ポントスのヘラクレイデス断片89におけるピュタゴラスの輪廻思想

Abstract

For what purpose and in what situation did Pythagoras set forth metempsychosis? It is generally accepted that he taught the doctrine of metempsychosis. But in Heraclides, fr. 89 Wehrli the main motif is the memory of his previous lives rather than metempsychosis itself. It was Pythagoras himself who chose Euphorbus as his earlier incarnation. It is not obvious why he chose this obscure figure. The answer is suggested by the fact that Euphorbus is unique in leaving 'behind two traces, a shield dedicated to Apollo's temple and a passage of Ilias (Il. XVII 51-60). Pythagoras chose Euphorbus because he could prove his earlier incarnation with these clues. The memory of earlier incarnations was, as Emp. B 129 testifies, a source of his knowledge. Pythagoras gave evidence in proving himself to have been Euphorbus that his stored knowledge was true. Many miracles are reported about Pythagoras. They are defined as performances in front of the general public, not selected disciples, to attest his supernatural power. The attestation of his memory should be placed on a level with these miracles. Pythagoras did not teach the doctrine of metempsychosis, but performed a miracle of attesting his memory of previous lives on the premise of the metempsychosis which had been introduced into the Greek world by Pherecydes. A motif of katabasis is also interwoven into Heraclides, fr. 89 that, as a whole, tells of the transmigration of Pythagoras' soul. The katabasis of Pythagoras is transmitted by some testimonies with differences. The historical fact was that, having shut himself up in an underground room, and reappeared, Pythagoras made such impressive speeches that he persuaded the Crotoniates of his katabasis. As Burkert rightly interprets, Pythagoras performed katabasis to get a message from Meter, Demeter. Pythagoras played the role of a hierophant in the cult of Demeter. He worked the miracle of demonstrating his memory in the speeches following his katabasis. Many scholars have paid the more attention to Porphyr. vit. Pyth. 19, where the doctrine of metempsychosis is systematically described, because the testimonies about Pythagoras' teachings are scanty. They regard section 19 as a quotation from Dicaearchus, joining this section to the previous section 18, Dicaearchus fr. 33 Wehrli. According to section 19, contrary to our conclusion, Pythagoras taught the "dogmata" of metempsychosis. But I regard this section neither as traceable to Dicaearchus, nor as having credibility, because of the wrong usage of the Pythagorean term, "siope", and Dicaearchus' materialistic view that disbelieved in the immortality of the soul.