Kernos

Revue internationale et pluridisciplinaire de religion

grecque antique
25 | 2012
Varia

Ancient Theologies and Modern Times

S.C. Humphreys

Electronic version
URL: http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/2111
DOI: 10.4000/kernos.2111
ISSN: 2034-7871

Publisher
Centre international d'étude de la religion grecque antique

Printed version
Date of publication: 26 October 2012
Number of pages: 149-161
ISSN: 0776-3824

Electronic reference
S.C. Humphreys, « Ancient Theologies and Modern Times », Kernos [Online], 25 | 2012, Online since 20
November 2014, connection on 17 October 2019. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/2111 ;
DOI : 10.4000/kernos.2111

Kernos
Kernos
25
(2012),
p.
149-161.

Ancient Theologies and Modern Times

Abstract:
Lobeck’s
Aglaophamus
(1829)
has
been
read
as
beginning
modern
research
on

Orphism
and
the
‘ancient
theology’.
Replacing
it
in
its
historical
context
opens
up
new

perspectives.

Résumé
:
L’Aglaophamus
de
Lobeck
(1829)
a
été
lu
comme
les
prémices
de
la
recherche

moderne
sur
l’orphisme
et
la
«
théologique
antique
».
En
le
replaçant
dans
son
contexte

historique
particulier,
on
ouvre
de
nouvelles
perspectives.





D.P.
Walker’s
The Ancient Theology
(1972)
has
not
made
as
much
impact
as

Frances
Yates’
Art of Memory
(1966),
but
is
based
on
the
same
strategy
of
identi-
fying
an
influential
complex
of
ideas
and
tracking
its
effects
and
transformations.

For
the
history
of
the
classical
tradition
Walker’s
book
is
particularly
important

because
it
deals
with
major
ingredients
in
recurrent
efforts
to
reconcile
pagan

classical
thought
with
Christianity,
from
the
Renaissance
to
the
eighteenth

century.

The
basis
for
this
reconciliation
was
the
claim
that
God
had
originally
given

his
revelation
to
all
mankind;
for
the
most
part
it
had
been
distorted
by
priests,

either
because
abstract
truths
had
to
be
veiled
in
symbolic
imagery
to
persuade

simple
minds,
or
merely
to
increase
their
own
wealth
and/or
power.
However,

the
revelation
had
been
secretly
preserved
and
handed
down
by
wise
men,
the

‘ancient
theologians’.
The
list
of
these
sages
varied:
in
addition
to
Orpheus,

Hermes
Trismegistus,
Moses,
Pythagoras,
and
Plato,
it
might
include
Zoroaster,

the
Chaldaean
oracles,
the
Eleusinian
Mysteries,
Confucius,
and
Indian
brahmans

(‘gymnosophists’).1

Walker’s
story
ends
in
the
early
eighteenth
century,
with
the
influence
of

Neoplatonism
on
science
(Kepler
and
Newton),
deism,
comparative
religion,

missionary
activities
(the
Jesuits
in
China),
and
freemasonry.
This
note
offers
a

continuation.

In
the
nineteenth
century
key
elements
in
the
‘ancient
theology’
complex

were
repositioned.
It
no
longer
seemed
appropriate
explicitly
to
Christianise

Plato;
instead,
he
was
to
be
read
purely
as
a
philosopher
(the
Timaeus,
earlier

considered
his
supreme
work,
became
an
embarrassment).
It
was
firmly
























































1
See
WALKER
(1953),
(1972);
MITTER
(1977),
p.
49.

150
S.C.
HUMPHREYS

asserted
that
Greek
religion
was
a
matter
of
ritual
practice
without
dogma
or

theology.2
Orpheus
was
not
a
historical
figure,
or
at
least
had
left
no
writings.3

On
the
other
hand,
the
task
of
accounting
for
non-classical
pagan
traditions

was
being
greatly
increased
and
complicated
by
more
intensive
contact
with

China,
decipherment
of
Egyptian
hieroglyphs
and
of
cuneiform,
the
expansion

of
British
power
in
India,
and
a
rise
in
missionary
activities
around
the
globe.

Missionaries
were
still
interested
in
the
idea
of
an
original,
universal
revela-
tion,
emphasising
either
traces
of
ethical
monotheism
(Confucius,
Islam,
Indian

bhakti
cults4)
or
encouragement
of
polytheism
and
idolatry
by
priests.5
Others,

however,
were
transforming
the
idea
of
original
revelation
into
a
historicist

concern
with
chronological
priority,
and
hence
into
theories
of
diffusion
–

from
Egypt
to
India,
or
from
India
to
the
West.6

The
ancient
theology
and
diffusionism
were
combined
in
the
climate
that

provoked
Lobeck’s
Aglaophamus.
Today,
Christian
August
Lobeck
(1781-1860)

figures
in
histories
of
comparative
philology
as
a
traditionalist
who
failed
to

recognise
the
epochal
significance
of
Bopp’s
demonstration
of
the
common

origin
of
the
Indo-European
languages,
including
Sanskrit,
and
in
histories
of

classical
philology
as
having
conclusively
shown
that
all
texts
attributed
to

Orpheus
were
late,
and
as
one
of
the
main
critics
of
Creuzer’s
Symbolik und
Mythologie der alten Völker
(1810-1812).

A
closer
look
at
the
historical
context
may
suggest
more
sympathy
for

Lobeck’s
attitude
to
Sanskrit,
and
a
more
nuanced
assessment
of
his
place
in

the
history
of
the
study
of
Greek
religion.
Sanskrit
at
first
seemed
exciting

mainly
because
it
offered
new
evidence
on
myth,
religion,
and
early
poetry.7

Bopp
himself
was
a
student
of
Karl
Joseph
Windischmann,
whose
interests

were
in
these
fields;
Bopp
published
an
edition
with
Latin
translation
and

commentary
of
parts
of
the
Mahabharata
in
1819.
As
the
appendix
to
this
paper

shows,
many
of
those
boldly
rushing
into
this
field
had
no
idea
that
there
might

be
criteria
for
valid
comparison
in
either
philology
or
religion.
If
Lobeck
(like

G.F.
Herrmann)
had
a
low
opinion
of
Sanskritists,
he
had
some
justification.

Aglaophamus
does
not
attack
Creuzer
by
name
(though
it
has
a
warm
reference

to
his
critic
J.H.
Voss).
We
do
not
know
how
Lobeck
framed
his
mischievous

suggestion
that
the
Eleusinian
mysteries
taught
initiates
the
higher
refinements
of

2
PARKER
(2011),
p.
31-2
traces
this
idea
back
to
the
17th
c.

3
Hermes
Trismegistus
had
already
been
dealt
with
by
Casaubon
in
1614:
GRAFTON
(1983).

4
Cf.
RAYCHAUDHURI
(1988),
p.
146-151.

5
There
was
a
strong
input
from
Protestant
anti-Catholic
discourse
(see
now
WALSHAM

[2011]),
also
taken
up
by
anticlerical
milieux
in
France
(see
JUDET
DE
LA
COMBE
[1998],
p.
287
on

Benjamin
Constant).

6
See
e.g.
the
maps
of
diffusion
of
myths
in
GÖRRES
(1810).

7
See
JAMME
(1991);
SHAFFER
(1975);
SASSI
(1984),
GRAF
(1993)
on
Heyne.


Ancient
Theologies
and
Modern
Times 151

Indian
cookery
(see
appendix);
Creuzer
did
derive
Orphic
mysteries
from
India.8

Creuzer,
in
any
case,
was
not
the
only
target,
even
if
he
was
conspicuous
among

German
classicists
of
the
period.
Creuzer
was,
indeed,
an
adherent
of
the
‘ancient

theology’,
but
he
was
not
alone.9
Each
of
the
three
sections
of
Aglaophamus
deals

with
a
mystery
cult
–
Eleusinian,
Orphic,
Samothracian
–
and
in
each
case
the

issue
was
whether
secret
mystical
wisdom,
concerned
especially
with
the
afterlife,

was
revealed
to
initiates.
The
connection
of
such
mystical
teaching
to
Greek

philosophy
and
to
belief
in
the
immortality
of
the
soul
passed
through
the

eponymous
figure
of
Aglaophamus
–
‘proclaimer
of
the
sublime’
–
who
supposedly

transmitted
Orpheus’
theological
teachings
to
Pythagoras.

Lobeck
was
not
the
first
to
question
the
antiquity
of
the
texts
attributed
to

Orpheus,
or
even
the
first
to
propose
the
correct
explanation
of
the
‘mystical’

term
konxompax.10
But
he
made
a
more
systematic
attempt
than
earlier
editors
to

collect,
arrange,
and
date
Orphic
fragments
concerned
with
‘theogony’;
it
was
this

argument
that
(for
some
readers)
removed
the
last
grounds
for
belief
in
‘genuine’

Orphic
poetry.

Aglaophamus
–
probably
more
often
cited
than
read
in
its
entirety
(it
is
not
an

easy
read)
–
was
constructed
in
later
research
as
marking
a
rupture,
a
decisive
turn

away
from
earlier,
less
philologically
scientific
discussions.11
This
construction

then
justified
not
only
reduction
of
the
history
of
research
(when
it
figured
at
all)

to
the
post-Lobeck
era,
but
also
a
selective
treatment
that
often
ignores
issues

outside
this
reductive
framework.
Its
questions
were
framed
by
historicism
and

by
nineteenth
century
classical
philology’s
conception
of
its
disciplinary
skills
and

tasks:
how
were
stages
in
the
development
of
the
Mysteries
and
versions
of
the

Orphic
texts
to
be
dated?
Could
ancestors
of
the
later
texts
be
reconstructed?

They
were
also
framed,
less
explicitly,
by
equally
modern
presuppositions
about

what
was
essentially
‘Greek’
or
must
be
non-Greek,12
by
unexamined
complexes

of
ideas
about
‘religion’,
and
by
often
timid
curiosity
about
the
possible
influence

of
Greek
religious
beliefs
and
rituals
on
early
Christianity.
























































8
Satire
on
such
topics
was
not
a
European
prerogative;
Indians
too
ridiculed
diffusionist

theories
and
the
assumption
that
Indians
needed
European
influences
to
make
them
civilised.
In

one
of
the
satires
of
Bankimchandra
Chattopadhyay
(1838-1894)
a
white
parrot
who
has
come
to

India
to
find
food
and
‘civilise’
Indians
by
urging
them
to
imitate
it
explains
that
it
began
life
as
a

pig
near
the
Black
Sea
(theories
of
the
origin
of
Indo-European?)
and
was
transformed
through

being
eaten
by
fierce
two-legged
animals
called
humans
who
mistook
it
for
an
eel
(CHATTERJEE

[1986],
p.
60;
cf.
RAYCHAUDHURI
[1988],
p.
162).
On
Wilford
see
BAYLY
(2000).

9
See
ASSMANN
(1997)
on
eighteenth-century
Neoplatonism;
HUMPHREYS
(2001)
on
Creuzer

and
his
critics.

10
See
appendix;
MÜLLER
(1830)
attributes
it
to
Boeckh.
HERRMANN
(1805)
had
already
cast

doubt
on
the
Orphic
texts.

11
See
e.g.
ROHDE
(1890),
p.
222,
and
(1893),
Appendix
IX,
on
the
Eleusinian
Mysteries
and

the
Orphic
theogony.

12
In
the
case
of
Orpheus,
‘Thracian’
or
more
exotically
‘shamanic’
–
an
idea
that
still
has
its

attraction.
See
HUMPHREYS
(2001)
on
Preller.

152
S.C.
HUMPHREYS

These
two
latter
preoccupations
are
well
illustrated
by
two
publications
of
the

1890s,
Erwin
Rohde’s
Psyche
(1890,
1893)
and
Ernst
Maass’s
Orpheus
(1895).

Rohde
claims
to
be
analysing
Greek
ideas
about
the
afterlife
objectively,
without

allowing
Christian
conceptions
to
distort
his
account,
but
does
not
explain
why

he
chose
the
‘cult
of
souls’
as
the
focus
of
his
work
on
Greek
religion.
Maass

explicitly
cites
Lobeck
(along
with
Dörpfeld’s
excavations
in
Athens)
as
the

inspiration
for
his
work;
but
what
impressed
him
in
Lobeck
was
the
emphasis
on

historical
change
and
development
in
religion.
This
is
a
valid
reading;
Lobeck
is

nicely
ironical
about
scholars
who
assume
that
religion
never
changes.
But
the

scope
of
Maass’s
historical
narrative
is
very
different,
beginning
with
Orpheus
as

an
early
Greek
god
and
tracing
later
stages
of
Orphic
practices,
beliefs,
and
texts,

to
end
with
questions
about
their
influence
on
early
Christianity.

