regulating principle of the whole universe. Some of the Pythagoreans (but by no means all, as it appears) drew out a list of ten pairs of opposites, which they termed the elements of the universe. (Arist. Met. i. 5. Elsewhere he speaks as if the Pythagoreans generally did the same, Eth. Nic. i. 4, ii. 5.) These pairs were

Limit and the Unlimited.

Odd and Even.

One and Multitude.
Right and Left.

Male and Female.
Stationary and Moved.
Straight and Curved.
Light and Darkness.
Good and Bad.

Square and Oblong.

The first column was that of the good elements (Arist. Eth. Nic. i. 4) the second, the row of the bad. Those in the second series were also regarded as having the character of negation (Arist. Phys. iii. 2). These, however, are hardly to be looked upon as ten pairs of distinct principles. They are rather various modes of conceiving one and the same opposition. One, Limit and the Odd, are spoken of as though they were synonymous (comp. Arist. Met. i. 5, 7, xiii. 4, Phys. iii. 5).

To explain the production of material objects out of the union of the unlimited and the limiting, Ritter (Gesch. der Pyth. Phil. and Gesch. der Phil. vol. i. p. 403, &c.) has propounded a theory which has great plausibility, and is undoubtedly much the same as the view held by later Pythagorizing mathematicians; namely, that the ameipov is neither more nor less than void space, and the repaiVovra points in space which bound or define it (which points he affirms the Pythagoreans called monads or units, appealing to Arist. de Caelo, iii. 1; comp. Alexand. Aphrod. quoted below), the point being the apxn or principium of the line, the line of the surface, the surface of the solid. Points, or monads, therefore are the source of material existence; and as points are monads, and monads numbers, it follows that numbers are at the base of material existence. (This is the view of the matter set forth by Alexander Aphrodisiensis in Arist, de prim. Phil. i. fol. 10, b.; Ritter, l. c. p. 404, note 3.) Eephantus of Syracuse was the first who made the Pythagorean monads to be corporeal, and set down indivisible particles and void space as the principia of material existence. (See Stob. Ecl. Phys. p. 308.) Two geometrical points in themselves would have no magnitude; it is only when they are combined with the intervening space that a line can be produced. The union of space and lines makes surfaces; the union of surfaces and space makes solids. Of course this does not explain very well how corporeal substance is formed, and Ritter thinks that the Pythagoreans perceived that this was the weak point of their system, and so spoke of the repov, as mere void space, as little as they could help, and strove to represent it as something positive, or almost substantial.

But however plausible this view of the matter may be, we cannot understand how any one who compares the very numerous passages in which Aristotle speaks of the Pythagoreans, can suppose that his notices have reference to any such system. The theory which Ritter sets down as that of the

Pythagoreans is one which Aristotle mentions several times, and shows to be inadequate to account for the physical existence of the world, but he nowhere speaks of it as the doctrine of the Pythagoreans. Some of the passages, where Ritter tries to make this out to be the case, go to prove the very reverse. For instance, in De Cuelo, iii. 1, after an elaborate discussion of the theory in question, Aristotle concludes by remarking that the number-theory of the Pythagoreans will no more account for the production of corporeal magnitude, than the point-line-and-space-theory which he has just described, for no addition of units can produce either body or weight (comp. Met. xiii. 3). Aristotle nowhere identifies the Pythagorean monads with mathematical points; on the contrary, he affirms that in the Pythagorean system, the monads, in some way or other which they could not explain, got magnitude and extension (Met. xii. 6, p. 1080, ed. Bekker). The Kevóv again, which Aristotle mentions as recognised by the Pythagoreans, is never spoken of as synonymous with their repor; on the contrary we find (Stob. Ecl. Phys. i. p. 380) that from the repor they deduced time, breath, and void space. The frequent use of the term "épas, too, by Aristotle, instead of repairovтa, hardly comports with Ritter's theory.

