Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T09:50:01.140Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RECONSTRUCTING ANCIENT CONSTRUCTIONS OF THE ORPHICTHEOGONY: ARISTOTLE, SYRIANUS AND MICHAEL OF EPHESUS ONORPHEUS’ SUCCESSION OF THE FIRST GODS*

(ON OTF 20 F IV; 98 T I–II; 167 F I, III; 170 F I, II; 174 FI–II; 219 F; 227 F I; 367 F)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2014

Mirjam E. Kotwick
Mirjam E. Kotwick*
Affiliation:
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich, Germany
*
mirjam.kotwick@klassphil.uni-muenchen.de
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the last decades Orphic scholarship has found itself in rather fortunatecircumstances: there have been not only spectacular finds such as the DerveniPapyrus and the so-called Orphic Gold Tablets, but these texts together with allthe other fragments ascribed to the authoritative author-figure Orpheus havebeen made accessible in the new and extensive edition by AlbertoBernabé (2004–7). Understandably, recent discussions havefocussed especially on the new material. Nevertheless, much work remains to bedone on those fragments with which we have long been familiar. The present studyputs a new complexion on a text long taken as evidence for an Orphictheogony.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 64 , Issue 1 , May 2014 , pp. 75 - 90
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2014 

I

In the last decades Orphic scholarship has found itself in rather fortunate circumstances: there have been not only spectacular finds such as the Derveni PapyrusFootnote 1 and the so-called Orphic Gold Tablets,Footnote 2 but these texts together with all the other fragments ascribed to the authoritative author-figure Orpheus have been made accessible in the new and extensive edition by Alberto Bernabé (2004–7).Footnote 3 Understandably, recent discussions have focussed especially on the new material. Nevertheless, much work remains to be done on those fragments with which we have long been familiar. The present study puts a new complexion on a text long taken as evidence for an Orphic theogony.Footnote 4

According to Bernabé's edition and wider scholarly opinion the text in question is taken as evidence for an Orphic theogony of at least the second century a.d. Owing to a drastic correction of our understanding of the context in which this piece of evidence is preserved, we can see now that its alleged testimony is nothing but the outcome of a misunderstanding which occurred a thousand years later, that is, in the twelfth century a.d.

Our text is found in Michael of Ephesus’ Byzantine commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics. This commentary, unfortunately, is sometimes still taken, as it is in Bernabé's edition, as being the work of Alexander of Aphrodisias. Once we correctly identify the author of this work and understand the dependency of Michael on Syrianus’ commentary on the same passage, we will see that this supposed attestation of an old Orphic theogony is in fact an ad hoc creation of Michael. Michael misunderstands both the passage in Aristotle as well as Syrianus’ commentary on it and consequently provides his reader with misleading information about a non-existent Orphic theogonic plot.

The transmission of the Orphic Theogony in its different versions

The evidence we have of Orpheus’ theogony is dispersed throughout the whole of antiquity. The first explicit verse quotation of an Orphic theogony is found in the newly discovered Derveni Papyrus, dated between 340 and 320 b.c.Footnote 5 The latest quotations of Orpheus we deal with here are those in Michael of Ephesus, and so the time span we are dealing with is one of some 1,500 years.

Despite this long-lasting interest in the Orphic theogony, it has not been preserved in its entirety. The Orphic theogonic poetry circulating throughout antiquity is extant to us solely by indirect transmission, that is, by authors who refer to or quote small portions of it. Thus, Orpheus shares the fate of (nearly) all Presocratic philosophers, whose works have not come down to us in direct transmission.Footnote 6 This remains so, even if we are so fortunate as to discover such a papyrus as the famous Derveni Papyrus. Even this great discovery offers evidence only within the context of a commentary, in which some theogonic verses of Orpheus are quoted and discussed – it offers a second-hand Orphic theogony. Also within the writings of the early Christian authorsFootnote 7 as well as of the Neoplatonists, we find Orphic verses and testimonies as bits and pieces incorporated in (and therefore influenced by) the argument of the author who is referring to or quoting Orpheus. As we will see, a clear understanding of the author's intention and the context of the presented Orphic material can provide essential information for assessing the very nature of the Orphic testimony, and whether it is a valid testimony at all.

We should also bear in mind that there was not just one canonical text of the ‘Orphic Theogony’ available throughout antiquity, but different versions of it. The reconstruction is therefore further complicated by the fact that our authors indeed quote and refer to different versions of this theogony. In our case, we will see that the theogony Aristotle alludes to is different from the one with which Syrianus is familiar; Michael, on the other hand, seems not to have knowledge about any Orphic theogony independently of Aristotle and Syrianus. Given all these circumstances, it is not at all surprising that scholars have been reluctant to reconstruct the (possibly innumerable?) different versions of the Orphic theogony.Footnote 8

We see that already in later antiquity there was an awareness of the complex phenomenon of different versions of the theogony transmitted under Orpheus’ name. Damascius (sixth century a.d.) in fact provides us with three different versions known to him.Footnote 9 He distinguishes (in this order) between the Rhapsodic Theogony,Footnote 10 known and used by the Neoplatonists; a theogony that is either by Hellanicus or Hieronymus, authors otherwise unknown to Damascius,Footnote 11 and which nowadays is referred to as Hieronymus-Hellanicus Theogony; and the Eudemian Theogony, transmitted by the pupil of Aristotle, Eudemus of Rhodes.Footnote 12 Damascius provides his reader with detailed accounts of the Rhapsodic Theogony, which he calls the ‘well-known’Footnote 13 among the Orphic theogonies, as well as the Hieronymus-Hellanicus Theogony. About the Eudemian version, however, he only states one feature, namely that it begins with the goddess Night.Footnote 14 In The Orphic Poems, West offers a reconstruction of the interdependencies of these (and three further, supposedly Orphic) theogonies.Footnote 15 He dates the comprehensive Rhapsodic Theogony to the first century b.c.Footnote 16

The Orphic Theogony

The present article discusses Orphic texts from the Rhapsodic Theogony (Syrianus) as well as references to the version known in Aristotle's time. The relevant passages focus on the succession of the first gods. Therefore we can restrict our overview of the Orphic myth to this aspect. We know that the Orphic theogonic plot to which Aristotle refers is not the same as that discussed by the Neoplatonists such as Syrianus. Nevertheless both share a core plot element, an element indeed common to all known Orphic theogonies and found even in Hesiod's canonicalFootnote 17Theogony:Footnote 18 the sequence of the succession of power from Ouranos to his son Kronos to his son Zeus. Whereas in Hesiod we do not hear much about the generations preceding OuranosFootnote 19 nor do we hear much about the successors of Zeus,Footnote 20 we find in the Orphic theogonies a large and embellished elaboration of the time and rulers both before and after this tripartite succession. These addenda to the core sequence differ according to the various versions of the Orphic theogony.

