downfall of the Pythagorean Order is given at length by Iamblichos, According to this, Pythagoras had refused to receive Kylon into his Society, and he there- \— fore became a bitter foe of the Order. From this cause Pythagoras removed from Kroton to Metapontion, , where he died. The Pythagoreans, however, still retained possession of the government of Kroton, till at last the partisans of Kylon set fire to Milo’s house, where they were assembled. Of those in the house only two, Archippos and Lysis, escaped. Archippos retired to Taras; Lysis, first to Achaia and then to Thebes, where he became later on the teacher of Epameinondas. The Pythagoreans who remained | concentrated themselves at Rhegion ; but, as things went from bad to worse, they all left Italy except Archippos.) “
This account has all the air of being historical.
The mention of Lysis proves, however, that those
events were spread over more than one generation.
The coup d’4at of Kroton can hardly have occurred
before 450 B.C, if the teacher of Epameinondas
escaped from it, and it may well have been even later.
But it must have been before 410 B.C. that the
Pythagoreans left Rhegion for Hellas; Philolaos was
certainly at Thebes about that time.”
1 See Rohde, RA. Mus. xxvi. p. 565, n. 1. The narrative in the text {Iambl. V. Pyth. 250; R. P. 59 b) ‘goes back to Aristoxenos and Dikaiarchos (R. P, 59 a). There is no reason to suppose that their view of Pythagoras has vitiated their account of what must have been a perfectly well-known piece of history. According to the later story, Pythagoras himself was burned to death in the house of Milo, along with his disciples. This is merely a dramatic compression of the whole series of events into a single scene ; we have seen that Pythagoras died at Metapontion before the final catastrophe. The valuable reference in Polybios ii. 39 (R. P. 59) to the burning of Pythagorean συνέδρια certainly implies that the disturbances went on for a very considerable time.
2 Plato, Phd. 61 ἃ 7, e 7.
Want of
evidence as to
the teaching of
Pythagoras.
100 Early Greek Philosophy
The political power of the Pythagoreans as an Order was now gone for ever, though we shall see that some of them returned to Italy at a later date. In exile they seem to have dropped the merely magical and superstitious parts of their system, and this enabled them to take their place as one of the scientific schools of Hellas.
41. Of the opinions of Pythagoras we know even
less than of his life. Aristotle clearly knew nothing
for certain of ethical or physical doctrines going back
to the founder of the Society himself.’ Aristoxenos
only gave a string of moral precepts.” Dikaiarchos is
quoted by Porphyry as asserting that hardly anything
of what Pythagoras taught his disciples was known
except the doctrine of transmigration, the periodic
cycle, and the kinship of all living creatures.* The
fact is, that, like all teachers who introduce a new way
of living rather than a new view of the world, Pythagoras
preferred oral instruction to the dissemination of his
opinions by writing, and it was not till Alexandrian
times that any one ventured to forge books in his
1 When discussing the Pythagorean system, Aristotle always refers it to **the Pythagoreans,” not to Pythagoras himself. That this was intentional seems to be proved by the phrase of καλούμενοι Πυθαγόρειοι, which occurs more than once (¢.g. JZet. A, 5. 985 Ὁ 23; ade Caelo, B, 13. 293 a 20). Pythagoras himself is only thrice mentioned in the whole Aristotelian corpus, and in only one of these places (77. Mor. 1182 a 11) is any philosophical doctrine ascribed to him. We are told there that he was the first to discuss. the subject of goodness, and that he made the mistake of identifying its various forms with numbers. But this is just one of the things which prove the late date of the agua Moralia. Aristotle himself is quite clear that what he knew as the Pythagorean system belonged in the main to the days of Empedokles, Anaxagoras, and Leukippos ; for, after mentioning these, he goes on to describe the Pythagoreans as ‘‘ contemporary with and earlier than them” (ἐν δὲ τούτοις καὶ πρὸ τούτων, 7722. A, 5. 985 b 23).
2 The fragments of the Τυθαγορικαὶ ἀποφάσεις of Aristoxenos are given by Diels, Vors. pp. 282 sqq.
3 V. Pyth. 19 (R. P. 55).
Science and Religion Ioi
name. The writings ascribed to the earliest Pytha-
goreans were also forgeries of the same period.' The
early history of Pythagoreanism is, therefore, wholly
conjectural; but we may still make an attempt to
understand, in a very general way, what the position
of Pythagoras in the history of Greek thought must
have been.
42. In the first place, then, there can be no doubt Transmigra- that he really taught the doctrine of transmigration.” ὡς The story told by the Greeks of the Hellespont and Pontos as to his relations with Salmoxis could never have gained currency by the time of Herodotos if he had not been known as a man who taught strange views of the life after death.® Now the doctrine of transmigration is most easily to be explained as a development of the savage belief in the kinship of men and beasts, as all alike children of the Earth,* a view which Dikaiarchos said Pythagoras certainly held. Further, among savages, this belief is commonly associated with a system of taboos on certain kinds of food, and the Pythagorean rule is best known for its prescription of similar forms of abstinence. This in itself goes far to show that it originated in the same ideas, and we have seen that the revival of these would be quite natural in connexion with the foundation of a new religious society. There is a further considera-
1 See Diels, Dox. p. 150; and ‘‘Ein gefalschtes Pythagorasbuch” (Arch. iii. pp. 451 sqq.). Cf. also Bernays, Die Heraklitischen Briefe, zs The proper Greek term for this is παλιγγενεσία, and the inaccurate μετεμψύχωσις only occurs in late writers. Hippolytos and Clement of Alexandria say μετενσωμάτωσις, which is accurate but cumbrous. See Rohde, Psyche, p. 428, n. 2.
8. On the significance of this, see above, p. 93.
4 Dieterich, ‘* Mutter Erde” (Archiv fiir Religionswissenschaft, viii. pp. 29 and 47).
Abstinence.
102 Early Greek Philosophy
tion which tells strongly in the same direction. In
India we have a precisely similar doctrine, and yet it
is not possible’ to assume any actual borrowing of
Indian ideas at this date. The only explanation
which will account for the facts is that the two systems
were independently evolved from the same primitive
ideas. These are found in many parts of the world ;
but it seems to have been only in India and in Greece
that they were developed into an elaborate doctrine.
43. It has indeed been doubted whether we have
a right to accept what we are told by such late writers
as Porphyry on the subject of Pythagorean abstinence.
Aristoxenos, whom we have admitted to be one of our
earliest witnesses, may be cited to prove that the
original Pythagoreans knew nothing of these restric-
tions on the use of animal flesh and beans. He
undoubtedly said that Pythagoras did not abstain from
animal flesh in general, but only from that of the
ploughing ox and the ram.’ He also said that Pytha-
goras preferred beans to every other vegetable, as being
the most laxative, and that he was partial to sucking-
pigs and tender Κι 5.2 Aristoxenos, however, is a witness
who very often breaks down under cross-examination,
and the palpable exaggeration of these statements
shows that he is endeavouring ‘to combat ἃ belief
1 Aristoxenos af. Diog. viii. 20, πάντα μὲν τὰ ἄλλα συγχωρεῖν αὐτὸν ἐσθίειν ἔμψυχα, μόνον δ᾽ ἀπέχεσθαι Bods ἀροτῆρος καὶ κριοῦ.
2. Aristoxenos af. Gell. iv. 11,-5, Πυθαγόρας δὲ τῶν ὀσπρίων μάλιστα τὸν κύαμον ἐδοκίμασεν" λειαντικόν τε γὰρ εἶναι καὶ διαχωρητικόν " διὸ καὶ μάλιστα κέχρηται αὐτῷ ; 2b. 6, ‘* porculis quoque minusculis et haedis teneri- oribus victitasse, idem Aristoxenus refert.” It is, of course, possible that Aristoxenos may be right about the taboo on beans. We know that it was Orphic, and it may have been transferred to the Pythagoreans by mistake. That, however, would not affect the general conclusion that at least some Pythagoreans practised abstinence from various kinds of food, which is all that is required.
Science and Religion 103
which existed in his own day. We are therefore able
to show, out of his own mouth, that the tradition which
made the Pythagoreans abstain from animal flesh and
beans goes back to a time long before there were any
Neopythagoreans interested in upholding it. Still, it
may be asked what motive Aristoxenos could have had
for denying the common belief? The answer is simple
and instructive. He had been the friend of the last
of the Pythagoreans; and, in their time, the merely
superstitious part of Pythagoreanism had been dropped,
except by some zealots whom the heads of the Society
refused to acknowledge. That is why he represents
Pythagoras himself in so different a light from both
the older and the later traditions; it is because he
gives us the view of the more enlightened sect of the
Order. Those who clung faithfully to the old practices
were now regarded as heretics, and all manner of
theories were set on foot to account for their existence.
It was related, for instance, that they descended from
one of the “ Akousmatics,” who had never been initiated
into the deeper mysteries of the “ Mathematicians.” *
All this, however, is pure invention. The satire of the
poets of the Middle Comedy proves clearly enough
that, even though the friends of Aristoxenos did not
practise abstinence, there were plenty of people in the
fourth century, calling themselves followers of Pytha-
goras, who did.? History has not been kind to the
1 The sect of the ‘* Akousmatics” was said to descend from Hippasos (Iambl. V. Pyth. 81; R. P. 56). Now Hippasos was the author of a μυστικὸς λόγος (Diog. viii. 7; R. P. 56 c), that is to say, of a superstitious ceremonial or ritual handbook, probably containing Akousmata like those we are about to consider; for we are told that it was written ἐπὲ διαβολῇ ᾿ Πυθαγόρου.
? Diels has collected these fragments in a convenient form (Vors. pp. 291 sqq.). For our purpose the most important passages are Antiphanes, fr. 135,
104 Early Greek Philosophy
Akousmatics, but they never wholly died out. The
names of Diodoros of Aspendos and Nigidius Figulus
help to bridge the gulf between them and Apollonios
of Tyana.
We know, then, that Pythagoras taught the kinship of beasts and men, and we infer that his rule of
\ abstinence from flesh was based, not upon humanitarian
or ascetic grounds, but on taboo. This is strikingly
confirmed by a fact which we are told in Porphyry’s
Defence of Abstinence. The statement in question does
not indeed go back to Theophrastos, as so much of
1 but: it is, inzall
probability, due to Herakleides of Pontos, and is to the
effect that, though the Pythagoreans did as a rule
abstain from flesh, they nevertheless ate it when they
Porphyry’s tract certainly does;
sacrificed to the gods.” Now, among savage peoples, we often find that the sacred animal is slain and eaten
Kock, ὥσπερ Πυθαγορίζων ἐσθίει | ἔμψυχον obdév; Alexis, fr. 220, of Πυθαγορί- Sovres γάρ, ws ἀκούομεν, | οὔτ᾽ ὄψον ἐσθίουσιν οὔτ᾽ ἄλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ἕν | ἔμψυχον ; fr. 196 (from the Πυθαγορίζουσα), ἡ δ᾽ ἑστίασις ἰσχάδες καὶ στέμφυλα | καὶ τυρὸς ἔσται" ταῦτα γὰρ θύειν νόμος | τοῖς Πυθαγορείοις ; Aristophon, fr. 9 (from the Πυθαγοριστήςξ), πρὸς τῶν θεῶν οἰόμεθα τοὺς πάλαι ποτέ, | τοὺς Πυθαγοριστὰς γενομένους ὄντως ῥυπᾶν | ἑκόντας ἢ φορεῖν τριβῶνας ἡδέως ; Mnesimachos, fr. 1, ὡς Πυθαγοριστὶ θύομεν τῷ Λοξίᾳ | ἔμψυχον οὐδὲν ἐσθίοντες παντελῶς. See also Theokritos, xiv. 5, τοιοῦτος καὶ πρᾶν τις ἀφίκετο ἸΠυθαγορικτάς, | ὠχρὸς κἀνυποδητός " ᾿Αθηναῖος δ᾽ ἔφατ᾽ ἦμεν.
1 See Bernays, Zheophrastos’ Schrift tiber Frimmigheit. Porphyry’s tract, Περὶ ἀποχῆς ἐμψύχων, was doubtless saved from the general destruc- tion of his writings by its conformity to the ascetic tendencies of the age. Even St. Jerome made constant use of it in his polemic against Iovianus, though he is careful not to mention Porphyry’s name ( 7heophr. Schr. n. 2). The tract is addressed to Castricius Firmus, the disciple and friend of Plotinos, who had fallen away from the strict vegetarianism of the Pythagoreans.