The Reproductive Technology of the Pythagoreans

Chapter 4. The Reproductive Technology of the Pythagoreans TECHNOLOGY yA The Pythagorean nuptial number in Republic 546b4—d3 is an abstruse eugenie principle that designates the most auspicious timing for producing human offspring. The timing and its geometric measure are notoriousiy complex,! but the formula has eminently clear moral and social goals. I aims to ensure that prospective parents produce offspy ing who bave sonne body and mind, experience good fortune, and help society become beter through their improved moral character. Plato indicates this purpose in the Republic, where he applies the formula in earnest to the guardians, so trait they make the best possible offspring to sustain their elite corps. “An entire geometric number is in charge of better and worse acts of reproduction, If the guardians are ignorant about this uumber and they bring the comnual brides and grooms together at the wrong time, the children will uot be Che guard: 5. Gd 1-3). well-formed (edbveis) or fortunate (edruxeis)" (ep ians are truly a golden race in the model city so long as they rogukue then sexual intercourse by this formula, or so Plato maintains. Little is known about carly Pythagorean sexual ethics, but several lineamens become clear from Plato and antedate him. These include determining, through geometry, the right time to reproduce, and advocating an appropriate method of copulation to ensure that the souls of offspring remain free of needless discordance. The overall purpose of these preseriptions is similar to Plato's in the Laws: to improve the human condition by developing a moderate breed of persons dedicated to practicing sexual and dictiry austerity, with the dietary regimen serving to facilitate the spare The Pythagorean nuptial number, though unknown ontside of de /te public and the tradition of commentary on it? contains several distinetive features that Pythagorean procreationism likewise evinces, as shown liter below. First, the formulaic timing has a eugenie goal, Children who are die best in body, mind, and fortune are precisely the caliber of personnel Plate wants for ensuing generations of guardians, Second, the nuptial number presmnes the uniquely Pythagorean tene that everything is structured by number in the form of geometrically related ratios. These geometrie structures have either a harmony, which leads tote use of sexual activity, To understand the Pythagorean sexual program, it is heiplul to begin with ıheir enigmatic geometry about the suitable time to reproduce. THE NUPTIAL NUMBER One ofthe more extraordinary ancient Greek ideas about regulating human conception is 4 Pythagorean theorem never taught in modern geometry. Thought known as “the nuptial number,” it pertains lo procreation, not to marriage perse, and it dates at least from the time of Plato's Republic. The significance of the number here rests in the convictions that inform it, which help explain the Pythagorean ethic of harmonious and beneficial repro‘licen, Even though the nuptial number has had no discernible influence 1. "For mortal begettings, there is a period comprehended by the fest inne in welt toy mentations dominating and dominsted when they have attained to three distances anc] fast limits of the assimilating and the dissimilating. the waxing and the wanitug, render all lung conversable and commensurable with one another, whercot a basal tour shitds wedded te tre pempad yields two harmonies atthe third augmentation, the one die produrt of equal fire tors taken one hundred times, the other of equal length one way but oblong-—one dimension of a hundred numbers determined by the rational diameters of the pempad lacking in each of the tid. And case, or of the irrational lacking two; the other dimension of hundred cubes this entire geometrie number is determinative of this thing, of better and interior bien.” iv. P. Shorey (1961). Shorey’s transtation better captures the numerological tenor of Platos Greek than does Reeves update of Grube's translation (1997). For modern attempis to figure out the matbematies of de nuptial number, see R. Waterfield, Matos Republic Croggpopri + which is the interpretation Reeve favors. E. Ehrhardt has an alternative interpretation, "The Word of the Muses (Plato, Rep. 8.5.46)" (1986), 407-220. VIN on ancien or modern sexual mores, His a good overture to another aspect 2. M, Allen (Nuptial Arithmetic: Marsilio Ficinos Commenter y or the Fatal Nolan ter Back of Pyrhagorean sexual ethies that has had great influence in its transmuted of Platos Republic [199]. 5-11) explores the ancient aud senaissance tradition ol conunen- Uluistian guise: “procreationism,” the dictate that sexual relations should tators trying to solve the conundrum, he practiced strictly in a temperate and deliberately reproductive way, and solely within marriage. This dictate dates at least from the time of Plato's last disvdogue, the Laws, First, though, the nuptial number should set the tone, of 4. Pros is constitated by three dots for the male plus two dots for the female, wale the male dots alternating with the female dots, MI five dots in a row ingeniogsly symbolise man —two pairs ol leer and another dori and a woman copulating with 4 view to reproduction between for the point af cities, whieh for the woman is also the point of emergence far dre

REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY PARTI yy good life collectively and individually, or a discordance, which leads to cor- This dictate is first attested as a eugenic guideline in Platos Leaves, and in ruption and misfortune, fragments from the Pythagorean Declarations of Aristoxenus.' which was wire ten sometime in the latter half of the fourth century nck. In addition to Third, the harmonious ratios pertaining to the good life are not a given bot must be sought through personal and collective human action. Discor- Plato and Aristoxenus, other proponents include the Neopythagoreans dance, conversely, should be diminished or abolished where possible. Hu- Ocellus Lucanus and Charondas, as well as Seneca and Musonius.® men beings should lead their lives like a symphony, not like the dissonant squeaks and squawks in the warm-up before the performance. The attainmental harmony, further, requires intense constraints on human behavior, PROCREATIONISM AS OPPOSED TO VALUING REPRODUCTION nor liberties to do as one pleases. In the nuptial number, men and women At the outset, procreationism needs to be distinguished from other ancient who are trying to reproduce should copulate only at the most beneficial norms that promote reproduction but do not limit morally permissible sex. measure Of time and not whenever they wish. This distinctive project of Pyual activity to that function, The Stoics, for example, maintain that nature thagorean sexual ethics was already in its formative stage by the time Plato intends human beings to reproduce and that the shape of the genitals indiwrote the Republic and adapted the nuptial number for his purposes. The cates this goal, but they also argue that friendship is the primary goal of sexnopual number is consequently instructive about the rudiments of the Pyual activity, quite apart from its reproductive function, as shown in the prethagorean project, even though it never emerged from abstruse theory to vious chapter.® Similarly, most ancient Greeks and Romaus thought that the become an influential norm regulating human reproduction. PRELIMINARIES TO PROCREATIONISM New that the nuptial number has yielded some core features of Pythagoa primary sexual roles of a free woman ought to be those of wife and mother, yet Greek and Roman sexual mores were never confined to a strictly reproductive purpose, even within marriage.” Though both Stoicism and ancient society make procreation central, neither of them limits permissible human sexual activity to reproduction, and hence they are not procreationist" rean sexual ethics during Plato's floruit, we are in a better position to appreciate the like-minded eugenic rule of procreationism. This sexual regu- 4 Whether procreationism also belongs to pre-Phuonic Pythagorean thought canne by lation is Pythagorean in its origins and guiding tenets. It dictates that men determined, Like the nuptial number, it first appears on record in Plato's writings, thon it and women who engage in sexual intercourse should de so only in marriage does not originate with Plato, as will be explained below. There is no compelling evidence fos amd dor the express purpose of reproduction, and that excitement during iercourse should be kept as sedate as possible. In a more extreme version, demonstrably pre-Platonic Pythagorean principles of