Political Fragments of Archytas, Charondas, Zaleucus, and Other Ancient Pythagoreans, Preserved by Stobæus

Part 1

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE

Italic text is denoted by underscores.

Footnote anchors are denoted by [number], and the footnotes have been placed at the end of the book.

The Table of Contents was created by the Transcriber and has been placed in front of the Introduction.

Some minor changes to the text are noted at the end of the book.

Political and Ethical Fragments.

POLITICAL FRAGMENTS

ARCHYTAS, CHARONDAS, ZALEUCUS,

AND OTHER

ANCIENT PYTHAGOREANS,

PRESERVED BY STOBÆUS;

AND ALSO,

ETHICAL FRAGMENTS

Hierocles,

THE CELEBRATED COMMENTATOR ON THE GOLDEN PYTHAGORIC VERSES,

PRESERVED BY THE SAME AUTHOR.

TRANSLATED FROM THE GREEK

BY THOMAS TAYLOR.

Αβαπτιστος ειμι φελλος ως υπερ ερκος αλμας. PIND. PYTH. OD. 2. Just like a cork unmerged I keep On the broad barrier of the deep.

Chiswick:

PRINTED BY C. WHITTINGHAM, COLLEGE HOUSE;

FOR THE TRANSLATOR, MANOR PLACE, WALWORTH.

1822.

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION. POLITICAL FRAGMENTS OF THE PYTHAGOREANS. FROM THE TREATISE OF HIPPODAMUS THE THURIAN ON A REPUBLIC. FROM THE TREATISE OF DIOTOGENES ON SANCTITY. FROM THE TREATISE OF ARCHYTAS ON LAW AND JUSTICE. AND IN ANOTHER PART OF THE SAME WORK. IN ANOTHER PART ALSO OF THE SAME WORK. ON THE MUTATIONS OF POLITIES, FROM THE TREATISE OF HIPPODAMUS ON A POLITY. FROM DIOTOGENES IN HIS TREATISE CONCERNING A KINGDOM. AND IN ANOTHER PART OF THE SAME TREATISE. FROM THE TREATISE OF STHENIDAS THE LOCRIAN, ON A KINGDOM. FROM THE TREATISE OF ECPHANTUS, THE CROTONIAN, ON A KINGDOM. AND IN ANOTHER PART OF THE SAME WORK. FROM ARCHYTAS. FROM THE TREATISE OF DIOTOGENES ON SANCTITY. THE PREFACE OF CHARONDAS, THE CATANEAN, TO HIS TREATISE OF LAWS. THE PREFACE OF ZALEUCUS, THE LOCRIAN, TO HIS LAWS. FROM THE TREATISE OF CALLICRATIDAS ON THE FELICITY OF FAMILIES. AND IN ANOTHER PART OF THE SAME WORK. AND AGAIN, IN ANOTHER PART OF THE SAME WORK. FROM THE TREATISE OF PERICTYONE ON THE DUTIES OF A WOMAN. FROM THE TREATISE OF PERICTYONE ON THE HARMONY OF A WOMAN. ON THE REVERENCE DUE TO PARENTS. FROM THE APOPHTHEGMS OF ARISTOXENUS, THE TARENTINE. AND IN THE FOURTH BOOK OF THE SAME WORK. FROM THE TREATISE OF PEMPELUS ON PARENTS. FROM THE TREATISE OF PHINTYS, THE DAUGHTER OF CALLICRATES, ON THE TEMPERANCE OF A WOMAN. ETHICAL FRAGMENTS OF HIEROCLES, HOW WE OUGHT TO CONDUCT OURSELVES TOWARDS THE GODS. HOW WE OUGHT TO CONDUCT OURSELVES TOWARDS OUR COUNTRY. AFTER WHAT MANNER WE OUGHT TO CONDUCT OURSELVES TOWARDS OUR PARENTS. ON FRATERNAL LOVE. ON WEDLOCK. HOW WE OUGHT TO CONDUCT OURSELVES TOWARDS OUR [OTHER] KINDRED. ON ECONOMICS.

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.” 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, however, who, though he was not perhaps so great a verbal critic as Bentley, was certainly a man of more intellect, 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.

Part 2

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, 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 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 (προσεκρουσε τοις Κρατουσι) i.e. the Christians; 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.

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; 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 to the man who has penetrated the depth of these writings, but to the merely verbal critic is a circumstance involved in Cimmerian darkness.

POLITICAL FRAGMENTS

OF THE

PYTHAGOREANS.

FROM THE TREATISE OF HIPPODAMUS THE THURIAN ON A REPUBLIC.

I say that the whole of a polity is divided into three parts. And one part, indeed, consists of good men, who manage the public affairs. But the second part consists of those who are powerful. And the third part is composed of those who are employed in supplying and procuring the necessaries of life. I denominate, however, the first multitude [in a polity] that which consults [for the good of the whole]; the second, that which is auxiliary; and the third, that which pertains to mechanical and sordid occupations. Of these also, I say that the two first belong to those whose condition in life is liberal; but the third, to those who labour to procure subsistence. And of these indeed, that which consults is the best; but that which is employed in sordid occupations is the worst; and that which is auxiliary, is a medium between the two. That which consults likewise [for the general good] ought to govern; but that which is engaged in sordid occupations ought to be governed: and that which is auxiliary ought both to govern and be governed. For that which consults for the general good previously deliberates what ought to be done; but that which is of an auxiliary nature, so far as it is belligerent, rules over the whole of the mechanical tribe; but so far as it antecedently receives counsel from others, is itself governed.

Of these parts, however, each again receives a triple division. For of that which consults, one part presides, another governs, and another counsels for the general good. And with respect to the part which presides, it is that which plans, contrives, and deliberates about what pertains to the community, prior to the other parts, and afterwards refers its counsels to the senate. But the governing part is either that which now rules [for the first time], or which has before performed that office. And with respect to the third part, which consults for the general good, this receives the advice of the parts prior to itself, and confirms by its suffrages and authority whatever is referred to its decision. And, in short, it is requisite that those who preside should refer the affairs of the community to that part which consults for the general good; but that this latter part should refer these affairs through the Prætors to the Convention.

Continue reading Political Fragments of Archytas, Charondas, Zaleucus, and Other Ancient Pythagoreans, Preserved by Stobæus free in the Wunder reader →