DEMOCRITUS A N D T H E SOURCES OF GREEK ANTHROPOLOGY By
THOMAS C O L E Tale
University
PUBLISHED FOR
THE AMERICAN PHILOLOGICAL
ASSOCIATION
B Y T H E PRESS O F
WESTERN RESERVE 1967
UNIVERSITY
CONTENTS
xi
Abbreviations I n t r o d u c t i o n : Sources a n d M e t h o d s i n t h e S t u d y o f A n c i e n t Kulturgeschichte I. II.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
.
C o m m o n Motifs i n Five A n c i e n t Histories o f Technology A Pattern o f Prehistory
.
.
.
.
.
15
.
Possible Sources
.
III.
A l t e r n a t e P a t t e r n s o f Kulturgeschichte:
.
IV.
T h e O r i g i n of Language (Diodorus, V i t r u v i u s , Epicurus)
25 47 60
V.
T h e Genealogy of Morals (Epicurus)
.
.
.
.
.
70
VI.
T h e Genealogy o f M o r a l s (Polybius)
.
.
.
.
.
80
VII. VIII.
A F o u r t h C e n t u r y V e r s i o n o f P r e h i s t o r y (Laws I I I ) Plato, Polybius, and Democritus
.
i . T h e Genesis a n d E x p a n s i o n o f
K
2. S o c i e t y a n d t h e F a m i l y
o
. s
.
97 .
m
.
o
.
i
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
107
.
107
.
IX.
D e m o c r i t e a n Sociology
a n d H i s t o r y i n the Development
Greek T h o u g h t X.
.
.
The Heirs of Democritus
of
.
.
112 120
3. T h e P o l i t i c a l , t h e M i l i t a r y , a n d t h e R o y a l A r t
131
.
.
.
.
.
.
148
1. T h e S t a t e o f N a t u r e ( P l a t o , D i c a e a r c h u s , T z e t z e s a n d t h e .
148
2. C u l t u r e a n d t h e G o d s ( E u h e m e r i s m a n d R e l a t e d T h e o r i e s )
i53
Cynics) 3. P h i l o s o p h y
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
a n d Politics (Polybius, the A c a d e m y ,
siphanes)
.
4. A Comprehensive
.
.
.
Restatement
.
.
.
(the Epicureans)
A p p e n d i x I : D i o d o r u s 1.7-8
.
.
Nau-
.
.
.
170
. .
.
174 i93 196
A p p e n d i x I I : V i t r u v i u s a n d Posidonius
.
.
.
.
A p p e n d i x I I I : P o l y b i u s a n d t h e Stoics
.
.
.
.
A p p e n d i x I V : Democritus B30 a n d Euhemerus Selected B i b l i o g r a p h y Index
.
.
. .
. ix
. .
. .
. .
163
202
. .
.
.
207
.
.
.
211
ABBREVIATIONS
W o r k s w h i c h appear i n the Selected B i b l i o g r a p h y o n pages 207-10 are cited i n the footnotes i n shortened f o r m , o m i t t i n g place a n d date o f p u b l i c a t i o n , a n d titles o f articles i n periodicals. A few works are cited b y author's last name alone, as follows: B r i n k , C. Ο . , "Οίκείωσις
a n d Οικειότης:
Theophrastus a n d Z e n o on N a t u r e i n
M o r a l T h e o r y , " Phronesis 1 (1956) 123-45. D a h l m a n n , J . H . , De philosophorum Graecorum sententiis ad loquellae originem pertinentibus capita duo (Diss. L e i p z i g 1928). D i c k e r m a n n , S. O., De argumentis quibusdam apud Xenophontem, Platonem, Aristotelem obviis e structura hominis et animalium petitis (Diss. H a l l e 1909). Havelock, Ε. Α . , The Liberal Temper in Greek Politics ( N e w H a v e n 1957). Kleingünther, Α., "ΠΡΩΤΟΣ ΕΥΡΕΤΗΣ," Philologus S u p p l . 26.1 (1933). K r e m m e r , Μ . , De catalogis heurematum (Diss. L e i p z i g 1890). Lovejoy, A . O . , a n d Boas, G., Primitivism and Related Ideas in Antiquity
(Baltimore
1935)· Philippson, R., " D i e Rechtsphilosophie der E p i k u r e e r , " AGP 23 (1910) 289-337 a n d 433-46. R e i n h a r d t , K . , " H e k a t a i o s v o n A b d e r a u n d D e m o k r i t , " Hermes 47 (1912) 492-513. Spoerri, W . , Späthellenistische Berichte über Welt, Kultur und Götter= Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 9 (1959). Theiler, W . , Zur Geschichte der teleologischen Naturbetrachtung bis auf Aristoteles (Zürich 9 5)· Thraede, K . , " E r f i n d e r , " RAC 5 (1962) 1191-1278. U x k u l l - G y l l e n b a n d , W . v o n , Griechische Kulturentstehungslehren = Bibliothek für Philosophie 26 (1924). W a l b a n k , F. W . , A Historical Commentary on Polybius ( O x f o r d 1957). Γ
2
* OTHER
AGP AJP BPW CP Cd CR DAW Β
ABBREVIATIONS
Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie American Journal of Philology Berliner philologische Wochenschrift Classical Philology Classical Quarterly Classical Review Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Altertumswissenschaft xi
Schriften der Sektion für
OTHER ABBREVIATIONS
Xll
FGrH
F. J a c o b y , Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker
HSCP JHS JRS Me'lRome MusHelv
Harvard Studies in Classical
NGG NJbb NPU PhilRev ProcBritAc PubblTorino RA RAC RE REA REG RendlstLomb RendLinc RFIC RhM RPh
Journal Journal
(1923-58)
Philology
of Hellenic Studies of Roman Studies
Melanges d'arche'ologie et d'histoire de VF\cole frangaise de Rome Museum Helveticum Nachrichten der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Altertum Neue philologische Untersuchungen Philosophical Review Proceedings of the British Academy Universita di Torino, Pubblicazioni della Facoltä di lettere e Filosoßa Revue archeologique Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum (Stuttgart 1950) P a u l y - W i s s o w a - K r o l l , Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (Stuttgart 1894) Revue des etudes anciennes Revue des etudes grecques Istituto Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere, Rendiconti, Classe di Lettere e Scienze Morali e Storiche Rendiconti dell' Accademia dei Lincei Rivista difilologia e di istruzione classica
TAPA TGF
Rheinisches Museum für Philologie Revue de Philologie Studi italiani difilologia classica Symbolae Osloenses Stoicorum veterum fragmenta, coll. H . v. A r n i m (Leipzig 1903-24) Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta , rec. A . N a u c k ( L e i p z i g 1889)
vs WS
D i e l s - K r a n z Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker Wiener Studien
SIFC SO SVF
2
9
(Berlin 1959-60)
Publications o f G e r m a n a n d A u s t r i a n learned societies are indicated b y : Abh (= Abhandlungen), Ber ( = Berichte) or SB (= Sitzungsberichte), followed b y the city of origin.
INTRODUCTION SOURCES AND METHODS OF
ANCIENT
INT H E STUDY KULTURGESCHICHTE
Discussions o f G r e e k t h o u g h t r e l a t i n g t o t h e o r i g i n s o f c u l t u r e o f t e n b e g i n b y distinguishing its t w o m a i n currents, o r c o u n t e r - c u r r e n t s : t h e m y t h o f t h e G o l d e n A g e a n d t h e m y t h o f h u m a n progress—Hesiodic fantasy a n d I o n i a n science. T h e d i c h o t o m y is f u n d a m e n t a l a n d p e r s i s t e n t , b u t i t s h o u l d n o t b e 1
a l l o w e d t o obscure t h e f a c t t h a t t h e r e d i d e m e r g e , d u r i n g t h e course o f t h e fifth
c e n t u r y B . C . , a clear i f l i m i t e d v i c t o r y f o r o n e o f t h e t w o p o i n t s o f v i e w .
I t w a s possible t h e r e a f t e r t o d e b a t e t h e e x t e n t a n d s i g n i f i c a n c e o f w h a t h a d happened,
o r t o seek m o r e f a v o r a b l e
terms f o r t h e defeated
party; the
v i c t o r y i t s e l f was n o t c a l l e d i n t o q u e s t i o n . N o w h e r e , i n f a c t , is t h e effect o f I o n i a n r a t i o n a l i s m o n t h e G r e e k m i n d m o r e s t r i k i n g t h a n i n t h e success o f its c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e t e c h n o l o g i c a l a c h i e v e m e n t s
o f civilization are o f a
r e l a t i v e l y r e c e n t o r i g i n , a n d t h a t m a n ' s life w a s o n c e f a r s i m p l e r a n d p o o r e r m a t e r i a l l y t h a n i t is n o w . T h e s e o p i n i o n s w e n t a l m o s t u n c h a l l e n g e d f r o m t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y u n t i l s u c h t i m e as t h e J u d a e o - C h r i s t i a n doctrine o f the F a l l began t o color ancient conceptions o f p r e h i s t o r y . I n 2
400 B . C . i t w a s s t i l l necessary f o r T h u c y d i d e s t o w r i t e a r e f u t a t i o n o f those w h o w o u l d e x a g g e r a t e t h e scale a n d i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e T r o j a n w a r ; t h e r e is nothing comparable
i n w h a t survives
o f later historical w r i t i n g .
Quite
f o r e i g n t o a l l serious discussions o f t h e p e r i o d a r e b o t h t h e H e s i o d i c v i s i o n of a G o l d e n Race l i v i n g at the b e g i n n i n g o f man's history a n d H o m e r ' s g l o r i f i c a t i o n o f a v a n i s h e d age o f h e r o i c p o w e r a n d s p l e n d o r .
3
Primitivists
might continue, like Hesiod, t o p u t the apex o f h u m a n felicity somewhere i n the r e m o t e past. B u t t h e i r p r i m i t i v i s m is closely l i n k e d w i t h n o s t a l g i a f o r a simpler w a y o f l i f e ; as s u c h i t is essentially u n l i k e H e s i o d ' s i d e a l i z a t i o n o f a n 1
The distinction was first drawn in L . Preller's article, " D i e Vorstellungen der Alten besonders der Griechen von dem Ursprünge und den ältesten Schicksalen des menschlichen Geschlechts," Philologus 7 (1852) 3 5 - 6 0 . O f subsequent discussions, the most important is that in Havelock, 2 5 - 3 5 . For the reinterpretation of the life of primitive man in the light of the first chapters of Genesis 2
see Uxkull-Gyllenband, 4 7 - 4 8 , and G . Boas, Essays on Primitivism
and Related Ideas in the Middle
Ages
(Baltimore 1948) 1-67. Homer's attitude, explicit in sporadic and formulaic references (//. 1.272, 5.304, 12.383, 12.449, 20.287) to feats of strength beyond the capacity of men oloi vvv ßpoToi tioiv, is implied in the whole epic tradition: four centuries after ceasing to exist, the Achaean world continued to supply the principal subjects of heroic narrative. 3
2
DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES OF G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
age w h i c h h e b e l i e v e d t o h a v e b e e n b e t t e r , t h o u g h h a r d l y less c o m p l i c a t e d a n d sophisticated, t h a n his o w n .
4
I n similar fashion, proponents o f a cyclical
v i e w o f h i s t o r y m i g h t b e l i e v e , as H o m e r d i d , t h a t e a r l i e r c i v i l i z a t i o n s w e r e more
elaborate
a n d splendid
t h a n theirs. B u t the A t l a n t i s or p r i m e v a l
A t h e n s w h i c h t h e y e n v i s i o n is a l w a y s s e p a r a t e d f r o m t h e p r e s e n t w o r l d age b y some sort o f c a t a c l y s m ;
m e n are thereby reduced t o the level o f bare
subsistence a n d m u s t p r o c e e d b y g r a d u a l stages t o t h e m o d i c u m o f c i v i l i z a t i o n they n o w enjoy. C o n c e r n i n g t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h i s process a n d its u l t i m a t e w o r t h i n t e r m s o f h u m a n w e l l - b e i n g o p i n i o n s c o n t i n u e d , o f course, t o v a r y g r e a t l y . C i v i l i z a t i o n c o u l d b e r e g a r d e d as a n u n m i x e d blessing, a n u n m i t i g a t e d e v i l , o r s o m e t h i n g i n t e r m e d i a t e b e t w e e n t h e t w o . I t s c r e a t i o n o r r e c r e a t i o n was a l t e r n a t e l y t h e w o r k o f a f e w f a v o r e d ( o r perverse) i n d i v i d u a l s , o r t h e c o l l e c t i v e
achievement
o f a w h o l e r a c e ; a p u r p o s e f u l progress t o w a r d p e r f e c t i o n , o r a series o f some what haphazard
responses t o t h e p r o m p t i n g s o f necessity. A n d t h e e v o l u
t i o n a r y perspective All
w e n t m u c h f u r t h e r w i t h some t h a n i t d i d w i t h o t h e r s .
c o u l d agree t h a t t e c h n o l o g y ,
o r t h e b u l k o f i t , was o f r e c e n t
origin.
A b o u t l a n g u a g e t h e r e was less u n a n i m i t y : some m a i n t a i n e d t h a t i t h a d c o m e i n t o b e i n g i n t h e same f a s h i o n as t e c h n o l o g y ; others, h o w e v e r , insisted t h a t i t o w e d i t s o r i g i n t o n a t u r e a l o n e , n o t h u m a n c o n t r i v a n c e . A n d ethics w a s s t i l l h a r d e r t o b r i n g w i t h i n a n e v o l u t i o n a r y perspective.
S o c i e t y a n d social
n o r m s , so m o s t w o u l d h a v e a r g u e d , rest o n m o r a l feelings w h i c h a r e i n n a t e i n m a n f r o m t h e v e r y b e g i n n i n g ; t h e l a t t e r m a y b e subject t o r e f i n e m e n t o r d e c a y b u t n o t t o essential c h a n g e .
5
Such divergences o f a t t i t u d e a n d a p p r o a c h are significant a n d w i l l p l a y a p r o m i n e n t r o l e i n l a t e r p o r t i o n s o f o u r discussion. B u t i t is i m p o r t a n t a t t h e outset t o stress those g e n e r i c s i m i l a r i t i e s w h i c h c a n be t r a c e d t h r o u g h t h e vast m a j o r i t y o f a n c i e n t a c c o u n t s o f t h e o r i g i n o f c u l t u r e . F o r c e r t a i n purposes it mattered little whether
c i v i l i z a t i o n was a m o n u m e n t t o d i v i n e bene
volence, h u m a n ingenuity, or the indifferent workings chance.
6
As t o its m o n u m e n t a l a n d remarkable
o f accident a n d
character
t h e r e was n o
4
I n the terminology of the authors who have made the most thorough study of the attitudes involved (Lovejoy and Boas, ι—11), Hesiod's "chronological primitivism" is never found in later antiquity apart from "cultural primitivism." A n interesting comment on the change is provided by the text tradition of the Works and Days. Line 120: άφναοί μήλοισι φίλοι μακάρεσαι θΐοϊαιν was
considered spurious by the Alexandrians, presumably because the domestication of animals which it implies seemed to them to belong properly to a later stage of development. See T . G . Rosenmeyer, "Hesiod and Historiography," Hermes 85 (1957) 282—83, who defends the authenticity of the line. Once more in the terminology of Lovejoy and Boas ( 1 4 - 1 5 ) , a "technological" (or linguistic) "state of nature" was much easier to envision than an "economic," "marital," or "juristic and ethical" one. 5
T h e tragic poet Moschion, in a well known fragment { T G F 8 1 4 . 1 8 - 2 2 ) , is either uncertain or indifferent as to the exact character of the civilizing agent: it may have been Promethean intelli gence or.necessity or nature herself working through τ-rj μακρά τριβή. 6
3
INTRODUCTION
disagreement; a n d i n a n a l y z i n g i n d i v i d u a l details o f the structure one w r i t e r m i g h t d r a w freely o n t h e w o r k o f another, o f basically different tendency, a d a p t i n g a n d m o d i f y i n g o n l y w h e n a b s o l u t e l y necessary.
7
Moreover,
care-
less a n d u n o r i g i n a l w r i t e r s ( a n d t h e y c o m p r i s e t h e m a j o r i t y o f those whose statements o n t h e subjects h a v e s u r v i v e d ) w e r e q u i t e c a p a b l e o f c o m b i n i n g u n r e l a t e d o r e v e n c o n t r a d i c t o r y m o t i f s w i t h i n a single n a r r a t i v e . Such
8
b o r r o w i n g a n d conflation w o u l d be o f little importance for the
historian i f all the divergent attitudes m e n t i o n e d above were developed consistently a n d c o m p l e t e l y i n e x t a n t texts. U n f o r t u n a t e l y t h e y a r e n o t . O f t e n their character
m u s t b e r e c o n s t r u c t e d , o r t h e i r existence
inferred, from
scattered a n d f r a g m e n t a r y references, i m b e d d e d a t t i m e s i n c o n t e x t s w h i c h are c o m p l e t e l y a l i e n t o t h e m . I t is t h u s a l m o s t i m p o s s i b l e , i n s t u d y i n g a n y one aspect o f a n c i e n t t h o u g h t o n c u l t u r a l o r i g i n s , t o isolate a single t e x t o r g r o u p o f texts as h a v i n g sole r e l e v a n c e
to the problem. Whatever
their
i m m e d i a t e scope, one's i n v e s t i g a t i o n s m u s t rest i n t h e last analysis o n a s u r v e y o f t h e w h o l e r a n g e o f a c c o u n t s e x h i b i t i n g a v i e w o f c u l t u r e w h i c h is i n a n y sense e v o l u t i o n a r y . Since s u c h a v i e w w a s a l m o s t c a n o n i c a l f o r a t h o u s a n d years, a n d t h e p r i m i t i v e c o n d i t i o n o f m a n k i n d a p o p u l a r t h e m e w i t h a v a r i e t y o f w r i t e r s f o r a n e v e n l o n g e r p e r i o d , t h e a c c o u n t s a r e corresp o n d i n g l y n u m e r o u s . I t w i l l be useful, before p r o c e e d i n g f u r t h e r , t o r e v i e w them briefly.
9
T w o texts s t a n d o u t f o r t h e l e n g t h a n d systematic c h a r a c t e r o f t h e i r p r e sentation. Plato's Laws.
T h e y o c c u r i n t h e fifth b o o k o f L u c r e t i u s a n d t h e t h i r d b o o k o f T h e f o r m e r is u s u a l l y , a n d p e r h a p s w r o n g l y , r e g a r d e d as t h e
locus classicus f o r a n c i e n t Kulturgeschichte.
T h e e s t i m a t e is c e r t a i n l y o n e w h i c h
7
Cf. for example the appearance, in both naturalistic and teleological contexts, of arguments drawn from the biological and physiological advantages which distinguish man from other animals (below, pp. 4 1 - 4 2 , with note 33). The passage of Vitruvius discussed below, p. 42, provides a good example. O n what follows cf. Uxkull-Gyllenband, Lovejoy and Boas, Mondolfo, La comprensione del 8
9
soggelto umano nell'anlichita
classica
629-739;
Billeter,
"Griechische
Ursprünge der Kultur," Beilage zum Programm der Kantonschule Rurich
Anschauungen
über
die
( 1 9 0 1 ) ; and F . C . Seeliger's
article "Weltaltcr" in Roschers Lexicon, 6.375-417. O f these comprehensive studies UxkullGyllenband's is probably the best and that of Lovejoy and Boas (who reprint in full all passages discussed) the most useful. More selective and topical in their treatment are Sikes, The Anthropology of the Greeks, and Guthrie, In the Beginning. Havelock, 5 2 - 7 3 and 1 0 4 - 2 4 , offers the best and most complete discussion of the pertinent fifth century texts; Spoerri, 1 3 2 - 6 3 , the most exhaustive examination of all the material which has a bearing on the interpretation of the Kulturgeschichte in Diodorus 1.8; and Thraede, 1192-1241, the most recent and most complete discussion of the heuretes theme. O . Apelt, "Die Ansichten der griechischen Philosophen über den Anfang der Kultur," Jahresbericht
über das Carl Friedrichs-Gytnnasium
zu Eisenach
( 1 9 0 0 - 0 1 ) 5—16; F . D ü m m l e r ,
"Kulturgeschichtliche Forschung im Altertum," Verhandlungen der 42. Versammlung deutscher Philologen in Wien (1893) = Kleine Schriften 2 (Leipzig 1901) 4 4 3 - 6 2 ; and E . Malcovati, " L e idee
sull'umanitä primitiva," RendlstLomb, Ser. 2, 50 (1917) 465—76, confine themselves to a ities. Preller's article (above, note 1) is now of merely historical interest.
4
D E M O G R I T U S AND T H E S O U R C E S O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
m a k e s t o o l i t t l e a l l o w a n c e for t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t L u c r e t i u s ' n a r r a t i v e r e p resents a s p e c i f i c a l l y E p i c u r e a n t r e a t m e n t o f the subject. B u t t h e t e x t is so detailed a n d comprehensive
t h a t i t m u s t o c c u p y a p r o m i n e n t , i f n o t neces-
s a r i l y c e n t r a l , p l a c e i n one's researches. Plato's a c c o u n t (Laws
3.676A-83A),
l o n g e r t h o u g h less t h o r o u g h , treats t h e o r i g i n o f c u l t u r e a n d society as a preface t o t h e p o l i t i c a l h i s t o r y o f t h e Peloponnesus, A t t i c a , a n d Persia. L i k e L u c r e t i u s V , i t is t o o m u c h t h e p r o d u c t o f a specific p h i l o s o p h i c p o i n t o f v i e w t o be used u n c r i t i c a l l y a n d , a t t h e same t i m e , t o o i m p o r t a n t t o be i g n o r e d a l t o g e t h e r . I t represents t h e nearest a p p r o a c h , a m o n g p r e - H e l l e n i s t i c texts, t o a systematic t r e a t m e n t o f its subject. I t offers, m o r e o v e r , a c o m b i n a t i o n o f t e c h n o l o g i c a l a n d social h i s t o r y . T h e presence o f this c o m b i n a t i o n is i n ferable
in many
o f t h e p o r t i o n s o f a n c i e n t Kulturgeschichte
possess a f r a g m e n t a r y
r e c o r d , b u t i t is o n l y here
c h a r a c t e r c a n be e x t e n s i v e l y
for w h i c h
t h a t its existence
we and
documented.
C u l t u r a l h i s t o r y is a s u b o r d i n a t e t o p i c b o t h i n L u c r e t i u s ' p o e m a n d i n P l a t o ' s treatise. T h e r e existed i n a n t i q u i t y w o r k s i n w h i c h i t was t h e p r i n c i p a l o r sole t o p i c , a n d t h e t r e a t m e n t w h i c h i t r e c e i v e d t h e r e m u s t h a v e b e e n m o r e e l a b o r a t e . N o treatises o f t h i s sort h a v e s u r v i v e d , b u t a n u m b e r o f t h e m are k n o w n t o us b y t i t l e o r t h r o u g h s u m m a r y references t o t h e i r c o n t e n t s . T h e m o s t a m b i t i o u s m a y h a v e b e e n t h e Life
of Greece, b y A r i s t o t l e ' s p u p i l
D i c a e a r c h u s o f Messene ( F r . 4 7 - 6 6 W e h r l i ) . Besides p r e s e n t i n g a h i s t o r y o f G r e e k society, D i c a e a r c h u s m a d e a n e f f o r t t o p l a c e t h i s h i s t o r y i n t o t h e l a r g e r c o n t e x t o f h u m a n c u l t u r e as a w h o l e . H i s s c h e m a t i z a t i o n history
according
herding,
or
to
the
dominant
f a r m i n g — i n each
form of
successive
of pre-
livelihood—food-gathering,
stage was
probably
the
most
i m p o r t a n t a n d i n f l u e n t i a l p a r t o f his w o r k . B u t s u r v i v i n g f r a g m e n t s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e d e t a i l s as w e l l as t h e g e n e r a l
pattern of cultural
development
r e c e i v e d t h e i r share o f a t t e n t i o n . W r i t e r s o f u n i v e r s a l h i s t o r y c o u l d b e g i n , i f t h e y w i s h e d , w i t h a piece o f Kulturgeschichte
(e.g. D i o d o r u s S i c u l u s
1.8), a n d so m i g h t l o c a l h i s t o r i a n s ,
i f t h e y w e r e d e a l i n g w i t h a n a r e a whose i n h a b i t a n t s c l a i m e d t o be a u t o c h t h o n o u s . T h e subject
a p p e a r s i n several f r a g m e n t s o f P h i l o c h o r u s
3 2 8 F 2 , F 9 3 - 9 8 ) ; t h e t i t l e Protogonia t r e a t e d i n t h e Atthis
(FGrH,
(FGrH
3 2 3 F 5 a , F 7 ) suggests t h a t i t was
o f C l e i d e m u s as w e l l ; a n d a passage f r o m Pausanias
( 8 . 1 . 4 - 6 ) p o i n t s t o t h e same c o n c l u s i o n f o r t h e l o c a l h i s t o r i a n s o f A r c a d i a . Moreover, to j u d g e f r o m the procedure followed b y Diodorus i n describing n o n - G r e e k l a n d s (e.g. I n d i a i n 2.38 a n d E t h i o p i a i n 3 . 2 ) , p r e h i s t o r y was o n e o f t h e subjects r e g u l a r l y t r e a t e d i n e t h n o g r a p h i c a l w r i t i n g .
1 0
M a n y o f the
r e l e v a n t passages i n D i o d o r u s are f a i r l y b r i e f , b u t t h e a c c o u n t E g y p t w h i c h a p p e a r s i n 1.10-29 1 0
See
1 S
of early
b o t h extensive a n d i m p o r t a n t .
K . Trüdinger, Studien zur Geschichte der griechisch-römischen Ethnographie
(Basel 1918) 4 9 - 5 1 .
INTRODUCTION
5
P r i m a r i l y , t h o u g h n o t e x c l u s i v e l y , d e v o t e d t o t h e t e c h n o l o g i c a l aspect o f c u l t u r e was a w h o l e b o d y o f l i t e r a t u r e o n i n d i v i d u a l i n v e n t o r s a n d i n v e n tions. T h e g e n r e e n j o y e d a l o n g a n d , t o us, s o m e w h a t i n e x p l i c a b l e p o p u l a r i t y . Its
b e g i n n i n g s go b a c k t o t h e
fifth
century;
1 1
Ephorus
(FGrH
7oT33d;
F 2 - 5 , F 1 0 4 - 6 ) , H c r a c l i d e s P o n t i c u s ( F r . 152 W e h r l i ) , T h e o p h r a s t u s ( D . L . 5 . 4 7 ) , a n d S t r a t o o f L a m p s a c u s ( F r . 1 4 4 - 4 7 W e h r l i ) are a l l s a i d t o h a v e t r i e d t h e i r h a n d a t i t ; a n d echoes o c c u r as l a t e as Cassiodorus Seville.
1 2
a n d Isidore o f
T h e i n v e n t i o n s w i t h w h i c h i t deals are b o t h t h e e l e m e n t a r y ones
(fire, c l o t h i n g , a n d t h e l i k e ) w h i c h m a d e possible m a n ' s o r i g i n a l s u r v i v a l as a species, a n d t h e m o r e a d v a n c e d ones o n w h i c h a c o m p l e x depends.
civilization
M o r e r a r e l y , t h e c r e a t i o n o f cities a n d l e g a l o r social usages is
i n c l u d e d (e.g. i n P l i n y J\fH 7.194, 2 0 0 ) . I t is u s u a l l y assumed t h a t h e u r e m a t i s t i c w o r k s t o o k t h e f o r m o f s i m p l e catalogues.
Conceivably,
however,
this is t r u e o n l y o f t h e sources, a l l o f t h e m s u m m a r y a n d d e r i v a t i v e , u p o n w h i c h we must rely for o u r knowledge o f the g e n r e .
1 3
T h e originals o n w h i c h
they d r a w m a y w e l l have been fuller, perhaps t r a c i n g i n connected
and
systematic f a s h i o n a succession o f stages i n t h e g r o w t h o f e a c h o f t h e t e c h nologies c o n s i d e r e d . T h e r e were other ancient works devoted exclusively o r p r i m a r i l y to the problem o f cultural origins, b u t we k n o w next to n o t h i n g about t h e m . Tradition
lists a
IJepl
της
iv
άρχη
καταστάσεως
among
the
works
of
P r o t a g o r a s (VS 8 o B 8 b ) , a n d i f P l a t o ' s t e s t i m o n y is c o r r e c t , archaiologiai
were
a m o n g t h e subjects o f t h e p u b l i c discourses o f H i p p i a s o f E l i s (Hipp.
mat.
2 8 5 0 = VS 8 6 A 1 1 ) . T h i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t c u l t u r a l histories w e r e c o m p o s e d b y the
S o p h i s t s ; i t does n o t , h o w e v e r , p r o v i d e a n y basis f o r d e t e r m i n i n g t h e i r
scope a n d c h a r a c t e r . E v e n m o r e p r o b l e m a t i c a l is t h e r o l e o f i n the w r i t i n g s o f the pre-Socratics. Its appearance surviving fragments (Xenophanes,
Kulturgeschichte
time a n d again i n the
VS 2 1 B 4 a n d 18; A n a x a g o r a s ,
FS59B4
and
2 1 ; Archelaus,
VS 6 0 A 1 a n d 4 . 6 ; D e m o c r i t u s , VS 6 8 A 7 5 , 151,
and
154) suggests t h a t i t was o n e o f t h e i r p r i n c i p a l interests. B u t w h e t h e r
this i n t e r e s t ever l e d t o t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f a c o n n e c t e d a n d s y s t e m a t i c
B144 ex
p o s i t i o n o f t h e subject w e d o n o t k n o w . D i r e c t or i n d i r e c t i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t works specifically concerned Kulturgeschichte FGrH 8 T 1 of course, much down to the end References 1 1
1 2
with
is o f t e n less i m p o r t a n t f o r o u r k n o w l e d g e o f t h e s u b j e c t t h a n
(Simonides the historian). Isolated references to inventions and inventors appear, earlier. See Kleingiinther for a collection and discussion of the relevant passages of the fifth century and Thraede for a complete survey of the tradition. to the subject are scattered through Cassiodorus' Variae; see Kremmer, 90—96.
I n Isidore, see Orig. 3.10.1, 16.1, 2 2 . 8 , 2 5 . 1 ; 4 . 3 . 1 ; 5 . 1 . 1 - 2 ; 6.10.1.
As Kremmer (91, note 1) suggests. Pliny's account is the longest which survives. Less ex tensive catalogues are found in Tatian, Clement of Alexandria, Gregory Nazianzenus, and Hyginus. See Kremmer, 7 - 5 8 and 6 4 - 9 0 . 1 3
6
D E M O C R I T U S AND T H E S O U R C E S O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
t h e i n c i d e n t a l references, r a n g i n g f r o m a f e w lines t o one o r t w o pages i n l e n g t h , w h i c h appear i n contexts devoted to other topics. T h e
frequency
w i t h w h i c h s u c h references o c c u r is r e m a r k a b l e , a n d t h e casualness w i t h w h i c h t h e y are i n t r o d u c e d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e t h e m e was f a m i l i a r . finds i n a d m i r e r s o f T h u c y d i d e s ' style (Orator
Cicero
31) a p e r v e r s i t y c o m p a r a b l e
t o t h a t w h i c h w o u l d be r e q u i r e d t o m a k e m e n c o n t i n u e t o feed o n acorns o n c e g r a i n w a s d i s c o v e r e d — a s s u m i n g , e v i d e n t l y , t h a t his readers w o u l d n o t miss t h e reference
t o t h e v i e w o f those h i s t o r i a n s o f c u l t u r e w h o
made
acorns m a n ' s earliest f o o d , o n l y s u b s e q u e n t l y a b a n d o n e d w i t h t h e a d v e n t o f agriculture: p r i m a Ceres ferro m o r t a l i s vertere t e r r a m i n s t i t u i t , c u m i a m glandes atque a r b u t a sacrae deficerent silvae et v i c t u m D o d o n a n e g a r e t . 14
P r i m i t i v e m e n , w i t h t h e i r beds o f leaves, t h e i r g a r m e n t s o f h i d e s , a n d t h e i r d i e t o f b e r r i e s a n d grasses, seem t o h a v e b e e n a p a r t o f t h e stock i n t r a d e o f e v e r y r h e t o r i c i a n a n d p h i l o s o p h e r ; p i t i a b l e o r e n v i a b l e , as t h e w r i t e r ' s o w n c o n v i c t i o n o r t h e course o f his a r g u m e n t m i g h t r e q u i r e , t h e y c o u l d be i n t r o d u c e d i n t o a great d i v e r s i t y o f contexts i n s u p p o r t o f v a r i e d a n d often c o n t r a d i c t o r y conclusions. I n e p i d e i c t i c passages i t was c o m m o n t o p o r t r a y t h e o b j e c t o f one's p r a i s e as s o m e h o w i n t i m a t e l y associated w i t h t h e l a b o r i o u s process w h i c h l e d f r o m savagery
to civilization. T h e
earliest c o n n e c t e d
pieces o f
Kulturgeschichte
w h i c h s u r v i v e are f a i r l y s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d e x a m p l e s o f t h i s t e c h n i q u e . I t is m a n h i m s e l f , t h e m o s t m a r v e l o u s o f t h e w o r l d ' s w o n d e r s , w h o is g l o r i f i e d b y reference t o his t e c h n o l o g i c a l a n d p o l i t i c a l a c h i e v e m e n t s i n t h e first s t a s i m o n o f t h e Antigone]
a n d M a n t h e F o r e t h i n k e r receives a s i m i l a r t r i b u t e
from
A e s c h y l u s i n t h e speeches i n w h i c h P r o m e t h e u s tells o f his services t o t h e race.
I n other accounts
( A r i s t o p h a n e s , Ranae
P alam edes
1032),
1 5
n a m e d theos ( E u r i p i d e s , Suppl.
(Gorgias,
VS
H e p h a e s t u s (Hymn.
82Bna.3o),
Horn.
Orpheus
20.1-7), or an u n -
2 0 1 - 1 5 ) takes t h e p l a c e o f P r o m e t h e u s .
Primitivists, especially the Cynics, were later to c o n d e m n Prometheus for t h e same " s e r v i c e s "
( D i o o f P r u s a 6.25, 2 9 - 3 0 ) . O t h e r s k e p t t h e e p i d e i c t i c
t o n e b u t used t h e topos f o r a n a r r o w e r p u r p o s e . N o t m a n i n g e n e r a l o r h u m a n prometheia,
b u t a p a r t i c u l a r class o f m e n o r a single techne was assigned t h e
p l a c e o f h o n o r i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f c i v i l i z a t i o n . T h o u g h i t is r e a s o n a b l e t o assume t h a t t h i s d e v i c e was d e v e l o p e d b y t h e S o p h i s t s ,
16
i t is first d o c u -
Virgil, Georgics 1.147—49. Other appearances of the view are too numerous to require documentation. T h e Pythia's reference to the Arcadians as balanlphagoi (Herodotus 1.66.2) is perhaps the earliest. 1 4
1 6
1 6
O n Orpheus as Kulturbringer
see H . Koller, Die Mimesis in der Antike (Bern 1954) 1 8 9 - 9 2 .
See F . Heinimann, " E i n e vorplatonische Theorie der rexvrj,"
MusHelv
18 (1961) 118—ig.
INTRODUCTION
m e r i t e d i n Isocrates. T h e Panegyricus
7
(28-40) a n d later the
Panathenaicus
( 1 1 9 - 4 8 ) c e l e b r a t e A t h e n s as t h e b r i n g e r o f t e c h n o l o g y , c u l t u r e , a n d l a w ; a n d i n a l m o s t i d e n t i c a l passages o f t h e Nicocles
( 5 - 6 ) a n d Antidosis
1 7
(253-54)
the same r o l e is assigned t o o r a t o r y . I n h i s 9 0 t h l e t t e r Seneca gives a f a i r l y extensive s u m m a r y ( a n d r e f u t a t i o n ) o f a w o r k i n w h i c h P o s i d o n i u s s o u g h t t o g l o r i f y p h i l o s o p h y b y m a k i n g t h e sapiens t h e m o v i n g force i n a l l stages o f h u m a n progress. C i c e r o a d o p t s t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f I s o c r a t e s o r P o s i d o n i u s as occasion d e m a n d s (cf., f o r t h e f o r m e r , Inv. 1.2-3 l a t t e r , Tusc.
a n c
^ De orat. 1 . 3 5 - 3 6 ; f o r t h e
5.5). O r a t o r a n d philosopher are replaced b y the architect i n
the passage o n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t
o f c u l t u r e f o u n d i n t h e second b o o k o f
V i t r u v i u s (2.1.1-7 = 33.14-36.18 Rose). F o r H o r a c e art
o f t h e vates t h a t c h i e f l y
Themistius
(349A-51A),
that o f the f a r m e r ;
1 8
(AP 3 9 1 - 4 0 1 ) i t is t h e
c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e rise o f c i v i l i z a t i o n ; f o r
Xenophon
(Oec. 5 . 1 7 ) , a n d T i b u l l u s
(2.1.37-66),
f o r A e l i u s A r i s t i d e s (Or. 3, p p . 3 2 . 2 3 - 3 4 . 2
Dindorf),
s a i l i n g a n d t h e seafaring w a y o f l i f e ; a n d O v i d , m o r e f r i v o l o u s l y ,
though
w i t h b e t t e r g r o u n d s , glorifies his o w n ars b y a s s i g n i n g t h e same r o l e t o l o v e (AA
2.473-80).
I n a fragment
o f the comic
poet Athenio
preserved i n
A t h e n a e u s ( 1 4 . 6 6 0 - 6 1 = F r . 1 K o c k ) a c o o k e x p o u n d s t h e v i e w t h a t , because i t p u t a n e n d t o t h e savage d i e t o f r a w flesh o n w h i c h m e n o n c e f e d , h i s o w n profession
m u s t be c o n s i d e r e d
t h e p r i n c i p a l benefactor o f t h e race. T h e
speech is p r e s u m a b l y a p a r o d y o f t h e sort o f passage w h i c h w e h a v e j u s t b e e n c o n s i d e r i n g a n d a s t r i k i n g t e s t i m o n y t o t h e p o p u l a r i t y o f its t h e m e . Further
variations
o n this
epideictic
topos
were,
o f course,
1 9
possible.
A r i s t o t l e g l o r i f i e d p h i l o s o p h y (Met. 1.981B13-82A1) a n d M a n i l i u s a s t r o n o m y ( 1 . 6 6 - 1 1 2 ) b y d e s c r i b i n g , n o t a c u l t u r a l genesis w h i c h t h e y m a d e possible, but
a cultural development
phase. M o r e o v e r ,
o f w h i c h t h e y a r e t h e final a n d c u l m i n a t i n g
the phenomenon
o f t h e rise o f c u l t u r e m i g h t
provide
grounds for e x a l t i n g , n o t a p a r t i c u l a r craft, b u t n e w things i n general at t h e expense o f o l d . So A r i s t o t l e p o i n t s o u t , as a possible a r g u m e n t f o r t h e d e sirability o f constitutional change, the fact t h a t c i v i l i z a t i o n w o u l d
never
For later references see Dittenberger, Syll. No. 704, p. 3 2 4 . 1 2 - 1 5 (an Amphictyonic inscription of the second century B . C . praising the Athenian demos for raising men from their animal-like existence); Lucretius 6 . 1 - 4 ; Cicero, Flacc. 6 2 ; Pliny, Ep. 8 . 2 4 . 2 ; Statius, Theb. 1 2 . 5 0 1 - 2 ; Aelian, 1 7
3
W / 3 . 3 8 ; D . L . 5.17. 1 8
It has been plausibly argued that Xenophon and Themistius derive their praise of agriculture from Prodicus; see Nestle, Hermes 71.153-60. 1 9
Though the humor lies less in the claim itself than in the manner in which it is presented: cf. De vet. med. 3, where the practice of cooking food is credited with liberating man from the theriodes diaita of grass and berries from which he once suffered; and Aristotle E M 7 . 1 1 4 8 B 2 2 - 2 3 , which cites cannibalism and the eating of raw flesh as comparable examples of the depravity of which human nature is capable. For the position of De vet. med. in the general context of ancient KulturgqssKichte see H . W. Miller, ΤΑΡΑ
8 0 . 1 8 9 - 9 8 , and " Techne and Discovery in On Ancient Medicintf'sjTAPA
( ' 9 5 5 ) 5 1 - 5 2 ; and Herter, Maia
15.469-83.
{/<•?
86 .
-
8
D E M O C R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
have arisen h a d n o t change been continuously i n t r o d u c e d to better the w a y o f life o f t h e first m e n , a n e a r t h - b o r n a n d f o o l i s h l o t (Pol.
2.1268B30-69A8).
2 0
O v e r six c e n t u r i e s l a t e r , C h r i s t i a n apologists w e r e u s i n g t h e same a r g u m e n t to
defend the new
Contra Symm.
r e l i g i o n against
2.272-317).
the o l d ( A r n o b i u s 2.66; Prudentius,
2 1
F u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t a n c i e n t theories o f c u l t u r a l o r i g i n s comes f r o m passages o f a n a e t i o l o g i c a l c h a r a c t e r . T h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t are those w h i c h seek t o e s t a b l i s h t h e basic c h a r a c t e r o f e x i s t i n g p o l i t i c a l a n d social i n s t i t u t i o n s b y showing h o w they came into being out of a p r i m i t i v e "state of n a t u r e . " O n c e a g a i n , t h e m o d e o f a r g u m e n t a t i o n seems t o h a v e b e e n first used b y t h e Sophists. H o w e v e r o n e wishes t o assess P l a t o ' s o w n share i n t h e c r e a t i o n o f the
Protagoras
m y t h , i t is r e a s o n a b l e
t o assume a S o p h i s t i c o r i g i n f o r t h e
basic i d e a w h i c h a c c o u n t s f o r its i n c l u s i o n i n t h e d i a l o g u e — t h a t a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f h o w justice a n d reverence
first arose a m o n g m e n c a n t e l l us
s o m e t h i n g a b o u t t h e w a y these concepts o p e r a t e i n c o n t e m p o r a r y society. A
v e r y s i m i l a r p o i n t o f v i e w , at a n y rate, appears i n a n u n q u e s t i o n a b l y
S o p h i s t i c w o r k , t h e treatise o f t h e l a t e f i f t h o r e a r l y f o u r t h c e n t u r y w r i t e r k n o w n as t h e A n o n y m u s I a m b l i c h i (VS I I 4 0 2 . 2 4 - 3 0 ) ;
2 2
a n d Sophistic i n -
f l u e n c e has o f t e n b e e n suspected i n t h e p o r t i o n o f Republic I I w h i c h , b y w a y o f a p r e f a c e t o its discussion o f j u s t i c e , tells h o w society first c a m e i n t o b e i n g through cobbler. of
an
original
division of labor
between
P l a t o ' s l a t e r essay i n Kulturgeschichte
2 3
carpenter,
(Laws
t h e f a m i l i a l o r i g i n o f society a n d t h e state w h i c h was
A r i s t o t l e i n t h e f i r s t b o o k o f t h e Politics elsewhere
(e.g. Pol.
(1.1252A24-B34)
1.1259.A37-B17; EN
farmer,
and
I I I ) contains a theory taken over
by
a n d used t h e r e a n d
8 . 1 1 6 0 B 2 2 - 6 1 A 9 ) as a n a i d i n a n -
a l y z i n g t h e d i f f e r e n t social r e l a t i o n s h i p s w h i c h existed i n t h e polis o f his o w n d a y ; a n d P o l y b i u s c o m p o s e d w h a t is p r o b a b l y t h e m o s t r e m a r k a b l e o f a l l ancient accounts
o f social o r i g i n s i n a n e f f o r t t o b r i n g t o l i g h t forces
he
b e l i e v e d t o b e s t i l l o p e r a t i v e i n t h e rise a n d f a l l o f p o l i t i c a l i n s t i t u t i o n s (6.5-9). A
s
m i g h t have been expected, the conflict between the idealist ethic
o f t h e Stoics a n d P e r i p a t e t i c s a n d t h e u t i l i t a r i a n o n e o f t h e i r E p i c u r e a n a n d Sceptic
adversaries
was
accompanied
by
r i v a l theories o f t h e o r i g i n
of
c u l t u r e . T r a c e s o f these theories are t o be f o u n d i n E p i c u r u s a n d several o f his
f o l l o w e r s (see b e l o w , p p . 7 1 - 7 7 ) , i n H o r a c e
(Sat. 1 . 3 . 9 9 - 1 1 4 ) , a n d i n
C i c e r o , m o s t e x t e n s i v e l y i n Books I ( 1 1 - 1 4 ) a n d I I ( 1 1 - 1 5 ) o f t h e De
officiis,
w h i c h e r e c t a s y s t e m o f p r a c t i c a l ethics o n t h e p r i n c i p l e , first o f to kalon, t h e n T h e idea is doubtless not original with Aristotle; cf. Isocrates, Euag. 7. Gf. also the Kulturgeschichte of Ps.-Lucian, Am. 33—35, which is introduced to show that homosexual rather than heterosexual love is to be preferred as being the more recent and less natural. 2 0
2 1
2 2
2 3
For the parallels see, most recently, Cole, HSCP 6 5 . 1 3 2 - 3 3 . See Dickermann, 8 8 - 8 9 ; Uxkull-Gyllenband, 1 9 - 2 0 ; Havelock, 9 6 - 9 7 .
9
INTRODUCTION
of
to sympheron,
Kulturgeschichte.
2
a n d support
b o t h doctrines
b y extensive
references t o
4
L i n g u i s t i c a n d r e l i g i o u s , as w e l l as s o c i a l , usages c a m e u n d e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n f r o m t h e same a e t i o l o g i c a l
perspective.
M o s t surviving accounts o f t h e
origin o f language appear i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h descriptions o f the o r i g i n o f society o r t e c h n o l o g y , b u t l a n g u a g e is g i v e n separate t r e a t m e n t i n E p i c u r u s ' Letter to Herodotus 7 5 - 7 6 , as i t doubtless w a s i n o t h e r w o r k s n o w lost. T w o o f the m o s t f a m o u s a n c i e n t e x p l a n a t i o n s o f t h e o r i g i n o f r e l i g i o n c o n n e c t e d i t w i t h t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f m a n ' s p r i m i t i v e e x i s t e n c e : C r i t i a s ' Sisyphus (VS
fragment
8 8 B 2 5 ) m a k e s t h e gods a useful e x p e d i e n t d e v i s e d t o c o p e w i t h t h e l a w -
lessness i n w h i c h m a n k i n d once l i v e d ; a n d t h e n o t i o n t h a t d i v i n e h o n o r s were, i n o r i g i n , t h e r e w a r d c o n f e r r e d o n t h e i n v e n t o r s w h o r a i s e d m a n o u t o f his p r i m i t i v e helplessness a p p e a r s i n t h e w o r k s o f E u h e m e r u s a n d h i s p r e cursors a n d f o l l o w e r s .
2 5
T h e c h a r a c t e r o f r e l i g i o u s observances, as w e l l as
t h e i r existence, c o u l d b e e x p l a i n e d i n t e r m s o f Kulturgeschichte.
Theophrastus,
i n his w o r k On Piety, discussed t h e e v o l u t i o n o f t h e v a r i o u s f o r m s o f sacrifice and
e x p l a i n e d t h e absence o f a n i m a l o f f e r i n g s i n c e r t a i n c o u n t r i e s as a
survival f r o m the time w h e n m a n was a v e g e t a r i a n ;
2 6
a n d the tragic poet
M o s c h i o n appeals i n s i m i l a r fashion t o t h e h i s t o r y o f c u l t u r e t o e x p l a i n t h e custom o f b u r y i n g t h e d e a d ( F r . 6 , TGF 8 1 3 - 1 4 ) .
2 7
T h e e v o l u t i o n a r y v i e w o f c u l t u r e is e v e n f o u n d o n o c c a s i o n w h e r e o n e w o u l d least e x p e c t i t . I t s a p p e a r a n c e i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h P l a t o ' s A t l a n t i s m y t h (Timaeus p.
2). A
Politicus,
, 2 2 B - 2 5 D ; Critias
IOCJB-IOD)
similar c o m b i n a t i o n o f motifs
has a l r e a d y b e e n n o t e d
(above,
characterizes the m y t h o f t h e
w h i c h , l i k e H e s i o d , looks b a c k t o a m o r e p e r f e c t age i n t h e d i s t a n t
past, b u t , u n l i k e H e s i o d , separates t h i s age f r o m t h e p r e s e n t o n e b y a c a t a c l y s m — t h e d e p a r t u r e o f t h e w o r l d ' s d i v i n e s t e e r s m a n — w h i c h necessitates a l a b o r i o u s a c q u i s i t i o n o f t h e arts necessary f o r s u r v i v a l ( 2 7 4 A - D ) . I n s i m i l a r fashion, V i r g i l , t h o u g h d e s c r i b i n g i n t h e Georgics a H e s i o d i c g o l d e n age, concludes h i s a c c o u n t i n a v e r y u n - H e s i o d i c w a y ; n o t s i m p l e d e g e n e r a t i o n , but Jupiter's decision to e n d t h e indolence b r e d b y a superabundance
of
blessings b r i n g s t h e G o l d e n A g e t o a n e n d , a n d t h e r e s u l t is a s l o w a n d l a b o r i o u s d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e arts o f c i v i l i z a t i o n ( 1 . 1 4 5 - 4 6 ) :
2 8
labor omnia vincit i m p r o b u s et duris urgens i n rebus egestas. For other pieces of Stoic Kulturgeschichte in Cicero cf. Rep. 1.39—41; ND 2 . 1 5 0 - 5 2 . T h e antiStoic account in Lactantius, Inst. div. 6.10.13—15 may also be Ciceronian in origin. The view may go back to Prodicus. The testimonia, contradictory and unclear at times, are collected in VS 8 4 B 5 . 2 1
2 6
2 6
2 7
2 8
Frs. 2 . 2 0 - 2 2 , 3 3 - 3 6 , 4 3 - 4 7 and 1 3 . 3 6 - 5 0 Potscher.
Cf. also Ovid's aitionfor the nudity of the Luperci (Fasti 2 . 2 8 9 - 3 0 2 ) . For the background of this idea see "Hesiode et son influence," Entretiens
2 5 8 - 6 3 , and L . P. Wilkinson, " Virgil's Theodicy," C£?57 ( 1 9 6 3 ) 7 7 - 7 8 . FGrH
Hardt
7 (i960)
1 3 4 F 1 7 , p. 7 2 8 . 2 3 - 3 0
(Onesicritus' conversation with the gymnosophists) gives what is perhaps its earliest appearance.
IO
I
D E M O C R I T U S AND T H E S O U R C E S O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
Elsewhere
(Aen. 8 . 3 1 4 - 2 3 ) , f o l l o w i n g a t r a d i t i o n k n o w n t o M a c r o b i u s
(Sat.
1.7.21) a n d p o s s i b l y V a r r o , V i r g i l m a k e s S a t u r n t h e b r i n g e r o f t h e blessings o f c i v i l i z a t i o n to a r u d e race w h i c h d i d n o t k n o w t h e m b e f o r e .
2 9
H e r e the
m e t h o d c h o s e n is s o m e w h a t d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h a t o f t h e Georgics, b u t i t achieves a s i m i l a r compromise between the Hesiodic a n d the later v i e w o f prehistory. So w i d e s p r e a d w a s t h i s l a t e r v i e w t h a t i t affected e v e n t h e e x p l i c a t o r s o f H e s i o d . T h e last s u r v i v i n g s a m p l e o f a n c i e n t Kulturgeschichte to the
Works
and Days
scholar Johannes
is i n t h e s c h o l i a
w r i t t e n i n the eleventh century b y the Byzantine
Tzetzes
(reprinted i n part i n
VS
I I
137.36-138.13).
T z e t z e s a t t e m p t s — a n d t h e a t t e m p t w a s doubtless n o t o r i g i n a l w i t h h i m (see below, p p . 148-51)—to make
Hesiod's
account
i n t e l l e c t u a l l y respectable
b y a l l e g o r i z i n g i t . T h e f r e e d o m f r o m l a b o r i n t h e fields w h i c h H e s i o d h a d d e s c r i b e d becomes a g r i m necessity: t h e r e s u l t , n o t o f a s u p e r a b u n d a n c e
of
spontaneous n o u r i s h m e n t , b u t o f a n ignorance o f the techniques o f f a r m i n g . T h e m e n o f t h e G o l d e n R a c e w e r e h a p p y because, t h o u g h q u i t e w r e t c h e d b y l a t e r s t a n d a r d s , t h e y k n e w o f n o t h i n g b e t t e r a n d so d i d n o t n o t i c e t h e i r m i s e r y . O l d age a n d d e a t h w e r e u n k n o w n o n l y because m e n w e r e t o o s i m p l e as y e t t o k n o w w h a t d e a t h was, h e n c e d i d n o t d r e a d i t , a n d because, i n a n age w i t h o u t d o c t o r s o r m e d i c i n e , n o o n e ever l i v e d to o l d age. T h e a b o v e s u r v e y c o u l d doubtless h a v e b e e n m a d e m o r e
comprehensive,
b u t i t has t o u c h e d u p o n a l m o s t a l l t h e m a j o r passages a n d types o f passage i n w h i c h c u l t u r a l h i s t o r y a p p e a r s . B r i e f as m a n y o f these texts are, t h e y are sufficiently numerous to p r o v i d e b o t h a n abundance a n d a n
embarrassment
o f materials for the h i s t o r i a n o f ancient t h o u g h t . For certain portions, at a n y r a t e , o f his researches t h e r e is n o l a c k o f d o c u m e n t a t i o n ; a t t h e same t i m e h e m a y w e l l d e s p a i r o f d i s c e r n i n g a n y p a t t e r n i n w h a t is a h e t e r o g e n e o u s a n d a t t i m e s b e w i l d e r i n g a r r a y o f ideas a n d o b s e r v a t i o n s . A n d a n e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e w o r k o f his predecessors m a y o n l y serve t o c o n f i r m h i m i n his diffidence a n d scepticism. D u r i n g t h e past c e n t u r y m a n y o f t h e texts m e n t i o n e d a b o v e h a v e b e e n t h e object
o f repeated
efforts i n Quellenforschung.
The
r e s u l t is a n u m b e r
of
studies w h i c h seek t o g r o u p l a r g e bodies o f m a t e r i a l a r o u n d a single g r e a t n a m e . Posidonius a n d E p i c u r u s figured most p r o m i n e n t l y i n earlier attempts o f this s o r t ;
3 0
t h e y w e r e n a t u r a l choices g i v e n t h e c o m m a n d i n g p l a c e w h i c h
L u c r e t i u s V occupies a m o n g s u r v i v i n g accounts a n d the vogue enjoyed for several decades b y " P a n p o s i d o n i a n i s m . " L i t t l e a t t e n t i o n was p a i d t o t h e 2 8
See A . Schmeckel, De Ovidiana Pythagoreae doctrinae adumbratione (Diss. Greifswald 1885) 2 7 - 2 9 ;
and, for the story in Christian writers, G . Boas, Primitivism
in the Middle
Ages (Baltimore 1948)
195-97· 3 0
Extreme examples are Norden's article in NJbb Suppl. 19.411-25 (Epicurus) and Gerhausser's
Der Protreptikos des Poseidonios 1 6 - 3 0 .
INTRODUCTION
role w h i c h p r e - H e l l e n i s t i c t h i n k e r s m i g h t h a v e p l a y e d i n s h a p i n g t h e t r a d i t i o n , u n t i l t h e p u b l i c a t i o n , i n 1912, o f K a r l R e i n h a r d t ' s a r t i c l e , " H e k a t a i o s v o n A b d e r a u n d D e m o k r i t " (Hermes 4 7 . 4 9 2 - 5 1 3 ) . R e i n h a r d t a t t r i b u t e d t h e p r e h i s t o r y f o u n d i n D i o d o r u s 1.8 to H e c a t a e u s o f A b d e r a a n d , t h r o u g h h i m , to D e m o c r i t u s . T h i s thesis was a c c e p t e d b y D i e l s i n t h e fifth e d i t i o n o f his Vorsokratiker
and
has
strongly influenced
a l l subsequent
investigation.
3 1
R e i n h a r d t h i m s e l f b e l i e v e d (512) t h a t D e m o c r i t u s ' t r e a t m e n t o f t h e s u b j e c t was a u t h o r i t a t i v e f o r a l l o f a n t i q u i t y ; m o s t o f his f o l l o w e r s h a v e b e e n less bold,
3 2
b u t t h e y are i n c l i n e d t o see a t least p a r t i a l o r i n d i r e c t D e m o c r i t e a n
i n f l u e n c e i n a l m o s t a l l l a t e r phases o f t h e t r a d i t i o n . E p i c u r u s ,
Posidonius,
even P l a t o a n d A r i s t o t l e , are a s s u m e d t o be h e a v i l y i n his d e b t . N e i t h e r R e i n h a r d t ' s w o r k n o r t h a t o f his f o r e r u n n e r s a n d f o l l o w e r s is r i g o r o u s a n d t h o r o u g h e n o u g h i n its r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s t o c a r r y m u c h c o n v i c t i o n . T o o o f t e n single m o t i f s , w h i c h a w i d e r s u r v e y o f source m a t e r i a l w o u l d have s h o w n t o be q u i t e c o m m o n p l a c e , h a v e b e e n r e g a r d e d as t h e specific and i d e n t i f y i n g p r o p e r t y o f a single t h i n k e r ;
3 3
or m i n o r similarities o f detail
have b e e n i n v o k e d t o establish a close c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n a u t h o r s w h o s e basic c o n c e p t i o n s
o f the e v o l u t i o n o f c u l t u r e are q u i t e d i f f e r e n t ;
3 4
or an
a u t h o r ' s k n o w n o r p r e s u m e d p h i l o s o p h i c a f f i n i t i e s h a v e b e e n t a k e n as satisfactory i n d i c a t i o n o f w h a t source he m u s t necessarily h a v e f o l l o w e d .
a 3 8
T h i s f r e q u e n t m i s a p p l i c a t i o n o f source c r i t i c i s m p r o v i d e s some g r o u n d s for scepticism a b o u t t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e w h o l e m e t h o d . H e n c e t h e t e n d e n c y , e v i d e n t i n several r e c e n t t r e a t m e n t s o f t h e subject, t o eschew altogether i n f a v o r o f a l a r g e l y d e s c r i p t i v e p r e s e n t a t i o n .
3 6
Quellenforschung
H e r e e m p h a s i s is
p l a c e d o n t h e g e n e r i c s i m i l a r i t i e s w h i c h l i n k a g r e a t v a r i e t y o f texts, a n d t h e t r a d i t i o n as w e k n o w i t is t r e a t e d as i f i t w e r e a b o d y o f w i d e l y h e l d ideas, mostly o f u n i d e n t i f i a b l e o r i g i n . W i t h i n t h i s b o d y o f m a t e r i a l , t o b e sure, cert a i n basic d i v e r g e n c e s o f a t t i t u d e m a y b e d i s c e r n e d , b u t t h e i r o u t l i n e s are See the literature cited by Spoerri, 4 - 5 . So, for example, J . Kaerst, Geschichte des Hellenismus 2 (Berlin 1926) 3 7 3 . So Dyroff, Z Quellenfrage bei Lukrez 11—12, adduces the mention of acorns as man's earliest food as evidence for the Peripatetic origin of the doctrines of Lucretius V ; and R . Philippson, "Ciceroniana I . De Invcntione," NJbb 133 (1886) 4 1 7 - 1 9 , assumes that Cicero, Inv. 1.2-3 d De Oral. 1.35-36 must be Posidonian because they stress the role of the gifted individual in the cultural process. Against Philippson see H . M . Hubbell, The Influence of Isocrates on Cicero, Dionysius and Aristides (Diss. Yale 1913) 2 9 - 3 0 . 3 1
3 2
3 3
2
ur
a n
3 4
For the application of this method to Vitruvius see Appendix I I . This is probably the principal reason for the often repeated attempt to find a Stoic source for the Kullurgeschichte of Polybius. O n the search, and its generally unsatisfactory results, see von 3 6
Fritz, The Theory of the Mixed 3 6
Constitution in Antiquity 55—58 and Walbank, 643—45.
E.g. in the accounts of Havelock, Guthrie, Mondolfo, Spoerri, and Thraede (cited above, note 9 ) . Except for the studies of Vlastos [AJP 6 7 . 5 1 - 5 9 ) and K . Westphalen, Die Kulturentstehungslehre des Lukrez (unpubl. diss. Munich 1957, known to me only through the references in Spoerri's addenda, 2 1 3 - 2 1 ) , no piece of Quellenforschung in this field has appeared in recent years.
12
DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES OF G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
so v a g u e a n d f r a g m e n t a r y as t o be h a r d l y w o r t h s t u d y i n g . T h i s
approach
d o u b t l e s s has s o m e t h i n g t o r e c o m m e n d i t a n d has b e e n a d o p t e d i n t h e i n t r o d u c t o r y s u r v e y j u s t c o m p l e t e d . T h e p o i n t s o f c o n t a c t b e t w e e n so m a n y a c c o u n t s , r a n g i n g o v e r a m i l l e n i u m a n d a h a l f i n t h e i r dates o f c o m p o s i t i o n , s h o w q u i t e c l e a r l y t h a t w e are d e a l i n g w i t h w h a t m u s t h a v e b e e n , t o some degree, the c o m m o n p r o p e r t y o f a l l educated m e n . O n e m a y w e l l w o n d e r , h o w e v e r , w h e t h e r t h i s is a l l t h a t is i n v o l v e d . F o r t h e r e is n o t h i n g i n p r i n c i p l e a g a i n s t t h e a s s u m p t i o n w h i c h g u i d e d e a r l i e r Quellenforschung: o f s u r v i v i n g a c c o u n t s o f c u l t u r a l o r i g i n s are a c o n d e n s e d
that portions
and fragmentary
r e p o r t o f d o c t r i n e s o n c e d e v e l o p e d m o r e e l a b o r a t e l y i n t h e w o r k s o f a single t h i n k e r . T h e e v o l u t i o n a r y v i e w o f c u l t u r e w i t h w h i c h w e are c o n c e r n e d m a y , c o n c e i v a b l y , b e c o m p a r a b l e t o c e r t a i n c o n t r a c t theories o f t h e o r i g i n o f society whose p o p u l a r i t y i n the seventeenth
and eighteenth
centuries
cannot
be
t r a c e d t o t h e i n f l u e n c e o f a n y one w r i t e r . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , i t is j u s t as possible t h a t a b e t t e r a n a l o g y is p r o v i d e d b y t h e views w i d e l y c u r r e n t t o d a y o n t h e subjects o f b i o l o g i c a l e v o l u t i o n a n d p s y c h o a n a l y s i s , v i e w s i n w h i c h i t is possible t o r e c o g n i z e ,
s i m p l i f i e d a n d d i s t o r t e d as t h e y o f t e n are,
doctrines
w h i c h go back to D a r w i n a n d F r e u d . E v e n i f t h e second a n a l o g y is m o r e n e a r l y a c c u r a t e , i t n e e d n o t f o l l o w t h a t , o n t h e basis o f t h e texts w h i c h n o w s u r v i v e , w e c a n l e a r n a n y t h i n g d e f i n i t e a b o u t t h e u l t i m a t e sources o f o u r t r a d i t i o n . B u t t h i s f a c t does n o t c o n s t i t u t e a s u f f i c i e n t r e a s o n f o r a b a n d o n i n g a l t o g e t h e r t h e a t t e m p t t o d o so, i f t h e a t t e m p t is c a r r i e d o u t w i t h m o r e r e g a r d t h a n was s h o w n i n c e r t a i n e a r l i e r investigations for the c o m p l e x i t y o f the m a t e r i a l u n d e r consideration a n d w i t h , p e r h a p s , a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t focus. O n e s h o u l d be c o n c e r n e d less w i t h specific d e t a i l s o f t r e a t m e n t t h a n w i t h basic a t t i t u d e s a n d w h o l e m o d e s o f p r e s e n t a t i o n : t h e d i v e r g e n t a p p r o a c h e s whose existence w i t h i n t h e t r a d i t i o n has a l r e a d y b e e n i n d i c a t e d ( a b o v e , p . 2 ) . A n d one's efforts s h o u l d n o t be d i r e c t e d , a t least n o t a t t h e outset, t o w a r d i d e n t i f y i n g a specific source. I t is m o r e i m p o r t a n t t o n o t e w h i c h p a r t s o f t h e t r a d i t i o n seem, b y v i r t u e o f closely s h a r e d a t t i t u d e s a n d m o d e s o f t r e a t m e n t , t o b e l o n g t o g e t h e r , a n d t o c o m p l e t e , w h e n e v e r s u c h j u x t a p o s i t i o n s a l l o w i t , t h e d o c t r i n e s w h i c h single texts m e r e l y h i n t a t o r p r e s e r v e i n f r a g m e n t a r y f o r m . C e r t a i n details o f t r e a t m e n t w i l l seem c o m m o n p l a c e
as l o n g as t h e y are assigned t h e l o w e s t
c o m m o n d e n o m i n a t o r o f significance w h i c h w o u l d a l l o w for t h e i r i n c l u s i o n i n a n y discussion o f c u l t u r a l o r i g i n s ; t h e y m a y w e l l a p p e a r i n a d i f f e r e n t l i g h t w h e n v i e w e d a l o n g w i t h related m a t e r i a l against the b a c k g r o u n d o f the p a r t i c u l a r s c h o o l o f t h o u g h t t o w h i c h t h e y b e l o n g . I n so f a r as t h e m e t h o d o u t l i n e d succeeds i n d e t e c t i n g , i n p a r t s o f t h e t r a d i t i o n as i t n o w
stands,
traces o f a m o r e consistent a n d e l a b o r a t e t h e o r y o f c u l t u r a l h i s t o r y , i t w i l l n a t u r a l l y p o i n t t o t h e existence o f a c o m m o n source. W h e t h e r i t succeeds i n
13
INTRODUCTION
i d e n t i f y i n g t h i s source is o f less i m p o r t a n c e ; t o h a v e r e c o v e r e d a m o r e sop h i s t i c a t e d v e r s i o n o f a n c i e n t Kulturgeschichte
t h a n exists i n s u r v i v i n g texts
w i l l be i n i t s e l f a service t o t h e h i s t o r y o f a n c i e n t t h o u g h t . O n e c a n n o t p r o m i s e t h a t t h e results a c h i e v e d
b y this m e t h o d w i l l
be
spectacular, b u t unless its p o s s i b i l i t i e s are a t least p u t t o t h e test t h e r e is a fair chance t h a t the r e a l achievements o f t h e Greeks i n the r e a l m o f a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l s p e c u l a t i o n are b e i n g u n n e c e s s a r i l y i g n o r e d o r o b s c u r e d . the
present study, the
Quellenforschung
first
eight chapters
o f w h i c h are
3 7
Hence
a n exercise i n
a l o n g t h e lines j u s t suggested.
O u r s t a r t i n g p o i n t w i l l b e a g r o u p o f texts, f o u r H e l l e n i s t i c a n d
one
B y z a n t i n e , w h i c h seem t o p r e s e n t a single d o c t r i n e a n d t o p r o v i d e a basis f o r its p a r t i a l r e c o n s t r u c t i o n . A l l are h e a v i l y t e c h n o l o g i c a l i n t h e i r e m p h a s i s , a l t h o u g h , as w i l l b e c o m e a p p a r e n t i n l a t e r stages o f t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n , t h e y seem t o d e r i v e f r o m a t r a d i t i o n w h o s e p e r s p e c t i v e was m u c h b r o a d e r . Stress w i l l be p l a c e d t h r o u g h o u t o n t h e set o f r e l a t e d ideas w h i c h these texts c o n t a i n , r a t h e r t h a n o n t h e e s t a b l i s h i n g o f d o x o g r a p h i c a l stemmata; a n d i f these ideas c o m e t o b e d e s i g n a t e d e v e n t u a l l y as D e m o c r i t e a n , t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n is i n t e n d e d as a s u p p l e m e n t a r y a n d i n some sense s u b o r d i n a t e c o n c l u s i o n , n o t äs a basic p r e m i s e o n w h i c h t h e w h o l e i n v e s t i g a t i o n m u s t s t a n d o r f a l l . T h e w o r k s chosen f o r d e t a i l e d e x a m i n a t i o n r e p r e s e n t o n l y o n e o f t h e
approaches
to t h e i r s u b j e c t c u r r e n t i n a n t i q u i t y , b u t t h e e v i d e n c e w h i c h t h e y p r e s e n t is u n i q u e i n t w o w a y s . N o w h e r e else, t o m y k n o w l e d g e , c a n s i m i l a r i t i e s so close a n d so extensive b e f o u n d ; i t is h e r e , t h e n , i f a n y w h e r e , t h a t a c o m p a r a tive s t u d y has a c h a n c e t o r e m o v e some o f t h e gaps a n d u n c e r t a i n t i e s w h i c h m a r l a r g e p o r t i o n s o f t h e t r a d i t i o n . A n d t h e l i n e o f t h o u g h t w h i c h these five texts r e p r e s e n t is t h a t w h i c h seems t o h a v e g o n e f u r t h e s t i n its e f f o r t t o v i e w a l l aspects o f c i v i l i z a t i o n — t e c h n o l o g i c a l , l i n g u i s t i c , s o c i a l — f r o m a n e v o l u t i o n a r y s t a n d p o i n t . W e s h a l l t h e r e f o r e b e e x a m i n i n g w h a t was p r o b a b l y t h e most d e t a i l e d a n d a m b i t i o u s , as w e l l as t h e m o s t n e a r l y r e c o v e r a b l e , o f a l l a n c i e n t theories o f t h e o r i g i n o f c u l t u r e . Cf. Gigon in Gnomon 33.776 (in criticism of Spoerri's tendency to find only "allgemeine Bildungsgut" in surviving accounts): " . . . das Ziel sinnvoller Forschung ist doch die Wüste solcher Allgemeinheiten zurückzudrängen zugunsten der gestalteten und gestaltenden Individualitäten." 3 7
CHAPTER ONE COMMON
MOTIFS OF
IN FIVE ANCIENT
HISTORIES
TECHNOLOGY
A l t h o u g h extensive g e n e r i c resemblances c a n b e t r a c e d w i t h i n t h e b o d y o f a n c i e n t texts r e l a t i n g t o c u l t u r a l o r i g i n s , f e w a c c o u n t s c o n t a i n passages so closely s i m i l a r as t o m a k e t h e i r d e p e n d e n c e o n a s i n g l e source i m m e d i a t e l y o b v i o u s . S u c h passages d o , h o w e v e r , e x i s t ; a n d w e s h a l l b e g i n o u r i n q u i r y w i t h t w o o f t h e m o s t s t r i k i n g . T h e f i r s t is t a k e n f r o m D i o d o r u s ' h i s t o r y o f early E g y p t ; t h e s e c o n d is a n e x c e r p t f r o m t h e Kulturgeschichte
w h i c h appears
i n the second b o o k o f V i t r u v i u s . ϋ ι ο ο ο κ υ β 1.13.3
V I T R U V I U S 33· 1 6 - 2 3 *
γενομένου γαρ εν τοις ορεσι κεραυνοβόλου δένδρου
quodam in loco ab tempestatibus
και της πλησίον ΰλης καομένης,
densae crebritatibus arbores agitatae et inter se
et
ventis
terentes ramos ignem excitaverunt; et eo flamma vehement! perterriti, qui circum
eum locum
fuerunt sunt fugati. προοελθόντα τον "Ηφαιστον
postea re quieta propius accedentes,
κατά την χειμεριον ώραν ήσθηναι διαφεροντως επι
cum animadvertissent commoditatem esse mag-
τη θερμασία'
nam corporibus ad ignis teporem,
λήγοντος δε του πυρός άει της ΰλης
επιβάλλειν
ligna adicientes
και τούτω τω τροπψ διατηροΰντα το πΰρ
et ita conservantes
προκαλεΐσθαι τους άλλους ανθρώπους
alios adducebant
προς την εξ αύτοΰ γινομενην ευχρηστιαν.
et nutu monstrantes ostendebant quas haberent ex eo utilitates.
V i t r u v i u s w r o t e after D i o d o r u s , hence c o u l d h a v e k n o w n a n d r e p r o d u c e d his w o r k . B u t s u c h differences as t h e r e are b e t w e e n t h e t w o passages d o n o t 1
suggest b o r r o w i n g o f t h i s s o r t . D i o d o r u s places t h e d i s c o v e r y o f f i r e i n E g y p t and a t t r i b u t e s i t t o a c e r t a i n H e p h a e s t u s , w h o t h r o u g h his a c h i e v e m e n t w i n s first k i n g s h i p a n d t h e n d i v i n e h o n o r s . V i t r u v i u s , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , does n o t localize t h e episode, does n o t speak o f a single d i s c o v e r e r , a n d m e n t i o n s n o * Vitruvius page and line references are to Rose's edition, Leipzig 1867. Diodorus' failure to mention the Roman conquest of Egypt seems to establish 3 0 H . C . as a terminus ante quern for his work. His own visit to Egypt took place between 60 and 56 B . C . (1.44.1), and a chronological reference in the passage where the visit is mentioned suggests that luS account of the country dates from about the same time (see Oldfather's edition, Vol. i . ^ p . viii-xi). Vitruvius' reference to Augustus (5.1.7) shows that the completion of his work must be,gjaced after 1
16
DEMOGRITUS AND T H E SOURCES OF G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
p o l i t i c a l o r r e l i g i o u s consequences. O f t h e t w o t r e a t m e n t s , V i t r u v i u s ' has every appearance o f b e i n g the o r i g i n a l one. N e i t h e r the c l i m a t e n o r the l a n d scape w h i c h D i o d o r u s describes is E g y p t i a n (as R e i n h a r d t p o i n t s o u t , 4 9 9 ) , a n d t h e d i s c o v e r y , w h i c h , as i t is p r e s e n t e d i n b o t h D i o d o r u s a n d V i t r u v i u s , stems m o r e f r o m a c c i d e n t a n d e x t e r n a l suggestion t h a n f r o m o n e m a n ' s exc e p t i o n a l i n t u i t i o n , is h a r d l y s u f f i c i e n t r e a s o n f o r t h e c o n f e r r i n g o f k i n g s h i p a n d g o d h o o d . O n l y o n e e x p l a n a t i o n s a t i s f a c t o r i l y a c c o u n t s f o r the r e l a t i o n s h i p i n w h i c h t h e t w o passages s t a n d : b o t h w r i t e r s are r e p r o d u c i n g a c o m m o n source, V i t r u v i u s w i t h some a c c u r a c y , D i o d o r u s w i t h s u c h m o d i f i c a t i o n s as are necessary t o a d j u s t i t t o a n E g y p t i a n s e t t i n g . F u r t h e r parallels between t h e portions o f Diodorus a n d V i t r u v i u s f r o m w h i c h these passages a r e d r a w n c o n f i r m t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . I n t w o p a i r s o f passages a l m o s t as closely r e l a t e d as t h e t w o j u s t c o n s i d e r e d , b o t h w r i t e r s discuss t h e o r i g i n o f l a n g u a g e ( D i o d . 1.8.3, V i t r . 3 3 . 2 4 - 2 8 ) a n d t h e q u a l i t i e s o f m i n d a n d b o d y t o w h i c h m a n owes his t e c h n o l o g i c a l a c h i e v e m e n t s ( D i o d . 1.8.9, V i t r . 3 4 . 2 - 6 a n d 3 6 . 1 - 5 ) .
2
B u t t h e r e is n o w o n e s i g n i f i c a n t
difference.
D i o d o r u s ' accounts n o longer come f r o m his description o f early
Egypt
( 1 . 1 0 - 2 9 ) b u t f r o m a n e a r l i e r p o r t i o n o f t h e b o o k ( 1 . 8 ) , w h i c h gives a b r i e f g e n e r a l a c c o u n t o f t h e o r i g i n o f h u m a n c u l t u r e . T h e r e t h e y h a v e t h e same s e t t i n g as d o t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s i n V i t r u v i u s . O n e m i g h t i n f e r t h a t D i o d o r u s a n d V i t r u v i u s a r e d r a w i n g o n the same source f o r a l l t h r e e sets o f passages, a n d t h a t D i o d o r u s has s i m p l y t r a n s f e r r e d o n e o f t h e m t o a n E g y p t i a n c o n t e x t , i n w h i c h i t is s o m e w h a t o u t o f p l a c e . A c t u a l l y t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e t w o w r i t e r s a n d t h e i r c o m m o n source seems t o h a v e b e e n m o r e c o m p l i c a t e d . I t is p r o b a b l e t h a t w h a t n o w a p p e a r s as 1.8 w a s , i n D i o d o r u s ' i m m e d i a t e source, c o n n e c t e d s o m e h o w w i t h t h e passage o n t h e d i s c o v e r y o f f i r e as p a r t o f a s p e c i f i c a l l y E g y p t i a n Kulturgeschichte. by
Diodorus
geschichte
introduction. T h e
Kulturof an
account—the
derives. T h i s r a t h e r e l a b o r a t e
t o his general
same o n e f r o m w h i c h , u l t i m a t e l y , V i t r u v i u s r e c o n s t r u c t i o n , first p r o p o s e d b y R e i n h a r d t
( 4 9 5 - 9 9 ) , has r e c e n t l y b e e n q u e s t i o n e d . think,
F r o m this context i t was detached
w a s itself, h o w e v e r , t h e r e s u l t o f t h e " E g y p t i a n i z a t i o n "
earlier general
a n d transferred
3
R e i n h a r d t ' s critics are w r o n g , I
b u t t h e a r g u m e n t s p r o a n d c o n n e e d n o t c o n c e r n us here
defense o f R e i n h a r d t ' s
(for a
p o s i t i o n , see A p p e n d i x I ) . I t is sufficient f o r o u r
present purposes t o p o i n t o u t t h a t t h e a l t e r n a t i o n o f E g y p t i a n a n d n o n E g y p t i a n settings i n t h e p o r t i o n s o f D i o d o r u s w h i c h h a v e close p a r a l l e l s i n V i t r u v i u s s u p p o r t s o u r o r i g i n a l c o n t e n t i o n t h a t V i t r u v i u s is n o t on
dependent
D i o d o r u s . B o t h a u t h o r s d e r i v e e v e n t u a l l y f r o m a single source, a source 2
3
See below, pp. 33 and 40. Notably by Pfligersdorfer, SBWien
See also Jacoby, FGrH
2 3 2 , No. 5 , 1 4 3 - 4 4
I l i a 39.26-37; 85.30-86.3.
a
n
d Spoerri, 114—16, 129 and 1 6 3 - 6 4 .
COMMON MOTIFS I N F I V E A N C I E N T H I S T O R I E S O F T E C H N O L O G Y
u p o n w h i c h b o t h t h e Kulturgeschichte
17
o f 1.8 a n d its E g y p t i a n c o m p l e m e n t i n
1.13-29 m u s t , a t least i n p a r t , d e p e n d . T h e r e are t w o o t h e r a n c i e n t a c c o u n t s o f c u l t u r a l o r i g i n s w h i c h , t h o u g h l i n k e d b y p a r a l l e l s less s t r i k i n g t h a n those j u s t e x a m i n e d , s t i l l s h o w c l e a r evidence o f d e r i v a t i o n f r o m a c o m m o n source. T h e s e a p p e a r i n t h e
fifth
b o o k o f L u c r e t i u s a n d Seneca's 9 0 t h l e t t e r . T h e i n d i v i d u a l passages t o w h i c h Quellenforschung
has m o s t o f t e n c a l l e d a t t e n t i o n are t h e f o l l o w i n g :
L U C R E T I U S 5.1241-57
aes atque aurum ferrumque repertumst
4
S E N E C A , E P . 90.12
in hoc . . . dissentio [from Posidonius] sapientes fuisse qui ferri metalla et aeris invenerint,
ignis ubi ingentis S i l v a s ardore cremarat
cum incendio s i l v a r u m adusta tellus
flammeus ardor horribili sonitu silvas exederat altis ab radicibus et terram percoxerat igni, manabat venis ferventibus in loca terrae
in summo venas iacentes liquefactas fudisset.
concava conveniens argenti rivus et auri aeris item et plumbi.
A l t h o u g h L u c r e t i u s a n d Seneca are t h e o n l y t w o a n c i e n t w r i t e r s t o describe the d i s c o v e r y o f m i n i n g i n this f a s h i o n , t h e passages are t o o b r i e f t o e x c l u d e a l t o g e t h e r t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e y are s i m p l y r e p r o d u c i n g a w i d e l y p r e v a l e n t a c c o u n t , o t h e r specimens o f w h i c h d o n o t h a p p e n t o h a v e s u r v i v e d .
5
T h i s p o s s i b i l i t y m u s t , h o w e v e r , be r e j e c t e d i n v i e w o f f u r t h e r p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n t h e c o n t e x t s i n w h i c h o u r t w o passages o c c u r . L u c r e t i u s a n d Seneca deal w i t h t h e first m e t a l tools i n close c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e i r a c c o u n t s o f t h e discovery o f m i n i n g
( L u c r . 5 . 1 2 6 2 - 6 8 , Sen. Ep.
90.11)
a n d proceed to
describe, i n t h e same o r d e r , t w o s u b s e q u e n t t e c h n o l o g i c a l
developments
m a d e possible b y these m e t a l t o o l s : w e a v i n g ( L u c r . 5 . 1 3 5 0 - 5 3 , Sen. Ep. 90.20) a n d f a r m i n g ( L u c r . 5 . 1 3 6 1 - 6 6 , Sen. Ep. 9 0 . 2 1 ) . W h a t L u c r e t i u s a n d Seneca share is n o t s i m p l y a n a c c o u n t o f t h e d i s c o v e r y o f m i n i n g , b u t a n Gf. Uxkull-Gyllenband, 34, note 4 4 ; Gerhäusser, Der Protreptikos des Poseidonios 2 7 - 2 8 ; Reinhardt, Poseidonios 4 0 3 , note 1. The resemblance was first noted by Knaacke, Hermes 16.593, note 2. It is only particular elements of the account which can be paralleled elsewhere in ancient literature. T h e liquefying of a vein of metal—though not, as here, as an explanation of the original discovery of mining—appears in Posidonius ap. Strabo 3.147 and Athenaeus 6 . 2 3 3 D - E ; Ps.-Aristotle Ausc. Mirab. 87, 837A24-26 and Diodorus 5.35.3-4· These texts are given in full in K . Möllenhoff, Deutsche Altertumskunde 2 (Berlin 1890) 3 1 2 - 1 3 . The spontaneous forest fire, without any further effects, is found in Manilius 1.856-57; Aetna 3 6 3 - 6 5 ; Lucretius 1 . 8 9 7 - 9 0 0 ; and as early as Thucydides (2.77.4). Strabo and Diodorus derive directly from Posidonius, though not from the work used by Seneca. According to Strabo, Posidonius himself introduced his account as a wellknown mythos. Müllenhoff (op. cit., this note, 1.339—42) suggests that Ps.-Aristotle derives from Timaeus of Tauromenium. 4
5
18
DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K
ANTHROPOLOGY
a c c o u n t o f m e t a l l u r g y , i t s d i s c o v e r y a n d its effect o n t h e s u b s e q u e n t d e v e l o p m e n t o f c u l t u r e . A n d t h e i d e n t i t y o f d e t a i l a n d a r r a n g e m e n t i n t h e t w o acc o u n t s is n o t l i k e l y t o b e a c c i d e n t a l . Lucretius
a n d Seneca a r e d r a w i n g
ultimately o n a common
source.
Seneca's i m m e d i a t e source w a s , o f course, P o s i d o n i u s : t h e e n t i r e 9 0 t h l e t t e r is a n a t t a c k o n t h e l a t t e r ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t sapientes p l a y e d a s i g n i f i c a n t p a r t i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t e c h n o l o g y , a n d t h e passages f r o m t h e l e t t e r w h i c h w e h a v e c i t e d a r e s i m p l y s u m m a r i e s o f P o s i d o n i u s ' views, here r e p r o d u c e d b y Seneca i n o r d e r t o r e f u t e t h e m . I t has b e e n suggested o n o c c a s i o n t h a t P o s i d o n i u s w a s L u c r e t i u s ' source a l s o . B u t t h e suggestion seems r a t h e r u n 6
l i k e l y . T h e sapientes w h o p l a y so p r o m i n e n t a r o l e i n P o s i d o n i u s ' a c c o u n t o f prehistory are completely missing f r o m L u c r e t i u s ,
7
a n d t h e d i s c r e p a n c y is
best e x p l a i n e d b y a s s u m i n g t h a t t h e y a r e a s p e c i f i c a l l y P o s i d o n i a n m o d i f i c a t i o n i n t r o d u c e d i n t o a t r a d i t i o n w h i c h L u c r e t i u s preserves i n p u r e r f o r m . T h e i r r o l e is, i n f a c t , s o m e w h a t i n c o n g r u o u s , c o m p a r a b l e i n t h i s respect t o t h a t o f Hephaestus i n D i o d o r u s ' description o f t h e discovery o f fire. L i k e D i o d o r u s a n d V i t r u v i u s , L u c r e t i u s a n d Posidonius emphasize the role w h i c h chance a n d e x t e r n a l suggestion p l a y i n t h e development o f technology; a n d 6
E . g . by Gerhausser, Der Protreptikos des Poseidonios 2 7 - 2 8 ; Rudberg, Forschungen zu Poseidonios 8 0 ,
note 1; Diels, SBBerlin 7
1921, 2 3 7 - 4 4 .
T h e contrary has been maintained, largely on the basis of 5 . 1 1 0 5 - 1 1 (cf. Ernout-Robin ad loc.)
and of Lachmann's emendation benigni for et igni i n 1106: inque dies magis hi victum vitamque priorem commutare novis monstrabant rebus et igni ingenio qui praestabant et corde vigebant. condere coeperunt urbes arcemque locare praesidium reges ipsi sibi perfugiumque et pecus atque agros divisere atque dedere pro facie cuiusque et viribus ingenioque. The talented individuals of 1107 are (as Spoerri notes, 146, note 16) a motif in Epicurean Kulturgeschichte as early as Hermarchus (see below, pp. 7 1 - 7 2 ) , hence provide only a generic similarity to the sapientes of Posidonius. If, on the other hand, the reges of 1109 are identified with the benigni of 1106, the parallel with Posidonius becomes exact. T h e identification, however, is unlikely for several reasons. Lachmann's emendation is almost certainly wrong: the cities which the kings founded are not the work of benevolence—they are built for self-protection (Bailey ad loc., calling attention to praesidium
ipsi sibi perfugiumque
in 1 1 0 9 ) ; and the parallels between
1105—7
and
both Diodorus and Tzetzes (see below, pp. 22 and 3 6 ) support the mss. reading. Moreover, it is not at all certain that we should even identify the reges of 1109 with the inventors of 1107 (cf. Merrill ad loc.; Borle, MusHelv 19.167). T h e connection may simply be that inventors supply the technology needed for building cities, or that they are the recipients of agros and pecus (compare ingenio in 1107 and m i ) . And if we do grant the correctness of the identification, the linking of early kings and early inventors is still not exclusively Posidonian (cf. Aristotle, Pol. 3 . 1 2 8 5 B 6 - 9 ; Megasthenes FGrH
7 1 5 F 1 2 , p. 6 1 7 . 2 - 1 3 ; Euhemerus, FGrH
6 3 F 2 4 ) . T h e existence of these parallels and the
presence of a number of purely traditional or specifically Epicurean elements in other portions of Lucretius' account of early kingship (see below, Chap. V I , note 18) make the theory of a Posidonian origin for 5.1105-11 quite unnecessary.
COMMON MOTIFS I N F I V E A N C I E N T H I S T O R I E S O F T E C H N O L O G Y
19
the sapientes n o less t h a n t h e b e n e f a c t o r - g o d H e p h a e s t u s a r e o u t o f p l a c e i n such a process. T h e y a r e t h e chosen agents t h r o u g h w h i c h p h i l o s o p h y leads the race t o a n ever h i g h e r d e s t i n y , y e t t h e y g o a b o u t t h e i r w o r k i n a m o s t m a t t e r - o f - f a c t , a l m o s t h a p h a z a r d w a y . T h e i r i n v e n t i o n s cause P o s i d o n i u s t o m a r v e l a t t h e resources o f t h e p h i l o s o p h i c m i n d ,
8
y e t a r e , as Seneca p o i n t s
out (Ep. 9 0 . 2 1 , 2 5 , 3 3 ) , o f t h e sort w h i c h c o n t i n u e t o b e p r o d u c e d b y p e o p l e w h o a r e n o t p h i l o s o p h e r s a t a l l . P o s i d o n i u s p r o v i d e s , i n f a c t , a n e x c e l l e n t ex a m p l e o f t h e sort o f contaminatio
mentioned i n our introduction. T h a t the
extensive i n t e r p e n e t r a t i o n o f n a t u r a l i s t a n d t e l e o l o g i c a l m o t i f s w h i c h c h a r a c terizes h i s w o r k s h o u l d d i s a p p e a r c o m p l e t e l y i n a l e n g t h y a c c o u n t f r o m h i s is i n c o n c e i v a b l e .
9
derived
T h e p a r a l l e l passages i n L u c r e t i u s , i n a l l o f w h i c h
a c o n s i s t e n t l y n a t u r a l i s t perspective evidence f o r use o f a c o m m o n
is t o b e o b s e r v e d ,
source.
m u s t be t a k e n as
1 0
T h e conclusions r e a c h e d t h u s f a r w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p l i n k i n g V i t r u v i u s t o D i o d o r u s a n d L u c r e t i u s t o P o s i d o n i u s i n t h e specific passages e x a m i n e d a r e n e i t h e r n e w n o r , so f a r as I c a n see, s h o u l d t h e y b e c o n t r o versial. T h e e v i d e n c e speaks f o r itself. C e r t a i n i n v e s t i g a t o r s , h o w e v e r , sought t o g o f u r t h e r a n d p o s i t a single source f o r a l l f o u r w r i t e r s .
1 1
have Their
c o n t e n t i o n is p o o r l y s u p p o r t e d , since i t rests l a r g e l y o n t h e u n t e n a b l e as s u m p t i o n t h a t a l l e v o l u t i o n a r y a c c o u n t s o f c u l t u r e m u s t go b a c k t o some o n e a u t h o r i t y ; b u t i t is also, I believe, c o r r e c t . T w o pieces o f e v i d e n c e , n e g l e c t e d h i t h e r t o , m a y serve t o p u t t h e h y p o t h e s i s o f a single source o n s o m e w h a t firmer
ground.
complete 8
Lucretius'
account
of mining
and metallurgy
is
more
t h a n Seneca's. I t b e g i n s w i t h w h a t is a p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r b o t h
Cf., in Seneca's account, quomodo convenit ut et Diogenen
mireris et Daedalum
( 9 0 . 1 4 ) ; facunde
describit ( 9 0 . 2 1 ) ; and the admiring detail with which the workings of the loom are described ( 9 0 . 2 0 ) . The bounty of nature as well as the power of human logos may have been treated with ,the same characteristic enthousiasmos. Cf. the account of the liquefying of a vein of metal recorded in Strabo 3-1479
For the combination, within a single Posidonian passage, of naturalism and teleology, see go.22-23, the discovery of the milling of grain and its baking into bread. Here art patterns itself on nature in two ways: the automatic action of the teeth in chewing food suggests to man the use of a millstone to serve the same purpose, and the cooking of the grain by fire imitates the cooking which goes on within the stomach. Obviously, the two types of imitation are quite different. T h e first is a simple learning from experience and example and can be paralleled throughout the Kulturgeschichte of Lucretius V . T h e second involves the Aristotelian—and teleological—idea of technc as something which τά μεν επιτελεί
α η φύσις αδυνατεί άπεργάσασθαι,
τά δε μιμείται
[Phys.
2.199
Α 1
5
— 1
7)· Cf.
Meteor. 4.3811*6—7: μιμείται γαρ η τέχνη την φύσιν επει και η τροφής εν τω σώματι πεφις ομοία εφήσει
εστίν. O n the Posidonian conception of a "teleological" imitation of nature see, in general, K. Reinhardt, "Poseidonios," Λ Ε 4 3 (1953) 8 0 8 ; and, for the difference between this and "natural ist" imitation, Theiler, 100, with note 1. I n addition to the passages considered in the text, the military excursus of 5 . 1 3 0 8 - 4 9 has been thought to show Posidonian influence (Diels, SBBerlin 1921, 2 4 3 - 4 4 ) ; against this view see l e
D
u
t
Reitzenstein, Orient und Antike 2 . 6 5 - 7 0 . 1 1
See, in particular, Reinhardt, Poseidonios 3 9 2 - 4 0 8 and Uxkull-Gyllenband, 33
r*>—<
20
D E M O C R I T U S AND T H E S O U R C E S O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
developments,
the discovery
o f fire ( 5 . 1 0 9 2 - 1 1 0 1 ) ; a n d i t places
warfare
( 1 2 8 3 - 8 6 ) , as w e l l as w e a v i n g a n d f a r m i n g , a m o n g t h e arts whose
develop-
m e n t was f u r t h e r e d o r m a d e possible b y m e t a l tools. D i o d o r u s , as w e h a v e seen, describes t h e d i s c o v e r y o f fire; a n d j u s t as t h a t a c c o u n t seemed t o be a n E g y p t i a n v e r s i o n o f t h e p a r a l l e l a c c o u n t i n V i t r u v i u s , so t h e sequel t o i t i n his w o r k reads l i k e a n E g y p t i a n v e r s i o n o f L u c r e t i u s . H e p h a e s t u s discovers fire a n d so i n a u g u r a t e s a d y n a s t y — t h e first t e c h n o c r a c y . H e is succeeded b y C r o n u s , t h e n b y Z e u s , a n d finally b y O s i r i s , u n d e r whose p a t r o n a g e m i n i n g a n d t h e w o r k i n g o f g o l d a n d c o p p e r are d i s c o v e r e d a n d t h e n e w
technology
a p p l i e d , first t o t h e m a n u f a c t u r e o f w e a p o n s , t h e n t o a g r i c u l t u r e ( 1 . 1 5 ) .
1 2
T h e o n l y i t e m i n L u c r e t i u s w h i c h does n o t h a v e its p a r a l l e l here is w e a v i n g , a n d t h e r e is r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e t h a t i t , t o o , a p p e a r e d i n t h e w o r k o n w h i c h D i o d o r u s d r e w f o r t h i s p a r t o f his A e g y p t i a c a . T h e E g y p t i a n t h e o l o g y w h i c h is a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e p r i e s t L e o i n a n a p o c r y p h a l l e t t e r o f A l e x a n d e r
the
G r e a t t o his m o t h e r resembles these c h a p t e r s o f D i o d o r u s so closely t h a t i t m u s t be closely r e l a t e d t o t h e i r source (see b e l o w , p p . 1 5 3 - 5 4 ) , cribes t h e d i s c o v e r y o f w e a v i n g t o O s i r i s ' c o n t e m p o r a r y
a
Hermes.
n
d i t as-
1 3
T o t h i s a r g u m e n t f o r t h e existence o f a single source f o r L u c r e t i u s a n d D i o d o r u s a n d h e n c e f o r a l l f o u r o f o u r texts, a n o t h e r m a y be a d d e d . T z e t z e s ' c o m m e n t a r y o n H e s i o d (see a b o v e , p . 10) stands i n close, t h o u g h
somewhat
p r o b l e m a t i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p t o D i o d o r u s . I t is c l e a r t h a t T z e t z e s has r e a d t h e first b o o k o f D i o d o r u s — t h e E g y p t i a n p o r t i o n s as w e l l as t h e g e n e r a l m a t e r i a l i n C h a p t e r 8 — f o r h e gives a p a r t i a l p a r a p h r a s e scholia (55.28-57.25 H e r m a n n ) .
1 4
o f b o t h sections i n his
Iliad
F o r his e x p l i c a t i o n o f H e s i o d ' s m y t h o f t h e
G o l d e n A g e , T z e t z e s also b o r r o w s c e r t a i n p h r a s e o l o g y
from Diodorus
(see
b e l o w , p p . 2 7 - 2 9 ) , b u t these b o r r o w i n g s a p p e a r i n a l a r g e r c o n t e x t w h i c h seems i t s e l f t o be r e l a t e d t o D i o d o r u s , t h o u g h i n a m o r e i n d i r e c t w a y .
The
c h a r a c t e r o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p is w e l l i l l u s t r a t e d b y T z e t z e s ' a l l e g o r i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the Prometheus story (74.14-20 Gaisford). 1 2
Diodorus offers an alternate genealogy, according to which not Hephaestus but Helios was the founder of the dynasty (1.13.2). Since Hephaestus here equals Ptah and Helios equals Amon-Ra, the variation reflects ultimately a conflation of different native traditions. I f Diodorus himself was responsible for the conflation, and if Osiris' patronage of the useful arts belonged originally with the Helios tradition, the parallel drawn in the text between his account and those of Lucretius and Posidonius is not valid. The first supposition may be correct; the second almost certainly is not. Hephaestus as founder of the dynasty and Osiris as patron of the arts are already linked in the closely parallel account of Leo mentioned in the text (see FGrH 6 5 9 F 5 , F 9 ) . 1 3
See theology ence has Festschrift known.
Hyginus, Astron. 2.20 and Tertullian, De Pallio 3. These and other remnants of Leo's are printed in FGrH 659 as fragments of the historian Leo of Pella. But the latter's existbeen inferred, probably erroneously, from a single passage in Arnobius. See Pfister, Klauser, 296—97. The name of the real author of Alexander's letter to Olympias is not
O n Tzetzes' borrowing from Diodorus in general see Spoerri, MusHe.lv further literature cited there, 185, note 13. 1 4
14.187-88, and
the
COMMON MOTIFS I N F I V E A N C I E N T H I S T O R I E S O F T E C H N O L O G Y
ol προμηθέστεροι δε των ανθρώπων, χειμωνος γεγονότος, τινός, ώς πλησιάσαντες
και κεραυνωθέντος δένδρου
εκεΐσε της θέρμης αισθησιν έσχον, μηχανωνται
πυρ και δη σομφοΐς τισι ζΰλοις και νάρθηξι δυναμένοις τοΰτο φνλάζαι και ούράνιον πυρ υπάρχον το πριν οντω κατασχεθέν . . . εμνθενθη T h e κεραυνωθέντος κεραυνοβόλου
2I
φυλάζαι το κατέκρυφαν, κλαπηναι . . .
δένδρου w h i c h is t h e source o f t h e f i r e recalls D i o d o r u s '
δένδρου
(ι.13.3),
b u t t h e rest
o f t h e passage is closer t o
V i t r u v i u s , b o t h i n c o n t e n t a n d i n p h r a s e o l o g y . T h e discoverers a r e p l u r a l and
a n o n y m o u s , n o t , as i n D i o d o r u s , a n a m e d d i v i n i t y ; πλησιάσαντες
V i t r u v i u s ' propius accedentes (33.19) r a t h e r t h a n D i o d o r u s ' προσελθόντα; της
θέρμης
αϊσθησιν
έσχον
is n e a r e r
ignis teporem t h a n t o ήσθηναι
t o animadvertissent
διαφερόντως
recalls and
commoditatem . . . ad
έπι τη θερμασίη.
O n e is t e m p t e d t o
assume t h a t b e h i n d this p o r t i o n o f T z e t z e s ' a c c o u n t t h e r e lies, u l t i m a t e l y , t h e source f r o m w h i c h b o t h D i o d o r u s a n d V i t r u v i u s d e r i v e .
1 5
T z e t z e s ' e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e P a n d o r a m y t h ( 7 9 . 4 - 2 1 G a i s f o r d ) suggests t h e same c o n c l u s i o n . P r o m e t h e u s ( h u m a n f o r e t h o u g h t , perverse i n g e n u i t y ) gives men
f i r e ; t h e i n e v i t a b l e r e s u l t o f t h i s — a l l e g o r i c a l l y , t h e r e s u l t w h i c h Zeus
( d e s t i n y ) b r i n g s t o pass—is t h e a r r i v a l o f P a n d o r a
(technology) a n d that
P a n d o r a ' s b o x o f evils, c i v i l i z a t i o n . T h e gifts w h i c h P a n d o r a receives a n d t h e gods w h o b e s t o w t h e m a r e t h e several p r e r e q u i s i t e s w h i c h m a n needs i n o r d e r t o p r o d u c e t e c h n o l o g y : τά υλικά κατασκεναστικόν
και άγχίνουν
και οργανικά
f r o m H e p h a e s t u s , το
f r o m A t h e n a , a n d energy a n d wiliness f r o m
H e r m e s , w h o is logos. T h e list p a r t i a l l y p a r a l l e l s D i o d o r u s ' o w n e n u m e r a t i o n (1.8.9;
s e e
b e l o w , p . 40) o f t h e q u a l i t i e s t o w h i c h m a n owes his t e c h n o l o g i c a l
a c h i e v e m e n t s : φυχης άγχίνοια, a m o n g τά οργανικά
λόγος,
a n d χείρες
( w h i c h w o u l d certainly be
i f n o t τ ά υλικά i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e arts a n d c r a f t s ) .
T z e t z e s ' a c c o u n t o f P a n d o r a ' s gifts is t o o closely c o n n e c t e d w i t h h i s w h o l e a l l e g o r y t o a l l o w t h e s u p p o s i t i o n t h a t h e has here b o r r o w e d a set o f d e t a i l s d i r e c t l y f r o m D i o d o r u s ; once a g a i n t h e h y p o t h e s i s o f a c o m m o n source p r o vides t h e m o s t p l a u s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n . T h a t this source w a s closely c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e o n e used b y L u c r e t i u s is suggested b y v e r b a l p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n T z e t z e s ' H e s i o d c o m m e n t a r y a n d B o o k V o f t h e De rerum
natura:
TZETZES
[The
earliest men]
άγελαΐον
LUCRETIUS
ούζων
τον βίον
δίκην •ποιμνίων. (Schol. in Hex. 6 8 . 6 - 7 = VS 68135,
[The earliest men] volgivago vitam tractabant more ferarum. (5.932)
Ρ· ' 3 7 - 3 9 - 4 0 )
[The consequences of Prometheus' theft of fire are to be interpreted as] 1 5
[A bolt of lightning or branches rubbing to gether in the wind produced fire; thereafter]
- Even the phrase KcpavviodtvTos 8eVS/>ou, it should be noted, need not reflect the influence of Diodorus. T h e interpretation of the myth demanded that fire be ouranion rather than, as in Vitruvius' account, the result of the friction of branches.
22
D E M O G R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y μετατραπήναι
το
ΰπό της
προβουλίας
έκείνην τήν προτεραν τον βίου διαγωγήν
ταύτης υπό της
ευρέσεως τοΰ πυρός, ο και τοις ευροΰσι καί μετα γενεστέρου έπει
γέγονε βλάβη.
δε προμηθέστεροι
λευτικώτεροι
τον . . . βίου
γήν . . . και
και προβου-
το πΰρ έφεΰρον
καί θερμότερων . . . πραγμάτων την
(5.1105-7)
(81.24—27)
γεγονότες
εκείνου
έκ . . . πυρός
ώρέχθησαν καί
μετέστρεφαν αί τεχναι
προσεφεν-
δι ων τά ηδέα και τερπνά και άβρότατα τέρους άπεργαζόμενα,
γίνεται,
και τρυφερω-
ο καλεί πλάσιν γυναικός ό
ποιητής. ( 6 8 . 2 4 - 6 9 . 4 = ^ 6 8 6 5 ,
inde casas postquam ac pellis ignemque pararunt, et mulier coniuncta viro concessit in unum
διαγω
ρέθηααν
δίκην γυναικός ημάς καταθέλγοντα
inque dies magis hi victum vitamque priorem commutare novis monstrabant rebus et igni ingenio qui praestabant et corde vigebant.
turn genus humanum primum mollescere coepit. ignis enim curavit ut alsia corpora frigus non ita iam possent caeli sub tegmine ferre, et Venus imminuit viris puerique parentum blanditiis facile ingenium fregere superbum. (5.1011-18)
ρ. 1 3 8 . 8 - 1 3 )
T h e p a r a l l e l s i n t h e l a s t p a i r o f passages r e p r o d u c e d are n o t so c o m p l e t e
as
i n t h e o t h e r t w o . L u c r e t i u s speaks o f a n a c t u a l s o f t e n i n g o f d i s p o s i t i o n b r o u g h t a b o u t b y love a n d f a m i l y l i f e ; i n Tzetzes the softening comes f r o m a n d i t s c o m f o r t s , a n d is o n l y c o m p a r e d
technology
t o t h e effects o f a w o m a n ' s
charms.
Y e t t h e d i v e r g e n c e is e x p l i c a b l e i f w e assume t h a t T z e t z e s is m o d i f y i n g a n a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l a c c o u n t s i m i l a r t o t h a t f o u n d i n L u c r e t i u s so t h a t i t w i l l f i t his P a n d o r a = t e c h n o l o g y non ita iam possent.
. .ferre
e q u a t i o n ; a n d ignis . . . curavit
ut corpora frigus
. . .
p r o v i d e s a n e x c e l l e n t gloss f o r t h e o t h e r w i s e r a t h e r
m y s t e r i o u s p h r a s e θερμότερων
πραγμάτων
ώρέχθησαν.
T z e t z e s ' a c c o u n t , n o less t h a n t h e p a r a l l e l s i n c h o i c e a n d a r r a n g e m e n t material between Lucretius a n d Diodorus, provides
grounds for
of
believing
t h a t V i t r u v i u s , D i o d o r u s , L u c r e t i u s , a n d Posidonius are dependent,
i n part
a t least, o n a c o m m o n s o u r c e ; a n d i f t h i s h y p o t h e s i s is c o r r e c t , T z e t z e s h i m self is a
fifth
author dependent
o n t h e same s o u r c e .
1 6
T h e points o f contact
b e t w e e n o u r five texts c a n b e s u m m a r i z e d as f o l l o w s : This view is in sharp contrast with that of Spoerri (MusHelv 14.183-88) who argues that Tzetzes' commentary merely combines material taken directly from Diodorus with an idealized view of the state of nature as a Golden Age. There are certainly elements of the latter view in Tzetzes—elements to which there is no parallel in Diodorus. Moreover, as has been indicated above (p. 20) Tzetzes certainly knew and used Diodorus. Three considerations, however; seem to me to tell heavily against Spoerri's contention. (1) Tzetzes' account need not be a combination of "zwei entgegengesetzte Auffassungen " (Spoerri, 1 8 4 ) ; it can just as easily be regarded as a consistent, or nearly consistent, exposition of what has been called "hard primitivism" (Lovejoy and Boas, 10). Because life in the state of nature is recognized as poor, brutish, and short, it does not follow that it is solitary or nasty. T h e simple life breeds peace and harmony; its privations develop in man a corres ponding toughness which makes him insensible to them; and living always at the level of bare subsistence saves him from the tyranny of superfluous desires. Although Tzetzes fluctuates occasion ally in his references to the state of nature, his basic conception of its advantages and disadvantages is clear and consistent (see 116.13-16: primitive men are free from μισαλληλία, κακοπραγμοαύνη, φθόνος, but more subject than their descendants to φύχος, καύσων, έπίθεσις των θηρίων). (2) Tzetzes' 1 6
COMMON MOTIFS I N F I V E A N C I E N T H I S T O R I E S O F T E C H N O L O G Y SUBJECT
PARALLEL TREATMENTS DlODORUS
1. D i s c o v e r y o f 2. M e t a l l u r g y
fire.
which
qualities
enable
m e n to
of early
volutionary
TZETZES
*
*
*
LUCRETIUS
PoSIDONIUS
*
*
* of
d e v e l o p technology. 4. L i f e
VlTRUVIUS
a n d its a p -
plications. 3. S u m m a r y
23
man;
*
*
*
re-
effect o f dis-
covery of
fire.
*
T h e e x i s t e n c e o f a s i n g l e s o u r c e is n o t g u a r a n t e e d .
*
T h e r e is n o o n e i t e m
w h i c h a p p e a r s i n a l l f i v e t e x t s ; h e n c e i t is c o n c e i v a b l e t h a t t h e f o u r i t e m s come u l t i m a t e l y f r o m different accounts w h i c h were subsequently
combined
i n d i f f e r e n t ways b y o u r five a u t h o r s . S t i l l , the hypothesis o f a c o m m o n source is w o r t h c o n s i d e r a t i o n a n d , i f p o s s i b l e ,
f u r t h e r testing. Such a source, i f i t
e x i s t e d , m a y h a v e b e e n a s o r t o f H e l l e n i s t i c koine o n t h e s u b j e c t o f c u l t u r a l origins—a
collection o f isolated observations
or summary
bits o f d o c t r i n e
l i n k e d l o o s e l y b y t h e i r c o m m o n a s s u m p t i o n o f a n o r i g i n a l a n i m a l - l i k e existence, f o l l o w e d b y a g r a d u a l d e v e l o p m e n t it
may
have
been something
more
o f the a r t s .
ambitious,
1 7
O n the other h a n d ,
a continuous
and
unified
whole account, both in its form and in its content, so closely parallels surviving descriptions of the kynikos bios (see below, pp. 1 4 9 - 5 1 ) that it is hard to believe that the bulk of it was not taken over directly from a Cynic source. (3) Spoerri's suggestion does not explain the close parallels between those parts of Tzetzes not connected with Diodorus and other texts which Diodorus resembles quite closely (see above, pp. 2 0 - 2 2 , and below, pp. 2 9 - 3 0 ) . That Tzetzes should make additions on his own is natural enough; that they should closely coincide with those other texts in a number of points is rather unusual. T h e Kulturgeschichte of Tzetzes must have come into being in much the same way as the zoogony which precedes it in his commentary (67.16-68.1 = VS 6 8 B 5 , p. 1 3 7 . 2 6 35). K . Reinhardt has shown, in Kosmos und Sympathie (Munich 1926) 3 9 5 - 9 7 , that the earlier passage combines direct borrowings from Diodorus 1.7 with material from a separate tradition, portions of which survive in the Hermippus of Johannes Catrarius (reprinted in pp. 1 3 6 . 3 1 137.23). T h e conclusion follows from the fact that, though there are close verbal parallels linking Catrarius with Tzetzes and Diodorus with Tzetzes, no such parallels link Catrarius with Diodorus. But Catrarius and Diodorus, though not so closely connected to each other as either is to Tzetzes, are nevertheless related texts; this is clear from similarities both in the content and in the organization of their accounts. Doubtless a similar relationship existed between the tradition to which Diodorus belongs and the main, Cynic, source used by Tzetzes. And it must have been the wide range of agreement between Diodorus and this source which suggested to Tzetzes the idea of expanding the latter in one or two places with material drawn from the former. Cf. Spoerri's view (163) of Diodorus 1.8: "einen Bericht . . . der dem allgemeinen Bildungsgut seiner Zeit entsprach." T h e positions of Havelock and Gigon with regard to the sources of this account are essentially similar, though they would place the origin of most of the material at an earlier date: "an epitomized amalgam of pre-Socratic speculation" (Havelock, 4 0 8 ) ; the work of an author who "griechische oder barbarische Anschauungen der Frühzeit vorsokratisch drapierte, dabei Lehren mehrerer Vorsokratiker, Banales und weniger Banales, zusammenfügte." (Gigon, 1 7
Gnomon 3 3 . 7 7 5 ) .
24
D E M O G R I T U S AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
e x p o s i t i o n i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h c e r t a i n f u n d a m e n t a l premises a n d m e t h o d s . I f i t was t h e l a t t e r , o r a n y t h i n g a p p r o a c h i n g i t , o n e o u g h t t o b e a b l e t o det e c t b e h i n d o u r texts as t h e y n o w s t a n d t h e basic lines o f t r e a t m e n t a d o p t e d i n t h e i r source. I b e l i e v e t h a t s u c h lines o f t r e a t m e n t are d i s c e r n i b l e a n d s h a l l a t t e m p t t o t r a c e t h e m i n t h e c h a p t e r w h i c h f o l l o w s . T h e discussion w i l l seek t o resolve, as n e a r l y as possible, t h e source p r o b l e m r a i s e d b y o u r texts a n d , m o r e i m p o r t a n t , t o m a k e a f i r s t step t o w a r d r e c o v e r i n g t h e lost stages o f t h e speculative t r a d i t i o n w h i c h they represent.
CHAPTER A T h e Kulturgeschichte
PATTERN
OF
TWO PREHISTORY
w h i c h emerges f r o m t h e five texts c o n s i d e r e d i n C h a p t e r
O n e m a y be d i v i d e d f o r c l a r i t y o f p r e s e n t a t i o n i n t o a n u m b e r o f d i f f e r e n t stages. T h e s e stages, a l o n g w i t h a n i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e a u t h o r s i n w h i c h e a c h one is r e p r e s e n t e d , are g i v e n i n o u t l i n e f o r m o n p a g e 26. T h e a c c o u n t w h i c h t h e y e m b o d y is c o n t i n u o u s f r o m t h e b e g i n n i n g s o f t h e h u m a n race t o t h e b e g i n n i n g s o f r e c o r d e d h i s t o r y . I t starts w i t h a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e earliest 1
c o n d i t i o n o f m a n , a t e c h n o l o g i c a l state o f n a t u r e c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y t h e a b sence o f f o u r p r i m e necessities:
fire,
shelter, c l o t h i n g ( i C ) a n d a
steady
food s u p p l y ( 1 D ) , w h e t h e r o b t a i n e d b y f a r m i n g or f o o d - g a t h e r i n g . H i s
first
steps t o w a r d c i v i l i z a t i o n t a k e t h e f o r m o f a n a t t e m p t t o satisfy these needs, first
i n a rudimentary, then i n a more complicated w a y : cave-living and
f o o d - g a t h e r i n g (Stage 2) are f o l l o w e d b y t h e d i s c o v e r y o f fire, houses, g a r ments o f skins a n d c u l t i v a t e d g r a i n s (Stage 3 ) . O c c u r r i n g a t a b o u t t h e same t i m e as t h e d i s c o v e r y o f fire are t h e b e g i n n i n g s o f society a n d (4A,
language
B ) . B o t h d e v e l o p m e n t s are necessary f o r t h e m o r e e l a b o r a t e t e c h n o -
logies d e s c r i b e d i n Stage 5 : f i r e makes possible t h e tools t h r o u g h w h i c h advances i n t e c h n o l o g y t a k e p l a c e ; a n d , t h o u g h m a n as a n i n d i v i d u a l m a y possess t h e h a n d s a n d i n g e n u i t y (6) r e q u i r e d f o r t h e c r e a t i o n o f t h e useful arts, i t is o n l y t h e p o o l i n g o f a n u m b e r o f t a l e n t s w h i c h m a k e s possible a r a p i d a n d v a r i e d d e v e l o p m e n t o f t e c h n o l o g y ( 4 C ; 5 F ) . T h e f i n e arts c o m e at a l a t e r stage ( 7 ) , once t h e pressure t o create n e e d e d i n v e n t i o n s has eased s o m e w h a t a n d m a n c a n t u r n t o p u r s u i t s w h i c h m i n i s t e r t o p l e a s u r e as w e l l as u t i l i t y . F i n a l l y , since t h e t r a d i t i o n w i t h w h i c h w e are d e a l i n g is a speculative one, its r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f h u m a n progress c o n c l u d e s w i t h t h e i n v e n t i o n o f t h e a l p h a b e t a n d w r i t t e n r e c o r d s ( 8 A ) ; w h a t h a p p e n s t h e r e a f t e r is t h e concern o f the h i s t o r i a n or the a n t i q u a r y , n o t o f the speculative a n t h r o p o logist. 1
The continuity of the account must be seen in Lucretius and, more imperfectly, Vitruvius. Seneca's record of Posidonius is fragmentary, and in Tzetzes and Diodorus there has been extensive rearrangement and contaminatio (see above, Chap. I , note 16; below, pp. 1 8 7 - 9 2 ) . Several scholars (Lachmann ad Lucr. 5 . 1 0 9 1 - 1 1 0 0 ; Jelenko, WS 5 4 . 5 9 - 6 9 ; Merlan, Journal
of the History of Ideas
11.364-68) find evidence for contaminatio or separate recensions in Lucretius V as well; but against their analyses sec Barwick, Philologus 9 5 . 1 9 3 - 2 1 1 , and Borle, MusHelv 19.162—76. Reinhardt's attempt (Poseidonios 4 0 4 - 4 0 6 ) to decompose Vitruvius 34.6-36.18 into two separate strata is discussed in Appendix I I . 25
26
D E M O C R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y TABLE i
Stages in the Development of Culture Vitr. 1. A B
Occurrence in Texts Diod. Tze. Lucr.
T h e earliest men: nomadic and dependent on food gathering for their subsistence; fire, clothing, and shelter are unknown, as well as the art of storing food; starvation is frequent.
2. A B
Initial provisions made for shelter and for the gathering and storing of food.
3. A B C D
Discovery of houses, clothing,
*
fire, and grain and its method of preparation.
*
* *
4. A B C
Formation of the first societies and the first languages; competition and emulation stimulate the growth of the useful arts.
* *
* *
* *
*
*
*
5. A
Further development of technology made possible by fire: mining and metallurgy, producing tools which are used in the development or improvement of warfare, weaving, and agriculture; cumulative character of the process.
*
6.
Summary of factors in the growth of the useful arts: accumulated experience and man's natural endowments: hands, speech, intelligence.
*
7. A B C
T h e non-essential arts, among them astronomy, and music.
8. A
Conclusion: the stage of civilization described in our earliest written documents; their late origin accounts for the speculative character of all reconstructions of prehistory.
C D
B
C D E F
B
Pos.
*
*
*
* *
* *
* *
*
*
*
* *
* *
*
*
* * * *
*
*
*
*
* *
* * * * *
*
*
*
*
* * *
*
* * *
* *
*
*
*
*
*
S u c h , i n b a r e s t o u t l i n e , is t h e v i e w o f p r e h i s t o r y w h i c h lies b e h i n d a l l five o f o u r texts. F o r a m o r e d e t a i l e d p r e s e n t a t i o n a n d d o c u m e n t a t i o n w e m u s t c o n s i d e r t h e successive stages o f o u r t a b l e i n d i v i d u a l l y a n d i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e passages i n w h i c h t h e y a p p e a r .
2
I n what follows sections and sub-sections are titled, numbered, and lettered as in Table 1; and wherever possible Diodorus, Tzetzes, Lucretius, Vitruvius, and Seneca are cited by reference to the letter and number of the particular subsection in which the passage in question will be found reproduced. For convenience, Tzetzes citations will be identified by the page and line number of VS, Vol. I I , 2
27
A PATTERN OF PREHISTORY
i . The earliest men: ( A ) nomadic, and (B) dependent on food-gathering for their sub sistence; (G) they lack fire, clothing, and shelter, ( D ) as well as the art of storing food; starvation is frequent. TZETZES
DIODORUS
(Α)
τους
δε εξ
άρχης
γεννη-
(A)
ol τότε δε των
LUCRETIUS
ανθρώπων
θεντας των ανθρώπων φασιν εν
. . . άγελαΐον
άτάκτω και θηριώδει βίω καθε-
δίκην ποιμνίων επι νομάς έζιόν-
διεζων
τον
βίον
( A ) volgivago vitam tractabant more ferarum. (5.932)
στώτας σποράδην επι τάς νομάς εζιεναι, (Β)
και προσφερεσθαι
της
βοτάνης την προσηνεστάτην τους αυτομάτους
από των
τε και
(Β)
καϊ τοις άκροδρυοις κοινώς
και τοις λαχάνοις τρεφόμενοι.
δέν
δρων καρπούς. ( ΐ . 8 . ι ) (G)
τους οΰν πρώτους
τών αν
θρώπων μηδενός τών προς βίον χρησίμων διάγειν,
εύρημενου γυμνούς
όντας> οΐκήσεως
επιπόνως
μεν τε
εσθητος
και
(C)
γυμνοί
νοντες
και
δε
οΰτω
σκέπης
τυγχά-
και
χρη-
ματων οντες επιοεεις,
(B) quod sol atque imbres dederant, quod terra crearit / sponte sua, satis id placabat pectora donum. ( 5 . 9 3 7 - 3 8 ) (G) necdum res igni scibant tractare neque uti / pellibus et spoliis corpus vestire fe rarum. ( 5 - 9 5 3 - 5 4 )
πυρός
άήθεις τροφής τε ήμερου παντε λώς άνεννοήτονς. (D)
και
γάρ
της άγριας
την
συγκομιδην
τροφής
μηδεμίαν τών
άγνοοΰντας
καρπών
εις
τάς
ένδειας ττοιεΐσθαι παράθεσιν. διό και πολλούς αυτών
άπολλνσθαι
κατά τους χειμώνας
διά τε
το
φΰχος και την σπάνιν της τροφής.
(D) και μηδε καρπούς και άκρόδρυα
προς
άποθήκας
αγαγεΐν
ειδότες,
άλλα
συνμόνην
D) penuria deinde cibi languentia leto / membra dabat. (5.1007-8)
εσθίοντες τροφήν την έφήμερον χειμώνος
γεγονότος
εφθείροντο.
πολλοί
δι-
(ΐ37·3°-44)
(1.8.5-6)
T h e p a r a l l e l s here are q u i t e close. O f t h e basic lacks w h i c h are l i s t e d u n d e r items C a n d D , D i o d o r u s m e n t i o n s a l l f o u r ; T z e t z e s , t h o u g h o n l y n a m i n g three, presupposes t h e f o u r t h : fire's o r i g i n a l absence is i m p l i e d b y his m e n t i o n o f its d i s c o v e r y a t a l a t e r stage i n his a c c o u n t ( 3 C ) . L u c r e t i u s does n o t refer t o a n i n i t i a l i g n o r a n c e o f h o w t o store f o o d , a l t h o u g h , l i k e D i o d o r u s a n d Tzetzes, he notes t h a t p r i m i t i v e m a n o f t e n d i e d o f s t a r v a t i o n . T h e r e a s o n f o r the o m i s s i o n is p e r h a p s t o be f o u n d i n a n e a r l i e r passage o f B o o k V , w h i c h explains t h a t t h e earliest m e n l i v e d a t a t i m e w h e n t h e s p o n t a n e o u s p r o d u c t s o f t h e e a r t h w e r e m o r e a b u n d a n t t h a n t h e y are n o w ( 5 . 9 4 2 - 4 4 ) : p l u r i m a [ a r b u t a ] t u r n tellus e t i a m m a i o r a ferebat. m u l t a q u e praeterea novitas t u r n florida m u n d i p a b u l a d u r a t u l i t , miseris m o r t a l i b u s a m p l a . T h i s c o n t r a d i c t s w h a t is said l a t e r a b o u t penuria cibi, n o r is i t t h e o n l y p l a c e where L u c r e t i u s e x h i b i t s traces o f a p r i m i t i v i s m c o m p l e t e l y a b s e n t
from
under Fr. 6 8 B 5 : i.e. " 1 3 7 - 3 6 - 4 ° " means VS 6 8 B 5 , p.137.36-40. "Posidonius" will mean Posidonius ap. Seneca, Ep. go, and section numbers of that letter will be used to identi" Posidonius -
passages.
28
DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
D i o d o r u s a n d r a t h e r o u t o f k e e p i n g e v e n w i t h t h e g e n e r a l t e n o r o f his o w n account, 16).
3
a l t h o u g h i t c a n b e p a r a l l e l e d i n T z e t z e s (see a b o v e , C h a p . I , n o t e
I t is d o u b t l e s s t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h i s s t r a i n i n h i s w o r k w h i c h m a k e s h i m
d w e l l less t h a n d o t h e o t h e r t w o a u t h o r s o n t h e i n i t i a l s c a r c i t y o f f o o d . The
close v e r b a l
parallels
between Diodorus
r e s u l t o f d i r e c t b o r r o w i n g (see
and
Tzetzes m a y
above, p p . 20-22, w i t h
note
16);
be
the
hence i t
c o u l d b e a r g u e d t h a t t h i s p a r t , a t a n y r a t e , o f T z e t z e s ' a c c o u n t does n o t p r o vide independent parallels 1A
4
evidence f o r t h e existence o f a c o m m o n source. B u t
(noted above, p p .
suggest t h a t h e r e ,
directly
from
Diodorus
as
the
2 1 - 2 2 ) b e t w e e n Tzetzes a n d L u c r e t i u s i n i t e m e l s e w h e r e , T z e t z e s is c o n f l a t i n g m a t e r i a l
with
an
account
which
t h e s a m e s o u r c e as b o t h D i o d o r u s a n d L u c r e t i u s .
goes b a c k
taken
ultimately
to
5
See the parallels with Tzetzes noted by Norden, NJbb Suppl. ig.415—16. Other details in Lucretius' account recall the idealized picture of primitive man which appears in the Politicus of Plato, in Dio of Prusa, and in Maximus of Tyre (see Spoerri, 1 5 3 - 5 4 ; Grilli, RendhtLomb 8 6 . 3 7 - 3 8 ; Theiler, 8 1 ) . I n the present passage, however, there may be more than mere "primitivism" in volved ; see below, Chap. X , note 71. 3
4
Though phrased somewhat differently, the three descriptions of primitive life reproduced under I A are substantially identical. Volgivagus in Lucretius 5.932 is usually taken as equivalent to vagus, but the closest parallel formation, solivagus (Cicero, Tusc. 5 . 3 8 ; Rep. 1.39; Pliny, NH 8.23) suggests that it should mean wandering in groups—i.e. as in Tzetzes, agelaion. T h e only other occurrence of the word is in 4 . 1 0 7 1 : volgivaga Venus ( = Aphrodite pandemos), and this usage supports our interpreta tion. Pandemos itself suggests a herd existence (cf. Sophocles, Ajax 175: πανδάμους em βοΰί άγελαίας) and "street-walking" Venus does not pursue her calling in a solitary waste. Like her, primitive men are "wanderers among the throng"—volgivagi in relation to one another and to the horde which they compose, mingling and separating in random and promiscuous fashion (cf., in Diodorus [ ι Α ] : άτάκτω και θηριώδει βίψ), without the established family and contractual relation ships that arise later ( 4 A ) . Volgivago more ferarum is thus a close equivalent for άγΐλαΐον . . . δίκην ποιμνίων, although, for Tzetzes, the absence of order which characterizes the initial herd means not confusion but perfect and spontaneous philallelia. Diodorus' expression sporaden might suggest that he saw primitive man as solivagus rather than agelaios (cf. Aristotle, HA 9.617B21 and Pol. H 2 5 6 A 2 3 , where the two terms are contrasted). But solitary life could not be ataktos, and men evidently live close enough to one another to give aid in time of danger ( 4 A ) . Sporaden as used here must be intended to contrast the situation of 1A with that which exists later—when systemata based on a common language and mutual assistance have arisen (cf. HA 1.488A2-10, where agelaia are divided into sporadika and politika, the latter comprising men, cranes, bees, and all creatures whose herds are linked together by a common ergon). Tzetzes, Diodorus, and Lucretius are all describing the same sort of situation (on which see below, pp. 83—87), one whose "solitary" and "social" aspects figure separately in the terms sporaden and agelaion and are united in the unusual compound volgivagus.
T h e same may be indicated by Tzetzes' use of the phrase skepes . . . epideeis ( 1 C ; contrast oikeseos... aetheis at the corresponding point in Diodorus). T h e former suggests a perspective that is largely physical: man is so constituted biologically that he must have shelter (skepe) against the elements in order to survive. T h e latter refers to a lack, not simply of shelter, but of a fixed abode (oikesis) and, perhaps, of the attitudes and ways (ethe) that go with it (cf. aetheis). T h e preoccupation with physical and biological considerations suggested by Tzetzes' phraseology is not found to any thing like the same degree in Diodorus; and it is, on the other hand, very much in evidence through out the accounts of both Lucretius and Tzetzes (see below, pp. 7 8 - 7 9 and 1 7 0 - 7 2 ) . 5
A
P A T T E R N
O F
29
P R E H I S T O R Y
I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t Stage 1 a p p e a r s i n o n l y t h r e e o f o u r f i v e t e x t s . T h e reasons f o r its absence f r o m Seneca a n d V i t r u v i u s w i l l be i n d i c a t e d l a t e r (below, p. 35). 2. ( A ) Initial provisions made for shelter and (B) the gathering and storing of food. TZETZES
LUCRETIUS
(Α) λοιπόν κατά μικρόν
(A) denique nota vagis
(A) [Men
τήν
silvestria templa tene-
sparsos et cavis casis
DIODORUS
(A)
έκ δε τούτον κατ
ολίγον υπό της πείρας διδασκόμενους τά σπήλαια γειν εν τω
εις
τε
καταφεύχειμώνι
ανάγκην
άγοντες
POSIDONIUS
first lived]
κοίλα
b a n t . . . nemora atque
tectos aut aliqua rupe
δένδρων
και τά
suffossa
δασεα και τάς
σχισμάς
cavos montis silvasque colebant et frutices
τών
και
inter condebant squal-
(9°·7)
διδάσκαλον,
των
τά
πετρών
σπήλαια
τά
ύπεδνοντο.
aut
exesae
arboris trunco.
ida membra, verbera ventorum vitare
im-
brisque coacti. ( 5 . 9 4 8 57) (Β)
και τών
καρπών
(Β)
καϊ
τους
τους δυνάμενους φυλάτ-
Βνναμενονς
τεσθαι άποτίθεσθαι.
θαι μόλις
καρπών φυλάττεσ-
γνωρίσαντες
κάί άπαξ αυτούς συνα-
(ι.8.7)
γείραντες
εν τοΐς
σπη-
λαίοις εναπετίθεντο και τούτοις
ετρεφοντο
δι
ολου ενιαυτοΰ. (138-1-4)
T h e s e p a r a t i o n b e t w e e n Stage 2 a n d Stage 1 is n o t so c l e a r i n L u c r e t i u s as i t is i n D i o d o r u s a n d Tzetzes. B u t t h e denique nota o f 9 4 8 a n d t h e coacti o f 957 at least i m p l y t h a t h e r e , as i n D i o d o r u s a n d T z e t z e s , t h e silvestria
templa
are places i n w h i c h m a n m u s t l e a r n , o r be f o r c e d , t o t a k e shelter. T h e t h r e e texts are t h u s r a t h e r s h a r p l y set o f f f r o m m o s t o t h e r a n c i e n t a c c o u n t s o f t h e life o f e a r l y m e n , w h i c h o f t e n m e n t i o n c a v e - d w e l l i n g b u t d o n o t o r d i n a r i l y v i e w i t as i n i t s e l f a t e c h n o l o g i c a l a c h i e v e m e n t w h o s e d i s c o v e r y is w o r t h y o f attention.
6
V i t r u v i u s falls i n t o l i n e w i t h t h e m a i n b o d y o f a n c i e n t t h e o r y i n t h i s r e spect; he s i m p l y says t h a t t h e first m e n vetere more ut ferae in silvis et speluncis et nemoribus nascebantur (33.14-15)3 a n d his r e m a r k s o n m a n ' s earliest d i e t are e q u a l l y g e n e r a l . L i k e L u c r e t i u s , he does n o t discuss t h e o r i g i n o f t h e a r t o f f o o d g a t h e r i n g , c o n t e n t i n g h i m s e l f w i t h t h e r e m a r k t h a t t h e first m e n cibo agresti vescendo vitam exigebant
( 3 3 . 1 5 - 1 6 ) . T h e r e is n o t h i n g h e r e t o suggest
t h a t V i t r u v i u s is d r a w i n g f r o m t h e same source as t h e texts r e p r o d u c e d a b o v e u n d e r Stage 2. I t is o n l y l a t e r p o r t i o n s o f his n a r r a t i v e w h i c h m a k e t h i s c o n c l u s i o n necessary. A l l m e n t i o n o f d i e t is o m i t t e d i n Seneca's s u m m a r y o f P o s i d o n i u s , a n d t h e 8
Cf. Hymn. Horn. 2 0 . 4 ; Aeschylus, / T 4 5 3 ; Moschion, F r . 6 . 5 - 6 ( T G F 8 1 3 ) ; Diodorus 5.39.5.
D E M O G R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
3«
r e f e r e n c e g i v e n t h e r e t o e a r l y m o d e s o f s h e l t e r is as b r i e f as V i t r u v i u s ' . M e n are
said
suffossa suffossa,
t o h a v e l i v e d o r i g i n a l l y sparsos
aut exesae
arboris
a n d exesae arboris
των πετρών
a n d κοίλα
trunco
et cavis
tectos aut aliqua
rupe
( 9 0 . 7 ) . N o t e , h o w e v e r , t h a t cavis casis,
rupe
trunco c o r r e s p o n d
τών δένδρων
casis
exactly
t o t h e σπήλαια,
σχισμάς
m e n t i o n e d b y Tzetzes. H e r e , perhaps,
the
r e s e m b l a n c e is close e n o u g h t o be m o r e t h a n c o i n c i d e n t a l . 3. ( A ) Invention of houses, (B) clothing,
( C ) fire, and ( D ) grain and its method of
preparation. VITRUVIUS
POSIDONIUS
( A ) [ I n the initial human aggregation] coeperunt . . . alii de fronde facere tecta, alii speluncas fodere sub montibus, nonnulli hirundinum nidos . . . imitantes de luto et virgulis facere loca quae subirent.
( A ) [Philosophy taught the men who were initially] casis cavis tectos aut aliqua rupe suffossa aut exesae arboris trunco tecta moliri. (90.7)
LUCRETIUS
( A ) inde casas postquam
(34-6-9)
(B) ac pellis DIODORUS
(C) quodam in loco ab tempestatibus et ventis densae crebritatibus arbores agitatae et inter se ramos terentes ignem excitaverunt. . . . qui circum eum locum fuerunt. . . propius accedentes . . . ligna adicientes et ita conservantes [ignem] alios adducebant. ( 3 3 . 1 6 - 2 3 )
(Ο) γενομένου γαρ εν τοις ορεσι
(G)
κεραυνοβόλου
(5.1011)
πλησίον
δένδρου και της
ΰλης
ελθόντα
καομένης,
τον
προσ-
"Ηφαιστον . . .
ήσθήναι' . . . λήγοντος
δε τοΰ
πυρός αεί της ΰλης έπιβάλλειν και τούτω τω τρόπω διατηρονντα τό πυρ προκαλεΖσθαι τους
άλλους.
('· 3·3) Ι
(Ι)) πρώτον μεν γαρ παΰσαι της άλληλοφαγιας τό τών ανθρώπων γένος, εύρούσης μεν "Ισιδος τόν τε
τον πυρον
καϊ της κριθής
καρπόν, . . . τοΰ έπινοησαμένου
δε
Όσίριδος
και την
τούτων
κατεργασίαν τών καρπών, ι/δεως μεταθέσθαι
πάντας
τήν τροφήν
διά τε τήν ήδονήν της φύσεως τών
ευρεθέντων
φαίνεσθαι άπέχεσθαι ώμότητος.
και
διά
τό
συμφέρον
νπάρχειν
της
αλλήλων
κατ*
(1.14-1)
ignemque p a r a r u n t . . . .
fulmen detulit in terram mortalibus ignem. . . . et ramosa tamen cum ventis pulsa vacillans / aestuat in ramos incumbens arboris arbor, / exprimitur validis extritus viribus ignis, / et micat interdum flammai fervidus ardor / mutua dum inter se rami stirpesque teruntur, / quorum utrumque dedisse potest mortalibus ignem. (D) inde cibum coquere ac flammae mollire vapore / sol docuit, quoniam mitescere multa videbant / verberibus radiorum atque aestu victa per agros. (5.1092-1104)
A PATTERN OF PREHISTORY
3I
T h i s stage b r i n g s w i t h i t fire, c l o t h i n g , a m o r e s a t i s f a c t o r y f o r m o f shelter, a n d t h e d i s c o v e r y a n d p r e p a r a t i o n o f g r a i n . N o o n e o f these i t e m s is p r e s e n t i n m o r e t h a n t h r e e texts, a n d o n l y L u c r e t i u s c o n t a i n s a l l f o u r o f t h e m ( i n a s m u c h as g r a i n , t h o u g h n o t e x p l i c i t l y m e n t i o n e d i n h i s a c c o u n t , is p r o b a b l y the f o o d whose c o o k i n g is r e f e r r e d t o i n 5 . 1 1 0 2 ) .
7
Since, however, they rep-
resent e x a c t l y t h e necessities o f life whose absence w a s n o t e d i n S t a g e 1, a n account o f their discovery was t o be expected. A n d the assumption o f a c o m m o n source is t h e o n e w h i c h best e x p l a i n s t h e p a r t i a l s i m i l a r i t i e s b e t w e e n o u r texts a t t h i s p o i n t .
8
T h e food involved grows soft when exposed to fire (ftammae mollire vapore), hence cannot be meat (cf. 6 . 9 6 6 - 6 9 : "ignis . . . coria et carnem trahit et conducit in unum. umor aquae . . . coria et carnem mollit durata calore"); and boiling rather than, as here, roasting would be the normal way of preparing vegetables. Cf. also the cooking of grain described by Posidonius (Sen. Ep. 90.22—23, discussed above, Chap. I , note 9) and, from unknown heurematistic sources, Pliny, NH 7.191: "Ceres frumenta [invenit], eadem molere et conficere"; and Cassiodorus, Variae 6.18.6: "Ceres frumenta dicitur invenisse, Pan autem primum consparsas fruges coxisse perhibetur." ( O n the relation of such sources to the tradition followed by our five texts, see below, Chap. I l l , note 7.) Two additional passages from Seneca should be mentioned here, though their derivation from Posidonius is not certain enough to permit their inclusion in the text. T h e first is 9 0 . 1 8 : "tecta tegimentaque et fomenta corporum et cibi quae nunc ingens negotium facta sunt obvia erant et gratuita et levi opera parabilia." T h e passage seems to be directed against someone who had maintained that fomenta corporum were not easily parabilia—i.e. one of the benefactions philosophy had conferred on the race (cf. also 90.17). T h e second, more problematical, passage (or, rather, set of passages) has close parallels in Vitruvius (noted by Rudberg, Forschungen zu Poseidonios 58, and Blankert, Seneca ep. go, p. 127): 7
8
[In primitive times] furcae utrimque suspensae fulciebant casam. fronde in proclive disposita decursus imbribus quamvis magnis erat. (Sen. Ep. go.io) [The first builders] virgeam cratem texuerunt manu et vili obliverunt luto; deinde de stipula aliisque silvestribus operuere fastigium et pluviis per devexa labentibus hiemem transiere securi. (Sen. Ep. go. 17) primumque furcis erectis et virgultis interpositis luto parietes texuerunt. . . . vitandoque imbres et aestus tegebant harundinibus et fronde. postea, quoniam per hibernas tempestates tecta non poterant imbres sustinere fastigia facientes luto inducto proclinatis tectis stillicidia deducebant. (Vitr. 3 4 . 1 4 - 2 0 ) The resemblances are quite close, but there is a possibility that Seneca is not here drawing on Posidonius. T h e architectural developments he describes are not presented as the work of sapientes; rather, they are achievements of which anyone would have been capable and show that primitive man was perfectly well protected against the elements before the intrusion of the unnecessary refinements in building with which Posidonius credits the sapientes. I t is possible, of course, that Seneca is using a Posidonian description of early housing for his own purposes. I n 90.17 the deinde which precedes the reference to fastigia suggests that Seneca is abridging an account which, like Vitruvius', separated this stage clearly from a preceding one and regarded the construction of sloping roofs as a device resorted to when flat ones became inadequate. And this would mean that Seneca's source was concerned, like Posidonius, with the gradual development of the arts—not, as Seneca himself is, with the joys of an "architectural" state of nature. Posidonian origin is thus possible, though not certain. I t is quite conceivable, for example, that Seneca is here using Vitruvius directly.
32
D E M O C R I T U S AND T H E S O U R C E S O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
Lucretius' account
o f the discovery
o f fire ( 3 C ) , t h o u g h n o t l i n k e d to
those o f D i o d o r u s a n d V i t r u v i u s b y v e r b a l p a r a l l e l s , is n o t essentially
dif
f e r e n t f r o m t h e i r s . A n d i t offers as a l t e r n a t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n s for t h e o r i g i n a l fire t h e t w o w h i c h a p p e a r s e p a r a t e l y i n D i o d o r u s a n d V i t r u v i u s : a t h u n d e r s t o r m a n d the r u b b i n g together o f branches. T w o t h i n g s d i s t i n g u i s h t h e discoveries o f Stage 3 f r o m those o f t h e p r e c e d i n g one.
Stage 2 m a y
be s a i d t o r e p r e s e n t
the most elementary, O r
" t r i a l a n d e r r o r " , phase i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t e c h n i q u e s for s u r v i v a l . T h e caves, t h i c k e t s , a n d h o l l o w trees m e n t i o n e d b y T z e t z e s a n d P o s i d o n i u s w e r e p r e s u m a b l y places u p o n w h i c h m e n s t u m b l e d b y c h a n c e as t h e y w a n d e r e d i n s e a r c h o f f o o d , o r i n w h i c h t h e y w e r e f o r c e d t o t a k e refuge as t h e y
fled
f r o m t h e w i l d beasts o r t h e e l e m e n t s
την
ανάγκην
σχόντες
δώάσκαλον
(cf. coacti i n L u c r e t i u s 2 A a n d
i n t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g passage f r o m T z e t z e s ) . A
l o n g process o f t r i a l a n d e r r o r (cf., i n 2 B , T z e t z e s ' μόλις D i o d o r u s ' κ α τ ' ολίγον
υπό
της
πείρας
διδασκόμενους)
γνωρίσαντες
and
taught them which
f r u i t s w e r e c a p a b l e o f p r e s e r v a t i o n . F o r these a c h i e v e m e n t s m e m o r y is r e a l l y t h e o n l y m e n t a l f a c u l t y r e q u i r e d . N e i t h e r its a p p l i c a t i o n n o r t h e results o f its a p p l i c a t i o n serve t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e m a n ' s life g r e a t l y f r o m t h a t o f t h e animals.
9
W i t h Stage 3, h o w e v e r , t h e m e n t a l a c t i v i t y becomes m o r e c o m p l i c a t e d . I n t h e fire episode m a n ceases t o be a m e r e user o f w h a t n a t u r e p r o v i d e s . H i s i n i t i a l r e a c t i o n s are s i m p l y those o f c u r i o s i t y a n d pleasure a t t h e w a r m t h w h i c h h e e x p e r i e n c e s ; e v e n t u a l l y , h o w e v e r , he m u s t get t h e i d e a o f a d d i n g f u e l t o s u s t a i n t h e b l a z e a n d use his h a n d s t o d o so. N a t u r e has p r o v i d e d t h e o p p o r t u n i t y , b u t m a n m u s t h a v e t h e prometheia t o t a k e t h e c o n s t r u c t i v e steps necessary t o see t h a t t h e o p p o r t u n i t y does n o t slip b y . A c t u a l r e c r e a t i o n o f a n a t u r a l p h e n o m e n o n r a t h e r t h a n , as h e r e , its m e r e p r e s e r v a t i o n , a c c o u n t s f o r t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f houses ( 3 A ) . I n p r o d u c i n g t h e l a t t e r , m e n e i t h e r r e p r o d u c e w h a t t h e y h a v e o b s e r v e d , as w h e n t h e y d i g n e w caves; o r else, as i n t h e i r i m i t a t i o n o f t h e nests o f b i r d s , d e r i v e suggestions f r o m n a t u r e , w h i c h t h e y t h e n use i n c r e a t i n g s o m e t h i n g w h i c h is a n a l o g o u s t o , t h o u g h n o t a n e x a c t c o p y of, w h a t has b e e n o b s e r v e d . T h e s e c o n d d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n Stages 2 a n d 3 is t h a t t h e d e v e l o p m e n t is n o w c o n c e i v e d w i t h i n a social m e d i u m . Stage 4 , t h o u g h i t has, f o r t h e sake o f c l a r i t y , been separated
f r o m t h e p r e c e d i n g o n e i n o u r t a b l e , describes
events w h i c h o c c u r a t t h e same t i m e as, a n d are i n f a c t i n t e r w o v e n w i t h , those o f Stage 3. 4. ( A ) Formation of the first societies; (B) the origin of language; (G) effects of compe tition and emulation on the growth of the useful arts. 8
Cf. Vitruvius' phrase (33.14) vetere more ut ferae.
33
A P A T T E R N OF PREHISTORY LUCRETIUS
ϋιοϋοκυβ
VlTRUVIUS
(A)
ergo cum propter ignis
inventionem conventus
initio
(Α) και πολεμουμένους μεν υπό
(A) [Once fire and the com
των
βοηθεΐν
forts of family life had effected
διδασκό
a softening of man's nature]
θηρίων
άλλήλοις
apud homines et concilium et
υπό τον συμφέροντος
convictus esset natus et in unum
μενους,
locum plures convenirent. . . .
τον φόβον έπιγινωσκειν
(33-28-34.2)
κατά
αθροιζόμενους μικρόν
τύπους.
τους
δε δια έκ τον αλλήλων
(ι.8.2)
θειναι δε φασι και νόμους την "Ισιν, καθ' ους άλλήλοις διδοναι τους ανθρώπους τό δίκαιον και . . . ύβρεως
παύσασθαι
δια τον
tunc et amicitiem coeperunt iungere aventes / finitimi inter sc nec laedere nec violari. ( 5 . 1 0 1 9 - 2 0 )
από τιμωρίας φόβον. ( ι . Ι 4 · 3 )
(B) in eo hominum congressu cum profundebantur aliter e spiritu voces quotidiana consuetudine vocabula ut obtigerant constituerunt. deinde significando res saepius in usu ex eventu fari fortuito coeperunt, et ita sermones inter se procreaverunt. ( 3 3 . 2 4 - 2 8 ) 10
11
(C) observantes aliena tecta et adicientes suis cogitationibus res novas efficiebant in dies meliora genera casarum . . . quotidie inventionibus gloriantes alius alii ostendebant aedificiorum effectus et ita exercentes ingenia certationibus in dies melioribus iudiciis efficiebantur. ( 3 4 . 1 2 - 1 4 )
(Β) τής φωνής δ' άσημου και συγκεχυμένης
ούσης,
εκ του
(B) at varios linguae sonitus natura subegit
/ mittere,
κατ
ολίγον διαρθροϋν τάς λέξ
utilitas
εις,
και προς
rerum. ( 5 . 1 0 2 8 - 2 9 ) '
αλλήλους
τιϋέν-
expressit
et
nomina 2
τας σύμβολα περι εκάστου των υποκειμένων
γνώριμον
αύτοΐς ποιήσαι την περι
σφίσιν απάν
των έρμηνείαν. (1.8.3)
δε παρα τω
(C) inque dies magis hi victum
Όσίριδι . . . τούς
(G)
προτιμάσθαι
τάς
vitamque
ανευρίσκοντας
μεθοδεύοντας
ή
τέχνας
priorem
/
com-
mutare novis monstrabant re
τι των χρησίμων" διόπερ . . . την
bus
γήν
praestabant et corde vigebant./
εργαζομένους
φιλοτίμως
έξημερώααι την χώραν. 1
ί ·'5-4-5)
et
igni
/
ingenio
qui
condere coeperunt urbes . . . / . . . reges . . . / et pecus atque agros divisere atque dedere / pro facie cuiusque et viribus ingenioque. (5.1105—12)
So the mss., though aliter in the sense required ("in different ways") is scarcely attested (see C. A. R . Sanborn, " A n Emendation of Vitruvius," HSCP 20 [1909] 1 6 7 - 6 8 ) . O f proposed emenda tions (see Spoerri, 141, note 131) Krohn's aliter atque aliter is probably the most satisfactory. I suspect, however, that Vitruvius wrote illiteratae, which makes better sense with e spiritu. Illiteratae voces (standing for αγράμματοι ψόφοι which Vitruvius would have found in his Greek original—cf. Aristotle, De intr. 2.16A29) are those which cannot be transcribed, i.e. inarticulate. They are mere explosions of breath (hence e spiritu) which have not been subjected to the articulating action of the tongue (cf. diarthroun in the passage of Diodorus which corresponds to the following stage in 1 0
Vitruvius' account and, in Cicero, ND 2.149, lingua . . . vocem immoderate profusam fingit et terminal).
Illiteratae appears in the grammarians to describe interjections or animal cries (Priscian, Inst. 1.1-2 and 15.41; Boethius, Herm. pr. 1.2, p. 50.11 Meiser; Herm. sec. 1.2, p. 6 0 . 2 5 ) . Though attested only in late authors, the word could well have appeared at an earlier date in a passage translated directly from the Greek. I f this emendation is correct, Vitruvius' illiteratae voces profundebantur exactly parallels φωνής άσημου και συγκεχυμένης ούσης in Diodorus. 1 1
With vocabula ut obtigerant constituerunt compare, in the sentence which immediately follows in
Diodorus, ώς έτυχε αυνταξάντων τάς λέξεις (1.8.4)· 1 2
Lucretius' account of the origin of language is basically different from those which appear in Diodorus and Vitruvius (see below, pp. 6 1 - 6 2 ) . It is included, however, at a corresponding point in his narrative of the origin of culture—hence may be legitimately listed as a parallel passage.
34
DEMOGRITUS AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K
ANTHROPOLOGY
O u r texts g i v e d i f f e r e n t reasons f o r t h e i n i t i a l f o r m a t i o n o f society a n d p l a c e i t a t s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t p o i n t s i n t h e i r n a r r a t i v e s . F o r D i o d o r u s , social a g g r e g a t i o n s arise t o p r o v i d e p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e w i l d a n i m a l s , a n d t h e chronological velopments
relationship b e t w e e n this event a n d the technological
w h i c h h e describes is n o t m a d e c l e a r .
1 3
de-
V i t r u v i u s makes the
n u c l e u s o f t h e first s o c i e t y t h e observers a n d users o f t h e first fire. I n L u c r e t i u s , fire, c l o t h i n g , a n d f a m i l y life produce a softening o f man's disposition w h i c h m a k e s h i m m o r e i n c l i n e d t o w a r d f r i e n d s h i p w i t h h i s fellows
(5.1011-18).
S u c h differences a r e n o t as s i g n i f i c a n t as t h e y m i g h t a t first seem. I t w i l l be shown later t h a t the views o f Diodorus
a n d Vitruvius o n the origin of
society are n o t , perhaps, i n c o m p a t i b l e (below, p p . 6 5 - 6 6 ) . M o r e o v e r , t h o u g h t h e t h e o r y p u t f o r w a r d b y L u c r e t i u s is n o t p e c u l i a r t o h i s school (cf. t h e p a r a l l e l passage i n T z e t z e s c i t e d a b o v e ( p p . 2 1 - 2 2 ) , i t is closely c o n n e c t e d w i t h o t h e r features i n h i s p r e s e n t a t i o n w h i c h d o seem t o b e t y p i c a l l y , i f n o t exc l u s i v e l y , E p i c u r e a n . T h e p r o m i n e n t p o s i t i o n i t occupies m a y , t h e r e f o r e , be t h e r e s u l t o f E p i c u r e a n m o d i f i c a t i o n s i n t r o d u c e d i n t o a source w h o s e m a i n a r g u m e n t is f o l l o w e d m o r e f a i t h f u l l y b y D i o d o r u s a n d V i t r u v i u s (see b e l o w , p p . 7 8 - 7 9 ) . E v e n a t t h e p r e s e n t p o i n t i n o u r discussion i t s h o u l d b e clear t h a t t h e differences b e t w e e n o u r t h r e e a c c o u n t s a r e less i m p o r t a n t t h a n t h e i r c o m m o n t e n d e n c y t o c o n n e c t t h e t e c h n o l o g i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t s o f Stage 3 w i t h t h e social ones o f Stage 4 . H e p h a e s t u s a n d t h e a n o n y m o u s i n v e n t o r s o f 3 C assemble t h e i r fellows
t o observe t h e i r d i s c o v e r y ; a r c h i t e c t u r e
through imitation a n d emulation among
advances
a n u m b e r o f builders ( 4 C ) ; a n d
O s i r i s , i n t h e E g y p t i a n c o u n t e r p a r t t o t h i s episode, establishes r e w a r d s f o r inventors.
1 4
Since e m u l a t i o n i n b r i n g i n g m o r e t e r r i t o r y u n d e r c u l t i v a t i o n
results f r o m O s i r i s ' p o l i c y , i t is n a t u r a l t o assume t h a t some o f these r e w a r d s took the f o r m o f grants o f l a n d ; L u c r e t i u s 5 . 1 1 1 1 . Ingenium
1 5
a n d t h i s is c o n f i r m e d b y t h e p a r a l l e l i n
( a l o n g with fades
reward i n p r i m i t i v e society—presumably 1 3
a n d vires)
receives agros as its
t h e same ingenium
t h a t is d a i l y
T h e entire arrangement of Diodorus 1.8 is peculiar, the result, probably, of the original inclu-
sion of the material which now appears there in an Aegyptiaca. See Appendix I , pp. 187-92. 1 4
Seneca, Ep. 9 0 . 4 0 , which is sometimes adduced in this connection (Spoerri, 141, note 3 0 ;
Blankert, Seneca ep. 9 0 , pp. 76 and 95) characterizes the golden age as a period when quicquid natura protulerat, id non minus inuenisse quam inventum alteri monstrasse voluptas erat. T h e passage is not based on
Posidonius, and the parallel with Vitruvius is not, at any rate, very close. T h e latter's account makes inventa the products of human devising rather than undiscovered aspects of nature's bounty; and intense competition rather than communistic sharing characterizes their coming into being (contrast inter Concordes dividebatur in 9 0 . 4 0 with ingenia exercentes certationibus in Vitruvius). Closer to Vitruvius are Petronius 8 8 . 2 : priscis . . . temporibus cum . . . summum . . . certamen inter homines erat ne quid profuturum saeculis diu lateret, and Manilius 1 . 8 3 - 8 4 : quodcumque sagax temptando repperit usus / in
commune bonum commentum . . . dederunt—though the motivation they envision is still a basically disinterested one. 1 5
I n the closely related account of Leo (see below, pp. 3 8 - 3 9 ) Osiris bestows an ager on the dis-
coverer of wool (FGrH
65gF9a).
35
A P A T T E R N OF P R E H I S T O R Y
t r a n s f o r m i n g m a n ' s w a y o f life t h r o u g h f i r e a n d t h e novae res t h a t c o m e w i t h it. T h a t t h e g r o w t h o f t e c h n o l o g y s h o u l d be p l a c e d i n a social c o n t e x t at t h i s p o i n t is n o t a r b i t r a r y : t h e d e v e l o p m e n t s d e s c r i b e d are s u c h as are n o t l i k e l y t o o c c u r so l o n g as m a n lives i n a n i s o l a t e d o r u n o r g a n i z e d c o n d i t i o n . F i r e requires
constant
tendance, hence c a n n o t
exist w i t h o u t at least a
rudi-
m e n t a r y d i v i s i o n o f l a b o r . Houses a n d g a r m e n t s a n d t h e use o f g r a i n c o u l d arise i n i s o l a t i o n , b u t since t h e i r d e v i s i n g r e q u i r e s some l u c k o r i n g e n u i t y e v e r y o n e is n o t l i k e l y t o h i t u p o n t h e m o n his o w n . T h e y w i l l b e c o m e p r e v a l e n t o n l y w h e n t h e i n v e n t o r ' s i d e a c a n be easily i m i t a t e d o r r e p o r t e d i n speech, a n d w h e n i m p r o v e m e n t s
c a n take place t h r o u g h the p o o l i n g o f a
n u m b e r o f talents. I n Posidonius
these f i r s t i n v e n t o r s a p p e a r as a special
class o f p h i l o s o p h e r s w h o g u i d e m a n k i n d i n its progress t o w a r d c i v i l i z a t i o n . T h e o r i e n t a t i o n o f his a c c o u n t , w h i c h does n o t seek to g i v e a g e n e r a l h i s t o r y o f t h e r a c e b u t m e r e l y t o t e l l o f p h i l o s o p h y ' s services t o i t , p r o b a b l y
explains
his o m i s s i o n o f Stage i . P h i l o s o p h e r s are n o t n e e d e d t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e t r a n s i t i o n f r o m t h a t stage t o t h e f o l l o w i n g o n e ; h e n c e t h e t r a n s i t i o n a n d precedes i t l i e o u t s i d e t h e scope o f P o s i d o n i u s ' n a r r a t i v e . S i m i l a r
what
considera-
tions e x p l a i n t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g omissions f r o m V i t r u v i u s , w h o is d e s c r i b i n g , n o t a l l o f p r e h i s t o r y , b u t o n l y a specific p o r t i o n o f i t , b e g i n n i n g w i t h t h e social stage o f m a n ' s
development.
T h e sapientes o f P o s i d o n i u s b e a r a c e r t a i n r e s e m b l a n c e b o t h t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l i n v e n t o r s m e n t i o n e d b y D i o d o r u s a n d V i t r u v i u s a n d t o those ingenio qui praestabant et corde vigebant, t o w h o m L u c r e t i u s assigns a p r o m i n e n t r o l e i n the d e v e l o p m e n t
of technology.
B u t t h e r e s e m b l a n c e s h o u l d n o t be o v e r -
e m p h a s i z e d . I n d i v i d u a l i n v e n t o r s , t h o u g h t h e i r discoveries are t a k e n o v e r a n d i m i t a t e d b y o t h e r s , d o n o t f o r m a separate class. T h e i n v e n t o r o f one d a y w o u l d be t h e passive o b s e r v e r o f t h e n e x t , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e v a g a r i e s o f a c c i d e n t a n d suggestion. A n d t h o u g h t h e n u m b e r
o f m e n o f surpassing
ingenium a t a n y g i v e n t i m e m i g h t be s m a l l i n c o m p a r i s o n w i t h t h e t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n , these m e n w o u l d n o t f o r m a closed c o r p o r a t i o n w i t h access t o a c o n t i n u o u s a n d u n i v e r s a l f l o w o f i n s p i r a t i o n . T h e r e is t h u s n o r e a s o n t o abandon
o u r e a r l i e r c o n t e n t i o n ( a b o v e , p p . 1 8 - 1 9 ) t h a t t h e sapientes
rep-
resent a m o d i f i c a t i o n i n t r o d u c e d b y P o s i d o n i u s h i m s e l f i n t o a t r a d i t i o n w h i c h was o r i g i n a l l y w i t h o u t t h e m . This
conclusion
is, i n f a c t ,
confirmed
by
a further contrast
between
Posidonius a n d t h e a u t h o r s w h o s e a c c o u n t s are r e p r o d u c e d u n d e r h e a d i n g s 4 A , B, a n d C. N e i t h e r T z e t z e s n o r P o s i d o n i u s describes t h e o r i g i n o f society for the s i m p l e r e a s o n t h a t , i n t h e i r v i e w , society's b e g i n n i n g s are c o e v a l w i t h those o f t h e r a c e . T z e t z e s (VS
I I 137.41-42)
describes p r i m i t i v e m e n ' s
m u t u a l defense a g a i n s t t h e w i l d beasts i n t e r m i n o l o g y w h i c h m a y be b o r -
36
D E M O C R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
r o w e d f r o m D i o d o r u s . U n l i k e D i o d o r u s , h o w e v e r , h e views this defense, n o t as s o m e t h i n g t o w h i c h m e n r e s o r t u n d e r t h e pressure o f necessity, b u t as a n e x p r e s s i o n o f t h e philallelia
w h i c h w a s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e race e v e n i n t h e
earliest phases o f its existence. S i m i l a r l y , P o s i d o n i u s sees i n t h e primi men
w h o naturam
incorruptam
sequebantur
mortalium
(90.4)—hence displayed f r o m the
outset a w i l l i n g s u b m i s s i o n t o t h e r u l e o f t h e b e t t e r , i . e . t h e sapientes, i n t h e i r midst.
1 6
I t is j u s t possible t h a t t h i s n o t i o n o f p r e h i s t o r y , w h i c h removes t h e
social aspect o f m a n ' s existence f r o m a n e v o l u t i o n a r y p e r s p e c t i v e , is t h e o r i g i n a l one i n the t r a d i t i o n w e are e x a m i n i n g , a n d t h a t the extension o f this perspective
t o i n c l u d e society—an extension w h i c h appears i n D i o d o r u s ,
V i t r u v i u s , a n d L u c r e t i u s — i s a l a t e r d e v e l o p m e n t . B u t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y m u s t be c o n s i d e r e d a v e r y r e m o t e o n e . F o r i t is h a r d t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e i n t i m a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p w h i c h exists b e t w e e n t h e t e c h n o l o g i c a l a n d s o c i o l o g i c a l aspects o f t h e n a r r a t i v e s o f D i o d o r u s , V i t r u v i u s , a n d L u c r e t i u s is t h e r e s u l t o f r e visions i n t r o d u c e d i n t o a t h e o r y w h i c h w a s o r i g i n a l l y c o n c e r n e d o n l y w i t h the
d e v e l o p m e n t o f t e c h n o l o g y . F o r P o s i d o n i u s , i t is t h e presence o f t h e
sapientes a n d , f o r T z e t z e s , t h e a s s u m p t i o n o f p r i m i t i v e philallelia
w h i c h makes
possible t h e e l i m i n a t i o n o f s o c i o l o g i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s ; a n d b y t h i s t o k e n b o t h m o t i f s are r e v e a l e d as f o r e i g n t o t h e o r i g i n a l f o r m o f t h e t h e o r y w h i c h o u r texts are f o l l o w i n g .
1 7
5. ( A ) Further development of technology made possible by the discovery of fire: (B) mining and metallurgy, producing tools which are used in the development or improvement of (C) warfare, ( D ) weaving, and (E) agriculture; (F) cumulative character of the process. TZETZES
LUCRETIUS
(Α)
γνωσθεντος
και
τών
κατά
δε τον πυρός
άλλων των
μικρόν
και
χρήσιμων,
τάς
εΰρεθήναι και τάλλα
τέχνας
τά δυνά
μενα τον βιον ώφελήσαι. (1.8.8)
( A ) inque dies magis hi vic'tum vitamque priorem / commutare novis monstrabant rebus et igni / ingenio qui praestabant et corde vigebant.
(Α)
επει
γεγονότες τεροι τήν
δέ
προμηθέατεροι
και
προβουλευτικώ-
το
πυρ
εφεΰρον . . . και
του
βίου
εκείνου
μετέ-
στρεφαν διαγαιγήν. (138.8—ίο)
(5.1105-7)
Posidonius' praise of philosophy as the force which sparsos et cavis casts tectos . . . docuit tecta moliri (90.7) suggests that he associated the sapientes with the founding of cities, hence with the creation of society in its higher phases. H e may even have been influenced in some degree by the other tradition, found in Cicero and the euhemerizers (see below, Chap. V I , note 2 3 ) , which made certain outstanding individuals responsible for ending a completely savage and cannibalistic state of nature. But such influence, if present, does not affect substantially the tone of his account or the character of the early men there described: alti spiritus . . . et. . . adis recentes ( 9 0 . 4 4 ; on the probable Posidonian origin of this phrase, see Nock, J R S 4 9 . 7 ) . T h e distinction, present in Stages 2 and 3, between inventions which originate in one individual and those which are the common achievement of the race was probably the starting point both for the Posidonian innovation of the sapientes and for Diodorus' (or his source's) introduction of Egyptian gods. 1 6
1 7
37
A PATTERN OF PREHISTORY DlODORUS
LUCRETIUS
( Β ) εν τη Θηβαίοι χαλκουργείων ευρεθέντων και χρυσείων,
(C)
οπλα τε κατασκευάσασθαι
δι ών τα. θηρία κτείνοντας
( Β ) quod superest aes atque aurum ferrumque repertumst / . . . / ignis ubi ingentis silvas ardore cremarat / . · · flammem ardor / . . . terram percoxerat igni, / manabat venis ferventibus in loca terrae / concava conveniens argenti rivus et auri, / aeris item et plumbi. quae cum concreta videbant / posterius claro interea splendere colore / tollebant nitido capti levique lepore / et simili formata vide bant esse figura / atque lacunarum fuerant vestigia cuique. / turn penetrabat eos posse haec liquefacta calore / quamlibet in formam et faciem decurrere rerum, / et prorsum quamvis in acuta ac tenvia posse / mucronum duci fastigia procudendo. (5.1241-65)
POSIDONIUS
(B) in hoc quoque dissentio sapientes fuisse qui ferri metalla et aens invenerint cum tncendio silvarum adusta tellus in summo venas iacentes liquefactas fudisset. (90.12)
in illo quoque dissentio a Posidonio quod ferramenta fabrilia excogitata a sapientibus viris iudicat. (go. 11)
arma antiqua manus (C) ungues dentesque fuerunt / et lapides et item silvarum fragmina rami / et flamma atque igncs postquam sunt cognita primum. / posterius ferri vis est aerisque reperta. (5.1283-86)
(Ε)
και τήν γήν εργαζομένους
φιλοτίμως έξημερώσαι
ράν. (ι.Ι5·5)
την χω
(D) nexilis ante fuit vestis quam textile tegmen. / textile post ferrumst quia ferro tela parantur / nec ratione alia possunt tam levia gigni / insilia ac fusi radii scapique sonantes. ( 5 . 1 3 5 0 - 5 3 )
(D) Posidonius . . . textrini quoque artem a sapientibus dixit inventam. . . .
(E) at specimen sationis et insitionis origo / ipsa fuit rerum primum natura creatrix, / arboribus quoniam bacae glandesque caducae / tempestiva dabant pullorum examina subter; / unde etiam libitumst stirpis committere ramis / et nova defodere in terram vir-
(E) transit deinde ad agricolas nec minus facunde describit proscissum aratro solum . . . hoc quoque opus ait esse sapientium. (90.20—21)
gulta per agros. (5.1361—66)
38
D E M O C R I T U S AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y VITRUVIUS
LUCRETIUS
(F) turn autem instruentes animo se et prospicientes maioribus cogitationibus ex varietate artium natis non casas sed etiam domos . . . perficere coeperunt. ( 3 6 . 8 - 1 2 )
(F) alid ex alio clarescere corde videbant / artibus ad summum donee venere cacumen. (5.1456-57)
T h e p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n t h e passages i n w h i c h Tzetzes a n d L u c r e t i u s m e n t i o n t h e effect o f f i r e o n m a n ' s w a y o f life h a v e a l r e a d y b e e n n o t e d ( a b o v e , p . 2 2 ) . T h e p o r t i o n o f D i o d o r u s p r i n t e d u n d e r A does n o t r e c a l l t h e p h r a seology used b y t h e o t h e r t w o w r i t e r s , b u t i t presents a n i d e n t i c a l i d e a . A n d t h o u g h t h e r e is n o t h i n g i n P o s i d o n i u s o n t h e i n i t i a l d i s c o v e r y o f f i r e , t h e s m e l t i n g o f m e t a l s a n d f a s h i o n i n g o f tools d e s c r i b e d i n Β i n his a c c o u n t w o u l d obviously be impossible w i t h o u t i t . W e a v i n g ( D ) f o l l o w s t h e d i s c o v e r y o f m e t a l because, as L u c r e t i u s notes, i t is i m p o s s i b l e w i t h o u t t h e use o f i r o n tools. A g r i c u l t u r e , t h o u g h its b e g i n n i n g s m a y go b a c k t o t h e d i s c o v e r y o f g r a i n ( 3 D ) ,
1 8
is g r e a t l y a d v a n c e d b y
the use o f m e t a l s — h e n c e its m e n t i o n a t t h i s p o i n t . T h e p l o w ( P o s i d o n i u s ) ,
1 9
the g r a f t i n g o f trees ( L u c r e t i u s ) , a n d t h e e x t e n s i o n o f t h e l a n d u n d e r c u l t i v a t i o n ( D i o d o r u s a n d L u c r e t i u s ) are a l l e x a m p l e s o f such a d v a n c e s .
2 0
Both
Diodorus a n d Lucretius note the connection, although Lucretius mentions i t i n his passage o n m e t a l l u r g y r a t h e r t h a n i n t h e s e c t i o n d e v o t e d s p e c i f i c a l l y to a g r i c u l t u r e .
2 1
A l s o c o m m o n t o b o t h w r i t e r s is a n i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e i m
plications o f the discovery o f metals for warfare ( C ) . L u c r e t i u s includes here, a n d D i o d o r u s i n a subsequent passage,
22
a b r i e f description o f earlier methods
o f f i g h t i n g . T h i s i t e m c o u l d go e q u a l l y w e l l a t a n e a r l i e r stage a n d is, i n f a c t , f o u n d there i n Tzetzes.
2 3
T h e discrepancies here are r a t h e r m i n o r , suggesting
individual modifications introduced into a c o m m o n tradition. O n e a d d i t i o n a l text s h o u l d be i n c l u d e d at this p o i n t . T h e priest Leo's Although Diodorus does not mention farming explicitly in 3 D , the passage in 1.14 which ex plains the custom of offering first fruits at harvest time as a survival of honors first paid to Isis as the discoverer of grain suggests that it was among the beneficia which she conferred on the race. And possibly the source followed by Diodorus. Cf. Tibullus, 1.7.29 and Philostephanus ap. Servius ad Georg. 1.19 ( = Fr. 28 Miiller), where Osiris is made the discoverer of the plow. Agriculture, like weaving, is not mentioned explicitly by Lucretius until a fairly complex stage in its development has been reached. I n his source more may have been said about the ante cedent phases: see the passage from Diogenes of Oenoanda discussed below, p. 56. 1287—95: et prior aeris erat quam ferri cognitus usus. I . . . I aere solum terrae tractabant aereque belli / miscebant fluctus et vulnera vasta serebant./ . . . / inde minutatim processit ferreus ensis / versaque in opprobrium species est falcis ahenae / et ferro coepere solum proscindere terrae. 1 8
1 8
2 0
2 1
2 2
1.24.3: διά τό κατ* εκείνους τους χρόνους μήπω των όπλων εύρημένων τους ανθρώπους τοις μεν
ξυλοις άμύνεσθαι τοις άντιταττομένοις,
ταΐς δε δοραΐς τών θηρίων σκεπαστηρίοις
δπλοις χρήσθαι.
On
the context in which this passage appears—Diodorus' account of the Greek and Egyptian H e r a c l e s see belowj pp. 4 4 - 4 5 . 2 3
137.41—2: καϊ άλλήλοις κατά θηρίων προσεβοήθουν και συνεμάχοντο γυμνοί γνμναϊς ταις χερσί.
A P A T T E R N OF PREHISTORY
39
a c c o u n t o f t h e b e g i n n i n g s o f w e a v i n g has a l r e a d y b e e n m e n t i o n e d ( a b o v e , p . 20) as c o m p l e t i n g t h e " E g y p t i a n " p a r a l l e l s t o t h e sequence o f d e v e l o p m e n t presented i n L u c r e t i u s 5.1105-1366. T w o authors, H y g i n u s a n d T e r t u l l i a n , preserve a r e c o r d o f L e o ' s a c c o u n t : c u m L i b e r A e g y p t u m . . . regno teneret et o m n i a p r i m u s h o m i n i b u s ostendisse diceretur, H a m m o n q u e n d a m ex A f r i c a venisse et pecoris m u l t i t u d i n e m ad L i b e r u m adduxisse quo facilius et eius gratia u t e r e t u r et a l i q u i d p r i m u s invenisse diceretur. . . . ( H y g i n u s , Astron. 2 . 2 0 ) [ I n the t i m e o f Osiris] ad i l i u m ex L i b y a H a m m o n fecit o v i u m dives. . . . denique M e r c u r i u m a u t u m a n t forte p a l p a t i arietis m o l l i t i e delectatum deglubasse o v i c u l a m , d u m q u e p e r t e m p t a t et ( q u o d facilitas materiae suadebat) t r a c t u prosequente f i l u m e l i q u a t i n p r i s t i n i retis m o d u m q u e m p h i l y r a e taeniis i u n x e r a t texuisse. ( T e r t u l l i a n , De pallio 3) 24
T h e p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n these passages a n d those w e h a v e b e e n c o n s i d e r i n g — especially those g i v e n u n d e r h e a d i n g s 3 C , 4 C ,
and 5B—could
hardly
be
closer. H e r e , as i n D i o d o r u s ( 4 C ) , t h e b a c k g r o u n d f o r d i s c o v e r y is O s i r i s ' institution o f rewards
for inventors
(cf. quo facilius
eius gratia
uteretur i n
H y g i n u s ) ; a n d t h e process o f d i s c o v e r y is e x a c t l y t h a t w h i c h l e d e a r l i e r t o fire a n d m e t a l tools. A c h a n c e o c c u r r e n c e (cf. forte palpati arietis i n T e r t u l l i a n ) is f o l l o w e d b y p l e a s u r e (mollitie Diodorus
delectatum—cf.
[ 3 G ] a n d capti lepore i n L u c r e t i u s
the pleasure at the fire i n [ 5 B ] ) , a n d w h i l e a t t e n t i o n is
o c c u p i e d i n t h i s f a s h i o n t h e useful a p p l i c a t i o n suggests itself. L i k e t h e o b servers o f t h e nests o f b i r d s i n V i t r u v i u s ( 3 A ) , M e r c u r y is h e l p e d i n t h e last stage o f t h e process b y h a v i n g a m o d e l r e a d y a t h a n d : t h e strands o f w o o l are w o v e n t o g e t h e r i n i m i t a t i o n o f a n e t o f taeniae. T h i s is s t i l l nexile r a t h e r t h a n textile tegmen (cf. L u c r e t i u s [ 5 D ] ) ; p e r h a p s t h e t r a n s i t i o n t o t h e l a t t e r c a m e later i n Leo's
account.
2 5
A l t h o u g h t h e technologies w h i c h a p p e a r i n t h i s stage are f a i r l y
complex,
t h e process l e a d i n g t o t h e i r d i s c o v e r y is essentially s i m i l a r t o t h a t e n v i s i o n e d i n Stage 3 : o b s e r v a t i o n a n d d i r e c t i m i t a t i o n o f n a t u r e , c o m b i n e d i n some instances w i t h
the
application of
suggestions
received
from
nature
to
s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t c o n t e x t s . F r o m t h e pools o f m o l t e n m e t a l w h i c h t a k e t h e shape o f t h e g r o u n d o v e r w h i c h t h e y f l o w to t h e m e t a l tools t h e y suggest (5B) is p e r h a p s a g r e a t e r l e a p o f t h e i m a g i n a t i o n t h a n a n y t h i n g r e q u i r e d i n Stage 3, b u t t h e d i f f e r e n c e is one o f degree r a t h e r t h a n k i n d . T h e
greater
a c h i e v e m e n t s o f Stage 5 d o n o t c o m e f r o m t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f i n t e l l e c t u a l p o w e r s o f a h i g h e r o r d e r . T h e y are s i m p l y t h e r e s u l t o f t h e
phenomenon
m e n t i o n e d b y L u c r e t i u s a n d V i t r u v i u s i n 5 F : o n e t h i n g leads t o anpr|ie^v£ 5 , (alid ex alio clarescere corde videbant) so t h a t , as t e c h n o l o g y becomes mqjJe^Bm 2 4
2 6
So the mss. and editors, though elicit would seem to be the obvious and necessarv/a^e/itiojQ^cjj'jtut For the Egyptians as inventors of weaving, see Ephorus FGrH 7 0 F 5 ; Pliny, JVH yh^Sk I j II *U [
40
DEMOCRITUS
A N D
T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
p l i c a t e d , t h e r a n g e a n d n u m b e r o f s i t u a t i o n s o u t o f w h i c h suggestions f o r n e w i n v e n t i o n s arise is v a s t l y i n c r e a s e d . Maiores are,
cogitationes are i n v o l v e d ; b u t t h e y
as V i t r u v i u s m a k e s c l e a r , t h e r e s u l t , n o t t h e cause, o f a v a s t l y increased
varietas
artium.
26
6. Summary of the factors involved in the growth of the useful arts: accumulated experience and man's natural endowments: hands, intelligence, rational speech. LUCRETIUS
usus et impigrae semel experientia mentis paulatim docuit pedetemptim progredientis. sic unumquicquid paulatim protrahit aetas in medium ratioque in luminis erigit oras. ( 5 . 1 4 5 2 - 5 5 ) VITRUVIUS
ϋΐΟ-ΒΟ^υ^
TZETZES
[Men came together] habentes ab natura praemium praeter reliqua animalia ut non proni sed erecti ambularent mundique et astrorum magnificentiam aspicerent, item manibus et articulis quam vellent rem faciliter tractarent. (34-2-6)
καθόλου γαρ -πάντων την χρ€ίαν
[Pandora stands for] ή πάντα
αυτήν διδάσκαλον γενέσθαι τοις
δωρουμένη
άνθρώποις,
των τεχνών ή ή εκ πάντων τών
cum ergo natura non solum sensibus ornavissent gentes quemadmodum reliqua ani malia sed etiam cogitationibus et consiliis. et subiecisset cetera animalia sub potestate . . . e fera agrestique vitam ad mansuetam perduxerunt humanitatem. ( 3 6 . 1 - 8 )
ύφηγουμενην
οΐ-
τω βία) συναγωγή
κείως τήν εκάστου μάθησιν εύ-
θεών
φυεϊ ζώω και συνεργούς
νάμεων . . . συγκεκραμένη
προς άπαντα
έχοντι
και
τών
φυχικών
δυ και
δώρα λαβοΰσα, εκ μεν γάρ πυρός
χείρας
' Ηφαίστου γανικά,
τα
υλικά
και ορ
εκ δε της φρονήσεως
*Αθηνάς
το
κατασκευαστικόν
και άγχίνουν . . . τό δ' αναιδές και λόγον και φυχής
(i.S.i)
άγχίνοιαν.
και δραστήριον .. . εκ του
Ερμού
. ..
λόγου.
τοΰ 1
(79- 3~
21
προφορικού
Gaisford)
A s u m m a r y o f this sort c o u l d come a t almost a n y p o i n t i n a n account o f the
d e v e l o p m e n t o f technology. D i o d o r u s a n d Tzetzes a p p e n d i t t o their
d e s c r i p t i o n s o f t h e f i r s t consequences
o f the discovery o f fire;
Vitruvius
separates i t i n t o t w o passages w h i c h f r a m e his a c c o u n t o f t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f a r c h i t e c t u r e ; L u c r e t i u s uses i t as a c o n c l u s i o n t o his e n t i r e n a r r a t i v e . S u c h differences, h o w e v e r , a r e r e l a t i v e l y u n i m p o r t a n t . D i o d o r u s gives t h e m o s t c o m p l e t e v e r s i o n o f a v i e w w h i c h is essentially i d e n t i c a l w i t h
those o f
V i t r u v i u s a n d T z e t z e s a n d w h i c h m a y l i e b e h i n d L u c r e t i u s ' t e x t as w e l l . 2 0
With Lucretius compare Manilius
1 . 8 9 - 9 0 : turn belli pacisque artis commenta vetustas; j semper
enim ex aliis alias proseminat usus. Vitruvius' idea is more distinctive and may go back ultimately to pre-Socratic theories of the intimate connection between what men perceive and experience and what they think (cf., for example, Empedocles, VS 3 1 B 1 0 6 : irpos -napeöv yap prjns äc'ferai äv9pü>7Toiaiv). Its presence, at any rate, argues strongly against the attempt to trace all or part of Vitruvius 2.1 to Posidonius, or any other teleological source. See Appendix I I .
A P A T T E R N OF P R E H I S T O R Y
N e e d (chreia)
4
(or perhaps " n e e d a n d use," the u t i l i t a r i a n p r i n c i p l e )
2 7
I
pro
vides s u i t a b l e i n s t r u c t i o n t o a c r e a t u r e " n a t u r a l l y fit f o r i t " (euphyes) a n d h a v i n g as " c o - w o r k e r s " i n a l l t h i n g s , " h a n d s , r a t i o n a l speech (logos), sharpness o f m i n d (anchinoia)."
and
T h e f u n c t i o n o f t h e c o - w o r k e r s is f a i r l y c l e a r .
H a n d s m a k e possible t h e m a n u f a c t u r e o f t o o l s ; r a t i o n a l speech enables t h e c o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d s h a r i n g o f discoveries
(cf. 4 C ) ; a n d anchinoia observes
a n d c a p i t a l i z e s u p o n those n a t u r a l processes o r a c c i d e n t s w h i c h c a n b e m a d e to serve m a n ' s p u r p o s e s . T h e e x a c t m e a n i n g o f t h e p h r a s e ζωον ευφυές is less c e r t a i n . A c o m p a r i s o n w i t h V i t r u v i u s , whose t e x t is q u i t e close a t t h i s p o i n t , suggests t h a t m a n ' s u p r i g h t s t a t u r e is t h e n a t u r a l s u i t a b i l i t y i n v o l v e d , a n d this is p r o b a b l y t h e m o s t satisfactory i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .
2 8
I t explains better t h a n
a n y t h i n g else t h e c o n c e p t i o n o f h a n d s , sharpness o f m i n d , a n d speech as co w o r k e r s . F o r m a n ' s u p r i g h t s t a t u r e is w h a t frees t h e h a n d s f o r s p e c i a l i z a t i o n as t o o l - m a k e r s a n d u s e r s ;
29
a n d b y c a u s i n g h i s gaze t o g o f o r w a r d r a t h e r t h a n
d o w n i t subjects a l a r g e r p o r t i o n o f his e n v i r o n m e n t t o t h e a c t i o n o f cogitationes a n d consilia: b y v i r t u e o f his b e i n g a f o r e - l o o k e r , m a n b e c o m e s a f o r e t h i n k e r as w e l l .
3 0
F o r t h e same reason, speech is m a d e t o p r o c e e d f o r t h i n t h e
m a n n e r best s u i t e d t o c a t c h t h e a t t e n t i o n o f o t h e r s ;
3 1
a n d the specialization
o f h a n d s as tool-users enables t h e m o u t h t o b e used e x c l u s i v e l y f o r c o m munication.
3 2
Compare usus el experientia in Lucretius; and for usus as the Latin rendering of chreia, see Spoerri, 145, note 9 . T h e fluctuation of meaning to which the word chreia is subject (cf. Dihle, Entretiens Hardt 8.212, note 1, and Thraede, R h M 105.167-68) is usually of minor importance in interpreting a given piece of Kulturentstehungslehre (hence the translation, "need and use," suggested by Havelock, 77 and 3 9 2 ) . Chreia-usus is not simply practice or application but the applying or putting into practice of what is useful or needful (utile, chresimon); and chreia-egestas is not in and of itself man's teacher—only the impelling force behind his continuing efforts' to find new usus for the various components of his environment. So Pfligersdorfer, SBWien 232, No. 5 , 138, comparing Gregory of Nyssa, Horn. opif. 8.144BC; cf. also the mention of man's upright stature at the end of the zoogony of Johannes Catrarius (VS 68B5, p. 137.20-21), a passage which closely parallels those which both Tzetzes and Diodorus prefix to their Kulturentslehungslehren (see above, Chap. I , note 16). Spoerri (151) suggests that tachos matheseos or docilitas is meant, citing Ps.-Plato, Horoi 413D, where euphyia is so defined. This is certainly the general sense required by ΰφηγουμένην οίκείως τήν έκαστου μάθησιν; but it is too close in meaning to anchinoia (defined as euphyia psyches in Horoi 412E and listed along with mneme and 2 7
2 8
tachutes dianoias as a component of eumathia in Photius, Cod. 2 4 9 440B39—441 A 3 ) ; and it does not
explain synergous. There is no clear and precise reason for the joint effectiveness of docilitas, hands, logos, and anchinoia, as there is for that of the latter three and upright stature. 2 9
Cf. Aristotle, Part. anim. 4 . 6 8 6 A 2 5 - 2 8 and 6 8 7 A 5 - 7 and Xenophon, Memorabilia
1.4.11. Though
not explicitly present in the latter passage, the idea seems to be implied; see Dickermann, 14. 3 0
Cf. Xenophon, Memorabilia
1 . 4 . n ; Aristotle, Part. anim. 3 . 6 6 2 B 2 0 - 2 2 ; Cicero, ND 2.140 and
the etymologies of prosopon reproduced in Dickermann, 18, note 1. Theiler (29 and 32) derives the first two texts from Diogenes of Apollonia, citing their references to the purer air which man's erect stature enables him to breathe (cf. VS 64A19, p. 5 6 . 1 3 - 1 4 ) . 3 1
3 2
Aristotle, Part. anim. 3 . 6 6 2 B 2 0 - 2 2 . Cf. Gregory of Nyssa, Horn.
opif. 8.144BC, 148C-49A—especially 144B: τή τοΰ λόγου
χρεία
συνεργός εστί ή των χειρών υπουργία, and 1 4 4 c : συνεργεΐν φημι τάς χείρας τί) εκφωνήσει τοΰ λόγου.
42
D E M O G R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K
ANTHROPOLOGY
D i o d o r u s does n o t g o b e y o n d t h e b i o l o g i c a l i d e a o f a c o o p e r a t i o n b e t w e e n m a n ' s u p r i g h t s t a t u r e a n d h i s o t h e r q u a l i t i e s t o m a k e possible a m o r e effec tive utilization of b o t h . ception:
3 3
T o this V i t r u v i u s adds a p u r e l y teleological
m a n ' s u p r i g h t p o s i t i o n e n a b l e s h i m t o o b s e r v e mundi
magnificentiam.
The
i m p l i c a t i o n is, t o j u d g e
f r o m other contexts
et
con
astrorum
where
the
i d e a o c c u r s , t h a t t h e s i g h t o f t h e s t a r r y h e a v e n s a w a k e n s m a n t o a n awareness of a destiny higher t h a n t h a t o f the creeping him.
3 4
The
discrepancy
and c r a w l i n g things
around
b e t w e e n D i o d o r u s a n d V i t r u v i u s is s h a r p , b u t is
p r o b a b l y d u e t o V i t r u v i u s h i m s e l f . T h e n o t e s t r u c k h e r e is a n i s o l a t e d o n e i n his t e x t , w h i c h e l s e w h e r e shares t h e n o n - t e l e o l o g i c a l o r e v e n a n t i - t e l e o l o g i c a l mood of Diodorus and Lucretius.
3 5
R a t h e r t h a n assume a c o n s i s t e n t d e l e t i o n
o f t e l e o l o g i c a l m a t e r i a l f r o m a l l t h r e e , o n e m u s t c o n c l u d e t h a t V i t r u v i u s has here e x p a n d e d his source w i t h a p h i l o s o p h i c a l c o m m o n p l a c e q u i t e a l i e n t o i t . 7. ( A ) The non-essential arts, including (B) astronomy and (C) music. VITRUVIUS
(A) postquam animadverterunt profusos esse partus naturae et abundantem materiae copiam ad aedificationes ab ea comparatam, tractando nutrierunt et auctam per artes ornaverunt voluptatibus elegantiam vitae. ( 3 6 . 1 4 - 1 8 ) DIODORUS
(Β) περί τε τάξεως
TTJS
των άστρων
LUCRETIUS
POSIDONIUS
(Β) sol et luna . . . / perdocuerunt homines annorum tempora verti / et certa r a tione geri rem atque ordine certo. ( 5 . 1 4 3 7 - 3 9 )
Although most of the parallels to Diodorus cited above in notes 2 8 - 3 2 come from passages of a definitely teleological character, it does not follow (as Pfligersdorfer, SBWien 232, No. 5, 135-42, and Spoerri, 1 4 8 - 5 2 , maintain) that the passage itself has a teleological source. Aristotle's famous reinterpretation of Anaxagoras' view of the importance of the human hand (VS 5 9 A 1 0 2 ) shows that arguments of this sort could be found in a non-teleological setting and were, perhaps, first devised for such a setting (against the attribution of teleological views to Anaxagoras, see Theiler, 1-5, and Vlastos, PhilRev 55.53, note 3 ) . Similarly, the fragment of Anaxagoras ( F 5 5 g B 2 i b ) which speaks of man's ability, through experience, memory, skill, and technique, to get honey and milk from the animals is not itself teleological in character—although it calls attention to a fact which was to be adduced frequently in later thought of a teleological cast as evidence for the existence of a divine plan by which man was provided with sufficient sustenance. (For another example of competing naturalistic and teleological use of the same material, see below, Chap. I l l , note 12.) Ούδεν χρήμα μάτην γίνεται was a principle to which naturalists (cf. Leucippus, VS 6 7 B 2 ) as well as teleologists subscribed; and references to man's special physical endowments would be at home in the writings of either school. Indeed, it is hard to see how any consistent naturalistic attempt to explain the unique character of human achievement could have dispensed with such references. 3 3
,
See the examples collected by Dickermann, 9 3 - 1 0 1 , S. Pantzerhielm Thomas, " T h e Prologues of Sallust," SO 15/16 (1936) 146-51. Even this idea is not necessarily teleological. Cf. Aeschylus, PV 4 5 4 - 5 7 , and Lucretius 5 . 1 4 3 7 - 3 9 (quoted below under 7 B ) , where observation of the heavens is said to have given men practical information about the earthly seasons. 3 4
Against Pfligersdorfer's teleological interpretation (SBWien 2 3 2 , No. 5 , 135-42) of the im portant role assigned to chreia and didache in Diodorus 1.8, see Spoerri, MusHelv 1 8 . 7 4 - 7 6 ; and, for alleged teleological elements in other portions of Vitruvius 2.1, see below, Appendix I I . 3 5
43
A PATTERN OF PREHISTORY DlODORUS
(G) και περι τής των φθόγγων αρμονίας . . . τούτον
[Hermes]
πρώτον
παρατηρη-
γενέσθαι
POSIDONIUS
LUCRETIUS
τήν . . . και τής ευρυθμίας και τής περί το σώμα πρεπούσης πλάσεως έπιμεληθήναι. ( ι . ι 6 . ι)
(C) at liquidas avium voces imitarier ore / ante fuit multo quam levi carmina cantu / concelebrare homines possent aurisque iuvare. / et zephyri cava per calamorum sibila primum / agrestis docuere cavas inflare cicutas.
(G) vis scire quid ilia [philosophia] eruerit? non decoros motus corporis nec varios per tubam ac tibiam cantus quibus exceptus spiritus aut in exitu aut in transitu formatur in vocem. (90.26)
(5-I379-83)
W i t h these i t e m s a n e n t i r e l y n e w phase is r e a c h e d . D i o d o r u s a n d L u c r e t i u s agree i n m a k i n g m u s i c a n d a s t r o n o m y t h e last, o r a m o n g t h e last, o f t e c h n o logies t o be d i s c o v e r e d . P o s i d o n i u s ' r e m a r k s o n m u s i c p r o b a b l y o c c u p i e d a s i m i l a r p o s i t i o n i n his a c c o u n t o f t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f c u l t u r e .
3 6
N o n e o f these
a u t h o r s gives a n e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h i s a r r a n g e m e n t , b u t a c o m p a r i s o n w i t h V i t r u v i u s supplies o n e . T h e l a t t e r notes t h a t , after m e n h a d o b s e r v e d
that
t h e y h a d o n h a n d a n abundantem copiam f o r b u i l d i n g , t h e y p r o c e e d e d ornare voluptatibus
a l i f e w h i c h was a l r e a d y auctam per artes.
artes-copiam-voluptates
to
T h e sequence
here applies o n l y t o t h e h i s t o r y o f a r c h i t e c t u r e , b u t i t
is p r o b a b l y t o be c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e d i s t i n c t i o n , d r a w n f i r s t b y D e m o c r i t u s (B144) a n d m e n t i o n e d s p o r a d i c a l l y i n s u b s e q u e n t w r i t e r s ,
3 7
between
those
arts w h i c h h a v e t h e i r o r i g i n i n necessity a n d those w h i c h , l i k e m u s i c , arise o n l y w h e n a c o n d i t i o n o f s u r p l u s has a r i s e n . V i t r u v i u s ' exclusively Lucretius,
a r c h i t e c t u r a l subject
D i o d o r u s , a n d Posidonius.
3 8
T h e reference t o m u s i c , w h i c h m a k e s i m p o s s i b l e , is f o u n d i n
Lucretius
adds
astronomy,
and
Posidonius d a n c i n g , t o t h e l i s t o f " n o n - e s s e n t i a l " technai; D i o d o r u s , as o f t e n , is m o r e c o m p l e t e : a s t r o n o m y , w r i t i n g , m u s i c , d a n c i n g , a n d w r e s t l i n g a r e a l l to b e f o u n d a m o n g t h e i n v e n t i o n s o f H e r m e s .
3 9
Such is suggested at any rate by the location of 7 C in Seneca's account, following the items reproduced earlier in our text ( 2 A ; 5 B , D , E ) and before later references to those inventions which can be assigned to specific sapientes of historical times: Anacharsis and Democritus ( 9 0 . 3 1 ) . 3 6
E . g . Isocrates, Bus. 15; Aristotle, Met. 1.981B13—22; Plutarch, Div., p. 113.1—9 Bernardakis; Maximus of Tyre, 32.3b. For the wording in Vitruvius cf. Cicero, Tusc. 1.62: mansuefacti et exculti a necessariis artificiis ad elegantiora defluximus. T h e parallel between Vitruvius and Democritus is noted by 3 7
Blankert, Seneca ep. 9 0 , pp. 1 3 9 - 4 0 . 3 8
Unlike Democritus and the texts cited in the preceding note, Vitruvius speaks of a natural copia of whose existence men first become aware at an advanced stage of culture rather than a copia of life's necessities which they themselves have created. Strictly speaking, then, the succession of artes-voluptates is the only idea common to Vitruvius and Democritus. I t is quite possible, however, that the Democritean conception was the one found in Vitruvius' source. T h e context in which the whole passage appears is a discussion of the various types of natural building materials with whose properties and uses the architect must be familiar—hence the substitution of a copia ab natura comparata for one which was comparata ab hominibus would have been quite natural. 3 9
Diodorus mentions the three-stringed lyre as a specific musical invention of Hermes, and behind this item in his list there may lie a more detailed account of the process of discovery on lines comparable to those which appear in Lucretius ( 5 B and 3 C ) , Diodorus ( 3 C ) and Vitruvius ( 3 C ) .
4
44
D E M O C R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
8. Conclusion: ( A ) the state of civilization described in our earliest written documents; (B) their late origin accounts for the speculative character of all reconstructions of prehistory. LUCRETIUS
DlODORUS
κατά τους Τρωικούς χρόνους, ore τα πλείστα
(Α)
μέρη της οικουμένης
εζημερωτο
γεωργιαις
πόλεσι και πλήθει των κατοικούντων πανταχού.
την χωράν
(1.24· 5)
τους μεν ούν πρώτους
(Β)
υπάρχοντας
βασιλείς
ουτ' αύτοι λέγειν έ'χομεν ούτε των ιστορικών έπαγγελλομένοις
είδέναι
συγκατατιθέμεθα'
νατον γάρ τήν εύρεσιν τών γραμμάτων είναι
πάλαιαν
ήλικώτιδα
και
ώστε
τοις
πρώτοις
αδύ ούτως
βασιλεύσι
γενέσθαι, εί δέ τις και τούτο
ρήσαι, τό γε τών ιστοριογράφων γένος
τοις
(A) iam validis saepti degebant turribus aevum et divisa colebatur discretaque tellus, iam mare velivolis florebat. . . . auxilia ac socios iam pacto foedere habebant, 4 0
(B) carminibus cum res gestas coepere poetae tradere; nec multo prius sunt elementa reperta. propterea quid sit prius actum respicere aetas nostra nequit nisi qua ratio vestigia monstrat. (5.1440-47)
συγχωπαντελώς
φαίνεται νεωστι τω κοινω βίω συνεσταμένον. (ι .9.2)
N o e x t e n d e d a c c o u n t o f t h e phase o f d e v e l o p m e n t i n a u g u r a t e d i n Stage 7 is g i v e n i n o u r t e x t s . T h e r e a s o n is t o b e f o u n d i n t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s w h i c h a p p e a r h e r e . A m o n g t h e " n o n - e s s e n t i a l " arts is w r i t i n g (cf. its a t t r i b u t i o n t o Hermes i n D i o d o r u s [ 7 B ] ) . Its invention, along w i t h t h a t o f heroic poetry ( o f w h o s e o r a l b e g i n n i n g s a n t i q u i t y was, n a t u r a l l y , u n a w a r e ) , b r i n g s t o a n e n d t h e p e r i o d w i t h w h i c h o u r a c c o u n t s are c o n c e r n e d . H e n c e f o r t h i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e p a s t m u s t t a k e as i t s s t a r t i n g p o i n t w r i t t e n r e c o r d s , n o t t h e vestigia p o i n t e d o u t b y ratio. T r a c i n g t h e g r o w t h o f m u s i c a n d t h e f i n e arts belongs l a r g e l y t o h i s t o r y , n o t p r e h i s t o r y . T h e i t e m s f r o m D i o d o r u s p r i n t e d a b o v e are i n c l u d e d w i t h some h e s i t a t i o n , i n a s m u c h as t h e y d o n o t r o u n d o f f his a c c o u n t i n t h e w a y t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s i n L u c r e t i u s d o . T h e y a r e , h o w e v e r , c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e same s u b j e c t : d e l i m i t i n g t h e confines o f h i s t o r y a n d p r e h i s t o r y . 8 A o c c u r s i n t h e course o f a n a t t e m p t t o s h o w t h a t t h e r e a l a u t h o r o f t h e l a b o r s o f H e r a c l e s was, n o t H e r a c l e s , b u t " a n o t h e r m a n o f t h e same n a m e " — a n E g y p t i a n w h o l i v e d m a n y c e n t u r i e s b e f o r e his G r e e k i m i t a t o r . T h e c l u b a n d t h e l i o n ' s s k i n a n d the
s l a y i n g o f w i l d beasts w o u l d , D i o d o r u s argues, h a v e b e e n c o m p l e t e l y
Cf. Isidore, Orig. 3.22.8: "cum regrediens Nilus in suos meatus varia in campis reliquisset animalia, relicta etiam testudo est. quae cum putrefacta esset et nervi eius remansissent extenti intra corium, percussa a Mercurio sonitum dedit, ad cuius speciem Mercurius lyram fecit." With the list compare also Cicero, Tusc. 1.62 (above, note 37) where the first three items—writing, music, and astronomy— are mentioned among the "superfluous" arts. With the walled towns and sailing of 1440—42 one should perhaps compare two passages in 4 0
Seneca, Ep. 9 0 : turn arma nec muros nec bello utilia molitur philosophia ( 2 6 ) and posse nos vestitos esse sine
commercio sericorum (15). But reference to commerce and walled cities as among the most striking of man's achievements would have been, by the first century A . D . , so commonplace that the parallels are not necessarily significant. Cf. Manilius 1.87-88, Cicero, Off. 2.13 and 15; Sophocles, Ant. 3 3 4 - 3 5 , 3 6 8 - 7 0 ; Euripides, Suppl. 2 0 9 - 1 0 ; Aeschylus, PV 4 6 7 - 6 8 .
A P A T T E R N OF P R E H I S T O R Y
45
o u t m o d e d a t t h e d a t e assigned t o t h e son o f A l c m e n a , w h e n m e n w e r e a l r e a d y d w e l l i n g i n cities a n d the l a n d h a d b e e n c l e a r e d o f forests t o m a k e w a y f o r a g r i c u l t u r e . T h e o r i g i n a l H e r a c l e s o b v i o u s l y b e l o n g s t o t h e earliest stages o f h u m a n life. T h e
cities a n d a g r i c u l t u r e m e n t i o n e d h e r e are p a r a l l e l e d i n
L u c r e t i u s , a n d b o t h w r i t e r s are r e f e r r i n g t o t h e same p e r i o d — t h e g e n e r a t i o n s j u s t before t h e T r o j a n w a r , w h i c h w i t n e s s e d t h e l a b o r s o f H e r a c l e s a n d w e r e t h e earliest p e r i o d d e a l t w i t h i n G r e e k p o e t r y .
4 1
T h e s h i p - f i l l e d sea a n d
t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l alliances o f 1 4 4 2 - 4 3 are p o s s i b l y references t o t h e n a v y o f A g a m e m n o n a n d t h e o a t h o f t h e s u i t o r s , b o t h o f w h i c h figured i n a n e a r l i e r and
m o r e f a m o u s analysis o f t h e state o f society d e s c r i b e d i n t h e
Greek poetry (Thucydides 1.9).
4 2
earliest
D i o d o r u s a n d Lucretius thus characterize
t h e same p e r i o d — t h e t i m e o f t h e T r o j a n w a r a n d t h e g e n e r a t i o n s i m m e d i a t e l y preceding i t — i n identical terms; a n d contrast i t , explicitly or i m p l i c i t l y , w i t h w h a t h a d g o n e b e f o r e . C o n c e i v a b l y , D i o d o r u s d r e w his o b s e r v a t i o n s f r o m a context s i m i l a r to the one i n w h i c h t h e i r L u c r e t i a n c o u n t e r p a r t appears. F u r t h e r e v i d e n c e f o r t h e existence o f s u c h a c o n t e x t i n D i o d o r u s ' source is provided by 8 B .
4 3
T h e passage is f r o m a t r a n s i t i o n a l s e c t i o n a t t h e e n d o f t h e
i n t r o d u c t i o n t o B o o k I , w h e r e i t is c l e a r l y o u t o f p l a c e .
4 4
T h e remarks o n the
l a t e o r i g i n o f w r i t i n g a n d w r i t t e n r e c o r d s (here h i s t o r y r a t h e r t h a n p o e t r y ) are t h e same w h i c h L u c r e t i u s makes, a n d D i o d o r u s i n t r o d u c e s these r e m a r k s , j u s t as L u c r e t i u s does, i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e m e n t i o n o f a s i t u a t i o n ( h e r e r u l e b y k i n g s ) w h o s e presence is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e earliest p e r i o d d e s c r i b e d i n w r i t t e n a c c o u n t s . K i n g s h i p o b v i o u s l y a n t e d a t e s these r e c o r d s , j u s t as does t h e c i t y l i f e t o w h i c h L u c r e t i u s refers (cf. iam i n 1 4 4 0 ) ; h e n c e k i n g s h i p r e ceives f r o m these records o n l y a terminus ante quern. T h e e a r l i e r phases o f k i n g ship, like the p r i o r history o f the developed c i v i l i z a t i o n described i n 1440-44, c a n n o t be k n o w n i n d e t a i l w i t h a n y a c c u r a c y . T h e s i m i l a r i t i e s h e r e are r a t h e r e x t e n s i v e ; g i v e n t h e o t h e r p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n t h e t w o texts, t h e y m a y w e l l b e more t h a n coincidental. T h e passages g i v e n u n d e r h e a d i n g 8 f o r m a n a t u r a l c o n c l u s i o n to w h a t has been
a
remarkably
consistent
and
closely-reasoned
whole.
Even
more
strongly t h a n the v e r b a l parallels p o i n t e d o u t i n C h a p t e r I , this u n d e r l y i n g 4 1
Presumably the poets to whom Lucretius refers are those of the epic cycle. T h e earliest events they recounted (apart from the mythical Titanomachia) were those of the Theban cycle, contemporary with the labors of Heracles or slightly before them. A similar line of reasoning on the origin of heroic poetry may lie behind an item in Pliny's catalogue of inventors: de poematum origine magna quaestio. ante Troianum helium probantur fuisse 4 2
(MH 7 . 2 0 5 ) .
O n the parallels between Lucretius 5 . 1 4 4 0 - 4 7 and the Archaeology see, in general, M . F .
Smith, "Lucretius, De rerum natura, v.
1 4 4 0 - 7 , " Hermathena 98 (1964) 4 9 - 5 0 .
The parallel between this passage and Lucretius 5 . 1 4 4 4 - 4 7 was first pointed out by Dahlmann, 39, note 1. See Appendix I , pp. 177-78 and i g i . 4 3
4 4
46
D E M O C R I T U S AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
u n i t y a n d c o h e r e n c e o f p l a n r e q u i r e s t h e t h e o r y o f a c o m m o n source.
One
f u r t h e r t y p e o f e v i d e n c e r e m a i n s t o b e c o n s i d e r e d . I f o u r texts c a n b e s h o w n t o b e c h a r a c t e r i z e d , n o t s i m p l y b y a u n i t y , b u t also b y a u n i q u e n e s s o f p l a n , t h e i r d e r i v a t i o n f r o m a c o m m o n source c a n b e r e g a r d e d as a l m o s t c e r t a i n . O b v i o u s l y , c e r t a i n features o f t h e v i e w o f p r e h i s t o r y w e h a v e j u s t a n a l y z e d c a n b e p a r a l l e l e d e l s e w h e r e ; b u t t h a t t h e v i e w , t a k e n as a w h o l e , is v i r t u a l l y u n i q u e w i l l b e c o m e c l e a r as w e a t t e m p t t o d e f i n e its essential c h a r a c t e r a n d c o n s i d e r i t i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e basic c o n c e p t i o n s w h i c h u n d e r l i e o t h e r a n c i e n t discussions o f t h e o r i g i n o f t e c h n o l o g y .
CHAPTER ALTERNATE
PATTERNS
O F KUL
POSSIBLE
The
character
THREE TURGESCHICHTE:
SOURCES
o f t h e h i s t o r i c a l process as c o n c e i v e d
i n t h e texts
under
e x a m i n a t i o n is c o r r e c t l y , t h o u g h o n l y p a r t i a l l y , d e s c r i b e d b y t h e s u m m a r y references, p r i n t e d t o g e t h e r u n d e r Stage 6 ( a b o v e , p . 4 0 ) , t o t h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f n e e d , i n t e l l i g e n c e , h a n d s , a n d erect s t a t u r e . A l l these factors e n t e r i n t o t h e process o f h u m a n d e v e l o p m e n t ; y e t i t w o u l d b e i m p o s s i b l e , g i v e n a b a r e m e n t i o n o f t h e m a n d n o t h i n g m o r e , t o r e c o n s t r u c t t h e course w h i c h t h a t d e v e l o p m e n t takes. O n e c o u l d o n l y say t h a t t h e c o n c e p t i o n o f progress i n v o l v e d is c l e a r l y n a t u r a l i s t i c a n d a n t i - t e l e o l o g i c a l , e v e n i f i t does n o t ascribe e v e r y t h i n g t o b i o l o g i c a l necessity. I t w o u l d be i m p o s s i b l e t o a d d m u c h specific o r d e t a i l e d i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e w a y i n w h i c h t h i s c o n c e p t i o n is d e v e l o p e d . T h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t a n d m o s t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f e a t u r e o f o u r five texts is t o be f o u n d e l s e w h e r e — i n
t h e i m p o r t a n c e w h i c h a l l o f t h e m assign t o t h e
individual technological
a d v a n c e , a n a d v a n c e w h i c h is a l w a y s p l a u s i b l y
accounted f o r i n terms o f empiricist psychology
as t h e r e s u l t o f a c c i d e n t ,
i m i t a t i o n , o r suggestion. T h e h u m a n m o t i v a t i o n i n e a c h episode is b a s i c a l l y u t i l i t a r i a n , t h o u g h h e d o n i s t i c factors p l a y t h e i r r o l e . T h e w a r m t h o f t h e a n d t h e b r i g h t p a t c h e s o f c o n g e a l e d m e t a l a t t r a c t first b y t h e p l e a s u r e
fire they
a f f o r d ; a p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e i r usefulness comes o n l y l a t e r . A n d i n t h e a d o p t i o n o f g r a i n as a f o o d ( D i o d o r u s [ 4 D ] ) , p l e a s u r e , t h o u g h i t comes first, is doubtless as i m p o r t a n t as u t i l i t a r i a n c o n s i d e r a t i o n s ( p u t t i n g a n e n d t o c a n n i b a l i s m ) i n effecting t h e c h a n g e . S u c h i n d i v i d u a l episodes a r e t h e basic a n d essential units i n t h e e n t i r e c u l t u r a l process. Progress is s i m p l y a n a c c u m u l a t i o n o f t h e m , m u l t i p l i e d i n d e f i n i t e l y because o f t h e social c h a r a c t e r o f t h e m e d i u m i n w h i c h t h e y o c c u r . F o r t h e g r a d u a l i s t i c c o n c e p t i o n o f the i n v e n t i v e process i n v o l v e d h e r e t o b e a c c e p t a b l e , t h e r e m u s t b e n o gaps i n t h e
final
account,
no stages i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f c u l t u r e w h i c h are n o t t h o r o u g h l y m o t i v a t e d . H e n c e t h e d e t a i l w i t h w h i c h e a c h episode is d e s c r i b e d a n d t h e p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h e s t a b l i s h i n g a p r o p e r sequence o f d e v e l o p m e n t s Lucretius a n d Posidonius.
1
w h i c h is e v i d e n t i n
H i s t o r y , t h o u g h b u i l t u p o f discrete events, m u s t
a t t e m p t t o a p p r o x i m a t e a c o n t i n u u m a t a l l p o i n t s . I t is t h i s a t t e m p t w h i c h 1
Cf., for Lucretius, 5 . 1 3 5 0 - 5 3 (Stage 5 D , above), and for Posidonius, Seneca's contemptuous
reference (90.13) to the subtilis quaeslio as to whether forcipes or malleus came first.
47
48
DEMOGRITUS AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K
ANTHROPOLOGY
gives t o o u r a c c o u n t s t h e i r essential a n d m o s t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f e a t u r e s ; a n d i t is t h i s w h i c h s h o u l d f o r m t h e p o i n t o f d e p a r t u r e i n t h e a t t e m p t t o p l a c e t h e i r theory i n t o the general context o f ancient Euhemerist
a n d heurematistic
Kulturgeschichte.
writings.
T h e texts c o n s i d e r e d i n
C h a p t e r s O n e a n d T w o a r e i n a sense c a t a l o g u e s o f i n v e n t i o n s ; a n d o n e o f those texts, D i o d o r u s 1 . 1 3 - 2 9 , l i n k s i t s Kulturgeschichte
v e r y closely t o a n ex-
p l a n a t i o n o f t h e o r i g i n o f r e l i g i o n w h i c h is q u i t e s i m i l a r t o t h a t g i v e n b y E u h e m e r u s (see b e l o w , p p . 1 5 3 - 5 5 ) .
x
t
s h o u l d t h u s c o m e as n o surprise t h a t
t h e w r i t i n g s o f e u h e m e r i z e r s a n d h e u r e m a t i s t s p r o v i d e t h e closest p a r a l l e l s o f d e t a i l t o o u r f i v e a c c o u n t s . I n these w o r k s o n e f i n d s o n o c c a s i o n , i n a d d i t i o n to the simple m e n t i o n o f a n inventor, divine or h u m a n , a description o f the
actual
process o f d i s c o v e r y
w h i c h recalls
Diodorus,
Vitruvius, and
L u c r e t i u s . So, f o r e x a m p l e , w e a r e t o l d t h a t t h e P h o e n i c i a n s d i s c o v e r e d t h e use o f T y r i a n p u r p l e w h e n a d o g b i t i n t o a shell l y i n g o n t h e b e a c h a n d stained its m o u t h ; a n d p o e t r y came i n t o being w h e n a chance r h y t h m i c a l utterance struck t h e fancy o f a listener, w h o t h e n i m i t a t e d its p a t t e r n h i m self.
2
T h e m o s t s i g n i f i c a n t a n d extensive o f such passages is t h e o n e f r o m
Leo o n the origins o f weaving
(see a b o v e , p p . 3 8 - 3 9 ) . T h e t r a d i t i o n r e p -
resented i n o u r texts w a s t h u s n o t a l o n e i n t h e w a y i t c o n c e i v e d o f t h e separ a t e stages o f t h e i n v e n t i v e process. B u t w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f D i o d o r u s I , where
t h e r e has b e e n e x t e n s i v e c o n t a m i n a t i o n , n e i t h e r e u h e m e r i z e r s n o r
heurematists
offer a n y c l e a r p a r a l l e l t o t h e w a y i n w h i c h o u r t r a d i t i o n
v i e w e d t h e i n v e n t i v e process as a w h o l e . T h e e n t i r e t e n d e n c y o f t h e c a r e f u l analysis w h i c h o u r texts g i v e t o t h e r o l e p l a y e d b y a c c i d e n t a n d suggestion i n t h a t process is t o s h o w t h a t i n v e n t i o n s , e v e n i f t h e y go b a c k t o i n d i v i d u a l s , are n o t h i n g o u t o f t h e o r d i n a r y . M a n y o f t h e m a r e i n s i g n i f i c a n t w h e n c o n s i d e r e d s e p a r a t e l y ; i t is o n l y t h e i r c u m u l a t i v e effect w h i c h is a b l e t o t r a n s f o r m the character
o f m a n ' s existence. F o r t h e e u h e m e r i s t , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d ,
i n d i v i d u a l discoveries a r e s o m e t h i n g so o u t o f t h e o r d i n a r y t h a t t h e y r e s u l t i n t h e c o n f e r r i n g o f d i v i n e h o n o r s o n t h e m a n responsible f o r t h e m . T h e t w o t r a d i t i o n s m i g h t w e l l b o r r o w a n d a d o p t motifs f r o m each o t h e r ;
3
a n d either
See Cassiodorus, Variae 1.2.7 (Tyrian purple); Gregory Nazianzenus, Or. 4 . 1 0 8 (poetry). O f particular significance is Cassiodorus' comment: "ut est mos hominibus occasiones repentinas ad artes ducere, talia exempla meditantes, fecerunt principibus decus nobile." Resemblances between the heuremata given by Cassiodorus and the list in Hyginus 2 7 4 (see Knaacke, Hermes 1 6 . 5 9 3 - 6 0 0 ; Kremmer, go—94) show that the account they follow is at least as old as the second century A . D . 2
T h e most conspicuous example is, of course, the euhemerized and Egyptianized Kulturgeschichte of Diodorus I . A long list of less extensive borrowings could easily be compiled. So, for example, Dionysus is credited with introducing the art of food gathering (Diodorus 2.38.5), Isis or Osiris with the discovery of grain and the ending of cannibalism (Plutarch, Is. et Os. 13.356A; Apuleius, Met. 11.2; and the aretalogies collected and edited by Harder, AbhBerlin 1943, 1 4 . 7 - 2 3 ) ; and Uranus with the introduction of agriculture (Diodorus 3.56.3). T h e euhemerizing account of 3
A L T E R N A T E PATTERNS OF
49
POSSIBLE SOURCES
KULTURGESCHICHTE:
c o u l d i n c o r p o r a t e o n o c c a s i o n t h e p o i n t o f v i e w w h i c h is t y p i c a l o f t h e o t h e r . T h e e u h e m e r i s t m i g h t find some i n v e n t i o n s t o o t r i v i a l t o serve as aitiai
satisfactory
for a d i v i n e c u l t ; a n d the o t h e r school c o u l d recognize occasions w h e n
t h e a c h i e v e m e n t o f a n i n d i v i d u a l w a s so r e m a r k a b l e recognition f r o m society. basic d i f f e r e n c e The
in
4
as t o w i n h i m s p e c i a l
S u c h m i n o r p a r a l l e l s d o n o t , h o w e v e r , lessen t h e
approach.
heurematistic
writers,
insofar
as
they
speak
of mortals
or
whole
n a t i o n s as i n v e n t o r s , o f f e r a s o m e w h a t closer p a r a l l e l . B u t t h e r e s e m b l a n c e is still o n l y p a r t i a l . T h e
w h o l e idea o f assigning to n a m e d inventors the
most
basic d i s c o v e r i e s is o u t o f k e e p i n g w i t h t h e t h e o r e t i c a l a n d i n f e r e n t i a l m e t h o d announced
at the end o f Lucretius V . Such a procedure
belongs to history,
not prehistory. Moreover, t h o u g h heurematistic works need not always have taken the f o r m o f bare catalogues,
5
any coherent arrangement
they gave to
their narrative w o u l d almost inevitably have been topical, t r a c i n g the g r o w t h of each a r t f r o m its b e g i n n i n g would life
have
almost
made
any
impossible.
6
to the
connected Once
more,
author's
historical i t is
own
day.
Such
reconstruction
fairly
clear
that,
of
a
method
primitive
i f there
are
Diodorus V (source unknown) contains a whole series of such attributions. Mnemosyne is the discoverer of writing (67.3), Hestia of houses ( 6 8 . i ) , the Idaean dactyls of metallurgy (64.1), the Guretes of hunting (64.1), etc. Cf. also the "Phoenician" anthropology of Sanchuniathon preserved in Eusebius, where the casas, ignem, and pellis of Lucretius 5.1 o 11 are traced back to the gods Phlox, Pyr, and Phos and to their grandchildren Hypsouranos and Ousoos (FGrH 7 9 0 F 2 , p. 8 0 8 . 2 - 1 4 ) . Cf. the account of the origin of kingship analyzed below, pp. 9 0 - 9 3 , and the parallels between it and Diodorus' account of the origin of animal worship (Chap. V I , note 2 0 ) . Kremmer (91, note 1) calls attention to a number of notices in Pliny's catalogue and elsewhere which mention not only the invention but the state of affairs prior to it (e.g. JVH 7.191: Ceres 4
5
frumentum invenit cum antea glande vescerentur; 7.209: tecta longa lhasii
invenerunt; antea ex prora tantum et
puppi pugnabatur; and FGrH 7 0 F 5 [Ephorus], which traces a sequence in the development of different varieties of loom). Such passages suggest to Kremmer that heurematistic works may have contained, on occasion, non modo nomina enumerata sedetiam narrationem contextam. This may be so, though Thraede's
analysis ( 1 2 3 5 - 4 1 ) of the methods of "research" which have gone into the composition of surviving lists shows that most, at any rate, of the authors who belong to this tradition were concerned with the " traditionsbildende Geltung bestimmer Namen, nicht um die Weitergabe wissenschaftlich gemeinter Erkenntnisse" (RhM 105.186). * Pliny's example is instructive. The order in which he arranges his heuremata is as follows: ( 1 ) divine inventors, (2) writing, (3) architecture, (4) clothing, (5) medicine, (6) metallurgy, (7) agriculture, (8) government, (9) warfare, (10) manlike, (11) music, (12) literature, (13) games, (14) painting, (15) seafaring, (16) animal sacrifices. Certain parallels with the order which lies behind our texts can be discerned here. (3) and (4) correspond to Stages 3 A and B ; ( 6 ) , ( 7 ) , and (9) to 5 B , C , and E (with warfare following instead of preceding agriculture); and (11) through (14) to the arts of leisure (Stage 7 ) . That there is some connection here is quite possible (see further Uxkull-Gyllenband, 4 5 , with note 2 4 , on the possible use of heurematistic sources by Posidonius). But Pliny's account is basically different from the ones with which we are concerned in that it lists under each heading the simplest as well as the most complex of inventions—the individual heuretai of historical times with the nameless and collective ones of prehistory.
D E M O C R I T U S
5°
connections borrowings.
with
A N DT H E
our
S O U R C E S OF
tradition,
they
G R E E K
do
not
A N T H R O P O L O G Y
extend
beyond
scattered
7
I n c o m p a r i n g this t r a d i t i o n w i t h other ancient treatments o f the
develop-
m e n t o f t e c h n o l o g y o n e finds c o n t r a s t s d i f f e r e n t i n k i n d b u t n o less s i g n i f i c a n t t h a n t h e ones j u s t c o n s i d e r e d .
T h e b o d y o f works surveyed i n the I n t r o d u c -
t i o n c o n t a i n s m a n y passages t o o f r a g m e n t a r y o r a l l u s i v e t o p r o v i d e a satisf a c t o r y basis f o r c o m p a r i s o n .
T h e s e m a y f o r p r e s e n t p u r p o s e s b e i g n o r e d , as
w e l l as those w h i c h o f f e r w h a t is e s s e n t i a l l y a n e n u m e r a t i o n o f a c h i e v e m e n t s rather t h a n a connected analysis.
8
that,
gradual
like
our
texts,
envision
a
W e a r e l e f t w i t h a d o z e n o r so a c c o u n t s development
assign a p r o m i n e n t r o l e i n t h i s d e v e l o p m e n t
o f technology
to the workings o f need
and and
u t i l i t y . B u t a l l o f t h e m a r e m a r k e d , e i t h e r b y a t o t a l absence o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r h i s t o r i c a l m e t h o d o l o g y w e a r e l o o k i n g f o r , o r else b y a l i m i t a t i o n o f its use i n favor o f quite different procedures.
T h e i r n u m b e r is n o t l a r g e ; h e n c e t h e y
m a y be p r o f i t a b l y considered i n d i v i d u a l l y for points o f s i m i l a r i t y a n d trast to o u r
five
con-
texts.
T h e Protagoras
m y t h . P r o t a g o r a s , i f P l a t o ' s a c c o u n t is t o b e
connected the g r o w t h o f technology
(demiourgike
credited,
techne) w i t h t h e l a c k o f a n y
' One or two obvious places where heurematists may have borrowed from our tradition should be noted here. "Sanchuniathon" (above, note 3) assigns to a certain Aion the discovery of the nourishment from trees by which men originally sustained themselves (FGrti
7 9 0 F 2 , p. 8 0 7 . 2 1 ) ,
and Pliny (NH 7.194) makes Toxius the discoverer of lutei aedificii, exemplo sumpto ab hirundinum nidis
(cf. Democritus B 1 5 4 ) . A slightly more complicated transfer of material is evident in the following passages: H Y G I N U S 274.22
C A S S I O D O R U S , Variae 1.30.5
P L I N Y , NH 7.200
Afri et Aegyptii primum fusti-
inter adversarios . . . non erant
proelium Afri contra Aegyptos
bus dimicaverunt. post a Belo
prius armata certamina, sed
primum fecere fustibus.
. . . gladio
pugnis se quamlibet fervida
belligeratum
unde bellum est dictum.
est
lacessebat
intentio.
unde
et
pugna nomen accepit; postea Belus ferreum gladium primus produxit,
a
quo
et
bellum
placuit nominari. This foolish bit of speculation could not have stood originally in a catalogue of inventors. I t must have once been a general observation about the development of warfare (cf. Lucretius 5 . 1 2 8 3 - 8 6 ) which occurred in an Egyptian context (cf. Diodorus 1.24.3, discussed above, p. 3 8 , with note 2 2 , and pp. 44—45). What appeared there as an indication of the first method of fighting used by the Egyptians against their neighbors (Aegyptii primum . . . deinde . . .) has become an assertion that the Egyptians were the first to fight in this fashion (in effect, Aegyptiiprimi. . . deinde alii. . . ) . T h e notice is of some use, since it gives added reason for linking Diodorus' account of the Egyptian Heracles (1.24.3) with the main body of his Kulturgeschichte and so with Lucretius 5 . 1 4 4 0 - 4 3 (see above, pp. 4 4 - 4 5 ) . For further instances where the heurematists may have borrowed from the tradition we are examining, see below, Chap. I V , note 15. As, for example, the first stasimon of Sophocles' Antigone and parts of the Prometheus. These texts, though they may reproduce speculation closely akin to that which lies behind our five texts, are in their present form mere catalogues. 8
A L T E R N A T E PATTERNS OF
51
P O S S I B L E SOURCES
KULTURGESCHICHTE:
n a t u r a l m e a n s o f p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e forces o f n a t u r e u n d e r w h i c h m a n , u n l i k e o t h e r a n i m a l s , l a b o r s . H e also c o n n e c t e d t h e f o r m a t i o n o f t h e social m o r a l i t y o n w h i c h society rests (politike
techne) w i t h a s i m i l a r weakness i n t h e
face o f t h e w i l d a n i m a l s w h i c h t h r e a t e n m a n ' s s u r v i v a l . T h e g e n e r a l p i c t u r e o f m a n ' s earliest m o d e o f existence d r a w n i n t h e m y t h recalls o u r t e x t s , as 9
does its d o u b l e focus o n b o t h t e c h n o l o g i c a l a n d social d e v e l o p m e n t . A n d t h e reason f o r t h e f o r m a t i o n o f society w h i c h i t gives is e x a c t l y t h e o n e w h i c h appears i n D i o d o r u s ( 4 A ) . B u t P r o t a g o r a s ' p r e s e n t a t i o n , t h o u g h i t has a h i s t o r i c a l s e t t i n g , is b a s i c a l l y a n a l y t i c . T h e politike
techne a n d demiourgike
techne w h i c h m e n " a c q u i r e " i n successive stages r e p r e s e n t s i m p l y a c o n v e n i e n t w a y o f classifying those skills w h i c h m e n m u s t h a v e i f the species is t o survive;
1 0
t h e r e is n o reason w h y t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f o n e s h o u l d f o l l o w t h a t
o f the o t h e r , as i t does i n P l a t o ' s a c c o u n t . T h e t h e o l o g i c a l aspect o f the
myth,
w h i c h m a k e s demiourgike techne a n d politike techne t h e gifts, r e s p e c t i v e l y , o f P r o m e t h e u s a n d Zeus t o m a n k i n d , has o f t e n b e e n suspected as a P l a t o n i c a d d i t i o n t o t h e t h o u g h t o f the a g n o s t i c P r o t a g o r a s .
1 1
I f so, t h e o r i g i n a l c o n c e p t i o n
m a y h a v e b e e n t h a t society a n d t e c h n o l o g y are s u r v i v a l m e c h a n i s m s d e v e l o p e d g r a d u a l l y b y m a n k i n d t o c o m p e n s a t e f o r his p h y s i c a l i n f e r i o r i t y t o t h e o t h e r animals.
1 2
T h i s suggestion, w h i c h p u t s t h e m o s t n a t u r a l i s t i c possible i n t e r -
p r e t a t i o n o n t h e c o n t e n t s o f t h e m y t h , p e r h a p s o v e r c o m p e n s a t e s f o r suspected Platonic r e w o r k i n g .
1 3
B u t e v e n i f i t is c o r r e c t , P r o t a g o r a s ' a c c o u n t
does n o t g o b e y o n d a v a g u e l y c o n c e i v e d t h e o r y o f c h a l l e n g e a n d r e s p o n s e ; of the m o r e careful a n d detailed naturalistic reconstruction o f history w i t h w h i c h w e a r e c o n c e r n e d t h e r e is n o t r a c e . ' I n particular, the four necessities of life which form the subject of the sub-headings of Stage I are present in Prot. 3 2 1 A - D . Summary versions of the list, or of portions of it, are, however, fairly frequent (cf. Plato, Rep. 2.369D; Cicero, Tusc. 1.62; Dio of Prusa 6 . 2 8 ; Pausanias 8 . 1 . 4 - 6 ; Origen, Contra Cels. 4.76; Themistius 3 2 3 c ; Nemesius, Nat. horn. 50-51 Matthaei). Here, as elsewhere, the parallels between the Protagoras myth and our texts do not extend beyond the commonplace. For this interpretation see Kleingiinther, 105-6. See Havelock, 4 0 7 - 9 , with the literature cited there. A teleological version of this idea appears in Origen's polemic against Celsus (see Cataudella, RendlstLomb 7 0 . 1 8 6 - 9 3 ) . Celsus had evidently adduced the usual Academic and Epicurean (cf. Lucretius 5.195-234) argument against pronoia based on man's obvious weakness and unsuitability for survival. Origen replies (4.76) that such natural disabilities are a part of God's plan, in order to stimulate man to the mental activity and technological achievements which will make up for them 1 0
1 1
1 2
(cf. Virgil, Georgics 1.121—46: Jove puts an end to the Golden Age ut varias usus meditando extunderei
artes). A non-teleological version of the idea, though in connection with the development of a single techne, appears in De vet. med. 3 : the art of medicine owes its origin to the fact that man was less well equipped than the other animals with sufficient trophe. His inability to live on the roots and grasses which sufficed for them led eventually to the scientific study of diet. The idea may simply be that man's techne, like the wings of the birds or the swift feet of the hare, is part of the isonomia of creation which insures survival to all species (cf. Herodotus 3.108; the teleological passages assembled by Dickermann, 6 9 - 7 1 , in which logos or docilitas takes the place of the technai mentioned by Protagoras; and, for related ideas in the Presocratics, G . VlastoSj "Equality andjustice in Early Greek Cosmologies," CP 42 [1947] 156-78). , 1 3
52
D E M O G R I T U S AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
Republic
I I . Socrates'
a c c o u n t o f t h e o r i g i n o f t h e polis
resembles
our
texts i n d i s t i n g u i s h i n g b e t w e e n " e s s e n t i a l " a n d " n o n - e s s e n t i a l " arts ( t h e d o m a i n s , r e s p e c t i v e l y , o f t h e s i m p l e a n d l u x u r i o u s states), b u t P l a t o makes no
effort to e x p l a i n i n historical terms h o w the division o f labor between
farmer, carpenter, weaver,
a n d s h o e m a k e r , w h i c h he assumes t o be t h e
o r i g i n a l o n e i n h u m a n society, comes i n t o b e i n g . T h e w h o l e passage is analytic, l a c k i n g even the superficially historical a p p r o a c h o f the Protagoras myth. Timaeus,
Critias,
Politicus;
Aristotle.
I n a t h e o r y set f o r t h
with
m i n o r v a r i a t i o n i n t h r e e o f his l a t e w o r k s , P l a t o envisions t h e p r e s e n t i n h a b i t a n t s o f t h e e a r t h as descendants o f t h e s c a t t e r e d s u r v i v o r s o f a c a t a c l y s m w h i c h d e s t r o y e d a p r e v i o u s c i v i l i z a t i o n a n d necessitated a s l o w a n d l a b o r i o u s r e a c q u i s i t i o n o f t h e needs o f l i f e .
1 4
Aristotle, to judge f r o m a later Peripa-
t e t i c a c c o u n t o f p r e h i s t o r y w h i c h is u s u a l l y b e l i e v e d t o r e p r o d u c e a t h e o r y t h a t a p p e a r e d first i n t h e De philosophia,
15
f o l l o w e d P l a t o i n his n o t i o n o f
r e c u r r e n t c a t a c l y s m s ; h e seems, h o w e v e r , t o h a v e b e e n m o r e i n t e r e s t e d t h a n his m a s t e r i n t r a c i n g t h e d i f f e r e n t stages i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f c i v i l i z a t i o n . B e g i n n i n g w i t h a p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h t h e necessities o f l i f e , m e n d e v e l o p t h e f i n e a r t s , t h e n t h e a r t o f statecraft, t h e n n a t u r a l p h i l o s o p h y , a n d f i n a l l y metaphysics.
1 6
A r i s t o t l e , w i t h his d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e f i n e a n d useful
arts, a n d b o t h philosophers, w i t h their n o t i o n o f a laborious d e v e l o p m e n t o f t e c h n i q u e s t o m e e t t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s i n h e r e n t i n m a n ' s n a t u r a l c o n d i t i o n , show p o i n t s o f c o n t a c t w i t h o u r texts. T h e r e is n o d e t a i l e d a c c o u n t o f t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e arts i n t h e s u m m a r y r e p o r t s o f A r i s t o t l e ' s a c c o u n t w h i c h s u r v i v e , but
i t is c o n c e i v a b l e t h a t s u c h a n analysis d i d s t a n d i n t h e o r i g i n a l t e x t ,
r e f l e c t i n g , l i k e t h e b r i e f n o t i c e s i n P l a t o ' s l a t e w o r k s , t h e c o n t e n t o f discussions h e l d i n t h e A c a d e m y i n t h e m i d d l e o f t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y . But
P l a t o a n d A r i s t o t l e , e v e n i f t h e y a l l o w f o r a n analysis o f p r e h i s t o r y
s o m e w h a t s i m i l a r t o w h a t appears i n D i o d o r u s , V i t r u v i u s , a n d L u c r e t i u s , c o m b i n e t h i s analysis w i t h c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f a c o m p l e t e l y d i f f e r e n t o r d e r . 1 4
Gf. Critias
I O O B - H O D , Tim. 2 2 B - 2 5 D , Pol.
273A-74D.
The account (pp. 7 5 - 7 7 Ross) is preserved in John Philoponus' commentary to the Isagoge of Nicomachus of Gerasa ( 1 . 8 - 2 . 4 2 Hoche) and in Asclepius' commentary on the Metaphysics (10.28— 11.36 Hayduck); see A. J . Festugiere, La Revelation a"Hermes trismegiste 2 (Paris 1949) 5 8 7 - 9 1 , with the literature cited there. The attribution to Aristotle is disputed by L . Taran, AJP 87 (1966) 4 6 7 - 6 8 . For an Academic treatment of the same theme, see Epinomis 9 7 4 E - 7 6 C , which discusses the various achievements which at one time might have earned a man the title sophos but are no longer sufficient to do so. T h e classification of these achievements partly approximates the division into historical epochs given by Aristotle: 9 7 4 E - 7 5 C , on arts leading to the acquisition of anankaia, is followed by 9 7 5 D , on paidia (music, dancing, painting). And common to both authors is the notion that skill in devising techniques for survival is an early, but outmoded, form of sophia. See also below, pp. 103—4. 1 5
1 6
A L T E R N A T E
P A T T E R N S O FK U L T U R G E S C H I C H T E :
POSSIBLE SOURCES
53
T h e phase o f h u m a n h i s t o r y w h i c h witnesses t h e g r o w t h o f t e c h n o l o g y is o n l y p a r t o f a l a r g e r m o v e m e n t . F o r P l a t o i t represents o n e phase o f a c y c l e , t h e o t h e r o f w h i c h is t h e age o f t h e i d e a l i z e d A t h e n s o f t h e A t l a n t i s m y t h o r the wise a n d b e n e v o l e n t r u l e o f daimones d e s c r i b e d i n t h e Politicus—times
when
t h e r e w a s n o n e e d f o r t h e s l o w a n d l a b o r i o u s quest o f necessities w h i c h c h a r a c t e r i z e d t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e p r e s e n t e r a . A r i s t o t l e does n o t e n v i s i o n such p e r i o d s o f f e l i c i t y , b u t he does see t h e g r o w t h o f t e c h n o l o g y as a p r e l u d e to a n o b v i o u s l y h i g h e r stage o f d e v e l o p m e n t , w h e r e d i s i n t e r e s t e d s p e c u l a t i o n on the n a t u r e o f the universe a n d p u r e b e i n g occupies man's a t t e n t i o n . T h e Platonic a n d A r i s t o t e l i a n conceptions
are different, b u t they result i n a
s i m i l a r d o w n g r a d i n g o f t e c h n o l o g y . E i t h e r i t is l a r g e l y i r r e l e v a n t t o t h e t o t a l scheme o f t h i n g s — a n i n a d e q u a t e e f f o r t t o r e c o v e r t h a t p e r f e c t i o n o f m a t e r i a l w e l l - b e i n g w h i c h b e l o n g s p r o p e r l y t o a n o t h e r age a n d a n o t h e r o r d e r o f existence;
17
o r else i t is a m e r e p r e p a r a t i o n f o r w h a t is o b v i o u s l y t o b e m a n ' s
true vocation. I t is h a r d t o b e l i e v e t h a t such a t t i t u d e s c o u l d ever g i v e rise t o a n a c c o u n t o f c u l t u r a l o r i g i n s c e n t e r e d , as those o f D i o d o r u s , V i t r u v i u s , a n d L u c r e t i u s are, o n a n analysis o f t e c h n o l o g y . T h e l a t t e r s u b j e c t m a y be discussed, b u t only incidentally, b y w a y o f postscript to U t o p i a o r Prolegomena History o f Philosophy. and
1 8
to the
W h a t the Platonic a n d Aristotelian attitude could
i n fact e v e n t u a l l y d i d g i v e rise t o , w h e n c o m b i n e d w i t h o n e s i m i l a r t o
t h a t f o u n d i n o u r texts, is t h e Kulturgeschichte
o f Posidonius. T h e l a t t e r was
obviously impressed b o t h w i t h the achievements o f technology a n d w i t h the attempts o f certain thinkers to supply a naturalistic account o f their origin. B u t as a teleologist he c o u l d n o t h e l p v i e w i n g m a s t e r y o f t h e useful arts as a s u b o r d i n a t e a n d p r e p a r a t o r y m a n i f e s t a t i o n o f m a n ' s genius. T o a c c o m m o d a t e b o t h aspects o f his t h i n k i n g he f o u n d i t necessary t o m o d i f y t h e A r i s t o t e l i a n O n this aspect of the Politicus myth, see Havelock, 43. Even such ideas on the subject as Aristotle and the Academy have may reflect the theories and work of their predecessors rather than their own. Behind the presentation of cultural development found both in the Epinomis and in Aristotle (cf., in addition to the passages cited above [note 1 5 ] , Met. 1 . 9 8 1 B 1 3 - 2 2 ) , there probably lies a polemic against those, Isocrates in particular, who condemn speculative philosophy as useless (see Einarson, TAP A 6 7 . 2 6 4 - 7 2 , 2 8 2 - 8 4 ) . T h e polemic, however, uses the ideas of these same opponents: their exclusion of philosophy from among the useful arts is accepted, as is their division of the latter into those which pertain to necessity and luxury (cf. Isocrates, Paneg. 4 0 , Bus. 15). But philosophy, by virtue of its being sought for its own sake rather than for any extraneous utility or pleasure it may confer, represents a higher calling. Since it is good for nothing, it must be good in itself. I f the classification oftechnai into which Aristotle introduces philosophy as a third and higher branch is taken over from his predecessors, so may be the history of civilization to which, in his view, the study of philosophy forms the final and culminating phase. (On the derivative character of Peripatetic and Academic Kulturgeschichte, see also below, pp. 104-5, and Sikes, The Anthropology of the Greeks 6 1 - 6 2 , who notes the contrast between Democritus B154 and the suggestion in HA 9 . 6 1 2 B 1 8 - 2 1 that birds learned to build nests by imitating human dwellings. The latter passage may be a deliberate correction of the former.) 1 7
1 8
54
DEMOGRITUS AND T H E SOURCES OF G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
n o t i o n o f t e c h n o l o g y as a p r o l o g u e t o p h i l o s o p h y . W h a t h a d b e e n a m e r e c u r t a i n - r a i s e r n o w becomes A c t O n e a n d receives t h e same cast o f c h a r a c t e r s as t h e rest o f t h e p l a y . O n l y b y t h i s m o d e o f p r o c e d u r e w a s i t possible t o j u s t i f y a m o r e extensive a n d m o r e s y m p a t h e t i c t r e a t m e n t o f t h e s u b j e c t . But
t h e p h i l o s o p h e r s , as Seneca p o i n t s o u t , sit v e r y i l l i n t h e i r n e w r o l e s .
1 9
2 0
T h e g u l f b e t w e e n A r i s t o t l e ' s a t t i t u d e t o w a r d t e c h n o l o g y a n d t h a t o f o u r five texts is n o w h e r e m o r e e v i d e n t t h a n i n P o s i d o n i u s ' f a i l u r e t o effect a satisfactory compromise between them. Laws
I I I . H e r e P l a t o keeps t h e c a t a c l y s m t h e o r y o f t h e Timaeus a n d
Politicus
b u t introduces a n e w element. T h e p e r i o d w h i c h follows the cata-
c l y s m is n o t o n e o f c o m p l e t e d e p r i v a t i o n ; r a t h e r , m e n r e t a i n f r o m t h e p r e c e d i n g w o r l d c y c l e j u s t e n o u g h t e c h n o l o g y t o satisfy t h e i r basic w a n t s a n d a t t h e same t i m e n o t e n o u g h t o i n v o l v e t h e m i n t h e g r e e d a n d c o n t e n t i o u s ness b r e d b y t h e m a t e r i a l goods o f c i v i l i z a t i o n . T h e f u r t h e r d e v e l o p m e n t o f t e c h n o l o g y is i n m a n y w a y s a s i m p l e d e g e n e r a t i o n f r o m a p a s t o r a l Utopia r a t h e r t h a n a response t o s u d d e n h a r d s h i p . O b v i o u s l y s u c h a v i e w o f h i s t o r y is e v e n less l i k e l y t h a n t h e o n e j u s t e x a m i n e d t o r e s u l t i n a d e t a i l e d analysis of t h e g r o w t h o f the arts; a n d i t removes altogether f r o m the e v o l u t i o n a r y p e r s p e c t i v e a l a r g e p o r t i o n o f t h e i t e m s c o v e r e d i n o u r texts. A c c o r d i n g t o the
thesis d e v e l o p e d b y P l a t o i n Laws
I I I , some t e c h n o l o g i e s ( a m o n g t h e m
w e a v i n g a n d p o t t e r y ) a r e n e v e r lost t o m a n k i n d , hence n e v e r n e e d t o b e r e discovered.
2 1
Dicaearchus. L i k e the Protagoras m y t h , Dicaearchus' schematization o f p r e h i s t o r y (see a b o v e , p . 4 ) gives a t r e a t m e n t w h i c h is o n l y s u p e r f i c i a l l y h i s t o r i c a l . T h e f o o d g a t h e r i n g a n d p a s t u r i n g o f flocks w h i c h f o r m t h e p r i n c i p a l o c c u p a t i o n s o f t h e earliest t w o eras d e s c r i b e d i n t h e Life
of Greece a r e
p a r t o f a n a n a l y t i c scheme. T h e y r e p r e s e n t t h e e x p l o i t a t i o n , r e s p e c t i v e l y , o f the
i n a n i m a t e a n d a n i m a t e resources w h i c h m a n has a t h i s d i s p o s a l a n d a r e
a c t u a l l y so d e s c r i b e d b y D i c a e a r c h u s .
2 2
H i s a c c o u n t m a d e n o a t t e m p t , so f a r
1 9
Teleology and technology, rather than Hesiodic nostalgia and Ionian science (as suggested by W. Jaeger, Nemesios von Emesa [Berlin 1914] 1 2 4 - 2 5 ) , seem to me to be the essential ingredients of the Posidonian compromise. T h e latter combination could have been achieved just as easily by the " h a r d " primitivism found in Dicaearchus and Tzetzes (see below, pp. 1 4 8 - 5 1 ) . 2 0
Cf. Ep. 9 0 . 1 1 : ista sagacitas . . . non sapientia invenit; 9 0 . 2 1 : improvements in agriculture continue
to be made by cultores agrorum, not sapientes; 9 0 . 2 5 : shorthand is the invention of vilissima
mancipia.
2 1
Plato's account, though offering no evidence for the widespread diffusion of the conception of technological progress present in our texts, is closely related, in another way, to the tradition they represent. See below, Chapter Seven. 2 2
T h e origin of Dicaearchus' view is doubtless to be found in the Peripatetic conception of all things as existing for the sake of man (so Uxkull-Gyllenband, 36) and, in particular, in the passage of the Politics ( 1 . 1 2 5 6 A 3 0 - B 7 ) which classifies the bioi of nomad, hunter, fisherman, and farmer.
A L T E R N A T E PATTERNS OF
P O S S I B L E SOURCES
KULTURGESCHICHTE:
55
as o n e c a n t e l l , t o suggest w h y o n e stage s h o u l d p r e c e d e t h e o t h e r , o r w h y t w o stages c o u l d n o t exist s i m u l t a n e o u s l y . O n e m i g h t e x p e c t , f o r e x a m p l e , t h a t t h e t e c h n i q u e s o f f o o d p r o d u c i n g w o u l d arise n a t u r a l l y o u t o f those o f f o o d g a t h e r i n g ; y e t t h e i r a p p e a r a n c e is, f o r some u n s p e c i f i e d reason, d e l a y e d u n t i l t h e n o m a d i c stage is o v e r . T h e w h o l e course o f d e v e l o p m e n t seems t o follow a preconceived pattern. Food gathering, pasturing, a n d agriculture succeed e a c h o t h e r because e a c h o n e represents a stage o f d e v e l o p m e n t w h i c h is, i n some sense, m o r e a d v a n c e d ( o r m o r e d e g e n e r a t e )
2 3
t h a n its predecessor.
T h e l o g i c w h i c h lies b e h i n d t h i s s c h e m e o b v i o u s l y has n o t h i n g t o d o w i t h t h e e f f o r t t o c o n s t r u c t a c o n t i n u u m o f i n d i v i d u a l discoveries w h i c h c h a r a c t e r i z e s the five texts c o n s i d e r e d i n C h a p t e r T w o . T h e o p h r a s t u s , On Piety.
2 4
T h e o p h r a s t u s ' a t t e m p t t o describe t h e e v o l v i n g
f o r m s o f sacrifice p r a c t i c e d b y m a n is a s p e c i a l a p p l i c a t i o n o f some o f t h e findings
o f Kulturgeschichte.
T h e sequence o f d e v e l o p m e n t h e r e c o n s t r u c t s is
as f o l l o w s : m a n ' s o r i g i n a l f o o d consisted o f grasses, a n d t h e c u s t o m o f o f f e r i n g first
f r u i t s p r e v a i l e d t h e n as n o w ; h e n c e t h e n o n - a n i m a l c h a r a c t e r o f t h e
earliest sacrifices. L a t e r , f a m i n e s l e d t o c a n n i b a l i s m a n d , as a c o n s e q u e n c e , to t h e s u b s t i t u t i o n o f m e n f o r grass. S u b s e q u e n t l y , t h e d i s a d v a n t a g e s o f s u c h a p r a c t i c e b e c a m e a p p a r e n t , so t h a t a n i m a l s w e r e o f f e r e d i n s t e a d , a n d t h i s p r a c t i c e has r e m a i n e d t o t h e p r e s e n t t i m e .
2 5
L i k e o u r five a u t h o r s , t h o u g h
w i t h r a t h e r less success, T h e o p h r a s t u s is seeking t o g i v e a c o n t i n u o u s a n d p l a u s i b l e a c c o u n t o f a g r a d u a l e v o l u t i o n . T h e r e is n o a t t e m p t t o fit t h e g r o w t h o f s a c r i f i c i a l customs i n t o a n y o v e r a l l p a t t e r n i n v o l v i n g progressive d e g e n e r a t i o n o r r e f i n e m e n t o f mores. T h e o p h r a s t u s , h o w e v e r , deals w i t h o n l y a single one a m o n g t h e m a n y technai o f h u m a n l i f e . T h e r e is n o e v i d e n c e t o suggest
Insofar, however, as Dicaearchus does not allow for the coexistence of different forms of bioi his presentation is even more abstract and schematic than Aristotle's. T h e character and extent of Dicaearchus' primitivism is debatable: see R . Hirzel, " ΑΓΡΑΦΟΣ 2 3
ΝΟΜΟΣ,"
AbhLeipzig
20.1 (1903) 88, and Seeliger, "Weltalter," 4 0 9 .
2 4
None of the texts in our tradition treats the life of the herdsman, but it is instructive, for the sake of contrast, to suggest how such a treatment could have been accommodated in their general view of historical development. M a n is nomadic to begin with, not because he keeps flocks, but because he himself moves in flocks like other animals (cf. i A in Diodorus, Tzetzes, and Lucretius). In the course of foraging for food, primitive man would naturally find himself sharing his pasture with other animals; some of these he would naturally have to avoid; a few he might be able to kill and eat; with others he would continue to mingle until some accident suggested to him their potential usefulness. Domestication would follow by a gradual process and so, with very little change in the habits of either man or animals, the human flock would become itself a keeper of flocks. There is nothing of this in Dicaearchus, whose primitive man, rather in the manner of a Peripatetic philosopher, looks around him, classifies his environment into animal and vegetable, and proceeds to exploit, in systematic fashion, first one and then the other. 2 5
Frs. 2, 4 , and
Frömmigkeit 118.
1 3 . 1 5 - 5 0 Pötscher. See the analysis in Bernays, Theophrastos'
Schrift über
56
DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES OF G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
t h a t h e ever t r e a t e d t h e subject i n m o r e c o m p r e h e n s i v e f o r m .
H a d he p r o
2 6
d u c e d s u c h a t r e a t m e n t , o n e w o u l d e x p e c t i t t o h a v e e m b o d i e d i n some d e gree t h e a n a l y t i c a n d t e l e o l o g i c a l schemata f a v o r e d b y his m a s t e r .
2 7
Diogenes of Oenoanda. O n l y w h e n w e t u r n f r o m connected to f r a g m e n t s — w h o s e find,
accounts
evidence, n a t u r a l l y , m a y be q u i t e m i s l e a d i n g — d o w e
i n t w o instances, c l e a r p a r a l l e l s t o o u r texts. A c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e course
of technological discovery
i d e n t i c a l w i t h t h e one w i t h w h i c h w e are n o w
c o n c e r n e d m a k e s i t s a p p e a r a n c e b r i e f l y i n a f r a g m e n t o f t h e second c e n t u r y E p i c u r e a n Diogenes o f O e n o a n d a ( F r . n , col. I i - I I n
G r i l l i ) . Diogenes
tells h o w , f r o m t h e w r a p p i n g s o f leaves o r hides w h i c h p r o v i d e d t h e clothing, m e n came gradually to the idea,
first
first
o f felted, t h e n o f p l a i t e d
g a r m e n t s , a n d finally t o t h e i n v e n t i o n o f w e a v i n g . E v i d e n t h e r e is t h e e f f o r t t o establish a g r a d u a l sequence o f discoveries, so t h a t t h e i d e a f o r e a c h a d v a n c e is as easily a n d as n a t u r a l l y m o t i v a t e d as possible.
T h e r e s u l t is a
c o n t i n u i t y o f d e v e l o p m e n t f r o m t h e hides w h i c h a p p e a r u n d e r h e a d i n g 3 B o f o u r texts t o t h e w o v e n c l o t h o f 5 D ; a n d t h e p l a i t e d c l o t h w h i c h is i n t e r m e d i a t e i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t c o r r e s p o n d s e x a c t l y t o L u c r e t i u s ' nexilis The
e v i d e n c e o f D i o g e n e s suggests, t h e n , t h a t L u c r e t i u s
vestis.
28
was f o l l o w i n g
E p i c u r e a n sources r a t h e r closely i n h i s e x p o s i t i o n i n B o o k V . D e m o c r i t u s . O f a s o m e w h a t d i f f e r e n t c h a r a c t e r , t h o u g h j u s t as close, a r e t h e p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n o u r texts a n d c e r t a i n f r a g m e n t s o f D e m o c r i t u s .
Most
o f these p a r a l l e l s h a v e b e e n p o i n t e d o u t a n d discussed b y o t h e r
scholars.
H e n c e a s u m m a r y e n u m e r a t i o n o f t h e m w i l l b e sufficient h e r e .
Something
29
v e r y s i m i l a r t o t h e i n v e n t i v e process as c o n c e i v e d b y o u r texts is present i n the fragment
( A 1 5 1 ) w h i c h suggests a n e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e o r i g i n o f t h e
c u s t o m o f b r e e d i n g m u l e s : a c h a n c e m a t i n g o f m a r e a n d jackass was o n c e observed b y a m a n w h o proceeded t o " t a k e i n s t r u c t i o n " f r o m this a n d t o develop the custom
o f raising mules.
T h e later traditions w h i c h
credit
Theophrastus is said to have composed a Peri heurematon (see above, p. 5 ) , and hence it is sometimes supposed that he concerned himself extensively with Kulturgeschichte (see E . Zeller, " U b e r die Lehre des Aristoteles von der Ewigkeit der Welt," AbhBerlin 1878, 1 0 7 - 8 ; Dyroff, Z (}uellen.frage bei Lukrez, 1 4 - 1 5 ; but on the character of such works, see above, pp. 4 9 - 5 0 . 2 6
ur
2 7
Though Theophrastus voiced doubts about details of the teleological analysis of nature, he never considered dispensing with the system altogether (O. Regenbogen, R E Suppl. 7 [1940] 1472-76, s.v. "Theophrastos"). Such an innovation did come with Theophrastus' successor Strato, who also wrote a Peri heurematon; but the latter work seems to have been chiefly a polemic against Ephorus' treatment of the same subject. 2 8
Also worth comparing with the doctrines of our texts is Diogenes' statement that all arts came
into being through at χρεΐαι και περιπτώσεις
μετά τον χρόνου (Fr. 11, col. I I 9 — ) > ΙΙ
περιπτώσεις
( = encounters and so, perhaps, accidents) may be a reference to the specific situations which figure so prominently in our tradition. 2 9
Notably Reinhardt, passim (cf. also his Poseidonios, 3 9 2 - 4 0 8 ) ; Uxkull-Gyllenband, 2 5 - 3 4 , 4 4 4 6 >
and Vlastos, AJP 6 7 . 5 1 - 5 9 , PhilRev 55.54, note 7.
_
A L T E R N A T E
P A T T E R N S
O F KULTURGESCHICHTE:
P O S S I B L E S O U R C E S
D e m o c r i t u s w i t h the i n v e n t i o n o f the a r c h ( B 3 0 0 . 1 4 ) mended Alt.
Protagoras'
5.3.1-6)
3 1
or tell h o w
57
he
com-
i n v e n t i o n o f the porter's c a r r y i n g strap (Gellius,
Mod.
3 0
n e e d n o t be c r e d i t e d , b u t t h e y d o suggest t h a t t e c h n o l o g y
was
o n e o f t h e m a j o r i n t e r e s t s r e v e a l e d i n his w r i t i n g s . A n d t h e s u b j e c t o f S t a g e 5 i n Table
1—the
technologies w h i c h
arise f r o m
the
suggests t h e D e m o c r i t e a n t i t l e ( B i i e )
AITLCU
distinction between the
fine arts c o m m o n
V i t r u v i u s has a l r e a d y discovery
useful
and
been noted
irepl rrvpos
discovery
KO.1 TO>V
(above, p. 43). T h e
£V
of
fire—
-rrvpi.
The
32
to Democritus explanations
o f houses a n d m u s i c f o u n d i n V i t r u v i u s ( 3 A ) a n d L u c r e t i u s
appear i n Democritus origin of weaving
(B154),
along
with
a p a r a l l e l s u g g e s t i o n as t o
( o r i g i n a l l y a n i m i t a t i o n o f the spider's w e b ) .
and
o f the (7C) the
Democritus
m a d e M u s a e u s t h e i n v e n t o r o f t h e h e x a m e t e r ( B 1 6 ) ; a n d t h i s suggests t h a t D e m o c r i t u s , l i k e t h e source f o l l o w e d b y L u c r e t i u s ( 8 B ) , w a s c o n c e r n e d
with
t h e o r i g i n o f p o e t r y a n d assigned i t t o a t i m e s l i g h t l y b e f o r e t h e T r o j a n W a r .
3 3
F o r D e m o c r i t u s , as w e l l as f o r o u r t e x t s , n e w i d e a s o r i g i n a t e i n a s m a l l p o r t i o n of the p o p u l a t i o n ( t h o u g h not, presumably,
the same p o r t i o n a l w a y s ) ,
then
s p r e a d t h r o u g h a s o c i a l m e d i u m ; s u c h , a t a n y r a t e , seems t o be t h e i m p l i c a t i o n o f t h e f a m o u s f r a g m e n t o n t h e " f e w a m o n g t h e ones w i t h s k i l l i n s p e e c h "
The source is Posidonius (preserved in Seneca, Ep. 9 0 . 3 2 ) . The passage is incorrectly printed by Diels along with Seneca's own comment mentioning another tradition relating to Democritus 3 0
( 9 0 . 3 3 : excidit porro vobis ["the
further fact has escaped your notice"] eundem Democritum
quemadmodum . . . calculus in smaragdum converteretur). T h e
attribution of the
invenisse
discovery of artificial
emeralds is probably based on the pseudo-Democritea of Bolus (see Diels, ad loc). T h e story about the arch, coming from a different source and having nothing alchemical about it, is part of a separate and perhaps more authentic tradition. It may indicate that architecture was one of the subjects treated by Democritus in his writings—whence, perhaps, his utilization by Vitruvius (cf. the latter's reference, 7, Pr. i\ = VS 5 9 A 3 9 , to a work of Democritus on architectural perspective). It is worth noting that the Kulturgeschichte of Vitruvius I I is introduced as a digression in a passage which analyzes the qualities of various building materials in terms of the atomic principia through whose congressus they come into being; and Democritus is explicitly mentioned in this discussion (2.2.1) as the author of the theorv which lies at the basis of the analysis. Gellius gives the fullest version of a story which is at least as early as Epicurus (172 Usener). Suggested as the ultimate source for Lucretius 5.1090 ff. by Ernout-Robin, ad loc. T h e work, like the other books of Aitiai attributed to Democritus, was not included in Thrasyllus' tetralogies, and it is accordingly regarded as spurious by Nietzsche, Rohde, and Diels (cf. VS, note on I I 9 1 . 1 2 ) ; see, however, H . Diller, "Wanderarzt und Aitiologe," Philologus Suppl. 26.3 (1934) 4 3 - 4 6 , who argues that these aetiological writings are "wenn nicht von Demokrit selbst, so doch sicher aus dem abderitischen Schule." 3 1
3 2
Cf. Diodorus, 4.25.1, who makes Musaeus a contemporary of Heracles. Since Musaeus is hardly separable from Orpheus, it is worth noting that Linus, the inventor of music and teacher of Orpheus, Heracles, and Thamyras, appears along with Cadmus, the inventor of letters, in Diodorus 3.67.1-2 (from Dionysius Scytobrachion; cf. FGrH 3 2 F 7 , p. 2 3 9 . 2 1 - 2 9 ) . Since epic is here represented in the person of Thamyras, the collocation of subjects (music, letters, poetry) is exactly that of the closing portions of Lucretius V ; and the mention of Heracles recalls the corresponding passage in Diodorus (8A: see above, pp. 44—45). 3 3
58
D E M O C R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
(B30), sky.
3 4
w h o a r e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r m a k i n g Z e u s w o r s h i p p e d as k i n g o f t h e
3 5
Finally, b o t h the accidental a n d empirical character o f the inventive pro cess a n d t h e c o l l e c t i v e c h a r a c t e r o f h u m a n a c h i e v e m e n t are r e f e r r e d t o i n a notice preserved i n a n A r a b i c translation o f G a l e n : " W e f i n d t h a t o f the b u l k o f m a n k i n d e a c h i n d i v i d u a l b y m a k i n g use o f h i s f r e q u e n t o b s e r v a t i o n s g a i n s k n o w l e d g e n o t a t t a i n e d b y a n o t h e r ; f o r as D e m o c r i t u s says, e x p e r i e n c e and
vicissitudes h a v e t a u g h t m e n t h i s , a n d i t is f r o m t h e i r w e a l t h o f e x
p e r i e n c e t h a t m e n h a v e l e a r n e d t o p e r f o r m t h e t h i n g s t h e y d o " (VS I I 4 2 3 . 1 7 - 2 2 ) . A n d t h e same i d e a c a n p e r h a p s b e t r a c e d i n a n o t h e r f r a g m e n t ( B 1 5 8 ) w h i c h tells h o w " m a n k i n d , t h i n k i n g n e w t h o u g h t s w i t h t h e c o m i n g of
e a c h d a y , d r a w n o n b y t h e i r i m p u l s e t o w a r d o n e a n o t h e r (rfj προς
αλλήλους
άρμη)
as i f b y a c o r d d r a w n t a u t , p r o c e e d , some f r o m o n e p l a c e ,
some f r o m a n o t h e r , t o t h e i r u n d e r t a k i n g s . " t a n t l y recalls E m p e d o c l e s ,
3 7
3 6
T h o u g h t h e phraseology dis
t h e horme o f w h i c h D e m o c r i t u s speaks is p r o b a b l y
m o r e i n c l u s i v e , less u n i f o r m l y b e n e v o l e n t t h a n philotes: i t b r i n g s , n o t u l t i m a t e rest a n d u n i t y , b u t d i v e r s i t y a n d a c t i v i t y . P e r h a p s w e s h o u l d see i n t h e s i m i l e o f t h e t a u t c o r d a reference t o a l l t h e modes o f i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e w h i c h exist w i t h i n h u m a n society. M o t i o n a t o n e e n d o f s u c h a c o r d a l w a y s m e a n s some s o r t o f response a t t h e o t h e r ; t h e s t r o n g e r a n d m o r e n u m e r o u s t h e artemata, t h e less e a c h m a n is left t o h i s o w n devices. H e n c e t h e n e w t h o u g h t s w h i c h c o m e i n t o b e i n g w i t h e a c h d a y , t h e diverse sources f r o m w h i c h t h e s t r e a m o f h u m a n a c t i v i t y is f e d . T h e i d e a is q u i t e s i m i l a r t o o n e w h i c h a p p e a r s i n T h e translation of logioi given i n the text is that of Havelock (412) and Pfligersdorfer (WS 6 1 / 6 2 . 9 - 1 9 ) , followed by A . Battegazzore, "Influssi e polemiche nel fr. ( D . K . ) 2 5 di Crizia," Dioniso 21 (1958) 46—47. Reinhardt, 5 1 1 , sees in the logioi "die wenigen überlegenen Geister die zu allen höheren Errungenschaften der Masse vorschreiten"—an interpretation accepted by 3 1
Ε . Norden, Agnostos Theos (Leipzig 1913) 3 9 7 - 9 8 , who compares the πυκνός τις και σοφός άνήρ in Gritias' Sisyphus fragment (VS 8 8 B 2 5 . 1 2 ) . Similarly, W . Jaeger, The Theology of the Early
Greek
Philosophers (Oxford 1947) 183—84, considers the logioi a projection into primitive times of the figure of the Ionian philosopher, and Nock, J R S 49.7, compares a number of passages in later literature on the nearness to the gods of primitive man and suggests that the logioi are individuals gifted with some sort of special perception. But the early usages of the word cited by Havelock and Pfligersdorfer suggest that the only powers separating the logioi from their fellows are those of verbalization. See also Appendix I V . Cf., in a later scene of " apotheosis," Livy 1.16.3: "deinde a paucis initio facto, deum deo natum, regem parentemque urbis Romanae salvere universi Romulum iubent"; and, in a more general context, Strabo 2.103, who alleges, in opposition to Posidonius' theories of geographical determina tion, that racial and linguistic differences arise κατά έπίπτωσιν και αυντυχίαν. Similarly, τέχναι τι 3 5
και δυνάμεις και επιτηδεύσεις άρζάντων τινών κρατοΰσιν αϊ πλειονς εν όποιωοΰν 3 C
κλιματι.
Plutarch, who preserves the fragment (Lat. viv. 5 . 1 1 2 9 E ) , cites elsewhere the single phrase
νέα εφ* ήμερη φρονέοντες άνθρωποι (Quaest. conv. 3.6.6551?) 8 - 3 - 7
22D
) » which is the only unquestionably
Democritean part of the passage given in the text. But the echoes of Empedocles (see following note) and the strongly materialistic cast of the thought suggest that the citation extends further. 3 7
Cf. VS 31B35.5—10, on the φιλότητος ορμή under whose influence πάντα συνέρχεται εν μόνον
είναι . . . συνιστάμεν' άλλοθεν άλλα.
A L T E R N A T E
P A T T E R N S
O F KULTURGESCH1CHTE:
P O S S I B L E
S O U R C E S
V i t r u v i u s ( 3 6 . 8 - 1 2 — s e e a b o v e , p p . 3 9 - 4 0 ) ; o n l y h e r e i t is a varietas
59
arte-
matSn r a t h e r t h a n a varietas artium w h i c h gives rise t o maiores cogitationes. T h e p a r a l l e l s are e x a c t a n d extensive, a n d t h e y take o n f u r t h e r s i g n i f i c a n c e w h e n v i e w e d a g a i n s t t h e n e g a t i v e results o f t h e rest o f o u r c o m p a r a t i v e i n v e s t i g a t i o n . I t is f a i r l y c l e a r t h a t t h e h y p o t h e s i s o f a single source f o r o u r f i v e texts is c o r r e c t . T h o u g h c e r t a i n affinities t o t h e i r d o c t r i n e s c a n be t r a c e d o v e r a l a r g e b o d y o f m a t e r i a l , o u r s u r v e y has o n l y served t o t h r o w i n t o s h a r p r e l i e f t h e essential uniqueness o f those d o c t r i n e s t a k e n i n t h e i r e n t i r e t y . T h e y seem t o preserve, e v e n i n t h e s u m m a r y f o r m i n w h i c h w e h a v e t h e m , t h e s t i l l fresh i m p r i n t o f a p o w e r f u l a n d c r e a t i v e i n t e l l i g e n c e , o n e whose t h o u g h t was e v i d e n t l y t o o i n d i v i d u a l a n d s u b t l e t o be w i d e l y a s s i m i l a t e d ,
however
m a n y t h e places w h e r e f a i n t echoes o f i t r e m a i n . A n d a t t h i s p o i n t o n e m a y well wonder
whether
earlier investigators, inadequate
method
notwith-
s t a n d i n g , w e r e n o t r i g h t i n a s s u m i n g t h a t t h i s i n t e l l i g e n c e was D e m o c r i t u s ' . T h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n c a n n o t be r e g a r d e d as c e r t a i n . T h e r e is n o c o n n e c t e d a c c o u n t o f D e m o c r i t e a n Kulturgeschichte
c o m p a r a b l e t o those w e possess f o r
m o s t o f t h e a u t h o r s e x a m i n e d i n t h i s c h a p t e r ; i f t h e r e w e r e , i t m i g h t be c l e a r t h a t D e m o c r i t u s is as far r e m o v e d as P l a t o , A r i s t o t l e , o r D i c a e a r c h u s
from
the t r a d i t i o n p r e s e r v e d i n o u r f i v e texts. M o r e o v e r , t h e v e r y f i d e l i t y
with
w h i c h L u c r e t i u s , D i o d o r u s , V i t r u v i u s , a n d P o s i d o n i u s preserve t h e d o c t r i n e s t h e y r e p r o d u c e m i g h t a r g u e f o r a source less r e m o t e i n t i m e — E p i c u r u s , p e r haps, whose w r i t i n g s w e r e k e p t a l i v e i n t h e f i r s t c e n t u r y B . C . i n a w a y those of Democritus were n o t ,
3 8
o r some H e l l e n i s t i c w r i t e r w h o s e n a m e is n o t
r e m e m b e r e d i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h Kulturgeschichte
at all.
A f i n a l answer to the question m a y n o t be possible; i t m u s t a w a i t , at a n y r a t e , a m o r e extensive s t u d y o f t h e t r a d i t i o n e m b o d i e d i n o u r texts. passages c o n s i d e r e d t h u s f a r h a v e b e e n c o n c e r n e d l a r g e l y w i t h
The
technology
o r w i t h t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f society i n s o f a r as i t has a n effect o n t e c h n o l o g y . T h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e t h e o r y t h e y r e p r o d u c e g a v e i n d e p e n d e n t a n d detailed consideration to language,
society,
a n d social n o r m s has n o t
been
c o n s i d e r e d . Y e t i t is o b v i o u s f r o m t h e passages c i t e d a b o v e u n d e r Stage 4 B ( p . 33) t h a t l a n g u a g e ,
a t least, r e c e i v e d
some s u c h c o n s i d e r a t i o n .
How
s i g n i f i c a n t a p a r t t h i s a n d r e l a t e d discussions p l a y e d i t w i l l be t h e task o f t h e n e x t t h r e e c h a p t e r s t o d e t e r m i n e . T h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n w i l l be r e v e a l i n g i n itself, since t h i s is t h e aspect o f a n c i e n t Kulturgeschichte
w h i c h has b e e n least
s t u d i e d ; a n d i t w i l l b r i n g as a n i n c i d e n t a l r e s u l t a b e t t e r c l u e t h a n a n y w e n o w possess t o t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e source u p o n w h o m t h e five a u t h o r s s t u d i e d i n Chapters O n e a n d T w o have d r a w n . 3 8
Recognition of an Epicurean source for our tradition would not, of course, preclude the possibility of extensive Epicurean borrowings from Democritus.
CHAPTER THE
ORIGIN
(DIODORUS,
FOUR
O F LANGUAGE
VITRUVIUS,
EPICURUS)
V i t r u v i u s , D i o d o r u s , a n d L u c r e t i u s i n c l u d e references t o t h e o r i g i n o f s o c i e t y a n d language at almost exactly corresponding points i n their narratives a b o v e , p . 3 3 ) . L a n g u a g e receives, i n a l l t h r e e instances, a m o r e
(see
extended
t r e a t m e n t t h a n s o c i e t y ; h e n c e i t is h e r e t h a t a s t u d y o f t h e n o n - t e c h n o l o g i c a l p o r t i o n s o f o u r t r a d i t i o n is best b e g u n . VITRUVIUS
ϋιοϋΟΗυβ 1.8.2-3
33.24-28
in eo hominum congressu [the first human
. . . αθροιζόμενους δε . . . έπιγινώσκειν εκ του κατά
aggregation]
μικρόν τους αλλήλων
(A) cum profundebantur aliter e spiritu voces
(Α) τής φωνής δ ' άσημου και συγκεχυμένης ούσης
( B ) quotidiana consuetudine vocabula ut obtigerant constituerunt;
(Β) έκ τοΰ κατ ολίγον διαρθρούν τάς λέξεις
τύπους
1
(Ο) και προς αλλήλους
(G) deinde significando res saepius in usu
τιθέντας
σύμβολα
περι
εκάστου των υποκειμένων
( C ) ex eventu fari fortuito coeperunt 1
( D ) et ita sermones inter se procreaverunt.
(Ό)
γνώριμον
σφίαιν αύτοΐς
ποιήσαι
την
περι
απάντων έρμηνείαν. LUCRETIUS
5-1028-29
at varios linguae sonitus natura subegit mittere et utilitas expressit nomina rerum. D i o d o r u s d i s t i n g u i s h e s f o u r , a n d V i t r u v i u s f i v e , stages i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t
of
l a n g u a g e . T h e i r a c c o u n t s , e x c e p t f o r t h e a d d i t i o n a l stage i n V i t r u v i u s , a r e c l o s e l y p a r a l l e l . T h e f i r s t u t t e r i n g o f c o n f u s e d s o u n d s (A) is f o l l o w e d b y t h e a r t i c u l a t i o n o f these s o u n d s i n t o w o r d s
(B);
1
t h e n a c o n v e n t i o n arises
by
' Cotidiana consuetudine in Vitruvius' version of this stage might seem to suggest communication among men, but this does not come until Stage C : deinde . . . fari coeperunt (cf. the definition in Varro, L L 6 . 5 2 : fatur is qui primum homo significabilem ore mittit vocem). What Vitruvius must be refer ring to is a period during which, by chattering to themselves, men gradually form the habit of uttering recognizable patterns of sound (vocabula), rather than mere grunts and cries. They are no longer dumb or inarticulate, though still infantes. T h e later appearance of the phrase fari coeperunt, the comparison with Diodorus, and the passages cited below in note 2—all of which make the second stage in the development of language one in which words are articulated without being given meanings—demand that we take vocabula in Vitruvius to mean words that have not yet been assigned meanings. Elsewhere in Latin a vocabulum is always that by which a thing is called, its appellation or name; but Vitruvius could have been led to this peculiar usage either through imperfect under1
60
THE
ORIGINS O F L A N G U A G E ( D I O D O R U S , V I T R U V I U S , E P I C U R U S )
61
w h i c h c e r t a i n w o r d s c o m e t o d e s i g n a t e c e r t a i n objects ( C ) ; a n d e v e n t u a l l y 2
a w h o l e l a n g u a g e is c r e a t e d ( D ) . A is t h e o n l y o n e o f these stages w h i c h is c l e a r l y p a r a l l e l e d i n L u c r e t i u s , w h o , i n a l e n g t h y passage h e r e
omitted
(5.1030-go), attempts t o show that m e n , like animals, c a n be expected t o express t h e i r v a r y i n g sensations a n d e m o t i o n s w i t h c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y v a r i e d n a t u r a l cries, t h e varies sonitus o f 1028. T h e p h r a s e utilitas
expressit
nomina
rerum p r e s u m a b l y refers t o a l a t e r stage i n t h e process, t h e e x a c t c h a r a c t e r o f w h i c h is left u n c l e a r . utilitas
3
B u t however Lucretius conceived the workings o f
i n t h e r e a l m o f l a n g u a g e , i t is m o s t u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e y c o r r e s p o n d e d
t o a n y t h i n g f o u n d i n Stages B , C , a n d D . T h e E p i c u r e a n t h e o r y o f l a n g u a g e is k n o w n t o us f r o m o t h e r sources a n d is, as w e s h a l l see, q u i t e d i f f e r e n t f r o m that of Diodorus and Vitruvius. A l t h o u g h phases A a n d Β i n D i o d o r u s a n d V i t r u v i u s m a y b e c o n s i d e r e d " n a t u r a l " ones, t h e a c c o u n t , t a k e n as a w h o l e , a p p e a l s t o thesis r a t h e r t h a n physis
f o r i t s e x p l a n a t i o n o f l a n g u a g e . F o r as s o o n as i t b e c o m e s a f o r m o f
c o m m u n i c a t i o n ( i n C ) l a n g u a g e is v i e w e d as t h e p r o d u c t o f n o t h i n g m o r e t h a n a g r e e m e n t . T h i s c a n b e seen f r o m t h e phrases sermones inter se procreaverunt a n d προς αλλήλους
τιθίντας
σύμβολα,
i n w h i c h the idea o f m u t u a l
a c c e p t a n c e is c l e a r l y p r e s e n t . F o r E p i c u r u s , h o w e v e r , l a n g u a g e is l a r g e l y a " n a t u r a l " p h e n o m e n o n , a n d L u c r e t i u s , t h o u g h h i s a c c o u n t is less c o m p l e t e , f o l l o w s h i m q u i t e closely. N a m e s w e r e n o t a t f i r s t d e l i b e r a t e l y g i v e n t o
standing of a Greek original or through the exigencies of Latin, which in his day may not have possessed a single accurate equivalent for lexis: locutio, the term used by Boethius (Herrn. Sec., p. 5 . 5 - 1 0 Meiser), is first attested in the required sense in Quintilian (1.5.2). These first three stages are also present in Cicero, Rep. 3.3, which speaks of a process which 2
voces incohatum et confusum sonantes (A) incidit et distinxit in partes (B) et ul signa quaedam sic verba rebus impressit ( C ) ; and in Horace, Sat. 1 . 3 . 1 0 3 - 4 : donee verba quibus voces sensusque notarent j nominaque
invenere. T h e "marking" of voces is Stage B, that of sensus, Stage C ; earlier (3.100) Horace had spoken of man as a mutum ("inarticulate," not "mute": cf. Lucretius 5.1088) pecus (Stage A ) . Cf. also Plato, Prot. 3 2 2 A : φωνήν (Β) και ονόματα ( C ) ταχύ Βίηρθρώσατο; and Euripides, Suppl. 2 0 3 - 4 (in a passage devoted to Kulturgeschichte):
άγγελον
γλώσσαν
λόγων . . . ώστε
γιγνώσκειν
όττα (cf. voces
notare). 3
T h e meaning is, I suggest, that whereas nature compelled men to associate certain sounds with certain objects, the idea of using these sounds for communication came only when men perceived that their utterances were understood by others—i.e. useful (cf. 1046—48: si non alii quoque vocibus usi / inter se fuerant unde insita notities est / utilitatis). Once this happened, men would continue to utter the sounds which objects naturally suggested, but with the expectation now of being understood. It is only at this stage that voces become nomina. I f this interpretation is correct, it is wrong to attribute to Epicurus the view that "die ersten erdentsprossenen Menschen bedienen sich bereits der onomata und der rhemata, besitzen also schon eine artikulierte Sprache" (Spoerri, 137). Language comes into being by a process, though it is a natural and almost automatic one. For other interpretations of utilitas expressit nomina rerum, see Dahlmann, 1 6 - 1 7 , and Vlastos, AJP 6 7 . 5 5 , note 20. Whatever we
take to be the meaning, Dahlmann is certainly right in rejecting C . Giussani's effort (Studi Lucreziani [Turin 1896] 280) to find here a trace of the second, conventional phase in the growth of language to which Epicurus refers in Ad Herod. 7 5 - 7 6 .
62
DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES OF G R E E K
ANTHROPOLOGY
t h i n g s ; r a t h e r , " m e n ' s n a t u r e s a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r d i f f e r e n t n a t i o n a l i t i e s h a d t h e i r o w n p e c u l i a r feelings a n d r e c e i v e d t h e i r p e c u l i a r i m p r e s s i o n s , a n d so e a c h i n t h e i r o w n w a y e m i t t e d a i r f o r m e d i n t o shape b y e a c h o f these feelings and
impressions, a c c o r d i n g
t o t h e differences
produced i n the different
n a t i o n s b y t h e i r p l a c e o f a b o d e as w e l l " (Ad Herod. 7 5 ) . O n l y l a t e r d o m e n i n t r o d u c e c e r t a i n n a m e s t h r o u g h c o m m o n consent i n o r d e r t o " m a k e t h e i r m e a n i n g s less a m b i g u o u s t o o n e a n o t h e r a n d m o r e b r i e f l y d e m o n s t r a t e d . " T h e e x a c t c h a r a c t e r o f l a n g u a g e i n t h e i n i t i a l stage is n o t c o m p l e t e l y clear. E v i d e n t l y , however, the i n h a b i t a n t s o f a given region w o u l d a u t o m a t i c a l l y associate c e r t a i n sounds w i t h c e r t a i n objects o r e m o t i o n s — w o r d s w i t h a h i g h p r o p o r t i o n o f l i q u i d sounds w i t h bodies o f w a t e r , l e t us say, o r h e a v y c o n s o n a n t clusters w i t h feelings o f a n g e r . T h i s b e i n g so, i t w o u l d b e possible f o r a m a n t o t e l l , i n a g e n e r a l w a y , w h a t his n e i g h b o r was s a y i n g t o h i m ; b u t to a v o i d a m b i g u i t y a n d l o n g explanations the n a t u r a l v o c a b u l a r y w o u l d h a v e t o b e s u p p l e m e n t e d b y a c o n v e n t i o n a l o n e . I n a passage whose m e a n i n g is e v e n m o r e u n c e r t a i n (Ad Herod. 7 6 ) , E p i c u r u s goes o n t o suggest t h a t a n analogous ρώμενα
process w o u l d t a k e p l a c e e v e n w i t h r e g a r d t o c e r t a i n ού
πράγματα
(presumably
non-sensible
συνο-
entities like abstractions
r e l a t i o n s h i p s ) . T h o s e w h o p e r c e i v e d s u c h t h i n g s d i r e c t l y (τους
or
συνειδότας)
w o u l d b e c o n s t r a i n e d a u t o m a t i c a l l y t o u t t e r c e r t a i n sounds i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e m ; w h i l e others (subsequently, perhaps) " t a k i n g r a t i o n a l cogniz a n c e " o f s u c h e n t i t i e s ( τ ω λογισμω
eXopevovs)
i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h τήν πλείστην
αίτίαν*
w o u l d supply " i n t e r p r e t a t i o n "
T h e w h o l e t h e o r y is a n u n u s u a l o n e , a n d w e d o n o t possess t h e e v i d e n c e r e q u i r e d f o r r e c o n s t r u c t i n g i t i n its e n t i r e t y . B u t c o n c e r n i n g its g e n e r a l o u t lines a n d its c a n o n i c a l p o s i t i o n i n E p i c u r e a n t h o u g h t t h e r e c a n be l i t t l e doubt.
5
O b v i o u s l y , i t has l i t t l e o r n o t h i n g i n c o m m o n w i t h t h e d o c t r i n e set
f o r t h i n D i o d o r u s a n d V i t r u v i u s . O f t h e t w o theories, i t is r a t h e r h a r d t o 6
d e t e r m i n e , s i m p l y o n t h e basis o f t h e passages c o n s i d e r e d t h u s f a r , w h i c h , i f e i t h e r , s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d a n i n t e g r a l p a r t o f t h e t r a d i t i o n o f c u l t u r a l h i s t o r y w i t h w h i c h w e are c o n c e r n e d . T h e E p i c u r e a n t h e o r y goes f a r t o w a r d r e m o v i n g the p h e n o m e n o n o f language
from an evolutionary
perspective;
h e n c e , l i k e t h e c o n c e p t i o n f o u n d i n P o s i d o n i u s o f a social o r d e r c o e v a l w i t h m a n h i m s e l f (see a b o v e , p p . 3 5 - 3 6 ) , i t o u g h t p e r h a p s t o be r e g a r d e d as a modification o f the m a i n line o f t h o u g h t evident i n our tradition. O n the 4
5
Gf. Dahlmann, ίο—11; see below, pp. 7 2 - 7 4 , and Chap. V , note 15. T h e discussions of Giussani [above, note 3 ] 2 7 5 - 8 0 ) , C . Bailey (The Greek Atomists and Epicurus
[Oxford 1928] 2 6 7 - 6 8 ) and
P. H . and
E . A. D e L a c y (Philodemus:
On Methods of Inference [Phil
adelphia 19411 ' 4 ° ) overestimate the importance of the conventional stage in the theory; see Vlastos, AJP 67.54, 6
n
o
t
e
I D
\ and Spoerri, 136, note 5.
T h e inconsistency of Diodorus 1.8.3-4 with Epicurean linguistic theory was first noted by
Dahlmann, 4 0 - 4 1 ; see, further, Vlastos, AJP 6 7 . 5 3 - 5 5 , and Spoerri, 134-41.
T H E
O R I G I N S
O FL A N G U A G E
( D I O D O R U S ,
V I T R U V I U S ,
E P I C U R U S )
63
o t h e r h a n d , t h e p o s i t i o n o f D i o d o r u s a n d V i t r u v i u s recalls i n some w a y s t h e w i d e l y h e l d v i e w w h i c h t r a c e d l a n g u a g e t o a n o r i g i n a l thesis, w h e t h e r o f a single nomothetes o r o f t h e " m e n o f o l d " a c t i n g as a b o d y .
7
I t reveals l i t t l e i f
any trace o f w h a t was shown i n C h a p t e r T h r e e t o be t h e characteristic feature o f o u r t r a d i t i o n : t h e preoccupation
w i t h e s t a b l i s h i n g a close c a u s a l
sequence o f i n d i v i d u a l h i s t o r i c a l events. I t is c o n c e i v a b l e , t h e n , t h a t l a n g u a g e d i d n o t receive t h e same c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n o u r t r a d i t i o n as d i d t e c h n o logy, o r t h a t , i f i t d i d , n o clear trace o f such a t r e a t m e n t has survived. T h e r e is, h o w e v e r , one i t e m i n t h e passages q u o t e d a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h i s chapter w h i c h , properly interpreted, m a y lead t o a different conclusion. As has b e e n n o t e d , V i t r u v i u s ' a c c o u n t o f t h e o r i g i n o f l a n g u a g e c o n t a i n s o n e m o r e stage t h a n does t h a t o f D i o d o r u s . B e t w e e n C (significando usu)
a n d D (sermones inter se procreaverunt)
fortuito
res saepius in
t h e r e is t h e p h r a s e : ex eventu
fari
coeperunt ( C ) . T h e p h r a s e m i g h t b e i n t e r p r e t e d s i m p l y as a n e f f o r t t o 1
e m p h a s i z e t h e c h a n c e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r set o f s y m b o l s h i t u p o n , b u t eventu fortuito
o u g h t t o refer t o a single c h a n c e e v e n t , n o t t o t h e w h o l e series
o f c h a n c e associations b e t w e e n s o u n d a n d m e a n i n g w h i c h w o u l d
determine
t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e l a n g u a g e . T h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e l i n e is also s t r a n g e : o n e w o u l d e x p e c t t h e n o t i c e a b o u t t h e b e g i n n i n g s o f speech ( C ) t o p r e c e d e 1
r a t h e r t h a n f o l l o w C (significando res saepius in usu). I s i t possible t h a t C refers, n o t t o linguistic c o m m u n i c a t i o n , b u t t o sign l a n g u a g e ? T h e m e a n i n g w o u l d 8
t h e n b e t h a t , i n t h e course o f p o i n t i n g o u t t o e a c h o t h e r t h e t h i n g s o f w h i c h they h a d need, m e n h i t u p o n t h e idea o f using words (already
articulated,
b u t n o t assigned m e a n i n g s , i n B ) t o express t h e i r w a n t s . A n d t h e eventus 9
fortuitus
t h r o u g h w h i c h t h i s o c c u r r e d m a y h a v e b e e n t h e sort o f c h a n c e e v e n t
w i t h w h i c h w e are f a m i l i a r f r o m t h e discussion o f C h a p t e r O n e . I f t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is c o r r e c t ,
D i o d o r u s has o m i t t e d a passage i n h i s
source d e s c r i b i n g t h e first a p p e a r a n c e o f l a n g u a g e a n d i n t e r p r e t e d t h e gene r a l s t a t e m e n t a b o u t symhola w h i c h a p p e a r s i n C as r e f e r r i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y t o v e r b a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n . I t is p e r h a p s s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t i n C n e i t h e r V i t r u v i u s n o r D i o d o r u s uses t e r m i n o l o g y w h i c h m u s t a p p l y e x c l u s i v e l y t o l a n g u a g e : symhola r a t h e r t h a n onomata,
a n d significando
A n d elsewhere b o t h L u c r e t i u s p.
r a t h e r t h a n nomina
imprimendo.
(5.1022) a n d V i t r u v i u s (33.22—see a b o v e ,
15) m e n t i o n t h e use o f gestures f o r c o m m u n i c a t i o n before t h e y d e s c r i b e
the b e g i n n i n g s o f l a n g u a g e . See Spoerri, 138-39, and D . Fehling, RhM 108.219-26, who rightly emphasizes that the view of language in question is essentially "die dem Mythos naher stehende vom heuretes," and so very different from "die mehr wissenschaftliche der Kulturentstehungslehren" ( 2 i g ) . With Vitruvius' significando res saepius in usu, compare Agatharchides ap. Diodorus 3.18.6 (on the 7
8
Ichthyophagoi): διαλεκτοί μη χρήσθαι, μιμητική προς την χρεΐαν ανηκόντων (cf. Photius 4 5 9
See above, note 1.
Ο Β Ι
°—
1
δε δηλώσει διά τών χειρών διαστ/μαιμειν έκαστα τών 1 :
μιμητική δηλώσει διοικεΐν πάντα τά προς τον
βίον).
64
D E M O G R I T U S AND T H E S O U R C E S O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
S u p p o r t f o r o u r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , as w e l l as a c o n f i r m a t i o n o f t h e suggestion r e g a r d i n g t h e n a t u r e o f t h e eventus fortuitus from
m e n t i o n e d i n V i t r u v i u s , comes
t w o passages, o n e i n t h e A e g y p t i a c a
o f Diodorus,
the other i n
L a c t a n t i u s , b o t h o f w h i c h a r e closely r e l a t e d t o t h e t w o u n d e r d i s c u s s i o n :
10
W h e n m e n were i n the process o f aggregating a n d a b a n d o n i n g their a n i m a l like w a y o f life, they a t first fought and ate one another, the stronger always o v e r p o w e r i n g the weaker. A f t e r w a r d , however, the weaker ones were t a u g h t b y expedience (sympheron) t o b a n d together a n d make their i d e n t i f y i n g e m b l e m (semeion) a representation o f one o f the animals w h i c h they subsequently deified. A l l those w h o were a t a n y t i m e i n fear for their lives w o u l d assemble b y t h e e m b l e m , thus f o r m i n g a g r o u p w h i c h c o u l d give an attacker pause. T h e practice spread, so t h a t the h u m a n m u l t i t u d e s became organized i n t o groups (systemata) each one o f w h i c h regarded t h e a n i m a l w h i c h h a d been its salvation as t h e greatest o f benefactors a n d conferred o n i t d i v i n e honors. O n account o f this the separate E g y p t i a n tribes (ethne) d o w n to the present day honor the a n i m a l w h i c h received d i v i n e honors a m o n g t h e m a t the outset. (Diodorus 1.90.1) [ P r i m i t i v e m e n ] bestiis et fortioribus a n i m a l i b u s praedae fuisse c o m m e m o r a n t , t u m eos q u i a u t l a n i a t i effugerant a u t laniatos p r o x i m i v i d e r a n t , admonitos p e r i c u l i . . . a d alios homines decucurrisse et p r i m o nutibus v o l u n t a t e m suam significasse, deinde sermonis i n i t i a temptasse ac singulis quibusque rebus n o m i n a i m p r i m e n d o p a u l a t i m l o q u e n d i perfecisse r a t i o n e m . (Lactantius, Inst. div. 6.10.13-14) T h e course o f e v o l u t i o n d e s c r i b e d i n L a c t a n t i u s is e x a c t l y t h a t w h i c h a p pears i n D i o d o r u s 1.8: m e n ' s weakness r e l a t i v e t o t h e beasts leads t o a g g r e g a t i o n s i n w h i c h speech is d e v e l o p e d . A n d t h e sequence o f gestures f o l l o w e d b y speech w h i c h has b e e n suggested f o r C a n d C i n V i t r u v i u s e x a c t l y p a r a l l e l s 1
t h e primo nutibus . . . deinde sermonis initia o f L a c t a n t i u s . T h e D i o d o r u s passage comes f r o m a n a c c o u n t o f t h e o r i g i n o f a n i m a l w o r s h i p i n E g y p t a n d is i n t e r e s t i n g i n i t s e l f f o r its a n t i c i p a t i o n o f a t o t e m i s t i c theory o f the origin o f r e l i g i o n . closely
1 1
T h e process d e s c r i b e d
is, h o w e v e r , so
a n a l o g o u s t o t h e f o r m a t i o n o f societies w h i c h is t h e subject o f
D i o d o r u s 1.8 (see Stage 4 A - B , a b o v e , p . 3 3 ) t h a t t h e t w o passages c a n n o t have arisen i n d e p e n d e n t l y .
M e n b a n d together
for self-protection
(with
sympheron h e r e , c o m p a r e hypo tou sympherontos didaskomenous i n 4 A ) ; t h e y t h e n develop a means o f c o m m u n i c a t i n g w i t h one another (language i n 4B, the e m b l e m h e r e ) ; a n d t h e systemata t h u s f o r m e d d e v e l o p e v e n t u a l l y i n t o t r i b e s : T h e relevance of Diodorus 1.90 was first noted by Uxkull-Gyllenband (27, with note 15), that of Lactantius by Spoerri ( 1 5 6 - 5 8 ; see also his article in MusHelv 18.79, note 8 3 ) . T h e identity of Lactantius' source is not known (Spoerri, 158, note 8 ) ; it may, however, be Cicero. 1 0
1 1
Cf. Menzel, SB Wien 216, No. 1, 167; T . Hopfner, Plutarch über Isis und Osiris 2 (Prague 1941)
2 6 5 ; H . Bonnet, Reallexikon der ägyptischen Religionsgeschichte (Berlin 1952) 822, col. 2, s.v. "Tierkult."
T H E
O R I G I N S
O F L A N G U A G E
(DIODORUS,
V I T R U V I U S ,
6
E P I C U R U S )
5
D i o d o r u s notes, i n t h e passage (1.8.4) i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g t h e o n e p r i n t e d as Stage 4 B , t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l systemata a r e t h e first p a r e n t s o f t h e v a r i o u s ethne o f t h e w o r l d — j u s t as t h e systemata o f 1.90 a r e t h e ancestors o f t h e d i f f e r e n t ethne o f E g y p t . T h e v a r i a t i o n i n s u c h s i m i l a r passages b e t w e e n references t o l i n g u i s t i c a n d n o n - l i n g u i s t i c m e t h o d s o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n suggests t h e use o f a source w h i c h , l i k e L a c t a n t i u s , m e n t i o n e d o r a l l o w e d f o r b o t h .
1 2
A n d the
same m a y b e said o f t h e c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n t h e h u m a n aggressors o f 1.90 a n d t h e a n i m a l ones o f 1.8. T h e t e x t o f L a c t a n t i u s as i t n o w stands m e n t i o n s o n l y t h e l a t t e r . B u t i t is strange t h a t h e s h o u l d d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n bestiis a n d fortioribus
animalibus.
Animalibus
is s u r e l y a gloss i n t r o d u c e d b y someone w h o
was u n a b l e o r u n w i l l i n g t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e sinister i m p l i c a t i o n s offortioribus. T h e o r i g i n a l i d e a is p r e s e r v e d i n a f r a g m e n t o f C i c e r o ' s E p i c u r e a n p o r a r y L u c i u s Saufeius w h i c h e x p l a i n s Latium w h e r e p r i m i t i v e m e n latuerunt. (Servius ad Aen. 1 . 6 ) . Both Diodorus
contem-
as t h e n a m e g i v e n t h e p l a c e
. . caventes sibi a feris
beluis vel a
valentioribus
1 3
(1.90.1) a n d L a c t a n t i u s describe a s i t u a t i o n w h i c h m a y
w e l l b e t h e eventus fortuitus
referred to i n V i t r u v i u s . N e w forms o f c o m m u n i c a -
t i o n , l i n g u i s t i c o r n o n - l i n g u i s t i c , arise i n a m o m e n t o f crisis. T h e i r
initial
a p p l i c a t i o n m a y b e s o m e t h i n g o f a n a c c i d e n t : t h e sermonis initia o f L a c t a n t i u s are h a r d l y m o r e t h a n a c r y o f t e r r o r u t t e r e d w i t h o u t k n o w l e d g e o f w h a t its effect w i l l b e . T h e s u b s e q u e n t d e v e l o p m e n t
is n o t c l e a r l y
described
by
L a c t a n t i u s , b u t D i o d o r u s ' t e x t suggests t h a t d e v e l o p m e n t w o u l d t a k e p l a c e to t h e degree t h a t t h e n e w m o d e o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n p r o v e d i t s e l f useful. I f the c r y u t t e r e d succeeded i n s a v i n g t h e u t t e r e r a n d i n w a r n i n g those whose This suggestion is also the one which best accounts for the " totemistic" theory of 1.90. UxkullGyllenband, 27 with note 15, assumed that the author on whom Diodorus has drawn simply transferred, rather crudely, "die Theorie wonach Verbände durch eine Sprache begründet werden auf die Verehrung eines Tieres . . . die nun ihrerseits eine Gruppe entstehen lässt." Actually, the process seems to have been more complicated. T h e emblems of 1.90 were not invented by Diodorus' source. T h e names of the various nomes of ancient Egypt are often written in hieroglyphics as insignia (many of them representations of an animal which was the object of a local cult) resting atop a standard and perch (see K . H . Sethe, "Urgeschichte und älteste Religion der Ägypter," Abh.für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, 18.4 [1930] 3 3 - 3 4 ) . Presumably such Standards were at one time in actual use, and Diodorus' source must have been aware of their existence. I n supposing them to have been intimately connected with the origin of animal worship, he was evidently following the same line of reasoning which has led certain modern scholars to a similar conclusion (see A . Moret, The Nile and Egyptian Civilization [Eng. transl. New York 1927] 3 8 - 5 3 ; A . Moret and G . Davy, From Tribe to Empire [Eng. transl. New York i g 2 6 ] 1 2 2 - 2 4 ) . What is involved is not mere speculation but an application of speculative ethnology to observed data. And the application would have suggested itself more easily if the particular piece of ethnology used embodied, not simply a recognition of the importance of language as a vinculum societatis, but a more general consideration of the importance of tangible symbols of tribal identity in the early phases of social development. 1 2
I3
' C f . also Isidore, Orig.
1 5 . 2 . 5 - 6 : primum homines . . . nec contra beluas praesidia habebant.
. . nec ipsi
inter se homines ab hominibus satis erant tuti—in a passage which, like its counterpart in Lactantius, is devoted to describing the origin of oppida.
66
DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
assistance h e r e c e i v e d o f i m p e n d i n g d a n g e r , i t w o u l d n a t u r a l l y , l i k e t h e e m b l e m i n D i o d o r u s , be used a g a i n i n s i m i l a r situations. M e n w o u l d u t t e r i t w i t h t h e e x p e c t a t i o n o f i t s b r i n g i n g a i d , a n d those w h o h e a r d i t w o u l d r e spond b y assembling
to the p o i n t f r o m w h i c h i t came. T h e nucleus o f the
systema w o u l d t h u s b e those w h o g a t h e r e d t o a c o m m o n e m b l e m o r r a l l y i n g cry, or t o a h a n d signal o r beacon fire—whence, perhaps, the role p l ayed b y fire i n V i t r u v i u s ' a c c o u n t o f the origins o f s o c i e t y .
1 4
T h e r e is n o r e a s o n w h y
the theory should n o t have envisioned the possibility o f a var i et y o f whichever
type
first p r o v e d i t s e l f useful w o u l d c o n t i n u e
to be
symbola:
15
employed.
Eventually, however, the superiority o f verbal to non-verbal communication For fire signals as a summons to common defense in historical times, cf. Theognis 5 4 9 - 5 0 , and Demosthenes, Cor. 169. Gorgias (VS 8 2 B n a 3 o ) includes them among the heuremata of Palamedes, who is credited by Pliny with the more general signi dationem (NH 7.202). I t is just possible that this is the idea behind an obscure passage in Hyginus (274.20—21) on the origin of the trumpet: 1 4
1 5
Tyrrhenus Herculis filius tubam primus invenit hac ratione, quod cum carne humana comites eius vescerentur, ob crudelitatem incolae circa regionem diffugerunt; tunc ille quia ex eorum decesserat, concha pertusa buccinavit et pagum convocavit. testatique sunt se mortuum sepulturae dare nec consumere. unde tuba Tyrrhenum melos dicitur. quod exemplum hodie Romani servant et cum aliquis decessit tubicines cantant et amici convocantur testandi gratia eum neque veneno neque ferro interiisse. Quia ex eorum decesserat makes no sense. Kremmer ( 7 6 - 7 7 ) suggests quia aliquis ex eorum numero decesserat
—which, however, leaves the transition from cannibalism to non-cannibalism unexplained. Rose (ad loc.) suggests that Tyrrhenus' companions were only thought to be cannibals by the surrounding incolae. But why, then, should the latter answer what could only seem a summons to their own destruction? Perhaps ex eorum decesserat mistranslates an εξ αυτών απήλθε in which the subject was Tyrrhenus rather than some unnamed companion, and in which the verb meant simply "depart." Tyrrhenus abandons the ways of his companions and summons the pagus to a common defense against them with a concha pertusa. T h e alliance thus formed would have included, first, a pact against cannibalism, then the agreement to bury the dead which our text preserves (cf. Moschion, Fr. 6.32—33 [ T G F 8 1 4 ] where, upon abandoning cannibalism, men make it their custom to bury their dead μτ/δ' εν όφθαλμοΐς εάν τής πρόσθε θοινής μνημόνενμα δυσσεβοΰς; and, for burial as a
heurema, Diodorus 5.69.5). T h e text as it now stands would thus be the result of modifications trans forming a Greek aetiology of the use of the Etruscan trumpet as a call to battle (cf. Aeschylus, Eum. 5 6 7 ; Euripides, Phoen. 1377; Sophocles, Ajax 17; Anth. Pal. 6.151) into an explanation of the Roman custom of using it at funerals. Decesserat has taken on a new meaning to suit this context, and the original connection between burial and the abandoning of cannibalism has been obscured. Cf. Pliny, NH 7.201, who attributes to Tyrrhenus' son Pisaeus the invention oiaeneam tubam (perhaps an improvement on his father's concha pertusa), and Juvenal 15.142-59 on the institution of society, which has removed mankind vetusto de nemore ( 1 5 1 - 5 2 ) and taught them ( 1 5 5 - 5 8 ) : protegere armis lapsum aut ingenti nutantem vulnere civem, communi dare signa tuba, defendier isdem turribus atque una portarum clave teneri. Here the tuba as a means of common defense appears in close connection with a situation (prote gere . . . civem) which strongly recalls the one described in Lactantius. I f our interpretation of Hyginus is correct, the concha pertusa may have been another symbolon for which the tradition rep resented in Diodorus and Vitruvius envisioned a role in the early history of society.
T H E
O R I G I N S
O F L A N G U A G E
( D I O D O R U S ,
V I T R U V I U S ,
67
E P I C U R U S )
for m o s t purposes w o u l d i n s u r e i t a m o r e extensive d e v e l o p m e n t ; n e w uses for speech w o u l d suggest themselves a n d , e v e n t u a l l y , a l a n g u a g e arise. T h i s c o n c e p t i o n supposes a m u c h closer c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e f o r m a t i o n o f l a n g u a g e a n d t h e f o r m a t i o n o f society t h a n c o u l d be i n f e r r e d f r o m t h e texts p r i n t e d u n d e r h e a d i n g s
4 A - B i n Chapter
Two.
1 6
L a n g u a g e is n o t
m e r e l y s o m e t h i n g w h i c h society m a k e s possible. F r o m t h e v e r y b e g i n n i n g i t symbolizes t h e benefits o f c o o p e r a t i o n a n d m u t u a l defense a n d d i r e c t s m e n to t h e m . I t is t h u s t h e essential m e d i u m f o r t h e w h o l e process b y w h i c h m e n go a b o u t s e c u r i n g these a d v a n t a g e s . B u t t h e c o n c e p t i o n , e v e n i f i t is
riot
present i n t h e passages c o n s i d e r e d i n C h a p t e r T w o , is so closely r e l a t e d t o t h e v i e w o f t h e g r o w t h o f t e c h n o l o g y w h i c h t h e y e m b o d y t h a t i t is h a r d t o b e l i e v e i t d i d n o t o n c e f o r m p a r t o f a single a c c o u n t w i t h t h a t v i e w .
The
i m p e t u s f o r t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f l a n g u a g e , as f o r t h a t o f t e c h n o l o g y , is a n eventus fortuitus:
a n e w m o d e o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n t r i e d as a last resort i n a
crisis succeeds i n w a r n i n g e n o u g h
people
so t h a t a successful defense is
p o s s i b l e ; a n d once the u t i l i t y o f l a n g u a g e is t h u s e s t a b l i s h e d , i t w i l l b e c o m e h a b i t u a l , l i k e a n e w l y d i s c o v e r e d t e c h n i q u e . N e w uses f o r speech, l i k e n e w techniques,
will
constantly
suggest
themselves
and
become
assimilated
t h r o u g h i m i t a t i o n a n d e x c h a n g e i n a social m e d i u m . A n d t h e w h o l e c o n ception, l i n k i n g the t w o developments
o f l a n g u a g e a n d society, serves t o
m a k e b o t h f o l l o w m o r e p l a u s i b l y f r o m w h a t p r e c e d e s : t h e sequence o f d i s crete events w h i c h is b e i n g c o n s t r u c t e d a p p r o a c h e s a step closer t o t h e i d e a l o f a h i s t o r i c a l c o n t i n u u m (see a b o v e , p p . 4 7 - 4 8 ) . I f t h i s is i n d e e d t h e l i n e o f t h o u g h t o f w h i c h V i t r u v i u s a n d D i o d o r u s p r e serve a f r a g m e n t a r y r e c o r d , a n i m p o r t a n t n e w aspect o f o u r t r a d i t i o n has b e e n r e v e a l e d . T h e d i s c o v e r y , s i g n i f i c a n t i n itself, has some b e a r i n g o n t h e p r o b l e m o f sources. V i t r u v i u s a n d D i o d o r u s d o n o t d e r i v e t h e i r t h e o r y o f t h e o r i g i n o f l a n g u a g e f r o m E p i c u r u s ; a n d t h e i r t h e o r y is so closely s i m i l a r t o its counterparts o n technology
t h a t i t m u s t go b a c k , a l o n g w i t h t h e m , t o a
c o m m o n source. C l e a r l y , t h e n , t h i s c o m m o n source is n o t E p i c u r e a n . W i t h E p i c u r u s o u t o f c o u r t as a possible source f o r a n y s i g n i f i c a n t p o r t i o n of o u r t r a d i t i o n , the a r g u m e n t for d e r i v a t i o n f r o m D e m o c r i t u s
becomes
s t r o n g e r . W e k n o w t h a t t h e l a t t e r a d v a n c e d several a r g u m e n t s f o r t h e v i e w t h a t l a n g u a g e is a c o n v e n t i o n a l r a t h e r t h a n a n a t u r a l p h e n o m e n o n some w o r d s are s y n o n y m s (isorropa)
(B26):
a n d h o m o n y m s (polysema) o f e a c h o t h e r ;
Note, however, that Diodorus, by making his ethne descended from linguistic systemata, suggests that language had a role in the consolidation and continuance of society, if not in its initial formation; and two passages quoted earlier (above, note 2) for their parallels to the Diodorus-Vitruvius account of the origin of speech may contain echoes of the same idea. Cicero {Rep. 3.3) speaks of iri^n^ j' ,; as ante dissociates who were later joined sermonis vinculo; and Horace says that wars contini language was developed, whereupon men oppida coeperunt munire etponere leges (Sat. i.3.iom<Jjee/dlso below, pp. 8 5 - 8 6 . 1 6
68
DEMOCRJTUS AND T H E SOURCES OF G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
t h e r e e x i s t c e r t a i n t h i n g s (nonyma) f o r w h i c h n o w o r d e x i s t s ; a n d i t is p o s s i b l e f o r a g i v e n o b j e c t t o r e c e i v e a n e w n a m e . T h i s is, u n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h e o n l y b i t of Democritus' linguistic theory to survive,
1 7
a n d i t is n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o s h o w
t h a t h e discussed l a n g u a g e i n t h e s a m e w a y as d o V i t r u v i u s a n d
Diodorus,
o r e v e n t h a t h e discussed i t s o r i g i n a t a l l . H e m a y h a v e a c c e p t e d t h e t h e o r y o f a n o r i g i n a l l i n g u i s t i c nomothetes, question—debated
or have been concerned
i n t h e Cratylus—of
whether
words
only with
the
have a n y t h i n g to
do
w i t h the real n a t u r e o f the objects they designate. O n e s h o u l d note, h o w e v e r , that the
m e n t i o n o f the linguistic phenomena
to w h i c h Democritus
calls
a t t e n t i o n fits m u c h b e t t e r w i t h a n a n a l y s i s o f l a n g u a g e a l o n g t h e l i n e s t a k e n b y V i t r u v i u s a n d D i o d o r u s t h a n i t does w i t h e i t h e r o f t h e a l t e r n a t e p o s s i b i l i ties s u g g e s t e d . F o r s y n o n y m s a n d h o m o n y m s a r e t o b e e x p e c t e d i n a s t r u c t u r e t h a t has g r o w n u p b y a p i e c e m e a l a n d a t t i m e s h a p h a z a r d the w o r k sumably
o f a n o r i g i n a l onomatothetis, self-consistent.
18
And
w h i c h w o u l d be
i f Democritus
process—not i n
arbitrary but
simply meant
to d e n y
prethat
w o r d s c a n t e l l us a n y t h i n g a b o u t t h e r e a l n a t u r e o f t h i n g s i t is h a r d t o see t h e p o i n t o f h i s r e f e r e n c e t o nonyma. Nonyma,
o n c e t h e y a r e r e c o g n i z e d as
such,
a r e m o r e t h a n l i k e l y t o r e c e i v e n a m e s . T h e y c a n t h u s b e e x p e c t e d t o b e less n u m e r o u s i n the f u t u r e t h a n t h e y are at present, a n d t h e y were,
presumably,
B 1 4 2 , in which the names of the gods are said to be agalmata phoneenta, and VS I I 7 2 . 2 3 - 2 5 , 74.18—22 (Leucippus A 6 and 9 ) , comparing atoms to letters, are sometimes adduced in support of the view that Democritus accepted, to some degree at any rate, a "physis" theory of the relationship between words and objects: see R . Philippson, "Piatons Kratylos und Demokrit," BPW49 (1929) 1 7
923-24;
E . Haag, "Platons Kratylos,"
Tübinger Beiträge ig
Sprache und die archaische Logik," Heidelberger Gentinetta, Z
ttr
(1933)
Abb. zu Philosophie
4 6 - 4 8 ; E . Hoffmann, 3 (1925)
Sprachbetrachtung bei den Sophisten und in der stoisch-hellenistischen
"Die
2 5 - 2 6 ; and P. M . (Diss. Zürich 1961)
2 9 - 3 2 . T h e conclusion seems to me to be unwarranted. T h e alphabet analogies only show that both linguistic and physical structures are regarded as atomistic—not that one reproduces the other in some fashion (see A . Pagliaro, " I I 'Cratilo' di Platone," Dioniso 15 [1952] 183-85 and 197, note 8 ; E . Frank, Plato und die sogenannten Pythagoreer [Halle 1923] 169—71); and it is not words in general but only certain proper names which are compared in B142 to "voiced images." Greek proper names did as a rule have some fairly obvious "natural" as well as conventional meaning: "Democritus" is both a conventional designation for a fifth century philosopher and a "voiced image" of a man chosen by the people. Likewise with the names of the gods; cf. Democritus' own etymology of Tritogeneia ( B 2 ) . Phoneenta, it should be observed, ordinarily means "speaking"—not "consisting of sound''; perhaps we should think of the agalmata as speaking only to those who are capable of understanding them—cf. Pindar's /JeAr/ tpcovuevTu OWSTOIOL (01. 2.83—85)—to the philosopher, for example, who finds in the name " Zeus " a representation of primitive conceptions of deity (see Appendix Four.) Pagliaro, Dioniso
15.185, and W . K . C . Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy 2 (Cambridge 1965)
476, take agalmata as referring to the mental images which words call forth, in which case the fragment may indicate (as Krokiewicz suggests, Eos 4 7 , No. 1, 4 0 ) that Democritus was concerned with establishing the verbal and imagistic character of thought (cf. B 1 4 5 : Xoyos Zpyov a/arj). But I doubt that agalmata phoneenta can have this meaning. Cf. Havelock, 118, who suggests that Democritus inferred from "some of the odd and illogical ways in which language behaves" that "its development depended to some extent on a human direction which was erratic." 1 8
T H E ORIGINS O F L A N G U A G E ( D I O D O R U S , V I T R U V I U S , E P I C U R U S )
69
m o r e n u m e r o u s i n t h e past. T h e i r e x i s t e n c e — l i k e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f r e n a m i n g objects—points to the g r o w i n g a n d evolving character o f l a n g u a g e .
1 9
I t tells
us n o t h i n g a b o u t t h e " t r u e " o r " a r b i t r a r y " c h a r a c t e r o f t h e b o d y o f d e s i g n a t i o n s i n use a t a n y g i v e n p o i n t i n t h e p r o c e s s .
20
T h e r e is t h u s n o e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t , a n d some e v i d e n c e f o r , t h e a s s u m p t i o n that Democritus envisioned a g r a d u a l g r o w t h of language t h r o u g h piecemeal, c o n v e n t i o n a l accretions. I f he d i d , a n d i f he considered t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f technology a n d language i n conjunction w i t h each other, the whole
Kultur
geschichte o f t h e E p i c u r e a n s m a y w e l l h a v e a r i s e n f r o m a D e m o c r i t e a n p r o t o t y p e b y t h e same process o f b o r r o w i n g a n d m o d i f i c a t i o n w h i c h p r o d u c e d E p i c u r e a n physics. A s m i g h t be e x p e c t e d , D i o d o r u s a n d V i t r u v i u s , h a v i n g n o s p e c i a l p h i l o s o p h i c bias o f t h e i r o w n , preserve t h e p r o t o t y p e less c o m pletely, b u t w i t h greater fidelity. I t w o u l d be p r e m a t u r e at the present stage o f o u r i n v e s t i g a t i o n t o a c c e p t s u c h a h y p o t h e s i s , b u t i t is a h y p o t h e s i s to w h i c h t h e s u c c e e d i n g t h r e e c h a p t e r s o f t h i s s t u d y w i l l b r i n g s t r o n g , p e r haps c o n c l u s i v e , s u p p o r t . Note also that Democritus' term nonyma recurs in Diodorus I in an evolutionary context. I n the Aegyptiaca we are told that, as a result of the ingenuity of Hermes, πολλά των ανωνύμων τυχάν •προσηγορίας ( ι . 16. ι). O n the relation of this passage to 1.8.3-4 (reproduced at the beginning of this chapter) see below, pp. 1 0 8 - 9 . T . Gomperz (Griechische Denker* [Berlin and Leipzig 1922] 1-329-30), while recognizing that the fact that "manche Dinge oder Begriffe einer Bezeichnung entraten . . . kann . . . schwerlich etwas gegen das Vorhandensein eines inneren Bandes zu beweisen scheinen, das die benannte Dinge mit diesen ihren Namen verbindet," explains Democritus' reference to nonyma in a rather different fashion. Their existence shows that language lacks the Vollkommenheit and Zweckmässigkeit which should characterize a natural (or divine) phenomenon. This interpretation assumes that Democritus is concerned with establishing the arbitrary character of language as a whole. Yet the fragment speaks only of individual onomata as existing thesei. Democritus may well have held a similar view about the larger aspects of linguistic usage, but the two problems are different. It would be quite possible to maintain that, though the individual elements of language are arbitrary and conventional, the syntactic structures built up out of them do present an accurate reflection of physis. T h e historical interpretation offered in the text thus seems to me the more plausible explanation for the reference to nonyma in a defense of the view that onomata exist thesei. 1 8
2 0
CHAPTER THE
GENEALOGY
FIVE
OF MORALS
I f the reconstruction offered i n C h a p t e r
(EPICURUS)
F o u r is c o r r e c t , t h e t r a d i t i o n o f
t h o u g h t w e are e x a m i n i n g m a d e n o s h a r p d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e p r o b l e m s o f social a n d l i n g u i s t i c o r i g i n s . L a n g u a g e p r o v i d e s t h e essential through
which
the f o r m a t i o n a n d
c o n s o l i d a t i o n o f society
medium
takes
place.
D i o d o r u s , V i t r u v i u s , a n d L u c r e t i u s are a l l m o r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e p u r e l y l i n g u i s t i c phases o f t h i s process t h a n t h e y are w i t h t h e social ones; b u t t h i s s h a r e d p r e o c c u p a t i o n n e e d n o t be a c o n c l u s i v e i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f e m p h a s i s i n t h e t r e a t m e n t f r o m w h i c h o u r a u t h o r s d e r i v e . Since t h e t w o t o p i c s o f l i n g u i s t i c a n d social o r i g i n s w e r e so closely c o n n e c t e d , t h e y m a y w e l l h a v e r e c e i v e d e q u a l a t t e n t i o n . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h e texts e x a m i n e d t h u s f a r d o n o t a l l o w a d e f i n i t e s o l u t i o n t o t h i s p r o b l e m , n o r d o t h e y p o i n t t h e w a y , as d i d t h e analyses o f l a n g u a g e f o u n d i n D i o d o r u s a n d V i t r u v i u s , t o o t h e r sources f r o m w h i c h t h e i r a c c o u n t s m a y be s u p p l e m e n t e d . O u r i n v e s t i g a t i o n h a v i n g r e a c h e d s o m e t h i n g o f a n impasse, a b r i e f d e t o u r becomes necessary. T h e r e are c e r t a i n E p i c u r e a n texts i n w h i c h a w e l l dev e l o p e d t h e o r y o f t h e genesis o f society a n d social n o r m s is t o be f o u n d — a t h e o r y w h i c h , m o r e o v e r , is closely c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e E p i c u r e a n analysis o f l a n g u a g e e x a m i n e d i n C h a p t e r F o u r . T h e l a t t e r analysis, as w e h a v e seen, differs i n i m p o r t a n t w a y s f r o m t h a t w h i c h b e l o n g s t o w h a t m a y be c a l l e d t h e m a i n s t r e a m o f o u r t r a d i t i o n . I t is j u s t possible t h a t t h e E p i c u r e a n a c c o u n t o f social o r i g i n s differs i n s i m i l a r f a s h i o n f r o m a discussion o f t h e same s u b j e c t w h i c h o n c e s t o o d i n t h e m a i n b o d y o f o u r t r a d i t i o n b u t w h i c h has n o t b e e n preserved i n a n y o f the representatives f o u r theories i n q u e s t i o n — t h e
o f i t c o n s i d e r e d t h u s f a r . I f so, t h e
" o r t h o d o x " views
of linguistic a n d
social
o r i g i n s a n d t h e E p i c u r e a n " v a r i a n t s " — o u g h t t o s t a n d i n a sort o f p r o p o r t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p t o e a c h o t h e r . E p i c u r u s ' a c c o u n t o f l a n g u a g e w o u l d be r e l a t e d t o its c o u n t e r p a r t s i n D i o d o r u s a n d V i t r u v i u s as t h e
Epicurean
a c c o u n t o f social d e v e l o p m e n t t o its ( h y p o t h e t i c a l ) c o u n t e r p a r t . T h i s b e i n g so, o n e s h o u l d b e a b l e , k n o w i n g t h e first t h r e e t e r m s o f t h e p r o p o r t i o n , to p r e d i c t s o m e t h i n g a b o u t t h e f o u r t h , a n d so t o r e c o g n i z e a n y traces o f i t which may
h a v e s u r v i v e d i n p o r t i o n s o f a n c i e n t Kulturgeschichte
not
yet
i d e n t i f i e d as b e l o n g i n g t o o u r t r a d i t i o n . I t is w i t h t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y i n m i n d t h a t w e t u r n t o a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e E p i c u r e a n analysis o f social o r i g i n s . 70
THE
G E N E A L O G Y O F MORALS (EPICURUS)
I t has l o n g b e e n r e c o g n i z e d
1
71
that Epicurus, like certain fifth
century
t h i n k e r s , v i e w e d t h e c o m m o n speech a n d t h e c o m m o n n o t i o n s o f r i g h t a n d 2
w r o n g w h i c h o b t a i n i n a g i v e n c o u n t r y as a n a l o g o u s p h e n o m e n a . B o t h c o m e i n t o b e i n g b y a n a t u r a l process, t o serve u t i l i t a r i a n e n d s ; a n d b o t h h a v e a v a l i d i t y w h i c h , t h o u g h n o t a b s o l u t e , is nevertheless q u i t e r e a l . T h e y " m a k e sense" t o a g i v e n p e o p l e b u t a r e m e a n i n g l e s s f o r m a n k i n d i n g e n e r a l . The the
s u r v i v i n g w o r k o f E p i c u r u s h i m s e l f contains n o d e t a i l e d discussion o f
o r i g i n o f n o t i o n s o f r i g h t a n d w r o n g c o m p a r a b l e t o t h e passage o n l a n
g u a g e w h i c h a p p e a r s i n t h e Letter to Herodotus. Epicurean genealogy abstinentia
3
B u t a p o r t i o n , a t least, o f t h e
o f m o r a l s is g i v e n i n a s e c t i o n o f P o r p h y r y ' s De
( I . I O - I I ) w h i c h r e p r o d u c e s t h e t h e o r i e s o f t h e first s c h o l a r c h ,
Hermarchus:
4
I t was w i t h good reason t h a t those w h o first prescribed w h a t w e o u g h t a n d ought n o t t o d o m a d e n o p r o h i b i t i o n against k i l l i n g other animals. . . . F o r s u r v i v a l was n o t possible w i t h o u t a n effort a t self-defense o n the p a r t o f those [ a m o n g p r i m i t i v e m a n k i n d ] w h o shared the same feeding-grounds [tons syntrephomenous). B u t some o f the finer natures a t t h a t t i m e [ton tote chariestatdn), r e m e m b e r i n g h o w they themselves refrained f r o m k i l l i n g their fellows o n ac c o u n t o f its usefulness for s u r v i v a l , r e m i n d e d the others also o f w h a t benefit resulted f r o m their c o m m o n pasturings (tais met' alleldn syntrophiais) i n order that, r e f r a i n i n g f r o m t h e slaughter o f w h a t was a k i n t o t h e m (apechomenoi tou syngenous) they m i g h t preserve the state o f c o m m u n i t y w h i c h c o n t r i b u t e d t o each i n d i v i d u a l ' s survival. F o r l e t t i n g each other alone (to chdrizesthai)
and doing
n o t h i n g injurious t o a n y o f those w h o were collected i n t o the same place was useful, n o t o n l y for d r i v i n g away the animals o f other species, b u t also against men
w h o came a l o n g w i t h h a r m f u l i n t e n t . U p t o a certain p o i n t t h e n , m e n re
frained f r o m the slaughter o f w h a t was a k i n to them—as great a p o r t i o n o f t h e i r k i n d r e d as entered i n t o the same sharing o f the necessities o f life a n d supplied certain needed services f o r t h e aforementioned purposes [ d r i v i n g a w a y w i l d beasts a n d h a r m f u l m e n ] . B u t later, w h e n the generation o f the race h a d p r o gressed a n d the animals o f other species h a d been d r i v e n a w a y a n d a n end m a d e to t h e i r inroads, certain m e n gave r a t i o n a l consideration (epilogismon)
to the
advantageousness o f their m u t u a l w a y o f life (tais pros allelon trophais), n o t s i m p l y See Philippson, 298. Cf. Plato, Prot. 3 2 7 E — 2 8 A and Euripides, Suppl. 9 1 1 - 1 7 , where acquiring arete is compared to learning a language. This, combined with Protagoras' view that right and wrong " a r e " for each city as they seem to be (Plato, Theaet. 1 6 7 c ) is roughly equivalent to the Epicurean position. Cf. also the parallel fifth century expressions glossan (or phonen) nomizein (Herodotus 1.142.3, 2.42.4, 1
2
4.183.4) and diken nomizein ( 4 . 1 0 6 ) . O n the implications of this view, see Havelock, 192—93. 3
Cf. Porphyry's introductory statement ( 1 . 7 ) : ol he από τον 'Επίκουρου ώσπερ γενεαλογίαν μακράν
οιεξιόντςς φασιν. . . .
For general discussions of this passage, see Philippson, 315—19; Haussleiter, Der Vegetarismus in der Antike 2 8 1 - 8 6 ; and Krohn, Der Epikureer Hermarchos 6—8. Krohn notes (8) what is perhaps a further fifth century echo: Hermarchus' discussion of the origin of penalties for accidental murder (not reproduced in the text) recalls Protagoras, VS 8 0 A 1 0 . 4
72
DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K
ANTHROPOLOGY
u n t h i n k i n g m e m o r y (alogos mneme). Hence they t r i e d i n more secure fashion to restrain those w h o rashly k i l l e d each other a n d thereby made t h e c o m m o n defense weaker t h r o u g h their forgetfulness o f w h a t h a d happened i n the past. A t t e m p t i n g , t h e n , to d o this, they i n t r o d u c e d the legislation w h i c h still holds i n cities a n d nations, t h e m u l t i t u d e s w i l l i n g l y f o l l o w i n g their lead, inasmuch as they h a d a better perception already o f the advantage w h i c h l a y i n their aggre g a t i n g w i t h one another. F o r k i l l i n g every h a r m f u l t h i n g w i t h o u t quarter, a n d the preservation o f w h a t was useful for its destruction [non-aggression] c o n t r i b u t e d i n like m a n n e r to security. Hence, o f the aforesaid practices [ h o m i c i d e a m o n g tribesmen, k i l l i n g o f animals] the one was w i t h good reason p r o h i b i t e d , the other p e r m i t t e d . T h e o r i g i n o f t h e p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t h o m i c i d e is o n e i l l u s t r a t i o n o f t h e general
E p i c u r e a n p r i n c i p l e (RS 3 1 , 3 3 , 3 6 ) e q u a t i n g t h e j u s t a n d t h e
m u t u a l l y a d v a n t a g e o u s . A n d t h e r e is i n d i r e c t e v i d e n c e h e r e o f a n e v e n closer d e p e n d e n c e o n t h e m a s t e r . H e r m a r c h u s i n t r o d u c e s i n t o h i s a c c o u n t o f t h e o r i g i n o f social n o r m s t h e same r a t h e r p e c u l i a r d i v i s i o n i n t o " n a t u r a l " a n d " c o n v e n t i o n a l " ( o r " r a t i o n a l " ) phases w h i c h was f o u n d i n E p i c u r u s ' analysis o f t h e o r i g i n o f l a n g u a g e .
5
M a n ' s o r i g i n a l t e n d e n c y t o r e f r a i n f r o m h o m i c i d e is n o t , e v i d e n t l y , t h e r e s u l t o f conscious r e f l e c t i o n . T h e c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n n o n - a g g r e s s i o n a n d s u r v i v a l is s o m e t h i n g w h i c h t h e " f i n e r n a t u r e s " o f t h e t r i b e
"remember"
f r o m t h e i r o w n e x p e r i e n c e , e v i d e n t l y i n t h e same w a y as o n e m i g h t r e m e m b e r a n o b s e r v e d o b j e c t o r e v e n t . P e r h a p s t h e c o n n e c t i o n s h o u l d b e r e g a r d e d as o n e o f t h e ou synordmena pragmata o f w h i c h , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e E p i c u r e a n analysis o f l a n g u a g e , some m e n h a v e a d i r e c t i n t u i t i o n (see a b o v e , p . 6 2 ) . O n c e p e r c e i v e d a n d r e m e m b e r e d , i t is " r e c a l l e d " t o o t h e r m e n w i t h o u t d i f f i c u l t y . T h e y u n d e r s t a n d w h a t is r e f e r r e d t o , j u s t as t h e y w o u l d i f t h e i r a t t e n t i o n h a d b e e n c a l l e d t o some u n n o t i c e d p o r t i o n o f t h e i r v i s i b l e e n v i r o n m e n t . I n s i m i l a r f a s h i o n , o n e w o u l d assume, t h e first p e r s o n t o f o r m a n d u t t e r t h e " n a t u r a l " word 5
for something
is i m m e d i a t e l y
understood
b y his
companions.
6
That analysis is introduced as a particular example of the general rule that την φύσιν πολλά
και παντοία υπό αυτών των πραγμάτων διδαχθηναί τε και άναγκασθηναι, τον δε λογισμόν τά ύπό ταύτης παρεγγνηθεντα ύστερον εζακρφοΰν και προσεξενρίσκειν (Ad Herod. 75) j reappearances of the principle
of development it illustrates are thus to be expected. 6
Cf. the parallel statements on language and ethics found in Epicurus, Ad Herod. 3 8 , and Cicero,
Fin. 1 . 3 0 : ανάγκη γάρ το πρώτον εννόημα καθ* εκαστον φθόγγον βλεπεσθαι και μηδέν αποδείξεως προσδεΐσθαι.
negat opus esse ratione neque disputatione quam ob rem voluptas petenda fugiendus dolor sit. sentiri haec putat, ut calere ignem, nivem esse albam . . . quorum nihil oportere exquisitis rationibus confirmare. With what follows in Fin. 1.30—tantum satis esse admonere. interesse enim inter argumentum . . . et admonitionem: altera occulta quaedam et quasi involuta aperiri, altera prompta et aperta iudicari—compare
the
action of the " finer natures " in "reminding" others of "the benefits from their common pasturings."
THE
G E N E A L O G Y OF MORALS (EPICURUS)
I n d e e d , t h e t w o processes a r e i d e n t i c a l w h e n t h e w o r d u t t e r e d is or
73 dikaion
sympheron."
1
L a t e r , w h e n conditions o f life are m o r e settled, a n d b e i n g d e v o u r e d b y beasts a less f r e q u e n t o c c u r r e n c e , t h e u t i l i t y o f n o n - a g g r e s s i o n b e c o m e s less e v i d e n t , h e n c e easily f o r g o t t e n . I t m u s t n o w b e a p p r e h e n d e d b y a process of r e f l e c t i o n , a n d t h e p r o h i b i t i o n against h o m i c i d e to w h i c h such reflection 8
leads c a n n o t c o u n t o n a u t o m a t i c a c c e p t a n c e f r o m t h e w h o l e p o p u l a t i o n . I t m u s t , t h e r e f o r e , be e m b o d i e d i n l a w s w h i c h , l i k e t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l e l e m e n t s i n l a n g u a g e , o w e t h e i r o r i g i n a n d d i s s e m i n a t i o n t o c a l c u l a t i o n a n d conscious a g r e e m e n t . A s s u m i n g t h a t t h e earliest r e m i n d e r s w e r e v e r b a l , t h e w h o l e p r o cess is a n e x a m p l e
o f h o w t h e spontaneous
"unperceived t h i n g "
9
a n d necessary w o r d f o r a n
becomes at a later date the subject o f " r a t i o n a l
interpretation." The
whole account
language
exactly parallels the description o f the o r i g i n o f
a n d is o p e n t o s i m i l a r o b j e c t i o n s . I t is d i f f i c u l t t o see h o w t h e
c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n n o n - a g g r e s s i o n a n d s u r v i v a l c a n be d i r e c t l y a p p r e h e n d e d and
r e t a i n e d i n t h e m e m o r y l i k e a series o f sense p e r c e p t i o n s . M e m o r y w i l l
t e l l a m a n t o seek o u t h i s f e l l o w s w h e n i n n e e d o f h e l p ; b u t t o say, " I w i l l not
k i l l t h i s m a n ; h e m i g h t h e l p m e a t some t i m e i n t h e f u t u r e , " r e q u i r e s
f o r e t h o u g h t as w e l l as h i n d s i g h t a n d t h e a r t o f c o n n e c t i n g o n e p i e c e o f d a t a w i t h a n o t h e r w h i c h is t h e w o r k o f logismos ( o r , m o r e a c c u r a t e l y , synesis),
not
o f alogos mneme. S i m i l a r l y , t h o u g h c e r t a i n associations o f s o u n d a n d o b j e c t
7
Gf. Epicurus, RS 3 1 , which defines τό της φύσεως δίκαιον as a σύμβολον τοΰ συμφέροντος εις
το μή βλάπτειν αλλήλους μηδε βλάπτεσθαι. T h e usual translation is "guarantee (or compact) of the mutually advantageous." But dikaion is what is defined by, or results from, such a compact; it is strange that it is here declared to be identical with the compact itself. A more natural translation is "symbol" or "expression" (suggested by Philippson, 292, who notes that the normal expression for "non-aggression pact" would be, as in RS 33, συνθήκη ϋπερ τοΰ μη βλάτττειν, or, as in Aristotle, Pol. 3.1280A39, σύμβολα περι τοΰ μή άδικεϊν). "Just" is the name which men give to actions which are advantageous, the symbol through which the latter are remembered and discussed with a view to avoiding the doing or suffering of evil. See also below, pp. 8 5 - 8 6 . 8
For the juxtaposition of mneme and epilogismos cf. Pap. Here. 1056 F r . 6 , col. I I 7 - 9 (p. 29 Diano,
3 2 8 - 2 9 Arrighetti) τοΰ εν έαυτώ τέλους μνήμην και επιλογιομόν λαμβάνον. It has been recently argued
that for Epicurus epilogismos, by contrast with logismos, is primarily intuitive: "un atto conoscitivo che per giungere al suo risultato non abbisogni di alcun particolare processo logico, ma tale da compiersi piu ο meno nel fatto stesso che la mente si pone a considerare un oggetto" ( G . Arrighetti, "Sul valore di επιλογίζομαι,
επιλογισμός, επιλόγισις nel sistema Epicureo," Parola del Passato 7 [ 1 9 5 2 ]
123-24). Though Arrighetti is probably right in maintaining ( 1 3 7 - 4 4 ) that epilogismos does not mean "inductive inference" (the view taken by DeLacy, Philodemus: On Methods of Inference [Philadelphia 1941] 154) the difference in meaning seems to lie elsewhere: in the contrast between demonstration and proof (logismos) and the more informal, common-sense aspects of reason (epilogismos). For a reply to Arrighetti, see P. H . DeLacy, "Epicurean επιλογισμός," A J P 79 (1958) 179-83. For the use of avvop&v in connection with moral perceptions cf. Polystratus, F r . 7 a 2 - 5 , where it is suggested that animals have no idea of right and wrong because καλά and αισχρά . . . ου σννοραται 9
υπ* αυτών.
74
DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES OF G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
m a y be a u t o m a t i c , t h e c r e a t i o n o f a l a n g u a g e t h r o u g h a n a l o g i c a l
extension
o f t h e p r i n c i p l e i n v o l v e d w o u l d be t h e w o r k oflogismos. A n d i f t h e " n a t u r a l " c r e a t i o n o f s y m b o l s a s s u m e d b y E p i c u r u s is u n l i k e l y , e q u a l l y u n l i k e l y are his v i e w s a b o u t t h e i r c o m m u n i c a b i l i t y . A s a g e n e r a l r u l e , n e i t h e r t h e sounds w h i c h o n e m a n associates w i t h c e r t a i n objects n o r t h e v a l u e assessments h e a t t a c h e s t o c e r t a i n types o f a c t i o n c o u l d be e x p e c t e d t o be
immediately
m e a n i n g f u l t o his f e l l o w s . T h e g r e a t l y e x a g g e r a t e d r o l e w h i c h E p i c u r u s assigns t o i n t u i t i o n i n t h e i n i t i a l stages o f l i n g u i s t i c a n d social d e v e l o p m e n t is p e r h a p s best i l l u s t r a t e d b y a c o m p a r i s o n w i t h t h e passage f r o m D i o d o r u s
(1.90.1) q u o t e d
earlier
(see a b o v e , p . 64) o n t h e e m b l e m w h i c h t h e e a r l y E g y p t i a n s used i n assembl i n g f o r defense. T h e s i t u a t i o n e n v i s i o n e d t h e r e m i g h t f a i r l y be d e s c r i b e d
as
o n e i n v o l v i n g t h e use o f alogos mneme r a t h e r t h a n logismos. B u t t h e r e s u l t o f its a p p l i c a t i o n is m e r e l y t o m a k e m e n seek t h e h e l p o f t h e i r fellows
again
w h e n t h e r e is d a n g e r ; t h e r e is n o m e n t i o n o f a n y m o r e c o m p l i c a t e d p e r c e p t i o n s r e s u l t i n g f r o m t h e e v e n t . A n d w h a t is r e t a i n e d i n t h e m e m o r y is n o t e v e n a u n i f i e d p i c t u r e o f t h e w a r d i n g o f f o f a n a t t a c k ; i t is a single sense i m p r e s s i o n : t h e s t a n d a r d w h i c h is t h e v i s i b l e semeion o f w h a t has
happened.
I t has b e e n suggested a b o v e ( p p . 6 5 - 6 7 ) t h a t D i o d o r u s ' a c c o u n t comes f r o m a c o n t e x t i n w h i c h s u c h semeia w e r e seen as a f i r s t a n d a l m o s t a c c i d e n t a l step t o w a r d t h e f o r m a t i o n o f a l a n g u a g e . B u t t h i s step is o n l y t h e first o f m a n y . A g r a d u a l a s s i g n i n g o f s y m b o l s t o n e w s i t u a t i o n s o r objects w o u l d h a v e t o f o l l o w , a n d t h o u g h t h i s process m i g h t be f u r t h e r e d a t t i m e s b y
accidental
o c c u r r e n c e s l i k e t h e i n i t i a l o n e , i t w o u l d h a v e t o i n v o l v e , t o some d e g r e e a t least,
anchinoia
a n d prometheia—the
conscious c a l c u l a t i o n
which,
in
the
E p i c u r e a n v i e w , b e c o m e s o p e r a t i v e o n l y w h e n t h e g e n e r a l lines o f l i n g u i s t i c a n d e t h i c a l usage a r e
established.
I t is j u s t c o n c e i v a b l e , o f c o u r s e , t h a t P o r p h y r y has a b r i d g e d his source, and that, were Hermarchus
h i m s e l f p r e s e r v e d , t h e sequence o f a c t i o n
he
e n v i s i o n e d w o u l d be a series o f c o n c r e t e episodes l i k e t h e o n e i n D i o d o r u s .
1 0
I f , f o r e x a m p l e , i n t h e e a r l y fight f o r s u r v i v a l a t r i b e h a d n e a r l y b e e n a n n i h i l a t e d b y e n e m i e s because o f i n n e r dissensions, i t w o u l d be q u i t e n a t u r a l for
the
"finer natures"
t o say
o n s u b s e q u e n t occasions, " D o n ' t
fight;
r e m e m b e r w h a t h a p p e n e d last t i m e " ; a n d t h e a d m o n i t i o n w o u l d c e r t a i n l y be b a s e d u p o n alogos mnSme. B u t t h e o m i s s i o n o f a n y h i n t o f s u c h a n episode, the extremely abstract character o f the language, a n d the t e r m
chariestatoi—
s u g g e s t i n g i n s i g h t s o f a less h o m e l y k i n d — a l l f a v o r o u r e a r l i e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . P r i m i t i v e m o r a l i t y is a n a t u r a l reflex o f m a n ' s i m m e d i a t e p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e 1 0
We can be fairly sure that Hermarchus is at least being paraphrased rather than quoted. See Krohn, Der Epikureer Hermarchos 5 - 6 , for a list of words in this passage not attested in other third century texts.
THE
sympheron
G E N E A L O G Y O F MORALS (EPICURUS)
75
as e m b o d i e d i n his w h o l e s o c i a l e n v i r o n m e n t , j u s t as p r i m i t i v e
l a n g u a g e is a d i r e c t reflex o f t h e w a y i n w h i c h h e p e r c e i v e s t h e n a t u r a l w o r l d . T h e o n l y d i f f e r e n c e is t h a t t h e f o r m e r set o f p e r c e p t i o n s is f o u n d i n i t i a l l y i n o n l y a s m a l l p o r t i o n o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n , t h e chariestatoi. morality
n o r language
is c o n c e i v e d ,
as is t h e l a t t e r
Neither
i n Diodorus and
V i t r u v i u s , as t h e r e s u l t o f a series o f r e a c t i o n s t o specific events, r e a c t i o n s c o n d i t i o n e d b y these events a n d u t i l i z i n g i n c a l c u l a t e d f a s h i o n t h e suggestions t h e y p r o v i d e . C o n f i r m a t i o n o f t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n comes f r o m L u c r e t i u s , w h o d i s t i n guishes t h e s a m e t w o stages i n t h e g r o w t h o f m o r a l s as does H e r m a r c h u s . The
first is c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s w i t h t h e b e g i n n i n g s o f l a n g u a g e ( 1 0 1 9 - 2 0 ) : t u n c et a m i c i t i e m coeperunt iungere aventes f i n i t i m i i n t e r se nec laedere nec v i o l a r i .
The
i n i t i a l s o c i a l c o m p a c t d e s c r i b e d h e r e seems e v e n m o r e c l e a r l y t h a n i t s
c o u n t e r p a r t i n H e r m a r c h u s t o be t h e p r o d u c t o f a s p o n t a n e o u s p e r c e p t i o n o f the useful. T h e o n l y cause g i v e n f o r i t s f o r m a t i o n is t h e s o f t e n i n g i n m a n ' s c h a r a c t e r b r o u g h t a b o u t b y f i r e , houses, a n d f a m i l y a f f e c t i o n . O n c e t h i s has o c c u r r e d , t h e i m p u l s e t o e n t e r a s o c i a l c o n t r a c t is e v i d e n t l y i m m e d i a t e a n d almost universal (1024-25): nec t a m e n o m n i m o d i s poterat concordia g i g n i sed bona m a g n a q u e pars servabat foedera caste. E v e n t h e a d m o n i t i o n o f t h e f i n e r n a t u r e s is u n n e c e s s a r y . O n l y l a t e r a r e f o r m a l l a w s i n t r o d u c e d , t o p r e v e n t t h e excesses s t e m m i n g f r o m revenge a n d c o m p e t i t i o n for p o w e r (1143-47) :
1 1
1 1
T h e passage here quoted and the earlier one on the social contract are separated by a description of the beginning, degeneration, and end of monarchy (1108—40). T h e notion that monarchy was a first stage in the development of a legal system, providing the protection achieved later through laws and responsible magistrates, appears elsewhere in Latin literature (Seneca, Ep. 9 0 . 6 ; Cicero, Off. 2.41—42), and there are doubtless traces of it here (see below, Chap. V I , note 18). But Lucretius' basic view of the institution is rather different. Monarchy does not arise in answer to a social need—it is the result of the attempt on the part of individuals to guarantee themselves security ( 1 1 2 0 - 2 2 ) : at claros homines voluerunt se atque potentes ut fundamento stabili fortuna maneret et placidam possent opulenti degere vitam. The attempt to achieve this goal fails because of the rivalries it breeds ( 1 1 2 3 - 2 6 ) : ad summum succedere honorem certantes iter infestum fecere viai, et tamen e summo quasi fulmen deicit ictos invidia interdum contemptim in Tartara taetra. Competition for arche may thus be regarded as one of the results of the forgetfulness of the advantages of cooperation and solidarity which Hermarchus mentions; but in the same passage ( 1 1 4 8 - 5 0 ) ,
7
6
DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
i n d e m a g i s t r a t u m p a r t i m docuere creare i u r a q u e constituere u t vellent legibus u t i . n a m genus h u m a n u m defessum v i colere a e v u m ex i n i m i c i t i i s l a n g u e b a t ; q u o magis i p s u m sponte sua cecidit sub leges artaque i u r a . H e r e , as i n H e r m a r c h u s , t h e i n s t i g a t o r s a r e a s m a l l g r o u p (cf. partim i n 1 1 4 3 ) , and
t h e i n n o v a t i o n , t h o u g h p r o c e e d i n g f r o m t h e m , receives g e n e r a l s u p p o r t
because o f i t s usefulness. L u c r e t i u s h i m s e l f m a y b e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e s e n t i m e n t a l lines d e s c r i b i n g t h e r o l e p l a y e d b y t h e f a m i l y i n t h e w h o l e process ( 1 0 2 1 - 2 3 ) :
1 2
et pueros c o m m e n d a r u n t m u l i e b r e q u e saeclum vocibus et gestu c u m balbe significarent i m b e c i l l o r u m esse aecum misererier omnis. But
t h e philanthrdpia
e v i d e n t h e r e is A t t i c as w e l l as L u c r e t i a n ,
1 3
and to
suppose t h a t imbecillorum esse aecum misererier omnis is a n o t i o n c a p a b l e o f b e i n g c o n v e y e d i n gestures is q u i t e i n k e e p i n g w i t h E p i c u r u s ' p e c u l i a r v i e w s o n t h e clarity a n d c o m m u n i c a b i l i t y o f p r i m i t i v e man's perceptions. T h e i n f l a t e d i m p o r t a n c e w h i c h E p i c u r u s assigns t o t h e n a t u r a l phase i n the development
o f m o r a l s is e x p l i c a b l e as t h e r e s u l t o f a t o o s c r u p u l o u s
a d h e r e n c e t o h i s o w n s e n s a t i o n a l i s m . S i n c e j u s t i c e , d e f i n e d as συμφέρον. τι...
ev τη προς
αλλήλους
κοινωνία
s o m e t h i n g i n r e a l i t y (RS 3 1 : το τής φύσ€ως δίκαιον), a false hypolepsis. * 1
..
(RS 3 6 ) , is a n i d e a w h i c h answers t o i t is aprolepsis r a t h e r t h a n
A s s u c h i t o r i g i n a t e s w i t h t h e first p e r s o n t o u t t e r t h e
" n a t u r a l " word for i t ,
1 5
a n d i n t h e f o r m o f a n βπιβολήν
Ιπί τι
εναργές
Lucretius himself seems to envision another manifestation of the same tendency: it is the disorder stemming from immoderate revenge-taking which makes men willing to accept leges artaque iura. Yet another line of development is suggested by the fragment of Colotes (ap. Plut. Adv. Col. 3 0 1124D) which praises οι νόμους οΊατάζαντες και νόμιμα και τό βασιλευεσθαι
τάς πόλεις και άρχεσθαι
καταστήσαντες as bringers of ησυχία and ασφάλεια: without them men would live an animal existence in which ό προστυχών τον εντυχόντα μόνον ού κατέδεται. Here either kings or constitutional magistrates are the sequel to a reign of violence which in Lucretius leads only to the latter. T h e sequence of events envisioned would seem to be similar to that given in Tacitus, Ann. 3.26.3 (to avoid the primitive rule of vis and ambitio men had recourse to laws—aut statim aut postquam regum pertaesum). Kingship is thus not always sharply distinguished from other forms of rule in Epicurean Kulturgeschichte, and it is not, as Philippson maintains ( 3 1 4 - 1 5 ) , a necessary stage in the growth of society. There is agreement in substance between Hermarchus and Lucretius. 1 2
1 3
Cf. P. Boyance, Lucrece et I'e'picure'isme (Paris 1963) 2 4 3 . Cf. Lycurgus, Leocr. 141, on the κοινοϋ παρά πααι ελεου due to women and children. T h e speech
antedates Epicurus' arrival in Athens by about a decade. 1 1
For the opposition, cf. Ad Men. 124, and for dikaion as a prolepsis, RS 37 and 3 8 .
F o r this identification of prolepseis with initial impressions either of the objects which men encounter in their daily life or of "unperceived things" like dikaion, see Dahlmann, 13-14. O u r interpretation of Hermarchus and Lucretius may shed some additional light on a question which has divided both ancient and modern interpreters of Epicurus (on the problem see, most recently, 1 5
T H E G E N E A L O G Y OF MORALS (EPICURUS) ( C l e m e n t , Strom.
2.4 = 255 U s e n e r ) , n o t i n logismos.
77
Logismos,
w i t h t h e possi
b i l i t y f o r e r r o r w h i c h i t b r i n g s , comes o n l y a t a l a t e r stage, t o r e m e d y forgetfulness
which
s o l u t i o n is a n
the g r o w i n g c o m p l e x i t y
imperfect
one:
o f life has
a system o f legal
produced;
the
and
redress t h a t c r e a t e s
its new
problems i n place o f the o l d ( L u c r . 5.1151): inde metus maculat poenarum praemia v i t a e . Though
1 6
t h i s p o s i t i o n m a k e s s o m e sense i n E p i c u r e a n t e r m s , i t seems n o t
to have been h e l d w i t h c o m p l e t e consistency b y the school. F r a g m e n t s a w o r k o f the second scholarch,
Polystratus, e m b o d y
c o n t i n u i n g t o m a i n t a i n t h e u n i t y o f dikaion
a n d sympheron,
a m u c h more central role i n the development polemic
against
an
opponent—presumably
of morality.
Sceptic
from
a view which, though
or
gives t o 1 7
logismos
T h e w o r k is a
Cynic
1 8
—who
has
K . Kleve, SO Suppl. 1 9 . 2 3 - 3 4 ) . Diogenes Laertius ( 1 0 . 3 3 ) , followed by most modern commentators, says that prolepseis are general notions and categories derived directly from observation. F o r Cicero however {Fin. 1.31; ND 1.44), followed by N . DeWitt {Proceedings of the Royal Society of Canada, Ser. 3, 3 6 , No. 2, 3 6 - 4 4 and Epicurus
his note toND
and his Philosophy [Minneapolis 1954] 142—50) and A . S. Pease (in
1.43), prolepseis are innate ideas of justice and other intangibles. T h e source of the
difficulty may be Epicurus himself, who seems to have regarded as arising directly out of experience certain notions which were usually analyzed in rather different fashion: as innate ideas (the Platonic doctrine of anamnesis), as the result of conscious reflection (the view of certain Sophists, revived in the New Academy—cf. Cicero, Rep. 3 . 2 3 ) , or as a combination of the two (the Stoic position—see below, pp. 1 3 8 - 3 9 ) . Commentators on this doctrine may have been inclined to disregard the nonimmediate, non-obvious objects of prolepsis, either narrowing the meaning of the term so that it included only those ennoiai whose origin seemed explicable in simple empirical terms (Diogenes Laertius), or else explaining texts which spoke of prolepseis ofdikaion and the like by importing the extraneous notion of innatae cogitationes. T h e latter is the procedure followed by Cicero, inspired perhaps by the example of certain later Epicureans. Cf. Fin. 1.31, where, after stating as the view of his school that the desirability of pleasure is something "sensed" like the warmth of fire or the whiteness of snow (quoted above, note 6 ) Torquatus goes on to say that sunt. . . quidam e noslris . . . qui negent satis esse quid bonum sit quid malum sensu iudicari, sed animo etiam ac ratione intellegiposse . . . itaque aiunt hanc quasi naturalem atque insitam in animis nostris inesse notionem. (I assume, with Bignone,
RFIC
37.62-64 and Reid ad loc, as against Philippson, " Z u Ciceros Erstem Buche de Finibus," R h M 6 6 [1911] 2 3 2 - 3 4 and W . Liebich, " E i n Philodem-Zeugnis bei Ambrosius," Philologus
9 8 [1954]
124-25, that the sensus iudicium mentioned here is a prolepsis, and that the innovation of quidam is not, as Liebich suggests, a transfer of the Stoic notion of emphytoi ennoiai to an order of phenomena where the Epicurean idea of prolepsis did not originally apply, but rather an attempt to clarify, perhaps under Stoic or Platonic influence, an Epicurean use of the term prolepsis which seemed obscure.) For a comparable fluctuation in the meaning of prolepsis in Stoic texts, see F . H . Sandbach, ""Εννοια and Πρόληφις in the Stoic Theory of Knowledge," CQ_ 24 (1930) 4 7 - 4 9 . 1 6
O n Lucretius' whole conception of a "natural" society and morality replaced by the city-state
and the rule of law see the discussions of B. Farrington, Science and Society 1 7 . 3 3 3 - 3 7 , " Vita Prior
in
Lucretius," Hermathena 81 (1953) 59—62, and "Lucretius and Mamlius on Friendship," Hermathena 83 ( i 9 5 4 ) 10-13· 1 7
T h e work is entitled Περί αλόγου καταφρονήσεων (or Προς τους άλόγως καταθρασυνομενονς των
εν τοις πολλοίς δοξαζομενων) and was edited by C . Wilke (Leipzig 1905). For an analysis of its con tents, see Wilke's introduction and Philippson, JVJbb 1 8
23.487-94.
O n his identity see Wilke (above, note 17) xiii-xx, and Philippson, J\fjbb
23.494-506.
78
D E M O G R I T U S AND T H E S O U R C E S O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
attempted to show the u n n a t u r a l character of h u m a n notions o f r i g h t a n d w r o n g b y p o i n t i n g o u t t h e i r absence f r o m t h e a n i m a l w o r l d .
Polystratus
c a n n o t r e p l y , as a n i d e a l i s t m i g h t , b y p o s i t i n g a n i n n a t e sense o f r i g h t a n d w r o n g as t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c m a r k o f m a n w h i c h sets h i m a p a r t f r o m t h e beasts. H e says, r a t h e r , t h a t m a n ' s case is n o t a n a l o g o u s t o t h a t o f t h e because t h e y l a c k logismos—or (Fr.
animals
a t least t h e k i n d o f logismos w h i c h m e n h a v e
6 b 4 - 7 a 7 ) . A n i m a l s t h u s c a n n o t foresee m i s f o r t u n e , o r e v e n a v o i d t h e
r e c u r r e n c e o f t h e s a m e s o r t o f disasters w h i c h t h e y h a v e o n c e suffered
(Fr.
3 . 4 - 4 3 6 ) . T h e i n f e r e n c e seems t o be t h a t a l l h u m a n m o r a l i t y , n o t j u s t t h e l a t e r phases o f i t s d e v e l o p m e n t , is t h e r e s u l t o f a c a l c u l a t e d e f f o r t t o a c h i e v e w h a t is a d v a n t a g e o u s .
1 9
T h e v a c i l l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e t w o p o s i t i o n s is u n d e r s t a n d a b l e , i n n e r tensions o f a s c h o o l w h i c h a t o n c e g l o r i f i e d a n d d i s t r u s t e d The
given
the
reasoning.
" n a t u r a l " v i e w o f m o r a l i t y m i g h t be e x p e c t e d t o a p p e a r w h e n
2 0
the
C y n i c o r " p r i m i t i v i s t " s t r a i n i n E p i c u r e a n i s m is d o m i n a n t , as i n p o r t i o n s o f L u c r e t i u s V ; t h e " c o n v e n t i o n a l i s t " o r " i n t e l l e c t u a l i s t " one o n occasions w h e n t h e r e is n e e d t o d e f e n d t h e s c h o o l a g a i n s t t h e c h a r g e o f a n i m a l i s m .
2 1
B u t t h e f l u c t u a t i o n i n p o i n t o f v i e w m a y be c o n n e c t e d w i t h o t h e r factors as w e l l . H e r m a r c h u s a n d t h e analysis o f l a n g u a g e i n Ad Herod. 75 t a k e t h e i r p l a c e a l o n g s i d e t w o passages i n L u c r e t i u s ( 5 . 9 4 2 - 4 4 a n d 1 0 1 4 - 1 6 ) n o t e d because o f t h e i r absence f r o m a c c o u n t s w h i c h o t h e r w i s e Lucretius Epicurean
already resemble
q u i t e c l o s e l y (see a b o v e , p p . 2 7 - 2 8 a n d 3 4 ) . T h r o u g h a l l these passages a consistent
p a t t e r n c a n be t r a c e d : b i o l o g i c a l o r e n
v i r o n m e n t a l d e t e r m i n i s m is e m p h a s i z e d a t t h e expense o f t h e p l a y o f a c c i d e n t and
human
calculation.
The
2 2
greater hardness influence
earth's greater
productivity and
history (Lucretius 5.942-44 a n d 9 2 5 - 3 0 ) ; the w a r m surroundings 1 9
2 0
man's
t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e earliest p e r i o d o f h u m a n
Gf. D . L . 10.120 ( = Usener 5 1 7 )
:
*l
T
v
άνδρείαν φύσει μή γίνεσθαι, Χογισμώ δε τον
produced συμφέροντος.
O r perhaps it is a difficulty endemic to empiricism. A n identical vacillation has, at any rate, been pointed out in the thought of Locke, for whom moral ideas are alternately "evident in them selves" or principles requiring "reasoning and discourse and some exercise of the mind to discover the certainty of their truth" (see M . White, Social Thought in America [Boston 1957] 2 6 8 - 7 0 ) . And the difficulty is compounded by a tendency, in Locke's interpreters as well as Epicurus', to confuse self-evident notions with innate notions, prolepseis with innatae et insitae cogitationes (see above, note 15, and for Locke, White, loc. cit.). As in the sections of Philodemus' Περί τών θεών, I (col. xv 16-34, PP- 2 6 - 2 7 Diels) which seek to reply to the charge that, on Epicurean principles, animals are more fortunate than men because not troubled by the vain fears and imaginings produced by logismos. Cf. above, Chap. I I , note 5. Reinhardt (Poseidonios 404) draws a correct contrast between Diodorus and Vitruvius on the one hand, with their emphasis on "Zufall und Willkür," and Epicurus on the other, where "die menschliche Entwicklung unter dem Gesetze des Naturzwanges steht." The difference in attitude is perhaps traceable in so small a point as the emphasis on necessity in Lucretius' and Tzetzes' closely parallel accounts of how man first took refuge in caves (see above, p. 2 9 ) ; the corresponding passage in Diodorus has peira rather than ananke. 2 1
2 2
79
T H E G E N E A L O G Y OF MORALS (EPICURUS)
b y f i r e a n d h o u s i n g b r i n g a b o u t a s o f t e n i n g i n his c h a r a c t e r
(5.1014-16);
p a r t i c u l a r aspects o f c l i m a t e a n d t o p o g r a p h y are r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e c o n f i g u r a t i o n s t a k e n b y l a n g u a g e ( E p i c u r u s , Ad Herod. 75) a n d t h e i n i t i a l p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t h o m i c i d e is a n a u t o m a t i c r e a c t i o n t o t h e f i g h t f o r s u r v i v a l ( H e r m a r c h u s ) . O n e wonders w h e t h e r the c o m m o n tendency to be observed h e r e is n o t t h e r e s u l t o f a conscious r e w o r k i n g o f p a r t s o f a n o l d e r t r a d i t i o n a l o n g s p e c i f i c a l l y E p i c u r e a n lines. I f so, P o l y s t r a t u s ' i n t e l l e c t u a l i s t p o s i t i o n o n the o r i g i n o f m o r a l i t y m a y reflect t h e t r a d i t i o n i n p u r e r f o r m : the s t a r t i n g p o i n t , p e r h a p s , f o r t h e r e v i s e d analyses w h i c h a p p e a r i n H e r m a r c h u s a n d L u c r e t i u s . I t is t h e emphasis o n n a t u r a l i n t u i t i o n t o t h e e x c l u s i o n o f logismos w h i c h l i n k s b o t h these a c c o u n t s t o t h e E p i c u r e a n t h e o r y o f t h e o r i g i n o f language;
a n d , conversely,
t h e presence o f logismos—in
the f o r m o f the
c a l c u l a t i o n w h i c h m u s t o c c u r i f m e n are t o seize a n d b u i l d u p o n t h e suggestions p r o v i d e d b y account
o f the
specific
origin
situations—is a
o f language
found
characteristic i n Diodorus
feature
of
the
and Vitruvius.
P o l y s t r a t u s , t h o u g h a n E p i c u r e a n , a p p l i e s t o ethics a n a p p r o a c h w h i c h has something i n c o m m o n w i t h the approaches language.
I t is c o n c e i v a b l e ,
o f Diodorus and V i t r u v i u s to
then, t h a t we have i n Polystratus' account
a
r e m n a n t o f w h a t was o n c e t h e f o u r t h t e r m o f t h e p r o p o r t i o n d e s c r i b e d a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f this chapter. P o l y s t r a t u s c o n t a i n s n o reference t o t h e r o l e o f t h e specific s i t u a t i o n i n t h e e v o l u t i o n a r y process, a n d t h i s is r e q u i r e d i f his w o r k is t o c o m p l e t e o u r p r o p o r t i o n i n e x p e c t e d a n d s a t i s f a c t o r y f a s h i o n . B u t e m p h a s i s o n t h e specific s i t u a t i o n is a
characteristic
feature
of another
text—one
which
recalls
P o l y s t r a t u s i n t h e w a y i t l i n k s a u t i l i t a r i a n m o r a l i t y t o logismos, a n d w h i c h c o n t a i n s , i n a d d i t i o n , a c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e u n f o l d i n g o f t h e h i s t o r i c a l process through
discrete
episodes e x a c t l y
paralleling the
conception
found
in
V i t r u v i u s , D i o d o r u s , a n d t h e w h o l e analysis o f t e c h n o l o g i c a l o r i g i n s exa m i n e d i n C h a p t e r T w o . I t is t o a n e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h i s t e x t t h a t w e m u s t n o w turn.
CHAPTER SIX THE
GENEALOGY
I n t h e s i x t h b o o k o f his Histories
O FMORALS
(POLYBIUS)
P o l y b i u s i n c l u d e s , as a sort o f preface t o h i s
famous cyclical theory o f the transformation o f constitutions, a n account o f the
d e v e l o p m e n t o f society f r o m i t s h e r d - l i k e b e g i n n i n g s t o t h e c r e a t i o n o f
the
first g o v e r n m e n t based o n p o p u l a r consent ( i n t h e special t e r m i n o l o g y
used b y P o l y b i u s , " k i n g s h i p " ) . T h e sources o f t h i s passage h a v e b e e n t h e s u b j e c t o f m u c h i n v e s t i g a t i o n . E a r l i e r studies assumed S t o i c , P e r i p a t e t i c , o r 1
( m o r e r a r e l y ) A c a d e m i c o r i g i n ; i n r e c e n t years P o l y b i u s has m o r e o f t e n b e e n seen as a n e c l e c t i c .
2
T h e h i s t o r i a n ' s o b v i o u s a d m i r a t i o n f o r t h e praktikos
bios
o f t h e s t a t e s m a n has t e n d e d t o p u t E p i c u r u s o u t o f c o u r t as a possible s o u r c e ;
3
h e n c e t h e v e r y close p a r a l l e l s w h i c h l i n k b o t h H e r m a r c h u s a n d P o l y s t r a t u s to Polybius have been a l l b u t i g n o r e d .
4
T h e passage i n w h i c h these p a r a l l e l s a p p e a r b e g i n s after t h e f i r s t h u m a n society has b e e n d e s c r i b e d ( 6 . 5 . 5 - 9 ) , a n a n i m a l - l i k e h e r d (systema)
consisting
o f t h e s u r v i v o r s o f a c a t a c l y s m w h i c h has w i p e d o u t a p r e v i o u s c i v i l i z a t i o n . V i o l e n c e r u l e s , a n d t h e strongest a n d b o l d e s t enjoys u n c h a l l e n g e d p o w e r . (6.5.10) B u t w h e n , t h r o u g h t h e passage o f t i m e , there arises w i t h i n these aggregations a c o m m o n n u r t u r e (syntrophia) a n d a c o m m o n w a y o f life (synetheia) this is the n a t u r a l b e g i n n i n g o f kingship a n d then first does a n o t i o n (ennoia) o f the fair a n d the j u s t come i n t o being a m o n g m e n , a n d likewise o f their opposites. (6.6.1) A n d t h e m a n n e r o f t h e i r b e g i n n i n g a n d c o m i n g t o be is as follows: (2) the sexual urge b e i n g a n a t u r a l one a n d resulting i n t h e b i r t h o f c h i l d r e n , whenever a n y o f t h e c h i l d r e n m e n have b r o u g h t u p reaches m a t u r i t y a n d neither shows favor t o n o r protects those b y w h o m he has been reared, b u t does j u s t the opposite, t r y i n g t o say o r d o t h e m h a r m , (3) this is obviously l i k e l y t o displease a n d offend those present, w h o w i l l have observed parents' concern a n d suffering o n b e h a l f o f t h e i r c h i l d r e n a n d the care a n d n u r t u r e the latter receive. (4) F o r , since t h e h u m a n race differs f r o m t h e other animals i n this, trtat i t 1
2
For a survey of it, see Walbank, 6 4 3 - 4 5 . C f , for example, the views of Taeger, Die Archaeologie des Polybios 1 9 - 2 7 ; Ryffel,
ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΩΝ:
Der Wandel der Staatsoerfassungen
1 9 8 - 2 0 2 ; E . Mioni, Polibio
ΜΕΤΑΒΟΛΗ
(Padua 1949) 6 6 - 6 8 ;
and Walbank, 644. 3
Gf. von Fritz, Theory of the Mixed
Constitution 5 5 .
They are noted in passing by Walbank, 6 5 3 (ad 6.5.10), and von Fritz, Theory of the Constitution 413, note 46. 4
80
Mixed
T H E G E N E A L O G Y O F MORALS
8l
(POLYBIUS)
partakes i n t h e faculties o f reason a n d c a l c u l a t i o n (logismos), i t is evident t h a t the contrast o f behavior j u s t m e n t i o n e d is n o t l i k e l y t o escape t h e i r notice, as i t w o u l d i n t h e case o f other a n i m a l s ; (5) rather, they w i l l note t h e occurrence a n d be displeased w i t h the s i t u a t i o n , since they foresee the f u t u r e a n d conclude t h a t something similar m a y happen to each o f t h e m . (6) A n d again, w h e n someone has received a i d o r succor f r o m another i n moments o f danger a n d does n o t show favor to his rescuer, b u t even tries to h a r m h i m , i t is evident t h a t he is l i k e l y t o displease a n d offend b y such conduct those w h o observe i t , since they share their neighbor's i n d i g n a t i o n a n d i m a g i n e themselves i n his position. (7) O u t o f w h i c h s i t u a t i o n there arises i n each m a n a certain n o t i o n a n d perception o f the character o f the f i t t i n g (kathekon), w h i c h is the o r i g i n a n d e n d o f justice. (8) Likewise, whenever someone champions the cause o f a l l i n moments o f danger a n d supports a n d withstands the attacks o f the fiercest animals, i t is likely t h a t he w i l l receive f r o m the people marks o f good w i l l a n d pre-eminence, a n d t h a t the m a n w h o does the opposite w i l l be condemned a n d give offense. (9) Whence, again, i t is probable t h a t there w i l l arise a m o n g the people some n o t i o n o f the shameful a n d the good, a n d the difference between t h e m , a n d t h a t the former w i l l be emulated a n d i m i t a t e d because o f the advantages i t brings (to sympherori) a n d the latter avoided. T h e s i m i l a r i t i e s b e t w e e n t h i s a c c o u n t a n d t h e E p i c u r e a n ones j u s t d i s cussed a r e o b v i o u s . T h e existence o f a c c e p t e d ideas o f r i g h t a n d w r o n g is here l i n k e d , as i n P o l y s t r a t u s , w i t h t h e logismos w h i c h d i s t i n g u i s h e s m a n f r o m beast ( 6 . 4 ) , a n d t h i s , i n t u r n , is a n a l y z e d b y b o t h w r i t e r s as t h e a b i l i t y t o foresee f u t u r e i n c o n v e n i e n c e s a n d m a k e p r o v i s i o n t o m e e t t h e m . 5
5
Polybius
T h e relation between the distinction drawn by Polybius and Hermarchus and Hellenistic
controversies over the intelligence of animals is worth noting, since it has some bearing on the question of the source of the former. The terms logos and logismos are apt to cause confusion because they may refer to two different things: (A) common sense, the ability to look ahead and plan [phronesis in Aristotelian terminology), or (B) the ability to apprehend and reason about forms or first principles (sophia, nous). No school, to my knowledge, ever maintained that animals possess B. The Stoics denied A to them; the Peripatetics maintained that they possess it to a degree (Aristotle being more cautious here than his successors; see Brink, 130), and their arguments were used and expanded by the sceptical Academy in its polemics against the Stoics. For the Stoic position, see A. Dyroff, " Zur stoischen Tierpsychologie: I I , " Blatter fur das Gymnasial-Schulwesen
3 4 (1898) 4 1 6 - 3 0 ;
A. Bonhoffer, Epiklet unddie Stoa (Stuttgart 1890) 6 7 - 7 6 ; and, for the Academic polemic, Haussleiter, Der Vegetarismus in der Antike 209—10, and G . Tappe, De Philonis
libro qui inscribitur
Αλέξανδρος
ή
itepi τον λόγον εχειν τά άλογα ζώα quaestiones seleclae (Diss. Gottingen 1912) 2 2 - 3 8 . T h e Stoic view,
probably developed most fully by Posidonius (see Pohlenz, Hermes 7 6 . 1 - 1 3 ) , ascribed to animals certain innate skills which are divine pronoia's device to insure their survival. These natural skills are constant and unvarying in every representative of a species (e.g. every swallow's nest is exactly like every other's), and this is what differentiates them from human techne, which is acquired, not innate, and varies greatly from individual to individual. T h e terminology used by Polybius and Polystratus (see above, pp. 7 7 - 7 8 ) suggests the Stoic position rather than the Peripatetic one; and it is conceivable that Polybius at any rate has been directly, if superficially, influenced by Stoic doctrine (see Appendix I I I ) . But, unlike the Stoics, neither author is concerned with sophia at all. Whereas
82
DEMOGRITUS AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K
refers t o c o m m o n n o t i o n s o f m o r a l i t y as ennoiai shameful,
etc. T h e
ANTHROPOLOGY
( 5 . 1 0 ; 6.9) o f t h e g o o d ,
absolute—and a n A c a d e m i c , Stoic, or Peripatetic r a t h e r t h a n a n context.
But
the
the
p h r a s e o l o g y suggests i n t e l l e c t u a l p e r c e p t i o n o f a m o r a l
meaning
o f ennoia
demanded
by
the
context
Epicurean is
simply
c o m m o n notions a b o u t r i g h t a n d w r o n g — t h e p u r e l y social m o r a l i t y w h i c h 6
Polystratus
refers
to
as
τ ά παρ'
άνθρώποις
κ α λ ά κα.1 α ι σ χ ρ ά νομιζόμενα
(xva3-45
(Fr.
not
7a2).
sympheron
Polybius
does
have
e q u a t i o n , b u t his statement
νομιζόμενα
(col. xiva3~5) j
τ
"
x v i a g - i ι ) o r s i m p l y kala a n d aischra the
characteristic
Epicurean
dikaion-
(6.9) t h a t the g o o d a n d shameful
s o u g h t o u t a n d a v o i d e d δ ι ά τ ό συμφέρον
a m o u n t s t o the same t h i n g .
are
7
T h e d e t a i l e d a c c o u n t o f t h e process b y w h i c h s o c i a l m o r a l i t y c o m e s i n t o b e i n g f a l l s i n t o t w o stages ( 5 . 1 0 parallels to b o t h H e r m a r c h u s
a n d 6.1-9), the
n
r
s
t
a n d Diodorus. Polybius
o f w h i c h offers
close
reports t h a t d u r i n g
the Stoics would explain moral ideas as a result of man's having a share of divine nous, Polybius and Polystratus derive them from the operations of a purely utilitarianphronesis. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that they would have agreed with the Stoics in viewing animal behavior as completely instinctual. T h e y may have been thinking in terms of a logos-mneme rather than a logosphysis antithesis: cf., for example, the contrasts between alogos mneme and epilogismos in Hermarchus and between mneme and anchinoia and oxytes in Photius, Cod. 249 4 4 0 B 3 9 ; or Sextus' definition (Adv. math. 1.61) of empeiria as a τριβή τις . . . έργάτις άτεχνός τε καΐ άλογος. What Polybius and Polystratus
have in mind is probably much closer to the fairly commonplace recognition of man's superior ability to control his life than it is to any formal philosophical doctrine; cf. Aeschylus' personification of human intelligence in the figure of Prometheus, and, more specifically, Alcmaeon of Croton, VS 2 4 B i a (man differs from the animals in that he alone ξυνίησι, τα δ' άλλα αισθάνεται μεν, ού ξυνίηαι οε); Anaxagoras, VS 59Α101 (animals have the energetikon—"activist"
[cf. ergatis in Sextus]— but
not the learning type of intelligence); Euripides, Tr. 6 7 1 - 7 2 (animals do not possess the use of synesis); Agatharchides ap. Photius, Cod. 2 5 0 456A29 (animals learn to be prudent not by logos but παραπεπλεγμένης 6
εναλλάξ τω πάθει της μνήμης).
This meaning can be paralleled in contemporary ethnographical writing. Gf. Agatharchides
ap. Diodorus 3.15.2 ( = Photius Cod. 2 5 0 4 4 9 A 2 7 ) : the nakedness and promiscuity of the ichthyophagoi shows that they have no αισχρών και καλών εννοιαν; and Photius, Cod. 250 4 5 0 B 4 - 8 : τών δε είθισμένων άνθρώπω προς άνθρωπον ούδε την έλαχίστην διδόασιν εννοιαν. T h e parallel with Polybius is particularly
close in the second example, for it is the failure of the Ichthyophagoi τοις- πάαχοναι
συναγανακτεΐν
(B3-4 = Diod. 3.18.5) which makes the author conclude that they have no conception of eithismena among men. So in Polybius 6.6.6 an ennoia of just and noble arises first among those who share their neighbor's indignation at some injury he has suffered (συναγανακτοϋντας τω πέλας—see
below,
p. 8 9 ) . Diodorus' remark (3.49.2) on a certain tribe of robbers in Libya, οΰτε τοΰ δικαίου λόγον ούδ* εννοιαν έχον, may also go back to Agatharchides; see H . Leopoldi, De Agatharchide Cnidio (Diss. Rostock i 8 g 2 ) 3 7 ff. I n all these passages the aischra and kala of which men have no notion are simply social tabus and mores (eithismena), not moral absolutes. 7
T h e purely verbal character of the parallels between Polybius and the Stoics is nowhere more
apparent than here. A Stoic might maintain the identity of kalon and sympheron (cf. Panaetius' view as reported by Cicero, Off. 2 . 9 ) ; and he might view as kathekonta (though not as katorthomata) the social mores whose origin Polybius describes (cf. Chrysippus ap. D . L . 7 . 1 0 8 ) ; but he would never suggest, as Polybius does here, that men arrive at a perception of the Good and then seek to attain it διά το συμφέρον. (For an equally un-Stoic use of the kalon-sympheron antithesis, see the passage discussed by von Fritz, Theory of the Mixed Constitution 57.)
T H E G E N E A L O G Y O F MORALS ( P O L Y B I U s )
83
t h e p e r i o d w h i c h f o l l o w s t h e f o r m a t i o n o f t h e i n i t i a l h u m a n h e r d t h e r e arise among its members
sjntrophia
a n d synetheia.
T h e f o r m e r idea appears i n
H e r m a r c h u s : i t is t h e " f e l l o w p a s t u r e r s " (syntrephomenoi) w h o f o r m t h e first aggregations a n d t h e m e m o r y syntrophiai
o f t h e advantages gained
through their
w h i c h creates t h e p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t h o m i c i d e .
P o l y b i u s ' s t a t e m e n t s h o u l d also b e c o m p a r e d w i t h o n e w h i c h , i n D i o d o r u s 1.8, a p p e a r s b e t w e e n t h e m e n t i o n o f t h e i n i t i a l a g g r e g a t i o n s f o r m e d f o r p r o t e c t i o n a n d t h e a c c o u n t o f t h e o r i g i n o f l a n g u a g e (see a b o v e , Stage 4 A , p . 3 3 ) . There
m e n a r e said t o h a v e " c o m e g r a d u a l l y t o r e c o g n i z e e a c h
m u t u a l characteristics."
8
other's
D i o d o r u s a n d P o l y b i u s seem t o b e d e s c r i b i n g t h e
s u b j e c t i v e a n d o b j e c t i v e aspects o f t h e same process: o n t h e o n e h a n d , a r e c o g n i t i o n o n t h e p a r t o f m a n o f t h e t r a i t s he shares w i t h his f e l l o w , a n d , o n the other, a n assimilation o f i n d i v i d u a l characteristics t o each other w h i c h takes place once m e n are collected i n t o a g r o u p . B o t h p h e n o m e n a are n a t u r a l consequences o f t h e h e r d l i f e w h i c h P o l y b i u s , H e r m a r c h u s , a n d D i o d o r u s a l l assume f o r e a r l y m a n . M e n h a v e t h e same basic n e e d s ; h e n c e , once assembled, t h e y w i l l a l l seek t o p r o v i d e themselves w i t h t h e same necessities o f life (syntrophia) (synetheia).
a n d b e h a v e i n m u c h t h e same w a y as t h e y d o so
I n this m a n n e r f u r t h e r similarities l i n k i n g t h e m to each other w i l l
b e c o m e a p p a r e n t . A n d t h e i m p l i c a t i o n seems t o b e t h a t l i k e is a t t r a c t e d t o l i k e , so t h a t such a p e r c e p t i o n w o u l d p r o d u c e a m o r e closely k n i t s o c i a l u n i t .
9
T h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n c a n b e s u p p o r t e d b y f u r t h e r passages i n b o t h P o l y b i u s and
H e r m a r c h u s . T h e f o r m e r ' s a c c o u n t o f t h e i n i t i a l h u m a n a g g r e g a t i o n is
as f o l l o w s ( 6 . 5 . 6 - 7 ) : W h e n , f r o m the survivors [ o f the i n i t i a l cataclysm] . . . there is b r e d u p anew w i t h the passage o f t i m e a large n u m b e r o f m e n , then obviously, j u s t as i n the case o f other animals, so i n their case too, w h e n they have assembled ( w h i c h is l i k e l y — t h a t they too should collect w i t h those o f their k i n d o n account o f their n a t u r a l weakness) the strongest a n d boldest w i l l h o l d power, j u s t as i n a n i m a l herds the strongest m e m b e r lords i t over the rest. I t is " n a t u r a l w e a k n e s s " — h e n c e fear a n d t h e selfish c o n s i d e r a t i o n s a r i s i n g f r o m i t — w h i c h i m p e l s m a n t o seek t h e c o m p a n i o n s h i p o f his f e l l o w s . A t t h e same t i m e , t h e v e r y fact t h a t he feels m o r e secure i n s u c h c o m p a n y t h a n a l o n e or a m o n g o t h e r a n i m a l s i n d i c a t e s t h a t , e v e n a t t h i s stage o f d e v e l o p m e n t , t h e r e is a c e r t a i n n a t u r a l a f f i n i t y a m o n g m e m b e r s o f t h e same species. A n d despite H e r m a r c h u s ' s t r o n g emphasis o n u t i l i t a r i a n m o t i v e s , h e t o o assigns a 8
For the idea, cf. Ovid, AA 2.476 (on the primitive state of mankind): iamque diu nulli cognitus
alter erat (a parallel noted by Spoerri, MusHelv 9
18.75,
n
o
t
e
68).
For other passages in Greek literature dealing with the conciliating effects of synitftfu^^^
syntrophia see below, pp. 1 3 2 - 3 4 .
^ ^ -----
A *
V',
/
\
Gr«c
84
DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
s u b o r d i n a t e r o l e i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f s o c i a l n o r m s t o t h e same n a t u r a l affinity.
1 0
T h e t w o m o t i v a t i o n s , gregariousness a n d self-interest, m i g h t seem c o n t r a d i c t o r y , a n d so t h e y a r e i f t h e r e is t o b e a single aitia f o r s o c i e t y . B u t 1 1
Diodorus, Polybius, a n d the Epicureans a l l envision a situation i n w h i c h the two
factors are s u p p l e m e n t a r y
volgivagi
r a t h e r t h a n solivagi.
r a t h e r t h a n m u t u a l l y exclusive. M e n are
I f they were n o t , there w o u l d never have been
e n o u g h o f t h e m t o g e t h e r a t o n e t i m e f o r t h e u t i l i t y o f a c o m m o n defense t o suggest itself. O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e n e e d f o r p r o t e c t i o n is t h e m o r e i m m e d i a t e a n d , i n i t i a l l y , a t a n y r a t e , m o r e i m p o r t a n t cause f o r t h e i r f o r m i n g closer a g g r e g a t i o n s . H o w t h e t w o f a c t o r s m i g h t h a v e w o r k e d t o g e t h e r is suggested b y P o r p h y r y ' s s t a t e m e n t ( r . i o , see a b o v e , p . 71) t h a t t h e p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t h o m i c i d e e x t e n d e d t o those w h o " e n t e r e d i n t o t h e same s h a r i n g o f life's necessities a n d h e l p e d
provide
n e e d e d services
against
enemies." T h e phrase implies b o t h a p u r e l y u t i l i t a r i a n agreement a n d a r u d i m e n t a r y f e e l i n g o f c o m m u n i t y a r i s i n g f r o m s h a r e d experiences a n d h a r d ships.
1 2
N a t u r a l l y , t h e t w o w o u l d interact o n each other, fellowship s t i m u
l a t i n g c o o p e r a t i o n a n d v i c e versa. A n d b o t h c o u l d b e e x p e c t e d t o e x t e n d t h a t consciousness o f m u t u a l t r a i t s w h i c h D i o d o r u s m e n t i o n s . T h e d e t a i l s n o t e d t h u s f a r w o u l d serve t o p l a c e P o l y b i u s i n t h e g e n e r a l t r a d i t i o n o f t h o u g h t p r e s e n t w i t h v a r i a t i o n s i n H e r m a r c h u s a n d L u c r e t i u s as w e l l as i n D i o d o r u s a n d V i t r u v i u s . T h e e m p h a s i s o n logismos suggests t h e 1 0
Cf. De abst. 1.10: άττεχόμενοι του συγγενούς
(quoted above, p. 7 ) 1
a
n
d
1.7: τάχα
μεν και
φυσικής τίνος οικειώσεαις υπαρχονσης τοις άνθρώττοις ττρος ανθρώπους διά τήν ομοιότητα τής μορφής και τής ψυχής εις το μή προχείρως φθείρειν τό τοιούτον ζώον. Α . Grilli, / / problema della vita contemplativa
nel mondo greco (Milan 1953) 7 3 - 7 4 , believes this to be a Stoic conception which Porphyry has injected into the discussion on his own. I t is certainly possible that the term oikeiosis did not appear in Hermarchus' text. Yet the word is not used in its specific Stoic sense (see below, pp. 1 3 8 - 3 9 ) but in a way which can be paralleled in Theophraslus (ap. Photius, Bibl. 2 7 8 529B22-23—on the bee's oikeiosis for the oak tree). A n d since the Epicureans recognized the natural character of love for offspring (cf. Demetrius Laco in Pap. Here. 1012 col. 4 4 . 5 - 4 6 . 1 1 , p. 4 8 de Falco), there is no reason to believe that they would have denied the existence of a certain natural sociability in man. This does not mean that they would have assigned to such social impulses a major role in the creation of society (the view of G . Garbo, "Societa e stato nella concezione di Epicuro," Atene e Roma Ser. 3 , 4 [ ' 9 3 6 ] , 2 4 3 - 6 2 , which Grilli rightly rejects). 1 1
Carried to their logical extreme, the two ideas become, respectively, the Stoic-Peripatetic theory of a fully developed social instinct which brings men together, and the view of government as a compact of weak against strong or of all against all which is advanced by Callicles in the Gorgias and by Glaucon in Republic I I . 1 2
For comparable views, in an Epicurean context, see Lucretius 4.1283: consuetude concinnat
amorem; D . L . 1 0 . 1 2 0 : [γίνεσθαι\ τήν φιλίαν διά τάς χρείας . . . συνίστασθαι δε . . . κατά κοινωνίαν
τοις ταΐς ήδοναΐς έκπεπληραιμένοις; and Cicero, Fin. 1.69: "itaque primos congressus copulationesque . . . fieri propter voluptatem; cum autem usus progrediens familiaritatem effecerit, turn amorem efflorescere tantum ut, etiamsi nulla sit utilitas ex amicitia, tamen ipsi amici propter se ipsos amentur."
85
T H E G E N E A L O G Y OF MORALS (POLYBIUS)
D i o d o r a n v e r s i o n o f t h i s t r a d i t i o n ; o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , w e h a v e seen n o t r a c e , as y e t , o f a c o n c e r n w i t h t h e r o l e o f specific i n c i d e n t s i n c u l t u r a l c h a n g e — n o trace, i n other words, o f the characteristic Kulturgeschichte
and
u n i q u e features
o f the
present i n D i o d o r u s a n d those a c c o u n t s , w h e t h e r t e c h n o l o g i c a l
o r l i n g u i s t i c , r e l a t e d m o s t closely t o h i s . B u t t h e s e c o n d phase ( 6 . 1 - 9 ) Polybius' account
o f social o r i g i n s reveals s u c h a c o n c e r n
quite
O I
"
clearly,
m a k i n g i t o b v i o u s t h a t i t is w i t h D i o d o r u s , r a t h e r t h a n w i t h t h e E p i c u r e a n texts e x a m i n e d i n C h a p t e r F i v e , t h a t his r e a l a f f i n i t i e s l i e . P o l y b i u s describes t h r e e p a r a l l e l s i t u a t i o n s ( 6 . 2 - 5 , 6 . 6 - 7 , 6 . 8 - 9 )
o
u
t
°f
w h i c h social a t t i t u d e s arise. I n a l l t h r e e a s i m i l a r process is i n v o l v e d , w h i c h c a n be s u m m a r i z e d as f o l l o w s : a n i n c i d e n t o c c u r s — a case o f f i l i a l i n g r a t i t u d e or o f i n j u r y to a benefactor or o f u n u s u a l b r a v e r y or cowardice i n b a t t l e — w h i c h f o r some reason m a k e s a n i m p r e s s i o n . M e n r e f l e c t o n t h e i n c i d e n t a n d b y v i r t u e o f t h e i r a b i l i t y t o c a l c u l a t e a n d r e a s o n are a b l e t o i m a g i n e h o w t h e y w o u l d b e affected i f s u c h i n c i d e n t s w e r e o f g e n e r a l o c c u r r e n c e . I f t h e c o n sequences t h u s p i c t u r e d are u n p l e a s a n t , d i s a p p r o v a l o f t h e p e r s o n responsible
t h e y are i n d i g n a n t a n d
express
for the i n c i d e n t . I f pleasant,
they
praise a n d h o n o r h i m . T h e r e s u l t , i n t h e last e p i s o d e , is t h a t a c t i o n s t o w h i c h praise is a t t a c h e d
are i m i t a t e d , a n d
those
a v o i d e d : i.e. b e c o m e t h e c o n t e n t o f those
to which blame
is
attached
social n o r m s w h i c h
Polybius
describes as ennoiai o f t h e g o o d a n d t h e s h a m e f u l . I t w o u l d b e n a t u r a l t o assume t h a t s i m i l a r s o c i a l sanctions w o u l d arise o u t o f t h e t w o s i t u a t i o n s described earlier. A l l t h r e e episodes are q u i t e a n a l o g o u s t o those w h i c h , i n D i o d o r u s a n d V i t r u v i u s , g i v e rise t o l a n g u a g e a n d t e c h n o l o g y .
They
involve a similar
i n t e r a c t i o n between a s i t u a t i o n arising i n man's n a t u r a l o r social e n v i r o n ment a n d man's o w n a b i l i t y to calculate a n d l o o k ahead. T h e r e occurs a n i n c i d e n t o f t h e s o r t w h i c h is l i k e l y t o c o m e i n t h e n o r m a l course o f t h i n g s , and w h i c h contains w i t h i n itself the germs o f subsequent u t i l i t y
(or, i n
P o l y b i u s , d i s u t i l i t y ) f o r m a n . A forest f i r e l i q u e f i e s a v e i n o f m e t a l , a c r y o f t e r r o r p r o v e s successful as a r a l l y i n g c r y , some m a n shows s i g n a l b r a v e r y o r signal i n g r a t i t u d e . M a n t h e c a l c u l a t o r l o o k s t o t h e f u t u r e a n d sees t h e a d v a n t a g e s o r d i s a d v a n t a g e s w h i c h w i l l r e s u l t i f t h e i n c i d e n t h e has w i t n e s s e d recurs, o r is d u p l i c a t e d s o m e h o w .
The
m o l t e n metal w h i c h follows
the
c o n t o u r s o f t h e g r o u n d o v e r w h i c h i t f l o w s m a y assume t h e shapes m e n g i v e i t ; a r a l l y i n g c r y m a y serve as a c o n s t a n t s a f e g u a r d a g a i n s t a t t a c k ; m a y be t h e r e c i p i e n t o f s i g n a l g o o d
anyone
services o r s i g n a l i n g r a t i t u d e .
The
result is t h a t m a n takes steps t o see t h a t w h a t has o c c u r r e d o n c e b y c h a n c e e i t h e r does n o t o c c u r a g a i n a t a l l , o r else recurs f r e q u e n t l y . I t is p e r h a p s n o t t o o b o l d t o suggest a f u r t h e r s i m i l a r i t y . F e a r o f a n e n e m y is a f e e l i n g so u n i v e r s a l i n t h e h u m a n r a c e a n d so easily m a d e k n o w n t o o t h e r s
86
D E M O C R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
t h a t i t is n a t u r a l t o suppose, as t h e sources o f t h e passages f r o m D i o d o r u s and
L a c t a n t i u s q u o t e d above e v i d e n t l y d i d , t h a t danger w o u l d be one o f the
f i r s t n o t i o n s f o r w h i c h m e n succeeded i n f i n d i n g a c o m m o n l i n g u i s t i c o r n o n l i n g u i s t i c s y m b o l . S i m i l a r l y , t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f e x c e p t i o n a l services o r t h e a t t e m p t t o h a r m a b e n e f a c t o r w h i c h f i g u r e i n P o l y b i u s m i g h t seem t o b e incidents w h i c h , like t h e a p p r o a c h o f danger, are likely t o be regarded b y a l l m e n w i t h v e r y s i m i l a r feelings. H e n c e i t w o u l d b e n a t u r a l t o suppose t h a t the
first w o r d s i n d i c a t i n g v a l u e j u d g m e n t s o f a n y s o r t w o u l d b e n o u n s o r
adjectives used i n reference t o u n p r o v o k e d v i o l e n c e o r u n u s u a l w e l l - d o i n g . I t is possible, t h e n , t h a t b e h i n d P o l y b i u s ' use o f expressions l i k e ennoia lies a n a c c o u n t o f t h e o r i g i n , n o t s i m p l y oiennoiai
o f t h e kalon a n d aischron, b u t o f t h e
w o r d s themselves. S u c h w o r d s w o u l d be, l i k e t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s i n E p i c u r e a n t h e o r y (see a b o v e , p p . 7 2 - 7 3 a n d 7 5 ) , t h e r e s u l t o f a p e r c e p t i o n o f το iv
rfj προς
αλλήλους
κοινωνία;
συμφέρον
b u t , u n l i k e those c o u n t e r p a r t s , t h e y w o u l d
have t h e i r meanings r o o t e d i n a single, shared experience.
Generalization
w o u l d o n l y c o m e l a t e r , as t h e specific instances o f d e s i r a b l e a n d u n d e s i r a b l e behavior fixed i n men's memories b y the words attached t o t h e m came t o be associated, a l o n g w i t h s i m i l a r instances, i n t o types a n d categories. Since m e n a r e g u i d e d i n t h e i r c o n d u c t b y t h i n g s l a b e l e d kalon a n d aischron, and
this
fixing
e x t e n s i o n o f m e a n i n g w o u l d g r e a t l y f u r t h e r t h e process w h i c h P o l y b i u s
is d e s c r i b i n g — t h e s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n o f c o n d u c t i n t o nomizomena. I t m i g h t b e a r g u e d t h a t P o l y b i u s s i m p l y assumes t h e existence o f l a n g u a g e t h r o u g h o u t his a c c o u n t a n d does n o t a t t e m p t t o l i n k its rise w i t h t h e social process. T h e r e i s , h o w e v e r , o n e passage w h i c h suggests t h a t h i s source, a t least, e n v i s i o n e d a t i m e w h e n l a n g u a g e
d i d n o t exist. T h e analyses o f
l a n g u a g e q u o t e d e a r l i e r refer t o w o r d s as semeia o r symbola. P o l y b i u s says o f filial
i n g r a t i t u d e t h a t m e n are l i k e l y t o n o t e i t (episemainesthai),
are b e n e f a c t o r s
receive
episemasias
eunoikes
a n d those w h o
( 6 . 8 ) . B y these expressions h e
e v i d e n t l y means t h a t the i n c i d e n t o f i n g r a t i t u d e w i l l be m e n t a l l y n o t e d a n d r e m e m b e r e d , a n d t h a t t h e b e n e f a c t o r receives respect a n d deference. B u t b e h i n d t h e t e r m i n o l o g y t h e r e m a y l i e t h e i d e a t h a t , i f a n y t h i n g is t o b e n o t e d and
m a r k e d f o r f u t u r e r e c o g n i t i o n , i t m u s t h a v e , first o f a l l , a n a m e .
1 3
I t is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f P o l y b i u s t h a t , t h o u g h h e assigns a s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e i n the s o c i a l process t o logismos, its a c h i e v e m e n t s t a k e n stage b y stage a r e m u c h Cf. Xenophon, Mem. 4 . 3 . 1 1 - 1 2 ; Aristotle, Pol. 1.1253A7-18; and Isocrates, JVicocles 5 - 9 ( = Antidosis 2 5 3 - 5 7 ) , all of which stress the importance of logos in the development of a specifically human culture and link man's logos very closely to his ability to make judgments about kalon, dikaion, and sympheron. Xenophon's account is especially relevant, since it contains a conception of the role of logismos which closely parallels Polybius': λογισμόν . . . ω περι ων αίσθανόμεθα λογι ζόμενοι τε και μνημονενοντες καταμανθάνομεν ΟΤΤΎ] έκαστα συμφέρει. O n the parallels between the three passages cited here see, further, Η . K . Schulte, "Orator," Frankfurter Studien zur Religion und 1 3
Kultur der Antike 11 (1935) 1 9 - 2 0 , and Pfligersdorfer, WS 61/62.31 with note 6 7 .
87
T H E G E N E A L O G Y OF MORALS (POLYBIUS)
less f a r - r e a c h i n g t h a n those H e r m a r c h u s a t t r i b u t e s t o m e r e alogos mneme. T h e d i f f e r e n c e is r o u g h l y c o m p a r a b l e t o t h a t o b s e r v e d
a b o v e ( p . 74)
between
H e r m a r c h u s a n d t h e semeion passage i n D i o d o r u s 1.90. H e r e as w e l l as else w h e r e , P o l y b i u s offers a r e m a r k a b l y consistent a n d s u b t l e a p p l i c a t i o n o f those p r i n c i p l e s o f h i s t o r i c a l g r a d u a l i s m w h o s e i n f l u e n c e p e r v a d e s t h e w h o l e specu l a t i v e t r a d i t i o n w e are e x a m i n i n g . T h e stage w h e r e a l l m e m b e r s o f society r e f r a i n f r o m h o m i c i d e is n o t e v e n r e a c h e d i n his n a r r a t i v e . H i s first t w o episodes are t h e s o r t o u t o f w h i c h a g e n e r a l p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t
violence
m i g h t u l t i m a t e l y arise. B u t a t t h i s stage m a n ' s logismos c a n o n l y be s t i m u l a t e d b y i n c i d e n t s w h e r e t h e v i o l e n c e is o f t h e m o s t s h o c k i n g k i n d — a g a i n s t p a r e n t s o r c o m r a d e s - i n - a r m s — a n d w h e r e t h e possible u n d e s i r a b l e consequences are most i m m e d i a t e l y obvious.
P o l y b i u s was
evidently aware
o f the
special
c h a r a c t e r o f s u c h types o f b e h a v i o r ; f o r i t is t h i s awareness w h i c h e x p l a i n s t h e r e l e v a n c e t o w h a t f o l l o w s o f his i n i t i a l m e n t i o n o f syntrophia
a n d synetheia.
T h e existence o f a c o m m o n n u r t u r e a n d a c o m m o n w a y o f l i f e , a l o n g w i t h t h e a c c o m p a n y i n g consciousness o f m u t u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t arises i n t h e first
h e r d s , p r o v i d e s a necessary b a c k g r o u n d a g a i n s t w h i c h t h e
subsequent
i n c i d e n t s o f v i o l e n c e are set o f f a n d m a d e t o seem s i g n i f i c a n t . S o c i a l a t t i t u d e s arise f r o m t h e s o r t o f s i t u a t i o n s w h i c h a n i m a l s o v e r l o o k , b u t o f w h i c h m a n takes n o t e a n d w h o s e i m p l i c a t i o n s h e p e r c e i v e s o r foresees. P o l y b i u s does n o t state e x p l i c i t l y w h y m a n ' s a t t e n t i o n is d r a w n i n t h e
first
p l a c e t o w a r d instances o f i n g r a t i t u d e o r b r a v e r y , b u t i n s p e a k i n g o f t h e u n grateful c h i l d he mentions a contrast o r difference o f b e h a v i o r w h i c h m e n n o t i c e : ουκ ΐΐκος
παρατρέγειν
χυτούς
την προειρημένην
διαφοράν
(6.4) · T h e
c o n t r a s t r e f e r r e d t o is p r e s u m a b l y t h a t b e t w e e n t h e p a r e n t ' s c a r e f o r t h e c h i l d a n d t h e c h i l d ' s i n d i f f e r e n c e o r h o s t i l i t y . S i m i l a r diaphorai are i n v o l v e d i n the conduct o f the m a n w h o requites h e l p i n battle w i t h i n j u r y , a n d i n t h a t o f t h e c h a m p i o n w h o r e t u r n s t o those w h o assist h i m i n t h e c o m m o n defense m o r e t h a n t h e y themselves c o n t r i b u t e i n d i v i d u a l l y . S i n c e i t is n o t t h e r e t u r n o f l i k e f o r l i k e w h i c h calls a t t e n t i o n t o itself, b u t f a i l u r e t o d o so, i t w o u l d b e n a t u r a l t o assume t h a t g r a t i t u d e is t h e m o r e u s u a l f o r m o f b e h a v i o r i n m a n ' s p r i m i t i v e state, i n g r a t i t u d e a d e v i a t i o n a n d f o r t h a t reason
unexpected.
A n d t h e same w o u l d h o l d t r u e f o r a n i m a l s , since i t is o n l y t h e absence o f logismos w h i c h m a k e s t h e m f a i l t o n o t i c e t h e diaphora i n v o l v e d i n u n g r a t e f u l behavior. W h i l e this w o u l d obviously not a p p l y to the i n i t i a l cannibalistic situation r e f e r r e d t o i n D i o d o r u s 1.90, i t w o u l d be n a t u r a l a t a m o r e a d v a n c e d
stage
o f h e r d l i f e . A t t h i s p o i n t b o t h m a n a n d a n i m a l s h a v e u n d e r g o n e t h e as s i m i l a t i n g i n f l u e n c e o f syntrophia a n d synetheia t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e r e w i l l be a c e r t a i n u n i f o r m i t y i n the w a y t h e y react to s t i m u l i : non-aggression
and
h e l p i n defense against o t h e r species w i l l t e n d t o be r e c i p r o c a t e d w h e n t h e y
88
D E M O G R I T U S AND T H E S O U R C E S O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
occur, thus intensifying the vague feeling o f greater security a n d well-being w h i c h a n i m a l s o f t h e same species h a v e i n e a c h o t h e r ' s presence f r o m t h e start.
1 4
T h e effects o f syntrophia
a n d synetheia w o u l d n a t u r a l l y b e m o s t p r o -
n o u n c e d w h e r e t h e a s s o c i a t i o n b e t w e e n i n d i v i d u a l s is c l o s e s t — i n t h e f a m i l y . Parents become accustomed to the m u t u a l affection a n d cooperation w h i c h characterizes their relationship to their offspring a l l the t i m e t h a t the latter are g r o w i n g u p , a n d w h i c h m a y c o n t i n u e , b y f o r c e o f h a b i t , i n t o t h e p e r i o d w h e n the o f f s p r i n g n o l o n g e r need t h e i r parents. T h e i n e v i t a b l e assertion o f i n d e p e n d e n c e m a y n o t b e n o t i c e d unless i t comes w i t h p a r t i c u l a r v i o l e n c e or
suddenness;
t h e n , h o w e v e r , t h e s h a r p b r e a k w i t h t h e e a r l i e r state o f
affairs calls a t t e n t i o n t o t h e diaphora
i n v o l v e d i n the child's conduct. T h e
same r e a c t i o n s , t h o u g h t o a less p r o n o u n c e d degree, c o u l d b e e x p e c t e d t o o c c u r w h e n t h e r e l a t i o n i n v o l v e d is t h a t b e t w e e n c o m r a d e s - i n - a r m s o f l o n g standing. I n b o t h t h e h u m a n a n d a n i m a l h e r d , t h e n , t h e r e exist c e r t a i n t e n d e n c i e s t o w a r d reciprocal b e h a v i o r w h i c h , accentuated a n d expanded, are capable o f p r o d u c i n g society. U n d e r c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s , these t e n d e n c i e s are i n themselves s u f f i c i e n t t o c r e a t e a p a t t e r n i n t h e lives o f a n i m a l s a n d m e n whose v i o l a t i o n w i l l p r o d u c e surprise a c c o m p a n i e d b y pleasure o r displeasure, d e p e n d i n g o n w h e t h e r r e t u r n f o r services is g r e a t e r o r less t h a n n o r m a l . A man,
h o w e v e r , u n l i k e the a n i m a l s , notices a n d r e m e m b e r s such i n c i d e n t s ,
l o o k i n g t o t h e i r r e c u r r e n c e w i t h fear o r a n t i c i p a t i o n . I f o n l y t w o p e o p l e are i n v o l v e d , his i n d i g n a t i o n o r p l e a s u r e w i l l d o u b t l e s s c o m e t o n o t h i n g . B u t w h e n , as i n t h e t h i r d o f t h e s i t u a t i o n s e n v i s i o n e d b y P o l y b i u s , t h e r e a c t i o n i n v o l v e s a n u m b e r o f p e o p l e , t h e y w i l l see t h a t t h e e x p r e s s i o n o f c o l l e c t i v e s e n t i m e n t has some effect o n t h e b e h a v i o r o f t h e p e r s o n w h o is its o b j e c t . H e n c e t h e y cease m e r e l y t o register e m o t i o n s a n d b e g i n t o e n c o u r a g e
or
d i s c o u r a g e t h e r e c u r r e n c e o f t h e i n c i d e n t . T h e r e s u l t is t h a t , w h e r e a s a n i m a l b e h a v i o r r e m a i n s m o r e o r less c o n s t a n t , t h e f o r m s o f b e h a v i o r m e n e n courage t e n d to become steadily more c o m m o n .
1 5
T h e d e v e l o p m e n t h e r e d e s c r i b e d is o n e w h i c h w i l l o c c u r w h e n t h e i n c i d e n t s i n v o l v e d are s u c h as t o p r o d u c e p l e a s u r e o r displeasure d i r e c t l y — i.e.
i n c i d e n t s i n w h i c h m e n are p e r s o n a l l y i n v o l v e d . A s o m e w h a t s i m i l a r ,
t h o u g h m o r e c o m p l i c a t e d , process takes p l a c e w h e n , as i n t h e f i r s t t w o episodes o f P o l y b i u s ' a c c o u n t , t h e i n c i d e n t i n v o l v e s a n o t h e r p e r s o n . T h e n the o b s e r v e r m u s t d r a w a g e n e r a l c o n c l u s i o n f r o m a specific e v e n t a n d i n f e r For parallel passages containing this view of the effects of synetheia and syntrophia in the animal world, see below, Chap. I X , note 2 . For an explicit statement of the logos-synltheia antithesis which is here inferred for Polybius, see Agatharchides ap. Diod. 3.6.2 (a foolish synetheia which remains in operation through the absence of any logos sufficiently strong to overcome it). There the function oflogos seems to be to remove what is bad in human synetheia; in Polybius it is to improve and strengthen what is good. 1 4
1 6
T H E
G E N E A L O G Y
O F M O R A L S
89
( P O L Y B I U S )
t h a t w h a t has h a p p e n e d t o someone else c a n j u s t as easily h a p p e n t o h i m self.
T h i s i n f e r e n c e , l i k e t h e feelings o f s u r p r i s e a n d c o n c e r n w h i c h p r e c e d e
16
i t , has its r o o t s i n synetheia a n d syntrophia. W h e n a m a n observes a n i n c i d e n t of
filial
i n g r a t i t u d e a n d p u t s h i m s e l f i n t h e p l a c e o f t h e i n j u r e d p a r t y h e is
m a k i n g a n i m p o r t a n t a s s u m p t i o n : n a m e l y , t h a t a l l m e n are b a s i c a l l y a l i k e , t h a t w h a t c a n h a p p e n t o o n e o f t h e m m a y j u s t as w e l l h a p p e n t o a n y o n e . Men
are l i k e l y t o m a k e s u c h a n a s s u m p t i o n o n l y w h e n t h e i r
experience
j u s t i f i e s i t — i . e . w h e n t h e y l i v e a m o n g a g r o u p o f i n d i v i d u a l s w h o are l i n k e d t o g e t h e r b y synetheia a n d whose c o m m o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h e y h a v e c o m e t o recognize. T h e process is n o t e n t i r e l y a n i n t e l l e c t u a l o n e . P o l y b i u s gives a h i n t o f t h e existence o f o t h e r f a c t o r s w h e n he says o f t h e m e n w h o o b s e r v e a n i n c i d e n t of ingratitude that they "share their neighbor's i n d i g n a t i o n a n d p u t t h e m selves i n his p o s i t i o n " ( 6 . 6 : συναγανακτοΰντας εφ' αυτούς το παραπλήσιον). considerations:
μεν τ ω ττέλας, αναφέροντας
δ'
R e s e n t m e n t o b v i o u s l y stems p a r t l y f r o m r a t i o n a l
t h e observers fear a s i m i l a r f a t e f o r themselves.
But
the
passage seems t o be d e s c r i b i n g , i n a d d i t i o n , o n e o f t h e f u n d a m e n t a l sources o f a n y sort o f s y m p a t h y : t h e t e n d e n c y a l l m e n h a v e t o i m a g i n e themselves i n t h e p l a c e o f t h e sufferer. T h a t s e n t i m e n t is i n v o l v e d is suggested b y t h e v e r b s used b o t h h e r e a n d i n o t h e r passages w h i c h d e s c r i b e t h e g e n e r a l r e actions
t o w r o n g d o i n g : προσκόπτειν,
δυσαρεστεΐσθαι,
συναγανακτεΐν.
17
All
c o n n o t e a c e r t a i n a m o u n t o f e m o t i o n a l i n v o l v e m e n t . I n t h e l a t e r as w e l l as t h e i n i t i a l phases o f t h e social process, P o l y b i u s seems t o r e c o g n i z e t h e exist ence o f a basic w e l l - w i s h i n g a m o n g m e m b e r s
o f t h e same h e r d — a w e l l -
w i s h i n g w h i c h he c o n t i n u e s t o r e g a r d , I suggest, as a p r o d u c t o f t h a t s h a r i n g of
life's necessities a n d p r o v i s i o n o f n e e d e d services w h i c h
Hermarchus
c o n n e c t s w i t h syntrophia (see a b o v e , p p . 8 2 - 8 4 ) . T h e e t h i c o f P o l y b i u s is a social o n e , n o t o n l y because i t g o v e r n s r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n m e m b e r s o f a single society, b u t also because, g i v e n t h e g r a d u a l w o r k i n g s o f t h e m e n t a l a n d h i s t o r i c a l processes, i t c a n n o t arise o u t s i d e o f society. I t s p r e r e q u i s i t e is a p e r i o d i n w h i c h close a s s o c i a t i o n generates a feeling of c o m m u n i t y , along w i t h certain c o m m o n habits a n d a corresponding awareness o f t h e m . O n l y a f t e r s u c h a p e r i o d o f a s s o c i a t i o n w i l l
divergence
f r o m c o m m o n p a t t e r n s o f r e c i p r o c a l b e h a v i o r g i v e rise t o those feelings o f surprise a n d shared i n d i g n a t i o n w h i c h lead to the c r y s t a l l i z i n g o f a vaguely defined h a b i t i n t o standards o f c o n d u c t enforced b y social sanctions. 1 6
And
The third situation is comparable to the discovery of fire, the first two to that of the planting of seeds (see above, pp. 15 and 3 7 ) . With fire man has merely to find some way of prolonging a process whose usefulness he cannot help but notice; with the shoots which spring up around the base of trees he must be able to foresee the potential usefulness of what is of no present concern to him. The point is made by von Fritz, Theory of the Mixed Constitution 58. 1 7
go
DEMOGRITUS AND T H E SOURCES OF G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
only
t h r o u g h p e r c e p t i o n o f these g e n e r i c
traits w i l l
the reasoning
c a l c u l a t i n g f a c u l t y c o m e t o t h e r e a l i z a t i o n — a n essential o n e i f a n y
and
general
c o n c l u s i o n s a r e t o b e d r a w n f r o m a single i n c i d e n t — t h a t w h a t h a p p e n s t o o n e m a n c a n j u s t as easily h a p p e n t o a n y o n e else. I t m a y seem r a t h e r o d d t h a t P o l y b i u s does n o t i n these c o n t e x t s m a k e a n y reference
to w h a t one m i g h t expect to
figure
alongside
indignation and
s o c i a l s a n c t i o n s : v i o l e n t p r i v a t e r e t a l i a t i o n a n d t h e e n s u i n g b l o o d feuds. T h e o m i s s i o n is n o t , h o w e v e r , a n o v e r s i g h t . A l l o w a n c e is m a d e f o r these, as w e l l as f o r a l l t h e v i o l e n t aspects o f m a n ' s e a r l y r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h his f e l l o w s , i n the portions o f the exposition w h i c h relate to the i n s t i t u t i o n o f kingship a n d i t s f o r e r u n n e r s . T h e r e l e v a n t passages ( 6 . 5 . 7 - 9
a n C l
6.6.10-12) i m m e d i a t e l y
p r e c e d e a n d f o l l o w t h e s e c t i o n o n t h e ennoiai o f g o o d a n d e v i l j u s t discussed: [ I n the i n i t i a l aggregations] the one w h o excels i n b o d i l y strength a n d b o l d ness o f spirit necessarily leads a n d rules, for this p h e n o m e n o n , observed i n the case o f the other, unreasoning animals, must be considered a n indisputable exa m p l e o f i n s t i n c t u a l behavior (physeos ergon alethinotaton). A m o n g t h e m we observe the strongest enjoying unquestioned m a s t e r y — a m o n g bulls, t h a t is, a n d goats a n d cocks a n d the like. I t is l i k e l y , t h e n , t h a t m e n as w e l l h a d this m o d e o f life i n the b e g i n n i n g , h e r d i n g together i n a n i m a l fashion a n d f o l l o w i n g the lead o f the bravest a n d strongest. A m o n g t h e m there was one t h i n g w h i c h d e t e r m i n e d r u l e (horos tes arches)—physical strength, a n d the n a m e one w o u l d give this regime is " m o n a r c h y . " . . . W h e n , i n these situations [ t h e ones o u t o f w h i c h arise the ennoiai described i n 6 . 2 - 9 ] the leader a n d most p o w e r f u l m a n always adds his o w n w e i g h t to the aforesaid [tendencies] i n keeping w i t h the notions o f the people a n d seems to his subjects to be the sort w h o gives each m a n his due, t h e n , no longer t h r o u g h fear o f superior force, b u t r a t h e r because they approve his j u d g m e n t , they s u b m i t to a n d preserve his r u l e , even i f he is q u i t e a n o l d m a n , defending h i m w i t h a single w i l l a n d fighting against those w h o lay plots against his power (dynasteia). A n d i t is i n this fashion t h a t , w i t h o u t its being realized, a k i n g replaces a m o n a r c h — w h e n reasoning takes over the leadership f r o m d a r i n g (thumos) a n d force. T h e first h u m a n h e r d is n o t a m e r e a g g r e g a t i o n f o r c o m m o n defense a g a i n s t t h e w i l d beasts. I t is u n d e r t h e a b s o l u t e s w a y o f its strongest a n d
boldest
m e m b e r ( 6 . 5 . 7 ) . A n d t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f social n o r m s d e s c r i b e d i n 6 . 6 . 2 - 9 does n o t l e a d t o t h e d e l i b e r a t e i n s t i t u t i o n o f a set o f l a w s t o enforce t h e m . T h e first i n n o v a t i o n is o f a m u c h less f a r - r e a c h i n g c h a r a c t e r a n d , c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y , arises o u t o f a n a c c i d e n t . H e r e , as i n t h e texts e x a m i n e d i n C h a p t e r s O n e , T w o , a n d F o u r , t h e eventus fortuitus
occupies a c e n t r a l role. A t a c e r t a i n
p o i n t i n h i s t o r y t h e r u l i n g m a n h a p p e n s t o " a d d his w e i g h t " t o t h e force o f p o p u l a r n o t i o n s o f w h a t is r i g h t a n d p r o p e r ( p e r h a p s b y p u n i s h i n g offenders) a n d g a i n s a r e p u t a t i o n f o r " g i v i n g e a c h m a n his d u e " ( e v i d e n t l y b y a d j u d i -
T H E G E N E A L O G Y O F MORALS
(pOLYBIUs)
9
1
e a t i n g d i s p u t e s ) . S u c h a m a n r u l e s b y c o n s e n t as w e l l as b y f o r c e , a n d h i s subjects u n i t e t o k e e p h i m i n p o w e r
e v e n w h e n h e is o l d a n d f e e b l e .
The
m u t u a l a d v a n t a g e s t o be g a i n e d f r o m t h e s y s t e m a r e e v i d e n t l y s u f f i c i e n t t o b r i n g a b o u t i t s a d o p t i o n b y t h e m a n ' s successors, w h o go a b o u t
fortifying
h i l l t o p s for the p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e i r p e o p l e , a n d exercise, i n g e n e r a l , a r u l e i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h its w i s h e s . I f t h e y f a i l t o d o so t h e y a r e d e p o s e d
(6.7.3-4).
So " k i n g s h i p " ( r u l e b y c o n s e n t a n d w i t h a r a t i o n a l e x p e c t a t i o n o f a d v a n t a g e s t o be g a i n e d )
replaces the p r i m i t i v e r u l e o f force ( " m o n a r c h y " ) .
is his effectiveness b o t h as p u n i s h e r o f o f f e n d e r s that
1 8
wins
the
king
his
a n d a d j u d i c a t o r o f disputes
p o s i t i o n , i t is r e a s o n a b l e t o a s s u m e t h a t
There are parallels between this portion of Polybius' account (6.7.4)
το μεν ούν παλαιόν όχυρονμενοι
ένεγήρασκον ταΐς
και τειχίζοντες
δαφιλείας των επιτηδείων τοις
Since i t
1 8
και χώραν
βασιλείαις
οι κριθέντες
κατακτώμενοι,
a n c
private
^ Lucretius 5 . 1 1 0 8 - 1 1 :
άπαξ . . . τόπους
τε
διαφέροντας
το μεν της ασφαλείας χάριν, το δε της
νποτεταγμένοις.
condere coeperunt urbis arcemque locare praesidium reges ipsi sibi perfugiumque et pecus atque agros divisere atque dedere pro facie cuiusque et viribus ingenioque. It is possible that Lucretius is here drawing ultimately on the source used by Polybius. I f so, he has subjected it to characteristically Epicurean modifications. T h e fortifications described are only for the protection of the kings (ipsi sibi perfugiumque), who are not, as in Polybius, acquiring new lands but merely dividing up what is already available. T h e benefactor-king is thus transformed into a good Epicurean in quest of what is useful—ut fundamento stabili fortuna maneret (see above, Chap. V , note 11). Yet traces of his original social function are still detectable. T h e division of possessions pro facie cuiusque et viribus ingenioque is one dictated, not by whim or personal prejudice, but by the then prevailing notions of what was right and wrong (1112—14): nam facies multum valuit viresque vigebant. posterius res inventast aurumque repertum quod facile et validis et pulchris dempsit honorem. Here the king is simply society's spokesman in the assigning of rewards for the services of out standing individuals (see the parallel passages in Diodorus and Vitruvius discussed above, pp. 34— 3 5 ) ; and Lucretius' source may even have suggested that it was an ability to seem διανεμητικός τοΰ κατ' άξίαν έκάστοις (Polybius 6.6.10) in the eyes of his subjects that got the king his office. But the parallels with Polybius should not be stressed unduly. Lucretius' whole account is somewhat heterogeneous, and most of what is not specifically Epicurean in it can be paralleled elsewhere. I n apportioning goods among their subjects Lucretius' reges are doing the same thing that won Deioces the kingship of the Medes (Herodotus 1.96.2-98.1); and their fortification of cities is an activity with which early kings are frequently credited in history and euhemerist romance: cf. Ephorus, FGrH 7 0 F 1 4 7 (Minos); Apollonius Rhodius 3 . 1 0 8 8 - 8 9 (Deucalion); Diodorus 2.38.5 (Dionysus in India), 3.61.3 (Cronus in Sicily and L i b y a ) ; Megasthenes, FGrH 7 1 5 F 1 2 , p. 617.2 (Dionysus in India); Pliny, NH 7.194 (Cecrops); Scholiast ad Eurip. Or. 1646 (Pelasgus). T h e importance of physical beauty in primitive society is stressed in Euhemerus, FGrH 6 ^ 1 4 and Oracula Sib. 3. 127-28 (beauty determines which among the sons of the world's first ruler, Uranus, succeeds to his kingdom). T h e Ethiopians (Diodorus 3 . 9 . 4 ; Pomponius Mela 3.86) are crjedited with the same mode of election, doubtless because of their recognized status as a Naturitlk. also O n e s i c r i t u s , FGrH
134F21, p . 730.26-27, o n the Cathaeans.
fft..<
.·' ,
..;>-,
92
D E M O G R I T U S AND T H E S O U R C E S O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
r e p r i s a l s f o r aggressive acts, n o t s i m p l y t h e aggressive acts themselves,
were
r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e v i o l e n t c h a r a c t e r o f l i f e i n t h e earliest h u m a n a g g r e g a tions. P o l y b i u s ' insistence o n t h e i n i t i a l r e i g n o f v i o l e n c e a n d t h e r o l e o f t h e m o n a r c h t u r n e d k i n g i n e n d i n g i t is, l i k e his insistence o n t h e h i s t o r i c a l r o l e o f synetheia, o f c e n t r a l i m p o r t a n c e f o r t h e w h o l e c o n c e p t i o n o f c o n t i n u o u s a n d g r a d u a l c h a n g e w h i c h B o o k V I seeks t o d e v e l o p . T h e g r o w t h o f society m a y b e s a i d t o i n v o l v e , p r i m a r i l y , t h e e x p a n d i n g a n d s t r e n g t h e n i n g o f those ties b a s e d o n r e c i p r o c a l w e l l - d o i n g w h i c h o r i g i n a t e i n synetheia; t h i s e x p a n s i o n takes p l a c e a t t h e expense o f t h e r u l e o f f o r c e a n d f e a r w h i c h p r e v a i l e d almost exclusively at the b e g i n n i n g o f man's history. W e r e i t n o t for the presence o f t h e m o n a r c h , t h e f o r m a t i o n o f t h e f i r s t systemata m i g h t seem t o h a v e b e e n a n excessively easy v i c t o r y f o r c o o p e r a t i o n o v e r f o r c e , e s t a b l i s h i n g as i t d i d t h e effectiveness o f a c o m m o n defense a g a i n s t " a n i m a l s a n d t h e s t r o n g e r . " B u t w h a t is i n v o l v e d is n o t a r e a l v i c t o r y f o r c o o p e r a t i o n , b u t m e r e l y a n e n t e r i n g wedge. T h e first h u m a n aggregations come i n t o b e i n g a l m o s t a c c i d e n t a l l y . T h e y a r e n o t p a r t o f a conscious c o n s p i r a c y o n t h e p a r t o f t h e w e a k t o s a f e g u a r d themselves f r o m t h e s t r o n g . O n c e t h e p o w e r o f a g r o u p o f m e n t o d e f e n d themselves has b e e n s h o w n , t h e s t r o n g e r m e m b e r s o f the g r o u p w i l l be discouraged f r o m a t t a c k i n g t h e i r fellows w i t h o u t p r o v o c a t i o n ; b u t , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e w e a k e r w i l l as y e t be d i s o r g a n i z e d — able t o u n i t e i n defending one another i n a n emergency b u t still w i t h o u t any of
the c o m m o n attitudes w h i c h make
c o n t i n u o u s effectiveness
possible.
B e h a v i o r p a t t e r n s w i l l t h u s be m o d i f i e d s l i g h t l y , b u t n o t r a d i c a l l y c h a n g e d . T h e w e a k w i l l c o n t i n u e to fear the strong, o u t o f h a b i t ; the strong w i l l c o n t i n u e t o t a k e p r e c e d e n c e o v e r t h e w e a k i n m o s t m a t t e r s ; a n d society as a w h o l e w i l l f o l l o w t h e l e a d e r s h i p o f t h e strongest a n d b o l d e s t . time,
t h e feelings
1 9
A t t h e same
o f group loyalty and amicability awakened
by
close
a s s o c i a t i o n a n d t h e m e m o r y o f success a c h i e v e d i n c o m m o n defense w i l l b e p r e s e n t , a n d c a n be e x p e c t e d t o g r o w s t r o n g e r w i t h t h e passage o f t i m e . B y p l a c i n g t h e rise o f k i n g s h i p a t t h e e n d o f t h e process b y w h i c h g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d n o r m s o f c o n d u c t arise, P o l y b i u s seems t o suggest t h a t , u l t i m a t e l y , t h e w i l l o f t h e m a j o r i t y is l i k e l y t o m a k e i t s e l f f e l t a g a i n s t t h e p o w e r o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l s t r o n g m a n i n a n y s o c i a l g r o u p , b u t o n l y after t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f c o m m o n h a b i t s a n d c o m m o n a t t i t u d e s has a r t i c u l a t e d p u b l i c o p i n i o n i n t o a n i n s t r u m e n t w h i c h c a n b e p o l i t i c a l l y effective. U n t i l t h a t has h a p p e n e d , h o w e v e r , t h e r u l e o f t h e s t r o n g e r is necessary a n d e v e n b e n e f i c i a l . F o r , j u s t as fear o f o t h e r a n i m a l s first t h r e w m e n i n t o close '* O n occasion, there would doubtless be reversions to cannibalism. Cf. Diodorus 1.14.1 (cited above, p. 3 0 ) which has the practice end only with the discovery of grain and creation of an adequate food supply.
THE
93
G E N E A L O G Y O F MORALS (POLYBIUS)
c o n t a c t w i t h o n e a n o t h e r , so c o m m o n o b e d i e n c e t o t h e s t r o n g e r w o u l d b e a cohesive force w h i c h i n c i p i e n t p a t t e r n s o f r e c i p r o c a l b e h a v i o r c o u l d n o t y e t provide.
2 0
I n a sense, t h e n , p r i m i t i v e m o n a r c h y is a s o r t o f c h r y s a l i s i n w h i c h s o c i e t y d e v e l o p s u n t i l i t is a b l e t o f u n c t i o n w i t h o u t i t . B u t t h i s d e v e l o p m e n t is, i n evitably, never c o m p l e t e d ; g o v e r n m e n t c a n n o t be discarded altogether along w i t h m o n a r c h y . T h e r e exists a r e s i d u a l set o f s i t u a t i o n s i n h u m a n l i f e w h e r e the
system o f s o c i a l s a n c t i o n s w h i c h m e n p r a c t i c e a m o n g o n e a n o t h e r is
i n e f f e c t i v e . C o m m o n a t t i t u d e s a n d t h e s o c i a l censure b a s e d o n t h e m m a y b e o f c o n s i d e r a b l e use i n r e s t r a i n i n g aggression a n d m i n i m i z i n g d i s a g r e e m e n t , but they need a spokesman. Hence, the fortunate appearance o f a m a n w h o u n i t e s i n h i m s e l f t h e roles o f s t r o n g m a n a n d b e n e f a c t o r gives rise t o a c o m p r o m i s e : s u p e r i o r a b i l i t y a n d s t r e n g t h is b r o u g h t i n t o t h e r e c i p r o c a l n e x u s and
m u s t a c t o n l y i n response t o p o p u l a r w i s h , b u t w i t h i n these l i m i t s
exercise o f p o w e r c o n t i n u e s . T h e r e s u l t is n o t o n l y t h e f i r s t t r u e k i n g s h i p b u t also t h e f i r s t t r u e politeia Our
( c o m p a r e 5 . 4 a n d 7.1).
search f o r traces o f a s o c i o l o g i c a l c o u n t e r p a r t t o t h e D i o d o r a n a n d
V i t r u v i a n analysis o f l a n g u a g e has l e d us r a t h e r f a r a f i e l d — t o a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f w h a t is p r o b a b l y t h e m o s t s a t i s f a c t o r y p u r e l y s p e c u l a t i v e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f the
o r i g i n o f society e v e r a t t e m p t e d .
any
n e w m e t h o d o l o g y . T h e w h o l e system is b u i l t u p o n t h e s a m e p r i n c i p l e s
2 1
W e have n o t , however, encountered
as t h e h i s t o r y o f t e c h n o l o g y e x a m i n e d i n C h a p t e r s O n e a n d T w o . I n s t i n c t u a l reactions the
o f pleasure
utilitarian
a n d displeasure,
calculus,
produce
a
combined
with
the workings o f
series o f a d a p t a t i o n s
suggested b y
specific i n c i d e n t s — t h i s t i m e a r i s i n g o u t o f m a n ' s s o c i a l r a t h e r t h a n n a t u r a l 2 0
T h e monarch might be expected to fulfil another function as well. Like the emblem in Diodorus 1.90.1-2, he would serve as a rallying point, an additional symbol of tribal identity. Diodorus himself seems to have some such parallel in mind when he goes on to note (1.90.3) that the Egyptian practice of rewarding benefactors accounts for the divine honors they bestow on their kings as well as for their worship of animals. One wonders naturally whether the kings did not become entitled to rewards in the same way as animals—through their role in the creation of the original human systemata. I f so, the parallel with Polybius is close. Cf. the judgment of a modern sociologist: " a plausible account of social genesis, probably the best offered until the researches of recent ethnologists" (Becker and Barnes, Social Thought from Lore to Science 1.199). T h e brief summary of Polybius' contributions to the history of political and social thought which these authors give ( 1 9 9 - 2 0 0 ) is, to my knowledge, the best that has appeared. The importance of Book V I has been oddly neglected by classical scholars—more than anything, one suspects, because of a general reluctance among them to take a utilitarian position in ethics seriously (cf., for example, the summary and unfavorable judgments in Mioni [above, note 2] 75, and L . Zancan, "Dottrina delle costituzioni e decadenza politica in Polibio," RendhtLomb 6 9 [1936] 5 0 9 ; and the generally unsympathetic exposition in von Fritz, Theory of the Mixed Constitution 4 5 - 5 9 ) . A n exception is Ryffel, who rightly sees in these chapters "ein Meisterstück kulturphilosophischen Spekulation" ( ΜΕΤΑΒΟΛΗ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΩΝ igt, note 351), though he mistakes their fundamental character as Stoic. 2 1
D E M O C R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
94
environment;
a n d these a d a p t a t i o n s
radical alteration o f a w a y o f life.
sufficiently
multiplied
result i n a
2 2
S c a t t e r e d p a r a l l e l s t o o u r five t e c h n o l o g i c a l texts w e r e p o i n t e d o u t f r o m o t h e r a n c i e n t a u t h o r s i n C h a p t e r T h r e e ; P o l y b i u s ' analysis o f t h e g e n e a l o g y o f m o r a l s is v i r t u a l l y u n i q u e .
2 3
I t bears e v e r y a p p e a r a n c e o f b e i n g t h e socio-
2 2
T o the parallels of detail between Polybius and the texts studied in Chapters One through Four, two more, of less significance, may be added. Vitruvius (Stage 4 A , cited above, p. 33) says that the discovery of fire was followed by conventus, concilium, and convictus among men. The last term is an exact translation of syntrophia, which may have stood in the original Greek. And the mention, in the corresponding passage of Diodorus (1.14.3), of the role of timoria in securing the rule of dike over hybris suggests the analogous part played by social censure in Polybius (6.9). 2 3
Such parallels to Polybius as can be adduced involve primarily his conception of the role of the monarch and king. T h e frequency with which early kings appear as the founders of cities has already been noted (above, note 1 8 ) . A particularly close parallel to Polybius is provided by Aristotle, Pol. 3 . 1 2 8 5 B 6 - 9 , which speaks of the first kings as benefactors: either because they led their people in war (cf. the role of the Polybian monarch), or assembled them into a body (again the monarch), or granted land (cf. Polybius 6.7.4, quoted above, note 18). The phrase which Polybius uses to characterize the monarch, τον τή σωματικ-tj ρώμη και ψυχική τόλμη διαφέροντα (6.5·7)> is " ΟΙ
a type which was almost formulaic in certain types of ethnological writing; cf. Hecataeus of Abdera, FGrH
2 6 4 F 6 . 3 (the founding of the Jewish nation); ήγειτο . . . Μωσής φρονήσει τε και ανδρεία πολύ
διαφέρων, ούτος δε καταλαβόμενος
τήν χώραν . . . πόλεις έκτισε; Euhemerus, FGrH
6 3 T 4 C : 01 περι-
γενόμενοι των άλλων ισχύι και συνέσει . . . άνέπλασαν περι αυτούς ύπερβάλλουσάν τινα και θείαν δύναμιν; Diodorus 2 . 3 8 . 4 : συνέσει διαφέροντα (Dionysus in I n d i a ) ; 3 · 7 ° · 7 (Dionysus in L i b y a ) ; 5 - 7 · · 1
1
διενέγκαι
:
τω κάλλει
και ρώμη διάφορον
. . . ανδρεία και συνέσει . . . διό παραλαβόντα τήν βασιλείαν
... μέγιστα ... εύεργετήσαι (Zeus in Crete); Cicero, Sest. 9 1 : qui igitur primi virtute et consilio exstiterunt.
Moreover, early kingship is often associated with the institution of the reign of law: cf. Philochorus, FGrH328F96, and Schol. αί/Aristoph. PI. 7 (Cecrops); Virgil, Aen. 8 . 3 2 1 - 2 5 (Saturn); Euhemerus, FGrH 6 3 F 2 4 , and Diodorus 5.73.7 (Zeus); the last passage mentions among the institutions intro duced by Zeus τό κατάρχειν
ευεργεσίας
και πάλιν
άμείβεσθαι
ταις
προσηκονσαις
χάρισι
τους ευ
ποιήααντας (cf. Polybius 6.6.6-7)· ^ these passages are essentially unlike Polybius in that they do not share his gradualist perspective. There is no hint in any of them of a slow process leading to the social solidarity which makes kingship and the rule of law possible. T h e primitive rulers whom they mention usually unite in themselves the rhome of the monarch and the gnome of the king; they introduce a new political regime by a virtual fiat. Most of the passages cited come from euhemerizing or heurematistic works of the sort considered earlier (see above, pp. 48—50), and they stand in approximately the same relation to Polybius as do those same works to the technological texts studied in Chapters One and Two. (More often than not, various technological discoveries are included with cities and laws among the achievements of the early kings with which they deal.) u
t
A somewhat closer parallel is provided by Isocrates (Helen 32—37). Theseus, observing the danger ous lives led by the autocrats of his day, decides to show that it is possible to rule and still enjoy the comforts of "democracy". So he gathers the citizens into a city and establishes a commonwealth among them. T h e people, however, entrust him with the task of governing, realizing that his rule will be more reliable and public-spirited than their own. T h e autocrat-turned-king motif recalls Polybius, and elsewhere (Panegyricus 39—40) Isocrates contrasts the reign of logos ushered in by the establishment at Athens of the first government with the reign of bia which existed in other parts of the Greek world (cf. Polybius 6.6.12). I n the event that the theory reproduced in Polybius is as old as the fourth, or late fifth, century, it is conceivable that Isocrates has used it, disturbing the sequence of events it envisioned by his insertion of the tradition which connected Theseus with a democratization of Athenian polity. (For the latter, cf. Euripides, Suppl. 3 5 2 - 5 3 ; Isocrates, Panath. 128; Ps.-Demosthenes, 5 9 . 7 5 ; Theophrastus, Char. 2 6 . 6 ; Aristotle ap. Plut. Thes. 25.) But the parallel with Isocrates is certainly not sufficient to indicate any widespread familiarity with the theory of social and political origins which Polybius presents.
THE
95
G E N E A L O G Y OF MORALS (POLYBIUS)
logical p o r t i o n o f t h a t t h e o r y o f c u l t u r a l origins whose l i n g u i s t i c a n d techno logical
sections
appear
i n Diodorus,
Vitruvius,
and Lactantius.
The
t e c h n o l o g i c a l p a r t s o f this t r a d i t i o n h a v e b e e n t a k e n o v e r a l m o s t u n a l t e r e d in
t h e E p i c u r e a n texts e x a m i n e d i n C h a p t e r s
O n e t h r o u g h T h r e e ; its
s o c i o l o g i c a l d o c t r i n e s w e r e , I suggest, t h e s t a r t i n g p o i n t f o r t h e r e l a t e d , though
d i f f e r e n t , theories o f society w h i c h a p p e a r
i n Hermarchus and
L u c r e t i u s ; a n d the influence o f this t r a d i t i o n m a y account for the i n c l u s i o n of a theory o f linguistic origins i n the canonical Epicurean
Kulturgeschichte—
t h o u g h t h i s aspect o f E p i c u r e a n d o c t r i n e is, c o n s i d e r e d i n itself, a n essentially original creation. T w o f u r t h e r pieces o f e v i d e n c e s h o u l d be m e n t i o n e d h e r e , f o r t h e y b r i n g i m p o r t a n t confirmation to the conclusion j u s t reached. A p o r t i o n o f Polybius' a c c o u n t , his d e s c r i p t i o n o f e a r l y m o n a r c h y , has a c l e a r p a r a l l e l i n o n e o f t h e t e c h n o l o g i c a l texts discussed i n C h a p t e r T w o , P o s i d o n i u s ' a c c o u n t o f t h e p r i m i t i v e r u l e o f sapientes: sed p r i m i m o r t a l i u m q u i q u e ex his g e n i t i n a t u r a m i n c o r r u p t a m sequebantur, eundem habebant et d u c e m et legem, commissi melioris a r b i t r i o . n a t u r a e est e n i m potioribus deteriora summittere. m u t i s q u i d e m gregibus a u t m a x i m a corpora praesunt a u t vehementissima. n o n praecedit a r m e n t a degener taurus sed q u i m a g n i t u d i n e ac toris ceteros mares v i c i t ; e l e p h a n t o r u m gregem excellentissimus d u c i t ; i n t e r homines p r o s u m m o est o p t i m u s . (Seneca, Ep. 90.4-5) ανάγκη τον τη σωματική ρώμη καϊ τη ψυχική τόλμη διαφέροντα τοΰτον ηγεΐσθαι και κρατεΐν, καθάπερ και έπι των ά λ λ ω ν γενών άοοζοποιήτων
ζώων θεωρούμενον
χρή φύσεως έργον άληθινώτατον νομίζειν παρ' οΐς ομολογουμένως όρωμεν ηγουμένους,
λέγω
δέ ταύρους αλεκτρυόνας
τα. τούτοις
τούς
τοΰτο
Ισχυρότατους
παραπλήσια.
...
(Polybius 6.5.7-8) P o s i d o n i u s differs f r o m P o l y b i u s i n t h a t h e refers t o r u l e o f t h e b e t t e r r a t h e r t h a n r u l e o f t h e s t r o n g e r , f o r t h e potiores m e n t i o n e d h e r e a r e those s a m e sapientes t o w h o m h e ascribes a m a j o r r o l e i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t e c h n o l o g y . I f , as seems l i k e l y , t h e p a r a l l e l b e t w e e n P o l y b i u s a n d P o s i d o n i u s i n d i c a t e s use o f a c o m m o n s o u r c e ,
2 4
i t is doubtless P o s i d o n i u s r a t h e r t h a n P o l y b i u s
w h o is i n n o v a t i n g a t t h i s p o i n t .
2 5
F o r t h e sapientes h e r e serve e x a c t l y t h e s a m e
I . Heinemann, Poseidomos metaphysische Schrifien 1 . 9 1 , believes that Posidonius' account of early man is simply a revision and correction of what appeared in Polybius. But the notion of a group of men qualified by their natural superiority for rule and responsible for raising the race from its primitive helplessness through technological discoveries antedates both Posidonius and Polybius; so much is clear from the parallels to it found in euhemerizing texts (see preceding note). It is far more likely that Posidonius is drawing on this tradition than that he is combining Polybius with a separate, technological source. Innovation is almost certainly involved, since the animal examples adduced by Posidonius indicate only that rule of the stronger—not rule of the better—is kata physin. We are thus justified in assuming a more specific source for the present passage than the general Stoic maxim, το κρεϊοοον act 2 4
2 5
,
Q.6
D E M O C R I T U S AND T H E S O U R C E S O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
p u r p o s e as t h e y d i d i n t h e t e c h n o l o g i c a l p o r t i o n s o f P o s i d o n i u s ' the a c c o m m o d a t i o n
narrative:
o f a naturalistic treatment w i t h i n a teleological
frame-
w o r k (see a b o v e , p p . 5 3 - 5 4 ) . B y i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e o b s e r v e d b e h a v i o r o f h e r d a n i m a l s as a v o l u n t a r y s u b m i s s i o n t o t h e " b e s t " ( a s u p e r f i c i a l l y easy c h a n g e i f w e p o s i t a c o m m o n source w h i c h spoke s i m p l y o f arche tou kreittonos as kata physin)
P o s i d o n i u s is a b l e t o s u p p o r t w i t h b i o l o g i c a l e v i d e n c e o f a sort his
e f f o r t t o f i n d a p u r p o s e f u l t e n d e n c y t o w a r d p e r f e c t i o n e v e n i n t h e earliest a n d m o s t " n a t u r a l " phase o f h u m a n existence. I n s i m i l a r f a s h i o n t h e c o m bination o f accident a n d ingenuity
by which
Diodorus,
Vitruvius, and
Lucretius account for t h e g r o w t h o f technology was made i n t o t h e g r a d u a l u n f o l d i n g , t h r o u g h c h o s e n agents, o f m a n ' s e x a l t e d d e s t i n y . T h e t w o p a r t s of Posidonius' account—technological
a n d p o l i t i c a l — h a v e arisen t h r o u g h t h e
a p p l i c a t i o n o f s i m i l a r m o d i f i c a t i o n s t o s i m i l a r n a t u r a l i s t i c d o c t r i n e s ; i t is h a r d t o b e l i e v e t h a t those d o c t r i n e s w e r e n o t o n c e p a r t o f a single t r a d i t i o n , f a i t h f u l l y p r e s e r v e d i n i t s s o c i o l o g i c a l aspects b y P o l y b i u s a n d i n its t e c h n o l o g i c a l ones b y D i o d o r u s , V i t r u v i u s , a n d L u c r e t i u s . A n d t h i s c o n c l u s i o n is t h o r o u g h l y i n k e e p i n g w i t h w h a t o u r e n t i r e c h a p t e r has suggested a b o u t t h e relationship between t h e Polybian a n d Epicurean genealogy o f morals. Also i n keeping w i t h t h e a r g u m e n t o f this chapter are t h e conclusions t o w h i c h t h e second piece o f a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e m e n t i o n e d a b o v e p o i n t s . B u t t h e a c c o u n t i n w h i c h t h i s e v i d e n c e a p p e a r s is so e x t e n s i v e t h a t i t m u s t b e considered i n a separate chapter. •nepiyiveodu) TOV xelpovos
(so Blankert, Seneca ep. 9 0 , pp. 30—31, calling attention to Epictetus 1.29.9
and Seneca, Ep. 6 5 . 2 4 ; cf. also SVF 1.228). Seneca, De clem. 1.19.2, also cited by Blankert, is rather different: there the "natural" character of kingship is established by the valid parallel of the Bienenstaat.
CHAPTER A FOURTH
CENTURY
SEVEN
VERSION
(LAWS
O F PREHISTORY
III)
W e have already h a d occasion (above, p . 54) t o m e n t i o n t h e t h i r d b o o k o f P l a t o ' s Laws
a n d t o n o t e t h e differences b e t w e e n i t s v i e w o f p r e h i s t o r y a n d
t h a t w h i c h appears i n t h e f i v e texts e x a m i n e d i n C h a p t e r s O n e a n d T w o . A basic d i f f e r e n c e i n p o i n t o f v i e w does n o t , h o w e v e r , e x c l u d e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f extensive s i m i l a r i t y i n d e t a i l . A t a n u m b e r o f p o i n t s Laws
I I I recalls
P o l y b i u s , D i o d o r u s , a n d L u c r e t i u s so closely as t o suggest t h a t t h e r e s e m b l a n c e is n o t a c c i d e n t a l . Before c o n s i d e r i n g t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p , h o w e v e r , somet h i n g f u r t h e r m u s t be said a b o u t t h e general character o f Plato's w h o l e conception o f prehistory. T h e Kulturgeschichte
o f Laws
I I I has b e e n a n a l y z e d , c o r r e c t l y I b e l i e v e , as
a c o n f l a t i o n o f t w o d i f f e r e n t p o i n t s o f v i e w i n t o a single a c c o u n t . T h e 1
heterogeneous c h a r a c t e r o f t h e w o r k is best i l l u s t r a t e d b y a s u m m a r y w h i c h makes a n a p p r o x i m a t e s e p a r a t i o n o f its t w o " s t r a t a " : A
B 1 Through cataclysms, plagues, or other causes the human race has been periodically destroyed—with the exception of a few herdsmen living in the mountains, 2 scattered and without any knowledge of technology
or of the devices which serve greed and compe-
3
tition in cities ( 6 7 7 A B ) .
4 At first men lived in solitude, gaining a bare livelihood from their scant flocks. There were no cities or laws; 5 men were incomplete both as regards good
and evil (677E-78A). 6 As men grew more numerous the present order of things gradually arose (678B). But for a long time men still feared to descend into the plains and so lived a solitary mountain existence. Friendship and helpfulness characterized their relationship with one another—for 1
7
See Sikes, Anthropology of the Greeks 4 1 ; Uxkull-Gyllenband, 2 8 - 3 0 ; and Havelock, 4 5 - 5 0 . 97
98
D E M O G R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y A
solitude made them glad to see each other when they met, they were not numerous enough to create a shortage of food, and the loss of all technology requiring the use of metals had removed the means of waging war. T h e arts of weaving and pottery were retained from the era before the cataclysm and sufficed for man's needs. T h e absence of wealth and poverty removed the causes of envy and greed and made men more virtuous. They were too innocent as yet to question received ideas about things human and divine. They were more just, more valiant, and more disciplined than the men of today (678B-79E). They needed no laws or lawgivers but lived in families or clans, observing the patriarchal principle that the eldest shall rule ( 6 8 O A ) .
8
g (This mode of existence is known as dynasteia.)
(68OB)
10 Thus, like birds, they lived in flocks, enjoying ancestral laws and the justest of all
11
kingships ( 6 8 O D E ) .
12 Later, men banded together into larger groups, turned to farming and built walls to protect themselves from the wild beasts (68OE-8IA).
13 T h e formation of larger aggregations brought about the mingling of different sets of customs (68IAB);
14 hence it became necessary to appoint lawgivers to reconcile them. T h e latter produced a code of laws 15 and replaced the existing dynasteia with kingship or aristocracy
A third stage of development, in which all manner and misfortune (pathema) of government arose, came into being when men for the first time ventured into the plains
(68ICD).
16
17 and established cities ( 6 8 1 D - 8 2 C ) . 18 Later a new type of organization arose: the ethnos, formed by an alliance between cities (682D-83A). O f the t w o different conceptions
o f history present here, one m a y be called
" p r o g r e s s i v e " ( c o l u m n B ) , t h e o t h e r " r e g r e s s i v e , " o r a t least " s t a t i c " ( A ) . T h e f o r m e r sees h u m a n n a t u r e as e v o l v i n g o v e r a l o n g p e r i o d , d u r i n g w h i c h t e c h n o l o g y a n d s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s c o m e i n t o b e i n g a n d d u r i n g w h i c h m a n is t r a n s f o r m e d t h r o u g h t h e i r i n f l u e n c e f r o m a helpless b r u t e i n t o a c r e a t u r e c a p -
99
A FOURTH CENTURY VERSION OF PREHISTORY (LAWS III)
a b l e o f s e c u r i n g a n d p r e s e r v i n g f o r h i m s e l f t h e blessings o f c i v i l i z a t i o n . T h e l a t t e r h o l d s t h a t i t was o n l y t h e absence o f p h i l o s o p h i c a l w i s d o m w h i c h k e p t h u m a n n a t u r e f r o m existing complete a n d perfect i n p r i m i t i v e m a n . t e c h n o l o g y a n d social i n s t i t u t i o n s d e v e l o p e d b y his descendants
2
The
have not
a l t e r e d m a n ' s n a t u r e s u b s t a n t i a l l y , a n d s u c h c h a n g e as t h e y h a v e p r o d u c e d is l a r g e l y f o r t h e w o r s e . E l e m e n t s o f these t w o c o n c e p t i o n s are p e r h a p s c o m p a t i b l e w i t h o n e a n o t h e r a n d c o u l d h a v e h a d t h e i r o r i g i n as p a r t s o f a single, c o h e r e n t p i c t u r e o f e a r l y m a n . I t w o u l d b e f a i r l y easy, f o r e x a m p l e , t o a d o p t t h e progressive p e r s p e c t i v e i n a n a l y z i n g t h e t e c h n o l o g i c a l aspects o f c i v i l i z a t i o n a n d t h e static o n e i n d e a l i n g w i t h its m o r a l a n d social q u a l i t i e s . T w o c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , 3
h o w e v e r , i n d i c a t e t h a t w h a t w e h a v e i n Laws
I I I is n o t a n o r i g i n a l , c o h e r e n t
p i c t u r e o f t h i s s o r t . W h a t has b e e n c a l l e d t h e progressive v i e w a p p e a r s i n G r e e k l i t e r a t u r e as e a r l y as t h e Prometheus Bound a n d is also f o u n d ( w i t h t h e i m p o r t a n t reservations
discussed
above,
pp. 52-53)
w h i c h P l a t o w r o t e i m m e d i a t e l y before t h e Laws: and
t h e Critias.
i n the three
t h e Politicus,
the
works Timaeus,
I t is r e a s o n a b l e t o assume, t h e n , t h a t i t was t a k e n o v e r b y
Plato f r o m earlier t h o u g h t ; a n d t h a t the opposing v i e w ( c o l u m n A ) , w h i c h appears for t h e first t i m e i n Greek l i t e r a t u r e h e r e ,
4
was o r i g i n a l w i t h h i m .
M o r e o v e r , t h o u g h some sort o f l o g i c a l c o m p r o m i s e b e t w e e n t h e t w o v i e w s m a y be possible, i t is n o t t o be f o u n d i n o u r p r e s e n t t e x t . A l l t h e i t e m s g i v e n a b o v e u n d e r B refer t o t h e v a r i o u s stages o f a s t e a d y e v o l u t i o n : t h e first m e n are s c a t t e r e d n o m a d s w i t h o u t a n y k n o w l e d g e o f t e c h n o l o g y ; i n t h e course o f t i m e , like other animals, they f o r m aggregations; they t u r n to a g r i c u l t u r e a n d t a k e measures t o p r o t e c t themselves f r o m t h e w i l d beasts; l a r g e r a g g r e g a t i o n s arise a n d w i t h t h e m t h e b e g i n n i n g s o f l a w a n d g o v e r n m e n t ; f i n a l l y , men
b e g i n t o b u i l d cities. B u t these successive phases i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f
c u l t u r e are n o t p r e s e n t e d b y P l a t o as p a r t o f a n y causal sequence. H e does not
t e l l us w h y clans b a n d t o g e t h e r i n t o l a r g e r a g g r e g a t i o n s ; w h y , i n t h e
m i d d l e o f t h e w h o l e process, m e n b e g i n t o p r o t e c t themselves a g a i n s t w i l d beasts, w h i c h e v i d e n t l y h a d n o t b o t h e r e d t h e m b e f o r e ; w h y t h e y t u r n t o a g r i c u l t u r e a n d e v e n t u a l l y descend i n t o t h e p l a i n s t o b u i l d cities. A l l these events h a v e a n e x p l a n a t i o n i f seen against t h e b a c k g r o u n d o f a n e v o l u t i o n a r y t h e o r y o f c u l t u r e : t h e y r e p r e s e n t successive a t t e m p t s o n m a n ' s p a r t t o g a i n for h i m s e l f g r e a t e r c o m f o r t a n d s e c u r i t y . B u t P l a t o has b e e n a t some p a i n s t o Cf. 6 7 9 E , where (as Havelock notes, 4 9 ) , of the four Platonic virtues, only phronesis is lacking in the characterization of early man as braver, more just, and more disciplined than his descendants. This is essentially the procedure followed by the Cynics in their accounts of early man ( s e e ^ - > o 2
3
below, pp. 149-51)· J y \ y ^ The notion that the men of old were better and "nearer the gods" was, of course, traditiomyj but it is first associated with "cultural" primitivism (for this term, see Introduction, note 4) in tee/ >rV passage under consideration. j1 / 4
IOO
D E M O G R I T U S
A N DT H E S O U R C E S
O F G R E E K
A N T H R O P O L O G Y
p r o v e , b y t h e i t e m s g i v e n u n d e r c o l u m n A , t h a t m a n i n his p r i m i t i v e c o n d i tion
had
enough
t o satisfy
a l l his l e g i t i m a t e
needs.
Forgetting
the
bare
l i v e l i h o o d a n d s c a n t flocks o f 677E' ( B 4 ) , h e d e c l a r e s t h a t t h e r e was n o s h o r t age o f f o o d ( A 7 ) . N o t h a v i n g t h e m e a n s o f w a g i n g w a r , m e n l i v e d a m i c a b l y w i t h one a n o t h e r ; society was c o m p l e t e w i t h " t h e justest o f a l l k i n g s h i p s , " so t h a t s u b s e q u e n t p o l i t i c a l a r r a n g e m e n t s same t h i n g ;
a n d l a w is n o t h i n g m o r e
flicting patriarchal traditions when
are m e r e l y larger versions o f the
than an attempt
they happen
to reconcile
con-
to conflict. I t w o u l d , o f
c o u r s e , h a v e b e e n p o s s i b l e t o suggest w h y t h e p r i m i t i v e U t o p i a d i d n o t l a s t ; but
P l a t o does n o t a t t e m p t t o d o so. H e m e r e l y asserts t h a t c e r t a i n c h a n g e s
occur—changes w h i c h are explicable
o n t h e basis o f t h e v i e w o f p r i m i t i v e
s o c i e t y f o u n d i n c o l u m n B , b u t q u i t e w i t h o u t m o t i v a t i o n o n t h e basis o f t h a t found i n A.
The
a b o v e a n a l y s i s , as w e l l as w h a t
contaminatio
i n Laws
i t suggests a b o u t
t h e presence
I I I , c a n be s u p p o r t e d b y a c o m p a r i s o n o f Plato
of
with
Polybius; for almost every i t e m i n c o l u m n B reappears, i n i d e n t i c a l order, i n Book V I o f the POLYBIUS
Histories: PLATO
VI
initial cataclysm; 5.5 loss of technology 5.6 and social usages (epitedeumata); 5.6 men become more numerous, 5.6 under leadership of the strongest and boldest (monorchia); 5.7 they live in herds; 5.7 5
creation of generally accepted ideas of right and wrong, 6-2-9 followed by kings 6.12 and cities. 7.4
initial cataclysm; loss of technology; men live scattered and without laws; they become more numerous, under leadership of a patriarch (dynasteia),
1 2 4 6 9
living in flocks; 1o larger aggregations, fortifications, and agriculture arise; 12-13 creation of a code of nomoi, 14 15 17
then kings and cities.
6
It is usually assumed that the theory of recurrent cataclysms is a Platonic innovation in Greek (e.g. by Reinhardt, 5 0 7 - 8 ; Uxkull-Gyllenband, 2 9 ; F . Solmsen, Aristotle's System of the Physical World [Ithaca i 9 6 0 ] 4 3 1 ) ; and if this is so, Polybius is in agreement with the A stratum rather than the B stratum in Plato's account at this point. But the evidence is not conclusive. T h e theory is certainly essential to Plato's purpose. I t accounts for the elements of civilized life which he wishes to give to his nomads: domesticated animals, weaving, pottery, architecture (cf. the houses and beds of 6 7 9 A ) , and a language and religion (inasmuch as the things told "about gods and men" are readily believed, 6 7 9 B C ) ; these are holdovers from an earlier era. At the same time, the theory allows Plato to suggest that what he is describing is a genuine state of nature: the life which the race lives when it has been stripped of the accretions (greed, competitiveness, a critical spirit, and the like) which society and civilization have brought to its real character. Aristotle and his successors were to find the theory equally useful: it fitted in well with the former's theory of the perpetual rediscovery of philosophic truths (W. Jaeger, Aristotle [Eng. transl. Oxford 1 9 4 8 ] 1 3 0 — 3 8 ) and enabled the Peripatetics to reconcile their doctrine of the eternity of man with Kulturentstehungslehre
2
A FOURTH CENTURY VERSION OF PREHISTORY
(LAWS III)
O f t h e " p r o g r e s s i v e " i t e m s i n P l a t o ' s a c c o u n t o n l y 12-13 p a r t i n Polybius,
and
t h e i r absence is easily e x p l a i n e d
latter's exclusively sociological perspective.
ΙΟΙ
have no counter as a r e s u l t o f t h e
I t is c l e a r t h a t t h e t w o texts d i d
not come i n t o b e i n g i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f each other—hence the suggestion, often advanced, that Plato
is a p a r t i a l s o u r c e f o r P o l y b i u s .
6
I f so,
the
latter's
success i n e x t r a c t i n g f r o m P l a t o ' s a c c o u n t a l l those i t e m s — a n d o n l y t h o s e — w h i c h f i t his o w n r a d i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t c o n c e p t i o n o f p r e h i s t o r y is m o s t r e m a r k able.
I t seems f a r m o r e l i k e l y t h a t b o t h w o r k s r e f l e c t t h e i n f l u e n c e
of an
i d e n t i c a l s o u r c e , o n e w h i c h is r e p r o d u c e d f a i r l y f a i t h f u l l y b y P o l y b i u s , w h i c h P l a t o has s u b j e c t e d Strong
support
to extensive i n t e r p o l a t i o n .
but
7
f o r t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is p r o v i d e d
by
the
terminology
evidence from history and tradition suggesting that human culture was of relatively recent origin (Bignone, V Aristoteleperduto 2 . 4 6 1 - 7 3 ) . But a theory need not originate where it proves eventually to be most useful. T h e doctrine of recurring cataclysms appears first in the Timaeus and Critias (see the parallel passages assembled by R . Walzer, Aristotelis Dialogorum Fragmenta [Florence 1934] 7 0 - 7 1 ) , where it serves the very different purpose of explaining why Egyptian records and tradition reach back so much farther than their Greek counterparts. T h e fact had attracted attention as early as Hecataeus and Herodotus (2.143 = FGrH 1 F 3 0 0 ) , and need not have waited until Plato's day to find an explanation. (The idea of a general cataclysm which failed to reach Egypt is perhaps im plied in the same passage of Herodotus: 2.142.4.) It is possible, for example, that the atomistic analogy between physical and social kosmoi (see below, pp. 1 0 7 - 1 0 ) led to the suggestion that the latter, like the former, are innumerable and mortal (cf. the μυρίαι. ίπι μυρίαις πάλας of Laws 676B). Though most—perhaps all—of the pre-Socratics posited an original spontaneous generation of men from mud and water (cf. VS 1 2 A 3 0 ; 2 1 B 3 3 ; 6 8 A 1 3 9 ) and an eventual destruction of both man and his cosmos, these theories would not exclude the possibility of the intervening partial phthorai which Plato describes. T h e myths of floods associated with the names of Deucalion, Dardanus, and Ogygus, or the belief that spontaneous generation was possible only at the time of the formation of the whole kosmos (cf. Diodorus 1.7) would have favored the idea that the phthora which accounts for the recentness of civilization in Greece was partial rather than total. (A single account could, of course, have allowed for either possibility: cf. Laws 7 8 1 E - 8 2 A ; Aristotle, Pol. 2.1269A4-5.) There is thus some grounds for accepting Jaeger's contention (Aristotle, 137) that the idea of recurring cataclysms "cannot have originated in Plato's imaginative brain," but rather "bears the stamp of Ionian science." Direct or indirect influence of Laws I I I on Polybius is assumed by R . von Scala, Die Studien des Polybios (Stuttgart 1890) 1 0 8 - 1 3 ; Wilamowitz, GriechischesLesebuch I I , i (Berlin 1902) 120; E . Mioni, 6
Polibio (Padua 1949) 6 6 ; and von Fritz, Theory of the Mixed
Constitution 4 1 7 , note 3 4 .
Even if the idea of recurrent, partial cataclysms is a Platonic innovation (see above, note 5 ) , its presence in Polybius does not tell against the theory of a common source for both accounts. Polybius' cyclical theory of political change demanded an account which commenced, not with an absolute beginning, but the return of something which had existed many times before; hence he would have had reasons of his own for replacing the pre-Socratic idea of the continuity of matter through a total cataclysm with the Platonic one of the continuity of the human race through a partial one. (For what is perhaps an echo of the former idea in his text, see Guthrie, In the Beginning 66.) And his source for the latter notion need not have been Plato. It appears in certain second century writers ("Ocellus Lucanus," Critolaus) along with an account of the process of genesis, akme, and phthora evident in all earthly things which closely recalls Polybius' own view of the biological law operative in the history of states (see Ryffel, ΜΕΤΑΒΟΛΗ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΩΝ 2 0 3 - 2 1 ; W. Theiler, "Schichten 7
im 6. Buch des Polybios," Hermes 81 [ 1 9 5 3 ] 2 9 6 - 9 7 ) .
I02
DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
w h i c h P l a t o uses i n r e f e r r i n g t o t h e p a t r i a r c h a l societies w h i c h p r e c e d e d t h e first k i n g d o m . R u l e o f t h e eldest is c a l l e d dynasteia. T h i s is a n u n p a r a l l e l e d use o f a w o r d w h i c h i n o t h e r c o n t e x t s a l w a y s m e a n s r u l e b y f o r c e ,
8
usually
t h a t o f a n a r r o w o l i g a r c h y , b u t i n t w o instances a t least (Isocrates, Paneg. 3 9 , Panath.
121) t h e p r i m i t i v e r u l e o f force w h i c h p r e c e d e d t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f
g o v e r n m e n t b y l a w — P o l y b i a n monorchia i n o t h e r w o r d s . O n e m u s t c o n c l u d e 9
t h a t P l a t o a n d P o l y b i u s h a v e d r a w n o n a c o m m o n source w h i c h spoke o f p r i m i t i v e dynasteia f o l l o w e d b y k i n g s h i p . P o l y b i u s preserves t h e c o n c e p t b u t uses a d i f f e r e n t t e r m , monarchia;
10
P l a t o keeps t h e t e r m b u t a p p l i e s i t t o a
c o m p l e t e l y d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n . A n d h a v i n g a l t e r e d t h e c h a r a c t e r o f dynasteia he is f o r c e d t o i n t r o d u c e a f u r t h e r c h a n g e . T h e i n s t i t u t i o n o f k i n g s h i p c a n n o l o n g e r b e r e g a r d e d as t h e s u b s t i t u t i o n o f ius f o r vis. T h e n e w a r r a n g e m e n t is p r e c e d e d i n h i s a c c o u n t , as i n P o l y b i u s ' , b y t h e c r e a t i o n o f a set o f n o r m s b y w h i c h society is t o l i v e ; b u t t h e y a r e t h e c o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e nomothetai w h o b r i n g kingship i n t o being, rather t h a n the c o m m o n l y accepted notions o f r i g h t a n d w r o n g w h o s e f o r m a t i o n is d e s c r i b e d i n P o l y b i u s 6 . 6 .
1 1
W e a r e i n a p o s i t i o n t o say m o r e a b o u t Plato's source t h a n t h a t i t w a s t h e o n e also used b y P o l y b i u s . I t t r e a t e d t e c h n o l o g y as w e l l as society, a n d i n m u c h t h e same w a y as d i d t h e t r a d i t i o n discussed i n C h a p t e r T w o . T h e a g r i c u l t u r e a n d f o r t i f i c a t i o n s o f i t e m 12 a r e p a r a l l e l e d t h e r e (Stages 5 E a n d For a collection of examples, see Aalders, Mnemosyne Ser. 4 , 3.304, note 10; K . Stegmann von Pritzwald, " Z u r Geschichte der Herrscherbezeichnungen von Homer bis Piaton," Forschungen zur Völkerpsychologie und Soziologie 7 (1930) 1 2 0 - 2 1 , 155-56. T h e fact has been noted by most commentators (cf. R . Weil, V "archeologie" dePlaton 6 8 - 6 9 ; and the notes to 6 8 O B in Taylor's translation and in the commentaries of Ritter and England). T o my knowledge, however, no satisfactory explanation has been offered. Cf. England: " T h e important point. . . seems to have been the fact that authority (dynasteia) should attach to any position; hence the term chosen;" Weil: " L a methode de Platon manque ici de rigueur;" and G . Rohr, Piatons Stellung zur Geschichte (Berlin 1932) 13: " I n diesem Abschnitt ist allerdings Platon in der Namengebung besonders ungebunden." 8
6
Polybius himself, it should be noted, speaks of the people who willingly obey the strong man Who serves their interest as protecting his dynasteia (6.6.11). Also significant is the way the account of monarchia recalls Diodorus' description of the Trogodytes ( 3 . 3 2 ) . T h e latter are ruled despotically kata systemata (3.32.1—cf. Polybius 6.5.10), and their leaders are twice referred to as dynastai (32.1, 3 ) . Polybius' use of the term monarchia is just as peculiar and isolated as Plato's use of dynasteia. Nowhere else does it bear the specialized significance it has in Book V I ( F . M . Walbank, "Polybius on the Roman Constitution," CQ.37 [1943] 79). I t was substituted for the dynasteia which must have appeared in the historian's source in order to accommodate the Kulturgeschichte of 5 . 1 0 - 6 . 9 to the theory of the evolution of political constitutions in which it is imbedded. Polybius regards the rise of culture (somewhat inaccurately) as the "natural genesis of kingship" (cf. 7.1). I t is succeeded by the acme and decay of this institution, then by the genesis, acme, and decay of aristocracy and democracy. Monarchia emphasizes more clearly than dynasteia the place which this process is supposed to occupy in the tripartite political cycle. See, further, Cole, Historia 13.460-61. 1 0
T h e role of the nomothetes in the coalescing of clans may be a motif which appeared in Plato's source (see below, pp. 1 0 8 - 9 ) , but the role is here greatly extended. I n the process Plato exactly reverses normal Greek ideas by making the king the product, rather than the source, of the earliest 1 1
nomothesia.
IO3
A FOURTH C E N T U R Y VERSION OF PREHISTORY (LAWS III)
8 A ) . A n d c o l u m n A , t h o u g h c o n t a i n i n g P l a t o ' s o w n a d d i t i o n s t o his source, has t h r e e i t e m s w h i c h r e a d l i k e a p o l e m i c a g a i n s t t h e v i e w s o f o u r t e c h n o l o g i c a l texts. P l a t o asserts, as i f c o n t r a d i c t i n g L u c r e t i u s
five
(5.1350-53,
q u o t e d u n d e r Stage 5 D ) , t h a t w e a v i n g does n o t d e p e n d o n i r o n tools a n d is r e t a i n e d b y m a n a t a l l p e r i o d s o f his h i s t o r y ;
1 2
h e d r a w s t h e same c o n n e c t i o n
as d o D i o d o r u s a n d L u c r e t i u s (passages q u o t e d u n d e r Stage 5 C )
between
m e t a l l u r g y a n d w a r f a r e , o n l y i n f e r r i n g f r o m this t h a t p r i m i t i v e m a n was b e t t e r o f f w i t h o u t b o t h ; a n d his e m p h a s i s o n t h e s o c i a b i l i t y o f p r i m i t i v e m a n is p e r h a p s d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t t h e t h e o r y o f a n o r i g i n a l c a n n i b a l i s m w h i c h a p pears i n D i o d o r u s ( 1 . 1 4 . 1 , Stage 3 D ; cf. a b o v e , p . 3 0 ) .
1 3
T h e v i e w here a d v a n c e d , t h a t P l a t o is m o d i f y i n g a n d a t t h e same t i m e c o n d u c t i n g a p o l e m i c against t h e v i e w o f p r i m i t i v e m a n w h i c h a p p e a r e d i n o u r t r a d i t i o n , gains s u p p o r t f r o m Epinomis
974E-76C ( o n w h i c h see also a b o v e ,
C h a p . I l l , n o t e 16). I n t h e course o f a n a t t e m p t t o e s t a b l i s h t h e n a t u r e o f t r u e ( p h i l o s o p h i c a l ) w i s d o m t h e a u t h o r o f t h a t treatise gives a b r i e f r e s u m e o f a l l those a c h i e v e m e n t s a n d q u a l i t i e s o f m i n d w h i c h m i g h t , a t o n e t i m e , h a v e e a r n e d f o r t h e i r possessors t h e n a m e ofsophos,
b u t w h i c h are n o l o n g e r ,
i n his v i e w , s u f f i c i e n t t o d o so. T h e a c h i e v e m e n t s r e j e c t e d are j u s t t h e ones w h i c h w o u l d figure i n a h i s t o r y o f c u l t u r e a n d are p r e s e n t e d i n w h a t seems t o be r o u g h l y c h r o n o l o g i c a l o r d e r . T h e m e n w h o first f r e e d t h e race f r o m t h e curse o f c a n n i b a l i s m a n d d i s c o v e r e d t h e p r e p a r a t i o n a n d c u l t i v a t i o n o f g r a i n are n o t , p r o p e r l y s p e a k i n g , sopkoi; n e i t h e r are those r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e
first
houses a n d f o r m e t a l l u r g y a n d t h e tools used i n b u i l d i n g , p o t t e r y , a n d w e a v i n g ; n o r are t h e i n v e n t o r s o f t h e arts o f h u n t i n g a n d d i v i n a t i o n ; n o r t h e discoverers
o f the m i m e t i c arts—music,
dancing, and
singing; nor
the
founders o f medicine, n a v i g a t i o n , a n d j u r i s p r u d e n c e . F i n a l l y , facility i n r e m e m b e r i n g w h a t is t a u g h t a n d c a l l i n g t o m i n d w h a t is a p p r o p r i a t e i n a n y g i v e n s i t u a t i o n is anchinoia p e r h a p s , b u t n o t sophia. H e r e we have i n explicit f o r m the t h e o r y o f man's o r i g i n a l cannibalistic T h e parallel with Lucretius 5 . 1 3 5 0 - 5 3 was noted by Uxkull-Gyllenband, 34, note 46. Plato was certainly acquainted with such theories. Cf. Politicus 271DE, where cannibalism is named along with wars and factions as something absent under the rule of the Divine Shepherd— hence, presumably, characteristic of the present world cycle, or at least portions of it. And it is 1 2
1 3
mentioned in Laws 6.782B as a mode of trophe to which man, in common with other animals, once
had recourse. T h e latter passage occurs in an anthropological context which shows several points of similarity with Book I I I : III
V I (781Ε-82Α)
(676BC)
άφ* ov πόλεις τ* είσιν και άνθρωποι πολιτ€νόμ€νοι
χρη . . . σνννο€Ϊν ώς η των
8οκ€Ϊς άν ποτ€ κατανόησαν χρόνου πλήθος όσον
άρχην ούοεμιαν εΐληχεν . . . η μήκος τι της αρχής
yeyovev;
μνρίαι . . . επι μνρίαις . . . γεγόνασι
πό
εΐη.
πόλεως
εφθαρμεναι . . . πεπολιτευ-
cec
μεναι
πολιτείας
επιτηδεύματα
αν
σταχον. . . .
πάσας
πολλάκις
εκα-
γ€ν€σις η
άφ* ου yeyovev άμήχανον άν χρόνον ρσον γεγονό$
λεις . . . ουκ ελάττους δ*
ανθρώπων
συστάσεις
παντοία τάξεως
ουκ οίόμεθα γεγονεναι',
και
φθοράς,
και
τ€ καΙ αταξίας . . . ί.
,
IC-4
D E M O C R I T U S AND T H E S O U R C E S O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
n a t u r e w h i c h was r e j e c t e d b y i m p l i c a t i o n i n t h e Laws;
a n d i m p l i e d h e r e is
t h e c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n m e t a l l u r g y a n d t h e arts o f w e a v i n g a n d p o t t e r y e x p l i c i t l y r e j e c t e d t h e r e . I n b o t h p o i n t s t h e Epinomis
agrees w i t h t h e t r a d i t i o n
e x a m i n e d i n Chapters O n e t h r o u g h F o u r . N o r d o the similarities e n d here. B o t h t h e Epinomis
a n d t h e texts o f o u r t r a d i t i o n c o n n e c t t h e e n d o f c a n n i b a l
i s m w i t h t h e d i s c o v e r y o f g r a i n ( D i o d o r u s 1.14.1, Stage 3 D ) ; t h e " f i n e " a r t s after t h e necessary ones ( t h e Epinomis distinction between anchinoia
τών
αναγκαίων
κτήσιν
1 4
b o t h discuss
drawing an explicit
a n d παιδιά—975CD);
and
w h i c h D i o d o r u s m e n t i o n s ( 1 . 8 . 9 , Stage 6) a l o n g s i d e h a n d s
the and
r a t i o n a l speech as b r i n g i n g a b o u t t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t e c h n o l o g y r e a p p e a r s i n t h e Epinomis
as a suggested d e s i g n a t i o n f o r a n i n t e l l e c t u a l process i n m a n
w h i c h falls s h o r t o f sopkia.
15
F i n a l l y , t h e passage recalls P o l y b i u s i n its i n
clusion o f the general a n d orator a m o n g practitioners o f the lower forms o f sophia ( 9 7 5 E - 7 6 B ) . B o t h b e l o n g t o a m o r e a d v a n c e d stage o f c u l t u r e t h a n t h a t d e s c r i b e d b y P o l y b i u s , b u t t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s ( d e s c r i b e d as boetheiai) h a v e close p a r a l l e l s i n t h e l a t t e r ' s a c c o u n t . T h e g e n e r a l is a boethos f o r t h e w h o l e c i t y , l i k e t h e m a n w h o u n d e r t a k e s t h e defense o f a l l i n m o m e n t s o f d a n g e r ( 6 . 6 . 8 ) ; and
t h e o r a t o r s ( d e s c r i b e d as βοηθοί
δίκαις
16
ev τη τοΰ λεγζιν
ρώμη)
have a
r o l e a n a l o g o u s t o t h a t o f t h e f u t u r e k i n g w h o " l e n d s his s u p p o r t " t o p o p u l a r ideas o f r i g h t a n d w r o n g . B o t h Laws account
1 7
I I I a n d t h e Epinomis
o f the
antecedents
are i n t u r n l i n k e d t o t h e y o u n g A r i s t o t l e ' s
of philosophy
(see
above,
pp.
52-53)
by
similarities w h i c h show t h a t a l l three must have h a d a c o m m o n o r i g i n i n the discussions
o f the A c a d e m y
held i n the m i d - f o u r t h century. T h o u g h
the
m e t h o d s t h e y e m p l o y are d i f f e r e n t , t h e t h r e e a c c o u n t s h a v e a single a i m : t h e d o w n g r a d i n g o f the achievements
o f t e c h n o l o g y a n d t h e useful arts. P l a t o
a t t e m p t s t o s h o w t h a t , i n s o f a r as t h e y r e p r e s e n t r e a l a c h i e v e m e n t s , these arts are o n l y a m i x e d blessing, a n d t h a t t h e r e a l l y useful a n d necessary a m o n g t h e m are n o t a c h i e v e m e n t s a t a l l , b u t s o m e t h i n g w h i c h t h e race has e n j o y e d f r o m t i m e i m m e m o r i a l . T h e Epinomis
recognizes t h e u t i l i t y o f t e c h n o l o g y a n d
t h e t a l e n t s o f its creators b u t denies t h a t these t a l e n t s h a v e a n y t h i n g t o d o The same connection is drawn in Laws 6.782B. O n the similarity of the Epinomis to the technological texts discussed in Chapters One and Two see also Gerhausser, Der Protreptikos des Poseidonios 30—31, who suggests the possibility of Democritus as the ultimate common source. 1 4
1 5
For the notion of boetheia rendered to nomos or to dihaion cf. Antiphon 1.31, Herod. 8 0 , Lysias 10.32; Anonymus Iamblichi 3 . 6 ; Aristophanes, Plutus 9 1 4 - 1 5 ; Demosthenes 5 6 . 1 5 ; and the passages cited in A. Delatte, Essai sur la politique pythagoricienne (Liege 1922) 4 9 . 1 6
Even the word boetheia, designating in origin a running (thein) in response to the raising of the hue and cry (boe)—see W . Schulze, "Beitrage zur Wort- und Sittengeschichte I I , " Kleine Schriften (Gottingen 1933) 183-89—suggests the most primitive form of mutual succor and, in particular, the situations envisioned by the texts on the origin of language discussed in Chapter Four (above, pp. 6 3 - 6 7 , with note 1 5 ) . 1 7
IO5
A F O U R T H C E N T U R Y VERSION OF PREHISTORY (LAWS III)
w i t h w i s d o m i n its h i g h e s t f o r m . A r i s t o t l e , m o r e g e n e r o u s , gives t o t e c h n o l o g y a preparatory b u t still subordinate place i n man's intellectual development. T h a t a l l t h r e e c r i t i q u e s s h o u l d be p r e s e n t e d i n t h e f o r m o f
Kulturgeschichten
w h i c h are so s i m i l a r t o e a c h o t h e r suggests t h a t w h a t a l l t h r e e are a t t a c k i n g is n o t s i m p l y a g e n e r a l a t t i t u d e b u t a specific w o r k o r b o d y o f w o r k s i n w h i c h b o t h demiourgike a n d politike
techne w e r e g l o r i f i e d b y a c a r e f u l a n d d e t a i l e d
account o f their civilizing achievements.
18
P l a t o denies i n l a r g e p o r t i o n t h e
t r u t h o f t h i s a c c o u n t ; A r i s t o t l e a n d t h e a u t h o r o f t h e Epinomis compensate b y achievements
emphasizing
the
essentially
subsidiary
accept i t , b u t
character
of
the
i t celebrates. I t is n a t u r a l t o assume t h a t i t is t h e i r c o m m o n
d e r i v a t i o n f r o m this w o r k or b o d y o f works w h i c h explains the similarities b e t w e e n t h e Laws,
t h e Epinomis,
considered i n Chapters VI.
the accounts o f technology a n d language
O n e t h r o u g h F o u r , a n d the sociology
o f Polybius
1 9
I f t h e a b o v e a r g u m e n t is c o r r e c t , t h e Laws
a n d t h e Epinomis
dependent evidence for accepting the conclusion reached
contain i n -
i n our two pre-
c e d i n g c h a p t e r s — t h a t t h e g e n e a l o g y o f social n o r m s g i v e n b y P o l y b i u s a n d t h e closely r e l a t e d histories o f t e c h n o l o g y f o u n d i n D i o d o r u s , V i t r u v i u s , a n d L u c r e t i u s d i d n o t arise i n d e p e n d e n t l y . Plato's e v i d e n c e is also o f some i m p o r t a n c e f o r t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e u l t i m a t e source o f t h e t r a d i t i o n w e are e x a m i n i n g . T h e m i d d l e o f t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y m a y n o w b e a c c e p t e d as a terminus ante quern f o r t h e o r i g i n o f t h e t r a d i t i o n i n b o t h its t e c h n o l o g i c a l a n d sociological
phases. W e
are d e a l i n g , t h e r e f o r e , w i t h a d o c t r i n e w h i c h is
pre-Hellenistic and, i n all p r o b a b i l i t y , pre-Platonic. T h e argument, plausible i n i t s e l f (see a b o v e , p . 5 9 ) , f o r p o s i t i n g some source n e a r e r i n t i m e t o t h e first
c e n t u r y a c c o u n t s e x a m i n e d i n C h a p t e r s O n e t h r o u g h T h r e e is t h e r e b y
s h o w n t o be i n v a l i d ; a n d w i t h t h i s a r g u m e n t goes t h e m a i n o b j e c t i o n t o t h e 1 8
Recognition of such an overall indebtedness to pre-Platonic thought need not affect the validity of the theories advanced by other investigators on the connection between the Epinomis and the early works of Aristotle. I n particular, Einarson may be right (TAPA 67.283, note 75) in seeing in the catalogue of lechnai of Epinomis 9 7 4 E - 7 6 C a conflation of Aristotle's classification of the arts with the procedure adopted in the Euthydemus for determining whether certain professions can be regarded as epistemai (cf. 2 8 9 A - 9 0 B , where the claims of iatrike, strategike, and rhetorike are examined and rejected). But such formulations are incomplete. There is, for example, no parallel in either Aristotle or the Euthydemus to the conceptions of boetheia and anchinoia which appear in the Epinomis; and the reference in 9 7 5 A to man's original cannibalism contradicts Asclepius' version (see above, Chap. I l l , note 15) of Aristotle's views on primitive life: Jjoav irardpes /XCTO T4KVU>V . . . Kai OVK
iv airois
aSiKia
( 1 1 . 7 - 9 Hayduck).
' Though briefer than some of the texts studied in Chapters One and Two, Epinomis 974E-76C may preserve at one point a more faithful record of the tradition. It includes manlike among the useful arts (9750). Though omitted as a rule from Hellenistic Kulturentstehungslehren, augury and divination are listed among the civilizing achievements of Prometheus by Aeschylus (PV 4 8 4 - 9 9 ) , and their institution is assigned by Democritus, perhaps in an anthropological context, to the "men of old" (A 138). 1
Io6
DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K
ANTHROPOLOGY
a l t e r n a t e t h e o r y — s u p p o r t e d b y m u c h o f t h e e v i d e n c e e x a m i n e d i n those chapters—of a Democritean
source.
O u r c o m p a r i s o n o f P l a t o a n d P o l y b i u s has n o t t h u s f a r p r o d u c e d a n y p o s i t i v e e v i d e n c e f o r t h i s a l t e r n a t e a s s u m p t i o n , y e t s u c h e v i d e n c e is n o t l a c k i n g . W h e n t h e t w o a c c o u n t s a r e c o n s i d e r e d i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h some o f t h e basic p r i n c i p l e s o f D e m o c r i t u s ' w h o l e a t o m i s t i c system, as w e l l as w i t h c e r t a i n specific s t a t e m e n t s f o u n d i n h i s f r a g m e n t s , t h e case f o r a D e m o c r i t e a n o r i g i n b e c o m e s , as w e s h a l l a t t e m p t t o d e m o n s t r a t e , v e r y s t r o n g i n d e e d . 2 0
2 0
One bit of evidence is best mentioned here, since, unlike those to be examined in the next
chapter, it has nothing to do with our authors' social and political theories. Aristotle's rejection of the authenticity of the works attributed to Orpheus (De philosophia F r . 7 Ross) is perhaps to be understood as part of his general critique of Democritus' theory of culture. For we know that the latter ascribed the discovery of the hexameter to Musaeus (B16—see above, p. 5 7 ) , from which it is natural to infer that he believed the poems of the Thracian school of bards to be authentic.
CHAPTER PLATO, i.
POLYBIUS,
EIGHT
AND
DEMOCRITUS
T H E GENESIS A N D EXPANSION O F
KOSMOI
T h e course o f social d e v e l o p m e n t d e s c r i b e d i n t h e t h i r d b o o k o f t h e Laws characterized
b y t h e f o r m a t i o n o f successively l a r g e r social
b e g i n n i n g w i t h the f a m i l y a n d progressing
through clan, city, a n d
con-
f e d e r a t i o n (see i n t h e s u m m a r y g i v e n a b o v e , p p . 9 7 - 9 8 , i t e m s 8, 12, 13, and
1 8 ) . T h i s aspect o f P l a t o ' s
account
is
aggregations, 16,
has some b e a r i n g o n t h e s o u r c e
p r o b l e m w e a r e c o n s i d e r i n g , f o r i t recalls a c e n t r a l t e n e t o f a t o m i s t i c p h y s i c s . D e m o c r i t u s d e r i v e d the entire universe f r o m the concourse o f atoms
into
a g g r e g a t i o n s o r " o r d e r i n g s " (kosmoi) a n d b e l i e v e d a l l o f these kosmoi t o b e c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y a t e n d e n c y t o b e c o m e p r o g r e s s i v e l y l a r g e r ( A 4 0 ) . H e also seems t o h a v e g i v e n t o t h e w o r d kosmos a w i d e r r a n g e o f m e a n i n g t h a n d i d non-atomistic w r i t e r s . I t designated as o f a t o m s ,
1
a g g r e g a t i o n s o f l i v i n g t h i n g s as
well
a n d t h e r e is n o r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e t h a t these h u m a n a n d a n i m a l
kosmoi w o u l d h a v e b e e n r e g a r d e d as e x e m p t f r o m t h e g e n e r a l t e n d e n c y
to
e x p a n d . I f t h e y w e r e n o t so r e g a r d e d , P l a t o ' s a c c o u n t o f t h e g r a d u a l p r o gression f r o m f a m i l y t o ethnos m a y b e t h e r e s u l t o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f a t o m istic p r i n c i p l e s t o sociology. T h i s s u g g e s t i o n is n o t n e w . T h e " a t o m i s t i c " a f f i n i t i e s o f t h e d o c t r i n e o f Laws
I I I h a v e b e e n p o i n t e d o u t b e f o r e a n d t a k e n as s u f f i c i e n t i n d i c a t i o n i n
themselves o f s t r o n g D e m o c r i t e a n i n f l u e n c e . T h e s u g g e s t i o n is a t t r a c t i v e a n d 2
fits
i n w e l l w i t h evidence suggesting
t h a t P l a t o n i c physics,
i n the
sopher's l a t e r years, u n d e r w e n t a s i m i l a r D e m o c r i t e a n i n f l u e n c e .
philoYet
3
for
t h e p r e s e n t , a t a n y r a t e , i t m u s t be a c c e p t e d t e n t a t i v e l y a n d w i t h r e s e r v a t i o n s . T h e d i v i s i o n o f cities i n t o t r i b e s a n d p h r a t r i e s a n d t h e a s s o c i a t i o n o f these cities i n t o e t h n i c leagues a n d a l l i a n c e s was a s i m p l e f a c t o f G r e e k s o c i a l a n d p o l i t i c a l life, o f w h i c h a c o n t e m p o r a r y observer c o u l d h a r d l y be i g n o r a n t . Cf. B 2 5 8 - 5 9 . There is also an implicit link between animate and inanimate kosmoi in B164 (see below, p. 110), where both are said to illustrate by their behavior the principle that like is attracted to like. See Uxkull-Gyllenband, 2 9 - 3 0 . Democritean influence is denied by Aalders [Hel derde boek van Plato's Leges 9 8 - 1 0 0 , 111—15); but he fails to consider the allegedly atomistic motifs which^foyide Uxkull-Gyllenband with the substance of his argument. A \5 See the works cited in VS I I 8 2 . 3 8 m ; W . Schmid, Geschichte der griechischen Literature, XMunich 1
2
3
1948) 3 3 1 - 3 2 ; and H . Cherniss, "Plato, 1 9 5 0 - 5 7 , " Lustrum 4 (1959) 3 9 - 4 0 . 107
lj , ' V r;| ., t
!
Ιθ8
DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES OF G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
I t w o u l d have been
a n a t u r a l assumption, r e q u i r i n g no background
of
a t o m i s t i c t h e o r y t o s u p p o r t i t , t h a t t h e f a m i l y , w h i c h was t h e smallest o f these u n i t s a n d t h e basic c o m p o n e n t o f a l l t h e o t h e r s , was also t h e earliest t o c o m e i n t o b e i n g ; t h a t i t h a d , t h e r e f o r e , existed s e p a r a t e l y a t o n e t i m e ; a n d t h a t g r a d u a l a c c r e t i o n s h a d p r o d u c e d social u n i t s o f t h e d i m e n s i o n s w i t h w h i c h the Greeks o f m o r e recent times were f a m i l i a r . M o r e o v e r , t h o u g h t h e r e is a c e r t a i n s i m i l a r i t y b e t w e e n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t ofethne
as d e s c r i b e d b y
P l a t o a n d t h a t o f D e m o c r i t e a n kosmoi, t h e single f a m i l y l i v i n g i n i s o l a t i o n is a far
c r y f r o m t h e m u c h l a r g e r , m o r e t u r b u l e n t οΊνον παντοίων
elbiwv
(Β 167)
w h i c h is s e p a r a t e d o u t f r o m t h e a l l a t a c o r r e s p o n d i n g p o i n t i n t h e a t o m i s t i c t h e o r y o f c o s m i c genesis. T a k e n b y itself, t h e r e f o r e , Plato's a c c o u n t offers n o sure s u p p o r t for t h e t h e o r y o f a D e m o c r i t e a n source. T h e same c a n n o t b e s a i d , h o w e v e r , o n c e his a c c o u n t has b e e n e x a m i n e d a l o n g s i d e c e r t a i n o t h e r passages i n t h e t r a d i t i o n to
w h i c h i t , a l o n g w i t h P o l y b i u s a n d t h e t e c h n o l o g i c a l texts s t u d i e d i n
C h a p t e r s O n e a n d T w o , seems t o b e l o n g . T h e e i g h t h c h a p t e r o f D i o d o r u s I , for e x a m p l e , posits, j u s t as P l a t o does, a social d e v e l o p m e n t w h i c h proceeds t h r o u g h the gradual expansion o f an original nucleus. pp.
4
I n 1.8.4 ( - a b o v e , C I
6 4 - 6 5 ) t h e o r i g i n a l systemata c o n s t i t u t e d o u t o f t h e speakers o f a single
language
a r e s a i d t o b e c o m e t h e ancestors o f t h e ethne o f t h e w o r l d .
Even
m o r e s i g n i f i c a n t is t h e passage i n t h e E g y p t i a n p o r t i o n o f t h e b o o k (1.16.1) w h i c h lists a m o n g t h e a c h i e v e m e n t s o f H e r m e s t h e a r t i c u l a t i o n o f a c o m m o n speech a n d t h e d e v i s i n g o f n a m e s f o r c e r t a i n andnyma. T h e passage has b e e n t a k e n as a s i m p l e v a r i a n t o n t h e e a r l i e r a c c o u n t o f t h e o r i g i n o f l a n g u a g e (1.8.2-4),
D
u
u p o n closer e x a m i n a t i o n i t b e c o m e s f a i r l y c l e a r t h a t D i o d o r u s
t
is h e r e d e s c r i b i n g s o m e t h i n g q u i t e d i f f e r e n t . H e r m e s c a n n o t be t h e o r i g i n a l onomatothetis;
f o r a t a c o m p l e t e l y p r e l i n g u a l stage o f d e v e l o p m e n t , t h e crea
t i o n o f a c o m m o n l a n g u a g e w o u l d be i d e n t i c a l w i t h t h e d i s c o v e r y o f n a m e s f o r andnyma, a n d so t h e r e w o u l d b e n o p o i n t i n d i s t i n g u i s h i n g , as D i o d o r u s does, b e t w e e n t h e t w o a c t i v i t i e s . M o r e o v e r , a t t h i s stage a l l objects w o u l d be nameless, so t h a t t h e r e w o u l d b e e q u a l l y l i t t l e p o i n t i n r e f e r r i n g t o those which
receive
n a m e s as andnyma r a t h e r t h a n s i m p l y as pragmata.
H e r m e s m u s t b e d o i n g is, f i r s t , c r e a t i n g a lingua franca
What
(ή κοινή δ ι ά λ ε κ τ ο ς ) f o r
a c o u n t r y w h i c h a l r e a d y possesses dialects ( r u d i m e n t a r y p e r h a p s )
spoken
l o c a l l y b y its d i f f e r e n t t r i b e s ; a n d , second, d e v i s i n g n a m e s f o r some o f t h e andnyma
5
f o r w h i c h n o d e s i g n a t i o n , l o c a l o r o t h e r w i s e , y e t exists. D i o d o r u s '
a c c o u n t has a n e x a c t p a r a l l e l i n Laws
3.68 I A - C
( i t e m 14 i n t h e s u m m a r y
g i v e n i n C h a p t e r S e v e n ) . P l a t o t h e r e says t h a t , as t h e separate clans b e g a n 6
O n the following cf. Uxkull-Gyllenband, 2 9 - 3 0 . * Cf. nSnyma in the Democritean analysis of language, above, pp. 6 7 - 6 9 . " Noted by Reinhardt, 507.
4
IOg
P L A T O , P O L Y B I U S , AND D E M O G R I T U S
t o coalesce, t h e y b r o u g h t w i t h t h e m d i f f e r e n t a n d o f t e n c o n f l i c t i n g c u s t o m s . A s a r e s u l t i t was necessary t o a p p o i n t l a w g i v e r s w h o w o u l d p i c k a n d choose f r o m a m o n g a v a r i e t y o f nomoi those w h i c h w o u l d h e n c e f o r t h h a v e sole v a l i d i t y . D i o d o r u s speaks o f l a n g u a g e , P l a t o o f nomoi; b u t , as w e h a v e seen, 7
i t is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e w h o l e t r a d i t i o n o f Kulturgeschichte
w h i c h w e a r e ex
a m i n i n g t o d r a w a close c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e c o m m o n speech a n d t h e c o m m o n social usages p r e v a l e n t a m o n g a g i v e n p e o p l e (see a b o v e , p p .
71-
74, 8 5 - 8 6 ) . A n d i t s h o u l d b e n o t e d t h a t t h e l i n g u i s t i c e q u i v a l e n t s f o r t h e c o n f l i c t i n g nomoi m e n t i o n e d b y P l a t o w o u l d b e s y n o n y m s a n d
homonyms,
those e x a m p l e s o f d i f f e r i n g c o n v e n t i o n a l responses t o i d e n t i c a l pragmata i d e n t i c a l responses t o d i f f e r e n t pragmata account
of w h i c h Democritus took
and
special
(see a b o v e , p p . 6 7 - 6 9 ) i n f r a m i n g his t h e o r y o f t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l
o r i g i n o f l a n g u a g e , p e r h a p s seeing i n t h e c o a l e s c i n g o f d i f f e r e n t l i n g u i s t i c systemata t h e i r p r i n c i p a l p o i n t o f o r i g i n . T h e s e p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n P l a t o , D i o d o r u s , a n d D e m o c r i t u s are i m p o r t a n t f o r t h r e e reasons. F i r s t , t h e y i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e m o t i f w h i c h has b e e n r e g a r d e d as a t o m i s t i c i n P l a t o ' s
account
belongs t o the t r a d i t i o n w h i c h he
and
D i o d o r u s are f o l l o w i n g , h e n c e c a n n o t be a n a d d i t i o n o f P l a t o ' s o w n t o w h i c h t h e r e was n o c o u n t e r p a r t i n t h a t t r a d i t i o n . S e c o n d , i t a l l o w s us t o s u p p l e m e n t the rather shakily grounded a r g u m e n t f r o m the " a t o m i s t i c " character Laws
of
I I I w i t h a specific p a r a l l e l t o D e m o c r i t u s . F i n a l l y , i t suggests t h a t t h e
n o t i o n o f a n e x p a n d i n g social g r o u p , t h o u g h n o t , i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y , o r i g i n a l w i t h P l a t o , m a y nevertheless h a v e u n d e r g o n e c e r t a i n m o d i f i c a t i o n s a t his h a n d s . T h e i n i t i a l a g g r e g a t i o n i n D i o d o r u s ' a c c o u n t is n o t a f a m i l y b u t a systema—a
g r o u p o f i n d i v i d u a l s ( o r h o u s e h o l d e r s ) w h o assemble t o g e t h e r f o r
p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e w i l d a n i m a l s . T h e r e s u l t i n g p i c t u r e o f social genesis p r o v i d e s a f a r closer p a r a l l e l t h a n does P l a t o ' s t o w h a t c a n b e
reconstructed
o f t h e D e m o c r i t e a n t h e o r y o f t h e f o r m a t i o n a n d d e v e l o p m e n t o f kosmoi. kosmos, a c c o r d i n g t o o n e t e s t i m o n y ( A 4 0 . 4 ) , g r o w s a n d
flourishes
A
until i t can
n o l o n g e r a b s o r b m a t t e r f r o m o u t s i d e . E l s e w h e r e i n t h e same passage a n o t h e r possible cause o f d e s t r u c t i o n is suggested: a kosmos m a y c o m e t o a n e n d b y c o l l i d i n g w i t h a n o t h e r one. T h e c o l l o c a t i o n o f t h e t w o causes suggests t h a t Democritus h a d i n m i n d a situation i n w h i c h they w o u l d have been identical o r n e a r l y so, such as t h a t i n w h i c h w a r r i n g kosmoi c o m p e t e w i t h o n e a n o t h e r f o r t h e a v a i l a b l e a t o m s . U n d e r these c i r c u m s t a n c e s a b s o r p t i o n o f n e w m a t t e r w i l l a l w a y s m e a n i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f p a r t o f a n o t h e r kosmos i n t o one's o w n , 7
8
The source drawn upon by Plato and Diodorus need not have attributed the whole process to a single man. A n indication of the skill shown by certain individuals (perhaps equivalent to the logioi of Democritus) in suggesting solutions and compromises in specific situations would have been a sufficient starting point for the more thoroughly individualistic interpretation given by Plato and Diodorus. 8
Cf. VS 6 8 A 8 4 : φθείρεσθαι τον κόσμον τον μείζονος τον μικρότερον
νικώντος.
110
D E M O C R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
f a i l u r e t o a b s o r b w i l l m e a n c o l l i s i o n a n d d e s t r u c t i o n . I t is e x a c t l y s u c h a s i t u a t i o n w h i c h , b o t h i n D i o d o r u s a n d i n P o l y b i u s ' closely s i m i l a r a c c o u n t , creates t h e first h u m a n a g g r e g a t i o n . M a n m u s t , t o b e g i n w i t h , b u i l d a w o r l d o f his o w n b y c r e a t i n g safe s u r r o u n d i n g s f o r h i m s e l f i n t h e m i d s t o f t h e v a r i o u s n a t u r a l a n d a n i m a l kosmoi w i t h w h i c h h e f i n d s h i m s e l f i n c o n t a c t ; a n d he c a n o n l y s u r v i v e b y t u r n i n g p o r t i o n s o f his e n v i r o n m e n t , w h e t h e r a n i m a t e o r i n a n i m a t e , t o his o w n use—i.e. b y i n c o r p o r a t i n g p o r t i o n s o f o t h e r kosmoi i n t o his o w n .
9
T h e v i e w o f social genesis f o u n d i n P o l y b i u s a n d D i o d o r u s is t h u s p e r f e c t l y consistent, as P l a t o ' s is n o t , w i t h w h a t o n e w o u l d assume a n a t o m i s t i c a c c o u n t o f t h i s process t o h a v e b e e n . T h e r e is, m o r e o v e r , o n e specific piece o f e v i d e n c e t o suggest t h a t D e m o c r i t u s d i d i n f a c t offer s u c h a n a c c o u n t , a n d t h a t i t is echoed i n Polybius: ΡοΐΛΈΓυΐ 6 . 5 . 7 - 8
D E M O C R I T U S Β Ι 64
τότε δήπου καθάπερ επί τών άλλων ζώων και έπι
και γαρ ζώα . . . όμογενέσι ζώοις
τούτων συναθροιζομένων—δπερ
ώς περίστεροι
εικός, και τούτους
εις το όμόφυλον συνογελάζεσθαι
διά τήν φύσεως
περιστεραις
και έπι τών άλλων άλογων
συναγελάζεται,
και γερανοί
γεράνοις
ωσαύτως.
άσθένειαν—ανάγκη τον τη σωματική ρώμη και τη φυχική τόλμη κρατεΐν,
άδοξοποιητών φύσεως
και
έτιϊ
ζώων
μένους, λέγω τά τούτοις
τών
ήγεΐσθαι άλλων
θεωρούμενον
έργον άληθινώτατον
ομολογουμένως
As
διαφέροντα, τούτον
καθάπερ
τούτο
νομίζειν,
τους Ισχυρότατους
χρή
παρ*
όρώμεν
δέ ταύρους κάπρους
και γενών
οΓ?
ηγου
άλεκτρυόνας,
παραπλήσια.
quoted
by
Sextus
(Adv.
math.
7. n 7 ) ,
Democritus
B164
compares
a n i m a l a g g r e g a t i o n s , n o t t o h u m a n ones, b u t t o those o f s i m i l a r l y s h a p e d a t o m s . T h e reference t o a n i m a l s as aloga, h o w e v e r , s u p p o r t s t h e suggestion o f those w h o suppose t h e o r i g i n a l c o m p a r i s o n t o h a v e b e e n w i t h m e n as well.
1 0
T h e r e is n o t h i n g p e c u l i a r l y D e m o c r i t e a n a b o u t t h e i d e a t h a t l i k e is
a t t r a c t e d t o l i k e , i n a l l r e a l m s o f existence. N o r is t h e f o r m o f a r g u m e n t used — t h e a p p e a l t o a n i m a l b e h a v i o r t o e s t a b l i s h w h a t is " n a t u r a l " r a t h e r t h a n acquired i n man—unparalleled elsewhere.
11
Y e t t h e f a c t t h a t t h e same c o n
j u n c t i o n o f ideas t o g e t h e r w i t h r a t h e r s i m i l a r p h r a s e o l o g y a p p e a r s i n b o t h P o l y b i u s a n d D e m o c r i t u s , t h a t P o l y b i u s goes b a c k i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y (as t h e a r g u m e n t o f C h a p t e r S e v e n has s h o w n ) t o a p r e - P l a t o n i c source, a n d t h a t 9
This is what happens, for example, during the original discovery and subsequent application of fire. A certain natural process impinges on the human kosmos and is then made part of it and accommodated to its pattern. Similarly, wild animals will be either thrust away and killed or else domesticated—i.e. forced to conform to and assist in the development of this same human pattern. So Uxkull-Gyllenband, 31, followed by Havelock, 412. 1 0
1 1
Its earliest datable appearance is in the Clouds of Aristophanes ( 1 4 2 7 - 2 9 ) .
P L A T O , POLYBIUS, AND DEMOCRITUS
Β 1 6 4 is t h e o n l y p l a c e i n G r e e k l i t e r a t u r e b e f o r e Laws
III
68ODE w h e r e m a n is
p l a c e d i n a c a t e g o r y a l o n g w i t h c e r t a i n o t h e r a n i m a l s as a ζδοη
synagelastikon—
a l l t h i s m u s t b e a l l o w e d t o c a r r y some w e i g h t . T h e r e is also a t r a c e o f w h a t may
have been one further parallel between the views o f D e m o c r i t u s a n d
P o l y b i u s o n t h e earliest h u m a n society, o r , m o r e p r e c i s e l y , o n t h e p o s i t i o n w h i c h t h e strongest i n d i v i d u a l s i n i t o c c u p i e d . Polybius adduces t h e e x a m p l e o f a n i m a l b e h a v i o r t o p r o v e t w o p o i n t s : first, t h e naturalness a n d i n e v i t a b i l i t y o f man's tendency t o aggregate after his
k i n d ; s e c o n d l y , t h e e q u a l l y n a t u r a l c h a r a c t e r (cf. 6 . 5 . 8 : φύσεως
άληθινώτατον)
epyov
o f the t e n d e n c y f o r t h e strongest m e m b e r o f the h e r d t o r u l e .
T h e n a t u r a l p r i n c i p l e p r o c l a i m e d h e r e is as m u c h a c o m m o n p l a c e as t h e o n e t h a t l i k e seeks l i k e .
1 2
Y e t w h e n t h e t w o ideas a r e c o m b i n e d , as t h e y a r e i n
P o l y b i u s , t h e r e s u l t is c o n s i d e r a b l y less c o m m o n p l a c e — a m o r e b a l a n c e d a n d c o m p l e x p i c t u r e o f t h e state o f n a t u r e t h a n is u s u a l l y f o u n d i n G r e e k t h o u g h t . A
f a i r l y close p a r a l l e l is f o u n d i n Laws
1 3
I I I , where, however, parental rule
takes t h e p l a c e o f r u l e o f t h e s t r o n g e r . T h e r e s u l t , i n P l a t o ' s a c c o u n t , is a n i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f kreittdn
w i t h " b e t t e r " , a n d t h i s dispenses w i t h t h e i n t e r
a c t i o n o f t h e o p p o s e d p r i n c i p l e s o f f o r c e a n d c o n s e n t (see a b o v e , p p . 9 2 - 9 3 ) t h a t is essential t o P o l y b i u s ' w h o l e c o n c e p t i o n o f p r e h i s t o r y . T h e p o w e r o f the
m a n w h o is kreittdn i n P l a t o ' s sense is f r o m t h e v e r y b e g i n n i n g g e n u i n e l y
p r o d u c t i v e o f a social o r d e r , n o t , as i t is i n P o l y b i u s , s o m e t h i n g w i t h a l i m i t e d usefulness t h a t m u s t u l t i m a t e l y b e s u p p l e m e n t e d a n d i m p r o v e d u p o n . A m o r e e x a c t p a r a l l e l t o P o l y b i u s , t h o u g h f r o m a d i f f e r e n t c o n t e x t , is t o b e f o u n d i n the
p o l i t i c a l fragments o f D e m o c r i t u s , where t h e claims ( a n d dangers) o f
s u p e r i o r a b i l i t y a r e c o n s t a n t l y b e i n g b a l a n c e d a g a i n s t those o f c o l l e c t i v e w i l l and
c u s t o m , i n t h e same w a y as h e r d i n s t i n c t a n d s o l i d a r i t y a r e b a l a n c e d
against t h e p o w e r o f the stronger i n Polybius' a c c o u n t .
1 4
T h e one fragment
w h i c h expresses m o s t c l e a r l y t h e n a t u r a l c h a r a c t e r o f r u l e o f t h e s t r o n g e r 1 2
Cf., for example, Plato, Gorgias 483AC; Moschion, F r . 6 . 1 5 - 1 7 (TGF 8 1 4 ) ;
Thucydides
5.105.2. 1 3
So much so that at least one modern scholar has declared the combination to be impossible. Largely on the basis of Democritus B164, L a n a (RendLinc Ser. 8, 5 . 1 8 7 - 2 0 1 ) draws an unnecessary distinction between a " Democritean " and a " Protagorean " view of the origin of society, in which the causes of the original aggregation are, respectively, philallelia and the fear attendant on human weakness (cf. Plato, Protagoras 322B). He thus concludes that a theory of the primitive rule of bia such as lies behind the picture of human cannibalism in Diodorus 1.90.1 cannot be Democritean, " a meno di ammettere che gli uomini si sentissero attirati l'uno verso l'altro . . . per mangiarsi a vicenda" (193, note 1). But the combination of ideas is merely unusual, not impossible (cf. above, p. 84, with note 11) and fits quite well with Democritean psychology; cf. B 2 0 3 : άνθρωποι τον θάνατον φεΰγοντες οΊώκουοιν. See also below, p. 131. 1 4
Contrast Democritus' praise of demokralia ( B 2 5 1 ) , nomos ( B 2 4 5 and 2 4 8 ) , and homonoia ( B 2 5 0 )
with the defense of archontes and the exclusion of kakoi from their ranks found in B 2 5 4 and 266. For the compromise political program to which such considerations seem to have led him see B 2 5 5 (discussed below, pp. 120-21) and Aalders, Mnemosyne Ser. 4, 3.310.
112
(B267:
D E M O C R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
TO
ap^ecv
OIKITJIOV
TO>
closely r e c a l l s a p h r a s e w h i c h
Kpiaaovi)
o c c u r s i n P o s i d o n i u s ' discussion o f t h e o r i g i n a l h u m a n a g g r e g a t e : natura est potioribus
deterioribus
enunciated
summittere.
15
We
do not k n o w
whether
i n B 2 6 7 was e v e r a p p l i e d t o Kulturgeschichte.
of the fragment
does i n d i c a t e
that Polybius'
the
principle
B u t the
existence
a c c o u n t o f social genesis is
t h o r o u g h l y c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e g e n e r a l social a n d p o l i t i c a l p h i l o s o p h y
of
Democritus. C o m p a t i b i l i t y o f v i e w p o i n t does n o t i n i t s e l f a l l o w us t o c o n c l u d e t h a t , a t any p o i n t where Plato's,
the
Polybius' v i e w o f the beginnings
former
represents
the
more
faithful
o f society diverges f r o m record
of
a
common
D e m o c r i t e a n s o u r c e . B u t i t does suggest t h a t t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y s h o u l d be b o r n e i n m i n d — a n d t h a t B o o k V I s h o u l d be e x a m i n e d f o r a n y f u r t h e r D e m o c r i t e a n p a r a l l e l s , w h e t h e r g e n e r a l o r specific, t h a t i t m a y c o n t a i n .
2. S O C I E T Y A N D T H E F A M I L Y P l a t o ' s n o t i o n o f t h e single f a m i l y as t h e n u c l e u s o f s o c i e t y is, as w e h a v e seen, u n l i k e l y t o b e D e m o c r i t e a n . N o less u n - D e m o c r i t e a n is t h e r o l e w h i c h h e assigns t o t h e f a m i l y t h r o u g h t h e w h o l e s u b s e q u e n t d e v e l o p m e n t social a g g r e g a t i o n .
o f the
T h e p r i n c i p l e o f p a t e r n a l a u t h o r i t y is t h a t o n w h i c h a l l
p o w e r u l t i m a t e l y rests: t h e earliest o f p o l i t i c a l a r r a n g e m e n t s
is t h e
"justest
o f a l l k i n g s h i p s " , i n w h i c h c h i l d r e n obey the rule o f t h e i r parents. T h e patt e r n s o f o b e d i e n c e w h i c h arise t h e r e b y are e v i d e n t l y t h e patriot nomoi t o w h i c h P l a t o refers, a n d t h e o n l y i n t e r n a l p o l i t i c a l c h a n g e m e n t i o n e d i n t h e r e m a i n i n g p o r t i o n o f his a c c o u n t takes p l a c e w h e n t h e r e comes a n e e d f o r c o m p r o m i s e b e t w e e n d i f f e r e n t sets o f s u c h nomoi. H o w f a r t h i s p i c t u r e is f r o m a n y possible D e m o c r i t e a n v i e w o f t h e r o l e o f t h e f a m i l y i n h u m a n h i s t o r y is evident
f r o m B278, w h i c h contrasts
human
child-rearing and
its
animal
c o u n t e r p a r t . B o t h m e n a n d a n i m a l s b e g e t c h i l d r e n i n o b e d i e n c e t o t h e same n a t u r a l l a w ; a n i m a l p a r e n t s , h o w e v e r , seek n o r e w a r d f o r t h e a f f e c t i o n a n d care w h i c h t h e y lavish o n t h e i r offspring. A m o n g m e n , o n the other h a n d , " t h e r e has c o m e i n t o b e i n g a n e s t a b l i s h e d
usage (nomizon)"
16
whereby
the
p a r e n t s d e r i v e b e n e f i t f r o m t h e c h i l d as w e l l . H e r e t h e p r i n c i p l e g o v e r n i n g t h e p a r e n t - c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p is n e i t h e r i n s t i n c t i v e n o r p a t e r n a l i s t i c . I t falls w i t h i n t h e r e a l m o f nomas a n d has its o r i g i n a t a g i v e n p o i n t i n t i m e ; m o r e o v e r , i t represents a n e x c h a n g e o f services, n o t t h e r e n d e r i n g o f o b e d i e n c e t o 1 5
T h e parallels between this discussion and the corresponding portion of Polybius' account have already been noted, above, pp. 9 5 - 9 6 . 1 6
T h e general meaning of the term which stood in Democritus' text at this point seems to be fairly clear, even if the manuscript reading of nomizon is to be rejected. See VS ad toe.
113
P L A T O , POLYBIUS, AND DEMOGRITUS
a s u p e r i o r . D e m o c r i t u s ' v i e w is, i t s h o u l d b e n o t e d , e x a c t l y t h a t o f P o l y b i u s , as a c o m p a r i s o n w i t h 6 . 6 . 2 - 5 s h o w s : P O L Y B I U S 6.6.2-5
D E M O C R I T U S B278
•πάντων γαρ προς τους συνουσίας όρμώντων φυσιν, εκ δε τούτου παιδοποιίας
κατά
αποτελούμενης,
άνθρώποισι
τών αναγκαίων
κτήσασθαι
από φύσιος
δοκεΐ
είναι
παΐδας
και καταστάσιός
τίνος
οπότε τις των εκτραφεντων εις ήλικίαν ίκόμενος
άρχαίης* δήλον δε και τοις άλλοις ζώοισι.
πάνταγάρ
μη νεμοι χάριν μηο* άμύναι τουτοι? οΐς εκτρεφοιτ*
εκγονα κτάται κατά φύσιν επωφελείης ye ουδεμίας
αλλά που τάναντία κακώς λέγειν ή δραν τούτους
εινεκα *
-εγχειροίη, Βήλον ώς δυσαρεστεΐν και προσκόπτειν εικός τους συναντάς και συνιδόντας την γεγενημενην εκ των γεννησάντων
επιμελειαν
αλλ* οταυ γενηται ταλαιπωρεί
καϊ τρέφει εκαστον
και κακοπάθειαν περί τά τέκνα και την τούτων
ώς δύναται και ύπερδεδοικε μ^χρι σμικρά
θεραπείαν
τι
και τροφήν.
του γάρ γένους
των
ανθρώπων ταύτη διαφέροντος τών άλλων ζώων η
πάθη
άνιαται.
και ην
ή μεν φύσις τοιαύτη
πάντων
εστίν οσσα ψυχήν €χει.
μονοις αντοΐς μετεστι νου και λογισμού, φανερόν ώς ουκ εικός παρατρεχειν
αυτούς την
•προειρημενην διαφοράν, καθάπερ επι τών άλλων ζώων,
αλλ* επισημαίνεσθαι
δυσάρεστεισθαι μέλλον
τοις
εκάστοις αυτών
ώστε και
επαύρεσιν τινα γίγνεσθαι από τοΰ εκγόνου.
τό γιγνόμενον και
πάρουσι
και συλλογιζομένους
τω δε άνθρώπω νομίζον ήδη πεποίηται
προορωμενους
τό
ότι τό παραπλησιον
συγκυρήσει.
I n b o t h P o l y b i u s a n d D e m o c r i t u s t w o aspects o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n parents a n d offspring
a r e c o n s i d e r e d . T h e first is t h a t w h i c h is n a t u r a l
a n d unavoidable. Procreation o f c h i l d r e n follows i n e v i t a b l y f r o m
man's
n a t u r e , a n d t h i s i n t u r n leads t o p a r e n t a l c a r e f o r o f f s p r i n g . I n t h i s m a n is n o d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e o t h e r a n i m a l s . A g a i n s t s u c h b e h a v i o r is set t h e s p e c i f i c a l l y h u m a n : t h a t w h i c h secures t o t h e p a r e n t some e n j o y m e n t f r o m h i s c h i l d , o r t h a t w h i c h b r a n d s acts o f f i l i a l i n g r a t i t u d e w i t h a n g e r a n d i n d i g n a t i o n . T h e s p e c i f i c a l l y h u m a n aspect o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p is said t o b e nomizon i n D e m o c r i t u s . T h e t e r m is n o t f o u n d i n P o l y b i u s , o f P o l y s t r a t u s ' closely p a r a l l e l analysis
1 7
b u t recalls t h e nomizomena
(see a b o v e , p p . 8 1 - 8 2 ) . T h e r e is,
moreover, evidence t o show t h a t t h e actions w h i c h acquire c o m m e n d a t i o n o r censure i n P o l y b i u s — f a i l u r e t o m a k e p r o p e r r e t u r n t o one's p a r e n t s , f a i l u r e t o r e p a y benefactors, s h a r i n g i n t h e c o m m o n d e f e n c e — a r e p r e c i s e l y those w h i c h i n t h e fifth a n d f o u r t h c e n t u r i e s w o u l d h a v e b e e n l i k e l y t o b e desig n a t e d b y nomos o r w o r d s i n v o l v i n g t h e same s t e m . T h r e e closely s i m i l a r t e x t s , one
from
Alexander
A r i s t o t l e ' s Rhetoric
(1.1374A18-25),
one f r o m
t h e Rhetoric
to
usually ascribed t o Anaximenes (1.1421B35-22A2), a n d one f r o m
X e n o p h o n ' s Memorabilia
( 4 . 4 . 1 9 - 2 4 ) , c o n t a i n discussions o f u n w r i t t e n nomoi
w h i c h s t r o n g l y r e c a l l t h e p r e s e n t passage. F o r these t h r e e w r i t e r s , u n w r i t t e n 1 7
Gf., however, 6.4.5, which makes care of parents a practice which is patrion kai synethes (i.e.
part of hoi patriot nomoi) in a well-run democracy.
ιΐ4
DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
l a w i n v o l v e s t h e e x p e c t a t i o n a m o n g a l l m e m b e r s o f society t h a t c e r t a i n types o f c o n d u c t w i l l b e a d h e r e d t o . T h e types specified a r e as f o l l o w s : ARISTOTLE
ANAXTMENES
άγραφα δίκαια: χάριν
(ι)
έχειν
τω ποιήσαντι
εΰ . . . άντευποιεΐν
XENOPHON
έθος άγραφον:
άγραφοι νόμοι:
ένεργέταις χάριν άποδιδόναι
τους
τον εΰ
εν ποιοΰντας
άντευερ-
γετεΐν
ποιήσαντα βοηθητικόν είναι φίλοις
(2) (3)
φίλους ευ ποιεΐν γονέας τιμάν
γονέας τιμάν
(4)
θεούς σέβεσθαι
T h e similarities between Aristotle a n d Anaximenes
a r e m o s t n a t u r a l l y ex
p l a i n e d o n t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t b o t h passages d e r i v e f r o m t h e r h e t o r i c a l tradition o f the fifth c e n t u r y ;
1 8
a n d t h a t t h i s p o r t i o n o f t h e t r a d i t i o n has its
r o o t s i n S o p h i s t i c discussions o f nomos is suggested b y t h e p a r a l l e l s i n X e n o p h o n , w h i c h o c c u r d u r i n g t h e course o f a discussion b e t w e e n Socrates a n d Hippias.
1 9
T h e t h r e e e x a m p l e s o f ethos agraphon a d d u c e d b y A n a x i m e n e s , a l l
o f w h i c h a r e p a r a l l e l e d e i t h e r i n X e n o p h o n o r A r i s t o t l e , i n v o l v e e x a c t l y those types o f c o n d u c t w i t h w h i c h P o l y b i u s is c o n c e r n e d : t r e a t m e n t o f p a r e n t s , b e h a v i o r t o benefactors, a n d a i d t o one's a s s o c i a t e s .
20
T h i s evidence, c o m
b i n e d w i t h t h a t o f Polystratus, makes i t very p r o b a b l e t h a t Polybius was d r a w i n g u p o n a source w h i c h d e s c r i b e d t h e o r i g i n o f t h r e e basic D e m o c r i t u s w a s n o t , o f course, nomoi,
21
1 8
agraphoi
n o r is t h e c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n a n i m a l a n d h u m a n c h i l d - r e a r i n g u n
p a r a l l e l e d elsewhere i n a n c i e n t t h o u g h t . two
nomizomena.
the o n l y author to deal w i t h 2 2
W h a t is u n p a r a l l e l e d o u t s i d e t h e
passages u n d e r discussion, h o w e v e r , is t h e n o t i o n t h a t t h e p a t t e r n o f For a fifth century parallel, cf. Euripides, Hec. 800—1: νόμω γάρ τούς θεούς ηγούμεθα και ζωμεν
άδικα και δίκαι' ώρισμένοι, which recalls both Xenophon and Anaximenes' definition
(1.1421B36-37)
of dikaion as έθος άγραφον διορίζον τά καλά και αισχρά. And with the references to benefactors compare
VS 8 8 B 2 5 . 3 - 4 (the Sisyphus fragment of Critias): before the introduction of nomoi there was neither reward for good men nor punishment for bad. 1 8
Sophistic influence is also suggested by the contractual definition of law which immediately follows Anaximenes' remarks on ethos agraphon ( 1 . 1 4 2 2 A 2 - 4 ) . Xenophon's theous sebesthai, which has no parallel in Polybius, Aristotle, or Anaximenes, may reflect more completely the tradition all four authors are following. Reverence toward gods and justice toward one's fellows would thus have been linked together as fundamental constituents of morality: cf. Plato, Prot. 325A and D ; Gorgias, VS 8 2 B 6 , p. 2 8 6 . 1 2 - 1 5 ; and Euripides, Hec. 8 0 0 - 1 (above, note 18). It is possible, however, that Xenophon is making a pious addition to what he found in his source—an addition suggested by the frequent association oigoneis and theoi in passages dealing with the fundamental human obligations: cf. Aeschylus, Suppl. 7 0 4 - 9 ; Euripides, F r . 8 5 3 (TGF638); Isocrates, Dem. 16; Plato, Laws 724A, 8 5 4 E ; Lycurgus, Leocr. 15, 9 4 , 9 7 ; Polybius 6.4.5. 2 0
Cf., in addition to the passages cited in the text, Sophocles, Ant. 4 5 4 - 5 5 ; Thucydides 2.37.3. I t was drawn by the Epicureans (cf. Plutarch, Am. prol. 2-495A=527 Usener), by Ps.-Aristotle, Oec. 1.1343B20-23, and by Xenophon, Oec. 7.19. (On the possibility of Democritean influence in the last-named work, however, see Praechter, Hermes 5 0 . 1 4 4 - 5 0 . ) 2 1
2 2
P L A T O , P O L Y B I U S , AND D E M O C R I T U S
"5
h u m a n c h i l d - r e a r i n g is a nomos w i t h a g i v e n p o i n t o f o r i g i n — a n d so i n a sense " u n n a t u r a l " — n o t , as o t h e r a c c o u n t s w o u l d h a v e i t , t h e i m m e d i a t e a n d i n evitable reflection o f a characteristic difference between h u m a n a n d a n i m a l pkysis.
23
The
historical perspective
is m o r e o b v i o u s l y p r e s e n t i n
Polybius
since w e possess t h e c o n t e x t o f his r e m a r k s ; b u t i t is, I b e l i e v e , a l m o s t c e r t a i n t h a t B 2 7 8 was c o m p o s e d f r o m t h e same p e r s p e c t i v e . T h e p h r a s e 17817
rreTroirjTai
i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e was i n D e m o c r i t u s ' v i e w a t i m e w h e n t h e p a r t i c u l a r nomizon w i t h w h i c h he is d e a l i n g d i d n o t e x i s t ; a n d 17817 is t h e same a d v e r b used i n a n o t h e r f r a g m e n t geschichte—the TOV
€K
rrepievvTos
(B144)
w h o s e c o n t e x t was
undeniably
Kultur-
o n e o n t h e l a t e o r i g i n o f m u s i c . M u s i c a n d o t h e r f i n e arts arise 17817. I n b o t h passages 17S17 emphasizes t h e f a c t t h a t t h e c o n d i -
t i o n d e s c r i b e d has n o t a l w a y s existed. I t is o n l y n o w (f\ht]=nunc a t a l l p e r i o d s i n m a n ' s h i s t o r y , t h a t a nomizon
detnum), n o t
g o v e r n i n g c h i l d r e a r i n g is
o p e r a t i v e ; i t was w h e n a c o n d i t i o n o f s u p e r f l u i t y h a d o b t a i n e d , a n d o n l y t h e n (tunc demum), t h a t c e r t a i n arts b e c a m e possible. T h e specific p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n w h a t P o l y b i u s a n d D e m o c r i t u s h a v e t o say a b o u t t h e f a m i l y a t this p o i n t c a n be s u p p l e m e n t e d b y c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f a more general nature. I n any D e m o c r i t e a n theory o f a g r a d u a l l y
expanding
social g r o u p t h e f a m i l y was, as w e h a v e seen, u n l i k e l y t o h a v e p l a y e d
the
same r o l e as i t has i n P l a t o . A c o m p a r i s o n w i t h P o l y b i u s , h o w e v e r , i n d i c a t e s t h a t i t m a y h a v e h a d some r o l e a n d suggests also w h a t t h a t r o l e m i g h t h a v e b e e n . F o r P o l y b i u s , t h o u g h he has n o c o u n t e r p a r t t o t h e l a t e r stages o f t h e process d e s c r i b e d i n t h e Laws,
does seem t o see i n t h e l i f e o f t h e f a m i l y o n e o f
t h e s t a r t i n g p o i n t s f o r a m o r e c o m p l e x social existence. T h e i n i t i a l h u m a n g r o u p as he conceives i t is a looseiy o r g a n i z e d c o l l e c t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l s w h o s e o n l y c o m m o n a c t i v i t y is self-defence i n t i m e s o f d a n g e r . I n t h e absence o f such d a n g e r t h e o n l y i n d i v i d u a l s l i n k e d t o e a c h o t h e r b y a close r e l a t i o n s h i p w o u l d be p a r e n t s a n d c h i l d r e n , since t h e y o u n g m a m m a l ' s i n a b i l i t y t o p r o v i d e f o r i t s e l f m a k e s such r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n e v i t a b l e . I t w o u l d t h u s be n a t u r a l t o e x p e c t p a t t e r n s o f social b e h a v i o r i n v o l v i n g p a r e n t s a n d c h i l d r e n t o be a m o n g t h e f i r s t t o arise. O n c e t h e e x c h a n g e o f services b e t w e e n p a r e n t a n d c h i l d has b e e n r e g u l a t e d b y a system o f c o o p e r a t i o n a d v a n t a g e o u s t o b o t h , t h e p r i n c i p l e o f r e c i p r o c i t y m i g h t w e l l be c a r r i e d o v e r i n t o o t h e r types o f r e l a t i o n s h i p . T h e n o r m a t i v e p a r e n t - c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p is t h u s a m o d e l f o r o t h e r f o r m s o f koindnia, 2 3
2i
t h o u g h n o t , o f course, t h e o n l y m o d e l . T h e f r i e n d -
X e n o p h o n ( a b o v e , n o t e 22) speaks, l i k e D e m o c r i t u s , o f t h e a c t i o n o f physis a n d nomos i n d e t e r -
m i n i n g t h e mores o f f a m i l y l i f e (7.16; cf. also 7 . 3 0 ) ; b u t t h e r e nomos a d d s n o t h i n g n e w : i t m e r e l y r a t i n e s w h a t is a l r e a d y i n h e r e n t i n m a n ' s n a t u r e . 2 4
T h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n society a n d f a m i l y m a y h a v e b e e n c o n c e i v e d i n o t h e r t e r m s a r ' ^ l l j j ' ;
^
I n a passage a l r e a d y discussed ( 5 . 1 0 2 1 - 2 3 , see a b o v e , p . 76) L u c r e t i u s suggests t h a t t h e / t f ^ f e c ' t o secure p r o t e c t i o n f o r t h e i r f a m i l i e s w a s o n e o f t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s w h i c h l e d m e n t o fogirJ^he^nrst social c o m p a c t (et pueros commendarunt muliebreque saeclum). H e r e t h e E p i c u r e a n a n a l y s j K ^ f j p c i e t e * W
I
db
Q
I 16
D E M O C R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
ship established between the giver a n d receiver o f a i d i n m o m e n t s o f danger w o u l d d o u b t l e s s h a v e t h e same a r c h e t y p a l c h a r a c t e r . B e g i n n i n g i n t h i s f a s h i o n w i t h t h e m e m b e r s o f a single f a m i l y o r w i t h comrades i n battle, principles o f interdependence a n d reciprocity g r a d u a l l y b e c o m e o p e r a t i v e i n a l l types o f r e l a t i o n s h i p , p r o d u c i n g e v e n t u a l l y t h e social c o h e s i o n o n w h i c h t h e i n s t i t u t i o n o f k i n g s h i p rests. P o l y b i u s h i m s e l f does n o t describe a n y e x t e n s i o n o f t h e process r e s u l t i n g i n t h e c r e a t i o n o f l a r g e r social u n i t s , b u t t h e l i n e o f r e a s o n i n g w h i c h u n d e r l i e s his a c c o u n t c o u l d r e a d i l y h a v e e n v i s i o n e d j u s t s u c h a n e x t e n s i o n . C o o p e r a t i o n a n d f r i e n d s h i p are s t r o n g e r b o n d s t h a n f o r c e a n d f e a r ; hence t h e y w i l l be a b l e t o h o l d t o g e t h e r l a r g e r n u m b e r s o f p e o p l e . A n d since t h e p r i n c i p l e o f r e c i p r o c i t y is n o l o n g e r c o n f i n e d t o m u t u a l assistance i n b a t t l e b u t is b e i n g c o n s t a n t l y r e a p p l i e d i n n e w s i t u a t i o n s , m e n w i l l l o o k u p o n e v e r y a d d i t i o n t o t h e o r i g i n a l g r o u p as a source o f p o t e n t i a l benefits t o t h e m s e l v e s .
25
T h e process, i f e n v i s i o n e d i n t h i s f a s h i o n i n P o l y b i u s ' source, was somew h a t d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e o n e d e s c r i b e d i n t h e Laws. n o t from
T h e r e social n o r m s b e g i n
t h e f a m i l y c o n c e i v e d as p a r t o f a l a r g e r a g g r e g a t i o n , b u t in t h e
f a m i l y as i t exists i n i s o l a t i o n . A n d t h e i r basis is n o t , as i n P o l y b i u s , c o o p e r a t i o n a n d g r a t i t u d e , b u t obedience to paternal a u t h o r i t y . F a i r l y c l e a r l y , i t is P o l y b i u s r a t h e r t h a n P l a t o w h o is m o r e l i k e l y t o b e p r e s e r v i n g a n a c c u r a t e r e c o r d o f a c o m m o n source a t t h i s p o i n t . H i s v i e w o f the
f a m i l y fits i n p e r f e c t l y w i t h t h e u t i l i t a r i a n p e r s p e c t i v e e v i d e n t i n t h e
histories o f t e c h n o l o g y t o w h i c h b o t h his a n d P l a t o ' s a c c o u n t are r e l a t e d ; w h e r e a s P l a t o ' s insistence o n t h e n a t u r a l c h a r a c t e r o f p a t e r n a l r u l e is essent i a l t o his c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e p a t r i a r c h a l h o u s e h o l d as a self-sufficient a n d s a t i s f a c t o r y m o d e o f existence. W e h a v e seen, h o w e v e r , t h a t t h i s c o n c e p t i o n is closely b o u n d u p w i t h t h e basic i n c o n s i s t e n c y f r o m w h i c h his w h o l e a c c o u n t suffers ( a b o v e , p . 9 9 ) . P l a t o ' s v i e w o f t h e e a r l y f a m i l y belongs w i t h t h e m o r e U t o p i a n e l e m e n t s i n his p i c t u r e o f p r i m i t i v e m a n a n d m u s t , l i k e these e l e m e n t s , be t h e r e s u l t o f m o d i f i c a t i o n s w r o u g h t u p o n a t r a d i t i o n w h i c h P o l y b i u s preserves m o r e f a i t h f u l l y . T h e m o d i f i c a t i o n s , t h o u g h f a r - r e a c h i n g i n t h e i r i m p l i c a t i o n s , w e r e f a i r l y easy t o i n t r o d u c e . P l a t o h a d o n l y t o m a k e a n a g g r e g a t i o n o f f a m i l i e s i n t o a set o f i s o l a t e d a n d i n d e p e n d e n t h o u s e h o l d s a n d t o r e p l a c e t h e p r i n c i p l e o f c o o p e r a t i o n a n d r e c i p r o c i t y o f services w i t h t h a t o f
may preserve a motif present in the analysis drawn upon by Polybius. The idea that a man's wife and children provide a sort of surety for his loyalty to the polls was certainly current in the fifth and fourth centuries: cf. Thucydides 2.44.3; Aeneas Tacticus 5 . 1 ; Aeschines Falsa leg. 152; and below, Appendix I I I . ' For other pieces of ancient Kulturgeschichte which envision a progressive widening of the social and economic nexus, see Isocrates, Paneg. 34—42 (see below, pp. 1 3 3 - 3 7 , with note 8 ) , Panath. 1 6 4 - 6 6 , and the section of Herodotus I V discussed below, pp. j 4 3 - 4 5 . 2
117
P L A T O , P O L Y B I U S , AND D E M O G R I T U S
o b e d i e n c e t o a u t h o r i t y . A t one p o i n t , h o w e v e r , t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n has n o t b e e n c o m p l e t e l y c a r r i e d t h r o u g h . T o be p e r f e c t l y consistent, t h e m e r g i n g o f clans d e s c r i b e d w o u l d h a v e t o c o m e a b o u t t h r o u g h t h e s u b j e c t i o n o f one c l a n to a n o t h e r , o r o f b o t h t o a t h i r d . T h e u n i o n o f e q u a l s w h i c h does o c c u r is a l o g i c a l consequence o f t h e process o f social
a s s i m i l a t i o n as c o n c e i v e d
by
P o l y b i u s ; i t does n o t f o l l o w f r o m P l a t o ' s o w n c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e genesis o f society i n t h e p a t r i a r c h a l
household.
I t is t h u s possible to see, i n b o t h Laws
I I I a n d P o l y b i u s V I as t h e y n o w
s t a n d , t h e traces o f a n e a r l i e r Kulturgeschichte
w h i c h e n v i s i o n e d a progressive
expansion
w i t h o u t the a u t h o r i t a r i a n i m -
o f a n o r i g i n a l social n e x u s — b u t
p l i c a t i o n s w h i c h are p r e s e n t i n P l a t o ' s d e v e l o p m e n t
o f the idea. Such a n
a c c o u n t w o u l d h a v e b e e n q u i t e consistent w i t h t h e c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e f a m i l y w h i c h appears i n D e m o c r i t u s ;
a n d the v i e w o f koinonia
e n o u g h w i t h t h e emphasis p l a c e d i n D e m o c r i t u s B 1 0 7
i n v o l v e d fits w e l l o n agreement w i t h
r e g a r d t o w h a t is sympheron r a t h e r t h a n syngeneia as t h e basis o f philia
(cf.
also B 1 8 6 ) . T h e a c c o u n t is also consistent w i t h w h a t w e k n o w o f D e m o c r i t e a n s p e c u l a t i o n as t o t h e s t r u c t u r i n g p r i n c i p l e s o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l kosmoi o u t o f w h i c h t h e u n i v e r s e is c r e a t e d . U n l i k e E p i c u r u s , D e m o c r i t u s d i d n o t e x p l a i n a t o m i s t i c m o t i o n i n t e r m s o f a single u n i v e r s a l l a w s u b j e c t t o i n d i v i d u a l exceptions.
T h e r e is n o p e r p e n d i c u l a r
downward
t h e o r y o f t h e a t o m i s t i c swerve. R a t h e r ,
m o t i o n i n his system, n o
a t o m s are seen as c a u g h t u p i n
d i f f e r e n t kosmoi l i k e p a r t i c l e s i n a v o r t e x o r e d d y .
2 6
The conformation which
a t o m s assume i n s u c h a v o r t e x is i n D e m o c r i t e a n t e r m i n o l o g y a rhysmos,
21
since t h e w o r d rhysmos is a p p l i e d i n o n e f r a g m e n t
(B266)
and
to a p o l i t i c a l
i n s t i t u t i o n ( t h e a u d i t o f o f f i c i a l s ) , i t is r e a s o n a b l e t o assume t h a t , j u s t as societies are f o r m e d l i k e a l l o t h e r kosmoi t h r o u g h a g g r e g a t i o n o f l i k e t o l i k e , so t h e y c o n t i n u e t o exist, l i k e o t h e r kosmoi, because t h e i n d i v i d u a l a t o m i s t i c m o t i o n s w i t h i n t h e m c o n f o r m i n t h e m a i n t o a single p a t t e r n o r g r o u p o f patterns—corresponding
to the laws, w r i t t e n or u n w r i t t e n , b y w h i c h
they
are r u l e d . B o t h t h e p h y s i c a l a n a l o g y a n d t h e e x p l i c i t w o r d s o f B 2 6 6 ( w h i c h speaks o f t h e a u d i t as were viewed
TU>
VVV
KaOearwTi
pvopto)
as subject t o c h a n g e . T h e
i n d i c a t e t h a t social
surviving fragments
patterns
contain
two
suggestions as t o t h e cause p o s i t e d f o r these changes. B 3 3 speaks o f didache as s o m e t h i n g w h i c h " a l t e r s t h e c o n f i g u r a t i o n o f m a n " (metarhysmoi) doing
"creates
nature"
(physiopoiei).
26
B197
draws
a
contrast
a n d i n so between
2
" It is impossible to determine the exact relationship between the two causes of motion posited in atomistic texts—cosmic dine and the attraction, interlocking, and rebounding of individual atoms. But both were essential to the theory. See, on the former, VS 6 7 A 1 , 6 8 A 1 . 4 5 , A 6 9 , 6 8 B 1 6 4 and 167; and, 2 7
on the latter, VS 6 7 A 6 , p. 7 2 . 2 6 - 2 7 ; A 1 5 , p. 7 5 . 3 3 - 3 5 ; and
6 8 A 3 7 , p. 9 3 . 2 9 - 3 3 .
Cf. W 6 7 A 6 , p. 72.21; A 2 8 , p. 78.21; 6 8 A 3 8 , p. 9 4 . 7 ; A 4 4 ; A 1 2 5 ; and
B51.
-Presumably the fragment is saying the same thing as Evenus, F r . 9 (Diehl) and Trag. adesp. 516 ( T C F 9 4 0 ) , which speak of prolonged melete as equivalent to, or issuing in, physis; see the 28
118
DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
anoemones, w h o s e lives a r e p a t t e r n e d (rhysmountai)
by
TOZS
rijs
TVXTJS
KepSeoiv,
a n d daemones, w h e r e t h e p a t t e r n is d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e kerde o£ sophia. Since t h e first a g g r e g a t i o n o f m e n b r o u g h t t o g e t h e r i n o b e d i e n c e t o a n i n e v i t a b l e l a w o f n a t u r e w i l l i n e v i t a b l y l a c k sophia
a n d didache,
any development
which
ensues m i g h t b e e x p e c t e d t o i n v o l v e a s u b s t i t u t i o n o f didache a n d sophia f o r tyche a n d ananke as t h e o r d e r i n g p r i n c i p l e s o f t h e social kosmos; a n d i t is j u s t s u c h a process w h i c h P o l y b i u s describes. T h e systemata
29
whose
development
is t r a c e d i n B o o k V I a c q u i r e a n e w c h a r a c t e r a n d c o n f i g u r a t i o n t h r o u g h t h e g r o w t h o f social a n d p o l i t i c a l i n s t i t u t i o n s ;
3 0
a n d t h e r e s u l t o f t h i s g r o w t h is,
u l t i m a t e l y , t o r e p l a c e bia w i t h logismos as t h e o r d e r i n g p r i n c i p l e o f h u m a n life ( 6 . 6 . 1 2 - 7 . 3 ) . mistakably
3 1
Moreover,
and uniquely
translation into atomistic
the mechanism
o f t h e c h a n g e is, i f n o t u n
a t o m i s t i c , susceptible
o f a n exceptionally
easy
terms.
T o m a k e this translation w e need o n l y identify the atoms w i t h the i n d i v i d u a l m e n a n d w o m e n w h o m a k e u p t h e social o r d e r i n g , a n d t h e rhysmoi o f a g i v e n kosmos w i t h t h e s h a r e d h a b i t s a n d i n s t i t u t i o n s w h i c h h o l d i t t o g e t h e r . P o l y b i u s ' w h o l e a c c o u n t t h e n becomes a d e s c r i p t i o n o f h o w a g r o u p o f l i k e atoms are t h r o w n together
a n d t h e n m a d e t o c o n f o r m t o rhysmoi t h a t a r e
characterized b y a n increasing
elaborateness a n d i n n e r h a r m o n y . T h e i n
crease i n elaborateness m e a n s t h a t a n ever l a r g e r p o r t i o n o f t h e m o v e m e n t s o f a n ever l a r g e r n u m b e r o f a t o m s w i l l s t a n d i n c o n s t a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p t o those
discussion in Vlastos, PhilRev 5 5 . 5 5 - 5 6 . Later occurrences of the idea are assembled and discussed by Lenz, ΤΑΡΑ 73.215-17, who suggests ( 2 1 8 - 2 4 ) that the phrase έθος δεύτερη φύσις in Julian, Misopogon 353A, goes back to Democritus. I f so, Democritus may have been the source for the Epicurean use of the idea; cf. Cicero, Fin. 5.74: consuetudine quasi alteram quondam naturam effici, where
the reference is to the doctrine propounded in Fin. 1.69 (cf. above, Chap. V I , note 12, and below, Chap. I X , note 2 9 ) . Systema in the sense of "aggregation" appears in Polybius (6.5.10), in Diodorus I (1.8.4; 90.1—see above, pp. 6 4 - 6 5 ) and in certain other Hellenistic texts (e.g. Iambulus ap. Diod. 2.57.1 and Diod. 3.32.1, cited in Chap. V I I , note 9 ) . T h e term was atomistic by Epicurus' time {Pap. Here. 9 9 3 col. 3.U.2, p. 195 Arrighetti) and is used by Diogenes Laertius in reporting the views of Leucippus and Democritus (VS 6 7 A 1 , p. 71.5; 6 8 A 1 , p. 84.15). Whether it was so used by them we do not know. It has, however, the same wide range of meaning as kosmos and rhysmos; cf. Aristotle, E N 29
9.1168B31—32: ττόλις . . . και παν άλλο σύστημα.
Whether Polybius would have regarded this process as a change of rhysmos which physiopoiei we do not know. It is worth noting, however, that at three points he insists that the new order of things 3 0
is a "natural" one; cf. 6.5.4, φύεσθαι τάς 7Γολιτα'α?; 6.5.10, αρχή βασιλείας φύεται; and 6.7.1, κατά φύσιν έννοια.
For Democritus' recognition of logismos as a specifically human excellence compare B187, on the inadequacy of σκήνεος Ισχύς άνευ λογισμού, with Β57, which contrasts human nobility (ήθεος εντροπία) with that of animals (σκήνεος εύσθένεια); cf. also B 2 and B 2 3 6 . It need not follow that he was prepared to give an atomistic account of the workings of logismos. O f this there is no clear trace in the surviving fragments, though much of what is said in them about the moral and emotional aspects of human life can be analyzed in atomistic terms (see, for the latter, Vlastos, PhilRev 5 4 . 5 7 8 3 1
9 2 ; Krokiewicz, Eos 4 7 , No. 1, 3 5 - 4 3 ; and L u r i a , DAWB
44.14-16).
P L A T O ,
P O L Y B I U S ,
A N D D E M O C R I T U S
I
19
o f o t h e r a t o m s . T h i s is t h e a t o m i s t i c c o u n t e r p a r t t o t h a t m u l t i p l i c a t i o n o f t h e b o n d s o f koinonia w h i c h was m e n t i o n e d e a r l i e r as a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f e a t u r e o f t h e process o f social d e v e l o p m e n t as seen b y P o l y b i u s .
3 2
T h e increase i n
h a r m o n y means t h a t t h e n e w p a t t e r n s g o v e r n i n g t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s o f p a r e n t s a n d c h i l d r e n , subjects a n d leaders are s u c h as t o m i n i m i z e c o l l i s i o n b e t w e e n a t o m s — h e n c e m o r e stable a n d so d e s t i n e d t o p r e v a i l o v e r t h e o l d ones. T h e s e n e w rhysmoi first c o m e i n t o c o m p e t i t i o n w i t h t h e o l d as a r e s u l t o f t h e eventus fortuitus
whose r o l e b o t h i n P o l y b i u s a n d t h e o t h e r texts o f o u r t r a d i t i o n was
discussed e a r l i e r ( a b o v e , p p . 8 5 - 9 1 ) . A n d i t is o n a t o m i s t i c g r o u n d s t h a t t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f s u c h eventus fortuiti c o n t a i n references dealing,
3 3
is m o s t p l a u s i b l e . B o t h P o l y b i u s a n d P l a t o
t o t h e size o f t h e a g g r e g a t i o n s
with
w h i c h they
are
a n d this suggests t h a t t h e i r source was i n f l u e n c e d b y c o n s i d e r a
t i o n s s i m i l a r t o those w h i c h l i e b e h i n d D e m o c r i t u s ' insistence o n a n i n f i n i t e n u m b e r o f a t o m s : μόνοις
τοις
άπειρα
ποιονσι
τα. στοιχεία
πάντα
συμβαίνειν
κατά λόγον ( Α 3 8 ) . O n l y w h e n t h e n u m b e r o f a t o m s i n t h e p h y s i c a l u n i v e r s e is i n f i n i t e c a n one p l a u s i b l y m a i n t a i n t h a t m e r e c h a n c e w o u l d h a v e sufficient t o create
been
a l l the collocations a n d arrangements o n w h i c h t h a t
u n i v e r s e rests; o n l y w h e n t h e m u l t i t u d e o f m e n g a t h e r e d t o g e t h e r is suffi c i e n t l y l a r g e c a n one p l a u s i b l y dispense w i t h t h e o l o g i c a l a n d t e l e o l o g i c a l causes a n d m a i n t a i n t h a t m e n w o u l d h a v e b e e n p r e s e n t e d b y m e r e w i t h s u f f i c i e n t instances
o f n e w rhysmoi
logismos t h e a d v a n t a g e s ( o r d i s a d v a n t a g e s ) t h e i r lives a c c o r d i n g l y .
t o be
able
to perceive
chance through
inherent i n them and repattern
3 4
O n c e i n a u g u r a t e d , h o w e v e r , t h e process is s e l f - p e r p e t u a t i n g a n d c u m u l a t i v e . F o r as t h e m o v e m e n t s o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l m e m b e r s o f each kosmos become
m o r e a n d m o r e i n t e g r a t e d i n t o a h a r m o n i o u s w h o l e , its o v e r a l l
rhysmos becomes m o r e p e r v a s i v e a n d p r o n o u n c e d — a n d so c a p a b l e o f a c c o m m o d a t i n g a l a r g e r n u m b e r o f a t o m s . H e n c e t h e p h e n o m e n o n o f c o s m i c ex pansion.
3 2
3 5
H e n c e t o o t h e f i n a l s u b s t i t u t i o n o f logismos f o r hia, w h i c h comes
C o n c e r n i n g t h e c h a r a c t e r a n d n u m b e r o f t h e b o n d s w h i c h w o u l d h a v e b e e n v i e w e d as a l r e a d y
p r e s e n t i n t h e e a r l i e s t , a n i m a l - l i k e a g g r e g a t i o n o n e c a n , o f c o u r s e , o n l y s p e c u l a t e . L u r i a has a r g u e d (DAWB
44.10-13) t h a t D e m o c r i t u s a d d u c e d significant a n i m a l analogues n o t o n l y for the f a m i l y
i n its m o s t r u d i m e n t a r y f o r m b u t also for m o s t s o c i a l p r o h i b i t i o n s g o v e r n i n g s e x u a l b e h a v i o r as w e l l as v a r i o u s o t h e r h u m a n nomoi. I t w o u l d f o l l o w t h a t D e m o c r i t u s r e g a r d e d s u c h p h e n o m e n a
as
i n s t i n c t u a l a n d o r i g i n a l i n m a n , so t h a t t h e first h u m a n systema w o u l d h a v e b e e n a m u c h m o r e o r d e r e d a n d h o m o g e n e o u s u n i t t h a n t h e e v i d e n c e o f P o l y b i u s w o u l d suggest. B u t t h e D e m o c r i t e a n c h a r a c t e r o f t h e passages o n w h i c h L u r i a bases his a r g u m e n t is, a t best, h i g h l y d u b i o u s . 3 3
Cf. i t e m 6 i n o u r s u m m a r y o f P l a t o ' s a c c o u n t ( a b o v e , p . 97) a n d P o l y b i u s 6 . 5 . 6 : όταν . . .
αύξηθή σιιν χρόνοι πλήθος ανθρώπων. 3 4
T h e s y s t e m o f r e w a r d s a n d p u n i s h m e n t s t h r o u g h w h i c h t h e r e p a t t e r n i n g o c c u r s has n o c l e a r
p a r a l l e l i n D e m o c r i t u s ; cf. h o w e v e r w h a t is said a b o u t poena a n d beneficium i n A 7 6 . 3 5
C f . L e u c i p p u s , VS 6 7 Λ 1 , p . 71.9—10: αυτόν τε πάλιν τον περιέχοντα οΐον υμένα ανξεσθαι κατά την
έπέκκρισιν των έξωθεν σωμάτων bivfj τε φερόμενον . . . ών αν επιφανή πάντα επικτάσθαι. . . .
DEMOGRITUS AND T H E SOURCES OF G R E E K
I20
ANTHROPOLOGY
a b o u t w h e n t h i s same rhysmos is s u f f i c i e n t l y s t r o n g t o p r o v i d e , i n d e p e n d e n t l y of
t h e c o n s t r a i n i n g i n f l u e n c e o f monarchos o r dynamenoi,
the
cohesiveness
necessary f o r t h e c o n t i n u e d existence a n d w e l l - b e i n g o f t h e kosmos. T o h a v e i n d i c a t e d t h e lines w h i c h a n a t o m i s t i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f P o l y b i u s ' a c c o u n t o f s o c i a l d e v e l o p m e n t m i g h t t a k e is n o t t o s h o w t h a t t h e a c c o u n t is i n f a c t a t o m i s t i c i n o r i g i n . Y e t t h e p a r a l l e l s o n w h i c h t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n rests a r e , I t h i n k , s u f f i c i e n t l y n u m e r o u s t o be o f some i m p o r t a n c e w i t h i n
the
c o m p l e x o f evidence considered i n this chapter. O n e m a j o r element i n t h a t c o m p l e x has s t i l l t o b e discussed. I t i n v o l v e s t h e P o l y b i a n a n d D e m o c r i t e a n views o f the beginnings o f kingship.
3. T H E P O L I T I C A L , T H E M I L I T A R Y , AND T H E R O Y A L A R T
P o l y b i u s ' a c c o u n t o f t h e f o r t u n a t e a c c i d e n t w h i c h leads t o t h e r e p l a c e m e n t of
monarchia
with
basileia
s h o u l d be
compared
with
fragment B255
of
Democritus: P O L Y B I U S 6.6.10-7.2
D E M O C R I T U S B255
έν ots όταν 6 προεστώς και τήν μεγίστην
δύναμιν
όταν οι δυνάμενοι τοις μή έχονσιν και
προτελεΐν
έχων αεί σννεπισχύει τοις προειρημένοις κατά τάς
τολμέωσι
των
ήδη και τό οίκτίρειν ένεστι και τό άμυνειν
πολλών
διαλήψεις και δόξη τοις
ΰποταττο-
και ΰπουργεΐν και χαρίζεσθαι, εν τούτω
μένοις διανεμητικός είναι τοΰ κατ' άξίαν έκάστοις,
λοισι και τους πολιήτας
ούκέτι τήν βίαν δεδιότες τή δέ γνώμη τό πλεΐον
αγαθά, άσσα ουδείς αν δνναιτο
ευδοκοϋντες
ΰποτάττονται
αρχήν αύτον γωνιζόμενοι
και
σνσσωζουσι
ομοθυμαδόν έπαμννοντες προς τους επιβουλεύοντας
και
όμονόονς είναι
άλλή-
και άλλα
καταλέξαι.
τήν δια
αυτοΰ τή
δυναστεία. . . . αύτη καλοϋ και δικαίου πρώτη παρ άνθρώποις
κατά φύσιν έννοια και τών
ενάντιων
τούτοις, αύτη βασιλείας αληθινής αρχή και γένεσις.
The
a b o v e passages c o n t a i n i m p o r t a n t
similarities. T h e
dynamenoi i n D e m o c r i t u s is a n a l o g o u s t o t h a t o f t h e προεστώς δνναμιν
έχων
i n P o l y b i u s , a n d t h e p a r a l l e l was
position o f the και την
μεγίστην
p r o b a b l y e v e n closer i n
P o l y b i u s ' source. F o r , as w e h a v e seen ( a b o v e , p p . 1 0 1 - 2 ) , t h e r e is r e a s o n to
believe
t h a t t h a t source spoke o f dynasteia
o f monarchia a n d monarchos.
P o l y b i u s ' ΰποταττόμενοι
D e m o c r i t u s ; t o a c t κατά τάς τών πολλών τοις
μη έχονσι;
vocabulary άλλήλοισι
διαληφεις
rather
than
are t h e μη έχοντες is c e r t a i n l y t o
of
χαρίζεσθαι
a n d t h e t w o passages a r e f u r t h e r l i n k e d b y s i m i l a r i t i e s o f
a n d t o n e . Όμοθνμαδόν
and
a n d dynastai
πολιητας
όμονόους
έπαμΰνοντες
i n P o l y b i u s recalls
άμΰνειν
i n D e m o c r i t u s ; a n d t h e r e is a
similar
s t r i v i n g f o r r h e t o r i c a l effect i n t h e w a y t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e events m e n t i o n e d i n t h e t w o t e m p o r a l clauses is e m p h a s i z e d o f αυτη
καλοΰ
το οίκτίρειν
και δικαίου
. . . αϋτη
. . . και μη έρημους
βασιλείας
είναι e t c . ) .
(compare the a n a p h o r a
w i t h t h e p o l y s y n d e t o n o f και
P L A T O ,
P O L Y B I U S ,
A N D
121
D E M O C R I T U S
A l o n g w i t h these s i m i l a r i t i e s are c e r t a i n differences w h o s e i m p o r t a n c e c a n n o t be i g n o r e d . O n e misses i n P o l y b i u s a n y reference t o t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f those feelings o f f e l l o w s h i p a n d c o m p a s s i o n w h i c h a p p e a r so p r o m i n e n t l y i n D e m o c r i t u s . F o r P o l y b i u s i t is logismos, n o t to oiktirein
a n d homonoia,
replaces fear a n d r e l i a n c e o n s t r e n g t h i n t h e m i n d s o f subject
which
and ruler.
T h e r e is n o t h i n g i n e i t h e r t h e P o l y b i a n o r D e m o c r i t e a n f o r m u l a t o r u l e o u t the possibility that b o t h sentiment difference
a n d c a l c u l a t i o n are i n v o l v e d , b u t
i n e m p h a s i s is u n d e n i a b l y p r e s e n t .
A n d i n keeping
with
a
this
d i f f e r e n c e is a d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e a c t i o n s r e f e r r e d t o . P o l y b i u s speaks o f a c t i o n t a k e n i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h p o p u l a r n o t i o n s o f w h a t is r i g h t ; D e m o c r i t u s o f assistance ( p r e s u m a b l y e c o n o m i c ) g i v e n b y r i c h t o p o o r . T h e t e r m charizesthai is v a g u e e n o u g h t o i n c l u d e t h e a d h e r e n c e t o p o p u l a r n o t i o n s o f r i g h t t h a t P o l y b i u s stresses; a n d b o t h t h i s a d h e r e n c e a n d t h e g i v i n g t o e a c h m a n o f his d u e
(the other r o y a l a c t i v i t y m e n t i o n e d b y Polybius)
c e r t a i n l y r e q u i r e a r e f r a i n i n g f r o m decisions w h i c h sacrifice
would
t h e interests o f
t h e p o o r t o those o f t h e m o r e p o w e r f u l class o f w h i c h t h e s t r o n g m a n is h i m self a p a r t . T h e t w o passages are n o t i n c o m p a t i b l e h e r e , b u t o n e is c e r t a i n l y f a r m o r e i n c l u s i v e t h a n t h e o t h e r . F i n a l l y , o u r passages seem t o h a v e b e e n c o m p o s e d f o r s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t c o n t e x t s . D e m o c r i t u s is a t t e m p t i n g t o f o r m u l a t e i n as g e n e r a l t e r m s as possible t h e p r e c o n d i t i o n s f o r a n y t y p e o f social accord;
a n d the result c o u l d a p p l y e q u a l l y w e l l to the p r i m i t i v e society
d i v i d e d b e t w e e n s t r o n g a n d w e a k w h i c h P o l y b i u s envisages o r t o a c o m m e r c i a l society d i v i d e d b e t w e e n r i c h a n d p o o r . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d ,
B157,
w h i c h speaks o f " g o v e r n m e n t s a n d p o l i t i e s a n d t h e f r i e n d s h i p s o f k i n g s " as great
blessings f o r h u m a n
life,
does o f f e r
evidence
for
believing
that
D e m o c r i t u s w o u l d h a v e v i e w e d a t least t h e i n s t i t u t i o n o f k i n g s h i p as r e s t i n g o n t h e same sort o f r o y a l g o o d w i l l w h i c h P o l y b i u s d e s c r i b e s ,
36
a n d so i m -
p o r t a n t a f e a t u r e o f a n i n s t i t u t i o n m i g h t w e l l h a v e b e e n seen as c h a r a c t e r i z i n g i t f r o m its i n c e p t i o n . T h e a p p e a r a n c e o f t h e same a d v e r b rjSrj t h a t was used i n t h e f r a g m e n t s o n m u s i c a n d t h e m o r e s o f f a m i l y l i f e w o u l d also i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f B 2 5 5 is, a t least p a r t i a l l y , h i s t o r i c a l : m a n ' s s i t u a t i o n after a c e r t a i n e v e n t o f g r e a t i m p o r t a n c e is b e i n g c o n t r a s t e d w i t h his s i t u a t i o n before t h a t e v e n t . I t c a n n o t be said t h a t t h e aspect o f t h e t w o passages w e h a v e j u s t b e e n discussing i n v o l v e s — a n y m o r e t h a n d o t h e o t h e r d i v e r g e n c e s c o n s i d e r e d — a d i r e c t c o n t r a d i c t i o n . B u t , here as elsewhere, t h e resemblances are m o r e g e n e r i c t h a n specific, e n o u g h to p o i n t t o some sort o f c o n n e c t i o n b u t i n s u f f i c i e n t i n themselves t o establish t h e existence o f d i r e c t i n d e b t e d n e s s . T h i s i m p r e s s i o n is c o n f i r m e d b y a t h i r d p i e c e o f e v i d e n c e . A
fragment
Friendship of kings may refer to private philiai between monarch and individual subjects, but if it does it is something of an anti-climax after "governments and polities." It is more natural to assume that it means the sort of royal beneficence to which Polybius refers. 3 6
122
D E M O C R I T U S
A N D
T H E S O U R C E S
attributed to A r c h y t a s of T a r e n t u m (VS
O F
G R E E K
A N T H R O P O L O G Y
4 7 B 3 ) , w h i c h obviously belongs to
the same general tradition as do Polybius a n d D e m o c r i t u s , praises logismos as a n i n v e n t i o n (heuremd) πολιήτας
όμονόονς
w h i c h reduces strife a n d increases homonoia
(cf.
i n B 2 5 5 ) b y m a k i n g the r i c h give to the poor a n d the poor
receive from the r i c h , both sides " t r u s t i n g thereby A r c h y t a s recalls Polybius by his reference to logismos^
to attain
equality."
a n d D e m o c r i t u s by
his emphasis o n e c o n o m i c rather t h a n j u d i c i a l concessions to the poor. T h e passage thus serves to lessen somewhat the i m p o r t a n c e of the difference of emphasis noted between the other two; but i f it makes the links between them stronger, it also makes them more general. F o r other passages c a n be cited w h i c h praise a s i m i l a r policy of compromise between the weaker a n d stronger elements i n the body p o l i t i c ; thought
the
only
3 8
a n d w i t h i n this very general line of
thing w h i c h distinguishes
Archytas,
Democritus,
and
Polybius is their conviction that the desirable a r r a n g e m e n t is one w h i c h c a m e into being at a given time i n h i s t o r y
39
a n d c a r r i e d w i t h it far-reaching c o n
sequences. T o determine w h e t h e r there is a n y further link between Polybius a n d D e m o c r i t u s other t h a n this i d e a w h i c h they share w i t h A r c h y t a s , one must consider not simply the content of the political a r r a n g e m e n t w h i c h a l l three authors favor but also w h a t is said i n Polybius about the w a y i n w h i c h it comes into being. T h e t h i r d of the situations described i n 6 . 6 . 2 - 9
t
e
n
s
n
o
w
whenever anyone champions the cause of all in moments of danger and supports and withstands the attacks of the fiercest of animals, it is likely that he will receive from the people marks of good will and pre-eminence, and that the man who does the opposite will be condemned and give offence. T h e result is " a c e r t a i n notion a n d perception of the c h a r a c t e r of the fitting, w h i c h is the origin a n d e n d of j u s t i c e " ( 6 . 9 ) , or, i n A n a x i m e n e s ' terminology (see above, p p . 113-14) a n ethos agraphon (ΰ noieiv.
prescribing that m e n should φίλους
I t is obvious that the m a r k s of good w i l l a n d pre-eminence referred
to i n 6.8 are i n some sense p a r a l l e l to the later honors w h i c h the king receives. T h e y represent similar returns for similar services—services offered, respec tively, i n the external a n d i n t e r n a l life of early society. First there is a n 3 7
The
usual translation
o f logismos i n t h e A r c h y t a s f r a g m e n t is " p r o p o r t i o n "
or
"measure":
t h e m a t h e m a t i c a l r a t i o w h i c h establishes a r i s t o c r a t i c o r g e o m e t r i c e q u a l i t y a m o n g m e n
in
their
d e a l i n g s w i t h e a c h o t h e r . B u t " c a l c u l a t i v e r e a s o n i n g " (so H a v e l o c k , 239) o r some s u c h r e n d e r i n g — w h i c h w o u l d b r i n g the content o f the f r a g m e n t i n t o line w i t h the parallel i n Polybius—is the
one
w h i c h t h e c o n t e x t d e m a n d s . Logismos, w e a r e t o l d ( V S 4 7 B 3 , p . 437.13—438.3), has t h e p o w e r t o c h e c k those epistamenous logizesthai a m o n g p o t e n t i a l
w r o n g d o e r s b y m a k i n g t h e m reflect o n the possible
consequences o f t h e i r actions. 3 8
Cf. A n o n y m u s I a m b l i c h i 7.1—2
3 9
T h i s h i s t o r i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e seems t o be e s t a b l i s h e d f o r A r c h y t a s b y his r e f e r e n c e t o logismos as a
heurema.
a n d 8 - 9 ; I s o c r a t e s , Areop. 3 1 - 3 5 ; A r i s t o t l e , Pol. 6 . 1 3 2 0 B 9 - 1 1 .
P L A T O ,
P O L Y B I U S ,
123
A N D D E M O C R I T U S
exercise of force i n restraining the a n i m a l enemies o f the h u m a n systema, then a similar exercise o f force (cf. 6.6.10: synepischyei)
i n seeing to it that the
dialepseis o f the m a n y p r e v a i l w h e n social mores are violated, or w h e n rights must be apportioned between contending parties. T h i s association of m i l i t a r y activity (the province of the prostates
mentioned
i n 6.6.8) w i t h the m a i n t e n a n c e o f the social order (the p r o v i n c e o f the m o n a r c h t u r n e d king) c a n be paralleled at several places i n G r e e k political theory, always i n a context o f Kulturgeschichte.
T w o o f the places we have
already h a d occasion to mention. T h e earlier is the Protagoras
m y t h (see
above, p . 5 0 ) , w h i c h tells how early m e n were at first u n a b l e to defend t h e m selves against the w i l d beasts because o f their lack of politike
techne—of w h i c h
polemike techne is, a c c o r d i n g to Protagoras, a part. W h e n assembled for selfdefense,
however,
they
did wrong
reason—their lack o f politike
(adika)
to one another for the same
techne (322B). T h e most striking thing i n this
passage is, as has rightly been pointed o u t , art has two parts. O n e o f these is polemike
4 0
the notion that the " p o l i t i c a l "
a n d is brought into p l a y only i n
m a n ' s relationship w i t h other animals. T h e other governs
their relations
a m o n g themselves a n d seems to have as its m a i n constituent dike ( i n a s m u c h as its absence is a c c o m p a n i e d b y the presence o f T h e two portions o f politike
adikid).
techne mentioned i n the m y t h
fairly closely to the provinces of the P o l y b i a n prostates
correspond
a n d the P o l y b i a n k i n g ;
a n d a similar division a n d association, though w i t h o u t the same establishing of explicit categories, appears i n the passage from H e r m a r c h u s discussed i n C h a p t e r F i v e (above, pp. 7 1 - 7 5 ) . F o r the p r o h i b i t i o n against
unprovoked
h o m i c i d e — o n e o f the cornerstones o n w h i c h a n y art o f the practice o f dike must rest—is there said to have come into existence at the same time as the practice of destroying w i l d beasts (polemike techne as Protagoras defines it) a n d i n response to the same cause, the promptings o f to chresimon i n the earliest stages o f social existence. O t h e r parallels between Polybius a n d H e r m a r c h u s have been discussed earlier (above, p p . 8 1 - 8 4 ) . G i v e n these, a n d given the parallels
between
Polybius a n d Protagoras j u s t noted, it is not likely to be c o i n c i d e n t a l that there a r e also close links between
Hermarchus and Dcmocritus,
4 1
whose
influence o n H e r m a r c h u s ' master is unquestionable a n d w h o is usually a s s u m e d w i t h a high degree of probability to have been h i m s e l f indebted to Protagoras for a portion of his theories o f c u l t u r a l history. T w o
fragments
(B257 a n d 259) establish it as a rule that a n i m a l s " w h o do w r o n g " (ta adikeonta)
m a y be killed w i t h i m p u n i t y , since the result is c o n d u c i v e tcvstfelW
being. T h e idea is the same as that w h i c h appears i n H e r m a r c ! 4 0
4 1
By O . Gigon, "Studien zu Platons Protagoras," Phyllobolia für P. von der Miihll Noted by Krohn, Der Epikureer Hermarchos 8.
(Be H
124
D E M O C R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
presented i n l a n g u a g e w h i c h m a y h a v e a n echo i n P o r p h y r y ' s p a r a p h r a s e o f the l a t t e r : HERMARCHUS
DEMOCRITUS
T h e practice of destroying every harmful thing without quarter ( T O re λνμαντίκόν πάν KTCLVOμενον αφειδώς) and the preservation of what was useful for this act of destruction [i.e. society and
It is needful to kill those things which do harm contrary to right (KTCLVGLV χρή τά πημαίνοντα παρά δίκην) all of them in every way (πάντα περί παντός). . . . (B258)
the prohibition against homicide] contributed in like fashion to security (els τήν άφοβίαν σννήργει). (De abst. 1.11)
. . . of those animals who do wrong and seek to do wrong the slayer is scot free and this rather than not killing works toward well-being (προς eveaTOVv τοντο ερδειν). ( B 2 5 7 )
T h e reference to a n i m a l s as creatures w h o do w r o n g recalls another m o t i f i n H e r m a r c h u s , his l i n k i n g o f warfare against other a n i m a l s w i t h the process o f creating p r o p e r relationships a m o n g m e n i n a given social order. A n d this l i n k i n g , w h i c h , as w e h a v e seen, is found i n Protagoras a n d Polybius as w e l l , appears explicitly i n a t h i r d fragment: For letting each other alone and doing nothing injurious to any of those who were collected into the same place was useful (chresimon), not only for driving away animals of other species, but also against men who came along with, hostile intent. (De abst. 1.10)
Just as it is written with regard to beasts and creeping things among enemies, so does it seem needful (chreon) to me to act with regard to men: to kill in accordance with ancestral ways the enemy thing in every social order. (B259)
T h e reasoning i n the passage from P o r p h y r y is c a r r i e d a step further t h a n it is i n D e m o c r i t u s , to the point w h e r e not only killing the e n e m y b u t action w h i c h facilitates k i l l i n g the e n e m y is d e c l a r e d to be chreon o r chresimon. B u t the reasoning used is i d e n t i c a l . W e cannot, o f course, k n o w for c e r t a i n w h a t the context o f the fragments of D e m o c r i t u s was. B u t g i v e n the parallels w i t h H e r m a r c h u s a n d given also the fact that reference to the p r i m i t i v e c o n d i t i o n o f m a n k i n d is a r e c u r r e n t m o t i f i n a n c i e n t discussions o f the rights a n d wrongs o f killing a n i m a l s , the 4 2
most plausible c o n j e c t u r e
43
requires us to assume that D e m o c r i t u s s a w the
o r i g i n o f society's attitude t o w a r d c r i m i n a l s i n m a n ' s early struggle for s u r v i v a l against other species. T h e malefactor is someone w h o , b y his violation o f the l a w s o f society, h a s i n effect p u t h i m s e l f outside society a n d must be destroyed like the a n i m a l s w h i c h threaten its existence. 4 2
Cf., in addition to the passages of Hermarchus cited here, the discussion of Theophrastus which Porphyry summarizes (De abst. 2 . 2 5 - 3 3 ) and, in the same work (4.22 = F r . 98 Heinze), the report of Xenocrates' remarks on a prohibition against the slaughter of animals ascribed to the early culture-hero Triptolemus. Advanced by Havelock, 129-30. Cf. also von Fritz in Entretiens Hardt 7 ( i 9 6 0 ) 264, who suggests a possible connection between the idea of the needful found in B 2 5 6 (δίκη μίν ίατιν Ιρδειν τά χρή eovTa) and that chreia which looms so large in ancient Kulturgeschichte. This fragment is closely related to B 2 5 8 and 259 by virtue of the similar association which all three create between the ideas of 4 3
dike and chreon.
!25
P L A T O , POLYBIUS, AND DEMOGRITUS
The
aspect o f Polybius' account w h i c h w e h a v e j u s t been considering
serves to place h i m i n a t r a d i t i o n w h i c h goes b a c k a t least to D e m o c r i t u s ,
4 4
a n d probably, i f Plato's m y t h does not misrepresent h i m , to Protagoras as w e l l . W e d o not k n o w h o w m a n y other speculative accounts o f c u l t u r a l origins p r o p o u n d e d a s i m i l a r v i e w o f the relation b e t w e e n dike a n d polemike techne.*
5
I t is possible, however, that the theory w a s h a n d e d d o w n i n direct
succession from Protagoras to D e m o c r i t u s to E p i c u r u s , a n d that Polybius stands i n fairly close relation to this line o f intellectual descent. T h a t this hypothesis is correct, a n d that it w a s the D e m o c r i t e a n version o f the theory w h i c h has influenced Polybius, is the c o n c l u s i o n to w h i c h a further group o f parallels between Book V I a n d the fragments point. U n l i k e Protagoras a n d H e r m a r c h u s , Polybius' source seems not to h a v e b e e n content w i t h asso ciating defense against external foes a n d the enforcing o f dike i n dealings a m o n g fellow-citizens, or w i t h i n d i c a t i n g the c o m m o n o r i g i n o f the t w o technai i n the d e m a n d s o f the early struggle for s u r v i v a l . I t suggested the a c t u a l steps through w h i c h these " a r t s " m i g h t h a v e arisen. I t is possible that some o f these steps h a v e been omitted i n P o l y b i u s ' a c c o u n t : that there a p p e a r e d i n his source some description, for e x a m p l e , o f how, from expecting all to share i n a c o m m o n defence against external enemies, society comes to expect s i m i l a r b e h a v i o r w i t h regard to i n t e r n a l ones, so that w h e n the strong man
makes the satisfaction o f this expectation easier the c o n t i n u a n c e a n d
success o f his rule is assured. B e that as it m a y , Polybius preserves a v e r y clear r e c o r d o f the final stage i n the process a n d o f the c e n t r a l role w h i c h one r e m a r k a b l e i n d i v i d u a l — t h e future basileus—plays T h i s idea, w h i c h links a k i n d o f basilike
i n it.
techne to that p a r t of politike
techne
w h i c h has to do w i t h dike, is l a c k i n g from H e r m a r c h u s a n d Protagoras, b u t there is something quite c o m p a r a b l e to it i n D e m o c r i t u s . B 2 5 8 , after d e c l a r Also in favor of ascribing such a linking of warfare and civic virtue to Democritus in Β 1 5 7 , where polemike techne, as well as "governments and polities and the friendships of kings," is glorified as a source of "great and glorious blessings" to mankind. (Reiske, followed by Diels, reads politike techne, but in support of the mss. see R . Philippson, " Z u Demokrits fr. 157 D , " BPW 4 6 [ 1 9 2 6 ] 1 1 0 0 - 1 ; H . Langerbeck, " Δ Ο Ξ Ι Σ ΕΠΙΡΥΣΜΙΗ," NPU 10 [ 1 9 3 5 ] 6 1 , note 1 ; Q.. Cataudella, "Democrito 5 5 B 1 5 7 Diels," Maia 2 [ 1 9 4 9 ] 2 6 8 - 7 3 . ) It is perhaps more than coincidental that the fragment has a verbal parallel in the passage of the Epinomis whose close connection with the tradition we are examining was pointed out in Chapter Seven (above, pp. 103—4): 4 4
λοιπόν βοήθεια γίγνοιτ'
το ή
μέν μεγίστη
αν . . . μυρία μνρίοις,
τ€ και εις πλείστα
πολεμική
κληθεΐσα, στρατηγική τέχνη, εύοοκιμωτάτη χρείαν. . . . ( 9 7 5 ) Ε
προς
παραινεί [Democritus] τήν τε πολεμικήν
τέχνην
μεγίστην
πόνους
ονσαν έκδιδάσκεσθαι
διώκειν αφ* ών τα μεγάλα τ
0
'
?
και τους
και λαμπρά
γίνονται
άνθρώποις. . . . (Β 157)
A possible parallel not mentioned in the text is Republic 374E-76C, where the politike techne of the guardians is equated with the watch-dog's two-fold ability to be praos toward oikeioi and chalepos to enemies. O n the Protagorean affinities of this section of the Republic see above, Introduction, note 2 3 . 4 5
126
D E M O C R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
i n g that it is needful to kill a l l those things w h i c h do h a r m c o n t r a r y to right, goes o n to a d d that " t h e one w h o does this shall have a greater share o f r i g h t - r e t u r n (dike)
a n d security (tharsos)
i n a n y kosmos."
T h e dike referred to
i n this passage is p r o b a b l y best interpreted as the whole system o f r e c i p r o c a l relationships b y w h i c h m e n receive d u e r e t u r n for services r e n d e r e d .
46
I t is
something far more inclusive t h a n the m a r k s o f favor a n d p r e - e m i n e n c e a n d w i l l i n g obedience
w h i c h the k i n g a n d c h a m p i o n enjoy i n Polybius, b u t
D e m o c r i t u s w o u l d doubtless have v i e w e d the latter as c o m i n g u n d e r the general category o f dike. T h e activity praised i n B 2 5 8 is referred to i n B 2 5 9 as killing the e n e m y i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h patriot
nomoi, a n d this is c e r t a i n l y
one w a y o f giving e a c h m a n his d u e i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h the dialepseis o f the many
(Polybius 6 . 6 . 1 0 ) .
47
I n fact, i f the setting for both passages is the
p r i m i t i v e rule o f bia described i n Polybius, giving e a c h m a n his due a n d a d d i n g support to p o p u l a r attitudes w o u l d o f necessity involve i n large measure killing those w h o do violence to the weak. A n d that D e m o c r i t u s used o n occasion the more general terminology found i n Polybius is i n d i c a t e d b y B 2 6 3 : δίκης τάμνων.
καϊ αρετής
μεγίστην
μετέχει
μοΐραν
6 τιμάς
αξίας
τάς
μεγίστας
T h e parallels between the first h a l f o f this fragment a n d B 2 5 9 sug
gest that it belongs to the same group of passages that w e have been consider ing. T h e last h a l f of the fragment is c o r r u p t ,
4 8
b u t the presence o f the words
axias a n d tamnon indicates that the subject is the apportioning o f w h a t is d u e i n the m a n n e r o f Polybius' k i n g .
4 9
I t is reasonable to assume, then, that
D e m o c r i t u s associated, perhaps even more closely t h a n does Polybius, the politike
techne o f the j u d g e w h o settles disputes a n d the polemike techne o f the
c h a m p i o n w h o kills ta adikeonta a m o n g the animals. T h e parallels between H e r m a r c h u s a n d D e m o c r i t u s m a k e it fairly clear that the context o f fragments B 2 5 7 - 5 9 h a d something to d o w i t h
Kultur-
geschichte. S i n c e there is n o p a r a l l e l i n H e r m a r c h u s to w h a t is said i n 258 a n d 263 about the m a n w h o is to receive the greater share o f dike, one c a n be less sure about the o r i g i n a l context o f this p a r t i c u l a r idea. I t is possible, for e x a m p l e , that D e m o c r i t u s , w h i l e assigning to the benefactor m e n t i o n e d i n those two fragments a role i n the social process rather like that p l a y e d b y 4 6
Expressed in Polybian terms, it is the tendency to give like for like, the departure from which, whether in the direction of more or less, creates a diaphora which men notice and mark out (see above, p. 8 7 ) . T h e parallel is even closer if, as is probable (see above, pp. 1 1 3 - 1 4 ) , the popular dialepseis and ennoiai mentioned by Polybius involve types of conduct which the tradition on which he is drawing viewed as governed by agraphos nomos. 4 7
4 8
Diels suggests the restoration τιμάς τάς άξιας τάμνων τοις
άξιωτάτοις.
I t should also be noted that, in assigning to the benefactor a greater share of arete as well as of dike, Democritus envisions a combination of attainments roughly comparable to that found in the Polybian basileus, once the latter has coupled superiority in apportioning what is due with his original superiority in rhome and tolme. 4 β
127
P L A T O , POLYBIUS, AND DEMOCRITUS
prostates
a n d king i n Polybius, w o u l d still not have p l a c e d h i m i n the same
sort o f historical context as does Polybius. T h e r e are, however, three a d d i tional E p i c u r e a n texts w h i c h suggest otherwise. G i v e n the other D e m o c r i t e a n echoes w h i c h the collection c o n t a i n s , IS o f p a r t i c u l a r interest: ένεκα τοΰ θαρρεΐν £ξ ανθρώπων καϊ βασιλείας Β257>
a
n
αγαθόν.
51
ην κατά φΰσιν
T h e expression θαρρεΐν εξ ανθρώπων
RS 6
50
αρχής
recalls θάρσος i n
d the tense of ην is most n a t u r a l l y e x p l a i n e d b y assuming a reference
to the early stages o f h u m a n c u l t u r e .
5 2
S u c h a context is also suggested b y the
parallels between another RS (7) a n d the passage i n Book V
(1120-28)
w h e r e L u c r e t i u s describes the collapse o f early k i n g s h i p : at claros homines voluerunt se atque potentes ut fundamento stabili fortuna maneret et placidam possent opulenti degere vitam:
ένδοξοι και περίβλεπτοι
τίνες έβονλήθησαν
σθαι την εξ ανθρώπων άσφάλειαν οΰτω περιποιήσασθαι.
γενέ
νομίζοντες
ώστε ει μεν ασφαλής ο τοιούτων
βίος άπέλαβον τής φύσεως αγαθόν.
nequiquam. . . . ut satius multo iam sit parere quietum quam regere imperio res velle et regna tenere.
ει δε μή ασφαλής, ουκ έχονσι ου ένεκα εξ αρχής κατά τό τής φύσεως οίκεΐον
ώρεχθησαν.
53
B o t h passages are i n p a r t a p o l e m i c against defenders o f the active l i f e ,
54
and
the E p i c u r e a n position is supported b y a reference to the fate o f the first kings. I t is n a t u r a l to assume that the object o f the polemic h a d cited this example i n his defense, a n d that E p i c u r u s is a l l o w i n g it a c e r t a i n v a l i d i t y : office a n d kingship d i d i n fact arise as p a r t o f a legitimate attempt to g a i n security through service o f society. B u t they l e d ultimately to disaster. T h e c h a r a c t e r o f the two passages, w h i c h accept a p o r t i o n o f a n earlier analysis but reject others, is compatible w i t h w h a t w e k n o w about the entire r e l a tionship between And
the philosophical systems o f E p i c u r u s a n d D e m o c r i t u s .
the analysis o f early kingship w h i c h emerges as that o f E p i c u r u s ' o p
ponents is equally compatible both w i t h that w h i c h is found i n Polybius a n d w i t h w h a t is said o f the role o f the benefactor i n fragments B 2 5 8 a n d 2 6 3 . T h e a r g u m e n t for assuming that D e m o c r i t u s , like E p i c u r u s a n d Polybius, discussed kingship i n connection w i t h a consideration o f the origin o f culture becomes 5 0
thereby
m u c h stronger;
a n d so too does the case for m a k i n g
See von der Miihll, Feslgabe Kaegi 172—78.
For the reading adopted here, see C . Diano, "Note Epicuree," SIFC 12 (1935) 8 4 - 8 5 . So Grilli, RendlstLomb 8 6 . 2 1 - 2 4 , against Bignone's rather improbable suggestion (VAristotele perduto 2 . 2 6 4 - 8 7 ) that Epicurus is here thinking in terms of the false values which prevailed before the promulgation of his own ethical system. For apxijs we ought perhaps to read simply apxijs, eliminating thereby a superfluous reference to the time at which the orexis occurred and giving wpexdrjoav the object which it needs. I f this suggestion is correct the parallel with Lucretius is even closer: apxijs . . . £>pix6r\aav = regere imperio 5 1
6 2
6 3
res velle et regna tenere. 6 4
For a further discussion of this polemic and a suggestion as to the identity of the person or persons against whom it was directed, see below, pp. 1 6 8 - 6 9 .
128
D E M O G R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
P o l y b i u s ' entire a c c o u n t o f the beginnings o f kingship a n d dike derive from Democritus. T h e parallels considered i n this c h a p t e r are heterogeneous i n c h a r a c t e r a n d u n e q u a l i n i m p o r t a n c e . N o n e o f the resemblances to w h i c h w e h a v e c a l l e d attention is as striking, t a k e n i n itself, as some o f those w h i c h a p p e a r e d i n the technological a n d linguistic texts discussed i n C h a p t e r s O n e through F o u r . Y e t t a k e n together they seem to m e to provide as strong a case for a D e m o c r i t e a n influence o n Polybius V I as do those e x a m i n e d earlier for a c o m m o n source for D i o d o r u s , V i t r u v i u s , L u c r e t i u s , a n d Posidonius. F o r it is v e r y u n l i k e l y that two independently formed views o f social development, b o t h o f w h i c h w e k n o w to h a v e antedated Plato's Laws,
should agree so
thoroughly as to the biological causes o f the initial aggregation o f m e n into societies, as to the c h a r a c t e r a n d origin o f the typically h u m a n p a r e n t - c h i l d relationship, a n d as to the c o n n e c t i o n between the a r t o f warfare w i t h a n i m a l s a n d the a r t o f j u s t dealing a m o n g m e n i n p r i m i t i v e society. T h e conclusion that Polybius is indebted ultimately to D e m o c r i t u s for the theory of social genesis found i n his sixth book is almost inescapable. W h a t the intermediate sources were a n d w h a t alterations they or Polybius h i m s e l f m a y h a v e m a d e i n D e m o c r i t u s ' doctrine cannot, o f course, be determined. S o m e t h i n g more w i l l be said o n this subject l a t e r ;
5 5
for the present one point is
w o r t h noting. W h a t Polybius presents i n the sixth book o f his Histories
is a fairly straight
forward historical reconstruction. N o t so D e m o c r i t u s . H i s perspective seems to h a v e been r a t h e r that o f H e r m a r c h u s . T h e p r o h i b i t i o n against h o m i c i d e discussed i n the latter's a c c o u n t is a p a r t o f " t h e legislation w h i c h still p r e vails a m o n g cities a n d t r i b e s " o n that subject. T h e a p p r o a c h is a e t i o l o g i c a l — a genealogy o f existing m o r a l s r a t h e r t h a n a strictly historical a c c o u n t o f their evolution. S u c h a m e t h o d w a s obviously k n o w n a n d used i n the fifth century.
I t appears, for e x a m p l e ,
i n the Protagoras
myth
a n d i n the
A n o n y m u s I a m b l i c h i (see above, p . 8 ) . I n a treatment o f this sort the various aspects o f c o n t e m p o r a r y social usage m a y have been covered sepa rately, thus p r o d u c i n g a series o f Νομικά καλών και αισχρών
αίτια
( B 2 9 9 g ) or αίτίαι
περί
των
c o m p a r a b l e to those περί πυρός και τών iv πνρί w h i c h a r e
attributed to D e m o c r i t u s (see above, p . 5 7 ) .
5 6
O n the other h a n d , the parallels between Polybius a n d Plato d e m a n d , i f our theory o f a c o m m o n source for Book V I a n d Laws
I I I is correct, the
I n Section 3 of Chapter T e n . This is certainly the type of composition indicated by A i 51, in which Democritus is seeking an aitia for the synetheia of breeding mules; and his concern for aetiology in general is strikingly attested in B 1 1 8 and in Aelian, H N 6.60 ( = A i 5 0 a ) . 6 5
6 6
129
P L A T O , P O L Y B I U S , AND D E M O G R I T U S
assumption of the existence o f a historical a c c o u n t used b y both Polybius a n d Plato a n d extant b y the m i d d l e o f the fourth century. I t is possible to square this d e m a n d w i t h the c h a r a c t e r o f the D e m o c r i t e a n fragments w e possess b y i m a g i n i n g s u c h a n a c c o u n t p r o v i d e d w i t h aetiological digressions w h e r e n e e d e d : " a n d here for the first time m e n b e g a n to follow the rule w h i c h even n o w holds, that, e t c . " and
5 7
T h e collectors of gndmai to w h o m we owe the e t h i c a l
social fragments w o u l d o n this assumption have omitted the historical
material which surrounded t h e m ;
5 8
whereas Polybius w o u l d h a v e e m p h a
sized the historical element at the expense o f the aetiological, i n t r o d u c i n g the whole account, not as a n e x p l a n a t i o n o f the genesis o f morals, b u t as a phase i n the cycle o f political a n d social change. T r a c e s o f the earlier perspective m a y r e m a i n i n two passages (italicized i n the translations given below) w h e r e Polybius does break the continuity o f his historical n a r r a t i v e to note that w h a t h e is describing is the arche a n d genesis o f m o r a l i d e a s : W h e n , after a time, common nurture and common habits develop within the herds, then for the first time does there come to man a perception (βννοια) of the good and the just and likewise of their opposites. And the manner of their origin is as follows: since the sexual urge is natural in men and results in the procreation of children. . . . (6.5.10) I n this manner, without anyone's realizing it, the monarch becomes a k i n g — whenever rational calculation begins to rule i n place of strength a n d daring (θυμός). This is the natural beginning of a perception (evvoia) within man of the just and the good and of their opposites—this is the origin and coming to be of true kingship. F o r men preserve the rule, not only of the first king, but also of his descendants. (6.6.12-7.2) T h o u g h the terminology at this point, referring to m o r a l notions as ennoiai, departs from a n y t h i n g D e m o c r i t u s w o u l d have been likely to u s e ,
5 9
the
p a r t i c u l a r aetiological perspective i n v o l v e d is quite close to that o f the fragments. Alternate 5 7
explanations
of
the
relationship
between
Polybius
and
Gf., in this connection, the parallels between the language of the ethical fragments and early
Greek legal phraseology noted by P. Friedlander, " Υποθήκαι, I I I , " Hermes 4 8 (1913) 6 1 3 , note 3. T o the passages cited there should be added Antiphon, Herod. 92 : την ΐσην γε δύναμιν έχει όστις τε αν τ-rj χειρϊ άποκτείνη αδίκως και όστις τή ψήφω; and the decree quoted in Andocides, Aiyst. και λόγω
9 7 : κτενώ
και έργω και ψήφω και τω έμαυτοΰ χειρι . . . ος αν κατάλυση τήν δημοκρατίαν. Cf. Β260:
κιζάλλην και ληστήν πάντα κτείνων τις αθώος αν εΐη και αυτοχειριη και κελευων και ψηφω. 5 8
The number of gnomai preserved from Democritus is not in itself sufficient reason for believing
that his ethica were composed in an exclusively aphoristic style; see Stewart, HSCP
63.188.
O n the Stoic affinities of these terms see Appendix I I I . Ennoia is, however, attested in later reports of the teaching of fifth century thinkers. Cf. Themistius 349E (=VS I I 3 1 7 . 2 3 - 2 4 ) on s 9
Prodicus' theory of the origin of religion: ίερουργίαν . . . και τελετάς νομίζων και θεών έννοιαν (Diels: εννοιαν mss.)
τών γεωργίας
εντεύθεν εις ανθρώπους έλθεΐν.
καλών
έξάπτει
I30
D E M O C R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
D e m o c r i t u s are, o f course, possible. O u r first suggestion (above, p . 128) m a y be right, i n w h i c h case the series o f aetiologies could have been a r r a n g e d so as to form i n itself a n d along w i t h its references to the early stages o f h u m a n culture the basis from w h i c h a continuous historical account c o u l d be c o n structed. Polybius V I a n d Laws
I I I w o u l d be, o n this theory,
independent
conversions o f aetiology into history. O r — a t h i r d possibility—it is conceivable that Plato a n d Polybius derive from a n intermediate source, some r h e t o r i c i a n , historian, o r philosopher w h o w o u l d have constructed a historical a c c o u n t a r o u n d D e m o c r i t u s ' aetiological i n q u i r y into existing h u m a n m o r e s .
60
But
w h a t e v e r share Plato, Polybius, a n d their i m m e d i a t e forerunners m a y have h a d i n reformulating the D e m o c r i t e a n Kulturgeschichte the Histories
a n d the Laws,
w h i c h is preserved i n
these contributions seem to have affected the
form i n w h i c h that doctrine w a s preserved r a t h e r t h a n its content. T h e motifs whose presence c a n be inferred for the source o f Plato a n d Polybius are also present i n s u c h n u m b e r s i n D e m o c r i t u s or i n texts w h i c h w e c a n believe o n other grounds to derive from h i m that the importance we assign to s u c h intermediate sources c a n n o t be large. A n d the same m a y be said about the m a t e r i a l c o m m o n to the technological a n d linguistic accounts exa m i n e d earlier, w h e r e the existence o f one o r more intermediate sources is i n c e r t a i n instances h a r d l y questionable. W i t h either body o f texts the a r g u m e n t for the preservation o f most o f the essential features o f a n ultimately D e m o c r i t e a n theory is fairly strong; a n d it becomes, o f course, doubly so w h e n the two bodies o f texts are considered i n conjunction w i t h e a c h other—as is d e m a n d e d both b y similarities o f m e t h o d a n d b y the close relationship i n w h i c h both o f t h e m stand to Laws
I I I . I t c a n be m a i n t a i n e d w i t h a h i g h
degree o f p r o b a b i l i t y that the technological histories o f D i o d o r u s , Tzetzes, V i t r u v i u s , L u c r e t i u s , a n d Posidonius; the accounts o f the origin o f language found i n D i o d o r u s , V i t r u v i u s , a n d L a c t a n t i u s ; the social history o f Polybius V I a n d the anthropology o f Laws
I I I are a l l D e m o c r i t e a n ; a n d the tradition
w h i c h these texts represent w i l l be so referred to as w e attempt, i n our final two chapters, to assess its place i n the history o f G r e e k thought a n d to trace the channels b y w h i c h it was transmitted from its originator to the scattered body o f later sources i n w h i c h it is n o w preserved. 6 0
I f we could be surer than we are as to its exact character and importance, fourth century Pythagoreanism would be an obvious possibility for the intellectual milieu from which this intermediate source arose. The parallels between Polybius, Democritus, and Archytas have already been noted (above, pp. 1 2 1 - 2 2 ) , and the tradition which links the Pythagoreans both to Plato and to Democritus was a well established one. Cf. especially Aristoxenus' story (ap. D. L . 9 . 4 0 = VS I I 82.38—83.2) of how the two Pythagoreans Amyclas and Cleinias dissuaded Plato from burning the writings of Democritus.
CHAPTER DEMOCRITEAN
NINE
S O C I O L O G Y AND
DEVELOPMENT
OF GREEK
HISTORY
IN T H E
THOUGHT
I f the a r g u m e n t of the preceding chapters is correct, we must assume that there arose i n G r e e c e t o w a r d the e n d of the fifth c e n t u r y a theory of c u l t u r a l origins w h i c h was vastly more elaborate a n d subtle t h a n a n y t h i n g w h i c h preceded or followed it, but w h i c h largely disappeared from philosophic discussions almost as soon as formulated. T h e p h e n o m e n o n m a y seem u n l i k e l y ; it is certainly r e m a r k a b l e — h e n c e the attempt, i n this a n d the following chapter, to e x p l a i n w h y D e m o c r i t e a n thought appears so r a r e l y i n later writers a n d w h y it appears i n the places a n d forms i n w h i c h it does. A simple, though only p a r t i a l , answer to the first p r o b l e m lies i n the u n compromisingly naturalistic c h a r a c t e r of our theory, w h i c h c o u l d be
ex-
pected to fare i l l i n a n age d o m i n a t e d b y the teleology of Aristotle a n d the i d e a l i s m of Plato. B u t there were certainly non-teleological schools of thought i n the fourth a n d later centuries: the C y n i c , the Sceptic, the E p i c u r e a n — even the L y c e u m d u r i n g a c e r t a i n phase of its history. T h e i r existence might have been expected to give a naturalistic doctrine a more vigorous life t h a n our theory seems to have enjoyed. F o r a fully satisfactory e x p l a n a t i o n one must look elsewhere, to a sociological perspective a n d historical methodology w h i c h are characteristic of our texts a n d w h i c h , i f not p e c u l i a r to the late fifth century, are nevertheless at home there i n a w a y they are i n no other period. T h e perspective w i t h w h i c h we have to deal is most evident i n the p s y c h o logical analysis of the p h e n o m e n o n of c o m m u n i t y that our texts offer.
The
social aggregations whose formation is described i n Polybius V I rest, i n the first place, on a c e r t a i n n a t u r a l affinity between m a n a n d m a n : the atomic p r i n c i p l e of like-to-like operates here as it does on a l l levels of existence. B u t this affinity i n its p u r e l y n a t u r a l form is very w e a k : the first m e n , though they m a y feel more comfortable
a m o n g their fellows t h a n elsewhere, are
almost as likely to eat e a c h other as not. A fully developed social feelingcomes only later, as a p r o d u c t of the habit of association w h i c h M a n ' s " p h y s i c a l weakness a n d sexual needs force u p o n h i m , a n d of a quji;Ce;,^calc u l a t i n g realization that cooperation is more advantageous t h a n agjfce^sion.
132
D E M O C R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
O n c e a c q u i r e d , however, this sociability is capable of intensification a n d extension. A s o u r study o f the accounts o f Polybius V I a n d Laws
I I I has
s h o w n , it seems to h a v e been regarded as l i n k i n g , first comrades a n d kins m e n , t h e n fellow-citizens, a n d finally whole cities i n a n e x p a n d i n g nexus o f koindniai. A l t h o u g h no complete analysis of the social process developed along these lines survives elsewhere, enough of its elements a p p e a r i n one form or another i n the literature of the late fifth a n d fourth centuries to m a k e it clear that Polybius' view o f c o m m u n i t y (though not his analysis of the historical process b y w h i c h c o m m u n i t y c a m e into being) was fairly w i d e l y held d u r i n g the period. X e n o p h o n , for example, shares w i t h Polybius the u t i l i t a r i a n analysis of social m o r a l i t y (the Memorabilia
being a locus classicus
i n antiquity for this
point of v i e w ) ; a n d his e t h i c a l theory, like that of Polybius, mingles utile a n d dulce. P r o x i m i t y a n d c o m m o n habits breed affection, a n d the process is o b servable i n the b e h a v i o r o f both i m p l i c i t i n Polybius phon.
men and animals.
T h e latter
point,
explicit b y
Xeno
1
(see above, p p . 8 7 - 8 8 ) , is m a d e
2
T h e i d e a is certainly not o r i g i n a l w i t h h i m . H e s i o d (Works 78) found only allelophagia
and Days
276-
i n the w a y s o f a n i m a l s t o w a r d one another, b u t
by the e n d of the fifth c e n t u r y E u r i p i d e s c o u l d take a more optimistic v i e w ( A n d r o m a c h e is c o n d e m n i n g r e m a r r i a g e ) : ά λ λ ' ουδέ πώλος ήτις αν διαζυγη της σνντραφείσης ραδίιος έλξει ζυγόν, καίτοι το θηριώδες άφθογγον τ' έφν ζυνέσει τ' άχρηστον τη φύσει τε λείπεται.
3
T h e last two lines suggest w h a t Polybius states, that h u m a n behavior, though rooted i n the same n a t u r a l tendencies as that of a n i m a l s , is (or ought to be) different by reason o f m a n ' s intelligence
(synesis
i n E u r i p i d e s ; logismos i n
Polybius). Also i n X e n o p h o n (Oec.
7 . 1 8 - 3 2 ) is the attempt, i f not to trace social
m o r a l i t y to a " n a t u r a l " origin i n the family, at least to show h o w a p r i n c i p l e of wide social a p p l i c a t i o n , that of the division o f labor, arises out of the
1
Cyrop. 2.1.25, 8.7.14. Cf. also Plato, Laws
7 0 8 c : το εν τι είναι γένος ομόφαινον και όμόνομον έχει
τινά φιλίαν, and, for the importance of philiai of this sort in fifth and fourth century society, F . Dirlmeier, ΦΙΛΟΣ 2
3
und ΦΙΛΙΑ
in vorhellenistischen Griechentum (Diss. Munich 1931) 37—39.
Cyrop. 2 . 1 . 2 8 ; Mem. 2.3.4. Cf. also Aristotle, HA 9.611A7-11 and
629B10-12.
Troades 6 6 9 - 7 2 . Cf. the story in Plutarch (Soli. anim. 13.970AB) and
Aristotle (HA
5.577B30-
78A1) of the mule employed in carrying building material for the Propylaeum who, after being released as too old for work, continued of his own accord to run alongside his former companions and so was granted maintenance at public expense as a reward for philotimia.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF GREEK THOUGHT natural union of m a n
133
a n d wife a n d the resultant s p e c i a l i z a t i o n w h i c h assigns
h o m e a n d f a r m as their respective p r o v i n c e s .
4
G i v e n the association o f the
ideas o f p o l i t i c a l a n d domestic e c o n o m y w h i c h a p p e a r s time a n d a g a i n i n the works of Plato a n d X e n o p h o n ,
5
the p a r a l l e l b e t w e e n state a n d f a m i l y w a s
doubtless o n o c c a s i o n d r a w n m o r e explicitly. I t a p p e a r s i n c l e a r a n d s t r i k i n g form, t h o u g h i n a r a t h e r different context, i n a passage from the a n o n y m o u s second speech against A r i s t o g e i t o n ( P s . - D e m o s t h e n e s 2 5 ) . I t is there m a i n 6
t a i n e d ( 8 7 - 8 9 ) t h a t the willingness to overlook those actions o n the p a r t o f one's neighbors w h i c h a r e m e r e l y p e r s o n a l l y displeasing is essential to the h e a l t h y life o f the c i t y ; a n d it is suggested t h a t c i v i l life at this p o i n t s h o u l d m o d e l itself u p o n the s i m i l a r tolerance w h i c h c h a r a c t e r i z e s the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n fathers a n d c h i l d r e n . For one
7
the l a r g e r forms o f c o m m u n i t y based o n s h a r e d attitudes a n d habits
m a y c o m p a r e Isocrates' famous praise o f A t h e n s (Paneg.
5 0 ) as h a v i n g
m a d e the w o r d " G r e e k " s y n o n y m o u s , n o t w i t h a r a c e , b u t w i t h a w a y o f life; o r his m e n t i o n , i n a passage full
of pan-Hellenic
sentiment, o f the
4
Xenophon's perspective is teleological and theological: the varying natural capacities of man and woman are an indication of the fact that God has provided for the well-being of both. But this perspective need not be the original one. Cf. Ps.-Aristotle, Oec. 1.1343B 13-20 (cited above, Chap. V I I I , note 2 2 , for its similarity to Polybius 6 . 6 . 2 - 5 d Democritus B278) and E N 8.1 i 6 2 A i g - 2 4 , which contrast animal synousia (existing only for teknopoiia) and its human counterpart (involving a division of labor and exchange of needed services). I n neither of these passages are there any theo logical or teleological overtones. a
5
n
Cf. Mem. 3.4.6, 3 . 6 . 1 4 ; Plato, Meno 7 3 A , 91 A ; and the epangelma of Protagoras in Prot. 3 1 8 E - 1 9 A .
The parallel between oikos and polis is also in Aesch. ctes. 78. T h e idea, of course, is implicit in the very term oikeios, with its extension of meaning to include fellow-citizens and fellow-nationals as well as members of the same household. For representative examples of the two usages see J . P. A . Eernstman, ΟΙΚΕΙΟΣ
ΕΤΑΙΡΟΣ
ΕΠΙΤΗΔΕΙΟΣ,
Bijdrage
tot de kennis van de terminologie
der vriendschap bij de grieken (Diss. Utrecht 1932) 5 - 1 2 . 6
This passage, along with a number of others, was assigned by M . Pohlenz, "Anonymus nepi νόμων," NGG 1924 19-37, to an anonymous fourth century political treatise. (The passages are reprinted in M . Untersteiner, Sofisti, Testimonianze
e Frammenti 3 [Florence 1954] 193—207.) T h e
attribution has been questioned (notably by M . Gigante, ΝΟΜΟΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ [Naples 1956] 2 6 8 - 9 2 ) because of the somewhat contradictory views appearing in different portions of the material assigned by Pohlenz to the Anonymus. Whether the passage with which we are concerned is from a political treatise or not, it is reasonable to assume that its point of view played a role in the political discussions of the time. T h e set of ideas with which we are concerned is obviously related to two other views of philia current in the fifth and fourth centuries—the one which derives philia from syngeneia (on which see Dirlmeier [above, note 1] 7 - 2 1 ) , and the one which explains it as a manifestation of the universal attraction of like for like (see R . Walzer, " Magna Moralia und Aristotelische Ethik," NPU 7 [1929] 2 4 5 - 4 6 ) . For syntrophia and synetheia are frequent concomitants of syngeneia as well as a form of homoiotes. But in both instances there is a difference. Syngeneia is static and kata physin; synetheia is evolving and kata nomon. And the friendship based on synetheia and syntrophia is a very special illustra tion of the όμοιος-όμοίω principle, which is in itself too vague to provide a consistent theory of human koinonia (see below, note 2 3 ) . 7
D E M O C R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
134
Piraeus as a n e m p o r i u m , n o t o f A t h e n s , b u t o f a l l G r e e c e b y reason o f the exchange o f needed commodities w h i c h goes o n t h e r e .
8
T h e single a u t h o r w h o provides the most extensive r e c o r d o f this attitude toward community
a n d a m i t y is Aristotle, i n the portions o f his e t h i c a l
treatises w h i c h deal with, philia.
T h e feelings of good w i l l w h i c h exist between
associates o f a l l k i n d s — k i n s m e n , soldiers, fellow-voyagers, c l u b members a n d the l i k e — a r e cited from time to time i n the course o f Aristotle's attempt to analyze the sources o f friendship; a n d the explanations offered
frequently
suggest the line o f reasoning present i n P o l y b i u s : m e m b e r s h i p i n the same species, c o m m o n habits a n d n u r t u r e , cooperation i n securing the necessities of life.
9
T h a t s u c h forms o f koindnia
m a y serve as a basis for larger social
entities is i m p l i e d b y several passages w h i c h refer to t h e m as examples either of politike
philia
politikephilia.
10
o r o f those friendships w h i c h are " c o m p o n e n t
p a r t s " of
" P o l i t i c a l " friendship is p r e s u m a b l y that o n w h i c h the
polis
rests, though Aristotle extends the term to include international a l l i a n c e s .
11
T h e fact that Aristotle provides fairly extensive statements o f the ideas w h i c h lie b e h i n d the P o l y b i a n a n d D e m o c r i t e a n view o f the social process need n o t m e a n that h e contributed substantially to their expansion a n d development. T h e r e are s u c h expansions i n the Ethics,
but they take a rather
different line. Aristotle h i m s e l f seems to have been rather uninterested i n the sort o f relationship w h i c h rests o n h a b i t a n d the exchange o f utilities. I t figures i n his w o r k chiefly i n discussions o f the lower forms o f f r i e n d s h i p — those based o n τό χρήσιμον
or τό ήδύ r a t h e r t h a n o n το αγαθόν.
T h e last,
12
Paneg. 4 2 . T h e statement comes at the end of a discussion of Athens' contributions to civilization which shows clearly the influence of fifth century Kulturgeschichte: Athens gives men religion and agriculture, the two boons which free him from an animal-like existence ( 2 8 - 2 9 ) j did not find things as they are now but devised them gradually, a process in which the Athenians, who by common consent have the greatest aptitude for technology, must have played the leading role ( 3 2 - 3 3 ) ; Athens founded the first city, established laws and government, and so substituted reason for violence in the settlement of men's disputes ( 3 9 - 4 0 : noted above, Chap. V I , note 2 3 ) . Here, as 8
m
in Laws
e
n r s t
m
e
n
I I I , the extending and tightening of the bonds of koinonia is associated with the overall
evolution of human culture. 9
Cf. EN 8.1161B33—35:
οι συνήθεις εταίροι; 1 1 5 9
μέγα be προς φιλίαν και το συντροφον και το καθ' ήλικα- ήλιξ γαρ ήλικα και Β 2
7
— 2
9 · προσαγορευουσι γονν ώς φίλους τους σνμπλους και τους
συστρατιώτας,
ομοίως δε και τους εν ταις άλλαις κοινωνίαις, and the whole chapter ( 1 1 5 9 B 2 5 - 6 0 A 3 0 ) from which this passage is taken; 1162A9—14: έστι δε φιλία . . . μάλλον εν τοις όμοίοις, όσω οίκειότεροι και έκ γενετής ύπάρχουσι
στέργοντες
αλλήλους,
και οσω όμοηθεστεροι οι . . . σύντροφοι και παιδευθεντες
ομοίως;
I Ι6ΙΒ6—7: friendship links every man προς πάντα τον δυνάμενον κοινωνήσαι νόμου και συνθήκης; and the proverbs κολοιός παρά κολοιόν, άνθρωρος άνθρώπω, etc., principle in E E 7 . 1 2 3 5 A 4 - 1 3 ; 1 0
EE
cited to illustrate the
όμοιος-όμοίω
EN 8 . 1 1 5 5 A 3 2 - 3 5 ; Rhet. 1.1371B12-17.
For the former expression cf. E E 7.1242A2, 1 2 4 2 B 2 1 - 2 2 , and EN 8.1161B13; for the latter, 7.1241B25 and EN 8 . 1 1 6 0 A 8 - 9 .
1 1
1 2
Cf. E E 7 . 1 2 4 2 B 2 3 - 2 5 .
For the position of politike koinonia among those based on ήδΰ or χρήσιμον, cf. E E 7 . 1 2 4 2 A 6 - 8 ,
1 2 4 2 B 2 2 - 2 7 , and EN 8 . 1 1 6 0 A 1 1 - 2 1 .
T H E DEVELOPMENT OF G R E E K THOUGHT
135
w h i c h occupies the position o f h o n o r i n his t r e a t m e n t , c a n o n l y exist b e t w e e n good m e n , h e n c e h a s little to do w i t h most o f the relationships w h i c h u n d e r the n a m e o( philia. forms o f philia,
13
go
A n d e v e n i f one leaves out o f a c c o u n t the h i g h e r
most relationships w i l l be c o m p l i c a t e d i n a w a y not e n
v i s i o n e d b y P o l y b i u s b y the relative worths o f the parties i n v o l v e d : there c a n r a r e l y be the simple e x c h a n g e o f services or feelings o f good w i l l w i t h w h i c h the
latter deals. T h e better m u s t receive a r e t u r n for his p a r t i c i p a t i o n w h i c h
is i n p r o p o r t i o n to his o w n greater m e r i t s .
1 4
T h u s , insofar as it applies to
i n d i v i d u a l relationships, the sort o f koinonia w i t h w h i c h P o l y b i u s is p r i m a r i l y c o n c e r n e d is one a b o u t w h i c h Aristotle h a s strong r e s e r v a t i o n s ; a n d its social i m p l i c a t i o n s receive v e r y scant t r e a t m e n t , the w h o l e t h e o r y o f the e x p a n d i n g circle o f r e c i p r o c a l ties a n d affections b e i n g m e r e l y h i n t e d at i n the t e r m politike
philia.
15
For Aristotle's condemnation of the latter, see Dirlmeier (above, note 1) 76, with the passages cited there. For "friendships" based on the relationship between superior and inferior see E E 7.1238B181 3
1 4
39B5, 1 2 4 1 B 3 3 - 4 0 , 1 2 4 2 A 2 - 6 , and 1 2 4 2 B 2 - 2 1 ; £ j V 8 . i 1 5 8 B I 1 - 5 9 A 3 3 , 1 1 6 2 A 3 4 - B 4 , and 1163A24-B27.
Aristotle associates the notion of politike philia with another, found here and elsewhere in his work (most strikingly in the early chapters of the Politics: cf. especially 1 . 1 2 5 9 A 3 7 - B I 7 ) , which makes the family the archetype of the polls, the polis a sort of family writ large. But the two concep tions are essentially different. Politike philia is a relationship between equals (cf. E E 7 . 1 2 4 2 A 9 - 1 1 : other philiai are all καθ' ΰπεροχήν—only politike philia is not merely friendship but a partnership of 1 5
friends [i.e. equals—cf. 7.1239A4—5: at μέν γάρ φιλίαι κατά το ίσον, αϊ δέ καθ' νπεροχήν είσι. φιλίαι μεν ονν αμφότεροι, φίλοι δ' οι κατά την ισότητα];
Ι 2 4 2 Β 2 Ι — 2 2 : ή δε κατ' ίσα φιλία έστιν ή -πολιτική;
and ΕΝ 8.1161 Β Ι 3 : politikai koinoniai linked with phyletikai and symploikai). When Aristotle speaks of politike philia, the politeia he has in mind is any kind of commonwealth—anything that is not monarchy or "dynastic" oligarchy. T h e politeia of which the family is the archetype is, on the other hand, any one of the three sound constitutions (monarchy, aristocracy, timocracy) envisioned by the Aristotelian scheme of classification or any one of their corrupt aberrations (tyranny, oligarchy, democracy). And the relationships of master to slave, father to son, husband to wife, or brother to brother which have their counterparts in the various forms ofpolitieia are, for the most part, authori tarian ones—varieties of φιλία καθ' i-περοχήν (see preceding note). T h e two conceptions are clearly separated in the Eudemean Ethics, politike philia never being identified with syngenike philia in its authoritarian forms. T h e Nicomachean Ethics is less careful, inserting (1159B35—60A3) a mention of the father-son relationship into a section (1159B25-60A30) which is largely concerned with various egalitarian koinoniai which are "components" of the "political" one (see above, note 10). T h e parallel between oikos and various politeiai is developed at greater length in the latter work (EN 8.1160A31—61A30 — E E 7.1241827-40 and 1242A27-B2)—hence, perhaps, its encroachment on the other set of ideas. T h e two conceptions stand in roughly the same relationship to each other as do the Polybian and Platonic notions of the expanding range of koinonia (see above, pp. 115-17). T h e various egalitarian koinoniai of a commonwealth are quite literally "portions" of a larger civic one: all individual groups are linked eventually to all others by ties of philia, and it is possible to conceive the actual stages by which an ever increasing number of them could be brought into an expanding and tightening social nexus. There are no comparable relationships of seniority and authority between families in an aristocratic or monarchic state; and though it would have been possible to envision the descendants of a single patriarch multiplying to produce a state, neither Plato nor Aristotle seems to have done so. T h e union of clans in Laws I I I proceeds on egalitarian principles (see above, p. 117), as does the union of tribes and phratries from which Aristotle's pupil Dicaearchus derives the polis (Fr. 52 Wehrli).
136
D E M O C R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
T h e s e considerations, a l o n g w i t h the specific references to, o r echoes of, e a r l i e r writers w h i c h a p p e a r i n Aristotle's d i s c u s s i o n ,
16
m a k e it fairly c l e a r
t h a t h e is here d r a w i n g h e a v i l y , i f not e x c l u s i v e l y , o n w h a t must h a v e b e e n a fairly w i d e s p r e a d set o f ideas b y the m i d d l e o f the fourth c e n t u r y ,
1 7
one
w h i c h m a y h a v e f o u n d a n extensive a p p l i c a t i o n i n the D e m o c r i t e a n t h e o r y of the o r i g i n o f society. T h e s e ideas d o not, h o w e v e r , seem to h a v e b e e n i m p o r t a n t i n the p h i l o s o p h i c a l discussions o f s u b s e q u e n t periods. I n A r i s t o t l e himself, as w e h a v e seen, t h e y h a v e b e e n l a r g e l y superseded b y a v e r y different c o n c e p t i o n , o f largely Platonic a n c e s t r y ,
1 8
w h i c h m a k e s friendship a p a r t n e r s h i p b a s e d o n
d e d i c a t i o n to w h a t is agathon. Hellenistic p e r i o d
1 9
T h e A r i s t o t e l i a n n o t i o n w a s to persist i n the
alongside a n o t h e r , w h i c h is s e p a r a t e d from t h e fourth
c e n t u r y v i e w b y differences m o r e subtle b u t j u s t as significant. T h i s is the n o t i o n o f a n a t u r a l , absolute u n i t y o f m a n k i n d w h i c h d o m i n a t e s the 1 6
classic P e r i p a t e t i c a n d S t o i c theories o f c o m m u n i t y .
2 0
Cf. EN 8.1155A32
interpretation of philia
( = EE 7 . 1 2 3 5 A 4 - 5 ) , where the opoios-ouotto
T h e s e theories a r e is
introduced as an opinion held by one group as against those who suppose friendship to stem from attraction between enantia. (For Aristotle's transformation of the controversy to fit his own ijSuXp^ai/j.ov-dyaB6v classification, see Walzer [above, note 7] 250.) References to the work of predecessors is probable, though less certain, in the dokei with which many of the doctrines discussed by Aristotle are introduced (see Havelock, 3 1 7 ) ; and the fifth century parallels to what is said in E E 7.1236B9-10 about the "comings together and partings of birds that soothsayers speak of" (cf. Aeschylus, PV 4 9 1 - 9 2 ) and the friendship of sandpiper and crocodile (cf. Herodotus 2.68) suggest use of an earlier literary source—perhaps a work on philia. See Walzer (above, note 7) 2 5 0 ; Dirlmeier (above, note 1) 20 (on the antecedents of Aristotle's treatment of syngenike philia); and, most extensively, Havelock, 295—326. I n analyzing large portions of Aristotle's treatment of friendship as the result of the modification and "correction" of the view of previous thinkers, Havelock seems to me to be quite correct, though one might quarrel with certain details of his interpretation. I n particular, I would question the contrast he draws (298) between the philia which is conceived as an "intimate understanding, a meeting of minds and matching of characters" (Aristotle) and philia as " a spontaneous feeling of sympathy or goodwill which all members of a species are supposed by definition to feel for each other . . . " (the fourth century view). Earlier thinkers tended, I believe, to be just as concerned as Aristotle with a "matching of characters"—though their frame of reference was social rather than individual. Although there is some evidence for the existence, before Hellenistic times, of a theory of universal and spontaneous amity (see below, note 2 3 ) , its influence seems to have been far more restricted than that of the view under discussion in the text. 1 7
1 8
Cf. Lysis 2 1 4 0 D ; Rep. 3 5 O B , 3 5 I C E ; Laws
837A.
I t forms, for example, a major theme in Cicero's Laelius. These theories have been the subject of extensive investigation in recent years: see H . von Arnim, "Arius Didymus' Abriss der peripatetischen Ethik," SBWien 204.3 ( 9 6 ) 144—46; Walzer (above, note 7) 2 6 0 ; T a r n , ProcBritAc 1 9 . 1 4 0 - 4 5 ; M . H . Fisch, "Alexander and the Stoics," 1 8
2 0
!
•AJP 58 (1937) 1 4 9 - 5 0 ; Dirlmeier, Philologus Suppl. 3 0 . 1 ;
AbhGbttingen,
2
Philippson, Philologus 8 7 . 4 4 5 - 6 6 ; Pohlenz,
Folg. 3, 2 6 ; R . Stark, Aristotelesstudien = Zetemata 8 (1954) 6 0 ; Brink; and Baldry, The
Unity of Mankind
in Greek Thought 1 4 2 - 4 4 , 1 7 8 - 8 3 . T h e discusssion in the text follows Pohlenz ( 1 2 - 1 4 )
against Dirlmeier ( 4 7 - 7 5 ) in distinguishing oikeiotes from oikeiosis and in recognizing the latter as a specifically Stoic doctrine. (A similar point had been made earlier by Walzer and Philippson [ 4 6 4 - 6 5 ] against von Arnim, and by Fisch against Tarn.) I assume with Brink (138, note 83) against
T H E
the
D E V E L O P M E N T
O F G R E E K
T H O U G H T
!37
ones most frequently cited i n discussions o f a n c i e n t humanitas
times c o m p a r e d , erroneously, w i t h w h a t a p p e a r s i n P o l y b i u s .
a n d are at 2 1
T h e Peri-
patetic position seems to h a v e b e e n first stated fully b y T h e o p h r a s t u s , fragments o f whose discussion survive i n P o r p h y r y . i d e a o f the essential u n i t y o f m a n k i n d ,
2 2
T h e s e passages d e v e l o p the
s u p p o r t i n g their c o n t e n t i o n w i t h
references to the presence o f s i m i l a r b i o l o g i c a l needs, feelings, a n d p e r c e p t i o n s i n a l l m e n , w h o are thus oikeioi
to o n e a n o t h e r . T h e u n i t y w h i c h t h e y e n -
v i s i o n is a n absolute a n d u n i v e r s a l b r o t h e r h o o d : a fellowship l i n k i n g e v e r y m e m b e r o f the r a c e to e v e r y other qua m a n .
2 3
T h e r e is n o suggestion, either
here o r i n the a c c o u n t o f the d o c t r i n e w h i c h a p p e a r s i n A r i u s
Didymus'
Pohlenz (12) that the oikeiotes of Theophrastus is not simply a biological fact but the feeling of kinship to which the former gives rise. 2 1
2 2
See Appendix I I I . De abst. 3.25 = Llepl evaeßeias, F r . 2 0 Pötscher; cf. Bernays, Theophrastos' Schrift über Frömmigkeit
96-100.
T a r n seems to me to be largely correct in insisting (ProcBritAc 19.124-26) that this idea is not attested before Alexander. The passages which can be cited to prove the contrary are either negative in their emphasis, calling attention to the absence of physical differences between Greeks and Barbarians (Antiphon, VS 8 7 B 4 4 , F r . B , col. 2 . 1 5 - 3 5 ) , or to the non-existence of natural slavery (Alcidamas, as preserved by the scholiast to Arist. Rhet. 1.1373B18), or else simply concerned with certain general rules which have a validity not limited by time and place (the agraphoi nomoi discussed in Xenophon, Mem. 4 . 4 . 1 9 - 2 5 , and Aristotle, Rhet. 1373B7-18, or abstinence from homicide; for the latter cf. Empedocles ap. Arist. Rhet. 1373B14-17 and Sextus Empiricus, Adv. math. 9.127, Xenocrates, F r . 98 Heinze, and, for the position attributed to Pythagoras, Iamblichus, VP 108). At most they suggest universal equality, not fraternity. T h e όμοιος-όμοίω theory (above, note 7) could be, of course, and eventually was, put to the service of a genuine doctrine of the unity of man kind, but it could just as easily justify racial or local particularism. E N 8.1155A21-22, iSoi δ' άν τις 2 3
και iv rais
πλάναις ώς οίκεΐον ά-πας άνθρωπος άνθρώπω και φίλον, is the only passage in which the
Hellenistic universalism is clearly foreshadowed, and it does not prove that the idea was already well developed in Classical times. It should be emphasized, however, that the transition to the new conception must have been a natural and gradual one. By the middle of the fourth century certain circles of the Greek community had accepted a view which placed no bar in principle on the unity of mankind; for the community of acquired habits and exchange of utilities on which philia is based are open potentially to all men (cf. EN 8.1161 B6—7 on friendship προς -πάντα δυνάμενον κοινωνήσαι νόμου και συνθήκης, in which the
position of one of the Hellenistic schools has already been reached: cf. Epicurus, RS 3 2 ) . I f no one talked of universal philia it was simply because no one dreamed that the situation in which such could exist would ever arise. Alexander's conquests created such a situation, and it is reasonable to suppose that it was his action rather than any revolutionary ideal of koinonia introduced by him which led to the appearance of universalistic ideas in the generations following him. Once a mingling of habits and sharing of utilities throughout the oikoumene became possible, it was natural, on fourth century principles, to assume that philia would follow. Alexander may have drawn the logical conclusion at about the same time as a number of his contemporaries. O f the various views on the subject attributed to him (Arrian 7.11.9; Strabo 1.66; Plutarch, Fort. Alex. 329CD, Alex. 2 7 ) , only the last, which proclaims all men to be children of earth and heaven, can be interpreted as an affirmation of the absolute, abstract unity which was to figure in Hellenistic thought; and taken in context the statement reads as little more than a variant on the traditional view of Zeus as -πατήρ ανδρών Τ Ϊ θεών τΐ (see Ε . Badian, "Alexander the Great and the Unity of Mankind," Historia 7 [ • 9 5 8 ] 426—27). T h e others refer, not to an existing brotherhood, but to one which Alexander proposes to create—probably by acts like the resettlements and intermarriages of Diodorus 18.4.4
ι 8
D E M O C R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
3
summary that
the
( S t o b a e u s , Eel.
2-7 = W - H I I 1 2 0 . 1 7 - 1 2 1 . 2 1 ) o f P e r i p a t e t i c
feelings o f c o m m u n i t y
which link
all men
q u a n t i t y whose i n t e n s i t y a n d v e r y existence d e p e n d association would
be
and
assimilation.
inconsistent
distinct and
fixed
with
2 4
m i g h t be
whole
species, " p o l i t i c a l " b y
conception
its v e r y
such a n o t i o n
of " m a n "
nature
and
similar tendency
d o c t r i n e οϊ oikeiosis, o f the h u m a n race
as
capable
d e v i a t i o n f r o m this n o r m o n l y at the p r i c e o f ceasing t o be h u m a n A
ethics,
variable
u p o n a p r i o r process o f
N o r is t h e absence s t r a n g e :
Aristotle's
a
a of
altogether.
t o v i e w h u m a n n a t u r e as a c o n s t a n t is e v i d e n t i n t h e
w h i c h plays a c e n t r a l role i n the Stoic e t h i c . figures
here i n t w o different ways. T h e
h u m a n m o t i v a t i o n is, f o r t h e S t o i c , a n i n n a t e οίκείωσις makes every creature
2 5
The
unity
mainspring of
προς
eavrov,
f r o m t h e m o m e n t o f its b i r t h f a v o r a b l y
which
disposed t o
w a r d h i m s e l f , h i s o w n p r e s e r v a t i o n , a n d w h a t e v e r e x t e r n a l t h i n g s a r e neces s a r y f o r h i s w e l l - b e i n g . C o n n e c t e d w i t h t h i s is a s i m i l a r oikeiosis
t o w a r d his
f e l l o w s w h o , b y v i r t u e o f g e n e r i c r e s e m b l a n c e , o c c u p y a lesser p l a c e i n h i s affections.
H e n c e m a n ' s c h a r a c t e r as a ζωον
συναγελαστικόν.
26
(cf. in Plutarch, Fort. Alex. 329D, μείξας τους βίους και τα ήθη και τους γάμους και τάς δίαιτας), which would extend the effects of synetheia and syntrophia to the whole world. The first person to have taken the idea of Zeus as a common father seriously may have been Cassander's eccentric brother, Alexarchus, who was allowed to found and rule a colony of "children of Uranus"—perhaps a miniature model of a world state (cf. T a r n , 1 4 1 - 4 5 ) . T h e Stoics and Peripatetics provided a more sophisticated justification for something whose possibility had been revealed in practice. I n building their own theories, however, they largely disregarded the ladder of expanding koinoniai by which the Greeks had ascended to the cosmopolitan thought and practice of the Hellenistic age. T h e nature of which they speak in proclaiming the natural unity of mankind tends, as a result, to be largely an ideal human nature; and it was perhaps only with the advent of Rome and the realization of that political and economic unity whose possibility was first revealed by Alexander that philo sophers began to speak with real conviction of an actually existent world community. For the con trast between third and first century treatments of the theme see Baldry, The Unity of Mankind in Greek Thought 1 4 1 - 4 5 , 1 5 1 - 6 6 , and 177—99.
Theophrastus, it is true, speaks of fellow-citizens as οικείους . .. τω της τε γης και τής προς αλλήλους ομιλίας κοινωνεΐν (Fr. 2 0 . 4 - 5 Potscher), but this is an isolated reference in a passage dedicated wholly to syngeneia or to such ethos and trophe as all mankind has in common. Moreover, there is no suggestion that the smaller groups with which he deals are component and prior parts of the larger ones. T h e perspective throughout is biological, tracing the various metamorphoses of oikeiotes—not, as is that of the fourth century theory of expanding koinoniai, atomistic. 2 4
T h e most extensive of surviving presentations is Hierocles, col. 6.22—11.21. For a brief survey of other texts see Pohlenz, Die Stoa 2 . 6 5 - 6 6 . Cf. Cicero, Fin. 3 . 6 2 - 6 3 ( = SVF 3 . 3 4 0 ) ; Berlin Theaetetus Commentary, cols. 7 . 2 6 - 8 . 1 ; Hierocles 11.13—21. This extension of oikeiosis to include one's fellow men is not found in Chrysippus, 2 5
2 6
who says only (SVF 3.179) οίκειονμεθα προς αυτούς εύθνς γενόμενοι και τά μέρη και τά έκγονα εαυτών.
Conceivably it entered the school at a later date, perhaps as a result of Peripatetic influence (cf. Brink, 138 and 1 4 0 - 4 1 ) . T h e germ of the idea is already present in Aristotle's analysis (EM 9.1170A25—Β 19) of the pleasure which all men, and in particular agathoi, derive from conscious ness of their own existence. T h e pleasurable aisthesis which in each individual is directed toward himself is linked to a synaisthesis whose object is one's heteros aulas—the friend. T h e latter's existence is therefore, like one's own, numbered among things to be sought after for their own sake.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF G R E E K THOUGHT But
139
oikeidsis o p e r a t e s i n a n o t h e r m a n n e r as w e l l . T h e self w h i c h f o r m s i t s
o b j e c t is i n t h e process o f e v o l u t i o n t o w a r d m a t u r i t y a n d c o m p l e t e n e s s , i t s n a t u r a l a n d p r e o r d a i n e d telos; h e n c e m a n ' s c o n c e r n s o o n ceases t o b e m e r e physical preservation a n d w e l l - b e i n g , b u t r a t h e r t h e w e l l - b e i n g o f his per fected r a t i o n a l n a t u r e . but
2 7
A n d since s u c h a n a t u r e does n o t exist i n i s o l a t i o n
is l i n k e d t o i t s f e l l o w s t h r o u g h o u t t h e cosmos a n d b e n e f i t e d b y w h a t e v e r
benefits
t h e m (SVF
3.625-27),
the eventual
r e s u l t o f oikeidsis
is a r a t i o n a l
awareness o f t h e u n i t y o f t h e h u m a n r a c e , o r a t least o f t h e spoudaioi m e m b e r s o f i t (SVF
w h o are
1.222-23).
T h e Stoics m a y t h u s b e s a i d t o r e c o g n i z e a n oikeidsis l i n k i n g a l l m e n , w h i c h exists o n t h e l e v e l b o t h o f i m p u l s e a n d r e a s o n . goes t h e s o r t o f e v o l u t i o n e n v i s i o n e d 27
2 8
i n earlier
B u t neither variety under theories
of community.
2 9
SVF 3 . 1 7 8 : τεχνίτης γαρ ούτος \λόγος\ έπιγίνεται της ορμής; Seneca, Ep. 121.15: "unicuique
aetati sua constitutio est, alia infanti, alia puero, alia seni: omnes ei constitution! conciliantur in qua sunt"; Cicero, Fin. 3 . 2 3 : "quemadmodum fit ut is qui commendatus sit alicui pluris eum faciat cui commendatus quam ilium a quo sit, sic minime mirum est primo nos sapientiae commendari ab initiis naturae, post autem ipsam sapientiam nobis cariorem fieri quam ilia sint a quibus ad hanc venerimus." T h e contrast drawn here between a "natural" and a "rational" oikeidsis (on which cf. Fisch [above, note 2 0 ] 149-50) is not found in any ancient text. They represent two currents in Stoic thought about community, rather than the two halves of a single, well articulated theory. One could be stressed at the expense of the other; or the same phenomenon explained in terms of both; 2 8
cf. Cicero, Off. 1.12: natura vi rationis hominem conciliat homini, and, in the Berlin Theaetetus Com mentary (col 5.36—39) : 17 μέν yap προς εαυτόν οΐκείωσις φυσική εστίν και άλογος, ή δβ προς τούς πλησίον φυσική μεν και αύτη, ού μεντοι άνευ λόγου. 2 9
T o the generalization in the text there are two exceptions, or seeming exceptions, important enough to require notice here. A n Epicurean doctrine preserved most completely by Cicero, Fin. 1.69 (see above, Chap. V I , note 12), holds that amicitia, though based ultimately on utility, comes in the course of a relationship to be sought for its own sake because of the familiaritas which usus brings about: " si loca, si fana, si urbes, si gymnasia, si campum, si canes, si equos, si ludicra exercendi aut venandi consuetudine adamare solemus, quanto id hominum consuetudine facilius fieri poterit et justius?" This theory, however, is described by its proponent (Velleius) as the work of certain timidiores Epicurei who were seeking an answer to the charge that the ethic of the school made in sufficient allowance for the claims of friendship; and in the next book it is dismissed by Cicero as a later addition to the tenets of Epicurus: aliud humanius . . . recentiorum, numquam dictum ab ipso Mo
(2.82). T h e accuracy of the statements of Velleius and Cicero has been challenged (see Bignone, RFIC 3 7 . 7 7 - 7 8 ) , but even if something comparable to Fin. i.6g appeared in Epicurus himself it is unlikely to have been part of his main line of thought on the subject of friendship. More incontestably part of a major doctrine of an important thinker is the theory put forward in Cicero, Off. 1.54, which traces a widening circle of human coniunctiones beginning with coniugium and proceeding through domus, fratrum
coniunctiones, and adfinitates to res publico.
T h e passage makes
explicit the role played by synetheia in the whole process: oratio (1.50), forum, fana,porticus,
viae, leges,
iura, iudicia, suffragia ( 1 . 5 3 ) , sepulcra, and monumenta maiorum (1.55) are all named as things whose sharing goes to make up that vita viclusque communis and similitude
morum (1.58) on which amicitia
rests. T o this are added the giving and receiving of needed services. (1.56: "communitas . . . quae conficitur ex beneficiis ultro et citro datis acceptis"; cf. also 1 . 2 2 - 2 3 : "debemus . . . communes utilitates in medium adferre mutatione officiorum, dando accipiendo, turn artibus, turn opera, turn facultatibus devincire hominum inter homines societalem." Fin. 2.45 and 5.65, often cited as a parallel to Off. 1.54, speak in a superficially similar way of a widening circle of friendships, but
140
D E M O C R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
Oikeiosis
is a n i m p l a n t e d f e e l i n g o f a f f i n i t y , n e v e r t h e p r o d u c t o f c u s t o m a n d
h a b i t . Oikeiosis
pros heauton is n o t d i r e c t e d t o w a r d t h e a c q u i r e d c o m p l e x
of
h a b i t s , a c t i v i t i e s , a n d f e e l i n g s w h i c h b e c o m e s associated m o s t i n t i m a t e l y w i t h one's p e r s o n a l e x i s t e n c e ; r a t h e r , i t rests o n a n i n n a t e consciousness o f o n e s e l f as a s e p a r a t e b e i n g , w h i c h exists i n a c o n f u s e d children.
3 0
f o r m even i n animals
and
I t s e x t e n s i o n t o i n c l u d e o n e ' s f e l l o w c r e a t u r e s is e q u a l l y n a t u r a l
a n d i m m e d i a t e . Oikeidsis
o n t h e r a t i o n a l l e v e l is t h e p r o d u c t o f d e v e l o p m e n t
a n d s e l f - r e a l i z a t i o n , b u t t h e c h a n g e is n o t o n e w h i c h b r i n g s w i t h i t a h e i g h t e n e d sense o f k i n s h i p b r e d
by long contact:
oikeiosis
is a u t o m a t i c a l l y
re-
d i r e c t e d t o t h e r a t i o n a l self as i t b e g i n s t o e m e r g e . T h e P o l y b i a n a n a l y s i s o f c o m m u n i t y w o u l d seem t o be o n e w h i c h b e c a m e rather unusual
after
the m i d d l e o f the f o u r t h
t h o u g h t at its m o r e sophisticated
century,
a t least i n
levels. W h a t d i s t i n g u i s h e s
Greek
Polybius
from
h i s c o n t e m p o r a r i e s a n d l i n k s h i m t o a n e a r l i e r age is, q u i t e s i m p l y , his sense of
society —his 3 1
r e c o g n i t i o n o f the fact
t h a t i n d i v i d u a l character
cannot
r e m a i n c o n s t a n t as l o n g as i t c o n t i n u e s t o be i n v o l v e d i n t h e s o c i a l process, t h a t nomos c o u n t s f o r as m u c h as, o r m o r e t h a n , physis behavior. physis,
3 2
T h e P e r i p a t e t i c oikeiotes,
a n d logos i n h u m a n
b y c o n t r a s t , exists o n l y o n t h e l e v e l o f
l i n k i n g a l l m e n to one another b y v i r t u e o f c o m m o n traits w h i c h a l l
there is nothing in either of the former two passages to suggest the possibility of psychological development. T h e various relationships mentioned are simply the successive manifestations of a natural instinct which remains constant from the start.) It is clear that the oikeiosis doctrine of De qfficiis I involves what has been termed the fourth century view of koinonia, but it is almost as clear that the doctrine is foreign to early Stoicism. Cicero's source here is Panaetius, whose eclecticism was notorious (Fin. 4 . 7 9 ) ; and it is probable that Panaetius has modified the orthodox oikeiosis theory with material drawn from other sources. T h e innovations stress the more concrete, immediate forms of koinonia at the expense of the cosmic unity envisioned in other presentations of the doctrine. They are thus quite in keeping with the "humanizing" of the O l d Stoic teaching evident throughout the work of Panaetius. It has been suggested (Brink, 138) that Panaetius was indebted to the Theophrastan doctrine of oikeiotes for the changes he introduced, and the succession of koinoniai mentioned in Off. 1.54 bears a certain resemblance to that traced in Dicaearchus (Fr. 52 Wehrli). But Panaetius' strong evolutionary perspective, to which there is no parallel in either Theophrastus or Arius (see above, pp. 1 3 7 - 3 8 , with note 2 4 ) , and his equally strong emphasis on the utile as a vinculum societatis suggest to me a different source: Aristotle, perhaps, or the earlier thinkers on whose theories of koinonia Aristotle seems to have drawn (see above, p. 136, with notes 16 and 17). For Panaetius' acquaintance with pre-Platonic thought see the notices regarding his studies of the Socratics (D. L . 2.85 and 64 = Frs. 1 2 3 - 2 4 van Straaten); Cole, HSCP 6 5 . 1 2 8 - 4 4 (parallels between De qfficiis I I and the Anonymus Iamblichi); and A . Grilli, / / problema della vita contemplativa nel mondo
greco (Milan 1953) 137-61 (Panaetius and the Democritean ideal of euthymia). Seneca, Ep. 121.13: "infantibus quoque animalibusque principalis partis suae sensus est non satis dilucidus nec expressus." O n Polybius' " soziologischen Betrachtungsweise" see Heinemann, Poseidonios' metaphysische 3 0
3 1
Schriften
1.107.
Nomos, synetheia, and ethismos continued to play a role in the speculations of Hellenistic ethnographers, if Agatharchides is at all typical (see O . Immisch, "Agatharchidea," SBHeidelberg 10.7 [1919] 107, and Dihle, Entretiens Hardt 8 . 2 2 3 - 2 4 ) . But in what survives of his work, at any rate, Agatharchides falls back on synetheia as an explanation only when he has to account for what 32
141
T H E D E V E L O P M E N T OF G R E E K THOUGHT
o f t h e m share a t a l l t i m e s . A n d S t o i c oikeidsis m e r e l y a d d s t o a p u r e l y n a t u r a l a f f i n i t y a n e q u a l l y u n i v e r s a l i n t e l l e c t u a l one
stemming
from man's
con-
sciousness o f his r a t i o n a l n a t u r e . A s i m i l a r p o l a r i z a t i o n o f p h e n o m e n a i n t o t h e r e a l m s o f physis
and
logos
distinguishes t h e E p i c u r e a n t r e a t m e n t o f t h e o r i g i n o f s o c i e t y a n d l a n g u a g e f r o m its c o u n t e r p a r t s i n P o l y b i u s a n d D i o d o r u s . L a n g u a g e a n d m o r a l s arise f i r s t b y a n a u t o m a t i c a s s o c i a t i o n b e t w e e n objects a n d sounds o r b e t w e e n cert a i n a c t i v i t i e s a n d t h e i d e a o f s u r v i v a l ; t h e n a f u l l y d e v e l o p e d logismos enters i n to i m p r o v e a n d regularize the n a t u r a l situation. I n Polybius a n d D i o d o r u s , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , l i n g u i s t i c a n d social usage is b u i l t u p g r a d u a l l y , t h e p r o d u c t , n o t s i m p l y o f i n s t i n c t , b u t also o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n s o u t o f w h i c h t h e i m p u l s e f o r t h e i r d e v e l o p m e n t o r i g i n a l l y comes a n d o f t h e h a b i t s w h i c h arise g r a d u a l l y o u t o f a series o f s u c h s i t u a t i o n s . Logismos
in a rudimentary
f o r m p l a y s a r o l e , b u t i t is o n l y a t a m u c h l a t e r s t a g e — w h e n t h e
establishment
o f g o v e r n m e n t m a k e s i t t h e basis o f p o l i t i c a l a n d social a c t i o n , o r w h e n t h e m e r g i n g o f t w o different tribes requires the assimilation o f already developed d i a l e c t s (see a b o v e , p p . 1 0 8 - 9 ) —
t n a t
i n t e l l e c t u a l factors
become the
d o m i n a n t ones. P o l y b i u s h i m s e l f is n o t e n t i r e l y free f r o m t h e
pre-
contemporary
t e n d e n c y t o e n c r o a c h o n t h e r e a l m assigned t o c u s t o m a n d h a b i t : w h a t is nomizon i n D e m o c r i t u s becomes i n his a c c o u n t a n ennoia (see a b o v e , p p .
113-
14). B u t t h i s i n f l u e n c e does n o t e x t e n d t o m o r e t h a n t h e t e r m i n o l o g y used i n c e r t a i n passages. S i m i l a r differences i n v i e w p o i n t c a n Polybius
be o b s e r v e d w h e n
one
a n d t h e o t h e r texts o f o u r t r a d i t i o n w i t h t h e m o r e
m i n d e d o f t h e passages c o n s i d e r e d
i n Chapter Three.
compares historically
D i s s i m i l a r as t h e i r
a p p r o a c h e s w e r e , a l l o f those passages w e r e a t o n e i n r e f u s i n g t o r e c o g n i z e society as s o m e t h i n g sui generis a n d i n d e a l i n g w i t h i t i n essentially i n d i v i d u a l ist t e r m s . F o r P o s i d o n i u s a n d t h e E u h e m e r i s t s society becomes a m e r e p r o j e c t i o n o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l : a g r o u p o f disciples seated p a s s i v e l y a t t h e feet o f sapientes o r k i n g . D i c a e a r c h u s a n d A r i s t o t l e d o n o t c o n c e i v e o f society as a c l a s s r o o m ; b u t f o r t h e m t h e w h o l e h u m a n race b e c o m e s a s o r t o f c o r p o r a t e i n d i v i d u a l , l o o k i n g a r o u n d a n d t a k i n g stock o f its e n v i r o n m e n t , t h e n
ex-
p l o i t i n g i n s y s t e m a t i c f a s h i o n , first t h e v e g e t a b l e , t h e n t h e a n i m a l k i n g d o m (see a b o v e , p p . 5 4 - 5 5 ) ;
3 3
o r else d i r e c t i n g its a c t i v i t i e s , a l o n g lines
deter-
m i n e d b y t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f its o w n i n n e r b e i n g , f r o m p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h u t i l i t y a n d pleasure to disinterested speculation o n n a t u r e a n d p u r e
being
(see a b o v e , p . 5 2 ) . T h e a t t i t u d e w h i c h lies b e h i n d s u c h theories is p e r h a p s strikes him as an absurdity or aberration in the behavior of barbarian races (cf. Diodorus 3 . 6 . 2 ; 7.2; 18.7; 34.6 = Photius, Cod. 250 4 5 5 A 1 1 - 1 2 ) . There is nothing to suggest that he would have regarded civilized morality as depending ultimately on anything so variable and haphazard. As the title he chose for his work indicates, Dicaearchus is composing biography, not history. 3 3
142
D E M O G R I T U S AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
best s u m m e d u p i n t h e o b s e r v a t i o n w i t h w h i c h P l a t o i n t r o d u c e s his f a m o u s a c c o u n t o f t h e d e g e n e r a t i o n o f t h e i d e a l s t a t e : " T h e r e m u s t be as m a n y types o f m a n as t h e r e are o f p o l i t i e s , " says Socrates, " — o r d o y o u f a n c y t h a t p o l i t i e s arise o u t o f stock o r stone r a t h e r t h a n f r o m t h e c h a r a c t e r types existi n g w i t h i n t h e m w h i c h , t h r o u g h t h e i r p r e p o n d e r a n c e , c a r r y t h e others a l o n g with t h e m ? "
3 4
T h e i m p l i c a t i o n is c l e a r : w h a t e v e r i n t h e social
process
c a n n o t b e d i r e c t l y e x p l a i n e d i n t e r m s o f i n d i v i d u a l p s y c h o l o g y has n o explanation at a l l . But
3 5
i f P o l y b i u s refuses t o v i e w society i n c o m p l e t e l y i n d i v i d u a l i s t t e r m s ,
n e i t h e r does h e n e g l e c t i n d i v i d u a l m o t i v a t i o n t o c o n c e n t r a t e e x c l u s i v e l y o n the
w o r k i n g o f social c o n t r o l s . H e does n o t , l i k e P i n d a r o r H e r o d o t u s o r
Sophocles, speak o f nomos as a k i n g r u l i n g u n c h a l l e n g e d o v e r m e n , its o r i g i n and
nature shrouded i n mystery.
3 6
S o c i a l n o r m s arise f r o m c o n c r e t e s i t u a -
t i o n s i n w h i c h i n d i v i d u a l c h o i c e p l a y s a n i m p o r t a n t , i f n o t exclusive, r o l e ; and
o n l y subsequently, t h r o u g h diffusion a n d h a b i t , d o they become the
rules o f c o n d u c t t o w h i c h a l l m e m b e r s i n a society g i v e a u t o m a t i c o r n e a r l y a u t o m a t i c obedience. T h i s aspect o f his analysis serves t o separate h i m f r o m G r e e k t h o u g h t p r i o r to t h e l a t e f i f t h c e n t u r y as m u c h as his s o c i o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e does f r o m t h a t o f his H e l l e n i s t i c predecessors a n d c o n t e m p o r a r i e s . F o r i t w a s i n t h e l a t e f i f t h c e n t u r y t h a t G r e e k t h i n k e r s first b e g a n t o v i e w physis as s o m e t h i n g a p a r t f r o m nomos: as t h e c o m p l e x o f i n s t i n c t s , i m p u l s e s , a n d m e n t a l processes c o m mon
t o a l l m e n a p a r t f r o m t h e p a r t i c u l a r social c o n t e x t i n w h i c h t h e y
themselves.
37
find
T y p i c a l o f t h e n e w a t t i t u d e i n its v a r i o u s aspects a r e t h e
r e m a r k s o f t h e Adikos Logos o n t h e f r e e d o m f r o m social taboos w h i c h his p u p i l w i l l e n j o y i f he f o l l o w s t h e d i c t a t e s o f physis
( A r i s t o p h a n e s , Clouds
1075-78),
T h u c y d i d e s ' c o n c e r n w i t h t h e c o n s t a n t elements i n h u m a n n a t u r e ( 1 . 2 2 . 4 ) , and
A n t i p h o n t h e Sophist's d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n " n a t u r a l " w r o n g - d o i n g —
t h a t w h i c h carries w i t h i t its o w n p e n a l t y — a n d t h e w r o n g - d o i n g d e e m e d t o be so o n l y b y v i r t u e o f nomos (VS 8 7 B 4 4 , F r . A c o l . 1 . 1 - 2 . 2 0 ) . T h o u g h t h e t h r e e d i f f e r r a d i c a l l y i n w h a t t h e y w o u l d t a k e t o be t h e c e n t r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f h u m a n n a t u r e , t h e y a r e a t o n e i n t h e i r b e l i e f t h a t r) dvOpanreia
vcns is 3 4
Rep. 5 4 4 D E . Cf. the similar remark ä propos of Thracian and Scythian ethnic character at 4 3 5 E .
3 5
Cf. Wilamowitz's characterization of Plato's central innovation in Greek political theory: "Bald drang er zu der tiefsinnigen auffassung durch, dass die Verfassungen bedingt sind durch die ganze geistige disposition der menschen, die sie sich machen, und demgemäss die Veränderungen in der Volksseele den wandel der Verfassungen bedingen . . . " (Aristoteles und Athen [Berlin 1893] '84)· For what may be a contemporary protest against this tendency in thought, see Lysias 25.8. O n the conception see, most recently, M . Ostwald, "Pindar, Nomos and Heracles," HSCP 6g 3 6
(1965) 1 2 4 - 3 1 . 3 7
O n the late fifth century view of physis, see F . Heinimann, Nomos und Physis = Schweizerische
Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft
1 (Basel 1945) 1 1 0 - 1 6 2 , especially 1 2 5 - 4 7 , on "das menschliche
Triebleben" seen as "angeboren . . . und so entweder auf die Götter oder auf unausweichliche Naturgesetzlichkeit zurückgeführt" (126).
143
T H E D E V E L O P M E N T OF G R E E K T H O U G H T
a l w a y s t h e same i n c e r t a i n o f its aspects, a n d t h a t " n a t u r a l " a c t i o n is d i s t i n c t f r o m , t h o u g h n o t necessarily c o n t r a r y t o , nomos. T h e S o c r a t i c
doc-
t r i n e o f t h e soul reveals a n essentially s i m i l a r c o n c e r n w i t h s e p a r a t i n g t h e r e a l a n d essential f r o m t h e m e r e l y c o n v e n t i o n a l . T h e psyche is t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t p a r t o f a m a n ; its w e l f a r e has n o t h i n g t o d o w i t h t h e e x t e r n a l
circumstances
o f a m a n ' s l i f e ; a n d b y v i r t u e o f its possession e a c h i n d i v i d u a l is l i n k e d w i t h a l l o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s regardless o f t h e differences
o f h a b i t or belief w h i c h
separate t h e m . B u t Socrates' " d i s c o v e r y " occupation
o f t h e self, w h i l e i t i n v o l v e s
w i t h t h e p r o b l e m o f physis
t h e same p r e -
w h i c h appears i n other late
fifth
c e n t u r y w r i t e r s a n d i n P o l y b i u s , was e v e n t u a l l y to m a k e t h e sort o f sociol o g i c a l analysis w h i c h P o l y b i u s gives d i f f i c u l t , i f n o t i m p o s s i b l e .
Henceforth
m a n t h e i n d i v i d u a l b e c a m e t h e center o f p h i l o s o p h i c a t t e n t i o n ; a n d o n c e t h i s h a d o c c u r r e d , i t b e c a m e i n c r e a s i n g l y h a r d to c o n c e i v e t h e f o r m a t i o n o f character
a n d p e r s o n a l i t y as p r o c e e d i n g
i n accordance w i t h a n y t h i n g b u t
t h e i r o w n i n n e r l a w . T h e social aspect o f h u m a n existence becomes o b s c u r e d b y an o v e r r i d i n g p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h the i n d i v i d u a l a n d the universal. I n finally
g a i n i n g his o w n soul H e l l e n i c m a n h a d lost t h e w o r l d — o r at least t h e
possibility o f understanding i t . Polybius'
a b i l i t y to include b o t h w i t h i n a
single focus f a i r l y w e l l p i n p o i n t s his t h e o r y o f society as a p r o d u c t o f t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l a t m o s p h e r e o f t h e late fifth c e n t u r y — i m p o s s i b l e before t h e n a n d increasingly rare
thereafter.
38
T h e effects o f t h e S o c r a t i c r e v o l u t i o n w e r e o b v i o u s l y n o t felt i m m e d i a t e l y : witness t h e texts c i t e d a b o v e ( p p . 1 3 2 - 3 4 ) f o r t h e i r p a r a l l e l s t o t h e P o l y b i a n t h e o r y o f koindnia, m o s t o f w h i c h c o m e f r o m t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y . perspective
3 9
B u t i f the
w h i c h c h a r a c t e r i z e s P o l y b i u s c o n t i n u e d to exist f o r some t i m e
after t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l events w h i c h w e r e to l e a d t o its v i r t u a l
abandonment,
t h e m e t h o d o l o g y he uses to c o n s t r u c t a h i s t o r i c a l a c c o u n t e m b o d y i n g perspective
points unmistakably
to t h e
fifth,
rather t h a n to the
this
fourth,
c e n t u r y . I t s affinities a n d possible a n t e c e d e n t s are w e l l i l l u s t r a t e d b y c a l l i n g a t t e n t i o n t o a r e m a r k a b l e episode i n t h e History o f H e r o d o t u s . T h e passage r e f e r r e d to ( 4 . 1 1 0 . 2 - 1 1 7 ) tells h o w a g r o u p o f S c y t h i a n s c a m e to i n t e r m a r r y w i t h a b a n d o f w a n d e r i n g Amazons. T h e latter, survivors f r o m 3 8
P o l y b i u s ' p e r s p e c t i v e is s u c c i n c t l y p r e s e n t i n t h e passage o f H i p p o l y t u s w h i c h s u m m a r i z e s t h e
Kulturentstehungslehre o f a n o t h e r l a t e fifth c e n t u r y t h i n k e r , A r c h e l a u s : " m e n w e r e s e p a r a t e d
from
o t h e r a n i m a l s a n d t h e n d e v e l o p e d leaders a n d l a w f u l usages a n d t e c h n i q u e s a n d cities . . . "
the (VS
6 0 A 4 . 6 ) . T h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f m a n is c o n c e i v e d i n s o c i a l r a t h e r t h a n i n d i v i d u a l t e r m s , b u t cities a n d l a w f u l usages a r e t h i n g s o f his o w n d e v i s i n g . 3 9
A l s o f r o m t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y , o f course, is t h e w o r k w h i c h c o n t a i n s s o m e o f t h e m o s t e x t e n s i v e
o f s u r v i v i n g discussions o f t h e f o r m a t i v e p o w e r o f nomos—Plato's
Laws.
B u t P l a t o n i c nomos
\p&$!kr g
c o d i f i c a t i o n o f a s i n g l e nomolhetes a n d so less i n t i m a t e l y i n v o l v e d i n t h e social process t h ^ i ^ J ^ t s Polybian counterpart.
ff<^'
;
144
D E M O C R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
t h e i r unsuccessful
f i g h t a g a i n s t t h e Greeks, l a n d n e a r L a k e M a e o t i s
and
w a n d e r i n l a n d to the i n h a b i t e d p o r t i o n o f the c o u n t r y . A t first, n o t recognizing the language,
c l o t h i n g , race, o r sex o f t h e i n v a d e r s , t h e
Scythians
f i g h t w i t h t h e m ; t h e n , discovering t h e m to be w o m e n , t h e i r thoughts t u r n i n a n o t h e r d i r e c t i o n . A b a n d o f t h e i r y o u n g m e n is sent o u t w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s to e n c a m p n e a r t h e A m a z o n s , b u t n o t t o f i g h t w i t h t h e m , f l e e i n g i f a t t a c k e d a n d e n c a m p i n g n e a r t h e m a g a i n o n c e t h e p u r s u i t is o v e r . T h i s is d o n e , a n d w h e n the A m a z o n s discover t h a t t h e i r neighbors m e a n t h e m n o h a r m they i g n o r e t h e m . T h u s t h e t w o e n c a m p m e n t s g r a d u a l l y g e t closer, a n d f o r some t i m e t h e y share t h e same w a y o f l i f e , h u n t i n g a n d p l u n d e r i n g . T h e
Amazons
h a v e t h e h a b i t o f g o i n g o u t s i n g l y a r o u n d n o o n t o r e l i e v e themselves; o n o n e s u c h o c c a s i o n a g i r l is assaulted b y a S c y t h i a n a n d acquiesces. H e i n d i c a t e s b y gestures ( f o r t h e r e is n o c o m m o n l a n g u a g e b e t w e e n t h e m ) t h a t h e w i l l b r i n g a c o m p a n i o n t o t h e same spot t h e n e x t d a y , a n d she agrees t o d o l i k e wise. T h e process c o n t i n u e s u n t i l a l l m e m b e r s o f b o t h g r o u p s are i n v o l v e d . T h e A m a z o n s l e a r n t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e S c y t h i a n s , b u t , r a t h e r t h a n settle w i t h a p e o p l e w h o s e w a y s t h e y d o n o t share, t h e y p e r s u a d e t h e i r h u s b a n d s t o m i g r a t e f a r t h e r i n l a n d . T h e i r descendants g r o w u p s p e a k i n g a s l i g h t l y different dialect o f Scythian, influenced b y their mothers' mispronunciation of an acquired tongue. T h e r e is n o t h i n g i n t h e w a y t h i s s t o r y is i n t r o d u c e d t o suggest t h a t i t is a n y d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e o t h e r tales, h i s t o r i c a l o r f a n t a s t i c , w i t h w h i c h H e r o d o t u s a d o r n s his a c c o u n t ; b u t i t bears t h e m a r k s o f b e i n g a t h i n l y disguised piece o f s p e c u l a t i v e e t h n o l o g y . T h e p r o t a g o n i s t s o f h i s t o r y a n d l e g e n d d o n o t go a b o u t g e t t i n g themselves w i v e s i n s u c h r o u n d a b o u t a n d t e d i o u s f a s h i o n ; b u t t h e f o r m i n w h i c h t h e episode is cast makes sense i f one v i e w s i t as a n a t t e m p t t o e x p l a i n t h e p h e n o m e n o n o f t r i b a l a s s i m i l a t i o n — a n a t t e m p t w h i c h proceeds a l o n g lines q u i t e s i m i l a r t o those p r e s e n t i n t h e t h e o r y o f society p r e s e r v e d i n P o l y b i u s . G i v e n t h e differences o f l a n g u a g e , c l o t h i n g , a n d r a c e w h i c h separ a t e t w o e t h n i c g r o u p s o f d i f f e r e n t o r i g i n s , t h e r e is l i t t l e c h a n c e o f t h e i r m i n g l i n g : t h e n a t u r a l oikeiotes b e t w e e n a l l m e n is t o o w e a k to h a v e a n y effect h e r e . P r o x i m i t y , h o w e v e r , a n d p u r s u i n g t h e same w a y o f life (synetheia a n d syntrophia)
w i l l , i f aggression
is n o t i n v o l v e d , l e a d t w o t r i b e s to feel f a i r l y
secure i n e a c h o t h e r ' s presence. G r a d u a l l y t h e necessary p r e c o n d i t i o n s f o r r a p p r o c h e m e n t w i l l arise. B u t w h o l e social g r o u p i n g s d o n o t c h a n g e t h e i r w a y o f existence
at once. T h e
process m u s t b e g i n w i t h i n d i v i d u a l s i n a
specific s i t u a t i o n . A s e p a r a t i o n o f one o f t h e g i r l s f r o m h e r c o m p a n i o n s s u c h as is l i k e l y t o o c c u r i n t h e n o r m a l course o f t h i n g s makes possible t h e first u n i o n b e t w e e n m e m b e r s o f d i f f e r e n t t r i b e s . T h e s e x u a l act is a p u r e l y n a t u r a l a n d u n i v e r s a l f o r m o f koindnia—hence
its p o s i t i o n at t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e
process o f social t r a n s f o r m a t i o n b o t h here a n d i n P o l y b i u s . T h e n e w synetheia
THE DEVELOPMENT OF G R E E K THOUGHT
145
spreads f r o m t h e i s o l a t e d i n s t a n c e w h e r e i t b e g a n u n t i l t h e t w o t r i b e s a r e one a n d a s s i m i l a t i o n o f l a n g u a g e has o c c u r r e d . T h e r e s u l t is a n e w ethnos, s p e a k i n g a d i a l e c t d i f f e r e n t f r o m , t h o u g h r e l a t e d t o , those o f the g r o u p s o u t o f w h i c h i t is f o r m e d .
4 0
T h e t h e o r y o n w h i c h H e r o d o t u s is d r a w i n g w a s c l e a r l y m o r e l i m i t e d i n scope t h a n t h e o n e w h i c h has served as t h e source f o r P o l y b i u s V I . B u t t h e r e s e m b l a n c e is close e n o u g h t o m a k e i t f a i r l y o b v i o u s t h a t elements, a t a n y r a t e , o f t h e P o l y b i a n v i e w o f social d e v e l o p m e n t existed i n c e r t a i n p o r t i o n s o f fifth c e n t u r y l i t e r a t u r e . Perhaps the w o r k o r works i n w h i c h they appeared were c o n t e m p o r a r y w i t h the one o n w h i c h Polybius draws; perhaps
they
b e l o n g e d t o a n e a r l i e r stage o f t h o u g h t o u t o f w h i c h t h e m o r e e l a b o r a t e a n d i n c l u s i v e t h e o r y present i n P o l y b i u s arose. T h e parallels are a l l the m o r e impressive for their b e i n g v i r t u a l l y u n i q u e — a n d i t is p r o b a b l y n o t a c c i d e n t a l t h a t t h e y o c c u r i n a fifth c e n t u r y t e x t . F o r t h e t y p e o f r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e past w h i c h H e r o d o t u s a n d P o l y b i u s give has a d e f i n i t e a r c h a i c cast t o i t . I t proceeds i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h a d e f i n i t e i d e a o f w h i c h elements i n h u m a n b e h a v i o r are fixed a n d " n a t u r a l " a n d w h i c h are acq u i r e d a n d " a c c i d e n t a l , " h e n c e n o t t o be t a k e n for g r a n t e d i n a n a e t i o l o g i c a l account w h i c h aims a t being v a l i d for a l l occurrences o f the p h e n o m e n o n i t seeks t o e x p l a i n . B u t t h o u g h b o t h a c c o u n t s ( P o l y b i u s m o r e c l e a r l y a n d selfconsciously t h a n H e r o d o t u s ) a r e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s o f h i s t o r y i n k e e p i n g w i t h c e r t a i n g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s , t h e f o r m i n w h i c h b o t h a r e cast resembles t h e aitiai o f poets a n d m y t h o g r a p h e r s m o r e t h a n a p h i l o s o p h i c e x p o s i t i o n o f t h e causes a t w o r k i n h i s t o r y . T h e p r i n c i p l e s w h i c h b o t h a c c o u n t s r e c o g n i z e r e m a i n i n t h e b a c k g r o u n d . T h e c e n t e r o f a t t e n t i o n is o c c u p i e d , n o t b y t h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f u n i v e r s a l a n d i m p e r s o n a l forces, b u t b y a n a r r a t i v e o f specific events i n v o l v i n g i n d i v i d u a l s . W h a t makes possible this c o m b i n a t i o n o f n a r r a t i v e a n d a n a l y t i c elements i n b o t h a u t h o r s is t h e i r r e l i a n c e o n t h e p r i n c i p l e o f p r o b a b i l i t y (eikos) :
4 1
since h u m a n b e h a v i o r
displays
certain recurrent
p a t t e r n s , o n e is j u s t i f i e d i n s i n g l i n g o u t a c e r t a i n sequence o f specific events as t h e l i k e l y one a n d p r e s e n t i n g i t as t r u e h i s t o r y . I t s h o u l d b e r e a l i z e d t h a t this m e t h o d o f speculative r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f the past enjoyed a r a t h e r l i m i t e d v o g u e i n a n t i q u i t y . T h e a p p e a l t o eikos was p r o b a b l y t h e m o s t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f o r m o f a r g u m e n t a t i o n i n t h e late history, a n d o r a t o r y .
4 2
fifth
century, evident alike i n d r a m a ,
I t s p o p u l a r i t y m a y reflect a c e r t a i n n a i v e t e o n the p a r t
o f the audience for w h o m i t was i n t e n d e d . Probable reconstructions like the A r c h a e o l o g y o f T h u c y d i d e s m a k e c o n s i d e r a b l e use o f tekmeria; P o l y b i u s a n d 4 0
Herodotus' account tends to confirm the conclusion reached in Chapter Eight (see above, pp. 109, 115-17) that Plato's account of tribal assimilation has arisen through a modification and correction of previous theories. 4 1
4 2
For the term in Polybius, cf. 6.5.7, 5.9, 6.3, 6.4, 6.6, 6.8 (eikos);
and 6.6.9 (eulogon).
For its use in oratory and tragedy, see F . Solmsen, " Antiphonstudien," JVPU 8 (1931) 5 3 - 5 8 .
146
D E M O C R I T U S AND T H E S O U R C E S O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
H e r o d o t u s are d e a l i n g w i t h events for w h i c h few tekmeria exist, a n d as a r e s u l t t h e i r r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s are s o m e w h a t h a z a r d o u s . B u t t h i s boldness w o u l d doubtless
not have weighed
customed
still to accepting
heavily
with
a fifth
century
audience.
t h e poets as a u t h o r i t i e s o n past h i s t o r y ,
Acthey
w o u l d n o t be t o o insistent o n t h e tekmeria w h i c h a l o n e c o u l d i n s u r e t h a t w h a t t h e y w e r e h e a r i n g was a t r u e a c c o u n t a n d n o t s i m p l y a l i k e l y t a l e . I f t h e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n w e r e p l a u s i b l e , t r u e t o r e a l i t y as t h e y k n e w i t , t h e y w o u l d tend n o t to question i t . Herodotus' transformation o f ethnological
theory
i n t o S c y t h i a n h i s t o r y shows h o w easily a logos c o n s t r u c t e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e p r i n c i p l e o f eikos c o u l d be a c c e p t e d i n t h e same s p i r i t as a
mythos—and
H e r o d o t u s was c e r t a i n l y n o t t h e least s o p h i s t i c a t e d m e m b e r o f his g e n e r a t i o n . W h a t e v i d e n c e w e h a v e suggests t h a t t h e a p p e a l t o eikos was m u c h less p o p u l a r i n t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y : t h e d e c l i n e i n its use is c l e a r l y t r a c e a b l e i n oratory,
4 3
a n d the Archaeology
of Thucydides
d i d n o t , so f a r as w e
know,
f i n d a successor. I t is n a t u r a l t o associate t h e c h a n g e w i t h t h e g r o w i n g p r e valence o f m o r e conceptual
m o d e s o f t h o u g h t , a process w h i c h c o u l d
be
e x p e c t e d t o b r i n g w i t h i t a d e m a n d t h a t r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s o f t h e past t a k e t h e f o r m o f p r i n c i p l e s , e v i d e n c e , a n d i n f e r e n c e , r a t h e r t h a n t h a t o f the l i k e l y tale. Polybius'
o w n account,
as w e l l as t h e t e c h n o l o g i c a l
and linguistic
histories t o w h i c h i t is r e l a t e d , c o n s p i c u o u s l y fails t o m e e t this d e m a n d ; a n d t h e d e m a n d is m e t , j u s t as c o n s p i c u o u s l y , b y a l m o s t a l l t h e o t h e r a c c o u n t s o f t e c h n o l o g y a n d l a n g u a g e w i t h w h i c h o u r t r a d i t i o n was c o m p a r e d a n d c o n t r a s t e d i n C h a p t e r s T h r e e a n d F o u r . C h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f those a c c o u n t s was t h e i r tendency to e l i m i n a t e the vagaries o f chance a n d i n d i v i d u a l w h i m w h i c h p l a y so l a r g e a r o l e i n V i t r u v i u s , D i o d o r u s , L u c r e t i u s , P o l y b i u s , a n d , as w e n o w see, H e r o d o t u s . T h e y are c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f c u l t u r e o n l y i n so f a r as i t i n v o l v e s t h e o p e r a t i o n o f g e n e r a l forces o r m o d e s o f existence w h i c h s t a n d i n f i x e d r e l a t i o n t o o n e a n o t h e r . A s a result, once t h e i r categories are a c c e p t e d , t h e y possess a l o g i c a l c o h e r e n c e a n d causal c o n n e c t i o n w h i c h t h e texts o f o u r t r a d i t i o n l a c k . G i v e n the h i e r a r c h i c a l o r d e r i n g o f t h e faculties o f t h e s o u l i n w h i c h A r i s t o t l e b e l i e v e d , the chrematistikos
bios r e p r e s e n t e d b y the
first stage i n his scheme o f h i s t o r y (see a b o v e , p . 5 2 ) , t h e praktikos
bios o f the
t h i r d stage, a n d t h e t h e o r e t i c a l p u r s u i t s o f t h e f i n a l t w o stages f o l l o w one another w i t h a n i n e v i t a b i l i t y a n d an appropriateness found
i n the
Polybius.
4 4
course o f events e n v i s i o n e d
by
w h i c h is n o t to be
Diodorus,
Vitruvius,
and
G i v e n t h a t w e a v i n g , f a r m i n g , b u i l d i n g , a n d s h o e m a k i n g are t h e
Solmsen (above, note 42) 5 3 , note 1. Aristotelian physics provides an interesting parallel. It has been pointed out by B. Snell, The Discovery of the Mind (Eng. transl. Cambridge [Mass.] 1953) 243, that, for Aristotle, motion is simply the "actualization of a possibility"—with the result that his theory "does not really penetrate to the dynamic process, the actual course of motion." I n similar fashion, history becomes the actualization of the potentiality of the human mind, and the flow of actual events from which it is composed is forgotten. When the history of a specific place rather than general reconstruction was 4 3
4 4
T H E
D E V E L O P M E N T
O F
G R E E K
147
T H O U G H T
basic a n d f u n d a m e n t a l categories i n a n y d i v i s i o n o f l a b o r , the same m a y be said o f P l a t o ' s r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f the o r i g i n s o f society i n Republic
I I . And in
this respect E p i c u r e a n t h e o r y , l i n k i n g the d e v e l o p m e n t o f society t o c o n s t a n t aspects o f the n a t u r a l e n v i r o n m e n t o r t o f i x e d stages i n the l i f e o f t h e cosmos, is m u c h closer t o A r i s t o t l e a n d P l a t o t h a n t o D e m o c r i t u s (see b e l o w , p p .
170-
7 3 ) . I f t h e e l i m i n a t i o n o f nomos as a n o p e r a t i v e force i n h u m a n h i s t o r y sepa rates a l m o s t a l l H e l l e n i s t i c theories o f c o m m u n i t y f r o m P o l y b i u s , t h e refusal t o i n d u l g e i n r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s o f the past o n t h e basis oieikos teristic o f a l m o s t a l l specimens o f Kulturgeschichte
is e q u a l l y c h a r a c
d a t i n g f r o m the
fourth
c e n t u r y a n d after, a n d p o i n t s e v e n m o r e c l e a r l y t o a f i f t h c e n t u r y o r i g i n for our tradition. T h e r e was o n l y one t h e o r y w h i c h c o u l d r e d e e m the a p p e a l to p r o b a b i l i t y f r o m the c h a r g e o f l a c k o f s o p h i s t i c a t i o n i m p l i e d b y t h e s u b s e q u e n t a b a n d o n m e n t o f t h e m e t h o d ; a n d t h a t was the t h e o r y o f L e u c i p p u s a n d D e m o c r i t u s . F o r a c o n s i s t e n t l y a p p l i e d a t o m i s t i c v i e w o f society a n d h i s t o r y , b y e n v i s i o n i n g a n a l m o s t i n f i n i t e n u m b e r o f o p p o r t u n i t i e s for t h e l i k e l y course o f events to o c c u r , does a l l o w one to m a i n t a i n w i t h j u s t i f i c a t i o n t h a t τά έοικότα i n fact τά γενόμενα.*
The
5
were
a t o m i c t h e o r y was p e r h a p s t h e f u r t h e s t p o i n t
r e a c h e d b y the late fifth c e n t u r y i n its e f f o r t to a c h i e v e a t r u e p i c t u r e o f the w o r l d t h r o u g h the p r i n c i p l e o f eikos. As such i t doubtless r e p r e s e n t e d a stage o f refinement never appreciated b y most practitioners o f the m e t h o d , m u c h less b y t h e m e n o f subsequent ages, w h o w e r e schooled to a c c e p t as t r u e o n l y w h a t c o u l d be p h r a s e d i n t e r m s o f u n i v e r s a l l a w s l i n k i n g n a t u r a l constants i n u n v a r y i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s . H e r e i d e a l i s t a n d n o n - i d e a l i s t a l i k e w e r e the heirs o f P l a t o . T o t h e m D e m o c r i t u s ' v i e w o f the social a n d c u l t u r a l process m u s t h a v e seemed r a t h e r l i k e a set o f i n t e r l o c k i n g mythoi—a
c o n s t r u c t w h i c h , even
m o r e t h a n his physics, e m b o d i e d a v i e w o f r e a l i t y he " d e s i r e d b u t c o u l d n o t prove."
4 6
T h e v i r t u a l d i s a p p e a r a n c e o f the b o d y o f d o c t r i n e whose existence w e h a v e p o s i t e d was thus n a t u r a l , p e r h a p s e v e n i n e v i t a b l e . M o r e t h a n its g e n e r a l eclipse, the i s o l a t e d s u r v i v a l o f o u r t h e o r y i n a few texts o f w i d e l y v a r y i n g c h a r a c t e r is w h a t n o w r e q u i r e s some e f f o r t at e x p l a n a t i o n . t h e task a t h a n d , t h e r o l e p l a y e d b y c h a n c e a n d t h e s i n g l e i n c i d e n t c o u l d h a r d l y be d e n i e d . I t w a s . however, carefully Democracy =
circumscribed—sec
University of California
J . Day
a n d M . C h a m b e r s , Aristotle's
Publications in History,
History
73 ( 1 9 6 2 ) 4 2 - 6 5 ( e s p e c i a l l y
p o l i t i c a l t h i n k i n g c h a n g e a n d a c t i v i t y are e x a m i n e d first o f a l l as p o s s i b l e ' n a t u r a l '
of
Athenian
6 4 : " I n his developments.
T h e p r e f e r r e d e f f i c i e n t cause is n a t u r e . . . " ; a n d 6 5 : " . . . o n A r i s t o t l e ' s a s s u m p t i o n o n l y those acts are t r u l y e x p l i c a b l e t h a t h a v e as t h e i r g o a l t h e 45
Κ £ 6 8 Α 3 8 ) . Cf. above, p. 4 0
Ac.
lelos").
και φασι μόνοις τοις άπειρα ποιονσι τά στοιχεία πάντα σνμβαίνειν κατά λόγον ( S i m p l . Phys. 2 8 . 1 5 = 119.
F o r t h i s j u d g m e n t o f t h e greatest o f l a t e r a t o m i s t s o n t h e w o r k o f his predecessor, see 2 . 1 2 1 : " L a m p s a c e n u s S t r a t o . . . q u i . . . d o c e t o m n i a effecta
asperis et l e v i b u s et h a m a t i s u n c i n a t i s q u e
corporibus concreta
esse n a t u r a ,
neo- u t
Cicero, ille, q u i -
h a e c esse d i c a t i r i ^ e r i e ' e t o ' i n a n i :
s o m n i a h a e c censet esse D e m o c r i t i n o n d o c e n t i s sed o p t a n t i s " ( = F r . 32 W e h r l i ) .
y'
/
i,-^
1
;
CHAPTER T E N THE
HEIRS OF
DEMOCRITUS
G i v e n t h e f u n d a m e n t a l differences w h i c h separate t h e D e m o c r i t e a n v i e w o f c u l t u r e f r o m l a t e r ones, its s u r v i v a l is m o s t n a t u r a l a n d m o s t e x p e c t e d w h e r e t h e c o n t e x t is c o n s c i o u s l y f r i v o l o u s , as i n c e r t a i n o f t h e e u h e m e r i z i n g texts referred
to i n Chapter
Three;
or where
t h e subject
under
discussion—
technology, for e x a m p l e — i s " m i n o r " e n o u g h to j u s t i f y assigning a large role in
its d e v e l o p m e n t
to chance a n d l i k e l i h o o d .
explains w h y Posidonius a n d the A c a d e m y
1
The
latter consideration
o f t h e m i d - f o u r t h c e n t u r y use
D e m o c r i t e a n m a t e r i a l t o w a r d s t h e analysis o f a process whose s u b o r d i n a t e p o s i t i o n i n t h e scheme o f h u m a n d e v e l o p m e n t is m a d e p e r f e c t l y c l e a r above,
pp.
52-54,
104-5).
And
it
also
explains
why
Vitruvius
(see uses
D e m o c r i t u s i n a passage whose focus is a l m o s t e x c l u s i v e l y t e c h n o l o g i c a l a n d w h i c h , w h e n i t digresses t o t r e a t o f t h e r o l e o f a r c h i t e c t u r e i n a l a r g e r c u l t u r a l c o n t e x t , m a k e s c l a i m s w h i c h its m o r e s o p h i s t i c a t e d readers m u s t h a v e f o u n d extravagant. M o r e p r o b l e m a t i c a l , a n d m o r e i n t e r e s t i n g , are t h e o t h e r texts d r a w n u p o n for
t h e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s o f C h a p t e r s O n e t h r o u g h E i g h t , texts i n w h i c h a
w i d e r r a n g e o f c u l t u r a l p h e n o m e n a are v i e w e d f r o m a D e m o c r i t e a n perspect i v e . I n s u c h instances i t is n a t u r a l t o assume t h a t t h e a u t h o r has
some
special a f f i n i t y f o r D e m o c r i t e a n t h o u g h t , o r else is closely d e p e n d e n t o n a t r a d i t i o n i n w h i c h s u c h a f f i n i t y d i d exist. T h e e x a c t c h a r a c t e r o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p is o f t e n h a r d t o d e t e r m i n e ; e v e n m o r e so t h e c h a n n e l s t h r o u g h w h i c h a g i v e n w r i t e r has b e c o m e f a m i l i a r w i t h D e m o c r i t u s . B u t a n y c l a r i f i c a t i o n w e c a n b r i n g t o t h i s s u b j e c t is w o r t h t h e e f f o r t . I t c a n shed a n i n t e r e s t i n g l i g h t o n some o f t h e p e r i p h e r a l figures i n t h e h i s t o r y o f H e l l e n i s t i c t h o u g h t as w e l l as o n some p e r i p h e r a l e l e m e n t s i n t h e w o r k o f t h e m a j o r o n e s — e v e n w h e n t h e lines o f D e m o c r i t e a n i n f l u e n c e w h i c h i t establishes are h i g h l y t e n t a t i v e a n d uncertain. 1. T H E S T A T E O F N A T U R E ( P L A T O , D I G A E A R C H U S , T Z E T Z E S , AND T H E C Y N I C S )
T h e p u r p o s e o f t h e Kulturgeschichte indicated
(above,
p.
f o u n d i n T z e t z e s has a l r e a d y
10). I t is a n e f f o r t t o m a k e
1
Hesiod's
myth
been o f the
Technology might well have its origin in a forest fire; but Herodotus' suggestion (see above, pp. 1 4 3 - 4 4 ) that anything so important as an ethnic alliance could have originated in the outhouse was both unbelievable and undignified. 148
T H E HEIRS OF DEMOCRITUS
*49
G o l d e n A g e m o r e p l a u s i b l e b y s h o w i n g i t t o be c o m p a t i b l e w i t h a n e v o l u t i o n a r y v i e w o f c u l t u r e . T h e a i m a n d t h e m e t h o d c h o s e n are a l r e a d y p r e s e n t , i f n o t e x p l i c i t , i n t h e t h i r d b o o k o f P l a t o ' s Laws,
t h e earliest o f s u r v i v i n g
a t t e m p t s to i d e a l i z e t h e " t e c h n o l o g i c a l " a n d " p o l i t i c a l " state o f n a t u r e . W i t h P l a t o t h e a t t e m p t is as y e t s o m e w h a t h a l f - h e a r t e d a n d u n c e r t a i n : he f i n d s a l l t e c h n o l o g y based o n t h e use o f m e t a l s a n d a l l t h e m o r e c o m p l i c a t e d f o r m s o f social a n d p o l i t i c a l life unnecessary o r p r e j u d i c i a l t o m a n ' s piness;
b u t he c a n n o t
hap-
b r i n g himself to j e t t i s o n the fruits o f c i v i l i z a t i o n
entirely. W e a v i n g , pottery, domesticated animals, housing, religion, and a p a t r i a r c h a l social o r d e r are e v i d e n t l y d e e m e d
essential t o w e l l - b e i n g
(see
a b o v e , C h a p t e r Seven, n o t e 5) a n d t h e i r existence a c c o u n t e d f o r e i t h e r as a n i n e v i t a b l e o u t g r o w t h o f m a n ' s n a t u r e o r as a s u r v i v a l f r o m a p r e c e d i n g w o r l d cycle. D i c a e a r c h u s , i n whose a c c o u n t o f p r i m i t i v e m a n (see a b o v e , p p .
54-55)
t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p t o H e s i o d becomes f o r t h e first t i m e e x p l i c i t (cf. F r . 4 9 , p . 2 4 . 3 - 1 1 W e h r l i ) , seems t o h a v e g o n e s o m e w h a t f u r t h e r t h a n P l a t o . L i k e P l a t o , he assumes t h a t l a c k o f possessions w o u l d m e a n t h e absence o f g r e e d a n d c o m p e t i t i o n ( p . 2 4 . 2 0 - 2 2 ) ; b u t w h e r e a s P l a t o h a d m a d e t h e state o f nature a pastoral
one, D i c a e a r c h u s
describes t h e earliest
men
as
g a t h e r e r s ( t h i s b e i n g t h e r e a l m e a n i n g o f H e s i o d ' s s t a t e m e n t [Works
food-
and Days
1 1 7 - 1 8 ] t h a t t h e e a r t h o f its o w n a c c o r d s u p p l i e d t h e G o l d e n R a c e w i t h a l l its w a n t s ) , a n d f o r t h e a b u n d a n c e oitrophi
m e n t i o n e d i n t h e Laws
(see a b o v e ,
p . 98) h e substitutes a s c a r c i t y — a s c a r c i t y w h i c h , since i t p r e s e r v e d m a n k i n d f r o m t h e i l l effects o f g l u t t o n y , was a blessing i n disguise ( p . 2 4 . 1 5 - 2 0 ) . H o w m u c h further Dicaearchus
w e n t w i t h his p r i m i t i v i s m w e
do not
know.
W e a v i n g a n d p o t t e r y w e r e doubtless n o t p a r t o f t h e earliest h u m a n bios as e n v i s i o n e d b y h i m ; b u t t h e p a t r i a r c h a l f a m i l y was ( F r . 52 W e h r l i ) . D e t a i l s i n Plato's a c c o u n t suggest t h a t he is c o n d u c t i n g a p o l e m i c a g a i n s t D e m o c r i t u s (see a b o v e , p . 103). I f , as w e h a v e suggested, D e m o c r i t u s ' t h e o r y o f t h e o r i g i n o f c u l t u r e was t h e m o s t e l a b o r a t e a n d s u b t l e o f those i n the late fifth century, this very pre-eminence
developed
m a y have been w h a t led
P l a t o t o m a k e use o f i t . I n r e h a b i l i t a t i n g H e s i o d against I o n i a n r a t i o n a l i s m t h e l a t t e r was best c o n f r o n t e d i n t h e p e r s o n o f its strongest A n d i f t h e r e are D e m o c r i t e a n elements i n D i c a e a r c h u s
representative.
( o t h e r t h a n those f o r
w h i c h t h e i m m e d i a t e source is P l a t o ) t h e i r presence s h o u l d doubtless
be
a c c o u n t e d f o r i n t h e same w a y . T z e t z e s ' r e l a t i o n s h i p t o D e m o c r i t u s is r a t h e r d i f f e r e n t a n d , i n a sense, m o r e i n t i m a t e . T h o u g h separated f r o m h i m b y m o r e t h a n a m i l l e n i u m a n d a h a l f , he seems t o h a v e used f o r his c o m m e n t a r y t h e w r i t i n g s o f a school whose association w i t h D e m o c r i t u s was m u c h e a r l i e r a n d closer. I n c o n t e n d i n g t h a t t h e s i m p l e life breeds peace a n d h a r m o n y , t h a t l i v i n g a l w a y s a t t h e
D E M O G R I T U S AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y l e v e l o f b a r e subsistence saves m a n f r o m t h e t y r a n n y o f s u p e r f l u o u s
desires,
T z e t z e s r e c a l l s D i c a e a r c h u s . E q u a l l y D i c a e a r c h a n is t h e i d e a o f a l l e g o r i z i n g Hesiod to construct a " s c i e n t i f i c " picture of p r i m i t i v e life. position of " h a r d "
primitivism
(see
2
above, C h a p t e r One,
B u t Tzetzes' note
16)
ex
is f a r
m o r e t h o r o u g h g o i n g , e v e n , t h a n D i c a e a r c h u s ' , a n d suggests t h e i n f l u e n c e
of
t h e s c h o o l w h i c h w e n t f u r t h e s t i n its r e j e c t i o n o f t h e a m e n i t i e s o f c i v i l i z a t i o n , the C y n i c s .
3
T h i s g e n e r a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n c a n be s u p p l e m e n t e d o f d e t a i l b e t w e e n t h e kynikos
b y a n u m b e r of parallels
bios a n d t h a t w h i c h T z e t z e s a t t r i b u t e s t o e a r l y
m a n . T h e c o n d e m n a t i o n o f f i r e a n d its b r i n g e r , w h i c h is c e n t r a l t o T z e t z e s ' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e P r o m e t h e u s m y t h , is a C y n i c m o t i f ( D i o o f P r u s a 2 9 - 3 0 ; P l u t a r c h , Aq. of culture last
5
an ign. 2 . 9 5 6 B ) ,
4
as are his r e m a r k s o n t h e
a n d his a d m i r a t i o n f o r t h e l a b o r i o u s l i f e l e d b y e a r l y m a n
combined
on
occasion w i t h
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the
a
more
hedonistic,
state o f n a t u r e ) . T h e r e
are
but
Cynic
equally parallels
6
(this
Cynic, to
T z e t z e s has t o say a b o u t t h e euetheia o f p r i m i t i v e m a n a n d his r e s u l t i n g 2
6.25,
effeminacy
7
what lack
Compare Dicaearchus' announced intention, τό λίαν μυθικόν άφέντας εις το τον λόγου φυσικόν
άνάγειν (ρ. ι\.ιο-ιι
Wehrli), with Tzetzes ( 6 7 · Ι 4 5 Gaisford): ταΰτα μεν [Hesiod's Prometheus _ Ι
story] τα. μυθικά· και δή . . . κατ' άλληγορίαν μοι μάνθανε.
Norden, who first called attention to this piece of Kulturgeschichte (NJbb Suppl. 19.412-22), assumed an Epicurean source. T h e view is rightly criticized by Reitzenstein, Orient und Antike 2 . 7 1 - 7 4 ; Seeliger, " Weltalter," 4 0 9 ; and Haussleiter, Der Vegetarismus in der Antike 75, all of whom regard Tzetzes as a Cynic text. (Cf. in particular the contrast between the emphasis on philallelia 3
in VS I I 1 3 7 . 4 1 - 4 2 and Lucretius 5 . 9 5 8 - 5 9 : nec commune bonum poterant spectare neque ullis / moribus inter se scibant nec legibus uti.) 1
I n Plutarch's essay condemnation of fire is linked to an encomium of water, which is nature's necessary gift to man and one which the race has enjoyed from the very beginning of its existence. Tzetzes may, therefore, be reproducing a Cynic motif when he speaks (114.16-18 Gaisford) of early man as enjoying a philosophos bios, άρκούμενοι τοις . . . λαχάνοις και άκροδρυοις και ϋδασι. Enjoy
ment of rivers, streams, and springs appears as part of the kynikos bios in Maximus of Tyre 3 6 . I F ; compare also 23.5BC and Dio of Prusa 12.30. Compare 6 8 . 2 4 - 6 9 . 3 ( = VS I I 138.8-12), on the change of man's diagoge brought about by the discovery of fire and the resulting arts (which are τά ηδέα . . . δίκην γυναικός ημάς . . . τρυφερωτέρονς άττεργαζόμενα), with Dio 60.8 (Deianeira changed the diaita of Heracles, making him sleep on beds and eat artificially prepared food, with the result that his life became one of malakia and tryphe). Cf. also D . L . 6.59 (going from Sparta to Athens is equivalent to going εκ της άνδρωνίτιδος • • . εις 5
την 6
γυναικωνιτιν). Compare
101.6-7
{τληπαθαις
και έπιπόνως
έζων)
with Stobaeus, Flor.
29.92
(= W-H III
6 5 5 . 1 2 - 1 7 ) and D . L . 6.27 (Diogenes' praise of Sparta). Cf. also the laborious life led by the Cynic hero Heracles, contrasted with the "Sophistic" hero Prometheus in Dio 8.33 and, evidently, as early as the time of Antisthcnes, perhaps in conjunction with an attack on the technology for which the latter was responsible—see F . Buecheler, "Themistios Περί αρετής," Rh Μ 27 ( ' 8 7 2 ) 45°> note 1; F . D ü m m l e r , Akademika
(Glessen 1889) 1 9 0 - 9 2 ; Weber, Leipziger
Studien 1 0 . 2 3 6 - 5 7 ; and K . von
Fritz, "Quellenuntersuchungen zu Leben und Philosophie des Diogenes von Sinope," Philologus Suppl. 18.2 (1926) 78. ' For the fluctuation, see Κ. Praechter, " Z u r Frage nach der Composition des sechsten Rede des Dio Chrysostomos," Hermes 37 (1902) 2 8 3 - 8 6 ; von Fritz (above, note 6) 4 3 - 4 5 ; F . Sayre, Diogenes of Sinope (Baltimore 1958) 106.
T H E
of fear,
H E I R S
O F
D E M O G R I T U S
a b o u t t h e e a r l y b o u n t i f u l n e s s o f t h e e a r t h a n d t h e ease w i t h w h i c h
8
m a n p r o v i d e d h i m s e l f w i t h t h e necessities o f l i f e , a n d a b o u t t h e h a b i t u a t i o n 9
w h i c h e n a b l e d h i m t o bear extremes o f h e a t a n d c o l d .
1 0
E v e n the social
aspects o f T z e t z e s ' a c c o u n t o f t h e state o f n a t u r e h a v e C y n i c a n d , like h i m , the Cynics
seem t o h a v e i n t e r p r e t e d a n d a l l e g o r i z e d
t r a d i t i o n a l r e i g n o f C r o n u s as a p r i m i t i v e U t o p i a . 8
overtones;
1 1
the
1 2
117. i — 5 . C f . M a x i m u s o f T y r e 36.2FG a n d D i o 6 . 3 4 ( c i v i l i z e d m a n ' s f u t i l e fears o f illness a n d his
i n e f f e c t u a l a t t e m p t s t o a ™ i d i t ) , as w e l l as T h e o p h r a s t u s ' a c c o u n t ( D . L . 6 . 2 2 ) o f D i o g e n e s '
con
v e r s i o n , w h i c h c a m e f r o m his o b s e r v a t i o n o f t h e b e h a v i o r o f a m o u s e διατρέχοντα . . . και μήτε κοίτην έπιζητοΰντα
μήτε σκότος εύλαβούμενον (cf. L u c r e t i u s 5-973—7^) V ποθονντά τι των δοκούντων
άπολανστών. 9
68.16-19,
7 0 . 9 - 1 0 , 7 ' · ' 9 ; T^.iy-iii,
118.21-22
( f o o d - g a t h e r i n g was t h e o n l y a r t possessed
by
p r i m i t i v e m a n , b u t t h i s w a s s u f f i c i e n t f o r his n e e d s ; i t w a s possible i n o n e d a y t o c o l l e c t f o o d s u f f i c i e n t f o r a w h o l e y e a r ; o n c e t h i s w a s d o n e , m e n h a d n o f u r t h e r w o r r i e s ) . Cf. D . L . 6 . 4 4 a n d , f o r a s i m i l a r i d e a a p p l i e d t o h o u s i n g , S e n e c a , Ep. 9 0 . 1 7 : non quilibet virgeam cralem texaerunl manu . . . et hiemem transiere securi?
( f r o m t h e S t o i c - C y n i c c r i t i q u e o f P o s i d o n i u s ) . S e n e c a also speaks ( 9 0 . 4 0 ) o f terra
inlaborala et in usus populorum non diripientium
larga (cf. T z e t z e s 1 1 8 . 6 - 8 : [καρπόν] πολύν τε καϊ μή
φθάνω άρπαζόμενον τοις τότε άλλα φιλαλλήλως σιτονμενον). A b s e n t f r o m Seneca's p r e s e n t a t i o n is a n y m e n t i o n o f a n i n i t i a l stage i n w h i c h t h e l a c k o f k n o w l e d g e o f h o w t o g a t h e r f r u i t r e s u l t e d i n f r e q u e n t d e a t h (see a b o v e , p . 27, S t a g e i D ) . C o n c e i v a b l y T z e t z e s is h e r e b o r r o w i n g f r o m D i o d o r u s (see a b o v e , C h a p . I , n o t e 1 6 ) ; b u t i t is e q u a l l y possible t h a t h e has b e e n i n f l u e n c e d b y a
Cynic
t r a d i t i o n u n c o n t a m i n a t e d b y a n y S t o i c i d e a o f P r o v i d e n c e . T h e i d e a t h a t l o n g e v i t y is n o t n e c e s s a r i l y a b l e s s i n g is n o t f o r e i g n t o G r e e k i d e a l i z a t i o n o f Naturvölker (cf. D i o d o r u s 3 . 1 7 . 5 ) ; a n d i t is o n l y w h e n m o s t r h e t o r i c a l t h a t s u r v i v i n g C y n i c texts suggest t h a t a n a b s o l u t e l y u n m o d i f i e d state o f n a t u r e was c o m p l e t e l y s u p p o r t a b l e f o r m a n . H a b i t u a t i o n is necessary (see f o l l o w i n g n o t e ) ; D i o g e n e s u s e d skepe—though
spanifis ( D i o 6 . 1 0 ) , m i g r a t i n g l i k e t h e a n i m a l s t o a v o i d e x t r e m e s o f h e a t a n d c o l d
( D i o 6 . 3 2 - 3 3 ) ; a n d , l i k e T z e t z e s ' p r i m i t i v e m a n , he m a d e i t his p r a c t i c e του μεν ψύχους εις τά πεδία και τά κοίλα καταβαίνειν. Compare
1 0
1 1 6 . 1 6 - 1 7 ( t h o u g h l i v i n g a n existence f u l l o f algeina, m e n w e r e so a c c u s t o m e d t o i t
t h a t t h e y d i d n o t feel i t as s u c h ) w i t h D i o 6.15, 6 0 . 7 , a n d D . L . C.23 ( o n t h e synetheia w h i c h e n a b l e d D i o g e n e s t o w i t h s t a n d t h e e x t r e m e s o f heat a n d c o l d ) , a n d t h e g e n e r a l r e m a r k s o n askesis f o u n d i n D . L . 6.71. T z e t z e s ' references t o t h e kauson e n d u r e d b y p r i m i t i v e m a n ( 1 1 6 . 1 5 )
n a s
< i t s h o u l d be
o b s e r v e d , n o p a r a l l e l i n D i o d o r u s 1.8. I t t h u s p r o v i d e s a f u r t h e r a r g u m e n t a g a i n s t a s s u m i n g ( w i t h S p o e r r i : see a b o v e , C h a p . I , n o t e 16) t h a t his a c c o u n t is a s i m p l e c o n f l a t i o n o f m a t e r i a l d r a w n f r o m D i o d o r u s w i t h a d e s c r i p t i o n o f p r i m i t i v e l i f e as a c o m f o r t a b l e G o l d e n A g e . 1 1
W i t h άγελαϊον διέζων τον βίον . . . κοινώς . . . τοις λαχάνοις τρεφόμενοι (68.6—8) a n d t h e references
t o syndiagöge, symbiosis, a n d syndiailesis i n 1 16.10 a n d 1 1 6 . 2 9 - 1 1 7 . 1 , c o m p a r e 1 ) . L . 6.72 ( w o m e n a n d c h i l d r e n s h o u l d be h e l d i n c o m m o n ) a n d SVF
1.262 o n t h e βίος . . . ώσττερ αγέλης σύννομου νάμω
αυντρεφομένης o f Z e n o ' s politeia. O n t h e C y n i c a f f i n i t i e s o f t h e l a t t e r w o r k see D . L . 7.4; D . R . D u d l e y , A History
of Cynicism
Accademia degli Arcadi
( L o n d o n 1937) 11 ( 1 9 2 7 )
9 8 - 9 9 ; N . Festa,
"La
repubblica di Zenone,"
1 1 6 - 2 0 ; a n d H . C. B a l d r y . " Z e n o ' s I d e a l S t a t e , " JHS
Atti deW 79
(1959)
9-10. 1 2
T h e p h r a s e ό επι Κρόνου βίος is used b y L u c i a n (Drapclai
17) as a d e s i g n a t i o n f o r t h e i d e a l life
o f t h e C y n i c (cf. D i o g e n e s , Ep. 3 2 : ελευθερία ή έπι Κρόνου); a n d t h e p a r t i c u l a r p e r s p e c t i v e o f T z e t z e s , a l o n g w i t h s o m e o f his p h r a s e o l o g y , is to be f o u n d i n a C y n i c passage o f M a x i m u s o f T y r e ( 3 6 . I H ) . w h i c h speaks o f t h e poets as a l l e g o r i z i n g (ainittomenoi) i n t h e i r s t o r y o f t h e r e i g n o f C r o n u s a life w h i c h is άπόλεμον,
άφνλακτον,
άσίδηρον. ειρηνικόν, άπεριμάχητον,
άνενδεά. Gf.
Tzetzes
6 8 . 2 0 — 2 5 : βίον
άπλοΰν και άπέριττον και φιλάλληλον . . . δίχα πυρός έπιγνώσεως, ου βασιλείς, ουκ άρχοντας, ον δέσποτας κεκτημένοι, ού στρατείας, ου βίας, ούχ άρπαγας, άλλα φιλαλληλίαν μόνον . . . ; a n d his l a t e r r e i e r e n c e t o t h i s as a φιλόσοφον βίον (ι 1 4 . 1 6 ) .
152
D E M O C R I T U S AND T H E S O U R C E S O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
W e d o n o t k n o w a t w h a t p e r i o d t h e C y n i c t r a d i t i o n r e p r e s e n t e d i n Tzetzes took
shape,
hence
cannot
say
whether
it
has
influenced
Plato
and
D i c a e a r c h u s o r v i c e versa. I t has b e e n m a i n t a i n e d t h a t t h e p r i m i t i v i s m w h i c h was t o b e c o m e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y C y n i c was first f o r m u l a t e d b y A n t i s t h e n e s ;
1 3
o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , n o n e o f t h e C y n i c t r a d i t i o n s w h i c h c a n be c i t e d f o r t h e i r parallels
t o T z e t z e s are
certainly
pre-Hellenistic.
1 4
But
whatever
their
c h r o n o l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p , t h e C y n i c v i e w o f t h e state o f n a t u r e a n d t h a t held by
Plato
a n d D i c a e a r c h u s represent
modifications of an originally
D e m o c r i t e a n d o c t r i n e ; a n d t h e i r basic tendencies c a n be d i s t i n g u i s h e d a n d d e f i n e d w i t h l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t y . P l a t o a n d , t o a lesser degree, D i c a e a r c h u s are sharply opposed to Democritus a n d b o r r o w f r o m h i m only i n order to make c l e a r t h e r a t h e r n a r r o w l i m i t s w i t h i n w h i c h t h e y consider his theories t o be v a l i d . T h e C y n i c s a n d D e m o c r i t u s are allies t o a p o i n t , a n d this is doubtless w h a t e x p l a i n s t h e i r use o f his d o c t r i n e s . L i k e h i m , t h e y are a n t i - t e l e o l o g i c a l ; l i k e h i m , t h e y are w i l l i n g t o r e g a r d a l l , o r n e a r l y a l l , t h e usages w h i c h p r e v a i l i n t h e p o l i t i c a l a n d social r e a l m s o f m a n ' s existence as t h e w o r k o f thesis r a t h e r t h a n physis; l i k e h i m , t h e y are a n x i o u s t o establish t h e fact t h a t m a n o n c e l i v e d a l i f e w h i c h was i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m t h a t o f t h e a n i m a l s . a l l these reasons, t h e Kulturgeschichte
For
1 5
o f D e m o c r i t u s was a useful w e a p o n i n
t h e p r o m u l g a t i o n o f t h e i r v i e w s , a n d t h e y w e r e w i l l i n g t o t a k e i t o v e r i n its e n t i r e t y — w i t h t w o major exceptions:
the evaluation placed o n the
process h a d t o be e x a c t l y reversed, a n d philallelia
whole
r e p l a c e d allelophagia
as a
d e s c r i p t i o n o f p r i m i t i v e m a n ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h his n e i g h b o r s . Attention
has
recently
been
drawn
to
the
role
which
the
"Cynic
D e m o c r i t u s " m a y have p l a y e d i n the transmission o f the ethnical fragments w h i c h appear i n the collection o f Stobaeus.
1 6
W e are p e r h a p s j u s t i f i e d i n
assigning t o t h e same figure a s i g n i f i c a n t p l a c e i n the l a t e r h i s t o r y o f D e m o critean
1 3
1 4
Kulturgeschichte.
See above, note 6. Crates' reference (Frs. 4 and 6, pp. 2 1 8 - 1 9 Diels) to the freedom from greed and warfare
which the inhabitants of Pera owe to their poverty is the earliest certain example from a Cynic source of the attitude which appears in Plato, Dicaearchus, and Tzetzes. 1 5
For the similarity of the Cynic and Democritean views of the state of nature, compare, in
particular, the two following passages: Dio 6 . 2 8 : μήτε πυρός οντος μήτε εσθήτος μήτε οικιών μήτε άλλης τροφής ή της αυτομάτου. . . . Diodorus 1.8.5: γυμνούς μεν εσθήτος οντάς οίκήσεως δέ και πυρός άήθεις, τροφής δ' ήμερου παντελώς άνεννοήτους. . . . 1 6
See Stewart, HSCP
6 3 . 1 7 9 - 8 8 . The evidence assembled in this article inclines me to the view
that Tzetzes' Cynic source knew Democritus directly rather than (as the parallels between Lucretius and Tzetzes—see below, note 71—might otherwise suggest) through an Epicurean
Mittelquelle.
T H E H E I R S O F DEMOCRITUS
2.
One
x
C U L T U R E AND T H E GODS (EUHEMERISM AND R E L A T E D
o f the works most extensively
Chapters
utilized
53
THEORIES)
i n the reconstructions o f
O n e t h r o u g h E i g h t w a s t h e theologoumena
of Diodorus I. T h e
D e m o c r i t e a n echoes f o u n d i n t h i s t e x t a r e n o t e n t i r e l y i s o l a t e d ; c o m p a r a b l e ones a p p e a r , t h o u g h f a r m o r e sparsely, i n a n u m b e r o f a c c o u n t s o f a e u h e m e rist character
(see a b o v e , p p . 4 8 - 4 9 ) , n o r is t h e theologoumena
t a k e n as a
w h o l e a n i s o l a t e d d o c u m e n t . T h e e n t i r e c o n t e n t s o f D i o d o r u s 1.13-2 9 h a v e close p a r a l l e l s b o t h i n t h e Sacred
Chronicle
o f Euhemerus
himself a n d i n
a n o t h e r e u h e m e r i z i n g w o r k , t h e a c c o u n t o f t h e o r i g i n o f t h e gods a t t r i b u t e d to t h e E g y p t i a n p r i e s t L e o (cf. a b o v e , p p . 3 8 - 3 9 ) . S o m e t h i n g m u s t be s a i d a b o u t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f these t h r e e texts before a n y a t t e m p t is m a d e t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e presence o f D e m o c r i t e a n m a t e r i a l i n t h e t r a d i t i o n w h i c h t h e y represent. T h e p o i n t s o f s i m i l a r i t y m a y b e s u m m a r i z e d as f o l l o w s
1 7
(I = B o o k O n e o f
L a c t a n t i u s ' Inst. div.; 1, 5, 6 = Books 1, 5, a n d 6 o f D i o d o r u s ) : A.
EUHEMERUS
13.
C. I . E O
DIODORUS
Helios is the first king (or, according to others, Hephaestus)
Uranus is the first king
on account of his being euer-
on account of the benefit con-
getikos
ferred on the race by his dis-
FGrH
and
epieikes
(6.1.6 =
6 3 F 2 , p. 3 0 3 . 1 3 - 1 4 ) .
He is succeeded by Cronus and Rhea
(6.i.7 = F 2 ,
p.
303.17-
Vulcan is the first king,
covery of fire ( 1 . 1 3 . 2 - 3 ) . Cronus
and
Rhea
follow
followed by Saturn,
(i-i34).
18),
then by Zeus and Hera (6.1.8
then Zeus and Hera (1.13.4),
who is the first of the race of Jove (FGrH
659F5).
They are succeeded by Isis and
Isis,
rules
Osiris (1.13.4).
brother Osiris,
Isis discovers grain
discovers grain
= F 2 , p. 3 0 3 . 1 9 ; 1.14.10-12 = F16),
who rule the world (1.11.34 =
who establish a world kingdom (1.13.4).
F'9)-
Zeus introduces the use of grain ( I . i i . 4 5 = F 2 4 ) ,
who
with
her
(1.13.2 =
and so puts an end to cannibal-
F22),
ism ( 1 . 1 4 . 1 ) ;
and rules by law (1.11.35 =
she establishes laws and legal
F20).
punishments (1.14.3—4).
Zeus deifies his grandfather Uranus ( I . i i . 6 3 = F 2 i )
Osiris builds a temple to his
while sacrificing to her parents
father Zeus (1.15.3)
(F6).
ends
cannibalism
T h e table is based on Jacoby, R E 11.969 (for Diodorus and Euhemerus), and E . Schwartz, De Dionysio Scytobrachione (Diss. Bonn 1880) 50-51 (for Diodorus and Leo). 1 7
154
D E M O C R I T U S
and
encourages
A N T H R O P O L O G Y
Liber
aided by Hermes ( F 7 ) , " who
Hermes, the divine scribe, is
Mercury is Liber's counselor
records the deeds of Zeus on
Osiris' advisor and is respon
( F 6 ) and discovers the art of
the sacred stele in Panchaea
sible for a number of inven
weaving ( F 9 ) .
(5.46.8 = F 3 , p.
tions ( 1 . 1 5 . 9 - 1 6 . 2 ) .
(I.II.
of 3 5
useful
= F20),
develop
T H E S O U R C E S O F G R E E K
and establishes rewards for inventors ( 1 . 1 5 . 4 - 5 ) .
ment
the
A N D
inventions
(F )-'
encourages
inventors
9
9
1 8
2
308.21-23)
Zeus carries the blessings of world ( I . i 1.45 = F 2 4 )
Osiris carries the blessings of civilization through the whole world (1.17 ff.) '
and
and
civilization through the whole
2
receives universal honors
receives universal honors
(1.20.5).
(I.22.2I-27 = F23).
Zeus is buried in Panchaea, his
Osiris is buried in Philae, an
grave accessible only to priests
island accessible only to priests
(5-44-4 = F 3 , p. 3 0 6 . 1 4 - 1 7 ) .
(1.22.3-6).
Artemis and Apollo are the last
Horus,
rulers mentioned on the sacred
Osiris, is the last of the divine
stele in Panchaea (5.46.8 = F 3 ,
rulers (1.25.7).
the son of Isis and
p. 3 0 8 . 1 9 - 2 2 ) .
T h e close c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n A , B , a n d G s h o u l d b e o b v i o u s ;
2 2
a n d almost
as o b v i o u s is t h e f a c t t h a t t h e " E g y p t i a n " v e r s i o n o f Β a n d C m u s t h a v e served as a m o d e l f o r t h e G r e e k v e r s i o n o f A . G r e e k t r a d i t i o n does n o t c r e d i t Zeus w i t h t h e i n v e n t i o n o f l a w s a n d t h e e n d i n g o f c a n n i b a l i s m . I t is r a t h e r D e m e t e r w h o , as b r i n g e r o f g r a i n a n d thesmophoros, is p r o p e r l y assigned these 1 8
Less certain is the parallel between 1.15.5 (the discovery of metals in the Thebaid—see above,
p. 3 7 , Stage 5 B ) and Pliny, NH 7.197: ami metalla et flaturam invenit Cadmus . . . ut alii
Aeacus in Panchaea ( = FGrH that έχει ή χώρα. μέταλλα
Thoas aut
6 3 F 2 8 ) . It is said of Panchaea in Diodorus' excerpts from Euhcmerus δαφιλή χρυσού καΐ . . . σιδήρου (5.46.4 — FGrH
6 3 F 3 , ρ. 308.8-9)· Hence
Jacoby may be right in suggesting (RE 11.954) that Pliny's heurematistic source has drawn on Euhemerus for its list of invenla. I f this is so, Aeacus was doubtless a man attracted, like Leo's Ammon ( F 9 ) and the unnamed inventors of Diodorus 1.15.5, by the rewards offered for new contributions to the welfare of society. 1 9
T h e similarities between this episode in Leo and parallel accounts in Diodorus and Lucretius are discussed above, p. 39. 2 0
Euhemerus . . . Venerem ait primam sidera constituisse et Mercurio
2.^2 = FGrH
demonstrasse (Hyginus, Poet. astr.
6 3 F 7 ) . Of., in Leo's account, F 6 : isis invenit hordei segetem atque inde spicam marito regi et
eius consiliario Mercurio
demonstravit.
Schwartz (RE 9.671) considers the passages ( 1 5 . 6 - 8 ; 17-20.5) which speak of Osiris' expedition to be a fragment of a later Dionysus romance inserted by Diodorus into the main body of his account, which derives from a different source. He cites by way of proof the contrast between the Busiris described in ι 7.3 and the one who appears in 45.4, and notes the parallels between these passages and Diodorus' subsequent accounts (3.63 ff., 4.2 ff.) of the world expedition of Dionysus. But the parallel with Euhemerus indicates that the idea, at least, of the world expedition is likely to have come from the same source as the surrounding material, though Diodorus may have embellished it with borrowings from elsewhere. 2 1
2 2
It is most unlikely that accounts A, B, and C are simply treatments of the same subject matter from a similar point of view (so J . Kaerst, Geschichte des Hellenismus 2 [Berlin 1926] 184; and van der Meer. Euhemerus van Messene 1 3 2 - 3 3 ) . T h e parallels are too numerous and too exact. 2
T H E
achievements;
2 3
H E I R S
O F
155
D E M O C R I T U S
a n d i t is o n l y t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f D e m e t e r w i t h Isis a n d
t h e l a t t e r ' s association w i t h O s i r i s i n t h e d y n a s t y o f E g y p t i a n g o d - k i n g s w h i c h h a v e suggested t h e transfer o f D e m e t e r ' s heuremata t o t h e f i g u r e w h o s t o o d a t a c o r r e s p o n d i n g p o i n t i n t h e H e s i o d i c succession o f d i v i n e m o n a r c h s .
A
s i m i l a r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f D i o n y s u s w i t h O s i r i s has l e d t o t h e c r e d i t i n g o f Zeus w i t h the former's w o r l d e x p e d i t i o n ;
2 4
the A p o l l o - H o r u s e q u a t i o n accounts
for t h e s t a t e m e n t , u n a t t e s t e d i n G r e e k m y t h o l o g y , t h a t A p o l l o was t h e last o f t h e d i v i n e r u l e r s o f t h e w o r l d (cf. H e r o d o t u s 2 . 1 4 4 ; M a n e t h o ,
FGrH
6 o g F 3 a ) ; a n d H e r m e s owes t o his E g y p t i a n c o u n t e r p a r t , T h o t h (cf. P l a t o , Phaedrus
2 7 4 c ) , t h e r o l e h e p l a y s as r o y a l a d v i s o r , i n v e n t o r , a n d s c r i b e .
2 5
O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , E u h e m e r u s has d o n e m o r e t h a n s i m p l y t r a n s f e r a n E g y p t i a n t h e o l o g y t o G r e e c e : t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t differences
between o u r
three accounts are i n content a n d tone r a t h e r t h a n i n setting. D i o d o r u s makes a clear d i s t i n c t i o n i n his t h e o l o g y b e t w e e n t w o classes o f g o d s : t h e ouranioi (sun, m o o n , a n d elements, w h i c h w e r e h e l d t o be d i v i n e b y t h e first m e n w h o l o o k e d u p w i t h a s t o n i s h m e n t a t t h e spectacle o f t h e h e a v e n s — I . I I . I )
and
t h e epigeioi ( m o r t a l s w h o receive d i v i n e h o n o r s because o f t h e i r services t o t h e race—1.13.1). There Hellenistic
Greek
is n o t h i n g here w h i c h c a n n o t be p a r a l l e l e d i n p r e -
conceptions
o f deity.
Herodotus
cites
with
approval
( 2 . 4 4 . 5 ) t h e p r a c t i c e o f those Greeks w h o p a y h o n o r s t o b o t h a m o r t a l a n d a d i v i n e Heracles (compare Osiris' t w o temples, one to the heavenly a n d one to t h e e a r t h l y Z e u s , i n D i o d o r u s 1.15.3); a n d w e r e i t n o t f o r t h e f a c t t h a t 2 3
For the connection between the discovery of grain and the end of cannibalism, cf. the passages from Plato discussed above (p. 104, with note 14). T h e travels of Dionysus were known to the fifth century (Euripides, Bacchae 1 3 - 2 2 ) but they assumed much greater importance once seen as the prototype of Alexander's expedition. T h e identification, suggested perhaps by the discovery of a Nysa in India (Arrian 5.1—2; see A . D . Nock, "Notes on Ruler Cult, I - I V , " JHS 48 [1928] 2 4 - 2 7 ) , was probably current in Alexander's lifetime— perhaps in the works of the poets who glorified his exploits (W. W . T a r n , Alexander the Great 2 [Cambridge 1948] 5 5 - 6 2 ) or perhaps in the prose account of Chares of Mytilene ( L . Pearson, The Lost Histories of Alexander [New York i g 6 o ] 5 8 ) . Dionysus would thus have been the traveler god par excellence for anyone writing in the age of the diadochoi. Thraede, calling attention to the parallels which link Euhemerus not only to the theologoumena of 1.13-29 but also to other archaeologiai in the early books of Diodorus, argues that the Egyptian motifs in Diodorus' report of the Sacred Chronicle are the result of a "zunehmende Orientalizierung des Euhemerismus" for which not Euhemerus but his followers, Diodorus included, are responsible (RAC 6 . 8 7 9 - 8 2 ; cf. Spoerri, 194). 1.13-29 becomes, in this view, Diodorus' own transfer of the Sacred Chronicle to an Egyptian setting. It is, of course, likely enough that Diodorus' report expands and modifies Euhemerus at points (see below, Appendix Four, notes 2 and 6 ) ; but two considerations seem to me to tell decisively against the theory of extensive revisions advanced by Thraede: (1) Three of the four Egyptian motifs in Euhemerus—the role of Hermes, Zeus's world expedition, and his introduction of grain—are verified for Euhemerus by the independent testimony of Lactantius and Hyginus (cf., for the latter, above, note 2 0 ) . (2) Leo's theology, which was known to Varro (see Pfister, Festschrift Klauser 2 9 3 - 9 4 ) , probably antedates Diodorus, yet seems to have drawn on the account preserved in 1.13-29 (see below, pp. 1 5 8 - 5 9 ) . T h e latter is thus unlikely to be original with Diodorus. 2 4
2 5
156
DEMOGRITUS AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
t h e r e is n o p l a u s i b l e a c c o u n t o f t h e i r b i r t h a n d e a r l y h i s t o r y , h e w o u l d b e r e a d y t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e P a n a n d D i o n y s u s w h o m t h e Greeks w o r s h i p w e r e m o r t a l s b e a r i n g t h e n a m e s o f t w o E g y p t i a n gods w h o f l o u r i s h e d a t a m u c h e a r l i e r d a t e ( 2 . 1 4 6 ) . S u n a n d m o o n a p p e a r a m o n g those helpers
a n d sus-
t a i n e r s o f h u m a n l i f e w h i c h , a c c o r d i n g t o P r o d i c u s , f o r m e d t h e first objects of man's w o r s h i p ;
2 6
a n d P l a t o m a k e s t h e m , a l o n g w i t h t h e e a r t h , stars, a n d
h e a v e n s , t h e p r i n c i p a l deities b o t h o f t h e b a r b a r i a n s a n d t h e earliest Greeks (Cratylus
397CD). P r o d i c u s m a y e v e n h a v e r e c o g n i z e d a l o n g s i d e t h i s class o f
gods a n o t h e r , o f l a t e r o r i g i n , c o n s i s t i n g o f persons w o r s h i p p e d o n a c c o u n t o f t h e i r acts o f euergesia t o t h e r a c e .
2 7
E v e n i f t h e t w o categories w e r e n e v e r
discussed side b y side i n a single w o r k i n Classical t i m e s , t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n was i m p l i c i t i n G r e e k t h o u g h t .
2 8
I n transferring the idea o f deified mortals
t o e a r l y E g y p t i a n h i s t o r y , t h e t r a d i t i o n f o l l o w e d b y D i o d o r u s was doubtless misinterpreting native conceptions
a b o u t t h e d i v i n e dynasties w h i c h p r e
c e d e d M e n e s ; b u t n o f o u r t h c e n t u r y r e a d e r — i f t h e t r a d i t i o n is t h a t o l d — w o u l d have f o u n d i n i t a n i m p l i e d reinterpretation o f Greek thought. Euhemerus,
o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , does offer such a r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . I t is
possible t h a t h e d e n i e d t h e existence o f ouranioi theoi a l t o g e t h e r ;
2 9
i f they h a d
VS 8 4 B 5 . I f we are to believe the late testimony of Epiphanius, Prodicus' list of original gods almost exactly paralleled that recognized by the Egyptians in I . 11: Πρόδικος τά τέσσαρα στοιχεία 26
θεούς καλεί είτα -ηλιον και σελήνην (De fide 9-25, Ρ- 5 ° 7 Holl).
Prodicus' views are here preserved at third hand. Philodemus (De piet. 9.7, p. 75 Gomperz) tells us that the Stoic Perseus found "not unpersuasive" τά περι τοϋ τά τρέφοντα και ώφελοϋντα θεούς 2 7
νενομίαθαι και τετειμήσθαι
-πρώτον υπό Προδικου γεγραμμενα,
μετά δε ταύτα τους ενροντας ή τροφάς
ή σκεπας ή τάς άλλας τέχνας. As W . Nestle points out (" Bemerkungen zu Vorsokratikern und Sophisten," Philologus 6 7 [1908] 5 5 6 - 5 8 ) the grammar of the sentence requires that μετά δέ ταύτα be taken as introducing a second part of Prodicus' theories rather than, as has sometimes been sup posed, Perseus' own addition to them. For the contradiction between this and other reports of Prodicus' views see Pease's note to Cicero, ND 1.38, and M . Untersteiner, The Sophists (Eng. trans. Oxford 1954) 2 1 0 - 1 1 with notes 9 , 2 2 , and 2 7 , who accepts Philodemus' testimony. For heroikai and isotheoi timai offered in Classical times to oikists, warriors, kings, lawgivers, etc., see the extensive list in L . Cerfaux and J . Tondriau, Le culte des souverains (Tournai 1957) 4 5 9 - 6 6 and 4 6 8 - 6 9 . As F . Pfister points out (Der Reliquienkult im Altertum 1 [Giessen 1909] 382) everything which is attributed in Hellenistic times to epigeioi theoi—wanderings, inventions, founding of cities and cults, tombs—can be paralleled in earlier Heroensagen. 2 8
Most scholars assume that Euhemerus recognized the same division between ouranioi and epigeioi as appears in Diodorus 1.11 (cf., for example, Jacoby, R E 11.964; van der Meer, Euhemerus 2 9
van Messene 54—56; Kaerst, Geschichte des Hellenismus 2 . i g 3 — 9 4 ; T a r n , Alexander the Great 2 . 4 3 1 ) . But 2
the evidence is not conclusive. (Cf., for what follows, R . Hirzel, Der Dialog 1 [Leipzig 1895] 3 9 7 , note 1; Langer, ΑΓΓΕΛΟΣ 2 . 5 3 - 5 9 ; Spoerri, 1 9 1 - 9 2 ; Thraede, RAG 6 . 8 8 0 ) . Eusebius, in the passage (ΡΕ 2.2.59B-61A) in which he reproduces the excerpts from Euhemerus which appeared in Diodorus V I , speaks of ouranioi and epigeioi theoi (FGrH
6 3 F 2 , p. 3 0 2 . 2 0 - 2 6 ) ; he does not, however,
say that Euhemerus himself recognized or dealt with the difference. One of Eusebius' excerpts from Diodorus (6.1.8 = FGrH 6 3 F 2 , p. 3 0 3 . 1 5 - 1 6 ) does, it is true, say that Uranus was so named because he was the first to worship the ouranioi theoi; but this testimony is suspect, inasmuch as it conflicts at two points with Ennius' version of the Sacred Chronicle (cf. Inst. div. 1.22.7 = FGrH
6 3 F 2 3 , p. 312.11—
12, where the institution of religion is attributed not to Uranus but to his grandson Jove, and
T H E
a
role i n his t h e o l o g y ,
Sacred
Chronicle
Diodorus;
3 0
o f the
H E I R S
i t was celestial
O F D E M O C R I T U S
157
certainly m i n i m a l . There and
earthly pairs
is n o t r a c e
o f deities
in
the
mentioned
by
t h e h e a d o f t h e G r e e k p a n t h e o n , w h o has a c o u n t e r p a r t
among
t h e ouranioi i n D i o d o r u s , is u n m i s t a k a b l y a n epigeios i n E u h e m e r u s . A n d since t h e e x p l o i t s r e c o r d e d o n t h e stele i n P a n c h a e a a r e r e c o g n i z a b l y
those a t t r i -
b u t e d t o U r a n u s a n d h i s d e s c e n d a n t s b y H e s i o d , i t is c l e a r t h a t
Euhemerus
v i e w s h i s p r o t a g o n i s t s as i d e n t i c a l w i t h t h e gods w o r s h i p p e d b y t h e
Greeks
— n o t as a set o f m o r t a l s b e a r i n g t h e i r n a m e s . T h e t h i r d o f o u r a c c o u n t s , t h a t o f L e o , deals w i t h E g y p t , b u t i t seems t o h a v e offered, b y i m p l i c a t i o n at a n y r a t e , t h e same m o r e r a d i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f Greek theology
w h i c h we find i n Euhemerus.
later a n t i q u i t y among
famous
atheists
(FGrH
L e o was
659T1-2),
and
reckoned
in
the w o r k i n
w h i c h h i s t h e o l o g y a p p e a r e d was f r a n k l y s e n s a t i o n a l i n b o t h f o r m a n d t o n e . I t p u r p o r t e d t o be a l e t t e r f r o m A l e x a n d e r
to Olympias
containing
revela-
tions c o n c e r n i n g the true n a t u r e o f the gods—revelations m a d e to h i m b y the p r i e s t L e o u n d e r c o m p u l s i o n a n d w i t h t h e request t h a t the l e t t e r be b u r n e d
1.11.63 = FGrH
6 3 F 2 1 , where the heavens are named after Uranus, not vice versa). References to
ouranioi theoi in the later euhemerizing account of Philo of Byblos (see Kaerst, Geschichte des Hellenismus 2 . 1 9 3 - 9 4 , note 6) are hardly significant, given the confused and heterogeneous character 2
of that work. Nor is a very strong argument for Euhemerus' recognition of ouranioi provided by the similarities (see O . Weinreich, "Menekrates Zeus und Salmoneus," Tübinger Beiträge 18 [1933] 1 4 - 1 5 ; T a r n , ProcBritAc
1 9 . 1 4 4 - 4 5 ; Alexander the Great 2 . 4 2 9 - 3 3 ) between Uranus' world kingdom
in the Sacred Chronicle and Alexarchus' Ouranopolis (see above, Chap. I X , note 2 3 ) . For though we know from Alexarchus' coinage (Weinreich, 13) that sun, moon, and stars were worshipped as part of his city's pantheon, it need not follow (as Nock, for example, assumes, CR 76.51, note 3) that they were worshipped in similar fashion in the kingdom of Uranus described by Euhemerus. Use of Alexarchus would not preclude the possibility of innovations and modifications. Aphrodite Ourania was worshipped in Ouranopolis, presumably in the same capacity as the sun, moon, and elements of Diodorus 1.11; and Euhemerus knows of an Aphrodite who may have been called ourania. But it is fairly clear that she belongs among the epigeioi theoi; cf. F 7 : Veuerem primam ail sidera constituisse et Mercurio . . . demonstrasse. T h e other astral deities of Alexarchus may have undergone a similar metamorphosis. Finally, one should note, against the theory of ouranioi theoi in Euhemerus, the criticism in Sextus, Adv. math. 9.34—that the notion of mortals deified for euergesia does not explain how the idea of the divine arose in the first place. T h e objection would have had little force had Euhemerus recognized—or stressed—the existence of ouranioi theoi to whom epigeioi were added at a later date. A l l things considered, the absence of any certain reference to celestial deities in what survives of Euhemerus inclines me to the belief that he did not include them in his pantheon. For our present purposes, however, it is sufficient to emphasize that they play no significant role in his theology. See, further, note 30 and Appendix I V . 3 0
As R . Hirzel points out, "Die Homonymie der griechischen Götter," BerLeipzig
4 8 (1896) 280.
Neither is there any clear trace in Euhemerus' account of Panchaea of religious observances paid to gods other than Triphylian Zeus and his descendants. There may well have been a cult of Helios on the island (cf. Diodorus 5-44.3 = F G r / / 6 3 F 3 , p. 306.14 [on the "water of helios" precinct of Zeus] and Pliny's mention [NH 10.4 = FGrH
found in the
6 3 F 2 9 ] of a solis urbs near Panchaea); but
there is no reason to believe (as van der Meer contends, Euhemerus van Messene 4 2 - 4 3 ) that he was an ouranios rather than an epigeios (cf. Diodorus 1.13.2, where the first of the epigeioi to rule Egypt is Helios).
I 58
D E M O C R I T U S AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
as soon as i t was r e a d
( F i ) . I f L e o ' s t h e o l o g y d i s t i n g u i s h e d ouranioi
from
epigeioi, t h e t o n e a n d r e p u t a t i o n o f t h e l e t t e r are a l i t t l e h a r d t o u n d e r s t a n d . M o r e o v e r , A u g u s t i n e refers t o L e o ' s a c c o u n t as o n e i n w h i c h " n o n
Picus
et F a u n u s et A e n e a s et R o m u l u s v e l e t i a m H e r c u l e s et A e s c u l a p i u s et L i b e r S e m e l a n a t u s et T y n d a r i d a e fratres et si q u o s alios ex m o r t a l i b u s p r o dis h a b e n t , sed i p s i e t i a m m a i o r u m g e n t i u m d i . . . I u p p i t e r , I u n o , Vulcanus,
Saturnus,
V e s t a et a l i i p l u r i m i (quos V a r r o c o n a t u r a d m u n d i partes sive
e l e m e n t a t r a n s f e r r e ) h o m i n e s fuisse p r o d u n t u r " (Civ.Dei8.5
= FGrH
6^gT2a).
T h e v i e w a s c r i b e d here t o V a r r o is t h e same w h i c h a p p e a r s i n D i o d o r u s 1.11;
c l e a r l y i t was n o t p u t f o r t h b y L e o .
I t is e q u a l l y c l e a r , g i v e n t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n p o i n t o f v i e w , t h a t L e o ' s a c c o u n t c a n n o t be, as has o n o c c a s i o n b e e n s u g g e s t e d ,
31
t h e source o n w h o m D i o d o r u s
has d r a w n f o r his E g y p t i a n t h e o l o g y . T h e s i m i l a r i t i e s b e t w e e n D i o d o r u s a n d Leo
are m o s t p l a u s i b l y e x p l a i n e d
by assuming
t h a t the a u t h o r o f Leo's
a c c o u n t is, l i k e E u h e m e r u s , i n d e b t e d t o t h i s s o u r c e .
3 2
T h i s is t h e c o n c l u s i o n
d e m a n d e d b o t h b y the more " r a d i c a l " character o f Leo's entire a n d b y t w o p e c u l i a r i t i e s i n his a c c o u n t
theology,
t o w h i c h a t t e n t i o n has y e t t o be
c a l l e d . Since A l e x a n d e r d i d n o t go s o u t h o f M e m p h i s his p r i e s t l y i n f o r m a n t m u s t be f r o m l o w e r E g y p t , a n d one w o u l d e x p e c t his s t o r y o f t h e gods t o be l o c a l i z e d t h e r e . I t is n o t , h o w e v e r to
(cf. F g a , w h e r e w e l e a r n t h a t L i b e r g a v e
A m m o n a p l o t o f l a n d across f r o m T h e b e s ) , p r o b a b l y
because L e o ' s
s t o r y is b a s e d o n a n o t h e r t r e a t m e n t o f t h e same s u b j e c t — m o s t l i k e l y t h e one used b y D i o d o r u s as w e l l — i n w h i c h T h e b e s p l a y e d t h e c e n t r a l r o l e . second p e c u l i a r i t y i n v o l v e s a d i f f e r e n c e
between
The
t h e a c c o u n t s o f t h e dis-
c o v e r y o f g r a i n g i v e n b y L e o a n d D i o d o r u s . D i o d o r u s cites t h e c u s t o m o f o f f e r i n g first f r u i t s t o Isis as a p r o o f o f h e r d i s c o v e r y o f g r a i n : t h e r i t e is a s u r v i v a l o f a p r a c t i c e i n s t i t u t e d b y Isis' g r a t e f u l c o n t e m p o r a r i e s ( 1 . 1 4 . 2 ) . does n o t m e n t i o n t h e c u s t o m , s a y i n g o n l y t h a t Isis d i s c o v e r e d parentibus
sacrificaret
Leo
g r a i n cum
( F 6 ) . L i k e D i o d o r u s , he m e n t i o n s a sacrifice w h i c h uses
g r a i n , b u t D i o d o r u s ' a c c o u n t m a k e s sense i n a w a y his does n o t . I t p r o v i d e s e v i d e n c e o f a sort f o r t h e t h e o r y b e i n g a d v a n c e d w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e o r i g i n b o t h o f g r a i n a n d o f t h e d i v i n i t y o f Isis. L e o , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , seems t o be g i v i n g a p e r f e c t l y g r a t u i t o u s piece o f i n f o r m a t i o n w h e n he l i n k s t h e disc o v e r y t o Isis' w o r s h i p o f h e r p a r e n t s — a s i f he w e r e f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e a c c o u n t By Schwartz (above, note 17) 5 0 - 5 2 (positing Dionysius Scytobrachion as a Mittelquelle). Jacoby, following R . Reitzenstein (Zwei religionsgeschichtliche Fragen [Strassburg 1901] 22, note 2) and followed by Nock, JHS 4 8 . 2 8 , note 3 7 , Geffcken, R E 2 4 . 2 0 1 2 , and M . Nilsson, Geschichte der griechischen Religion 2 (Munich 1961) 2 8 5 , would date Leo early: " . . . die Form seines Buches— Brief Alexanders an Olympias—lässt vermuten dass es bestimmt war, den Griechen eben diese Idee des Gottkönigtums nahe zu bringen" (RE 11.968). But this form could just as easily be taken as an indication of late origin. Leo is seeking to popularize ideas already current in certain Greek circles by exploring their dramatic and sensational possibilities. Cf. Pfister, Festschrift Klauser 2 9 6 . 3 1
3 2
2
T H E HEIRS O F DEMOGRITUS
159
reproduced i n D i o d o r u s b u t h a d misunderstood the connection posited there b e t w e e n t h e d i s c o v e r y o f g r a i n a n d its use i n a c e r t a i n t y p e o f sacrifice. The
chronological
Euhemerus,
relationship
that
Leo, and Diodorus' source
3 3
has
been
established
between
a l l o w s us t o d a t e t h e l a s t - n a m e d
w o r k w i t h some c e r t a i n t y t o t h e years a r o u n d 3 0 0 B . G .
3 4
a n d to place i t at
t h e h e a d o f t h e e n t i r e e u h e m e r i s t t r a d i t i o n . A n d w i t h these facts
established
i t b e c o m e s m u c h easier t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p i n w h i c h t h a t t r a d i t i o n stands t o D e m o c r i t e a n
a n t h r o p o l o g y . D i o d o r u s ' source is u s u a l l y a n d m o s t
p l a u s i b l y i d e n t i f i e d as H e c a t a e u s o f A b d e r a ; 3 3
3 5
y e t e v e n i f he was n o t its
T h e q u e s t i o n o f p r i o r i t y b e t w e e n E u h e m e r u s a n d L e o lias n o t b e e n r a i s e d h e r e n o r is i t r e l e v a n t
t o t h e p r e s e n t d i s c u s s i o n : t h e d e p e n d e n c y o f b o t h a u t h o r s o n t h e s o u r c e f o l l o w e d b y D i o d o r u s is a l l t h a t n e e d b e e s t a b l i s h e d . O n e m i g h t be i n c l i n e d — w i t h o u t , h o w e v e r , a n y c o m p e l l i n g j u s t i f i c a t i o n — t o assign t h e i n n o v a t i o n b y w h i c h t h e maiorum gentium di a r e d e c l a r e d t o b e o f m o r t a l o r i g i n t o t h e m o r e f a m o u s o f t h e t w o f i g u r e s . A m o r e s u b s t a n t i a l a r g u m e n t f o r t h e l a t e d a t i n g o f L e o is p e r h a p s p r o v i d e d b y t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f F g a , w h e r e i t is s a i d t h a t , i n c o m m e m o r a t i o n o f t h e p a r t h e p l a y e d i n t h e d i s c o v e r y o f w o o l , A m m o n o r " a c c o r d i n g so s o m e " L i b e r is r e p r e s e n t e d i n statues w i t h r a m ' s h o r n s . T h e close a s s o c i a t i o n b e t w e e n A m m o n a n d D i o n y s u s w h i c h t h i s d e t a i l a n d , i n d e e d , L e o ' s w h o l e s t o r y presupposes is t h o u g h t b y s o m e t o b e o f f a i r l y l a t e o r i g i n (see M . F a s c i a t o a n d J . L e c l a n t , " U n e t e t e ' a m m o n i e n n e ' a u M u s e e d e C h c r c h e l , " RA 3 0 [ 1 9 4 9 ] 3 6 4 , a n d " T y p e s m o n e t a i r e s a c o r n e s d e b e l t e r , " MelRome
61 [ 1 9 4 9 ] 1 3 - 1 7 ) . T h e first d a t a b l e a u t h o r t o l i n k t h e t w o c l o s e l y is
G a l l i m a c h u s ' p u p i l H c r m i p p u s (ap. H y g i n u s Astr. 2 . 2 0 ) , a n d t h e p a i r i n g d i d n o t b e c o m e
important
u n t i l t h e r e i g n o f P h i l o p a t o r ( 2 2 1 - 2 0 5 B.C.), t h e first P t o l e m y t o s t y l e h i m s e l f jVeos Dionysos a n d t o h a v e h i m s e l f p o r t r a y e d b y s c u l p t o r s as w e a r i n g t h e r a m ' s h o r n s o f A m m o n ( C l e m e n t , Protr. 4 . 5 4 . 2 - 3 ) . See, h o w e v e r , a g a i n s t t h i s v i e w , A . B . C o o k , ^eus
t
( C a m b r i d g e 1914) 3 7 1 - 7 6 . w h o a r g u e s t h a t t h e
a s s o c i a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e t w o g o d s is p r e - A l e x a n d r i a n . 3 4
A terminus ante quern is p r o v i d e d b y E u h e m e r u s ' Sacred Chronicle, suggested d a t e s f o r w h i c h r a n g e
f r o m s o m e t i m e i n t h e 290's ( T a r n , ProcBrilAc
1 9 . 1 6 5 - 6 6 ) t o ca. 2 7 0 ( G . V a l l a u r i , " E u e m e r o d i
M e s s e n e , T e s t i m o n i a n z e e f r a m m e n t i , " PubblTorino
8.3 [ 1 9 5 6 ] 5 ) ; cf. t h e s u r v e y i n v a n d e r M e e r ,
Euhemerus van Messene 9 - 1 2 . T h e terminus post quern m u s t be t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f a G r e e k d y n a s t y i n E g y p t , i n a s m u c h as p a r t o f w h a t is s a i d i n D i o d o r u s 1.11-29 a b o u t t h e e a r l y g o d - k i n g s m u s t b e r e a d as L a g i d p r o p a g a n d a . T h i s d a t i n g a p p l i e s , o f c o u r s e , o n l y t o t h e p o r t i o n o f D i o d o r u s w h i c h is p a r a l l e l e d i n E u h e m e r u s a n d L e o ; a n d t h o u g h these c h a p t e r s p r e s u p p o s e t h e e x i s t e n c e o f ouranioi theoi a n d m u s t b e f r o m a w o r k i n w h i c h s o m e a t t e n t i o n w a s p a i d t o t h e m , i t n e e d n o t f o l l o w t h a t t h e discussion o f t h e m was i d e n t i c a l w i t h t h e o n e w h i c h n o w appears
i n 1.11.2-12.1 o. S p o e r r i has
a r g u e d (175-88), at times q u i t e persuasively, for t h e late Hellenistic character o f a n u m b e r o f things i n t h i s s e c t i o n ; h o w e v e r , w e a r e so m u c h b e t t e r i n f o r m e d a b o u t Spdthellenismus
t h a n a b o u t its i m -
m e d i a t e predecessor t h a t i t is d a n g e r o u s t o a s s u m e t h a t t h e ideas t o w h i c h S p o e r r i calls a t t e n t i o n could n o t h a v e a p p e a r e d a t a n e a r l i e r d a t e . 3 6
T h e identification
goes b a c k
to Schwartz
(RhM 4 0 . 2 2 3 - 3 2 ; RE 9 . 6 7 0 - 7 2 )
a n d has b e e n
r e c e n t l y r e a f f i r m e d ( a g a i n s t t h e o b j e c t i o n s o f S p o e r r i , 1 6 4 - 2 1 1 ) b y V a l l a u r i , PubblTorino
12, N o . 5,
6 - 1 7 , a n d N o c k , CR 1 2 . 5 0 - 5 1 . S p o e r r i ' s c e n t r a l c o n t e n t i o n , t h a t t h e p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n t h e E g y p t i a n t h e o l o g y o f D i o d o r u s a n d o t h e r passages ( e l s e w h e r e i n B o o k I a n d i n D i o g e n e s L a e r t i u s ) o f k n o w n Hecataean o r i g i n to w h i c h Schwartz called a t t e n t i o n arc too b r i e f o r t o o u n c e r t a i n to be o f a n y s i g n i f i c a n c e , seems t o m e q u i t e j u s t i f i e d . B u t t h e H e c a t a e a n o r i g i n o f t h e p o r t i o n o f t h e theologoumena w i t h w h i c h w e are concerned c a n be fairly w e l l established o n g r o u n d s n o t considered b y Schwartz o r S p o e r r i . O n e o f these is c h r o n o l o g i c a l : b e t w e e n A r i s t a g o r a s o f M i l e t u s (FGrH before A l e x a n d e r
608), w h o wrote
( S c h w a r t z , " A r i s t a g o r a s , " RE 3 [ 1 8 9 6 ] 8 5 0 ) , a n d E u h e m e r u s t h e o n l y w r i t e r s
w h o are k n o w n to have composed A e g y p t i a c a are Hecataeus a n d , possibly, L e o a n d M a n e t h o . L e o c a n n o t , as w e h a v e seen, b e D i o d o r u s ' s o u r c e ; a n d i t is h a r d l y l i k e l y t h a t M a n e t h o ' s w o r k w o u l d h a v e p r e s e n t e d t h e e a r l i e s t E g y p t i a n k i n g s i n so t h o r o u g h l y H e l l e n i c a g u i s e . S p o e r r i , i t is t r u e ,
I 60
D E M O C R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
a u t h o r , o r i f t h e t r a d i t i o n w h i c h m a k e s h i m a f o l l o w e r o f D e m o c r i t u s rests o n n o t h i n g m o r e t h a n i n f e r e n c e f r o m his p l a c e o f b i r t h ,
3 6
the character o f the
w o r k a n d i t s d a t e o f c o m p o s i t i o n w e r e s u c h as t o f a v o r use o f D e m o c r i t e a n m a t e r i a l . C o n f r o n t e d w i t h t h e task o f p r e s e n t i n g t o his c o m p a t r i o t s , p r o b a b l y for
the first t i m e , the E g y p t i a n t r a d i t i o n o f pre-dynastic
m a k i n g i t understandable
god-kings
and
to t h e m , our author c o u l d a n d d i d d r a w o n
of a
n u m b e r o f beliefs a n d p r a c t i c e s a l r e a d y c u r r e n t i n G r e e k r e l i g i o n : t h e n o t i o n o f c e r t a i n gods ( t w o o f w h o m , D e m e t e r a n d D i o n y s u s , h a d t h e i r
equivalents
i n t h e E g y p t i a n k i n g l i s t ) as p a t r o n s o r i n v e n t o r s o f t h e arts o n w h i c h c i v i l i z a tion
rests
(cf.
P l a t o , Politicus
274.CD); the
custom
of awarding divine
or
argues that the dynastic succession of 1.13.2-5 derives partially from Manetho (195, with note 33 and addendum, p. 2 2 2 ) . But the argument is not persuasive. The succession given by Diodorus is Helios (or "as some say" Hephaestus), Cronus and Rhea, Osiris and Isis (or "according to most" Zeus and Hera followed by Isis and Osiris), Horus. Manetho has the sequence Hephaestus, Helios, (Sosis?), Cronus-Rhea, Isis-Osiris, Typhon, Horus (FGrH 6 o g F 3 a , 4, 5 , 2 7 ) . While it is possible to regard Diodorus' list as a conflation of Manetho's with another tradition, there is no need to do so. The lists of both authors reflect native tradition: cf. the parallel succession Ptah, R a , Su, Geb ( = Cronus), Osiris, Set ( = Typhon), Horus found in the Turin papyrus ( E . Meyer, "Ägyptische Chronologie," AbhBerlin 1904, 1.115—17). A l l three lists seem to have something to do with the enumerations of the principal deities which appear on Egyptian monuments. T h e fluctuation found there between lists headed by Ptah (Lower Egypt) or one of the sun gods Amon-Ra, Mantu, Atum (Upper Egypt)—see R . Lepsius, " Ü b e r den ersten Ägyptischen Götterkreis und seine geschichtlichmythologische Entstehung," AbhBerlin 1851, 1 6 7 - 9 6 ; G . Maspero, " S u r les Dynasties Divines de l'Ancienne Egypte," Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch. 12 (1890) 419—24; K . H . Sethe, "Beiträge zur ältesten Geschichte Ä g y p t e n s , " Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Altertumskunde
Ägyptens 3 (1905) 9—shows
that a conflation of different native traditions may lie behind the presence of both Hephaestus ( = Ptah) and Helios ( = Ra) at the head of Diodorus' list (cf. Jacoby, FGrH I l i a 8 4 . 1 6 - 8 5 . 8 ) ; and a comparable conflation of Greek and Egyptian genealogy may account for the uncertainty as to the exact position of Zeus in the succession (Greek feeling would favor his insertion between the Geb-Cronus and Osiris-Dionysus of Egyptian tradition). Either or both pairs of variants could have appeared in almost any Aegyptiaca (so Vulcan figures as the first king in Leo as well as Manetho, and another succession—Nile-Hephaestus-Helios—is found in Cicero, ND 3 . 5 4 - 5 5 , Arnobius 4.14, and D . L . 1.1). Also worth noting in favor of a Hecataean origin for 1.11 ff. are the parallels between these chapters and Theophrastus ap. Porphyry De abst. 2.5 ( = /7epl evoeßeias, F r . 2 Pötscher). The Egyptians, according to Theophrastus, first fed on grass (cf. Diodorus 1.43.1), offering the first fruits of their trophe to the ouranioi theoi (cf. 1.11.1). T h e custom of offering meal at sacrifice is a survival of a later stage of dietary development (cf. 1.14.2: the custom of offering first fruits of the harvest to Isis cited as proof of her discovery of grain). T h e Aegyptiaca of Hecataeus was the most up-to-date source of information on Egypt in Theophrastus' day, and it would have been natural for him to use it. This and other parallels between Theophrastus and the Egyptian KulturgeschiclUe of Diodorus I (see W. Jaeger, Diodes von Karystos [Berlin 1938] 123-32) point to a common source in Hecataeus. Comparable parallels between Diodorus and the Jewish archaeologia which we know to have appeared in the Aegyptiaca point to a similar conclusion. Moses' position in Jewish prehistory is essentially that of Osiris in Egyptian: he is a benefactor of the race, the founder of the first city, and the introducer of the first religion (FGrH 2 6 4 F 6 , p. 1 4 . 1 0 - 1 7 ) . Only the end of his career, for obvious reasons, is different from that of his Egyptian counterpart. T h e "tradition" itself exists in a single passage (Clement, Strom. 2.130.4—6), where Hecataeus' views on the telos are given along with those of other Abderites. 3 6
T H E
H E I R S
161
O F D E M O C R I T U S
semi-divine honors to m o r t a l benefactors; t h e recent deification o f A l e x a n d e r and
h i s g l o r i f i c a t i o n — p r o b a b l y b e g i n n i n g even d u r i n g h i s l i f e t i m e — a s t h e
equal or superior o f D i o n y s u s .
Y e t i n n o area o f G r e e k t h o u g h t c o u l d h e
3 7
h a v e f o u n d so m u c h m a t e r i a l t o s u i t h i s p u r p o s e as i n D e m o c r i t e a n geschichte.
Kultur-
F o r once t h e d i v i n e c r a f t s m a n a n d t h e d e i f i e d m o r t a l euergetes o f
G r e e k t r a d i t i o n h a d b e e n fused i n t o a single p e r s o n a l i t y ,
3 8
a n d t h e t y p e so
created identified w i t h t h e pre-dynastic god-kings, E g y p t i a n t r a d i t i o n was m o s t easily r a t i o n a l i z e d i n a c o n t e x t suggested b y D e m o c r i t u s . T h e d i s t i n c t i o n o b s e r v e d b y t h e l a t t e r b e t w e e n h i s t o r y a n d p r e - h i s t o r y (see a b o v e , p . 4 4 ) c o u l d be equated w i t h t h a t separating t h e dynastic a n d pre-dynastic periods o f t h e E g y p t i a n m o n a r c h y ; because o f its emphasis o n t h e i n d i v i d u a l m o m e n t i n t h e c u l t u r a l process D e m o c r i t u s ' r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f p r e - h i s t o r y w a s easily b r o k e n d o w n i n t o a series o f episodes i n v o l v i n g d i f f e r e n t g o d s ; its n o t i o n o f t h e o r i g i n a l b e n e f a c t o r - k i n g c o u l d b e t a k e n o v e r w i t h o u t essential c h a n g e ; and
its p e r v a d i n g a t m o s p h e r e
o f mythos (see a b o v e , p p .
3 9
145-47)—which
w o u l d have made i t sound old-fashioned i f p r o p o u n d e d i n direct c o m p e t i t i o n w i t h the more " m o d e r n " anthropology o f Academics a n d Peripatetics—was e m i n e n t l y suitable i n a n account presented,
as those f o u n d i n D i o d o r u s '
source a n d subsequent e u h e m e r i s t texts r e g u l a r l y a r e , i n t h e guise o f n a t i v e t r a d i t i o n preserved f r o m t i m e i m m e m o r i a l i n priestly a r c h i v e s .
4 0
N o r were
t h e p r o p a g a n d i s t i c ends o f o u r a u t h o r (see a b o v e , n o t e 3 4 ) i l l served b y his D e m o c r i t e a n m o d e l . I t s p i c t u r e o f t h e progressive e x p a n s i o n o f a n o r i g i n a l social a n d e c o n o m i c u n i t w a s doubtless, o n c e t r a n s f o r m e d i n t o a n a c c o u n t of the t r i u m p h a l c i v i l i z i n g e x p e d i t i o n o f a n Osiris o r Dionysus, most welcome at the c o u r t o f a p r i n c e w h o l a i d c l a i m t o be t h e heir t o the universalism o f A l e x a n d e r a n d w o u l d h a v e r e g a r d e d these gods as his p r o t o t y p e s .
3 7
72A1, 3 8
3 9
4 1
See above, note 2 4 , and the tradition regarding Anaxarchus preserved in D . L . g . 6 o = VS and Arrian, Anab. 4 . 1 0 . 5 = VS 7 2 A 6 .
This fusion may, of course, have already been effected by l'rodicus—see above, note 27. Here, however, Democritus need not have been the only or even the most immediate model.
Cf. Aristotle, Pol. 3 . 1 2 8 5 B 6 - 9 , which makes the first rulers benefactors of society and includes in their number discoverers of technology; and, even more strikingly, Lycurgus, l^ocr. 8 8 , on the isotheoi limai paid to early kings of Athens because of their services to the city. 4 0
It is possible, of course, that the new mode of presentation was partially suggested by references
to oriental tradition in Democritus' own writings. Cf. the two doubtfully authentic titles IJcpi τών cv Βαβυλώνι
Ιερών γραμμάτων
(B2g8b) and Περί τών ev Meporj (Ιερών γραμμάτων))
for the possibility that Kulturgeschichte—m
( B 2 g g a ) ; and,
the form of a Democritean theory of the origin of writing—
was part of the contents of these works, see R . Eisler, " Z u Demokrits Wanderjahren," AGP 31 (1918) 204-11. 4 1
This application of the Kulturgeschichte of Democritus may have already been present in the
work of his follower Anaxarchus, a contemporary and friend of Alexander and author of a Peri basileias (VS 7 2 B 1 - 2 ) . For his glorification of Alexander as the equal of Dionysus sec the references given above, note 3 7 ; and for the general similarity of outlook uniting him and Euhemerus, Kaerst, Geschichle des Hellenismus 2 . i g i . 2
162
D E M O C R I T U S AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
Yet the modifications w h i c h transformed Democritean anthropology into E g y p t i a n t h e o l o g y w e r e , i f easy t o m a k e , o f f a r - r e a c h i n g c o n s e q u e n c e . T h e y i n v o l v e d n o t h i n g less t h a n a f u n d a m e n t a l c h a n g e i n t h e h i s t o r i a n ' s e n t i r e m e t a p h o r . T h e w o r k i n g s o f t h e c u l t u r a l process as D e m o c r i t u s views t h e m are a n a l o g o u s t o those o f a d e m o c r a t i c a s s e m b l y : i n d i v i d u a l suggestions are b r o u g h t f o r w a r d , t h e n t a k e n u p , m o d i f i e d , a n d a m e n d e d b y o t h e r speakers and
finely
a c c e p t e d o r r e j e c t e d b y t h e w h o l e plethos. D i o d o r u s ' source shifts
the scene t o t h e p a l a c e a n d t h e c o u r t ; a n d t h e r e b y t h e b e g i n n i n g s o f h u m a n culture are made over i n the image o f Ptolemaic
Egypt.
4 2
T h e c o n t r a s t is g r e a t , b u t n o t so g r e a t as i t w a s l a t e r t o b e c o m e . F o r social factors are n o t a l t o g e t h e r e l i m i n a t e d f r o m t h e perspective o f D i o d o r u s ι. 11 ff. I n t h e e a r l y h i s t o r y o f t h e h u m a n race as t h e r e c o n c e i v e d ,
popular
s e n t i m e n t plays a d e f i n i t e , i f m i n o r , r o l e ; a n d o n o c c a s i o n t h e k i n g - g o d e v e n ceases f o r a m o m e n t t o b e a b e n e f a c t o r o p e r a t i n g a p a r t f r o m t h e n o r m a l w o r k i n g s o f society a n d becomes a n i n d i v i d u a l b o u n d t o serve society b y a sort o f i m p l i c i t c o m p a c t w h i c h w o r k s t o t h e a d v a n t a g e o f b o t h . b y c o n t r a s t , presents
i n his sociology
4 3
Euhemerus,
as w e l l as i n his t h e o l o g y
a more
r a d i c a l revision o f earlier t h o u g h t . T h e theory o f deified kings b y w h i c h D i o d o r u s ' source e x p l a i n e d a p o r t i o n o f t h e E g y p t i a n p a n t h e o n is a p p l i e d b y Euhemerus to a l l , or nearly a l l , o f the Greek p a n t h e o n : the Hellenistic m o n a r c h , h a v i n g first o c c u p i e d t h e p o s i t i o n s o f D i o n y s u s , H e r a c l e s , a n d t h e E g y p t i a n O s i r i s , is n o w i n s t a l l e d i n t h e seat o f Z e u s h i m s e l f .
A n d w i t h this
4 4
n e w c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e o r i g i n o f t h e gods goes a n e w v i e w o f t h e agents i n t h e process o f apotheosis.
I n the account
used
b y D i o d o r u s these a r e t w o :
p o p u l a r s e n t i m e n t , w h i c h r e w a r d s benefactors l i k e Isis a n d O s i r i s w i t h g o d h o o d , a n d t h e a c t i o n o f t h e kings t h e m s e l v e s — O s i r i s '
establishing o f temples
to h i s ancestors. T h e first e x p l a n a t i o n is l a r g e l y a b a n d o n e d b y E u h e m e r u s ( U r a n u s owes his k i n g d o m b u t n o t his g o d h o o d t o p o p u l a r s e n t i m e n t )
4 5
and
for i t a n o t h e r is s u b s t i t u t e d — Z e u s ' o w n s e l f - d e i f i c a t i o n ( L a c t a n t i u s , Inst. div.
O n the transformation described here see Kaerst, Geschichte des Hellenismus 2 . 3 2 2 - 2 5 . Cf. 1.90.2 (from the passage already discussed, above, pp. 6 4 - 6 7 , and Chap. V I , note 2 0 ) : the Egyptians are especially given to rewarding benefactors, hoping thereby to encourage others to imitate their example; and cf. 1.43.6: the story of an original dynasty of benefactor kings may be no more than a useful fiction cultivated to make successors imitate their example. 4 2
2
4 3
4 4
For what may be the starting point, in Democritean theory, for this innovation of Euhemerus, see Appendix I V . Popular sentiment is not altogether eliminated from consideration, for the theory presupposes among the masses a tendency to show awe and reverence for power. But the initiative in all instances comes from above, even if it is only in the form of action calculated to lead to deification: cf. Sextus, 4 5
Adv.
math. 9.17 ( — FGrH
και σεμνότητας
τυχεΐν
6 3 T 4 C ) : 01 περιγενόμενοι
άνέπλασαν
των άλλων . . . σπουδάζοντες
περι αυτούς . . . θείαν δύναμιν.
μείζονος
θαυμασμού
(The only report of Euhemerus'
doctrine which suggests a direct popular apotheosis is the very summary statement of Sextus, Adv. math. 9 . 5 1 = FGrH
e^T^b.)
163
T H E HEIRS O F DEMOCRITUS
1.22.2
ff.=FGrH
63F23).
4 6
T h e t e n d e n c y is c l e a r : t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e b e g i n -
n i n g s o f c u l t u r e a n d r e l i g i o n is c o m i n g t o be seen m o r e a n d m o r e as a h i s t o r y o f d y n a s t i c p o l i t i c s . A n d t h e t e n d e n c y was to c o n t i n u e a n d g r o w m o r e p r o n o u n c e d . E v i d e n t i n L e o as w e l l , Scytobrachion
4 8
4 7
i t p r o d u c e s i n t h e Libyca
a w o r k i n w h i c h the r o m a n t i c a n d fantastic
o f Dionysius adventures
of
t h e d i v i n e r o y a l house are a l m o s t t h e sole focus o f i n t e r e s t . The
E g y p t i a n r e w o r k i n g o f D e m o c r i t e a n Kulturgeschichte
transformation by
Euhemerus
t o a stage o f d e v e l o p m e n t recognizable.
a n d its f u r t h e r
a n d his f o l l o w e r s b r o u g h t i t f a i r l y
i n w h i c h its basic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
quickly
were
barely
T h e r e was, h o w e v e r , a n o t h e r r e a l m o f H e l l e n i s t i c t h o u g h t i n
w h i c h D e m o c r i t e a n a n t h r o p o l o g y was f o u n d s e r v i c e a b l e , a n d t h e r e , as w e s h a l l see, a n t h r o p o l o g y was b e t t e r a b l e t o h o l d its o w n .
3.
PHILOSOPHY AND POLITICS (POLYBIUS, T H E A C A D E M Y , NAUSIPHANES)
I f t h e i m m e d i a t e source f o r t h e D e m o c r i t e a n m a t e r i a l w h i c h a p p e a r s i n P o l y b i u s is t o be s o u g h t i n a n y o f t h e m a j o r H e l l e n i s t i c p h i l o s o p h i c a l schools t h e m o s t l i k e l y c h o i c e w o u l d be t h e A c a d e m y . T h e texts w h i c h served as a m o d e l f o r Laws
Democritean
text or
I I I c o u l d w e l l have r e m a i n e d i n the
l i b r a r y o f t h e s c h o o l , w h e n c e P o l y b i u s h i m s e l f o r , m o r e p r o b a b l y , some m e m ber
of
the
Academy—one
uninfluenced
by
Plato's
reinterpretation
of
D e m o c r i t u s — c o u l d h a v e b e c o m e a c q u a i n t e d w i t h i t a n d m a d e use o f i t t o p r o d u c e t h e Kulturgeschichte
t h a t appears i n Book V I . T h i s A c a d e m i c c o u l d
h a r d l y h a v e b e e n o n e o f P l a t o ' s i m m e d i a t e successors, b u t his p o i n t o f v i e w fits w e l l e n o u g h w i t h some o f t h e t e a c h i n g o f t h e M i d d l e A c a d e m y .
4 9
In
p a r t i c u l a r , t h e g e n e a l o g y o f m o r a l s w h i c h he w o u l d , o n t h i s t h e o r y , h a v e t r a n s m i t t e d t o P o l y b i u s has a f a i r l y c l e a r p a r a l l e l i n C a r n e a d e s . T h e l a t t e r was responsible f o r a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f t h e p r i n c i p a l H e l l e n i s t i c e t h i c a l systems w h i c h was s u b s e q u e n t l y C i c e r o (cf. Ac. Leg.
t a k e n o v e r b y A n t i o c h u s a n d used f r e q u e n t l y i n
2 . 1 3 0 - 3 1 ; Fin.
2.33-43;
4-49-5°;
5- ~22; l 6
Tusc.
5.84-85;
1 . 3 7 - 3 9 ) . T h e s t a r t i n g p o i n t f o r this Carneadea divisio are d i v e r g e n c e s i n
a t t i t u d e t o w a r d t h e basic telos o f h u m a n a c t i v i t y — t h a t w h i c h is aptum et 4 6
R e g a r d e d b y S c h w a r t z (RhM 4 0 . 2 6 0 ) a n d J a c o b y
(RE 14.2759) as t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a n d dis-
t i n g u i s h i n g f e a t u r e o f E u h e m e r i s m . T h e i n n o v a t i o n is c e r t a i n l y i n d i c a t i v e o f t h e basic t e n d e n c y o f E u h e m e r u s ' d o c t r i n e s , b u t i t does n o t seem t o m e t o be as i m p o r t a n t as his e x t e n s i o n o f t h e c a t e g o r y o f epigeioi theoi t o i n c l u d e m a j o r m e m b e r s o f t h e G r e e k p a n t h e o n . Gf. V a l l a u r i , PubblTorino
12, N o . 5,
15: " l ' a u t o d i v i n i z z a z i o n e segne l ' u l t i m o passo d e l l ' e u e m e r i s m o , n o n g i a i l p r i m o . " 4 7
T h e c h a n g e s w h i c h a r e i n t r o d u c e d i n t o L e o ' s a c c o u n t o f t h e d i s c o v e r y o f g r a i n (see
above,
p . 158) h a v e t h e effect o f t r a n s f o r m i n g a n episode i n v o l v i n g r u l e r a n d demos i n t o o n e i n w h i c h a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s are m e m b e r s o f the r o y a l house.
"
4 8
O n t h e g e n e r a l c h a r a c t e r o f D i o n y s i u s ' a c c o u n t , see V a l l a u r i , PubblTorino
4 9
The
affinities
between
Polybius a n d the M i d d l e
Poseidonios' metaphysische Schriften 1.19-25.
Academy
t
12, N o . 5 , J & ' - ^ B I , l ^ ' - S
a r e discussed
by Ppgj^rfianli, J
|
n s
v
;
de
' \
164
D E M O C R I T U S AND T H E S O U R C E S O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
accommodatum animi,
naturae . . . et tale ut ipsum per se invitaret
quern όρμήν
Graeci
vocant (Fin.
5.17;
et alliceret
cf. όρμώντων
κατά
appetitum
φΰσιν a t
the
b e g i n n i n g o f P o l y b i u s ' a c c o u n t o f t h e o r i g i n o f m o r a l i t y , 6 . 6 . 2 ) . Since r i g h t c o n d u c t is c o n d u c t d i r e c t e d t o w a r d t h i s e n d , t h e e t h i c a l p o s i t i o n o f e a c h s c h o o l is closely d e p e n d e n t o n its c o n c e p t i o n o f w h a t t h e e n d i s — p l e a s u r e , for e x a m p l e ( A r i s t i p p u s ) , o r absence o f p a i n ( H i e r o n y m u s ) , o r c e r t a i n prota kata physin s u c h as h e a l t h , p e r s o n a l safety, f r e e d o m f r o m p a i n , s t r e n g t h , a n d b e a u t y ( t h e Stoics, C a r n e a d e s h i m s e l f , a n d , w i t h m o d i f i c a t i o n s ,
the
Peri
p a t e t i c s a n d A c a d e m i c s ) . T h e Stoics d i f f e r f r o m C a r n e a d e s i n t h a t t h e y m a k e t h e a i m o f r i g h t c o n d u c t , n o t t h e prota kata physin themselves, b u t m e r e l y the pursuit of them
(presumably
because t h e honestum,
t h o u g h i t comes i n t o
b e i n g as a p a r t o f t h e l a t e r phases o f m a n ' s p u r s u i t o f t h e prota kata physin,
is
so i m p o r t a n t t h a t a c t u a l a t t a i n m e n t o f t h e l a t t e r becomes i n c i d e n t a l ;
see
a b o v e , p . 139). F o r C a r n e a d e s , h o w e v e r — t h o u g h
t h e v i e w was
advanced,
a c c o r d i n g t o C i c e r o , non tarn ut probaret quam ut Stoicis quibuscum bellum opponeret
(Fin.
2.42,
cf. Ac.
2.131)—honestum r e m a i n s
gerebat
a means only.
The
fines r e c o g n i z e d b y h i m are, l i k e those o f A r i s t i p p u s , expertes honestatis
(Fin.
2-35)· I t is o b v i o u s t h a t t h e m o r a l ennoiai w h o s e o r i g i n is d e s c r i b e d i n P o l y b i u s VI
b e a r a d e f i n i t e r e s e m b l a n c e t o t h i s honestum o f C a r n e a d e s . L i k e i t , t h e y
are a s e c o n d a r y p h e n o m e n o n , a p a r t o f a system w h i c h f a c i l i t a t e s t h e a t t a i n m e n t o f c e r t a i n prota kata physin—sexual
satisfaction,
security f r o m
a t t a c k , a p p r o b a t i o n o f one's f e l l o w s — w h i c h are themselves expertes
outside honestatis.
T h e t w o p o s i t i o n s are n o t i d e n t i c a l . A m o n g C a r n e a d e s ' prota kata are t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y
physin
S t o i c ones i n v o l v i n g t h e o r g a n i s m ' s consciousness
o f its o w n b e i n g : s e l f - p r e s e r v a t i o n ,
sensus integri, ingeni motus (Fin.
a n d t h e w h o l e t h e o r y is c o u c h e d i n S t o i c t e r m i n o l o g y
5 0
2.34-35);
o f w h i c h t h e r e is
o n l y t h e b a r e s t t r a c e i n P o l y b i u s (see A p p e n d i x I I I ) . T h e r e s u l t is a n a r g u m e n t w h i c h t u r n s t h e S t o i c oikeidsis
d o c t r i n e a g a i n s t i t s e l f i n as s t r i k i n g a
f a s h i o n as p o s s i b l e : t h e v e r y prota kata physin
w h i c h h a d been the starting
p o i n t o f a n idealist m o r a l i t y become the f i n a l object of a t o t a l l y u t i l i t a r i a n one.
Carneades
is
here
displaying
p o l e m i c w h i c h is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c
that
perverseness
and
fondness
for
o f h i m , a n d o f w h i c h t h e r e is n o t r a c e i n
Polybius. O n e m a y thus exclude the possibility o f direct b o r r o w i n g f r o m Carneades. B u t i t is possible t h a t b o t h w r i t e r s are i n f l u e n c e d b y a c o m m o n source, a n e a r l i e r A c a d e m i c discussion w h i c h C a r n e a d e s has c l o t h e d i n S t o i c t e r m i n o l o g y f o r p u r p o s e s o f p o l e m i c . T h e suggestion is consistent w i t h w h a t w e k n o w ( a d m i t t e d l y v e r y l i t t l e ) o f A r c e s i l a u s , w h o , l i k e his successor, a t t a c k e d S t o i c dogmatism, 5 0
b u t , unlike h i m , d i d not acquire a reputation for
See M . Pohlenz, AbhGottingen Folg. 3 , 26.15-16.
dialectical
T H E HEIRS OF DEMOCRITUS
s e n s a t i o n a l i s m . I t is u n l i k e l y t h a t A r c e s i l a u s ' s c e p t i c i s m w o u l d h a v e a l l o w e d h i m to accept a fully developed theory o f c u l t u r a l origins o f the sort w h i c h Polybius proposes; b u t such a t h e o r y c o u l d w e l l have been offered b y h i m disserendi
causa—as
a sort o f c o n t r a s t e d logos t o t h e i d e a l i s t a n d t e l e o l o g i c a l
t r e a t m e n t s o f t h e same subject p u t f o r w a r d b y Stoics a n d P e r i p a t e t i c s . W e k n o w f r o m C i c e r o (Top.
8 2 ; cf. Part.
orat. 62) t h a t i n t h e first c e n t u r y t h e
q u e s t i o n , a naturane ius profectum sit an ab aliqua quasi condicione hominum et pactione,
was a s t a n d a r d thesis i n t h e A c a d e m i c course o f r h e t o r i c ; a n d t h e
p r a c t i c e o f a r g u i n g o n b o t h sides o f a q u e s t i o n was o n e i n t r o d u c e d i n t o t h e A c a d e m y b y Arcesilaus ( D . L . 4.28). T h e e v i d e n c e a d v a n c e d t h u s f a r shows t h a n a n A c a d e m i c source f o r t h e D e m o c r i t e a n m a t e r i a l i n P o l y b i u s is a t least p o s s i b l e ;
5 1
a n d t h e r e are c e r t a i n
things i n Polybius' o w n w o r k w h i c h make such a t h e o r y very attractive. By accepting i t we can account for Polybius' rather puzzling statement
(6.5.1)
t h a t his t h e o r y o f t h e rise a n d f a l l o f states is p r e s e n t e d " i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l i n P l a t o a n d c e r t a i n o t h e r a u t h o r s " — a s t a t e m e n t w h i c h reveals a n y t h i n g b u t a direct acquaintance
w i t h P l a t o , b u t w h i c h w o u l d be n a t u r a l e n o u g h i n
reference t o a t h e o r y d e r i v e d f r o m a n A c a d e m i c t e a c h e r , t h e e x a c t source o f w h i c h P o l y b i u s d i d n o t k n o w ; w e c a n a c c o u n t f o r t h e a e t i o l o g i c a l perspec t i v e whose presence i n P o l y b i u s ' a c c o u n t has a l r e a d y b e e n n o t e d
(above,
p . 1 2 9 ) — f o r i t w o u l d h a v e b e e n as a n aetiology o f m o r a l ennoiai t h a t a piece o f Democritean
Kulturgeschichte
f o u n d its w a y
into
the
discussions
of
the
A c a d e m y ; a n d w e c a n also a c c o u n t f o r t h e f a c t t h a t t h e A c a d e m y is t h e o n l y c o n t e m p o r a r y school w h i c h P o l y b i u s m e n t i o n s b y n a m e . T h e passage i n q u e s t i o n (12.26c) is c r i t i c a l — a n a t t a c k o n t h e νπερβολήν
τής
παραδοξολογίας
i n w h i c h its m e m b e r s i n d u l g e d . B u t t h e p o i n t o f v i e w P o l y b i u s a d o p t s is n o t so m u c h t h a t o f t h e d o g m a t i s t w h o rejects a l l d o u b t as t h a t o f t h e m o d e r a t e sceptic w h o finds t h a t even τά καλώς
άπορούμενα
( 2 6 0 3 ) are b r o u g h t
i n t o d i s c r e d i t b y a n excessive use o f t h e m e t h o d . T h e passage c a n be t a k e n , t h e r e f o r e , as a p r o t e s t o f f e r e d b y one s y m p a t h e t i c i n g e n e r a l t o t h e s c h o o l a g a i n s t some o f t h e e x t r e m e p o s i t i o n s i t a d o p t e d . F i n a l l y , o n e s h o u l d n o t e t h a t i t was A c a d e m i c p h i l o s o p h y o f a sort w h i c h was m o s t i n t i m a t e l y l i n k e d w i t h the history o f the A c h a e a n league, i n the person o f Polybius' fellowtownsmen Ecdemus a n d Megalophanes.
5 2
T h e t w o m e n w e r e disciples o f
A r c e s i l a u s , f r i e n d s a n d p o l i t i c a l advisors o f A r a t u s o f S i c y o n
(Plutarch,
Aratus 5 a n d 7 ) , teachers o f P h i l o p o e m e n ( P o l y b i u s 1 0 . 2 2 . 2 ) , a n d , a c c o r d i n g 5 1
Doxographical tradition, for what it is worth, links Arcesilaus to Democritus via Pyrrhon of
Elis. Cf. Clement, Strom. 1.64 (Pyrrhon and Democritus); D . L . 9.61 = VS 7 2 A 2 (Pyrrhon the pupil of the Democritean Anaxarchus); D . L . 4 . 3 3 (Arcesilaus and Pyrrhon); and D. L . g.i 14—15 (Arcesilaus and Pyrrhon's pupil Timon—on whose fondness for the works of Democritus see D . L . 9-67)· 5 2
O r Ecdelus and Demophanes; see R E s. v. (10.2159
a n
d
2
Ι
9· 43)·
166
D E M O C R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
to P l u t a r c h (Philopoemen
i ) , " f o r e m o s t i n t h e i r t i m e a m o n g those w h o a p p l i e d
the teachings o f p h i l o s o p h y to politics a n d p r a c t i c a l affairs." T h e b o d y o f t r a d i t i o n w h i c h lies b e h i n d B o o k V I c o u l d h a v e b e e n e x p e c t e d , g i v e n t h e t h e o r y o f e x p a n d i n g p o l i t i c a l a n d social koinoniai
w h i c h i t embodies
(see
above, p p . 107-10, 115-16), to have a p a r t i c u l a r appeal for Aratus a n d P h i l o p o e m e n ; f o r t h e y w e r e t h e t w o m e n l a r g e l y responsible f o r t h e p o l i c y u n d e r w h i c h the A c h a e a n league grew f r o m p u r e l y ethnic beginnings i n t o a c o n f e d e r a t i o n whose a i m i t was t o m a k e polish
t h e e n t i r e Peloponnesus o n e
T h e h e i r t o t h i s p o l i t i c a l p r o g r a m was P o l y b i u s ' f a t h e r
P o l y b i u s h i m s e l f was f a m i l i a r w i t h A r a t u s ' M e m o i r s ,
5 4
learned s o m e t h i n g a b o u t the views o f Ecdemus a n d Megalophanes c o m p o s e d h i s l a u d a t o r y life o f t h e i r p u p i l P h i l o p o e m e n .
Lycortas.
a n d he m u s t h a v e w h e n he
5 5
T h e last p i e c e o f e v i d e n c e is i m p o r t a n t i n t h a t i t suggests t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f p o l i t i c a l as w e l l as p h i l o s o p h i c a l a f f i n i t y b e t w e e n P o l y b i u s a n d t h e A c a d e m y . T h e t w o cornerstones o f A r a t u s ' policies w e r e s u p p o r t o f r e p u b l i c a n regimes against
t y r a n n i e s a n d u n i f i c a t i o n o f t h e Peloponnese. A s i m i l a r p o l i t i c a l
p r o g r a m emerges f r o m t h e t h i r d b o o k o f t h e Laws,
w h i c h is d e v o t e d i n p a r t
to s h o w i n g h o w a h i g h l y d e s i r a b l e a r r a n g e m e n t — t h e o r i g i n a l u n i t y o f t h e Peloponnese u n d e r the H e r a c l i d s — w a s two
d e s t r o y e d because o f t h e f a i l u r e o f
o f t h e o r i g i n a l t h r e e D o r i a n states t o p r o v i d e a d e q u a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l
safeguards a g a i n s t
t y r a n n i c a l abuses o f p o w e r
Ecdemus a n d Megalophanes i n Laws sophy
by their rulers.
5 6
And if
c o u l d have f o u n d support for their p r o g r a m
I I I , so t o o c o u l d t h e y h a v e f o u n d s u p p o r t f o r t h e i r v i e w t h a t p h i l o a n d p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n p u b l i c life w e n t t o g e t h e r .
Behind the whole
a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l a n d h i s t o r i c a l excursus o f t h a t b o o k lies t h e same c o n v i c t i o n which
is
responsible
for the anthropological
a n d h i s t o r i c a l excursus o f
P o l y b i u s V I — n a m e l y , t h a t t h e past h i s t o r y o f p o l i t i c a l regimes as s t u d i e d b y t h e p h i l o s o p h e r c o n t a i n s lessons o f v i t a l i m p o r t a n c e f o r t h e m a n w h o w o u l d i n a u g u r a t e o r g u i d e a successful p o l i t i c a l r e g i m e h i m s e l f .
.
5 3
For the possible "philosophical" roots of this political program see Plutarch's statement that Ecdemus and Megalophanes educated their pupil at? κοινόν όφελος rfj Ελλάδι τον άνδρα τούτον από φιλοσοφίας άπεργαζόμενοι
(Philopoemen
ι).
See a.56.2; 2 . 4 7 · ! 2.40.4 with Walbank ad loc.; as well as the detailed account of the political settlement effected after Aratus' capture of Sicyon that appears in Cicero, Off. 2.81-83. Cicero's source in this work is Panaetius, and it is reasonable to assume that it was Polybius' interest in Aratus and his policies which drew Panaetius' attention to this episode in Achaean history—perhaps during those discussions of political theory which ihe two men are reported to have held in Rome (Cicero, Rep. 1.34). 5 4
1 1
T h e brief summary of Philopoemen's career given in the tenth book of the Histories records one piece of instruction they gave ( 2 2 . 5 ) ; the biography may well have provided much richer documentation. One of the subjects it stressed was the paidike agoge which produced Philopoemen 5 5
(10.21.6). 5 6
See 6 9 0 0 - 9 3 0 and, for a more succinct statement of the same contention, Ep. 8.354E.
THE
HEIRS OF DEMOCRITUS
T h e r e m a y w e l l have been, then, a m o n g the more p o l i t i c a l l y m i n d e d o f Plato's f o l l o w e r s ,
5 7
some w h o l o o k e d t o Laws
I I I for support for their pro-
g r a m s ; a n d w h o m a y , o n occasion, h a v e l o o k e d e v e n b e y o n d Laws
I I I to the
D e m o c r i t e a n t h e o r y w h i c h i n s p i r e d P l a t o ' s a n d w h i c h , l i k e P l a t o ' s , c o u l d be i n t e r p r e t e d so as t o l e n d s u p p o r t t o t h e a i m s o f r e p u b l i c a n f e d e r a l i s m .
5 8
This
suggestion c a n b e s u p p o r t e d b y t w o o t h e r b o d i e s o f e v i d e n c e w h i c h also p o i n t t o t h e existence o f such a g r o u p o f p h i l o s o p h e r - p o l i t i c i a n s . The
first o f these is c o m p o s e d o f t h e testimonia r e l a t i n g t o t h e p h i l o s o p h e r
Nausiphanes, w h o , b e g i n n i n g p r o b a b l y i n t h e late 3 3 0 ' s , flourishing
5 9
was h e a d o f a
school o f p h i l o s o p h y a n d r h e t o r i c i n his n a t i v e T e o s
(Sextus,
Adv.
math. 1.2). H i s u n o r t h o d o x c o n t e n t i o n (VS 7 5 B 2 , p . 2 4 8 . 1 8 - 1 9 ) t h a t i t
was
t h e p a r t o f t h e sophos t o t a k e p a r t i n p o l i t i c a l life d r e w f r o m P h i l o d e m u s
a p o l e m i c , p o r t i o n s o f w h i c h s u r v i v e (Rhetorica
I I , p p . 1-50 S u d h a u s ) .
6 0
N a u s i p h a n e s ' c e n t r a l c o n t e n t i o n was t h a t t h e p h i l o s o p h e r ' s k n o w l e d g e o f physiologia
w o u l d p u t h i m i n a p o s i t i o n o f a d v a n t a g e i n p o l i t i c a l life. Psycho-
l o g y r a t h e r t h a n a n t h r o p o l o g y a n d p o l i t i c a l h i s t o r y is t h e physiologia
to w h i c h
N a u s i p h a n e s refers, a t least i n s u r v i v i n g f r a g m e n t s , so t h a t t h e l i n k b e t w e e n p h i l o s o p h y a n d p o l i t i c s w h i c h h e envisions is s o m e w h a t d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h a t p o s i t e d i n Laws
I I I a n d Polybius V I . Moreover, even w h e n the fragments
t o u c h o n m a t t e r s t r e a t e d i n B o o k V I , t h e p a r a l l e l s , t h o u g h p r e s e n t , are g e n e r i c r a t h e r t h a n specific i n c h a r a c t e r . L i k e t h e Stoics, a n d l i k e P o l y b i u s in
h i s g e n e a l o g y o f m o r a l s , N a u s i p h a n e s seems t o h a v e b e e n c o n c e r n e d
w i t h t h e r o l e p l a y e d b y t h e prota kata physin
(see a b o v e , p . 164) i n h u m a n
m o t i v a t i o n , f o r h e speaks o f a syngenikon telos t h a t d e t e r m i n e s w h a t a l l m e n o f For the tradition of political activity in the early Academy see Bignone, VAristotele perduto 2 . 2 4 9 - 5 1 and P. M . Schuhl, "Piaton et l'activite politique de l'Academie," R E G 5 9 (1946) 4 6 - 5 3 . T h e reconstruction of political history of which Polybius' Kulturgeschichte forms a part culminates, of course, in a defense of that most republican of all regimes, the mixed constitution, with its balance and separation of powers. I n classifying constitutions and in identifying the best one with a blend of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, Polybius is following sources which are unlikely ,to go back to Democritus. O n the other hand, these aspects of the political theory of Book V I are distinct from the notion of an equilibrium of political forces as a prerequisite for the rule of law and justice. T h e latter idea is just as prominent in the book, and is certainly implicit both in the Kulturgeschichte of 5.7-6.12 and in the later chapters that are most closely connected with 5 . 7 - 6 . 1 2 . (On the composite character of Polybius' political theory see, in general, Cole, Historia 1 3 . 4 6 5 - 7 8 . ) The unspoken contract between rulers and people on which kingship rests is an example of such an equilibrium, and it is the disruption of this and similar balances established between rulers and people in aristocratic and democratic regimes which, in Polybius' view, always leads to disaster (cf. 6 . 7 . 6 - 8 ; 6 . 8 . 4 - 6 ; 6 . 9 . 5 - 6 ; 6 . 5 7 . 5 - 9 ) . T h e political theory which emerges from Polybius' Kulturgeschichte is also in basic accord with what can be reconstructed from the fragments of Democritus—see above, Chap. V I I I , note 14, and H . Rehm, Geschichte der Staalsrechtswissenschaft (Freiburg and Leipzig 1896) 5 2 - 5 3 . 57
5 8
5 9
6 0
For the chronology of Nausiphanes' life, see von Fritz, R E 3 2 . 2 0 2 1 - 2 3 . They are discussed and analyzed in Sudhaus, RhM 4 8 . 3 3 6 - 4 1 ; von Arnim, Leben und Werk
des Dio von Prusn 4 3 - 6 2 ; Philippson, 4 3 8 - 4 6 ; and von Fritz, RE 3 2 . 2 0 2 4 - 2 6 .
168
D E M O C R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
necessity seek a n d a v o i d ;
6 1
a n d k n o w l e d g e o f t h a t telos w i l l e n a b l e t h e p o l i
t i c a l o r a t o r w h e n c o n f r o n t e d w i t h a n a u d i e n c e γινώσκειν και λέγειν
και λέγοντα
το προς
τήν βούλησιν
8.5-93 Ρ· ί ο S u d h a u s ; cf. η.η-10,
ο βούλεται
(λογίζεσθαι')
ή φύσις
δυνήσεσθαι
p . g ; χ χ ι ν 1-7, p . ι 8 ) . T h o u g h
(col.
concerned
p r i m a r i l y w i t h r h e t o r i c , h e e v i d e n t l y f e l t t h a t m o n a r c h as w e l l as o r a t o r could profit from philosophical wisdom (26.5-9, p. 39), a n d the participation o f t h e sophos i n p u b l i c life is r e w a r d e d , P o l y b i u s ' Kulturgeschichte, for
l i k e t h e services o f t h e k i n g i n
b y h o n o r , p o p u l a r respect, a n d g r a t e f u l
s k i l l e x p e n d e d i n t h e services o f s o c i e t y .
62
memory
I t is e v e n possible
that
N a u s i p h a n e s , l i k e P o l y b i u s , saw i n society's a b i l i t y t o p r o f i t f r o m t h e e x a m p l e a n d i n s t r u c t i o n offered b y its o u t s t a n d i n g members something t i c a l l y h u m a n w h i c h distinguishes t h e race f r o m t h e o t h e r The
characteris
animals.
6 3
r e s e m b l a n c e s , t h o u g h t h e y m i g h t be m o r e extensive d i d m o r e o f
N a u s i p h a n e s s u r v i v e , d o n o t a l l o w us t o g o m u c h f u r t h e r t h a n t o say t h a t Polybius' view o f the complementary relationship o f philosophy a n d politics w o u l d have been w a r m l y endorsed
b y N a u s i p h a n e s a n d v i c e versa. B u t
N a u s i p h a n e s is c l e a r l y t h e sort o f p h i l o s o p h e r - p o l i t i c i a n whose existence t h e e v i d e n c e e x a m i n e d e a r l i e r i n t h i s section l e d us t o p o s i t , a n d his p h i l o s o p h i c a l affinities a r e j u s t w h a t o n e w o u l d e x p e c t o n t h e basis o f t h a t same e v i d e n c e — A c a d e m i c a n d D e m o c r i t e a n . T h e i m m e d i a t e source f o r his n o t i o n o f a n a l l i a n c e b e t w e e n p s y c h o l o g y a n d r h e t o r i c is surely t h e p r o g r a m o u t l i n e d b y Socrates i n Phaedrus
271C-72B,
64
a n d d o x o g r a p h i c a l t r a d i t i o n makes h i m a
follower o f Democritus. N a u s i p h a n e s was t h e t e a c h e r o f E p i c u r u s ( U s e n e r so p e r h a p s t h e Mittelquelle
114; VS 7 5 A 1 - 9 ) a n d
for the D e m o c r i t e a n m a t e r i a l w h i c h appears i n
Hermarchus.
Whatever
the extent a n d character
o f his indebtedness t o
Nausiphanes,
E p i c u r u s e v e n t u a l l y b r o k e w i t h h i m ; a n d i t is a f a i r guess t h a t
one o f the t h i n g s w h i c h caused t h e b r e a k was t h e f o r m e r ' s h i g h e v a l u a t i o n o f r h e t o r i c a n d t h e pragmatikos physiologia
bios. T h e E p i c u r e a n c r i t i q u e o f t h e l i n k i n g o f
a n d r h e t o r i c is a t least as o l d as M e t r o d o r u s ,
6 5
a n d p r o b a b l y goes
Cf. xvi 2, p. 8 Sudhaus, where there is mention of a [i-Je'Aos-; x v i 4 - 6 : ei] μέ[ν έσ]τι T [ I ] S άνθρ[ωπος, προς] τούτ[ο ^]epe[TJat; and xvi 12—13: ουδέ τά ζώα [άλλ]ον έπιδ[έ]χεται τ[ρ]όπον. There is
some fluctuation in terminology (syngenikon lelos is attested in xxm 14-15, p. 17, and restored by von Arnim in x v i 2, p. 8 , along with symphylou telous in xvn 19-20, p. 1 0 ) ; and the expression itself may not go back to Nausiphanes (von Fritz, R E 32.2024). But the general character of the notion and its affinities to what figures in Book V I are fairly clear. 6 2
22.3—8, p. 3 3 : το τίμίον και άζιόλογον ev ταλς παρά τών πολλών δόζαις και μνήμαις επί πολιτικαΐς
δινότησι. For Nausiphanes' utilitarianism see also χ χ ι ν 1-8, p. 18. 6 3
This, at any rate, seems to be the view which Philodemus is attacking when he criticizes
Nausiphanes for failing to establish μέχρι τίνος ώφελεΐσθαι τά πλήθη δύναται και κουφίζεαθαι . . . μάλλον δύναται τών άλλων ζώων ( χ χ χ ν ι ig—22.2, ρ. 33)· 6 4
6 5
Cf. F . Susemihl, "Aphorismen zu Demokrit," Philologus 6 0 (1901) 190. Author of a προς τους άπό φυσιολογίας λέγοντας αγαθούς elvai ρήτορας (Frs. 25—27 K-Oerte).
THE
HEIRS OF DEMOGRITUS
b a c k t o t h e f o u n d e r o f t h e school h i m s e l f . I t w o u l d t h u s t a k e its p l a c e a l o n g side t h e u n f a v o r a b l e j u d g m e n t o n k i n g s h i p p r o n o u n c e d i n RS 6 a n d 7 a n d r e p r o d u c e d i n L u c r e t i u s V (see a b o v e , p . 127) as p a r t o f a g e n e r a l a t t a c k against defenders o f t h e a c t i v e l i f e . W e c a n n o t b e sure w h o t h e objects o f t h i s a t t a c k w e r e i n t h e e a r l y days o f t h e s c h o o l ; N a u s i p h a n e s w a s doubtless o n e o f t h e m , t h o u g h n o t necessarily t h e o n l y o n e .
6 6
B u t t h e existence o f t h e
attack provides further d o c u m e n t a t i o n for the t r a d i t i o n o f philosophy l i n k e d to p o l i t i c s w e are e x a m i n i n g ; a n d t h e c o n t e x t i n w h i c h L u c r e t i u s ' t r a n s l a t i o n o f RS 7 appears suggests t h a t E p i c u r u s ' o p p o n e n t s m a y h a v e o n o c c a s i o n l i n k e d t h e i r defense o f p o l i t i c a l life t o Kulturgeschichte
61
first
successful politikos
a n d a n account o f the
i n h u m a n h i s t o r y — t h e k i n g . T h e reasons f o r l i n k i n g
such a n account b o t h w i t h Polybius a n d D e m o c r i t u s have already
been
given (above, p p . 122-28). T h e evidence
discussed
i n t h i s s e c t i o n is f r a g m e n t a r y b u t , seen i n i t s
e n t i r e t y , f a i r l y s i g n i f i c a n t . T h e l i n k i n g o f s i m i l a r a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l theories t o a p o l i t i c a l p r o g r a m o f a federalistic, a n t i - t y r a n n i c a l tendency, w h i c h appears in
P o l y b i u s a n d Laws
I I I ; t h e role p l a y e d i n A c h a e a n
history b y t w o
A c a d e m i c philosophers dedicated t o f u r t h e r i n g this p r o g r a m ; t h e parallels between
P o l y b i u s a n d C a r n e a d e s ; t h e f o r m e r ' s o w n d i r e c t references t o
Plato a n d the A c a d e m y ;
t h e character o f the E p i c u r e a n polemic
defenders
life
o f t h e active
a n d its association
with
against
Kulturgeschichte
in
L u c r e t i u s V ; a n d t h e presence o f t h e D e m o c r i t e a n N a u s i p h a n e s a m o n g those w h o are most likely t o have been t h e object o f this a t t a c k — a l l p o i n t
with
n o t e w o r t h y consistency t o a single c o n c l u s i o n . W e are f a i r l y safe, I t h i n k , i n assuming t h a t there existed i n the late f o u r t h a n d t h i r d centuries a n u m b e r of t h i n k e r s — o f p r i m a r i l y t h o u g h n o t exclusively A c a d e m i c affinities—who a t t e m p t e d t o v i e w the problems o f city-state politics i n the l i g h t o f w h a t they Bignone has argued at length [V Aristolele perdulo 2 . 4 9 - 5 5 , 8 8 - 1 1 2 , 2 4 7 - 7 0 ) in favor of the view that the primary object ofEpicurus' attacks was the "scuola platonico-peripatctica". Cf. Philodemus' criticism of Aristotle's overly favorable evaluation of rhetoiike and politike (Rhet. I I , cols, X L V I I I 2 1 Lvm 9, pp. 5 0 - 6 4 Sudhaus). It is with this "scuola" rather than with Nausiphanes (as maintained by Sudhaus, RhM48.333-35, and R . Philippson, "Timokrates," R E At 1 [1936] 1269) that Bignone would associate the one opponent whose name we know for sure—the renegade Epicurean Timocrates. The latter was a contemporary of Metrodorus, who addresses him on two occasions 6 6
as physiologe (ap. Plutarch, Non posse suav. vio. 16.1098D and Athenaeus 7.28oA = Frs. 3 9 - 4 0 Kocrte)
and rejects his political theory with the remark recorded by Plutarch ( 1 6 . 1 0 9 8 c ) : oiSev . . . δει τούς "Ελληνας σώζειν οΰδε έττι σοφία στεφάνου ιταρ' αυτών τυγχάνειν
άλλ' έσθίειν και πινειν ( F r . 41
Koerte). Another suggestion as to the identity of Epicurus' opponents is offered by Η . M . Hubbell, who sees in 23.11 —13,
p. 3 5 (ol τους νόμους και τάς πολιτείας γράφοντες τών σοφιστών) a possible
reference to followers of Isocrates "who continued their master's practice of broadening their instruction in rhetoric by theoretical work on the science of government" ("The Rhetorica of Philodemus," Trans, and Proc. of the Connecticut Academy of Sciences 23 [ 1 9 2 0 ] 3 2 6 , note 15).
Cf. von Fritz's suggestions with regard to Nausiphanes, R E 32.2026. It is clear that Nausiphanes believed some types of historical investigation to be of value to the politician: cf. 2 7 . 1 - 7 , p. 4 0 , on reasoning from symbebekotdn in political affairs. 6 7
I 70
D E M O C R I T U S AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K
ANTHROPOLOGY
c a l l e d p h i l o s o p h y , a n d t h a t t h i s " p h i l o s o p h y , " t h o u g h doubtless
composed
l a r g e l y o f c o m m o n p l a c e s , c o u l d have i n c l u d e d a psychology a n d a sociology i n f l u e n c e d b y t h e t h e o r y o f t h e o r i g i n s o f c u l t u r e w h i c h was o r i g i n a t e d b y D e m o c r i t u s a n d m o d i f i e d t o s u i t his o w n purposes b y P l a t o i n t h e t h i r d b o o k o f t h e Laws.
T h a t one or m o r e o f the m e m b e r s o f this t r a d i t i o n s h o u l d have
p r e s e r v e d a v e r s i o n o f D e m o c r i t e a n Kulturgeschichte
detailed enough to f o r m
t h e basis f o r w h a t a p p e a r s i n P o l y b i u s V I seems t o m e f a i r l y l i k e l y , a n d i t is r a t h e r u n l i k e l y t h a t w e s h a l l c o m e n e a r e r t o a n i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f P o l y b i u s ' source t h a n t h i s . B u t w e h a v e c o m e n e a r e n o u g h , I t h i n k , t o p r o v i d e a b a c k g r o u n d against w h i c h the conclusions reached i n C h a p t e r far
E i g h t w i l l seem
m o r e n a t u r a l a n d reasonable t h a n they d i d w h e n supported o n l y
evidence
drawn
from
Polybius
VI,
Laws
I I I , and
the
fragments
by of
Democritus. 4. A COMPREHENSIVE R E S T A T E M E N T ( T H E EPICUREANS)
W e d o n o t k n o w i n w h a t w o r k o r w o r k s o f E p i c u r u s his a c c o u n t o f t h e origins o f culture appeared, nor into w h a t context a n d w i t h w h a t
purpose
he i n t r o d u c e d i t . O n e m a y s u r m i s e , h o w e v e r , t h a t , l i k e D e m o c r i t u s , he was a n x i o u s t o e s t a b l i s h t h e p u r e l y n a t u r a l c h a r a c t e r o f a process o f t e n a t t r i b u t e d to
other causes —more anxious, 6 8
perhaps,
since t h e r e was
i n his d a y
a
t e l e o l o g i c a l as w e l l as a t h e o l o g i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f h i s t o r y w h i c h r e q u i r e d refutation. The
i d e n t i t y of purpose
was
enough
t o i n s u r e f a i r l y close re-
p r o d u c t i o n o f m a n y parts o f the earlier d o c t r i n e . Y e t m o d i f i c a t i o n s t h e r e w e r e , some o f t h e m f a i r l y m a j o r ; a n d i n a s m u c h as E p i c u r u s seems t o h a v e b e e n less i n t e r e s t e d t h a n D e m o c r i t u s i n a e t i o l o g y f o r its o w n sake, t h e y are n o t l i k e l y t o be g r a t u i t o u s . T a k e n as a b o d y , t h e y p r o v i d e o u r best single preceding The
t e s t i m o n y t o t h e shift o f a t t i t u d e s a n a l y z e d
i n the
chapter.
basic t e n d e n c y
o f t h e changes has a l r e a d y
been i n d i c a t e d
(above,
p p . 7 8 - 7 9 , 147): a n emphasis o n b i o l o g i c a l a n d e n v i r o n m e n t a l d e t e r m i n i s m at t h e expense o f t h e p l a y o f c h a n c e a n d i m p u l s e , a n d a n e l i m i n a t i o n o f t h e v a r i a b l e e l e m e n t i n t h e physis-nomos-logos physis
t r i a d i n f a v o r o f t h e t w o constants
a n d logos. T h e r e s u l t is a d o c t r i n e w h i c h , t h o u g h i t does n o t m a k e t h e
development
of culture proceed
i d e o l o g i c a l l y t o w a r d a g o a l , nevertheless
envisions s o m e t h i n g m u c h m o r e n a r r o w l y c i r c u m s c r i b e d a n d w i t h f a r fewer bypaths
and dead
ends t h a n its D e m o c r i t e a n
counterpart. The
random
i n t e r p l a y o f a c c i d e n t , s u g g e s t i o n , a n d a f e w basic givens o f h u m a n n a t u r e , f r o m w h i c h D e m o c r i t u s derived the g r o w t h o f technology
a n d society,
is
r e t a i n e d ; b u t its w o r k i n g s are p r e s e n t e d i n s u c h a f a s h i o n as t o suggest a l a c k o f c o n f i d e n c e i n t h e m e t h o d . T h e process is h e l p e d a l o n g at e v e r y stage b y a lis
Cf. Diogenes of Oenoanda, F r . 11 col. 11 4 - 8 Grilli.
171
T H E HEIRS OF DEMOCRITUS v a r i e t y o f e x t r a n e o u s c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , b e h i n d w h o s e presence o n e c a n
usually
d e t e c t t h e i n f l u e n c e o f n o n - D e m o c r i t e a n sources. D i c a e a r c h u s o r t h e C y n i c s have supplied the d o c t r i n e o f the greater hardness o f p r i m i t i v e m a n to m a k e his s u r v i v a l i n a h o s t i l e e n v i r o n m e n t seem m o r e p r o b a b l e ; may
also be
responsible
n o t i o n t h a t fire, above, p . 2 2 ) ,
7 0
for the p r o m i n e n c e
c l o t h i n g , a n d i n d o o r l i v i n g soften
theory
συμφέροντος
of
social
έν τή
7 1
genesis
προς
f o r m a t i o n o f society
influence
account o f the
man's disposition
a n d E p i c u r u s ' o w n sensationalism by
αλλήλους
positing κοινωνία
becomes t h e r e b y
i m m e d i a t e t h a n the detour b y w a y 8 9
Cynic
(see
t h o u g h t h e C y n i c s w o u l d n o t , l i k e E p i c u r u s , associate soft
ness w i t h g r e a t e r s o c i a b i l i t y ; this
6 9
i n Lucretius'
a as
completes
s p o n t a n e o u s prolepsis the
something
o f dynasteia
origin
of
of morality.
far m o r e
envisioned
The
inevitable by
τοΰ
and
Democritus.
Dicaearchus may be responsible for one other "primitivist" detail in Lucretius' account.
Compare 5 . 9 9 0 - 1 0 0 0 and Cicero, Off. 2.16 ( = Fr. 24 Wehrli): unus enim turn quisque magis deprensus eorum pabula viva feris praebebat. . . . at non multa virum sub signis milia ducta una dies dabat exitio. est Dicaearchi liber de interitu hominis . . . qui collectis causis ceteris, eluvionis, pestilentiae, vastitatis, beluarum etiam multitudinis, quarum impetu docet quaedam hominum genera esse consumpta, deinde comparat quanto plures deleti sint homines hominum impetu, id est bellis aut seditionibus, quam omni reliqua calamitate. 7 0
It is possible, of course, that the idea that fire and warmth should have at least some effect on man's character goes back to Democritus; cf., for a similar recognition of the effect of temperature on human disposition, the early medical treatise, Airs, Waters, Places 12 and 16. What is character istically Epicurean and Cynic in Lucretius and Tzetzes is (1) the central position which the notion has in their accounts of the origin of society, and (2) the emphasis on the immediate physical and psychological effects of warm surroundings (rather than, say, on the greater dependence on others which the desire for warmth and related comforts would bring). I n similar fashion, Lucretius' analysis of the role of the family in the formation of society stresses the softening of man's physical and psychic disposition (cf. 5 . 1 0 1 7 : Venus imminuit viris;
1 0 1 8 : ingenium fregere superbum);
contrast
Polybius' account, which is concerned with the habit of cooperation and exchange of services which family life breeds. 7 1
T h e list of motifs which appear in Lucretius and Tzetzes but none of the other texts which we have isolated as belonging to the Democritean tradition is fairly extensive. T o the parallels discussed in Chapter One (above, pp. 2 1 - 2 2 ) should be added Lucretius 5 - 9 5 7 = l^S I I 138.1 (the role of necessity; see above, Chap. V , note 2 2 ) ; 5 . 9 4 5 - 5 2 = 114.16-18 Gaisford (primitive man as a water drinker; cf. above, note 4 ) ; and 5.998 (primitive man died ignaros quid volnera vellenl) = VS I I 137.3839 (άπίψυχον οίικ eloorcs οτι πάσχουσι). It is natural to wonder whether, given these resemblances, the immediate source of Epicurus' whole Kulturgeschichte was not Cynic rather than Democritean (cf. also the parallel between Lucretius 5 . 9 7 3 - 7 6 and Theophrastus' account of the conversion of Diogenes, noted above, note 8 ) . It is unlikely, however, that the Cynics would have given to the later stages of the development of culture the close attention which they receive in Lucretius. T h e two theories are probably to be regarded as at least partially independent modifications of Democritean thought. They reveal, however, the common influence of the " h a r d " primitivism which was characteristically Cynic and of the preoccupation with physis which was characteristic.' of most Hellenistic thought on the origin of culture. (It is possible, of course, that (fie Cynics were directly indebted to the Epicureans; but see above, note 16).
,-/*<·' / • ; Q ,'
f„ ,.·..!.,.' ·' ·'· ·' :
I 72
The
D E M O C R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
theories o f Greek e t h n o l o g y o n the c u l t u r a l i m p o r t a n c e o f c l i m a t e a n d
e n v i r o n m e n t are i n v o k e d t o e x p l a i n the linguistic v a r i e t y whose o r i g i n E p i c u r u s is u n w i l l i n g t o l e a v e t o c h a n c e a n d a n i n i t i a l r a n d o m s e l e c t i o n ; and,
i n w h a t m a y stem f r o m a re-elaboration o f the pre-Socratic idea o f the
m o r t a l i t y o f t h e w o r l d w i t h ideas d r a w n f r o m m e d i c a l studies o f t h e g r o w t h and
decay o f organisms,
7 2
Epicurus links portions o f the c u l t u r a l cycle to
f i x e d phases i n t h e g r o w t h a n d d e c a y o f t h e n a t u r a l w o r l d .
7 3
Finally, the
passage a t t h e e n d o f L u c r e t i u s V o n t h e cacumen r e a c h e d b y c i v i l i z a t i o n m a y r e v e a l t h e i n f l u e n c e o f t h e A r i s t o t e l i a n i d e a o f a genesis, g r o w t h , a n d a c m e i n each o f the a r t s ;
7 4
a n d B o o k V I opens ( 1 - 4 1 ) w i t h a passage w h o s e i n -
s p i r a t i o n m a y b e e q u a l l y A r i s t o t e l i a n : E p i c u r u s comes t o m i n i s t e r t o t h e p s y c h i c needs o f a w o r l d w h o s e b o d i l y w a n t s a r e p r o v i d e d f o r b y t h e t e c h n o logical achievements o f Athens. I n similar fashion, philosophic speculation replaces p u r s u i t o f t h e useful a n d p l e a s u r a b l e i n t h e scheme o f h u m a n d e v e l o p m e n t p o s i t e d i n t h e De philosophia
(see a b o v e , p . 5 2 ) .
S o m e o f these m o t i f s a p p e a r i n f i f t h c e n t u r y l i t e r a t u r e
7 5
a n d m a y have
h a d a p a r t — t h o u g h p r o b a b l y a s u b o r d i n a t e o n e — i n t h e system o f D e m o c r i t u s . O t h e r s m a y be d u e , n o t t o E p i c u r u s , b u t t o s o m e o n e a m o n g his successors. Yet
t h e i r t o t a l t e n d e n c y is t o o m u c h o f a p i e c e t o suppose t h a t t h e y d o n o t
reflect, i n t h e m a i n , t h e w o r k o f a single i n t e l l i g e n c e — o n e aspect o f t h e c h a n n e l i n g a n d d a m m i n g effected i n t h e course o f those D e m o c r i t e a n streams quibus Epicurus
hortulos suos
irrigavit.
76
See Solmsen, A J P 7 4 . 3 4 - 5 1 . T h e close analogy developed in Lucretius ( 2 . 1 0 2 3 - 8 9 , 1 1 0 5 - 7 2 ; 5 . 9 4 3 - 4 4 ) between organic and cosmic growth and decay is not attested before Epicurus. Other influences as well may be at work here. Grilli (RendlstLomb 8 6 . 1 2 - 1 9 ) has advanced reasons for believing that certain details in Lucretius' account of the character of the earliest human life represent an effort to counter Peripatetic arguments (partially reproduced in Philo, Aet. mundi 55 ff.) against the theory of the spontaneous generation of mankind. T h e departure from the normal mode of genesis to which the Peripatetics objected is made slightly less extreme by having man born, not, as he evidently was in the zoogonies of Democritus and other pre-Socratics, fullgrown, but as an infant who is subsequently nourished by uteri in the earth. And the unlikelihood of such a creature's surviving is mitigated by the theory of the mild climate and fruitfulness of the earth in the early stages of its growth. T h e Democritean answer to such objections would have been, surely, that in most instances and in most worlds the creature did not survive; and it is interesting that Epicurus did not, so far as we can ascertain, make use of this argument. Elsewhere (Ad. Herod. 74) he rejects the Democritean idea that there are worlds without life; evidently the idea of a world without men was equally unacceptable to him. Epicurus here adopts a position rather similar to the teleological one which he purports to be attacking. Nor is this an isolated instance. Gf., for certain geometrical or almost "biological" regularities in his atomism for which there is no parallel in Democritus, C . Mugler, " S u r quelques particularites de l'atomisme ancien," RPh 27 (1953) 1 4 9 6 0 , and " L'isonomie des atomistes," RPh 30 (1956) 2 3 1 - 3 6 ; and the passages discussed by F . Solmsen, "Epicurus and Cosmological Heresies," A J P 72 (1951) 1-23. 7 2
7 3
7 4
A n idea which appears explicitly elsewhere in the book ( 5 . 3 2 4 - 3 7 ) ; see Bignone,
perduto 2 . 4 6 2 - 6 4 . 7 6
7 6
Gf. Airs, Waters, Places 12 and 16, cited above, note 70. T h e metaphor—a most appropriate one—is Cicero's (JVD 1.120).
L'Aristotele
173
T H E HEIRS OF DEMOCRITUS
T h e G a r d e n w h i c h r e s u l t e d is o n e w h i c h bears a d i s t u r b i n g r e s e m b l a n c e i n spots t o t h e closed a n d f i n i t e c u l t u r a l u n i v e r s e d e s c r i b e d b y P l a t o a n d A r i s t o t l e ; a n d i n g e n e r a l E p i c u r e a n Kulturgeschichte
c a n n o t h e l p b u t be dis-
a p p o i n t i n g w h e n c o m p a r e d w i t h its D e m o c r i t e a n m o d e l . I t m a y a l l o w o n occasion f o r t h e w o r k i n g o f a w i d e r r a n g e o f causes; b u t t h i s v a r i e t y does n o t s t e m f r o m a g r e a t e r c o m p l e x i t y o f t h o u g h t . I t is a n i n d i c a t i o n r a t h e r o f e c l e c t i c i s m a n d u n c e r t a i n t y , o f a system w h i c h seeks t o a c c o m m o d a t e
the
b o l d a n d b r i l l i a n t hypotheses o f D e m o c r i t u s t o t h e m o r e u n i f i e d a n d o r d e r l y framework of Academic
a n d P e r i p a t e t i c a e t i o l o g y a n d fails t o p r o d u c e
a
satisfactory c o m p r o m i s e . T h a t t h i s i n a d e q u a t e c o p y r e m a i n e d f o r n e a r l y t w o t h o u s a n d years t h e m o s t s a t i s f a c t o r y a c c o u n t o f t h e o r i g i n o f c u l t u r e k n o w n t o t h e W e s t , a n a c c o u n t w h i c h has its a d m i r e r s e v e n t o d a y , is a s t r i k i n g testimony to the q u a l i t y o f the o r i g i n a l . T h e l a t t e r m u s t have been a n achievem e n t o f t h e first o r d e r , c o m p a r a b l e i n some w a y s t o t h e D e m o c r i t e a n system o f the physical universe, t h o u g h destined, like i t , to be neglected a n d forg o t t e n i n l a t e r a n t i q u i t y . T h e fate o f t h e o n e as w e l l as t h e o t h e r c o n s t i t u t e s a n i r r e p a r a b l e loss t o o u r k n o w l e d g e o f a n c i e n t t h o u g h t .
APPENDIX
ONE
DIODORUS
1.7-8*
D i o d o r u s 1.7 begins w i t h a c o s m o g o n y w h i c h tells h o w , i n t h e b e g i n n i n g , the f o u r e l e m e n t s e m e r g e d f r o m a p r i m e v a l c o n d i t i o n i n w h i c h e a r t h a n d sky w e r e as y e t o f a single aspect. F i r e s e p a r a t e d f r o m a i r , r i s i n g t o f o r m t h e heavens; earth a n d water remained, d i v i d i n g eventually i n t o l a n d and
sea.
1
T h e e a r t h , s t i l l soft a n d m u d d y , b e g a n to g r o w w a r m u n d e r t h e rays o f t h e s u n a n d b e c a m e s w o l l e n i n its m o i s t e r spots w i t h pustules. W i t h i n t h e t h i n membranes
which
surrounded
these
swellings
spontaneous
generation
o c c u r r e d . W h e n t h e e m b r y o s so f o r m e d a t t a i n e d t h e i r f u l l g r o w t h , t h e m e m b r a n e s b u r s t , s e n d i n g f o r t h a l l k i n d s o f l i v i n g creatures to i n h a b i t e a r t h , a i r , a n d sea. F u r t h e r h a r d e n i n g o f t h e e a r t h b y t h e s u n t o o k a w a y its c a p a c i t y f o r b r i n g i n g f o r t h t h e l a r g e r species, w h i c h t h e r e a f t e r p r o p a g a t e d themselves s e x u a l l y . A s i m i l a r c o s m o g o n y a n d z o o g o n y , so D i o d o r u s tells us, a c c o u n t s f o r t h e lines i n the Melanippe
o f E u r i p i d e s w h i c h relate h o w e a r t h , after h e r
s e p a r a t i o n f r o m sky, " b r o u g h t f o r t h i n t o t h e l i g h t o f d a y trees, b i r d s , beasts, t h e n u r s l i n g s o f t h e sea, a n d t h e race o f m o r t a l m e n . " C h a p t e r 8 c o n t i n u e d w i t h t h e a c c o u n t , s t u d i e d i n d e t a i l i n the t e x t , o f t h e earliest existence o f these m e n , p a i n f u l a n d b r u t i s h at first, b u t e v e n t u a l l y t r a n s f o r m e d r a d i c a l l y t h r o u g h t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f l a n g u a g e , society, a n d
technology.
I t was R e i n h a r d t ' s c o n t e n t i o n ( 4 9 5 - 9 8 ) t h a t these t w o c h a p t e r s
appeared
i n D i o d o r u s ' source as a n a t i v e v e r s i o n o f c o s m o g o n y a n d p r e h i s t o r y , exp o u n d e d b y priests as a p r e f a c e to t h e i r a c c o u n t o f the earliest life i n E g y p t ( 1 . 1 0 - 2 9 i n o u r p r e s e n t t e x t ) . H e based his t h e o r y o n s i m i l a r i t i e s b e t w e e n 1.7-8
a n d these l a t e r logoi, a n d o n t w o passages, one i n D i o d o r u s (1.42.1)
a n d one i n D i o g e n e s L a e r t i u s ( 1 . 1 0 ) , w h i c h seemed to refer t o j u s t t h e sort o f " E g y p t i a n " c o s m o g o n y a n d z o o g o n y whose existence he h a d p o s i t e d . C r i t i c s o f R e i n h a r d t ' s thesis h a v e c o n c e n t r a t e d o n the i m m e d i a t e p o s i t i o n a l p r o b l e m s r a i s e d b y t h e first o f t h e a r g u m e n t s
com-
a d v a n c e d i n its
s u p p o r t . T h e y h a v e n o t e d c o n t r a d i c t i o n s b e t w e e n the n a r r a t i v e o f 7-8 a n d t h a t o f t h e s u b s e q u e n t c h a p t e r s ( J a c o b y , FGrH
I l i a 39.26-37, and Spoerri,
129 a n d 163), o r else m a i n t a i n e d t h a t the s i m i l a r i t i e s w h i c h d o exist i n v o l v e * Cf. page 16, with note 3. Whether air is viewed as containing what was eventually to become earth and water as well as fire is uncertain. Diodorus is unclear at this point, nor is there any exact parallel in other Greek cosmogonies; see Spoerri, 17-18, 31-33· 1
'74
A P P E N D I X O N E : DIODORUS I .j—8
doctrines w h i c h were c o m m o n knowledge
175
i n Diodorus' time (Spoerri,
163)
a n d are h e n c e i n s u f f i c i e n t t o j u s t i f y t h e a s s u m p t i o n o f w h a t w o u l d h a v e b e e n , o n D i o d o r u s ' p a r t , a v i o l e n t a n d g r a t u i t o u s r e a r r a n g e m e n t o f source m a t e r i a l (Pfligersdorfer,
SBWien
232, N o . 5, 144).
Further, they have pointed
out
( S p o e r r i , 1 1 4 - 1 5 ) t h a t c e r t a i n inconsistencies w i t h i n t h e t w o c h a p t e r s suggest a c o m p o s i t e source f o r 7 - 8 . R e i n h a r d t ' s second a r g u m e n t has b e e n a l l o w e d to go, f o r t h e m o s t p a r t , u n n o t i c e d a n d u n r e f u t e d . bearing
o n t h e issues raised
Since i t has c o n s i d e r a b l e
2
b y t h e f i r s t , i t deserves r e s t a t e m e n t
and
re-
examination. T h e first b o o k o f D i o d o r u s is d i v i d e d i n t o t w o p a r t s , t h e second o f w h i c h opens w i t h a s u m m a r y o f w h a t has g o n e b e f o r e :
"a
p r o e m o n the
subject a n d t h e a c c o u n t s c u r r e n t a m o n g t h e E g y p t i a n s
t h e cosmos a n d t h e c o m i n g i n t o b e i n g o f a l l t h i n g s f r o m t h e (1.42.1). T h e
whole
about the o r i g i n o f beginning"
c o s m o g o n y a n d p r e - h i s t o r y r e f e r r e d t o is t h e E g y p t i a n
which Reinhardt
one
assumed f o r D i o d o r u s ' source, a n d its a p p e a r a n c e h e r e
gives c o n s i d e r a b l e s u p p o r t t o his t h e o r y . T h e passage has b e e n r e g a r d e d as a n 3
i n t e r p o l a t i o n (see O l d f a t h e r ' s e d i t i o n , adloc). c a n n o t be b y D i o d o r u s ,
4
Its o p e n i n g words, at any rate,
a n d i t contains i n the portions n o t q u o t e d
here
f u r t h e r omissions a n d i n a c c u r a c i e s s u c h as one m i g h t e x p e c t f r o m a careless e d i t o r . B u t i t is h a r d t o see h o w m e r e carelessness c o u l d r e s u l t i n t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f t h e g e n e r a l m a t e r i a l o f 1.7 i n t o s o m e t h i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y Nothing
comparable
appears i n the summaries
found
i n later
Egyptian. books
of
D i o d o r u s , a n d t h e r e is n o t h i n g i n t h e b o o k i t s e l f w h i c h w o u l d a c c o u n t f o r the error. T h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n the E g y p t i a n a n d n o n - E g y p t i a n m a t e r i a l is c e r t a i n l y c l e a r e n o u g h confusion w i t h another
as t h e t e x t n o w stands. S u c h a m i s t a k e a c c o u n t , one i n w h i c h
1.7
d i d have an
suggests Egyptian
setting; a n d the person most l i k e l y to have m a d e such a confusion w o u l d have b e e n t h e a u t h o r h i m s e l f — r e m e m b e r i n g t h e a c c o u n t w h i c h he d r e w u p o n a n d , p e r h a p s , r e p r o d u c e d m o r e a c c u r a t e l y i n a n e a r l i e r d r a f t o f his o w n w o r k .
2
So S p o e r r i (115.
n o t e 5) dismisses
1.42.1 as t o o " u n g e n a u u n d l ü c k e n h a f t "
5
10 be o f m u c h
s i g n i f i c a n c e . F o r J a c o b y ' s t r e a t m e n t o f t h e passage, see b e l o w , n o t e 3. 3
J a c o b y (FGrH
I I I A 3 0 . 2 4 - 2 5 ) refers t h e s t a t e m e n t o n t h e " o r i g i n o f t h e cosmos a n d t h e c o m i n g
i n t o b e i n g o f a l l t h i n g s " t o 1.10 a n d 1.11.5-12 ( t h e first c h a p t e r o f t h e E g y p t i a n p o r t i o n o f B o o k I as i t n o w stands a n d t h e s u b s e q u e n t E g y p t i a n t h e o l o g y ) . B u t 1.10 c o n t a i n s n o t h i n g a t a l l a b o u t t h e o r i g i n o f t h e cosmos a n d is c o n c e r n e d w i t h c o m i n g i n t o b e i n g o n l y as i t i n v o l v e s t h e e a r l i e s t i n h a b i t a n t s o f E g y p t , n o t a l l t h i n g s ; a n d 11.5-12 discusses t h e m a i n t e n a n c e o f t h e cosmos, n o t its f o r m a t i o n . T h e r e f e r e n c e m u s t b e , as R e i n h a r d t assumes, to 1.7. 4
T h i s is c l e a r f r o m t h e w a y i n w h i c h t h e y refer t o t h e a u t h o r i n t h e t h i r d p e r s o n : " T h e first b o o k
o f D i o d o r u s b e i n g d i v i d e d i n t o t w o because o f its l e n g t h . . . . " I t is q u i t e p o s s i b l e , h o w e v e r , t h a t a n o r i g i n a l ή μεν προ ταύτης
βίβλου
πΐριέχβί,
or the l i k e , was a l t e r e d b y a n e d i t o r to m a k e i t clear t h a t
t h e s e c t i o n r e f e r r e d t o is n o t a n e n t i r e b o o k b u t o n l y h a l t o f o n e . 5
For a comparable situation (in Book X I I I )
w h e r e a passage—this t i m e a preface—seems to
refer t o a d i f f e r e n t r e c e n s i o n , see R . L a q u e u r , " D i o d o r c a , " Hermes 8 6 ( 1 9 5 8 )
281-85.
I 76
D E M O C R I T U S AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
This account
m a y h a v e left traces elsewhere. D i o g e n e s L a e r t i u s , i n his
s u m m a r y (1.10) o f t h e " p h i l o s o p h i c a l ideas o f t h e E g y p t i a n s , " r e p o r t s t h a t , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e m , " t h e f i r s t p r i n c i p l e is m a t t e r a n d s u b s e q u e n t l y
the four
e l e m e n t s are d i f f e r e n t i a t e d o u t o f i t , a n d c e r t a i n l i v i n g c r e a t u r e s are gendered."
en-
L a t e r i n his r e p o r t D i o g e n e s m e n t i o n s H e c a t a e u s i n c o n n e c t i o n
w i t h a p o i n t o f E g y p t i a n theology, a n d f r o m this R e i n h a r d t concluded t h a t t h e w h o l e passage is H e c a t a e a n . T h e r e is n o j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r this (see
FGrH
I l i a , 39.11—18 a n d S p o e r r i , 5 5 - 5 6 ) b u t t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f D i o g e n e s ' t e s t i m o n y is n o t t h e r e b y i m p a i r e d . W h o e v e r t h e source o f D i o g e n e s ' i n f o r m a t i o n was, his a c c o u n t , l i k e t h a t w i t h w h i c h t h e a u t h o r o f 1.42 was f a m i l i a r , c o n t a i n e d a c o s m o g o n y p l u s z o o g o n y s i m i l a r t o t h a t w h i c h a p p e a r s i n 1.7; i t p r e s e n t e d i t as t h e t e a c h i n g o f t h e
Egyptians.
and
6
I f t h e e v i d e n c e o f these passages is t o be d i s r e g a r d e d , o n e m u s t assume t h a t D i o d o r u s , i n search o f a g e n e r a l a c c o u n t t o b e g i n his h i s t o r y , h i t u p o n t h e v e r y o n e w h i c h i n c e r t a i n o t h e r H e l l e n i s t i c texts was a s c r i b e d t o t h e E g y p t i a n priests whose theories o n t h e o r i g i n o f l i f e i n E g y p t a p p e a r p r o m i n e n t l y i n t h e first b o o k o f his o w n w o r k . A n d one m u s t also assume t h a t t h e a u t h o r o f 1.42, b y m e r e i n a d v e r t e n c e , b r o u g h t his o w n s u m m a r y o f t h e first h a l f o f t h e b o o k i n t o l i n e w i t h w h a t was said i n those, same texts. T h i s seems t o be t o o m u c h t o ascribe t o c o i n c i d e n c e . H e r e , at a n y r a t e , R e i n h a r d t ' s t h e o r y a c c o u n t s f o r t h e e v i d e n c e b e t t e r t h a n a n y o t h e r . T h e consequences o f r e j e c t i n g i t are j u s t as serious as the c o m p o s i t i o n a l p r o b l e m s r e l a t i n g to 7 - 8 w h i c h i t raises. T h e l a t t e r , i f t h e y exist, c a n n o t be i g n o r e d , b u t n e i t h e r s h o u l d t h e y be a l l o w e d t o o c c u p y o u r e x c l u s i v e a t t e n t i o n . Actually,
however,
a
solution
to
these
problems
in
keeping
with
R e i n h a r d t ' s thesis is n o t i m p o s s i b l e . I t c a n be s h o w n t h a t c e r t a i n p e c u l i a r features o f 7 - 8
a n d t h e i r i m m e d i a t e s u r r o u n d i n g s are best e x p l a i n e d
by
assuming a n o r i g i n a l arrangement o f m a t e r i a l differing only slightly f r o m t h a t w h i c h R e i n h a r d t suggested. D i o d o r u s opens his e n t i r e w o r k w i t h a p r e f a c e s e t t i n g f o r t h t h e m e r i t s a n d scope o f h i s t o r y ( 1 . 1 - 3 ) as w e l l as his o w n a i m s a n d m e t h o d s ( 1 . 4 . 1 - 5 ) . T o this is a p p e n d e d
a table o f contents a n d a chronological note
(1.4.6-5.2).
C h a p t e r 6 begins w i t h a final r e m a r k o n m e t h o d : D i o d o r u s w i l l n o t g i v e a n y separate t r e a t m e n t to t h e " v i e w s o n the gods h e l d b y those w h o first establ i s h e d r e l i g i o u s o b s e r v a n c e s , " b u t a n y r e l e v a n t m a t e r i a l w i l l be
appended
i n s u m m a r y f o r m as o c c a s i o n arises ( 6 . 1 ) . W i t h r e g a r d , h o w e v e r , t o " t h e 6
To the parallels with D. L . i.io should be added those linking Diodorus' peculiar conception (above, note i) of the role of air in the creation of the cosmos to what appears in certain Egyptian creation stories. The parallels are pointed out by Spoerri (i 16-17) not sufficiently emphasized; cf. J . G . Griffith in his review of Spathellenislische Berichte, JHS 82.183: "Hecataeus, if the idea is Egyptian, might have proved an admirable source." D u t
177
1.7-8
A P P E N D I X O N E : DIODORUS
w h o l e h u m a n race a n d t h e events w h i c h h a v e t r a n s p i r e d i n t h e k n o w n p a r t s o f t h e w o r l d , " he p r o m i s e s t o g i v e a r e c o r d w h i c h b e g i n s w i t h t h e earliest t i m e s a n d is as a c c u r a t e as t h e r e m o t e c h a r a c t e r
o f t h e subject w i l l a l l o w
( 6 . 2 ) . So f a r , a l l is clear. T r a d i t i o n a l l y , u n i v e r s a l h i s t o r y o f t h e s o r t D i o d o r u s is w r i t i n g m i g h t o r m i g h t n o t o p e n w i t h a t h e o g o n y .
7
D i o d o r u s is c h o o s i n g
n o t t o d o so. T h e n e x t sentence, h o w e v e r , i n t r o d u c e s some serious
diffi-
culties : W i t h regard to the o r i g i n a l c o m i n g i n t o being o f m a n k i n d there have been t w o expressions o f view a m o n g the most reputable o f n a t u r a l philosophers a n d historians. Those w h o posit a w o r l d w i t h o u t b e g i n n i n g a n d end declare t h a t the h u m a n race also has existed f r o m a l l t i m e , its generation never h a v i n g had a starting p o i n t . B u t those w h o suppose the w o r l d to have a b e g i n n i n g and an end say that, for m a n k i n d as w e l l as for i t , there is a n o r i g i n a l c o m i n g i n t o being at definite times (6.3). T h e reference i n 6.2 t o a r e c o r d o f " w h a t has t r a n s p i r e d i n t h e k n o w n p a r t s o f t h e w o r l d " c e r t a i n l y seemed to p r e p a r e t h e w a y f o r a f a c t u a l , n a t i o n - b y n a t i o n t r e a t m e n t o f h i s t o r y . T h e present sentence, h o w e v e r , retraces g r o u n d a b r u p t l y t o theories a b o u t the c o m m o n b e g i n n i n g o f t h e w h o l e race, a n d to a s u b j e c t — t h e o r i g i n o f t h e c o s m o s — w h i c h p r o p e r l y s p e a k i n g has n o t h i n g to d o w i t h t h e h u m a n race at a l l . T h e
connection
b e t w e e n 6.3 a n d
what
f o l l o w s ( C h a p t e r 7) is e q u a l l y t e n u o u s . F o r the b u l k o f t h e l a t t e r c h a p t e r is a z o o g o n y : t h e o r i g i n o f the cosmos occupies a s m a l l space a t its b e g i n n i n g , a n d t h e o r i g i n o f m a n is n o t m e n t i o n e d u n t i l t h e q u o t a t i o n f r o m E u r i p i d e s w i t h w h i c h i t closes ( S p o e r r i , 1 1 4 - 1 5 ) . 6.3 looks r a t h e r l i k e a n i n s e r t i o n i n t e n d e d to f i l l t h e g a p b e t w e e n t w o u n c o n n e c t e d s u b j e c t s : t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e separate n a t i o n s o f m a n k i n d a n d the s p o n t a n e o u s g e n e r a t i o n o f l i f e a t t h e t i m e o f t h e o r i g i n o f t h e cosmos. T h e t r a n s i t i o n is effected b y a reference, c o m m o n p l a c e e n o u g h ( S p o e r r i , 206, n o t e 3) t o t w o o f t h e m o s t w i d e l y h e l d v i e w s o n t h e age o f m a n a n d t h e cosmos. B u t n e i t h e r o f t h e c o n c e p t i o n s
so
i n t r o d u c e d , t h e one o f t h e e t e r n i t y o f m a n a n d t h e cosmos, t h e o t h e r o f t h e i r p e r i o d i c r e c r e a t i o n , is to receive a n y f u r t h e r A
similar transitional character
development.
is e v i d e n t
8
i n t h e passage w h i c h i m -
m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w s t h e c h a p t e r s w h i c h R e i n h a r d t b e l i e v e d t o h a v e b e e n disp l a c e d f r o m t h e i r o r i g i n a l p o s i t i o n . H a v i n g c o n c l u d e d his a c c o u n t o f m a n ' s ' So, for example, theogony was absent from Ephorus but present in Anaximenes of Lampsacus, whose procedure is cited by Diodorus himself in another context (15.89.3 = FGrH 7 2 T 1 4 ) . I see no reason to assume, with Spoerri (206, with note 2), the presence of Stoic influence here. The parallels he cites (.SIT 2.168.13 and 169.23-24) are too general to be of any significance. I n 1.10.4 a somewhat similar contrast is drawn between theories which trace the present race of men alternately to survivors of a flood or to a new brood created from earth after an earlier race had been completely destroyed. There, however, the bearing which both theories have on the subject at hand, the antiquity of the Egyptian race, is made quite clear. 7
8
I 78
D E M O C R I T U S AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
earliest m o d e o f existence
( 8 . 1 - 9 ) D i o d o r u s proceeds to a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f
" t h e earliest h a p p e n i n g s i n t h e k n o w n p o r t i o n s o f t h e w o r l d o f w h i c h a n y m e m o r y remains ( g . i ) . " T h e m e n t i o n o f the k n o w n portions o f the w o r l d recalls 6.2 ( S p o e r r i , 207, w i t h n o t e 8 ) , as i f t h e w r i t e r w e r e r e t u r n i n g f r o m a digression. I f so, t h e process is one w h i c h r e q u i r e s t h e i n c l u s i o n o f m o r e i n c i d e n t a l m a t e r i a l before i t is c o m p l e t e . D i o d o r u s first notes t h e d i f f i c u l t y o f e s t a b l i s h i n g w h o t h e first k i n g s w e r e — g i v e n t h e o b v i o u s newness r e l a t i v e to t h e i n s t i t u t i o n o f k i n g s h i p o f t h e a r t o f w r i t i n g , p a r t i c u l a r l y t h a t o f w r i t i n g h i s t o r y ( 9 . 2 ) . T h e c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e p r e c e d i n g is obscure. T h e " m e m o r y " o f 9.1 m a y be w r i t t e n m e m o r y ; hence 9.2 m i g h t h a v e p e r t i n e n c e as a sort o f f o o t n o t e o n t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f w r i t t e n source m a t e r i a l . B u t i f so, t h e presence o f t h e k i n g s r e m a i n s u n e x p l a i n e d . K i n g s h i p is p e r h a p s i n t r o d u c e d as t h e exa m p l e , p a r excellence, o f a n i n s t i t u t i o n w h i c h , t h o u g h m e n t i o n e d o r p r e supposed i n a l l o u r earliest d o c u m e n t s , m u s t be assumed to a n t e d a t e t h e m . Y e t i f t h i s is t h e i d e a b e h i n d t h e p r e s e n t passage, D i o d o r u s m u s t be c e r p t i n g f r o m a l a r g e r c o n t e x t i n w h i c h t h e t h o u g h t was d e v e l o p e d
ex-
more
fully. T h e n e x t sentence adds n o c l a r i f i c a t i o n ; i t m e r e l y i n t r o d u c e s a c o m p l e t e l y n e w i d e a . " W i t h r e g a r d t o a n t i q u i t y o f race, n o t o n l y t h e Greeks, b u t also m a n y o f t h e B a r b a r i a n s , p u t f o r w a r d t h e i r c l a i m s , asserting t h e i r o w n a u t o c h t h o n o u s o r i g i n a n d p r i o r i t y i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f useful i n v e n t i o n s a n d k e e p i n g o f w r i t t e n r e c o r d s ( 9 . 3 ) . " O n c e a g a i n i t is possible t o t r a c e a sort o f t e n u o u s c o n n e c t i o n w i t h w h a t has g o n e before. T h e a r g u m e n t m i g h t be e x p a n d e d as f o l l o w s : e v e n t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e o r i g i n o f k i n g s h i p is one w h i c h does n o t a l l o w o f s o l u t i o n because o f its a n t i q u i t y ; h o w m u c h m o r e so t h a t o f t h e o r i g i n , n o t o f a single i n s t i t u t i o n , b u t o f a w h o l e race. B u t t h e p e r spectives o f 9.2 a n d 9.3 c a n be h a r m o n i z e d o n l y w i t h d i f f i c u l t y . T h e f o r m e r i m p l i e s t h a t t h e r e l a t i v e ages o f w r i t t e n records are n o c r i t e r i o n b y w h i c h to j u d g e the a n t i q u i t y o f the institutions w h i c h they describe; i n the latter, Greeks a n d B a r b a r i a n s are r e p r e s e n t e d as o f f e r i n g t h e a n t i q u i t y o f t h e i r o w n w r i t t e n r e c o r d s as r e l i a b l e t e s t i m o n y to t h e a n t i q u i t y o f t h e i r races. T h e connection between
9.2 a n d 9.3 is t h u s n o clearer t h a n t h a t b e t w e e n
9.1
a n d 9.2. I t is o n l y w i t h 9.4 t h a t a l o g i c a l succession o f ideas is
re-established.
H a v i n g m e n t i o n e d t h e r i v a l c l a i m s o f d i f f e r e n t n a t i o n s ( 9 . 3 ) , D i o d o r u s declines t o a d j u d i c a t e b e t w e e n t h e m ( 9 . 4 ) . H i s d e c i s i o n to b e g i n w i t h
Egypt
does n o t i m p l y a n y s u c h j u d g m e n t : he is s i m p l y t r e a t i n g t h e B a r b a r i a n s first i n o r d e r n o t t o h a v e t o i n t e r r u p t his subsequent a c c o u n t o f t h e Greeks ( 9 . 5 ) , a n d t h e E g y p t i a n s before t h e others because o f t h e g e n e r a l i n t e r e s t t h e i r h i s t o r y h o l d s a n d t h e t r a d i t i o n s o f t h e b i r t h s o f t h e gods a n d the d i s c o v e r y o f a s t r o n o m y w h i c h are associated w i t h i t ( 9 . 6 ) .
A P P E N D I X O N E : DIODORUS 1.7-8
179
I t is n o t l i k e l y t o be c o i n c i d e n t a l t h a t t h e first sentence o f t h e c h a p t e r (9.3) to f o r m p a r t o f a n a t u r a l sequence o f t h o u g h t w o u l d be a p e r f e c t sequel t o 6.2, t h e last o n e o f t h a t c h a p t e r t o f o r m p a r t o f such a s e q u e n c e : 6.2 περί
τον γένους
γνωριζομένοις
των απάντων
ανθρώπων
μέρεσι της οικουμένης,
ακριβώς άναγράφομεν από τΰιν αρχαιοτάτων 9·3 περί δέ της τον γένους αρχαιότητος
και των πραχθέντων
ώς αν ενδέχηται περι των οϋτω χρόνων
εν
τοις
παλαιών,
άρξαμενοι.
ου μόνον άμφισβητονσιν
"Ελληνες, άλλα και
πολλοί τ ω ν βαρβάρων . . . λέγοντες . . . τάς γενομένας παρ' αύτοΐς πράξεις εκ πλείστων
χρόνων αναγραφής
ήξιώσθαι.
D i o d o r u s sets f o r t h h i s s u b j e c t : t h e h u m a n race a n d its praxeis
i n different
p a r t s o f t h e w o r l d . T h e r e c o r d is t o s t a r t f r o m earliest t i m e s a n d be as a c c u r a t e as t h e n a t u r e o f t h e s u b j e c t w i l l a l l o w . T h e r e is a n i n i t i a l d i f f i c u l t y : Greeks a n d B a r b a r i a n s a r e n o t a g r e e d resentatives praxeis
o f t h e race,
as t o w h o w e r e
a n d have different views
t h e earliest r e p
a b o u t t h e age o f t h e
w h i c h a r e o n r e c o r d f o r t h e i r p a r t o f t h e oikoumene. D i o d o r u s w i l l n o t
d e c i d e t h e d i s p u t e , b u t w i l l t r e a t t h e subject i n t h e o r d e r d i c t a t e d b y c o n v e n i e n c e . A n d so t o t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e A e g y p t i a c a . H e r e e v e r y t h i n g f o l l o w s w i t h p e r f e c t e c o n o m y a n d l o g i c o f t r e a t m e n t a n d i n w h a t was, I b e l i e v e , t h e original order—subsequently disrupted b y the insertion (or transposition) o f C h a p t e r s 7 a n d 8. I t is n o t h a r d t o suggest a p l a u s i b l e reason f o r t h e i n s e r t i o n . W e k n o w t h a t 1.1-5 w a s w r i t t e n ,
9
o r a t least r e v i s e d ,
1 0
after t h e rest o f t h e w o r k w a s c o m
p l e t e d . T h e passage is l a b o r e d a n d p o m p o u s , t h e w o r k o f " a s m a l l m a n w i t h p r e t e n s i o n s " ( N o c k , JRS 4 9 . 5 ) : h i s t o r y is t h e m o s t n e a r l y p e r f e c t o f h u m a n d i s c i p l i n e s ; i t is a t o n c e m o r e d e l i g h t f u l t h a n p o e t r y a n d m o r e s a l u t a r y t h a n l a w codes; i t m e m o r i a l i z e s t h e c o m m o n a c h i e v e m e n t s
a n d characteristics
w h i c h l i n k a l l m e n t o o n e a n o t h e r as c i t i z e n s o f a single race a n d c o s m o s — a n d D i o d o r u s ' w o r k is t h e m o s t c o m p l e t e a n d p e r f e c t s p e c i m e n o f t h e g e n r e y e t p u t before t h e p u b l i c . I n w r i t i n g o r r e v i s i n g these lines D i o d o r u s m a y w e l l h a v e felt a c e r t a i n uneasiness. C h a p t e r s 7 a n d 8 a r e t h e r e s u l t : a n e f f o r t t o bridge t h e g a p between t h e h i g h - s o u n d i n g r h e t o r i c o f the preface a n d t h e uninspired
c o l l e c t i o n o f excerpts
w h i c h follows. F o r they
do deal
with
h u m a n i t y as a w h o l e i n t h e m a n n e r p r o m i s e d . S u m m a r y a c c o u n t s o f t h e b e g i n n i n g s o f t h e cosmos a n d h u m a n life w e r e d o u b t l e s s a v a i l a b l e i n t h e first c e n t u r y B . C . , a n d i t was p e r h a p s a v a g u e f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h t h e topos w h i c h suggested t o D i o d o r u s t h e g e n e r a l lines w h i c h t h e r e v i s i o n o f his t e x t s h o u l d t a k e . Y e t , as t h e p a t c h w o r k a r o u n d 7 a n d 8 shows, t h e w h o l e p l a n w a s a n . ,<"'"·•;·'.' 9
As suggested by Reinhardt ( 4 9 8 ) , calling attention to 1.4.6: errel δ' ή μέν ύττόθεσις tMi τ*Χο£,-
αί βίβλοι 8έ μέχρι τον ννν ανέκδοτοι τνγχάνονσιν ονσαι. 1 0
See Laqueur (above, note 5) 2 8 6 - 8 9 .
f
II ^
t
/
ί
. Π
«|( c
ΐ8θ
D E M O C R I T U S AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
a f t e r t h o u g h t , i m p e r f e c t l y c o n c e i v e d a n d carelessly e x e c u t e d . I f t h e m a t e r i a l w h i c h c o u l d s u p p l y h i m w i t h t h e details o f his t r e a t m e n t was a l r e a d y o n h a n d i n a l a t e r p o r t i o n o f B o o k I , i t is u n l i k e l y t h a t D i o d o r u s w o u l d h a v e b o t h e r e d to l o o k f o r s o m e t h i n g s i m i l a r elsewhere. G i v e n t h e u n d i s p u t e d a n t i q u i t y o f their t r a d i t i o n , the views o f the " E g y p t i a n s " c o u l d be e x p e c t e d t o be as r e l i a b l e as a n y .
1 1
o n the beginnings o f things T h e expedient resorted to d i d
some v i o l e n c e t o D i o d o r u s ' source, b u t was a p e r f e c t l y n a t u r a l one u n d e r t h e circumstances.
1 2
I t has left its traces, n o t s i m p l y i n t h e e x t r a n e o u s m a t e r i a l
w h i c h s u r r o u n d s 7 a n d 8 i n t h e i r p r e s e n t s e t t i n g , b u t also, as w e s h a l l see, i n c e r t a i n gaps w h i c h t h e i r r e m o v a l c r e a t e d i n t h e o l d one. C h a p t e r 10 b e g i n s b y g i v i n g t h e E g y p t i a n s ' reasons f o r b e l i e v i n g t h a t t h e i r c o u n t r y was t h e earliest h o m e o f m a n k i n d . These are t w o : t h e f e r t i l i t y o f t h e N i l e v a l l e y , w h i c h supplies o f its o w n a c c o r d a b u n d a n t sustenance f o r l i f e , a n d t h e eukrasia
o f t h e i r l a n d . T h e eukrasia
m e n t i o n e d is p r e s u m a b l y
the
t e m p e r a t e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e E g y p t i a n c l i m a t e : t h e absence o f t h e e x t r e m e s o f h e a t a n d c o l d w h i c h w o u l d m a k e life d i f f i c u l t o r i m p o s s i b l e .
1 3
D i o d o r u s does
n o t , h o w e v e r , b o t h e r t o g i v e s u c h a c l a r i f i c a t i o n ; i n s t e a d he l a u n c h e s , r a t h e r a b r u p t l y , i n t o a n a t t e m p t to show, o n other grounds, w h y the spontaneous generation, n o t s i m p l y o f m e n , b u t o f a l l l i v i n g creatures, must have b e g u n in Egypt
(1.10.2-3):
A n d they seek to offer i n support o f the theory o f a n i n i t i a l spontaneous genera t i o n i n t h e i r l a n d the fact t h a t even n o w i n the T h e b a i d on certain occasions the generation o f mice i n such numbers a n d o f such size occurs t h a t those w h o ob serve i t are astounded. F o r some o f t h e m are formed u p to the chest a n d the forefeet a n d are capable o f movement, b u t have the r e m a i n i n g p o r t i o n o f their b o d y u n f o r m e d , the m u d still r e m a i n i n g i n its n a t u r a l state. A n d f r o m this i t is evident t h a t at the t i m e o f the o r i g i n a l creation o f the cosmos, w h e n the earth was temperately m i x e d , E g y p t above a l l other places w o u l d have been the scene of the generation of m e n . F o r n o w , w h e n the rest o f the earth produces n o t h i n g 1 4
Cf. the similar procedure in Porphyry, De abstinentia 2.5 ( = Theophrastus, Ilepl εΰσΐβείας, Fr. 1.1—Q Potscher), where it is assumed that the forms of sacrifice first practiced by the Egyptians were the earliest known to mankind in general. 1 1
1 2
A similar transfer doubtless explains the reappearance of a portion of the general anthropology of 1.8 in the specifically Indian context of Book I I (1.8.9 = 2.38.2). Gf. the very similar passage in Justin 2.1.5: "inter Scythas et Aegyptios diu contestio de generis vetustate fuerit, Aegyptiis praedicantibus . . . Aegyptum ita temperatum semper fuisse ut neque hiberna frigora nec aestivi solis ardores incolas eius premerent: solum ita fecundum ut alimentorum in usum hominum nulla terra feracior fuerit. iure igitur ibi primum homines natos videri debere ubi educari facillime possent." Here fertility and eukrasia are linked in exactly the same way as they are in Diodorus. Temperate climate and fertile soil often appear in passages dedicated to the praise of a particular region. See Firmicus Maternus, Math. 1.7.16; Plato, Timaeus 2 4 c ; Oionysius, Antiq. Rom. 1.37.5; Herodotus 3.106; Euripides, F r . 981 ( T G F 677). 1 3
1 4
κατά τήν £ξ αρχής τον κόσμον σνστασίν τής γής ενκράτον καθεστώσης μάλιστ' αν εσχε τήν yeveaiv
των ανθρώπων ή κατ' Αϊγνπτον χώρα. Oldfather translates as if the γής were Egypt. But if this were
A P P E N D I X O N E : DIODORUS 1.7-8
l8l
o f the k i n d , i t is here only t h a t the phenomenal spontaneous generation o f some l i v i n g things is observed. Two
ideas a r e p r e s e n t e d h e r e , t h e second o f t h e m s o m e w h a t o b s c u r e l y (see
S p o e r r i , 2 0 9 , n o t e 15). I t is n a t u r a l e n o u g h t o a d d u c e c o n t e m p o r a r y s p o n taneous g e n e r a t i o n as e v i d e n c e f o r its f o r m e r o c c u r r e n c e ( 1 0 . 2 ) , b u t i t is less easy t o see w h y t h e f a c t t h a t n o o t h e r c o u n t r y p r o d u c e s a n i m a l s i n t h i s f a s h i o n p r o v e s t h a t E g y p t o n c e p r o d u c e d m e n i n t h e same w a y ( 1 0 . 3 ) . M o r e o v e r , eukrasia n o w c h a r a c t e r i z e s , n o t E g y p t , b u t t h e w h o l e e a r t h , a n d the w o r d seems t o h a v e a n e w m e a n i n g . T h e m a i n t e n a n c e o f life is f a v o r e d by
a t e m p e r a t e c l i m a t e , b u t as t h e p r e c o n d i t i o n o f its g e n e r a t i o n G r e e k
zoology a n d ethnology usually posited a m i x t u r e , n o t o f heat a n d cold, b u t of heat and m o i s t u r e .
1 5
T h e w o r d s , " a t t h e t i m e o f t h e o r i g i n o f t h e cosmos
w h e n t h e e a r t h was t e m p e r a t e l y m i x e d , " m u s t refer t o t h e process d e s c r i b e d i n C h a p t e r 7: t h e m i n g l i n g o f t h e sun's w a r m t h w i t h t h e m o i s t u r e o f a n e a r t h o n l y r e c e n t l y s e p a r a t e d f r o m t h e sea. T h e r e s u l t i n g eukrasia m a d e t h e e a r t h as a w h o l e m u c h m o r e s u i t e d t o t h e s p o n t a n e o u s g e n e r a t i o n o f l i v i n g t h i n g s t h a n i t is n o w .
1 6
A n d i f t h e p r o d u c t i v i t y o f E g y p t surpassed t h a t o f t h e rest
o f t h e w o r l d t h e n as i t does n o w , t h e c o u n t r y w a s o b v i o u s l y t h e o n e m o s t l i k e l y t o b r i n g f o r t h t h e greatest p r o f u s i o n o f l i v i n g t h i n g s , m a n a m o n g them.
1 7
10.2-3
m
u
s
t
h a v e once b e e n p a r t o f a n a r g u m e n t d e v e l o p e d m o r e
Diodorus' meaning one would expect a participial phrase modifying χώρα rather than a genitive absolute; and καθεστώσης suggests a temporary condition, not the permanent eukrasia which characterizes Egypt. Eukrasia is so defined later in the same chapter ( 1 0 . 5 ) , where the air is said to become eukratotaton through a mingling of epombria and kauma. Cf. also Theophrastus, Caus. plant. 3 . 2 2 . 3 ; Pausanias 8 . 2 9 . 4 ; d Diodorus 3 . 2 . 1 (quoted below, note 1 7 ) . From the purely climatic standpoint of 1 0 . 1 , a mixture of heat and moisture need not be eukratos at all: cf. in the discussion of the in temperate climates of Scythia and Egypt which is preserved in Photius (Cod. 2 4 9 4 4 1 A 1 6 - 1 8 ) , the 1 5
a n
statement that the Egyptians υπό θάλπους πνκνουμενης της επιφανείας τον σώματος
και άπολαμ-
βανομένου εντός τον θερμον πολλού και τον ύγροΰ το δνσκρατον έκληρώσαντο.
See 7 . 6 , on the inability to produce larger forms of life which comes with the gradual hardening of the earth. Eukrasia is not mentioned explicitly in Chapter 7 , but the idea is surely present. Cf., in the very similar zoogony of Ovid's Metamorphoses I to which Spoerri ( 1 1 7 - 1 9 ) has called attention, lines 4 3 0 — 3 1 : ubi temperiem sumpsere umorque calorque j concipiunt. Compare the somewhat similar line of reasoning which appears in a passage from the Ethiopian chapters of Diodorus ( 3 . 2 . 1 ) : "And that those who dwell in the south are likely to have been the first products of spontaneous generation is plain for all to see. For, since it was the sun's heat which dried the earth when it was still wet at the time of the coming into being of all things and caused spontaneous generation, it is likely that the place nearest the sun would first bring forth living creatures." The only difference is that here it is not unusual productivity, but the possession, to an unusual degree, of one of the prerequisites for such productivity, which is assumed to have characterized the initial as well as the later periods of a country's history and made it particularly suited for spontaneous generation. The parallel is even closer if, as is possible, the argument of 10.2-3 i ' original form related Egypt's present productivity to the unusual eukrasia which, on certain occasions, its soil possesses. See below, note 19. 1 6
1 7
m
s
182
DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
f u l l y a l o n g those l i n e s . Basic t o t h i s a r g u m e n t is t h e m a t e r i a l n o w c o n t a i n e d i n C h a p t e r 7. R e i n h a r d t ' s t h e o r y o f a n o r i g i n a l c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n 7 a n d 10 is m o r e t h a n p o s s i b l e : i t is a l m o s t necessary. I t seems l i k e l y , as a g a i n s t R e i n h a r d t , t h a t 7 d i d n o t o r i g i n a l l y p r e c e d e 10 (8 i n t e r v e n i n g ) b u t was c o m b i n e d m o r e closely w i t h i t i n a m a n n e r w h i c h c a n n o t n o w be e x a c t l y d e t e r m i n e d . A p a s s a g e
18
w h i c h i n one f a m i l y o f
manuscripts appears between 7 a n d 8 m a y have something to do w i t h this original version: A n d as for t h e generation o f l i v i n g creatures f r o m the e a r t h , they say t h a t even i f this seem p a r a d o x i c a l t o some, t h e earth's former potency is borne o u t b y w h a t continues to occur even n o w . F o r i n the A e g y p t i a n T h e b a i d , w h e n the N i l e flood has m a d e the soil moist a n d the sudden w a r m i n g action o f the sun has caused f e r m e n t a t i o n at m a n y points along the surface, a countless n u m b e r of m i c e are b o r n f r o m t h e e a r t h . A n d they say t h a t i t is obvious, w h a t w i t h t h e generation o f animals t a k i n g place i n spite o f t h e earth's h a v i n g become h a r d and the s u r r o u n d i n g atmosphere's h a v i n g lost its o r i g i n a l eukrasia, t h a t at t h e t i m e o f t h e o r i g i n a l c o m i n g i n t o being o f t h e entire w o r l d a l l kinds o f l i v i n g creatures were generated f r o m the e a r t h . H e r e , j u s t as i n 1 0 . 2 - 3 ,
t
n
e
c o n t e m p o r a r y p h e n o m e n o n o f the spontaneous
g e n e r a t i o n o f m i c e i n t h e T h e b a i d is a d d u c e d i n s u p p o r t o f t h e t h e o r y o f a n o r i g i n a l s p o n t a n e o u s g e n e r a t i o n o f a l l l i v i n g creatures. T h e r e is n o m e n t i o n o f t h e h a l f - f o r m e d specimens d e s c r i b e d i n 10, b u t t h e m i c e are said t o a p p e a r d u r i n g the t i m e o f the N i l e flood w h e n the w a r m t h o f the sun interacts w i t h the
wet soil.
1 9
T h e f i n a l p o r t i o n o f t h e passage, t h o u g h n o t c o m p l e t e l y i n
t e l l i g i b l e as t h e G r e e k
text n o w stands,
20
seems t o p r e s e n t a n a r g u m e n t
r a t h e r s i m i l a r t o the one j u s t reconstructed i n connection w i t h
10.3: if,
despite t h e i n c r e a s e d hardness o f t h e e a r t h a n d t h e decreased eukrasia o f t h e s u r r o u n d i n g a i r , s p o n t a n e o u s g e n e r a t i o n s t i l l occurs, i t is o b v i o u s t h a t a t o n e t i m e a l l l i v i n g creatures m u s t have been p r o d u c e d i n this w a y .
2 1
Everything
i n t h e passage e i t h e r clarifies a n d c o m p l e t e s , o r else r e p r o d u c e s w i t h s l i g h t Printed in the apparatus to Vogel's edition, Vol. I , 13-14. T h e condition so produced is obviously one of unusual eukrasia, and this fact may have played a part in the argument Diodorus is abridging. T h e exceptional eukrasia brought about by the flooding of the Nile would have made the country, at the beginning of things as well as now, far more productive of life than the rest of the world—hence best able to engender men. Here eukrasia plays the same role as southerly location in the argument of 3.2.1 (see above, note 17). 1 8
1 9
T h e translation given above rests on Spoerri's plausible conjecture (224, addendum to p. 209, note 15) of eVel ούν for ΰπό τ' ovv at the beginning of the last sentence in the passage. Here it is the atmosphere rather than the earth which is eukratos. Obviously, however, the two varieties of eukrasia are closely related. I n 7.4 both the moisture of the earth and the homichle of the night air combine with the sun's heat to further the process of generation; and, as has already been pointed out (above, note 15), 10.5 speaks of a mingling of epombria and kauma which makes the air 2 0
2 1
ΐύκρατότατον
προς τήν e£ αρχής τών πάντων
ζωογονίαν.
A P P E N D I X O N E : D I O D O R U S 1.7-8
modifications, the m a t e r i a l o f 10.2-3.
1 1
1 S
a s
183
i f D i o d o r u s h a d first d i v i d e d ,
w i t h l i t t l e r e g a r d f o r c o n t i n u i t y o f t h o u g h t , a single a c c o u n t i n t o t w o sections so t h a t i t c o u l d be i n c o r p o r a t e d i n C h a p t e r s 7 a n d 10, t h e n r e w r i t t e n a p o r t i o n o f o n e o f these sections so t h a t i t c o u l d a p p e a r i n t h e o t h e r c h a p t e r
as
w e l l . L a t e r t h e d u p l i c a t e d m a t e r i a l t o be i n c l u d e d i n C h a p t e r 7 was m a r k e d f o r o m i s s i o n , b u t r e t a i n e d b y i n a d v e r t e n c e i n some e d i t i o n s . sible t o t e l l w h i c h o f t h e t w o versions p r e s e r v e d
2 2
I t is i m p o s -
is t h e o r i g i n a l o n e .
For
o u r present p u r p o s e s , h o w e v e r , t h e a n s w e r t o t h i s q u e s t i o n is u n i m p o r t a n t . E i t h e r a l t e r n a t i v e p o i n t s t o t h e o r i g i n a l c o n n e c t i o n o f 7 a n d 10. T o l o c a t e t h e o r i g i n a l c o n t e x t o f 1.8 is m o r e d i f f i c u l t . R e i n h a r d t assumed t h a t i t c a m e b e t w e e n 7 a n d 10, b u t t h e analysis g i v e n a b o v e suggests t h a t these t w o c h a p t e r s w e r e o n c e p a r t o f a single w h o l e . I t is e v e n c o n c e i v a b l e t h a t , w h i l e 1.7 was t a k e n f r o m t h e A e g y p t i a c a , 1.8 has a d i f f e r e n t source a l t o g e t h e r . B u t t h e p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n D i o d o r u s a n d V i t r u v i u s discussed a b o v e ( p p . 1 5 - 1 6 , 4 0 - 4 2 , 6 0 - 6 1 a n d C h a p . I I , notes 1 0 - 1 1 ) suggest o t h e r w i s e . T h e similarities between the t w o authors a n d the appearance i n the Aegyptiaca o f m a t e r i a l w h i c h o b v i o u s l y comes f r o m t h e same source as 1.8 (see a b o v e , p p . 16-17)
m
ay
be e x p l a i n e d i n o n e o f t h r e e w a y s . E i t h e r (1) D i o d o r u s is
d r a w i n g d i r e c t l y o n t h e same source f r o m w h i c h V i t r u v i u s d r e w a n d is h i m self responsible f o r t h e E g y p t i a n s e t t i n g o f t h e H e p h a e s t u s episode (1.13.3 = V i t r u v i u s 3 3 . 1 6 - 2 3 ; see a b o v e , p . 1 5 ) ; o r (2) D i o d o r u s is d r a w i n g o n a n i n t e r m e d i a t e source i n w h i c h 1.13.3 h a d a l r e a d y r e c e i v e d its E g y p t i a n s e t t i n g . I n t h e l a t t e r e v e n t e i t h e r (2a) t h i s i n t e r m e d i a t e source is n o t i d e n t i c a l w i t h t h e source o f 1.8.3
a
n
d 9 ( = Vitruvius 33.24-28, 34.2-6, and 36.1-8;
a b o v e , p p . 33 a n d 4 0 ; o r ( 2 b ) i t is i d e n t i c a l , i n w h i c h case 1.8.3
a n C l
see 9>
l i k e 1.13.3, m u s t h a v e once h a d a n E g y p t i a n s e t t i n g , f r o m w h i c h t h e y h a v e been r e m o v e d b y D i o d o r u s himself. O f t h e t h r e e possibilities, 2 b is b y f a r t h e m o s t l i k e l y . T h a t D i o d o r u s s h o u l d h a v e t r a n s f e r r e d a n episode f r o m o n e c o n t e x t posited b y hypothesis
to a n o t h e r i n t h e
manner
1 is q u i t e possible. B u t t h e H e p h a e s t u s episode is so
s i m i l a r i n its c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e i n v e n t i v e process t o L e o ' s a c c o u n t E g y p t i a n d i s c o v e r y o f w o o l (see a b o v e , p . 39) t h a t i n d e p e n d e n t
o f the
o r i g i n is
u n l i k e l y ; a n d t h i s , a l o n g w i t h t h e o t h e r p a r a l l e l s l i n k i n g D i o d o r u s 1.13-29 t o L e o (see a b o v e , p p . 153-54) makes i t u n r e a s o n a b l e
t o assume a n y b u t
a n " E g y p t i a n " source f o r 1.13.3. I t is e q u a l l y u n r e a s o n a b l e 1.13.3 goes b a c k , t h r o u g h some " E g y p t i a n " source as 1.8.3
a n <
^ 9
m
t
n
e
s a r
to assume t h a t
i n t e r m e d i a r y , to the
same
n e b o o k ( 2 a ) . H y p o t h e s i s 2 b , besides b e i n g t h e
The quotation from Euripides in 7.7 is perhaps an addition of Diodorus to replace this passage. For the mention of the loss of the earth's capacity to generate larger creatures, which precedes the quotation, leads naturally into the detail about the Theban mice. 2 2
184
D E M O G R I T U S AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
least u n l i k e l y i n itself, g a i n s s u p p o r t f r o m t h e f a c t t h a t t h e p r o c e d u r e i t e n visions is t h e same as seems t o h a v e b e e n r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e present f o r m o f C h a p t e r 7. There
is
a d d i t i o n a l evidence
which
points to
the
same
conclusion.
R e i n h a r d t n o t e d ( 4 9 6 ) t h a t m o s t o f t h e m a t e r i a l i n 1.8 has close p a r a l l e l s i n the A e g y p t i a c a . T h e s e are n o t a l w a y s s u f f i c i e n t i n themselves
to
guarantee
a u n i t y o f s o u r c e : p a r a l l e l s as close, o r n e a r l y as close, c a n o f t e n be a d d u c e d i n o t h e r w o r k s . W h a t is m o r e s i g n i f i c a n t is t h e f a c t t h a t t h e t w o p a r t s o f B o o k I n o t o n l y r e s e m b l e , b u t also c o m p l e m e n t a n d c o m p l e t e e a c h o t h e r , j u s t as d o 1.7 a n d
1.10.
T h e o p e n i n g sentence o f 1.8 s h o u l d be c o m p a r e d w i t h a l a t e r d e s c r i p t i o n o f the " e a r l i e s t w a y o f l i f e " p u r s u e d b y the E g y p t i a n s : T h e earliest m e n l i v e d i n a disordered a n d a n i m a l - l i k e c o n d i t i o n , proceeding i n scattered fashion to pastures a n d consuming the most suitable grass a n d the w i l d fruits f r o m the trees. (1.8.1) I n f o r m e r times, at the earliest stage o f t h e i r existence, the Egyptians subsisted o n grass a n d the roots a n d stems o f swamp plants. First, a n d i n greatest quantities, they consumed the so-called agrdstis p l a n t because o f its unusual sweetness a n d the sufficiency o f the n o u r i s h m e n t i t p r o v i d e d the h u m a n b o d y — for they observed i t was suited to animals a n d swiftly increased the size o f their bodies. (1.43.1) S e c t i o n 8.1 r e p o r t s t h a t m e n f e d o n t h e m o s t s u i t a b l e grass; 43.1 e x p l a i n s h o w m e n h i t u p o n its use: b y o b s e r v i n g its effect o n o t h e r a n i m a l s .
2 3
The
presence o f t h e l a t t e r is i n t u r n e x p l a i n e d b y t h e p h r a s e " p r o c e e d i n g t o past u r e s " i n 8 . 1 : m a n ' s earliest life was a n o m a d i c one w h i c h w o u l d n a t u r a l l y b r i n g h i m i n t o close c o n t a c t w i t h o t h e r g r a z i n g a n i m a l s . T h e reference i n 8.1 t o t h e d i s o r d e r e d a n d a n i m a l - l i k e c o n d i t i o n o f t h e earliest m e n is closely c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g passage ( 8 . 2 - 4 ) , w h i c h describes h o w , o u t o f t h i s c o n d i t i o n , society arose. T h e i m m e d i a t e i m p u l s e for its c r e a t i o n comes f r o m m a n ' s s t r u g g l e f o r s u r v i v a l a g a i n s t o t h e r species. F e a r a n d t h e t e a c h i n g s o f to sympheron create t h e first a g g r e g a t i o n s ;
within
e a c h o f these p r i m i t i v e systemata a c o m m o n speech develops, a n d t h e r e s u l t i n g l a n g u a g e g r o u p s b e c o m e t h e ancestors o f a l l t h e n a t i o n s (ethne) o f t h e w o r l d . A n e x a c t l y p a r a l l e l a c c o u n t a p p e a r s i n 1.90 ( a b o v e , p . 6 4 ) . A s t h e E g y p t i a n s are i n t h e process o f e m e r g i n g f r o m a n a n i m a l - l i k e existence, t h e
weaker
m e m b e r s o f t h e r a c e are t a u g h t b y to sympheron t o f o r m p r o t e c t i v e systemata a g a i n s t t h e s t r o n g e r . H e r e , as i n 1.8, t h e m e m b e r s o f e a c h systema are l i n k e d together b y a f o r m o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n — a n e m b l e m 2 3
(semeion) b e a r i n g t h e
Texts which mention grass as man's earliest form of nourishment are fairly frequent (see Spoerri, MusHelv 18.78, notes 74—75). T h e two just considered are, however, the only ones which, to my knowledge, contain the detail about selecting from among the different grasses available.
A P P E N D I X O N E : DIODORUS
1.7-8
representation o f a n a n i m a l — t o w h i c h they r a l l y i n times o f danger, a n d w h i c h , l i k e l a n g u a g e , operates as a u n i f y i n g f o r c e t h r o u g h s u b s e q u e n t e v o l u t i o n : each
E g y p t i a n tribe
(ethnos)
worships the p a r t i c u l a r a n i m a l w h i c h
p r o v e d t o be t h e s a l v a t i o n o f t h e systema f r o m w h i c h i t is d e s c e n d e d . T h e d e v e l o p m e n t s t r a c e d i n these passages are so s i m i l a r t h a t i n d e p e n d e n t o r i g i n is u n l i k e l y ;
2 4
i t s h o u l d be n o t e d , m o r e o v e r , t h a t t h e basic i d e a fits
b e t t e r w i t h t h e E g y p t i a n c o n t e x t o f 1.90 t h a n w i t h t h e m o r e g e n e r a l o n e o f 1.8. T h e n o t i o n t h a t s m a l l g r o u p s o f m e n s p e a k i n g t h e same t o n g u e m a y p e o p l e l a r g e areas w i t h t h e i r descendants is so f a m i l i a r f r o m t h e t h e o r i e s o f n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y p h i l o l o g y t h a t o n e tends t o f o r g e t t h a t i t is s o m e w h a t inconsistent w i t h the idea o f spontaneous generation. G i v e n the early p r o d u c t i v i t y o f t h e e a r t h , t h e systemata w h i c h arise " a l l o v e r t h e w o r l d " ( 8 . 4 ) s p e a k i n g d i f f e r e n t d i a l e c t s , w o u l d be f a r m o r e n u m e r o u s t h a n l a t e r n a t i o n a l g r o u p s : Greeks,
Persians,
etc. S u c h g r o u p s c o u l d o n l y c o m e
t h r o u g h t h e c o m b i n a t i o n o f a n u m b e r o f o r i g i n a l systemata;
into
being
a n d o f this there
is n o m e n t i o n i n e i t h e r passage. N o d i f f i c u l t y is i n v o l v e d , h o w e v e r , i f t h e ethne are n o t t h e n a t i o n s o f t h e oikoumene b u t s i m p l y t h e t r i b e s o f a s i n g l e c o u n t r y — l o c a l i z e d g r o u p s w h i c h c o u l d easily b e d e s c e n d e d systema. T h e a c c o u n t w h i c h stands i n 8 . 2 - 4
w
a
s
f r o m a single
probably completed origin
a l l y b y 1 6 . i , w h i c h describes h o w H e r m e s " a r t i c u l a t e d t h e c o m m o n d i a l e c t o f t h e c o u n t r y " ( p r e s u m a b l y t h e l a n g u a g e o f a l l E g y p t as d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m those o f its i n d i v i d u a l ethne)
25
a n d e x p a n d e d its v o c a b u l a r y .
2 6
T h e f i n a l p o r t i o n o f C h a p t e r 8 ( 5 - 9 ) describes m a n ' s earliest efforts t o s u p p l y h i m s e l f w i t h t h e necessities o f l i f e . I n t h e b e g i n n i n g t h e r e was
no
k n o w l e d g e o f c u l t i v a t e d f o o d , o r f i r e , o r shelter, o r c l o t h i n g ( 8 . 5 ) . E v e n t h e art
o f g a t h e r i n g w i l d f o o d was u n k n o w n (8.6). T h e l a b o r i o u s process b y
w h i c h m a n l e a r n e d t o c o l l e c t a n d store f r u i t s is d e s c r i b e d i n some ( 8 . 6 - 7 ) . T h e o t h e r w a n t s are dismissed i n a s i n g l e p h r a s e : τοΰ πυρός και των άλλων χρησίμων that
t h e subjects
w h i c h receive
detail
γνωσθέντος
δε
( 8 . 8 ) . I t is n o t l i k e l y t o be m e r e c o i n c i d e n c e s u c h scant
t r e a t m e n t here reappear
at
g r e a t e r l e n g t h i n t h e A e g y p t i a c a . T h e d i s c o v e r y o f f i r e is d e s c r i b e d i n t h e As Uxkull-Gyllenband points out (27, note 15), 1.90 "gibt die beste Unterlage für Reinhardts These." Since 1.16 and 1.8 refer to different stages in the development of language, the contrast noted by Spoerri, MusHelv 18.73, note 55, between the gradual process described in the former and the individual act of creation which appears in the latter is no argument against unity of source. 2 4
2 5
26
την τζ κοινήν διάλεκτον διαρθρωθήναι και πολλά τών ανωνύμων τνχεΐν προσηγορίας. This shows
conclusively that the passage cannot be describing the original formation of language. Creation of a common language (i.e. choosing from among existing names for identical objects those which are to be accepted as standard) and naming objects for which no name yet exists are separate activities; the distinction could not exist were Hermes the original linguistic nomothetes—see above, p. 108. (Note also that Diodorus' phrase κοινή διάλικτος would, in Hellenistic Greek, be more likely to suggest a koine than the dialect of a single area.)
186
DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K
ANTHROPOLOGY
passage a l r e a d y q u o t e d ( a b o v e , p . 1 5 ) ; Isis a n d O s i r i s a r e responsible f o r t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f c u l t i v a t e d f o o d ( 1 4 . 1 ) ; a n d , t h o u g h t h e r e is n o t h i n g a b o u t c l o t h i n g i n D i o d o r u s , H e r m e s a p p e a r s as t h e i n v e n t o r o f w e a v i n g i n a w o r k w h i c h so resembles t h e c h a p t e r s o f t h e A e g y p t i a c a o n d i v i n e i n v e n t o r s t h a t i t m u s t b e closely r e l a t e d t o i t : L e o ' s a c c o u n t o f t h e o r i g i n o f t h e E g y p t i a n gods (see a b o v e , p p . 3 8 - 3 9 a n d 1 5 3 - 5 4 ) . T h e s e c h a p t e r s ( 1 . 1 3 - 1 6 ) , t a k e n t o g e t h e r w i t h 1.8, p r o d u c e a n a c c o u n t o f p r e - h i s t o r y i n w h i c h t h e r e a r e f e w gaps a n d , m o r e s t r i k i n g l y p e r h a p s , n o d u p l i c a t i o n s . N o g o d is c r e d i t e d w i t h t e a c h i n g m a n h o w t o g a t h e r a n d store f r u i t s , o r w i t h a s s e m b l i n g m a n k i n d o u t o f his a n i m a l - l i k e state, t h o u g h such o f t e n a p p e a r as d i v i n e a c h i e v e m e n t s i n o t h e r passages o f a character.
2 7
euhemeristic
T h e o n e passage w h i c h m i g h t seem t o offer such a d u p l i c a t i o n
is 8 . 9 . T h e r e t h e rise o f t e c h n o l o g y is a t t r i b u t e d t o " n e e d i t s e l f " w h i c h sup p l i e d " s u i t a b l e i n s t r u c t i o n " t o a " c r e a t u r e w e l l - e n d o w e d a n d possessed o f h a n d s , r a t i o n a l speech, a n d m e n t a l sharpness as its c o - w o r k e r s i n a l l t h i n g s " (see
above, p . 4 0 ) . There
is n o m e n t i o n o f d i v i n e i n v e n t o r s
a n d the
w h o l e c o n c e p t i o n o f progress i n v o l v e d m i g h t seem r a t h e r d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h a t w h i c h appears i n t h e A e g y p t i a c a . O n the other h a n d , Hermes, Osiris, a n d t h e i r c o m p a n i o n s a r e a l l m e n t o b e g i n w i t h (cf. 1 3 . 1 : νπάρξαντας o n l y subsequently
θνητούς) a n d
d e i f i e d . I f d i v i n e h o n o r s seem t o b e s l i g h t l y excessive as
r e w a r d s f o r i n d i v i d u a l s w h o s i m p l y possess i n g r e a t e r m e a s u r e t h e g e n e r i c qualities o f the r a c e ,
2 8
t h i s is a n i n c o n s i s t e n c y w i t h i n t h e E g y p t i a n t h e o l o g y
i t s e l f (see a b o v e , p . 1 6 ) , n o t b e t w e e n i t s p o i n t o f v i e w a n d t h a t o f 8.9. I t is, moreover,
a n inconsistency
t h a t is e x a c t l y
paralleled
i n Diodorus' o w n
I n d i c a ( 2 . 3 5 - 4 2 ) . T h e r e , after a sentence t e l l i n g h o w t h e earliest
Indians
l i v e d b y f o o d - g a t h e r i n g a n d c l o t h e d themselves i n t h e skins o f a n i m a l s ( 3 8 . 2 ) , t h e d o c t r i n e o f 1.8.9 is r e s t a t e d a n d f o l l o w e d b y a n a c c o u n t o f t h e a c h i e v e ments o f the inventor-god Dionysus (38.3-6). 2 7
Cf. Diodorus 2 . 3 8 . 5 ; 3.56.3, 6 3 . 3 , 7 0 . 8 , and 7 3 . 5 ; 5.65.3 and 6 8 . 1 ; and Philo of Byblos,
FGrH
7 9 0 F 2 , p. 807.21. Particularly striking is the comparison and contrast between 5.68.1 and 1.14.1: Δήμητραν
δέ, του οιτοΰ φυομενον μεν ως έτυχε
μετά
της άλλης
βοτανης
αγνοουμένου δέ παρ*
άνθρώποις, πρώτην συγκομισαι καϊ την κατεργασίαν αυτοΰ καϊ φνλακήν έπινοήσαι. (5.68. ι) ενρονσης μεν "Ισιδος τον τε του πυροΰ καϊ της κριθής καρπόν, φυόμενον ώς έτυχε κατά τήν χώραν μετά τής άλλης βοτάνης, άγνοούμενον δέ υπό τών ανθρώπων, του δέ Όσίριδος
έπινοησαμένου και
τήν τούτων κατεργασίαν τών καρπών. . . . ( ι . Ι 4 · ΐ )
T h e passages are almost identical, except that 1.14 omits any reference to συγκομισαι and φυλακή. The reason must be that Isis' gifts come to a people who have already learned τήν συγκομιδήν τής άγριας τροφής (8.6) and τών καρπών τους φυλάττεσθαι δυναμένους άποτίθεσθαι (8.7)—hence can apply
the same process to ήμερος τροφή without any teaching. 2 8
O n occasion, the "euhemerist" portions of Diodorus use in connection with divine inventors
the terminology which 1.8 applies to man in general. So Daedalus is said to have received isotheoi timai because of his euphyia (1.97.6) and the inventor Dionysus achieves prominence because he is άγχίνους καθ* ύπερβολήν (3.7°·3)·
A P P E N D I X O N E : DIODORUS
187
1.7-8
I f t h e a b o v e analysis is c o r r e c t , 1.8 is n o t a u n i f i e d w h o l e b u t a c o l l e c t i o n o f e x c e r p t s f r o m d i f f e r e n t p a r t s o f a n o t h e r w o r k — t h e o n e w h i c h served as a source f o r l a r g e p o r t i o n s o f D i o d o r u s ' A e g y p t i a c a . A arrangement
consideration o f the
o f m a t e r i a l w i t h i n the chapter m i g h t lead i n d e p e n d e n t l y
t h e same c o n c l u s i o n . T h e r e is a b r e a k i n c o n t i n u i t y b e t w e e n (noted by Spoerri,
162,
a n d MusHelv
to
8.4 a n d
8.5
1 8 . 7 7 - 7 8 ) . A t t h i s p o i n t , after
de-
s c r i b i n g t h e o r i g i n o f t h e ethne o f t h e w o r l d , D i o d o r u s r e t u r n s t o
man's
p r i m i t i v e efforts t o c o m p e n s a t e f o r t h e absence o f c u l t i v a t e d f o o d a n d t h e o t h e r necessities o f l i f e . T h e f o r m e r l a c k was m e n t i o n e d a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e c h a p t e r , w h e r e t h e p r e s e n t passage w o u l d m o r e l o g i c a l l y g o . I n a l m o s t a l l o t h e r a n c i e n t s p e c i m e n s o f Kulturgeschichte,
the description o f man's early
life w i t h o u t a g r i c u l t u r e , c l o t h i n g , shelter, o r f i r e f o r m s a c o n n e c t e d
whole;
a n d cave l i v i n g is a l w a y s m e n t i o n e d before t h e f o r m a t i o n o f t h e first social aggregations —not 2 9
after, as i t is h e r e .
E v i d e n t l y i t was
difficult for the
Greeks t o i m a g i n e caves as social d w e l l i n g places. I f the order i n w h i c h 8.2-4
a
n
C
l
8 . 5 - 9 a p p e a r suggests t h a t t h e y c o m e
f r o m d i f f e r e n t sources, o r f r o m d i f f e r e n t p o r t i o n s o f a single source, a s l i g h t c o n t r a s t i n t o n e b e t w e e n 8.1 a n d 8 . 5 - 9 suggests t h e same c o n c l u s i o n f o r those t w o passages. 8.1 c o n t a i n s n o h i n t o f t h e i n i t i a l s c a r c i t y o f f o o d w h i c h
figures
p r o m i n e n t l y i n 8 . 5 - 6 , a n d t h e h a r d s h i p s e n d u r e d i n t h e course o f l e a r n i n g to g a t h e r a n d store f r u i t are d i f f i c u l t t o e x p l a i n i f , as 8.1 i m p l i e s , p r i m i t i v e m a n was a b l e t o subsist o n grass (cf. S p o e r r i , MusHelv
18.78). A
somewhat
s i m i l a r c o n t r a d i c t i o n is f o u n d w i t h i n t h e A e g y p t i a c a . S e c t i o n s 4 3 . 1 a n d 10.1 b o t h e n v i s i o n a n a b u n d a n c e o f f o o d — c h i e f l y i n t h e f o r m o f grass a n d v a r i o u s water p l a n t s — w h i c h grows spontaneously
i n E g y p t ; y e t i n 14.1
i t is t h e
i n v e n t i o n o f a stable f o o d s u p p l y i n t h e f o r m o f g r a i n w h i c h p u t s a n e n d t o cannibalism.
The
contrast
is t h e
n a t u r a l result o f the
presence
within
D i o d o r u s ' E g y p t i a n c h a p t e r s o f t w o d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e s . O n e is a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l a n d e t h n o l o g i c a l , a n d deals w i t h t h e l i f e o f t h e r a c e as a w h o l e ; t h e o t h e r is t h e o l o g i c a l a n d seeks t o e x p l a i n r e l i g i o u s beliefs as t h e s u r v i v a l o f honors once p a i d to benefactors a n d i n v e n t o r s . butes t h e d e v e l o p m e n t
3 0
The latter naturally attri-
o f c i v i l i z a t i o n t o these i n d i v i d u a l s ; i n t h e f o r m e r ,
i n v e n t o r s a n d benefactors, i f m e n t i o n e d a t a l l , r e m a i n a n o n y m o u s . F o r t h e e t h n o l o g i s t , progress is g r a d u a l , o f t e n i n v o l v i n g l i t t l e m o r e t h a n a p u t t i n g t o use o f w h a t n a t u r e has p r o v i d e d ; h e n c e t h e t e n d e n c y ,
given the patriotic
Cf. the passages discussed or cited above, p. 29, with note 6. Tzetzes' account of primitive man does mention mutual defense against the beasts along with the absence of cultivated food, shelter, and clothing (VS I I 1 3 7 . 4 1 - 4 2 ) ; but, unlike Diodorus, Tzetzes envisions no beginning point for society (see above, pp. 3 5 - 3 6 ) . As the Hephaestus episode shows, however (see above, p. 16), the theological portions of the book have arisen, in part at least, through modification and adaptation of material whose perspective was anthropological. 2 9
3 0
188
D E M O C R I T U S AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
s p i r i t i n w h i c h t h e A e g y p t i a c a is c o n c e i v e d , t o e m p h a s i z e as m u c h as possible t h e e x c e p t i o n a l l y f a v o r a b l e c i r c u m s t a n c e s f o r life p r o v i d e d b y t h e v a l l e y o f t h e N i l e . C o n v e r s e l y , t h e h o n o r p a i d t o d e i f i e d i n v e n t o r s seems m o r e n a t u r a l , a n d t h e catalogues
o f their achievements m o r e impressive, i f the
m a g n i t u d e o f t h e i r b e n e f a c t i o n s is e m p h a s i z e d b y as b l e a k as possible p i c t u r e o f m a n ' s o r i g i n a l helplessness. M o r e o v e r , since m o s t o f these factors are s i m p l y G r e e k c u l t u r e h e r o e s — H e r a c l e s ,
a
bene-
Dionysus, D e m e t e r — i n
E g y p t i a n dress, t h e r e is a t e n d e n c y t o conceive o f t h i s helplessness i n t e r m s w h i c h belong m o r e to the Greek n o r t h t h a n to the E g y p t i a n south. T h e passage o n t h e earliest life o f t h e E g y p t i a n s w h i c h has a l r e a d y b e e n q u o t e d i n p a r t ( a b o v e , p . 184) i l l u s t r a t e s b o t h m e t h o d o l o g i e s . T h e d e v e l o p m e n t d e s c r i b e d t h e r e proceeds i n t h r e e phases: a p e r i o d i n w h i c h roots a n d grasses f o r m m a n ' s d i e t ( 4 3 . 1 - 2 ) ; a second stage ( 4 3 . 3 - 4 ) w h e r e fish a n d m e a t are a d d e d , a n d g a r m e n t s o f skins a n d houses o f reeds c o m e i n t o use; a n d a f i n a l one w h i c h brings the discovery o f edible grains (43.5). A t this p o i n t the d i v i n e inventors make their appearance, for the discovery o f g r a i n is a t t r i b u t e d " b y some, t o Isis, b y others t o one o f t h e e a r l y k i n g s ( 4 3 . 5 ) . " M o r e o v e r , " t h e priests s a y " t h a t H e r m e s is t h e i n v e n t o r o f t e c h n o l o g y a n d t h e arts (reyvcuv /cat
Traihei&v),
t h e k i n g s o f t h e necessities o f life ( 4 3 . 6 ) . T h e
s t a t e m e n t s o b v i o u s l y refer b a c k t o t h e d i s c o v e r y o f f i r e , g r a i n , m e t a l l u r g y , f a r m i n g , m u s i c , a n d a s t r o n o m y d e s c r i b e d i n 1.13-16 a n d c o n n e c t t h e t h e o logical account f o u n d there w i t h the ethnological one o f 43.1-4. T h e c o m b i n a t i o n o f t h e t w o perspectives
creates some d i f f i c u l t i e s e v e n w i t h i n t h e
confines o f a single c h a p t e r . T h e e x t e n t o f t h e k i n g ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o t h e d e v i s i n g o f t h e necessities o f life is left u n c l e a r . T h e houses a n d g a r m e n t s o f h i d e w h i c h c h a r a c t e r i z e t h e second m o d e o f life o u g h t t o b e l o n g t o t h i s c a t e g o r y , b u t t h e y are n o t , e v i d e n t l y , t o be r e g a r d e d as t h e w o r k o f t h e k i n g s . T h e a c t i v i t y o f t h e l a t t e r seems t o presuppose helplessness g r e a t e r
a degree o f o r i g i n a l
t h a n t h a t w h i c h D i o d o r u s has i n f a c t d e s c r i b e d i n
4 3 . 1 - 4 . T h e d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h i n 1.8 are o f a r a t h e r a n a l o g o u s c h a r a c t e r .
We
h a v e a l r e a d y seen t h a t t h e references t o m a n ' s earliest d i e t i n 8.1 s t a n d i n c o m p l e m e n t a r y r e l a t i o n s h i p t o 4 3 . 1 , w h e r e a s 8 . 5 - 9 stands i n a s i m i l a r r e l a t i o n s h i p t o 1 3 - 1 5 . T h e t w o passages, w i t h t h e i r m i l d e r a n d h a r s h e r v i e w s o f m a n ' s earliest l i f e , reflect e x a c t l y t h e c o n t r a s t i n g tones o f t h e l a t e r p a r t s o f B o o k I t o w h i c h t h e y are r e l a t e d b y c o n t e n t . I n t e r n a l e v i d e n c e f r o m D i o d o r u s , n o less t h a n t h e p a r a l l e l s w i t h V i t r u v i u s , m a k e t h e t h e o r y o f a n " E g y p t i a n " o r i g i n f o r 1.8 a l m o s t c e r t a i n . T h e m a t e r i a l o f t h e c h a p t e r is t w i c e - r e m o v e d f r o m its c o u n t e r p a r t s i n t h e De T h e g e n e r a l Kulturgeschichte
architectura.
from which both Diodorus and Vitruvius ulti-
m a t e l y d e r i v e was first t r a n s f o r m e d i n t o a s p e c i f i c a l l y E g y p t i a n
archaiologia.
W h a t was o r i g i n a l l y a n a c c o u n t o f t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t e c h n o l o g y b e c a m e
A P P E N D I X O N E : DIODORUS 1.7-8
189
a c a t a l o g u e o f d i v i n e i n v e n t o r s ( n o w 1.13-16), t o w h i c h t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f m a n ' s earliest efforts t o s u p p l y h i m s e l f w i t h t h e necessities o f life ( 8 . 5 - 8 as t h e b o o k n o w stands) m u s t h a v e b e e n m a d e t o f o r m a sort o f p r e f a c e . similar fashion, a general
3 1
In
t h e o r y o f t h e o r i g i n o f l a n g u a g e w a s used i n
d e s c r i b i n g t h e f o r m a t i o n o f those l o c a l dialects whose rise p r e c e d e d
the
a c t i v i t y o f t h e E g y p t i a n H e r m e s . A t t h i s stage t h e s t a t e m e n t a b o u t t h e grass d i e t o f e a r l y m a n n o w f o u n d i n 8.1 p r o b a b l y f o r m e d p a r t o f t h e m o r e authentically E g y p t i a n ethnology that eventually became 43.1-4. I n t h e second stage o f t h e process such p o r t i o n s o f t h e n a r r a t i v e as c o u l d be easily divested o f t h e i r E g y p t i a n t r a p p i n g s w e r e r e a s s e m b l e d b y D i o d o r u s i n t o a single u n i t ( 1 . 8 ) . T h e g e n e r a l s t a t e m e n t o f t h e factors i n v o l v e d i n t h e g r o w t h o f t e c h n o l o g y — c k e i r e s , logos, anchinoia—formed and
a suitable
summary
so a p p e a r e d a t t h e e n d o f t h e c h a p t e r . T h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f m a n ' s earliest
quest f o r f o o d a n d shelter i m m e d i a t e l y p r e c e d e d i t , j u s t as, i n t h e A e g y p t i a c a , i t must have preceded the chapters devoted to d i v i n e inventors. T h e ethno l o g i c a l a c c o u n t o f 4 3 . 1 - 4 was m a d e t o y i e l d a m o r e g e n e r a l r e m a r k a b o u t t h e earliest d i e t o f m a n k i n d . T h i s was t h e n p l a c e d a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e c h a p t e r a l o n g w i t h a reference t o t h e i n i t i a l d i s o r d e r e d a n d a n i m a l - l i k e c o n d i t i o n o f t h e r a c e ( 1 . 8 . 1 ) . T h e l a t t e r n o w serves as a n i n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e passage (1.8.2-4)
o
n
t
n
e
b a n d i n g t o g e t h e r f o r p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t w i l d beasts a n d t h e
s u b s e q u e n t d e v e l o p m e n t o f l a n g u a g e ; a n d 8.1 m a y h a v e a p p e a r e d w i t h 8.2-4
i
n
t r i e
together
A e g y p t i a c a as w e l l (cf. t h e reference i n 4 3 . 4 t o e a t i n g t h e
flesh a n d w e a r i n g t h e skins o f a n i m a l s ) . I t is possible, h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e i n i t i a l steps i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f l a n g u a g e w e r e t r e a t e d o n l y l a t e r , i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h the account o f the linguistic achievement o f Hermes. T h e process e n v i s i o n e d is r a t h e r c o m p l i c a t e d , b u t s o m e t h i n g o f t h e sort m u s t h a v e o c c u r r e d t o create t h e c o m p l i c a t e d set o f p a r a l l e l s l i n k i n g 1.8, 1.13-16, 1.43, 1.90, a n d V i t r u v i u s I I . i n t h e case o f t h e c o s m o g o n y
3 2
A n d i t is j u s t possible t h a t h e r e , as
a n d z o o g o n y a l r e a d y discussed, a n e a r l i e r
v e r s i o n o f B o o k I , m o r e closely r e l a t e d t o its source, has left traces i n t h e existing text. I n D i o d o r u s ' s u m m a r y o f t h e c o n t e n t s o f 1.1-41 (see a b o v e , p p . 1 7 5 - 7 6 ) , a n a c c o u n t o f t h e life o f e a r l y m a n is m e n t i o n e d . L i k e t h e z o o g o n y r e f e r r e d T h e related account (see above, pp. 1 5 3 - 5 4 ) of Euhemerus may have had a similar preface. The summary in Sextus ( = FGrH 6 3 T 4 C ) begins with the phrase ότ' άτακτο; rjv ανθρώπων βίος. Cf. also Dionysius Scytobrachion, FGrH 3 2 F 7 , p. 2 3 5 . 2 5 - 2 6 = Diodorus 3.56.3. Pfligersdorfer, while recognizing the connections between 1.8 and the rest of the book, as sumes that the former is drawn from a work of Posidonius, bits of which were inserted by Diodorus into the Hecataean material of the Aegyptiaca as well (SBWien 2 3 2 , No. 5 , 1 4 3 - 4 4 ; followed here by Gigon, Gnomon 33.775). It is unlikely, however, that connections as extensive as those which link the. two portions of Book I could have arisen in this fashion; and the untenability of Pfligersdorfer's basic premise—the Posidonian origin of 1.7-8—has been amply demonstrated by Spoerri, MusHelv 3 1
3 2
18.63-82.
I go
D E M O C R I T U S AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
t o i n t h e same e n u m e r a t i o n , t h i s a c c o u n t seems t o b e t h o u g h t o f as f o r m i n g a p a r t o f the teachings o f the E g y p t i a n s .
3 3
T h e passage i n v o l v e s a f u r t h e r
d e p a r t u r e f r o m t h e o r d e r o f B o o k I as i t n o w s t a n d s : i t places t h e a c c o u n t , n o t before t h e theologoumena ( 1 1 - 2 9
m
o
u
r
present t e x t ) b u t b e t w e e n a dis
cussion o f t h e g o d s — " a l l those w h o f o u n d e d cities i n E g y p t b e a r i n g t h e i r names"—and
a n account o f " t h e honors p a i d to the i m m o r t a l s a n d the
e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f t e m p l e s . " T h e m e n t i o n o f e p o n y m o u s gods is f o u n d i n 11.6, a n d t h e second i t e m seems t o refer t o t h e i n s t i t u t i o n o f t e m p l e s a n d d i v i n e h o n o r s f o r Zeus a n d H e r a w h i c h a p p e a r s i n 15.3-4. T h e n a r r a t i v e s u m m a r i z e d i n 4 2 e v i d e n t l y i n t r o d u c e d t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e earliest life o f t h e E g y p t i a n s b e t w e e n p a r t s o f w h a t is n o w a single theologoumena. T h e dis c r e p a n c y is, once a g a i n (see a b o v e , p . 175) m o r e t h a n o n e w o u l d expect o f a n editor a n d , conceivably, reproduces a n earlier version o f the book. T h e r e i s , i n f a c t , a d i v i s i o n i n t h e theologoumena as i t n o w stands i n t o a t r e a t m e n t o f t h e ouranioi theoi—the
h e a v e n l y bodies a n d t h e f i v e e l e m e n t s —
a n d t h e e a r t h l y o n e s — d e i f i e d i n v e n t o r s a n d benefactors (see 13.1). Since t h e reference t o t h e f o u n d i n g o f cities occurs i n t h e p a r t o n t h e ouranioi,
i t is
r e a s o n a b l e t o assume t h a t these w e r e t h e subject o f t h e first t h e o l o g y r e f e r r e d t o i n 4 2 ; a n d s i m i l a r l y i t w o u l d b e t h e d e i f i e d i n v e n t o r s w h o w e r e t h e subject o f t h e second. Since t h e h e a v e n l y gods o b v i o u s l y p r e c e d e d , a n d t h e e a r t h l y ones f o l l o w e d , t h e b e g i n n i n g s o f c u l t u r e , a d i v i s i o n o f t h e b o o k a l o n g t h e lines suggested i n 42 is, i n some w a y s , m o r e l o g i c a l t h a n t h e p r e s e n t o n e . I t is perhaps significant that a p o r t i o n o f the order o f treatment envisioned i n 42 a p p e a r s i n 4 3 (see a b o v e , p . 1 8 8 ) , w h e r e t h e m e n t i o n o f Isis, H e r m e s , a n d t h e earliest k i n g s — c l e a r l y e a r t h l y g o d s — i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w s t h e a c c o u n t o f t h e earliest l i f e o f t h e E g y p t i a n s . C h a p t e r 4 3 , t h o u g h i t does n o t b e l o n g t o t h e p o r t i o n o f t h e b o o k s u m m a r i z e d i n 4 2 , is r a t h e r o d d l y l o c a t e d . I t is i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w e d b y a l o n g a c c o u n t o f t h e E g y p t i a n r o y a l dynasties ( 4 4 - 6 8 ) , a n d t h e b r e a k b e t w e e n t h e sections o f t h e b o o k w o u l d c o m e m o r e n a t u r a l l y after t h e c h a p t e r
than
before i t . S u c h a d i v i s i o n w o u l d c o r r e s p o n d t o t h a t b e t w e e n h i s t o r y a n d p r e h i s t o r y . M o r e o v e r , C h a p t e r 4 4 begins w i t h a s t a t e m e n t o n c h r o n o l o g y w h i c h w o u l d suitably m a r k the b e g i n n i n g o f a new section; a n d i n the summaries o f B o o k I , P a r t I I , w h i c h a p p e a r i n 4 2 . 2 a n d 4 1 . 1 0 , t h e m e n t i o n o f t h e earliest life o f t h e E g y p t i a n s f o l l o w s t h a t o f t h e earliest dynasties, as i f i t w e r e p u t i n as a n a f t e r t h o u g h t . I a m i n c l i n e d t o b e l i e v e , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e n a r r a t i v e i n w h i c h 8.1 a n d 3 3
T h e text, however, is not completely clear at this point. Strict logic requires that 1.42.1: περί
τε των πρώτων
γενομένων
ανθρώπων
και τον παλαιότατου βίον be taken with τά λεγόμενα
παρ*
ΑΙγνπτίοις rather than with ή πρώτη βίβλος περιέχει; perhaps, however, περί is being used more loosely, as if introducing syntactically independent items in a table of contents.
A P P E N D I X O N E : DIODORUS 1.7-8
191
4 3 . 1 - 4 o r i g i n a l l y a p p e a r e d was l o c a t e d after t h e a c c o u n t o f t h e ouranioi ( n o w i n 1 1 - 1 2 ) a n d before
the extended
theoi
account o f the c o n t r i b u t i o n s to
c i v i l i z a t i o n m a d e b y d i v i n e i n v e n t o r s w h i c h b e g i n s i n 13 a n d w i t h
which
8 . 5 - 9 was o r i g i n a l l y c o n n e c t e d . T h e t r a n s f e r o f a l l m a t e r i a l w h i c h was n o t specifically E g y p t i a n to the preface t e n d e d to m a k e the exact p o s i t i o n o f each o f these i n v e n t o r s i n t h e h i s t o r y o f c u l t u r e less a p p a r e n t ; h e n c e i t was n a t u r a l t o a p p e n d t h e a c c o u n t o f t h e i r a c h i e v e m e n t s t o t h e e a r l i e r t h e o l o g i c a l passage. T h e r e m a i n i n g m a t e r i a l ( 4 3 . 1 - 4 ) — t o o
specifically
E g y p t i a n t o go i n
the preface b u t n o t concerned w i t h the gods—was s o m e w h a t i n a p p r o p r i a t e l y transferred, along w i t h a b r i e f s u m m a r y
( 4 3 . 5 - 6 ) o f t h e episode o n d i v i n e
i n v e n t o r s w h i c h o n c e f o l l o w e d i t , t o t h e p o s i t i o n i n w h i c h i t n o w stands. T h e f r a g m e n t o n t h e a n t i q u i t y o f k i n g s h i p (see a b o v e , p . 178) w h i c h is so o u t o f p l a c e a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f 1.9
may
also be a r e l i c o f t h e
"second
theology." T h e observation t h a t the recent o r i g i n o f w r i t i n g prevents exact knowledge geschichte
o f t h e r e m o t e past is f o u n d i n o t h e r pieces o f a n c i e n t (Plato,
Timaeus
23AB;
Lucretius
5.1444-47—see above,
Kulturp. 44).
L u c r e t i u s a d d s t h a t , as a r e s u l t , r e a s o n a n d i n f e r e n c e are t h e o n l y sources o f k n o w l e d g e a b o u t this p e r i o d . I n f e r r i n g past c o n d i t i o n s f r o m p r e s e n t c u s t o m s is one o f t h e m e t h o d s used i n b o t h t h e t h e o l o g i c a l a n d e t h n o l o g i c a l passages o f t h e Aegyptiaca, methodological
zi
so D i o d o r u s ' s o u r c e c o u l d w e l l h a v e c o n t a i n e d t h e sort o f passage f r o m w h i c h 9.2 seems t o be d r a w n . W h a t is said
t h e r e a b o u t t h e earliest k i n g s w o u l d a p p l y q u i t e w e l l t o t h e d i v i n e i n v e n t o r s o f t h e s e c o n d theologoumena:
r u l e r s w h o l i v e d 2 3 , 0 0 0 t o 10,000 years
before
t h e w r i t e r ' s o w n t i m e (see t h e c h r o n o l o g i c a l s t a t e m e n t s o f 2 3 . 1 , 2 6 . 1 , a n d 44.1),
h e n c e , a G r e e k m i g h t assume, w e l l b e f o r e
the c o m p o s i t i o n o f the
p r i e s t l y a r c h i v e s i n w h i c h t h e r e c o r d o f t h e i r a c h i e v e m e n t s was s a i d t o be p r e s e r v e d . T h e w r i t e r o f 4 3 . 6 suspects t h a t some o f w h a t is s a i d a b o u t t h e m m a y h a v e n o basis i n p r i e s t l y t r a d i t i o n a t a l l , t h a t t h e n o t i o n o f t h e benefactor-kings
early
is s i m p l y a useful f i c t i o n t o e n c o u r a g e successors t o i m i t a t e
their example. Obviously, existence a l t o g e t h e r ;
to deny
their
h e n c e , p e r h a p s , he j u s t i f i e d his i n c l u s i o n o f so
h o w e v e r , he
was
not prepared
much
d o u b t f u l l y a u t h e n t i c a t e d m a t e r i a l b y n o t i n g t h a t i t is i m p o s s i b l e t o d o o t h e r wise a n d s t i l l a t t e m p t t o t r a c e t h e i n s t i t u t i o n o f k i n g s h i p b a c k t o its b e g i n nings. T h e o r i g i n a l appearance o f this statement i n the p o r t i o n o f the w o r k which
immediately
Egyptians
3 5
followed
the
description
of
the
earliest
life
of
c o u l d h a v e suggested its p r e s e n t l o c a t i o n : after D i o d o r u s '
the own
d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e earliest life o f a l l m a n k i n d . See 14.2 (giving of the first fruits of the grain harvest to Isis indicates that she was their discoverer) ; 43.2 (the use of grass in sacrifices shows that it was man's earliest food); 43.4 (reed houses found in parts of Egypt are survivals of a method of construction more widely prevalent in primitive times). T h e argument of the two sections (palaiotatos bios and second theologoumena) might have run 3 4
3 5
192
DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
T h e Entstehungsgeschichte
h e r e p r o p o s e d is r a t h e r m o r e c o m p l i c a t e d
R e i n h a r d t ' s . I n p l a c e o f his suggestion o f 7, 8, 1 0 - 2 9 f ° c h a p t e r s , I offer t h e f o l l o w i n g : 6 . 1 - 2 ; 9 . 3 - 6 ; g o n y ) ; 11-12
(first theologoumena);
the E g y p t i a n s ) ; 8 . 5 - 9 + sible
I
3
- 2
9
a d d i t i o n o f 4 3 . 6 + 9.2
r t
n
e
than
original order o f
10 + 7 ( c o s m o g o n y
a n d zoo-
8.1 ( o r 8 . 1 - 4 ) + 4 3 . 1 - 4 ( t h e earliest l i f e o f
( c u l t u r e a n d d i v i n e i n v e n t o r s ) , w i t h t h e pos(methodological
(linked to 16.1—Hermes a n d language).
considerations)
and 8.2-4
A l t e r n a t e schemes a r e o b v i o u s l y
possible, so t h a t t h e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n m u s t be p u t f o r w a r d w i t h m u c h
more
d i f f i d e n c e t h a n R e i n h a r d t ' s o r i g i n a l o n e . B u t t h e basic i d e a b e h i n d b o t h proposals—that
o f the o r i g i n a l u n i t y o f 7-8 a n d the Aegyptiaca—is inde-
p e n d e n t o f t h e d e t a i l s o f t h e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n j u s t o f f e r e d , r e s t i n g as i t does o n parallels far too s t r i k i n g a n d too pervasive t o be coincidental. H e r e , I a m convinced, Reinhardt's ill-supported theory h i t the mark.
somewhat as follows: T h e earliest life of the Egyptians was transformed by a series of discoveries, the last of which was grain ( 4 3 . 1 - 4 ) . This is attributed to Isis, and tradition credits the earliest kings with similar achievements (43.5). The validity of such stories is questionable: the institution of monarchy certainly antedates the keeping of written records (9.2), and other explanations for the origin of the tradition are possible (43.6). For what it is worth, however, the official version is that the Egyptians were raised from their primeval helplessness ( 8 . 5 - 8 ) by the work of inventors who became the first kings of the country and were honored as gods ( 1 3 - 2 9 ) .
APPENDIX VITRUVIUS
AND
TWO POSIDONIUS*
V i t r u v i u s ' analysis o f t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f a r c h i t e c t u r e ( 2 . 1 . 2 - 7 = 3 4 . 6 - 3 6 . 1 8 Rose) m a y be s u m m a r i z e d as f o l l o w s : 1. H o u s i n g began w h e n m e n first b u i l t artificial caves a n d i m i t a t e d the nests o f birds (1.2 = 3 4 . 6 - 8 ) . 2. C o m p e t i n g w i t h one another a n d b u i l d i n g on each other's achievements they became progressively m o r e skilled (1.2-3 = 34.8-14). 3. T h e first houses were o f stakes a n d i n t e r w o v e n branches covered w i t h m u d (1.3 = 34.14-15). 4. O t h e r m e n made walls f r o m bricks o f m u d and roofed t h e m w i t h reeds and foliage (1.3 = 34.15-18). 5. W h e n the roofs so constructed collapsed u n d e r the r a i n , gables a n d eaves were devised (1.3 = 34.18-20). 6. ( P r i m i t i v e examples o f housing can still be seen a m o n g the b a r b a r i a n tribes o f E u r o p e a n d Asia) (1.4-6 = 34.21-35.24). 7. W h e n , as m e n became m o r e a n d m o r e skilled, consuetudo developed i n t o ars, c e r t a i n members o f society set themselves u p as fabri (1.6 = 35.25-36.1). 8. F r o m architecture m e n progressed to the other arts a n d so to the developm e n t o f c i v i l i z a t i o n (1.6 = 36.1-8). 9. L a t e r , huts came to be replaced w i t h houses b u i l t o f b r i c k , stone or t i l e — t h e result o f the maiores cogitationes w h i c h arose f r o m an increased varietas artium (1.7 = 3 6 . 8 - 1 2 ) ; 10. a n d f r o m vagantibus iudiciis m e n a r r i v e d at certas symmetriarum rationes (1.7 = 36.12-14). 11. O n c e i t h a d been observed t h a t there was a copia o f b u i l d i n g m a t e r i a l o n h a n d , m e n proceeded to ornare voluptatibus elegantiam vitae (1.7 = 36.14-18). O n t h e basis o f a few m i n o r p a r a l l e l s w i t h Seneca's 9 0 t h l e t t e r , e a r l y i n v e s t i gators
1
view
was
u s u a l l y assumed t h a t t h e source o f t h i s passage was P o s i d o n i u s . T h e
(Poseidonios
rejected
by
Meyer
4 0 4 - 6 ) , doubtless
(Laudes
Inopiae
51-54)
and
correctly. Reinhardt, however,
Reinhardt detects
two
s t r a t a o f c o m p o s i t i o n i n V i t r u v i u s ' a c c o u n t — o n e P o s i d o n i a n (stages 3 - 6 a n d 9-11
a b o v e ) , one D e m o c r i t e a n ( 1 - 2 , 7 - 8 ) . I see l i t t l e reason f o r a c c e p t i n g
* Cf. Chap. I I , notes 1, 26, and 35. 1
Notably W . Poppe, Vitruvs Quellen im 2. Buck 'de architectural (Diss. K i e l 1909) 6 - g ; followed by
Rudberg, Forschungen zu Poseidonios 5 0 ; and
Gerhausser, Der Protreptikos des Poseidonios 2 8 . 193
194
DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES OF G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
t h i s v i e w . Stage 6 is f a i r l y c l e a r l y a d i g r e s s i o n a n d m a y w e l l be P o s i d o n i a n , b u t t h e r e is a l m o s t n o t h i n g i n t h e rest o f t h e passage w h i c h j u s t i f i e s t h e a s s u m p t i o n o f t w o sources, o n e o f w h i c h is t e l e o l o g i c a l i n c h a r a c t e r . I t is t r u e , as R e i n h a r d t p o i n t s o u t , t h a t 3 - 5 a n d 8 - 1 1 t r a c e six successive stages i n t h e g r o w t h o f a r c h i t e c t u r e , w h e r e a s 1 , 2 , 7 ,
a
n
d 8 are m o r e g e n e r a l
o r d e a l w i t h a r c h i t e c t u r e i n its social aspects. B u t t h e a c c o u n t f o r m s a l o g i c a l w h o l e f r o m w h i c h i t is d i f f i c u l t t o d e t a c h a n y o n e set o f i t e m s . I n 3 - 5 specific i l l u s t r a t i o n s o f t h e g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s e n u n c i a t e d i n 1-2:
are
imitation,
c o m p e t i t i o n , a n d progress t h r o u g h t h e a c c u m u l a t i o n o f skills. T h e houses o f m u d a n d t w i g s o f 3 a r e o b v i o u s l y i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e nests o f b i r d s ; 4 m e n t i o n s a n alternate m e t h o d o f construction, perhaps initiated i n competition w i t h t h e f i r s t ; a n d 5 describes a n i m p r o v e m e n t b r o u g h t a b o u t t h r o u g h i n c r e a s e d s k i l l a n d e x p e r i e n c e . M o r e o v e r , 7 - 8 are n o t , as R e i n h a r d t c l a i m s 4 0 5 , n o t e 1), a d i g r e s s i o n w h i c h d i s t u r b s t h e Zusammenhang
(Poseidonios
b e t w e e n 5 a n d 9.
V i t r u v i u s v i e w s a r c h i t e c t u r e as t h e basic t e c h n o l o g y ; h e n c e i t is p r a c t i c e d i n i t i a l l y b y t h e w h o l e p o p u l a t i o n . T h e earliest b u i l d i n g s are s u c h as are w i t h i n t h e c a p a c i t y o f a n y o n e t o p r o d u c e . W h e n , h o w e v e r , t h e task comes t o be e n t r u s t e d t o specialists
( t h e fabri
o f 7—cf. L u c r e t i u s 5 . 1 3 5 4 - 6 0 ) t h e rest
are f r e e d f o r o t h e r t h i n g s ; h e n c e t h e d i g r e s s i o n i n 8 t o n o t e t h a t m a n p r o c e e d e d f r o m a r c h i t e c t u r e t o ceteras artes et disciplinas. architecture's
place
in
the
general
scheme
of
H a v i n g thus shown
cultural
development,
V i t r u v i u s r e t u r n s t o t r a c e its f u r t h e r progress, n o w e x c l u s i v e l y i n t h e h a n d s o f t h e fabri
m e n t i o n e d earlier.
R e i n h a r d t also finds i n 3 - 5 a n d 9 - 1 1 soll sich eine K o n s e q u e n z seine e i n g e b o r e n e Möglichkeiten
a "Konsequenz
des Menschengeistes
der Stufen welche
selber z u e r k e n n e n
hindurchführt
die i h m v o n der N a t u r gegeben sind. . . .
I n s o f e r n also als z w i s c h e n N a t u r u n d K ü n s t e n e i n e i n h e i t l i c h e r zusammenhang
geben:
U r t e i l s k r a f t die i h n methodisch S c h r i t t für S c h r i t t die Zweck-
b e s t e h t , ist alles E r f i n d e n k e i n E r s c h a f f e n , s o n d e r n U r t e i l
u n d B e u r t e i l i n g der M ö g l i c h k e i t e n die i n diesem Z w e c k z u s a m m e n h a n g
von
A n f a n g a n als feste Z a h l e n t h a l t e n s i n d " {Poseidonios 4 0 5 ) . W h i l e t h i s describes v e r y w e l l t h e sort o f h i s t o r y o f a r c h i t e c t u r e one w o u l d e x p e c t f r o m P o s i d o n i u s , i t does n o t , I t h i n k , describe t h e t e x t w e h a v e before us. T h e r e is n o t h i n g eingeborene a b o u t t h e iudicia w h i c h are i n v o l v e d i n t h e w h o l e p r o cess: iudicia
are m a d e
meiiora i n t h e same w a y
h a n d s are m a d e
(7 = 3 5 . 2 5 ) — b y usus. N o r is t h e r e a n y r e a l l i m i t t o t h e Möglichkeiten; l i m i t e d o n l y b y t h e varietas
artium
tritiores t h e y are
w h i c h m a n creates—hence, one w o u l d
assume, l i m i t l e s s . A n d t h e i m p u l s e f o r t h e first a d v a n c e i n a r c h i t e c t u r e i n volves,
not an unfolding of man's
i n n a t e capacities,
b u t a response t o
necessity: t h e i n a b i l i t y o f a f l a t r o o f t o s u s t a i n a h e a v y r a i n f a l l . V i t r u v i u s ' p o i n t o f v i e w m a y p r o f i t a b l y be c o m p a r e d a n d c o n t r a s t e d w i t h o n e w h i c h ,
POSIDONIUS
195
illustrates the latter's teleological
con-
A P P E N D I X TWO'. V I T R U V I U S AND
t h o u g h i t n e e d n o t be P o s i d o n i a n , ceptions w e l l e n o u g h .
G r a t t i u s Faliscus (Cynegetica
2
6—9) tells us t h a t
the
p r i m e v a l r u l e o f e r r o r lasted u n t i l m e n te sociam, R a t i o , rebus sumpsere gerendis; hinc omne a u x i l i u m vitae rectusque r e l u x i t o r d o et contiguas didicere ex artibus artes proserere. 3
Two
details o n l y i n V i t r u v i u s suggest t h e p o i n t o f v i e w R e i n h a r d t
scribes: i n 10, t h e passage f r o m vagantibus teleological bounty
e n d p o i n t h a d b e e n r e a c h e d ; a n d , i n n , t h e reference t o t h e
o f n a t u r e : prqfusos
aedificationes
de-
iudiciis t o certas rationes, as i f some
ab ea comparatam.
partus
naturae
et abundantem
materiae
B u t i f these passages d o r e v e a l a
copiam
ad
teleological
p e r s p e c t i v e ( a n d t h e n a t u r a l copia o f 11 m a y be a V i t r u v i a n m o d i f i c a t i o n suggested b y t h e c o n t e x t i n w h i c h t h e digression o n a r c h i t e c t u r e
appears—
see a b o v e , C h a p . I I , n o t e 3 8 ) , i t is a p e r s p e c t i v e w h i c h i n t r u d e s o n l y b r i e f l y . I t is n o w h e r e suggested t h a t m a n ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e copia naturae is a r e a l i z a t i o n t o w a r d w h i c h a l l t h e p r e c e d i n g stages o f a r c h i t e c t u r a l d e v e l o p m e n t h a v e t e n d e d ; a n d t h e v e r y o r d e r o f 10 a n d rationes, is a n y t h i n g b u t 8
n , i n w h i c h voluptas f o l l o w s
certas
teleological.
O n Grattius and his sources see Spoerri, 162, note 8, with the earlier literature cited there.
Compare the teleological language of Ps.-Lucian, Am. 34: technology supplies to endeon in the various arts, so that each one comes finally to perfection, like the sun obtaining to its proper splendor after a long night. 3
APPENDIX POLYBIUS The
THREE
AND THE
STOICS*
t h e o r y o f a S t o i c o r i g i n f o r a l l o r p a r t s o f P o l y b i u s V I rests l a r g e l y o n
p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n 6 . 5 - 6 a n d De qfficiis
1.11-14
(from
Panaetius). T h e 1
p a r a l l e l s are u n q u e s t i o n a b l y p r e s e n t , b u t t h e y h a v e b e e n , I b e l i e v e , g e n e r a l l y m i s i n t e r p r e t e d . I f C i c e r o is g i v i n g a n a c c u r a t e a c c o u n t o f his source ( a n d t h e passage c o i n c i d e s w e l l e n o u g h w i t h a n i n d e p e n d e n t r e p o r t o f w h a t is p r o b a b l y P a n a e t i a n d o c t r i n e i n A u l u s G e l l i u s 12.5.7), P a n a e t i u s ' v i e w o f t h e genesis o f m o r a l i t y w a s a c o m b i n a t i o n o f t h e o r t h o d o x S t o i c oikeidsis (see
theory
a b o v e , p p . 1 3 8 - 3 9 ) w i t h a d i f f e r e n t o n e , o f a m o r e u t i l i t a r i a n cast. I t
c o u l d h a r d l y h a v e s e r v e d as t h e source f o r t h e m o r e c o m p l e t e a n d c o n sistent p r e s e n t a t i o n o f a u t i l i t a r i a n e t h i c w h i c h a p p e a r s i n P o l y b i u s . T h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n P a n a e t i u s a n d P o l y b i u s is best b r o u g h t o u t b y c o n sidering their accounts i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h a third—also f r o m w h i c h t h e S t o i c oikeidsis
Cicero—in
d o c t r i n e appears i n u n c o n t a m i n a t e d f o r m . T h e
substance o f t h e t w o C i c e r o n i a n passages is g i v e n i n t h e f o l l o w i n g e x c e r p t s : A.
D E OFFiciis 1.11-14
B.
D E FINIBUS 3.20-21
2
Primum est officium, id enim appello καθήκον, ut homo se conservet in naturae statu, ut deinceps ea teneat quae secundum naturam sint, pellatque contraria . . . prima est enim conciliatio hominum ad ea quae sunt secundum naturam.
Principio generi animantium omni est a natura tributum ut se vitam corpusque tueatur, declinet ea quae nocitura videantur. . . .
Commune autem animantium omnium est coniunctionis appetitus procreandi causa et cura quaedam eorum quae procreata sint. Sed inter hominem et beluam hoc maxime interest quod . . . homo . . . rationis est particeps. . . . I n primisque hominis est propria veri investigatio et inquisitio . . . nec vero parva ilia vis naturae est rationisque quod unum hoc animal sentit quid sit ordo, quid sit quod
Simul autem cepit intellegentiam vel potius evvoiav viditque rerum agendarum ordinem et ut ita dicam concordiam, multo earn pluris aestimavit quam omnia ilia quae prima dilexerat atque ita cognitione et ratione collegit ut statueret in eo collocatum summum illud
* Cf. Chap. V I , note 5 ; Chap. V I I I , notes 24 and 5 g ; and Chap. X , p. 164. O n the two passages see, most recently, H . Erbse, " Z u r Entstehung des polybianischen 1
Geschichtswerkes," RhM 9 4 (1951)
158-61.
2
O n the character of this passage—an exposition of the "orthodox" position of the O l d Stoa— see Philippson, " M . Tullius Cicero, Philosophische Schriften," R E A 1 3 (1939) 1139, and P. M . Valente, L'ethique stoicierme chez Ciceron (Paris 1956) 1-15. 196
A P P E N D I X
T H R E E :
197
P O L Y B I U S A N D T H E STOICS
deceat. . . constantem ordinem in consiliis factisque conservandam putat cavetque ne quid indecore . . . faciat. . . quibus ex rebus conflatur et efficitur id quod quaerimus honestum.
hominis per se laudandum et expetendum bonum quod . . . ouoXoyiav Stoici, nos appellemus convenientiam. . . . C u m igitur in eo sit id bonum quo omnia referenda sunt, honeste facta ipsumque honestum. . . quamquam post oritur, tarnen id solum vi sua et dignitate ex petendum est. . . .
L i k e P o l y b i u s i n B o o k V I , C i c e r o is a t t e m p t i n g i n these t w o passages t o analyze
t h e o r i g i n o f m e n ' s n o t i o n s o f w h a t is r i g h t a n d p r o p e r (cf., i n
P o l y b i u s 6.6.7, έννοια αισχρού kathekon;
και καλοΰ
τοΰ καθήκοντος
και της
τούτων
i n A , sentit quid sit.
δυνάμεως,
ττρός άλληλα
a n d , i n 6.6.9, θεωρίαν . . . διαφοράς;
i n Β , ennoia a n d
. . quod deceat. . . ne quid indecore faciat;
and, i n
Β a n d A , honestum). M o r e o v e r , b o t h P o l y b i u s a n d C i c e r o r e g a r d s u c h n o t i o n s as u l t i m a t e l y t h e p r o d u c t o f n a t u r a l i m p u l s e s w h i c h m e n share w i t h o t h e r a n i m a l s (cf., a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e f o r m e r ' s a c c o u n t o f i n t e r c o u r s e a n d c h i l d b e a r i n g i n t h e first h u m a n h e r d , hormdntdn kata physin
[6.6.2],
and
commune . . . animantium omnium . . . coniunctionis appetitus i n A ; a n d w i t h t h e references t o t h e i n s t i n c t f o r s e l f - p r e s e r v a t i o n a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f b o t h Β a n d A c o m p a r e t h e S t o i c d o c t r i n e p r e s e r v e d i n D . L . 7 . 8 5 : την δε πρώτην . . . ΐσχειν το ζωον έπι το τηρεϊν εαυτό).
όρμήν
B u t these n a t u r a l i m p u l s e s are m o d i
f i e d i n some w a y b y a special i n t e l l e c t u a l awareness (cf., i n B , cognitione et ratione collegit; i n A , homo est rationis particeps;
a n d i n Polybius' account of
m e n ' s r e a c t i o n s t o a s i g n a l i n s t a n c e o f f i l i a l i n g r a t i t u d e , μόνοις αύτοΐς νου και λογισμού
μέτεστι
[6.6.4])·
Y e t i n P o l y b i u s a n d passage Β , a t a n y r a t e , t h e roles assigned b o t h t o i m p u l s e a n d reason are c o m p l e t e l y d i f f e r e n t . F o r P o l y b i u s , t h e n a t u r a l i n s t i n c t o u t o f w h i c h m o r a l i t y arises is t h e desire f o r sexual u n i o n w i t h o t h e r s o f t h e i r k i n d t h a t is o b s e r v e d i n a l l l i v i n g t h i n g s ; i n Β i t is consciousness o f self a n d t h e i n s t i n c t f o r s e l f - p r e s e r v a t i o n — t h e oikeidsis pros heauton o f S t o i c e t h i c a l t h e o r y (see a b o v e , p p . 1 3 8 - 3 9 ) . E v e n g r e a t e r is t h e c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n t h e c o n c e p t i o n s o f ratio w h i c h a p p e a r i n P o l y b i u s a n d B. F o r P o l y b i u s , reason is s i m p l y a u t i l i t a r i a n c a l c u l u s w h i c h foresees t h e u n p l e a s a n t
consequences o f r e c u r r i n g instances
of filial i n
g r a t i t u d e o r f a i l u r e t o r e t u r n services r e n d e r e d . I t is essentially t h e s e r v a n t o f t h e desires, a means o f r e m o v i n g obstacles t o t h e i r f u l f i l m e n t . A n d t h e kathekon w h i c h i t perceives seems t o be n o t h i n g m o r e t h a n a s y n o n y m f o r t h e s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e . Β regards reason i n a t o t a l l y d i f f e r e n t l i g h t . P r e s u m a b l y i t c a n n o t o p e r a t e a p a r t f r o m t h e a p p e t i t e s , b u t its f u n c t i o n , as set f o r t h i n t h e passage b e g i n n i n g simul
autem cepit intellegentiam,
is t o p e r c e i v e
a
higher
h a r m o n y a c c o r d i n g t o w h i c h m e n s h o u l d o r d e r t h e i r existence. O n c e p e r c e i v e d , this h a r m o n y s u p p l a n t s t h e o r i g i n a l objects o f i n s t i n c t u a l horme (cf., i n a passage n o t q u o t e d a b o v e ,
" s e d q u e m a d m o d u m saepe f i t u t is q u i
198
D E M O C R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
c o m m e n d a t u s sit a l i c u i e u m p l u r i s facit c u i c o m m e n d a t u s q u a m i l i u m a q u o sit, sic m i n i m e
mirum
est p r i m o
nos s a p i e n t i a e c o m m e n d a r i a b i n i t i i s
n a t u r a e , post a u t e m i p s a m s a p i e n t i a m n o b i s c a r i o r e m fieri q u a m i l i a s i n t a q u i b u s a d h a n c v e n e r i m u s " [Fin. 3 . 2 3 ] ) . I n t e l l i g e n c e operates o n a base p r o v i d e d for i t b y t h e a p p e t i t e s , b u t i t m a k e s use o f t h e m o n l y i n o r d e r t o supersede a n d t r a n s c e n d t h e m . Between the thoroughgoing utilitarianism o f Polybius a n d the idealism o f B , A occupies a n i n t e r m e d i a t e a n d a t t i m e s a m b i g u o u s p o s i t i o n . P a n a e t i u s begins w i t h t h e S t o i c oikeidsis pros heauton, i n a passage w h i c h closely p a r a l l e l s its c o u n t e r p a r t i n B . T h e n , h o w e v e r , he shifts t o a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e same n a t u r a l horme w i t h w h i c h P o l y b i u s is c o n c e r n e d , makes a n a n a l o g o u s c o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n m a n a n d beast, a n d e v e n gives a h i n t o f t h e P o l y b i a n c o n c e p t i o n o f r e a s o n as a n i n s t r u m e n t t h r o u g h w h i c h m a n is e n a b l e d t o satisfy his desires m o r e c o n v e n i e n t l y : POLYBIUS
6.6.2-5
DE
πάντων . . . προς τάς συνουσίας όρμώντων φύσιν, εκ δε τούτων
παιδοποιίας
οπότε τις των έκτραφέντων
κατά
αποτελούμενης,
εις ήλικίαν
μή νέμοι χάριν μηδ' άμύναι τούτοις
Commune
OFFICIIS
autem
1.11-12
animantium
omnium
est
coniunctionis appetitus procreandi causa
ίκόμενος
οΐς εκτρέ-
φοιτ' . . . δήλον ώς δυσαρεστεϊν και προσκόπτειν εικός τους συναντάς και σννιδόντας την
γεγενημενην
εκ των
γεννησάντων
επιμέ-
cl cura quaedam eorum quae procreata sint.
λειαν . . . περι τά έκγονα . . . και τροφήν. . . . του γάρ γένους των ανθρώπων ταύτη διαφέροντος των άλλων ζώων $ μόνοις αύτοΐς μέτεστι λογισμού . . . εικός. . . . τό γιγνόμενον
[αυτούς]
και δυσαρεστεΐσθαι
νου και
έπισημαίνεσθαι τοις
παροΰσι,
προορωμένους τό μέλλον και συλλογιζομένους τό παραπλήσιον
ότι
εκάστοις αυτών σνγκυρήσει. . . .
sed inter hominem et beluam hoc maxime in terest quod haec tantum quantum sensu moveatur, ad id solum se accommodat, paulum admodum sentiens praeteritum aut futurum. homo autem, quod rationis est particeps, per quam consequentia cernit, causas rerum vidit earumque progressus et quasi antecessiones non ignorat, similitudines comparat rebusque praesentibus adiungit atque adnectit futuras, facile totius vitae cursum videt ad eamque degendam praeparat res necessarias. eademque natura vi rationis hominem homini conciliat et ad orationis et ad vitae societatem. . . .
M e n , a c c o r d i n g t o P a n a e t i u s , a r e l i k e a n i m a l s i n t h a t t h e y care i n s t i n c t i v e l y for t h e i r c h i l d r e n , b u t u n l i k e a n i m a l s i n t h a t t h e y foresee f u t u r e e v e n t u a l i t i e s a n d t a k e steps t o m e e t t h e m ( 1 . 1 1 ) . I f , t h e n , i t is t h i s same i n s t i n c t a c t i n g i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h r e a s o n t h a t hominem homini conciliat
(1.12), the m e a n i n g
w o u l d seem t o b e t h a t m e n seek t h e f r i e n d s h i p o f t h e i r f e l l o w s i n o r d e r t o a c h i e v e a g r e a t e r degree o f safety a n d s e c u r i t y f o r t h e i r f a m i l i e s . Y e t i t t u r n s o u t t h a t w h a t P a n a e t i u s wishes t o say is q u i t e d i f f e r e n t (Off. 1.12):
A P P E N D I X T H R E E : POLYBIUS AND T H E
STOICS
199
eademque n a t u r a v i rationis h o m i n e m h o m i n i conciliat et a d orationis et a d vitae societatem, ingeneratque i n p r i m i s p r a e c i p u u m q u e n d a m a m o r e m i n eos q u i procreati sunt, i m p e l l i t q u e u t h o m i n u m coetus et celebrationes et esse et a se o b i r i velit, o b easque causas studeat parare ea quae suppeditent et a d c u l t u m et ad v i c t u m nec sibi soli sed c o n i u g i liberis ceterisque quos caros habeat tuerique debeat. N a t u r e a n d r e a s o n are h e r e p r e s e n t e d as m a k i n g m e n desire t h e f e l l o w s h i p o f others f o r its i n t r i n s i c v a l u e , so t h a t cultus a n d victus are s o u g h t n o t o n l y for
a m a n ' s o w n f a m i l y , b u t f o r a l l those quos caros habeat tuerique
debeat.
P a n a e t i u s is o b v i o u s l y t h i n k i n g i n t e r m s o f a g e n e r a l social o b l i g a t i o n , n o t i n t e r m s o f t h e n a t u r a l desires a n d r a t i o n a l c a l c u l a t i o n w h i c h seemed t o be u n d e r discussion i n w h a t p r e c e d e d . T h e w h o l e p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n has, i n fact, s o m e w h a t t h e c h a r a c t e r o f a n i n t e r p o l a t i o n . I n t h e p h r a s e eademque natura vi rationis,
natura refers less t o a n y t h i n g i n t h a t s e c t i o n t h a n t o principio
. . .a
natura tributum a t t h e v e r y s t a r t o f t h e w h o l e discussion (see a b o v e , p . 1 9 6 ) . M o r e o v e r , a l t h o u g h ratio is first m e n t i o n e d (1.11) i n s u c h a w a y as t o suggest t h a t its f u n c t i o n is t o p r o v i d e f o r a b e t t e r s a t i s f a c t i o n o f desires w h i c h m a n shares w i t h t h e a n i m a l s , this f u n c t i o n t u r n s o u t (1.12) t o be t h e v e r y d i f f e r e n t one
o f c o n v e r t i n g a cura quaedam eorum quae procreata
amantium omnium ( i . n ) i n t o a praecipuum
sint t h a t is communis
quendam amorem (1.12) t h a t has as
its o b j e c t n o t o n l y o f f s p r i n g b u t a l l m a n k i n d as w e l l . S o c i e t y a n d f a m i l y cease t o b e , as was first h i n t e d , i n s t i t u t i o n s d e v i s e d b y r e a s o n f o r t h e b e t t e r s a t i s f a c t i o n o f w a n t s w h i c h m a n shares w i t h t h e a n i m a l s ; t h e y a r e , r a t h e r , t h i n g s w h i c h r a t i o n a l n a t u r e seeks as g o o d i n themselves, i n t h e same w a y t h a t i r r a t i o n a l n a t u r e seeks c o m f o r t a n d s e l f - p r e s e r v a t i o n .
3
Similarly, the
Gf. the closely parallel discussion of human ratio and its effects in De finibus 2.45—47: Homines enim, etsi aliis multis, tamen hoc uno plurimum a bestiis differunt, quod rationem habent a natura datam meruemque acrem et vigentem eelerrimeque multa simul agitantem et. . . sagacem, quae et causas rerum et consecutiones videat et similitudines transferal et disiuncta coniungat et cum praesentibus futura copulet omnemque complectatur vitae consequents statum. eademque ratio fecit hominem hominum appetentem cumque iis natura et sermone et usu congruentem u t . . . non sibi se soli natum memincrit, sed patriae, sed suis, ut perexigua pars ipsi relinquatur. et quoniam eadem natura cupiditatem ingenuit homini vcri videndi. . . his initiis inducti omnia vera diligimus . . . turn vana falsa fallentia odimus, ut fraudem periurium malitiam iniuriam. eadem ratio habet in se quiddam amplum atque magnificum . . . atque his tribus generibus honestorum notatis quartum sequitur . . . in quo inest ordo et moderatio. 3
Here Cicero gives an abridged version of the doctrine set forth more completely in De qfficiis 1.11—14, a version unencumbered by any utilitarian hints and overtones. But by eliminating the suggestion that the superiority of human ratio is evident in the way man goes about caring for his offspring, he eliminates even the tenuous and specious link which the other passage was able to establish between the purely calculalive ratio which sees causas rerum et consecutiones and that other rational faculty which impels man to seek the society and aid of his fellows. (That utilitarian motifs have been removed from a common source to produce Fin. 2 . 4 5 - 4 7 rather than added to produce Qjf.
200
D E M O C R I T U S AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
desire f o r t h e o r e t i c a l k n o w l e d g e
(vert investigatio atque inquisitio:
r.13) a n d a
p e r c e p t i o n o f quid sit ordo, quid deceat (1.14) a r e f u r t h e r r e v e l a t i o n s o f t h e q u a l i t i e s w h i c h d i s t i n g u i s h m a n as a species f r o m t h e a n i m a l s . I n a t t a i n i n g to t h e m a n d t o the honestum w i t h w h i c h t h e analysis c o n c l u d e s , h e is a c h i e v i n g t h e same r e a l i z a t i o n o f his r a t i o n a l n a t u r e t h a t is d e s c r i b e d i n t h e l a t t e r p o r t i o n o f De Jinibus
3.20-21.
T h e h y b r i d c h a r a c t e r o f De qfficiis 1.11-14 s h o u l d b e e v i d e n t . I t s u t i l i t a r i a n elements, o n e s h o u l d n o t e , h a v e a p a r a l l e l i n L u c r e t i u s V as w e l l as i n P o l y b i u s V I . T h e half-suppressed
suggestion t h a t m e n c r e a t e d societies i n
o r d e r to p r o v i d e security for t h e i r families appears q u i t e clearly i n 5.1011-21 : inde casas p o s t q u a m ac pellis ignemque p a r a r u n t et m u l i e r c o n i u n c t a v i r o concessit i n u n u m . . . p r o l e m q u e ex se videre creatam, t u r n genus h u m a n u m p r i m u m mollescere coepit. tunc et a m i c i t i e m coeperunt iungere aventes finitimi i n t e r se nec laedere nec v i o l a r i et pueros c o m m e n d a r u n t m u l i e b r e q u e saeclum. T h e passage has n o c o u n t e r p a r t i n P o l y b i u s , b u t i t c o u l d f i t v e r y w e l l i n t o t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e rise o f society w h i c h P o l y b i u s gives (see a b o v e , C h a p . V I I I , n o t e 2 4 ) . F o r t h e f o r m a t i o n o f f r i e n d s h i p s f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f one's f a m i l y is a n a t u r a l e x t e n s i o n o f t h e p r i n c i p l e o f s e l f - p r o t e c t i o n w h i c h first b r o u g h t m e n i n t o h e r d s . I n d e e d , o n e w o u l d e x p e c t such f r i e n d s h i p s t o b e a m o n g t h e f i r s t stable r e l a t i o n s h i p s t o arise a f t e r t h e p u r e l y " n a t u r a l " ones w h i c h l i n k m a n w i t h wife a n d parents w i t h c h i l d r e n . Clearly Lucretius a n d P o l y b i u s are s o m e h o w r e l a t e d t o P a n a e t i u s , b u t t h e m o s t n a t u r a l e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e p a r a l l e l s is t h a t t h e l a t t e r is a t t e m p t i n g w i t h o u t c o m p l e t e success t o m o d i f y t h e t r a d i t i o n w h i c h t h e f o r m e r preserve m o r e f a i t h f u l l y . T h e source o f Panaetius' knowledge o f this t r a d i t i o n m a y have been Polybius himself.
4
P o l y b i u s ' a c c o u n t , t h o u g h n o t a p r o d u c t o f contaminatio l i k e P a n a e t i u s ' , is nevertheless n o t e n t i r e l y free f r o m a l i e n elements.
Kathekon
is c e r t a i n l y a
Stoic t e r m , a n d ennoia, t h o u g h t h e w o r d n e e d n o t h a v e h a d s u c h c o n n o t a t i o n s 1.11-14 follows from a comparison of both passages with Aulus Gellius 12.5 [see above, p. 1 9 6 ] , where there are explicit references to utendi consili reputatio, utilitatis contemplatio, and commodorum
delectus.) T h e eliminations were necessary to accommodate the Panaetian oikeiosis theory to its context in Fin. 2, which is an anti-Epicurean polemic designed to show honestum esse aliquid. . . quod sit ipsum sua vipropter seque expetendum ( 2 . 4 4 ; cf. Pohlenz, AbhGottingen Folg. 3 , 26.73—76, who suggests Antiochus as a Mittelquelle 4
for 2 . 4 5 - 4 7 ) .
For a similar suggestion with regard to the political theories of Polybius and Panaetius see M . Pohlenz, "Panaitios," R E 36 (1949) 423, and R . Reitzenstein, "Die Idee des Principats bei Cicero und Augustus," JVGG 1917, 4 0 6 - 7 .
201
A P P E N D I X T H R E E : P O L Y B I U S AND T H E STOICS
for Polybius
(see a b o v e ,
pp. 81-82
with
n o t e 6 ) , suggests i n i t s e l f t h e
i d e a l i s t c o n t e x t of Fin. 3 . 2 0 - 2 1 , n o t t h e u t i l i t a r i a n o n e o f B o o k V I . O n l y i n C i c e r o is ennoia a g e n u i n e piece o f i n t e l l e c t i o n , a p e r c e p t i o n o f t h a t i d e a l h a r m o n y i n w h i c h t h e summum bonum f o r m a n lies. I n P o l y b i u s r e a s o n i n g is c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e f o r m a t i o n o f m o r a l concepts, b u t o n l y i n d i r e c t l y . I t is responsible m e r e l y f o r seeing t h e s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e a n d u n d e s i r a b l e i n a g i v e n s i t u a t i o n . M o r a l concepts o n l y d e v e l o p l a t e r (cf. hypoginesthai i n 6.6.9)
D
Y
a
process t h e n a t u r e o f w h i c h is n o t specified. W e m u s t t h e r e f o r e r e c k o n w i t h t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t P o l y b i u s was a c q u a i n t e d — p e r h a p s t h r o u g h P a n a e t i u s — w i t h a n a c c o u n t s i m i l a r t o Fin.
3 - 2 0 - 2 1 , o n e w h i c h he r e c a l l e d
vaguely
w h e n he c a m e t o c o m p o s e , o n t h e basis o f a v e r y d i f f e r e n t source, his o w n d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e o r i g i n o f m o r a l s . B u t one n e e d n o t assume d i r e c t S t o i c i n f l u e n c e . B y t h e second c e n t u r y B . C . c e r t a i n elements o f S t o i c i s m h a d a l r e a d y a c h i e v e d t h e status o f p h i l o s o p h i c koine; i n p a r t i c u l a r , C a r n e a d e s used t h e t e r m i n o l o g y o f t h e v e r y oikeidsis d o c t r i n e w i t h w h i c h w e are p r e s e n t l y c o n c e r n e d as a means famous
o f d e s c r i b i n g a n d classifying a l l e t h i c a l systems ( t h e
Carneadea divisio—see
above,
pp.
163-64).
The
presence o f S t o i c
t e r m i n o l o g y w o u l d t h u s be n o sure i n d i c a t i o n o f a n a c q u a i n t a n c e
with
S t o i c i s m , e v e n i n a w r i t e r less careless i n his t e r m i n o l o g y t h a n P o l y b i u s . I f t h e r e w a s a n y s u c h a c q u a i n t a n c e , its i n f l u e n c e o n t h e theories o f B o o k V I was s u p e r f i c i a l .
APPENDIX DEMOCRITUS
FOUR
B30 A N D E U H E M E R U S *
D e m o c r i t u s ' t h e o r y o f t h e o r i g i n o f r e l i g i o n , w h i c h was p r o b a b l y i n Diodorus' source,
1
l i k e a n d a s s u m e d t h a t gods w e r e t h e cause o f t h e m
(A75). The initial pro
c l a m a t i o n o f this belief b y c e r t a i n members o f a p r i m i t i v e sumably
reproduced
is w e l l k n o w n : m e n f e a r e d t h u n d e r , eclipses, a n d t h e
society
w h a t is d e s c r i b e d i n B 3 0 , a f r a g m e n t w h i c h s h o u l d be
w i t h t w o e u h e m e r i s t i c passages, o n e o f t h e m f r o m E u h e m e r u s ' of the deification o f U r a n u s ,
2
is p r e
compared
o w n account
t h e o t h e r f r o m t h e v e r s i o n o f t h e same e v e n t
g i v e n b y his f o l l o w e r D i o n y s i u s S c y t o b r a c h i o n
( o n w h o m see a b o v e , p .
163,
w i t h note 4 8 ) . A τών
λογίων
B
ανθρώπων
ολίγοι
άνατείναντες τάς χείρας ενταύθα ον νυν ήέρα καλεομεν οι Έλληνες, πάντα, και
ζειπαν'),
διδοΐ
βασιλεύς
Ζευς
μνθέεται
και άφαιρεεται οντος
τών
και
πάντων.
(Democritus Β30)
deinde Pan eum [Iovem] deducit in montem qui vocatur Caeli sella, postquam eo ascendit, contemplatus est late terras ibique in eo monte aram creat Gaelo, primusque in ea ara I.uppiter sacrificavit. in eo loco suspexit in caelum quod nunc nominamus idque quod
C μετά
δέ
τήν
εξ
ανθρώπων
μετάστασιν . . . αθανάτους τιμάς άπονεΐμαι
[Ούρανω]
μεταγα-
γεϊν δ' αυτού τήν προσηγορίαν επι τον κοσμον . . . βασιλέα τών ολων άναγορεύσαντας.
(Diodorus
^.^6.5
= FGrH
^sFy,
p. 2 3 6 . 1 - 6 )
* Cf. Chap. X , note 4 4 . Cf. 1.11.1: the Egyptians began to worship the ouranioi theoi out of awe and wonder (xoraTrXayevTas Kai Bavfidoavras) at the spectacle presented by the heavens. T h e passage in itself is too brief and vague to be linked either with Democritus A 7 5 and B 3 0 (see the works cited and criticized by Spoerri, 167, note 13) or with later theories which make religion a response to the admiration aroused by the beauty and order of the universe (so Spoerri himself, 1 6 6 - 6 9 ) . Since, however, it appears in a context whose Democritean origin is likely on other grounds, it may well represent Diodorus' own summary of, or generalization from, what would have been recognizably Demo critean in his source. 1
2
T h e version of this account followed here is the one given by Ennius and reproduced in Lactantius. It conflicts with Diodorus' report of the same account (see above, Chap. X , note 29) but is far more likely to preserve an accurate record of what Euhemerus wrote. It tells in detail how the sky came to be named for Uranus, whereas Diodorus only notes in passing that Uranus got his name because he was the first to honor the ouranioi theoi (6.1.8 = FGrH
6 3 F 2 , p. 3 0 3 . 1 5 - 1 6 ) . It is
obvious from the briefness of his resume that Diodorus was not particularly interested in this portion of Euhemerus, hence might easily have misunderstood it. (For a suggestion as to how exactly the misunderstanding might have arisen, see below, note 6.) Even the far more detailed account ( 5 . 4 1 - 4 6 ) of the geography of Panchaea and neighboring islands which Diodorus drew from Euhemerus seems to have contained inaccuracies: see H . Braunert, " Die heilige Insel dcs Euhemeros," RhM
108 (1965) 2 5 5 - 6 8 . 202
A P P E N D I X F O U R : D E M O C R I T U S B 3 O AND E U H E M E R U S
203
supra mundum erat, quod ae ther vocabatur de sui avi nomine caelum nomen indidit; idque Iuppiter quod aether vocatur placans primus caelum nominavit, eamque hostiam quam ibi sacrificavit totam adolevit. (Lactantius, Inst. div. 1.11.63 = F G r / / 6 3 F 2 1 )
T h e m e a n i n g o f A has b e e n m u c h discussed (see a b o v e , C h a p . I l l , n o t e 3 4 ) , but
a t t e n t i o n has b e e n focused o n t h e m e a n i n g o f logioi, r a t h e r t o t h e ex
c l u s i o n o f t h e rest o f t h e passage. I n p a r t i c u l a r , t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e phrases βασιλεύς
ούτος
των πάντων
a n d ον νΰν ήέρα καλέομεν
have not been
s u f f i c i e n t l y e x a m i n e d . T h e f o r m e r shows t h a t D e m o c r i t u s r e g a r d e d t h e i d e a o f d i v i n i t y as s o m e h o w r e l a t e d t o t h a t o f k i n g s h i p . I t is p r o b a b l y t o b e i n t e r p r e t e d i n t h e l i g h t o f t w o s t a t e m e n t s , o n e i n Isocrates (Nicocles 2 6 ) , t h e o t h e r i n A r i s t o t l e (Pol. 1 . 1 2 5 2 B 2 4 - 2 7 ) , w h i c h say t h a t m o n a r c h y is assumed to exist a m o n g t h e gods because i t is t h e earliest o r m o s t w i d e s p r e a d f o r m o f government among
men. T h e similarity
o f these
d e r i v a t i o n f r o m a c o m m o n , Sophistic source,
3
t w o passages suggests
conceivably Democritus h i m
self. T h e v i e w w h i c h t h e y e m b o d y seems, a t a n y r a t e , t o be r e l a t e d t o t h e o n e d e v e l o p e d i n A . T o give a l l a n d t o take a l l a w a y is t h e p r e r o g a t i v e o f t h e e a r t h l y k i n g ; r e l i g i o n comes i n t o b e i n g w h e n m e n assume t h e existence o f a n invisible k i n g above t h e m . D e m o c r i t u s ' s p e c u l a t i o n seems, h o w e v e r , t o h a v e g o n e a step f u r t h e r . I n i n v o k i n g Zeus m e n raise t h e i r h a n d s t o " w h a t w e Greeks n o w c a l l a i r . " E v i d e n t l y , t h e n , t h e y d i d n o t c a l l i t " a i r " themselves. T h e n a m e t h e y used was, I suggest, " z e u s " , a n d w h a t t h e y said was ( i n t r a n s l a t i o n ) " A i r is k i n g . "
4
D e m o c r i t u s has i n f e r r e d ( c o r r e c t l y , as w e n o w k n o w ) t h a t t h e n a m e Zeus was, i n o r i g i n , a c o m m o n n o u n d e s i g n a t i n g ta meteora, o n e w h i c h , h o w e v e r , ceased See E . Maass, " Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der griechischen Prosa," Hermes 22 (1887) 588, who first pointed out the resemblances between the two passages; and E . Norden, Agnosias Theos (Leipzig 1913) 372, note i , who compares the terminology used by Isocrates (kingship as the katastasis preferred by the archaioi) with similar fifth century usages (Protagoras B 8 b : περί της εν 3
αρχή καταστάσεως; 4
Democritus B 2 7 8 : άρχαίης τίνος
Cf., in a different
καταστάσιος.)
context, Aristophanes, Nubes
2 6 4 : ώ Βέσποτ'
Philodemus, De piet. 5 a , p. 6 g Gomperz (=VS I I 1 0 3 . 3 - 5 ) και πάντα ταΰτα άνωθεν διειπετή γείνεται'
:
άναξ άμέτρητ'
θέρος • • • χείμων
Άήρ, and
και . . . μεθόπωρον
διο δη και το έξεργαζόμενον γνόντας σέβεσθαι. ού φαίνεται
δ' έμο'ι Δημόκριτος ώσπερ ένιοι τόν. . . . The passage seems to be reproducing Democritus' views on the origin of religion and harmonizes well enough with the reconstruction given in the text. As the use of the word dieipete shows, the exergazomenon who is being honored here is Zeus; and the com pound is one in which the meteorological associations of the root dyeu- are most evident; cf. the explanations given by Eustathius and the scholiasts of the phrase διειπετέος ποταμοίο in Od. 4 . 4 7 7 : το έκπιπτον νδωρ εκ Διός ο έστιν άερος, τον εξ αέρος αρδενομενον, τον ΰπο Διός πληρονμένον.
Zeus-air
( O n the
equation see, further, the parallels cited in Q,. Cataudella, "Democrito F r . 5 5 B 3 0
Vorsokr.," Atene e Roma g [ 1 9 4 1 ] 7 7 - 8 0 . )
204
DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES OF G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
to h a v e t h i s m e a n i n g after i t h a d b e c o m e t h e n a m e o f t h e g o d w h o c o n t r o l s ta meteor a.
h
T u r n i n g f r o m A t o Β a n d C, w e find a c o n s i d e r a b l e s i m i l a r i t y b o t h o f ex pression a n d i d e a . D e m o c r i t u s ' logioi, r a i s i n g t h e i r h a n d s t o w h a t w e Greeks n o w call air, have their counterpart i n Euhemerus'
Z e u s , r a i s i n g his eyes t o
w h a t we n o w call sky;
πάντων
p a r a l l e l e d b y βασιλέα
a n d t h e βασιλεύς
. . . των
of A
is e x a c t l y
των όλων i n C. W h a t h a p p e n s i n Β a n d C is n o t q u i t e
t h e same as w h a t h a p p e n s i n A . I n D e m o c r i t u s i t is t h e office o f k i n g s h i p itself that
is t r a n s f e r r e d
to
the
skies b y
the
personification
of air;
in
E u h e m e r u s a n d D i o n y s i u s i t is a p a r t i c u l a r h o l d e r o f t h e office w h o is so t r a n s f e r r e d . Y e t t h i s v e r y d i f f e r e n c e is s u c h as t o suggest d e p e n d e n c e o f Β a n d C o n A . I n r e f e r r i n g t o a i r D e m o c r i t u s m u s t use t h e p e r i p h r a s i s ov νΰν ήέρα καλέομεν;
o t h e r w i s e t h e r e w o u l d be c o n f u s i o n b e t w e e n t h e o r i g i n a l a n d
p r e s e n t m e a n i n g s o f " z e u s . " T h e p a r a l l e l p h r a s e i n E u h e m e r u s is n o t neces s a r y ; i t w o u l d h a v e b e e n m u c h easier t o say s i m p l y t h a t J u p i t e r raised his h a n d s t o a e t h e r a n d g a v e i t f o r t h e first t i m e t h e n a m e o f sky. F o r
"aether",
u n l i k e " z e u s " , a c q u i r e s n o n e w m e a n i n g as a r e s u l t o f t h e d e i f i c a t i o n . T h i s peculiarity i n Euhemerus'
a c c o u n t suggests t h a t h e is r e c a l l i n g a n
earlier
one i n w h i c h a p h r a s e p a r a l l e l i n m e a n i n g t o caelum quod nunc nominamus
was
thoroughly i n place. T h e above considerations,
taken i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h the m a n y
parallels
b e t w e e n E u h e m e r u s a n d t h e D e m o c r i t e a n m a t e r i a l i n D i o d o r u s I (see a b o v e , pp.
153-54), m a k e a D e m o c r i t e a n o r i g i n for Β a n d G fairly probable. I f o u r
analysis is c o r r e c t ,
t h e stages b y
which
Euhemerus'
theory of
religious
o r i g i n s arose o u t o f its m o d e l s m a y be set f o r t h as f o l l o w s : A . D e m o c r i t e a n version: (1) t e r r o r a n d w o n d e r at atmospheric
phenomena,
followed b y (2) personification o f a i r as basileus. Β
V e r s i o n o f source used b y D i o d o r u s : (1) w o n d e r at spectacle o f heavens, followed b y (2) personification o f heavenly bodies a n d elements, p r o b a b l y as basileis, followed b y (3) a d d i t i o n o f outstanding m o r t a l kings to the p a n t h e o n so created.
C. V e r s i o n o f Euhemerus: (1) w o n d e r at spectacle o f heavens, followed b y ( 2 - 3 ) i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o r association o f a p a r t i c u l a r m o r t a l k i n g w i t h aether. Stage 1 is n o t c l e a r l y attested i n a n y s u r v i v i n g r e p o r t o f t h e Sacred
Chronicle,
b u t its presence t h e r e c a n be i n f e r r e d w i t h some p l a u s i b i l i t y . T h e Caeli
sella
m e n t i o n e d i n E n n i u s ' v e r s i o n o f t h e first d e i f i c a t i o n r e a p p e a r s i n D i o d o r u s ( 5 . 4 4 . 6 ^ ^ f / r / / 6 3 F 3 , p . 3 0 6 . 2 1 ) , w h e r e i t is said t o be t h e spot f r o m w h i c h 5
I n support of the interpretation advanced here one may note that it would be in keeping with the prominence of the logioi in the fragment that the genesis described be primarily an affair of semantics—one of those name transformations to which Democritus called attention in framing his thesis theory of the origin of language ( B 2 6 ; cf. above, pp. 6 7 - 6 8 ) .
A P P E N D I X F O U R : D E M O C R I T U S B30 A N D E U H E M E R U S Uranus
o b s e r v e d t h e sky
a n d t h e stars.
j u n c t i o n w i t h Dionysius Scytobrachion Ρ·
2
The
2Ο5
t w o passages, t a k e n i n
ap. D i o d o r u s 3 . 5 6 . 4 (=FGrH
con 32F7,
3 5 · 3 ° ~ 3 3 ) > w h e r e U r a n u s is t h e f i r s t a s t r o n o m e r , m a k e i t r e a s o n a b l e t o
assume t h a t E u h e m e r u s
c r e d i t e d U r a n u s w i t h t e a c h i n g m e n to observe a n d
a d m i r e the heavens a n d t h e i r m o v e m e n t s ; w i t h the general that
Stage
tendency
1 should
6
a n d i t w o u l d be q u i t e i n k e e p i n g
o f t h e Sacred Chronicle
(see
above, p p .
162-63),
t h u s be associated w i t h a n i n d i v i d u a l heuretes,
t h a n s i m p l y w i t h p o p u l a r feelings o f m a r v e l a n d
rather
awe.
I t is possible, o f course, t h a t U r a n u s t a u g h t m e n n o t m e r e l y t o m a r v e l a t t h e h e a v e n l y b o d i e s , b u t also t o w o r s h i p t h e m (cf. a b o v e , n o t e telescoping
t h e s o u r c e used b y D i o d o r u s , E u h e m e r u s for
1). B u t
by
i n t o a s i n g l e stage ( 2 - 3 ) w h a t h a d b e e n t w o s e p a r a t e stages i n has c e r t a i n l y e l i m i n a t e d t h e n e e d
s u c h ouranioi theoi i n his t h e o r y . E i t h e r t h e y w e r e a b s e n t f r o m his w o r k
a l t o g e t h e r , o r m e n t i o n e d i n i t o n l y t o be t o t a l l y d i s r e g a r d e d a t a l a t e r stage i n t h e n a r r a t i v e (cf. a b o v e , C h a p . X , n o t e 2 9 ) . " It would have been natural for some of Uranus' discoveries to be named after him, and this may be the source of Diodorus' statement (6.1.8; cf. above, note 2) that Uranus πρώτον θυσίαις τιμήσαι
τούς ουράνιους θεούς- διο και Ούρανον προσαγορευθ-ηναι. By reading ouranon for
(Jacoby, RE 11.957)
o
r
inserting ton kosmon after dio (Kaerst, Geschichte des Hellenismus
Ouranon
2 .193—94, 2
note 6 , followed by van der Meer, Euhemerus van Messene 44) we can bring a portion at least of Diodorus' text into line with Lactantius 1.11.63 and with several other passages in later euhemerizers which speak of transferring a man's name to some part of the cosmos (Dionysius Scytobrachion, FGrH
3 2 F 7 , p. 2 3 6 . 2 - 3 , 2 3 6 . 3 6 - 2 3 7 . 1 , 2 3 7 . 1 1 - 1 3 ; and Philo of Byblos, FGrH
7 9 0 F 1 , p.
806.5-10;
F 2 , p. 8 0 9 . 1 6 - 1 7 ; F 3 , p. 8 1 4 . 1 1 - 1 2 ) . But the former change introduces an awkward shift of subject, the latter is needlessly drastic, and both posit a sequence of statements in Diodorus' text which would imply that Uranus' apotheosis occurred in his own lifetime rather than in that of his grandson. One would get better sense by reading ouranious for ouranon: " K i n g Heaven was the first to honor the heavenly gods (i.e. sun, moon, and stars) with sacrifices, which is also why they were given the epithet 'heavenly'." (Cf. Diodorus 5.67.1, where Hyperion is called the "father" of the celestial bodies whose movements he discovers and charts.) T h e existence of the epithet ouranioi would of course facilitate the subsequent renaming of the region in which the bodies bearing it resided, as well as the identification of these celestial ouranioi, named after their discoverer, with the various mortal ouranioi (Venus, Mercury, Saturn, etc.), so called because of their descent from Uranus. Moreover, if Diodorus' report of Euhemerus has in fact transformed Uranus from an astronomer into the inventor of an astral religion it is easy to see how the misunderstanding might have arisen: a careless reader would naturally assume that a text which spoke of hoi ouranioi was referring to gods, not simply to the discoveries of a stargazer.
SELECTED
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aalders, G . J . D . , Het derde bock van Plato's Leges, I : Prolegomena ( A m s t e r d a m 1943). , " T h e Political F a i t h o f D e m o c r i t u s , " Mnemosyne Ser. 4, 3 (1950) 302-13. v o n A r n i m , H . , Leben und Werk des Dio von Prusa ( B e r l i n 1898). Bailey, C ,
The Greek Atomists and Epicurus ( O x f o r d
B a l d r y , H . C., The Unity of Mankind
1928).
in Greek Thought ( C a m b r i d g e 1965).
B a r w i c k , K . , " Kompositionsprobleme i m 5. B u c h des L u c r e z , " Philologus 95 (1942) 193-229. Becker, H . a n d Barnes, H . E., Social Thought from Lore to Science 1 (Boston
1938).
Bernays, J . , Theophrastos' Schrift über Frömmigkeit ( B e r l i n 1866). Bignone, E., UAristotele , "Qua
fide
perduto e la formazione filosofica di Epicuro (Florence 1936).
quibusque fontibus instructus m o r a l e m E p i c u r i
interpretatus sit Cicero i n p r i m o de finibus l i b r o , " RFIC Billeter,
G.,
" G r i e c h i s c h e A n s c h a u u n g e n über die
philosophiam
37 (1909) 54-84.
U r s p r ü n g e der
Kultur,"
Beilage zum Programm der Kantonschule Rurich (1901). BJankert, S., Seneca ep. go over natuur en cultuur en Posidonius als zijn bron ( A m s t e r d a m 1941). Borle, J . - P . , "Progres ou declin de l ' h u m a n i t e ? L a conception de Lucrece (De r e r u m n a t u r a v 801-1457)," MusHelv B r i n k , C. O., "OlKelwois
19 (1962)
a n d olKeiorr/s:
162-76.
Theophrastus a n d Z e n o o n N a t u r e i n
M o r a l T h e o r y , " Phronesis 1 (1956) 123-45. Cataudella, Q.., " T r a c c e della sofistica nella polemica celso-origeniana," RendlstLomb 70 (1937) 185-201. Cole, T . , " T h e A n o n y m u s I a m b l i c h i a n d his Place i n Greek P o l i t i c a l T h e o r y , " HSCP
65 (1961) 127-63.
, " T h e Sources a n d Composition o f Polybius V I , " Historia 13 (1964) 4 4 0 - 8 6 . D a h l m a n n , J . H . , De philosophorum Graecorum sententiis ad loquellae originem pertinentibus capita duo (Diss. L e i p z i g
1928).
D e W i t t , N . W . , " T h e Gods of Epicurus a n d the C a n o n , " Proceedings of the Royal Society of Canada, Ser. 3, 36.2 (1942) 33-49. D i c k e r m a n n , S. O., De argumentis quibusdam apud Xenophontem, Platonem,
Aristotelem
obviis e structura animalium et hominis petitis (Diss. H a l l e 1909). Diels, H . , " Lukrezstudien I V , " SBBerlin
1921, 237-44.
D i h l e , A . , " Z u r hellenistischen E t h n o g r a p h i e , " Entretiens Hardt 8 (Geneva 1962) 205-39. D i r l m e i e r , F., " D i e Oikeiosis-Lehre T h e o p h r a s t s , " Philologus S u p p l . 30.1 (1937). D y r o f f , A . , ^ur Quellenfrage bei Lukrez (Progr. B o n n 1904). Einarson, B., " A r i s t o t l e ' s Protrepticus a n d the Structure o f the Epinornis," TAPA 67 (1936) 261-85. 207
2θ8
D E M O C R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
F a r r i n g t o n , B., " S e c o n d T h o u g h t s o n E p i c u r u s , " Science and Society 17
(1953)
326-39· F e h l i n g , D . , " Z w e i U n t e r s u c h u n g e n z u r griechischen Sprachphilosophie: I I Φύσις u n d θέσις",
RhM
108 (1965) 218-29.
v o n F r i t z , K . , The Theory of the Mixed Constitution in Antiquity ( N e w Y o r k 1954). , " N a u s i p h a n e s , " RE 32 (1935) 2021-27. Geffcken, J . , " L e o , " RE 24 (1925) 2012-14. Gerhäusser, W . , Der Protreptikos des Poseidonios (Diss. H e i d e l b e r g 1912). G i g o n , O . , R e v i e w o f Spoerri's Späthellenistische Berichte, Gnomon 33 (1961) 771-76. G r i l l i , Α . , " L a posizione d i Aristotele, E p i c u r o e Posidonio nei confronti della storia della c i v i l t ä , " RendlstLomb 86 (1953) 3-44. G u t h r i e , W . K . C , In the Beginning ( I t h a c a 1957). H a r d e r , R., " K a r p o k r a t e s v o n Chalkis u n d die memphitische Isispropaganda," AbhBerlin 1943, 14.1-63. Haussleiter, J . , Der Vegetarismus in der Antike = Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 24 (1935). H a v e l o c k , E . A . The Liberal Temper in Greek Politics ( N e w H a v e n 1957). H e i n e m a n n , I . , Poseidonios' metaphysische Schriften 1 (Breslau 1921). H e r t e r , H . , " D i e kulturhistorische T h e o r i e der hippokratischen Schrift V o n der a l t e n M e d i z i n , " Mala 15 (1963) 4 6 4 - 8 3 . J a c o b y , F., " E u e m e r o s , " RE 11 (1907) 952-72. , " H e k a t a i o s aus A b d e r a , " RE 14 (1912) 2750-69. Jelenko, G., " D i e K o m p o s i t i o n der K u l t u r g e s c h i c h t e des L u c r e t i u s , " WS ^ 59-69.
(1936)
Kleingünther, Α . , "ΠΡΩΤΟΣ ΕΥΡΕΤΗΣ," Philologus S u p p l . 26.1 (1933). K l e v e , K . , "Gnosis theon. D i e L e h r e v o n der natürlichen Gotteserkenntnis i n der epikureischen T h e o l o g i e , " SO S u p p l . 19 (1963). K n a a c k e , G., " S t u d i e n z u H y g i n , " Hermes 16 (1881) 5 8 5 - 6 0 1 . K r e m m e r , M . , De catalogis heurematum (Diss. L e i p z i g 1890). K r o k i e w i c z , Α . , " Quaestiones D e m o c r i t e a e , " Eos 47.1 (1954) 35-50. K r o h n , K . , Der Epikureer Hermarchos (Diss. B e r l i n 1921). L a n a , I . , " L e d o t t r i n e d i Protagora e d i D e m o c r i t o i n t o r n o a l l ' o r i g i n e dello s t a t o , " RendLinc Ser. 8, 5 (1950) 184-211. L a n g e r , C , " E u h e m e r u s u n d die T h e o r i e der φύσει u n d θέσει θεοί," ΑΓΓΕΛΟΣ ( i 9 2 6 ) 53-59· L e n z , F . W . , ""Εθος δεύτερη φύσις,"
ΤΑΡΑ
Lovejoy, Α . Ο . , a n d Boas, G., Primitivism
2
73 ( 9 4 ) 2 Ι 4 - 3 · Γ
2
1
and Related Ideas in Antiquity ( B a l t i m o r e
1935)· L u r i a , S., " Z u r Frage der materialistischen B e g r ü n d u n g der E t h i k bei D e m o k r i t , " DAWB 44 (1964). v a n der M e e r , H . F., Euhemerus van Messene (Diss. A m s t e r d a m 1949). M e r l a n , P., " L u c r e t i u s , P r i m i t i v i s t or Progressivist?" Journal of the History of Ideas 11 (1950) 364-68. M e n z e l , Α . , " G r i e c h i s c h e Soziologie," SBWien 216.1 (1937)·
SELECTED
209
BIBLIOGRAPHY
M e y e r , W . , Landes Inopiae (Diss. Göttingen 1915). M i l l e r , H . W . , " O n Ancient Medicine a n d the O r i g i n o f M e d i c i n e , " ΤΑΡΑ
8o
(1949) 187-202. M o n d o l f o , R., La comprensione del soggetto umano nell' antichitä classica ( I t a l . transl. Florence 1958). v o n der M ü h l l , P., " E p i k u r s Κνριαι δόξαι u n d D e m o k r i t , " Festgabe Kaegi ( F r a u e n feld 1919) 172-78. Nestle, W . , " D i e H ö r e n des P r o d i k o s , " Hermes 71 (1936) 151-70 ( = Griechische Studien [ S t u t t g a r t 1948] 4 0 3 - 2 9 ) . N o c k , A . D . , " P o s i d o n i u s , " J A S 49 (1959)
1-15-
, Review o f Spoerri, Späthellenistische Berichte, CR 12 (1962) 5 0 - 5 1 . N o r d e n , E., " B e i t r ä g e zur Geschichte der griechischen Philosophie," JVJbb S u p p l . 19 (1892) 3 5 - 4 Ö 2 . Pfister, F., " E i n a p o k r y p h e r Alexanderbrief. D e r sogenannte L e o n v o n Pella u n d die K i r c h e n v ä t e r , " MULLUS, Festschrift Theodor Klauser = Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum, Ergänzungsband 1 (1964) 291-97. Pfligersdorfer, G., "Λόγιοι u n d die λόγιοι άνθρωποι bei D e m o k r i t , " WS 61-62 6
(1943-47) 5-49· , " S t u d i e n z u Poseidonios," SBWien
232.5 (1959).
Philippson, R., " D a s Erste N a t u r g e m ä s s e , " Philologus 87 (1932) 4 4 5 - 6 6 . , " Polystratos' Schrift über die grundlose V e r a c h t u n g der V o l k s m e i n u n g , " NJbb 23 (1909) 487-509· , " D i e Rechtsphilosophie der E p i k u r e e r , " AGP
23 (1910)
289-337
and
433-46. Pötscher, W . , Theophrastos ΠΕΡΙ ΕΥΣΕΒΕΙΑΣ = Philosophia Antiqua 11 (1964). Pohlenz, M . , " G r u n d f r a g e n der stoischen Philosophie," AbhGöltingen F o l g . 3, 26 (1940). , " T i e r i s c h e u n d menschliche I n t e l l i g e n z b e i Poseidonios," Hermes 76 (1941) 1-13. Praechter, K . , " E i n e D e m o k r i t s p u r b e i X e n o p h o n , " Hermes 50 (1915) 144-50. R e i n h a r d t , K . , " H e k a t a i o s v o n A b d e r a u n d D e m o k r i t , " Hermes47 (1912) 492-513. (= Vermächtnis der Antike, Gesammelte Essays zur Philosophie und Geschichtsschreibung [Göttingen i 9 6 0 ] 114-32). , Poseidonios ( M u n i c h 1921). Reitzenstein, E., Theophrast bei Epikur und Lukrez = Orient und Antike 2 (1924). R u d b e r g , G., Forschungen zu Poseidonios = Skrifter utgifna af K. Humanistika Vetenskapssamfundet i Uppsala 20.3 (1918). R y f f e l , Η . , ΜΕΤΑΒΟΛΗ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΩΝ: Der Wandel der Staatsverfassungen = Noctes Romanae 2 (1949). v o n Scala, R., Die Studien des Polybios 1 ( S t u t t g a r t 1890). Schwartz, E., " H e k a t a e o s v o n T e o s , " RhM 40 (1885) 223-62. , " D i o d o r o s v o n S i z i l i e n , " RE 9 (1903) 663-704. Seeliger, F . C., " W e l t a l t e r , " Roschers Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie 6 (1924-37) 375-430.
210
D E M O C R I T U S AND T H E SOURCES OF G R E E K
ANTHROPOLOGY
Sikes, E . E . , The Anthropology of the Greeks (Cambridge 1914). Solmsen, F., " Epicurus on the Growth and Decline of the Cosmos," AJP 74 (1953) 34-51·
Spoerri, W., " Z u Diodor von Sizilien 1, 7/8," MusHelv 18 (1961) 63-82. , "Über die Quellen der Kulturentstehungslehre des Tzetzes," MusHelv (1957) 183-88. —•—,
Späthellenistische Berichte über Welt, Kultur und Götter = Schweizerische
14
Beiträge
zur Altertumswissenschaft 9 (1959). Stewart, Z., "Democritus and the Cynics," HSCP 63 (1958) 179-91. Sudhaus, S., "Nausiphanes," RhM 48 (1893) 321-41. Taeger, F., Die Archäologie des Polybios (Stuttgart 1922). Tarn, W. W., "Alexander the Great and the Unity of Mankind," ProcBritAc
19
(1933) 123-66. Theiler,
W.,
%ur Geschichte
der teleologischen
Naturbetrachtung
bis auf
Aristoteles
(Zürich 1925). Thraede, K., " Das Lob des Erfinders. Bemerkungen zur Analyse der HeuremataKataloge," RhM 105 (1962) 158-86. — , "Erfinder," RAG 5 (1962) 1191-1278. , "Euhemerismus," RAG 6 (1965) 877-86. von Uxkull-Gyllenband, W., Griechische Kulturentstehungslehren = Bibliothek für
Philo-
sophie 26 (1924). Vallauri, L . , "Origine e diffusione delP euemerismo nel pensiero classico," PubblTorino 12.5 (i960). Vlastos, G., "Ethics and Physics in Democritus," PhilRev 54 (1945) 578-92 and 55 ( W S ) 53-64. , " O n the Prehistory in Diodorus," AJP 67 (1946) 51-59. Walbank, F. W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius (Oxford 1957). Weil, R., U "archeologie"
de Platon = £tudes et commentates 32 (Paris 1959).
Weber, L . , "De Dione Chrysostomo Cynicorum sectatore," Leipziger Studien 10 (1887) 77-268.
INDEX abundance, of building materials, 4 3 ; created by development of technology, 4 3 ; as prerequisite for development of fine arts, 4 3 ; of sustenance in primitive times, 27, 100, 151 Academy, anthropological discussions in, 1 0 4 - 5 , 165, 173; political interests of, 1 6 6 - 6 7 ; ^ Polybius, 163, 165, 169-70 accident, in atomistic explanations, 119; as determinant of cultural development, 2, 16, 3 8
a n <
18, 3 5 . 3 9 , 47> 5 6 , 6 3 - 6 7 , 8 5 , 9 0 - 9 1 , 148, 1 7 2 ;
not admitted as a cause in certain theories of cultural development, 1 4 6 - 4 7 Achaean league, 165-66 acme in development of arts, 172 acorns as man's earliest food, 6, 1 1 active life, defended and rejected by reference to history of culture, 127, 1 6 8 - 6 9 Aelian, ra . 8: 7 ' Aeneas Tacticus 5.1: 1 1 6 Aeschines Ctes. 78: 1 3 3 3 3
2 4
5
Falsa leg. 1 5 2 : 1 1 6
Aeschylus, Eum. 5 6 7 : 6 6 —
1 5
8
20-21 aloga, 11 o
Amazons, 1 4 4 - 4 5 Ammon, 3 9 , 1 5 4 ,
1
159
1 8
3 3
analytic accounts of cultural origins, 5 1 - 5 2 Anaxagoras, VS ^QA^C); —
A101: 8 2
—
A102: 42
—
B 4 and 2 1 : 5 5 1
K.972A1: 161 A6:
161
B1-2:
3 0
3 3
Anaxarchus, 1 6 5 —
57
5
3 7
3 7
161
4 1
Anaximander, VS 1 2 A 3 0 : 1 0 1 Anaximenes of Lampsacus, FGrH 5
72T14: 177
7
—
1421B36-37: 1 1 4
—
1422A2-4: 1 1 4
1 8
1 9
97: 129
2 8
5 7
animals, behavior of taken as criterion of what is natural, 9 6 , n o , u g ; defense against,
4
0
24
allelophagia, see cannibalism
Andocides, Myst.
3 4
—
23
anchinoia, 21, 4 0 - 4 1 , 74, 104, 1 8 6
453= 2 9 " 454-57: 4 2 4 6 7 - 6 8 : 44 » I
2 9
Anaximenes, Rhet. ad Alex. 1 . 1 4 2 1 B 3 5 - 2 2 A 2 : 113
2 4
PV: 6, 5 0 , 9 9
484-99: 5 491-92: 136
157
2 3
1
3 3
—
Alexarchus, 1 3 8 ,
Alexander the Great, 1 3 7 , 1 5 5 , 161 allegorization, of myth of Golden Age, 10, 1 5 0 - 5 1 ; of Prometheus and Pandora myth,
3 2
9
3 4 - 3 6 , 6 4 - 6 5 , 109, 115, 1 2 3 - 2 6 ; differentiated
1 6
Suppl. 7 0 4 - 0 9 : 1 1 4
aetiology, 8 - 9 , 4 9 , 5 7 , 3 2
2 0
128-30,
1 4 5 - 4 6 , 165,
from man by lack of logismos, 7 7 - 7 8 , 8 1 , 8 8 , 113, 168, 1 9 7 - 2 0 0 ; intelligence of, 8 1 ; life of compared to that of early man, 7 " , 23, 5 5 , 5
2 4
•73 Aetna 3 6 3 - 6 5 : 1 7
80, 8 8 , 9 5 - 9 6 , 152, 184
5
Agatharchides, ap. Diodorus 3.6.2: 8 8 , 1 4 1 1 5
3.7.2: 1 4 1 3.15.2
3 2
3 2
( = Photius, Cod. 2 5 0 4 4 9 A 2 7 ) :
82 3 - i 8 - 5 ( = 4 5 ° B 3 - 4 ) 82° 3.18.6 ( = 4501510-11): 6 3 s
s 6
3.6: 1 0 4
—
7.1-2, 8 - 9 : 1 2 2
2 9
1 6
3 8
1 5
Antiphon of Rhamnus 1.31: 104'"
s
—
3 2
3.34.6 ( = 4 5 5 A i i - i 2 ) : 1 4 1
Herod. 8 0 : 1 0 4 92:
3 2
— ap. Photius, Cod. 250 4 5 0 B 4 - 8 : 82 456A29: 8 2
—
Anth. Pal. 6 . 1 5 1 : 6 6
:
3.18.7: 1 4 1
anonyma, 6 8 - 6 9 , ' ° 8 , 1 8 5
Anonymus Iamblichi, 8, 128, 1 4 0
s
129
1 6
5 7
VS 8 7 B 4 4 , F r . A col.
Antiphon the Sophist, 1 . 1 - 2 . 3 0 : 142
s
aggregating tendency, in atoms, 107, 110; in primitive man, 8 3 - 8 4 , 107, n o — n , 131 agraphoi nomoi, 1 1 3 - 1 5 , 1 2 6 , 1 3 7 4 7
2 3
agriculture, 4, 7, 10, 17, 20, 3 6 - 3 8 , 45, 55 Alcmaeon of Croton, VS 24B1 A : 82 s
—
F r . B col. 2 . 1 5 - 3 5 : 1 3 7
2 3
Antisthenes, 150 , 152 Apollonius Rhodius 3 . i o 8 8 - 8 g : 9 1 Apuleius, Met. 11.2: 4 8 Aratus of Sicyon, 165-66 6
s
1 8
212
DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K
Arcadia, 4 , 6
1
—
4
Pol.
ANTHROPOLOGY
1 . 1 2 5 2 B 2 4 - 2 7 : 203
Arcesilaus, 1 6 4 - 6 5
1253A7-18: 8 6
Archelaus, VS 6 0 A 1 : 5
1256A23: 2 8
1 3
4
—
A4.6: 5
1256A30-B7:
—
B 3 : 122
1259A37-B17: 8, 1 3 s 7, 4 3 , 5 7 , 1 9 3 - 9 5 ;
architecture,
cf.
1269A4-5:
shelter Aristagoras of Miletus, 1 5 9
6.I32OB9-II:
—
Aristophanes, Nubes 2 6 4 : 2 0 3
1373B14-18: 1 3 7 —
1 1
Plutus 7, Schol. ad: 9 4
—
1 6
history
of
141, 146,
philosophy,
52-54,
104-5
De intr. 2 . 1 6 A 2 9 : 3 3 De philosophia: 172
1235A4-5: 1 3 6
4
i34-35nn.
"55 32= '36 1155A32-35: 134 1159B25-60A30:
5
7 2 3
Athens, as bringer of civilization, 7, 1 3 4 ; as 8
primitive Utopia, 2, 5 3 9
Atlantis, myth of, 2, 9 , 5 3 1 4
134
1160A31-61A30: 1 3 5
9
atomism, 1 0 6 - 1 0 , 1 1 7 - 2 0 , 147 1
0
1 2
, 135
1 6
1 5
Attica, 4 Augustine, Civ. Dei 8 . 5 : 158
1160B22-61A9:8
authority, paternal, 112, n
1161B6-7: 134 , 1 3 7 9
1161B13: 1 3 4 , 1 3 5 1 0
1161B33-35: 134
2 3
1162A34-B4: 1 3 5
6-17
autochthony, 4 , 178; cf. spontaneous generation
1 5
9
barbarians, antiquity of, 178
4
beauty as criterion for selection of early kings, 9i bees, 9 6
9
n 6 2 A i g - 2 4 : 133
1 8
2
1 4
1163A24-B27: 1 3 5 H70A25-BI9: 138
7
Theaetetus
Berlin
2 6
13g
4
b
s 3
95",
1 2 0 - 2 3 , 1 2 5 - 2 7 , 156, 161, 168, 1 8 7 - 8 8 , 191
2 9
5-577 3°-78AI: 132
5
benefactors, 1 8 , 3 5 - 3 6 , 4 8 - 4 9 , 9 3 , 9 4 ,
1 4
9.1168B31-32: 1 1 8
—
3
commentary,
col.
5.36-39:
2 8
7.26-8.1: 138
2 6
biological determinism, 2 8 , 4 2 , 7 8 - 7 9 ,
2
5
170-71
boetheia, 104
4
629B10-12: 132
Boethius, Herrn, pr. 1.2, p. 50.11
2
Met. 1 . 9 8 1 B 1 3 - 8 2 A 1 : 7, 4 3 ' , 5 3 3
—
Meteor. 4 . 3 8 1 B 6 - 7 : 1 9
—
Part. anim. 3.662B20—22: 4 1 4.686A25-28: 4 1 4
3 1
1 9
1158BH-59A33: 1 3 5
68 A5-7: i
1 5
Athenio ap. Athenaeus 14.660-61 (Fr. 1 K o c k ) :
1 6
9.611A7-11: 1 3 2
Meta-
Aristotle's
1 8
Athenaeus 6 . 2 3 3 D E : 1 7
1 0
HA 1 . 4 8 8 A 2 - 1 0 : 2 8
to
Athena, allegorized as anchinoia, 21
8.1155A21-22: 1 3 7
617B21: 2 8
commentary
ataktos bios, 2 8 , 1 8 9
1 4
1 5
1162A9-14: 134
2 4
2 3
— p. 1 1 . 7 - 9 : 1 0 5
EN 7 . 1 1 4 8 B 2 2 - 2 3 : 7
A
3 6
astronomy, 7, 4 2 - 4 3 , 2 0 4 - 5
1 6
124IB27-42B27:
—
2 2
physics, pp. 1 0 . 2 8 - 1 1 . 3 6 Hayduck: 5 2
1238B18-39B5: 1 3 5 1241B25: 1 3 4
160
7.11.9: 1 3 7
Asclepius,
1 6
1236B9-10: 1 3 6 1239A4-5: 1 3 5
4.14:
—
2 0
EE 7 . 1 2 3 5 A 4 - 1 3 : 134»
7
5
4
120.17-121.21: 137-38 —
1 0
F r . 8 pp. 7 5 - 7 7 Ross: 5 2
—
2 3
Arius Didymus ap. Stobaeus, Eel. 2.7 = W - H n
Arrian, An. 5 . 1 - 2 : 1 5 5
Fr. 7 Ross: i o 6
—
9
2 3
Arnobius 2 . 6 6 : 8
—
—
3 9
87, 837A24-26: 17
1343B20-23: 1 1 4
—
—
, 161
8
Oec. 1 . 1 3 4 3 B 1 3 - 2 0 : 1 3 3
Ranae 1032: 6 on
2 3
3
ap. Plutarch, Thes. 2 5 : 9 4
[Aristotle], Ausc. Mirab.
2 3
Aristotle, on origin of culture, 5 2 - 5 4 , 6
I 2 2
1 3 7 4 A 1 8 - 2 5 : 113
1427-29: I I O
172-73;
6
Rhet. L 1 3 7 1 B 1 2 — 1 7 : 1 3 4
4
1 0 7 5 - 7 8 : 142
100 ,
IOI
1 2 8 5 B 6 - 9 : 18', 9 4
3 5
Aristippus, 164
—
1 6
3.1280A39: 7 3 '
Aristides, Or. 3 , pp. 3 2 . 2 3 - 3 4 . 2 Dindorf: 7
914-15: 1 0 4
2 2
2.1268B30-69A8: 8
houses,
Archytas, K S 4 7 B 3 : 122
—
54
9
3 03
1
1 8
Herrn, sec. p. 5 . 5 - 1 0 : 6 1
—
Herrn, sec. 1.2, p. 6 0 . 2 5 : 3 3
bread, invention of, 1 9 burial, 9 , 6 6
2 9
1 6
2 9
Phys. 2 . 1 9 9 A 1 5 - 1 7 : 1 9
9
Meiser: 3 3
—
Cadmus, 5 7
a s
9
1
1 0
1 0
213
INDEX Callicles, 8 4 cannibalism, 7 , 5 5 , 6 6 , 1 0 3 - 4 , ' 3 > 5 Carneades, 169, 2 0 1 ; his Carneadea divisio, 1 6 3 - 6 4 , 201 Cassiodorus, 5 — Variae, 1.2.7: 4 8 * 1.30.5: 5 0 6.18.6: 3 1 ' Catrarius, Johannes, 2 3 , 4 1 cataclysms, 2, 9, 5 2 , 54, too caves as primitive dwelling places, 2 9 - 3 0 Celsus, 5 1 challenge and response in development of culture, 9, 51 character of man, variable and constant elements in, 1 3 9 - 4 3 , 170 chreia, 41, 1 2 3 - 2 4 ; cf. utility Christian views of prehistory, 1, 8, i o chronology of cultural developments, 4 4 - 4 5 , 47, '91 Chrysippus ap. D . L . 7.108: 8 2 ' Cicero, Ac. 2 . 1 3 0 - 3 1 : 1 6 3 - 6 4 — De Oratore 1 . 3 5 - 3 6 : 7, n — Fin. 1.30: 7 2 i-3>: 7 7 1.69: 8 i , 1 3 9 1 1
1 9
1 5
2
r
2
2.81-83: 1 6 6 " — Orat. 3 1 : 6 — Part. Orat. 6 2 : 165 Rep. 1.34: 1 6 6 6 4
1-39 · a 8 1.39-41: 9 3 . 3 : 61 \ 6 7 » -
2
7
1 6
2 8
5
3
s
1 5 2
4
2 9
2-33-43: 163-64 2.44: 2 0 0 2.45: 1 3 9 2.45-47: 1 9 9 2.82: 1 3 9 3.20-21: 196-98, 200 3.23: 139 ', 197-98 3.62-63: 138 4 . 4 9 - 5 0 : 163 3
2 9
s
2 9
2
2 6
4-79= 4 ° 5 . 1 6 - 2 2 : 163 5.17: 164 5.65: 1 3 9 5.74: 1 1 8 Flacc. 6 2 : 7 ' Inv. 1 . 2 - 3 : 7, 1 1 Laelius: 1 3 6 Leg. 1 . 3 7 - 3 9 : 163 ND 1.38: 1 5 6 " 1.120: 1 7 2 ' 2.140: 4 1 I
2 9
2 9
28
— — — — —
1
3 3
1 9
6
3 0
2.149: 3 3 2.150-52: 9 1 0
l
—
2 4
3-54-55: ° Off. 1.11-14: 8 , 1 9 6 - 2 0 0 1.12: 1 3 9 1.22-23: 1 3 9 1.50-58: 1 3 9 2.9: 8 2 ' 2.11—15: 8 2.13: 4 4 2.i :44 2.41-42: 7 5 " 6
3
5
2 8
2 9
2 9
4 0
5
4 0
3
4
3-23: 7 7 — Sest. 9 1 : 9 4 — Top. 8 2 : 165 — Tusc. 1.62: 43 , 4 4 , 5 1 1 5
2 8
3 7
5-5: 7 5.38: 2 8
1 2
2 9
4
3 9
9
4
5-84-85= 163 cities, founding of, 5 , 4 4 , 9 1 , 9 4 , 1 5 6 , 190 Cleidemus, FGrH 3 2 3 F 5 a and 7: 4 1 8
98-100,
2 3
28
Clement of Alexandria, 5
1 3
— Strom. 1.64: 1 6 5 2.130.4-6: i 6 o ' — Protr. 4 . 5 4 . 2 - 3 : 1 5 9 climate, 172, 180-81 clothing, 5, 27, 3 0 - 3 1 , 5 6 ; cf. weaving Colotes ap. Plutarch, Adv. Col. 30.1124D: 7 6 5 1
s
3 3
1 1
commerce, 4 4 , 134 communication, non-linguistic, 6 4 - 6 6 communism among primitive men, 3 4 , 1 5 1 community, Greek theories of, 131-43 competition, among individuals in development 1 4
of culture, 3 2 - 3 5 , 1 9 4 ; among kosmoi, 109-10 conceptual thought, influence of on theories of culture, 146 confederations, 107, 1 6 6 - 6 7 consciousness, of kind, 8 3 , 8g-go, 1 3 9 - 4 0 ; of self, 140, 164 contaminatio of sources and theories, 3 ; in Diodorus I , 1 8 7 - 8 8 ; in Laws I I I , 9 7 - 1 0 0 ; in Lucretius V , 2 5 , 1 7 0 - 7 2 ; in Panaetius, 1 9 8 - 2 0 0 ; in Tzetzes, 2 2 contractual view, of society, 12, 75, 8 4 ; of law, 114» cooking, 7, 3 1 ' cooperation, in common defense, 113-14, 116; in development of arts, 3 5 cosmogony, 174 Crates of Thebes, Frs. 4 and 6, pp. 218—19 Diels: 152» criminals, treatment of, 1 2 3 - 2 4 Critias, K V 8 8 B 2 5 : 9 — B25.3-4: 114 — B25.12: 5 8 Critolaus, 1 0 1 ' Cronus, reign of, 151 cumulative character of cultural developments, 3 8 - 4 0 , 1 1 9 - 2 0 , 194 cyclical theories of history, 2, 5 2 - 5 4 , 1 0 0 , 101', 177 Cynics, 6 , 2 3 " , 7 7 , 1 5 0 - 5 2 , 171 1
l e
1 1
1 8
s 4
5
1 1
214
D E M O C R I T U S AND T H E S O U R C E S O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
Dardanus, i o i defense,
6
34, 3 5 - 3 6 , 6 4 - 6 5 ,
against animals,
83-84. 92-93. " 5 . 64-65, 6 6 , 124-26
123-
2 6
;
against
men,
deification, of benefactors, 1 5 - 1 6 , 4 9 , 1 5 3 - 6 3 ; of self, 1 6 2 - 6 3 Demeter, as bringer of law and grain, 1 5 4 - 5 5 , 186
his
history, 1 2 8 - 2 9 ,
1 4 5 - 4 7 ; gaömai of,
129;
1 2 8 - 3 0 , 1 6 9 - 7 0 ; and writers on technology, 148 118 ,
130
2 9
1
147
2
6 6
5 6
128 5
B30: 58, 2 0 2 - 4 B 3 3 : 117 B57: 118 B 1 0 7 : 117 3 1
5
4 6
4 , 5 4 - 5 5 , 1 4 1 ; and 6 9
2
1 5
149
5
techniques, 5 7 - 5 8 ,
— — — — —
6.10: 1 5 1 6.15: 151" 6 . 2 5 : 6, 150 6.28: 5 1 , 152 6 . 2 9 - 3 0 : 6, 150
142
— — — — — —
6-32-33: 151 6.34: 151 8 . 3 3 : 150« 12.30: 150 60.7: 1 5 1 60.8: 150
115
9
1 5
1
1 0
5
2
108-9;
1 7
7
1 8
5 7 = '21, 125 B 1 5 8 : 58 B164: 107 , 110-11, B l
2 6
3
1
1 3
1
6
a n c
l
4,
early man,
Euhemerus,
153-57,
15-45 162-63,
language, 6 0 - 6 1 , 6 3 - 6 7 ,
Leo,
174-92;
and
Polybius,
sources for Book One, 117
26
15-17, 183-84,
188-89
— —
1.1-5: 179 1 . 3 - 1 . 6 . 1 : 176
— — — —
1-4-6: 1 7 9 1 . 6 . 1 - 2 : 192 1.6.2: 1 7 7 - 7 9 1.6.3: 177 9
79,
1 5 8 - 5 9 ; methods of com-
position in Chaps. 7 - 2 9 of Book One,
57
4 4
1
9
8
2 0 2 , 2 0 5 ; on
B145: 6 8 B 1 5 4 : 5, 5 0 , 5 3 ,
s
9
passim; and
3
1 6
2 3
Diodorus Siculus, on
5 6
1 7
n 8
104
Dio of Prusa, view of primitive man, 28
B 1 6 : 57 B 2 6 : 67, 2 0 4
B236:
59-75= 9 4
diffusion of new
27
B I 8 6 : 117 BI87: n 8 B I 9 7 : 117 B203: I I I
56.15:
1 2
1 9
3 1
II7
— —
1 4
133
2 9
27
1 7
BI67:
25.87-89:
Diels, H . , 11 diet, 5 1 , 1 5 0
A 1 5 1 : 5, 5 6 , I 2 8 B2: 6 8 , 118 B5Ü 117
B142: 6 8 B144: 43,
—
— Fr. 5 2 : 1 3 0 , 1 3 5 ,
5
128
VS I I , p. 4 3 2 . 1 7 - 2 2 : 5 8
— Fr- 4 9 : 149, i 5 °
4
s
Aisoa: 128
B118:
—
Demosthenes, Cor. 169: 6 6
6 9
3 4
B u e : 57,
4 0
B 2 9 9 g : 128 B 3 0 0 . 1 4 : 57
Hesiod, 1 4 9 ; and Lucretius, 1 7 1 — F r . 2 4 Wehrli: 1 7 1
A 7 5 : 5, 2 0 2 , 2 0 3 A76: 119
IOI
6 0
4
Dicaearchus, on early man,
26
A139:
120-22
4 3
diaphora, 8 7 - 8 8 , 1 2 6
4 5
27
117 105
,
4
3
Deucalion, 1 0 1
26
A38: 1 1 7 ' , 119, A40: 107, 109 A44: 117 A69: 117
A125: A138:
4
1
B 2 6 7 : 112 B278: i12-15, 203 B 2 g 8 b and 2 9 9 a : 1 6 1
on
sources of Polybius' and Plato's knowledge of,
109
1
5 7
reconstruction of pre-
techne, 1 2 3 - 2 7 ; on social concord, on social origins, 1 0 7 - 1 2 , 1 1 5 - 2 0 ;
A84:
4
I I I
1
kingship, 1 2 5 - 2 7 ; on language, 6 7 - 6 9 ; on origin of religion, 2 0 2 - 5 ; on politike and
117
4
1
1
form taken by
A37:
1
I I I
123-26 B259: I07 , B260: I 2 9 B263: 126-27 B266: i n , 117
Democritus, 11, 5 6 - 5 9 , 1 0 6 - 7 3 passim; and Cynics, 1 5 2 ; and Epicurus, 168, 1 7 0 - 7 3 ; and euhemerists, 1 5 9 - 6 3 ; on family, 1 1 2 - 1 5 ;
2 6
I I I
B257: 123-27 B258: I07 , 124-26
p. 4 8 de Falco: 8 4 »
117 ,
B250:
255= I I I B256: I 2 4
2 7
KS68A1:
4
4
B
1
—
1
1
B254:
Demetrius Laco, Pap. Here. 1012 col. 4 4 . 5 - 4 6 . 1 1 ,
polemike 120-22;
I I I I I I
— B 2 5 I :
1 5
160,
B245: B248:
83-84,
93
2 0
,
16, 94
2 2
;
1 5 9 ; and Vitruvius,
INDEX 1.7: 2 3
1 6
215 —
, I O I , 1 7 5 - 7 » >92 5
6
1.41.10: 190
1.7.4:
I82
2 1
—
1.42.1: 174-76, 1 8 9 - g i
1.7.6:
I8I
1 6
—
1.42.2: i g o
I83
2 2
—
1 . 4 3 . 1 : 1 6 0 , 184, 187
—
1.43.1-6: i 8 8 - g 2
1.7.7:
i . 8 : 3 , 4 , 7, 11, 16, 2 0 , 3 4 9
1 3
, 6 4 , 8 3 , 151
177-78
3 6
—
1.43.2: 1 9 1
1 . 8 . 1 : 2 7 , 184, 1 8 7 - 8 9 , 190, 192
—
1.43.4:
1.8.2-3: 3 2 - 3 3 , 6 0 - 6 1
—
1.43.5-6: i g i
1 . 8 . 2 - 4 : 108, 1 8 4 - 8 5 , 1 8 7 , 189
—
1.43.6: 1 6 2 , i g 2
1.8.3: 16, 183
—
1.44-68: 190
3 4
igi
3 4
4 3
—
1 . 4 4 . 1 : 15», 191
—
1.45.4: 1 5 4
1 . 8 . 4 - 5 : 187
—
1.90: 6 4 - 6 5 , 8 7 ,
1.8.5: 1 5 2
—
1.90.1: 74, 1 1 1
1 . 8 . 3 -4 : 6 2 " , 6 9 1.8.4: 3 3
1 9
, 6 5 , 108, 1 1 8
1 1
2 9
1 6
2 1
1 . 8 . 5 -9 : 2 7 , 1 8 5 - 9 2
—
1.90.2:
162
4 3
1.8.6: 1 8 6
—
1.97.6: 1 8 6
2 7
2 7
1.8.7: 2 9 , 1 8 6
—
2 . 3 5 - 4 2 : 186
—
2.38: 4
2 7
1.8.8: 3 6 1 . 8 . 9 : 16, 2 1 , 4 0 , 104, 1 8 0 , 183, 186
—
2.38.2: 1 8 0
1 . 9 . 1 : 178
—
2 . 3 8 . 2 - 6 : 186
1 2
1.9.2: 4 4 , 1 9 1 - 9 2
—
2.38.4:
—
2.38.5: 4 8 , 9 1
'•9-3= ! 7 9 1 . 9 . 3 - 6 : 192
—
3.2: 4
—
3.2.1: 1 8 1
1.10:
—
3.9.4: 9 1
1 . 1 0 . 1 : 187
—
3.17.5: 1 5 1
1.10.2-3: 180-83
—
3.32.1: 102 , 1 1 8
1.10.4: 1 7 7
—
3.32.3: 1 0 2
1 7 5 , 192 3
8
1.10.5: 1 8 1 ,
182
1 5
2 1
1 5 6 » , 1 5 6 - 5 7 , 158 2
I . I 1-12:
2 9
192
1.11-29: 190-91 1 . 1 1 . 1 : 155, 1 6 0 , 2 0 2 3 6
I . l 1.2-12.IO: I 5 9
1
9
2
4
1 5
—
3.49.2: 8 2
—
3.56.3:
—
3.61.3: g i
3
1
—
3.63 ff.: 1 5 4
—
3.63.3: 1 8 6
3-70.7: 9 4 3.70.8: 186
1 . 1 3 - 2 9 : 4 8 , 1 5 3 - 5 5 , 192, 193
—
3.73.5:
2 1
57
2 3
2 7
186
2 7
—
4.2 ff.: 1 5 4 "
1 2
—
4.25.1: 5 7
1.13.2-5 :
160
—
5-35-3-4 i 7
— —
5-39-5: 2 9 5.41-46: 202
—
5.46.4: 1 5 4 "
I-I3-3: ! 5 1.14:38"
1 6
, 2 1 , 3 0 , 183
1.14.1: 30, 9 2
1 9
, 103, 104, 186, 187
1.14.2: 1 5 8 , I 6 0
, 191
3 3
2 7
1 - 1 3 - : ' 5 5 , 186, 190 3 5
3 3
:
5
6
2
I - I 4 - 3 : 33, 9 4 " 1.15: 20
— —
5- 4-i: 49 5.65.3: 186
—
5.67.1: 205
i - i 5 - 3 = >55 1 . 1 5 . 3 - 4 : 190
—
5.67.3: 4 g
—
5.68.1: 49 , 186
- ' 5 - 4 - 5 : 33
—
5.69.5: 6 6
i->5-5= 3 7 , 5 4 I
1.15.6-8:
3 5
1 8
154»
1.16.1: 4 2 - 4 3 , 6 g 1.17.1-20.5: 1 5 4 !-'7-3:
i54
2 1
1 . 2 3 . 1 : 191 1.24.3: 3 8
3 4
2 2
1.24.5: 4 4 1 . 2 6 . 1 : 191
1 9
2 1
, 108, 185, 192
2 7
2 7
1.13.2: 2 0
3 0
2 9
8
— —
, 157
1 9
s
8 , 186
1.13-16: 86, 188-89 1
, 182
2 7
9
3.67.1-2:
1.11.6: 190
7
186
9
3.70.3: 1 8 6
3 4
3
1
,
l 8
9
—
I75
1 8 4 - 8 5 , 18g
1 8
—
I.U.5-I2:
»,
3
s
4
2
1 2
1 . 9 . 2 - 6 : 178
i . n :
I
9 3 1 3
6
3
2 7
6
3
3
2 7
1 5
—
5.71.1: 9 4
2 3
—
5.73.7: 9 4
2 3
—
6.1.8: I 5 6
— —
15-89-3: i 7 7 18.4.4: 1 3 7
2 9
, 202 , 205 2
6
7
2 3
Diogenes of Apollonia, VS 6 4 A 1 9 , p. 5 6 . 1 3 - 1 4 : , 50
7
41 » 3
Diogenes Laertius 1 . 1 : i 6 o —
1.10: 176
3 s
2l6
DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y Democritus, 1 4 1 ; contrasted with that of Diodorus, 7 4 , 7 8 - 7 9 ; contrasted with that of Polybius, 8 1 - 8 7 ; i relation to that of the Cynics, 1 7 1 Epicurus, and Democritus, 127, 1 6 8 ; and Nausiphanes, 1 6 8 - 6 9 > origin of language, 6 1 - 6 2 ; on social origins, 7 0 - 7 9
Diogenes (cont.) —
2.64: 1 4 0
2 9
—
2.85: 140 »
—
4 . 2 8 : 165
—
4.33: 1 6 5 "
t s
2
7 1
o
— 5-i7: — 6.23: — 6.27: — 6.44: — 6.59: — 6.71:
7 151 150 151* 150 151" 1 0
6
— Ad Herod. 3 8 : 7 2 "
6
75: 72 , 78-79
— —
6.72: 1 5 1 7.4: 1 5 1
— —
7-85= 197 9.40: 130
—
9.61: 1 6 5 "
74: 172
7 5 - 7 6 : 9. 6 1 - 6 2 — Ad Men. 1 2 4 : 7 6 — RS 6 : 127, 169 1 4
1 1
9-67: 1 6 5 9- 'i- 5-
— —
10.33: 7 7 10.120: 8 4
ii
7 : 127, 169 3 1 : 7 2 , 7 3 , 76 32: 137 7
s 0
—
2 3
33: 36: 37: 38:
6 1
165"
l
1 6
1 2
1 9
6 8
— Pap. Here. 9 9 3 col, 3.Ü.2, p. 195 Arrighetti: 118
s 8
Diogenes of Sinope, 1 5 0 , 1 5 1 6
2 9
9 1 0
— Pap.
1 2
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom. 180
1 4
1 4
3 1
2 0
col. 11 4 - 8 : 1 7 0 col. n 9 - 1 1 : 5 6
72, 7 3 ' 7 2 , 76 76 76
— 172 Usener: 5 7 — 2 5 5 Usener,: 7 6 - 7 7 — 5 1 7 Usener: 7 8
Diogenes of Oenoanda, 3 8 , 5 6 — F r . 1 1 , col. 1 1—11 11 Grilli: 5 6
— Ep. 3 2 : 1 5 1
7 3
6
1 1
—
n
Here.
1056, F r . 6 , col.
3 2 8 - 3 9 Arrighetti: 7 3
1.37.5:
11 7 - 9 ,
pp.
s
epideictic oratory, Kulturgeschichte as a topos in,
1 3
Dionysius Scytobrachion, 163 — FGrH
6-7
32F7: 57 , 189 , 202-5 3 3
3 1
2 e
Dionysus, as bringer of culture, 160, 1 8 6 ; world expedition of, 155, 161 division of labor, 8 , 3 5 , 5 2 , 132-33» 9 4 domestication of animals, 2 , 5 5 !
4
Epiphanius, Defide9.25, p. 507 Holl: I 5 6 essential arts, antedate non-essential, 4 2 - 4 3 , 52 Ethiopia, 4 , 9 1 , 1 8 1
2 4
dynasteia, 102, 171
l s
1 7
ethnography, 4 , 1 4 0 , 1 8 7 - 8 8 ethnos, 1 0 8 - 9 , 1 8 4 - 8 5 ; - tribes euetheia of primitive man, 1 5 0 - 5 1 3 2
C I
Euhemerus, date of, 1 5 9 ; on deification of Uranus, 2 0 2 - 5 ; and Democritus, 2 0 4 - 5 ; on development of culture, 9, 4 8 , 1 4 1 , 1 5 3 - 6 3 ; 3 4
Ecdemus, 1 6 5 - 6 6 Egypt, 4 ; divine rulers of, 156, 1 6 0 ; and Euhemeristic tradition, 1 5 4 - 5 5 ; ^ home of mankind, 1 8 0 - 8 3 , 1 8 7 - 8 8 ; as setting for 3 5
a
Kulturgeschichte, 188-89 eikos:
s
Tst
15-17, 39, 5 0 , 1 5 5 , 179-80, 7
2 6
and Diodorus, 1 5 3 - 5 7 , 1 6 2 - 6 3 , 2 0 2 , 2 0 5 ; on ouranioi and epigeioi theoi, 1 5 6 - 5 7 , 2 0 5 — FGrH 6 3 x 4 b : 1 6 2 T4C: 9 4 , 162 , 1 8 9 F 2 , p. 3 0 2 . 2 0 - 2 6 : 1 5 6 F 2 , p. 3 0 3 . 1 5 - 1 6 : I 5 6 , 2 0 2 2
4 5
2 3
145-46
4 5
3 1
2 9
Empedocles, VS 3 1 B 3 5 . 5 - 1 0 : 5 8 ' 3
B106: 4 0
2 9
— ap. Arist. Rhet. 1 . 1 3 7 3 B 1 4 - 1 7 : 1 3 7
F 3 . P- 3 0 6 . 1 4 : 1 5 7
2 3
3 0
F 3 , P- 3 0 6 . 2 1 : 2 0 4 - 5
ennoia, 8 2 , 8 5 - 8 6 , 129, 1 4 1 , 197, 2 0 0 - 1
F3» P- 3 0 8 - 8 - 9 : 1 5 4
environment, influence of on cultural develop-
F : 154 », 157 2
ment, 7 8 - 7 9 , 1 7 0 - 7 2 7oT d:
F I
5
33
26
F104-6:5 F147: 9 1 " Epictetus 1 . 2 9 . 9 : g 6
4
:
9
I
1
8
F 1 9 - 2 4 : 153-55 F 2 1 : 157 , 202-5 F 2 3 : 162-63 F 2 3 , p. 3 1 2 . 1 1 - 1 2 : 1 5 6 F24: 18 , 9 4 — F28: 154 2 9
F2-5: 5 5 = 39 > 4 9
6
7
— 2 5
Epicurean view of cultural development, 4 , 8 , 10, 1 1 , 7 0 - 7 9 , 1 7 0 - 7 3 ; contrasted with that of
1 8
2 9
7
Ephorus, 5 6 "
F
2
F 2 - 3 : 153-55
2 6
empiricist psychology, 4 7
— FGrH
6
6
2 9
2 3
1 8
— — F29: 157
3 0
eukrasia, and spontaneous generation, 1 8 0 - 8 3 euphyia, 4 1 , 1 8 6
2 8
217
INDEX Euripides, Bacchae 1 3 - 2 2 : — Hec. 8 0 0 - 1 : 1 1 4
155
grass, as food of primitive man, 6 , 7
2 4
, 51
1 2
, 55,
1 6 0 , 184
1 82 0
— Or. 1646, Schol.: 9 1
1 9
3 6
Grattius Faliscus, Cynegetica 6 - 9 : 195 Gregory Nazianzenus, 5
1 8
— Phoen. 1 3 7 7 : 6 6 — Suppl. 2 0 1 - 1 5 : 6 203-4: 6 1 209-10: 4 4
1
1 5
3
— Or. 4 . 1 0 8 : 4 8 " Gregory of Nyssa, Horn. opif. 8.144BC: 4 1 148C-49A: 4 1
2
4 0
2 83
2
3 2
352-53: 9 4 911-17: 7 1 — Tr. 6 6 9 - 7 2 : 132 671-72: 8 2 — F r . 8 5 3 (TGF 6 3 8 ) : 1 1 4 — F r . 9 8 1 {TGF 6 7 7 ) : 1 8 0 Eusebius, PE 2 . 5 9 B - 6 1 A : 1 5 6
gymnosophists, 9
2 3
2 8
2
habit, 1 3 1 - 3 2 , 1 4 2 ; cf. nomos, synetheia
hands, 2 1 , 4 0 - 4 1 Hecataeus of Abdera, 1 1 , 159, 1 6 0 , 176
s
3 6
2 0
— FGrH 264F6.3: 94 F 6 , p. 1 4 . 1 0 - 1 7 : 1 6 0
1 3
2 3
s 9
Evenus of Paros, F r . 9 Diehl: 1 1 7 evolutionary perspective in Kulturgeschichte, 1-3, 2 8
9 . ' 3 . 3 » 5 4 . 6 2 , 139 6
expansion of aggregates, 1 0 7 - 1 0 , 1 1 6 - 1 7 , 1 1 9 " , I 3 4 , ' 3 5 . 166 experience, 4 0 , 5 8 , 8 9 ; cf. chreia, tribe, usus 8
1 6
external and internal enemies of society, 1 2 2 - 2 6
3 6
Hecataeus of Miletus, F G r H 1 F 3 0 0 : 1 0 1 Hellenistic theories, of community, 1 3 6 - 4 2 ; of cultural history, 1 4 6 - 4 7 ; of primitive kingship, 1 6 1 - 6 3 Hephaestus, as bringer of culture, 6 ; as discoverer of fire, 15, 18, 1 9 - 2 0 ; equated with Ptah, 2 0 , 1 6 0 5
1 2
3 5
Heracles, 4 4 - 4 5 , 5 7 , ' 5 5 3 3
family, and division of labor, 1 3 2 - 3 3 ; human and animal, n o ; influence of on man's disposition, 2 2 ; protection of, 7 6 , 1 1 5 " , 1 9 8 - 2 0 0 ; as source of social and political institutions, 8 , 8 8 , 1 0 7 - 8 ,
1 1 2 - 1 7 , 119, 133,
1 5
I35 federalism, 166 fine arts, origin of, 4 3 , 5 2 , 5 7 , 104, 115 fire, condemned by Cynics, 1 5 0 ; discovery of, 15-16, 3 0 - 3 2 ; effects on human life, 5 , 2 1 - 2 2 , 3 8 , 1 7 1 ; as signal, 6 6 Firmicus Maternus 1.7.16: 1 8 0 food, gathering of, 4 , 2 7 , 2 9 , 5 4 , 1 8 6 ; storage of, 7 0
1 3
2 7 , 2 9 , 186
Heraclides Ponticus, F r . 152 Wehrli: 5 Heraclids, 1 6 6 Hermarchus, on social origins, 7 1 - 7 5 ; views on social origins compared with those of Polybius, 8 2 - 8 4 , 8 6 - 8 7 ; views on treatment of aggressors in primitive society compared with those of Polybius and Democritus, 1 2 3 - 2 6 — ap. Porphyry, De abst. 1.7.: 8 4 1 0
1.10.11: 7 1 - 7 5 , 8 4
1 0
, 123-26
Hermes, as discoverer of weaving, 3 9 ; as giver of language, 2 1 , 6 9 , 1 0 8 , 185, 1 8 9 ; as inventor of music, writing, and dancing, 4 3 ; as royal counselor, 3 9 ; 1 5 4 , 155 Hermippus ap. Hyginus, Astr 2 . 2 0 : 1 5 9 hero cults, 1 5 6 Herodotus, speculative ethnology in, 1 4 4 - 4 6 , 1 9
2 0
3 3
2 8
force, prevalence of in early human relationships, 9 0 - 9 3 , 9 5 - 9 6 , 1 1 1 - 1 2 , 118, 1 1 9 - 2 0 , 171
forethought, 3 2 , 4 1 fusion of customs and languages, 1 0 8 - 9 , ' 4 4 - 4 5 . 185
148* — —
1.66.2: 6 1.96.2-98.1: 9 1
— 1.142.3: 7 1 — 2.42.4: 7 1 — 2 . 4 4 . 5 : 155 — 2.68: 1 3 6
1 8
2
2
Gellius, Aulus, Noct. Att. 5 . 3 . 1 - 6 : 5 7 1 2 . 5 . 7 : 196, 2 0 0
1 6
3
gods, benefactors and inventors worshipped as,
—
2.142.4:
190-91;
—
2.143:
homonymous with mortals, 155, 1 5 7 ; as kings of Egypt, names of, 6 8 , 2 0 3 ; origin of belief in according to Democritus, 2 0 2 ; origin of belief in according to Prodicus, 1 5 6 ;
— — — — —
9,
15-16,
4 8 , 155-58,
186-88, 1 7
ouranioi and epigeioi, 1 5 5 - 5 8 , 205
190-91, 2 0 2
1 2
,
2 0
1 4
gradualism, 4 7 , 6 7 , 8 7 , 9 2 grain, 6 , 3 0 - 3 1 , 9 a * , 104, 154, 1 5 8 - 5 9 , 1 8 6 1
IOI
5
5
- ' 4 4 : 155 2 . 1 4 6 : 156 3.106: 1 8 0 3.108: 5 1 " 4 . 1 1 0 - 1 7 : 143-45
2
1 3
— 4-183.4: 7 * 1
Golden Age, 1, 9 ; allegorical interpretation of, 10, 149, 151 Gorgias, F S 8 2 B 6 , p. 2 8 6 . 1 2 - 1 5 : 1 1 4 — B n a 3 o : 6, 6 6
IOI
Hesiod, 1, 9 ; and Dicaearchus, 1 4 9 ; and euhemerists, 155, 157; and Laws I I I , 1 4 9 ; and Tzetzes, 10, 2 0 - 2 1 , 1 4 8 - 4 9 — Works and Days, 117—18: 1 4 9 120: 2 2 7 6 - 7 8 : 132 4
2 7
2l8
D E M O C R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K
heurematistic works, 3 , 5, 4 8 - 5 0 Hierocles Stoicus, col. 6 . 2 2 - 1 1 . 2 1 : 1 3 8 Hippias of Elis, VS 8 6 A 1 1 : 5 Hippocratic corpus, Airs, Waters, Places 12 and 16: 1 7 1 , 1 7 2 " — De vet. med. 3 : 7 , 5 1 history, contrasted with pre-history, 4 4 - 4 5 , 4 9 , 161, I go; reconstructions of, 1 4 5 - 4 7 Homer, 1-2 —11. 1.272, 5 . 3 0 4 , 1 2 . 3 8 3 , 12.449, 2 0 . 2 8 7 : 1 9
2 5
2 6
Isis, as bringer of laws, 3 3 , 155; as discoverer of grain, 3 0 , 4 8 , i 5 8 - g , 1 8 6 Isocrates, i 6 g — Antid. 2 5 3 - 5 4 : 7 3
1 2
3
Od. 4 . 4 7 7 : 2 0 3 homicide, 7 1 - 7 2 , 1 2 3 - 2 6 , 1 3 7 homonoia: see social concord Horace, AP 3 9 1 - 4 0 1 : 7 — Sat. i . 3 . g g - i i 4 : 8 1.3.100: 6 1 1.3.103-4: 6 1 1.3.105: 6 7
253-57: 8 6 — — — — — —
2 3
3 7
2 0
2 0
2 3
2 5
2
1 6
32-33: ! 3 4 34-42: 116
8
8
8 2 5
3 9 : 102 3 9 - 4 o : 9 4 , 134«
1 3
1 3
3 8
1 8
2 3
2
— Astron. 2 . 2 0 : 2 0
1 3
Areop. 3 1 - 3 5 : 1 2 2 Bus. 15: 4 3 , 5 3 Dem. 1 6 : 1 1 4 Evag. 7 : 8 Helen: 3 2 - 3 7 : 9 4 Nicocles: 5—6: 7 5-9:86 2 6 : 203 — Panath. n g - 4 8 : 7 1 2 1 : 102 128: 9 4 164-66: 116 — Paneg. 2 8 - 2 g : 1 3 4 28-40: 7 1 3
4
Horus, 155 houses, 3 0 - 3 2 ; roofing of, 3 1 Hyginus, 5
2 7
5
6 6
7 0
1 8
ANTHROPOLOGY
, 39
2 3
— Fab. 2 7 4 : 4 8 274.20-21: 6 6 274.22: 5 0 Hymni Homerici 2 0 . 1 - 7 : 6 — 20.4: 2 g
40: 5 3 42: 134
2
1 8
1 5
8
5 0 : 133 isonomia, 5 1
7
1 3
6
Jews, prehistory of, 1 6 0 John Philoponus, commentary to the Isagoge of Nicomachus of Gerasa, pp. 1.8-2.42 Hoche: 52 Julian, Misopogon 3 5 3 A : 1 1 8 justice, and art of war, 1 2 3 - 2 6 ; Epicurean definition of, 7 2 - 7 3 , 7 5 - 7 7 Justin 2.1.5: 1 8 0 Juvenal 1 5 . 1 4 2 - 5 9 : 6 6 3 6
Iamblichus, VP 1 0 8 : 1 3 7 Iambulus ap. Diodorus 2 . 5 7 . 1 : 1 1 8 ignorance, in primitive man, 10, 150—51, 1 7 1 imitation, as source of arts, 1 9 , 3 2 , 3 4 - 3 5 , 3 9 , 2 3
2 9
7 1
9
4 7 , 5 7 , 194
India, 4 , 186 individual, gifted, his role in the development of culture, 2, 35—36, 7 2 , 7 4 - 7 5 , 7 6 ; preoccupation with character of, 143; society likened to, 1 4 1 - 4 2 ; incident in cultural process, 4 7 - 4 8 , 63» 8 5 , 145»
1
6
logismos synesis innate ideas, 2, 7 7 , 7 8 instinct, 1 4 2 - 4 3 , 1 9 7 - 2 0 0 ; cf. nature 1 5
2 0
interdependence, increase of in development of culture, 5 8 - 5 9 , 1 1 5 - 1 6 , 119 intuition, 7 2 - 7 6 inventors, 5, 4 8 - 5 0 , 1 5 3 - 5 6 ; as kings, 1 5 - 1 6 , 1 8 , 1 6 1 , 1 8 8 ; deified, 9 , 1 5 - 1 6 , 4 8 , 1 5 5 - 8 8 , 1 8 6 - 8 8 , 1 9 0 - g i ; divine, 160 Isidore of Seville, Orig. 3 . 1 0 . 1 : 5 —3.16.1: 5
1 3
1 5
kathekon, 8 2 , 1 9 7 - 2 0 1 7
kingship, conferred on benefactors, 15-16, 1 8 , 9 4 , 1 2 5 - 2 7 , 1 6 1 ; date of earliest, 4 5 , 178, 1 9 1 ; in Epicurean theory, 7 5 , 9 1 , 127, i 6 g ; as guarantee of law and order, 7 6 , go-92, 1 2 5 - 2 7 ; influences primitive notions about the gods, 2 0 3 ; in Laws I I I , 1 0 2 ; origins 2 3
1 1
1 8
1 1
of, 9 0 - 9 3 , 1 2 0 - 3 0 ; in Polybius, 9 0 - 9 3 koine dailektos, 108, 1 8 5 kosmoi, atomistic and social, 107, 1 1 7 - 2 0 ; expansion and destruction of, 1 0 9 - 1 0 , 1 1 9 - 2 0 2 6
3 9
1 2
1 2
— 3.22.8: 5 — 3.25.1: 5 -4 — — —
2 8
7
1
indolence, as characteristic of Golden Age, 9 ingenuity of man, 2 ; cf. anchinoia, forethought,
7
1 5
, 44
1 2
2 9
24
and
1 2
articulation
fusion
of,
of,
108-9,
33
1 0
1 2
' 8 5 ; and
Hermes, 2 1 , 6 9 , 108, 1 8 5 ; and human physique, 4 1 ; and morals, 7 1 , 7 3 - 7 5 , 8 5 - 8 6 ; origin of, 9 , 16, 3 2 - 3 3 , 6 0 - 6 9 ; reflection of a
1 3
; assimilation
'44~45,
1 9
1 2
6
2 9
language,
1 2
-3-i: 5 5.1.1-2: 5 6.10.1: 5 15.2:5-6: 6 5
3 9
Lactantius, Inst. Div. 1.11.63: 1 5 7 , 2 0 5 — 1.22.2 ff: 1 6 2 - 6 3 — 1.22.7: 1 5 6 — 6.10.13-15: g , 64
s
219
INDEX reality, 6 8 ; and society, 3 5 , 6 5 - 6 7 ,
85-86;
—
2, 6 1 , 6 2 - 6 3 ,
—
5 . 1 0 1 1 - 2 3 : 2 2 , 3 0 , 3 3 , 3 4 , 6 3 , 75, 7 6 , 7 8 - 7 9 ,
law, origin of, 7 3 , 7 5 - 7 7 , 100, 1 0 2 ; unwritten,
—
5 . 1 0 2 4 - 2 5 : 75
thesis and physis 6 7 - 6 9 , 109, 2 0 4
theories of,
5.998:171'
1
115 , 171
6
2 4
7 0
, 200-1
—
5.1028-29: 33, 60-61
lawgivers, 1 0 2 - 9
—
5.1030-90: 61
Leo "of Pella", incorrect designation for author
—
5.1046-48: 6 1
of apocryphal letter of Alexander to Olympias,
—
5.1087-88: 27, 6 1
20 ;
and
—
5.1090-1104:
Diodorus, 1 5 8 - 5 9 ; on gods, 1 5 3 - 6 3 ; relation
—
5.1105-14: 18 , 22, 33, 34, 36, 9 1
of to Euhemerus, 1 5 9 ; on discovery of wool
—
5.1108-40: 7 5
— —
5 - " 4 3 - 5 i : 75"77, 7 5 5 . 1 2 4 1 - 6 8 : 17, 3 7
T 2 a : 158
—
5.1283-86: 20, 37, 5 0 , 8 4
Ft:
157-58
—
5.1287-95: 3 8 "
F5:
20
—
5.1308-49: 1 9
F6:
153-55, ' 5 4
F9:
20
see agraphoi nomoi, nomos
date
1 3
155 ,
of,
158 ,
2 5
159 ;
s 2
3 3
3 3
and —
weaving, 3 9 , 183, 186 FGrH
6 5 9 T 1 - 2 : 157
1 2
1 2
34
Fga:
, 153-55 2 0
, 158
, 158, 1 5 9
KS67A1: ii7 «, u 8 2
A6:
68
1 7
A9:
68
1 7
, 117
A15:
117
2 6
A28:
117
2 7
B2:
42
2 6
2 9
, 119
3 5
2 7
3 3
Linus, as inventor of music, 5 7 logioi, 5 8
3 1
2 3
1
8
, 127 1 1
7
1 2
1 0
5 - I 3 7 9 - 8 3 : 43
— —
5-I437-39: 42 5 . 1 4 4 0 - 4 7 : 4 4 , 5 0 , 191
I
0
3
1
2
7
—
6 . 1 - 4 1 : 172
—
6.966-69: 3 1
Lycurgus, Leocr.
logismos, in animals, 8 1 ; contrasting roles in ;
distinguishes
man
from
animals, 7 7 - 7 8 , 8 1 , 8 8 , 9 0 , 1 3 2 ; and establishment of social concord, 1 2 1 - 2 2 ; and mora-
141: 7 6
Lysias 1 0 . 3 2 : 1 0 4 25.8:
142
2 0
1 3
lyre, invention of, 4 3 —
2 0
3 9
94 and 9 7 : 1 1 4
6
Vitruvius, Diodorus, and Epicurus, 7 8 - 7 9 ; in 1
15: 1 1 4
88: 1 6 1
5
s
7
Lycortas, 166
3 3
3 5
7
118
1 1
—
, 1 0 9 , 2 0 4 ; cf. Democritus B 3 0
Democritus,
3 2
— 5-'452-55: 40 — 5 - I 4 5 6 - 5 7 : 3 8 , 172 -6.1-4: 7"
like-to-like, principle of, 8 3 - 8 4 , 1 0 0 , 1 3 1 , 1 3 7 L i v y 1.16.3: 5 8
1
7
1
3 3
Leucippus, 147 —
2
20. 2 5 ,30, 3 1 , 5 7
-—5-1350-53: "7, 37. 4 7 . — 5 - i 3 5 4 - 8 o : 194 — 5 - 1 3 6 1 - 6 6 : 17, 3 7
, 154-55
1 5
3
3 9
1 6
3 5
lity, 7 7 - 7 8 , 8 1 - 8 2 , 8 4 - 8 6 , 132, 1 4 1 ; as servant of appetites, 1 9 8 - 2 0 0 longevity, 10, 1 5 1
Macrobius, Sat. 1 . 7 . 2 1 : 10
s
loom, invention of, 1 9 Lucian, Am. 3 3 - 3 5 : 8
2
Manetho,
8
—
1
3 6
6 o g F 3 a : 155, 1 6 0
3 5
Manilius 1 . 6 6 - 1 1 2 : 7
34: >95 Drap. 1 7 : 1 5 1 3
—
159
FGrH
-83-84: 34
1 2
Lucretius, fifth book of, 3 - 4 , 10, n passim, 1 7 0 - 7 3
3 3
,
26-45
1 4
—
87-88: 44
4 0
—
8g-go: 4 0
2 6
—
856-57: 17
—
1.897-900: 17
—
2.1023-89:
172
7 2
mantic art, discovery of, 1 0 5
—
2.1105-72:
172
7 2
Maximus of T y r e , primitivism in, 2 8
—
4.1071: 2 8
6
—
4
—
4.1283: 8 4
— —
5-I95-234: 5 ' 5.324-27: 172
— —
5 - 9 2 5 - 3 0 : 78 5.932: 2 1 , 27, 2 8
— —
5-937-38: 27 5.942-44: 27, 78, 1 7 2
—
5-945-57: 27, 29, 1 7 1
—
5-958-59:
— —
5-973-76: ' 5 ' > 1 7 1 5.990-1000: 1 7 1
1 2
1
I50
2
7 4
5
23.5 B C : 1 5 0
—
32-3B: 4 3
—
36.1F:
—
36.IH: 151
—
36.2 F G : 1 5 1
3 7
150
4
1 2
8
6
Megalophanes, 7 2
7 1
1
2
165-66
Megasthenes, FGrH
715F12: 18 , g i 7
8
6 9
7 1
1 8
memory, 3 2 , 7 2 , 8 2 , 8 7
„
s
Mercury: see Hermes
3
3
4
medicine, 10, 4 g , 5 1
4
1 9
,
"'"·' ,
metallurgy, 1 7 - 1 8 , 1 9 - 2 0 , 3 6 - 3 8 ^ 163-^4
Instil V *
metarhysmor, . 1 7 - 1 8 !«jLi I
do
* 3 \
Gtec
\
220
DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K
Metrodorus, Epicurean philosopher, 168 — Frs. 2 5 - 2 7 Koerte: 1 6 8
Palamedes, 6 , 6 6 2 9
mining, 17, 1 9 - 2 0 , 3 6 - 3 7
1 5
5 8
monorchia, 102
morals, origin of, 2, 5 , 7 0 - 9 0 ,
1 2 8 - 2 9 , 165,
i.i3-«5
197-200
Moschion, F r . 6 (TGF 8 1 3 - 1 4 ) : 2 , 9 , 29«, 6 6 6
1
1 5
,
2
Moses, as culture hero, 9 4 , 1 6 0 motion, in Aristotle, 146 mules, 5 6 Musaeus, 5 7 , 1 0 6 music, invention of, 4 2 - 4 3 mythos, in reconstruction of pre-history, 1 4 3 - 4 7 , 2 3
4
3 5
4
2 0
161
natural endowments of man, 16, 4 1 - 4 2 , 186 naturalism and teleology, ig, 4 2 , 4 7 , 9 5 - 9 6 , s 3
131
nature, and convention in Epicurean linguistic and social theory, 6 1 - 6 2 , 7 2 ; imitated by art, 19*, 3 2 , 3 3 " , 4 7 . 5 7 . " 9 4 ; 1
a
n
d
nomas, 1 4 0 - 4 3 ,
1 7 0 - 7 1 ; as product of habit, 1 1 7 ; state of, 2 8
pastoral stage in development of culture, 4 , 54-5
6
Pausanias 8 . 1 . 4 - 6 : 4 , 5 1 —
8.2g.4:
i8i
l
9
s
Peloponnesus, early history of, 4 , 166 Peripatetics, on intelligence of animals, 8 1 ; and Lucretius, 173; on primitive man, 8 , 1 1 , 52, 1 4 1 ; theories of community of, 1 3 6 - 3 8 , 6
3 3
140-41
Persia, history of, 4 Petronius 8 8 . 2 : 3 4
1 4
philallelia,
2 8 , 3 6 , 152 4
philia, theories of, in Aristotle and his predecessors, 1 3 4 - 3 6 ; in Democritus, 117, 121 Philo of Alexandria, Aet. mundi 5 5 ff.: 1 7 2 Philo of Byblos, 1 5 7 ' 7 3
2
— FGrH 7 g o F i , p. 8 0 6 . 5 - 1 0 : 2 0 5 F 2 , p. 8 0 7 . 2 1 : 5 0 F 2 , p. 8 0 8 . 2 - 1 4 : 4 g F 2 , p. 8 0 9 . 1 6 - 1 7 : 2 0 5 F 3 , p. 8 1 4 . 1 1 - 1 2 : 2 0 5 Philochorus, FGrH 3 2 8 F 2 : 4
6
7
2 , 8 , 149 6
3
Nausiphanes, 1 6 7 - 6 9 —
6 4
Pandora, allegorized as technology, 2 1 parents, authority of as basis of political order, 112, 1 3 5 ; authority of in Plato's account of social origins, 1 1 1 - 1 2 , 1 1 6 - 1 7 ; relation of to offspring among men and animals,
6 6
I I I
1 4
Panaetius, 1 4 0 , 1 6 6 , i g 6 , i g 8 - 2 0 o
6 5
— Frs. 3 9 - 4 1 Koerte: 1 6 9 mice, spontaneous generation of, 182 mixed constitution, 1 6 7
ANTHROPOLOGY
6
VS 7 5 A 1 - 9 : 168 B 2 , p. 2 4 8 . 1 8 - i g : 167
6
navigation, 7, 4 4 , 4 9 necessity, 4 , 3 2 , 4 3 , 7 8 , 1 1 8 ; cf. biological determinism need, 4 1 , 1 2 3 - 2 4 Nemesius, Nat. horn. 5 0 - 5 1 Matthaei: 5 1 Nicomachus of Gerasa, Isagoge, 5 2 nomadic life of early man, 2 7 - 2 8 , 55 , 184 nomizomena, 8 2 , 112—15; cf. social norms 4 0
s
—
2 2
—
4 2 3
4
5 a , p. 6 g Gomperz: 2 0 3
9-7. P- 7 5 : i 5 — nepl
1 5
4
6 2 7
TWV ßewv I , col. x v 1 6 - 3 4 , PP- 2 6 - 2 7
Diels: 7 8 — Rhetorica I I , pp. 1 - 5 0 Sudhaus: 16 2 1
2 4
xvi 2, 4 - 6 and 1 2 - 1 3 , P68 col. 7 . 7 - 1 0 , p. 9 : 168 col. 8 . 5 - 9 , p. 1 0 : 168 x x i v 1 - 8 : 168, 1 6 8 x x x v i 1 9 - 2 2 . 2 , p. 3 3 : 1 6 8 col. 2 2 . 3 - 8 , p. 3 3 : 1 6 8 col. 2 3 . 1 1 - 1 3 , p. 3 5 : i 6 g col. 2 6 . 5 - g , p. 3 g : 168 col. 2 7 . 1 - 7 , p. 4 0 : 1 6 9 X L V I I I 2 1 - L v m 9 , pp. 5 0 - 6 4 : l o g
nomas, and physis, 1 4 0 - 4 3 , 1 7 0 - 7 1 ; and develop-
to
8 :
Fg6:g
Philodemus, Depiet.
9
ment of language, 6 7 - 6 9 , 109 novelty, defended by reference
F93"9
8
Kulturge-
schichte, 7 - 8
:
6 1
2 2
6 3
Ocellus Lucanus, 1 0 1 ' Ogygus, 1 0 1
6 2
6
oikeios, 1 3 3
6 6
5
oikeiosis, Stoic doctrine of, 1 3 8 - 4 1 , 164, 1 9 6 - 9 8 oikeiotes, Peripatetic doctrine of, 1 3 7 - 3 8 , 1 4 0 - 4 1 Onesicritus, FGrH 1 3 4 F 1 7 , p. 7 2 8 . 2 3 - 3 0 : g 2 8
— F 2 1 , p. 7 3 0 . 2 6 - 3 7 : 9 1 Oracula Sibyllina 3 . 1 2 7 - 2 8 : 9 1 Origen, Contra Cels. 4 . 7 6 : 5 1
1 8
9
1 8
Orpheus, in Aristotle and Democritus, 1 0 6 ; as bringer of culture, 6 ; as pupil of Linus, 5 7 Osiris, as patron of technology, 2 0 , 3 4 , 3 g ; as discoverer of plow, 3 8 ; equated with Dionysus, 155, 1 6 1 ; and Zeus, 155 Ovid, A A 2 . 4 7 3 - 8 0 : 7, 8 3 2 0
s 3
s
— Fasti 2 . 2 8 g - 3 0 2 : g — Met. 1 . 4 3 0 - 3 1 : 1-81 27
16
66
Philopoemen, 1 6 5 - 6 6 philosophy, as benefactor of early man, 7, ] 8 , 9> 3 5 3 6 , 9 5 - 9 6 ; as culmination of human history, 7, 5 2 - 5 4 , 1 7 2 ; and politics, 1 6 6 - 6 9 ; and useful arts, 5 3 Philostephanus, ap. Servius ad Georg. 1.1g (Fr. 28 M ü l l e r ) : 3 8 Photius, Cod. 2 4 9 4 4 0 B 3 9 : 8 2 !
1 2
1 9
6 7
_
1 8
1 9
5
440B39-41A3: 4 1 441A16-18: 1 8 1
2 8
1 5
— Cod. 2 5 0 : see Agatharchides physical inferiority of man, 5 1
221
INDEX 1 0 7 , 1 4 7 ; Aristotelian,
physics, Democritean, 146" physiologia,
—
Theaet.
—
Timaeus:
24c:
180
1 3
pleasure, 3 2 , 3 9 , 4 7 , 195 Pliny the Elder, 4 9 "
01. 2 . 8 3 - 8 5 : 6 8 "
Plato, on nomos, I 4 3 " ; on origin of culture, 3—4, 3
—
JVH7.191: 31',4 9
8, 52—55, 9 7 - 1 0 0 ; theory of cultural origins connected with that of Polybius, 1 0 0 - 2 , 115-17,
132,
169-70;
views
on
in,
2 5
7.197: 1 5 4
cultural
1 8
7.200: 5, 5 0
11,
7.201: 6 6
107-12,
115-17,
119, 1 2 8 - 3 0 , 1 4 9
Cratylus: 6 8 397C°:
Ι
Φ
—
Critias 1 0 9 B - 1 0 D : 9 , 5 2 , 9 9 , 1 0 1
—
Euthydemus,
—
Gorgias:
289A-90B: 1 0 5
84*
483AC: —
6
—
Ep. 8 . 3 5 4 B :
—
Horoi 4 1 2 E and 4 1 3 D : 4 1
—
Laws 3 . 6 7 7 Α - 8 3 Α : 3 - 4 ,
166
676BC: 1 0 3
18
s 6
2 8
97-103
1 3
6 7 7 E : 100 679AC: 1 0 0
s
z
68OB: 1 0 2
8
111
6 8 I A C : 108
690D-930: 166
5
Laws 4 . 7 0 8 c : 1 3 2
1
4.724A: 1 1 4
,
1 3
2
I04
103
Fort. Alex. 3 2 9 C D :
—
Is. et Os. 13.356A:
137-38
2 3
48°
—
Lat. viv. 5 . 1 1 2 9 E : 5 8
—
Philopoemen
s 6
1 : 166
—
Quaest. corw. 3 . 6 . 6 5 5 D and 8 . 3 . 7 2 2 D : s 8
—
Soll. anim. 1 3 . 9 7 0 A B : 1 3 2
318E-19A: 133
—
1 4
5
9
2
3
, 123-25
3 2 5 A and D : Ι 1 4 327E-28A: 7 1
2 0
2
Republic, Book 2 : 8 , 5 2 , 8 4 2.350B: 1 3 6
1 8
2.351CE: 1 3 6
1 8
9
2.374E-76C:
125
4-435E: 1 4 2 8.544DE: 1 4 2 3 4
3 4
3 6
3
techne,
123-25
135
5 8
166-69
15
and
Democritus,
107-30
passim,
o
n
196-201
Protagoras, myth of: 8 , 5 0 - 5 1 , 128
2.369D: 5 1
Div. p. 1 1 3 . 1 - 9 Bernadakis: 4 3 "
—
of community, 1 3 1 - 4 2 ; and Stoics, n
1 3
2 7 3 A - 7 4 D : 9, 5 2
—
—
1 0 0 - 2 , 1 1 0 - 1 2 , 1 1 5 - 1 7 , 1 3 2 ; and Posidonius,
28 , 52-54, g9
1
2 2
9 5 - 9 6 ; on social origins, 8 , 8 0 - 9 4 ;
3
322B: i n
Aratus 5 and 7 : 165
2 3
morals, 8 1 - 8 7 ; and Kulturgeschichte of Laws I I I ,
5
2 7 4 c : 155
322A: 6 1
137
1 3 1 - 3 2 , 1 6 3 - 7 0 ; and Epicurean genealogy of
2 7 1 C - 7 2 B : 168
321AD: 5 1
—
Polybius, 1 8
Mem 73A and 9 1 A : 1 3 3
—
Am. prol. 2 . 4 9 5 A : 1 1 4
politike techne, 5 0 - 5 1 , 123
0
Phaedrus
271DE:
Alex. 3 2 9 C D :
—
politike philia,
1 4
—
Politicus:
—
politics, philosophy and,
1 3
1 8
—
—
Plutarch, Aq. an ign. 2 . 9 5 6 B : 150
1 1
9·854 = " 4 Lysis 2 1 4 C D : 1 3 6 Ε
,
1 7
plow, invention of, 3 8
political institutions, 8 , 4 9 ' , 7 6 , 9 3 , 1 6 7 6
I36
e
polemike
ιοί , 1 0 3
6.782Β: I 0 3
l
poetry, origin of, 4 4 , 4 8 , 5 7 ; as civilizing force, 7
6
2 0
6.781E-82A:
—
5
4
10.4: 1 5 7 »
Epinomis947E-76C:52 ,103,104,105
8.837A:
7.209: 4 9
Pliny the Younger, Ep. 8 . 2 4 . 2 : 7
2
125"
—
4 1
3
1
16
68ODE:
1 4
7.205: 4 5 28
7
1 5
7.202: 6 6
8.23:
1 8
1
I I I
679E: 9 9
5
7-!94= 5 . 5 ° ' 7.196: 3 9
origins connected with those of Democritus, —
5
2 3 A B : 191
2 0
Pindar, 142 —
52-54, 99, 1 0 1
22B-25D:9
167-69
physique of man, 41—42 piety, 1 1 4
167c: 7 1 *
4 5
1 1
, 147
2 . 4 0 . 4 : 166
—
2 . 4 7 . 1 1 : 166
—
2 . 5 6 . 2 : 166
—
6.4.5: 1 1 3 " , 1 1 4 »
—
6 . 5 . 1 : 165
2
—
6.5.4: 93, 1 1 8
—
6.5.5-9: 80
—
6.5.6: 1 1 9
3 0
3 3
-6.5.6-7:83 —
6.5.7:
—
6.5.7-8: 95, n o
—
6.5.7-9: 90
9
4
2
3
, 145»
—
6.5.8: I I I
—
6.5.9:
—
6.5.IO: 80, 82-84,
I45
4 1
I 0 2
9
,
Il8
3 0
, 129
sources 3 5
, 82 , 7
222
DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES OF G R E E K
ANTHROPOLOGY
Dicaearchus, 5 5 ; chronological and cultural, 2 , 9 9 ; "hard", 2 2 , 5 4 , 150, 1 7 1 "
Polybius (cont.)
s 3
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
6.5.10-6.9: 80-81 6.6.: 1 0 2 6.6.1-9: 85-90 6 . 6 . 2 : 1 6 4 , 197 6 . 6 . 2 - 5 : 113, 198 6.6.3: 1 4 5 6 . 6 . 4 : 8 1 , 8 7 , 1 4 5 " , 197 6.6.6: 82", 8 9 , 1 4 5 6.6.6-7: 9 4 " 6 . 6 . 7 : 197 6 . 6 . 8 : 8 6 , 104, 1 4 5 6.6.8--12: 1 2 2 - 2 9 6 . 6 . 9 : 8 2 , 9 4 , 1 4 5 , 197, 201 6.6.10: g i 6.6.10-12: 90-93 6.6.10-7.2: 120-22 6.6.11: 102 6.6.12: 9 4 6 . 6 . 1 2 - 7 . 2 : 129 6 . 6 . 1 2 - 7 . 3 : 118 6.7.1: 93, 102 , 118
— — — —
6.7.3-4: 91 6.7.4: g i , g 4 6.7.6-8: 167 6.8.4-6: 167
4
1541
33
:
1 9
1 0
1 0
3 8
— VS 8 4 B 5 : g , 1 2 g , 1 5 6 Protagoras, 8, 5 0 - 5 1 , 123, 125 — VS 8 0 A 1 0 : 7 1 B 8 b : 5, 2 0 3 25
5 9
2 6
4
4 1
3
progressive view of history, 1, 9 8 - 9 9 prolepsis, 7 6 - 7 7 , 171
Prometheus, allegorical interpretation of, 2 0 - 2 1 ; condemned by Cynics, 6, 1 5 0 ; as culturebringer, 6 ; cf. Aeschylus, P V
4 1
4 1
prostates, and king, 1 2 2 - 2 7 pwta kata physin, 164, 1 6 7 - 6 8
1 8
providence, 2, 5 1
1 2
Prudentius, Contra Symm. 2 . 2 7 2 - 3 1 7 : 8 Ptah, 2 0 , 1 6 0
9
1 2
2 3
1 8
1.1-2: 3 3
Prodicus, 156, 1 6 1
4 1
1 0
1 6
Priscian, Inst.
1 0
2 2
4
3 5
Ptolemaic Egypt, influence of on accounts of primitive man, 162 punishment: see rewards Pyrrhon, 1 6 5 Pythagoreans, 1 3 0
3 0
5 1
6 0
2 3
s 8
s 8
— 6.9.5-6: 167 — 6.57.5-9: 167 — 10.21.6: 1 6 6 — 1 0 . 2 2 . 2 : 165 — 10.22.5: 1 6 6 — 1 2 . 2 6 c : 165 Polystratus, 7 7 - 7 9 , 1 1 3 - 1 4 — Περί αλόγου καταφρονήσεων, col. XIVa3~5: 5 8
Quellenforschung, 1 0 - 1 3 Quintilian 1.5.2: 6 1 1
5 8
5 5
5 5
82 xva3~4: 82
Ra, 160 rational nature of man, 1 3 9 - 4 0 , 1 9 7 - 2 0 0 reasoning: see anchinoia, forethought, logismos, synesis 3 5
reciprocity, in conferring services, 8 7 - 9 0 , 1 1 2 16; increasing importance of, 1 1 6 ; linked to justice, 1 2 6 ; in parent-child relationships, 112-13
xviag-i 1 : 82
reconstruction
F r . 3 . 4 - 4 3 6 : 78 F r . 6 b 4 - 7 a 7 : 78 Fr. 7a2: 82 Fr. 7 3 2 - 5 : 7 3
4 4 - 4 5 , 1 4 5 - 4 6 , 191 Reinhardt, K . , u , 16, 1 7 4 - 7 6 ,
of prehistory from
inference,
182, 184, 192,
193-95 religion, origin of, 9, 2 0 2 - 5
9
Pomponius Mela 3 . 8 6 : 9 1 ponos, in life of early man, 150 popular sentiment, as factor in political develop ment, 9 2 ; reduced importance of in Euhemerus, 1 6 2 - 6 3 , 2 0 5 Porphyry, De abst.: see Hermarchus Posidonius, on development of culture, 7, 10, 1 8
11, 1 8 - 1 9 , 2 6 - 4 5 passim, 4 g , 5 3 - 5 4 , 1 4 1 ; and Aristotle, 5 3 - 5 4 ; and Diodorus, i 8 g ; and Polybius, g 5 ~ g 6 ; and Vitriuvius, 1 9 3 - 9 5 ;
reminder, role of in Epicurian genealogy of morals, 7 2 - 7 6 rewards and punishments, 3 4 - 3 5 , 3 9 , 8 5 , 8 8 - 9 0 , 93 , 9 4 > 9 , 168 rhetoric, topoi of derived horn Kulturgeschichte, 22
l l
3 i
6;
and philosophical wisdom, 168 rhysmos, 1 1 7 - 2 0
6
3 2
cf. Seneca, Ep. go — ap. Strabo 3 . 1 4 7 : 1 7 pottery, 1 0 3 - 4 pre-Socratics, 5, 2 3 , ι ο ί , 172 5
1 7
5
primitive man, 3 - 1 0 , 2 1 , 2 7 - 3 0 , 5 1 - 5 4 , 6 4 - 6 7 , 8 7 - 8 8 , 9 0 , 9 5 , 98-gg, 115, 1 2 4 - 2 5 , 1 5 0 - 5 1 , 162, 184 primitivism, 1-2, 2 7 - 2 8 ; character of in
SIG
3
7 0 4 , p. 3 2 4 . 1 2 - 1 5 : 7 "
Sanchuniathon, 4 g , 5 0 ' sacrifice, history of, g, 3 8 3
160
1 8
, 49*, 55, 158-59,
3 5
Saturn, 10 Saufeius, Lucius, ap. Servius ad Aen. 1.6: 6 5 Sceptics, 8, 77 Seneca, De clem. 1.19.2: 9 6 " — Ep. 6 5 . 2 4 : 6 — Ep. 9 0 : 7 9
2 5
223
INDEX 6
sporaden, 2 8
1 6
17» 3 7 , 5 4 17, 37
13: 4 7 14: 1 9
180-83;
9
Statius, Theb. 1 2 . 5 0 1 - 2 : 7 ' Stobaeus, Flor. 2 g . g 2 = W - H 1
2 0
I I I 655.12-17:
150°
1
Stoics, 8 ; on animal intelligence, 8 1 ; and Diodorus, 1 7 7 ' ; and Polybius, 8 2 ' ; i g 6 - 2 0 i ; on telos, 6 7 , 164; their theories of community, 5
8
15: 4 4 17: 3 i > 1 5 1 18: 3 1 2 0 - 2 1 : 17, 1 9 , 3 7 , 5 4 22-23: 3 1 ' 2 5 : 19, 5 4 26: 4 4 « 4 0
8
9
136-40 — SVF 1 . 2 2 2 - 2 3 : 139 1.228: 9 6 " 1.262: 1 5 1
8
8
2 0
1 1
2 0
32-33: 57 3 3 : 19 40: 3 4 " , 151
3.178: 1 3 9 " 3-I79: I 3 8 3-340: i 3 8 3 - 6 2 5 - 2 7 : 139
3 0
44: 3 6 121.13: 1 4 0
2 6
2 6
9
Strabo 1 . 6 6 : 1 3 7
1 6
—
1 3
4
starvation, 2 7 - 2 8 , 1 5 1
s
11: 12:
101 , 172 ,
spontaneous generation, cf. autochthony
4 - 5 : 95, 9 " 6: 7 5 " 7: 2 9 - 3 0 , 3 6 10:31
5
3 0
Sextus Empiricus, Adv. math. 1.2: 167
2 3
—
2.103: 5 8
—
3-147= i 7 , ' 9
3 5
5
8
— 1.61: 8 — · 7 . 1 1 7 : 110 — 9.17: 1 6 2
Strato of Lampsacus, 5 6 " — F r . 3 2 Wehrli: 1 4 7 "
— —
9-34: I 5 7 9.51: 162
suggestions, man's use of, 3 9 survival, struggle for, 5 1 , 6 4 - 6 6 , 1 0 9 - 1 0 , 124,
—
9-127: I 3 7
2
5
— Fr. 144-47: 5
4 6
2 9 4 5
171,
2 3
sexual needs, 113, 1 4 4 - 4 5 , 9 7 shelter, primitive, 2 7 , 2 8 , 2 9 - 3 0 sign language, 6 3 , 76 Simonides the historian, FGrH 8 T 1 : 5 size of aggregations, importance of, 119 social character of morality, 89-go social cohesion, and expansion of social aggregate, 119; and force, 1 1 , 1 1 9 - 2 0 ; and institution of kingship, 116 social concord, origin of, 120-22 !
s
1 1
social development, related to technological, 3 2 ,
172
7 3
symbol, justice as, 7 3 ' ; role of in development of moral notions, 8 6 symbol of tribal identity, king as, 9 3 ; language, emblems, and fire as, 6 4 - 6 7 ; trumpet as, 6 5 symmetry, perception of, 195 sympathy, sources of, 8 9 ; social importance of, 2 0
1 5
121 synesis, 7 3 , 8 2 , 1 3 2 ; cf. anchinoia, forethought, logismos synetheia and syntrophia, in animals, 8 7 - 8 8 , 1 3 2 ; 5
contrasted with syngeneia, 1 3 3 ; effects of, 8 7 - 9 0 , 9 2 , 1 3 8 , I 3 g ; in ethnographical writing, 1 4 0 ; in Herodotus, 1 4 4 - 4 5 ; i Polybius and the Epicureans, 8 3 ; in Vitruvius, 9 4 ; widening range of, 9 2 7
2 9
s 3
34-35
social homogeneity, results of, 8 9 - 9 0 social norms, 2, 8 1 - 8 2 , 112-15, 141 social origins, 8 , 3 2 - 3 6 , 7 0 - 9 6 ; in Hermarchus, 7 1 - 7 5 ; in Lucretius, 7 5 - 7 6 ; in Polybius, 8 o - g 4
social relationships, character of in primitive society, 1 1 5 - 1 6 ; multiplication of, 116, 119 social sanctions, 9 0 , g3 Socrates, 143 softness of civilized man, 22, 1 5 0 , 171 Sophists, 5, 6, 8 , 203 Sophocles, 142
n
3 2
2 2
syngeneia, 117, 1 3 3
7
synonyms, and homonyms, implications of for nature of language, 6 7 - 6 8 , 109 systema, 2 8 , 6 4 - 6 5 , 108, 109, 118, 1 8 4 - 8 5 4
5
—
Ajax 17: 6 6 175: 2 8 Antigone: 6 , 5 0 334-35: 4 4 " 368-70: 4 4 1 5
4
—
8
4
4 0
454-55: 114 sophos, as defined in the Epinomis, 1 0 3 - 4 2 1
soul, 143 specialization, 194; cf. division of labor
Tacitus, Ann. 3 . 2 6 . 3 : 7 6 Tatian, 5 techology, attitude of Plato and Aristotle towards, 5 3 - 5 4 , 1 0 4 - 5 , 148, 1 4 9 ; development of, 13, 1 4 - 4 6 passim; in Posidonius, 1 1
l a
53-54
teleological viewpoint, contrasted with naturalistic, 19, 4 2 , 4 7 , 9 5 - 9 6 , 1 3 1 ; Cynic attitude toward, 152; elements of in Epicurus, 1 7 0 - 7 3 ; elements of in Vitruvius, 1 9 4 ^ 5 ; Epicurean polemic against, 1 7 0 ; imilatio seen from, 1 9 3 3
9
224
D E M O G R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y
telos, in Nausiphanes, 1 6 7 - 6 8 ; in Polybius and Carneades, 1 6 3 - 6 4 ; in Stoics, 1 3 9 Tertullian, De pallio 3 : 2 0 , 3 g Themistius 3 2 3 c : 5 1
137.41-42: 3 8 138.1: 1 7 1 '
138.8-12: 22, 150
a
68.6-8: 1 5 1
Thebes, 158 Theognis 5 4 9 - 5 0 : 6 6
1 1
theogony, 177 Theophrastus, on forms of sacrifice, 9 , 5 5 ; on inventions, 5 , 5 6
9
68.20-25: 1 5 1
1 2
9
72.17-18: 1 5 1
9
74.14-20: 20-21
Caus. plant. 3 . 2 2 . 3 : 1 8 1 Char. 2 6 . 6 : 9 4
—
Ilepi tvoefielas, Fr. 2 : 9 Fr. 4 :
2
5
F r . 1.1—9 Potscher: 1 8 0
, 5 5 " , 160
2 6
5
7 9 - 4 - 2 i : 21
1 5
2 3
79-13-21:4° 8 1 . 2 4 - 2 7 : 22
1 1
101.6-7: 150"
3 6
114.16: 1 5 1
5
Fr. 13.15-50: 9 Fr. 2 0 : 137 ,
2 6
, 55
138
2 2
D L 5.47: 5 D L 6.22: 151
1 2
114.16-18: 150 , 1 7 1 "
2 5
4
116.10: 1 5 1
2 4
—
ap.
—
ap.
—
ap. Porphyry, De abst. 2 . 2 5 - 3 3 : 1 2 4
1 1
I 16.13-16: 2 2 116.15-17:
8
— ap. Photius, Cod. 2 7 8 5 2 9 B 2 2 - 2 3 : 8 4
Theseus, as institutor of kingship, 9 4
1 6
I5I
1 0
4 2
116.29-117.1: 1 5 1
1 0
117.1-5: 1 5 1 118.6-8:
2 3
thesis theory of origin of language, 6 1 , 6 3 , 6 7 - 6 9 ,
I
5
I
1 1
8
9
118.21-22: 1 5 1 '
6
Thoth, 155 Thucydides, archaeology of, 1, 145
unity of mankind, in Hellenistic thought, 1 3 6 - 4 0 ; in pre-Hellenistic thought, 1 3 7
i-9= 4 5 1 . 2 2 . 4 : 142
—
2.37.3: 1 1 4
2 1
—
2.44.3: 1 1 6
2 4
—
2.77-4: I 7
—
5.105.2:
Uranus, deification of, 1 5 6 - 5 7 , 2 0 3 - 5 usus, in development of architecture, 1 9 4 ; 2 9
produces familiaritas,
6
I I I
1
116, 1 3 2 , 134, 1 4 0 , 1 9 9 , 2 0 0 2 9
3
Varro, 10, 1 5 5 , 158 2 5
s 1
—
c
totemism, 6 4 , 6 5
LL 6 . 5 2 : 6 0
adespota 5 1 6 (TFG 9 4 0 ) : 1 1 7
8.321-25: 9 4
2 8
—
tribes, origin of, 6 4 - 6 7 , 1 8 4 - 8 5 ; fusion of, 1 0 7 - 9 ; 2 0
; cf. ethnos
Vitruvius, 1 5
and
Dicaearchus,
Diodorus, 2 0 - 2 1 , 2 2
1 6
149—50;
, 28-29, 1 5 1
1 0
and
; on early
10, 2 0 - 2 1 , 2 7 - 3 2 , 1 4 8 - 5 1 ; and Epicur-
eans, 2 1 - 2 2 , 7 8
2 2
, 171
7 1
— Hesiod scholia, VS I I 1 3 7 . 2 6 - 3 5 : 2 3 I 3 7 - 3 6 - 4 4 : 27 1 3 7 - 3 6 - 1 3 8 - 1 3 : 10 I37-38-39:
i7
I
?
2
on development
39-40;
193-95;
and
of architecture,
Diodorus,
16, 1 8 3 ,
188-89; discovery of fire, 1 5 - 1 6 ; on early man, 2 9 - 3 0 , 3 5 ; on formation of society, 3 4 , 6 6 ; on growth of language, 6 0 - 6 1 , 6 3 - 6 7 ; on natural endowments of man, 4 0 - 4 2 o
—
n
De arch. pp. 3 3 . 1 4 - 3 6 . 1 8 Rose: 7 3 3 - I 4 " : 29, 32" 3 3 . 1 6 - 2 3 : 1 5 - 1 6 , 3 0 , 183 1 6
— Iliad scholia, pp. 5 5 . 2 8 - 5 7 . 2 5 Hermann: 2 0
I 3 7 - 3 9 - 4 0 : 21
1
1145-46:9 1.147-49:6
6
Trojan war, 1, 4 5 , 5 7 trumpet, invention and early use of, 6 6 Tzetzes, and Cynics, 1 5 0 - 5 1 ; and Democritus,
2 3
Georgics 1 . 1 2 1 - 4 6 : 5 1
tribe, 2 , 8 2 ; cf. chreia, experience, usus and symbola, 9 3
1
Virgil, Aeneid 8 . 3 1 4 - 2 3 : 10
1 2
trial and error, 32
149-50;
; cf. chreia, experi-
6 6
tools, 3 6 - 3 7 , 1 0 3 - 4 ; f- metallurgy
6
2 9
utility, 8 , 9 , 4 1 , 4 7 , 6 4 - 6 7 , 7 2 - 7 3 , 7 6 - 7 7 , 8 2 , 8 6 ,
1 9
2.1.37-66: 7
Tragica
139
ence, tribe
2
Tibullus 1.7.29: 3 8
Timocrates, 1 6 9 Timon, 1 6 5
2 3
universal history, 4 , 177 upright stature of man, 4 1 - 4 2
— —
man,
68.16-19: 1 5 1
71.19: 151*
3 5
—
—
1 1
70.9-10: 151
; and Hecataeus of Abdera,
s 6
—
204
6
— Hesiod scholia, p. 6 7 . 1 4 - 1 5 Gaisford: 1 5 0
3 3
tharsos, 1 2 6 - 2 7
160
2 9
138.8-10: 36
349 -5IA: 7
Thamyras, 5 7
3
138.1-4: 29
1 3
9
—
, 150 , 187
2 3
1
1
1 6
3 3 - I 9 : 21 33-22: 63 3 3 . 2 4 - 2 8 : 16, 3 3 , 6 0 - 6 1 , 6 3 - 6 7 , 183 3 3 . 2 8 - 3 4 . 2 : 33 3 4 - 2 - 6 : 16, 4 0 , 183
2
225
INDEX writing, origin of, 4 3 - 4 5 , 1 6 1 , 178, 191
3 4 - - 9 : 30 34.6-36.18: 193-95 34.12-14: 33 34.14-20: 3 1
4 0
6
Xenocrates, F r . 9 8 Heinze: 1 2 4 , 1 3 7 4 2
8
3 5 - 2 5 : 194 3 6 . 1 - 5 : 16 3 6 . 1 - 8 : 4 0 , 183 3 6 . 8 - 1 2 : 38, 59 3 6 . 1 2 - 1 8 : 195 36.14-18: 42 — De arch. 5 . 1 . 7 : 1 5 7.pr.u: 57 » vocabula, 6 0
2 3
Xenophanes, VS 2 1 B 4 : 5 — —
Bi8:
5
B33: 101
6
Xenophon, utilitarianism of in Memorabilia, — Cyrop. 2 . 1 . 2 5 : 1 3 2 2.1.28: 132 8.7.14: 1 3 2 — Mem. 1 . 4 . 1 1 : 4 1
132
1
2
1
1
2 8 3 0
3
2.3.4: 132 3.4.6: 133 3.6.14: 133 2
1
vocabulary, growth of, 6 8 - 6 9 , ' ° 8 > 1 8 5
5
2 6
volgivagus, 2 8 * , 8 4
5
4.3.11-12: 8 6
vortex, atomic, 108, 117 warfare, development of, 1 9 , 2 0 , 3 6 - 3 7 , 5 0 , 1 0 3 ; and justice, 1 2 3 - 2 6 1 0
7
warm surroundings, influence of on man, 2 2 ,
7.16:
115
2 3
2 3
7 . 1 8 - 3 2 : 132 7.19: 1 1 4 7.30: 115 2 2
171™
water, 151 weakness of early man, 5 1 , 8 3 weaving, 17, 20, 3 7 , 3 9 , 1 0 3 - 4 woman, civilization likened to, 22, 1 5 1 world, growth of, 172 wrestling, 4 3
—
1 3
4 . 4 . 1 9 - 2 5 : 113, 1 3 7 Oec. 5 . 1 7 : 7
2 3
Zeus, allegorized, 2 0 ; as culture-hero, 9 4 , • 5 4 - 5 5 ; etymology of, 2 0 3 - 4 ; in theories of Euhemerus, 1 6 2 ; worship of, 57—58, 2 0 2 - 4 2 3
5
zoogony, 2 3 , 174 1 6