human sexual conduct, though W Be kert suggests one based on Platos Lans 773057. gar: "One onght to beget children, for iti: our duty to leave behind, for the gods, people to worship them,” Lore and Seine, rjr n. pe. procreationism forbids all other sexual activity as reckless and morally rep- Burkert's argument, however, is not persuasive, He maintains that Lares ser, 7a vellecisn rehensible, be it homoerotic, autoerotic, or heterosexual deviance from pre-Platonic Pythagorean teaching because its content is simi to Lumblichis ait Py 86 and stellv temperate reproduction within marriage. Pythagorean advocates of to the Babylonian Gilgamesh, which states that human beings were created to serve the gods, (hts sexual rule considered it key to improving the moral character of future This idea, however, is ancient and widespread (e.g., the First Commandment), This religion SOLCrAtTons, Unlike the arcane nuptial number, procreationism is no ancient and abandoned oddity, Though it began as a distinctively Pythagorean doctrine, value, further, is one that numerous and diverse priestly groups in the ancient Mediterranean world would have had a practical motive to promote, Hence Lares 773907 -7 90 anal vit Py Shi are ancient expressions of a widespread piety du the Pythagoreans likely stared, but little marks them as delinitively carly Pythagorean doctrine. in ss more extreme form it later came to be understood as God's law in ec- 5. Aristorenus was born between $75 and 360 8.0.2.2 the date of his death is unkeown, Ihe clesiastical Christianity. In this adapted form the sexual principle went on to Neopythagorean Charondas has a Zermunus ante quem of the mid-first centiy cr. and che he ane of the most potent dictates to monitor human sexual conduct in Western culture, This chapter concerns the Greek and Roman sources on procreationism that are not part of Hellenistic Judaism or Christianity, so that we may better understand its Pythagorean provenance and motives. treatise of Ocellus was probably written ca. 150 1.6.1. | discuss their dates below (uu, 29 and 40). Seneca lived ca. q BCE. 05 Ge: Musonins, ca. go-to CE, 6. Cicero, Fin 3.62 (SVE 3.9.40 = LS 571). see also Hierocles, 1602.1720. 7. Sec, for example, ps.-Dem, /n Neaeram noise, Menander, Dywalıs Sr. Sena p27: R. Just, Ween in Athenian Law and Life 1989), 16-51. 8. Athenian men, for instance, had great latitude to engage in sexnal activity with vom es men, concubines, prostitutes, and slaves of both sexes. Though married women chiectly served their husbands and families by producing legitimate children, in theory they too bad other newborsn, The symbolisn is discussed by W. Burkert, Lore and Science in Ancient Prthagmeanism sexual venues, though we do not know to what extent female citizeus fas opposed to nemeiti CORD weep. 40%. 470-7. zens) exercised these options, Among women, there is evidence for homoetoticista anal ir

PARTI PECGHMOLOCN ey detrimental effect on our understanding of how the Modern scholars have largely failed to see the unusual nature of the proprocreationist dictate in Hellenistic Judaism and patristic Christianity relates to its Greco-Roman precedents, Given the predominant scholarly view that procreationism is creationist dictate precisely because they have not distinguished itfrom widespread ancient norms that simply favor reproduction. They have accordinely found the pre-Christian origins of procreationism in Stoic thought as common currency in Hellenistic morality , its appearance in Philo and the church fathers seems simply to carry over a widespre ad Hellenistic sexual whole, in Plato's Republic, and even in Hellenistic morality at large. The idea that the Stojes are the originators and main proponents of this dictate nora into Hellenistic Judaism and church doctrines . The carrezover « Ones, is especially popular, Thus the distinctively Pythagorean roots and motives however, from Pythagorean thought rather than Hellenistic morality au large." In order to see why, we must explore the procreat ionist dictate and its Pythagorean underpinnings? lor procreationism remain largely overlooked. This oversight has had a erotieisin with sex toys, Pilato Symp 191025: DB, Brooten, Lave between Women, 20-60: K. |. Do- PROCREATIONISM AND ETS PYTHAGOREAN ver, Greek Hemovweanality? (1989), 102: and S, Blundell, Women in Ancient Greece (1995), 100-5 MOTIVATION and figures 17-9. Moreover, D. Cohen (Law, Sexuality, and Society: The Enforcement of Morals in According to Aristoxenus, the Pythagoreans whom he Cluxsicat Athens favored restricting sexual activity to the maximu [rage], 1343-70) suggests that Athenian wives had greater access to male lovers onthe shy than was olficialiy recognized, E. Patterson (The Fanuly in Greek Lister y, 1134-32) addresses this question further in response to y. D. Allison (Divorce, was both feasible and desirable for people to achieve." “There Cohen. many impediments as possible on the exercise... Celibacy,” 7) voices this position well, “Largely under the influence should be as of human sexual activity (dppodiora), which one must practice infrequently” el Prh 2009-10). of Stoicisin, many morally serious Greeks and Romans—and theretore many Christians after then was acquainted with m degree that they believed As ame to believe thatthe primary purpose of sex was procreation, [follows that, in gencet nen should refrain from ‘sowing seed from which they are unwilling to have offspring” ti. The hypothesis that procreationisin derives from the ancient Greek medi a inulition is ruled out. The procreationist position is not attested in this tradition and is incompatible (Punch, Moriah | = Conéugalia pracerpta]), and that, in particular, intercourse during preghanev was against nature, without good purpose, unseemly,” }. Brundage (Law, Sex, and Christhen Society, 16) Further contends that procreationisin is a central teaching in Plato's political with prescribing contraceptive methods, which routinely theory asa whole: “Inthe Republic and the Laws Phito argued that sexual relations ought to be minar 98 in E. Littré, ed., vol, 7. pt. (1839-186 1; reprint, 1970); Galen, De someone me appear there, steli is io De neti ic tesinictel solely to procreative intercourse in marriage.” W. Meeks maintains that the teaching dieamentorum temperamentis ac facultatibus 6.1516 is 1964). vol. 11; and Sormus, Gyrrcology 1.61 in Gyaeerion um libri widespread topos of Greek morality, “Pagan moralists habitually denounce ‘passion (pi in CO, Kuhn. cd. (Rete, repudia ira and pleasure! (hedoue); the wise man indulges in sex for neither, but solely in order to See also J. Riddle, Contraception and Abortion from the Ancient beect children" The Mast Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (1983), 101. 30, 3378, 74-6, 82-6, and IL King, Hippocrates O Yarbrough (Nor Like the Gentites, 11) and R. Harder (Ocelfius Luranns 11926; reprint, 1966], (1908), 132-506. 121) hold the: same view: Procreationism is “cin sehr went verbreiteter Topos,” as Harder puts 1, Hie ation, fowcaults Virginity: Ancient Erotic Fiction and the History of Sexunlity (1995), 135 1. 51. bile D. Alison, LE Preisker incorrect thinks Plutarch is a strict procreationist, Christentum nad Carece | n docceine, Lan seri ©. de Vogel's more limited observation that this sexual principle appears rinse sss [lps thagorean sources, Pythageras and Early the attested range of procreationism to Musonius, Philo, and Clement, Ausonius Rufus and (1908). 74-4. 