Introduction

Since the contents of the Derveni Papyrus (hereafter DP), discovered in 1962, were partially known, different theories have been proposed as to its author’s identity²: Stesimbrotus of Thasos according to Burkert; Euthyphro according to Kahn; Diagoras of Melos according to Janko³. These hypotheses have not gained many followers⁴. However, they should in no way be considered frustrated or useless attempts. Quite the contrary, they have the great merit of delineating the philosophical and religious context in which the anonymous author elaborated his theories, and with which other figures and schools of thought hold affinities. Following this line, this paper aims to contribute to a better understanding of the personality and intentions of the author of the DP by looking into several significant parallels between the latter and the character of Tiresias in Euripides’ Bacchae, who appears to reflect the attitudes and innovative methods of certain professionals of the sacred in late fifth-century Athens. While Tiresias’ views on religion have often been compared with contemporary sophistic theories, they have never been used by specialists in the DP to shed light on the interpretative methods of the commentator.

The rationalistic discourse of Tiresias in Euripides’ Bacchae (286-301)

Most of the text preserved on the DP, from column VIII to the end (XXVI), consists of the philosophical commentary of a poem with a theogonic theme attributed to Orpheus. The anonymous commentator believes that in the poem, besides the literal meaning, there is a profound meaning. When Orpheus talks about the different gods that succeed each other in power (Uranus, Cronus and Zeus), he is really recounting allegorically, through enigmas (VII, 5-7), the physical formation of the universe, in which diverse natural elements and forces were involved.

One of the commentator’s procedures for finding the hidden sense of Orpheus’ words is etymological analysis⁵. A divine name or key term can be understood if someone qualified discovers what word(s) it derives from; in this way, it is possible to explain its true meaning or ἐτυμολογία. Thus, the commentator interprets Kpóνoc as a derivative of κρούειν and of νoῦc (XIV, 7), Δημήτηρ as Γῆ Μήτηρ (XXII, 9-10), and Δηιώ as proceeding from ἐδηιώθη (XXII, 12-13)⁶.

In Euripides’ Bacchae, there is a passage which, in this respect, is reminiscent of the DP⁷. In order to remove certain grotesque elements from the myth of Dionysus, which would be difficult to accept from a rationalistic viewpoint, the seer Tiresias offers a series of etymological interpretations of several key terms. Let us consider the earlier context. In the first episode of the tragedy, Tiresias comes to the palace of Cadmus in Thebes to pick up the latter, leave with him and celebrate the god Dionysus. They are both wearing the typical dress of the Bacchae: the thyrsus, the deerskin and the ivy crown (176-177). King Pentheus soon appears on the scene, declaring his hostility towards Dionysus because of the social risk he represents, since he has caused many women to abandon their homes (215-225). He also announces that he will arrest all the other maenads and behead Dionysus, who is no more than a trickster (226-241). He refers to the myth of his birth from Zeus’ thigh and he considers it a lie: he was actually burnt to death by the god’s thunderbolt along with his mother and punished for having invented her marriage to the supreme god (242-247). Then, seeing the two old men dressed as Bacchae, he refers to their ridiculous appearance and their folly, and ends up declaring the Bacchic rites to be perverse and unhealthy (248-262).

Tiresias replies to Pentheus with a skilfully constructed speech which is both a rebuttal and a defence. In it, he discusses the importance of the god whom Pentheus is mocking⁸. Demeter is the earth, which feeds men with fruit, and Dionysus is the inventor of wine, which gave men their liquid sustenance. Far from stirring and arousing sexual desire as Pentheus suggests (221-225), wine relieves pain and makes us forget our problems (280-283). Dionysus is also the wine itself, which is offered to the gods in libation and is thus an instrument of good (284-285). He continues with a curious story about the birth of the god from Zeus’ thigh (286-301)⁹:

καὶ καταγελᾷс νιν, ὡс ἐνερράφη Διὸс

μηρῷ; διδάξω c’ ὡc καλῶc ἔχει τόδε.

ἐπεί νιν ἥρπαс’ ἐκ πυὸc κεραυνίου

Ζεύс, ἐc δ’ Ὄλυμπον ßρέφoc ἀνήγαγεν θεόν,

290 Ἥρα νιν ἤθελ’ ἐκβαλεῖν ἀπ’ οὐρανοῦ

Ζεὺс δ’ ἀντεμηχανήсαθ’ οἷα δὴ θεόс.

