φιλοσοφίας par rapport aux sites oraculaires publiques (« Eunape ... » II 156). Cf. aussi Penella 29.

Le θεῖος φιλόσοφος et les oracles

109

divin.26 Le θεῖος ἀνήρ d’Eunape entretient un rapport privilégié de communication avec le dieu. Quand Aidésius de Cappadoce invoque le dieu au moyen d’une prière, le dieu répond aussitôt, en lui transmettant en songe un oracle :27 Καταφυγὼν δὲ ἐπί τινα μαντείαν δι’ εὐχῆς ᾗπερ ἐπίστευε μάλιστα – αὕτη δὲ ἦν δι’ ὀνείρατος – , ὁ μὲν θεὸς ἐφίστατο πρὸς τὴν εὐχήν, καὶ ἔχρησεν ἐν ἑξαμέτρῳ τόνῳ τάδε. Alors qu’il avait recours à un procédé oraculaire obtenu par la prière auquel il accordait une extrême confiance – l’oracle était transmis en songe – le dieu vint en réponse à [sa] prière et lui accorda l’oracle sur le rythme de l’hexamètre que voici (trad. Goulet).

De même, l’intimité d’Aidésius de Sardes avec le divin est tellement simple et immédiate, « qu’il suffisait de poser la couronne sur sa tête28 pour proférer des oracles en regardant le soleil».29 La prescience de l’avenir, qu’on pourrait définir un type de talent héréditaire,30 devient synonyme de complicité et d’identité avec le dieu. À propos du philosophe Chrysanthe de Sarde – père d’Aidésius – Eunape dit :31 Ὁρᾶν γοῦν ἄν τις αὐτὸν ἔφησε τὰ ἐσόμενα μᾶλλον ἢ προλέγειν τὰ μέλλοντα, οὕτως ἅπαντα διήθρει καὶ συνελάμβανεν, ὡσανεὶ παρών τε καὶ συνὼν τοῖς θεοῖς. On aurait dit de fait qu’il voyait l’avenir davantage qu’il ne prédisait le futur, tant il examinait toutes choses et les comprenait comme s’il fréquentait les dieux et vivait dans leur compagnie (trad. Goulet). 26

Ψεῦδος γὰρ οὐ μόνον ἔξω θείου χοροῦ, ἀλλὰ καὶ λόγου ἵσταται (VS VI 51 p. 29, 3s. Goulet = VI 6, 3 p. 27, 23s. Giangrande). Cf. Plat., Phaedr. 247 a 7. 27 VS VI 32 p. 24, 26 - 25, 1 Goulet = VI 4, 1 p. 23, 17-20 Giangrande. Pour un autre exemple de divination en songe, VS VII 43 p. 50, 16-21 Goulet = VII 3, 16 p. 48, 1116 Giangrande). 28 Pour l’usage de la couronne dans le rituel divinatoire, cf. Eus., PE V 9. 29 Ἡ δὲ πρὸς τὸ θεῖον οἰκειότης οὕτως ἦν ἀπραγμάτευτος καὶ εὔκολος ὥστε ἐξήρκει τὸν στέφανον ἐπιθεῖναι τῇ κεφαλῇ, καὶ πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον ἀναβλέποντα χρησμοὺς ἐκφέρειν (XXIII 50 p. 105, 4-8 Goulet = XXIII 5, 3 p. 99, 7-10 Giangrande). Sur la divination au moyen du soleil, cf. Philostr., Vita Apoll. V 25; Dam., Vita Isid. § 69 Zinzten = fr. 52 Athanassiadi ; cf. aussi Iambl., De myst. III 16 p. 137, 10 - 138, 6 P. = 103, 2-17 S. - S. - L. sur l’astroscopie. 30 En ce qui concerne l’hérédité de la compétence prophétique et les γένη προφητικά, cf. Athanassiadi 60. 31 VS XXIII 10 p. 98, 2-5 Goulet = XXIII 1, 10 p. 92, 10-12 Giangrande.

110

Regina Fichera

Cette équivalence « compétence divinatoire – essence divine » paraît logique pour Eunape. En fait, alors que la philosophe Sosipatra d’Ephèse révèle dans les moindres détails ce que son père a vécu pendant le voyage qu’il a entrepris pour la rejoindre, l’homme pense que sa fille est une déesse.32 De même, la sagesse divinatoire de la philosophe, laquelle « était présente à tous les événements, comme les philosophes le disent à propos des dieux »,33 étonne beaucoup son collègue Maxime d’Éphèse :34 Τοῦ δὲ πεσόντος ἐπὶτὴνγῆνἀχανοῦς, καὶθεὰνἄντικρυς εἶναιτὴνΣωσιπάτρανὁμολογοῦντος ... καὶ τῆς κατὰ τὴν γυναῖκα δὲ θειότητός ‹γε› ἀσφαλῶς πεπειραμένος. Comme Maxime était tombé par terre bouche bée et reconnaissait ouvertement que Sosipatra était une déesse ... et en ayant en toute certitude l’expérience de la divinité de cette femme (trad. Goulet).

Pour mieux comprendre les raisons de cette investiture divinatoire du philosophe, bien illustrée dans l’œuvre d’Eunape, il sera très utile d’analyser les mots utilisés par Porphyre pour décrire sa collection d’oracles :35 Ἕξει δὲ ἡ παροῦσα συναγωγὴ πολλῶν μὲν τῶν κατὰ φιλοσοφίαν δογμάτων ἀναγραφήν, ὡς οἱ θεοὶ τἀληθὲς ἔχειν ἐθέσπισαν· ἐπ’ ὀλίγον δὲ καὶ τῆς χρηστικῆς ἁψόμεθα πραγματείας, ἥτις πρός τε τὴν θεωρίαν ὀνήσει καὶ τὴν ἄλλην κάθαρσιν τοῦ βίου. ἣν δ’ ἔχει ὠφέλειαν ἡ συναγωγὴ μάλιστα εἴσονται, ὅσοιπερ τὴν ἀλήθειαν ὠδίναντες ηὔξαντό ποτε τῆς ἐκ θεῶν ἐπιφανείας τυχόντες ἀνάπαυσιν λαβεῖν τῆς ἀπορίας διὰ τὴν τῶν λεγόντων ἀξιόπιστον διδασκαλίαν. [...] σὺ δ’ εἴπερ τι καὶ ταῦτα πειρῶ μὴ δημοσιεύειν, μηδ’ ἄχρι καὶ τῶν βεβήλων ῥίπτειν αὐτὰ δόξης ἕνεκα ἢ κέρδους ἤ τινος ἄλλης οὐκ εὐαγοῦς κολακείας. κίνδυνος γὰρ οὐ σοὶ μόνον τὰς ἐντολὰς παραβαίνοντι ταύτας ἀλλὰ κἀμοὶ ῥᾳδίως πιστεύσαντι τῷ στέγειν παρ' ἑαυτῷ μὴ δυναμένῳ τὰς εὐποιίας. δοτέον δὴ τοῖς τὸν βίον ἐνστησαμένοις πρὸς τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς σωτηρίαν.[...] ταῦτά μοι ὡς ἀρρήτων ἀρρητότερα κρύπτειν· οὐδὲ γὰρ οἱ θεοὶ φανερῶς περὶ αὐτῶν ἐθέσπισαν, ἀλλὰ δι’ αἰνιγμάτων. 32

Καὶ θεὸν εἶναι τὴν παῖδα ἐπέπειστο, VS VI 67 p. 31, 25-26 Goulet = VI 7, 5 p. 30, 19 Giangrande. 33 Καὶ πᾶσι πάρεστι τοῖς γινομένοις, ὥσπερ οἱ φιλόσοφοι περὶ τῶν θεῶν λέγουσιν (VI 93 p. 37, 9s. Goulet = VI 9, 14 p. 35, 23s. Giangrande). La condition divine du philosophe est une constante du portrait des personnages de la biographie (cf. aussi VI 3 p. 18, 25-27 Goulet = VI 1, 3 p. 17, 20s. Giangrande et XXIII 48 p. 104, 27 105, 1 Goulet = XXIII 5, 1 p. 99, 3-5 Giangrande). 34 VS VI 86 p. 36, 2-8 Goulet = VI 9, 7s. p. 34, 15-21 Giangrande. 35 Porph., De phil. ex or. p. 109s. Wolff = fr. 303F 25-34 ; 304F 4-11 ; 305F 2-4 Smith = Eus., PE IV 7, 2 ; 8, 1 ; 8, 2.

Le θεῖος φιλόσοφος et les oracles

111

La présente collection consignera un grand nombre de doctrines philosophiques conformes à ce que les dieux ont révélé être la vérité. Nous aborderons aussi un peu la façon dont il faut utiliser les oracles, qui pourra aider à la contemplation et également à la purification de la vie. Quant à l’utilité de cette collection, elle sera facilement perceptible par ceux qui ont douloureusement cherché à enfanter la vérité et qui ont un jour prié pour trouver dans l’expérience d’une épiphanie des dieux un terme à leur perplexité, grâce à l’enseignement digne de foi de ceux qui parleraient (scil. les dieux). [...] Quant à toi, essaie, si c’est cela, de ne pas divulguer celles-ci et de ne pas les jeter aux profanes, que ce soit pour la gloire, le profit ou quelque autre flatterie impure. Le risque alors ne serait pas seulement pour toi qui enfreindrais ces préceptes, mais également pour moi qui aurais facilement fait confiance à qui ne pouvait garder pour soi ces bienfaits. Il faut donc les livrer à ceux qui ont disposé leur vie en vue du salut de leur âme. [...] Cache-moi ces oracles comme les plus secrets des mystères : les dieux en effet n’ont pas prophétisé clairement sur ces questions, mais par énigmes (trad. Fichera).36

Il s’agit d’une συναγωγή de doctrines philosophiques que les dieux ont révélée comme vérité divine et qu’il faut utiliser à des fins de contemplation et de purification de la vie ici-bas.37 Ces principes, en tant que tels, s’adressent exclusivement à ceux qui ont disposé leur vie en vue du salut de l’âme. Par conséquent, dans un cadre où Porphyre ne semble pas faire de distinctions formelles ou dogmatiques entre différentes réponses, on voit se dessiner un oracle qui est le sommet d’un parcours éprouvant qui mène finalement à la rencontre de l’âme avec le dieu, qui lui révèle la vérité et met un terme à cette ἀπορία. Cela se trouve confirmé par les mots de son disciple Jamblique : selon le philosophe, la « divination la plus parfaite » est pratiquée alors que l’âme se détache du corps et se joint avec les dieux, en recevant par eux la plénitude la plus vraie des intellections qui lui accordent la préconnaissance.38 Le philosophe de Chalcis soutient que se libérer des liens de la nature est propre à ceux qui vivent selon l’Intellect car ils sont doués d’une puissance surnaturelle de l’intellect39 qui leur permet de s’écarter de la nature et d’atteindre le sommet le plus haut de l’art théurgique qui s’élève vers l’Un.40 Il est évident alors que les destinataires des oracles de Porphyre 36

Cette traduction a été inspirée par celles proposées par Busine, Paroles 242-243 et par Goulet, « L’oracle d’Apollon ... » 197, que j’ai modifiée, afin de rendre plus fidèlement le texte de Porphyre. 37 Cf. Busine, « Des logia ... » et Beatrice, « The Oriental Religions ... ». 38 De myst. III 3 p. 107, 5 - 108, 6 P. = 80, 18 - 81, 15 S. - S. - L. 39 De myst. V 18 p. 223, 15 - 225, 4 P. = 166, 24 - 167, 22 S. - S. - L. 40 De myst. V 22 p. 230, 14 - 231, 2 P. = 172, 1-7 S. - S. - L.

112

Regina Fichera

sont les philosophes,41 appelés à interpréter le message de vérité divine qui a été transmis au moyen de la parole oraculaire et qui correspond au but final de la philosophie néoplatonicienne, c’est-à-dire le salut de l’âme et l’assimilation au dieu.42 Les philosophes deviennent dès lors les gardiens exclusifs de ces oracles, qui – révélés d’ailleurs de manière énigmatique – sont comme des mystères secrets à ne pas profaner.43 Les exempla philosophiques d’Eunape nous fournissent la confirmation de la nature élitiste de la révélation oraculaire (dont Porphyre parle), qui partage avec l’ἐποπτεία mystérique le caractère énigmatique, le secret du message et la recherche d’une « vision » qui correspond au salut de l’âme.44 On a déjà mis en évidence que la compréhension singulière d’oracles indéchiffrables et la préscience divinatoire confèrent une condition divine aux personnages eunapiens ; mais, conformément au « manifeste oraculaire » de Porphyre, les oracles deviennent par ailleurs des instruments utiles à l’ « initiation philosophique » des protagonistes des Vies45. Quand Sosipatra était encore enfant, elle fut confiée à deux vieillards dont la nature n’était pas claire.46 Elle resta loin de son père pendant cinq ans, durant lesquels personne ne sut jamais à quels mystères elle fut instruite et à quelle divinité elle fut consacrée.47 Seulement à la fin de cette période, les deux vieillards avouèrent avec réti41

Pour l’identification des destinataires de l’œuvre de Porphyre avec les philosophes, cf. Johnson et Addey 46. La capacité de concevoir l’intelligible appartient à la « fleur de l’intellect » porteur du pur regard converti de l’âme, selon Damascius (De princ. II 105, 3-13 W. - C. = OC 1). Cf. Eun., VS VII 39 p. 49, 25-29 Goulet = VII 3, 12 p. 47, 21-25 Giangrande qui dit que c’est aux meilleurs des Hellènes de s’occuper de théurgie. 42 Cf. l’oracle d’Apollon Theos. § 37 Erbse = I 34 Beatrice, où la libération des liens corporels est présentée comme une action préalable et préparatoire à l’acquisition de l’éternité de l’âme. 43 Pour le caractère énigmatique des discours du philosophe, cf. l’exemple de Plotin (VS IV 10 p. 9, 12-14). Parler par énigmes est un trait de la sagesse pythagoricienne (εἰ δ’ αἰνιγμάτων ἅπτομαι, σοφία Πυθαγόρου ξυγχωρεῖ ταῦτα Philostr., Vita Apoll. VI 11). 44 Cf. Addey 43-82. 45 Cf. Addey 126. 46 Εἴτε ἥρωες, εἴτε δαίμονες, εἴτε τι θειότερον ἦσαν γένος, « des héros, des démons, des êtres appartenant à quelque espèce plus divine » VI 63 p. 31,6s. Goulet = VI 7, 1 p. 30, 1s. Giangrande. Une expression semblable a été utilisée par Origène à propos de la nature ambiguë de certains devins (ἢ ἐστί τις ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις εἴτε δαίμων εἴτε ἥρως εἴτε καὶ θεός, ἐνεργῶν τινα μείζονα ἢ κατὰ ἄνθρωπον ; Cels. III 35 ; cf. Ustinova). 47 VI 58-63 p. 30, 4 - 31, 10 Goulet = VI 5, 10 - 7, 2 p. 28, 26 - 30, 4 Giangrande.

Le θεῖος φιλόσοφος et les oracles

113

cence (μόλις καὶ βραδέως) qu’ils n’étaient pas étrangers à la sagesse dite chaldaïque – « c’était peut-être aussi ce que voulait le dieu », commente Eunape –, mais ils ne le révélèrent que « par énigme » (δι’ αἰνίγματος).48 Les deux maîtres mènent à bien une véritable initiation (μυεῖν εἰς τὸ τελεώτερον) consacrée par des objets, notamment la robe de la tenue dans laquelle elle avait été initiée et des petits livres à déposer dans un coffre scellé, ainsi que certains instruments (ἄλλα τινὰ προσθέντες ὄργανα).49 On pourrait croire qu’il s’agit d’un rite théurgique chaldaïque étant donné l’identité des deux hommes et l’allusion rapide « aux petits livres » (βιβλίδια) identifiables, selon certains, aux Oracles Chaldaïques.50 Quel que soit le type de pratique utilisé, il est par ailleurs intéressant de souligner que la démonstration de la puissance divinatoire de la philosophe est la preuve de l’accomplissement de son initiation. Après avoir été initiée, en effet, Sosipatra se montre capable d’accueillir la parole du dieu lorsque sa bouche émet une prophétie sur l’avenir : d’abord, elle annonce à son mari Eustathe le nombre et les attitudes de leurs enfants et, ensuite, elle lui dévoile sa destinée après la mort en prononçant des mots « qui ne différaient en rien des prophéties immuables, car tout survint et se réalisa comme il avait été dit ».51 On peut donc supposer que Sosipatra accomplit un chemin initiatique au moyen de rites et d’oracles.52 Grace à cette voie que Sosipatra a empruntée vers la philosophie – et par conséquent vers dieu –, elle est progressivement passée d’interprète des oracles à divinité oraculaire qui rend des prophéties au sujet de la destinée de l’âme. Que l’oracle, en tant que théo48

VI 67 p. 31, 27 - 32, 2 Goulet = VI 7, 5 p. 30, 20-23 Giangrande. VI 70 p. 32, 14-20 Goulet = VI 7, 8 p. 31, 8-12 Giangrande. Parmi les ὄργανα utilisés dans les rites théurgiques on trouve la ἴυγξ, utile selon Damascius (In Parm. II 47, 9-11 W. - C.), à évoquer ou éloigner les dieux, selon le sens de sa course. On trouve des témoignages de chitons bariolés avec des signes du zodiaque et de ceintures aptes à provoquer des apparitions en Proclus, In Remp. II 246, 23-25. 50 Cette hypothèse est celle de Pack 203. Cf. en outre Cameron - Long 51 et Fowden 39 pour lesquels le cercle philosophique de Sosipatra à Pergame était étroitement lié à l’entourage des adeptes chaldaïques. Sur Sosipatra comme « théurge » cf. Lanzi. Pour une bibliographie complète sur Sosipatra, cf. Addey - Fichera. 51 Καὶ τὰ λεχθέντα οὐδὲν διέφερε τῶν ἀκινήτων μαντειῶν πάντα γὰρ ἐγένετο καὶ ἀπέβη καθάπερ ˹ἦν εἰρημένα˺ (VI 79 p. 34, 11-13 Goulet = VI 8, 6 p. 33, 6s. Giangrande). 52 La présence des oracles dans le parcours de formation de Sosipatra pourrait témoigner du rôle des oracles dans l’éducation des jeunes de cette époque, insinué par Eusèbe in PE V 18, 1. Sur ces « oracles de la paideia » (tels que les définit Busine, Paroles 334) cf. aussi Gigli Piccardi, « Ancora su Nonno ... » 3 et Tissi, « Questioni oracolari ... » 264s. 49

114

Regina Fichera

phanie, puisse jouer le rôle de σύμβολον pour que les philosophes puissent atteindre l’union au divin (ὁμοίωσις) vers laquelle ils tendent ne devrait pas nous étonner :53 en effet, plusieurs témoignages attestent avec insistance que la consultation de l’oracle était une cérémonie préliminaire à l’initiation mystérique.54 En outre, l’obligation au silence ordonné à Sosipatra par le dieu, qui lui impose de cacher sa destinée dans l’au-delà, confirme une fois de plus la nature mystérique de son initiation55 mais, en plus, cela démontre que les oracles à sujet théologique étaient rendus aux rares personnes capables de comprendre l’« énigme » du message divin. Prophétiser sur le mystère de l’âme n’était accordé qu’à des savants comme Sosipatra – qui, sous l’inspiration divine, aborde une réflexion sur la descente de l’âme, en expliquant à son auditoire quelle était la partie châtiée et quelle était la partie immortelle56 – ou Aidésius le cappadocien – lequel, à travers un oracle reçu en songe,57 obtient des instructions utiles pour atteindre l’union avec le divin, à savoir au moyen de l’ascèse et du choix d’une vie simple.58 La révélation divine sur la condition de béatitude éternelle, dont vont bénéficier les âmes de ceux qui se sont engagés sur la voie de la tension intellectuelle et de l’ascèse, sonne comme une « assurance » aux oreilles

53

Selon Addey 50-82, l’oracle peut servir d’outil d’initiation en raison de l’analogie entre la vision divine accordée à l’interprète des oracles et celle de l’initié aux mystères. 54 Cf. Lane Fox 173 ; Picard 303s. Pour une synthèse des témoignages, cf. Addey 55s. 55 Sur le secret inaccessible des mystères, cf. Burkert 69. L’importance de l’ἐχεμυθία dans la philosophie néo-pythagoricienne et néoplatonicienne est bien attestée (Diog. Laer. VIII 10.15 ; Philostr., Vita Apoll. I 1.15 ; Porph., Vita Plot. 3, 24-28; Iambl., Vita Pyth.6, 32 ; 16, 68 ; 17, 72 ; 17, 75 ; 19, 90 ; 20, 94 ; 23, 104 ; 30, 188 ; 31, 195). 56 VI 91 p. 36, 22-27 Goulet = VI 9, 12 p. 35, 9-14 Giangrande. Un oracle relatif à la destinée de l’âme de Julien rapporté dans l’œuvre historique d’Eunape confirme l’intérêt de l’auteur pour ce type d’oracle (Hist. fr. 25 Müller = 28, 6 Blockley = Suda Ι 437 II 643, 21-25 Adler). 57 Voir n. 27. 58 Eun., VS VI 35 p. 25, 12-18 Goulet = VI 4, 4 p. 24, 6-12 Giangrande. Pour une interprétation de la χρηστικὴ πραγματεία comme « matière d’étude pratique » en opposition à l’axe dogmatique cf. Busine, Paroles 256-258. Sur la fonction de l’oracle come véhicule d’instructions qui fait de lui une partie de la praxis rituelle théurgique, cf. Addey 79s.

Le θεῖος φιλόσοφος et les oracles

115

des philosophes.59 Selon Jamblique, la préconnaissance contenue dans les oracles est transmise par les dieux afin de protéger des dangers qui viennent de la nature et elle est placée au centre de l’existence de l’âme en vue de son salut et de sa montée vers les dieux :60 Πάρεστι δ’ αὐτῇ καὶ τὸ ὠφέλιμον. οἱ γὰρ θεοὶ καὶ δύναμιν τοῦ φυλάξασθαι τὰ ἐπιντα ἀπὸ τῆς φύσεως δεινὰ παραδιδόασι· καὶ ὅταν μὲν ἀσκεῖν δέῃ τὴν ἀρετὴν καὶ συμβάλληται πρὸς τοῦτο ἡ τοῦ μέλλοντος ἀδηλία, ἀποκρύπτουσι τὰ ἐσόμενα ἕνεκα τοῦ τὴν ψυχὴν βελτίονα ἀπεργάζεσθαι·πὅταν δὲ πρὸς τοῦτο μηδὲν διαφέρῃ, λυσιτελῇ δὲ ταῖς ψυχαῖς τὸ προγιγνώσκειν, ἕνεκα τοῦ σώζειν αὐτὰς καὶ ἀνάγειν, τὴν ἐν ταῖς μαντείαις πρόγνωσιν ἐν μέσαις αὐτῶν ταῖς οὐσίαις ἐντιθέασιν. Et s’y ajoute aussi ce qui est avantageux, car les dieux transmettent encore une force afin de se protéger des dangers venant de la nature, et quand il faut mettre le courage en pratique et que l’obscurité du futur y contribue, [les dieux] cachent ces [dangers] à venir pour rendre l’âme meilleure ; tandis que, quand cela ne fait aucune différence et qu’avoir la préconnaissance est avantageux aux âmes en vue de leur salut et de leur montée [vers le dieux], ils placent la préconnaissance contenue dans les oracles au centre le leurs existences (trad. Saffrey - Segonds - Lecerf).

De même, un oracle issu du sanctuaire oraculaire du dieu-serpent Glycon à Abonuteichos, en Paphlagonie, parle de l’identité prophétique comme émanation de l’intelligence divine que Zeus a envoyée « au secours » des hommes de bien.61 Porphyre dit lui-même que celui qui puise dans les oracles ses espérances d’obtenir le salut, comme en l’unique source sûre, est solide et inébranlable.62 On peut aussi trouver une confirmation de cette réflexion de l’oracle comme réconfort donné par le dieu dans l’œuvre d’Eunape. Les mots des deux maîtres de Sosipatra encouragent son père « comme s’il avait reçu une promesse ou un oracle ».63 Par ailleurs, Aidésius « cherchait secours » dans un procédé

59

Un exemple d’oracle rassurant est celui rendu par Apollon au fidèle qui l’interroge sur la survie de l’âme après la mort (Theos. § 37 Erbse = I 34 Beatrice). 60 Iambl., De myst. X 4 p. 289, 11- 290, 4 P. = 214, 14-23 S. - S. - L. 61 Ἡ δὲ προφητείη δίης φρενός ἐστιν ἀπορρώξ. καί μιν ἔπεμψε πατὴρ ἀγαθῶν ἀνδρῶν ἐπαρωγόν (Lucian., Alex. 40). 62 Βέβαιος δὲ καὶ μόνιμος ὁ ἐντεῦθεν ὡς ἂν ἐκ μόνου βεβαίου τὰς ἐλπίδας τοῦ σωθῆναι ἀρυτόμενος (De phil. ex or. p. 109 Wolff = fr. 303F 15s. Smith). 63 Ὥσπερ ἔχων ὑπόσχεσίν τινα ἢ χρησμόν VI 68 p. 32, 6s. Goulet = VI 7, 6 p. 30, 27s. Giangrande.

116

Regina Fichera

oraculaire auquel il accordait une confiance extrême64 tout comme Maxime et Chrysanthe « se réfugient » dans une consultation, avant de répondre à l’invitation de l’empereur Julien.65 On pourrait tout aussi bien affirmer que l’oracle vient en aide au philosophe en lui transmettant les doctrines philosophiques dans le cadre d’une pratique rituelle dont le but est eschatologique.66 Pour diffuser ces principes, la divinité utilise la bouche du philosophe lui-même, en dépassant en cela la révélation rendue par Apollon à Amelius au sujet de l’âme du maître Plotin,67 qui ne fut donnée que post mortem. L’œuvre d’Eunape représente ainsi un important témoignage du passage tardif des oracles à la sphère privée, oracles révélés aux philosophes qui les reçoivent comme manifestations de la proximité avec les dieux et comme signes de leur propre nature divine. Les dieux interviennent en réponse à l’invocation des philosophes d’Eunape ou bien spontanément afin de les encourager, de leur indiquer la meilleure voie à prendre ou de leur révéler aussi bien des événements futurs que la destinée de leur âme. Les protagonistes des VS sont parmi les rares personnes capables de comprendre la signification de ce type d’oracle. Lorsque les courtisans de Valens et Valentinien fomentent un complot contre les empereurs, en recourant à un oracle privé (μαντεῖον ἰδιωτικὸν) – « οὐ παντός ἐστι καταμαθεῖν ὃ λέγω » précise Eunape – ils ne sont pas capables de l’interpréter et ils doivent consulter le philosophe Maxime d’Ephèse qui était alors le seul à connaître la volonté des dieux.68 Eunape se révèle ainsi bien conscient non seulement de la différence entre divination publique et privée, théorisée par Jamblique,69 mais aussi des divers types de divination, ainsi que des différentes façons d’acquérir la capacité divinatoire, dont le philosophe parle dans le De mysteriis.70 64

Καταφυγὼν δὲ ἐπί τινα μαντείαν δι’ εὐχῆς ᾗπερ ἐπίστευε μάλιστα VI 32 p. 24, 26-27 Goulet = VI 4, 1 p. 23, 3-4 Giangrande. 65 Τοῖς δὲ ἐπὶ τοὺς θεοὺς καταφεύγειν ἐδόκει VII 37 p. 49, 14-15 Goulet = VII 3, 10 p. 47, 12 Giangrande. 66 Jamblique (De myst. X 7 p. 293, 8-10 P. = 217, 6-9 S. - S. - L.) dit que les théurges s’occupent de ce qui conduit à la purification, à la libération et au salut de l’âme. Chez Jamblique, cette fonction eschatologique est partagée avec le philosophe (cf. Iambl., Vita Pyth. 2, 8 ; 6, 30 ; 19, 92). 67 Porph., Vita Plot. 22, 8-63, cf. Goulet, « L’oracle d’Apollon ... ». 68 VII 73 p. 56,14-23 Goulet = VII 6, 3 p. 54, 13-21 Giangrande. 69 Ἴδωμεν τοίνυν τὸ ἐντεῦθεν ἄλλο εἶδος ἰδιωτικὸν καὶ οὐ δημόσιον μαντείας (Iambl., De myst. III 13 p. 129, 13s. P. = 97, 5s. S. - S. - L.). 70 Dans le De mysteriis, Jamblique parle de la divination dans le sommeil (III 1-3 p. 102, 9 - 109, 2 P. = 77, 8 - 82, 2 S. - S. - L.), par « enthousiasme » (III 4-10 p. 109, 5

Le θεῖος φιλόσοφος et les oracles

117

Quand Justus, vicaire de l’Asie, interroge Chrysanthe à propos d’un sacrifice public71 dont la victime aurait dû permettre de tirer des présages, le philosophe demande :72 Τίς μὲν ὁ τρόπος τῆς μαντείας, εἴ γε τοὺς μαντικοὺς τρόπους ἐπίστασαι, εἰπὲ τὸ πρότερον, καὶ ποίου τινὸς εἴδους, τίς δὲ ἡ πεῦσις, καὶ κατὰ τίνα μέθοδον ἐπηρώτηται. Dis-moi d’abord de quel mode de divination il s’agit, si vraiment tu connais les modes de la divination, et de quelle espèce, quelle est la question [posée] et selon quelle méthode on conduit l’interrogation (trad. Goulet).

En se tenant aux préceptes théurgiques de Jamblique, les philosophes d’Eunape proclament les oracles d’une bouche en délire par enthousiasme mantique (ἐνθουσιασμός) qui les soumet tout entiers et les mène vers le divin73 ou bien au moyen de techniques divinatoires, qu’il s’agisse de prières, de sacrifices ou d’autres rituels. Dans le cas de Sosipatra, l’inspiration divine se présente comme une transe corybantique et dionysiaque74 digne de l’admiration et de la vénération de tout le

- 123, 8 P. = 82, 5 - 92, 17 S. - S. - L.), par les oracles publics au moyen d’eau, d’outils et de sièges pour préparer la réception du dieu (III 11s. p. 123, 10 - 129, 12 P. = 92, 19 - 97, 4 S. - S. - L.), privée, au moyen des caractères et de la photagogie, (III 13-17 p. 129, 13 - 134, 19 P. = 97, 5 - 101, 2 S. - S. - L.) et par les arts humains et d’être inanimés (III 15 p. 135, 1 - 143, 10 P. = 101, 3 -107, 18 S. - S. - L.). 71 Ἱερουργίας οὖν δημοσίᾳ προτεθείσης XXIII 38 p. 103, 7s. Goulet = XXIII 4, 4 p. 97, 11 Giangrande. Sur l’expression problématique χρηστηρίῳ μηδενὶ τῶν δημοσίων, voir ci-avant n. 25. 72 XXIII 42 p. 103, 23-26 Goulet = XXIII 4, 7 p. 97, 29 - 98, 1 Giangrande. 73 Sans se mélanger avec l’âme ou le corps de l’homme, le dieu le possède, en l’éclairant de l’extérieur et en faisant de lui le δεχόμενος du dieu et de la parole divine (Iambl., De myst. III 20-28 p. 149, 11 - 167, 18 P. = 112, 10 - 126, 2 S. - S. L. ; cf. aussi Porph., Vita Plot. 22, 35-39). Sur l’ἐνθουσιασμός dans la théurgie, cf. Fowden 37 et Luck 193-196. Pour le philosophe inspiré, cf. l’oracle rapporté par David (In Porph. 4 p. 92, 2-4 Busse) qui definit Jamblique ἔνθους, de la même façon que Proclus est appelé par Marinus (Vita Procli 26, 22). Le philosophe est aussi ἱεροφάντωρ (Jamblique chez Iul. Imp., fr. 161, 3s. Bidez) ἱεροφάντης (le philosophe en général chez Marinus, Vita Procli 19, 30) et βάκχος (le philosophe en général chez Dam., In Phaed. I § 172 (II 105 W.) et Heraiskos chez Dam., Vita Isid. fr. 172 Zintzen = fr. 76 A Athanassiadi; cf. Athanassiadi, « Damascius ... » 53-57). 74 Μεταξὺ τοῦ κορυβαντιασμοῦ καὶ τῆς ἐκβακχεύσεως (VI 91 p. 36, 26 = VI 9, 12 p. 35, 13s. Giangrande). Cf. aussi VI 74 p. 33, 13s. Goulet = VI 8, 1 p. 32, 5s. Giangrande τεθειασμένην καὶ σωφρόνως ἐνθουσιῶσαν.

118

Regina Fichera

monde.75 L’âme d’Aidésius « inspirée » rend aussi des oracles ἀψευδεῖς76 et son père Chrysanthe « avait le même esprit que Maxime, s’enthousiasmant comme lui par rapport au θειασμός ».77 Par contre, Aidésius invoque et obtient la réponse du dieu – qu’il trouvera à son réveil sur sa main – à la suite du rituel de la prière.78 En outre, Eunape semble une fois de plus dépendre de Jamblique quant à la distinction entre la divination infaillible provenant du divin et inspirée par la philosophie et celle qui sert de diagnostic pour les maladies, comme le montre la vie du protagoniste du XXIIe livre des VS, le médecin Ionicus de Sardes.79 Soit en remplissant leur esprit d’inspiration divine, soit à travers des σύμβολα qui mènent leur âme à s’associer aux genres supérieurs grâce à la sympathie universelle qui les relie, les dieux profèrent aux philosophes des VS des oracles dont le contenu est théologique. On y voit confirmé alors que l’esprit du sage est le nouveau temple du dieu dans la société, comme Porphyre l’affirme :80 Λέγει δὲ ὁ λόγος πάντῃ μὲν καὶ πάντως παρεῖναι τὸ θεῖον, ‘νεὼν δὲ τούτῳ παρ' ἀνθρώποις καθιερῶσθαι τὴν διάνοιαν μάλιστα τοῦ σοφοῦ μόνην’, τιμήν τε προσήκουσαν ἀπονέμεσθαι τῷ θεῷ ὑπὸ τοῦ μάλιστα τὸν θεὸν ἐγνωκότος· τοῦτον δὲ εἶναι εἰκότως μόνον τὸν σοφόν, ᾧ τιμητέον διὰ σοφίας τὸ θεῖον καὶ κατακοσμητέον αὐτῷ διὰ σοφίας ἐν τῇ γνώμῃ τὸ ἱερὸν ἐμψύχῳ ἀγάλματι τῷ νῷ ἐνεικονισαμένου ἀγάλλοντα ‹τοῦ θεοῦ›. La philosophie enseigne que partout et totalement la divinité est présente ; ‘c’est à elle que chez les hommes a été consacré un temple, la pensée, celle surtout du sage, ou plutôt elle seule’ ; l’hommage convenable est rendu à Dieu par qui a le mieux appris à le connaitre ; et celui-là, naturellement, c’est seulement le sage, qui par la sagesse doit honorer la divinité, par la sagesse lui préparer dans son esprit un sanctuaire, en l’ornant d’une statue vivante, l’intellect, où ‹Dieu› a imprimé son image (trad. des Places). 75

Οὐκ ἔστιν ὅστις (...) τὸν δὲ τῆς γυναικὸς ἐνθουσιασμὸν ‹οὐ› προσεκύνει καὶ ἐσεβάζετο (VI 81 p. 34, 21 - 35, 2 Goulet = VI 9, 2 p. 33, 15.17 Giangrande). 76 Cf. XXIII 50 p. 105, 7-9 Goulet = XXIII 5, 3 p. 99, 10-12 Giangrande καὶ τούτους ἀψευδεῖς, καὶ πρὸς τὸ κάλλιστον εἶδος ἐνθέου πνεύματος γεγραμμένους. 77 Τὰ περὶ θειασμὸν συνενθουσιῶν, VII 15 p. 44, 22 Goulet = VII 2, 1 p. 43, 8 Giangrande. Pour le terme θειασμός chez Eunape et son interprétation difficile, cf. Goulet, Eunape I 367s. 78 Sur l’utilité de la prière selon Jamblique, cf. De myst. I 15 p. 46, 9 - 48, 12 P. = 35, 7 - 36, 26 S. - S. - L. et V 26 p. 237, 7 - 240, 17 P. = 176, 20 - 179, 7 S. - S. - L. 79 XXII 6 p. 95, 24 - 96, 2 Goulet = XXII 2, 1 p. 90, 9-13 Giangrande. 80 Porph., Ad Marc. 11. Cf. aussi Syn., Dion 9 p. 256, 16-19 T.

Le θεῖος φιλόσοφος et les oracles

119

Il s’agit, en effet, d’un lieu non physique et indéterminé qui se concilie bien avec l’immanence de l’esprit prophétique agissant dans le Cosmos entier, indépendamment du temps et des lieux.81 La provenance géographique de l’oracle n’est plus précisée,82 dans la mesure où l’oracle se présente comme dialogue personnel entre le philosophe et le dieu. Le philosophe remplace ainsi les sanctuaires83 tout comme sa voix supplante celle du dieu : Eunape affirme en effet que la voix de Maxime d’Ephèse était telle qu’on pouvait l’écouter par l’Athéna homérique ou par Apollon et que ses discours semblaient sortis des trépieds.84 On pourrait dès lors se demander, pour reprendre les mots de Marinus concernant un oracle théologique révélé en songe à son maître,85 « quel meilleur témoignage que celui-là pourrait-on trouver montrant l’amitié du dieu pour cet homme totalement bienheureux ?» (καὶ τίς ἂν εἴη μαρτυρία ταύτης μείζων περὶ τῆς θεοφιλείας τοῦ τὰ πάντα εὐδαίμονος;) En phase avec la tendance tardive qui consiste à légitimer la sacralité de certains personnages par l’intermédiaire d’éléments miraculeux et surnaturels, l’oracle se dessine comme μαρτυρία de la nature divine acquise du modèle parfait de sage qu’Eunape décrit dans son œuvre. Chez Eunape, la révélation oraculaire est tout d’abord la démonstration du dieu au sage (ainsi qu’à la communauté) de l’existence d’une proximité particulière entre les deux qui permet au philosophe d’être initié à un parcours philosophique et mystérique. En outre, l’oracle est réconfort et confirmation de la valeur eschatologique du chemin que le philosophe néoplatonicien a emprunté dans le microcosme intime de son esprit et de son âme, en attestant son immortelle béatitude. L’oracle devient ainsi un outil efficace de la propagande du philosophe païen en opposition au saint chrétien : l’attribution d’une sagesse divinatoire aux personnages d’Eunape accorde à son œuvre la 81

Iambl., De myst. III 1 p. 101, 14 - 102, 4 P. = 76, 20 - 77, 1 S. - S. - L. et III 12 p. 128, 17 - 129, 12 = p. 96, 16 – 97, 4 S. - S. - L. Sur l’indépendance de la divination du devenir, d’inspiration platonicienne (Tim. 29 e), chez Jamblique, cf. Shaw 80. 82 Sur l’absence de référence à la provenance géographique de l’oracle d’Apollon sur l’âme de Plotin, cf. Goulet, « L’oracle d’Apollon ... » 199s. 83 Brown 99s. Sur le rôle marginal des temples traditionnels dans le récit d’Eunape, cf. Goulet I, 341s. 84 Eun., VS VII 1-3 p. 42, 6-16 Goulet = VII 1, 1-3, p. 40, 22 - 41, 7 Giangrande. Pour une liste d’expressions analogues, cf. Becker 355. 85 Marinus, Vita Procli 32, 37s. C’est la réponse du dieu aux doutes du philosophe sur l’identité de la divinité tutélaire du sanctuaire vénéré à Adrotta, que certains estiment consacré à Asclépios, d’autres aux Dioscures (pour la localisation, cf. Saffrey - Segonds - Luna 167).

120

Regina Fichera

divina auctoritas nécessaire pour concurrencer les textes chrétiens,86 dans la mesure où le philosophe devient le gardien d’une vérité divine à transmettre. Pour conclure, Eunape est d’une part témoin de la fortune de la forme privée et théologique que l’oracle a pris au cours de l’Antiquité tardive, en se montrant dépendant des instructions philosophiques transmises par Porphyre (auxquelles Eunape semble faire référence dans le Vies),87 ainsi que de l’approche théurgique d’origine chaldaïque et syrienne. De l’autre, son œuvre révèle aussi l’influence générale de la littérature oraculaire tardive : c’est à l’oracle même qu’Eunape recourt en fait afin d’annoncer, par la voix de l’hiérophante d’Éleusis, le malheureux destin des sanctuaires et de toute la Grèce,88 ainsi qu’il est d’usage au IVe siècle.89

86

Cf. Gigli Piccardi, « L’oracolo della vendemmia ... » 276 n. 15. VS IV 11 p. 9, 18 Goulet = IV 1, 11 p. 8, 18s. Giangrande. 88 Il s’agit pas du présage de la destruction des temples provoquée par la politique antipaïenne de Théodose à la fin du IVe s. (VS VII 28-31 p. 46, 23 - 48, 3 Goulet =VII 3, 1-4 p. 45, 6 - 46, 6 et VIII 10s. p. 60, 18 - 61,1 Goulet = VIII 1, 10s. p. 58, 817 Giangrande). 89 Le groupe d’oracles chrétiens classés par Batiffol dans la catégorie des « falsifications chrétiens » a été composé au cours de la seconde moitié du IVe s. afin de justifier la suppression du culte païen par la voix des dieux (cf. aussi Nock 284). 87

Le θεῖος φιλόσοφος et les oracles

121

Bibliographie 1 Éditions, commentaires, traductions Damascius Vita Isidori Damascius, The Philosophical History. Text with translation and notes by P. Athanassiadi. Athens 1999. Eunapius Vitae Sophistarum Eunapio di Sardi, Vite di filosofi e sofisti. Introduzione, traduzione, note e apparati di M. Civiletti. Milano 2007. Eunape de Sardes, Vies de Philosophes et de Sophistes. Texte établi, traduit et annoté par R. Goulet. I-II Paris 2014. Eunapios aus Sardes, Biographien über Philosophen und Sophisten. Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar von M. Becker. Stuttgart 2013. Iamblichus De mysteriis Jamblique, Réponse à Porphyre (De mysteriis). Texte établi, traduit et annoté par H. D. Saffrey et A.-P. Segonds † avec la collaboration de A. Lecerf. Paris 2013. Giamblico, I misteri egiziani. Testo greco a fronte e in appendice la versione latina di Marsilio Ficino. Presentazione di G. Girgenti. Introduzione, traduzione, note e indici di A. R. Sodano. Aggiornamento bibliografico di P. Chessa. Milano 2013 Marinus Vita Procli Marinus, Proclus ou Sur le bonheur. Texte établi, traduit et annoté par H. D. Saffrey et A.-P. Segonds avec la collaboration de C. Luna. Paris 2001. Porphyrius De Philosophia ex oraculis haurienda Porphyrii de philosophia ex oraculis haurienda librorum reliquiae. Edidit G. Wolff. Berlin 1856. (réimpr. Hildesheim 1983). Porphyrii philosophi fragmenta edidit A. Smith. Fragmenta Arabica D. Wasserstein interpretante. Stuttgart – Leipzig 1993. Theosophia Theosophorum Graecorum Fragmenta. Iterum recensuit H. Erbse. Stuttgart – Leipzig 1995.

122

Regina Fichera Anonymi Monophysitae Theosophia. An attempt at reconstruction by P. F. Beatrice. Leiden – Boston – Köln 2001. (VChr Suppl. 56).

2 Littérature secondaire Addey, C.: Divination and Theurgy in Neoplatonism. Oracles of the gods. Farnham – Burlington (Vt.) 2014. Addey, C. - Fichera, R.: « Sosipatra. » In : Oxford Bibliographies in Classics. New York 2017. http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo9780195389661/obo-9780195389661-0281.xml. Athanassiadi, Damascius  Damascius. Athanassiadi, P. : « Philosophers and Oracles: Shifts of Authority in Late Paganism. » Byzantion 62 (1992) 45-62. Batiffol, P. : « Oracula hellenica. » RBi 13 (1916) 177-199. Beatrice, P. F. : « The Oriental Religions and Porphyry’s Universal Way for the Soul’s Deliverance. » In : Bonnet, C. - Pirenne-Delforge, V. - Praet, D. (ed.) : Les religions orientales dans le monde grec et romain : cent ans après Cumont (1906-2006). Bilan historique et historiographique. Bruxelles – Rome 2009. (Institut historique belge de Rome. Études de philologie, d’archéologie et d’histoire anciennes 45). 343-368. Becker  Eunapius Bernand, É. : Inscriptions métriques de l’Égypte gréco-romaine. Recherches sur la poésie épigrammatique des Grecs en Égypte. Paris 1969. (Annales littéraires de l’Université de Franche-Comté 98). Brown, P.: « Rise and Function of the Holy Man in Late Antiquity. » JRS 61 (1971) 80-101. Burkert, W. : Ancient Mystery Cults. Cambridge (Mass.) – London 1987. Busine, A.: Paroles d’Apollon : pratiques et traditions oraculaires dans l`Antiquité tardive (IIe-VIe siècles). Leiden – Boston 2005. (RGRW 156). Busine, A. : « Des logia pour philosophie. À propos du titre de la Philosophie tirée des oracles de Porphyre. » Philosophie Antique 4 (2009) 149-166. Cameron, A. - Long, J.: Barbarians and politics at the court of Arcadius. With a contribution by L. Sherry. Berkeley – Los Angeles – Oxford 1993. (The transformation of the classical heritage 19). Civiletti  Eunapius. Fowden, G. : « The pagan holy man in late antique society. » JHS 102 (1982) 33-59. Gigli Piccardi, D. : « Phanes ἀρχέγονος Φρήν (Nonno, D. 12.168 e orac. ap. Didym., De trin. II 27). » ZPE 169 (2009) 71-78. Gigli Piccardi, D. : « Ancora su Nonno e la poesia oracolare. » Aitia. Regards sur la culture hellénistique au XXIe siècle 2 (2012). http://aitia.révues.org//496. Gigli, Piccardi, D. : « L’oracolo della vendemmia in Nonno (Dion. 12.110-3) e gli oracoli teologici. » Prometheus 38 (2012) 273-281. Goulet, R. : « L’oracle d’Apollon dans la Vie de Plotin. » In : Goulet R. (ed.): Études sur les Vies de philosophes de l’antiquité tardive. Diogène Laërce, Porphyre de Tyr, Eunape de Sardes. Paris 2001. 191-229. Goulet, Eunape  Eunapius.

Le θεῖος φιλόσοφος et les oracles

123

Johnson, A. P. : « Arbiter of the Oracular: Reading Religion in Porphyry of Tyre. » In : Cain, A. - Lenski, N. (ed.): The Power of Religion in Late Antiquity. Farnham – Burlington 2009. 103-115. Lane Fox, R. : Pagans and Christians in the Mediterranean world form the second century AD to the conversion of Constantine. London 1986. Lanzi, S. : « Sosipatra, la teurga: una “holy woman” iniziata ai misteri caldaici. » Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni 28 (2004) 275-294. Levin, S. : « The Old Greek Oracles in Decline. » ANRW II 18.2 (1989) 1599-1649. Lightfoot, J. L. : The Sibylline Oracles. With Introduction, Translation, and Commentary on the First and Second Books. Oxford 2007. Lobeck, C. A. : Aglaophamus sive De theologiae mysticae Graecorum causis libri tres. Königsberg 1829. Luck, G. : « Theurgy and Forms of Worship in Neoplatonism. » In : Neusner, J. Frerichs, E. S. - McCracken Flasher, P. V. (ed.): Religion, Science and Magic. In Concert and in Conflict. New York - Oxford 1989. 185-225. Mastandrea, P.: Un neoplatonico latino: Cornelio Labeone. Testimonianze e frammenti. Leiden 1979. (Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’Empire Romain 77). Miller, P. C. : « Strategies of Representation in Collective Biography: Constructing the Subject as Holy. » In : Hägg, T. - Rousseau, P. (ed.): Greek Biography and Panegyric in Late Antiquity. Berkeley – Los Angeles – London 2000. 209-54. Nock, A. D.: «Oracles théologiques.» REA 30 (1928) 280-290. [= Nock, A. D.: Essays on Religion and the Ancient World. Selected and edited by Z. Stewart. Oxford 1972. I 160-168]. Nieto Ibáñez, J. M. : Cristianismo y profecías de Apolo. Los oráculos paganos en la patristica griega (siglos II-V). Madrid 2010. Pack, E. : « A Romantic Narrative in Eunapius. » TAPhA 83 (1952) 198-204. Penella, R. J. : Greek philosophers and sophists in the fourth century A.D. Studies in Eunapius of Sardis. Leeds 1990. (ARCA 28). Picard, C. : Ephèse et Claros. Recherches sur les sanctuaires et les cultes de l'Ionie du Nord. (Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d'Athènes et de Rome 123). Paris 1922. Pricoco, S. : « L’oracolo teologico. » In : Garzya, A. (ed.): Metodologie della ricerca sulla tarda antichità. Atti del Primo Convegno dell'Associazione di Studi Tardoantichi. Napoli 1989. 267-85. Robert, L. : « Trois oracles de la Théosophie et un prophète d’Apollon. » CRAI 1968. 568-99. Rutherford, I. : « Pilgrimage in Greco-Roman Egypt: new perspectives on graffiti from the Memnonion at Abydos. » In : Matthews, R. - Roemer, C. (ed.): Ancient Perspectives on Egypt. London 2003. 171-189. Saffrey - Segonds - Luna  Marinus. Seng, H. : « Theologische Orakel zwischen Metaphysik und Ritual ». In : Seng Sfameni Gasparro (ed.) 145-170. Seng, H. - Sfameni Gasparro, G. (ed.): Theologische Orakel in der Spätantike. Heidelberg 2016. (Bibliotheca Chaldaica 5)

124

Regina Fichera

Sfameni Gasparro, G. : « Gli Oracoli Caldaici e l’attuale dibattito sul ‘monoteismo pagano’: sull’uso e l’abuso di una categoria storico-religiosa. » In : Seng, H. Tardieu, M. (ed.): Die Chaldaeischen Orakel: Kontext, Interpretation, Rezeption. Heidelberg 2010. 209-234. (Bibliotheca Chaldaica 2). Sfameni Gasparro, G. : « Oracoli e teologia: praxis oracolare e riflessioni teologiche nella tarda antichità. » Kernos 26 (2013) 139-156. Shaw, G. : « After Aporia: Theurgy in Later Platonism. » JNStud 5 (1996) 3-41. Sodano  Iamblichus. Struck, P. T. : « Divination and Literary Criticism ? » In : Johnston, S. I. - Struck, P. T. (ed.): Mantikê. Studies in Ancient Divination. Leiden – Boston 2005. (RGRW 155). 147-165. Tissi, L. : « Introduzioni e commenti agli oracoli della Teosofia di Tubinga. » In : Seng - Sfameni Gasparro (ed.) 227-256. Tissi, L. : « Questioni oracolari, symphonia e paideia scolastica nella Teosofia di Tubinga. » MEG 15 (2015) 249-267. Tommasi, C. O. : « La preghiera delle Salamandre: Porfirio, Gabalis, Lévi, Landolfi. Per la fortuna di Theos. § 27 Erbse = I 24 Beatrice. » In : Seng - Sfameni Gasparro (ed.) 351-378. Ustinova, Y. : « “Either a Daimon, or a Hero, or Perhaps a God”: Mythical Residents of Subterranean Chambers. » Kernos 15 (2002) 267-288. Wolff, G. : De novissima oraculorum aetate. Berlin 1854.

Sara Lanna Gli oracoli di Ammone nel Romanzo di Alessandro: osservazioni filologiche e storico-religiose 1 Premesse Il fascino del testo del Romanzo di Alessandro attribuito a Callistene risiede nella sua complessità dal punto di vista filologico. Se ne conoscono diverse recensioni e traduzioni non solo in latino, ma durante la tarda antichità e l’età medievale ne sono state realizzate anche in armeno1 e siriaco.2 Così, anche un episodio come il responso oracolare di Ammone ad Alessandro Magno, sebbene storicamente si ponga agli albori dell’età ellenistica, di fatto ha subito connotazioni nuove nel corso dei secoli, fino alla tarda antichità. Tali sviluppi costituiscono l’oggetto del nostro interesse. Per il nostro scopo si compareranno la recensione α3 (quella più antica), la recensione β,4 la traduzione in latino di Giulio Valerio5, la quale è una riscrittura della recensione α,6 e la recensione γ, la quale è più tarda 1

Cf. Stoneman LXXIVs. Stoneman LXXXIV fornisce una sorta di stemma sulla tradizione del Romanzo. 3 La datazione della recensione α è dibattuta; in ogni modo va fissata prima della traduzione da parte di Giulio Valerio (vedi infra n. 5). Cf. Stoneman XXV-XXXIV; De Sanctis 190-192. 4 Stoneman LXXIX. 5 Giulio Valerio deve essere identificato probabilmente con il console dell’anno 338 d. C.: la traduzione è da porre all’inizio del IV secolo d. C.: cf. Stoneman LXXV. 6 Tra le altre testimonianze minori della recensione α si ricordano l’Epitome di Metz, databile tra il IV-V secolo d. C. e la traduzione in siriaco, databile tra il V e il X secolo (Stoneman LXXVI.LXXXs.). Nell’Epitome di Metz non si trova nessuna menzione dell’oracolo di Ammone (cf. Ravazzolo 41.45). Nell’Epitome di Thomas of Kent (XII-XIII secolo) l’episodio dell’oracolo di Ammone è omesso, mentre la fondazione di Alessandria è appena menzionata (cf. Foster - Short 96). Anche nella traduzione siriaca (Reinink) non vi è alcun riferimento all’oracolo e alla fondazione di Alessandria. In sostanza viene omesso ogni riferimento all’oracolo di Ammone nelle cosiddette versioni moralizzate medievali del Romanzo. 2

126

Sara Lanna

di β ed è una sua rielaborazione.7 Inoltre si ricorderà un poema bizantino del 1388, in πολιτικοὶ στίχοι,8 una fonte sui generis perché appartiene al ramo della recensione β, anche se segue ampiamente la versione della recensione α.9 Il Romanzo presenta una genesi e un’articolazione complesse. L’opera si è andata costituendo per successive stratificazioni tra il III secolo a. C. e la prima età imperiale.10 In due sogni distinti, nel Romanzo, il dio Ammone rivela ad Alessandro Magno innanzitutto di essere suo padre, successivamente dove fondare la città che rechi il suo nome; tra i responsi di Ammone e la fondazione di Alessandria seguono altre preghiere con successiva profezia onirica, nelle quali ad Ammone si viene sostituendo Sarapide. Qui non ci si soffermerà sulla discussione delle diverse fonti dell’episodio e l’autorità di ciascuna,11 né dei fatti storici relativi all’arrivo di Alessandro in Egitto. Si evidenzierà come Ammone assuma caratteristiche di Sarapide e che proprio tale presentazione del dio permette di fissare la possibile cronologia della composizione di tali episodi. 2 Il rituale di divinazione presso il santuario di Ammone: le diverse testimonianze In Rom. Alex. I 30, 3s. Alessandro arriva al santuario di Ammone: Αὐτὸς δὲ προσκυνήσας τὸν Ἄμμωνα καὶ θύσας αὐτῷ ὑπομνησθεὶς τῆς ‹μητρὸς λεγούσης›, ὡς ἐξ Ἄμμωνος ἐγεννήθη, καὶ εὐξάμενος εἶπε· Πάτερ, εἰ ἀληθεύει ‹ἡ› μήτηρ ἐκ σοῦ με γεγεννῆσθαι, χρησμῴδησόν μοι. καὶ εἰπὼν ταῦτα τὴν ἡμέραν ἐμετεώρισεν· ἐκοιμήθη δὲ καὶ εἶδε κατὰ τοὺς ὕπνους ‹τὸν Ἄμμωνα› τῇ Ὀλυμπιάδι περιπεπλεγμένον. ἀνίσταται οὖν τῶν ὕπνων καὶ μαθὼν τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐνέργειαν κατασκευάζει τὸ τέμενος † ἐκ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ ἐπιγραφῆς· Πατρὶ θεῷ Ἄμμωνι Ἀλέξανδρος ἔθηκεν. 7

Stoneman LXXIXs. «Das Alexandergedicht ist in 15silbigen politischenVersen abgefaßt» (Reichmann IV). 9 Cf. Stoneman LXXVI.LXXX. 10 Così Centanni XIX; diversamente Ausfeld 1-7, Kroll xvis.; cf. anche De Sanctis 191s. Secondo Caneva 224 la più antica versione del Romanzo fu composta nel II-III secolo d. C. da excerpta di storiografia ellenistica su Alessandro. 11 Sulle fonti della visita di Alessandro all’oracolo di Ammone presso Siwa e la fondazione di Alessandria, e i problemi storici relativi, cf. Gitti, Sisti 464s.468s. Sulle fonti di Plutarco cf. Hamilton liii-lx, Atkinson 363-365. Cf. la tavola riepilogativa in Will 39. 8

Gli oracoli di Ammone nel Romanzo di Alessandro

127

Ed egli, dopo aver reso l’atto di adorazione ad Ammone e aver offerto un sacrificio al dio, dal momento che si era ricordato delle parole della madre, ovvero che era stato generato da Ammone, formulò la seguente preghiera: “Padre, se quanto mi ha detto mia madre è vero, cioè che io sono stato generato da te, dammi un oracolo”. E, dopo aver pronunciato tali parole, durante il giorno si sentì sollevato; poi si coricò e vide in sogno Ammone avvinto a Olimpiade. Dunque al risveglio, fatta esperienza della potenza del dio, costruì il santuario † e fece apporre la segunte iscrizione: “Al dio Ammone, suo padre, Alessandro dedicò”.

Dal testo ricaviamo una modalità oracolare inattestata per Ammone, ma molto comune per Sarapide: l’incubazione. La prima attestazione della presenza dell’oracolo di Ammone presso Siwa risale alla XVIII dinastia; diviene rinomato nel Mediterraneo orientale tra il V e il IV secolo a. C.12 Nel I e II secolo d. C. è ancora visitato. Dediche ad Ammone sono attestate fino al III secolo d. C.13 Tra i titoli con cui il dio è venerato vi è per l’appunto anche χρησμῳδός.14 Altre testimonianze sono costituite da papiri di età imperiale che tramandano domande oracolari ad Ammone.15 Simili ‘biglietti oracolari’ su papiro in lingua greca sono attestati dall’età tolemaica fino al III secolo d. C.16 Questi papiri testimoniano una «medesima tecnica divinatoria: la domanda veniva formulata positivamente e negativamente su due foglietti distinti, che si inserivano in un’urna; era estratto e consegnato all’interessato quello corrispondente al responso divino».17 Le fonti della vita e delle imprese di Alessandro, tuttavia, non registrano la tipologia della domanda oracolare secondo quest’ultima tecnica divinatoria. Secondo Callistene (FGrH 124 F 14) e Diodoro (XVII 50, 6; 51, 2) il responso oracolare presso il santuario di Ammone a Siwa non consisteva in una profezia pronunciata dal sacerdote – infatti in Egitto la pratica di responsi orali, eccetto le visioni oniriche, manca di prove documentarie –,18 ma avveniva per mezzo delle oscillazioni del simulacro del dio.19 Il 12

Frankfurter, Religion 157; cf. anche Kuhlmann 63-69. Cf. e. g. Ronchi I 115 - II 278; RICIS II 775b. 14 PSarapion 101, 9 (Hermopolis [?], Cairo; 90-133 d. C.). 15 PStrassb. 354, 1 (II sec. d. C.); PGM XXX f; cf. Ronchi III 616; n° 54 e 57 Totti (II sec. d. C.), Totti 136-139, specialmente n° 7.9.11.14.19s. Cf. Papini, «Due biglietti ...» 69s. per biglietti oracolari cristiani nel VI secolo d. C.; Naether 401s. 16 Cf. Rosati 45s. e n. 5-8. Sui «biglietti oracolari» nell’Egitto greco-romano, non solo in lingua greca, cf. Naether 359-410, specialmente 394-399, e Buchholz. 17 Rosati 46 e n. 9. Cf. Papini, «Struttura ...». 18 Kuhlmann 70. 13

128

Sara Lanna

rituale descritto da Diodoro è confermato da documenti sacerdotali (cf. i papiri del Brooklyn e del British Museum) che descrivono il dio nel «dare cenni di approvazione con la testa», o «dire di no».20 Plutarco (Vita Alex. 27, 8) fa riferimento a segrete rivelazioni, dunque alla dimensione privata del responso oracolare, il quale in questo caso avviene per mezzo del dialogo tra il re e il sacerdote (Vita Alex. 27, 57). Confrontando le tipologie rituali presso l’oracolo di Ammone a Siwa menzionate dalle fonti, da una parte la processione oracolare,21 dall’altra un incontro del re con il dio (sc. con il suo simulacro, o per mezzo del sacerdote) all’interno del tempio,22 con le testimonianze archeologiche, D. Frankfurter conclude: «everything points towards the fact that Alexander never attended an oracular procession inside the temple but was accorded the ceremony of a ‘king’s oracle’, which was reserved for visitors of royal blood».23 Infine, riferisce che durante l’età romana anche per l’oracolo di Ammone diventa tipica l’incubazione;24 tuttavia abbiamo trovato soltanto la testimonianza del Romanzo.25 La divina19

Cf. Hoffmann in Hoffmann - Neuber - Vultaggio 240-244; su Diodoro cf. Welles 265 n. 3; anche Prandi 81s.; Kuhlmann 70-80. In generale cf. Frankfurter, Religion 155s. Tracce di tale pratica si scorgono in Rom. Alex. I 33, 13 (recensione α): si cita il passaggio dell’Iliade 1, 528-530, nel quale, nel momento in cui Zeus dava il suo cenno di approvazione con la testa, nel movimento, scuoteva anche i capelli; ma nel Romanzo i versi sono riferiti al simulacro di Sarapide, che Parmenione è incaricato di scolpire. L’autore del Romanzo combina e scambia elementi tra i due dèi. Per la questione vedi infra, p. 131. 20 Frankfurter, Religion 147 aggiunge la testimonianza di ostraka posti a terra prima della processione con lo scopo di rivelare la volontà del dio nel movimento dei portatori del simulacro. Su Pap. Brooklyn 47, 218 3 cf. anche Prandi 81s. 21 Cf. Diodoro XVII 50, 6; 51, 2. Cf. Frankfurter, Religion 147s. e n. 11. 22 Cf. Diodoro e Plutarco, citati supra, p. 127s. 23 Frankfurter, Religion 147. «A face-to-face meeting with the statue in the holy of holies» era riservato ai re, sostanzialmente al faraone (Kuhlmann 75). Se la richiesta prevedesse una risposta scritta (Kuhlmann 76), o se sia plausibile la tipologia di «voice-oracles» nell’Ammoneion è questione dibattuta (Renberg 579-584.602). 24 Cf. Renberg 579 n. 36 per la confutazione dell’associazione di tale pratica ad Ammone. 25 Forse è possibile rintracciare un’allusione in Plutarco, Vita Alex. 26, 5: su ciò vedi infra, p. 131s. Anche Caneva 211 riferisce che non ci sono testimonianze egizie relative ai sogni oracolari associati ad Ammone; il Romanzo di Alessandro potrebbe molto probabilmente aver mescolato nel rituale di Ammone le pratiche rituali relative al culto di Sarapide ad Alessandria (su ciò vedi infra). Anche Frankfurter, Religion 167 ricorda l’influenza tra il culto di Ammone e il culto ellenistico di Iside e Sarapide.

Gli oracoli di Ammone nel Romanzo di Alessandro

129

zione per mezzo dell’incubazione avviene in situ come «voice oracle through epiphany»;26 era comune nelle storie di re presso i Greci e gli Egizi, e documentata nel culto di Sarapide, non di Ammone.27 2.1 Le richieste oracolari di Alessandro al dio Ammone: le fonti a confronto Arriano (An. III 4, 5) e Callistene (FGrH 124 F 14) non riferiscono di specifiche domande rivolte da Alessandro al dio. Se, come racconta Plutarco in Vita Alex. 27, 8, Alessandro entra solo, e se veniva ammonito di non rendere pubblici i responsi – infatti Callistene racconta solamente che il sacerdote disse chiaramente che Alessandro era il figlio di Zeus –, come possono essere stati tramandati i responsi? I responsi che si trovano nella cosiddetta Vulgata28 sono invenzione letteraria.29 Nel Romanzo (I 30, 3) Alessandro sogna ciò che in altre fonti è raccontato come il saluto da parte del sacerdote al re quale figlio di Zeus Ammone, oppure è contenuto nella risposta dell’oracolo rispetto alla questione dell’assassinio del padre e la vendetta da compiere, o ancora è presente nella storia del concepimento di Alessandro e l’identità del suo vero padre (in I 30, 3 ve ne è traccia nei ricordi del re). La versione del Romanzo deve essere posteriore a quella delle fonti del IV-III secolo a. C. (cf. Callistene, Tolomeo, Aristobulo, Clitarco). La preghiera a I 30, 3 sembra una rielaborazione letteraria30 dei racconti che le fonti tramandano. Inoltre vi è l’innovazione della visione onirica. Abbiamo già chiarito che i sogni oracolari non erano una pratica nel santuario di 26

Frankfurter, «Voices ...» 242s. Cf. anche Frankfurter, Religion, il quale analizza le tipologie «incubation oracle/voice oracle» (Frankfurter, «Voices ...» 240) relative all’oracolo di Bes nell’Egitto romano fino all’Egitto cristiano nel tardoantico (150152.173s.; cf. Frankfurter, «Voices ...» 239-243). 27 Cf. Caneva 211 e n. 37. Su ciò vedi infra, n. 74. 28 Diod. Sic. XVII 49, 3 - 51, 4; Curt. 4, 7, 5-8; Plut., Vita Alex. 27, 5-9; Iust. 11, 11, 6-13; Arr., An. III 1 e IV 5, l ha un racconto breve (cf. Brunt 478-480). «FGrH 151 F 1. 10 [sc. Anonimo della storia di Alessandro] is even more explicit about the responses, affirming that Alexander is the son not of Philip but of Zeus Ammon himself» (Hammond 49). La versione della visita all’oasi di Siwa deriva da Clitarco (cf. Hammond 50s.55.58). 29 Modalità propria di Clitarco (cf. Mederer). La profezia sul dominio del mondo fu prodotta ex eventu, e la questione dell’assassinio del padre sembra inappropriata al contesto politico (cf. Atkinson 363). 30 Cf. Aesch., Suppl. 592.

130

Sara Lanna

Ammone. Dall’analisi consegue che una fonte (a noi ignota), o uno degli autori stessi delle diverse recensioni del Romanzo di Alessandro (fonte conosciuta però probabilmente anche da Plutarco: vedi infra) deve aver raccontato del responso ottenuto per mezzo del sogno oracolare. Allora, per capirne la ragione, bisogna indagare quando tale pratica rituale diventa importante. 2.2 Oracoli tra sogno e visione: l’incubazione I più popolari santuari dove si praticava l’incubazione in età ellenistica e imperiale erano i templi di Asclepio, Iside e Sarapide.31 Tale rituale era praticato anche dai cristiani, e ancora durante il Medioevo.32 La pratica rituale dell’incubazione consisteva nel recarsi in un santuario per trovarsi in diretto contatto con il dio; la visio del dio con il responso avveniva durante il sonno, nel corso di uno stato onirico-visionario di estasi ritualmente indotto. Il responso onirico poteva consistere, a seconda della domanda, in una prescrizione terapeutica, o in un consiglio su cosa fare, o in istruzioni per trovare un oggetto perduto, o ancora la risposta sul successo o meno in un’impresa. L’incubazione avveniva all’interno del santuario. Le fonti antiche insistono sulla necessità del diretto contatto con il suolo della casa del dio da parte dell’incubatore,33 cosa che non avviene nel Romanzo. Il secondo ellenismo ha dedicato uno spazio notevole alla dimensione onirica.34 Nei sogni gli dèi appaiono e parlano, soprattutto, ma non solo, sotto forma di epifanie che rientrano nella mantica medica, come le testimonianze epigrafiche mostrano in relazione ai due dèi alessandrini Iside e Sarapide.35

31

Cf. Turcan 77-127; Sfameni Gasparro, Oracoli 205-235.327-335; per una panoramica globale nel mondo antico si veda l’ampia trattazione del fenomeno in Renberg, e sulle divinità menzionate 115-270.329-393. 32 Canetti, «L’incubazione ...» e «Commonitus ...»; Sfameni Gasparro, «Taumaturgia ...» e «Sogni ...»; cf. Renberg 745-807. 33 Cf. bibliografia alla nota precedente. 34 Cf. e. g. Ael. Ar., Or. 3, 48. Cf. Sanzi 215-219 con bibliografia, specialmente n. 41.46. 35 In relazione a Sarapide citiamo e. g. RICIS 306/0501 (Andraki, II sec. d. C.); cf. 501/0138 (Roma, 51 d. C.); 501/0155 (Roma, età imperiale); 618/1003 (Tomi, inizio del I sec. a. C.); 113/0513 (Tessalonica, II-I sec. a. C.; cf. Bricault I 141).

Gli oracoli di Ammone nel Romanzo di Alessandro

131

3 Il secondo sogno Nel Romanzo di Alessandro si racconta un altro sogno connesso ad Ammone: Ἠξίου δὲ καὶ χρησμὸν λαβεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, ποῦ τῆς ὀνομασίας ἑαυτοῦ ἀείμνηστον πόλιν κτίσει· καὶ ὁρᾷ κατὰ τοὺς ὕπνους τὸν θεὸν αὐτῷ λέγοντα· ‹Ὦ› βασιλεῦ, σοὶ Φοῖβος ὁ μηλόκερως ἀγορεύω·

εἴγε θέλεις αἰῶσιν ἀγηράτοισι νεάζειν, κτίζε πόλιν περίφημον ὑπὲρ Πρωτηίδα νῆσον, ἧς προκάθητ´ ‹Αἰὼν› Πλουτώνιος αὐτὸς ἀνάσσων ‹πενταλόφοις κορυφαῖσιν ἀτέρμονα κόσμον ἑλίσσων›.

Chiese [sc. Alessandro] poi di avere da lui [sc. Ammone] un oracolo, per sapere dove fondare una città che portasse il suo nome, la cui memoria fosse imperitura. E vide ancora in sogno il dio che gli diceva: ‹O› re, Febo, che ha corna d’ariete, ti parla. Se tu desideri per infinite età rivivere la tua giovinezza, fonda una illustre città presso l’isola di Proteo, dove siede signore ‹Aion› Plutonio, ‹che intorno alle cime delle cinque alture il cosmo infinito fa girare›.36

Nella Vita di Alessandro di Plutarco, dove la fondazione di Alessandria avviene prima della visita all’oracolo di Ammone presso l’oasi di Siwa,37 in 26, 5 Alessandro, durante la notte, nel sonno (κοιμώμενος) ha la visione (ὄψιν ... θαυμαστήν) di un uomo dai capelli bianchi, dall’aspetto venerando (Omero),38 che recita i versi che si riferiscono a Faro:39 è così che il re capisce dove fondare Alessandria. Si tratta di un oracolo di fondazione – pertanto da accostare a quelli che andavano a

36

Rom. Alex. I 30, 5s. (trad. Gargiulo), continuazione del brano citato supra, p. 126s. Su ‹Αἰὼν› Πλουτώνιος al v. 3 dell’oracolo e sul verso successivo vedi infra, p. 132-134. 37 Curt. 4, 8, 1s., come Diod. Sic. XVII 52, Iust. 11, 11, 13 e Rom. Alex. I 31 datano la fondazione di Alessandria in Egitto dopo la visita all’oasi di Siwa. Plut., Vita Alex. 26, 3-10 e Arr., An. III 1, 5 - 2, 7 la datano prima della visita all’oracolo di Ammone. 38 Cf. infra la recensione β di Rom. Alex. I 30, 5. 39 Hom., Od. 4, 354s. Anche in Rom. Alex. I 33, 13 (recensione α) è presente una citazione da Omero: vedi supra n. 19.

