This is a review of Leonid Zhmud, Wissenschaft, Philosophie und Religion im frühen Pythagoreismus. Berlin 1997. I strengthen Zhmud's intention to allow Pythagoras a place in early Greek science as against the religious figure Pythagoras is given in Burkert's influential study "Lore and Science". I stress Pythagoras' Samian background, Samos was after all an influential intellectual and technological center in Pythagoras' time.

In ancient tradition, Pythagoras emerges as a wise teacher, an outstanding mathematician, an influential politician, and as a religious and ethical reformer. This volume offers a comprehensive study of Pythagoras, Pythagoreanism, and the early Pythagoreans through an analysis of the many representations of the individual and his followers.

For the first English edition of his distinguished study, Weisheit und Wissenschaft: Studien zu Pythagoras, Philoloas und Platon, Mr. Burkert has extensively ...

Apart from his teachings, wonders and scientific discoveries, Pythagoras was also known for his wide-ranging journeys. Ancient authors alleged that he visited many countries and nations from Egypt to India, stayed with the Phoenicians and the Ethiopians and talked to the Persian Magi and Gallic Druids. However, he never went to the North. If, nevertheless, he was eventually associated with the northern inhabitants, it is only because they themselves came into close contact with him. The first of them was Zalmoxis, (...) a deity of a Thracian tribe, the Getae, who guaranteed them immortality after death. Having described a blood ritual that the Getae practised to become immortal, Herodotus relates a story he heard from the Hellespontine and Pontic Greeks. It goes that Zalmoxis was not adaimōnbut a former slave of Pythagoras on Samos and, having adopted the doctrine of immortality from him, he returned to Thrace and converted his tribesmen to it with a cunning trick. He invited the most prominent of them to a men's hall for entertainment and told them that neither he nor they or their descendants would die, but would live eternally. Then, having constructed a secret underground chamber, he suddenly disappeared from the eyes of the Getae and hid in his shelter for three full years, being lamented as dead. Then he showed himself again to the Getae, thus persuading them of the truth of his promises. (shrink)

This chapter reviews references to Pythagoras by the authors of the pre-Platonic period. It shows that in the course of the fourth century, studies in mathematics, particularly geometry and arithmetic, became a constant element of the tradition of Pythagoras; astronomy and harmonics are less frequently mentioned. Mathematics did not displace metempsychosis and wonders, nor did the tradition of Pythagoras the politician which emerged concurrently with it, yet they did edge them aside, completing the ambivalent, contradictory image of Pythagoras, which was (...) retained by his Neoplatonic biographers and passed from them into modern scholarship. It concludes that Pythagoras the mathematician is as little a product of the Academy as Pythagoras the philosopher. (shrink)

This chapter begins with a description of the history of Pythagorean societies after the death of Pythagoras. It then considers the criteria used by Aristoxenus in compiling his list of Pythagoreans. Compared with those applied in modern works, it is argued that, beyond a critical approach to the sources, we enjoy no special advantages over the first historian of Pythagoreanism. This is followed by a discussion of the prosopography and chronology of the Pythagoreans.

This chapter begins by exploring notions of Shamanism in ancient Greece. It argues that there are no traces of shamanism or its most important component, ecstatic cult practice, either in Pythagoreanism or among the Scythians who supposedly influenced it, even if we assume that shamanism existed at that time. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that the Pythagoreans had any special cult at all. The chapter then considers the historical and religious context of metempsychosis. It addresses the following questions: Was metempsychosis borrowed (...) by the Greeks, and if so from whom? Who in Greece was the first to preach it, the Orphics or Pythagoras, and did any Orphics live in Pythagoras' lifetime? How widespread was it among the Pythagoreans, and how consistent were they in observing the behavioural norms that sprang from it, such as the ban on eating meat? Can Pythagorean metempsychosis be considered an ethical doctrine? Behind each of these questions lies a long history of contradictory interpretations. (shrink)

