We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Students of later Platonism know well the significant role Porphyry played in the development of what we now call Neoplatonism. His own biography of Plotinus makes clear that we probably owe the very existence of the majority of Plotinus' written works to Porphyry's nagging. Having cajoled the master into penning a large number of works during his latter years, Porphyry then edited and published them, giving them the title Enneads which they have since borne. We must, of course, take Porphyry's claims regarding the importance of his own influence with a grain of salt. Still, with the sole exception of Plato himself, no figure in the Platonic tradition had ever enjoyed Plotinus' good fortune in the transmission of his complete works, and none would again, for which we clearly have Porphyry to thank.
1 His influence, particularly in the West, has been documented by Courcelle, P., Les lettres grecques en Occident (Paris, 1948)Google Scholar. On the history of the term ‘Neoplatonism’, see Döme, Heinrich, Der Platonismus in der Antike, vol. I (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt, 1987), p. 44Google Scholar.
2 Porphyry, , Vita Plotini 5–6Google Scholar; in ch. 18, Porphyry tells us that he inspired ‘Amelius too’ to write.
3 On some of these, those regarding the soul, see Smith, Andrew, Porphyry's Place in the Neoplatonic Tradition. A study in post-Plotinian Neoplatonism (The Hague, 1974)Google Scholar. See also Wallis, R. T., Neoplatonism (London, 1972), pp. 94–118Google Scholar.
4 Porphyrii Philosophi Fragmenta, Smith, Andrew (ed.), (Stuttgart/Leipzig, 1993)Google Scholar.
5 Smith expressed his intention in the preface to the work cited in note 3.
6 Information on the modern editions of the extant works can be found in Smith (note 4) under the individual titles.
7 Römer, Cornelia. Schriftproben eines christlichen Schreibers. Kölner Papyri Band 4 (Opladen, 1982), pp. 98–104Google Scholar.
8 Pp. 101–3 of the article cited in note 7.
9 Bentley's celebrated Epistula was first published as an appendix to Joannis Antocheni cognomento Malulae Historia Chronica cum interpret, et notis Edrn. Chilmeadi (Oxford, 1691)Google Scholar, in which it is independently paginated. It was reprinted in Dindorf's, Ludwig edition (Ioannis Malalae Chronographia [Bonn, 1831]) on pages 677–755 and in vol 2Google Scholar of Dyce's, Alexanderedition (London, 1836Google Scholar, repr. by Olms, Hildesheim, 1971) of Bentley's collected works on pp. 239–368 (i quote the page numbers of this edition). To commemorate the three hundredth anniversary of Bentley's birth, the University of Toronto Press published a reprint, edited by George Goold, and Goold's introduction (pp. 7–24), as well as his Cambridge address commemorating the same occasion, published in HSCP 67 (1963), 285–302Google Scholar, are a good source of information regarding the contents of the letter and the circumstances which occasioned it. See now also Brink, C. O., English Classical Scholarship (Cambridge, 1986), pp. 42–49Google Scholar.
10 Merkelbach, Reinhold, ‘Weibe KNAZBI-Milch (Zu Thespis 1 F 4 Snell)’, ZPE61 (1985), 293–6Google Scholar.
11 Merkelbach (note 10), p. 296 n. 13.
12 It is a pleasure once again to be able to thank Prof. Jonathan Barnes for making possible my stay in Oxford that led to this discovery.
13 The manuscript is described by Alpers, Klaus, Theognostos Περί ρθογραϕίας: Überlieferung, Quellen und Text der Kanones, 1–84 (Hamburg, 1964), p. 4ff.Google Scholar: Eleuteri, Paolo, Storia della tradizione manoscritta di Museo (Pisa, 1981), pp. 3–5Google Scholar (with further literature) and especially Callanan, Christopher K. and Malgarini, Alessandra Bertini, ‘Übersehene Favorin-Fragmente aus einer Oxforder Handschrift’, RhM 129 (1986), 170–72Google Scholar (with full bibliography). I will repeat only the most important points in the present article.
14 On the date see Callanan/Bertini (n. 13), p. 170 n. 5. Paul Maas first dated the codex to the first half of the 10th C, whereas Coxe in the catalogue of the Greek manuscripts in the Bodleian gave the 11th Wilson, C. Nigel has recently (Scholars of Byzantium [London, 1983], p. 137)Google Scholar said that the MS. ‘may be as early as c. 925’.
15 On this see Callanan/Bertini (n. 13) p. 171–2.
16 In the following edition all emendations not otherwise attributed are due to Bentley.
17 Suda IV 178,21 = Porph., Fr. 272T. Smith, p. 308.
18 In such contexts, this verb would be unusual anyway, as verbs meaning ‘signify’ are generally used.
19 Much of the relevant passage is quoted below, pp. 223ff.
20 That is, it has e.g. at line 11: τò δ χθὑ πτής.
21 The passage is quoted in note 54. Although in ancient etymologies, almost any other letter can be ignored, the first letter of the word is generally considered vital. It is certainly not impossible that the position of the χ should have been changed at some point by a scribe who had learned the formula with the other word division, and only natural that the same scribe would have changed the text accordingly within the entire discussion, which would meet Bentley's argument mentioned above, as Bentley objected only to an accidental change in the text, not a deliberate one.
22 In the article cited in note 10, p. 293 n. 4.1 hesitate to attach much weight to this argument, as the formula clearly begins, if not a word, at least a syllable, with ζβ, as is also done in a final example given by Clement at 49, 1, the last word of which is ζβυχθηδóν.
23 πίκειμαι was used both with dative and with πί+dat, but also with πί+ genitive (codd. at Hdt. 7.6; PTeb 50.6 [ii BCE]; Corp. Herm. 1.13), just as the corresponding active πιτιθναι was also used with πί + gen. (Hdt. 2.121.δ) in addition to the more usual dative.
24 More on this below, p. 225.
26 See Roscher, , Mythologisches Lexikon, Vol. 6, coll. 971–2Google Scholar.
26 Haebler, in RE s.v. Capricornus, p. 1550Google Scholar, citing Jensen, P., Die Kosmologie der Babylonier (1890), p. 76ff. and 313fGoogle Scholar.
27 See Roscher, , Mythologisches Lexikon, Vol. 6, coll. 926–7Google Scholar.
28 We find a very similar virtual compound at Athenaeus, , Deipnosoph. 8,5,332dGoogle Scholar:τῷ καλουμνῳ τρáγῳ ίχθυδίῳ.
29 ‘The father of the promiscuously-feeding kid and a reckless fish have pressed their heads together closely; but when their eyes catch sight of the child of night, they refuse to nurse the ox-slaying servant of prince Dionysus’: the translation of Gulick, Charles B. in the Loeb Athenaeus (London and New York, 1930), vol. 7, pp. 569–71Google Scholar.
30 On this question see Reitzenstein, Richard, Epigramm und Skolion. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der alexandrinischen Dichtung (Giessen, 1893), pp. 117–18Google Scholar.
31 See note 17.
32 The fragments have been collected by G. Wolff (Berlin, 1856) and now by Andrew Smith (note 4), pp. 351–407, frr. 303–50.1 do not mean to imply that this work dealt exclusively with Delphic oracles.
33 More on all these details in RE s.v. Delphoi, p. 2526.
34 Richter, Will in RE s.v. Ziege, p. 426Google Scholar; ancient testimony is collected by Wernicke, , RE s.v. Apollon, p. 111Google Scholar.
35 Pausanias X 16,5; IGA LVII 89.
36 Richter, Will in RE s.v. Ziege, p. 426Google Scholar.
37 On the meaning of κνηκóς et sim. see Gow on Theocr., Id. 3, 5. Bentley's Bουκολικοίς in line 6 is certainly attractive, but may well be a n improvement o n the author himself.
38 Cf. ϕλελóμενος (τῷ) ἔρωτι Chariton 2, 3, 8; 8, 8, 7. Both the dative andn ὑπó are common: for ὑπó cf. e.g. Philo, , De ebr. 95, 1Google Scholar: ὑπ᾽ οἲνου Legat. 125, 5: Hal., Dion., Antiqu. Rom. 9, 66, 3; 11, 28, 5Google Scholar.
39 E.g. Varro, , De re rustica II 3, 9Google Scholar; , Verg., Georg. II 526, IV 10Google Scholar; Horace, , carm. III 13, 4fGoogle Scholar. Many further passages are offered by Richter, Will in RE s.v. Ziege, p. 407 and p. 421Google Scholar.
40 Varro, , De re rustica II 3, 5Google Scholar; Pliny, , NH VIII 202Google Scholar.
41 On Archelaus see RE II, 1896 (Reitzenstein), col. 453Google Scholar.
42 ‘And wild goats have a slender channel for the breath right through the teeth between the horns, whence again the channel goes straight to the very heart and lungs. If one pours wax about the horns of the wild goat, he blocks the paths of its life and the channels of its breath.’ The translation is that of Mair, A. W. in the Loeb Classical Library (London, 1928)Google Scholar.
43 The evidence of Aristotle concerning Alcmaion seems to me ambiguous on this point.
44 Bentley too glossed the word with ‘obturere’.
45 Hesychius s.v. σϕáλιξεν (ε 6435 Latte): σϕαλòς γàρ δεσμóς.
46 τò πδαις δσαι according to Photius, Lexicon, s.v. σϕήλιζεν (I 22, 13 Porson).
47 See Lampe, , A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford 1961) s. wGoogle Scholar.
48 See page p. 218, no. 5.
49 In the edition of Stählin, , Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte, Clemens Alexandrinus, Zweiter Band (Berlin, 1960 3)Google Scholar.
50 Christ conjectured Ἀθηναῖος, Koetschau Κυρηναῑος.
51 48, 4, p. 359, 5: κáεργον καί καργαν. For the compound referring to Artemis, see Aristophanes, , Th. 972Google Scholar.
52 48, 5, p. 359, 6: πφαλλεν δ ὡς είπεῖν λαóς.
53 Fr. 194, 28–31 (vol. I, p. 179) Pfeiffer.
54 48, 6, p. 359, 8–9: κναξζβί δ κατà παραγωγν νóσος παρà τò κναίειν καί διαϕθείρειν, θφαί τε τò κεραυνῷ ϕλξαι.
55 The MS. of Clement has διαϕρειν.
56 Note 10, p. 295: ‘die Bestandteile der alphabetischen Formel… werden aber jeweils so deutlich glossiert, daβ kein Hörer miβverstehen konnte, welchen Sinn der spielende Dichter diesen scheinbaren Wörtern zuteilte.’
57 In the same way, the explanations of Clement and Porphyry sometimes offer no explanation for part of the formula: e.g. Porphyry, lines 10–12, ignores, as far as we can see, ϕλεγμώ.
58 πεπηγòς γáλα = ‘cheese’: v. LSJ s.v. πήγνυμι III.
59 Ephes. 4, 13, είς μτρον λικίας, cited by Clement on p. 360, 1–2.
60 Hesychius a 5818 Latte.
61 Eliae (olim Davidis) in Aristotelis categorias commentarium, 189, 18.
82 Vita Plot. 23: cf. Vita Pythagorae, 46: ϕιλοσοϕίαν δ᾽ ϕιλοσóϕησεν ἦς ò σκοπòς Ṗύσασθαι καί δίελερσαι…
63 In Aristotelis categorias 4, 1, p. 60, 1: Ἀλλ᾽ οὔτε εριττεύων οὔτε πιλγελησμνος το σκοποȗ περί τούτου ποιεῖται πρτον λóγον…
64 Suda, s.v. Κντρων, κ 1344:Google Scholar ὡσαύτως καί λγους κ διαϕóρων συνειλελμνους καί ἔνα σκοπòν παρτίζοντας [scil. καλοσι κντρωνας‘. οἶá ིίσι τà Ὁμηρóκεντρα.
65 Cf. Didymi Chalcenteri grammatici Alexandrini Fragmenta Quae Supersunt, ed. Mauritius, (Moriz) Schmidt (Leipzig, 1854)Google Scholar: Συμποσιακá Fr. 9. Concerning this particular fragment, see also RE (Leopold Cohn) Didymos, s.v. [8], pp. 469–70Google Scholar.
66 See οἳ μν… μαθς δξαντο (41, 2, p. 357, 23–4); οὐκ νγνωσαν δ᾽ οὖτοι (48, l, p. 358,11).
67 Didymus Chalc. apud Clem. Al, ., Strom. 47, 2, p. 357, 23–4Google Scholar.
68 Didymus Chalc. apud Clem. Al, ., Strom. 47, 6, p. 358, 9Google Scholar: χθὼ ν δ γ εἰς μγεθος κεχυμνη.
69 Plut, ., De Is. et Os. 48Google Scholar, 370D = DK 31 B 18. Aristotle, without explicitly stating that this was Empedocles' usage, often uses ϕιλία in reporting Empedocles' views: see the passages in Bonitz, H., Index Aristotelicus (Berlin, 1870), p. 819a26–30Google Scholar.
70 On the workings of (ϕιλóτης, see above all DK 31 B 17 and Barnes, Jonathan, The Presocratic Philosophers (London and New York, 1982 2), pp. 308–10Google Scholar.
71 See the table of ‘Terms used by Empedocles for the four roots’ in Wright, M.R., Empedocles: The Extant Fragments (New Haven and London, 1981), p. 23Google Scholar.
72 See esp. Plutarch, , De amic. multit. 5, p. 95AGoogle Scholar = DK31 B 33: ἔ μν γàρ [scil. ϕιλία] συνáγει καί συνίστησɩ καί συνχει καταπυκνοσα ταῖς μιλίαɩς ‘ὡς δ᾽ τ’πòς γáλα λευκòν γóμϕωσεν καί ἕδησε᾽. Could it be the mention of γáλα λευκóν that led Porphyry to connect the βδυ ζáφ-formula with the philosophy of Empedocles?
73 On Porphyry's relationship to Empedocles, see Altheim, F. and Stiehl, R., Porphyrios und Empedokles (Tübingen, 1954)Google Scholar.
74 A fact already noted by Bentley without the aid of modern handbooks.
75 Cf. also Porphyry, , De abstinentia, 1, 26, 17Google Scholar.
76 Theophrastos' Schrift iiber die Frommigkeit (Berlin, 1866), 10ff.; 141fGoogle Scholar.
77 On him see Brzeska, , RE IV, Stuttgart 1901Google Scholar, s.v. Clodius (13), col. 66–7. Brzeska himself seems somewhat sceptical about Bernays' suggestion, which he mentions without comment.
78 Bouffartigue, , Jean, and Patillon, , Porphyre, Michel.De tabstinence. Tome I (Paris, 1977), p. 25Google Scholar: ‘Le rapprochement avec Sextus Clodius, rheteur sicilien…a tres heureusement t fait par J. Bernays.’
79 Suetonius, , De gramm. et rhet. p. 99 RflschGoogle Scholar.
80 I have ventured to change the MS. forms εραμεν (line 14) and ρμήνευσεν (lines 17 and 19) in the text to bring them into line with Porphyry's usage in his extant works.
81 The title attested in the Suda IV 178, 15 = Porph., Fr. 231T, p. 253 Smith.
82 Proclus, , Theol. Plat. I 11 p. 51Google Scholar, 4–11 = Porph., Fr. 232F, p. 253 Smith.
83 Porph., Fr. 422T and 422aT, p. 492 Smith.
84 Bentley (note 9), p. 301: ‘Videlicet erat olim ridicula etpuerilis ratio; ut ex quatuor et viginti literis, semel duntaxat positis singulis, barbara quaedam et infaceta verba conficerent, prout diuque libitum fuerit’.
85 Lobeck, Christian August, Paralipomena grammaticae Graecae. Pars Prior (Leipzig, 1837), p. 118 n. 45Google Scholar.
86 ‘quo absolutius osfieret et expressior sermo’: cf. the following footnote.
87 Quintilian 1, 1, 37: ‘non alienum fuerit exigere ab his aetatibus, quo sit absolutius os et expressior sermo, ut nomina quaedam versusque affectatae difficultatis ex pluribus et asperrime coeuntibus inter se syllabis concatenatos et veluti confragosos quam citatissime volvant (χαλινοί Graece vocantur)’.
88 Dornseiff, , Franz, , Das Alphabet in Mystik undMagie [ΣTOIXEIA: Studien zur Geschichte des antiken Weltbildes und der griechischen Wissenschaft, hrsg.Boll, von Franz, Heft, VII] (Leipzig, 1925 2:Google Scholar repr. Zentralantiquariat der DDR, Leipzig 1975), p. 70.
89 Römer (note 7), p. 101.
90 Römer (note 7), p. 101: ‘Natürlich waren diese Spruche dann auch für Schreibübungen sehr beliebt.’
91 Cl. , Alex., Strom. V 8, 49, 1, p. 360, 3–4:Google Scholar λλá καί τρίτος ὑπογπαμμòς φπεται παιδικóς' ‘ππτε, σφíγξ, κλὡ, ζβνχθηδóν’.
92 See above, p. 224.
93 Merkelbach (note 10), pp. 294–5.
94 Crusius, O. ‘Lobon und seine Verwandten’, Philologus 80 (1925), 176–91 (esp. 190)Google Scholar.
95 Lobeck, , Paralipomena (see note 85) p. 118 n. 45Google Scholar.
96 See above, p. 224.
97 See on this e.g. Dörrie, Heinrich, ‘die Wertung der Barbaren im Urteil der Griechen. Knechtsnaturen? Oder Bewahrer und Kiinder heilbringender Weisheit?’ in: Stiehl, Ruth and Lehmann, Gustav Adolf (eds.), Antike und Universalgeschichte. Festschrift Hans Erich Stier (Munster, Westfalen, 1972), pp. 146–75Google Scholar, esp. 166–7: ‘Vieleeinst alien verstandliche AuBerungen des Logos sind nun sozusagen versteinert; sie finden sich noch in Rechts-Satzungen und in kultischen Brauchen, in Riten und Mysterien. Der Philosoph kann und soil solche Phanomene aufspuren, in denen keimhaft… noch immer etwas vom alten Logos erkennbar ist.’ Cf. also Dorrie, , Der Platonismus in der Antike (note 1), vol. I, pp. 27–8Google Scholar.
98 Cf. Plutarch's interpretations of an Egyptian, ritual at De Is. et Os. 7Google Scholar, 353D and 32, 363D, where the surface meaning, τó πρóχειρον, is contrasted with a deeper understanding, τó ϕιλοσοϕώτερον. This distinction is common in later commentaries on Plato. Others, too, are frequently found. For example, Hermeias, , In Phaedrum, p. 15Google Scholar, 11–16, 12 Couvreur, offers at least three separate valid interpretations of one brief passage, λογικς, ἠθικς, and φνςικς.
99 Clement introduces the lengthy section in which he eventually discusses κνααξξβí and βδν ζ with the comment that Egyptian and other non-Greek philosophers have zealously pursued τò δνμβολικòν εíδος (Strom. V 8, 44, 1; cf. V 8, 46, 1).
100 See also Hirschle, Maurus, Sprachphilosophie und Namenmagie im Neuplatonismus [Beiträge zur Klassischen Philologie, 96] (Meisenheim am Glan, 1976)Google Scholar.
