No More Learning

PYTHAGORAS.
with the Hyperborean Apollo. (Porph. I. c. 20 ; 1 members of the club of 300 is not so probable.
lambl. l. c. 31, 110; Aelian, V. ì. i. 26 ; Diog. Krische (1. C. p. 45) considers that these female
Laërt. viii. 36. ) And without viewing him as an Pythagoreans were only the wives and relations of
impostor, we may easily believe that he himself to members of the brotherhood, who were instructed
some extent shared the same views. He is said to in some of the Pythagorean doctrines. These would
have pretended to divination and prophecy. (Cic. doubtless be mainly those connected with the reli-
de Divin. j. 3,46 ; Porph. I. c. 29. ) " In his promi- gious part of his system. (Comp. Menage, Hisl.
nent vocation, analogous to that of Epimenides, de Mul. Philos. )
Orpheus, or Melampus, he appears as the revealer With respect to the internal arrangements and
of a mode of life calculated to raise his disciples discipline of this brotherhood only a few leading
above the level of mankind, and to recommend features seem to rest upon a basis of evidence and
them to the favour of the gods. ” (Grote, vol. iv. probability sufficient to warrant our bestowing any
p. 529. )
attention upon them. All accounts agree that what
No certainty can be arrived at as to the length was done and taught among the members was kept
of time spent by Pythagoras in Egypt or the East, a profound secret towards all without its pale. But
or as to his residence and efforts in Samos or other we are also told that there were gradations among
Grecian cities, before his removal to Italy. Ritter the members themselves. It was an old Pythago-
is inclined to believe from the expressions of He- rean maxim, that every thing was not to be told to
rodotus that the secret cultus or orgies of Pytha- every body (Diog. Laërt. viii
. 15; Arist. ap. lamb.
goras had gained some footing in Greece or lonia, 31, év Tois rávu dropsúrous). The division of
even before Crotona became the focus of his influ- classes is usually described as one into lowtepikol
ence (Gesch. der Phil. vol. i. p. 364, Gesch. der and EWTepuxol, though these terms themselves
Pyth. Phil. p. 31). In the visits to various places in are probably of later origin. Other names giren
p
Greece-- Delos, Sparta, Phlius, Crete, &c. which to corresponding divisions are, livêayopeloi and
are ascribed to him, he appears commonly either in Iudayopiotal (lambl. 80). Other accounts, again,
his religious or priestly character, or else as a law-speak of a division into three classes, Iudayopikol,
giver (lambl. 1. c. 25; Porph. l. c. 17; Diog. Ivoazópeloi, and livdayopiorai, according to the
Laërt. viii. 3, 13; Cic. Tusc. Qu. v. 3).
degree of intimacy which they enjoyed with Py-
It is in the highest degree probable that the thagoras ; the first class being those who held the
reason why Pythagoras removed to Crotona is to closest communion with him ; or into gebaotiKOL,
be found in the unfavourable condition of his TOMT ikoi, and uaðnuatikol, according as the sub-
native country, while under the tyranny of Poly-ject of their studies related mainly to religion, to
crates, for the realisation of his schemes. Later politics, or to mathematical and physical science
admirers were content to believe that, from the high(Phot. Cod. 249). Other authorities speak of
estimation in which he was held by his fellow-drovouatikol and manuatikol (lambl. l. c. ), or
citizens, he was so overburdened with public duties, Acustici, Mathematici, and Physici (Gell. N. A.
as to have no time to bestow upon philosophy, and i. 9). Most of these divisions, however, presup-
so withdrew from Samos (lambl. 28; Porph. 9). pose a more marked separation between the dif-
The reason why he selected Crotona as the sphereferent branches of human knowledge, or between
of his operations, it is impossible to ascertain from philosophical training and political activity, than
any existing evidence. All that is adduced on existed at that time. In the admission of candi-
this head by K. O. Müller (Dorians, iii. 9. & 17, dates Pythagoras is said to have placed great re-
vol. ii. p. 189, &c. ) is mere conjecture, and is of the liance on his physiognomical discernment (Gell.
tlost unsatisfactory kind. Grote (vol. iv. p. 538) 1. c. ). . If admitted, they had to pass through a
supposes that the celebrity of Crotona for the cul- period of probation, in which their powers of main-
tivation of the art of medicine may possibly have taining silence (exeuvoia) were especially tested,
had some influence with him. That on his arrival as well as their general temper, disposition, and
there he speedily attained extensive influence, and mental capacity (Ariston. ap. lambl. 94). That
gained over great numbers to enter into his views, they had to maintain silence for five years, and
is all that can safely be affirmed in the midst of during the whole of that period were never allowed
the marvellous stories told by later biographers of to behold the face of Pythagoras, while they were
the effects of his eloquent discourses in leading the from time to time exposed to various severe ordeals
Crotoniates to abandon their luxurious and cor-|(lambl. 68), are doubtless the exaggerations of a
rupting manner of life and devote themselves to later age. There is more probability in the state-
that purer system which he came to introduce. ment (Taurus, ap. Gell. i. 9) that the period of
(Porph. 18 ; Iambl. 37, &c. ) His adherents were noviciate varied according to the aptitude which
chiefly of the noble and wealthy classes. Three the candidates manifested for the Pythagorean dis-
hundred of these were formed into a select brother- cipline. As regards the nature of the esoteric in-
hood or club, bound by a sort of vow to Pythagoras struction to which only the most approved members
and each other, for the purpose of cultivating the of the fraternity were admitted, some (e. g. Meiners,
religious and ascetic observances enjoined by their Gesch. der Wissenschaften) have supposed that it
master, and of studying his religious and philoso- had reference to the political views of Pythagoras.
phical theories. The statement that they threw all Ritter (l. c. p. 47, &c. ), with greater probability,
their property into a common stock has not suffi- holds that it bad reference mainly to the orgies,
cient evidence to support it, and was perhaps in or secret religious doctrines and usages, which un-
the first instance only an inference from certain doubtedly formed a prominent feature in the Py-
Pythagorean maxims and practices (comp. Cic. de thagorean system, and were peculiarly connected
Leg. i. 12, de off. i. 7; Diog. Laërt. viii. 10; with the worship of Apollo (Aelian, V. H. ii. 26 ;
Krische, l. c. p. 27, &c. ; Ritter, l. c. p. 39). That Diog. Laërt. viii. 13 ; Tambl. 8. 91, 141; comp.
there were several women among the adherents of Krische, l. c. p. 37 ; Brandis, l. c. p. 432 ; Müller,
Pythagoras is pretty certain. That any were | Dorians, iii. 9. & 17). The admission of women to


## p. 619 (#635) ############################################

PYTHAGORAS.
m
a
PYTHAGORAS.
619
a knowledge of these (if indeed they were members sections, that they might devote themselves exclu-
of the club) is far more intelligible than their ini- sively to religious and philosophical contemplatione.
tiation into political secrets. And the avrds épa of Rather he aimed at the production of a calm bear-
the master connects itself most easily with the ing and elevated tone of character, through which
priestly character of Pythagoras, and the belief those trained in the discipline of the Pythagorean
which his disciples, and probably he himself also, life should exhibit in their personal and social ca-
entertained, that he enjoyed a closer and more pacities a reflection of the order and harmony of
direct intercourse with the gods than other men. the universe. But the question whether he had
It is possible enough, however, that some of the any distinct political designs in the foundation of
inore recondite speculations of the philosopher were his brotherhood, has been variously answered. It
connected with these religious views, while the was perfectly natural, even without any express
ordinary scientific studies — mathematics, music, design on his part, that a club such as the Three
astronomy, &c. :- were open to all the disciples. Hundred of Crotona should gradually come to
That there were some outward peculiarities of an mingle political with other objects, and by the faci-
ascetic kind (many of which had, perhaps, a sym- lities afforded by their secret and compact organi-
bolical meaning) in the mode of life to which the sation should speedily gain extensive political
members of the brotherhood were subjected, seems influence, wbich, moreover, the political condition
pretty certain (comp. Porph. 32 ; lambl. 96, &c. ). of Crotona, where the aristocracy was with diffi-
Some represent him as forbidding all animal food culty holding its ground, rendered more than usu-
(118 Empedocles did afterwards, Arist. Rhet. i. 14. ally easy. That this influence should be decisively
$2 ; Sext. Emp. ix. 127. This was also one of on the side of aristocracy or oligarchy, resulted
the Orphic precepts, Aristoph. Ran. 1032).
This, naturally both from the nature of the Pythagorean
if to any extent the case, may have had reference institutions, and from the rank and social position
to the doctrine of metempsychosis (comp. Plut. de of the members of the brotherhood. Through them,
Esu Carn. pp. 993, 996, 997). It is, however, of course, Pythagoras himself exercised a large
pointed out by Grote (vol. iv. p. 533), that all the amount of indirect influence over the affairs both of
members cannot have been subjected to this prohibi- Crotona and of other Italian cities. It does not
tion ; Milo, for instance, could not possibly have appear however that he ever held any official rank,
dispensed with animal food. The best authorities though we are told that the senate urged him to
contradict the statement. According to Ariston accept the office of Prytanis. But we have no evi-
(ap. Diog. Laërt. viii. 20) he allowed the use of all dence that the objects of Pythagoras were (as
kinds of animal food except the flesh of oxen used Krische, Müller, and others believe) from the first
for ploughing, and rams (comp. Porph. 7 ; lambl. predominantly political, or even that he had any
85, 108). There is a similar discrepancy as to the definite political designs at all in the formation of
prohibition of fish and beans (Diog. Laërt. vii. 19, his club. That he intended to exhibit in Crotona
34 ; Gell. iv. Il ; Porph. 34, de Alst i. 26 ; the model of a pure Dorian aristocracy (Müller,
Iambl. 98). But temperance of all kinds seems to Dorians, iii. 9. § 16), is a mere fancy (comp. Grote,
have been strictly enjoined. It is also stated that yol. iv. p. 545, note). It is true that the club
they had common meals, resembling the Spartan was in practice at once “a philosophical school, a
Byssitia, at which they met in companies of ten religious brotherhood, and a political association"
(Iambl. 98 ; Strabo, vi. p. 263). Considerable im- (Thirlwall, Hist. of Greece, vol. ii. p. 148), but
portance seems to have been attached to music and there is nothing to show that “ all these characters
gymnastics in the daily exercises of the disciples. appear to have been inseparably united in the
Their whole discipline is represented as tending to founder's mind. " Mr. Grote, more in accordance
produce a lofty serenity and self-possession, regard- with the earliest and best authority on the subject
ing the exhibition of which various anecdotes were (Plato, de Rep. . p. 600, comp. de Leg. vi. p.
current in antiquity (Athen. xiv. p. 623 ; Aelian, | 782, who contrasts Pythagoras, as the institutor
V. H. xiv. 18 ; Iambl. 197 ; comp. Krische, loc. of a peculiar mode of private life, with those who
p. 42).
Iamblichus (96–101, apparently on the exercised a direct influence upon public life), re
authority of Aristoxenus) gives a long description marks, “We cannot construe the scheme of Pytha-
of the daily routine of the members, which suggests goras as going farther than the formation of a
many points of comparison with the ordinary life private, select order of brethren, embracing his
of Spartan citizens. It is not unlikely that religious fancies, ethical tone, and germs of scien-
many of the regulations of Pythagoras were sug- tific idea, and manifesting adhesion by those ob-
gested by what he saw in Crete and Sparta. Among servances which Herodotus and Plato call the
the best ascertained features of the brotherhood are Pythagorean orgies and mode of life. And his
the devoted attachment of the members to each privato order became politically powerful because
other, and their sovereign contempt for those who he was skilful or fortunate enough to enlist a suffi-
did not belong to their ranks (Ariston, ap. Iambl. cient number of wealthy Crotoniates, possessing
94, 101, &c. , 229, &c. ; comp. the story of Damon individual influence, which they strengthened iin-
and Phintias ; Porph. 60 ; Iambl 233, &c. ). It mensely by thus regimenting themselves in intimate
appears that they had some secret conventional union” (Hist. of Greece, vol. iv. p. 544). The
ymbols, by which members of the fraternity could notion of Müller and Niebuhr, that the 300 Py-
recognise each other, even if they had never metthagoreans constituted a kind of smaller senate at
before (Schol. ad Arist. Nub. 611 ; lambl 237, Crotona, is totally without foundation. On the
238 ; Krische, pp. 43, 44). Clubs similar to that other hand, it seems quite as unfounded to infer
at Crotona were established at Sybaris, Metapon- from the account that Pythagoras was the first to
tum, Tarentum, and other cities of Magna Graecia apply to himself the epithet Dindoopos (Cic. Tusc.
The institutions . of Pythagoras were certainly v. 3 ; Diog. Laërt. i. 12), that philosophical con-
not intended to withdraw those who adopted them templation was the sole end that he had in view.
from active exertion and social and political con- Respecting the Pytbagorean life, and its analogy
i


## p. 620 (#636) ############################################

620
PYTHAGORAS.
PYTHAGORAS.
ܪ
with the Orphic life, see Lobeck, Aglaophamus, For a considerable time after the breaking up of
Orphica, lib. ii. pp. 247, 698, 900. The rescm- the clubs at Crotona and elsewhere great obscurity
blance in many respects of the Pythagorean brother- hangs over the history of the Pythagoreans. No
hood or order to that founded by Loyola has been reliance can be placed on the lists of them which
more than once pointed out.
later writers have given, as they have been
It is easy to understand how this aristocratical Amplified, partly through mere invention, partly
and exclusive club would excite the jealousy and through a confusion between Pythagoreans and
Joustility not only of the democratical party in Cro- Italian philosophers generally. The writings, or
tona, but also of a considerable number of the op- fragments of writings, which have come down to
posite faction. The hatred which they had excited us under the names of Archytas, Timaeus, Ocellus,
speedily led to their destruction. The circumstances Brontinus, &c. , have been shown to be spurious.
attending this event are, however, involved in some Pythagorism seems to have established itself by
uncertainty. In the hostilities which broke out degrees more and more in different parts of Greece.
between Sybaris and Crotona on the occasion of About the time of Socrates, and a little later, we
the refusal of the Crotoniates (to which, it is said, get some trustworthy notices of Philolaus, Lysis,
they had been urged by Pythagoras) to surrender Cleinins, Eurytus, and Archytas. These men, and
some exiles of Sybaris, the forces of Crotona were others who applied themselves to the development
headed by the Pythagorean Milo [MILO); and of the Pythagorean philosophy, were widely diffe-
the other members of the brotherhood doubtless rent from the so-called Pythagoreans of a later age
took a prominent part. The decisive victory of | (from the time of Cicero onwards), who were cha-
the Crotoniates seems to have elated the Pythago racterised by little except an exaggeration of the
reans beyond measure. A proposal (occasioned, religious and ascetic fanaticism of the Pythagorean
according to the statement in lamblichus, c. 255, system (APOLLONIUS or TYANA). This Neo-
by a refusal on the part of the senate to distribute Pythagorism was gradually merged in the kindred
among the people the newly conquered territory of mysticism of the Neo-Platonists.
Sybaris ; though this account involves considerable When we come to inquire what were the philo-
difficulty ; see Grote, l. c. p. 549) for establishing sophical or religious opinions held by Pythagoras
p
a more democratical constitution, was unsuccessfully himself, we are met at the outset by the difficulty
resisted by the Pythagoreans. Their enemies, that even the authors from whom we have to draw
headed by Cylon and Ninon, the former of whom possessed no authentic records bearing upon the
is said to have been irritated by his exclusion from subject of the age of Pythagoras himself. If
the brotherhood, excited the populace against them. Pythagoras ever wrote any thing, his writings
An attack was made upon them while assembled perished with him, or not long after. The proba-
either in the house of Milo, or in some other place bility is that he wrote nothing. (Comp. Plut. de
of meeting. The building was set on fire, and Alex. fort. p. 329; Porph. l. c. 57 ; Galen, de Hipp.
many of the assembled members perished ; only et Plat. Plac. v. 6. ) The statements to the con-
younger and more active escaping (Iambl. 255 trary prove worthless on examination. Every
-259 ; Porph. 51-57 ; Diog. Laërt. viii. 39 ; thing current under his name in antiquity was
Diod. x. fragm. vol. iv. p. 56, ed. Wess. ; comp. spurious. (See Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. i. pp.
Plut. de Gen. Socr. p. 583). Similar commotions 779–805 ; Ritter, Gesch. der Pyth. Phil. p. 56. )
ensued in the other cities of Magna Graecia in It is all but certain that Philolaus was the first
which Pythagorean clubs had been formed, and who published the Pythagorean doctrines, at any
kept them for a considerable time in a state of rate in a written form [PHILOLAUS). Still there
great disquietude, which was at length pacified by was so marked a peculiarity running through the
the mediation of the Peloponnesian Achaeans (Po- Pythagorean philosophy, by whomsoever of its ad-
lyb. ii. 39). As an active and organised brother- herents it was developed, and so much of uni-
hood the Pythagorean order was everywhere sup-formity can be traced at the basis even of the diver-
pressed, and did not again revive, though it was sities which present themselves here and there in
probably a long time before it was put down in all the views expressed by different Pythagoreans, as
the Italian cities (Lysis ; PHILOLAUS). Still the they have come down to us from authentic sources,
Pythagoreans continued to exist as a sect, the that there can be little question as to the germs of
members of which kept up among themselves their the system at any rate having been derived from
religious observances and scientific pursuits, while Pythagoras himself. (Brandis, 1. c. p. 442. ) The
individuals, as in the case of Archytas, acquired Pythagoreans seem to have striven in the main to
now and then great political influence. Respecting keep their doctrine uncorrupted. We even hear of
the fate of Pythagoras himself, the accounts varied. members being expelled from the brotherhood for
Some say that he perished in the temple with his philosophical or other heterodoxy; and a distinc-
disciples (Arnob. adv. Gentes, i. p. 23), others that tion was already drawn in antiquity between genu-
he fled first to Tarentum, and that, being driven ine and spurious Pythagorism (lambl. 81 ; Vilois.
thence, he escaped to Metapontum, and there starved Anecd. ii. p. 216 ; Syrian. in Arist. Met, xii. fol. 71,
himself to death (Diog.