66

There can be little doubt that the Pythagorean system should be viewed in connection with that of Anaximander, with whose doctrines Pythagoras was doubtless conversant. Anaximander, in his attempt to solve the problem of the universe, passed from the region of physics to that of metaphysics. He supposed a primaeval principle without any actual determining qualities whatever;" but including all qualities potentially, and manifesting them in an infinite variety from its continually self-changing nature; a principle which was nothing in itself, yet had the capacity of producing any and all manifestations, however contrary to each other-a primaeval something, whose essence it was to be eternally productive of different phaenomena" (Grote, l. c. p. 518; comp. Brandis, . c. p. 123, &c.). This he termed the areрov; and he was also the first to introduce the term apxý (Simplic. in Arist. Phys. fol. 6, 32). Both these terms hold a prominent position in the Pythago rean system, and we think there can be but little doubt as to their parentage. The Pythagorean ameipov seems to have been very nearly the same as that of Anaximander, an undefined and infinite something. Only instead of investing it with the property of spontaneously developing itself in the various forms of actual material existence, they regarded all its definite manifestations as the determination of its indefiniteness by the definiteness of number, which thus became the cause of all actual and positive existence (τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς αἰτίους elvaι Toîs áλλois Ts ovolas, Arist. Met. i. 6). It is by numbers alone, in their view, that the objective becomes cognisable to the subject; by numbers that extension is originated, and attains to that definiteness by which it becomes a concrete body. As the ground of all quantitative and qualitative definiteness in existing things, therefore, number is represented as their inherent element, or even as the matter (Aŋ), as well as the passive and active condition of things (Arist. Met. i. 5). But both the περαίνοντα and the ἄπειρον are referred to a higher unity, the absolute or divine

unity. And in this aspect of the matter Aristotle speaks of unity as the principium and essence and element of all things (Met. xii. 6, i. 6, p. 987, b. 22); the divine unity being the first principle and cause, and one, as the first of the limiting numbers and the element of all, being the basis of positive existence, and when itself become possessed of extension (Met. xii. 3, p. 1091, a. 15) the element of all that possesses extension (comp. Brandis, l. c. p. 511, &c.). In its development, however, the Pythagorean system seems to have taken a twofold direction, one school of Pythagoreans regarding numbers as the inherent, fundamental elements of things (Arist. de Caelo, iii. 1); another section, of which Hippasus seems to have been the head, regarding numbers as the patterns merely, but not as entering into the essence of things (Arist. Met. i. 6. Though Aristotle speaks of the Pythagoreans generally here, there can be no doubt that the assertion, in which the Greek commentators found a difficulty, should be restricted to a section of the Pythagoreans. Comp. Iambl. in Nicom. Arithm. p. 11; Syrian. in Arist. Met. xii. p. 1080, b. 18; Simplic. in Phys. f. 104, b.; Iambl. Pyth. 81; Stob. Ecl. Phys. p. 302; Brandis, l. c. p. 444).

crated to four deities, Kronos, Hades, Pan, and
Dionysus; the angle of a square to Rhea, Demeter,
and Hestia; the angle of a dodecagon to Zeus ;
apparently to shadow forth the sphere of their
operations (Procl. in Euclid. Elem. i. p. 36;
Böckh, l. c. p. 152, &c.). As we learn that he
connected solid extension with the number four.
(Theol. Arithm. p. 56), it is not unlikely that, as
others did (Nicom. Arithm. ii. 6), he connected the
number one with a point, two with a line, three
with a surface (xpoia). To the number fire he
appropriated quality and colour; to six life; to
seven intelligence, health, and light; to eight love,
friendship, understanding, insight (Theol. Arithm.
. c.). Others connected marriage, justice, &c. with
different numbers (Alex. in Arist. Met. i. 5, 13).
Guided by similar fanciful analogies they assumed
the existence of five elements, connected with
geometrical figures, the cube being earth; the
pyramid, fire; the octaedron, air; the eikosaedron,
water; the dodecaedron, the fifth element, to
which Philolaus gives the curious appellation of a
Tâs opalpas óλkas (Stob. I. c. i. p. 10; Böckh,
l. c. p. 161; comp. Plut. de Plac. Phil. ii. 6).

