DID PLATO KNOW OF THE ORPHIC GOD

PROTOGONOS?
MARCO ANTONIO SANTAMARÍA ÁLVAREZ
University of Salamanca (Spain)

1. Plato and Orphism

Plato’s ambivalent attitude towards the mysteries, and in particular
towards Orphism, is well known. He scorned the personality of the alleged
founder, Orpheus (Smp. 179d), denounced the economic interests of its
itinerant priests, and seriously questioned the efficacy of the rituals per se
in purifying the soul (R. 364b-e). Yet he simultaneously recognised a core
of truth in their conception of the wandering soul and its reward or
punishment in the afterlife, which he incorporated into his own expositions
on the nature and destiny of the soul 1 .
The possible presence of the Orphic god Protogonos in the works of
Plato has occasionally been suggested with regard to isolated passages, but
has never been the subject of a thorough analysis, either in the published
literature on this god or in studies of Orphic influences on Plato. The
current article thus attempts to explore the traces left in certain Platonic
passages by Protogonos, often considered a character introduced to Orphic
literature in Hellenistic times as a result of Oriental influences 2 . I will
begin by outlining Protogonos’ characteristics in the Orphic texts, before
examining the classical testimonies referring to him and, finally,
attempting to identify possible references to him in Aristophanes’ myth in
the Symposium, in the paraphrase of a verse from an Orphic hymn to Zeus
in the Laws, and in the activities of the Demiurge in the Timaeus.

1
On Plato and Orphism, see Bernabé 2011 (chaps. 6, 7 and 9 on the Orphic
conceptions of soul and afterlife) and Casadesús 2008. Riedweg 1987 analyses the
mystery terminology in several Platonic dialogues.
2
Turcan 1994: 296 and Bernabé 2008: 307. On Protogonos, see Gruppe 1902-
1905; Preisendanz 1938; Guthrie 1952: 95-107; Fauth 1972; West 1983: 70-71,
103-106, 202-215, 231-234; Turcan 1994; Brisson 1997: 83-92; Maharan 2000;
Morand 2001: 189-194; Bernabé 2004: 89-90, with further bibliography.
206 Did Plato Know of the Orphic God Protogonos?

2. The god Protogonos in the Orphic poems

Within the Orphic movement, as part of the wider Greek religion, the
same gods were worshipped as in the civic cults, especially Zeus and also,
given the interest in the afterlife, Persephone and her son Dionysus. But in
the theogonies, the poetic genre most widely cultivated by the Orphics, a
god was included who was absent from the mainstream religion:
Protogonos, the First-born, who featured in two theogonies of late
Hellenistic or early Imperial times: the Theogony of Hieronymus and
Hellanicus (THH) and the Orphic Rhapsodies 3 . He was conceived of with
features of other primeval gods: he is the very first to be born, like Chaos
in Hesiod’s Theogony 4 , and he is bright, like other celestial gods, such as
Ether, Hemera, Theia and Phoebe 5 . He is born from an egg, like Helen 6
and the Molionids 7 ; and he is androgynous, like Hermaphroditus 8 . In
addition, Phanes, as Protogonos is usually called, is sometimes identified
with other gods, such as Eros and Metis 9 .
In the THH, Chronos, a serpentine god also known as Heracles,
generates a huge egg (OF 79), which he coils around and squeezes until it
cracks (OF 80 II) 10 . From it, a two-bodied god is born (įȚıઆȝĮIJȠȞ, a
possible allusion to his two sexes, as in the Rhapsodies, OF 121.3) with
“golden wings (ʌIJ੼ȡȣȖĮȢ Ȥȡȣı઼Ȣ) on his shoulders, bulls’ heads growing
upon his flanks, and on his head a monstrous serpent” (OF 80 I).
In the Rhapsodies it is told that in the beginning there was Unaging
Chronos (OF 109, 111), and Ananke, both having the form of winged
serpents (OF 110). Chronos generated Ether and Chasm or Chaos (OF

3
West 1983: 226 dated the THH no earlier than the second half of the third century
BC and the Rhapsodies c. 100 BC (p. 229). He is followed by Bernabé 2008: 308
n. 83 and 312.
4
Hes. Th. 116: ਵIJȠȚ ȝ੻Ȟ ʌȡȫIJȚıIJĮ ȋȐȠȢ ȖȑȞİIJo.
5
Ether and Hemera: Hes. Th. 124; Theia and Phoebe, daughters of Gea and
Uranus: 134-136. Theia and Hyperion are the parents of Helios, Selene and Eos:
371-374.
6
As early as in the Cypria (fr. 10 Bernabé), where she is daughter of Nemesis.
Sch. Call. Cer. 232, sch. Lyc. 88, Ps.-Eratosth. Cat. 25.
7
Ibyc. Fr. 285 Page, on this see also D’Alfonso 1995.
8
Mentioned for the first time in a votive inscription from the beginning of the
fourth century BC: [ĭ]ĮȞઅ ਬȡȝĮijȡȦ[į઀]/IJȦȚ (sic) İ੝ȟĮȝ੼ȞȘ (MDAI(A) 62, 1937)
and in literature by Ps.-Eratosth. Cat. 25, written after 319 B. C. The seer Tiresias
changes his sex (Hes. Fr. 275 M.-W., in Apollod. 3.6.7), although never having
both at the same time.
9
Eros: OA 14; Metis: OF 139 I-II, 140-141, 243.9, 245.4.
10
Cf. OA 13-14. West 1983: 202.
 Marco Antonio Santamaría Álvarez 207

111), then fashioned a silver egg and set it in the Ether (OF 114), and
Phanes hatched from it (OF 122). He is androgynous and with his
brightness illuminates the world, hence his name, Phanes, “he who
appears”:

ਥȟ੼șȠȡİ ʌȡઆIJȚıIJȠȢ ਕȞ੼įȡĮȝİ IJૃ ਕȡıİȞંșȘȜȣȢ

ȆȡȦIJંȖȠȞȠȢ ʌȠȜȣIJ઀ȝȘIJȠȢ (OF 121.3-4)
11
Androgynous , highly honored Protogonos jumped and ran the very first

șĮȪȝĮȗȠȞ țĮșȠȡ૵ȞIJİȢ ਥȞ ĮੁșȑȡȚ ijȑȖȖȠȢ ਙİȜʌIJȠȞ·

IJȠ૙ȠȞ ਕʌȑıIJȚȜȕİ ȤȡȠઁȢ ਕșĮȞȐIJȠȚȠ ĭȐȞȘIJȠȢ (OF 123.3-4)
(the gods) were amazed when they beheld in the ether an unexpected
brilliance.
So much it blazed from the body of immortal Phanes.

IJઁȞ į੽ țĮȜ੼ȠȣıȚȞ ĭ੺ȞȘIJĮ

<ȆȡȦIJંȖȠȞંȞ șૃ> ੖IJȚ ʌȡ૵IJȠȢ ਥȞ ǹੁș੼ȡȚ ijĮȞIJઁȞ ਩ȖİȞIJȠ. (OF 126)
who they call Phanes
and Protogonos, because he was the first who became visible in Ether 12 .

He has many names, apart from Protogonos and Phanes, these

including Metis, Erikepaios, and Eros 13 . He has the heads of a ram, lion,
bull and serpent (OF 129 I) and, by consequence, four pair of eyes and
four horns (OF 131-133) 14 . He has both sets of sexual organs (OF 134),
and the phallus (or maybe the vagina) 15 is situated near the anus 16 :

11
Cf. OF 134: șોȜȣȢ țĮ੿ ȖİȞ੼IJȦȡ. OH 6.1 and OA 14: įȚijȣો, interpreted as
“androgynous” by Ricciardelli 2000: 252 and Morand 2001: 189.
12
Cf. also OF 540 2-3, 6 and OA 15-16.
13
Metis: OF 139 I-II; 140.2; Erikepaios: OF 134, 139 I-II, V; OH 6.4; Eros: OF
144; OA 14; Bromios, Zeus and Eros: OF 141; Priapus and Antauges: OH 6.9;
Pan: OF 86 (THH).
14
OF 132, IJİIJȡ੺ıȚȞ ੑijșĮȜȝȠ૙ıȚȞ ੒ȡ઼Ț Į੝IJઁȢ ਩ȞșĮ țĮ੿ ਩ȞșĮ, an adaptation of Hes.
Fr. 294.2 M.-W., from the Aegimius, with ੒ȡઆȝİȞȠȢ instead of ੒ȡ઼Ț Į੝IJઁȢ,
referred to the two-headed Argos, the guardian of Io. It is possible that this verse
was used in the Protogonos Theogony (see section 3) to describe Protogonos, who
was probably conceived of as having two heads (and thus four eyes) and two
sexes. The verse was later incorporated in the Rhapsodies, but with the meaning:
“with four pairs of eyes”.
15
As believed by Christopoulos 2010: 211.
16
West 1983: 202 n. 85: “this is where it would need to be if his vagina was
normally situated, since he was to copulate with himself”. He reminds us that
Priapus, too, had his penis above his anus (Patr. Gr. XXXVI 1053).
208 Did Plato Know of the Orphic God Protogonos?

ਥȞ IJȠ૙Ȣ ੗ȡijȚțȠ૙Ȣ İੁıȘȞȑȤșȘ ੒ ĭȐȞȘȢ, ĮੁįȠ૙ȠȞ ਩ȤȦȞ ʌİȡ੿ IJ੽Ȟ ʌȣȖȒȞ (OF
135 II).
In the Orphic poems Phanes is introduced, and had his phallus by the anus

In this way he can copulate with himself and produce offspring despite
being alone 17 . He moves quickly through the universe with his wings:

Ȥȡȣıİ઀ĮȢ ʌIJİȡ઄ȖİııȚȞ ijȠȡİ઄ȝİȞȠȢ ਩ȞșĮ țĮ੿ ਩ȞșĮ (OF 136)

With golden wings moving this way and that (Trans. Guthrie 1952: 137)

Phanes procreates the gods: copulating with himself, he gives birth to

Night (OF 147) and, through her, to Earth and Heaven (OF 148-149). He
uses his mind to form the sun, the moon and the stars (OF 153-158) and
also creates the golden race of men (OF 159). After forming the world, he
fashions an instrument to rule over it, a sceptre (OF 165), which amounts
to the inauguration of supreme power (OF 167.2). He then hands the
sceptre, and with it the power, on to his daughter Night (OF 168), before
departing from the world and travelling across the heavens on his chariot
(OF 171-173). After three generations and kingships, those of Uranus,
Cronus, and Zeus, this latter god swallows Phanes and with him the whole
universe, and in doing so he generates it anew inside his womb (OF 241).

3. Testimonies of Protogonos in Classical and Hellenistic

Sources
Among the gold tablets found in graves in Magna Graecia, Thessaly,
Macedonia, Crete and other places, a specimen from the Timpone Grande
of Thurii (OF 492) stands out due to the strangeness of its text. This tablet,
dated c. 400 BC, is far larger than all the others and contains a lot of
names of gods, some noun and verbal forms, amidst a jumble of
meaningless letters 18 . The first word is ȆȡȦIJȠȖંȞȦ<Ț>, perhaps in the
dative, and the sequence ĭǹȃǾȈ can be read in the third line. The editors
have interpreted this as ĭ੺ȞȘȢ 19 , which seems very plausible. If this view
is correct, it represents the first attestation of this name for the Orphic god,

17
Cf. Lact. Inst. 4.8.4 ap. OF 134: “nisi forte existimabimus deum, sicut Orpheus
putavit, et marem ese et feminam, quod aliter generare non quiverit, nisi haberet
vim sexus utriusque, quasi ad ipse secum coierit aut sine coitu non potuit
procreare”. Guthrie 1952: 101.
18
See Bernabé-Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008: 137-150.
19
Colli 1995: 192; Tortorelli 2006: 68-69; Graf-Johnston 2007: 11; Bernabé-
Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008: 263. Phanes is not recognized by Pugliese Carratelli
2001: 126-127.
 Marco Antonio Santamaría Álvarez 209

since ĭ੺ȞȘȢ is never applied to other gods 20 . The word ȆȡȦIJંȖȠȞȠȢ on

the tablet has been interpreted by some scholars as an epithet of Uranus, as
in OH 14.1 21 . However, this latter passage is the only place where Uranus
is called ʌȡȦIJંȖȠȞȠȢ. In the Orphic Hymns the epithet is applied to
Dionysus (30.2), Dionysus Trieteric (52.6), and Phanes (6.1), and in
Orphic literature it is overwhelmingly used for Phanes, as an epithet or a
name 22 ; thus, the most probable option is that, in the big Thurii tablet, it
also refers to the god Protogonos, who is also called Phanes in the third
line. At the end of this line, the invocation ıઃ țȜȣIJ੻ įĮ૙ȝȠȞ, “you,
illustrious deity” is probably a further allusion to the god, since it is so
similar to the expression įĮ઀ȝȠȞĮ țȣįȡંȞ, “glorious deity” in the Derveni
poem (OF 5.2), which in my opinion refers to Protogonos 23 .
The next appearance of the name Phanes is in an Orphic verse (from a
Hymn to the Sun?) quoted by Diodorus (1.11.3):

IJȠ઄Ȟİț੺ ȝȚȞ țĮȜ੼ȠȣıȚ ĭ੺ȞȘIJĮ IJİ țĮ੿ ǻȚંȞȣıȠȞ. (OF 60)

therefore they call him Phanes and Dionysus 24 .

20
For Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008: 144, here, Phanes is an epithet of
Dionysus identified with the sun, as in OF 60 (ap. D. S. 1.11.2). However, OF 60
bears testimony to the fact that the sun was identified with Phanes and with
Dionysus, and not that Phanes is an epithet of Dionysus. Furthermore, the Thurii
tablet does not mention Dionysus nor any Bacchic element, nor is there any
indication that Phanes should be associated with him, as also observed by Betegh
2011: 223.
21
For Betegh 2004: 115, it may be an epithet of Gea (as Guthrie 1952: 97 thinks)
or of a god closely related to her, because the same line features ī઼Țҕ. According to
Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008: 142 and Betegh 2011: 222, it is an
epithet of Uranus, since it is followed by a reference to his partner Mother Earth.
For Bremmer 2013: 43, he is the “familiar Orphic figure”.
22
In the THH it is a name in OF 80 I, and an epithet in 80 III; in the Rhapsodies, it
is a name in 121.4, 123, 125, 141; an epithet in 126.2, 140.3, 241.1.
23
Betegh 2011: 223 has considered the possibility that ıઃ țȜȣIJ੻ įĮ૙ȝȠȞ and
įĮ઀ȝȦȞ țȣįȡંȢ (OF 5.2) refer to Metis-Phanes and has noted their similarity with
OF 140.1-2: ʌȡ૵IJȠȞ įĮ઀ȝȠȞĮ ıİȝȞંȞ / ȂોIJȚȞ ıʌ੼ȡȝĮ ij੼ȡȠȞIJĮ șİ૵Ȟ țȜȣIJંȞ.
Betegh 2004: 114 and Tortorelli 2006: 239 n. 36 think that these words refer to the
sun, but give no argument for such an identification. For Bernabé and Jiménez San
Cristóbal 2008: 144, he could be Zeus, if we assume that the expression continues
in next line with ʌ੺IJİȡ, a likely reference to the supreme god.
24
It is not clear whether ȝȚȞ refers only to the sun (West 1983: 206 n. 96) or to the
sun identified with Osiris (Bernabé 2004: 69).
210 Did Plato Know of the Orphic God Protogonos?

Since the source of Diodorus for Book 1 is apparently Hecataeus of

Abdera (IV-III c. BC), the poem must date from prior to the beginning of III
c. BC 25 .
Let us now examine other mentions of the theonym Protogonos in
classical times. The most important testimony comes from the Orphic
poem quoted and commented on in the Derveni Papyrus 26 . Its plot
consisted of Zeus’ ascent to power and his recreation of the universe in his
insides (OF 12, 16.1-2, 18.1) after swallowing the ĮੁįȠ૙ȠȞ (OF 8):

ĮੁįȠ૙ȠȞ țĮIJҕ੼ʌȚȞİȞ, ੔Ȣ Įੁș੼ȡĮ ਩țșȠȡİ ʌȡ૵IJȠȢ

he swallowed the venerable one, who was the first to spring out of ether.

Much ink has been spilled over the issue of who or what this ĮੁįȠ૙ȠȞ
is: it may be Uranus’ phallus or the venerable Protogonos. I think this
latter option is the right one 27 . The neuter singular ĮੁįȠ૙ȠȞ with the
meaning “phallus” is never documented in extant Greek poetry, where the
adjective invariably means “venerable”, often as an epithet of a god or
goddess 28 . Therefore, it must have this value in OF 8, as well as in OF 12:
ȆȡȦIJȠȖંȞȠȣ ȕĮıȚȜ੼ȦȢ ĮੁįȠ઀Ƞȣ, “of Protogonos, the venerable king”. The
alternative interpretation, “of the phallus of the first-born king” (=
Uranus), with a genitive (ĮੁįȠ઀Ƞȣ) depending on another genitive
(ȕĮıȚȜ੼ȦȢ), seems too strained for Greek epic, where the expression
ȕĮıȚȜİઃȢ ĮੁįȠ૙ȠȢ, “venerable king” is found several times 29 . In conclusion,

25
As Bernabé 2008: 306 n. 70 states. He thinks that in this verse Phanes is an
epithet of Dionysus, but the verse rather states that Osiris is the same as Dionysus
and Phanes. Phanes is not documented as an epithet of Dionysus anywhere, even
when he is identified with Protogonos, as in the Orphic Hymns (30, 52).
26
Editio princeps of the papyrus: Kouremenos-Parássoglou-Tsantsanoglou 2006;
more recent and complete: Bernabé 2007a. Edition of the poem: Bernabé 2004, OF
3-18. On the poem see Betegh 2004: 92-131 and Bernabé 2007b.
27
See a complete argumentation in Santamaría forthcoming, with more
bibliography. For a defence of the meaning “phallus”, see Betegh 2004: 111-123
and Bernabé 2004: 18-24 and 2007b: 107-112.
28
Hera (Hom. Il. 14.210, 21.479, H. Hom. h. Ven. 44), Thetis (Hom. Il. 18.386 =
425, 18.394), Hermes (Hom. Od. 5.88), Themis (Hes. Th. 61), Aphrodite (Hes. Th.
194; H. Hom. 6.1), Dike (Hes. Op. 257), Demeter (Hes. Op. 300-301; H. Hom. h.
Cer. 374), Persephone (H. Hom. h. Cer. 343), Demeter and Persephone (H. Hom.
h. Cer. 486), Maia (H. Hom. h. Merc. 5), Hestia (H. Hom. h. Ven. 21, H. Hom.
29.10), Artemis (H. Hom. 27.2) or Athena (H. Hom. 28.3).
29
ȕĮıȚȜોȠȢ ਥȞȚʌ੽Ȟ ĮੁįȠ઀ȠȚȠ (Hom. Il. 4.402), ĮੁįȠ઀Ș ȕĮı઀ȜİȚĮ (Hom. Od. 18.314),
ȕĮıȚȜİ૨ıȚȞ ਚȝ’ ĮੁįȠ઀ȠȚıȚȞ (Hes. Th. 80), ȕĮıȚȜİ૨ıȚ ʌĮȡ’ ĮੁįȠ઀ȠȚıȚ (Hes. Th. 434),
ȝİȖĮȜ੾IJȠȡȠȢ ੉Ƞȕ੺IJĮȠ / ĮੁįȠ઀Ƞȣ ȕĮı[ȚȜોȠȢ (Hes. Fr. 43a, 88-89), ĮੁįȠ઀ȠȣȢ
ȕĮıȚȜોĮȢ (Hes. Fr. 361, ap. Pl. R. 390e), ĮੁįȠ૙ȠȚ ȕĮıȚȜોİȢ (Theoc. 17.74).
 Marco Antonio Santamaría Álvarez 211

the crucial event briefly narrated in OF 8 is Zeus’ engulfment of

Protogonos, on Night’s indication (OF 6), through which he generates the
gods and the universe afresh, as in the Rhapsodies. The Derveni poem has
been dated to c. 500 BC 30 and clearly presupposes a longer poem or
tradition that related the birth of the first gods and of the world, much in
the style of Hesiod’s Theogony. West (1983: 69, 108) claimed that the
Derveni poem is an abridged version of a poem he called Protogonos
Theogony and carried out a detailed reconstruction of its contents, based
on the Derveni poem and the Rhapsodies (82-101). I follow his
identification, although in my view West’s proposal is overly conjectural
and the poem’s plot is bound to remain obscure.
A fragment of Euripides’ Hypsipyle 31 appears to mention Protogonos
in a theogonic context which also involves Eros and Night, and perhaps
Ether:

੯ҕ ʌȩIJȞȚĮ șİ૵[Ȟ
ij]੺ȠҕȢ ਙıțȠʌҕȠȞҕ [ ǹੁ-
ș]ȑȡȚ ȆȡȦIJȠȖȠȞȠ[
ਵ]șİȜҕ’ ਯȡҕȦȢ ੖IJİ ȃઃҕ[ȟ
਩]Ȟҕ IJ’ ਥIJȡ੺ijȘ IJંIJҕİҕ [
.]įҕĮ șİ૵Ȟ ȖİȞȠ[

Euripides probably echoes the plot of an Orphic theogony, given the

importance of Night and Ether, considered the father or origin of
Protogonos 32 . The sequence ij]੺ȠҕȢ ਙıțȠʌҕȠȞҕ […ǹੁ-/ș]ȑȡȚ: “light not seen
(before) 33 in Ether… Protogonos”, closely resembles two expressions
from the Rhapsodies that describe the birth of Protogonos and belong to
the same tradition: ਥȞ ĮੁșȑȡȚ ijȑȖȖȠȢ ਙİȜʌIJȠȞ, “in the ether an unexpected
brilliance” (OF 123.3-4) and <ȆȡȦIJંȖȠȞંȞ șૃ> ੖IJȚ ʌȡ૵IJȠȢ ਥȞ ǹੁș੼ȡȚ
ijĮȞIJઁȞ ਩ȖİȞIJȠ, “Protogonos, because he was the first who became visible
in Ether” (OF 126).
In the parabasis of the Birds, Aristophanes presents an innovative
ornithogony which parodies the genre of the theogonies. Although it does

