and India Pyrrho

EVERARD FLINTOFF

In his carefully and precisely documented life of Pyrrho of Elis, a life which is certainly one of the best such in The Lives of the Eminent Philosophers and draws upon an impressive gamut of different and seemingly in- dependent sources (some of them, like Antigonus of Carystus (IX 62)1, near contemporaries of the subject of the biography), Diogenes Laertius ex- plicitly states that after some contacts with such unimpressive and little known Greek philosophers as Bryson and Anaxarchus, Pyrrho travelled to India in the company of Anaxarchus with the consequence that (IX 69) Tois YUf.LvoaocpLaTŒLIIF-V'Iv6ij Jvppi(«1 xal rots As a result of this, accord- ing to the early source, Antigonus of Carystus (IX 63), and also Ascanius of Abdera (IX 62),2 he adopted his sceptical and 'epochic' philosophy. This assertion is made not merely once, but twice (it occurs again at IX 63). And it is surely the plain meaning that Pyrrho there both encountered and associated with not merely a group of those ascetics who seem to have withdrawn from all society since as early as the writing of the Jain and Buddhist scriptures3 but also certain 'magi', who might just conceivably be the Iranian priestly Magi, but given the use of the word Magus at this date and this particular context, are more probably some group of holy men from India itself,4 either Hindu, Jainist or conceivably even Buddhist, and that as a result of this encounter not merely the life style but the very thought of Pyrrho was completely transformed. Now, as I have already shown, this explicit testimony as to the origins of Pyrrhonean scepticism is not merely presented once, but is repeated again, with some circumstantial detail, and, as though to stress this still further, the sources for the tes- timony are listed, one of them a very early source indeed. In view of this it seems rather curious, to put it mildly, that, with but one or two not always well-known exceptions and none of these perhaps very systematic in their treatment of the issue,5 the majority of scholars have preferred to carry on as though this passage of the life of Pyrrho had never existed. A fairly typical reaction is that of A. A. Long in his Hellenistic Philosophy (London 1974) p. 80: "It is impossible to know whether oriental influences played any significant part in Pyrrho's philosophical development. The evidence does not require such a hypothesis." In view of what we have said, what possible justification can there be for

88 taking up such an attitude? I suppose that it might just be argued that there is something to be said for taking up a Pyrrhonean position when the object under consideration is Pyrrho himself. And I suppose too that one might concede that any specialist who is a recognised authority on one field is going to find it decidedly uncomfortable to venture out into the exposed wastes of another.6 But surely the only serious and legitimate justifications for not exploring the matter must be that either the Pyrrhonean philosophy is so obviously un-Indian in both its shape and argumentation that it would be a waste of time to pursue the matter any further or on the other hand that Diogenes Laertius and his sources are so blatantly unreliable when it comes to contacts with the Orient that here too their evidence can be brushed aside without any further discussion. But are either or both of these assumptions true? Let us take the latter case first. At first sight it does perhaps appear as though there might be something in it. Diogenes and the sources which he has chosen to use do genuinely seem rather prone to detecting oriental influences upon the most unlikely Greek philosophers. Thus, to confine our scrutiny to those philosophers who lived before or during Pyrrho's lifetime, and to list them in the order in which they appear in Diogenes' Lives, Diogenes states that according to Pamphila Thales associated with the Egyptians, Solon travelled to Egypt, Cyprus, Libya and Lydia, Cleobulus was reported by source or sources unknown to have studied philosophy in Egypt; Pythagoras, according to Antiphon Ilepv rcov tv apETT)ITPWTF-I)G&VTWV, visited Egypt, learnt the Egyptian language and, possibly according to the same source, journeyed among the Chaldaeans and the Magi; Eudoxus, according to Sotion, travelled to Egypt, stayed there for sixteen months, having become Egyptianised, and possibly translated some Egyptian books; Democritus, according to Demetrius and Antisthenes, travelled as far as Egypt, Persia and the Red Sea and, according to some other unspecified authorities, actually visited India, where he too associated with the Gymnosophists, and Ethiopia. It may be seen from this that it was generally believed that many philosophers had travelled very extensively abroad in search of knowledge long before the time of Pyrrho and had, in many cases, entered into communication with the 'philosophers' resident abroad. And I suppose that as this is 'an old story' people might well feel dubious about the authenticity of the traditions concerning Pyrrho. But one could just as legitimately view the issue in the opposite light. For, as we have just seen, not merely are there all these numerous instances of philosophers supposed to have travelled abroad, but these visits are attested by a whole variety of independent sources and are described as having been made not merely to one place but

89