But since now is not the time for us to examine at greater length this very important matter, I have obviously omitted much here, leaving as much I judge is sufficient for the wise who are fully aware that in the soul there is nothing corporeal that can be measured, nor any inherent mass nor spatial size, and this is understood from how it neither takes up space nor exerts weight nor is reduced to parts, as you, learned and skilled arbiter, will confirm to be the correct judgement, lest there be a location that returns to its place, or something divisible that cannot be cut, or something measurable that has no end.
Now I return to Philolaos, from whom I digressed a while ago by a large interval, who in his third book, which is titled πεϱὶ ῤυθμών xαὶ μέτϱων [‘On Rhythms and Measures’], says the following about the human soul:
‘The soul is put into the body by means of a number and an immortal and likewise incorporeal harmony.’
And later more:
‘The body is cherished by the soul, because without it, the soul is not able to use the senses. When after death it has been drawn out of the body, the soul lives an incorporeal life in the world.’
I will not now follow the side-roads of his explanations and the very complicated minute matters by which Philolaos, to whatever adversary you wish, shows these to be credible. If someone happens to be inflamed either with curiosity or zeal for this, he will surely draw from the source itself. […]
Likewise Archytas the Tarantine, another Pythagorean, in his magnificent work that he published about nature, after an extensive and very precise discussion of numbers:
‘The soul,’ he says, ‘is composed according to the model of the unit, which thus in its location in the body rules, just as one rules among the numbers.’ […]
Hippos the Metapontine, of the same school of Pythagoras, while putting forward irrefutable arguments for his way of thinking about the soul, published this:
‘The body is a different thing, and the soul is a very different thing, which uses the body to make inertia move, blindness see and death live, but afterwards, says at first not to know this.’
But I will not now chase down the opinions of all the philosophers of the Pythagorean family, so that with the proper measure from my larger collection of foreign books, I may compose what I consider to be enough of the foremost principles of the Pythagorean schools about the matter at hand, knowing the evidence brought forward, and determined of course to refute none of the teachers, who did not opine and publish their writings: Archippos, Epaminondas, Aristeos, Gorgiades, Diodoros and everyone after Pythagoras whose names are known, so as not to tell a multitude of opinions, which if I wanted to publish, I would fill a book.
Author: Claudianus Mamertus
Title of Work: On the State of the Soul (De Statu Animae)
Location in Work: 2.7
Date of Work: c. 470 CE
Original Language: Latin
Original Text:
Sed quoniam nunc tempus aliud est, quam ut de quaestionis huius praeeminentia copiosius disputemus, tantum scilicet in his moratus sum, quantum prudentibus satis arbitror, quo ad plene cognoscant nullas in anima corporeas esse mensuras vel localia pondera vel partium spatia, sed illud ab ea percipi, quod nec locus capit nec pondus movet nec divisio minuit, modo tu, arbiter docte, probaveris iustam gnarus ferre sententiam, anne sit locus quod in locale recipit, an partile quod secari nequit, an mensurabile quod infinitum capit.
nunc ad Philolaum redeo, a quo dudum magno intervallo digressus sum, qui in tertio voluminum, quae πεϱὶ ῤυθμών xαὶ μέτϱων praenotat, de anima humana sic loquitur:
“anima inditur corpori per numerum et inmortalem eandemque incorporalem convenientiam.”
item post alia:
“diligitur corpus ab anima, quia sine eo non potest uti sensibus. a quo postquam morte deducta est, agit in mundo incorporalem vitam.”
non ego nunc rationum tramitem et nexuosissimas quaestionum minutias revolvo, quibus haec probabilia quo voles adversante Philolaus efficit. in quae si quis uel curiositate uel studio forte flagrauerit, de ipso scilicet fonte hauriet. [...]
Archytas perinde Tarentinus idemque Pythagoricus in eo opere, quod magnificum de rerum natura prodidit, post multam de numeris subtilissimamque disputationem: “anima,” inquit, “ad exemplum unius conposita est, quae sic inlocaliter dominatur in corpore, sicut unus in numeris.” [...]
Hippon Metapontinus ex eadem schola Pythagorae praemissis pro statu sententiae suae insolubilibus argumentis de anima sic pronuntiat:
“longe aliud anima, aliud corpus est, quae corpore et torpente viget et caeco videt et mortuo vivit, unde autem, hoc est, quo principio nescire se dicit.”
sed non ita nunc omnium philosophorum Pythagoricae familiae sententias persequor, ut easdem copiosius aggerando de alienis admodum voluminibus meum faciam satis arbitrans memet principium Pythagorici gymnasii de praesenti quaestione scita evidentia protulisse. certus scilicet neminem refutare doctorum, quin hoc idem senserint scriptoque prodiderint Archippus, Epaminondas, Aristeus, Gorgiades, Diodorus et omnes Pythagorae posteri, quorum videlicet nominum, ne dicam sententiarum multitudine, si eadem prodita velim, voIumen efficerem.
Reference Edition: Engelbrecht, Claudiani Mamerti
Source of Date of Work: Fortin, Christianisme, 15
Commentary:
Claudianus Mamertus was a Christian Neo-Platonist of Vienna (now Vienne) in Gaul who played an important role in the history of Christian thought by persuasively arguing in the book that this text is extracted from in favor of a doctrine of the permanent and incorporeal nature of the soul (see Fortin, Christianisme).
In this extract Claudianus traces the doctrine’s origins to semi-legendary leading figures of the Pythagorean movement among the Greek colonies of southern Italy, but the lost texts he quotes are surely later, Neo-Pythagorean works of pseudepigraphy (see Huffman, Pythagoreanism). Philolaos and Hippasos of Metapontion were believed to be leaders of the Pythagorean movement during the 5th century BCE (see Huffman, Philolaus), whereas Archytas was a both a historical leading politician of one of the south Italian colonies (Taras, now Taranto) in the early 4th century BCE and a semi-legendary philosopher-mathematician (see Huffman, Archytas).
Aside from Aristeas, the other purported Pythagoreans named with varying accuracy are Archippos of Taras, Epimenides of Knossos, Gorgias of Leontini, and Diodoros of Aspendos. Claudianus seems to have been unaware that Aristeas, Epimenides and Gorgias published or had texts attributed to them.
Epimenides was also mentioned together with Aristeas by Pliny the elder, Apollonios the paradoxographer, Maximus of Tyre (twice), Iamblichos, Proklos of Lykia, Tatian and Clement of Alexandria. A biography of Epimenides was written by Diogenes Laertios (1.10). For testimonies and fragments of writings attributed to him see BNJ Epimenides von Kreta (457) and DK Epimenides (3).
Claudianus introduced Philolaos at section 2.3: see Huffman, Philolaus, Fragment 22 for an English translation of that passage.
Concordance: Huffman, Philolaus, F22; Huffman, Archytas, Spurious II.3