Note 737 — Chapter XXXVII · IONIC PHILOSOPHERS. — PYTHAGORAS. — KROTON AND SYBARIS.

I transcribe here the summary given by Krische, at the close of his Dissertation on the Pythagorean order, p. 101: “Societatis scopus fuit mere politicus, ut lapsam optimatium potestatem non modo in pristinum restitueret, sed firmaret amplificaretque: cum summo hoc scopo duo conjuncti fuerunt; moralis alter, alter ad literas spectans. Discipulos suos bonos probosque homines reddere voluit Pythagoras, et ut civitatem moderantes potestate suâ non abuterentur ad plebem opprimendam; et ut plebs, intelligens suis commodis consuli, conditione suâ contenta esset. Quoniam vero bonum sapiensque moderamen nisi a prudente literisque exculto viro exspectari (non) licet, philosophiæ studium necessarium duxit Samius iis, qui ad civitatis clavum tenendum se accingerent.”

This is the general view (coinciding substantially with that of O. Müller,—Dorians, iii, 9, 16) given by an author who has gone through the evidences with care and learning. It differs on some important points from the idea which I conceive of the primitive master and his contemporary brethren. It leaves out the religious ascendency, which I imagine to have stood first among the means as well as among the premeditated purposes of Pythagoras, and sets forth a reformatory political scheme as directly contemplated by him, of which there is no proof. Though the political ascendency of the early Pythagoreans is the most prominent feature in their early history, it is not to be considered as the manifestation of any peculiar or settled political idea,—it is rather a result of their position and means of union. Ritter observes, in my opinion more justly: “We must not believe that the mysteries of the Pythagorean order were of a simply political character: the most probable accounts warrant us in considering that its central point was a mystic religious teaching,” (Geschicht. der Philosophie, b. iv, ch. i, vol. i, pp. 365-368:) compare Hoeck. Kreta, vol. iii, p. 223.

Krische (p. 32) as well as Boeckh (Philolaus, pp. 39-42) and O. Müller assimilate the Pythagorean life to the Dorian or Spartan habits, and call the Pythagorean philosophy the expression of Grecian Dorism, as opposed to the Ionians and the Ionic philosophy. I confess that I perceive no analogy between the two, either in action or speculation. The Spartans stand completely distinct from other Dorians; and even the Spartan habits of life, though they present some points of resemblance with the bodily training of the Pythagoreans, exhibit still more important points of difference, in respect to religious peculiarity and mysticism, as well as to scientific element embodied with it. The Pythagorean philosophy, and the Eleatic philosophy, were both equally opposed to the Ionic; yet neither of them is in any way connected with Dorian tendencies. Neither Elea nor Kroton were Doric cities; moreover, Xenophanês as well as Pythagoras were both Ionians.

The general assertions respecting Ionic mobility and inconstancy, contrasted with Doric constancy and steadiness, will not be found borne out by a study of facts. The Dorism of Pythagoras appears to me a complete fancy. O. Müller even turns Kroton into a Dorian city, contrary to all evidence.