The Pythagorean Akousmata and Early Pythagoreanism

Johan C Thom

The Pythagorean Akousmata and EarlyPythagoreanism

The importance of the akousmata (also known as symbola) for the history ofearly Pythagoreanism is widely accepted In view of the fragmentary nature ofour sources for early Pythagoreanism any material that may derive from thetime of Pythagoras himself or at least from the early Pythagorean period is ob-viously of great significance for our understanding of the origins of Pythagorean-ism Most scholars would agree that at least some of the extant akousmata canbe traced back to the earliest period but the nature and extent of the akousmatacollection and their role within early Pythagoreanism remain debated issuessup1

Before we consider these let us first rehearse the evidenceGiven the state of our sources about early Pythagoreanism it is very difficult

to determine which akousmata formed part of the earliest collection and whatthe format of the early collection was We find a wide range of forms and topicsamongst these sayings which makes it difficult to compile a comprehensive anddefinitive list Some have a catechism-like form with questions and answers oth-ers are commands or prohibitions while still others are statements Some akous-mata have to do with ritual and cult some with dietary matters some with thesciences some are concerned with cosmology and myth others with moral is-sues This diversity makes it difficult to give a precise description or definitionof what an akousma was which means that we have to rely on ancient authorsrsquoidentifications of particular sayings as akousmata About seventy sayings are ex-plicitly cited as akousmata or by the synonymous terms symbola and ainigmatabut again as many sayings may probably be included in the list on the basis oftheir similarity in form and content or their proximity to known akousmata inancient textssup2

Collections of the akousmata may be found in Diels (1951ndash 1952 vol 1 p 462ndash66) (= DK 58C)Timpanaro Cardini (1958ndash 1964 vol 3 p 240ndash47) Mansfeld (1987 p 190ndash97) Dumont (1988p 584ndash93 1406ndash 11) Giangiulio (2000 p 132ndash49) Gemelli Marciano (2007 p 120ndash31) (alt-hough it is not clear which texts should be included among the akousmata) None of thesecollections is complete however Possible additional sayings to be included are discussed byHuumlffmeier (2001 p 38ndash41) Between them Boehm (1905) Delatte (1915 p 271ndash312) and Burkert (1972 p 166ndash92) haveextended our collection to about 120 akousmata but none of them has exactly the same col-lection In addition to the sayings from the first two types (see below) Zhmud (1997 p 98) refersto ldquobeinahe hundert lsquopythagoreischerrsquo Tabusrdquo Huumlffmeier (2001 p 38ndash41) suggests that the listof akousmata can easily be expanded to c 200

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter TCSAngemeldet | 463084116

Heruntergeladen am | 240214 1413

The suggestion that the akousmata functioned as a collection was first ad-vanced by the Belgian scholar Armand Delatte in an extensive essay titled ldquoLecateacutechisme des acousmatiquesrdquosup3 Because many akousmata have a question-and-answer format he proposed that the akousmata formed an early Pythagor-ean catechism which introduced students to the religious and moral doctrines ofthe Pythagorean movement⁴ Although the genre of a catechism is probablyanachronistic many subsequent scholars notably Walter Burkert acceptedthe suggestion that the akousmata collection completely determined the worldview and especially the way of life of the early Pythagoreans⁵

Collections of akousmatamust have begun to circulate and become availableto non-Pythagoreans sometime during the fifth century since commentaries onthe sayings make their appearance from the end of the century⁶ The first knowncommentary is a work by Anaximander the Younger of Miletus from c 400 BCEtitled An Explanation of Pythagorean Symbola (Συμβόλων Πυθαγορείωνἐξήγησις)⁷ Aristotle (384ndash322 BCE) too had access to such collections whichhe discussed in his now lost works On the Pythagoreans⁸ He is our most impor-tant early source on the akousmata and we will return to him in a moment Di-odorus of Aspendus (first half of the 4th cent BCE)⁹ a Cynic-like Pythagorean isreported to ldquohave published the Pythagorean sayingsrdquo (διέδωκε τὰς Πυθαγορεί-ους φωνάς Iambl VP 266) which may perhaps be identified with the akousma-tasup1⁰ A commentary On the Symbola (Περὶ συμβόλων) by Philochorus (c 340ndash2632 BCE) is known by title only according to Jacoby this dealt with the Pytha-

Delatte (1915 p 271ndash312) The suggestion regarding a catechism is accepted by eg Kirk Raven and Schofield (1983p 229) Burkertrsquos position is described in more detail below Viacutetek (2009 p 260ndash68) however is sceptical of the tradition regarding Anaximander theYounger (see below) according to him the first collection of akousmata was prepared by one ofthe Peripatetics perhaps Aristoxenus at the end of the 4th century BCE Suda sv Ἀναξίμανδρος α 1987 Adler = FGrH 9 T 1 = DK 58 C 6 For the identity and date ofAnaximander see Schwartz (1894) Burkert (1972 p 166 n 2) According to Philip (1966 p 148 n3) Anaximander must be dated to the earliest part of Artaxerxes Memnonrsquos reign (405ndash359BCE) See also Zhmud (2012 p 171) Our sources refer to at least two such works On the Pythagoreans and Against the Py-thagoreans but it is not possible to assign individual fragments to one or the other Fragments ofthese (two) works have been collected by Rose (1886 frgs 190ndash205) and to a large extentreprinted by Ross (1955 p 129ndash43 frgs 1ndash17) the most recent edition is by Gigon (1987 p 408ndash19) For his date see Burkert (1972 p 202) Thus Burkert (1972 p 203) For the evidence for Diodorus as an ldquoakousmaticrdquo Pythagoreansee ibid 202ndash4

78 Johan C Thom



gorean sayings rather than symbols used in divinationsup1sup1 A work by Androcydescalled On the Pythagorean Symbola (Περὶ Πυθαγορικῶν συμβόλων) may havebeen in existence as early as the fourth century but was definitely in circulationby the first century BCEsup1sup2 Alexander Polyhistor (c 110ndashc 40 BCE) also wrote abook On the Pythagorean Symbolasup1sup3 The Neoplatonist philosopher Iamblichusof Chalcis (c 245ndashc 320 CE) devotes the final chapter of his Protrepticus to acommentary on thirty-nine akousmatasup1⁴ Here and in his earlier work On the Py-thagorean Life Iamblichus refers to another book of his On the Symbola (Περὶσυμβόλων) this is unfortunately lost or was perhaps never writtensup1⁵ In additionto these commentaries there are also quotations and discussion of akousmata inauthors such as Plutarch Athenaeus Clement of Alexandria Hippolytus ofRome Diogenes Laertius Porphyry Iamblichus and later authors all ofwhom probably depend on one of the earlier collectionssup1⁶

Two basic approaches to the akousmata are found in the extant commenta-ries the first attributed to Aristotle is to explain the akousmata as far as pos-sible in terms of cult the second approach represented by Androcydes and Iam-blichus interprets the akousmata as symbolic utterances with a moral meaning

See FGrH 328 T 1 with the commentary by Jacoby FGrH IIIb (Supplement) 380 Burkert(1972 p 167 n 6) Struck (2004 p 107ndash 10) Androcydes has been identified with a 4th-century physician by Corssen (1912) but theidentification is dubious see Burkert (1972 p 167) Centrone (1994 p 197ndash98) The earliestcitation of Androcydesrsquos commentary is in Tryphon Trop p 193ndash94 Spengel which may providea terminus ante quem of the 1st century BCE but scholars differ about whether the latter text isrightfully attributed to Trypho (cf Forbes and Wilson 1996 Baumbach 2002 p 885) whichmakes the terminus itself less certain Androcydesrsquos commentary is on the other hand probablyused by Demetrius of Byzantium (ap Athenaeus 1077) which confirms the 1st-century BCEterminus ante quem The commentary is first cited by name in [Iambl] Theol ar p 528ndash9 deFalco Iambl VP 145 According to Clem Al Strom 115701 = FGrH 273 F 94 see Houmllk (1894 p 20) Burkert (1972p 166 n 2) Alexander does have a section on the akousmata in his excerpts of the PythagoreanNotes (Πυθαγορικὰ ὑπομνήματα) preserved in DL 824ndash36 and it may be that Clement isreferring to this work There is still no consensus on the date and sources of the PythagoreanNotes Dates vary from the 4th to the 1st century BCE but a good case has been made for a 3rdcentury date see Burkert (1961 p 23 25ndash27) For a brief survey of scholarly positions seeCentrone (1992 p 4193ndash96) Iambl Protr 21 p 10426ndash1266 Iambl VP 186 Protr 21 p 1122 Both references are in the future tense maybe Iamblichusplanned such a work but never wrote it The evidence for the existence of a work by Iamblichuscalled Περὶ συμβόλων is discussed by Dalsgaard Larsen (1972 p 60ndash61) He also refers toHieron c Rufin 339 See further Dillon (2000 p 834) The history of traditions of the akousmata collections has been analyzed by Houmllk (1894) butis in need of revision cf already the criticism by Delatte (1915 p 286)

The Pythagorean Akousmata and Early Pythagoreanism 79



Scholars are inclined to view these approaches as mutually exclusive and chro-nologically sequential the former literal interpretation of the sayings derivesfrom early Pythagoreanism while the latter approach comes from a later moreenlightened period when the literal meanings were no longer intellectually ac-ceptablesup1⁷ As we shall see however the situation is more complex than thisview suggests

As noted earlier the sayings included in the collection display a variety offorms and contents In a passage in Iambl VP 82ndash86 that in all probability de-rives from Aristotlesup1⁸ a three-fold distinction is made namely into akousmataexpressing what something is what the highest form of something is andwhat must or must not be done (πάντα δὲ τὰ οὕτως langκαλούμεναrang ἀκούσματαδιῄρηται εἰς τρία εἴδη τὰ μὲν γὰρ αὐτῶν τί ἐστι σημαίνει τὰ δὲ τί μάλιστα τὰδὲ τί δεῖ πράττειν ἢ μὴ πράττεινVP 82) Although this division may not be orig-inal it will serve as a basic typology of the sayings

