Jump to content

Talk:Saint Porphyrius

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

General rebalancing

[edit]

Untitled

[edit]

I hope everyone is happy with what I did to this one? The article seemed to be very anti-Christian (which must be an irrelevant POV to an article on a Saint and his bio!) and quoted only MacMullen on its authenticity. But MacMullen's points tend to reflect only that he doesn't like hagiography -- an opinion that I share to some degree, and indeed which Delehaye the Bollandist writes as if he shares -- and that again makes them less than relevant to this specific vita. However I have left them as one POV.

The intro section was far too long and repetitive. We don't need to query whether Mark the Deacon wrote it in that, or state that it is contemporary (or not) -- that's what the detail is for. Let's just give the name of the author as found on the manuscript at this point -- it's not as if saying "Mark the Deacon or someone of the same name equally unknown" adds anything. Most of it was a (useful) summary of the events which should form a section by itself, I suggest -- I've treated it accordingly.

This section was also rather oddly imbalanced, and asserted things which I cannot find in the vita. Some of these I have corrected as clearly wrong -- e.g. the assertion of the burning of "private libraries", when the vita actually says "books of witchcraft" (let's be accurate, hey?). Others might reflect some other source. The vita actually says that all the temples but the Marneion were closed by Hilarius. The text of the article suggests that they were all closed at the same time later on. I've left this, because it lists the temples (the vita does not), so must be from some other source; but it seems dodgy to me. I've also added some context to the events, taken from the intro to the online text of the vita. Whoever wrote the article 'forgot' to mention that what prompted Porphyry to seek imperial assistance was a series of murders and attacks on the church over a period of a century, and a campaign of harassment against him; and they made it sound like he was a quarrelsome person just looking for trouble. That might be so -- such people certainly existed and exist today, in our PC world -- but what the vita actually says is that he was subjected to harassment over a period of years. We should surely reflect what it actually *says*?

I don't think that we should include material calling a hagiographical text a "tissue of fabrications", since that is a question of genre, not a comment on the vita specifically. We certainly need to highlight the question of whether the text is history or not, but only with authorities, I suggest, and in a balanced way. Much of the text contains very interesting material, and we shouldn't just junk it because we hate bishops (or whatever), but on objective grounds. I would suggest, actually, that we let others with qualifications do the talking on evaluations of the work anyway -- who cares what people like us think? I've taken stuff from the BBKL, which is a scholarly source itself dating to 1999, which tends to suggest that MacMullen's view is not the consensus of scholars. Head acknowledges pretty thoroughly the points made against the vita; but shows how they arise. The stuff on the Georgian version isn't backed up in any other source -- as far as I know Peeters simply published it and showed that it must be of Syriac origin (probable anyway).

Let me know here if you disagree, and we might discuss it. Roger Pearse 15:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Where have I suppressed material attributed to MacMullen, tho? -- I retained all of it as far as I know, as one (albeit marginal, apparently) position on the material. Why do you say that this makes this "an opinion piece"? Roger Pearse 16:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
In what follows I have split up the points to respond to each.
  • I have set the sequence of events, as given in the vita, back in order, so that they are intelligible;
I have not seen any change to the order of events, but I am quite happy with this as it stands. What I *have* seen is the introduction of POV phrasing such as "bishop Porphyry decided to strike a decisive blow".
  • however, it gives a false impression to call the Vita Porphyri a "biography".
What would you prefer to call it? Other than "a tissue of fabrications", which seems remarkably POV?
  • A critical, historical reading "must be an irrelevant POV to an article on a Saint and his bio!" Roger Pearse tells you.
Um, where do I say this? I said that anti-Christian bias must be irrelevant POV to an article on a saint. Do you disagree? Because, even if I hated Christians as much as you clearly do, I don't see the point of every page about every saint being filled with attacks on Christianity, do you? That would be true, even on articles about Nazism or atheism, little as I like either. "Why hagiography is crap" (or whatever) should be in the hagiography article, not distributed across 10,000 saint's articles, surely? Link to the article and forget about it.
  • Whether Porphyry existed or not, he's not everybody's "saint", Roger Pearse should be reminded.
I'm afraid that I don't understand what you mean here. Please explain why you are so upset about whatever it is. Is it the use of the word "saint"? I'm not an RCC or a Greek Orthodox, and I don't care either way. But again, how is this an issue on this article? If you object to the word "saint", edit the article on saints.
  • It serves no purpose, either, to delete essential information from the Vita.
None whatever. Indeed I added to the article by about 100%, all from either the vita or scholarly research. Which information did I delete which is present in the vita? What data did you add to the article taken from the vita? Sorry, but this seems a very odd comment to me.
  • Bowdlerizing the factual statement "the closing of temples and smashing of sculpture— the "idols" of Christian literature—" to read "destruction of pagan images" simply throws sand in our eyes: we normally call these objects "sculpture", except in Bible class.
The text as it stood did not reflect what the vita actually said. The difficulty is that "smashing of sculpture" -- which to me means art vandalism -- is not what the text says. What the soldiers were doing -- in their own terms, and everyone else's -- was going through houses smashing images of pagan deities. That is what the vita says -- look and see! With sculpture, as such, they had no concern, and the vita does not say they did. If you want 'sculpture', by all means cite the relevant passage of the vita in support of it and we'll include it.
  • The article is essentially a report on the text Vita Porphyrii: to jumble its sequences and cut out details cannot genuinely serve any curious reader.
I agree and I don't think that I did. What I did do was *read the vita*, and add a lot from it.
  • And to suggest that the non-Christian books that were burned were only "books of witchcraft", mentioned in the hagiography, is an imposition on our understanding. --Wetman 13:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This seems a bit odd to me -- how is it an imposition to use the actual wording of the vita? The vita does not state that private libraries were burned. The phrase used is "books of witchcraft", quite specifically. So in fact you have removed what the vita says and replaced it by language saying something different. May I ask why?
I note that you have not discussed why you reintroduced all the polemical language in the intro, to which I referred above. How is it useful to do this? Also: I cannot see what content you added here? -- your edit appears to be entirely on matters of opinion. Can you highlight this for me? I have not altered your edits, pending agreement. Roger Pearse 16:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Going through the edits

[edit]

I was wondering how to deal with the changes, since there are a lot. Rather than generalities, perhaps the best approach to this would be to look at all the reverts that Wetman has made on a case-by-case, plus whatever changes made, and see what seems best and why? Let's discuss them. So I've started with the intro:

Intro

[edit]

Currently it reads as follows (text reverted from my changes, but a couple of refs added):

Saint Porphyry (Greek: Πορφύριος/Porphyrios; Latin: Porphyrius; Slavonic: Порфирий/Porfiriy) (347–420), bishop of Gaza 395 - 420, was canonized for Christianizing the recalcitrant pagan city of Gaza.
Porphyry (or Porphyrius) of Gaza is known to us only from the ''Vita Porphyrii'' allegedly written by his deacon, '''Marcus Diaconis''' ('''Marcus the Deacon'''), which claims to be a contemporary account <ref>Apparent use of [[Theodoret]] and other later sources convinced P. Peeters that it was actually written after 534. (P. Peeters, "La vie géorgienne de Saint Porphyre de Gaza" ''Analecta Bollandiana'' '''59''' 1941, pp 65-216.</ref> of Porphyry that chronicles in some detail the end of paganism in Gaza in the early fifth century. Though the tissue of inventions that is the ''Vita Porphyrii'' has come unravelled in the twentieth century,<ref>Ramsay MacMullen, ''Christianizing the Roman Empire'', (Yale University Press) 1984, pp 86-89.</ref> its details were carefully crafted for verisimilitude and thus this [[hagiography]] may be used by the historian as a marker for what people believed. Without other contemporary sources to corroborate or correct it, uncritical readers have accepted the author's picture in ''Vita Porphyrii'' as one showing intimately familiarity with Gaza in late Antiquity.<ref>Helen Saradi-Mendelovici, "Christian Attitudes toward Pagan Monuments in Late Antiquity and Their Legacy in Later Byzantine Centuries" ''Dumbarton Oaks Papers'' '''44''' (1990, pp. 47-61) pp 53f instances as history the destruction of the temples in Gaza in ''Vita Porphyrii''.</ref>

I have several questions about this, which is what led me to change it in the first place.

  • I couldn't think of a less neutral phrase for 'fiction' than "tissue of inventions". As such it needs to go, surely? Likewise the following phrases smell of opinion: "crafted for verisimilitude"; "allegedly"; "claims to be"; "uncritical readers". All these statements mean only "the text is not history -- to what extent it can be used for history is debated". So wouldn't it be better to say something like that, and then deal with details in the body of the article?
  • Not sure why we want "Marcus the deacon" rather than "Mark the Deacon"? The English literature all uses the latter as far as I can see.
  • I think that we shouldn't present MacMullen's views in the intro (or indeed any other single scholar). Such detail belongs in the body of the article, particularly since most scholars reject his extreme rejection of everything in the life (and so does everyone who has edited this article, as far as I can see -- does anyone disageee?) All that we should have in the intro, IMHO, is to indicate that there are issues in this area. It's only a summary, isn't it?
  • We shouldn't stud the intro with references, surely? Surely the intro should simply summarise what the article says? The points made need to go in the body of the article.
  • Has anyone actually read Peeters article? I ask because the BBKL says that this view well predates him, and describes his contribution only as publishing the Syriac version. What are Peeters exact words? And, surely again, shouldn't these should go in the body of the article? (I have Helen Saradi-Mendelovici before me, and the comment is correct. Indeed she contradicts the "sculpture-smashing stuff in the body pretty seriously). But actually I wonder whether the same should apply to that).

My suggested version, mainly as I wrote it but including all the changes since revert which seem good to me:

Saint Porphyry (Greek: Πορφύριος/Porphyrios; Latin: Porphyrius; Slavonic: Порфирий/Porfiriy) (347–420), bishop of Gaza 395 - 420, was canonized for Christianizing the recalcitrant pagan city of Gaza.
Porphyry is known to us only from the vivid biography by Mark the Deacon. The ''Vita Porphyrii'' appears to be a contemporary account of Porphyry that chronicles in some detail the end of paganism in Gaza in the early fifth century. However the text has been identified in the 20th century as [[hagiography]] rather than history and some elements of it are certainly examples of the stereotyped events characteristic of this form of fiction <ref>Apparent use of [[Theodoret]] and other later sources convinced P. Peeters that it was actually written after 534. (P. Peeters, "La vie géorgienne de Saint Porphyre de Gaza" ''Analecta Bollandiana'' '''59''' 1941, pp 65-216.</ref> . On the other hand the author was certainly intimately familiar with Gaza in late Antiquity <ref>Helen Saradi-Mendelovici, "Christian Attitudes toward Pagan Monuments in Late Antiquity and Their Legacy in Later Byzantine Centuries" ''Dumbarton Oaks Papers'' '''44''' (1990, pp. 47-61) pp 53f instances as history the destruction of the temples in Gaza in ''Vita Porphyrii''.</ref>, and his statements are of interest at least as reflecting attitudes in the 5th century.

(I have retained the Peeters ref. until we know more).

I've put this version into the article, so that people watching it will be notified.

Comments please. :)

(1) The article states that St. Porphyry "was canonized for Christianizing the recalcitrant pagan city of Gaza." I think it more accurate to think he was canonized for the sanctity of his life. Given the generally negative slant of the original article, this could be interpreted as a criticism of the church (or a suggestion that his canonization was political). Has anyone researched the process that led to his canonization? Can we say with certainty that this really was the sole reason? It seems to me that the simplest and most NPOV solution is to remove the reference to canonization and say something like, "was known for Christianizing the recalcitrant pagan city of Gaza." or simply, "was bishop of the city of Gaza," and allow subsequent paragraphs to explain the process of Christianization.
Thanks for your comments. I saw this phrase too. Unless we actually known why he was canonized -- I don't -- and have a reference for it, I suggest we chop it. Thinking of the NPOV principle, we want to express neither approval or disapproval.
The violence that brought paganism to an end here can certainly speak for itself.Roger Pearse 08:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
(2) I'm not sure that characterizing hagiography as "fiction" is accurate. Despite some obvious examples of "gilding the lily," the intention behind hagiography is to inspire, not to fabricate; and many hagiographers did make their best efforts to ensure that what they reported was accurate or at least attested-to by eye witnesses. The article linked-to above, "Hagiography," notes that the perjorative use of the term is applied to modern contexts (not to the original religious writings). MishaPan 22:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've read Delehaye, and his various categories of hagiography, so I don't want to jump either way on this. I don't think that it is as simple as 'hagiography=fiction' either (although it sometimes is!). What I felt was that this issue is one for the hagiography article (and the best of luck to them). All the material that I have read on the Vita suggests that it really does contain some stereotyped fictional episodes routinely attributed to saints; therefore must be considered a specimen of hagiography (lit. hagios=holy/saint graphos=written thing; this is a "saint's life", so must fall in that definition). I agree about not wanting to use it as a pejorative term; but some do, and some feel that about this vita. Roger Pearse 08:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

John II "deleted" and Praylius "substituted"

[edit]

"...deleted in particular each mention of John II of Jerusalem, replacing it with the name of Praylius, his successor..." In an English document purporting to be of 1670, if the name "King James" appears instead of "King Charles", to say that "Charles" had been deleted and "King James" substituted specifically would imply that "Charles" would have been in the supposed original. This intellectual subterfuge, reinforcing an assumed authenticity of the vita, needs to be gently addressed, or are we all to go along with the game and dupe the reader? This is what "tissue of lies" entails, is it not? I had been taken in previously by the apparent historicity of this document and my resentment shows. --Wetman 10:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It must be a hypothesis on the part of Gregoire, etc, I agree. Whether it is right -- or whether, in fact, it is evidence of a 6th century origin for the whole thing -- well, I don't know. The BBKL, which we are quoting in the article, is merely giving their conclusion here, I think. I'm not sure how I feel about us attacking them for this, tho, which is what we would be doing. I haven't read their text myself so I don't know on what they base this. I'm reluctant for *us* to intrude opinions, not least because I don't have a huge quantity of sympathy for hagiographers so might write opinion myself. Anyone else got a thought on this? I'm slightly inclined to leave the change alone, not least because it does highlight that there are issues here, and it's in a footnote where it won't do much harm to the casual reader anyway (if considered a bad idea) and will send a message those reading for detail (who might find the point useful).
At some point someone needs to do what the BBKL editors did and read the literature through and digest it, with references. But that probably is outside the remit of a Wikipedia article. More bibliography might be good, tho. The Greek in the PG text is probably online at Google books, now I think of it.
It's a very, very interesting text. But if you just chop the plainly intrusive hagiographical sections, we're left with something that looks very like a 5th century account, and everyone that I have read seems to feel that the vivid details given about the end of paganism are not something we want to lose. Roger Pearse 09:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone looked at his entry in the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire? It is an exhaustive collection of articles on every person for whom we have any written evidence (from 260 to 614), with a good bibliography. -- llywrch 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't, since it isn't to hand. But it's a good suggestion, and I'll look into it. However for Porphyry of Gaza I believe that the vita is all there is. -- Roger Pearse 12:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Marneion bits

[edit]

Can I query the (interesting) section on the Marneion? I'm not sure that it belongs where it is. I don't want to lose it, but mostly it relates to events in the reign of Hadrian, 3 centuries earlier, so chronologically doesn't really belong where it is. I initially moved it to a chronological position. But I was wondering whether we should have a separate section in the page on 'Paganism in Gaza' or something like that? Where does this info come from? Is it in MacMullen? Roger Pearse 09:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vita Porphyrii in Church Slavonic

[edit]

"The text has come down to us in a Greek and a Georgian recension... and... the text of the Vita transmitted to us represents a revision of the sixth century, which borrowed from the church history of Theodoret of Cyrrhus of 444, e.g. for the Proemium and deleted in particular each mention of John II, Bishop of Jerusalem, replacing it with the name of Praylius, his successor as bishop of Jerusalem in the time of Porphyrius"

It should be noted that I have a copy of the Vita Porphyrii in Church Slavonic and the latter point is not attested in it. No Praylius is mentioned and two distinct Johns appear: John Chrysostomos and this John II, Bishop of Jerusalem. It may be true that these recension exist in Greek and Georgian but certainly not in the copy kept by the Old Believers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.174.226 (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heliopolis

[edit]

Given that the rest of the action is in Syria, are we sure that they're talking about Heliopolis (Ancient Egypt) instead of Heliopolis (Syria)? — LlywelynII 06:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"fiction"?

[edit]

Does the reference support the word "fiction" in this line? "However the text has been identified in the 20th century as hagiography rather than history and some elements of it are certainly examples of the stereotyped events characteristic of this form of fiction." Hagiography might not be history but that does not make it fiction. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Porphyry of Gaza. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saint_Porphyrius&oldid=1209823480"