Akusmata

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Akusmata ( Greek ἀκούσματα akúsmata "heard", "spoken words", a plural) is a term from the ancient Greek philosophy . It denotes sayings that were ascribed to the philosopher Pythagoras . Allegedly they were heard by his students and passed on to the following generations. Their origin and distribution are unclear and are controversial in classical studies. According to recent research, most of the sayings did not come from Pythagoras or his students and did not belong to the teaching material of the early Pythagorean community .

terminology

In all older and most of the later sources, the proverbs are called symbola (symbols). The term Akusmata is used in modern specialist literature, but was unusual in ancient times. It is first attested by Iamblichos of Chalkis , who lived in the 3rd and early 4th centuries, and was not in use even after his time.

Origin, classification and meaning

The Symbola are short rules of life and sayings that were allegedly communicated orally by Pythagoras and later put together in writing by followers of his teaching. The material handed down consists partly of questions and the corresponding answers, partly of regulations. The common division into three groups probably goes back to Aristotle . The first genre are definitions, i.e. answers to questions of the type “What is ...?”. The second genre are questions of the type “What is the most ...?”, Which aim at the highest level of improvement. The third, most important group is made up of the instructions. The answers are often puzzling and therefore need to be interpreted. The meaning of some sayings is unknown or only hypothetically deduced. In the ancient tradition, explanations are added to some of the symbols, which are intended to facilitate understanding.

Iamblichus of Chalkis reports on the division into the three genres, where he probably uses material from the representation of Aristotle. It provides a list of 39 instructions as well as two questions of the type “What is ...?” And seven questions of the type “What is most ...?”. Iamblichos points out that not all of the explanations given to the sayings attributed to Pythagoras are Pythagorean; a part was added later by outsiders.

Examples of defining sayings are: “What are the islands of the blessed? - Sun and Moon ”,“ What is the Delphi Oracle ? - The Tetraktys ”. Questions about the highest increase are, for example: “What is the best thing? - Harmony ”,“ What is the most powerful? - Insight ”. Sentences such as “Avoid the main streets and walk on the paths!”, “Do not take a swallow into your house!”, “Do not cross the yoke!” Are given rules of conduct, sometimes with justifications.

The instructions, which include commandments and prohibitions, are to be understood metaphorically according to a view widespread in antiquity and have a hidden deep meaning. It was claimed that the rule “Don't stoke the fire with a knife!” Means that one should not irritate an angry person with sharp words. A change can be seen in the sources: While the instructions in reports of older origin are taken literally, partly allegorically, or both options remain open, metaphorical interpretation dominates in the representations from the Roman Empire .

A modern research opinion says that the regulations were originally not only understood literally, but were also literally followed in the everyday life of the Pythagoreans. Their origin is to be sought in ancient folk beliefs and cult rites. According to this interpretation, it was archaic rules that shaped everyday life that had to be fearfully adhered to, restricted freedom of movement and put a heavy strain on life. Only later did the need for a rational understanding assert itself. As a result, the search for a hidden meaning began, and so the allegorical-symbolic interpretation emerged. A contrary hypothesis is that probably nobody followed the rules in the literal sense, in any case there was no code of conduct of the early Pythagoreans consisting of the instructions. Both directions of research assume that the meaning of most proverbs was originally a literal one and that in these cases the allegorical interpretation only emerged over time and finally prevailed in the literary processing of the material.

Modern research assumes that what was originally a relatively small stock of Symbola has been massively expanded over time. The taboos , which, among other things, concern individual animal foods such as certain sea fish, apparently did not arise from Pythagoreanism. Parallels in Homer and Hesiod , in mystery cults , folk beliefs and magical practices show that the origin of these prohibitions is to be sought in folklore .

Acousmatic

Since Pythagoras did not set his teachings in writing, different perspectives developed early on in the community. By the middle of the 5th century at the latest, different currents became apparent among those who professed the Pythagorean tradition. There should have been two very different groups, the "acousmatists" and the "mathematicians". Allegedly, the acousmatists oriented themselves to the instructions in the Symbola, the mathematicians to "Mathemata", which means verifiable knowledge, not just mathematics. However, this split is only mentioned in reports from the imperial period, the source of which is doubtful. It is unclear whether Pythagoras divided his students into groups, depending on their inclination and ability, to which he assigned different tasks. Allegedly there were "esoterics" (privileged students) and "exoterics" (mere listeners) with him. In any case, according to a report that some researchers attribute to Aristotle, at an unknown point in time after the death of the school's founder, a split between two directions occurred. Each of them claimed to continue the authentic tradition of Pythagoras.

According to information, the credibility of which is disputed, those who adhered to the Symbola had a religious belief in authority. Accordingly, they were convinced of the superhuman nature and infallibility of the master Pythagoras, strictly followed the rules and responded to objections with the "proof of authority": "He [Pythagoras] said it." A late tradition that it was an esoteric secret doctrine of Pythagoras which defines the hidden meaning of the enigmatic sayings and which the master only proclaimed to his disciples, who were bound to strict discretion, Leonid Zhmud considers implausible. The opposite opinion represented Walter Burkert and Gabriele Cornelli. They bring the original Pythagoreanism close to the mystery cults and believe that all students of Pythagoras were acousmatists who were bound to secrecy. Johan C. Thom takes on a mediating position. He suspects that Pythagoras laid the basis of a collection of sayings that were already widespread at the time and added his own ideas. In Thom's view, there was already a tendency to believe in letters and a rationally oriented tendency among the early Pythagoreans, and later, through the consolidation of this opposition, the division into mathematicians and acousmatists arose. Tomáš Vítek, who thinks the split is a legend, has a different opinion. In Vítek's opinion, the oldest collection of allegedly Pythagorean sayings was not created in the circle of the Pythagoreans and was not intended for them. Rather, it probably originated in the milieu of the rival philosophy schools of the late 4th century BC. BC, probably in the Peripatos .

reception

Antiquity

The oldest interpretive script is the lost interpretation of Pythagorean symbols , which, according to the predominant research opinion, Anaximandros of Miletus the Younger at the end of the 5th century or in the early 4th century BC. Chr. Composed. It is only known from its mention in the Suda , a Byzantine encyclopedia, but forms the starting point of part of the tradition available today. The Athens-based scholar Anaximandros collected the symbols available to him and endeavored to illuminate the hidden meaning that he ascribed to them.

Aristotle is said to be the author of a now lost treatise on the Pythagoreans , which in any case comes from his school; The imperial doxographer Diogenes Laertios quotes some sayings from it. Only fragments have survived from a work on the Pythagorean Symbola , written by a New Pythagorean named Androkydes. The presentation in the works on the Pythagorean life and Protreptikos (appeal) to the philosophy of Iamblichus of Chalkis is detailed . At least a considerable part of it is based on communications from Aristotle.

In addition to these authors who devoted special treatises to Pythagoreanism or the Symbola, many other ancient writers also showed an interest in Proverbs. Among them are Plutarch , who dealt with the Symbola in his table talks , Lucian of Samosata , Alian and Athenaios as well as a number of Christian authors and neo-Platonists from late antiquity . The church writers Clemens of Alexandria , Origen and Ambrose of Milan were interested in the moral interpretation of the regulations. The church father Hieronymus († 420) put together a list of thirteen symbols with brief explanations and mentioned that in his time in the former Magna Graecia , the area where early Pythagoreanism spread in southern Italy, Pythagorean doctrines (dogmata) were publicly recorded on boards everywhere .

Middle Ages and Early Modern Times

The list of Hieronymus became the starting point for the medieval reception. The symbola was discussed in widespread late medieval works - the Gesta Romanorum , the Speculum historiale of Vinzenz von Beauvais and the Liber de vita et moribus philosophorum of the pseudo-Walter Burley. Seven Proverbs are quoted in the compilation Picatrix , a handbook of magic and astrology originally written in Arabic, which circulated in a Latin translation in the late Middle Ages and had a considerable aftereffect in the early modern period .

Among the Renaissance humanists , Leon Battista Alberti (1404–1472) was the first to discuss the Symbola in detail. In one of his table talks (intercenales) a number of sayings with short explanations is recited and discussed. Alberti, influenced by Lukian's satirical portrayal of Pythagoreanism, treated the subject in a cheerful, humorous way.