This paper discusses continuity between ancient Pythagoreanism and the pseudo-Pythagorean writings, which began to appear after the end of the Pythagorean school ca. 350 BC. Relying on a combination of temporal, formal and substantial criteria, I divide Pseudopythagorica into three categories: 1) early Hellenistic writings ascribed to Pythagoras and his family members; 2) philosophical treatises written mostly, yet not exclusively, in pseudo-Doric from the turn of the first century BC under the names of real or fictional Pythagoreans; 3) writings attributed (...) to Pythagoras and his relatives that continued to appear in the late Hellenistic and Imperial periods. I will argue that all three categories of pseudepigrapha contain astonishingly little that is authentically Pythagorean. (shrink)

This introductory chapter focuses on the Pythagorean question, which remains one of the most intricate in the history of early Greek science, philosophy, and religion, and has every chance of being consigned to the category of insoluble problems. It suggests that like any other complex scientific problem, it can be broken down into a number of smaller, particular ones, which may prove amenable to solution. There are many facts on which agreement may be reached; there is also an undoubted hierarchy (...) of interpretations, ranging from those admittedly impossible or unverifiable to those which are more probable and internally consistent. (shrink)

This chapter discusses the Pythagorean ‘symbols’ and their custodians, the mathematici and the acusmatici. The ‘symbols’ are short sayings divided into three kinds according to the question they answer. The first kind answer the question, ‘What is...?’ The second kind answers the question, ‘What is most...?’ The third and most important kind contains precepts and prohibitions. In its application of the ‘symbols’, the following question is addressed: was there in the history of ancient Pythagoreanism a period in which the precepts (...) and taboos they contain were observed to the letter, and, if there was, then what circle of persons was affected? (shrink)

This chapter begins with a discussion of Egyptian and Babylonian influences in Greek astronomy. It considers the development of Pythagorean astronomy before Philolaus. It then focuses on the difficulty of identifying an individual contribution to astronomy by Pythagoras or specific early Pythagoreans. It shows that Alexander relied on Aristotle, who connected with Philolaus neither the harmony of the spheres nor the geocentric model on which it is based. The surviving works of Aristotle actually contain no indication that he associated the (...) harmony of the spheres with Philolaus' system. (shrink)

This chapter begins with a discussion of Greek medicine. In the lifetime of Pythagoras the physicians of Croton enjoyed the greatest renown. The volume of evidence on medicine in Croton allows us to judge its nature and its role in the development of Greek medicine. The discussion then turns to physiology and anatomy, embryology, and botany.

This chapter first considers the estimates of how great the contribution of the Pythagoreans was to Plato's philosophy and how these views diverge substantially, and which vary across the range from ‘decisive’ to ‘insignificant’. It shows that Platonists were characterized by a benevolent attitude to Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans and an interest in their scientific, philosophical, and religious theories. Number doctrine is found in the testimonies of all three Platonists, but there is in them no picture of a Pythagorean philosophy (...) even remotely reminiscent of number doctrine. The Platonists reacted, not to a common Pythagorean doctrine, but to various theories of Pythagoras and his successors: Philolaus, Archytas, Ecphantus and Hicetas, et al. The chapter then considers Aristotle's reports on the Pythagoreans in his surviving works. (shrink)

This chapter explores the kind of community founded by Pythagoras. It considers those types of association which actually existed in Greece in the Archaic and Classical periods. If the Pythagorean community was really a religious association, it should conform to the type of religious association of its time, and not to that of the Qumran community or a Christian monastery. To describe the nature of the society founded by Pythagoras, we may choose from a very small number of variants available (...) for that period: a philosophical school, like those which appeared in the fourth century; a cultic community ; and a sociopolitical association. The chapter shows, first, that none of the features of a religious community is confirmed by reliable evidence. Second, that to apply to the Pythagoreans the term ‘sect’, as developed in the sociology of religion, is methodologically unsound. Third, that the tradition on Pythagorean ‘symbols’, reflected in Anaximander the Younger and Aristotle, mostly bears no relation to the realities of the Pythagorean way of life, while the picture which arose on the basis of that tradition, of acusmatici and mathematici dates from the Imperial period. (shrink)

One of the epithets most frequently applied to Pythagoras in the majority of popular books, as well as many scholarly works, is ‘legendary’ or ‘semi-legendary’. In the tradition on Pythagoras it is true that from the very beginning facts have been interwoven with fantastic invention, but it is not too difficult to separate the two. Extracting the real events in his life from information which appears to be quite plausible is much more difficult. This is where we encounter the greatest (...) number of controversies, though these occur, of course, in the biographies of any of the Presocratics, and Pythagoras is no exception. Moreover, we have far more reliable information about his life than about any other philosopher of the sixth century, be it Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, or Xenophanes. The reason is evident: Pythagoras was spoken of and written about much more often. His great fame had the twin effects of making his name the focus of legends, which multiplied over the centuries, and of preserving the memory of the historical events of his time. This chapter begins with a discussion of the main sources of biographical information on Pythagoras. It then details his life on Samos and his travels outside Greece. (shrink)

This chapter begins with a discussion of Pythagoras and the science of music. The fundamental principles of Greek musical theory were taken up and developed by European musicologists. Three basic elements of that theory which the ancient tradition linked with Pythagoras continue to be associated with his name: the mathematical treatment of music; the doctrine of a musical ethos, or the psychagogic and educative effects of music; and the famous ‘harmony of the spheres’ generated by the movement of the heavenly (...) bodies. The discussion then turns to the basic principles of correspondence between sounds and numbers adopted in Pythagorean harmonics, and acoustic experiments described in the ancient literature of musical theory. (shrink)

This chapter turns from Pythagorean religion to Pythagorean science, primarily to mathematics. It shows that the similarities between Oriental calculations and Greek geometry are delusory, while others are perceived only by someone raised on the analytical geometry of Descartes and capable of translating Babylonian problems into the language of geometrical theorems. It then considers the systematic application of deductive proof, which was the most important factor in the formation in ancient Greece of theoretical mathematics on an axiomatic basis. This is (...) followed by a discussion of Pythagoras' mathematics in fourth-century testimonies, Pythagoras as a mathematician, and Hippasus and Pythagorean mathematics of the first half of the fifth century. (shrink)

ZHMUD. L. (2012). Pythagoras and the Early Pythagoreans. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

