No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
SOME FRESH AIR INTO THE NEOPYTHAGOREAN TRADITION: THE FRAGMENTS FROM ON KINGSHIP BY DIOTOGENES
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2020
Abstract
The Neopythagorean Diotogenes, author of a lost treatise On Kingship of which some fragments have come down to us in Stobaeus’ Anthology, is a largely neglected writer. Scholars either ignore him or briefly discuss him in the context of general overviews of Greek political thinking, usually comparing him to other Neopythagoreans such as Sthenidas and Ecphantus. This article argues that Diotogenes deserves to be read for his own sake, as a creative and subtle thinker who managed to contribute to his own philosophical tradition by benefiting from Homeric exegesis and by taking into account the more concrete demands of daily life.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press
Footnotes
I am much indebted to all the participants in the different Journées d’étude devoted to the Neopythagorean treatises On Kingship in Paris, and to Myrto Hatzimichali and to the anonymous referees of this journal, whose comments on an earlier draft of this article helped me a lot in clarifying my position.
References
Works cited
Aalders, G. J. D. (1969) ‘Νόμος ἔμψυχος’, in Steinmetz, P. (ed.), Politeia und res publica. Beiträge zum Verständnis von Politik, Recht und Staat in der Antike, Wiesbaden, 315–29.Google Scholar
Amato, E. (2014) Traiani praeceptor. Studi su biografia, cronologia e fortuna di Dione Crisostomo, Besançon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andorlini, I. and Luiselli, R. (2001) ‘Una ripresa di Diotogene Pitagorico, Sulla regalità, in PBingen 3 (encomio per Augusto?)’, ZPE 136, 155–66.Google Scholar
Asmis, E. (1991) ‘Philodemus's poetic theory and On the Good King according to Homer’, ClAnt 10, 1–45.Google Scholar
Balot, R. (2009) A companion to Greek and Roman political thought, Malden, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonazzi, M. (2013) ‘Eudorus of Alexandria and the “Pythagorean” pseudepigrapha’, in Cornelli, G., McKirahan, R. and Macris, C. (eds.), On Pythagoreanism, Berlin and Boston, 385–404.Google Scholar
Bréhier, É. (1907) Les idées philosophiques et religieuses de Philon d'Alexandrie, Paris.Google Scholar
Bucher-Isler, B. (1972) Norm und Individualität in den Biographien Plutarchs, Bern and Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Calabi, F. (2008) God's acting, man's acting: tradition and philosophy in Philo of Alexandria, Leiden and Boston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centrone, B. (1994) ‘Diotogène’, in Goulet, R. (ed.), Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques. Volume ii : Babélyca d'Argos à Dyscolius, Paris, 886.Google Scholar
Centrone, B. (2014) ‘The Pseudo-Pythagorean writings’, in Huffman (2014) 315–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chesnut, G. F. (1978) ‘The ruler and the logos in Neopythagorean, Middle Platonic, and late Stoic political philosophy’, in ANRW ii.16.2, Berlin and New York, 1310–32.Google Scholar
Cornelli, G. (2013) In search of Pythagoreanism: Pythagoreanism as an historiographical category, Berlin and Boston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curnis, M. (2011) ‘Plato Stobaeensis. Citazioni ed estratti platonici nell’Anthologion’, in Reydams-Schils, G. (ed.), Thinking through excerpts: studies on Stobaeus, Turnhout, 71–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daris, S. (2000) ‘Frammento di materia medica’, in Melaerts, H. (ed.), Papyri in honorem Johannis Bingen Octogenarii (P.Bingen), Leuven, 15–16.Google Scholar
Delatte, L. (1942) Les traités de la Royauté d'Ecphante, Diotogène et Sthénidas, Liège and Paris.Google Scholar
Dillon, J. (2014) ‘Pythagoreanism in the Academic tradition: the early Academy to Numenius’, in Huffman (2014) 250–73.Google Scholar
