py THAGOREANS AND ELEATICS An account CAMBRIDGE AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS 1948Pythageee John Pree and fale) lati: en CONTENTS Printed in Great Britain atthe University Pres, Cambridge (Brooke Crutchley, University Printer) ART I nd published by the Cambridge University Press (Combridge, and Bentley Hous, London) I. Introduction for USudey Canada, and Indias Macmillon lence A II, Pacmenides a ythagoreanism before Parmenide 8 Zeno of Blea 6 Vi aloes 2 PART I VIL. Post-Zenonian Pythagoreanisnt 93 VIL. The Nature of Matter ror The One 1a The One and Numbers 136 XI. Cosmology ) Analysis 146 5) Synthesis 164PREFACE tn preparing my dissertation for publication I have found it Jy difficult 10 decide berween the oppo ability on the one hand and precision on the wer Event abject be given a wide popular appeal, it was better to sacrifice ibility to precision than vice versa, I have accordingly quoted ist all my authorities, with references inserted in the text, in inal languages. Only where the Greck seems ent onsiderable difficulty, and where English translations are adily accessible, have I appended my ssible, added, ll as the reference to the o Thave also, wherever p he reference to the appropriate section Die Fra ther abbreviation: scl passage quoted is take bbbreviation DK., ifth edition of Hermann Di by Walther Kranz. Such or no elucidation. I regret that Ih I found ssed call, Top E to add one appendix. This contains, however, no mere ied points of houghts but the elaboration of two close hich, if included in the text, would not only have retarded also have deprived the relevant chapter of eument, b balance it may possess. Since this appendix was writen U have, asa matter of fact, found that che second of these points had ‘on pp. 446-8 of Part of his edi hich Mondolfo entitles La Filosofia dei Gre: ». But since at any rate I argue the case so than he does I have left my suggestion to stand in the form ia which I could notallow this book to be published—for it was not written publication—without paying a prefatory tribute to the late sor F.M, Comford. He it was who first stimulated myinterest ly Py soreanism, and from the day when I first attended of his death I received from him unfailing Indeed, Icam 0 feel for hima respect ness and encouragemenand an affection such as it is given to few teachers to inspire. Hi death was not only myself, a sens hesitation also have brought, to many another student such of per that I ventur nal bereavement. It is therefore with the utmos hereafter to question his interpretation of th ment of Pythagoreanism. I dare to do so only becau that be would have preferred as the reward for his teachi indent thought in his pupils rather than the stimulation of ini anthirking acceptance of his views, I am sure that, if he would himself have welcomed my att Sandbach, each of whom, having me with a number of very valuabl Though I have not always follo 1 least of my contentions, cannot possibly claim their approval Thope that as the result of their kindness the flaws in my a ‘comments and criticisms fed their guidance, and so, for som are both Jess numerous and less glaring than they were when it wi first put upon paper. Finally I must express my deep gratitude not only to the reade of the University Press, who have revealed all their care and knowledge, but also to Pro D. S. Rahertsan, both af whom, as editors of Cambridge Classi Studies, hav ook, and t0 am indebted for the correction of a number of exrors that would ve escaped my notice ssors R. Had read the proofs of m h of whor n obvious loss to Platonic scholarship; it musi Part I Cuapter I INTRODUCTION tl bh Snpoeig, Ibig naiv Aysuov meBelos adds 36 Ongos yer, of feehioy Ayeeav rt ewovate ral ois 2 Ounpuxv, Gomep Thecyéoas BiopepSvras Eni totep Ayemiin, xe of Gorepot Fr xa a ty Tals SAAeIs; Si ot lou Biagenels my Plato, in the Rep 16), pays his tribute to the memory of the foun nism. As this is the only occasion in all his writings » mentions Pythagoras by name, it would be reasonable hat he regarded him not primarily as a scientist bui ous teaches} Such a v fragments of Xeno- sured by Di re find one which, so we are credibly , to whom we owe its preservation, was concerned with himself (fr. 73 DK. 21 » 7) {ott uly oTUgeAlgoutvoy exUAaKe Erroucripa od TSBs geen Eos inal gltou dvips toriv y/veov gBeyEauyns Siar.” 2s also (apart from a dark reference to them in connec me doctrine of the transmigration of oreans (11, 813 ) ascribes another practice to the Py’ japiperat elpivecc ob8: uy i opr ob yap Gor KeDeopvoior Ka Boxx!nor v duohoyt Bi Alyurerioin, Kei 101 BBE yp Toure réSy épyloov peréxovra: SoxGy Eom one aspeet of Pythagoreanism, se, the only aspect. Herodorus himself elsewhere refers to Pythagoras as ol 7% dodeverrérepcogiar4}—a term which seems to imply something more than rel instruction. And this view, t00, is reliably confirmed. Heraci, (DK, 22.8 40) credits Pythagoras with wide learning: véoy Eye otirls Te Zevopéved te wal ‘Exaratov. Empedocies also, accord 10 a likely tradition, w ring to Pythagoras when he wEOi (DK. 3151 iv BE Wworaiy dviip repdoora elBes, ih utiKioTo” wparlBav berfigcrS TAoUTOV ravrolewy 12 pSdiore copeby (1) éiioawes Ep CoA Pee Cou teas Py tasoras was aician i Lea igious teachery Indeed, a fragment Tlep\ résv TMuSaryopelav (fis 191 Rose; DK. 1 strands: ThuBaryépas Munowpxeu ulds 75 wu mparoy Bierrovetro. ‘Te ucdtuerte Kal tots Spi8pous, Gorepoy BE ator al tis DepextBa repcrtonoilas ox été Bur there is no lack of evidence to prove that the two strandk united in a single individual of genius, soon fll apart again. Til religious instruction of the founder was preserv Acou ‘matics’, hisscientficinvestigation continued by the‘ mathematicians So when Theoeritus (14, 53 DK. 58 & inde.) writes of 2 Thvcryopuctig Gsxpés xdvumrébqtos, the scholiast adds a note that ol uly TivBayop Kol TGaav gpovriba roiothrren TOU oxieros, of 8 Théaryopi wre. Indeed, between of the Middle Comedj and tie ‘Pythagoreans* as represented in Aristotle's extant accousil thereis a great gulf fixed. And if we ask when and how rapidly dl gulf first began to widen, then we are at once face to face with t findemental problem underlying much of the copious litera ancieat and modern alike, concerning the development of Pyth goresnism. It is not, be it said at the outset, the intention of t present work to attempt a direct solution of dhat vexed and possibl insoluble problem. [ intend rather, by using AAvistote's evidence the springboard from which ro jump, to attempt a reconstruction @ Pythagoreanism which will largely evade that particular issue. Nod the les, ifsuch a reconstruction succeeds in it will inevitably throw some indivect li cent accounts of the development of Pyt at and definite is perhaps that published by Professor fr cd in the Classical Quarter and 1923 (x71 and has at least been widely accepted. But for r in due course I am myself unable to accept m Jusions. Indeed, Ihave been led to attempt my own hat seem to me implicit in his inte herelevant viously a bold and possi This is ¢ ng. But at the risk of appeating even more s well at this stage to attempe a summary (Go far a8 in Cornford’s own words) of the view to which I have inch and fifth centuries 8.¢ two different and radically opposed vught were elaborated within the Pythagorean school. They sm and the scientific... The shed hy the icism of Py joreanism, which can be used as one fa sereen. The history at was happening on the others sophy is divided, circa §02~490 Bc, into two chapters ies polemicagainst any aystem which desivesa manifold world unity...» Parmenides, bred in the Pythagorean tracition, citi ofthe school from which he was seceding, Thus we to what sithecentury Pythagoresnism must have been, if we al fanle found by Parmenies in t Towill appear that this fault is the atremp to combine a menistie des declared fo ith a dualistic system of Nature. Pari luding change and motion. ‘The second chapter contains the tems of Empedocles, Anaxagoras, and the Atomists, ns Parmenides was believed to have established. In is bable that some section ofthe Pyth ean school would answer Now, in the generation after Patmenides, we ate form of Atomism—a doctrine that the real consists of an ralty of units or monads (indivisible points having pesto