On Symbols and Symbolism in Porphyry’s Treatise On Statues (Peri agalmatōn)

Kurdybaylo, Dmitry S.

doi:10.31857/S004287440001158-8

English

Home>Issue 10>On Symbols and Symbolism in Porphyry’s Treatise On Statues (Peri agalmatōn)

On Symbols and Symbolism in Porphyry’s Treatise On Statues (Peri agalmatōn)

Table of contents

Annotation Estimate Publication content

References Comments

On Symbols and Symbolism in Porphyry’s Treatise On Statues (Peri agalmatōn)

Annotation

PII

S004287440001158-8-1

Publication type

Article

Status

Published

Authors

Dmitry S. Kurdybaylo Send message

Occupation: research fellow at Russian Christian Academy for the Humanities
Affiliation:
Russian Christian Academy for the Humanities
St Petersburg State University, Institute of Philosophy
Address: Russian Federation, St. Petersburg

Edition

Issue 10

Pages

164-174

Abstract

Porphyry’s treatise titled On statues (also known as On images and Peri agalmatōn) survived in nine fragments without an ending. This is one of the reasons why it is less known and poorly studied, compared to other writings of Porphyry. On statues interprets verbal and visual descriptions of ancient Greek deities in a manner similar to the interpretations in On the Cave of the Nymphs, the other work of Porphyry. Both treatises are distinguished by an unusually frequent usage of the term ‘symbol,’ thus introducing a certain type of symbolism. In the ‘symbolical’ interpretations of deities’ names, Porphyry extensively uses anagrams and phonetic likenesses, following Plato’s Cratylus. He combines this approach with the method of Stoic allegory and engages the ancient Greek mythology, thus the most of Porphyry’s symbols are based on the centuries-old tradition. Porphyry fuses Stoic and Platonic concepts into an integral system, which is distinctively revealed in his linguistic views, the nature of names and the principles of naming. The analysis of the treatise displays the high coherence of the survived fragments, thus allowing to assert the original Porphyry’s text as well-retained.

Keywords

Porphyry of Tyre, On statues, Peri agalmatōn, symbol, myth, mythology, spermatic logos

Acknowledgment

The research was carried out at Russian Christian Academy for the Humanities (St Petersburg) with the financial support of Russian Science Foundation, project 17-78-10061.

Date of publication

23.11.2018

Number of purchasers

Views

705

Readers community rating

0.0 (0 votes)

Cite Download pdf

GOST	Kurdybaylo D. On Symbols and Symbolism in Porphyry’s Treatise On Statues (Peri agalmatōn) // Voprosy filosofii. – 2018. – Issue 10 C. 164-174 . URL: https://vphil.jes.su/s004287440001158-8-1/. DOI: 10.31857/S004287440001158-8
MLA	Kurdybaylo, Dmitry S "On Symbols and Symbolism in Porphyry’s Treatise On Statues (Peri agalmatōn)." Voprosy filosofii. 10 (2018).:164-174. DOI: 10.31857/S004287440001158-8
APA	Kurdybaylo D. (2018). On Symbols and Symbolism in Porphyry’s Treatise On Statues (Peri agalmatōn). Voprosy filosofii. no. 10, pp.164-174 DOI: 10.31857/S004287440001158-8

Additional services access

Additional services for the article

Services benefits

100 RUB / 1.0 SU


1

References

1. Beekes, Robert (2010) Etymological Dictionary of Greek, With assist. of L. van Beek, Brill, Boston, Leiden.

2. Benevich, Grigoriy I. (2015) “Eusebius of Caesarea. Holy places and the Apology of the Lord’s Sepulchre temple”, Web-archive of the Scientific theological portal ‘Bogoslov.ru’, http://archive.bogoslov.ru/text/4507567.html (in Russian).

3. Dillon, John (1996) The Middle Platonists: 80 B. C. to 200 A. D., Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY (Russian translation 2002).

4. Drake, Harold A. (1975) “When was the ‘De Laudibus Constantini’ delivered?”, Zeitschrift fur Alte Geschichte, Bd. 24, H. 2, pp. 345–356.

5. Dvoretskiy, Iosif Kh. (1958) An Ancient Greek–Russian dictionary, Vol. 1, Moscow (in Russian).

6. Florovsky, George (1950) “Origen, Eusebius, and the iconoclastic controversy”, Church History, Vol. 19, № 2, pp. 77–96.

7. Francis, James A. (2003) “Living icons: Tracing a motif in verbal and visual representation from the second to fourth centuries C. E.”, American Journal of Philology, Vol. 124, № 4 (496), pp. 575–600.

8. Gero, Stephen (1981) “The true image of Christ: Eusebius’ letter to Constantia reconsidered”, The Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Vol. 32, № 2, pp. 460–470.

9. Goncharko, Oksana Yu., Kurdybaylo, Dmitry S. (2017) “Some features of Providence in Byzantine, Syriac and Armenian commentaries on John 5:17–30 and 15:5”, The Universe of Platonic thought: Plato and Ancient science: Proceedings of the 25th international scientific conference, St Petersburg, pp. 224–249 (in Russian).

10. Kurdybaylo, Dmitry S. (2013) “Plotinus’ cosmogony and the doctrine of spermatic logoi”, Vestnik Russkoi khristianskoi gumanitarnoi akademii, Vol. 14, № 3, pp. 207–215 (in Russian).

11. Kurdybaylo, Dmitry S. (2015) “From game to mystery: on interpretation of etymologies in Plato’s ‘Cratylus’”, Platonovskie issledovania, Vol. 3, № 2, pp. 92–116 (in Russian).

12. Liddell, Henry G., Jones, Henry S., Scott, Robert (1996) A Greek-English lexicon, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

13. Schott, Jeremy M. (2009) “Philosophies of language, theories of translation and imperial intellectual production: The cases of Porphyry, Iamblichus, and Eusebius”, Church History, Vol. 78, № 4, pp. 855–861.

14. Smith, Andrew (1974) Porphyry’s place in the Neoplatonic tradition: A study in post-Plotinian Neoplatonism, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.

15. Spanoudakis, Konstantinos (2010) “Eusebius C. Hier. 6.5 on man and fowl: An instance of Christian-pagan dialogue on a theurgic ritual”, Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 64, pp. 31–53.

16. Struck, Peter T. (2004) Birth of the symbol: Ancient readers at the limits of their texts, Princeton University Press, Princeton, Oxford.

17. Takho-Godi, Aza A. (1999) “The term ‘symbol’ in the Ancient Greek literature”, A.A. Takho-Godi, A.F. Losev, The Greek culture in myths, symbols and terms, Aleteia, St Petersburg, pp. 329–361 (in Russian).

18. Van den Berg, Robert M. (2008) Proclus’ Commentary on the ‘Cratylus’ in context: Ancient theories of language and naming, Brill, Leiden, Boston.