Cow-dung, and lying upon its back, it rolls it about (from claw to claw.)17
The Sphinx: Once again there is more here than meets the eye. It is possible that lamblicus or one of the other
sources could have made up the other details of a trip by Pythagoras to Egypt, but here we seem to have
conclusive proof - both of the trip itself and of Pythagoras’ initiation. For the description given of the
Egyptian linguistic system is in complete agreement with what has come to light with the discoveries of
Champollion and Young. 18 Stanley could not have known this, and it is highly improbable that Iamblicus or
any of the other biographers could have known it either. Hieroglyphic writing was a closely-guarded skill in
Egypt, and, as we noted earlier, its teaching required many years of study. Pythagoras’ initiation seems all
the more probable.
The Chimæra: Here is the concluding passage from the chapter:
Thus being acquainted with the learning of that Nation, and enquiring into the Commentaries of the
priests of former times, he knew the observations of innumerable Ages, as Valerius Maximus saith.
And living admir’d and belov’d of all the priests and prophets with whom he conversed, he informed
himself by their means accurately, concerning every thing; not omitting any person, eminent at that
time for learning, or any kind of religious rites; nor leaving any place unseen, by going into which he
conceived, that he might find something extraordinary. [For he went into the Adyta of the
Egyptians, (and, as Clemens saith, permitted himself to that end to be circumcised) and learned
things not to be communicated concerning the gods, mystick Philosophy.] He travelled to all the
Priests, and was instructed by every one, in that wherein they were particularly learned. In Egypt he
lived twenty two years, in their private sacred places, studying Astronomy and Geometry, and was
initiated (not cursorily or casually) into all the religious mysteries of the gods. Lærtius saith, He
made three Cups of silver, and presented them to each [Society] of the Egyptian Priests; which, as
we said, were three, of Heliopolis, Memphis, and Thebes. 19
The Sphinx: It is perhaps worthy of note that the sources cited by Stanley lived at points of time when the bulk of
the material from the library at Alexandria still existed. It is not unreasonable to assume that they would
have either taken or verified their accounts from such records as they could read [in Greek if not in
hieroglyphic] from that institution. At the time its prominence was unparalleled by any other literary
repository in the Mediterranean, and it is hard to imagine scholars - particularly ones dealing with such a
subject as this - bypassing it.
The Chimæra: The highly-selective “clubs” or schools which Pythagoras established in Sicily and southern Italy
seem to align more closely to the fashion of the Egyptian priesthoods than to schools of the Greek tradition.
Stanley, quoting lamblicus, makes this point and hints that Pythagoras’ exacting methods were not well-
received:
His country summoned him to some publick employment, that he might benefit the generality, and
communicate his knowledge: which he not refusing, endeavored to instruct them in the symbolical
17 Stanley, op. cit., pages 494-495.
18 Budge, Sir E.A. Wallis, Egyptian Language, pages 13-42.
19 Stanley, op. cit. , page 495.
- 29 -
way of learning, altogether resembling that of the Egyptians, in which he himself had been
instituted. But the Samians not affecting this way, did not apply themselves to him. 20
The Sphinx: I think we have satisfactorily established the links between Pythagoras and the Egyptian priesthoods.
Now we must determine to what extent the Egyptian doctrines reached Plato, either directly or through the
Pythagoreans.
The Chimæra: Stanley quotes the following passage from Porphyrus:
Moderatus saith, That this (Pythagorick Philosophy) came at last to be extinguished, first, because it
was aenigmatical; next, because their Writings were in the Dorick Dialect, which is obscure, by
which means, the Doctrines delivered in it were not understood, being spurious and
misapprehended, because (moreover) they who publish’d them were not Pythagoreans. Besides,
best of them, as their own, changing only some few things in them; but the more vulgar and trivial,
and whatsoever was afterwards invented by envious and calumnious persons, to cast a contempt
upon the Pythagorean School, they collected and delivered as proper to that sect. 21
The Sphinx: That certainly doesn’t appear to be too complimentary to Plato. Yet the fact remains that the
cosmological philosophy in the Timæus is indisputably Pythagorean, yet is nowhere credited by Plato to the
Pythagoreans or to Pythagoras himself. What of the Pythagoreans’ political doctrines?
The Chimæra: In The Genesis of Plato’s Thought, Alban D. Winspear summarizes them succinctly, if less
exhaustively than Stanley:
It is true that Pythagoras himself seems to have held no elective office in any Greek state. His
function was rather to organize political clubs which busied themselves with practical political
affairs and developed a general intellectual apologia for aristocratic rule.
[Quoting Iamblicus] The Pythagoreans met in caucuses and gave counsel about political
affairs. With the passage of time, it came about that the young men not only took the lead
in domestic matters but in public too; they came to govern the city, forming a great political
club. For they were more than three hundred in number.
It is in this connection not without significance that Pythagoras himself held (according to one
authority) [Stobæus] that all income should come from agriculture. Here we have a hint of that
same prejudice against the merchants and the democracy, that defense of the position of the landed
proprietor which so constantly recurs in Greek idealistic thinkers.
Once this point is understood, the philosophical teachings of the Pythagoreans become intelligible.
A passage in lamblicus (which goes back to Aristoxenus) gives their point of view very clearly, and
we must connect it with our previous discussion about the importance of the problem of justice:
Pythagoras thought that the most efficacious device for the establishment of justice was the
rule of the gods, and beginning with that he established the state and the laws, justice and
the just.
In this interesting passage we have a long step forward in the theologizing of the concept of justice.
The contemplation of divine things, thought the Pythagoreans, instructed by Pythagoras himself,
was useful for mankind. The reason was that we need a master, some ruling principle against which
we do not dare to rise in rebellion, and this is provided by the divinity. Our animal nature, he
argued, is subject to hybris and is diverse and chaotic, subject to control by a variety of impulses,
desires, and passions. There must be a power which by its superiority and its “threatening eminence
( epanastasis)” will introduce prudence and order into chaos. 22
The Sphinx: Compare this notion of justice as a divine standard to the Egyptian concept of Maat which we
discussed earlier. Here we find evidence of a Form discussed virtually identically by first the Egyptians, then
20 Ibid., page 496.
21 Ibid., page 508.
22 Winspear, Alban D., The Genesis of Plato’s Thought, pages 81-82.
- 30 -
Pythagoras, then Plato. It is something higher than law, higher than human reason or learned wisdom - it is
a “god” itself.
The Chimæra: The actual characteristics of what are generally known as the “Egyptian gods” are far closer to the
notion of Forms than they are to the later pantheons of pagan cultures such as Greece, Rome, and
Scandinavia. A reading of Egyptian texts translated directly from the hieroglyphic will substantiate this. In
only a very few legends [such as that of the death and rebirth of Osiris] do the gods assume human
behavioral characteristics. In the vast bulk of the existing texts they are far more abstract, having
“personalities” that seem to overlap one another and symbolic attributes that are difficult to identify in
terms of purely-human desires. Consider the following inscription from the tomb of Rameses VI in this
light, noticing the overlap between Truth ( Maat) and Ra:
Adoration to Truth. Salutation to thee, this Eye of Ra through which he lives every day! They who
are behind the chapel fear her, the Brilliant One, She who comes out from the head of him who
made her. On the Head Serpent, who comes out in front of him! Thou art the brilliant eye who leads
him, the word of judgment of the One Whose Name Is Hidden, the victorious one before the
Ennead, Lady of Fear, great of respect, Truth, through whom Ra is glorified, she who appeases for
him the Two Lands by her decrees, she who speaks to the gods and chases away evil, whose
abomination is sin, she who appeases the hearts of the gods! Thou art the balance of the Lord of the
Two Banks, whose face is beautiful when Ra comes to his Truth, being glorious through her. Those
in Busiris praise him through her, litanies are sung to him by the great gods while she adores the
powers of the Two Chapels. He is glorious through her, more than the gods, in this her name of the
Brilliant One. Thoth brought her and reckoned her, the Established One, the Brilliant, the Reckoned
One, in this her name of the Ipet Serpent. He made her live as a Uræus in this her name of Opener
of the Ways, She who leads him on the ways of the horizon, in this her name of Leader of Men. He
erected her on his head in this her name of Very Great Crown. 23
The Sphinx: A passage such as this is quite impossible to explain in terms of ordinary human conventions and
values. It certainly bears scant resemblance to the light, allegorical adventures of later Mediterranean gods
and goddesses. Yet to one versed in the language of the Egyptian priesthoods, its meanings are quite clear. If
Plato were an Egyptian initiate, one can see why he would dismiss conventional means of reductionist logic
as a means for comprehending the Forms.
The Chimæra: We have seen definite evidence of Pythagorean doctrine in the Platonic writings, and at the
beginning of this discussion we recounted Plato’s visit to the Pythagorean centers in Italy and Africa from
399 to 387 BCE. But are there any grounds to suppose that Plato received direct initiation at the hands of an
Egyptian priesthood?
The Sphinx: There are at least two indications that he did. First there is the following passage from the Prefaces of
St. Jerome [circa 340-420 CE], placed by order of Popes Sixtus V [1585-1590] and Clement VIII
[1592-1605] as introduction to the Bible:
Pythagoras and Plato, those masters of the genius of Greece, visited as pilgrims seeking after
knowledge and as humble disciples the sacerdotal college of the soothsayers at Memphis
[ Memphiticos vates], preferring to be initiated with respect to the ancient doctrines of that distant
land, rather than impose on their country the yoke of their own ideas. 24
The Chimæra: At the risk of belaboring the point, I again note that this passage was written prior to the final
destruction of the Alexandrian library and [possibly] such references to the matter as it may have contained
for scholars of the time.
The Sphinx: For that matter, there may have been other sources available to St. Jerome which, for one reason or
another, have not survived to the present day. Our second bit of evidence comes from Proclus, who states
that Plato was initiated in Egypt over a thirteen-year period by the priests Patheneitb, Ochoaps,
Sechtnouphis, and Etymon of Sebennithis. 25
23 Piankoff, Alexandre (Ed.), The Tomb of Ramesses VI, page 321.
24 “Taceo de philosophis, astronomis, astrologis, quorum scientia mortalibus utilissima est, et in tres partes scinditur. to dogma
thnmeqodon, thn empeirian. Ad minores artes veniam,” etc. [A. Hyeronomi, Prologus galateatus, in Bibl. saer.].
25 Proclus, quoted in Christian, Paul, Histoire de la Magie, du Monde Surnaturel et de la Fatalité à travers les Temps et les
Peuples, page 88.
- 31 -
The Chimæra: Again we can indulge in a little detective-work. The names of the first three priests can be rendered
precisely in hieroglyphics; that argues for their authenticity. [The fourth can be rendered only
approximately and thus is not conclusive.] The “thirteen-year period” happens to coincide with the normal
training time for an Egyptian scribe [to achieve full fluency in the hieroglyphic language]. As for
Sebennithis, it was the seat of the Egyptian government from 378 to 360 BCE under Nekht-Hor-heb I, first
pharaoh of the XXX Dynasty. Hence it would have been both relatively secure from a political standpoint
and a logical place for Plato to seek Egyptian initiation.26
The Sphinx: Talk about last-minute timing! In 340 BCE, after more than four thousand years of native national
rule, Egypt finally fell to a Persian army [which in turn fell to Alexander the Great in 332]. How
sophisticated the Egyptian initiatory systems remained under purely-occupational governments is open to
question - as would be the willingness of Egyptian priests to initiate foreigners under such circumstances.
Even Pythagoras’ initiation many years earlier seems to have occurred only after some arm-twisting by
Amasis, himself a native Egyptian pharaoh and thus an initiate in his own right. A Persian or a Ptolemaic
ruler would not have had such leverage over the native priesthoods, nor the knowledge to judge whether
forced-instruction were in fact genuine. After Pythagoras and Plato the link with the Egyptian priesthoods
was broken. [This may very well account for the sharp distinctions between the Pythagorean/Platonic
doctrines - with their apparent sophistication and seeming uniqueness - and the decidedly-diluted
commentaries (such as those of Aristotle) which trailed along after them.]
The Chimæra: Having come this far, what may we conclude concerning Plato’s legacy?
The Sphinx: He left two memorials: his writings and his Academy. The former contain discussions of Forms [or
Egyptian “gods”, if you will!] on an initiatory level, although they are also useful as exercises in ordinary
logic. The latter was, in effect, a Pythagorean school minus the strict personal and psychological discipline
that Pythagoras thought important [and which contributed directly to the burning of Crotona and the
slaying of Pythagoras himself - by outraged ex-students who had failed to withstand the pressure]. Evidently
Plato thought that he could transmit the doctrines in an environment more suited to Greece than to Egypt.
And he was su
ccessful, at least to the extent that the Academy enjoyed a long and productive existence - and
to the extent that his own writings were preserved for our consideration at this point in the time-continuum.
He may have failed to provide the Greece of his own day with the sort of enlightened government that he
might have preferred, but he had seen Pythagorean domination of Sicily and Italy come to grief. So perhaps
he was not so anxious as some might suppose to duplicate the Pythagorean experiment in Greece itself.
Whereas Pythagoras died a violent death and left none of his personal works for posterity, Plato lived a full
life and left a rich heritage for scholars - and Initiates - of the future. That, certainly, is testimony to his
wisdom.
The Chimæra: “The secret worship of the Logos in the cosmos, the divine spark in every human form.” 27
26 Brugsch-Bey, Heinrich, Egypt Under the Pharaohs, pages 450-451.
27 Incantation, Raghavan Iyer to M.A. Aquino, 1975.
- 32 -
Bibliography
Asimov, Isaac, Asimov’s Biographical Encyclopædia of Science and Technology. Garden City, New York:
Doubleday and Company, 1972.
Barker, Sir Ernest, Greek Political Theory: Plato and his Predecessors. London: Methuen and Company Ltd., 1918.
Berlitz, Charles, Mysteries from Forgotten Worlds. Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, 1972.
Brugsch-Bey, Heinrich, Egypt Under the Pharaohs. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1891.
Budge, Sir E.A. Wallis, Egyptian Language. New York: Dover Publications, 1971.
Budge, Sir E.A. Wallis, From Fetish to God in Ancient Egypt. London: Oxford University Press, 1934.
Casson, Lionel, Ancient Egypt. New York: Time, Inc., 1965.
Christian, Paul, Histoire de la Magie, du Monde Surnaturel et de la Fatalité à travers les Temps et les Peuples.
Paris, 1870 (translation - New York: Citadel Press, 1969).
Cottrell, Leonard, Life Under the Pharaohs. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960.
Fairservis, Walter A. Jr., The Ancient Kingdoms of the Nile. New York: Mentor Books, 1962.
Frankfort, Henri, Ancient Egyptian Religion. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1948.
Frankfort, Henri et al., Before Philosophy. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1973.