Porphyry - Letter to Marcella -"Vain Is the Word of the Philosopher..."

    I was talking to EricR this morning and trying to remember the source of this quote. In tracking it down it seems to come from Porphyry's letter to Marcella -- but do we really know this is attributable to Epicurus? Usener seems to think so, but why? Anyone recall?

    U221

    Porphyry, Letter to Marcella, 31, [p. 209, 23 Nauck]: Vain is the word of a philosopher which does not heal any suffering of man. For just as there is no profit in medicine if it does not expel the diseases of the body, so there is no profit in philosophy either, if it does not expel the suffering of the mind.

    Porphyry, Letter to his wife Marcella.  London: Priory Press (1910)

    Epicurus The Extant Remains Bailey Oxford 1926 Optimized For Greek On Left : Cyril Bailey : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
    Epicurus - The Extant Remains - Cyril Bailey - Optimized for Greek on Left Side for On-Line Viewing
    archive.org

    See p.397 in Bailey link.

    He references the similarity to VS54:

    54. Do not pretend to love and practice wisdom, but love and practice wisdom in reality; for we need not the appearance of health but true health.

    οὐ προσποιεῖσθαι δεῖ φιλοσοφεῖν, ἀλλʼ ὄντως φιλοσοφεῖν· οὐ γὰρ προσδεόμεθα τοῦ δοκεῖν ὑγιαίνειν, ἀλλὰ τοῦ κατʼ ἀλήθειαν ὑγιαίνειν.

    Here's the entry in Stobaeus' Florilegium, 82.6 (lxxxii, 6; ΠΒ'.6) that clearly attributes the saying to Pythagoras (Πυθαγόρου ) and cites Porphyry's letter to Marcella.

    Ioannis Stobaei Florilegium, recognovit Augustus Meineke ... v.0003.

    Well, this is all a bit disturbing :( It appears Usener was *assuming* that Porphyry's unattributed quote was Epicurus and not Pythagoras?? On the basis that it "sounded" something Epicurus would have said??

    PS: Honestly, this makes me skeptical of any Usener fragment not specifically citing Epicurus, the Epicureans, Philodemus, or a similar reference within the ancient text. For example,

    This is fine:

    [ U380 ]

    Aetius, Doxography, I.29.6 [p. 326 Diels] (Plutarch, I.29.2; Stobaeus Anthology, Physics 7.9): Epicurus says that chance is a cause which is uncertain with respect to persons, times, and places.

    But this now??

    [ U533 ]

    Uncertain Epicurean Author, Vol. Herc. 2, VII.21 col. XXVIII: The chief of all goods, even if there weren’t any other, is that by which he who possesses it advances toward virtue.

    So who knows who wrote U533 and yet it's included in his Epicurea!

    By Zeus! I don't know what to believe now!

    Well I did not intend to start another text deep dive, and we can give credit to EricR for this. But this does indeed call for caution as to Usener. I've never really known anything about Usener himself or his opinions about Epicurus, so maybe we need to look into his own views as an indicator of his reliability as well.


    I seem to remember that there are other issues in that letter to Marcella as well that have caused me to be cautious, so maybe this thread will be productive to review both Usener and the letter.

    Edit; A quick scan back over the link in my first post leads me toward the view that Porphyry was a strict Neo-Platonist (as the title of the article indicates). I can't recall now what we've said about this letter in the past but I could see coming to the conclusion that any resemblance to Epicurus is coincidental at best.

    Here's another from the letter to Marcella:

    [ U203 ]

    Porphyry, Letter to Marcella, 29, p. 209, 1: But insofar as you are in want, it is through forgetfulness of your nature that you feel the want. For thereby you cause to yourself vain fears and desires.

    There seem to be quite a few.

    Quote from Don

    There seem to be quite a few.

    This is reminding me of something else. I can't believe even the staunchest ancient Epicurean really thought that **everything** Epicurus said was blindingly unique. We all know much of what Epicurus taught he learned from starts others had made, such as Democritus. So it's only natural that smart people do regularly hit on similar thoughts. The uniqueness of Epicurus comes through in certain particular ways, and it's probably most helpful for us to think about those particular ways and the reasons for them. That's the obvious way to sniff out when someone who's talking - for example - about "virtue" is speaking as an Epicurean or Stoic or whatever. Surely Usener had a lot of experience and ought to have been good at it, but we (or at least I) don't know Usener's own views. This is where we regularly think that DeWitt goes to far in identifying parallels to Christianity, but starting out looking for parallels to Stoicism or Plato is going to create the same issue.

    Checking our copy of Long & Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers, entry 25C , is Usener 221. Their note reads:

    Quote

    Context: culmination of a long string of ethical quotations from Epicurus. For the Epicurean medical metaphor, cf. Gigante [271], Nussbaum [270].

    So, we should look at the preceding "string" to see if we agree with that context in the letter. The anonymous nature of the quotes just gives me pause.

    Gigante is in Italian in Cronache Ercolanesi, 1975, 53-61

    Nussbaum is her chapter in Schofield & Striker, The norms of nature: studies in Hellenistic ethics (1986)

    The passage immediately before:

    Quote

    Every disturbance and unprofitable desire is removed by the love of true philosophy. Vain is the word of that philosopher who can ease no mortal trouble. As there is no profit in the physician's art unless it cure the diseases of the body, so there is none in philosophy, unless it expel the |50 troubles of the soul. These and other like commands are laid on us by the law of our nature.

    Would Epicurus go so far as to say that?

    Clearly, before the passages right in the section starting at 29, there is a LOT of Platonist / religionist inspiration that is incompatible with Epicurus, so you have to wonder even where the lines are closest to Epicurus whether there are other influences on the wording chosen.

    Cassius: Take a look at that pdf I linked to. Some good thoughts there.

    And I personally don't have a problem with that line:

    Every disturbance and unprofitable desire is removed by the love of true philosophy.

    Usener calls that U457. disturbing there is ταραχώδης tarakhōdēs which is related to ataraxia.

    It looks like sections 27-31 of the letter are supposed to be from an Epicurean text. Again, check out that pdf.

    28. “Consequently, even the gods have prescribed remaining pure by abstinence from food and sex".

    And then, he continues his letter with his cunnings: He unites the pure abstinence from food and sex with some sayings by Epicurus (without mentioning him) and in the basis of self-sufficiency and the like, he speaks about a law of Nature without mentioning anywhere what the heck is that law; and what is real goal by Nature!!! For him, the word "pleasure" is nowhere inside that letter. His letter suffers from the illness of "moralism". :P

    imo, only an old paralyzed stoic man reaching the end of his life would write these things, and in such a way to his wife.

    Poor Marcella, I empathize you, since you were widow with seven children, and maybe desperate for marrying such an old man reaching the end of his life!

    For this reason and to unclear the whole situation with the platonists and stoics Epicurus said loudly this: <<I don’t know how I could conceive of the good without the pleasures of taste, of sex, of hearing, and without the pleasing motions caused by the sight of bodies and forms>>.

    Beauty and virtue and such are worthy of honor, if they bring pleasure; but if not then bid them farewell!

    Quote from Cassius

    I can't believe even the staunchest ancient Epicurean really thought that **everything** Epicurus said was blindingly unique. We all know much of what Epicurus taught he learned from starts others had made, such as Democritus. So it's only natural that smart people do regularly hit on similar thoughts. The uniqueness of Epicurus comes through in certain particular ways, and it's probably most helpful for us to think about those particular ways and the reasons for them. That's the obvious way to sniff out when someone who's talking - for example - about "virtue" is speaking as an Epicurean or Stoic or whatever.

    It does seem that having a basic knowledge of all the ancient philosophies could be helpful.

    Perhaps...the uniqueness of Epicurus is deconstructing and replacing the "perfect" and the "ideal" and properly placing pleasure (together with the removal of pain) as the best guide to a good life. If you think about it, it is only the wealthy who can try to buy perfection (or vain opinions) in the lifestyle that they pursue. (And then sometimes others who erroneously envy the wealthy). But the necessary pleasures required by nature are easy to procure.

    Quote from Don

    He references the similarity to VS54:

    54. Do not pretend to love and practice wisdom, but love and practice wisdom in reality; for we need not the appearance of health but true health.

    There is also the reference to health in the Letter to Menoeceus, in the opening:

    "Let no one put off the love and practice of wisdom when young, nor grow tired of it when old. For it is never too early or too late for the health of the soul."

    Over at facebook today someone asked about this same quote, and Holly expressed questions. Elli gave an answer worth recording here:

    Holly hello and joy! In the above fragment, I smell the bad smell of platonism and stoicism. 🙂

    The above fragment 221 in greek language is: "κενὸς ἐκείνου φιλοσόφου λόγος, ὑφʼ οὗ μηδὲν πάθος ἀνθρώπου θεραπεύεται· ὥσπερ γὰρ ἰατρικῆς οὐδὲν ὄφελος μὴ τὰς νόσους τῶν σωμάτων ἐκβαλλούσης, οὕτως οὐδὲ φιλοσοφίας, εἰ μὴ τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἐκβάλλει πάθος".

    First of all, and as Epicurus suggests in his LTH, is to grasp quickly the meaning of the words. Here in our situation we grasp the meaning of the greek word "πάθος" [pathos].

    In my opinion this above fragment 221 comes from Porphyrs' platonic mind, and not from the mouth of Epicurus. Why I say that? Because...