The first type (τί ἐστι) comprises ldquodefinitionsrdquo identifying mythemes or reli-gious items with natural phenomena Only two examples are given in Iambl VP82 (ldquoWhat are the Isles of the Blest Sun and moonrdquo and ldquoWhat is the oracle ofDelphi The tektraktys [unit of four] which is the harmony in which the Sirensarerdquo) but Aristotle provides several more in other fragments for exampleldquoThe sea is a tear of Cronusrdquo ldquoThe Bears [the Great Bear and the Little Bear]are the hands of Rheardquo ldquoThe Pleiades are the lyre of the Musesrdquo ldquoThe planetsare Persephonersquos dogsrdquo ldquoThe sound coming from bronze when it is struck isthe voice of one of the daimones trapped in the bronzerdquo ldquoAn earthquake is noth-ing but a meeting of the deadrdquo ldquoA continuous ringing in the ears is the voice ofHigher Powersrdquosup1⁹ These sayings appear to give allegorical ldquodecodingsrdquo ofmythological elements in terms of Pythagorean cosmology although some ofthe sayings go in the other direction interpreting natural phenomena in termsof myth Riedweg suggests that these sayings are the result of interpreting andelaborating Orphic materialsup2⁰

See Burkert (1972 p 174ndash75) Aristotle is nowhere mentioned in this passage but extensive overlap with other knownfragments makes an Aristotelian provenance plausible see Rose (1863 p 202ndash4) Rohde (1901p 138ndash40) Houmllk (1894 p 31ndash35) Burkert (1972 p 167 n 5) Although they accept the generalAristotelian provenance of the passage Philip (1963 p 190 1966 p 148 n 3) and Zhmud (1997p 96 101 2012 p 197 n 110) remain cautious about the details some of which may be due toIamblichus or an intermediary Arist fr 196 Rose (ap Porph VP 41 Ael VH 417) See Riedweg (2007 p 99ndash103 2008 p 73ndash76)

80 Johan C Thom



Other sources preserve various definitions without any connection to mythfor example ldquoOld age and every decrease are similar increase and youth are thesamerdquo ldquoHealth is the continuance of the [human] formsup2sup1 disease its destructionrdquo(Arist ap DL 835)sup2sup2 ldquoVirtue is harmony and so are health and all good andGod himselfrdquo ldquoFriendship is harmonious equalityrdquo (Alex Polyh ap DL833)sup2sup3 Such definitions are somewhat similar to sayings of the Seven Sagesand may be analogous compositionssup2⁴

The second type identifying the superlative form or degree of something (τίμάλιστα) is based on a saying form popular in the sixth and fifth century Sev-eral examples are given in Iambl VP 82 ldquoWhat is most just To sacrificerdquo ldquoWhatis the wisest thing Number and in the second place giving names to thingsrdquoldquoWhat is the strongest Insightrdquo ldquoWhat is said most truly That men are evilrdquoAristotle observes that this form is similar to the wisdom ascribed to theSeven Sages and that the akousmata seem to ldquofollowrdquo (μετηκολουθηκέναι)such wisdom (VP 83) The attempt to discover the superlative form of thingscan indeed be traced back to the time of the Seven Sagessup2⁵ A similar type ofquestion namely ldquoWho is the most pious the happiest the wisestrdquo is promi-nent in anecdotes about the Delphic oracle going back to the sixth century BCEsup2⁶

Cf Burkert (1972 p 168 n 18) ldquoThe suspicious word εἶδος in true pre-Socratic fashionmeans nothing more than the shape of the bodyrdquo For the Aristotelian provenance of DL 835 see Delatte (1915 p 277 1922 p 239) Burkert(1972 p 168 n 18) It now forms part of Arist fr 157 Gigon Contra Zhmud (2012 p 171 n 4) DL 833 derives from the Pythagorean Notes see n 13 above Cf eg Thales ap DL 136 τί τὸ θεῖον τὸ μήτε ἀρχὴν ἔχον μήτε τελευτήν Solon ap DL153 τὸν λόγον εἴδωλον εἶναι τῶν ἔργων Pittacus ap DL 17 πρὸς τοὺς πυνθανομένους τίεὐχάριστον lsquoχρόνοςrsquo ἔφη ἀφανές lsquoτὸ μέλλονrsquo πιστόν lsquoγῆrsquo ἄπιστον lsquoθάλασσαrsquo The fact thatPythagoras is included among the Seven Sages in some lists may be due to the fact that hissayings were similar to theirs See the discussion below on further possible influence by theSeven Sages For parallels to the akousmata in VP 82 cf eg Thales ap DL 135 κάλλιστον κόσμοςποίημα γὰρ θεοῦ ἰσχυρότατον ἀνάγκη κρατεῖ γὰρ πάντων σοφώτατον χρόνος ἀνευρίσκει γὰρπάντα Pittacus ap DL 177 τί ἄριστον τὸ παρὸν εὖ ποιεῖν Cleobulus ap DL 193 μέτρονἄριστον Bias ap DL 188 οἱ πλεῖστοι ἄνθρωποι κακοί Chilon ap Stob 32113 τί χαλεπώτατοντὸ γιγνώσκειν ἑαυτόν Thales ap Plut Mor 153d τί ῥᾷστον τὸ κατὰ φύσιν ἐπεὶ πρὸς ἡδονάς γεπολλάκις ἀπαγορεύουσιν Most of these have been noted by Delatte (1915 p 285) For moreexamples of the use of the superlative cf Thales ap Plut Mor 153cd DL 135ndash36 Burkert(1972 p 169) gives extensive references to the Seven Sages and further cites the Certamen theAesop legend Sapph fr 27 D and the beginning of Pi O 1 To these we may add Thgn 1255ndash56κάλλιστον τὸ δικαιότατον λῷστον δrsquo ὑγιαίνειν πρᾶγμα δὲ τερπνότατον τοῦ τις ἐρᾷ τὸ τυχεῖνcited as ldquothe Delian inscriptionrdquo by Arist EN 18141099a27 EE 111214a5 See Herzog (1922) Wehrli (1931 p 30ndash60) Joly (1956 p 17) For the connection between theearly tradition of the Seven Sages and the Delphic oracle see Roumlsler (1991 p 361ndash62)




It is very likely that Pythagoras collected such sayings adapted them and com-posed his own by analogy Pythagorean composition is particularly apparent insayings such as ldquoThe most beautiful of shapes are a sphere among solids and acircle among plane figuresrdquo (Arist ap DL 835)sup2⁷

Most of the extant akousmata belongs to Aristotlersquos third type sayings pre-scribing what should be done or should not be done (τί δεῖ πράττειν ἢ μὴ πράτ-τειν) A few of these are again similar to the moral wisdom sayings of the SevenSages ldquoOne must beget children for it is necessary to leave behind people toworship godrdquo ldquoDo not help remove a burden (for one should not be responsiblefor someonersquos not working) but help put it onrdquo ldquoDo not have intercourse with awoman with gold to beget childrenrdquo ldquoOne should never give advice to someoneexcept with the best intent for advice is sacredrdquo ldquoIt is good to die when endur-ing and receiving wounds in the front and vice versardquo (Iambl VP 83ndash85) Onceagain it seems reasonable to assume that these sayings were modelled on say-ings in general circulation

Other precepts relate to religion and cult and are similar to cult rules foundelsewhere ldquoOne should sacrifice and enter the temple barefootrdquo ldquoOne shouldnot turn aside to a temple for one should not make god something incidentalrdquo(Iambl VP 85)sup2⁸

Several precepts concern dietary prescriptions ldquoOne should only eat of an-imals that may be sacrificed in whose case eating is fitting but of no other an-imalrdquo (Iambl VP 85) ldquoDonrsquot eat the heartrdquo ldquoAbstain from beansrdquo ldquoDonrsquot touchfish that are sacredrdquo (Arist fr 194 195 Rose fr 174 157 158 Gigon ap Ael VH417 DL 819 34)

A considerable number of precepts seem to be based on superstitious ta-boos ldquoDonrsquot talk without lightrdquo ldquoDonrsquot break a breadrdquo (Iambl VP 84 86)Such precepts were frequently provided with a figurative interpretation as inPorph VP 42 where it is called ldquoanother type of symbolardquo (ἄλλο εἶδος τῶνσυμβόλων) ldquoDonrsquot step over a yoke that is donrsquot be greedyrdquo ldquoDonrsquot stir firewith a knife which is donrsquot excite someone swelling with anger with sharpwordsrdquo ldquoDonrsquot walk on the highways that is donrsquot follow the opinions of themany but exchange them for the opinions of the educated fewrdquo ldquoDonrsquot receiveswallows into your house that is donrsquot live under the same roof with talkativepeople who cannot curb their tonguerdquo This report may perhaps also derivefrom Aristotle although its source is a contentious issuesup2⁹ Elsewhere such pre-

Burkert (1972 p 169 n 23) gives the probable original form of the saying For some comparative material with other cult rules see Burkert (1972 p 177ndash78) It is included in Arist fr 159 Gigon Rohde (1901 p 139 n 1) however argued that Iambl VP82ndash86 and Porph VP 42 cannot both be attributed to Aristotle because in the Iamblichus

82 Johan C Thom



cepts are often associated with the tradition transmitted by Androcydes but theyalready form part of the collection used by Anaximander the Younger of Miletus

I conclude this brief overview with the reported division of early Pythagor-eans into akousmatikoi and mathematikoisup3⁰ According to this account theakousmatikoi were only taught the basic principles but not the reasoning behindthem while the mathematikoi were also given ldquoproofsrdquo (ἀποδείξεις) Suprisinglyenough the akousmatikoi claimed to be the ldquorealrdquo Pythagoreans and refused toacknowledge the mathematikoi as such while the latter accepted the akousma-tikoi as Pythagoreans but claimed that they themselves were even more soWal-ter Burkert interprets this account as reflecting a later historical developmentwhen the Pythagorean movement split into a conservative literalist group anda more rationalistic group In keeping with his view that the akousmata were rit-ualistic precepts (see below) he thinks the akousmatikoi represented the originalfollowers of Pythagoras while the mathematikoi were those who interpreted theakousmata symbolically at a later stage when the literal meaning was no longeracceptablesup3sup1

