Early Pythagoreanism

Wissenschaft, Philosophie und Religion im frühen Pythagoreismus by L. Zhmud

Review by: Matthew P. J. Dillon
Source: The Classical Review, New Series, Vol. 49, No. 1 (1999), pp. 102-104
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/713902
Accessed: 08-08-2014 11:42 UTC

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 129.180.1.217 on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 11:42:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
102 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

decline, and his exposition of the innovative nature of some literary developments in
Byzantium (such as the CorpusIuris Civilis, the kontakion, and historiography as well
as works in the vernacular like the romance Digenes Akrites and the Ptochoprodromic
poems) is reassuring, but the very structure of the volume mitigates against the
assumption that Byzantine literatureis anything more than an appendage. Aerts is to
be praised for the skill with which he has managed to cover essential developments
without turning the survey into a mere list of names and works, and it would be
captious to point out that he has omitted a discussion of the legal, military, scientific,
and medical works, which the Byzantines would themselves have classed as literary
texts (cf. H. Hunger, Die hochsprachlicheprofane Literatur der Byzantiner [Munich,
1978], esp. ii.428-80, where Pieler discusses post-Justinianic legal texts in-depth), the
Late Antique equivalents of which are covered in the appropriate chapters in this
volume, as well as coming close to omitting entirely the important genre of
epistolography (p. 647). However, the Byzantine scholar will have much to gain from
this volume as an aid in contextualizing the background to Byzantine literatureand its
heritage, and the reader who wishes for more detailed discussion of Byzantine works
is advised to await the publication of Alexander Kazhdan'sposthumous multi-volume
History of Byzantine Literature.
This is an excellent volume for both the general reader and, to an extent, the
scholar, but it fails to come to terms with the definition of the distinction between Late
Antiquity and Byzantium. The OxfordDictionary of Byzantium(Oxford, 1991) ii.1235
defines Byzantine literature as written between the early fourth and mid-fifteenth
centuries, and for the early period (fourth to mid-seventh centuries) includes works in
Greek, Latin, and Syriac, as well as noting that traditionally the place of creation can
be as far apart as Arab Syria and Norman Italy: hence, by this definition, much of the
volume deals with things Byzantine. Accordingly, in a series dealing with a vast survey
of world literature,it might have been more accurate to define the whole collection as
dealing with Late Antique and Byzantine literature and more realistic to have given
more weight to the middle and late Byzantine periods and the forces that shaped their
literary development.
Universityof New England,Australia LYNDA GARLAND

EARLY PYTHAGOREANISM
L. ZHMUD: Wissenschaft,Philosophieund Religion im frfihen
Pythagoreismus.Pp. 313. Berlin:Akademie, 1997. Cased, DM 168.
ISBN:3-05-003090-9.
Zhmud provides a comprehensive and thorough examination of various aspects
of early Pythagoreanism, which is useful for the specialist and non-specialist alike.
His treatment discusses the sources for Pythagoras and Pythagoreanism, Pythagoras'
departure from Samos (where I did not notice a specific reference to Apollodorus, F.
Jacoby, FGrHist 244 F 338d, 339), his travels and teachings, Pythagorean religion,
mathematics, music, astronomy, medicine, and philosophy, and questions concerning
Pythagoreanism's relationship to 'Orphism' (if there was such a thing, as Z. argues
there was).
Any discussion of early Pythagoreanism must take as an initial point of departure
the vexed problem of the sources for Pythagoras and his teachings, and Z. does so
(pp. 45-9). Of course, it is the familiar problem which confronts us in dealing with the
? OxfordUniversityPress, 1999

This content downloaded from 129.180.1.217 on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 11:42:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 103

ancient world. The sources for Pythagorasbecome more informativethe more

chronologicallyremovedtheyarefromthe latesixthcentury.Scantcontemporaryand
near-contemporarysourceswere alreadybeing heavilysupplementedin the fourth
century (see p. 45). Given this, in the section devoted to the sources the little
informationpreservedby Xenophanescouldperhapshavebeen privileged,and the
sametoo couldbe said of Empedokles,thoughboth featurelaterin the discussionof
metempsychosis (pp. 117-28).
Whilemuchof the materialin Iamblichus'OnthePythagorean Lifeis demonstrably
late-and some of it influenced and tainted by pagan versions of Christian
practice-clearlyIamblichusis drawingon earliersources(particularly Aristotleand
Aristoxenus),and the section on this author,and also that on Porphyry,neededto
havebeen more analytical(pp. 48-9). A methodologyfor usingthis material,and a
detailedevaluationof it, seemsnecessary,especiallysinceZ. usesit in discussingearly
Pythagoreanism.
As Z. correctly argues, metempsychosisis a Pythagoreandoctrine that can
definitelybe assignedto earlyPythagoreanism, and judgingfromXenophaneswas,
arguably,the most novel of Pythagoras'doctrines,even more so than (the related)
vegetarianism.Xenophanes,his near contemporary,refersto Pythagorasclaiming
thata certainpuppyhad the psycheof someonePythagorasonceknew(H. Diels,Die
FragmentederVorsokratiker [Berlin,1961],no. 21 B7 p. 131;Z.'sreferenceto 22 B7 on
p. 117needscorrecting).The sectionon metempsychosis includesa usefuldiscussion
(pp. 119-20) on the relationshipof this idea to Orphismand the threeOrphicgraffiti
on tablets from Olbia, on one of which appearthe words aot)a - ~bvxrj, and on
another,f1ios- Oavaros- f]loS. These words, along with Plato Cratylus400c, as
Z. argues, indicate that the Orphics, like Pythagoras,believed in a form of
metempsychosis.Here as elsewhereZ. providesa sensiblediscussion.Empedokles'
own positionon this is referredto, but withoutparticularattentionto two important
fragments(Diels 31 B117 p. 359:a personmightalreadyhavebeen a boy,girl, bush,
bird,or fish, and Diels 31 B137 p. 367:a fatherwill sacrificehis dead son, who has
takenon a new shape,if he makesblood offerings).Whileall this soundsremarkable,
not every Pythagoreanacceptedvegetarianismor metempsychosis. This means,of
course,that the rejectionof the religiouslife of thepoliswhichmightseemimplicitin
Pythagoreanism-after all, the blood sacrificewas essential to public cult and
ritual-would not havebeenas extensiveas it seems.
The Pythagoreanattentionto numbersis well known, and Z. arguesthat while
it has been suggestedthat early Pythagoreanismwas not 'scientific',this was in
fact not the case.The sectionson mathematicsare assistedby severaldiagramsand
mathematicalformulae.Whilemuch of this 'scientific'materialhas been frequently
discussedin the past, thesesectionsareneverthelessuseful,especiallythe one dealing
withmedicine.
One featurethat will be usefulfor the Greeklessreaderis the translation(usually
withoutthe Greektext)of someof the fragmentsfromwritersaboutPythagorasand
Pythagoreanism, suchas Anaxagoras(p. 51),but otherreaderswillneedto keepDiels
andWehrlibeforethem.A full referenceto the editionof the fragmentsof an author
wasnot alwaysgiven,as in the translationof a passageof Anaxagorasjust referredto,
which is given as simply 'fr. 16'. This is to F. Wehrli'sedition (Die Schuledes
Aristoteles,ii, 2nd edn [Basel,1967],p. 12), ratherthan Diels, and whilewhen Z. is
usingDiels thisis madeclearby citationsrecognizably fromDiels (e.g.whencitingon
p.41 a passageof Democritusas 68 A33), perhapsfor those less familiarwithWehrli
and Diels (whichmust includeat least some of the audiencefor this book giventhe

