In the Search of Pythagorism

Gabriele CornelliIn Search of Pythagoreanism

Studia Praesocratica

Herausgegeben von / Edited by M. Laura Gemelli Marciano, Richard McKirahan, DenisOBrien, Oliver Primavesi, Christoph Riedweg, David Sider, Gotthard Strohmaier, Georg Whrle

Band/Volume 4

Gabriele CornelliIn Search of Pythagoreanism

Pythagoreanism As an Historiographical Category

ISBN 978-3-11-030627-9e-ISBN 978-3-11-030650-7ISSN 1869-7143

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataA CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for atthe Library of Congress.

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen NationalbibliothekDie Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet ber http://dnb.dnb.de abrufbar.

2013 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/BostonDruck und Bindung: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, GttingenGedruckt auf surefreiem PapierPrinted in Germany

www.degruyter.com

Pittagora volse che tutte fossero duna nobilitate, non solamente le umane, ma con le umane quelle de li animali bruti e de le piante, e le forme de le minere; e disse che tutta la differenza de le corpora e de le forme.

Dante Alighieri. Convivio IV xxi.

for Cissa Dani, Bibi and Dante

Foreword

Pythagoras is and will remain one of the most familiar names among the Greekphilosophers, one we are told very much and we know very little about, and con-cerning whom there has been and continues to be the greatest disagreement. Tosome he is a mathematician, to others a religious leader even a shaman, to oth-ers a moralist, politician and founder of a distinctive vita Pythagorica pursued byan elite group of initiates. Many adherents of one or another of these readingsdeny the validity of the others. Ancient evidence supports all these (and more)interpretations and over the past two centuries and more, attempts to locatein it the genuine thought of Pythagoras have been marked by conflicting ap-proaches and incompatible assessments of the testimonia have left a tanglethat Boeckh described already in 1819 as a labyrinthine confusion. That confu-sion continues today with yet more versions of Pythagoras, some of them revolu-tionary and deliberately provocative.

Professor Cornelli calls attention to this apparently hopeless state of affairsand declines to add to the confusion. Rather, he seeks to understand how theconfusion both in the variety of modern interpretations and in the conflictingancient testimonia arose. His target is not primarily Pythagoras himself, who islost in the mist, but Pythagoreanism a term still in use and one which (alongwith the associated adjective Pythagorean) is employed today as in antiquity torefer to widely different things. Cornelli presents Pythagoreanism as a historio-graphical category demanding a particular kind of historiographical approach.The diversity of the source materials and the wide range of the subject matterdemand a multi-disciplinary approach, drawing on doxography, source criticism,history, anthropology, religious studies and mathematics (to mention only themost obvious fields) in addition to philosophy.

Cornelli begins with a valuable survey of Pythagorean scholarship fromBoeckh to Kingsley that showcases the variety and incommensurability of inter-pretations presently available and the historical development that led to this sit-uation. He then turns to the ancient testimony in texts composed over a time-span of several centuries, emphasizing the contributions of Plato, Aristotleand other relatively early authors. His aim is double. First, to trace diachronicallywhat the tradition reports: what Pythagoreanism meant for its ancient represen-tatives and rapporteurs. Pythagoreanism, Cornelli contends, did not die in thefourth century BCE (or, as Kahn asserted, in the 17th century CE); it has neverdied. From this point of view, given the diversity and history of developmentof the tradition, there can be no guarantee that beliefs and practices called Py-thagorean reflect the actual beliefs and practices of Pythagoras himself or of theproto-Pythagoreans. However, the sources provide materials that enable a partial

reconstruction of the history of Pythagoreanism and that enable us to under-stand how the movement was able, uniquely among ancient philosophies, tocontinue in existence for so very long.

Cornellis second goal is to detect in this later material evidence for whatmay have been the case in the earliest period of Pythagoreanism. He focuseson three strands of the tradition. The first is the distinctive Pythagorean wayof life attested as early as Plato and defined inter alia by prescriptions (symbolaor akousmata) and marked by secrecy, and recognition of the charismatic author-ity of Pythagoras. The second strand comprises the twin doctrines of the immor-tality and transmigration of souls, referred to already by Xenophanes and byPlato and Aristotle. The third is the Pythagorean doctrine of numbers, first men-tioned clearly by Aristotle and related to the doctrines of Philolaus. All threestrands, he argues, go back to the earliest days of Pythagoreanism. The original-ity of his approach lies in the way he deploys the source materials on thesestrands to show how the history of reception by later sources contributed tothe construction of the category of Pythagoreanism.

The measure of Cornellis success is the extent to which he accounts for therichness and variety of the tradition about Pythagoreanism and shows that itsdiverse strands stem from the earliest period. Equally important are the rangeof materials he treats, the variety of approaches he employs, and the fresh in-sights he provides on subjects ranging from the relation between Pythagorean-ism and Orphism to the Platonic and Aristotelian interpretations of Pythagoreannumber doctrine.

The perspectives opened by this book and the discussion it is bound to pro-voke mark it as an important and timely contribution to current literature on Py-thagoreanism and ancient thought in general.

Richard McKirahan

VIII Foreword

Contents

Foreword VII

Acknowledgements XI

Note XII

Abbreviations XIII

Introduction 1

History of criticism: from Zeller to Kingsley 7. Zeller: the skepticism of the beginnings 8. Diels: a Zellerian collection 14. Rohde: the reaction to skepticism 15. Burnet: the double teaching of acousmatics and mathematicians 17. Cornford and Guthrie: in search of unity between science and

religion 19. From Delatte to De Vogel: Pythagoreanism and politics 23. Aristotles unique testimony and the uncertain Academic

tradition 33. From Burkert to Kingsley: the third way and mysticism in the Py-

thagorean tradition 40. Conclusion 49

Pythagoreanism as a historiographical category 52. Interpreting interpretations: diachronic and synchronic

dimensions 52. Pythagorean identity 55. The Pythagorean koinna 61. Acousmatics and mathematicians 77. Conclusion 83

Immortality of the soul and metempschsis 86. Is it the soul? (Xenophanes) 89. Wiser than all (Heraclitus and Ion of Chios) 94. Ten or twenty human generations (Empedocles) 97. Plato and Orphism 100.. Understanding the lgos of their ministry 101

.. Hierarchy of incarnations 106.. Sma-sma 107.. Pythagorean mediation 116. Herodotus, Isocrates and Egypt 121. Legends on immortality 124. A Pythagorean Democritus? 127. Aristotle and the Pythagorean myths 129. Conclusion 134

Numbers 137. All is number? 138.. Three versions of the Pythagorean doctrine of numbers 138.. Two solutions 147.. The Philolaic solution 150... One book or three books? 151... Authenticity of Philolaus fragments 153... The Doric pseudo-epigraphic tradition 155.. The Aristotelian exception (Met. A 6, 987b) 159.. The Platonic testimony (Phlb. 16c-23c) 167. The fragments of Philolaus 172.. Unlimited/limiting 172.. The role of numbers in Philolaus 178. Conclusion 184

Conclusion 189

Bibliography 197Primary sources 197Secondary sources 200

Index of Topics 214

Index of Passages 219

Index of Names 224

X Contents

Acknowledgements

This publication is the result of nearly a decade of research culminating in mysecond doctoral thesis defended at the University of So Paulos Graduate Pro-gram in Philosophy, in September 2010. Much of this work derives from that.For this reason I wish to thank Roberto Bolzani Filho for his warmth and gentleguidance. Over the years many colleagues contributed in many different ways tothe improvement of this monograph. In a special way, my friends Gianni Caser-tano, Andr Chevitarese and Marcelo Carvalho, as well as Alberto Bernab,Bruno Centrone, Franco Ferrari, Carl Huffman, Maura Iglesias, FernandoMuniz, Loraine Oliveira, Christoph Riedweg, Dennys Garcia Xavier, Edrisi Fer-nandes, Emmanuele Vimercati, Fernando Rey Puente, Fernando Santoro, Fran-cisco Lisi, Franco Trabattoni, Gerson Brea, Hector Benoit, Jose Gabriel TrindadeSantos, Laura Gemelli Marciano, Livio Rossetti, Luc Brisson, Macris Constantin,Marcelo Perine, Marcus Mota, Maurizio Migliori, Miriam Campolina Peixoto,Pedro Paulo Funari, Thomas Szlezk, and Tom Robinson, were kind enough toargue with me, in different circumstances, about parts of the research that result-ed in this work. I also owe special thanks: to students of the Archai UNESCOChair, whose dedication and enthusiasm still surprise me and confirm the rea-sons for my passion for ancient philosophy; to the Department of Philosophyof the University of Brasilia, which gave me the time needed to complete thisproject and a place where I can share it; to CAPES and CNPq, which providedaccess to almost all relevant literature on the subject, and also let me dosome research internships; to Richard McKirahan and Daniel Moerner, fortheir very accurate revision, not only of the English text, but of many passagesand ideas. And to Nicholas Riegel and Katja Flgel for his emergency rescuein my very last revision.

Thanks, finally, especially for the patience and for the embrace of the onewho shares a life with me: Monique. For showing me every day, with sweetnessand strength, that half is a measure that overcomes itself.

Thank you.

Note

Greek alphabet is used only in footnotes, while Greek terms are translated in thebody of the text, in order to make the reading easier for non-specialists in an-cient languages.

For modern Authors, Ive choosen to include a translation of the passage inthe text and the original language in footnote; for ancient sources, Ive includedonly translations, because the texts are more readily available.

Unless otherwise noted, all translations are mine.

Abbreviations

Ael. AelianAesch. AeschylusAgainst Acad. Augustine. Against AcademiciansAnon. Phot. Anonymous by Photius. ThesleffArist. AristotleBCE Before the Common Era (= BC)CE Common Era (= AD)Crat. Plato. CratylusD. L. Vitae Diogenes Laertius. The Lives and Opinions of Eminent PhilosophersDe Abst. Porphyry. On abstinence from animal foodDe an. Aristotle. De animaDe Comm. Mathem. Iamblichus. De communi mathematica scientiaDiod. Sic. Diodorus SiculusDiv. Inst. Lactantius. Divinarum InstitutionumDK Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Diels-KranzFGrHist Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker. JacobyGell. Aulus Gellius. Noctes AtticaeGorg. Plato. GorgiasHeraclid. Heraclides PonticusHerodt. HerodotusHist. Nat. Pliny. Naturalis HistoriaeIambl. IamblichusIl. Homer. IliadIn Metaph. Alexander of Aphrodisias. Comments on Aristotles MetaphysicsIn salm. Ambrosius. Enarratio in PsalmosLeg. Plato. Lawslit. literallyLiv. Titus LiviusMen. Plato. MenoMet. Aristotle. MetaphysicsMetam. Ovid. MetamorphosesMete. Aristotle. Meteorologyn noteNE Aristotle. Nicomachean EthicsOd. Homer. Odysseyorig. From the originalP. Derv. Derveni PapyrusPhaed. Plato. PhaedoPhaedr. Plato. PhaedrusPhlb. Plato. PhilebusPhot. Bibl. Photius. LibraryPhys. Aristotle. PhysicsPL Patrologia Latina. MignePol. Aristotle. Politics

Porph. PorphyryProclus. In Tim. Proclus. Commentary on Platos TimaeusProm. Aeschylus. PrometheusQuaest. Conv. Plutarch. Quaestiones ConvivalesRep. Plato. RepublicRetr. Augustine. RetractationesSchol. In Hom. Odyss. Scholium on the Odyssey. DindorfSchol. In Phaedr. Scholia on the Phaedrus. GreeneSchol. In Soph. Scholia on Sophocles. ElmsleySoph. El. Sophocles. ElectraSpeusip. SpeusippusStob. Stobaeus. Anthologium (Florilegium)Syrian In Met. Syrian. Commentary on Aristotles MetaphysicsTheophr. Met. Theophrastus. MetaphysicsTusc. Disput. Cicero. Tusculanae DisputationesVH Aelian. Varia HistoriaVP Porphyry. Life of Pythagoras or Iamblichus. Pythagorean Life

XIV Abbreviations

Introduction

According to Kahn 1974: 163, new theories of Pythagoreanism are not necessaryin our present day and age.

The history of criticism is littered with different and incompatible interpreta-tions, to the point that Kahn suggests that, instead of another thesis on Pythagor-eanism, it would be preferable to assess traditions with the aim of producing agood historiographical presentation. This almost fourty-year-old observation byKahn directs the interpreter towards a fundamentally historiographical ratherthan philological brand of work, that is, one neither exclusively devoted to theexegesis of sources such as Philolaus, Archytas or even of one of the HellenisticLives nor even to the theoretical approach of one of the themes that received spe-cific contributions from Pythagoreanism, such as mathematics, cosmology, pol-itics or the theory of the soul. Instead, this monograph sets out to reconstruct theway in which the tradition established Pythagoreanisms image.

This is not to suggest that a historiographical presentation does not have atits base a hermeneutical or theoretical pre-comprehension of Pythagorean phi-losophy, rooted in the sources of Pythagoreanism. However, the choice of histor-iography has at least two indisputable advantages. The first concerns the neces-sarily critical and, to some extent, relativistic, stance implied by historiographi-cal work. This attitude is well expressed by Luciano Canfora:

Its about one being aware of the constant and consubstantial relativity of the historianswork. Depending on the distance of the event handled, historians provide a profile andshow different faces every time: all actually, somehow, true and often complementary be-tween themselves: none exhaustive, as it wouldnt be exhaustive the mechanical sum ofthem all either.

1 The opportunity to return to Kahns thesis was suggested by Casertano,who referred to it in hislatest book on the Presocratics (Casertano 2009: 56). Cf. Kahn 1974: 163 n6: Its hard enough tosatisfy minimal standards of historical rigor in discussing the Pythagoreans,without introducingarbitrary guesswork of this sort where no two students can come to the same conclusion on thebasis of the same evidence. In fact, the direct testimony for Pythagorean doctrines is all tooabundant. The task for a serious scholarship is not to enrich these data by inventing newtheories or unattested stages of development but to sift the evidence so as to determine whichitems are most worthy (or least unworthy) of belief. The context of Kahns own observation isthat of the criticism of the apriori in the reconstruction of Pythagoreanism from circumstantialevidence by authors like Guthrie, as will be discussed below (1.5).2 Canfora 2002: 89, orig.: Si tratta di prendere nozione della costante and consustanzialerelativit del mestiere dello storico. A seconda della distanza dallevento trattato, gli storici nedanno um profilo e ne rileveranno delle facce volta a volta differenti: tutte in fondo in qualche

The first advantage of the historiographical approach to Pythagoreanism is thusthe initial awareness that none of the accounts of Pythagoreanism are exhaustive in the words of Canfora , and not even the mechanical sum of them all shouldresult exhaustive, thus somehow leaving the historians hands free for a historio-graphical articulation that may present Pythagoreanism in its complex diversity.Perhaps this is the only real problem with Riedwegs excellent and recent mon-ograph on Pythagoreanism (Riedweg 2002), which was rightly criticized in thisregard by Huffman 2008a: it approaches Pythagoreanism in general terms andaligns itself with particular global interpretations of the movement. It is surelyright to note, of course, that this approach is an absolutely conscious one andcorresponds to the authors critical choice; it is a choice that follows, in amore mystical and religious sense, for example, Detienne 1962 and 1963, Burkert1972 and Kingsley 1995 or, in a more political perspective, von Fritz 1940 andMinar 1942. Riedweg does not forget to deal with the fundamental question atissue: the presence of a history of interpretation which, already in antiquity witness the prologue of Iamblichus Pythagorean Life wanted to gather totallydifferent (if not even contradictory) experiences and doctrines under the histor-iographic category of Pythagoreanism. But that same approach ends up in gen-eral terms becoming unfocused: it fails to take more precise position within theseveral competing trends in the history of interpretation. Thus, to think about Py-thagoreanism as a historiographical category means above all, to methodologi-cally overcome the illusion that it is possible to reach the thing in itself, thetrue history, and instead to consciously accept that each interpretation is neces-sarily mediated by its author.

The second comparative advantage of taking a historiographical approachrather than developing yet another interpretation of this philosophy concernsone of the central problems that characterizes Pythagoreanism more thanother ancient philosophical movements: the drastically shifting terrain of thecriticism of the sources. It is critical to face this problem with renewed interpre-tative and philological effort, coming to grips with the central issue of the expan-sion of the tradition (consider Zeller) and the corresponding skeptical drift thatthis usually imposes on scholars.

The advantage of a historiographical approach is to embrace Pythagorean-ism in its entirety, by using its sources to attempt to understand it through and not in spite of its complex articulation across more than a millenniumof the history of ancient philosophy. While this perspective was first introduced

modo vere, e spesso tra loro complementari: nessuna esaustiva, come esaustiva non sarebbeneanche la meccanica somma di tutte queste facce.

2 Introduction

by Burnet 1908, and then reaffirmed by Cornford 1922 and 1923 and Guthrie 1962,it is possible to find an especially comprehensive approach, particularly in theItalian historiographical tradition on Pythagoreanism, inaugurated by classic au-thors like Rostagni 1922 and Mondolfo (in his revised and commented edition ofZeller, 1938). The problem of the pre-Socratic sources (but not only them, see thecase of the traditio of Platos and Aristotles own texts in this sense), which isbased on the later generations of Pythagoreans, is particularly pressing. If it istrue as Burkert 1972: 1596 convincingly demonstrates that the existenceof a Pythagorean philosophy depends largely on the invention of a Pythagoreanvulgata (heavily transfigured) by the Academics, and even if it is likely thatAristotles so-called Pythagoreans are fundamentally philosophers like Philo-laus, who constitute a second (or third) generation of the movement, then it iscertainly appropriate to ask what reliable information later sources could tellus about the original proto-Pythagoreanism, the doctrines of Pythagoras andhis early disciples. However, it is also appropriate to ask whether one can sayanything at all without depending to some extent on the Lives of Pythagoras(by Diogenes Laertius, Porphyry and Iamblichus), which were written almost athousand years after his death.

In this sense, the doubts of Zhmud are justified:

Why are the doctrinal differences so great in Pythagoreanism? First of all, because it hadnot arisen as a philosophic school, and belonging to it had never been determined by fol-lowing the sum of certain doctrines.

One can also conclude, with Centrone 1996: 91, that ancient Pythagoreanismwould be an association based on following a particular lifestyle, followingthe rules of a specific bos, expressed by essentially eschatological akosmata.

However, this koinona of life had already been recognized by ancient philos-ophy (see Xenophanes and Heraclitus) as itself a way of doing philosophy andwas identified by a complex (though not always coherent, as will be shown) ser-ies of characters and teachings that came to be called Pythagoreans. In otherwords, the term Pythagoreanism was associated with a philosophy, not justwith a lifestyle.

3 The term proto-Pythagoreanism is introduced here as a new term because it is necessary todistinguish between this first founding moment of Pythagoreanism, and the development ofPythagoreanism during the fifth century BC, which is still pre-Socratic, but which is in writingand corresponds to the era of the immediate sources of Plato and Aristotle. For the uses andmeaning of the analogous term proto-philosophy, see Boas 1948: 673684.4 Zhmud 1989: 289.

