On Orphic Self-Initiation
or, On the Self-Taught Doctrine of Hekataios at Pantikapaion
Self-Initiation into an ancient mystery cult may seem absurd. After all, a defining aspect of the mysteries was their exclusive, ritual-initiatory nature. Yet not only was it possible; it was worthy of praise, even among traditional initiates.
An epitaph from ancient Pantikapaion1 praises the deceased, Hekataios, for being self-taught in sacred judgments and for more quickly escaping the cycle of toil by having died middle-aged. In ancient Greek2:
Οὐ λόγον ἀλλὰ βίον σοφίης ἐτύπωσα δόξαν,
Αὐτοδαὴς ἱερῶν γινόμενος κριμάτων,
Εὕδων, οὖν, Ἑκαταῖε, μεσόχρονος, ἴσθ’ ὅτι θάσσον
Κύκλον ἀνιηρῶν ἐξέφυγες καμάτων.
E. Bikerman suggests that the inscription is Orphic3, although A.D. Nock takes issue with this categorization, saying there's no proof of specific Orphic groups in the early Christian period. However, he concedes a few lines later that Hekataios could have been a solitary Orphic without a community4.
Some contention springs from “ἱερῶν… κριμάτων” in line two. The word “ἱερῶν” means ‘holy’ or ‘sacred.’ Nock says that “κριμάτων” could mean nothing other than ‘judgments’ or ‘decisions,’ like those of an assembly or court5. Bikerman, however, takes “κριμάτων” as 'principles’ and says it may be a metrical substitute for δόγμα or λόγος6, either of which would mean doctrine.
This metrical substitution may make more sense if we consider that ἱεροὶ λόγοι (sing. ἱερὸς λόγος) is a term used by Orphics to refer to their sacred texts, and especially the Hieroi Logoi in Twenty-Four Rhapsodies, a Hellenistic compilation attributed to Orpheus that likely reworked previously existing Orphic myths into a single work7. This compilation, while fragmentary today, is thought to be roughly contemporaneous to Hekataios’ inscription8.
However, according to Nock, the inscription could not be referring to this or any other Hieroi Logoi, as he says that ‘self-taught’ in ancient Greek implies ‘from inspiration’ and not ‘from books’9, seemingly contradicting Bikerman's assessment of κριμάτων; one cannot be self-taught from holy books if ‘self-taught’ precludes ‘from books.’
Bikerman also notes “κύκλον” in line four, which means ‘cycle’ or ‘circle’ and is used elsewhere to refer to metempsychosis10. Nock argues that the phrase “know that…” in the previous line usually introduces a novel concept, which would be strange if “κύκλον” refers to metempsychosis (assumed knowledge for an Orphic), although he admits that the phrase is also used to console, and such may be the case in the inscription11. Nock proceeds to suggest instead that it refers to a general ‘circle’ or ‘wheel’ of life12, and he translates it as “round”13, possibly to further distance from the ‘cycle’ of metempsychosis.
Nock says that if “κύκλον” does refer to reincarnation, it must be Plato’s version, and not one from Orphism14. He further implies that Orphism and philosophy were mutually exclusive, saying that phrases like “reputation of wisdom” and “sacred judgments” more closely resemble philosophical language15.
The Derveni Papyrus, discovered in 1962, was unavailable to Bikerman or Nock at the time of their writing. Its contents, however, significantly challenge key aspects of Nock’s argument. The papyrus features a pre-Socratic philosophical interpretation of a poem attributed to Orpheus, offering direct proof of philosophical engagement with a sacred text (ἱερὸς λόγος) by an individual associated with Orphism circa the 5th century BCE16. The author of the Derveni Papyrus also laments that some who undergo ritual initiation are all-too happy to conclude there, without even bothering to understand what happened or why it was done17.
Nock’s attempt to separate Plato’s cycle of rebirth from that of the Orphics has similarly eroded over time, as scholarship now more commonly accepts that Plato builds upon some Orphic beliefs in his own work18.
If we may cycle (or circle, or if Nock prefers, “round”) back to the ‘books vs. self-taught’ argument in relation to Plato, the ancient philosopher gives us his own insights into this debate. In Republic, Plato mentions itinerant priests following the rich; wandering initiators who use many books to custom-tailor initiations to each client based on their needs or concerns19. This seems to be a jab at Orphic initiators, and he mentions them using books by Orpheus and Musaeus.
However, in Laws, his Athenian speaks of those who take their mystical katabatic rites seriously20, and just a few lines later he calls this a “myth or story” (μῦθος ἢ λόγος) from ancient priests which tells that everyone’s ultimate fate shall mirror the fate they incur upon others21. Earlier in Laws, the Athenian describes and defines “an Orphic life,”22 hinting that maybe the later story is an Orphic λόγος. This appears to muddy the waters; how can the Orphic rites be positive if participating in one of the Orphic initiations is negative?
Although Plato does not make it explicit, he may be referring to different things, and this would relieve some of the perceived tension here. His emphasis on the solemnity of katabatic rites and the fact that they’re an ancient λόγος in Laws, taken in turn with his downplaying of the wandering initiators in Republic, shows that it isn't being Orphic, but rather using initiation as a tool and watering down sacred doctrine for personal gain that is the issue23. Plato himself gives us a hint at this in the same excerpt from Republic: immediately after mentioning the wandering priests, and immediately before mentioning their use of books by Orpheus and Musaeus, Plato quotes Hesiod and Homer24.
It seems then that Plato’s disdain is not for Orphism itself but for what he sees as a mix-and-match version of it being sold for profit. This dichotomy is echoed by the sentiment in the first line of the epitaph: “Not by words but by life you shaped a reputation of wisdom.” This emphasis on way of life over λόγος perhaps supports Bikerman’s argument for metrical substitution in the next line; if the first distinguishes Hekataios from those who’ve undergone an itinerant priest’s tailored initiation of many books, it would be awkward to then use the same word to describe the doctrine that he mastered.
Another way to release this tension perceived by Nock is if we assume, as Nock himself suggests, that it was the writer of the epitaph and not Hekataios who was Orphic. In this case, his self-taught beliefs may have simply aligned closely enough to those of the Orphic scribe that the inscription was accepted without question by his family25. This also ironically refutes Nock’s own earlier claim that ‘self-taught' would not be a compliment to an Orphic26: the very act of an Orphic scribe highlighting the self-taught nature of Hekataios in relation to the scribe’s own beliefs is an indication that it does not carry a negative connotation to him.
Thus, much to the chagrin of Nock’s attempt to discredit an Orphic categorization of the epitaph in favor of a philosophical one, advancements in scholarship actually push his argument closer to proving Bikerman's own; that Hekataios was self-taught in Orphic principles.
In our time, the idea of being self-taught in philosophy or religion without reading is paradoxical. This may well lead a modern practitioner to ignore this quirk, and read the inscription in its owner’s own voice; after all, an ancient Orphic recognized and honored the validity of a solo-practitioner’s Self-Initiation.
Not by words but by life you shaped a reputation of wisdom,
becoming self-taught in sacred judgments.
Sleeping now, Hekataios, in middle-age, know that sooner
you escaped the cycle of grievous toils.
Works Cited
“CIRB 121.” Phi Greek Inscriptions, https://epigraphy.packhum.org/text/182838. (Accessed 23 May 2025)
Bikerman, E. “The Orphic Blessing.” Journal of the Warburg Institute, vol. 2, no. 4, 1939, pp. 368–74. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/750044. (Accessed 17 May 2025)
Nock, Arthur Darby. “Orphism or Popular Philosophy?” The Harvard Theological Review, vol. 33, no. 4, 1940, pp. 301–15. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816000018800. (Accessed 17 May 2025)
West, M. L. The Orphic Poems. Clarendon Press, 1998.
Guthrie, W. K. C. Orpheus and Greek Religion: A Study of the Orphic Movement. Princeton University Press, 1993.
Betegh, Gábor. The Derveni Papyrus: Cosmology, Theology, and Interpretation. Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Uždavinys, Algis. Orpheus and the Roots of Platonism. Matheson Trust, 2011.
Plato. Republic. Translated by R.G. Bury. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967 & 1968.), Perseus Digital Library. https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0168. (Accessed 25 May 2025)
Plato. Laws. Translated by R.G. Bury. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967 & 1968.), Perseus Digital Library. https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0166. (Accessed 25 May 2025)
Plato. “Νόμοι.” Platonis Opera, ed. John Burnet. (Oxford University Press, 1903.), Perseus Digital Library. https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0165. (Accessed 26 May 2025)
Footnotes
CIRB 121
An English translation is presented at the end of the essay.
Bikerman pp.368-374
Nock p.302
Nock p.304
Bikerman p.372
West p.229 suggests that the Hieroi Logoi in Twenty-Four Rhapsodies was in circulation “soon after 100 [BCE],” while Guthrie pp.74-77 summarizes the argument for some of its contents being earlier. Although the division into twenty-four ‘rhapsodies’ is likely inspired by the division of Homer’s epics, it is unlikely that the Orphic work reached the same length. For this, see West p.248-249.
Nock p.301 gives one broader and one narrower dating of the epitaph, the latter placing it in roughly the first century CE. CIRB 121 dates it to the second-half of the first century BCE, which falls within Nock's broader dating. Whichever is most accurate, they all come after West’s date for the Rhapsodies.
Nock p.306
Bikerman p.371
Nock p.304
Nock p.305
Nock p.306
Nock p.303
Nock pp.306-307
The first monograph on the Derveni Papyrus, written by Betegh and published in 2004, remains an accessible entry to the ancient work.
Betegh p.361
Uždavinys has written a short monograph on this subject alone.
Plato Republic 364b - 365a
Plato Laws 9.870d - 9.870e
Plato Laws 9.872d - 9.872e. “μῦθος ἢ λόγος” appears at the beginning of 9.872ε in the Greek.
Plato Laws 6.782c - 6.782d
This is an echo of the Derveni author’s lamentation (for it, see Betegh p.361), although Derveni places the blame on the initiates and not the initiators.
Plato Republic 364b - 365a
Nock p.304
Nock p.306