Porphyry here interprets Odyssey 13.102–12. Porphyry's importance far outstrips the enthusiasm with which he is received in most of the English-speaking world. His contributions cover a huge range, and authors that he interpreted include Homer, Plato, Aristotle and Ptolemy. There are complete extant works, generally short; others like the Commentary of Ptolemy's Harmonics that seem incomplete; substantial collections of fragments reported to derive from the same work, and others like Contra Christianos that are at least published under the same title; and collections of reports of his views such as those based on his Commentary on the Timaeus, preserving little distinctive Porphyrian language. Further, Porphyry was the editor of the whole Plotinian corpus, whose editorial activities and often forced arrangement have shaped our reception of Plotinus in untold ways. Porphyry is certainly a tricky author to tackle with confidence, not least because of the diversity of the extant corpus, produced over a number of decades and in diverse intellectual circles. Porphyry was a pivotal figure, but trying to appreciate his entire remains is still in some quarters an unwelcome challenge. Recently French has become the lingua franca of Porphyrian endeavour. This volume continues a tradition of excellent collaborative work on Porphyry emerging from France.

While the name of D. is the only one to appear on the cover, and he is the only one credited with the revision to the Greek text (after that of L.G. Westerink), this is another highly cooperative volume. To the ‘Études d'introduction’ M.-O. Goulet-Cazé, W. Hübner, A. Mihai, F. Pontani and I. Fotini Viltanioti have made contributions, while a total of eleven names are associated with the French translation. After D.'s ‘Avant-propos’, Goulet-Cazé gives a very useful overview of what Porphyry is trying to achieve in successive episodes of this work, whose structure is more elusive than its 505 lines might suggest. One already realises that one is dealing with hermeneutic choices far more extensive than simple references to literal or allegorical readings can do justice to, and one has to recall Origen's consciousness for the need for a certain subtlety of interpretation and for offering reasons for the choices made when interpreting a given Old Testament passage. I am not entirely sure why the contribution of Goulet-Cazé is so far separated from the two-page ‘Descriptif’ of the De Antro (perhaps with greater attention to the Homeric content) offered by Mihai (pp. 151–2), which has been reserved until after the text and indeed the list of ancient passages cited by Porphyry: unfortunately the only index offered. It would have been extremely useful to receive an index locorum to the essays and notes.

After Goulet-Cazé, Fotini Viltanioti discusses ‘Porphyre lecteur d'Homère’, which inevitably involves comparisons with the Homeric Questions and On the Styx, leading straight into the question of the date of the work and its relation to the other, seemingly less allegorical works. In my view the complexity of the issues justifies her refusal to be persuaded by the common view that the Cave of the Nymphs must be later than the simpler Homeric Questions. I am less sure that the Cave cannot be dated before Porphyry's move to Rome and his studies with Plotinus, as some have supposed, persuaded in part by a perceived lack of any Plotinian influence. Fotini Viltanioti argues against the accuracy of this perception, but one must be cautious about Plotinian influence given Plotinus’ indifference not only to nymphs, whom he never mentions; to the debates about hermeneutics that would otherwise have resulted in a far more frequent use of such terms as σύμβολον (1 use), ἱστορία (3), πλάσμα (2), ἀλληγορία (0) and αἴνιγμα (1); and even to any caves (ἄντρον, σπήλαιον) other than those found in Republic 7 and Empedocles (once in Ennead 2.9, seven times in 4.8). Fotini Viltanioti also offers some very useful material about Porphyry's principles of interpretation and his wider Homeric project.

Pontani tackles Porphyry's Homeric Questions, their genre, their content and of course their relation to the Cave of the Nymphs. He can find allegorical material in the Questions where Homeric fiction (πλάσμα) is more readily entertained, but (p. 54) in the Cave ‘la méthode allégorique choisie doit changer, et devenir celle des symboles’. It is important (p. 56) that ‘l'allégorie est un univers très varié’. Pontani considers the Questions ‘more philological and literary’ and finds it more difficult than Fotini Viltanioti not to think of Longinus and to entertain a pre-263 date for that work.

The most extended introductory essay is that of Hübner, on astrological elements, which are vital not only for understanding what Porphyry makes of the symbolism of the cave and for the associated theories of the travels of the human soul, but also for appreciating the background material stemming from Numenius and his companion Cronius. This part of the book also contains some very useful illustrations. Astrological content also reminds one that Porphyry is credited with the authorship of an Introduction to Ptolemy's Apotelesmatica. Along with the Commentary on Ptolemy's Harmonics, this may well be a sign of a period in Porphyry's life when he was especially interested in advances in scientific thinking in the previous century.

Before D.'s text, which is supplied with an admirably full apparatus criticus, and the translation on facing pages, he offers an impressive history of the text that will be of great use to those undertaking further scholarly work. I found the French translation extremely readable, and the notes seemed to me to offer precisely the kind of help that readers new to the text would require, with many references to the introductory essays, so that the book did indeed present itself as a unity. Dependence on the Italian translation of L. Simonini (1986) is often signalled. On lines 244–8 I would have mentioned the Derveni Papyrus in relation to the Orphic Night, simply because that text is currently generating such interest. I would not have passed over the opportunity to remind one at 327 (Κρονικὴ ἑορτή) and 334 (Νουμηνία) of the background role played by Cronius and Numenius. And I would have wanted to comment at 445, 451 and 461 on the use of νοερὰ φύσις to describe the demiurgic power, and whether it tells us anything about Porphyry's current thinking on Timaeus 39e, and whether the intelligibles were within the intellect: the one issue on which Porphyry is known to have changed his mind under Plotinus. Intelligibles may be mentioned in sections 9, 10 and 29, but has Porphyry yet thought seriously about them?

So, did Porphyry really think of himself as a Platonist here? Strictly, he is in search of the truth of an ancient vision still preserved in Homer, as in other civilisations. Parts of that vision may have been preserved by Pythagoras and Plato, but antiquity takes the honours. On 265–6 the reference to πηγαὶ and νάματα reminded me that such terms are likely to relate to the ever-popular Phaedrus among later Neoplatonists like Hermias and Olympiodorus. But even the Phaedrus’ speech-inspiring Nymphs find no mention in a text that discusses ancient nymphs in depth. Boreas material, including the wind's erotic nature (361) and union with Oreithuia (365), provoke no allusion to Plato, nor does the majestic olive tree remind Porphyry of Plato's famous plane tree. To my mind little serious love of Plato is shown in this work, and where it is, it can mostly be attributed to Numenius and Cronius.

Presentation is generally good, but typos included a date (p. 26 n. 1), Porphyry's name (p. 12), missing spaces at lines 140 and 398, and a missing letter in the final note (p. 243).