Ancient Theologies and Modern Times
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Kernos Revue internationale et pluridisciplinaire de religion grecque antique 25 | 2012 Varia Ancient Theologies and Modern Times S.C. Humphreys Electronic version URL: http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/2111 DOI: 10.4000/kernos.2111 ISSN: 2034-7871 Publisher Centre international d'étude de la religion grecque antique Printed version Date of publication: 26 October 2012 Number of pages: 149-161 ISSN: 0776-3824 Electronic reference S.C. Humphreys, « Ancient Theologies and Modern Times », Kernos [Online], 25 | 2012, Online since 20 November 2014, connection on 17 October 2019. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/2111 ; DOI : 10.4000/kernos.2111 Kernos Kernos 25(2012),p.149-161. Ancient Theologies and Modern Times Abstract :Lobeck’s Aglaophamus (1829)hasbeenreadasbeginningmodernresearchon Orphism and the ‘ancient theology’. Replacing it in its historical context opens up new perspectives. Résumé :L’ Aglaophamus deLobeck(1829)aétélucommelesprémicesdelarecherche moderne sur l’orphisme et la «théologique antique». En le replaçant dans son contexte historiqueparticulier,onouvredenouvellesperspectives. D.P. Walker’s The Ancient Theology (1972) has not made as much impact as FrancesYates’ Art of Memory (1966),butisbasedonthesamestrategyofidenti- fyinganinfluentialcomplexofideasandtrackingitseffectsandtransformations. ForthehistoryoftheclassicaltraditionWalker’sbookisparticularlyimportant because it deals with major ingredients in recurrent efforts to reconcile pagan classical thought with Christianity, from the Renaissance to the eighteenth century. ThebasisforthisreconciliationwastheclaimthatGodhadoriginallygiven hisrevelationtoallmankind;forthemostpartithadbeendistortedbypriests, eitherbecauseabstracttruthshadtobeveiledinsymbolicimagerytopersuade simpleminds,ormerelytoincreasetheirownwealthand/orpower.However, therevelationhadbeensecretlypreservedandhandeddownbywisemen,the ‘ancient theologians’. The list of these sages varied: in addition to Orpheus, HermesTrismegistus,Moses,Pythagoras,andPlato,itmightincludeZoroaster, theChaldaeanoracles,theEleusinianMysteries,Confucius,andIndianbrahmans (‘gymnosophists’). 1 Walker’s story ends in the early eighteenth century, with the influence of Neoplatonism on science (Kepler and Newton), deism, comparative religion, missionaryactivities(theJesuitsinChina),andfreemasonry.Thisnoteoffersa continuation. In the nineteenth century key elements in the ‘ancient theology’ complex were repositioned. It no longer seemed appropriate explicitly to Christianise Plato;instead,hewastobereadpurelyasaphilosopher(the Timaeus ,earlier considered his supreme work, became an embarrassment). It was firmly 1SeeWALKER (1953),(1972);MITTER (1977),p.49. 150 S.C.HUMPHREYS assertedthatGreekreligionwasamatterofritualpracticewithoutdogmaor theology. 2Orpheuswasnotahistoricalfigure,oratleasthadleftnowritings. 3 On the other hand, the task of accounting for non-classical pagan traditions was being greatly increased and complicated by more intensive contact with China,deciphermentofEgyptianhieroglyphsandofcuneiform,theexpansion ofBritishpowerinIndia,andariseinmissionaryactivitiesaroundtheglobe. Missionarieswerestillinterestedintheideaofanoriginal,universalrevela- tion,emphasisingeithertracesofethicalmonotheism(Confucius,Islam,Indian bhakti cults 4)orencouragementofpolytheismandidolatrybypriests. 5Others, however, were transforming the idea of original revelation into a historicist concern with chronological priority, and hence into theories of diffusion – fromEgypttoIndia,orfromIndiatotheWest. 6 The ancient theology and diffusionism were combined in the climate that provokedLobeck’s Aglaophamus .Today,ChristianAugustLobeck(1781-1860) figures in histories of comparative philology as a traditionalist who failed to recognise the epochal significance of Bopp’s demonstration of the common originoftheIndo-Europeanlanguages,includingSanskrit,andinhistoriesof classical philology as having conclusively shown that all texts attributed to Orpheus were late, and as one of the main critics of Creuzer’s Symbolik und Mythologie der alten Völker (1810-1812). A closer look at the historical context may suggest more sympathy for Lobeck’sattitudetoSanskrit,andamorenuancedassessmentofhisplacein the history of the study of Greek religion. Sanskrit at first seemed exciting mainly because it offered new evidence on myth, religion, and early poetry. 7 Bopp himself was a student of Karl Joseph Windischmann, whose interests were in these fields; Bopp published an edition with Latin translation and commentaryofpartsofthe Mahabharata in1819.Astheappendixtothispaper shows,manyofthoseboldlyrushingintothisfieldhadnoideathattheremight becriteriaforvalidcomparisonineitherphilologyorreligion.IfLobeck(like G.F.Herrmann)hadalowopinionofSanskritists,hehadsomejustification. Aglaophamus doesnotattackCreuzerbyname(thoughithasawarmreference tohiscriticJ.H.Voss).WedonotknowhowLobeckframedhismischievous suggestionthattheEleusinianmysteriestaughtinitiatesthehigherrefinementsof 2PARKER (2011),p.31-2tracesthisideabacktothe17 th c. 3HermesTrismegistushadalreadybeendealtwithbyCasaubonin1614:GRAFTON (1983). 4Cf.RAYCHAUDHURI (1988),p.146-151. 5 There was a strong input from Protestant anti-Catholic discourse (see now WALSHAM [2011]),alsotakenupbyanticlericalmilieuxinFrance(seeJUDETDELA COMBE [1998],p.287on BenjaminConstant). 6Seee.g.themapsofdiffusionofmythsinGÖRRES (1810). 7SeeJAMME (1991);SHAFFER (1975);SASSI (1984),GRAF (1993)onHeyne. AncientTheologiesandModernTimes 151 Indiancookery(seeappendix);CreuzerdidderiveOrphicmysteriesfromIndia. 8 Creuzer,inanycase,wasnottheonlytarget,evenifhewasconspicuousamong Germanclassicistsoftheperiod.Creuzerwas,indeed,anadherentofthe‘ancient theology’,buthewasnotalone. 9Eachofthethreesectionsof Aglaophamus deals withamysterycult–Eleusinian,Orphic,Samothracian–andineachcasethe issuewaswhethersecretmysticalwisdom,concernedespeciallywiththeafterlife, was revealed to initiates. The connection of such mystical teaching to Greek philosophy and to belief in the immortality of the soul passed through the eponymousfigureof Aglaophamus –‘proclaimerofthesublime’–whosupposedly transmittedOrpheus’theologicalteachingstoPythagoras. Lobeckwasnotthefirsttoquestiontheantiquityofthetextsattributedto Orpheus, or eventhefirst to proposethecorrect explanationofthe ‘mystical’ term konxompax .10 Buthemadeamoresystematicattemptthanearliereditorsto collect,arrange,anddateOrphicfragmentsconcernedwith‘theogony’;itwasthis argumentthat(forsomereaders)removedthelastgroundsforbeliefin‘genuine’ Orphicpoetry. Aglaophamus –probablymoreoftencitedthanreadinitsentirety(itisnotan easyread)–wasconstructedinlaterresearchasmarkingarupture,adecisiveturn away from earlier, less philologically scientific discussions. 11 This construction thenjustifiednotonlyreductionofthehistoryofresearch(whenitfiguredatall) tothe post-Lobeck era, butalso aselectivetreatmentthat oftenignoresissues outsidethisreductiveframework.Itsquestionswereframedbyhistoricismand bynineteenthcenturyclassicalphilology’sconceptionofitsdisciplinaryskillsand tasks:howwerestagesinthedevelopmentoftheMysteriesandversionsofthe Orphic texts to be dated? Could ancestors of the later texts be reconstructed? Theywerealsoframed,lessexplicitly,byequallymodernpresuppositionsabout whatwasessentially‘Greek’ormustbenon-Greek, 12 byunexaminedcomplexes ofideasabout‘religion’,andbyoftentimidcuriosityaboutthepossibleinfluence ofGreekreligiousbeliefsandritualsonearlyChristianity. 8 Satire on such topics was not a European prerogative; Indians too ridiculed diffusionist theoriesandtheassumptionthatIndiansneededEuropeaninfluencestomakethemcivilised.In oneofthesatiresofBankimchandraChattopadhyay(1838-1894)awhiteparrotwhohascometo Indiatofindfoodand‘civilise’Indiansbyurgingthemtoimitateitexplainsthatitbeganlifeasa pigneartheBlackSea(theoriesoftheoriginofIndo-European?)andwastransformedthrough beingeatenbyfiercetwo-leggedanimalscalledhumanswhomistookitforaneel(CHATTERJEE [1986],p.60;cf.RAYCHAUDHURI [1988],p.162).OnWilfordseeBAYLY (2000). 9SeeASSMANN (1997)oneighteenth-centuryNeoplatonism;HUMPHREYS (2001)onCreuzer andhiscritics. 10 Seeappendix;MÜLLER (1830)attributesittoBoeckh.HERRMANN (1805)hadalreadycast doubtontheOrphictexts. 11 Seee.g.ROHDE (1890),p.222,and(1893),AppendixIX,ontheEleusinianMysteriesand theOrphictheogony. 12 InthecaseofOrpheus,‘Thracian’ormoreexotically‘shamanic’–anideathatstillhasits attraction.SeeHUMPHREYS (2001)onPreller. 152 S.C.HUMPHREYS Thesetwolatterpreoccupationsarewellillustratedbytwopublicationsofthe 1890s, Erwin Rohde’s Psyche (1890, 1893) and Ernst Maass’s Orpheus (1895). RohdeclaimstobeanalysingGreekideasabouttheafterlifeobjectively,without allowingChristianconceptionstodistorthisaccount,butdoesnotexplainwhy hechosethe‘cultofsouls’asthefocusofhisworkonGreekreligion.Maass explicitly cites Lobeck (along with Dörpfeld’s excavations in Athens) as the inspirationforhiswork;butwhatimpressedhiminLobeckwastheemphasison historicalchangeanddevelopmentinreligion.Thisisavalidreading;Lobeckis nicelyironicalaboutscholarswho assume that religionnever changes. But the scopeofMaass’shistoricalnarrativeisverydifferent,beginningwithOrpheusas anearlyGreekgodandtracinglaterstagesofOrphicpractices,beliefs,andtexts, toendwithquestionsabouttheirinfluenceonearlyChristianity. MaassdoesnotmentionthegoldtabletsfoundingravesinsouthernItaly andSicilyandeditedbyDomenicoComparettifrom1879on,buttheyappear in later editions of Rohde’s Psyche and in Albrecht Dieterich’s study of the Orphichymns(1891)andinhis