Classics: Classics collection contents
About the Classics collection
Greek Hist. Overview
Art & Arch. Catalogs
Greek Tools:
Grammar Overview
Dictionaries
Morphology
Word Search
Other Tools & Lexica
Plot: sites on this page sites in this book sites in this document dates in this document
Display text chunked by: book chapter section (default)
Contents: Volume 1BOOK IBOOK IIBOOK IIIBOOK IVVolume 2BOOK VBOOK VIBOOK VIIBOOK VIIIBOOK IX |
W. W. How, J. Wells, A Commentary on Herodotus
BOOK II
Your current position in the text is marked in red. Click anywhere on the line to jump to another position.
Commentary on Herodotus, Histories. book 2, chapter 81:section 2.
LXXXI.[2] The Orphic rites spread widely in sixth century Greece; their popular character, as opposed to the exclusiveness of the old worships, led to them being patronized by the tyrants; Onomacritus, ‘the Orphic apostle’ (Busolt, ii. 364), was a friend of the Pisistratidae (vii. 6. 3 n.); so too Cleisthenes, tyrant of Sicyon, encouraged the worship of Dionysus (v. 67. 5), with which the Orphic rites were closely connected. (Cf. Gomperz, Gk. Thinkers, ii, p. 137.) For the Orphic doctrines and their relation to those of Pythagoras cf. Gomperz (ib. caps. 2 and 5; Busolt, ii. 362 seq.): a shorter account is given by Bury (pp. 311-18). The teaching was at once cosmological and religious; the latter is the more important. The Orphic sect taught the doctrine of metempsychosis (cf. 123. 2 n.); they laid stress on the worship of Chthonian deities, and on initiation into mysteries, and on other methods of purifying the soul from sin. Gruppe, however, in Roscher, Lexicon, iii. 1105, s. v. ‘Orpheus’, denies that an ‘Orphic sect’ can be proved; there were, he thinks, numerous associations, the members of which looked on Orpheus as their founder, and followed similar practices, but these were disconnected and were no ‘more united as a sect than modern vegetarians or wearers of Jäger clothing’ (pp. 1107-8).
Orphikoisi: neuter here, ‘Orphic Rites’; there is an antithesis between kaleomenoisi and eousi, they were ‘called Orphic’ but ‘were really Egyptian, brought by Pythagoras from Egypt’ (cf. 53. 3 for disbelief in a primitive Orpheus). There is no contradiction between this passage and the statement as to ta peri ton Dionuson in 49. 2; H. means that Melampus brought Dionysiac mysteries from Egypt, Pythagoras copied rules of life.
The National Endowment for the Humanities provided support for entering this text.
This text is based on the following book(s): ISBN: 0198143842, 0198721390
Buy a copy of this text (not necessarily the same edition) from Amazon.com: vol. 1; vol. 2
|