Select Works Of Porphyry - Containing His Four Books On Abstinence From Animal Food - His Treatise On The Homeric Cave Of The Nymphs And His Auxiliaries To The Perception Of Intelligible Natures

by Porphyry, Thomas Taylor (Translator)

Many of the earliest books, particularly those dating back to the 1900s and before, are now extremely scarce and increasingly expensive. We are republishing these classic works in affordable, high quality, modern editions, using the original text and artwork.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction

290 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1823

About the author

Porphyry's parents were Phoenician, and he was born in Tyre. His parents named him Malchus ("king") but his teacher in Athens, Cassius Longinus, gave him the name Porphyrius ("clad in purple"), possibly a reference to his Phoenician heritage, or a punning allusion to his name and the color of royal robes.

Porphyry of Tyre (Greek: Πορφύριος, Porphyrios, AD c. 234–c. 305) was a Neoplatonic philosopher who was born in Tyre. He edited and published the Enneads, the only collection of the work of his teacher Plotinus. He also wrote many works himself on a wide variety of topics. His Isagoge, or Introduction, is an introduction to logic and philosophy,and in Latin translation it was the standard textbook on logic throughout the Middle Ages. In addition, through several of his works, most notably Philosophy from Oracles and Against the Christians, he was involved in a controversy with a number of early Christians, and his commentary on Euclid's Elements was used as a source by Pappus of Alexandria. (Wikipedia)

Reviews

[Erick · Rating 3 out of 5]

Porphyry was one of the notable Neo-Platonists. Indeed, he was the immediate successor to Plotinus. I have now read most of the philosophically important works that still survive of his. I don't think Porphyry was all that original. He seems to have stuck pretty close to what was taught by Plotinus. I would hate to sum him up as a second rate Plotinus, but he lacks a lot of the profundity and originality of his teacher. There are some exceptions (I follow this up below), but not many. One must acknowledge that Plotinus was at least somewhat dependent on Numenius--if we take seriously some of his detractors, and compare what survives of Numenius. I think it could hardly be denied to Plotinus his overall originality though.

Porphyry's treatise on abstinence from meat is what heads up this collection. It's an interesting work. Porphyry does have a tendency to go off on tangents--sometimes irrelevant and occasionally semi-relevant; some of the irrelevant tangents are interesting though and give us further insight into his philosophy; so it is probably good that he didn't stay entirely on topic. I've been a pescetarian for almost 20 years; 2 of those a complete vegetarian, so I don't take issue with the subject and agree with it to a large degree. It is a bit puzzling that a philosopher who was concerned enough about the treatment of animals, wrote a treatise to alleviate their suffering, while also composing a treatise that contributed to the suffering of a human community that was violently opposed at the time. Like I said in my review to his Letter to Marcella, Porphyry was a bit of a hypocrite.

The second treatise is devoted to the philosophic/allegorical interpretation of a passage in Homer regarding the cave of the Nymphs. This is an interesting work to a degree as well. It contains some intriguing anecdotes regarding mythical and zodiacal lore and arcana. One can note some traces of the preceding in alchemical tradition. I could detect some corresponding elements in Boehme. Thomas Taylor adds an appendix where he gives his own interpretation of Homer.

With "Auxiliaries to The Perception of Intelligible Natures" (also referred to as the "Sentences" or "Sententiae"), the last work (which I read first), Porphyry indicates his merits as a philosopher in his own right to some degree. He hasn't solved the problems that face the Neo-Platonists in their approach to evil, but he does provide a more nuanced position in regards to it.

He basically makes the problem of evil a problem of composition and not a problem with matter qua matter. Porphyry places soul (psuche) in between the intelligible realm and the realm of matter. Soul can either rise to the intellectual realm, or sink into the realm of matter. Soul, in this scheme, is composite. It combines tendencies of upward and downward drives. This seems to be in contrast to Plato's view in the Timaeus, where there is an evil soul (or at least an irrational soul) lead by sense and a good soul lead by reason. Plotinus, as far as I could tell in the Enneads, does not attribute to soul any negative duplicity. Porphyry, apparently, wants to hold on to Plotinus' views regarding the purity of the cosmic soul, so he places this duplicity in the individual soul. The preceding relates in some way to the degradation that exists between the sub-lunar and supra-lunar cosmos.

Porphyry retains the view that the intelligible realm is One, static and free from evil; and that matter is transient, dyadic and the source of evil in some manner. Matter essentially has no being (Greek: to on), so how soul can be a composite between non-being and being is not explained. One is left to assume that there is a distinction between non-being and non-existence in Neo-Platonist thought, but this is not addressed in the early sources directly. Porphyry attributes to passion the drive that sends the soul sinking into the material realm. The problem is that now evil no longer is found in matter but desire becomes the culprit, more or less. Desire can only exist in an entity that possesses mind and will, so instead of freeing the intelligible realm from any implication of evil, he really does the opposite. Soul is a composite of minds driven by disparate motivations. Soul is driven by a desire for the pseudo-being of matter, while also retaining some memory and desire for the intelligible realm.

Porphyry is worth reading if one is interested in Platonism and Neo-Platonism. I don't think he was all that original and where he was original, I'm not sure his Neo-Platonic views are valid; but he is one of the important links leading up to Proclus.

[Edward Butler · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the most useful volumes in the Thomas Taylor series. The translations, when checked against the Greek, as I did for the portions I used, were solid, differing from modern critical editions only in passages where the manuscripts themselves are problematic. Some of these texts, moreover, such as the Sententiae or De antro nympharum, lack an easily obtainable critical edition in English. As always, the reader here reaps the benefit of Taylor's insightful supplementary notes, not to mention his remarkable essay "The Wanderings of Ulysses", which supplies the outline for a complete Platonic interpretation of the Odyssey from the scattered remarks of historical authors augmented by Taylor's own genius.

[Kasandra · Rating 4 out of 5]

I had read a different translation of "On Abstinence from Animal Food" some time ago and decided to re-read it. It's an interesting historical piece, and if you're familiar with the greatest hits of Ancient Greek philosophy you can definitely follow along, recognize names, etc. What made me want to read this particular copy was the inclusion of "Treatise on the Homeric Cave of Nymphs". Basically Porphyry argues that in that passage Homer is laying out the basics of Greek-style metaphysics, and how soul/intelligence separates from body via the metaphor of the cave. So you can read it that way, or as a very interesting history of ideas piece. For example, Porphyry definitely talks about nymphs and dragons as though they were wandering about somewhere in the world that he lived in -- kind of the same feeling you might get from Pliny the Elder. I don't know that many people would want to read it. I do agree with other reviewers that Porphyry is basically "Plotinus lite", but if you're into the history of animal ethics and or the history of Western ideas/Greek philosophy you might get a kick out of it.

[Peter J. · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was an outstanding work and has strengthened my admiration of both Porphyry and Taylor. Having independently reached the conclusion that souls are not exclusive to the human race, hearing Porphyry's take on the same issue was comforting. In addition, this work shed new light on the allegorical dimension of the works of Homer; something I was previously oblivious to.