How Damascius correlates first principles in orphic theology to his Neoplatonic first principles: Damascius, on first principles chapter 123

At On First Principles III.160.16-161.13, Damascius discusses the highest principles in Orphic theology:

On First Principles III.160.16-161.13

Ἡ δὲ κατὰ τον Ἱερώνυμον ϕερομένη καὶ Ἑλλάνικον, εἰπερ μὴ καὶ ὁ αὐτός ἐστιν, οὕτως ἔχει. Ὕδωρ ἦν, ϕησίν ἐξ ἀρχῆς καὶ ὕλη ἐξ ἦς ἐπάγη ἡ γῆ, δυό ταύτας ἀρχὰς ὑποτιθέμενος πρώτας, ὕδωρ καὶ γῆν, ταύτην μὲν ὡς ϕύσει σκεδαστήν, ἐκεῖνο δὲ ὡς ταύτης κολλητικόν τε καὶ συνεκτικόν. Τὴν δὲ μίαν πρὸ τῶν δυεῖν ἄρρητον ἀϕίησιν· αὐτὸ γὰρ τὸ μηδὲ ϕάναι περὶ αὐτῆς ἐνδείκνυται αὑτῆς τὴν ἀπόρρητον ϕύσιν. Τὴν δὲ τρίτην ἀρχὴν μετὰ τὰς δύο γεννηθῆναι ἐκ τούτων, ὕδατός ϕημι καὶ γῆς, δράκοντα δὲ εἶναι καὶ κεϕαλὰς ἔχοντα προσπεϕυκυίας ταύρου καὶ λέοντος, ἐν μέσῳ δὲ θεοῦ πρόσοπων, ἔχειν δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ὤμων πτερά, ὠνομάσθαι δὲ Χρόνον ἀγήραον καὶ Ἡρακλῆα τὸν αὐτόν· συνεῖναι δὲ αὐτῷ τὴν Ἀνάγκην, ϕύσιν οὖσαν τὴν αὐτὴν καὶ Ἀδράστειαν, δισώματον διωργυιωμένην ἐν παντὶ τῷ κόσμῳ, τῶν περάτων αὐτοῦ ἐϕαπτομένην. Ταύτην οἶμαι λέγεσθαι τὴν τρίτην ἀρχὴν κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν ἑστῶσαν, πλὴν ὅτι ἀρσενόθηλυν αὐτὴν ὑπεστήσατο πρὸς ἔνδειξιν τῆς πάντων γεννητικῆς αἰτίας.⁴

• I.    Water and Earth

In this paragraph, Damascius firstly considers a primal pair consisting of “water” (ὕδωρ) and “earth” (γῆν).⁵ The earth has nature of dispersing (σκεδαστήν), and water provides coherence (κολλητικόν) and connection (συνεκτικόν) for earth. The dual structure is similar to the Neoplatonic Dyad of Limit and the Unlimited (or called One-All and All-One, the One and the Multiplicity, see On First Principles II.28.1-6),⁶ and there is additional evidence for this correspondence:

The words Damascius uses to describe the two items fit the Limit and the Unlimited. Just as the Limit is the principle that connects all things, water provides connection. Proclus also said, “Limit is the divine cause of remaining, uniform, and connection .” (τὸ μὲν πέρας τῆς… ἑνοειδοῦς καὶ συνεκτικῆς θεότητος αἴτιον ὑπάρχον). “The latter (i.e. earth) has nature of dispersing” fits the Unlimited, Damscius’ cause of multiplicity well, since dispersion makes something no longer one or solitary, instead conferring a state of multiplicity. “Water provides coherence and connection for earth” is also an expression reminds us of what Proclus said, in Platonic theology III.10, “Limit limits the unlimited” (περατοῦν τὸ ἄπειρον)⁷.

• II.    The single principle that is ineffable

Damascius then mentions the single ineffable principle (τὴν μίαν ἄρρητον) before water and earth. Brisson claims that this single ineffable principle here represents the Damascian supreme Ineffable:

Avant l'Eau primordiale, Damascius pose un principe suprême, que n'auraient pas mentionné Hiéronymos et Hellanikos, parce qu'il s'agit de l'«Ineffable». Cette astuce, qui permet à Damascius de retrouver à bon compte son premier principe dans cette théogonie orphique et donc de corroborer sa position dans le cadre du courant Néo-platonicien8

This is not quite so, because Damascius, as is clear from his own writings, asserts that “the Ineffable”9 cannot be presented in any system. For instance, in On First Principles Chapter 22, Damascius stresses that “the Ineffable” is absent in the Platonic metaphysical system and Plato never mentioned it, since it cannot be the object of hypothesis like the One in Parmenides10. “The Ineffable” is “not in any system, non-relative and inconceivable in every way”11 (ἄθετον, ἀσύντακτον καὶ ἀνεπινόητον κατὰ πάντα τρόπον):

On First Principles I.55.9-56.16

Πλάτων…οὐδὲν ἐνεδείξατο περὶ ἐκείνης, άλλὰ τὰς ἀποφάσεις ἀπὸ τοῦ ἕνος…Καὶ πρὸ τοῦ ἑνός ἄρα τὸ ἁπλώς καὶ πάντῃ ἄρρητον, ἄθετον, ἀσύντακτον καὶ ἀνεπινόητον κατὰ πάντα τρόπον12

Therefore, this single ineffable principle as a highest principle within a system (Orphic system) cannot be “the Ineffable”. If a supreme origin remains within a system, it can only be the One.13

The term of πάντα τρόπον is reminiscent of what Proclus says in Platonic Theology which is that there are many ways ( τρόποι ) to discuss theology, such as Pythagorean way, Orphic way and Platonic way:

Platonic Theology I.19.23-20.8

Οἰ μὲν οὖν τρόποι τῆς παρὰ τῷ Πλάτωνι θεολογικῆς διδασκαλίας τοιοίδε τινές εἰσι…Ἐστι δὲ ὁ μὲν διὰ τῶν συμβόλων τα θεῖα μηνῦειν ἐφιέμενος Ὀρφικὸς καὶ ὅλως τοῖς τὰς θεομυθίας γράφουσιν οἰκεῖος. Ὁ δὲ διὰ τῶν εἰκόνων Πυθαγόρειος.¹⁴

Obviously, the Orphic way should be included in πάντα τρόπον. This corroborates “the Ineffable” should be absent in Orphic systems.

As a result, this single ineffable principle cannot refer to “the Ineffable”' that transcends all systems. Instead, it corresponds to the One, that is prior to the primal dyad as well.

• III.    Chronos

From Water and Earth proceeds Chronos, an immense serpent with many heads15 described as “the third principle” (τὴν τρίτην ἀρχήν) and “the generating cause of all things” (ἡ πάντων γεννητικῆς αἰτία). Not only is "the third principle" (ἡ τρίτη ἀρχή) repeatedly used to refer to The Unified by Damascius, but “the generating cause of all things" also is a description which fits the Unified, as the Unified is the actual generator of all compared with the One, which is the potential cause or the power that gives rise to all things.16 These two terms are also employed by Damascius to associate the Father's Intellect with the Unified in his interpretation of the Chaldean Oracles. He characterizes the Father's Intellect as “the third principle which actualizes all things in act” (ἡ τρίτη ἀρχὴ τὸ πάντων μὲν ἐγερτικὸν εἰς ἐνέργειαν)17.

But there is a difficulty in identifying Chronos with the Unified: Chronos is described as generated (γεννηθῆναι) from water and earth. But in Damascius’ accounts of Philebus, the Mixture is not a product of Limit and the Unlimited18, but is a direct aspect of the One like Limit and the Unlimited themselves. However, we should note that metaphors or analogies, full of “stuff of our world” – among which the sun is the most famous19 – are widely used in the Platonic tradition to explain theology in a more accessible way. For Damascius, mythic metaphors are particularly employed to approach realms that cannot be expressed in any language.

