Political fragments of Archytas and other ancient Pythagoreans/Introduction

by various authors

INTRODUCTION.

 

---

 

The collection of Pythagoric Fragments contained in this volume must be considered by every one as highly valuable if their antiquity only is regarded; but by the lover of genuine wisdom they will be deemed inestimable, as proceeding from the school of the father of philosophy.

Of the greater part of the authors of these fragments little more than the country in which they lived is known. But of Charondas, and Zaleucus, those celebrated legislators, Seneca in his 90th Epistle informs us that they learnt their laws in the silent and sacred recess of Pythagoras. Though Seneca, however, Diodorus Siculus, Diogenes Laertius, Porphyry, and Iamblichus make both Charondas and Zaleucus to be the disciples of Pythagoras; yet Dr. Bentley, in his Dissertation on Phalaris, seems more disposed to think that they were not Pythagoreans than that they were. At the conclusion, however, of his discussion of this subject he says, "I do not assert any thing positively on either side of this whole debate about the two lawgivers [Charondas and Zaleucus]. I rather desire to stand a neuter, till the matter shall be decided by some abler hand^[1]." But the man of intellect who reads this concession of the doctor, will doubtless laugh when he finds him also asserting, "Thus much I am sure may be safely concluded, that if Zaleucus was really Pythagoras' disciple, the learned Mr. Dodwell's calculation must be wrong [respecting the age of Pythagoras]. For which is more probable, that a Mr. Dodwell was mistaken in this particular, or that Diodorus Siculus, Laertius, Porphyry, and Iamblichus were wrong, who lived so many centuries prior to him, and who were able to derive information so much more decisive respecting Zaleucus, through books which were then extant, but which have long since utterly perished? By Vossius^[2], however, who, though he was not perhaps so great a verbal critic as Bentley, was certainly a man of more intellect^[3], the whole of these fragments were considered as precious monuments; and he wonders, and is at the same time indignant, at their not being more frequently perused.

 

Of Hierocles, the author of the Ethical Fragments, something more is known than of the authors of the Political Fragments, through what is said of him by Suidas, Damascius^[4], and Æneas Gazæus. For from the last of these we learn that he flourished about the end of the fifth century of the Christian era; and from the other two, that he was a Platonic philosopher of Alexandria that his conceptions were magnificent, and his genius sublime; that he was very eloquent, astonished his auditors by the beauty and copiousness of his language, and contended with Plato himself in elegance of diction, and fertility of intellect. One of his auditors was Theosebius, a man of great penetration, who at different times twice heard Hierocles orally explaining the Gorgias of Plato; and though on comparing the latter with the former explanation, he found nothing in the one which might be said to be the same with what was in the other, yet each of them unfolded as much as possible the intention of Plato in that dialogue—which, as Damascius well observes, was a thing of a most singular nature, and clearly demonstrates the amplitude of his conceptions. We are informed, also, by the same Theosebius, that Hierocles once said, when expounding Plato, that the discourses of Socrates^[5] resembled cubes, because they remained firm wherever they might fall.

The following circumstance, says Suidas, evinces the fortitude and magnanimity of Hierocles. On coming to Byzantium, he offended the prevailers (προσέκρουσε τους Κρατουσι) i.e. the Christians^[6]; and being brought into a court of justice by them was whipped. But while the blood was flowing, he took some of it in the hollow of his hand, and besprinkled with it the judge, at the same time exclaiming:

Cyclops, since human flesh is thy delight,
Now drink this wine^[7].

Being banished, most probably in consequence of this magnanimous behaviour, and returning some time after to Alexandria, he gave philosophical lectures to his auditors in his usual manner. Suidas adds, that the grandeur of the conceptions of Hierocles may be learnt from the perusal of his Commentaries On the Golden Verses of the Pythagoreans, and from his treatise On Providence^[8]; in which works it appears that he was sublimely wise in his life, but not accurate in his knowledge. Damascius also says, that Hierocles was not at all deficient in any thing pertaining to merely human science, but that he was by no means replete with blessed conceptions, i.e. with conceptions which are the offspring of an entheastic, or divinely inspired energy; and which are to be found in abundance in the writings of Plato, Plotinus, Iamblichus, Proclus, and Damascius himself. This, indeed, will be immediately evident^[9] to the man who has penetrated the depth of these writings, but to the merely verbal critic is a circumstance involved in Cimmerian darkness.

---

1. Dissertation on Phalaris, p. 273.
2. In Lib. de Philosophorum Sectis.
3. The following extract from Bentley's Eighth Sermon at Boyle's Lectures, sufficiently shows the doctor's deficiency in intellect. "Nor do we count it any absurdity, that such a vast and immense universe should be made for the sole use of such mean and unworthy creatures as the children of men. For if we consider the dignity of an intelligent being, and put that in the scales against brute inanimate matter, we may affirm, without overvaluing human nature, that the soul of one virtuous and religious man is of greater worth and excellency than the sun and his planets, and all the stars in the world." For this opinion is not only stupid and arrogant in the extreme, but is also contrary to the doctrine of the Scriptures, of which the doctor was a teacher. For as I have observed in p. 13 of the Introduction to my translation of Proclus On the Theology of Plato, "the stars are not called Gods by the Jewish legislator, as things inanimate like statues fashioned of wood or stone." This is evident from what is said in the book of Job, and the Psalms. "Behold even the moon and it shineth not, yea the stars are not pure in his sight. How much less man that is a worm, and the son of man which is a worm?" (Job, xxv. v. 5 and 6). And, "When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars which thou hast ordained; what is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that thou visitest him." (Psalm viii. v. 3 and 4.) It is evident, therefore, from these passages, that the heavens and the stars are more excellent than man; but nothing inanimate can be more excellent than that which is animated. To which may be added, that in the following verse David says, that God has made man a little lower than the angels. But the stars, as I have demonstrated in the above mentioned Introduction, were considered by Moses as angels and Gods; and consequently they are animated beings, and superior to man. Farther still, it is said in Psalm xi. v. 4, that "the Lord's throne is in heaven." And again, in Isaiah, chap. Ixvi. v. 1. "Thus saith the Lord, the heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool." If, therefore, the heavens are the throne of Deity, they must evidently be deified. For nothing can come into immediate contact with divinity, without being divine. Hence, says Simplicius, (in Comment. in Lib. ii. de Calo.) "That it is connascent with the human soul to think the celestial bodies are divine, is especially evident from those (the Jews), who look to these bodies through preconceptions about divine natures. For they also say that the heavens are the habitation of God, and the throne of God, and are alone sufficient to reveal the glory and excellence of God to those who are worthy; than which assertions what can be more venerable?"

   Indeed, that the heavens are not the inanimate throne and residence of Deity, is also evident from the assertion in the nineteenth Psalm, that "the heavens declare the glory of God." For R. Moses, a very learned Jew, (See Gaffarel's Unheard-of Curiosities, p. 391.) says, "that the word saphar to declare, or set forth, is never attributed to things inanimate." Hence he concludes, "that the heavens are not without some soul; which, says he, is no other than that of those blessed intelligences who govern the stars, and dispose them into such letters as God has ordained; declaring unto us men, by means of this writing, what events we are to expect. And hence this same writing is called by all the ancients, chetab hamelachim; that is to say, the writing of the angels."

4. In the Fragments of his Life of Isidorus the Platonist, preserved by Photius. The greater part of what Suidas has said about Hierocles is taken from these memoirs of Isidorus.
5. The discourses of Socrates in Plato.
6. For so the Christians were called by the heathens, when the religion of the latter was rapidly declining, and that of the former had gained the ascendency. Thus Porphyry, in a passage preserved by Theodoret, (in lib. i. De Curat. Graec. Superst.) Χαλκοδετος γαρ η προς θεούς οδος, αιπεινη τε και τραχεια, ης πολλας ατραπούς Βαρβαροι μεν εξευρον, Ελληνες δε επλανήθησαν, οι δε κρατουντες ηδη και διεφθειραν. i.e. "For the way which leads to the Gods is bound with chains of brass, and is arduous and rough, many paths of which were indeed discovered by the Barbarians; but the Greeks have wandered from them, and they are entirely corrupted by those who now prevail."
   This passage of Porphyry, derived its origin from the following oracle of Apollo, preserved by Eusebius:
   Αιπεινη γαρ οδος μακαρων τρηχεια τε πολλον,
   Χαλκοδετοις τα πρωτα διοιγομενη πολεωσιν.
   Ατραπετοι δε εασσιν αθέσφατοι εγγεγαυίαι,
   Ας πρωτοι μερόπων επ' απείρονα πρηξιν εφηναν
   Οι το καλον πινοντες υδωρ Νειλωτίδος αιης
   Πολλας και Φοινικες οδους μακαρων εδαησαν,
   Ασσυριοι Λυδοι τε, και Εβραιων γενος ανδρων.
   But for Εβραιων, in the last line, I read Χαλδαιων, it not being at all reasonable to suppose that an oracle of Apollo would say that the Hebrews knew many paths which led to the knowledge of the Gods. It is probable, therefore, that either Aristobulus the Jew, well known for interpolating the writings of the heathens, or the wicked Eusebius, as he is called by the Emperor Julian, has fraudulently substituted the former word for the latter. The Oracle, with this emendation, will be in English as follows:
   The path by which to deity we climb
   Is arduous, rough, ineffable, sublime;
   And the strong massy gates, through which we pass
   In our first course, are bound with chains of brass.
   Those men the first who of Egyptian birth
   Drank the fair water of Nilotic earth,
   Disclosed by actions infinite this road,
   And many paths to God Phoenicians show'd.
   This road the Assyrians pointed out to view,
   And this the Lydians and Chaldeans knew.
   But when Porphyry says that the Greeks have wandered from the path which leads to divinity, he alludes to their worshipping men as Gods; which, as I have shown in the Introduction to my translation of Proclus On the Theology of Plato, is contrary to the genuine doctrine of the heathen religion; and was the cause of its corruption, and final extinction, among the Greeks and Romans.
7. Odyss. lib. ix. v. 347.
8. Fragments of this work are to be found in Photius. But they are fragments of a treatise or treatises, On Providence, Fate, and Free Will.
9. An adept in the philosophy of Plato will at once be convinced of the truth of this assertion, by comparing what Hierocles has said about prayer in his Commentary On the Golden Verses of the Pythagoreans, with what is said re- specting it by Iamblichus, in his Treatise on the Mysteries; and by Proclus, at the beginning of the second book of his Commentary On the Timæus of Plato. See the Introduction to the second Alcibiades, in Vol. 4. of my translation of Plato, and the Notes to my translation of Maximus Tyrias; in which the reader will find what lamblichus, Proclus, and Hierocles have said on this subject. And that he was not consummately accurate in his knowledge, will be evident by comparing what he says in his above mentioned Commentary, about that middle order of beings denominated the illustrious heroes, with what Iamblichus and Proclus have most admirably unfolded concerning them. And this will still more plainly appear from what he says about the celebrated tetrad, or tetractys of the Pythagoreans, in p. 166, and 170, of the same Commentary. For in both these places, he clearly asserts, that this tetrad is the same with the Demiurgus, or maker of the universe. Thus, in the former of these places και την τετραδα πηγην της αιδιου διακοσμησεως, αποφαινεται την αυτην ουσαν τῳ δημιουργῳ θεῳ. i.e. "And the author of these verses shows that the tetrad, which is the fountain of the perpetual orderly distribution of things, is the same with the God who is the Demiurgus. And in the latter passage, εστι γαρ ως εφαμεν, δημι ουργος των ολων και αιτια η τετρας, θεος νοητος, αιτιος του ουρανιου και αισθητου θεου. i.e. "For as we have said, the tetrad is the Demiurgus and cause of the wholes of the universe, being an intelligible God, the source of the celestial and sensible God." The tetrad, however, or the animal itself, (το αυτωζώον) of Plato; who, as Syrianus justly observes, was the best of the Pythagoreans; subsists at the extremity of the intelligible triad, as is most satisfactorily shown by Proclus in the third book of his Treatise On the Theology, and in the fourth book of his Commentary On the Timæus of Plato. But the Demiurgus, as it is demonstrated by the same incomparable man, in the fifth book of the former of these works, subsists at the extremity of the intellectual triad. And between these two triads another order of Gods exists, which is denominated intelligible, and at the same time intellectual, as partaking of both the extremes. The English reader who has a genius for such speculations, will be convinced of this by diligently perusing my translations of the above mentioned works. Notwithstanding, however, the knowledge of Hierocles was not so consummately accurate on certain most abstruse theological dogmas as that of Iamblichus, Proclus, and Damascius, yet where ethics are concerned, his notions are most correct, most admirable, and sublime.