Introduction 3

It is the identification of the category of Pythagoreanism that particularlyattracts the attention of the historian of philosophy. For these reasons, therefore,a historiographical discussion of the category of Pythagoreanism will be thepurpose of this monograph.

The effort to trace a comprehensive and inclusive profile of the conditionsand possibilities for setting up what is Pythagorean, within a philosophicalmovement of such historical and theoretical breadth, ends up overlappingwith the intention to contribute methodologically to an historiographical reviewof ancient philosophy in general. Understanding Pythagoreanism is crucial tounderstanding the origins of philosophy and, more generally, of Westernthought. The relevant elements of the Pythagoreanism historiography turn itinto a privileged locus for an exercise that aims to reach a deeper historiograph-ical understanding of ancient philosophy. This ideal will be a subtext of thisstudy.

A good historiographical presentationwill thus show how the sensitive pointsthat contributed to the formation of so many different lectiones of Pythagorean-ism emerge from the history of the interpetation of the movement. One has toagree with Huffmans claim that Pythagoreanism is an area of study that isfull of controversial issues. However, it is incorrect to conjecture that the multi-faceted image of Pythagoreanism, as presented throughout the history of its tra-dition, may simply derive from a series of missteps that would have transformedan originally homogeneous image into a fractured set of doctrines and charac-ters.

Burkert says this himself in the Preface to the German edition of his funda-mental work, Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism:

If Pythagoras does not present himself to our minds as a sharply outlined figure, standingin the bright light of history, this is not merely the result of accidents in the course of his-torical transmission.

Rather, the confused image of Pythagoras today is the result of invididually ac-curate historiographical choices by generations of interpreters that built on anunderstanding of what philosophy was in its origins (in genealogical perspec-tive) and therefore reflect what philosophy is since its origins (in historical per-spective). From the prologue to Iamblichus Pythagorean Life (Iambl. VP: 1), toHegels Lectures on the Philosophy of History, and the recent interpretations ofKingsley 1995, it is possible to confront the presuppositions that led different au-

5 Huffman 2008b: 225.6 Burkert 1972: Preface to the German edition.

4 Introduction

thors to favor one or another image and so conditioned their interpretations ofthe Pythagorean question and the purported Pythagorean attempt to solve it(Burkert 1972: I).

This work therefore seeks to follow the path of those interpretive choices,checking wherever possible their assumptions and revealing their consequencesboth for the interpretation of specific features of Pythagoreanism and also for thevery construction of Pythagoreanism as a category.

The First Chapter is therefore dedicated to an understanding of the guide-lines that set the general framework of the modern history of the criticism of Py-thagoreanism especially during the last two centuries. The image that will resultfrom it is one of an intricate series of controversies and rebuttals, alternating be-tween skepticism and trust in the sources. (This alternation is characteristic ofthe critical adopted during this period to the entire ancient philosophical tradi-tion). The fundamental difficulty of studying Pythagoreanism, which emerges inexamining the history of interpretation, will show the importance of adopting acareful methodology. A successful historiographical approach must consciouslyallow us to describe the category of Pythagoreanism as constituted by an irredu-cible diversity.

The Second Chapter intends to solve the above difficulties by exploring thedifferent modes of the definition of Pythagoreanism as a historiographical cate-gory. By defining two dimensions, one synchronic and the other diachronic, it ispossible to provide criteria of identification for the Pythagorean community,which would otherwise be incommensurable and heterogeneous. Even if one re-mains aware that the hermeneutic puzzle about the traditions of Pythagoreanismwill always remain unfinished, some progress can be made by tracing a paththrough the two themes that most decidedly contributed to the historical defini-tion of the category of Pythagoreanism: metempschsis and mathematics. Theintention of this analysis will be, on the one hand, to examine the possibilityof attributing the origin of the two themes to proto-Pythagoreanism and Pytha-goreanism in the fifth century BC, and on the other, to signal how these themescontributed to the categorization of Pythagoreanism in the history of the tradi-tion.

The Third Chapter, therefore, will examine the traditions about the immortal-ity of the soul and its transmigration. The analysis will consider pre-Socratic,Platonic and Aristotelian evidence as well as other types of ancient sources, in-cluding Herodotus, the Orphic literature, recent archaeological evidence and thetradition of tales recounting voyages into the afterlife. The Pythagorean traditionwill be found to lie in an intermediate position between the Orphic views of im-mortality and the reworking of these views by philosophers of the fifth andfourth centuries BC, particularly Plato. The most solid evidence for the existence

Introduction 5

of a proto-Pythagorean theory of the immortality of the soul will be found in Ar-istotles reference to Pythagorean myths.

The Fourth Chapter begins by showing that mathematics and an interest innumbers have been commonly assigned as fundamental characteristics of Pytha-gorean philosophy, and submit such traditions to a historiographical review. Asin the third chapter, the analysis of Aristotles testimony will be crucial. His at-tribution to the Pythagoreans of the thesis that all is number will be recog-nized as simultaneously the source of mathematics for the ancient Pythagoreansas well as a testimony to the extensive, and apparently decisive, Academic re-working of Pythagorean doctrines. However, Aristotle will demonstrate some in-dependence of the Pythagoreans from the Academics, mainly due to his access tothe independent pre-Socratic sources of the cryptically-named so-called Pytha-goreans. I will show that these sources correspond mainly to Philolaus frag-ments. The Philolaic question will be addressed by the comparative analysisof a famous page of the Metaphysics A, a few pages of the Philebus, and surviv-ing fragments of Philolaus own book. This analysis will both confirm the possi-bility of attributing a numerical theory, if not to proto-Pythagoreanism, at least tothe Pythagoreanism of the fifth century BC, and will also illustrate the influenceof the nearly ubiquitous Academic mediation on the categorization of Pythagor-ean philosophy.

6 Introduction

1 History of criticism: from Zeller to Kingsley

In the labyrinthine confusion of the tradition of the Pythagorean wisdom and society thatlargely has been transmitted by later and naive writers and compilers, like hidden by a sa-cred darkness, the fragments of Philolaus were always a sparkling point to me.

Thus begins Boeckh in 1819, the work that marks the prehistory of modern criti-cism of Pythagoreanism. A highly significant incipit, especially when consideredin the perspective of the following two centuries of interpretation that trace thewinding route of the history of the modern tradition of Pythagoreanism. It is abeginning that reveals precisely two major loci of hermeneutic criticism: onthe one hand, the expression labyrinthischen Gewirre unmistakably capturesthe common view of the difficulty of assimilating the Pythagorean literature;on the other hand, the immediate individuation of a lichter Punkt, a shiningpoint in some part of this literature, often an author or a specific theme, thatilluminates the darkness of the historiographic labyrinth: a thread of Ariadne,which allows one to get out of the confusion with which the historian of Pytha-goreanism is traditionally forced to confront.

The perception of that same difficulty is not unique to modern criticism. Thebeginning of Iamblichuss Pythagorean Life appeals to the gods, asking for assis-tance in the difficult task of overcoming two obstacles to the development of hishistorical biography: on the one hand, the strangeness and obscurity of the doc-trines of the symbols, on the other, the number of spurious and perhaps evenintentionally misleading writings about Pythagorean philosophy that were in cir-culation:

At the beginning of all philosophy, it is the custom of the wise to appeal to a god; this alsogoes even more for the philosophy, it seems, that takes precisely the name of the divinePythagoras. This philosophy was indeed granted by the gods from the beginning and itsimpossible to understand it if not with their help. Moreover, its beauty and its grandeur ex-ceed human capabilities, so it is impossible to embrace it immediately and with just oneview. Therefore, only if a benign god guide us it will be possible to approach it slowlyand gradually to take over some part of it. For all these reasons, after having invokedthe gods as our guides and committed ourselves and our discourse to them, we will followthem wherever they want to lead us. We should not give importance to the fact that thisschool of thought has for some time been abandoned, or the strangeness of the doctrines

7 Boeckh 1819: 3, orig.: In dem labyrinthischen Gewirre der berlieferungen ber die Py-thagorische Weisheit und Pythagorische Gesellschaft, welche grossentheils durch spte undurtheilslose Schriftsteller und Zusammentrger wie in heiliges Dunkel gehllt zu uns herber-gekommen sind, haben des Philolaos Bruchstcke sich mir immer als ein lichter Punkt darge-stellt.

and obscurity of the symbols in which it is involved, nor the many false and apocryphalwritings that cast shadows upon it, nor the many difficulties that make access to it so hard.

A sense of panic always seems to follow the historians encounter with labyrin-thine Pythagorean doctrine. Always accompanying it is an immediate attempt toescape from the maze, to find order in chaos, to settle on a reference point whichallows for the historiographical discourse to achieve some hermeneutic stability.

The two centuries that have followed the inaugural work of Boeckh on Phi-lolaus constitute the main object of the following pages. My intention is to mon-itor the course not always calm and reasonable of criticism, knowing in ad-vance that this history will bring every fact and every witness into the discus-sion, except perhaps the question of the very existence of the so-called Pytha-goreans: In the scholarly controversy that followed scarcely a single fact re-mained undisputed, save that in Platos day and then later, in the first centuryB.C., there were Pythagreioi.

We will note, though, signs of continuity in a lectio of Pythagoreanism thatwill deliver it to history as a particular, complex and difficult-to-interpret move-ment within the panorama of normal studies (in the Kuhnian sense) of pre-Socratic philosophy.

Obviously, the modern history of Pythagorean criticism shares its startingpoint with the historical criticism of ancient Greek philosophy in general. Inthis case, the precursor is certainly Zeller 1855, who in his Die Philosophie derGriechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung lays the foundations for the modernhistoriography of ancient philosophy.

1.1 Zeller: the skepticism of the beginnings

Significantly, the first page of Zellers chapter devoted to Pythagoreanism followsthe previously cited texts of Iamblichus and Boeckh, pointing to a particular dif-ficulty for the study of Pythagoreanism the mixture of fables and poetry thatrisk concealing the philosophical doctrine:

8 Iambl. VP: 1.9 It should be noted that most scholars (Thesleff 1961: 31; De Vogel 1966: 8; Burkert 1972: 2;Centrone 1996: 193) do not consider the work of Boeckh 1819 to be the starting point of thehistory of Pythagorean criticism. They prefer to begin more traditionally with the work of Zeller1855 (citations to this work will be made from the Italian edition, complemented and annotatedby Mondolfo, in 1938).10 Burkert 1972: 2.

8 1 History of criticism: from Zeller to Kingsley

Among all the philosophical schools of which we are aware there is none whose history hasnot been usually involved and almost obscured by fables and poetry, and whose doctrinehas not been merged into the tradition with a huge amount of later elements, as was that ofthe Pythagoreans.

Zeller faces the problem without stalling, immediately wondering about the verypossibility of a philosophical Pythagorean system: one could raise the questionwhether it is appropriate to speak of a Pythagorean system in general as a scien-tific and historical complex.

The problem is potentially paralyzing, because it questions the very possibil-ity of approaching Pythagoreanism as the proper subject of a History of Philoso-phy. The risk, according to Zeller, is that, deep down, Pythagoreanism is nothingbut a jungle of strange rituals and myths, without any relevance to philosophy.Luckily, Zellers answer is positive: everything that is conveyed to us with re-spect to the Pythagorean philosophy, despite all the divergences in details,still coincides in its basic features. That is, there is something philosophicalin Pythagoreanism that can be saved for future systematization.

To accomplish this salvation in principio of Pythagoreanism, however, Zellerhistoriographically must operate in a decidedly developmental and positivistfashion, applying, with the surgical precision of the nineteenth century Germanscholar, a rigid historicist scheme to the movement. For this scheme to work, Zel-ler needs to create various hermeneutical gaps, multiple controlled and accu-rately and clearly marked fractures. In a special way, one can see within the Zel-lerian strategy of saving Pythagoreanism, the operation of three fractures: a) thefracture between (1) the majority of the sources on Pythagoreanism, most ofwhom are late and some of whom are Neopythagoreans, and (2) the origins ofPythagorean philosophy on the other; b) the fracture between (1) philosophicaland scientific doctrines and (2) other forms of mythic-religious expressions; c)the fracture between Greek and Eastern culture, so that Pythagoreanism maybe taken to be part of a genuinely Greek movement.

Thus, to solve the question of the sources, Zeller elaborates his famous theo-ry of the expansion of tradition. Over time, the sources on Pythagoreanism in-

11 Zeller and Mondolfo 1938: 288, orig.: Fra tutte le scuole filosofiche che noi conosciamo nonve n alcuna, la cui storia non sia stata tanto spesso avvolta e quasi coperta di favole e poesie, ela cui dottrina sia stata mescolata nella tradizione con una tal massa di elementi posteriori,quanto quella dei Pitagorici.12 Zeller and Mondolfo 1938: 597, orig.: Si potrebbe sollevare la questione se sia il caso diparlare in genere del sistema pitagorico come di un complesso scientifico e storico.13 Zeller and Mondolfo 1938: 599, orig.: Tutto ci che ci riferito della filosofia pitagorica, purfra tutte le divergenze di determinazioni subordinate, coincide tuttavia nei tratti fondamentali.

1.1 Zeller: the skepticism of the beginnings 9

creased rather than decreasing, although we would have expected the oppositeto occur:

Thus, the tradition concerning Pythagoreanism and its founder can tell us more the furtherit is located in time from the historical facts, and on the contrary it is in the same propor-tion much more silent as we move chronologically closer to its object.

Zeller thus concludes that the alleged Pythagorean doctrine that is not receivedthrough the oldest testimonies is Neopythagorean. That is, by using a some-what circular argument and refusing to distinguish more carefully amongst ma-terials within the late Pythagorean literature, Zeller intends to establish what isPythagorean solely on the testimonies he considers the oldest ones. Amongthem, Zeller will privilege Aristotle and the fragments of Philolaus that, in thewake of Boeckh, he considers collectively as authentic.

Given Zellers methodology, the most relevant material for the history of Py-thagoreanism are the testimonia that make it resemble pre-Socratic systems andtreats it as pursuing natural philosophy:

The object of Pythagorean science, based on what has been said so far, ends up being thesame as what was studied by every other system of pre-Socratic philosophy, that is, the nat-ural phenomena and their principles.

Based on these thematic criteria, Zeller circularly argues that the Aristotelian andPhilolaic testimonia are most valid for a history of the earliest phase of Pythagor-eanism. Excluding parti pris the mythical doctrines attributed to Pythagorean-

14 Zeller and Mondolfo 1938: 299, orig.: Cos dunque la tradizione riguardante il Pitagorismo edil suo fondatore ci sa dire tanto di pi quanto pi si trovi lontana nel tempo dai relativi fattistorici, e per contro essa nella stessa proporzione tanto pi taciturna a misura che ci avvici-niamo cronologicamente al suo oggetto medesimo.15 Zeller and Mondolfo 1938: 300, orig.: la pretesa dottrina pitagorica, che non conosciuta daitestimoni pi antichi, neopitagorica.16 See extensive discussion at footnote 2 on p. 304. On that note, however (p. 307), Zeller standsapart from Boeckh regarding the authenticity of the fragment on the soul-world (44 B 21 DK), forconsidering it strange to Philolaus a theory of the soul divided into several parts, such as thatexpressed in the Platonic-Aristotelian tradition. Burkert 1972: 242243 and Huffman 1993: 343will concur with him, afterwards. See Cornelli 2002 for a more extensive discussion of theZellerian theory of the expanding of the tradition.17 Zeller and Mondolfo 1938: 585, orig.: Loggetto della scienza pitagorica, in base a tutto ciche si detto fin qui, risulta quel medesimo di cui si occupavano tutti gli altri sistemi dellafilosofia presocratica, vale a dire i fenomeni naturali e i loro principi.


ism, Zeller cannot but declare his wholehearted agreement with Aristotles judg-ment on the Pythagoreans:

There cannot be taken into account here the mythical doctrines of the transmigration of thesouls and the vision of life founded on this: these are religious dogmas, which, moreover,were not exclusive to the Pythagorean school, and not scientific propositions. For what con-cerns the Pythagorean philosophy, I can only agree with the opinion of Aristotle that it wasdevoted entirely to natural research.

More specifically, if one cannot verify precisely how much of fifth century BC Py-thagoreanism (Philolaus, Archytas) can be referred to Pythagoras himself, Zellersuggests that the main doctrines must nevertheless derive directly from him: inprimis, the doctrine that all is number, which is the most general distinctivecharacteristic of Pythagorean philosophy and which can be summarized in thestatement that number is the essence of all things, that is, everything in its es-sence, is a number. Likewise, the doctrines of harmony, the central fire andthe theory of the spheres should be attributed to Pythagoras: all of them presentin fragments of Philolaus, which as we have seen were deemed authentic byZeller.

In the same vein, despite his knowledge of both ancient testimonia and con-temporary German Oriental studies that connect Greek philosophy in general,and Pythagoreanism in particular, with the traditions of Egyptian, Persian andIndian thought, Zeller nevertheless entitles his chapter devoted to this themeAgainst the Eastern Origin. He immediately declares that an Oriental origin ofthe doctrines is improbable and instead accepts a Greek origin and declaresthat it is possible to understand it thoroughly on the basis of its own character-istics and on the conditions of the culture of the Greek people in the sixth cen-tury BC. Pythagoreanism will therefore be understood as part of a larger move-ment of religious and moral reform, to which such figures as Epimenides, the

18 Zeller and Mondolfo 1938: 585587, orig.: Non possono essere qui prese in considerazione ledottrine mitiche della transmigrazione delle anime e della visione della vita fondata sopra diessa: questi sono dogmi religiosi, che oltre tutto non eran limitati alla scuola pitagorica, e nonsono proposizioni scientifiche. Per ci che riguarda la filosofia pitagorica, io posso soltantoassociarmi al giudizio di Aristotele, che essa sia stata consacrata tutta quanta alla ricercanaturale.19 Zeller and Mondolfo 1938: 435, orig.: che constituisce il carattere differenziale pi generaledella filosofia pitagrica and il numero sia lessenza di tutte le cose, ossia che tutto di suaessenza sia numero.20 Cf. Zeller and Mondolfo 1938: 602606.,21 Zeller and Mondolfo 1938: 607, orig.: comprender[lo] perfettamente sulla base delle ca-ratteristiche proprie e delle condizioni di cultura del popolo greco nel VI secolo a. C..


gnomic poets, and the Seven Sages belong, even though it rises above these oth-ers by its multi-faceted nature and power with which Pythagoras embracedwithin himself the whole substance of the culture of his time, the religious,the ethical-political, and the scientific element.

