This work constitutes a French critical edition of Porphyry’s Letter to Marcella, featuring a facing translation (Greek text and French translation), an extensive introduction, endnotes, and an appendix with the “Sentences” from Porphyry’s Letter to Marcella, which are precepts and maxims. While earlier French translations exist— such as Marie-Nicolas Bouillet’s from 1864, André Jean Festugière’s updated version from 1944 (the latter was published alongside three other works), and the renowned 1982 translation by Édouard des Places published by Les Belles Lettres (again, as part of a collection)[1]— this marks the first edition of this work in French independent of other Neoplatonic short works. Similar solo editions have already been produced in other languages, including Spanish, German and Italian.[2] This translation previously appeared in a 2021volume (alongside the Life of Pythagoras),[3] so for those who already possess the 2021 edition, the 2023 edition may be considered redundant: the translation is the same, but the introduction in this volume offers significantly broader coverage and value.
In the introduction, Pradeau provides a comprehensive, preliminary study which is longer than the translation itself (39 pages compared to 31 pages of translation). This introduction is recommended for its high quality and rigorous attention to detail, particularly in its careful handling of the source text. Beginning with a hypothesis on the letter’s composition date, Section 1 presents Porphyry’s biography (Une vie de Porphyre) and highlights the sources that mention the philosopher.
Pradeau effectively identifies autobiographical elements in the Life of Plotinus and in this work, which help the reader to understand Porphyry’s role as an editor and to form well-informed hypotheses about the life of a philosopher in the 3rd century CE. Pradeau also analyzes the various names for Porphyry (Malkos, Basileus, or Porphyrios) that other authors employ and the inaccuracies or inconsistencies in our evidence for Porphyry’s affairs before and after his period in Rome with Plotinus. Noteworthy is Pradeau’s exposition and critique of the motivations for Porphyry’s departure to Sicily in 268, distancing himself from his master Plotinus. Pradeau discusses diverse (often exaggerated) scholarly perspectives regarding Porphyry’s departure, contrasting the hypothesis of a potential conflict between master and disciple (allegedly leading to Porphyry’s withdrawal) with Porphyry’s significant editorial production on the island after Plotinus’ death, implying that no such conflict occurred.
Pradeau also highlights Sicily as a place of therapeutic retreat, intended as a remedy for “une forme aigue de mélancolie, en l’occurrence une dépression” (p. 5). This provides future scholars with the opportunity to further examine the similarities and differences of past and modern understandings of “melancholy” especially against the backdrop of recent scholarship in the history of medicine. Furthermore, Porphyry’ stay in Sicily marked a highly productive period for Porphyry, coinciding with the composition of On Abstinence from Killing Animals, Isagoge and Letter to Marcella, traditionally seen as his mature phase. Moreover, for Pradeau, the wider historical milieu of the death of Emperor Gallienus and a possible loss of favor among Plotinus’ philosophical circle in Rome may provide more compelling motives for Porphyry’s relocation to Sicily. Overall, this section of the volume provides a thorough historical overview of Porphyry.
In assessing the significance of Pradeau’s contribution, it is useful to emphasize several reasons why the Letter to Marcella, which should be a pivotal resource for scholars focused on Neoplatonism and Late Antiquity, has received less attention than some comparable works from late antiquity. Firstly, the extensive biographies by Eunapius of Sardis and Diogenes Laertius deal with numerous philosophers in detail; but this work is addressed to a single person (a woman) and has a strong moral character. Secondly, the Letter to Marcella is often categorized as “protreptic”, an attempt to present the philosophical life as exemplary (p. 15). Furthermore, the choice of a woman as recipient has contributed to the work’s philosophical underestimation (discussed in Sections 2 and 4). In addition, Porphyry himself has sometimes been viewed more as an editor than as a creative or original author in his own right. In addition, he has been studied through the lens of his perceived failures, losing battles against Christians (as his contemporary Eusebius of Caesarea would have it) or against theurgy in the case of Iamblichus. This has overshadowed Porphyry’s own perspectives and the criteria by which he might have judged his own output.
Pradeau himself places significant emphasis on the later Neoplatonic treatment of Porphyry as a “philosopher” compared to Iamblichus’ characterisation as a “divine” figure (p. 12, especially n. 32). This contrast should perhaps be treated with caution, as Porphyry was read, cited, and engaged with, sometimes implicitly, to an exceptional degree.[4] But outside specialist circles, it is often his disputes rather than his creative philosophical positions that have drawn attention. Hence, Pradeau’s introduction is not only necessary but also strike an important note by stating that “l’oeuvre de Porphyre n’est plus qu’une ruine aujourd’hui” (p. 11). Pradeau takes on board a wide array of texts that represent Porphyry’s place in Neoplatonic theory, although more account could be taken of the work On Abstinence from Killing Animals (pp. 10-11)—significant because the text has profound philosophical depth, despite historically being regarded as little more than philosophers’ personal account of vegetarianism.
Section 3 reviews the Letter, casting Porphyry as an exegete, doxographer, preserver of the tradition, and critic of his time. Sections 4 and 5 address the figure of Marcella, exploring her historical and literary identity, why it is necessary for her to study philosophy, and the challenges that she is presented as facing if she wishes to live according to Neoplatonic philosophical principles. Section 6 is connected to one of the appendices, which collects the abundance of moral maxims that have always been a notable aspect of the work; in fact, these could compete with the Stoic quotes that have become trendsetters in public discourse today. Additionally, Pradeau examines the work’s themes: honoring the gods (Section 7), the return of the soul, a theme prevalent throughout antiquity (Section 8), philosophy as divine science (also Section 8), and the ascent of the soul (a guide on how to become virtuous) through three stages corresponding to civic, purificatory, and contemplative virtues (Section 11). The final three sections (12-15) have a formal character, describing the themes of the letter, noting the undervaluation of this text, and referencing the editions used.
The second part of the work contains the text and translation itself. The critical apparatus is solid, and the translation tends to be literal, facilitating a good understanding of Porphyry’s thought. Some elements of the text present significant complexity due to their philosophical depth. In such cases, it is advisable to consult the endnotes, as they often provide clarity and help understand Porphyry’s references.[5] Similarly, when there have been difficulties in translating certain terms, either due to their complexity in Greek or issues with manuscript preservation, these have been thoroughly explained (see, for instance, p. 88 n. 39). The writing style is clear, and the translation of key terms will be useful to a scholar of Neoplatonism while also being intelligible to non-specialists.
An appendix contains the “Sentences” from the Letter to Marcella, indicating their correspondence with the collection of Sentences of Sextus, and the anthologies of Clitarchus and the Pythagoreans (also attributed to Clitarchus) in a table of precepts. This will be useful for future studies, both philological and philosophical, that aim to study this aspect of the text more deeply. At the end, there is a table reflecting the fragments of Epicurus present in the work (numbered according to Hermann Usener’s edition).
Finally, the bibliography is comprehensive, with a division between the editions of the Letter, given in chronological order, translations into different languages, works by Porphyry, and, lastly, a very useful selection of secondary scholarship. This detailed bibliography enhances the quality of the edition and is particularly helpful for researchers in the field as well as general readers and students seeking an introduction to key works. Additionally, there is an index of proper names and terms, that in current scholarly editions can no longer be taken for granted.
In conclusion, the utility of the introduction and the textual work in this edition reminds us of the value of critical studies that focus on a single treatise. Pradeau has managed to create a high-quality edition that truly helps both researchers and the general public understand the Letter to Marcella, reviving the classical tradition of the bilingual edition, which is less common than translations. Most importantly, Pradeau has also succeeded in reviving and drawing attention to the literary and historical image of the educated woman in antiquity, exemplified by Marcella. His work contributes indirectly to our appreciation of the role of women in ancient philosophy and paideia more broadly, distancing them from the simplistic label of matrona, “wife of” or mater and giving them their own name as philosophers.
Notes
[1] M.-N. Bouillet. Porphyre, son rôle dans l’école platonicienne, sa lettre à Marcella, traduite pour la première fois en français. Paris: Durand, 1864. A.J. Festugière. Porphyre, Lettre à Marcella, traduction par A.J. Festugière dans Trois dévots païens. Paris: Éditions du Vieux Colombier, 1944. É. des Places. Porphyre, Vie de Pythagore et Lettre à Marcella, texte établi et traduit par E. des Places. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1982.
[2] A. López and M. Tabuyo, Porfirio, Carta a Marcela. Palma de Mallorca: Olaneta, 2007. W. Pötscher, Porphyrios. Πρὸς Μαρκέλλαν. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 1969. G. Chinazzi. Il libro di Porfirio filosofo a Marcella. Gênes: Sambolino, 1886. G. Fagginn. Porfirio, Lettera a Marcella. Il testamento morale dell’Antiquità. Florence: Sansoni, 1954.
[3] L. Brisson & J.-F. Pradeau. Porphyre: Lettre à Marcella; Vie de Pythagore. Paris: Flammarion, 2021.
[4] See for example the classic study by Andrew Smith, Porphyry’s Place in the Neoplatonic Tradition. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1974.
[5] For example, note 27 (pp. 85-86) clarifies an expression in paragraph 6, while notes 57 and 58 (p. 95) delve into the philosophical content of paragraph 12.