Thanks to the recent renaissance in Porphyrian studies, we have finally begun to appreciate how Porphyry's approach to traditional forms of piety is fully integrated within his broader Platonic system. [1] As the first monograph entirely devoted to Porphyry's On the Statues of the Gods (Περὶ ἀγαλμάτων), Männlein's book is an important addition to this trend. In this treatise, Porphyry mounts a defense of traditional cultic statues (agalmata): far from being mere mimetic depictions of the gods, agalmata are able to symbolically communicate truths about the divine and its powers to those who know how to decode them. In support of this view, Porphyry thus performs several figural interpretations of Greek and Egyptian deities.

From a superficial reading of the extant fragments, mostly preserved by Eusebius in book III of his Preparatio Evangelica, Περὶ ἀγαλμάτων appears to be an erudite yet unoriginal collection of physical allegories drawn from Stoic sources. Or at least this is what Eusebius wants us to believe. Indeed, Männlein argues, Eusebius purposefully selects and abridges Porphyry's text in order to present it as the work of a crypto-Stoic who betrays Plato's metaphysics by reducing gods to mere natural phenomena.

Männlein thus believes that, if we want to recover a more genuine picture of Porphyry's work, we should interpret the fragments together with the source-text in which they are embedded, since in his polemical frame Eusebius ends up revealing more than what he is trying to hide about the structure and purpose of the work that he is criticizing. Männlein's methodological choice proves to be successful: in her study, she convincingly makes the case that Περὶ ἀγαλμάτων reflects the attempt of a committed Platonist to justify and integrate traditional depictions of gods within his metaphysical system. This often neglected treatise thus becomes a precious witness of Porphyry's philosophical theology (theosophia).

The book consists of a short methodological introduction, a new German translation of all the Fragments and Testimonia, and fifteen main chapters, each in turn divided in sub-sections that allow for internal cross-references and make the work easy to navigate. It ends with a bibliography and three indices (fontium, locorum, nominum).

Männlein begins her study by giving a general introduction to Porphyry's treatise within its cultural and philosophical context (I-IV). She argues that Porphyry is reacting to Christian attacks against the pagan habit of venerating agalmata while, at the same time, he is participating in an intra-Platonic debate about the value of figurative depictions of gods. Männlein then performs a close-reading of the critical frame by Eusebius together with the first two Porphyrian fragments, which very likely come from the beginning of Περὶ ἀγαλμάτων and thus provide insights into the structure, methodology and goals of the treatise (V-VIII). In her analysis of Fragment 1 (V), Männlein pays particular attention to the revelatory and exclusionary tone adopted by Porphyry, which she rightly considers as a sign of his anti-Christian agenda. In looking at Fragment 2 (VI), she focuses on Porphyry's exegetical method and its place within the ancient exegetical tradition: besides pointing out clear parallels in Plutarch and Maximus of Tyre, Männlein brilliantly suggests that Περὶ ἀγαλμάτων resembles the text transmitted by the Derveni Papyrus, both for its mysteric/Orphic frame and for how Porphyry combines allegory and etymology. Finally, Männlein foregrounds how Porphyry's defense of agalmata completely ignores any cultic function of divine statues, thus providing an alternative to the theurgic defense of statues that we find in Iamblichus, who likely wrote his own (lost) Περὶ ἀγαλμάτων as an answer to Porphyry's work (VII).

In the second half of the book (IX-XIV), Männlein gives a detailed analysis of the remaining fragments (3 through 11), where Porphyry proposes figural interpretations of several Greek and Egyptian gods. Männlein rightly believes that the order of the fragments in Eusebius follows Porphyry's original treatise. In Fragment 3, Porphyry focuses on Zeus as he is depicted in an Orphic Hymn and in an agalma that is reminiscent of the statue of Phidias at Olympia. Männlein argues that, while in the Orphic Hymn Zeus is clearly identified with the sensible cosmos (as Eusebius himself polemically does not fail to stress), Porphyry reads the poem through a Platonic frame and thus ends up equating Zeus with the transcendent demiurge who is responsible for the creation and ordering of the material universe (IX). This Platonizing exegesis of Zeus gives Männlein a key to unlock the meaning and structure of the rest of the work. In chapters X through XIII, Männlein offers a close reading of Fragments 4 through 9, with the goal of showing that Porphyry's methodology is not Stoic physical allegoresis, as Eusebius wants us to believe, but rather a Platonic "kosmologische Allegorese" (79-80 and passim). Greek gods and heroes are not identified with natural phenomena, but with the invisible powers (dynameis) that stem directly from the Demiurge, and that the Demiurge employs to organize and rule over the sublunary world. Porphyry begins from Hera, who, as the power in charge of both the supra-lunar aether and the sub-lunar air, acts as mediator between Zeus/Demiurge and his creation. From there, he gradually goes down towards the lower strata of the sensible universe through the gods/powers that rule over the earth and the agricultural cycle (e.g. Hestia, Rhea, Demeter and Kore), water (e.g. Poseidon and Amphitrite), fire (e.g. Hephestus), etc. Männlein finds that the Egyptian section (fragments 10-11) is organized on the base of the same top-down metaphysics (XIV): Porphyry begins with the transcendent demiurge Kneph/Kemateph, moves downwards to the mediating forces of the Sun/Ra and Moon/Isis, and ends with lower earthly powers (e.g. Osiris as the Nile and the power in charge of the agricultural cycle). The book ends with a useful summary of its main conclusions and findings (XVI).

While firmly establishing the Platonic frame of Περὶ ἀγαλμάτων is arguably the most important contribution of this study, Männlein enhances our understanding of Porphyry's work in several ways, ranging from her careful revaluation of Porphyry's creative use of his sources (e.g. XIV.2 on his use Chairemon and other Egyptian sources) to her analysis of the Platonic appropriation of Stoic terminology (e.g. IX.7).

Three points deserve special consideration. First, Männlein fully brings to the fore why a Christian like Eusebius perceived Περὶ ἀγαλμάτων as particularly threatening: Porphyry's argument in favor of the symbolic value of divine statues is a brilliant answer to previous Christian apologists, whose attacks focused mostly on the pagan habit of venerating their statues as if they were gods. But if, as Porphyry suggests, statues are mere "hermeneutische Hilfsinstrumente der Erkenntnis des Göttlichen" (68) and not themselves divine, then Christian criticisms completely missed the target.

Second, Männlein argues against the idea that Περὶ ἀγαλμάτων is a juvenile work [2], while making a strong case for a post-Plotinian date of composition (VII.2). Indeed, she notices similarities with Plotinus' view on the anagogic function of agalmata as expounded at Enneads IV.3.9-11. However, as Männlein recognizes, while both teacher and student agree that agalmata are tools that can draw us closer to god by revealing something of its nature, for Plotinus this anagogic power depends on an intuitive and non-discursive process, while for Porphyry it is the result of a precise interpretation, by means of allegoresis, of what each detail of a statue truly means. This observation seems to encapsulate well a difference between master and student that was already noticed by Eunapius (IV.9-11 Goulet), and it might provide a key to better understand why a significant portion of Porphyry's works consist in commentaries and other forms of exegetical writings.

Third, Männlein suggests that this entire exegetical project could be seen as a 'Lesemysterium': for Porphyry, exegesis becomes a sort of 'theosophisches Mysterienritual' that helps practitioners to proceed in the process of purification and assimilation to god by gaining a correct understating of the divine (273). While I find this idea persuasive and potentially applicable to other Porphyrian works, such as the De Antro Nympharum, at the same time Männlein's emphasis on the mystagogical tone adopted by Porphyry risks obscuring the didactic dimension of Περὶ ἀγαλμάτων. Porphyry's interpretive authority does not rely on divine illumination, but on the correct use of a reading method that he is trying to teach to his addressees. This clearly emerges, in my opinion, both from the initial comparison between statues and written texts and, more broadly, from Porphyry's painstaking attempt to provide specific explanations and justifications for his figural readings.

To conclude, Männlein's book constitutes a tremendous advancement in our knowledge of Porphyry's philosophical theology, his hermeneutics and his place within the Platonic tradition. It will be a fruitful reading for scholars of Platonism, of early Christianity, and for everyone interested in allegory and figural interpretations. I would also recommend it to art historians working on early Christian and Byzantine art: they might find that Porphyry's arguments left a mark on the enemy camp. Finally, the book should also be assigned as a model for students who want to work on fragmentary texts.

Notes:

[1] See A. Johnson: Religion and Identity in Porphyry of Tyre: the Limits of Hellenism in Late Antiquity, Cambridge 2013.

[2] See e.g. J. Bidez: Vie de Porphyre, Gent 1913.

Matteo Milesi