theological theories of Pythagoras. In accordance with the abstruse
speculative character of the Ionic school of science, which inclined
to refer the origin of the universe to some one primordial principle,
he was led by his mathematical predilections to discover the cosmic
element in numbers, or proportion--a theory which savours of John
Dalton’s philosophy, now accepted in chemistry, and a virtual
enunciation of what we now call _quantitative_ science. Pythagoras
taught the Kopernican theory prematurely. He regarded the sun as more
_divine_ than the earth, and therefore set it in the _centre_ of the
earth and planets. The argument was surely a mark of genius, but it
was too transcendental for his contemporaries, even for Plato and
Aristotle. His elder contemporary, the celebrated Thales of Miletus,
with whom in his early youth he may have been acquainted, may claim,
indeed, to be the remote originator of the famous nebular hypothesis
of Laplace and modern astronomy. Another cardinal doctrine of the
Pythagorean school was the musical, from whence the idea, so popular
with the poets, of the “music of the spheres.” To music was attributed
the greatest influence in the control of the passions. In its larger
sense, by the Greeks generally, the term “Music” (_Musice_--pertaining
to the Muses) denoted, it is to be remembered, not alone the “concord
of sweet sounds,” but also an artistic and æsthetic education in
general--all humanising and refining instruction.
The famous doctrine of the Metempsychosis or Transmigration of
Souls also was, doubtless, a prominent feature in the Pythagorean
system; but it is probable that we may presume that by it Pythagoras
intended merely to convey to the “uninstructed,” by parable, the
sublime idea that the soul is gradually purified by a severe course
of discipline until finally it becomes fitted for a fleshless life
of immortality.[10] We are chiefly concerned with his attitude in
regard to flesh eating. There can be no question that abstinence was
a fundamental part of his system, yet certain modern critics--little
in sympathy with so practical a manifestation of the higher life,
or, indeed, with self-denial of any kind--have sometimes affected
either to doubt the fact or to pass it by in contemptuous silence,
thus ignoring what for the after ages stands out as by far the most
important residuum of Pythagoreanism. In support of this scepticism
the fact of the celebrated athlete Milo, whose prodigies of strength
have become proverbial, has been quoted. Yet if these critics had been
at the pains of inquiring somewhat further, they would have learned,
on the contrary, that the non-flesh diet is exactly that which is
most conducive to physical vigour; that in the East there are at this
day non-flesh eaters, who in feats of strength might put even our
strongest men to the blush. The extraordinary powers of the porters
and boatmen of Constantinople have been remarked by many travellers;
and the Chinese coolies and others are almost equally notorious for
their marvellous powers of endurance. Yet their food is not only of
the simplest--rice, dhourra (_i.e._, millet), onions, &c.--but of the
scantiest possible. Moreover, the elder Greek athletes themselves, for
the most part, trained on vegetarian diet. Not to multiply details,
the fact that, upon a moderate calculation, two-thirds at least of the
population of our globe--including the mass of the inhabitants of these
islands--live, _nolentes, volentes_, on a dietary from which flesh is
almost altogether necessarily excluded, is on the face of it sufficient
proof in itself of the non-necessity of the diet of the rich.
While the general consent of antiquity and of later times has received
as undoubted the obligation of strict abstinence on the part of the
immediate followers of Pythagoras, it seems that as regards the
uninitiated, or (to use the ecclesiastical term) _catechumens_, the
obligation was not so strict. Indeed relaxation of the rules of the
higher life was simply a _sine quâ non_ of securing the attention of
the mass of the community at all; and, like one still more eminent than
himself in an after age, he found it a matter of necessity to present
a teaching and a mode of living not too exalted and unattainable by
the grossness and “hardness of heart” of the multitude. Hence, in all
probability, the seeming contradictions in his teaching on this point
found in the narratives of his followers.
If his critics had been more intent on discovering the excellence of
his rules of abstinence than on discussing, with frivolous diligence,
the probable or possible reasons of his alleged prohibition of beans,
it would have redounded more to their credit for wisdom and love of
truth. Assuming the fact of the prohibition, in place of collecting
all the most absurd gossip of antiquity, they might perhaps have found
a more rational and more solid reason in the hypothesis that the bean
being, as used in the ballot, a symbol and outward and visible sign of
political life, was employed by Pythagoras parabolically to dissuade
his followers from participating in the idle strife of party faction,
and to exhort them to concentrate their efforts upon an attempt to
achieve the solid and lasting reformation of mankind.[11] But to be
much concerned in a patient inquiry after truth unhappily has been not
always the characteristic of professional commentators.
Blind hero-worship or idolatry of genius or intellect, even when
directed to high moral aims, is no part of our creed; and it is
sufficient to be assured that he was human, to be free to confess
that the historical founder of _akreophagy_ was not exempt from human
infirmity, and that he could not wholly rise above the wonder-loving
spirit of an uncritical age. Deducting all that has been imputed to
him of the fanciful or fantastic, enough still remains to force us to
recognise in the philosopher-prophet of Samos one of the master-spirits
of the world.[12]
III.
PLATO. 428-347 B.C.
The most renowned of all the prose writers of antiquity may be said to
have been almost the lineal descendant, in philosophy, of the teacher
of Samos. He belonged to the aristocratic families of Athens--“the
eye of Greece”--then and for long afterwards the centre of art and
science. His original name was Aristokles, which he might well have
retained. Like another equally famous leader in literature, François
Marie Arouet, he abandoned his birth-name, and he assumed or acquired
the name by which he is immortalised, to characterise, as it is said,
either the breadth of his brow or the extensiveness of his mental
powers. In very early youth he seems to have displayed his literary
aptitude and tastes in the various kinds of poetry--epic, tragic, and
lyric--as well as to have distinguished himself as an athlete in the
great national contests or “games,” as they were called, the grand
object of ambition of every Greek. He was instructed in the chief
and necessary parts of a liberal Greek education by the most able
professors of the time. He devoted himself with ardour to the pursuit
of knowledge, and sedulously studied the systems of philosophy which
then divided the literary world.
In his twentieth year he attached himself to Sokrates, who was then
at the height of his reputation as a moralist and dialectician. After
the judicial murder of his master, 399, he withdrew from his native
city, which, with a theological intolerance extremely rare in pagan
antiquity, had already been disgraced by the previous persecution of
another eminent teacher--Anaxagoras--the instructor of Euripides and of
Perikles. Plato then resided for some time at Megara, at a very short
distance from Athens, and afterwards set out, according to the custom
of the eager searchers after knowledge of that age, on a course of
travels.
He traversed the countries which had been visited by Pythagoras, but
his alleged visit to the further East is as traditional as that of
his predecessor. The most interesting fact or tradition in his first
travels is his alleged intimacy with the Greek prince of Syracuse,
the elder Dionysius, and his invitation to the western capital of
the Hellenic world. The story that he was given up by his perfidious
host to the Spartan envoy, and by him sold into slavery, though not
disprovable, may be merely an exaggerated account of the ill-treatment
which he actually received.
His grand purpose in going to Italy was, without doubt, the desire to
become personally known to the eminent Pythagoreans whose headquarters
were in the southern part of the Peninsula, and to secure the best
opportunities of making himself thoroughly acquainted with their
philosophic tenets. At that time the most eminent representative of
the school was the celebrated Archytas, one of the most extraordinary
mathematical geniuses and mechanicians of any age. Upon his return to
Athens, at about the age of forty, he established his ever-memorable
school in the suburban groves or “gardens” known as Ἀκαδημία--whence
the well-known _Academy_ by which the Platonic philosophy is
distinguished, and which, in modern days, has been so much vulgarised.
All the most eminent Athenians, present and future, attended his
lectures, and among them was Aristotle, who was destined to rival the
fame of his master. From about 388 to 347, the date of his death, he
continued to lecture in the Academy and to compose his Dialogues.
In the intervals of his literary and didactic labours he twice visited
Sicily; the first time at the invitation of his friend Dion, the
relative and minister of the two Dionysii, the younger of whom had
succeeded to his father’s throne, and whom Dion hoped to win to justice
and moderation by the eloquent wisdom of the Athenian sage. Such hopes
were doomed to bitter disappointment. His second visit to Syracuse
was undertaken at the urgent entreaties of his Pythagorean friends,
of whose tenets and dietetic principles he always remained an ardent
admirer. For whatever reason, it proved unsuccessful. Dion was driven
into exile, and Plato himself escaped only by the interposition of
Archytas. Thus the only chance of attempting the realisation of his
ideal of a communistic commonwealth--if he ever actually entertained
the hope of realising it--was frustrated. Almost the only source of the
biographies of Plato are the _Letters_ ascribed to him, commonly held
to be fictitious, but maintained to be genuine by Grote. The narrative
of the first visit to Sicily is found in the seventh Letter.
We can refer but briefly to the nature of the philosophy and
writings of Plato. In the notice of Pythagoras it has been stated
that Plato valued very highly that teacher’s methods and principles.
Pythagoreanism, in fact, enters very largely into the principal
writings of the great disciple and exponent (and, it may safely
be added, improver) of Sokrates, especially in the _Republic_
and the _Timæus_. The four cardinal virtues inculcated in the
_Republic_--justice or righteousness (Δικαιοσύνη), temperance or
self-control (Εγκρατεία or Σωφροσύνη), prudence or wisdom (Φρονήσις),
fortitude (Ἀνδρεία)--are eminently pythagorean.
The characteristic of the purely speculative portion of Platonism
is the theory of _ideas_ (used by the author in the new sense of
_unities_, the original meaning being _forms_ and _figures_), of which
it may be said that its merit depends upon its poetic fancy rather
than upon its scientific value. Divesting it of the verbiage of the
commentators, who have not succeeded in making it more intelligible,
all that need be said of this abstruse and fantastic notion is, that by
it he intended to convey that all sensible objects which, according to
him, are but the shadows and phantoms of things unseen, are ultimately
referable to certain abstract conceptions or ideas, which he termed
_unities_, that can only be reached by pure thinking. Hence he asserted
that “not being in a condition to grasp the idea of the Good with
full distinctness, we are able to approximate to it only so far as
we elevate the power of thinking to its proper purity.” Whatever may
be thought of the premiss, the truth and utility of the deduction
may be allowed to be as unquestionable as they are unheeded. This
characteristic theory may be traced to the belief of Plato not only
in the immortality, but also in the past eternity of the soul. In the
_Phædrus_, under the form of allegory, he describes the soul in its
former state of existence as traversing the circuit of the universe
where, if reason duly control the appetite, it is initiated, as it
were, into the essences of things which are there disclosed to its
gaze. And it is this ante-natal experience, which supplies the fleshly
mind or soul with its ideas of the beautiful and the true.
The subtlety of the Greek intellect and language was, apparently, an
irresistible temptation to their greatest ornaments to indulge in the
nicest and most mystic speculation, which, to the possessors of less
subtle intellects and of a far less flexible language, seems often
strangely unpractical and hyperbolic. Thus while it is impossible
not to be lost in admiration of the marvellous powers of the Greek
_dialectics_, one cannot but at the same time regret that faculties so
extraordinary should have been expended (we will not say altogether
wasted) in so many instances on unsubstantial phantoms. If, however,
the transcendentalism of the Platonic and other schools of Greek
thought is matter for regret, how must we not deplore the enormous
waste of time and labour apparent in the theological controversies
of the first three or four centuries of Christendom--at least of
Greek Christendom--when the omission or insertion of a single letter
could profoundly agitate the whole ecclesiastical world and originate
volumes upon volumes of refined, indeed, but useless verbiage. Yet
even the ecclesiastical Greek writers of the early centuries may lay
claim to a certain originality and merit of style which cannot be
conceded to the “schoolmen” of the mediæval ages, and of still later
times, whose solemn trifling--under the proud titles of Platonists and
Aristotelians, or Nominalists and Realists, and the numerous other
appellations assumed by them--for centuries was received with patience
and even applause. Nor, unfortunately, is this war of Phantoms by any
means unknown or extinct in our day. It was the lament of Seneca,
often echoed by the most earnest minds, that all, or at least the
greater part of, our learning is expended upon words rather than upon
the acquisition of wisdom.[13]
Plato deserves his high place among the Immortals not so much on
account of any very definite results from his philosophy as on
account of its general _tendency_ to elevate and direct human
thought and aspirations to sublime speculations and aims. Of all his
_Dialogues_, the most valuable and interesting, without doubt, is
the _Republic_--the one of his writings upon which he seems to have
bestowed the most pains, and in which he has recorded the outcome of
his most mature reflections. Next may be ranked the _Phædo_ and the
_Phædrus_--the former, it is well known, being a disquisition on the
immortality of the soul. In spite of certain fantastic conceptions,
it must always retain its interest, as well by reason of its
speculations on a subject which is (or rather which ought to be) the
most interesting that can engage the mind, as because it purports to
be the last discourse of Sokrates, who was expecting in his prison the
approaching sentence of death. The _Phædrus_ derives its unusual merit
from the beauty of the language and style, and from the fact of its
being one of the few writings of antiquity in which the charms of rural
nature are described with enthusiasm.
The _Republic_, with which we are here chiefly concerned, since it
is in that important work that the author reproduces the dietetic
principles of Pythagoras, may have been first published amongst his
earlier writings, about the year 395; but that it was published in a
larger and revised edition at a later period is sufficiently evident.
It consists of ten Books. The question of Dietetics is touched upon
in the second and third, in which Plato takes care to point out the
essential importance to the well-being of his ideal state, that both
the mass of the community and, in a special degree, the _guardians_ or
rulers, should be educated and trained in proper dietetic principles,
which, if not so definitely insisted upon as we could wish them to have
been, sufficiently reveal the bias of his mind towards Vegetarianism.
In the second Book the discussion turns principally upon the nature
of Justice; and there is one passage which, still more significant
for the age in which it was written, is not without instruction
for the present. While Sokrates is discussing the subject with his
interlocutors, one of them is represented as objecting:
“With much respect be it spoken, you who profess to be admirers
of justice, beginning with the heroes of old, have every one
of you, without exception, made the praise of Justice and the
condemnation of Injustice turn solely upon the reputation and
honour and gifts resulting from them. But what each is in itself,
by its own peculiar force as it resides in the soul of its
possessor, unseen either by gods or men, has never, in poetry or
prose, been adequately discussed, so as to show that Injustice is
the greatest bane that a soul can receive into itself, and Justice
the greatest blessing. Had this been the language held by you all
from the first, and had you tried to persuade us of this from our
childhood, we should not be on the watch to check one another in
the commission of injustice, because everyone would be his own
watchman, fearful lest by committing injustice he might attach to
himself the greatest of evils.”
Very useful and necessary for those times, and not wholly inapplicable
to less remote ages, is the incidental remark in the same book, that
“there are quacks and soothsayers who flock to the rich man’s doors,
and try to persuade him that they have a power at command which
they procure from heaven, and which enables them, by sacrifices and
incantations, performed amid feasting and indulgence, to make amends
for any crime committed either by the individual himself or by his
ancestors.... And in support of all these assertions they produce the
evidence of poets--some, to exhibit the facilities of vice, quoting the
words:--
“Whoso wickedness seeks, may even in masses obtain it
Easily. Smooth is the way, and short, for nigh is her dwelling.
Virtue, heaven has ordained, shall be reached by the sweat of
the forehead.”
--_Hesiod_, _Works and Days_, 287.[14]
It is the fifth Book, however, which has always excited the greatest
interest and controversy, for therein he introduces his Communistic
views. Our interest in it is increased by the fact that it is the
original of the ideal Communisms of modern writers--the prototype of
the _Utopia_ of More, of the _New Atlantis_ of Francis Bacon, the
_Oceanica_ of Harrington, and the _Gaudentio_ of Berkeley, &c.
In maintaining the perfect natural equality of women to men,[15] and
insisting upon an identity of education and training, he advances
propositions which perhaps only the more advanced of the assertors
of women’s rights might be prepared to entertain. Whatever may have
been said by the various admirers of Plato, who have been anxious to
present his political or social views in a light which might render
them less in conflict with modern Conservatism, there can be no doubt
for any candid reader of the _Republic_ that the author published to
the world his _bonâ fide_ convictions. One of the _dramatis personæ_
of the dialogue, while expressing his concurrence in the Communistic
legislation of Sokrates, at the same time objects to the difficulty of
realising it in actual life, and desires Sokrates to point out whether,
and how, it could be really practicable. Whereupon Sokrates (who it is
scarcely necessary to remark, is the convenient mouthpiece of Plato)
replies: “Do you think any the worse of an artist who has painted the
_beau idéal_ of human beauty, and has left nothing wanting in the
picture, because he cannot prove that such a one as he has painted
might possibly exist? Were not we, likewise, proposing to construct,
in theory, the pattern of a perfect State? Will our theory suffer at
all in your good opinion if we cannot prove that it is _possible_ for a
city to be organised in the manner proposed?”
As has been well paraphrased by the interpreters to whom we are
indebted for the English version: “The possibilities of realising such
a commonwealth in actual practice is quite a secondary consideration,
which does not in the least affect the soundness of the method or the
truth of the results. All that can fairly be demanded of him is to
show how the imperfect politics at present existing may be brought
most nearly into harmony with the perfect State which has just been
described. To bring about this great result one fundamental change
is necessary, and only one: the highest political power must, by
some means or other, be vested in philosophers.” The next point
to be determined is, What is, or ought to be, implied by the term
_philosopher_, and what are the characteristics of the true philosophic
disposition? “They are--(1) an eager desire for the knowledge of all
real existence; (2) hatred of falsehood, and devoted love of truth; (3)
contempt for the pleasures of the body; (4) indifference to money; (5)
high-mindedness and liberality; (6) justice and gentleness; (7) a quick
apprehension and a good memory; (8) a musical, regular, and harmonious
disposition.” But how is this disposition to be secured? Under the
present condition of things, and the corrupting influences of various
kinds, where temptations abound to compromise truth and substitute
expediency and self-interest, it would seem wellnigh impossible and
Utopian to expect it.
“How is this evil to be remedied? The State itself must regulate the
study of philosophy, and must take care that the students pursue it on
right principles, and at a right age. And now, surely, we may expect
to be believed when we assert that if a State is to prosper it must be
governed by philosophers. If such a contingency should ever take place
(and why should it not?), our ideal State will undoubtedly be realised.
So that, upon the whole, we come to this conclusion: The constitution
just described is the best, if it can be realised; and to realise it is
difficult, but not impossible.” At this moment, when the question of
compulsory education, under the immediate superintendence of the State,
is being fought with so much fierceness--on one side, at least--to
recur to Plato might not be without advantage.
In the most famous dialogue of Plato--the _Republic_, or, as it might
be termed _On Justice_--the principal interlocutors, besides Sokrates,
are Glaukon, Polymachus, and Adeimantus; and the whole piece originates
in the chance question which rose between them, “What is Justice?”
In the second Book, from which the following passage is taken, the
discussion turns upon the origin of society, which gives opportunity
to Sokrates to develop his opinions upon the diet best adapted for the
community--at all events, for the great majority:--
“‘They [the artisans and work-people generally] will live, I
suppose, on barley and wheat, baking cakes of the meal, and
kneading loaves of the flour. And spreading these excellent cakes
and loaves upon mats of straw or on clean leaves, and themselves
reclining on rude beds of yew or myrtle-boughs, they will make
merry, themselves and their children, drinking their wine, weaving
garlands, and singing the praises of the gods, enjoying one
another’s society, and not begetting children beyond their means,
through a prudent fear of poverty or war.’
“Glaukon here interrupted me, remarking, ‘Apparently you describe
your men feasting, without anything to relish their bread.’[16]
“‘True,’ I said, ‘I had forgotten. Of course they will have
something to relish their food. Salt, no doubt, and olives, and
cheese, together with the country fare of boiled onions and
cabbage. We shall also set before them a dessert, I imagine,
of figs, pease, and beans: they may roast myrtle-berries and
beech-nuts at the fire, taking wine with their fruit in moderation.
And thus, passing their days in tranquillity and sound health,
they will, in all probability, live to an advanced age, and dying,
bequeath to their children a life in which their own will be
reproduced.’
“Upon this Glaukon exclaimed, ‘Why, Sokrates, if you were founding
a community of swine, this is just the style in which you would
feed them up!’
“‘How, then,’ said I, ‘would you have them live, Glaukon?’