The Rhapsodic Theogony tells us about ‘ageless Time’ (Chronos),Footnote 21 who is the very first power (OTF 109–10 F). He produces within Aither and Chaos (OTF 111; 114 F) an egg, out of which the marvellous figure Phanes comes to be (OTF 114–37 F). Phanes, who has, among other names, the name ‘Erikepaios’, creates the world and becomes the first king over it (OTF 138–67 F). The goddess Night succeeds Phanes as ruler (OTF 168–71 F). Night is an important, and peculiar, character: she both seems to have existed before Phanes and is his successor (OTF 107; 112–13 F), and is both his female partner and his daughter (OTF 147–8).Footnote 22 From the coupling of Night and Phanes there descend Ouranos and Gaia (OTF 149 F), who in turn marry (OTF 175 F). After Ouranos is castrated by his son Kronos and Kronos by his son Zeus, the story continues with Zeus’ incorporation of the whole world into his belly by swallowing Phanes, the creator of the world (OTF 241 F). Zeus, then, becomes one and everything (OTF 243 F). Afterwards, Zeus creates the world anew from himself and the story continues with his engendering Persephone with his own mother Rhea and then Dionysus with his own daughter Persephone. At this point, we stop our short survey, as the texts that will be discussed in the following focus on the sequences of the first gods, that is from the primal god (Time or Night respectively) to Zeus.

II

The starting point: Aristotle's nonchalant critique of the mythical treatment of the first principles

In Metaphysics N 4, Aristotle raises the question as to whether the good comes from some prior principle or whether it is itself the first principle (1091a29–b8). According to Aristotle, the old poets favoured the former option: in their mythical stories the good appears at a rather late stage in the succession of the primal deities.

Aristotle here takes it for granted that the mythical figure Zeus stands for the good itself. This is not only consistent with the position popularly given to Zeus, but also with the canonical theogonic story provided by Hesiod's Theogony, which speaks of the success and invincibility of Zeus who is the highest god despite being a comparative latecomer. According to Aristotle, the narrative of the succession of ruling gods, in which the earlier are weaker than the latter, expresses the idea that the good itself, represented by Zeus, comes only after something else has already been in the world. This means that the good and best is not the first principle of all things.

As support of this analysis, Aristotle names from three different mythical accounts figures who each occupy the first position, but are not – at least in Aristotle's understanding – regarded as kings and rulers among the gods, and who for this reason cannot be regarded as the good itself. That Aristotle is alluding to exactly threeFootnote 24 different mythical accounts is evident by the connecting particles in his enumeration of the first divinities: ‘νύκτα καὶ οὐρανὸν ἢ χάος ἢ ὠκεανόν’ = ‘Night and Ouranos or Chaos or Okeanos’.Footnote 25

To which accounts does Aristotle refer? We can connect Okeanos to Homer. In the Iliad Okeanos is called the ‘origin of all things’ (ὠκεανοῦ, ὅς περ γένεσις πάντεσσι τέτυκται, Il. 14.246).Footnote 26 We can connect Chaos to Hesiod. In the Theogony, we read: ‘In truth, first of all Chaos came to be …’.Footnote 27 The reference to Night and Ouranos, however, is not so obvious.Footnote 28 It is worth recalling that Eudemus of Rhodes, pupil of Aristotle, transmitted an Orphic theogony, according to which the goddess Night occupies first position.Footnote 29 It seems that this version of the Orphic theogonic plot was prevalent at the time of Aristotle.Footnote 30 What is more, Aristotle mentions in the Metaphysics on three other occasionsFootnote 31 a mythological account, which he attributes to the theologoi and where Night is placed at the very beginning. It seems natural to suppose that Aristotle is referring each time to an Orphic theogony. However, it is difficult to ascertain the extent of Aristotle's knowledge about this theogony. For in the Metaphysics his interest in mythFootnote 32 is not such that he assiduously states the names of the authors of the mythical stories to which he alludes, which is especially so for Orpheus, whose very existence Aristotle doubted.Footnote 33

Syrianus’ Neoplatonic reply

In stark contrast to Aristotle, Syrianus, the Neoplatonic commentator on Aristotle's Metaphysics, not only believed in the existence of the divine author Orpheus, but even regarded him as a theologian in whose writings one finds Plato's theology expressed in the language of myth.Footnote 34 The importance the Orphic theogony had for Syrianus in comparison to other mythical stories is shown by the fact that, in his criticism of Aristotle's general objection to the mythologists, Syrianus refers solely to Orphic verses.Footnote 35 Finally, Syrianus was an expert of the so-called Rhapsodic Theogony, which is a much later compilation of the earlier theogonic material known to Aristotle. His reply to Aristotle runs as follows:

Here Syrianus cites Orphic verse as evidence showing that Zeus is not the first king, but the fifth in a succession of kings. Accordingly, Zeus is not a first figure at all, and therefore is no possible candidate for the good itself. If Zeus cannot be regarded as the good, Aristotle's criticism about the late position of the good (wrongly understood to be represented by Zeus) is invalid. Contrary to Aristotle's judgement, Syrianus maintains that the good (the One, in Neoplatonic terminology) stands indeed at the very beginning of Orpheus’ theogony and is therefore regarded as the first principle.

Syrianus provides a two-part refutation (μὲν [182.10] – δὲ [182.18]).Footnote 40 He first disagrees about the position of Zeus, and second maintains that the good is the first principle for the mythologists. Let us look closely at these points of disagreement. Concerning the first, Syrianus reveals several steps in his interpretation. He neglects Aristotle's reference to different theogonic stories and focusses only on the Orphic theogony. As it happens, the Orphic theogony allows Syrianus to incorporate into a single succession all figures named by Aristotle, except for Okeanos. Syrianus takes as his model the Rhapsodic Theogony, which quite explicitly depicts the predecessors of Zeus as kings and rulers. In the verses Syrianus quotes, the attributes of kingship are ascribed to the first god Phanes – in these verses called ‘Erikepaios’ – (‘who became first king’, 182.13) as well as to his successor, the goddess Night (‘who received the kingly sceptre’, 182.15). After Night, there comes her son Ouranos, also titled ‘the first king over the gods’.Footnote 41 That the god Kronos, whom Syrianus does not explicitly mention,Footnote 42 has the fourth position in this Orphic succession becomes evident indirectly when Syrianus quotes the verse that explicitly declares Zeus to be the fifth king (‘the fifth king over the immortal gods’, 182.21). Thus the sequence of kings which Syrianus presents is the well-known succession of rulers of the Rhapsodic Theogony: Phanes–Night–Ouranos–Kronos–Zeus. Syrianus shows that some gods before Zeus were also kings before Zeus, and thus shows that Zeus’ particular kingship cannot be grounds to identify him as the good.

