Orphée et l’Orphisme dans l’Antiquité gréco-romaine
Luc Brisson, London: Routledge, 1995
The figure of Orpheus has long exercised a potent influence on religious thought. Yet what we know directly about Orphism comes from a scatter of isolated and often very short fragments quoted in the works of Platonists of the Roman period, notably Proclus, Damascius and Olympiodorus. The author’s concern here is to establish the context in which these passages were cited, and to trace the development of the written tradition, from the texts which contain a critique of the beliefs of the Homeric era to those, whether newly composed or transformed, which show signs of adaptation to later religious and philosophical movements, among them Stoicism and Platonism. In sharp contrast to views held by others, it is argued that it is possible to map out a process of evolution, amongst other criteria by focusing on the role and place of Chronos in the Orphic theogony. The author also asks whether there really ever existed true Orphic sects with a cult with specific rites, and would conclude that the present evidence cannot be held to substantiate this.
(Text from the publisher)
Table of Contents
Les théogonies Orphiques et le papyrus de Derveni: notes critiques
Usages et fonctions du secret dans le Pythagorisme ancien
La figure de Chronos dans la théogonie orphique et ses antécédents iraniens
Orphée et l’Orphisme à l’époque impériale: témoignages et interprétations philosophiques, de Plutarque à Jamblique
Proclus et l’Orphisme
Damascius et l’Orphisme
Le corps ’dionysiaque’: l’anthropogonie décrite dans le Commentaire sur le Phédon de Platon (1, par. 3-6), attribué à Olympiodore est-elle orphique?
Addenda et corrigenda