Maass
does
not
mention
the
gold
tablets
found
in
graves
in
southern
Italy

and
Sicily
and
edited
by
Domenico
Comparetti
from
1879
on,
but
they
appear

in
later
editions
of
Rohde’s
Psyche
and
in
Albrecht
Dieterich’s
study
of
the

Orphic
hymns
(1891)
and
in
his
Nekuia
(1893).
As
Graf’s
account
of
the
history

of
research
on
the
tablets
(2007)
shows,
their
publication
strengthened
the

belief
that
‘orphism’
promised
its
initiates
a
blessed
afterlife,
and
hence
it
could

be
seen
as
an
individualistic
religion
of
salvation
–
and
as
such,
perhaps,

comparable
with
Christianity.13

The
turn
of
the
century
was
a
favourable
period
for
work
on
Christianity’s

historical
background.
The
topic
could
still
be
controversial,14
but
it
was

respectable
enough
to
think
that
St
Paul
had
introduced
Greek
elements
into

Christian
thought;
and
there
were
philologists
superbly
equipped
with
discipli-
nary
skills
who
had
also
been
brought
up
on
the
New
Testament.
The
expertise

used
by
Lobeck
in
dating
Orphic
texts
was
developed
in
brilliant
studies
of

both
language
and
genre
–
Formgeschichte
–
by
Richard
Reitzenstein
and
Eduard

Norden.15
From
the
viewpoint
of
the
history
of
the
study
of
Greek
religion,

interest
in
the
Hellenistic
background
was
a
valuable
counterweight
in
a
period

otherwise
heavily
influenced
by
evolutionist
anthropology.

There
were
still
attempts
to
insist
that
‘Orphism’
was
not
a
religion,
that
there

were
no
orphic
sects,
and
that
‘Orpheus’
was
just
a
label
attached
(for
reasons

that
were
left
unclear)
to
a
variety
of
texts.
The
position
was
somewhat
changed,

however,
by
reports
and
eventual
publication
of
the
‘Derveni
papyrus’,
found
in

the
remains
of
a
funeral
pyre
dated
before
300
B.C.E.
near
Thessaloniki.
It

proved
to
be
a
commentary
on
a
theogonic
poem
with
‘Orphic’
characteristics.16
























































13
DIETERICH
(1891),
(1893);
GRAF
(2007).

14
See
GRAF
(2007).
Some
of
the
claims
made
for
‘orphism’
–
for
example
by
MACCHIORO

(1920),
(1930)
–
were
indeed
wild.

15
REITZENSTEIN
(1910),
NORDEN
(1912).

16
WEST
(1983),
LAKS
and
MOST
(1997),
BETEGH
(2004),
BERNABÉ
(2005),
KOUREMENOS

a.o.
(2006).


Ancient
Theologies
and
Modern
Times 153

This
shifted
attention
back
to
philological
attempts
to
reconstruct
classical
or

preclassical
Orphic
theogonies,
with
other
interests
centering
mainly
on
the

identity
or
social
role
of
the
commentator.
Research
is
still
haunted
by
the
idea

that
‘real’
Orphism
must
be
preclassical
and
probably
non-Greek,
either
‘oriental’

or
‘shamanic’;
hence
classical
and
postclassical
developments
in
Greece
can
be

characterized
as
‘hocus
pocus’
17
–
a
confession
that
scholars
do
not
know
what

questions
to
ask.
This
absence
of
serious
critical
questions
is
both
fostered
and

disguised
by
the
production
of
collective
volumes
in
which
various
specialists

pursue
their
own
interests.18

The
history
of
the
classical
tradition
is
too
often
seen
as
a
specialized
inter-
est
that
is
not
essential
to
the
study
of
the
ancient
world,
and
is
particularly

important
for
the
middle
ages
and
the
Renaissance.19
A
critical
historical

perspective
on
the
places
of
ancient
societies
in
the
global
imaginaire
must

however
deal
with
ruptures
as
well
as
continuities.
The
modern
attempt
to

break
with
the
classical
tradition
produced
massive
reconfigurations.
The

relevant
points
for
this
paper
are
that
there
were
major
changes
in
the
concept

of
‘religion’
(driving
most
classical
scholars
into
an
untheorized
phenomenol-
ogy
that
simply
allows
them
not
to
examine
their
ideas),
and
that
Greek
and

Roman
‘religion’
were
constructed
as
‘dogma
without
theology’
(all
theology

being
reclassified
as
‘philosophy’),
religious
practice
(before
Christianity)
being

treated
as
‘traditional’
–
perhaps
with
exotic
origins
–
or
as
‘failure
of
nerve’,

‘syncretism’,
and/or
‘oriental
influence’.

There
are
some
signs
now
that
the
categories
that
shape
research
on
the

ancient
world
are
being
critically
reexamined.
Garth
Fowden
pointed
out
already

in
1986,
discussing
the
‘Hermetica’,
that
we
need
to
move
on
from
Casaubon’s

questions
about
the
historicity
of
Hermes
Trismegistus
and
the
date
of
the
texts

to
think
about
the
‘author
functions’
of
Hermes
(how
was
he
imagined
as
an

author?
what
did
it
mean
to
attribute
texts
to
him?),20
and
the
same
is
true
of

Orpheus.
Jean
Rudhardt
has
asked
new
questions
about
the
theology
of
the

Orphic
hymns.21
We
have
evidence
that
at
least
in
Attica
in
the
second
century

C.E.
‘mystery
plays’
were
performed
and
watched
both
by
initiates
at
Eleusis
and

by
a
city-based
Dionysian
group,
the
Iobacchoi.22
























































17
WEST
(1997);
cf.
WEST
(1983),
p.
29,
‘Dabbling
in
religion’.
In
the
Neue Pauly’s
Rezeptions-
geschichte
section
orphism
appears
under
“Okkultismus”,
STUCKRAD
(2001).

18
MASARACCHIO
(1993),
LAKS
and
MOST
(1997),
BERNABÉ
and
CASADESUS
(2008),
ED-
MONDS
(2011).

19
Even
the
recently
founded
International Journal of the Classical Tradition
has
relatively
few

papers
on
the
history
of
scholarship.

20
FOWDEN
(1986),
p.
29,
citing
FOUCAULT
(1980).
Cf.
GAGNÉ
(2007)
on
the
Orphic
Physika.

21
RUDHARDT
(1991);
cf.
RIEDWEG
(1993);
SOURVINOU-INWOOD
(2005),
p.
173-79.
See
also

GRAF
(2009).

