On Epicharmus frag. 275
Jan. 3rd, 2025 02:23 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
endymions_bower(A) But the gods always were and never left; these things
are always the same and in the same ways. (B) But it is said
that Chaos was the first of the gods. (A) How could that be
without there being anything from which or to which the
first thing might pass? (B) So nothing came first? (A) Nor,
by Zeus, did anything come second, at least of the things we
now speak, rather these things always were.
ἀλλ’ ἀεὶ τοὶ θεοὶ παρῆσαν χὐπέλιπον οὐ πώποκα·
τάδε δ’ ἀεὶ πάρεσθ’ ὁμοῖα διά τε τῶν αὐτῶν ἀεί.
ἀλλὰ λέγεται μὰν Χάος πρᾶτον γενέσθαι τῶν θεῶν.
πῶς δέ κα, μὴ ἔχον γ’ ἀπὸ τίνος μηδ’ ἐς ὅτι πρᾶτον μόλοι;
οὐκ ἄρ’ ἔμολεν πρᾶτον οὐδέν; οὐδὲ μὰ Δία δεύτερον
τῶνδε γ’ ὧν ἁμές νυν ὧδε λέγομες, ἀλλ’ ἀεὶ τάδ’ ἦς
Epicharmus frag. 275, trans. R. J. Barnes
Epicharmus frag. 275, trans. R. J. Barnes
I find this fragment most interesting and important. Scholars tend not to take much of what Epicharmus says seriously, because he was a comic poet; but he was also reputedly a student of Pythagoras, and Alcimus of Sicily famously claimed that Plato had plaigiarized from him.
Epicharmus' style in the surviving fragments seems to be to point out paradoxes, rather than solving them; but the fragment is revealing because it shows that both the eternity of the Gods, and the existence of an order of emergence among Them were commonly held beliefs. Modern commentators, however, ignore the fact that both doctrines are already present in Hesiod, who explicitly states that the Gods "exist eternally" (Theogony 33 & 105) and also tells of Their coming to be, or else attempt to dismiss the clear sense of eternity there. But Epicharmus' paradox here would not make sense in a context where both positions were not commonly held, and indeed, really only makes good sense in light of both positions having been affirmed by the same author in the same text.
Epicharmus' fragment shows that philosophers did not invent the concept of eternal Gods, and that it was the traditional Gods, and not some new category of divinity, that were recognized as eternal, and hence that the myths of Their emergence were not to be taken literally or reductively. Carrying out such an interpretation of the myths was probably not a task Epicharmus set himself, but the assumptions he makes about the beliefs held by his audience already exhibit the very principles on which such interpretation would be undertaken by Platonists centuries later. These ideas are also found in the supposed monotheist Xenophanes: "He [Xenophanes] declares also concerning the Gods that there is none supreme among Them; for it is not pious that any of the Gods should have a master; and none of Them needs anything at all from any," (Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica book I, chap. 8; Diels, Doxographi Graeci 580.14-16).
It's also extremely intriguing that Epicharmus demonstrates interest both in the way of being of the Gods, and also, in other fragments, in individuation and numerical identity generally, an aspect of his thought discussed at length by Horky in Plato and Pythagoreanism (2013). This suggests that Platonic henology as a doctrine at once concerning individuation in general, but also specifically of those individuals conceived as having some kind of absolute existence, namely the Gods, has deeper roots than generally acknowledged.
Epicharmus' style in the surviving fragments seems to be to point out paradoxes, rather than solving them; but the fragment is revealing because it shows that both the eternity of the Gods, and the existence of an order of emergence among Them were commonly held beliefs. Modern commentators, however, ignore the fact that both doctrines are already present in Hesiod, who explicitly states that the Gods "exist eternally" (Theogony 33 & 105) and also tells of Their coming to be, or else attempt to dismiss the clear sense of eternity there. But Epicharmus' paradox here would not make sense in a context where both positions were not commonly held, and indeed, really only makes good sense in light of both positions having been affirmed by the same author in the same text.
Epicharmus' fragment shows that philosophers did not invent the concept of eternal Gods, and that it was the traditional Gods, and not some new category of divinity, that were recognized as eternal, and hence that the myths of Their emergence were not to be taken literally or reductively. Carrying out such an interpretation of the myths was probably not a task Epicharmus set himself, but the assumptions he makes about the beliefs held by his audience already exhibit the very principles on which such interpretation would be undertaken by Platonists centuries later. These ideas are also found in the supposed monotheist Xenophanes: "He [Xenophanes] declares also concerning the Gods that there is none supreme among Them; for it is not pious that any of the Gods should have a master; and none of Them needs anything at all from any," (Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica book I, chap. 8; Diels, Doxographi Graeci 580.14-16).
It's also extremely intriguing that Epicharmus demonstrates interest both in the way of being of the Gods, and also, in other fragments, in individuation and numerical identity generally, an aspect of his thought discussed at length by Horky in Plato and Pythagoreanism (2013). This suggests that Platonic henology as a doctrine at once concerning individuation in general, but also specifically of those individuals conceived as having some kind of absolute existence, namely the Gods, has deeper roots than generally acknowledged.
