Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) - Volume 3.djvu/632

Rh 820 PYTHAGORAS. with tlie Orphic life, see Lobeck, Aglaophamits, OrpJdca, lib. ii. pp. 247, G98, 900. The resem- blance in many respects of the Pj'thagorean brother- hood or order to that founded by Loyola has been more than once pointed out. It is easy to understand how this aristocratical and exclusive club would excite the jealousy and liostility not only of the democratical party in Cro- tona, but also of a considerable number of the op- posite faction. The hatred which they had excited speedily led to their destruction. The circumstances attending this event are, however, involved in some uncertaint}'. In the hostilities which broke out between Sybaris and Crotona on the occasion of the refusal of the Crotoniates (to which, it is said, they had been urged by Pythagoras) to surrender some exiles of Sybaris, the forces of Crotona were headed by the Pythagorean Milo [MiLo] ; and the other members of the brotherhood doubtless took a prominent part. The decisive victory of the Crotoniates seems to have elated the Pythago- reans beyond measure. A proposal (occasioned, according to the statement in lamblichus, c. 255, by a refusal on the part of the senate to distribute among the people the newly conquered territory of Sybaris ; though this account involves considerable difficulty ; see Grote, I. c. p. 549) for establishing a more democratical constitution, was unsuccessfully resisted by the Pythagoreans. Their enemies, headed by Cylon and Ninon, the former of whom is said to have been irritated by his exclusion from the brotherhood, excited the populace against thern. An attack was made upon them while assembled either in the house of Milo, or in some other place of meeting. The building was set on fire, and many of the assembled members perished ; only the younger and more active escaping (Iambi. 255 —259 ; Porph. 54—57 ; Diog. Laert. viii. 39 ; Diod. X. fragm. vol. iv. p. 56, ed. Wess. ; comp. Plut. de Gen. Soar. p. 583). Similar commotions ensued in the other cities of Magna Graecia in which Pythagorean clubs had been formed, and kept them for a considerable time in a state of great disquietude, which was at length pacified by tlie mediation of the Peloponnesian Achaeans (Po- lyb. ii. 39). As an active and organised brother- hood the Pythagorean order was everywhere sup- pressed, and did not again revive, though it was probably a long time before it was put down in all the Italian cities [Lysis ; Philolaus]. Still the Pythagoreans continued to exist as a sect, the members of which kept up among themselves their religious observances and scientific pursuits, while individuals, as in the case of Archytas, acquired now and then great political influence. Respecting the fate of Pythagoras himself, the accounts varied. Some say that he perished in the temple with his disciples (Arnob. adv. Gentes, i. p. 23), others that he fled first to Tarentum, and that, being driven thence, he escaped to Metapontum, and there starved himself to death (Diog. Laert. viii. 39, 40 ; Porph. 56 ; Iambi. 249 ; Plut. de Sloic. Rep. 37). His tomb was shown at Metapontum in the time of Cicero (Cic. de Fin. v. 2). According to some accounts Pythagoras married Theano, a lady of Crotona, and had a daughter Damo, and a son Telauges ; others say two daughters, Damo and Myia ; but other notices seem to imply that he had a wife and a daughter grown up, when he came to Crotona. (Diog. Laert. viii. 42 ; Fabric. BM. Grace, vol i. p. 772.) PYTHAGORAS. For a considerable time after the breaking up of the clubs at Crotona and elsewhere great obscurity hangs over the history of the Pythagoreans. No reliance can be placed on the lists of them which later writers have given, as they have been amplified, partly through mere invention, partly through a confusion between Pythagor^ns and Italian philosophers generally. The writings, or fragments of writings, which have come down to us under the names of Archytas, Timaeus, Ocellus, Brontinus, &c., have been shown to be spurious. Pythagorism seems to have established itself by degrees more and more in different parts of Greece. About the time of Socrates, and a little later, we get some trustworthy notices of Philolaus, Lysis, Cleinias, Eurytus, and Archytas. These men, and others who applied themselves to the development of the Pythagorean philosophy, were widely diffe- rent from the so-called Pythagoreans of a later age (from the time of Cicero onwards), who were cha- racterised by little except an exaggeration of the religious and ascetic fanaticism of the Pythagorean system [Apollonius of Tvana]. This Neo- Pythagorism was gradually merged in the kindred mysticism of the Neo-Platonists. When we come to inquire what were the philo- sophical or religious opinions held by Pythagoras liimself, we are met at the outset by the difficulty that even the authors from whom we have to draw possessed no authentic records bearing upon the subject of the age of Pythagoras himself. If Pythagoras ever wrote any thing, his writings perished with him, or not long after. The proba- bility is that he wrote nothing. (Corap. Plut. de Alex. fort. p. 329 ; Porph. I. c. 57 ; Galen, de Hipp, et Plat. Flac. . 6.) The statements to the con- trary prove worthless on examination. Every thing current under his name in antiquity was spurious. (See Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. i. pp. 779—805 ; Ritter, Gesch. der Pyth. Phil. p. 56.) It is all but certain that Philolaus was the first who pid)lished the Pythagorean doctrines, at any rate in a written form [Philolaus]. Still there was so marked a peculiarity running through the Pythagorean philosophy, by whomsoever of its ad- herents it was developed, and so much of uni- formity can be traced at the basis even of the diver- sities which present themselves here and there in the views expressed by different Pythagoreans, as they have come down to us from authentic sources, that there can be little question as to the germs of the system at any rate having been derived from Pythagoras himself. (Brandis, I.e. p. 442.) The Pythagoreans seem to have striven in the main to keep their doctrine uncorrupted. We even hear of members being expelled from the brotherhood for philosophical or other heterodoxy ; and a distinc- tion was already drawn in antiquity between genu- ine and spurious Pythagorism (^lavibl.iil ; Villois. Anecd. ii. p. 216 ; Syrian. inArist. Met. xii. fol. 71, b., 85, b. ; Simplic. in Arist. Phys. fol. 104, b. ; Stob. Eel. Phys. i. pp. 308, 448, 496). Aristotle manifestly regarded the Pythagorean philosophy as something which in its leading features character- ised the school generally. He found it, however, after it had passed through a considerable period of development, in tha hands of adherents of varying tendencies. It was to be expected therefore that varieties should make their appearance (comp. Arist. de Caelo, iii. 1, at the end, with Met. i. 6). Nearly every thing that can be in any degree do-