The Death of Dionysus and Ethical Dualism: On Olympiodorus’ Anthropogony and Neoplatonic Depictions of the Manichaean Cosmos

Q4 Arts and Humanities
Keria Pub Date : 2019-09-30 DOI:10.4312/keria.21.1.31-44
Blaž Božič
{"title":"The Death of Dionysus and Ethical Dualism: On Olympiodorus’ Anthropogony and Neoplatonic Depictions of the Manichaean Cosmos","authors":"Blaž Božič","doi":"10.4312/keria.21.1.31-44","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The version of anthropogony presented in Olympiodorus’ interpretation of Socrates’ philosophical argument against suicide (In Phaed. 1.3.3.–14) suggests two important questions: about the role of ethical dualism and original sin in pagan religion and philosophy on the one hand, and about the extent of Olympiodorus’ innovativeness on the other. I argue that Olympiodorus’ time foregrounded ethical dualism as a major concern in allegorical interpretations of Dionysus’ death by dismemberment, and that certain antecedents for a dualistic view might have existed (e.g. in the theological concepts of Orphic religions). Although any attempt to establish historical connections is bound to be speculative, some sources indicate that the specific link of Dionysus’ death with ethical dualism is not necessarily an innovation contributed in its entirety by Olympiodorus. I derive my main argument from a reference by Alexander of Lycopolis, who mentions that some of the Manichaeans used similar metaphors to describe the structure of the cosmos, which is based in their teachings on an ethical conflict.","PeriodicalId":36559,"journal":{"name":"Keria","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Keria","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4312/keria.21.1.31-44","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The version of anthropogony presented in Olympiodorus’ interpretation of Socrates’ philosophical argument against suicide (In Phaed. 1.3.3.–14) suggests two important questions: about the role of ethical dualism and original sin in pagan religion and philosophy on the one hand, and about the extent of Olympiodorus’ innovativeness on the other. I argue that Olympiodorus’ time foregrounded ethical dualism as a major concern in allegorical interpretations of Dionysus’ death by dismemberment, and that certain antecedents for a dualistic view might have existed (e.g. in the theological concepts of Orphic religions). Although any attempt to establish historical connections is bound to be speculative, some sources indicate that the specific link of Dionysus’ death with ethical dualism is not necessarily an innovation contributed in its entirety by Olympiodorus. I derive my main argument from a reference by Alexander of Lycopolis, who mentions that some of the Manichaeans used similar metaphors to describe the structure of the cosmos, which is based in their teachings on an ethical conflict.
酒神之死与伦理二元论——论奥林匹多罗斯对摩尼教宇宙的人本主义与新柏拉图主义描绘
在奥林匹亚多罗斯对苏格拉底反对自杀的哲学论证的解释中,提出了两个重要的问题:一方面是关于伦理二元论和原罪在异教和哲学中的作用,另一方面是关于奥林匹亚多罗斯的创新程度。我认为奥林匹亚多罗斯的时代将伦理二元论作为对狄俄尼索斯被肢解死亡的寓言解释的主要关注点,并且二元论观点的某些先例可能已经存在(例如,在俄耳甫斯宗教的神学概念中)。尽管任何建立历史联系的尝试都是推测性的,但一些来源表明,狄俄尼索斯之死与伦理二元论的具体联系并不一定是奥林匹亚多罗斯的全部创新。我的主要论点来自Lycopolis的Alexander,他提到一些摩尼教徒用类似的比喻来描述宇宙的结构,这是基于他们的道德冲突的教义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Keria
Keria Arts and Humanities-Classics
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信