Two rather extreme interpretations have been offered of the evidence out-lined above The first scenario as formulated by Burkertsup3sup2 is still the majorityconsensussup3sup3 Although he allows for the possibility of later omissions and addi-

passage the akousmata are given literal religious explanations while in Porph VP 42 we findsymbolic moralising interpretations a clear indication of two different sources It is hard to seewhy the introductory statement in Porph VP 42 with its reference to ldquoanother type [ἄλλο εἶδος]rdquocannot derive from Aristotle since we find the same kind of language in Iambl VP 82 whereAristotle speaks of ldquothree types [τρία εἴδη]rdquo of akousmata The classifying and systematisingapproach that we find in both the Porphyry and the Iamblichus passages seems typical ofAristotle This point is well-argued by Philip (1963 p 189ndash90) in his criticism of Rohdersquos thesisThe Aristotelian origin of VP 42 is also accepted by des Places (1982 p 155 n 4) and Giangiulio(2000 vol 1 p 147) It is however rejected in the recent dissertation by Huumlffmeier (2001 p 240ndash41) For a discussion of the division of early Pythagoreans see von Fritz (1960) Burkert (1972p 192ndash208) The accounts are found in Iambl VP 81 and 87 (pp 4624ndash474 and 5112ndash 14Deubner) as well as in Comm math 25 p 7617ndash772 Burkertrsquos explanation (1972 p 193ndash95) ofthe discrepancy between the two accounts is generally accepted See now the extensive dis-cussion by Zhmud (2012 ch 5) Zhmud (1997 p 93ndash 104 cf 2012 p 186ndash 192) however thinks this whole tradition is anunreliable late invention See Burkert (1972 p 166ndash92) Cf eg Huumlffmeier (2001 p 6 n 17) in one of the most recent publications on the akousmataldquoBurkert hellip hat mE die Bedeutung der SymbolaAkusmata fuumlr (den historischen) Pythagorasseine Schule und den Stellenwert seiner auf dieser Spruchweisheit aufbauenden Philosophie inder Geschichte der Philosophie am besten erfaszligt und am einpraumlgsamsten beschriebenrdquo




tionssup3⁴ Burkert seems to accept most of the transmitted akousmata as potentiallyauthentic and includes in his discussion even precepts not explicitly identifiedas akousmata or symbola but similar in form and content to known akousmata(eg the precepts cited by Hermippus ap Josephus Ap 1164 and DL 810 aswell as the cult rules listed in Iambl VP 153ndash56)sup3⁵ Burkert devotes much ofhis discussion to ldquothe rules and prohibitions regarding daily liferdquo which ashe points out ldquoattracted most attention in ancient timesrdquosup3⁶ Of the two kindsof interpretation found in ancient accounts namely literal and allegorical inter-pretation Burkert contends that the former was the original allegorical interpre-tation only arose at a later time when the literal meanings seemed absurd asldquothe necessary means of adapting ancient lore to new ways of thinking andthus preserving its authorityrdquosup3⁷ All the precepts were thus understood literallyand obeyed to the letter by the early Pythagoreans These include the dietary pre-cepts requiring abstention from beans and from certain meats or animal parts aswell as superstitious taboos such as ldquoDonrsquot walk on the highwaysrdquo or ldquoDonrsquot stirfire with a kniferdquosup3⁸ Despite ancient attempts to interpret these taboos figurative-ly ldquothere can be no doubt hellip that the acusmata are rather than simple common-sense wisdom in abstruse form ancient magical-ritual commandmentsrdquosup3⁹ Inthis scenario the akousmata as a collection completely determined the worldview and especially the way of life of the early Pythagoreans According to Bur-kert the akousmata required that the adherents lived their daily lives in a state ofritual purity otherwise expected only of participants in religious festivals cult rit-uals incubations and initiations

To take the acusmata seriously means an almost frightening constriction of onersquos freedomof action in daily life Whether a Pythagorean gets up or goes to bed puts on his shoes orcuts his nails stirs the fire puts on the pot or eats he always has a commandment to heedHe always is on trial and always in danger of doing something wrong No more carefreeirresponsibility Everything he does is done consciously almost anxiously The mythical ex-pression of this attitude to life is a world full of souls and daemons which affect every mo-

Burkert (1972 p 188ndash89) Burkert (1972 p 173) Burkert (1972 p 173) Burkert (1972 p 174ndash75) (quotation from p 175) Burkert here follows the work done by Boehm (1905) Burkert (1972 p 177) He refers int al to Rohde (1901 p 109) (ldquoRitualgesetze gestuumltzt aufalten hellip Aberglaubenrdquo) Burnet (1930 p 96) (ldquogenuine taboosrdquo) Nilsson (1967ndash 1974 vol 1p 703ndash8) (ldquoderselbe Geist erfuumlllt alles besonders ist die enge Anlehnung and volkstuumlmlicheaberglaumlubische und kultische Vorschriften ganz allgemeinrdquo p 706)

84 Johan C Thom



ment of a personrsquos life Everywhere are rules regulations and an ascetic zeal for disciplinelife is πόνος which must be endured⁴⁰

Burkert finds evidence for Pythagoreans who lived a strict life based on theakousmata in Iamblichusrsquos accounts of the akousmatikoi⁴sup1 in the references tothe ldquoPythagoristsrdquo lampooned in Middle Comedy⁴sup2 as well as in the scant bio-graphical details of the Cynic-like Pythagorean Diodorus of Aspendus wholived in the first half of the fourth century⁴sup3

An alternative interpretation is proposed by Leonid Zhmud⁴⁴ He finds nocredible evidence that any of the early Pythagoreans obeyed the superstitious ta-boos literally⁴⁵ The references to the ldquoPythagoristsrdquo in Middle Comedy make nomention of the superstitious ritualism presupposed by the first scenario whichif it ever existed is inexplicable given the potential comic value of these primi-tive taboos The Pythagorists are indeed depicted very much like the disciples ofSocrates in Aristophanesrsquos Clouds (ie dirty going around barefoot hungrywearing shabby and torn clothes) except that they also abstain from wine andmeat They therefore do not appear much different from other philosophers lam-pooned in comedy⁴⁶ According to Zhmud the original collection of sayings com-prised mainly of the first two types identified by Aristotle (ap Iambl VP 82) be-cause many of these are clearly based on Pythagorean ideas The collection prob-ably also contained the identifications of concepts with numbers (eg ldquoWhat isjustice Fourrdquo ldquoWhat is marriage Fiverdquo) To this original kernel may also be

Burkert (1972 p 190ndash91) (quotation from p 191) Very similar views of the regulatingfunction of the akousmata are expressed by Nilsson (1967ndash 1974 vol 1 p 707) ldquoRegeln hellip nachwelchen das ganze Leben einzurichten warrdquo Kirk Raven and Schofield (1983 p 229) ldquoa ca-techism of doctrine and practicerdquo Centrone (1996 p 80) ldquoSeguire letteralmente tutti gliakousmata implicherebbe evidentemente una transformazione radicale della propria vita insenso puritanordquo Riedweg (2007 p 92 2008 p 67) ldquoThe life of the Pythagoreans was thoroughlyritualized by means of countless prohibitions and obligationsrdquo also Giangiulio (2000 vol 1p 148ndash49) See my summary above Burkert (1972 p 198ndash202) Burkert (1972 p 202ndash4) Zhmud (1997 p 93ndash 104) See also ch 5 of his recently published book (2012) In this bookZhmud revised several of his earlier positions but I unfortunately received the book only aftercompleting this article and were unable to make full use of it Cf Zhmud (1997 p 93 96ndash97 98) Aristotle (ap Iambl VP 82ndash86) apparently thought thatthe precepts were taken literally but it is uncertain whether he reached this conclusion becausehe knew of any Pythagoreans who did follow them literally or because he was dissatisfied withthe explanations given to them by outsiders (Zhmud 1997 p 96) Zhmud (1997 p 93ndash95)




added some of the precepts related to metempsychosis (such as the dietary pre-scriptions and the command to bury the dead in white clothes) The superstitioustaboos that were given a symbolic interpretation were however not part of theoriginal collection they were probably added later by some Sophist such asAnaximander the Younger of Miletus who collected taboos and superstitionsand who published them with the original akousmata⁴⁷ These precepts thereforedo not provide historical evidence for a ritualistic Pythagorean βίος Such a viewof the Pythagorean life is instead based on a literary tradition

[D]ie Vorstellung vom pythagoreischen Ritualismus ist vielmehr aus einer literarischen Tra-dition der Deutung pythagoreischer symbola entstanden die auf Anaximander von Miletzuruumlckgehthellip Genauso wie die Figur des Pythagoras Legenden auf sich gezogen hat diemit dem Philosophen urspruumlnglich gar nicht verknuumlpft waren so sind auch die anfaumlngli-chen symbola der Pythagoreer zum Kern fuumlr eine in der Folge immer mehr ausuferndeSammlung geworden⁴⁸

In Zhmudrsquos view the distinction between akousmatikoi and mathematikoi alsodoes not refer to a schism in early Pythagoreanism but is probably a late inven-tion associated with the revival of Pythagoreanism at the turn of the era⁴⁹ Forthe same reason the term akousmata should also be considered a later inventionsince it is derived from the term akousmatikoi rather than vice versa⁵⁰

These two interpretations are to a large extent in agreement about the role ofthe first two types of akousmata the major points of debate concern the thirdtype the precept material Burkert accepts most of the precepts as authenticin principle (while allowing for some later accretions) and he maintains thatall precepts were obeyed literally including those interpreted allegorically at alater stage From this he infers that the early Pythagoreans followed a strict rit-ualistic daily regimen Zhmud on the other hand contends that only those pre-cepts that have a clear association with known Pythagorean doctrines (especiallyon metempsychosis) are original the rest are later additions by outsiders He em-phasizes that we have in any case no evidence that these other precepts (in par-ticular the taboos that received an allegorical interpretation) were ever taken lit-

Zhmud (1997 p 98ndash 100) and more recently (2005 p 147ndash51) Zhmud (1997 p 99) Zhmud (1997 p 100ndash4) The two groups are first mentioned in Clem Al Strom 59591 andin Porph VP 37 Zhmudrsquos views on the akousmata has found some support in Bechtle (2000p 50ndash51) Zhmud (1997 p 101) See also Viacutetek (2009 p 258) For some criticism of Zhmudrsquos suggestionabout the origin of the term akousma see Huumlffmeier (2001 p 13 n 40)

86 Johan C Thom



erally by any known Pythagorean He is therefore sceptical of the ritualistic βίοςproposed by Burkert

In my view neither of the two scenarios is completely convincing Problem-atic in both is the way they deal with the precepts that were usually explainedsymbolically Burkert assumes without adequate proof that these instructionswere performed literally while Zhmud dismisses them out of hand as not partof the Pythagorean tradition and therefore not observed by early PythagoreansFrom a comparison of these two approaches two basic questions thus emergeThe first question is how to explain the fact that the ritualistic and superstitiousprecepts were included as part of the akousmata collection The second concernsthe way such precepts were viewed within early Pythagoreanism In what followsI will therefore explore a third approach that accepts the authenticity of theseprecepts but without assuming that they all were taken literally