On First Principles I.10.14-20:

τοῦτο γὰρ ἡμᾶς περιμενέτω. Ὥστε πολλαχῇ τὸ ἄρρητον καὶ ἄγνωστον, ὥστε καὶ τὸ ἕν τοιοῦτον. Ἀλλ’ ὅμως καὶ νῦν ὧδε ἔχοντες, παραβαλλόμεθα πρὸς τῆν διάκρισιν τῶν τηλικούτων δι’ ἐνδείξεων καὶ ὑπονοιῶν, καὶ διακαθαιρόμενοι πρὸς τὰς ἀσυνήθεις ἐννοίας καὶ δι’ ἀναλογίας ἀναγόμενοι καὶ διά ἀποφάσεων, ἀτιμάζοντες τὰ παρ’ ἡμῖν πρὸς ἐκεῖνα.20

As evidence a fortiori Damascius correlates Chronos with the Unified, this generation of Chronos from water and earth can reasonably be understood as an Orphic mythic metaphor, which does not in fact represent the relationship between the Unified and the first two henads, but “approach the discernment of very significant matters through allegories and hidden meanings.”21

• IV.    Aether, Chaos, Erebos and the Egg

Following the realm of One, we come to the intelligible realm, which Damascius draws via two different Orphic theogonies, the Rhapsodies and theogony of Hieronymus or Hellanicus:

On First Principles III.159.17-160.16

Ἐν μέν τοίνυν ταῖς φερομέναις ταύταις ῥαψῳδίαις ὀρφικαίς ἡ θεολογία (τοιά) δε τίς ἐστιν ἡ περὶ τὸ νοητόν [III.159.18], ἣν καὶ οἱ φιλόσοφοι διερμηνεύουσιν, ἀντὶ μὲν τῆς μιᾶς τῶν ὅλων ἀρχῆς τὸν Χρόνον τιθέντες, ἀντὶ δε τοῖν δυεῖν Αἰθέρα καὶ Χάος, ἀντὶ δε τοῦ ὄντος ἁπλώς τὸ ᾠὸν (1) [III.159.21] ἀπολογιζόμενοι, καὶ τριάδα ταύτην πρώτην ποιοῦντες, είς δὲ τὴν δευτέραν τελεῖν ἤτοι τὸ κυούμενον καὶ τὸ κύον [III.160.1] ᾠόν (2) τὸν θεόν, ἢ τὸν ἀργῆτα χιτῶνα, ἢ τὴν νεφέλην, ὅτι ἐκ τούτων ἐκθρᾡσκει ὁ Φάνης (ἄλλοτε γὰρ ἄλλα περὶ τοῦ μέσου φιλοσοφοῦσιν), τοῦτο μέν, ὁποῖον ἂν ᾗ, ὡς τὸν νούν, ὡς δὲ πατέρα καὶ δύναμιν ἄλλα τινά προσεπινοοῦντες οὐδὲν τῷ Ὀρφεῖ προσήκοντα, τὴν δὲ τρίτην τὸν Μῆτιν ὡς νούν, τὸν Ἠρικεπαῖον ὡς δύναμιν, τὸν Φάνητα αὐτόν ὡς πατέρα. Μήποτε δὲ καὶ τὴν μέσην τριάδα θετέον κατὰ τὸν τρίμορϕον θεὸν ἔτι κυόμενον ἐν τῷ ᾠῷ (2), καὶ γὰρ τὸ μέσον ἀεὶ φαντάζει συναμφότερον τῶν ἄκρων, ὥσπερ καὶ τοῦτο ἅμα καὶ ᾠὸν (2) καὶ τρίμορφος ὁ θεός. Καὶ ὁρᾷς ὅτι τὸ μὲν ᾠόν ἐστι τὸ

ἡνωμένον, ὁ δε τρίμορφος καὶ πολύμορφος τῷ ὄντι θεός τὸ διακεκριμένον τοῦ νοητοῦ, τὸ δὲ μέσον κατά μέν το ᾠὸν (2) ἔτι ἡνωμένον, κατὰ δὲ τὸν θεόν ἤδη διακεκριμένον, τὸ δὲ ὅλον εῖπείν, διακρινόμενον. Τοιαύτη μὲν ἡ συνήθης ὀρϕικὴ θεολογία.22

On First Principles III.161.14-162.18

Καὶ ὑπολαμβάνω τὴν ἐν ταῖς ῥαψῳδίαις θεολογίαν ἀφεῖσαν τὰς δύο πρώτας ἀρχὰς μετὰ τῆς μιᾶς πρό τῶν δυεῖν τῆς σιγῇ παραδοθείσης ἀπό τῆς τρίτης μετὰ τὰς δύο ταύτης ἐνστήσασθαι τὴν ἀρχὴν, ὡς πρώτης ῥητόν τι ἐχούσης καὶ σύμμετρον πρὸς ἀνθρώπων ἀκοάς. [III.161.18] Οὗτος γὰρ ἦν ὁ πολυτίμητος ἐν ἐκείνη Χρόνος ἀγήραος καὶ Αἰθέρος καὶ Χάους πατήρ, ἀμέλει καὶ κατὰ ταύτην ὁ Χρόνος οὗτος δράκων γεννᾶται τριπλῆν γονήν, Αἰθέρα φησὶ νοτερὸν καὶ Χάος ἄπειρον, κὰι τρίτον ἐπὶ τούτοις Ἔρεβος (1) ὀμιχλῶδες. Τὴν δευτέραν ταύτην τριάδα ἀνάλογον [III.161.23] τῇ πρώτη παραδίδωσι, δυναμικὴν οὖσαν, ὡς ἐκείνην [III.161.24] πατρικήν, διὸ καὶ τὸ τρίτον αὐτῆς Ἔρεβός (2) ἔστιν όμιχλῶδες, καὶ τὸ πατρικόν τε καὶ ἄκρον Αἰθήρ, οὐχ ἁπλῶς, ἀλλά νοτερός, τὸ δὲ μέσον αυτόθεν Χάος ἄπειρον. Ἀλλὰ μὴν ἐν τούτοις, ὡς λέγει, ὁ Χρόνος ᾠὸν (2) [III.162.1] ἐγέννησεν, τοῦ Χρόνου ποιοῦσα γέννημα καὶ αὕτη ἡ παράδοσις, καὶ ἐν τούτοις τικτόμενον, ὅτι καὶ ἀπὸ τούτων ἡ τρίτη πρόεισι νοητὴ τριάς. Τίς οὖν αὕτη ἐστί; Τὸ ᾠόν (3), ἡ δυάς τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ φύσεων, ἄρρενος καὶ θηλείας, καὶ τῶν ἐν μέσῳ παντοίων σπερμάτων τὸ πλῆθος, καὶ τρίτον ἐπὶ τούτοις θεὸν δισώματον, πτέρυγας ἐπὶ τῶν ὤμων ἔχοντα χρυσᾶς, ὅς ἐν μὲν ταῖς λαγόσι προσπεφυκυίας εἶχε ταύρων κεφαλάς, ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς κεφαλῆς δράκοντα πελώριον παντοδαπαῖς μορφαῖς θηρίων ἰνδαλλόμενον. Τοῦτον μὲν οὖν ὡς νοῦν τῆς τριάδος ὑποληπτέον, τὰ δὲ μέσα γένη τά τε πολλά καὶ τὰ δύο τὴν δύναμιν, αὐτό δὲ τὸ ᾠὸν (3) ἀρχὴν πατρικὴν τῆς τρίτης τριάδος. Ταύτης δὲ τῆς τρίτης τριάδος τὸν τρίτον θεὸν καὶ ἥδε ἡ θεολογία πρωτόγονον ἀνυμνεῖ καὶ Δία καλεῖ πάντων διατάκτορα καὶ ὅλου τοῦ

κόσμου, διὸ καὶ Πᾶνα καλεῖσθαι. Τοσαῦτα καὶ αὕτη περὶ τῶν νοητῶν ἀρχῶν ἡ γενεαλογία παρίστησιν.23

I believe that to fully grasp Damascius' interpretation of Orphic theology, one should not divide his explanation in On First Principles chapter 123, into two separate and independent systems—the Rhapsodic system and the Hieronyman sys-tem—as Brisson does. Brisson equates Damascius’ treatment of the Rhapsodies (III.159.17-160.16) with Proclus' own interpretation of the Rhapsodic system, where Chronos represents the One, Aether the Limit, Chaos the Unlimited, and the Egg the Mixture. This positions all elements of III.159.17-160.16 within the realm of the One and overlooks Damascius' further elucidation in III.161.14-18.24 Damascius, however, as is clear in III.159.18 (Ἐν μέν τοίνυν ταῖς φερομέναις ταύταις ῥαψῳδίαις ὀρφικαίς ἡ θεολογία (τοιά) δε τίς ἐστιν ἡ περὶ τὸ νοητόν), insists Rhapsodies (III.159.17-160.16) is merely the theology about the realm of Intelligible rather than the realm of One. Furthermore, III.161.14-18 confirms that it is impossible for Chronos, who is inferior to three total principles (the single ineffable principle, water and sand), to be the One itself:

On First Principles III.161.14-18

ὑπολαμβάνω τὴν έν ταῖς ῥαψῳδίαις θεολογίαν ἀφεῖσαν τὰς δύο πρώτας ἀρχὰς μετὰ τῆς μιᾶς πρό τῶν δυεῖν…ὡς [Χρόνος ἐστιν] πρώτης ῥητόν τι ἐχούσης καὶ σύμμετρον πρός ἀνθρώπων ἀκοάς.25

Moreover, III.161.14-18 shows that the two theogonies should not be separated. In Damascius' perspective, the two theogonies are unified: the Hieronyman theog-ony complements the Rhapsodies by supplying principles that precede Chronos, the first principle that can be expressed in language and can be heard by human ears.

Because III.159.17-160.16 is rather all about the Intelligible realm. The description of ἀντὶ μὲν τῆς μιᾶς τῶν ὅλων ἀρχῆς τὸν Χρόνον should indicate Chronos is the unique principle of the whole (intelligible realm), namely, the Unified.26 This conclusion also corroborates former discussion that Chronos should correspond to the Unified.

For III.161.23 (Τὴν δευτέραν ταύτην τριάδα ἀνάλογον τῇ πρώτη παραδίδωσι, δυναμικὴν οὖσαν, ὡς ἐκείνην πατρικήν) Brisson reads the second triad (Τὴν δευτέραν τριάδα) as the triad of Aether Chaos and Erebus in last sentence (ὁ Χρόνος οὗτος δράκων γεννᾶται τριπλῆν γονήν, Αἰθέρα φησὶ νοτερὸν καὶ Χάος ἄπειρον, κὰι τρίτον ἐπὶ τούτοις Ἔρεβος (1) ὀμιχλῶδες) while he takes the “first (triad) which is paternal” (τῇ πρώτη… ὡς ἐκείνην πατρικήν) in III.161.24 as Water, Sand and Chronos27. But Damas- cius calls the third triad after the first triad and second triad as “the third Intelligible triad” in III.162.4 (ὅτι καὶ ἀπὸ τούτων ἡ τρίτη πρόεισι νοητὴ τριάς), thus “the first (triad)” in III.161.24 and “the second triad” in III.161.23 must be the omission of “first (Intelligible triad)” and “second (Intelligible) triad”. Since the water and the sand rather entirely transcend the intelligible realm and Chronos is the unique origin of whole intelligible realm, there is no possibility for water, sand, Chronos to be “first (intelligible triad)” of III.161.24. Therefore, the first intelligible triad must refer to the triad of Aether, Chaos, Erebus in III.161.20-23.

“The second (Intelligible) triad is analogous to the first (intelligible triad), although the second is dynamic, as the first is paternal” thus indicates the existence of a dynamic Aether, Chaos, and Erebus, which together form the second dynamic Intelligible triad. “The paternal element of this second Intelligible triad or an extreme is Aether, not unqualified, but moist” (τὸ πατρικόν τε καὶ ἄκρον Αἰθήρ, οὐχ ἁπλῶς, ἀλλά νοτερός) implies there is an unqualified Aether before the moist Aether. The earlier Aether can only be the Aether in III.161.20-22. This supports the notion that the paternal first triad, to which the second triad is analogous, should be the triad which starts with unqualified Aether, described in III.161.20-23, rather than the triad of Water, Sand, and Chronos.

In conclusion, III.161.23-III.162.1 is more reasonable to read as: And the second (Intelligible) triad is analogous to the first (intelligible triad), although the second is dynamic, as the first is paternal. And so, the third member of the second intelligible triad is also misty Erebos (but dynamic), and the paternal element (of the second intelligible triad) and the one extreme (of the second intelligible triad) is Aether, not unqualified, but moist, and the middle term (of the second intelligible triad) is indefinite Chaos (which is dynamic).

When we consider the two theogonies in Chapter 123 as a unified system, Damascius' repeated mention of eggs becomes clear. In these theogonies, both the Egg and Erebus symbolize the third moment of the triad. The Rhapsodies refer to this third element as the egg, while Hieronymus and Hellanicus use Erebus. Acknowledging this correlation reveals three distinct eggs. The first is the paternal egg/Erebus, representing the third member of the first Intelligible triad (the egg mentioned in III.159.21-22 and the Erebus in III.161.23), denoted as egg (1)/Erebus (1). The second egg/Erebus from which the trimorphic god emerges, symbolizing the third member of the second intelligible triad, is mentioned in III.160.1-4 and III.161.25, marked as egg (2)/Erebus (2). Finally, the third intellectual egg, symbolizing the actualization of the polymorphic god (found in III.162.1-17), corresponds to the third Intelligible triad, and is denoted as egg (3).

Damascius expressed the third intelligible triad more clearly. Rhapsodies calls the third triad as Phanes-Erikepaios-Metis. And Hieronymus or Hellanicus' expression of the triad is 1. male and female, 2. the multiplicity [corresponds to] the various seeds in the middle of the egg, and 3. a god with two bodies and various names. Betegh attributes the last triad of three-fold god the Intelligible-Intellective realm28, while Damascius is still discussing the Intelligible realm because he says in the last of chapter 123: “Τοσαῦτα καὶ αὕτη περὶ τῶν νοητῶν ἀρχῶν ἡ γενεαλογία παρίστησιν.”29(All these are accounts about the intelligible principles for this theology.) The triad of trimorph God is in fact the third and last intelligible triad.

Conclusively, we can clarify by schematizing Damascius’ interpretation of the Orphic first principles as follows:

Damascian Neoplatonic Principles	Orphic Theology
The Ineffable	–
The One	The single ineffable principle in III.161.1
The One-All=Limit	Water
The All-One=The Unlimited	Sand
The Unified=Mixture	Chronos
The first element of first Intelligible triad	Paternal Aether
The second element of first Intelligible triad	Paternal Chaos
The third element of first intelligible triad	Paternal Erebus/the paternal egg
The first element of second intelligible triad	Potential Aether/Phanes in egg
The second element of second Intelligible triad	Potential Chaos/Erikepaios in egg

28 See G. Betegh (2005) 342-342. A. Mihai (2014) also follows this approach.

²⁹ Damascius, On First Principles III.162.16-17.

The third element of second intelligible triad	Potential Erebus/the potential egg Protogonos in egg/gleaming robe/cloud
The first element of third intelligible triad	Male and female/Phanes
The second element of third intelligible triad	Multiplicity corresponds to the seeds in the egg/Erikepaios
The third element of third intelligible triad	Protogonos/Metis

	Orphic Rhapsodies
	Syrianus and Proclus	Damascius (III.161.16ff.)	Hieronymus or Hellanicus
The Ineffable
The One	Chronos
The One-All=Limit	Aether		Water
The All-One=The Unlimited	Chaos		Sand
The Unified=Mixture	Egg	Chronos	Chronos
Intelligible being		Aether	Aether
Intelligible life	?	Chaos	Chaos
Intelligible intellect	Egg/White Tunic/Cloud	(Eros)	Erebus
Intelligible-Intellective	Phanes		Egg
	Erikepaios		Male-female
	Metis		Protogonos

Intellective	Night 1
	Night 2
	Night 3

Appendix: Betegh’s diagram, which reasonably distinguishes between the system of Syri-anus and Proclus and Damascius’ system