CATEGORIES:
BiologyChemistryConstructionCultureEcologyEconomyElectronicsFinanceGeographyHistoryInformaticsLawMathematicsMechanicsMedicineOtherPedagogyPhilosophyPhysicsPolicyPsychologySociologySportTourism
A. Philo of AlexandriaThe tradition of mystical allegorical commentary on Homer has survived in substantial form only in the writings of the Neoplatonists, but evidence from the first two and a half centuries of the Christian era—before the great synthesis of Plotinus, which marks the beginning of Neoplatonism proper—indicates that this period was a crucial one in the development of that tradition. Félix Buffière's insistence on the second century as the time of the birth of mystical allegory needs qualification, as the discussion of the role of the Pythagoreans has suggested, but this does not alter the fact that Numenius and Cronius, two second-century thinkers, are cited repeatedly as the sources for our earliest surviving essay in this mode, Porphyry's allegory of the cave of the nymphs in the Odyssey . The creative contribution of Numenius and his circle was doubtless substantial, but it in turn must be viewed against the background of developments in textual exegesis in Alexandria—developments concerned not with Homer but with the Hebrew scriptures. It is clearly impossible to do justice to the riches of the Philonic corpus in the context of a study of this sort, and our problem is compounded by the fact that the sources of Philo's own thought, as well as the diffusion of his influence beyond the Jewish and Christian communities, are very imperfectly understood.[1] [1] The standard comprehensive treatment of Philo is still Emile Bréhier, Les Idles philosophiques et religieuses de Philon d'Alexandrie . For useful, brief, up-to-date summaries of his thought, see Henry Chadwick in CHLGEMP, pp. 137-57, and John Dillon, Middle Platonists , pp. 139-83. ― 45 ― Philo's death, ca. A.D . 50, falls at least a century before the floruit of Numenius in the tentative chronology we have adopted for the latter.[2] Clement of Alexandria, who must have been a younger contemporary of Numenius, and Origen the Christian, who, like Plotinus, studied under Ammonius Saccas, both show the influence of Philo.[3] He is dated by his role in a mission to Caligula in 39, which he himself describes and which Josephus, fifty to fifty-five years his junior, likewise mentions,[4] giving an indication that Philo was held in respect in the Alexandrian Jewish community during his own lifetime and that he was remembered as a philosopher a generation later. Philo is known principally for his voluminous allegorical treatises on the Pentateuch, in which many of the habits of reading foreshadowed in the authors already discussed, but not fully developed in pagan contexts for several centuries, are systematically elaborated for the first time. Philo inherits the Stoic tradition of textual exegesis, already thoroughly Platonized, but paradoxically first preserved in substantial form here . The influence of Stoic elements incorporated into a Platonist matrix is perhaps stronger among the Alexandrians than elsewhere—a fact in part traceable to the influence of students of Antiochus of Ascalon, the tremendously influential Stoicizing Platonist who also taught Cicero and Varro.[5] The specifically philosophical content of Philo's work and his overall debt to Stoicism need not concern us here, but one crucial issue—that of etymology—should occupy our attention for a moment. We have seen that there is some reason to accept the idea that the concept of an authoritative bestower of names, who guarantees a vital link between words and the things they designate, may go back to pre-Platonic Pythagorean-ism.[6] Embodied in the Cratylus , at any rate, this idea formed the basis for later Stoic as well as Platonic speculation on etymology—or, more accurately, on syllabic and subsyllabic elements of words as keys to the relationships among words, and so among the things they designate. This powerful analytical tool has already been associated with a Pythagorean
attested by a variety of ancient authors, and that [2] Cf. KP s.v. Philon 10, vol. 4, col. 772, and see ch. 2B, below. [3] Colson and Whitaker in Philo vol. 1, p. xxi; KP vol. 4, cols. 774-75. [4] Joseph. Antiq. Jud . 28.259-60. [5] Dillon, Middle Platonists , pp. 142-45; on Antiochus and his influence, see also pp. 52-106, esp. 61-62. [6] See ch. 1D, above. ― 46 ― same
is echoed repeatedly in Philo.[7] Here, it is Adam who is the "establisher of names" (Gen. 2.19) and thus the analytic tool finds its justification within the work to be analyzed. His assignment of names is described as a "work of wisdom and kingship"
,
, Leg. alleg . 1.66).[9] Implied here, though, is no doubt the idea that Hebrew—which Philo would seem to have known hardly at all[10] —was the language of Adam, and hence the source of all subsequent languages, however far removed after the punishment of the builders of the tower of Babel. This idea surfaces repeatedly in Christian speculation about language and played an important role at least through the time of Isidore of Seville. Before leaving general questions of the relationship of language to reality, mention should be made of a curious passage in Philo's Questions on Genesis (4.117).[11] Here the three basic phonetic building blocks of language-vowels, semivowels, and consonants—are compared respectively to mind, senses, and body, and the relationship of these elements of the human being is analyzed in terms of the relationship of the phonetic components of articulate speech. Although this unusual formula- [7] [8] Boyancé, "Etymologie et théologie chez Varron," pp. 107-15. [9] Dillon, Middle Platonists , pp. 181-82, cites this example. [10] Although most scholars loudly denounce Philo's ignorance of Hebrew, voices have been raised on the other side, most importantly Wolfson's. For a balanced view of the matter, including the significant caution that it is usually Rabbinists who claim that Philo did know Hebrew and Hellenists who claim he did not , see Samuel Sandmel, "Philo's Knowledge of Hebrew: the Present State of the Problem." [11] Dillon calls attention to this passage and points out its interest: Middle Platonists , p. 174, n. 2. ― 47 ― tion would seem to be unique for its time, it foreshadows later Platonists' concern with the macrocosm-microcosm relationship and ultimately with the literary text as microcosm. Philo's exegetic theory and practice have been much discussed by students of Christian hermeneutics as well as by students of Jewish traditions of biblical interpretation.[12] The question of the sources of those techniques remains embroiled in the complexities of the problem of the dating and reliability of our sources on Jewish history and thought in the centuries just before Philo. There is no doubt, however, that Philo saw himself as one interpreter among many—he indicates as much in his many references to other interpreters, with whom he sometimes agrees and sometimes disagrees.[13] It has long been recognized that Philo's allegorical method derives ultimately from Greek thought, and specifically from the Stoic tradition of interpretation, itself eclectic and only fragmentarily attested before Philo's time, but resting primarily on the recognition in texts or myths of three levels of meaning—literal, ethical, and metaphysical.[14] To judge by the Homeric Allegories of Heraclitus, the third level of meaning in Stoic allegories often related not to the status of the soul and its relationship to the body, but rather to cosmology and the structure of the material universe, and we see already in Philo an increased concern with finding in texts a level of meaning having to do with the soul, a concern that is, of course, central to Neoplatonic allegory. By his own testimony, virtually every type of allegory offered by Philo is also, however, to be found among other interpreters of the scriptures known to him—that is, all types, including physical allegories and allegories of the soul, already existed in a Jewish context before Philo.[15] The question here, though, is not one of the ultimate sources of this allegorizing—it is doubtless all Greek and preeminently Stoic in origin—but simply one of date. It would seem that we are on the safest ground if [12] See in particular Jean Pépin in Mythe et allégorie , pp. 216-42, as well as his "Remarques sur la théorie de l'exégèse allégorique chez Philon." Also useful for an overview is Heinrich Dörrie, "Zur Methodik antiker Exegese." Irmgard Christiansen's Die Technik der allegorischen Auslegungswissenschaft bei Philon von Alexandrien offers an unusual and penetrating analysis, which treats allegorizing as "applied Platonic philosophy" (p. 13), exploring among other things the relationship of Philonic exegesis to the analytic techniques developed in Plat's Sophist . [13] For an analysis of these references, see David M. Hay, "Philo's References to Other Allegorists," to which I am indebted here. [14] Dillon, Middle Platonists , p. 142. [15] Hay, "Philo's References to Other Allegorists," esp. pp. 55-61. ― 48 ― we postulate no far-reaching originality of method or approach in Philo, but view him as the principal spokesman of a school of allegorists, a school Jean Pépin is no doubt correct in tracing to an impulse among Hellenizing Jews in Alexandria to give power and prestige to their own tradition and literature in the eyes of their Greek neighbors.[16] The methods and vocabulary of Philo's exegesis are for the most part those of the earlier tradition of Homer commentary. He distinguishes emphatically between literal meaning
and allegorical meanings (
or
).[17] He relies heavily as well on the verb
("hint at," "indicate by means of symbols"), which from the time of Plato and before had been the principal verb used to designate the secondary meanings of texts and myths. Etymology, as already indicated, is broadly applied, especially to the explanation of the meaning of proper names, including toponyms. Philo is decidedly a pluralist, commonly elaborating multiple allegories based on a single passage. It is puzzling to find that in spite of his frequent indications of his concern with, and knowledge of, pagan myth and his application to scripture of techniques unquestionably derivative from pagan exegesis, he nevertheless repeatedly denies that there is a mythic element in scripture. This contradiction—one of many in Philo—must be resolved by careful attention to the purpose of the writings in question. The essay entitled The Confusion of Tongues opens with a unique polemic against certain commentators who reduce scripture to the level of mythic accounts from other cultures—a procedure Philo denounces—and in The Migration of Abraham (89- 93), certain allegorizers who have contempt for the Law are denounced. In spite of this, however, Philo consistently sides with allegorists against literalists (De conf. ling . 14).[18] When it is a question of maintaining the superiority of Judaic over gentile tradition, the
is viewed as empty of meaning and decidedly uncharacteristic of the former, but in less polemical contexts the suggestion is [16] Pépin, Mythe et allégorie , p. 231. [17] [18] Cf. Pépin, "Remarques," pp. 144-46, and Hay, "Philo's References to Other Allegorists," pp. 47-49. ― 49 ― very strong that similar structures of meaning exist in both bodies of traditional literature.[19] Even when the truth of Homeric poetry is treated as dubious or unacceptable, that poetry is seen to have redeeming value. Philo says of the passage at Od . 17.485 describing how the gods travel among men, "This may not be a true song, but it is still advantageous and profitable."[20] Philo's exegesis of scripture as such clearly lies beyond our concerns, but if Philo's substantial surviving works indeed represent the sort of evidence for the hermeneutics of Middle Platonism we have suggested, then given his extensive Greek learning,[21] and his overall receptiveness to Greek culture, we would expect to find here direct evidence for Homeric allegories. Although Philo's references and allusions to Homer are many and his quotations of Homer—generally not identified as such—are frequent,[22] the direct evidence for an allegorical understanding of the passages cited is slight. Most of his citations of Homer are purely rhetorical and decorative, and give little indication of what Philo may have thought the lines meant—if anything—beyond the literal. Nevertheless, as we shall see, the ghosts of familiar and unfamiliar allegories of Homer stand behind many passages of Philo. In Philo's work On Providence we find explicit mention of the multiple levels of meaning in Homer and Hesiod, and of their importance. The context is a dialogue in which Philo's nephew Alexander attacks the idea of providence, and Philo defends it. In the course of his attack, Alexander offers some disparaging remarks about the obscenities and other crimes of Homer and Hesiod, elaborating his position rather colorfully out of commonplaces from Xenophanes and Plato. Philo's response (De prov . 2.40-41)[23] merits quotation in extenso : [19] Cf. Pépin, "Remarques," p. 146. [20] [21] On the extent of his knowledge of Greek literature, see Monique Alexandre, "La Culture profane chez Philon," pp. 107-13. [22] About forty are catalogued in the index of Colin and Wendland's edition of the Works of Philo, but the number of Homeric references is raised to near seventy in the index of the Loeb edition (including supplements). These include, however, a number of Homeric words whose status as actual Homeric echoes is highly questionable. [23] This work survives largely intact only in Armenian, and is usually cited from the translation of that text into Latin published by Aucher in 1822. The translation above began as a translation of that Latin (pp. 75- 76), but Peter Cowe was kind enough to review it for me and to correct it in numerous places with reference to Aucher's Armenian text. To the extent that it faithfully represents the Armenian, the credit is Dr. Cowe's and not mine. He also pointed out to me several points at which the Greek original can be glimpsed through the Armenian. There seems to be no complete translation of the work into English, but Aucher's Latin has been translated into German (see "Works Cited: Ancient Authors"). ― 50 ― Philosopher, as you accuse the whole human race of ignorance on the basis of these things, you fail to realize that this is not the situation at all. For if the fame of Homer and Hesiod extends throughout the world, then the cause is the ideas contained in the events [sententiae sub rebus comprehensae ], events of which there have been many re-counters [enarratores ] who wondered at them, and that were objects of wonder in their own time and remain so down to the present day. If they nevertheless seem to have offended in some passages, one should not blame them for this, but rather sing their praises for the great number of excellent ones with which they have produced benefit for life. . . . I pass over the fact that the mythical element in poetry that you were just talking about contains no blasphemy against the gods, but is rather an indication of the allegorical meaning contained therein [indicium inclusae physiologiae ]. Its mysteries must not be laid bare before the uninitiated, but in passing I shall give you a demonstration by way of example of some things that in some people's view are fabricated and fictitious, insofar as it is possible to establish a thesis according to the law, respecting at the same time the rule that it is not allowed that the mysteries be revealed to the uninitiated.[24] If you apply the mythical story of Hephaestus to fire, and the account of Hera to air, and what is said about Hermes to reason, and in the same way that which is said of the others, following in order, in their theology, then in fact you will become a praiser of the poets you have just been condemning, so that you will realize that they alone have glorified the divine in a seemly manner. While you did not accept the principles of the allegories or hidden meanings [regulas allegoriae aut sententiarum ],[25] then the same happened to you as to boys who out of ignorance pass by the paintings on boards
of Apelles and are attached to the images stamped on little coins
—they admire the laughable and scorn that which deserves general acceptance. [24][25] ― 51 ― This passage leaves little doubt that Philo was well acquainted with the standard Stoic allegories of Homeric myth, and of Greek myth in general. He clearly respected Homer not only as a poet,[26] but as a theologian as well. In The Decalogue (56), allegories of this sort are viewed from another perspective as mistaken deifications of parts of the material world (air becoming Hera, fire Hephaestus, and the hemispheres the
of the Dioscuri). This striking reversal again illustrates the multiple perspectives Philo adopts toward the complex levels of meaning in Greek myth. Likewise, again in the dialogue On Providence (2.66) when Alexander denounces the theological message of the claim that the brutal Cyclopes live at ease "trusting in the immortal gods," Philo responds that the Cyclopes are nothing but a mythical fabrication
and then bursts into a hymn of praise for Greece, whose poor soil bore such rich intellects. The vast majority of the Homeric words and phrases used by Philo are little more than poetic embellishments of the text. In discussing Numenius, we shall take time to look in more detail at this sort of use of Homer, which clearly was felt to be thoroughly compatible with allegorizing and with extraordinary claims for the meaning of the text. Setting aside such references in Philo, we are left with a small, but significant, sample of Homer citations that do bring along with them interesting claims regarding the meaning of the poems. At only two points in the corpus of Philo have I found the claim that Homer "hints at"
some meaning beyond the obvious. He hints at the doctrine that the pursuit of wealth is antithetical to virtue in his description of the virtuous Thracians (Il . 13.6-7; De vit. cont . 17), and, in describing Skylla as an
, he hints that in fact it is folly
that is an "undying evil" (Quod det. pot. insid. sol . 178). This last phrase is evoked in two other passages as well,[27] always to complement discussion of the mark of Cain, by which an evil (Cain) was saved from death. In general, however, Philo systematically applies Homeric phrases to a broader context than we would assume the poet intended and thus extends their meaning beyond the obvious. Once (Quod omn. prob . 31), Philo's language implies that this procedure is implicit in the structure of [26] [27] De fug. et inv . 61; Quaest. in Gen . 1.76. ― 52 ― meaning of the poems. Homer calls kings "shepherds of the people," but "nature more specifically applies the title to the good"
.
