Celebrating Ancient Greek Vegetarians

Porphyry

234 – 305 AD

  He who abstains from anything animate … will be much more careful not to injure those of his own species. For he who loves the genus will not hate any species of animals”

– Porphyry

Porphyry was born in Tyre, Phonenicia, about 232 A.D. Originally, he was called Malchus. He studied in Athens as a young man where he was taught by Longinus who persuaded him to change his name to Porphyry which meant the purple used for royal garments (Wynne-Tyson: 1965:5). In 262 A.D. he moved to Rome where he studied under Plotinus (Wicker: 1987:1).

Porphyry was taught by Plotinus (c. 205 – 270 A.D.) until 268. He became a close friend and edited Plotinus’ writings. Plotinus was a vegetarian, but his writings do not say why. Porphyry wrote a biography of Plotinus in which he states: “He refused also to take medicines containing the flesh of wild beasts, giving as his reason that he did not approve of eating the flesh even of domestic animals” (Porphyry: Loeb:2:p.5). Porphyry begins his biography by saying:

“Plotinus, the philosopher of our times, seemed ashamed of being in the body. As a result of this state of mind he could never bear to talk about his race or his parents or his native country” (Porphyry: Loeb:1:p.3).

It is thought that Plotinus was born in Egypt and spent his years as a philosopher in Rome. Porphyry says that Plotinus would not reveal his actual birth date to anyone because he did not want a sacrifice or feast to celebrate. However, Porphyry relates this rather bizarre admission that Plotinus related about his youth:

“All the same, he did often in the course of conversation spontaneously tell us something about his early life, to the following effect. Up to the age of eight, though he was already going to school, he used to keep going to his nurse and baring her breasts and wanting to suck; but when someone once told him that he was a little pest he was ashamed and stopped” (Porphyry: Loeb:3:p.9).

The task of editing Plotinus’ writings was not an easy job, for his style was stream of consciousness:

“In writing he did not form the letters with any regard to appearance or divide his syllables correctly, and he paid no attention to spelling. He was wholly concerned with thought; and, which surprised us all, he went on in this way right up to the end. He worked out his train of thought from beginning to end in his own mind, he wrote as continuously as if he was copying from a book” (ibid: 8:p.29).

However, most writers can certainly identify with Plotinus’ sentiment: “When Plotinus had written anything he could never bear to go over it twice; even to read it through once was too much for him (ibid: 8:p.29).

Porphyry claimed that his teacher had God like qualities and could look at people and tell what they were thinking.

“He once noticed that I, Porphyry, was thinking of removing myself from this life. He came to me unexpectedly while I was staying indoors in my house and told me that this lust for death did not come from a settled rational decision but from a bilious indisposition and urged me to go away for a holiday. I obeyed him and went to Sicily, since I had heard that a distinguished man called Probus was living near Lilybaeum. So I was brought to abandon my longing for death and prevented from staying with Plotinus to the end” (ibid:11:p.37).

Plotinus had many women students as well as men. While he does not say in his writings why he was a vegetarian, Porphyry writes about his own vegetarianism extensively in On Abstinence from Animal Food. One can assume that some of the arguments Porphyry puts forth are similar to those of his admired teacher.

Late in life, Porphyry married Marcella, the widow of one of friends and a philosopher in her own right. He married her as a way to educate her children and provide her with a partner “suited to her character.” Eunapius, Porphyry’s biographer gives this account of the marriage:

“It seems that he entered the married state, and a book of his is extant addressed to his wife Marcella; he says that he married her, although she was already the mother of five children, and this was not that he might have children by her, but that those she had might be educated; for the father of his wife’s children had been a friend of his own” (Eunapius: Wicker: 1987:4-5).

Porphyry was a prolific writer but unfortunately few of his texts remain. One reason for this is because he was viewed as an enemy to Christianity. His primary work was an attack on Christianity, and it was publicly burned by Constantine and then abolished by Theodosius. The only record we have of this work are fragments preserved by other authors. A letter from Constantine delights in the destruction of Porphyry’s work:

“Porphyry, that enemy of true piety, has received a fit reward for his impious writings against religion, so that he is made infamous to all future times, and covered with reproach, and his impious writings have been destroyed” (Wynne-Tyson:1965:6).

On Abstinence was written to a former disciple of Porphyry’s, Firmus, who later became a Christian and resumed the practice of eating meat. Porphyry puts forth numerous arguments why
philosophers should not eat meat. His arguments are very logical. For example, Porphyry claims that the only faculty that animals lack that humans have is human speech (they have their own speech that we can’t understand). If animals were able to speak to us and ask us not to kill and eat them, would we still be inclined to cut their throats? Just because we can’t understand their form of language, does that mean we therefore have the right to kill and eat people who speak a language we don’t comprehend?

Not only can animals think, feel, and understand as humans can, they can also show a range of emotions. Since we observe that they can become “mad”, this implies that they are normally rational. So animals possess reason.

Porphyry was a pagan at the end of the ancient period in Greek Philosophy. He was against the excesses of the church and wrote a book Against the Christians. He also believed that people should not be intimidated by those who have different views and should stand up for their beliefs.

Porphyry claims that humans historically did not eat raw meat. It wasn’t until the advent of fire that meat eating became common. The only just cause for killing animals is if they are “brutes”, creatures that unjustly attack humans. A wolf or a lion are brutes and can be killed because they pose a threat to others. A snake will not bite unless provoked, but it still poses a threat to humans. But still, even if it is justified to kill a brute, it is not justified to then eat them. Porphyry uses the argument that just because some people are unjust, does that give us the right to eat them?

What food is just to eat? Porphyry brings up the issue of plants and honey and why we are justified in eating them:

“Someone, however, perhaps may say, that we also take away something from plants [when we eat and sacrifice them to the Gods]. But the ablation is not similar; since we do not take this away from those who are unwilling that we should. For, if we omitted to gather them, they would spontaneously drop their fruits. The gathering of the fruits, also, is not attended with the destruction of the plants, as it is when animals lose their animating principle. And, with respect to the fruit which we receive from bees, since this is obtained by our labour, it is fit that we should derive a common benefit from it. For bees collect their honey from plants; but we carefully attend to them. On which account it is requisite that such a division should be made [of our attention and their labour] that they may suffer no injury. But that which is useless to them, and beneficial to us, will be the reward which we receive from them [of our attention to their concerns]. In sacrifices, therefore, we should abstain from animals. For, though all things are in reality the property of the Gods, yet plants appear to be our property; since we sow and cultivate them, and nourish them by other attentions which we pay to them. We ought to sacrifice, therefore, from our own property, and not from the property of others; since that which may be procured at a small expense, and which may easily be obtained, is more holy, more acceptable to the Gods, and better adapted to the purposes of sacrifice, and to the exercise of continual piety. Hence, that which is neither holy, nor to be obtained at a small expense, is not to be offered in sacrifice, even though it should be present” (Porphyry: Bk11 :13:p.71).

In Porphyry’s view the Gods are not greedy, but rather of the philosophy that “small is beautiful.” No wonder the Christians had such a hard time with this, as their churches became filled with gold. Porphyry goes on to explain that not only are animals expensive, city dwellers usually don’t have access to them. But city dwellers do not grow their own fruits and vegetables either. However, these items are plentiful and inexpensive to purchase. The Gods take greater pleasure in small offerings and are not materialistic. More is not better:

“Experience also testifies that the Gods rejoice in this more than in sumptuous offerings. For when that Thessalian sacrificed to the Pythian deity oxen with gilt horns, and hecatombs, Apollo said, that the offering of Hermioneus was more gratifying to him, though he had only sacrificed as much meal as he could take with his three fingers out of a sack. But when the Thessalian, on hearing this, placed all the rest of his offerings on the altar the God again said, that by so doing his present was doubly more unacceptable to him than his former offering. Hence the sacrifice which is attended with a small expense is pleasing to the Gods, and divinity looks more to the disposition and manners of those that sacrifice, than to the multitude of the things which are sacrificed” (Porphyry: Bk 11 :15:p.72).

Antiphanes relates a poem that Porphyry records, expressing the same sentiment:

In simple offerings most the Gods delight:
For though before them hecatombs are placed,
Yet frankincense is burnt the last of all.
An indication this that all the rest,
Preceding, was a vain expense, bestowed
Through ostentation, for the sake of men;
But a small offering gratifies the Gods.
(Porphyry: Bk11 :17:p.74)

Fruits are the best foods of all to sacrifice. In this passage Porphyry describes them as luscious and female, the ultimate earth mother:

“But the benefit derived from fruits is the first and the greatest of all others, and which, as soon as they are matured, should alone be offered to the Gods, and to Earth, by whom they are produced. For she is the common Vesta of Gods and men; and it is requisite that all of us, reclining on her surface, as on the bosom of our mother and nurse, should celebrate her divinity, and love her with a parental affection, as the source of our existence. For thus, when we exchange this life for another, we shall again be thought worthy of a residence in the heavens, and of associating with all the celestial Gods, whom, now beholding, we ought to venerate with those fruits of which they are the causes, sacrificing indeed to them from all these, when they have arrived at maturity, but not conceiving all of us to be sufficiently worthy to sacrifice to the Gods” (ibid: Bk11 :32:p.85-6).

The ultimate sacrifice, however, is immaterial:

“To the Gods, indeed, the most excellent offering is a pure intellect and an impassive soul, and also a moderate oblation of our own property and of other things, and this not negligently, but with the greatest alacrity” (ibid: Bk11: 61: p.107).

Porphyry cites Plato in stating that once a philosopher is on the right path, s/he should not be dissuaded by criticism. It is the duty of philosophy to try to change depraved individuals. If this proves to be impossible, then it is best to disassociate oneself from those who are not willing to change, so that they will not influence you in a negative way. He discusses the impenetrable nature of food taboos and prejudices:

“… that the Syrians indeed will not taste fish, nor the Hebrews swine, nor most of the Phoenicians and Egyptians cows; and though many kings have endeavored to change these customs, yet those that adopt them would rather suffer death, than a transgression of the law [which forbids them to eat these animals] and yet that we should choose to transgress the laws of nature and divine precepts through the fear of men, or of a certain denunciation of evil from them. For the divine choir of Gods, and divine men, may justly be greatly indignant with us, if it perceives us directing our attention to the opinions of depraved men, and idly looking to the terror with which they are attended, though we daily meditate how we may become [philosophically] dead to other things in the present life” (ibid: Bk11:61 p.108).

Animals deserve justice in part because they possess reason, consisting of external speech and the disposition of the soul. Animals can understand commands from their masters. They know when they are being spoken to in anger or with kindness. Animals also have a sense of justice within their species. Certain behaviors are not tolerated within the animal world. Humans have had long- standing relationships with animals where we attribute moral attitudes to them. Take for example, the fables where animals are given all types of emotions and analyze morality.

Porphyry believed it was unnatural, unnecessary, and vile to eat the dead bodies of animals. Eating animals would pollute the soul and lead one astray from the just life. The gods did not demand the killing of animals to make them happy. A harmless diet was the humane way to live, and it was the duty of philosophers to lead the way by their example.