    Please look how controversial is with the following saying by Epicurus "on the wise man" by Diogenis Laertius. Since, when Epicurus uses the greek word "πάθος" [pathos] or in plural "πάθη" [pathi] he means the feeling (s) and not any "suffering".

    For Epicurus the word for "suffering" is given usually and frequently in his writings with the word "πόνος" - PAIN (for the body) and "λύπη" SAD (for the soul) or "ταραχή" [agitation]. Also for the word "πόνος" [PAIN] Epicurus uses another synonym greek word that is the "άλγος" [algos]. For "algos", see the drugs that remove the pain, and we call them as analgesics.

    The saying "on the wise man", by Epicurus - which is controversial with that fragment 221 by Porphyrs - in greek is : "O σοφός <<πάθεσι>> μάλλον συσχεσθήσεσθαι ουκ αν εμποδίσαι προς την σοφίαν".

    In english: "The wise man will be more deeply moved by <<feelings>> than others, but this will not prove to be an obstacle to his wisdom". 😉

    Moreover, Epicurus in his letter to Pythocles, he uses again this word "παθών" [pathon] with the same meaning. The greek text is "ἔτι δὲ κριτηρίων καὶ <<παθῶν>> καὶ οὗ ἕνεκεν ταῦτα ἐκλογιζόμεθα"· And means "and also of the criteria of truth and of the <<feelings>>, and of the purpose for which we reason out these things". 😉

    And finally, please, think also and another english word that is the word "empathy" that includes the greek word "πάθος" [pathos-passion] and means something very important that is : the ability to share someone else's feelings or experiences by imagining what it would be like to be in that person's situation. 😉

    Conclusion: The neoplatonists, along with stoicism, the only that they have in mind is to remove, expel, uproot all the feelings [πάθη-pathi] from the human being. 😛

    Quote from TauPhi

    DeWitt wrote his book not as a scholar but more as a fanboy of Epicurus

    Quote from Cassius

    i strongly disagree with this characterization of the DeWitt book...

    I'm going to wade into the fray to add that I think you're both correct. To TauPhi 's assertions, I agree that Dewitt was a "fanboy" of Epicurus, but I don't see that as necessarily a negative. His "Epicurus and his Philosophy" and his "St. Paul and Epicurus" appear (from the publication dates) to be projects he put off completing until after his retirement from academia. He obviously gave them lots of thought, but it seems he didn't feel her could write them as part of his academic career. And we're all familiar with personal projects here at the forum and finding time to do them! Do I think some of Dewitt's ideas fall under "fan fiction"? Yes. Do I think it detracts from the *overall* value of his work. Only the slightest bit.

    With Cassius , I'll concur that Dewitt charted his own path, and even within his career, he was fearless in advocating for the importance of studying Epicurus. It's always gratifying to see him footnted in papers! I also like his academic papers and highly recommend those to the curious student of Epicurus, but they're not for the casual reader and definitely not a starting point! And we have Dewitt to thank for this forum, per Cassius 's history.

    For myself, I admit that I have never read all of "Epicurus and his Philosophy" cover to cover. That said, the podcast episodes that methodically went through the book were very helpful in reminding me of the value of Dewitt's book. It is valuable as an overview of the history, development, and tenets of the philosophy and for providing context. It will never be my go-to recommendation (looking at you, Emily Austin ^^), but I will always include it in any important books to read bibliography.

Unread Threads

    1. Title
    2. Replies
    3. Last Reply

    2. Evidence of Survivors of Pompeii and Herculaneum 1

      • kochiekoch
      • November 20, 2024 at 8:17 PM
    3. Replies
      1
      Views
      85
      1

    4. Don

      November 20, 2024 at 8:17 PM

    2. “Better to lose the money because of me than to lose me because of the money.” 3

      • TauPhi
      • November 19, 2024 at 9:30 PM
    3. Replies
      3
      Views
      210
      3

    4. Don

      November 19, 2024 at 9:30 PM

    2. An Anti-Epicurean Article - "The Meaning of Life Is Not Happiness" (For Future Reference) 12

      • Cassius
      • November 19, 2024 at 12:17 PM
    3. Replies
      12
      Views
      889
      12

    4. Pacatus

      November 19, 2024 at 12:17 PM

    2. Was De Rerum Natura intended as satire? A lecture by THM Gellar-Goad. 14

      • Julia
      • November 11, 2024 at 4:09 PM
    3. Replies
      14
      Views
      1.1k
      14

    4. Julia

      November 11, 2024 at 4:09 PM

    2. New Slideshow: Nothing Comes From Nothing

      • Cassius
      • November 10, 2024 at 3:51 PM
    3. Replies
      0
      Views
      531