Affiliation:
1. Università degli Studi Roma Tre , Rome , Italy
Abstract
Abstract
Pherecydes’ pseudepigraphic letter to Thales (Diog. Laert. I 122) is of uncertain date. It revolves around the idea that the book of Pherecydes should be interpreted allegorically. The aim of this paper is twofold: on the one hand, to contextualise the composition of the epistle through the examination of ancient witnesses who focus on Pherecydes’ obscurity; on the other hand, it shows to what extent Numenius, Celsus and Porphyry’s allegoric interpretation has misled some authoritative modern reconstruction of Pherecydes’ doctrines, as it is today generally agreed that he taught the immortality of the human soul and cycle of reincarnation.
Reference56 articles.
1. Africa, T. 1982. “Worms and the Death of Kings: A Cautionary Note on Disease and History.” Classical Antiquity 1 (1): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.2307/25010757.
2. Bergk, T. 1886. “Commentatio de Empedoclis prooemio.” In Kleine philologische Schriften, edited by R. Peppmüller, Vol. 2, 8–43. Halle: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Weisenhauses.
3. Bondeson, J. 1998. “Phthiriasis: The Riddle of the Lousy Disease.” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 98: 328–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/014107689809100617.
4. Boys-Stones, G. R. 2003. “The Stoics’ Two Types of Allegory.” In Metaphor, Allegory and the Classical Tradition, edited by G. R. Boys-Stones, 189–216. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5. Brumana, S. I. S., ed. 2019. Massimo di Tiro. Dissertazioni, testo greco a fronte. Saggio introduttivo, traduzione, note e apparati. Milano: Bompiani.