[ocr errors][ocr errors]

PYRRHUS (IIoos), a Greek poet mentioned by Theocritus, is said by the Scholiast to have been a melic poet, and a native of Erythrae or Lesbos. (Theocr. iv. 31 ; Schol. ad loc. et ad iv. 20.)

PYTHAE'NETUS (IIv0aiveros), wrote a work on Aegina. (Athen. xiii. p. 589, f ; Schol. ad Apoll. Rhod. iv. 1712; Schol. ad Pind. Ol. ix. 107, ad Nem. v. 81, vi. 53; Schol. ad Lycophr. 175.)

PYTHA'GORAS (IIv6ayópas). The authenticated facts in the history of Pythagoras are so few, and the sources from which the greater part of our information respecting him is derived are of so late a date, and so untrustworthy, that it is impossible to lay down more than an outline of his personal history with any approximation to certainty. The total absence of written memorials proceeding from Pythagoras himself, and the paucity of the notices of him by contemporaries, coupled with the secrecy which was thrown around the constitution and actions of the Pythagorean brotherhood, held out strong temptations for invention to supply the place of facts, and the stories which thus originated were eagerly caught up by the Neo-Platonic writers who furnish most of the details respecting Pythagoras, and with whom it was a recognised canon, that nothing should be accounted incredible which related to the gods or what was divine. (Iambl. Adhort, ad Philos. p. 324, ed. Kiessling.) In this way a multitude of the most absurd fictions took their rise — such as that Apollo was his father ; that his person gleamed with a supernatural brightness; that he exhibited a golden thigh ; that Abaris came flying to him on a golden arrow ; that he was seen in different places at one and the same time. (Comp. Herod. iv. 94, &c.) With the exception of some scanty notices by Xenophanes, Heracleitus, Herodotus, Plato, Aristotle, and Isocrates, we are mainly dependent on Diogenes Laërtius, Porphyrius, and Hamblichus for the materials out of which to form a biography of Pythagoras. Aristotle had written a separate work on the Pythagoreans, which is unfortunately not extant. (He alludes to it himself, Met. i. 5. p. 986. 12, ed. Bekker.) His disciples Dicaearchus, Aristoxenus, and Heracleides Pontieus had written on the same subject. These writers, late as they are, are among the best from whom Porphyrius and Iamblichus drew: their chief sources besides being legends and their own invention. Hence we are reduced to admit or reject their statements mainly from a consideration of their inherent probability, and even in that point of

