Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) - Volume 3.djvu/630

Rh 613 PYTHAGORAS. with the Hyperborean Apollo. (Porph. I. c. 20 ; Iambi. I.e. 31, 140 ; Aelian, V. H. ii. 26 ; Diog. Laert. viii. 36.) And without viewing him as an impostor, we may easily believe that he himself to some extent shared the same views. He is said to have pretended to divination and prophecy. (Cic. de Divin. . 3, 46 ; Porph. l. c. 29.) " In his promi- nent vocation, analogous to that of Epimenides, Orpheus, or Melampus, he appears as the revealer of a mode of life calculated to raise his disciples above the level of mankind, and to recommend them to the favour of the gods." (Grote, vol. iv. p. 529.) No certainty can be arrived at as to the length of time spent by Pythagoras in Egypt or the East, or as to his residence and eflforts in Samos or other Grecian cities, before his removal to Italy. Ritter is inclined to believe from the expressions of He- rodotus that the secret cultus or orgies of Pytha- goras had gained some footing in Greece or Ionia, even before Crotona became the focus of his influ- ence {Gesch. der Phil. vol. i. p. 364, Gesch. der Pyth. Phil. p. 31). In the visits to various places in Greece — Delos, Sparta, Phlius, Crete, &c. which are ascribed to him, he appears commonly either in his religious or priestly cfiaracter, or else as a law- giver (Iambi. l.c. 25; Porph. I.e. 17; Diog. Laert. viii. 3, 13; Cic.Tusc. Qu. v. 3). It is in the highest degree probable that the reason why Pythagoras removed to Crotona is to be found in the unfavourable condition of his native country, wliile under the tyranny of Poly- crates, for the realisation of his schemes. Later admirers were content to believe that, from the high estimation in which he was held by his fellow- citizens, he was so overburdened with public duties, as to have no time to bestow upon philosophy, and BO withdrew from Samos (Iambi. 28 ; Porph. 9). The reason why he selected Crotona as the sphere of his operations, it is impossible to ascertain from any existing evidence. All that is adduced on this head by K. 0. Miiller (Dorians, iii. 9. § 17, vol. ii. p. 1 89, &c.) is mere conjecture, and is of the r.iost unsatisfactory kind. Grote (vol. iv. p. 538) supposes that the celebrity of Crotona for the cul- tivation of the art of medicine may possibly have had some influence with him. That on his arrival there he speedily attained extensive influence, and gained over great numbers to enter into his views, is all that can safely be affirmed in the midst of the marvellous stories told by later biographers of the effects of his eloquent discourses in leading the Crotoniates to abandon their luxurious and cor- rupting manner of life and devote themselves to that purer system which he came to introduce. (Porph. 18 ; Iambi. 37, &c.) His adherents were chiefly of the noble and wealthy classes. Three hundred of these were formed into a select brother- hood or club, bound by a sort of vow to Pyth.igora8 and each other, for the purpose of cultivating the religious and ascetic observances enjoined by their master, and of studying his religious and philoso- phical theories. The statement that they threw all their property into a common stock has not suffi- cient evidence to support it, and was perhaps in the first instance only an inference from certain Pythagorean maxims and practices (coxnp. Cic. de Lrg. i. 12, de Off. . 1 Diog. Laert. viii. 10 ; Krische, I. c. p. 27, &c. ; Ritter, /. c. p. 39). That there were several women among the adherents of Pythagoras is pretty certain. That any were PYTHAGORAS. members of the club of 300 is not so probable. Krische (/. c. p. 45) considers that these female Pythagoreans wei-e only the wives and relations of members of the brotherhood, who were instructed in some of the Pythagorean doctrines. These would doubtless be mainly those connected with the reli- gious part of his system. (Comp. Menage, Hist. de Mul. PhUos.) With respect to the internal arrangements and discipline of this brotherhood only a few leading features seem to rest upon a basis of evidence and probability sufficient to warrant our bestowing any attention upon them. All accounts agree that what was done and taught among the members was kept a profound secret towards all without its pale. But we are also told that there were gradations among the members themselves. It was an old Pythago- rean maxim, that every thing was not to be told to every body (Diog. Laert. viii. 15 ; Arist. ap. Iamb. 31, iv Tois irdvu oLTTopprirois). The division of classes is usually described as one into ^acorepiKol and e|a>TeptKoi, though these terms themselves are probably of later origin. Other names given to corresponding divisions are, Uvdayopeioi and UuOayopKTTai (Iambi. 80). Other accounts, again, speak of a division into three classes, UvBayopiKol, UvOayopeioi, and livQayopiarai, according to the degree of intimacy which they enjoyed with Py- thagoras ; the first class being those who held the closest communion with him ; or into cr(€curTiKol, TToXiTiKoi, and /xadrjixaTiKol, according as the sub- ject of their studies related mainly to religion, to politics, or to mathematical and physical science (Phot. Cod. 249). Other authorities speak of aKovcrixariKoi and jxaQTuxaTiKoi (Iambi. I. c), or Acustici, Mathematici, and Physici (Gell. A^. ^. i. 9). Most of these divisions, however, presup- pose a more marked separation between the dif- ferent branches of human knowledge, or between philosophical training and political activity, than existed at that time. In the admission of candi- dates Pythagoras is said to have placed great re- liance on his physiognomical discernment (Gell. I. c.). If admitted, they had to pass through a period of probation, in which their powers of main- taining silence (exe/xi;0ia) were especially tested, as well as their general temper, disposition, and mental capacity (Ariston. ap. Iambi. 94). That they had to maintain silence for five years, and during the whole of that period were never allowed to behold the face of Pythagoras, while they were from time to time exposed to various severe ordeals (Iambi. 68), are doubtless the exaggerations of a later age. There is more probability in the state- ment (Taurus, ap. Gell. i. 9) that the period of noviciate varied according to the aptitude which the candidates manifested for the Pythagorean dis- cipline. As regards the nature of the esoteric in- struction to which only the most approved members of the fraternity were admitted, some (e. g. Meiners, Gesch. der Wissenschaften) have supposed that it had reference to the political views of Pythagoras. Ritter (/.c. p. 47, &c.), with greater probability, holds that it had reference mainly to the orgies^ or secret religious doctrines and usages, which un- doubtedly formed a prominent feature in the Py- thagorean system, and were peculiarly connected with the worship of Apollo (Aelian, V. H. ii. 26 ; Diog. Laert. viii. 13 ; Iambi. 8. 91, 141 ; comp. Krische, /. c. p. 37 ; Brandis, I. c. p. 432 ; Miiller, Dorians, iii. 9. § 17). The admission of women to