What do you think?
Rate this book
Orpheus and the Roots of Platonism by Algis Uzdavinys (1-Dec-2011) Paperback
A book on the religious, mystic origins and substance of philosophy. This is a critical survey of ancient and modern sources and of scholarly works dealing with Orpheus and everything related to this major figure of ancient Greek myth, religion and philosophy. Here poetic madness meets religious initiation and Platonic philosophy. This book contains fascinating insights into the usually downplaid relations between Egyptian initiation, Greek mysteries and Plato's philosophy and followers, right into Hellenistic Neoplatonic and Hermetic developments.
Unknown Binding
First published December 1, 2011
17 people are currently reading
552 people want to read
About the author
Algis Uždavinys
25 books80 followers Was a prolific Lithuanian philosopher and scholar.
His research included works on hellenic philosophy , especially Platonism and Neoplatonism as well
a pioneering hermeneutical comparative study of Egyptian and Greek religions, especially their esoteric relations to Semitic religions, and in particular the inner aspect of Islam
His research included works on hellenic philosophy , especially Platonism and Neoplatonism as well
a pioneering hermeneutical comparative study of Egyptian and Greek religions, especially their esoteric relations to Semitic religions, and in particular the inner aspect of Islam
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
July 18, 2025
This is an incredibly brilliant assortment of ideas that follows a sturdy strain of argument, tracing the roots of Platonism to ancient Greco-Egyptian mythology; a connection obtusely rejected by much of academia. Despite its brevity, this tiny book teems with so many philosophical concepts and historical insights. One has to contend with its very fragmentary nature though.
The cover only mentions Orpheus, but the scope of this work extends far beyond the ancient Orphic cult. Uždavinys draws connections between the origins of Platonism and its long development, linking it to ancient Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian religions, Pythagoreanism, and the Dionysian cult. One of the most interesting sections was about the archaic foundations of Platonist monadism and the broader emergence of monotheism.
Uždavinys has been one of my best discoveries over the past year.
The cover only mentions Orpheus, but the scope of this work extends far beyond the ancient Orphic cult. Uždavinys draws connections between the origins of Platonism and its long development, linking it to ancient Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian religions, Pythagoreanism, and the Dionysian cult. One of the most interesting sections was about the archaic foundations of Platonist monadism and the broader emergence of monotheism.
Uždavinys has been one of my best discoveries over the past year.
October 8, 2013
This bizarre little book is an incoherent brain dump of brilliant ideas, reflecting the author's Herculean effort to articulate key points of the lifeworld of antiquity, viz. knowledge, initiation, immortality, and truth. It's a prolegomena where a critique is needed, and although it contains many brilliant insights and stunning observations, it's tedious and exhausting to read, coming across like the ranting of an academic in the grip of a manic episode.
The name strikes me as almost entirely arbitrary. Although Orpheus and Plato appear in the book, Uždavinys dwells as much or more about Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, Rome, and Europe of the Middle Ages as he does on Greece.
I was deeply put off by his argument by apposition. He strings thoughts together by association, making no effort whatsoever to motivate or explain why a mystical rite of classical antiquity necessarily had any relationship to the teachings of a Persian Sufi in the eleventh century. I can't comprehend what, in Uždavinys's mind, an argument consists of, or really, what he was doing, on a very basic level, other than rhapsodizing.
It didn't surprise me that he railed against methodical and careful scholars like M. L. West, while praising similarly speculative authors like Jan Assmann, whom he quotes liberally. Like Assmann, Uždavinys speculates in the most uninhibited way, and posits coherence and unity between distant ideas, seemingly at his convenience.
The fragmentary nature of this odd compendium is perhaps most clearly brought across by its end, or lack thereof. It stops at a completely arbitrary point.
Despite these numerous and severe flaws, Uždavinys undoubtedly was a master of secondary literature on the ancient world, and the book contains a great many gems. I believe his basic intuition is sound, and I found his effort to expound on the nature of philosophic thought with respect to its transcendental content, and his deft navigation of diverse traditions by which it played out in different forms, to be at times virtuosic. He gives an electrifying sense of the vitality of ancient philosophy, and conveys the depth and profundity of its spiritual roots.
