O
R P H E U S
by G.R.S.Mead
lNTRODUCTION
Foreword
[Page 9] WHO
has not heard the romantic legend of Orpheus and Eurydice ? The
polished verse of Virgil, in his Georgics (iv.452-527), has immortalized
the story, told by 'Caerulean Proteus' (ibid., 388). But few know
the importance that mythical Orpheus plays in Grecian legends, nor the
many arts and sciences attributed to him by fond posterity. Orpheus was
the father of the pan-hellenic faith, the great theologer,
the man who brought to Greece the sacred rites of secret worship
and taught the mysteries of nature and of God. To him the Greeks confessed
they owed religion, the arts, the sciences both sacred and profane; and,
therefore, in dealing with the subject I have proposed to myself in this
essay, it will be necessary to treat of a theology' which was first mystically
and
symbolically promulgated by Orpheus, afterwards disseminated enigmatically
through images by Pythagoras, and in the last place scientifically
unfolded by Plato and his genuine disciples' (T. Taylor's translation of
Proclus ' On the Theology of
Plato, Introduction i) ; or to use the words of Proclus, the
last great master of Neoplatonism, ‘all the theology of the
Greeks comes from Orphic mystagogy', that is to say, initiation into
the mysteries (Lobeck, Aglaophamus, page 723). Not only did
the learned of the Pagan world ascribe the sacred science to the
same source but also the instructed of the Christian fathers (ibid.,
p. 466).It must not however, be supposed that Orpheus was regarded
as [Page 10] the
'inventor' of theology but rather as the transmitter of the science
of divine things to the Grecian
world, or even as the reformer of an existing cult that, even in
the early times before the legendary Trojan era, had already fallen
into decay. The well-informed among
the ancients recognized a common basis in the inner rites of the
then existing religions, and even the least mystical of writers admit
a 'common bond of discipline', as, for instance, Lobeck, who demonstrates
that the ideas of the
Egyptians,
Chaldaens, Orphics and Pythagoreans were derived from a common source (ibid.,
page 946).
THE
SCOPE OF THE ESSAY
Seeing,
then, that any essay on the legendary personality of Orpheus might
legitimately take into its scope the whole theology and mythology of the Greeks,
it
is evident that the present attempt, which only aims at sketching a rough
outline of the subject, will be more exercised in curtailing than in expanding
the mass of
heterogeneous information that could be gathered together. No human being
could
do full justice to the task, for even the courage of the most stout-hearted
German encyclopaedist would quail before the libraries of volumes dealing directly or
indirectly with the general subject. Of books dealing directly with Orpheus
and the Orphics, however, there is no great number, and of these the only
one of
my acquaintance that treats the subject with genuine sympathy is the
small volume of
Thomas Taylor, The Mystical Hymns of Orpheus.
For
many quotations from classical writers I am indebted to the
encyclopaedic
volumes of Chr. Augustus Lobeck, Aglaophamus, sive de Theologiae Mysticae
Graecorum Causis, but only for the quotations,
not for the opinions on them. With regard to the Mysteries themselves, I shall
speak but incidentally [Page 11] in this essay,
as that all important subject must be left for greater leisure and knowledge than
are
mine at present.
THE MATERIALS
At the end of the essay the
reader will find a Bibliography, many of the books in which I have searched
through with but poor reward; there is, to my knowledge, no other bibliography
on the subject, and the present attempt only mentions the most important
works. Not, however, that works bearing directly on Orpheus are by any means
numerous, as D. de Sales laments in the early years of the century in his Mémoire:
‘ A few texts scattered among the writers of antiquity and
of the middle ages, a feeble notice of Fabricius, six pages of Memoirs of an
Academy, the Epigenes of Eschenbach, and the Orpheôs 'Apanta of
Gesner – there, in last analysis, you have all the really elementary
materials on Orpheus' (Histoire d' Homère et d'Orphée,
page 2I).
Since then, besides the work of
Lobeck, but little of a satisfactory nature has been done; little on the Continent,
nothing in England, as may be easily seen by referring to the best classical
dictionaries and encyclopaedias, the articles in which on this subject are hardly
worth the paper on which they are printed.
From antiquity we have no text
of a Life of Orpheus. D. de Sales says, that if we are to believe Olympiodorus,
Herodotus, the father of Grecian history, wrote a Life of Orpheus, but that
this work could no longer be found at the end of the Alexandrine cycle (op.
cit., p. 3). As his authority, he quotes Photius (Bibliotheca,
cod., 80), but I am unable to find the passage in my copy of Photius (1653).
That there were several Lives known to the ancients is not improbable, and
Constantin [Page 12] Lascaris
in the first volume of his Marmor Taurinensis (1743), containing a
description of a marble in the Turin Museum, supposed to represent the death
of Orpheus, adds the Greek text and Latin translation of a MS. which appears
to be based upon these missing works. How little was known on the subject
during the scholastic period may be gleaned from the fact that the huge Thesaurus Graecarum Antiquitatum of
Gronovius (1695), consisting of no less than eighty-five volumes, contains
nothing on the subject.
In spite of this, the legend of Orpheus, as stated by the writer in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica (9th
ed., art. 'Orpheus') persisted throughout the middle ages and was finally 'transformed
into the likeness of a northern fairy tale', and a rich store of materials
for working out the tale may be found in the catalogue of the British Museum
under 'Orpheus'.
'In English mediaeval literature it appears in three some-what different versions: Sir Orpheo,
a “Lay of Brittany” printed from the Harleian MS. in Ritson's Ancient
Metrical Romances, vol. ii; Orpheo and Heurodis from the Auchinleck
MS. in David Laing's Select Remains of the Ancient Popular Poetry
of Scotland; and Kyng Orfew from the Ashmolean MS. in Halliwell's llIustrations
of Fairy Mythology (Shakespeare Soc., !842). The poems bear trace of French
influence.'
Surely a legend so wide-spread and so persistent must have had a vigorous life
to start with, and that this was the case I hope to show in the following pages. [Page
13]
CHAPTER
2
THE
ORPHIC ORIGINS
|
THE MYTHOLOGICAL ORPHEUS
IT would be too tedious to
recite here the various glosses of the Orphic legend, or to enter into a
critical examination of its history. On the whole the legend has been preserved
with sufficient fidelity in the recitals of the poets and the works of mythographers,
and the general outlines of it are sketched as follows by P. Decharme in
his Mythologie de la Grèce Antique (pages 616 sq.).
Orpheus was son of Oeagrus, King of Thrace, and Calliope, one of the Muses. He
was the first poet and first inspired singer, and his whole life is the history
of the results of divine harmony, Lord of the seven-stringed lyre, all men flocked
to hear him, and wild beasts lay peacefully at his feet; trees and stones were
not unmoved at the music of his heavenly instrument. The denizens of the unseen
world and the princes of Hades rejoiced at the tones of his harp. Companion of
the Argonauts in their famous expedition, the good ship Argo glides gently over
the peaceful sea at the will of his magic strains; the fearsome moving rocks
of the Symplegades, that threatened Argo with destruction, were held motionless;
the dragon Colchis that watched the golden fleece was plunged in sleep profound.
His
master was Apollo; Apollo taught him the lyre. Rising
in the night he would climb the heights of Pangaeus to be the first
to greet the glorious god of day.
But
great grief was in store for the singer of Apollo. His [Page
14] beloved wife Eurydice, while fleeing from the importunities
of Aristaeus, was bitten by a serpent hidden in the grass. In vain the
desperate husband strove to assuage the pain of his beloved, and the hills
of Thrace resounded with his tunefull plaints. ...Eurydice is dead. ...In
mad distraction he determines to follow her even to Hades, and there so
charms the king of death that Eurydice is permitted to return to earth
once more – but
on one condition – Orpheus must not look back. And now they had almost
recrossed the bounds of death, when at the very last step, so great is
his anxiety to see whether his dear wife is still behind him, that he turns
to gaze, and Eurydice is instantly reft from his sight (Virgil, Geor.,
iv.499):
'ex
oculis subito ceu fumus in auras commixtus tenues, fugit diversa;'
'quick
from his eyes she fled in every way, like smoke in gentle zephyr disappearing.'
The death of Orpheus
is variously recounted. Either he died of grief for the second loss of Eurydice,
or was killed by the infuriated Bacchanals, or consumed by the lightning
of Zeus for revealing the sacred mysteries to mortals. After his death
the Muses collected his torn members and buried them. His head and lyre
were carried by the waves to Lesbos.
ORPHEUS,
A GENERIC NAME
Such is the bare outline of
the romantic Orphic Legend. That Orpheus ever existed as one particular person
is highly improbable; that Orpheus was the living symbol that marked the
birth of theology and science and art in Greece, is in keeping with the general
method of mythology, and relieves us from the many absurd hypotheses that
historians have devised to reconcile the irreconcilable.[Page
15]
Orpheus was to the Greeks what Veda Vyâsa was to the Hindus, Enoch to the Ethiopians,
and Hermes to the Egyptians. He was the great compiler of sacred scriptures:
he invented nothing, he handed on. Orpheus, Veda Vyâsa, Enoch, Hermes and others,
are generic names. Veda Vyâsa means the 'Veda-arranger'. It is said that the
hieroglyphical treatise on the famous Columns of Hermes or Seth, which Joseph
affirms were still existing in his time (De Mirville, Pneumatologie,
iii.70 ), was the source of the sacred science of ancient Khem, and that Orpheus,
Hesiod, Pythagoras and Plato took therefrom the elements of their theology.
There was a number of Hermes, the greatest being called Trismegistus, the 'thrice
greatest', because he spoke of the 'three greatest' powers that 'veiled the
one Divinity' ( Chron. Alexand., p. 47). We also learn from the MS.
of Lascaris (Mar. Taurin., 'Prolegg, in Orph.', p. 98) that there were
no less than six Orpheis known to antiquity.
Ficinus (De Immort.
Anim., XVII.i.386) traces what the Hindus call the Guruparamparâ
chain, or succession of teachers as follows:
'In things pertaining to theology there were in former times six
great teachers expounding similar doctrines. The first was Zoroaster, the chief
of the Magi; the second Hermes Trismegistus, the head of the Egyptian priesthood;
Orpheus succeeded Hermes; Aglaophamus was initiated into the sacred mysteries
of Orpheus; Pythagoras was initiated into theology by Aglaophamus; and Plato
by Pythagoras. Plato summed up the whole of their wisdom in his Letters.'
THE
DERIVATION OF THE NAME
Although
Orpheus is commonly reported to have been a Thracian, there is no certainty
in the matter, and this uncertainty [Page
16] has
given licence to the most fantastic derivations of his name, put
forward by experienced and amateur philoIogers to bolster up their own
pet theories. The name Orpheus is derived from the Egyptian, Hebrew, Phoenician,
Assyrian, Arabic, Persian or Sanskrit, according to the taste or inventive
faculty of the philological apologist. Professor Max Müller, in order
to support the solar myth theory, derives the name from 'Ribhu' or' Arbhu',
of the Rig
Veda, an epithet of Indra; Indra being said to be one of the names
of the Sun (cf. Comparative Mythology). The name is also traced
to the Alp or Elf of Teutonic folklore. Larcher says that Orpheus was
an Egyptian; or, or oros standing for Horus, and phe or pho in
Coptic signifying 'to engender' (Trad. d'Hérod., ii.266,
n.). And no doubt there will be writers who will 'prove' that the name
Orpheus is from radicals in Chinese, Esquimaux, Maya, or even Volapük
! There is very little that cannot be proved or disproved by such philology.
THE
ORPHIC DIALECT
It
is, however, interesting to note that the original Hymns were written in
a very ancient dialect. Clavier supposes that it was only after the Homeric
poets had accustomed Grecian ears to a smoother tongue that the original
dialect of these sacred Hymns was altered (Hist. des Premiers Temps
de la Grèce, i.85
; quoted by Rolle, Recherches sur le Culte de Bacchus, iii, 21 ).
Jamblichus says that the Hymns were originally written in the Doric dialect
(De Vitâ Pythag.,
xxxiv), but Diodorus Siculus (iii.66) simply uses the word 'archaic' ἀρχαϊκὣἣ: τᾒτε διαλέκτῳ καἰ τοἳϛ γράμμασι χρησάμενοϛ.
What the particular dialect was, it is difficult to say; the learned among
the ancients who busied themselves about such matters, said that the names
of the gods and the most sacred things were from the 'language of the gods'
(cf. Proclus, [Page
17] Com. in Polit., p. 397; Com. in Crat.,
p. 38; Com. in Tim., ii.84; also Gregory Naz., Or., iii.99,
and Maximus Tyrius, vi.86).This
is most clearly set forth by Jamblichus (De Mysteriis, vii.4) :
For
it was the gods who taught the sacred nations ....... the whole of their
sacred dialect. They who learned the first names concerning the gods,
mingled them with their own tongue.
..and handed them down to us.'
PELASGIC,
ETRURIAN, OR AEOLIAN
Thomas Taylor (The Mystical
Hymns of Orpheus, p. xli) asserts that the letters referred to in the
words of Diodorus Siculus, which I have quoted above, were Pelasgic, and
adds in a note, 'these letters are the old Etrurian or Eolian, and are
perhaps more ancient than the Cadmian or Ionic'. The interesting point
is that this agrees with the conclusions of a number of writers, among
others J. F. Gail (Recherches sur la Nature du Culte de Bacchus en Grèce, p.
3), that the poems of Orpheus date back to Pelasgic Greece, to the days
of legend, to pre-historic times. Taylor speaks of these letters being
Etrurian; if that be so, they may have belonged to the alphabet of that
great nation which came from the West, beyond the Pillars of Hercules,
and subdued ‘Africa within the Straits as far as Egypt, and Europe
as far as Tyrrhenia (Etruria)', as Plato tells us in the Critias (sec.
iii). This nation came from the Atlantic Ocean, from an archipelago consisting
of an 'island larger than Africa and Asia put together' and 'many other
smaller ones'. The Africa and Asia of Solon's time were not of the present
dimensions, but consisted of Africa as known to the Egyptians and our present
Asia Minor – a sufficiently large territory , however, even at that. [Page
18]
What the language of 'Orpheus' was I must, therefore, leave to more capable philologists
than myself.
THE
FABLE OF THE AEOLIANS
Taylor, however, says that
the Pelasgic letters were 'the old Etrurian or Eolian', but whether
he connects the old Etruscans with the Aeolians, or simply puts an alternative,
is not clear. In either case it is interesting to refer to the suggestion
put forward in the series of articles in the old numbers of The Theosophist,
entitled 'Some Enquiries suggested by Esoteric
Buddhism , (see Five Years of Theosophy, pp. 209 sq.).
These articles speak of the 'old' Greeks and Romans as being 'remnants of
the Atlanteans', and define the attribute 'old' as referring to 'the eponymous
ancestors (as they are called by Europeans) of the Aeolians, Dorians and
Ionians'. Now this Atlantis of Plato, that may for convenience be called
Poseidonis, was submerged some 13,000 years ago, according to the priests
of Saïs, but 'a number of small islands scattered around Poseidonis
had been vacated, in consequence of earthquakes, long before the final catastrophe
...... Tradition says that one of the small tribes (the Aeolians) who had
become islanders after emigrating from far northern countries, had to leave
their home again for fear of a deluge ...... . Frightened by the frequent
earthquakes and the visible approach of the cataclysm, this tribe is said
to have filled a flotilla of arks , to have sailed from beyond the
Pillars of Hercules, and, sailing along the coasts, after several years of
travel, to have landed on the shores of the Aegean Sea in the land of Pyrrha
(now Thessaly), to which they gave the name of Aeolia ....... All along the
coasts of Spain, France, and Italy the AEolians often halted, and the memory
of their “magical feats” still survives among the descendants
of the old Massilians, of the tribes of the later [Page
19] Carthago Nova, and the seaports of Etruria and Syracuse.'
The writer then goes on to enquire what was the language of the Atlantean
Aeolians (page 212.), and finally speaks of it as a 'sacred hieratic or sacerdotal
language' (page 214).
THE
RECEDING DATE OF ORPHEUS
This fabled immigration of
the Aeolians fits in well with the Orphic Argonautica and opens up a most
fruitful field of enquiry in the pre-historic Hellenic period. Moreover,
it pushes back the date of Orpheus and his times many cycles of years and
widens out the scope of Pelasgic speculations. Who were these Pelasgians
who are said to be the 'autochthones', when the legendary Inachus,
Cecrops, Cadmus, Danaus and Deucalion, are fabled to have led their colonies
from Phoenicia and elsewhere into the land of Hellas? If we are to believe
Plato, these Pelasgi were the degenerate descendants of a great race that
once had its capital in Attica, and was the successful opponent of the Atlantic
empire in its palmy days. Of these men, he says (Critias, sec. iv),
'the names are preserved; though their deeds have become extinct through
the death of those that handed them down and the lapse of time'. For 'the
race that survived were a set of unlettered mountaineers, who had heard the
names only of the (once) ruling people of the land, but very little of their
deeds'. These names they gave to their children and so handed them down.
CASTE
IN THE “DAYS OF ORPHEUS”
At the time of the Great War
women had equal rights with men (Critias, loc. cit.).
'The figure and image of the goddess [ Athene ] shows that at that time both
men and women entered in common on [Page
20] the pursuits of war; a proof that all animals that consort
together, females as well as males, have a natural ability to pursue in common
every suitable virtue.'
This once great nation
was divided into castes, or tribes ἔθνη viz.,
those 'engaged in crafts and culture of the soil' (Vaishyas), and the
'warrior' caste τὸ μάχιμον which
received nothing from the rest of the citizens but a sufficiency of food
and requisites for training. These (Kshatriyas) were set apart by 'divine
men' ὑπ̓ ἀνδρὣν θεἱω who
were the real rulers. In other words the government was that of an adept
priesthood (the true Brâhmans).
What was the language of these
'divine men' ? Who can say ? But I fear that I have wandered far in pursuing
this interesting clue, and will conclude the present part of my subject by
endorsing the words of Münter (Comment. Antiq., page 42): 'it
is evident that the language of the gods, according to the view of the ancients,
was the archaic speech of living men.' And Arnobius (Contra Gentes,
iv.29) tells us that the 'gods were once men' (deos homines fuisse).
And for some similar reason it is that the Hindus call the character in which
their ancient sacred books are written, the Devanâgâri or 'alphabet
of the gods'.
THE
BEGINNINGS OF ORPHIC HISTORY
From the above it may be easily
seen that it is hopeless, in the present state of our information, to attempt
to treat the legend of Orpheus from a historical point of view, in the ordinary
acceptation of the term. We only approach the historical period when we descend
to the times of Homer, though indeed even then we have not entirely reached
it. The Stemma, or line of descent, of the Gens Orphica, places ten generations
of poets, or schools of poets, between Orpheus and Homer, as may be seen
from Charax (apud [Page
21] Suid., sub voc. 'Homerus') and Proclus (Vit.
Hom., in Bib. Vet. Ut. et Art., i.8).
HOMER
AND HESIOD
Homer, or the Homeric School,
however, does not mention Orpheus by name, but Clemens Alexandrinus (Strom.,
vi.738) affirms that he took many things from Orpheus, and Taylor, translating
from the Scholia of Proclus on the Cratylus of Plato, shows how and
why Homer does not venture on the loftier flight of Orpheus, and so also
with regard to Hesiod (Myst. Hymns of Orpheus, pages. 184-185). From
all of which we gather that the original poems of Orpheus are lost in the
night of time.
We are further informed that the substance of these poems was preserved by
various translations into the then vernacular; that there were various collections
and recensions of them made by various poets, philosophers, and schools.
PHERECYDES
The first to undertake the
task was Pherecydes (Suidas, sub voc.). Pherecydes is said to have
been the master of Pythagoras, and to have obtained his knowledge from
the secret books of the Phoenicians (Smith's Dict. of Gr. and
Rom. Biog. and Mythol., sub voc.). He is further stated to have
been the pupil of the Chaldaeans and Egyptians (Joseph., c. Apion.,
p. 1034, e; Cedrenus, i.94, b; Theodorus Melitenista,Proam. in
Astron., c.
12). The most important subject he treated of, was the doctrine of metempsychosis
and the immortality of the soul (Suidas, and Cicero, Tusc., i.16),
and this he set forth in his great prose work Theologia, generally
known as the 'Seven Adyta' Έπτά - μνχοϛ.
He is said to have been the first who used prose for such a subject. From
all of which it appears that Pherecydes, by his training and knowledge, [Page 22]
was a very fit person to undertake so important a task, and it is further
an additional proof of the mystical nature of the Orphic Scriptures.
ONOMACRITUS
Onomacritus is the next known
editor of Orpheus in antiquity. His date is given generally as 520-485 B.C.,
but if we are to believe Clemens Alexandrinus (Strom., i.332) and
Tatian (Adv. Graec., 62), he must be put back as far as 580 B.C. It
would be too tedious to recount here the long controversy as to the precise
relation of Onomacritus to the Orphic writings. Some have even gone so far
as to say that he 'invented'
them. We learn, however, that Onomacritus was rather a priest than a poet,
who collected all the ancient writings he could in support of the mystic
theology of the Greeks. Hence he has always been looked upon as one of the
chief leaders of the Orphic theology and the Orphic societies (Smith,
op. cit., sub voc.). Onomacritus is said to have been instructed by the
priests of Delphi (Müller, Prolegg. Mythol., p. 309),and
Pausanius(viii.37) states that he was the 'founder' of Dionysian rites. But
there is nothing very certain in all this, and the controversy can be infinitely
prolonged. Other editors are mentioned, such as Brontius, Cercops, Zopyrus,
Prodicus, Theognetus, and Persinus (Lobeck, op. cit., 347 and 350
), but of these nothing of importance is known.
THE
PYTHAGOREANS AND NEOPYTHAGOREANS
N.
Fréret (Mém.
de I' Acad., xxiii.261) states that after the dispersal of the
Pythagorean School in Magna Graecia, at the end of the sixth century
B.C., the surviving disciples attached themselves to the Orphic Communities.
The School of [Page
23] Pythagoras had become suspected by the civil
power, and those members who survived the persecution, following
as they did a peculiar discipline and a life apart from men, could
only find refuge among the adherents of a cult with an inner doctrine,
and this they found in the so-called Bacchic Communities. There they
could follow out that life of self-discipline and abnegation which
Plato calls the Orphic
Life.This
for a time vitalized the sacred tradition, which was gradually growing
fainter and fainter, and in the days of Plato (De Legg., ii)
fell into much disrepute. Then it was that Plato intellectualized it
as being the only way to preserve it from further profanation. Thus
it is that Plato in Greece did for the theology of Orpheus what Shankarâchârya
in India did for the theosophy of the Upanishads. So it continued
until the days when the spiritual forces were seething in the chaldron
of the first centuries of the Christian era.
THE
NEOPLATONISTS
For
it is to the Neoplatonists of these centuries that we owe most of our
information as to the inner meanings of the Orphic theology; and, indeed,
scepticism enthroned in high places dismisses the whole matter blandly
by informing us that this School of Later Platonists not only wrote the
interpretation of the Theology, but the original poems themselves! We
respectfully bow before the brilliancy of scepticism's imagination, but
even were we dazzled by it, would have to admit that the successors of
Plotinus were, even so, very wonderful people.
Suidas
tells us that about the end of the first century A.D., Charax, priest of
Pergamus, wrote a 'Synthesis of the Logia of Orpheus, Pythagoras, and Plato' ονμφωνία Όρφέωϛ, Πνθαγόρον καἰ Πλάτωνοϛ περἰ τἁ λόγια also
that Damascius, the Syrian, the last of the Neoplatonists, who lived
at the [Page 24] end
of the fifth and the beginning of the sixth century, wrote on the same
subject.
Marinus
(Vit. Proc.,
xx) also tells us that the Lycian Proclus, surnamed the Platonic Successor Διάοδοχοϛ Πλατωνικόϛ who
was born A.D. 412., so loved these hymns that he had them recited to
him in his dying moments. Proclus' master, Syrianus, also, as Suidas
relates, composed a 'Synthesis of Orpheus, Pythagoras, and Plato'.
Both master and pupil wrote 'Commentaries on the Orphic Theology',
and Syrianus also wrote 'Readings in Orpheus' Όρφικαὶ Συνουσίαι but
not one of these valuable works, unfortunately, has come down to us
(cf.
Bode, Orpheus Poetarum Graecorum Antiquissimus, p.
38; Proclus in Plat. Tim. 2., Fabric. i.142.; Eschenbach, Epig. praef.
Ouwaroff, De Myst. Eleus., p. 57).
Hierocles, the Alexandrian,
who also lived about the middle of the fifth century, wrote a Synthesis
of the Logia (Photius, Bibl.,
ccxxiv).
Asclepiades Mendes, an
Egyptian theologist, attempted the same task in a work called 'Synthesis
of all Theologies' (τὣν θεολογιὣν άπασὣνἡ σνμφωνία, Suidas, sub
voc. 'Heraïscus' ; generally known as τὰ θεολογούμενα cf.Suetonius
in Aug. c. 94).
Such synthetic
treatises were numerous enough in those days, but all have been lost.
The efforts to restore the universal traditional wisdom (Pammythosophia)
failed, and the work that had been done was destroyed and burned, not
without the accompaniment of much cursing. Thus it is that I we read
the record of the work of some now unknown theosophist Aristocrites,
preserved in the following anathema: 'I anathematize also the book of
Aristocrites, which , he calls Theosophy, in which he attempts
to show that Judaism and Hellenism, and Christianism and Manichaism are
one and the same doctrine' (from the 'Cursing of the Manichaeans', Cotelerius
ad Clement. Recog., iv. 544). [Page
25]
Photius also (Bibl.,
clxx ) tells us of an anonymous Constantinopolitan of the seventh century,
who made a synthesis of the theosophical teachings of the Greeks, Persians,
Thracians, Egyptians, Babylonians, Chaldaeans, and Romans, and endeavoured
to show their agreement with Christianity; at which Lobeck (op. cit.,
page 346) can do no better than sneer.
GENERAL
CONCLUSION
We, therefore, conclude that
Orpheus is not a 'historical' personage in the accepted sense of the term;
that the tracing of the origins of the Orphic writings, though opening
up many interesting questions, is a matter of great difficulty; that, in
spite of this, the persistent tradition of the mythical founder of Grecian
theology, and the great honour in which Orpheus was held by so many generations
and by the highest intellects
of antiquity, are all-sufficient proofs that that theology came from a
venerable and archaic source; that this source is such as a student of
comparative religion and theosophy would naturally expect; and that, therefore,
the opinion of Aristotle that 'Orpheus never existed’ does not come
to us as a shock, but rather as a confirmation of the truth of our contention
from the point of view of a careful and critical intellect. We admit the
truth of Aristotle's opinion as stated by Cicero (De Nat. Deorum, i.38),
though this sentence cannot be traced in the known texts of the famous
Stageirite, but limit the phrase 'Orpheum poetam docet Aristoteles numquam
fuisse' to the sense of a historically known poet, such as, for instance,
Pindar. In brief, the Orphic Origins are lost in the night of Time. [Page
26]
THE
LOGIA
I HAVE already in the last
chapter spoken of several Syntheses or Symphonies of the Logia of the great
teachers of classical antiquity. Now a Logion is a 'great saying', and
it has precisely the same meaning as Mahâ-vâkyam, the technical
term applied to the twelve great mystical utterances of the Upanishads,
such as 'That art Thou,' etc. These Logia , were universally recognized
as words of wisdom, and were the
most sacred legacies of the sages to humanity. They were collected together
and formed the most precious 'deposits', διαθκαι of
the various nations, the same term being also given to the Christian Bible.
Thus Herodotus calls
Onomacritus a 'depository of oracles' διαθέτην χρησμὣν the
word carrying the meaning of 'one who arranges', corresponding to the
term Vyâsa in Sanskrit. These collections of Logia were then generally
called 'deposits', the word also bearing the meaning of 'testaments'
as containing the divine will or dispensation.The same word is used
by Strabo (x.482.) of the Laws of Lycurgus, and ecclesiastical writers
refer to the canonical books as ἐνδιαθετοι (Eusebius, Chron.,
p. 99 a). Hence it is that the commentators or arrangers of these scriptures
are called διαθέται,
the name applied by Herodotus to Onomacritus. Grotius declares that
the term δαθήκη was
applied by the Orphics and Pythagoreans to such sacred laws (cf.
Jablonski, ii.397). [Page
27]
These collections were also called Sacred Utterances, Ίεροἰ Λόγοι and
Clemens Alexandrinus refers to one such saying of Orpheus as that
'truly sacred utterance' τòν őντως ίερòν λόγον -Lobeck, op.
Cit., p. 714).
SECRET
WORKS
Such books were very carefully
guarded and were the secret scriptures or bibles of many states. Cicero
(De Div., i.44) speaks of such a Bible of the Veii. The Athenians,
in the time of the kings, possessed a similar Bible of Logia (Herodotus,
V.90), and Dinarchus (Or. c. Demost. 91. 20) tells us that the safety
of the state depended on this secret scripture ὰπορρήτουϛ διαθήκαϛ.
These occult sayings ἁπόθετα ἕπη are
further called by Suidas (sub voc.) 'withdrawn volumes' βιβλία ὰνκεχωρηκότα that
is to say, books withdrawn from public perusal, or in other words, apocryphal,
hidden or secret ἀπόκρυφα.
And not only was this the case with the ancient writings themselves, but
also with the commentaries upon them, and by degrees with everything referring
to them, until finally we find Themistius, the Rhetorician, in the fourth
century, speaking of that 'mass of archaic wisdom not open to the public
or in general circulation, but scarce and occult’ στîφοϛ ἁρχαίϛ σοφίαϛ οὐ κοινἣς οὐδε ἐν μέσῳ κυλινδουμένηϛ ἀλλὰ σπανίου καὶ ἀποθέτου — Themist, Or.,
iv.60.
To the same class of writing
we must undoubtedly refer the most precious of the Orphic scriptures,
especially as we find that the Hymns were used in the Mysteries. But
besides these there was a host of works on various and widely differing
subjects, generally referred to Orpheus, of the majority of which we
only possess the titles. The following list of such works is taken from
Lobeck (op. cit., pp. 361-410). [Page
28]
LIST
OF WORKS
1. Amocopia (Άμοκοπία)
: a title of unknown meaning. Perhaps it signifies the' Art of the Good
Shepherd' (Άμνοσκοπία ἀμνὸϛ)
meaning ‘a lamb,’and σκοπία ‘watching’;
or it may mean 'divination by sheep'.
2. The Argolid (Άργολικά)
: probably an epic poem.
3. The Argonauts (Άργοναυτικά):
the famous Argonautic Expedition.
4. The Laws of the Stars (Άστρονομικά).
5. The Bacchic Rites (Βακχικά).
6. On Plants (Περὶ Βοταων).
7. Agriculture (Γεωπονικά):
especially dealing with the influence of the moon. See no.11.
8. The Deposits (Διαθκαι):
see under heading 'Logia'.
9. The Net (Δίκτυον )
: see no. 28.
10. Twin Natures ( Διφυἣ ).
11. The Twelve Year Cycles (Δωδεκαετηρίδεϛ); Works
and Days (Έργα καὶ Ημέραι ),
the appropriate days for planting, etc; and The Calendar (Έφημερίδεϛ).
Such works were usually
referred to under the general title ' Agriculture' (περὶ γεωργίαϛ);
nor were they mere treatise on farming, but dealt with nature-workings
and the alchemy of the unseen forces of the world-envelope. Thus
the famous Book of Nabathaean Agriculture dealt with the worship of
the Babylonians. This book is stated by the Arabic translator — (A.D.
904), Abû -Bekr A'hmed ben 'Ali ben Wa'hschîjah el Kâsdani,
or the Chaldaean, to have been written in Nabathaean or ancient Chaldaic,
to have consisted of nine volumes, and to have been compiled by three
sages, between the first and last of whom elapsed no less than 18,000
years. (See Chwolsohn's Die Ssabier und der Ssabismus, 2.
vols., 8vo, Petersburg, 1856, ii.705.) This book dealt not only with [Page
29] agriculture but with religious worship, magical
rites and invocations, the occult powers of herbs and plants, etc.
(See Lucifer, xiii.381, art, 'Ssabians and Ssabianism'.) Moreover
we should recollect that the great hero in the Eleusinian Mysteries
was Triptolemus (Pliny, Hist. Nat., vii.56; Callimachus, Hymn,
in Cererem, 22.; Virgil, Georg., i.19), who was fabled
to have taught mankind 'agriculture', in other words all the arts
and sciences. He was the first priest of the Great Mother, to whom
she imparted all her mysteries. Triptolemus is generally represented
as mounted on a winged car drawn by serpents (Élite Céramographique,
iii.48-68 ; Gerhard, Auserles. Vasenbilder, tab. 41 sq.).
This is evidently a mythological reminiscence of the 'divine men'
who taught primitive humanity all its arts and sciences.
12. The Epigrams (Έπιγράμματα).
13. The Theogony (Θεογονία)
: the degrees of the divine emanation, or the genealogy of the divine powers.
14. The Enthronings
of the Great Mother (Θρονισμοὶ Μητρὣοι):
this refers to the mystic rite known as 'Incathedration', which Dion
Chrysostom mentions (Or., xii.387). The adepts (οἱ τελοντεϛ)
enthroned the candidate (τὸνμυούμενον)
and circled round him in a mystic dance. In the same passage Dion
speaks of the accompaniment of strange mystic sounds and alternations
of light and darkness — (πολλὣν δὲ ἀκοὑοντα τοιούτων, Φων ὣν σκότουϛ τε και φωτὸϛ ἐνάλλαξ αὐτῳ φαινομένων ).
It was no doubt a ceremony representing cosmic phenomena and their application
to spiritual development, the candidate representing the sun and the enactors
of the drama representing the planets; or in other words the glorification
of the conquering sun, or perfected aspirant, by the subordinate powers.
Proclus, in Plat. Theol. (vi. 13), speaking of the order to which
the Corybantic powers [Page
30] belonged,
writes: Plato, being persuaded by the mysteries, and by what is performed
in them, indicates concerning these unpolluted Gods........ In the Euthydemus
he makes mention of the collocation on a throne, which is performed in
the Corybantic mysteries.
15. Incensing (Θυηπολικό).
16. The Sacred Sayings (Ίεροὶ Λόγοι):
see under 'Logia'.
17 and 18. The Sacred
Vestiture (Ιεροστολικά),
and The Rite of the Girdle (Καταζ ωστικόν):
candidates on their initiation were invested with a band or cord. This
reminds us of the Brahmanical thread and Pârsi kusti. It may also
have reference to the symbolical draping of the temple statues.
19. The Descent into Hades (Κατάβασιϛ ἐϛ Άιδου )
:
20. The Earth-Regions (Κλίσειϛ Κοσμικαί)
: Astrologers assigned seven regions or 'climates' (climata, κλίσειϛ)
to the Earth. It has been suggested, however, that the proper reading is Κτίσειϛ Κοσμκαί which
would make the work treat of 'The Building of the Kosmos'.
21. The Corybantics (Κορυβαντικά):
probably having reference to the 'enthronings' and the myth of the Corybantes,
who guarded the cradle of the young Bacchus with circle dances and musical
sounds.
22. The Cup (Κρατήρ):
this was also the title of one of the Hermetic works. It is the Cup offered
by the Deity to the souls, from which they drink the wine of wisdom. This
may be compared with the symbology of the Grail Legend, and will be treated
of later on. It also refers to the World-Soul.
23. On Precious Stones (Λιθικά):
the nature and engraving of precious stones as talismans.
24. On
Myth-making (Μυθοποιϊα):
that is to say, the art and rules of the making of myths or sacred narratives. [Page
31]
25. Temple-Building (Νεωτευκτικά):
this reminds us of the famous 'canon of proportion' known to the temple-architects
of antiquity, but difficult now to discover (cf. M. Vitruvius Pollio, De
Architectura, ix).
26. The Art of Names (Όνομαστικά):
treating of the names of the gods and their interpretation.