A key piece of evidence on Pythagoras that should be brought into the dis-cussion on the akousmata is the testimony by his younger contemporary Heracli-tus The latter provides an intriguing description of Pythagorasrsquos work as part ofa polemical attempt to demarcate his own philosophy from that of other contem-poraries⁵sup1

Πυθαγόρης Μνησάρχου ἱστορίην ἤσκησεν ἀνθρώπων μάλιστα πάντων καὶ ἐκλεξάμενος ταύ-τας τὰς συγγραφὰς ἐποιήσατο ἑαυτοῦ σοφίην πολυμαθίην κακοτεχνίην

Pythagoras son of Mnesarchus practiced enquiry most of all men and by selecting thesecompositions produced his own wisdom a learning of many things a fraud [or and hav-ing made a selection produced these compositions as his own wisdom a learning of manythings a fraud] (Heraclit ap DL86 = DK 22 B 129)

The construal and meaning of almost every part of this fragment are open to de-bate but since Carl Huffman has recently discussed the fragment in detail⁵sup2 Iwill first give a summary of his findings before adding some observations ofmy own Huffman suggests the following translation for the fragment

Malcolm Schofield in an unpublished paper ldquoPythagoras the Plagiaristrdquo delivered onSamos in 2005 argues that Heraclitusrsquos criticism of Pythagoras was due to the fact that heperceived him as a direct competitor I am grateful to Professor Schofield for kindly sending me acopy of his paper Schofieldrsquos view is cited with approval by Huffman (2008 p 45) cf alsoBechtle (2000 p 53ndash54) ldquoironische Kollegenkritikrdquo For the role of polemics among the Pre-socratics see Gemelli Marciano (2002) See Huffman (2008) A good survey with references to the secondary literature is also to befound in Riedweg (1997 p 78ndash87) See further Marcovich (1967 p 67ndash70) Kirk Raven andSchofield (1983 p 217ndash 18) Mansfeld (1990)




Pythagoras the son of Mnesarchus engaged in enquiry most of all men and by selectingthese things which have been written up made a wisdom of his own a bunch of thingslearnt from others an evil conspiracy⁵sup3

Huffman argues persuasively that the term ἱστορίη by itself did not in this periodrefer to Ionian science⁵⁴ but was used for enquiry in general it often had theconnotation of collecting the opinions of others Such enquiry could focus onnatural phenomena but was more frequently concerned with myth and religiouspractices⁵⁵ Huffman also shows that συγγραφή need not refer to a prose treatiseas is often assumed but could be used for both prose and poetic compositionsand indeed for any written record including ldquorelatively brief written texts ofpieces of information or short utterances such as oraclesrdquo⁵⁶ Huffman thus trans-lates ταύτας τὰς συγγραφάς as ldquothese things which have been written uprdquo⁵⁷ Thepronoun ταύτας can refer to (a) texts Heraclitus mentioned elsewhere in hiswork (b) ldquothe writings Pythagoras consulted in his enquiryrdquo or (c) compositionswell known to Heraclitusrsquos readers Huffman finds (a) unsatisfactory becauseHeraclitusrsquos fragment ldquoseems otherwise self-containedrdquo⁵⁸ Option (b) is problem-atic when taken together with the normal meaning of ἐκλεξάμενος it does notmake sense for Pythagoras to ldquoselectrdquo all the writings he consulted⁵⁹ Huffmantherefore prefers the last option and suggests that ldquothese things which havebeen written uprdquo refer to the famous Pythagorean sayings called symbola orakousmata⁶⁰

Although most scholars translate ἐκλεξάμενος in this context as ldquoselectingfromrdquo⁶sup1 there is no clear evidence that ἐκλέγομαι with the accusative can havethis meaning for such a meaning the genitive or the preposition ἐκ followedby a genitive is required Huffman therefore takes ταύτας τὰς συγγραφάς to bea straight object of ἐκλεξάμενος⁶sup2 Another possibility not discussed by Huff-man is that ἐκλεξάμενος is used in an absolute sense ie ldquohaving made a se-

Huffman (2008 p 20) Contra eg Kahn (2001 p 17) Riedweg (2008 p 78) Huffman (2008 p 22ndash33) He discusses 5th- and 4th-century evidence in particular theusage of Herodotus Huffman (2008 p 35ndash41) (quotation from p 40) Huffman (2008 p 20 42ndash43) Huffman (2008 p 34) Huffman (2008 p 34ndash35) Schofield ([2005]) considers this less of a stumbling block Huffman (2008 p 35 41ndash42) Cf eg Kahn (1979 p 39) ldquochoosing what he liked from these compositionsrdquo GemelliMarciano (2007 p 293) ldquoindem er eine Auswahl aus diesen Schriften machterdquo Huffman (2008 p 34ndash35)

88 Johan C Thom



lectionrdquo and that ταύτας τὰς συγγραφάς functions as the object of ἐποιήσατο⁶sup3In this case σοφίην πολυμαθίην κακοτεχνίην are used predicatively (see my al-ternative translation above) Scholars have rejected this possibility in the pastbecause Pythagoras was known not to have produced any writings If one inter-prets τὰς συγγραφάς not as formal treatises but as informal notes or compila-tions such as Huffman suggests the force of this objection is weakened⁶⁴

Huffman suggests that the three phrases Heraclitus uses to criticize Pytha-gorasrsquos enquiry namely ἑαυτοῦ σοφίην πολυμαθίην and κακοτεχνίην are neg-ative counterparts of the positive values ldquowisdomrdquo (σοφίη) ldquolearningrdquo (μάθησις)and ldquoskillrdquo (τέχνη)⁶⁵ According to my own understanding the three terms form aclimactic sequence the ldquowisdomrdquo that Pythagoras produced is criticized as ldquoalearning of many thingsrdquo (πολυμαθίη) that is as a mere compilation withoutreal understanding a reproduction without insight⁶⁶ and therefore a ldquofraudrdquo(κακοτεχνίην)⁶⁷

We can now draw some provisional conclusions from this fragment In doingso it is important to bear in mind that Heraclitusrsquos description of Pythagorasrsquosactivity should be seen for what it is a highly polemical depiction by a compet-ing colleague The following nevertheless appears to be clear1 Pythagoras had a marked reputation for practicing ἱστορίη (ldquoenquiryrdquo)2 His enquiry entailed collecting and selecting material and creating ldquohis own

wisdomrdquo (ἑαυτοῦ σοφίην) that is a new synthesis expressing his own un-derstanding of the material

3 The material itself and the resulting end product were probably of a diversenature which would account for the term πολυμαθίη

4 Pythagorasrsquos enquiry involved writings of some sort either as the object ofhis selection or as the product of his research

This seems to be the way Diogenes Laertius understood this fragment Huffman (2008 p 42) too quickly passes over the question of whether Pythagoras himselfwrote the συγγραφαί ldquoThe fact that Heraclitus does not make Pythagoras the subject of a verblike συγγράφω at least leaves open the question of who did the writing and rather implies that itwas someone elserdquo The question of whether Pythagoras wrote anything is discussed in detail byRiedweg (1997) who concludes that the evidence in this regard is inconclusive Schofield([2005]) also suggests that Heraclit fr 129 makes better sense if Pythagoras had indeed written acomposition (although one now lost) Huffman (2008 p 43ndash45) Thus Gemelli Marciano (2002 p 100) See Burkert (1972 p 161) for a discussion of the meaning of κακοτεχνίη




ἱστορίη as a personal investigation of facts was characteristic of the intellectualmilieu of the second half of the sixth century⁶⁸ Sages therefore undertook jour-neys to gain firsthand experience of peoples customs and places They werenot however only interested in gathering personal expressions that is theirown eyewitness reports the research of this period included the collecting ofsayings oracles and various other forms of knowledge⁶⁹ It is not unlikelythat Pythagoras too sought to make firsthand observations during the extensivejourneys legends attributed to him⁷⁰ Although the details may be exaggeratedsuch journeys were expected of a sage in the cultural milieu of his time

Heraclitusrsquos testimony however points in another direction According tohim Pythagorasrsquos ἱστορίη consisted in selecting and compiling material Hedoes not appear to call into question either Pythagorasrsquos reputation as an out-standing enquirer⁷sup1 nor his method of enquiry The thrust of Heraclitusrsquos criti-cism does not concern the fact that Pythagoras made use of other personsrsquowork but the eventual result of his research This is clearly indicated by the rhet-orical build-up of the sentence the sting is in the tail There is no overt criticismup to σοφίην even πολυμαθίην would probably have been understood as a pos-itive term by most of Heraclitusrsquos audience It is only when we get to κακοτεχνίηνthat it becomes clear that σοφίην is meant sarcastically and that Heraclitus at-taches a pejorative meaning to πολυμαθίην Heraclitus in keeping with the intel-lectual climate of his time indeed elsewhere also appears to emphasize the needfor a broad-based enquiry (χρὴ γὰρ εὖ μάλα πολλῶν ἵστορας φιλοσόφους ἄνδραςεἶναι ldquoFor men loving wisdom must be enquirers into rather many thingsrdquo DK

Gemelli Marciano (2002 p 92) See also Macris (2003 p 251ndash52) Granger (2004) See Gemelli Marciano (2002 p 97ndash98) who refers to the collections by Onomacritus(oracles) Hecataeus (facts about peoples and places) and Hipparchus (gnomic sayings) In thecase of the latter she points out that the description of Hipparchusrsquos activity in [Plato]Hipp 228c-e is remarkably similar to the description of Pythagorasrsquos research in Heraclit 22 B129 cf esp 228d τῆς σοφίας τῆς αὑτοῦ ἥν τrsquo ἔμαθε καὶ ἣν αὐτὸς ἐξηῦρεν ἐκλεξάμενος ἃ ἡγεῖτοσοφώτατα εἶναι ταῦτα αὐτὸς ἐντείνας εἰς ἐλεγεῖον αὑτοῦ ποιήματα καὶ ἐπιδείγματα τῆς σοφίαςἐπέγραψενhellip Granger (2004 p 238) citing recent research on the origin of ἵστωρ concludesthat ldquothe practice of historiecirc would not then be so much the pursuit of firsthand observation asthe adjudication of material gathered from firsthand and secondhand sourcesrdquo Cf Isoc Bus 28 Str 14116 Hippol Ref 1218 Clem Al Strom 115662 DL 82ndash3 PorphVP 6ndash8 Iambl VP 13ndash19 More extensive references to Pythagorasrsquos travels and foreign edu-cation in Zeller (1919ndash 1923 vol 1 p 384ndash92) Delatte (1922 p 105) See also Riedweg (1997p 81ndash2) Huffman (2009 par 3) ldquoa trip there [sc to Egypt] seems quite plausiblerdquo This does not mean that Heraclitus agrees that Pythagoras merited his reputation he onlytakes it as an accepted fact

