Archelaus

"Résumé
Les dieux des autres ne sont pas simplement d’autres dieux. En accord avec cette conviction, Hérodote met la divinité oraculaire libyenne Ammon de Siwa en relation avec les dieux royaux Amon de Thèbes et Zeus de Dodone. Cet article part du texte d’Hérodote pour étudier, d’une part, la diffusion et le succès religieux autant que politique de Zeus Ammon dans les traditions grecque et macédonienne des Ve et IVe siècles av. J.-C., puis pour les comparer, d’autre part, avec la signification nouvelle que le dieu acquit à l’époque d’Alexandre et de ses successeurs en Égypte, les Ptolémées.

Abstract
The gods of the others are not simply other gods. In compliance with this belief, Herodotus puts the Libyan oracular divinity Ammon of Siwah in relation with the royal gods Amun of Thebes and Zeus of Dodona. This paper starts from Herodotus’ text to study, on one hand, the spread of religious and political success of Zeus Ammon in the V and IV centuries’ Greek and Macedonian tradition, before to compare them, on a second hand, with the new significance that the god acquired at the time of Alexander and his successors in Egypt, the Ptolemies."

Herod's appointment as Rome’s client ruler of Judaea in 40 BCE marked a step change in that territory's political, economic and cultural development, being brought from the periphery into the mainstream of the Graeco-Roman world. Josephus presents Herod (the Great) as a loyal client of Rome, ever eager to please Augustus and his deputy, Marcus Agrippa, while adopting the trappings of hellenistic monarchy. This study delves into Herod's role as a member of Rome's client network, as it existed in the last decades of the 1st century BCE, comparing and contrasting his activities in relation to two other prominent client kings, Archelaus Philopatris of Cappadocia and Juba II of Mauretania.

In traditional scholarship, Aristoxenus’ Life of Socrates has been considered very often as an untrustworthy testimony, as the Socrates being described seems to be at odds with what we know about him by our main sources Plato and Xenophon. Recent reassessments, however, note that Aristoxenus’ account provides a balanced picture of Socrates, which is not at odds with earlier Socratic literature. This chapter follows this more positive hypothesis. It reviews all fragments available in the extant editions of Aristoxenus’ Life of Socrates, and provides new texts not included in these collections. I show that Aristoxenus’ characterization of Socrates as an irascible, sex-driven man who eradicates his licentiousness through education is widely confirmed: not only by Aristotle and other Peripatetics, but implicitly also by Plato, Xenophon, Antisthenes, Phaedo, and other Socratics. Both the account based on Aristoxenus’ father Spintharus, who knew Socrates personally, and the report about Socrates’ youthful association with Archelaus, the historical reliability of which has been shown by recent studies, give us good reasons to claim that Aristoxenus had solid grounds for depicting Socrates the way he did.

Summary. Section (1) explains why the Derveni papyrus has often been misunderstood: among the main reasons are the wrong label «Orphic» and the confusion of two types of pantheism in Greek thought: the ethico- religious and the naturalistic. The Orphic hymn to Zeus is a classical example of the first type, the Derveni commentary – of the second which is incompatible with the immortality of the soul and afterlife. Section (2) deals with the literary genre, the general purpose and the hermeneutical method of the Derveni treatise, and draws a preliminary intellectual portrait of its author describing his peculiar features, a kind of a «composite image». In the section (3) we argue for Prodicus as the author of PDerv and present 18 testimonia on which this attribution is based. These include both the verbatim quotations with Prodicus’ name that find an exact correspondence in the text of PDerv and the common peculiar features of the language and style. In the section (4) we propose a reconstruction and interpretation of the text of the col. IV that contains a quotation from Heraclitus. This column is of primary importance for the understanding of the aims and allegorical method of the author in general as well as for his theory of names. Section (5) detects a neglected (polemical) peritrope of Prodicus’ benefaction theory of the origin of religion in Xenophon’s Memorabillia 4.4. In the section (6) the problems of the original title and date of the Derveni treatise are addressed, its relation to the Psephisma of Diopeithes (432 BC) as well as to the trial and death of Anaxagoras. The last section (7) clarifies our use of the term peritrope and explains the Derveni treatise as a polemical naturalistic peritrope of a religious text (Orphic theogony).
Key-terms: Ancient philosophy, Derveni papyrus, Prodicus, Sophists, Orphism, Orpheus, Anaxagoras, Archelaus, Heraclitus, theogony, origin of civilisation, origin of religion, origin of language, origin of mythology, allegory, psephisma of Diopeithes, ancient atheism, Greek Enlightenment, philosophy of language, ancient Athens.

The paper argues that joining a narrative about the origins of social institutions to a narrative about the origins of the cosmos and of living organism was not a customary feature of Presocratic accounts, but was an innovation introduced around the time of Socrates. There is, moreover, some evidence to the effect that Archelaus of Athens, who is customarily presented as belonging to the circle of Anaxagoras and a companion and teacher of Socrates, was one of the first authors to offer such a unified narrative. The paper offers reasons why the conjunction of the two narratives could have been seen by contemporaries as posing a particularly strong threat for traditional theological conceptions. The paper then examines two key texts, Aristophanes’ Clouds and Plato’s Laws 10, in which these new types of accounts are attacked for their deleterious effects. It is suggested that Archelaus theory has a more important role in these texts than customarily recognised.

Keywords: Archelaus of Athens; Socrates; Anaxagoras; Plato, Laws 10; Plato, Timaeus; Plato, Critias; Aristophanes, Clouds; Democritus; Antiphon; nomos–physis; cosmogony; origins of culture; theology; ancient atheism; physics and ethic

The Persian nobles installed in Anatolia shared their traditions with Greek culture. The kings of Pontus, who were Iranians and had family ties with the Seleucids, would have assumed this cultural contact. In the Pontic court, the education was basically Iranian, and thus the adulthood began at the age of 24. This education was held by the magi, who transmitted the Persian lore and legitimised the crown prince. Therefore, Mithridates Eupator had a wide knowledge of the elements of nature and learnt to ride and to shoot the bow, two basic elements of the Iranian education which can also be found in the case of Arbinas, dynast of Xanthus. Likewise, Mithridates should have passed survival tests in the countryside, which were a stage of the Persian education. In the court of Sinope, he was formed together with the sons of Greek aristocrats, and this should have favoured the contact with paideia. The king was well acquainted with the Greek culture and religion. This combination of paideia and Persian tradition can be also detected in other Eastern rulers during the Late Hellenistic period.

The Ariobarzanid kings of Cappadocia belonged to a cadet branch of the Mithridatids of Pontus and the Ariarathids of Cappadocia, who merged their bloodlines in an undetermined moment previous to the reign of Ariarathes V. Therefore, these families descended from the ancient satraps of Dascylium, and in particular from a branch of this family installed in Cius which gave rise to the Pontic dynasty. This kinship explains some passages of Appian difficult to interpret. Henceforth, when the Romans settled Ariobarzanes I on the throne, they were supporting a family which was already well known to the Republic. Thus, the Ariobarzanids represented a continuity in the royal house of Cappadocia until it became extinct by the deposition of Ariarathes X. Arcobarzanes, grandson of the Numidian king Syphax, would have also been a member of this Pontic-Cappadocian lineage.

Статья посвящена выявлению топосов рационально-теологического дискурса у античных философов досократического периода. Анализируются онтологические представления Фалеса, Пифагора, Анаксагора, Архелая, Гераклита, Ксенофана, Парменида, Эмпедокла на предмет присутствия в них элементов рационального богословия. Констатируется тесная связь философско-теологических взглядов рассматриваемых авторов с ноологией, поскольку мышление у них считается свойством Первоначала по преимуществу или, скорее, самим Богом. Кроме того, у досократиков обнаруживается предвосхищение многих теологических атрибутов и предикатов: единства, свободы, самобытности, инаковости, совершенства, неизменяемости, духовности, простоты, вечности, творения, промышления, всеведения, вездесущности, всемогущества.

The article is devoted to identifying the topoi of rational-theological discourse among the ancient philosophers of the pre-Socratic period. The ontological conceptions of Thales, Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, Archelaus, Heraclitus, Xenophanes, Parmenides, and Empedocles are analyzed for the presence of elements of rational theology. The close connection of the considered authors’ philosophical and theological views with noology is stated, since intellection is regarded to be a property of the Principle predominantly or, rather, God himself. In addition, the pre-Socratics reveal an anticipation of many theological attributes and predicates: unity, freedom, aseity, otherness, perfection, immutability, spirituality, simplicity, eternity, creation, providence, omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence.

Настоящая статья посвящена исследованию учений об Уме древнегреческих философов ионийской школы, а также рецепции и критике их взглядов в трудах последующих античных авторов, языческих и христианских. В статье рассматриваются доктрины Фалеса в контексте гилопсихизма; Гераклита о Разуме (Логосе), всеобщем божественном законе, управляющем вселенной; Анаксагора об Уме (Нусе), всеведущем перводвигателе и организаторе космоса; а также ноологии Архелая и Диогена Аполлонийского. Представлено позднейшее восприятие философии Гераклита в трудах неоплатоников Плотина и Прокла. Анализируется отношение Аристотеля к ноологии Анаксагора, а также ее критика Евдемом и Цицероном. Приводится анализ онтологии и гносеологии Гераклита и Анаксагора в трудах Теофраста, Плутарха, Секста Эмпирика, Симплиция. Кроме того, исследуется восприятие ионийской ноологии в творчестве патристических авторов: Климента Александрийского, сщмч. Ипполита Римского, блж. Августина Иппонийского и др.

The article is devoted to the study of the ancient Greek “Ionian school” philosophers’ teachings on the Mind, as well as the reception and criticism of their views in the works of subsequent ancient authors, pagan and Christian. The article examines the doctrines: of Thales in the context of hylopsychism; of Heraclitus on Reason (Logos), the general divine law governing the universe; of Anaxagoras on Mind (Nous), the omniscient prime mover and organizer of the cosmos; as well as the noology of Archelaus and Diogenes of Apollonia. The later perception of Heraclitus’ philosophy in the works of the neoplatonists Plotinus and Proclus is presented. Aristotle’s attitude to Anaxagoras’ noology is analyzed, as well as the criticism of the latter by Eudemus and Cicero. The analysis of Heraclitus and Anaxagoras’ ontology and epistemology in the works of Theophrastus, Plutarch, Sextus Empiricus, and Simplicius is given. In addition, the author explores the perception of Ionian noology in the works of patristic authors: Clement of Alexandria, St. Hippolytus of Rome, St. Augustine of Hippo and others.

According to Sallust (Hist. fr. 2.75M), Mithridates Eupator came to power shortly before the end of his minority. Subsequently, he put his mother to death. At this same time, Ariarathes VI of Cappadocia was assassinated at the instigation of the young Pontic ruler. Given that Eupator’s mother was a Cappadocian princess, she probably contrived to eliminate her son in order to facilitate the accession of her brother Ariarathes to the Pontic throne. Eupator had to anticipate these intrigues, and so he acted promptly. The fact that the Pontic kingdom had expanded at the expense of territories formerly under Ariarathid influence may have provoked the rivalry of certain sectors of the old Iranian nobility, who were reluctant to lose their ancestral autonomy and would consider the Mithridatids to be a foreign dynasty.