sign in sign up
<<
Home , Philo

Philo and on Homer1

Maren R. Niehoff

Philo and Plutarch have much in common. Both grew up in the Greek East under Roman rule, Philo dying at approximately the time that Plutarch was born (ca. 45 C.E). Both spoke reverently of as “most sacred” or “divine” and gave special attention to the Timaeus, defending its literal meaning against metaphorical interpretations.2 Both moreover wrote treatises against the Stoics and criticised especially the eccentric doctrines of Chrysippus, while showing considerably more respect for Panaetius’ updated theories.3 Finally, both thinkers acted as ambassa- dors to and were deeply committed to traditional forms of religion, Philo to the worship of the God of Israel, Plutarch to the cult of Apollo at Delphi.4 Given these parallels in their lives and philosophical outlook, it is not altogether surprising that Philo and Plutarch also shared a similar approach to Homer. This is no small . The way Greek-speaking

1 I wish to thank the ISRAEL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (grant no. 435/08) for support- ing the research on which this paper is based. I have moreover benefitted from the useful comments of Teresa Morgan, Filippo Pontani, Francesca Schironi and Martin West. I also gave a lecture on Plutarch at the symposium at Tel Aviv University in honour of Mar- galit Finkelberg’s Homer Encyclopedia and wish to thank the audience, especially Margalit herself, for helpful comments. 2 See Philo, Prob. 13 κατὰ τὸν ἱερώτατον Πλάτωνα; Plut., De Cap. Ex inim. 8 (Mor. 90C) κατὰ τὸν θεῖον Πλάτωνα; for a comparison of their views on the Timaeus, see Niehoff 2007. On Philo and Plutarch as Platonists, see Runia 1986, 1993, 2001; Sterling 1993; Niehoff 2010; Froidefond 1987; Dillon 1977: 139–230; Bonazzi 2011 and forthcoming. 3 Philo devoted a whole treatise to attacking the doctrine of conflagration, advocated especially by Chrysippus (Aet. 48–9, 90–8; Niehoff, 2010: 45–53), while acknowledging that Panaetius was a laudable exception to this Stoic doctrine (Aet. 76) and probably using some of his ideas on the Self to write his biographies of the Biblical forefathers (Niehoff 2011b). Plutarch similarly focused his criticism of the Stoics on Chrysippus’ views (see esp. Mor. 1052B–E, where he offers similar arguments as Philo), while relying in other contexts on Panaetius’ theory of the Self (Gill 1994). 4 On Philo’s embassy and commitment to , see Harker 2008: 9–47; Niehoff 2001; Niehoff 2011b; on Plutarch’s political involvement and priestly function, see Ziegler 1964: 19–26. Lamberton 2001: 52–9, and Brisson 2004: 61–71 noted already a similarity between Philo and Plutarch regarding their commitment to religious practice, and ten- dencies to mysticism; cf. also Hirsch-Luipold 2005, who rightly points to significant simi- larities between Philo and Plutarch in their combination of Platonic philosophy and a specific religion, but over-emphasises monotheism as a common factor. 128 maren r. niehoff thinkers viewed Homer’s epics defined to no small degree their overall attitude towards Greek culture, identity and religion, which had tradition- ally been shaped by this canonical text.5 Both Philo and Plutarch held pos- itive opinions about Homer, considering him useful for philosophy even though his poetry was not always seen as literally true. Their position is remarkable in view of the fact that Plato had severely criticised the poet as an imitator of mere images, who produced harmful lies. Philosophical truth was in his view not to be gained by reading the epics. Plato instead advised the young philosopher to engage in logical argument and appreci- ate the absolute goodness of the Divine, which had remained unknown to Homer.6 Philo and Plutarch chose a different path and offered sophisticated arguments to justify the poet’s philosophical value.7 They are the first known authors in the Platonic tradition to reintegrate Homer into the philosophical discourse, thus anticipating the Neo-Platonists. The latter generally admired Homer next to Plato, arguing that the epic expresses the same philosophical ideas in different literary garb.8 The blending of Plato and Homer reflected their broader interest in traditional religions, which they considered to be part of their intellectual heritage. The dramatic change in the Platonic tradition, first visible in the writ- ings of Philo and Plutarch, reflects the particular impact of . In this vibrant metropolis two philosophical traditions were dominant, namely Aristotelian literary criticism, which was visible especially in the context of Homeric scholarship, and Platonism, the foundational texts of which were critically edited in Alexandria and began to be discussed by the anonymous commentator of the Theaetetus as well as Eudorus.9

5 On the centrality of Homer in Greek education, see Morgan 1997, 1998: 74–8, 94–100; Cribiore 2001: 194–7, 204–5; as well as Finkelberg and Pontani in this volume. 6 See esp. Pl., Rep. 376E–378E; Weinstock 1927; Lodge 1928: 425–441; Most 2003, Männlein-Robert 2010; see also Pontani 2005: 33–4; Clay 2011, who point to Plato’s personal passion for Homer as a poet, while condemning him as a philosopher. 7 Regarding Plutarch’s departure from Plato’s position, see also Russell 1973: 51–3; Kon- stan 2004; contra Zadorojnyi 2002, but far more nuanced in Zadorojnyi 2011. 8 See esp. Porph., De Styge (apud Stob. 2.14.10–15); see also Lamberton 1992: 115–33. Lamberton 1986: 44–54, points to Philo as a forerunner of the Neo-Platonic allegorists, but mistakenly denies him any originality; Lamberton, 2001: 46–51, appreciates Plutarch in light of Neo-Platonism. 9 Regarding ’s influence on the Museum in general and Alexandrian scholar- ship in particular, see Fraser 1972, 1: 312–35, 1: 447–79, Pöhlmann 1994: 26–40; Canfora 2002; Montanari 1993: 259–264; Montanari 1995; Richardson 1994; Schironi 2009. Regarding the edition of Plato’s texts in Alexandria and their interpretation, see D.L. 3: 61–2; Tarrant 1993: 11–7, 98–103; Schironi 2005; Bonazzi 2007.