We turn to the second point of disagreement. To show that the good (the One) is first in Orpheus’ theogony, Syrianus directs the reader to the figure of Chaos. He tells us that in the Orphic account this primordial divinity comes ‘above the relation of kingship’ (182.18). Syrianus means by this that the Orphic figures Chaos and Aither are together understood as the Dyad (182.22–5). The Dyad, of course, comes after the One, the very first principle. Aristotle associates the good with kingship and specifically with Zeus, but Syrianus associates the good simply with the first deity, who, what is more, has an explicit ‘pre-kingly status’ (182.23) – the good is not a king at all. What is this very first god, though? In this passage, Syrianus only tells us about the mythological equivalent of the dyad, Chaos and Aither. That he, in this part of the commentary, does not name the god who stands for the One accords with other statements in Syrianus’ commentary and the Neoplatonic doctrine in general.Footnote 43 The One is indeterminable and ineffable, and not even by mythical language can it be captured appropriately.Footnote 44 In another passage Syrianus tells us that Orpheus expresses the One with the first god Chronos, that is, ageless Time (43.23–24).Footnote 45 Yet it is clear in the passage under discussion, that Syrianus has in mind this very first figure of the Rhapsodic Theogony. He seems to include Time as well as the couple Aither and Chaos in what he describes as the group of ‘hidden and secret gods’ (182.24), which comes before Phanes-Erikepaios. It becomes clear now that Syrianus’ interpretation of the Orphic theogonic plot is guided by his general argumentative purpose. Thus Syrianus puts the Orphic figures into the Platonic system of the One as first principle and the infinite Dyad as second principle.Footnote 46 That the Platonic theory of first principles is harmonious with the ideas expressed in the mythical stories of Orpheus was one of Syrianus’ research projects.Footnote 47 Hence the title of an otherwise lost treatise by Syrianus: On the agreement between Orpheus, Pythagoras, Plato and the Chaldean Oracles.

In view of these considerations, it seems that Syrianus was not aware of the fact that Aristotle is referring to another Orphic theogony, at whose beginning stood the goddess Night.Footnote 48 It would be wrong here to dwell on this misconception, however, because the very point of Syrianus’ critique of Aristotle does not depend on the question as to which figure is the first, but rather as to which interpretation one has to apply to the first figure – whoever it is.

Nevertheless, if one compares the attitudes towards the interpretation of myths, Syrianus and Aristotle seem not to disagree generally with respect to their tacit assumption: mythical stories do not simply speak about gods, but about the good and best. Syrianus, however, does not grant Aristotle the same allegorical approach to myth he himself applies. He takes Aristotle's claim of the non-existence of any kingly figures before Zeus too literally. Aristotle surely was aware of the fact that, for example, in Hesiod's Theogony, Kronos, the father of Zeus, is depicted as king,Footnote 49 but he is nonchalant about the precise title of the first mythical figures.Footnote 50 He simply builds his argument on the traditional belief that Zeus is the most important god.

Syrianus, on the other hand, shows philological accuracy in collecting from the Rhapsodic Theogony those verses which express most clearly the status of Zeus’ predecessors as kings. Collectors of Orphic fragments today should be aware of Syrianus’ motivation for his insistence on the kingly status before deducing conclusions concerning the importance of kingship within this theogony.Footnote 51 As the stress Syrianus puts on kingship is embedded within his argument against Aristotle, it appears daring to retroject the importance of royal attributes into the Orphic text and the Rhapsodic Theogony itself.

The creative commingling of Michael of Ephesus

In our third text, the commentary by Michael of Ephesus on the same passage of the Metaphysics, we can also see how an author readily uses quotations of the Orphic theogony for his argumentative purpose. The flexibility that comes with the author-figure Orpheus and the theogony ascribed to him apparently invite references even by an author who has no prior familiarity with an Orphic theogony at all. Michael of Ephesus is such an author: he presents two different successions of gods, one he copied directly from Syrianus’ commentary, and the other he created by mistakenly combining the evidence in Aristotle and Syrianus.

In order to evaluate correctly the evidence Michael provides, a few remarks should be said in advance. Of Alexander of Aphrodisias’ commentary on the Metaphysics only the first five books (Α, α, Β, Γ, Δ) and some excerpts of Book Λ (contained in excerpts by Averroës) are extant. The rest of the commentary, transmitted under the name of Alexander, was not written by him but, as was first shown by Praechter, by Michael of Ephesus (much later, in the twelfth century a.d.).Footnote 52 Furthermore, as Luna shows,Footnote 53 Michael clearly depends on Syrianus’ commentary,Footnote 54 since Michael quotes him occasionally word for word. This dependency becomes especially evident in our passage, where Michael draws from the Orphic material found in Syrianus. When evaluating the information on the Orphic theogony provided by Michael, it is of great importance to be aware that the dependency goes in this direction (Syrianus → Michael) and not the other way around. As long as we assume that Michael's part of the commentary on the Metaphysics is a work written by Alexander of Aphrodisias and thus dated around a.d. 200, we are almost forced to make two mistakes. One might, first, incorrectly regard the commentary of Syrianus as depending on Michael's commentary and thus believe that it is the source of the Orphic material presented in Syrianus. Accordingly one might, second, incorrectly interpret the information on Orpheus given by Michael as genuine evidence for an otherwise unknown Orphic theogony (supposedly from the second century a.d.!). Both of these possible mistakes have been and still are being made by scholars.Footnote 55 Otto Kern, the editor of the Orphicorum fragmenta in 1922 states briefly (p. 170; on fr. 107): ‘Alexandrum potissimum sequitur Syrian. in Aristot. Metaphys. …’ What is more, in the new edition by Alberto Bernabé (2004), Michael's testimony is not presented as such, but under the name of Alexander of Aphrodisias. Such presentation invites confusion about dependency, age and value.Footnote 56

With the following analysis we hope to accomplish two things. The first is to correct the misunderstanding and appropriately evaluate the testimony in Michael's commentary, which aids in the reconstruction of different versions of the Orphic theogony. The second is to show how easily an Orphic theogonic plot can be created merely by reference to the author Orpheus.

