COSMOGONY OF THE TYRRHENIANS. Ἱστορίαν δὲ παρ ̓ αὐτοῖς ἀνὴρ ἔμπειρος συνεγράψετο. Εφη γὰρ τὸν δημιουργὸν τῶν πάντων Θεὸν δώδεκα χιλιάδας ἐνιαυτῶν τοῖς πᾶσιν αὐτοῦ φιλοτιμήσασθαι κτίσμασι, καὶ ταύτας διατεῖναι τοῖς ιβ' λεγομένοις οἴκοις· καὶ τῇ μὲν α' χιλιάδι ποιῆσαι τὸν οὐρανὸν, καὶ τὴν γῆν· τῇ δευτέρᾳ ποιῆσαι τὸ στερέωμα τοῦτο τὸ φαινόμενον, καλέσας αὐτὸν οὐρανόν τῇ τρίτῃ θάλασσαν, καὶ τὰ ὕδατα τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ πάντα τῇ δʹ, τοὺς φωστῆρας τοὺς μεγάλους, ἥλιον καὶ σελήνην· καὶ τοὺς ἀστέρας τῇ έ, πᾶσαν ψυχὴν πετεινῶν, καὶ ἑρπετῶν, καὶ τετράποδα†, ἐν τῷ ἀέρι, καὶ ἐν τῇ γῇ, καὶ τοῖς ὕδασι τῇ 5', τὸν ἄνθρωπον. Φαίνεται οὖν τὰς μὲν πρώτας ἓξ χιλιάδας πρὸ τῆς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου διαπλάσεως παραληλυθέναι τὰς δὲ λοιπὰς ἓξ χιλιάδας διαμένειν τὸ γένος τῶν ἀνθρώπων. ὡς εἶναι τὸν πάντα χρόνον τῆς συντελείας μέχρι χιλιάδας + δώδεκα. * Kuster proposes αὐτο. A certain person among them, well versed in these matters, wrote a history, in which he says : That God, the demiurgus of all things, for the sake of giving dignity to his productions, was pleased to employ twelve thousand years in their creation; and extended these years over twelve divisions, called houses. In the first thousand years he created the heaven and the earth; in the second he made this apparent firmament above us, and called it heaven; in the third, the sea and all the waters in the earth; in the fourth, the great lights, the sun and the moon, together with the stars ; in the fifth, every soul of birds, and reptiles, and quadrupeds, in the air, and in the earth, and in the waters; in the sixth, man. It appears, therefore, that the first six thousand years were consumed before the formation of man; and during the other six thousand years the human race will continue, so that the full time shall be completed even to twelve thousand years.Suid. v. Tyrrhenia. * Kuster proposes τετραπόδων, which I have adopted in the translation, * Kuster proposes χιλιάδων. THE THEOGONIES. FROM DAMASCIUS. Ἐν μὲν τοίνυν ταῖς φερομέναις ταύταις ῥαψωδίαις Ὀρφικαῖς εἰ θεολογία δή τις ἐστιν, ἡ περὶ τὸ νοητὸν, ἣν καὶ οἱ φιλόσοφοι διερμηνεύουσιν ἀντὶ μὲν τῆς μιᾶς τῶν ὅλων ἀρχῆς τὸν Χρόνον τιθέντες, ἀντὶ δὲ τοῖν δυοῖν Αἶπέρα καὶ Χάος, ἀντὶ δὲ τοῦ ὄντος ἁπλῶς τὸ τὸν ἀπολογιζόμενοι καὶ τριάδα ταύτην πρώτην ποιοῦντες· εἰς δὲ τὴν δευτέραν τελεῖν ἤτοι τὸ κυούμενον καὶ τὸ κύον ὠὸν τὸν θεὸν, ἢ τὸν ἀργῆτα† χιτῶνα, ἢ τὴν νεφέλην, ὅτι ἐκ τούτων ἐκθρώσκει ὁ Φάνης· ἄλλοτε γὰρ ἄλλα περὶ τοῦ μέσου φιλοσοφοῦσιν. Τοῦτο μὲν οὖν * Lob. omits μὲν τοίνυν. In the rhapsodies which pass under the name of Orphic, the theology, if any, is that concerning the Intelligible; and the philosophers thus interpret it. They place Chronus (Time) for the one principle of all things, and for the two Ether and Chaos: and they regard the egg as representing Being simply, and this they look upon as the first triad +. But to complete the second triad they imagine as the god a conceiving and conceived egg, or a white garment, or a cloud, because Phanes springs forth from these. But concerning this middle (subsistence) different philosophers have different opinions. Whatever it may be they look upon The intelligible triad of the later Platonists was divided in three subsistences, each of which was also called a triad, and composed of subsistences bearing analogy to the whole. * Bentley proposes ῥαγέντα. ὁποῖον ἂν ᾖ, ὡς τὸν νοῦν,* ὡς δὲ πατέρα καὶ δύναμιν, ἄλλα τινὰ προσεπινοοῦντες οὐδὲν τῷ ̓Ορφεὶ προσήκοντα. Την δε τρίτην τὸν Μῆτιν τὸν Ηρικαπαῖον † ὡς δύναμιν, τὸν Φάνητα ὡς πατέρα. Μήποτε δὲ καὶ τὴν μέσην τριάδα θετέον κατὰ τὸν τρίμορφον θεὸν, ἔτι κυόμενον ἐν τῷ ὠῷ· καὶ γὰρ καὶ τὸ μέσον ἀεὶ φαντάζει συναμφότερον τῶν ἄκρων, ὥσπερ καὶ τοῦτο ἅμα καὶ ὠὸν καὶ τρίμορφος ὁ Θεὸς. Καὶ ὁρᾷς ὅτι τὸ μὲν εόν ἐστιν τὸ ἡνωμένον, ὁ δὲ τρίμορφος καὶ πολύμορφος τῷ ὄντι θεὸς τὸ διακεκριμένον τοῦ νοητοῦ· τὸ δὲ μέσον κατὰ μὲν τὸ πὸν ἔτι ἡνωμένον, δ κατὰ δὲ τὸν θεὸν ἤδη || διακεκριμένον τὸ δὲ ὅλον εἰπεῖν διακρινόμενον. τοιαύτη μὲν ἡ συνήθης Oρφικὴ θεολογία. Ἡ δὲ κατὰ τὸν Ἱερώνυμον it as Mind; but for Father and Power some of them imagine other things which have no connexion with Orpheus. And in the third triad they substitute for it Metis, whilst they place Ericapæus as Power, and Phanes as Father. ‡ But the middle triad is never to be placed according to the triformed god (Phanes) as absolutely conceived in the egg: for the middle subsistence always shadows out each of the extremes, as should this, which must partake at once both of the egg and of the triformed god. And you may perceive that the egg is the united (subsistence or principle of union; and the triformed god, who is multiform about being, is the separated principle of the Intelligible; but the middle subsistence, being united as far as it relates to the egg, and already separated as far as it relates to the god, may be considered as existing altogether as in the act of separation such is the common Orphic theology. But the theology delivered by Hie † Ἠρικεπαῖον. Lob. * Lob. omits ὡς τὸν νοῦν. * Wolf. and Lob. omit ὡς τὸν νοῦν. Taylor places it after Μῆτιν, and translates this very obscure passage thus: "But conceiving him over and above this as father and power, contributes nothing to Orpheus. But they call the third triad Metis as intellect, Ericapaus as power, and Phanes as father." I have inserted a full stop after προσήκοντα. Lob. does the same, though he gives no translation of the passage. § Tay. inserts το τρίτον, which he supposes to be omitted. It appears to me to destroy the argument. Η είδει W. and Hamb. |