in Philo is used to designate the allegorical level of meaning of texts, and what Philo describes here is probably the process by which the world impinges on the text and recreates the context of its meaning. Significantly, the same Homeric phrase is taken up elsewhere (De Jos . 2) and said to be an indication that Homer believed shepherding to be good training for kingship. A number of other Homeric phrases are transposed to new contexts. In the essay On Providence (2.3), the phrase
is praised as illustrating the triple analogy, father:children::king:city::God:world. Similarly, when Homer says "let there be one king" (
, Il . 2.204), what he says is more appropriate to describing the relationship of God to the world (De conf. ling . 170); and when Homer says (of the Sun) that he sees and hears all (Il . 3.277, etc.), Philo, without comment on its original application, takes up the phrase and applies it to God (De Jos . 265). References of this sort are marginal in their evocation of an extended meaning within the poem itself, but anticipate the spiritualization of Homeric phrases in Plotinus—as does Philo's use of Od . 4.392 (from Eidothea's advice to Menelaus that Proteus can tell him Whatever good and bad has been done at home
to refer to self-contemplation (once by the
), with the goal of self-knowledge (De migr . 195; De somn . 1.57). A few other passages evoke Homeric allegories known from other sources. In The Eternity of the World (127), citing the Homeric epithet
("lame") for Hephaestus, Philo echoes an allegory (also recorded in the scholia and traced by the scholiast to Heraclitus) that distinguished a celestial and a terrestrial ("lame") fire, the latter requiring fuel in contrast to the former. In Questions on' Genesis (3.3), the Sirens are equated with the music of the spheres—an allegory clearly representing the conflation of Homeric and Platonic myth. In the same work, the Homeric division of the world into three parts (Il . 15.189) is juxtaposed with the Pythagoreans' assertion that the triad is the foundation of the being of this sublunary world
(Quaest. in Gen . 4.8). The most interesting Homeric allegories in Philo, however, are un- ― 53 ― doubtedly those that lie just below the surface of his text. The suggestion has been made that several references in Philo to the (Stoic)
as the cupbearer of God (e.g., De somn . 2.249) mask an otherwise unattested allegory that equated Ganymede with the
.[28] There are also a number of passages suggesting that the allegorized Odysseus was known to Philo. In a passage in the essay On Dreams (2.70), Adam is said to have doomed himself to death by preferring the dyad (the created world symbolized by the tree) to the monad, here identified with the Creator. Philo then turns from description to prescription: "But as for yourself, pass 'out of the smoke and wave' [Od . 12.219] and flee the ridiculous concerns of mortal life as you would that frightful Charybdis and do not touch it even with the tip of your toe (as the saying is)."[29] This can, of course, be read as a simple decorative elaboration, importing Homeric language and myth to enliven the injunction. As we shall see in discussing Numenius, however, there exists in Middle Platonism a developed allegory of Odysseus as rational man passing through the created sublunary universe
and returning to his celestial home. This theme is never explicitly tied to the Odysseus story in Philo, but passages such as the one just quoted strongly suggest that he was well acquainted with such an understanding of the Odyssey .[30] The influence of Philo on the Alexandrian Christian Platonists, represented by Clement and Origen, is undeniable, and only the extent and importance of that influence are matters of dispute. Outside the Jewish and Christian communities, however, the influence of Philo has never been convincingly demonstrated. It nevertheless seems almost inconceivable that the walls between these intellectual communities should have been so high, or that a thinker such as Porphyry, who studied Christianity in order to combat it, should have ignored a thinker who from our perspective looms as large as Philo. Whatever the extent of his influence, however, Philo is of use to us primarily in that he receives the major intellectual currents of Middle Platonism and preserves an other- [28] This idea belongs to John Dillon, who supports it convincingly in "Ganymede as the Logos: Traces of a Forgotten Allegorization in Philo?" [29] [30] See Pierre Boyancé, "Echo des exégèses de la mythologie grecque chez Philon, " pp. 169-73. In the same article, Boyancé pursues submerged evidence in Philo for several other Middle Platonic interpretive ideas, but the other material is not specifically Homeric. ― 54 ― wise unattested phase of that intellectual trend. That he passed these concerns on to his Christian compatriots may well have had a decisive effect on the history of Christian hermeneutics. That we are unable to determine whether later pagan Platonists so much as read him may be taken as an indication of a failure of communication of central importance to the intellectual history of late antiquity.[31] B. Numenius Date: 2015-12-17; view: 669
|