It is evident that Michael's attitude towards the Aristotelian text differs from that of Syrianus. Syrianus wanted to refute Aristotle's criticism of the mythologists and, as he understood it, Orpheus in particular. Michael, on the contrary, approves of every word of Aristotle. He intends to render Aristotle's rather cursory remarks about the old poets more transparent, and he also provides additional evidence, he believes, to substantiate Aristotle's critique. In doing so, Michael draws from only one source apart from Aristotle's text itself, namely, the commentary of Syrianus. This leads to an odd result: Michael presents his reader with two different ‘Orphic’ theogonic successions, which are not only incompatible with each other,Footnote 57 but of which the first is not an ‘Orphic’ theogony at all, but an ad hoc creation by Michael himself.

Let us have a closer look at Michael's text. We can divide the passage into three parts. In the first part (821.5–11), Michael summarizes Aristotle's position concerning the mythologists. In the second part (821.11–16), he summarizes what he believes to be an Orphic theogonic plot in support of Aristotle's interpretation. In the third part (821.16–21), he quotes Orphic verses for the same purpose. We will examine these parts in detail.

Michael's summary of Aristotle's position is short. He paraphrases Aristotle's thesis about the late position of the good in mythological accounts and then says directly that Aristotle, with respect to these accounts, ‘speaks cryptically’ (αἰνίττεται, 821.8) about the poet Orpheus. Michael then makes Aristotle's presupposition that Zeus stands for the good explicit with a syllogism: what is kingly and powerful is the good and best; Zeus is king and has power; therefore, Zeus is the good and best (821.9–11). While this explanation of the Aristotelian presupposition is correct, one might wonder why Michael speaks about Orpheus alone, whereas Aristotle alludes to three different theogonies. We will see that Michael's reading of Syrianus, who quotes only Orphic verses, influenced his reading of Aristotle.

In the second part, Michael takes the mythical figures named by Aristotle (which were originally taken from different stories), rearranges them, and with them makes a single succession:Footnote 58 Chaos stands at the beginning, after whom comes Okeanos, then Night, then Ouranos, and then finally Zeus. Michael presents this as the plot of Orpheus’ theogony. It is clear that Michael uses Aristotle's inventory of dramatis personae, yet we still have to ask why and according to what rule he changes Aristotle's order. Especially suspicious is the fact that in Michael's arrangement Okeanos is given the second position, for such a position is inconsistent with any known Orphic theogony.Footnote 59 We can account for the peculiar order by consideration of the other source Michael used besides the Aristotelian text: Syrianus’ commentary on this passage. Although Michael's dependency on Syrianus is more evident in the third part, we can already discern here in Michael's order of the gods Syrianus’ influence. According to Syrianus, Chaos is ‘before the relation of kingship’ (182.18 Kroll). It is Chaos next to Aither that Syrianus states as the earliest nameable principles, although, as we know, the very first principle, the One, is expressed, when at all, by the figure of Chronos (cf. 43.23–4; 182.22 Kroll). Clearly, Michael takes the position of Chaos as the starting point of his own succession. What is more, as the kingly sequence of the three gods Night, Ouranos and Zeus is attested to by the verses Syrianus quotes, Michael has to adopt this sequence and consequently is forced to conclude that the only figure left within the pool given by Aristotle – Okeanos – has to be placed in the only available spot, namely, the second position, that between Chaos and Night. Thus, through a combination of the figures Aristotle lists and the guidelines one could gather from Syrianus’ text, Michael's succession results almost naturally: Chaos, Okeanos, Night, Ouranos and Zeus.

Such a reconstruction as Michael's is probable especially if one lacks any knowledge of Orpheus’ theogony independently of Aristotle and Syrianus. Michael's ignorance of the Orphic theogony is displayed, first of all, by the absence of the figure Kronos in his pseudo-succession. Although Michael's source, Syrianus, does not name Kronos in his account, it is evident, as was shown above, that he counts him in his succession of kings; Zeus receives the fifth place.Footnote 60 As we have seen, the canonical tripartite sequence of the gods, Ouranos–Kronos–Zeus, is not only common to both Hesiod and Orpheus, but is indeed the core of all versions of the Orphic theogony known to us. That Michael omits this essential element makes his account dubious yet again. He is apparently unaware of the oddity of the theogonic plot he puts under the name of Orpheus.

Secondly, Michael gives to Zeus an inappropriate cosmological position. At the end of the second part (821.13–16), Michael concludes that Zeus is identical with the good and best and comes only after four preceding gods. In stressing this position, though, he gets carried away and calls Zeus not only later than his predecessors but even later ‘than the ordered world itself’ (821.15–16). One of the distinctive features of the Orphic theogonic plot (as opposed to the Hesiodic) is that Zeus incorporates the whole world into himself and then brings it forth again out of himself, thus becoming the very beginning of the world.Footnote 61 Thus, Zeus is the creator of the world and as such cannot come after his creation. Those familiar with this element of the Orphic theogony would speak more carefully than Michael and not call Zeus ‘later than’ the ‘ordered world’.

Let us turn to the third part of Michael's commentary, where we can directly adduce Michael's dependence on Syrianus. Here, Michael wants to illustrate Aristotle's claim that the good comes late because there is a succession of gods in which Zeus comes last. To this end, Michael quotes three Orphic verses concerning the sequence of the gods. These verses are taken from Syrianus’ commentary, and Syrianus himself takes them from the Rhapsodic Theogony.Footnote 62 As we saw, Syrianus quotes a group of five complete verses, which are carefully chosen for application in his argument against Aristotle and which prove the kingly status of Zeus’ predecessors (182.12–13; 15; 17; 21 Kroll). Further he contextualizes these verses in the Orphic theogony. That Syrianus can contextualize these strongly suggests that Syrianus has access to the whole of the Rhapsodic Theogony: he knows the complete story.

Michael, however, uses only two and a half of those very verses, namely those about the sequence of Erikepaios (Phanes), Night and Ouranos. Furthermore, he does not provide contextualization as Syrianus does. That he does not should not surprise us, since Michael is only interested in explicating Aristotle's claim that Orpheus depicts the gods as changing. The mere fact that Michael does not provide contextualization does not compel us to admit his dependence on Syrianus. Luna demonstrates that the fact that Syrianus has the verses in complete form (see 182.13–14 Kroll), whereas Michael in only a truncated form (821.17–18), shows clearly Michael's dependency on Syrianus and that it is unreasonable to suppose that Syrianus found these shortened verses in Ps.-Alexander (who could then not be Michael), and then expanded and enriched them with the original context of the Rhapsodies. Consider closely the half-verse that Michael uses (821.13). The quotation in full, and as found in Syrianus, describes Zeus as fifth and thus is crucial to Syrianus’ argument (ἀθανάτων βασιλῆα θεῶν πέμπτον σε γενέσθαι, 182.21 Kroll = OTF 219 F). Michael, however, takes only the expression ἀθανάτων βασιλεύς θεῶν (821.13) and employs it as a general epithet for Zeus. In doing so, Michael changes the word ‘king’ from the accusative case of the original (βασιλῆα) to the nominative (βασιλεύς), a change which suits his own syntactic context.Footnote 63