Zellers effort to separate Pythagoreanism from possibly dangerous relation-ships with the East leads him to derive Pythagorean mathematics from Anax-imander: one could hardly be introduced to mathematical studies at thattime by anyone else, as well as as to deny any influence of native Italian peo-ples, prior to the Doric colonization,whomwithout any delicacy he calls barbar-ians. There fits into this same project the insistence on the deep relationshipof Magna Graecia with what Zeller calls the Dorian strain of character, whichwas manifested by the institutions of the Doric Achaean cities that were thestages for Pythagoras activities. Zeller lists the following as some examplesof this culture: aristocratic politics, ethical music, enigmatic wisdom, female par-ticipation in education and society, strong moral doctrine based on moderationand the ultimate subordination of individuals to the whole, respect for parents,authority and old age. With a markedly Hegelian historiographical agenda likethis (see, in this sense, Hegels Lectures on the History of Philosophy), the conclu-sion could not be other than that of a circular and a posteriori argument forGreek (and Pythagorean) supremacy: the proof of the superiority of the characterof the people of Magna Graecia is that there arose philosophy: the land that phi-losophy found for itself in the colonies of Magna Graecia were so favorable. Theprimacy it would reach is proof of that. It is a leitmotif of the entire history of

22 Zeller and Mondolfo 1938: 607, orig.: poliedricit e la potenza, con cui esso ha abbracciatoentro di s tutta quanta la sostanza della cultura del suo tempo, lelemento religioso, quelloetico-politico, e quello scientifico.23 Zeller and Mondolfo 1938: 609, orig.: agli studi matematici, difficilmente poteva a queltempo essere introdotto da qualcun altro.24 Cf. Zeller and Mondolfo 1938: 610611. And yet, Mondolfo, in his notes on Zeller, notes thefigure of Mamercus and a possible center of mathematical culture in Italy existing prior toPythagoras (Zeller and Mondolfo 1938: 359).25 Zeller and Mondolfo 1938: 607.26 Zeller and Mondolfo 1938: 608609. The first formulation of this distinction was by Boeckh,which distinguished between the Ionian Sinnlichkeit, which would mirror the philosophicalmaterialism, and the Doric Volk, which would mirror the search for order (Boeckh 1819: 3942).Moreover, it cannot be forgotten that Boeckh was a disciple of Schleiermacher, who had firstpostulated this model of ethnic division of philosophy in various geopolitical trends, and evo-lutionary forms, in his 1812 lectures posthumously published under the title Ethik 1812/3(Schleiermacher 1990).27 Zeller and Mondolfo 1938: 611, orig.: tanto pi favorevole era il terreno che la filosofia trovper s nelle colonie della Magna Grecia. Il fiore al quale essa vi pot pervenire ne la prova.


philosophical criticism that one always gets the impression that the historianfinds in the studied classic author the picture of himself or of his philosophilcalpreferences. This is as valid for Zeller as it is for Zhmud, as Centrone has recentlynoted:

One gets the impression that, by a happy coincidence, the image of Pythagoras reconstruct-ed by Zhmud cleansed as far as possible of the religious components and restored to phil-osophical and scientific dignity, is also the one he prefers.

The privilege granted by Zeller to the Aristotelian lectio of the Pythagoreans be-came a predominant historiographical trpos ever since, on definining Pythagor-ean philosophy through the thesis that all is a number. Likewise, both theclear rift between old Pythagoreanism and Neopythagoreanism and a nearly uni-versal contempt for the political dimension of the Pythagorean koinna have de-cidedly influenced later studies.

However, Nietzsches 1872 Basel lectures on the pre-Platonic philosophersare decided examples of his friend Zellers initial skepticism about the philo-sophical relevance of Pythagoras himself. Nietzsche defends the following thesisin his lecture on Pythagoras:

What is called Pythagorean philosophy is something much newer, which can be placedonly in the second half of the fifth century [BC]. Therefore, it has nothing to do with theolder philosophers, since he [Pythagoras] was not a philosopher but something else. Strict-ly speaking, one could exclude him from a more ancient history of philosophy. However, heproduced a kind of philosophical life: and that the Greeks owe him. This image exerts aremarkable influence, not on philosophy but on philosophers (Parmenides, Empedocles).Only on these terms one should be talking about him.

The very possibility of speaking of Pythagoras within the history of philosophy isput into serious doubt. Rather, his contribution to philosophy is minimized interms of a vague talk of influence on a general philosophical way of life. Conse-quently, Nietzsches position reveals a fairly radical skepticism.

28 Centrone 1999: 426, orig.: Si ha limpressione che, per felice coincidenza, limmagine diPitagora ricostruita da Zhmud, depurata il pi possibile dalle componenti religiose e restituita adignit filosofico-scientifica, sia anche quella che egli predilige.29 At least until the studies of Zhmud 1989: 272 ff., 1997: 261 ff., as will be seen in more detail inchapter four.30 Nietzsche 1994: 3940.31 Bechtle 2003 titles, for an unprecedented handbook job, his chapter on Pythagoras with thequestion Pitgoras Philosophus?.


1.2 Diels: a Zellerian collection

Diels organizes his selection of fragments and testimonies on the Vorsokratikeron the Aristotelian-Zellerian premise that Pythagoreans must speak of numbers(Diels 1903; Diels-Kranz 1951):

It was just this criterion which H. Diels used for selecting representatives of the Pythagor-ean school in his edition of the fragments of the presocratics. The main source (but not theonly one) he had relied on was the well-known catalogue of Pythagoreans found in Iambli-chus (Vit. Pyth. 267). Diels believed that this catalogue went back to the Peripatetic Aristox-enus.

The introduction to his chapter on Pythagoras, clearly demonstrates his depend-ence on Zeller:

Before the time of Philolaus there was no writing of Pythagoras and there was only an oraltradition of the same school, therefore there was no safe doxography. [] See the testimo-nies of Xenophanes, Heraclitus, Empedocles and Ion on Pythagoras in the correspondenceof the authors themselves.

The influence of Vorsokratiker on all studies of Pythagoreanism is unquestiona-ble. De Vogel 1964: 9 rightly shows that Diels collects from the later traditionabout Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans only certain types of material: (a)what is directly related to Aristoxenus and his Pythagorikai apophseis (D), (b)the akosmata and smbola (C), (c) the Aristotelian and Peripatetic school testi-monies (B) and (d) some limited reference to the Pythagoreans of the Attic Mid-dle Comedy (E). In so doing, Diels excludes virtually every reference to Pythago-ras political activities. Even the revision of the collection made by Kranz 1951 forthe sixth edition of that work maintains Diels initial consideration: Kranz (DK14 A 8a) decides indeed to insert, in the chapter on Pythagoras, Porphyrys tes-

32 Zhmud 1989: 273.33 Diels 1903: 22, orig.: Da es keine Schriften des Pythagoras gab und berhaupt vor PhilolaosZeit nur mndliche Tradition der eigentlichen Schule bestand, so gibt es hier keine Doxographie.[] Die Zeugnisse des Xenophanes [11 B7], Heraklit [12 B40.129(?)], Empedokles [21 B129], Ion [25B4(?)] ber P. s. bei diesen! In the VI revised edition, 1951, Kranz will qualify as entscheidendund wichtig, important and decisive, die Zeugnisse of other pre-Socratics above mentioned. Itshould also be noted that contrary to the assertions in the introductory note above Dielsends up at the end arbitrarily inserting two doxographic testimonies (A 20 and 21) about thediscovery of the identity of the stars Espero and Lucifero and about calling t hlon asksmos. See for this Burkert 1972: 77, 307.34 For an exhaustive review of the development process of the collection, see Calogero 1941.


timony (VP: 18 19) about the Pythagoras political discourses at Croton. Howev-er, De Vogel 1964: 9 notes, he hardly took it seriously, as demonstrated by hisdecision to exclude the political speeches in Iamblichus (VP: 3757) and theparallel ones of Pompeius Trogus. The few witnesses to politics that Diels-Kranz collect 14 A13 on the marriage of Pythagoras, 14 A16 on the crisis ofthe Pythagorean community (Iambl. VP: 248257) are included in theLeben section. On the other hand, Kranz did not change anything in the chapteron the Pythagoreische Schule (58). The material he cites on Pythagorass life iscarefully kept quite apart from the discussion of his philosophy, suggesting a lec-tio that wants to separate the contents of this political material from the authen-tic Pythagorean philosophy.

Some of the arbitrary choices of Diels-Kranz will be a recurrent object of theresearches that will review this collection throughout the twentieth century.

1.3 Rohde: the reaction to skepticism

The first reaction to Zellers frank skepticism about the sources on the Pythagor-eans appeared soon afterwards in two articles by Rhode, published in the secondhalf of the nineteenth century, in Rheinisches Museum, on the sources of Iambli-chus Pythagorean Life (Rohde 1871; 1872). Rohdes thorough analysis shows thatIamblichus text is based not on the parallel Life of Porphyry, as was commonlybelieved (Porphyrius 1884: x), but on sources dating from the first and secondcenturies AD, before Porphyrys life especially Nicomachus and Apollonius.Rohde tries to base this mechanical theory of the two sources (Burkert 1972:100) on the idea that both Porphyry and Iamblichus wrote their texts simplyby cutting and pasting, with consequent infelicities in style. His confidence inthis theory leads him to ridicule the divine Iamblichus for his poverty of

35 It is noteworthy, however, that in a 1890 article, Diels had suggested attributing to Py-thagoras himself some Pythagorean texts from the Hellenistic period, among them especially theKopdes, a rhetorical writing reconstructed from a reference to Heraclitus, and the Paideutikn,Politikn, Physikn, actually written in the second century BC, in the Ionic dialect, in order tomake them appear older than the Doric Per Phsios, by Philolaus. For the texts, see Thesleffscollection (1965).36 Philip 1966: 38 is categorically fatalistic to say that the part dedicated to Pythagoreanism iscertainly the worst of the collection: the fragments of Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans are,perhaps inevitably, the least satisfactory part of the Vorsokratiker. Even Timpanaro Cardiniscollection (1958 1962) does not escape Philips mordacious tone: Miss Cardini is as ready asIamblichus to baptize as a Pythagorean anyone having the remotest connection with thatbrotherhood.

1.3 Rohde: the reaction to skepticism 15

mind and sluggish soul (Rohde 1872: 60). In his second article (1872), he againaccuses Iamblichus:

To demonstrate significant independence in such a shameful level, to the point of prepar-ing a multicolored mix set up with clippings from his readings, while the chaotic sequenceand the improvised connective passages would be his own contribution to the work.

Notwithstanding Rohdes repeated criticisms about the ruthless arbitrariness ofIamblichus methodology, Rohdes work paved the way for a long Quellenfor-schung of Iamblichus work. Bertermanns 1913 and Deubners 1937 editions ofPythagorean Life (depend largely on Rohdes research as well as the studies ofCorrsen 1912, Lvy 1926 and Frank 1923. Scholars who followed this pathcould then detect textual references to authors of the fourth century BC, suchas Aristoxenus, Dicaearchus, Heraclides Ponticus and Timaeus. Among them,we surely should first consider Delatte, who first in his work on Pythagorean lit-erature (1915), and later in his work on Diogenes Laertius Life of Pythagoras(1922b), was inspired by Rohdes methodology to collect the diverse sources ofthese works in a broad chronological and interdisciplinary spectrum.Von Fritzswork (1940) on Pythagorean politics relies on the same methodological approachby seeking to identify materials that were recognizable in Aristoxenus, Timaeusand Dicaearchus.

Therefore, there began to appear in modern critical literature authors namesalmost as old as Aristoles as benchmarks for studies of the birth of Pythagorean-ism. It should be noted, in this sense, that the Doxographi Graeci, by Diels 1879,already indicated Theophrastus as the ultimate source of extensive, traditionaldoxographic material. Thus, we will give a central role from here onwards to

37 Rohde 1872: 48, orig.: Hier zeigt Jamblich eine bei einem so elenden Stoppler schon be-merkenswerthe Selbstndigkeit, indem er meist aus Brocken seiner Lektre ein buntes Allerleiherstellt, an dem wenigstens die unruhige Unordnung der Reihenfolge und die das Einzelnenothdrftig verknpfenden Betrachtungen sein eigenes Werk sind.38 It is significant to note that only four years before the publication of Rohdes first article, onthe same Rheinisches Museum fr Philologie, Friedrich Nietzsche had published an article (1868)dedicated to the same theme of the sources of late biographies, this time in Diogenes Laertius.Nietzsche identifies the same way Rohde soon will, in authors from the first century BC (Fa-vorino and Diocles of Magnesia) the sources of scattered biographical information in Diogeneswork. Thus, Rohdes work should be understood, alongside others distinguished colleagues, aspart of a broad effort to validate the later sources through the study of the Geschichte of theseworks.39 See Burkert 1972: 4. For a criticism of the articulation of Rohdes arguments in the twoarticles cited, see Norden 1913 and later Philip 1959.


the reconstruction of Pythagoreanism according to the tradition that Diels callsthe ancient Peripatetic tradition (58 B DK).

1.4 Burnet: the double teaching of acousmatics andmathematicians

Burnets Early Greek Philosophy (1908) initiated a brilliant tradition of Anglo-Saxon scholars devoted to studies on the origins of ancient philosophy while re-maining in debt to Zellers inaugural lectio. In fact, Burnet developed his theoryon the assumptions that Pythagoras religious doctrine was separate from thesubsequent development of the movement, and that the political activities ofthe Pythagorean koinonai were unconnected with their scientific concerns.These assumptions led Burnet to found his own lectio on the celebrated distinc-tion within the Pythagorean movement between acousmatics and mathemati-cians. This distinction, common throughout the history of interpretation, cap-tures the difference between the interest of some in the traditional taboos of ar-chaic religiosity (the akosmata and smbola) and the dedication of others to theresearch into scientific principles, especially mathematical principles. This dis-tinction is already present in the sources that mention the didaskala dtton the double teaching of Pythagoras, such as Porphyry, and the distinction be-tween Pythagreioi and the Pythagorista (the latter are imitators of the formerand correspond to the acousmatics) in Iamblichus (Porph. VP: 37, Iambl. VP:80). It should be noted that although the subsequent references to this distinc-tion tend to emphasize the gap between the two groups, the distinction does notimply, (either in Burnets view or in the previously mentioned Lives), that therewas a definitive separation in early Pythagoreanism between the two tendencies.In fact, Burnet identifies two points of contact between the two tendencies: a)the complex figure of Pythagoras himself, who was at the origin of both didas-kalai (Burnet 1908: 107), b) the concept of ktharsis, purification, which con-nects the religious and the scientific aspects, since science itself also becomesan instrument of purification.

We have to take account of the religious Philosophy as revival here, chieflybecause it suggested the view that a philosophy was above all a way of life. Sci-ence too was a sort of purification, a means of escape from the wheel. This isthe view expressed so strongly in Platos Phaedo, which was written under the

40 See for a discussion on the sources of the distinction between acousmatics and ma-thematicians section 1.2.

1.4 Burnet: the double teaching of acousmatics and mathematicians 17

influence of Pythagorean ideas. Therefore, it is a mistake to agree with thesomewhat summary accusation of De Vogel that Burnet had no eye for the eth-ical-religious character of the bos founded by Pythagoras and for the essentialconnection of this aspect with the so-called scientific principles. Instead, it isexactly through the concept of purification that this connection is affirmed andunderstood in its theoretical depth, beyond the concrete historical reality of themovement.

However, Burnets formally a priori approach to the question of the sources,by which everything archaic is religious, while everything newer is scientific, iscertainly worthy of criticism. The original Pythagoreanism would be linked toprimitive modes of thought, easily detectable in the tradition of akosmata andsmbola:

It would be easy to multiply proofs of the close connexion between Pythagoreanism andprimitive modes of thought, but what has been said is really sufficient for our purpose.The kinship of men and beasts, the abstinence from flesh, and the doctrine of transmigra-tion all hang together and form a perfectly intelligible whole.

The turning point of the matter of the sources takes place, in Burnet, with themathematician Aristoxenus, who originated the distinction between the schoolsmost enlightened group and the superstitious and from here on heretical partsof Pythagoreanism (Burnet 1908). In Burnets own words:

in their time, the merely superstitious part of Pythagoreanism had been dropped, except bysome zealots whom the heads of the Society refused to acknowledge. That is why he rep-resents Pythagoras himself in so different a light from both the older and the later tradi-tions; it is because he gives us the view of the more enlightened sect of the Order. Thosewho clung faithfully to the old practices were now regarded as heretics, and all mannerof theories were set on foot to account for their existence.

The most powerful method of purification is the pursuit of disinterested science,and therefore, the human being who devotedly dedicates himself to it, that is, thephilosopher, will be able to free himself from the cycle of generation (Burnet1908: 107). However, Burnet is well aware about the fact that the big question

41 Burnet 1908: 89.42 Burnet 1964: 11.43 Burnet cites 1908: 98 n3 and develops there the intuition of the unity between science andreligion by ktharsis which had already been made by Dring 1892.44 Burnet 1908: 106.45 Burnet 1908: 106.


is how much of that post-Aristoxenus vision is attributable to Pythagoras him-self:

It would be rash to say that Pythagoras expressed himself exactly in this manner; but allthese ideas are genuinely Pythagorean, and it is only in some such way that we can bridgethe gulf which separates Pythagoras the man of science from Pythagoras the religiousteacher.

The gap that separates the two Pythagorases, the man of science and the reli-gious teacher, is the core problem that has challenged historical interpretationsof Pythagoreanism ever since.

When Burnet asserts the need to bridge this gap, to find in Pythagoras theorigin of the two strands, he was in fact assuming their very existence. It is be-cause there is a distance to be overcome between scientific and religiousthought, both in antiquity and today, that there is a problem. However, the as-sumption needs to be proven. Thus, in the conclusion to his chapter on Pytha-goreanism, Burnet admits to having reconstructed Pythagoras by having simplyassigned to him those portions of the Pythagorean system which appear to be theoldest. However, the definition of what is the oldest closely matches the en-tire problem that has to be faced and cannot be succinctly solved with a positi-vist chronology, as Burnet seems to wish.

Still, we must repeat: Burnets effort to hold together the various traditionsabout Pythagoras is crucial to understanding the successive hermeneutical inter-ventions in Pythagorean literature. From Cornford to Guthrie, these interventionswill slowly draw the path of the composition of the diverse traditions of both thefigure of Pythagoras as well as the immediate development of the movement.

1.5 Cornford and Guthrie: in search of unity between scienceand religion

In a two-part article published in Classical Quarterly (in 1922 and 1923), signifi-cantly titled Mysticism and Science in the Pythagorean Tradition, Cornford ad-dresses the issue of the correct approach to the relationship between religiousand scientific interests in Pythagoreanism. Cornford avoids reductionism andthe anachronisms of a positivistic methodology, two approaches that Burnet ap-parently could not avoid. The two articles closely follow the historiographic per-

46 Burnet 1908: 107108.47 Burnet 1908: 123.

1.5 Cornford and Guthrie: in search of unity between science and religion 19

spective of Cornfords other work. In his first work on the complex relationshipsbetween myth and history in Thucydides, Thucydides Mythistoricus (1907), Corn-fords goal was to depart from the trends of modern history, which mostly fallvictim to the typical modernist fallacy by projecting Darwinian biology andcontemporary physics into the work of the Athenian historian.

With this theoretical background, Cornford faces the vexata quaestio of thepresence in the sixth and fifth centuries BC of two different and radically op-posed systems of thought elaborated within the Pythagorean School. They maybe called respectively the mystical system and the scientific. While theother hermeneutic attempts of his time attempted to unite the two systemsinto a coherent picture of the movement, Cornford recognizes that the two sys-tems themselves are not clearly delineated. This confusion is already perceptiblein Aristotles works and needed to be unraveled. The solution proposed by Corn-ford is to distinguish within Pythagoreanism two different and successive histor-ical moments, whose turning point in the early fifth century BC was the Ele-atic attack on the possibility of deriving the multiplicity of reality from a singlearch. Cornford summarizes his view as follows:

We can, in a word, distinguish between (1) the original sixth-century system of Pythagoras,criticized by Parmenides the mystical system, and (2) the fifth-century pluralism con-structed to meet Parmenides objections, and criticized in turn by Zeno the scientific sys-tem, which may be called Number-atomism.

This division between mysticism and science in Pythagoreanism is only superfi-cially identical with the separation between religion and science proposed byBurnet. Indeed, Cornford immediately notes that Philolaus introduces a thirdmoment into Pythagoreanism, one which has connections with the early, mysti-cal side, but which arises later:

There is also (3) the system of Philolaus, which belongs to the mystical side of the tradition,and seeks to accommodate the Empedoclean theory of elements. This may, for our presentpurpose, be neglected.

The most significant point here is the subtle shift in perspective that Cornfordrepresents: identifying the challenge of Eleaticism as the source of the distinc-

48 For a broader analysis of this work, as well as Cornfords historiographical position, seeMurari 2002.49 Cornford 1922: 137.50 Cornford 1922: 137.51 Cornford 1922: 137.


tion between the two sides of Pythagoreanism eliminates the need for Burnetspostulate that religiousness preceded science. Indeed, when describing the mys-tical side of the movement, Cornford says that it is not openly inconsistentwith philosophy:

Any attempt to reconstruct the original founder of the system must, I would urge, be basedon the presupposition that his philosophy and cosmology were not openly inconsistentwith his religion.

Therefore, Cornford argues unlike the first Ionian phase of philosophy, in whichthe religious element was superseded by an evolving science, in this second Ital-ian moment the religious dimension of philosophical life is recovered and inte-grated with science:

It is obvious that the Italian tradition in philosophy differs radically from the Ionian in re-spect of its relation to religious belief. Unlike the Ionian, it begins, not with the eliminationof factors that had once had a religious significance, but actually with a re-construction ofthe religious life. To Pythagoras, as all admit, the love of wisdom, philosophy, was a way oflife. Pythagoras was both a great religious reformer, the prophet of a society united by rev-erence for his memory and the observance of a monastic rule, and also a man of command-ing intellectual powers, eminent among the founders of mathematical science.

Thus, Pythagoras can be simultaneously understood as both a religious reformerand a man of science. The contrast between these two sides came about only af-terwards on the occasion of the Eleatic challenge. But even this distinction didnot come about in a well defined way, if the third Philolaic side that he himselfindicated (though did not discuss) is brought into view.

Raven 1948 understood well the novelty of Cornfords position, asserting inhis Pythagoreans and Eleatics: One of the reasons why Cornfords reconstruc-tion of early Pythagoreanism is so attractive is that is contrives to reconcilethe religious with the scientific motive.

By closely following Cornfords arguments and considering the coherent andplausible image that results from them, Raven set about to the task of checkingwhether Cornford reached the only possible conclusions. For the question is notso much according to Raven whether the movement is coherent, but, rather,how much this tallies with all our available evidence beginning with the Aris-

52 Cornford 1922: 138.53 Cornford 1922: 138139.54 Raven 1948: 9.

1.5 Cornford and Guthrie: in search of unity between science and religion 21

totelian testimony, without which any attempt to build a historical discourse onPythagoreanism is, in his words, a house built upon sand.

This is exactly the reading suggested by Guthrie 1962, the last great scholarbelonging to the English tradition originating in Burnet. Guthrie refers directly toCornfords cited studies (1922; 1923) and then to his disciple Raven 1948, to illus-trate what he calls an a priori method of the pre-Socratic history of philosophy.The method mainly consists putting aside the direct or indirect testimonies andtrying to imagine what such philosophers would likely or not have said, giventhe historical circumstances in which they stood. Guthrie points out that sucha methodology requires presupposing a grasp of some theoretical concepts inGreek philosophy:

It starts from the assumption that we possess a certain general familiarity with other con-temporary schools and individual philosophers, and with the climate of thought in whichthe Pythagoreans worked. This general knowledge of the evolution of Greek philosophygives one, it is claimed, the right to make judgments of the sort that the Pythagoreans,let us say, before the time of Parmenides are likely to have held doctrine A, and that itis impossible for them at that stage of thought to have already evolved doctrine B.

These assumptions lead to the postulation of two schools of philosophy: the Ion-ian and the Italian. All authors, in some way,will be theoretically positioned onone side or the other. The methods a priori nature is evident: perhaps thats why,even while sympathizing with it, Guthrie suggests using it with extreme cau-tion (1962: 172). However this warning constitutes the extent of Guthries con-cern to control the obvious risk of circularity.

55 Raven 1948: 6. It is important to note that Cherniss 1977, by supporting Ravens effort,attempts to controversially diminish the impact of the division suggested by Cornford on thescholars outside of Cambridge: Raven was justified in feeling that the evidence does notsupport Cornfords interpretation, which incidentally has never been so widely accepted outsideof Cambridge as he appears to believe (Cherniss 1977: 376).56 Guthrie 1962: 172.57 It is even the case of noting that this division goes back to the classic division between Ionicand Italic philosophy in Diogenes Laertius (D. L. Vitae I. 13). The , the two beginningsof philosophy, are identified by Diogenes Laertius, on the one hand in Anaximander as for theIonian strand, from which Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, Archelaus will be part, and finally, So-crates; on the other hand, in Pythagoras, the inventor of the term , for the Italicstrand, followed by his son Telauge, then Xenophanes, Parmenides, Zeno, Leucippus, Demo-critus up to Epicurus (D. L. Vitae I. 13 14). For a more detailed discussion of the historiogra-phical models of the origins of ancient philosophy, see Sassi 1994.58 For a vehement critique of this methodological apriorism within the studies on Py-thagoreanism, see Kahn 1974: 163 n6.


In discussing this methodological approach, whose stated intention is to un-derstand pre-Platonic Pythagoreanism under penalty of failing to understandingPlato, Guthrie states the unity of Pythagoreanism:

This pre-Platonic Pythagoreanism can to a large extent be regarded as a unit.We shall notedevelopments and differences as and when we can, but it would be unwise to hope thatthese, in the fragmentary state of our knowledge, are sufficiently distinguishable chrono-logically to allow the separate treatment of earlier and later phases.

Guthrie thus agrees with Cornford that a distinction should be defined withinpre-Platonic Pythagoreanism, solely in chronological terms. This preservessome kind of theoretic-doctrinal unity of the movement, at least within its vari-ous historical phases.

Scholars influenced by the great histories of philosophy of the twentieth cen-tury were concerned to understand that same unity and seek to account for Py-thagorean philosophy as a whole. At the same time, critical studies dedicated tothe study of particular areas and specific problems of the Quellenforschung of Py-thagoreanism began to emerge notibly studies on Pythagorean politics, on therelations between Pythagoreanism and Plato and on the relations between thePythagoreans and the religious world around them. Unfortunately, one has tosay that after the Second World War, these two types of literature rarely showawareness of one another: handbooks on the history of philosophy continuestill generally follow the Zellerian line, while monographs on Pythagoreanism re-veal complexities unknown to the former.

1.6 From Delatte to De Vogel: Pythagoreanism and politics

Special attention has been dedicated to the political dimension of Pythagorean-ism ever since Krisches 1830 monograph asserted, peremptorily, that the mark ofPythagorean societas was eminently political: The scope of the Society waspurely political, not only to initially restore the failed power of the aristocrats,but to enhance and amplify it.

In the early twentieth century archaeological studies revealed the supremacyof Pythagorean cities throughout Magna Graecia, which was confirmed by Kahr-stedts study of the distribution throughout the region of coins minted by Croton,

59 Guthrie 1962: 147.60 Krische 1830: 101, orig.: Societatis scopus fuit mere politicus, ut lapsam optimatum po-testatem non modo in pristinum restitueret, sed firmaret amplificaretque.

1.6 From Delatte to De Vogel: Pythagoreanism and politics 23

especially after Sybaris defeat in 510 BC. Crotons domination over the rest ofthe Dorian city-colonies of Magna Graecia confirmed the extent of the Pythagor-ean political influence: in fact, most of these coins have Pythagorean symbols.

And yet, as already mentioned, the first historiographical and philosophicalapproaches to Pythagorean politics were strongly influenced by Zellers skepti-cism, which, in turn, guided Diels Vorsokratiker collection. Consequently mostscholars considered the issue of Pythagorean politics simply accidental (Cen-trone 1996: 196).

It is necessary to agree with Minars view that the relationship between phil-osophical thought and political practice in the history of Pythagoreanism haschallenged the ingenuity of classicists (D. S. M. 1943: 79): this naivete wouldtend if left to its own fate to lead to the rejection of the political connectionsbased on an a priori argument that a man like Pythagoras could not be involvedin this type of activity (Minar 1942: 15).

Therefore, the problem of Pythagorean political activity presents a multifac-eted framework of issues: not only because of the complex relationships betweenearlier and later sources, including the uncertain chronology of domination (anddefeat) of the Pythagoreans in Magna Graecia and the unclear influence of Py-thagoras on these forms of Pythagoreanism, but also, perhaps mainly, becauseof the theoretical difficulty of articulating the relationship between philosophyand politics. Starting even with Aristotle, this relationship had begun to beseen as somewhat inappropriate.

Delattes 1922a Essai sur la politique pythagoricienne is the fundamentalwork on this topic. Delattes exhaustive study of the sources for Pythagorean pol-itics led him to believe that the early Pythagoreans were an effective politicalforce in Croton, but he also refers to a later period, especially to the fourth cen-tury BC, the century of Archytas and Aristoxenus, and evidence of the attemptsof these men to combine political activity with the main lines of Pythagoreanphilosophical thought. Previously, Delatte argues, the goal of the Pythagoreankoinnai was inner peace and they refrained from reformist action and seriousinvolvement in the political institutions of their cities: Society wants only the

61 Kahrstedt 1918: 186. See also Seltman 1933, De Vogel 1957: 323 and May 1966.62 See Seltmans coins (1933: 7680, 100, 118, 144) and May 1966: 157, 167. Especially coin n. 28(Seltman 1933: 144), depicting a bearded man with the inscription PUTHAGORES, which could bea portrait of Pythagoras himself, and as such has already been used by Guthrie 1962 for the coverof the first volume of his History of Greek Philosophy. Philip 1966: 194 is, however, skepticalabout the possibility of the image depicting Pythagoras real face.


inner peace that will secure its own peace of mind and keep the existing insti-tutions, of which it became the keeper.

Moreover, even if it is true that the Pythagorean community was somehowinvolved in political activity, it is not correct to infer that Pythagoras himselfwas directly involved in such activities:

We can therefore conclude that the political system with aristocratic tendencies which, ac-cording to Timaeus, marked the end of the history of Society, was not born of an impulse ofPythagoras, and was in all likelihood even foreign to his reform plan.

Consequently, Delatte identifies the key element of the pro-democratic, anti-Py-thagorean riots not as the result of the political compromise of the community assuch, with its conservative and aristocratic sense (rather, more appropriatelyconsidered as a moral force), but rather from the attitudes of some individualswho abused their prestige and ended up dragging it to the conflict in a reactivemovement to the attacks that followed, and therefore under the form of self-de-fense (Delatte 1922a: 1920).

Jaeger 1928, in turn, supports the Zellerian thesis that the political stance at-tributed to the Pythagoreans was simply a projection of the ideal of a practicallife proposed by Aristoxenus and Dicearchus. Jaegers Pythagoras, in line withDelatte, was an educator, who emphasized music and mathematics.

However, Von Fritz 1940 wonders whether we can even say that the ancientPythagorean community had political control over the cities of Magna Graecia.Through an austere investigation of the sources (Tate 1942: 74), he arguesthat Aristoxenus is the most reliable witness to the political system of the Pytha-gorean communities, and Von Fritz skeptically concludes that:

Ancient tradition does not provide the slightest evidence for the existence of anything like areal rule of the Pythagoreans in any of the cities of Southern Italy at any time.

Ultimately,Von Fritzs position does not differ substantially from that of his pred-ecessors: the Pythagoreans political commitment should not be treated as phil-

63 Delatte 1922a: 21, orig.: la Socit dsire seulement la paix intrieure, qui lui assure sapropre tranquillit, et le mantien des instituitions existantes, dont elle est devenue matresse.64 Delatte 1922a: 18, orig.: On peut donc conclure que la politique tendances aristocratiquesqui, selon Time, caractrise la fin de lhistorie de la Socit, nest pas ne dune impulsion dePythagore, et mme que la politique tait, selon toute vraisemblance, trangre son plan dereformes.65 Von Fritz 1940: 95.


osophically important, but rather should be attributed to the personal choices,perhaps religiously motivated, of a few isolated members of the koinna.

It is only Minars 1942 work dedicated to the politics of the early Pythagor-eans that makes clear the dangers and historiographical presuppositions inher-ent in separating Pythagorean philosophy from its political effects. In the prefaceto this work, he describes the paradox of a philosophical movement simultane-ously controlling the political sphere in which its work is interpreted:

That the Pythagorean Society exercised a political influence in the cities of southern Italy inthe sixth and the fifth centuries B.C. has long been a recognized fact. But the paradox of aphilosophical school being involved in political activity has brought a certain amount ofdifficulty into the historical evaluation of the facts.

Minar acknowledges that several ancient authors explicitly claim that the Pytha-goreans (and even Pythagoras himself) formally exercised government control inCroton and other cities (Minar 1942: 16): Diogenes Laertius, Porphyry, Iambli-chus, and Cicero, among others. Therefore, he opposes the argument of hispredecessors that political activity was an isolated activity of some Pythagor-eans. Two considerations count against this argument: on one hand, the highlycentralized nature of the community makes isolated political activity unlikely, onthe other hand, the historical record suggests that the revolt was directed againstthe Pythagorean community as a whole. Both traditions would make it improb-able that political choice was limited to the marginal activity of a few members:

The highly centralized character of the Society, which von Fritz recognizes, makes it unlike-ly that Pythagorean political activity was merely that of individual members; and the factthat a revolt against the government in power was the same thing as an attack against theSociety, or at least involved such an attack as an integral part, strongly suggests that thePythagorean Society was recognized as the real ruler in Croton and most of the cities ofMagna Graecia.

Pythagoreanism, as a movement, ruled over many cities in Magna Graecia. It isthe job of modern historians, who are usually unaccustomed to such a close re-lationship between philosophy and politics, to understand the dynamic unity ofthe two dimensions of Pythagoreanism.

Minars attempt to link these two parts together is probably the least con-vincing part of his reading. His solution is to give the doctrinal component of

66 Minar 1942: v.67 D. L. Vitae VIII. 3; Porph. VP: 20, 21, 54; Iambl. VP: 30, 130, 249, 254; Cicero, Tusc. Disp.V. 4.10.68 Minar 1942: 18.


the Pythagorean political philosophy a much lower importance than one wouldexpect (Minar 1942: 95 132). Rather than treat the Pythagorean political views asa strict extension of their philosophy, Minar reduces Pythagoras and his move-ment to a political society marked by some degree of opportunism and pragma-tism.

It is no accident that many Italian scholars were interested in Pythagorean-ism and especially its political dimensions: putting aside Capparellis chauvinis-tic extremes (1941), several authors, starting with Rostagno 1922 and Mondolfosrevision of Zeller (1938), sought to link the mystical and scientific dimensions ina complex historiographical framework in which the political dimension plays acentral role. The meaning of this tradition can be understood by the definitionthat opens Ferreros classic work, Storia del Pitagorismo nel mondo Romano(1955):

Pythagoreanism, as the facts attest, proved to be something larger than and different froman abstract cultural phenomenon, a manifestation of a special religious-dogmatic purpose,or even a merely intellectual movement. It was, if we are not mistaken, the expression of asocial and political reality connected to a permanent structure of the ancient world; it wasthe characteristic expression of an organization of intellectuals which sought to respond tothe demands of a dominant group, of a political elite, which at first, as with theocracies,identified itself and was identical with the intellectuals themselves.

The Italian appropriation of Pythagoreanism had its origins in Roman times. Abrief excursus on this tradition clearly shows the depth of the ethno-politicalidentification of Pythagoreanism with Italian culture.

By utilizing ambiguity in the term Italian philosophy, and appealing to alegend that Pythagoras was the son of a Tyrrhenian, that is, an Etruscan, manyclaim Pythagoras as one of the forefathers of Romes political, philosophical and

69 One must agree here with De Vogel 1966: 13 when she suggests that Minar would concludethat Pythagoras was rather a shrewd politician, an aristocratic reactionary at a time of risingdemocracy and that all this had nothing to do with philosophy. Minar 1942: 99 seems tocredit the political doctrine of the Pythagoreans with the simple function of a superstructure,stating that the relationship between practice and theory will be seen most clearly through ananalysis of the doctrinal superstructure which this group built up about its political activity.70 Ferrero 1955: 21, orig.: Il pitagorismo alla prova dei fatti si dimostr qualcosa di pi e didiverso di un astratto fenomeno di cultura, della manifestazione di un particolare indirizzoreligioso-dogmatico, o infine di una mera espressione intellettualisica. Esso fu, se non andiamoerrati, specialmente lespressione di un fatto sociale e politico collegato ad una struttura per-manente del mondo antico; fu lespressione caratteristica di unorganizzazione degli intellettualirispondente alle esigenze di un gruppo dominante, di uneletta politica, la quale in un primotempo, al pari delle teocrazie, si identific e fu una cosa sola con i proprii intellettuali.


religious culture. The Samian philosopher ends up in the lists of Roman citi-zens (Pliny, Hist. Nat. XXXIV 26) and is identified as the teacher of the king-priestNuma Pompilius (Plutarch, Life of Numa I. 8). Cicero, in the process of dispellingthe anachronistic error that Pythagoras was Numas teacher, ends up insteadconfirming the patriotic tradition from which it derives:

I believe that, on account of his admiration for the Pythagoreans, king Numa too was iden-tified by posterity as a Pythagorean. For since they knew of Pythagoras teaching and rules,and had learned from their ancestors of the fairness and wisdom of that king, but sincethrough the lapse of time they were ignorant of the lifetimes of those men and the timesin which they lived they believed that the king, who excelled in wisdom, was a discipleof Pythagoras.

In several Ciceronian pages, the Pythagoreans, defined as our near fellow citi-zens, they who were then called Italic philosophers (Cato Maior XXI. 78), be-came a central chapter in the glorious history of Rome (Tusc. Disput. IV). A fa-mous passage of Ovids Metamorphoses (XV. 1447), as well as one from Plu-tarchs Life of Numa (I. 8 and 11), reaffirm the connection between Numa and Py-thagoras, consolidating, the earlier tradition of Pythagoras Romanness and Ital-ianness.

The philosophico-theological literature of the Middle Ages, despite lackingaccess to the Lives of Diogenes Laertius, Porphyry and Iamblichus, amongstother less important sources, kept alive the tradition of Pythagoras. Ambrose re-calls the Pythagorean sayings and several placita; Augustine, who frequently re-ferred favorably to Pythagoras and Pythagorean philosophy in his early worksultimately changed his mind, saying: I once believed that there were no errorsin the so-called Pythagorean doctrine, but there are many, and even capita

Documents

In the Search of Pythagorism