The date of the pythagorean kingship tractates

MARTENS A Zoo APPENDIN 1 THE DATE OP THE PYTHAGOREAN KINGS HIP TRACEN Armand Delatte was the first modern sebolar to discuss the date Pythagorean texts his book fui un il in depth in lo of Politique Pythagoricienne! He claimed that all these textual fragments relating to kingship were genuine products of Pythagoras’ students. “Phe von sensus today has turned to A. Delatte’s conclusion regarding Avehytas, but away rom his conclusions regarding the other three authors Willy ‘Vheiler was the first to take issue with Delatte in Grom 2 specifically in tiv (1926), 147-156. He argued for a Hellenistic date, third century 8.0 E. Goodenough Ro was the next fo take up the challenge ground-b ing and s dut of Hellenistic Kingship” in Yale Classical Studies 11% ued for a Helleni Archytas, and rejec e Tor in hi “The Political Philosophy all of 53 102. He the fragments, including I their attribution to actual students of Pyitia The next major work was that of Lucien Delatte. the son of as Armand who in a display of independence proposed a radical solution in hi 1942 work Les Traites de la Royauté d’Eophante, Diotogené el then. combined a € Vo tical text of the fragments, à Preneb translation ol the texts, a close study of the lingua an overview of kingship in Gre rk thought, and a commentary on the Pythagorean tests to pros duce what rema ical is the most important work on the topic. His rad solution? He argued fora second or third century om. Philonie influence on the t y date, und especially those attributed to Ecphameus text major contribution was that of Holy Vhesleil. whose de Introduction to the Pythagowan Writings of the Hellenistic Period avceped the dating of Goodenough for the kingship fra agments, with the exception of Archytas, which he accepted as cartier, though not genuine century 1.6.1.) These Y Bibliotheque de la alts de E 2 Bibliotheque de la E culté de Phil 104 Abo: Abo Akade L961 fourth considered not only the kingship lragments. hie er Lettres de PUnivecate de Liege ophie ot Lettres de l'Università

but all bf the related Pythagorean texts, which gives his work an authorthe living law ideal was present in a number of other authors. such ii which the other writings lack. He took L. Delatte to task for what as Cicero and Seneca, and so gives more ol a sense ol (he he beheved was an untenable position in dating the kingship texts. In nuity of the idea, lt is clear that there are two trends in the dating ol these tests which are still current. These are the various Hellenisue dues Uhes lot des regard, he challenged the conclusions of L. Delatte’s study of the linguave, while generally praising the study itself, Vheslefl himself published a eritical edition of all the Pythagorean texts which he judued to be Hellenistic in The Pythagorean ‘Texts of the [Hellenistic Period.' Walter Burkert, without reference to Vheslefl, published two articles in Melologus 105 11961), 16-43; 226-246 titled “Hellenistische Pythasorca In these two articles, without much specific reference to the kingship fragments, he too argued for a Hellenistic date for the whole of the Pythagorean pseudepigrapha, giving third century 6,0. as à EEN atta, In the meantime, Francis Dvornik, in a large work entitled Leary Christan and Byzantine Political Philosophy: Origins and Background 2 Vols. agreed with Goodenough and ‘Theiler in opting for Hellenistic dates (or ll of the kingship tractates, including Archytas.’ He relies for he most part on Goodenough’s work and does not seem to be aware ol the work of PheslelL Ihe next major work was a re-examination by Holger ‘TheslefT am! Walter Burkert of their previous work in fondation Hardt: Pour conti left} Goodenough) and the second/third century ist, dates Barker, L. Delatte). The two major works are those of Thestell and I. Pelati. and to them must go pride of place. Both of them rely on arguments from the nature ol the Greek tor dating the texts, because the texts are embedded in the sutthiotess of Stobucus, External eriteria for dating are extremely bard to come by. On the basis of the language and syntax, Defatte aud Thestell come to radically different conclusions.” L. Delatte argues that the language of the texts is artificial, natriety, di is a mixture of Doric, with elements ef Attic, Tome, and Lorie poetry (85-87). As a result, Delatte concludes that when the texts wore wer ten Doric was no longer spoken. "Theslel! maintains, however, tha the Doric features are essentially consistent wud that the arelitistris which lend the language its artificiality “are insullleient to prove rit the texts belong to an age when Dorie was not used in convertono (Intro., 66). Delatte’s study of vocabulary (88109) and votas I 110) ete de L'Antiguité Classique (1972) a volume dedicated to pseudeconvinced him that the texts cannot have been written betore tet pierapha in the ancient world in general, Burkert, in “Zur geistescentury GE. sercliehtliehen Kinorednung einiger Pseudopythagorica,” gives à revised impression that the texts are Hellenisue”, but states “we do nor hnos Hellenistic prose practices sullieiently well to be able to make clone position, For the terminas a quo he suggests 150 8,G.k. and for the ter Vheslef! maintains that Delatte’s study “contirins. ry Problem of the Doric Pseudo-Pythagorica: An Alternative Theory ol logical inferences from matters of style” (dupe. be. Theslell’s comments strike me as convincing, bit Delame pees the Pote and Purpose.” maintains a Hellenistic date for the fragments, same syntactical and linguistic arguments to argue lor quite sethes but modifies tt by giving a lower border of second century BCE. period. As a result, it is difficult on the basis of textual research wens ad quen third century 6x, In response, Thesteft, in “On the Vhe last major discussion is that of Glenn Chesnut, “The Ruler A wid the Logos in NeoPythagorean, Middle Platonic, and Late Siaic Political Philosophy" in ANZI TL16.2, 1310-1332, He too opts for a Hellenistic date, pre-Gicerontan, though he does not present many Hew alone to date the texts, The other method of dating is a comparison of ideas with) those found in other texts. Delatte has, to some degree, depended pen such comparisons, but his conclusions seem weak and he has noi arsuments for the date. He does, however, take account of a number of articles published in the late 1920s which argued that eto \cadermiae Aboensis, Ser: Himaniora; v. 30, no, 1; Abo: Abo Akademie, William Klassen, “Uhe King as “Living Law" with relerenee to Miren Hote in SR FEZT (1085) 67 also dates the texts in dhe Hellemistic period. The is entirel reliant upon E. KR, Goodenough’s article, Aalders, “vows jugos th ade necepts the Hellenistic dating of these tactates but does not era Hie cristo at all Mey Washington, DE. 1960, bondateen Laude de 1'Antujinte Classique Entretiens: Dome NVI Pondipigapha Hardt: Pour I tienevar Fondation Hardt 1972, *Theslet, An Introduction, for instance, finds most ol Delais work cp cite fon guage of the fragments convincing: he rejects the interpretation ou tue Detar bases his findings,

It) considered all the evidence. His claim that these authors are influenced Philo uses Kephantus," or that Bephantus and Philo have a cont by the Middle Stoies (cf 2840) are not convincing, and Theslell is correct ta point out (Inte, 68-69), as did Goodenough, that none mon source, of the Store ideas found in these texts is foreign to the early Stoa. | sum convinced, however, that a close study of the ideas in the Pahagorean texts makes the Hellenistic period the only possible period in which these texts could have been produced. Fhe Plolemaic-Seleucid period was the period from which the worsup of Alexander the Great stemmed, the beginning of the Hellenistic cult of the emperors.’ Though the inital impulses came from Alexander Before considering any of these possibilities, we need te establish Philo’s connections to this Pythagorean literature, Tini Philo know Pythagorean thought in general is not in dispute, as ti tise ol Pythagorean numerology bears witness (e.g. Off, 90 127, Philo ales knows, however, specific Pythagorean writings, as his relerenees In writings which he has read by Philolaus (Opi. 100) and Okkelos (de 12) show. Both of the writings attributed to these anthers are dated te Great, the actual development of the cult was left to his followers. the Hellenistic period by Thesleil.'" Finally, Philo knows ot the term vopog Euwvxoc (Mos. 1.162:2.4; Abr. 5) and shares the ideas and thre Nor only did a cult of emperors grow, but so too did literature conlanguage of the concept (Mas. 1.148 162). But could he be responsible the coming them," This literature had a wide-ranging ellect, influencing lor these ideas? The ideal appears in Philo’s work, clearly and in tall, econ a number of Jewish tractates.!! Most of this literature is lost to but is it possible that Philo could have been the source lor dus ideal? mo Im such terms as benelactor (ebepyerng) and saviour (oatnp) L. Delatte’s suggestion is fraught with problems, even impossibilitie». heizen fo appear applied to kings in the carly Hellenistie period." First, one must overlook the clear evidence of thie Alten ad Sid Im Pythagorean kingship fragments, while only a portion of Hellenistic and the evidence of Cicero that the ideal existed prior to Philo. H kungsbup thought, contain many of these terms, In general, then, the we suspend disbeliel on this score, we are met by further problems, Hollenistie period, due to actual monarchical developments and the L. Delatte believes, for instance, that Bephantus view of she kmo as à special creation in the image of God is actually iam adophon ol presence of a flourishing literature of kingship in general, makes he climate ripe for a literature which supports the claims to divinity Philo's view that humanity in general was created in Gods nn ui perfection and absolutisin of the emperors, and gives no exterwhich was then altered by Ecphantus L. Delante believes thar evi nal reasons to doubt such a development. dence of this is found in the Eurysos fragment in When we consider the ideas in the texts, and compare them to other such texts, the case becomes even stronger, L. Delatte believed that Philo influenced Eephantus,' and so, it would appear, was the ouvmuor of the vónos &yuyog ideal. Others have suggested that Clement of Mean (Strom. 5.5.29), a passage which is in most respects identeal to ty passage in Eephantas. In the Eurysos passage, however, the hing 1 not different from the rest of humanity, humanity is differen! Iron the rest of creation, that is, from the animals. L. Delatte’s suggestion that Bephantus is dependent upon Philo meets improbability alter improbability. L. Delatte would have u WW, Hub Far, Alellenistie Cindization (Cleveland and New York Meridian Books 18 375 W, 5. Ferguson in The Cambndce Ancient History VIE The Hellemsti ones and the Rise of Rame eds. N E, Adeoek; 8. A, Cook; M. PL Charlesworth: Counbodge University Press 1954) 17 18; Lily Ross Taylor, The Divinity of the Roman Ponperor WT Sh Caliber Lattey, The Diadochi and the Rise of King Worship” in he Baulish Mistorical Rasen 32 (1917) 3218 Kaerst, Gedichte des Hellenismus, VOL, ry 38% Deorntk, Madly Chrstian 240-233, Ser believe that Eephantus borrowed an idea of the creation of hemi ity from Philo and altered it to refer to the unique creation of thy king. Following this, Ecphantus borrowed the vópos ¿puyuzos cleserip tions from Philo, which he used to deseribe Moses and the Parrinretis, and built a model of ideal kingship based upon these bortewinygs. Goodenongh, “Hellenisue KingshipTM 5. Dvornik, Hardly Christian, Vol, 1 261; Günther Zuntz, “Aristeas Studies L: “The een Banques" in JSS 4 (1959) 21 36; Oswyn Murray, “Aristeas and Prolemaic Koowship in 7/78 ns. 1811967) 397 371; James M. Reese, Hellenistic Influence on the Mann of Wisdom and tt Conseguences (Rome: Biblical Institute Press 1970) 71, see Sechaba, "Das Hellenistische Königsideal” for the appearance of these and other terms in nonditerars settings, Delante, Les rates 177 180, 205-288, but ct 183,200,216,224,245. I Brébicr, Les Ale I 19, "These, du Production 50. “Thesle An Introduciión 16 17,111 115; Tas 124 138,17 151, Both Detatte, Les Prato 177 LOO and Vhesleth di Zodiac bon I sen to overlook that this idea of humanity created in the nage ol God is nei Philo own idea CL Gen, Ib.

VicHRoCsumefpalSoerneItstrcunGeleimasaodtfneisdrnPcae.rodaytslmC”KihtwcihuhynaoitsQcBpsdoiogtetafowdypenpmcosthhrweRsoaeEenscesJharmf,itirouesbantpwpelñrvaPtihpomgaeitpaf,blrhnittoenhreabdg1ota0slnGJn,cErlbaiee7dypolems7wcyn)etaiChvecsrhllRazeesouoltphmn.drateeap".mtncaeithtdwaeTnWrtiaheoirdtJaifelosecrdAwmtallothcigpeadxsdhtrw,aeogesnairpWedwnsioaPecrrnhlitengawiadqen"lhmeswytioeurshilioctIniadDfgPhAcmuetlPasanHhdiKgleGwearueloirce:dsmaaneoyice.dnmnzwosatdcPaotunpoiehs1O:oltrxu:nkidtlenm2kLw,oRt6aealenhhsdvlenieatosdvircnsotsyelbehod,dy,f: fiaticrtsotesacetwnotiudtrehyeamGu..d8i.e/nfciers,tcentuAryPPEBNCDEIXsa1ndtheygiveieimpres1i7o1n MqcVLvs1hihapw“tdru7lhaonIfa1eievvp)osaLrlipnmedvo2rtSsh.ai,a8HopuVnbdwiesithnedhopzeıentmrasotivcPVGfdh2dluelasne:lIdr4moaslitlcnu‘wUek”iae,oonàpech.dinG5smlAenAavco,frylemnuntGpc-rMloifsdads1w,rsu,ReIi0nithrgfnt.oensc)law“tuyfh7io.it(yerotcO0rpekbsmdn1riwh:taPdi2eTttGr‘orBcc2naseieh6trfohdtA.rs,sopmmensJinrtefwPcToinohfSsyDdOwRtcfaberutOepohnlNyhsl1MethAuofiav2Kdleo1omE,uawcBh,.ze0nsuigotmpa9voeràGlnro.)siwcaAipfoltO,.dysBrngrchetp”DtouacoCsbarfhum.otltneiwptsrtebmoOnh1afdiaulwre9tNohp.sb9kan)ruEeuw4:ecddtais)shplmMnglqnoeodrtaLfuscm0oDlrheniA2rpgdseeamoi0wvn,tWehcapi,titanksrlcohe3yeEihsdntivuosanWbei0mr,gwcn..iuharwesgynooditcrbrnfehaslPyfrbcnoteimh)skyrgact,b.ehepaislrfdteCydnaohotgTblaeiurJ(tdkhnibomyv,rmtpAniaheuslrtonqPdatepsohtugxhcnomlWwiheasaoln.rfecpsdoatnÉGwsuEevahMnGGsrpJiceyau'wrhtnrbsodvmewtchdu,s.yeiseeahlonult-kiky-v»psotnhsd.),opwhcasbLuwmolievtrgh.snxahovidmrLlystfp‘eghwncTiDlraot.,kshpSsuefrncsgPi,tdmsmt1oehrlhfacs0InEooiye,trPHwxacupuitrohnelTyfloc,ihatdpwdnxsulore.tahOgziuns.meayklowctihrgnusweeatiAfrdgr,eonulihtacysmrEdieppwtluoa,’fhiAsreyrmnwtklproasiohÉHktrpceqnxfiwsaoldwotgnuphao,EshslrntewimfxdyecoueltcamxnhuwdizstpnelakuaP.shBntompeydcrauihDEdtslwianpeybh.toWPir,cxclsupomewtrboaiayTsnreeltDifahus?,n:clwytrpiiselnoacptsev,Trnihegrdupltsocibkfyneamr,dlgctbi.sopeyhmsuwGnoatcSeibhdBDsugtoTmnlaei,chrnsporhde.acikucw,ytdanpTeceliwohkaxns?dtelifFIwapcgurhtio,fwb;necprsolfdany,ucetrioOfeswuahprkfondgbKSlusaiectsyoPmnhd,laewtf1vponys8HdbuhlietSacgPo,nolrtanchwfpm,esidoblfrniatkdpeytclnubemht,foPdisaeS:ltghdxpnVusiaoegrAbhptlvsaecdureDinPyewtcoi,lsemdfntu,riihalebndvotaruple.dstnrwce,smioclhrSbtasw:eoilnoatehurw]sdtmeon«hy|l

hey are being created and developed. As a result there is very litie similarity in tone among these texts. The ideas do not seem to be an 1 17% There is no way to tie the texts to the early stages of Middle Plato nism or to a particular author, such as Antiochus of Ascalon oy in the work of Philo or Musonius Rufus, who Fudorus of Alexandria, but we can, I think, see evidence ol trans present tinished topies whieh they have clearly borrowed. One can mission from the Hellenistic authors to another stage of Pythagorean their infaney writers. Two fragments of Kurysos exist (in Clement, Siem. see fully developed topor in their writings. 1... Pinally, the Hellenistic Pythagorean fragments seem to be aimed and in Sob. 1.6.19), but there is no biographical information con vt actual kings.” This again points to the nasceney of the concepts, cerning him. As a result, a couple of possibilities present themselves and also their origin, The texts appear to be written to influence he behaviour of existing kings. There is an urgency and freshness Thesleff believes that Burysos is simply à citation mistake fo Kurytos.”” We know a fair amount about Buryins ¿Diogenes Lacrius shout them, which is not apparent in authors such as Cicero, Philo, 8,45; lamblichus, 22 Py, or appealing. There is, however, a problem. If in the Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, which in fact purports to be writ- 146,148,267 260, so the suggestion. i» Clement really meant to en to an actual king. “Phe Hellenistie period supplies us with the cite Eephantus, as TheskelT supposes, then Clement not only made a most likely period in which such texts could have been written, citation mistake, he also misspelled Eurytos name, Vo compound du The concept was widespread in the first century ».c.E. and first century cue. Tt seems unlikely that an idea which Musonius Rufus problem, the same misspelling was inade by Stobacus. Is Eurvsos really the creation of two chance misspellings and one citation mistake calle "anerent” could have stemmed from a first century B.G.E. source, I tend to believe, therefore, that Eurysos was à student ol the let alone a first century GK, source, and have been disseminated so Hellenistic Pythagorean writings and resonsible to some depree foi ones and with such success. The influences of the concept are the transmission of the texts. (To suppose that Burysos is a citation louie in Plutarch, Musonius Rufus, Cicero and the pseudo-Aristotelian mistake for Eudorus, a etnica ad Mexandrum, Both Cicero and the Rhelonea ad Alexandrum who might have been responsible for the transmission of the texts, ist be dated to the first century 8.6.8, but Pythagorcanizing Academic, and someone in the case of the runs into the same problems, more acutely, as with Rurytos. Te is Nitonea ad Alexandrum the date usually given is second or third cendependent upon Eephantus in the fragment located in Clement, by but what has not been noted is his dependence on Diotogenes Seb er. The fragments should be placed firmly in the Hellenistic period, either at the end of the third century n.0... or the beginmy ol the second century GE, 1.1.1533 -—Nepì downtos) in the fragment preserved by Stabaeus. Vw Stobacus fragment of Eurysos has numerous Dorie clemente, ban \nd vet these fragments do not seem to have exercised their both in language and ideas he is dependent on the passage stri Plutarch, or the others, uted to Diotogenes, Both texts are concerted with ite and the thing except for Philo, It appears that there is a stage missing in the transgenerated by fate, and both claim that fate produces nothing order mission of these ideas. It is probably no accident that the authors or good, The Eurysos fragment also refers to the nature of the king influence directly upon Musonius Rufus, whe preserve this idea are the heirs or followers of Middle Platonism, suchas Plutarch and Cicero, Richard Horsley has argued that Cicero In Eurvsos, therefore, we do have a follower of the trace». dependence on Ecphantus and Diotogenes points te this his one an anel Philo have a common source for their view of the law of nature, indication that these Hellenistic tractates were transmitted. but we \ppochus of Asealon, and it could be that Plutareh, Musonius Rufus, are still missing, it seems to me. another stage in Ihe transmission. ml Cicero, among others, also have a common source for their concept of the living law." If this is the case, and it is only a supposition, Middle Platonism could be the missing stage in the transmission of the idea, I bestel “On the Vhesletl, Au Introduction 6 u. by Texts BT BA, "In Stam. 5.5,29 (2-3) (also found in Mullach, 276 Vol 1, Kanysos. Mg p. 112) Clement quotes à passage which is found in Bephontis word for word Problem of the Dore Pseudo-Pythagorica” 85. Horsley, "The Law of Nature in Philo and Cicero? 35-50. È, Vie only differences that I can see are two case endings, "CH. Burkert, “Zur geistesgeschietlichen” 52. 1 Diotogenes and Eephantis sen dependent upon Eurysos one would expect them to have language in commen, ban this is not the case,

Phe first stage would be Archytas development of the Greek con opt of ideal kingly rule. “The development of this idea, under the influence of actual claims of absolute kingship, would have been undertaken by Pythagorean authors of the Hellenistic period. “The development of this ideal might have been a response to absolute ulership not in order to support such absolutism blindly, but to see that the ruler in question became just rulers, The missing step would be the development of the concept among philosophers of the first the Middle Platonists.% Here the concept would hi century Ba come into contact with Stoicism and the actual dope’ would ha ve been systematized, This stage is difficult to reconstruct because there is simply no evidence, beyond the possible evidence of Eury 35, but ile concept à foundin Musonius Rufus and Plutarch does not seem to he dependent upon the à I Hellenistic e would have been the passing ¢ agents. The fourth wh of the concept to the follawers of Middle Platonism, men such as 3, and Plutarch, From bere the idea would have reached out to other authors, such as Philo, Clement of Alexandria and ‘l'hemistius. Vhe missing step between the Hellenistic Pythagoreans and men such as Musonius Rufus and Plutarch is difficult to retrace with certainty it remains possible that the Hellenistic Pythagorcans were themselves road. Whether the transmission of the idea took place in this manner, therelore, is debatable, though there is some evidence, in Bu thar he Hellenistic Pythagoreans were being transmitted thems More probable, if not certain, is trat the t of the Pythagorean (rapments are Hellenistic. A Ron LOWS GobONE LAW, Os the need for Gate when speaking of the Middle Pluonists, see DT. Runia’s article, “Redrawing the Map of Early Middle Platonisov Hellenica et Judaica: Hommage a Kalen’ Nikiprowetzhy (ed. À. Gaggio, M. Hadas-Label, and J,” Riauds Teaven-Paris Editions Peeters 1986) 85-104. CE also Glucker, Antiochus and the Late haremos. Carrara, Seoplicism or Platonistn,