27. The Orphic Oaths (Όρκοι Όρφικοί):
the oaths or pledges taken in the Mysteries.
28. The
Veil (Πέπλοϛ):
in the public processions of the Panathenaea this famous mystic Veil
or Web (cf. no.9) was borne aloft like the sail of a galley,
but this was only the symbol. Mystically it signified the Veil of the Universe
studded with stars, the many-coloured Veil of Nature (cf. Philo, De
Som., i, p. 92., vol. v, Pfeiff. — τὸ παμποίκιλον ὕφασμα, τουτονὶ τὸν κόσμον ).
This was the famous Veil of Isis, that no 'mortal' had raised, for
that Veil was the Spiritual Vesture of the man himself, and to raise
it he had to transcend the limits of individuality, break the bonds of
death, and so become immortal. Eschenbach (p. 5 I) is also quite
correct in referring this to the famous Net of Vulcan in which Mars and
Venus were taken, and the gods (cosmic powers) laughed in high Olympus.
Aristotle, quoting the Orphic writings, speaks of the 'animal born in
the webs of the net' (De
Gen. Anim.,II.i.613, c). Photius (clxxxv) tells us that the book
of Dionysius Aegeensis, entitled Netting (Δικτακά),
treated of the generation of mortals. And Plato himself (Tim., p. 1079,
F) likens the intertwining of the nerves, veins and arteries, to the
'net work of a basket' or a bird cage. Johannes
Protospatharius (Hes. Opp., V.777 says that: 'Homer calls Nature a
woman, weaving a web with purple threads ( our bodies with crimson fluids
[lit. blood]), or a marble loom (our bones).' And Hippolytus (De [Page
32] Antichr., iii.6, Fabr.) speaks of the
'warp and woof, the flesh woven by the spirit'. But all these are only
the lower correspondences of the real Web of Destiny, which resides
in the spiritual nature itself.
29. On Earthquakes (Περὶ Σεισμών).
30. The Sphere (Σθαϊρα).
31. Songs of Deliverance (Σωτήρια).
32. The Mystic Rites (Τελεταί):
see no. 34.
33 .The Triads (Τριαγμοί).
34. The
Hymns (Υμνοι):
these Hymns were used in the Mysteries, as may be seen from the following
arguments, which I have summarized from Taylor's introduction to The
Mystical Hymns of Orpheus (pp. xxxiv-xxxix).
Lycomedes
says that these Hymns were used in the sacred rites pertaining to Ceres,
i.e., the Eleusinia, an honour not accorded to the Homeric hymns, although
the latter were the more elegant. And this is borne out by Pausanias
(Attica,
xxxvii), who, stating 'that it is not lawful to ascribe the invention
of beans to Ceres,’ remarks: 'he who has been initiated into
the Eleusinian mysteries, or has read the poems called
Orphic,
will know what I mean.' Porphyry (De Abstinentia, iv) tells
us that beans were forbidden in the Eleusinia. Again,
Suidas informs us that the word τελετῄ signifies
a mystic sacrifice, the greatest and most venerable of all. This
word, or its cognates, occurs in nearly every Hymn, and Proclus (in Plat.
Theol. and in Comm. in Alcibiad.), whenever he speaks of the
Eleusinia, calls them the most holy 'Teletai' (ἁγιὡταται τελεταί)
. In fact, the Thryllitian MS. calls the Hymns 'Teletai', and Scaliger
remarks that they contain nothing but such invocations as were used in
the Mysteries. Moreover, Demosthenes (Or. c. Aristogit.) speaks
of 'Orpheus, our instructor in most holy Teletai'. Further, it is evident
from several of the Hymns that the rites enjoined in them were [Page
33] performed at night. Now
the lesser mysteries, or those in which the drama of the rape of Proserpine
was enacted, were performed at night, and Sallust (De Deis et Mundo,
iv) informs us that this drama represented the 'descent of souls' – which
mystic descent is said by Plato in the Republic (Bk. x) to take
place at midnight. From all of which I think it may be fairly concluded
'that these Hymns not only pertained to the Mysteries, but that they
were used in the celebration of the Eleusinian, which, by way of eminence
(κατ̓ἐξοχὴν )
were called The Mysteries, without any other note of distinction'.
And I may further add that this disposes entirely of the theory that
the Orphics had nothing to do with the Eleusinia proper.
35. The Physics ( Φυσικά):
not in our sense of the word. 'Those who investigated the hidden powers,
laws and sympathies of Nature were called Physici' (qui occultas rerum
naturalium vires rationesque et sympathias scrutantur, physici dici solent. -Lobeck,
op. cit., page 753).
36. The Oracles (Χρησμοί).
37. Oomancy (Ώοσκοπικά)
: divination by means of the eggs of certain birds. The white of the egg
was used by the clairvoyant priest as a mirror of futurity.
ALL
THAT IS LEFT TO US
Such are the titles of the
works classed under the vague heading 'Orphic'. Nearly all are known by
their title only, not a line of their texts remains, and scholars busy
themselves with ascribing even such scraps of the flotsam and jetsam from
the great wrecks of antiquity to some slightly known or entirely obscure
writer who compiled a work (also now lost) with a somewhat similar title.
The texts that do remain may be found in any Orphei Opera Omnia,
as, for instance, of Gesner, and consist of simply the Argonautica,
Hymni, Libellus [Page
34] de Lapidibus and some Fragmenta, on
all of which the brains of scholasticism have been employed more to prove
external illegitimacy than internal consanguinity. The Argonautica (not
to be confounded with the well-known poem by Apollonius Rhodius) contain
1,373 verses; the Hymns are generally given as eighty-six in number, nearly
all being very short; the Lithica consist of a 'proem' of ninety
lines, a 'hypothesis' of seventy-nine, and descriptions of twenty stones,
varying from 129 to four lines. The real Hymns of the Mysteries (whether
we possess correct translations of the actual Hymns in those now remaining
is extremely doubtful) were guarded with great secrecy (sub sancti silentii
sacramento commendata mystis — Gesner in Prolegg., p. xxvii).
Suidas says that the Lithica were included in the 'Teletai', that
is to say, had to do with the same rites, and we are told that such talismans
are without efficacy if not properly 'consecrated'. Students of the Kabalah
of the Jews and Chaldaeans, and of the Mantravidyâ of the Hindus,
will then very easily comprehend the connection between the 'hymns' and
'engraving' of talismans, and it may be further deduced, if it were not
immediately apparent, that the Hymns were of the same nature as the Mantras
of the Rig Veda.
“ORPHEUS” THE “INVENTOR”
From a consideration of the
titles and nature of the book ascribed to Orpheus, it is not surprising
to find him spoken of as the 'inventor' of all the arts and sciences, and
the father of civilization. He was the poet, the interpreter of the fates,
the master of the healing art and the inaugurator of mystic ritual. He,
therefore, invented the measures of sacred verse, he was the teacher of
Mantravidya; he discovered the alphabet, was the maker of hieroglyphics
and symbols; he wrote down the prophecies and oracles, and devised the
means of [Page 35] purifying
the soul and the body; he was the high priest of all mystic rites, the
king-initiator. What matter of surprise, then, is it that all such attainments
and such powers were summed up in the one word 'magic'.
“ORPHEUS” THE “MAGICIAN”
As
Apuleius (Apol.,
1.326)
says: 'They who study providence in human affairs with greater care
[than others] and approach the divine powers (deos) with
greater frequency, are vulgarly called magicians (Magos), as
were of old Epimenides and Orpheus, and Pythagoras and Ostanes.' And
Apollonius (Epp., xvi.390) says that the 'followers of
Orpheus should be called magicians (μάγουϛ)'.
Pausanias (vi.2.0) further cites an Egyptian opinion that 'Orpheus
was skilled in magic', and Dio, Maximus, Heraclides, Quintilian and
Macrobius, say that it was not the wild beasts that were charmed, so
much as that men of wild and unruly nature were brought back to a milder
form of life by Orpheus.
Euripides
(Cyclop.,
639) speaks of the 'spell of Orpheus' ( ἐπῳδὴ Όρφικὴ )
which the Satyrs desired to possess. It is a power that works of its
own will, like the 'thunder-bolt', and reminds us of Thor's Hammer, the
Miölnir, symbolized in the East by the Svastika , 
and recalls the Âgneyâstra,
the 'fire weapons', or magic powers, spoken of in the Purânas and
Râmâyana (see Wilson's Specimens of the Hindu Theatre,
i.297; and The Dream of Râvan, pp. 120-137).
These Astras or 'supernatural weapons' were the higher powers of that
art of which the lowest effects are seen in ‘hypnotic suggestion',
etc., and the science is known in Sanskrit as Astra-vidyâ
THE OPINIONS OF THE KABALISTS
It
will not be out of place to record here the opinions of [Page
36] three learned Kabalists on Orpheus. First, then, let
us summon Picus Mirandulanus into court (Opp., p. 106, ed. Basil.):
'Although
it is not permitted us to publicly explain the secrets of magic, which
we in the first place extracted from the Hymns of Orpheus, nevertheless it
will be of advantage to indicate their nature by hints drawn from the leading
ideas of his
aphorisms, in order to engage the attention of contemplative minds.
The names of the gods, of whom Orpheus sings, are not the titles of deceiving
demons but the
designations of divine virtues. Just as the Psalms of David are
admirably designed for the 'work' of the Kabalah, so are the Hymns of Orpheus
for natural magic. The
number of the Hymns of Orpheus [ ? 88] is the same as the number
by which the three-fold deity created the aeon, numerated under the form of
the Pythagorean
quaternary. He who does not know perfectly how to intellectualize
sensible properties by the method of occult analogy, will never arrive at the
real meaning of the Hymns of Orpheus. The Curetes of Orpheus are the same as
the powers
of Dionysius. The Orphic Typhon is the same as the Zamael of the
Kabalah. The Night
of Orpheus is the En Suph of the Kabalah', etc..
And
we may add that the Pseudo-Dionysius, whose works were the
source of mediaeval Christian mysticism, and were held in the greatest
reverence by Thomas Aquinas, Tauler and Meister Eckhart, were copied from
the order of the divine hierarchies as set forth by Plotinus, Jamblichus,
and Proclus, who all, through
Plato and Pythagoras, based themselves on Orpheus.
Next
Cornelius Agrippa of Nettesheim writes as follows in his Philosophia Occulta
(II.lviii.203):
'The names of celestial souls are many and diverse on account of their manifold
powers and virtues with regard to lower objects. Hence have they been
allotted the diverse [Page 37] names which the ancients used in their hymns and invocations. In this
connection we make remark that every soul of this kind is said, according
to the Orphic theology, to have a double virtue, polarized into an intellectual
and a vivifying
nature. Thus we find in the heavenly spheres the Cribronian Bacchus ( Λικνίτηϛ)
and the muse Calliope, and in the heaven of [fixed] stars Picionius (Περικιόνιοϛ)
and Urania. In the heaven of Saturn, Amphietus and Polyhymnia; in the
heaven of Jupiter, Sabasius and Terpsichore; in the heaven of Mars, Bassarius
and Clio,' etc.
Finally
Athanasius Kircher, in his explanation of the Isiaic Tablet, writes as
follows (Oed. Ae., iii.I23):‘All
this, Orpheus correctly and graphically described: 'Holy Lady, many-named,
sceptre bearer of the famous pole, thou, who holdest the midmost
throne of all; Lord,
who from the Bear holdest the seals of the nine!' And Hecataeus, quoted by
Clemens Alexandrinus, tells us that the polar plane was, among the Egyptians,
indicated by an ennead [ or hierarchy of nine], and Psellus
that the
all-embracing power of the Bear rules with nine holy seals.'
From
these opinions we learn that those who had a knowledge of occult
nature took a totally different view of the Orphic Hymns and writings
from the
mere scholiast,
philologer or archaeologist. It is further interesting to note
that Picus refers to the Psalms as having certain magical properties; in other
words, the Psalms were originally Songs of Initiation and invocations, like the
Mantras of the Rig
Veda. I was recently told at Rome by a learned priest, that a musician
had just re-discovered
the
ancient rhythm (called by the Hindus Svara) of the Psalms, that
although this was known to have existed in antiquity, no scholar had been able
to discover
it, but
that musical genius had at last come to the help of the incapacity
of scholarship. Moreover, that [Page
38] the old bulls of
the Pope had a certain rhythm, and without this rhythm none were
genuine. That is to say that the Pope when speaking ex
cathedra was supposed to be under
a certain afflatus or inspiration. [Page
39]
CHAPTER
4
GENERAL
REMARKS ON ORPHIC THEOLOGY
|
ORPHIC
SYMBOLISM
TAYLOR says that
the Grecian theology was first 'mystically and symbolically'
promulgated by Orpheus, and so at once goes to the root of
the whole matter. To understand that theology, therefore, we
must treat it from the point of view of mysticism and symbolism,
for no other method is capable of extracting its meaning. Moreover,
in this we only follow the methods and opinions of its own
adepts, for, as Proclus says: 'The whole theology of the Greeks
is the child of Orphic mystagogy; Pythagoras being first taught
the “orgies” of the gods ['orgies' signifying 'burstings
forth' or 'emanations', from [ὀργάω ]
by Aglaophemus, and next Plato receiving the perfect science
concerning such things from the Pythagorean and Orphic writings'
(quoted by Lobeck, page 723; who unfortunately gives no reference,
and so far I have not been able to discover the passage in
Proclus).
These symbolical
Orphic fables have for ages baffled the intelligence of rationalistic
literalists, and shocked the prudery of ecclesiastics who, erroneously
regarding the Jewish myths as actual realities, have fallen into
the same error with regard to the fables of Orpheus. Nonnus states
the simple fact in saying (Expos. in II Invect, c. xvii, 526): 'Orpheus
describes the series of powers, and the modes, energizings and
powers of being, by means of fabulous symbols; and these fables
he composes not without shameful [Page
40] obscenity'. This 'shameful obscenity' refers
to the stories of rape, incest, dismemberment, etc., of
the Gods, so familiar to us in Grecian mythology; all of which
things would be highly improper, if recited of men or anthropomorphic
entities, but which are at once removed from such a gross interpretation,
when understood as symbolical representations of the emanations
of divine and lesser powers, and the interactions of occult natures. It
is contrary to the most elementary ideas of justice to ascribe
thoughts and intentions to the ancient makers of these myths,
which only exist in the prurient minds and ignorant misconceptions
of posterity.
Thus we find Proclus (Theol., I. iv 9) writing, 'the
Orphic method aimed at revealing divine things by means of
symbols, a method common to all writers of divine lore (θεομυθίαϛ and
Plutarch (De Pyth. Orac., xviii), 'formerly
the wisdom-lovers exposed their doctrines and teachings in
poetical fictions, as, for example, Orpheus and Hesiod and
Parmenides'; and Julian, the so-called apostate (Or.,
vii.215 b), 'many of the philosophers and theologists were
myth-makers, as Orpheus', etc. In
the same Oration (217), he continues, 'concerning
the myths of the Mysteries which Orpheus handed down to us,
in the very things which in these myths are most incongruous,
he drew nearest the truth. For just in proportion as the
enigma is more paradoxical and wonderful, so does he warn
us to distrust the appearance, and seek for the hidden meaning'.
Philostratus also (Heroic., ii.693) asserts that,
in reading the disputes among the Gods in the Iliad,
we must remember that the poet 'was philosophizing in the
Orphic manner'; and Plutarch (De Daedal., Frag. IX.,
i.754) tells us that the most ancient philosophers have covered
up their teachings in a lattice-work of fables and symbols,
especially instancing the Orphic writings and the Phrygian
myths — 'that ancient natural science both [Page
41] among the Greeks and foreigners was
for the most part hidden in myths – an occult and mysterious
theology containing an enigmatical and hidden meaning — is
clear from the Orphic poems and the Egyptian and Phrygian
treatises'.
PHALLICISM
These
myths were not only set forth in verse and prose, but were also represented
pictorially and in sculpture in the Adyta of the temples. And though
it can be argued that in a pure state of society , in which the nature
and interaction of divine and lesser powers could be taught, such myths
and symbols could be understood without damage to morals, nevertheless,
in a degenerate age, when the meaning of these symbols
was forgotten, grave dangers arose, and the insanity of phallicism inoculated
its virus into the community. Of
such symbolical pictures and sculptures we hear of a number in antiquity,
and even today they are to be found in Hindu temples. Against such abuses
the Christian fathers, ignorant of the original intent, and seeing only
the evil effect (an effect due to the impure minds of the populace of
their day and not to the devisers of the myths) arrayed themselves. They
especially instanced a picture of Zeus and Hera in the temple of Samos,
which Chrysippus, the Stoic, long before their time, in the third century
B.C., had already explained as representing the reception of the divine
intellections (σπερματικοὺϛ λόγουϛ )
by primordial matter for the creation of the universe, 'for matter is Hera
and deity is Zeus'. (Cf. Clemens, Homil., V. xviii.667, and
Origen, Contra Celsum, IV. xlviii. 540, ed. Spencer.) And Eustathius
(ad.Dion V. I) quotes an Orphic fragment which speaks of 'the circle of
tireless glorious-streaming Ocean, which pouring round Earth clasps her
within the embraces of his circling eddies' — [Page
42] where Ocean represents the demiurgic Zeus and Earth
his consort Hera.
And
so we find Proclus (in Polit.,
p. 388) writing 'all that Homer says of the intercourse of Zeus and Hera
is stated theologically', that is to say symbolically and mystically. And
again (in Parm., ii.2.14, Cousin, vol. iv): 'Theologists symbolize
these things by means of “sacred marriages”. In brief the interaction
of Divine causation is mystically called “marriage”. And when they
see this interaction taking place among elements of the same kind, they
call it the “marriage” of Hera and Zeus, of Heaven and Earth, of
Cronus and Rhea; but when between lower and higher, they call it the marriage of
Zeus and Demeter; and when of superior with inferior they designate it
the marriage of
Zeus and Core.'
IDOL-WORSHIP
The statues in
the Mysteries were also of a symbolical character, and Zosimus
(V.41), in the fifth century, when relating the sack of Rome
by Alaric, king of the Visigoths, laments that, 'the statues
consecrated by the holy mysteries, with the downfall of these
mysteries, were soulless, and without efficacy'. The consecration
of such statues and symbols pertained to the art of theurgy,
which may throw some light on 'idol-worship'. And Proclus tells
us (in Crat., p. 2.8) that, 'the adepts placed such “organs” in
sympathetic relation with the gods, and held them (e.g.,
the shuttle, the sceptre and the key) as symbols of the divine
powers'. And Taylor, referring to the same passage of Proclus,
writes (Myst. Hymn., page 52., n.): 'Initiators into
the Mysteries, in order that sensibles might sympathize with
the Gods, employed the shuttle as a signature of separating,
a cup of vivific, a sceptre of ruling and a key
of guardian power. Hence Pluto, as guardian [Page
43] of the earth, is here said to be the
keeper of the earth's keys.' Perhaps students of the Tarot
may trace the signatures of the four suits in the above symbols.
Into such statues it was believed that a 'soul' or 'divine power'
entered, the technical term for such 'immixture' or 'insinuation'
(εἴσκρισιϛ)
being the same as that employed for the reincarnation of the
soul into a body. This may be compared to the Hindu theory of Â-vesha
and Â-veshana, which the western dictionaries explain as
'possession by devils', and the pandits as the taking possession
of a body by a soul, either that pertaining to the body, or that
of another person.
CLEMENS
ALEXANDRINUS ON SYMBOLISM
The
following quotations, from the Fifth Book of the Stromateis, or
'Miscellanies', of Clement of Alexandria, will throw some light on the
symbolical method of the ancients, and are all the more interesting as
the Church father brought them forward in an apology of the Christian scriptures
which, he said, were of a like nature. I use the translation of the Rev.
William Wilson, as found in Vol. XII of The Antenicene Christian
Library, as I have no text
of Clement handy. Thus he writes:’ “ Many rod-bearers there
are, but few Bacchi”, according to Plato' (cap. iii). That is to
say, there are many candidates, but few reach to real Initiation, and this
Clement compares with the saying: 'Many are called, but few chosen'. Then
he continues (cap. iv): 'Wherefore, in accordance with the method of concealment,
the truly sacred
Word, truly divine and most necessary for us, deposited in the shrine of
truth, was by the Egyptians indicated by what were called among them adyta,
and by the Hebrews by the veil. Only the consecrated – that is, those
devoted to God, circumcised in the desires of the passions for the sake
of love to that which is alone divine – were allowed access to them.
For [Page
44] Plato also thought it not lawful for “the impure
to touch the pure”.
'Thence the prophecies
and oracles are spoken in enigmas, and the mysteries are not exhibited incontinently
to all and sundry, but only after certain purifications and previous instructions.'
Thus he cites the various styles of writing practised among the learned
of the Egyptians: (i) the epistolographic; (ii) the hieratic which the sacred
scribes practise; and finally (iii) the hieroglyphic, divided into two
modes, (a) literal and (b) symbolic, which is further described as being
of three kinds. 'One kind speaks literally by imitation, and another writes as
it were figuratively, and another is quite allegorical, using certain enigmas'.
'All then, in a word, who
have spoken of divine things, both Barbarians and Greeks, have veiled the first
principles of things, and delivered the truth in enigmas, and symbols, and allegories,
and metaphors, and such like tropes.'
Later on he
instances Orpheus as follows: 'Now wisdom, hard to hunt, is the treasure of God's
unfailing riches. But those, taught in theology by those prophets, the poets,
philosophize much by way of a hidden sense. I mean Orpheus, Linus, Masaeus,
Homer and Hesiod, and those in this fashion wise. The persuasive style of poetry
is for them a veil for the many'. The
second paragraph of this horribly inelegant translation is to be explained by
the fantastic theory of several of the fathers, that the ancient poets of Greece
copied from the Hebrew prophets, and Pythagoras and Plato from Moses!
And though
Clement does not adduce much towards the spiritual interpretation of the Orphic
writings, he instances an example of natural interpretation as follows (cap.
vii) : 'Does not Epigenes, in his book on the Poetry of Orpheus, say [Page
45] that by the “curved rods” is meant ploughs;
and by the “warp”,
the furrows; and the “woof” is a figurative expression for
the seed; and that the “tears” of Zeus signify a shower; and
that the “parts” are, again,
the phases of the moon, the thirtieth day, and the fifteenth, and the new
moon, and that Orpheus accordingly calls them “white-robed”,
as being parts of the light ?
'Myriads on myriads of enigmatical
utterances by both poets and philosophers are to be found; and there are
also whole books which present the mind of the writer veiled, as that of
Heraclitus On Nature, who on this very account is called “Obscure”.
Similar to this book is the Theology of Pherecydes of Samos.' And
so also the work of Euphorion, the Causes of Callimachus and the Alexandra of
Lycophron.
'Thus also Plato, in his book On the Soul, says that
the charioteer and the horse that ran off – the irrational part,
which is divided in two, into anger and concupiscence – fall down;
and so the myth intimates that it was through the licentiousness of the
steeds that Phaëthon was thrown out'.
After
adducing many examples the famous Alexandrian continues (cap. ix):
'But, as
appears, I have, in my eagerness to establish my point, insensibly gone beyond
what is requisite. For life would fail me to adduce the multitude of those
who philosophize in a symbolical manner. For the sake, then, of memory and
brevity, and of attracting to the truth, such as the scriptures of the Barbarian
philosophy. 'For
only to those who often approach them, and have given them a
trial by faith and in their whole life, will they supply the
real philosophy and the true theology......
'They say that Hipparchus,
the Pythagorean, being guilty of writing the tenets of Pythagoras in plain
language, was [Page 46] expelled
from the school, and a pillar raised for him as if he had been dead. Wherefore
also in the Barbarian philosophy they call those 'dead' who have fallen
away from the dogmas, and have placed the mind in subjection to the carnal
passions.
'It was
not only the Pythagoreans and Plato, then, that concealed many things;
but the Epicureans too say that they have things that may not be uttered,
and do not allow all to peruse those writings. The Stoics also say that
by the first Zeno things were written which they do not readily allow disciples
to read without their first giving proof whether or not they are genuine
philosophers. And the disciples of Aristotle say that some of their treatises
are esoteric, and others common and exoteric. Further, those who instituted
the mysteries, being philosophers, buried their doctrines in myths, so
as not to be obvious to all. Did they then, by veiling human opinions,
prevent the ignorant from handling them; and was it not more beneficial
for the holy and blessed contemplation of realities to be concealed ? But
it was not only the tenets of the Barbarian philosophy, or the Pythagorean
myths, but even these myths in Plato (in the Republic,
that of Hero [? Er] the Armenian; and in the Gorgias, that of Aeacus
and Rhadamanthus; and in the Phaedo, that of Tartarus; and in the Protagoras,
that of Prometheus and Epimetheus; and besides these, that of the wars
between the Atlantini and the Athenians in the Atlanticum [or Cristias]
are to be expounded allegorically, not absolutely in all their expressions,
but in those which express the general sense.All
these we shall find indicated by symbols under the veil of allegory. Also
the association of Pythagoras, and the two-fold intercourse with the associates
which designates the majority, hearers (ἀκουσματικὶο),
and the others that have a genuine attachment to philosophy, disciples
(μαθεματικοὶ), [Page
47] yet
signified that something was spoken to the multitude, and something concealed
from them'.
From
all of this it is amply apparent that the method of allegory and symbol
was the rule of the ancient Theologists, and that, if we refuse to admit
their method, and endeavour to confine their meaning to the mere literal
superficial sense, we shall not only miss their whole intent, but do the
greatest possible violence to the best they have bequeathed to us.
SOME
STRIKING INSTANCES
OF ORPHIC SYMBOLISM
It will be interesting
here to adduce one or two instances of this Orphic symbolical method,
such as the 'swallowing', 'incest', and 'marriage' of the Gods. In
his Scholia on the Cratylus of Plato, Proclus writes:
'Orpheus says with divinely
inspired mouth, Jupiter swallows his progenitor Phanes, embosoms
all his powers, and becomes all things intellectually which Phanes
is intelligibly.' (Taylor, Myst. Hym., p.180.) The precise
meaning of which will become apparent when we come to treat of the
various orders of powers.
And again, in his Commentaries on the Timaeus,
Proclus writes (iv.267):
'Orpheus gave the Deity the name of the Manifestor
(Φάνητα – Phanes)
because he brought into manifestation ( ὡϛἐκφαίνοντα)
the noëtic monads ......... He also called him the Key of the
Mind....... On him the demiurgic power [Zeus, Jupiter] depends; that
is to say, as Plato explains it, that this power turns towards the
self-subsistent life [Phanes] and, to use the words of Orpheus, “leaps
upon” and “swallows” it,
at the bidding of “Night”.'
And this is further explained (ii.99)
in the sentence: [Page
48]
'Zeus [the demiurgic power] becomes one with
him [Phanes, the Manifestor, the “Third Logos”] in the midst of “Night”,
and, filled [with his essence] becomes the noëtic world in the
noëric order.'
I have ventured to use the terms 'noëtic'
and 'noëric' as less liable to misinterpretation than the usual
translations 'intelligible' and 'intellectual' ; for 'intellectual'
conveys to the ordinary mind a higher sense than 'intelligible',
whereas 'noëtic,' the equivalent of 'intelligible', is of superior
dignity, in platonic terminology, to 'noëric'.
And
so Orpheus sings:
'Thus, then, he [Zeus] swallowed the might of the
First-born [Phanes],
and held within his hollow belly the frame of all; with his members
he mingled the power and might of God.”'
In proof of this he cites
six fragments of Orpheus, further revealing the nature of the demiurgic
power, and its place in the order of emanation, as set forth by his
master Syrianus in his treatise, entitled Orphic Lectures.
He further states in his Commentaries on the Timaeus (V.313),
'the whole demiurgic activity of the gods has its end in rebirth (παλιγγενενσίαν )’ – a
subject that will be dealt with at length later on. Here it is only
necessary to remark that the 'swallowing' of Phanes by Zeus has its
direct correspondence in the re-incarnation of a human soul.
The Emperor
Julian (ap. Cyrill., ii.44, B, ed. Spanh.) also writes:
'The
Greeks were myth-makers, for they said that Cronus swallowed his sons,
and vomited them forth again, and they speak of incestuous marriages. For
Zeus was husband of his mother, and then became husband of the daughter
he had begotten by his mother as wife, and then after once coupling with
her gave her to another.' [Page
49]
Again Proclus, in this Commentary
on the Cratylus (Taylor Myst. Hymn., p. 188), writes:
'Ocean is said to have married Tethys, and Jupiter Juno, and the
like, as establishing a communion with her, conformably to the generation of
subordinate natures. For an according co-arrangement of the Gods, and a connascent
co-operation in their productions, is called by theologists marriage.
But this term 'marriage' can only be applied to the noëric and demiurgic
order and not to the noëtic. Therefore, in his Commentaries on the Timaeus (v.293),
he writes:
'So
he calls “Earth” the first “wife”, and her union with “Heaven” the first “marriage”.
But the term “marriage” cannot be applied to the noëric concourse of “Light” [Phanes] and “Night”.'
And
so also with regard to slaughter and quarrels, when applied to the Gods,
all must be taken in an allegorical fashion; 'for slaughter, when
applied to the Gods, signifies a segregation from secondary, and a conversion
to primary natures' (Taylor, Myst. Hymn., p. 91, n.).
Instances
of a like nature could be numerously multiplied, but enough has been
said to give the reader an idea of the nature of our task, and further
examples will be adduced as the treatment of the
subject permits.
THE
ONE GOD
If there is one doctrine more
insisted on than any other in the Orphic theology, it is that all the deific
orders and powers are but aspects of the One. It is entirely unnecessary
to enter here into a consideration of the comparative merits of monotheism
and polytheism. Both are true as facts, both are false as exclusive theories.
Nor was the doctrine above enunciated peculiar to the Orphics; it was the
common [Page 50] opinion
of all the better instructed of antiquity. All men worshipped that aspect
or those aspects of the One Deity, which were appropriate to their understanding
and suited to their religious needs. Thus we have worship of every kind,
from the praying wheel to the highest Samâdhi, from the eikon and
household image to the at-one-ment of supernal ecstasy. And yet God is
One.
In order
that this statement, which cannot be challenged by the educated, may recommend
itself to those of less information, I shall here set down a few quotations
out of a very large number.
In
speaking of the Orphic theology, Taylor writes ( Myst. Hymn., xxv)
:
'The
peculiarity ............ of this theology, and [that]
in which its transcendency consists is this, that it does not
consider the highest God to be simply the principle of beings,
but the
principle of principles, i.e., of deiform processions
from itself, all which are eternally rooted in the unfathomable
depths of the immensely great source of their existence, and
of which they may be called super-essential ramifications,
and super-luminous blossoms' ”.
It is quite true that
the quaint diction of Taylor is likely to offend those who are not
trained in Neoplatonic terminology, and that minds deeply steeped in
materialism will be repelled by the sublime metaphysics of mystical
religion, but the blame should lie rather with the poverty of our language
in fitting expressions than with one who had no fit materials to build
with.
Just as the Eastern disciple, in his mystic exercises, gradually removes
all attributes from the concept of Deity, and blends into the essence
of the Divine, so did the Orphic student and Neoplatonist approach the
contemplation of the Divine by a method of elimination. Thus Simplicius
(in [Page 51] Epictet.),
one of the victims of the Justinian persecution, and one of the group
of seven brilliant intellects which crowned the line of the Later Platonists,
writes as follows:
'It is requisite
that he who ascends to the principle of things should investigate whether
it is possible there can be anything better than the supposed principle;
and if something more excellent is found, the same enquiry should again
be made respecting that, till we arrive at the highest conceptions,
than which we have no longer any more venerable.
'Nor should we stop in our ascent till
we find this to be the case.
For there is no occasion to fear that our progression will be through an
unsubstantial void, by conceiving something about the first principles
which is greater than and surpasses their nature. For it is not possible
for our conceptions to take
such a mighty leap as to equal, and much less to pass beyond the dignity
of the first principles of things.'
On which Taylor again quaintly
but justly remarks:
'If
it is not possible, therefore, to form any ideas equal to the dignity
of the immediate progeny of the ineffable, i.e., of the
first principles of things, how much less can our conceptions reach
the principle of these principles, who is concealed in the superluminous
darkness of occultly initiating silence.'
So
clearly was it the case that the 'Heathen' possessed in its fulness the
idea of the 'One God', that the Church fathers were put to great shifts
to explain it away. For instance, Justin Martyr, in keeping with his absurd
theory of 'plagiarism by anticipation', asserts that Orpheus, Homer, and
Solon, had visited Egypt and become saturated with the Mosaic books (Cohort.
ad Graec., 15, c; xv.77, Grab.). To this
end he cites several Orphic fragments, among them the remarkable Hymn,
'I will speak it forth to the initiate; close the doors, ye profane,' etc.,'and
the famous couplet: [Page
52] 'Zeus, Hades, Helios, Dionysus, are one; one God
in all.'
Cyril in his onslaught on Julian, the Emperor Neoplatonist (Contra Jul.,
i.25), quotes the same passage to the same end. In this connection see Thomas
Taylor's Arguments of the Emperor
Julian against the Christians (1809), translated from the Greek fragments
preserved by Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. This
small volume of ninety-eight pages was 'privately printed at the expense of Mr.
Meredith, who destroyed, for fear of persecution, the entire impression with
the exception of five or six copies which he had given away. For one of these
copies he in vain offered £100.' The present writer is the fortunate possessor
of one of those copies.
Aristobulus (c.180 B.C.), the Jew, whose crack-brained theory was that the whole
of Grecian philosophy was taken from the books of Moses, quoted by Eusebius (Praep.
Ev., xii. 12, p. 664), cites the longest fragment of Orpheus referred to,
to show that he taught 'the God over all'.
Clemens Alexandrinus, in his Cohortatio ad Graecos (vii.63),
calls this lengthy fragment, 'I will speak it forth', a 'palinode of truth'.
Now a palinode is a 'recantation', and the learned father would have his readers
believe that Orpheus recanted the whole of his theology in favour of this one
monotheistic tenet – which suggestion is both misleading and absurd.
Didymus, head of the Catechetical
School of Alexandria in the fourth century, in his treatise De Trinitate,
cites the opinion of the Greeks on One God, quoting from some now unknown
poets, 'There is one God, the highest king of all,' etc.; 'Of
his own will God supports all things, the immortal,' etc.; 'The
source and fountain of life,' etc. (op. cit., III.ii.322,
323; xxi.402, et alibi).
And so also in the Sibylline Oracles we read (i.25) : 'There is one God, who
sends the rain, and the winds', etc. And another Oracle, preserved by Eusebius
(Praep. Ev, III. xv . [Page
53] 125, d), asserts in answer to the question, who was Apollo,
that he is 'Helios, Horus, Osiris, King Dionysus, Apollo, the dispenser of seasons
and times, of winds and showers, handling the reins of the dawn and star-spangled
night, lord of the stars and their shining; fire that never dies'.
Julian again (Or.,
iv .245, c) in speaking of altars in Cyprus raised in common to Zeus, Helios
and Apollo, quotes the verse: 'Zeus, Hades, Helios, Serapis, all are one'.
Socrates again, in his Ecclesiastical History (iii.23), records an oracle
which identifies Attis, Adonis and Dionysus.
Natalis Comes (II. vi.150) cites the verses: 'Pluto, Persephone, Demeter, Cypris,
the Loves, the Tritons, Nereus, Tethys and Poseidon, Hermes and Hephaestus, far-famed
Pan, Zeus and Hera, Artemis, and far-working Apollo — all are one God.'
Ausonius (Ep. xxviii)
quotes another oracle: 'I am the Osiris of Egypt, the Phanaces of the Mysians,
Bacchus among the living, with the dead Aïdoneus, fire-born, two-horned,
titan-slaying Dionysus.'
And Nonnus (Dionys., xl.400) sings of: 'Star-robed Hercules, king of fire,
world-leader, called Belus on the Euphrates, in Libya Ammon, Apis on the Nile,
in Arabia Cronus, Zeus in Assyria.'