90 Johan C Thom



22 B 35)⁷sup2 but he is critical of those whose enquiry only leads to ldquoa learning ofmany thingsrdquo instead of to a sound understanding of the world based on theunitary λόγος⁷sup3 Heraclitus therefore probably does not criticize Pythagoras forcommitting plagiarism⁷⁴ but for presenting a multifarious ununified compila-tion as ldquowisdomrdquo⁷⁵

Heraclitusrsquos reference to Pythagorasrsquos reputation for research and polymathyreceives support from other early testimonies as well Ion of Chios (mid-5th centBCE) refers to Pythagoras as a ldquotruly wise man who above all others saw andthoroughly learned the opinions [or insights] of menrdquo (ἐτύμως σοφὸς ὃς περὶπάντων ἀνθρώπων γνώμας εἶδε καὶ ἐξέμαθεν ap DL 1120 = DK 36 B43ndash4)⁷⁶ Ion like Heraclitus in DK 22 B 129 mentions the fact that Pythagorasdistinguished himself as researcher (σοφὸς hellip περὶ πάντων) and that his enquiryfocused on the ideas of others (ἀνθρώπων γνώμας) rather than on for examplehistorical events or facts about nature Pythagorasrsquos personal involvement andintellectual effort are emphasized by the verbs εἶδε καὶ ἐξέμαθεν compare Her-aclitusrsquos statement that Pythagoras produced his own wisdom It is irrelevant forour purpose whether Ionrsquos testimony is meant ironically or as a correction of Her-

See Barnes (1982 p 147) Kirk Raven and Schofield (1983 p 218) Granger (2004 p 249ndash50) however following the lead of Cornford and others believes that Heraclitusrsquos use ofφιλοσόφους is ironical in 22 B 35 and that he had a negative view of ἱστορίη in general Lesher(1999 p 234 247ndash48 n 14) also thinks that ldquoHeraclitus opted not to pursue lsquoinquiryrsquo in the formadvocated and practised by his predecessorsrdquo that is in the form of a ldquolsquofact-finding inquiryrsquordquo πολυμαθίη νόον οὐ διδάσκει Ἡσίοδον γὰρ ἂν ἐδίδαξε καὶ Πυθαγόρην αὖτίς τε Ξενοφάνεά τεκαὶ Ἑκαταῖον DK 22 B 40 cf 22 B 57 22 B 1 2 50 Pace Guthrie (1962 p 157ndash58) Mansfeld (1990 p 230) Zhmud (1997 p 36ndash37) Macris(2003 p 255) Granger (2004 p 247ndash48) Schofield ([2005]) Gemelli Marciano (2007 p 346ndash47) We have too little evidence to conclude with Gemelli Marciano (2007 p 178 346ndash47)(building on Burkert 1972 p 161) that Heraclitus describes Pythagorasrsquos ἱστορίη as a ldquofraudrdquobecause he pretends to have personal experience of καταβάσεις other-wordly journeys Huffman(2009 par 42) likewise suggests that Heraclitusrsquos description of Pythagorasrsquos wisdom asldquofraudulent artrdquo ldquois most easily understood as an unsympathetic reference to his miraclesrdquo See Marcovich (1967 p 70) ldquoI think we may remain rather on the level of a theoreticalpolemic Pythagorasrsquo σοφίη was no more than a πολυμαθίη and a κακοτεχνίη as wellhellip Py-thagorasrsquo teachings are but a lie and a cheat because he has not reached the only Truth whichis the universal Logosrdquo Cf Robinson (1987 p 164) Reading σοφὸς ὃς with Sandbach (1958ndash 1959) instead of ὁ σοφὸς (codd) For the transla-tion cf Kirk Raven and Schofield (1983 p 218) Riedweg (2007 p 73 2008 p 52) slightlydifferent Gemelli Marciano (2007 p 105)




aclitusrsquos sarcastic evaluation⁷⁷ it still confirms that Pythagoras was well-knownfor such enquiry

Empedocles (c 490ndashc 430 BCE) also seems to provide evidence for Pytha-gorasrsquos search for knowledge In an apparent reference to Pythagoras he saysldquoAnd there was among them a man of surpassing knowledge who had acquiredthe utmost wealth of understanding master especially of all kinds of wiseworksrdquo (ἦν δέ τις ἐν κείνοισιν ἀνὴρ περιώσια εἰδώς ὃς δὴ μήκιστον πραπίδωνἐκτήσατο πλοῦτον παντοίων τε μάλιστα σοφῶν langτrsquorang ἐπιήρανος ἔργων DK 31 B1291ndash3)⁷⁸ Points of agreement with Heraclitus are Pythagorasrsquos reputation forknowledge (περιώσια εἰδώς) the diversity of his knowledge (παντοίων τε μάλι-στα σοφῶν langτrsquorang ἐπιήρανος ἔργων) and his efforts to attain it (μήκιστον πραπίδωνἐκτήσατο πλοῦτον)

From the testimonies of Heraclitus Ion of Chios and perhaps also Empedo-cles we may therefore conclude that Pythagoras indeed took pains to practiceἱστορίη that his enquiry covered a variety of subjects and that he studiedand made use of the works of others

We cannot determine with any certainty from DK 22 B 129 which writings aremeant by ldquothese compositionsrdquo (ταύτας τὰς συγγραφάς) Most of the suggestionsby previous scholars are predicated on the assumption that συγγραφαί refers toformal writings whether poetry or prose⁷⁹ As noted above Huffman has howev-er demonstrated that συγγραφαί could also be used for informal writings that isfor any written record⁸⁰ In this case ταύτας τὰς συγγραφάς may denote notesPythagoras made in the course of his enquiry as Mansfeld suggested⁸sup1 ἐκλε-ξάμενος ταύτας τὰς συγγραφάς ἐποιήσατο ἑαυτοῦ σοφίην can then be construedto mean either ldquohaving selected these notes [made in the course of his enquiry]he produced his own wisdomrdquo or ldquohaving made a selection [from the findings of

Schibli (1990 p 12) eg interprets it ironically and Granger (2004 p 247 n 44) alsoinclines in that direction Riedweg (2007 p 74 76 2008 p 52ndash53) on the other hand sees inIonrsquos testimony a correction of Heraclitus Using the translation of Kirk Raven and Schofield (1983 p 219) but without transposingvv 2 and 3 as they do Although Pythagoras is not mentioned by name a good case can be madefor identification with Pythagoras see Burkert (1972 p 137ndash38 209ndash10) Wright (1981 p 256ndash57) Zhmud (1997 p 33ndash34) Riedweg (2007 p 75 2008 p 54) Treacutepanier (2004 p 124ndash25) See eg Burkert (1972 p 130ndash31 210) Kahn (1979 p 113ndash 14) Centrone (1996 p 99)Riedweg (1997 p 83ndash84 2002 p 70ndash72 2005 p 50ndash51) Zhmud (1997 p 35ndash36) Giangiulio(2000 vol 1 p 70) Schofield ([2005]) Gemelli Marciano (2007 p 177) Huffman (2008 p 35ndash41) Mansfeld (1979 p 16 1987 p 249 251) Along with many other scholars he however in-terprets ἐκλεξάμενος + acc as ldquohaving selecting fromrdquo ldquoindem er eine Auswahl aus seinendiesbezuumlglichen Notizen vornahmrdquo

92 Johan C Thom



his enquiry] he turned these notes [sc the result of his selection] into his ownwisdomrdquo If on the other hand we take συγγραφάς to refer to compilations ofmaterial resulting from Pythagorasrsquos enquiry ἐκλεξάμενος ταύτας τὰς συγγρα-φάς ἐποιήσατο ἑαυτοῦ σοφίην can be construed to mean ldquohaving made a selec-tion [from the findings of his enquiry] he produced these compilations as hisown wisdomrdquo or ldquohaving selected these compilations [as point of departure]he made his own wisdomrdquo The latter as we have seen is more or less Huffmanrsquosposition although he suggests that the compilation was made not by Pythago-ras but by his disciples The state of the evidence makes it well-nigh impossibleto choose between the four alternatives laid out above It is clear from Heracli-tusrsquos testimony however that Pythagorasrsquos ἱστορίη entailed enquiry (ie ldquocollec-tionrdquo) selection and production and that it involved writing of some sort Selec-tion and production furthermore imply a specific ldquocollectionrdquo rather than hisphilosophy in general I agree with Huffman that from what we know of theearly Pythagorean tradition the akousmata collection is the most obvious candi-date for such a production resulting from wide-ranging collection and selectionin which writing was involved as a medium either during the process of collec-tion or in order to preserve the collected material

Although the akousmata have been cited as evidence of the wide-rangingnature of Pythagorasrsquos πολυμαθίη in order to explain Heraclitusrsquos views of Pytha-goras⁸sup2 they have only recently been identified as a possible product of Pytha-gorasrsquos ἱστορίη⁸sup3 At the very least Heraclitusrsquos testimony provides a reasonableexplanation for the fact that we find such heterogeneous material in the akous-mata collection including many sayings that are not specifically Pythagorean

See Centrone (1996 p 99) ldquoUna sapienza del tipo di quella che si esprime negli akousmatapitagorici puograve invece essere facilmente interpretata come una polymathia tendente al raggiroprecetti e definizioni che investono un ambito molto ampio esprimendosi sulle piugrave svariatematerie e che per il loro carattere criptico quasi oracolare possono far sospettare una volontagraveingannatricerdquo also Granger (2004 p 241 247ndash48) See in addition to Huffman (2008) Mansfeld (1987 p 116ndash 17) Pythagoras took over variouscult rules and invented some of his own a procedure agreeing with what we can deduce fromHeraclitusrsquos criticism [in DK 22 B 129] these precepts the Pythagoreans called the akousmataRiedweg (2007 p 101 2008 p 75) some of the akousmatamay be explained as an interpretationand elaboration of Orphic material Thom (2004 p 32) Pythagorasrsquos research may have entailedcollecting ancient cult rules and taboos and adapting them to his own views Gemelli Marciano(2007 p 177) ldquoWaumlhrend die Quellen der Polymathia des Pythagoras nicht genau zu bestimmensind kann man vermuten dass ihr konkretes Ergebnis eine Sammlung von Weisheitsspruumlchenverschiedenster Art wie die Akousmata warrdquo




and that may even predate Pythagoras himself⁸⁴ This evidence may thereforeserve as response to Zhmudrsquos criticism that much of what is contained in theakousmata collection cannot be ldquooriginalrdquo because it is not specifically Pytha-gorean⁸⁵