22
Eleusis:
SOURVINOU-INWOOD
(2003),
p.
29;
Iobacchoi,
IG
II2
1368
(cf.
HUMPHREYS

[2004],
p.
266-267).
MAASS
(1895)
thought
the
Iobacchoi
were
Orphic,
identifying
the
dramatic

154
S.C.
HUMPHREYS

While
elements
of
the
Eleusinian
‘sacred
drama’
may
go
back
to
the
archaic
or

classical
period,
we
are
not
entitled
to
assume
that
there
were
no
changes
over
the

course
of
the
centuries,
still
less
that
there
were
no
changes
in
the
ways
the

audience
experienced
what
they
saw.23

In
a
way,
perhaps,
research
interest
has
now
returned
full
circle
to
the
period

and
milieu
in
which
the
‘Ancient
Theology’
was
elaborated,
i.e.
late
antique

Neoplatonism.
But
we
now
see
it
as
a
period
of
many
theologies,
with
varying

cosmological,
dramatic,
gnostic,
and
philosophical
tendencies.
24
Perhaps
even,
as

we
come
to
know
more
about
the
movements
of
goods,
people,
and
ideas

around
the
Mediterranean
and
further
into
Asia
during
late
Antiquity
and
on
into

the
‘middle
ages’,
cross-fertilization
between
the
‘ancient
world’
and
India
may

not
seem
a
laughable
suggestion.
But
it
would
no
longer
be
seen
as
a
movement

from
primitive
and
exotic
sources
into
a
more
civilized
world.
Everywhere,

thinkers
were
trying
to
make
sense
of
the
universe
and
of
history
with
a
mixture

of
local
and
exogenous
materials.25

S.C.
HUMPHREYS

Rhamnous

Cotswold
Road

OXFORD
OX2
9JG

E-mail: schumphreys@wordprocessing.co.uk

character
Proteurhythmos
as
Orpheus
(HARRISON
[1903],
p.
475-477,
655-659,
suggested
Eros

Protogonos).
It
seems
likely
that
the
Iobacchoi
were
influenced
by
the
Orphic
creator-figure

Protogonos
(see
WEST
[1983];
SOURVINOU-INWOOD
[2005],
p.
174-75),
but
shifted
it
to

emphasize
Dionysus’
links
with
dance
and
theatre.
See
also
CALAME
(1991),
p.
200-201,
on
the

history
of
the
terms
drân
and
drômenon.

23
SOURVINOU-INWOOD
(2003)
thinks
that
the
Eleusinian
ritual
was
fixed
in
the
6th
century;
it

is
rather
tempting
to
assume
that
in
Aristophanes’
Frogs
the
context
between
Aeschylus
and

Euripides
takes
the
place
of
the
secret
‘sacred
drama’.
SOURVINOU-INWOOD
(2005)
shows
more

interest
in
tracing
changes.

24
See
CHADWICK
(1980)
on
Gnosticism.

25
LUHRMANN
(1989)
provides
a
model
analysis
of
how
this
‘making
sense’
process
works.


Ancient
Theologies
and
Modern
Times 155

Appendix "

Calcutta meets Königsberg

Christian
LOBECK,
Aglaophamus
(1829),
p.
773-783.26







One
further
topic
remains
to
be
explained;
the
meaning
of
the
names
Orpheus

gave
to
the
gatekeepers
of
the
winds.
If
I
were
to
think
that
the
first,
Amalcides,

came
from
malacia
(softness),
or
taking
another
reading
(Hamaclides)
conjecture

that
this
name
and
the
rest
denoted
some
of
the
first-born,
first
speaking

beings,
I
greatly
fear
that
it
would
seem
to
most
men
passé
and
unworthy
of
our

century.
Style,
and
the
taste
of
the
reader,
have
changed.
Other
arts,
though
–

no
doubt
due
to
lack
of
cultivation
–
still
cling
modestly
to
their
ancient
roots;

but
mythology
has
always
been
very
like
Libya,
which
according
to
the
Greek

proverb
each
year
brings
forth
some
new
monstrosity,
and
our
own
age
has

made
a
degree
of
progress
that
the
old
sages
could
hardly
suspect
or
even

imagine.

For
since
the
most
learned
president
of
the
Calcutta
Academy,
Jones,
has

announced
that
the
sacred
tales
of
India
are
marvellously
in
accord
with
Greek

mythology
in
Lilius
Gyraldus’
collection
[1548],
this
quasi
heaven-sent
message

has
so
converted
and
revolutionalized
scholarship
that
everyone
at
all
in
the

know
has
given
up
reading
Greek
and
Latin
texts
and
seeks
help
in
interpreting

the
ancients
only
from
the
pundits
and
their
mouthpieces.
Once
this
track
had

been
opened
up,
so
many
and
such
incredible
things
have
been
brought
to
light

in
just
a
few
years
that
if
we
only
wait
a
little
there
will
be
nothing
unknown
in

this
whole
field
of
scholarship.
So
we
may
hope
that
it
will
soon
become
clear

what
these
Orphic
terms
mean.
They
do
seem
Sanskrit
to
me.
For,
in
the
first

place,
it
is
clearly
to
be
understood
that
Orpheus’
phrase
in
Hymn
VIII,

addressed
to
the
moon,

Ἐλθὲ
µάüαιρ’,
εὔýρων,
εὐάστερε,
ýέγγεϊ
τῷ
σῷ

λαµποµένη,
σώζουσα
τεοὺς
ἱκέτας
ἐς
Λοκούρη.

is
Sanskrit.
The
leading
philologists
have
been
completely
deluded
in
their

treatment
of
this
passage
–
Julius
Scaliger,
who
decided
it
was
corrupt,

Ruhnken,
who
emended
it
(ἱκέτας
σέο,
κούρη),
and
finally
Hermann
who
even

dared
print
this
conjecture
in
his
text.
What
need
of
further
words?
Orpheus

wrote
just
what
the
old
editions
reproduce:

26
Several
of
Lobeck’s
notes
are
omitted.

156
S.C.
HUMPHREYS

…
ýέγγεϊ
τῷ
σῷ

λαµποµένη
σώζουσα
τεοὺς
ἱκέτας
ἐς
Λοκούρη.

And
if
anyone
asserts
that
this
line
does
not
conform
to
the
laws
of
metre
–

well,
those
laws
were
written
by
philologists
and
not
mythographers.
The

meaning
is
excellent:
‘Shining
with
thine
own
light,
shelter
in
Locure
those
who

humbly
call
on
thee’,
as
Wilford
translates
in
his
‘Essay
on
the
Sacred
Isles
in

the
West’,
Asiatic Researches
XI,
43.
Locure,
in
case
you
didn’t
know,
is
the

Sanskrit
name
for
the
lunar
paradise,
originally
denoting
amber,
from
which

derive
many
place-names
both
ancient
and
modern:
Liguria,
Laceria,
Loire,

Leicester.

Furthermore,
in
the
Eleusinian
mysteries,
which
we
know
were
founded
by

Orpheus’
fellow-student
Eumolpus,
the
sacred
officials
spoke
Sanskrit.
Everyone

who
has
used
Meursius
knows
that
at
the
end
of
this
ritual,
when
the
congrega-
tion
was
dismissed,
the
words
Κόγξ
Ὄµπαξ
were
proclaimed
as
they
left.
What

they
meant,
no
one
before
the
present
age
had
an
inkling.
Some
–
impiously

altering
the
genuine
reading
–
thought
it
should
be
emended
to
κόγξ,
βόµβαξ.
But

now
this
same
Wilford,
the
darling
of
the
symbolists,
in
his
note,
‘Remarks
on
the

names
of
the
Cabirian
deities’
(Asiatic Researches
V,
297)
has
taught
us
that
these

words
are
perfectly
sound
and
Samscredanic:
‘At
the
conclusion
of
the
mysteries

of
Eleusis
the
congregation
was
dismissed
in
these
words:
Κόγξ,
Ὄµ,
Πάξ.
These

mysterious
words
have
been
considered
hitherto
as
inexplicable;
but
they
are
pure

Sanskrit
and
used
to
this
day
by
Brahmens
at
the
conclusion
of
religious
rites.

They
are
written
in
the
language
of
the
Gods,
as
the
Hindus
call
the
language
of

their
sacred
books,
Candscha,
Om,
Pacsha.
Canscha
signifies
the
object
of
our
most

ardent
wishes.
Om
is
the
famous
monosyllaba
used
both
at
the
beginning
and

conclusion
of
a
prayer
or
any
religious
rite,
like
Amen.
Pacsha
exactly
answers
to

the
obsolete
Latin
word
vix;
it
signifies
change,
course,
stead,
place,
turn
of
work,

dury,
fortune,
etc.’
(p.
300).27
This
interpretation
has
been
embraced
by

Fr.
Muenter
(‘Erklärung
einer
griechischen
Inschrift’,
p.
18),
Fr.
Creuzer

(Symbolica
IV,
573),
the
famous
Uvarov
(Essai sur les mystères d’Eleusis,
26
f.),

Schelling
(Ueber die Gottheiten von Samothrake,
91),
and
others
too.
But
this
shows

how
valuable
even
a
slight
knowledge,
or
no
knowledge
at
all,
of
Sanskrit

literature
is
for
classical
scholarship.
For
what
Greek
scholar
could
ever
have

suspected
this?
Hesychius’
text
is:
Κόγξ
Ὄµπαξ·
ἐπιφώνηµα
τετελεσµένοις.
Καὶ

τῆς
δικαστικῆς
ψήφου
ἦχος,
ὡς
ὁ
τῆς
κλεψύδρας.
παρὰ
δ’
Ἀττικοὶς
βλόψ.
Now
























































27
By
the
same
trick
Drummond
(who
recently
proved
that
the
twelve
patriarchs,
and
the

twelve
emperors
of
Suetonius,
were
neither
patriarchs
nor
emperors
but
the
signs
of
the
Zodiac)

has
thrown
light
on
a
passage
in
Euripides’
Bacchae.
In
line
581
we
read
the
deeply
obscure
words

σέβοµεν
,
which
Hermann
and
Elmsley
leave
unremarked,
presumably
because
they
did
not

understand
them;
but
this
great
master
in
Classical Journal
18,
1814,
363
shows
that
they
really

mean
‘Let
us
worship
O’,
O
or
On
or
Hou
or
Houa
being
the
name
of
a
Supreme
Being
invoked

by
Arabs
and
other
oriental
peoples.
Doubtless
many
thousand
such
words
are
to
be
found
in

Greek
and
Latin
writers,
which
idiot
critics
have
classed
as
copyists’
errors.


Ancient
Theologies
and
Modern
Times 157

consult
any
of
those
who
call
themselves
philogists;
he
will
get
juice
out
of
a

pumice-stone
before
he
will
get
from
this
passage
that
Κόγξ
Ὄµ
Πάξ
was
said
to

initiates.
First
he
will
say
that
κόγξ
ὄµπαξ
are
not
parts
of
a
single
phrase,
but
one

is
an
interpretation
of
the
other,
as
in
the
similar
glosses
Εἶα
δὴ
ἄγε
δή,
χε
δὴ

ἄγε
δή,
and
that
κόγξ
ὄµπαξ
could
no
more
be
pronounced
in
the
same
breath

than
Εἴπερ
γὰρ
ἐὰν
γάρ
and
other
phrases
linked
in
the
same
manner
by

glossographers.
Then
he
will
claim
that
neither
hide
nor
hair
of
the
Eleusinian

mysteries
appears
here,
and
that
he
could
not
even
tell
whether
the
term
τῶν

τετελεσµένων
would
refer
to
the
mysteries
of
Demeter
and
Proserpine,
or
Hecate,

or
the
Cabiri,
or
Mithras,
or
even
the
sacraments
of
Christianity.
Bolder
still,
he

will
assert
that
no
initiates
are
to
be
read
into
this
passage,
but
that
τετελεσµένοις

is
the
neuter
dative
of
τετελεσµένα,
which
means
the
same
as
ἐξειργασµένα:
a
job

done,
concluded,
finished.
So
ἐπὶ
τετελεσµένοις
means
the
same
as
ἐπ᾿

ἐξειργασµένοις:
when
a
job
is
done.
Finally
he
will
go
right
on
to
explain

Hesychius
as
saying,
Κόγξ
ὄµπαξ
is
an
artificial
term
used
when
something
is

over,
to
mean
‘enough
of
that,
finished’;
and
he
will
note
that
Latin
pax
or
pax
periit ilico
means
the
same,
and
that
Hesychius
gives
the
same
meaning
to
the

Greek
term
Πάξ,
τέλος
ἔχει
–
which
is
the
same
as
if
he
had
written
πάξ

ἐπιφώνηµα
τετελεσµένοις.
Thus,
perhaps,
will
someone
speak
–
one
of
those

philologists.
But
before
we
let
Wilford’s
splendid
discovery
be
torn
from
our

hands,
let
us
take
a
final
careful
look
at
the
words,
to
see
if
there
is
any
way
of

saving
them
from
the
quibblers.