These and many more passages could be cited to show that names were of little
moment to the theologists of antiquity, who were all profoundly convinced that
'Brahman is one, no second'. Thus Malela and Cedrenus (Lobeck, op.cit.,
479) in speaking of the orders of the Orphic Gods, declare that all these powers
are the 'single power and single might of the only God, whom no one sees'.
Simplicius (Phys. Ausc., ii.74, b) declares that Plato in the Laws asserts
that 'God is all things'; and Macrobius (Sat., i.23) further states that
'the [intellectual] sun is all things', [Page
54] that is to say, the sun as a 'wholeness' (ὁλότηϛ),
and to that end he quotes Orpheus, who apostrophizes the sun as 'all-producer,
thou All of golden-light and ever-changing colours'.
Fischer
in his notes on Plato's Critias (viii.
189) quotes an anonymous verse, which is by some attributed to Orpheus:
'There is one God. There is one co-existence with God — Truth.'
And Jamblichus,
or whoever was the writer of the De Mysteriis (llI. xix), asserts
that 'God is all things, is able to effect all things, and fills all
things with himself, and is alone worthy of sedulous attention, esteem,
the energy of reason and felicitous honour'; on which Taylor comments
that 'God is all things causally, and is able to effect all things. He
likewise does produce all things, yet not by himself alone, but in conjunction
with those divine powers which continually germinate, as it were, from
him, as from a perennial root. Not
that he is in want of these powers to the efficiency of his productive
energy, but the universe requires their co-operation, in order to the
distinct subsistence of its various parts and different forms.' (Taylor's
Jamblichus On the Mysteries,
p. 166, n.)
From
the above it is plainly evident that the tenet of the One God was not
only not peculiar to Judaism, but that the ideas of the instructed heathen
on the subject were more elevated than the tribal ideas of the Old Testament.
But this is explainable by the fact that the God and gods of the populace
were adapted to popular comprehension, whereas the more elevated ideas
on Deity were reserved for those who were fit to receive them. Thus it
was that the doctrine of One God was included in those 'mystic utterances'
(μυστικοὶ λόγοι)
the full explanation of which was for many years kept secret; and perhaps
wisely so, for the partial [Page
55] publication of the truth
has led to that rivalry, oppression and exclusiveness, which have marked
the fanatical path of those religionists who have sought to impose their
limited individual view of Deity on the rest of the world.
THE MONADOLOGY OF ORPHEUS
Another
important point to bear in mind in studying the Orphic theology, is that
the whole system is fundamentally a monadology, and if this is not clearly
seized, much difficulty will be experienced in fitting the parts into the
whole.
The first writer
who drew attention to this important tenet in modem times was Thomas Taylor,
and so far as I know, no scholar has added to his researches. I shall therefore
append here the most important passages in his books on this subject, advising
my readers to carefully think out what he says, and this not in a material
but in a mystic manner.
'Another and
still more appropriate cause may be assigned of each of the celestial
Gods being called by the appellation of so many other deities, which is this,
that, according to the Orphic theology, each of the planets is fixed in a luminous
ethereal sphere called a ὁλότηϛ ,
or wholeness, [ 'Each
of these spheres is called a wholeness,
because it contains a multitude of partial “animals” co-ordinate
with it.'] because it is a part with a total subsistence, and is
analogous to the sphere of the fixed stars [cf. Somnium Scipionis ,
with Macrobius' Commentaries]. In
consequence of this analogy, each of these planetary spheres contains a
multitude of Gods, who are the satellites of the leading divinity of the
sphere, and subsist conformably to his characteristics.' (Myst. Hymn., p.
xxviii.)
These 'wholenesses', therefore,
are something totally different from the physical planets, which are simply
their symbols [Page
56] in the starry vault. Their hierarchies have each
their appropriate dominant 'colour', and also their sub-colours contained
in the dominant. The whole has to do with the 'radiant egg' or 'envelope'
of the mystic universe, which has its correspondence in man. This is the
basis of real astrology,the
knowledge of which has been lost.
And again:
'In each of the
celestial spheres, the whole sphere has the relation of a monad, but the
cosmocrators ( or planets) are the leaders of the multitude in each. For
in each a number analogous to the choir of the fixed stars subsists with
appropriate circulations.' (Proclus on Timaeus, ii.270, where
the theory is much further developed.)
Here we have the idea of every monad
being a mirror of every other monad in the universe, and having the power
of giving to and receiving from every other monad. The monad, as monad,
is the 'same', or Self; the cosmocrators, or 'planets', in each are characterized
as the 'other'. The perfect number is ten. The triad contains the
intellectual hypostases; the hebdomad the formative or demiurgic powers.
From this it follows that each
of these 'planets', or 'spheres', contains its appropriate powers, which
are the same in the various spheres, and only differ from each other by
having a predominance of the characteristic of any particular sphere. As
Taylor says:
'From this sublime theory it follows that every sphere contains
a Jupiter, Neptune, Vulcan, Vesta, Minerva, Mars, Ceres, Juno, Diana, Mercury,
Venus, Apollo, in short every deity, each sphere conferring on these Gods
the peculiar characteristic of its nature; so that, for instance, in the
Sun they all possess a solar property, in the Moon a lunar one, and so
of the rest.' (Myst. Hymn., p. xxxii.) [Page
57]
And so in his explanation of
terms prefixed to his translation of Proclus On the Theology
of Plato (p.1xxx). he defines the monad in divine natures as 'that
which contains distinct, but at the same time profoundly-united multitude,
and which produces a multitude exquisitely united to itself.
But in the sensible universe,
the first monad is the world itself, which comprehends in itself all the
multitude of which it is the cause (in conjunction with the cause of all).
The second monad is the inerratic sphere. In the third place, the spheres
of the planets succeed, each of which is also a monad, comprehending an
appropriate multitude. And in the fourth and last place are the spheres
of the elements, which are in a similar manner monads. All these monads
likewise are denominated ὁλότητεϛ, wholenesses,
and have a perpetual subsistence.
Taylor
reproduces this passage from a note in his Theoretic Arithmetic (page
5), printed four years previously to his translation of Proclus on The
Theology of Plato.
He bases his definition principally on Proclus and Damascius.
Seeing also
that man is a mirror of the universe, man contains all these powers in
himself potentially. If it were not so, the possibility of the attainment
of wisdom and final union with the Divine would be an empty dream. What
these 'powers' are may be seen from the following outline of Orphic Theogony.[Pages
58-59-60]
Chapter
5
GENERAL
OUTLINE OF ORPHIC THEOGONY
|
THE
ORDERS OF THE DIVINE POWERS
IN
order to understand the Ladder of the Powers and the emanation of
the hierarchies of Hellenic theology, it is necessary to study the
matter by the light of the perfected intellect and mystic insight
of the great Neoplatonic revival, and by the help of the karmic links
which united it to its Orphic source.
Thus
Maximus Tyrius writes: ‘You
will see one according law and assertion in all the earth, that there is
one God, the king and father of all things, and many gods, sons of God,
ruling together with him.' (The Dissertations of Maximus Tyrius, trans.
by Thomas Taylor, i.5.)
And Aristotle remarks (Metaph.,
XII. viii) : ‘Our ancestors and men of great antiquity have left
us a tradition, involved in fable, that the first essences are gods, and
that the Divinity comprehends the whole of nature. The rest indeed is fabulously
introduced, for the purpose of persuading the multitude, enforcing the
laws and benefiting human life. For they ascribe to the first essences
a human form, and speak of them as resembling other animals [living beings],
and assert other things similar and consequent to these. But if among these
assertions, anyone separating the rest, retains only the first, viz.,
that they considered the first essences to be gods, he will think it to
be divinely said; and it may be probably inferred that as every art and
philosophy has been invented as [Page
61] often
as possible, and has again perished, these opinions also of the ancients
have been preserved as relics to the present time. Of the opinions of our
fathers, therefore, and men of the highest antiquity, thus much only is
manifest to us'.
The above passage shows clearly
that Aristotle believed in the growth and decay of many civilizations before
his own time and also in the persistent tradition of religion through them
all.
Taylor sums up the emanation of primal principles or monads, setting
forth the septenary order of primal essences as follows (Proclus on
the Theol. of Plato, pp. x, xi); 'According to this theology,
therefore, from the immense principle of principles, in which all things
causally subsist, absorbed in super essential light, and involved in unfathomable
depths, a beauteous progeny of principles proceed, all largely partaking
of the ineffable, all stamped with the occult characters of Deity, all
possessing an overflowing fulness of good. From these dazzling summits,
these ineffable blossoms, these divine propagations, being, life, intellect,
soul, nature, And
body depend: monads suspended from unities, deified nature proceeding from
deities'.
These are the roots and summits
of the manifested Universe; each a monad from which all of its kind proceed;
all beings proceeding from the one Being, etc., and all bodies from the
'vital and luminous' Body of the Universe.Thus
we have a septenary scale:
1.The Ineffable
|
|
|
| |
2. Being |
|
| |
3. Life |
|
| |
4.Intellect |
|
| |
|
5.Soul |
| |
|
6.Nature |
| |
|
7.Body |
[Page
62] Here we have a monad and two triads, which may very
well be symbolized by the two interlaced triangles with the point in
the centre.
The order is further subdivided into Triads. Thus we get
(in The Select Works of Plotinus, Taylor, Introd., p. lxxi; Bohn's
ed.) :
THE
TRIADS
1. Primordial
2. Noetic ( θεοὶ νοητοὶ )
3. Noëtic and also
Noëric ( νοητοὶ καὶ νοεροὶ )
4. Noëric ( νοεροὶ )
5. Supercosmic ( ύπερκόσμιοι )
6. Liberated or Supercelestial
( ἀπόλυτοι ἢ ὑπερουράνιοι )
7. Cosmic ( ἐγκόιοι ).
The
numbers are only put for convenience and have no virtue or dignity in themselves;
2, 3, and 4, constitute
the Supersensible World (Sansk, Arûpa Loka), while 5, 6, and 7, constitute
the Sensible World (Sansk. Rûpa Loka). Each Triad is constituted according
to three hypostases: (a) Hyparxis (or Father), (b) Power (or Mother), and
(c) Mind (or Son). Zeus, the Demiurgic or Manifested Logos (the Brahmâ or
Ishvara of the system) is the 'Mind' of the Noëric Triad, and thus,
the Monad or Arche (Source) of all below. Therefore, to put it mathematically
and neoplatonically:
The Demiurge : Sensible World :: The One : Supersensible
World.
The
hypostases underlying each Triad subsist as (a) Being, (b) Life, and (c)
Intelligence; and so also with
regard to the first triad of orders (2, 3 and 4). Being 'abides', Life
'proceeds', and Intelligence 'returns' or 'converts'. These are the preservative,
creative, and regenerative (or destructive) powers of the Hindu Trimurti, or
Vishnu, Brahmâ and [Page 63] Shiva.
The Noëtic Order, therefore, must principally subsist as to Being; the
Noëtic and Noëric, as to Life; and the Noëric as to Intelligence — the
keynotes of the three supersensible orders being respectively permanent
Being, permanent Life, and permanent Intelligence. But each order in its
turn is likewise triple, and thus the Noeric is termed 'triply convertive'.
But to proceed more to detail.
THE
PRIMORDIAL TRIAD
This Triad is beyond our present
human conception, and is the reflection of that 'thrice-unknown darkness'
which is the veil of the Ineffable. As Taylor says (Myst. Hymns
of Orph., p. xxiv): ' According to the theology of Orpheus, all things
originate from an immense principle, to which through the imbecility and
poverty of human conception we give a name, though it is perfectly ineffable,
and in the reverential language of the Egyptians is a thrice-unknown darkness,
in the contemplation of which all knowledge is refunded into ignorance.'
For as Damascius writes (On First Principles): 'Of the first principle
the Egyptians said nothing, but celebrated it as a darkness beyond all intellectual
conception, a thrice-unknown darkness (σκότοϛ ἄγνωστον τρίϛ τουτο ἐπιφημίξοντεϛ).'
For indeed 'clouds and darkness are about Him', the brilliancy of the primal
veil being too strong even for spiritual sight. Thus it is 'darkness', but
darkness transcending the strongest light of intellect. The first Triad, which
is manifestable to intellect, is but a reflection of, or substitute for, the
Unmanifestable, and its hypostases are: (a) The Good, which is superessential;
(b) Soul (the World-Soul), which is a self-motive essence; and (c) Intellect
(or the Mind), which is an impartible, immovable essence. But we are still
in the region of transcendent ideality, or rather of that which [Page
64] transcends all ideals. The matter is one of great difficulty,
and will be dealt with at length only when the present writer attempts an essay
on the Theosophy of Proclus. Let us now pass on to
THE
NOËTIC TRIAD
The type underlying the triadic
hypostases is what Plato calls (a) Bound, (b) Infinity, (c) Mixed; these
being posterior to The One or The Good. Now this Mixed is also called Being
(Proclus' Theol. of Plato, Taylor, p. lix), or rather the Triad
Bound, Infinity, and Mixed subsist in Being or Life (ibid., i.179).
Now the Mixture requires three things, Beauty, Truth, and Symmetry (ibid.,
176), and all these are found in the Vestibule of The Good (ibid.,
177, but subsist primarily as to Symmetry (ibid., 180). This mixture,
then, is the ideal Kosmos or Order (Symmetry) of the Universe.
Each
Triad of the Noëtic
order is in its turn triadic, and Bound, Infinity and Mixed are the first
Triad; (a) Bound is the same with Hyparxis, Father and Essence; (b) Infinity
with Power; and (c) Mixed with Noëtic (or Intelligible) Life, the
first and highest order of Gods; or, in other words, the essential characteristics
of the trinity are (a) to be or to abide, (b) to live, and (c) to energize
intellectually.
But,
says Proclus in his Scholia (On the Cratylus of Plato, op. cit.,
add. notes, p. iii): 'Of the intelligible [noëtic] Gods the first
genera, which are conjoined with the one itself, and are
called occult, have much of the unknown and ineffable. For that which is
perfectly apparent and effable cannot be conjoined with the perfectly ineffable,
but it is requisite that the progression if intelligible [the Noëtic
Order], should be terminated in this order, in which there is the first
effable [the prototype of the Third or Manifested Logos] , and that which
is called by proper names. For the first forms are there, and [Page
65] the
intellectual nature of intelligibles there shines forth to the view.'
This
is the third triad of the Noëtic Order; the ‘intellectual nature
of intelligibles' meaning that the third triad has in it the nature of
the Mind or Intelligence, the root of the Noëric Order, whereas the
first and second triad are emanated severally according to Hyparxis and
Power — the
three severally corresponding to Father, Mother and Son.
Proclus
then continues: 'But all the natures prior to this being silent and occult,
are only known by
intelligence. Hence the whole of the telestic art energizing theurgically
ascends as far as to this order.' That is to say, that these orders belong
to the contemplation of the higher Mind ('intelligence') alone. Man must
be at one with the Mind if he would know these ineffable orders. And even
to ascend to the last of the Noëtic Order requires the practice of
theurgy, the equivalent of the Yoga-art of Indian mystics. Ishvara, the
Logos, is only to be known in Ecstasis or Samâdhi.
And
so of this third triad or Logos, Proclus writes (ibid.): 'Orpheus
also says that this is first called by a name by the other Gods: for the
light proceeding from it [Fohat in Northern Buddhism, Daivi-prakriti with
the Vedântins] is
known to and denominated by the intellectual [ noëric ] orders. But
he [Orpheus] thus speaks, “Metis bearing the seed of the Gods, whom
the Gods above lofty Olympus call the illustrious Phanes Protogonus”.
With
regard to this Light, or Life (the active power of Deity), Proclus quotes
the Oracle in which the Powers exhort us 'To understand the fore-running
form of light', and thus explains it: 'For subsisting on high without form,
it becomes invested with form through its progression; and there being
established occultly and uniformly, it becomes apparent to us through motion,
from the Gods themselves; [Page
66] possessing indeed an efficacious energy, through a divine
cause, but becoming figured through the essence by which it is received.'
It
would be difficult to find a clearer statement with regard to this sublime
cosmogony. But as Taylor admirably remarks in his Introduction to the Parmenides of
Plato (Plato's
Works, vol. iii): 'He then who is able, by opening the greatest eye
of the soul, to see that perfectly which subsists without distinction,
will behold the simplicity of the intelligible [noëtic] triad, subsisting
in a manner so transcendent as to be apprehended only by a super-intellectual
energy, and a deific union of the perceiver with this most arcane object
of perception. But since in our present state it is impossible to behold
an object so astonishingly lucid with a perfect and steady vision, we must
be content, as Damascius well observes [see Excerpta a Damascio,
a Wolfio, p. 232.], with a far-distant, scarcely attainable, and most obscure
glimpse; or with difficulty apprehending a trace of this light, like a
sudden coruscation bursting on our sight.'
Those
are the 'flashes' of illumination spoken of by Plotinus, the lightning
glances of 'Shiva's Eye'. This illumination is sometimes referred to as
the opening of the 'third eye', which is said to have its 'physical basis'
in the pineal gland, now atrophied in the vast majority of mankind.
If
then we would obtain such a sight we must 'open the greatest eye of the
soul', says Taylor (ibid.), 'and entreat this all-comprehending deity to
approach: for then, preceded by an adorned Beauty, silently walking on
the extremities of her shining feet, he will suddenly from his awful sanctuary
rise to our view'.
But even then what human words can reveal the vision
what phrases can tell how the One becomes Many, how the [Page
67] Unity
becomes Multiplicity ? For to use a Pythagorean phrase, this transcendent
object is 'void of number'. As
Damascius says (ibid.,
p. 228): ' And since this is the case, we should consider whether it is
proper to call this [the Noëtic Triad] which belongs to it [the Ineffable]
[a] simplicity (ἁπλότηϛ )
[b] something else, multiplicity ( πολλότηϛ ),
and [c] something besides this, universality (παντότηϛ ).
For that which is intelligible [noëtic] is one, many, all, that
we may triply explain a nature which is one. But how can one nature be one and many?
Because many is the infinite power of the one. But how can
it be one and all? Because all is the every way extended
energy of the one. Nor yet is it to be called an energy, as if it
was an extension of power to that which is external; nor power, as an extension
of hyparxis abiding within; but again, it is necessary to call them three
instead of one for one appellation, as we have often testified is by no
means sufficient for an explanation of this order.And
are all things here [in the Noëtic Triad] indistinct? But how can this
be easy to understand ? For we have said that there are three principles
consequent to each other: viz., father
power, and paternal intellect. But these in reality are neither
one nor three nor one and at the same time three. But it is
necessary that we should explain these by names and conceptions of this
kind, through our penury in what is adapted to their nature, or rather
through our desire of expressing something proper on the occasion. For
as we denominate this triad one, and many, and all,
and father, power, and paternal
intellect, and again bound, infinite and mixed – so
likewise we call it a monad, and the indefinite duad, and
a triad,
and a paternal nature composed from
both these. And as in consequence of purifying our conceptions we reject
the former appellations, as incapable of harmonizing with the things themselves,
we should likewise reject the latter on the same account.' [Page
68]
In brief, all words fall miserably short of the reality;
the understanding of these highest realms is reserved for seers and prophets;
philologers and sophists are without these precincts. Nor
was the Noëtic Triad
a fiction of the later Platonists, for the same Damascius (On First
Principles, see Wolfi Ancedot. Graec., iii.252) traces it
back to Orpheus as follows: 'The theology contained in the Orphic rhapsodies
concerning the intelligible [noëtic] Gods is as follows: Time is symbolically
placed for the one principle of the universe; but Aether and Chaos
for the two posterior to this one; and Being, simply considered, is represented
under the symbol of an Egg. And this is the first triad of the intelligible
[noëtic] Gods. But
for the perfection of the second triad, they establish either a conceiving
or a conceived Egg as a God, or a white garment, or a cloud; because from
these Phanes leaps forth into light. For indeed they philosophize variously
concerning the middle triad. But Phanes here represents intellect. But
conceiving him over and above this, as father and power, contributes nothing
to Orpheus. But they call the third triad Metis as intellect, Ericapaeus
as power,
and Phanes as father. But sometimes the middle triad is considered
according to the three-shaped God, while conceived in the Egg; for the
middle always represents each of the extremes, as in this instance, where
the Egg and the three-shaped God subsist together. And here you may perceive
that the Egg is that which is united; but that the three-shaped and really
multiform God is the separating and discriminating cause of that which
is intelligible. Likewise
the middle triad subsists according to the Egg, as yet united; but the
third according to the God who separated and distributes the whole intelligible
order.'
Damascius tells us that this was the 'common and familiar Orphic
theology'. We therefore get the following diagram [Page
69] of the Noëtic Triad, according to the Orphics, classified
according to Father (F.), Power (P.), and Intellect (I.).
|
Unaging Time, the First Principle, produces
|
|
The Noëtic Triad
|
(F.)
|
(f.) |
Aether |
| (p.) |
Chaos |
| (i.) |
Egg |
| (P.) |
(f.) |
Egg containing |
The Triple
God |
| (p.) |
| (i.) |
| (I.) |
(f.) |
Phanes |
| (p.) |
Ericapaeus |
| (i.) |
Metis |
Damascius
further tells us in the same place that, according to Hieronymus and
Hellanicus, the Orphic theogony described the third principle symbolically
as being 'a Dragon naturally endowed with the heads of a Bull and a Lion,
but in the middle having the countenance of the God himself'.This Power
was portrayed with golden wings and denominated Time and Hercules. It
was the Karmic Ruler of the Universe, for 'Necessity resides with him,
which is the same as Nature, and incorporeal Adrastia, which is extended
throughout the universe, whose limits she binds in amicable conjunction'.
This fourfold Power corresponds to the Lipika of the Stanzas of Dzyan.
It is sufficient here to point to the vision of Ezekiel and the 'four
living creatures'. 'They four had the face of a man, and the face of
a lion, on the right side; and they four had the face of an ox on the
left side; they four also had the face of an eagle. Thus were their faces: [Page
70] and their wings were stretched upwards; two wings
of every one were joined one to another, and two covered their bodies'
(i. 10, I I ). Later on we shall return to
this interesting symbolism.
Thus Phanes (the 'Manifestor') is called the'
Animal Itself' (Proclus, Theology of Plato, VI. xvi), and also the
Fore-father of the Demiurge, for, as we shall see later on, Zeus (the demiurge)
is the last Power of the Noëric Triad, and as such the last Power
of the Supersensible World; whereas Saturn (his Father) is the first Power
of the Noëric Triad, the paternal monad, who is the son of Phanes
(the third Power of the Noëtic Triad) — Phanes evolving Saturn
by means of the intermediate Triad, that acts as Power or Mother to the
Paternal or Noëric
Triad. We now come to the middle Triad of the Supersensible World, the
Noëtic
and at the same time Noëric Triad, which depends from Phanes as its
Monad or Arche.
THE
NOËTIC-NOËRIC TRIAD
This
is by far the most difficult Triad to deal with, for it partakes both of
the Noëtic and Noëric
Triad, and yet is neither. As Damascius remarks of the Orphic theologians,
'indeed they philosophize variously concerning the middle triad'. Its dominant
characteristic is that it subsists according to Life or Power.
As Proclus
tells us (Theol. Plat., IV. iii; Taylor, i.231: 'In the intelligible
and at the same time intellectual [i.e., the noëtic-noëric]
order, each triad has essence, life and intellect; one indeed intelligibly
and at the same time intellectually, but more intelligibly, so far as it
is in continuity with the first intelligibles; the other intellectually
and intelligibly, but more intellectually, because it is proximately carried
in intellectuals; and another according to an equal part, as it [Page
71] comprehends in itself both the peculiarities. Hence
the first triad, that we may speak of each, was in intelligibles [the noëtic
order] bound, infinity, and essence; for essence was that which was primarily
mixed. But here [in the noëtic-noëric order] the first triad
is essence, life and intellect, with appropriate unities.'
It would be too long to follow
out this interesting subject in the present place, and so we must reserve
it for another occasion.
Each member of the Triad is, in its turn, triadic.
The first subsists according to essence, life and intellect. The second subsists
according to infinity, or infinite power, for the power of the cause which
is generative of being, is infinity (loc. cit., p. 167).Thus
its characteristic is intelligible life, 'the proceeding' (loc. cit.,
p. 182). It is further said to be 'parturient with multitude and the origin
of separation' (loc.
cit., p. 181 ). The third subsists according to intelligible intellect.
It is said to be 'all perfect' and 'folds into light in itself, intelligible
multitude and form' (ibid.). It 'converts the intelligible end to
the beginning and converts the order in itself', therefore it is called
'the returning' (loc. cit., p. 182).
The
Orphic Uranus, or Heaven, is placed in this Order, for Proclus tells us
that: 'Plato himself in the Cratylus ,
following the Orphic theologies, calls the father indeed of Jupiter [the
Demiurge], Saturn, but of Saturn, Heaven' (loc. cit., IV. v). Uranus
is the Mind or Intellect of this order. Thus Phanes is the Forefather,
or Great-Grandfather; Uranus the Grand-father; and Saturn, the Father of
the Demiurge, who is, in his turn, the 'Father of all' ; the two latter
belonging to the Noëric Order.
Now there are certain spheres or firmaments
pertaining to this Triad. Thus the ‘Arch' which separates the Noëtic
Order from the Noëtic-Noëric Order is called the 'Supercelestial [Page
72] Place', the 'Plain of Truth', or the 'Kingdom of
Adrastia' ( op. cit., IV. iv). Whereas
the 'Celestial Arch' or 'Heaven' is in the midst of the Triad; and the
basis or firmament which separates this Order from the Noëric Order
is called the 'Subcelestial Arch'. (See Taylor's 'Concise Exposition of
Chaldaic Dogmas according to Psellus', in his Collectanea, of articles
in the European and Monthly Magazines, p. 39, note).
This
Plain of Truth is referred to by Maximus of Tyre in the following beautiful
passage (Dissertation
I, 'What God is according to Plato'):
'This is indeed the enigma of
the Syracusian poet (Epicharmus ),
'Tis mind alone that sees and hears”.
'How,
therefore, does intellect see, and how does it hear? If with an erect and
robust soul it surveys that incorruptible light, and is not involved in
darkness, nor depressed to earth, but closing the ears, and turning from
the sight, and the other senses, converts itself to itself. If
forgetting terrene lamentations and sighs, pleasure and glory, honour and
dishonour, it commits the guidance of itself to true reason and robust
love, reason pointing out the road, and presiding love, by persuasion and
bland allurements, alleviating the labours of the journey. But to intellect
approaching thither and departing from things below, whatever presents
itself is clear, and perfectly splendid, and is a prelude to the nature
of divinity, and in its progression, indeed, it hears the nature of God,
but having arrived thither, it sees him. The
end, however, of this journey is not Heaven, nor the bodies it contains
(though these indeed are beautiful and divine, as being the accurate and
genuine progeny of divinity, and harmonizing with that which is most beautiful),
but it is requisite to pass even beyond these, till we arrive at [Page
73] the Supercelestial Place, the Plain of Truth, and
the serenity which is there;
“Nor clouds, nor rain, nor winter there are
found,
“But
a white splendour spreads its radiance round”.
(Odyss., iv.566;
vi.43, sq.)
'Where
no corporeal passion disturbs the miserable soul, and hurls her from contemplation
by its uproar and tumult.'
Plutarch
in his Morals ('On
the Cessation of Oracles', xxii) recounts a conversation which one of his
friends had with a certain mysterious stranger (see my article 'Plutarch's
Yogi', Lucifer, ix.296), who spoke of a certain symbolical triangle
as follows: 'The area of the triangle is the common hearth of all, and
is called the Plain of Truth, in which the logoi and ideas and paradigms
of all things which have been and which shall be, lie immovable; and the
Eternity [lit., aeon] being round them [sci., the ideas], Time flows down
upon the world like a stream. And the sight and contemplation of these
things is possible for the souls of [ ordinary] men only once in ten thousand
years [i.e.,
at the end of a certain cycle], should they have lived a virtuous life. And
the highest of our initiations here below is only the dream of that true
vision and initiation; and the discourses [sci., delivered in the mysteries]
have been carefully devised to awaken the memory of the sublime things there
above, or else are to no purpose'.
But we must leave this deeply interesting theme and turn our attention to
THE
NOËRIC TRIAD
The peculiarity of the
Triad is that each member is subdivided into a hebdomad or septenary.
The Triad consists primarily of Father (F.), Mother or Power (P.), and
Son or Intellect (I.), viz. : [Page74]
(F.) Cronus
(P.) Rhea
(I. ) Zeus
— that is to say, of (a) a
noëtic paternal monad, constituting seven such monads; (b) a
monad of life, constituting seven vivific monads; and (c) of a monad
of intellect, constituting seven demiurgic monads.
But conjoined with Rhea
there is another triad called the Curetic or Unpolluted Triad, for their
Powers are pure and virgin according to their name (from κόροϛ =
virgin), each of the triad being also hebdomadic. These may be compared
to the Kumâras of Hindu mythology (the word kumâra also
signifying virgin), who were also seven in number. The permutations and
combinations are worked out by Proclus (Theol. of Plato, V.ii) and
the final result comes to seven septenaries or forty-nine – the forty-nine
'Fires' of The Secret Doctrine.
As Proclus says (Theology
of Plato, V .iii) : 'Plato, following Orpheus, calls the inflexible and
undefiled triad of the intellectual [ noëric] Gods Curetic, as is evident
from what the Athenian guest says in the Laws, celebrating the armed sports
of the Curetes, and their rhythmical dance. For Orpheus represents the Curetes,
who are three, as the guards of Jupiter [Zeus]. And the sacred laws of the
Cretans, and all the Grecian theology, refer a pure and undefiled life and
energy to this order. For τό κόρον, to koron,
indicates nothing else than the pure and incorruptible. Hence we have before
said that the mighty Saturn [Cronus], as being essentially united to the
cause of undefiled purity, is a pure intellect.The paternal Gods [Cronus,
Rhea, Zeus] therefore are three, and the undefiled Gods [the Curetes] also
are three. Hence it remains that we should survey the seventh monad.'
This 'seventh monad' is, however, not named, for it has [Page
75] to do with the mystery of the 'fabulous exections' (i.e.,
ex-sections or 'cuttings off', dismemberment), for Plato thought 'that such like
narrations should always be concealed in silence, that the arcane truth of them
should be surveyed, and that they are indicative of mystic conceptions, because
these things are not fit for young men to hear'. This seventh monad is called
the 'separative deity' and has to do with what has been called the 'Secret of
Satan'. But Plato 'assents to such opinions being narrated to those who are able
to penetrate into the mystic truth, and investigate the concealed meaning of
fables, and admits the separation of wholes whether (mythologists) are willing
to denominate them exections for the purpose of concealment, or in whatever other
way they may think fit to call them'.
And there we must leave the subject for the present. The Goddess Rhea stands
between her father and husband Saturn, and her son and husband, Jupiter. She
is 'the stable and united cause of all intellectuals, and the principle and original
monad, abiding in herself, unfolding into light all intellectual multitude, and
again convolving it into herself and embosoming her progeny' (Ioc. cit.,
xi). She is therefore said to stand in the midst between the two fathers (Saturn
and Jupiter) 'one of which collects, but the other divides intellectual multitude'
(ibid.). This symbolized the polarizing force of the Third Logos, the
fohatic action of the creative energy.
The noëric Curetic triad depends on the Mother Rhea, who is then called
Core (the Virgin Mother). And her reflection in the next order is Minerva clad
in the breastplate of righteousness, just as are the Curetes.
Of Jupiter the Demiurge it would be too long to speak in this place, for it would
be necessary to analyse the Timaeus of Plato, and, more important still,
Proclus' Scholia on the [Page
76] Timaeus,
a task which must be postponed until we treat of the Theosophy of the Greeks
according to Proclus. Jupiter is the Demiurge or last monad of the Noëric
Order and so of the Supersensible World; he is the 'father of Gods and men'.
THE
SUPERCOSMIC TRIAD
This is again triadically
subdivided. Thus we get (a) a paternal or ruling triad, (b) a vivific
triad, and (c) a convertive triad, or:
| (a) |
Jupiter - Celestial Jupiter |
| Neptune - Marine Jupiter |
| Pluto - Suberranean Jupiter |
| (b) |
Coric or Virginal Diana |
The Corbybantic Triad |
| Coric or Virginal Proserpine |
| Coric or Virginal Minerva |
(c) Apollo
The Triple Sun |
Divine or Superessential Light |
| Intellectual Light (Truth) |
| Sensible Light |
The
last triad is called the Apolliniacal triad, and for further details the
reader is referred to Proclus (Theol. of Plato, Taylor, ii.43, 44).
The first triad is referred
to as the 'Sons of Saturn' and they all 'energize demiurgically'.
'With respect to the
allotment and distribution of them, in the first place it is according to
the whole universe, the first of them producing essences, the second lives
and generations, and the third administering formal divisions. And the first
indeed establishing in the one demiurgus all things that thence proceed;
but the second calling all things into progression; and the third converting
all things to itself. In the [Page
77] second
place, the allotment and division of them are according to the parts of
the universe. For the first of them adorns the inerratic sphere, and the
circulation of it; but the second governs the planetary region, and perfects
the multiform, efficacious, and prolific motions in it; and the last administers
the sublunary region, and intellectually perfects the terrestrial world'
(loc. cit.,
p. 34).
These are
correspondences to the Supercelestial, Celestial and Subcelestial Regions
in the Supersensible World, and will be mentioned again later on.
Thus
much for the paternal or ruling triad of the Super-cosmic or Supermundane
Order. Next, and in the midst, we have the vivific triad, consisting of
three zoogonic monads, divided in their turn according to hyparxis, power
and vivific intellect, and named respectively Coric Diana, Coric Proserpine,
and Coric Minerva.
Of these three Proserpine is pre-eminently designated
Core, and attached to her, as the Curetes are attached to Rhea, is a triple
order of Corybantes (from κόρον =
purity). And Proclus
referring to this order (loc. cit., p. 49), says: 'The mystic
tradition of Orpheus makes mention of these more clearly. And
Plato being persuaded by the mysteries, and by what is performed in them,
indicates concerning these
unpolluted Gods. And in the Laws indeed he reminds us of the inflation
of the pipe by the Corybantes, which represses every inordinate and tumultuous
motion. But in the Euthydemus, he makes mention of the collocation on
a throne, which is performed in the Corybantic mysteries, just as in
other dialogues he makes mention of the Curetic Order, speaking of the
armed sports of the Curetes. For they are said to surround and to dance
round the demiurgus of wholes, when he was unfolded into light from Rhea.
In the intellectual Gods [the noëric order], therefore, the first [Page
78] Curetic order is allotted its hypostasis. But
the order of the Corybantes which precedes Core (i.e., Proserpine),
and guards her on all sides, as the theology says, is analogous [in
the supercosmic order] to the Curetes in the intellectual [noëric]
order.'
Last in order comes the Apolliniacal Triad; the physical sun
or rather 'sensible light' being the last member of the triad.
This
Supercosmic Order is also called Assimilative, the reason for which
is set forth by Proclus (Ioc.
cit., p. 52.) as follows: 'Everything which is assimilative, imparts
the communication of similitude, and of communion with paradigms, to all
the beings that are assimilated by it. Together with the similar, however,
it produces and commingles the dissimilar; since in the images (of the
similar) the genus of similitude is not naturally adapted to be present,
separate from its contrary. If, therefore, this order of Gods assimilates
sensibles to intellectuals [i.e., the Sensible World to the Noëric
Order of the Supersensible World], and produces all things posterior to
itself according to an imitation of causes, it is indeed the first effective
cause of similitude to natures posterior to itself.'
For
some such reasons as the above the Supercosmic or Supermundane Order was
called the Assimilative. We are also told by Proclus in the same Book that
they were designated Principalities ( Άρχαὶ ),
the identical term used by Paul and Dionysius; Archangels and Angels corresponding
to the two following Orders, viz., the Liberated and Cosmic ( or
Mundane) Gods. We next, therefore, pass to the Liberated Order.
THE
LIBERATED ORDER
This Order is also called
Supercelestial and is conformed [Page
79] according to the dodecad. It is curious to remark
how the orders are enumerated. First 3, then 7; the 7 being a summation,
assimilation or juxtaposition of wholes, something intellectual or mânasic
(3 +4=7). Whereas among sensibles we come to multiplication, and division
into parts, and generation, and so have 12. (3 x 4= 12 ).
Thus Proclus (op. cit., VI. xviii) tells us that: 'Plato apprehended
that the number of the dodecad is adapted to the liberated Gods, as being
all-perfect, composed from the first numbers, and completed from things
perfect; and he comprehends in this measure all the progressions of these
Gods. For he refers all the genera and peculiarities of them to the dodecad,
and defines them according to it.. But again dividing the dodecad into
two monads and one decad, he suspends all (mundane natures) from the two
monads but delivers to us each of these energizing on the monad posterior
to itself, according to its own hyparxis.. And one of these monads indeed
he calls Jovian, but he denominates the other Vesta. He likewise makes
mention of other more partial principalities [than the assimilative or
supercosmic principalities), and which give completion to the aforesaid
decad, such as those of Apollo, Mars and Venus. And he suspends, indeed,
the prophetic form of life from the Apolliniacal principality; but the
amatory from the principality of Venus; and the divisive from that of Mars;
for hence the most total and first genera of lives are derived; just as
when he [Plato] introduces into the world souls recently fashioned, he
says that some preside over one, and others over another form of life.
And it appears to me, that as Timaeus makes the division of souls at one
time supermundane, but at another mundane, for he distributes souls equal
in number to the stars, and disseminates one into the moon, another into
the earth, and others into other instruments of time; after the [Page
80] same manner also Socrates prearranges twofold rulers
and leaders of them; proximately indeed the mundane Gods, but in a still
higher rank than these, the liberated Gods.'
I shall not apologize
for the many lengthy quotations which I am weaving into the present essay,
for I desire to clearly set forth, first, the opinions of the Greeks
themselves on their own religion; and secondly to place within ordinary
reach information that is at present hidden in rare and costly books,
which but few libraries contain.
From the above passages, therefore, we see that the Liberated Order
is not fully set forth. It is a dodecad, but only five of its members
are given. We shall, however, shortly see that the next Order, the
Cosmic or Mundane, also consists of a dodecad and that all its members
are named. It is, therefore, almost certain that we must find the prototypes
of the Mundane Gods in the Liberated Order. As far as our definite
information goes, however, the Liberated Gods are divided as follows:
|
Jovian Monad
|
Vestan Monad
|
The Decad
Completed by
|
|
Apollo or The Prophetic Life
|
|
Mars or The Divisive Life
|
|
Venus or The Amatory Life
|
The
Stemma of the Gods is completed by the Mundane Gods or:
THE
COSMIC ORDER
This is again a dodecad
and consists of four triads as follows (see Proclus, op. cit., VI.
xxii, and Taylor, Myst. Hymn. Orph., pp. xxxiii, and 171 note). [Page
81]
| Fabricative
Triad: Jupiter Neptune |
Vulcan |
| Defensive
Triad:Vesta
Minerva |
Mars |
| Vivific
Triad:Ceres Juno |
Diana |
| Harmonic
Triad: Mercury
Venus |
Apollo
|
Fabrication
as applied to the first triad is explained as 'procession', and the
last triad is also called 'elevating' or 'anagogic'.
These
various Powers will be referred to later on; all that is at present attempted
is to present the reader with a chart, that will enable him to steer a
straighter course in the sea of Grecian mythology than he may have previously
supposed possible. It would be possible to give the correspondences between
this scheme of hierarchies and those of other religions, but the task would
be too long for the present essay. I shall, however, trespass on my readers',
patience so far as to append the Chaldaic scheme, for the following reason.
In The
Theosophist for
January, 1882 (Vol. III, No.4) appeared some valuable notes written down
by H. P. Blavatsky, entitled 'Notes on some Âryan-Arhat Esoteric
Tenets' (See A Modern Panarion, pp. 475-480), in which the tenets
set forth in such books as Esoteric Buddhism and The
Secret Doctrine are
referred to as the' Aryan - Chaldaeo - Tibetan' doctrine.
Elsewhere
these teachings are referred to as 'Pre-Vedic “Buddhism” '. Now as the
Chaldaic scheme is shown by Taylor to be identical with the Orphic, and
the ancient Chaldaic is stated to be closely related to the Pre-Vedic tradition
by the informant of H. P. Blavatsky, it is evident that the doctrine set
forth under the title 'Esoteric Buddhism' far antedate historical Buddhism
and pertain to the most ancient forebears of the Aryan race, and that Orpheus
in all probability got his information from these sources. [Pages
82,83,84]
As H. P. Blavatsky writes (loc.
cit. )
: 'There is reason to call the Trans-Himâlayan esoteric doctrine Chaldaeo-Tibetan.
And, when we remember that the Vedas came – agreeably to all traditions – from
the Mansarovara Lake in Tibet, and the Brâhmans themselves from the
far north, we are justified in looking on the esoteric doctrines of every
people who once had or still have them, as having proceeded from one and
the same source, and to thus call it the “Aryan - Chaldaeo - Tibetan” doctrine,
or Universal Wisdom Religion.'
And
now for a long quotation from Taylor, entitled 'A Concise Exposition of Chaldaic
Dogmas by Psellus' (Collectanea, pp. 38-43).
'They
assert that there are seven corporeal worlds, one empyrean and the first; after
this, three ethereal, and then three material worlds, [ 'These
are the inerratic sphere, the seven planetary spheres, and the sublunary region.'] the
last of which is said to be terrestrial, and the hater of life: and this
is the sublunary place, containing likewise in itself matter, which they
call a profundity. They are of opinion, that there is one principle of
things; and this they celebrate as the one, and the good. ['So
Plato.'] After this, they venerate a certain paternal
profundity, [ 'This
is called, by the Platonists, the intelligible [noëtic]
triad; and is celebrated by Plato in the Philebus, under the names of bound,
infinite,
and the mixed; and likewise of symmetry, truth, and beauty,
which triad, he says, is seated in the vestibule of the Good.'] — consisting
of three triads; but each triad contains father, power, and intellect.
After this is the intelligible Inyx, ['The Inyx, Synoches,
and Teletarchae, of the Chaldaens compose that divine order, which
is called, by the Platonists, the intelligible, and, at the same
time, intellectual
order [ the noëtic-noëric order] ; and is celebrated by Plato
in the Phaedrus, under the names of the supercelestial place, heaven,
and the subcelestial arch.']) then the Synoches,
of which one is empyrean, the other ethereal, and the third material. The
Teletarchae follow the Synoches. [Page
85] After these succeed the fontal fathers,[ 'The
fontal fathers compose the intellectual (noëric] triad of the
Greeks, and are Saturn, Rhea and Jupiter.' ] who are also called Cosmagogi,
or leaders of the world. Of these, the first is called once beyond,
the second is Hecate, and the third is twice beyond.
After
these are the three Amilicti [ 'The
three Amilicti are the same with the unpolluted triad or Curetes of
the Greeks. Observe, that a fontal subsistence means a subsistence
according to cause' ] ; and last of all, the Upezokus. They
likewise venerate a fontal triad of faith, truth, and love. They
assert that there is a ruling sun from a solar fountain, and an archangelic
sun; that there is a fountain of sense, a fontal judgment, a thundering
fountain [sound], a dioptric [that which lends assistance to vision] fountain
[colour], and a fountain of characters, seated in unknown impressions.
And, again, that there are fontal summits of Apollo, Osiris and Hermes.
They likewise assert that there are material fountains of centres
and elements; that there is a zone of dreams, and a fontal soul. [This
fontal plane reminds us of the Vedantic Kâranopâdhi or plane of causal
limitation.]
'After
the fountains, they say the principles [ 'These
principles are the same with the Platonic supermundane order of
Gods'. ] succeed:
for fountains are superior to principles. But of the vivific [ 'The
vivific triad consists, according to the Greek Theologists, of Diana, Proserpine,
and Minerva.'] principles, the summit is called Hecate, the
middle, ruling soul, and the extremity, ruling virtue. They
have likewise azonic Hecatae, such as the Chaldaic Triecdotis, Comas,
and Ecklustike.But
the azonic [ 'The
azonic Gods are the same with the liberated order of the Greek Theologists,
or that order which is immediately situated above the mundane Gods.']
Gods, according to them, are Serapis , Bacchus, the series
of Osiris, and of Apollo. [Psellus is here giving the equivalent
names in other systems – names more familiar to the Greeks than the
Chaldaic originals. ] These Gods are called azonic, because they rule without
restraint [Page 86] over
the zones, and are established above the apparent Gods. But
the zonic Gods are those which revolve round the celestial zones, and rule over
sublunary affairs, but not with the same unrestrained energy, as the azonic.
For the Chaldaens consider the zonic order as divine; as distributing
the parts of the sensible world; and as begirdling the allotments about the material
regions.
The inerratic circle
succeeds the zones, and comprehends the seven spheres in which the stars
[planets] are placed. According to them, likewise, there are two solar worlds;
one which is subservient to the ethereal profundity; the other zonaic,
being one of the seven spheres.
'Of
human souls, they establish a twofold fontal cause; viz., the paternal
intellect,[ 'The Jupiter of
the Greeks, the artificer of the universe.'] and the fontal soul ['Called
by the Greeks, Juno.'] : and they consider partial ['That
is, such souls as ours.' ] souls, as proceeding from the
fontal, according to the will of the father [the Pitri-Devatâ]. Souls
of this kind, however, possess a self-begotten, a self-vital essence: for
they are not like alter-motive natures. Indeed, since according to the
Oracle, a partial soul is a portion of divine fire, a splendid fire, and
a paternal conception, it must be an immaterial and self-subsistent essence:
for everything divine is of this kind; and of this the soul is a portion.
They assert too, that all things are contained in each soul [ monadology];
but that in each there is an unknown characteristic of an effable and ineffable
impression. They are of opinion, that the soul often descends into the
world [reincarnation ] through many causes; either through the defluxion
of its wings, [ 'So Plato: see my translation of the Phaedrus.'] or through
the paternal will. [That is, through Karma, either (a) because there is
not strength to escape from the things of sense, or (b) because the father-soul [Page
87] (Higher Ego) sends its son (Lower Ego) back to earth
to reap the karmic results of its deeds.] They
believe the world to be eternal, as likewise the periods of the stars.
[This is the idea of manvantaric eternity.] They multifariously distribute
Hades, at one time calling it the leader of a terrane allotment, and at
another the sublunary region. Sometimes they denominate it the most inward
of the ethereal and material worlds; at another time,[ 'Hades
is with great propriety, thus called: for the rational, when giving itself
up to the dominion of the irrational soul, may be truly said to be situated
in Hades, or obscurity.'] irrational
soul. In this, they place the rational soul, not essentially, but according
to habitude, when it sympathizes with, and energizes according to partial
reason. [Hades therefore embraces the kâmalokic
and devachanic sphere of the Esoteric Philosophy — Hades simply meaning
the “Unseen” (sensible)
World].......
'With
respect to these dogmas, many of them are adopted by Plato [ 'Indeed,
he who has penetrated the profundity of Plato's doctrines, will find that
they perfectly accord with these Chaldaic dogmas; as is everywhere copiously
shown by Proclus.'] and
Aristotle; but Plotinus, Porphyry, Jamblichus, Proclus, and their disciples,
adopt the whole of them, and admit them without hesitation, as doctrines
of a divine origin'.
Michael
Constantinus Psellus lived in the eleventh century, was called the Prince of
Philosophers ( φιλοσόφων ὓπατος),
and was the most learned and voluminous writer of his age. The Chaldaean
Oracles are not to be considered merely in their Greek dress, but pertain
to a genuine Chaldaic tradition.
As
Taylor says (op. cit.,
p. 35):
'That they are of Chaldaic origin and were not forged by Christians
of any denomination, as has been asserted by some superficial writers is
demonstrably evident from the following considerations: in the first place,
John Picus, Earl of Mirandula [the famous Kabalist], in a letter to Ficinus, [Page
88] informs him that he was in possession of the Oracles
or Zoroaster in the Chaldaean tongue, with a commentary on them,
by certain Chaldaean wise men.' He also adduces the commentaries of the
Neoplatonists upon these Oracles, who certainly were not friendly to Christianity.
It is all the more probable that the Oracles they commented upon were genuine,
seeing that they exposed the forgeries of a number of false revelations
ascribed to Zoroaster 'by many Christians and heretics who had abandoned
the ancient philosophy'. The ascription of these Oracles to Zoroaster in
the Chaldaean MS. of Picus
is exceedingly interesting as it brings the old Avesta religion (so strongly
resembling the old Vedic system), into line with the Aryan
- Chaldaeo - Tibetan doctrine.
I
do not flatter myself that any but a very few readers will take a vital
interest in the difficult exposition attempted in this chapter. There are,
however, a few who will be struck with the startling resemblances between
the Orphic and Chaldaic traditions of Theogony and the Cosmogenesis of
the Stanzas of Dzyan. These students will at once see the common basis
of the three traditions, and will admit that the establishment of this
point is well worth the labour expended. Here we have simply the exoteric
traditions. The 'under-meaning' ( ὑπόνοια )
has never been fully revealed; and this not because of any jealous exclusiveness,
but simply because no human language can paint the inconceivably rapid
transmutations of primal vital processes. Moreover, it is absolutely impossible
to convey to one who is not possessed of spiritual sight, phenomena and
noumena that have never fallen under his observation.
Having thus presented
the reader with an Outline of the traditional Orphic Theogony, we will
proceed to fill in a few details. [Page
89]
Chapter
6
Some Cosmogonical Details
|
A KEY TO THE MULTIPLICITY OF THE POWERS
IF
we imagine to ourselves the seven colours of the spectrum, the result of
the breaking up of a ray
of pure sunlight by means of a triangular prism; and if we further imagine
each of these seven rays being split up into seven subdivisions, resembling
the seven parent rays, but each ray retaining its dominant tint in all
its seven subdivisions — then we shall obtain a clue that will
aid us in grasping the intricacies of the permutations and combinations
of Nature-Powers. As this is a most important subject and as, without
a thorough grasp of the theory, the Orphic Theogony and Cosmogony would
remain an unintelligible chaos, I append a most valuable passage from
Proclus' Comment on the Timaeus,
Book IV (Taylor, ii.281, 282):
'Each
of the planets [ ? “planetary
chains”] is a whole world, comprehending in itself many divine
genera, invisible to
us. Of all these, however, the visible star has the government. And in
this, the fixed stars differ from those in the planetary spheres, that
the former [the fixed stars] have one monad [the sphere of fixed stars],
which is the wholeness of them; but that in each of the latter [planetary
spheres] there are invisible
stars [“globes”],
which revolve together with their spheres; so that in each, there is both
the wholeness, and a leader [the “planetary”] which is allotted
an exempt transcendency. For the planets being secondary to the fixed stars, [Page
90] require a twofold prefecture, the one more total,
but the other more partial. But that in each of these, there is a multitude
co-ordinate with each, you may infer from the extremes.
For if the inerratic sphere [of fixed stars] has a multitude co-ordinate
with itself, and earth is the
wholeness of terrestrial, in the same manner as the inerratic sphere is
of celestial animals [the “sacred animals” — the stars
being ensouled], it is necessary that each [intermediate] wholeness, should
entirely possess certain partial animals [“globes” or “wheels”]
co-ordinate with itself; through which also they are said to be wholenesses.
The intermediate natures, however, are concealed from our sense [are invisible],
the extremes [the spheres of fixed stars (or suns) and visible planets]
being manifest; one of them through its transcendently luminous essence,
and the other through its alliance to us. If
likewise, partial souls [“globes”] are disseminated about them,
some about the sun [the substitute of an invisible planet], and others about
the moon [also a substitute], and others about each of the rest [the visible
planets], and prior to souls, daemons [daimones] give completion to
the herds of which they are the leaders, it is evidently well said that each
of the spheres is a world; theologists also teaching us these things when
they say that there are Gods [cosmocratores, cosmagogi] in each prior to
daemons, some of which are under the government of others. Thus, for instance,
they assert concerning our mistress the Moon, that the Goddess Hecate is
contained in her, and also Diana. Thus too, in speaking of the sovereign
Sun, and the Gods that are there, they celebrate Bacchus as being there,
“The
Sun's assessor, who with watchful eye surveys
“The
sacred pole”.
'They likewise celebrate
the Jupiter who is there, Osiris, the Pan, and others of which the books
of theologists and [Page
91] theurgists are full; from all which it is evident that
each of the planets is truly said to be the leader of many Gods, who
give completion to its peculiar circulation.'
On this luminous commentary of
Proclus, Taylor appends an excellent note, which I have already twice partially
referred to, but which I now give in full to impress the theory upon the
mind of the reader.
'From
this extraordinary passage, we may perceive at one view why the Sun
in the Orphic hymns is called Jupiter, why Apollo is called Pan,
and Bacchus the Sun; why the Moon seems to be the same with Rhea,
Ceres, Proserpine, Juno, Venus, etc., and in short why any
one divinity is celebrated with the names and epithets of so many
of the rest. For from this sublime theory it follows that every sphere
contains a Jupiter, Neptune, Vulcan, Vesta, Minerva, Mars, Ceres,
Juno, Diana, Mercury, Venus, Apollo, and in short every deity, each
sphere at the same time conferring on these Gods the peculiar characteristic
of its nature; so that for instance in the Sun they all possess a
solar property, in the Moon a lunar one, and so of the rest. From
this theory too we may perceive the truth of that divine saying of the ancients,
that all things
are full of Gods; for more particular orders proceed from such as are more
general, the mundane from the super-mundane, and the sublunary from the
celestial: while earth becomes the general receptacle of the illuminations
of all the Gods. “Hence”, as Proclus shortly after observes, “there
is a terrestrial Ceres, Vesta, and Isis, as likewise a terrestrial Jupiter
and a terrestrial Hermes, established about the one divinity of the Earth;
just as a multitude of celestial Gods proceeds about the divinity of the
heavens. For there are progressions of all the celestial Gods into the Earth;
and Earth contains all things, in an earthly manner, which Heaven comprehends
celestially. Hence we speak of a [Page
92] terrestrial
Bacchus and a terrestrial Apollo, who bestows the all-various streams of
water [psychic influence] with which the earth abounds, and openings prophetic
of futurity”. And
if to all this we only add, that all the other mundane Gods subsist in
the twelve above mentioned, and that the first triad of these is demiurgic or fabricative, viz.,
Jupiter, Neptune, Vulcan; the second, Vesta, Minerva, Mars, defensive;
the third, Ceres, Juno, Diana, vivific; and the fourth, Mercury,
Venus, Apollo, elevating and harmonic: I say, if we unite
this with the preceding theory, there is nothing in the ancient theology
that will not appear admirably sublime and beautifully connected, accurate
in all its parts, scientific and divine.'
THE
GODS AND THEIR SHAKTIS
Another important point
to remember is the androgynous nature of the Powers, symbolized as
male-female. This was probably the subject of the Orphic work which
I have called, in the list of works, Twin-Natures. It represents
the polarity or polarizing force of the Powers, and corresponds to
the Shaktis (powers or female aspects) of Hindu mythology. These twin
aspects correspond to Mind and Soul, and are explained by Taylor in
a note on Hymn IX addressed to the Moon (Myst.
Hymns, pp. 26, 27):
'Ficinus,
On the Theology of Plato (iv.128), has the following remarkable
passage, most probably derived
from some MS. Commentary of Proclus, or some other of the latter Platonists;
for unfortunately he does not acquaint us with the source of his information.
[It was evidently the same as that from which Cornelius Agrippa drew
his information; see Chapter III, “The Opinions of the Kabalists”.
] “The
professors (says he) of the Orphic theology consider a twofold power
in souls, and in the celestial orbs; the one consisting [Page
93] in knowledge, the other in vivifying and governing
the orb with which that power is connected. Thus
in the orb of the earth, they call the gnostic power Pluto, but the other
Proserpine. In water they denominate the former power Ocean, and the
latter Tethys. In air, that thundering Jove, and this Juno. In fire,
that Phanes, and this Aurora. In the soul of the lunar sphere, they
call the gnostic power Liknitan Bacchus, the other Thalia. In the sphere
of Mercury, that Bacchus Silenus, this Euterpe. In the orb of Venus,
that Lysius Bacchus, this Erato. In the sphere of the Sun, that Trietericus
Bacchus, this Melpomene. In the orb of Mars, that Bassareus Bacchus,
this Clio. In the sphere of Jupiter, that Sebazius, this Terpsichore.
In the orb of Saturn, that Amphietus, this Polymnia. In the eighth
sphere, that Pericionius, this Urania. But in the soul of the world
they call the gnostic power Bacchus Eribromius, but the animating power
Calliope. From all which the Orphic theologists infer, that the particular
epithets of Bacchus are compared with those of
the Muses, for the purpose of informing us that the powers of the Muses
are, as it were, intoxicated with the nectar of divine knowledge; and
in order that we may consider the nine Muses, and nine Bacchuses, revolving
round one Apollo, that is about the splendour of one invisible Sun”.
The greater part of this passage is preserved by Gyraldus in his Syntagma
de Musis,
and by Natales Comes in his Mythology, but without mentioning
the original author. As in each of the celestial spheres, therefore,
the soul of the ruling deity is of the female, and the intellect is of
the male characteristic, it is by no means wonderful that the Moon is
called in this hymn “female
and male”.'
The above information is of exceeding great interest as will
be seen by casting the eye over the table overleaf.
Now, who were the Muses ? Their
numbers are given [Page 94]
variously as three, seven,
and nine. They are generally said to be the daughters of Zeus and Mnemosyne,
Remembrance, or Memory (Hes., Theog., 52., etc., 915 ; Hom., II.,
ii.491, Od., i.10; Apollod., i.3, § I); whereas others call
them the daughters of Uranus, Heaven, and Gaea, Earth (Schol. ad Pind.
Nem., iii.I6; Paus. ix.29, § 2.; Diod., iv.7; Arnob., Adv.Gent.,
iii.37). That is to say, that the Muses were the powers of
remembrance or reminiscence of knowledge previously enjoyed by the soul in
past births. Thus they were called Mneiae) Remembrances (Plat. Sympos.,
ix.14). They were also said to be daughters of Uranus and Gaea, for such
knowledge or experience can only be obtained by Heaven and Earth 'kissing
each other', that is by reincarnation. They are [Page
95] always connected with Apollo, the
God of inspiration, who holds in his hand the seven-stringed lyre over
each of the strings of which one of the Muses presides. Thus Apollo
is called the Leader of the Choir of the Muses — Μουσαγέτηϛ (Diod.,
i.18).
The rôles commonly
assigned to these are as follows:
I. Calliope, the Muse
of epic poetry;
2. Clio, the Muse of history;
3. Euterpe, the Muse of lyric poetry;
4. Melpomene, the Muse of tragedy;
5. Terpsichore, the Muse of choral dance and song;
6. Erato, the Muse of amatory poetry;
7. Polymnia or Polyhymnia, the Muse of the sublime hymn;
8. Urania, the Muse of astronomy;
9. Thalia, the Muse of comedy.
It
is curious to remark the legend which tells us that the Seirens, having ventured
upon a contest of song with the nine sisters, were deprived of the feathers
of their wings, which the Muses subsequently wore as an ornament (Eustath. ad
Hom.,
p. 85; Hirt, Mythol. Bilderb., p. 203 sq.). This reminds us of the
contest of the Devas and Asuras over the senses, in the Upanishads. The
Asuras 'pierced' each of the senses with 'imperfection', so that a man
when he sees, sees both pleasant and unpleasant things, etc. The Seirens
are the allurements of the opened psychic senses, the Muses are the beneficent
and healthy use of the same powers. It is, therefore, not surprising to
hear that Orpheus was son of Calliope, for Calliope is the Shakti of the
World-Soul, and Orpheus was, therefore, fully illumined by the greatest
of the Muses.
The
name Muse (μοὓσα ; μάουσα from μάειν,
to 'strive after', etc.,) is 'referred to the emotion or passion, the “fine
frenzy”, implied in the verb in the usual sense “strive after” (μεμαώϛ,
excited), and in its derivatives, among which are counted μαίνεσθαι,
be in a frenzy, μανία,
frenzy, madness, [Page
96] μάντιϛ – ,
a seer, prophet, etc.' (The Century Dictionary, sub voc.) We prefer
the word 'inspiration' instead of 'frenzy' and 'madness'; the seers,
prophets, poets, sages, and philosophers, and great geniuses of the world,
are not 'mad' except for materialists.
Nor
should it surprise the reader to find Phanes located among the material
Orbs or Spheres. This Phanes
is the manifested material light, which has Aurora, the Dawn, for spouse,
and not the invisible Phanes, noëtic or 'intelligible' Light,
which has Night for consort.
THE
TWO CREATIONS
Another
idea to bear in mind, in studying Orphic cosmogony, is that there are
two creations, one intellectual
or ideal, and the other sensible or material. This idea is common to
almost all the great religions, and is especially worked out in the
Hindu Purânas.
These creations are, in Platonic language, called: (a) the creation of
wholes, and (b) the creation of parts. The first Fathers of wholes
subsist in the Noëtic Order, where is placed the ideal Paternal
Cause; this proceeds through the Noëric Order to the Demiurgus,
the last of the Order, Zeus, Jupiter, the 'Father of Gods and men';
whereas those Powers superior to Jupiter are 'Gods of Gods'. The
King of the first creation, 'according to Orpheus, is called by the
blessed immortals who dwell on lofty Olympus, Phanes Protogonus [the
First-born]'. (See the Scholia of Proclus on the Cratylus of
Plato; Taylor, Myst. Hymns, p. 166.) Olympus is the Celestial
Arch in
the Noëtic-noëric
Order (see Chart), and is the same as the Mount Meru of the Hindus.
And so, in his turn, 'the demiurgic
Zeus establishes two Diacosms, one the celestial, and the other the sub-celestial;
for which cause the theologist [Orpheus] says that his sceptre is [Page
97] four and twenty measures, since he rules over two
dodecads’.
(Proclus in Crat., p. 57; quoted by Lobeck, op. cit., p.
517.) And so also in his commentary on the Timaeus (ii.137), he
says: 'Phanes establishes two triads, and Zeus two dodecads.’
And Kircher
(Prodrom. Copt.,
pp. 173 and 275) shows plainly the idea with regard to the Egyptians
in the words: 'Heaven above, heaven below; stars above, stars below;
all that is above, thus also below; understand this and be blessed.’— ( Οὐρανὸϛ ἄνω, οὐρανὸϛ κάτω, ἄστρατρα ἄνω, ἄστρα κάτω,πἃν ὃ ἄνωτοτοὐ κάτω.)
The
distinction between the Sensible and Supersensible World, and between
the material and intellectual creations, must never be absent from
the mind in studying Grecian Theosophy.
The subject of the Triads is
also one of great interest, for it has to do with.
THE
TRINITY
A
glance at the Chart of the Powers will show how this idea runs through
the whole system. It is sufficient
here, however, to point out the correspondences between the Trinity of
(a) Being, (b) Life, and (c) Intellect, with (a)
the Purusha, or Âtman
proper, or Self, (b) the Shânta Âtman, or Self of Peace,
and (c) the Mahân Âtman or Great Self, of the Kathopanishad (ValIi
iii, Adhyâya i); he who is at one with the Mahân Âtman
being called Mahâtmâ, or Great Soul. Proclus, moreover, in
his Commentary on the First Alcibiades of Plato, tells us, that in the
Noëtic
Order the three hypostases are The Good, The Wise, The Beautiful. And
that in the Noëtic-noëric Order, the three are Faith, Truth
and Love. 'Love supernally descends from intelligibles to mundane concerns,
calling all things upward to divine Beauty. Truth, also, proceeds through
all things, illuminating [Page
98] all
things with knowledge. And lastly, Faith proceeds through the universe,
establishing all things with transcendent union in Good. Hence
the (Chaldaean Oracles assert, “that all things are governed by
and abide in these”.
And, on this account, they order Theurgists [Yogîs ] to conjoin
themselves to Divinity through this triad.' (See Taylor, Myst. Hymns,
page 118.) It is curious to remark that the three requisites for the
student of Brahma-vidyâ or
Yoga-vidyâ (Union with the Divine, in the Upanishads), are Shraddhâ (Faith),
Tapas (purification or Contemplation on Truth) and Brahma-charya (Service
of the Supreme or Action for Love of Deity); or, in other words, Faith,
Practice and Discipline.
The
above will give the reader some insight into the ethical side of this
great system. Now there are pre-eminently three Fathers or Kings in the
system (see Proclus on the Cratylus of
Plato) viz., (a) Uranus who is of the connective (preservative)
order, (b) Saturn who is of the Titanic (destructive) order, and (c)
Jupiter who is of the demiurgic (creative) order. Above all is the Great
Forefather Phanes (the Intellectual Prajâpati). But the subject
can be worked out infinitely, and so we must hurry on to
THE
QUATERNARY
Hermias writes (in Phaedr..,
page 137), 'Phanes is a tetrad, as Orpheus says, “with four eyes
gazing on every side” '. Proclus (in Tim., V.291), gives the Holy
Four as Phanes, Nox, Uranus and Saturn; and in the same book (V.303)
he quotes the strange phrase, from some ancient source, 'Phanes whom
the blessed ones called the First-born' ( ὅν τε Φάνητα πρωτόγονον μάκαρεϛ κάλεον).
The 'blessed ones' must surely mean the ancient Sages or Masters; but
this is by the [Page 99] way.
This is the Quaternary in the Super-sensible World, the primary creation;
but in the secondary, in the Sensible World Proclus also tells us (Comment.
on Crat. ; Taylor, Myst. Hymns, p. 171) : 'The Demiurgus
simply imparts to all things life (a) divine, (b) intellectual, (c) psychical,
and (d) that which is divisible about bodies.' And then he adds most
wisely: 'No one, however, should think that the Gods in their generations
of secondary natures, are diminished; or that they sustain a division
of their proper essence in giving subsistence to things subordinate;
or that they expose their progeny to the view, externally to themselves,
in the same manner as the causes of mortal offspring. ...Nay, but abiding
in themselves, they produce by their very essence posterior natures,
comprehend on all sides their progeny, and supernally perfect the productions
and energies of their offspring.'
Their essence is no more diminished
than the flame of a lamp, from which innumerable lamps may be lighted.
Proclus
(ibid., p. 175) also speaks of four intellects or minds: (a)
intelligible and occult intellect ( νοὓϛ νοητὀϛ ),
(b) that which unfolds into light ( ἐκφαντορικὸϛ νοὓϛ ),
(c) that which connectedly contains ( συνεκτικὸϛ νονὓϛ),
(d) that which imparts perfection ( τελεσιουργ ὸϛ νοὓϛ);
or in other words, (a) Phanes; (b) Uranus, Heaven; (c) Celestial Earth, or
Prime Matter; and (d) the Sub-Celestial Arch.
So also Rhea, Intelligent
Life, is the Mother of the fourfold Life, divine, intellectual, psychical
and mundane. The consideration of the Trinity and Quaternary naturally brings
us to the Septenary. Of this, however, we have little to say in the present
place, as the subject has to be taken up at greater length when treating
of Apollo's Seven-stringed Lyre. The hebdomads link on to the triads and
tetrads as follows: 'Heaven produces twofold monads, and triads and [Page
100] hebdomads equal in number to the monads,' the 'twice-seven'
of the Stanzas of Dzyan. And thus the forty-nine Powers of the Noëric
Order are generated.
ON
NATURE AND EMANATION
In completing our sketch
of some of the principal characteristics of Orphic Cosmogony, we must
not forget to say a word on Nature, a word which bears a meaning of
a very distinct character, differing widely from the loose and empty
term in our modern vocabularies. Proclus (in Tim., p. 4), informs
us that Nature is the last of the demiurgic causes of the Sensible
World; that is to say, he speaks of invisible Nature, or the subtle
or psychic body of the gross envelope of the World. This Body is full
of productive forms and forces, through which all mundane existences
are governed. She proceeds from the vivific Goddess Rhea. Through her ‘the
most inanimate beings participate of a certain
soul'. Thus in the Xth Hymn, Orpheus speaks of her 'turning the swift
traces of her feet with a swift whirling'. She depends on Rhea through
Minerva, the intellectual power of the zoogonic triad. Hence we learn
that, according to the Orphic theology, Minerva 'fashioned the variegated
veil of Nature from that wisdom and virtue of which she is the presiding
deity'.Thus it
is that Simplicius tells us (Comment. Arist. Phys., ii): 'That
one of the conceptions which we form of Nature is, that it is the
character of everything, and that in consequence of this, we employ
the name of it in all things, and do not refuse to say the nature of
souls, of intellect, and even of deity itself.' All of which is excellently
explained by Taylor (Myst. Hymns,
pp. 29-31), who in this connection lucidly describes the nature of emanation
as follows: ' All the Gods, according to this theology, though they proceed
by an ἄρρητοϛ ἔκφανσιϛ
or ineffable unfolding into light from the [Page
101] first principle of things, yet at the same time
are αὐτοτελεἳϛ ὑποστάσειϛ ,
or self-perfect, and self-produced essences.'
CYCLIC
PERIODS AND PRALAYA
To conclude this chapter,
it is necessary to refer to the idea of Cycles in the Orphic system.
The doctrine of alternate manifestations and re-absorptions (Manvantaras
and Pralayas) of the Universe is plainly set forth, as may be seen
from Le Grand (Dissert.
Crit. et Phil., p. 103) : 'To more clearly explain that septenary
referred to by Ficus of Mirandula in his conclusion on the Orphic doctrine
of the world, you should be informed that “the world-engine will
come to an end at the termination of the sixth age”. At the end of
the last two thousand years cycle, and in the seventh, the world will
come to an end. ...Orpheus calls these cycles Ages, in a prophecy which
Plato refers to, “After
the sixth age, the material cosmos will be burnt up”.
And Eusebius (Praep.
Ev.,XIII. .xii.688) has preserved the following verses of Linus:
'When the seventh light comes, the omnipotent Father begins to dissolve
all things, but for the good there is a seventh light also. For there
is a seven-fold origin for all things', etc..
And Proclus (ad Hes. Opp., 156),
speaking of the ages or races, says: 'The third race perished by the
flood; and then arose a sacred race of demigods that lasted for seven
or even eight races,’ ( τὸ τρίτον γένοϛ ἐξέλιπε διὰ τοὓ κατακλυσμοὓ υετὰ δὲ παρἣλθε ἱερὸν τὸ τϖν ἡυιθέων ἀρκέσαν ἐπὶ ἑπτὰ ἢ καὶ ὀκτὼ γενεάϛ.)
Here
we have clear evidence of the widespread tradition of the alternate destruction
of the world by water and fire; also the destruction of the' Atlanteans'
by the great flood, and the salvation of the 'divine race' which 'lasted
and will last till the end of the Cycle. But it is time to bring this
chapter to a conclusion. [Page
102]
Go
to Top of this page
Back to our On Line Documents
Back to our Main Page
A free sample copy of our bilingual
magazine can be sent to you. This offer is only good for a mailing
to a Canadian address. You have to supply a mailing address.
The Canadian
membership of $25.00 includes the receipt of four seasonal issues of our
magazine “The Light
Bearer” . If you are a resident of Canada send a note to enquirers@theosophical.ca requesting
a packet of information and your free copy of our magazine
For membership outside of Canada
send a message to the International Secretary in Adyar, India theossoc@satyam.net.in
For
a problem viewing one of our documents — or
to report an error in a document — send a note to the webmaster
at webmaster@theosophical.ca
We will try to answer any other query — if you would send
a note to info@theosophical.ca
This document is a publication
of the
Canadian Theosophical Association (a regional association of the Theosophical
Society in Adyar)
89 Promenade Riverside,
St-Lambert, QC J4R 1A3
Canada
To reach the President — Pierre Laflamme dial 450-672-8577
or Toll Free — from all of Canada 866-277-0074
or you can telephone the national secretary at 905-455-7325
website: http://www.theosophical.ca