8. Goldhill takes Van Geytenbeek at his word with one minor qual- Women: Reading the timate Body en Anelent LE In arguing that procreationism is a distinctivel y Pythagorea ening Van Gevtenbeek is rather anomalous in going to the other extreme, for he overly restricts Coed Dintribe IV on). Mberg, ed. Ir " World ta the Rennissanee À tout). Hi - ae Pithagoreanism: An Interpretation of Neglreted Eindeme os the Philosopher Pythagaras (1906), 1709-81. As de Vogel states, “inoderaton with vespert to sex ual activity (ahpodions) is mentioned several times”; she adds Musonius further support the idea that sexual intercours that Arintoxenns, Ocellus. amd e should be dir ected oniviowart pro Phe m den ersten drei Jahrhunderten: Kine Studie zur Kultiogeschichte der alten Welt (1927: reprint. ducing children in a vestrained and tawful manner, ion. tan. 36. While Phatarch mentions this sentiment, he believes that marital sexual activonstrate, as iy ás pustified il motivated by friendship (especially after a quarrel), and hence he ts not a prowidespread sexual norm that some Pythagoreans and Creationist, Consigalia praccepta vpgd. 13. The Pythagoreans whom Atistoxenis knew inelude: Nenophilus, with whom Aristosenus studied prior to becoming a student of Aristotle, fr. ı (Wehr), Phantom, Echeoates , 10. This scholarly position is prima facie plausible, for Seneca and Musonius, who support the dictate, are generally classified as Stoics. Iudoes not follow, however, that procreationisin is philosophically State simply because two Roman Stoics happen to advecate iL In Stoic sexual She does not, homever, attempt te dera Ein to do here, that the teaching is originally Polymnastus, and Diocles of Phlius. According to Pytlageresu. as opposed toa mere Musonins happened to share. Diogenes Laertius, these were student, ot Philolaus and Eurytus, DL 8.45. Aristoxenus also knew about other Prtitagoreans, sade is ethies, is seen in the previous chapter, sexual activity is justified if practiced for the purpose of Arehytas. Avistoxenus’s father, Spintharus, was a friend canitivating metal friendship. Seneca and Musonius are anomalous as Stoics in supporting kunblichns, vit Pyth 198, and see too Wo Burkert, Lore and Vie, prbereastionisiti, as 1 demonstrate below. Scholars who contend that procreationism is a Stoic somewhat tendentiously considered this group iesching incinde | Noonan, Contraception, 46-9; 1. Countryman, Dot. Greed, and Sex, Ge: they were the last whose thought and ideas had merit since the time their COMMUNAL in tro. ton became fragmented, unlike the move uneducate d followerof s the Pythagorean wa of Tile who were lampooned in ancient comedy, tamblichu s, nit Path ent. and BL I. van der Wien, P. Brown, Body and Society, 24; D, Biale, Eros and the Jews (1962), 47-8: along with D. Allison discussed above (1. 9), “Divorce, Celibacy,” 7; U. Ranke-Heinemann, Kunurhs for Heaven, 1-6; and fp Brondéhonx, Marsape el famille, 130. Die Pythagoreer 19, 164. of Acchytas ane told starts aber Faire Lis and res, Ardore ngi to be “the last of the Pyhagoreans,” for to him

REPRODUE FIVE TECHNOLOGY PARTE vos; ceivably have permitted other kinds (c.g., manual, oral, intererural, anal). so long as vaginal-penile copulation remained strictly restrained and interi the main impediment these Pythagorcans set forth the teaching that all acts of heterosexual copulation ought to be directed toward purposeful and temperate reproduction, Their directive builds by binary concept division, They separate acts of reproduction that are temperate and according to naever, it would have needed rigorous justification given their desire to pur “ars ture from those that are violently performed and contrary to nature, and they presume that this division is exhaustive. Any act of procreation is either ual latitude might make its way around such impediments would have to be upon reproduction. [any other sexual activity had been permitted, how many impediments as possible on sexual activity.” Further, whatever sex one or the other, The temperate acts are then further dividedinto deliberexercised within marriage, as other Pythagorean rules restrict sexual pracately aud inadvertently reproductive acts. The Pythagoreans permit only lices to the marriage bond. Followers of Pythagoras ideally should refrain the former, temperate and deliberately reproductive sexual activity. “One from sexual activity in their early youth, marry, and maintain marital fidel thereafter, and in general they ought to make sparing use of sexual activity must do away with reproductive sex acts (yevvmoeis) that are contrary to nanoe and done violently.!* Among reproductive acts that are according to tature and done temperately, one must leave as admissible only those that we for the purpose of temperate and lawful reproduction of children,” Aristoxenus's Pythagoreans therefore believed that all acts of heterosexual throughout their lives.!? Hence even though Aristoxenus’s testimony does not commit his Pythagoreans to the position that heterosexual copul: Ition aloneis permissible, they are unambiguously procreationist regarding such acts of copulation. Pythagorean sexual activity, further. is confined to marcopulation ought to be procreationist in purpose and method. ital agency, the bond of husband and wife, which in popular ancient Greet: Aristoxenus’s testimony does not allow us to definitely identify his PytUragorcan sources as extreme procreationists, though they are strongly inclined in that direction. He states only that their reproductive intercourse must be temperate and deliberately procreative, but not also that thisis the only kind of sexual activity allowed. Thus the Pythagoreans could conthought mainly serves the purpose of reproduction. The minds of the lus. bands and wives influenced by the procreationist regulation would likewise be accustomed to this marital norm and habituated to associate the marital sexual experience with copulation, Within the culturally specialized group of Pythagoreans, further, the married couples would have learned that tem: perate and deliberate reproduction alone is fit to be praised, prescribed, and performed within their social group, Hence thisis the only tvpe ol sexThe term yern)oes here refers to reproductive sexual activity for two related reasons. First, the context of Tamblichus, vit Prtk 209-10 pertains to methods of sexual intercourse. Second, the semantic field of yérenore and cognateterms pr imarily refers to thegenerative process hom insemination through birth (e.g., yerray “lo reproduce”; yervyyea “that which is reproduced” or “ollspring, child,” for which see LSJ, ad loc). Note also Philolaus Fay, “the genitals (acdotor) are the locale of insemination and reproduction (yerryoros).* Since vit Mik 29-10 pertains specifically to acts of sexual insemination and discusses their purposes and degrees of reproductive intensity, yévvyots here signifies “reproductive sexual activity.” 15. Gamblichus, vif Myth 210, This passage belongs to an extended excerpt from Aristuxenuss Pythagorean Declarations ({Tudayopikai drodavers) which appears in Jamblichus's Ircatise on the Pythagorean way of life, 209-13 (vit Pyth). The passage is also attested in an abbrevatterd form in the Hellenistic Pythagorcan treatise of Ocellus, On the Nature of the Universe, 32 7. Section 55 in particular contains the procreationist dictate (sections 42-57 = ya 137.0- 06 TI, Thesteffs edition). Siobaeus contains a truncated version of the excerpt fiom the Puiugmean Declarations, though he omils the procreationist passage (Stobacus 4878. 1 5Nor dro in E Wehrli, Aristoxenos in Die Schale des Avistoteles: Texte und Kommentar: (19671). On Aristoxenus’s authorship of the passage and the more complete excerpt as it appears in tal intercourse that is unambiguously without impediment in their system of social values. Pythagorean couples, as we have scen, must place “as many impediments as possible” on sexual activity. What trickles through these locks and dams on their sexual desireis either strict procreationisa ora sexual norm verging closely on it. The Pythagoreans advocate strictly temperate and purposeful reproduction for distinctively Pythagorean motives, some of which we have seen with the nuptial number. Random copulation is undesirable and discordant to the harmonic intervals of the soul being embodied. As Aristoxenns indicates, the Pythagoreans interpret conception and birth to be an act of guiding a soul into embodiment, or, more generally, an act of “leading someone into birth and existence” (vit Pyth 212). The guiding needs to be order and harmonious, If the prospective parents fail to be temperate and intent on reproduction while copulating, they are bad and even rather bestial Deubner and U. Klein, fambliehi: De vita pythagorica liber? (1975), 115-15; and €, de Vogel, who leaders of the souls they guide into birth and existence. They reproduce “randomly and brutishly” and have children with bad moral character, Such collecté the relevant ancient testimony in Pythagoras and Early Pythagorcaniom, 2640-70, sections unplanned parenting is unfit sexual behavior, due to the soul discordance larablichus’s ait yh, see R. Harder, Ocellus Luranus, 134-458: Y. Wehrli, Aristoxenes, 58; L. yh oe. See also W. Burkert, Lore and Science, vor n. 17. All my references to Atistoxenns's PHhayorean Dedarations ave to the excerpts as contained in Famblichus, vit Pyth. 16. Phito in the Lars similarly aims to restrieh reproductive sexual intercourse (2) TS ratArztes curavada) ta deliberate and temperate acts, 838e5-6. Plato dues not climinate all 17. wit th 47-8, 57, 210. The Pythagorean desire to restrict the exercise of the sexual.ap petite is a central part of their characteristic interest in controlling all physically appetitive he. nomeproduetive sex acts except during the citizens’ time of procreative duty. havior, J. Thom, The Pythagorean Golden Verses (1995), 127-0.