This content downloaded from 129.180.1.217 on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 11:42:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
104 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

number of translations into German of Greek passages from ancient authors

edited
by Diels and Wehrli), the citations could have been made a little easier to
recognize.
The only index is a
'Namenregister', which makes it difficult for the reader to look
for discussions of specific Pythagorean concepts, such as
vegetarianism, the
Pythagorean attitude toward beans, and women's participation in Pythagoreanism, as
well as 'moral' points such as his own reported attitudes to
concubinage and sexual
'morality' (see Diog. Laert. 8.43; Iambl. VP 55, 132, 195, cf. 48; Hieronymus F42
Wehrli,x [Basel, 1969], p. 19). A list, however brief, of the fragments of
Pythagorean
writersthat are discussed, and significant passages in Plato and
Aristotle, would have
beenvery useful. The bibliographyis full and serves as an ample
guide to the literature
on this subject.
Thesections on the sources, Pythagoras on Samos, and religion are
useful, but the
strengthof the book lies in the discussion of Pythagorean science. Z. is much less
interestedin the 'social consequences' of Pythagoreanism, such as the existence of
the
Pythagorikai,Pythagorean women (see p. 114, where the references are to Diels, but
couldbe to R. Kassel and C. Austin, Poetae Comici Graeci[Berlin,
1983-]: ii, Alexis
F201-3; iv, Cratinus [Junior]F6). This book will be useful to those who need a
good
introductionto Pythagoreanism.
Butthere is also much detailed material which is well
presented,organized, and lucidly written, and this will be important to those
working
in this field of study. Z. shows a good grasp of previous
literature, and argues
coherentlyfor his interpretations.This book easily joins the ranks of those that have
tobe consulted in any study of Pythagoreanism.
University of New England,Australia MATTHEW P. J. DILLON

SOPHISTIC THOUGHT
K.F. HOFFMANN: Das Rechtim DenkenderSophistik.(Beitragezur
104.) Pp. x + 469. Stuttgartand Leipzig: B. G.
Altertumskunde,
1997.Cased.ISBN:3-519-07653-5.
Teubner,
Hoffmannbegins this revised 1996 Cologne dissertation by noting that the
image
ofthe sophists has been rehabilitated over the last century from
charlatans (H.
Sidgwick)to professors (J. de Romilly). Some readers may wonder whether this is an
improvement in status, but the remark indicates that H. will endeavor to find
positive
ideasin their works. His focus is 'Recht', a word and concept
virtually impossible to
translate into English (or any other language, including Greek). Recht is 'law'
(ius not
lex),but there is relatively little about
law per se, and 'right', but moral philosophy is
onlya small part of the work, and 'justice', but justice (to dikaion)
'Gerechtigkeit'
alsoplays a small role. To capture the full sense of this work, we might translate the
title,
'Moral, Social and Political Aspects of Sophistic Thought'.
Thefirst eight chapters examine texts: (1) Protagoras' Man-Measure statement and
hisGreat Speech in Protagoras;(2) Thrasymachus, primarily on the basis of
Republic
I;(3)Polus and Callicles in Gorgias;(4) Hippias in Plato and Xenophon; (5)
Antiphon
theSophist; (6) the Sisyphus Fragment (more likely by Critias than
Euripides);
(7)AnonymusIamblichi; and (8) Dissoi Logoi. Throughout H. emphasizes the
practical orientation and empirical approach of all the sophists, though these did
notlead them to any doctrinal unity. The concluding chapter summarizes the results
topically;the eight headings give a further idea what H. understands by Recht:
Truth and Relativism, Advantage ('Nutzen'), Contract Theory,
cktvats,v6pxos,$&K:aov,
?Oxford
UniversityPress, 1999

This content downloaded from 129.180.1.217 on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 11:42:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions