democritus and the sources of greek anthropology (philological monographs series number 25)

D E M O C R I T U S AND T H E SOURCES OF

GREEK A N T H R O P O L O G Y

By

THOMAS COLE Tale University

P U B L I S H E D F O R

T H E A M E R I C A N P H I L O L O G I C A L A S S O C I A T I O N

B Y T H E PRESS O F

W E S T E R N R E S E R V E U N I V E R S I T Y

1967

C O N T E N T S

A b b r e v i a t i o n s x i

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 . . . . . . . . 1

I . C o m m o n M o t i f s 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 15

I I . A P a t t e r n o f P r e h i s t o r y . . . . . . . 25

I I I . A l t e r n a t e Patterns o f Kulturgeschichte: Possible Sources . 47

I V . T h e O r i g i n 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 ) 60

V . T h e Genealogy o f M o r a l s ( E p i c u r u s ) . . . . . 70

V I . T h e Genealogy o f M o r a l s ( P o l y b i u s ) . . . . . 80

V I I . 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 ) 97

V I I I . P l a t o , Po lyb iu s , a n d D e m o c r i t u s . . . . . 107

i . T h e Genesis a n d E x p a n s i o n o f K o s m o i . . . . 107

2. Society a n d t h e F a m i l y . . . . . . 112

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 120

I X . D e m o c r i t e a n Socio logy a n d H i s t o r y i n t h e 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 . . . 131

X . T h e H e i r s o f D e m o c r i t u s . . . . . . . 148

1. T h e State o f N a t u r e ( P l a t o , D i c a e a r c h u s , Tzetzes a n d t h e

Cynics) . . . . . . . . 148

2. C u l t u r e a n d t h e Gods ( 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 ) i 5 3 3. P h i l o s o p h y a n d Pol i t ics ( P o l y b i u s , t h e A c a d e m y , N a u -

siphanes) . . . . . . . . 163

4. A C o m p r e h e n s i v e R e s t a t e m e n t ( the E p i c u r e a n s ) . 170

A p p e n d i x I : D i o d o r u s 1.7-8 . . . . . . 174

A p p e n d i x I I : V i t r u v i u s a n d Posidonius . . . . i 9 3 A p p e n d i x I I I : Po lybius a n d t h e Stoics . . . . 196

A p p e n d i x I V : D e m o c r i t u s B 3 0 a n d E u h e m e r u s . 202

Selected B i b l i o g r a p h y . . . . . . . 207

I n d e x . . . . . . . . . .

ix

211

A B B R E V I A T I O N S

Works w h i c h appear i n the Selected Bibl iography on 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 of 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 and Οικειότης: Theophrastus a n d Zeno 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 pertinen-tibus capita duo (Diss. Le ipz ig 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 (New H a v e n 1957). Kleingünther, Α. , "ΠΡΩΤΟΣ ΕΥΡΕΤΗΣ," Philologus Suppl . 26.1 (1933). K r e m m e r , Μ . , De catalogis heurematum (Diss. Le ipz ig 1890).

Lovejoy, A . O. , and Boas, G., Primitivism and Related Ideas in Antiquity (Balt imore

1935)· Phil ippson, R., " D i e Rechtsphilosophie der E p i k u r e e r , " AGP 23 (1910) 289-337

and 433-46. Reinhardt , K . , "Hekata ios von Abdera 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). Thei ler , W . , Zur Geschichte der teleologischen Naturbetrachtung bis auf Aristoteles (Zürich

Γ 9 2 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 . von, Griechische Kulturentstehungslehren = Bibliothek für Philo

sophie 26 (1924). W a l b a n k , F. W . , A Historical Commentary on Polybius ( O x f o r d 1957).

* O T H E R A B B R E V I A T I O N S

CR DAW Β

BPW CP

Cd

AJP AGP Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie

American Journal of Philology Berliner philologische Wochenschrift Classical Philology Classical Quarterly Classical Review Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Schriften der Sektion für

Altertumswissenschaft

xi

X l l O T H E R A B B R E V I A T I O N S

FGrH F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (1923-58)

HSCP Harvard Studies in Classical Philology JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies JRS Journal of Roman Studies Me'lRome Melanges d'arche'ologie et d'histoire de VF\cole frangaise de Rome MusHelv Museum Helveticum NGG Nachrichten der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen NJbb Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Altertum NPU Neue philologische Untersuchungen PhilRev Philosophical Review ProcBritAc Proceedings of the British Academy PubblTorino Universita di Torino, Pubblicazioni della Facoltä di lettere e Filosoßa RA Revue archeologique RAC Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum (Stuttgart 1950- ) RE P a u l y - W i s s o w a - K r o l l , Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissen

schaft (Stuttgart 1894- ) REA Revue des etudes anciennes REG Revue des etudes grecques RendlstLomb Istituto Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere, Rendiconti, Classe di Lettere e Scienze

Morali e Storiche RendLinc Rendiconti dell' Accademia dei Lincei RFIC Rivista difilologia e di istruzione classica RhM Rheinisches Museum für Philologie RPh Revue de Philologie SIFC Studi italiani difilologia classica SO Symbolae Osloenses SVF Stoicorum veterum fragmenta, col l . H . v. A r n i m (Leipzig 1903-24) TAPA Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association TGF Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta 2 , rec. A . Nauck (Leipzig 1889) vs Diels-Kranz Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker9 (Berl in 1959-60) WS Wiener Studien

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

c i ty o f o r i g i n .

I N T R O D U C T I O N

S O U R C E S 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

Discussions o f Greek 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 ten b e g i n b y

d i s t i n g u i s h i n g its t w o m a i n c u r r e n t s , o r c o u n t e r - c u r r e n t s : the m y t h o f the

G o l d e n A g e a n d the m y t h o f h u m a n progress—Hesiodic fantasy a n d I o n i a n

science. 1 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 persistent, b u t i t s h o u l d n o t be

a l l o w e d to obscure the fact t h a t there d i d emerge, 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 for one o f t h e t w o p o i n t s o f v i e w .

I t was possible thereaf ter t o debate the e x t e n t a n d s ignif icance o f w h a t h a d

h a p p e n e d , o r t o seek m o r e f a v o r a b l e t e r m s for the defeated p a r t y ; t h e

v i c t o r y i t se 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 fact , 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 Greek 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 achievements o f c i v i l i z a t i o n are o f a

r e l a t i v e l y recent o r i g i n , a n d t h a t m a n ' s l i fe was once far 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 . These 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 the

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 such t i m e as t h e J u d a e o - C h r i s t i a n

doctr ine o f the F a l l b e g a n t o co lor a n c i e n t concept ions o f p r e h i s t o r y . 2 I n

400 B . C . i t was s t i l l necessary for T h u c y d i d e s to 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 exaggerate the 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 ; there is

n o t h i n g c o m p a r a b l e i n w h a t survives o f l a t e r h i s t o r i c a l w r i t i n g . Q u i t e

fore ign t o a l l serious discussions o f the p e r i o d are b o t h t h e H e s i o d i c v i s i o n

o f a G o l d e n Race l i v i n g a t the b e g i n n i n g o f m a n ' s h i s t o r y 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 P r i m i t i v i s t s

m i g h t c o n t i n u e , l i k e H e s i o d , t o p u t t h e apex o f h u m a n f e l i c i t y 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 nosta lg ia f o r a

simpler w a y o f l i f e ; as such i t is essentially u n l i k e Hes iod '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, "Die Vorstellungen der Alten besonders der Griechen von dem Ursprünge und den ältesten Schicksalen des menschlichen Geschlechts," Philologus 7 (1852) 3 5 - 6 0 . Of subsequent discussions, the most important is that in Havelock, 2 5 - 3 5 .

2 For the reinterpretation of the life of primitive man in the light of the first chapters of Genesis see Uxkull-Gyllenband, 4 7 - 4 8 , and G . Boas, Essays on Primitivism and Related Ideas in the Middle Ages

(Baltimore 1948) 1-67. 3 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.

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 he b e l i eved t o have been bet ter , 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 sophist icated, t h a n his o w n . 4 I n s i m i l a r fashion, p r o p o n e n t s o f a c y c l i c a l

v i e w o f h i s t o r y m i g h t bel ieve, as H o m e r d i d , t h a t ear l ier c i v i l i z a t i o n s were

m o r e e laborate a n d s p l e n d i d t h a n theirs . B u t the A t l a n t i s o r 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 lways separated f r o m t h e present 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 t h e r e b y r e d u c e d to the leve l 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 to the m o d i c u m o f c i v i l i z a

t i o n t h e y 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 this process a n d its u l t i m a t e w o r t h i n terms 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, to 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 be 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 the

w o r k o f a few f a v o r e d (or perverse) i n d i v i d u a l s , o r t h e col lect ive a c h i e v e m e n t

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

w h a t h a p h a z a r d responses t o t h e p r o m p t i n g s o f necessity. A n d the e v o l u

t i o n a r y perspect ive 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 others.

A l l 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 recent o r i g i n .

A b o u t l a n g u a g e there 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 fashion as t e c h n o l o g y ; others, however , insisted t h a t

i t o w e d its o r i g i n to n a t u r e a lone, n o t h u m a n c o n t r i v a n c e . A n d ethics was

s t i l l h a r d e r to 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. Society a n d social

n o r m s , so m o s t w o u l d have a r g u e d , rest o n m o r a l feelings w h i c h are 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 ; the l a t t e r m a y be subject to r e f i n e m e n t o r

decay b u t n o t to essential c h a n g e . 5

S u c h divergences o f a t t i t u d e a n d a p p r o a c h are s igni f i cant 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 to stress those generic 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 accounts 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

i t m a t t e r e d l i t t l e w h e t h e r 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 i n g e n u i t y , o r the i n d i f f e r e n t w o r k i n g s o f acc ident a n d

c h a n c e . 6 As t o its m o n u m e n t a l a n d r e m a r k a b l e c h a r a c t e r there was n o 4 In 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.

5 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.

6 The 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 intelligence or.necessity or nature herself working through τ-rj μακρά τριβή.

I N T R O D U C T I O N 3

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 detai ls o f the s t r u c t u r e one w r i t e r

m i g h t d r a w freely o n the w o r k o f a n o t h e r , o f bas ica l ly d i f f e r e n t t e n d e n c y ,

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 absolute ly necessary. 7 M o r e o v e r , 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 the m a j o r i t y o f those whose

statements o n t h e subjects have s u r v i v e d ) w e r e q u i t e capable o f c o m b i n i n g

u n r e l a t e d o r even c o n t r a d i c t o r y mot i f s w i t h i n a single n a r r a t i v e . 8

Such b o r r o w i n g a n d c o n f l a t i o n w o u l d be o f l i t t l e i m p o r t a n c e for the

h i s t o r i a n i f a l l the d i v e r g e n t a t t i t u d e s m e n t i o n e d above were d e v e l o p e d c o n

sistently 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 are n o t . O f t e n

t h e i r c h a r a c t e r m u s t be r e c o n s t r u c t e d , o r t h e i r existence i n f e r r e d , f r o m

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 imes i n contexts w h i c h

are c o m p l e t e l y a l i e n to t h e m . I t is thus a l m o s t imposs ib le , 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 relevance t o the p r o b l e m . W h a t e v e r t h e i r

i m m e d i a t e scope, one's invest igat ions m u s t rest i n the last analysis o n a

survey o f the w h o l e range o f accounts 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 such a v i e w was a l m o s t c a n o n i c a l for a

t h o u s a n d years, a n d 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 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 for a n even l o n g e r p e r i o d , t h e accounts are corres

p 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 , to r e v i e w

t h e m b r i e f l y . 9

T w o texts s t a n d o u t for the 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

sentat ion. T h e y occur i n the fifth b o o k o f L u c r e t i u s a n d the t h i r d b o o k o f

Plato's Laws. T h e f o r m e r is usua l l y , a n d perhaps w r o n g l y , r e g a r d e d as t h e

locus classicus for a n c i e n t Kulturgeschichte. T h e est imate is c e r t a i n l y one 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 3 3 ) .

8 The passage of Vitruvius discussed below, p. 42, provides a good example. 9 On what follows cf. Uxkull-Gyllenband, Lovejoy and Boas, Mondolfo, La comprensione del

soggelto umano nell'anlichita classica 6 2 9 - 7 3 9 ; Billeter, "Griechische Anschauungen über die Ursprünge der Kultur," Beilage zum Programm der Kantonschule Rurich ( 1 9 0 1 ) ; and F . C . Seeliger's article "Weltaltcr" in Roschers Lexicon, 6.375-417. O f these comprehensive studies Uxkull-Gyllenband'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, 132-63, 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 . Dümmler, "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 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

makes 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 speci f ical ly 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 the t e x t is so

d e t a i l e d a n d c o m p r e h e n s i v e 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

sar i ly c e n t r a l , p lace 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 the o r i g i n o f c u l t u r e a n d society as a

preface to t h e p o l i t i c a l h i s t o r y o f the 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 the same t i m e , too i m p o r t a n t t o be i g n o r e d

a l together . I t represents the 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 i n m a n y o f t h e p o r t i o n s o f a n c i e n t Kulturgeschichte for w h i c h w e

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 t h a t its existence a n d

c h a r a c t e r c a n be extensively d o c u m e n t e d .

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

Plato '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 the t r e a t m e n t w h i c h i t received there m u s t have been

m o r e e l a b o r a t e . N o treatises o f th is sort have 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 to 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 contents .

