Irmgard Männlein’s volume provides a new and updated German translation of Porphyry’s Peri agalmatōn. As the author states, for the first time a scholar has devoted a systematic volume to the translation and commentary of this text taking into account both its general cultural-historical context and its place in Porphyry’s philosophical reflection with capillary analyses devoted to the numerous individual deities he mentioned. The volume is enriched by an updated secondary bibliography and a useful index fontium, locorum, and nominum.
The first section of the monograph is dedicated to the text of the Peri agalmatōn, or more precisely, to the excerpts from the sources. Männlein divides fragments (directly quoted parts of the text, paraphrases or epitomes, predominantly from Eusebius) and testimonia. The Greek text is followed by a German translation.
The second section, devoted to the interpretation of the text, is divided into sixteen chapters. In the first chapter, Männlein delineates her methodological approach: the scholar lays particular emphasis on both the manner in which sections of Porphyry’s text are quoted and the cultural-historical events of his era, with a view to reconstructing the primary intention of the work and the scope of its numerous secondary theses. According to Männlein, the work is influenced by a debate on the importance of religious practices which was not confined to Pagan circles but also involved their confrontation with Christians.
In the second chapter, Männlein observes how statues were traditionally conceived of as the embodiment of a deity, endowed with the capacity to channel a fraction of divine power. However, this paradigm was undergoing a transformation in response to a new sensibility that frequently aspired to “sublimate” the more material elements of worship, favoring “intellectual” forms of devotion.
Chapter three examines antecedents of reflections on the nature of statues, ranging from Presocratic remarks against anthropomorphism to the Platonic conception of eikones as visible images of invisible and higher aspects, and the subsequent shift in perspective regarding the cult of statues that emerged in Christian circles and the practice of aniconism in Judaism.
The fourth chapter is dedicated to the presentation of general information regarding the Peri agalmatōn. The title is somewhat unusual, and it is not frequently encountered in the philosophical-literary production of late antiquity. The work was perhaps structured in such a manner as to evoke the concept of a gallery, thereby reflecting, in its succession, the vertical and hierarchical structure of the divine world.
In the fifth chapter, Männlein examines the implications of the transmission of the text by one of its most vocal critics, Eusebius, who sought to establish a novel Christian intellectual identity in opposition to Pagan tradition, with Porphyry serving as a main polemical target. Eusebius frequently employs abbreviation, excision, and juxtaposition of extensive textual segments, with the principal objective of diminishing the significance of Pagan religion as a mere allegory of natural forces. This approach was motivated by Porphyry’s utilization of the doctrine of powers (dynameis), which posits that deities within religious traditions serve as symbols of higher principles that resonate throughout the sensible cosmos.
In Chapter Six, Männlein observes how Porphyry regarded statues as symbols designed to instill in viewers a comprehensive understanding of the established order of the universe. Indeed, iconography involves the cryptic representation of divine powers that are active within the universe. This is not a novel concept: it has been previously posited by Philo of Alexandria, Maximus of Tyre and, to a certain extent, Plutarch and Apuleius. Porphyry’s innovation lies in dedicating an entire work to a comprehensive review of divine statues within a clearly Platonic framework.
Chapter Seven endeavors to situate Porphyry within the debate not only between Christians and Pagans but also within Pagan Platonists themselves. Porphyry diverges from Iamblichus, who claims that statues conceal the “real” presence of the deity they represent; this is particularly salient in theurgical rituals. Porphyry exhibits certain affinities with the philosophical-contemplative religiosity of his master Plotinus, although his other writings demonstrate a certain fluidity in this regard.
Chapter Eight provides a concise overview of the manner in which Porphyry presents the statues of deities in his Peri agalmatōn. From generic descriptions, he often moves on to detailed analyses of iconography, posture, materials, placement, colors, etc., with no particular focus on aesthetic enjoyment: ekphrasis is thus in the service of allegoresis, aimed at connecting symbolic meanings to certain aspects of statues (which are often idealized).
In Chapter Nine, Männlein begins a denser commentary and focuses on the specific deities mentioned in the Peri agalmatōn, their statues, and their allegorical interpretation. This analysis commences with the most eminent god, Zeus. Porphyry cites an Orphic hymn to Zeus, the interpretation of which is rendered from a Platonic perspective: Zeus is a cosmic intelligence and the originator of the cosmos. Porphyry thus adopts the figure of the Demiurge of the Timaeus, projecting it onto the content of the Orphic hymn. In this manner, Zeus’ statues are a legitimate medium for philosophical discourse, serving as a complement to theological tenets. Porphyry conceptualizes Zeus as a transcendent demiurgical intellect that engages with lower ontological levels, albeit not in the manner of exclusive immanence as theorized by the Stoics in their Zeus-logos–pneuma.
In Chapter Ten, Männlein discusses the significance of the term dynamis in the Platonic tradition as “potence”, “active force”, “power”. Powers of deities are represented by certain iconographies of their statues and typically possess a physical dimension, even though they do not fully exhaust their value within a naturalistic framework: they all emanate from Zeus, the supreme deity and the demiurgic intellect, just as all deities—in their traditional manifestation—are associated with the king of the gods and goddesses through a familial relationship. Hera and Leto are the first deities mentioned after Zeus. Hera, wife and sister of Zeus, symbolizes the power of air in its various gradations (in accordance with the established etymology of Hera as aēr); Leto, lover of Zeus, is regarded as air in the sublunar region, where the souls forget their nature (based on the etymology Lētō–lēthē). Porphyry then considers Hestia, juxtaposing the naturalistic interpretation, which holds her to be connected to the earth, with the Platonic perspective (beginning with the Cratylus), according to which Hestia is “being”: for Porphyry, Hestia is an abstract divine power that is located in the concrete-earthly world, which it helps to vivify. The group is completed by the addition of Rhea, Demeter, and Kore, and the allegoresis of their statues, which refer to procreative and fertile powers, natural conditions and processes occurring on earth and ultimately emanating from demiurgic intelligence.
Chapter Eleven continues the review of deities and the allegoresis of their statues. Water and its various aspects (potable and salt water, etc.) are symbolized by various minor mythical figures. Regarding fire, Porphyry connects Hephaestus with celestial and pure fire brought to earth to denote, in the Platonic sense, a power that ultimately descended from Zeus-intellect to the sensible dimension. Apollo and the Sun serve to complete the allegory: with the nine rays of the Sun, Porphyry makes reference to the nine Muses and to Apollo as their Musagetēs; the nine Muses are the seven planets plus the fixed stars, with the addition of the sublunary world, along with their respective cosmic spheres; the pure power of fire is what guides them. The statues of Heracles, Pluto-Serapis, Dionysus, and Asclepius are connected with the zodiac, the sunset, fertility and the alternation of the seasons, and the souls that save themselves by developing pure reason, respectively. Regarding the Moon and the associated deities—Selene, Artemis and Athena—they are all dependent on the power of the Sun as an archetypal junction for the descent and ascent of the souls (from and to the Sun). Porphyry then abruptly alludes to Ares, Aphrodite, and Eros as passions and movements.
In Chapter Twelve, Männlein briefly considers the value of Hermes as a producing and mediating logos. It is a universal procreation that infuses form and order into the cosmos; Hermes is, then, one of the seminal reasons of Zeus—not in a Stoic sense, but in the Platonic sense of the transcendent demiurgic intellect, an instrument by which it reverberates (fractions of) transcendent reason within the cosmos. Consequently, Porphyry concluded that statues of Pan, the son of Hermes, represented the universe as a whole, encompassing the Sun, the Moon, and other celestial bodies.
In Chapter Thirteen, Männlein synthesizes the conclusions of her analysis by providing a concise overview of the potential sequence of the Peri agalmatōn. Porphyry probably formulated some preliminary remarks regarding his methodology and philosophy, and then proceeded to enumerate the various deities, commencing with Zeus. The gods and goddesses and their statues are mentioned in the context of a succession that replicates a vertical emanation, from Zeus to the powers affecting the heavens, the Sun and Moon, the sublunary world and Earth. Porphyry’s religious sources encompass the Eleusinian Mysteries, the cult of Cybele and Attis, the Homeric poems, the theologies of Hesiod and the Orphics, and various allegorical traditions, from Theagenes of Rhegium to the etymologies of the Cratylus up to the Stoics, Early Imperial Pythagoreans, and the Middle Platonists. All these traditions are assimilated in the light of Platonism, which represents the main tradition within which to subsume the others.
In Chapter Fourteen, Männlein examines Porphyry’s interest in Egypt, which was undoubtedly derived from a Platonist and more generally a Hellenic fascination with this land, its culture and traditions, conceived of as the source of a primordial wisdom that directly influenced the divine Pythagoras and Plato. Porphyry does not simply Hellenize Egyptian deities: he employs a Platonizing strategy, emphasizing the transcendental nature of Egyptian gods and goddesses. Consequently, he focuses eminently on Kneph as a demiurgic power, akin to the Greek Zeus. Porphyry adapted other Egyptian motifs (the solar ship, Isis and Osiris) to suit his own allegorical intentions: for example, Kneph is depicted as the supreme demiurgic intellect, without associating Kosmos and Helios with the god as the Egyptians did. In contrast to his analysis of Greek deities, Porphyry establishes a connection between the allegoresis of the statues and cults of the Egyptian deities with astrology, eschewing any consideration of etymology and instead offering a focus on rituals and cultic practices.
In Chapter Fifteen, Männlein revisits the work of Eusebius, which, although it preserves parts of the Peri agalmatōn, cuts, abbreviates, and reformulates the text. Eusebius’ objective was to demonstrate that Hellenic allegoresis was indicative of a rudimentary theologia naturalis, which lacked the capacity to fully comprehend the divine nature. However, Eusebius appears to have misinterpreted Porphyry’s concept of dynamis, erroneously portraying him as an advocate of monotheism. In contrast, Porphyry’s philosophical standpoint is distinctly Platonic in nature, maintaining the existence of a primary transcendent principle that permeates and imbues various aspects of reality by emanating lesser powers.
Finally, in Chapter Sixteen, some concluding remarks that have already emerged in the course of the analysis are summarized. The Peri agalmatōn was unquestionably conceived of as a means to establish a connection between conventional religion and philosophical theology. The emphasis on statues, which were widely recognized as a primary means of entering into contact with the divine and upon which Porphyry superimposed allegory, served to reinforce the Platonic concept of the transcendence of supreme principles and their projection of powers into the cosmos. However, due to the manner in which Eusebius has preserved the work, it remains uncertain whether Porphyry regarded the (Demiurgic) intellect as the primary principle or had already acknowledged the One as the supreme source of everything. Porphyry endeavored to legitimize and rescue Pagan conceptions in response to the consolidation of Christianity by infusing them with religious and philosophical systematization.
The present volume thus offers an essential tool with which to approach a fascinating yet problematic work. In addition to offering a fresh German translation, Männlein’s lucid analysis convincingly restores sources, models, and polemical targets of the Peri agalmatōn, its position within Porphyry’s philosophical and religious outlook, and its relations to the historical-cultural context to which it belongs—a decisive and troubled moment in the history of Western thought.