Porphyry and ‘Neopythagorean’ Exegesis in Cave of the Nymphs and Elsewhere

in Méthexis
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

Porphyry’s position in the ancient hermeneutic tradition should be considered separately from his place in the Platonic tradition. He shows considerable respect for allegorizing interpreters with links to Pythagoreanism, particularly Numenius and Cronius, prominent sources in On the Cave of the Nymphs. The language of Homer’s Cave passage is demonstrably distinctive, resembling the Shield passage in the Iliad, and such as to suggest an ecphrasis to early imperial readers. Ecphrasis in turn suggested deeper significance for the story. While largely content to follow Numenian trends in interpreting Homer’s cave symbolically and in relation to multiple belief-systems, Porphyry shows occasionally signs of wanting to adhere more closely to Homeric evidence, resorting to symbolic interpretation mainly when no more straightforward truth is on offer.

Porphyry and ‘Neopythagorean’ Exegesis in Cave of the Nymphs and Elsewhere

in Méthexis

Sections

References

Athanassiadi P. 2018. ‘Numenius: Portrait of a Platonicus ’. In Tarrant H. Layne D.A. Baltzly D. and Renaud F. (eds) Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity. LeidenBrill: 183205.

Atkinson M . 1993. Plotinus Ennead V.1: On the three principal Hypostases: a commentary with translation . OxfordOxford University Press.

Bartsch S. 1989. Decoding the Ancient Novel: The Reader and the Role of Description in Heliodorus and Achilles Tatius. PrincetonPrinceton University Press.

Centrone B. 2000. ‘Cosa significa essere pitagorico in età imperiale. Per una riconsiderazione della categoria storiografica del neopitagorismo’. In Brancacci A. (ed.) La filosofia in età imperialeNaplesBibliopolis: 13768.

Centrone B. 2015. ‘Medioplatonismo e neopithagorismo: un confronto difficile’. Rivista di storia della filosofia70: 399423.

Centrone B. and Macris C. 2005. ‘Moderatus de Gadès’ in Goulet R. (ed.) Dictionnaire des philosophes antiquesivPariscnrs: 5458.

D’Ancona C. 2012. ‘Traditions du platonisme et du pythagorisme du 1er s. av. J.-C. au IIe s. ap. J.-C.’. In ‘Plotin’ Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques Va Paris cnrs: 963972.

Dillon J. 2014. ‘Pythagoreanism in the Academic tradition: the Early Academy to Numenius’ in Huffman C.A. (ed.) A History of Pythagoreanism. Cambridge–New YorkCambridge University Press: 25073.

Dodds E.R. 1928. ‘The Parmenides of Plato and the Neoplatonic One’. cq 22: 12942.

Edwards M. 2010. ‘Numenius of Apamea’ In Gerson L. (ed.) The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late AntiquityCambridgeCambridge University Press: 11525.

Edwards M. 2006. Culture and Philosophy in the Age of Plotinus. London.

Follet S. Goulet R. and Chase M. 2016. ‘Thrasyllos’. Dictionnaire des philosophes antiquesvi Paris cnrs: 11501172.

Frede M. 1987. ‘Numenius’. anrw ii36.2: 103475.

Hamon P. 2004. ‘What is Description?’ In Bal M . Narrative Theory: Critical Concepts in Literary and Cultural Studies Vol. 1. Taylor & FrancisLondon: 309340.

Lord A.B. 1962. ‘Homer and Other Epic Poetry.’ In Wace A.J.B. and Stubbings F.H. A Companion to Homer. MacmillanLondon: 179214.

MacPhail J.A. 2011. Porphyry’s Homeric Questions on the Iliad: Text translation commentary. Berlinde Gruyter.

Menn S. 2001. ‘Longinus on Plotinus’. Dionysius 19: 113124.

Parry M. 1933. ‘The Traditional Metaphor in Homer’. Classical Philology 28: 3043.

Porphyrii. in Platonis Timaeum Fragmentacollegit et disposuit A.R. Sodano. Napoli Istituto della Stampa1964.

Philosophi Porphyrii . Fragmenta edidit A. Smith. Stuttgart, Teubner1993.

Sedley D. 2009. “A Thrasyllan Interpretation of Plato’s Theaetetus. POxy 73: 6571.

Segal C. 1988. Aglaia: The Poetry of Alcman Sappho Pindar Bacchylides and Corinna. LondonRowman & Littlefield.

Stover J. 2016. A New Work by Apuleius: the lost Third Book of the De Platone. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tarrant H. 1993. Thrasyllan Platonism. IthacaCornell University Press.

Tarrant H. 2007. Proclus: Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus vol. 1. CambridgeCambridge University Press.

Tarrant H. 2014. ‘The Many-Voiced Socrates: Neoplatonist Sensitivity to Socrates’ Change of Register’. In Layne Danielle A. and Tarrant Harold (eds) The Neoplatonic Socrates. University Park paPenn Press: 14366.

Tarrant H. 2015. ‘The Phaedo in Numenian allegorical Interpretation’. In Gavray M.-A. d’Hoine P. and Delcomminette S. Ancient Readings of Plato’s Phaedo. BrillLeiden: 13453.

Whittaker J. 1994. ‘Cronios’. In Dictionnaire des philosophes antiquesii Paris cnrs: 5289.

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 57 57 7
Full Text Views 14 14 12
PDF Downloads 10 10 5
EPUB Downloads 2 2 2