I would suggest however that Heraclitusrsquos testimony goes beyond showingthat Pythagoras was a collector of diverse material it also points to a possiblereworking or interpretation of such material Let us therefore consider the evi-dence for interpretation within the akousmata collection

The account in Iambl VP 82 describes ldquothe philosophy of the akousmatikoirdquoas ldquooral instructions without demonstration and without argumentrdquo (ἔστι δὲ ἡμὲν τῶν ἀκουσματικῶν φιλοσοφία ἀκούσματα ἀναπόδεικτα καὶ ἄνευ λόγου)but this should not be taken to mean that the akousmata collection did not con-tain or require explanations

When we consider Aristotlersquos first type of akousmata those with a question-and-answer format containing definitions or identifications it is apparent thatthe answer or definition often only evokes further questions that is it needs fur-ther explanation before making sense⁸⁶ A good example is the saying ldquoWhat isthe oracle of Delphi The tetraktys which is the harmony in which the Sirensarerdquo (Iambl VP 82) Just about every term in this answer begs for further eluci-dation⁸⁷ A second example is the akousma ldquoWho are you Pythagorasrdquo We arenot told what the original answer was but Aristotle suggests the question refersto speculations regarding the semi-divine status of Pythagoras which in itselfwould had to be explained at length (Arist fr 191 Rose ap Iambl VP 140)Even the cosmo-mythological definitions such as ldquoThe sea is Cronusrsquos tearrdquoldquoThe Bears [the Great and the Little Bear] are the hands of Rheardquo and ldquoThe plan-ets are Persephonersquos dogsrdquo (Arist fr 196 Rose ap Porph VP 41) which seem tobe self-contained sayings make more sense within a larger explanatory frame-work in which mythological and cosmological ideas are interconnected⁸⁸

See Nilsson (1967ndash1974 vol 1 p 703ndash7) Guthrie (1962 p 183) Burkert (1972 p 166 176ndash78188ndash89) Philip (1966 p 136ndash37) Granger (2004 p 243) For similar material in various cultrules see Boehm (1905) Delatte (1922 p 231ndash32) Burkert (1972 p 176ndash78) Parker (1983p 291ndash98) See Zhmud (1997 p 98 100) Cf Zhmud (1997 p 95) ldquoFast alle Akusmata der ersten Art setzen eine indirekte Deutungvorausrdquo Cf the lengthy explanation given by Burkert (1972 p 187) Cf Riedwegrsquos suggestion (2007 p 99ndash 103 2008 p 73ndash76) that these sayings are the resultof interpreting and elaborating Orphic material along the lines of the Derveni Papyrus

94 Johan C Thom



As far as the third type namely precepts is concerned it is clear from Aris-totlersquos account in Iambl VP 86 that some form of interpretation was alreadypresent from an early stage and that some interpretations were original

In the case of some [akousmata] a reason why it is necessary is added for example onemust bear children in order to leave behind another in the place of oneself for the worshipof the gods But for other [akousmata] no reason is added And some of the reasons givenseem to have been attached from the beginning and others later⁸⁹ for example not tobreak bread because it is not advantageous for judgment in Hades The probable reasonsgiven about such matters are not Pythagorean but were devised by some outside theschool trying to give a likely reason as for example that now mentioned why oneought not break bread for some say that one ought not break up that which brings together(for in the past all who were friends came together in foreign fashion for one loaf of bread)but others say that such an omen ought not be made at the beginning meal by breaking andcrushing (trans Dillon and Hershbell corrected)⁹⁰

It is clear from this account that whatever the ldquophilosophy of the akousmatikoirdquoentailed some explanations were present in the akousmata collection known toAristotle We find explanations attached to even straightforward religious pre-cepts for example ldquoOne must beget children for it is necessary to leave inonersquos place people to worship Godrdquo ldquoPour libations to the gods from a drinkingcuprsquos handle hellip so that you do not drink from the same partrdquo ldquoDo not wear agodrsquos image as signet on a ring so that it may not be pollutedrdquo ldquoOne oughtnot to turn aside into a temple for one should not make god something inciden-talrdquo We also find explanations attached to moral precepts ldquoDo not help removea burden for one should not become the cause of someonersquos not workingrdquo ldquoOneought not to drive out onersquos wife for she is a suppliantrdquo ldquoAdvise nothing shortof the best for one asking for advice for counsel is sacredrdquo These explanationsall explain why the precept has to be done

In the quotation above however Aristotle also refers to another type of ex-planation one that is based on a symbolic interpretation of the precept⁹sup1 The

Burkert (1972 p 174) translates ἀπrsquo ἀρχῆς and πόρρω somewhat tendentiously with ldquoideallysuitablerdquo and ldquofar-fetchedrdquo ἐπrsquo ἐνίων μὲν οὖν ἐπιλέγεται τί δεῖ οἷον ὅτι δεῖ τεκνοποιεῖσθαι ἕνεκα τοῦ καταλιπεῖν ἕτερονἀνθrsquo ἑαυτοῦ θεῶν θεραπευτήν τοῖς δὲ οὐδεὶς λόγος πρόσεστι καὶ ἔνια μὲν τῶν ἐπιλεγομένωνδόξει προσπεφυκέναι ἀπrsquo ἀρχῆς ἔνια δὲ πόρρω οἷον περὶ τοῦ τὸν ἄρτον μὴ καταγνύναι ὅτι πρὸςτὴν ἐν ᾅδου κρίσιν οὐ συμφέρει αἱ δὲ προστιθέμεναι εἰκοτολογίαι περὶ τῶν τοιούτων οὐκ εἰσὶΠυθαγορικαί ἀλλrsquo ἐνίων ἔξωθεν ἐπισοφιζομένων καὶ πειρωμένων προσάπτειν εἰκότα λόγον οἷονκαὶ περὶ τοῦ νῦν λεχθέντος διὰ τί οὐ δεῖ καταγνύναι τὸν ἄρτον οἳ μὲν γάρ φασιν ὅτι οὐ δεῖ τὸνσυνάγοντα διαλύειν (τὸ δὲ ἀρχαῖον βαρβαρικῶς πάντες ἐπὶ ἕνα ἄρτον συνῄεσαν οἱ φίλοι) οἳ δrsquoὅτι οὐ δεῖ οἰωνὸν ποιεῖσθαι τοιοῦτον ἀρχόμενον καταγνύντα καὶ συντρίβοντα See also Zhmud (1997 p 96) for the two types of explanations found in this passage




precept for which such interpretations are cited in Aristotlersquos account namelyldquoDonrsquot break breadrdquo (in some versions preserved in the form ldquoDonrsquot eat from awhole breadrdquo)⁹sup2 is also found in another account based on Aristotle (fr 196Rose = 157 Gigon ap DL 835) which lists even more such interpretations⁹sup3From these combined accounts we therefore cull the following interpretations(a) it is not advantageous for judgment in Hades (b) one ought not break upthat which brings together (c) in the past friends used to come together aroundone loaf of bread (d) a meal should not start with an inauspicious omen bybreaking or crushing something (e) bread causes cowardice in war (f) the uni-verse begins from an act of breaking The account preserved in Diogenes Laertiusgives no evaluation of the various interpretations they are all presented as ifequally valid and ldquoPythagoreanrdquo The account in Iamblichus lists (b) (c) and(d) as examples of interpretations devised by outsiders but apparently considers(a) as an interpretation attached to the precept ldquofrom the beginningrdquo It is notclear whether Aristotle makes this distinction on the basis of his own knowledgeof Pythagorean sources or because he himself finds certain explanations moresatisfactory than others⁹⁴ Be that as it may it is significant that explanationsare given even for precepts that seem relatively straightforward and wherethere is no doubt about how they should be obeyed From the fact that manyof the precepts had explanations attached to them and from the explanatoryframework implied by the first type of sayings we may conclude that the akous-mata collection apparently had a hermeneutical tendency that is it did not onlyconsist of sayings but also attempted to provide explanations for this material

Against this background (the heterogeneous nature of the sayings and thedifferent types of explanations found in the collection) the question may nowbe asked whether it is impossible that the original collection also included say-ings with non-literal interpretations such as those cited in Porph VP 42 The in-terpretations attached to such sayings are mostly based on obvious associationsand metaphors and some of them were probably never intended to be actedupon literally Boehm contends that ldquoDonrsquot step over a yokerdquo (ζυγὸν μὴ ὑπερβαί-νειν) expressed a superstition based on rural life (a yoke referring to the imple-ment used to bind oxen together)⁹⁵ The term ζυγόν also however denotes the

Cf Suda sv Ἀναξίμανδρος Hippol Ref 6275 Burkert (1972 p 172 n 51) suggests the motivation for this precept is that ldquobread must be cutwith a knife in a prescribed ritual mannerrdquo while Boehm (1905 p 43ndash44) refers to the apo-tropaic effect of the metal used in cutting bread but none of the interpretations mentioned byAristotle refers to such reasons See Zhmud (1997 p 96) Boehm (1905 p 37ndash38)

96 Johan C Thom



beam of a balance and ὑπερβαίνω is used metaphorically as early Heraclitus andPindar⁹⁶ ldquonot overstepping a balancerdquo could therefore easily be interpreted asnot transgressing the requirements of fair distribution that is ldquodonrsquot begreedyrdquo⁹⁷ According to Boehm the precept ldquoDonrsquot stir fire with a kniferdquo isbased on the belief that there are daimones in the fire that should not be pro-voked⁹⁸ One wonders however how often anyone would have considered pok-ing in the flames with a knife The figurative interpretation ldquoDonrsquot excite some-one swelling with anger with sharp wordsrdquo provides a much more natural read-ing based on obvious metaphors ldquofirerdquo corresponds to ldquoswelling with angerrdquothe ldquosharpnessrdquo of a knife gives rise to ldquosharp wordsrdquo Most of the other preceptscited in Porphyry VP 42 and elsewhere can be explained in the same manner Thequestion therefore is whether akousmata like these were originally viewed as lit-eral taboos by early Pythagoreans or whether they interpreted them figurativelyfrom the very beginning⁹⁹