132

Sara Lanna

sancire post eventum le imprese di un ecista –,40 formulato, per l’appunto, post eventum,41 in cui, all’interno del topos di una qualche rivelazione in sogno, potrebbe essere confluita la tradizione della fonte recante la versione del sogno42 di cui vi è traccia nel Romanzo, sebbene in Plutarco non ci sia un’incubazione. 4 Recensioni e traduzioni: varianti significative a confronto Il Romanzo di Alessandro riporta a I 30, 5-6 un oracolo in versi pronunciato dal dio (vedi supra). Il testo considerato è quello della recensione più antica (α), secondo l’edizione di Kroll, il quale integra il v. 1 e il v. 5 del responso metrico sulla base di I 33, 2, dove il responso è ripetuto, mentre al v. 4 integra Αἰὼν sulla base della recensione β. Le recensioni α e β e la traduzione di Giulio Valerio presentano alcune differenze significative. Richiamarle chiarisce la rappresentazione del dio e l’epoca di composizione. 40

In riferimento all’ideologia della colonizzazione arcaica cf. Wilson, Moscati Castelnuovo. Cf. anche Malkin 158-168 (in riferimento a Zeus Ammone e gli oracoli di fondazione). Fontenrose 137-144 inserisce i «Colonization Oracles» tra quelli che egli classifica come «Questionable Responses» o «Quasi-Historical», ovvero i responsi non autentici; definisce «Historical Responses» quelli autentici, «Legendary responses» quelli del mito, «Fictional Responses» quelli inventati dagli autori nelle loro opere. 41 Sugli oracoli post eventum cf. Amandry 401. Sugli oracoli di Delfi cf. Dempsey 176-181; Scott 41-143; cf. Parke, Parke - Wormell I 1-291; oracoli delfici con Alessandro come «enquirer» sono in Parke - Wormell II 109s. (n° 270-272). Sul problema dell’autorità cf. anche Dillery. Stoneman 523, come confronto con Rom. Alex. I 30, ricorda il responso ad Archia, capo dei Corinzi, il quale fondò Siracusa (Paus. V 7, 3; cf. Diod. Sic. V 3, 5; cf. Fontenrose 172-174), ma le affinità non sembrano perspicue. La più antica testimonianza di un oracolo del santuario di Claro ha come protagonista proprio Alessandro Magno e riguarda la rifondazione di Smirne (Paus. VII 5, 3; n° 1 Merkelbach - Stauber): dapprima il figlio di Filippo riceve dalle Νεμέσεις in visio un responso onirico, il cui contenuto viene corroborato dall’oracolo di Claro, consultato dagli abitanti di Smirne (cf. Merkelbach - Stauber 4-6, Oesterheld 477 n. 350). Tale oracolo è una invenzione letteraria, che, pur riferendosi ad Alessandro, tuttavia assume il contesto storico-religioso dell’età imperiale, ovvero quando è stato prodotto l’oracolo non autentico. Sugli oracoli post eventum di Claro cf. Busine 201. 42 Cf. la descrizione di Omero in Plutarco supra con quella del dio nel Romanzo a I 30, 5 infra. Per altri «fictional oracles» cf. Ovidio, Met. 9, 686-701 (il sogno di Telethusa); per responsi letterari metrici cf. anche i racconti di investitura in Hes., Th. 22-34; Ennio, Ann. fr. I 6 Vahlen = I 3 Skutsch; Callim., Aitia fr. 1, 23-28 Pf.

Gli oracoli di Ammone nel Romanzo di Alessandro

133

La recensione β è più breve. In I 30, 4 il testo non menziona sogni (κατὰ τοὺς ὕπνους invece nella recensione più antica), ma Alessandro ha una visione del dio.43 Neppure segue un sogno. In relazione al responso sulla fondazione di una città che rechi il nome di Alessandro, nella recensione β il testo di nuovo sottolinea l’azione del ‘vedere’: Alessandro εἶδεν αὐτὸν τὸν Ἄμμωνα. Segue una descrizione dell’iconografia del dio, «dall’aspetto di un vecchio, con la chioma d’oro e con le corna di ariete sulla fronte»44 (I 30, 5), prima del responso oracolare in versi in I 30, 6. Questa recensione non fa riferimento al sogno, ma rappresenta l’evento come una visione, cosa che corrisponde al gusto dell’epoca imperiale.45 Dunque, nel Romanzo, passando dalla recensione α a β, si accentuano i caratteri della visio, secondo il gusto imperiale. Al v. 4 la recensione β ha Αἰὼν Πλουτώνιος, la recensione γ ha Αἰὼν Πλουτούνιος; le medesime varianti ricorrono in I 33, 2. L’epiteto Πλουτώνιος è molto raro; la variante Πλουτούνιος non è altrimenti attestata.46 Giulio Valerio traduce il v. 4 del responso praesidet et numen cui Ditis mundipotentis: numen Ditis corrisponde a Πλουτώνιος αὐτός; l’aggettivo mundipotens, «dominatore del mondo», è composto da mundus e potens, che richiamano ἀνάσσων al v. 4 e κόσμον al v. 5. Il composto corrisponde al greco κοσμοκράτωρ, epiteto molto diffuso in età imperiale; l’aggettivo latino è attestato nel III secolo in Tert., anim. 23 in iunctura con principatus ed ha un impiego infrequente nel latino ecclesiastico.47 Nella versione metrica bizantina, che conserva la tradizione della visione onirica (vedi al v. 1255 ἐν τοῖς ὀνείροις; cf. v. 1243 ἐν νυκτὶ καθ’ ὕπνους), il dio è chiamato Πλουτίνιος Θεὸς μέγας (v. 1264); al v.

43

Il verbo è θεωρεῖ che significa «vedere», «contemplare» (e. g. in Plat., Gorg. 523 e 4), ma anche «essere un θεωρός all’oracolo» (Aristoph., Vesp. 1188). 44 Plut., Vita Alex. 26, 5 (vedi supra, p. 131). Cf. SB V 8511, 13, iscrizione templare (alta età imperiale, secondo Bernard), Talmis (Dodekaschoinos), Inno a χρυσόχελυς Μανδοῦλις Ἀπόλλων. 45 Vedi la visione di Mandulis (età imperiale: n° 40s. Totti) e la visione di Massimo (iscrizione di Kalabscha: n° 42 Totti, I-III sec. d. C.). Cf. Renberg 561 e Sfameni Gasparro, Oracoli 53 sul significato storico-religioso dell’esperienza della visio. 46 Cf. l’apparato in Stoneman 189 per le altre lectiones dell’epiteto a I 33, 2 della recensione β, tutte ugualmente inattestate. 47 In Tertulliano, però, è traduzione di κοσμοποιός come si evince dal parallelo Iren., Adv. haer. I 25, 2. Cf. TLL VIII 1625s. (dove sono citate altre attestazioni). Devo questa osservazione al professor Seng.

134

Sara Lanna

1402, dove si ripete il responso con diverse parole, Θεὸς Πλουτήνιος ἀνάσσων.48 La versione di Giulio Valerio, che non leggeva Αἰών nelle versione α, e quella bizantina, nel caratterizzare il dio chiamato Plutonio rafforzano la prerogativa della signoria sul cosmo (cf. v. 4s. dell’oracolo nel Romanzo). 5 Ammone Sarapide Aion Chi è il dio Πλουτώνιος? Artemidoro V 94 p. 324, 15s. Pack riferisce che Sarapide non è un dio olimpico (Ὀλύμπιος) o celeste (αἰθέριος), ma una divinità ctonia (χθόνιος). Il responso di Ammone si riferisce pertanto a Sarapide. In effetti, nel Romanzo, tra la visita a Siwa e la fondazione di Alessandria si interpone la presentazione di Sarapide come patrono della città;49 a tal proposito seguono una rivelazione e una profezia pronunciate da Sarapide per mezzo di un’unica visione onirica. Infatti, Alessandro «cerca anche il Sarapeion (τὸ Σαραπεῖον) seguendo il responso dell’oracolo dato da Ammone, il più potente (δυναμικωτάτου) di tutti gli dèi» (I 33, 2). Segue la ripetizione dell’oracolo metrico presente a I 30, 6. δυναμικώτατος è un epiteto raro. Nella recensione β a I 33, 1 manca l’apposizione [καὶ] τοῦ πάντων δυναμικωτάτου θεῶν nell’introduzione al responso. Anche qui, come nella preghiera a I 30, 3, il focus è su Ammone. Allora Alessandro «va alla ricerca del dio che vede ogni cosa» (I 33, 3: ἐζήτει οὖν τὸν θεὸν τὸν πάντα δερκόμενον). Innalzata una preghiera al dio, compie il sacrificio; successivamente vede un simulacro in un sacello (ma non sa di quale dio si tratti) e l’iscrizione dedicata dal faraone Sesonchosis50 «al dio dell’universo Sarapide, divinità che si manifesta» (I 33, 3-6: τῷ προφανεῖ τοῦ κόσμου θεῷ Σαράπι). Infine invoca il dio μέγιστε51 ὦ Σάραπι, e gli chiede un segno, se è lui «il dio dell’uni48

Byzantinisches Alexandergedicht 1264 πρὸς ἣν [sc. πρὸς Πρωτεΐδα, 1263] Πλουτίνιος Θεὸς μέγας αὐτὸς προέστη; 1402 ἧς περ [sc. νήσου: cf. 1401 πρὸς Πρωτεΐδα νῆσον, 1401] προκάθηται Θεὸς Πλουτήνιος ἀνάσσων. 49 Sull’interpretazione delle ragioni di tale scelta, dato a favore di una Alessandria di età romana come contesto culturale di composizione della versione α del Romanzo, cf. Caneva 212-216. 50 Al proposito cf. Caneva 213s. 51 Μέγιστος Sarapide è attestato dal 162 a. C. all’età imperiale (in UPZ I 20, col. I 3; altre 2 volte durante il II secolo a. C.; 2 volte alla fine del II secolo a. C.; 1 volta Sarapide Osiride μέγιστος all’inizio dell’età imperiale; 6 volte durante il I secolo d.

Gli oracoli di Ammone nel Romanzo di Alessandro

135

verso» (I 33, 7). Sarapide, ὁ μέγιστος θεός, gli appare in sogno52 e gli si rivela come «il dio che provvede a ogni cosa» (ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ πάντων προνοούμενος, I 33, 8).53 A questo punto Alessandro, invocato ancora il dio in sogno per conoscere il destino di Alessandria e il suo stesso destino (I 33, 9s.), riceve nello stesso sogno l’oracolo.54 Qui si fa notare semplicemente che la profezia di Sarapide su Alessandro futuro conquistatore del mondo55 corrisponde a una delle richieste di Alessandro all’oracolo di Ammone secondo la Vulgata, ma nel Romanzo diverso è il contesto; inoltre, più significativamente, la descrizione di Alessandria coincide con la città in età imperiale.56 L’immagine di Sarapide, così come è presentata, è interessante per comprendere il periodo di composizione. A I 33, soprattutto la recensione α e Giulio Valerio usano espressioni diffuse nel lessico religioso di età imperiale. A I 30, 6, v. 5 = 33, 2, v. 5 ἀτέρμονα κόσμον ἑλίσσων57 (in tutte e tre le recensioni) è da confrontare con formulazioni simili negli Inni Orfici (al Cielo 4, 3 ἑλισσόμενος περὶ γαῖαν, a Pan 11, 15 γαῖαν ἑλίσσων, riferito a Oceano;58 anche e. g. Mesom., hy. II 14 περὶ γαῖαν ἅπασαν ἑλίσσων). L’espressione si conserva anche nella Recensio Byzantina poetica: questa versione dell’Historia Alexandri al v. 1266 ha ἑλίσσων τὸν ἀτέρμονα κόσμον αὑτοῦ δυνάμει (cf. v. 1404). C.; 5 volte nel II secolo d. C.; 2 volte nel III secolo d. C.; altre 3 volte non datate; cf. Ronchi IV 779-782). Μέγας Sarapide è attestato dal 80-69 a. C. (SB I 4963; altre 2 volte in età tolemaica; 5 volte in età imperiale), al IV secolo d. C. (24 volte nel II secolo d. C.; 18 volte nel III secolo d. C., 1 volta nel IV secolo d. C., altre 8 volte non datate). Cf. Ronchi III 689-697. 52 Sui sogni oracolari relativi a Sarapide cf. Stoneman 140s.; vedi supra n. 31 e 35. 53 Viene richiamato l’attacco aretalogico (delle aretalogie isiache), ma la predicazione torna solo in scrittori cristiani in riferimento a Dio: e. g. ὁ τὴν πάντων ἐπιμέλειαν ποιούμενος προνοούμενός τε αὐτῶν θεός (Eus., Or. Const. 9, 4). Sulla divinità Πρόνοια cf. Ricciardelli 229 ad Prooim. 30; 278s. ad Hy. Orph. 10, 27. 54 Rom. Alex. I 33, 11 (recensione α). Nella recensione β (seguita da γ) a I 33 mancano i § 7-10, il § 6 è incompleto, il § 11 presenta una profezia sul destino del re e della città più breve. Al contrario, Giulio Valerio segue la recensione α. Ιn Byzantinisches Alexandergedicht c’è una lacuna dopo il v. 1439, dove inizia la trascrizione in greco di una iscrizione geroglifica su obelisco in onore di Sarapide: il responso del dio è contenuto nella lacuna e prosegue fino al v. 1457. Al v. 1458 si legge ταῦτα δ’ ὁ Σάραπις αὐτοῦ μετὰ χρησμοῦ προλέγει. 55 Cf. I 33, 11. 56 Cf. Caneva 212 con bibliografia alla n. 41. 57 Per la formula τὸν ἀτέρμονα κόσμον cf. anche De gestis in Perside p. 8, 8s. Bratke = 12, 25 Bringel. Devo quest’osservazione a L. M. Tissi. 58 Ricciardelli 247.284 ad loc.

136

Sara Lanna

La differenza tra il Sarapide di età ellenistica e quello di età romana appare evidente se si considera una fonte epigrafica, esemplificativa, relativa alla fondazione del Sarapeion A a Delo, datata alla fine del III secolo a. C.: il sacerdote ha una visione del dio e il suo responso in sogno quattro volte:59 Sarapide presenta le caratteristiche di un dio salvatore, quale appare in età ellenistica (il dio salva dalle malattie, dalle preoccupazioni, dai pericoli della vita).60 Diverso è il Sarapide del Romanzo di Alessandro.61 Al v. 1 del responso sulla fondazione di Alessandria (I 30, 6) l’epiteto μηλόκερως, lunatis cornibus in Giulio Valerio (traduzione di μηνόκερως, una lectio presente nell’esemplare greco usato da Valerio),62 è detto di Febo. Si ritiene utile segnalarlo poiché è un indizio linguistico significativo: è attestato solo nel Romanzo, e i composti aggettivali con secondo elemento -κερως sono diffusi nell’età imperiale.63 Una menzione particolare spetta alla designazione al. v. 4 di Rom. Alex. I 30, 6 = I 33, 2. Αἰών è integrazione metri causa di Kroll per confronto con la recensione β. Secondo Stoneman, Aion nel Romanzo di Alessandro non presenterebbe nessuno dei caratteri che il dio assume solo in età imperiale; così egli inserisce tale passaggio tra gli «indizi

59

RICIS 202/0101 (IG XI 1299). Su Sarapide dio guaritore (non solo in età ellenistica) cf. Bricault, Sanzi 95-117, con testimonianze dall’età ellenistica all’età imperiale: da dio σωτήρ, μέγας, ἐπήκοος, ἐπιφανής a dio μέγιστος (vedi infra), εἷς, κοσμοκράτωρ. 61 Cf. al proposito le formule in Rom. Alex. I 33, 7 conformi al lessico religioso dell’età imperiale: Μέγιστε ὦ Σάραπι, εἰ σὺ τυγχάνεις τοῦ κόσμου θεός ...; ὁ μέγιστος θεὸς ...; ὅστις ποτ’οὖν τυγχάνεις προνοούμενος ταύτης τῆς γῆς καὶ τὸν ἀτέρμονα κόσμον ἐπιδέρκῃ ...: sono formulazioni tipiche in inni, preghiere e Papyri Magicae della tarda età ellenistica e del periodo imperiale (μέγιστος Sarapis è attestato dal II secolo a. C. e solo 5 volte nel II secolo a. C.: vedi supra, n. 51). A partire dal II secolo d. C. nella pratica oracolare confluiscono «interessi di tipo teologico, proponendosi alla divinità interrogativi sui fondamenti stessi dell’esistenza, [...], sulle modalità di manifestazione del divino» (Sfameni Gasparro, Oracoli 52). 62 Così Kroll in apparato, ad loc. 63 Cf. Inni Orfici 9, 2; 52, 2 (ταυρόκερως) e 30, 3; 34, 25; 56, 6 (δίκερως): cf. Ricciardelli 352s. (ma si trova anche in Hy. Hom. 19, 2); Mesom., hy. V 5 βαθύκερως (hapax legomenon); μηνόκερως solo in PMG IV 204; χρυσόκερως nell’oracolo in Porph., De phil. ex or. p. 129 Wolff = fr. 307F Smith (cf. anche il contributo di Hecht in questo volume, con citazione testuale p 92-94). Tuttavia, bisogna precisare che i composti in -κερως sono anteriori, come ὑψίκερως in Hom., Od. 10, 158; Soph., Trach. 507, βουκέρως in Herod. II 41, ecc. Cf. anche Regenauer 266s. 60

Gli oracoli di Ammone nel Romanzo di Alessandro

137

negativi in favore di una datazione ellenistica» del Romanzo.64 Zuntz interpreta Αἰὼν Πλουτώνιος del Romanzo «Gott der Unterwelt»,65 e riferisce l’oracolo a Sarapide.66 Sia la conclusione di Stoneman, sia quella di Zuntz non sono documentabili in età ellenistica.67 Αἰών va interpretato come ‘nome aggiuntivo’ del dio, Sarapide nello specifico. Tra i criteri per valutare l’autenticità di un oracolo vi è la presenza di termini caratteristici.68 Le espressioni che determinano il dio Αἰών nell’oracolo del Romanzo non presentano i caratteri dell’età ellenistica, ma quelli di un dio dell’età imperiale,69 nella fattispecie Sarapide; l’istituzione del culto di Sarapide, per giunta, non risale ad Alessandro Magno70: tale responso oracolare è una invenzione letteraria. Possiamo assumere che nel I secolo a. C. la tradizione della fondazione di Alessandria da parte di Alessandro sulla base del responso di un oracolo relativo al dio Sarapide e in seguito a un vaticinio di Sarapide stesso, così come leggiamo nel Romanzo di Alessandro (rispettivamente a I 33, 2 e I 33, 7-11), era acquisita, dal momento che un papiro che contiene frammenti di una preghiera di Alessandro a Sarapide (Pap. Mil. Vogl. I 21; Oxyrhynchos) è del I secolo a. C., e alla linea 5 si fa menzione della fondazione di Alessandria. Il testo presenta un’ampia lacuna. Secondo alcuni autori si tratterebbe di un’antica preghiera trascritta 64

Stoneman XXXI; 525s.; cf. Stambaugh 84s. Cf. Zuntz, Αἰών 32, dove interpreta Aion come nḥḥ = eternità = eterno = dio, equivalenza che risalerebbe all’epoca tolemaica, e «Aion Plutonios» 295, dove dice ancora che l’espressione è enigmatica nel contesto perché proprio degli ermetici e gnostici. 66 Zuntz, «Aion Plutonios» 296s.302s. 67 La teoria di Reitzenstein di un culto di Aion nell’Alessandria tolemaica (Reitzenstein, «Ein Stück hellenistischer Kleinliteratur» 317-319 e Reitzenstein, Das iranische Erlösungsmysterium 188-207; cf. Weinreich 189; cf. Zuntz, «Aion Plutonios» 291 e Zuntz, Αἰών 11) è stata negata fortemente da Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria 336s., e, con argomentazioni diverse, da Zuntz (Zuntz, «Aion Plutonios» e Αἰών 11-27); cf. anche Bowersock 23s. 68 Cf. Busine 210. 69 La deificazione di Aion è di età imperiale. Per i principali passaggi della questione mi permetto di rinviare a Lanna 172-182. Si aggiungano le attestazioni in Ronchi I 82-84, s. v.; RICIS 501/0217. 1 (Romae, fine I / inizio II sec. d. C.; cf. Bricault II 567). 70 Sia il culto di Aion nell’Alessandria tolemaica sia la fondazione del culto di Sarapide per volontà di Alessandro Magno è stata negata da Fraser, e, con argomentazioni differenti, da Zuntz: vedi supra, n. 67. Cf. anche Fraser, «Two Studies ...» 1-3.42.49, Borgeaud - Volokhine. 65

138

Sara Lanna

successivamente su papiro nel I secolo a. C.; Vogliano71 chiarisce che il testo è un’invenzione che deriva dal genere della storiografia romanzata, come alcune lettere di Alessandro. Il culto di Sarapide conosce una più ampia diffusione dalla fine dell’età ellenistica:72 non prima della fine del IV e l’inizio del III secolo a. C.73 L’oracolo relativo a Sarapide e quello pronunciato da questo dio non sono documentati da altre fonti. Sembra perciò che una tradizione più tarda abbia adattato la narrazione degli episodi in Egitto secondo le predilezioni del culto del tempo in cui fu redatta. Le testimonianze sui responsi oracolari per mezzo dell’incubazione conducono alla stessa conclusione:74 il sogno è un elemento che, per via dell’influenza di Sarapide, risale a un periodo tra il I secolo a. C. e il I secolo d. C., se Plutarco (Vita Alex. 26, 5) ne rappresenta una traccia. 6 Conclusioni La rivelazione oracolare di Ammone nel Romanzo di Alessandro trova precedenti nella tradizione degli oracoli post eventum associati dalla tradizione a ecisti – fondatori di colonie/città, e nella letteratura di finzione nei quali essi sono stati inseriti. Tuttavia, viene creata in un momento più tardo rispetto alla fioritura di oracoli post eventum relativa a quei contesti:75 almeno intorno al I secolo a. C., quando quella tradizione su Alessandro documentata nel Romanzo e qui analizzata sembra consolidata, dal momento che compare in altre fonti (cf. Pap. Mil. Vogl. I 21).

71

Vogliano, ad loc. Cf. le attestazioni epigrafiche in RICIS (Bricault, II 771-772.774) e iscrizioni, papiri e graffiti in Ronchi (IV 945-982). Σαραπεῖα et sim.: dal 105-101 a. C. al III secolo d. C. (Ronchi IV 945-947); Σαραπεῖον et sim.: dal 257 a. C. al 117 d. C. (Ronchi IV 947-960); dal 118 d. C. al 518 d. C. (Ronchi V 961-965); Σάραπις: dall’alta età tolemaica - inizio del III secolo a. C. al III-IV secolo d. C. (Ronchi V 965-982). 73 Cf. la notizia in Diog. Laert. V 76: Demetrio Falereo compose peani per Sarapide, i quali era ancora cantati nell’età dell’autore. 74 Cf. Caneva 211: «We can therefore assume that, in the Romance, the link between the episode of Siwah and the foundation of Alexandria under the protection of Sarapis has led the narrator to apply to Ammon the ritual practice traditionally in use for Sarapis». 75 Da notare che negli Oracoli Sibillini per esempio o in quelli della Teosofia che spettano a Cristo non c’è penuria di oracoli post eventum. 72

Gli oracoli di Ammone nel Romanzo di Alessandro

139

Nel Romanzo dapprima Ammone assume la pratica oracolare di Sarapide (ovvero l’incubazione), successivamente Sarapide rimpiazza Ammone, non solo perché Ammone viene presentato con attributi e prerogative di Sarapide, ma soprattutto perché Alessandro cerca e prega Sarapide per portare a compimento la fondazione di Alessandria. Sarapide nel Romanzo assume le caratteristiche di una divinità quale doveva essere in età imperiale. Nel passaggio dalla recensione α a β e ad altre versioni successive l’elemento di visio del dio sembra diventare più forte, probabilmente per influenza del misticismo imperiale. In conclusione l’episodio della visita all’oracolo di Ammone nel Romanzo di Alessandro presenta sia elementi in comune con lo sviluppo della pratica oracolare in epoca imperiale e nel tardoantico sia un dio oracolare che ha i caratteri di un μέγας θεός con poteri celesti e ctoni, conformemente alle prerogative richieste a una divinità in età imperiale. Tra queste, significativo risulta che la divinità che confermerà il responso della fondazione di Alessandria sia chiamata Aion, ‘nome aggiuntivo’ che solo in età imperiale è marcatore del potere sulla vita da parte di un dio garante della stabilità nel tempo e del dominio sul tempo, proprio perché ha in sé la prerogativa dell’aeternitas.76

76

Ringrazio tutti coloro che mi hanno permesso di apportare miglioramenti al contributo qui discusso, in particolare gli editori del volume – il professor Helmut Seng e la professoressa Chiara Tommasi –, il professor Claudio Schiano e soprattutto la dottoressa Lucia Maddalena Tissi.

140

Sara Lanna

Bibliografia 1 Edizioni, commenti, traduzioni Arriano Arrian with an English translation by P. A. Brunt. I Cambridge – London 1976. Arriano, Anabasi di Alessandro. Volume I. A cura di F. Sisti. Milano 2001. Byzantinisches Alexandergedicht Das byzantinische Alexandergedicht nach dem codex Marcianus 408 herausgegeben von S. Reichmann. Meisenheim am Glan 1963. (Beiträge zur Klassischen Philologie 13) Curzio Rufo Curzio Rufo, Storie di Alessandro Magno. A cura di J. E. Atkinson. I Milano 1998. De gestis in Perside Das sogenannte Religionsgespräch am Hof der Sasaniden. Herausgegeben von E. Bratke. Drei wenig beachtete cyprianische Schriften und die „Acta Pauli“. Von A. Harnack. Leipzig 1899. (TU 19, 3). Bringel, P.: Une polémique religieuse à la cour perse : le De gestis in Perside. Histoire du texte, édition critique et traduction. Thèse Université de Paris IV 2007. (non pubblicato). Eusebio Constantini oratio ad sanctorum coetum Eusebius Werke. Erster Band. Über das Leben Constantins. Constantins Rede an die Heilige Versammlung. Tricennatsrede an Constantin. Herausgegeben von I. A. Heikel. Leipzig 1902. (GCS 7). Diodoro Siculo Historiae Diodorus of Sicily VIII. Books XVI. 66-95 and XVII with an English translation by C. B. Welles. London 1983. Prandi, L.: Diodoro Siculo. Biblioteca storica. Libro XVII. Commento storico. Milano 2013. Inni orfici Inni orfici. A cura di G. Ricciardelli. Milano 2000.

Gli oracoli di Ammone nel Romanzo di Alessandro

141

Liber de morte Alexandri Magni Incerti auctoris Liber de morte Alexandri Magni. A cura di C. Ravazzolo. Alessandria 2012. Mesomede Lanna, S.: Mesomede. Inno a Φύσις. Introduzione, testo critico, traduzione, commento. Roma 2013. (Quaderni di Seminari Romani 15). Regenauer, J.: Mesomedes. Übersetzung und Kommentar. Frankfurt am Main 2016. (Studien zur Klassischen Philologie 175). Oracolo di Claro Merkelbach, R. - Stauber, J.: „Die Orakel des Apollon von Klaros.“ Epigraphica Anatolica 27 (1996) 1-54. [= Merkelbach, R.: Philologica. Ausgewählte Kleine Schriften. Herausgegeben von W. Blümel, H. Engelmann, B. Kramer, J. Kramer, C. E. Römer. Stuttgart – Leipzig 1997. 155-218.]. Papiri Milanesi Vogliano, A.: Papiri della R. Università di Milano, editi con la collaborazione di vari studiosi. I Milano 1937. RICIS

Bricault, L.: Recueil des inscriptions concernant les cultes isiaques (RICIS). III Paris 2005. (Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 31).

Romanzo di Alessandro Der griechische Alexanderroman. Von A. Ausfeld. Nach des Verfassers Tode herausgegeben von W. Kroll. Leipzig 1907. Historia Alexandri Magni (Pseudo-Callisthenes). I Recensio Vetusta. Edidit G. Kroll. Berlin 1926. Alessandro il Grande. Il Romanzo di Alessandro. La Vita di Alessandro di Plutarco. A cura di M. Centanni. Milano 2005. Il Romanzo di Alessandro. Volume I a cura di R. Stoneman e T. Gargiulo. Milano 2007. SB

Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Ägypten. Herausgegeben von F. Preisigke. I Straßburg 1915. (rist. Berlin – New York 1974). Begonnen von F. Preisigke und F. Bilabel. Fortgeführt von E. Kießling. V Wiesbaden 1955.

Syrisches Alexanderlied Das Syrische Alexanderlied. Die drei Rezensionen. Heraiusgegeben von G. J. Reinink. Lovanii 1983. Übersetzt von G. J. Reinink. Louvain 1983. (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum orientalium 195-96).

142

Sara Lanna

Thomas of Kent Thomas de Kent, Le roman d’Alexandre ou le roman de toute chevalerie. Traduction, présentation et notes de C. Gaullier-Bougassas et L. HarfLancner, avec le texte édité par B. Foster et I. Short. Paris 2003. Totti Totti, M.: Ausgewählte Texte der Isis- und Sarapis-Religion. Hildesheim – Zürich – New York 1985. (Subsidia Epigraphica 12). UPZ

Urkunden der Ptolemäerzeit (ältere Funde). Herausgegeben von U. Wilcken. I Papyri aus Unterägypten. Berlin – Leipzig 1927.

2 Letteratura secondaria Amandry, P.: «Oracles, littérature et politique.» REA 61 (1959) 400-413. Ausfeld  Romanzo di Alessandro. Borgeaud, P. - Volokhine, Y.: «La formation de la légende de Sarapis: une approche transculturelle.» ARG 2 (2000) 37-76. Bowersock, G. W.: Hellenism in Late Antiquity. Cambridge – New York – Port Chester – Melbourne – Sydney 1990. (Jerome lectures 18). Bricault, L.: «Serapide, dio guaritore.» In: Dal Covolo - Sfameni Gasparro (ed.) 5571. Buchholz, M.: «Questions to Oracles in Graeco-Roman Egypt. A Quantitative Approach to the Papyrological Evidence.» In: Kajava, M. (ed.): Studies in ancient oracles and divination. Roma 2013. 89-109. (Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae 40). Busine, A.: «Le problème de l’attribution de textes oraculaires au sanctuaire de Claros.» In: Moretti, J.-C. - Rabatel, L. (ed.): Le sanctuaire de Claros et son oracle. Actes du colloque international de Lyon (13-14 janvier 2012). Lyon 2014. 201-210. (Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée 65). Canetti, L.: «L’incubazione cristiana tra antichità e medioevo.» RSCr 7 (2010) 149180. Canetti, L.: «Commonitus in quiete: la visione di Costantino tra oracoli e incubazione.» In: Vilella Masana, J. (ed.): Constantino, ¿el primer emperador cristiano? Religión y política en el siglo IV. Barcelona 2015. 71-88. Caneva, S. G.: From Alexander to the Theoi Adelphoi. Foundation and legitimation of a dynasty. Leuven – Paris – Bristol 2016. (Studia Hellenistica 56). Dal Covolo, E. - Sfameni Gasparro, G. (ed.): Cristo e Asclepio – Culti terapeutici e taumaturgici nel mondo mediterraneo antico fra cristiani e pagani. Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Accademia di Studi Mediterranei, Agrigento, 2021 novembre 2006). Roma 2008. (Nuova biblioteca di Scienze Religiose 11). Dempsey, T.: The Delphic Oracle. Its early history influence and fall. Oxford 1918. De Sanctis, G.: L’impresa del Grande Alessandro. Corso di storia greca, anno accademico 1947-1948. Tivoli (Roma) 2010. (Ricerche di filologia, letteratura e storia 9).

Gli oracoli di Ammone nel Romanzo di Alessandro

143

Dillery, J.: «Chresmologues and Manteis: Independent Diviners and the Problem of Authority.» In: Johnston - Struck (ed.) 167-231. Fontenrose, J.: The Delphic Oracle. Its Responses and Operations with a Catalogue of Responses. Berkeley – Los Angeles – London 1978. Frankfurter, D.: «Voices, Books, and Dreams. The Diversification of Divination Media in Late Antique Egypt.» In: Johnston - Struck (ed.) 233-254. Frankfurter, D.: Religion in Roman Egypt. Assimilation and resistance. Princeton 1998. Fraser, P. M.: «Two Studies on the Cult of Sarapis in the Hellenistic World.» OAth 7 (1967) 1-54. Fraser, P. M.: Ptolemaic Alexandria. II Notes. Oxford 1972. Gitti, A.: Alessandro Magno all’oasi di Siwah. Il problema delle fonti. Bari 1951. Hamilton, J. R.: Plutarch, Alexander. A Commentary. Oxford 1969. Hammond, N. G. L.: Three historians of Alexander the Great. The so-called Vulgate authors, Diodorus, Justin and Curtius. Cambridge – London – New York – New Rochelle – Melbourne – Sydney 1983. Hoffmann, A. - Neuber, C. - Vultaggio, C.: «Orakel.» RAC XXVI (2015) 206-350. Johnston, S. I. - Struck P. T. (ed.): Mantikê. Studies in Ancient Divination. Leiden – Boston 2005. (RGRW 155). Kroll  Romanzo di Alessandro. Kuhlmann, K. P.: «The oracular temple at Siwa and the visit by Alexander the Great.» In: Kerner, S. (ed.): The Near East in Antiquity. German contributions to the archeology of Jordan, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt. II Amman 1991. 63-81. Lanna  Mesomede. Malkin, I.: Myth and territory in the Spartan Mediterranean. Cambridge 1994. Manfredi, M. (ed.): Trenta testi greci da papiri letterari e documentari. Editi in occasione del XVII Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia (Napoli 19-26 maggio 1983). Firenze 1983. Mederer, E.: Die Alexanderlegenden bei den ältesten Alexanderhistorikern. Stuttgart 1936. (Würzburger Studien zur Altertumswissenschaft 8). Merkelbach - Stauber  Oracolo di Claro. Moscati Castelnuovo, L.: «Ecisti e oracoli.» RSA 39 (2009) 9-30. Naether, F.: Die Sortes Astrampsychi. Problemlösungsstrategien durch Orakel im römischen Ägypten. Tübingen 2010. (Orientalische Religionen in der Antike 3). Oesterheld, C.: Göttliche Botschaften für zweifelnde Menschen-Pragmatik und Orientierungsleistung der Apollo-Orakel von Klaros und Didyma in hellenistisch-römischer Zeit. Göttingen 2008. (Hypomnemata 174). Papini, L.: «Due biglietti oracolari cristiani.» In: Manfredi (ed.) 68-70. Papini, L.: «Struttura e prassi delle domande oracolari in greco su papiro.» APapyrol 2 (1990) 11-20. Parke, H. W.: A History of the Delphic oracle. Oxford 1939. Parke, H. W. - Wormell, D. E. W.: The Delphic oracle. I-II Oxford 1956. Prandi  Diodoro Siculo. Ravazzolo  Liber de morte Alexandri. Regenauer  Mesomede.

144

Sara Lanna

Reitzenstein, R.: «Ein Stück hellenistischer Kleinliteratur.» Nachrichten von der Königl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Philologischhistorische Klasse 1904. 309-332. Reitzenstein, R.: Das iranische Erlösungsmysterium. Bonn 1921. Renberg, G. H.: Where Dreams May Come. Incubation Sanctuaries in the GrecoRoman World. I-II Leiden – Boston 2017. (RGRW 184). Ronchi, G.: Lexicon theonymon rerumque sacrarum et divinarum ad Aegyptum pertinentium quae in Papyris Ostracis Titulis Graecis Latinisque in Aegypto repertis laudantur. I-V Milano 1974-1977. (Testi e documenti per lo studio dell’antichità 45, 1-5) Rosati, G.: «Domanda oracolare.» In: Manfredi (ed.) 45-48. Sanzi, E.: Maghi Sacerdoti Santi. Un itinerario storico-religioso attraverso le “crisi” dei primi secoli della nostra èra. Roma 2015. (krisis/crisi 2). Scott, M.: Delphi and Olympia. The Spatial Politics of Panhellenism in the Archaic and Classical Periods. Cambridge 2010. Sfameni Gasparro, G.: «Taumaturgia e culti terapeutici nel mondo tardo-antico: fra pagani, ebrei e cristiani.» In: Dal Covolo - Sfameni Gasparro 13-53. Sfameni Gasparro, G., «Sogni, visioni e culti terapeutici nel Cristianesimo dei primi secoli: Ciro e Giovanni a Menuthis e Tecla a Seleucia.» ὅρµος 9 (2007) 321343. Sfameni Gasparro, G.: Oracoli Profeti Sibille. Rivelazione e Salvezza nel mondo antico. Roma 2002. (Biblioteca di scienze religiose 171). Stambaugh, J. E.: Sarapis under the Early Ptolomies. Leiden 1972. (EPRO 25). Turcan, R.: Les cultes orientaux dans le monde romain. Paris 2004. Weinreich, O.: «Aion in Eleusis.» ARW 19 (1918) 174-190. Welles  Diodoro. Will, W.: «Der Mythos Alexander.» In: Hansen, S. - Wieczorek, A. - Tellenbach, M. (ed.): Alexander der Große und die Öffnung der Welt. Asiens Kulturen im Wandel. Mannheim 2009. 39-44. Wilson, J.-P.: «‘Ideologies’ of Greek colonization.» In: Bradley, G. - Wilson, J.-P. (ed.): Greek and Roman colonization. Origins, Ideologies and Interactions. Swansea 2006. 25-57. Zuntz, G.: «Aion Plutonios (Eine Gründungslegende von Alexandria).» Hermes 116 (1988) 291-303. Zuntz, G.: Αἰών in der Literatur der Kaiserzeit. Wien 1992. (Wiener Studien Beihefte 17. Arbeiten zur antiken Religionsgeschichte 2).

Ángel Ruiz Pérez

Rebukes in Greek Oracles from the Imperial Period Introduction Oracles were the surest and most straightforward way for Greeks to reach out to the gods. It was through oracles that they could hear their very words. Or better still, they could listen to long utterances, ones which would ideally reflect the fluctuating nature and moods of the divine realm at a given moment, and this in a much more complex and nuanced way than the usual signs (omens, dreams, bird signs etc.), always in need of explanation by a prophet, who would employ mere human words, not the ipsissima verba of the gods themselves. In a recent study1 I focused on rebukes by the gods in Delphic oracles, following work by Minchin on divine modes of expression in the Iliad. Here I want to focus on the Imperial Period, turning to the field of oracles, which has been so well delineated by Busine,2 in order to consider the special forms that the modulations of the divine voice could take, and looking in particular at oracles preserved in stone from Claros and Didyma. In analyzing the communication among gods in the Iliad, Minchin discussed how similar they were to humans in their modes of expression, except for complaints, these being far more frequent among gods, especially in the case of all the Olympians against Zeus.3 It is logical to suppose that lamentations are an almost exclusively human phenomenon: what need do gods have to complain, other than perhaps to express certain qualms, these expressed in an almost playful way? The same can be said of sarcasm, typically a means for humans to vent frustration against what cannot be changed in their earthly world, because the decisions of the gods have deemed it so. Reproaches among the gods do 1

Ruiz Pérez. Busine, Paroles 2-11. 3 Minchin 27. 2

146

Ángel Ruiz Pérez

exist, but not from gods to humans, who can simply be punished by the gods when they do not behave.4 So, it might seem pointless (to say the least) to search for reproaches or rebukes in oracles, if we take as a definition here a defensive reaction against something perceived as harmful and deserving of a positive response. An interesting way of reframing this question, one which will serve as the topic of this paper, is to ask whether it is possible to find in Greece something similar to the rebukes we find in Old Testament prophets, such as Isaias: Thus saith the Lord (...): But thou hast not called upon me, O Jacob, neither hast thou laboured about me, O Israel. Thou hast not offered me the ram of thy holocaust, nor hast thou glorified me with thy victims: I have not caused thee to serve with oblations, nor wearied thee with incense. Thou hast bought me no sweet cane with money, neither hast thou filled me with the fat of thy victims. But thou hast made me to serve with thy sins, thou hast wearied me with thy iniquities. I am, I am he that blot out thy iniquities for my own sake, and I will not remember thy sins. Put me in remembrance, and let us plead together: tell if thou hast any thing to justify thyself. Thy first father sinned, and thy teachers have transgressed against me. And I have profaned the holy princes, I have given Jacob to slaughter, and Israel to reproach.5

To put it plainly: Can we in any way compare the Greek gods to Yahve, at least at a basic level of the expression of rebukes? The underlying Weltanschauung is of course quite different, yet perhaps it is a useful approach, as a way of trying to gauge how close the Greeks considered their gods to be to them in the imperial period. It might also be of interest to rehearse here the discussion by mainly Belgian and French scholars (Crahay, Amandry, Delcourt and Defradas) in the middle of the 20th century on the reliability and historicity of Delphic oracles. They tried to distinguish basic, original and real answers from more elaborate ones, bearing in mind the amount of “Delphic propaganda” that some scholars considered to be involved in the whole process, and the repercussions that this had on debates at the time, focusing on the then dominant trend of considering the weight of orality in hexametric poetry, and thus also in oracles. The fact is that the situation in the imperial period in Greek history is quite different, yet we

4 5

Minchin 32. Is. 43, 16.22-28.

Rebukes in Greek Oracles

147

should not lose sight of how decisive the influence of the old oracles was on other oracles, as we shall see. Let us begin by quoting a Didymean oracle (second century A. D.). A priestess of Demeter Thesmophoros wants to know why gods do not appear “as before” through mortal mediums. The answer is comforting: Ἀθάνατοι μερόπεσσιν ἁμ’ ἐρχόμενοι π․ [—] [γνώ]μ̣ην φράζ̣[ου]σι καὶ ἣν τειμὴν [—] Immortals accompany mortal men ... and make their will known and the honor which ...6

Even if discussions had arisen about the decline of oracles (we recall a book of that very title by Plutarch), confidence in them among the Greeks had not diminished, at least to judge by the amount of questions they still addressed. The tone of the answers given by the gods can also be taken as an indication of how strongly the (human) authors of the responses felt about the claims of gods should be made to represent authoritative voices in the imperial Greek world. 1 The zero degree of divine utterances: clear and straight orders Most oracles belong to this group; the god is content to prescribe rituals, and utterances are in fact responses to yes/no questions of the traditional “εἰ λῶιον καὶ ἄμεινον” (“if it is better and preferable”) type, as seen in these two examples, one probably from the early third century A. D.: [Ἔ]στι τελεῖν [πατρικ]ῇ γνώμῃ λῶιον κ[αὶ ἄμεινον] It is better to perform it [the ritual] in the manner of our forefathers,7

and this one dated in 228/227 A. D. Ὁ δῆμ[ος ὁ τῶν Μιλησίων ἐρωτ]ᾶι, εἰ αὐτῶι [λ]ῶι[ον] κα[ὶ ἄ]μεινον ἔσται κ[αὶ νῦν καὶ εἰς τὸν ἔπ]ειτα χρόνον (...): [δέξασθε ἀσπ]ασίως οἰκήτορας ἄνδρας ἀρωγοὺς [ἐς πόλιν ἡμετ]έρην· καὶ γὰρ λῶιον καὶ ἄμεινον

6 7

Merkelbach - Stauber, Steinepigramme I 01/19/05. Trs. Fontenrose, Didyma 196. Merkelbach - Stauber, Steinepigramme I 01/19/07. Trs. Fontenrose, Didyma 203.

148

Ángel Ruiz Pérez

The people of Miletus ask if it is better and preferable, now and afterwards (...): Gladly receive helper men into your city as residents; for it is better and preferable.8

Sometimes they add simple conditions. After several straightforward instructions about rituals in Ephesus, an oracle from Claros (maybe second century A. D.) reserves the final line for a threat: Εἰ δέ τε μὴ τελέοιτε, πυρὸς τότε τείσετε ποινάς. If you do not fulfill the rites, then you will pay the penalty of fire (= the plague).9

I have found just one instance of a polite order in the imperial period (possibly second century A. D.). It is from Claros to the people of Pergamon. After describing the gods that favor them, in line 10 the god uses a peculiar formula: Φαίην κε ἀτρεκέως ἀψευδέσιν ἄλκαρ ἐπ’ὀμφ[αῖς] (...) I could tell you exactly a remedy with truthful voices ...10

After that, he bids them carry out his orders, doing so with a very direct and expressive verb, κέλομαι (“to order”). Such polite words are mere rhetorical devices. 2 Ways for the gods to show proximity to the people: rebukes as corrections The easiest way to mark a rebuke is by using the vocative. Yet there are sometimes certain reproaches that explain the reason behind the direct address here. An oracle in Porphyry (sadly, we have no context for it) opens with these lines: Ἐργάζευ, φίλε, τήνδε θεόσδοτον ἐς τρίβον ἐλθών, μηδ’ ἐπιλήθεο τῶν μακάρων, θυσίας ἐναρίζων 8

Merkelbach - Stauber, Steinepigramme I 01/19/03. Trs. Fontenrose, Didyma 102. Merkelbach - Stauber, Steinepigramme I 03/02/01. Trs. Graf, “An oracle ...” 269. 10 Merkelbach - Stauber, Steinepigramme I 06/02/01. 9

Rebukes in Greek Oracles

149

Make offerings, my friend, walking this trodden path, a god given gift. And do not be forgetful of the Blessed, offering victims ... 11

In a theological oracle, after answering a question about who god is, this with several asyndetic adjectives (αὐτοφανής, ἀλόχευτος, ἀσώματος ἠδέ τ’ ἄϋλος, self-revealing, without being born, without body and matter), the god ends his pronouncement with the following phrase: (...) σὺ δὲ παῦε τὰ μὴ θέμις ἐξερεείνων. (...) stop scrutinizing what is not allowed to you.12

Another oracle also rejects the question as to whether δι’ ἐπιμελείας βίου (“by taking care of his life”) one can approach god, as Apollo says: Ἰσόθεον δίζῃ γέρας εὑρέμεν· οὔ σοι ἐφικτόν.13 You want an honor equal to the gods: It is out of your reach.

It goes on to explain that this honor was only bestowed on Aegyptian Hermes, Moses and Apollonius of Tyana. For mortals it is not possible to see immortals, unless one has a “divine token” (σύνθημα θέειον 6). In fact, oracles of this kind in Delphi were directed to the most distinguished people (Lycurgus, Archilochus; heroes in general). In this late period, we have found only a limited number of inscriptions from Didyma with oracles honoring prophets, in which there is a tone of special affection from the gods, but these are in fact impossible to distinguish from purely honorific inscriptions where no oracles are involved.14 In some old Delphic oracles, especially a very famous one in Herodotus and before that, in the characterization of Apollo’s language in some very solemn lines in Aeschylus,15 οὔ τοι and οὔ σοι have strong 11

Porph., De phil. ex or. p. 112 Wolff = fr. 314F 18f. Smith. Theos. § 21, 192 Erbse = I 18, 6 Beatrice. 13 Theos. § 44, 369 Erbse = I 40, 317 Beatrice. Tissi 287 points to a similar formula of rejection (οὐ γάρ ἐφικτόν) for non-initiates in the Corpus Hermeticum, fr. 23, 2 in IV 126 Nock - Festugière. 14 Fontenrose, Didyma collected these in an appendix: B2-B4; cf. Rodríguez Somolinos OD 19.22f.57-60; Busine, Paroles 180-182 (just n. 28) and Oesterheld 334-339. 15 Herod. I 66, 2. Aesch., Eum. 64-66. Cf. Pelliccia. 12

150

Ángel Ruiz Pérez

oracular connotations. Curiously, one non genuine oracle from Didyma uses the same wording: Μὴ σπεῦδ’ Εὐρώπηνδ’· Ἀσίη τοι πολλὸν ἀμείνων. Do not return to Europe: Asia is much better for you.16

There is a fictional oracle, preserved in the Theosophia,17 about an Haemos (a hero and the namesake of a hill), who wants to defeat Byzas (the namesake of future Byzantium) and visits Delphi. Apollo utters a very strong rejection oracle: Ἄγρεο18 καὶ παλίνορσος ἐπείγεο καὶ λέγε ταῦτα οὔ σε γε Φοῖβος ἄνωγεν ἀμείνονι φωτὶ μάχεσθαι. Up!, retrace your steps and say this: “No, to you at least Phoebus did not grant to fight against a better mortal”.

Byzas is under Apollo’s protection, so Haemos is not allowed to fight against him, and this explains the order of words: οὔ σε γε Φοῖβος “No, to you Phoebus ...”. The other three verses of the oracle are more general: the goal is to reassess the universal powers of Apollo. The use of ἄγρεο is echoed in an oracle from Claros to Aizanoi, loosely dated by Merkelbach and Stauber between 50 and 250 A. D.: Ἄγρει τοῦτον ἔπορσο θοῇ χερὶ τὸν βολε‹τ›ισμόν, τευτάσσων Quick! Embark with fast hand this raid, applying to it with all your effort.19

Ἄγρει is clearly an expression of impatience. Rodríguez Somolinos20 adds that this oracle is very vague and general, similar to the oracles per sortes, without any particular expressivity. And this is the most interesting thing: that the very formal language of the rest of the oracle has as great an expressive imperative as the first word. 16

Fontenrose, Didyma 215. Theos. § 19, 171f. Erbse = I 16, 150f. Beatrice. 18 Ἔγρεο Tissi. 19 Merkelbach - Stauber, Steinepigramme III 16/23/01. 20 Rodríguez Somolinos 37. 17

Rebukes in Greek Oracles

151

3 Inappropriate questions I would like to focus now on more striking examples of strong expressions of discontent in some oracles. In an oracle preserved in the Theosophia, Apollo answers the question about the creator of everything (ὁ πάντων ποιητής): Βαβαί, οὐ περὶ μικρῶν ἥκεις ‹λόγων›. I am shocked. You come asking about no small things!21

Βαβαί expresses surprise, astonishment; Tissi observes that it “designa un’esclamazione di sorpresa o stupore.”22 In another oracle from the Theosophia the priest in Delphi asks Apollo about the new religion: Μὴ ὄφελες πύματόν με καὶ ὕστατον ἐξερέεσθαι, δύστηνε προπόλων, περὶ θεσπεσίου γενετῆρος You should not ask, for the last time, unfortunate servant of mine, about the divine father.23

We also have a prose commentary: οὐκ ὤφειλές με, φησί, ὧ ἀθλιώτατε τῶν νεοκόρων, τὴν ἐσχάτην ταύτην ἐρώτησιν ἐρωτῆσαι.24 In an inscription including an oracle of the Delphic Apollo to Tralles (200/250 A. D.), on the subject of defenses against earthquakes, the god says: Θύεο, μὴ διερεύνω μ’ ὦ πόλις ... Perform the sacrifice, do not keep asking me, city.25

As Fontenrose notes, it “appears to be an odd way of saying “Do not question me,” i. e., “Obey me” and so may be taken as a mild assertion of mantic authority”. 21

Theos. § 12, 83 Erbse = I 1, 5 Beatrice. On this oracle and rebukes for inappropriate questions cf. also Graf 68-70; and cf. Porph., De phil. ex or. p. 176f. Wolff = fr. 342F Smith, quoted by Schiano in this volume, p. 181. 22 Tissi 179. LSJ translate “bless me!” 23 Theos. § 16, 134f. Erbse = I 5, 53f. Beatrice. 24 Theos. § 17, 144f. Erbse = I 6, 83f. Beatrice. 25 Merkelbach - Stauber, Steinepigramme Ι 02/02/01 = II 471 Parke - Wormell.

152

Ángel Ruiz Pérez

To the same group belongs an oracle from Didyma (after 212 A. D.), on choosing a priestess of Athena: Ὀψὲ μέν, ὦ ναέται, ζακόρου πέρι κρατογενείης ὀμφῆς μαντιπόλοιο θεοκλυτέοντες ἵκεσθε. You are late, citizens, in coming to hear the mantic voice concerning a priestess of Kratogeneia [= Athena].26

In fact, Fontenrose27 does not consider it an oracle at all: it was, so it appears, consciously written following the model of the oracular-verse tradition. It begins with a salutation and an allusive restatement of the question in the first verse, followed by a light assertion of mantic authority in the second. Be that as it may, and as Petrović has argued, even if it is not in fact an oracle at all, the practice of writing down oracles in stone, as well as texts of a similar tenor in verse, was the reason why texts in this group were considered to have an air of divine authority, even if they weren’t oracles. Besides, ὀψέ is a word with a mantic pedigree, appearing in two Delphic oracles where the god criticizes the delay in a question being asked, in one case to Erginus on having children28 and in the other to the Locrians on a debt to Troy.29 Also, ὀψέ can be understood as a welcoming message (“it was about time ...”), with just a tiny shadow of criticism. Merkelbach and Stauber30 consider that ὀψέ expresses how uncomfortable the oracular personnel of Didyma felt about the whole situation. In fact, the questioners from Miletus intended to appoint a widow instead of a virgin to the position of priestess of Athena. It could well be that in the circumstances it was their only option. On the matter of marked words it is surprising to find just one oracle with φράζεο: Ὄργια μὲν δεδαῶτας ἐχρῆν νηπευθέα κεύθειν, εἰ δ᾽ ἄρα τοι παύρη σύνεσις καὶ νοῦς ἀλαπαδνός, φράζεο τὸν πάντων ὕπατον θεὸν ἔμμεν ΙΑΩ, χείματι μέν τ᾽ Ἀίδην, Δία δ᾽ εἴαρος ἀρχομένοιο, Ἠέλιον δὲ θέρευς, μετοπώρου δ᾽ ἁβρὸν Ἴακχον. 26

Merkelbach - Stauber, Steinepigramme I 01/20/03.Trs. Fontenrose, Didyma 200. Fontenrose, Didyma 200f. 28 II 111 Parke - Wormell. 29 Cf. II 331 Parke - Wormell. 30 Merkelbach - Stauber, Steinepigramme I 119f. 27

Rebukes in Greek Oracles

153

Those who knew the mysteries should conceal things not to be sought. But if your understanding is slight, your mind feeble, say that the greatest god of all is Iaô: Hades in winter, Zeus at the start of spring, the sun in summer, delicate Iacchos [= Dionysos] in the fall.31

From Homer onwards, φράζεο (often with μή) is a common expression for a warning (“be careful” or “attention”) which is also found in oracles.32 This usage might be evoked in the oracle about ΙΑΩ, although φράζεο serves here to introduce a statement about the god. The editor of Macrobius in the Loeb collection, Robert A. Kaster, simply uses “say”, whereas LSJ would suggest “think, suppose, believe, imagine that”.33 Here we have the least marked use of φράζεο, not followed by μή, to be sure, but still a marked word in oracular language, and with a certain degree of menace to it. 4 Structure of questions on the reason for coming Precise orders, but with complex language, are found in two oracles from Claros for two different places (Callipolis in Thracian Chersonese, and Caesarea Trocetta in Lydia). However, they are by the same poet, with the same language, metrical features and general structure. The one from Callipolis, unfortunately badly damaged in the first lines, contains three interesting words in the group we are dealing with: 3 τίπτε; 5 τί μ’ and 9 φεῦ, φεῦ: Tίπτε πέρας πό[ντου] τί μ’ ὑπὸ σπλάνχν[οις — — —] φεῦ, φεῦ δι’ αὐτῶν ν[— — —]

3 5 (...) 9

But why on the borders of the sea ... ? Why to me in your guts (...) Woe, woe by them (...).34 31

Macrob., Sat. I 18, 20; Merkelbach - Stauber, “Die Orakel ...” n° 28. Trs. Kaster 255-257. Ἴακχον / Iacchos is a conjecture for Ἰαώ, transmitted by the manuscripts. 32 E. g. oracles from Delphi: (with μή) II 112, 1f.; 364, 2; 408, 1 Parke - Wormell; (without μή) II 46, 3; 225, 1; 301, 1; 374, 1 Parke - Wormell (including φράζευ and φράζου). 33 LSJ s. v. φράζω II 3. 34 Merkelbach - Stauber, “Die Orakel ...” n° 9.

154

Ángel Ruiz Pérez

Capuzza35 proposes the following structure: in 1f. the god addresses the consultants, mentioning their forebears and protecting gods; in 3 he asks for the reasons for coming;36 lines 4-8 involve a description of the possession of the prophet by the god. And then we have φεῦ, φεῦ, of tragic origin. The first lines of the oracle to Caesarea Troketta are as follows: (...) τί δὴ νύπερ τεθη[τ]ότες βηλῷ προσοιμέεσθε, ἐελμένοι νημερτίην ἐς οὐάδας πελάζειν; οἷσιν μεμηλόσιν φάτιν πανατρεκῆ βοήσω. φεῦ, φεῦ, κραταιὸν πῆμα προσθρώσκει πέδῳ, λοιμὸς δυσεξάλυκτος (...)

5

But why, truly filled with awe, you come to the threshold, wishing to approach the place of truth? In your anxiety, I will utter a truthful answer. Woe, woe, a mighty evil springs through the plain, the famine hard to avoid (...).37

In both oracles what Capuzza describes as “the reasons for coming” is where the rebukes are found, but the repetition in the two oracles here is proof of their formulaic character. As usual in this type of religious text, its conservative tendencies freeze formulas that in origin where somewhat different in character (or at least had a narrative value in some oracles set in legendary times). The fact is that τίπτε is a marked term in these old oracles. From Porphyry we have two instances of τίπτε, quoted in the Praeparatio Evangelica. The first one: Τίπτ’ ἐπιδευόμενοι δηρὸν βροτὸν αἰκίζεσθε; But why do you torment a mortal, you that are inferior?38

And a second instance: Τίπτε μ’ ἀεὶ θείοντος ἀπ’ αἰθέρος ὧδε χατίζων θειοδάμοις Ἑκάτην με θεὴν ἐκάλεσσας ἀνάγκαις; 35

Capuzza, “La lingua ...” 26-28. Oesterheld 140 uses the expression: “Haltung des erstaunten Unwillens” (“attitude of outraged astonishment”). 37 Merkelbach - Stauber, Steinepigramme I 04/01/01. 38 Porph., De phil. ex or. p. 162 Wolff = fr. 350F 8 Smith. 36

Rebukes in Greek Oracles

155

But why so hurriedly from the swift aether have you called me, the goddess Hecate, with coercions that tame the gods?39

It is worth pointing out that Eusebius considered both as examples of gods being forced to appear against their will, this especially in the case of Hecate, a goddess related to magic who usually dwelt in the dark. The first example, without a context, seems to me a clear rebuke about a wrong human action. Even in a fictional oracle in the novel by Xenophon of Ephesus, in a consultation in Claros, we find the same word as a marked way of beginning the response: Τίπτε ποθεῖτε μαθεῖν ἐμὸν νόσου τέλος ἠδὲ καὶ ἀρχήν. Why do you long to discover the end and the start of this illness.40

There is also an oracle about events that took place in the 4th century B. C. However, the sole mention of it is by a 2nd century A. D. writer, Polyaenus. This is the beginning: Τίπτε νέως κτίσσαι πολύπουν μενεαίνετε χῶρον, κοῦροι Ἀθηναίων; Why, Athenians, do you again want to colonize the many-footed place?41

And there is a clear parallel in another fictional oracle about the coincidence of a simultaneous visit to Delphi by both Paris and Menelaos:42 it starts with: τίπτε δύω βασιλῆες ... (“Why, two kings ...”); much later a Byzantine novelist, Theodore Prodromus, used the same device for another oracle:43 τίπτε δύω γενέτα ... (“Why, two parents ...”). One of the last oracles, given to some Jews who had asked the god about the end of the world, is a harsh rebuke: Ὠ μέγ’ ἀναιδέες, ὦ κακοφράσμονες ‹ἄνδρες› ἀλιτροί· τίπτε πρὸς ἡμέτερον δόμον ἤλθετε; 39

Porph., De phil. ex or. p. 156 Wolff = fr. 347F 28 Smith. Xen. Eph. I 6, 2. Trs. Henderson. 41 II 133 Parke - Wormell; trs. Fontenrose, The Delphic Oracle 329. 42 II 406 Parke - Wormell. 43 Theodorus Prodromus, Rhodanthe and Dosicles 9, 196 (= II 517, 1 Parke Wormell). Cf. the contribution in this volume by Magnelli. 40

156

Ángel Ruiz Pérez

Oh, you shameless, badly advised evil men, but why you came to my home?44

It goes on with the same line of thought and announces, through an oath to Zeus, the destruction of everything. It seems clear, as Beatrice has noted, that there is an anti-Jewish bias here. For Suárez de la Torre45 it is an “oraculum fictum” that reflects what was perceived as oracular language directed at rebuking unworthy consultants. So, we can agree with Lane Fox46 when, on discussing oracles from the imperial period, he claims that the similar language of Didyma and Claros, archaic and verbose on a superficial level, in fact contains very simple statements relating to rituals, sacrifices or simple orders.47 This is an open area of study, but Merkelbach and Stauber48 have already described such language in general terms as old and poetic, mostly in hexameters, with outdated and old-looking words, these sometimes being difficult to understand, and with Doric and Aeolic loans and many composite terms. On both the linguistic and ritual level there is a longing for tradition, for rooting language in the past, as well as a coexistence of certain new elements, especially those novelties hidden as purer forms of ancient cults or new rituals perceived as renovations: the singing of hymns, silent invocations, the contemplation of light, these to some extent replacing bloody sacrifices.49 5 An important oracle from Didyma In respect of such kind of content we find an interesting oracle from Didyma (2nd or 3rd century A. D.). In fact, as Hommel has argued, the emphatic verses here suggest a new attitude to rituals:50

44

Theos. § 52, 434f. Erbse = I 53, 411f. Beatrice. Suárez de la Torre, “Apollo, teologo cristiano” 144. 46 Lane Fox 182. 47 Lane Fox 239. 48 Merkelbach - Stauber, “Die Orakel ...” 3f. 49 Cf. Busine, Paroles 170-172. 50 “Verinnerlichung des Kultes”, Hommel 147. 45

157

Rebukes in Greek Oracles [Ὦ μέλεοι, τί μοι] εἰλιπόδων ζατρεφεῖς ἑκατόμβαι [λαμπροί τε χρυ]σοῖο βαθυπλούτοιο κολοσσοὶ [καὶ χαλκῷ δεί]κηλα καὶ ἀργύρῳ ἀσκηθέντα; [οὐ μὴν ἀθ]άνατοι κτεάνων ἐπιδευέες εἰσὶν, [ἀλλὰ θεμιστ]είης, ᾗπερ φρένας ἰαίνονται. [αἰὲν δ᾿εὐσεβ]ὲς ὕμνον ἐμοῖς μέλπειν παρὰ σηκοῖς [παῖδας ὅπως κ]αὶ πρόσθεν, ὅταν μέλλῃ φάτιν ἄξων [ἀμφαίνειν ἀδ]ύτων. χαίρω δ’ ἐπὶ πάσῃ ἀοιδῇ [κεἴ τε νέη τ]ελέθῃ· πολλὸν δ’ εἴπερ τε παλαιὴ· [ἀρχαίῃ δέ τ]ε μᾶλλον, ἐμοὶ πολὺ φέρτερόν ἐστιν. [τῆς δὲ θεοφ]ροσύνης ἔσται χάρις αἰὲν ἀμεμφής. [ὕμνοις πρῶτον] ἐγὼ πολυκηδέας ἤλασα νούσους [οὐλομένων] ἀλεγεινὰ δυσωπήσας λίνα Μοιρῶν.

5

10

O woeful mortals, what to me are well-fed hecatombs of shambly-gaited oxen and splendid colossal statues of rich gold and images fashioned of bronze and silver? Certainly the gods do not lack chattels but miss the old traditions with which they warm their hearts. It always is proper for the children to sing a hymn beside my shrines, as also in former times, when the axle is about to reveal an oracle from the adyton. And I rejoice in all song even it is a new one. And very much so if it is old; but the really old one is much better for me. The joy of such festivity will always be perfect to me. With hymns I first drove away grievous diseases, disconcerting the baneful Moirai’s threads.51

Hommel52 distinguished three parts: 1. emphatic rejection by Apollo of hecatombs and costly, artistic offerings of gold, bronze and silver (v. 16a); 2. The god is happy that they offer him songs (v. 6b-11); 3. reminders of the origins of the oracle (v. 12f.). For Harder 53 the key here was the defence of song against sacrifices, with precedents in Plato 54 and above all in Theophrastus, although at the end it was simply a way of advising them to pay more attention to songs in the cult itself. Rodríguez Somolinos55 recalls that two other oracles of Didyma contain such orders, one to make hecatombs56 and the other to erect statues57. 51

Merkelbach - Stauber, Steinepigramme I 01/19/01. I have revised the translation by Fontenrose, Didyma 238. 52 Hommel 146. 53 Harder 96f. 54 Plat., Nom. XII 955 e 5 - 956 b 2. 55 Rodríguez Somolinos 453f. 56 Rodríguez Somolinos n° OD 56.

158

Ángel Ruiz Pérez

Hommel,58 in turn, considered it to be a specific and emphatic call for the interiorisation of the cult, this on the lines of Harder, who had seen Xenophanes, Plato, Democritus and Theophrastus and the Neoplatonists as the antecedents of the cult. He also uses 59 the argument of the sublimity of the gods in respect of human needs 60 and also bears in mind the biblical antecedent61 on the rejection of expensive offerings, hence God prefers obedience, a deeper knowledge of Him, and compassion for others. In Greek pagan texts, what we instead see is interiorisation in the philosophers and a defense of traditional songs in Didyma.62 Hommel63 suggests that perhaps it was also a means of marking the outdated tone of Didyma with respect to Delphi, as can be seem in the final two verses. He also entertains the possibility, raised by Harder, that the interests of musical groups may have been behind this. Meanwhile, J. and L. Robert64 considered the influence of Claros, where as early as the second century the predilection for song can be detected. Perhaps in the end there is another question: the rejection of animal sacrifice, of which Theophrastus was the champion, who in On Piety65 presents a history of early humanity in relation to differences in diet and sacrifice, from an initial period without animals and with offerings first of pulses and then, when trees appear, of fruit, to more complex ones through the introduction of agriculture, when cakes were offered, then wine, honey and oil. The fourth stage is human sacrifice in wars, for which the gods punish them, and in the fifth they arrive at the compromise of animal sacrifice, which Theophrastus condemns;66 this affords 57

Rodríguez Somolinos n° OD 62. It is a shame that an oracle by Zeus Ammon to the people of Cyzicus in the era of the Emperor Hadrian (perhaps around 130 A.D., cf. Merkelbach - Stauber, Steinepigramme II 08/01/01, 7-9) is in such a bad state. What is curious is that it is similar to those of Claros in the period, in that there is a negative alternative (οὐκ ἂν δειμαίνουσα θεούς) which is suggested but rejected (and with it a latent threat) that recommends a spiritual cult (7 θυηπολίης Νασαμωνίδος) in place of bloody sacrifices (2 βουφονίων – yet this word is a reconstruction by Merkelbach - Stauber). 58 Hommel 147. 59 Hommel 148. 60 Cf. Eur., Hercules furens 1345f. and Plat., Nom. X 885 d 3f.; Phil. 60 c 2-4. 61 Hommel 149: 1 Sam. 15, 22; Is. 1, 11f.; 43, 23; Os. 6, 6; and Mt. 9, 13; 12, 7. 62 Recall in the Bible Psalm 97, 1: “Sing ye to the Lord a new canticle” (Vulgate version: cantate Domino canticum novum). 63 Hommel 150f. 64 Robert 309. Cf. Lane Fox 183. 65 Porph., De abst. II 5-7. 66 Cf. Fortenbaugh 173-175.

Rebukes in Greek Oracles

159

various advantages in terms of convenience, among them the fact that what is simple and easy to obtain is more blessed than what is costly to achieve, and thus pleases the gods, as well as being available to all, something which fits with his evolutionist vision of the cult and his preferences in terms of its origins.67 Theophrastus, unlike his teacher Aristotle, who spoke of common ψυχή but different capacities, does not see any differences between animals and plants, and also claims that humans are συγγενεῖς both in themselves and with animals: there is a certain familiarity (οἰκειότης in Porphyry)68 in their emotions, πάθη, as well as a similarity of “skin, flesh and fluids”.69 I will briefly comment here on the proposal by Harder to reconstruct the first verse with ὦ μέλεοι, this of good oracular pedigree, since Herodotus70 collected another oracle to the Athenians before the Persian invasion with the same opening: Ὦ μέλεοι, τί κάθησθε (“Wretches, why do you linger here?”). In fact, in Hellenistic and Imperial times there are many uses of it.71 The oracle of Didyma is also very close to certain oracles transmitted by Porphyry, which also seem to have an antecedent in Theophrastus’ On Piety, and at the same time appear to be wrought on the narrative scheme of the tale of the relationship of Croesus with Delphi. 72 For example, faced with someone offering bulls with golden horns, the Pythia expresses her rejection with a slap in the form of a preterition, preferring Clearchus of Methydrion in Arcadia who gave offerings in the form of flour, being as he was a poor man who “complied and sacrified with diligence and in the times established” ἐπιτελεῖν καὶ σπουδαίως θύειν ἐν τοῖς καθήκουσι χρόνοις).73 The moral here is also a kind of Delphic treaty on theology and on the rules of piety and ritual: οὕτω τὸ εὐδάπανον φίλον θεοῖς, καὶ μᾶλλον τὸ δαιμόνιον πρὸς τὸ τῶν 67

Cf. Fortenbaugh 179. Porph., De abst. III 25. 69 Cf. Cole 54. 70 Cf. Herodotus VII 140, 2 (trs. A. D. Godley). It is a testament to its oracular aura that Aristophanes (Pax 1063) parodied it: ὦ μέλεοι θνητοὶ καὶ νήπιοι. 71 Ap. Rh. 2, 341, Triphiodorus 376, Quint. Smyrn. 12, 540 (by Cassandra: ἆ δειλοὶ). It is repeatedly used by the Sybil (AP App. 208): ὦ μέλεοι, τί σπεύδεθ’ ἃ μὴ θέμις; and the Sybilline Oracles 4, 162 ἆ μέλεοι, μετάθεσθε, βροτοί, τάδε; 14, 87 αἶ, μέλεοι Τύριοι; 14, 146 αἶ μέλεοι. 14, 215 αἶ, μέλεοι Κέκροπες; 14, 259 αἶ, μέλεοι Ῥώμης; 14, 335 ὦ μέλεοι, χείρωμ’ ἔσται πόλεως ἐπισήμου. 72 Porph., De abst. II 15-17 (II 239-241 Parke - Wormell): it seems that the antecendents are in Theophrastus’ On piety. 73 Porph., De abst. II 16, 4 (II 238 Parke - Wormell). 68

160

Ángel Ruiz Pérez

θυόντων ἦθος ἢ πρὸς τὸ τῶν θυομένων πλῆθος βλέπει (“thus generosity is agreeable to the gods, and the divinity looks more to the attitude of the sacrificants than to the quality or scale of what is offered”). 74 That is, the gods prefer εὐδάπανον καὶ εὐπόριστον (“liberality and good disposition”) to πολυδαπάνῳ (the “abundance of gifts“). The problem for the consultant is that he addresses the Delphic Apollo thinking that “it was a matter of who served the gods in the most beautiful way” (κάλλιστα πάντων ἀνθρώπων θεραπεύειν τοὺς θεοὺς)75 and that the gods would necessarily confirm this for him, dazzled by his riches. Let us quote, to close this small group, another oracle cited by Julian 76 in which Apollo affirms in seven verses his omniscience and in the eighth claims: εὐσεβέσιν δὲ βροτοῖς γάνυμαι τόσον, ὅσσον Ὀλύμπῳ (“pious mortals give me as much happiness as Olympus”). 6 Fictional oracles in a narrative context There is indeed the possibility that a reproach can be developed in a broader narrative context, but these are oracles set in a legendary and remote past. Among the spuria of Didyma that Rodríguez Somolinos collects, one stands out: it is narrated that there are problems in Milet and that the lower classes, called ‘Gergithians’, are at odds with the rest; they kill each other; in an act of vengeance by the rich, they smear the poor with pitch and set them on fire, but in the process a sacred olive tree is also burned. This leads the god to exclude the rich from his sanctuary and “on asking him what reason he had for expelling them, he said: Καί μοι Γεργίθων τε φόνος μέλει ἀπτολεμίστων πισσήρων τε μόρος καὶ δένδρεον αἰεὶ ἀθαλλές. The murder of the peaceful Gergithai, the fate of the pitch-covered, and the tree ever-withered concern me.77

Leaving to one side questions of historicity, the text of the oracle reflects a characteristic phrasing, in this case on the implications of the 74

Porph., De abst. II 15, 3. Porph., De abst. II 16, 2 (II 238 Parke - Wormell). 76 II 472 Parke - Wormell. 77 Rodríguez Somolinos 561-564; n° OD *90. Trs. Fontenrose, Didyma 210. 75

Rebukes in Greek Oracles

161

god to care. Fontenrose78 mentions, as oracles with the same tone, Λεῦκτρά τε μοι σκιόεντα μέλει καὶ Ἀλήσιον οὖδας / καί μοι τῶ Σκεδάσου μέλετον δυσπενθέε κούρα (“Shadowy Leuktra and the Alesian ground concern me, and the two sorrowful daughters of Skedasos concern me”)79 and ἐμοὶ μελήσει ταῦτα καὶ λευκαίς κόραις (“This will concern me and the white maidens”). 80 There are also oracles in which the divinity rejects unworthy people, such as he who killed Archilochus81 and the young man who abandoned his companions.82 Another of the spuria noted by Rodríguez Somolinos is a verse collected in various sources, the first of these being Anacreon: Πάλαι ποτ’ ἦσαν ἄλκιμοι Μιλήσιοι. Once upon a time the Milesians were mighty.83

The different traditions explain it in different ways, but it seems to be an ad hoc adaptation as a means of achieving a relatable anecdote. 84 Rodríguez Somolinos85 also considers the possibility of a proverbial origin. Having come so far, it is possibly also worth recalling the suggestions by Nock on collections of oracles.86 It is interesting, for example, to establish the number of references and to note the parallelisms of μέλεοι previously mentioned. It is fitting here to mention the line of thought from Cazzaniga on whether Gorgo, who appears in an epigram in the ἀοιδοπόλων, and Nicander, who speaks of himself as ὐμνοπόλοιο Νικάνδροιο87, were in fact ἐπέων ποιηταί, re-compilers of hexametrical responses88. The idea then arises as to whether Gorgo was a compiler of 78

Fontenrose, Didyma 101. II 254 Parke - Wormell. Trs. Fontenrose, Didyma 102. 80 II 329 Parke - Wormell. Trs. Fontenrose, Didyma 102. 81 II 4 Parke - Wormell. 82 II 575 Parke - Wormell. 83 Rodríguez Somolinos 565-569 (n° OD *91). Trs. Fontenrose, Didyma 214. 84 And it does not seem outlandish to relate the verse to the first Delphic oracle in the collection by Parke-Wormell. Cf. Suárez de la Torre, “Sobre la autenticidad ...” 5. 85 Rodríguez Somolinos 569. 86 Nock 285f. It has been discussed recently by Busine, “Gathering ...” and by Rainart 177-250. 87 Nicander, Al. 629. 88 Capuzza, “Τεθμός ...” 1 recalls that Antimachus, Nicander, Hermesianax and Phoenix are from Colophon. In n. 2, on the links with Claros of Nicander, she cites Vita Nic. Schol. Ther. 1 and indicates that Nicander himself seems to allude to the 79

162

Ángel Ruiz Pérez

oracular poetry. Nicander, the Suda tells us, produced a book Περὶ χρηστερίων πάντων. Lampinen89 concurs, although he considers that Cazzaniga exaggerates in that he has no evidence for thus considering Gorgo to be a compiler of oracles. What does seem reasonable to suggest is that a compilation of oracles was in the possession of the oracular sanctuaries, for the use of those who composed responses, including priests, the thespiodós and prophets, as well as auxiliary personnel.90 7 Some conclusions Delphi (or its fame) set the tone. The formulaic character of oracular texts is even more important in the imperial period, on several levels: in terms of words and formulas certainly, but also in the structure of the oracles themselves. The different schools of poetry imposed this, or this is what we can infer when we compare similar oracles here. The voice of the gods, in Roman times at least, is not what we could call “natural”. It doesn’t try to reach out to people. It hides under difficult and solemn language. No wonder it did not have chances of survival in the long run.

priesthood in Ther. 958. Also, she studies the influence of Callimachus in the language of the oracles of Claros. 89 Lampinen 66. 90 Cf. Lane Fox 173. Lampinen 59 on the reality of the relationship with Delphi of Claros and Didyma, both in the modelling of mythological history and in the conformation – at least posterior – of mantic practice.

Rebukes in Greek Oracles

163

Bibliography 1 Editions, commentaries, translations Anthologia Palatina, Appendix Epigrammatum Anthologia Palatina cum Planudeis et appendice nova epigrammatum veterum ex libris et marmoribus ductorum, annotatione inedita Boissonadii, Chardonis de la Rochette, Bothii, partim inedita Iacobsii, metrica versione Hugonis Grotii, et apparatu critico instruxit E. Cougny. Graece et Latine. III Paris 1890. Bible

The Holy Bible. Translated from the Latin Vulgate and diligently compared with the Hebrew, Greek and other editions in divers languages (the Old Testament was first published by the English College at Douay, A.D. 1609, and the New Testament was first published by the English College at Rheims, A.D. 1582); with notes by Bishop Challoner and also the encyclical letter οn the study of the Holy Scriptures, by Pope Leo XIII, and a preface by W. H. McClellan. Fitzwilliam (N. H.) 2002.

Corpus Hermeticum Corpus Hermeticum. Texte établi par A. D. Nock et traduit par A.-J. Festugière. Paris I-IV 51992 (11945-1954). Herodotus Historiae Herodotus with an English translation by A. D. Godley. III Books V-VII. Cambrigde (Mass.) 1922. Macrobius Saturnalia Macrobii Ambrosii Theodosii Saturnalia recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit R. A. Kaster. Oxford 2011. Macrobius, Saturnalia. Book 1-2. Edited and translated by R. A. Kaster. Cambridge (Mass.) – London 2011. Oracles from Claros and Didyma Rodríguez Somolinos, J.: Los oráculos de Claros y Dídima. Edición y comentario. Madrid 1991. Graf, F.: “An oracle against pestilence from a Western Anatolian town.” ZPE 92 (1992) 267-279. Merkelbach, R. - Stauber, J.: „Die Orakel des Apollon von Klaros.“ Epigraphica Anatolica 27 (1996) 1-54. [= Merkelbach, R.: Philologica. Aus-

164

Ángel Ruiz Pérez gewählte Kleine Schriften. Herausgegeben von W. Blümel, H. Engelmann, B. Kramer, J. Kramer, C. E. Römer. Stuttgart – Leipzig 1997. 155-218.]. Merkelbach, R. - Stauber, M.: Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten, I-V Stuttgart 1998-2004.

Oracula Sibyllina Die Oracula Sibyllina bearbeitet von J. Geffcken. Leipzig 1902. (GCS 8). Porphyry De abstinentia Porphyre, De l’abstinence. Tome II. Livres II et III. Texte établi et traduit par J. Bouffartigue et M. Patillon. Paris 1979. Fragmenta Porphyrii Philosophi Fragmenta edidit A. Smith. Fragmenta Arabica D. Wassenstein interpretante. Stuttgart – Leipzig, 1993. Theodorus Prodromus Rhodanthe et Dosicles Theodori Prodromi De Rhodanthes et Dosiclis amoribus libri IX. Edidit M. Marcovich. Stuttgart – Leipzig 1992. Theosophia Theosophorum Graecorum fragmenta. Iterum recensuit H. Erbse. Stuttgart Leipzig 1995. Anonymi Monophysitae Theosophia. An attempt at reconstruction by. P. F. Beatrice. Leiden – Boston – Köln 2001. (VChr Suppl. 56). Die Tübinger Theosophie. Eingeleitet, übersetzt und kommentiert von L. Carrara und I. Männlein-Robert. Unter Mitwirkung von V. Clausing-Lage, A.-L. Engelbach, C. Rüth, O. Schelske, F. Schulz. Mit einem Beitrag von H. Seng. Stuttgart 2018. (Bibliothek der griechischen Literatur 86). Tissi, L. M.: Gli oracoli degli dèi greci nella Teosofia di Tubinga. Commento e studio critico dei testi 12-54 Erbse. Alessandria 2018. (Hellenica 72). Xenophon Ephesius Longus, Daphnis and Chloe. Xenophon of Ephesus, Anthia and Habrocomes. Edited and translated by J. Henderson. Cambrigde (Mass.) – London 2009. 2 Secondary literature Amandry, P.: La mantique apollinienne à Delphes. Essai sur le fonctionnement de l’Oracle. Paris 1950. Busine, A.: Paroles d’Apollon. Pratiques et traditions oraculaires dans l’Antiquité tardive (IIe-VIe siècles). Leiden – Boston 2005. (RGRW 156). Busine, A.: “Gathering Sacred Words. Collections of Oracles from Pagan Sanctuaries to Christian Books.” In: Piccione, R. M. - Perkams, M. (ed.): Selecta colligere, II. Beiträge zur Technik des Sammelns und Kompilierens

Rebukes in Greek Oracles

165

griechischer Texte von der Antike bis zum Humanismus. Alessandria 2005. 117. (Hellenica 18). Capuzza, B.: “La lingua poetica degli oracoli di Klaros: l’oracolo clario da Kallipolis nel Chersoneso tracico.” Epigraphica Anatolica 47 (2014) 21-52. Capuzza, B.: “Τεθμός tra l’Ecale di Callimaco e gli oracoli di Klaros.” Aitia. Regards sur la culture hellénistique au XXIe siècle 6 (2016). http://aitia.revues.org/1650. Cazzaniga, I.: “Gorgos di Claros e la sua attività letteraria.”PP 29 (1974) 145-152. Cole, E. B.: “Theophrastus and Aristotle on Animal Intelligence.” In: Fortenbaugh, W. W. - Gutas, D. (ed.): Theophrastus. His Psychological, Doxographical and Scientific Writings. New Brunswick 1992. (Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities 5). Crahay, R.: La littérature oraculaire chez Herodote. Paris 1956. Defradas, J.: Les thèmes de la propagande delphique. Paris 1954. Delcourt, M.: L’oracle de Delphes. Paris 1955. Fontenrose, J.: The Delphic Oracle. Its Responses and Operations with a Catalogue of Responses. Berkeley – Los Angeles – London 1978. Fontenrose, J.: Didyma. Apollo’s Oracle, Cult, and Companions. Berkeley – Los Angeles – London 1988 Fortenbaugh, W. W.: Theophrastean Studies. Stuttgart 2003. (Philosophie der Antike 17). Graf, F.: “Apollinische Divination und theologische Spekulation. Zu den Orakeln der Tübinger Theosophie.” In: Seng, H. - Tardieu, M. (ed.): Die Chaldaeischen Orakel: Kontext – Interpretation – Rezeption. Heidelberg 2010. 63-77. (Bibliotheca Chaldaica 2). Graf, “An oracle ...”  Oracles from Claros and Didyma. Harder, R.: “Inschriften von Didyma Nr. 217 Vers 4.” In: Navicula Chiloniensis. Studia philologica Felici Jacoby professori Chiloniensi emerito octogenario oblata. Leiden 1956. 88-97. [= Harder, R.: Kleine Schriften. München 1960. 137-147]. Hommel, H.: “Das Apollonorakel in Didyma. Pflege alter Musik im spätantiken Gottesdienst.” Akten des IV. Internationalen Kongresses für Griechische und Lateinische Epigraphik. Wien, 17. bis 22. September 1962. Graz 1964. 140156. Lampinen, A.: “Θεῷ μεμελημένε Φοίβῳ. Oracular Functionaries at Claros and Didyma in the Imperial Period.” In: Kajava, M. (ed.): Studies in ancient oracles and divination. Rome 2013. 49-88. Lane Fox, R.: Pagans and Christians. New York 1986. Minchin, E.: “The Words of Gods: Divine Discourse in Homer’s Iliad.” In: Lardinois, A. P. M. H. - Blok, J. H. - van der Poel, M. G. M. (ed.): Sacred Words: Orality, Literacy and Religion. Orality and Literacy in the Ancient World, vol.8. Leiden 2011. 17-35. (Mnemosyne Supplements 332). Nock, A. D.: “Oracles théologiques.” REA 30 (1928) 280-290. Oesterheld, C.: Göttliche Botschaften für zweifelnde Menschen. Pragmatik und Orientierungsleistung der Apollon-Orakel von Klaros und Didyma in hellenistisch-römischer Zeit. Göttingen 2008. (Hypomnemata 174.) Parke, H. W. - Wormell, D.: The Delphic oracle. I-II Oxford 1956.

166

Ángel Ruiz Pérez

Pelliccia, H.: “Aeschylus’ Eumenides and the ex cathedra Language of Apollo.” HSPh 95 (1993) 65-105. Petrović, I. - Petrović, A.: “‘Look who is talking now!’: Speaker and Communication in Greek Metrical Sacred Regulations.” In: Stavrianopoulou, E. (ed.): Ritual and Communication in the Graeco-Roman World. Liège 2013. 151-179. Rainart, G.: La langue de l’Apollon de Delphes. Analyse linguistique, poétique et systématique des recueils d’oracles. Thèse Nice 2014. Robert, J. - L.: “Bulletin epigraphique.”REG 71 (1958) 169-363. Ruiz Pérez, Á.: “El lenguaje del reproche divino en los Oráculos Délficos.” In: Calderón Dorda, E. - Perea Yébenes, S. (ed.): Estudios sobre el vocabulario religioso griego. Madrid – Salamanca 2016. 169-185. (Signifer 49). Suárez de la Torre, E.: “Sobre la autenticidad de los oráculos délficos: cuestiones de método.” Tempus 2 (1992) 5-26. Suárez de la Torre, E.: “Apollo, teologo cristiano.” Annali di Scienze Religiose 8 (2003) 129-152.

Claudio Schiano

Pagan Prophecy and Prediction of the Future: an Uncomfortable Topic in Sixth Century Alexandria Il primo che seppe far parlare una statua, comunicò la favella a mille differenti oggetti, ed il mondo fu pieno di oracoli. Serapide in Egitto, Apolline in Grecia, Giove Ammone nella Libia, Mopso in Cilicia, gli augelli in Roma pronunciarono sentenze, e diedero risposte. La cortina di Delfo, la quercia di Dodona, i furori della Sibilla, la tenebra dell’antro di Trofonio rivelarono le cose future, e diedero consigli. Le minacce di Ettore non furono ripetute assai sovente, la costanza di Papirio non fu imitata da molti. (G. Leopardi, Saggio sopra gli errori popolari degli antichi, capo III)

1 Riots in Alexandria Around 482 A. D., a conspiracy against the Emperor was hatched in Alexandria. When the pagan philosopher Pamprepius, who had enjoyed the favour of Illus, Zeno’s powerful magister officiorum, moved to Egypt, he organized the riot by seeking the support of the pagans still living in the city.1 Damascius, who paints a very gloomy picture of him, provides us with some interesting details: Pamprepius felt superior to all other scholars, except “Proclus and the philosophers” of his sect;2 his propaganda stimulated the “hopes for a restoration of the good old way of life” (πρὸς τὰ ἀρχαῖα), i. e. of the pagan worship,3 and it was based on

1

We are quite accurately informed about Pamprepius by historiographical sources (such as Damascius, Malchus, Zacharias of Mytilene), but also by a horoscope on his life (reedited by Pingree 144-146). Cf. Athanassiadi, “Persecution ...”; Haas 326; Chuvin 96-100. 2 Dam., Vita Isid. fr. 289 Zintzen = fr. 112 B Athanassiadi. 3 Dam., Vita Isid. fr. 294 Zintzen = fr. 113 C Athanassiadi.

168

Claudio Schiano

many thousands of oracles and promises, whose combined force the emperor could not possibly survive, but the time had come when the cause of Christianity would collapse and pass away, while pagan worship would take hold again;4

and even his political agenda was guided by oracles.5 Illus’ and Leontius’ military defeat and Pamprepius’ death were followed in Alexandria by the arrival of Nicomedes, who was entrusted with the responsibility of restraining the pagan circles affected by Pamprepius’ propaganda: the arrest and torture of pagan intellectuals, the devastation of temples and the destruction of cult statues were aimed at crushing pagan superstition and forcing conversions to Christianity.6 Damascius’ cautious attitude in describing such context is easily understood: he celebrates the dignity and persistence of those who resisted persecution while maintaining the pagan faith, but emphasises how revolutionary propaganda did not gain any success among pagans in Egypt. He means to show that pagans kept their loyalty to the Emperor, despite what Christian hierarchies had been suggesting. Nonetheless, the allegation was not unfounded: Pamprepius had used the oracles to sustain the faith in a forthcoming pagan restoration, and the reference to Proclus and his followers7 seems to claim a connection with the theurgic Neoplatonic teaching professed in Athens. According to Damascius, the only pagan man exempt from persecution was Ammonius, head of the philosophical school in Alexandria, for he “came to an agreement” with the Christian bishop.8 What kind of agreement? What was Ammonius willing to concede in exchange for his safety? Many conjectures have been made: Saffrey thinks that Ammonius agreed to base his teaching on Aristotle, which would guarantee a less pagan-oriented foundation than the “theologian” Plato; according to 4

Zach. Myt., Vita Severi p. 40 K. (p. 53f. trs. Brock - Fitzgerald). Dam., Vita Isid. § 171 Zintzen = fr. 113 L Athanassiadi: “But perhaps here too the prophecies of Pamprepius prevailed, counselling inaction and constantly putting off the war to a future date”. 6 Zacharias (Vita Severi 38 p. 31 K.; p. 47 trs. Brock - Fitzgerald) says that, in villages, people believed that anyone threateningly touching a sacred statue would die instantly; so, the devastation of temples by Christians was meant to prove that the power of pagan gods had come to an end and that a much more powerful God’s era was beginning. 7 Damascius (Vita Isid. fr. 289 Zintzen = fr. 112 B Athanassiadi) ridicules Pamprepius and says that he could not even come close to Proclus’ wisdom. 8 Peter III Mongus or, some years later, Athanasius II. 5

Pagan Prophecy and Prediction of the Future

169

Westerink, Ammonius accepted not to deal with controversial issues, such as the eternity and divinity of the world; Athanassiadi infers that Ammonius was induced to reveal the hideout of his fellow pagan colleagues and students.9 A more convincing solution, in my opinion, is proposed by Richard Sorabji:10 what Ammonius agreed to do – and what allowed him to continue his philosophical teaching for both pagan and Christian students – was to ban any practice of pagan worship from his classes. Sorabji recalls that the theology of fifth and sixth century pagan Alexandrian scholars is hard to describe for lack of sources: here, we find nothing like Proclus’ commentary on the Chaldaean Oracles or like the treatises of Platonic theology that were written in Athens. 2 Hermias’ school While in Athens the oracles, especially the Chaldaean oracles, were intensively used in philosophical debates – still in the sixth century, as we can ascertain from Simplicius’ writings11 –, in Alexandria the references to oracular texts were becoming more imprecise and occasional.12 Ammonius’ father, Hermias, stayed faithful to Syrianus’ and Proclus’ teaching: in his commentary on Plato’s Phaedrus, he writes quite conventionally about ἐνθουσιασμός. For example, he explains how telestic rites can make God enter the statues;13 he scans a gradual approach to the divine through four forms of μανία, from μουσική, τελεστική and μαντική, till to ἐρωτική.14 Hermias also scrutinizes different kinds of oracles recorded in historical accounts and proves that the true μαντική, 9

Saffrey 401; Westerink, “The Alexandrian commentators ...” 327; Athanassiadi, Damascius 31. 10 Sorabji, “The ancient commentators ...” 12; Sorabji, “Divine names ...”. 11 Cf. Simpl., In Cat. p. 337, 18 K.; In De caelo p. 375, 21 H.; In Phys. p. 612, 35 617, 32 D. (Corollarium de loco); cf. also Hoffmann. 12 The Alexandrian philosopher who most frequently referred to the Chaldaeans, though often vaguely, was Olympiodorus: see below n. 35. 13 Herm., In Phaedr. p. 87, 4-18 Couvreur = 91, 3-17 L. - M.; cf. Procl., In Tim. I 273, 10-18. 14 Herm., In Phaedr. p. 88, 8-10 Couvreur = 92, 9-12 L. - M. Plato (Phaedr. 265 b 25) arranges the four μανίαι in a different order: μαντική, τελεστική, ποιητική, and finally ἐρωτική. Hermias is aware of his own innovation, but claims that μαντική, as a way of reunion with the divine, is just slightly inferior to ἔρως; furthermore, he explains Plato’s choice of speaking first of μαντική by saying that divination enjoyed a great reputation in Greece (In Phaedr. p. 93, 25-27 Couvreur = 98, 9-11 L. - M.).

170

Claudio Schiano

coming straight from the deity, is a superior form of knowledge, holier than any human prediction of the future based on signs.15 If compared to Hermias’ plain faith in the actual presence of God in the oracles, Ammonius’ thought seems quite ambiguous. Zacharias of Mytilene, in his dialogue Ammonius, stages a debate between the Alexandrian philosopher and a Christian disciple about the creation of the world. The Christian claims to possess the truth, arguing that it needs no embellishments: while Plato and the pagan philosophers had to disguise their lies by covering them with the harmony of the words, Hebrew prophets foretold Christ’s advent with no “abundance of words (as if adorned by the art of an embellisher), but naked without any covering”.16 Here is a reference to the proverbial ambiguity of pagan oracular responses: so, Zacharias seems to ascribe to Ammonius a traditional opinion on the oracles. On the other hand, Olympiodorus, Ammonius’ acolyte, quotes his teacher as refusing to believe in superstitions: for instance, that Thessalian witches could turn men into animals,17 or that the intimate character and behaviour of individuals can be ascertained by astrology.18 Nonetheless, rejecting astrology does not mean rejecting any kind of divination; and oracular divination was not superstition for Neoplatonic philosophers: Iamblichus records the prediction of the future based on stars in the rank of human operations, which are liable to error, but for him it was a plausible way to get close to theurgy.19 More interesting is Ammonius’ commentary on De interpretatione 9, where Aristotle wonders whether true and false can apply to future con15

Herm., In Phaedr. p. 93, 28 - 95, 32 Couvreur = 98, 12 - 100, 31 L. - M. Hermias’ reasoning is here very close to Iambl., De myst. III 27 p. 166, 13 - 167, 8 P. = 125, 117 S. - S. - L. 16 Zach. Myt., Amm. 89-91 p. 99-101, 144-178 Minniti Colonna. 17 Olymp., In Gorg. 39, 2. 18 Olymp., In Gorg. 48, 5: free will prevails. Here Olympiodorus relies on what Plotinus (II 3 [52] 2: but the text is heavily summarised) wrote against astrology: if stars were soulless – but Plotinus does not think so – they could exert no influence on men; conversely, if they have a soul, why should they distribute fortunes in such an irrational manner, i. e. why should evil come from good-oriented entities? Westerink, “Ein astrologisches Kolleg ...” 18, argues that no absolute rejection of astrology should be seen here, but only a restriction of the determinism of astrological predictions. Be that as it may, what Olympiodorus writes on this regard is just what Ammonius used to say in his classes, as a student remembered it not less than forty years later. 19 Iambl., De myst. III 30 p. 173, 8 - 175, 13 P. = 130, 5 - 131, 21 S. - S. - L.: cf. Addey 210f.

Pagan Prophecy and Prediction of the Future

171

tingents in the same way as they apply to present contingents. Aristotle denies they can apply, for he needs to exclude determinism. In his comment, Ammonius faces the issue of the gods’ foreknowledge. Here is his reasoning: a future event cannot be said to be true or false in a definite way (ὡρισμένως), unlike past or present events; the future is open and for each statement in the future tense we can at most say that it is “indefinitely” (ἀορίστως) true or false. On the contrary, the gods “know everything which has occurred, which is now, and which will be or is going to be” “by one definite and unchanging knowledge” (μιᾷ καὶ ὡρισμένῃ καὶ ἀμεταβλήτῳ γνώσει), since they “see not only the essences themselves” of all things, “but also their potentialities and actualities, both those according to and contrary to nature”. Therefore, only the gods know the future a priori and in a definite way (προειληφότας ὡρισμένως), “in a manner better than the contingents’ own nature” (κρειττόνως τῆς φύσεως αὐτῶν), in a unique and timeless way.20 Here arises a difficulty: if the gods’ foreknowledge is determined and unchangeable, why are the prophecies of their oracles sometimes ambiguous? Does it mean that even divine knowledge is undetermined? Ammonius’ neat answer comes from Syrianus, his master. The first argument: the gods’ knowledge is perfect and unlimited, unlike the prophetess’ faculties, for she conveys divine inspiration through human words that are limited21. The second argument: God uses the ambiguity of the oracular response to test the questioner22. If we compare Ammonius’ and Boethius’ commentaries on this passage, we can see that Boethius is concerned about determinism: does the faith in divine foreknowledge rule out man’s free will? On the contrary, Ammonius’ attention is focused on a different issue: whether God’s determined knowledge is prevented by the ambiguity of oracles23. Boethius is

20

Ammon., In De int. p. 135, 12 - 137, 11 B. (trs. Blanck). When Ammonius speaks about a knowledge that conforms to the one who knows and that could be then even greater than the nature of what is known – which is quite far from Aristotle –, he is quoting Iamblichus and maybe also Proclus (De prov. 63f. p. 168f. B.): cf. Blank Kretzmann 123 n. 33. 21 Ammon., In De int. p. 137, 12-23 B. 22 This argument is recurrent in Ammonius’ school: cf. Elias (David), In Arist. cat. p. 126, 14 - 127, 2 Busse. 23 On the difference between Boethius and Ammonius, cf. Sorabji, “Boethius ...” 18.

172

Claudio Schiano

troubled about a topic that had been controversial inside Christianity24, while Ammonius deals with a theme of controversy between pagans and Christians25. In short, we can be sure that Ammonius’ faith in the truthfulness of oracles was not weakened on the philosophical level, even though we do not know how, according to him, men could get close to gods through the oracles, since nothing about it can be read in his works. This strengthens Sorabji’s thesis: Ammonius’ choice of avoiding religious practices in teaching was not grounded on philosophical principles, but on expediency. For sure, his teaching made less use of religious apparatus than in the Neoplatonic school of Athens.26 In the surviving commentaries attributed to Ammonius, or to his students ἀπὸ φωνῆς Ἀμμωνίου, we would look in vain for those abundant quotations from the Chaldaean Oracles we can find in Proclus’ or Damascius’, or even Simplicius’. If available, quotes from the Chaldaean Oracles seem to lose their original religious meaning, as it happens in a passage from John Philoponus’ Commentary on Categories. According to what Philoponus writes here,27 philosophical inquiry should start from what belongs to the realm of generation and corruption, then it should consider unchangeable substances (i. e. the heavenly bodies), and, through incorporeal substances, it should reach the first cause of everything. Only an orderly fashion of investigation can prevent students from thinking that the first principle is a body that has been shaped: that is to say, they proceed according to the oracle (κατὰ τὸν χρησμόν)28 demanding not to get ahead of themselves (μὴ ὑπερβάθμιον 24

Boethius devoted the fifth book of his De philosophiae consolatione to providentia divina. 25 Cf. Eus., PE V 21, 6 - 26, 6, who cites a large passage by Oenomaus of Gadara to state that the ambiguity of oracles proves their falsity; moreover, Clem. Al., Protr. III 43, 3f. blames Apollo’s oracle for being “fond of gifts but not of men”, and φιλόλοξος. About the ἀσάφεια of the oracles, cf. Tissi. 26 Thiel shows how Ammonius refrains from using the word “theurgy” and releases its practice from magic: so, when he speaks about a kind of πρόνοια exerted by men, by which philosophy becomes an assimilation to God (ὁμοίωσις θεῷ), he makes the “theurgic virtues” acceptable for Christian ears. 27 Philop., In Arist. cat. p. 6, 3-16 Busse. 28 Philoponus does not say κατὰ τὸ λόγιον, as customary to designate the Chaldaean oracles: the term λόγιον is almost exclusively used by him for the sacred writings of the Christians, not only in his theological works but also in his earlier philosophical commentaries; cf. Philop., In Arist. De an. p. 547, 12 H. (here, the λόγιον is the

Pagan Prophecy and Prediction of the Future

173

πόδα πέμπειν).29 The commentary on Categories belongs to the first phase of Philoponus’ philosophical activity, when Ammonius’ teaching was very vividly present in his mind.30 This oracle should have been frequently evoked in Ammonius’ oral teaching, for it recurs quite often in his pupils’ writings.31 In Philoponus, the phrase loses its original meaning: while the Suda,32 most probably through Damascius, still preserves the idea that the path is a mystical one, because it leads to the veneration of a God (εἰς τὴν θεοσέβειαν), Philoponus describes the pathway in a strictly philosophical sense and its σκοπός merely attains to the search for the (Aristotelian) first cause. At last, we may find the phrase in later Christian authors,33 without any apparent awareness of its pagan, oracular origin. 3 After Ammonius Olympiodorus, who succeeded Ammonius on the chair of philosophy in Alexandria, had a rather favourable attitude to Neoplatonic theurgy. In his Commentary on Phaedo, he recognizes a greater purpose in theurgy than in philosophy, as philosophy just aims to observe the divine and cannot aspire to merge with it.34 So, it is not odd that he quotes a verse attested in the Chaldaean Oracles, even though he ascribes it to Orpheus, in order to speak of the threefold matter, “heavenly, stellar, and fathomless”; and he feels compelled to allude to the Chaldaean wisdom while speaking of spiritual entities between gods and men, such as formula εἶπε καὶ ἐγένετο of Genesis 1). When he refers to pagan λόγια, he writes ἐκ τῶν χρησμῶν λόγια (Opif. IV 20 p. 200, 26 R. = II 444, 11-12 S.). 29 OC 176. Philoponus uses the verb πέμπειν, where most of the quotations of or references to this oracle have ῥίπτειν (accepted by des Places) or τείνειν/ἐκτείνειν or even αἴρειν (and other verbs in later Byzantine authors). The original meaning of the statement is to prevent from infringing the proper order of ritual initiation: cf. Lewy 262 n. 10; Majercik 207. 30 Verrycken 240.249f.; Sorabji, “John Philoponus” 78. Nonetheless, the title of the commentary does not mention Ammonius. 31 Simpl., In Epict. 7, 120f.; Ascl., In Metaph. I 9 p. 98, 11 H.; Elias, In Porph. 25 p. 73, 9 B.; 26 p. 74, 14 B.; David, In Porph. 21 p. 164, 20 B.; Ps.-Elias (Ps.-David), In Porph. 24 p. 50, 31f. W.; 37 p. 96, 15f. W. Cf. also Arethas, In Porph. 90, 23 S. 32 S. v. ὑπερβάθμιον πόδα ῥιπτῶν, Υ 234, IV 137, 2 Adler = Dam., Vita Isid. fr. 137 Zintzen = fr. 59 C Athanassiadi. 33 Jo. Dam., In dorm. I 2; Theod. Stud., Ep. 477, 183f. 34 Olymp., In Phd. 8, 2, 19f.

174

Claudio Schiano

angels, demons and heroes.35 It is also conceivable that Olympiodorus is the author of a commentary on Paul of Alexandria’s Introduction to Astrology, despite his teacher Ammonius’ scepticism about predictive astrology.36 If in Olympiodorus we can guess a rapprochement to the religious path of Neoplatonism after Ammonius’ choice of distancing himself from that path, John Philoponus’ case is much more complex, because he merges two potentially conflicting experiences: the tradition of the pagan Neoplatonic School and his own Christian faith. Philoponus often touches the issue of oracular revelation, but he never deals with it in depth. Or, rather, it does not happen in his preserved works. A clear reference to his interest in the subject can be found in a lost work, mentioned by Photius: Philoponus’ refutation of Iamblichus’ On Statues.37 According to Iamblichus – Photius says – the εἴδωλα are divine and “full of the divine presence” (θείας μετουσίας ἀνάπλεα) and this is true for both εἴδωλα “of celestial nature” that fell from heaven to earth, and for those that were evidently made by men. The oracular prediction by statues of gods was one of the most popular forms of divination in antiquity38, mainly in late antique Alexandria: for instance, Heraiscus was believed to be able to understand if a statue was inhabited by a God or was inanimate39. 35

Olymp., In Alc. p. 19, 7 C. (= Orph. fr. 353 K. = 843 B.; cf. OC 216, 4: Lewy 267 n. 25 assumes this verse actually to be Chaldaean; Majercik 218 thinks that “an Orphic origin is also possible”; a slight preference for the Chaldaean Oracles is shown by Seng 827f.). Olymp., In Alc. p. 22, 2-5 C. (Westerink, Olympiodorus 16 refers to the texts cited by Kroll 44 = OC 88f.): Griffin 180f. thinks that Olympiodorus is here concerned with showing that the “common idea” about angels (i. e. the Christian idea) corresponds to what Neoplatonic tradition used to call “demons”. Another rather vague reference to the “Chaldaeans” in Olymp., In Met. I 1 p. 5, 16-19 S. 36 Cf. Westerink, “Ein astrologisches Kolleg ...” 10-13. In the manuscript tradition, the commentary is ascribed to Ammonius’ brother, Heliodorus. 37 Phot., Bibl. 215, 173b. 38 We may just recall Zeus Ammon’s oracle in the Sīwah Oasis, where Alexander the Great tried to get information about his own divine descent; or Lucian describing Atargatis’ temple at Hierapolis, where Apollo/Nebo’s statue was believed to move from its throne when it was inhabited by the God (Syr. D. 36), and Hera/Atargatis’ statue was thought to follow with its eye whoever was passing in front of it (Syr. D. 32). 39 Dam., Vita Isid. fr. 174 Zintzen = fr. 76 E Athanassiadi; cf. also Eun., VS VII 23f. p. 46, 1-11 Goulet = VII 2, 9f. p. 44, 14-24 Giangrande about Maximus’ theurgic operations on statues. Cf. Frankfurter 145-197.

Pagan Prophecy and Prediction of the Future

175

Photius appears to underrate the complexity of the problem, maybe because he was just interested in its impact on some issues that had been raised by the iconoclastic controversy. In De mysteriis, Iamblichus quotes a passage where Porphyry attacks those who pretend to be able to “produce images capable of acting”,40 suitable, by their nature, to be permanently inhabited by God; according to Iamblichus, no theurgist could subscribe such a pretension, since men can create images by means of matter, not of intelligible essence; by doing so, they do not properly endeavour theurgy, but just try to get closer to gods by magic.41 True divination is not intrinsic to the substance of the statues, but it comes from the outside, from God: according to Iamblichus, the behaviour of those “who regard these images as gods” is improper. Photius trivializes the issue when he says that “Iamblichus means to show that the statues are divine” (θεῖά τε δεῖξαι τὰ εἴδωλα): in Iamblichus’ opinion, in fact, the statues are not divine in and of themselves, but “the theurgic art” chooses, “in accordance with their properties” (κατ’ οἰκειότητα), the receptacles (ὑποδοχάς) appropriate for each of the gods, and so “links together stones, plants, animals, aromatic substances, and other such things that are sacred, perfect and godlike”;42 as soon as such “integrated and pure receptacles” are arranged, a God may choose to inhabit them and use them to reveal the future to men. Photius does not say anything definite on Philoponus’ refutation, but reproaches its inefficiency, because his arguments merely “discuss words (πρὸς ὄνομα γινομένους) and abstain from dealing with the most critical points”. The reference to ὀνόματα might suggest that Philoponus’ refutation was based on a logical examination of philosophical terms and definitions (as he often does in theological disputes). Therefore, if the statues – just like the prophet, or the Sybil, or the Pythia43 – that utter oracles are 40

Addey 252 suggests τὰ δραστικὰ εἴδωλα to be the images that wonderworkers pretended to see in incense clouds. We cannot exclude that the expression refers to statues as well. 41 Iambl., De myst. III 28 p. 167, 9 - 171, 4 P. = 125, 18 - 128, 13 S. - S. - L. (with quotation of Porph., Ad Aneb. fr. 59 S. - S.). 42 Iambl., De myst. V 23 p. 233, 10-15 P. = 173, 24 - 174, 5 S. - S. - L. (trs. Clarke Dillon - Hershbell). Based on this passage, Addey 252-255 rightly refutes Athanassiadi, “Dreams ...” 122f., according to whom Iamblichus did not approve of divination by statues, but was misunderstood by his successors (Proclus, the emperor Julian, Maximus of Ephesus) on this point. 43 Iamblichus’s third book of De mysteriis is devoted to show that the cause of the enthusiastic prophecy is not corporeal, as it is not related to any kind of κρᾶσις of the body, nor to the action of body and soul together (De myst. III 8 p. 116, 4-17 P. =

176

Claudio Schiano

“full of divine presence”, understanding what Philoponus may have thought about Iamblichus’ doctrine of “receptacles” (ὑποδοχαί), which are set up to be inhabited by God “in accordance with his properties” (κατ’ οἰκειότητα), is decisive. We will return to this point. 4 John Philoponus and the prophecies Did Philoponus believe in the foreknowledge of what will happen? In his treatise On the eternity of the world, Philoponus scrutinizes one of Proclus’ proofs in favour of the eternity of the world: if the pattern (παράδειγμα) of the world is eternal in its essence, then also the copy of that pattern, i. e. the real world, must exist eternally. For Philoponus, that the pattern should be thought as coexisting with the copy is absurd: on the contrary, the ideas exist before the bodies. Hence, in a digression he shows that God has always been aware of all future reality, even before the coming into being of entities, since the divine foreknowledge is placed outside of time. Quite surprisingly, Philoponus recognizes that even the pagans knew it, as testified by “shrines and oracles, established in every corner of the land where an evil demon feigned the true foreknowledge of God”.44 So, he admits the possibility of oracular prediction, by which God communicates fragments of His foreknowledge to men; but he denies that pagan oracles may tell the truth. The argument here expounded is very similar to what Eusebius of Caesarea writes about the demonic origin of such predictions.45 Philoponus is apparently giving credit even to astrology, but the topic here is what pagans believe, because Proclus is a pagan: we cannot infer that he genuinely believed in predictive astrology.46 Elsewhere, Philoponus speaks about the trance mediumship, i. e. the “enthusiastic” possession by a deity. Here is the context: according to Proclus, the world is naturally corruptible, but eternity is granted to it by something eternal; Philoponus argues that “if something belongs to a 87, 11 - 88, 1 S. - S. - L.); the cause is external, because the divinatory power of the gods, which is separate from matter and indivisible, can permeate all the elements and illuminate them from without (De myst. III 12 p. 128, 17 - 129, 12 P. = 96, 16 97, 4 S. - S. - L.). 44 Philop., De aet. mund. II 5 p. 36-41 (especially p. 37, 13-15; trs. Share). 45 Eus., PE V 4, 4-10; cf. Share 11f. n. 31 and 100 n. 132. 46 Share 101 n. 143 notes that Philoponus uses the word ὑπόληψις with a negative meaning, when speaking of astrology.

Pagan Prophecy and Prediction of the Future

177

thing in excess of its own nature, this does not cause it to depart from its own nature and make it of the same nature as the thing from which it has this power”.47 For instance, the ether, which is circularly moved by the heavenly bodies in excess of its own nature, is made of the same substances as the bodies moving in a straight line. Similarly, the souls and bodies of the mediums touched and empowered by God do not change their nature: Ἀλλ᾿ οὐδὲ τὰς ἐνθουσιώσας τῶν ψυχῶν καὶ ὑπὲρ τὴν οἰκείαν φύσιν γινωσκούσας ‘τά τ᾿ ἐόντα τά τε ἐσόμενα πρό τ᾿ ἐόντα᾿ ἑτέρας ἂν εἴποιμεν οὐσίας παρὰ τὰς λοιπὰς διὰ τὴν θεόθεν αὐταῖς ἐπιφοιτήσασαν δύναμιν. ἤδη δὲ καί τινες τῶν παρ᾿ Ἕλλησιν ὡς αὐτοὶ φαῖεν ἂν θεοφορήτων, ἐγὼ δὲ φήσαιμι ἂν κατόχων δαίμοσιν πονηροῖς ξίφεσιν ὡς λόγος τὰ οἰκεῖα διατέμνοντες σώματα καὶ διὰ πυρὸς ἰόντες οὐδὲν ὧν πέφυκεν πάσχειν ὑπὸ πυρός τε καὶ σιδήρου τὰ σώματα, ὥς φασιν, ὑπομένουσιν· καὶ οὐ δήπου διὰ τοῦτο ἑτέρας ἂν φήσαιεν καὶ οὐ τῆς τῶν σωμάτων εἶναι αὐτὰ φύσεως ἢ τὸ ἀπαθὲς αὐτοῖς διὰ τοῦτο προσεῖναι καὶ ἄφθαρτον. We would not even describe those divinely inspired souls who, transcending their own nature, know ‘what is, what will be, and what has gone before’48 as beings different from others on account of a power which has come to them from God. And in our own times there are some among the Hellenes, people whom they would describe as divinely inspired but whom I would say were possessed by evil spirits, who, as rumour has it, pierce their own bodies with swords and walk through fire but incur, it is said, none of the injuries that bodies normally suffer from fire and iron. But I do not imagine that they would for that reason claim that their bodies are of a different nature and not corporeal or that they are on that account possessed of impassability and incorruptibility.49

When Philoponus speaks about the relationship between natural (κατὰ φύσιν) and supernatural (ὑπὲρ φύσιν) qualities (according to the nature of each substance or entity), he hints at an issue that would become very important to his theological doctrine: whether the quality change affects the substance. In fact, Philoponus comes back to the question some decades later, when he considers the nature of Christ’s resurrected body

47

Philop., De aet. mund. VI 29 p. 240, 29 - 241, 3. Hom. Il. 1, 70: the poet refers to Calchas, who received the gift of interpreting signs by Apollo. 49 Philop., De aet. mund. VI 29 p. 241, 10-22 (trs. Share). 48

178

Claudio Schiano

(is it the same body as before His death or a different one?) and triggers a violent theological dispute within the Monophysite sect.50 What Philoponus is referring to when he speaks of prophets who do not suffer physical damage while performing dangerous and superhuman actions is clear, if we read Iamblichus: some mediums who are possessed by a deity “lead neither the life of a human being nor of a living animal, but they exchange their life for another more divine life” and do not suffer the effects of fire or cutting weapons.51 Iamblichus distinguishes between the charlatans, who use tricks, and theurgists, who “have subjected their entire life as a vehicle (ὄχημα) or instrument (ὄργανον) to the gods who inspire them”: they do not act in a state of consciousness, but their body becomes a mere envelope filled by the divine presence; their turning insensitive and unassailable by fire or weapons is the proof of such supernatural condition.52 The emptiness of the medium’s body, devoid of his perceptive faculty, explains why Iamblichus uses the word ὄχημα, which is specific, in the philosophical and theological vocabulary, for the “vehicle” of the soul, a kind of ethereal body, intermediate between the corporeal matter and the bodiless soul.53 So, the medium’s body is an instrument that the gods use to be involved with matter. Iamblichus’ passage helps us understand how Philoponus addresses the issue in the seventh λόγος Against Proclus: Τὰ γὰρ ὑπὲρ φύσιν ὑπάρχοντά τισιν τοῖς κρείττοσιν αὐτῶν κατὰ φύσιν ὑπάρχει, ὥσπερ ἡ κύκλῳ κίνησις ὑπὲρ φύσιν τῷ αἰθερίῳ ὑπάρχουσα σώματι κατὰ φύσιν τῷ κρείττονι, λέγω δὴ τῷ οὐρανίῳ, ὑπάρχει· διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ ὑπὲρ φύσιν τὰ τοιαῦτα λέγεται ὑπάρχειν τισὶν διὰ τὸ ταῖς ὑπερεχούσαις αὐτῶν οὐσίαις κατὰ φύσιν ὑπάρχειν. διὰ τοῦτο καὶ τὰς ἐνθουσιώσας τῶν ψυχῶν καὶ τὴν τοῦ μέλλοντος εἰσδεχομένας πρόγνωσιν ἤ τινων ἄλλων ἀπορρήτων ἐν θεωρίᾳ γινομένας ὑπὲρ φύσιν ἐνεργεῖν φαμεν διὰ τὸ κρειττόνων εἶναι ἢ κατὰ ἄνθρωπον φύσεων τὴν τοιαύτην ἐνέργειαν. 50

Van Roey; Sorabji, “John Philoponus” 72f.; Chadwick 93f. Iambl., De myst. III 4 p. 110, 14 - 111, 2 P. = 83, 11-17 S. - S. - L. (trs. Clarke Dillon - Hershbell). From literary sources we know many of such stories: Strabo, Geogr. XII 2, 7; Tib. I 6, 45-50; Ov., trist. IV 1, 41f. 52 Cf. Sheppard. Iamblichus argues against Porphyry, who declares that an altered but vigilant consciousness is needed for the enthusiastic prophecy. 53 Cf. Finamore: while Porphyry thinks that the ὄχημα is created during the passage of the soul through the planetary spheres on its way to incarnation and so it cannot exist on its own, Iamblichus believes that it exists prior to the descent of the soul and subsists in the universe on its own after the death of the individual. On Philoponus’ more complex idea about the ὄχημα (influenced by Proclus), cf. van der Eijk 123f. n. 183 (with further bibliography). 51

Pagan Prophecy and Prediction of the Future

179

Qualities which belong to things supernaturally belong naturally to other things which are superior to them, as circular movement, which belongs to ethereal body supernaturally, belongs naturally to a superior body, namely heavenly body. Such qualities are said to belong to certain things supernaturally precisely because they belong naturally to substances which are superior to those things. For this reason, we say that those souls that are divinely-inspired and those that receive foreknowledge of the future or acquire insight into other secret matters are supernaturally active because such activity is characteristic of superhuman natures.54

In VI 29, Philoponus was speaking about the false prophets, who are inspired not by God but by “evil demons”; here in VII 16, he refers to what he considers to be the true prophecy, in which the prophet maintains his own perishable and limited human essence and the prophetic faculty comes from a superior nature. Philoponus rejects any form of “divine possession” of the medium’s body, or of a statue, used as ὄχημα; moreover, he safeguards the medium’s state of consciousness55 and assumes that accidental qualities are transmitted from a higher entity to a lower one. Thus, the description of the oracular phenomenon, while getting away from theurgy, becomes consistent with the Biblical narratives of prophetic revelations. In this case, the “superhuman natures” (κρείττονες ἢ κατὰ ἄνθρωπον φύσεις) conveying the wisdom can be easily identified as the angels of the Judeo-Christian tradition. 5 The reliability of prophecies As to Iamblichus, divination is properly worked out and prophecies are reliable only when there is direct contact with the deity itself, while the result is poor when angels or other intelligible entities serve as mediators;56 as to Philoponus, the issue becomes more and more complex as his theological thought evolves. In De opificio mundi, the work of his late maturity, Philoponus discredits astrology, first by quoting Origen’s logical arguments against it,57 then, by saying that, if the future is governed by necessi54

Philop., De aet. mund. VII 16 p. 278, 25 - 279, 4 (trs. Share). The notion that the prophet maintains his consciousness unaltered is asserted by Orig., In Ez. 6, 1 p. 378, 6-13.25-31 B., whose influence on Philoponus is undeniable. No excessus mentis is admitted. 56 Iambl., De myst. III 18 p. 144, 3-12 P. = 108, 5-15 S. - S. - L. 57 Philop., Opif. IV 18 p. 196, 16 - 197, 27 R. = II 436, 5 - 438, 10 S. (cf. Scholten, Philoponos II 438f. n. 83). Astrologers pretend to foretell the life of a baby just looking at his birth chart, because – they say – the stars affect the course of his existence; but, 55

180

Claudio Schiano

ty, any immoral behaviour turns out to be permissible, because human free will gets constrained. Finally, Philoponus quotes Porphyry saying that the gods reveal the future to men because they read it in the stars, i. e. the gods are the best astrologers. This raises the delicate question of the divine error: how can the oracles of the gods be wrong? Do gods lie? ‘Πᾶν γάρ’ φησί ‘τὸ κατιὸν εἰς γῆν, ὅτε κάτεισι ὑποπίπτει τῇ φορᾷ τῶν κρατούντων θεῶν, τουτέστι τῇ κινήσει τῶν ἄστρων, ὥστε καὶ αὐτοὺς τοὺς κατιόντας θεοὺς ὑπὸ τὰς μοίρας εἶναι· κατίασι δὲ καὶ κάτω χρησμῳδοῦσιν ἅπαντες, ὅπου καὶ τὰ χρηστήρια αὐτῶν ἵδρυται καὶ τὰ ἀγάλματα. οὗτοι δέ εἰσιν οἱ ἀπὸ Κρόνου καὶ Ῥέας καὶ οἱ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἅπαντες.’ τούτοις οὖν ἅπασιν ὡς καὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τήν τε πρακτικὴν θεοσοφίαν – οὕτω τὴν μαγείαν καλῶν – χαλεπὴν εἰς ἐγχείρησιν εἶναί φησι καὶ τὴν φορὰν τὴν ἀκριβῆ τῶν ἄστρων καὶ τὰς ἐκ τούτων συμβάσεις ἀκαταλήπτους, διὸ καὶ ψεύδεσθαι περὶ πολλῶν ἐρωτηθέντας καὶ πολλὰ τούτων εἰς πίστιν ἐκ τῶν χρησμῶν παρατίθεται λόγια. εἶτα καὶ τὴν αἰτίαν τοῦ ψεύδεσθαι αὐτοὺς μαντευομένους ἐν τῷ τρίτῳ παρέθετο. ‘παρὰ γὰρ τὴν ἀμαθίαν τῶν καλούντων’ φησί ‘βιαζόμενοι ὑπ᾿ αὐτῶν οἱ θεοὶ παρὰ μοῖραν διὰ τὴν βίαν τῶν ἐπανάγκων ἄκοντες λέγειν τι τῶν ἠγνοημένων αὐτοῖς συνελαύνονται’ κἀντεῦθεν ψευδῆ τὰ μαντεῖα γίνεσθαι. ‘Everything coming down to the earth, when it comes down, submits to the motion of the prevailing gods, that is, to the movement of the stars, as the gods themselves are under the rule of Moira. Nevertheless, they all descend and utter oracles where their oracular shrines and statues are built. These are the oracles of the sons of Cronus and Rhea and of all their descendants’.58 Porphyry argues that, for all of them, as for men, practical theosophy – thus he calls magic – is difficult to achieve; and, because the exact motion of the stars and their coincidences are unknowable, then the gods mostly lie to those who question them; here is the reliability he acknowledges to many of the prophecies uttered by oracles! In the third book, Porphyry also investigates why they lie when uttering oracles: ‘Because of the ignorance of those who invoke them, the gods, being forced, comply with the violence of those forcing them against the fate, and say whatever about what they ignore’:59 thus, they utter false oracular responses.60 by the same means, they pretend to know his origin as well, for instance who his father and ancestors were. We should infer, then, that an efficient cause (the stars) can exert its influence backwards, on what has already happened, which is illogical. 58 Porph., De phil. ex or. p. 170 Wolff = fr. 337F Smith. Scholten, Philoponos II 446f. n. 89 compares Philoponus’ chapter with Eus., PE V 14, 1 and VI 5, 1-4, quoting from the same source, and proves that Philoponus does not reproduce Porphyry literally and that he does not depend on Eusebius, because he knows at least two fragments that are not quoted by the latter. 59 Porph., De phil. ex or. p. 175 Wolff = fr. 341aF Smith. 60 Philop., Opif. IV 20 p. 200, 13 - 201, 6 R. = II 442, 24 - 444, 18 S.

Pagan Prophecy and Prediction of the Future

181

The oracles can lie! Such suspicions had already scandalized many devout pagan writers.61 This happens – Philoponus guesses – because pagan gods do not actually know the future but try to read it per signa in the stars; so, if someone tries to force them to reveal what they ignore, nothing but lies can be obtained.62 Hecate’s oracle answers to a troublesome questioner:63 Τινῶν εἰπόντων, εἰ καὶ αὐτοὶ οἱ θεοὶ ὑπὸ τὴν εἱμαρμένην εἰσίν, ὅτι φυλάττονται ταῦτα, ἐπήγαγε· ‘Λυέσθω φύσεως δεσμά, ἵνα σοῖσι πίθωμαι. Ὦ κραδίη, τί λέληκας, ἀναλκείῃσι τυπεῖσα; Οὐ ποθέεις μαθέειν, ὅ τε μὴ θέμις ὧδ᾿ ἐρεείνειν; Στῆτε πόθου· παύσασθε βίης τυτθοί περ ἐόντες.᾿ Since some people asked her whether the gods themselves are subject to fate as they observe such things, [Hecate] replied: ‘Let the fetters of nature be loosed, so that I would obey yours. Mortal heart, what did you bark, beaten by cowardice? Are you not longing to know what is not even legitimate to ask? Restrain your desire, cease violence, vile beings as you are.᾿64

As Lewy ascertained, Neoplatonic theurgists thought that the evil spirits (i. e., matter) draw men away from God; therefore, if a theurgist wants his request to be heard by God, he needs to purify himself by breaking free from the bonds of nature (the φύσεως δεσμά).65 Philoponus’ interpretation is different: the practitioner is not the one who is tied by the bonds of nature, but the (pagan) God himself is. The text transmitted by the manuscript has a metrical difficulty; modern attempts at conjectural correction have mostly tried to make the text mean that the Goddess invites the man to get rid of the bonds of nature.66 However, the verse, as 61

Soph., OT 971f.; Plut., Pyth. 398 f 1 - 399 a 12; 407 c 11 - f 1. Cf. Eus., PE V 8, 1 - 9, 11. 63 The rebuke uttered by Hecate has numerous parallels in oracular responses; cf. Ruiz Pérez in this volume. 64 Philop., Opif. IV 20 p. 201, 23 - 202, 4 R. = II 446, 4-9 S. (with quotation of Porph., De phil. ex or. p. 176f. Wolff = fr. 342F Smith). 65 Lewy 52-55. Cf. also Addey 121f. 66 The hexameter λυέσθω φύσεως δεσμά, ἵνα σοῖσι πίθωμαι contains a tribrach at the fourth foot (-μᾰ ῐνᾰ): metrical lengthening of -μᾰ, when a hiatus follows, is supposed to be facilitated by the caesura. Attempts at emendation were proposed by Wolff 177 n. 1: λυέσθω φύσεως σου δέσμ᾿ ἵνα θεοῖσι πίθωμαι; by Reichardt 202 in the apparatus criticus: λυέσθω φύσεως μου δέσμ᾿ ἵνα σοῖσι πεδῶμαι; by Lewy 53 n. 165 62

182

Claudio Schiano

it is written in the manuscript, although metrically defective (or at least awkward), seems to suggest exactly what Philoponus meant: the Goddess says to the man “you should release me from the bonds of nature, if you expect me to accomplish your desire”.67 Deterministic astrology subjugates the gods to the heimarmene and, thus, limits their power, which is unacceptable to Philoponus. 6 Prophecies and intelligible entities In the first book of De opificio mundi, Philoponus argues with Theodore of Mopsuestia and wonders whether intelligible entities, such as the angels, are circumscribed by space.68 According to Philoponus, angels are not corporeal, nor are covered with bodies as men’s souls are. So, when in the Bible we read about angels’ appearances, we cannot imply that they have special bodies as ὄργανα, because – Philoponus claims – we should then assume God’s ‘special’ (pneumatic or astral) body to be anthropomorphic, or even zoomorphic.69 Unfortunately, Philoponus does

(and Smith 391): λυέσθω φύσεως δεσμῶν ἵνα σοῖσι πίθωμαι. Scholten (II 447) retains the manuscript reading and preserves its ambiguity in translation: „es mögen sich lösen die Fesseln der Natur“. 67 The hexameter, within Philoponus’ text, does not require emendation, although it is metrically difficult (which Philoponus does not seem to have been sensitive about): we cannot say whether he altered the hexameter or found it that way. On the frequent use of awkward metrics in oracular verses as a feature of real or pretended orality cf. Agosti 7-10 (with bibliography). 68 Philop., Opif. I 17 p. 41, 1 - 43, 18 R. = I 148, 8 - 154, 5 S. About Philoponus on the angels’ incorporeity, cf. Scholten, Antike Naturphilosophie 171-175. 69 Philop., Opif. I 9 p. 22, 13 - 23, 17 R. = I 114, 9 - 116, 6 S. According to Scholten (Philoponos I 115 n. 60), when Philoponus says that “sogar in den Gestalten anderer Lebewesen wurden den Propheten die Gottesgesichte zuteil”, it is not clear what Biblical passage he is referring to; the scholar thinks of Ez 1. Actually, Ez 10, 20 confirms that the “living creatures seen by the Chebar river” were cherubim. Philoponus seems to be reasoning per absurdum: if we assume that hierophanies imply God to be embodied, we should infer that “not only the angels, but God himself is anthropomorphic” and ascribe to him “a body, a shape and three-dimensionality”; then, even zoomorphic appearances of God should be admitted, since there is no difference between human and animal body. Philoponus’ irony is stinging: if divine anthropomorphism is blasphemy, zoomorphism is more.

Pagan Prophecy and Prediction of the Future

183

not go further on this polemic against the idea of embodiment of purely spiritual entities.70 The traditional theological solution – God or the angels become visible to men thanks to the luminous body surrounding human souls (τοῖς αὐγοειδέσι τῶν ψυχῶν περιβλήμασι)71 – is discarded by Philoponus who denies the existence of such luminous body.72 By an increasingly better understanding of incorporeal nature,73 searching the whereabouts of the angels, i. e. thinking of their location and size, is recognised to be absurd. As God, the creator of each three-dimensional body, is unlimited and infinite, so the angels, incorporeal and immaterial, are devoid of extent and cannot be circumscribed by space; however, they are limited according to their power, since they cannot do all that they wish in an infinite way. Εἰ πού τις ἄρα τὰς φαινομένας τισὶν ἐπιστασίας αὐτῶν, ἐν οἷς ἂν εἴδεσι φαίνοιντο, αὐτὸ τὸ φαινόμενον ἐκεῖνο καὶ χρησμῳδοῦν, ὅτι ποτ᾿ ἂν εἴη, τόπῳ περιγεγράφθαι λέγοι, τῷ μηδενὶ ἄλλῳ μήτε φαίνεσθαι μήτε χρησμῳδεῖν· ἀλλ᾿ οὐδὲν τοῦτο πρὸς τὴν ἀσώματον οὐσίαν αὐτῶν μήτε ὁρατὴν οὖσαν μήτε τόπῳ περιγεγραφομένην. If ever someone said that their appearances (when they appear to someone in whatever form), and the very fact that they show up and utter oracles of any kind, are circumscribed by a given space, for they do not show up nor prophesy in any other space, this however would have nothing to do with their incorporeal essence, which is not visible nor can be limited according to the space.74

70

The issue may have been developed more in depth in his lost work against Theodore of Mopsuestia (reference in Philop., Opif. I 17 p. 42, 2f. R. = I 150, 9f. S. and VI 15 p. 261, 13-16 R. = III 554, 25-27 S.). 71 Procl., In Remp. I 39, 9f. 72 Philoponus’ thought on this point changes from the commentary on Aristotle’s De anima to De opificio mundi. Cf. Sorabji, Matter 119 n. 103 and, also, Aujolat. 73 Such evolution in Philoponus’ thought (cf. Verrycken 266f.) is a consequence of his rethinking of the notions of first matter, place and void. The space is incorporeal, three-dimensional extension and can be occupied only by a body; as angels are totally incorporeal, they cannot be “in” the space. On the contrary, the human soul, which is enclosed within a body by its ὄχημα, is in the body by accident and moves altogether with the body by accident, not per se. So, we have three levels of entities: (a) incorporeal and spatially unlimited ones; (b) incorporeal ones but linked to a body by an instrument (ὄργανον); (c) corporeal ones. According to Philoponus, angels are (a), while human souls are (b). 74 Philop., Opif. I 17 p. 43, 9-15 R. = I 152, 14 - 154, 2 S.

184

Claudio Schiano

Philoponus is tacitly arguing against those who, like Cosmas Indicopleustes, believed that thinking of angels as unlimited meant assimilating them to God and falling into polytheism.75 That is why Philoponus draws a distinction between “limit according to space” and “limit according to power”. What are the consequences of such distinction to the oracular divination? If the angels serve as mediators of the prophetic revelation, their power, descending from God, should not be circumscribed by a limited space (such as a statue or the medium’s body), because this would contradict their very nature as intelligible entities.76 To tell the truth, even Iamblichus was aware of the problem: the divining power that is inherent to human faculties can perceive a very limited portion of the future reality; on the other hand, “the divinatory power of the gods is bounded by nothing divisible, neither by place, nor by a divisible human body, nor by a soul contained in any single form of divisible entities”.77 However, John Philoponus’ methodological rigour could not afford even the slightest concession to the idea of circumscribing oracles within a place. Moreover, the pagan idea of possession ended up attributing to matter some properties that are incompatible with its substance, such as impassability in the case of the medium’s body.

75

Cf. Cosm. Indic. I 32, 1-6 p. 51 W. = 303 W.-C. about souls. In II 108, 1-3 p. 92f. W. = 429 W.-C., Cosmas quotes Biblical passages to ascertain that “angels, demons and souls are limited and are spatially in this universe”. Cosmas’ idea is shared not only with Theodore, but also with most of Christian theology. On the contrast between Philoponus and Cosmas about angels, cf. Elweskiöld 50-57.73-80. 76 Because of his peculiar idea of space, Philoponus is the most consequent of Neoplatonic philosophers in denying any form of impenetrability of bodies. The traditional idea of souls entering the physical body by the intermediary of a pneumatic body faced a logic difficulty: the presence of two bodies in the same space. Simplicius was concerned about this problem and tried to solve it through Proclus’ doctrine; Philoponus may have reasoned in a similar way, but refrained from tackling the issue openly, as Sorabji, Matter 119 discloses. Yet, he may have written something about it in his lost treatise On Resurrection. 77 Iambl., De myst. III 12 p. 128, 6 - 129, 12 P. = 96, 5 - 97, 4 S. - S. - L. (trs. Clarke - Dillon - Hershbell).

Pagan Prophecy and Prediction of the Future

185

7 The intermediation of angels According to Cosmas Indicopleustes, the angels are in the service of man because he is cast “in God’s image”;78 Theodore of Mopsuestia paralleled the angels’ submission to man-image-of-God with the veneration of the ruler by means of his portraits spread all over the city: because of this thesis, Philoponus blames Theodore as succumbing to paganism.79 According to Philoponus, the angels are in the exclusive service of God,80 because, in the scale of creation, men are lower than angels.81 This makes sense in the context of the Monophysite controversy: according to Monophysites like Philoponus, assuming the angels as subject to man-image-of-God emphasizes Christ’s humanity as if it were a separate divinity and this would lead to doubling the second person of the Trinity, which is blasphemy.82 Basilius’ thesis that angels were created before matter83 is highlighted by Philoponus just to reject their subordination to men. Therefore, if the angels, who foretell the future, are just messengers of a wisdom they receive from God, and thus serve God and not man, there is no use in soliciting for the revelation or enacting procedures aimed at encouraging God to speak to men, as the theurgy does84. Oracles cannot be questioned, because the revelation follows the divine plan, regardless of any act that a man – even the purest one – can perform. That is why 78

Cosm. Indic. II 84-86 p. 83f. W. = 403-405 W.-C.; III 26 p. 104 W. = 463 W.-C. When the angels lost their hope in humanity after Adam and Eve’s sin, God had to force them back to serving men (II 86, 1-7 p. 84 W. = 405 W.-C.). 79 Philop., Opif. VI 9 p. 244, 20 - 247, 5 R. = III 526, 1 - 530, 4 S. For Theodore, cf. the excerpt in Theodoret, In Gen. 20, 2 (PG 80, 109 a - 113 a) = Collectio Coisliniana in Genesim 71f. p. 68-72 Petit. 80 Philop., Opif. I 9 p. 20, 24 - 21, 4 R. = I 112, 3-8 S. 81 Philop., Opif. VI 16 p. 262, 10 - 263, 6 R. = III 556, 19 - 558, 16 S. (with quotation of Ps 8, 6). 82 This contextualisation of the clash between Philoponus and Cosmas is proposed by MacCoull, who recalls how some sixth-century Egyptian theologians, such as John of Parallos, refused an interpretation of Genesis based on the assumption that angels are submitted to men. 83 Philop., Opif. I 11 p. 27, 18 - 28, 16 R. = I 122, 22 - 124, 13 S. Actually, “before matter” is a meaningless statement, because time does not exist without matter. 84 Iamblichus distinguishes between inspired divination – the ultimate cause of which is God and should then be considered as super-rational – and inductive, rational divination. However, the oracles (the most typical form of inspired divination) can be questioned and the reliability of the answer depends on the accuracy of the procedures enacted by the medium. Cf. Addey 239-259.

186

Claudio Schiano

Philoponus quotes many oracles of pagan gods who, unaware of the future, complain about the inappropriate and constraining demands of men and, once they are turned into men’s servants, cannot help but lie.85 In brief, John Philoponus’ intellectual rigour prevents him from accepting the pagan oracles, although a long-lasting tradition, since Justin Martyr at least, had tried to use them for Christian purposes; in this respect, he is heavily indebted to Eusebius’ aversion against pagan divination. In his opinion, the pagan oracles cannot be understood but in connection to an immanent divine principle, which he refuses completely86. It is then noteworthy that Olympiodorus, who was raised in the same context but proudly defended a dying cultural tradition, tentatively intended to restore the pagan art of divination.87 The fully convinced faith in oracles, which was widespread in Athens and in other areas of the Empire, had suffered a setback in Alexandria, certainly for political reasons, but also because of the typically Alexandrian – or rather, Philoponian – concordia discors between Aristotelian physics and Monophysite theology.

85

Philop., Opif. IV 20 p. 202, 15 - 203, 19 R. = II 446, 19 - 448, 24 S. (“as they could not resist magicians’ violence, they kept on revealing what they did not know, because lying or telling the truth was the same for them”). 86 Chadwick 92 thinks that Philoponus’ De opificio mundi is intended to demonstrate that, by means of a cosmogonic narrative, Moses taught the Egyptians, adorers of the “visible fiery matter” (i. e. the stars), to convert their faith towards a transcendent God. 87 If Philoponus reiterates Eusebius’ polemics, Olympiodorus’ mild position can be interpreted as a return to Porphyry more than to Iamblichus: cf. Sorabji, “Divine names ...” 211. On Eusebius’ polemics against Porphyry, cf. Nieto Ibáñez 42-52 and Addey 106-113.

Pagan Prophecy and Prediction of the Future

187

Bibliography 1 Editions, translations, commentaries Ammonius In Aristotelis De interpretatione Ammonius, In Aristotelis de Interpretatione commentarius. Edidit A. Busse. Berlin 1897. (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 4, 5). Ammonius, On Aristotle’s On Interpretation 9. Translated by D. Blank. With Boethius, On Aristotle’s On Interpretation 9. First and second commentaries. Translated by N. Kretzmann. With essays by R. Sorabji, N. Kretzmann, and M. Mignucci. Ithaka (N. Y.) 1998. Arethas In Porphyrii Isagogen Arethas of Caesarea’s Scholia on Porphyry’s Isagoge and Aristotle’s Categories (Codex Vaticanus Urbinas Graecus 35). A critical edition by M. Share. Athens – Paris 1994. (Commentaria in Aristotelem Byzantina 1). Asclepius In Aristotelis Metaphysica Asclepii in Aristotelis Metaphysicorum libros A-Z commentaria edidit M. Hayduck. Berlin 1888. (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 6, 2). Cosmas Indicopleustes Topographia Christiana Cosmas Indicopleustés, Topographie chrétienne. Tome I (Livres I-IV). Introduction, texte critique, illustration, traduction et notes par W. Wolska-Conus. Préface de P. Lemerle. Paris 1968. (SC 141) Damascius Vita Isidori Damascii Vitae Isidori reliquiae. Edidit adnotationibusque instruxit C. Zintzen. Hildesheim 1967. Damascius, The Philosophical History. Text with translation and notes by P. Athanassiadi. Athens 1999. David In Porphyrii Isagogen Davidis Prolegomena et in Porphyrii Isagogen commentarium edidit A. Busse. Berlin 1904. (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 18, 2).

188

Claudio Schiano

Elias In Aristotelis Categorias In Porphyrii Isagogen Eliae in Porphyrii Isagogen et Aristotelis Categorias commentaria edidit A. Busse. Berlin 1900. (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 18, 1). Ps.-Elias (Ps.-David) In Porphyrii Isagogen Pseudo-Elias (Pseudo-David), Lectures on Porphyry’s Isagoge. Introduction, text and indices by L. G. Westerink. Amsterdam 1967. Hermias In Platonis Phaedrum Hermias Alexandrinus, In Platonis Phaedrum scholia ediderunt C. M. Lucarini et C. Moreschini. Berlin – Boston 2012. Iamblichus De mysteriis Jamblique, Réponse à Porphyre (De mysteriis). Texte établi, traduit et annoté par H. D. Saffrey et A.-P. Segonds. Avec la collaboration de A. Lecerf. Paris 2013. Iamblichus, De mysteriis. Translated with Introduction and Notes by E. C. Clarke, J. M. Dillon and J. P. Hershbell. Atlanta 2003. (Writings from the Greco-Roman World 4). John of Damascus Homiliae in nativitatem et dormitionem S. Jean Damascène, Homélies sur la nativité et la dormition. Texte grec, introduction, traduction et notes par P. Voulet. Paris 1961. (SC 80). Olympiodorus In Platonis Alcibiadem Olympiodorus, Commentary on the first Alcibiades of Plato. Critical Text and Indices by L. G. Westerink. Amsterdam 1956. Olympiodorus. Life of Plato and On Plato First Alcibiades 1-9. Translated by M. Griffin. London – New York 2015. Oracula Chaldaica Oracles Chaldaïques avec un choix de commentaires anciens. Texte établi et traduit par É. des Places. Paris 1971. Troisième tirage revue et corrigé par A.P. Segonds 1996. Origenes Homiliae in Ezechielem Origenes, Werke. VIII: Homilien zu Samuel I, zum Hohelied und zu den Propheten. Kommentar zum Hohelied. In Rufins und Hieronymus’ Übersetzungen. Herausgegeben von W. A. Baehrens. Leipzig 1925. (GCS 33).

Pagan Prophecy and Prediction of the Future

189

Philoponus In Aristotelis De anima Ioannis Philoponi in Aristotelis de anima libros Commentaria edidit M. Hayduck. Berlin 1897. (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 15). Philoponus, On Aristotle On the Soul 1.1-2. Translated by P. J. van der Eijk. London – New York 2005. In Aristotelis Categorias Philoponi (olim Ammonii) in Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium edidit A. Busse. Berlin 1898. (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 13, 1). De aeternitate mundi contra Proclum Joannes Philoponus, De aeternitate mundi contra Proclum. Edidit H. Rabe. Leipzig 1899. Philoponus, Against Proclus On the Eternity of the World 1-5. Translated by M. Share. London – New York 2004. Philoponus, Against Proclus On the Eternity of the World 6-8. Translated by M. Share. London – New York 2005. De opificio mundi Joannis Philoponi De opificio mundi libri VII. Recensuit W. Reichardt. Leipzig 1897. Johannes Philoponos, De opificio mundi. Über die Erschaffung der Welt. Übersetzt und eingeleitet von C. Scholten. I-III. Freiburg im Breisgau 1997. Porphyry Epistula ad Anebonem Porphyre, Lettre à Anébon l’Égyptien. Texte établi, traduit et commenté par H. D. Saffrey et A.-P. Segonds. Paris 2012. De philosophia ex oraculis haurienda Porphyrii de philosophia ex oraculis haurienda librorum reliquiae. Edidit G. Wolff. Berlin 1856. Porphyrii philosophi fragmenta edidit A. Smith. Fragmenta Arabica D. Wasserstein interpretante. Stuttgart – Leipzig 1993. Proclus De providentia Procli opuscula ed. H. Boese. Procli Diadochi tria opuscula (De providentia, libertate, malo) Latine Guilelmo de Moerbeka vertente et Graece ex Isaaci Sebastocratoris aliorumque scriptis collecta. Berlin 1960. In Platonis Rempublicam Procli Diadochi in Platonis Rem Publicam commentarii. Edidit G. Kroll. I-II Leipzig 1899-1901. (repr. Amsterdam 1965). Suda

Suidae Lexicon edidit A. Adler. IV Leipzig 1935.

190

Claudio Schiano

Theodorus Studita Epistulae Theodori Studitae epistulae. Recensuit G. Fatouros. II Berlin – New York 1992. (Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae 32/2). Zacharias of Mytilene Ammonius Zacaria Scolastico, Ammonio. Introduzione, testo critico, traduzione, commentario a cura di M. Minniti Colonna. Napoli 1973. Vita Severi Sévère patriarche d’Antioche (512-518), Textes syriaques publiés, traduits et annotés par M.-A. Kugener. Première partie : Vie de Sévère, par Zacharie le Scholastique. Paris 1904. (Patrologia Orientalis II.1). Two Early Lives of Severos, Patriarch of Antioch. Translated with an introduction and notes by S. Brock and B. Fitzgerald. Liverpool 2013. 2 Secondary literature Addey, C.: Divination and Theurgy in Neoplatonism. Oracles of the gods. Farnham – Burlington (Vt.) 2014. Agosti, G.: “Annotazioni per uno studio letterario degli Oracoli Caldaici.” In: Bottari, F. - Casarsa, L. - Cristante, L. - Fernandelli, L. (ed.): Dignum laude virum. Studi di cultura classica e musica offerti a Franco Serpa. Trieste 2011. 3-25. Athanassiadi, Damascius  Damascius. Athanassiadi, P.: “Persecution and Response in Late Paganism: The Evidence of Damascius.” JHS 113 (1993) 1-29. Athanassiadi, P.: “Dreams, Theurgy, and Freelance Divination: The Testimony of Iamblichus.” JRS 83 (1993) 115-130. Aujolat, N.: “The Pneuma and the Luminous Body of the Soul According to the Prologue of John Philoponus’ Commentaire sur le De Anima d’Aristote.” ByzSlav 59 (1998) 1-23. Blank - Kretzmann  Ammonius. Chadwick, H.: “Philoponus the Christian Theologian.” In: Sorabji (ed.): Philoponus. 83-96. Chuvin, P.: A Chronicle of the Last Pagans. Translated by B. A. Archer. Cambridge – London 1990. van der Eijk  Philoponus. Elweskiöld, B.: John Philoponus against Cosmas Indicopleustes. A Christian Controversy on the Structure of the World in Sixth-Century Alexandria. Doctoral Dissertation. Lund 2005. Finamore, J. F.: Iamblichus and the Theory of the Vehicle of the Soul. Chico 1985. Frankfurter, D.: Religion in Roman Egypt. Assimilation and Resistance. Princeton 1998. Griffin  Olympiodorus. Haas, C.: Alexandria in Late Antiquity. Topography and Social Conflict. Baltimore 1997.

Pagan Prophecy and Prediction of the Future

191

Hoffmann, P.: “Φάος et τόπος: le fragment 51 (v. 3) des Places (p. 28 Kroll) des Oracles Chaldaïques selon Proclus et Simplicius (Corollarium de loco).” In: Lecerf, A. - Saudelli, L. - Seng, H. (ed.): Oracles Chaldaïques: fragments et philosophie. Heidelberg 2014. 101-152. (Bibliotheca Chaldaica 4). Kroll, W.: De oraculis Chaldaicis. Breslau 1894. (repr. Hildesheim 1962). (BphA VII 1). Lewy, H.: Chaldaean Oracles and Theurgy. Mysticism Magic and Platonism in the Later Roman Empire. Paris ³2011. MacCoull, L. S. B.: “The Monophysite Angelology of John Philoponus.” Byzantion 65 (1995) 388-395. Majercik, R.: The Chaldean Oracles. Text, Translation, and Commentary, Leiden – New York 1989. Nieto Ibáñez, J. M.: Cristianismo y profecías de Apolo. Los oráculos paganos en la Patrística griega (siglos II-V). Madrid 2010. Pingree, D.: “Political Horoscopes from the Reign of Zeno.” DOP 30 (1976) 133150. Reichardt  Philoponus. Saffrey, H. D.: “Le chrétien Jean Philopon et la survivance de l’école d’Alexandrie.” RÉG 67 (1954) 396-410. Scholten, C.: Antike Naturphilosophie und christliche Kosmologie in der Schrift »De opificio mundi« des Johannes Philoponos. Berlin – New York 1996. Scholten, Philoponos  Philoponus. Seng, H.: „OC 216 (dubium) des Places – Fragmentum Orphicum 353 Kern. Probleme und Interpretationen.“ In: Van den Kerchove, A. - Soares Santoprete, L. G. (ed.): Gnose et manichéisme entre les oasis d’Égypte à la Route de la Soie. Hommage à Jean-Daniel Dubois. Turnhout 2017. 813-828. (Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études – Sciences Religieuses 176). Share  Philoponus, On the Eternity of the World 1-5. Sheppard, A.: “Iamblichus on Inspiration: De mysteriis 3.4-8.” In: Blumenthal, H. J. - Clark, E. G. (ed.): The Divine Iamblichus. Philosopher and Man of Gods. London 1993. 138-143. Smith  Porphyry. Sorabji, R.: Matter, Space and Motion. Theories in Antiquity and Their Sequel. London 1988. Sorabji, R.: “The ancient commentators on Aristotle.” In: Sorabji (ed.) Aristotle Transformed. 1-30. Sorabji, R. (ed.): Aristotle Transformed. The Ancient Commentators and Their Influence. Ithaca (NY) 1990. Sorabji, R.: “Boethius, Ammonius and their different Greek backgrounds.” In: Blank - Kretzmann 16-23. Sorabji, R.: “Divine names and sordid deals in Ammonius’ Alexandria.” In: Smith, A. (ed.): The Philosopher and Society in Late Antiquity. Essays in Honour of Peter Brown. Swansea 2005. 203-213. Sorabji, R.: “John Philoponus”. In: Sorabji, R. (ed.) Philoponus. 41-81. Sorabji, R. (ed.): Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science. London ²2010.

192

Claudio Schiano

Thiel, R.: “Die Transformation der Theurgie im christlichen Alexandria des 6. Jahrhunderts nach Christus.” In: Seng, H. - Soares Santoprete, L. G. Tommasi, C. O. (ed.): Formen und Nebenformen des Platonismus in der Spätantike. Heidelberg 2016. 403-418. Tissi, L. M.: “Late Antique Oracles: Samples of ἀσάφεια or σαφήνεια?” In: García, J. V. - Ruiz, A. (ed.): Poetic Languages and Religion in Greece and Rome. Cambridge 2013. 207-221. Van Roey, A.: “Un traité cononite contre la doctrine de Jean Philopon sur la résurrection.” In: ΑΝΤΙΔΩΡΟΝ. Hommage à Maurits Geerard. Wetteren 1984. I 123-139. Verrycken, K.: “The Development of Philoponus’ Thought and Its Chronology.” In: Sorabji, R. (ed.): Aristotle Transformed. 233-274. Westerink, L. G.: “Ein astrologisches Kolleg aus dem Jahre 564.” ByzZ 64 (1971) 621. Westerink, L. G.: “The Alexandrian commentators and the introductions to their commentaries.” In: Sorabji (ed.), Aristotle Transformed 325-348. Westerink, Olympiodorus  Olympiodorus. Wolff  Porphyry.

Laura Carrara

The Tübingen Theosophy: Some Philological Notes on Chronology and Structure 1 Setting the scene: The Theosophy and the Tübingen Theosophy The so-called Tübingen Theosophy (henceforth abbreviated as Theos.) is in part (from the beginning up to Theos. § 6 Erbse = προοίμιον 1 Beatrice) a summary of, partly (in the main body) a sequence of excerpts from a late antique Greek treatise entitled Theosophy (Θεοσοφία).1 The Tübingen Theosophy draws its modern name from the German city, whose University Library owns the only surviving manuscript (Codex Tubingensis Mb 27, from the sixteenth century);2 the title given to the work in this manuscript (f. 67r) is χρησμοὶ τῶν Ἑλληνικῶν θεῶν, “Oracles of the Greek gods”. The original Theosophy is, however, largely lost.3 The Theosophy included four volumes (βιβλία) and was apparently meant to complete a work entitled On the Right Faith (περὶ τῆς ὀρθῆς πίστεως), itself in seven books.4 All this information is given 1

As I was finalizing this article, the sad news reached me that Paola Tomé, a former PhD colleague at the Ca’ Foscari University of Venice and a committed scholar and teacher, prematurely passed away. She would have taken pleasure in the eventful story of codex Tubingensis Mb 27; this article is dedicated to her memory. All dates are A. D. Unless otherwise indicated, translations from the Greek are my own. 2 This manuscript is a partial apographon of the codex Argentoratensis gr. 9, now lost (the Tübingen Theosophy occupies ff. 67r-87r). The history of this manuscript is eventful in the extreme and cannot be dealt with here in detail. I refer readers to my treatment of the matter in Carrara - Männlein Robert 110-115 and Carrara 32-60, where the relevant bibliography can be found; see also below, p. 208. 3 But not completely; see on this below, p. 207 n. 66. 4 Beatrice, “Pagan Wisdom ...” 405.416 (cf. also Beatrice, Theosophia xvi.xlvi) calls the Theosophy “a justificatory appendix” to the treatise On the Right Faith, following and quoting Nock 163 (“une sorte d’appendice justificative”). Like the majority of scholars, I take περὶ τῆς ὀρθῆς πίστεως to be the title of the treatise preceding the Theosophy (cf. also Beatrice, Theosophia xlvii); however, it could also be an indi-

194

Laura Carrara

by the person (henceforth ‘the excerptor’) who put together the Tübingen Theosophy in the introduction to the work:5 ὁ τὸ βιβλίον συγγεγραφώς, ὅπερ ἐπιγέγραπται ΘΕΟΣΟΦΙΑ, διαλαμβάνει κατ’ αὐτὸ τὸ προοίμιον, ὅτι συνέγραψε μὲν πρότερον ἑπτὰ βιβλία περὶ τῆς ὀρθῆς πίστεως· ἄρτι δὲ τὸ ὄγδοον καὶ τὰ ἐφεξῆς συγγράφει κτλ. The man who has written the book which is entitled Theosophy exposes, in the very same proem, that he first wrote seven books On the Right Faith, then book eight and the following etc.

Of the bulk of the Theosophy, the excerpts preserved in the Tübingen Theosophy make up only a rather small percentage.6 They are usually divided in 91 paragraphs.7 In present times, scholarly interest in both the Tübingen Theosophy and the Theosophy is steadily increasing. As for the former, two new translations with commentaries have recently been published.8 As for the latter, an impressive Gesamtrekonstruktion has been published by Pier Franco Beatrice; to the excerpts preserved in the Tübingen Theosophy, he added several other layers of tradition coming from other late antique and byzantine works and belonging, in his opinion, to the Theosophy.9 Furthermore, moving from the widespread classification of the Theosophy as a product of late antique Alexandrian scholarship,10 cation of the book’s content (so von Fritz 2249, Mango 201 “seven books about the right faith”). 5 Theos. § 1, 2-5 Erbse = ἐπιτομή 1 Beatrice. 6 On the qualitative and quantitative relationship between excerpt and original see below, p. 204-210. 7 This division goes back to the editio princeps by Karl Buresch and has been maintained by Erbse, Fragmente 167-191 and Erbse, Theosophorum 1-56. It is still standard (cf. Alpi - Le Boulluec 297; Suárez de la Torre 131 prefers as a reference edition the one by Beatrice, Theosophia, which applies a new disposition to the material) and is intrinsic to the text as transmitted in the manuscript, where almost each new excerpt is introduced by the particle ὅτι, ‘that’, cf. Tissi, “Questioni ...” 253 n. 26. 8 Gli oracoli degli dèi greci by Tissi, Die Tübinger Theosophie by Carrara Männlein-Robert. There is also a full (though not always precise) French translation in van Kasteel 249-270. 9 Such as the Oracle of Baalbek for book three (= book ten) and the Excerpta Latina Barbari for the final chronicle, cf. Beatrice, Theosophia xiv-xix, Beatrice, “Traditions ...” 116.119f., Beatrice, “Das Orakel ...”185-187. 10 This opinion is based inter alia on the analysis of the text of the Biblical quotations in Theos. § 6 Erbse = προοίμιον 6 Beatrice and Theos. § 58 Erbse = II 5

The Tübingen Theosophy

195

Beatrice has suggested identifying its author with the famous Miaphysite theologian Severus of Sozopolis (465–538), who, before becoming bishop of Antioch in 512, had studied in Alexandria.11 Beatrice’s proposals have been met with mixed responses.12 For now, only a (loose) agreement on the date of composition of the Theosophy (around 500) can be said to have been reached.13 There is much less discussion of this kind about the Tübingen Theosophy. This article aims at contributing to a better understanding of this excerpt, focusing on its chronology (in section 2) and structure (in section 3). 2 Chronology of the Tübingen Theosophy (with a remark concerning its provenance) With reference to the date of its composition, a quick way to refer to the Tübingen Theosophy would be to call it a “Byzantine epitome”14 and its Beatrice which follow the Alexandrian text type of the Old Testament: cf. Buresch 91 n. 1, Erbse, Fragmente 3 n. 7, Erbse, Theosophorum XIV, Busine, Paroles 399 n. 129 and Busine, “Théosophie ...” 1129f., with further literature. Against this and other ‘Egyptian’ arguments cf. Fowden 181 n. 129. For the Alexandrian origin of the Theosophy cf. also Tissi, “Questioni ...”, on the strength of cultural and formal arguments. 11 Beatrice, Theosophia xlv-xlviii, Beatrice, “Pagan Wisdom ...” 416-418, Beatrice, “Traditions ...” 120-122, Beatrice, “Das Orakel ...” 187-189. 12 Cf. the cautious review of Beatrice’s edition by Alpi - Le Boulluec, followed by Busine, Paroles 399f.; cf. also Tissi, „Questioni ...” 252. For a more positive judgment of Beatrice’s work cf. Graf 64, Suárez de la Torre 131-133. 13 The starting point for chronological speculations about the Theosophy is the information given in Theos. § 2 Erbse = ἐπιτομή 2 Beatrice (the chronicle which concluded the work ended with the reign of Emperor Zeno, 474-491: this is a safe terminus post quem) and Theos. § 3 Erbse = ἐπιτομή 3 Beatrice (millenarian expectations, which became virulent around 500). Beyond this, there is no consensus among scholars. Beatrice, Theosophia xl-xlii, followed by Suárez de la Torre 130; 145 n. 56, argues for a composition date during the reign of Zeno’s successor Anastasius (491-518), and more precisely between 496 and 502/4. Neumann, “Heraclitea” 605, Neumann in Buresch 90, Erbse, Theosophorum XIV, Zuntz 67 favour the reign of Zeno himself. Mras 80, von Fritz 2249, Erbse, Fragmente 3 refer to the time span between 474 and 501 (or 507/8). Gallavotti, “Planudea (VIII)” 15 believes in a date preceding the Henotikon (482). For a later date, cf. Robert 568 (“le dernier quart du VIe siècle” – but this is perhaps a slip or a typo). 14 So Beatrice, “Pagan Wisdom ...” 403, cf. Beatrice, “Das Orakel ...” 186 n. 42 (“die byzantinische Inhaltsangabe”), Alpi - Le Boulluec 296 (“le prologue de l’épitomé

196

Laura Carrara

author a “Byzantine epitomator”.15 This is indisputably correct, but still rather vague, since the adjective ‘byzantine’ implies, at least potentially, a time span of roughly ten centuries (ca. 500 until 1453). Assuming a date of around 500 for the Theosophy, one could also call this work “byzantine”.16 Whenever an attempt at dating the Tübingen Theosophy is made, it is said that it was composed after the so-called Council in Trullo, celebrated in 692 in the domed hall (hence its name, τροῦλλος or -ον meaning in Byzantine Greek ‘dome, cupola’) of the imperial palace of Constantinople at the initiative of Justinian II.17 This view of the chronology was first put forward by Karl J. Neumann (who discovered the codex Mb 27 in the Tübingen Library) at the end of the nineteenth century18 and is today, together with Neumann’s supporting argumentation, communis opinio.19 I think it is time for a fresh look at the evidence. Neumann based his dating of the Tübingen Theosophy on the following argument. In introducing his work, the excerptor says of the author of the Theosophy that he20

byzantin”), Busine, Paroles 398 (“un epitome byzantin”), Tissi, “Questioni ...” 249 (“un’epitome bizantina”). 15 Mango 201, Graf 65, Suárez de la Torre 132. It would be better to refer to him as ‘the excerptor’, cf. Zuntz 66. Zuntz 67 refrains from dating: “der Excerptor (unbestimmten Datums)”. 16 Saffrey 2 “une Théosophie byzantine”. 17 This council, known also as ‘Quinisext Council’, produced 102 canons, almost exclusively concerning Church discipline. They have been published thrice in recent times: by Nedungatt - Featherstone in 1995, by Nedungatt - Agrestini in 2006 and by Ohme in 2013. For a reappraisal of the council from a theological and canonical point of view cf. Nedungatt - Agrestini 205-215, Nedungatt 659-676, and the contributions in Nedungatt - Featherstone and Constantelos. 18 Neumann in Buresch 89f. Neumann was the first to make a copy of the text of the Tübingen Theosophy from the Tübingen manuscript, cf. Neumann, “Ueber eine den Brief an Diognet enthaltende Tübinger Handschrift ...”. He left his collation, together with some additional notes, to Buresch, who edited it, see above, n. 7. 19 Accepted or repeated, for example, by von Fritz 2249, Gallavotti, “Planudea (VII)” 16, Beatrice, “Traditions ...” 114, Beatrice, Theosophia xvi, Busine, Paroles 398, Tissi, “Questioni ...” 249 n. 2. In his critical apparatus to Theos. § 4, Erbse, Theosophorum 2 is cautious on Neumann’s inference (“παρεγγράπτων Excerptor iudicium suum significare putatur. cf. Buresch 89 sq.; neque tamen hoc pro certo affirmari potest”) – rightly so, in my opinion. 20 Theos. § 4, 32-35 Erbse = ἐπιτομή 4 Beatrice.

The Tübingen Theosophy

197

μέμνηται δὲ καθεξῆς καὶ βιβλίων τινῶν παρεγγράπτων ἤτοι διαθήκης τινὸς τοῦ κυρίου καὶ διατάξεων τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων καὶ γεννήσεως καὶ ἀναλήψεως τῆς ἀχράντου δεσποίνης ἡμῶν θεοτόκου. also mentions in succession certain intrusive books, namely a certain Testament of the Lord and the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles and the Birth and the Assumption of our undefiled Lady, Mother of God.

The second canon of the Council in Trullo deals (critically) with one of the works cited in this paragraph of the Tübingen Theosophy, the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles:21 Ἐπειδὴ δ’ ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις κανόσιν ἐντέταλται δέχεσθαι ἡμᾶς τὰς τῶν αὐτῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων διὰ Κλήμεντος διατάξεις, αἷστισι πάλαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἑτεροδόξων ἐπὶ λύμῃ τῆς ἐκκλησίας νόθα τινὰ καὶ ξένα τῆς εὐσεβείας παρενετέθησαν, τὸ εὐπρεπὲς κάλλος τῶν θείων δογμάτων ἡμῖν ἀμαυρώσαντα, τὴν τῶν τοιούτων διατάξεων προσφόρως ἀποβολῆν πεποιήμεθα πρὸς τὴν τοῦ χριστιανικωτάτου ποιμνίου οἰκοδομὴν καὶ ἀσφάλειαν, οὐδαμῶς ἐγκρίνοντες τὰ τῆς αἱρετικῆς ψευδολογίας κυήματα, καὶ τῇ γνησίᾳ τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ ὁλοκλήρῳ διδαχῇ παρενείροντες. But whereas we are commanded in these canons [sc. the eighty-five canons known as Apostolic Canons]22 to accept the constitutions of the same Holy Apostles transmitted by Clement, in which certain spurious passages, foreign to true piety, have been inserted to the detriment of the Church by heretics, obscuring from us the comely beauty of divine doctrines; we have accordingly rejected these constitutions, for the edification and security of the most Christian flock, in no wise admitting the notions of heretical falsehood, nor inserting them in the genuine and perfect teaching of the Apostles.

This passage was interpreted by Neumann to show that the conciliar fathers gathered in Trullo judged – and judged for the first time – the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles to be what the Tübingen Theosophy says they are in § 4: ‘intrusive books’ (in Greek παρέγγραπτα βιβλία – concretely, books illegally registered under the name of the Apostles 21

Canon II p. 65, 7-23 Nedungatt - Featherstone = p. 24, 6-13 Ohme = 420-435 (p. 229) Nedungatt - Agrestini. The English translation is by Nedungatt - Featherstone 65. On the Constitutions of the (Holy) Apostles cf. Steimer 114-133. 22 The Apostolic Canons are the subject of the previous paragraph and are accepted there as legally binding, cf. Nedungatt 667. The reference at the beginning of Canon II is to the last canon of the Apostolic Canons, about the Sacred Texts (n° 85). On the Apostolic Canons cf. Ceccarelli Morolli “Alcune riflessioni ...”, Steimer 87-94, Constantelos 35.

198

Laura Carrara

and erroneously inserted in the catalogue of their works).23 Since the author of the Theosophy postdated the Emperor Zeno (reigned 474-491) by no more than a generation24 and could not possibly know of the Trullanum (held, as already said, in 692), the adjective παρεγγράπτων must go back, according to Neumann, to the excerptor, who wrote this paragraph with the Trullanum and its pronouncements in mind. In my opinion, this reconstruction starts from a slight, but important, misunderstanding of the meaning of the second canon of the Trullanum. In this canon, the conciliar fathers did not reject the work called Constitutions of the Holy Apostles on the due to its pseudo-epigraphy tout court.25 On the contrary, they believed in the apostolic origin of (the first bulk) of the Constitutions (they openly call it “the genuine and perfect teaching of the Apostles”, τῇ γνησίᾳ τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ ὁλοκλήρῳ διδαχῇ); what they rejected was the later, adulterated form of the work, into which heretical material had been inserted.26 As Bruno Steimer rightly puts it:27 Im can 2 des Trullanums (692/93) [...] wurden die CA [sc. the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles], an deren apostolischer Herkunft man insgesamt zwar nicht zweifeln mochte, wegen offensichtlicher Verfälschungen durch nicht näher bekannte Häretiker dennoch verworfen.

The whole reasoning of the fathers in Trullo in their second canon would not make any sense had they not have taken for granted the apostolic origin of the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles. The issue in Theos. § 4 Erbse = ἐπιτομή 4 Beatrice is different: this paragraph speaks of the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles as being παρέγγραπτα βιβλία, that is, books transmitted in the corpus and under the name of a certain 23

On this false attribution cf. Ceccarelli Morolli “Alcune riflessioni ...” 151.155.158. See above, p. 195 n. 13. 25 That is, rejected them after discovering that the Constitutions claimed the Apostles as their author, but were not by them. 26 Steimer 90, Nedungatt - Agrestini 209, Ceccarelli Morolli, “I canoni ...” 32: “furono, invece, rigettate le «Costituzioni Apostoliche» (forse la versione circolante in Costantinopoli allora non convinceva i padri conciliari)” – the problem concerns more the available version of the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles than their authorship. That the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles really are, like the Apostolic Canons, pseudepigraphical goes without saying; the fathers were probably led to believe the opposite by the fact that the apostolic ‘literary fiction’ is consistently maintained through the text, cf. Steimer 119.129-133. 27 Steimer 122. 24

The Tübingen Theosophy

199

author (in this case the Apostles), but not actually written by him. This is a problem of literary authorship, not a question of theological legitimacy and practical applicability as in the second canon of the Trullanum. To put the difference another way: the man who called the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles παρέγγραπτα βιβλία grasped what the conciliar father did not, namely that no single word in the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, and not only the heretical κυήματα, originates with the Apostles. Another aspect deserving consideration in Theos. § 4 Erbse = ἐπιτομή 4 Beatrice is that the definition παρέγγραπτα βιβλία applies there not only to the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, but also to three other Early Christian works: the Testament of the Lord (διαθήκης ... τοῦ κυρίου), the Birth and the Assumption of the Virgin Mary (γεννήσεως καὶ αναλήψεως τῆς ἀχράντου δεσποίνης ἡμῶν θεοτόκου). The Trullanum has nothing to say about them – but another Christian document, this time coming from the Western part of the Empire, does. The fifth and last chapter of the famous Decretum Gelasianum de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis28 gives a long list of works which “the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church by no means receives” (nullatenus recipit catholica et apostolica Romana ecclesia) because they are “apocryphal” (apocrypha). This list includes, among many others, the titles Transitus sanctae Mariae and Evangelium nomine Iacobi minoris.29 The Transitus is one of the possible Latin titles of the work Assumption of the Virgin Mary mentioned in Theos. § 4 Erbse = ἐπιτομή 4 Beatrice as Ἀναλήψεως τῆς ἀχράντου δεσποίνης κτλ.30 The Evangelium Iacobi, better known today under the label of Protoevangelium of James,31 originally bore the (Greek) title Γένεσις Μαρίας (this is attested by the earliest text witness, the Papyrus Bodmer V)32 and 28

For a brief presentation of the Gelasian Decree cf. Schneemelcher in Hennecke 4649, Mimouni 123f. 29 271 (p. 11.50) von Dobschütz: Evangelium; 296 (p. 12.53) von Dobschütz: Transitus. 30 For the equivalence between the Latin title Transitus and the Greek Ἀνάληψις cf. Neumann in Buresch 90, Batiffol 180, von Dobschütz 303f. On the work itself cf. Beatrice, “Traditions ...” 113-115 with further literature, Mango 201 n. 7. 31 Von Dobschütz 294f. On the Protoevangelium of James cf. Cullman in Hennecke 370-388 (presentation and English translation of the text), Testuz (editio princeps of the papyrus), de Strycker (edition of the papyrus with accompanying studies). 32 The papyrus title runs in its full form ΓΕΝΕΣΙΣ ΜΑΡΙΑΣ ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΠΣΙΣ ΙΑΚΩΒ, cf. Testuz 12f. (introduction), 30 (text), de Strycker 64 (text), 211f. (commentary).

200

Laura Carrara

may be identical with the Birth of the Virgin Mary (Γέννησις κτλ.) mentioned in Theos. § 4 Erbse = ἐπιτομή 4 Beatrice.33 The fifth part of the Gelasian Decree is pseudepigraphical itself, having not actually been written by Pope Gelasius (492-496). However, it belongs to the decades between the fifth and sixth century; it is thus roughly contemporary with the Theosophy. The Gelasian Decree is relevant here because it shows that reflections on the formation of the canon and on the status of the writings transmitted by the Tradition were already widespread in the Early Church, long before the eighth century. This loosens the connection between the adjective παρεγγράπτων in Theos. § 4 Erbse = ἐπιτομή 4 Beatrice and the second canon of the Trullanum: the adjective in question needs not to have waited for the conciliar pronouncement, all the more so since παρεγγράπτων and the conciliar canon do not refer exactly to the same issue.34 With that said, I would like to explore the idea of the adjective παρεγγράπτων in Theos. § 4 Erbse = ἐπιτομή 4 Beatrice originating not in the excerptor, as has generally been maintained,35 but in the author of the Theosophy. The implication of this change of perspective is that we should be ready to regard this author, a contemporary of the emperors Zeno and Anastasius,36 as educated and knowledgeable enough of Christian literature to realize that the Testament of the Lord, the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles and the two Marian works were 33

For this identification, cf. Neumann in Buresch 89f., Batiffol 180, Beatrice, “Traditions ...” 113, more cautious Alpi - Le Boulluec 297. 34 See above, p. 150f.; nor do Theos. § 4 Erbse = ἐπιτομή 4 Beatrice and the Gelasian Decree hold the same opinion on the works Transitus/Ἀνάληψις and Evangelium/ Γέννησις. With reference to the Ἀνάληψις, Beatrice, “Traditions ...” 114 writes that “celle-ci fut jugée, deux siècles plus tard [sc. later that the Theosophy], comme «apocryphe» par le pieux auteur byzantin de l’épitomé. Ce dernier avait été précédé par l’auteur latin anonyme du soi-disant Decretum Gelasianum etc.”. In so doing (apart from attributing παρεγγράπτων to the excerptor; see above, p. 198), Beatrice equates the pseudo-epigraphy with the qualification as apocrypha – but the two categories are not interchangeable. Pseudoepigrapha are texts written in the name of an author other than the real one (mostly an older or more reputed); apocrypha are texts that have to be ‘hidden away’, that is rejected, and do not enter into the canon. Pseudo-epigraphy might be the main reason for rejection, but is not ipso facto synonymous with it. On the category of apocrypha in Early Christian literature cf. Junod. 35 See above, n. 19 and n. 34. 36 See above, p. 195 n 13.

The Tübingen Theosophy

201

pseudepigraphical.37 Such an assumption does, in my view, not seem problematic. A man of ostensibly vast erudition such as the author of the Theosophy could well have had and have voiced his personal opinions concerning the nature and authorship of Early Christian writings, independently both of the roughly contemporary (but in the East of the Empire quite unknown)38 Gelasian Decree and a fortiori of the later Council in Trullo.39 The attribution of the adjective παρεγγράπτων to the author of the Theosophy, and not to the excerptor, could furthermore be suggested by a textual detail that has hitherto gone unnoticed. This is the inclusion of the indefinite pronoun τινός in the title Testament of the Lord in Theos. § 4 Erbse = ἐπιτομή 4 Beatrice (διαθήκης τινὸς τοῦ κυρίου, “a certain Testament of the Lord”). It is indeed quite strange that the same writer – the excerptor, according to the communis opinio – who was able to recognize the pseudo-epigraphy of four works of Early Christian literature and write about it by choosing a most appropriate, almost technical adjective (παρεγγράπτων), should then call one of them “a c e r t a i n Testament of the Lord” – as if he suddenly did not know what he was talking about anymore. This incongruity disappears if we assign the vague τινός to the excerptor, the judgment on pseudo-epigraphy to the author of the Theosophy. In this new scenario, the excerptor found the expression παρέγγραπτα βιβλία in the Theosophy and adopted it; he himself had only imperfect knowledge (or possibly no knowledge at all) of the work called Testament of the Lord (nor probably of the other three Early Christian writings mentioned in the same context): this is why he referred to it an indefinite way (“a c e r t a i n Testament of the Lord”). In this interpretation, Theos. § 4 Erbse = ἐπιτομή 4 Beatrice becomes one of those passages in the Tübingen Theosophy where the ‘voices’ of the original author (responsible for παρεγγράπτων) and of the excerptor (responsible for τινός) are intertwined. This conclusion is fully in accordance with the tendency towards a more open and polyphonic

37

Which means, concretely, to recognize that, for example, the Testament of the Lord is not what it pretends to be (a genuine transcription of the commands given by Jesus to the Apostles after the Resurrection) but a later work falsely circulating under the holy name of the Lord. On the Testament of the Lord cf. Steimer 95-105, Beatrice, “Traditions ...” 111-113. 38 Cf. Mimouni 128. 39 Scholars need wait neither for indices librorum prohibitorum nor for conciliar decrees in order to make up their minds about such matters.

202

Laura Carrara

reading of the Tübingen Theosophy which is gaining traction in modern scholarship.40 To summarize my argument so far: the common belief that the excerpt today known as Tübingen Theosophy postdates the Constantinopolitan Council in Trullo (692) rests on shaky ground, since the often-quoted evidence taken from Theos. § 4 Erbse = ἐπιτομή 4 Beatrice – the mention of four Early Christian writings as pseudepigraphical books (παρεγγράπτων βιβλίων) – is open to another explanation and does not necessarily presuppose the activity of the excerptor. Moving now from the terminus post quem to the terminus ad quem of the Tübingen Theosophy: even if the traditional interpretation of παρεγγράπτων in Theos. § 4 Erbse = ἐπιτομή 4 Beatrice were to be preferred, it should be evident that it gives only the earliest possible date for the excerpt (the year of the Council in Trullo) and has no implication at all regarding the last possible date of composition. Recent scholarship tends, however, towards a date for the Tübingen Theosophy (and, consequently, the birth-and-death dates of the excerptor) within the eighth century41 (that is, the century following the Trullanum), to the exclusion of all following centuries, including the ages of zealous excerptors such as Photius, the 9th century Patriarch of Constantinople,42 and the scholars involved in the making of the Excerpta Constantiniana (10th century).43 Such chronological narrowing seems to me unwarranted. The only certain terminus ante quem for the Tübingen Theosophy is late, being Maximus Planudes’ acquaintance with it in the 1280s. Thanks to the studies of Carlo Gallavotti,44 it is known that Planudes copied in his manuscript Laurentianus Plut. 32.16 (ff. 381v-382v) a short collection 40

Cf. Männlein-Robert, “Die Theosophia ...” 6f. on Theos. § 19 Erbse = I 16 Beatrice (theosophist) and Theos. § 20 = I 17 Beatrice (excerptor?) and MännleinRobert, “Stimmen ...”. A very similar ‘fusion of voices’ is to be found, in my opinion, in Theos. § 2, 16f. Erbse = ἐπιτομή 2 Beatrice χρήσεις Ὑστάσπου τινὸς βασιλέως Περσῶν ἢ Χαλδαίων: τινὸς reflects the excerptor’s (low) degree of acquaintance with Hystaspes. 41 Cf. Beatrice, “Pagan Wisdom ...” 404, Beatrice, “Traditions ...” 110, Beatrice, “Diodore ...” 232, Busine, Paroles 397, van Kasteel 115, Busine, “Théosophie ...” 1129. 42 Treadgold 2.114f., Hägg, Photios als Vermittler, Hägg “Photius as a Reader ...” (on Photius as a reader of saints’ Lives), Pfunter (on Photius as a reader of Diodorus Siculus’ Bibliotheca). 43 Odorico 1-14, also Kaldellis 13-15. 44 Gallavotti, “Planudea (II)”, Gallavotti, “Planudea (VIII)”. For details on Planudes’ oracular collection cf. Carrara, “Textüberlieferung” 54-56, with further bibliography.

The Tübingen Theosophy

203

of sixteen oracles bearing the title ἐκ τῆς Θεοσοφίας and comprising § 13.15f.18f.21-29.40.43 Erbse = I 2.4f.15f.18-26; II 40; I 39 Beatrice of the Tübingen Theosophy. Since no single passage copied by Planudes is missing in the Tübingen Theosophy, it is very probable that Planudes’ collection ἐκ τῆς Θεοσοφίας was not directly taken from the late antique Theosophy, but already from its excerpted form, the Tübingen Theosophy.45 If this is corerect, the Tübingen Theosophy demonstrably existed and was circulated in Planudes’ time (second half of the 13th century) and city (Constantinople). This fits in well with the fact that the miscellaneous medieval manuscript carrying, among other things, the text of the Tübingen Theosophy almost certainly came to Central Europe from Constantinople.46 At the current stage of research, the hypothesis of a Constantinopolitan origin of the Tübingen Theosophy is the most probable.47 Anyone wishing to offer a suggestion as to the identity of the author of this excerpt48 would need to search for a personality active in, or at least well connected to, the cultural circles of the imperial capital between the seventh (or the decade between the seventh and the eighth, sticking to the Trullanum as terminus post quem)49 and, at the very latest, the early thirteenth century. The sixth century is, as a composition date for the excerpt, too early, as it is too close to the date of the original Theosophy.50

45

It would be an odd coincidence if Planudes (or his source), with the whole bulk of the Theosophy still available, had ended up copying only oracles also present in the Tübingen Theosophy. 46 This manuscript was later to be kept as codex Argentoratensis gr. 9 in the Strasbourg city library. It went up in flames during the Prussian siege of the city on 24th August 1870: more than four centuries before this, it had found its first home in Central Europe at the Dominican monastery of Basel, Switzerland; see also above, n. 2. 47 For another argument in favor of this cf. Männlein-Robert, “Die Theosophia ...” 7f. on Theos. § 20 Erbse = I 17 Beatrice). 48 Complementary to Beatrice’s guess at the author of the Theosophy (Severus of Antiochia, see above, p. 195 n. 11). 49 See above, p. 196-202. 50 See above, n. 13.

204

Laura Carrara

3 Structure of the Tübingen Theosophy The structure of the Tübingen Theosophy – divided, as said above, into 91 paragraphs in the (still) most common edition51 – must be analyzed in connection with the structure of the lost Theosophy. Important evidence concerning this is provided by the first two paragraphs of the excerpt:52 1. Ὁ τὸ βιβλίον συγγεγραφώς, ὅπερ ἐπιγέγραπται ΘΕΟΣΟΦΙΑ, διαλαμβάνει κατ’ αὐτὸ τὸ προοίμιον, ὅτι συνέγραψε μὲν πρότερον ἑπτὰ βιβλία περὶ τῆς ὀρθῆς πίστεως· ἄρτι δὲ τὸ ὄγδοον καὶ τὰ ἐφεξῆς συγγράφει δεικνὺς τούς τε χρησμοὺς τῶν Ἑλληνικῶν θεῶν καὶ τὰς λεγομένας θεολογίας τῶν παρ’ Ἕλλησι καὶ Αἰγυπτίοις σοφῶν, ἔτι δὲ καὶ τῶν Σιβυλλῶν ἐκείνων ‹τοὺς χρησμοὺς› τῷ σκοπῷ τῆς θείας γραφῆς συνᾴδοντας καὶ ποτὲ μὲν τὸ πάντων αἴτιον καὶ πρωτοστατοῦν, ποτὲ δὲ τὴν ἐν μιᾷ θεότητι παναγίαν τριάδα δηλοῦντας. 2. Ἐν μὲν οὖν τῷ πρώτῳ βιβλίῳ, ὅπερ ἐστὶ πρὸς ‹ὀρθὴν πίστιν› προάγον τὸ ὄγδοον, καὶ τοῖς ἐφεξῆς δυσὶ χρησμῶν τοιούτων μέμνηται καὶ θεολογιῶν. ἐν δὲ τῷ τετάρτῳ ἢ ἑνδεκάτῳ παράγει χρήσεις Ὑστάσπου τινὸς βασιλέως Περσῶν ἢ Χαλδαίων, εὐλαβεστάτου, φησί, γεγονότος καὶ διὰ τοῦτο θείων μυστηρίων ἀποκάλυψιν δεξαμένου περὶ τῆς τοῦ σωτῆρος ἐνανθρωπήσεως· ἐπὶ τέλει δὲ τοῦ τεύχους χρονικὸν συντομώτατον τέθεικεν ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ ἕως τῶν Ζήνωνος χρόνων, ἐν ᾧ καὶ διισχυρίζεται μετὰ τὴν συμπλήρωσιν τοῦ ἑξακισχιλιοστοῦ ἔτους γενήσεσθαι τὴν συντέλειαν. 1. The man who has written the book which bears the title Theosophy exposes, in the very same proem, that he first wrote seven books On the Right Faith, then the eighth and the following, showing that the oracles of the Greek gods and the so-called theologies of the wise men among Greeks and Egyptians, and also ‹the oracles› of the famous Sibyls agree with the goal of the Holy Scripture and reveal at times the principle governing all things, at times the Holy Trinity in one divinity. 2. In the first book, which is the eighth book proceeding in addition to ‹On the Right Faith›, and in the following two, he mentions such oracles and theologies. In the fourth book, which is the eleventh, he introduces the oracular sayings of Hystaspes, a certain king of the Persians or of the Chaldaeans, who, he [sc. the theosophist] says, became very pious and received for this reason the revelation of the divine mysteries about the Incarnation of the Redeemer. At the end of the book, he placed a very brief chronicle running from Adam to the times of Zeno, in which he affirms that after the completion of the sixthousandth year the end of time will come.

Combining the pieces of information spread among these two paragraphs, scholars have been able to outline the original structure of the 51 52

See above, n. 7. Theos. § 1f., 2-23 Erbse = ἐπιτομή 1f. Beatrice.

The Tübingen Theosophy

205

Theosophy in a fairly reliable way.53 After the προοίμιον (mentioned in Theos. § 1, 3 Erbse = ἐπιτομή 1 Beatrice), book eight (counting from the end of the treatise On the Right Faith = book one) of the Theosophy encompassed the oracles of the Greek (pagan) gods.54 The two following books again contained oracles, as well as ‘theologies’.55 The ‘theologies’ are connected to the Greek and Egyptian wise men, the oracles to the Sibyls.56 Assuming that the wise men and the Sibyls occupied one book each, and sticking to the order in which they are mentioned in Theos. § 1, 7f. Erbse = ἐπιτομή 1 Beatrice, it is likely that book nine (= book two) of the Theosophy was dedicated to the wise men, book ten (= book three) to the Sibyls.57 In the eleventh book (= book four) of the Theosophy were placed the oracular sayings (χρήσεις)58 of King Hystaspes.59 The volume (τεῦχος) ended with a world chronicle ranging from Adam to Emperor Zeno, which was too brief to make up a book by itself and acted as a kind of coda or supplement.60 53

Cf. von Fritz 2249, Erbse, Fragmente 2, van den Broek 119, Erbse, Theosophorum XI, Beatrice, Theosophia xvi-xix, Zuntz 66f., Busine, “Théosophie ...” 1130. 54 Theos. § 1, 5f. Erbse τὸ ὄγδοον ... τούς τε χρησμοὺς τῶν Ἑλληνικῶν θεῶν, Theos. § 2, 13-15 Erbse Ἐν μὲν οὖν τῷ πρώτῳ βιβλίῳ, ὅπερ ἐστὶ πρὸς ‹ὀρθὴν πίστιν› προάγον τὸ ὄγδοον ... χρησμῶν τοιούτων. 55 Theos. § 2, 14f. Erbse τὸ ὄγδοον καὶ τοῖς ἐφεξῆς δυσὶ χρησμῶν τοιούτων μέμνηται καὶ θεολογιῶν. 56 Theos. § 1, 7-9 Erbse τὰς λεγομένας θεολογίας τῶν παρ’ Ἕλλησι καὶ Αἰγυπτίοις σοφῶν, ἔτι δὲ καὶ τῶν Σιβυλλῶν ἐκείνων ‹τοὺς χρησμοὺς›. The substantive τοὺς χρησμοὺς, “the oracles”, was added to the genitive τῶν Σιβυλλῶν, “of the Sibyls”, by Buresch 95, as a consequence of the fact that two remarkable Sibylline passages of the Tübingen Theosophy (which is: of the Theosophy, see below, p. 206f.), Theos. § 81 Erbse and Theos. § 83 Erbse, are oracles also occurring in the Oracula Sibyllina. Without Buresch’s τοὺς χρησμοὺς, the genitive τῶν Σιβυλλῶν ἐκείνων would go with the preceding substantive θεολογίας: “theologies of the Greek and Egyptian wise men as well as of the famous Sibyls”. 57 Mras 77, van den Broek 119. 58 The common translation for χρήσεις here is “oracles” (cf. von Fritz 2249, van den Broek 119f., Suárez de la Torre 132, Zuntz 66); Beatrice, “Le livre d’Hystaspe ...”, 361-363 (cf. also Beatrice, Theosophia xviii) has pointed out that χρῆσις is not exactly the same as χρησμός (“oracle”) and prefers the translation “sentence”. The present translation attempts a compromise between the two interpretations. 59 Theos. § 2, 15-17 Erbse ἐν δὲ τῷ τετάρτῳ ἢ ἑνδεκάτῳ παράγει χρήσεις Ὑστάσπου τινὸς βασιλέως Περσῶν ἢ Χαλδαίων. 60 Theos. § 2, 20f. Erbse ἐπὶ τέλει δὲ τοῦ τεύχους χρονικὸν συντομώτατον τέθεικεν ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ ἕως τῶν Ζήνωνος χρόνων. There is no book five of the Theosophy: the table of contents of Busine, “Théosophie ...” 1130 is misleading on this.

206

Laura Carrara

The 91 paragraphs of the Tübingen Theosophy fit quite well in this framework. § 1-7 Erbse = ἐπιτομή 1-5 + προοίμιον 1f. Beatrice paraphrase and reduce (but there is also a verbatim quote, in Theos. § 6 Erbse = προοίμιον 1 Beatrice) the προοίμιον of the Theosophy. § 8-11 Erbse = προοίμιον 3-6 Beatrice are more problematic and have been taken to belong either to the προοίμιον61 or to the main bulk (= the oracular section) of the eighth book (= book one).62 They deal with a case of ‘cross-cultural equivalence’ (Apollon, Helios and Osiris in Theos. § 8 Erbse = προομίον 3 Beatrice) and two authorities (the Jew Aristobulus in Theos. § 10 Erbse = προοίμιον 5 Beatrice, the Greek Diodorus Siculus in Theos. § 11 Erbse = προοίμιον 6 Beatrice) on the issue of the greater antiquity of Jewish culture. These are all topics that help the author of the Theosophy make one of his main points – that there is an agreement between different manifestations of human wisdom – and are thus appropriate for an introductory context.63 Furthermore, these paragraphs are clearly not in the form of oracles; it is thus likely that they were part of the προοίμιον and not of the oracular main section of book eight (= book one). § 12-54 Erbse contain hexameter oracles, with related prose commentaries, and certainly come from the eighth book (= book one) of the Theosophy.64 § 55-74 Erbse contain theological statements of Ancient Greek sages (most notably Orpheus in Theos. § 56, Plato in Theos. § 60.63, Socrates in Theos. § 62; Heraclitus in Theos. § 67-69.74; Diogenes in Theos. § 70-73), with comments and explanations by the theosophist (Theos. § 55.57-59). They may correspond to the θεολογίαι of the Greek and Egyptian wise men that once stood in the ninth book (= book two) of the Theosophy.65 § 75-83 Erbse contain either accounts of the Sibyls and their writings (Theos. § 75f.) or Sibylline verses (Theos. § 80f.83), again with commentaries by 61

Von Fritz 2250, Erbse, Theosophorum XI, Beatrice, Theosophia xvii; 7f., Suárez de la Torre 132. 62 Erbse, Fragmente 2, van den Broek 119, Saffrey 14 “§§ 8-54 oracles des dieux du paganisme grec”. 63 Von Fritz 2250. 64 There is a chance that a few prose commentaries were composed by the excerptor, and so did not feature in the Theosophy at all. A prose passage certainly written by the excerptor is Theos. § 82 Erbse, cf. Erbse, Fragmente 51. On Theos. § 20 Erbse cf. Männlein-Robert, “Die Theosophia ...” 7f. 65 No Egyptian sages appear in Theos. § 55-74 Erbse: The excerptor has probably left them out. Note, however, that Heraclitus is said to speak to Egyptians in Theos. § 69 Erbse.

The Tübingen Theosophy

207

the theosophist (Theos. § 82f.), and may confidently be assigned to the tenth book (= book three) of the Theosophy.66 We are left with the last paragraphs of the Tübingen Theosophy (§ 8491 Erbse), containing brief quotations, mostly metrical, from Greek poets and philosophers (only the anecdote of Porphyry’s alleged abandonment of Christianity in Theos. § 85 is not a quotation, thus interrupting the coherence of the series). Despite their position at the end of the excerpt, it is fairly clear that these paragraphs cannot have been taken from the last book of the Theosophy (book eleven = four), which was dedicated to the oracular sayings of King Hystaspes on the Mystery of the Incarnation67 (they have nothing to do either with Hystaspes or with the Incarnation), still less so from the concluding chronicle. As for the book of Hystaspes and the chronicle, the excerptor has completely omitted them. Looking at the Tübingen Theosophy as a whole, it seems indeed that its author “could not resist the tendency to proceed in an increasingly succinct manner”: he selected several oracles of Greek (pagan) gods (Theos. § 12-54 Erbse), significantly fewer theological statements of Greek sages (Theos. § 55-74 Erbse), still fewer Sibyllina (Theos. § 75-83 Erbse) and nothing from the book of Hystaspes and the chronicle.68 On the one hand, this progressive thinning out of the material is well known from byzantine lexica and encyclopedias (e. g. Hesychius, Photius, the Suda), where the first letter, alpha, always makes up the lion’s share, sometimes counting almost as many entries as all the other letters taken together. It might be that the pagan oracles predominate in the Tübingen Theosophy for a purely mechanical reason: like many byzantine lexicographers (and/or their copyists), the excerptor became increasingly tired in the course of his work and started omitting more and more material. On the other hand, the predominance of the oracles might have more of an intrinsic motivation: the excerptor had a 66

A large section of this book was discovered by Karl Mras in 1906 in one Italian manuscript and is known today as Theosophia Sibyllarum, “Theosophy of the Sibyls” (standard edition in Erbse, Theosophorum 57-90, based on a new text witness). The Theosophia Sibyllarum accommodates all passages also present in Theos. § 75-83 Erbse (with the exception of Theos. § 78 Erbse, written by the excerptor, and § 79 Erbse, on which see below, n. 73.78.81), sometimes at greater length. This coincidence assures that the text discovered by Mras was the model copied and reduced by the Tübingen Theosophy for the sibylline section and thus part of the original Theosophy; for more details cf. Carrara, “Textüberlieferung” 57-60. 67 Erbse, Theosophorum XI. 68 Van den Broek 120, hence also the quotation; cf. also Zuntz 66f. on the excerptor having no interest for Hystaspes.

208

Laura Carrara

particular interest in those texts and set to work with the intention of concentrating on them. He also ended up copying some oracle-like material from books nine and ten (Theos. § 55.81.83 Erbse), but nothing from book eleven. Going back to the problem of the original collocation of Theos. § 8491 Erbse in the Theosophy, three solutions have been suggested so far. Roelof van den Broek has briefly mentioned the possibility that these paragraphs do not belong to the Theosophy at all and that they were added to the excerpt from another source.69 He does not give any evidence for this theory, and there is no apparent reason why the excerptor should have been willing to “contaminate” his model, the Theosophy, which’s design he otherwise demonstrably followed,70 with another source (and without mentioning it). Nonetheless, we should bear in mind that an excerpt – not being, from an authorial point of view, a particularly ‘protected’ kind of text – was potentially liable to absorb additional material of foreign origin, especially towards the end. Kurt von Fritz and Hartmut Erbse assigned § 84-91 of the Tübingen Theosophy to the tenth book (= book three) of the Theosophy.71 To be sure, none of these paragraphs appear in the surviving original part of this book (= Theosophia Sibyllarum) discovered by Karl Mras.72 Nonetheless, it is possible for them to have occurred in one of the two lacunae affecting the text of the Theosophia Sibyllarum (respectively at p. 82/ line 332 and at p. 90/line 459 Erbse, the end of the text).73 Von Fritz perceived a kind of ‘spiritual’ affinity between the last paragraphs of the Tübingen Theosophy, with their poetical quotations about the “Kluft zwischen Gott und den Menschen und die Nichtigkeit des menschlichen Lebens” and the final sentences of the sibylline book of the Theosophy discovered by Mras.74 Erbse observed that the last preserved section of this book targeted specifically “the blindness and the dumbness of the Greek souls”:75 the series of quotations from Greek authors in Theos. § 69

Van den Broek 120. See above, p. 204-206. 71 Von Fritz 2250, Erbse, Fragmente 2 n. 5, Erbse, Theosophorum XI; cf. also van den Broek 120 (as an alternative to his other proposal), Zuntz 67. 72 See above, n. 66. 73 The Pindaric quotation in Theos. § 79 Erbse was also (according to Mras 76; 78 n. 1 and Erbse, Fragmente 29 n. 75; 51) included in one of those lacunae. On Theos. § 79 Erbse see above, n. 78.81. 74 Von Fritz 2251. 75 Theosophia Sibyllarum p. 87, 409f. Erbse Ἡ δὲ Ἐρυθραία προορὤσα τῶν Ἑλληνικῶν ψυχῶν τὸ τυφλὸν καὶ ἄλαλον, cf. also Theosophia Sibyllarum p. 90, 449f. Erbse 70

The Tübingen Theosophy

209

84-91 Erbse could have featured in the (largely lost) section expanding on this, as part of the Sibyl’s attempt to communicate with a Greek (i. e. pagan) audience on its terrain.76 Even if this was the case, the details of the argumentation can no longer be recovered.77 The third possible solution, adopted by Pier Franco Beatrice, consists in attributing § 84-91 Erbse of the Tübingen Theosophy to the ninth book (= book two) of the Theosophy.78 Beatrice does not comment on this, but it is apparent that he regards these paragraphs as akin to the theological sentences belonging to the “theologies of the Greek and Egyptian wise men” in book nine (= book two). This is not without reason: Theos. § 84 Erbse, concerning Simonides of Ceos’ declared ignorance of the divine, would fit well into this section. Theos. § 85 Erbse, on Porphyry’s purported apostasy, does not have much in common with the poetic quotations surrounding it; it could, instead, go with the other Porphyrian passages of the Tübingen Theosophy, which both belong to the ‘theological’ section (Theos. § 65f. Erbse; note, however, that their contents are not similar). On the other side, the lines by Euripides, Menander, Antisthenes and Timon of Phlius on the weakness of human nature in Theos. § 86.87.90.91 Erbse are not particularly theological in content or concerned with the divine. One might even consider splitting up this group of paragraphs, transferring Theos. § 84 Erbse and possibly Theos. § 85 Erbse to the ninth book (= book two) of the Theosophy and leaving the poetic quotations together at the end of the sibylline book (book ten = three). There are signs that the excerptor, while in general following the structure of the Theosophy (Theos. § 12-54 Erbse correspond well to the expected content of book eight, the same goes for Theos. § 55-74 Erbse with book nine and for Theos. § 75-83 Erbse with book ten),79 allowed himself more freedom on a smaller scale. A comparison between Theos. § 74-83 Erbse and its sibylline model shows that the Tübingen paragraphs are not arranged in the same order as their (last surviving sentence in prose of the Sibylline book) καὶ ἄλλη Σίβυλλα ἀπεχθανομένη τῷ Ἑλλήνων ἔθνει διὰ τὴν καταφρόνησιν καὶ ἀμέλειαν τῆς ἀληθείας κτλ. 76 Erbse, Fragmente 2 n. 5; 30. 77 Erbse, Fragmente 2 n. 5. 78 Beatrice, Theosophia 35f. (II 24-31 Beatrice = Theos. § 84-91 Erbse). Beatrice, Theosophia 35 moves to this book also the brief Pindaric quotation to be found in Theos. § 79 Erbse = II 23 Beatrice, on which see also n. 73.81. 79 The judgment of Erbse, Fragmente 51 “auf keinem Fall braucht die von Θ” – sc. the Theosophy – “gewählte Reihenfolge der Orakel in θ” – sc. the Tübingen Theosophy – “eingehalten zu sein” is somewhat too negative.

210

Laura Carrara

source passages.80 It is thus not to be excluded that the excerptor moved single passages back and forth,81 or that some confusion arose in the text of the Tübingen Theosophy in the process of its copying and transmission. The problem posed by the collocation of Theos. § 84-91 Erbse within the framework of the Theosophy has not been definitively solved yet.82 By way of conclusion, I offer a tabular summary of the structural relationship between Tübingen Theosophy and Theosophy: Tübingen Theosophy § 1-11 Erbse

Theosophy Preface (προοίμιον)

§ 12-54 Erbse

Book eight (= one), Oracles of the Greek gods

§ 55-74 Erbse

Book nine (= two), Theologies of the Greek and Egyptian wise men Book ten (= three), Oracles of the Sibyls

§ 75-83 Erbse § 84-91 Erbse

80

//

Book ten (= three) or nine (= two) [or from another source?] Book eleven (= four), Sayings of Hystaspes

//

World chronicle

The right sequence would be Theos. § 81-83 Erbse, § 78 Erbse, § 80 Erbse. For more details cf. Carrara, “Textüberlieferung” 57-60. On Theos. § 79 Erbse = II 23 Beatrice see n. 73.78.81. On the sibylline paragraphs of the Tübingen Theosophy cf. Monaca. 81 According to Beatrice, Theosophia 35 Theos. § 79 Erbse = II 23 Beatrice was misplaced (by the excerptor? by a copyist?) from book two (= book nine) of the Theosophy to the sibylline section of the excerpt, which corresponds to book three (= book ten). On Theos. § 79 Erbse = II 23 Beatrice see also above, n. 73.78. 82 I have a slight preference for Mras’ and Erbse’s solution.

The Tübingen Theosophy

211

Bibliography 1 Editions, commentaries, translations Birth of the Virgin Mary Papyrus Bodmer V. Nativité de Marie publié par M. Testuz. Cologny – Genève 1958. Concilium in Trullo habitum The Council in Trullo revisited. Edited by G. Nedungatt, M. Featherstone. Roma 1995. (Kanonika 6). Concilium Trullanum 691-692 ediderunt G. Nedungatt - S. Agrestini. In: Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Generaliumque decreta. Editio critica. I The Oecumenical Councils. From Nicea I to Nicea II (325-787). Curantibus G. Alberigo, A. M. Ritter, L. Abramowski, E. Mühlenberg, P. Conte, H.-G. Thümmel, G. Nedungatt, S. Agrestini, E. Lamberz, J. B. Uphus. Turnhout 2006. 203-293. Concilium Constantinopolitanum a. 691/2 in Trullo habitum (Concilium Quinisextum) edidit H. Ohme adiuvantibus R. Flogaus et C. R. Kraus. Berlin – Boston 2013. (Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum II 2, 4). Decretum Gelasianum Das Decretum Gelasianum de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis in kritischem Text herausgegeben und untersucht von E. von Dobschütz. Leipzig 1912. (Texte und Untersuchungen 38, 4). New Testament Apocrypha Hennecke, E.: New Testament Apocrypha edited by W. Schneemelcher. English translation edited by R. McL. Wilson. I Gospels and related writings. London 21973. Protoevangelium of James La forme la plus ancienne du Protévangile de Jacques. Recherches sur le papyrus Bodmer 5 avec une édition critique du texte grec et une traduction annotée par É. de Strycker. Bruxelles 1961. (Subsidia Hagiographica 33). Theosophia Klaros. Untersuchungen zum Orakelwesen des späteren Altertums. Nebst einem Anhange, das Anecdoton ΧΡΗΣΜΟΙ ΤΩΝ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΩΝ ΘΕΩΝ enthaltend von K. Buresch. Leipizig 1889. (repr. Aalen 1973). Fragmente griechischer Theosophien. Herausgegeben und quellenkritisch untersucht von H. Erbse. Hamburg 1941. (Hamburger Arbeiten zur Altertumswissenschaft 4).

212

Laura Carrara Theosophorum Graecorum Fragmenta. Iterum recensuit H. Erbse. Stuttgart – Leipzig 1995. Anonymi Monophysitae Theosophia. An attempt at reconstruction by P. F. Beatrice. Leiden – Boston – Köln 2001. (VChr Suppl. 56). Die Tübinger Theosophie. Eingeleitet, übersetzt und kommentiert von L. Carrara und I. Männlein-Robert. Unter Mitwirkung von V. Clausing-Lage, A.-L. Engelbach, C. Rüth, O. Schelske, F. Schulz. Mit einem Beitrag von H. Seng. Stuttgart 2018. (Bibliothek der griechischen Literatur 86). Tissi, L. M.: Gli oracoli degli dèi greci nella Teosofia di Tubinga. Commento e studio critico dei testi 12-54 Erbse. Alessandria 2018. (Hellenica 72).

2 Secondary literature Alpi, F. - Le Boulluec, A.: “Étude critique. La reconstruction de la Théosophie anonyme proposée par Pier Franco Beatrice.” Apocrypha 15 (2004) 293-306. Batiffol, P.: “Oracula hellenica.” Revue Biblique 13 (1916) 177-199. Beatrice, P. F.: “Pagan Wisdom and Christian Theology according to the Tübingen Theosophy.” JECS 3 (1995) 403-418. Beatrice, P. F.: “Traditions apocryphes dans la Théosophie de Tübingen.” Apocrypha 7 (1996) 109-122. Beatrice, P. F.: “Das Orakel von Baalbek und die sogenannte Sibyllentheosophie.” RQA 92 (1997) 177-189. Beatrice, P. F.: “Diodore de Sicile chez les Apologistes.” In: Pouderon, B. - Doré, J. (ed.): Les Apologistes Chrétiens et la culture grecque. Paris 1998. 219-235. (Théologie historique 105). Beatrice, P. F.: “Le livre d’Hystaspe aux mains des Chrétiens.” In: Bonnet, C. Motte, A. (ed.): Les syncrétismes religieux dans le monde méditerranéen antique. Actes du Colloque International en l’honneur de F. Cumont. Rome 1999. 357-382. van den Broek, R.: “Four Coptic Fragments of a Greek Theosophy”. VChr 32 (1978) 118-142. Buresch  Theosophia. Busine, A.: Paroles d’Apollon. Pratiques et traditions oraculaires dans l’Antiquité tardive (IIe-VIe siècles). Leiden – Boston 2005. (RGRW 156). Busine, A.: “Théosophie dite de Tübingen.” In: Goulet, R. (ed.): Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques. VI Paris 2016. 1129-1132. Carrara, L. - Männlein-Robert, I.: “Die ‚Tübinger Theosophie‘: Ein besonderer griechischer Text in der Bibliothek des Humanisten Johannes Reuchlin.” In: Robert, J. - Blattner, E. - Ratzeburg, W. (ed.): „Ein Vater neuer Zeit“ – Reuchlin, die Juden und die Reformation. Katalog zur gleichnamigen Ausstellung im Stadtmuseum Tübingen (28.10.2017–März 2018). Tübingen 2017. 108-119. Carrara, L: “Textüberlieferung der Tübinger Theosophie.” In: Carrara - MännleinRobert, Die Tübinger Theosophie 32-60. Carrara - Männlein-Robert, Die Tübinger Theosophie Theosophia.

The Tübingen Theosophy

213

Ceccarelli Morolli, D.: “I canoni del concilio Quinisesto o Trullano ed il Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium.” Oriente Cristiano 4 (1996) 29-39. Ceccarelli Morolli, D.: “Alcune riflessioni intorno ad una importante collezione canonica delle origini: ‘Gli 85 canoni degli Apostoli’.” In: Passarelli, G. (ed.): Miscellanea C. Capizzi. Roma 2002. 151-175. (Studi sull’Oriente Cristiano 6). Constantelos, D. J.: Renewing the Church. The Significance of the Council in Trullo. Brookline (Mass.) 2006. Fowden, G.: The Egyptian Hermes. A Historical Approach to the Late Pagan Mind. Cambridge 1986. Fritz, K. von: “Theosophie.” RE VA 2 (1934) 2248-2253. Gallavotti, C.: “Planudea (II).” BollClass N. S. 7 (1959) 25-50. Gallavotti, C.: “Planudea (VIII).” BollClass 10 (1989) 3-16. Graf, F.: “Apollinische Divination und theologische Spekulation. Zu den Orakeln der Tübinger Theosophie.” In: Seng, H. - Tardieu, M. (ed.): Die Chaldaeischen Orakel: Kontext – Interpretation – Rezeption. Heidelberg 2010. 63-77. (Bibliotheca Chaldaica 2). Hägg, T.: Photios als Vermittler antiker Literatur. Untersuchungen zur Technik des Referierens und Exzerpierens in der Bibliotheke. Uppsala 1975. (Studia Graeca Upsaliensia 8). Hägg, T.: “Photius as a Reader of Hagiography: Selection and Criticism.” DOP 53 (1999) 43-58. Hennecke  New Testament Apocrypha. Junod, E.: “«Apocryphes du Nouveau Testament»: une appellation erronée et une collection artificielle; discussion de la nouvelle définition proposée par W. Schneemelcher.” Apocrypha 3 (1992) 17-46. Kaldellis, A.: “The Byzantine Role in the Making of the Corpus of Classical Greek Historiography: A Preliminary Investigation.” JHS 132 (2012) 71-85. van Kasteel, H. (ed.): Oracles et prophétie. Grez-Doiceau 2011. Mango, C.: “The Conversion of the Parthenon into a church: The Tübingen Theosophy.” Δελτίον Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 18 (1995) 201203. Männlein-Robert, I.: “Stimmen des Göttlichen: Die Orakeltexte der spätantiken Tübinger Theosophie im christlichen (Kon-)Text.” In: Tommasi, C. O. Soares Santoprete, L. G. - Seng, H. (ed.): Hierarchie und Ritual: Zur philosophischen Spiritualität in der Spätantike. Heidelberg 2018. 323-336. (Bibliotheca Chaldaica 7). Männlein-Robert, I.: “Die Theosophia und die Tübinger Theosophie.” In: Carrara Männlein-Robert, Die Tübinger Theosophie 1-31. Mimouni, S. C.: “Les Transitus Mariae sont-ils vraiment des apocryphes?” Studia Patristica 25 (1993) 122-128. [= Mimouni, S. C.: Les traditions anciennes sur la Dormition et l’Assomption de Marie: Études littéraires, historiques et doctrinales. Leiden – Boston 2011. 247-256. (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 104)]. Monaca, M.: “Gli Oracula Sibyllina: la profezia sibillina e l’unicità di Dio.” In: Seng, H. - Sfameni Gasparro, G. (ed.): Theologische Orakel in der Spätantike. Heidelberg 2016. 281-303. (Bibliotheca Chaldaica 5).

214

Laura Carrara

Mras, K.: “Eine neuentdeckte Sibyllen-Theosophie.” WS 28 (1906) 43-83. Nedungatt, G.: “The council of Trullo revisited: Ecumenism and the canon of the councils.” ThS 71 (2010) 651-676. Nedungatt - Agrestini  Concilium in Trullo habitum. Nedungatt - Featherstone  Concilium in Trullo habitum. Neumann, K. J.: “Heraclitea.” Hermes 15 (1880) 605-608. Neumann, K.-J.: “Ueber eine den Brief an Diognet enthaltende Tübinger Handschrift Pseudo-Justin’s.” ZKG 4 (1881) 284-287. Nock, A. D.: “Oracles théologiques.” REA 30 (1928) 280-290. Odorico, P.: “La cultura della ΣΥΛΛΟΓΗ. 1) Il cosiddetto enciclopedismo bizantino. 2) Le tavole del sapere di Giovanni Damasceno.” ByzZ 83 (1990) 1-21. Pfunter, L.: “Reading Diodorus through Photius: The Case of the Sicilian Slave Revolts.” GRBS 55 (2015) 256-272. Robert, L.: “Trois oracles de la Théosophie et un prophète d’Apollon.” CRAI 112 (1968) 568-599. Saffrey, H. D.: „Connaissance et inconnaissance de dieu: Porphyre et la Theosophie de Tübingen.“ In: Duffy, J. - Peradotto, J. (ed.): Gonimos. Neoplatonic and Byzantine studies presented to L. G. Westerink at 75. Buffalo (N. Y.) 1988. 120 [= Saffrey, H. D.: Recherches sur le Néoplatonisme après Plotin. Paris 1990. 11-30]. Steimer, B.: Vertex Traditionis. Die Gattung der altchristlichen Kirchenordnungen. Berlin – New York 1992. (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 63). de Strycker  Protoevangelium of James. Suárez de la Torre, E.: “Apollo, teologo cristiano.” ASR 8 (2003) 129-152. Tissi, L. M.: “Questioni oracolari, symphonia e paideia scolastica nella Teosofia di Tubinga.” MEG 15 (2015) 249-267. Treadgold, W.: The nature of the Bibliotheca of Photius. Washington, D. C. 1980. (Dumbarton Oaks Studies 18). Zuntz, G.: Griechische philosophische Hymnen. Aus dem Nachlaß herausgegeben von H. Cancik und L. Käppel. Tübingen 2005. (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 35).

