Gantz, pp. 118–119; West 1983, p. 154, which after asserting that Nonnus, at Dionysiaca6.165, "probably took Zagreus' name from Callimachus" says that "This raises the suspicion that Callimachus had used the name in the context of Dionysus' dismemberment"; Linforth, pp. 309–311, which concludes (p. 311) that "we may reasonably suppose that [Callimachus] used the name Zagreus in his story of the dismemberment".
Edmonds 1999, p. 40 ("the Titans, tear him to pieces and eat his [Dionysus'] flesh; Olympiodorus, In Plato Phaedon 1.3 (Westerink 1976, pp. 40–3) [= Orphic fr. 320 I Bernabé (I p. 262) = fr. 220 Kern].
Euphorionfr. 40 Lightfoot [= fr. 36 Powell = Philodemus, On Piety 192–193 = Orphic fr. 59 I (I pp. 66–67) Bernabé = Orphic fr. 36 Kern]; similarly, see Orphic fr. 59 II (I p. 67) Bernabé. For a discussion of this Philodemus text, see Henrichs, pp. 62–65. Compare with Cornutus, Theologiae Graecae Compendium30 p. 62, 11 Lang [= Orphic fr. 59 IV (I pp. 67–68) Bernabé], which also has Rhea revive Dionysus (see Meisner, p. 254; Linforth, p. 315).
Linforth, pp. 307–308; Spineto, p. 34. For presentations of the myth which include the anthropogony, see Dodds, pp. 155–156; West 1983, pp. 74–75, 140, 164–166; Guthrie, p. 83; Burkert, pp. 297–298; March, s.v. Zagreus, p. 788; Parker 2002, pp. 495–496; Morford, p. 313.
Meisner, pp. 248–9; Edmonds 1999, p. 40; Olympiodorus, In Plato Phaedon 1.3 (Westerink 1976, pp. 40–3) [= Orphic fr. 320 I Bernabé (I p. 262) = fr. 220 Kern]; Spineto p. 34; Burkert, p. 463 n. 15; West 1983, pp. 164–165; Linforth, pp. 326 ff.. According to Meisner, p. 249, "[b]ecause Olympiodorus is the only ancient source who mentions th[e] Dionysiac nature [of humans], scholars have questioned whether he preserves an authentic element of the Orphic narrative or adds his own innovation". Linforth, p. 330 states that he invents this element to provide support for his argument against suicide, while Brisson, p. 494 similarly sees this argument on the basis of the Dionysiac nature of humankind as "very original" (argument très original). Edmonds 2009, p. 530 goes further, arguing that the connection of the sparagmos and the anthropogony in the passage is Olympiodorus' "innovation", created "to make particular points within his argument". However at least for the Neoplatonists, like Olympiodorus, humankind, being metaphorically the descendants of both the Titans and Dionysus, have both a Titanic and a Dionysiac nature, and thus, as Henrichs, p. 61, describes it, "carry the seeds of primordial violence as well as a divine spark in their genes".
Meisner, p. 269; Graf and Johnston, pp. 88–90; Proclus, in Plato's Republic 2.74.26–75.12 [= Orphic fr. 320 II Bernabé (I pp. 262–3) = fr. 140 Kern].
Orphic Hymn to the Titans (37), 2 (Athanassakis and Wolkow, p. 33; Quandt, p. 29) [= Orphic fr. 320 X Bernabé (I p. 264)]. On whether this passage refers to the anthropogony, see Morand, pp. 216–7; Ricciardelli, pp. 381–3.
West 2003, p. 61 n. 17; Kerényi, p. 82; Astour, p. 202 (which, while noting that this etymology "seems to be very plausible ... (such avatars of Dionysos as Aqht and Actaeon were famous hunters)", also says "the prefix za- normally goes with adjectives and not with nouns, while agreus is a noun".); Etymologicum Gudianum s.v. Ζαγρεύς [= Alcmeonisfr. 3 West].
According to Meisner, p. 238, "[o]ver the last two centuries, many scholars have considered this narrative of Dionysus and the Titans to have been the central, defining myth of Orphism". For example, in the first half of the 20th century, Nilsson, p. 202 described it as "the cardinal myth of Orphism", and Guthrie, p. 107 similarly called the myth "the central point of Orphic story", while Linforth, p. 307 said it is "commonly regarded as essentially and peculiarly Orphic and the very core of the Orphic religion". More recently, Parker 2002, p. 495 writes that "it has been seen as the Orphic 'arch-myth'", while, according to Meisner, p. 9, Edmonds "argues that the myth of Dionysus Zagreus was not nearly as central to Orphic thought as modern scholars have assumed".
Linforth, pp. 307–308; Spineto, p. 34. For presentations of the myth which include the anthropogony, see Dodds, pp. 155–156; West 1983, pp. 74–75, 140, 164–166; Guthrie, p. 83; Burkert, pp. 297–298; March, s.v. Zagreus, p. 788; Parker 2002, pp. 495–496; Morford, p. 313.
See Meisner, chapter 6; Spineto pp. 37–39; Edmonds 1999, 2008, 2013 chapter 9; Bernabé 2002, 2003; Parker 2014.
Meisner, pp. 248–9; Edmonds 1999, p. 40; Olympiodorus, In Plato Phaedon 1.3 (Westerink 1976, pp. 40–3) [= Orphic fr. 320 I Bernabé (I p. 262) = fr. 220 Kern]; Spineto p. 34; Burkert, p. 463 n. 15; West 1983, pp. 164–165; Linforth, pp. 326 ff.. According to Meisner, p. 249, "[b]ecause Olympiodorus is the only ancient source who mentions th[e] Dionysiac nature [of humans], scholars have questioned whether he preserves an authentic element of the Orphic narrative or adds his own innovation". Linforth, p. 330 states that he invents this element to provide support for his argument against suicide, while Brisson, p. 494 similarly sees this argument on the basis of the Dionysiac nature of humankind as "very original" (argument très original). Edmonds 2009, p. 530 goes further, arguing that the connection of the sparagmos and the anthropogony in the passage is Olympiodorus' "innovation", created "to make particular points within his argument". However at least for the Neoplatonists, like Olympiodorus, humankind, being metaphorically the descendants of both the Titans and Dionysus, have both a Titanic and a Dionysiac nature, and thus, as Henrichs, p. 61, describes it, "carry the seeds of primordial violence as well as a divine spark in their genes".
Pindar, fr. 133 Bergk, apud Plato, Meno81bc [= fr. 127 Bowra]. This interpretation, first proposed by H. J. Rose, is discussed by Linforth, pp. 345–350, who while raising several objections and giving other possible explanations, concludes by saying "but after all, and in spite of these objections, one must acknowledge that there is a high degree of probability in Rose's interpretation." Others have agreed: Dodds, pp. 155–156, says the line is "most naturally explained as referring to human responsibility for the slaying of Dionysus", Burkert, p. 298, says this "ancient grief" of Persephone "can only be the death of her child Dionysos"; Parker 2002, p. 496 says "No myth is known which really explains the allusion except that of the murder of Persephone's son Dionysus by man's ancestors". However, West 1983, p. 110 n. 82, Seaford, pp. 7–8, who sees "difficulties" in Rose's interpretation", and Edmonds 1999, pp. 47–49, who rejects Rose's reading, all offer different interpretations. For a discussion of this fragment and its "competing interpretations" see Meisner, p. 244–245.
According to Gantz, p. 118, "Orphic sources preserved seem not to use the name 'Zagreus'", and according to West 1983, p. 153, the "name was probably not used in the Orphic narrative". Edmonds 1999, p. 37 n. 6 says: "Lobeck 1892 seems to be responsible for the use of the name Zagreus for the Orphic Dionysos. As Linforth noticed, 'It is a curious thing that the name Zagreus does not appear in any Orphic poem or fragment, nor is it used by any author who refers to Orpheus' (Linforth 1941:311). In his reconstruction of the story, however, Lobeck made extensive use of the fifth-century CE epic of Nonnos, who does use the name Zagreus, and later scholars followed his cue. The association of Dionysos with Zagreus appears first explicitly in a fragment of Callimachus preserved in the Etymologicum Magnum (fr. 43.117 P), with a possible earlier precedent in the fragment from Euripides Cretans (fr. 472 Nauck). Earlier evidence, however, (e.g., Alkmaionis fr. 3 PEG; Aeschylus frr. 5, 228) suggests that Zagreus was often identified with other deities."
Edmonds 1999, p. 40 ("the Titans, tear him to pieces and eat his [Dionysus'] flesh; Olympiodorus, In Plato Phaedon 1.3 (Westerink 1976, pp. 40–3) [= Orphic fr. 320 I Bernabé (I p. 262) = fr. 220 Kern].
See Meisner, chapter 6; Spineto pp. 37–39; Edmonds 1999, 2008, 2013 chapter 9; Bernabé 2002, 2003; Parker 2014.
Meisner, pp. 248–9; Edmonds 1999, p. 40; Olympiodorus, In Plato Phaedon 1.3 (Westerink 1976, pp. 40–3) [= Orphic fr. 320 I Bernabé (I p. 262) = fr. 220 Kern]; Spineto p. 34; Burkert, p. 463 n. 15; West 1983, pp. 164–165; Linforth, pp. 326 ff.. According to Meisner, p. 249, "[b]ecause Olympiodorus is the only ancient source who mentions th[e] Dionysiac nature [of humans], scholars have questioned whether he preserves an authentic element of the Orphic narrative or adds his own innovation". Linforth, p. 330 states that he invents this element to provide support for his argument against suicide, while Brisson, p. 494 similarly sees this argument on the basis of the Dionysiac nature of humankind as "very original" (argument très original). Edmonds 2009, p. 530 goes further, arguing that the connection of the sparagmos and the anthropogony in the passage is Olympiodorus' "innovation", created "to make particular points within his argument". However at least for the Neoplatonists, like Olympiodorus, humankind, being metaphorically the descendants of both the Titans and Dionysus, have both a Titanic and a Dionysiac nature, and thus, as Henrichs, p. 61, describes it, "carry the seeds of primordial violence as well as a divine spark in their genes".
Plutarch, On the Eating of Flesh1.996 C [= Orphic fr. 313 I Bernabé (I p. 226)]; Linforth, pp. 334 ff.; Edmonds 1999, pp. 44–47. Plutarch goes on to mention "that faculty in us which is unreasonable and disordered and violent, and does not come from the gods, but from evil spirits, [which] the ancients gave the name Titans", which Bernabé 2008, pp. 594–5 sees as evidence that he is referring to the anthropogony. Edmonds 2013, pp. 334–45, however, sees this as an "allegorical interpretation" used to "bolster the credibility of the argument he has been making about the perils of eating flesh".
Pindar, fr. 133 Bergk, apud Plato, Meno81bc [= fr. 127 Bowra]. This interpretation, first proposed by H. J. Rose, is discussed by Linforth, pp. 345–350, who while raising several objections and giving other possible explanations, concludes by saying "but after all, and in spite of these objections, one must acknowledge that there is a high degree of probability in Rose's interpretation." Others have agreed: Dodds, pp. 155–156, says the line is "most naturally explained as referring to human responsibility for the slaying of Dionysus", Burkert, p. 298, says this "ancient grief" of Persephone "can only be the death of her child Dionysos"; Parker 2002, p. 496 says "No myth is known which really explains the allusion except that of the murder of Persephone's son Dionysus by man's ancestors". However, West 1983, p. 110 n. 82, Seaford, pp. 7–8, who sees "difficulties" in Rose's interpretation", and Edmonds 1999, pp. 47–49, who rejects Rose's reading, all offer different interpretations. For a discussion of this fragment and its "competing interpretations" see Meisner, p. 244–245.
Linforth, pp. 339–345; Edmonds 1999, pp. 43–44; Edmonds 2013, pp. 326–334; Meisner, p. 245.
See Meisner, chapter 6; Spineto pp. 37–39; Edmonds 1999, 2008, 2013 chapter 9; Bernabé 2002, 2003; Parker 2014.
hathitrust.org
babel.hathitrust.org
According to Gantz, p. 118, "Orphic sources preserved seem not to use the name 'Zagreus'", and according to West 1983, p. 153, the "name was probably not used in the Orphic narrative". Edmonds 1999, p. 37 n. 6 says: "Lobeck 1892 seems to be responsible for the use of the name Zagreus for the Orphic Dionysos. As Linforth noticed, 'It is a curious thing that the name Zagreus does not appear in any Orphic poem or fragment, nor is it used by any author who refers to Orpheus' (Linforth 1941:311). In his reconstruction of the story, however, Lobeck made extensive use of the fifth-century CE epic of Nonnos, who does use the name Zagreus, and later scholars followed his cue. The association of Dionysos with Zagreus appears first explicitly in a fragment of Callimachus preserved in the Etymologicum Magnum (fr. 43.117 P), with a possible earlier precedent in the fragment from Euripides Cretans (fr. 472 Nauck). Earlier evidence, however, (e.g., Alkmaionis fr. 3 PEG; Aeschylus frr. 5, 228) suggests that Zagreus was often identified with other deities."
According to Meisner, p. 238, "[o]ver the last two centuries, many scholars have considered this narrative of Dionysus and the Titans to have been the central, defining myth of Orphism". For example, in the first half of the 20th century, Nilsson, p. 202 described it as "the cardinal myth of Orphism", and Guthrie, p. 107 similarly called the myth "the central point of Orphic story", while Linforth, p. 307 said it is "commonly regarded as essentially and peculiarly Orphic and the very core of the Orphic religion". More recently, Parker 2002, p. 495 writes that "it has been seen as the Orphic 'arch-myth'", while, according to Meisner, p. 9, Edmonds "argues that the myth of Dionysus Zagreus was not nearly as central to Orphic thought as modern scholars have assumed".
Gantz, pp. 118–119; West 1983, p. 154, which after asserting that Nonnus, at Dionysiaca6.165, "probably took Zagreus' name from Callimachus" says that "This raises the suspicion that Callimachus had used the name in the context of Dionysus' dismemberment"; Linforth, pp. 309–311, which concludes (p. 311) that "we may reasonably suppose that [Callimachus] used the name Zagreus in his story of the dismemberment".
Euphorionfr. 40 Lightfoot [= fr. 36 Powell = Philodemus, On Piety 192–193 = Orphic fr. 59 I (I pp. 66–67) Bernabé = Orphic fr. 36 Kern]; similarly, see Orphic fr. 59 II (I p. 67) Bernabé. For a discussion of this Philodemus text, see Henrichs, pp. 62–65. Compare with Cornutus, Theologiae Graecae Compendium30 p. 62, 11 Lang [= Orphic fr. 59 IV (I pp. 67–68) Bernabé], which also has Rhea revive Dionysus (see Meisner, p. 254; Linforth, p. 315).
Linforth, pp. 307–308; Spineto, p. 34. For presentations of the myth which include the anthropogony, see Dodds, pp. 155–156; West 1983, pp. 74–75, 140, 164–166; Guthrie, p. 83; Burkert, pp. 297–298; March, s.v. Zagreus, p. 788; Parker 2002, pp. 495–496; Morford, p. 313.
Meisner, pp. 248–9; Edmonds 1999, p. 40; Olympiodorus, In Plato Phaedon 1.3 (Westerink 1976, pp. 40–3) [= Orphic fr. 320 I Bernabé (I p. 262) = fr. 220 Kern]; Spineto p. 34; Burkert, p. 463 n. 15; West 1983, pp. 164–165; Linforth, pp. 326 ff.. According to Meisner, p. 249, "[b]ecause Olympiodorus is the only ancient source who mentions th[e] Dionysiac nature [of humans], scholars have questioned whether he preserves an authentic element of the Orphic narrative or adds his own innovation". Linforth, p. 330 states that he invents this element to provide support for his argument against suicide, while Brisson, p. 494 similarly sees this argument on the basis of the Dionysiac nature of humankind as "very original" (argument très original). Edmonds 2009, p. 530 goes further, arguing that the connection of the sparagmos and the anthropogony in the passage is Olympiodorus' "innovation", created "to make particular points within his argument". However at least for the Neoplatonists, like Olympiodorus, humankind, being metaphorically the descendants of both the Titans and Dionysus, have both a Titanic and a Dionysiac nature, and thus, as Henrichs, p. 61, describes it, "carry the seeds of primordial violence as well as a divine spark in their genes".
Plutarch, On the Eating of Flesh1.996 C [= Orphic fr. 313 I Bernabé (I p. 226)]; Linforth, pp. 334 ff.; Edmonds 1999, pp. 44–47. Plutarch goes on to mention "that faculty in us which is unreasonable and disordered and violent, and does not come from the gods, but from evil spirits, [which] the ancients gave the name Titans", which Bernabé 2008, pp. 594–5 sees as evidence that he is referring to the anthropogony. Edmonds 2013, pp. 334–45, however, sees this as an "allegorical interpretation" used to "bolster the credibility of the argument he has been making about the perils of eating flesh".
Dio Chrysostom, Orations30.10 (pp. 408, 409) [= Orphic fr. 320 VII Bernabé (p. 263)]. Linforth, p. 334 states that he finds "no hint of the myth of the dismemberment" in this passage, while Edmonds 2013, p. 370 claims that it "cannot refer to the murder of Dionysus Zagreus", and that the "context of the Titanomachy" is "clear". Bernabé 2002, pp. 410–2, however, claims that "the entire phraseology of the fragment is very characteristic of Orphism" (toute la phraséologie du fragment est très caractéristique de l'orphisme), and argues that for the passage to not refer to the Orphic story would require the existence of a separate, non-Orphic myth in which men are created from the Titans' blood.
Pindar, fr. 133 Bergk, apud Plato, Meno81bc [= fr. 127 Bowra]. This interpretation, first proposed by H. J. Rose, is discussed by Linforth, pp. 345–350, who while raising several objections and giving other possible explanations, concludes by saying "but after all, and in spite of these objections, one must acknowledge that there is a high degree of probability in Rose's interpretation." Others have agreed: Dodds, pp. 155–156, says the line is "most naturally explained as referring to human responsibility for the slaying of Dionysus", Burkert, p. 298, says this "ancient grief" of Persephone "can only be the death of her child Dionysos"; Parker 2002, p. 496 says "No myth is known which really explains the allusion except that of the murder of Persephone's son Dionysus by man's ancestors". However, West 1983, p. 110 n. 82, Seaford, pp. 7–8, who sees "difficulties" in Rose's interpretation", and Edmonds 1999, pp. 47–49, who rejects Rose's reading, all offer different interpretations. For a discussion of this fragment and its "competing interpretations" see Meisner, p. 244–245.
Linforth, pp. 339–345; Edmonds 1999, pp. 43–44; Edmonds 2013, pp. 326–334; Meisner, p. 245.
According to Meisner, p. 238, "[o]ver the last two centuries, many scholars have considered this narrative of Dionysus and the Titans to have been the central, defining myth of Orphism". For example, in the first half of the 20th century, Nilsson, p. 202 described it as "the cardinal myth of Orphism", and Guthrie, p. 107 similarly called the myth "the central point of Orphic story", while Linforth, p. 307 said it is "commonly regarded as essentially and peculiarly Orphic and the very core of the Orphic religion". More recently, Parker 2002, p. 495 writes that "it has been seen as the Orphic 'arch-myth'", while, according to Meisner, p. 9, Edmonds "argues that the myth of Dionysus Zagreus was not nearly as central to Orphic thought as modern scholars have assumed".
West 2003, p. 61 n. 17; Kerényi, p. 82; Astour, p. 202 (which, while noting that this etymology "seems to be very plausible ... (such avatars of Dionysos as Aqht and Actaeon were famous hunters)", also says "the prefix za- normally goes with adjectives and not with nouns, while agreus is a noun".); Etymologicum Gudianum s.v. Ζαγρεύς [= Alcmeonisfr. 3 West].
According to West 2003, p. 61 n. 17: "The line perhaps comes from a prayer in which Alcmaon called upon the powers of the earth to send up his father Amphiaraus."
Euphorionfr. 40 Lightfoot [= fr. 36 Powell = Philodemus, On Piety 192–193 = Orphic fr. 59 I (I pp. 66–67) Bernabé = Orphic fr. 36 Kern]; similarly, see Orphic fr. 59 II (I p. 67) Bernabé. For a discussion of this Philodemus text, see Henrichs, pp. 62–65. Compare with Cornutus, Theologiae Graecae Compendium30 p. 62, 11 Lang [= Orphic fr. 59 IV (I pp. 67–68) Bernabé], which also has Rhea revive Dionysus (see Meisner, p. 254; Linforth, p. 315).
Plutarch, On the Eating of Flesh1.996 C [= Orphic fr. 313 I Bernabé (I p. 226)]; Linforth, pp. 334 ff.; Edmonds 1999, pp. 44–47. Plutarch goes on to mention "that faculty in us which is unreasonable and disordered and violent, and does not come from the gods, but from evil spirits, [which] the ancients gave the name Titans", which Bernabé 2008, pp. 594–5 sees as evidence that he is referring to the anthropogony. Edmonds 2013, pp. 334–45, however, sees this as an "allegorical interpretation" used to "bolster the credibility of the argument he has been making about the perils of eating flesh".
Dio Chrysostom, Orations30.10 (pp. 408, 409) [= Orphic fr. 320 VII Bernabé (p. 263)]. Linforth, p. 334 states that he finds "no hint of the myth of the dismemberment" in this passage, while Edmonds 2013, p. 370 claims that it "cannot refer to the murder of Dionysus Zagreus", and that the "context of the Titanomachy" is "clear". Bernabé 2002, pp. 410–2, however, claims that "the entire phraseology of the fragment is very characteristic of Orphism" (toute la phraséologie du fragment est très caractéristique de l'orphisme), and argues that for the passage to not refer to the Orphic story would require the existence of a separate, non-Orphic myth in which men are created from the Titans' blood.
Pindar, fr. 133 Bergk, apud Plato, Meno81bc [= fr. 127 Bowra]. This interpretation, first proposed by H. J. Rose, is discussed by Linforth, pp. 345–350, who while raising several objections and giving other possible explanations, concludes by saying "but after all, and in spite of these objections, one must acknowledge that there is a high degree of probability in Rose's interpretation." Others have agreed: Dodds, pp. 155–156, says the line is "most naturally explained as referring to human responsibility for the slaying of Dionysus", Burkert, p. 298, says this "ancient grief" of Persephone "can only be the death of her child Dionysos"; Parker 2002, p. 496 says "No myth is known which really explains the allusion except that of the murder of Persephone's son Dionysus by man's ancestors". However, West 1983, p. 110 n. 82, Seaford, pp. 7–8, who sees "difficulties" in Rose's interpretation", and Edmonds 1999, pp. 47–49, who rejects Rose's reading, all offer different interpretations. For a discussion of this fragment and its "competing interpretations" see Meisner, p. 244–245.
Diodorus Siculus, 3.62.6. With respect to this account, Graf and Johnston, p. 76, state that Demeter "was often equated with Rhea from the fifth century onwards, including in Orphic contexts"; for this equation in Orphic texts, see West 1983, pp. 72–74, 81–82, 93, 217.
Diodorus Siculus, 1.21.1–3, relates another version of the Osiris story which more closely parallels the usual Egyptian account of the murder and dismemberment of Osiris by his brother Set. In this account, Typhon (whom the Greeks had come to identify with Set) killed his brother Osiris, the lawful king of Egypt, and cut the body of the slain Osiris into twenty-six pieces, giving one piece to each of his accomplices, so that they all would share equally in the "pollution". But Osiris' sister and wife, Isis, with the help of her son Horus, killed Typhon and became queen.