It's too bad he seems like such a deeply disorganized individual. He could have been a truly great scholar, of Peter Brown's caliber.
The name strikes me as almost entirely arbitrary. Although Orpheus and Plato appear in the book, Uždavinys dwells as much or more about Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, Rome, and Europe of the Middle Ages as he does on Greece.
I was deeply put off by his argument by apposition. He strings thoughts together by association, making no effort whatsoever to motivate or explain why a mystical rite of classical antiquity necessarily had any relationship to the teachings of a Persian Sufi in the eleventh century. I can't comprehend what, in Uždavinys's mind, an argument consists of, or really, what he was doing, on a very basic level, other than rhapsodizing.
It didn't surprise me that he railed against methodical and careful scholars like M. L. West, while praising similarly speculative authors like Jan Assmann, whom he quotes liberally. Like Assmann, Uždavinys speculates in the most uninhibited way, and posits coherence and unity between distant ideas, seemingly at his convenience.
The fragmentary nature of this odd compendium is perhaps most clearly brought across by its end, or lack thereof. It stops at a completely arbitrary point.
Despite these numerous and severe flaws, Uždavinys undoubtedly was a master of secondary literature on the ancient world, and the book contains a great many gems. I believe his basic intuition is sound, and I found his effort to expound on the nature of philosophic thought with respect to its transcendental content, and his deft navigation of diverse traditions by which it played out in different forms, to be at times virtuosic. He gives an electrifying sense of the vitality of ancient philosophy, and conveys the depth and profundity of its spiritual roots.
It's too bad he seems like such a deeply disorganized individual. He could have been a truly great scholar, of Peter Brown's caliber.
Read
November 8, 2024"Descend lower, descend only
Into the world of perpetual solitude,
World not world, but that which is not world,
Internal darkness, deprivation."
world a theurgic theatre. music–for those bemused–is anamnesis. the only darkness is that of Three Nights: the window through which you see me is the mirror through which i see you. (or, the window through which you see me, is the one i jump out of (...into the rose-garden)).
Into the world of perpetual solitude,
World not world, but that which is not world,
Internal darkness, deprivation."
world a theurgic theatre. music–for those bemused–is anamnesis. the only darkness is that of Three Nights: the window through which you see me is the mirror through which i see you. (or, the window through which you see me, is the one i jump out of (...into the rose-garden)).
March 8, 2021
This was an interesting synthesis of materials on Orphism and Platonism, Near Eastern religions, and Egyptian religious concepts. I wished it had been a bit more systemic — it felt rushed — but there's a lot to unpack here, and I starred a few of the footnoted citations because they prodded my bookworm curiosity about the quotations/references in situ. I appreciated it and would recommend.
April 21, 2022
Uzdavinys has an impressive and bibliographic command of this area which is difficult to fully appreciate as a newcomer. I found myself constantly consulting the papers and books he referenced because so much of his writing is embedded with ideas he expects the reader to be familiar with.
His loosely constructed and fascinating “thesis” (if it can be called that) is that early Platonic and pre-Platonic philosophy was more of a divinely inspired "mania" akin to — and apparently derivative of — early Mesopotamian and Egyptian priestly (or prophetic) traditions, so that Socrates and Plato were more like shamans of an ancient Orphic religion than cool, dispassionate "thinkers" as contemporary philosophy might present them. This book examines the ancient tradition of this bizarre "enthousiasmos" (whence "enthusiasm," "god within"), insanity, mania, and "ekstasis" (whence "ecstasy," "outside of oneself"). Uzdavinys, with the help of Proclus, argues Greek philosophers were gripped by these possessions in a chain linking back to the myth of Orpheus (a lyre-player whose music was so tantalizing because he was similarly possessed) and ultimately to the Egyptians and Mesopotamians. Unfortunately, it is not in this book where those precise links are demonstrated: there is no historical outline showing how exactly Egyptian cult traditions were adopted by early Greeks. (Conceivably the networks of Bronze Age cultures had a central role there, but that is not discussed. We are left with mere comparisons and contrasts: "The Greek concept of such-and-such is similar to the Egyptian such-and-such.")