PARTI that te Pythagoreans associate with letting conception happen as it may. “Wretebed offspring (poxU0npa omeppara)" come from the “bad (davMs), discordant (doupg@vov), and disturbing blending (Tapuxwöous N TECGHNORO6 rong in its well-ordered state. Finally, the reproductive technology in quesvon — that buman na presumes at its core the earliest known Pythagorean tenet ture is a dualistic composite ofan immortal soul in a mortal body? Only bs pages) in reproduction” that fails to be temperate and purposeful (vit presupposing this dualism can one intelligibly claim that reproduccion l'y 201). This concern about procreatively induced dissonance or “dissomehow mixes the immortal soul and the body together in a was distarh: cordant blending” in offspring is distinctively Pythagorean, for persons and ing to the soul. Therefore, procreationisn is the birth child of Pvihagereen thei souls must be structured as a harmony of ratios to have any capacity to become out of tune. Only Pythagoreans or Pythagorean-influenced writers conceptualise the soul, human body, and other entities in terms of ratios velding either harmony or degrees of disharmony.'® This idea was forwinkel at least a generation before Plato, moreover, for the Pythagorean Philolaus maintains that the soul has such a structure? and is harmonious tS. In Pvibagorcan thought, souls and all other physical entities are structured by number, which incans in part that they are structured by numeric ratios, W. Burkert, Lore and Science, 40, and 283% passin, with the evidence trom Aristode evaluated therein, L. Zhmud attempts to reinstate and elaborate the theses of Frank and Cherniss (that Pythagorean number theory is an wenden of Aristotle and Pilato! successors in the Academy), bat he does not ellectively challeauge Borkerús refutation of this argument in Lere and Science, 48 0.50, (6 0.97, and 86 n. 16: 6 1. Zhmud, Wissenschaft, Philosophie und Religion im frühen Pythagmeismus (1997). 261-709. wth Frank and Chermniss cited at 269-370 nn. 31,34. €, Huffinan (Phrlolans of Croton: Pythagoreni and Presoeratic | 1993], 64-74) has an interesting argument that Philolaus uses numeric ing to Philokaus the soul is structured by numeric ratios as harmonie intervals, at least in es ideal state. Consequently Macrobins is right to attribute the view chat the soul rs armes do Philolaus (A23), despite Thitlman’s doubts (326-8), even though Macrobius wonte In nere precise to say that the soul Aes a harmony according to Philolius, rather dia thac ina dancin, The fatter claim can and has led to two mistaken views of Philolaus’s thou First, the sen is reducible to the numeric ratios that lend it structure, Second, the soul is nothing other din an epiphenomenal attunement of the body itsell—the mortal song of the body that necesa ily dies out when a person dies. For the fragments of Philokens and testimony coed above, ser C. Huflman, Philolaras of Croton, 97-77. 03. 10h 123, 15-8, 220-7. 107, get ye q 20. Philokus’s notion of the soul as a harmonic structure of quantiliable rabos is distioes {rom the position that the soul is nothing other than an cpiphenomenan of the mantel bu mony or balance of substances that make np Qe human body, Che Bitter position is thre wien Simmias olfers in Phaedo 86d4 (viz., that the soul is a necessarily mort “mix ol bodily ande stances”). For Philolaus the soul's harmony is not merely a bodily epiphenomenon, for irs caros far epistemological purposes and thereby attempts to meet Marmenides’ requirement for would deny the soul any substantiality and harmonie stouciire of tts env, whtelt ts contrary i Philolaus's soul theory, Fig, Hence his conception of the soul sts harmony is ot retfectest in hong and genuine knowledge. Mis argument, however, in no way precludes Phifolaus from Simmias's argument in the Phaede. The provenance of Simmiass argument (lhacie Ses honking that al things, such as soul, actually have numbers as their structuring principle, aud S6d.4) is uncertain. [may come from an ancient Greek medical mnilien, W. Burkert, Perros Science, 272, or itmay be Phito’s own idea to test the Prihagereans” position that the sont hun, harmony and is immortal, For the plausible view chat Siminias's arguments Putos menton, see FL B. Gottschalk, “Soul as Harmonia” (1970). 17098, Chas Guthrie's discussione atei he is quite emphatic that they do, q. Huflman (55-6) overly downplays Philotaus’s pointabout things having number in an ellors to free him from sceming a number mystic, as P. Kingsley notes Cop. 946. WAKE CG. Guthrie's discussion of Pythagocean number theory and cosmolony remains worthwhile, ¿History of Greek Philosophy, vol. 1 (1962), 233-300. 19 Philolaus is committed to the position that the soul has harmony as its ordering prin- Philolans's attribution of harmonie intervals to the soul itself is on the riglit tu Ke so a7 Greek Philosophy, vol. 1, 212-29 and 4006-30. ciple, bv whieh he means that the soul is ordered by harmonic intervals in numeric ratios. Tn 21, DI, 8.36 = Xenophanes DK 2187. The transmigration of minos tal seals (which pre Hoapments from the opening of his lost book on nature, he claims that “nature in the cosmos supposes sonl-body dualism) is “the one most certain fact in the history ol early Pyduigercad bos beeu harmoniously structured (appox0n) from [two unlike principles, ouy dprotînt, F6] isin,” W. Burkert, Lave and Science, 1203, esp. 1201 1.6 Hullman (Piloten of Crotan, 330 unliniteds and limiters—hoth the entire cosmos and all things in the cosmos,” Fi. Compare 2) expresses reasonable doubt whether the Prihagoreans‘ belief in soul inuisorgranon dee them to have a defensible philosophical account of soul betore Plato's day, SHIT be takes douli to an extreme to question whether the Pythagoreans, Philolaus included, belteved in the sent imunortality, First, the Pythagorean belief in the soul's continual evele of timsmigration pie Po, where he reaftirms and expands upon this point, and note also the stress on ovrappto xUy and eproaléw in Fa and F7. Soul is one such entity, for Philolaus thinks that what animates hunnot beings is soul (fun) comprised of some substance or mixture of substances located inthe heart, Fig. The precise nature of soul substance is unclear, Thus by dpadyOy in Es, supposes the souls immortality, Second, according to Atistotle, Menticon of Croton sup Philelans means that soul. like all else in the world, “is necessarily encased (ouyrérAco fau) ported the soul's immortality on the grounds that soul is “always in motion" (Ler Kuga] by Iaumony” FO, and bence that it has harmony, Unfortunately, no extanı fragments explicate and tat it is divine or god-like posago—be, see loo W, Burkert, Dar and Scone, 208 0.95 The Pythagoreans according to Aristotle similarly believed that soul, wich is comprisert at piecisch how he conceptualized the embodied sont as an attunement in relation to the body. Sul, ve get a general idea from the genuine fragments, As Philolaus states, “harmony” (dpjcoleast partly of motes or the air that moves them, is “manifestiy in constant motton” (orperer reo has ordered the cosmos, and all things init through a variety of arrangements on his two patrerai rivroupévy). This characteristic of incessant motion likely indicates that they ton principles (apyei) the “limiters and unlimiteds,” F6. Soul in an ordered state (of incessantly like Alemacon, explicitly maintained that the soul is immortal by virine of bey io constan motion. Further, itis a prominent part of the Pythagorean tradition from Plate onu ri the soul is divine or godlike, which is the other characteristic Alemacan ol Croton ascribes te vibo motes or of air, perhaps, of Aristotle, Ania 04416) would be one such arrangement. In appeovta, further, Philolaus is referring to numeric ratios, which he maintains “knowable thus Dave" ind must have in order to be knowable, FG. These numeric ratios, finally, are concoran imervals, which Philolaus explicates in light of music theory, Ga, Therefore, accord: the immortal soul, On this tradition, see, e. 8. Porphyry, ide vg and BL. van der Werder, Die Pythagoreer, 116 -22. Alemacon was acquainted with Pythagoreans in Crotone mar ave

REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY PARTI 1433 thought insofar as the motives for promoting this reproductive practice are The Pythagorean supporters of temperate and deliberate reproduction Pyihagorean. Aristoxenus's testimony that this sexual regulation has a Pygive this sexual norm first priority on an agenda of social and familial reform. Ihagorean provenance consequently proves reliable for reasons internal to “The single greatest cause of wickedness and corruption,” they maintain. Pythagorean thought, and not for reasons depending more precariously on the reliability of Aristoxenus alone as a witness. Hence the regulation did arises from the common practice of adults producing future generations in tot originate with Plato in the Laws, even though he is the first on written reproductive task (vit Pyth 243). This is an urgent problem, for the vast mia: llagrant disregard for the need to be restrained and purposeful about (het record to use it. Hs proponents were either Pythagoreans themselves, such jority of parents-to-be make love in a carefree as the persons Aristoxenus knew, or, like Plato in the Laws, deeply influ- 213), and in so doing allow the souls of their offspring to crash-land into and careless way (nil Pyth 200, enced by the ideas of this sect. embodiment. The parents have only themselves to blame for the results: -\ passage in Plato's Timaeus helps further elucidate why the Pythagorechildren who are roughly thrown together and grow to be depraved adults. ans think that willfully discordant procreation or “discordant blending” is If only the parents acted as good leaders of souls into embodiment, as the barmiil to human well-being and character. Acts of reproduction, Plato ob- Pythagorcans urge them to do, then children would be conceived property, serves, bind an immortal soul into a mortal body in a manner inherently The parents would see the immediate reward for their efforts, sons and clisturbing to the soul, The soul is a structure of harmonic intervals, or “cydaughters at the head of the human class. Future society would also benecles” (repiodot), as Plato describes them, and the binding throws the emfit greatly, The rapid recovery of