view it is not enough to look at each separately, for if all the separately credible narratives respecting Pythagoras were supposed frue, they would extend the sphere and amount of his activity to an utterly impossible extent. (Krische, de Societatis a Pythagora conditae Scopo politico. Praef.; Brandis, Geschichte des Griech. Röm. Philosophie, p. 440; Grote, Hist. of Greece, vol. iv. p. 540.) That Pythagoras was the son of Mnesarchus, who was either a merchant, or, according to others, an engraver of signets (Diog. Laërt. viii. 1), may be safely affirmed on the authority of Herodotus (iv. 95); that Samos was his birth-place, on that of Isocrates (Busir. p. 227, ed. Steph.). Others called him a Tyrrhenian or Phliasian, and gave Marmacus, or Demaratus, as the name of his father (Diog. Laërt. l.c.; Porph. Wit. Pyth. 1, 2; Justin, xx. 4; Paus. ii. 13.) It is quite possible that though born in Samos, he may have been connected in race with those Tyrrhenian Pelasgians who were scattered over various parts of the Aegean Sea. There are but few chronological data, and those for the most part indistinct, for fixing the date of the birth of Pythagoras. Antilochus (ap. Clem. Alex. Strom. i. p. 309) reckoned 312 years from the Aukia of Pythagoras to B. c. 270. This would place the date of his birth at the close of the seventh century B. c. (B. c. 608.) .Nearly the same date results from the account of Eratosthenes (ap. Diog. Laërt. viii. 47), and this is the date adopted by Bentley among others. On the other hand, according to Aristoxenus (Porph. l.c. c. 9), Pythagoras quitted Samos in the reign of Polycrates, at the age of 40. According to Iamblichus he was 57 years of age in B. c. 513. This would give B. c. 570 as the date of his birth, and this date coincides better with other statements. All authorities agree that he flourished in the times of Polycrates and Tarquinius Superbus (b. c. 540–510. See Clinton, Fasti Hellen. s. a. B. c. 539, 533,531, 510). The war between Sybaris and Crotona might furnish o data bearing upon the point, if the connection of Pythagoras with it were matter of certainty. It was natural that men should be eager to know, or ready to conjecture, the sources whence Pythagoras derived the materials which were worked up into his remarkable system. And as, in such cases, in the absence of authentic information, the conjectures of one become the belief of another, the result is, that it would be difficult to find a philosopher to whom such a variety of teachers is assigned as to Pythagoras. Some make his training almost entirely Grecian, others exclusively Egyptian and Oriental. We find mentioned as his instructors Creophilus (Iambl. Wit. Pyth. 9), Hermodamas (Porph. 2., Diog. Laërt. viii. 2), Bias (Iambl. l.c.), Thales (ibid.), Anaximander (ibid. Porph. l.c.), and Pherecydes of Syros (Aristoxenus and others in Diog. Laert. i. 118, 119 ; Cic. de Div. i. 49). The Egyptians are said to have taught him geometry, the Phoenicians arithmetic, the Chaldeans astronomy, the Magians the formulae of religion and practical maxims for the conduct of life (Porph. l. c. 6). Of the statements regarding his Greek instructors, that about Pherecydes comes to us with the most respectable amount of attestation. It was the current belief in antiquity, that Pythagoras had undertaken extensive travels, and had visited not only Egypt, but Arabia, Phoenicia, Judaea, Babylon, and even India, for the purpose of collecting all the scientific knowledge that was attainable, and especially of deriving from the fountain-heads instruction respecting the less public or mystic cultus of the gods. (Diog. Laërt. viii. 2; Porph. l. c. 11, 12; Iambl. l.c. 14, &c.) The journey to Babylon is possible, and not very unlikely. That Pythagoras visited Egypt, may be regarded as more than probable. Enough of Egypt was known to attract the curiosity of an inquiring Greek, and the intercourse of Samos as well as other parts of Greece with that country is mentioned. (Herod. ii. 134, 135, iii. 39.) The authorities also on the point are numerous (Antiphon. ap. Porph. 7; Isocr. Busir. p. 227; Cic. de Fin. v. 27 ; Strabo, xiv. p. 638.) The passages in Herodotus, ii. 81, 123, which have been thought to assert or imply the visit of Pythagoras to Egypt, do not, on a more accurate examination, appear to involve any such inference. (Krische, l.c. p. 5; Ritter, Gesch. der Pythagorischen Philosophie, p. 27.) According to one account, of no great authority, and mixed up with much that is absurd and incredible, Polycrates gave Pythagoras a letter of introduction to Amasis. (Diog. Laërt. viii. 3.) Still it is not easy to determine how far Pythagoras was indebted to the Egyptian priests, or, indeed, whether he learnt any thing at all from them. That he was initiated into their profoundest mysteries is in the highest degree improbable. Geometry in Egypt seems to have been chiefly of a practical kind, and the propositions which Pythagoras is said to have discovered are such as to show that the science of geometry was still in its infancy. There was nothing in the symbolical mode of representation which the Pythagoreans adopted, which bore the distinct traces of an Egyptian origin. The secret religious usages of the Pythagoreans exhibited nothing (so far as can be traced with any degree of probability) but what might have been adopted, quite in the spirit of the Greek religion, by those who knew nothing of Egyptian mysteries; and what waspeculiar to Pythagoras in this respect admits of being referred with greater likelihood to the cultus of the Tyrrhenian Pelasgians, with whom Pythagoras is said to have been connected. (Ritter, Gesch. der Philos. vol. i. p. 363.) Even the doctrine of metempsychosis involves nothing which compels us to look to Egypt or the East for its origin. It is rather one of the most obvious sensualistic modes in which the continued existence of the soul could be conceived. Pythagoras might have derived it quite as easily from Pherecydes as from the Egyptians. Greater stress might be laid upon some external observances, such as the refraining from eating beans and fish, were it not that doubt exists even with regard to these. (Aristoxenus denied the fact of the interdiction of beans ; see Gellius, N.A. iv. 11.) Nor, in any case, would initiation by the Egyptian priests be necessary to account for it. In short, no foreign influence can be traced, which in any way illustrates or accounts for either the philosophy or the institutions of Pythagoras. These exhibit only what might easily have been developed by a Greek mind exposed to the ordinary influences of the age. Even the ancient authorities point to a similar result in connecting the religious and ascetic peculiarities of Pythagoras with the Orphic or Cretan mysteries (Iambl. c. 25; Porph. c. 17; Diog. Laërt. viii. 3), or the Delphic oracle (Ariston, ap. Diog. Laërt. viii. 8, 21; Porph. 41).