As an admittedly unseasoned reader in this area whose rating should be taken lightly by academics, I do think the book gets caught in the tedium of very minor distinctions that don't seem to particularly contribute to the argument it is making. For example, on page 38, we read: “Although a figure of myth and the preferred name for metaphysical auctoritas in telestic and esoteric matters, Orpheus nonetheless appears as a prophet and mystagogue, presumably the first to reveal the meaning of the mysteries and the rituals of initiation (teletai).” It’s not clear to me what “nonetheless” means here: the descriptions on either side of it don’t seem contradictory in any way. What is the distinction he’s trying to make? It’s this sort of excruciating detail that can be difficult to follow.
Still, it strikes me as a foundational book to read if one is at all interested in this area, exploring a radically new way to think about the origins of Western philosophy. It ends in a rebuke of mere reason, per an interpretation of Plato: “While a well-exercised skill in rational analysis was necessary to strip the soul of false beliefs, it could never awaken it to its innate dignity,” or, later, to “turn the eye of the soul upward towards the final revelation of the Beautiful and the Good.”
His loosely constructed and fascinating “thesis” (if it can be called that) is that early Platonic and pre-Platonic philosophy was more of a divinely inspired "mania" akin to — and apparently derivative of — early Mesopotamian and Egyptian priestly (or prophetic) traditions, so that Socrates and Plato were more like shamans of an ancient Orphic religion than cool, dispassionate "thinkers" as contemporary philosophy might present them. This book examines the ancient tradition of this bizarre "enthousiasmos" (whence "enthusiasm," "god within"), insanity, mania, and "ekstasis" (whence "ecstasy," "outside of oneself"). Uzdavinys, with the help of Proclus, argues Greek philosophers were gripped by these possessions in a chain linking back to the myth of Orpheus (a lyre-player whose music was so tantalizing because he was similarly possessed) and ultimately to the Egyptians and Mesopotamians. Unfortunately, it is not in this book where those precise links are demonstrated: there is no historical outline showing how exactly Egyptian cult traditions were adopted by early Greeks. (Conceivably the networks of Bronze Age cultures had a central role there, but that is not discussed. We are left with mere comparisons and contrasts: "The Greek concept of such-and-such is similar to the Egyptian such-and-such.")
As an admittedly unseasoned reader in this area whose rating should be taken lightly by academics, I do think the book gets caught in the tedium of very minor distinctions that don't seem to particularly contribute to the argument it is making. For example, on page 38, we read: “Although a figure of myth and the preferred name for metaphysical auctoritas in telestic and esoteric matters, Orpheus nonetheless appears as a prophet and mystagogue, presumably the first to reveal the meaning of the mysteries and the rituals of initiation (teletai).” It’s not clear to me what “nonetheless” means here: the descriptions on either side of it don’t seem contradictory in any way. What is the distinction he’s trying to make? It’s this sort of excruciating detail that can be difficult to follow.
Still, it strikes me as a foundational book to read if one is at all interested in this area, exploring a radically new way to think about the origins of Western philosophy. It ends in a rebuke of mere reason, per an interpretation of Plato: “While a well-exercised skill in rational analysis was necessary to strip the soul of false beliefs, it could never awaken it to its innate dignity,” or, later, to “turn the eye of the soul upward towards the final revelation of the Beautiful and the Good.”
February 13, 2019
A better title might be: Egypt and the Spurious Roots of Platonism.
Excluding a handful paragraphs, Orpheus is only mentioned off-hand and secondarily to ancient aegyptian and Assyrian Theology.
The first third about Assyrian was convincing, while half the connections with Egypt were repetitive and speculative. Reading his other works might offer more convincing comparisons (I'm not saying there aren't any, Egypt is undoubtedly influential in every way; but Assyrian connection was stronger, but that might be my "Neoplatonic" bias and his Eastern bias).
The author gives off the impression of Orriental-centrism and an "Iamblichian" view (if that's a word), perhaps one might even say "anti-neoplatonic".
Excluding a handful paragraphs, Orpheus is only mentioned off-hand and secondarily to ancient aegyptian and Assyrian Theology.
The first third about Assyrian was convincing, while half the connections with Egypt were repetitive and speculative. Reading his other works might offer more convincing comparisons (I'm not saying there aren't any, Egypt is undoubtedly influential in every way; but Assyrian connection was stronger, but that might be my "Neoplatonic" bias and his Eastern bias).
The author gives off the impression of Orriental-centrism and an "Iamblichian" view (if that's a word), perhaps one might even say "anti-neoplatonic".
December 6, 2020
Interesting but obstruse and all over the place
May 31, 2024
Bewildering and puzzling at times but so worth it and for good reason. This guy is truly a genius
January 23, 2022
As one more concerned personally with comparative religion and rustic shamanism (as much as I find both Egypt and classical philosophy fascinating and important to know), there are aspects less of Algis' work but of the subject matter and what he himself relates to gnosticism in late Egyptian and neo-platonist traditions that I would disagree with and view in some ways more as a foundation for Abrahamic monotheism than have a close relation to the ancient and rustic folk traditions of Europe and beyond. This is besides the point however, as Algis achieves exactly what he sets out to do, and acknowledges himself the eventual links these traditions had to the modern "hermetic" occultism movement and secret societies, and though small, there is much invaluable insight crammed into it making it fascinating, eye-opening and a rewarding read from start to finish, giving me plenty to think about regarding the deeply religious and Orphic nature of Greek philosophy and even of the Socratic claim of ignorance as well as revealing much about the perhaps often overlooked changes of an increasingly esoteric and elitist late Egyptian religion and the influence it had upon Greek philosophers (and monotheism). I was told this would be a challenging read to start with with Algis, having read none of his other books, but was glad I did and to those interested in comparative religion and classical philosophy alike, I would highly recommend reading this.
October 19, 2018
Really something. Much beyond my range, but stimulating still. Only at the end did I start to suspect Uzdavinys might have been sarcastic at times. I don't know if he was.
I have no idea what to say, except that it was wonderful. The experience reminded me of reading Zizek a few years back: after I had finished the book (The Plague of Fantasies) I just couldn't say what the hell it had been about and what it had said about that-mysterious-something, but I nonetheless felt it was a great read.
I guess Uzdavinys' main thesis was that Plato (maybe) pick-and-choose-d parts of Orphic and Egyptian religious doctrine for his own system, or at the least was much influenced by Parmenides who was very much influenced by the Orphics and the Egyptians. All this is very contestable because the little we know of Parmenides, the Orphics, and the Egyptians is fragmentary and inevitably interpreted through a European lens across several millenia. Uzdavinys readily admits this (although I just can't escape the feeling he was being a bit sarcastic).
An enigmatic work. Will definitely re-read.
I have no idea what to say, except that it was wonderful. The experience reminded me of reading Zizek a few years back: after I had finished the book (The Plague of Fantasies) I just couldn't say what the hell it had been about and what it had said about that-mysterious-something, but I nonetheless felt it was a great read.
I guess Uzdavinys' main thesis was that Plato (maybe) pick-and-choose-d parts of Orphic and Egyptian religious doctrine for his own system, or at the least was much influenced by Parmenides who was very much influenced by the Orphics and the Egyptians. All this is very contestable because the little we know of Parmenides, the Orphics, and the Egyptians is fragmentary and inevitably interpreted through a European lens across several millenia. Uzdavinys readily admits this (although I just can't escape the feeling he was being a bit sarcastic).
An enigmatic work. Will definitely re-read.
September 26, 2024
What a ride this has been! It was dense but utterly captivating. There's no doubt for me now that Plato was influenced in some ways by Egyptian religion and that there is continuity between Egypt and the platonic tradition, as some neoplatonists would say. There was so much packed in this book, I'll definitely have to revisit it. This is a good book to start on the subject, even though it presupposes a basic knowledge of different ancient religious views—as well as Greek and Egyptian words—because Uždavinys mentions many interesting sources that we can then investigate for ourselves. This is pretty much my first book dealing with ANE stuff and it made me develop a great interest for more.
February 1, 2021
A short but beautiful book. Scholarly, but also much more than that. I loved it.
July 4, 2022
Behind the dense foliage of references to ancient religion and philosophy may be a well-structured argument, may even be an important advance in our understanding of Orphism and Platonism. In either case, I feel I generally failed in grasping it.