When we look at the passage of Michael's commentary in its entirety, we must conclude that he does not know the Orphic theogony independently of Syrianus. In Michael's defence, there was no fixed canonical text of the Orphic theogony (as there was in the case of Hesiod), against which Michael could have checked his successions. But we also have to conclude that he does not seem to have genuine interest in the subject matter.Footnote 64 It is probably for this latter reason that he did not even recognize that the two theogonic successions he offers are incompatible with each other: in the first succession (821.11–13), an ad hoc creation born out of a misinterpretation of Aristotle and Syrianus, Chaos precedes Night. In the second succession (821.17–20), an authentic but truncated sequence founded on actual Orphic verse taken from Syrianus, Night's predecessor is Erikepaios (Phanes).

In sum, we can say that although Michael's second theogonic succession is authentic, there is not much for the scholar of Orphic verses to find, since Michael gives only a small selection of what Syrianus has to offer. The first succession summarized by Michael could appear, at first sight, as evidence of an otherwise unknown Orphic theogony; but after analysis, we see it to be a fake succession of gods. The fact that we are able to trace back the genesis of all peculiarities of Michael's theogony to his use of the respective passages of Aristotle and Syrianus, compels us, by Occam's razor, neither to seek nor to hypothesize yet another source.

Scholars, however, still regard the ad hoc succession as possibly genuine evidence of an old Orphic theogony,Footnote 65 arguing that Michael could have gathered the information from another (beside Aristotle and Syrianus) much older source. It is further argued that this source could only have been the commentary of Alexander of Aphrodisias, which Michael used for completing Books E–N.Footnote 66 However, as Luna shows, in the time of Michael only the first five books of Alexander's commentary on the Metaphysics (Α, α, Β, Γ, Δ) were extant.Footnote 67 Apart from this, when we consider the extant books of Alexander's commentary and his general attitude toward mythical poetry displayed therein, it appears as rather improbable that he would quote Orphic verse.Footnote 68 In the extant part of the authentic commentary, Alexander on only two occasions quotes hexametrical verses that go beyond the quotations given in the text of Aristotle itself. In these cases the authors of the verses, Empedocles and Hesiod,Footnote 69 are either named or clearly intended by Aristotle. Thus, it is unlikely that Alexander would suddenly enlist Orphic verses to explain Aristotle's vague and rather general critique of the mythical way of treating the first gods. What is more, the name Orpheus never shows up in the extant books of Alexander's commentary on the Metaphysics. In fact, in his whole oeuvre known to us, the name appears only onceFootnote 70 and he nowhere quotes a single Orphic verse.Footnote 71

That the supposed Orphic testimony, offered by Michael, is an accidental creation from the twelfth century has consequences for those who wish to attain and study Orphic fragments. It is true that, in a way, all Orphic texts are pseudepigrapha,Footnote 72 that is, ascriptions to the author Orpheus are fictitious. There is, however, a decisive difference between, on the one hand, actual hexametrical poems, composed under the pseudonym Orpheus and, on the other, fake reports in prose, commingled contingently, about a fantastic Orphic theogony of which there never existed a single verse. Michael, furthermore, does not seem to be aware that he is inventing a new Orphic theogonic plot. Thus, one cannot even subsume Michael's testimony under the widest possible understanding of the term bricolage, the deliberate remodelling of parts of a traditionally known mythic plot in order to express a new idea.

Rather, it seems to be the case that the peculiar character of the author-figure Orpheus facilitates Michael's misunderstanding and theogonic invention. Because there is no canonical story or fixed theogonic succession, it is easy to ascribe to Orpheus just another theogony. The instability, or better, flexibility of the Orphic theogony as well as other Orphic literature has to be understood as a contributing factor that made at all possible the multifarious corpus of ‘Orphic literature’ spread throughout the whole of antiquity. It is this particular feature of the author-figure Orpheus that has invited and still invites references and even reconstructions of his theogonic poetry in antiquity as well as in modern scholarship.

Footnotes

*

An earlier version of this paper was given at a colloquium at theUniversity of Heidelberg (Quellentexte antiker Philosophie undihre Rezeption) in May 2011. I am thankful for the helpfulremarks by the audience. I would like to thank Jan N. Bremmer, whodiscussed the paper with me, for his thoughtful and encouragingcomments. I am indebted to Joel B. Itzkowitz for his careful review ofan earlier draft, and to Edmond Kotwick, who helped with my English andcriticized my paper at its different stages.

References

1 Discovered in 1962, editio princeps: Kouremenos, T., Parássoglou, G.M. and Tsantsanoglou, K., The Derveni Papyrus, edited with Introduction and Commentary (Florence, 2006)Google Scholar.

2 Graf, F. and Johnston, S.I., Ritual Texts for the Afterlife. Orpheus and the Bacchic Gold Tablets (London and New York, 2007)Google Scholar; Bernabé, A. and Cristóbal, A.I. Jiménez San, Instructions for the Netherworld. The Orphic Gold Tablets (Leiden and Boston, 2008)Google Scholar; Tzifopoulos, Y., Paradise Earned: The Bacchic-Orphic Gold Lamellae of Crete (Washington, DC and Cambridge, MA, 2010)Google Scholar; Edmonds, R.G. III, The ‘Orphic’ Gold Tablets and Greek Religion (Cambridge, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Bernabé, A. (ed.), Poetae epici graeci. Testimonia et fragmenta. Pars II, Fasc. 1–3 (Munich and Leipzig, 2004–7)Google Scholar, here abbreviated as OTF.

4 Most important for the question of the Orphic theogony/theogonies is West, M.L., The Orphic Poems (Oxford, 1983)Google Scholar. In Bernabé's edition (n. 3), fragments of theogonic content are collected in OTF 1–378.

5 Kouremenos, Parássoglou and Tsantsanoglou (n. 1), 9. It is reasonable to suppose that the commentary it contains and even more so the theogony on which the author is commenting antedate the papyrus by one or two generations. Thus, these verse quotations are likely to be older than those we find in Plato: Pl. Cra. 402b = OTF 22 F; Pl. Phlb. 66c = OTF 25 F I.

6 The significant exception here is the Strasbourg papyrus, which contains formerly unknown verses from Book 1 of Empedocles’ Physics. Editio princeps: A. Martin and O. Primavesi, L'Empédocle de Strasbourg (P.Strasb. gr. Inv. 1665–1666). Introduction, édition et commentaire (Berlin and New York, 1999). Primavesi, O., Empedokles, Physika I. Eine Rekonstruktion des zentralen Gedankengangs (Berlin and New York, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 See de Jáuregui, M. Herrero, Orphism and Christianity in Late Antiquity (Berlin and New York, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Jourdan, F., Orphée et les chrétiens. La réception du mythe d'Orphée dans la littérature chrétienne grecque des cinq premiers siècles, Tom. I (Paris, 2010)Google Scholar, Tom. II (Paris, 2011).

8 The editor of the Orphic fragments in 1922, Otto Kern, ruled out the possibility of reconstructing even the relatively well-attested so-called Rhapsodic Theogony (Orphicorum fragmenta [Berlin, 1922], 141). Schwabl declared it impossible to attain a clear picture of the different versions and their interdependence: Schwabl, H., ‘Weltschöpfung’, in RE, suppl. IX (1962), 1481Google Scholar: ‘… und es ist wohl überhaupt verkehrt, ein Stemma aller orphischen Theogonien aufstellen zu wollen.’ West (n. 4), 264 boldly places this dictum as motto to his stemma of the Orphic theogonies.

9 Dam. De princ. 123–4 (III.159.17–163.6 Westerink); see OTF 96 T, 20 F, 75 F I.

10 The full title is: Ἱεροὶ Λόγοι ἐν Ῥαψωιδίαις κδ’ (‘Hieroi Logoi in 24 Rhapsodies’). See Bernabé OTF 90–359 with extended bibliography on pp. 97–101.

11 Dam. De princ. 123 (III.160.17 Westerink): εἴπερ μὴ καὶ ὁ αὐτός ἐστιν (‘if they are not the same person’).

12 See Betegh, G., ‘On Eudemus Fr. 150 (Wehrli)’, in Bodnár, I. and Fortenbaugh, W.W. (edd.), Eudemus of Rhodes. Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities, Vol. 11 (New Brunswick and London, 2002), 337–57Google Scholar.

13 Dam. De princ. 123 (III.160.16 Westerink): τοιαύτη μὲν ἡ συνήθης ὀρφικὴ θεολογία.; OTF 90 T, 96 T.

14 Dam. De princ. 124 (III.162.19–23 Westerink) = OTF 20 F I.

15 West's distributions of many fragments to specific (reconstructed) theogonies influenced Bernabé's edition. Cf. Bernabé (n. 3), fasc. 1, VIII and 1. Not only does the order of fragments often mirror West's reconstruction, but also, for instance, the inclusion of 27 ‘new’ fragments of the alleged ‘Cyclic theogony’ found in Apollodorus’ Bibliotheca (Bernabé [n. 3], fasc. 3, 331).

16 West (n. 4), 247–50. A later dating is suggested by Brisson, L., ‘Les théogonies orphiques et le papyrus de Derveni (Notes critiques*)’, RHR 202.4 (1985), 389–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 411–12.

17 On the question of canonical creation myths vs their alternatives in ancient Greece, see Bremmer, J.N., Greek Religion and Culture, the Bible and the Ancient Near East (Leiden, 2008), 1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 For the Near East parallels of this core plot, see West, M.L., Hesiod, Theogony: Edited with Prolegomena and Commentary (Oxford, 1966), 18–31Google Scholar.

19 Chaos, Eros and Gaia somehow were the first powers (vv. 116–20). Gaia brings forth Ouranos (vv. 126–7).

20 Zeus makes sure more successfully than his father and grandfather that there is no successor, as he devours not only his children, but his pregnant wife as well (Hes. Theog. 897–9).

21 This god is not to be confused with the god Kronos.

22 Does this diversity of roles within one story suggest a conflation of earlier myths, in which Night stood at different positions? Cf. West (n. 4), 208–12. On the different positions of Night in Greek myths, see Bremmer (n. 17), 4–5, 8.

23 The translation follows Ross, W.D., ‘METAPHYSICS’, in Barnes, J., The Complete Works of Aristotle. The Revised Oxford Translation, vol. 2, (Princeton, 1984), 1552–728Google Scholar, at 1724 with some modifications.

24 Cf. Ross, W.D., Aristotle's Metaphysics: A Revised Text with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 2 (Oxford, 1924), 487Google Scholar; West (n. 4), 185. Annas, J., Aristotle's Metaphysics Books M and N: Translated with Introduction and Notes (Oxford, 1976)Google Scholar, 213 offers a different view. She translates the καί without any notification as ‘or’ (125). See also Martinez, T. Calvo, ‘Aristotle, Metaphysics 14.4: a problematic reference to Orphism (OF 20 IV)’, in Herrero de Jáuregui, M. et al. (edd.), Tracing Orpheus: Studies of Orphic Fragments In Honour of Alberto Bernabé (Berlin and Boston, 2011), 39–47Google Scholar, at 46.

25 Cf. the same use of connecting particles in Metaph. A 7, 988a33–4.

26 See also Hom. Il. 14.201 (= 302). Next to Aristotle (cf. also Metaph. A 3, 983b27–30), Plato repeatedly ascribes to Homer a ‘theogony’ with Okeanos as original god (Tht. 152e; Cra. 402b).

27 Hes. Theog. 116–17, tr. G. Most (LCL 57), slightly amended. Cf. Arist. Metaph. A 4, 984b27–9.

28 Kirk, G.S., Raven, J.E. and Schofield, M., The Presocratic Philosophers: A Critical History with a Selection of Texts (Cambridge, 1983 2), 17–18Google Scholar leave it undecided if Aristotle has in mind Homer or more likely a combination of Orpheus and Hesiod.

29 This Damascius tells us: De princ. 124 = OTF 20 F I. See above.

30 Support for this view is provided by the Derveni Papyrus (n. 1). The Orphic theogony that is quoted and commented on depicts Night as ‘nurse of the Gods’ (Col. X, 9–11; Col. XI, 1–3; 10; OTF 6 F). She prophesies to the gods, she is ‘all-speaking’ (πανομφεύουσα, Col. X, 9; OTF 6 F). Ouranos is her son: Οὐρανὸς Εὐφρονίδης, ὃς πρώτισ βασίλευσεν (‘Ouranos, son of Night, who became the first king’, Col. XIV, 6 = OTF 10.2 F).

31 Arist. Metaph. 1071b26 (= OTF 20 F II), 1072a7 (= OTF 20 F III), 1072a19–21.

32 Cf. Metaph. A 2, 982b17–19; A 3, 983b27–984a3; B 4, 1000a5–19; Λ 8, 1074a38–b14; Λ 10, 1075b24–7. See also Palmer, J.A., ‘Aristotle on the ancient theologians’, Apeiron 33 (2000), 181–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 Cic. Nat. D. 1.107 = OTF 889 T.

34 See Brisson, L., How Philosophers Saved Myths: Allegorical Interpretation and Classical Mythology (Chicago and London, 2004), 88CrossRefGoogle Scholar and id., ‘Syrianus et l'Orphisme’, in Longo, A. (ed.), Syrianus et la métaphysique de l'antiquité tardive (Naples, 2009), 463–97Google Scholar, at 465–72.

35 For the Neoplatonic school of Athens, whose head Syrianus was, the ‘theologos’ Orpheus outweighed the authority of the mythical authors Homer and Hesiod; see Brisson (n. 34 [2004]), 88.

36 The term theologoi designates in Syrianus either Orpheus himself (26.24) or a group of mythical poets that includes Orpheus (41.29; 88.19; 133.23; 182.2; 182.26–7, 31).

37 The pronoun τóν is problematic, because it is masculine and cannot go together with τὸ σκῆπτρον, which could conceivably have been in the preceding verse. Accordingly, Usener conjectures τοῦτό θ’ for τὸν τόθ’. Simplicius, however, quotes the line In Phys. 641.32 Diels with τοῖον instead of τὸν τόθ’.

38 The pun on the etymology of Phanes’ name is found in other Orphic fragments: OTF 126 F, 143,8 F, 149 F.

39 The translation follows Dillon, J. and O'Meara, D., Syrianus. On Aristotle Metaphysics 13–14 (London, 2006), 169–70Google Scholar, with modifications.

40 On the one hand, a critical approach to Aristotle's Metaphysics is to be expected from a Neoplatonist, especially in the case of a commentary on Books M and N, which contain a critique of the theory of principles and numbers put forward by Plato and the Academy. On the other hand, following Porphyry and Iamblichus, Neoplatonic interpretations are eager to harmonize the doctrines of Plato not only with Aristotle but also with Presocratic philosophers and Orpheus as well. See Perkams, M., ‘Das Prinzip der Harmonisierung verschiedener Traditionen in den neuplatonischen Kommentaren zu Platon und Aristoteles’, in Ackeren, M. v. and Müller, J. (edd.), Antike Philosophie verstehen – Understanding Ancient Philosophy (Darmstadt, 2006), 333–8Google Scholar. Syrianus, however, has a more ‘nuanced view’ (Sorabji, R., ‘The ancient commentators on Aristotle’, in id. [ed.], Aristotle Transformed: The Ancient Commentators and their Influence [London, 1990], 1–30Google Scholar, at 3) on this matter: in his introduction to his commentary on Books M and N (80.4–81.6), Syrianus pays great respect to Aristotle's achievements in logic as well as ethics and physics. When it comes to theological, i.e. metaphysical matters, Syrianus strongly disagrees with Aristotle's ‘failing and insufficient’ approach (80.27–9). See also H.D. Saffrey, ‘How did Syrianus regard Aristotle?’, in Sorabji (this note), 173–9 and C. Helmig, ‘“The truth can never be refuted” – Syrianus’ view(s) on Aristotle reconsidered’, in Longo (n. 34), 347–80.

41 That Ouranos is called the ‘first king’ is somewhat disturbing. It might be declared a remnant of an older version in which Ouranos indeed was the first king. See West (n. 4), 235; cf. Rusten, J.S., ‘Interim notes on the papyrus from Derveni’, HSPh 89 (1985), 121–40Google Scholar, at 135 n. 31.

42 This may be due to the fact that treatment of Kronos is not necessary for Syrianus’ purpose, to the fact that Aristotle does not name Kronos in his account, or to a combination of both.

43 According to Plotinus (5.3.14), statements about the One can only be made negatively: καὶ γὰρ λέγομεν, ὃ μὴ ἔστιν· ὃ δέ ἐστιν, οὐ λέγομεν.

44 See Syrian. In Metaph. 9.37–10.7; 43.12–14.

45 Χρόνον δὲ καὶ Ὀρφεὺς τὸ πρῶτον ἐκάλει (‘Orpheus too called Time the first’).

46 As the words after the lacuna in the text (182.23–4) suggest, Syrianus also makes a connection to the Pythagorean principles. The lacuna can be easily filled through consideration of parallel passages of his commentary. See especially 9.27–10.15. On the agreement of the first principles of Plato and the Pythagoreans see 83.12–18, 141.13–15; Orpheus is explicitly included in 10.10–11, 11.35–6.

47 We can infer the great importance that the Orphic texts as well as the Chaldean Oracles had for Syrianus from a testimony by Marinus (Vita Procli, 27; Saffrey, H.D. and Segonds, A.-Ph. [edd.], Marinus: Proclus ou Sur le bonheur [Paris, 2001], 32Google Scholar). Syrianus’ student, Proclus, transmits to us by far the greatest amount of fragments of an Orphic theogony.

48 Bernabé on OTF 167 (p. 155): ‘errat Syrianus putans Aristotelem falli; immo Stagirites non legebat Rhapsodias sed Theogoniam quam “Eudemiam” vocamus, ubi non narrabatur Noctem reginam fuisse’.

49 See e.g. Theog. 476 (Κρόνῳ βασιλῆι) and 486 (θεῶν προτέρων βασιλῆι).

50 Aristotle's statement that the theologians ‘depict the rulers of the world as changing’ seems to imply that he was aware of the fact that Zeus was not the only king.

51 West (n. 4), 232: ‘The poet evidently referred to the sceptre several times, and attached some importance to the system of six kingships of which it was a formal symbol.’ Admittedly, West's conclusion is not solely based on the evidence that Syrianus provides in our passage.

52 K. Praechter, ‘Rezension von CAG XXII 2’, GGA 168.2 (1906), 861–907, at 863 n. 3 and 882–907. Luna, C., Trois études sur la tradition des commentaires anciens à la Métaphysique d'Aristote (Leiden, Boston and Cologne, 2001), 53–71Google Scholar; Appendix III on pages 197–212. For our present purpose the question as to whether or not the writer of the inauthentic part of the commentary was Michael of Ephesus is secondary; it is enough that there is general agreement among scholars that the author was not Alexander of Aphrodisias. Further, this Ps.-Alexander (whom I identify in this article as Michael) depends on the information he found in Syrianus’ commentary to this Aristotelian passage, so that we have a terminus post quem for the author of the Ps.-Alexandrian commentary.

