Contains some information recorded about various theogonies or creation myths from different cultures:
In the rhapsodies which pass under the name of Orphic, the
theology, if any, is that concerning the Intelligible; and the
philosophers thus interpret it. They place Chronus (Time) for the one
principle of all things, and for the two Ether and Chaos: and they
regard the egg as representing Being simply, and this they look upon as
the first triad
.
But to complete the second triad they imagine as the god a conceiving
and conceive egg, or a white garment, or a cloud, because Phanes springs
forth from these. But concerning this middle (subsistence) different
philosophers have different opinions. Whatever it may be they look upon
it as Mind; but for Father and Power some of them imagine other things
which have no connexion with Orpheus. And in the third triad they
substitute for it Metis, whilst they place Ericapaeus as Power, and
Phanes as Father.
But the middle triad is never to be placed according to the
triformed god (Phanes) as absolutely conceived in the egg: for the
middle subsistence always shadows out each of the extremes, as should
this, which must partake at once both of the egg and of the triformed
god. And you may perceive that the egg is the united (subsistence) or
principle of union; and the triformed god, who is multiform about being,
is the separated principle of the Intelligible; but the middle
subsistence, being united as far as it relates to the egg, and already
separated as far as it relates to the god, may be considered as existing
altogether as in the act of separation: such is the common Orphic
theology.
But the theology delivered by Hieronymus and Hellanikos is as
follows:—He says that water was from the beginning, and Matter, from
which the Earth was produced, so that he supposes that the two first
principles were Water and Earth; the latter of which is of a nature
liable to separation, but the former a substance serving to conglutinate
and connect it: but he passes over as ineffable the one principle prior
to these two, for its recondite nature is evinced, in that there is no
manifestation appertaining to it. The third principle after these two,
which is generated from them, that is from the Water and Earth, is a
Dragon having the heads of a Bull and Lion naturally produced, and in
the middle, between these, is the countenance of the God: he has,
moreover, wings upon his shoulders, and is denominated incorruptible
Chronus (Time) and Herakles. Fate also, which is the same as Nature, is
connected with him, and Adrastia, which is incorporeally co-extensive
with the universe, and connects its boundaries in harmony. I am of
opinion that this third principle is regarded as subsisting according to
essence, inasmuch as it is supposed to exist in the nature of male and
female, as a type of the generating principle of all things.
And in the rhapsodies I conceive that the (Orphic) theology,
passing over the two first principles, together with the one preceding
those two which is delivered in silence, establishes the third, which is
properly posterior to the other two, as the first principle, inasmuch
as it is the first which has something effable in its nature, and
commensurate with human conversation. For the venerable and
incorruptible Chronus (Time) was held in the former hypothesis to be the
father of Ether and Chaos: but in this he is passed over, and a Serpent
substituted: and the threefold Ether is called intellectual, and Chaos
boundless, and the dark cloudy Erebus is added to them as a third. He
delivers, therefore, this second triad as analogous to the first, this
being potential as was that paternal. Wherefore the third subsistence of
this triad is dark Erebus, and its paternal principle and summit Ether,
subsisting not simply but intellectually, and the middle derived from
it is boundless Chaos. But with these it is said Chronus generated the
egg, for this relation makes it a procession of Chronus, and born of
these, inasmuch as from these procceds the third Intelligible triad.
What, then, is this triad? The egg, the duad of the natures of male and
female contained in it, and the multitude of the all-various seeds in
the middle of it; and the third subsistence in addition to these is the
incorporeal god, with golden wings upon his shoulders, who has the heads
of bulls springing forth from his internal parts, and upon his head an
enormous serpent, invested with the varied forms of beasts. This,
therefore, is to be taken as the Mind of the triad: but the middle
processions, which are both the Many and the Two, must be regarded as
Power, but the egg as the paternal principle of this third triad. But
the third god of this third triad, the theology now under discussion
celebrates as Protogonus (First-born), and calls him Dis, as the
disposer of all things, and the whole world: upon that account he is
also denominated Pan. Such are the hypotheses which this genealogy lays
down concerning the Intelligible principles.
But the cosmogony which is delivered by the Peripatetic Eudemus as
being the theology of Orpheus, passes the whole Intelligible order in
silence, as altogether ineffable and unknown, and incapable of
discussion or explanation. He commences from Night, which Homer also
constitutes his first principle, if we would render his genealogy
consistent. Therefore we must not put confidence in the assertion of
Eudemus, that Homer makes it commence from Oceanus and Tethys; for it is
manifest that he regards Night as the greatest divinity, which is
implied in the following line, where he says that she is reverenced by Zeus himself—
He feared lest he should excite the displeasure of swift Night.
Homer, therefore, must be supposed to commence from Night.
But Hesiod, when he affirms that Chaos was the first produced,
appears to me to regard Chaos as the incomprehensible and perfectly
united nature of the Intelligible. From thence he deduces Earth
as the first principle of all the generation of the gods, unless,
perhaps, he may regard Chaos as the second subsistence of the two
principles: in which case Earth and Tartaros, and Eros (Love), compose
the three-fold Intelligible, Eros being put for the third subsistence,
considered according to its convertive nature. Orpheus also in his
rhapsodies has adopted a very similar disposition, for he places the
Earth for the first, being the first that was conglomerated into a
compact and essential substance, while he places Tartaros as the middle,
as having already, in a manner, a tendency towards disunion.
But Acusilaus appears to me to regard Chaos as the first principle
and altogether unknown, and after this one to place the duad, Erebos as
the male and Night as the female, the latter being substituted for
infinity, and the former for bound; and from a connexion between these
were generated Ether and Eros (Love), and Metis (Counsel), these three
being the Intelligible hypostases, of which he places Ether as the
summit, Eros as the middle in compliance with the natural intervention
of love, and Metis as the third, inasmuch as it is already
highly-venerable Intellect. And from these, according to the relation of
Eudemus, he deduces the vast multitude of the other gods.
Epimenides affirms that the two first principles are Air and
Night: whence it is evident that he reverences in silence the one
principle which is prior to the two: from which, I conceive, he holds
that Tartaros is generated regarding it as a nature in a manner
compounded of the two; for some, indeed, regard the principle which is
derived from these two as a kind of Intelligible intermediate
subsistence or mediety, properly so called, inasmuch as it extends,
itself to both extremities, the summit and the boundary; for by their
connexion with one another, an egg is generated which is properly the
very Intelligible animal from which again proceeds another progeny.
But Pherekydes Syrius considers the three first principles to be an Ever-vital subsistence, Chronus
,
and an Earthly subsistence; placing, as I conceive, the One prior to
the Two, and the Two posterior to the One: and that Chronus generated
from himself Fire, and Spirit, and Water, representing, I presume, the
threefold nature of the Intelligible: from which, when they became
distributed into five recesses, were constituted a numerous race of
gods, called the five-times animated order, equivalent to what he might
call a five-fold world. But another opportunity may perhaps occur for
the discussion of this part of the subject. Such and of a similar
description are the hypotheses which are received by us relative to the
Greek mythological fables, which are numerous and very various.
But the Babylonians, like the rest of the Barbarians, pass over in
silence the One principle of the Universe, and they constitute Two,
Tiamat and Apsu; making Apsu the husband of Tiamat, and denominating
her the mother of the gods. And from these proceeds an only-begotten
son, Mummu, which I conceive is no other than the Intelligible world
proceeding from the two principles. From them, also, another progeny is
derived, Lahmu and Lahamu; and, again, a third, Kishar and Anshar,
from which last three others proceed Anu, and Ellil, and Ea. And of Ea and Damkina is born a son called Bel, who, they say, is the
fabricator of the world, the Demiurge.
But of the Magi and all the Aryan race, according to the relation
of Eudemus, some denominate the Intelligible Universe and the United,
Place, while others call it Time (Zurvan): from whom separately proceed
a Good Divinity and an Evil Demon; or, as some assert, prior to these,
Light and Darkness. Both the one, therefore, and the other, after an
undivided nature, hold the twofold co-ordination of the superior natures
as separated and distinct, over one of which they place Ohrmazd as
the ruler, and over the other Ahriman.
The Sidonians, according to the same writer, before all things
place Ulom, and Hob, and Arapel, (Time, Love, and Cloudy
Darkness). And by a connection between Hob and Arapel, as the Two
principles are generated Baad and Ruach (Air and a Gentle Breeze),
substituting Air for the summit of the Intelligible, and the Breeze
arising from it for the vivifying prototype of the Intelligible. And
from these two again is generated Utu (the Night Raven), representing,
as I conceive, the Intelligible Mind.
But independent of the collections of Eudemus we find the
mythology of the Canaanites thus delivered according to Mosheh. First
was Ether and Air, which are the Two first principles; from these was
produced Ulom, the Intelligible God, and, as I conceive, the summit of
the Intelligible: from whom, by a connection with himself, was produced Kothar, the first expanding principle, and then the Egg: by the
latter I imagine they mean the Intelligible Mind; but by Kothar, the
Intelligible Power, being the first nature which separates an unseparate
subsistence, unless, perhaps, after the two principles the summit may
be the one Wind; but to the middle, the two winds South-West and South, for sometimes they place these prior to Ulom.
In which case Ulom himself would be the Intelligible Mind, and the
expanding Kothar the first order after the Intelligible, and the Egg
Heaven: for it is said, that by the rupture of it into two parts heaven
and earth were produced each from one of its two severed parts.
Of the Egyptian doctrines Eudemus gives us no accurate
information. But the Egyptian philosophers, who are resident among us,
have explained their occult truth, having obtained it from certain
Egyptian discourses. According to them, then it appears to be this. The
One principle of the Universe is celebrated as Unknown Darkness, and
this three-times pronounced as such: and the Two principles are Water
and Sand, according to Heraiskos; but according to Asklepiades, who is
the more ancient of the two, Sand and Water, from whom, and next in
succession after them, is generated the first Kamutef, and from this a
second, and from this again a third, which, they affirm, completes the
whole Intelligible distribution. Such is the system of Asklepiades. But
the more modern Heraiskos says that the third, who is named Kamutef
from his father and grandfather, is the Sun, equivalent in this case to
the Intelligible Mind. But greater accuracy upon the subject can only be
obtained from these authors themselves. It must be observed, however,
with regard to the Egyptians, that they are often wont to distribute
subsistences according to union, as when they divide the Intelligible
into the individualities of a multitude of gods, as may be learnt from
their own writings by those who will examine them: I refer particularly
to the commentary of Heraiskos upon the Egyptian doctrine addressed to
Proklos the philosopher alone, and to the concordance of the Egyptian
writers, begun by Asklepiades and addressed to the other Theologists.
