![]() ![]() § (VIII) expands the discussion of Prodicus’ atheistic sobriquet ‘Tantalos’ in § (III) by focusing on two cryptic Tantalos passages in Euripides’ Orestes. to other authors (Epigenes, Stesimbrotos, Euthydemus, Diagoras of Melos). In § (VII), we briefly present our reasons for rejecting the ascription of PDerv. We point to Protagoras as an important source of anthropology for the Derveni author and to Heraclitus as the source of his philosophy of language (including functionalist semantics) and criticism of popular religion. Apart from the Anaxagorean source of the Derveni author’s cosmology and theory of matter recognized long ago, we discuss the possible influence of Democritus while dismissing “Leucippus”, Diogenes of Apollonia, and the Eleatics. In § (VI), the philosophical sources of Derv.T are discussed. ![]() In § (V), the problems of the original title and the date of the Derveni treatise are addressed, as well as its relation to the psephisma of Diopeithes (432 BC). This column is of primary importance for understanding the aims and allegorical method of the author in general, as well as for his theory of names. IV that contains a quotation from Heraclitus. In § (IV), we propose a reconstruction and interpretation of the text of col. These include both the verbatim quotations with Prodicus’ name that find an exact correspondence in the text of PDerv and the common peculiar features of language and style. and present the 19 testimonia on which this attribution is based. After preliminary remarks on the necessary distinction of the two types of pantheism and allegoresis in Greek thought (§ ) we define in § (II) the literary genre, the general purpose, and the hermeneutical method of the Derveni treatise, and draw a preliminary intellectual portrait of its author describing his peculiar features, a kind of ‘composite image.’ In § (III), we argue for Prodicus as the author of PDerv. The demonstration of our thesis is presented in 11 sections (§) and three appendices (App.). there is also the evidence found in both Aristophanes and Themistius that Prodicus wrote an allegorical interpretation of the Orphic theogony. and Prodicus’ fragments Prodicus’ peculiar theory of the origin of the names of gods and religion from agriculture and other τέχναι ‘useful’ for human race is directly attested in PDerv. to Prodicus of Ceos proposed in this article is based on verbal coincidences of peculiar phrases and terms in PDerv. Mistake (1) is addressed in § (II), mistake (3) in § (IV), mistake (5) in § (II), mistake (6) in § (XI). V as an alleged indication of the author’s religious profession. (6) And, last but not least, the widespread (after Tsantsanoglou ) misinterpretation of πάριμεν in PDerv., col. (5) Fifth, because of the failure to distinguish between two types of allegoresis of myth: constructive (friendly and apologetical in purpose) and deconstructive (polemical or atheistic). (4) Fourth, because of the failure to distinguish between two types of pantheism in early Greek thought, the naturalistic and the ethico-religious. ὀνόματα or ῥήματα) “common and peculiar names” that provide a clue for understanding his theory of language and the origin of religion have been misunderstood as alleged ‘echoes’ of Heraclitus’ own terminology. ![]() ![]() (3) Third, because the rhetorical/grammatical terms of the Derveni author τὰ κοινά καὶ τὰ ἴδια (sc. (2) Second, because another misleading label – ‘Presocratic’ – was soon after that attached to its author. (1) First, because the papyrus was falsely labeled as ‘Orphic’ in the very first report. The Derveni Papyrus has been often misread and misunderstood for six main reasons. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |