Is there a Relationship Between Papias's Discussion of Mark's Gospel and the First Book of Against Heresies?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 1421
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Is there a Relationship Between Papias's Discussion of Mark's Gospel and the First Book of Against Heresies?

Post by Charles Wilson » Tue Mar 24, 2020 3:26 pm

BTW, SA, you put a lot of work into this and it shows, Good stuff.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6096
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Is there a Relationship Between Papias's Discussion of Mark's Gospel and the First Book of Against Heresies?

Post by MrMacSon » Tue Mar 24, 2020 6:27 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Tue Mar 24, 2020 10:49 am

1. Tertullian's 'Against the Valentinians' testifies to the existence of a separate Irenaean treatise of the same name which was one of the sources for Book 1 ...
.
Book 1 of ? ('Adv. Marcion' ? )

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11753
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Is there a Relationship Between Papias's Discussion of Mark's Gospel and the First Book of Against Heresies?

Post by Secret Alias » Wed Mar 25, 2020 7:02 am

Irenaeus 1.2.1-2
1. They proceed to tell us that the Propator of their scheme was known only to Monogenes, who sprang from him; in other words, only to Nous, while to all the others he was invisible and incomprehensible. And, according to them, Nous alone took pleasure in contemplating the Father, and exulting in considering his immeasurable greatness; while he also meditated how he might communicate to the rest of the AEons the greatness of the Father, revealing to them how vast and mighty he was, and how he was without beginning,--beyond comprehension, and altogether incapable of being seen. But, in accordance with the will of the Father, Sige restrained him, because it was his design to lead them all to an acquaintance with the aforesaid Propator, and to create within them a desire of investigating his nature. In like manner, the rest of the AEons also, in a kind of quiet way, had a wish to behold the Author of their being, and to contemplate that First Cause which had no beginning.

2. But there rushed forth in advance of the rest that AEon who was much the latest of them, and was the youngest of the Duodecad which sprang from Anthropos and Ecclesia, namely Sophia, and suffered passion apart from the embrace of her consort Theletos. This passion, indeed, first arose among those who were connected with Nous and Aletheia, but passed as by contagion to this degenerate AEon, who acted under a pretence of love, but was in reality influenced by temerity, because she had not, like Nous, enjoyed communion with the perfect Father. This passion, they say, consisted in a desire to search into the nature of the Father; for she wished, according to them, to comprehend his greatness. When she could not attain her end, inasmuch as she aimed at an impossibility, and thus became involved in an extreme agony of mind, while both on account of the vast profundity as well as the unsearchable nature of the Father, and on account of the love she bore him, she was ever stretching herself forward, there was danger lest she should at last have been absorbed by his sweetness, and resolved into his absolute essence, unless she had met with that Power which supports all things, and preserves them outside of the unspeakable greatness. This power they term Horos; by whom, they say, she was restrained and supported; and that then, having with difficulty been brought back to herself, she was convinced that the Father is incomprehensible, and so laid aside her original design, along with that passion which had arisen within her from the overwhelming influence of her admiration.
Tertullian AV 9
There is also a discrimination between individuals here, because of all of them, Nus alone delights in knowing the vast Father and he alone rejoices and boasts while the others of course weep. Obviously Nus wanted and tried, as much as he could, to communicate to the rest of the aeons what he knew about the greatness and incomprehensibility of the Father, but his mother, Sige, intervened; the same Sige of course who orders her own heretics to be silent, although they say she interceded by order of the Father who wanted everyone to be inflamed with a desire for him. So, while they burn with silent longing to know the Father, a crime of sorts is committed--specifically, the youngest aeon (ignore the solecism; her name is Sophia) of the twelve aeons which Man and Church produced, unrestrainedly rushes off without her mate, Theletus, to seek the Father. In doing so she contracts a sort of disease which was epidemic among Nus' associates and which had spread to this aeon, i.e., Sophia, just as diseases contracted somewhere in the body usually do damage in another part. In this case, under the pretext of love for the Father, a feeling of rivalry toward Nus, who alone rejoiced in his knowledge of the Father, overcame her. Since, however, she was attempting the impossible, Sophia accomplished nothing and was crushed by the difficulty of the task and was racked by her emotions. Indeed, she barely missed being swallowed up in the great sweetness of the Father and the labor of her search and she almost was dissolved in the primal substance. Only her destruction would have stopped her search if she had not by a stroke of luck run into Horos. (He acts as support and as the boundary-guard of this whole world.) They also call him Cross, Lytrotes (Redeemer) or Carpistes (Emancipator). He causes Sophia to become calm by removing her from danger and by persuading her to stop her useless search for the Father. She then cut off and abandoned her Inclination (in Greek-Enthymesis) along with the suffering which had then accompanied it.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11753
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Is there a Relationship Between Papias's Discussion of Mark's Gospel and the First Book of Against Heresies?

Post by Secret Alias » Wed Mar 25, 2020 7:20 am

Irenaeus 1.2.3 - 5
3. But others of them fabulously describe the passion and restoration of Sophia as follows: They say that she, having engaged in an impossible and impracticable attempt, brought forth an amorphous substance, such as her female nature enabled her to produce.(4) When she looked upon it, her first feeling was one of grief, on account of the imperfection of its generation, and then of fear lest this should end her own existence. Next she lost, as it were, all command of herself, and was in the greatest perplexity while endeavouring to discover the cause of all this, and in what way she might conceal what had happened. Being greatly harassed by these passions, she at last changed her mind, and endeavoured to return anew to the Father. When, however, she in some measure made the attempt, strength failed her, and she became a suppliant of the Father. The other AEons, Nous in particular, presented their supplications along with her. And hence they declare material substance(1) had its beginning from ignorance and grief, and fear and bewilderment.

4. The Father afterwards produces, in his own image, by means of Monogenes, the above-mentioned Horos, without conjunction,(2) masculo-feminine. For they maintain that sometimes the Father acts in conjunction with Sige, but that at other times he shows himself independent both of male and female. They term this Horos both Stauros and Lytrotes (moved to previous section in AV), and Carpistes, and Horothetes, and Metagoges.(3) And by this Horos they declare that Sophia was purified and established, while she was also restored to her proper conjunction. For her enthymesis (or inborn idea) having been taken away from her, along with its supervening passion, she herself certainly remained within the Pleroma; but her enthymesis, with its passion, was separated from her by Horos, fenced(4) off, and expelled from that circle. This enthymesis was, no doubt, a spiritual substance, possessing some of the natural tendencies of an AEon, but at the same time shapeless and without form, because it had received nothing.(5) And on this account they say that it was an imbecile and feminine production.(6)
Tertullian AV 10
Some of the Valentinians have dreamed up another fall and redemption for Sophia: after her fruitless attempts and the disappointment of her hopes, she was all bent out of shape (because of her paleness, thinness and neglect, I suppose. In this quite suitable way she grieved that she was denied access to the Father, a denial that was no less painful than his loss.) Next in her grief she has conceived--with no help from her mate--and gives birth to a female offspring. Is this surprising? It should not be, even a hen can produce offspring by herself; even more striking, they say buzzards are only female. Anyway, she is a mother without a man and she fears her end is near; she is at a loss as to the treatment of her case; she is worried about hiding her condition. No help anywhere! Otherwise, where would we have gotten tragedies and comedies from which we borrow the procedure of exposing what is born out of wedlock? While her situation is in such a bad way, she thinks of the Father, turns to him. She has tried in vain, however, and with her strength deserting her, she turns to prayer. All her neighbors pray for her, especially Nus. (Nus? Pray for someone so evil?) None of Sophia's misfortunes are without effect: all her sorrows cause a reaction, in that her recent struggles bring about the creation of matter; her ignorance, fear, and sorrow become substances. Finally, the Father moved at last by her prayers sends the above-mentioned Horos to her. (This Horos, who was sent through the agency of Monogenes-Nus, is in the Father's image, i.e., both masculine and feminine; thus the Valentinians are at odds even about the Father's sex.) Some of these heretics also add that Horos is called Metagogeus (Guide) and Horothetes (Limiter). They say that with his help Sophia was turned aside from her crooked ways, cleansed of evil, and finally strengthened and restored to her mate. They add that Sophia remained in the pleroma, but that her Enthymesis and its accompanying suffering was banished by Horos, crucified and thrown out; as they say, "evil begone." The Valentinians define this Enthymesis as a spirit-like substance, since it is a natural outgrowth of an aeon, but one which is without form or shape, since it had grasped nothing. Consequently, they call it "sterile fruit" and "female."
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11753
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Is there a Relationship Between Papias's Discussion of Mark's Gospel and the First Book of Against Heresies?

Post by Secret Alias » Wed Mar 25, 2020 7:23 am

A couple of things that strike me:
1. whenever the original text was written it would seem that a great deal of variation already existed in the Valentinian community - i.e. to form at least two different versions of the same myth. Would suggest to me that the community existed at least a generation before the composition of AV.

2. the addition of 'crucifixion' to the story of the redemption of Sophia is important. For it suggests that it began as a gnostic explanation of the Passion narrative. Namely an adoptionist reading where the one who is crucified leaves behind his 'feminine' (material) form in order to free his masculine (spiritual) essence. Crucifixion is thus a form of purification, redemption etc. Important.
This would suggest to me that by around 150 CE there was an established tradition which understood that (a) 'a god' came into human flesh and deigned to be crucified in order to (b) liberate the soul of an individual. This is the only explanation of THIS Valentinian tradition.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11753
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Is there a Relationship Between Papias's Discussion of Mark's Gospel and the First Book of Against Heresies?

Post by Secret Alias » Wed Mar 25, 2020 7:57 am

Irenaeus AH 1.2.5 - 6
5. After this substance had been placed outside of the Pleroma of the AEons, and its mother restored to her proper conjunction, they tell us that Monogenes, acting in accordance with the prudent forethought of the Father, gave origin to another conjugal pair, namely Christ and the Holy Spirit (lest any of the AEons should fall into a calamity similar to that of Sophia), for the purpose of fortifying and strengthening the Pleroma, and who at the same time completed the number of the AEons. Christ then instructed them as to the nature of their conjunction, and taught them that those who possessed a comprehension of the Unbegotten were sufficient for themselves.(7) He also announced among them what related to the knowledge of the Father,--namely, that he cannot be understood or comprehended, nor so much as seen or heard, except in so far as he is known by Monogenes only. And the reason why the rest of the AEons possess perpetual existence is found in that part of the Father's nature which is incomprehensible; but the reason of their origin and formation was situated in that which may be comprehended regarding him, that is, in the Son. Christ, then, who had just been produced, effected these things among them.

6a. But the Holy Spirit(9) taught them to give thanks on being all rendered equal among themselves, and led them to a state of true repose.
Tertullian AV 11
Now after Sophia's Enthymesis is exiled and she herself restored to her mate, that famous Monogenes, or Nus, at leisure now and dismissed from his attentions and attendance on the Father, decides to consolidate matters and to fortify and stabilize the Pleroma so that no such upheaval can shake it again. To do so he knocks out another pair, Christ and the Holy Spirit. (I should think this pairing of two males immoral; but perhaps the Holy Spirit is female and the male is crucified by the female.) These two have one duty--to stabilize the aeons. From the association of these two in this duty, two schools arise, two pulpits and the beginning (of sorts) of a division in the Valentinian teachings. Christ's duty was to teach the aeons the nature of their marriages--you see what sort of affair this was of course to teach them how to form some idea of the unbegotten, and to make them capable of generating in themselves knowledge of the Father, knowledge, namely, that they can not get an idea of him or understand him--nor can they see or hear him --except by the help of Monogenes. Now I can acknowledge that the aeons learn about the Father in this way--certainly we do the same thing. What I do criticize is the perversity of what they learn: namely, that what is unknowable in the Father is the cause of their eternal existence; what is knowable in him is the cause of their birth and material form or shape. To my mind the following is implicit in this teaching: it is best that God is not known if indeed his unknowableness is the cause of eternal existence. His knowable aspect is the cause, not of eternal existence, but of birth and material form or shape, conditions which lack eternal existence. In fact, the Valentinians postulate the son as the knowable aspect of the Father. Thus Christ, after being emitted, taught the aeons how the Father should be grasped.

The special duty of the Holy Spirit was this: after all the aeons were equally eager to learn, she should teach them how to give full thanks and should bring true tranquility to them.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Wed Mar 25, 2020 8:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11753
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Is there a Relationship Between Papias's Discussion of Mark's Gospel and the First Book of Against Heresies?

Post by Secret Alias » Wed Mar 25, 2020 8:00 am

I don't know about you but the other little bit preserved by Tertullian - namely that the marriage of Christ and Holy Spirit was between two males (i.e. Christus Lat. Sanctus Spiritus being both masculine in Latin) is quite eye-opening. Not only does it have obvious affinities with Secret Mark but it fits with all the statements in documents like the Clementine Literature where a masculine Holy Spirit is posited. Feminine things are bad and degenerate in earliest Christianity. Only masculinity offers salvation. The story of the aeons in heaven seems to be almost the story of humanity. When the world began humans were ignorant of the true god and locked in same-sex marriages producing children who were leading to a degenerating society. The longing for the femaie to create is assumed to be the degenerative force in the world. So what does the Most High God do? He sets up Christ and the example of his male-male pairing with the Holy Spirit to provide a spiritual example for the carnal heterosexuals. Doesn't that explain the male-male pairings in Origenist communities? Look at Gregory (Theodore) and Athenedoros and the pairing of Gregory and Basil and the countless other same-sex mates in this tradition. Origen's patron was said to be a Valentinian. I think there is something to this. The idea that seems to filter through the history of secret societies within Christianity is that they were engaged in 'buggery.'

And then you have to ask - why couldn't Secret Mark have been the Valentinian gospel? Yes I know Irenaeus says their gospel was John. But so what? He said the same thing about the Marcionites and Luke. It is curious that the Valentinian myth was promulgated in Rome chiefly, the epicenter of Latin, where 'Christ' and 'Holy Spirit' were masculine. Even if it was originally conceived as a male and neuter conjunction that's still not a heterosexual pairing. There had to be a reason why the 'heresies' were deemed so abominable that they were banned and beaten. Conceiving them to be 'faggots' homos, queers, weirdos - whatever suddenly makes it all more explainable. Did Roman Catholic priests ever stop being 'faggots' homos, queers, weirdos etc? Probably not. The esoteric teachings then of Christianity were actually preserved rather than stamped out by the destruction of overt gnosticism, the details that were filtering out into pagan society and causing embarrassment for middle-class Christians. But the notions of homosexual superiority/spirituality were maintained. Against the Heresies as a preservative function.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11753
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Is there a Relationship Between Papias's Discussion of Mark's Gospel and the First Book of Against Heresies?

Post by Secret Alias » Wed Mar 25, 2020 8:28 am

Irenaeus AH 1.2.6b
Thus, then, they tell us that the AEons were constituted equal to each other in form and sentiment, so that all became as Nous, and Logos, and Anthropos, and Christus. The female AEons, too, became all as Aletheia, and Zoe, and Spiritus, and Ecclesia. Everything, then, being thus established, and brought into a state of perfect rest, they next tell us that these beings sang praises with great joy to the Propator, who himself shared in the abounding exaltation. Then, out of gratitude for the great benefit which had been conferred on them, the whole Pleroma of the AEons, with one design and desire, and with the concurrence of Christ and the Holy Spirit, their Father also setting the seal of His approval on their conduct, brought together whatever each one had in himself of the greatest beauty and preciousness; and uniting all these contributions so as skilfully to blend the whole, they produced, to the honour and glory of Bythus, a being of most perfect beauty, the very star of the Pleroma, and the perfect fruit [of it], namely Jesus. Him they also speak of under the name of Saviour, and Christ, and patronymically, Logos, and Everything, because He was formed from the contributions of all. And then we are told that, by way of honour, angels of the same nature as Himself were simultaneously produced, to act as His body-guard.
Tertullian AV 12
Now all the aeons are equal physically and mentally. All of them have become what each one individually is; no one is different, because all are the same. Everyone is turned into Nuses or into Men or into Theletuses; all female aeons have become Siges, Zoes, Churches, or Fortunatas. Ovid would have erased his Metamorphoses if he knew of this greater one today. As soon as they have been reformed and stabilized and made tranquil by the truth, they sing a chorus to the Father with great exuberance of joy. He himself was filled with joy, certainly happy about his children and grandchildren who could sing so well. Why should he not be filled with complete happiness, since the Pleroma was freed from danger? In such circumstances, what ship's captain does not rejoice even immorally? Every day we see sailors' orgies. Consequently, just as sailors revel at their banquets, so do the aeons, who are now alike in appearance, and in feeling, too, needless to say. In conjunction with their new brothers and teachers, Christ and the Holy Spirit, each one puts in the pot the best and most beautiful thing with which he is decorated. (They wasted their effort, if you ask me; if they were all alike as a result of the above mentioned equalization, there was no incentive to win the pot, whose attractiveness lies only in the variety of things in it.) Anyway, they all brought the "Good" which they all were: the incentive was habit perhaps, or a regulation of the previous equalization. From the anted cash--as the expression goes-- the aeons fashion in honor and glory, of the Father the most beautiful star in the Pleroma and the perfect fruit, Jesus. They name him Saviour, Christ, and Word; these are family names. They also call him the All, since he was formed from a bouquet of all flowers, like Aesop's Jaybird, Hesiod's Pandora, Accius' Bow, Nestor's Fruitcake, or Ptolomanus' Miscellany--all the same. It would have been more appropriate if these idle name-givers had called him Mr. Snatchitall, a name perhaps from some Oscan skit. Moreover, to make a show for their puppet, they formed for him an angel body guard, equal in nature. If they are equal to each other, okay; if equal in nature to Saviour (since I find the word ambiguously placed), what eminence would he have among attendants of equal status?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11753
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Is there a Relationship Between Papias's Discussion of Mark's Gospel and the First Book of Against Heresies?

Post by Secret Alias » Wed Mar 25, 2020 8:31 am

The desire to make the Valentinians into something like the Carpocratians is palpably obvious. Given the fact that the 'conjunction' of the aeons has been sexualized into an orgy you can see how it would be one step away from saying that the gnostics themselves engaged in orgies. In fact we may start wondering if Hegesippus is the ultimate source for these lurid tales. He was apparently in Rome c. 147 CE that is after the Valentinians already established their influence. Marcellina is described as 'the first gnostic' in his report too.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11753
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Is there a Relationship Between Papias's Discussion of Mark's Gospel and the First Book of Against Heresies?

Post by Secret Alias » Wed Mar 25, 2020 8:37 am

Let me try to understand this section a little better:
refunduntur in Nun omnes in Homines, in Theletos, aeque feminae in Sigas, in Zoas, in Ecclesias, in Fortunatas, ut Ovidius Metamorphoses suas delevisset si hodie maiorem cognovisset. [2] exinde refecti sunt et constabiliti sunt et in requiem ex veritate compositi magno cum gaudii fructu hymnis Patrem concinunt. diffundebatur et ipse laetitia et utique bene cantantibus filiis, nepotibus. quidni diffunderetur omni iocunditate, Pleromate liberato. quis nauclerus non etiam cum dedecore laetatur? videmus cotidie nauticorum lascivias gaudiorum. [3] itaque ut nautae ad symbolam semper exultant, tale aliquid et Aeones; unum iam omnes etiam forma nedum sententia, convenientibus ipsis quoque novis fratribus et magistris Christo et Spirito Sancto, quod optimum atque pulcherrimum unusquisque florebat conferunt in medium. vane, opinor; si enim unum erant omnes ex supra dicta peraequatione, vacabat symbolae ratio quae ferme ex varietatis gratia constat. [4] unum omnes bonum conferebant quod omnes erant; de modo forsitan fuerit ratio aut de forma ipsius iam peraequationis. igitur ex aere collaticio, quod aiunt, in honorem et gloriam Patris pulcherrimum Pleromatis sidus fructumque perfectum compingunt Iesum. eum cognominant Soterem et Christum et Sermonem de patritis et Omnia iam ut ex omnium defloratione constructum: Graculum Aesopi, Pandoram Hesiodi, Acci Patinam, Nestoris Cocetum, Miscellaneam Ptolomaei. [5] quam proprius fuit de aliquibus Osciae scurris Pancapipannirapiam vocari a tam otiosis auctoribus nominum.
The first thing that is obvious is that the identification of Lucifer (phosphoros) is still playing throughout the text. Fortunatas is mentioned as an aeon here and again in chapter 23. So the idea that Lucifer inspired the Valentinians is core to the text.

The idea that Jesus is a 'fruit' is in the Gospel of Truth from what I remember:
Through this, the gospel of the one who is searched for, which <was> revealed to those who are perfect, through the mercies of the Father, the hidden mystery, Jesus, the Christ, enlightened those who were in darkness through oblivion. He enlightened them; he showed (them) a way; and the way is the truth which he taught them. For this reason, error grew angry at him, persecuted him, was distressed at him, (and) was brought to naught. He was nailed to a tree (and) he became fruit of the knowledge of the Father. It did not, however, cause destruction because it was eaten, but to those who ate it, it gave (cause) to become glad in the discovery, and he discovered them in himself, and they discovered him in themselves.
Based on the parable of the sower, the Holy Spirit (Wisdom) is said to sow her "spiritual seed" within human beings. It is this seed which enables human beings to "bear fruit" through gnosis. All who have received this "seed" are part of the "Church" (Irenaeus Against Heresies 1:5:6, 1:8:1 cf Excepts of Theodotus 40,1). Extending the agricultural metaphor, Herakleon describes the salvation of those who have the seed as a harvest in which "some were on the point of being ready, some are near to being ready and some are still being sown" (Herakeon Fragment 32). The Church is the "assembly" of all who have been redeemed and all who will be redeemed in the future. Jesus is also 'firstfruit' in the writings of Paul.

But more interesting is the idea that the celebrating aeons participate in an orgy in heaven. But oddly I don't see very much written about this in the literature. It's like Tertullian's description is ignored because it isn't as 'serious' and scholarly as Irenaeus's. Immediately one thing jumps out at me from the choice of the English translation:

defloratione = defloratio

1. plucking of flowers
2. deflowering/dishonoring (of a virgin)

The translator chose the least sexual meaning. Not sure that was correct here. The sentence in question is:
They also call him the All, since he was formed from a bouquet of all flowers, like Aesop's Jaybird, Hesiod's Pandora, Accius' Bow, Nestor's Fruitcake, or Ptolomanus' Miscellany [et Omnia iam ut ex omnium defloratione constructum: Graculum Aesopi, Pandoram Hesiodi, Acci Patinam, Nestoris Cocetum, Miscellaneam Ptolomaei]--all the same. It would have been more appropriate if these idle name-givers had called him Mr. Snatchitall, a name perhaps from some Oscan skit.
The German is:
schliesslich sogar den Namen: "Über alles" ---- weil er dadurch gebildet worden war, dass von allem das Beste dazu genommen wurde, wie zum Häher des Äsop, zur Pandora des Hesiod, der Patina des Accius, dem Cocetus des Nestor, und der Miscellanea des Ptolemäus.
I can't help but thing he is called 'All' because of the deflowering of all the virgins in heaven in this cosmic celebratory orgy. Let's check this out. Aesop once told the story of a jaybird that ventured into a yard where peacocks used to walk. There the jay found a number of feathers fallen from the majestic birds when they had last molted. He tied them all to his tail and strutted toward the peacocks. His cheat was quickly discovered, and the peacocks harassed the imposter until all his borrowed plumes had fallen away. When the jay could do no more than return to his own kind, having watched him from afar, they were equally affronted by the jay's actions. The moral of the story, said Aesop, is that it takes more than just fine feathers to make fine birds.

Tertullian similarly describes Pandora as crowned with flowers "If there really was a Pandora, whom Hesiod mentions as the first of women, hers was the first head the graces crowned, for she received gifts from all the gods whence she got her name Pandora. But Moses, a prophet, not a poet-shepherd, shows us the first woman Eve having her loins more naturally girt about with leaves than her temples with flowers. Pandora, then, is a myth. And so we have to blush for the origin of the crown, even on the ground of the falsehood connected with it; and, as will soon appear, on the ground no less of its realities." A fragment of Accius Philoctetes refers to the hero's clothing himself in feathers braided together: pro ueste pinnis membra textis contegit (543 W = 540 R3).

While these are NOT sexual the fruitcakes of Nestor is. Apparently it goes back to mix of poppies and cakes that was put into the more famous 'cup of Nestor' which were consumed at archaic symposiums. https://books.google.com/books?id=HzeJb ... es&f=false The seventh-century lyric poet Alcman (fr. 116) refers to the layout of a typical symposion in one of his verses, mentioning the “seven couches and as many tables crowned with poppy cakes." Apparently this referenced by Amos as occurring in Judea and Samaria https://books.google.com/books?id=gAjUo ... or&f=false a German über die beiden letzten macht Oehler die nötigen Angaben (Ilias XI 624; Ptolemaios Chennos rep rf: si: TroAopadiav xatv: atopia:9) nach einem Aufsatze von L. Krahner in der Zeitschrift f. Altertumswissenschaft X

The reference to Ptolemy Chennos is interesting:
Ptolemaeus Chennus or Chennos ("quail"), of Alexandria (Greek: Πτολεμαῖος Χέννος), was a Greek grammarian during the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian.

According to the Suda,[1] he was the author of an historical drama named Sphinx, of an epic, Anthomeros, in 24 books (both lost) and a Strange History. The last is probably identical with the New History in six books ascribed by Photius to Ptolemy Hephaestion, of which a summary outline has been preserved in Photius' Biblioteca (cod. 190),[2] who observed sarcastically of its credulous author that he found it "a work really useful for those who undertake to attempt erudition in history," for "it abounds in extraordinary and badly imagined information." It was dedicated to the author's lady, Tertulla, and contained a medley of all sorts of legends and fables belonging to both the mythological and historical periods. An identification with Ptolemy-el-Garib has been suggested, but this is no longer accepted.[3]
The word translated as Snatchitall that this fruit of the All should be called in Latin Pancapipannirapiam = a compound of "pan" (all) and "capere" (take) and "pannus" (cloth) and "rapere" (rape, snatch).
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Post Reply