psychic harmony in the offspring means bodied soul’s intervals into some disharmony (Tim .43c7-d2). This discorthat the community as a whole would improve by becoming sound in mind, dance is party unavoidable; it is what causes infants and toddlers to be body, and character. This desirable social change remains impossible, howhelpless, irrational, and inarticulate (Tim 44u7-c4). However, if the disharever, unless prospective parents cease reproducing with reckless abandon activity that is carelessly unreand become restrained technicians in the marital bed. Thus the Pvthagorestrained, inadvertent, or both, then the harmful effects of embodiment on ans have a compelling reason to promote the procreatiouist dictate as the the soul linger even after the children mature. In such persons, the soul restandard sexual norm for husbands and wives to religiously follow. mony is brought about through reproductive mains out of tune and thereby harms their ability to reason and act respon- The Pythagoreans were already engaged in related measures to relorm sibly. Prospective parents consequently should rise above their deleterious sexual mores toward procreationism, atleast within their own groups. Thes ignorance and stop making wild love as though nothing were at stake for the offered two ways to encourage people to comply with their procreationist soul and its delicate balance of harmonic intervals. Instead they must strive reform. First, a strict diet. Uncontrolled consumption of food and drint to be very restrained and deliberate so as to guide the soul into embodioverstimulates the sexual appetite and leads it to transgress the limit of ten mentwith the least possible turbulence. In this way they treat each soul they perate and deliberate reproduction, Thus dietary restrictions are in order embody as the genuine Stradivarius that it is. (vit Pyth 211). Second, people should take pride in being above animals on the Pythagorean scale of nature. They must refrain from blurring the difference by copulating as animals do. brutishly and randomly, oblivions re been one himself. By L. Zhmud's criterion Alemiacon was Pythagorean because he is named as ane in lamblichuss doxographical list at vit Pyth 267 (Pythagoreismas, 67-8, cl. vit Pyth 267), by the unique human art of reproduction (vit Pyth 213). Therefore, people C. Ehufinan'’s criterion of evaluating what is known about Alemacons ideas, he was not a Pyneed to restrict their diet and to mind their assigned place in nature in orthagorcan (Philolaus of Groton, 11), and see further W. Burkert, Laie and Science, 284 0, 57. der to attain the good society for future generations. Ther must be ever #2, Avistoxemus’s testimony about procreationisin docs not depend on Plato's Laws for at feast three reasons. First, there are no verbal echoes between the phraseology of Aristoxenus mt Plato on procreationism. Second, Aristoxenus knew numerous Pythagoreans and had then oral traditions on which to draw for his understanding of Pythagorean sexual principles, temperate, ever restrained, and never like wild animals—nowhere more so than when they guide souls into embodiment and thereby give future gen crations a greater eugenic cage, Ih. Third, there is one major difference between Aristoxenus’s explanation of the pro» Plato in the Laws, as shown in chapter two, likewise requires the citizens creationist rule and Plato's adaptation of procreationism in bis hypothetical city of Magnesia, of Magnesia to behave in a strictly procrentionist way during their veus which 1 demonstrate below, The second point about oral Pythagorean traditions has considerof reproductive duty. The motivation for his eugenic regimen is similariy able weight given the substantive differences between the Pythagerean Declarations and the Laws on procreationism and the absence of common phrascology. 23 Ton 205442. This passage gives an account of birth and of early childhood even Pythagorean. First, Plato blames intemperate sexual activity for bringing about the greatest harm to people individually and to entire cities (Laws though Pluto presents the account as a creation tale that happened once upon a time in the 845c2—-8, 836a6—be). Unmanaged sexual activity gains such an alarming pesto, Cormlord, Platos Cosmotogy (1947: reprint, 1957), 147. status in the Laws not simply because of the rampant consuming passions

torts VARTA TECHNO ON bese concurs with the Pythagorean idea that human beings are above anintals on that Plato associates with the unrestrained sexual appetite in his dialogues asa whole, Rather, in his last dialogue, and there only, he is concerned the Pythagorean scale of nature and ouglit to stay there, as he makes very non the presinned deleterious effects of uncontrolled sexual relations on clear at the end of the Timaeus# In the Laws. further, people “should be the children thereby conceived and produced. Transgressing the temperate better than animals” in their sexual conduct, and they are better provided and deliberately reproductive purpose of sex is a kind of gross violence that that they marry and follow the procreationist regimen. Otherwise they te harms the formation of the offspring, leading them to he “uneven, untrustproduce without purposefuluess and restraint, in the style “olla Tourfooted worthy, and crooked in moral character” as well as in body (Laws 775d1- animal,” as Plato describes iin the Phaedrus,?§ Plato in the Laws consequenth ev). The Pythagoreans held the same position, as seen above. In order to do shares the Pythagorean conviction that society must undergo rigorous re away with “the single greatest cause of wickedness and corruption in sociform in support of procreationist cugenies: Eat food in limited amounts so ety, they too would like to put an end to the conventional laissez-faire style as to avoid barnyard styles of copulation, Honor your standing as rational of reproduction and to replace it with purposive temperance (vil Pyth 213). biped by reproducing stricuy in the avant-garde style formulated in Prihag- Similarly, in the Laws, the citizens must marry and engage only in temperorean thought. Plato takes the additional step, however, ol expecting Ins cit ame and deliberately reproductive sexual relations when they enter their izens to be sexually active without reproducing alter they finish their pro prime of file (Laws 783d8-eq). Plato, however, is distinctive in imposing a creationist duty. Nonetheless, the Laws makes the first known attempt to strict time init on the procreationist restriction, In his hypothetical city the rule is in force generally no more than ten years on average per couple, for S=Rinstitute the Pythagorean craft of procreationism, albeit in an as vet hypothetical society and notas a lifelong measure. it applies only as long as the couples have not yet produced the requisite menber of children (Laws 783047, 784b1-3). Only during this period is Pato draconian about enforcing the procreationist norm.** After the citi- CHARONDAS zens’ time of reproductive duty, Pkuo grants and expects them to exercise The Preambles to the Laws, a Mellenistic Pythagorean treatise under the pseu: greater latitude in their sexual behavior. In the Laws, the citizens will still be douym “Charondas,” advocates procreationism in an unambiguously strict diven to serve Aphrodite through their sexual appetite on a regular basis sense. This work is independent of Aristoxenus and Plato for its source mia mad advanced old age, but they should do so temperately.2? Plato permits terial and was in circulation prior to the mid-first century mer. Preciseh these sexual relations and regards them as honorable, so long as the citizens when the treatise was written, however, remains unclear" do not reproduce or become outrageously licentious, such as by making a Charondas assumes that each man has or should have a wife amd thatthe public show of it. Thus Plato in the Laws is very sclective about the time married couple should reproduce. ‘Vo this extent his thought is consisten Henne in which he thinks Pythagorean procreationism is an advisable rule with mainstream Dellenistie sexual morality, but then he parts ways. [le sap. te tollow.?® He is extremely stern, though, during the time procreationism ulates in no uncertain terms that the man must climax wieh bis penis to applies, because so much is at stake for the harmonious soul, society, and cated nowhere else besides in his wife's vagina and for the purpose of re haman race. Several related Pythagorean measures to bolster procreationism also appear in Plato's Lares. Plato makes the same correlation as the Pythagoreans 27. The scale of nature begins with men atthe top, who are tollowed in descending ande between excessive eating and uninhibited sexual behavior, The former fuby women, birds, four-looted animals, belly-sfithering animals, ane underwater animate, The els the biter. Plato accordingly advocates dietary restrictions as well as an exercise regimen in order to “divert the nourishment” elsewhere that othenvise makes the sexual appetite hyperactive (Laws Sq1a6-8). He likewise further down the type of animal, the less able the animal is to exercise appetitive restraivà and the more remote ave their embodied souls from being able to reason philosophie ally sore recollect the soul's immortal nature, Pine goed ques. 28. 250045. Nonprocreationist human reproduction ts animal behavior dro a Piro ivan perspective in part because it corrapts the embodied soul, and this corsiption n tore causes the damaged soul to vansmnigrate later into one or another of the anintal bodies os mentioned in the preceding note, Hat gocó=9x03. ry. Raus Syzeg-38er, 7831-01, 69 1d6 — a, 29. For the pseudonyinous text of Charondas, ty. Dar Sy tit, 8&yrby-5, 78465 Ra. sti in Atistoxenus’s testimony about this sexual rule ato fyi 209-106, we see nothing of cité the page and line numbers al BE Thes ICS edition, The Pythagarean Texts af the Hellfeniste Period ( 1965). Plis work is eathion than the this mayor modification of the procreationist principle that Plato makes. This ts the substanmid-first century nc... because Cicero (96-13 BALE) mentions it, Lega pointed Diodes live difference between the procreationism of Plato and Aristoxenus that Siculus (1 60-21 8.0.) also knew and used a portion of the same or.csınular pseudonsmon bove note On 22), Eaduimbrated in an Weatise, 12.11,3-19).2.

