What Can We Know of Pythagoras?

Pythagoras and Early Pythagoreanism: An Interpretation of Neglected Evidence of the

Philosopher Pythagoras by C. J. de Vogel
Review by: G. B. Kerferd
The Classical Review, New Series, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Dec., 1968), pp. 282-284
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/709285 .
Accessed: 27/01/2015 12:22

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to The Classical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Tue, 27 Jan 2015 12:22:20 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
282 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW
'gradualistic conception of the inventive process' with the methods and assump-
tions of 'alternate patterns' found in Plato, Dicaearchus, and elsewhere.
In more detailed terms he contrasts (i) the views of Diodorus and Vitruvius
on the origin of language with those of Epicurus, and (ii) the views of Epicurus
on 'the genealogy of morals' with those of Polybius (vi. 5. Io and 6. I-9). Poly-
bius' reconstruction of the origin of society is in several respects analogous, he
argues, to the accounts by Diodorus and Vitruvius of the rise of technology
and language. He also finds sufficient similarities in detail between Polybius'
account and the 'version of prehistory' given by Plato (Laws 677 a ff.; cf.
Epinomis 974 e-976 c) to suggest that 'both works reflect the influence of an
identical source, one which is reproduced fairly faithfully by Polybius, but
which Plato has subjected to extensive interpolation'. Plato's evidence thus
provides for Cole a terminusante quem in the middle of the fourth century for
the origin of the distinctive line of thought he is examining.
Cole's final task is to show that parallels between Plato, Polybius, Diodorus,
and Democritus provide a strong case for thinking that Democritus is the ulti-
mate source. He traces in the accounts of social development in Plato, Polybius,
and Diodorus the influence of an 'atomistic account' of this development which
he thinks Democritus attempted; he compares Democritean and Polybian
views of the beginnings of kingship; and he finds in the ethical and political
gndmaeof Democritus support for further parallels and evidence of Democritus'
concern with Kulturgeschichte.He concludes ambitiously that it is highly prob-
able that 'the technological histories of Diodorus, Tzetzes, Vitruvius, Lucre-
tius, and Posidonius; the accounts of the origin of language found in Diodorus,
Vitruvius, and Lactantius; the social history of Polybius vi and the anthropology
of Laws iii are all Democritean'.
This bare outline of the thesis can give little idea of the riches to be found in
it. It is a fascinating piece of detective work which lacks nothing either in
speculative ingenuity or in documentation. Not that I think it likely that its
arguments will win much new acceptance for the view that Democritus was
the father of Greek theories about cultural origins. It still seems to me that the
amount of clearly relevant Democritean evidence is too small to justify such
a view. Yet the real value of Cole's work is not impaired by this. It provides
an excellent comprehensive survey and detailed exploration of an important
field of Greek thought. It has a good bibliography and an index including a
complete list of passages cited.
St. David'sCollege,Lampeter. NORMAN GULLEY

WHAT CAN WE KNOW OF PYTHAGORAS?

C. J. DEVOGEL:PythagorasandEarlyPythagoreanism: an interpretation
of
evidence
neglected of the Pythagoras.Pp. 323; 6 plates. Assen:
philosopher
Van Gorcum, 1966. Cloth, fl. 28.50.
THE extant lives of Pythagoras by Porphyry and Iamblichus purport to give
information about Pythagoras as a philosopher, a political leader, and a re-
ligious figure. It is common ground that if any of the evidence they offer is to
be used for the reconstruction of early Pythagoreanism and of the views and

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Tue, 27 Jan 2015 12:22:20 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 283
actionsof the founderit can only be afterstrippingaway material that originated
long after the sixth century B.c. Here the crucial question is the extent to which
the material from the fourth century B.c., which Iamblichus and Porphyrycan
be shown (with varying degrees of certainty in different cases) to have derived
from Timaeus, Aristoxenus, and Dicaearchus, was itself derived from the fifth
and sixth centuries. According to the answers given to this question we will
see Pythagoras as a religious leader only, as a religious and political leader, or
as a religious, political, and philosophical thinker and leader. ProfessorDe
Vogel's thesis is clear and easily grasped-not only was Pythagoras all three,
but the religious and political doctrines formed a unity with the philosophical
doctrines. The idea that mathematical and scientific doctrines could be con-
sistently combined with religion was a difficult one for many nineteenth-
century scholars, and the tradition represented by Rohde, Zeller, and Diels
tended to see Pythagoras as a religious leader only. But the statements of
Aristotle are good evidence for scientific Pythagoreanismin the fifth century,
and despite the sceptical tendency of W. Burkert'srecent Weisheitund Wissen-
schaft(Tiibingen, 1962) the number of those who are prepared to accept fifth-
century or even sixth-centurysourcesfor Pythagoreanmathematical doctrines
is perhaps on the increase. The primary purpose of the present work is to re-
examine the evidence that Pythagoras was also a social and political leader.
Professor De Vogel deals first with the theory accepted by Thesleff in An
Introductionto thePythagorean Writingsof theHellenisticperiod(Abo, 1961), accord-
ing to which there was a continuous tradition of Pythagorean schools in
southern Italy from the fourth to the first century B.c. and that it was in this
period that a whole literature of school texts was produced. She strongly
attacks the exclusive association of the pentagram with Pythagoreanism, so
that its occurrence on coins in southern Italy cannot rightly be taken to prove
the continuation.of Pythagoreanism. In an enthusiastic and wide-ranging
inquiry, which included questions addressed to Moroccans about the origin
of the pentagram on their flag, a vast amount of fascinating information
is assembled. Although the Babylonian origin of the pentagram is regarded
as certain, we none the less come to the rather unexpected conclusion that
a certain continuity of Pythagoreanism in Italy cannot be wholly excluded.
This is followed by a chapter attacking the hypothesis that Pythagoras was
himself responsible for the introduction of coinage into southern Italy, while
arguing that the evidence of coins does support the existence of a confederation
under the hegemony of Croton at the beginning of the fifth century.
According to the theory propounded by Rohde in 1871 and 1872 and
followed in essentials by Zeller and Jaeger, Iamblichus got his accounts of
Pythagoras as a speech-makerand politician through Timaeus from Dicaear-
chus. Dicaearchus was reacting against Aristotle's claim that the best life
was the flo0 OEcwpyrtILKS and himself held that the flos TrpaKTLKod was superior.
In support of this view he 'created' the figure of the socio-political Pythagoras
as a projection of his own ideal of life. Later writers filled out the picture
invented for them by Dicaearchus, and on this theory there is no evidence
before Dicaearchus to support the view that Pythagoras played a major
political role.
The attempt to refute Rohde's theory occupies the main part of Professor
De Vogel's book. It is based primarily on an extended consideration of the
four speechesof Pythagorasas given in Iamblichus. The story that four speeches

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Tue, 27 Jan 2015 12:22:20 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
284 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW
were given precedes Dicaearchus as it was referredto already by Antisthenes.
In the case of Iamblichus' first speech it is argued that the moral doctrines
involved are not Platonic and that a number of features could well be early in
origin. In the case of the second speech the similarity of the KaLpds-doctrine
with that of Gorgias was correctly appreciated by Rostagni, but he was mis-
taken in supposing that it derived from Gorgias-the absence of any sophistic
relativism and the thoroughgoing objective foundation for the Katpds-doctrine
in the speech, it is argued, points to a different origin. There is nothing of
Gorgias' style as seen in the Helenand Palamedesto be found in any of the four
speeches. As Gorgias derived some at least of his rhetorical doctrines from
non-Gorgianic discussionsin Southern Italy, we may suppose that the KaLpOs-
doctrine also originated there. Since it seems to rest on a general view of the
Universe it could indeed have a base in Pythagoras' own doctrines. In the
fourth speech, a passage in Aristophanes'Ecclesiazusae 446 ff. is held, following
Rostagni, to imply that a version of the speech was already in existence by
392 B.C. It is concluded that versions of all four speeches were in circulation
about this time, that they were probably not written down until late in the
fifth century, but that even so they may well represent a genuine tradition
about the actual teaching of the founder of the movement.
All this is supported by a wealth of detailed argument and analysis. Once the
point is taken that earlier views were subject to re-writingand re-presentation
in the language of later ages, the issue becomes one of whether the ideasthem-
selves must belong to a later time or not. I believe that De Vogel is success-
ful in her argument that the basic moral doctrines in the speeches couldbe
early Pythagorean. But whether they really represent a genuine tradition of
Pythagoras' own teaching must remain uncertain. The alternative account in
Porphyry, according to which the four speeches were given once only by
Pythagoras, would give an excellent opportunity for a later writer, probably
not Dicaearchus, to supply versions of them. That this is what happened is
not disprovedby showing that the versionswe have accord with other evidence
for early Pythagorean views. Let us grant, however, that there is or may be
much basic Pythagorean doctrine in the speeches. What follows? De Vogel
would seem to be claiming that they provide neglected evidence for Pythagoras'
political and social activity. But the importance of the political activities of the
Pythagorean order in the early fifth century was already virtually demon-
strated by the monographs of Von Fritz and Minar and their results are
widely accepted. The importance of this side of Pythagoras' activities is
acknowledged also by Burkert. De Vogel is described as admiring Guthrie's
treatment of the Pythagoreans in his Historyof GreekPhilosophy, Vol. i, but as
regarding it as incomplete. Her criticism seems to be that while Guthrie is
aware of the three sides of Pythagoras' activity-religious, political, and
philosophical--he neglects their fundamentalunity. I doubt if this is more than
a matter of emphasis, Guthrie, in writing a history of philosophy, being
less concerned with the political side of Pythagoras'activities. The likely fact,
then, of Pythagoras' political interests is already reasonably established. Can
we use the later material to give us details of his teaching? The answer pre-
sumably remains as it was before, namely, only when it is confirmedby earlier
evidence. There is then a danger of claiming too much for the present investi-
gation. But even so, it was well worth undertaking.
Universityof Manchester G. B. KERFERD

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Tue, 27 Jan 2015 12:22:20 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions