A Companion to the Hellenistic and Roman Near East. Группа авторов

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ in every generation. In fact the father-to-son succession is not easy to parallel outside Hesiod himself, so that when we find it again in Philo, we wonder how faithfully he represents Phoenician mythology, and how much he owes specifically to Hesiod – whom he mentions by name (ironically, as one of the others blamed for travestying the original truths of religion, 1.10.40). Philo concentrates on the three generations of Elioun-Hypsistos, Ouranos, and Cronos, after whom the scheme peters out in a succession of minor figures. Hesiod has three major figures as well, though he begins with Ouranos and ends with Zeus, who in Philo features passim in various local forms, but not as the culmination of the scheme. But Philo’s and Hesiod’s Ouranos are very alike (both hostile to their children, among whom Cronos leads an uprising), and so are their portraits of Cronos (dethrones his father, marries his sister Rhea, is hostile to his children, castrates his father in an ambush – although in Philo it takes place in an attempted uprising by his father some time after Ouranos’s deposition).

      Of course this is no mere replay of Hesiod. But the places where Philo departs from the Theogony are unlikely to represent alternative Ancient Near Eastern tradition. The major players, Ouranos and Cronos, are both given more wives and progeny, as if they are being used as pegs on which to hang a more comprehensive genealogy than could be supplied by Ouranos’s monogamous marriage to Gaia, or Cronos’s to Rhea. Specific correspondences with the Kumarbi myth are hard to find (Barr 1974–1975: 51–52); on the contrary, there are several matches with the succession myths of Euhemerus and his follower Dionysius Scytobrachion, suggesting Philo’s de facto familiarity with Hellenistic Greek sources (Baumgarten 1981: 242–243, 263). In short, the succession myth – and indeed the whole treatise – looks like a medley of traditions from different times and places, assembled in an artificial literary composite. Different Phoenician cities drift in and out of focus (compatible with Porphyry’s presentation of Sanchuniathon’s compilatory activities); after the main structure, gods – important ones in the Hellenistic and imperial eras like Adodos/Hadad, Melcathros/Melqart, Asclepius/Eshmun – are tacked on at the end and accorded a minimalist treatment; and there are numerous pieces of reduplication, including a threefold invention of sailing. We should resist the temptation to interpret Philo’s pantheon as one specific to any time or place; and, as with Lucian, we have to ask which (if any) Phoenicians would have accepted, or even been familiar, with the ideas and structures presented here (Nautin 1949: 577).

      In sum, the much-vaunted parallels with the Hurrian and Semitic material are mostly isolated items – names, mythical motifs – which are not part of the main intellectual framework of the treatise, with the exception of the presentation of cultural advance of human genealogy (above). They include the Phoenician names of Mo̅t/Mouth; Chousor; Elioun; and story-patterns which recall certain episodes or motifs in Genesis (1.10.9, the sons of god and the daughters of men ~ Gen. 6: 1–8; 1.10.10, fraternal hostility, if not fratricide itself ~ Gen. 4). There are also jumbled elements of myths familiar from Greek sources: the first god dies in an encounter with wild beasts (1.10.15), like Adonis, and Ouranos’s castration turns the rivers red (1.10.29), a phenomenon elsewhere located at the Adonis river (DDS §8; Lightfoot 2003: 327–328). That should warn us of the un-canonicity of any given mythical narrative.