;

In the Pythagorean system the element fire was the most dignified and important. It accordingly As in the octave and its different harmonical occupied the most honourable position in the uni/relations, the Pythagoreans found the ground of verse-the extreme (répas), rather than intermeconnection between the opposed primary elements, diate positions; and by extreme they understood and the mutual relations of existing things, so in both the centre and the remotest region (Tò d' the properties of particular numbers, and their eσxаTOV Kal Tò μéσov пépas, Arist. de Caelo, ii. relation to the principia, did they attempt to find 13). The central fire Philolaus terms the hearth the explanation of the particular properties of dif- of the universe, the house or watch-tower of Zeus, ferent things, and therefore addressed themselves the mother of the gods, the altar and bond and to the investigation of the properties of numbers, measure of nature (Stob. l. c. p. 488; Böckh, 1. c. dividing them into various species. Thus they p. 94, &c.). It was the enlivening principle of the had three kinds of even, according as the number universe. By this fire they probably understood was a power of two (åptiákis äptiov), or a multi- something purer and more ethereal than the comple of two, or of some power of two, not itself a mon element fire (Brandis, l. c. p. 491). Round power of two (πepioσáρTiov), or the sum of an odd this central fire the heavenly bodies performed and an even number (aPTIOTÉPITTOV-a word their circling dance (xopeve is the expression of which seems to have been used in more than one Philolaus) - farthest off, the sphere of the fixed sense. Nicom. Arithm. i. 7, 8). In like manner stars; then, in order, the five planets, the sun, the they had three kinds of odd. It was probably the moon, the earth and the counter-earth (dvríxow v) use of the decimal system of notation which led -a sort of other half of the earth, a distinct body to the number ten being supposed to be possessed from it, but always moving parallel to it, which of extraordinary powers. "One must contemplate they seem to have introduced merely to make up the works and essential nature of number accord- the number ten. The most distant region, which ing to the power which is in the number ten; for was at the same time the purest, was termed it is great, and perfect, and all-working, and the Olympus (Brandis, l. c. p. 476). The space befirst principle (dpxá) and guide of divine and tween the heaven of the fixed stars and the moon heavenly and human life." (Philolaus ap. Stob. was termed kooμos; the space between the moon Ecl. Phys. p. 8; Bockh, p. 139.) This, doubtless, and the earth oupavós (Stob. I. c.). Philolaus ashad to do with the formation of the list of ten pairs sumed a daily revolution of the earth round the of opposite principles, which was drawn out by some central fire, but not round its own axis. The revoPythagoreans (Arist. Met. i. 5). In like manner lution of the earth round its axis was taught the tetractys (possibly the sum of the first four (after Hicetas of Syracuse; see Cic. Acad. iv. 39) numbers, or 10) was described as containing the by the Pythagorean Ecphantus and Heracleides source and root of ever-flowing nature (Carm. Aur. Ponticus (Plut. Plac. iii. 13; Procl. in Tim. p. 281): 1. 48). The number three was spoken of as de- a combined motion round the central fire and round fining or limiting the universe and all things, having its own axis, by Aristarchus of Samos (Plut. de end, middle, and beginning, and so being the Fac. Lun. p. 933). The infinite (repov) beyond number of the whole (Arist. de Caelo, i. 1). This the mundane sphere was, at least according to part of their system they seem to have helped out Archytas (Simpl. in Phys. f. 108), not void space, by considerations as to the connection of numbers but corporeal. with lines, surfaces, and solids, especially the reguThe physical existence of the unilar geometrical figures (Theolog. Arithm. 10, p. 61, huge sphere (Stob. l. c. p. 452, 468), was represented verse, which in the view of the Pythagoreans was a &c.), and to have connected the relations of things as a sort of vital process, time, space, and breath with various geometrical relations, among which (von) being, as it were, inhaled out of the ǎnepov angles played an important part. Thus, according επεισάγεσθαι δ ̓ ἐκ τοῦ ἀπείρου χρόνον τε καὶ to Philolaus, the angle of a triangle was conse-von kal To Kevóv, Stob. l. c.

p. 380

;

see espo

cially Arist. Phys. Ausc. iv. 6; Brandis, l. c. p. 476).

The intervals between the heavenly bodies were supposed to be determined according to the laws and relations of musical harmony (Nicom. Harm. i. p. 6, ii. 33; Plin. H. N. ii. 20; Simpl. in Arist. de Caelo Schol. p. 496, b. 9, 497.11). Hence arose the celebrated doctrine of the harmony of the spheres; for the heavenly bodies in their motion could not but occasion a certain sound or note, depending on their distances and velocities; and as these were determined by the laws of harmonical intervals, the notes altogether formed a regular musical scale or harmony. This harmony, however, we do not hear, either because we have been accustomed to it from the first, and have never had an opportunity of contrasting it with stillness, or because the sound is so powerful as to exceed our capacities for hearing (Arist. de Caelo, ii. 9; Porph. in Harm. Ptol. 4. p. 257). With all this fanciful hypothesis, however, they do not seem to have neglected the observation of astronomical phaenomena (Brandis, l. c. p. 481).

