Pythagoras and the Early Pythagoreans by Leonid Zhmud (review)

This is a major revision and expansion of Wissenschaft, Philosophie und Religion im frühen Pythagoreismus (1997), described by one reviewer as the most important contribution to Pythagorean studies in thirty years—a period that saw the publication of Burkert’s Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism, widely considered the foundation of modern Pythagorean studies. Pythagoras and the Early Pythagoreans is even better than Zhmud’s previous book.

With an unsurpassed command of primary materials and meticulous scholarship, Zhmud gives a thorough treatment of Pythagoreanism through the fifth century, occasionally ranging into the Pythagoreans of the fourth as well. He presents a careful treatment of the source material on Pythagoras’ life and activities, and discusses who are to count as Pythagoreans. He proceeds to discuss all things (allegedly) Pythagorean, including metempsychosis and vegetarianism, politics and the nature of Pythagorean “societies,” mathematikoi and akosmatikoi, number theory and numerology, geometry and harmonics, cosmology and astronomy, and medicine and the life sciences, concluding with an examination of Pythagorean views on the soul and the doctrine that all is number.

Recent treatments of Pythagoreanism present early material, admitting that it is too scanty to yield a full picture of Pythagoras and his followers, and supplement it by selective use of the later material. Zhmud follows this method with two modifications: he is more consistent in rejecting later information that does not go back to the fourth century, and he infers Pythagoras’ interests and activities from those of his followers—deriving conclusions that challenge widely held beliefs.

Consider the following examples:

• • Pythagoras was not a shaman or a wonder-worker.

• • Stories of his travels to Egypt and other lands are probably spurious.

• • No single trait, aside from membership in Pythagorean societies, marks all known early Pythagoreans; some pursued mathematics, others natural philosophy, medicine, and / or athletics.

• • Pythagorean societies were not religious groups or cults.

• • There was no strict code of conduct regulating every aspect of Pythagoreans’ lives.

• • The early Pythagoreans did not attribute their own discoveries to Pythagoras.

• • The distinction between mathematikoi and akousmatikoi was a later fabrication.

• • It is likely that Pythagoras proved the Pythagorean theorem and discovered the theory of even and odd numbers and the arithmetic, geometric and harmonic means.

• • Pythagoras was the first to use deductive proofs in number theory.

• • Early Pythagoreans and possibly Pythagoras himself made use of experiments to verify their physical theories.

• • Alcmaeon was a Pythagorean.

• • Alcmaeon alone taught that the soul is immortal, a theory with no connection to metempsychosis.

These conclusions radically undermine current interpretations of early Pythagoreanism. They are founded on close readings of relevant textual evidence and cannot be overlooked. Anyone wishing to challenge them must examine the assumptions on which they are based, engage with the textual evidence, and present alternative interpretations that fit the evidence as well as Zhmud’s. This effort, even if its result is to reinforce previously held views, can only be healthy for Pythagorean studies. I believe that alternative views can be successfully sustained in a number of cases, since with Pythagoras there are no clear and certain starting points. Zhmud’s view that Alcmaeon was a Pythagorean is an example. It is based on circumstantial evidence that nevertheless some may reject in the absence of reliable ancient sources that call Alcmaeon a Pythagorean.

Some interpretive strategies may also be questioned. One is the practice of inferring Pythagoras’ activities from those of his followers, which gives us a robust picture of Pythagoras, but one not found in early sources. Another is the inference that something (for example, Pythagorean interest in number philosophy) was a later fabrication from the absence of early evidence for it. Yet another is the tendency to rely on Iamblichus’ list of Pythagoreans since it depends on Aristoxenus. This takes us back to the fourth century, still over a century after the earliest Pythagoreans, during which it is not implausible that other notable Greeks from Southern Italy were added to an original list of Pythagoreans.

Despite these...