democritus and the cynics.pdf

8/11/2019 Democritus and the Cynics.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/democritus-and-the-cynicspdf 1/14

Department of the Classics Harvard University

Democritus and the CynicsAuthor(s): Zeph StewartSource: Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, Vol. 63 (1958), pp. 179-191Published by: Department of the Classics, Harvard University

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/310854 .

Accessed: 28/09/2014 03:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Department of the Classics, Harvard University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access to Harvard Studies in Classical Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200.16.5.202 on Sun, 28 Sep 2014 03:03:33 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dchu

http://www.jstor.org/stable/310854?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/310854?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dchu



DEMOCRITUS

AND

THE

CYNICS

BY

ZEPH

STEWART

IT

is

nothing

less

than

a

reflection

of

his

own

character

and

person-

ality

that Werner

Jaeger

has devoted most

of his

scholarly

attention

to

writers

who have

seen

the universe

in

its

various

aspects

as

moving

in an

ordered

way

toward

a

goal

of

perfection.

He has

even

retrieved

for a kind of teleology medical works previouslyconsidered in another

aspect.

But

for this

very

reason

his

illuminating

account

in the second

and

third

volumes of Paideia

of

an

early

stage

in

the

long

dispute

between

'philosophy'

and

'rhetoric'

scarcely

touches

upon

a

rift

within

the ranks

of

the

philosophers

themselves,

a

division which

was

in

some

respects

to

prove

more critical

han the

later

distinctions

of

the

'schools'.

Streams

of

thought

which were to

contribute to

anti-teleological

systems

-

Antisthenes'

criticisms,

Cynic,

Cyrenaic,

and

Sceptic

views

of

Socrates,

the

minor Socratic

schools

-

remain outside his

theme.

And it is

not

a

coincidence

that

he

all

but

passed

over that

major

figure

of an earlier

generation,

Democritus,

whose

system

is

the

com-

plete

antithesis,

in

the

history

of

knowledge,

to

Plato's

philosophy .1

The

ethical

fragments

of

Democritus have

been

an

embarrassment

f

riches.2

Long

and

heated

discussion of

the

authenticity

of the

Fv&tcrat

A

,LoKpcdrovs

(B

35-xi5)

and of

the

fragments

n

Stobaeus

(B

I69-297)

reached

an

uneasy

peace

in

Diels'

inconclusive dictum

on

the former

group

and

in

Schmid's cautious

general

optimism.3

But

in

the

fray

a

closely

related

question

has

remained

almost

untouched

-

why

such an

extraordinary

number of short

ethical

fragments

of

Democritus

were

ready at hand for inclusion in Stobaeus' collection, and why indeed

these same

and

many

other

statements

attributed to

him

are to be

found in

such

profusion

in

other

gnomologies.4

It is

easy

to see how

his

physical

and

epistemological

ragments

were

preserved

n

large part

by

the

interest

which

Aristotle

and

his

school

took

in

reporting

and

refuting

them,5

but

neither

Plato

(who

does

not

mention

Democritus)

nor

Aristotle

shows

any

knowledge

of his

ethics.

Of the

later

schools

the

Stoics

not

only

had

to

some

degree

adopted

Heraclitus

from

among

the

earlier

thinkers,

but

also would

have

found

little

place

in

their

official system for Democritus' valuation of pleasure; the Epicureans

were

notoriously

conservative

n

following

the

lead

and

quoting

only







the

words of

their

founder,

who

had

rejected

his

dependence

on

Demo-

critus

and

specifically

attacked him

-

indeed

it

is

hardly

here

that

we

should look for the preservationof fragments praising rTOvol;rom

Sextus

Empiricus'

silence it

seems

equally

clear

that Democritus'

ethical

fragments

had not

been

preserved

n

official

Scepticism,although

it

might

be assumed

that

in

his

time

the

collections which

were to

find

their

way

into

Stobaeus

were

in

use,

and

he

(or

his

source)

seems

in

fact to

employ

an

anthology

of

poetry.6

It

is

true,

on the

other

hand,

that

Epicureans

and

Sceptics,

though

opposed

to

each

other,

were

connected

with

Democritus

both

by

a

student-teacher uccession7

and

by

a tenet

which

divided them from

Academy,

Lyceum

and

Stoa

-

denial of

a

teleologicalprinciple in the universe.

Philippson's

easy

assumption

that

a

student

of

Democritus

excerpted

quotations

from

his

writings

is

hardly

a

help

here,8

for

the

real

problem

is to

account for

the

ensuing gap

of some

700 years

until

Stobaeus.

A

'

school of

Democritus',

if

it ever existed

at

Abdera,

was

short-lived,

and

the

continued

preservation

of

his assembled

works

was

apparently

due

only

to

the

librarian-philologists

t

Alexandria

and elsewhere.9

Not

only

does the

presence

of

the

fragments

in

gnomologies

suggest

a

separate

text

tradition,

but

the existence

of

differently

abbreviated

orms

of

the

same statement

-

most striking

in

B 84,

B

244,

B

264

-

shows

that

these

fragments

were

actually

in use

in the

intervening

period.

In

his

justly

prized

work on the

history

of Greek

florilegia

Elter

found

the

ultimate

origin

of the

later

collections in

the

works

of

Chrysippus.'0

Though

his

general

view has

won universal

acceptance,

perhaps

nsuffi-

cient

emphasis

has been

given

to some

important

reservations

and

conditions. 1

First,

only

selections

in

verse

can

surely

be

derived

from

Chrysippus,

not

those

in

prose,

and

second,

Chrysippus

used

his

quotations

from

the

poets

for

a

special

purpose,

to

'illustrate'

the

truth of his

own statements.12

It

was not

from

him

that

would

come collectionsof

gnomic

sayings

or of

gnomic

poetry

for instruction

itself,

as

a

kind

of treasure

house

of

guides

to

right

thinking

and

right

action.

13

Whose

purpose

then would

it have served

in

the Hellenistic

period

to

preserve

a

collection

of

Democritus'

ethical

writings

or

of selections

from

them

so

carefully

that

they

proliferated

n

the collections

of the

Empire?

Suggestion

for an

answer

to this

question

comes

from

an

unexpected

quarter.

The

Cynic

Demetrius,

a

notable

figure

at

Romein

the

first

century,

the first

representative

of

his

school

in

some

three

hundredyears knownwell enoughto us to seem a distinct personality,

was

quoted

often

by

his friend

Seneca,

but

nowhere

at

such

length

as

i8o

Zeph

Stewart







Democritus nd

the

Cynics

18

near

the

beginning

of

the seventh

book

of

the De

Beneficiis.

There

(7.1.3)

he

urges

the

ready

possession14

of

a

few

precepts

of

knowledge

rather than much, but comparativelyuseless, learning.As examplesof

the latter

he

mentions such

questions

of natural

phenomena

as

one

finds in

Aetius'

Placita

or in

Seneca's own

Naturales

Quaestiones.

His

rejection

of this kind

of

study

ends,

however,

with

a

striking phrase

borrowed

(without

indication

of

author)

from

Democritus,

and

the

subsequent

paragraphs

are so

full

of Democritean

material that

the

complete passage

is

worth

transcribing

with

some

comparisons:

De

Beneficiis

7.1.5:

Non

multum

tibi

nocebit

transisse

quae

nec

licet

scirenecprodest.Inuoluta ueritas n alto latet.

B

II7 (from

Diogenes Laertius) e-rej

8

ov8ev

8L?v'

v

PvOco

yap

1

d.XrOteca.

Cicero,

Ac.Pr.

2.1o.32

naturam

accusa,

quae

in

profundo

ueritatem,

ut ait

Democritus,

penitus

abstruserit;

cf.

Ac.Post.

1.12.44;

Isidore,

Etym.

8.6.12 cuius

sectator

fuit

Demo-

critus,

qui

dixit

tamquam

n

puteo

alto,

ita

utfundus

nullus

sit,

ita

in

occulto acere

ueritatem.)

(6)

Nec de

malignitate

naturae

queri

possumus,l5

uia

nullius

rei

difficilis

inuentio

est

nisi cuius hic

unus

inuentae

ructus

est

inuenisse;

quidquid

os

melioresbeatosqueacturumest, aut in apertoaut in proximoposuit. (7)

Si animus

ortuita

contempsit,

i se

supra

metus sustulit

nec

auida

spe

infinita

conplectitur,

B

176 (from

Stobaeus)

rvr

X7

UyoCoSc8wpos,

AA'

E'cfatoso,

tvaos'

8?

avTapK77s'

SLO7TEp

VLKc2 TD

77jaOVL

KQxL

1EfaLou

TO

tJ.?LOV

TvS

EArios.

.

B

3

(ibid.)..

.cOTr

K

r-'7

.Jrs

Evrr7`laA,oTvL

Os

K't;

S

TOr

7TrAEeo

V7rrn77yEoJLEvq1

7r

SOKE

L,

KaTrarLOeaaCL

KaOZL

jL

TrAe

TrpoacrTTreraQaL

rcV

$vvarcZv.

..

B

2IO

(ibid.)

rpare[Cav

rroAureAEa

Lkv

TVX77

rTaPpaC-rLO7aLv,

v7rapKeaC

8

acwpoP V'.

B

70

(from

Fvc4car

Ar/cLoKpaTO

vs)

TraXLOS,

OVjK

avSpoS

7TO

&ME'TPWS 7TLG'VPEiV.

sed

didicit a

se

petere

diuitias;

B

284

(from

Stobaeus)

7-v

/L7

rroAA6cv

E'rt8Ov,Ler,

T

oAl'yac

To

7roAAac

oeL'

aorLtKpaap oppetL

7revlr77Y

oaOeve'a

7rAoLvro

TO&eEC.

si

deorum

hominumque

ormidinem

eiecit

et

scit non

multum

esse ab

homine

timendum,

a

deo

nihil;

B

I75

(from

Stobaeus)

ol

8e

Oleo

Troatcr.

dvOpLCroLco'a.L

ovato

T7aya0a

7rvraTa

Kal

7raAaL

Kct

vvV.

7r\A7v

Koaa

KaLKa

Kalt

fXagcepda

KCa

avcuVWAe'a,

TrSe

8'

O<T-rE>

7rcAcaL

0rTe vy Oeo;

avdpWiroLac

Swpovvrat

. . .







I82

Zeph

Stewart

si

contemptor

mnium

quibus

orqzetur

uita dum

ornatur

co

perductus

est

ut illi

liqueat

mortem

nullius

mali materiam

sse,

multorum

inem;

B

297

(from

Stobaeus)

Evtot Ovr7-js

qva'Ecws

idXAvatcvVK

dElOrES

avGpw7ro,

cTrvvEL7CTT?

e

7 ev TW

t

fic

KaKo7Trpayoyoavtr7J

ov

7rS 9C07o-S

Xp OY'

v

CopavCiZL- KCl

<o'otS

raAawLopeouvat,

ofeuS,ea

7repl

rTOU

L7era 7-7V

reAevr7v

1uOoTrraarreoves

xpdvov.

si

animumuirtuti

consecrauit

B

55

(from

rvctalc

Af7-qoKpadroU

)

;pyOC

Katl

tprttas

apECTrPs,

v

Aoyous,

7AhoUv XPELtv.

B

62

(ibid.)

ayaGoov

oV

-r0

L

ad8Kelv,

&AAMc&

pq7&

EEAhfew.

et quacumqueocatilla planumputat;

B

x74

(from

Stobaeus)

o

/cEv

ev8vtLOs

Els

Epye` Erremepofevos

&tKaLa

KCal

Y6fVOJLL

KaL

V7Tap

KaL

OVap

XCaLPEL

fE

Kal

EppwuraL

KaL

avaKr^77T7

EOTLV.

si

sociale

animal et

in commune

genitus

mundum

ut

unam omnium domum

spectat

B

293

(from

Stobaeus)

oraTv778ovv

EXovEv

art

rwv

rVAag

fv)L9Spcra

ov

VvLatL LEY

WS

s

r

7j5s

TVX7S'

KOLVa'

7TaLV,

czSEopEoto

0

olK770l7S

Xapas.

et conscientiam suam dis

aperuit

semperque tamquam

in

publico

uiuit se

magis

ueritus

quam

alios:

B

244

(from Stobaeus)

(cavAov,

KaV

fLOvos

77s,

/L77-r

Ae`

s-

p7^r'

epyda

7'

ta8e

?