First,
then,
Κόγξ,
which
Hesychius
says
means
the
sound
of
a
waterclock
or

a
juror’s
voting-pebble,
the
term
being
obviously
created
in
imitation
of
the

splash
of
a
drop
falling
from
on
high
into
water
or
the
sharp
sound
of
a
pebble

being
dropped
into
an
urn.
All
languages
have
such
words,
although
they

seldom
agree
with
each
other
(examples…),
or
with
the
terms
we
use
ourselves.

So
we
can
easily
be
persuaded
that
Hesychius
is
right
about
κόγξ,
even
if
we

would
use
another
sound.
And
indeed
βλόψ,
which
seems
to
be
related
to

scloppo,
sounds
highly
naturalistic.
Πάξ,
then
(derived
from
πήσσω,
pacio,
like
tax

from
tagô
and
evax
from
εὐάζω)
means
the
noise
of
other
colliding
bodies,
and

perhaps
especially
of
clapping
hands
or
a
hand
rapping
the
table
–
actions

which
even
our
fellow-countrymen,
not
much
given
to
gesticulation,
use
to

mean
‘approved’!,
‘enough’!,
or
‘stop!’.
So
κόγξ
may
mean
various
things
but

never
–
as
Wilford
claims
–
‘the
object
of
our
most
ardent
wishes’.

Having
lost
the
support
of
κόγξ
we
must
take
refuge,
as
if
in
an
ark,
in
µ,

which
since
it
resembles
no
Greek
word
may
easily
be
Sanskrit.
But
I
very

much
doubt
if
it
will
provide
shelter
for
long.
What
will
we
say,
I
ask,
if

someone
says
this
monstrous
µ
is
an
abbreviation
of
the
adverb
ὁµοίως?
–

which
Hesychius
often
uses
when
putting
together
words
of
the
same
meaning

(examples...).
And
let
no
one
wonder
how
µ
could
come
from
ὁµοίως.
For

scribes
generally
reduce
words
like
this,
which
appear
on
every
page,
to
a
few

initial
letters...
And
this
is
not
the
only
substitute
we
could
propose
for
our

158
S.C.
HUMPHREYS

brahminical
whatnot;
there
is
also
οἷον,
even
shorter,
which
Hesychius
uses

when
explaining
words,
as
in
Ἐλέπουν,
οἷον
ἐλέπιζον.
But
having
admitted
this

we
can
hardly
object
to
taking
Hesychius’
gloss
–
κόγξ
ὁµοίως
or
οἷον
πάξ
–
as

follows:
both
are
words
‘invented’
as
rhetoricians
say,
to
imitate
the
sounds
of

smashing,
hitting,
clapping,
and
hence
transferred
to
something
smashed,

broken
off,
decided
and
settled.
I
see
no
hope
left.
For
the
only
remaining

word,
πάξ,
we
must
willy-nilly
concede
is
the
ἐπιφθεγµατικόν
written
with
the

same
letters
in
Latin.
Moreover,
this
type
of
word
is
restricted
to
the
narrow

range
of
vulgar
and
familiar
speech,
like
evax,
tax, pax,
κνάξ,
πύπαξ,
πάπαξ,

βοµβάξ,
παπαιάξ,
ἰατταταιάξ.
What
a
calamity!
For
it
this
is
the
case,
what
could

be
less
appropriate
to
the
status
of
a
hierophant
than
this
absurd
word
pax?
It

would
have
been
received
by
hearers
with
as
much
laughter
as
if
today
some

preacher
in
the
pulpit,
instead
of
the
‘Amen’
with
which
a
sermon
usually
ends,

were
to
say
‘Basta!’.
‘Different
affairs
are
conducted
in
different
ways’,
the
same

ending
is
not
appropriate
for
all
(examples...);
a
minister
of
the
church,
sending

away
the
congregation,
says
ite, missa est.
No
one
would
say
pax
except
in
a
place

and
on
an
occasion
where
today
one
could
say
‘Basta’.

What
are
we
to
do?
Shall
we
then
conclude
that
Hesychius
was
not
talking

about
mystery
rites,
either
Eleusinian
or
any
others?
that
the
words
he
explains,

konx
and
pax,
are
not
Sanskrit?
that
Wilford’s
explanation
is
completely

invented,
futile,
and
false?
Surely
not;
we
will
stick
faithfully
to
our
Mumpsimus,

and
not
allow
the
authority
of
any
philologist’s
arguments
to
prevent
us
from

believing
that
the
Eleusinian
hierophants
in
their
ritual
pronouncements
were

speaking
Sanskrit.
And
we
will
defend
our
cause
with
the
same
weapons
if

anyone
suggests
that
another
formula,
in
the
Eleusinian
hymn,
ιε
τοκυῖε
–

which
indeed
has
not
yet
been
explained
by
Wilford,
but
which
in
Muenter’s

view
derives
from
very
ancient
and
foreign
sources,
can
be
transformed
into

the
imperatives
ὕε
and
κύε.
However,
when
Wilford
claims
that
the
hiero-
phant’s
phrase
of
dismissal
had
never
previously
been
explained,
I
can
no

longer
agree
with
him.
For
‘many
strong
men
lived
before
Agamemnon’,
and

even
in
philology
every
age
has
produced
its
own
Mercurial
spirits,
who
have

tried
to
scuttle
faster
up
the
road
to
fame
by
impressing
their
readers
with

marvels.
One
of
the
members
of
this
golden
race,
about
a
century
ago,
was
the

Frenchman
Legrand,
who
writes
(Diss.philos. et crit.
173),
‘various
semibarbarous

names
of
gods
are
found
in
the
Greek
mysteries,
for
example
Titan,
and

Λελιούρη
at
the
end
of
the
hymn
to
the
moon
(the
Aldine
and
Étienne
editions

should
be
emended
to
ἐς Λοκούρη).
Titan
is
Satan,
as
Jean
Dorat
says
in
his

manuscript
notes
on
Hesiod.
The
most
ancient
Orpheus
included
Hebrew,

Syriac,
Chaldaic
and
even
magical
terms
in
his
poems.28
Similarly
Jean
Leclerc,
a

famous
theologian
and
(until
he
met
a
real
one
in
Bentley)
philologist,
asserts
























































28
This
is
splendidly
confirmed
by
Hesychius:
Titan
–
Antichrist,
the
two
names
being

arithmetically
equivalent
and
both
equal
to
the
number
of
the
Beast
of
the
Apocalypse.


Ancient
Theologies
and
Modern
Times 159

that
our
konx
ompax
is
Punic
and
means,
‘Be
watchful
and
abstain
from
all
sin’

(Bibl. univers.
VI
86).
And
indeed,
if
anyone
considers
the
number
and
the

ingenuity
of
the
older
etymologists,
he
can
scarcely
doubt
that
one
or
another

will
have
proposed
a
Chinese
or
Cimbrian
or
for
all
I
know
Mexican
origin;
yet

they
are
all
now
buried,
unwept
and
unknown,
in
age-long
night,
for
want
of
a

poet
ready
to
splash
their
praises
around
in
the
dailies.29

Appendix 2
FRIEDLÄNDER
(1861),
p.
11-12.





Throughout
Aglaophamus
Lobeck
maintains
a
tone
of
calm
superiority,
even

allowing
himself
to
jest.
The
bombastic
exuberance
and
pomposity
of
the

‘symbolists’
invited
parody;
Lobeck
linked
one
of
his
skits
to
Königsberg.
Older

residents
will
remember
an
eccentric
named
Andreas
Duncker
who
adorned
his

house
on
the
Tragheim
with
an
art
collection,
and
built
an
observatory
on
his

roof.
He
also
printed
at
his
own
expense
200
emendations
to
Virgil’s
Georgics

(1806),
attributed
to
a
manuscript
allegedly
owned
by
a
monastery
on
the

Tragheim
(monachium Traghemense).
The
book
must
by
now
be
extremely
rare,
if

indeed
it
still
exists
at
all.
Lobeck
claimed
to
have
found
in
the
same
monastic

collection
an
unpublished
fragment
of
Goropius
Becanus,
the
Dutch
scholar

who
in
the
16th
century
demonstrated
that
the
names
of
the
Greek
gods
were

Dutch.
This
text
(said
Lobeck)
explained
that
Greek
religion
was
nothing
but
a

culinary
system
wrapped
in
symbolism
and
allegory.
Missionaries
from
India,

finding
the
Greeks
living
on
raw
food
like
wild
animals,
had
to
start
by

changing
their
crude
eating
habits
into
a
civilised
diet,
and
thus
began
their

work
of
conversion
with
cookery
lessons.
To
implant
this
education
more

fixedly
in
savage
minds
they
proclaimed
that
well-made
meals
of
the
approved

type,
and
their
preparers,
were
to
be
considered
holy
and
addressed
by
prayers;

they
set
up
kitchens
and
hearths
everywhere
–
this
was
the
real
meaning
of

temples
and
altars;
the
gods
were
named
after
cuisines,
foods,
or
herbs;
worship

took
the
form
of
meals
and
feasting;
finally,
the
Mysteries
were
founded
to

support
and
spread
knowledge
of
the
higher
gastronomy.

29
[Lobeck
says
ephemeridae,
a
dig
at
the
ephemeral
life
of
‘journals’.]

160
S.C.
HUMPHREYS

Bibliography
Jan
ASSMANN,
Moses the Egyptian,
Cambridge
(MA),
Harvard
Univ.
Press,
1997.

Christopher
A.
BAYLY,
“Orientalists,
informants
and
critics
in
Benares
1790-1860”,
in
J.
MALIK

(ed.),
Perspectives of Mutual Encounters in South Asia 1760-1860,
Leiden,
Brill,
2000,
p.
97-127.

Alberto
BERNABÉ,
Frances
CASADESÚS
(eds.),
Orfeo y la tradición orfica: un reencuentro
I-II,
Madrid,

Akal,
2008.

—
(ed.),
Poetae epici graeci testimonia et fragmenta
II.
2-3,
Munich/Leipzig,
Teubner;
Berlin,
de

Gruyter,
2005,
2007.

Gabor
BETEGH,
The Derveni Papyrus,
Cambridge,
Univ.
Press,
2004.

Franz
BOPP,
Nalus carmen sanskritum e Mahâbhârato; edidit, latine vertit et adnotationibus illustravit F.
Bopp,
London,
Treuttel
&
Würtz,
1819.

Claude
CALAME,
“‘Mythe’
et
‘rite’
en
Grèce:
des
catégories
indigènes?”,
Kernos 4
(1991),
p.
179-
204.

William
M.
CALDER,
Renate
SCHLESIER
(eds.),
Zwischen Rationalismus und Romantik: Karl Otfried
Müller und die antike Kultur,
Hildesheim,
Weidmann,
1998.

Isaac
CASAUBON,
De rebus sacris et ecclesiasticis exercitationes XVI,
London,
1614.

Henry
CHADWICK,
“The
domestication
of
gnosis”,
in
Bentley
LAYTON
(ed.),
The Rediscovery of
Gnosticism
I,
Leiden,
Brill,
1980,
p.
3-16.

Partha
CHATTERJEE,
Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World,
London,
Zed
Books/Delhi,
Oxford

Univ.
Press,
1986.

Michael
B.
COSMOPOULOS
(ed.),
Greek Mysteries: the archaeology and ritual of ancient Greek secret cults,

London,
Routledge,
2003.

Georg
Friedrich
CREUZER,
Symbolik und Mythologie der alten Völker, besonders der Griechen,

Leipzig/Darmstadt,
Heyer
&
Leske,
1810-1812
(2nd
ed.
1819-1821).

Albrecht
DIETERICH,
De hymnis orphicis capitula tria,
Marburg,
Elwert,
1891.

—,
Nekuia:
Beiträge zur Erklärung der neuentdeckten Petrusapokalypse,
Leipzig,
Teubner,
1893.

Radcliffe
G.
EDMONDS
(ed.),
The Orphic Gold Tablets and Greek Religion: further along the path,

Cambridge,
Univ.
Press,
2011.

Michael
FOUCAULT,
“What
is
an
author?”,
in
Josué
V.
HARARI
(ed.),
Textual Strategies: perspectives in
post-structuralist criticism,
Ithaca,
Cornell
Univ.
Press,
1980,
p.
141-60.

Garth
FOWDEN,
The Egyptian Hermes: a historical approach to the Late Antique mind,
Cambridge,
Univ.

Press,
1986.

Ludwig
FRIEDLÄNDER
(ed.),
Mittheilungen aus Lobecks Briefwechsel,
Leipzig,
Teubner,
1861.

Renaud
GAGNÉ,
“Winds
and
ancestors:
the
Physika
of
Orpheus”,
HSCP
103
(2007),
p.
1-23.

Joseph
GÖRRES,
Mythengeschichte der asiatischen Welt,
Heidelberg,
Mohr
&
Zimmer,
1810.

