Humanitext Reader

Dionysius of Halicarnassus · Roman Antiquities §2.59.1-2.59.5

Chronological Refutation of Numa's Tutelage Under Pythagoras

Passage 150 of 962 · Greek

Summary

The author addresses the popular claim that Numa was a disciple of Pythagoras, refuting it on chronological grounds by pointing out the inconsistencies in their respective lifespans and the foundation date of Croton.

§2.59.1μέχρι μὲν δὴ τούτων οὐδὲν ἀντειπεῖν ἔχω πρὸς τοὺς ἐκδεδωκότας τὴν περὶ τὸν ἄνδρα τοῦτον ἱστορίαν, ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἑξῆς ἀπορῶ τί ποτε χρὴ λέγειν.
Up to this point, indeed, I have no reason to contradict those who have published the history concerning this man; but in what follows, I am at a loss as to what I ought to say.
πολλοὶ μὲν γάρ εἰσιν οἱ γράψαντες ὅτι Πυθαγόρου μαθητὴς ὁ Νόμας ἐγένετο καὶ καθʼ ὃν χρόνον ὑπὸ τῆς Ῥωμαίων πόλεως ἀπεδείχθη βασιλεὺς φιλοσοφῶν ἐν Κρότωνι διέτριβεν, ὁ δὲ χρόνος τῆς Πυθαγόρου ἡλικίας μάχεται πρὸς τὸν λόγον.
For there are many who have written that Numa was a disciple of Pythagoras, and that at the time he was appointed king by the city of the Romans, he was staying in Croton, studying philosophy; yet the time of Pythagoras's life conflicts with this account.
§2.59.2οὐ γὰρ ὀλίγοις ἔτεσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τέτταρσι γενεαῖς ὅλαις ὕστερος ἐγένετο Πυθαγόρας Νόμα, ὡς ἐκ τῶν κοινῶν παρειλήφαμεν ἱστοριῶν.
For Pythagoras was later than Numa, not by a few years, but by four whole generations, as we have received from the common histories.
ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἐπὶ τῆς ἑκκαιδεκάτης ὀλυμπιάδος μεσούσης τὴν Ῥωμαίων βασιλείαν παρέλαβε, Πυθαγόρας δὲ μετὰ τὴν πεντηκοστὴν ὀλυμπιάδα διέτριψεν ἐν Ἰταλίᾳ.
For the former received the Roman kingship in the middle of the sixteenth Olympiad, whereas Pythagoras stayed in Italy after the fiftieth Olympiad.
§2.59.3τούτου δʼ ἔτι μεῖζον ἔχω τεκμήριον εἰπεῖν ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ συμφωνεῖν τοὺς χρόνους ταῖς παραδεδομέναις ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἱστορίαις, ὅτι καθʼ ὃν χρόνον ὁ Νόμας ἐπὶ τὴν βασιλείαν ἐκαλεῖτο ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίων οὔπω πόλις ἦν ἡ Κρότων· τέτταρσι γὰρ ὅλοις ὕστερον ἔτεσιν ἢ Νόμαν ἄρξαι Ῥωμαίων Μύσκελος αὐτὴν ἔκτισεν ἐνιαυτῷ τρίτῳ τῆς ἑπτακαιδεκάτης ὀλυμπιάδος.
And I have an even greater proof than this to show that the times do not agree with the histories delivered concerning this man: namely, that at the time Numa was called to the kingship by the Romans, Croton was not yet a city; for four whole years after Numa began to rule the Romans, Myscelus founded it, in the third year of the seventeenth Olympiad.
οὔτε δὴ Πυθαγόρᾳ τῷ Σαμίῳ συμφιλοσοφῆσαι τῷ μετὰ τέτταρας ἀκμάσαντι γενεὰς δυνατὸς ἦν τὸν Νόμαν οὔτʼ ἐν Κρότωνι διατρίβειν, ὅτʼ αὐτὸν ἐκάλουν ἐπὶ τὴν βασιλείαν Ῥωμαῖοι, τῇ §2.59.4μήπω τότʼ οὔσῃ πόλει.
Thus, Numa was neither able to study philosophy with Pythagoras the Samian, who flourished four generations later, nor to stay in Croton when the Romans called him to the kingship, in a city that did not yet exist.
ἀλλʼ ἐοίκασιν οἱ τὰ ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ γράψαντες, εἰ χρὴ δόξαν ἰδίαν ἀποφήνασθαι, δύο ταῦτα λαβόντες ὁμολογούμενα, τήν τε Πυθαγόρου διατριβὴν τὴν γενομένην ἐν Ἰταλίᾳ καὶ τὴν Νόμα σοφίαν ʽὡμολόγηται γὰρ ὑπὸ πάντων ὁ ἀνὴρ γενέσθαι σοφόσʼ ἐπισυνάψαι ταῦτα καὶ ποιῆσαι Πυθαγόρου μαθητὴν τὸν Νόμαν οὐκέτι τοὺς βίους αὐτῶν ἐξετάσαντες, εἰ κατὰ τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἤκμασαν ἀμφότεροι χρόνους, §2.59.5ὅπερ ἐγὼ πεποίηκα νῦν· εἰ μή τις ἄρα Πυθαγόραν ἕτερον ὑποθήσεται πρὸ τοῦ Σαμίου γεγομέναι παιδευτὴν σοφίας, ᾧ συνδιέτριψεν ὁ Νόμας.
But those who wrote about him seem, if I must declare my own opinion, to have taken these two agreed facts—namely, the stay of Pythagoras which took place in Italy, and the wisdom of Numa (for it is agreed by all that the man was wise)—and to have joined them together and made Numa a disciple of Pythagoras, without examining their lifetimes to see if both flourished at the same time, as I have just done; unless, indeed, someone will suppose another Pythagoras, who existed before the Samian, to have been a teacher of wisdom, with whom Numa spent his time.
τοῦτο δʼ οὐκ οἶδʼ ὅπως ἂν ἀποδεῖξαι δύναιτο μηδενὸς τῶν ἀξιολόγων μήτε Ῥωμαίου μήθʼ Ἕλληνος, ὅσα κἀμὲ εἰδέναι, παραδεδωκότος ἐν ἱστορίᾳ.
But how anyone could prove this, I do not know, since no writer of repute, either Roman or Greek, so far as I know, has handed this down in history.
ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τούτων ἅλις.
But enough of these matters.