ῥήξαc μέρoc τι τοῦ χθόν’ ἐγκυκλουμένου

αἰθέροс ἔδωκε τόνδ’ ὅμηρον ἐκτιθεὶс

Διόνυсον Ἥραc νεικέων· χρόνῳ δέ νιν

295 βροτοὶ ῥαφῆναί φαсιν ἐν μηρῷ Διόс,

ὄνομα μεταсτήсαντεс ὅτι θεᾷ θεὸc

Ἥρᾳ ποθ’ ὡμήρευcε, cυvθέvτεc λόγον.

μάντιс δ’ ὁ δαίμων ὅδε· τὸ γὰρ βακχεύοιμον

καὶ τὸ μανιῶδεс μαντικὴν πολλὴν ἔχει·

300 ὅταν γὰρ ὁ θεὸc ἐc τὸ cῶμ’ ἔλθῃ πολύс,

λέγειν τὸ μέλλον τοὺc μεμηνόταс ποιεῖ.

293 ἔδωκε… ἐκτιθείс Borthwick (ἐκτιθείc iam Verdenius): ἔθηκε… ἐκδιδούс fere LP (-διδούс P²: -διδ*** P), quibus seruatis lacunam post hunc uersum indicauit Murray: ἔсωсε corr. Wilamowitz 295 ῥαφῆναί Pierson: τρ- LP

Tiresias claims that the story of Dionysus sewn into Zeus’ thigh is not absurd, but that it makes sense (288: διδάξω с’ ὡс καλῶс ἔχει τόδε). One only has to make a linguistic analysis to find the concealed truth behind the story of the myth. The reference to a thigh as the place of gestation seems strange, so Tiresias deduces it to be the deformation of a different term. He therefore conjectures that originally a ὅμηροс «hostage» took part in the event, a word which over time became deformed into ὁ μηρόс. The hostage had to be a simulacrum of the god, given to Hera instead of the real Dionysus¹⁰. This rationalistic explanation, based on a precise knowledge of the language, transforms the myth into a believable episode¹¹. At the same time, Euripides also plays with the term μέροс, which designates the part of the ether used to form the image of Dionysus, and which might also have contributed to the introduction of the word μηρόс into the story.

This explanation of μηρόс can be considered as a «paretymology». It is not exactly an etymology, but the method is similar, because a word is analysed by using another one with nearly the same sound. There are two other cases in which Tiresias does clearly use etymology. In his interpretation, Demeter is a name for the earth. Implicit is the wellknown equivalence Δημήτηρ – Γῆ Μήτηρ, which is also to be found in the DP (XXII, 9-10)¹²: ‘Δημήτηρ̣’ [δὲ | ὠνομάсθη ὥсπερ̣ ἡ ‘Γῆ Μήτηρ’, ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων ἓ[ν] ὄ̣νομα· | τὸ αὐτὸ γὰρ ἦν¹³. Moreover, Tiresias relates μανία to μαντική etymologically, when he says: τὸ μανιῶδεс μαντικὴν πολλὴν ἔχει (299)¹⁴. Having recourse to divination, which was a respectable activity, he justifies the frenzy of Dionysus’ followers, which was undoubtedly shocking and even unacceptable.

Sophistic elements in Tiresias’ speech

In his defence of Dionysus and his myth against the attacks of Pentheus, we have seen that Tiresias uses the rationalistic resource of linguistic and etymological analysis, with which he eliminates the least credible aspects of the myth. Moreover, he points out the benefits that Dionysus and Demeter bring to mankind, since both of them provide dry and wet sustenance: cereal and wine, which relieves man of his hardship. These claims reflect the postulates of Prodicus, who maintained that many entities that were useful to man (such as the sun, the moon, rivers, but also bread, wine, water and fire) were considered gods, and later also those who had invented products such as bread and wine¹⁵. Just as Prodicus believed Dionysus to represent both wine and its inventor, Tiresias says that the god is «poured out in libation» and is the discoverer of wine (284, 279). At the same time, when the seer assures that Demeter is the earth, he is not just making a play on words, but is trying to find her true nature in her name, which hides a deep truth. In this case, he believes that the last part of the name, -μήτηρ, indicates that she is a mother, and he relates δη- with γῆ, the earth. The consequence of this is that she is not a personal goddess, but the deification of the earth element, since she provides man with sustenance. This is also consistent with Prodicus’ teachings.