Perfection they seemed to have considered to exist in direct ratio to the distance from the central fire. Thus the moon was supposed to be inhabited by more perfect and beautiful beings than the earth (Plut. de Plac. Phil. ii. 30; Stob. l. c. i. p. 562; Böckh, l. c. p. 131). Similarly imperfect virtue belongs to the region of the earth, perfect wisdom to the Kóσμos; the bond or symbol of connection again being certain numerical relations (comp. Arist. Met. i. 8; Alex. Aphrod. in Arist. Met. i. 7, fol. 14, a.). The light and heat of the central fire are received by us mediately through the sun (which, according to Philolaus, is of a glassy nature, acting as a kind of lens, or sieve, as he terms it, Böckh, l. c. p. 124; Stob. l. c. i. 26; Euseb. Praep. Evang. xv. 23), and the other heavenly bodies. All things partake of life, of which Philolaus distinguishes four grades, united in man and connected with successive parts of the body,the life of mere seminal production, which is common to all things; vegetable life; animal life; and intellect or reason (Theol. Arithm. 4, p. 22; Böckh, p. 159.) It was only in reference to the principia, and not absolutely in point of time, that the universe is a production; the development of its existence, which was perhaps regarded as an unintermitting process, commencing from the centre (Phil. ap. Stob. I. c. p. 360; Böckh, p. 90, &c.; Brandis, p. 483); for the universe is "imperishable and unwearied; it subsists for ever; from eternity did it exist and to eternity does it last, one, controlled by one akin to it, the mightiest and the highest." (Phil. ap. Stob. Ecl. Phys. p. 418, &c.; Böckh, p. 164, &c.) This Deity Philolaus elsewhere also speaks of as one, eternal, abiding, unmoved, like himself (Böckh, p. 151). He is described as having established both limit and the infinite, and was often spoken of as the absolute unity; always represented as pervading, though distinct from, and presiding over the universe: not therefore a mere germ of vital development, or a principium of which the universe was itself a manifestation or development; sometimes termed the absolute good (Arist. Met. xiii. 4, p. 1091, b. 13, Bekker), while, according to others, good could be long only to concrete existences (Met. xi. 7, p. 1072, b. 31). The origin of evil was to be looked for not in the deity, but in matter, which pre

| vented the deity from conducting every thing to
the best end (Theophr. Met. 9. p. 322, 14). With
the popular superstition they do not seem to have
interfered, except in so far as they may have re-
duced the objects of it, as well as all other existing
beings, to numerical elements. (Plut. de Is. et Os.
10; Arist. Met. xiii. 5.) It is not clear whether
the all-pervading soul of the universe, which they
spoke of, was regarded as identical with the Deity
or not (Cic. de Nat. Deor. i. 11). It was perhaps
nothing more than the ever-working energy of the
Deity (Stob. p. 422; Brandis, p. 487, note n). It
was from it that human souls were derived (Cic.
de Nat. Deor. i. 11, de Sen. 21). The soul was
also frequently described as a number or harmony
(Plut. de Plac. iv. 2; Stob. Ecl. Phys. p. 862;
Arist. de An. i. 2, 4); hardly, however, in the
same sense as that unfolded by Simmias, who had
heard Philolaus, in the Phaedo of Plato (p. 85,
&c.), with which the doctrine of metempsychosis
would have been totally inconsistent. Some held
the curious idea, that the particles floating as motes
in the sunbeams were souls (Arist. de An. i. 2).
In so far as the soul was a principle of life, it was
supposed to partake of the nature of the central
fire (Diog. Laërt. viii. 27, &c.). There is, however,
some want of uniformity in separating or identify-
ing the soul and the principle of life, as also in the
division of the faculties of the soul itself. Philo-
laus distinguished soul (vxá) from spirit or reason
(vous, Theol. Arith. p. 22; Böckh, p. 149; Diog.
Laërt. viii. 30, where opéves is the term applied to
that which distinguishes men from animals, voûs and
Suuós residing in the latter likewise). The division
of the soul into two elements, a rational and an
irrational one (Cic. Tuse. iv. 5), comes to much the
same point. Even animals, however, have a germ
of reason, only the defective organisation of their
body, and their want of language, prevents its de-
velopment (Plut. de Plac. v. 20). The Pythago-
reans connected the five senses with their five ele-
ments (Theol. Arith. p. 27; Stob. I. c. p. 1104).
In the senses the soul found the necessary instru-
ments for its activity; though the certainty of
knowledge was derived exclusively from number
and its relations. (Stob. p. 8; Sext. Emp. adv.
Math. vii. 92.)

