Against Nathan Porter: Clement's Perspective on Plagiarism and the Use of 'Timaeus of Locri'

In the ongoing series defending the Clementine authorship of Ep.366, it is essential to address charges of plagiarism within the Greek tradition. Nathan Porter has suggested that the letter could be a later forgery, but examining Clement's own views on plagiarism offers substantial evidence against this claim.

Clement’s Doctrine of Origins and Plagiarism

Clement’s attitude towards plagiarism is rooted in his broader doctrine of the origins of wisdom. He posited that the earliest sources were closest to the divine truth, which had been progressively revealed to humanity. This view allowed him to appreciate even works traditionally accused of being plagiarized, as long as they conveyed genuine insights. Clement saw himself as part of a tradition of transmitting and elucidating ancient wisdom, rather than as an innovator creating new doctrines from scratch.

In Paedagogus 3.11.54, Clement praises Plato as a “devotee of Moses,” indicating his belief that Plato’s ideas were significantly influenced by earlier Jewish wisdom. Clement’s openness to the idea of borrowing from earlier sources is further demonstrated in his treatment of On the Nature of the Cosmos and the Soul by ‘Timaeus of Locri.’ This text, a pseudo-Pythagorean forgery and Doricized abridgment of Plato’s Timaeus, was widely accepted in antiquity as the original source that Plato used for his famous dialogue. Clement quotes from ‘Timaeus of Locri’ in Stromata 5.14.115, suggesting he was aware of the historical accusations of plagiarism but remained unconcerned.

Historical Context of Plagiarism Accusations

From the 4th century BC onwards, accusations of plagiarism against Plato often had a Pythagorean connection. For instance, it was rumored that Plato paid a substantial amount to the Pythagorean Philolaus for his work, which he then transcribed as the Timaeus (Diogenes Laertius 8.85). Another account suggests he bought three Pythagorean books from Philolaus (Diogenes Laertius 3.9).

More substantively, Diogenes Laertius (3.9-17) provides excerpts from the work of Alcimus, who accuses Plato of extensive borrowing from Epicharmus:

“Further, he derived great assistance from Epicharmus the comic poet, for he transcribed [μεταγραψας] a great deal from him, as Alcimus says in the books To Amyntas, of which there are four. In the first of them he writes thus: ‘It is evident that Plato often employs the words of Epicharmus. Just consider…’”

Alcimus presents side-by-side comparisons of passages from Epicharmus and Plato, pointing out the latter’s extensive borrowing. This method of revealing intellectual debt is reminiscent of how Clement ‘exposes’ plagiarism in Stromata 5.14. However, from Clement’s perspective, such borrowing is commendable because it reflects a transmission of higher wisdom.

The Role of Epicharmus in Ep.366

The closing quote from Epicharmus in Ep.366 aligns with Clement's method of using authoritative ancient sources to underscore his points. Clement cites Epicharmus fifteen times across his works, indicating the high regard he held for this philosopher. For Clement, Epicharmus represented a connection to the deepest, pre-Christian insights, aligning perfectly with his broader intellectual project.

The quote from Epicharmus in Stromata 2.5.24 and its appearance in Ep.366 can be seen as a hallmark of Clement’s style:

“Let Epicharmus speak: ‘The mind sees and the mind hears; all besides is deaf and blind.’”

Clement’s consistent use of Epicharmus highlights his belief in the continuity of wisdom from ancient times through the Greeks to the Christians. This undermines the suggestion that the letter is a later forgery, as a forger would be less likely to embed such a nuanced understanding of intellectual history and appropriation.

Conclusion

The evidence supports the view that Ep.366 is authentically Clementine. Clement’s relaxed attitude towards plagiarism, rooted in his doctrine of the divine origin of wisdom, allows for the incorporation of ideas from various ancient sources. The presence of Epicharmus, considered an ur-Plato figure by Clement, reinforces the letter’s alignment with his known works. Therefore, accusations of forgery or later composition are less plausible than the simpler explanation that Clement is recycling his characteristic material.