PART I TECHNOLOGY tm) production alone, Any other purpose is wild, licentious, and forbidden. man should not destroy semen, but only during his time of reproductive “Each man must Jove his legitimate wife and procreate from her. Into nothduty. Thereafter he should waste it in accordance with his undeniable sex. ing else should he ejaculate (mpotéoÜw) the seed of his children (rékvwv ru ayroó oropur). He must not waste or abuse that which is honorable in nature and custom. Nature made seed (orropav) for the sake producual needs. As Plato sees it, let the vital substance die once it has reached its expiration date, rather than use it for producing deficient offspring. ing children (rexvorrouas), not licentiousness (dxodavias)” (62.30-38). Here Charondas thinks in a Pythagorean manner by the exclusive disjunction he makes between ejaculating for procreation (rexvomouu) or for licontiousness (arodaota). Unless a man ejaculates into his wife to reproduce, then he does so for licentions reasons, and such license is absolutely torbidden. Other justifications for sexual activity are left out of consideration, such as the Stoic goal of mutual friendship. Charondas thus goes by the strict letter of his procreationist law, and he would enforce this rule on OCELLUS On the Nature of the Universe, which is attributed to “Ocellus,” likewise sup. ports the strictly procreationist position. This Hellenistic Pythagorean tres tise, which dates to around 150 B.C.E.,% partly cites Aristoxenas's PyJirge rean Declarations for its advocacy of this sexual regulation. Ocellus quotes Aristoxenus at length in sections 52-57. He also supports procreationism in his own words in sections 4-46. I discuss Ocellus's own argument tn a lifelong basis. less otherwise indicated. Charondas’s unconditional procreationism is far more inflexible than Vito's use ofthe regulation in the Laws. Plato finds lifelong adherence to this motivated either for the production of children or for pleasure. The exchi- Ocellus presumes the key Pythagorean tenet that sexual relations are rule both impractical and harmful. Aphrodite's power is too strong, so the citivens in reproductive retirement should honor her in a moderate and guardsive disjunction he posits is similar to the one that Charondas makes beedly noureproductive manner. Charondas disallows such permissiveness, He brings the Pythagorean goal of impeding human sexual activity toward only procreation within marriage is an acceptable purpose for human sex iis furthest possible limit while still allowing for the reproduction of the spetween reproduction or licentiousuess. Ocellus likewise Grinly maintains that ual activity. All the rest is hedonistic and unacceptable, "We do not engage Only deliberately procreative sex acts in marriage remain permissible. in sexual relations (rpóoquer) for pleasure (00475) but for the prowreation (yevégews) of children” (135.11-13). This regulation reflects the or. As Charondas and Plato clearly show, a reverence for semen goes todained purpose of the Pythagorean demiwrge. Chis creator god shaped hee ccther with the procreationist dictate. Charondas writes the procreationist ideal into the very words he uses to refer to the substance. Semen is “the ceed ofa man's children” and as such must be used strictly to produce them man beings and their sexuality deliberately and only so that they word bus). Plato in the Laws likewise refers to semen as “procreative fluid” very much favors the argument from Aristoxenus, which states that of all 'yorıpor) and contends that careless ejaculation is wrong for reasons that are apparent in the very name of the substance. Semen is strictly reproducrive (id during the time a man must father his required number of chilones within marriage are allowed (197.21-25). What Ocellus draws fron cres, participate in immortality through reproduction. Hence procreationisi re lations alone gain this god 's approval (135.16-19). Ocellus also quotes and possible acts of reproduction, only temperate and deliberately procreative this argument, however, is the hard-line position advocated by Charondits. dren (Laws 8384-3916). This solemnity about semen comes to the fore particularly when Plato and Charondas deplore its misdirected use. A man who misdirects his semen “kills” and “wastes” both “his children” and even the entire “human race” (62.30-33, Laws 89707-8). Semen is one of the vehicles through which immortal souls come into embodiment, so to detroy this liquid is, in effect, to destroy a human soul. Charondas adheres to his viewpoint unconditionally, A man is duty bound to sow this sacred rightlite substance only into his wife.” Plato's Lars likewise maintaius that a Stoic Cosmology, 70-1. The same sort ol idea implicitly hdorms Pytbagorcas procicationism given the strong concern to prevent men from killing their semen, as were, by emeutitinn i an expressly antireproductive manner. 31. The Ocellus in whose mune the pseudonymous treatise is written was a Verliounean, for which see Lamblichus, rit yh 267 and DK 1.401. The time by which On ¿e Nati. of the Universe delinitely was written is the mid-first century bok. but the dite 150 8.0.1, is the died approximase date of the treatise, E. Sandbach, astedie end the Sines (19859, 4 q See further W. Burkert, “Zur geistesgeschichtlichen Einordnung einiger Psendopytitagotica” (rays), q, H. Theslet®, “On the Problem of the Dorie Pseudo-Pythagoricu An Alternative Vheorv ot hate ao. For these Pythagorcan-based reasons, Clement of Alexandria imikuly maintains that man who ejaculates inadvertendy engages in voluntary manslaughter, while the man who ally does so is in effect a murderer, Soom 2.61.1-2. The idea that semen is a liquid conent ef soubappeas in Aristotle, Gen anime 2.0.79584—-9. 23.7378 10-108, and sec D, Hahm, and Purpose” (1972). 73; and R. Beutler, “Okellos” (1937). 2361-80. Relesenees to Ocelle: are, as with Charondas, to Thesletls edition. 42. Sections q. are at Theslell 035.111 a0 137.0-138.1%. 360.9 and sections 32-27 lrone Aistoxent an

PARTI TECHNOLOGY 13) duction within marriage, even for persons beyond their prime, Hence it is Huless sexual activity is procreationist within marriage, then it is hedonistic - <licentious, Charondas would say—and as such forbidden, Therefore, Ocellus culists Aristoxenus’s Pythagorean Declarations in support of absolute procrentionism. We cannot be so sure that the same held true for the Pythagunlikely that they had anywhere near the clear grasp Plato reveals aborn te dualistic eugenics that originally motivated the Pythagoreans to formulate this regulation. One who grasps this reproductive principle would recor: orenns with whom Aristoxenus was acquainted in the fourth century BCE. nize, as Plato does, that it is problematic to advocate (as Charondas and though they were very close to this position. Ocellus do) chat lor their entire lives married couples should make love only Ocellus, like Aristoxenus and Plato, reinforces the procreationist dictate to reproduce, One must further specify how the couples should behave sex by appealing to the Pythagorean scale of nature and ideas about excess nuually once they are too old to produce offspring of first-rate quality. Despite irition. People who engage in unrestrained and nondeliberate procreative acts behave like irrational animals (136.4-6), To remedy such brutish conduct he preseribes just what his Pythagorean predecessors do, a dietary its inflexibility, procreationism in its Neopythagorean form became pont lar enough to extend beyond its Pythagorean origins to thinkers known more as Stoics, as | will now show. regimen that leaves no scraps on which the inner sexual animal may feed {137.26-138,3). Ocellus thus reaffirms the earlier Pythagorean view that excessive nutriment feeds the sexual appetite and brings us to make love below our zoological station—as though we were brutes in rut rather than master artisans of the right reproductive decorum, LEICA: SENECA Seneca advocates procreationism in its Neopythagorean version, Like Ocellus and Charondas, and unlike any Stoic other than Musonius, he presumes Ocellus similarly endorses the older Pythagorean argument that proan exclusive disjunction between human sexual activity “for the purpose creationism chiefly serves the interest of the children. Offspring who are produced in anything other than a stricly purposeful way are “abject, illomencd, and abominable (ox0ynpoi, kakodatuores, Bôe\upoi) in the eyes gandi generis causa), Only purposeful reproduction is justifiable, and ınarof the gods, demi-gods (Saysdver), people, houscholds, and cities” (136.1- standard is unequivocal, He finds it intolerable for a man to have any sexof pleasure” (voluptatis causa) ov “for the purpose of reproduction” (prope: riage is the only institution in which it may occur, Seneca’s strict marital D. Procreationist sex acts avert this uudesirable outcome and help set morual partner other than a wife, especially female partners, and he inveighs vals righi by the gods, in due accordance with Pythagorean piety.“ Aristoxcnus and Plato likewise maintain that strictly temperate and purposeful against adultery in particular." I Seneca had his preference, he would like reproduction alove prevents offspring from having excessively discordant dominant norm. souls at birth. Ocellus, however, gives this position an astral twist. The souls of children who are produced inadvertently, intemperately, or both are born under a bad sign. They have been down since they began to crawl, afthe sexual agents themselves than for the offspring. He considers sexi de to see the Neopythagorean standard of sexual austerity become the pre- Seneca advocates unconditional procreationism outof concern more Ion sire for pleasure, libido, to be like a fire ready to rage out of control, He de. Hicred with the life-long curse of having been embodied in a sexually abomfines libido us a “destructive force (eviti) insidiously fixed in the innards,” mable way. This force fulfills its violent tendency to harm sexual agents unless it re- As shown by the treatises of Ocellus and Charondas, the older Pythagomains within the confines of the procreationist limit, Like Plato, Seneca can doctrine of procreationism gains a favorable reception during the thinks that unregulated sexual desire spreads like wildfire to other kinds of Neopythagorean revival of the later Hellenistic and carly Roman period. The new version is not nearly as nuanced as those ofAristoxenus and Plato, all-consuming lust, or cupiditas.” Unlike Plato, however, he is convinced First, it stresses the need for reproductive purpose yet loses sight of the point at the copulation also needs to be temperate. Temperance is needed to 3.1: Ep 94.26, ha 2.28.7. Seneca consequently criticizes Roman practices of adultery ini unchaste Roman women, Ben 149,35, Helv 16,3. give the soul the smoothest possible landing during embodiment. Second, 30 Helv 13.3. This passage from Seneca is as follows: Si cagetas lihadinen non volupratis voue Charondas and Ocellus allow nothing other than stricly purposeful reprohoneni datar, sed fnopagandi generis, quen non wmolaverit hoc secreta of infixua vivceribus DINAMITE tun, omnis alia cupiditas intactum practoribit, Seneca's meaning is best interpreted as lollews, "I one thinks that sexual lust is given to a man not for the purpose of pleasure hut lor propaga ty For the centeality of Apollo in the polytheistic piety of the Pythagoreans, see EL. Bruiting the human race, then all other bust will pass him by unscathed, since the destructive force Adan, “La pied pythagericicnne eth Apotlon de Délos” (19993). 2601-09: for theurgy, P. Kingsinsidiously fixed in the innards does net violently harm him.” Such a man goes unscathed hetev, Ariel Philosophy, Mystery, aud Magic: Empredactes and Pythagorean Tradition (1995). 292- cause he restricts his fibido to its procreationist task and thereby prevents this avidin foo sary 46, and tor the gods worshipped by Pythagoreans, W. Burkert, Lore and Science, ing rise to other rampant kinds of cuepiditas, Pinto likewise connects unvesteained sesnad deste

PARTI thatthe only way to stop this calamity is to act on one's sexual desire only for reproduction within marriage. Therefore Seneca’s sexual ethic is consolion them by name. VLENNOLOGYV ‘03 Seneca might have had an opportunity to read one or both of them himself or to learn about their contents ata remove. Neonant with that of Charondas and Ocellus and more restrictive than Plato's pythagorean ideas were ofgreat interest in the Roman intellecnud milieu to use of procreationisor in the Laws. which he belonged." Be that as it may, he certainly employs the same for- Seneca’s procreationist doctrine is contrary to Stoic ethics even though he approptiates Stoic phrasing to describe it. The “wise person” (sapiens) who for Seneca is a traditionally married man, ought to make love to his wife with reason” (fudicio) and not “with passion” (affectu).* Sapiens is (he Latin mulaic disjunction between sexual activity for pleasure or for reproduction that Charondas and Ocellus employ. Further, Seneca promotes other aspects of the Pythagorean way of life and philosophy as well. He maintains the Pythagorean tenets that the body imprisons the immortal soul and that equivalent of the Stoic term gopós and the contrast Seneca makes between the soul must separate itself as much as possible from the weighty dregs of acting with right reason or with passion is a Stoic onc. Seneca’s wise man, however, makes love to his wife “with reason” only if he engages in striedy seproductive sexual activity with her. Otherwise he would be making love bodily existence. He also states that the example of Pythagoras inspired him to become vegetarian for a time." Seneca’s endorsement of procreationism is consequently not as surprising as it might seem for those who lor pleasure and hence “with passion.” The later Stoics, by contrast, argue think of Seneca as a Stoic. Rather, he admires the ascetic strain in Pythagoihat sexual activity is justified if it is done to promote reciprocal allection rean thoughtas he learned it in Rome, so much so that he becomes an honwithin marriage. Seneca also rejects the core Stoic principle chat love of beauty is an ethical stimulus of mutually friendly sexual relations, be it in orary Neopythagorean in his sexual ethics. mitrriage or communally, He regards such attraction to beauty as an egregious passion. “Love of beauty (amor formae) is the obliteration of reason, one step from insanity.”7 Seneca thus allows his strictly procreationist wise man only to have reproductive impulses with his wife, not to be sexually aronsed by her beauty or to make love with her for friendship. Consequently, even though Sencea tends to be classed as a Stoic in many respects, he is anti-Stoic in his sexual cthics, It is utterly foreign to Stoicism to con- MUSONIUS Musonius, though primarily Stoic, like Seneca, similarly promotes Neopythagorean procreationism. In Diatribe 12 he urges young men “to think tiv 40. Cicero, Leg 2.5.04. and Varro refers to Ocellus in a passage preserved by Censerimis tend, as Seneca does, that one must do away with the experience of erotic (4.4. ed. O, Jahn, 125.10), and note as well W, Burkert, “Pseudepythagorics.” (0, and LL Pres. love except for the reproductive urge within marriage.% lelf, “Dorie Pseudo-Pythagorica.” 74. Seneca is indebted to Neopythagoreanism for his procreationist dictate. He probably became aware of the rule through his involvement with the Neopythagorean revival in Rome.“ The treatises of Ocellus and Charondas were in circulation in Rome by Seneca's day, for Cicero and Varro menqu Sences admired and studied with Quintas Sextius Roscius, a Rontan who established a philosophical group known as the Sexti. This group was in the main Stoic but alse had Pyibag orcan leanings. On this aspect of Seneca’ life, see M. Griffin, Senera: A Philosophen ire Pulizias (1902), 36-42, and L Ferrero, Starta del pitagorisina, 60-78, Seneca presumably also new the Pythagorean astrologer Thrasyllus, who was prominent in the court of Fiberius and redacted Plato's writings. For the strong Pythagorean elements of UChrasyllus’s thought and his associution with Tiberius, see 1, Tarrant, hrasyllan Plaronism (iggy). 8-19 and Iragments Tiga-b as well as T1 4-1 6b, 222-230. My thanks tol. D, Barnes for noting the likely influence sith a proliteration of other kinds of cupidity, as shown in chapter two. For Seneciós procrestionisi see also M. Foucault, Care of the Self, 178-4. of Thrasyllus on Seneca’s Pythagorean leanings. 42. The body is “this trivial body, the prison and chains of the soul” (cor pusculum hac, cito sui. Dematrimonio, 188 Frassinetti, excerpted by Jerome, Advfor 3 tga. elia et vinculum animi), while the soul is “sacred and cternal” (sacer ef acternas) nintike the bods, a7. De matrimonto 188 Frassinetti, from Jerome, Adv fou y 18c, Helv 11.5-7. Released from the body, the soul that quickly departs has an easy read to the gods 48. For other ways in which Seneca” thought is incompatible with Stoicism, see |. Rist, because “it has dragged along the least amount of sediment and weight” (adaiauan faces, pan “Seneca and Stoic Orthodoxy” (19809), 1004-2012. deris traxerunt) from the body, Great souls find no joy lingering in the body, rather they chute goa. The renewal of greater interest in Pythagoreanisin in Rome ca, 8-45 BCE. is disat its confines, “Thos itis that Plato declares that the entire soul of the wise man coaches out rissed by |. Dillon, the Middle Platonists (1996), 117-9 and W. Burkert, “Uscuclopythagorica,” to death, ponders this, and always with this desire strives to be borne outward! and away” ver fog, M. Human explores the broader question about the influence of Pythagoreanism in frientis animum lotion in mortem prominere, hoc meditari, hac vemper cupidine ferri an exteriors tendra southern ftaly and in early Roman society, “Les origines du pythagorisine romain; Problèmes tem), Marv 23.12, historiques ci philosophiques, 1-17 (1996). 339-53, (1997), 25-42. Sec too L. Ferrero, Stopast del pitagorisme nel mondo romana (dalle origini alla fine della reppudblica) (1955). P. Kiugsley (An- 43. £ 108.17. For the Pythagorean provenance of vegeta anis m antiquity sce Wok, €. Guthrie's collection and analysis of the ancient evidence, History uf Greek Philosophy, vel. 1, 087 rent Philosophy, Mystery, and Magic, 317-44) challenges Burkerús thesis that Pythagorcanisn 92. to which should be added Porphyry’s De abstinentia, Note further R. Sovabji, Animal Mods died clown belore its Neopythagorean and kirgely Roman revival, and Human Morats: The Origins of the Western Debate (1994), 172-4.

PARTI UECIINOLOGY 135 for this Pythagorean rule contlicts fundam entally with the basic principles of Stoic eros. Therefore, it is completely misgui ded to inter amvihinp about the tenor of Stoic sexual ethics from either Seneca or Musonius, as any scholars have done who have regarded procrea tionism as a Stoic sexual pi inciple. Both Seneca and Musonius are ascetic Pythagoreans in Stoie eloihine. at least with regard to their sexual ethics, the only just sex acts (dira dppodioia) are those performed in marriage tor the procreation of children” (86.4-6). Only this way of thinking constites tight reasoning, All other sexual practices are “lawless” (7rapavojia) to varying degrees. Adultery and male homoerotie sexual activity are “most unkivful” (86.8-10). Men's sexual relations with prostitutes, free unmarted women, and female slaves are unlawful, shameful, and blameworthy 86.10.12), though not quite so oulragcously as adultery and male homoerotic relations. Musonius thus accepts the Neopythagorean stance trat CONCLUSION here are two and only two possible goals for human sexual relations: ve- Advocates of procreationism support the principl production within marriage or pleasure. Unless sexual activity is marital and e thata temperate nd deliberately reproductive goal within marriage is dre sole justifiable ane perfor the purpose of procreation, it is wrongly “on the hunt” for pleasure ul thus unjust and lawless. This holds true “even in marriage” (86.7-8). missible goal either of sexual intercourse, Musonits therefore joins a small but growing chorus of men who promote activity of any sort, especially if it involves ejaculation, procreationism in its inflexible mode." Die even brings new life to the Pyis Pythagorean and develops from unique or more extremely — ol sexual This sexual regulation ly Pythagorean concerns, The first thagorean image of brutish sexual activity, Men who are sexually deviant concern is to limitthe degree of discordance hesmirch themselves “just like pigs” and they are happy rolling in the mud ing embodiment. The second and related concern (86.27-29). With a touch of Circe's power, then, Musonius turns such men vidual and social corruption that the Pythago into swine. His magic trick would transform virtually the entire male popuof discordant reproduction. Such practices are violent, licentious, nd destructive to the harmonic intervals of the souls undergoing cnbodiment, The practices also harm the parental agents, as Seneca in particular inch. cales, The procreationist dictate is reinforced by several persuasivo strate. gics. First, persons must diet and exercise to prevent Ihe sexual appetite from being overfed. Second, they should regard unrestrained and nonpuir poseful reproductive sexual activity as behavio r fit only for brute animals. Uhird and most striking, they should revere semen and regard its willfial misdirection as the destruction of a life, The Pythagoreans were in carnes about supporting this reproductive technol ogy, In the Neopyrhagorcan exso before gaining greater prevalence by late antiquity. Aswith Seneca, Neopythagoreanisn is the most likely provenance of Musonius’s sexual principle. Though very little is known about his life, Musomus was conversant with the intellectual milieu of Rome, which by then had a penchant for Neopythagorcan ideas. His writings show that he admired Ihe Pythagorean way of life. Diatribe 14, for example, indicates that Musoworth emulating. In order for young men to become wise, they must adopt ur mi the married style of the philosophical life, which is best exemplified by pression of this principle, however, greater Pythagoras and two other married philosophers (90.24-02.1). The Neodeliberate reproduction, as opposed to deliberate pythagorean revival in Rome thus probably influenced Musonius just as it tion. Charondas, Ocellus, Seneca, and Musonius did Seneca. Musonius and Seneca are the only known Stoics who advocate the procreationist dictate. They are completely anomalous as Stoics in so doing, y1 Ou this aspect of Musonins's procreationist argument, see also M. Foucault, Care of the Nei, By, le Neither Marcus Aurelius nor Epictetus argue in favor of the procreationist restricdon on tea sexual behavior. Marcus Aurelius does notraise the topic, while Epictetus rejects the chi that marital sexual activity alone is permissible, and he tolerates some practices of nonmiss) sexual activity, Epictetus states that a male who engages in sex acts before mariage is to remedy the mdireans attribute to heedless acts lace of the Roman Empire, for in his day the dictate still had a long way to mis knew enough about the life of Pythagoras to recommend itas a model that immortal souls suller din stress is placed on the need lor what distanced from the older Pythagorean vated procreationism. | and moderate reproduce. appear to have been some cugenics that originally mori. | The procreationist regulation at the outset showed a tendeney to Apphy forthe duration ofthe lmnan lite span, given the Pythagorean desire to “pu as Many impediments as possible on human sexual activity.” Plato's fees ix the only demonstrable exception to this tendency, for Plato finds lilelorny procreationism an unwanted and unfeasi ble proposition. He avielly shige. ports a limited application of the principle, only for citizens in their prime who still need to reproduce, Thercalter the citizens are lei to then own sitovdd partake only of acceptable customary ones and that mates who remain sexually abstiBont until mariage should tolerate males who do not, Enel 39.8. These extramarital kinds of sexttalatetivity are customarily not motivated by a desire to reproduce. Musonius, by contrast, acceptable practices, and he especially explicitly argues against the view that sex acts other than procreative miarital intercourse are to engage in extramarital sexual censures the sort of men who world ve the ateo nts activity of any kind, S6.8—2 1.

PART I sexual devices so long as they do not get out of hand. Aristoxenus's Pythagercans are undeniably strict procreationists with regard to sexual intercourse Uhat may lead to conception. Though it remains somewhat an open question whether they prohibited all sexual activity other than copulation, they were nonetheless strongly inclined in that direction, Charondas, Ocelhas, Seneca, and Musonius, however, show neither Plato’s reflective modification of the procreationist principle nor the vestigial ambiguity of Aristoxenus, I the sexual activity is marital and reproductive in intent, den practice it, not, stay away. Pracreationism in its aphoristic Neopythagorean form gains wider currency by the time of the early Roman empire. The stillborn nuptial number, by contrast, was at (his timo nothing but à puzzle for antiquarians, as Cicero attests.” Still, procreationism proves Lo have been as distinctive and strange a Pythagorean idea in its own way as the nuptial number is, even though it later underwent reprocessing and simplification, In this form, which was easy lo teach and easy Lo grasp, the dictate gained enough popularity to elicit support [rom dhinkers whose main affiliation was not Pythagorean, such as Seneca and Musonius; and it was well positioned 10 spread further into the Jewish Platonism of Philo and into ecclesiastical Christianity via Christian Platonism. By (he second century of the common era, therefore, procrealionism was well placed to gain a far greater regulatory hold on people's sexual lives than it ever had before. 40 Ae 713.5. and see too M, Allen, Nuptial Arithmetic: 5-1.