TrroAi

tL&Xiov

-rTv

aAXXv

areav-Tv

alaXvveaYcrat.

B

264

(ibid.)

t,f8Ev

ret aMov

rTOv

avOpw7rovs

caleSaOaCL

wvroi

Lr7Se

rt

fLCAOV

edepydcTea'Oat

KCaKOY,

l

LeAAcMEL

7&8ES

Elst(cELtv

ol

TrraTvr

vOpw7ro

.

. .

subductus ille

tempestatibus

in solido

ac

sereno

stetit

A I (from D.L. 9.45) TeAo S ElvaLriv evuJLuav, oav crirvvva'cv'

-7r

0Sov-,

WS

EXVLOL

7TOCPaKOvOCavT7-S

Ee?S0ECvrTO,

aAAC KaCtO

v

yCA-7v&C

KCLt

vtCTarawu

77

XVX7

tayec,

V)To

fL77SevoS

apaZTTOLEvT

of3ovu

etr8aLoSaxovLacS

'

&XAov

rtVOS

7rcOovs.

consummauitque

scientiam

utilem

ac

necessariam.

Reliqua

oblectamenta

otii

sunt;

licet

enim

iam

in

rutum

retracto

animo ad

haec

quoque

excurrere

cultum,

non

robur,

ingeniis

adferentia.

For

this

distinction

of

necessary'

and 'otiose'

knowledge

there

is

a

parallel

in

B

144

(from

Philodemus,

De

Musica)

.

tovactK7jv

<f7catoveW-repcav

Etvat KCa

T7jY'

lrl/av 7TroStSoaL

XAoywvpr

7TOKpLYat

-racvacyKaclov,

jcAAa

EK

7roV

7TrepLtevTOs

17j7

yeveaCatL.







Democritus and the

Cynics

There

follow

a

few lines

in

which

Demetrius endorses

emphatically

the

'single

rule'

of

good

and evil

probably

derived

from

Ariston

of

Chios.'1

Then he continues:

(7.2.2)

..

.

miserrimosque

mortalium

iudicet,

in

quantiscumque

opibzus

refulgebunt,

uentri ac libidini deditos

quorumque

animus inerti

otio

torpet.

Dicat

sibi

ipse:

'

Voluptas

fragilis

est,

breuis,fastidio

obiecta,

quo

auidius

hausta

est

citius

in

contrarium

recidens,

B

235

(from

Stobaeus)

oaor

&ro(

ycao-poSs

rasg

8ov&s

7TroLeovTra

WTEpfEgXn7KOrES

TOEV

KCCLpOV

E'm

fpcwaoav

7

rroaeatLv

7j

a'CpoStaIloL-

atv, rolat

7Traaiv

at

eY

tOv

oval

SpaXXeaL

Kal&'

o

oyov

ylvovrat,

OKOcOV

v

Xpovov

ea'OEoawv

71

rtvuIrvaL,

cSC

3s Av7racL rohcAAa.

rovro

uLEV

yap TO7E

vtLVLerV

aEl rw,CV aVrT3v

Tr(CpecTL

Kal

OKOTAV yevrT

OKOlwV

ETLtvULEO`vTL,

St3a

traco(S

TE

77

-8ov

TCrapolXTcai,

Kall

o0VEv

Yv

VrOlaiL

Xpr]o7r6v

Ecarv

7AAM'

rTepS flpaXEoa,

KaL

aVOtg

TrcV

avTrjV 8EL.

cuius

subinde

necesse

est

aut

paeniteat

aut

pudeat,

in

qua

nihil

est

magnifi-

cum

aut

quod

naturam

hominis dis

proximi

deceat,

B

37

(from

FvcLcAa

Alj77OKpaprovU

O

ra

vxS

ayaOa&

actpeoJLEvoS

ra

&eorepa

alpe`erai'

o $ ra

arKveoo Ta

&vOp77'Cc

a.

rc

ELOTEpcZcXpEETcXL

5 Ta

07C77VE0S Ta

6PW77c

a

7

res

humilis,

membrorum

urpium

aut

uilium

ministerio

ueniens,

exitufoeda.

(3) Illa est uoluptas et homine et uiro digna non inplere corpusnec saginare

nec

cupiditates

inritare

quzarum

utissima est

quies,

sed

perturbatione

carere

et ea

quam

hominum inter

se

rixantium

ambitus

concutit et

ea

quae

in-

tolerabilis ex alto

uenit,

ubi de dis

famae

creditum

est

uitiisque

illos

nostris

aestimauimus.'

A i

(from

D.L.

9.45),

as

quoted

above.

(4)

Hanc

uoliptatem

aequalem,

intrepidam,

B

4 (from

Clement,

Stromates)

rv'rrTv

yap

Er7 V7rrT

ArJ77LOKpirov

cOac.fl'

v

AyeaOcrL.

cf. B

2

5,2

6.

numquam

sensuram

sui taedium

percipit

hic

quem

deformamus

cum

maxime,

ut

ita

dicam,

diuini

iuris

atque

humani

peritus.

B

285

(from

Stobaeus)

yLtv(jcjKE

Xpejv

avpworrTlrv

iorTqv

ca4cavp7rv

TE

EovcrLa

KaC;

oA\yoXpovtov

7ro0AAarLv

Tr

K77pac

avpUL7TrEupEY7vK

KaL

aCj77XLavi7atv

.

.

.

Hic

praesentibus

gaudet,

ex

futuro

non

pendet;

nihil enim

firmi

habet

qui

in

incerta

propensus

est.

MIagnis itaque

curis

exemptus

et

distorquentibus

mentem

nihil

sperat

aut

cupit

nec se

mittit in dubium

suo contentus.

B 191 (from Stobaeus) . . .

E7t

roL Suvvarol ov've1 EXELv

T77v

yVWI.L77V

KaL

TO'S

7rCapeoVcrv

apKeEaEOaL

.

.

.

OKWS

v

T'

a

7TXrpeov'Tr

7+C.P.

I83







aoLKat,

V7TPXOVTxa

EycCAa

C

77AcoWra

CaIV77ri

.

.

KCXt

IL77KETt

XTrAELOVWV 7TLUvtLEovTLVt%alvr KCLKOTTCLXOEV

a'

?VXij

...

B

231

(ibid.) EvYVWFcoWv

6

FLj Ah7TurrofvoS

E(' otcrLv OvKK

EXEL,

&AAo&

Xacrpwv

?'

otaLv

'XEL.

295

(ibid.)

...

TO

TAEov

ov

ayacov

ToV

tLdAAo-

vroT

ETr

KCL

$-jAoV

Kpeacov.

Then come

(2.5-3.1)

the

inevitable

examples

(in

chronological

dis-

order)

of

Alexander

and

of

the

Persian

kings

-

he who

in the

midst of

his

possessions

was

poor

because

he

wanted

more

and

those

whose

desires could never

be

satisfied

by

fulfillment.

Two

representative

phrases

will

suffice:

(2.6)

Tantum illi deest

quantum

cupit.

B

224

(from

Stobaeus)

77

Tro

rrAeovos

E'rOvIU

rO

T7rapEov

adrohvat

rT

AIa7TWrTE

Kvvl

lKEh77

yLVOvq.

B

283

(ibid.)

-rEVi7TrXAoUro

ovdo0rcca

EvSEIJ7Sv

KCaX

KOpOV'

OVrE OVV

rrAXovcrOS

<Od>

EvSeO'w

OUTr

7TVfE?

6

Lt47

1V&5V.

(3.I) Quidquid

cupiditati contingit

penitus

hauritur

et conditur,

nec

interest

quantum

eo

quod

inexplebile

est

congeras.

B

219

(from

Stobaeus)

yp.Tldrowv

op?t,,

,v

~,

Opt77-TraL

KcpcO,

7revr?7s

E

raXrs

roAAov

XcA7TrroaTEp7'

tLe0OVs

7yap

opEELS

E

LeVovasc

EVELatCSrotLEaCv.

This

striking

series

of

parallels

(admittedly

of

quite

varied

cogency)

proves

one

thing

and

suggests

another.

As

a

purely

historical

link

it

demonstrates

for

the

first time that

the

sayings

attributed

to

Demo-

critus

were

part

of

the common store

from

which

a

first

century Cynic

might

draw his

'useful

maxims',

but

more

importantly

it

suggests

that

it

was

among

the

Cynics

and their

allies that his

fragments

were

pre-

served

during

the

period

-

and

probably

deformed

for more

con-

venient

use.

7

Although the most recent survey of Democritus and his influence

does

not mention

the

Cynics,18

it

is

easy

to see

both

general

and

specific

resemblances,

and there is

indeed

clear

evidence

pointing

to

their

interest in him. The

most

important

parallel

of

attitude

is

the

rejection

of a

general

teleological

principle,

a

rejection

which

provided

common

ground

for

Cynics,

Sceptics,

Cyrenaics

and

Epicureans

with

Demo-

critus

against

Plato,

Aristotle,

the Stoics

and certain

earlier

philoso-

phers.

Those

who

approach

Greek Stoics

and

Cynics

through

works

of

the

Roman

period

-

a

weakness

of

some

English

writers

-

often

miss,

in the syncretistic language of Seneca, Demetrius, Epictetus, and Marcus

Aurelius,

the

real

antagonism

between

orthodox

representatives

of

the

i84 Zeph

Stewart







Democritus

nd the

Cynics

two

schools.19

Cynic

attacks on

logical

studies,

on

established

religion,

on all varieties

of

divination

are

assaults

on

important

Stoic interests.20

Cercidas'contempt for explanationsof Zeus's obvious malignity, his

proposal

of

a

new triad of

divinities

-

17tcLcv,

MrcraSWS,

eFEraL

-

and

his

attack on

individual

contemporary

Stoics

are

all

of one

piece.21

It

is not

hard

to

imagine

a

Cynic

ridiculing

the

Stoic

favorite,

Heraclitus,

and

comparing

him

with

a

figure

more

congenial

in

his

outlook

to him-

self

-

a

possibility

to

which

we

shall return.

On

the

other

hand it

has

been

observed

that the earliest

Sceptics,

of the

time

of

Pyrrho

and

Timon of

Phlius,

are

not

easily

distinguished

from

Cynics.22

Before

becoming

really

a

'school',

scientific and

methodical,

Scepticism

repre-

sented rather an attitude toward existence which would have been no

more

shocked

by

the atheism of

the

Cyrenaic

Theodorus

than

would

the

Cynics

or

Epicureans.

That Democritus was in fact

known

in

this

milieu where one

might expect

some of his views to

be

congenial

appears

well

attested. His works were said

to

be the favorite

reading

of

Pyrrho

along

with those of

Homer,23

and it

was

surely

ethical,

not

physical,

writings

which

Timon had

in

mind

when

he called him

AEaXciva.24

Of

more

specific Cynic

interest

is

Democritus'

valuation

of

rrovos

and

cav-rpKEca

-

both

Cynic bywords

-

and

of

a&aGuca,

his concern

with

rTv;,

his

use

of animals as examples,25 his mention of Aesop,26 and

especially

his

repeated

contrasts

between

wise

men and

fools.27

Judging

from

the

existing

fragments,

one can

well

imagine

that

passages

from

his

works were

among

those which

Diogenes

of

Sinope

was

said

to

have

had

his

pupils

memorize from

poets

and

prose

writers ,28

and

that

useful

quotations

from

him were

among

the

XpeZat

of Metrocles

and

in

the

other collections

being

formed at

the

time.29

The active

Cynic

interest

in

this

earliest

stage

of

prose

gnomologies might explain

the

popularity

of

Democritus in the later

and

derivative

collections.

One

difficulty

deserves

special

notice.

The

valuation of

pleasure

in

several

fragments

seems to fit no more

easily

into the

Cynic

outlook

than it

would

into Stoicism.

On

this

point,

it

would

appear,

the two

groups

held

a

common

front,

in

particular

against

the

Epicureans.

Now

for

the first

generation

such a

view

is

probably

correct,

but

by

the

middle

of

the

3rd century

n.c.

the

work

of

Bion

of

Borysthcnes,

on

ground

prepared by

the

arrov8atoyE'Aoov

of

Crates and

Monimus,

had created

a

hedonistic

Cynicism

to

which the

remarks of

Democritus

on

pleasure

would have

been

quite

acceptable.

Just

as

contradictory

traits in

the two

pictures

of

Diogenes

-

the

'tough'

and

the

hedonistic

-

fell

into

an

easy union,30 so would praise of

-rrovos

and of 7Sovi in a collection of

maxims. Indeed this

is

the

very

period

in

which

the

formation

of

a

I85







'Cynic'

Democritus

and

special

interest

in

his

writings

would

most

naturally

all.

One

hesitates

to

mention

particular

names

in

such

un-

certainground, but the literature of later Cynicism and its relatives

(such

as Roman

satire,

parts

of

Cicero,

Seneca,

Lucian,

and Dio

of

Prusa),

where Democritus sometimes

re-appears,

reflects the

interpre-

tations

and

forms

developed

under the

influence

of

Ariston of

Chios,

the

cynicizing

Stoic,

of

Bion,

and

of

Menippus

of

Gadara.3'

Ariston

broke

at

last with official Stoicism

and

gathered

his followers

separately.

He

might

well

have

adopted

for

his

own

purposes

an earlier

writer

distinct from Heraclitus.

It should be remembered

that

Demetrius,

in

the

passage

rom

Seneca,

supported

Ariston's doctrine

of

the

'single

rule' in close connection with Democritean material. Menippus,

further,

was

a

pupil

of

Metrocles,

the

composer

of

XpEZat,

hile

Bion

himself

left

behind

writings

of

a&robOey,cara

XpELtAr77

7rpayxacrtcrv

7TE-

PLEXovrc

D.L.

4.47).

Certainly

in these

circles the

ethical

fragments

of

Democritus

as

we

possess

them

would

seem

quite

at

home,

while

interest in him would

easily

have

taken

the form

which

is

reflected

in

parts

of

his

legend.

Two

parts

of

the

legend

are of

special

interest

for

their

Cynic

coloring

or context

-

the

story

of his

laughter

and the

report

that

he

visited the nakedwise men of India. The

earliest

datable

reference

o

Democritus'

special

concern

with

laughter

is in

Cicero's

De

Oratore

(2.58.235),

but

neither

he

nor

Horace,

who

gives

more

details

(Epist.

2.1.194-200),

mentions the

pendant

figure

of the

weeping

Heraclitus.

The

two

appear

together

first

in

a

fragment

from Seneca's

teacher,

Sotion

(Stobaeus 3.20.53,

p.

550

H.),

then in

Seneca,

Juvenal,

Lucian,

and

often. For Democritus

by

himself

the most

extensive

development

of

the

story

is found

in the

spurious

Letters

of

Hippocrates,

in

which

a

kind

of

epistolary

novel

brings

the

physician

to

Abdera

to

cure

the

laughingphilosopher,

whom he

declares

more

sane

than

other

men.32

Not

only

were these letters

composed

at

just

the

period

when renewed

interest in

Cynicism

led to the

production

of

faked

epistles

of

early

Cynics,

but

they

themselves

show

unmistakable

Cynic

traits.33

It is

not

a

coincidence that

Democritus

is their

hero,

just

as it is

not

a coinci-

dence that

his

laughter

is recalled

in writers

especially

influenced

by

Cynic

literary

forms.

It

is

Lucian

who

relates

the

laughter

and

the

weeping

to the

philosophic

systems

of

the two

men

(Vit.

Auct.

13)

and

in

such

a

way

as to

emphasize

the Stoic

affinities

of

Heraclitus.

In

comparisons

of

the

two,

it

should

be

noticed,

Democritus

is

usually

preferred.Laughterat the foolishnessof the world is in itself a charac-

teristicallyCynic

and

Sceptic

trait,34

while

the list

of

writers in

whom

I86

Zeph

Stewart







Democritus nd

the

Cynics

the

story

appears

suggests

that

someone

within

the

general

circle

of

Menippus

created

the

'Cynic'

Democritus

and

contrasted

him

with

the 'Stoic' Heraclitus.35 The most revealing point, however, is that

Diogenes

Laertius,

usually

a

chief

purveyor

of such

tales and

traits,

appears

not

to know

the

story

of the

laughter.

Nor

does

he

quote

ethical

fragments

found

in

the

gnomologies.

This

ignorance,

which

he shares

with

Sextus

Empiricus,

shows

in

itself

that

the

fragments

and

the

laughter

were

part

of

a

separate

tradition.36

Diogenes

Laertius

does,

just

barely,

preserve

one

interesting Cynic

feature

in his

account of Democritus.

After

quoting

the

authority

of

Demetrius

(of

Magnesia)

and

Antisthenes

(of

Rhodes)

for

travels

to

Egypt, Persia and the Red Sea, he continues (9.35): roZv

rE Ftv,voco-

rtw-ras

Oaa&'t

TLV

s

a(Turlat,

avrov0v

E'v

IvlcaI

Ka

ELS

Altortiw

e'AOEiv.

It

is

not hard to

guess

who

-nvies

must be.

From the

time

when

Onesicritus,

a

pupil

of

Diogenes

of

Sinope,

first described the

naked wise

men

of

India in

Cynic

terms

they

and

the Brachmans

were

almost

exclusively

associated

with

this

sect.37

Travels

in

Egypt

or

Persia

were

a

common-

place

in

accounts of

the

early

philosophers,

but

only

in

the case

of

Democritus do

we find

reports

of contact

with the

Indian

Gymno-

sophists.38

This

review

of

the

evidence for Cynic activity in the preservation of

Democritus' fame and

fragments

is

not intended

as

an

attack on

the

authenticity

of the

fragments.

It

is

rather a

more detailed

and

better

defined

warning

for the

exercise of

a

caution

which others have

already

felt

on

other

grounds.

It means

that certain

emphases

should

be taken

into

account,

certain

types

of

intrusion

expected;

it

means

that

deforma-

tions toward

simplicity

should

be

assumed,

as well

as

changes

of

vocabulary;

it

may

help

to

explain

the

order

and

the

very

existence of

some

of

the

fragments.39

It

suggests, finally,

an

answer to

a

question

which has

been much

and

inconclusively

discussed

-

which work of

Democritus,

if

any,

among

those listed

by

Diogenes

Laertius

was

already

a

collection

of

maxims

similar

to that

now

preserved.40

Part

of

the

answer is

surely

that

such

a

collection

among

the

genuine

works

would

have

led to

quotation by

Sextus

Empiricus,

Diogenes

Laertius

and

others. At

the

very

end of

Ihis list

Diogencs says

(9.49):

ra&

8'

aca,

ooa,

Tvres

avOcCEpovaotv

Esl

av'rovV,

rC

fLev

EK

7riV

CjVrov

(LECKoaEta-rCL,

7r&

8'

ooyoyovuevwOg

rr

v

'XOdrpat.

At

an

earlier

point

in

his

account,

as we

have

seen,

rtves

referred

to

his

vague

knowledge

of

the

Cynic

tradition.

Here the

same

case would

hold

-

rwves

refers

to

the

Cynics

and their allies, and the first

group

of

writings (-r&

.ev

. .

.)

are the

fragments

which

we

know.41

187







There

is,

finally,

a

constructive

side to the

argument.

If the

frag-

ments

have been

selected

from

various

works,

put

through

a

Cynic

'sieve', and deformed in use, they will not represent in many cases the

style

and

organization

of

their

author.

Von

Arnim,

followed

by

Laue,

rejected

a

major group

of them

on

the

ground

that

such

flat and

obvious

statements

could

not

be

the work of one

of the

most

prized

thinkers

and

stylists

of

antiquity.42

From the

impression

given

by

their

present

state

a

common

feeling

has

arisen that Democritus must have

written his

ethics

in

a

loose

and

aphoristic

manner,

rather

like

Hesiod,

Theognis,

possibly

Heraclitus,

and

Isocrates

(?)

in

the Ad

Demonicum.43

In the

first

place

some

of the

longer

fragments

belie such

a

view.44

Secondly

it

must not be forgotten that he was writing at the time of the sophists, as

a

contemporary

of

Thucydides, Hippocrates

and

the

author

of

the

Respublica

Atheniensium.45

In

style

and

thought

resemblances

should

be

sought

first

with these

works

of his

own

time,

and our

eyes

not

blinded

by

the deformations

of

a

later

century.

Schmid observed

most

justly

that as

doxographical

works

were

at once

tomb

and storehouse

for

Democritus'

scientific

writings,

so

gnomologies

were for

the

ethical.46

The first

was

a

task

begun

by

the

Peripatetics,

the

second,

by

the

Cynics.

The

parallel

brings

its

warning.

One

should

proceed

with as

little

confidence

to

reconstruct

the

form

of

Democritus' works

from

the

gnomologies

as

the

poem

of

Parmenides

or of

Empedocles

from

the

doxographers.

NOTES

I.

Paideia

2.85.

With

somewhat

similar

emphasis

Praechter

contrasted

Antisthenes

with

Plato,

in

Ueberweg,

Geschichte

d.

Plzilosophiie

.12

167.

2.

Fragments

and testimonia

of Democritus

will be

quoted

according

to

the

division

and

numbering

of

the

fifth and

subsequent

editions

of

Diels-Kranz,

Fragmente d. Vorsokratiker = FVS. The following abbreviations will also

be

used in the

notes:

Schmid-Stahlin,

Geschichte

d.

Griechischen

Literatur

r.

Tell,

5.Band(Munich

1948)

=

Schmid;

Uebenveg-Praechter,

Grundriss

d.

Geschzichite

d.

Philosophie

I12

(Berlin

1926,

rpt.

as

I3th

ed.,

Graz

1953)

=

Ueberweg-

Praechter;

Diogenes

Laertius

=

D.L.

3.

Diels

in FVS

2.I54:

Die

inhaltliche

Priifung

der

Demokratessamm-

lung

gestattet

weder

alles

kritiklos

fir

echt

noch alles

fur

unecht

zu

halten.

Schmid

253:

Mit diesem

Vorbehalt

aber

darf

man

die

Echtheit

der

in

der

neuesten

Ausgabe

der

'Vorsokratiker'

dem

Demokritos

zugesprochenen

Spriche

fur

gesichert

halten.

4.

Some

examples

in FVS

2.222-223;

a

general

survey

of material

in

RE

Suppl.

6

cols.

85-87

(Horna);

specific

survey

in

Schmid

250,

esp.n.8.

5.

Schmid

244;

H.

Bonitz,

Index Aristotelicus s.vv.

AJ/oKpTro?,

AEfKLTrrTO.

6.

Adu.Math.I

(Adu.Gramm.)

279-292,

as

Elter

saw

(below,

n.io).

I88

Zepbh

Stewart







Democritus

nd

the

Cynics 189

7.

These'

successions',

though

of

very

doubtful

validity

for

the earlier

period,

provide

occasionally

useful evidence.

Clement

(Strom...64)

gives

the

teacher-

student

relation as Democritus-Metrodorus

of

Chios-Diogenes

of

Smyrna-

Anaxarchus

of

Abdera-Pyrrho-Nausiphanes.

D.L.

reproduces

parts

of

this

succession

(9.58,61,69).

He then

repeats,

sometimes on excellent

authority,

that

Nausiphanes

was

said

to be

the

teacher

of

Epicurus

(9.69;Io.I3,I4).

See also

P.

von

der

Miihll

in

Festgabe fir

A.

Kaegi

(Frauenfeld

1919)

172-178.

8.

R.

Philippson

in

Hermes

59 (I924), 409.

9.

Evidence

in Schmid

244-245.

10. A.

Elter,

De

Gnomologiorum

Graecorum

Historia

atque

Origine

(8

parts,

corollarium,

and

ramenta),

Bonn

Univ.

Progs. 1893-I897, esp.

parts

I-3.

11.

W.

Christ,

Plilologische

Studien

zu

Clemens

Alexandrinus

(Abh.

Bayer.

[Munich]

2I

[I9o0]),

480-481, pointed

out

somewhat

cautiously

that

Chrysip-

pus'

collection

contained

only poetry;

he

did

not

press

his

just

remarks

about

Elter's misinterpretation of Sextus Empiricus. P. Wendland's critique, in Byz.

Zeitschr.

2

(1893),

325-328,

concerned other

matters.

12.

Exactly expressed by

Sextus

Empiricus,

Adu.Math.

(Adu.Gramm.),

271.

I3.

A

type

discussed

in

RE

Suppl.

6

cols.

78-79,81 (Horna)

and

col.

88,

on

XPelat(v. Fritz).

14.

The

same

term

in

Epictetus:

see

Index

Verborum in H.

Schenkl's

editio

maior

(Leipzig

1916)

s.v.

*rpo'xerpos.

15.

It

may

be of

interest to note that

the

wording

and

thought

are

similar

in

the

passage

from

Cicero,

Ac.Pr.,

cited in

the text.

I6. Seneca

was

quite

aware of

Ariston's

position

on

this

question:

see

Ueberweg-Praechter

412.

I7. There has been little suggestion in modern writers of connection between

Democritus and the

Cynics.

He

appears

of

course

in

G. A.

Gerhard's storehouse

of

Cynic

and

related

miscellany,

Phoinix

von

Kolophon

(Leipzig

I909),

and

there

(174)

Heinze's

version is

called

the

Cynic

Democritus ,

though

Heinze

himself,

in

RhM

45

(1890),

504

n.

I,

did

not

use that

term,

merely observing

that the

laughter

of

Democritus

in

[Hippocrates],

Epist.

17

was

Cynic.

L. A.

Stella,

in

Sophia

10

(1942),

205-258,

has

shown

clearly

how

certain

aspects

of

Democritean

ethics

are

related to

Cynicism,

while

Democritus

looms

large

in

I.

Lana's

review of

Greek

ideas of

cosmopolitanism

up

to

the

Cynics,

in Riv.

di

Filol. ed

Istr.

Class.

29

(195I), I93-216

and

315-338,

esp.

210-215,

337-338.

I8.

Schmid

236-349,

esp.

328-347.

I9. Recognized by D. R. Dudley, A History of Cynicism (London 1937),

102-103.

Juvenal

expresses

the

view

characteristic

of

the Roman

period,

I3.

121-I22:

stoica

dogmata...

a

cynicis

tunica

distantia.

20.

See

RE

12

cols.

7-8,

I2-13

(Helm)

for

these

Cynic

attacks. Even

in the

later

period

a

figure

like

Oenomaus

of

Gadara

( a

scorner

of

all

things

human

and

divine , Julian

called

him,

Or.6,

p.257

Hert.,i99A

Span.)

kept

alive

the

fierce

opposition

to

Stoic

beliefs

which the

protests

and

bowdlerizing

of

Julian

(Orr.

6

and

7)

do not

hide.

2I.

Cercidas

(Powell),

frs.4.44-48; 8;

9.

It

seems

more than

a

coincidence

that

according

to

Pliny,

H.N.I.

14 (FVS

A

76)

Democritus believed

in

only

two

gods,

Poena and

Beneficium.

22.

Gerhard

(above,

n.

17), 243

and

nn.

6,7 (quoting

Wachsmuth and

Rohde);

Dudley

(above,

n.

19),

107-108;

L.

Robin,

Pyrrhon

et

le

Scepticisme Grec

(Paris

i944),

23-24,

34.







23.

D.L.9.67,

quoting

Philo

of Athens.

24.

Fr.

46

Diels

(FVS

A

I

[D.L.9.40]):

o[ov /7flLOKppdrvrT 7{p-pOV ca, 7roteIVa IvtCOsv,

&favoov

AheaXva

feral

rrpwrotacv

aveyvwv.

There

has been

a

general

acceptance

of

D.L.'s view

that

these

verses

are

complimentary.

Most

of

the

words related to

AcaX77t

found only

here)

are

uncomplimentary,

and one would

expect

here

a

sting,

in

keeping

with

this

kind

of

Homeric

parody:

a

brilliant,

learned

man,

but

he

talks

too

much .

25.

Gerhard

(above,

n.

I7), 23-30;

RE

I2

col. 20

(Helm);

Dudley

(above,

n.

I9),

32.

This

is

a

point

at which one is

especially

conscious

of how different

is

Democritus'

-

systematic

-

use

of

a

trait

from

that of

the

Cynics,

who

resemble

him

only

superficially.

See

below,

n.

44.

26.

Gerhard

(above,

n.

I7), 246-253.

It

may

have

been

characteristic

of

Democritus to quote Aesop. Not only is he the only early philosopher in whose

fragments

reference

to

Aesop

occurs

(B

224),

but also

his

name

is

tantalizingly

linked

with

Aesop's

twice

elsewhere:

Aristotle,

Meteor.

B

3.356b

(FVS

A

ioo)

criticizes

Democritus'

view

of the

origin

and eventual

fate

of the

sea,

illustrating

his

point

with

a

fable

of

Aesop;

Plutarch,

Animine

an

Corp.

Aff.

2

(5ooD-E)

(FVS

B

149)

quotes

a

fable

of

Aesop

and then

passes

at once

to

a

remark

of

Democritus

which

might

be

taken

as an

explanation

of the

tale.

In

both cases

it

seems

possible

that

Democritus

had

originally

used the

example

from

Aesop

himself.

27.

See

below,

n.

39.

28. D.L.

6.31.

Hicks,

in

the Loeb

Class.

Library

edition,

translates

avyypaCids

historians . Such a restriction is quite unnatural.

29.

See

RE

x5

cols.

1483-1484,

Suppl.

6

cols.

87-89 (v.

Fritz)

for

Metrocles

and

the

early

history

of

these

collections.

30.

K.

Praechter,

in Hermes

37

(1902),

283-286.

3I.

The

immense

modern

literature

on this

subject,

written

largely

at

the

end

of

the

last

century,

can be

found

in

part

in

Ueberweg-Praechter

I30

*-I33*.

Especially

useful

for the

orientation

of this

paper

is

R.

Heinze,

Ariston

v.

Chios bei

Plutarch

u.

Horaz ,

RhM

45

(1890),

497-523.

32.

[Hippocrates],

Epist.

Io-I7.

Others

are

supposed

to be to or from

Demo-

critus,

most

importantly

Epist.

23.

33.

Dates

near

the

beginning

of

the

Christian

era:

I. F.

Marcks,

Symbola

Critica ad Epistolographos Graecos (Bonn I883), 9ff.; W. Capelle, De Cynicorum

Epistulis (G6ttingen

i896);

FVS

2.225-226.

For

Cynicism

in

[Hippocrates],

Epist.

17

see

R.

Heinze,

De

Horatio

Bionis Imitatore

(Bonn

1889),

15

n.

I,

and

in

RhM

45

(I890), 504

n.

i;

H.

Diels,

in

Hermes

53

(I918),

85.

34.

See

R.

Heinze,

as

cited

in

previous

note; Dudley

(above,

n.

19)

74;

D.L.

9.I15

(Timon).

35.

C.

E.

Lutz,

Democritus

and

Heraclitus ,

CJ

49

(i954),

309-3I4

rightly

but

hesitantly

saw

that

the

story

possibly passed

through

the

hands

of the

Cynic-Stoic

philosophers

(3

),

but she

gave

undue

weight

to

the

tentative

suggestion

of G.

L.

Hendrickson,

in CP 22

(1927),

53

n.

i,

that

the

whole

development

started

from

the

word

erOvpIb.

36.

The

comparative

purity

of the scientific tradition

in these two

authors,

who came a

century

or two after the

composition

of the

pseudo-Hippocratic

letters,

is

an

ironic

commentary

on

Diels'

gloomy

claim,

in Hermes

53

(I918),

Zeph

Stewart

90o







Democritus nd the

Cynics

87,

Der Democritus ridens

dieses Romans hat

in der Tat die wirkliche

Gestalt

des

Abderiten

auf mehr

als anderthalb

Jahrtausende

verdunkelt .

37.

For

discussion of

Cynic

traits

attributed

to

the

Gymnosophists

see

U.

Wilcken,

in

SBBerlin

1923,

I73-I74.

For the

continuing

interest

of the

Cynics

in

them

see Index

in

Dudley (above,

n.

I9)

s.v.

Indian

'philosophers',

adding

175

n.

3.

38.

The

stories

of Anaxarchus and

Pyrrho (D.L

9.61,63)

are different

in

that

they

are not

anachronistic. The

two

were

already

in the

tradition of which

the

report

about

Democritus was

designed

to

make him

a

part.

It

should

be

particularly

noted

that

the additional

statement about

a

visit to

Ethiopia

is

further

evidence

for

the same

tendency.

In

Philostratus,

Vit

Apoll.,

the

naked

wise men of

Ethiopia

appear,

just

like the

Indians,

as

Cynics.

Literature

on this

point

in

Ueberweg-Praechter

64*.

39.

The

attempt

of

P.

Friedlander,

in

Hermes

48

(I913),

603-616,

to show

that groups of fragments may have been lifted almost in their present state from

the

original

work

has

rightly

met

with little favor.

The

avox7/ovre-scrics

(B

I97-206),

for

instance,

which he

analyzed,

is

much more

easily

explained

as

part

of

the well

known

Cynic

division of

the

world

into

wise

men

and fools

or

madmen

(RE

12

col.

9

[Helm];

D.L.

6.7I).

A

Cynic

collection

would

naturally

contain

a

number of

brief

characterizations

of

'the wise man' and

'the

fool'.

Sometimes

they

would

appear

consecutively

in one

section,

as

here.

40.

'Aata.Aecas

Kpcar

(F.

Lortzing,

Ueber die

Ethischen

Fragmente

Demokrits

[Berlin

1873] 7),

Tplroye'veta

(P.

Friedlander

[previous

note]

616).

4x.

Regarding

D.L.'s

list

I

come

therefore

to

the

same conclusion

first stated

by

R.

Philippson

(above,

n.

8),

409.

42. J. v. Amim, in Gott.Gelehrt.Anz. I894, 887; H. Laue, De Democrati

Fragmentis

Ethicis

(G6ttingen

1921).

Cicero

(Orator

20.67)

compares

him

in

style

with

Plato;

Dionysius

Hal.

(De

Comp.

Verb.

24),

with

Plato and

Aristotle

(FVS

A

34);

Plutarch's

high opinion

in

Quaest.

Conu.

5.7.6.

(683A).

43.

P.

Friedlander

(above,

n.

39)

603-616;

J. Bumet,

Greek

Philosophy:

Thales

to Plato

(London

19I4),

2oi;

Schmid

324-325,

though

with usual

hedging,

328;

W.

Jaeger,

Paideia

I2.295

(by

implication).

44.

One

point

needs

clarification. Not

all the

fragments

in

Stobaeus

and

the

other

gnomologies

were

preserved,

and

therefore

subjected

to

sifting

and altera-

tion,

in

the

same

way.

Some of

the

political

ones

(e.g.

B

266),

and

some

of the

longer

ones

(e.g.

B

I91),

seem

pretty

surely

to have come to

Stobaeus

through

another

and

better

protected excerpting tradition. After examining the other

fragments

and

testimonies

one

can

return to

the shorter

ones with

some under-

standing

of the

relation of

ideas

(e.g.

in

the use of

imitation

of

animals

in

cultural

history)

and

so

can

discount

recognizable

alterations

of

emphasis.

For

example,

E. A.

Havelock,

The Liberal

Temper

in

Greek

Politics

(New

Haven

1957),

125-I54,

uses

fairly

'reliable'

fragments

and

with a

sense of

the

pitfalls

(p.

413).

45.

Quite

apart

from

certain

similarities

of

style

and

outlook it

is an intcr-

esting

probability

that

Democritus,

Thucydides,

and

Hippocrates

all

did

at

least

part

of their work

in

the

vicinity

of

Abdera.

Thucydides

is said to

have

spent

part

of

his

twenty-year

exile

at

Scapte

Hyle,

near

Amphipolis (references

in

Schmid

7

nn.

I

,

13;

14

nn.

2,

3),

while

the

constitutions and

cases

reported

in

Hippocrates,

Epidem.

i

and

3

are

largely

of

Thasos and

Abdera.

46. Schmid

249.

7*

I9I

democritus and the cynics.pdf

Documents