Fritz
GRAF,
“Die
Entstehung
des
Mythosbegriffs
bei
Christian
Gottlob
Heyne”,
in
GRAF
(ed.),

Mythos in mythenloser Gesellschaft,
Stuttgart/Leipzig,
Teubner,
1993,
p.
284-294.

—,
“A
history
of
scholarship
on
the
tablets”,
in
Fritz
GRAF,
Sarah
Iles
JOHNSTON
(eds.),
Ritual
Texts for the Afterlife: Orpheus and the Bacchic gold tablets,
London,
Routledge,
2007,
p.
50-65.

—,
“Serious
singing:
the
Orphic
hymns
as
religious
texts”,
Kernos
22
(2009),
p.
169-182.

Anthony
GRAFTON,
“Protestant
versus
prophet:
Isaac
Casaubon
on
Hermes
Trismegistus”,

JWCI 46
(1983),
p.
78-93.

Jane
HARRISON,
Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion,
Cambridge,
Univ.
Press,
1903.

Gottfried
F.
HERRMANN
(ed.),
Orphica cum notis A. Chr. Eschenbachi I.M. Gesneri Th. Tyrwhitti,

Leipzig,
Fritsch,
1805.

Sarah
C.
HUMPHREYS,
“Historicizing
fertility”,
in
Glenn
W.
MOST
(ed.),
Historicization –
Historisierung,
Göttingen,
Vandenhoeck
&
Ruprecht,
2001,
p.
169-200
[reprinted
with
addi-
tions
in
eadem
2004].


Ancient
Theologies
and
Modern
Times 161

Sarah
C.
HUMPHREYS,
The Strangeness of Gods,
Oxford,
Univ.
Press,
2004.

—,
Rudolf
WAGNER
(eds.),
Modernity’s Classics,
Heidelberg,
Springer,
in
press.

Christophe
JAMME,
Einführung in die Philosophie des Mythos II: Neuzeit und Gegenwart,
Darmstadt,

Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft,
1991
(French
tr.
Paris,
Vrin,
1995).

Pierre
JUDET
DE
LA
COMBE,
“Le
‘savant
antiquaire
de
Gottingue’.
Karl
Otfried
Müller
en

France”,
in
CALDER
–
SCHLESIER
(1998),
p.
283-311.

Theokritos
KOUREMENOS,
George
M.
PARASSOGLOU,
K.
TSANTSANOGLOU
(eds.),
The Derveni
Papyrus,
Florence,
Olschki,
2006.

Andre
LAKS,
Glenn
W.
MOST
(eds.),
The Derveni Papyrus,
Oxford,
Univ.
Press,
1997.

Christian
August
LOBECK,
Aglaophamus sive de theologiae mysticae Graecorum causis libri tres,

Königsberg,
Bornträger,
1829.

Tanya
LUHRMANN,
Persuasions of the Witch’s Craft: ritual magic in contemporary England,
Cambridge

(MA),
Harvard
Univ.
Press,
1989.

Ernst
MAASS,
Orpheus: Untersuchungen zur griechischen römischen altchristlichen Jenseitsdichtung und Religion,

Munich,
Beck,
1895
(reprinted
1974).

Vittorio
MACCHIORO,
Zagreus: studi intorno al orfismo,
Bari,
Laterza,
1920.

—,
From Orphism to Paul: a history of Orphism,
New
York,
Holt,
1930.

Agostino
MASARACCHIO
(ed.),
Orfeo e l’orfismo,
Rome,
G.E.I.,
1993.

Partha
MITTER,
Much Maligned Monsters: a history of European reactions to Indian art,
Chicago,
Univ.

Press,
1977
(repr.
with
new
preface
1992).

Karl
Otfried
MÜLLER,
review
of
LOBECK
1829,
GGA
1830,
reprinted
in
id.,
Kleine deutsche Schriften
II,
Breslau,
1848/Hildesheim,
Olms,
1979.

Eduard
NORDEN,
Agnostos theos: Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religiöser Rede,
Stuttgart,

Teubner,
1912
(repr.
Darmstadt,
WBG,
1956).

Tapan
RAYCHAUDHURI,
Europe Reconsidered: perceptions of the West in nineteenth-century Bengal,
Delhi,

Oxford
Univ.
Press,
1988
[2nd,
revised
ed.
2002].

Richard
REITZENSTEIN,
Die hellenistische Mysterienreligionen nach ihren Grundgedanken und Wirkungen,

Leipzig,
Teubner,
1910
(3rd
ed.
1927).

Christophe
RIEDWEG,
Jüdisch-hellenistische Imitation eines orphischen Hieros Logos: Beobachtungen zu OF
245 und 247 (sog. Testament des Orpheus),
Tübingen,
Mohr,
1993.

Erwin
ROHDE,
Psyche I-II,
Freiburg,
Mohr,
1890-1893.

Jean
RUDHARDT,
“Quelques
réflexions
sur
les
hymnes
orphiques”,
in
Philippe
BORGEAUD
(ed.),

Orphisme et Orphée: en l’honneur de Jean Rudhardt,
Geneva,
Droz,
1991,
p.
263-288.

Maria
Micaela
SASSI,
“Ermeneutica
del
mito
in
K.O.
Müller”,
ASNP 3
14.3
(1984),
p.
911-935.

Elinor
S.
SHAFFER,
‘Kubla Khan’ and ‘The Fall of Jerusalem’: the mythological school in Biblical criticism and
secular literature,
Cambridge,
Univ.
Press,
1975.

Christiane
SOURVINOU-INWOOD,
“Festival
and
mysteries:
aspects
of
the
Eleusinian
cult”,
in

COSMOPOULOS
(2003),
p.
25-49.

—,
Hylas, the Nymphs, Dionysos and others: myth, ritual, ethnicity,
Acta-Ath. in 8° 19
(2005).

Kocku
von
STUCKRAD,
s.v.
“Okkultismus”,
Neue Pauly
XV.1
(2001),
col.
1146-1466.

D.
Perkin
WALKER,
“Orpheus
the
theologian
and
Renaissance
Platonism”,
JWCI
16
(1953),

p.
100-120.

—,
The Ancient Theology,
London,
Duckworth,
1972.

Alexandra
WALSHAM,
The Reformation of the Landscape: religion, identity, and memory in early modern
Britain and Ireland,
Oxford,
Univ.
Press,
2011.

Martin
L.
WEST,
The Orphic Poems,
Oxford,
Univ.
Press,
1983.

—,
“Hocus-Pocus
in
East
and
West”,
in
LAKS
–
MOST
(1997),
p.
81-90.

Frances
YATES,
The Art of Memory,
London,
Routledge,
1966.