Thanks to the efforts of the humanists, the source base expanded considerably in the 15th century. The works of Iamblichus on Pythagorean life and the call to philosophy , inaccessible in the Middle Ages , were discovered. Marsilio Ficino had access to this source material from the early 1460s and dealt with it intensively. He compared the Symbola with biblical commandments and wrote a little Latin commentary, the Commentariolus in symbola Pythagorae , in which he interpreted some of the proverbs. The cleric Antonio degli Agli, a contemporary of Ficino, wrote an Explanatio symbolorum Pythagorae (Explanation of the Symbola of Pythagoras) , with which he presented a critical assessment from a Catholic point of view. Finally, in 1500, the Florentine diplomat and scholar Giovanni Nesi wrote the Symbolum Nesianum , a collection of 48 Symbola with commentary. The humanist Filippo Beroaldo the Elder published another commentary in Bologna in 1503, the Symbola Pythagorica moraliter explicata (Pythagorean Symbola Morally Explained) . Erasmus von Rotterdam presented in his Adagia , a revised version of his collection of proverbs, printed in Venice in 1508 , an allegorical interpretation of symbols. Johannes Reuchlin discussed the Symbola in 1517 in his treatise De arte cabalistica (On Cabalistic Art) , which was written in dialogue form , whereby he was primarily moralizing. Finally, in 1551 , the Florentine scholar Lilio Gregorio Giraldi published a two-volume study of ancient riddles and sayings, the second volume of which is dedicated to the “Pythagorae symbola”. Giraldi examined his topic from a religious studies perspective and addressed the question of the authenticity of the material that has survived. In contrast to his predecessors, he did not pursue any moral or ideological goal, but limited himself to scientific analysis.

Text editions and translations

  • Laura Gemelli Marciano (Ed.): The pre-Socratics . Volume 1, Artemis & Winkler, Düsseldorf 2007, ISBN 978-3-7608-1735-4 , pp. 118–133, 206–208 (Greek source texts with German translation and explanations)
  • Maria Timpanaro Cardini (Ed.): Pitagorici. Testimonianze e frammenti . Volume 3, La Nuova Italia, Firenze 1964, pp. 240-271 (Greek source texts with Italian translation and explanations)

literature

  • Walter Burkert: Wisdom and Science. Studies on Pythagoras, Philolaus and Plato . Hans Carl, Nürnberg 1962, pp. 150-175, 187-202
  • Kurt von Fritz : mathematician and acousmatist among the ancient Pythagoreans . Publishing house of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences, Munich 1960
  • Christoph Riedweg : Pythagoras: life, teaching, aftermath. An introduction , 2nd edition, Beck, Munich 2007, ISBN 978-3-406-48714-9 , pp. 89-105, 139-142
  • Johan C. Thom: The Pythagorean Akousmata and Early Pythagoreanism. In: Gabriele Cornelli et al. (Ed.): On Pythagoreanism (= Studia Praesocratica , Volume 5). De Gruyter, Berlin / Boston 2013, ISBN 978-3-11-031845-6 , pp. 77-101
  • Tomáš Vítek: The origins of the Pythagorean Symbola. In: La Parola del Passato 64, 2009, pp. 241-270
  • Bartel Leendert van der Waerden : The Pythagoreans . Artemis, Zurich / Munich 1979, ISBN 3-7608-3650-X , pp. 64–99
  • Leonid Zhmud: Science, Philosophy and Religion in Early Pythagoreanism . Akademie Verlag, Berlin 1997, ISBN 3-05-003090-9 , pp. 93-104
  • Leonid Zhmud: Pythagoras and the Early Pythagoreans. Oxford University Press, Oxford 2012, ISBN 978-0-19-928931-8 , pp. 169-205

reception

  • Christopher S. Celenza: Piety and Pythagoras in Renaissance Florence. The Symbolum Nesianum. Brill, Leiden 2001, ISBN 90-04-12211-7

Remarks

  1. ^ Leonid Zhmud: Pythagoras and the Early Pythagoreans , Oxford 2012, p. 173.
  2. ^ Leonid Zhmud: Pythagoras and the Early Pythagoreans , Oxford 2012, pp. 170f.
  3. ^ Johan C. Thom: The Pythagorean Akousmata and Early Pythagoreanism. In: Gabriele Cornelli et al. (Ed.): On Pythagoreanism , Berlin / Boston 2013, pp. 77–101, here: 94–98.
  4. ^ Iamblichos, De vita Pythagorica 82-86. See Walter Burkert: Weisheit und Wissenschaft , Nürnberg 1962, pp. 151–154.
  5. ^ Walter Burkert: Wisdom and Science , Nuremberg 1962, pp. 155–157; Leonid Zhmud: Pythagoras and the Early Pythagoreans , Oxford 2012, pp. 170f .; Bartel Leendert van der Waerden: Die Pythagoreer , Zurich / Munich 1979, pp. 79–93.
  6. Cornelia J. de Vogel: Pythagoras and Early Pythagoreanism , Assen 1966, pp. 160f .; see. Walter Burkert: Wisdom and Science , Nuremberg 1962, p. 158f.
  7. Geoffrey S. Kirk , John E. Raven, Malcolm Schofield (eds.): Die vorsokratischen Philosophen , Stuttgart 2001, p. 255 (text, translation and commentary). See Johan C. Thom: The Pythagorean Akousmata and Early Pythagoreanism. In: Gabriele Cornelli et al. (Ed.): On Pythagoreanism , Berlin / Boston 2013, pp. 77–101, here: pp. 82f. and note 29.
  8. Leonid Zhmud: Pythagoras and the Early Pythagoreans , Oxford 2012, pp. 192–199.
  9. ^ Walter Burkert: Wisdom and Science , Nuremberg 1962, pp. 157–159, 175; Christoph Riedweg: Pythagoras: life, teaching, aftermath , 2nd edition, Munich 2007, p. 92f.
  10. Leonid Zhmud: Science, Philosophy and Religion in Early Pythagoreism , Berlin 1997, pp. 93-100.
  11. Leonid Zhmud: Pythagoras and the Early Pythagoreans , Oxford 2012, pp. 192–194; Walter Burkert: Wisdom and Science , Nuremberg 1962, p. 157f. See Tomáš Vítek: The origins of the Pythagorean Symbola. In: La Parola del Passato 64, 2009, pp. 241–270, here: 248–251.
  12. ^ Leonid Zhmud: Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans. In: Hellmut Flashar et al. (Ed.): Early Greek Philosophy (= Outline of the History of Philosophy . The Philosophy of Antiquity. Volume 1), Half Volume 1, Basel 2013, pp. 375–438, here: 389f .; Tomáš Vítek: The origins of the Pythagorean Symbola. In: La Parola del Passato 64, 2009, pp. 241–270, here: 253–255.
  13. ^ Leonid Zhmud: Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans. In: Hellmut Flashar et al. (Ed.): Early Greek Philosophy (= Outline of the History of Philosophy. The Philosophy of Antiquity. Volume 1), Half Volume 1, Basel 2013, pp. 375–438, here: 384, 402.
  14. Bartel Leendert van der Waerden: Die Pythagoreer , Zurich / Munich 1979, p. 64ff .; Walter Burkert: Wisdom and Science , Nuremberg 1962, pp. 187-202; Leonid Zhmud: Science, Philosophy and Religion in Early Pythagoreanism , Berlin 1997, pp. 93-104.
  15. ^ Walter Burkert: Wisdom and Science , Nuremberg 1962, pp. 190f .; Bartel Leendert van der Waerden: Die Pythagoreer , Zurich / Munich 1979, pp. 69–73; Leonid Zhmud: Science, Philosophy and Religion in Early Pythagoreism , Berlin 1997, pp. 100-104, is different .
  16. Bartel Leendert van der Waerden: Die Pythagoreer , Zurich / Munich 1979, pp. 64–70. Cf. John T. Hamilton: The Pythagorean Cult and the Acousmatic Communication of Knowledge. In: Therese Fuhrer , Almut-Barbara Renger (ed.): Performanz von Wissen , Heidelberg 2012, pp. 49–54, here: 49–51.
  17. Ancient documents are compiled by Arthur S. Pease (ed.): M Tulli Ciceronis de natura deorum liber primus , Cambridge (Mass.) 1955, pp. 149f.
  18. Leonid Zhmud: Pythagoras and the Early Pythagoreans , Oxford 2012, pp. 183-205.
  19. ^ Walter Burkert: Wisdom and Science , Nuremberg 1962, pp. 150–175; Gabriele Cornelli: In Search of Pythagoreanism , Berlin 2013, pp. 62f., 71f., 78–83.
  20. ^ Johan C. Thom: The Pythagorean Akousmata and Early Pythagoreanism. In: Gabriele Cornelli et al. (Ed.): On Pythagoreanism , Berlin / Boston 2013, pp. 77–101, here: 82, 97f.
  21. ^ Tomáš Vítek: The origins of the Pythagorean Symbola. In: La Parola del Passato 64, 2009, pp. 241–270, here: 264–269.
  22. ^ Leonid Zhmud: Pythagoras and the Early Pythagoreans , Oxford 2012, pp. 193-199. See, however, the skeptical position of Tomáš Vítek: The origins of the Pythagorean Symbola. In: La Parola del Passato 64, 2009, pp. 241–270, here: 261 f.
  23. ^ Walter Burkert: Wisdom and Science , Nuremberg 1962, pp. 150–152; Johan C. Thom: The Pythagorean Akousmata and Early Pythagoreanism. In: Gabriele Cornelli et al. (Ed.): On Pythagoreanism , Berlin / Boston 2013, p. 78f.
  24. ^ Walter Burkert: Wisdom and Science , Nuremberg 1962, pp. 151–157. Cf. Leonid Zhmud: Pythagoras and the Early Pythagoreans , Oxford 2012, p. 197 and note 110. But cf. the skeptical statement by Tomáš Vítek: The origins of the Pythagorean Symbola. In: La Parola del Passato 64, 2009, pp. 241–270, here: 262–264.
  25. ^ Leonid Zhmud: Pythagoras and the Early Pythagoreans , Oxford 2012, pp. 171f.
  26. Christopher S. Celenza: Piety and Pythagoras in Renaissance Florence. The Symbolum Nesianum , Leiden 2001, pp. 10-12.
  27. Christopher S. Celenza: Piety and Pythagoras in Renaissance Florence. The Symbolum Nesianum , Leiden 2001, p. 12f.
  28. Christopher S. Celenza: Piety and Pythagoras in Renaissance Florence. The Symbolum Nesianum , Leiden 2001, p. 14f.
  29. Paul Oskar Kristeller (Ed.): Supplementum Ficinianum. Marsilii Ficini Florentini philosophi Platonici opuscula inedita et dispersa , Volume 2, Florence 1973 (reprint of the Florence edition 1937), pp. 100-103; Christopher S. Celenza: Piety and Pythagoras in Renaissance Florence. The Symbolum Nesianum , Leiden 2001, pp. 13 f., 17-19, 22-26.
  30. Christopher S. Celenza: Piety and Pythagoras in Renaissance Florence. The Symbolum Nesianum , Leiden 2001, pp. 26-31.
  31. Christopher S. Celenza: Piety and Pythagoras in Renaissance Florence. The Symbolum Nesianum , Leiden 2001, pp. 34-52.
  32. Christopher S. Celenza: Piety and Pythagoras in Renaissance Florence. The Symbolum Nesianum , Leiden 2001, pp. 52-63.
  33. Christopher S. Celenza: Piety and Pythagoras in Renaissance Florence. The Symbolum Nesianum , Leiden 2001, pp. 63-67.
  34. Christopher S. Celenza: Piety and Pythagoras in Renaissance Florence. The Symbolum Nesianum , Leiden 2001, pp. 67-71.
  35. Christopher S. Celenza: Piety and Pythagoras in Renaissance Florence. The Symbolum Nesianum , Leiden 2001, pp. 71-81.