The Forgotten Delphic Maxim

One of the most widely known sayings of Socrates is “know thyself.” While this saying drove much of Socrates’ thought, it was not original to him. It was one of the Delphic Maxims — concise bits of ancient Greek ethical teachings that were inscribed on the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, home of the Pythian oracle — the oracle that had said that there was no one wiser than Socrates.

Although the maxims were officially the word of the God Apollo, they were created by the Seven Sages of Ancient Greece. They are some of the oldest recorded ethical teachings in the world. While a total of 147 maxims were reportedly inscribed on the temple, three maxims were considered to be so important that they were prominently placed in the forecourt of the temple, to be seen by all who approached. These three maxims were intended to be understood as a set, as they form a hexameter verse.¹ As such, each maxim informs how the other two maxims should be interpreted.

“Know Thyself,” “Nothing too Much,” and …

“Know thyself” was the first of these three ultra-important maxims in the temple’s forecourt. The second was “nothing too much.” Just as “know thyself” is associated with Socrates and his idea that the unexamined life was not worth living, “nothing too much” is associated with Aristotle and his ethical teachings that virtue is the golden mean between extremes.

Yet, while the first maxim was widely discussed by ancient writers, and we have many discussions of the second maxim, few writers said anything about the third forecourt maxim — the Delphic Maxim that has been nearly forgotten.

Here it is:

ΕΓΓΥΑ, ΠΑΡΑ ΔΑΤΗ

Unlike the other two maxims, translations for this maxim vary widely. The concept isn’t easily conveyed in English. Some of the translations used include:

• A pledge is a curse.

• A pledge, and ruin is nigh.

• A pledge, and thereupon perdition.

• Give a pledge and suffer for it.

• Give a pledge, and mischief attends.

• Give a pledge, and evil is nigh at hand.

• Give surety and trouble is at hand.

• Give sureties, and mischief is at hand.

• Come under a pledge, and mischief is at hand.

• Ally thyself closely to any particular thing and evil will fall upon thee.

The meaning of this maxim hinges upon the interpretation of ΕΓΓΥΑ, typically translated as “pledge.” The term was used with legally binding force in betrothal ceremonies and regarding assuming suretyship. It was also used to express any sort of strong affirmation or promise, including ones that were not binding upon the speaker. Like the other two maxims inscribed in the forecourt, this maxim is subject to considerable philosophical interpretation, and it too became associated with one of the ancient Greek schools of philosophy — Pyrrhonism.

Ancient Discussions of the Maxim

This forgotten maxim is discussed in several ancient sources. The most widely known of these is Plato’s Charmides (165a). Ancient scholia on the Charmides provide another mention of the maxim from a now-lost play by Cratinus the Younger:

Having consented to be one of three sureties, I was caught. So did the inscription at Delphi hold for once, that suretyship is woe. But I am naturally a compliant friend.

“Sureties” here refers to the law (a law mentioned in Plato’s Laws, section 871) that if a criminal under arrest wished to avoid pre-trial imprisonment, he needed to produce three men who would pledge surety for his appearance. Apparently what happened in Cratinus the Younger’s lost play is that the character pledged surety for his friend. His friend failed to show up for his trial, causing the character to be imprisoned.

Perhaps our most philosophically important discussion of the forgotten maxim comes from Diogenes Laertius (3rd century CE) in his Life of Pyrrho. Pyrrho was the founder of Pyrrhonism, a school of philosophical skepticism that was based in part on what Pyrrho learned about Buddhism while he was in India as part of Alexander the Great’s court. (For more about this, see my book Pyrrho’s Way: The Ancient Greek Version of Buddhism). Diogenes Laertius says this about the maxim in his biography of Pyrrho:

… the sayings of the Seven Sages are said to be skeptical, for example, “nothing in excess,” and “a pledge is a curse,” which means that anyone who reposes his trust firmly and confidently invites his own ruin.

The surviving works of Plutarch mention the forgotten maxim twice. Plutarch was a Middle Platonist philosopher who was a priest at the Temple of Apollo — which certainly put him in a position to know the Delphic Maxims well. In his fictional Dinner Party of the Seven Sages the party is concluded with a discussion of the maxim, and in his essay On Compliancy, Plutarch says that men who are too shy or timid to say “no” may meet with loss in money matters,

by lending to those whom they do not trust and by giving security for those for whom they do not wish to give it, and while they praise “give a pledge, and mischief attends,” they are not able to apply it to their affairs.

Socrates’ Failure

One famous philosopher who appeared to be unable to apply the forgotten maxim to his affairs was Socrates. He put too much emphasis on “know thyself,” too little on “nothing too much,” and ignored the risk he was taking on through his commitments. These errors cost him his life. He was so committed to his pledge to uphold the laws of Athens that he turned down the opportunity to flee the city to avoid being executed.

The accusation of impiety against Socrates was, of course, politically motivated. Perhaps Socrates’ obsession with “know thyself” and his corresponding disregard of the other Delphic Maxims contributed to the jury’s sentiment that Socrates was not following their ancestral religion.

Aristophanes’ depiction of Socrates in his play Clouds gives insight into this. When Pheidippides asks his father about what good anyone can learn in Socrates’ “Thinking-Shop,” his father replies, “You will know yourself — how conceited you are in your ignorance and how dull of wit.” This likely summed up what the Athenian public felt about Socrates.

How About You?

It is part of our Western cultural heritage to be intensely concerned with “knowing thyself,” but the Seven Sages long ago warned us to balance out this quest with other concerns. Perhaps we moderns would benefit from reversing the order of the three forecourt maxims to be:

Make a commitment, woe approaches

Nothing too much

Know thyself

Have you carefully examined the risks of the commitments you have taken on or are considering taking on — including commitments to ideas, beliefs, and ideologies? Are your commitments excessive, either individually or collectively? What commitments aren’t really you? Are there commitments that cause you to have a false sense of yourself — a false knowledge of yourself — because they define you by your beliefs rather than what is really you?

Are you engaged in anything that is excessive? In particular, do your commitments go beyond what is supportable or necessary? Are you excessively focused on yourself, or what you think you know of yourself, or what you think you know?

Do you know yourself? In particular, have you thoroughly investigated your commitments? Do you have an accurate measure of yourself, such that you do not estimate or underestimate yourself by too much?

Ruins of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi (author’s photograph)

1. EG Wilkins, “ΜΗΔΕΝ ΑΓΑΝ in Greek and Latin Literature,” Classical Philology, 1926.