In addition to these sophistic influences, Tiresias’ speech also demonstrates a mastery of rhetoric and a familiarity with concepts and subjects pertaining to presocratic speculation, such as dryness and wetness, or the ether that surrounds the earth, from which the simulacrum of Dionysus is formed¹⁶.

It is striking and even disconcerting that such an expert in sacred matters as Tiresias should make use of the theories of a thinker like Prodicus, who was critical of traditional religion, to defend the worship of Dionysus and the validity of his myths, above all when a few verses before he has shown himself to be in favour of maintaining the customs of the homeland (199-203) and has implicitly accused Pentheus of sophistry (269-271). We can find an explanation to this apparent paradox if we bear in mind the person to whom the speech is addressed. Pentheus has declared that he does not believe in the divinity of Dionysus, that his rites are harmful and that the myth of his birth is absurd. This stance brings him in line with the sophists, who doubted the existence of the gods as presented in traditional myths. Being aware of this, Tiresias takes on certain sophistic doctrines in order to convince Pentheus with ideas similar to his own, thereby performing his captatio benevolentiae. The kind of religion he presents is a rationalized, refined one, appropriate for an erudite person, not the common people¹⁷. By attributing ideas pertaining to rationalistic speculation to a seer, Euripides was probably just giving form to a type of character not uncommon in late fifth-century Athens, as discussed below.

Parallels with the Derveni Papyrus

In the DP, a number of parallels can be seen with Tiresias’ speech in both general and specific matters. The viewpoints they both share can be summarized in the following points: 1) the myth cannot be rejected or considered absurd because of its grotesque or blasphemous aspects, since these result from an erroneous and superficial interpretation; 2) in the myth lies a deeper truth, hidden to most, but accessible to religious experts like Tiresias and the author of the papyrus; 3) one of the methods for unveiling the hidden meaning of the myth is the linguistic analysis of key terms, particularly the etymology of the names of the gods.

The author of the DP and Tiresias are both characterized by their defence of the myth and their desire to eliminate any grotesque aspect. In their opinion, it is worth studying the theogonic poem of Orpheus and accepting the myth about the birth of Dionysus, despite its extravagant elements and its indecorous description of the gods. Cronus’ violent dethronement of his father Uranus or Zeus’ incest with his mother are only apparent, as with the story of the gestation of Dionysus in Zeus’ thigh. According to the commentator, when Orpheus says that Cronus «did something great» (XIV, 5 = OF 10, 1), he is not referring to his seizure of power, but to the fact that the name of the god designates the Noῦc, which makes things clash against each other (XIV, 7: κρούοντα τὸν Νοῦν πρὸc ἄλληλ[α]). With regard to the verse in which Orpheus describes Zeus’ desire to join with his mother (XXVI, cf. OF 18), the commentator goes to great pains to demonstrate that he means no such thing (XXVI)¹⁸. In fact, ἑᾶc would not be a possessive, but a form of the adjective ἐύc, of which the commentator offers several examples. Therefore, the verse means that Zeus wishes to join with the «good mother», that is, the earth¹⁹. Only the ignorant believe it to be «his own mother» (8-9: οἱ δὲ τὸ {ρ}ῥῆμα οὐ γινώcκοντεc δοκοῦ̣cιν εἶναι | ‘μητρὸc ἑαυτοῦ’).

Just as Tiresias eliminates the grotesque element of the gestation of Dionysus in Zeus’ thigh, the author of Derveni does away with the scandalous parts regarding Cronus’ violence against his father or Zeus’ incest. Both use a linguistic explanation, which refutes the obvious interpretation pertaining to the common people, and reveals the original meaning²⁰. The term ὁ μηρóc which appears in the story is in fact ὅμηροc just as Kρóνοc hides the words Νοῦc and κρούειν and the form ἑᾶc is not from the possessive ἑóc, but from the adjective ἐύc A superficial reading prevents you from seeing it, but the truth emerges if a religious expert with the necessary training brings it to light. Similarly, in the view of the author of the papyrus and of Tiresias, the name of the goddess Demeter in fact hides the name of the earth: «Demeter was named as if she were the Mother Earth, two names in one» (XXII, 9-10). This common remark shows that it must have been a fairly widespread idea at the time in intellectual circles.