Notes

  1. 2.59.2Νόμα — Genitive of comparison depending on the comparative adjective ὕστερος ('later'). Νόμα is the genitive singular form of the first-declension masculine name Nōmās.
  2. 2.59.3ἢ Νόμαν ἄρξαι — The comparative conjunction ἢ ('than') corresponding to the comparative adverb ὕστερον ('later'), followed by an accusative and infinitive construction (subject: Νόμαν, verb: ἄρξαι). Literally 'later than Numa to rule,' expressing the temporal relationship 'after Numa began to rule.'
  3. 2.59.4ἐοίκασιν ... ἐπισυνάψαι ... καὶ ποιῆσαι — The main verb ἐοίκασι ('they seem') agrees with the subject participle phrase οἱ ... γράψαντες ('those who wrote') and governs the complementary infinitives ἐπισυνάψαι and ποιῆσαι. Despite the long parenthetical and participial clauses inserted between them, the core structure is 'those who wrote seem to have joined... and made...'.
  4. 2.59.5ὅσα κἀμὲ εἰδέναι — An idiomatic absolute infinitive of limitation. κἀμέ is a crasis of καί and ἐμέ, meaning 'as far as I know' or 'to my knowledge'.

Cite this passage

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities §2.59.1-2.59.5. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0081.tlg001.humanitext-grc2:2.59.1-2.59.5

Please note the AI-draft status of the translation and the date accessed.

Translation, notes and summary are AI-generated drafts, revised through reader feedback.