T h e most a m b i t i o u s m a y h a v e b e e n the 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 fort to p lace this h i s t o r y i n t o the

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 o f p r e

h i s t o r y a c c o r d i n g t o the d o m i n a n t f o r m o f l i v e l i h o o d — f o o d - g a t h e r i n g ,

h e r d i n g , o r f a r m i n g — i n each successive stage was p r o b a b l y 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 ragments i n d i c a t e

t h a t t h e detai ls as w e l l as the genera l p a t t e r n o f c u l t u r a l d e v e l o p m e n t

rece ived 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 Siculus 1.8), a n d so m i g h t l o c a l h is tor ians ,

i f t h e y w e r e d e a l i n g w i t h a n area whose i n h a b i t a n t s c l a i m e d to be a u t o c h

t h o n o u s . T h e subject appears i n several f ragments o f P h i l o c h o r u s (FGrH

3 2 8 F 2 , F 9 3 - 9 8 ) ; t h e t i t l e Protogonia (FGrH, 323F5a, F7) suggests t h a t i t was

t r e a t e d i n t h e Atthis 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 to the same c o n c l u s i o n f o r the l o c a l h is tor ians o f A r c a d i a .

M o r e o v e r , t o j u d g e f r o m t h e p r o c e d u r e f o l l o w e d b y D i o d o r u s i n d e s c r i b i n g

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 one

o f the 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 br ie f , b u t the a c c o u n t o f e a r l y

E g y p t w h i c h appears i n 1.10-29 1 S b o t h extensive a n d i m p o r t a n t .

1 0 See K . Trüdinger, Studien zur Geschichte der griechisch-römischen Ethnographie (Basel 1918) 4 9 - 5 1 .


P r i m a r i l y , t h o u g h n o t exclusively , d e v o t e d t o the 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 genre en joyed a l o n g a n d , to 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 .

I t s b e g i n n i n g s go b a c k t o t h e fifth c e n t u r y ; 1 1 E p h o r u s (FGrH 7 o T 3 3 d ;

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 .47) , a n d S t r a t o o f L a m p s a c u s ( F r . 144-47 W e h r l i ) are a l l said t o have t r i e d

t h e i r h a n d at i t ; a n d echoes o c c u r as la te as Cassiodorus a n d I s i d o r e o f

S e v i l l e . 1 2 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

(f ire , 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 c i v i l i z a t i o n

depends. 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 lega 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 the f o r m o f s i m p l e catalogues. C o n c e i v a b l y , h o w e v e r ,

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 w e m u s t r e l y for o u r k n o w l e d g e o f t h e g e n r e . 1 3 T h e o r i g i n a l s o n w h i c h

t h e y d r a w m a y w e l l have been f u l l e r , p e r h a p s t r a c i n g i n c o n n e c t e d a n d

systematic fashion a succession o f stages i n t h e g r o w t h o f each o f t h e t e c h

nologies cons idered.

T h e r e were o t h e r a n c i e n t w o r k s d e v o t e d exc lus ive ly o r p r i m a r i l y t o t h e

p r o b l e m o f c u l t u r a l o r i g i n s , b u t w e k n o w n e x t t o n o t h i n g a b o u t t h e m .

T r a d i t i o n lists a IJepl της iv άρχη καταστάσεως a m o n g t h e w o r k s o f

Protagoras (VS 8 o B 8 b ) , a n d i f Plato's t e s t i m o n y is c o r r e c t , archaiologiai w e r e

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 El is (Hipp. mat.

2 8 5 0 = VS 8 6 A 1 1 ) . T h i s indicates t h a t c u l t u r a l histories w e r e composed b y

the Sophists; i t does n o t , h o w e v e r , p r o v i d e a n y basis for d e t e r m i n i n g t h e i r

scope a n d character . 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 ro le o f Kulturgeschichte

i n the w r i t i n g s o f t h e pre-Socrat ics . I t s a p p e a r a n c e t i m e a n d a g a i n i n t h e

s u r v i v i n g f ragments ( X e n o p h a n e s , VS 21B4 a n d 18; A n a x a g o r a s , F S 5 9 B 4

a n d 2 1 ; A r c h e l a u s , 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, B 1 4 4

a n d 154) suggests t h a t i t was one 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 interest ever l e d t o the 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 systematic 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 o r i n d i r e c t i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t w o r k s speci f ical ly c o n c e r n e d w i t h

Kulturgeschichte is o f ten less i m p o r t a n t for o u r k n o w l e d g e o f the subject t h a n

1 1 FGrH 8 T 1 (Simonides the historian). Isolated references to inventions and inventors appear, of course, much earlier. See Kleingiinther for a collection and discussion of the relevant passages down to the end of the fifth century and Thraede for a complete survey of the tradition.

1 2 References to the subject are scattered through Cassiodorus' Variae; see Kremmer, 90—96. In Isidore, see Orig. 3.10.1, 16.1, 22.8, 25.1; 4.3.1; 5.1 .1-2; 6.10.1.

1 3 As Kremmer (91, note 1) suggests. Pliny's account is the longest which survives. Less extensive catalogues are found in Tatian, Clement of Alexandria, Gregory Nazianzenus, and Hyginus. See Kremmer, 7 - 5 8 and 6 4 - 9 0 .

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

the i n c i d e n t a l references, r a n g i n g f r o m a few l ines to one o r t w o pages i n

l e n g t h , w h i c h a p p e a r i n contexts d e v o t e d to o t h e r topics. T h e f r e q u e n c y

w i t h w h i c h such references o c c u r is r e m a r k a b l e , a n d the 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 indicates t h a t t h e t h e m e was f a m i l i a r . C i c e r o

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 31) a p e r v e r s i t y c o m p a r a b l e

to t h a t w h i c h w o u l d be r e q u i r e d to m a k e m e n c o n t i n u e to feed o n acorns

once g r a i n was 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 histor ians o f c u l t u r e w h o m a d e

acorns m a n ' s earliest f o o d , o n l y subsequent ly a b a n d o n e d w i t h t h e a d v e n t o f

a g r i c u l t u r e :

p r i m a Ceres ferro mortal is vertere t e r r a m inst i tu i t , c u m i a m glandes atque arbuta sacrae deficerent silvae et v i c t u m Dodona negaret . 1 4

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 hides, a n d t h e i r

d i e t o f berries a n d grasses, seem to have been a p a r t o f the stock i n t r a d e o f

every 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 the 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 o f ten

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 the object o f one's praise

as s o m e h o w i n t i m a t e l y associated w i t h the l a b o r i o u s process w h i c h l e d f r o m

savagery t o c i v i l i z a t i o n . T h e earliest c o n n e c t e d pieces o f Kulturgeschichte

w h i c h surv ive are f a i r l y s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d examples o f this t e c h n i q u e . I t is

m a n himsel 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 achievements i n the f irst s tas imon

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 f r o m

Aeschylus 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 to the

race. I n o t h e r accounts Palamedes (Gorgias , VS 8 2 B n a . 3 o ) , O r p h e u s

( A r i s t o p h a n e s , Ranae 1 0 3 2 ) , 1 5 Hephaestus (Hymn. Horn. 2 0 . 1 - 7 ) , o r a n u n

n a m e d theos ( E u r i p i d e s , Suppl. 201-15) takes the p lace o f P r o m e t h e u s .

P r i m i t i v i s t s , especial ly t h e Cynics , were l a t e r to c o n d e m n P r o m e t h e u s f o r

the same " s e r v i c e s " ( D i o o f Prusa 6.25, 2 9 - 3 0 ) . O t h e r s k e p t the e p i d e i c t i c

tone b u t used t h e topos f o r a n a r r o w e r purpose . N o t m a n i n genera 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 the

p lace 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 reasonable to

assume t h a t th is device was deve loped b y the S o p h i s t s , 1 6 i t is first d o c u -

1 4 Virgil, Georgics 1.147—49. Other appearances of the view are too numerous to require documentation. The Pythia's reference to the Arcadians as balanlphagoi (Herodotus 1.66.2) is perhaps the earliest.

1 6 O n Orpheus as Kulturbringer see H . Koller, Die Mimesis in der Antike (Bern 1954) 189-92. 1 6 See F . Heinimann, "Eine vorplatonische Theorie der rexvrj," MusHelv 18 (1961) 118—ig.


m e r i t e d i n Isocrates. T h e Panegyricus ( 2 8 - 4 0 ) a n d l a t e r t h e Panathenaicus

(119-48) celebrate 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 ; 1 7

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 ( 2 5 3 - 5 4 )

the same ro le is assigned to o r a t o r y . I n his 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 Posidonius sought t o

g lor i fy 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 adopts t h e perspect ive o f Isocrates o r Posidonius 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 a n c ^ De orat. 1 .35-36; f o r t h e

l a t t e r , Tusc. 5 .5) . O r a t o r a n d p h i l o s o p h e r are r e p l a c e d b y t h e a r c h i t e c t 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 (AP 3 9 1 - 4 0 1 ) i t is t h e

a r t o f the vates t h a t chief ly 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

T h e m i s t i u s ( 3 4 9 A - 5 1 A ) , X e n o p h o n (Oec. 5 .17) , a n d T i b u l l u s ( 2 . 1 . 3 7 - 6 6 ) ,

t h a t o f the f a r m e r ; 1 8 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 D i n d o r f ) ,

sai l ing a n d the 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 , t h o u g h

w i t h bet ter g r o u n d s , glorif ies his o w n ars b y assigning t h e same r o l e t o love

(AA 2 . 4 7 3 - 8 0 ) . I n a f r a g m e n t o f t h e c o m i c p o e t A t h e n i o preserved i n

Athenaeus ( 1 4 . 6 6 0 - 6 1 = F r . 1 K o c k ) a cook 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 the savage d i e t o f r a w flesh o n w h i c h m e n once fed , his o w n

profession m u s t be considered 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 the sort o f passage w h i c h w e have j u s t been

consider ing a n d a s t r i k i n g t e s t i m o n y to t h e p o p u l a r i t y o f its t h e m e . 1 9

F u r t h e r v a r i a t i o n s o n this e p i d e i c t i c topos w e r e , o f course, 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

(1.66-112) 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,

b u t a c u l t u r a l d e v e l o p m e n t o f w h i c h t h e y are t h e final a n d c u l m i n a t i n g

phase. M o r e o v e r , t h e p h e n o m e n o n o f t h e rise o f c u l t u r e m i g h t p r o v i d e

grounds for e x a l t i n g , n o t a p a r t i c u l a r cra f t , b u t n e w t h i n g s i n g e n e r a l a t 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 de

s i r a b i l i t y o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l 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

1 7 For later references see Dittenberger, Syll.3 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, 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 .1148B22-23, 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 86 ( '955) 5 1 - 5 2 ; and Herter, Maia 15.469-83. {/<•? . -


have ar isen h a d n o t change been c o n t i n u o u s l y i n t r o d u c e d to bet ter the w a y

o f l i fe o f the f irst m e n , a n e a r t h - b o r n a n d fool ish l o t (Pol. 2 . 1 2 6 8 B 3 0 - 6 9 A 8 ) . 2 0

O v e r six centuries l a t e r , C h r i s t i a n apologists were us ing t h e same a r g u m e n t

to d e f e n d t h e n e w r e l i g i o n against the o l d ( A r n o b i u s 2 .66; P r u d e n t i u s ,

Contra Symm. 2 . 2 7 2 - 3 1 7 ) . 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 most i m p o r t a n t are those w h i c h

seek t o establish 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 s h o w i n g h o w t h e y c a m e i n t o b e i n g o u t o f a p r i m i t i v e " s t a t e o f 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 to have been f irst used b y the

Sophists. H o w e v e r one wishes t o assess Plato's o w n share i n the c r e a t i o n o f

t h e Protagoras m y t h , i t is reasonable to assume a Sophist ic o r i g i n for t h e

basic i d e a w h i c h accounts for its i n c l u s i o n i n the 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 j u s t i c e a n d reverence f irst 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 operate 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

Sophist ic w o r k , t h e treatise o f the late 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 Sophist ic i n

f luence has o f t e n been suspected i n the 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 preface t o its discussion o f j u s t i c e , tells h o w society f irst c a m e i n t o b e i n g

t h r o u g h a n o r i g i n a l d i v i s i o n o f l a b o r b e t w e e n c a r p e n t e r , f a r m e r , a n d

c o b b l e r . 2 3 Plato 's l a t e r essay i n Kulturgeschichte (Laws I I I ) conta ins a t h e o r y

o f 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 t a k e n over b y

A r i s t o t l e i n the f i rs t b o o k o f t h e Politics (1 .1252A24-B34) a n d used there a n d

elsewhere (e.g. Pol. 1.1259.A37-B17; EN 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 re la t ionships w h i c h existed i n the polis o f his o w n

d a y ; a n d P o l y b i u s composed w h a t is p r o b a b l y t h e most r e m a r k a b l e o f a l l

a n c i e n t accounts o f social o r i g i n s i n a n ef fort to b r i n g t o l i g h t forces he

be l ieved t o be s t i l l o p e r a t i v e i n the 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 c o n f l i c t b e t w e e n the ideal is t e th ic

o f the Stoics a n d Per ipatet ics a n d the u t i l i t a r i a n one o f t h e i r E p i c u r e a n a n d

Sceptic adversaries was a c c o m p a n i e d b y r i v a l theories o f the o r i g i n o f

c u l t u r e . Traces 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 fo l lowers (see b e l o w , p p . 7 1 - 7 7 ) , i n H o r a c e (Sat. 1 .3.99-114), a n d i n

C i c e r o , m o s t extensive ly i n Books I (11-14) a n d I I (11-15) o f the De officiis,

w h i c h erect a system o f p r a c t i c a l ethics o n the p r i n c i p l e , first o f to kalon, t h e n

2 0 The idea is doubtless not original with Aristotle; cf. Isocrates, Euag. 7. 2 1 Gf. also the Kulturgeschichte of Ps.-Lucian, Am. 33—35, which is introduced to show that homo

sexual rather than heterosexual love is to be preferred as being the more recent and less natural. 2 2 For the parallels see, most recently, Cole, HSCP 6 5 . 1 3 2 - 3 3 . 2 3 See Dickermann, 8 8 - 8 9 ; Uxkull-Gyllenband, 1 9 - 2 0 ; Havelock, 9 6 - 9 7 .