30
West 1983: 108: “it cannot be much earlier than 500”; Bernabé 2008: 297.
31
Fr. 758a.1103-1108 Kannicht (OF 65). See West 1983: 111-112; Bernabé 2003:
82-83; 2004: 72: “ex hac traditione manare videntur aliqua eorum quae postea de
Phanete in Rhapsodiis dicebantur”; 2008: 307.
32
OF 114, 122, 124 and 125: ǹੁș੼ȡȠȢ ȣੂંȢ; OA 15; OH 6.1: ĮੁșİȡંʌȜĮȖțIJȠȞ
“roaming in ether”.
33
Bernabé 2004: 76: “lucem nondum visam, novam, miram, incredibilem”. Or
may be Ȥ]੺ȠҕȢ ਙıțȠʌҕȠȞҕ , “invisible chasm”, as ੑȝȓȤȜȘ ਙıțȠʌȠȞ (Triph. 311) and
ਙıțȠʌȠȚ ʌȜȐțİȢ (S. OC 1682), said of the Netherworld.
212 Did Plato Know of the Orphic God Protogonos?

not include the theonyms Protogonos and Phanes, it is relevant to us here

in that Eros, who plays a leading role, is described with traits very similar
to those of Phanes in later Orphic texts: he hatches from an egg, is bright,
and has golden wings 34 :

ਫȡȑȕȠȣȢ į’ ਥȞ ਕʌİȓȡȠıȚ țȩȜʌȠȚȢ

IJȓțIJİȚ ʌȡȫIJȚıIJȠȞ ਫ਼ʌȘȞȑȝȚȠȞ ȃઃȟ ਲ ȝİȜĮȞȩʌIJİȡȠȢ ધȩȞ,
ਥȟ Ƞ੤ ʌİȡȚIJİȜȜȠȝȑȞĮȚȢ ੮ȡĮȚȢ ਩ȕȜĮıIJİȞ ਯȡȦȢ ੒ ʌȠșİȚȞંȢ
ıIJ઀ȜȕȦȞ Ȟ૵IJȠȞ ʌIJİȡ઄ȖȠȚȞ ȤȡȣıĮ૙Ȟ, İੁțઅȢ ਕȞİȝઆțİıȚ į઀ȞĮȚȢ. (Ar. Av. 694-
697 = OF 64).

Then in Erebos’ limitless bosom

as her first brood the black-winged deity Night gave birth to a wind-egg,
from which as the turning seasons revolved grew Eros the lovely,
with gold-gleaming wings on his back, the image of wind-spin swiftness.
(Trans. West 1983: 111)

The formal parallels with Orphic poetry are remarkable:

ʌIJ੼ȡȣȖĮȢ ਥʌ੿ IJ૵Ȟ ੭ȝȦȞ ਩ȤȠȞIJĮ Ȥȡȣı઼Ȣ (OF 80.1, testimony on the HHT)
IJȠ૙ȠȞ ਕʌ੼ıIJȚȜȕİ35 ȤȡȠઁȢ ਕșĮȞ੺IJȠȚȠ ĭ੺ȞȘIJȠȢ (OF 123.4, Rhapsodies)
੩ȚȠȖİȞો, Ȥȡȣıİ઀ĮȢ ʌIJİȡ઄ȖİııȚȞ ijȠȡİ઄ȝİȞȠȢ ਩ȞșĮ țĮ੿ ਩ȞșĮ (OF 136,
Rhapsodies)

Ȥȡȣı੼ĮȚıȚȞ ਕȖĮȜȜંȝİȞȠȞ ʌIJİȡ઄ȖİııȚȞ (OH 6.2, to Protogonos = OF 143) 36

It is inconceivable that the comic ornithogony of Aristophanes was

used as a source by the authors of several Orphic poems 37 , which were
considered as sacred, ੂİȡȠ੿ ȜંȖȠȚ, so the most natural explanation for these
parallels is that both Aristophanes and the Orphic authors have a common
source, probably the Protogonos Theogony, which must have featured a
golden-winged Eros, identified with Protogonos, born from an egg.
Among the primeval gods of different theogonies, Aristophanes

34
On this ornithogony, see Bernabé 1995 and 2004: 73-75. To the ample
bibliography therein we might add: Zannini Quirini 1987: 134-145; Jiménez San
Cristóbal 2004; Imperio 2004: 350-366; Breitenberger 2007: 158-163 and
Christopoulos 2010.
35
v. l. ਕʌ੼ıIJȡĮʌIJİ.
36
Parallels quoted by Guthrie 1952: 95-96. Cf. also ਹ੼ȜȚİ Ȥȡȣı੼ĮȚıȚȞ ਕİȚȡંȝİȞİ
ʌIJİȡ઄ȖİııȚȞ (OF 102.3), on Apollon, in the proem of the Rhapsodies.
37
Pace Dunbar 1995: 444: “Aristophanes’ language here may itself have
influenced Orphic cosmogonic literature rather than vice versa”.
 Marco Antonio Santamaría Álvarez 213

considered him the most suitable to be the ancestor of all birds, by virtue
of his golden wings, and thus included him in his ornithogony.
Some authors admit that Aristophanes took his description of Eros
from an Orphic poem, but think that he was not yet identified with
Protogonos 38 . For others, Aristophanes’ model is Protogonos, already
identified with Eros, a view to which I adhere 39 . In the Orphic poems that
feature Protogonos, he is always born from an egg, a kind of birth that is
not attributed by them to any other god. The cosmic egg is also an element
of the theogony attributed to Epimenides: at the beginning there were Aer
and Night, and from them Tartarus and two Titans are born; the Titans
unite and produce an egg, from which other gods (whose names we do not
know) are born 40 . Since this theogony seems to date back to the fifth
century (West 1983: 49), the egg-motif was probably taken from the older
Orphic Protogonos Theogony 41 . As far as we know, in Epimenides’
theogony, Eros is not born from the egg, so it should be dismissed as the
source for Eros’ birth in Aristophanes’ ornithogony.
The easiest way to explain the points of contact regarding Protogonos
and his attributes between the big Thurii tablet (that mentions Protogonos
and Phanes), the Derveni poem, Euripides’ fragment, Aristophanes’
passage and later Orphic poems such as the THH and the Rhapsodies, is to
assume that all of them used an older Orphic poem as their source, which
for the sake of convenience we call Protogonos Theogony. Since these
testimonies from classical times do not mention any monstrous features of
Protogonos (Aristophanes calls Eros ʌȠșİȚȞંȢ, “desirable”), we can infer
that he did not yet have the animal heads with which he is described in the

38
Nilsson 1935: 199 and n. 76, accepted by Bernabé 2004: 75; for Bernabé 2008:
296, 307, this Eros first-Born would later be identified with the monstrous Phanes,
of Oriental origin. However, it is unlikely that two primeval gods born from an egg
derive from two different sources. West 1983: 103-106 and 1994: 289-290, 303-
307 showed that the myth of a bright god born from an egg was introduced in
Greece in the sixth century BC, and this god must be the antecedent of
Aristophanes’ Eros and the Orphic Phanes.
39
Protogonos as the model for Aristophanes’ Eros: Guthrie 1952: 96; West 1983:
111-112; Pardini 1993: 56-58 (this ਯȡȦȢ-ĭ੺ȞȘȢ may correspond to a more ancient
conception of the Orphic ʌȡȦIJંȖȠȞȠȢ); Parker 1995: 491 and Christopoulos 2010:
210: “Eros here substitutes for Protogonos/Phanes of the Orphic cosmogonic
tradition”.
40
Epimenid. fr. 46 Bernabé, ap. Dam. Pr. 124 (Eudem. Fr. 150 Wehrli). On
Epimenides’ Theogony see West 1983: 48-50; Tortorelli 2000; Bernabé 2001;
2007a (edition); Arrighetti 2001; Mele 2001 and Breglia Pulci Doria 2001.
41
Guthrie 1952: 93 thinks that this egg probably derives from the Orphic tradition.
West 1983: 50, 112 suggests that it is taken from the Protogonos Theogony.
214 Did Plato Know of the Orphic God Protogonos?

later Orphic theogonies. However, it is plausible that in the Protogonos

Theogony he was already presented as a hermaphrodite creature, as is
suggested by the parallel with primitive humans in Plato’s Symposium.

4. Aristophanes’ myth in Plato’s Symposium

The occasion of Plato’s Symposion is the celebration of the first victory of
the tragic poet Agathon in one of the dramatic festivals of Athens in 416
BC. After the banquet, the guests decide to give speeches in praise of the
god Eros. After Phaedrus, Pausanias and Eryximachus, it is the turn of the
comic poet Aristophanes. Most of his intervention consists of a bunt myth
that describes the original state of humankind, with the aim of explaining
the origin of sexual attraction and its different types 42 . Many elements,
from various sources, intervene in the configuration of the myth: folk
tales, epic (Hesiod and Homer), fable, comedy and even pre-Socratic
philosophy 43 .
In the interest of clarity, I will summarize the content here. In the
beginning men were spherical and double-sized, with four arms, four legs
and two faces on opposite sides of a head. They were divided into three
classes: male, female and androgynous. As they were unruly and tried to
climb the Olympus to conquer power, Zeus decided to cut them in two to
weaken them. Apollo turned their heads, so that they could see their
wound, which he covered by pulling the skin over it and tying it together
in the navel. After the separation, human beings longed for their lost
halves and looked desperately for them. This explains why some men look
for men, some women look for women, and the others look for their
opposite sex. When they found each other, they stayed together and never
parted. Since they were starving to death, Zeus changed their genitals to
the front so that they could have sexual intercourse and satisfy their desire
for being together.
The myth begins with the narration of the origin of men and their
ancient nature (ਲ ʌȐȜĮȚ ਲȝ૵Ȟ ijȪıȚȢ, 189d) 44 , a key word that seems to

42
Among the huge bibliography on Plato’s Symposium, a number of works deal
with Aristophanes’ speech: Dover 1966; Hani 1981-1982; Ludwig 2002: 27-118
(on the political aspects and their parallels in comedy); O’Brien 2002 (on the
Empedoclean background); Groneberg 2005 (on the division into three sexes in the
myth and its reception in modern psychology); Manuwald 2012 and Corradi 2014
(on the features of the myth and its fortune).
43
See Dover 1966 and Nieddu 2007.
44
At the end of the myth, Plato uses the expression ਲ ਕȡȤĮ઀Į ij઄ıȚȢ twice (193c
and d), the unity of lovers forming the ancient being of which they are halves. The
 Marco Antonio Santamaría Álvarez 215

echo a formula used by the Orphics in their account of the origins of

humanity, and reproduced by Plato in the Laws: “the so-called ancient
Titanic nature” (IJ੽Ȟ ȜİȖȠȝȑȞȘȞ ʌĮȜĮȚ੹Ȟ ȉȚIJĮȞȚț੽Ȟ ijȪıȚȞ, Lg. 701b = OF
37), in allusion to the fact that men have inherited their tendency towards
evil from their ancestors the Titans. In the narrations of origins, the first
creatures are characterized by excess, both bodily and in terms of strength
and ability. Thus, in the first stage of Hesiod’s Theogony, Gea is immense
and unrelentingly fertile (126-153); the male characters, such as Uranus
and Cronus, are cruel (164-166, 138, 171-172), and the Hundred-Handers
have no fewer than fifty heads and a hundred hands (148-153). In the
Orphic literature, the primeval god Protogonos is characterized by
corporeal overabundance: he possesses both sexes and the heads of several
animals (OF 129 I, from the Rhapsodies). Similarly to him, the spherical
humans are double-bodied and one of their three sexes is androgynous, as
with the Orphic god. In their aggressive attitude they resemble Uranus,
Cronus and the Hundred-Handers, because Phanes, in contradistinction to
other creatures of the origins, is not violent 45 . Just as in the Theogony the
victory of Zeus over his father, the Titans and Typhon, guarantees the
definitive order and stability of the world, in the Platonic myth Zeus
decides to halve these rebellious humans in order to make them harmless.
It is noteworthy that the primitive humans originated from celestial
bodies: the male from the sun, the female from the earth, and the
androgynous from the moon, the latter having qualities of both (190a:
ਕȝijȠIJȑȡȦȞ ȝİIJȑȤİȚ). A further Orphic trait can be recognized here, since
in an Orphic hymn the moon is referred to as “female and male” (OH 9.4:
șોȜ઄Ȣ IJİ țĮ੿ ਙȡıȘȞ) 46 . This conception can be dated back at least to late
classical times or even earlier, given that the attidographer Philochorus,
between the fourth and third centuries BC, witnessed that in Attica men
made sacrifices to the moon disguised in female clothes, since it was
considered simultaneously male and female 47 . Although this conception is
not necessarily Orphic in origin, its presence in the Orphic hymn to Selene
indicates that it was incorporated in the poems attributed to Orpheus.

term was also used by Parmenides in the proem of his cosmogony (Fr. 10 DK:
İ੅ıȘȚ į’ ĮੁșİȡȓĮȞ IJİ ijȪıȚȞ).
45
He even transmits his sceptre, symbol of his royal dignity, to his daughter Night
(OF 168).
46
Bury 1932: 57: “the Orphic conception of Eros-Phanes may also be compared”.
47
Philochorus 328 F 184 (ap. Macr. Sat. 3.8.2): “Philochorus quoque in Atthide
eandem adfirmat esse Lunam et ei sacrificium facere viros cum veste muliebri,
mulieres cum virili, quod eadem et mas aestimatur et femina”.
216 Did Plato Know of the Orphic God Protogonos?

The strongest resemblance between the Aristophanic double humans

and the Orphic Protogonos is no doubt the position of the genitals at the
back of their bodies:

ਥȞ IJȠ૙Ȣ ੗ȡijȚțȠ૙Ȣ İੁıȘȞȑȤșȘ ੒ ĭȐȞȘȢ, ĮੁįȠ૙ȠȞ ਩ȤȦȞ ʌİȡ੿ IJ੽Ȟ ʌȣȖȒȞ. (OF
135 II).
In the Orphic poems Phanes is introduced, and had his phallus by the anus.

țĮ੿ (sc. ǽİઃȢ) ȝİIJĮIJȓșȘıȚȞ Į੝IJ૵Ȟ IJ੹ ĮੁįȠ૙Į İੁȢ IJઁ ʌȡȩıșİȞ – IJȑȦȢ Ȗ੹ȡ țĮ੿
IJĮ૨IJĮ ਥțIJઁȢ İੇȤȠȞ (Smp. 191b)
he moved their genital organs round to the front. Up until then they had
their genitals on (what was originally) the outside of their bodies. (Trans.
Howatson 2008: 24)

This anomalous anatomical feature is characteristic of the first

creatures, whose bodies were monstrous by virtue of an excess of parts
(like the Hundred-Handers, Hes. Th. 147-153, or the many-headed Gerion,
287; Cerberus, 310-312; or Typhon, 821-827), a defect (like the Cyclopes,
lacking an eye, 139-145) or a mixture of parts of different beings (like
Pegasus, 280-286; Echidna, 295-300; or Chimaera, 319-324). In the case
of Protogonos, this peculiar characteristic is to be attributed to his
androgyny. The female genitals must be at the front and the male near the
anus so that he can copulate with himself 48 . In the Platonic myth, the
double humans do not mate with each other, but inseminate the earth
(191c). Only after they are divided, and begin to spend all of their time
together, does Zeus resolve to move their genitals to the front, such that
they can have sexual intercourse and satiate their desire for closeness
(191cd). Since it is unlikely that this somewhat weird detail of the Platonic
myth was adopted for a grave ੂİȡઁȢ ȜંȖȠȢ 49 , we should consider the
probability that Plato found it in an Orphic poem and included it in his
myth as a vivid means of explaining the origin of sexual activity 50 .
After their attempt to defeat the gods, Zeus split the primitive humans
down the middle, like those who cut sorb-apples to pickle them or eggs
with hairs (਩IJİȝȞİ IJȠઃȢ ਕȞșȡȫʌȠȣȢ įȓȤĮ, ੮ıʌİȡ Ƞੂ IJ੹ ੕Į IJȑȝȞȠȞIJİȢ țĮ੿
ȝȑȜȜȠȞIJİȢ IJĮȡȚȤİȪİȚȞ, ਲ਼ ੮ıʌİȡ Ƞੂ IJ੹ ધ੹ IJĮ૙Ȣ șȡȚȟȓȞ, 190de). In this
analogy the egg is an image of primeval men before their division, just as

48
West 1983: 202 n. 85.
49
Pace Dover 1966: 46, Brisson 1997: 84 and Bernabé 2011: 92 n. 55, who thinks
that it must be a coincidence or even an influence of Plato in later Orphic poetry.
50
Christopoulos 2010: 214 considers the parallel an Orphic influence in Plato and
also holds that the bisexuality of Phanes has inspired the dual character of former
humans, whom he calls “protogonic”.
 Marco Antonio Santamaría Álvarez 217

in the Orphic myth the egg from which Protogonos is born represents the
unity of the world that will give way to the duality of heaven and earth and
then to the multiplicity of things that they contain51 .
Setting aside the meaningful details of the genitals at the back and the
allusion to the division of eggs, the structure of the whole myth closely
resembles that of the Orphic theogony: in the latter, the cosmic unity
embodied by the egg and Protogonos is transformed into the multiplicity
of the components of the world and Zeus will again give rise to unity
thanks to Protogonos-Eros, whom he swallows and, with him, the whole
universe. Through this action, Zeus becomes generative and once again
procreates all of the gods and parts of the world. In the Aristophanic myth,
focused on the human sphere, the unity of primeval human beings gives
way to the duality of contemporary humans, who long for their lost half 52 .
Thanks to Eros, the halves are attracted to each other, reunite, and thus
recover the lost unity of their ancient nature. Eros’ action is generative, as
is that of Zeus, because out of the sexual union of the halves of an ancient
androgynous being new humans will be born.
Another source has been suggested for certain details of the
Aristophanic myth: Empedocles’ zoogony and anthropogony in his
physical poem 53 . In Fr. 61 DK he describes the formation of creatures
with both sexes, as well as other hybrids, such as men with the heads of
oxen, during the cosmological process. These creatures are produced, as
Simplicius states, at an early stage of the period in which Love is
predominant and causes the elements to join together to form limbs and
then monstrous beings 54 :

51
Regarding the mention of eggs in 190dc, Reale 2001: 198 recalls that, in the
Orphic doctrine, the egg from which Phanes emerges is at the origin of the world.
52
Plato highlights the dichotomy between duality and unity; in the first part he
emphasizes duality: įȚĮIJİȝ૵ į઀ȤĮ ਪțĮıIJȠȞ (190d1), ʌ੺ȜȚȞ IJİȝ૵ į઀ȤĮ (190d5),
਩IJİȝȞİ IJȠઃȢ ਕȞșȡઆʌȠȣȢ į઀ȤĮ (190d7), ਲ ij઄ıȚȢ į઀ȤĮ ਥIJȝ੾șȘ (191a5-6); in the
second part unity is predominant: ʌȠȚોıĮȚ ਨȞ ਥț įȣȠ૙Ȟ (191d2), į઄’ ੕ȞIJĮȢ ਪȞĮ
ȖİȖȠȞ੼ȞĮȚ (192e1), ੪Ȣ ਪȞĮ ੕ȞIJĮ (192e2), ਕȞIJ੿ įȣȠ૙Ȟ ਪȞĮ İੇȞĮȚ (192e3-4), ਥț įȣȠ૙Ȟ
İੈȢ ȖİȞ੼ıșĮȚ (192e8-9), ਨȞ ਷ȝİȞ (191e8-9). This aspect has been observed by Reale
2001: LI.LII, who attributes it to the unwritten doctrines of Plato, in which the first
principles are the One and the Dyad. For a critique of this approach see Manuwald
2002: 63-64.
53
Taylor 1926: 220, Hani 1981-1982: 97 and Reale 2001: 19. O’Brien 2002 offers
a full study. He is followed by Betegh 2002: 81.
54
Simp. in Ph. 371.33: ੮ıʌİȡ ਫȝʌİįȠțȜોȢ țĮIJ੹ IJ੽Ȟ IJોȢ ĭȚȜȓĮȢ ਕȡȤȒȞ ijȘıȚ
ȖİȞȑıșĮȚ ੪Ȣ ਩IJȣȤİ ȝȑȡȘ ʌȡ૵IJȠȞ IJ૵Ȟ ȗȫȚȦȞ ȠੈȠȞ țİijĮȜ੹Ȣ țĮ੿ Ȥİ૙ȡĮȢ țĮ੿ ʌȩįĮȢ,
਩ʌİȚIJĮ ıȣȞȚȑȞĮȚ IJĮ૨IJĮ [fr. 61 DK].
218 Did Plato Know of the Orphic God Protogonos?

ʌȠȜȜ੹ ȝ੻Ȟ ਕȝijȚʌȡȩıȦʌĮ țĮ੿ ਕȝijȓıIJİȡȞĮ ijȪİıșĮȚ,

ȕȠȣȖİȞો ਕȞįȡȩʌȡȦȚȡĮ, IJ੹ į' ਩ȝʌĮȜȚȞ ਥȟĮȞĮIJȑȜȜİȚȞ
ਕȞįȡȠijȣો ȕȠȪțȡĮȞĮ, ȝİȝİȚȖȝȑȞĮ IJોȚ ȝ੻Ȟ ਕʌ’ ਕȞįȡ૵Ȟ
IJોȚ į੻ ȖȣȞĮȚțȠijȣો ıțȚİȡȠ૙Ȣ ਱ıțȘȝȑȞĮ ȖȣȓȠȚȢ. (fr. 61 DK)
Many grew with faces and breasts on both sides,
And man-headed bull-natured creatures, and again there arose
Bull-headed man-natured creatures, and mixture of male
And female, equipped with shade-giving limbs. (Trans. Waterfield 2000:
152)

Furthermore, the successive actions of Philia and Neikos in the cosmic

cycle, which cause the reunification or division of beings, is paralleled in
the Platonic myth, in which Eros leads the humans to be attracted to, and
reunite with, their lost halves, but to live under the constant threat of a
second splitting, should they continue to be hostile to the gods.
A similar combination of Orphic and Empedoclean motifs (among
others) has been recognized in the previously mentioned ornithogony in
the Birds 55 , probably the Aristophanic passage most similar to the Platonic
myth in the Symposium. The gold-winged Eros born from an egg was
taken from an Orphic theogony, as many scholars have indicated, and the
allusion to the mixture of gods by the action of Eros (vv. 700-701: ਯȡȦȢ
ȟȣȞȑȝİȚȟİȞ ਚʌĮȞIJĮ· / ȟȣȝȝİȚȖȞȣȝȑȞȦȞ į' ਦIJȑȡȦȞ ਦIJȑȡȠȚȢ ȖȑȞİIJ' Ƞ੝ȡĮȞઁȢ
੩țİĮȞȩȢ IJİ) is reminiscent of Empedocles’ theories 56 .
Plato seems to have been aware of the Orphic and Empedoclean
materials that are parodied in the Aristophanic ornithogony, especially the
figure of Eros, who is similar to Protogonos in appearance, and to Philia in
his actions. Similarly, Plato combines elements from both sources in his
description of primitive men and their vicissitudes. To create a speech

55
See n. 35.
56
Fr. 35.16 DK: IJ૵Ȟ į੼ IJİ ȝȚıȖȠȝ੼ȞȦȞ Ȥİ૙IJ’ ਩șȞİĮ ȝȣȡ઀Į șȞȘIJ૵Ȟ; fr. 59.1: Į੝IJ੹ȡ
ਥʌİ੿ țĮIJ੹ ȝİ૙ȗȠȞ ਥȝȓıȖİIJȠ įĮȓȝȠȞȚ įĮȓȝȦȞ; cf. Fr. 8.3, 17.7 = 20.2. Dunbar 1995:
445 on vv. 700-702: “For the basic idea of Love causing a creative ‘mixing’… Ar.
may be indebted to Empedokles”. Tarrant 1923 was the first to propose the
influence of Empedocles in Ar. Au. 700. She is followed by Bonanno 1975: 108 n.
17. O’Brien 2002: 176: “die Aristophanes-Rede als eine wohldurchdachte Parodie
der eigenartigen zoogonischen Theorien des Empedokles gemeint ist”. See also
Ludwig 2002: 72-73. Dunbar 1995 on v. 446: “He [Empedocles] described the
movement involved in separating and uniting the four roots as į઀ȞȘ, whirl [Fr.
35.3-4 DK: … ਥʌİ੿ ȃİ૙țȠȢ ȝ੻Ȟ ਥȞ੼ȡIJĮIJȠȞ ੆țİIJȠ ȕ੼ȞșȠȢ / į઀ȞȘȢ], which could have
prompted Ar.’s reference to ਕȞİȝઆțİıȚ į઀ȞĮȚȢ at 697”. Dover 1966: 46 is sceptical
about Empedocles’ influences in Aristophanes’ myth.
 Marco Antonio Santamaría Álvarez 219

worthy of Aristophanes, Plato apparently imitated his methods of parodic

composition 57 .
The influence of the ornithogony on the myth recounted by
Aristophanes is patent in other details, such as the phrase ਲ ʌȐȜĮȚ ਲȝ૵Ȟ
ijȪıȚȢ (189d), which may echo the ijȪıȚȞ ȠੁȦȞ૵Ȟ mentioned by the choir
of birds before narrating their origin (691), as well as the importance of
Eros, which prompts the generation of beings. The risk that the gods may
perish if humans cease to offer sacrifices (190c) is a major topic in the
Birds (1515-1524).
The use of Orphic elements in the Symposium is not limited to the
Aristophanic story. In the other myth narrated in the work, that of Eros’
birth, there is another possible Orphic motif. Penia, “Poverty”, arrives as a
beggar to the gods’ feast on the occasion of Aphrodite’s birth and meets
Poros, “Resource”, inebriated by nectar and sleeping in Zeus’ garden; she
lies down beside him and becomes pregnant with a son, Eros (203b). This
recalls an episode in the Orphic Rhapsodies, which probably stems from
the Eudemian Theogony, known to Plato, in which Demeter prepares a
banquet for the gods that includes ambrosia, nectar and honey (OF 221) 58 .
Then, “Cronus is tricked through the honey by Zeus, for he becomes
replete of honey, inebriated and stupefied as if it was wine, and falls

57
Taylor 1926: 220: “I think it is clear that in composing the speech Plato had in
view the brilliant burlesque of an Orphic cosmogony in Aristophanes’ own Birds
(693-703), where also Eros is the great primitive cosmic active force… It is quite
in keeping with Plato’s dramatic realism that he should be made to burlesque
Empedocles, exactly as he [Aristophanes] has burlesqued Diogenes and the Orphic
cosmologists in his extant comedies”; Nieddu 2007: 251: “il personaggio platonico
imbastisce, nelle forme dell’affabulazione comica, una storia che combina, in
maniera originale, elementi e motivi di carattere fiabesco e di derivazione
filosofica, empedoclea ed orfica in particolare”. The combination of both sources
is especially easy in this case because they show a similar pattern, that Empedocles
seems to have borrowed from an Orphic poem: from a single form (egg, sphere),
the multiplicity of the world is generated, and again, through the influence of a
cosmic force (Eros-Protogonos, Philotes), everything is returned to unity (Zeus’
insides, sphere). This parallel between the Orphic Zeus and the sphere was first
observed by Burkert, as recorded by West 1983: 108. They are followed by Betegh
2001: 55 and Megino 2005: 37-40, with further bibliography, although they think
that in the Derveni Papyrus what Zeus swallows is Uranus’ penis, not that of
Protogonos.
58
West 1983: 134-136 claims that in the Eudemian Theogony Zeus castrated
Cronus with a sickle after intoxicating him with honey, which I consider very
likely.
220 Did Plato Know of the Orphic God Protogonos?

asleep” (OF 222) 59 . Next, he is tied up and castrated by Zeus (OF 225),
who thus becomes the fifth king of the gods. Moreover, in Alcibiades’
speech, when he is going to narrate an intimate experience with Socrates,
he alludes to the initial verse of the Orphic poems, in which the profane
are encouraged to put doors in their ears, because it is something not
everyone may hear 60 . This clear allusion to an Orphic verse provides
support to the presence of Orphic material in Aristophanes’ speech.

5. Zeus as the first and the last

One of the most indisputable allusions to the Orphic poetry in Plato’s
works is found in the Laws (715e-716a = OF 31 III), where the god is said
to be the first and last 61 :

੒ ȝ੻Ȟ į੽ șİȩȢ, ੮ıʌİȡ țĮ੿ ੒ ʌĮȜĮȚઁȢ ȜȩȖȠȢ, ਕȡȤȒȞ IJİ țĮ੿ IJİȜİȣIJ੽Ȟ țĮ੿ ȝȑıĮ
IJ૵Ȟ ੕ȞIJȦȞ ਖʌȐȞIJȦȞ ਩ȤȦȞ, İ੝șİȓ઺ ʌİȡĮȓȞİȚ țĮIJ੹ ijȪıȚȞ ʌİȡȚʌȠȡİȣȩȝİȞȠȢ·

The god, just as the ancient saying has it, holding the beginning and the
end and the middle of all the beings, completes his straight course by
revolving, according to nature. (Trans. Pangle 1980: 102).

The scholium to the passage explains that “the ancient saying” is

Orphic, whereof he quotes two verses:

ȆĮȜĮȚઁȞ į੻ ȜંȖȠȞ Ȝ੼ȖİȚ IJઁȞ ੗ȡijȚțઁȞ, ੖Ȣ ਥıIJȚȞ Ƞ੤IJȠȢ·

ǽİઃȢ ਕȡȤ੾, ǽİઃȢ ȝ੼ııĮ· ǻȚઁȢ į’ ਥț ʌ੺ȞIJĮ IJ੼IJȣțIJĮȚ·
ǽİઃȢ ʌ઄șȝȘȞ ȖĮ઀ȘȢ IJİ țĮ੿ Ƞ੝ȡĮȞȠ૨ ਕıIJİȡંİȞIJȠȢ. (Sch. Pl. Lg. 715e, 317
Greene = OF 31 IV)
With “ancient saying” he refers to an Orphic expression, as follows:
Zeus the beginning, Zeus the middle, by Zeus everything was wrought.
Zeus is the foundation of earth and of starry heaven.

59
Porphyrius, Antr. 7, the source of these verses, mentions Poros’ drunkenness as a
parallel.
60
218b (= ap. OF 1 XVIII and 9): ʌȐȞIJİȢ Ȗ੹ȡ țİțȠȚȞȦȞȒțĮIJİ IJોȢ ijȚȜȠıȩijȠȣ ȝĮȞȓĮȢ
IJİ țĮ੿ ȕĮțȤİȓĮȢ – įȚઁ ʌȐȞIJİȢ ਕțȠȪıİıșİ· ıȣȖȖȞȫıİıșİ Ȗ੹ȡ IJȠ૙Ȣ IJİ IJȩIJİ ʌȡĮȤșİ૙ıȚ
țĮ੿ IJȠ૙Ȣ Ȟ૨Ȟ ȜİȖȠȝȑȞȠȚȢ. Ƞੂ į੻ ȠੁțȑIJĮȚ, țĮ੿ İ੅ IJȚȢ ਙȜȜȠȢ ਥıIJ੿Ȟ ȕȑȕȘȜȩȢ IJİ țĮ੿
ਙȖȡȠȚțȠȢ, ʌȪȜĮȢ ʌȐȞȣ ȝİȖȐȜĮȢ IJȠ૙Ȣ ੩ı੿Ȟ ਥʌȓșİıșİ. “you have all shared in the
madness and frenzy of philosophy, so you will all of you hear me out, and I know
you will make allowance for what was done at that time and what is going to be
said now. As for you servants and anyone else who is uninitiated and won’t
appreciate my story, block up your ears” (Trans. Howatson 2008: 57). Cf. OF 1a:
ਕİȓıȦ ȟȣȞİIJȠ૙ıȚ, șȪȡĮȢ į’ ਥʌȓșİıșİ ȕȑȕȘȜȠȚ. See Bernabé 2011: 81-83.
61
See Casadesús 2008: 1262-1265 and Bernabé 2011: 205-209.
 Marco Antonio Santamaría Álvarez 221

These verses are nearly identical to the second and third verses of the
Orphic “Hymn to Zeus” quoted in the Pseudo-Aristotelian De mundo
(except that țİijĮȜ੾ has been substituted by ਕȡȤ੾) 62 . More versions of this
hymn have been preserved: a brief one in the Derveni Papyrus and an
expanded one in the Rhapsodies 63 . Besides, a Florence papyrus 64 cites
some verses of the hymn, two of which are closer to the Platonic
quotation, since they contain the word ਕȡȤ੾ instead of țİijĮȜ੾:

[ǽİઃȢ] ʌ੺ȞIJȦȞ ਕȡȤ੾, ǽİઃȢ [ȝ੼ııĮ, ǽİઃȢ į੻ IJİ]ȜİȣIJ੾ǜ (v. 1)

[ʌ੺]ȞIJĮ ț઄țȜȦȚ ijĮ઀ȞȦȞ, [ǽİઃȢ ਕȡȤ੾, ȝ੼ııĮ,] IJ[İ]ȜİȣIJ੾. (v. 5)
Zeus the beginning of everything, Zeus the middle, Zeus the end.
Revealing everything around, Zeus beginning, middle, end.

We only know the context of two of these versions, those of the

Derveni poem and of the Rhapsodies. In both of these poems the hymn
praises Zeus as a pancosmic god just after he has swallowed the primeval
god Protogonos 65 and with him the whole universe, and is going to
organize and recreate it in a new definitive order. In the versions quoted in
the De mundo and in the Florence papyrus the swallowing is clearly
assumed, since they state that Zeus contains everything inside himself:

ʌ੺ȞIJĮȢ Ȗ੹ȡ țȡ઄ȥĮȢ Į੣șȚȢ ij੺ȠȢ ਥȢ ʌȠȜȣȖȘș੻Ȣ

ਥț țĮșĮȡોȢ țȡĮį઀ȘȢ ਥȞİȞ੼ȖțĮIJȠ, ȝ੼ȡȝİȡĮ ૧੼ȗȦȞ. (OF 31.8-9) 66
For after he had hidden them all away, again into the glad light
from his holy heart he brought them up, performing mighty acts. (Trans.
West 1983: 90, 218)

țĮ੿ į઄ȞĮIJĮȚ [ǽİઃȢ ʌ઼Ȟ, ǽİઃȢ ʌ]઼[Ȟ] ਩Ȥ<İ>Ț Į੝IJઁȢ ਥȞ Įਫ਼IJ૵Ț. (P. Soc. Ital. XV
1476 = OF 688a.6)
(Zeus) can (everything, Zeus) has everything in himself.

62
Ps.Arist. Mu. 401a25 (= OF 31).
63
Derveni poem: OF 14, esp. v. 2: ǽİઃȢ țİijĮ[Ȝ੾, ǽİઃȢ ȝ੼ı]ıĮ, ǻȚઁȢ įૃ ਥț [ʌ]੺ȞIJĮ
IJ੼IJ[ȣțIJĮȚ, a verse identical to Rhapsodies, OF 243.2.
64
P. Soc. Ital. XV 1476 = OF 688a, in Bernabé 2007a. On all these versions, see
Bernabé 2010, as well as Ricciardelli 2009.
65
Derveni poem: OF 8; Rhapsodies: OF 240-241.
66
Ricciardelli 2009: 427, on OF 31.8-9: “ci si riferisce all’inghiottimento da parte
di Zeus di Phanes Protogono, il dio primigenio che ha in sé il seme di tutti gli dèi,
che poi Zeus riporta alla luce”. For West 1983: 89, OF 31 is a Stoic version of the
hymn, quoted in the De mundo probably after an earlier Stoic source, and must
have stood in the Protogonos tradition; in p. 218 he suggest it comes from the
HHT.
222 Did Plato Know of the Orphic God Protogonos?

Moreover, the polar expressions applied to Zeus try to convey his

possession of totality:

ǽİઃȢ ʌȡ૵IJȠȢ Ȗ੼ȞİIJȠ, ǽİઃȢ ੢ıIJĮIJȠȢ ਕȡȤȚț੼ȡĮȣȞȠȢá

ǽİઃȢ țİijĮȜ੾, ǽİઃȢ ȝ੼ııĮ, ǻȚઁȢ įૃ ਥț ʌ੺ȞIJĮ IJ੼IJȣțIJĮȚá
ǽİઃȢ ʌȣșȝ੽Ȟ ȖĮ઀ȘȢ IJİ țĮ੿ Ƞ੝ȡĮȞȠ૨ ਕıIJİȡંİȞIJȠȢ.
ǽİઃȢ ਙȡıȘȞ Ȗ੼ȞİIJȠ, ǽİઃȢ ਙȝȕȡȠIJȠȢ ਩ʌȜİIJȠ Ȟ઄ȝijȘá
ǽİઃȢ ʌȞȠȚ੽ ʌ੺ȞIJȦȞ, ǽİઃȢ ਕțĮȝ੺IJȠȣ ʌȣȡઁȢ ੒ȡȝ੾á 5
ǽİઃȢ ʌંȞIJȠȣ ૧઀ȗĮ, ǽİઃȢ ਸ਼ȜȚȠȢ ਱į੻ ıİȜ੾ȞȘá (OF 31.1-6)
Zeus was born first, Zeus last, ruler of thunderbolt;
Zeus is the head, Zeus is the middle, from Zeus are all things made:
Zeus is the foundation of earth and starry heaven.
Zeus was male, Zeus was an immortal nymph.
Zeus is the breath of all, Zeus is the thrust of tireless fire:
Zeus is the root of the sea: Zeus is the sun and moon. (Trans. West 1983:
218)

ǽİઃȢ ੢ʌĮIJȠȢ, [ǽİઃȢ țĮ੿ ȤșંȞȚ]ȠȢ țĮ੿ ʌંȞIJȚંȢ ਥıIJȚȞ,

[ǽİઃȢ ਙȡıȘȞ,] ǽİઃȢ șોȜȣȢ (P. Soc. Ital. XV 1476 = OF 688a.2-3)
Zeus highest, Zeus god of earth and god of sea,
Zeus male, Zeus female.

Among these opposed concepts, two pairs may be pointing to

Protogonos. Zeus, despite being the last to be born, becomes the first after
he incorporates Protogonos, the first-born, and generates the rest of the
gods 67 . The expression ʌȡ૵IJȠȢ Ȗ੼ȞİIJȠ is a sort of paraphrase of the name
ȆȡȦIJંȖȠȞȠȢ. Zeus is also said to be male and female (ਙȡıȘȞ and Ȟ઄ȝijȘ or
șોȜȣȢ) and this can be easily explained as his acquisition of the attributes
of Protogonos, who in many sources is described as having both sexes (OF
121.3: ਕȡıİȞંșȘȜȣȢ; 134: șોȜȣȢ țĮ੿ ȖİȞ੼IJȦȡ). It is thanks to his feminine
component that Zeus becomes fertile and is able to generate the universe
in his belly. In addition, Zeus’ action of revealing everything around
([ʌ੺]ȞIJĮ ț઄țȜȦȚ ijĮ઀ȞȦȞ) in v.5 of the Florence papyrus may be an
allusion to the god Phanes, whose quality of bringing everything to light
has been acquired by Zeus 68 .
Returning to Plato, it is likely that he was familiar not only with the
verse he paraphrases in Lg. 715e-716a, but also its context. So, in an

67
Riccardelli 2009: 426 on OF 31.1.
68
Cf. OF 31.8-9: ʌ੺ȞIJĮȢ Ȗ੹ȡ țȡ઄ȥĮȢ Į੣șȚȢ ij੺ȠȢ ਥȢ ʌȠȜȣȖȘș੻Ȣ… ਕȞİȞ੼ȖțĮIJȠ (~
OF 243.31-32); OF 149, on Night after mating with her father Phanes: ਴ į੻ ʌ੺ȜȚȞ
īĮ૙੺Ȟ IJİ țĮ੿ ȅ੝ȡĮȞઁȞ İ੝ȡઃȞ ਩IJȚțIJİ / įİ૙ȟİȞ IJ’ ਥȟ ਕijĮȞ૵Ȟ ijĮȞİȡȠઃȢ Ƞ੆ IJ’ İੁı੿
ȖİȞ੼șȜȘȞ. Compare ț઄țȜȦȚ with OF 243.7 (from the “Hymn to Zeus in the
Rhapsodies): ਥȞ ੰȚ (sc. Iove) IJ੺įİ ʌ੺ȞIJĮ țȣțȜİ૙IJĮȚ.
 Marco Antonio Santamaría Álvarez 223

Orphic poem, or an extract from it, he must have read that Zeus came to
have everything in his belly and how he managed this: through the
engulfment of Protogonos. It is unlikely that the Orphic poem known to
Plato was the one quoted in the Derveni Papyrus, but rather a longer poem
that it presupposes and summarizes, the Protogonos Theogony, the same
one that influenced Empedocles in his conception of the Sphere and
Aristophanes and Euripides in their allusions to Eros and Protogonos 69 .
Although it is impossible to know the exact plot and content of the
Protogonos Theogony, it is plausible that Plato found in it some details
about the first-born god, which he transposed to the spherical men in
Aristophanes’ myth in the Symposium, as well as a verse describing Zeus
as first, middle and last, which he mentions in the Laws as an efficient
expression of his own conception of divinity, exchanging the mythical
ǽİ઄Ȣ for the more abstract șİંȢ.

6. Protogonos, Zeus and the Platonic Demiurge

As a kind of appendix, I will allude to the possible influence of the
Protogonos myth on the fundamental figure of Platonic thought, that is, the
Demiurge 70 . This question deserves an in-depth analysis, one which I will
not be able to develop fully here. Hence I will limit myself to indicating
the resemblances between the account of the world’s creation in the
Timaeus and some Orphic fragments.
The most crucial novelty of Orphic poetry regarding the traditional
gods is its conception of Zeus as creator of the present world 71 , which is
imagined as a product both of his mind and his body. As we clearly see in
the Rhapsodies, after swallowing Protogonos, Zeus occupies his place and
thus becomes the first god (since that god was the first-born), and acquires
intelligence (since he is Metis) and fecundity (since he is also Eros and is
both male and female). Thanks to both of these capacities, Protogonos had
contrived to generate the world some generations before, as described in

69
West 1983: 265, on OF 31: “Plato may allude to the passage of P[rotogonos
Theogony] from which the scholiast’s quotation (R[hapsodies]) is derived”.
Bernabé 2010: 92 suggests that Plato read the verse paraphrased in Lg. 715e-716a
in the Eudemian Theogony, but it is not likely, since this poem did not feature
either the swallowing of Protogonos or the recreation of the world by Zeus.
70
On this figure, see Classen 1962: 16-22; Mohr 1985; Benítez 1995 and Johansen
2005: 79-91.
71
Cf. Guthrie 1952: 106 (on Zeus): “the conception which seems to me to have the
best right to be called an Orphic idea is that of a creator. The supreme ruler of the
universe is to be at the same time its creator”.
224 Did Plato Know of the Orphic God Protogonos?

the Rhapsodies (OF 153, 155), although this action is not mentioned in the
brief Derveni poem. In contriving every component of the world, it would
be natural for Zeus to re-enact what Protogonos did 72 , but we cannot be
sure that this is what was implied in the Derveni poem or in the
Protogonos Theogony.
In the case of the myth described in the Timaeus, the Demiurge
fashions the world (28c: ੒ IJİțIJĮȚȞȩȝİȞȠȢ Į੝IJઁȞ ਕʌȘȡȖȐȗİIJȠ; 29e: ੒
ıȣȞȚıIJ੹Ȣ ıȣȞ੼ıIJȘıİȞ; 33d: ੒ ıȣȞșİ઀Ȣ) and orders it (37d: įȚĮțȠıȝ૵Ȟ 73 ;
42e: ਚʌĮȞIJĮ IJĮ૨IJĮ įȚĮIJ੺ȟĮȢ; 53b: țȠıȝİ૙ıșĮȚ IJઁ ʌ઼Ȟ). This activity is the
result of his intelligence and previous planning: this world has been
generated by the god’s foresight (30b-c: IJંȞįİ IJઁȞ țંıȝȠȞ… įȚ੹ IJ੽Ȟ ıȠ૨
șİȠ૨ ȖİȞ੼ıșĮȚ ʌȡંȞȠȚĮȞ). Its elements were fabricated through ȞȠ૨Ȣ (47e:
IJ੹ įȚ੹ ȃȠ૨ įİįȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȘȝ੼ȞĮ), as was the constitution of the world’s soul
(30b: ȜȠȖȚı੺ȝİȞȠȢ Ƞ੣Ȟ Ș੢ȡȚıțİȞ…; 36d: ਥʌİ੿ į੻ țĮIJ੹ ȞȠ૨Ȟ IJ૶ ıȣȞȚıIJ੺ȞIJȚ
ʌ઼ıĮ ਲ IJોȢ ȥȣȤોȢ ı઄ıIJĮıȚȢ ਥȖİȖ੼ȞȘIJȠ), while time was created by virtue
of the god’s reason and intelligence (38c: ਥȟ Ƞ੣Ȟ ȜȩȖȠȣ țĮ੿ įȚĮȞȠȓĮȢ șİȠ૨
IJȠȚĮȪIJȘȢ ʌȡઁȢ ȤȡȩȞȠȣ ȖȑȞİıȚȞ). This recalls the actions of Zeus in the
Derveni poem, where it is said that the world is contrived and configured
by Zeus (18.1: ʌ੺Ȟ]IJĮ ǻȚઁ[Ȣ ȞȠ૨Ȣ 74 ȝ੾]ıĮIJҕ[Ƞ ਩]ȡҕȖҕĮ;ҕ 14.2: ǻȚઁȢ įૅ ਥț
[ʌ]੺ȞIJĮ IJ੼IJ[ȣțIJĮȚǜ), not by manual work as in the case with the Demiurge,
but through a kind of gestation of everything in his womb 75 . Astutely,
Burkert (2008: 580) warned that IJ੼IJȣțIJĮȚ should not be understood as
“produced” from matter, but in the more archaic sense of “brought to
perfection”. In the Timaeus, the world does not physically proceed from
the Demiurge (as is the case with Orphic Zeus), rather he gives form to
pre-existent material. Nonetheless, Plato describes him on several
occasions as a father, using a biological metaphor (28c: IJઁȞ ȝ੻Ȟ Ƞ੣Ȟ
ʌȠȚȘIJ੽Ȟ țĮ੿ ʌĮIJȑȡĮ IJȠ૨įİ IJȠ૨ ʌĮȞIJઁȢ; 37c: ੒ ȖİȞȞ੾ıĮȢ ʌĮIJ੾ȡ; 41a:
įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖઁȢ ʌĮIJȒȡ IJİ ਩ȡȖȦȞ). This is comparable to the role of Zeus as the
father of all the gods in the Derveni poem, as affirmed in the very

72
In the Derveni poem, the intellectual planning of Zeus is described with the
aorist ȝ੾ıĮIJȠ (OF 16.1-2: [ȝ੾ıĮIJȠ įૅ Į੣] īĮ૙੺Ȟ [IJİ țĮ੿] ȅ੝ȡĮȞઁȞ İ੝ȡઃȞ
[੢ʌİȡșİȞ], / ȝ੾ıĮIJȠ įૅ ੱțİĮȞȠ૙Ƞ ȝ੼ȖĮ ıș੼ȞȠȢ İ੝ȡઃ ૧੼ȠȞIJȠȢ; OF 18.1: [Į੝IJ]੹ҕȡ
[ਥ]ʌҕİì į[੽ ʌ੺Ȟ]IJĮ ǻȚઁ[Ȣ ȞȠ૨Ȣ ȝ੾]ıĮIJҕ[Ƞ ਩]ȡҕȖҕĮ)ҕ , the same used in the Rhapsodies for
the creation of Protogonos (OF 155.1: ȝ੾ıĮIJȠ į’ ਙȜȜȘȞ ȖĮ૙ĮȞ, in reference to the
moon).
73
Cf. Lg. 966e: ȞȠ૨Ȣ… IJઁ ʌ઼Ȟ įȚĮțİțȠıȝȘțઆȢ.
74
ȃȠ૨Ȣ is the reading suggested by Sider 2011: 234, 251-252, which I find
preferable to ijȡ੾Ȟ, proposed by Tsantsanoglou and accepted by Bernabé 2004: 32.
75
Cf. OF 241.4: ıઃȞ IJ૵Ț (sc. Phanete) ʌ੺ȞIJĮ ǻȚઁȢ ʌ੺ȜȚȞ ਥȞIJઁȢ ਥIJ઄ȤșȘ.
 Marco Antonio Santamaría Álvarez 225

beginning (OF 4: [Ƞ]੄ ǻȚઁȢ ਥȟİȖҕ੼Ȟҕ ȠȞIJȠ [ʌİȡȚijȡĮį]੼ȠȢ 76 ȕĮıȚȜોҕȠȢ, “who

were born from Zeus, the [very thoughtful] king”).
There is another significant detail: after the gods are born, the
Demiurge leaves the creation of living beings to them and retires 77 . This
finds a parallel in the Rhapsodies, when Phanes 78 , having created the
world, yields the power to his daughter Night, departs the world, and
travels across the heavens on his chariot (OF 171-173).
In conclusion, the role of Protogonos as contriver and father of the
gods and the world was not mentioned in the Derveni poem, so it is
uncertain whether it featured in the Protogonos Theogony; yet Zeus’
generation of the world is the climax of the Derveni poem and no doubt in
the previous Protogonos Theogony, hence this poem may have been one
of Plato’s sources in his shaping of the god that built this world, the
Demiurge.

7. Conclusions
The Orphic god Protogonos or Phanes played an important role in two
Orphic poems of Hellenistic times, the Theogony of Hieronymus and
Hellanicus and the Rhapsodies, from which a number of fragments and
testimonies offer valuable information about his appearance, his attributes,
his names and his role in the plot. However, the presence of this god in
archaic and classical literature has been highly controversial, especially
regarding the Orphic poem quoted and commented upon in the Derveni
Papyrus. In my view, Protogonos is the “venerable king” (OF 12),
swallowed by Zeus (OF 8) to recreate the world, like in the Rhapsodies.
“Protogonos” probably refers to this god in other obscure texts, namely, a
fragment of Euripides and an Orphic tablet from Thurii (which also
features the name “Phanes”), rather than being the epithet of other gods
with the meaning “first-born”, since only many centuries later, in the
Orphic Hymns, are a few gods referred to thus. In addition, a passage from
Aristophanes’ Birds describes Eros with certain traits (gestation in an egg,
brightness, golden wings) that liken him to Protogonos or Phanes as
depicted in the Rhapsodies, a fact that suggests that the common source of

76
I adopt this reading, proposed by Sider 2011: 230, 236, who prefers
[ȝİȖĮıșİȞ]ȑȠȢ.
77
Pl. Ti. 41c: IJȡȑʌİıșİ țĮIJ੹ ijȪıȚȞ ਫ਼ȝİ૙Ȣ ਥʌ੿ IJ੽Ȟ IJ૵Ȟ ȗ૴ȦȞ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮȞ,
ȝȚȝȠȪȝİȞȠȚ IJ੽Ȟ ਥȝ੽Ȟ įȪȞĮȝȚȞ ʌİȡ੿ IJ੽Ȟ ਫ਼ȝİIJȑȡĮȞ ȖȑȞİıȚȞ; 41d: ਕʌİȡȖȐȗİıșİ ȗ૶Į
țĮ੿ ȖİȞȞ઼IJİ IJȡȠijȒȞ IJİ įȚįȩȞIJİȢ Į੝ȟȐȞİIJİ.
78
Classen 1962: 17: the demiurge “retires and leaves the rest to them, much like
the Orphic creator”.
226 Did Plato Know of the Orphic God Protogonos?

both texts was a poem from late archaic times which featured Protogonos
as a main character (and hence was called Protogonos Theogony by West).
In a number passages of Plato’s works there are parallels of the
descriptions of the god in Orphic texts. In this vein, some features of the
primitive double humans in Aristophanes’ myth in the Symposium
resemble those of the god Protogonos, such as their androgyny, the
posterior position of their sexual organs, and the fact that they are split in
two like eggs. Moreover, the schema “unity-duality-recovery of unity
through Eros” is reminiscent of the “unity-multiplicity-recovery of unity
through Phanes-Eros” schema of the Rhapsodies (basically the same as in
the Derveni poem), so both may derive from the same lost Orphic source.
Additionally, an Orphic expression quoted by Plato in the Laws (715e-
716a), on the god as first and last, seems to imply a narrative which
included the engulfment of Phanes. Lastly, the figure of the Demiurge in
the Timaeus, who designs and fashions the world, might be partially
inspired by Protogonos, who contrives and generates the cosmos, or at
least by Zeus, who is capable of those actions after swallowing the
primeval god. In conclusion, with regard to the question of whether Plato
knew of the Orphic god Protogonos, we are in a position to answer in the
affirmative, and with a reasonable degree of confidence.
 Marco Antonio Santamaría Álvarez 227

BIBLIOGRAPHY
ARRIGHETTI, G. 2001. “Fra purificazioni e produzione letteraria. La
Teogonia di Epimenide.” Epimenide Cretese: 217-225. Napoli:
Luciano Editore
BENÍTEZ, E.E. 1995. “The good or the demiurge: causation and the unity
of good in Plato.” Apeiron 28: 113-140.
BERNABÉ, A. 1995. “Una cosmogonía cómica (Aristófanes Aves 695 ss.).”
In De Homero a Libanio, ed. J.A. López Férez, 195-211. Madrid:
Ediciones Clásicas.
––.2001. “La teogonia di Epimenide. Saggio di ricostruzione.” In
Epimenide Cretesi, 195-216. Napoli:Luciano Editore.
––.2003. Hieros logos. Poesía órfica sobre los dioses, el alma y el más
allá. Madrid: Akal.
—.2004-2005: Poetae Epici Graeci. Testimonia et fragmenta I:
Orphicorum et Orphicis similium testimonia et fragmenta. Monachii et
Lipsiae: K. G. Sau.
—.2007a. Poetae Epici Graeci: Testimonia et Fragmenta II 3. Musaeus ǜ
Linus ǜ Epimenides ǜ Papyrus Derveni ǜ Indices. Berlin/New York: De
Gruyter.
—.2007b. “The Derveni theogony: many questions and some
answers.”HSCP 103: 99-135.
—.2008. “Teogonías órficas.” In Orfeo y la tradición órfica: un
reencuentro, eds. A. Bernabé and F. Casadesús, 291-324. Madrid:
Abada Editores.
—.2010. “El himno órfico a Zeus. Vicisitudes literarias, ideológicas y
religiosas.” In Orfeo y el orfismo: nuevas perspectivas, ed. A. Bernabé,
F. Casadesús and M. A. Santamaría, 67-97. Alicante: Biblioteca Virtual
Miguel de Cervantes. http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/obra/orfeo-y-el-
orfismo-nuevas-perspectivas--0/
––.2011. Platón y el orfismo. Diálogos entre religión y filosofía, Madrid.
BERNABÉ, A. and F. CASADESÚS, eds. 2008: Orfeo y la tradición órfica:
un reencuentro. Madrid:Abada Editores.
BERNABÉ, A. and A.I. JIMÉNEZ SAN CRISTÓBAL. 2008. Instructions for the
Netherworld. The Orphic Gold Tablets. Leiden: Brill.
BETEGH, G. 2001. “Empédocle, Orpheus et le papyrus de Derveni.” In Les
ancients savant, eds. P. Morel and J.F. Pradeau, 47-70. Strasbourg:
Université Marc Bloch.
––.2004. The Derveni Papyrus. Cosmology, Theology, and Interpretation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
228 Did Plato Know of the Orphic God Protogonos?

––.2011. “The ‘Great Tablet’ from Thurii (OF 492).” In Tracing Orpheus.
Studies of Orphic Fragments in honour of Alberto Bernabé, eds. M.
Herrero de Jáuregui et alii, 219-225. Berlin-Boston: De Gruyter.
BONANNO, M.G. 1975-1977. “Aristofane in Platone (‘Pax’ 412 e ‘Symp.’
190e).” MCr 10-12: 103-112.
BREGLIA PULCI DORIA, L. 2001. “Osservazioni sulla Teogonia di
Epimenide”, Epimenide Cretesi: 279-311.
BREITENBERGER, B. 2007. Aphrodite and Eros: the Development of Erotic
Mythology in Early Greek Poetry and Cult. London/New York.
Routledge.
BREMMER, J.N. 2013. “Divinities in the Orphic Gold Leaves: Euklês,
Eubouleus, Brimo, Kybele, Kore and Persephone.” ZPE 187: 35-48.
BRISSON, L. 1997. Le sexe incertain. Androgynie et hermaphrodisme dans
l’Antiquité gréco-romaine. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
BURKERT, W. 2008. “El dios solitario. Orfeo, fr. 23 Bernabé en context.”
In Orfeo y la tradición órfica: un reencuentro, eds. A. Bernabé and F.
Casadesús, 579-589.
BURY, R.G., ed. 1932. The Symposium of Plato, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
CASADESÚS, F., 2008: “Orfeo y orfismo en Platón”. In Orfeo y la tradición
órfica: un reencuentro, eds. A. Bernabé and F. Casadesús: 1239-1279.
CHRISTOPOULOS, M. 2010. “Dark-Winged Nyx and Bright-Winged Eros
in Aristophanes' “Orphic” Cosmogony: The Birds.” In Light and
Darkness in Ancient Greek Myth and Religion, eds. M. Christopoulos,
E.D. Karakantza and O. Levaniuk, 207-220. Plymouth: Lexington
Books.
CLASSEN, C.J. 1962. “The creator in Greek thought from Homer to Plato.”
Classica et Mediaevalia 23: 1-22.
COLLI, G. 1995. La sabiduría griega, I, Madrid: Trotta. (Span. trans. of:
La sapienza greca I. 1977. Milano: Adelf.).
CORRADI, M. 2014. “Retrouvailles platoniciennes: le discours
d’Aristophane dans le Banquet et son heritage.” In Les Retrouvailles
des époux dans la littérature et les arts. Quelques exemples de
l’Antiquité à nos jours, ed. S. D’Amico and M. Maigron, 53-71.
Chambéry: Pu Savoie.
D’ALFONSO, G. 1995. “Ibyc. 285 PMGF. Una lettura ‘orientale’ del mito
dei Molioni.” AION 17: 31-69.
DOVER, K. 1966. “Aristophanes’ speech in Plato's Symposium.” JHS 86:
41-50.
DUNBAR, N., ed. 1995. Aristophanes. Birds. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
 Marco Antonio Santamaría Álvarez 229

FAUTH, W. 1972. “Phanes.” Der Kleine Pauly IV: 707-708.

GRAF, F. and S.I. Johnston. 2007. Ritual Texts for the afterlife. Orpheus
and the Bacchic Gold Tablets. London/New York: Routledge.
GRONEBERG, M. 2005. “Myth and Science around Gender and Sexuality:
Eros and the Three Sexes in Plato’s Symposium.” Diogenes 208: 39-49.
GRUPPE, O. 1902-1905. “Phanes.” In Ausführliches Lexikon der
Griechischen und Römischen Mythologie III, ed. W. H. Roscher, 2248-
2271. Leipzig: Phoinix.
GUTHRIE, W.K.C. 1952. Orpheus and Greek Religion. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
HANI, J. 1981-1982. “Le mythe de l’Androgyne dans le Banquet de
Platon.” Euphrosyne 11: 89-101.
HOWATSON, M. C.-Shelfield, F. C. C., ed. 2008. Plato. The Symposium,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
IMPERIO, O., ed. 2004. Parabasi di Aristofane. Parabasi di Aristofane.
Acarnesi, Cavalieri, Vespe, Uccelli. Bari: Adriatica Editrice.
JANKA, M. and Ch. SCHÄFER, eds. 2002. Platon als Mythologe. Neue
Interpretationen zu den Mythen in Platons Dialogen. Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
JIMÉNEZ SAN CRISTÓBAL, A.I. 2004. “Tratti orfici nella ornitogonia degli
ucelli di Aristofane.” Chaos e Kosmos 5: 1-15.
www.chaosekosmos.it/articoli.
JOHANSEN, Th.K. 2005. Plato’s Natural Philosophy. A Study of the
Timaeus-Critias. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
KOUREMENOS, Th., G.M. Parássoglou and K. Tsantsanoglou, eds. 2006.
The Derveni Papyrus. Edited with Introduction and Commentary.
Firenze:Casa Editrice Leo S. Olschki.
LUDWIG, P.W. 2002. Eros and Polis. Desire and Community in Greek
Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MAHARAN, W.A. 2000. “Phanes.” Der Neue Pauly 9. Stuttgart-Weimar:
731-732.
MANUWALD, B. 2002. “Platons Mythenerzähler.” In Platon als Mythologe.
Neue Interpretationen zu den Mythen in Platons Dialogen, eds. Janka
and Schäfer, 58-80.
––.2012: “Die Rede des Aristophanes (189a1-193e2)”, In Platon.
Symposion, ed. Ch. Horn, 89-104. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
MEGINO RODRÍGUEZ, C. 2005. Orfeo y el Orfismo en la poesía de
Empédocles. Madrid: Ediciones de la Universidad Autónoma de
Madrid.
MELE, A. 2001. “Il corpus Epimenideo.” In Epimenide Cretesi: 227-278.
230 Did Plato Know of the Orphic God Protogonos?

MOHR, R.D. 1985. “Plato’s theology reconsidered. What the demiurge

does.” Harvard Theological Quarterly 2: 131-144.
MORAND, A.F. 2001. Études sur les Hymnes orphiques. Leiden-Boston-
Köln: Brill.
NIEDDU, G.F. 2007. “Aristofane a simposio: buffoneria o comicità
‘urbana’?” Lexis 25: 241-265.
NILSSON, M.P. 1935. “Early orphism and kindred religious movements.”
HThR 28: 181-230.
O’BRIEN, D. 2002. “Die Aristophanes’ Rede im Symposium: der
Empedokleische Hintergrund und seine philosophische Bedeutung.” In
Plato’s Symposium: Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium Platonicum
Pragense, ed. Janka-Shäfer, 176-193 (Eng. Trans.: 2007.
“Aristophanes’ Speech in Plato’s Symposium: the Empedoclean
Background and its philosophical significance.” In ed. A. Havlícek- M.
Cajthaml, 59-85).
PANGLE, Th.L., ed. 1980. The Laws of Plato. Chicago-London: University
of Chicago Press
PARDINI, A. 1993. “L’ornitogonia (Ar. Av. 693 sgg.) tra serio e faceto:
premessa letteraria al suo studio storico-religioso.” In Orfeo e
l’orfismo, ed. A. Masaracchia, 53-65. Roma: Gruppo Editoriale
Internazionale.
PARKER, R. 1995. “Early Orphism.” In The Greek World, ed. A. Powell,
483-510. London:Routledge.
PUGLIESE CARRATELLI, G. 2001. Le lamine d’oro orfiche. Istruzioni per il
viaggio oltremondano degli iniziati greci. Milano: Adelphi.
PREISENDANZ, K. 1938. “Phanes”, RE XIX 2: 1761-1774.
REALE, G., ed. 2001. Platone. Simposio. Milano:Bompiani.
RICCIARDELLI, G., ed. 2000. Inni Orfici, Milano: Mondadori.
––.2009. “Zeus, primo e ultimo.” Paideia 64: 423-435.
RIEDWEG, Ch. 1987. Mysterienterminologie bei Platon, Philon und
Klemens von Alexandrien. Berlin-New York:De Gruyter.
SANTAMARÍA, M.A., forthcoming: “A Phallus Hard to Swallow: the
meaning of ĮੁįȠ૙ȠȞ, -ȠȢ in the Derveni Papyrus”, Classical Philology.
SIDER, D. 2011. “The Orphic Poem of the Derveni Papyrus.” In Poetry as
Initiation: The Center for Hellenic Studies Symposium on the Derveni
Papyrus, eds. I. Papadopoulou and L. Muellner, 225-253. Harvard:
Center for Hellenic Studies.
TARRANT, D. 1923. “Aristophanes, Birds 700.” CR 37: 113.
TAYLOR, A.E. 1926. Plato, the Man and his Work. London:Weidmann.
TORTORELLI GHIDINI, M. 2000. “Epimenide e la teogonia cretese.” In La
letteratura pseudepigrafa nella cultura greca e romana, ed. G. Cerri,
 Marco Antonio Santamaría Álvarez 231

79-95. Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientale.

––.2001. “Epimenide a Creta: tra biografia e teogonia.” In Epimenide
Cretesi: 53-76.
––.2006. Figli della Terra e del Cielo Stellato. Testi orfici con traduzione
e comment. Napoli:M. D’Auria.
TURCAN, R. 1994. “Phanes.”, LIMC VII 1: 363-364.
WATERFIELD, R., ed. 2000. The First Philosophers. The Presocratics and
the Sophists. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
WEST, M.L., ed. 1983. The Orphic Poems. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
––.1994: “Ab ovo. Orpheus, Sanchuniaton, and the origins of the Ionian
world model.” CQ 44: 289-307.
ZANNINI QUIRINI, B. 1987. Nephelokokkygia. La prospettiva mitica degli
Uccelli di Aristofane. Roma:L’Erma di Bretschneider.