CATEGORIES:
BiologyChemistryConstructionCultureEcologyEconomyElectronicsFinanceGeographyHistoryInformaticsLawMathematicsMechanicsMedicineOtherPedagogyPhilosophyPhysicsPolicyPsychologySociologySportTourism
Appendix IV The History of the Allegory of the Cave of the NymphsThe eleven lines of the Odyssey containing the description of the cave dedicated to the nymphs near which Odysseus awakens in Ithaca (Od . 13.102-12) are the subject of the most elaborate surviving example of Neoplatonic allegorical interpretation of Homer. Porphyry states repeatedly in his essay that the interpretation he is presenting is not a new one, giving credit for the core of the exegesis twice to Cronius (De ant . 2,3), once to Numenius (De ant . 10), once to Numenius and his associates (De ant . 34), and once to Numenius and Cronius together (De ant . 21). Furthermore, Porphyry is not the only source permitting us to trace the essentials of the mystical allegory of the cave back to the second-century Neopythagoreans. Proclus, in discussing "How one must conceive the entry of the soul into the body and its departure thence" (
Another major source tapping the same tradition, Macrobius's Commentary on Scipio's Dream , 1.12, probably predates Proclus by a generation, but this elaborate astrological account of the relationship of the soul to the body and the cosmos makes only general reference to Homer.[1] [1] With reference to the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn: has solis portas physici vocaverunt (Macrob. In somn. Scip . 1.12). These physici must include Homer, for both Porphyry and Proclus identify him as the source of the expression (cf. William Harris Stahl's annotated translation of Macrobius's commentary, p. 133, n. 2). Macrobius goes on to attribute the doctrine in question to "the divine wisdom of Homer in the description of the Ithacan cave." ― 319 ― Furthermore, the extent of Macrobius's debt to Numenius has been extremely difficult to assess. Macrobius mentions Numenius by name once in the Saturnalia (Num. fr. 54 = Macrob. Sat . 1.17.65) and once in the Commentary (Num. fr. 55 = Macrob. In somn. Scip . 1.2.19), and it has been evident to all scholars who have examined the problem since the pioneering work of Armand Delatte (Etudes sur la littérature pythagoricienne , p. 129, n. 1) that Macrob. In somn. Scip . 1.12 is to some degree dependent on a tradition going back to Numenius. The extent of the Numenian content and the position and importance of Porphyry as mediator between Numenius and Macrobius are, however, matters of dispute.[2] Jacques Flamant has offered the most recent contribution to the debate, including a very valuable summary of the views of earlier scholars.[3] His interesting conclusion is that Macrobius utilized not the surviving Porphyrian version of the material but another, now lost, from the same author's commentary on the Republic . Porphyry, then, would be the intermediary, but in an unexpected way, and "l'ensemble du chapitre 12, à quelques additions ou interpretations près, peut être attribué à Numénius."[4] Flamant's conclusion is built on Félix Buffière's assertion that Numenius's original exegesis must have been aimed at reconciling the Republic and the Homeric poems,[5] and so would have been utilized by Porphyry when writing on each of these works. Though not absolutely compelling, this argument is sufficiently plausible to serve as a working explanation. [2] [3] Flamant, Macrobe , pp. 546-65. Summary of earlier views in n. 92 on p. 549. The idea of Macrobius's dependence on the lost Republic commentary of Porphyry goes back to Karl Mras, Macrobius' Kommentar zu Ciceros Somnium (1933), cf. Courcelle, Les Lettres grecques en occident , pp. 23-24. [4] Flamant, Macrobe , p. 562. The conclusion is essentially that reached a few years earlier by Herman de Ley, Macrobius and Numenius , esp. p. 63. Pépin ("La Fortune du de antro nympharum de Porphyre en occident," p. 530) rejects this as a conjecture founded on a conjecture and argues plausibly that Macrobius worked directly from the essay on the cave of the nymphs. [5] Buffière, Mythes d'Homère , pp. 442-44; cf. Flamant, Macrobe , p. 552 and n. 105. ― 320 ― The traceable history of the allegory of the cave of the nymphs runs roughly as follows:
It is certainly possible that, had we direct access to the account of Numenius and Cronius, they would provide us with earlier sources. However, in the absence of any reference to this allegory either in Heraclitus or in Ps.-Plutarch, one must respect Buffière's suggestion that the interpretive tradition had not emphasized this passage when those two compendia were compiled.[6] Unfortunately, neither of these two works can be dated with precision.[7] Heraclitus mentions no datable author later than the second century B.C . and Buffière's terminus ante quem of A.D . 100 is based entirely on negative internal evidence—the absence of any mention in Heraclitus of the Pythagorean mystical exegesis current from at least the time of Plutarch. This argument is useless for our purposes because any attempt to use it to date the origin of the cave allegory would invariably lead to circular reasoning. The same is true of Buffière's conclusions regarding a terminus ante quem for Ps.-Plutarch. The absence of mention of the cave of the nymphs and the generally low level of mystical allegory lead Buffière to assert that "à l'époque où elle [sc., La Vie et Poésie d'Homère ] fut rédigée, l'exégèse néopythagoricienne avait à peine pris son essor: sans doute attendait-elle encore la venue de son coryphée, Numénius (iie moitié du second siècle après J.-C.)."[8] Other scholars-no more convincingly, it is true—have argued for dates as late as the third century and even attempted to attribute the work to Porphyry. There is a single further shred of information on the history of the allegorical interpretation of Od . 13.102-12 in the B scholion on Od . 13.103, and it is primarily with this scholion that I wish to deal here. The scholion is fragmentary, the latter parts apparently misplaced from another passage or passages, and reads as follows: [6] Cf. Buffière's comments in his edition of Heraclitus's Homeric Allegories , pp. xxvii-xxix, on the lacuna in Heraclitus's treatment of the Odyssey and on the historical relationship of the two works to the development of the allegory of the cave. [7] Cf. Buffière's comments in his edition of Heraclitus, pp. ix-x, and, on Ps.-Plutarch, in his Mythes d'Homère , pp. 72-77. [8] Buffière, Mythes d'Homère , p. 77. ― 321 ― 103 cave sacred to the nymphs ] The passage is allegorical and says "cave" for world , "nymphs" for souls , "bees" for the same, and "men" for bodies , and the two gates it calls "the exit of bodies" (i.e., birth) and "the entrance of souls," by which nothing at all of corporeal nature enters, but only souls, for they are immortal. Whence it also says "olive tree," whether because of the victor's wreath or because of the that is, the nourishment . . . The reed is a kind of rush. The bushy plant is also a kind of rush [?]. "Inaccessible" is the opposite of "accessible."
, which means "know," is conjugated thus: [a list of forms follows].
.
The obviously corrupt text is given here in its entirety to emphasize the fact that the first portion, cited by Buffière,[9] is not an independent and complete statement. The corrupt portion of the text begins before the scholiast has finished dealing with the description of the cave and its surrounding landscape. Dindorf points out that the first of the two misplaced scholia that follow the second lacuna seems relevant to Od . 5.463, and it is interesting that there is a broad similarity between that passage (Odysseus's arrival on the Phaeacian shore) and the present one. However, the second part of that same scholion explains a word
that does not occur in the Homeric corpus , though it might possibly have some relevance to the latter part of the description of the cave (Od . 13.109-12). Building his argument on the first part of the scholion, Buffière deduced the existence of an earlier exegesis of the cave passage, antedating and in some ways anticipating Numenius,[10] an interpretation with elements both of a Platonic model of the cosmos, in which souls pass underground after death, and of the later allegory given full exposition by Porphyry. Buffière was not the first to see in this scholion evidence for an inde- [9] Ibid., p. 449 and n. 42. [10] Ibid., pp. 449-53. ― 322 ― pendent tradition of allegorical interpretation of the passage. In 1915, Armand Delatte made the same assumption and went on to suggest that one might trace the interpretation to the school of Philolaus,[11] the Pythagorean contemporary of Socrates. The same scholar believed that Theagenes of Rhegium (fl. 525 B.C .) showed Pythagorean influence, and hence that the earliest surviving traces of allegorical interpretation could be' brought under the general rubric of Pythagoreanism.[12] Buffière has good grounds for rejecting Delatte's theory of a source for the interpretation in the school of Philolaus, but he retains the belief that this fragmentary scholion transmits a pre-Numenian reading of the passage, which he dates (again depending on the silence of Plutarch and Ps.-Plutarch) to the period separating Plutarch from Numenius (roughly A.D . 120-50).[13] But what is the basis for the assumption that this scholion represents an independent interpretation of the passage? If we examine the elements of the scholion one by one, we find that the claim that the cave = the world is consistent with what we find in Porphyry, as are the claims that the nymphs = souls and that the bees = souls. That the word "men" is said to refer to "bodies" is perhaps more properly Homeric than Pythagorean and recalls the usage of Iliad 1.3-4, where the "souls" of the dead heroes are described as going to Hades, while "they themselves" (i.e., their corpses) remain on the battlefield. The most serious problem in the scholion arises in the treatment of the "doors" of the cave. The one—clearly that on the north—is described by the scholiast as an "exit of bodies" or "birth," whereas the southern one is an "entrance of souls." The reader is left with the paradox that apparently bodies never enter this world and, even less satisfactorily, souls never leave it. Moreover, it is at this point that the scholiast and Porphyry seem to diverge. Buffière's solution is to claim that the scholiast "se place dans la perspective de l'autre monde."[14] The northern gate remains that of birth, and the "bodies" are said to "exit" because they are in fact infant, embodied souls leaving the Platonic underworld to reenter this world. This explanation has at least the merit of recognizing the problem posed by the apparent reversal of "entrance" and "exit," but it is hardly a satisfy- [11] Delatte, Littérature pythagoricienne , p. 130. See also Burkert, Lore and Science , p. 367, n. 94. [12] Delatte, Littérature pythagoricienne , p. 130; cf. Burkert, Lore and Science , p. 297, n. 67, and Detienne, Homère, Hésiode, et Pythagore , p. 67, n. 2. [13] Buffière, Mythes d'Homère , p. 452, n. 46. [14] Ibid., p. 450. Cf. Delatte, Littérature pythagoricienne , pp. 129-30. ― 323 ― ing solution, particularly in view of the word
at Od . 13.110, applied to the northern gate. If this scholion in fact retains the world-model of Plato, and specifically of the myth of Er, how then can the infant souls "descend" from the underworld? Buffière's conclusion seems to depend upon complete dissociation of the scholion from the text upon which it comments. Were the north gate not explicitly a "path down" or "descent" into the cave, it would be easy to believe that the scholiast imagined souls "exiting" from the underworld by it to enter their lives on the surface of the world. In view of the wording of the passage, however, it seems impossible to maintain that this was the scholiast's intention. (That the second, or southern, gate is the scholiast's "entrance of souls" is guaranteed by the explanatory phrase, "by which nothing at all of corporeal nature enters, but only souls, for they are immortal," which is a paraphrase of Od . 13.111-12, describing the southern gate.) Homer's text does not tell us whether the southern gate is a "descent" or not, specifying only that the northern one is a downward path. The entire idea that one gate is exclusively an entrance and the other exclusively an exit is foreign to Homer, who seems to be saying simply that men come and go through one hole and gods through the other, though, not at all surprisingly, the description focuses on how men enter the cave and specifies that they do not enter by way of the "more divine" gate. Both the scholiast and Porphyry, however, leave us with the idea that the northern gate is primarily an entrance (for men) and the southern one an exit (for souls, which have left their bodies behind in this world). There is nothing in the scholion, then, that is in obvious and unavoidable contradiction with the ideas transmitted by Porphyry concerning the passage. There is no obvious reason why the scholiast should have described the cave from the opposite perspective from that adopted by Homer, and it is tempting to believe that the words
and
have simply been switched. The scholiast will simply have been misled by the word
in line 112 and turned the "path of immortals" into an entrance.[15] The fragmentary sentence on the olive tree that follows the observations on the cave itself in the scholion refers to one idea present in Porphyry's essay—the olive crown of victory—and seems also to share with Porphyry some sort of observation on the olive tree as a sort of nourishment. Whatever the source of the reversal of the words [15] The account of this aspect of the problem in Porphyry's essay itself is far from clear, and the text has required emendation. See especially De ant . 72.11, and compare the solution of the Buffalo editors. ― 324 ― "entrance" and "exit," it seems clear that this scholion, like many of the B scholia,[16] is close enough to Porphyry that it may in fact be derived from him. Burkert (who does not mention Buffière's work and may have been unaware of his conclusions based on the scholion) has reassessed De-latte's conclusions on the literature of Pythagoreanism and rejects his idea that the B scholion represents an independent tradition of interpretation with the casual remark that "the difference between this and Porphyry is probably a mistake of the scholiast rather than a reflection of an independent tradition."[17] A careful examination of the scholion suggests that such a mistake is very likely, particularly in view of the corruption and disruption of the text and of the possibility that the confusion arises from the Homeric passage itself. The minor, but problematical, divergences between the scholion and Porphyry could, of course, have another meaning: they could, as Delatte and Buffière claimed, represent two independent traditions of interpretation. Even in this case, however, reasons for dating the scholiast's version before that of Numenius are lacking. At some moment in history some commentator—whether Numenius or someone else—must have insisted, for the first time, that the passage was a mystical allegory. Thereafter, any expositor could repeat the idea, often no doubt confusing the details. The frequency of references to Numenius as the source is suggestive, but not conclusive. In the final analysis, it seems more prudent to base a conclusion not on the unresolved conflicts between the scholiast's version and Porphyry's, but rather on the large number of shared elements that the scholiast might have drawn from Porphyry himself or from some other proximal source tapping the tradition of Numenius. If the scholion does indeed represent only a garbled account of the Numenian version of the allegory, then we may conclude that there is no remaining evidence for any interest in the cave of the nymphs on the part of commentators demonstrably anterior to Numenius. It would, in any case, be no surprise to find that this ingenious Neopythagorean and his friend Cronius were the original assemblers of the entire allegory, which touched the imaginations of philosophers and poets from their own contemporaries to William Blake. [16] See Hermann Schrader's comments in Porph. Quaest. hom ., ed. Schrader, vol. 1, pp. 363-68, and also note (p. 86, line 11) his indication that he considered the B scholion on Od . 13-103 to be connected to Porphyry. [17] Burkert, Lore and Science , p. 367, n. 94. ― 325 ― Works Cited Date: 2015-12-17; view: 798
|