This is a very short book, but that's no slam against it--Tao te ching is a short book. Part of the reason for its brevity, I think, is that Orpheus and the Roots of Platonism does not deploy the kind of exposition that one usually finds in such texts. I suspect Uzdavinys was writing for scholarly peers and readers deep into studies of philosophy and religion in Ancient Greece, for whom a writer like Proclus, to name an example, is already familiar (I had never heard of him).
Although the book may not be aimed at the general reader, there is nothing preventing a reader from checking out Uzdavinys' sources. His meaning is not inaccessible--in a way, the book is a kind of list of the many books (and journal articles) he read in order to write this book.
I did enjoy reading this, and I would have liked it even better if Uzdavinys had written with more contextualization, more detailing of the connections he is making, why those are significant, how they contribute to the point he is making. However, on this reading, the references to unfamiliar texts and religious practices, along with the minimization of discourse on how it all fit together, made the text have the strange kind of energy of a poem I felt that I could almost understand, all the while recognizing that I was lacking the necessary familiarity with the subjects Uzdavinys discusses to fully appreciate what he was saying about them.
Acquired Jan 8, 2021
Powells Books (ordered online)
Review added Jan 27, 2022
This is a very short book, but that's no slam against it--Tao te ching is a short book. Part of the reason for its brevity, I think, is that Orpheus and the Roots of Platonism does not deploy the kind of exposition that one usually finds in such texts. I suspect Uzdavinys was writing for scholarly peers and readers deep into studies of philosophy and religion in Ancient Greece, for whom a writer like Proclus, to name an example, is already familiar (I had never heard of him).
Although the book may not be aimed at the general reader, there is nothing preventing a reader from checking out Uzdavinys' sources. His meaning is not inaccessible--in a way, the book is a kind of list of the many books (and journal articles) he read in order to write this book.
I did enjoy reading this, and I would have liked it even better if Uzdavinys had written with more contextualization, more detailing of the connections he is making, why those are significant, how they contribute to the point he is making. However, on this reading, the references to unfamiliar texts and religious practices, along with the minimization of discourse on how it all fit together, made the text have the strange kind of energy of a poem I felt that I could almost understand, all the while recognizing that I was lacking the necessary familiarity with the subjects Uzdavinys discusses to fully appreciate what he was saying about them.
Acquired Jan 8, 2021
Powells Books (ordered online)
Review added Jan 27, 2022
July 1, 2013
Excellent book. It is short, only 24 short chapters, but it is excellent and shows mastery on the subject. I little bit scholar but straight to the point. A lot of Greek vocabulary and sometimes old Egyptian words. So get ready to learn a little bit of Greek.
Unique work of tracing the roots of some aspects of Plato: the soul, its destiny, and myths associated. Good source to know the current scholar work on Orphism, Hermetism, Phytagoriamism and Plato.
The order of the chapter is a little bit weird, or at least I did not get.
Unique work of tracing the roots of some aspects of Plato: the soul, its destiny, and myths associated. Good source to know the current scholar work on Orphism, Hermetism, Phytagoriamism and Plato.
The order of the chapter is a little bit weird, or at least I did not get.
September 29, 2014
"Perhaps I am the mummy-like jackal who has come from the four corners of Nun and wishes to bark amongst the dogs of Seshat." Algis Uždavinys (1962-2010) was an incredible scholar of classical theurgy and Greek philosophy. While he claimed that with this book he had "nothing else to say," I can't help but feel his insights were congealing into a not quite yet realized but still marvelous synthesis of ancient thought. This monograph is a exposition of philosophy as Orphean madness, what Plato called erotike mania: the desire for the divine banquet and wisdom.
November 26, 2016
A great book, which examines Plato's dialogues from a different perspective or lens, namely, the mystery cults (Orphism) standing or lens.The book also covers other mystery cults and practices, especially those of the Ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, and others. Although the book is a heavy read, it is so informative and enlightening, and it made feel that I want to read more.
July 31, 2020
Theoria apophasis
February 2, 2023
The only flaw is that I have still an appetite for more.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews