Okeanos is at once a mythological figure and a philosophical concept appearing in many ancient accounts of the world. A frequent object of allegoresis, his cosmological role and his name posed an enigma to Homer’s readers, especially those with a rationalizing bent. This paper proposes that the paradoxical representation of Okeanos as a primordial generative power and a geographical limit may be explained by the influence of etymological speculation, which was a popular heuristic method used by Greek intellectuals from the (...) archaic period throughout antiquity. (shrink)

The present paper argues that the early Pythagoreans contributed significantly to the development of ancient hermeneutics. The article builds on the assumption that even if the thinkers did not deal with allegoresis directly, the very manner of articulating their thought was, nevertheless, quite conducive to the growth of allegorical interpretation. Thus, at least indirectly, Pythagoreanism must have played an important role in the development of allegoresis. The paper identifies two crucial aspects of Pythagorean influence on the allegorical tradition. Firstly, the (...) Pythagoreans made a very specific use of the poetry of Homer and Hesiod as well as of the traditional mythology in general. Secondly, the teachings of Pythagoras were expressed in terms of various ambiguous symbols that required special exegesis. Both these factors must have contributed considerably to the development of allegoresis: the idiosyncratic use of conventional mythology, on the one hand, and the enigmatic nature of the Pythagorean symbols, on the other, must have provoked extensive search for the latent meaning of the “messages” in question. (shrink)

The inclusion of De astrologia in the Lucianic corpus has been disputed for centuries since it appears to defend astrological practices that Lucian elsewhere undercuts. This paper argues for Lucian’s authorship by illustrating its masterful subversion of a captatio benevolentiae and subtle rejection of Stoic astrological practices. The narrator begins the text by blaming phony astrologers and their erroneous predictions for inciting others to “denounce the stars and hate astrology” (ἄστρων τε κατηγοροῦσιν καὶ αὐτὴν ἀστρολογίην μισέουσιν, 2). The narrator assures (...) readers that he, the knowledgeable astrologer, will correct for the “stupidity and laziness” (ἀμαθίῃ καὶ ῥαθυμίῃ, ibid.) that bring about false predictions. The narrator’s credibility quickly decays when he attempts to recast Orpheus, Bellerophon, Icarus, Daedalus, and a host of other mythological figures as Greek astrologers. Lucian’s audience would expect such far-fetched interpretations of myth from the stereotypical Stoic philosopher, a character lampooned elsewhere in the Lucianic corpus. (shrink)