Giulia Maria Paoletti

Il ms. Bas. A.VII.1: appunti sulla storia di un florilegio oracolare A partire dagli studi di Janin, Majeska e Kakoulidi, fino ai più recenti di Cataldi Palau, Malamut e Ronchey, il Monastero di Prodromos Petra ha goduto dell’interesse di molti bizantinisti, per motivi filologici, storici e artistici. Questo monastero ha, infatti, svolto un ruolo cardine e decisivo nella trascrizione e trasmissione di manoscritti di qualsiasi genere, grazie all’infaticabile lavoro del suo scriptorium che sembra essere rimasto prolificamente attivo anche durante la conquista latina.1 Tra i molteplici manoscritti presenti all’interno della biblioteca del monastero figura il ms. Bas. A.VII.1, databile al XV secolo, il cui nucleo (ff. 2r427v) tuttavia risale al XII secolo ed è vergato da tale Michele Coniate, non identificabile però con il ben più noto vescovo di Atene. Il copista principale, però, è Giorgio Baioforo, prolifico copista attivo nel monastero di Prodromos Petra durante i primi anni del XV secolo.2 Le ultime carte del manoscritto, dal folio 428r al 429r, riportano un florilegio oracolare inedito che in questa forma non sembra essere attestato altrove. I vaticini sono in tutto dodici tra cui il ben noto Testimonium Flavianum, uno degli Oracula Leonis, alcuni estratti dal Chronicon di Giovanni Malala, alcuni dal Menologio di Simeone Metafraste, dalla Teosofia detta di Tubinga, da Davide filosofo,3 da Massimo il Confessore4 e dai Thesauri minores dei Theosophorum Graecorum Fragmenta editi da Erbse. In questa sede ne verranno discussi tre, che si susseguono ai fogli 428r (Oracolo I) e 428v (Oracoli II e III). I e II derivano dalla Passio Aecatherinae (dove l’ordine è invertito) mentre il 1

Cesaretti - Ronchey 222*. Per ulteriori informazioni riguardo il manoscritto cf. Ronchey in Cesaretti Ronchey 209*-231*. Il codice faceva parte dell’eredità lasciata dal cardinale Stojković / Giovanni di Ragusa al convento domenicano di Basilea, fondo cui apparteneva anche il manoscritto della Teosofia di Tubinga; cf. Carrara 42-53. 3 David, In Porph. 23 p. 74, 5-9 B. 4 Max. Conf., Quaestiones et dubia I 10, 5-13. 2

216

Giulia Maria Paoletti

terzo è una traduzione greca del famoso verso virgiliano Iam nova progenies caelo demittitur alto (Verg., ecl. 4, 7), preceduto da una citazione tratta dalla Passio Artemii e concluso da un’interessante profezia inedita. La Passio Aecatherinae5 è un testo agiografico, sopravvissuto in 65 manoscritti e in quattro differenti redazioni: A, B, C e D. La più antica, A, è databile al VI-VII secolo; l’autore risponde al nome di Atanasio: nell’explicit di alcuni codici della versione A e B, se ne dice autore Atanasio o Anastasio (ταῦτα ἐγὼ Ἀθανάσιος ... συνεγραψάμην). Le redazioni A, B e C sono molto diverse fra loro mentre D – ossia la redazione inserita da Metafraste nel suo menologio di Novembre – è essenzialmente una rielaborazione della versione C. La storia narrata è la seguente: il tiranno Massenzio pretende che Caterina rinunci alla fede cristiana, ma la santa, invece di rinunciare al proprio credo, riesce a convertire tutta la corte di Massenzio, tranne quest’ultimo. Dopo aver subito una serie di torture, le viene tagliata la testa, ma miracolosamente invece del sangue dalle sue membra sgorga latte. La caratteristica più interessante della storia è il ricorso di Caterina a fonti cristiane e pagane al fine di convincere Massenzio e i retori chiamati a giudicarla che il Cristianesimo era stato già preannunciato nei testi pagani e dagli ‘dèi’ pagani: è qui che entrano in gioco gli oracoli, utilizzati dalla santa per corroborare la propria tesi. Nostro scopo è ripercorrere la storia della tradizione di questi testi copiati da Baioforo e ricostruire per essi un testo il più possibile vicino all’originale, ovvero il testo all’inizio di tutta la tradizione successiva. 1 Oracolo I 1.1 Introduzione Questa profezia, ametrica, sulla venuta di un salvatore in grado di sciogliere il genere umano dalle catene delle passioni è tramandata da più testimoni con poche ma sostanziali variazioni tra loro. I testimoni presi qui in considerazione sono nell’ordine:

5

Edita da Viteau.

Il ms. Bas. A.VII.11: appunti sulla storia di un florilegio oracolare

217

1) La versione C della Passio Aecatherinae edita da Viteau (p. 53) 2) La rielaborazione metafrastica (D = Sym. Met., Menologion, PG 116, 288 b) 3) La Συμφωνία tramandata dal codice Vat. gr. 2200 (VIII/IX sec.) ff. 444r-454v, nella versione stampata da Erbse (ω11) e in quella del codice documentata da Lilla (corrispondente a Σ13 di Erbse).6 4) I Χρησμοὶ καὶ θεολογίαι Ἑλλήνων φιλοσόφων, già editi da Bentley7 e ristampati da Erbse tra i Thesauri minores (χ12) 5) Il corpus μ, una delle componenti del thesaurus π (μ2) 6) Il corpus Δ che contiene il trattato Διήγησίς τινος φιλοσόφου περὶ τῶν ἑπτὰ Ἑλλήνων τῶν φιλοσόφων διὰ τὴν ἄνω πρόνοιαν (Δ1). 7) Le Προφητεῖαι τῶν ἑπτὰ σοφῶν, catalogate da Erbse come corpus π (π4). Il frammento è tramandato anche dall’opuscolo pseudo-atanasiano Περὶ τοῦ ναοῦ (Commentarius de templo Athenarum),8 considerato da Erbse una recensione del corpus π. Esistono due redazioni differenti di quest’opera: la prima è tràdita dal Vat. gr. 1198 (XVI sec.), ff. 65r-69r, che è copia del Vat. gr. 1896 (ff. 220r-227r), e la seconda unicamente dal Bodl. Roe 5 (XVII sec.), ff. 149r-155v. Nella forma qui analizzata il testo coincide con la seconda redazione, seppur con leggere varianti testuali. L’opera è testimoniata anche dal codice Ateniese EB 431 alle pp. 157160 e dal ms. Moné Prousou 10, f. 149r-150r (Euritania), XVIII secolo. 1.2 Presentazione del testo 1. ὀψὲ ποτέ τις ἐπὶ τὴν πολυσχιδῆ ταύτην ἐλάσειε γῆν· καὶ δίχα 2. σφάλματος γενήσεται σὰρξ· ἀκαμάτοις δὲ θεότητος ὅροις, 3. ἀνιάτων παθῶν λύσει φθορὰν καὶ τούτῳ φθόνος γενήσεται 4. ἐξ ἀπίστου λαοῦ· καὶ πρὸς ὕψος κρεμασθήσεται ὡς θανάτου 5. κατάδικος· ταῦτα δὲ πάντα πείσεται πράως. Aec. 11 (p. 53 Viteau); Sym. Met., PG 116, 288 b; Theosophorum Graecorum Fragmenta ω11 Σ13 χ12 μ12 π4 Δ1

6

È necessario ricordare che omega è una ricostruzione stemmatica. I dati forniti da Erbse su Σ13 discrepano assai da quelli di Lilla cui seguiamo. 7 Bentley II 252. 8 Edizione del testo in Delatte 107-111; per uno studio cf. von Premerstein.

218

Giulia Maria Paoletti

tit. Σόλωνος (Σώλονος Σ13) Ἀθηναίου τοῦ νομοθέτου περὶ (παρὰ Σ13) λόγου ἐγκωμίου ἀπόφθεγμα add. ω11 Σ13 Τοῦ αὐτοῦ περὶ Χριστοῦ add. χ12 ἀπεκρίθη δὲ Σόλων καὶ ἔφη· ‘κἀγὼ ὑμῖν, ὧ φιλόσοφοι, λέγω· add. μ2 Καὶ ἀνοίξας τὸ στόμα εὐθὺς ὁ Πλούταρχος εἶπεν add. Δ1 Χίλων εἶπεν add. π4 1 ποτέ] ποτέ ὁ ἄναρχος ἀνάρχου γόνος λόγος Δ1 τις] om. Σ13 πολυσχιδῆ] πολυσχεδῆ Σ13 χ12 μ2 π4 ταύτην] om. Σ13 ἐλάσειε] ἐάσει Σ13 γῆν] γαῖαν π4 δίχα σφάλματος] διὰ πετάσματος κατοικήσει ἐν ἀδαεῖ κόρῃ, ἧς τὸ ὄνομα Μαρία Δ1 2 γενήσεται σὰρξ] σὰρξ γενήσεται ω11 Σ13 χ12 π4 δὲ] τε Σ13, om. χ12 π4 3 ἀνιάτων] ἀνιάτοις π4 φθορὰν] φθορὰς Σ13 τούτῳ] om. Δ1 φθόνος γενήσεται] γενήσεται φθόνος π4 ὁ φθόνος γενήσεται Sym. παραδοθήσεται εἰς φθόνον Δ1 καὶ – λαοῦ] κατὰ τούτου φθόνον ἀπίστῳ ἐγγεννήσει λαῷ Σ13 4 ἐξ ἀπίστου] om. π4 πρὸς ὕψος κρεμασθήσεται] πρὸς ὕψος κρεμασθεὶς Σ13 π4 σταυρωθήσεται Δ1 5 ταῦτα δὲ] καὶ ω11 χ12 μ2, om. Σ13 π4 πάντα] om. Σ13 πείσεται πράως] πραέως πείσεται ω11 χ12 π4 πραέως πείσεται παρ᾽αὐτῶν Σ13 πράως πείσεται ἑκὼν φέρειν μ2 ὡς – πράως] καὶ τέλος ἀναστήσεται καὶ σώσει πάντα κόσμον. ἔστι δὲ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦς, ὅ λέγεται ἰατρός Δ1

Traduzione Possa finalmente un giorno arrivare qualcuno in questa terra eccessivamente divisa e, lontano dal peccato, farsi carne: a causa degli infaticabili decreti scioglierà la corruzione delle inguaribili passioni. Da parte di un popolo infedele nei suoi confronti sorgerà invidia e sarà crocefisso in quanto condannato a morte. Pazientemente patirà tutto questo. 1.3 Analisi ὀψὲ ποτέ τις ἐπὶ τὴν πολυσχιδῆ ταύτην ἐλάσειε γῆν Baioforo riporta in rosso il testo fino a πολυ, a segnare l’inizio di un nuovo testo, stesso espediente che il nostro utilizza per indicare i titoli. Sia ω11 (Σ13) (Σόλωνος/Σώλονος Ἀθηναίου τοῦ νομοθέτου περὶ/παρὰ λόγου ἐγκωμίου ἀπόφθέγμα) che μ2 (ἀπεκρίθη δὲ Σόλων καὶ ἔφη· κἀγὼ ὑμῖν, ὧ φιλόσοφοι, λέγω) attribuiscono il vaticinio a Solone il legislatore, mentre rimane isolata l’attribuzione di π4 al saggio Chilone (Χίλων εἶπεν). χ12 invece riporta l’attribuzione τοῦ αὐτοῦ περὶ χριστοῦ, dove αὐτός fa riferimento a Platone (χ11). Δ1 lo attribuisce a Plutarco e sostituisce il generico τις con una perifrasi indicante Cristo (ὁ ἄναρχος ἀνάρχου γόνος λόγος). Σ13 e i Thesauri χ12, μ2 e π4 mettono a testo πολυσχεδῆ per banalizzazione; π4, inoltre, ha γαῖαν invece di γῆν. È importante sottolineare che Σ13 attesta invece di ἐλάσειε – influenzato sicuramente dalle attestazioni in Omero (Od. 11, 290; 17, 237; 18, 92; 22, 97) – ἐάσει, apparentemente un errore per il futuro indicativo ἐλάσει, che dà alla proposizione una sfumatura di certezza mancante nell’uso dell’ottativo.

Il ms. Bas. A.VII.11: appunti sulla storia di un florilegio oracolare

219

καὶ δίχα σφάλματος γενήσεται σὰρξ ἀκαμάτοις δὲ θεότητος ὅροις ω11, Σ13, χ12 e π4 antepongono σάρξ al verbo, ω11 mantiene il δέ mentre Σ13 legge τε e gli altri lo omettono. Δ1 modifica il verso, eliminando il riferimento agli «indefessi limiti del divino» e sostituendo a δίχα σφάλματος γενήσεται σὰρξ la perifrasi ben più aulica riferita alla purezza della vergine: κατοικήσει ἐν ἀδαεῖ κόρῃ, ἧς τὸ ὄνομα Μαρία in cui è ben viva l’eco dell’oracolo agli Argonauti sulla costruzione del tempio a Cizico: ἐν ἀδαεῖ κόρη, ἔγκυος ἔσται (Mal., Chron. IV 8 p. 77 Dindorf = 55 [84s.] Thurn). Σ13 offre una variante interessante: al posto di δίχα σφάλματος propone διὰ πετάσματος, lett: «attraverso il velo», eliminando il riferimento al peccato. La formula διὰ πετάσματος non si ritrova in alcun autore Cristiano, ma il sostantivo καταπέτασμα è utilizzato da Clemente per indicare il velo che stava davanti al santo dei santi e proteggeva il segreto religioso da occhi impuri.9 ἀνιάτων παθῶν λύσει φθορὰν καὶ τούτῳ φθόνος γενήσεται ἐξ ἀπίστου λαοῦ Erbse inserisce fra cruces ἀνιάτοις in π4 e antepone γενήσεται a φθόνος, mentre tutti gli altri testimonia sono concordi con Baioforo. Sym. Met. aggiunge l’articolo ὁ davanti a φθόνος. Δ1 non fa riferimento all’azione purificatrice del logos (ἀνιάτων παθῶν λύσει φθοράν) e attesta παραδοθήσεται εἰς φθόνον, in riferimento al tradimento da parte del «popolo infedele e invidioso». Il consensus dei testimoni in questo verso è quasi universale, fatta eccezione per π4 che varia di nuovo, omettendo ἐξ ἀπίστου. L’omissione dell’aggettivo connesso al popolo modifica drasticamente il senso del verso, dato che, stando alle scritture e ai commentari biblici, il «popolo infedele» è per antonomasia quello dei Giudei, ossia proprio di coloro che approvarono la condanna a morte di Cristo. Σ13, però, varia di nuovo: propone φθοράς in luogo di φθορὰν, κατὰ τούτου invece di τούτῳ e il più raffinato φθόνον ἀπίστῳ ἐγγεννήσει λαῷ. καὶ πρὸς ὕψος κρεμασθήσεται Σ13 e π4 presentano il participio aoristo passivo κρεμασθείς che non comporta modifiche sostanziali nel senso. Δ1 evita la perifrasi con il più esplicito καὶ σταυρωθήσεται, probabilmente una glossa o parafrasi entrata a testo. ὡς θανάτου κατάδικος·ταῦτα δὲ πάντα πείσεται πράως. Questo verso è discriminante per capire quale sia la fonte testuale da cui Baioforo può avere attinto: tutti i Thesauri minores di Erbse (ω11, Σ13, χ12, μ2, π4) omettono ταῦτα δέ, mentre entrambe le versioni della Passio 9

Stroumsa 99.

220

Giulia Maria Paoletti

(Aec. e Sym.) concordano con il Basileensis. Sia ω11 che χ12 attestano καὶ πάντα πραέως πείσεται, come pure π4, che omette, però, il καί; μ2 preferisce la forma contratta πράως, aggiungendo a fine testo anche ἑκὼν φέρειν. Σ13 da la variante πραέως πείσεται παρ᾽αὐτῶν. 1.4 Conclusione In conclusione, il confronto fra i testi porta ad escludere che Baioforo abbia attinto in qualche modo da uno dei frammenti editi da Erbse o dalla Συμφωνία con cui, per esempio, le differenze sono notevoli. L’utilizzo del ταῦτα δέ nel rigo finale sembrerebbe discriminante a fini di ricostruire l’antigrafo da cui Baioforo ha attinto. Di conseguenza, quasi sicuramente, la fonte di quest’oracolo è una delle versioni della Passio Aecatherinae nelle due redazioni C e D che non riportano differenze notevoli. Sarebbe necessario, però, capire se Baioforo abbia copiato direttamente dal testo integrale della Passio Aecatherinae oppure da una raccolta contenente passi estratti del testo. 2 Oracolo II 2.1 Introduzione Nonostante sia stato trascritto come un unico oracolo, questo testo è in realtà composto da due differenti nuclei, come è evidente dal testo di Malala, che presenta due testi separati e suddivisi dagli editori in capitoli differenti. L’idea di unire i due testi sembra provenire direttamente dall’autore della Passio che considera i due oracoli un unicum, come accade anche nel testo trasmesso da Baioforo. Questo elemento costituisce un’ulteriore prova del fatto che Baioforo ha attinto da un manoscritto della Passio o, comunque, da un antigrafo contenente estratti di essa. Questi due nuclei sono composti dai versi 1-4 (modificati) del fr. Orph. 233 Kern = 337 F Bernabé e TrGF II 618, quest’ultimo tràdito da numerosi testimoni, di cui in questa sede sono stati scelti solo i 6 che mostrano maggiori somiglianze con il testo di Baioforo.10 Come un unico testo, i due nuclei si trovano in: 10

Si è scelto di utilizzare unicamente i testi riportati da Erbse, con l’aggiunta, però, del Martyrium Sanctae Luciae. Non abbiamo tenuto conto del Contra Iulianum di

Il ms. Bas. A.VII.11: appunti sulla storia di un florilegio oracolare

221

1) La redazione C della Passio Aecatherinae (Aec.) edita da Viteau (p. 53) 2) La redazione D della Passio (rivista da Simeone Metafraste: Sym. Met., Menologion, PG 116, 285 d - 288 a) 3) Il Martyrium Sanctae Luciae, ma con la citazione dello Ps.-Sofocle, la cui seconda parte è profondamente rielaborata, prima dei versi orfici e la loro introduzione, 422-427 (p. 35-37); 415-417 (p. 35) Costanza. Separati, i due nuclei si trovano: 4) nel Chronicon di Giovanni Malala (IV 7 p. 75 Dindorf = 53 [43-45] Thurn; II 14 p. 40s. Dindorf = 29 [49-54] Thurn)11 5) nel Compendium Historiarum di Giorgio Cedreno (I 103, 13s.; I 82, 9-17 Bekker = 69, 42s.; 60, 16-21 Tartaglia).12 Solo la seconda parte: 6) nel corpus ω (ω17) dei Theosophorum Graecorum Fragmenta. Non tutti i testimoni presentano il vaticinio nella forma completa e nella disposizione che si trova sul codice di Basilea. Mentre le due redazioni della Passio Aecatherinae concordano con Baioforo per l’assetto testuale del frammento, gli altri testimoni divergono in più punti. Nel Martyrium Sanctae Luciae, ad esempio, il frammento sofocleo (lin. 416s.) precede di alcune righe quello orfico (lin. 422-427) e, se le prime due righe sono uguali, da βίας in poi il Martyrium riporta un testo completamente differente, che sembra in parte un riassunto del testo degli altri testimoni: ἀλλ᾽ἐξ ἐλαφρίας φρενῶν καὶ εὐηθείας πολλῆς πλανηθέντες ὑμεῖς θεῶν ἀγάλματα τῶν δεδράκοτων τὰ ἄτιμα τῆς αἰσχύνης ἔργα ἱδρύσατε ἑαυτοῖς καὶ τὸ σέβας τοῦ πεποιηκότος ὑμᾶς πλανώμενοι κακῶς αὐτοὺς ἀπονέμετε [...]. Il corpus dei Thesauri minores (ω) stando all’analisi di Erbse, è fonte di Malala e di altri storici – tra cui Giovanni Antiocheno e Giorgio Cedreno – e deriva per via Cirillo (I 44, 13-21 Riedweg = PG 76, 549 d) e delle altre testimonianze di autori ecclesiastici. 11 Bisogna distinguere tre versioni: il testo tramandato dal codice di Oxford (Ox.), le congetture a questo proposte da Bentley (Bent.) e lo stralcio del cod. Paris. gr. 1336, pubblicato da Cramer fra gli Anecdota Graeca (II 239), che contiene solo il secondo oracolo (Y’ in Erbse). 12 Il testo di Bekker, senza apparato critico, è poco affidabile e superato dall’edizione di Tartaglia alla quale ci riferiamo in seguito.

222

Giulia Maria Paoletti

diretta dal Contra Iulianum di Cirillo.13 Per questa raccolta di oracoli pagani, il codice che Erbse considera come optimus è il Vat. gr. 2200 risalente all’VIII/IX secolo, contenente il florilegio calcedoniano pubblicato da Franz Diekamp con il titolo di Doctrina Patrum de incarnatione Verbi. Tuttavia, la sezione in questione (ω17) non è presente nel codice vaticano ed è inserita nell’edizione tra i fragmenta addubitata. Erbse sceglie di includerla comunque all’interno del corpus ω sostenendo che la sentenza del poeta tragico sia stata estesa per due motivi proprio dal redattore della silloge.14 Il primo è da ricondurre ad evidenze stemmatiche e al fatto che il verso del poeta sia stato tramutato in prosa dagli autori successivi, abitudine propria di ω; il secondo è dovuto alla presenza del frammento nell’opera di Cirillo, da cui, come anticipato prima, il corpus dipende strettamente. Per quanto riguarda il confronto, strettamente necessario in questa sede, con il testo di Baioforo, si nota che ω17 tramanda il testo solo dalla testimonianza sofoclea in poi. Nel Chronicon di Malala il testo si trova in due sezioni differenti: 1. Da οὔτε κακοῖο a κακότητος con varianti testuali (Chron. IV 7 p. 75 Dindorf = 53 [43-45] Thurn). Inoltre, il testo è inframmezzato da ἑρμηνεῖαι che ne spiegano il senso ma rendono difficoltosa la lettura; 2. Da καὶ a νομίζομεν anch’essa differente in più punti (Chron. II 14 p. 40s. Dindorf = 29 [49-54] Thurn).15 Stando all’affermazione del cronografo fonte della sentenza orfica, come per la gran parte degli oracoli presenti nell’opera, è un tale Timoteo, di cui non si conosce molto, ma che sembra aver svolto un ruolo rilevante come fonte dell’Antiocheno.16 La sentenza sofoclea è inserita dal cronografo nel secondo libro, all’interno di un tessuto testuale che inizia con il racconto della dinastia egizia e della sapienza di Ermete Trismegisto – del quale viene riportato un oracolo sull’ «unicità del dio» tratto dal Contra Iulianum di Cirillo – per arrivare alla figura di Tiresia, reso cieco e profeta a cui si rivolgerebbe Sofocle nell’enunciazione ante litteram del «monoteismo». Il frammento orfico, invece, fa parte del quarto libro, relativo al dominio argivo, all’interno del quale l’autore fa 13

Per l’opinione divergente di Riedweg vedi infra p. 157. Erbse xliv. 15 Similmente in Cedreno: I 103, 13s.; I 82, 9-17 Bekker; 69, 42s.; 60, 16-21 Tartaglia. 16 Su Timoteo cf. Roberto e Mecella. 14

Il ms. Bas. A.VII.11: appunti sulla storia di un florilegio oracolare

223

uso di frequenti paralleli fra la storia greca e quella giudaica. Qui viene prima introdotta la figura della Sibilla, e successivamente quella di Orfeo che, tramite il confronto con il dio Sole, ha potuto trasporre in versi la genealogia degli uomini e degli dèi. Il musico preannuncia, come Hermes prima di lui, il concetto di Trinità, parlando di tre potenze in una, di cui non si sa né il nome né la forma o la natura. Essa ha plasmato il genere umano e gli ha conferito «razionalità». È doveroso notare che in Malala i due versi orfici fanno parte di un oracolo più lungo e che sono inframmezzati da commenti che ne spiegano il senso (Chron. IV 7 p. 75s. Dindorf = 53 [40-50] Thurn). 2.2 Presentazione del testo 1. Ὀρφεὺς δὲ ὁ μουσικὸς περὶ τῆς ἑλληνικῆς ἀμαθίας καὶ ματαίοτητος ὑπεσήμενε: 2. οὔτε κακοῖο προσερχομένοιο νοῆσαι φῶτες, 3. οὔτε ποῖον μάλα προτρέψαι κακότητος ἔχουσιν ᾧτινι καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ 4. σοφὸς ὑμῶν προσμαρτυρεῖ Σοφοκλῆς ἔστι θεὸς εἰπών, ὃς οὐρανὸν 5. ἔτευξε καὶ γαῖαν μακρὰν πόντου τε χαροπὸν οἶδμα καὶ ἀνέμων βίας 6. θνητοὶ δὲ πολυκερδείᾳ πλανώμενοι, ἱδρυσάμεθα πεμμάτων 7. παραψυχὰς καὶ θεῶν ἀγάλματα ξύλων καὶ λίθων, ἐκ χρυσοτεύκτων 8. τύπους θυσίας δὲ τούτοις καὶ κενὰς τεύχοντες πανηγύρεις, 9. εὐσέβειαν εἶναι ταύτην νομίζομεν. Aec. 11 (p. 53 Viteau); Sym. Met., PG 116, 285 d - 288 a; Martyrium Sanctae Luciae 422-427 p. 35-37; 415-417 p. 35 Costanza; Mal., Chron. IV 7 p. 53 [43-45]; II 14 p. 29 [49-54] Thurn; Cedr. 69, 42s.; 60, 16-21 Tartaglia; Theosophorum Graecorum Fragmenta ω17 1 Ὀρφεὺς δὲ ὁ μουσικὸς περὶ τῆς ἑλληνικῆς ἀμαθίας καὶ ματαίοτητος ὑπεσήμενε] ὃν δ’ ἔφης Ὀρφέα (...) καὶ περὶ τῆς ὑμῶν οὕτω καθυπεσήμανεν ματαίοτητος Aec. ὁ μουσικὸς δὲ πάλιν Ὀρφεὺς (...) οὕτω πῶς καὶ περὶ τῆς ὑμετέρας ματαίοτητος καὶ τῆς ἀμαθίας ὑποσημήνας Sym. Περὶ δὲ τοῦ ταλαιπώρου γένους τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὁ αὐτὸς Ὀρφεὺς ἐξέθετο ποιητικῶς στίχους πολλούς, ὧν μέρος εἰσὶν οὗτοι Mal. Cedr. (sed pro ὧν μέρος habet hic ἀφ’ ὧν) Ὀρφεῦς, ὁ παρ᾽ὑμῖν περίβλεπτος καὶ μουσουργικώτατος [...] πάντα καθέλκεται οὑτωσί πως, περὶ τῆς ὑμετέρας καθυπεσήμανε ματαίοτητος Mart. 1 Ὀρφεὺς - 3 ἔχουσιν deest in ω17 2 οὔτε] εἰδότες οὔτε Mal. Cedr. κακοῖο προσερχομένοιο] κακοῖς προσερχόμενοι Aec. κακοῖς προσερχομένοις Sym. κακίω προσερχόμενοι Mart. φῶτες] om. Sym. φῶτες εἰπών Mart. (...) φράδμονες Mal. φράδμονες Cedr. οὔτε ποῖον] οὔτε ποιὸν Aec. οὔτε ποῖς

224

Giulia Maria Paoletti

Sym. οὔτ’ ἄποθεν Mal. (Bent.) μάλα προτρέψαι] μάλλα προτρέψαι Mal. (Ox.) μαλ’ ἀποστρέψαι Mal. (Bent.) Cedr. ἔχουσιν] deest in Mal. Cedr. 3-4 ᾧτινι καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ σοφὸς ὑμῶν προσμαρτυρεῖ Σοφοκλῆς] ὧτινι καὶ Σοφοκλῆς ὁ σοφὸς ὑμῶν οὕτως προσμαρτυρεῖ Aec. ᾧτινι καὶ αὐτὸς ὑμῶν ὁ σοφὸς προσμαρτυρεῖ Σοφοκλῆς Sym. ἄκουσον τοῦ σοῦ σοφοῦ Σοφοκλέους περὶ αὐτοῦ λεγόντος Mart. ὅθεν ἐξέθετο ὁ αὐτὸς Σοφοκλῆς ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῦ συγγράμμασι Mal. (Ox.) οὕτως δὲ ὁ Σοφοκλῆς ἐρέθετο ἐν τοῖς συγγράμμασιν αὐτοῦ Mal. (Y’) ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ σοφώτατος Σοφοκλῆς ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῦ συγγράμμασιν ἐξέθετο ταῦτα Cedr. Σοφοκλέους ω17 4 ἔστι θεὸς] εἷς ταῖς ἀληθείαισιν εἷς ἐστι θεός ω17 ταῦτα ἀληθείας εἶναι εἷς ἐστιν ὁ θεός Mal. (Ox.) ταῦτα ὡς ἕνα τῆς ἀληθείας εἶναι· εἶ ἔστι Θεὸς Mal. (Y’) ταῦτα ἕνα τῆς ἀληθείας εἶναι θεὸν Cedr. εἰπών] om. Aec. Mart. Mal. Cedr. ω17 οὐρανόν] τὸν οὐρανόν Mal. ἔτευξε] ἔτευξεν Mal. (Thurn) 5 τε] δὲ Mal. (Ox.) χαροπὸν] χαροποιὸν Mart. χαρωποῦ Mal. (Ox.) 6 πολυκερδείᾳ] πολὺ καρδίᾳ Aec. Mal. (Ox.) πολυκερδείῃ Sym. πολλὰ καρδίᾳ ω17 πολλοὶ καρδίᾳ Mal. (Thurn) Cedr. πολλοὶ καρδίαν Mal. (Y’) πλανώμενοι] πεπλανημένοι Mal. (Y’) πεμμάτων] πημιμάτων Mal. (Ox.) πημάτων Mal. (Bent.) om. Cedr. ω17 7 παραψυχὰς] om. Cedr. καὶ] om. Aec. Mal. Cedr. ω17 θεῶν] θεῳ Mal. (Ox.) ξύλων καὶ λίθων] ἐκ λίθων καὶ ξύλων Mal. Cedr. ω17 ἐκ χρυσοτεύκτων] ἢ χρυσοτεύκτων ἐλεφαντίνων Mal. (Ox., Y’) Cedr. ἢ χρυσοτεύκτων ἤ ἐλεφαντίνων Mal. (Bent.) ω17 τύπους] τύπων Mal. (Y’) δὲ] τε Mal. Cedr. ω17 8 κενὰς] καινὰς Aec. Mal. (Ox.) Sym. κοινὰς Mal. (Y’) κλεινὰς Cedr. τεύχοντες πανηγύρεις] πανηγύρεις τεύχοντες Mal. Cedr. ω17 εὐσέβειαν] εἰς εὐσέβείαν Aec. εὐσεβεῖν Mal. Cedr. οὐτως εὐσεβεῖν ω17 9 ταύτην] ταῦτα Aec. Sym. om. Mal. Cedr. ω17

Traduzione Orfeo il musico, riguardo alla stolta ignoranza dei Greci, testimoniava: «Né i mortali possono prevedere l’arrivo del male né sono in grado soprattutto di allontanare quale genere di male ‹sopraggiunge›. Di questo dà la conferma anche lo stesso Sofocle, vostro sapiente, dicendo: un dio è colui che dispose il cielo e la vasta terra, il mare celeste e il rigonfiamento provocato dalla forza dei venti. Invece noi mortali, peccando con scaltrezza, innalziamo come conforto ‹dalle sventure› statue di dèi, costruzioni di legno, marmo e oro, e crediamo che sacrificare in loro nome e organizzare celebrazioni prive di fondamento sia segno di venerazione.» 2.3 Analisi Ὀρφεὺς δὲ ὁ μουσικός περὶ τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς ἀμαθίας καὶ ματαίοτητος ὑπεσήμενε Malala cita inizalmente il poeta prima riferendosi alla Teogonia (Chron. IV 7 p. 72 Dindorf = 51 [87]; 52 [91] Thurn) e poi ai versi in questione (Chron. IV 7 p. 75 Dindorf = 53 [36s.] Thurn: Περὶ δὲ τοῦ ταλαιπώρου

Il ms. Bas. A.VII.11: appunti sulla storia di un florilegio oracolare

225

γένους τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὁ αὐτὸς Ὀρφεὺς ἐξέθετο ποιητικῶς στίχους πολλούς, ὧν μέρος εἰσὶν οὗτοι, «Orfeo stesso ha scritto molti versi poetici riguardo la sfortunata stirpe degli uomini, e una parte di quei versi è questa»).17 Il passaggio Ὀρφεὺς δὲ ὁ μουσικός in Baioforo fa l’effetto di provenire direttamente da Sym. che attesta ὁ μουσικὸς δὲ πάλιν Ὀρφεὺς. Aec. e Sym. riportano l’accenno alla tradizione orfica poco prima di esplicitare il verso (Sym.: Ὀρφεὺς ... ἐν ᾗ βίβλῳ περὶ τε αὐτῶν, ὡς ἔφης, τῶν θεῶν τῆς γονῆς; Aec. Ὀρφέα ... ἐν ᾗ γὰρ βίβλῳ τὴν αὐτου θεογονίαν). Al posto dell’aggettivo Ἑλληνικῆς troviamo in Sym. il pronome possessivo ὑμετέρας e in Aec. (C) ὑμῶν. La variante Ἑλληνικῆς è facilmente spiegabile con il fatto che qui l’oracolo è estrapolato dal suo contesto naturale ma soprattutto è utilizzato da Baioforo come titolo – è infatti rubricato – ed è quindi necessario esplicitare il riferimento. La menzione dell’ἀμαθία è assente in Aec. e molto probabilmente Metafraste lο attinge dal menologio di novembre con cui contamina la redazione C. Aec. aggiunge οὕτω prima del verbo principale e preferisce al più semplice ὑπεσήμενε il più raro καθυπεσήμανεν, utilizzato solitamente in contesti solenni o giudiziari (ἡμεῖς τε καὶ ὁ θεοφιλέστατος Δωρόθεος ὁ τῆς μητροπόλεως ἡμῶν Νεοκαισαρείας ἐπίσκοπος καθυπεσημηνάμεθα οὕτως φρονοῦντες, Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum II 1, 2 p. 100, 3s.); Sym. attesta il participio aoristo. Vale la pena sottolineare che il Martyrium Sanctae Luciae è generalmente più vicino al testo di Aec., come si nota dall’utilizzo di καθυπεσήμανεν e ματαίοτητος, ma invece di ὑμῶν attesta ὑμετέρας, proprio come Metafraste. L’introduzione al testo oracolare nel martirio è decisamente più lunga, il che potrebbe portare a pensare che questo testo sia più antico degli altri due, che ne tramandano una versione ridotta. οὔτε κακοῖο προσερχομένοιο νοῆσαι φῶτες Questo verso, nella forma riportata dal codice di Basilea, è metricamente corretto, anche se atipico per la mancanza di cesure, come il successivo. La lectio κακοῖο προσερχομένοιο è attestata solo da Malala, Cedreno, e Baioforo, mentre Aec. propone κακοῖς προσερχομένοι, il codice del Martyrium Sanctae Luciae attesta κακίω προσερχόμενοι, e Sym. non solo presenta κακοῖς προσερχομένοις ma, nel confronto con il testo di Baioforo, omette anche φῶτες. L’omissione di φῶτες è giustificabile con il passaggio dalla terza persona alla seconda e, più in generale, il fatto che sia in Aec. che Sym. il passaggio sia introdotto da οὔτω πως potrebbe essere un indizio che la citazione è stata coscientemente 17

Cf. fr. 233 Kern = 337 F Bernabé.

226

Giulia Maria Paoletti

cambiata, tralasciando il metro. Φῶτες sembra essere una correzione di φράδμονες per costruire l’esametro. La forma riportata da Sym. è evidentemente erronea metri causa, date le tre sillabe mancanti (εἰδότες). Se la lezione testimoniata da Aec. a livello sintattico è in ogni caso corretta, non lo è, però, semanticamente: non sarebbe più il male ad avvicinarsi agli uomini ma essi stessi ad andargli incontro. Data la sua notevole conoscenza del greco e dell’esametro, Baioforo può aver corretto il verso sia dal punto di vista metrico che sintattico, oppure il testo di Basilea può essere testimone di un modello anteriore alle corruzioni in Aec. e Sym. Il martirio testimonia una lezione peculiare: al posto del genitivo o del dativo proposti dagli altri testimoni, attesta il comparativo all’accusativo κακίω – chiara variante itacista – con il participio plurale προσερχομένοι, come Aec. Se sintatticamente e grammaticalmente l’accusativo loci con un verbo di movimento è corretto, il segmento non è però corretto a livello semantico, proprio come Aec. οὔτε ποῖον μάλα προτρέψαι κακότητος ἔχουσιν Il ms. Barocci 182, testimone del Chronicon, attesta φράδμονες, οὔτε ποῖον μάλλα προτρέψαι corretto da Bentley, che propone φράδμονες, οὔτ’ ἄποθεν μάλ’ ἀποστρέψαι κακοτήτος, con μάλ’ ἀποστρέψαι riscontrabile anche nel testo di Cedreno. Baioforo è concorde con entrambi i testimoni della Passio, attestando sia μάλα προτρέψαι che ἔχουσιν, varianti erronee a livello sintattico. Se la prima è spiegabile con un iniziale errore di scriptio continua (μάλα ποστρέψαι, cambiato in μάλα προτρέψαι), la seconda è un’aggiunta propria della versione C della Passio, o comunque posteriore alla composizione del Chronicon, presente anche nel Martyrium Sanctae Luciae, confluita successivamente nel menologio metafrastico e comunque indispensabile al fine di costruire la frase. Aec. e Sym. hanno ποιόν in luogo di ποῖον, attestato anche in Mart., ma sarebbe difficile in questa sede affermare quale delle due sia banalizzazione dell’altra, essendo di difficile comprensione l’uso dell’interrogativo in luogo dell’indefinito. Probabilmente a livello sintattico sarebbe più corretto adottare la lezione proposta dalla Passio. ᾧτινι καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ σοφὸς ὑμῶν προσμαρτυρεῖ Σοφοκλῆς Aec. omette αὐτός e aggiunge οὕτως prima di προσμαρτυρεῖ, chiaramente una variante. In generale anche l’ordo sententiae è stravolto: il soggetto (Σοφοκλῆς) è posto all’inizio, poco prima del suo attributo (ὁ σοφός), e il verbo alla fine (προσμαρτυρεῖ). La versione di Metafraste è quasi del tutto uguale a quella messa a testo da Baioforo, se non per l’anticipazione di ὑμῶν prima di σοφός. La redazione di ω17, indica nel titolo l’autorità cui è riferita la sentenza (Σοφοκλέους), senza ovvia-

Il ms. Bas. A.VII.11: appunti sulla storia di un florilegio oracolare

227

mente alcuna indicazione della sapienza dell’autore né un verbo che sottolinei la testimonianza. Si trova qui come parte integrale del testo la sequenza εἷς ταῖς ἀληθείαισιν, ripresa probabilmente da Cirillo, parafrasata invece in Malala: ὅθεν ἐξέθετο ὁ αὐτὸς Σοφοκλῆς ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῦ συγγράμμασι ταῦτα ἀληθείας εἷναι. L’excerptum Y’ invece combina la parafrasi in oratio obliqua con l’oratio recta: οὕτως δὲ ὁ Σοφοκλῆς ἐρέθετο [sic] ἐν τοῖς συγγράμμασιν αὐτοῦ ταῦτα. “ὡς ἕνα τῆς ἀληθείας εἶναι· εἶ [sic] ἔστι Θεὸς ...” Per quanto riguarda la questione della tradizione, Riedweg nella sua edizione della Cohortatio ad Graecos ne stabilisce due rami:18 il primo composto da Ps.-Giustino, Cirillo, Giovanni Malala e Metafraste, il secondo da Clemente Alessandrino, Eustazio e Teodoreto. Lo studioso aggiunge anche che probabilmente Cedreno avesse sotto gli occhi il testo dello Ps.-Giustino e non uno posteriore. Per il testo di Malala è ancora valida la ricostruzione di Bentley, che individua un errore nell’interpunzione del verso al momento della copia. La pericope originaria doveva più o meno suonare così: καθὼς ὁ Σοφοκλῆς εἶπεν ἐν ταῖς ἀληθείαισιν εἷς ἐστιν θεός.19 Vi era necessità, dunque, di un punto in alto dopo εἶπεν: il filologo inglese procede poi restituendo il verso corretto, ripristinando i trimetri giambici originali, persi nei vari passaggi di copia. Il cronografo, o meglio la sua fonte Timoteo,20 attinge, come già esplicitato prima, dal corpus ω, ma riporta un testo più ampio, forse a fini narrativi, o collazionandolo con un altro testimone. Il testo di Baioforo e quello di Malala hanno in comune l’attribuzione a Sofocle e l’utilizzo di αὐτὸς. Il fatto che in questo caso Baioforo non vari ma mantenga il pronome possessivo ὑμῶν, conferma che la variante discussa prima (Ἑλληνικῆς) non è rilevante ai fini ricostruttivi: si tratta di un’inserzione concepita per concedere un’immagine più chiara al lettore. «ἔστι θεός» εἰπών «ὃς οὐρανόν ἔτευξε καὶ γαῖαν μακρὰν Sia ω17 che Malala mettono a testo εἷς (εἶ in Y’) prima di ἔστι in riferimento a θεός, determinazione necessaria per rendere Sofocle un monoteista e che, invece, è assente in entrambe le redazioni della Passio e in Baioforo. Anche in questo caso il nostro copista sembra essere più vicino a questi testimoni che agli altri due. Il participio aoristo εἰπών, 18

Riedweg 355-357. Bentley II 255s. È doveroso sottolineare che anche ταῖς ἀληθείαισιν senza ἐν potrebbe risultare in ἀληθείας εἷναι. 20 Ταῦτα δὲ πάντα ἐξέθετο ὁ σοφώτατος Τιμόθεος χρονογράφος, λέγων τὸν αὐτὸν Ὀρφέα πρὸ τοσούτων χρόνων εἰπόντα τριάδα ὁμοούσιον δημιουργῆσαι τὰ πάντα (Mal., Chron. IV 7 p. 76 Dindorf = 54 [53-55] Thurn). 19

228

Giulia Maria Paoletti

presente solo in Sym., è assente in tutti gli altri testimonia: si tratta di un’aggiunta del Metafraste durante la stesura della versione D della Passio. Malala pone l’articolo prima di θεός, aggiunge l’articolo τόν prima di οὐρανόν, e attesta ἐστιν, metricamente necessario. πόντου τὲ χαροπὸν οἶδμα καὶ ἀνέμων βίας Non ci sono varianti significative da segnalare, se non che Mal. presenta in luogo dell’accusativo il genitivo χαρωπoῦ, che nel codice è scritto con omega. θνητοὶ δε πολυκερδείᾳ πλανώμενοι Aec. e Mal. presentano a testo πολὺ καρδίᾳ, ω17 propone πολλὰ καρδίᾳ – unica variante metricamente corretta (insieme a πολλοί proposto da Cedreno) attestata da quasi tutti i testimoni e base per πολὺ (itacismo) e forse anche di πολλοί, che potrebbe anche essere una correzione metri causa a partire dα πολὺ – e Sym. πολυκερδείῃ, ionico di πολυκερδείᾳ. La variante di Baioforo e Sym. potrebbe derivare da un banale errore paleografico (αρ/ερ). In ogni caso entrambe le proposte, del nostro e di Metafraste, stravolgono drasticamente il senso del verso: gli uomini non peccherebbero più con il cuore, o a causa del cuore, ma coscientemente e con astuzia, cioè con malizia. È interessante notare come πολὺ (πολλὰ) καρδίᾳ sia attestato indirettamente nel martirio di S. Lucia, in forma parafrasata: ἀλλ᾿ ἐξ ἐλαφρίας φρενῶν καὶ εὐηθείας πολλῆς πλανηθέντες. ἱδρυσάμεθα πεμμάτων παραψυχὰς καὶ θεῶν ἀγάλματα ξύλων καὶ λίθων ἐκ χρυσοτεύκτων τύπους Mentre ἱδρυσάμεθα è unanimamente attestato in Baioforo, in Malala e nei manoscritti di Cedreno (come si evince dall’apparato di Tartaglia), la variante metricamente corretta ἱδρυσάμεσθα si trova nell’edizione di Bekker, ovviamente come congettura. ω17 e Mal. attestano πημάτων (πημιμάτων nel codice di Oxford), lectio corretta a livello semantico (sventura, sciagura) laddove πεμμάτων, presente in Aec., Sym. e Baioforo va considerata erronea, dato che il sostantivo πέμμα ha come significato «manicaretti, dolci». L’aggiunta del καὶ, presente solo in Sym. e Baioforo, è a sua volta frutto di errore: le statue (ἀγάλματα) sono i conforti (παραψυχάς) che gli uomini trovano nei momenti di disgrazia, non un elemento aggiuntivo. ω17 propone ἐκ λίθων τε καὶ ξύλων. Malala prosegue con ἢ χρυσοτεύκτων ‹ἢ› ἐλεφαντίνων e attesta un materiale di costruzione delle statue in più, rispetto ai testimonia qui analizzati, l’avorio (ἐλεφαντίνων). θυσίας δὲ τούτοις καὶ κενὰς τεύχοντες πανηγύρεις εὐσέβειαν εἶναι ταύτην νομίζομεν Aec. e Sym. attestano il δέ mentre ω17 e Mal. hanno τε. ω17 e Mal. presentano i due lemmi nell’ordine originale (πανηγύρεις τεύχοντες),

Il ms. Bas. A.VII.11: appunti sulla storia di un florilegio oracolare

229

metricamente corretti. Inoltre, in luogo della perifrasi εὐσέβειαν εἶναι ταύτην, ω17 attesta οὕτως εὐσεβεῖν, segmento testuale presente in tutte le altre testimonianze antecedenti a Malala. Molto probabilmente la modifica potrebbe essere stata attuata proprio dall’autore della redazione C della Passio, in virtù del fatto che la metrica in ω17 funziona. Interessante notare la versione di Cedreno e Malala, che attesta εὐσεβεῖν νομίζομεν. La variante più significativa, ma da ricondurre sicuramente alla stessa pronuncia, presente in questo passo è quella di Sym. e Aec. che mettono a testo καινάς, considerando quindi le preghiere non «vuote» (κενάς) ma «nuove». Anche in questo caso Cedreno si distacca, determinando le preghiere κλεινάς, «importanti, famose».21 Dato che Baioforo per il resto del frammento segue pedissequamente la versione di Metafraste, è possibile che il grammatico si sia accorto dello stravolgimento semantico e dell’errore metrico e abbia modificato il lemma, come nel successivo ταύτην in luogo di ταῦτα che si legge ivi e in Aec., oppure semplicemente, data l’ampia attestazione di κενάς abbia conservato una lezione migliore. Quest’ultima inoltre, omette εἶναι ed aggiunge un εἰς prima di εὐσέβειαν. 2.4 Conclusioni Il testo di Baioforo è molto simile a Sym., specialmente per le frasi di introduzione delle citazioni; ma condivide con Aec. la lezione φῶτες, documentata anche nel Martyrium Sanctae Luciae. Sembrerebbe quindi testimone di una versione stemmaticamente più antica di questi testi. In due casi il testo di Baioforo è migliore di quello delle tre passioni, per il genitivo κακοῖο προσερχομένοιο e la lezione κενὰς πανηγύρεις, fatto che conduce alla stessa conclusione. 3 Oracolo III 3.1 Introduzione Il titolo (Ὁ παρ᾽ὑμῖν θαυμαζόμενος Ἀπόλλων ὁ μαντικός, τοιοῦτον δή τινα περὶ Χριστοῦ ἐξεφώνησε λόγον), vergato ancora in inchiostro rosso, è tratto dal martirio di Artemio inserito nel menologio metafrastico. Si tratta precisamente della prima parte della formula che 21

Le edizioni di Fabrot e Bekker (f e b nell’apparato di Tartaglia) danno καλάς.

230

Giulia Maria Paoletti

precede il vaticinio di Apollo sull’abbandono del tempio attestato nel recto del medesimo foglio (Theos. § 16 Erbse = I 5 Beatrice). Non è un caso che il vaticinio sulla nuova stirpe sia anticipato da un estratto della Passiο. Durante il dibattito fra l’imperatore Giuliano e il martire cristiano, quest’ultimo fa frequentemente uso delle autorità pagane per suffragare la sua tesi e convincere il suo accusatore. Poco prima del riferimento al vaticinio di Apollo, dio tenuto in massima considerazione durante il tentativo di revival pagano attuato dall’Apostata, Artemio cita proprio Virgilio tra i profeti che anticiparono la venuta del Cristo, in particolare nelle Bucoliche. In Baioforo si tratta della traduzione greca del verso virgiliano (ecl. 4, 7) che ha attratto nel tempo una nutrita schiera di autori cristiani, inclini o meno ad attribuirgli valenza profetica: Iam nova progenies caelo demittitur alto. Come è noto, In Oriente la prima attestazione di interesse si ritrova nell’Oratio ad sanctorum coetum.22 Sulla paternità Costantiniana del discorso si sono espressi numerosi studiosi, la maggior parte dei quali ne nega l’attribuzione a Costantino e ritiene il discorso probabilmente una falsificazione posteriore alla metà del V secolo. Il capitolo si apre proprio con la traduzione del v. 7, inserita subito dopo il commento all’acrostico sibillino che avrebbe predetto l’avvento del Messia, in un tessuto testuale volto unicamente a sottolineare la coincidenza di intenti tra pagani e i cristiani. Trattando dell’era augustea e della «nuova successione di popolo (δήμου διαδοχή)» formatasi con il «mistero della santissima religione», l’imperatore adduce come testimone «il più eminente tra i poeti d’Italia» e traduce: Ἔνθεν ἔπειτα νέα πληθὺς ἀνδρῶν ἐφαάνθη.23

A differenza di ciò che accade in Baioforo e nella Passio Artemii, la traduzione costantiniana non è verbum de verbo, per rispettare il verso esametrico, ed è omessa volontariamente la parte di testo relativa alla discesa dal cielo: l’intenzione dell’autore era quella di identificare la nova progenies virgiliana non con il puer messianico che avrebbe riportato i Saturnia regna ma con la nuova stirpe di cristiani. Come scritto da Nicoletta Brocca, «oltre alla comprensibile omissione delle parti che non si prestavano all’interpretatio Christiana, numerose sono 22

Su questo testo cf. Brocca 181-188. Giardino 71 suggerisce che la traduzione costantiniana potrebbe alludere a Oracoli Sibillini I 283: ἔνθ᾽ αὖθις βιότοιο νέη ἀνέτειλε γενέθλη. 23

Il ms. Bas. A.VII.11: appunti sulla storia di un florilegio oracolare

231

le inesattezze e perfino le falsificazioni del testo.»24 Un’altra riproposizione greca del verso in questione si trova nel corpus del vescovo ancirano Teodoto (V secolo): si tratta della Oratio in sanctam Mariam dei genitricem et in sanctam Christi nativitatem.25 L’ancirano inserisce la citazione virgiliana nel penultimo capitolo dell’omelia26 all’interno della polemica contro il Giudaismo, dopo un passo del profeta Geremia27, un altro accenno veterotestamentario28 ed una versione «ateniese» dell’oracolo rivolto agli Argonauti sulla costruzione di un tempio a Cizico.29 Tutte queste testimonianze sono introdotte al fine di «abbondare nella dimostrazione contro i Giudei, rei di essere increduli verso Cristo» e di «dimostrare che perfino tra i pagani vi erano stati preannunci della fede.»30 L’acme «dell’inconsapevolezza dei vati pagani nel predire la fede cristiana»31 è rappresentato secondo Teodoto dalla citazione di San Paolo nel discorso all’Areopago quando l’apostolo, raccontando di aver visto un’ara dedicata al «dio ignoto», proclama: «quello che voi adorate senza conoscerlo, io ve lo annuncio.»32 Così traduce il verso di Virgilio, definito «non oscuro né privo di sapienza»: ἡ νέα γονὴ άπὸ τοῦ ὑψηλοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταπέμπεται.33 Anche se la traduzione e l’interpretazione di Costantino nel tempo dovettero conservare un’importanza canonica34 è evidente che esse non corrispondano a quelle proposte dal vescovo che preferisce, invece, rimanere legato all’originale latino anche a spese della metrica, con il passaggio da poesia a prosa.

24

Brocca 189. Hom. VI in PG 77, 1418-1432 (solo versione latina). 26 14 p. 334, 38s. Jugie: ἡ νέα γονὴ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὑψηλοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταπέμπεται. 27 Ierem. 31, 22. 28 3 (1) Reg. 18, 26: καὶ οὐκ ἦν φωνὴ καὶ οὐκ ἦν ἀκρόασις καὶ διέτρεχον ἐπὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου οὗ ἐποίησαν. 29 Su questo oracolo cf. Agosti. L’attestazione di Teodoto è la più antica a collocare l’oracolo ad Atene. Da Malala in poi, Theosophia compresa, il destinatario rimarrà legato alla figura degli Argonauti, per tramutarsi poi nei sette saggi del Commentarius de templo Athenarum dello Ps.-Atanasio. 30 Sciuto 521. 31 Sciuto 521. 32 Att. Ap. 17, 23: Ἀγνώστῳ θεῷ. ὃ οὖν ἀγνοοῦντες εὐσεβεῖτε, τοῦτο ἐγώ καταγγέλλω ὑμῖν. 33 Oratio in sanctam Mariam 14 p. 334 [216], 38s. Jugie. 34 Sciuto 523. 25

232

Giulia Maria Paoletti

3.2 Presentazione del testo Ὁ παρ᾽ὑμῖν θαυμαζόμενος Ἀπόλλων ὁ μαντικός, τοιοῦτον δή τινα περὶ Χριστοῦ ἐξεφώνησε λόγον· ἤδη νέα γενεὰ ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανίου ἔρχεται ὕψους ἣ τοῦ Κρόνου καὶ τοῦ Διὸς καὶ τῶν ἄλλων θεῶν τὴν βασιλείαν καθελεῖ. __________________________________________________________ Sym. Met. PG 115, 1193 a ____________________________________________________________________

Traduzione Perfino Apollo, vostro venerato profeta, pronunciò su Cristo pressappoco questo vaticinio: «Ora dall’alto del cielo giunge una nuova stirpe e di Crono, Zeus e gli altri dei distruggerà il regno». 3.3 Analisi ἐξεφώνησε Il verbo è connesso etimologicamente al sostantivo ἐκφώνημα, utilizzato da Eusebio (Anon. ap. Eus., Hist. eccl. V 16, 8) per indicare le profezie montaniste (Τῶν δὲ κατ’ ἐκεῖνο καιροῦ ἐν τῇ τῶν νόθων ἐκφωνημάτων ἀκροάσει γενομένων). È utilizzato solitamente con il sostantivo θαῦμα, nel senso di «gridare per lo stupore» o in generale «urlare per la sorpresa». ἤδη Perfetto calco semantico di iam latino, assente nella versione di Teodoto, ma potrebbe semplicemente trattarsi di una banalizzazione dovuta a un trascrittore. Il rispetto dell’ordo latino si nota già in apertura del verso. γενεά La differenza tra γενεά e γονή è sottile: mentre il primo ha il valore di «stirpe, generazione», il secondo è associato più propriamente al «generare fisico», al «parto» e di conseguenza ha l’accezione di «figlio, prole, discendenza». La scelta di Teodoto è simbolo di una ricercatezza

Il ms. Bas. A.VII.11: appunti sulla storia di un florilegio oracolare

233

e raffinatezza lessicale ma rispecchia soprattutto la sua interpretazione dell’ecloga in senso mariologico. ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανίου [...] ὕψους Se il testo dell’appendix rispetta ancora una volta l’ordine latino, non ne è però traduzione letterale. Qui è «l’altezza», connotata come «celeste» mentre nell’originale latino il sostantivo è rappresentato da caelo e l’aggettivo da alto. Teodoto rispetta l’originale proponendo ὑψηλοῦ οὐρανοῦ. Se l’esametro fosse corretto, la differenza potrebbe essere spiegata metri causa, ma così non è: il verso di Baioforo ad ogni modo metricamente non funziona: escludendo l’adonio finale, posto così, sembrerebbe ametrico.35 ἔρχεται Sarebbe stato più opportuno un verbo che sottolineasse maggiormente l’idea della discesa e non l’allontanamento: a partire dall’originale latino demitto (al passivo), si potrebbe individuare un più preciso equivalente greco in καταβαίνω o κατέρχομαι, entrambi verbi frequentemente utilizzati da Omero in relazione ad una provenienza dal cielo (ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ἀστερόεντος Τρωσὶν ἀλεξήσοντα κατελθέμεν, Il. 6, 109; Ἴδης ἐν κορυφῇσι καθέζετο πιδηέσσης οὐρανόθεν καταβάς Il. 11, 184). Il primo si ritrova poi spesso nel NT, come ad esempio in riferimento all’angelo inviato da Dio (ἄγγελος γὰρ κυρίου καταβὰς ἐξ οὐρανοῦ Mt. 28, 2) o in riferimento allo spirito (τὸ πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον ὡς περιστερὰν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ Io. 1, 32). Teodoto propone καταπέμπεται che, se da un lato rispetta l’idea della discesa, dall’altro è teso a sottolineare l’«invio» da parte di Dio del figlio salvatore, come già in Clemente (πῶς γὰρ οὐ φιλεῖται, δι’ ὃν ὁ μονογενὴς ἐκ κόλπων πατρὸς καταπέμπεται λόγος τῆς πίστεως, Paed. I 3, 8, 2). La traduzione di Baioforo potrebbe essere spiegata sulla base di ragioni metriche, dato il perfetto adonio finale realizzato da ἔρχεται ὕψους, pur considerando che la traduzione in totale è comunque ametrica. ἣ τοῦ Κρόνου καὶ τοῦ Διὸς καὶ τῶν ἄλλων θεῶν τὴν βασιλείαν καθελεῖ L’ultima linea racchiude l’annuncio della fine del paganesimo e il trionfo della nuova religione cristiana. L’ecloga virgiliana parla di una discesa del regno di Crono (redeunt Saturnia regna) mentre qui si parla dell’annichilamento definitivo del dominio della divinità e della sua stirpe, in un’eco che ricorda il lamento di Apollo scacciato con violenza 35

Come suggerito da Helmut Seng (per litteras) un piccolo cambiamento in ἤδη ἀπ’ [ὸ τοῦ] οὐρανίου γενεὰ νέα ἔρχεται ὕψους lo renderebbe un esametro corretto, con l’espunzione di ὸ τοῦ.

234

Giulia Maria Paoletti

(βίαζεται) dalla soglia del tempio.36 Dato che il vaticinio è trasmesso da Apollo, il senso antifrastico della frase rispetto all’originale latino è ben comprensibile. È impossibile non pensare all’opera esiodea e alla menzione del regno di Crono (οἳ μὲν ἐπὶ Κρόνου ἦσαν, ὅτ ̓ οὐρανῷ ἐμβασίλευεν, Op. 111). Il fatto che in un manoscritto del XIV secolo si ritrovi una traduzione di un testo latino attesta un interesse per quel panorama letterario, ma soprattutto conferma l’attenzione speciale rivolta in età Paleologa a tutto ciò che riguarda la sfera profetica. 3.4 Conclusione Questo ultimo vaticino si rivela interessante sia da un punto di vista linguistico che socio culturale. Linguistico perché testimoniante probabilmente un esercizio linguistico di traduzione dal latino al greco, un elemento ricorrente in età Paleologa; socio culturale perché dimostra ancora una volta l’attenzione rivolta dai Bizantini al mondo classico e pre-cristiano, sia greco che latino, soprattutto durante il revival classico degli ultimi anni dell’impero. 4 Conclusione generale È doveroso sottolineare che altri tre oracoli attestati dal codice di Basilea trovano un corrispettivo nella versione di Metafraste della Passio Artemii. Due sono testimoniati anche dalla Teosofia di Tubinga in un oracolo unico (§ 16 Erbse = I 5 Beatrice). Questo dato potrebbe portare a pensare che l’antigrafo, ad oggi ancora non bene identificato, sia una raccolta di testi estratti da una delle versioni del menologio di Metafraste. In particolare, le similitudini di uno degli altri tre con la Passio sono così importanti da portare all’esclusione di qualsiasi altro tipo di antigrafo. Data la competenza del copista / γραμματικός Giorgio Baioforo non è da escludere che egli stesso abbia assemblato i dodici frammenti, trascrivendo stralci di testo da differenti manoscritti che aveva per le mani oppure da un unico antigrafo andato perduto.

36

Theos. § 16 Erbse = I 5 Beatrice e Theosophorum Graecorum Fragmenta y’= π8.

Il ms. Bas. A.VII.11: appunti sulla storia di un florilegio oracolare

235

Bibliografia 1 Edizioni, commenti, traduzioni Anecdota Graeca Anecdota Graeca e codd. manuscriptis bibliothecae regiae Parisiensis. Edidit J. A. Cramer. II Oxford 1839. (rist. Hildesheim 1967). Cyrillus Kyrill von Alexandrien, Werke. Erster Band »Gegen Julian«. Teil 1: Buch 15. Herausgegeben von C. Riedweg. Berlin – Boston 2016. (GCS NF 20). Doctrina Patrum de incarnatione verbi Doctrina Patrum de Incarnatione Verbi. Ein griechisches Florilegium aus der Wende des siebenten und achten Jahrhunderts zum ersten Male vollstãndig herausgegeben und untersucht von F. Diekamp. Münster 1907. Eusebius Historia ecclesiastica Eusèbe de Césarée, Histoire ecclésiastique. Livres V-VIII. Texte grec, traduction et notes par G. Bardy. Paris 1955. (SC 41). Constantini oratio ad sanctorum coetum Eusebius Werke. Erster Band. Über das Leben Constantins. Constantins Rede an die Heilige Versammlung. Tricennatsrede an Constantin. Herausgegeben von I. A. Heikel. Leipzig 1902. (GCS 7). Eustathius Thessalonicensis Exegesis in canonem iambicum pentacostalem Eustathii Thessalonicensis Exegesis in canonem iambicum pentecostalem. Recensuerunt indicibusque instruxerunt P. Cesaretti - S. Ronchey. Berlin – München – Boston 2014. (Supplementa Byzantina. Texte und Untersuchungen 10). Georgius Cedrenus Georgii Cedreni Historiarum compendium. Edizione critica a cura di L. Tartaglia. Roma 2016. Iohannes Malalas Iohannis Malalae Chronographia. Recensuit I. Thurn. Berlin – New York 2000. (Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae 35).

236

Giulia Maria Paoletti

Pseudo-Iustinus Ps.-Justin (Markell von Ankyra?), Ad Graecos de vera religione (bisher “Cohortatio ad Graecos”). Einleitung und Kommentar von C. Riedweg. I-II Basel 1994. (Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 25/1-2). Martyrium Sanctae Luciae Costanza, S.: «Un ‘Martyrion’ inedito di S. Lucia di Siracusa.» Αrchivio Storico Siracusano 3 (1957) 6-53. Maximus Confessor Quaestiones et dubia Maximi Confessoris Quaestiones et dubia edidit J. H. Declerck. Turnhout 1982. (CCSG 10). Passio Aecatherinae Passions des saints Écatérine et Pierre d’Alexandrie, Barbara et Anysia, publiées d’après les manuscrits grecs de Paris et de Rome : avec un choix de variantes et une traduction latine par J. Viteau. Paris 1897. Symphonia Lilla, S.: «The Florilegium on the Agreement between the Ancient Greek Philosophers and the New Testament in the Codex Vat. Gr. 2200.» Collectanea in honorem Rev.mi Patris Leonardi E. Boyle, O. P., septuagesimum quintum annum feliciter complentis. Città del Vaticano 1998. 225-264. Theodotus episcopus Ancyrae Oratio in sanctam Mariam dei genitricem et in sanctam Christi nativitatem Homélies mariales byzantines. Textes grecs édités et traduits en latin par M. Jugie. II Paris 1926. (Patrologia Orientalis 19, 3). 318-335 [200-217]. Theosophia Theosophorum Graecorum Fragmenta. Iterum recensuit H. Erbse. Stuttgart – Leipzig 1995. Anonymi Monophysitae Theosophia. An attempt at reconstruction by P. F. Beatrice. Leiden – Boston – Köln 2001. (VChr Suppl. 56). Die Tübinger Theosophie. Eingeleitet, übersetzt und kommentiert von L. Carrara und I. Männlein-Robert. Unter Mitwirkung von V. Clausing-Lage, A.-L. Engelbach, C. Rüth, O. Schelske, F. Schulz. Mit einem Beitrag von H. Seng. Stuttgart 2018. (Bibliothek der griechischen Literatur 86). 2 Letteratura secondaria Agosti, G.: «Reliquie argonautiche a Cizico. Un’ipotesi sulle Argonautiche Orfiche.» Incontri triestini di Filologia Classica 7 (2007-2008) 17-36. Bentley, R.: The Works. Collected and edited by A. Dyce. II London 1836. (rist. Hildesheim 1971).

Il ms. Bas. A.VII.11: appunti sulla storia di un florilegio oracolare

237

Brocca, N.: Lattanzio, Agostino e la Sibylla maga. Ricerche sulla fortuna degli Oracula Sibyllina nell’Occidente latino. Roma 2011. (Studi e testi tardoantichi 11). Carrara, L: “Textüberlieferung der Tübinger Theosophie.” In: Carrara - MännleinRobert, Die Tübinger Theosophie 32-60. Cataldi Palau, A.: «The manuscript production in the Monastery of Prodromos Petra (twelfth-fifteenth centuries).» In: Cataldi Palau, A. (ed.): Studies in Greek Manuscripts. I-II Spoleto 2008. 198-207. (Testi, studi, strumenti 24). Cesaretti - Ronchey  Eustathius Theassalonicensis. Delatte, A.: «Le déclin de la Légende des VII Sages et les prophéties théosophiques.» Le Musée belge 27 (1923) 97-111. Giardino, M.: La versione greca della IV Ecloga di Virgilio e il commento di Costantino. Tesi di dottorato, Università degli studi di Napoli Federico II, A. A. 2011/2012. http://www.fedoa.unina.it/9513/1/Tesi%20dottorato_Giardino%20Melania.pdf Janin, R.: La géographie ecclésiastique de l’empire byzantin. I: Le siège de Constantinople et le patriarcat œcuménique. 3: Les églises et les monastères. Paris 1969. Kakoulidi, E.: «Ἡ βιβλιοθήκη τῆς μονῆς “Προδρόμου-Πέτρας” στὴν Κωνσταντινούπολη.» Ἑλληνικά 21 (1968) 3-39. Majeska, G. P.: Russian travelers to Constantinople in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Washington D. C. 1984. (Dumbarton Oaks Studies 19). Malamut, E.: «Le monastère Saint-Jean-Prodrome de Pétra de Constantinople.» In: Kaplan, M. (ed.): Le sacré et son inscription dans l’espace à Byzance et en Occident. Études comparées. Paris 2001. 219-233. (Publications de la Sorbonne. Série Byzantina Sorbonensia 18). Mecella, L.: «Giovanni Malala e il ruolo del principato augusteo nella storia universale» Paideia 68 (2013) 349-374. Premerstein, A. von: «Ein pseudo-athanasianischer Traktat mit apocryphen Philosophenspruechen in Codex Bodleianus 5.» Εἰς μνήμην Σπυρίδωνος Λάμπρου. Athene 1935. 183-186. Riedweg  Pseudo-Iustinus. Roberto, U.: «The Influence of Julius Africanus’ Chronographiae on Malalas’ View of Ancient History.» In: Carrara, L. - Meier, M. - Radtki-Jansen, C. (ed.): Die Weltchronik des Johannes Malalas. Quellenfragen. Stuttgart 2017. 49-70. (Malalas Studien 2). Sciuto, F. E.: «Una citazione virgiliana in Teodoto di Ancira (V secolo).» In: Studi di filologia classica in onore di Giusto Monaco. I Palermo 1991. 517-526. Stroumsa, G. G.: Hidden Wisdom: Esoteric Traditions and The Roots Of Christian Mysticism. Leiden – New York – Köln. (Studies in the history of religions 70).

Enrico Magnelli

Crooked oracles or naive inquirers? Theodore Prodromus, Rhodanthe and Dosicles 9, 184-240 The Byzantines, as scholars know only too well, were obsessed with prophecies. The small collection ascribed to Leo the Wise1 was only the tip of a huge iceberg: in fact, it is quite easy to lose one’s bearings “in the chaotic mass of Byzantine oracular literature”.2 Add that the most competent poets of the Comnenian age were glad to display their technical skill in composing classicizing dactylic hexameters.3 In light of both these facts, it is not surprising at all that the gifted polymath Theodore Prodromus (born ca. 1100, deceased either 1156/1158 or 1170)4 decided to insert an alleged Delphic oracle, in nine hexameter verses, in Book 9 of his novel Rhodanthe and Dosicles.5 This was far from unparalleled in 1

On this bunch of oracles, which enjoyed enormous popularity in the Middle Ages, cf. Mango’s masterly study; add Congourdeau. For the short poems in highbrow dodecasyllables, the text in PG 107, 1121-1140 is now replaced by Brokkaar’s reliable edition; the enlarged collection assembled by Francesco Barozzi in the 16th century is edited by Vereecken - Hadermann-Misguich (cf. also Rigo’s useful monograph). A different version in vernacular Greek can be read in both Legrand and Trapp, “Vulgärorakel ...”. On Emperor Leo VI the Wise – who, in all likelihood, had nothing to do with those oracles: Mango rather thinks of Leo the Philosopher – cf. most recently Tsiaples, with previous bibliography. 2 As Mango 59 effectively defined it. Cf. also Vereecken - Hadermann-Misguich 21-32. 3 Theodore Prodromus composed a great number of hexameter poems: for a catalogue of his works, cf. Hörandner 37-72. His disciple and imitator Nicetas Eugenianus embellished his iambic novel Drosilla and Charicles (cf. also Conca 305-497) with three clusters of hexameters (3, 263-288.297-322; 6, 205-235), and used the very same metre in two other pieces (edited in Gallavotti 229-233; on Nicetas’ hexameter poetry cf. also De Stefani 396-398). Constantine Manasses wrote both his erotic novel Aristander and Callithea and his long Chronicle in political verses, but in the dedicatory poem of the latter (edited in Lampsidis 101-105; cf. also De Stefani 388f.) he proved capable of writing good epic verses. 4 On Theodore cf. Hörandner 21-72; Kazhdan 87-114; Zagklas. 5 The standard edition is by Marcovich; a sound revised text is offered by Conca 63303, with Italian translation, exegetical notes, and a nota critica at 47-52. On the structure and poetics of this novel, cf. Beaton 70-76; cf. also Burton 182-200.

240

Enrico Magnelli

ancient Greek novel: Theodore could read (pretended) dactylic oracles in Achilles Tatius, in Xenophon of Ephesus, and above all in his beloved Heliodorus (the relevant passages will be discussed later). But I think that the very nature of Theodore’s oracle, and the characters’ reaction to it (lines 184-240), deserve a closer look. Book 9 is the final one. After many adventures and misfortunes, Rhodanthe and Dosicles finally reunite safe and sound in Cyprus. But their parents do not know whether the two lovers are still alive, and where to find them: so Lysippus (Dosicles’ father) and Strato (Rhodanthe’s one) decide to consult the Delphic oracle. The god’s answer causes them much trouble (9, 193-218): ἤροντο γοῦν ἐλθόντες εἰς τὴν Πυθίαν, καὶ μὴ βραδύνας μηδὲ μικρὸν ὁ τρίπους ἀνεῖλε τοῖς γέρουσι ταῦτα πατράσι· ῾τίπτε, δύω γενέτα, πολυηράτοιό τε μόσχου πόρτιός θ᾿ ἁπαλῆς σκολιὰς δίζεσθε κελεύθους; χέρσῳ ὑφ᾿ ἁλικλύστῳ, ζῳοτρόφον6 ποτὶ νᾶσον, ἣν λάχε Κυπρογένεια, Πόθου γενέτειρ᾿ Ἀφροδίτη, ἠὲ παρασχομένη τόδε ‹τ›οὔνομα7 ἠὲ λαβοῦσα, δερκόμενοι βιόωντας ἓ λεύσετε. ἀλλ᾿ ἐπὶ πάτρης στέψαθ᾿ ὑπὸ στεφάνοισι τροπαιοφόρου Κυθερείης· τοὺς γὰρ Ἔρως τε Πόθος τε καὶ Ἀφρογένεια Κυθήρη δμήσατο θειοδέτοιο ἀλυκτοπέδῃσι σιδάρου. ᾿ ἡ μὲν Πυθία ταῦτα τοῖς γηραλέοις· τὸ δ᾿ ἄρα χρησμῴδημα λοξὸν τυγχάνον, ὁποῖα πάντως οἶδεν ὁ τρίπους λέγειν, πολλοῖς λογισμοῖς ἐξέδω τοὺς ἀθλίους. ὁ γὰρ ἐνεγκὼν τὴν Ῥοδάνθην εἰς βίον (ὡς δὲ Στράτων καλοῖτο, γινώσκειν ἔχεις) κακῶς τὸ χρησμῴδημα τοῦ θεοῦ κρίνων ᾤμωζεν, ἐστέναξεν, ἦρχε δακρύων, δοκῶν τὸν υἱὸν ἐκθανεῖν εὑρημένον, στιγμὴν ἀμαθῶς εἰς τὸ βιοῦντας τιθεὶς κἄπειτα τοῖς ἔπειτα προσδιατρίβων. οὐ μὴν διέδρα καὶ Λύσιππον ὁ τρίπους, γνοὺς δ᾿ ἐξεσάφει καὶ Στράτωνι τὸν λόγον, καλῶς διαγνοὺς τὸν σκοπὸν τῆς Πυθίας· κτλ.

6

195

200

205

210

215

Hercher’s emendation: the transmitted ζωητρόφον (defended on morphological grounds by Trapp, review 362) would not scan. 7 Τοὔνομα, proposed by Gaulmin 550, and accepted by Marcovich, improves both syntax and prosody. Hercher 425, in spite of his usual bent for conjecturing, retained the transmitted οὔνομα: so does Conca 51.288.

Crooked oracles or naive inquirers?

241

So they went to the Pythia and put their inquiry, and without the slightest delay the tripod uttered this response to the aged fathers: 195 “Why, paired parents, do you seek the twisting paths of your much-loved calf and tender heifer? By the sea-girt land, by the animal-nurturing island which fell to the Cyprus-born begetter of Desire, Aphrodite (a name either bestowed or taken), 200 there beholding them, you will see them alive; but in that country crown them with the wreaths of the trophy-bearing Kytherean; for Eros and Desire and the foam-born Kytherean have subdued them with the indissoluble bonds of iron bound on by the gods.” Thus spoke the Pythia to the old men; 205 the oracular decree, expressed ambiguously (with the phrases the tripod always uses), caused much cogitation for the miserable beings. For the one who had brought Rhodanthe into this life (called Straton, as you know) 210 judged the god’s response unfavourable and wailed, groaned and began to weep, 8 expecting his child to have been found dead, ignorantly placing a full-stop after “were living” and then occupying himself with what followed. 215 But the tripod did not elude Lysippos, and since he understood he explained its meaning to Straton, 9 well comprehending the Pythia’s intention, etc.

The meaning of the oracle10 remains obscure to the elderly men. Not so to the reader: not only because he (or she) already knows where Rhodanthe and Dosicles are, but even because those verses are not difficult at all. A detailed analysis will, I hope, shed some light on Theodore’s aims and methods. The oracle is well produced. The verses are of pretty good quality, for the Byzantine period at least – bipartite hexameters such as 198 (and 201, if one prints βιόωντας λεύσετε with Marcovich) are common in the Greek Middle Ages.11 Theodore’s vast knowledge of the Greek poetical 8

“Rhodanthe is oddly referred to as υἱὸν, ‘son’” (Jeffreys 148 n. 294; cf. Sideras 225 n. 160). An (undesirable) influence of τέκνον? 9 Trs. Jeffreys 147f., with two changes: at line 201 not “you will see where they were living”, but “you will see them alive” (reading ἓ λεύσετε: see below); at line 215 not “passing over what followed” (an unusual meaning for προσδιατρίβω), but “occupying himself with what followed” (Agapitos, “Writing ...” 145). 10 II 517 Parke - Wormell; n° 201 in the old collection by Hendess 98f. 11 The hiatus at 200 οὔνομα ἠέ (the one between τόδε and οὔνομα is easily removed by Gaulmin’s emendation), 201 λεύσετε ἀλλ᾿, 204 -δέτοιο ἀλυκτ-, and the free

242

Enrico Magnelli

tradition appears at almost every line. Σκολιὰς ... κελεύθους (197) comes from Dionysius Periegetes 62: ὑμεῖς δ᾿, ὦ Μοῦσαι, σκολιὰς ἐνέποιτε κελεύθους.12 Ζῳοτρόφος (198), quite rare in poetry,13 may have been suggested by OC 219, 3 (dubium) γαίης ζωοτρόφοιο.14 Πόθου γενέτειρ᾿ Ἀφροδίτη (199) probably echoes Nonnus, D. 46, 351 Ἁρμονίης γενέτειραν ἀνιάζων Ἀφροδίτην;15 the redundant δερκόμενοι ... λεύσετε (201) may owe something to Gregory of Nazianzus, Carm. I II 29, 249 PG 37, 902 δερκομένη λεύσσοντας, and στέψαθ᾿ ὑπὸ στεφάνοισι τροπαιοφόρου16 Κυθερείης (202) clearly reworks – as Marcovich rightly points out – the end of a long and witty epigram by Agathias (A. P. V 294, 24 = 90, 24 Viansino), στέμματα σοὶ πλέξω, Κύπρι τροπαιοφόρε. We cannot rule out the possibility that Ἀφρογένεια Κυθήρη (203) echoes the spurious (and unmetrical) hexameter transmitted by the Hesiodic manuscripts17 as Th. 196, i. e. ἀφρογένειαν [ἀφρογενῆ Guyet, -νέα Werfer] τε θεὰν καὶ ἐυστέφανον Κυθέρειαν. At 204, θειοδέτοιο appears to be a hapax in all extant Greek and Byzantine literature, while ἀλυκτοπέδῃσι σιδάρου may reflect Gr. Naz., Carm. II II 1, 59 PG 37, 1436 οἱ δὲ σιδηρείῃσιν ἀλυκτοπέδαις μογέουσι and/or Nonnus, D. 16, 160 καί σε σιδηρείῃσιν ἀλυκτοπέδῃσι πεδήσω.18 Furthermore, the very

quantity of δίχρονα (α, ι, υ) at 197 πόρτιος and 198 ἁλικλύστῳ (but at Carm. hist. 78, 31 Hörandner, Theodore appears to scan the two first syllables differently) are also normal in this period. Großschupf 7 collects instances of hiatus in Theodore’s dodecasyllables. 12 As Marcovich, “The Text ...” n. 39 and Theodori Prodromi 153 rightly notes. Cf. also 473f. ὀλοὴ ναύτῃσι κέλευθος, / στεινή τε σκολιή τε καὶ ἄσχετος. The anonymous book epigram on Ptolemy’s Geography printed by Nobbe XXII (X 3 σκολιάς τε κελεύθους), may well be later than Theodore’s novel. 13 Not so in post-classical prose. Before the Byzantine era, the passage wrongly attributed to the Chaldaean Oracles (cf. Seng 147) is the sole occurrence in Greek poetry: in the age of Theodore and shortly thereafter, the epithet reappears in Nic. Eug., DC 8, 202, Constantinus Manasses, Breviarium chronicum 108.6163 Lampsidis, Constantinus Stilbes, Carm. 1, 38 Diethart - Hörandner. 14 The well known interest of the Byzantines for those texts needs not detain us here. 15 An author whom Theodore surely knew: cf. Spanoudakis, quoting previous bibliography. 16 The epithet, not rare in itself, appears several times in Theodore’s Carmina historica and once in his Tetrasticha VT 100b, 3 Papagiannis. 17 And in the indirect tradition as well: cf. Etymologicum Magnum α 2189 Lasserre Livadaras (mutilated as it may be). 18 Häger 66, followed by Marcovich, “The Text ...” 399 n. 44, would rather compare this line with Hes., Th. 521 δῆσε δ᾿ ἀλυκτοπέδῃσι Προμηθέα ποικιλόβουλον. Cf. also line 5 of Prodromus’ third dedicatory epigram of his own novel, edited by

Crooked oracles or naive inquirers?

243

beginning of line 196 clearly imitates traditional oracular style. Questions like ‘Why are you coming here/inquiring about this/looking for that?’ are common in ancient oracles, and, more specifically, the initial τίπτε occurs in several pre-Byzantine responses: cf. τίπτε νέως κτίσσαι πολύπουν μενεαίνετε χῶρον, / κοῦροι Ἀθηναίων; (Polyaen. 6, 53 = II 133, 1f. Parke - Wormell), τίπτε μ᾿ ἀεὶ θείοντος ἀπ᾿ αἰθέρος ὧδε χατίζων / θειοδάμοις Ἑκάτην με θεὴν ἐκάλεσσας ἀνάγκαις; (Porph. fr. 347F Smith),19 and especially A. P. XIV 100, 1f. τίπτε, δύω βασιλῆες, ὁ μὲν Τρώων, ὁ δ᾿ Ἀχαιῶν, / οὐ ταὐτὰ φρονέοντες ἐμὸν δόμον εἰσανέβητε ...; (II 406, 1f. Parke - Wormell).20 But a further, very relevant parallel is provided by an oracle in Xenophon of Ephesus (1, 6, 2):21 Τίπτε ποθεῖτε μαθεῖν νούσου τέλος ἠδὲ καὶ ἀρχήν; ἀμφοτέρους μία νοῦσος ἔχει· λύσις ἔνθεν ἔνεστι. δεινὰ δ᾿ ὁρῶ τοῖσδεσσι πάθη καὶ ἀνήνυτα ἔργα· ἀμφότεροι φεύξονται ὑπεὶρ ἅλα λυσσοδίωκτοι, δεσμὰ δὲ μοχθήσουσι παρ᾿ ἀνδράσι μιξοθαλάσσοις, καὶ τάφος ἀμφοτέροις θάλαμος καὶ πῦρ ἀΐδηλον. ἀλλ᾿ ἔτι που μετὰ πήματ᾿ ἀρείονα πότμον ἔχουσι καὶ ποταμοῦ Νείλου παρὰ ῥεύμασιν Ἴσιδι σεμνῇ σωτείρῃ μετόπισθε παριστᾶσ᾿ ὄλβια δῶρα.22

5

Why do you long to learn the end of a malady, and its beginning? One disease has both in its grasp, and from that the remedy must be accomplished. But for them I see terrible sufferings and toils that are endless; both will flee over the sea pursued by madness; they will suffer chains at the hands of men who mingle with the waters; and a tomb shall be the bridal chamber for both, and fire the destroyer. But still after their sufferings a better fate is in store, and beside the waters of the river Nile, to Holy Isis the savior they will afterwards offer rich gifts.23

Agapitos, “Poets and Painters” 175f. and recently discussed by Nilsson - Zagklas 1131-1133: δεσμά τ᾿ ἀλυκτοπέδαι τε. 19 = Eus., PE V 8, 6 = OC 221 (dubium). 20 Theodore could read it not only in the Anthology, but also in the Homeric scholia. On these and other texts, cf. Ruiz Pérez 182f. (also mentioning Prodromus’ passage), and his paper in this volume. 21 = Appendix Anthologiae VI 319 Cougny. The analogy did not escape the acute eye of Marcovich, “The Text ...” 399. 22 A difficult passage, especially in the much disputed lines 8f. I print the text established by O’Sullivan, 9, but the reader will need to consult his detailed critical apparatus. Cf. also Whitmarsh 199. 23 Trs. G. Anderson in Reardon 132, with minor changes.

244

Enrico Magnelli

In such words Apollo replies to the parents of Anthia and Habrocomes, eager to know both the cause of their children’s disease and the possible therapy. If τίπτε, δύω γενέτα in our passage blatantly recalls τίπτε, δύω βασιλῆες of A. P. XIV 100, 1, I am pretty sure that Theodore’s primary model was Xenophon of Ephesus: both oracles are nine lines long, both address the old parents of the two lovers, both come from two of the most renowned Apolline shrines of antiquity (Delphi in Rhodanthe and Dosicles, Colophon in Anthia and Habrocomes), and while in Xenophon the prophecy is uttered at the beginning of the plot, Theodore places it not at random, but (oppositio in imitando) at its end. Let me try to identify yet another possible source of inspiration for our Byzantine novelist: his mention of Cyprus may owe something to the four oracular hexameters embedded by Achilles Tatius in his Leucippe and Clitophon (2, 14, 1 = A. P. XIV 34): Νῆσός τις πόλις ἐστὶ φυτώνυμον αἷμα λαχοῦσα, ἰσθμὸν ὁμοῦ καὶ πορθμὸν ἐπ᾿ ἠπείροιο φέρουσα, ἔνθ᾿ Ἥφαιστος ἔχων χαίρει γλαυκῶπιν Ἀθήνην· κεῖθι θυηπολίην σε φέρειν κέλομαι Ἡρακλεῖ.24 There is a certain city which is an island having blood named from a plant, where Hephaestus enjoys the possession of grey-eyed Athena. Thither I bid you send a sacrifice to Heracles.25

There can be little doubt that Theodore’s imitation of both typical oracular diction and the ‘classics’ of ancient Greek novel proves successful. This is, after all, what one could expect from a man of his talent and culture. What goes beyond imitation, and reveals – in my view – Theodore’s playful attitude towards the tradition of literary oracles, is the inconsistency between the actual meaning of these lines and the reaction of Lysippus and Strato. The poor guys find themselves in distress, unable to solve the (alleged) riddles (line 208); only later Lysippus eventually manages to understand the prophecy and shares his knowledge with Strato. This also might seem a typical scene – but one would not expect it after this oracle. The four lines in Achilles Tatius in fact provoke a certain perplexity (2, 14, 2: ἀπορούντων δὲ αὐτῶν τί λέγει τὸ μάντευμα), 24

In the Palatine Anthology, apart from minor textual differences (cf. Beckby’s apparatus), we find one more hexameter (ἔνθ᾿ ἀπ᾿ ἐμῆς ἔσθ᾿ αἷμα ὁμοῦ καὶ Κέκροπος αἷμα) inserted after line 2. 25 Trs. Paton 43.

Crooked oracles or naive inquirers?

245

until Sostratus, a clever and competent man, reveals that the ‘city-island’ is Tyre and that there is nothing sexual in the disquieting mention of ‘Hephaestus gladly keeping Athena’:26 the oracle is really crooked, especially in line 3, which turns out to be a kind of amphibological play like those of the Contest of Homer and Hesiod.27 Even more predictable is the total perplexity of the parents in Xenophon of Ephesus (1, 7, 1: εὐθὺς μὲν οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν ἦσαν ἐν ἀμηχανίᾳ καὶ τὸ δεινὸν ὅ τι ἦν πάνυ ἠπόρουν, συμβάλλειν δὲ τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγια οὐκ ἐδύναντο), whose verses do not describe any place or ritual but only foretell future, strange events:28 why should Habrocomes and Anthia be ‘pursued by madness’ (4), who are the men ‘having intercourse with the sea’ (5), and what has the bride-chamber to do with grave and fire (6)? Less obscure oracles (unconventionally composed in elegiac couplets) occur in Heliodorus, Theodore’s favourite model29 and “unique in ancient literature for his continual attention to problems of language and communication”.30 One of them (2, 26 = II 514 Parke - Wormell)31 is so easy to understand that nobody in the crowd has anything to wonder about. Another one (2, 35 = II 515 Parke - Wormell) is just a bit more complex: Τὴν χάριν ἐν πρώτοις, αὐτὰρ κλέος ὕστατ᾿ ἔχουσαν, φράζεσθ᾿, ὦ Δελφοί, τόν τε θεᾶς γενέτην· οἳ νηὸν προλιπόντες ἐμὸν καὶ κῦμα τεμόντες ἵξοντ᾿ ἠελίου πρὸς χθόνα κυανέην, τῇ περ ἀριστοβίων μέγ᾿ ἀέθλιον ἐξάψονται λευκὸν ἐπὶ κροτάφων στέμμα μελαινομένων.

26

5

As commentators know, this seemingly alludes to the story of Erichthonius, born from Hephaestus’ seed: but in that myth, Hephaestus did not fulfil his desire with the reluctant goddess. 27 Cf. especially Cert. Hom. Hes. 9 (p. 38 Colonna2 = 330 West) αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ δμήθη γάμῳ Ἄρτεμις ἰοχέαιρα: on such riddles cf. Manzin. 28 Cf. Whitmarsh 200. 29 On Theodore’s use of Heliodorus and Achilles Tatius, Häger 7-57 is still worth reading; more recent studies on his interest in Heliodorus include Colonna, Bianchi, “Lettori di Eliodoro ...”, and especially Agapitos, “Narrative ...” 146-156 and “Writing ...” 142-145. Other bibliography on the reception of the ancient novel in Byzantium can be found in Christoforatou, “The Iconography ...” 89 n. 5, Bianchi, Il codice del romanzo 9 n. 8, and Nilsson - Zagklas; on Achilles Tatius, add Tissoni. 30 The effective definition is due to Winkler 104. 31 Note that Heliodorus’ oracles come from Delphi, just like Theodore’s one.

246

Enrico Magnelli

One who starts in grace and ends in glory, another goddess-born: of these I bid you have regard, O Delphi! Leaving my temple here and cleaving Ocean’s swelling tides, to the black land of the Sun will they travel, where they will reap the reward of those whose lives are passed in virtue, 32 a crown of white on brows of black.

The riddles are confined to the first couplet: on the whole, these lines are “a not-very-enigmatic summary of the plot”.33 If they remain unclear to the Delphians, this is partly due to the fact that the latter are much more interested in the procession than in ‘carefully analyzing the prophecy to discover the truth’ (2, 36: τὰ χρησθέντα πρὸς τὸ ἀκριβὲς ἀνιχνεύειν ἀμελήσαντες). And Kalasiris’ repeated assertions on his own doubts about the exact meaning of the oracle are not to be taken too seriously.34 Let us now turn to Theodore Prodromus’ passage. Is that prophecy cryptic at all? I do not think so. Μόσχος and πόρτις in the first two lines are just a metaphor, not a riddle, for at least three reasons: (i) Lysippus and Strato explicitly asked the god about their son and daughter, so that ‘those whose paths you are looking after’ cannot but refer to the young couple; (ii) calling a young man ‘calf’ and a girl ‘heifer’ was quite common in Greek poetical language;35 (iii) the epithets, qualifying the calf as ‘lovely’ and the heifer as ‘tender’, demonstrate that this passage has nothing to do with real animals like the cow whose wanderings Cadmus followed before founding Thebes. The following four lines are still easier to understand: it should be crystal clear for everyone (except, as it seems, for Strato and Lysippus) that the ‘island of Kyprogeneia’ is nothing else than Cyprus.36 At line 200, Apollo even allows himself a learned digression, wondering (isn’t he omniscient? Such ζητήματα better suit a grammarian than a god) whether Cypris gave her name to Cyprus or vice versa. Nor will one find any kind of obscurity in the final verses, since the idea of Eros as tyrant or master was a traditional one

32

Trs. J. R. Morgan in Reardon 409. Winkler 137. 34 For a careful and perceptive analysis of Kalasiris’ narrative strategies and feigned ignorance, cf. Winkler, esp. 137-151. On the frequent misinterpretation of prophecies, omens, and dreams in Heliodorus’ novel, cf. also Bartsch 93-108. 35 For some parallels, cf. Conca 289 n. 8f. 36 Sulla, if we are to trust Appian (BC 1, 97), had no problem in understanding that the περιμήκετον ἄστυ / Καρῶν, οἳ ναίουσιν ἐπώνυμον ἐξ Ἀφροδίτης pointed out to him by the Delphic oracle (II 433, 5f. Parke - Wormell) was Aphrodisias in Caria. 33

Crooked oracles or naive inquirers?

247

and still well rooted in Byzantine culture.37 To sum up: how can the two old men be so slow (Lysippus) or unable (Strato) to decipher the god’s message? Because they are not very clever, I think. And Theodore is making fun of them, as elsewhere in his novel. Lysippus is a μέγας στρατηγός (2, 173, cf. 238-245), like Sostratus in Achilles Tatius, and Strato in turn is called πλούτῳ κομῶν, ἔντιμος ἐν συνεδρίῳ / καὶ τῇ πόλει μέγιστος εἰς συμβουλίαν (2, 236f.): nonetheless, after having found the young lovers and rejoicing with them and their Cypriot guests, once they come back home they do not know better than to quarrel over the logistics of the wedding (9, 455-461).38 Only a Ἑρμαϊκὸς ἱερεύς, a ‘divinely inspired messenger of mystic revelations’ (ἔνθους ... μυστηριωδῶν ἄγγελος μηνυμάτων, lines 474f.), will eventually solve the problem persuading everyone to hasten the wedding – the foolish behaviour of the old men required a decisive intervention by Hermes Logios (invoked by Dosicles at the end of the previous book, 8, 529), though Apollo’s exhortation was not μυστηριῶδες at all. Theodore’s sentence about the oracle that ‘proved obscure, as the tripod’s utterances used to be’ (206f.) is not to be taken at face value: those hexameters are obscure, but only for a certain kind of reader. Lines 211-215 also contribute to the humorous situation. Strato’s distress is partly due, we are told, to his mistake in punctuating: the insertion of an undue punctuation mark39 after βιόωντας led him to misunderstand the whole syntax (though it is quite unclear to me what kind of meaning could result from that).40 Treating the prophecy as a 37

Cf. Cupane, “Ἔρως βασιλεύς”; Magdalino; Christoforatou, “The Iconography ...” and “Figuring Eros ...”. 38 The scene recalls the discussion between Count Alfonso Romero and Judge Henry Blake in Frank Capra’s Pocketful of Miracles (1961). But the Count was a true gentleman, the Judge was very clever, and they found an easier way (namely, a billiards match) to decide. 39 Not an ‘Alexandrian’ philological sign, as Plepelits 173f. thinks: cf. Sideras 225f. 40 Two centuries ago, Trognon 144 n. 1 wrote that “le texte est si altéré qu’on n’en peut saisir le sense; [...]. D’ailleurs l’équivoque paroît ne dépendre que d’un point mal placé et d’une fausse prononciation” (regrettably enough, he did not explain the exact meaning of his last phrase). The manuscripts read ἐλεύσετε (V) or ἐλεύσσετε (HUL), whence Gaulmin conjectured ἓ λεύσσετε; Marcovich prints λεύσετε; Sideras 227, followed by Agapitos, “Writing ...” 144f., proposes ἓ λήσετε (“seeing them alive, you will forget ‹your sorrows›”). Accepting Marcovich’s conjecture (the form λεύσω, in itself morphologically wrong, was quite frequent in the manuscript tradition of several authors, and possibly well known to Theodore), I would print δερκόμενοι βιόωντας ἓ λεύσετε (“looking for them, you will see them alive”), transformed by Strato’s odd punctuation into δερκόμενοι βιόωντας, ἐλεύσετε (“looking for them alive, you will arrive ‹to the island›”). I discuss the textual

248

Enrico Magnelli

written text is unconventional, and adds to the entertaining effect of the whole scene. Did Strato transcribe the oracle, in order to think it over for a while? In my view, this passage is an intelligent parody of both Greek oracles and their use in pre-Byzantine romances,41 possibly also conveying some irony on the Byzantine obsession with prophetical texts.42 Theodore wittily plays on the contrast between Apollo’s speech, whose (pretended) riddles everyone would easily solve, and the incompetence of the inquirers: the oracle is only apparently obscure, but this is enough for the naive Strato and Lysippus. When the god asks them, “Why are you going in search of crooked ways?” (196f.), he also alludes, exploiting the semantic nuances of σκολιός, to the amusing failure of their interpretive tools – in fact, there was nothing crooked to investigate.43

problem at greater length in a forthcoming paper. Strato’s despair may also be due to his misunderstanding of δαμάζω at line 204 (Conca 291 n. 14; Cupane, review 188). 41 Once again, we can see that Theodore’s imitation of ancient novel was not ‘slavish’, as Perry 103 wrote long ago. Needless to say, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then. 42 As Crystal Addey rightly points out to me, the strong interest of an 11th-century ‘cultural icon’ like Michael Psellus in the Chaldaean Oracles had paved the way for a renewed attention to hexameter prophecies in the Comnenian age. 43 I express my sincere gratitude to Lucia Tissi and Aude Busine, for their kind invitation to Brussels; to Ángel Ruiz Pérez, for letting me have a copy of his valuable paper on the Delphic oracles; to my respondent, Crystal Addey, and to all the participants in the Conference, for their useful suggestions. All the remaining shortcomings are mine.

Crooked oracles or naive inquirers?

249

Bibliography 1 Editions, translations, commentaries Amatoriae narrationes Romanae Byzantinaeque aetatis Ἐρωτικῶν λόγων συγγραφεῖς. Erotici scriptores Graeci. Recognovit R. Hercher. II Leipzig 1859. Collected Ancient Greek Novels. Edited by B. P. Reardon. Berkeley – Los Angeles – London 1989. Il romanzo bizantino del XII secolo. Teodoro Prodromo - Niceta Eugeniano Eustazio Macrembolita - Costantino Manasse. A cura di F. Conca. Torino 1994. Four Byzantine Novels. Theodore Prodromos, Rhodanthe and Dosikles; Eumathios Makrembolites, Hysmine and Hysminias; Constantine Manasses, Aristandros and Kallithea; Niketas Eugenianos, Drosilla and Charikles. Translated with introductions and notes by E. Jeffreys. Liverpool 2012. (Translated Texts for Byzantinists 1) Anthologia Palatina The Greek Anthology. With an English translation by W. R. Paton. V London – Cambridge (Mass.) 1918. Anthologia Graeca. Griechisch-Deutsch ed. H. Beckby. IV München 21967. Claudius Ptolemaeus Geographia Claudii Ptolemaei Geographia. Edidit C. F. A. Nobbe. I Leipzig 1843. Leo VI Sapiens Oracula The Oracles of the Most Wise Emperor Leo & The Tale of the True Emperor (Amstelodamensis Graecus VI E 8). Text, Translation and Introduction. Edited by W. G. Brokkaar with the collaboration of J. A. Aalberts, J. I. Beijerman-Averink, A. S. M. Bot, M. C. Janssen, D. R. J. Koster, M. D. Lauxtermann, T. Markaki, P. Motsenigou, S. Stamboulidou, J. H. M. Wennekendonk-Visser. In Honour of Prof. Dr. A. F. van Gemert on the Occasion of His Retirement. Amsterdam 2002. Les oracles de Léon le Sage - La bataille de Varna - La prise de Constantinople. Poëmes en grec vulgaire publiés pour la première fois d’après les manuscrits de la Bibliothéque Nationale par É. Legrand. Paris 1875. Vereecken, J. - Hadermann-Misguich, L.: Les Oracles de Léon le Sage illustrés par Georges Klontzas. La version Barozzi dans le Codex Bute. Avec une contribution par P. Culot. Préfaces de C. Maltezou et E. Voordeckers. Venezia 2000. (Oriens Graecolatinus 7).

250

Enrico Magnelli

Nicetas Eugenianus De Drosillae et Chariclis amoribus Nicetas Eugenianus. De Drosillae et Chariclis amoribus. Edidit F. Conca. Apparatui fontium operam dedit A. Giusti. Amsterdam 1990. (London Studies in Classical Philology 24). Oracula Graeca varia Oracula Graeca quae apud scriptores Graecos Romanosque exstant collegit paucasque observationes selectas praemisit R. Hendess. Halle 1877. Theodorus Prodromus Rhodanthe et Dosicles Theodori Prodromi philosophi Rhodanthes et Dosiclis amorum libri IX. Graece & Latine. Interprete G. Gaulmino Molinensi. Paris 1625. Amours de Rhodanthe et Dosiclès, par Théodore Prodrome. Traduction nouvelle, suivie de l’Eubéenne, par Dion Chrysostome. Publiée par M. A. Trognon. Paris 1823. Theodori Prodromi De Rhodanthes et Dosiclis amoribus libri IX. Edidit M. Marcovich. Stuttgart – Leipzig 1992. Theodoros Prodromos. Rhodanthe und Dosikles. Eingeleitet, übersetzt und erläutert von K. Plepelits. Stuttgart 1996. (Bibliothek der griechischen Literatur 42) Carmina historica Hörandner, W.: Theodoros Prodromos, Historische Gedichte. Wien 1974. (Wiener byzantinistische Studien 11). Xenophon Ephesius Ephesiaca Xenophon Ephesius. De Anthia et Habrocome Ephesiacorum libri V. Edidit J. N. O’Sullivan. München – Leipzig 2005. 2 Secondary literature Agapitos, P. A.: “Narrative, rhetoric, and ‘drama’ rediscovered: scholars and poets in Byzantium interpret Heliodorus.” In: Hunter, R. (ed.): Studies in Heliodorus. Cambridge 1998. 125-156. (The Cambridge Philological Society. Supplementary Volume 21). Agapitos, P. A.: “Poets and Painters: Theodoros Prodromos’ Dedicatory Verses of His Novel to an Anonymous Caesar.” JÖB 50 (2000) 173-185. Agapitos, P. A.: “Writing, Reading and Reciting (in) Byzantine Erotic Fiction.” In: Mondrain, B. (ed.): Lire et écrire à Byzance. Paris 2006. 125-176. (Travaux et mémoires du CHCByz. Monographies 19). Bartsch, S.: Decoding the ancient novel. The reader and the role of description in Heliodorus and Achilles Tatius. Princeton 1989. Beaton, R.: The medieval Greek romance. London 21996.

Crooked oracles or naive inquirers?

251

Bianchi, N.: Il codice del romanzo. Tradizione manoscritta e ricezione dei romanzi greci. Bari 2006. (Paradosis 12). Bianchi, N.: “Lettori di Eliodoro a Bisanzio: il carme per Cariclea.” Graeco-Latina Brunensia 15 (2010) 13-24. Burton, J. B.: “Reviving the Pagan Greek Novel in a Christian World.” GRBS 39 (1998) 179-216. Christoforatou, C.: “The Iconography of Eros and the Politics of Desire in Komnenian Byzantium.” Enarratio 12 (2005) 71-109. Christoforatou, C.: “Figuring Eros in Byzantine Fiction: Iconographic Transformation and Political Evolution.” Medieval Encounters 17 (2011) 321-359. Colonna, A.: “Un epigramma di Teodoro Prodromo sulla «Cariclea» di Eliodoro.” In: Felici, S. (ed.): Humanitas classica e sapientia cristiana: scritti offerti a Roberto Iacoangeli. Roma 1992. 61-63. (Biblioteca di scienze religiose 100). Conca  Il romanzo bizantino. Congourdeau, M.-H.: “Les Oracula Leonis.” In: Fonseca, C. D. (ed.): Gioachimismo e profetismo in Sicilia (secoli XIII-XVI). Roma 2007. 79-91. Cupane, C.: “Ἔρως βασιλεύς. La figura di Eros nel romanzo bizantino d’amore.” AAPal N. S. 33 (1973-74) 243-297. Cupane, C.: review of Plepelits, Theodoros Prodromos. BZ 91 (1998) 185-190. De Stefani, C.: “The End of the ‘Nonnian School’.” In: Spanoudakis, K. (ed.): Nonnus of Panopolis in Context. Poetry and Cultural Milieu in Late Antiquity with a Section on Nonnus and the Modern World. Berlin – Boston 2014. 375402. (Trends in Classics Supplementary Volume 24). Gallavotti, C.: “Novi Laurentiani codicis analecta.” Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici 4 (1935) 205-236. Großschupf, F.: De Theodori Prodromi in Rhodantha elocutione. Leipzig 1897. Häger, O.: De Theodori Prodromi in fabula erotica Ῥοδάνθη καὶ Δοσικλῆς fontibus. Göttingen 1908. Hörandner  Theodoros Prodromos. Kazhdan, A., in collaboration with S. Franklin: Studies on Byzantine Literature of the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries. Cambridge – Paris 1984. Lampsidis, O.: “Zur Sebastokratorissa Eirene.” JÖB 34 (1984) 91-105. Magdalino, P.: “Eros the King and the King of Amours: Some Observations on Hysmine and Hysminias.” DOP 46 (1992) 197-204. Mango, C.: “The legend of Leo the Wise.” ZRVI 6 (1960) 59-93 [= Mango, C.: Byzantium and its Image. History and Culture of the Byzantine Empire and its Heritage. London 1984. XVI]. Manzin, S.: “Giochi anfibologici nel Certamen Homeri et Hesiodi.” ARF 13 (2011) 29-40. Marcovich, M.: “The Text of Prodromus’ Novel.” ICS 16 (1991) 367-402. Marcovich, Theodori Prodromi  Theodoros Prodromos. Nilsson, I. - Zagklas, N.: “‘Hurry up, reap every flower of the logoi!’ The Use of Greek Novels in Byzantium.” GRBS 57 (2017) 1120-1148. Parke, H. W. - Wormell, D. E. W.: The Delphic oracle. I-II Oxford 1956. Perry, B. E.: The Ancient Romances. A Literary-Historical Account of Their Origins. Berkeley – Los Angeles 1967. (Sather Classical Lectures 37). Plepelits  Theodorus Prodromus.

252

Enrico Magnelli

Reardon  Amatoriae narrationes Romanae Byzantinaeque aetatis. Rigo, A.: Oracula Leonis. Tre manoscritti greco-veneziani degli oracoli attribuiti all’imperatore bizantino Leone il Saggio (Bodl. Baroc. 170, Marc. gr. VII.22, Marc. gr. VII.3). Padova 1988. (Helios 2). Ruiz Pérez, Á.: “El lenguaje del reproche divino en los Oráculos Délficos.” In: Calderón Dorda, E. - Perea Yébenes, S. (ed.): Estudios sobre el vocabulario religioso griego. Madrid – Salamanca 2016. 169-185. (Signifer 49). Seng, H., „Theologische Orakel zwischen Metaphysik und Ritual.“ In: Seng, H. Sfameni Gasparro, G. (ed.): Theologische Orakel in der Spätantike. Heidelberg 2016. 147-170. (Bibliotheca Chaldaica 5). Sideras, A.: review of Plepelits, Theodoros Prodromos. GGA 251 (1999) 202-228. Spanoudakis, K.: “Nonnus and Theodorus Prodromus.” MEG 13 (2013) 241-250. Tissoni, F.: “Anthologia Palatina IX 203: Fozio, Leone il Filosofo e Achille Tazio moralizzato.” MEG 2 (2002) 261-269. Trapp, E.: “Vulgärorakel aus Wiener Handschriften.” In: Koder, J. - Trapp, E. (ed.): ΑΚΡΟΘΙΝΙΑ sodalium Seminarii Byzantini Vindobonensis Herberto Hunger oblata. Wien 1964. 83-120. Trapp, E.: review of Marcovich, Theodori Prodromi. JÖB 45 (1995) 361-362. Tsiaples, G.: “A Byzantine Emperor between Reality and Imagination: the Image of Leo VI in the Hagiographical Texts of the Middle Byzantine Period.” Parekbolai 4 (2014) 85-110. Whitmarsh, T.: Narrative and Identity in the Ancient Greek Novel. Returning Romance. Cambridge 2011. Winkler, J. J.: “The mendacity of Kalasiris and the narrative strategy of Heliodorus’ Aithiopika.” YClS 27 (1982) 93-157. [= Swain, S. (ed.): Oxford Readings in The Greek Novel. Oxford 1999. 286-350]. Zagklas, N.: “Θεόδωρος Πρόδρομος· ένας λόγιος ποιητής του 12ου αιώνα.” Neograeca Bohemica 11 (2011) 31-45.

Chiara Garganese

La Cappella del Battista nel Duomo di Siena, un oracolo che si fa forma 1 Un cammino iniziatico Colui che con occhio attento s’appresta a percorrere la navata centrale del Duomo di Siena, scoprirà all’incipit del suo cammino un’iscrizione sul pavimento che risuona come un ammonimento su come affrontare questo suo viaggio: Castissimum virginis templum caste memento ingredi, abbandonare ogni dolore e ogni male e procedere con animo lieto, puro, casto alla scoperta del mistero divino che dimora in questo sacro spazio. Il Duomo dunque, dedicato alla Vergine e dichiarato Templum, in ricordo di quel tempio di Minerva sui cui resti questo venne edificato;1 un tempio dove le immaginazioni artistiche venute alla luce a partire dalla seconda metà del Quattrocento, ed in particolare quando il Duomo ebbe dal 1480 al 1501 come rettore Alberto Aringhieri (fig. 1), parlano di un luogo stretto in un costante dialogo con un tempo pagano. Come cercheremo di mettere in luce, nelle opere nate dal vivo desiderio del rettore, in particolare le tarsie del pavimento sorte in quegli anni e la Cappella del Battista, trionfano premonizioni oracolari che, come vedremo, suggellano l’idea di continuità tra pensiero pagano e pensiero cristiano – alla base delle ricerche filosofiche dell’Accademia neoplatonica fiorentina –, e che attecchirono nel cuore del rettore e dell’élite culturale senese di cui quest’ultimo fu membro. Parlando dunque di profezie, ci si riferisce alla presenza di dieci Sibille che decorano il pavimento delle navate laterali. Furono commissionnate dall’Aringhieri e rappresentate come sapienti vestali mentre annunciano con le parole tratte dalle Divinae Institutiones di Lattanzio la venuta del Cristo e il suo sacrificio per una nuova salvezza2. 1

Benvoglienti 18s. Ciascun ritratto delle dieci Sibille si correda di due iscrizioni: una volta a identificarne il soggetto, l’altra a essere contenuto dell’oracolo sibillino. La principale, ma non unica, fonte da cui son tratte le iscrizioni sono le Divinae Institutiones di 2

254

Chiara Garganese

Questo senso di verità rivelata trova eco nella prima tarsia del pavimento della navata centrale con Ermete Trismegisto (fig. 2), rappresentato, come primo Mosè, mentre consegna al popolo egiziano le tavole sui misteri della scrittura. Ermete dunque è qui rappresentato come simbolo della sapienza necessaria a chi voglia intraprendere il cammino di conoscenza di Dio che, secondo Lattanzio, potrà concludersi felicemente solo quando la sapienza sarà combinata alla religio. Il percorso d’affermazione di quest’ultima, infatti, si apprende nel pavimento via via che ci si avvicina all’altare, dove si incontrano rappresentazioni (eseguite in tempi diversi dalla fine del XIV secolo alla metà del XVI secolo) che raccontano ora le vittoriose battaglie del popolo eletto, ora il sacrificio per l’affermazione della verità, ora la rivelazione della parola di Dio e la venuta di Cristo. L’ipotesi centrale su cui poggia il nostro contributo è che le profezie sibilline debbano considerarsi in continuità con un altro oracolo, questa volta vestito di architettura, pittura e scultura: la Cappella di San Giovanni Battista (fig. 3s.). Il sacro spazio si fa scrigno di due memorie, quella del rettore, che qui scelse di farsi seppellire e ritrarre dal Pinturicchio, e quella del dono più prezioso che il senese Enea Silvio Piccolomini, eletto nel 1460 al soglio pontificio col nome di Pio II, fece alla sua città: la reliquia di San Giovanni Battista, un santo che Cristo considerava «più di un profeta» (Mt. 11, 2) e che il filosofo Marsilio Ficino equiparava nel suo De Christiana religione a un oracolo.3 Questo luogo dedicato alla memoria del battezzatore delle genti, divenne ben presto il luogo prescelto per la benedizione dell’acqua che si teneva durante la notte del Sabato Santo, accolta in una fonte scolpita da Antonio Federighi e usata poi tutto l’anno per il Battesimo. La tesi dunque che si intende dimostrare è che le decorazioni del pavimento e la Cappella costituiscano tappe imprescindibili di un cammino iniziatico dove il fedele che entra nel tempio sarà educato dalle premonizioni sibilline ad aprire il suo cuore alla verità teologica, preannunciata dal Battista; così, dopo essersi purificato attraverso l’abluzione di cui la Cappella è spazio deputato, il fedele riuscirà a cogliere nel profondo il senso di quel miracolo cristologico che ogni giorno sull’altare si compie attraverso il rito eucaristico. Lattanzio, ed in particolare il I e IV libro. Non potendo in questa sede trattare in modo esaustivo i contenuti e i riferimenti filologici di ogni iscrizione, rimando al ricco e attento studio di Guerrini, «Ermete e le Sibille» 15-43. 3 Ficino, La religione cristiana 30 (trad. Zanzarri 178).

La Cappella del Battista nel Duomo di Siena

255

Scopriremo inoltre che questi messaggi oracolari raccontano insegnamenti permeati di pensieri ermetico-neoplatonici che parlano di ascesi dell’anima dalla dimensione sensibile al Logos, un’elevazione che procede per gradi e dove il dolore diviene propedeutico alla rivelazione del Bene, tema già caro a Plotino quando nelle Enneadi scrive che il male «eccita l’intelligenza e la coscienza facendole resistenti sulla via della colpa, fa vedere qual bene sia la virtù mediante la comparazione con i mali che i cattivi subiscono».4 2 Le ragioni storiche di un’ipotesi neoplatonica Prima di raggiungere il cuore del nostro discorso, è bene trovare nella storia le giustificazioni della presente ipotesi interpretativa. Che Alberto Aringhieri avesse vòlto i suoi interessi alla filosofia ermetica e neoplatonica si può supporre guardando prima di tutto la tarsia di Ermete (fig. 2) da lui commissionata; moltissimi sono gli interventi critici che intendono questa tarsia testimone della diffusione del pensiero ermetico nel Rinascimento,5 ma tra tutti l’analisi più efficace è stata elaborata da Roberto Guerrini che, sviscerando le iscrizioni inserite nella rappresentazione, spiega la presenza di Ermete attingendo alle Divinae Institutiones di Lattanzio.6 Secondo il nostro punto di vista l’Aringhieri con questa commissione rivela però anche il desiderio di dichiararsi spettatore consapevole delle nuove scoperte filosofiche di Marsilio Ficino. Nelle Divinae Institutiones Ermete e le Sibille erano inserite in quel gruppo di sapienti come Pitagora, Platone, Orfeo e i profeti del Vecchio Testamento che, sebbene vissuti nel mondo pagano e dunque ignoranti del Cristo, trattando di res divinae anticiparono i fondamenti del pensiero cristiano.7 La voce di Lattanzio fu fonte imprescindibile per Marsilio Ficino in quanto perfettamente aderente al suo progetto di dar forma ad una pia philosophia dove sapientia e religio fossero due entità da render complici di un rinnovamento della cristianità ormai, secondo il filosofo, caduta nel torpore dell’ignoranza. Chiara e appassionata in lui era l’intenzione di un ritorno ad un cristianesimo originario presagito da 4

Plot., Enn. III 2 [47] 5, 19-21 (trad. Faggin 359). Scott I 32; Siniscalco 114-116; Aronow, A Documentary History of the Pavement 328-330; Gabriele 107-120; Cust 21-23; Cracco Ruggini. 6 Guerrini, «Ermete e le Sibille» 13-51. 7 Lact., Inst. I 9. 5

256

Chiara Garganese

antiche fonti di una verità comune di cui è depositaria una lunga tradizione di filosofi e teologi, la prisca theologia (ovvero un unico sapere che accoglie in sé tutte le diverse forme di religiosità e di speculazione umana, ora mistica, ora esoterica, ora filosofica).8 Per Ficino fu determinante l’incontro con i quattordici trattati attribuiti a Ermete che dopo esser caduti nell’oblio giunsero nel 1460 dalle mani di Cosimo il Vecchio alle sue. Il ritrovamento degli scritti ermetici fu per Ficino un evento determinante e riportare in luce la conoscenza sapienziale di Ermete divenne una priorità assoluta, tanto da interrompere la traduzione del corpus platonico che delle teorie ermetiche, secondo lui, era diretta evoluzione9. È possibile dunque che il desiderio dell’Aringhieri di un Ermete ritratto come colui che trasmette un sapere premonitore del Cristo all’incipit della navata centrale sia un indizio non solo delle sue letture delle Divinae Institutiones di Lattanzio, ma anche del suo essere partecipe delle recenti ricerche ficiniane. A supportare tale ipotesi è anche l’analisi dell’entourage intellettuale che gravitò attorno al rettore, personalità, come vedremo, unite da un comune interesse per le teorie neoplatoniche. Ci si riferisce in particolare a Francesco Piccolomini, futuro Pio III, Giannantonio Campano e, indirettamente, la corte urbinate che con essa condivise l’architetto senese Francesco di Giorgio Martini, ideatore (forse non a caso) della Cappella del Battista. Ragionando sui rapporti tra l’Aringhieri e Francesco Piccolomini, il sodalizio tra le due famiglie ha origini antiche e consolidate da molti matrimoni.10 Quando nel 1480 la famiglia Piccolomini diventa la famiglia più influente del governo, l’Aringhieri riceverà la carica di capitano del popolo, di ambasciatore e, certo, di rettore del Duomo. L’amicizia tra Alberto e il Cardinale diede vita alla Libreria Piccolomini, un episodio monumentale della storia dell’arte del Rinascimento, un’amicizia suggellata anche dalla comune passione per il neoplatonismo. A Francesco, nipote del papa umanista Enea Silvio, Marsilio Ficino dedicò 8

Garin 153-219, Vasoli, Quasi sit deus 21s. e Filosofia e religione 38. Sull’idea di convergenza tra Ermete e Platone cf. Moreschini; Kristeller, Il pensiero filosofico; Copenhaver. 10 Aronow, «Towards a biography of Alberto Aringhieri» 345 n. 118s.; Lisini Liberati, tav. II; VII; VIII. Nella tavola II si registra il matrimonio tra Niccolò Aringhieri e Salvestra di Brandaliso di Gabbriello, mentre nella tavola VIII quello di Virginia figlia di Giovanni Battista con Buonsignore di Guidantonio Piccolomini, nella tavola VII invece compare un’altra unione non indicata da Aronow ovvero quella tra Eleonora Aringhieri e Bartolomeo di Pietro Piccolomini avvenuta 1531. 9

La Cappella del Battista nel Duomo di Siena

257

un’edizione personale del suo De amore,11 scelta che dichiarò a chiare lettere Francesco tra i sostenitori delle teorie neoplatoniche.12 Forse anche per questo Francesco Piccolomini godette familiarità e stima intellettuale presso la corte di Federico da Montefeltro; lo si deduce da uno scambio epistolare tra il Cardinale e Ottaviano Ubaldini della Carda,13 personaggio di primissimo rilievo della corte urbinate essendo da Federico da Montefeltro amato come fratello.14 Ottaviano fu coinvolto attivamente nella gestione della Biblioteca,15 per Vespasiano da Bisticci «la più degna che sia mai stata fatta»16 e per la quale Federico aveva concentrato le sue attenzioni trasformando i codici anche in preziose occasioni di relazioni politiche (si pensi per esempio agli scambi con Lorenzo dei Medici) e grazie a cui la corte urbinate divenne uno, se non primo, centro per gli studia humanitatis di dotti italiani e d’Oltralpe.17 Il Cardinale dunque era ben voluto nella corte di Federico da Montefeltro, la cui fortuna e fama non sarebbe così cresciuta senza il sostegno di Pio II.18 Non solo, come il Cardinale, anche Ottaviano Ubaldini e il duca Federico erano vicini a Marsilio Ficino: le traduzioni di Ficino 11

Il codice è oggi conservato nel fondo Chigiano della Biblioteca Vaticana con la segnatura E.IV.122. Sull’argomento cf. Ranfagni. Il testo della dedica è pubblicato in Supplementum Ficinianum I 88s. 12 Da segnalare anche la traduzione degli Oracoli Caldaici dedicatagli da Bonifacio Bembo; cf. Seng 91-100. 13 Sulla figura di Ottaviano Ubaldini cf. Michelini Tocci, «Ottaviano Ubaldini ...» 97130 e «Federico da Montefeltro ...» 297-344; Castelli 29-65. 14 Sebbene Ottaviano fosse figlio di Bernardino degli Ubaldini e Aura Montefeltro, sorella di Federico, i due si considerarono fin dalla fanciullezza (Ottaviano era solo un anno più piccolo del Duca) come fratelli e così si chiamavano l’un l’altro (cf. Ugolini I 271s.). Sull’argomento anche Ratti II 117-120 n. 3. 15 Michelini Tocci, «La formazione della Biblioteca ...» 11: «Vien fatto di pensare a questo punto che l’anima della biblioteca non poté essere certamente soltanto Federico, spesso assente da Urbino per la guerra e per gli impegni della politica, ma un uomo dotto, il quale ispirava, seguiva, curava di persona e con grande assiduità tutto quello che accadeva ad Urbino durante quella fervida luminosa stagione. [...] Quell’Ottaviano Ubaldini della Carda, amico dei Guarino, del Decembrio, del Pisanello, amico del Bessarione, di Pio II e di Sisto IV, instancabile tessitore di quella fitta rete di relazioni, fatte di interessi comuni e di unità di intenti, che legò Federico con gli uomini di cultura del suo tempo, umanisti ed artisti»; Michelini Tocci, «Federico da Montefeltro» 107. 16 Vespasiano da Bisticci, Le vite I 386 Greco. 17 Un chiaro e prezioso contributo sulla presenza di illustri intellettuali alla corte urbinate è offerto da Franceschini, Figure del Rinascimento 119-147 e Bianca 127145. 18 Franceschini, I Montefeltro 471- 477.

258

Chiara Garganese

dei dialoghi di Platone, del Pimander o del De amore arricchivano gli scaffali di quella immensa libreria urbinate;19 e per Ficino altissima fu la natura di Federico, «la cui divina virtù per parlare Platonicamente, di maniera l’Idea rappresenta, non solo d’un perfetto huomo, ma ancora d’un prudentissimo principe»;20 come si legge nel secondo libro del suo epistolario, dedicato proprio al duca. A questa corte amante di Platone dunque Francesco Piccolomini era vicino e stimato. Ma non solo lui, anche un suo amico che con l’Aringhieri aveva in comune: Giannantonio Campano, il biografo e «poeta del Papa»21 Pio II. L’umanista era vicinissimo alla famiglia Aringhieri; sua, infatti, è una lettera di cordoglio scritta al Cardinale Francesco in occasione della morte del padre e del fratello del rettore.22 Ma non solo, il Campano aveva maturato una profonda amicizia con entrambi i protagonisti della corte urbinate, Ottaviano e il duca, e con il Ficino stesso, e in più occasioni svolse il ruolo di mediatore intellettuale tra queste personalità. In primis, è proprio a lui, per esempio, che il Ficino affida il codice del De amore da consegnare in dono al Cardinale. È probabile allora che questa familiarità con il Ficino avesse reso l’animo di Federico da Montefeltro ancora più saldo nella sua scelta d’interpellare il Campano per pronunciare l’orazione funebre della sposa Battista Sforza, scomparsa nel marzo del 1472 dove il poeta, inoltre, è attento ad inserire tra l’intima schiera di familiari l’Ubaldini, che a Battista si legò fraternamente. 23 È chiaro che il Cardinale Piccolomini si delinea come punto di partenza di un sistema di relazioni a cui, ragionando per astrazione, potremmo dare la forma di un cerchio il cui centro è Ficino e la cui circonferenza è 19

Consultando l’indice vecchio della Biblioteca Urbinate e i codici Urbinates Latini della Biblioteca Vaticana, infatti si scoprono: due codici contenenti traduzioni di dialoghi platonici tradotti dal Ficino e il suo De Amore (I. v. 22 e Urb. lat. 13151317); un codice con la traduzione del Ficino del De potestate et sapientia dei di Ermete Trismegisto e un codice del Pimander, nonché due copie del De Christianae legis divinitate (I. v. 623 e Urb. lat. 1249). Queste notizie sono state attinte dall’Appendice A dello studio di Pernis 183s. 20 Ficino, Le divine lettere I 112r. 21 Di Bernardo 117. 22 Ugurgieri-Azzolini 314: Pater vix dum Senior, filius adhuc Iuvenis, eodem Mense, eodem Morbo extincti sunt. Ambo aequestri dignitate, ambo Praeturas, et multas, et cum gloria gesserunt. 23 Campano, In funere Urbinatis Ducis Oratio 117v: Luget Octavianus germanus tuus virtutis amplissimae vir: nec uxorem tuam mortuam. sed sororem suam: nec sororem modo. Ricordiamo inoltre che il Campano compose un epigramma in onore di Ottaviano pubblicato in Cecchini 75.

La Cappella del Battista nel Duomo di Siena

259

la ricezione del pensiero neoplatonico; Ficino infatti è conoscenza che accomuna tutti i personaggi in questione: sceglie come destinatari ideali dei suoi componimenti tanto Federico da Montefeltro che il Cardinale, stima Ottaviano Ubaldini ed è amico di Campano; quest’ultimo, inoltre, potremmo sempre astrattamente concepirlo come il diametro del suddetto cerchio giacché, col suo ruolo di mediatore, riesce a congiungere i due punti opposti di questa circonferenza, Siena e Urbino, passando per il centro, Ficino. E forse allora non è un caso che il Campano, morto nel 1477, venne sepolto nel Duomo in prossimità di quello spazio che l’Aringhieri sceglierà per la Cappella del Battista; sulla lapide furono incisi distici elegiaci che parlano di una morte che solo la materia può intaccare, giacché l’anima, raggiunto il cielo, destina il poeta all’eterno.24 L’ipotesi di un rettore ricettivo al pensiero neoplatonico trova ulteriore risposta nella scelta di coinvolgere nella costruzione della Cappella Francesco di Giorgio Martini, che da poco aveva concluso i suoi interventi nel palazzo ducale d’Urbino. Anche l’architetto, infatti, sembra aperto a suggestioni neoplatonico-ficiniane; nel Prologo al capitolo sui Templi che l’autore medita per il Trattato d’architettura civile e militare contenuto nei codici Senese S.IV.4 e Magliabechiano II.1.141, l’architetto sceglie di far precedere alle argomentazioni di natura tecnica sulle diverse tipologie del tempio riflessioni morali sulla natura umana, l’anima e la ricerca della beatitudine in cui paiono trovare compendio punti importanti del pensiero ficiniano. Esemplari sono le brevi righe in cui l’architetto è attento a intendere l’uomo come: uno piccolo mondo, perché allo essare con le cose inanimate ha el nutrirsi e cresciare e generare con le piante, ha el sentire con li bruti et ultimatamente la ragione e l’intelletto con li spiriti, in tanto che dalli Greci è chiamato Microcosmos, cioè piccolo mondo.25

Queste parole riecheggiano la celebre affermazione ficiniana secondo cui «l’uomo è in qualche modo tutte le cose».26 Non solo, l’idea dell’uomo in Francesco di Giorgio Martini sembra formarsi alla stregua del pensiero platonico del suo moderno interprete fiorentino, ma anche la concezione del suo cammino di conoscenza, inteso come un percorso 24

Campanus jacet hic, nostri clarum decus aevi, / eloquio resonans, carmine et historia./ Nec tamen hic totus, sola hic sunt ossa, petivit / Coelum anima, orbem gloria, corpus humum. / Interiit corpus, vivit sed gloria, vivit / Spiritus, in solo corpore mors potuit, pubblicato in Avesani 18 n. 3. 25 Francesco di Giorgio Martini II 370 Maltese. 26 Ficino, La religione cristiana 16 (trad. Zanzarri 87).

260

Chiara Garganese

d’elevazione dal contingente, precario e incerto, al trascendente.27 E come per l’architetto la conoscenza della precarietà umana aiuta a svelare la vera meta a cui l’essere umano deve tendere, così Ficino, parlando della natura dell’intelletto, è attento a chiarire che meminisse vero oportet intellectum non universalem modo naturam, sed particularem quoque cognoscere;28 inoltre l’esperienza terrena diviene per l’uomo indispensabile quare non subito, sed paulatim convenientibus gradibus ab umbris rerum ad res ipsas, item a luminis imagine ad lumen ipsum est perducendus.29 La conferma che Francesco di Giorgio possa considerarsi pienamente in linea con l’entourage intellettuale fin qui esaminato è il fatto stesso che il rettore abbia voluto proprio lui per tracciare i progetti della sua Cappella. È possibile, infatti, che il suo guardare a Federico da Montefeltro e a Francesco di Giorgio possa intendersi non solo come esaltazione del proprio prestigio, ma soprattutto come scelta dettata da una visione filosofica condivisa. 3 La Cappella del Battista Dopo aver definito i confini storici e culturali attorno ai quali presero avvio le commissioni dell’Aringhieri è bene adesso entrare nel cuore della nostra interpretazione iconologica. A ben guardare, l’esterno (fig. 3) e l’interno (fig. 4) della Cappella ospitano soggetti colti da due universi antitetici, rispettivamente pagano e cristiano: i marmi dell’ingresso accolgono motivi tratti dal mondo classico quali leoni alati, nereidi e tritoni, sileni, cavalieri armati, sfingi, del tutto assenti nella decorazione interna della Cappella che diviene sede, piuttosto, di uomini e santi volti, ognuno a proprio modo, a celebrare il Battista.30 A scelte iconografiche diverse muovono anche 27

Francesco di Giorgio Martini II 369 Maltese. Ficino, Th. VIII 1, 8 p. I 289 M. = II 270 A. - H. - B: «È necessario però ricordare che l’intelletto conosce non solo la natura universale, ma anche quella particolare» (trad. Vitale 588). 29 Ficino, Th. VI 2, 14 p. I 233 M. = II 144 A. - H. - B.: «per questo motivo è necessario che quell’uomo sia condotto dalle ombre delle cose alle cose stesse e dal riflesso della luce alla luce stessa ma non in maniera repentina, ma poco a poco, in modo appropriato e per gradi [...].» (trad. Vitale 446). 30 Per maggiori dettagli sulle fasi costruttive che riguardano la decorazione scultorea della Cappella cf. Güthlein 556- 569 e Loseries 148-153. Per la decorazione pittorica cf. Angelini, «Le storie di San Giovanni Battista ...» 135-147. 28

La Cappella del Battista nel Duomo di Siena

261

sentimenti del tutto divergenti: leoni ruggenti, sfingi austere e segrete, uomini in lotta, satiri dal volto contrito, armi che annunciano o ricordano scontri esiziali, suscitano nel cuore di chi guarda un senso d’inquietudine da cui viene sollevato una volta entrato nello spazio interno, dove si scopre immerso in un’atmosfera quieta e serena, protetto da quella che un tempo era una volta celeste, in compagnia di musicisti, dei ritratti del committente e, probabilmente, del suo figliolo immersi nella preghiera, delle sculture dei santi Ansano, Caterina ed il Battista che sembrano su di loro vegliare guidandoli verso la contemplazione di quel messaggio divino annun-ciato, nell’ultimo registro delle pitture, dal Precursore. La Cappella allora sembra comporsi di due spazi differenti, che, come vedremo, scandiscono le tappe di un viaggio dell’anima che, passando dal male e dalla sofferenza propria della dimensione terrena – di cui sono espressione i soggetti pagani del portale –, raggiunge gradualmente la gioia e l’amorosa quiete dell’intellegibile, di cui è dimora lo spazio interno. Per capire i significati della Cappella, è bene partire dal pavimento. A introdurre alla Cappella del Battista, sono, infatti, le Sibille della navata sinistra che, differentemente dalle compagne della navata opposta detentrici della buona novella, sono portavoce di presagi tragici e dolorosi che, tuttavia, si concludono nelle parole della Tiburtina con l’annuncio di redenzione con la nascita del Salvatore.31 Le profezie sibilline dunque ammaestrano il cuore e la mente del pellegrino all’idea che il Bene, incarnatosi in Cristo, per affermarsi ha dovuto attraversare la via del dolore. Ed è con questo insegnamento che il fedele, trascorsa la navata sinistra, accede a quella parte del transetto da cui si ha accesso alla Cappella del Battista. Così, le Sibille introducono a quel Battista che fu inviato al mondo come un nuovo Elia per «preparare al Signore un popolo ben disposto ad accoglierlo» (Lc. 1, 17) e, come scrive Ficino nel De Christiana religione, «a lui, come a un oracolo, si dirigeva da ogni parte una grandissima turba di giudei e di altri uomini».32 Di dolore e morte parlano, infatti, le tarsie poste all’incedere della cappella che rappresentano la disfatta dell’esercito di Erode e la Strage degli innocenti. 31

NASCETUR CHRISTUS / IN BETHLEHEM ANNUN / CIABITUR IN NAZARETH / REGNANTE TAURO PACI / FICO FUNDATORE QUIE / TIS. O FELIX MATER CU / IUS UBERA ILLUM LACTA / BUNT. 32 Ficino, La religione cristiana 30 (trad. Zanzarri 178).

262

Chiara Garganese

Non bisogna d’altronde dimenticare che le tarsie del pavimento, raccontando l’oscurità della morte, rispondono anche alla funzione funeraria che il pavimento stesso assurge accogliendo, nella porzione dell’incedere della Cappella, le spoglie del Campano e del rettore. Di funereo spettro sono anche le basi delle colonne del monumentale portale della Cappella scolpite dal Federighi e Giovanni di Stefano: i motivi che le decorano sono infatti soggetti che la scultura romana, in particolar modo quella di età imperiale33, riservava ad altari e a monumenti funebri. Ma a ben guardare, il ricorrere di motivi pagani nello spazio architettonico sembra orchestrarsi secondo un disegno preciso e ben meditato che rivela quanto tali immaginazioni si carichino di valori ulteriori. Prima degli interventi di rinnovamento seicenteschi, un architrave correva lungo l’arco d’ingresso dividendo il portale in due parti: la parte inferiore popolata da soggetti pagani, e la parte superiore con vittorie alate, figure angeliche, leoni alati mansueti e, a suo coronamento, un timpano (perduto) che all’interno accoglieva un Dio padre circondato da serafini. Si suppone allora che l’architrave oltre ad essere un limite tra due sezioni, finisse per essere separazione di due dimensioni opposte e complementari: una negativa, la parte inferiore, dove si parla del male e della morte a cui l’anima soggiace quando legata ai sensi, e una positiva, la superiore, dove si racconta l’eternità a cui l’anima è destinata superato il contingente. Offrendo agli occhi di chi guarda mondi così diversi, l’intero portale diventa a ragione un appello, un monito a entrare con animo puro nel sacro spazio per poter così volgere la propria mente al mistero che esso racconta. A rivelare nella parte inferiore il mondo del male sono gli animali che inquadrano le scene della base destra scolpita da Antonio Federighi: si tratta di creature ambigue essendo in parte leoni, che nella prima lettera di Pietro sono «il diavolo» e per San Bernardino emblema dell’iracondia,34 di grifone, che nel pensiero medievale si affermavano detentori di violenza e aggressività35 e di capra, simbolo di lussuria e vizio. Questa 33

Per un approfondimento sui rapporti tra la scultura senese quattrocentesca e quella della Roma imperiale cf. Angelini, Pio II e le arti 307-380. 34 San Bernardino XXXVI p. 807 Bargellini. 35 Bestiario moralizzato XXXIII p. 509 Morini: «Vera[ce]mente facto è lo grifone / de bestia e d’uccello semiliante: / l’arieri parte sí come leone, / devante senbla l’aquilia volante; / fortissimo, secondo la façone, / vist’à sotile, leggieri e alante, /

La Cappella del Battista nel Duomo di Siena

263

ferinità spaventevole e viziosa si fa custode di scene narrative che raccontano desideri carnali – la Nereide e il Tritone – violenza e soggiogamento – lo scontro esiziale tra due uomini – l’adorazione di falsi idoli – nell’Ercole che conduce a un’ara il leone abbattuto. La presenza di queste scene che animano la materia del marmo si pone come esplicita rappresentazione di ciò che Marsilio Ficino chiama «qualità»,36 ossia quella forza che agisce, muove e dà forma ai corpi ma che, una volta trovatasi in materiae inficitur gremio: ex simplici divisibilis impuraque (...)».37 Nella base sinistra scolpita da Giovanni di Stefano se vengono meno le scene narrative, ora sostituite da panoplie, resta presente l’inquietudine trasmessa ora dalle sfingi, terribili sentinelle di spazi a cui si può accedere solo se si ha un cuore senza macchie.38 Ogni soggetto che trova forma in questi marmi racconta dunque di un mondo naturale, come ben esprimono i festoni che in entrambe le basi si svolgono rigogliosi, ma asservito all’illusione dei sensi e agli istinti, di cui sono immagine esplicita i montoni che proprio questa natura sostengono. Procedendo verso l’alto, e dunque verso le paraste del portale, ecco allora incontrare gli effetti a cui questo mondo conduce: il sonno, rappresentato dalle volute di piante di papavero,39 che simula la morte, che a sua volta riecheggia nella fantasia di armi e panoplie scolpite lungo le paraste, e i trionfi di vanità di cui sono immagine le candelabre composte da vasi preziosi e vittorie nude e alate ornate da filari di perle. A concludere questo universo di natura è un fregio animato da putti alati che sorreggono festoni di frutti. Le loro ali spiegate, parlano di elevazione, ma sono tuttavia partecipi e in contatto con il mondo naturale abitato ancora da elementi negativi rappresentati dalle armi e dai fauni. La presenza di queste figure alate ci rimanda all’idea ficiniana di mondo ordinato secondo una precisa gerarchia di enti: a occupare il primo gradino della scala è la materia a cui seguita la qualità che conferisce forma ai corpi; dopo la qualità si enganna l’omo vivo a tradisg[i]one, / aucidelo e devora enmanestante. / Per lo grifone entendo lo Nemico, / per l’omo vivo ki sta en penetença, / k’esso lo’n ganna e mangialo e devora. / Sotile vede, k’elli è molto antico, / forte e alante per crudele essentia / non perdonerà maio a creatura». 36 Ficino, Th. I 2s. p. I 40-55 M. = I 14-52 A. - H. - B. (trad. Vitale 14-46). 37 Ficino, Th. I 3, 1 p. I 44 M. = I 28 A. - H. - B.: «nel grembo della materia [...] si inquina, da semplice diviene divisibile e impura [...].» (trad. Vitale 24). 38 Come si legge ne Le imagini de li dei antichi di Vincenzo Cartari riguardo al mito di Edipo, una sfinge «stava su certa rupe proponendo dubbiosi detti a qualunche passava di là, e chi non sapeva scioglierli da lei restava miseramente ucciso e divorato» (Cartari 219). 39 Ov., Met XI 592-607.

264

Chiara Garganese

incontra l’anima razionale: come ci dice il filosofo in ea refulgent verae imagines divinorum (...), ipsa format continetque totam machinam corporalem (...) divina et corporalia conciliat invicem40 e che, a nostro parere, trova forma plastica nelle figure alate. Ed infatti, le stesse le troviamo abitare anche la parte superiore dell’arco, eterna e pacificata, ove Giovanni di Stefano le scolpisce intente ora a alzare in volo le Armi dell’Opera e dell’Aringhieri41 – nel rilievo della lunetta che un tempo riempiva l’archivolto –, ora a stagliarsi, come antichi geni di archi imperiali, nella chiave di volta dell’arco, ora serenamente complici di leoni mansueti lungo il fregio continuo che ne decora la sommità. Queste creature alate – per noi immagini dell’anima – grazie alla loro capacità di innalzarsi dalla contingenza e giungere a una dimensione sempiterna, diventano allora guide esemplari per colui che dal basso dell’universo sensibile le contempla, indicandogli la vera meta a cui bisogna che egli volga la mente: il mistero di eternità che prende forma nella sommità dell’arco, in quel timpano dove un tempo trionfava il Dio Padre. Le festose figure alate allora, contatto tra terra e cielo, sembrano portavoce dell’appello che il Trismegisto nel Poimandres accoratamente rivolge all’umanità tutta: Uomini nati dalla terra, perché vi siete consegnati alla morte, mentre avete facoltà di partecipare dell’immortalità? Pentitevi, voi, che avete camminato assieme all’errore e che nell’ignoranza avete trovato la vostra compagna. Allontanatevi dalla luce delle tenebre, partecipate all’immortalità, abbandonate una volta per tutte la perdizione.42

Le due vittorie alate reggenti una corona d’alloro (ill. 11), simbolo di eternità – scolpite nei pennacchi – vegliano il viaggio ascetico dell’anima di cui parlano, d’altronde, le eleganti candelabre, scolpite nelle colonne quadrate di marmo di montagnola, alla cui sommità arde un fuoco vivo che, come insegna il Ficino, per sua tenuitate prae ceteris elementis naturae spritali propinquat.43 40

Ficino, Th. V 15, 2 p. I 214 M. = 102 A. - H. - B.: «in essa rifulgono le vere immagini delle realtà divine (...), forma e unifica tutta la macchina corporea (...), collega reciprocamente le realtà divine e quelle corporee.» (trad. Vitale 402). 41 Landi p. 31 Carli: «dalla faccia di fuore vi sono l’Armi dell’Opera, e del rettore, scolpite in un’unica targa cinta d’un festone intagliato a frutti con due angioli nudi a mezzo rilievo che la sostengono». 42 CH I 28. Traduzione di Scarpi 47. 43 Ficino, Th. I 2, 3 p. I 41 M. = I 20 A. - H. -B.: «per la sua sottigliezza, più degli altri elementi si avvicina alla natura spirituale (...)» (trad. Vitale 16).

La Cappella del Battista nel Duomo di Siena

265

Così, procedendo oltre la schiera degli angeli e oltre le vittorie, si raggiunge l’ultima tappa di questo volo dell’anima che conduce a Dio: il fregio che orna la sommità dell’arco, scolpito con così tanta grazia da poterlo a ragione considerare uno dei capitoli più raffinati della plastica senese di fine quattrocento; esso infatti diventa meta per quelle figure dell’anima che trovano qui ristoro e felicità interagendo con leoni alati che nulla hanno più della ferocia dei loro simili rappresentati nella base della colonna destra; i feroci animali infatti sono ora intenti a immergere le loro zampe in delle coppe offerte dai putti. La mansuetudine dei leoni e la gioia di questi fanciulli scaturisce dal loro poter godere della contemplazione di Dio che proprio sopra loro un tempo si ergeva. Ed è bene porre la massima attenzione a questo gesto e chiedersi se esso non possa rimandare all’immersione che si compie con il battesimo di cui, durante la notte del Sabato Santo, lo spazio interno della Cappella si fa scenario. La fine di un percorso che termina con un’abluzione ricorda il dialogo del IV trattato del Corpus Hermeticum tra Tat e suo padre Ermete cui si rivolge chiedendo: «Ma perché, padre, dio non distribuì l’intelletto?» «Perché, figliolo, volle che fosse posto nel mezzo, per le anime, come un premio da conquistare.» «E dove lo ha posto? » «Ne ha riempito un grande cratere, lo ha inviato sulla terra e, preso un araldo, gli ha ordinato di annunciare ai cuori degli uomini queste parole: “Immergiti, tu che puoi, in questo cratere, tu che credi che risalirai fino a colui che ha inviato il cratere, tu che conosci il fine per il quale sei nato»44

Queste parole aiutano ancor più a chiarire il messaggio sotteso alle immagini incontrate in questo percorso ascetico che con Dio si conclude: la felicità dell’anima nel suo ricongiungersi con Lui può compiersi soltanto quando, allontanandosi dai sensi, scelga la via dell’intelletto e solo attingendo ad esso, come fanno i leoni alati, l’anima di ogni uomo sarà salva. Così allora tutto il portale può a ragione intendersi un ammaestramento, un percorso di formazione per chi intenda entrare nello spazio interno, giacché in esso vi si rappresenta tutto l’universo, dalla materia al Logos, e i due differenti sentieri che in questo mondo l’uomo può percorrere: di paura e morte se si lascia attrarre dalle vacuità del sensibile, di salvezza e pace se, facendo uso del dono dell’intelletto, intenderà elevare la propria anima a Dio. Dopo aver aperto l’animo ai moniti che riecheggiano nei marmi del portale, si entra nella Cappella. Un’atmosfera quieta e serena dunque 44

CH IV 3s. (trad. Scarpi 77).

266

Chiara Garganese

pervade questo spazio, libera dalle angosce incontrate all’esterno, un mondo che Francesco di Giorgio Martini costruisce secondo una pianta circolare, la «prima e più perfetta»,45 come scrive nel suo Trattato d’ingegneria e architettura. Concepire dunque la Cappella come immagine di questo mondo, non pare incoerente alla nostra lettura giacché è dall’esperienza terrena che l’anima di ognuno, scelta la via del bene, muove se stessa e intraprende il cammino di conoscenza della verità divina; e si tratta di un percorso che, come insegna Ficino, deve compiersi procedendo per gradi e coi giusti tempi46 affinché non si rimanga immediatamente accecati dalla luce della verità. Ed in gradi infatti è diviso questo spazio interno: al tempo dell’Aringhieri infatti la Cappella ospitava un coro ligneo che faceva da base alle pitture di Pinturicchio, divise in due registri sovrapposti, e intervallati da tre nicchie che ospitano tutt’oggi ciascuna le sculture marmoree di Sant’Ansano, il battezzatore dei senesi, Santa Caterina d’Alessandria e, quella centrale, il Battista bronzeo di Donatello. Oltre gli affreschi parietali, lo spazio era concluso da una volta celeste decorata con segni dello Zodiaco, distrutta a seguito dei restauri seicenteschi. La nostra ipotesi è che il coro, i due registri pittorici e la volta corrispondano ai gradi dell’elevazione dell’anima indicati da Ficino nella sua Theologia Platonica. Il coro ligneo racconta un universo naturale e armonioso, animato da volatili, musici, santi; raccontando un mondo naturale che è possibile rappresenti il passaggio da una dimensione legata al senso – primo di questi quattro gradi, ove l’anima comprende la realtà per mezzo delle sue innate qualità –, all’immaginazione che circa imagines corporum per sensus acceptas sive conceptas sese volutat.47 Il primo registro di pitture è suddiviso in quattro riquadri che rappresentano in ordine e partendo dalla sinistra dell’incedere, l’Aringhieri anziano, la Nascita del Battista, la sua morte (nell’ottocento sostituita con la scena dei discepoli che visitano il Battista in prigione) e il giovane Luzio Aringhieri. I due Aringhieri sono immersi nella natura ma 45

Francesco di Giorgio Martini II 372. Ficino, Th. VI 2, 15 p. I 233 M. = 146 A. - H. - B.: convenientibus vero tum morum tum doctrinarum tum temporis producti gradibus sincere discernimus iudicamusque (...), «se invece procediamo in modo graduale nei modi e nei tempi opportuni e sulla base delle conoscenze adeguate, siamo in modo di discernere in modo chiaro» (trad. Vitale 446). 47 Ficino, Th. VIII 1, 2 p. I 286 M. = II 262 A. - H. - B.: «l’immaginazione (verte) sulle immagini dei corpi percepite o concepite attraverso i sensi» (trad. Vitale 580). 46

La Cappella del Battista nel Duomo di Siena

267

concentrati nella preghiera. La loro contemplazione è tuttavia legata a un tempo transitorio: è qui che si racconta la nascita e la morte del Battista, ed è qui che si rappresentano tutte le tappe della vita umana, dalla infanzia alla vecchiaia che precede la morte. È dunque possibile che con queste pitture si rappresenti il grado della fantasia, superiore all’immaginazione, in cui l’anima, seppure non ancora pienamente immersa nel mondo sensibile, res incorporales quodammodo somniare videtur.48 Questa dimensione di vita instabile perché sottoposta al fluire del tempo viene superata nel secondo registro di affreschi dove si racconta la deità del Battista espressa nei momenti cardine della sua missione ovvero, sempre da sinistra verso destra, il suo ritiro nel deserto, il Battesimo di Cristo, la Visitazione e la Predica alle Turbe. Questo grado di affreschi rappresenta l’ennesimo grado d’elevazione dell’anima che secondo Ficino si determina passando dalla fantasia all’intelletto. Necessaria a questo salto è la mediazione dei Santi, scolpiti e inseriti nelle nicchie, primo fra tutti il Battista bronzeo. Nel Corpus Hermeticum Ermete incita a contemplare le statue e onorarle perché esse «possiedono forme che provengono dal mondo intellegibile».49 Così, dopo la mediazione delle statue l’anima può raggiungere il grado dell’intelletto dove l’anima comprende le ragioni universali e dunque scoprire la verità del Logos nell’esempio divino del Precursore. Passati poi questi quattro gradi e, avendo pian piano abbandonato il corpo, l’anima si ricongiungerà con la luce del Logos divino che dalla lanterna rischiarava il cielo astrale diffondendosi in tutto lo spazio. E parlando di luce, i diversi gradi attraverso cui l’anima compie il suo ricongiungimento col divino si distinguono l’uno dall’altro anche per la diversa e progressiva intensità di luce che in essi si contiene e si trattiene: dall’oscuro legno delle tarsie si passa nel primo registro al chiarore di un cielo naturale che, nell’ultimo, rifulge di luce dorata, divinamente irreale. Ed è attraverso questi gradi che l’occhio e il cuore di chi contempla potrà raggiungere quella luce vera, superiore all’artificio artistico, che, filtrando dalla Lanterna, svela la presenza di Dio nel qui e ora. Così allora nella Cappella si compie il salvifico cammino dell’anima dall’oscurità del mondo sensibile alla verità della luce di cui il Battista è direttore e oracolo. 48

Ficino, Th. VIII 1, 3 p. I 286 M. = II 264 A. - H. - B.: «sembra anche presagire in qualche modo le realtà incorporee» (trad. Vitale 582). 49 CH XVII (tr. Scarpi 239).

268

Chiara Garganese

Fig. 1: Pinturicchio, Alberto Aringhieri, Cappella del Battista, Siena, Duomo.

Fig. 2: Giovanni di Stefano, Ermete Trismegisto. Siena, Duomo

La Cappella del Battista nel Duomo di Siena

Fig. 3: Cappella di San Giovanni Battista, portale marmoreo. Siena, Duomo.

269

270

Chiara Garganese

Fig. 4: Cappella di San Giovanni Battista, interno. Siena, Duomo.

La Cappella del Battista nel Duomo di Siena

271

Bibliografia 1 Edizioni, traduzioni, commenti San Bernardino da Siena Le prediche volgari. A cura di P. Bargellini. Milano 1936. Bestiario moralizzato Bestiario moralizzato. In: Bestiari medievali. A cura di L. Morini. Torino 1996. 487-547. Corpus Hermeticum Hermetica. The ancient Greek and Latin writings which contain religious or philosophic teachings ascribed to Hermes Trismegistus. Edited with English translation and notes by W. Scott. I-IV Oxford 1924-1936. La rivelazione segreta di Ermete Trismegisto. A cura di Paolo Scarpi. I Milano 2009. Ficino, Marsilio De christiana religione Marsilio Ficino. La religione cristiana. Introduzione, Traduzione e testo critico a cura di R. Zanzarri. Roma 2005. Epistulae Le divine lettere del gran Marsilio Ficino tradotte in lingua toscana per m. Felice Figliucci senese. A cura di S. Gentile. I-II Roma 2001. Theologia Platonica Marsilio Ficino, Platonic Theology. English translation by M. J. B. Allen, Latin text edited by J. Hankins with W. Bowen. I-VI Cambridge (Mass.) – London 2001-2006. Marsilio Ficino, Teologia platonica. Saggio introduttivo, traduzione, note e apparati a cura di E. Vitale. Milano 2011. Supplementum Ficinianum Supplementum Ficinianum. Marsilii Ficini Florentini Philosophi Platonici opuscula inedita et dispersa primum collegit et ex fontibus plerumque manuscriptis edidit P. O. Kristeller. Accedunt indices codicum, editionum, operum Ficini nec non documenta quaedam et testimonia ad eundem pertinentia. I-II Firenze 1937. (rist. 1983). Plotino

Plotino. Enneadi. Porfirio, Vita di Plotino. Traduzione con testo Greco a fronte, introduzione, note e bibliografia di G. Faggin. Presentazione e iconografia plotiniana di Giovanni Reale. Revisione finale dei testi, appendici e indici di R. Radice. Milano 2000.

272

Chiara Garganese

Vespasiano da Bisticci: Le vite. Edizione e commento di A. Greco. I-II Firenze 19701976. 2 Autori dei secoli XVI e XVII Benvoglienti, Bartolomeo: Trattato de l’origine e accrescimento de la città di Siena composto da M. Bartolomeo Benvoglienti Proposto di Siena, e professore di filosofia & teologia a l’illustriss. et reverendiss. Cardinale Sforza Legato di Bologna e Romagna. Roma 1571. Campano, Giovanni Antonio: Omnia Campani opera. Venezia 1502. Cartari, Vincenzo: Le imagini de gli Dei de gli Antichi del Signor Vincenzo Cartari regiano nelle quali sono descritte la Religione de gli Antichi, li Idoli, riti et cerimonie loro. con l’agiunta di molte principali imagini, che nell’altre mancauano, et con l'espositione in epilogo di ciascheduna & suo significato. Estratta dall'istesso Cartari per Cesare Malfatti padoano, con un cathalogo del medesimo de cento e piu famosi Dei loro natura e proprieta, estratto da questo & altri autori: opera vtilissima a historici, poeti, pittori, scultori, & professori di belle lettere. Venezia 1609. di Giorgio Martini, Francesco:Trattati di architettura, Ingegneria e arte militare. A cura di C. Maltese. I-II Milano 1967. Landi, Alfonso: Racconto di pitture, di statue e d’altre opere eccellenti che si ritrovano nel tempio della Cattedrale di Siena (…) cominciato fin dall’anno 1655. A cura di E. Carli. Firenze 1992. Ugurgieri-Azzolini, Isidoro: Le Pompe Sanesi o’ vero relazione delli Huomini, e donne illustri di Siena, e suo Stato. Scritta dal Padre Maestro Fr. Isidoro Ugurgieri Azzolini dell’ordine de’ Predicatori. Pistoia 1649. 2 Letteratura secondaria Angelini, A.: «Le storie di San Giovanni Battista nella cappella del Precursore: Bernardino Pintoricchio (1504-1506), Vincenzo e Francesco Rustici (1616), Cesare Maccari (1864).» In: Lorenzoni, M. (ed.): Le pitture del Duomo di Siena. Cinisello Balsamo 2008. 135-147. Angelini, A. (ed.): Pio II e le arti. La riscoperta dell’antico da Federighi a Michelangelo. Siena 2005. Aronow, G.: A Documentary History of the Pavement Decoration in Siena Cathedral, 1362 through 1506. Ann Arbor 1985. Aronow, G.: «Towards a biography of Alberto Aringhieri.» In: Ascheri, M. Mazzoni, G. - Nevola, F. (ed.): L’ultimo secolo della Repubblica di Siena. Arti, cultura e società. Atti del convegno internazionale, Siena 28-30 settembre 2003 e 16-18 settembre 2004. Siena 2008. 323-353. Avesani, R., «Epaeneticorum ad Pium II Pont. Max. libri V.» In: Maffei, D. (ed.): Enea Silvio Piccolomini papa Pio II. Varese 1968. 15-99. Bianca, C.: «La presenza degli umanisti a Urbino.» In: Fiore, F. P. (ed.): Francesco di Giorgio alla corte di Federico da Montefeltro. Atti del convegno

La Cappella del Battista nel Duomo di Siena

273

internazionale di studi. Urbino, monastero di Santa Chiara 11-13 ottobre 2001. Firenze 2004. 127-145. (Biblioteca dell’«Archivum Romanicum». Serie 1: Storia, Letteratura, Paleografia 317). Castelli, P.: «Magia, astrologia, divinazione e chiromanzia alla corte dei Montefeltro, un caso particolare: Ottaviano Ubaldini della Carda.» In: Salvatore, G. Castelli, P. (ed.): Lo stato e ‘l valore: i Montefeltro e i Della Rovere: assensi e conflitti nell’Italia tra ‘400 e ‘600. Pisa 2005. 29-65. Cecchini, P.: «Per un’edizione critica dei carmina di Giannantonio Campano.» Res publica litterarum 5 (1982) 53-76. Cerboni Baiardi G. - Chittolini G. - Floriani P. (ed.): Federico di Montefeltro. Lo Stato / le arti / la cultura. I-III Roma 1986. (Biblioteca del Cinquecento 30). Copenhaver, B.: «Hermes Theologus: The Sienese Mercury and Ficino’s Hermetic Demons.» In: O’Malley, J. W. - Izbicki, T. M. - Christianson, G. (ed.): Humanity and divinity in Renaissance and Reformation. Essays in honor of Charles Trinkaus. Leiden – New York – Köln 1993. 149-182. (Studies in the history of Christian thought 51). Cracco Ruggini, L.: «La tarsia rinascimentale di Mercurio Trismegisto, Mosè e l’uso della tradizione classica.» In: Guerrini, R. - Lorenzoni, M. (ed.): Studi interdisciplinari sul pavimento del Duomo di Siena. Iconografia, stile, indagini scientifiche. Siena 2005. 41-56. Cust, R. H.: I maestri del pavimento del Duomo di Siena. Siena 2000. Di Bernardo, F.: Giannantonio Campano. Un vescovo umanista alla corte pontificia. Roma 1975. Franceschini, G.: Figure del rinascimento urbinate. Urbino 1959. Franceschini, G.: I Montefeltro. Varese 1970. Gabriele, M.: Alchimia e iconologia. Udine 1997. Garin, E.: Studi sul platonismo medievale. Firenze 1958. Guerrini, R.: «Ermete e le Sibille. Il primo riquadro della navata centrale e le tarsie delle navate laterali.» In: Guerrini, R. - Caciorgna M. (ed.): Il pavimento del Duomo di Siena. L’arte della tarsia marmorea dal XIV al XIX secolo. Fonti e Simbologia. Cinisello Balsamo 2006. 13-51. Güthlein, K., «Die Kapelle Johannes des Täufers.» In: Riedl, P. A. - Seidl, M. (ed.): Die Kirchen von Siena. III 1, 1, 2 München 2006. 556-569. Kristeller, P. O.: Il pensiero filosofico di Marsilio Ficino. Firenze 1988. [Edizione rivista con bibliografia aggiornata; Firenze 11953]. Lisini, A. - Liberati, A.: Genealogia dei Piccolomini. Siena 1990. Loseries, W.: «Le sculture della Cappella di San Giovanni Battista.» In: Lorenzoni, M. (ed.): Le sculture del Duomo di Siena. Cinisello Balsamo 2009. 148-153 Michelini Tocci, L.: «Ottaviano Ubaldini della Carda e una inedita testimonianza sulla battaglia di Varna (1444).» In: Mélanges Eugène Tisserant. VII Città del Vaticano 1964. 97-130. (Studi e testi 237). Michelini Tocci, L.: «Federico da Montefeltro e Ottaviano Ubaldini della Carda.» In: Cerboni Baiardi - Chittolini - Floriani (ed.) I 297-344. Michelini Tocci, L.: «La formazione della Biblioteca di Federico da Montefeltro. Codici contemporanei e libri a stampa.» In: Cerboni Baiardi - Chittolini Floriani (ed.) III 9-18.

274

Chiara Garganese

Moreschini, C.: «Ancora alcune considerazioni su Marsilio Ficino e l’ermetismo.» In: Gentile, S. - Toussaint, S. (ed.): Marsilio Ficino. Fonti, testi, fortuna, Atti del convegno internazionale (Firenze, 1-3 ottobre 1999). Roma 2006. 89-120. (Studi e testi del Rinascimento europeo 30). Pernis, M. G.: Le Platonisme de Marsile Ficin et la Cour d’Urbin. Paris 1997. Ranfagni, T.: «La Libreria Piccolomini nel Duomo di Siena: ipotesi per un’esegesi iconologica.» Schifanoia 42-43 (2012-2013) 285-294. Ratti, N.: Della famiglia Sforza. I-II Roma 1794-1795. Seng, H: «Eine Horapollon-Übersetzung in Codex Magl. XXX 3 der Biblioteca Nazionale zu Florenz.» In: Scarpi, P. - Zago, M. (ed.): Ermetismo ed esoterismi. Mondo antico e riflessi contemporanei. Padova 2013. 91-108. (Civiltà e religioni 1). Siniscalco, P.: «Ermete Trismegisto profeta pagano della rivelazione cristiana.» Atti dell’Accademia delle Scienze di Torino 101 (1966-1967) 83-116. Ugolini, F.: Storia dei conti e dei duchi di Urbino. Firenze 1859. Vasoli, C.: Quasi sit deus. Studi su Marsilio Ficino. Lecce 1999. (Attraverso la storia 5). Vasoli, C.: Filosofia e religione nella cultura del Rinascimento. Napoli 1988. Viti, P. (ed.): Firenze e il concilio del 1439. Convegno di Studi Firenze, 29 novembre - 2 dicembre 1989. I-II Firenze 1994. (Biblioteca di storia toscana 29).

Chiara O. Tommasi

A rewriting of Theos. § 27 Erbse = I 24 Beatrice in Bodin’s Colloquium Heptaplomeres In a previous paper published in the same collection we draw the attention on the modern fortune this complex oracle has met with in modern times, which echoes the Chaldaean lexicon and is ascribed to Porphyry’s work on the Philosophy drawn from the Oracles.1 In particular, we noted how the strong henotheistic tendency towards the celebration of a ruler of the universe, who reigns over the eternal skyvault and has created all living beings, allowed the text to enjoy a certain renown not only among the advocates of the prisca theologia, but also among those who had made it the object of a trivialization and circulated it as a magical charm. It is, however, possible to add a further element to such an intricate vicissitude, namely by presenting a variation on this oracle which appears in the Colloquium heptaplomeres de rerum sublimium arcanis abditis (Colloquium of the Seven on the Hidden Mysteries of Exalted Things), generally ascribed to Jean Bodin.2 This 1

Porph., De phil. ex or. p. 143-147 Wolff = fr. 325F Smith. Cf. Tommasi, “La preghiera ...” and, for a detailed commentary on the Greek original, Tissi. Cf. also Carrara - Männlein-Robert 120-127. 2 It is worth remembering that we do not possess an autograph of the work, which is transmitted only by some later manuscripts, and that death probably prevented Bodin from publishing the work with the result that it was edited for the first time by Ludwig Noack (Schwerin 1857). The authorship of the work has been recently questioned by Faltenbacher, Das Colloquium Heptaplomeres; Das Colloquium Heptaplomeres und das neue Weltbild Galileis (and others in his footsteps: cf. e.g. Céard, Pantin, Wootton); strong arguments in favour of authenticity are put forward by Roellenbleck, review of Faltenbacher, and, most of all, by Malcolm. The most recent biographer of Bodin accepts the traditional attribution (Lloyd 240, who also resumes some basic contents of the work). A MA thesis discussed in November 2017 at the University of Pisa by Paolo Pezzuolo provides a detailed linguistic analysis of the text and concludes that it is genuine. We wish to thank Dott. Pezzuolo for having attracted our attention to the Colloquium, on whose complex structure cf. at least the introduction in Kuntz, Colloquium, Suggi, Sovranità, and the miscellaneous volumes

276

Chiara O. Tommasi

text, written against the background of the momentous wars of religion in France, represents a remarkable example of literary dialogues on religious tolerance, although the ambiguity of the conclusion puzzled the interpreters and led to different hypotheses.3 The prose text of the Colloquium is interspersed with eleven poems, ten in Latin and one in Greek, uttered by the different characters according to a pattern that, although in a simplified form, can be traced back to the mixed genre of the Latin philosophical prosimetrum.4 A detailed study of these verses is badly needed, but, for the present circumstances, it may be stated that, even allowing for some massive borrowings from classical poems, the Latin compositions appear to be original creations by the author;5 conversely, the Greek Christological hymn, uttered in book six (where the main question is that of the nature, divine and human, of Christ) by the Catholic representative Coronaeus and allegedly composed by him,6 is a quasi-literal reprise of the aforementioned Porphyrian oracle. To our knowledge, no scholar has highlighted such a point so far. Noack, from whose edition we quote, does not print the poem in Greek, but employs the Latin translation, usually placed in the margin of edited by Gawlick - Niewöhner, Häfner, and Faltenbacher (Magie and Der kritische Dialog). 3 On the theme of tolerance cf., more in general, Remer and, on the specific literary form, Paganini, “La ‘civil conversazione’ ...”; Heitsch. See also infra n. 32. Besides the aforementioned works, on Bodin and his religious ideas it is worth mentioning Roellenbleck, “Der Schluß ...”; Kuntz, “Religious Views ...”; Rose; Vasoli; Paganini, “Du déisme ...”. 4 For a survey of the genre cf. Dronke and Pabst. It is worth noting that the Menippaen satire gradually shifted towards a deeper philosophical interpretation, which is reflected in Boethius’ Consolatio and in Martianus Capella, not to mention Medieval works. Roellenbleck, “Les poèmes ...” provides a first, general, investigation of the poems in the Colloquium. 5 A cursory examination revealed borrowings from Vergil, Lucretius, Horace, and Statius, as well as from Christian or Late Antique poetry. In particular, a poem about demonology is worth mentioning, with its distinction between angels and demons (Noack 100) along with one about God, who, as creator of the world, unifies opposites in harmonious accord (Noack 115): this praise of the concordia discors echoes trivialized Stoicism (as perceivable at the beginning of the second book of Lucan, or the first of Claudian’s In Rufinum), or Late Antique philosophical poetry (e. g. Boethius, Cons. 3 m. 9: cf. Miglietti), rather than Origen (as supposed by Häfner, “Die Präsenz ...”). 6 On the character of Coronaeus cf. Varacalli; Kuntz, “The Home ...” (comparing Coronaeus’ house to the Platonic Academy, and Venice to the fifteenth-century Florence with its love for arts, philosophy and science).

A rewriting of Theos. § 27 Erbse = I 24 Beatrice

277

the manuscripts, stating that the Greek text is corrupted in almost all the testimonies he has employed:7 Et quoniam tanti beneficii, tantae salutis memoriam latinis versibus non satis pro dignitate assequi potui, graecis hymnis sanctius id me consequi posse speravi: i. e. Christe, Dei filiorum flos tenelle, aeterne sacerdos, super mundos circumvolutos invectus, dominator campis aetheriis, ubi potestatis tuae robur est defixum, indeque omnia despicis et praeclaris auribus audis. Tua super mundum ac coelum sidereum aurea supereminet ingens aeterna potestas, qua elatus tuo te splendore excitans perennibus rivis foves animum infinitum. Qui producis informans materiam incorruptibilem, quam generatio circumvagatur, quoniam formis illam obligasti, ex eademque mente fluxerunt origines sanctorum regum, qui te circumstant, potentissime! ex te nati, legationibus profecti ad te legatorum genitorem tuamque potentiam feruntur. Ad haec quoddam tertium regum genus creasti, qui tuas laudes continuate celebrant. Tu morte vitam, optime, mortalibus dedisti. And since I could not attain with sufficient dignity in Latin verses the memory of so great a benefit and so great a salvation, I hoped that I could reach this in a holier way in Greek hymns: “Christ, delicate flower of the Sons of God, eternal Priest, carried above the revolving heavens, Master of the celestial plains where the strength of Your power is fixed; from there You see all things and You hear all with Your excellent ears. Your golden great eternal power rises above the world and the starry sky. Exalted by this power and stimulating Yourself in Your splendor You foster the infinite soul with perennial rivers. You bring forth and shape incorruptible matter about which begetting wanders, since You have bound that matter with forms. From this same mind the origin of holy kings who surround You have flowed, [oh most powerful and most holy King of all. Born from You and having set out in their legations, they are carried to You, begetter of their missions, and to Your power. Moreover, You have created a certain third kind of kings who continually [celebrate Your praises. O best One, You have given mortals life by Your death.”

7

Noack 295; the Greek version is printed in an appendix on p. 359. For the English translation cf. Kuntz, Colloquium 390f. The French translation of the Colloquium, written shortly after the original, does not present a literal translation but rather an enlarged paraphrase with many digressions and concessions to the imagination (cf. Berriot 462f.).

278

Chiara O. Tommasi

Noack was indeed right in noticing the poor condition of the Greek, but the corruption of the text is essentially due to the fact that he collated manuscripts that are not considered to be the best exemplars.8 By checking his printed text against the three Parisian manuscripts unanimously regarded as being the best and the closest to the lost autograph,9 we were able to achieve a significant editorial improvement. The readings in these manuscripts show that the hymn uttered by Coronaeus is even more similar to the original Greek oracle than the version published by Noack led us to suppose. We therefore present the new text in which we tacitly corrected some orthographic variants or misspellings, providing the divergent readings from both Noack and the text printed by Wolff and Erbse:10 Χρίστε θεοῦ τεκέων11 τέρεν ἄνθος, αἰώνιε, μύστα, Κόσμων ἀμφιδρόμων ἐποχούμενε ‹δέσποτα› νώτοις12 Αἰθερίοις, ἀλκῆς ἵνα σοι μένος13 ἐστηρίκται, Πάντ᾽ ἐπιδερκομένῳ καὶ ἀκούοντ᾽14 οὔασι καλοῖς. 5 Σὴ γὰρ ὑπὲρ κόσμον τε καὶ οὐρανὸν ἀστεροέντα, Χρυσῆ ὑπέρκειται15 πολλὴ αἰώνιος ἀλκή,

8

His edition is mainly based on the Senckenberg codex in Giessen plus some other German manuscripts. A detailed list of the manuscripts can be found in Kuntz, Colloquium lxvii-lxxii; Davies in Berriot lxi-lxvi, and, most of all, in Faltenbacher, “Aktuelles Verzeichnis ...”. 9 Paris BNF Latin 6564 (in possession of President De Mesme and allegedly credited with being part of Bodin’s legacy), f. 389 and 390; Paris BNF Latin 6565, f. 229 and BNF Latin 6566 (once belonged to Guy Patin), f. 219. Unfortunately, the famous Vaticanus Reginensis Latinus 1313 is incomplete and abruptly stops in book four (p. 173 Noack). We would like to thank Lucia Maddalena Tissi for autoptic inspection of BNF 6564. 10 Berriot 580 publishes a better version, which, nonetheless, still retains some misspellings (deriving from a purely diplomatic transcription of the codices). 11 Noack: τέκνον. The original oracle starts with the famous apostrophe to the supreme father, Ἀθανάτων ἄρρητε πατήρ (erroneously printed as Ἀθάνατε by Steuco). 12 Noack supplies ἐποχούμενε κοίρανε νώτοις, whereas the oracle as printed by Erbse and earlier by Steuco reads ἐποχούμενε, δέσποτα, νώτοις. The two terms are almost synonymical. 13 Noack: σθένος. 14 Ἀκόνοντι (sic) mss. Noack has the correct reading. Bodin’s text leaves out the next line of the Greek original (printed by Steuco as well), κλῦθι τεῶν παίδων, οὓς ἤροσας αὐτὸς ἐν ὥραις. 15 Χριστ᾽, ὑπερεκτανύται Noack.

A rewriting of Theos. § 27 Erbse = I 24 Beatrice

279

16

Ἧς ὑπερ ἠώρησας ὀρίνων φωτὶ σεαυτὸν, Ἀενάοις ὀχετοῖσι τιθηνῶν νοῦν ἀτάλαντον,17 Ὅς ῥα κύει18 τόδε πᾶν, τεχνώμενος ἄφθιτον ὕλην, 10 Ἣν19 γένεσις δεδόκηται, ὅτι σφε τύποισιν ἔδησας. ῎Ενθεν ἐπεισρείουσι γοναὶ ἁγίων μὲν ἀνάκτων ἀμφὶ σέ, παντόκρατορ βασιλεῦ τ᾿ ἁγιώτατε πάντων ἐκ σέο μὲν20 γεγαῶσαι,21 ὑπ’ ἀγγελίῃσι δ’ ἕκασται22 Πρεσβυγενεῖ διάγουσι νόῳ καὶ κάρτεϊ τῷ σῷ. 15 Πρὸς δέ τι23 καὶ τρίτον ἄλλο γένος ποίησας ἀνάκτων, Οἵ σε κατ’ ἧκαρ᾽ ἄδουσιν †24 ἀνυμνείοντες ἀοιδαῖς. Σὺ25 θανάτῳ ζωὴν, βέλτιστε, βροτοῖσιν ἔδωκας.

As is clear from even a cursory reading, the verses differ from the original text in only a few words, which are inserted to give an explicitly Christian nuance. Such is the case of the opening line, where it should 16

Ἧι ὑπερηωρήσας Noack; ἧς ὕπερ ᾐώρησαι Erbse; ἧς ὑπερῃώρησαι Wolff, ἧς ὑπὲρ ᾐώρησας Steuco. 17 Τιθήνεις νοῦν ἀπέραντον Noack. 18 ῾Ρα κύεις Noack; ῥα κυεῖ Wolff; ῥα κύει Erbse. We corrected accordingly the vox nihili ῥακύει attested to in Steuco and Bodin. 19 Ἧς Noack, Wolff, Erbse; ἥ Mai. 20 BNF 6564 reads ἔνθεν ἐπιστρέεουσι γοναὶ ἁγίων μέν ἀνάκτων / ἀμφὶ σέ, παντόκρτωρ βασιλεύ ἁγιώτατε πάντων / ἐκ σέο μὲν κτλ., a text closest to the Latin version, ex eademque mente fluxerunt origines sanctorum regum, / qui te circumstant, potentissime! / ex te nati, legationibus profecti / ad te legatorum genitorem tuamque potentiam feruntur, which skips βασιλεύ ἁγιώτατε πάντων. Conversely, BNF 6565 and 6566 omit ἀνάκτων ... ἐκ σέο μὲν (in all reliability a haplography due to the repetition of μέν), therefore presenting an ametrical text. These lines sound quite different in Noack: Ἔκ σου ἀπορρεύσαντ᾽ ἁγίων γεννήματ᾽ ἀνάκτων, / Οἵ σε μὲν ἀμφίστασι, κρατίστ᾽, ἔκ σου γεγαῶτες / Πεμπόμενοι τῇ καὶ τῇ ὑπ᾽ ἀγγελίησιν, ἕκαστα. The Greek oracle as printed in Erbse after μέν reads ἀνάκτων / ἀμφὶ σέ, παντόκρατορ βασιλέστατε καὶ μόνε θνητῶν / ἀθανάτων τε πάτερ μακάρων. αἱ δ’ εἰσὶν ἄτερθεν, / ἐκ σέο μὲν. Steuco, who in the same line has the reading παντόπατορ (see n. 27), prints the ametrical βασιλεύτε καὶ μόνε θνητῶν. Tissi in her recent commentary suggests to adopt the varia lectio βασιλεύτατε (already employed by Wolff), which has some parallels in Hy. Orph. 48, 5, and Gr. Naz. carm. II I 1, 599 PG 37, 1014. 21 Γεγαῶσαι Erbse; γεγαυῖαι Wolff. 22 ῞Εκαστα Wolff, Erbse. The feminine plural ἕκασται is printed by Steuco as well. 23 Δ᾿ ἔτι Erbse. 24 Οἵ σ᾽ ἄδουσι κατ᾽ ἦμαρ, ἀεὶ μνήσκοντες ἀοιδῆς Noack; καθ᾽ ἧκαρ Steuco; οἵ ῥ᾿ ἐκὰς ἦμαρ ἄγουσιν κτλ. Wolff, οἵ σε καθ᾿ ἧμαρ ἄγουσιν κτλ. Erbse. 25 Ὅς Noack; Helmut Seng suggests σεῦ, σοῦ, or σῷ. This line is not in the original Greek text and therefore must be considered a creation of Bodin.

280

Chiara O. Tommasi

also be remarked that the epithet τέρεν ἄνθος is derived from the three verses that in the Theosophy immediately follow the oracle in question and that in earlier collections were printed without solution of continuity; similarly, the conclusion appears to be a farfetched insertion, probably meant to reassert the Christological eulogy (the original ends with a line that is difficult to interpret: βουλόμενόν ῥ᾿ ἐθέλοντες, ἀοιδιάουσι δ᾿ἐσῶδε). In all likelihood Bodin found the poem in Agostino Steuco’s De perenni philosophia and employed at greater length both the Latin translation and the Greek original he could read there. Bodin was definitely acquainted with Steuco’s work.26 The fact that the Colloqium shares with Steuco some variae lectiones27 and closely follows his Latin translation provides further confirmation of this statement. One can only 26

He is explicitly mentioned as Augustinus Eugubinus or simply Eugubinus in three passages of the Colloquium (p. 270 and 279s.). Cf. also Malcolm 109 (the mention of Steuco, in connection with de Mornay at p. 279 is also decisive in order to demonstrate that here Bodin refers to de Mornay’s De la vérité de la religion chrestienne, published in 1581 and re-edited in Latin two years later – an important issue in determining the chronology and the authorship of the Colloquium). Steuco’s rendering is given at p. 156 of the 1540 Lyon edition and reads: Immortalis, ineffabilis, Pater aeterne, sacer, super mundis circunvertentibus invectus, dominator in campis aetheriis, ubi potestatis tuae robur est defixum: indeque omnia despicis, pulchris et auribus audis: exaudi filios tuos, quos dilexisti ad omne tempus. Tua enim supra mundum et caelum sidereum, aurea supereminet, magna, aeterna potestas. Super qua elevaris, splendore te ipsum excitans, perennibus rivis, nutriens animum infinitum. Qui producit haec omnia, formans materiam indeficientem, quam generatio circumvagatur, quoniam illam formis obligasti. Ex eodem animo fluxerunt geniturae sanctorum regum, qui te circunstant Pater universalis, et rex, et singularis, mortalium, immortaliumque beatorum Pater. Quae quidem seorsum sunt ex te natae, nuntiis autem singulae praefectae, aeternae Menti referunt, tuaqeue potentiae. Praeterea tertium quoddam genus Regum creasti, qui te semper canunt, carminibusque laudant volentem te, ipsi cupidi, praedicantque; nunc et semper. 27 Cf. lines 7: ἧς ὕπερ ἠώρησας; 9: ῥακύει; 12: βασιλεῦ τε; 13: ἕκασται; 16: οἵ σε κατ ἧκαρ᾽ ἄδουσιν; παντόκρατορ in line 12 is to be understood as a correction of the hapax legomenon παντόπατορ attested to in Steuco, but also (as παντοπάτορ) as a marginal note in the manuscript of the Tübingen Theosophy and in the text of all other manuscripts analyzed by Erbse (cf. the apparatus criticus p. 19) except A’’ = Ambrosianus 569 (Erbse mistakenly attributes παντοκράτορ to L = Laurentianus, Plut. 32.16 as well which reads παντοπάτορ, though). As Helmut Seng points out to me, this makes clear that the lectio difficilior παντοπάτορ should be considered as original and παντοκράτορ as a banalization of the hapax legomenon. The isolated reading ἁγιώτατε πάντων in v. 12 seems to be an addition to fill a lacuna as indicated by the translation.

A rewriting of Theos. § 27 Erbse = I 24 Beatrice

281

surmise as to the reason for this reappropriation, which, however, could cast new light on the interpretation of the dialogue – a work that, besides issues specifically pertaining to the three monotheistic traditions, is permeated by Pythagorean, Neoplatonic and Hermetic tenets and has sometimes been regarded as a manifesto of Late Renaissance deistic tendencies.28 On the one hand, the employment of these verses reflects the widespread tendency to highlight the germs of an old hidden wisdom even in texts belonging to a different religious tradition,29 while on the other it may testify to the separation between the classical oracles, which are usually condemned by Renaissance Christian philosophers as demonic,30 and the so-called theological or metaphysical ones, which were perceived by those who theorized the idea of religious harmony as a forerunner to the revelation fully attained by Christ. It is generally agreed that “the focus of Bodin’s religious belief was an incorporeal and inAnite God, the ultimate unity, simple, eternal, and unchanging. This God could and did intervene at will in his created world and was unconstrained by the laws of nature”.31 In addition, as remarked by Marion Leathers Kuntz, the dialogue is permeated by a strong emphasis on poetry, considered as a means to attaining unity in diversity.32 The deliberate choice of praising Christ with the same verses as a pagan oracle cannot but confirm such a statement and represents a further connection with Steuco and his “perennial philosophy”.

28

Cf. Kuntz, “The Home ...” (Pythagorean philosophy and the harmony of the spheres); Lloyd 248 (Platonism); Häfner, “Spuren ...” (Hermeticism). 29 The question has been discussed, among others, by Hanegraaff. 30 Ossa-Richardson deals with this subject in a learned and exemplary monograph. In addition, it is worth noting that the Colloquium has a large section on the nature of demons and, more in general, on demonology (after all, Bodin also authored the Démonomanie). 31 Lloyd 250. 32 Kuntz, “Structure ...”. The notion of harmony in the Colloquium has been the object of several inquiries, among which cf. Kuntz, “Harmony ...”; Fabbri; Di Bella; Suggi, Sovranità and “Ordine della natura ...”. Birouste’s article provides a personal reading of the work. We wish to thank Elizabeth MacDonald for kindly revising the English text.

282

Chiara O. Tommasi

Bibliography 1 Editions, translations, commentaries Bodin, Jean I. Bodini Colloquium Heptaplomeres de rerum sublimium arcanis e codicibus manuscriptis bibliothecae academicae Gissensis cum varia lectione aliorum apographorum nunc primum typis describendum curavit L. Noack. Suerini Megaloburgensium 1857. Colloquium of the Seven about Secrets of the Sublime. Colloquium Heptaplomeres de Rerum Sublimium Arcanis Abditis, by Jean Bodin. Translation with Introduction, Annotation and Critical Readings, by M. L. D. Kuntz. Princeton – London 1975. Colloque entre sept scavans qui sont de different sentimens des secrets cachez des choses relevées. Traduction anonyme du Colloquium Heptaplomeres. Texte présenté et établi par F. Berriot avec la collaboration de K. Da Vies, J. Larmat et J. Roger. Genève 1984. de Mornay, Philippe De la verité de la religion chrestienne De la verité de la religion chrestienne contre les Athees, Epicuriens, Paiens, Juifs, Mahumedistes, & autres infideles, Par Philippe de Mornay sieur du Plessis-Marly. Anvers 1581. Porfirio De philosophia ex oraculis haurienda Porphyrii de philosophia ex oraculis haurienda librorum reliquiae. Edidit G. Wolff. Berlin 1856. (repr. Hildesheim 1962). Steuco, Agostino De perenni philosophia Augustini Steuchi Eugubini, episcopi Kisami, Apostolicae Sedis Bibliothecarij, De perenni philosophia libri X. Idem de Eugubii, urbis suae, nomine. Lugduni 1540. Theosophia Theosophorum Graecorum Fragmenta. Iterum recensuit H. Erbse. Stuttgart – Leipzig 1995. Anonymi Monophysitae Theosophia. An attempt at reconstruction by P. F. Beatrice. Leiden – Boston – Köln 2001. (VChr Suppl. 56). Tissi, L. M.: Gli oracoli degli dèi greci nella Teosofia di Tubinga. Commento e studio critico dei testi 12-54 Erbse. Alessandria 2018. (Hellenica 72)

A rewriting of Theos. § 27 Erbse = I 24 Beatrice

283

Die Tübinger Theosophie. Eingeleitet, übersetzt und kommentiert von L. Carrara und I. Männlein-Robert. Unter Mitwirkung von V. Clausing-Lage, A.-L. Engelbach, C. Rüth, O. Schelske, F. Schulz. Mit einem Beitrag von H. Seng. Stuttgart 2018. (Bibliothek der griechischen Literatur 86). 2 Secondary literature Birouste, J.: “L’Enigme d’anthropologie religieuse dans le Colloquium heptaplomeres.” In: Pérouse, G.-A. - Dockès-Lallement, N. - Servet, J.-M. (ed.): L’Oeuvre de Jean Bodin. Actes du colloque tenu á Lyon à l’occasion du quatriéme centenaire de sa mort, 11-13 janvier 1996. Paris 2004. 489-519. Céard, J.: “L’auteur du Collquium Heptaplomeres, lecteur de Bodin.” In: Faltenbacher (ed.), Der kritische Dialog 117-134. Di Bella, S.: “‘Harmonia ex contrariis.’ Leibniz lettore dell’Heptaplomeres di Jean Bodin, tra cristianesimo, razionalismo e Islam.” Rinascimento 44 (2004) 409440. Dronke, P.: Verse with Prose from Petronius to Dante. The Art and Scope of the Mixed Form. Cambridge (Mass.) – London 1994. Fabbri, N.: “L’armonia nel Colloquium Heptaplomeres di Jean Bodin.” Rinascimento 44 (2004) 297-324. Faltenbacher, K. F.: Das Colloquium Heptaplomeres, ein Religionsgespräch zwischen Scholastik und Aufklärung. Untersuchungen zur Thematik und zur Frage der Autorschaft. Frankfurt 1988. Faltenbacher, K. F.: Das Colloquium Heptaplomeres und das neue Weltbild Galileis. Mainz 1993. Faltenbacher, K. F.: “Aktuelles Verzeichnis der handschriftlichen Kopien des Colloquium Heptaplomeres bzw. des Colloque entre sept sçavants.” In: Faltenbacher (ed.), Der kritische Dialog 227-249. Faltenbacher, K. F. (ed.): Magie, Religion und Wissenschaften im Colloquium heptaplomeres. Ergebnisse der Tagungen in Paris 1994 und in der Villa Vigoni 1999. Darmstadt 2002 (Beiträge zur Romanistik 6). Faltenbacher, K. F. (ed.): Der kritische Dialog des Colloquium Heptaplomeres. Wissenschaft, Philosophie und Religion zu Beginn des 17. Jahrhunderts. Ergebnisse der Tagung vom 6. bis 7. November 2006 am Frankreich-Zentrum der Freien Universität Berlin. Darmstadt 2009. (Beiträge zur Romanistik 12). Gawlick, G. - Niewöhner, F. (ed.): Jean Bodins Colloquium Heptaplomeres. Actes des journées d’études de la Herzog August Bibliothek, 8-11 septembre 1991. Wiesbaden 1996. Häfner, R.: “Die Präsenz des Origenes in Jean Bodins Colloquium heptaplomeres.” In: Gawlick-Niewöhner (ed.) 73-97. Häfner, R.: “Spuren des Hermetismus in Jean Bodins Colloquium heptaplomeres.” In: Alt, P. A. - Wels, W. (ed.): Konzepte des Hermetismus in der Literatur der Frühen Neuzeit. Göttingen 2010, 133-147. Häfner, R. (ed.): Bodinus Polymeres. Neue Studien zu Jean Bodins Spätwerk. Wiesbaden 1999.

284

Chiara O. Tommasi

Hanegraaff, W. J.: Esotericism and the Academy. Rejected Knowledge in Western Culture. Cambridge 2012. Heitsch, D.: “Debate Strategies in Early Modern Dialogue. Jean Bodin’s Colloquium Heptaplomeres in Context.” Erasmus Studies 35 (2015) 154-175. Kuntz, M. L.: “Harmony and Heptaplomeres of Jean Bodin.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 12 (1974) 31-41. Kuntz, M. L.: “The Home of Coronaeus in Jean Bodin’s Colloquium Heptaplomeres: An Example of a Venetian Academy.” In: Schoeck, R. J. (ed.): Acta Conventus neo-Latini Bononiensis. Proceedings of the Fourth International congress of Neo-Latin Studies, Bologna 26 August to 1 September 1979. Binghamton 1985. 278-283. Kuntz, M. L.: “Structure, Form and Meaning in the Colloquium Heptaplomeres of Jean Bodin.” In: Gawlick - Niewöhner (ed.) 99-120. Kuntz, M. L.: “Religious Views in his Works: the Relationship of the Colloquium heptaplomeres to the Universae naturae theatrum and De la démonomanie des sorciers.” In: Franklin, J. H. (ed.): Jean Bodin. Aldershot 2006. 237-254. Lloyd, H. A. Jean Bodin, ‘This Pre-eminent Man of France’. An Intellectual Biography. Oxford 2017. Malcolm, N.: “Jean Bodin and the Authorship of the Colloquium Heptaplomeres.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 69 (2006) 95-150. Miglietti, S.: “Presenze boeziane nel Colloquium Heptaplomeres di Jean Bodin.” Rinascimento 44 (2004) 273-295. Ossa-Richardson, A.: The Devil’s Tabernacle. The Pagan Oracles in Early Modern Thought. Princeton – Oxford 2013. Pabst, B.: Prosimetrum. Tradition und Wandel einer Literaturform zwischen Spätantike und Spätmittelalter. Köln – Weimar – Wien 1994. (Ordo 4, 1-2). Paganini, G.: “Du déisme avant le déisme ? Religion naturelle et droit universel noachique dans le Colloquium Heptaplomeres de Jean Bodin.” La lettre clandestine 21 (2013) 69-82. Paganini, G.: “La ‘civil conversazione’ nell’epoca delle guerre di religione: il Colloquium Heptaplomeres di Jean Bodin.” In: Panichi, N. (ed.): L’Antidoto di Mercurio. La ‘civil conversazione’ tra Rinascimento ed età moderna. Firenze 2013. 13-42. (Istituto Nazionale di Studi sul Rinascimento. Studi e Testi 49). Pantin, I.: “Le Colloquium heptaplomeres et sa cosmologie. Le problème de la cohérence du texte.” In: Faltenbacher (ed.), Der kritische Dialog 185-207. Remer, G.: Humanism and the Rhetoric of Toleration. University Park (Pa.) 1996. Roellenbleck, G.: Offenbarung, Natur und jüdische Überlieferung bei Jean Bodin. Gütersloh 1964. (Sudien zu Religion, Geschichte und Geisteswissenschaft 2). Roellenbleck, G.: “Der Schluß des «Heptaplomeres» und die Begründung der Toleranz bei Bodin.” In: Denzer, H. (ed.): Jean Bodin. Verhandlungen der internationalen Bodin Tagung in München. München 1973. 53-68. (Münchener Studien zur Politik 18). Roellenbleck, G.: “Les poèmes intercalés dans l’Heptaplomeres.” In: Jean Bodin. Actes du Colloque Interdisciplinaire d’Angers. Angers 1985. 445-449. Roellenbleck, G.: review of Faltenbacher, Das Colloquium Heptaplomeres. Romanistisches Jahrbuch 39 (1988) 219-222.

A rewriting of Theos. § 27 Erbse = I 24 Beatrice

285

Rose, P. L.: Bodin and the Great God of Nature. The Moral and Religious Universe of a Judaiser. Genève 1980. Suggi, A.: Sovranità e armonia. La tolleranza nel Colloquium Heptaplomeres di Jean Bodin. Roma 2005. Suggi, A: “Ordine della natura, giustizia armonica, libertà di coscienza nel Colloquium Heptaplomeres di Jean Bodin.” Bruniana & Campanelliana 20 (2014) 547-560. Tissi, L. M.: “Un oracolo tratto da Porfirio nella Teosofia di Tubinga. (§ 27 Erbse = I 24 Beatrice).” In: Gigli Piccardi, D. - Magnelli, E. (ed.): Studi di poesia greca tardoantica. Firenze 2013. 37-64. Tommasi, C. O.: “Lucan’s Defectus Oraculorum.” In: Cosentino, A. - Monaca, M. (ed.): Studium Sapientiae. Atti della Giornata di Studio in onore di G. Sfameni Gasparro. Cosenza 2013. 257-276. Tommasi, C. O.: “La preghiera delle Salamandre: Porfirio, Gabalis, Lévi, Landolfi. Per la fortuna di Theos. § 27 Erbse = I 24 Beatrice.” In: Seng, H. - Sfameni Gasparro, G. (ed.): Theologische Orakel in der Spätantike. Heidelberg 2016. 351-371. (Bibliotheca Chaldaica 5). Valente, M.: Johann Wier. Agli albori della critica razionale dell’occulto e del demoniaco nell'Europa del Cinquecento. Firenze 2003. Varacalli, T. F. X.: “Coronaeus and the Relationship between Philosophy and Doctrine in Jean Bodin’s Colloqium.” Logos. A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture 20 (2017) 122-146. Vasoli, C.: Armonia e giustizia. Studi sulle idee filosofiche di Jean Bodin. Firenze 2008. (Il Pensiero politico. Biblioteca 29). Wootton, D.: “Pseudo-Bodin’s Colloquium Heptaplomeres and Bodin’s Démonomanie.” In: Faltenbacher (ed.), Magie 175-204.

Jean-Michel Roessli

Inspiration divine ou possession démoniaque ? John Twysden (1607-1688) et la défense des sibylles et des Oracles sibyllins Introduction Je poursuis depuis quelques années une recherche sur la réception des Oracles sibyllins en Europe à l’époque moderne, soit entre 1500 et 1800 environ. La matière est vaste et, si l’on excepte quelques études ponctuelles de grand intérêt,1 il reste encore bien des pans de cette histoire à explorer. Dans le cadre de la présente contribution, c’est le traitement que John Twysden, un savant anglais fort méconnu du XVIIe siècle, réserve à la question des sibylles et des Oracles sibyllins, que je souhaite aborder. 1 La collection des Oracula Sibyllina Auparavant je rappellerai brièvement ce que sont les Oracula Sibyllina. Il s’agit d’une collection de textes poétiques à caractère apocalyptique, eschatologique et politique répartis dans 12 livres de longueur inégale. Nous en avons acquis la conviction depuis le XIXe siècle, mais la chose 1

J’y ai consacré une partie de ma thèse de doctorat, qui paraîtra dans la Series apocry-phorum du Corpus christianorum, sous le titre Les Oracles sibyllins : origines païennes et appropriations chrétiennes (Prologue ; Livres I, 324-400 ; VI ; VII et VIII, 217-500). Cf. aussi Buitenwerf 5-28 ; Grafton ; Häfner ; Malay ; Giglioni ; Palumbo. Dans le cadre du même colloque sur Le parole del futuro. Profezia e poesia nell’étà moderna (Naples, 8-9 octobre 2004), où ont été présentées les contributions de Giglioni et Palumbo, Michaela Valente avait également donné l’exposé suivant : « Gli Oracula sibyllina nel Rinascimento », resté inédit. Cf. aussi Prümm. Dans son livre, Anthony Ossa-Richardson a délibérément laissé de côté les Oracles sibyllins de composition judéo-chrétienne pour se concentrer sur les oracles païens et leur réception dans la pensée de l’époque moderne.

288

Jean-Michel Roessli

n’était pas aussi claire pour les Modernes,2 ces Oracles ont été composés par des Juifs et des chrétiens entre le IIe siècle avant J.-C. et le VIIe siècle de notre ère. Toutefois, comme ils contiennent des affirmations sur le Dieu de Moïse, une condamnation sévère de l’idolâtrie, et des prophéties sur le Christ, ses miracles, sa passion et sa résurrection, leurs auteures présumées – les sibylles – ont été longtemps considérées comme d’authentiques prophétesses païennes ayant annoncé le christianisme avant le début de l’ère chrétienne. Comme elles étaient en outre traditionnellement rattachées à divers lieux du monde antique – la Perse, la Libye, Delphes, Cumes, Érythrées, etc. –, les sibylles sont devenues les porte-paroles idéales de la croyance en une prisca theologia, c’est-àdire en une théologie antique, répandue dans le monde entier avant même l’avènement du christianisme mais exprimée de manière énigmatique et voilée, en un mot de façon « sibylline ». Les sibylles permettaient ainsi de jeter des ponts entre le monde classique et la civilisation chrétienne, de même qu’entre l’Orient et l’Occident.3 Certes, des Pères de l’Église, comme Origène (185-254) ou Grégoire de Nazianze (329-390), ont soulevé des doutes quant à l’autorité des sibylles, mais bon nombre d’entre eux croyaient qu’elles étaient vraiment inspirées de Dieu.4 C’est surtout à partir du milieu du XVIe siècle, au moment où l’imprimerie assure à ces textes une plus large diffusion,5 que les soupçons et les interrogations sur l’origine et l’authenticité des Oracles (re)font surface. À partir de cette époque, le regard sur les oracles des sibylles prend deux grandes orientations diamétralement opposées. On distingue, d’un côté, ceux qui, suivant la majorité des Pères de l’Église, sont prêts à reconnaître les Oracula Sibyllina comme d’authentiques oracles prononcés par des prophétesses païennes et à y voir la preuve que Dieu a choisi de révéler son plan de salut non seulement au peuple élu mais aussi aux Gentils, de l’autre, ceux qui refusent d’adhérer à cette idée, soupçonnant l’authenticité des Oracles et accusant les Pères soit d’avoir fait preuve de naïveté en les accueillant comme d’authentiques 2

Seuls les livres 1 à 8 leur étaient connus, les livres 11 à 14 n’ayant été redécouverts et publiés qu’au début du XIXe siècle (les livres 9 et 10 n’existent pas). Sur tout ceci, cf. Roessli, « Les Oracles sibyllins ». 3 Weststeijn 232. 4 Origène, Cels. VII 53.56 et Grégoire de Nazianze, Carm. II II 7, 246s., PG 37, 1570. Sur l’usage des sibylles et des Oracles sibyllins par les Pères, cf. Hooker (avec une riche bibliographie), Sardella, Sfameni Gasparro et plus récemment Toca, qui ne dit toutefois rien d’Origène et de Grégoire de Nazianze. J’y ai également consacré une partie de ma thèse de doctorat. 5 Édition princeps de Betuleius, Bâle 1545.

Inspiration divine ou possession démoniaque ?

289

prophéties païennes, soit de les avoir forgés dans le but de persuader les païens de se convertir au christianisme. Pour ces théologiens, les Oracles sibyllins ne sont rien d’autre que des faux de l’antiquité chrétienne qu’il s’agit de dénoncer et rejeter. 2 Les débats et controverses de l’époque moderne sur les Oracles sibyllins Plus généralement, les débats de l’époque moderne sur les Oracles sibyllins prennent place dans le cadre d’une réflexion sur la prophétie et, plus spécifiquement,sur le statut des diverses formes de prophéties héritées de l’antiquité gréco-romaine, juive et chrétienne et leur rapport à la Révélation biblique. S’il paraît indéniable que les controverses suscitées ou, plus précisément, ravivées par la publication récente des Oracles sibyllins au milieu du XVIe siècle posent la question de l’origine et de l’authenticité de ces textes nouvellement remis au jour, les débats entre théologiens modernes débordent rapidement le seul cadre de la chasse aux faux de l’âge patristique pour englober des problématiques plus larges et plus spécifiquement théologiques. En parcourant les témoignages de l’époque, on s’aperçoit que les Oracles sibyllins deviennent l’enjeu de discussions parfois acharnées sur la question de savoir si, oui ou non, Dieu révèle son plan de salut par des prophéties autres que les prophéties bibliques. C’est ce qui ressort par exemple des prises de position de Sébastien Castellion (1515-1563),6 Jacques Cappel (1570-1624),7 Herbert Rosweyde (1569-1629)8 et Jean Crasset (16181692),9 pour nous en tenir à quelques noms. Les Oracles sibyllins interviennent aussi dans les débats sur le canon biblique, où ils prennent clairement place parmi les apocryphes. Mais certains auteurs, tel Michael Neander (1525-1595), leur reconnaissent, à côté d’autres apocryphes, une valeur particulière, édifiante, pédagogique ou catéchétique.10 Certains, comme Isaac Vossius (1618-1689),11 vont même plus loin et les considèrent comme une source digne du plus grand respect, parce que révélateurs, à leur manière, du dessein divin. Vossius, qui défend l’origine juive du corpus, se sert même des Oracles 6

Castellion ; Betuleius-Castalio. Cf. Roessli, « Sébastien Castellion … » ; de Jonge. Cappel. 8 Rosweyde, Lex Talionis, Tabula XI ; Anti Capellus 209-218 ; Syllabus. 9 Crasset. 10 Neander. Cf. Backus. 11 Pour une biographie de Vossius, cf. Blok et Jorink - van Miert. 7

290

Jean-Michel Roessli

sibyllins comme d’un moyen pour tenter de convertir les Juifs de son temps et les amener à reconnaître en Jésus le Messie annoncé par les prophètes, puisque les Oracles sibyllins, composés par des Juifs hellénisés selon ses vues, l’avaient annoncé.12 D’autres, au contraire, à l’instar de Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) et Richard Simon (1638-1712), les rejettent avec véhémence. Les Oracles sibyllins jouent également un rôle majeur au XVIIe siècle dans la controverse entre catholiques et protestants autour de la question du purgatoire et de la prière pour les morts. Les traités les plus importants à cet égard sont ceux de David Blondel (1590-1655), du côté réformé, et de Jean Crasset, du côté catholique. De manière plus marginale, les Oracles sibyllins interviennent parfois dans des débats exégétiques sur quelques passages de l’Écriture, comme Mt 2,1-2 et la péricope des Rois Mages. Les débats suscités par les Oracles sibyllins portaient donc le plus souvent sur des questions théologiques, mais ils ont aussi débordé ce cadre pour toucher à des problèmes d’ordre littéraire, philosophique et médical, dont Pierre Petit (1617-1687), médecin à Paris au XVIIe siècle, offre un bel exemple dans son traité intitulé De Sibylla libri tres (Leipzig 1686), qui reprend quelques-unes des idées développées par Robert Burton (1577-1640) dans son Anatomie de la mélancolie (1621) et qui ne reconnaît qu’une sibylle, celle de Cumes ou d’Érythrées.13 Sur le plan diachronique, on constate qu’aux XVIe et XVIIe siècles les débats sont d’abord et avant tout théologiques, philosophiques et littéraires, alors que l’intérêt philologique suscité par les Oracles sibyllins ne concerne qu’une minorité de lettrés, tels Betuleius (1501-1554), auteur de l’édition princeps, Castellion, traducteur et éditeur de la seconde édition des Oracles, et Opsopoeus (alias Johannes Koch, 1556-1596), qui livre, à l’extrême fin du XVIe siècle, l’une des meilleures éditions anciennes des Oracles sibyllins.14 À cet égard, il est frappant d’observer que les purs philologues qui se sont intéressés à ces textes et ont apporté leur aide aux premiers éditeurs sont restés le plus souvent muets sur le statut théologique qu’ils leur accordaient. C’est le cas en particulier d’Adrien Turnèbe (1512-1565), dont on aimerait connaître les raisons du silence (prudence confessionnelle ou indifférence à ces questions ?). Dès le milieu du XVIIe, et surtout au XVIIIe siècle, au fur et à mesure que la thèse du caractère pseudépigraphique des Oracles sibyllins gagne 12

Vossius dans ses deux livres cités en bibliographie. Cf. Garcia 288 n. 11 ; Katz. Petit ; cf. Pigeaud. 14 Opsopoeus. 13

Inspiration divine ou possession démoniaque ?

291

du terrain, les érudits, protestants comme catholiques, cherchent à développer des méthodes critiques de lecture des textes, susceptibles de les aider à dater la composition des Oracles et à déceler les intentions de leurs auteurs, que l’on tente même d’identifier, à l’instar d’Andrea Gallandi (1709-1779) et d’autres. Toutes sortes de solutions, que je me propose d’explorer dans des recherches ultérieures, ont été envisagées, ouvrant la voie aux approches proprement historico-critiques des textes anciens et des Oracles sibyllins en particulier. Venons-en maintenant à John Twysden. 3 John Twysden (1607-1688) John Twysden était un médecin, mathématicien et astronome anglais.15 Il nous intéresse ici, parce qu’il a consacré aux sibylles et aux Oracles sibyllins un traité d’un peu moins d’une centaine de pages, publié à Londres en 1662 : A Disquisition Touching the Sibylls and the Sibylline Writings in which Their Number, Antiquity, and by what Spirit they were Inspired, are succinctly discussed, the Objections Made by Opsopaeus, Isaac Casaubon, David Blondel, and others, are examined, as also the Authority of those Writings asserted. Which may serve as an Appendix to the foregoing Learned Discourse touching the Truth and Certainty of Christian Religion. Twysden publie son traité à la suite d’un essai de son beau-père par alliance, Sir Henry Yelverton (1566-1629), intitulé A Short Discourse of the Truth and Reasonableness of the Religion Delivered by Jesus-Christ, qu’il entend prolonger et compléter.16 Dans la préface à son opuscule Twysden explique les raisons qui l’ont amené à entreprendre la rédaction de son ouvrage. Convaincu, comme son beau-père, de l’autorité des Oracles sibyllins, Twysden dit vouloir répondre aux objections des Opsopoeus, Isaac Casaubon (1559-1614) et David Blondel (1590-1655) et défendre les Pères de l’Église et autres auteurs chrétiens des attaques dont ils font l’objet :

15

Cf. Moore. Dans le domaine de la médecine, il est l’auteur d’une Medicina veterum vindicata, qui défend la doctrine de Galien. Il est aussi connu comme théoricien de la trigonométrie et comme astronome. Sur ce sujet, cf. Frost. 16 Son traité occupe les pages 153 à 251. Sir Christopher Yelverton (1602-1654), fils de Henry, était l’époux d’Anne, sœur de Twysden.

292

Jean-Michel Roessli

... because you have had just occasion to insist upon the authority of the Sibylline Books, whose writings I find questioned by the learned pens of Opsopaeus, Isaac Casaubon, David Blundel [sic!], and others, I have thought fit to offer to your consideration my thoughts upon that subject, and shall endeavour to vindicate them, at least so much as concerns Christians, from the unjust exceptions urged against them ...17

Faute de pouvoir discuter tous les détails de cette « recherche » ou « enquête » – c’est le sens du mot « disquisition » –, je m’en tiendrai à certains aspects qui me paraissent particulièrement intéressants,18 notamment la question de la source de l’inspiration des sibylles, abordée aux chapitres deux et sept du traité. La question fondamentale que se pose Twysden et qui était courante à l’époque est la suivante : cette inspiration vient-elle de Dieu ou du démon ? Est-elle divine ou diabolique ?19 Se fondant sur Augustin et ce que l’évêque d’Hippone dit de la Sibylle d’Érythrées dans la Cité de Dieu,20 Twysden relève, à la suite de Richard Montagu (1577-1641) qui s’y réfère également,21 qu’il n’y a rien dans ses vers qui encourage l’adoration des faux dieux. Malgré cela, Twysden prend au sérieux les objections d’Isaac Casaubon, « a man of great learning ». Celui-ci affirmait au contraire qu’il n’y a rien dans les livres des sibylles qui ne confirme l’erreur des Gentils et leur folle adoration des démons. De plus, la consultation des Livres sibyllins s’accompagnait de sacrifices impies et n’avait d’autres préoccupations que le bien des Romains et la promotion de leurs dieux. Par conséquent, les appels à l’adoration du vrai Dieu qu’on y trouve leur sont restés complètement incompréhensibles.22 Twysden se croit donc autorisé à douter que les sibylles « fussent habitées par l’Esprit de Dieu »,23 puisque beaucoup d’impiétés se mêlent dans leurs écrits à nombre de vérités. Il rappelle toutefois que Dieu a fait parfois sortir la vérité de la bouche même des faux prophètes, comme cela s’est produit avec Balaam, Caïphe 17

Twysden 158s. Au chapitre 1, Twysden aborde les questions habituelles sur les sibylles, à savoir la signification du mot « sibylla », leur origine et leur nombre, comme c’était le cas dans la plupart des traités consacrés aux Oracles sibyllins à l’époque moderne. 19 Twysden 170 : « Observations, and by what Spirit they spake is discussed » (titre du chapitre),« ’twas uncertain by what Spirit they were inspired » (début du chapitre). 20 Augustin, Cité de Dieu XVIII 23 dont Twysden 246-248 reproduit une traduction anglaise de l’acrostiche Jesus Christ Sonne of God the Saviour. 21 Montagu. 22 Twysden 170s. 23 Twysden 172 : « were indued with the Spirit of God. » 18

Inspiration divine ou possession démoniaque ?

293

et d’autres. Aussi ne lui semble-t-il pas indispensable de déterminer par quel esprit ils étaient inspirés et de savoir si, comme Arnobe, Lactance, Baronius (1538-1607) et d’autres, ils étaient « θεοφορούμεναι », c’està-dire « filled with God’s Spirit », ou s’ils parlaient seulement parce que Dieu le permettait, comme c’est le cas des Oracles.24 Néanmoins, comme il y a du bon dans tout cela, Twysden ne trouve pas déraisonnable de croire, avec le cardinal Baronius, que le dessein de Dieu fut tel que, bien longtemps avant l’avènement du Christ quelque signe d’une si grande bénédiction dût être révélé aux Juifs comme aux Gentils, à ceux-là par les prophètes et à ceux-ci par leurs devins, principalement Hystaspe et les Sibylles.25

Ce faisant, Twysden, comme Baronius, reprend à son compte, mais avec plus de prudence et de réserve (« quelque signe »), un point de vue défendu par Théophile d’Antioche à la fin du IIe siècle et Lactance au début du IVe siècle, des écrivains pour lesquels Dieu aurait choisi de se révéler aux uns par les Prophètes, aux autres par les Sibylles, sans que ces deux manières de prophétiser ne doivent nécessairement s’exclure.26 Signalons au passage que c’est cette même idée qui a prévalu dans le programme iconographique du plafond de la chapelle Sixtine, où, entre 1508 et 1512, soit quelques décennies plus tôt, Michel-Ange a fait dialoguer, dans une alternance et une juxtaposition régulières, prophètes de l’Ancien Testament et sibylles païennes, en donnant toutefois la priorité aux premiers, plus nombreux que les secondes27 et en prolongeant ainsi, 24

Twysden 172. Twysden 172 : « The Counsel of God was such, that long before the coming of Christ some sign of so great a blessing should be made known to the Jews and Gentiles, to them by the Prophets, to these by their Vates, chiefly Hydaspes and the Sibylls », traduction de Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici, Apparatus, reproduite en note marginale (mais tronquée, semble-t-il) : « Consilium Dei fuisse ut longe ante Christi adventum tantae rei sacramentum Judaeis atque Gentibus innotesceret, illis quidem per prophetas, hisce vero per suos vates, Hisdaspem praecipue, et Sibyllas. » Cf. Busine 366-369 et bibliographie. 26 Il s’agit là d’une idée que Casaubon conteste avec vigueur dans la réponse à Baronius que constituent ses Exercitationes in rebus sacris et ecclesiasticis, Francfort 1615. 27 Sur ce sujet, cf. notamment Wind et Pfeiffer. Cf. aussi Häfner 266.276. MichelAnge a peint les sibylles de Delphes, de Cumes, de Libye, de Perse et d’Érythrées, en alternance avec les prophètes Isaïe, Daniel, Jérémie, Ézéchiel et Joël, auxquels s’ajoutent Zacharie et Jonas représentés aux extrémités du plafond. Ainsi, chaque sibylle est flanquée de deux prophètes et chaque prophète fait face à une sibylle. 25

294

Jean-Michel Roessli

pour l’élargir, une pratique attestée dans l’art médiéval dès le XIe siècle.28 Ajoutons que Lactance est un auteur qu’on relisait abondamment partout en Europe depuis le milieu du XVe siècle, notamment en Italie, où ce qu’il dit du caractère inspiré d’Hystaspe, d’Hermès et des Sibylles a été splendidement traduit en image sur le parterre de la cathédrale de Sienne.29 Le chapitre trois du traité de Twysden aborde la question de la lecture et de la diffusion des textes sibyllins dans l’antiquité. C’est une question importante pour les savants qui veulent démontrer l’origine païenne des Oracula Sibyllina, l’enjeu étant de déterminer comment ils ont pu arriver dans les mains des chrétiens. Bien qu’un décret du Sénat romain réservât l’exclusivité de la consultation des Libri Sibyllini à un collège de prêtres triés sur le volet (les quindecimviri sacris faciundis à l’époque couverte par Twysden), celui-ci ne croit pas que l’accès aux textes sibyllins leur était strictement réservé. Les témoignages de Virgile et Cicéron, qui citent des prophéties sibyllines, confirment à ses yeux que des copies de ces textes circulaient dans le monde romain à l’époque, même après l’incendie qui frappa le Capitole où ils étaient conservés et qui en détruisit une grande partie.30 Dans son Apologie I, Justin luimême affirme avoir disposé de plusieurs exemplaires des Oracles et les avoir exhibés autour de lui,31 contrevenant ainsi au décret interdisant de lire ces livres en public. Ce témoignage conforte Twysden dans son idée qu’il existait de nombreux exemplaires des Oracles et que ceux-ci circulaient aussi en dehors de Rome. 28

Sur ce sujet, cf. Castiñeiras. Cf. Guerrini, « Le Divinae ... » et « Ermete ... ». Cf. aussi Garganese dans ce volume. 30 Twysden 177.De là, il ressort que Twysden, comme tant d’autres auteurs jusqu’à une époque récente, ne fait aucune distinction entreles Libri Sibyllini romains et les Oracula Sibyllina cités par les Pères et édités par Betuleius. Il les identifie purement et simplement et pense que les Oracula Sibyllina ne sont rien d’autre que les prophéties de la sibylle païenne qui ont échappé à l’incendie du Capitole en 83 avant J.-C. et celles qui ont été recueillies ensuite par une expédition envoyée en diverses villes d’Italie, de Grèce et d’Asie Mineure sur ordre du Sénat. 31 Twysden 178 : « The words of Justin Martyr are these, after he had upbraided with their prohibition to read the books of Hidaspes, the Sibylls, and Prophets, he addes: “We do not only possess them without fear, but as you see, offer them to your view.” Which words must necessarily be referred to what is before said; for it is notoriously known, that till Stilico burnt the Capitol the second time, about the reign of Honorius, which was about 395 years after Christ,” – en fait entre 404 et 408 – “the Sibylline Books were kept with the same care; and undoubtedly all breach of the law would have been severely punished ... » Cf. Iust., Ap. I 44, 12s. 29

Inspiration divine ou possession démoniaque ?

295

Au chapitre quatre de son traité, Twysden commence à répondre aux objections des auteurs qui ont écrit contre les Oracles. David Blondel est sa cible principale et il le restera d’un bout à l’autre du traité. Blondel est un théologien français de confession calviniste, successeur à partir 1650 de Gérard Jean Vossius (1577-1649) à la chaire d’histoire de l’Athenaeum Illustre d’Amsterdam. Il est, à n’en point douter, l’auteur de l’ouvrage le plus important sur la littérature sibylline de la première moitié du XVIIe siècle. Le titre complet de ce livre, paru à Charenton en 1649, est le suivant : Des Sibylles celebrees tant par l’antiquité payenne que par les saincts Peres, discours traittant des noms et du nombre des Sibylles, de leurs conditions, de la forme et matiere de leurs vers, des Liures qui portent jusqu’aujourd’hui leurs noms, et de la consequence des suppositions que ces Liures contiennent, principalement touchant l’estat des hommes bons et mauuais apres la mort.

Cette œuvre est aussi celle qui a exercé la plus grande influence dans les débats de l’époque moderne. À deux reprises, en 1651 et 1652, elle a été réimprimée sous un titre différent visant à attirer l’attention des lecteurs sur les intentions ultimes de l’auteur, qui étaient de combattre la pratique, qu’il juge impie, de la prière pour les morts, dont les racines trouveraient à ses yeux leur origine dans les Oracles sibyllins.32 L’ouvrage de Blondel a non seulement été réédité à deux reprises, mais il a également été traduit en anglais par John Davies de Kidwelly (ca. 16251693)33 en 1661, un an avant que Twysden nous livre son propre traité. Ce dernier connaissait parfaitement l’œuvre de Blondel et s’attendait à la même connaissance de la part de son lecteur, comme le montre le détail de ses commentaires. Chose intéressante néanmoins, Twysden cite toujours Blondel dans la version française et ne donne jamais à penser qu’il connaissait ou utilisait la traduction anglaise de John Davies. Cela tient sans doute au fait que Twysden a séjourné plusieurs fois en France, de 1634 à 1638, puis à nouveau de 1645 à 1648. Il y a obtenu son diplôme de médecine à Angers en 1646 et y a acquis une très bonne connaissance de la langue française.34 Quoi qu’il en soit, grâce à la traduc32

Voir bibliographie. Sur ce traducteur prolifique, cf. Hook. Quelques années avant le traité de David Blondel, John Davies of Kidwelly avait publié Apocalypsis; or, the revelation of certain notorious advances of heresie, Londres 1655. Il passe aussi pour avoir traduit en français Of Liberty and Necessity de Thomas Hobbes ; cf. Jackson 192. Cf. aussi Tucker. 34 Cf. Levitin 388 et Frost 43. 33

296

Jean-Michel Roessli

tion de John Davies, les vues de Blondel sur les Oracles sibyllins étaient accessibles en Angleterre aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles. Twysden reproche à Blondel de s’en prendre aux Pères de l’Église et de considérer que s’étant trompés ou laissé abuser sur certains points, ils s’étaient aussi trompés sur les Oracles sibyllins. D’autre part, comme Blondel a repéré des faux dans les Oracles sibyllins, il conclut que tous les écrits sibyllins sont également faux. Twysdens’insurge contre cette généralisation, qu’il appelle ironiquement « paralogisme », et estime que les Pères tout comme les Oracles ne peuvent être rejetés à cause de quelques erreurs.35 Il reconnaît qu’il y a des erreurs dans les Oracles, mais les attribue à la faiblesse humaine et/ou à l’inattention des copistes. Dans le sillage de Sébastien Castellion, dont il connaît, par l’intermédiaire d’Edward Simson (1578-1651) et de son De sibyllinis vaticiniis disquisitio,36 la traduction néolatine de 1546 et surtout la lettre dédicatoire qui fait office de préface à son édition, Twysden s’en prend ensuite à ceux qui, à l’instar d’Opsopoeus et Casaubon, affirment que les oracles sont trop « clairs » (c’est-à-dire trop précis) et doivent donc avoir été composés par des chrétiens.37 Reprenant presque mot pour mot Castellion, Twysden rétorque qu’ils sont trop clairs parce qu’on les lit après l’avènement du Christ, mais si on les avait lus avant, ils n’auraient bénéficié d’aucun contexte et auraient paru bien plus obscurs.38 Et, comme Castellion, il ajoute qu’ils deal too arrogantly, [those] who prescribe unto God in what manner he must prophesie, as if it were not free to him according to his good pleasure to foretell things to come clearly, obscurely, to the Gentiles, to the Jews; or as if some most cleer predictions were not extant in the Scripture.39 35

Twysden 180s. : « Nor can I believe that any judicious Reader will be led away with that Paralogisme in which he spends his whole second Chapter, and much of his Book: The Fathers were deceived in other things, therefore in this. Some things are false in the Sibylline Writings, therefore nothing is true. Whereas he could not but see that the Argument lies as fair on the other side: The Fathers in many other things were not deceived, therefore not in this. » 36 Publié à Oxford en 1652. Twysden s’y réfère à la p. 182 de son traité. 37 Twysden 182 : « There are some (saith he) to whose these (Sibylline) Writings seem too open, and therefore think them feigned by some Christian to allure the Gentiles, and gratifie the Christians. » 38 Twysden 183 : « For what is to us most notable who lived after the things fulfilled, might to them to whom they were foretold as future be most obscure. » 39 Twysden 182s. On relèvera en passant que Twysden ne semble pas avoir connu la version légèrement amplifiée de la lettre dédicatoire que Castellion a fait paraître

Inspiration divine ou possession démoniaque ?

297

Un autre argument avancé par Twysden est que les prophètes œuvraient pour les Juifs et les Oracles pour les Gentils, mais que tous deux, prophètes et oracles, ont prédit des choses que les deux groupes n’entendaient ou ne comprenaient pas. Le meilleur exemple à ses yeux est celui d’Isaïe 7, 14 prédisant la naissance virginale d’un enfant et des Juifs incapables de le comprendre. Twysden compare cet oracle d’Isaïe à un oracle prédisant que le temple de Bacchus tomberait lorsqu’une vierge donnerait naissance à un enfant. Cet oracle n’a pas été compris, selon Twysden, parce que les Gentils ne croyaient pas qu’une vierge puisse enfanter.40 La dernière question abordée dans ce chapitre est l’accusation portée par Isaac Casaubon contre les Pères de l’Église, qui savaient selon lui que les Oracles sibyllins étaient des faux mais les ont tout de même cités et utilisés dans leurs écrits. Twysden rejette cette accusation en arguant que les Pères de l’Église étaient prêts à mourir pour leur foi et qu’ils n’auraient eu aucune raison de tenir ces oracles pour vrais s’ils avaient su qu’ils étaient faux.41 Les chapitres cinq et six sont les plus longs du traité. Twysden y aborde toutes les erreurs qu’il pense avoir repérées dans les chapitres 2 et 3 du livre de Blondel et auxquelles il s’efforce de répondre. Malgré dans l’édition bilingue de 1555 et qui contient une charge cinglante contre les Juifs ; cf. Roessli, « Sébastien Castellion ... » 235. 40 Twysden 184s. : « That of Isaiah, A Virgin shall conceive a son, and his name shall be called Immanuel; extremely clear in the literal sense, and yet not understood by the Jews, when foretold, nor believed, when fulfilled. If the Sibyll names her Name, the Prophet names his, and leaves out hers, and both name the Town Bethlehem, though the Scripture indeed did so in another place. Mr. Howel (Inst. Hist, p. 787) tells you of an Oracle that said, A Temple dedicated to Bacchus should stand donec Virgo peperit, till a Virgin should have brought forth; upon which the Heathen called that Temple eternal, because they deemed it impossible for a Virgin to conceive; and the thing not understood, though true in the literal sense, and fulfilled at the preaching of our Saviour. » William Howell (1638?-1683) est un historien anglo-gallois, auteur de An Institution of General History, From the beginning of the World to the Monarchy of Constantine the Great (London: Printed for Henry Herringman, 1661), traduite en latin en 1671 sous le titre Elementa Historiae. C’est dans cet ouvrage (787) que Twysden a trouvé la référence au second oracle. Quelques pages plus loin dans le même volume, Howell écrit une brève défense des Oracles sibyllins Cf. l’oracle de l’effondrement du Temple de la Paix, rapporté par le pape Innocent III dans le Second Sermon sur la Nativité du Seigneur (PL 217, 457), auquel se réfère Jacques de Voragine au chapitre 6 de la Légende dorée (p. 52 Boureau). 41 Twysden 186.

298

Jean-Michel Roessli

l’intérêt qu’ils présentent, je ne m’y arrêterai pas dans le cadre de la présente étude. Le septième et dernier chapitre du traité de Twysden aborde la question de la divination, de ses diverses formes, de l’enthousiasme et des enthousiastes, des vrais et des faux prophètes et de la place qu’il convient de faire aux sibylles dans ce contexte.42 Twysden distingue une première forme de divination tout à fait légitime qui repose sur l’observation de l’histoire et la comparaison du passé et du présent pour en prédire l’avenir. Cette forme de divination s’oppose à la prédiction astrologique et géomantique ou talismanique, qui est incertaine, en particulier quand elle est pratiquée par des ignorants. Twysden aborde ensuite la forme de divination (« the next way of divination ») appelée « enthousiasme » ou « illumination », qu’il juge fondamentale pour le sujet qu’il traite. Il commence par rassembler quelques définitions empruntées au glossaire d’Hésychius : « est enthousiaste celui qui est ou fou ou rempli d’esprit. »43 Quant à l’enthousiasme, il est « une stupeur ou une horreur, ou quand l’âme tout entière est illuminée par Dieu. »44 De ces diverses interprétations, il s’ensuit que l’enthousiasme peut être de plusieurs sortes : Some natural, or at least proceeding from some distemper of the body, which arising from a natural cause, it may be so called; others come by possession or inspiration of some spirit either good or bad, which may be well deemed supernatural.45

Comme il y a beaucoup d’incertitude et de controverses sur le sujet, Twysden choisit de faire appel à l’autorité d’Aristote, qui a abordé plusieurs types de passions consécutives à la boisson, à l’amour ou à la torpeur mélancolique dans ses Problemata. Aristote, ou l’auteur que Twysden tient pour être Aristote, rapporte, dans le célèbre Problème 30 l’histoire de Marakos de Syracuse, un poète qui n’a jamais écrit d’aussi bons vers que lorsqu’il était frappé de folie (littéralement « étranger à lui-même », « hors de lui »). Aristote cite cet exemple pour illustrer ce qu’il vient d’affirmer :

42

Twysden 233-251. Twysden 236s. : « An Enthusiastick is one that is mad or full of the Spirit. » 44 Twysden 237 : « Enthusiasme is a stupor or horror, or Enthusiasme is when the whole soul is enlightned by God. » 45 Twysden 237. 43

Inspiration divine ou possession démoniaque ?

299

Et ils sont nombreux aussi, du fait que cette chaleur [mélancolique] se situe près du siège de l’intellect, à être pris de maladies d’exaltation ou d’enthousiasme ; et c’est pourquoi se manifestent sibylles et bakis [par référence à Bakis, devin légendaire de Béotie] et tous les inspirés des dieux, quand ils ne le deviennent pas par maladie mais par mélange naturel.46

Twysden souligne qu’Aristote ne nomme pas une sibylle en particulier mais utilise le mot au pluriel pour désigner toute personne inspirée. Il aborde ensuite diverses formes d’enthousiasmes, possessions et autres manifestations du genre, que Twysden analyse en homme de science et en médecin plus qu’en philosophe, et il en conclut que les prédictions des sibylles, dont la réalisation s’est vue confirmée des siècles plus tard, n’ont rien à voir avec la « chaleur mélancolique », mais proviennent d’une cause supérieure à celle-ci. De plus, le fait que les Oracles sibyllins, comme tous les autres oracles, ont pris fin avec ou peu après la prédication du Christ, alors que les manifestations de la mélancolie n’ont jamais cessé, confirmeà ses yeux que les Oracles doivent avoir une cause différente.47 Arrivé au terme de son enquête (« disquisition »), Twysden dit tenir les prédictions des sibylles pour surnaturelles, mais il n’est pas prêt à croire que ces dernières étaient toutes inspirées par l’Esprit Saint de Dieu : « whether any or all of them were indued with the Spirit of God (as I had before said) remains to me questionable. »48 Les sibylles diffèrent profondément des vrais prophètes parce que lorsqu’ils prophétisent, ceux-ci ne perdent jamais leur esprit ni leur sens. Et s’ils sont frappés (« surprised ») de consternation ou d’étonnement (« with any consternation or astonishment ») devant l’apparition d’un ange (ou la voix de Dieu), ils sont aussitôt ramenés, par le pouvoir divin, dans un état leur permettant de comprendre et de délivrer le message qui leur a été communiqué.49 Autre différence : les prophètes ont aussi reçu le 46

Arist., Probl. 30 (traduction de Louis Évrard dans Klibansky - Panofsky - Saxl 64) ; Twysden 237 : « Many because that heat is near the seat of the mind, are taken with sundry frantick and Enthusiastick diseases; from whence they all become Sibylls, Bakides, or inspired, whereas they become not so by any disease, but a natural temperament. » Signalons au passage que, dans son Traité de l’épilepsie (Lyon, 1602), le médecin français Jean Taxil reprendra la liste des mélancoliques d’Aristote pour leur attribuer, par erreur semble-t-il, l’épilepsie. 47 Twysden 241 : « that they were different in their cause. » 48 Twysden 244, reprenant les mêmes doutes que ceux exprimés au chapitre 2 (172). 49 Twysden 244 : « This difference from them I observe to be in the true Prophets, that they were never during their Prophesie deprived of their wits or senses; if any

300

Jean-Michel Roessli

pouvoir d’accomplir des miracles pour prouver qu’ils sont envoyés par Dieu, ce qui n’est pas le cas des sibylles, lesquelles n’ont pas la réputation d’avoir accompli des miracles, sauf celui de prédire des choses à venir.50 De plus, lorsqu’elles vaticinaient, elles étaient hors d’ellesmêmes, ne se souvenaient pas de ce qu’elles disaient et n’étaient donc pas en mesure de corriger les imperfections ou erreurs de celles et ceux qui consignaient leurs oracles. Tout le contraire des vrais prophètes.51 Tout cela incite Twysden à penser que les sibylles jouissaient certes dans leurs prédictions d’une « puissante inspiration » (δυνατὴν ἐπιπνοίαν), comme le dit à deux reprises (pseudo-)Justin dans son Exhortation aux Gentils, mais il ne les considère pas comme de vraies prophétesses de Dieu, ni comme pleinement sanctifiées par son Esprit Saint ; du moins pas toutes, ajoute-t-il, sans préciser lesquelles, s’il en est.52 Twysden time they have been surprised with any consternation or astonishment upon the appearance of an Angel, or the like, they have been by the power of God soon restored to a temper fit to understand, and deliver the message intrusted to them. » 50 Twysden 244 : « Nay they were farther able to confirm by Miracle, that they were truly sent by God, when it stood with his glory to have it so, and the distrust of the people required it. Whereas these Sibylls are never reputed to have done any other Miracle save that of truly foretelling things to come. » À ce propos, si des prédictions ne se réalisent pas, c’est pour Twysden la marque indubitable d’un prophète qui n’a pas été envoyé par Dieu, mais si à l’inverse des prédictions viennent à se réaliser ce n’est pas nécessairement le signe d’une personne envoyée par Dieu, car les oracles des dieux païens donnent souvent des réponses exactes, tolérées par Dieu, mais inspirées en fait par le diable (« ’Tis made indeed the mark of a Prophet not sent by God, if the things foretold come not to pass; and this undoubtedly is true; but it follows not convertibly, that where ever things foretold come to pass, that person is sent by God, except meant permissively; for we know the Oracles of the Heathen Gods gave often true answers, suffered so to do indeed by God, but inspired by the Devil », 244s). 51 Twysden 245 : « We know farther, that these Sibylls were generally supposed in the delivery of their Oracles to be in a rapture and fury, that themselves understood not what they delivered, nor were able to make perfect what was imperfectly taken by the Writer. » Cf. Ps.-Iust., Coh. 37, 2s. et Riedweg II 517 ad locum. 52 Twysden 245: « The consideration of these things makes me prone enough to believe that they had in their predictions δυνατὴν ἐπιπνοίαν a powerful inspiration, as Justin Martyr twice calls in his Amonitory to the Gentiles, but not true Prophetesses of God, and sanctified by his holy Spirit, at least not all, if any of them; yet do I very little doubt of their Antiquity, or suspect any great corruption to have happened to their Books, for the genuineness of which we have as much to say, as most ancient Writings left amongst us, all or most of the things quoted out of them by any ancient Writer being now extant in those we have, and as they now are from ancient Copies transmitted to us. » Cf. Ps.-Iust., Coh. 37, 1 ; 38, 2 et Riedweg II 509s.527 ad locum.

Inspiration divine ou possession démoniaque ?

301

n’ignore pas que certains Pères de l’Église, à l’instar de Jérôme et d’Augustin, croyaient que les sibylles étaient des prophétesses de Dieu, voire même, dans le cas d’Augustin qui n’évoque qu’une sibylle, un membre de la Cité de Dieu,53 mais il n’est pas prêt à aller aussi loin et doute qu’un augure en état de possession puisse faire partie de la Cité de Dieu : en effet, la sibylle à laquelle se réfère Augustin est la sibylle d’Érythrées, ou de Cumes selon certains, dont Virgile dit qu’elle était possédée et vaticinait en état de fureur, traits qui apparentent davantage ses oracles à ceux d’Apollon qu’à ceux des prophètes et semblent donc l’exclure de la Cité de Dieu.54 Aussi, troublé par la difficulté du sujet et l’incertitude des résultats, Twysden suspend son jugement sur la nature de l’inspiration des sibylles et écrit : Under so great an uncertainty therefore and variety of opinions, I think it safest to suspend my own judgement, and agree in this conclusian, That whether all or any of them were immediately guided by God, or what other spirit they spake by, yet were they by his power so overruled, that where in his wisedom he thought fit, they could not lye, so that the truth they delivered was indeed his, though the spirit by which they spake came not from him. However this is clear, such persons there were, such predictions they left, which in their due time were accomplished, which was all I designed to prove in this discourse.55 L’une des difficultés majeures à laquelle se heurte Twysden et qui a un impact crucial sur l’opinion qu’il se fait des sibylles et de leur source d’inspiration est qu’il n’y a pas qu’une sibylle, mais plusieurs. Or, comme il y a du bon et du moins bon dans les oracles qu’elles ont prononcés, il lui semble difficile, sinon impossible de démêler le bon grain de l’ivraie et de savoir quelle sibylle est véritablement inspirée de Dieu. 53 Pour Augustin, voir n. 20. Quant à Jérôme, il mentionne bien la sibylle comme exemplum de virginité (Contre Jovinien 1, 41), mais ne cite aucun vers sibyllin dans son œuvre. 54 Twysden 249 : « Moreover that Sibylla Erythrea or Cumea, upon whom St Augustine pitches, was certainly that person whose books were kept in, and burnt with the Capitol, and from which the Romans serch’d out of their superstitious follies; besides, she seems by Virgil to be possessed in the delivery of her Prophesies with that kind of madness and fury usually observed in the delivery of Oracles by Apollo; for which reasons, of all others of them, I should think Sibylla Cumea, if the same with Erythrea, the most unlikely to be of the City of God, which is more likely to be true of her that came out of Babylon, and foretold she should be counted of Erythrea. » 55 Twysden 249f. Un peu plus tôt (246), Twysden avait évoqué la voie moyenne adoptée par Francesco Collio (ou François Collius, ca. 1580-1640) dans son De Sibyllinis de 1622. Celui-ci considérait que les Oracles sibyllins sont de deux sortes : les uns concernent le Christ, sa naissance, etc., et ils procèdent de l’inspiration divine ; les autres portent sur les royaumes et l’adoration de leurs idoles et pro-

302

Jean-Michel Roessli

Twysden conclut son traité satisfait d’avoir démontré que les arguments allégués par les Modernes contre l’autorité des Oracles sibyllins sont dénués de valeur et de fondement. Aux témoignages des auteurs paléochrétiens parlant favorablement des Oracles sibyllins, il ajoute ceux de deux prélats de l’Église d’Angleterre : Richard Montagu, évêque de Norwich, et Lancelot Andrews (1555-1626), évêque de Winchester,56 dont il cite un extrait du catéchisme : For the credit of the History itself, we know that the Sibylls Oracles were in so great credit among the Heathen, that they were generally believed. Now if they be true, with we have of them, as there’s no question but many of them are, (divers of which we refer to Christ, being mentioned in their own writers, Virgil, Cicero, and others), it will follow, that nothing can make more in their esteem for the credit and truth of the Nativity, Life, and Death of Christ, than their Oracles; for we may see almost every circumstance in them. And by reading these Verses divers of their Learned men were converted to Christianity ...57

Ainsi, après avoir commencé par une défense des Oracles sibyllins, Twysden conclut par une citation montrant que les Oracles sibyllins sont utiles à la foi, parce qu’ils aident les croyants à en comprendre les fondements et les non-croyants à se convertir au christianisme.58 4 Conclusion L’enquête de Twysden sur les sibylles et les écrits sibyllins visait peutêtre moins à affirmer coûte que coûte l’authenticité du corpus et son caractère divinement inspiré que de défendre l’intégrité et la crédibilité viennent du diable. Twysden reconnaît que ce mélange de Dieu et du diable dans la même personne peut sembler difficile à croire, mais il juge cette hypothèse non dénuée de probabilité, si l’on songe à Balaam, magicien à qui il a été donné de prophétiser sous l’effet de l’Esprit de Dieu, mais seulement par intermittence selon le témoignage de Nombres 22s. Rappelons que Balaam avait déjà été évoqué au début du chapitre 2 comme exemple de faux prophète inspiré par Dieu. La place faite à la comparaison entre Balaam et les sibylles dans la littérature mériterait d’être étudiée en détail ; cf. Hooker, passim, pour une première approche. Parke 217s. a par ailleurs souligné les traits « sibyllins » de Balaam. 56 Twysden 250. 57 Twysden 250s. 58 Twysden 251, point de vue qu’avait déjà défendu le luthérien Michael Neander au XVIe siècle.

Inspiration divine ou possession démoniaque ?

303

des Pères de l’Église ayant parlé favorablement à leur propos. En effet, une grande partie des chapitres cinq et six que je n’ai pas commentés ici tente de répondre aux objections de Blondel qui, lui, ne se privait pas d’attaquer la sincérité des Pères et dont une partie de l’œuvre avait pour but de traquer les faux de l’époque patristique. Arrivé au terme de la lecture du traité de Twysden, on est frappé par la prudence et la rigueur du savant et érudit anglais. Il passe en revue bon nombre de témoignages sur les sibylles et leurs oracles, et les examine de façon critique, soupesant avec circonspection ce qui peut être tenu pour certain et ce qui relève de la conjecture et laissant ouverts les problèmes qu’il ne parvient pas à résoudre. C’est particulièrement évident lorsqu’il aborde la question de la source d’inspiration des sibylles. Twysden expose les divers points de vue sur le sujet et les analyse avec soin, avant d’exprimer ses interrogations et ses doutes et de renoncer finalement à prendre position. Ce qui pourrait être perçu comme une sorte de contradiction – car il peut sembler surprenant de défendre l’authenticité des Oracles sibyllins sans reconnaître qu’ils sont divinement inspirés – reflète peut-être moins le scepticisme que la grande prudence d’un homme de science, réticent à affirmer quelque chose dont il n’est pas certain ou qui ne peut être prouvé. À moins que sa prudence ne trahisse une crainte de quelque sorte.59

59

Je remercie Lucia Maddalena Tissi pour son invitation à contribuer à ce volume et pour la patience dont elle a fait preuve tout au long de sa mise en forme. J’exprime aussi ma gratitude à Henk Jan de Jonge, Albert Frey, Florian Audureau, Alain Le Boulluec, Mike Frost, Thierry Genoud, Joseph Verheyden et Pierre Bonnechere pour leur lecture de cet article et leurs suggestions.

304

Jean-Michel Roessli

Bibliographie 1 Éditions, traductions, commentaires Jacques de Voragine Jacques de Voragine, La légende dorée. Préface de J. Le Goff. Edition publiée sous la direction de A. Boureau. Paris 2004. (Bibliothèque de la Pléiade 504). Pseudo-Justin Ps.-Justin (Markell von Ankyra?), Ad Graecos de vera religione (bisher “Cohortatio ad Graecos”). Einleitung und Kommentar von C. Riedweg. I-II Basel 1994. (Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 25/1-2). Oracula Sibyllina Roessli, J.-M. : Les Oracles sibyllins : origines païennes et appropriations chrétiennes. Prologue ; Livres I, 324-400 ; VI ; VII ; VIII, 217-500. Turnhout (à paraître). (Corpus Christianorum. Series Apocryphorum). 2 Auteurs des XVIe et XVIIe siècles Betuleius, Xystus : ΣΙΒΥΛΛΙΑΚΩΝ ΧΡΗΣΜΩΝ ΛΟΓΟΙ ΟΚΤΩ. Sibyllinorum Oraculorum libri octo, multis hucusque seculis abstrusi, nuncque primum in lucem editi. Adiecta quoque sunt Lactantii excerpta de his testimonia, cum annotationibus. Bâle 1545. Betuleius, Xystus - Castellion, Sébastien : ΣΙΒΥΛΛΙΑΚΩΝ ΧΡΗΣΜΩΝ ΛΟΓΟΙ ΟΚΤΩ. Sibyllinorum Oraculorum libri VIII. Addita Sebastiani Castalionis interpretatione Latina, quæ Græce e regione respondeat. Cum Annotationib. Xysti Betuleji in Græca Sibyllina Oracula & Sebastiani Castalionis in translationem suam : quæ annotationes numeris marginalibus signantur. Quæ præterea huic editioni ultra priorem accesserint, diligens lector ex præfationib. e collatione facile deprehendet. Bâle 1555. Blondel, David : Des Sibylles celebrees tant par l’antiquité payenne que par les saincts Peres, discours traittant des noms et du nombre des Sibylles, de leurs conditions, de la forme et matiere de leurs vers, des Liures qui portent jusqu’aujourd’hui leurs noms, et de la consequence des suppositions que ces Liures contiennent, principalement touchant l’estat des hommes bons et mauuais apres la mort. Charenton 1649. Blondel, David : Traitté de la creance des Peres touchant l’estat des âmes après cette vie et de l’origine de la prière pour les morts, et du purgatoire. A l’occasion de l’escrit attribué aux Sibylles, qui est icy examiné. Charenton 1651. Burton, Robert : The Anatomy of Melancholy. Oxford 1621.

Inspiration divine ou possession démoniaque ?

305

Cappel, Jacques : Vindiciæ pro Isaaco Casaubono continentes examen praecipuarum controversiarum, quas adversus Casaubonum moverunt Heribertus Rosweydus, Andreas Eudaemon-Johannis, Jul. Caes. Bulengerus. Francfort 1619. Casaubon, Isaac : Exercitationes in rebus sacris et ecclesiasticis. Francfort 1615. Crasset, Jean : Dissertation sur les Oracles des Sibylles. Paris 1678. Crasset, Jean : Dissertation sur les Oracles des Sibylles, augmentée d’une réponse à la critique de Marckius. Paris1684. Montagu, Richard : Analecta ecclesiasticarum exercitationum. London 1622. Neander, Michael : Catechesis Martini Lutheri parua, Graecolatina, postremum recognita. Ad eam vero accesserunt sententiae aliquot Patrum selectiores Graecolatinae. Narrationes item apocryphae de Christo, Maria, etc. cognatione ac familia Christi, extra Biblia, sed tamen apud veteres probatos autores, Patres, historicos, philologos et multos alios Scriptores graecos repertae. Omnia Graecolatina, descripta, exposita et edita studio et opera Michaelis Neandri Sorauiensis. Bâle 1564. Petit, Pierre : De Sibylla libri tres. Leipzig 1686. Rosweyde, Herbert : Lex Talionis XII Tabularum Cardinali Baronio ab Isaaco Casaubono dicta. Anvers 1614. Rosweyde, Herbert : Anti-Capellus sive explosio naeniarum Iacobi Capelli. Anvers 1619. Rosweyde, Herbert : Syllabus malae fidei Capellianae. Anvers 1620. ΣΙΒΥΛΛΙΑΚΟΙ ΧΡΗΣΜΟΙ, hoc est Sibyllina oracula ex uett. codd. aucta, renouata et notis illustrata a D. Iohanne Opsopoeo Brettano, cum interpretatione Latina Sebastiani Castalionis et indice. Paris 1599. Sibyllina oracula de Graeco in Latinum conversa et in eadem annotationes. Sebastiano Castalione interprete. Bâle 1546. Simson, Edward : De sibyllinis vaticiniis disquisitio. Oxford 1652. Vossius, Isaac : Isaaci Vossii de Sibyllinis aliisque quae Christi natalem praecessere oraculis. Accedit ejusdem responsio ad objectiones nuperæ criticæ sacræ. Oxford 1679. Vossius, Isaac : Isaaci Vossii de Sibyllinis aliisque quae Christi natalem praecessere oraculis. Accedit ejusdem responsio ad Objectiones nuperæ criticæ sacræ. Leiden 1680. Twysden, John : A Disquisition Touching the Sibylls and the Sibylline Writings in which Their Number, Antiquity, and by what Spirit they were Inspired, are succinctly discussed, the Objections Made by Opsopaeus, Isaac Casaubon, David Blondel, and others, are examined, as also the Authority of those Writings asserted. Which may serve as an Appendix to the foregoing Learned Discourse touching the Truth and Certainty of Christian Religion. London 1662. 2 Littérature secondaire Backus, I. D. : « Les apocryphes néo-testamentaires et la pédagogie luthérienne des XVIe-XVIIe siècles : les recueils de Michael Neander (1564, 1567) et Nicolas Glaser (1614). » In : Mimouni, S. C. (ed.) : Apocryphité. Histoire d’un con-

306

Jean-Michel Roessli

cept transversal aux religions du livre. En hommage à Pierre Geoltrain. Turnhout 2002. 263-276. (Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études – Sciences Religieuses 113). Backus, I. D. : « Early Christianity in Michael Neander’s Greek-Latin Edition of Luther’s Catechism. » In : Ligota, C. - Quantin, J.-L. (ed.) : History of Scholarship. A Selection of Papers from the Seminar on the History of Scholarship Held Annually at the Warburg Institute. Oxford – London 2006. 197-230. Blok, F. F. : Isaak Vossius and his Circle. His life until his farewell to Queen Christina of Sweden 1618-1655. Groningen 2000. Buitenwerf, R. : Book III of the Sibylline Oracles and its social setting. With an introduction, translation, and commentary. (Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 17). Leiden – Boston 2003. Busine, A. : Paroles d’Apollon. Pratiques et traditions oraculaires dans l’Antiquité tardive (IIe-VIe siècles). Leiden – Boston 2005. (RGRW 156). Castiñeiras, M. A. : « La apoteosis de la(s) Sibila(s). De Giovanni Pisano a Miguel Angel. » In : Gómez Muntané, M. (ed.) : El Juicio Final. Sonido. Imagen. Liturgia. Escena. Madrid 2017. 303-334. Chirassi Colombo, I. - Seppilli, T. (ed.) : Sibille e linguaggi oracolari. Mito, Storia, Tradizione. Atti del Convegno Macerata-Norcia Settembre 1994. Pisa – Roma 1998. (Ichnia 3). Frost, M. : « John Twysden and John Palmer : 17th-century Northamptonshire astronomers. » The Antiquarian Astronomer : Journal of the Society for the History of Astronomy 4 (2008) 41-54. Garcia, H. : Islam and the English Enlightenment, 1670-1840. Baltimore 2012. Giglioni, G. : « Voci della Sibilla e voci della natura : divinazione oracolare in Girolamo Cardano. » Bruniana & Campanelliana 11 (2005) 365-387. Grafton, A. : « Higher Criticism Ancient and Modern : The Lamentable Deaths of Hermes and the Sibyls. » In : Dionisotti, A. C. - Grafton, A. - Kraye, J. (ed.) : The Uses of Greek and Latin. Historical Essays. London 1988. 155-170. (Warburg Institute Surveys and Texts 16). [reproduit avec quelques changements sous le titre « The Strange Deaths of Hermes and the Sibyls. » In : Grafton, A. : Defenders of the Text. The Traditions of Scholarship in an Age of Science, 1450-1800. Cambridge (Mass.) – London 1991. 162-177]. Guerrini, R. : « Le Divinae Institutiones di Lattanzio nelle epigrafi del Rinascimento. Il Collegio del Cambio di Perugia e il pavimento del Duomo di Siena (Ermete Trismegisto e Sibille). » Annuario dell’Istituto Storico Diocesiano di Siena 1 (1992-1993) 5-38. [Version abrégée dans Bruschelli, S. (ed.): Il Duomo come libro aperto. Leggere l’arte della chiesa. Siena 1997. 51-66. (Quaderni dell’Opera 1, 1).] Guerrini, R. : « Ermete e le Sibille. Il primo riquadro della navata centrale e le tarsie delle navate laterali. » In : Guerrini, R. - Caciorgna, M. (ed.) : Il pavimento del Duomo di Siena. L’arte della tarsia marmorea dal XIV al XIX secolo. Fonti e Simbologia. Cinisello Balsamo 2006. 13-51. Häfner, R. : Götter im Exil. Frühneuzeitliches Dichtungsverständnis im Spannungsfeld christlicher Apologetik und philologischer Kritik (ca. 1590-1736). Tübingen 2003. (Frühe Neuzeit 80).

Inspiration divine ou possession démoniaque ?

307

Hook, D. : « John Davies of Kidwelly. A Neglected Literary Figure of the Seventeenth Century. » Carmathenshire Antiquary 11 (1975) 104-124. Hooker, M. : The Use of Sibyls and Sibylline Oracles in Early Christian Writers. PhD dissertation, University of Cincinnati 2008. Jackson, N. D. : Hobbes, Bramhall and the Politics of Liberty and Necessity. A Quarrel of the Civil Wars and Interregnum. Cambridge 2007. de Jonge, H. J. : « The Sibyls in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, or Ficino, Castellio and “The Ancient Theology”. » Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 78 (2016) 7-21. Jorink, E. - van Miert, D. (ed.) : Isaac Vossius 1618–1689. Between Science and Scholarship. Leiden – Boston 2012. (Brill’s Intellectual History 214). Katz, D. S. : « Isaac Vossius and the English Biblical Critics 1670-1689. » In : Popkin, R. H. - Vanderjagt, A. (ed.) : Scepticism and Irreligion in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Leiden 1993. 142-184. Klibansky, R. - Panofsky, E. - Saxl, F. : Saturne et la mélancolie. Études historiques et philosophiques : nature, religion, médecine et art. Traduit de l’anglais et d’autres langues par F. Durand-Bogaert et L. Évrard. Paris 1989. Levitin, D. : Ancient Wisdom in the Age of New Science. Histories of Philosophy in England, c. 1640-1700. Cambridge 2015. Malay, J. L. : Prophecy and Sibylline Imagery in the Renaissance. Shakespeare’s Sibyls. New York – London 2010. (Routledge Studies in Renaissance Literature and Culture 15). Moore, N., revised by Wallis, P. : « Twysden, John (1607-1688). » Oxford Dictionary of National Biography LV (2004) 750. Ossa-Richardson, A. : The Devil’s Tabernacle. The Pagan Oracles in Early Modern Thought. Princeton – London 2013. Palumbo, M. : « La fortuna degli Oracula Sibyllina nel seicento. » Bruniana & Campanelliana 11 (2005) 493-508. Parke, H. W. : Sibyls and Sibylline prophecy in classical antiquity. London – New York 1988. Pfeiffer, H. W. : « Gemalte Theologie in der Sixtinischen Kapelle. Teil III : Die Sibyllen und Propheten. » Archivum Historiae Pontificiae 33 (1995) 91-116. Pigeaud, J. : « La Sibylle de Pierre Petit. » In : Pigeaud, J. (ed.) : Les Sibylles. Actes des VIIIe Entretiens de La Garenne Lemot. Nantes 2005. 179-190. Prümm, K. : « Das Prophetenamt der Sibyllen in kirchlicher Literatur mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die Deutung der 4. Ekloge Vergils. » Scholastik 4 (1929) 5477.221-246.498-533. Roessli, J.-M. : « Sébastien Castellion et les Oracula Sibyllina. » In : Gomez-Géraud, M.-C. (ed.) : Sébastien Castellion : Des Écritures à l’écriture. Actes du colloque international, Université de Paris-Ouest-Nanterre-La Défense, 1516 avril 2010. Paris 2013. 223-238. Roessli, J.-M. : « Les Oracles sibyllins. » In : Pouderon, B. - Norelli, E. (ed.) : Histoire de la littérature grecque chrétienne des origines à 451. II De Paul apôtre à Irénée de Lyon. Paris 2017. 511-534. Sardella, T. : « La Sibilla nella tradizione greca cristiana. Dalla scuola di Alessandria ad Eusebio di Cesarea. » In : Chirassi Colombo - Seppilli (ed.) 581-602.

308

Jean-Michel Roessli

Sfameni Gasparro, G. : « La Sibilla voce del Dio per pagani, ebrei e cristiani : un modulo profetico al crocevia delle fedi. » In : Chirassi Colombo - Seppilli (ed.) 505-553. [= Sfameni Gasparro, G. : Oracoli Profeti Sibille. Rivelazione e Salvezza nel mondo antico. Roma 2002. 61-112. (Biblioteca di scienze religiose 171)]. Toca, M. : « The Greek Patristic Reception of the Sibylline Oracles. » In : Batovici, D. - De Troyer, K. (ed.) : Authoritative Texts and Reception History. Aspects and Approaches. Leiden – Boston 2017. 260-277. (Biblical interpretation series 151). Tucker, J. E. : « John Davies of Kidwelly (1627?-1693), Translator from the French, With an Annotated Bibliography of his Translations. » The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America 44 (1950) 119-152. Weststeijn, T. : « Vossius’ Chinese Utopia ». In : Jorink - van Miert (ed.) 207-242. Wind, E. : « Michelangelo’s Prophets and Sibyls. » Proceedings of the British Academy 51 (1965) 47-84.

Namensregister Abonuteichos 107 Anm. 15, 115 Abydos 106 Anm. 9 Acciaiuoli, Giovanni 14 Achilleus Tatios 244. 245 Anm. 29 Adad 50 Adam 185 Anm. 78, 204f. Adrotta 119 Anm. 85 Aeneas von Gaza 67f. 73f. Ägypten 36. 43 Anm. 35f., 55 Anm. 86, 70 Anm. 43, 126f. m. Anm. 16, 128 Anm. 25, 129 Anm. 26, 131 Anm. 37, 138. 149. 167f. 185 Anm. 82, 195 Anm. 10, 222. Ägypter 67 Anm. 29, 68f. 72 Anm. 53, 186 Anm. 86, 204-206 m. Anm. 56.65, 209f. 254 Aias 53 Anm. 75 Aidesios von Kappadokien 108f. 114f. 118 Aidesios von Sardes 109 Ailios Aristeides 130 Anm. 34 Aion 131-134. 136f. m. Anm. 65.67. 69f., 139 Aischylos 129 Anm. 30, 149 m. Anm. 15 Alexander der Große 52. 125-128 m. Anm. 10f., 129 m. Anm. 28, 131. 132 Anm. 41, 133-135. 137 Anm. 70, 138f. 174 Anm. 38 Alexanderroman 125-139 Alexandria 16. 20 Anm. 62, 125 Anm. 6, 126 m. Anm. 11, 128 Anm. 25, 131 m. Anm. 37, 134-137 m. Anm. 49.67.70, 138 Anm. 74, 139. 167169. 173f. 186. 194 m. Anm. 10 Altes Testament 22. 146. 194 Anm. 10, 231. 255. 293 Amelios 52 m. Anm. 72. 116 Ammon 125-131 m. Anm. 6.11.24f. 28.37, 132 Anm. 40, 133. 135. 138f. m. Anm. 74, 158 Anm. 57, 167. 171 m. Anm. 20.21, 174 Anm. 38

Ammonios 168-174 m. Anm. 18.2023.26. 30.36 Amphiaraos 45 Anm. 44 Amsterdam 295 Anakreon 161 Anastasios I. 195 Anm. 13, 216 Andraki 130 Anm. 35 Andrews, Lancelot 302 Angers 295 Anonymus, In Platonis Parmenidem 80 Antiochia 52 Anm. 71, 195 Anthologia Graeca 21 Anm. 65, 243 m. Anm. 20, 244 Anm. 24 Antimachos von Kolophon 161 Anm. 88 Apameia 36. 49-53 m. Anm. 67.7072.75, 55f. Aphrodisias 246 Anm. 36 Aphrodite 240f. 246 Apollon 12. 15. 16 Anm. 44, 18 m. Anm. 52, 20 Anm. 58, 23 Anm. 76, 41 m. Anm. 28f., 42 Anm. 32, 44f. 52f. 63. 65. 79 Anm. 87, 93-95. 106 Anm. 13, 112 Anm. 42, 115 Anm. 59, 116. 119 m. Anm. 82, 136. 148151. 157. 160. 167. 172 Anm. 25, 174 Anm. 38, 177 Anm. 48, 206. 229f. 232-234. 244. 246-248. 301 m. Anm. 54 Apollonios von Rhodos 159 Anm. 71 Apollonios von Tyana 112 Anm. 43, 149 Apostelgeschichte 231 Anm. 32 Apostolische Konstitutionen 197-200 m. Anm. 21.25f. Appian 246 Anm. 36 Apuleius 77 Anm. 79 Archias 132 Anm. 41 Archilochos 149. 161 Arethas von Caesarea 173 Anm. 31

310

Namensregister

Argonauten 15. 219. 231 m. Anm. 29 Aringhieri, Alberto 253. 255f. 258260. 264. 266. 268 Aringhieri, Eleonora 256 Anm. 10 Aringhieri, Luzio 266 Aringhieri, Niccolò 256 Anm. 10, 258. 264 Aristobulos 129. 206 Aristophanes 133 Anm. 43, 159 Anm. 70 Aristoteles 159. 168. 170f. m. Anm. 20, 172 Anm. 28, 173. 183 Anm. 72, 186. (Pseudo-)Aristoteles 298f. m. Anm. 46 Arnobius 293 Arnuphis 64 Anm. 6 Arrian 42 Anm. 34, 52 m. Anm. 69, 129 m. Anm. 28, 131 Anm. 37 Artemidor 134 Artemis 41. 94f. Asklepios 106 Anm. 9, 119 Anm. 85, 130 Asklepios von Tralleis 173 Anm. 31 Assyrer 43. 67 Anm. 29, 68 Atargatis 173 Anm. 31, 174 Anm. 38 Athanasios von Alexandria 16. 216 Athanasios II. Keletes 168 Anm. 8 (Pseudo-)Athanasios 216f. 231 Anm. 29 Athen 186. 215. 231 Anm. 29 Athene 119. 152. 244f. Augustinus 43 m. Anm. 38, 92 Anm. 7, 292 m. Anm. 20, 301 m. Anm. 53f. Aurelius Belius Philippus 52 Anm. 70, 53f. m. Anm. 75f. Babylas 23 Anm. 76 Babylon 42 m. Anm. 34, 52. 301 Anm. 54 Baiophoros, Georgios 215f. 218-222. 225-230. 233f. Balaam 292. 301f. Anm. 55 Baronius, Caesar 293 m. Anm. 25 Basel 215. 221. 225f. 234. Basilius von Caesarea 74 Anm. 73, 185 Bel 50-53 m. Anm. 62

Bembo, Bonifacio 257 Anm. 12 Bernhardin von Siena 262 m. Anm. 34 Bes 129 Anm. 26 Bessarion 257 Anm. 15 Betuleius 288 Anm. 5, 290. 294 Anm. 30 Bibel 40. 158 Anm. 62, 182 Blondel, David 290-292. 295-297 m. Anm. 33, 303 Bodin, Jean 275-281 Boethius 171 m. Anm. 23, 172 Anm. 24, 276 Anm. 4f. Brahmanen 69 Branchiden 93f. Burton, Robert 290 Byzas 19 Anm. 57, 150 Caesarea Troketta 10. 153f. Campano, Giannantonio 256. 258f. m. Anm. 23, 262 Cappel, Jacques 289 Casaubon, Isaac 291f. 293 Anm. 26, 296f. Cassius Dio 51f. m. Anm. 66f. Castellion, Sébastien 289f. 296f. m. Anm. 39 Certamen Homeri et Hesiodi 245 m. Anm. 27 Chaldaea, Chaldaeer 42f. m. Anm. 34, 64. 67-75. 79. 81-83. 120. 173. 204 Chaldaeische Orakel 13 Anm. 26, 15 Anm. 41, 21 m. Anm. 65, 23f. m. Anm. 84, 35-56. 63-84. 113. 169. 172f. m. Anm. 28f., 174 Anm. 35, 242 Anm. 13, 248 Anm. 42, 257 Anm. 12, 275 Chalkedon 18 Anm. 52, 222 Charenton 295 Chilon von Sparta 218 Chresmodiai hellenikai 14 Christus 16. 19. 20 Anm. 61, 22. 24. 51. 84. 91. 98. 138 Anm. 75, 170. 177. 185. 201 Anm. 37, 218f. 229232. 253-256. 261 m. Anm. 31, 267. 276f. 281. 288. 291. 292 Anm. 18, 293 m. Anm. 25, 294 Anm. 31, 296. 299. 301 Anm. 55, 302

Namensregister Chrysanthios von Sardes 108f. 116118 Cicero 294. 302 Claudian 276 Anm. 5 Clemens von Alexandria 172 Anm. 25, 197. 219. 227. 233 Collio, Francesco 301 Anm. 55 Cornazzano, Antonio 24 Anm. 84 Cornelius Labeo 106 Anm. 13 Corpus Hermeticum 39. 65. 149 Anm. 13, 258 Anm. 19, 264f. m. Anm. 42, 267f. m. Anm. 49, 281 Crasset, Jean 289f. Cumae 288. 290. 293 Anm. 27, 301 m. Anm. 54 Curtius Rufus 129 Anm. 28, 131 Anm. 37 Damaskios 37. 41 m. Anm. 29, 64 Anm. 5, 66f. m. Anm. 24, 70-72 m. Anm. 43. 49-57, 74 Anm. 72, 76f. 79f. m. Anm. 84.91.93.98, 112 Anm. 41, 113 Anm. 49, 117 Anm. 73, 167f. m. Anm. 1-3.5. 7, 172f. m. Anm. 32, 174 Anm. 39 Daniel 293 Anm. 27 David (Elias) 117 Anm. 73, 171 Anm. 22, 173 Anm. 31, 215 m. Anm. 3 Davies of Kidwelly, John 295f. m. Anm. 33 Decembrio, Pier Candido 257 Anm. 15 Decretum Gelasianum 199-201 De gestis in Perside 12f. 14 Anm. 36, 135 Anm. 57 Delos 136 Delphi 9. 11 Anm. 14, 12 m. Anm. 18, 14 Anm. 30, 15 Anm. 38, 53. 94. 132 Anm. 41, 145f. 148-152. 153 Anm. 32, 155. 158-160. 161 Anm. 84, 162 m. Anm. 90, 239f. 244-246 m. Anm. 31.36, 248 Anm. 43, 288. 293 Anm. 27 Demeter 147 Demetrios von Phaleron 138 Anm. 73 Demokrit 158

311

Didyma 11f. m. Anm. 18, 21 Anm. 69, 53. 55 m. Anm. 83, 94 m. Anm. 10, 145. 147. 149f. 152. 156-160. 162 Anm. 90 Diodor 42 Anm. 34, 127f. m. Anm. 19.21f., 129 Anm. 28, 131 Anm. 37, 132 Anm. 41, 202 Anm. 42, 206 Diogenes Laertius 114 Anm. 55, 138 Anm. 73 Diogenes von Sinope 206 Dionysios von Alexandria 242 (Pseudo-)Dionysios Areopagites 79 Anm. 88 Dionysos 41. 92-97. 99. 106 Anm. 9, 117. 153. 297 m. Anm. 40 Dioskuren 119 Anm. 85 Dodona 12 m. Anm. 18, 167 Eleusis 120 Elissaios 84 Anm. 115 Ennius 132 Anm. 42 Epikureer 52 Anm. 70, 53. 54 Anm. 76 Erichthonios 245 Anm. 26 Eros 241. 246 Erythraeische Sibylle 17 m. Anm. 51, 288. 290. 292f. m. Anm. 27, 301 m. Anm. 54 Etymologicum Magnum 242 Anm. 17 Eunapios von Sardes 43 m. Anm. 38, 54f. m. Anm. 82, 66. 105. 107-120. 174 Anm. 39 Euripides 158 Anm. 60, 209 Eusebios von Caesarea 16 Anm. 43,20 Anm. 59, 20f. 24 Anm. 84, 91f. 95100 m. Anm. 3.5.14.22, 105 Anm. 1, 113 Anm. 52, 154f. 172 Anm. 25, 176 m. Anm. 46, 180 Anm. 58, 181 Anm. 62, 186 m. Anm. 87, 232 Eusthatios von Kappadokien 55. 108. 227 Eustathios von Thessalonike 19 Anm. 57 Eva 185 Anm. 78 Excerpta Constantiniana 202 Ezechiel 182 Anm. 69, 293 Anm. 27

312

Namensregister

Federico da Montefeltro 257-260 m. Anm. 14f. Federighi, Antonio 254. 262 Ferrara 84 Ficino, Marsilio 24 Anm. 84, 254-261 m. Anm. 3.19f.26.29, 263f. m. Anm. 36f. 40.43, 266f. m. Anm. 46-48 Firmicus Maternus 99f. m. Anm. 24f. Florenz 84. 276 Anm. 6 Francesco di Giorgio Martini 256. 259f. m. Anm. 27, 266 m. Anm. 45 Galater 18 Galenos 291 Anm. 15 Gelasius I. 200 Genesis 172 Anm. 28, 185 Anm. 82 Georgios von Trapezunt 24 Anm. 84 Giovanni di Stefano 262-264. 268 Glykon 115 Gnostiker 39. 137 Anm. 65 Gorgo 161f. Gregor von Nazianz 74 Anm. 73, 242. 279 Anm. 20, 288 m. Anm. 4 Grotius, Hugo 290 Guarino Veronese 257 Anm. 15 Hadrian 158 Anm. 57 Haemos 150 Harpokrates 106 Anm. 9 Hebräer 67 Anm. 29, 155. 231. 293 Anm. 25, 296 Anm. 39 Hekate 38. 39 Anm. 17, 41 m. Anm. 28, 42 Anm. 32, 52. 81 Anm. 87, 154f. 181f. m. Anm. 63 Heliodoros 174 Anm. 36, 240. 245 m. Anm. 29. 31, 246 Anm. 34 Helios 41. 70. 106 Anm. 9, 206. 223 Hephaistos 244f. m. Anm. 26 Hera 174 Anm. 38 Heraiskos 117 Anm. 73, 174 Herakles 244. 263 Heraklit 206 m. Anm. 65 Hermes 24. 44. 65. 84. 106 Anm. 9, 149. 222f. 225f. m. Anm. 9, 247. 264. 294

Hermesianax von Kolophon 161 Anm. 88 Hermias 169f. m. Anm. 13-15 Hermopolis 127 Anm. 14 Herodes 261 Herodot 16 Anm. 47, 42 Anm. 34, 52 m. Anm. 68, 136 Anm. 63, 149 m. Anm. 15, 159 m. Anm. 70 Hesiod 40. 132 Anm. 42, 234. 242 m. Anm. 18, 246 Hesychios von Alexandria 207. 298 Hesychios von Milet 19 Anm. 57 Hierapolis 174 Anm. 38 Hierokles von Alexandria 47 Anm. 52 Hieronymus 301 Anm. 53 Hobbes, Thomas 295 Anm. 33 Homer 9. 40. 44. 70. 119. 128 Anm. 19, 131 m. Anm. 39, 132 Anm. 42, 136 Anm. 63, 145. 153. 177 Anm. 48, 218. 233. 243 Anm. 20, 245 Homerische Hymnen 136 Anm. 63 Honorius 294 Anm. 31 Horaz 276 Anm. 5 Howell, William 297 Anm. 40 Hystaspes 202 Anm. 40, 204f. 207 m. Anm. 68, 210. 293f. m. Anm. 25.31 Iamblichos 36-38 m. Anm. 11f., 42 Anm. 31, 43 Anm. 35.37, 45 Anm. 46.48, 52-56 m. Anm. 86f., 67 Anm. 28, 68f. m. Anm. 31f.34, 70 Anm. 43, 71. 80. 81 Anm. 104, 108. 111 m. Anm. 38-40, 114 Anm. 55, 115f. m. Anm. 60.66.69f., 117 Anm. 73, 118 Anm. 78, 119 Anm. 81, 170 m. Anm. 19, 171 Anm. 19, 174-176 m. Anm. 41-43, 178f. m. Anm. 51-53.56, 184 Anm. 77, 185 Anm. 84, 186 Anm. 87 Ikaria 14 m. Anm. 31 Illus 167f. Innozenz III. 297 Anm. 40 Isis 128 Anm. 25, 130. 243 Jacobus de Voragine 20 Anm. 61, 297 Anm. 40 Janus 39 Anm. 17

Namensregister Jeremia 231 m. Anm. 27, 293 Anm. 27 Jesaja 146 m. Anm. 5, 293 Anm. 27, 297 m. Anm. 40 Joel 293 Anm. 27 Johannes von Antiochia 221 Johannes Chrysostomos 23 Anm. 76 Johannes von Damaskus 173 Anm. 33 Johannes Lydos 47 Anm. 52, 67 Anm. 26, 72f. m. Anm. 58.61, 81 Johannes von Parallos 185 Anm. 82 Johannes Philoponos 47 Anm. 52, 172-186 m. Anm. 2729.44.46f.49.53-55.57f.60. 64.6770.72-76.79-83.85-87 Julian (Kaiser) 23 Anm. 76, 42 Anm. 31, 43 m. Anm. 38, 53 Anm. 75, 54 m. Anm. 78, 55 Anm. 84, 67 Anm. 26, 68f. m. Anm. 35.40, 74 Anm. 73, 79 Anm. 84, 80 Anm. 98, 114 Anm. 56, 117 Anm. 73, 160. 175 Anm. 42, 230 Julianoi (der Theurg und der Chaldaeer) 35f. m. Anm. 5, 41f. 44f. 47. 50 Anm. 61, 54. 63-66. 74 m. Anm. 73, 77f. 80. 82-84 Julius Pollux 36 m. Anm. 5, 40 Anm. 21 Julius Valerius 125 m. Anm. 3.5, 132136 m. Anm. 54 Justin (Historiker) 129 Anm. 28, 131 Anm. 37 Justin der Märtyrer 186. 294 m. Anm. 31 (Pseudo-)Justin der Märtyrer 227. 300 m. Anm. 52 Justinian II. 196 Justus 117 Kalabscha 133 Anm. 45 Kalchas 177 Anm. 48 Kallimachos 132 Anm. 42, 161 Anm. 88 Kallipolis 153f. Kallisthenes von Olynth 125. 127. 129 Karl V. 14 Kedrenos, Georgios 23. 221 m. Anm. 15, 223-229 m. Anm. 21

313

Klaros 10-12 m. Anm. 18, 14 Anm. 32, 21 Anm. 69, 55 m. Anm. 85, 106 Anm. 13, 132 Anm. 41, 145. 148. 150. 153. 155f. 158 m. Anm. 57, 161 Anm. 88, 162 Anm. 90 Klearchos von Methydrion 159 Kleitarchos 129 m. Anm. 28 Koch, Johannes (Opsopoeus) 290-292 Kolophon 244 Könige (Altes Testament) 231 Anm. 28 Konstantin I. 17 m. Anm. 49f., 105 Anm. 1, 297 Anm. 40 Konstantin Manasses 230. 239 Anm. 3, 242 Anm. 13 Konstantin Stilbes 242 Anm. 13 Konstantinopel (Byzantion) 17 m. Anm. 50, 19 Anm. 57, 150. 196. 198 Anm. 26, 202f. 245 Anm. 29 Koran 40 Anm. 24 Korinther 132 Anm. 41 Kosmas Indikopleustes 184f. m. Anm. 72. 78.82 Kroisos 159 Kronos 180. 233f. Kyrill von Alexandria 220 Anm. 10, 222. 227 Kyzikos 17 Anm. 50, 158 Anm. 57, 229. 231 Lactanz 14. 21. 24. 253-256 m. Anm. 2.7, 293f. Lambeck, Peter 84 Lebadeia 45 Anm. 44 Leon VI. 14. 19 Anm. 57, 23. 215. 239 m. Anm. 1 Leontius 168 Leuktra 161 Libyen 288. 293 Anm. 27 Lucan 276 Anm. 5 Lucrez 276 Anm. 5 Lukian von Samosata 16 Anm. 45, 71 Anm. 52, 105 Anm. 1, 107 Anm. 15, 115 Anm. 61, 174 Anm. 38 Lykien 14 Lykurg 149

314

Namensregister

Macrinus 51 Macrobius 153 Anm. 31 Magier 64 Anm. 9, 69. 83 Malalas, Johannes 20f. m. Anm. 6063, 23. 63 m. Anm. 3, 215. 219-229 m. Anm. 20, 231 Anm. 29 Malchus 167 Anm. 1 Mandulis 106 Anm. 9 Marakos von Syrakus 298 Marinos von Neapolis 37 Anm. 6.8, 38 m. Anm. 13-16, 66. 71 m. Anm. 45-48, 74. 79 Anm. 89, 80 Anm. 99, 117 Anm. 73, 119 Anm. 85 Marcus Aurelius 35. 63. 64 Anm. 6, 78 Markomannen 42 Anm. 32 Martianus Capella 276 Anm. 4 Martyrium Sanctae Luciae 220 Anm. 10, 221. 223-226. 228f. Maxentius 216 Maximos von Ephesos 23 Anm. 76, 108. 110. 116. 118f. 174 Anm. 39, 175 Anm. 42 Maximos Planudes 202f. Maximus Confessor 215 m. Anm. 4 Medici, Cosimo de’ 256 Megara 18 Anm. 52 Memnonion 106 Anm. 9 Menelaos 155 Menippeische Satire 276 Anm. 4 Mesomedes 135. 136 Anm. 63 Mesopotamien 42 Michelangelo 24 Anm. 87, 293 m. Anm. 27 Milet 147f. 160 Minerva 253 Montagu, Richard 292. 302 Mose 149. 186 Anm. 86, 288 Musaios 16 Anm. 47 Neander, Michael 289. 302 Anm. 58 Nikander 161f. m. Anm. 87f. Niketas Eugenianus 239 Anm. 3, 242 Anm. 13 Nikomachos von Gerasa 36 m. Anm. 5 Nikomedes 168

Nikomedes II. 18 Nonnos von Panopolis 242 Nubien 106 Anm. 9 Numenios von Apameia 49-51 m. Anm. 61, 52 Anm. 70. 72, 53 Anm. 74 Numeri 301 Anm. 55 Ödipus 263 Anm. 38 Oinoanda 14 Oinomaos von Gadara 16 Anm. 45, 107 Anm. 15, 172 Anm. 25 Okeanos 135. 246 Olymp 46. 160 Olympiodoros 81. 169 Anm. 12, 170 m. Anm. 17f., 173f. m. Anm. 34f., 186 m. Anm. 87 Onomakritos 16 Origenes 112 Anm. 46, 179 m. Anm. 55, 276 Anm. 5, 288 m. Anm. 4 Oropos 45 Anm. 44 Orpheus 81. 173. 206. 223. 225. 255 Orphiker 20 Anm. 63, 72. 77 Anm. 83, 81. 174 Anm. 35, 220 Orphische Hymnen 40. 135. 136 Anm. 63, 279 Anm. 20 Osiris 41. 134 Anm. 51, 206 Ovid 79 Anm. 92, 132 Anm. 42, 178 Anm. 51, 263 Anm. 39 Oxyrhynchos 137 Palmyra 50f. Pamprepios von Panopolis 167f. m. Anm. 1.5.7 Pan 41. 92-99 m. Anm. 12, 135 Paphlagonien 115 Papyri Graecae Magicae 136 Anm. 61f. Paris (mythologische Gestalt) 155 Paris (Stadt) 290 Parmenion 128 Anm. 19 Passio Aecatherinae 215-217. 219221. 223-228 Passio Artemii 216. 229f. 234 Patrizi, Francesco 24 Anm. 84, 63. 66f. 84 Paulos von Alexandria 174

Namensregister Paulus 231 Paulinus von Nola 20 Anm. 58 Pausanias 132 Anm. 41 Pergamon 113 Anm. 50, 148 Perser 69. 204. 288 Petit, Pierre 290 Petros III. Mongos 168 Anm. 8 Peucer, Caspar 24 Anm. 86 Phaenno aus Epirus 17 Pharos 131 Philidas 53 Philipp II. von Makedonien 129 Anm. 28, 132 Anm. 41 Philostratos 105 Anm. 1, 112 Anm. 43, 114 Anm. 55 Phönizien 67 Anm. 29 Phoinix von Kolophon 160 Anm. 88 Photios I. 174f. m. Anm. 37, 202. 207 Piccolomini, Bartolomeo 256 Anm. 10 Piccolomini, Guidantonio 256 Anm. 10 Pico della Mirandola, Giovanni 24 Anm. 86 Pindar 208 Anm. 73, 209 Anm. 78 Pinturicchio 266. 268 Pisanello 257 Anm. 15 Pius II. 254. 256-258 m. Anm. 15 Pius III. 256-258 Platon 40. 44f. m. Anm. 43, 63. 65f. 84. 109 Anm. 26, 119 Anm. 81, 133 Anm. 43, 157f. m. Anm. 54.60, 168f. m. Anm. 14, 206. 218. 255. 256 Anm. 9, 258 m. Anm. 19 (Pseudo-)Platon 79 Anm. 92 Plethon, Georgios Gemistos 24. 40. 41 Anm. 26, 66. 83f. m. Anm. 114 Plotin 45. 52. 65. 83 Anm. 112, 108. 112 Anm. 43, 116. 119 Anm. 82, 170 Anm. 18, 255 m. Anm. 4 Plutarch 20 Anm. 58, 24 Anm. 81.84, 53. 83 m. Anm. 114, 126 Anm. 11, 128f. m. Anm. 22.25.28, 130-132 m. Anm. 37. 42, 133 Anm. 44, 138. 147. 181 Anm. 61, 218 Poliziano, Angelo 24 Anm. 87 Polyainos 155. 243 Pomponazzi, Pietro 24 Anm. 87

315

Porphyrios 9 Anm. 4, 12. 16 Anm. 43, 22. 35-37 m. Anm. 10, 43. 45 m. Anm. 45, 52 Anm. 72, 55f. m. Anm. 86, 63. 65 Anm. 11, 67 Anm. 29, 68. 73. 74 Anm. 73, 79 Anm. 87, 80. 91-100 m. Anm. 1.4.15.17-19. 26, 106 Anm. 13, 108 m. Anm. 25, 110-112 m. Anm. 35f.41, 114 Anm. 55, 115 m. Anm. 62, 116 Anm. 67, 117 Anm. 73, 118 m. Anm. 80, 120. 136 Anm. 63, 148f. m. Anm. 11, 151 Anm. 21, 154 m. Anm. 38, 155 Anm. 39, 158 Anm. 65, 159f. m. Anm. 68.72f.75f., 173 Anm. 31, 175. 178 Anm. 52f., 180 m. Anm. 58f., 181 Anm. 64, 186 Anm. 87, 243. 275f. m. Anm. 1, 278f. Poseidonios 52 Anm. 70 Priskos von Thesprotien 108 Prodromos Petra 215 Proklos 35 Anm. 2, 36-39 m. Anm. 7.9.17-19, 41 m. Anm. 27-30, 43 m. Anm. 40, 44 Anm. 43, 46 Anm. 51, 47 m. Anm. 52-54, 48 Anm. 56f., 49 Anm. 60, 50 m. Anm. 63, 54-56 m. Anm. 83f.86f., 63f. m. Anm. 2, 66f. m. Anm. 19, 68 Anm. 30, 69-71 m. Anm. 37-39.41-43.52, 73. 74 Anm. 68.73, 75-78 m. Anm. 81-83, 79 Anm. 84.89.92, 80 Anm. 94-96.98, 81 m. Anm. 103, 84. 113 Anm. 49, 117 Anm. 73, 167f. m. Anm. 7, 169 m. Anm. 13, 171 Anm. 20, 172. 175 Anm. 42, 176. 178 m. Anm. 53, 183 Anm. 71, 184 Anm. 76 Prokopios von Gaza 64 Protoevangelium des Jakobus 199 Psalmen 158 Anm. 62 Psellos, Michael 23. 24 Anm. 84, 36. 38 Anm. 15, 39f. m. Anm. 20, 41 Anm. 26, 44f. m. Anm. 41-45.47, 63f. m. Anm. 1.7, 65 Anm. 8, 66f. m. Anm. 18, 68 Anm. 30, 73. 77 Anm. 79, 79 Anm. 90, 81-84 m. Anm. 104.112, 248 Anm. 42 Ptolemaios (Astronom) 242 Anm. 12

316

Namensregister

Ptolemaios I. 129 Pythagoras 44. 65. 255 Pythagoreer 20 Anm. 63, 44. 65. 72. 112 Anm. 43, 281 Pythia 65 Anm. 8, 159. 175. 240f. Quintus von Smyrna 159 Anm. 71 Rhea 17 Anm. 50, 38. 39 Anm. 17, 180 Rom 130 Anm. 35, 167. 262 Anm. 33 Rosweyde, Herbert 289 Sacharja 293 Anm. 27 Salvestra di Brandaliso di Gabbriello 256 Anm. 10 Septimius Severus 18 Anm. 57, 51 Serapeion 134. 136 Serapis 126f. 128 Anm. 19.25, 129f. m. Anm. 35, 134-139 m. Anm. 51f. 54. 60f. 70. 73f., 167 Sesonchosis 134 Severus von Antiochia 20 Anm. 62, 195. 203 Anm. 48 Sextus 50f. Sextus Empiricus 71 Anm. 52 Sibylle 19. 24. 159 Anm. 71, 175. 204-206. 253 m. Anm. 2, 255. 261. 293f. m. Anm. 31, 299 Anm. 46 Sibyllinische Bücher 294 m.Anm. 30f. Sibyllinische Orakel 17 Anm. 51, 21. 138 Anm. 75, 159 Anm. 71, 205 Anm. 56, 206. 230 Anm. 23, 287303 Sieben Weise 15 Siena 253-268 Simon, Richard 290 Simplikios 72f. m. Anm. 57, 169 m. Anm. 11, 172. 173 Anm. 31, 184 Anm. 76 Simson, Edward 296 Sixtinische Kapelle 24 Anm. 88 Sixtus IV. 257 Anm. 15 Sizilien 100 Siwa 126 Anm. 11, 127f. 129 Anm. 28, 131 m. Anm. 37, 134. 138 Anm. 74, 174 Anm. 38

Sokrates 206 Sokrates Scholastikos 20 Anm. 59, 23 Anm. 76 Solon 218 Sopatros von Apameia 108 Sophokles 136 Anm. 63, 181 Anm. 61 (Pseudo-)Sophokles 221f. 226f. Sosipatra 54f. 108. 110. 112-114 m. Anm. 50, 117 Sozomenos 19f. m. Anm. 58f., 22. 23 Anm. 76, 64 Anm. 4, 65f. m. Anm. 14 Statius 276 Anm. 5 Stephan von Bourbon 20 Anm. 61 Stephanos von Byzanz 19 Anm. 57 Steuco, Agostino 24 Anm. 84, 84. 278 Anm. 11-14, 297 Anm. 16. 18. 20. 22. 24, 280 m. Anm. 26f., 281 Stilicho 294 Anm. 31 Strabon 178 Anm. 51 Straßburg 203 Anm. 46 Suda 42 m. Anm. 32, 54 m. Anm. 81, 63 m. Anm. 4, 64 Anm. 6, 67 m. Anm. 24, 74 Anm. 73, 114 Anm. 56, 162. 173 m. Anm. 32, 207 Symeon Metaphrastes 215. 217. 219221. 223-225. 227-230. 232. 234 Synesios von Kyrene 71 Anm. 52, 118 Anm. 80 Syrien 36. 42 Anm. 34, 43 m. Anm. 40, 50. 52. 54. 120 Syrianos 169. 171 Talmis (Stadt) 106 Anm. 9, 133 Anm. 44 Taxil, Jean 299 Anm. 46 Teiresias 222 Telethusa 132 Anm. 42 Tertullian 133 Anm. 47 Testamentum Domini 199-201 m. Anm. 37 Theodor von Mopsuestia 182. 185 m. Anm. 79 Theodor von Tarsus 20 Anm. 61 Theodoret von Kyrrhos 185 Anm. 79, 227

Namensregister Theodoros Prodromos 155 m. Anm. 43, 239-248 Theodosios I. 129 Anm. 88 Theodotos 231f. m. Anm. 25.33 Theophilos 20 m. Anm. 62, 293 Theophrast 158f. m. Anm. 72 Theosophia Sibyllarum 206-208 m. Anm. 68.75 Thesauri minores 217-219. 221. 223. 228f. 234 Anm. 36 Thessaloniki 130 Anm. 35 Thomas von Kent 125 Anm. 6 Tibull 178 Anm. 51 Tiburtinische Sibylle 23 Anm. 80, 261 Timotheos 20. 222 m. Anm. 16, 227 Tomeo, Leonico 24 Anm. 87 Tomoi 130 Anm. 35 Trajan 64 Tralles 151 Transitus Virginis 199 Triphiodoros 159 Anm. 71 Trophonios 45 Anm. 44, 55 Trullanische Synode 196-199 m. Anm. 17, 202 Tübinger Theosophie 10 Anm. 5, 12. 14-16 m. Anm. 44, 19 Anm. 57, 20 Anm. 62, 23. 106 Anm. 13, 112 Anm. 42, 115 Anm. 59, 138 Anm. 75, 149 Anm. 12f., 150f. m. Anm. 17.21.23f., 156 Anm. 44, 193-208. 215 m. Anm. 2, 230. 234 m. Anm. 36, 275. 278-280 m. Anm. 27 Turnèbe, Adrien 24 Anm. 84, 290 Twysden, John 287. 291-298. 302f. Tyros 245 Tzetzes, Johannes 19 Anm. 56 Ubaldini, Bernardino 257 Anm. 14 Ubaldini della Cardia, Ottaviano 257259 m. Anm. 13-15.23 Urbino 257 Anm. 15 Ursinus, Johann Heinrich 84 Vaison-la-Romaine 50 Valens 116 Valentinian I. 116 Venedig 276 Anm. 6

317

Vergil 216. 230f. 276 Anm. 5, 294. 302 Vespasiano da Bisticci 257 m. Anm. 16 Vossius, Gerhard Johannes 295 Vossius, Isaac 289 Xenophanes von Kolophon 158 Xenophon von Ephesos 155 m. Anm. 40, 240. 243-245 Xerolophos 19 Anm. 57 Yelverton, Henry 291 Zacharias von Mytilene 167 Anm. 1, 168f. m. Anm. 4.6.16 Zenon (Kaiser) 167. 195 Anm. 13, 204f. Zeus 39. 41. 52. 115. 128 Anm. 19, 129 m. Anm. 28, 132 Anm. 40, 145. 153. 156. 158 Anm. 57, 174 Anm. 38, 232 Zeus-Belos 36. 49. 51-53 m. Anm. 67, 55f. Zoroaster 24 m. Anm. 83, 66. 83f. m. Anm. 115 Zosimos 17-19 m. Anm. 48-51, 53f. Zypern 240f. 246f.

lucia m. tissi · helmut seng chiara o. tommasi (Hg.)

Orakel und ihre Rezeption von der Spätantike bis in die Frühe Neuzeit

G   ötter

Stimmen der Götter

     rakel sind in der antiken Religiosität weit ver    breitet; auch in Kaiserzeit und Spätantike haben sie ihre Faszination nicht verloren. Das zeigt sich etwa in Orakelsammlungen wie den Chaldaeischen Orakeln, der Orakelphilosophie des Porphyrios und der Tübinger Theosophie oder aber in der Diskussion über ihren Inhalt und sogar ihren Gebrauch in rituellem Zusammenhang. Daneben sind Orakel in narrativen Gattungen wie Geschichtsschreibung und Roman präsent, auch noch in byzantinischer Zeit. Die Frühe Neuzeit greift vor allem auf theologische Orakel zurück, aber auch auf die Gestalt der Sibylle als Verkünderin von Orakeln, um die eigenen Vorstellungen an die antike Tradition anzubinden. Diese Form der Rezeption beschränkt sich nicht auf Texte, sondern umfasst dazu die bildenden Künste. Der vorliegende Band nimmt ausgewählte Fallbeispiele in den Blick.

tissi · seng tommasi (Hg.)

tissi · seng · tommasi (Hg.) Stimmen der Götter

Stimmen der

Universitätsverlag

isbn 978-3-8253-4615-7

win t e r

Heidelberg