This chapter discusses how all the Pythagorean theories of the soul known to us are different. Only Simmias and Echecrates, the pupils of Philolaus, held identical views. The similarity among some of these theories can sometimes be explained by direct influence, but most often by the fact that many Pythagoreans shared the interpretation of the soul as the source of motion, which was the most widespread view amongst the Presocratics. It is also shown that there is neither a clear formulation (...) of number doctrine, nor tangible examples of it, in ancient Pythagoreanism. It transpires that the theory which was taken to be the essence of Pythagorean philosophy, a theory backed by the authority of Aristotle as the source and as a historian of philosophy, is, like many other elements of the ancient tradition about the Pythagoreans, a retrospective projection. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Plato and Pythagoreanism by Phillip Sidney HorkyGabriele CornelliPhillip Sidney Horky. Plato and Pythagoreanism. Oxford University Press, 2013. xxi + 305 pp. Cloth, $74.Ceci n’est pas un livre sur Pythagore. With these clever and rather playful words, Horky’s book starts its literary journey through a wide range of Pythagorean sources, including Epicharmus, Empedocles, Philolaus, Eurytus and Arquitas, and Pythagorean themes, like numbers, immortality of the soul, limitness/unlimitness, among others.From (...) this explosive incipit, one would think that Horky agrees with Kahn’s almost forty-year-old observation about the fact that new theories of Pythagoreanism are not necessary in our present day and age (1974, 163, n. 6):It’s hard enough to satisfy minimal standards of historical rigor in discussing the Pythagoreans, without introducing arbitrary guesswork of this sort where no two students can come to the same conclusion on the basis of the same evidence. In fact, the direct testimony for Pythagorean doctrines is all too abundant. The task for a serious scholarship is not to enrich these data by inventing new theories or unattested stages of development but to sift the evidence so as to determine which items are most worthy (or least unworthy) of belief.On the contrary, however, Horky’s approach seems surprisingly to direct the reader towards a fundamentally historiographical rather than philological brand of work, that is, one devoted neither exclusively to the exegesis of Pythagorean sources nor even to the theoretical approach of one of the themes that received specific contributions from Pythagoreanism, such as mathematics, cosmology, politics, or the theory of the immortal soul. This is mainly true when one recognizes, from the title on, that the main goal of the book is to try to determine, once and for all, what is the extent of Pythagorean influence on Plato’s thought. Rather an historiographical problem, I would say. And a good one.In order to do so, Horky needs to trace down a sort of history of mathematical Pythagoreanism from a huge variety of informed ancient sources and perspectives. Horky’s approach to the sources is well-grounded, not only in Burkert’s fundamental works, but also in the recent revival in Pythagorean studies which took over ancient philosophy scholarship in the last two decades: Huffmann’s works on Philolaus (1993) and Arquitas (2005); Zhmud (1997) and Kahn (2001) on early Pythagoreans; Riedweg on Pythagoras (2002), among many others. After the publishing of Horky’s book, two sorts of Companions to Pythagoreanism confirm the trend of the revival: Cornelli, McKirahan, and Macris (2013), acts of the On Pythagoreanism seminar held in Brasilia by Archai [End Page 353] UNESCO Chair, and Huffman (2014). Luckily, Pythagorean scholarship has now gotten rid of that old-fashioned scepticism, starting from Zeller’s famous statement that the relevant sources are a “mixture of fables and poetry.” As Horky’s book seems to suggest, the job can be done. And he has definitely proved to be able to force his way through, with both clear philological arguments and refined historiographical hypotheses.Not surprisingly, a work on Plato and Pythagoreanism starts with a chapter on Aristotle: “Aristotle on Mathematical Pythagoreanism in the Fourth Century BCE” (chap. 1). The idea of the chapter is to rely on Aristotle’s distinction between the mathematical and acousmatic branches of Pythagoreanism. While acousmatic Pythagoreans supposedly did not engage in demonstration, the so-called mathematical Pythagoreans engaged in investigations based on mathemata in order to give an account (the reason why of the world they perceived). Horky seems to drive Aristotle’s account to a specific goal: mathematical Pythagoreans would have established some kind of correspondence between numbers and sensibles, and their ontology would have a direct relation to social and political organization.Chapter 2, “Hippasus of Metapontum and Mathematical Pythagoreanism,” is entirely dedicated to the account of the later doxographical tradition on Hippasus, the alleged progenitor of mathematical Pythagoreanism. Avoiding the risk of falling into the “bottomless pit” of research on the Pythagoreans—in Guthrie’s famous words (1962, 146, n. 1)—Horky manages his inquiry boldly and in a quite elegant way. Between the peripatetic systematization and the platonic derivation of Hippasus’ philosophy, Hippasus... (shrink)

Kahn tries to do justice to the contribution Pythagoras and his followers might have had for Greek science. Thus he downplays the religious figure so prominent with Burkert's groundbreaking study "Lore and Science". He sees the transformation Pythagorean ideas may have undergone in Plato's Academy as pivotal for the developments of Pythagoreanism in later antiquity as well as in Renaissance speculation, e. g. Kepler. The book offers a good overview for the history of Pythagoreanism from its founder to modern times.

This book is the scholarly & fully annotated edition of the award-winning _The Illustrated To Think Like God.__ _To Think Like God_ focuses on the emergence of philosophy as a speculative science, tracing its origins to the Greek colonies of Southern Italy, from the late 6th century to mid-5th century B.C. Special attention is paid to the sage Pythagoras and his movement, the poet Xenophanes of Colophon, and the lawmaker Parmenides of Elea. In their own ways, each thinker held that (...) true insight, whether as wisdom or certainty, belonged not to mortal human beings but to the gods. The Pythagoreans sought to approach this otherwordly knowledge by studying numerical relationships, believing them to govern the universe, and that those who know the number of a thing know its true nature. Yet their quest was a hopeless one, bogged down by cultism, numerology, political conspiracies, bloody uprisings, and exile. Above all, number did not turn out as the most reliable of mediums; it was certainly not a key to the realm of the divine. Thus, their contributions to philosophy's inception, while much better-publicized, was not the most significant. That particular role was reserved for an unusual challenge and the elaborate reaction it provoked. The challenge came from Xenophanes, who had argued that reliable truth was beyond mortal reach, because even if by accident a human being should state what is exactly the case, he had no way of knowing that he did, all things being susceptible to opinion. This dilemma is sure to have bothered a legislative mind like that of Parmenides, and we find him introducing techniques for testing the veracity of statements. These methods were meant to be carried out by reasoning and argument alone, without relying in physical evidence or mortal sense-perception, which was deemed untrustworthy. Reason was that one faculty shared by gods and humans alike. In time, Parmenides' ingenious arguments have earned him the titled of the first logician and metaphysician whose influence on subsequent thinkers was immeasurable. Parmenides taught us that philosophy was not about claims but about proof, which also makes him the father of theoretical science -- which, curiously, began as a quest into the mind of God. "Arnold Hermann makes a genuine contribution to Presocratics studies. This book, which is both an introduction to Pythagoras and Parmenides and a scholarly study, will interest novices and experts alike. Hermann's multi-leveled approach and his careful analyses of alternate views make his work a useful teaching tool, while his systematic inquiry into Pythagoreanism, the poem of Parmenides, and the development of early Greek thought will well repay the attention of scholars. — Patricia Curd_,_ _Purdue University_ "_To Think Like God_ is a highly ambitious book... Hermann's approach deserves to be taken seriously as an alternative to standard interpretations." — Richard D. McKirahan, Jr.,___ __Edwin Clarence Norton Professor of Classics and Professor of Philosophy, Pomona College_ "Arnold Hermann brings fresh life into the specialists' debates... a blow of wind that dissipates much fog." — Walter Burkert_, Professor Emeritus of Classical Philology, University of Zurich_ ARNOLD HERMANN_ is pursuing independent research on the origins of philosophy and methods of thinking. He specialices on subjects connected with Parmenides and Plato's _Parmenides._. (shrink)

Fascinating illustrations contribute to this illuminating and award-winning account of how and why philosophy emerged and make it a must-read for any inquisitive thinker unsatisfied with prevailing assumptions on this timely and highly relevant subject._ By taking the reader back to the Greek colonies of Southern Italy more than 500 years B.C., the author, with unparalleled insight, tells the story of the Pythagorean quest for otherwordly konwledge -- a tale of cultism, political conspiracies, and bloody uprisings that eventually culminate in (...) tragic failure. The emerging hero is Parmenides, who introduces for the first time a technique for testing the truth of a statement that was not based on physical evidence or mortal sense-perception, but instead relied exclusively on the faculty we humans share with the gods: the ability to reason. "Figures from Anaximander to Zeno, the ruins where they lived and thought, and the paradoxes and thought-experiments they proposed are depicted among the [many] well-chosen color illustrations. The results read like an introductory textbook, but one that has been lovingly written, lavishly laid-out and crisply printed-- making it engaging enough to draw in readers to whom it has not been assigned." - _ Publishers Weekly___ "_To Think Like God_ is a highly ambitious book... Hermann's approach deserves to be taken seriously as an alternative to standard interpretations." - _ Richard D. McKirahan, Jr., Edwin Clarence Norton Professor of Classics and Professor of Philosophy, Pomona College___ "Arnold Hermann brings fresh life into the specialists' debates... a blow of wind that dissipates much fog." - _ Walter Burkert, Professor Emeritus of Classical Philology, University of Zurich___ ARNOLD HERMANN_ is pursuing independent research on the origins of philosophy and methods of thinking. He specialices on subjects connected with Parmenides and Plato's _Parmenides._. (shrink)