Dorandi, T. (1982) Filodemo. Il buon re secondo Omero. Edizione, traduzione e commento, Naples.Google Scholar
Fish, J. (2002) ‘Philodemus’ On the Good King according to Homer: Columns 21–31’, Cronache Ercolanesi 32, 187–232.Google Scholar
Frazier, F. (2016) Histoire et morale dans les Vies parallèles de Plutarque, 2nd edn, Paris.Google Scholar
Gangloff, A. (2009) ‘Le sophiste Dion de Pruse, le bon roi et l'empereur’, RH 311, 3–38.Google Scholar
Giannantoni, G. (1982) ‘Il pensiero politico greco dopo Alessandro Magno’, in Firpo, L. (ed.), Storia delle idee politiche, economiche e sociali. Volume i: L'antichità classica, Torino, 331–71.Google Scholar
Goodenough, E. R. (1928) ‘The political philosophy of Hellenistic kingship’, YClS 1, 53–102.Google Scholar
Goodenough, E. R. (1938) The politics of Philo Judaeus: practice and theory. With a general bibliography of Philo by H. L. Goodhart and E. R. Goodenough, Hildesheim.Google Scholar
Kagan, D. (1965) The great dialogue: history of Greek political thought from Homer to Polybius, New York and London.Google Scholar
Kahn, C. H. (2001) Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans: a brief history, Indianopolis and Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Martens, J. W. (2003) One God, one law: Philo of Alexandria on the Mosaic and Greco-Roman law, Boston and Leiden.Google Scholar
Mota, M. (2013) ‘Pythagoras Homericus: performance as Hermeneutic horizon to interpret Pythagorean tradition’, in Cornelli, G., McKirahan, R. and Macris, C. (eds.), On Pythagoreanism, Berlin and Boston, 103–15.Google Scholar
Muccioli, F. (2002) ‘Pitagora e i pitagorici nella tradizione antica’, in Vattuone, R. (ed.), Storia greci d'occidente, Bologna, 341–409.Google Scholar
Murray, O. (1970) ‘Περὶ βασιλείας: studies in the justification of monarchic power in the Hellenistic world’, PhD thesis, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Murray, O. (2007) ‘Philosophy and monarchy in the Hellenistic world’, in Rajak, T. et al. (eds.), Jewish perspectives on Hellenistic rulers, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, 13–28.Google Scholar
Panagopoulos, C. (1977) ‘Vocabulaire et mentalité dans les Moralia de Plutarque’, DHA 3, 197–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piccione, R. M. (1998), ‘Plutarco nell'Anthologion di Giovanni Stobeo’, in Gallo, I. (ed.), L'eredità culturale di Plutarco dall'Antichità al Rinascimento. Atti del vii Convegno plutarcheo, Milano – Gargnano, 28–30 maggio 1997, Naples, 161–201.Google Scholar
Richarson, W. (1957) ‘The Philonic patriarchs as Νόμος ἔμψυχος’, in Studia Patristica 1, 515–25.Google Scholar
Riedweg, C. (2005) Pythagoras: his life, teaching, and influence, Ithaca, NY and London.Google Scholar
Roskam, G. (2003) ‘Being the physician of one's own soul: on a Plutarchan fragment on anger (fr. 148 Sandbach)’, Humanitas 55, 41–62.Google Scholar
Salkever, S. (2009) The Cambridge companion to ancient Greek political thought, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulte, J. M. (2001) Speculum regis: Studien zur Fürstenspiegel-Literatur in der griechisch-römischen Antike, Münster, Hamburg and London.Google Scholar
Squilloni, A. (1991) Il concetto di ‘regno’ nel pensiero dello ps. Ecfanto. Le fonti e i trattati περὶ βασιλείας, Florence.Google Scholar
Thesleff, H. (1961) An introduction to the Pythagorean writings of the Hellenistic period, Abo.Google Scholar
Thesleff, H. (1965) The Pythagorean texts of the Hellenistic period, collected and edited, Abo.Google Scholar
Zeller, E. (1903) Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung. Dritter Theil, Zweite Abtheilung: Die nacharistotelische Philosophie, zweite Hälfte, Leipzig.Google Scholar
Zucconi, M. (1970) ‘La tradizione dei discorsi di Pitagora in Giamblico, Vita Pytagorica 37–57’, RFIC 98, 491–501.Google Scholar