Pythagoras on individual differences and the authoritarian principle

WA OLDPATHER, Pythagoras on individual differences and the authorita-| rian principle : CJ 1938 XXXIII 537-539. | L'Anonymus Byzantinus, x,3,| reflète la théorie pythagoricienne des differences. individuelles, sur laquelle se fonde sa réaction contre la démocratie, ° \33 OLDFATMER W À. Rots ‘A+ [All contributions in the form of notes for this department should be sent directly to Roy C. Flickinger, State University of Iowa, Iowa City, Ia.) PYTHAGORAS ON INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES AND THE AUTHORITARIAN PRINCIPLE In the Anonymus Byzantinus, an important but neglected military treatise from the age of Justinian, which has never been published but once! but will soon appear in a new critical edition prepared by Dr. T. H. Erck, section 10 of Chapter 3 runs as follows: Those who have devoted themselves to the sciences and the arts ought to have a natural talent for the object of their study. For it is possible that a man who feels at home in one subject may feel differently in another; and for that reason, as we are told, Pythagoras also first thoroughly examined (6epexrmpevrov) the natural talents of his pupils, and then assigned (r&rrew) them the subjects they were to study (rà naßnuara). This is clearly a paraphrased doctrine, or echo, and not at all an actual fragment, as the use of örepewvär, which is not attested before Plato, makes abundantly evident. The paéjyara (subjects of study) and lore about them are notoriously characteristic of the Pythagoreans (cf. the comments of Heraclitus, Frgs. 40 and 129), while derivatives of rárrew (assign) appear in Philolaus and the older Pythagoreans, and the idea of an orderly arrangement which the word implies is most appropriate to the thought of the man who is reputed to have been the first to call the heavens xbopos. Since the passage is not included in either Zeller, or Diels (not even in the admirable fifth edition by Walther K:anz), it might be called in a sense “new,” although Diels in the Preface 1 Cf. H. Köchly und W. Rüstow, Griechische Kriegsschrifisieller: Leipzig, Teubner (1855), u, 2.

THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL NOTES without somebody supervising 539 to his first edition made clear, and in that to the third underscored, prosper him” (Aristoxenus, the fact that in sections A (Lehre) and C (Anklang) completeness was not even aimed at, but only das Westentliche und Alte, so that in Jamblichus, Vite Pythag. 175) ; and the maxims: “They said that this may be a part of the tradition which seemed to Diels not rulers should be not merely competent but also benevolent, and even worth recording. that subjects should not merely be obedient, but should also love HOvdayopıkal dmopaces, in Stobaeus rv, 1, 40 H., repeated verbatim It has, however, to my mind, not merely points of close contact their rulers” (Iamblichus, 175); as well as: “For neither household with other Pythagorean doctrine, as remarked above, but espenor state would ever be well managed without a real ruler who cially with the problem of individual differences, which is still voluntarily exercises the functions of his position of authority acute enough among geneticists in fascist and communist counand oversight. For both parties ought to desire the supervision, tries to have broken up a planned World Congress in Moscow the ruler as well as the subjects,” etc. (183); and: “It is folly to only a year ago. Since Pythagoras was the founder of the very pay attention to any and everybody’s opinion, and especially theory of aristocracy and a chief mover in the oligarchic reaction that of common people; for a correct understanding and judgment against democracy, an emphasis upon the profound and innate, are granted to but few. Now it is clear that this is the case with or hereditary, differences of men, even among his own followers, must have been one of the few first principles of his social and those who have knowledge; and such persons are few in number” (200); and: ‘The Pythagoreans in general say that man is never philosophical system—ideas given a lapidary expression, in the to be allowed to do whatever he wishes, but that there ought alcenturies to come, by Menander (Terence, Phormio 790): vir viro ways to be some kind of supervision, and a legal and respectable quid praestail; and Marcus Aurelius (Suidas, s.v. Mépxos, ed. Adler [1933], 111, 329, 15-18): “It is impossible for a person to make authority, to which every citizen will be subject. For the creature man, if he is allowed to go at loose ends and is not looked after, of men what he wants them to be, but it is proper, taking them will swiftly sink into rascality and worthlessness” (203); and as they are, to use them for any good that can be derived from finally the elaborate maxims of birth-control and eugenics, as set them for the common weal,” forth in Iamblichus 209-213, which are consonant with such views, erhood, particularly as described by Iamblichus, Vita Pythag. 71- although justifiable, of course, on other grounds as well. The spiritual affinity between these principles and those of certain modern totalitarian states would seem to be fairly obvious. 79 and-94; but more especially the subsequent classification of the W. A. OLDFATHER The closest parallel to our statement is, of course, the notorious preliminary examination of candidates for admission to the brothmembers into áxovorixot, uaßnparırol, duorxol, the “esoterics” and the “exoterics,” and all the other somewhat fantastic class designations recorded in later sources, which have been collected and discussed by E. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen® 1, 315 12 Akin to the general theory underlying these discriminations, and an enunciation of the authoritarian principle, which is based\ upon them, is the well-known doctrine of the early Pythagoreans: “In general they thought men should realize that there is no greater evil than anarchy; for it is not in the nature of man to * In which connection one might compare the amusing note by R. A. Pack, “Physiognomonica] entrance-examinations,” CLASS. JOURN. xxxv (1935-36), 42 f.