For the “mystic silence,” see Aristoxenos, _ap._ Diog. viii. 15 (R. P.
55 a). Tannery, “Sur le secret dans l’école de Pythagore” (_Arch._ i.
pp. 28 sqq.), thinks that the mathematical doctrines were the secrets
of the school, and that these were divulged by Hippasos; but the most
reasonable view is that there were no secrets at all except of a
ritual kind.
The Pythagorean Order was simply, in its origin, a religious fraternity
of the type described above, and not, as has sometimes been maintained,
a political league.[202] Nor had it anything to do with the “Dorian
aristocratic ideal.” Pythagoras was an Ionian, and the Order was
originally confined to Achaian states.[203] Nor is there the slightest
evidence that the Pythagoreans favoured the aristocratic rather than the
democratic party.[204] The main purpose of the Order was to secure for
its own members a more adequate satisfaction of the religious instinct
than that supplied by the State religion. It was, in fact, an
institution for the cultivation of holiness. In this respect it
resembled an Orphic society, though it seems that Apollo, rather than
Dionysos, was the chief Pythagorean god. That is doubtless why the
Krotoniates identified Pythagoras with Apollo Hyperboreios.[205] From
the nature of the case, however, an independent society within a Greek
state was apt to be brought into conflict with the larger body. The only
way in which it could then assert its right to exist was by identifying
the State with itself, that is, by securing the control of the sovereign
power. The history of the Pythagorean Order, so far as it can be traced,
is, accordingly, the history of an attempt to supersede the State; and
its political action is to be explained as a mere incident of that
attempt.
Footnote 202:
Plato, _Rep._ x. 600 a, implies that Pythagoras held no public office.
The view that the Pythagorean sect was a political league, maintained
in modern times by Krische (_De societatis a Pythagora conditae scopo
politico_, 1830), goes back, as Rohde has shown (_loc. cit._), to
Dikaiarchos, the champion of the “Practical Life,” just as the view
that it was primarily a scientific society goes back to the
mathematician and musician Aristoxenos. The former antedated Archytas,
just as the latter antedated Philolaos (see Chap. VII. § 138). Grote’s
good sense enabled him to see this quite clearly (vol. iv. pp. 329
sqq.).
Footnote 203:
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account