Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) - Volume 3.djvu/631

Rh PYTHAGORAS. a knowledge of these (if indeed they were members of the dub) is far more intelligible than their ini- tiation into political secrets. And the avros f(pa of the master connects itself most easily with the priestly character of Pythagoras, and the belief which his disciples, and probably he himself also, entertained, that he enjoyed a closer and more direct intercourse with the gods than other men. It is possible enough, however, that some of the more recondite speculations of the philosopher were connected with these religious views, while the ordinary scientific studies — mathematics, music, astronomy, &c. — were open to all the disciples. That there were some outward peculiarities of an ascetic kind (many of which had, perhaps, a sym- bolical meaning) in the mode of life to which the members of the brotherliood were subjected, seems pretty certain (comp. Porph. 32 ; Iambi. 96, Sec), Some represent him as forbidding all animal food (as Empedocles did afterwards, Arist. liliet. i. 14. § 2 ; Sext. Emp. ix. 127. This was also one of the Orphic precepts, Aristoph. Ran. 1032). This, if to any extent the case, may have had reference to the doctrine of metempsychosis (comp. Plut. de Esu Cam. pp. 993, 996, 997). It is, however, pointed out by Grote (vol. iv. p. 533), that all the members cannot have been subjected to this prohibi- tion ; Milo, for instance, could not possibly have dispensed with animal food. The best authorities contradict the statement. According to Ariston (ap. Diog. Laert. viii. 20) he allowed the use of all kinds of animal food except the flesh of oxen used for ploughing, and rams (comp. Porph. 7 ; Iambi. 85, 108). There is a similar discrepancy as to the prohibition offish and beans (Diog. Laert. viii. 19, 34 ; Cell. iv. 11; Porph. 34, de Ahst. i. 26 ; Iambi. 98). But temperance of all kinds seems to have been strictly enjoined. It is also stated that they had common meals, resembling the Spartan syssitia, at which they met in companies of ten ( Iambi. 98 ; Strabo, vi. p. 263). Considerable im- portance seems to have been attached to music and gymnastics in the daily exercises of the disciples. Their whole discipline is represented as tending to produce a lofty serenity and self-possession, regard- ing the exhibition of which various anecdotes were current in antiquity (Athen. xiv. p. 623 ; Aelian, V.H. xiv. 18 ; Iambi. 197 ; comp. Krische, I.e. p. 42). lamblichus {QQ — 101, apparently on the authority of Aristoxenus) gives a long description of the daily routine of the members, which suggests many points of comparison with the ordinary life of Spartan citizens. It is not unlikely that many of the regulations of Pythagoras were sug- gested by what he saw in Crete and Sparta. Among tlie best ascertained features of the brotherhood are tlie devoted attachment of the members to each other, and their sovereign contempt for those who did not belong to their ranks (Ariston. ap. lamhl. 94, 101, &c., 229, &c. ; comp. the story of Damon and Phintias ; Porph. 60 ; Iambi. 233, &c.). It appears that they had some secret conventional symbols, by which members of the fraternity could recognise each other, even if they had never met before (Schol. ad Arist. Nub. 611 ; Iambi. 237, 238 ; Krische, pp. 43, 44). Clubs similar to that at Crotona were established at Sybaris, Metapon- tum, Tarentum, and other cities of Magna Graccia. The institutions of Pythagoras were certainly not -intended to withdraw those who adopted them Ironi active exertion and social and political con- PYTHAGORAS. 619 nections, that they might devote themselves exclu- sively to religious and philosophical con tern plations* Rather he aimed at the production of a calm bear- ing and elevated tone of character, through which those trained in the discipline of the Pythagorean life should exhibit in their personal and social ca- pacities a reflection of the order and harmony of the universe. But the question whether he had any distinct political designs in the foundation of his brotherhood, has been variously answered. It was perfectly natural, even without any express design on his part, that a club such as the Three Hundred of Crotona should gradually come to mingle political with other objects, and by the faci- lities afforded by their secret and compact organi- sation should speedily gain extensive political influence, which, moreover, the political condition of Crotona, where the aristocracy was with diffi- culty holding its ground, rendered more than usu- ally easy. That this influence should be decisively on the side of aristocracy or oligarchy, resulted naturally both from the nature of the Pythjigorean institutions, and from the rank and social position of the members of the brotherhood. Through them, of course, Pythagoras himself exercised a large amount of indirect influence over the affairs both of Crotona and of other Italian cities. It does not appear however that he ever held any official rank, though we are told that the senate urged him to accept the office of Prytanis. But we have no evi- dence that the objects of Pythagoras were (as Krische, Miiller, and others believe) from the first predominantly political, or even that he had any definite political designs at all in the formation of his club. That he intended to exhibit in Crotona the model of a pure Dorian aristocracy (Miiller, Dorians., iii. 9. § 16), is a mere fancy (comp. Grote, vol. iv. p. 545, note). It is true that the club was in practice at once " a philosophical school, a religious brotherhood, and a political association" (Thirlwall, Hist, of Greece, vol. ii. p. 1 48), but there is nothing to show that " all these characters appear to have been inseparably united in the founder's mind." Mr. Grote, more in accordance with the earliest and best authority on the subject (Plato, de Rep. x. p. 600, comp. de Leg. vi. p. 782, who contrasts Pythagoras, as the institutor of a peculiar mode of private life, with those who exercised a direct influence upon public life), re- marks, " We cannot construe the scheme of Pytha- goras as going farther than the formation of a private, select order of brethren, embracing his religious fancies, ethical tone, and germs of scien- tific idea, and manifesting adhesion by those ob- servances which Herodotus and Plato call the Pythagorean orgies and mode of life. And his private order became politically powerful because he was skilful or fortunate enough to enlist a suffi- cient number of wealthy Crotoniates, possessing individual influence, which they strengthened im- mensely by thus regimenting themselves in intimate union" {Hist, of Greece, vol. iv. p. 544). The notion of Miiller and Niebuhr, that the 300 Py- thagoreans constituted a kind of smaller senate at Crotona, is totally without foundation. On the other hand, it seems quite as unfounded to infer from the account that Pythagoras was the first to apply to himself the epithet <pi(ro<pos (Cic. Tusc. V. 3 ; Diog. Laert. i. 12), that philosophical con- templation was the sole end that he had in view. Respecting the Pythagorean [if'c, and its analogy