      In principle, Philo’s Euhemerism is an ineluctably Greek feature, however true it is that the Ras Shamra texts, with their anthropomorphic deities, lent themselves to a euhemerizing approach. Philo’s introduction presents us with the standard version according to which the gods originated as mortals, subsequently deified for their services to mankind (1.9.29). What is interesting, though, is that although the technogony does indeed present us with inventors and technologists, the theogony does not; the future gods do not act in a way which is at all beneficent, euergetistic, or worthy of deification. It is true that Euhemerus’s succession myth (as rendered by Ennius) also involved violence, both threatened and actual, but he seems to have wanted to downplay the culpability of both Saturn and Jupiter by assigning a large role to Saturn’s jealous and vindictive brother, Titan, and by attributing Jupiter’s final coup d’état to a reaction to a plot (to which Saturn was prompted by an oracle); the narrative builds toward a Jupiter who, once established on the throne, is a worthy, not a tainted, object of future veneration (T. 62, 64A, 66–67 Winiarczyk). Philo has not designed a scheme which climaxes in a universal “good king” whose deserts speak for themselves (might the Ugaritic Baal have provided such a model?); on the contrary, the Ouranos/Cronos conflict grinds on for 32 years before the castration which, in Hesiod, was the beginning and end of the matter (1.10.29; Th. 173–182). In this section it looks as if Euhemerism has been grafted onto a scheme with which it does not sit happily; another possible sign of tension is that the section following the consolidation of Cronos’s power (1.10.31–38) often refers to its protagonists – prematurely – as gods (Baumgarten 1981: 39, 226–227).

Names are no less Janus-faced than the rest of the treatise. Some are Greek only; some Semitic only; others receive Greek glosses (Barr 1974–1975: 41–44; Mras 1952: 180–182). A few have alternatives, as if Philo was striving to find and to fine-tune a Greek approximation to an underlying Semitic form (Agrou Heros or Agrotes, Epigeios or Autochthon, Titanides or Artemides, Dioscuri or Cabeiri or Corybants or Samothracians, Titanides or Artemides). On the other hand, Hermes Trismegistos (1.10.17) must equate to Taautos (Thoth), but Philo has chosen to represent him in Hellenistic Greek guise (cf. the appointment of Hermes as a counsellor by Osiris in the Euhemerist narrative ap. Diod. Sic. 1.16.2, 1.17.3).

In sum, Philo of Byblos is a peculiar hybrid; but if we must make comparisons, I would draw attention to the section of Diodorus Siculus’s first book which is usually taken to draw extensively on Hecataeus of Abdera’s On the Egyptians (Murray 1970).⁶ Diodorus’s account begins with an account of how life first arose in Egypt, and then continues with an account of the promotion to godhead of beneficent individuals; unlike Philo, he continues into the historical period with a long account of Egypt’s historical kings. He, too, repeatedly claims to be drawing on original native sources (priestly anagraphai); he, too, is motivated by the desire to demonstrate the primacy and superiority of Egyptian culture over Greek, claiming, like Philo, that the Greeks added a layer of mystification and travesty to the original native myths (1.23.6–7, 1.23.8, 1.24.8). That Hecataeus was Diodorus’s main source has recently been challenged (Winiarczyk 2002: 69–71), and if the challenge is upheld, a new identity must be found for the voice who uses Greek methods to challenge the dominion of Greek culture. Nevertheless, it is a voice that bears reasonable comparison to Philo, and testifies to the currency in the late Hellenistic period of the broad cultural tradition to which he belongs.

      Ps.-Meliton

      The final item is a Syriac treatise from one of the many manuscripts procured by the British Museum from the Monastery of the Syrians in the Nitrian Desert (Wadi El Natrun) in the middle years of the nineteenth century. In the manuscript it is headed “An Oration of Meliton the Philosopher,” and it claims to have been delivered in person, viva voce, to “Antoninus Caesar.” Belonging among the many apologies, some addressed specifically to emperors, in which Christian authors set out to defend their faith in the second and third centuries CE, it is, in practice, not an exposition of Christian dogma, but an attack on pagan idolatry. It is of interest to us because of a short section in which the author cites a series of examples of idolatrous cults which supposedly originated in the worship of statues. Not only is Near Eastern material, from Phoenicia, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Persia, remarkably prominent in this section, but it is rich, detailed, and highly idiosyncratic. So it is of some importance, as a first step, to determine the author of the treatise and his context. This, alas, is easier said than done.

We do know of an Apology by the author to whom the treatise is inscribed, but the fragment which Eusebius cites from it does not overlap with anything in our text, which appears to be complete, and the first editor’s attempts to credit Meliton with a second Apology were unpersuasive (Cureton 1855: vi–xi). The original language of composition is still undetermined, but the sheer intimacy with which the author is able to speak of the cults of Edessa and Hierapolis, СКАЧАТЬ