I do not wish to imply that all ritual precepts or taboos were moralised bybeing given a symbolic or metaphorical meaning We should rather envisage acomplex and diverse collection including cosmological religious and moral def-initions religious and moral precepts as well as wisdom sayingssup1⁰⁰ I also do notwant to exclude the possibility that some of the akousmata with metaphoricalinterpretations can be traced back to superstitious taboos although whetherthe early Pythagoreans took them literally is a moot question

Combining the evidence of Heraclitusrsquos testimony (fr 129) and of the akous-mata collection we arrive at a picture of Pythagoras and the early Pythagoreansrather different from those proposed by both Burkert and Zhmud Pythagorasemerges as not simply a religious leader whose followers had to obey all his pre-cepts to the letter like many other contemporary σοφοί he collected diverse say-

Cf LSJ sv 2 In other versions eg DL 817 the explanation is ldquoDonrsquot overstep the bounds of equity andjusticerdquo (τὸ ἴσον καὶ δίκαιον) Boehm (1905 p 40) Cf also Kirk Raven and Schofield (1983 p 232) ldquoThese acusmata [sc those found in PorphVP 42] hellip sound like proverbial wisdom although they are so selected and interpreted as to pointto a more thoroughgoing puritan ethic than most Greeks would have been conscious of ac-cepting Such proverbs were obviously never meant to be taken literally but some of themeanings given (eg those about the laws and about life and death) reflect distinctively Py-thagorean preoccupations the maxims thus explained may originally have had a broader ap-plicationrdquo A similar case for a varied collection has been made by von Fritz (1960 p 14ndash 17) It istherefore unnecessary to assume that the akousmatawere either ldquosimple commonsense wisdomin abstruse formrdquo or ldquoancient magical-ritual commandmentsrdquo as Burkert (1972 p 176ndash77) does




ings and precepts from various sources which were then to some extent reworkedand adapted The material thus collected included ritual prescriptions and pro-hibitions dietary precepts taboos and wisdom sayings but also identificationscovering mythological cosmological numerological and ldquoscientificrdquo topics Thecollection furthermore entailed not only the mere sayings but also explanatorymaterial of varying kinds all contributing to a greater or lesser extent to a largerldquoPythagoreanrdquo world view

This was of course not a static collection As is typical of collections of say-ings the collection grew and changed over time so that it is difficult to pinpointwhat the precise format and contents at any given stage would have been but Iagree with Burkert that the original collection must have contained all the differ-ent types of sayings There probably also was an increasing tendency to provideinterpretations or explanations for sayings the juxtaposition of akousmata withand akousmata without explanations within the same collection caused a her-meneutical pressure to provide explanations for all

It is a fair assumption that in the early Pythagorean community some peoplewere less interested in the explanations given for the akousmata who may evenhave taken them all as literal instructions while others were more intensely in-volved in the project to make sense of them Such a bifurcation may later havehardened into the division between akousmatikoi and mathematikoisup1⁰sup1

Such a scenario is somewhat of a compromise between Burkert and Zhmudrsquospositions and as such less precise or clear-cut than either of them but it is per-haps for that reason also closer to the messiness of real life

Bibliography

Barnes J 1982 The Presocratic philosophers London Routledge amp Kegan PaulBaumbach M 2002 ldquoTryphon [3]rdquo Der Neue Pauly vol 121 cols 885ndash886Bechtle G 2000 ldquoPythagoras zwischen Wissenschaft und Lebensfuumlhrungrdquo in M Erler amp A

Graesser (eds) Philosophen des Altertums von der Fruumlhzeit bis zur Klassik eineEinfuumlhrung Darmstadt Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft p 36ndash55

Boehm F 1905 ldquoDe symbolis Pythagoreisrdquo Berlin Diss Friedrich-Wilhelms-UniversitaumltBurkert W 1961 ldquoHellenistische Pseudopythagoricardquo Philologus 105 p 16ndash43 226ndash246Burkert W 1972 Lore and science in ancient Pythagoreanism Cambridge (MA) Harvard

University Press

The statement by the Pythagorean Hippomedon that Pythagoras originally provided rea-sons for all the precepts and that the reasons were omitted in time leaving only the bareprecepts (Iambl VP 87) may be evidence for a later shift towards fundamentalism by theakousmatikoi

98 Johan C Thom



Burnet J 1930 Early Greek philosophy 4th ed London A amp C BlackCentrone B 1992 ldquoLrsquoVIII libro delle lsquoVitersquo di Diogene Laerziordquo Aufstieg und Niedergang der

roumlmischen Welt vol II366 p 4183ndash4217Centrone B 1994 ldquoAndrocyde (A 173)rdquo in R Goulet (ed) Dictionnaire des philosophes

antiques Paris CNRS Eacuteditions vol 1 p 197ndash198Centrone B 1996 Introducione a i pitagorici Roma Bari Editori LaterzaCorssen P 1912 ldquoDie Schrift des Arztes Androkydes Περὶ Πυθαγορικῶν συμβόλωνrdquo

Rheinisches Museum ns 67 p 240ndash263Dalsgaard Larsen B 1972 Jamblique de Chalcis exeacutegegravete et philosophe Aarhus

UniversitetsvorlagetDelatte A 1915 Eacutetudes sur la litteacuterature pythagoricienne Paris Librairie Ancienne Honoreacute

ChampionDelatte A (ed) 1922 La vie de Pythagore de Diogegravene Laeumlrce Meacutemoires de lrsquoAcadeacutemie

royale de Belgique Classe des Lettres et des Sciences morales et Politiques 2nd seriesvol 172 Bruxelles Maurice Lamertin

Diels H 1951ndash1952 Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker 6th ed edited by W Kranz BerlinWeidmann

Dillon J 2000 ldquoIamblichos de Chalcis (I 3)rdquo in R Goulet (ed) Dictionnaire des philosophesantiques Paris CNRS Eacuteditions vol 3 p 824ndash836

Dumont J-P (ed) 1988 Les Preacutesocratiques Paris GallimardForbes P B R amp Wilson N G 1996 ldquoTryphon (2)rdquo in S Hornblower amp A Spawforth

Oxford classical dictionary Oxford New York Oxford University Press p 1557von Fritz K 1960 Mathematiker und Akusmatiker bei den alten Pythagoreern

Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der WissenschaftenPhilosophisch-historische Klasse Jahrgang 1960 Heft 11 Muumlnchen Verlag derBayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften

Gemelli Marciano M L 2002 ldquoLe contexte culturel des Preacutesocratiques adversaires etdestinairesrdquo in A Laks amp C Louguet (eds) Qursquoest-ce que la philosphie preacutesocratiqueWhat is Presocratic philosophy Villeneuve-drsquoAscq Presses universitaires duSeptentrion p 83ndash114

Gemelli Marciano M L (trans) 2007 Die Vorsokratiker vol 1 Thales AnaximanderAnaximenes Pythagoras und die Pythagoreer Xenophanes Heraklit Duumlsseldorf Artemisamp Winkler

Giangiulio M (ed amp trans) 2000 Pitagora le opere e le testimonianze Milano OscarMondadori

Gigon O (ed) 1987 Aristotelis opera vol 3 Librorum deperditorum fragmenta 2nd edBerlin New York de Gruyter

Granger H 2004 ldquoHeraclitusrsquo quarrel with polymathy and historiecircrdquo Transactions of theAmerican Philological Association 134 p 235ndash261

Guthrie W K C 1962 A history of Greek philosophy vol 1 The earlier Presocratics and thePythagoreans Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Herzog R 1922 ldquoDas delphische Orakel als ethischer Preisrichterrdquo in E Horneffer (ed) Derjunge Platon I Sokrates und die Apologie Gieszligen Alfred Toumlpelmann p 149ndash170

Houmllk C 1894 ldquoDe acusmatis sive symbolis Pythagoricisrdquo Diss KielHuffman C A 2008 ldquoHeraclitusrsquo critique of Pythagorasrsquo enquiry in fragment 129rdquo Oxford

Studies in Ancient Philosophy 35 p 19ndash47




Huffman C A 2009 ldquoPythagorasrdquo in E N Zalta (ed) The Stanford Encyclopedia ofPhilosophy (Winter 2009 edition)lthttpplatostanfordeduarchiveswin2009entriespythagorasgt

Huumlffmeier A 2001 ldquoDie pythagoreischen Spruumlche in Porphyriosrsquo Vita Pythagorae Kapitel 36(Ende) bis 45 Einfuumlhrung Uumlbersetzung Parallelen und Kommentarrdquo Diss Muumlnster

Joly R 1956 Le thegraveme philosophique des genres de vie dans lrsquoAntiquiteacute classique AcadeacutemieRoyale de Belgique Classe des Lettres et des Sciences morale et politiques Meacutemoires513 Bruxelles Acadeacutemie Royale de Belgique

Kahn C H 1979 The art and thought of Heraclitus Cambridge Cambridge University PressKahn C H 2001 Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans a brief history Indianapolis HackettKirk G S Raven J E amp Schofield M 1983 The Presocratic philosophers 2nd ed

Cambridge Cambridge University PressLesher J H 1999 ldquoEarly interest in knowledgerdquo in A A Long (ed) The Cambridge

companion to early Greek philosophy Cambridge Cambridge University Pressp 225ndash249

Macris C 2003 ldquoPythagore maicirctre de sagesse charismatique de la fin de la peacuteriodearchaiumlquerdquo in G Filoramo (ed) Carisma profetico fattore di innovazione religiosaBrescia Morcelliana p 243ndash289

Mansfeld J (ed amp trans) 1979 Heraclitus fragmenten Amsterdam Polak amp Van GennepAthenaeum

Mansfeld J (trans amp ed) 1987 Die Vorsokratiker Stuttgart Philipp Reclam junMansfeld J 1990 ldquoFiddling the books (Heraclitus B129)rdquo in Studies in the historiography of

Greek philosophy Assen Maastricht Van Gorcum p 443ndash448Marcovich M 1967 Heraclitus Greek text with a short commentary Merida (Venezuela) Los

Andes University PressNilsson M P 1967ndash1974 Geschichte der griechischen Religion 3rd ed Muumlnchen C H

BeckParker R 1983 Miasma pollution and purification in early Greek religion Oxford Clarendon

PressPhilip J A 1963 ldquoAristotlersquos monograph On the Pythagoreansrdquo Transactions of the

American Philological Association 94 p 185ndash198Philip J A 1966 Pythagoras and early Pythagoreanism Toronto University of Toronto Pressdes Places Eacute (ed amp trans) 1982 Porphyre Vie de Pythagore Lettre agrave Marcella Paris Les

Belles LettresRiedweg C 1997 ldquolsquoPythagoras hinterlieszlig keine einzige Schriftrsquo ndash ein Irrtum Anmerkungen

zu einer alten Streitfragerdquo Museum Helveticum 54 p 65ndash92Riedweg C 2007 Pythagoras Leben Lehre Nachwirkung eine Einfuumlhrung Muumlnchen C H

BeckRiedweg C 2008 Pythagoras his life teaching and influence Ithaca Cornell University

PressRobinson T M (ed amp trans) 1987 Heraclitus Fragments Toronto University of Toronto

PressRohde E 1901 ldquoDie Quellen des Iamblichus in seiner Biographie des Pythagorasrdquo in Kleine

Schriften vol 2 Beitraumlge zur Geschichte des Romans und der Novelle zur Sagen-Maumlrchen- und Altertumskunde Tuumlbingen Leipzig J C B Mohr (Paul Siebeck)p 102ndash172

Rose V 1863 Aristoteles pseudepigraphus Leipzig Teubner

100 Johan C Thom



Rose V (ed) 1886 Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta 3rd ed Leipzig TeubnerRoss W D (ed) 1955 Aristotelis fragmenta selecta Oxford Clarendon PressRoumlsler W 1991 ldquoDie Sieben Weisenrdquo in A Assmann (ed) Archaumlologie der literarischen

Kommunikation vol 3 Weisheit Muumlnchen Wilhelm Fink Verlag p 357ndash365Sandbach F H 1958ndash1959 ldquoIon of Chios and Pythagorasrdquo Proceedings of the Cambridge

Philological Society 5 p 36Schibli H S 1990 Pherekydes of Syros Oxford Oxford University PressSchofield M [2005] ldquoPythagoras the plagiaristrdquo unpublished paper presented on Samos in

July 2005Schwartz E 1894 ldquoAnaximandros 2rdquo Paulyrsquos Realenzyklopaumldie vol 12 cols 2085ndash2086Struck P T 2004 Birth of the symbol ancient readers at the limits of their texts Princeton

Princeton University PressThom J C 2004 ldquolsquoMoenie op land seil niersquo wysheid en hermeneutiek in die akoesmata van

Pitagorasrdquo Akroterion 49 p 29ndash41Timpanaro Cardini M (ed) 1958ndash1964 Pitagorici testimonianze e frammenti Firenze La

Nuova Italia EditriceTreacutepanier S 2004 Empedocles an interpretation New York London RoutledgeViacutetek T 2009 ldquoThe origins of the Pythagorean symbolardquo La parola del passato 64

p 241ndash270Wehrli F 1931 ΛΑΘΕ ΒΙΩΣΑΣ Studien zur aumlltesten Ethik bei den Griechen Leipzig Berlin

TeubnerWright M R 1981 Empedocles the extant fragments New Haven Yale University PressZeller E 1919ndash1923 Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung

Leipzig O R ReislandZhmud L 1997 Wissenschaft Philosophie und Religion im fruumlhen Pythagoreismus Berlin

Akademie VerlagZhmud L 2005 ldquoUumlberlegungen zur pythagoreischen Fragerdquo in G Rechenauer (ed)

Fruumlhgriechisches Denken Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht p 135ndash151Zhmud L 2012 Pythagoras and the early Pythagoreans Oxford Oxford University Press






The suggestion that the akousmata functioned as a collection was first ad-vanced by the Belgian scholar Armand Delatte in an extensive essay titled ldquoLecateacutechisme des acousmatiquesrdquosup3 Because many akousmata have a question-and-answer format he proposed that the akousmata formed an early Pythagor-ean catechism which introduced students to the religious and moral doctrines ofthe Pythagorean movement⁴ Although the genre of a catechism is probablyanachronistic many subsequent scholars notably Walter Burkert acceptedthe suggestion that the akousmata collection completely determined the worldview and especially the way of life of the early Pythagoreans⁵

Collections of akousmatamust have begun to circulate and become availableto non-Pythagoreans sometime during the fifth century since commentaries onthe sayings make their appearance from the end of the century⁶ The first knowncommentary is a work by Anaximander the Younger of Miletus from c 400 BCEtitled An Explanation of Pythagorean Symbola (Συμβόλων Πυθαγορείωνἐξήγησις)⁷ Aristotle (384ndash322 BCE) too had access to such collections whichhe discussed in his now lost works On the Pythagoreans⁸ He is our most impor-tant early source on the akousmata and we will return to him in a moment Di-odorus of Aspendus (first half of the 4th cent BCE)⁹ a Cynic-like Pythagorean isreported to ldquohave published the Pythagorean sayingsrdquo (διέδωκε τὰς Πυθαγορεί-ους φωνάς Iambl VP 266) which may perhaps be identified with the akousma-tasup1⁰ A commentary On the Symbola (Περὶ συμβόλων) by Philochorus (c 340ndash2632 BCE) is known by title only according to Jacoby this dealt with the Pytha-

Delatte (1915 p 271ndash312) The suggestion regarding a catechism is accepted by eg Kirk Raven and Schofield (1983p 229) Burkertrsquos position is described in more detail below Viacutetek (2009 p 260ndash68) however is sceptical of the tradition regarding Anaximander theYounger (see below) according to him the first collection of akousmata was prepared by one ofthe Peripatetics perhaps Aristoxenus at the end of the 4th century BCE Suda sv Ἀναξίμανδρος α 1987 Adler = FGrH 9 T 1 = DK 58 C 6 For the identity and date ofAnaximander see Schwartz (1894) Burkert (1972 p 166 n 2) According to Philip (1966 p 148 n3) Anaximander must be dated to the earliest part of Artaxerxes Memnonrsquos reign (405ndash359BCE) See also Zhmud (2012 p 171) Our sources refer to at least two such works On the Pythagoreans and Against the Py-thagoreans but it is not possible to assign individual fragments to one or the other Fragments ofthese (two) works have been collected by Rose (1886 frgs 190ndash205) and to a large extentreprinted by Ross (1955 p 129ndash43 frgs 1ndash17) the most recent edition is by Gigon (1987 p 408ndash19) For his date see Burkert (1972 p 202) Thus Burkert (1972 p 203) For the evidence for Diodorus as an ldquoakousmaticrdquo Pythagoreansee ibid 202ndash4

78 Johan C Thom













80 Johan C Thom















82 Johan C Thom













84 Johan C Thom















86 Johan C Thom

















88 Johan C Thom
















90 Johan C Thom














92 Johan C Thom














94 Johan C Thom














96 Johan C Thom














Bibliography




University Press


98 Johan C Thom
















































100 Johan C Thom






























80 Johan C Thom















82 Johan C Thom













84 Johan C Thom















86 Johan C Thom

















88 Johan C Thom
















90 Johan C Thom














92 Johan C Thom














94 Johan C Thom














96 Johan C Thom














Bibliography




University Press


98 Johan C Thom
















































100 Johan C Thom
























80 Johan C Thom















82 Johan C Thom













84 Johan C Thom















86 Johan C Thom

















88 Johan C Thom
















90 Johan C Thom














92 Johan C Thom














94 Johan C Thom














96 Johan C Thom














Bibliography




University Press


98 Johan C Thom
















































100 Johan C Thom
































82 Johan C Thom













84 Johan C Thom















86 Johan C Thom

















88 Johan C Thom
















90 Johan C Thom














92 Johan C Thom














94 Johan C Thom














96 Johan C Thom














Bibliography




University Press


98 Johan C Thom
















































100 Johan C Thom


























82 Johan C Thom













84 Johan C Thom















86 Johan C Thom

















88 Johan C Thom
















90 Johan C Thom














92 Johan C Thom














94 Johan C Thom














96 Johan C Thom














Bibliography




University Press


98 Johan C Thom
















































100 Johan C Thom






























84 Johan C Thom















86 Johan C Thom

















88 Johan C Thom
















90 Johan C Thom














92 Johan C Thom














94 Johan C Thom














96 Johan C Thom














Bibliography




University Press


98 Johan C Thom
















































100 Johan C Thom























84 Johan C Thom















86 Johan C Thom

















88 Johan C Thom
















90 Johan C Thom














92 Johan C Thom














94 Johan C Thom














96 Johan C Thom














Bibliography




University Press


98 Johan C Thom
















































100 Johan C Thom
































86 Johan C Thom

















88 Johan C Thom
















90 Johan C Thom














92 Johan C Thom














94 Johan C Thom














96 Johan C Thom














Bibliography




University Press


98 Johan C Thom
















































100 Johan C Thom

























86 Johan C Thom

















88 Johan C Thom
















90 Johan C Thom














92 Johan C Thom














94 Johan C Thom














96 Johan C Thom














Bibliography




University Press


98 Johan C Thom
















































100 Johan C Thom


































88 Johan C Thom
















90 Johan C Thom














92 Johan C Thom














94 Johan C Thom














96 Johan C Thom














Bibliography




University Press


98 Johan C Thom
















































100 Johan C Thom
























88 Johan C Thom
















90 Johan C Thom














92 Johan C Thom














94 Johan C Thom














96 Johan C Thom














Bibliography




University Press


98 Johan C Thom
















































100 Johan C Thom

































90 Johan C Thom














92 Johan C Thom














94 Johan C Thom














96 Johan C Thom














Bibliography




University Press


98 Johan C Thom
















































100 Johan C Thom























90 Johan C Thom














92 Johan C Thom














94 Johan C Thom














96 Johan C Thom














Bibliography




University Press


98 Johan C Thom
















































100 Johan C Thom































92 Johan C Thom














94 Johan C Thom














96 Johan C Thom














Bibliography




University Press


98 Johan C Thom
















































100 Johan C Thom

























92 Johan C Thom














94 Johan C Thom














96 Johan C Thom














Bibliography




University Press


98 Johan C Thom
















































100 Johan C Thom































94 Johan C Thom














96 Johan C Thom














Bibliography




University Press


98 Johan C Thom
















































100 Johan C Thom

























94 Johan C Thom














96 Johan C Thom














Bibliography




University Press


98 Johan C Thom
















































100 Johan C Thom































96 Johan C Thom














Bibliography




University Press


98 Johan C Thom
















































100 Johan C Thom























96 Johan C Thom














Bibliography




University Press


98 Johan C Thom
















































100 Johan C Thom































Bibliography




University Press


98 Johan C Thom
















































100 Johan C Thom
























Bibliography




University Press


98 Johan C Thom
















































100 Johan C Thom

































































100 Johan C Thom









































100 Johan C Thom







































Documents

The Pythagorean Akousmata and Early Pythagoreanism