The ethics of the Pythagoreans consisted more
in ascetic practice, and maxims for the restraint of
the passions, especially of anger, and the cultiva-
tion of the power of endurance, than in scientific
theory. What of the latter they had was, as
might be expected, intimately connected with their
number-theory (Arist. Eth. Magn. i. 1, Eth. Nic.
i. 4, ii. 5). The contemplation of what belonged
to the pure and elevated region termed koos,
was wisdom, which was superior to virtue, the
latter having to do only with the inferior, sublunary
region (Philol. ap. Stob. Ed. Phys. pp. 490, 488).
Happiness consisted in the science of the perfection
of the virtues of the soul, or in the perfect science
of numbers (Clem. Alex. Strom. ii. p. 417; Theo-
doret. Serm. xi. p. 165). Likeness to the Deity
was to be the object of all our endeavours (Stob.
Ecl. Eth. p. 64), man becoming better as he ap
proaches the gods, who are the guardians and
guides of men (Plut. de Def. Or. p. 413; Plat.
Phacd. p. 62, with Heindorf's note), exercising a
direct influence upon them, guiding the mind or
reason, as well as influencing external circumstances
γενέσθαι γὰρ ἐπίπνοιάν τινα παρὰ τοῦ δαιμονίου

|

cuse,

he is likely to supply the void left by the death of
Euripides, does not even obtain an answer, except
by a jest of Xanthias.
[P.S.]

PY THEAS (Пv@éas), historical. 1. The son of Lampon, of Aegina, was a conqueror in the Nemean games, and his victory is celebrated in one of Pindar's odes (Nem. v). He is in all probability the same as the Pytheas who distinguished himself in the Persian wars [No. 2], since we know that the latter had a son of the name of Lampon.

2. Or PYTHES, the son of Ischenous, of Aegina, was in one of the three Greek guard-ships stationed off the island of Sciathus, which were taken

mopylae. Pytheas distinguished himself by his bravery in the engagement, and was in consequence treated by the Persians with distinguished honour. At the battle of Salamis the Sidonian ship, in which he was kept as a prisoner, was taken by an Aeginetan vessel, and he thus recovered his liberty. Lampon, the son of this Pytheas, was present at the battle of Plataea, and urged Pausanias, after the engagement, to avenge the death of Leonidas by insulting and mutilating the corpse of Mardonius. (Herod. vii. 181, viii. 92, ix. 78; Paus. iii. 4. § 10.)

which Pliny describes his works is extremely corrupt, but it can be pretty well corrected by the help of Pausanias. (Respecting the correction of the text, see Sillig, Cat. Art. s. v., and edition of Pliny, with Janus's supplement; and Thiersch, Epochen, pp. 216, 217). Besides the statue of Astylus already mentioned, and the pancratiast at Delphi by which he gained his victory over Myron, he also made the statues of Leontiscus of Messana, an Olympic victor in wrestling (Paus. vi. 4. § 2), of Protolaus of Mantineia (vi. 6. § 1), of Euthymus, a very beautiful work of art (ib. § 2. s. 6), of Dromeus of Stymphalus (vi. 7. § 3. s. 10), of Mnaseas of Cyrene, who was known by the sur-by the Persians shortly before the battle of Thername of Libys, and of his son Cratisthenes, who was represented in a chariot, with a Victory by his side (vi. 13. § 4. s. 7, 18. § 1). His other works, mentioned by Pliny, are, a naked figure carrying apples, perhaps Hercules with the golden apples of the Hesperides; a lame figure, at Syracalled Claudicans, "the pain of whose wound even the spectator seems to feel," a description which almost certainly indicates a Philoctetes; two statues of Apollo, the one slaying the serpent Python with his arrows, the other playing the harp, of which two statues the latter was known by the surname of Dicaeus, from a story that, when Thebes was taken by Alexander, a fugitive hid his money in the bosom of the statue, and found it afterwards in safety. There are still other works of Pythagoras, mentioned by other authors, namely, a winged Perseus (Dion Chrysost. Orat. 37, vol. ii. p. 106, ed. Reiske); Europa sitting on the bull (Tatian, adv. Graec, 53, p. 116, ed. Worth; Varro, L. L. v. 6. § 31); Eteocles and Polyneices dying | by their mutual fratricide (ibid. 54, p. 118); and a statue of Dionysus, mentioned in an epigram by Proclus, in which, though the name of Pythagoras does not occur, we can hardly be wrong in applying to him the epithet 'Payivov (Brunck, Anal. vol. ii. p. 446, No. 5; Jacobs, Append. Anth. Pal. vol. ii. p. 782, No. 69).

There are still extant various medals, gems, and bas-reliefs, on which there is a figure of Philoctetes, which some antiquaries believe to be after the type of the statue by Pythagoras, but the matter is quite uncertain.

Pliny tells us that Pythagoras had for a pupil his sister's son, Sostratus (l. c. § 5).

3. Or PYTHES, of Abdera, the father of Nymphodorus. (Herod. vii. 137.) [NYMPHODORUS.] 4. An Athenian orator, distinguished by his unceasing animosity against Demosthenes. He was self-educated, and, on account of the harshness and inelegance of his style, was not reckoned among the Attic orators by the grammarians. (Suidas, s. v.; Syrian. ad Hermog. 16; comp. Phil. Phoc. 21.) His private character was bad. and he had no political principles, but changed sides as often as suited his convenience or his interest. He made no pretensions to honesty. On being reproached on one occasion as a rascal, he frankly admitted the charge, but urged that he had been so for a shorter time than any of his contemporaries who took part in public affairs. (Aelian, V. H. xiv. 28.) Suidas relates (s. v.) that having been imprisoned on account of a debt, probably a fine incurred in a law-suit (dià opλnua), he made his escape from prison and fled to Macedonia, and that after remaining there for a time, he returned to Athens. The statement that he was unable to pay his debts is confirmed by the account of the author of the Letters which go under the name of Demosthenes (Ep. 3. p. 1481, ed. Reiske), where it is related that Pytheas had acquired such a large fortune by dishonest means that he could at that time pay five talents with more ease than five drachmas formerly. We learn from the same authority that he obtained the highest honours at Athens, and was in particular entrusted with the distinguished duty of offering the sacrifices at Delphi for the Athenians. He was accused by Deinarchus of gevía (Dionys. Deinarch.; Harpocrat. s. v. dwpwv ypapń; Steph. Byz. s. v. Alyivai), probably on account of his long residence at Macedonia. Of the part that he took in political affairs only two or three facts are rePYTHA'NGELUS (Пv@άyу€λos), an Athe-corded. He opposed the honours which the Athenian tragic poet at the close of the fifth century B. C., who is only known by one passage in Aristophanes (Run. 87), which is, however, quite enough to show the sort of estimation in which he was held. Aristophanes places him at the very foot of the anti-climax of tragedians who were still living, and the question of Hercules, whether

2. Of Samos, a statuary, whom Pliny (l. c. § 5) expressly distinguishes from the former, to whom, however, he says, the Samian bore a remarkable personal likeness. He was at first a painter, and was celebrated as the maker of seven naked statues, and one of an old man, which, in Pliny's time, stood near the temple of Fortune, which Catulus had erected out of the spoils of the Cimbri. (This is the meaning of Pliny's expression, hujusce die.) There is no indication of his date, unless we were to accept the opinion of Sillig, already noticed, that Pliny's date of Ol. 87 ought to be referred to this artist rather than to Pythagoras of Rhegium. [P.S.]

nians proposed to confer upon Alexander (Plut. Praec. gerend. Reip. p. 804, b, An Seni ger, resp. p. 784, c), but he afterwards espoused the interests of the Macedonian party. He accused Demosthenes of having received bribes from Harpalus. (Dem. Ep. Lc.; Plut. Vit. X. Orat. p. 846, c; Phot. Bibl. Cod. 265; Dionys Isacus, 4.) In the Lamian