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!

    Like 3
    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."