For both the author of Derveni and Tiresias, the truth behind the myth is only accessible to a few initiates, whereas most people are unaware of it. The mythical seer takes on the position of the initiate giving lessons to the layman, in this case Pentheus, and assures him that he will explain the true meaning of the myth he ridicules (287: διδάξω c’ ὡc καλῶc ἔχει τόδε). Likewise, the author of the papyrus claims that the profound meaning of Orpheus’ words «is unclear to most, but for those who understand it correctly it is perfectly clear» (XXIII, 1-3: τo[ῖc] μ̣ὲν | πολλ̣οῖc ἄδηλόν ἐcτιν, τοῖc δὲ ὀρθῶc γινώcκουcιν | εὔδηλον)²¹. His intention, like that of Tiresias, is to teach it.

It is important to underline the distinction that for the author of Derveni the deep meaning of the poem is there because Orpheus deliberately hid it from lay people, whereas for Tiresias the original meaning was lost due to defective transmission. But both share a similar method to reveal the truth of the myth: etymology or linguistic analysis, with special attention to the names of the gods or aspects related to the latter (such as Zeus’ thigh).

Another parallel between the two texts is that, according to Tiresias, the Dionysus whom Zeus handed over to Hera was no more than ether, rather like the idea of the author of Derveni that in Orpheus’ poem Zeus is another way of referring to the air²².

Finally, we can point out an interesting similarity between the passage from Euripides and the papyrus. Pentheus ends his attacks by saying that, since wine is given out to the women in Dionysus’ rituals, nothing good can be said of the latter (262: οὐχ ὑγιὲc οὐδὲν ἔτι λέγω τῶν ὀργίων). The adjective he uses is ὑγιέc, «healthy», referring to morality, but probably also to mental health. Anyway, before the commentator of Derveni quotes and interprets the poem, in col. VII he first makes an assessment of Orpheus’ modus operandi. In his opinion, following the editors’ restoration, the mythical poet «pronounces a healthy hymn and legitimate things» (VII, 2: .. ὕ]μνον̣ [ὑγ]ι̣ῆ καὶ θεμ[ι]τ̣ὰ λέγο[ντα). His speech is neither absurd nor illegitimate, that is to say, blasphemous (for attributing violent and immoral conducts to the gods), because its meaning is not literal (4-5: ἔcτι δὲ ξ̣[ένη τιc ἡ] πόηcιc̣ | κ]α̣ὶ ἀνθρώ[ποιc] αἰνι̣[γμ]ατώδηc).

The character of Tiresias and of the author of the Derveni Papyrus

Tiresias is a seer and expert in sacred matters, and the author of Derveni would appear to be one too, since he takes the liberty of giving his opinion about the meaning of the initiation rites (col. VI) and criticizes the celebrants who do not instruct the initiates (XX). Euripides probably wished to represent in the seer a commonplace figure in the Athens of his time, the erudite priest or seer, a group of which the commentator of Derveni would also have formed part.

We have record of a figure with similar characteristics from the late fifth century, the seer Euthyphro, who gives his name to one of Plato’s dialogues and also appears in the Cratylus²³. Not in vain did Kahn defend the possibility of Euthyphro being the author of the DP²⁴. As far as we know, Euthyphro was a professional of the sacred who at the same time made use of rationalistic procedures, specifically the etymological explanation of the names of the gods (Plat. Crat. 396d). There is another interesting parallel with Euripides’ Tiresias: just as Pentheus mocks his rites and beliefs, in the Platonic dialogue that bears his name, Euthyphro complains that in the Assembly, when he spoke of divine matters and predicted the future, he was subject to mockery (Plat. Euthyphr. 3c: ἐμοῦ (…) καταγελῶcιν ὡc μαινομένου)²⁵. Perhaps his use of etymology was a way of defending himself from these attacks and giving his activities a more scientific and modern appearance, as we have pointed out in the passage from the Bacchae²⁶.

Bearing in mind the similarity between the character of Tiresias and the commentator of Derveni, we can guess what the purpose of the latter was and to whom he was aiming his allegorical writing full of physical explanations²⁷. Given that Tiresias addresses his rationalistic speech to the incredulous Pentheus, whom he attempts to refute and convince, we may think that the anonymous author was intending to save the Orphic poem (and the mysteries in which it was read) from the accusations of folly and immorality proceeding, perhaps, from erudite contemporaries or those influenced by sophistry. It may also have been a treatise with a more restricted circulation, aimed at initiators, whom he wished to provide with arguments to refute possible rationalistic accusations against their rites and the poems used in them. At all events, the portrait that Euripides makes of Tiresias in the Bacchae, a probable reflection of the priests of the late fifth century with similar ideas, offers important clues for understanding better the personality of the mysterious author of the DP.