53 See especially Luna (n. 52), 1–71. Regarding the discussion of our passages see 7–12.

54 For a discussion of different arguments against this view see Luna (n. 52), 37–8 and passim.

55 See Gruppe, O., Die griechischen Culte und Mythen in ihren Beziehungen zu den orientalischen Religionen, Erster Band, Einleitung (Leipzig, 1887), 640–1Google Scholar: ‘Alexander von Aphrodisias [i.e. Ps.-Alexander = Michael] … giebt den Auszug aus einer orphischen Theogonie, welche sich zwar mit den beiden von Damaskios excerpierten nahe berührt, aber mit keiner identisch zu sein scheint.’ Guthrie, W.K.C., Orpheus and Greek Religion: A Study of the Orphic Movement (Princeton, 1952; new edition with a foreword by L.J. Alderink, Princeton, 1993)Google Scholar, at 74 follows Gruppe in his assertion, but he takes a step forward (pp. 103–4) in his analysis of the material provided by ‘Alexander’. Despite the obvious and even enumerated (p. 103) inconsistencies in Michael's account (see below), Guthrie concludes: ‘It is obvious without any further argument that the existence at least of these two [i.e. the one mentioned by Plato and the one mentioned by Michael] types of Orphic theogony is strongly attested by the passage of Alexander …’ That Gruppe's position is still influential can be seen, for example, in the fact that L.R. Lanzillotta includes in his overview a theogony ‘preserved by Alexander of Aphrodisias’; see Lanzillotta, L.R., ‘Orphic cosmogonies in the Pseudo-Clementines? Textual relationship, character and sources of Homilies 6.3–13 and Recognitions 10.17–19.30’, in Bremmer, J. (ed.), The Pseudo-Clementines. Studies on the Apocryphal Literature (Leuven, 2010), 115–41Google Scholar, at 137. West (n. 4), 185 is aware of the fact that this part of the Metaphysics-commentary is not by the real Alexander, but the twelfth-century author Michael. He asserts, however, that in the first part of Michael's account there are traces to be found of an Orphic theogony of old origin.

56 We find the wrong denomination ‘Alex. Aphrod.’ (instead of ‘Ps.-Alex.’ or ‘Michael Ephesius’) in the following fragments: OTF 98, 167 III, 170 I, 174 I and 367. In OFT 98, 170 and 174, the apparatus which enumerates the authors who quote the verse, Michael's text is given before the text of Syrianus. This invites the wrong conclusion that Syrianus is depending on Michael's (here incorrectly called ‘Alex. Aphrod.’) text, whereas, as we will see, it is the other way round. The same criticism applies to OTF 367. Admittedly, Bernabé marks this testimony as spurious by putting it among the group of fragments ‘quorum origo incerta’ and he is aware of the fact that the author is not the authentic Alexander by calling him ‘Alexander’ (with quotation marks) in the apparatus. As we will see, however, the supposedly Orphic theogony presented in this testimony is no Orphic theogony at all.

57 Simply presenting two distinct Orphic theogonies, of course, would not cause any problems. But we expect the author explicitly to state them as distinct. Michael never gives us any hint of being aware of the fact that he offers two different versions in his commentary.

58 This view has been suggested by Schwabl (n. 8), 1469, who calls it a ‘misunderstanding of the Aristotelian passage’ (‘Missverständnis der Aristotelesstelle’), Zeller, E., Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung, Erster Teil, Erste Abteilung, 6th edition (Leipzig, 1919, reprint: Darmstadt, 1963)Google Scholar, 136 n. 1. And, more recently, Luna (n. 52), 9. Cf. also Martinez (n. 24), 45.

59 West (n. 4), 185; Luna (n. 52), 9.

60 Syrianus makes clear that Phanes is first, Night second and Ouranos third (182.12–17); Kronos is implicitly counted as fourth, because Zeus is explicitly called as fifth (182.18–21).

61 The so-called Hymn to Zeus (OTF 31 F; 243 F; 245 V), which depicts Zeus as world-eating and then world-generating, calls him first, last and middle: ‘Zeus was born first, Zeus last, god of the bright bolt | Zeus is the head, Zeus the middle, from Zeus are all things made’ (tr. West [n. 4], 89).

62 See Luna (n. 52), 10–12.

63 Luna (n. 52), 10–11. These facts make it strikingly clear that Michael depends on Syrianus and not Syrianus on Michael.

64 Not much can be said about Michael's attitude towards myth as we know little about him in general. See H. Mercken, ‘The Greek commentators on Aristotle's Ethics’, in Sorabji (n. 40), 407–43, at 429–36.

65 West (n. 4), 185: ‘But we must also reckon with the possibility that it was a different, earlier theogony.’

66 West (n. 4), 185 n. 20 with reference to Guthrie (n. 55), 103: ‘It would follow, I think, that this portion of ‘Alexander’ is of early origin, from the true Alexander, possibly reflecting a still earlier exegetical tradition if there was one.’ Moraux, P. (†) comes to the same conclusion, ‘Die genuinen Bücher des ”Metaphysik”-Kommentars’, in Wiesner, J. (ed.), Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen. Von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias. Dritter Band: Alexander von Aphrodisias (Berlin and New York, 2001), 423–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 424–5 n. 5.

67 See Luna (n. 52), 37–45; 70–1 and her diagram in 190. The situation is different in the case of Syrianus, who had access to the commentary of the real Alexander. See Luna (n. 52), 72–98; see also O'Meara, D. and Dillon, J., Syrianus. On Aristotle Metaphysics 3–4 (London, 2008), 8Google Scholar. Thus, we find in this another reason why Michael followed Syrianus in spite of their divergent opinions on Aristotle: he thought he could find some traces of the real Alexander in Syrianus’ commentary.

68 Alexander's disregard for mythological accounts becomes blatantly obvious at In Metaph. 219.6–10 Hayduck, where he interprets Aristotle's neglect of the explanation offered by the theologians (Metaph. B 4, 1000a9–19) as disdain. Alexander says (219.9–10): ‘The expression “the subtleties of the mythologists” [1000a18–19] is equivalent in meaning to “betraying the truth with myths”.’

69 Alexander brings three lines of Empedocles in 135.15–17 (= DK 31B96.1–3, also quoted by Aristotle in De an. 410a4–6), and one line by Hesiod in 421.11 (= Theog. 517). We leave aside the (anonymous) epigram about Hippon, which Alexander quotes (27.3–4 Hayduck).

70 Alexander, In Aristot. Meteor. 66.13–15 Hayduck = OTF 23 F II, III, IV.

71 Alexander stands far apart from a commentator like Syrianus, who approaches the Aristotelian text already with the doctrinal scheme in which Orpheus plays a crucial part in the development of philosophy up to Plato.

72 R. Edmonds III, ‘Review of Bernabé 2004’, in BMCRev (2004), 2004.12.29.