Neither as to the kind and amount of knowledge which Pythagoras acquired, nor as to his definite philosophical views, have we much trustworthy direct evidence. Every thing of the kind mentioned by Plato and Aristotle is attributed not to Pythagoras, but to the Pythagoreans. We have, however, the testimony of Heracleitus (Diog. Laërt. viii. 6, ix. 1, comp. Herod. i. 29, ii. 49, iv. 95), that he was a man of extensive acquirements; and that of Xenophanes, that he believed in the transmigration of souls. (Diog. Laërt. viii. 36, comp. Arist. de Anima, i. 3; Herod. ii. 123. Xenophanes mentions the story of his interceding on behalf of a dog that was being beaten, professing to recognise in its cries the voice of a departed friend, comp. Grote, l.c. vol. iv. p. 528, *...) Pythagoras is said to have pretended that he had been Euphorbus, the son of Panthus, in the Trojan war, as well as various other characters, a tradesman, a courtezan, &c. (Porph.26; Paus. ii. 17; Diog. Laërt. viii. 5; Horace, Od. i. 28, l. 10). He is said to have discovered the propositions that the triangle inscribed in a semi-circle is right-angled (Diog. Laërt. i. 25), that the square on the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle is equal to the sum of the squares on the sides (Diog. Laërt. viii. 12; Plut. Non posse suav. vivi sec. Ep. p. 1094). There is a celebrated story of his having discovered the arithmetical relations of the musical scale by observing accidentally the various sounds produced by hammers of different weights striking upon an anvil, and suspending by strings weights equal to those of the different hammers (Porph. in Ptol. Harm. p. 213; Diog. Laërt. viii. 12; Nicom. Harm. i. 2, p. 10, Melb.). The retailers of the story of course never took the trouble to verify the experiment, or they would have discovered that different hammers do not produce different sounds from the same anvil, any more than different clappers do from the same bell. Discoveries in astronomy are also attributed to Pythagoras (Diog. Laërt. viii. 14; Plin. H. N. ii. 8). There can be little doubt that he paid great attention to arithmetic, and its application to weights, measures, and the theory of music; medicine also is mentioned as included in the range of his studies (Diog. Laërt. viii. 12, 14, 32). Apart from all direct testimony, however, it might safely have been affirmed, that the very remarkable influence exerted by Pythagoras, and even the fact that he was made the hero of so many marvellous stories, prove him to have been a man both of singular capabilities and of great acquirements. The general tendency of the speculations of the Pythagorean school is evidence that the statements with regard to his mathematical researches are well founded. But whatever weight there may be in the conjecture of Ritter, that through his descent from the Tyrrhenian Pelasgians Pythagoras derived by tradition a peculiar and secret cultus, which he needed not so much to alter, as to develop so as to suit his peculiar aims, there can be little doubt that the above-named author is correct in viewing the religious element as the predominant one in his character, and a religious ascendancy in connection with a certain mystic religious system as that which it was his immediate and chief object to secure. And it was this religious element which made the profoundest impression upon his contemporaries. That they regarded him as standing in a peculiarly close connection with the gods is certain. The Crotoniates even identified him


with the Hyperborean Apollo. (Porph. l. c. 20; Iambl. 1. c. 31, 140 ; Aelian, V. H. ii. 26 ; Diog. Laërt. viii. 36.) And without viewing him as an impostor, we may easily believe that he himself to some extent shared the same views. He is said to have pretended to divination and prophecy. (Cic. de Divin. i. 3, 46; Porph, l.c. 29.) “ In his promiment vocation, analogous to that of Epimenides, Orpheus, or Melampus, he appears as the revealer of a mode of life calculated to raise his disciples above the level of mankind, and to recommend them to the favour of the gods.” (Grote, vol. iv. p. 529.) No certainty can be arrived at as to the length of time spent by Pythagoras in Egypt or the East, or as to his residence and efforts in Samos or other Grecian cities, before his removal to Italy. Ritter is inclined to believe from the expressions of Herodotus that the secret cultus or orgies of Pythagoras had gained some footing in Greece or Ionia, even before Crotona became the focus of his influence (Gesch. der Phil. vol. i. p. 364, Gesch. der Pyth. Phil. p. 31). In the visits to various places in Greece—Delos, Sparta, Phlius, Crete, &c. which are ascribed to him, he appears commonly either in his religious or priestly character, or else as a lawgiver (Iambl. l.c. 25 ; Porph. l. c. 17; Diog. Laërt. viii. 3, 13; Cic. Tusc. Qu. v. 3). It is in the highest degree probable that the reason why Pythagoras removed to Crotona is to be found in the unfavourable condition of his native country, while under the tyranny of Polycrates, for the realisation of his schemes. Later admirers were content to believe that, from the high estimation in which he was held by his fellowcitizens, he was so overburdened with public duties, as to have no time to bestow upon philosophy, and so withdrew from Samos (Iambl. 28; Porph. 9). The reason why he selected Crotona as the sphere of his operations, it is impossible to ascertain from any existing evidence. All that is adduced on this head by K. O. Müller (Dorians, iii. 9. § 17, vol. ii. p. 189, &c.) is mere conjecture, and is of the most unsatisfactory kind. Grote (vol. iv. p. 538) supposes that the celebrity of Crotona for the cultivation of the art of medicine may possibly have had some influence with him. That on his arrival there he speedily attained extensive influence, and gained over great numbers to enter into his views, is all that can safely be affirmed in the midst of the marvellous stories told by later biographers of the effects of his eloquent discourses in leading the Crotoniates to abandon their luxurious and corrupting manner of life and devote themselves to that purer system which he came to introduce. (Porph. 18; Iambl. 37, &c.) His adherents were chiefly of the noble and wealthy classes. Three hundred of these were formed into a select brotherhood or club, bound by a sort of vow to Pythagoras and each other, for the purpose of cultivating the resigious and ascetic observances enjoined by their master, and of studying his religious and philosophical theories. The statement that they threw all their property into a common stock has not sufficient evidence to support it, and was perhaps in the first instance only an inference from certain "Pythagorean maxims and practices (comp. Cic. de Leg. i. 12, de Off. i. 7; Diog. Laërt. viii. 10; Krische, l.c. p. 27, &c.; Ritter, l.c. p. 39). That there were several women among the adherents of Pythagoras is pretty certain. That any were

members of the club of 300 is not so probable. Krische (l.c. p. 45) considers that these female Pythagoreans were only the wives and relations of members of the brotherhood, who were instructed in some of the Pythagorean doctrines. These would doubtless be mainly those connected with the religious part of his system. (Comp. Menage, Hist. de Mul. Philos.) With respect to the internal arrangements and discipline of this brotherhood only a few leading features seem to rest upon a basis of evidence and probability sufficient to warrant our bestowing any attention upon them. All accounts agree that what was done and taught among the members was kept a profound secret towards all without its pale. But we are also told that there were gradations among the members themselves. It was an old Pythagorean maxim, that everything was not to be told to every body (Diog. Laërt. viii. 15; Arist. ap. Iamb. 31, €v toss révu dropositois). . The division of classes is usually described as one into €owTepuko and {{wrepucos, though these terms themselves are probably of later origin. Other names given to corresponding divisions are, IIv6ayopetol and IIv6ayopiataí (Iambl. 80). Other accounts, again, speak of a division into three classes, IIvěayopskoi, IIv6ayópelot, and IIv6ayopiatai, according to the degree of intimacy which they enjoyed with Pythagoras; the first class being those who held the closest communion with him ; or into assagtikoi, Troxltucos, and uatomuatikos, according as the subject of their studies related mainly to religion, to politics, or to mathematical and physical science (Phot. Cod. 249). Other authorities speak of drovauatikoi and uatinuatukoi (Iambl. 1. c.), or Acustici, Mathematici, and Physici (Gell. N. A. i. 9). Most of these divisions, however, presuppose a more marked separation between the different branches of human knowledge, or between philosophical training and political activity, than existed at that time. In the admission of candidates Pythagoras is said to have placed great reliance on his physiognomical discernment (Gell. l. c.). If admitted, they had to pass through a period of probation, in which their powers of maintaining silence ($xeuv6ía) were especially tested. as well as their general temper, disposition, and mental capacity (Ariston. ap. Iambl. 94). That they had to maintain silence for five years, and during the whole of that period were never allowed to behold the face of Pythagoras, while they were from time to time exposed to various severe ordeals (Iambl. 68), are doubtless the exaggerations of a later age. There is more probability in the statement (Taurus, ap. Gell. i. 9) that the period of noviciate varied according to the aptitude which the candidates manifested for the Pythagorean discipline. As regards the nature of the esoteric instruction to which only the most approved members of the fraternity were admitted, some (e.g. Meiners, Gesch. der Wissenschaften) have supposed that it had reference to the political views of Pythagoras. Ritter (l.c. p. 47, &c.), with greater probability, holds that it had reference mainly to the orgies, or secret religious doctrines and usages, which undoubtedly formed a prominent feature in the Pythagorean system, and were peculiarly connected with the worship of Apollo (Aelian, W. H. ii. 26 ; Diog. Laërt. viii. 13: Iambl. 8.91, 141 : comp. Krische, l.c. p. 37; Brandis, l.c. p. 432 ; Müller, Dorians, iii. 9. § 17). The admission of women to a knowledge of these (if indeed they were members of the club) is far more intelligible than their initiation into political secrets. And the autós pa of the master connects itself most easily with the priestly character of Pythagoras, and the belief which his disciples, and probably he himself also, entertained, that he enjoyed a closer and more direct intercourse with the gods than other men. It is possible enough, however, that some of the more recondite speculations of the philosopher were connected with these religious views, while the ordinary scientific studies—mathematics, music, 'astronomy, &c.—were open to all the disciples. That there were some outward peculiarities of an ascetic kind (many of which had, perhaps, a symbolical meaning) in the mode of life to which the members of the brotherhood were subjected, seems pretty certain (comp. Porph. 32; Iambl. 96, &c.). Some represent him as forbidding all animal food (as Empedocles did afterwards, Arist. Rhet. i. 14. § 2; Sext. Emp. ix. 127. This was also one of the Orphic precepts, Aristoph. Ran. 1032). This, if to any extent the case, may have had reference to the doctrine of metempsychosis (comp. Plut. de Esu Carn. pp. 993, 996, 997). It is, however, pointed out by Grote (vol. iv. p. 533), that all the members cannot have been subjected to this prohibition; Milo, for instance, could not possibly have dispensed with animal food. The best authorities contradict the statement. According to Ariston (ap. Diog. Laërt. viii. 20) he allowed the use of all kinds of animal food except the flesh of oxen used for ploughing, and rams (comp. Porph. 7 ; Iambl. 85,108). There is a similar discrepancy as to the prohibition of fish and beans (Diog. Laërt. viii. 19, 34; Gell. iv. l l ; Porph. 34, de Abst. i. 26 ; Iambl. 98). But temperance of all kinds seems to have been strictly enjoined. It is also stated that they had common meals, resembling the Spartan Syssitia, at which they met in companies of ten (Iambl. 98; Strabo, vi. p. 263). Considerable imPortance seems to have been attached to music and gymnastics in the daily exercises of the disciples. Their whole discipline is represented as tending to Produce a lofty serenity and self-possession, regarding the exhibition of which various anecdotes were orient in antiquity (Athen. xiv. p. 623 ; Aelian, W. H. xiv. 18; Iambl. 197; comp. Krische, l.c. P. 42). Iamblichus (96–101, apparently on the authority of Aristoxenus) gives a long description of the daily routine of the members, which suggests *y points of comparison with the ordinary life of Spartan citizens. It is not unlikely that *ny of the regulations of Pythagoras were sug. gested by what he saw in Crete and Sparta. Among * best ascertained features of the brotherhood as: * devoted attachment of the members to each other, and their sovereign contempt for those who did not belong to their ranks (Ariston. ap. Iambl. 94, 101, &c., 229, &c.; comp. the story of Damon and Phintias; Porph. 60 ; Iambl. 233, &c.). It *P* that they had some secret conventional * by which members of the fratermity could ognio. each other, even if they had never met o (Schol ad Arist. Nub. 6il; Iambl. 237, o: Krische, pp. 43, 44). Clubs similar to that at Crotona were established at Sybaris, Metapon"Toontum, and other cities of Magna Gracia. * *titutions of Pythagoras were certainly tended to withdraw those who adopted them **e exertion and social and political con


not in fro

nections, that they might devote themselves exclusively to religious and philosophical contemplations. Rather he aimed at the production of a calm bearing and elevated tone of character, through which those trained in the discipline of the Pythagorean life should exhibit in their personal and social capacities a reflection of the order and harmony of the universe. But the question whether he had any distinct political designs in the foundation of his brotherhood, has been variously answered. It was perfectly natural, even without any express design on his part, that a club such as the Three Hundred of Crotona should gradually come to mingle political with other objects, and by the facilities afforded by their secret and compact organisation should speedily gain extensive political influence, which, moreover, the political condition of Crotona, where the aristocracy was with difficulty holding its ground, rendered more than usually easy. That this influence should be decisively on the side of aristocracy or oligarchy, resulted naturally both from the nature of the Pythagorean institutions, and from the rank and social position of the members of the brotherhood. Through them, of course, Pythagoras himself exercised a large amount of indirect influence over the affairs both of Crotona and of other Italian cities. It does not appear however that he ever held any official rank, though we are told that the senate urged him to accept the office of Prytanis. But we have no evidence that the objects of Pythagoras were (as Krische, Müller, and others believe) from the first predominantly political, or even that he had any definite political designs at all in the formation of his club. That he intended to exhibit in Crotona the model of a pure Dorian aristocracy (Müller, Dorians, iii. 9. § 16), is a mere fancy (comp. Grote, vol. iv. p. 545, note). It is true that the club was in practice at once “a philosophical school, a religious brotherhood, and a political association” (Thirlwall, Hist. of Greece, vol. ii. p. 148), but there is nothing to show that “all these characters appear to have been inseparably united in the founder's mind.” Mr. Grote, more in accordance with the earliest and best authority on the subject (Plato, de Rep. x. p. 600, comp. de Leg. vi. p. 782, who contrasts Pythagoras, as the institutor of a peculiar mode of private life, with those who exercised a direct influence upon public life), remarks, “We cannot construe the scheme of Pythagoras as going farther than the formation of a private, select order of brethren, embracing his religious fancies, ethical tone, and germs of scientific idea, and manifesting adhesion by those observances which Herodotus and Plato call the Pythagorean orgies and mode of life. And his private order became politically powerful because he was skilful or fortunate enough to enlist a sufficient number of wealthy Crotoniates, possessing individual influence, which they strengthened immensely by thus regimenting themselves in intimate union” (Hist. of Greece, vol. iv. p. 544). The notion of Müller and Niebuhr, that the 300 Pythagoreans constituted a kind of smaller senate at Crotona, is totally without foundation. On the other hand, it seems quite as unfounded to infer from the account that Pythagoras was the first to apply to himself the epithet pixágoqos (Cic. Tusc. v. 3.; Diog. Laërt. i. 12), that philosophical contemplation was the sole end that he had in view. Respecting the Pythagorean life, and its analogy with the Orphic life, see Lobeck, Aglaophamus, Orphica, lib. ii. pp. 247, 698, 900. The resemblance in many respects of the Pythagorean brotherhood or order to that founded by Loyola has been more than once pointed out.


It is easy to understand how this aristocratical and exclusive club would excite the jealousy and hostility not only of the democratical party in Crotona, but also of a considerable number of the opposite faction. The hatred which they had excited speedily led to their destruction. The circumstances attending this event are, however, involved in some uncertainty. In the hostilities which broke out between Sybaris and Crotona on the occasion of the refusal of the Crotoniates (to which, it is said, they had been urged by Pythagoras) to surrender some exiles of Sybaris, the forces of Crotona were headed by the Pythagorean Milo [Milo); and the other members of the brotherhood doubtless took a prominent part. The decisive victory of the Crotoniates seems to have elated the Pythagoreans beyond measure. A proposal (occasioned, according to the statement in Iamblichus, c. 255, by a refusal on the part of the senate to distribute among the people the newly conquered territory of Sybaris; though this account involves considerable difficulty; see Grote, l.c. p. 549) for establishing a more democratical constitution, was unsuccessfully resisted by the Pythagoreans. Their enemies, headed by Cylon and Ninon, the former of whom is said to have been irritated by his exclusion from the brotherhood, excited the populace against them. An attack was made upon them while assembled either in the house of Milo, or in some other place of meeting. The building was set on fire, and many of the assembled members perished; only the younger and more active escaping (Iambl. 255 —259; Porph. 54–57; Diog. Laërt. viii. 39 ; Diod. x. fragm. vol. iv. p. 56, ed. Wess.; comp. Plut. de Gen. Socr. p. 583). Similar commotions ensued in the other cities of Magna Graecia in which Pythagorean clubs had been formed, and kept them for a considerable time in a state of great disquietude, which was at length pacified by the mediation of the Peloponnesian Achaeans (Polyb. ii. 39). As an active and organised brotherhood the Pythagorean order was everywhere suppressed, and did not again revive, though it was probably a long time before it was put down in all the Italian cities [Lysis; Philolaus]. Still the Pythagoreans continued to exist as a sect, the members of which kept up among themselves their religious observances and scientific pursuits, while individuals, as in the case of Archytas, acquired now and then great political influence. Respecting the fate of Pythagoras himself, the accounts varied. Some say that he perished in the temple with his disciples (Arnob. adv. Gentes, i. p. 23), others that he fled first to Tarentum, and that, being driven thence, he escaped to Metapontum, and there starved himself to death (Diog. Laërt. viii. 39, 40; Porph. 56; Iambl. 249 ; Plut. de Stoic. Rep. 37). His tomb was shown at Metapontum in the time of Cicero (Cic. de Fin. v. 2). According to some accounts Pythagoras married Theano, a lady of Crotona, and had a daughter Damo, and a son Telauges; others say two daughters, Damo and Myia ; but other notices seem to imply that he had a wife and a daughter grown up, when he came to Crotona. (Diog. Laërt. viii. 42; Fabric. Bill. Graec. vol. i. p. 772.)

For a considerable time after the breaking up of the clubs at Crotona and elsewhere great obscurity hangs over the history of the Pythagoreans. No reliance can be placed on the lists of them which later writers have given, as they have been amplified, partly through mere invention, partly through a confusion between Pythagoreans and Italian philosophers generally. The writings, or fragments of writings, which have come down to us under the names of Archytas, Timaeus, Ocellus, Brontinus, &c., have been shown to be spurious. Pythagorism seems to have established itself by degrees more and more in different parts of Greece. About the time of Socrates, and a little later, we get some trustworthy notices of Philolaus, Lysis. Cleinias, Furytus, and Archytas. These men, and others who applied themselves to the development of the Pythagorean philosophy, were widely different from the so-called Pythagoreans of a later age (from the time of Cicero onwards), who were characterised by little except an exaggeration of the religious and ascetic fanaticism of the Pythagorean system [ApolloN1Us of TYANA]. This NeoPythagorism was gradually merged in the kindred mysticism of the Neo-Platonists.

When we come to inquire what were the philosophical or religious opinions held by Pythagoras himself, we are met at the outset by the difficulty that even the authors from whom we have to draw possessed no authentic records bearing upon the subject of the age of Pythagoras himself. If Pythagoras ever wrote any thing, his writings perished with him, or not long after. The probability is that he wrote nothing. (Comp. Plut. de Aler. fort. p. 329; Porph. l. c. 57; Galen, de Hipp. et Plut. Plac. v. 6.) The statements to the contrary prove worthless on examination. Every thing current under his name in antiquity was spurious. (See Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. i. pp. 779–805; Ritter, Gesch, der Pyth. Phil. p. 56.) It is all but certain that Philolaus was the first who published the Pythagorean doctrines, at any rate in a written form [Philolaus]. Still there was so marked a peculiarity running through the Pythagorean philosophy, by whomsoever of its adherents it was developed, and so much of uniformity can be traced at the basis even of the diversities which present themselves here and there in the views expressed by different Pythagoreans, as they have come down to us from authentic sources, that there can be little question as to the germs of the system at any rate having been derived from Pythagoras himself. (Brandis, l.c. p. 442.) The Pythagoreans seem to have striven in the main to keep their doctrine uncorrupted. We even hear of members being expelled from the brotherhood for philosophical or other heterodoxy; and a distinction was already drawn in antiquity between genuine and spurious Pythagorism (Iambl. 81; Willois. Anecd. ii. p. 216 ; Syrian. in Arist. Met. xii. fol. 71, b., 85, b. ; Simplic. in Arist. Phys, fol. 104, b. ; Stob. Ecl. Phys. i. pp. 308, 448, 496). Aristotle manifestly regarded the Pythagorean philosophy as something which in its leading features characterised the school generally. He found it, however, after it had passed through a considerable period of development, in the hands of adherents of varying tendencies. It was to be expected therefore that varieties should make their appearance (comp. Arist. de Caelo, iii. 1, at the end, with Met. i. 6). Nearly every thing that can be in any degree de

« 前へ次へ »