At Metaphysics A 5 986a22-b2, Aristotle refers to a Pythagorean table, with two columns of paired opposites. I argue that 1) although Burkert and Zhmud have argued otherwise, there is sufficient textual evidence to indicate that the table, or one much like it, is indeed of Pythagorean origin; 2) research in structural anthropology indicates that the tables are a formalization of arrays of “symbolic classification” which express a pre-scientific world view with social and ethical implications, according to which the presence (...) of a principle on one column of the table will carry with it another principle within the same column; 3) a close analysis of Aristotle's arguments shows that he thought that the table expresses real causal relationships; and 4) Aristotle faults the table of opposites with positing its principles as having universal application and with not distinguishing between those principles that are causally prior and those that are posterior. Aristotle's account of scientific explanation and his own explanations that he developed in accordance with this account are in part the result of his critical encounter with this prescientific Pythagorean table. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:86 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY lamblichi Chalcidensis ex Coele-Syria de vita Pythagorica liber, lamblichos, Pythagoras. Legende--Lehre---Lebensgestaltung. Griechisch und Deutsch, herausgegeben, iibersetzt und eingeleitet von Michael yon Albrecht. (Ziirich & Stuttgart: Artemis, 1963. Pp. 280. = Die Bibliothek der Alten Welt, Reihe Antike und Christentum.) The present edition and translation again makes available one of the texts most valuable for the understanding of the world of late antiquity. The earlier editions, (...) especially that of L. Deubner (1937), are out of print. The fact that this document has been translated into German for the first time is also very helpful, since Iamblichos is sometimes difficult to understand. A brief but nevertheless informative introduction rightly emphasizes that Iamblichos intended to present an introduction and initiation into the Pythagorean way of life rather than a biography of Pythagoras based upon historically trustworthy materials. Although the biography of Pythagoras is certainly a part of the book, it serves only as the ideal example of the Pythagorean way of life, as Iaznblichos sees it. However, more than merely a work of Iamblichos, it ought to be recognized as a "fundamental document of the image of man in later antiquity" (p. 11). The text is based upon L. Deubner's edition, but occasionally it takes up older conjectures or returns to the tradition (for a more detailed discussion cf. W. Burkert, Gnomon 37, 1965, 24ff.). The index and the explanatory notes are also helpful, although the latter prove to be too brief and do not adequately call the reader's attention to the problems of sources, tradition, and composition. One can only agree with von Albrecht that we still need a modem commentary (p. I1). H. D. BETZ Claremont, CaliIornia Agrippa and the Crisis o] Renaissance Thought. By Charles G. Nauert, Jr. (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1965. Pp. vi W 374. $8.00.) One of the most influential and widely read thinkers of the early sixteenth century was the German Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa von Nettisheim (1486-1535). His many works were reprinted often, as well as being translated into several vernacular languages. The De incertitudine et vanitate omnium scientiarum et atrium of 1526, for example, went through at least 16 printings before 1700 and appeared in Italian (1547), English (1569), French (1582), and Dutch (1651) translations, which were themselves often reprinted. Although interest in Agrippa has waned somewhat since the seventeenth century, there is still a significant amount of scholarly debate regarding his importance and the meaning of his writings. Professor Nauert's monograph is the fruit of many years' study of Agrippa's life, thought, and milieu. In it he clearly places Agrippa in his historical context, accurately sketching his background and influence. After a brief introduction (pp. 1-7), the study is essentially divided into two parts: The first (pp. 8-115) traces Agrippa's life and intellectual development, the second (pp. 116-334) discusses in some detail a number of the key themes developed in his writings. There is also a substantial bibliography (pp. 335-,355) and a quite complete and accurate index (pp. 357-374). Although the mass of material which Nanert brings to our attention indicates the opposite, one sometimes gets the impression that the author tends to underestimate the importance of his subject. For example, he says, "Agrippa von Nettisheim is now a forgotten figure in the intellectual history of the West" (p. 322), but this does not seem to be the case. Although much work remains to be done, at least five books have been devoted to Agrippa in the past half century and, indeed, at least seven articles have appeared in the past ten years on one or another aspect of his life and thought. The very fact that Nanert can argue with so much vigor against the views of contemporary scholars like Lynn Thomdike and Paola Zambelli indicates that it is anything but a dead issue. As it is, Nauert's book clearly and accurately describes Agrippa's place in the intellectual ambiance of the sixteenth century. It gives the first detailed analysis of Agrippa's life and thought in English in recent BOOK REVIEWS 87 times and is the first full*scale attempt to exhaustively treat... (shrink)

I contend that “philosophos” is meant to carry the connotation of a Pythagorean: Euenus is a native from Paros which had a strong Pythagorean community down to the end of the fifth century. Moreover, “philosophos” was used to refer to the Pythagoreans, as can be seen from the story related by Cicero from Heraclides Ponticus (Tusc. Disp. V, iii, 7-8; cp. DL, 1.12; 8.8). I argue (against Burkert) that even if this story is part of the lore surrounding Pythagoras and, (...) hence, without historical value as for Pythagoras, it may still be used as evidence for the use of “philosophos” among latter-day Pythagoreans. (shrink)

The present work is an excellent translation of Walter Burkert’s Weisheit und Wissenschaft: Studien zu Pythagoras, Philolaus, und Platon, first published in 1962. It is very probably the most illuminating and comprehensive study of Pythagoreanism yet produced by a modern scholar. Obviously Pythagoreanism is a protean historical phenomenon, equally mysterious both in its origin and development, and in all epochs its interpretation has indicated as much about the winds of cultural doctrine as about the nature of Pythagoreanism itself. Burkert’s study (...) is the product of an astonishingly thorough penetration of all the relevant ancient evidence and all the critically significant modern literature, and it evinces the author’s remarkable ability to weave the diverse threads of Pythagoreanism into a comprehensible historical picture. (shrink)

The theme of this work is most simply stated by recalling the question that reputedly vexed the auditors of Plato's lecture on the Good—what does the Good have to do with mathematics? or, what is wisdom that it unites knowledge of nature and knowledge of political matters? Burkert hopes to throw light on this question through philological and historical investigations of sources and events bearing on Pythagoras, his pupil Philolaos and Plato. The book will be considered an important contribution to (...) philological studies of Pythagoras. In view of the author's documentation and thoroughness, it should also prove helpful to those interested in classical mathematics and the mathematical sciences, such as music and astronomy, and their relation to philosophy.—H. C. (shrink)

This essay considers the origins of the arithmological genre, the first specimen of which was an anonymous Neopythagorean treatise of the first century BCE. Arithmology as a special genre of philosophical writings dealing with the properties of the first ten numbers should be distinguished from number symbolism, which is a universal cultural phenomenon related to individual significant numbers. As our analysis shows, the philosophical foundations of arithmology were laid down in the treatise of Plato’s successor Speusippus On Pythagorean Numbers, who (...) relied on the Platonic doctrine of the ten ideal numbers, whereas in ancient Pythagoreanism arithmological notions, unlike number symbolism, are not attested. In the first century BCE, an epoch of revival of Platonism and Aristotelianism, Speusippus’ ideas received a second birth, thus marking the beginning of arithmology as a popular genre. (shrink)

History of religion, in its beginnings, had to struggle to emancipate itself from classical mythology as well as from theology and philosophy; when ritual was finally found to be the basic fact in religious tradition, the result was a divorce between classicists, treating mythology as a literary device, on the one hand, and specialists in festivals and rituals and their obscure affiliations and origins on the other.

Philosophy up to now is bound to a chain of tradition that starts with Greek texts about 2,400 years ago: the works of Plato and Aristotle have been studied continuously since then; they were transmitted to Persians and Arabs and back to Europe and are still found in every philosophical library. Plato, in turn, was not an absolute beginning; he read and criticized Heraclitus, Parmenides, Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Protagoras, and other sophists; Aristotle read and criticized Plato and everything else he could (...) find, up to Anaximander. Even if philosophy is anything but certain about its own identity, the definition of philosophy is inseparably bound to the Greek fundaments. Nobody has been able to reinvent philosophy because it has always been there. (shrink)