o f to sympheron, a n d s u p p o r t b o t h d o c t r i n e s b y extensive references t o Kulturgeschichte.2 4

L i n g u i s t i c a n d re l ig ious , as w e l l as social , 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 perspect ive . M o s t s u r v i v i n g accounts o f t h e o r i g i n o f language a p p e a r i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h descr ipt ions o f t h e 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 75-76 , as i t doubtless was i n o t h e r w o r k s n o w lost. T w o o f the most famous 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 existence: C r i t i a s ' Sisyphus f r a g m e n t (VS 88B25) makes the gods a useful e x p e d i e n t devised t o cope 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 raised m a n o u t o f his p r i m i t i v e helplessness appears i n t h e w o r k s o f E u h e m e r u s a n d his 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 ig ious observances, as w e l l as their existence, c o u l d be e x p l a i n e d i n t e r m s o f Kulturgeschichte. T h e o p h r a s t u s , 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 a n d e x p l a i n e d t h e absence o f a n i m a l offerings i n c e r t a i n c o u n t r i e s as a s u r v i v a l f r o m t h e t i m e w h e n m a n was a v e g e t a r i a n ; 2 6 a n d t h e t r a g i c p o e t M o s c h i o n appeals i n s i m i l a r f a s h i o n to 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 occasion w h e r e one w o u l d least expect i t . I t s appearance i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h Plato 's A t l a n t i s m y t h (Timaeus , 2 2 B - 2 5 D ; Critias I O C J B - I O D ) has a l r e a d y b e e n n o t e d ( a b o v e , p . 2 ) . A s i m i l a r c o m b i n a t i o n o f m o t i f s character izes t h e m y t h o f t h e Politicus, w h i c h , l i k e H e s i o d , looks b a c k to a m o r e perfect 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 th is age f r o m t h e present one 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 the 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 laborious a c q u i s i t i o n o f the 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 his 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 , b u t J u p i t e r ' s dec is ion to e n d t h e i n d o l e n c e b r e d b y a s u p e r a b u n d a n c e o f blessings b r i n g s the G o l d e n A g e to a n e n d , a n d t h e resul t is a s low a n d laborious d e v e l o p m e n t o f the arts o f c i v i l i z a t i o n (1 . 145-46) : 2 8

labor o m n i a v i n c i t improbus et duris urgens i n rebus egestas.

2 1 For other pieces of Stoic Kulturgeschichte in Cicero cf. Rep. 1.39—41; ND 2 . 1 5 0 - 5 2 . The anti-Stoic account in Lactantius, Inst. div. 6.10.13—15 may also be Ciceronian in origin.

2 6 The view may go back to Prodicus. The testimonia, contradictory and unclear at times, are collected in VS 8 4 B 5 .

2 6 Frs. 2 . 2 0 - 2 2 , 3 3 - 3 6 , 4 3 - 4 7 and 13.36-50 Potscher. 2 7 Cf. also Ovid's aitionfor the nudity of the Luperci (Fasti 2 . 2 8 9 - 3 0 2 ) . 2 8 For the background of this idea see "Hesiode et son influence," Entretiens Hardt 7 ( i 9 6 0 )

258-63, and L . P. Wilkinson, " Virgil's Theodicy," C£?57 (1963) 7 7 - 7 8 . FGrH 134F17, p. 7 2 8 . 2 3 - 3 0 (Onesicritus' conversation with the gymnosophists) gives what is perhaps its earliest appearance.

I O I 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

E l s e w h e r e (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 possibly V a r r o , V i r g i l makes S a t u r n the b r i n g e r o f the 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 chosen 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 c o m p r o m i s e b e t w e e n t h e H e s i o d i c a n d the l a t e r v i e w o f p r e h i s t o r y .

So w i d e s p r e a d was th is l a t e r v i e w t h a t i t affected even the expl icators o f

H e s i o d . T h e last s u r v i v i n g sample o f a n c i e n t Kulturgeschichte is i n t h e schol ia

t o t h e Works and Days w r i t t e n i n t h e e l e v e n t h c e n t u r y b y the B y z a n t i n e

scholar J o h a n n e s Tzetzes ( r e p r i n t e d i n p a r t i n VS I I 137.36-138.13) .

Tzetzes a t t e m p t s — a n d t h e a t t e m p t was doubtless n o t o r i g i n a l w i t h h i m (see

b e l o w , p p . 1 4 8 - 5 1 ) — t o m a k e Hesiod 's a c c o u n t 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 the 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 resul t , n o t o f a s u p e r a b u n d a n c e o f

spontaneous n o u r i s h m e n t , b u t o f a n i g n o r a n c e 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 were 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 tandards , 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 not ice t h e i r

m i s e r y . O l d age a n d d e a t h were u n k n o w n o n l y because m e n were 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, hence 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 doctors o r m e d i c i n e , n o one ever l i v e d to o l d age.

T h e above survey c o u l d doubtless have been m a d e m o r e comprehens ive ,

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 appears. B r i e f as m a n y o f these texts are, t h e y are

suf f i c ient ly n u m e r o u s t o p r o v i d e b o t h a n a b u n d a n c e a n d a n e m b a r r a s s m e n t

o f m a t e r i a l s f o r t h e h i s t o r i a n o f a n c i e n t t h o u g h t . F o r c e r t a i n p o r t i o n s , a t

a n y r a t e , o f his researches there is n o l a c k o f d o c u m e n t a t i o n ; at t h e same t i m e

he m a y w e l l despair 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 heterogeneous

a n d a t t imes b e w i l d e r i n g a r r a y o f ideas a n d observat ions. 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 to c o n f i r m h i m i n his

d i f f idence a n d scept ic ism.

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 above have been t h e

ob jec t o f r e p e a t e d efforts i n Quellenforschung. T h e result is a n u m b e r o f

studies w h i c h seek t o g r o u p large bodies o f m a t e r i a l a r o u n d a single great

n a m e . Posidonius a n d E p i c u r u s f i g u r e d most p r o m i n e n t l y i n ear l ier a t t e m p t s

o f th is 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 the c o m m a n d i n g p lace 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 t h e vogue enjoyed f o r

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 to the

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 .

I N T R O D U C T I O N

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 have 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 the 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 Hecataeus 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 accepted b y D i e l s i n t h e fifth e d i t i o n o f his

Vorsokratiker a n d has s t r o n g l y i n f l u e n c e d a l l subsequent i n v e s t i g a t i o n . 3 1

R e i n h a r d t h i m s e l f be l ieved (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 subject

was a u t h o r i t a t i v e for a l l o f a n t i q u i t y ; m o s t o f his fo l lowers h a v e b e e n less

b o l d , 3 2 b u t t h e y are i n c l i n e d to see at 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

inf luence 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 assumed 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 fo l lowers is

r igorous 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 ten single m o t i f s , w h i c h a w i d e r survey o f source m a t e r i a l w o u l d

have s h o w n to be q u i t e c o m m o n p l a c e , h a v e been r e g a r d e d as t h e specific

a n d 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 o r m i n o r s i m i l a r i t i e s o f d e t a i l

have been 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 whose

basic concept ions 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 o r a n

author '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 aff init ies h a v e b e e n t a k e n as a

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 . 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 the 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 ,

evident i n several recent t r e a t m e n t s o f the subject , t o eschew Quellenforschung

altogether i n f a v o r o f a l a r g e l y descr ipt ive p r e s e n t a t i o n . 3 6 H e r e emphasis is

placed o n t h e generic s i m i l a r i t i e s w h i c h l i n k a great 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 we 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 th is b o d y o f m a t e r i a l , t o be sure, cer

t a i n basic divergences o f a t t i t u d e m a y be d isce rned, b u t t h e i r o u t l i n e s are

3 1 See the literature cited by Spoerri, 4 - 5 . 3 2 So, for example, J . Kaerst, Geschichte des Hellenismus 2 2 (Berlin 1926) 373. 3 3 So Dyroff, Zur 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 a n 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 4 For the application of this method to Vitruvius see Appendix I I . 3 6 This is probably the principal reason for the often repeated attempt to find a Stoic source for

the Kullurgeschichte of Polybius. On the search, and its generally unsatisfactory results, see von Fritz, The Theory of the Mixed Constitution in Antiquity 55—58 and Walbank, 643—45.

3 6 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 Kulturentstehungs-lehre 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 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

so v a g u e a n d f r a g m e n t a r y as to be h a r d l y w o r t h s t u d y i n g . T h i s a p p r o a c h

doubtless 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 been a d o p t e d i n t h e i n

t r o d u c t o r y survey 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

accounts , r a n g i n g over 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 have been, to some

degree, t h e c o m m o n p r o p e r t y o f a l l e d u c a t e d 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 th is is a l l t h a t is i n v o l v e d . F o r there is n o t h i n g i n p r i n c i p l e

against t h e a s s u m p t i o n w h i c h g u i d e d ear l ier Quellenforschung: t h a t p o r t i o n s

o f s u r v i v i n g accounts o f c u l t u r a l o r i g i n s are a condensed a n d f r a g m e n t a r y

r e p o r t o f d o c t r i n e s once 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 the 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 , be 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 the o r i g i n o f society

whose p o p u l a r i t y i n t h e seventeenth a n d e i g h t e e n t h centuries c a n n o t 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 the 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 psychoanalysis , v iews i n w h i c h i t is

possible t o recognize , 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 ten are, doctr ines

w h i c h go b a c k t o 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 accurate , i t need 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 surv ive , 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 this fact does n o t c o n s t i t u t e

a suf f ic ient reason 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 to d o so, i f the

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 ear l ier

i n v e s t i g a t i o n s f o r t h e 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 c o n s i d e r a t i o n 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 detai ls 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 modes o f

p r e s e n t a t i o n : the d i v e r g e n t approaches whose existence w i t h i n the 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 (above, 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 the t r a d i t i o n seem, b y v i r t u e o f

closely shared a t t i t u d e s a n d modes o f t r e a t m e n t , t o b e l o n g together , a n d t o

c o m p l e t e , w h e n e v e r such j u x t a p o s i t i o n s a l l o w i t , t h e doctr ines w h i c h single

texts m e r e l y h i n t a t o r preserve i n f r a g m e n t a r y f o r m . C e r t a i n detai ls 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 the lowest

c o m m o n d e n o m i n a t o r o f s ignif icance 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 r e l a t e d 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 school o f t h o u g h t to w h i c h t h e y b e l o n g . I n so far as the 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 parts o f the 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 laborate 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


i d e n t i f y i n g this 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 so

p 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 th is m e t h o d w i l l be

spectacular, b u t unless its possibi l i t ies are at least p u t t o t h e test t h e r e is a

fa ir chance t h a t t h e r e a l achievements o f t h e Greeks i n t h e 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 unnecessari ly i g n o r e d o r o b s c u r e d . 3 7 H e n c e

the present s t u d y , t h e first e i g h t chapters o f w h i c h are a n exercise i n

Quellenforschung a l o n g t h e l ines 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 be 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 present 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 emphasis ,

a l t h o u g h , as w i l l become 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 whose perspect ive 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 es tabl i sh ing 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 be des ignated 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 premise 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

works chosen for d e t a i l e d e x a m i n a t i o n represent o n l y one o f t h e approaches

to t h e i r subject c u r r e n t i n a n t i q u i t y , b u t t h e evidence w h i c h t h e y present is

u n i q u e i n t w o ways. 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 be f o u n d ; i t is here , 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 chance 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 large 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 the l i n e o f t h o u g h t w h i c h these five

texts represent is t h a t w h i c h seems to have gone f u r t h e s t i n its e f for 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 shal l therefore be 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 recoverable , o f a l l

ancient theories o f t h e o r i g i n o f c u l t u r e .

3 7 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."

C H A P T E R O N E

C O M M O N M O T I F S 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

A l t h o u g h extensive gener ic resemblances c a n be t r a c e d w i t h i n t h e b o d y o f

ancient 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 , few accounts c o n t a i n passages so

closely s i m i l a r as to m a k e t h e i r dependence o n a single source i m m e d i a t e l y

obvious. S u c h passages d o , h o w e v e r , exist ; 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 most s t r i k i n g . T h e f i rs 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 second 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 .

ϋιοοοκυβ 1.13.3

γενομένου γαρ εν τοις ορεσι κεραυνοβόλου δένδρου

και της πλησίον ΰλης καομένης,

προοελθόντα τον "Ηφαιστον

κατά την χειμεριον ώραν ήσθηναι διαφεροντως επι

τη θερμασία'

λήγοντος δε του πυρός άει της ΰλης επιβάλλειν

και τούτω τω τροπψ διατηροΰντα το πΰρ

προκαλεΐσθαι τους άλλους ανθρώπους

προς την εξ αύτοΰ γινομενην ευχρηστιαν.

V I T R U V I U S 33· 1 6 - 2 3 *

quodam in loco ab tempestatibus et ventis densae crebritatibus arbores agitatae et inter se terentes ramos ignem excitaverunt; et eo flamma vehement! perterriti, qui circum eum locum fuerunt sunt fugati. postea re quieta propius accedentes, cum animadvertissent commoditatem esse mag-nam corporibus ad ignis teporem, ligna adicientes et ita conservantes alios adducebant

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 . 1 B u t such differences as there are b e t w e e n the t w o passages d o n o t

suggest b o r r o w i n g o f this sort . D i o d o r u s places the d iscovery o f f i re i n E g y p t

and a t t r i b u t e s i t to a c e r t a i n Hephaestus , 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 honors . 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 the episode, does n o t speak o f a single discoverer, 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. 1 Diodorus' failure to mention the Roman conquest of Egypt seems to establish 30 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


p o l i t i c a l o r re l ig ious 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

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 o r i g i n a l one. N e i t h e r t h e c l i m a t e n o r t h e 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 iscovery , w h i c h , as i t is presented 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 one m a n ' s ex

c e p t i o n a l i n t u i t i o n , is h a r d l y suff ic ient reason for 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 one e x p l a n a t i o n sat is factor i ly accounts for the r e l a t i o n

ship 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 accuracy , D i o d o r u s w i t h such m o d i f i c a t i o n s as

are necessary t o adjust i t t o a n E g y p t i a n se t t ing .

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 p o r t i o n s o f D i o d o r u s a n d V i t r u v i u s f r o m

w h i c h these passages are d r a w n c o n f i r m this 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 considered, 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 the 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 achievements ( 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 there is n o w one s i g n i f i c a n t di f ference.

D i o d o r u s ' accounts n o l o n g e r c o m e f r o m his d e s c r i p t i o n o f e a r l y E g y p t

( 1 . 1 0 - 2 9 ) b u t f r o m a n ear l ier 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 have 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 are d r a w i n g o n the same source for a l l three 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 ransferred one 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 place . A c t u a l l y the 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 to have been 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 appears as 1.8 was, 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 the discovery o f f i re as p a r t

o f a speci f ica l ly E g y p t i a n Kulturgeschichte. F r o m this c o n t e x t i t was d e t a c h e d

b y D i o d o r u s a n d t r a n s f e r r e d t o his genera l i n t r o d u c t i o n . T h e Kultur

geschichte was itself , h o w e v e r , t h e result o f the " E g y p t i a n i z a t i o n " o f a n

e a r l i e r g e n e r a l a c c o u n t — t h e same one 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

derives. T h i s r a t h e r e l a b o r a t e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n , f i rst 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 been q u e s t i o n e d . 3 R e i n h a r d t ' s cr i t ics are w r o n g , I

t h i n k , b u t t h e a r g u m e n t s p r o a n d c o n need n o t c o n c e r n us here (for a

defense o f R e i n h a r d t ' s p o s i t i o n , see A p p e n d i x I ) . I t is suff icient f o r o u r

present purposes to p o i n t o u t t h a t the 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 have close para l le ls i n

V i t r u v i u s supports 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 d e p e n d e n t

o n 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 See below, pp. 33 and 40. 3 Notably by Pfligersdorfer, SBWien 232, No. 5, 143-44 a n d Spoerri, 114—16, 129 and 163-64.

See also Jacoby, FGrH I l i a 3 9 . 2 6 - 3 7 ; 8 5 . 3 0 - 8 6 . 3 .

COMMON MOTIFS IN F I V E A N C I E N T HISTORIES O F T E C H N O L O G Y 17

u p o n w h i c h b o t h t h e Kulturgeschichte 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 accounts 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 para l le ls 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 clear

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. These a p p e a r i n the fifth

book 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 most of ten ca l led a t t e n t i o n are the f o l l o w i n g : 4

L U C R E T I U S 5.1241-57 S E N E C A , E P . 90.12

aes atque aurum ferrumque repertumst 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 to describe

the discovery o f m i n i n g i n this fashion, t h e passages are too b r i e f to exc lude

al together 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

va lent 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 to h a v e s u r v i v e d . 5

This p o s s i b i l i t y m u s t , h o w e v e r , be rejected i n v i e w o f f u r t h e r para l le l s be

tween the contexts i n w h i c h o u r t w o passages occur . L u c r e t i u s a n d Seneca

deal w i t h the 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 accounts o f the

discovery o f m i n i n g ( L u c r . 5 . 1262-68, Sen. Ep. 90.11) a n d p r o c e e d to

describe, i n the same o r d e r , t w o subsequent 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

made possible b y these m e t a l tools : w e a v i n g ( L u c r . 5 . 1350-53, Sen. Ep.

90.20) a n d f a r m i n g ( L u c r . 5 .1361-66, 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 the discovery o f m i n i n g , b u t a n 4 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. 5 It is only particular elements of the account which can be paralleled elsewhere in ancient

literature. The 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, 8 3 7 A 2 4 - 2 6 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 well-known mythos. Müllenhoff (op. cit., this note, 1.339—42) suggests that Ps.-Aristotle derives from Timaeus of Tauromenium.


a c c o u n t o f m e t a l l u r g y , i ts discovery a n d its effect o n the subsequent deve lop

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 the t w o ac

counts is n o t l i k e l y t o be a c c i d e n t a l .

L u c r e t i u s a n d Seneca are d r a w i n g u l t i m a t e l y o n a c o m m o n source.

Seneca's i m m e d i a t e source was, o f course, Pos idonius : 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 la t ter ' 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 the 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 are s i m p l y s u m m a r i e s o f Posidonius ' v iews, here r e p r o d u c e d b y

Seneca i n o r d e r t o refute t h e m . I t has b e e n suggested o n occasion t h a t

Posidonius was L u c r e t i u s ' source a l so . 6 B u t t h e suggestion seems r a t h e r u n

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 ro le i n Posidonius ' a c c o u n t o f

p r e h i s t o r y are c o m p l e t e l y miss ing f r o m L u c r e t i u s , 7 a n d t h e discrepancy is

best e x p l a i n e d b y assuming t h a t t h e y are a specif ical ly 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 fact , 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 this respect t o

t h a t o f H e p h a e s t u s i n D i o d o r u s ' d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e discovery o f f i r e . 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 r o l e 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 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

6 E.g. by Gerhausser, Der Protreptikos des Poseidonios 2 7 - 2 8 ; Rudberg, Forschungen zu Poseidonios 8 0 ,

note 1; Diels, SBBerlin 1921, 2 3 7 - 4 4 . 7 The contrary has been maintained, largely on the basis of 5 .1105 - 1 1 (cf. Ernout-Robin ad loc.)

and of Lachmann's emendation benigni for et igni in 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 Kultur-geschichte 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. The 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 09) ; and the parallels between 1105—7 and both Diodorus and Tzetzes (see below, pp. 22 and 36) 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). The 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 715F12, p. 6 1 7 . 2 - 1 3 ; Euhemerus, FGrH 6 3 F 2 4 ) . The 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 IN F I V E A N C I E N T HISTORIES 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 benefactor-god Hephaestus are o u t o f place i n

such a process. T h e y are 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 to a n ever h i g h e r dest iny , yet t h e y go a b o u t t h e i r w o r k i n a m o s t

matter-of - fact , 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 Posidonius t o

m a r v e l a t the resources o f the p h i l o s o p h i c m i n d , 8 ye t are, as Seneca p o i n t s

o u t (Ep. 9 0 . 2 1 , 25, 3 3 ) , o f t h e sort w h i c h c o n t i n u e t o be p r o d u c e d b y people

w h o are n o t phi losophers a t a l l . Posidonius p r o v i d e s , i n fact , a n excel lent ex

a m p l e o f t h e sort o f contaminatio m e n t i o n e d i n o u r i n t r o d u c t i o n . T h a t t h e

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 te leo log ica l mot i f s w h i c h charac

terizes his w o r k s h o u l d d isappear 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 d e r i v e d

f r o m his is i n c o n c e i v a b l e . 9 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 consistently n a t u r a l i s t perspective is to be observed, m u s t be t a k e n as

evidence f o r use o f a c o m m o n s o u r c e . 1 0

T h e conclusions reached thus far w i t h r e g a r d to 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 to D i o d o r u s a n d L u c r e t i u s to Posidonius i n the specific passages

e x a m i n e d are n e i t h e r n e w n o r , so far as I c a n see, s h o u l d t h e y be c o n t r o

versial . T h e evidence speaks for itself. C e r t a i n invest igators , h o w e v e r , have

sought t o go f u r t h e r a n d pos i t a single source for a l l f o u r w r i t e r s . 1 1 T h e i r

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 accounts o f c u l t u r e m u s t go b a c k to some one

a u t h o r i t y ; b u t i t is also, I bel ieve, correct . T w o pieces o f evidence, neglected

h i t h e r t o , m a y serve to p u t the hypothesis o f a single source o n s o m e w h a t

f i r m e r g r o u n d . L u c r e t i u s ' a c c o u n t o f m i n i n g a n d m e t a l l u r g y is m o r e

complete t h a n Seneca's. I t begins 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

8 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 3-147-

9 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. The first is a simple learning from experience and example and can be paralleled throughout the Kulturgeschichte of Lucretius V . The 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 . 1 9 9 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. On 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 "naturalist" imitation, Theiler, 100, with note 1.

l e In 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 ) ; D u t against this view see Reitzenstein, Orient und Antike 2 .65-70.

1 1 See, in particular, Reinhardt, Poseidonios 3 9 2 - 4 0 8 and Uxkull-Gyllenband, 33

r*>—<


d e v e l o p m e n t s , t h e d iscovery o f fire ( 5 . 1 0 9 2 - 1 1 0 1 ) ; a n d i t places w a r f a r e

( 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 deve lop

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 we have

seen, describes t h e d iscovery 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 . Hephaestus 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 Zeus, a n d finally b y Osir is , 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 discovered a n d t h e n e w t e c h n o l o g y

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 weapons, t h e n to 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 have its p a r a l l e l here is w e a v i n g ,

a n d there is reason to bel ieve t h a t i t , t o o , a p p e a r e d i n the 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 th is 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 pr ies 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 chapters 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 . 153-54) , a n d i t as

cribes t h e d iscovery o f w e a v i n g t o Os ir i s ' c o n t e m p o r a r y H e r m e s . 1 3

T o this a r g u m e n t for 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 hence for 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 . Tzetzes'

c o m m e n t a r y o n H e s i o d (see above, p . 10) stands i n close, t h o u g h s o m e w h a t

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 lear t h a t Tzetzes 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 genera l m a t e r i a l

i n C h a p t e r 8 — f o r he gives a p a r t i a l p a r a p h r a s e o f b o t h sections i n his Iliad

schol ia (55 .28-57 .25 H e r m a n n ) . 1 4 F o r his e x p l i c a t i o n o f Hesiod's m y t h o f the

G o l d e n A g e , Tzetzes also b o r r o w s c e r t a i n phraseology f r o m D i o d o r u s (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 appear i n a l a r g e r c o n t e x t w h i c h

seems i t se 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 . T h e

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 Tzetzes' 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 P r o m e t h e u s s t o r y ( 7 4 . 1 4 - 2 0 G a i s f o r d ) .

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 Hyginus, Astron. 2.20 and Tertullian, De Pallio 3. These and other remnants of Leo's theology are printed in FGrH 659 as fragments of the historian Leo of Pella. But the latter's existence has been inferred, probably erroneously, from a single passage in Arnobius. See Pfister, Festschrift Klauser, 296—97. The name of the real author of Alexander's letter to Olympias is not known.

1 4 On Tzetzes' borrowing from Diodorus in general see Spoerri, MusHe.lv 14.187-88, and the further literature cited there, 185, note 13.

http://MusHe.lv

COMMON MOTIFS I N F I V E A N C I E N T HISTORIES OF T E C H N O L O G Y 2 I

ol προμηθέστεροι δε των ανθρώπων, χειμωνος γεγονότος, και κεραυνωθέντος δένδρου

τινός, ώς πλησιάσαντες εκεΐσε της θέρμης αισθησιν έσχον, μηχανωνται φυλάζαι το

πυρ και δη σομφοΐς τισι ζΰλοις και νάρθηξι δυναμένοις τοΰτο φνλάζαι κατέκρυφαν,

και ούράνιον πυρ υπάρχον το πριν οντω κατασχεθέν . . . εμνθενθη κλαπηναι . . .

T h e κεραυνωθέντος δένδρου w h i c h is t h e source o f the f i re recalls D i o d o r u s '

κεραυνοβόλου δένδρου ( ι . 1 3 . 3 ) , b u t the rest o f the 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 phraseology . T h e discoverers are p l u r a l

a n d 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 recalls

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; a n d

της θέρμης αϊσθησιν έσχον is nearer to animadvertissent commoditatem . . . ad

ignis teporem t h a n to ήσθηναι διαφερόντως έπι τη θερμασίη. O n e is t e m p t e d to

assume t h a t b e h i n d this p o r t i o n o f Tzetzes' a c c o u n t there lies, u l t i m a t e l y , the

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

Tzetzes' e x p l a n a t i o n o f the 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 the

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

m e n f i r e ; t h e i n e v i t a b l e result o f t h i s — a l l e g o r i c a l l y , the resul t w h i c h Zeus

(dest iny) b r i n g s to pass—is the a r r i v a l o f P a n d o r a ( t e c h n o l o g y ) a n d t h a t

Pandora '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 the

gods w h o bestow t h e m are t h e several prerequis i tes w h i c h m a n needs i n

o r d e r to p r o d u c e t e c h n o l o g y : τά υλικά και οργανικά f r o m Hephaestus , το

κατασκεναστικόν και άγχίνουν f r o m A t h e n a , a n d energy a n d wil iness f r o m

H e r m e s , w h o is logos. T h e l ist p a r t i a l l y para l le 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 the 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

achievements : φυχης άγχίνοια, λόγος, a n d χείρες ( w h i c h w o u l d c e r t a i n l y be

a m o n g τά οργανικά i f n o t τά υλικά i n the d e v e l o p m e n t o f the arts a n d crafts) .

Tzetzes' a c c o u n t o f Pandora 's gifts is too closely c o n n e c t e d w i t h his w h o l e

a l l e g o r y to a l l o w the s u p p o s i t i o n t h a t he has here b o r r o w e d a set o f detai ls

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 the hypothesis o f a c o m m o n source p r o

vides t h e most 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 was closely c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e one used b y L u c r e t i u s is

suggested b y v e r b a l paral le ls b e t w e e n Tzetzes ' H e s i o d c o m m e n t a r y a n d

Book V o f the De rerum natura:

T Z E T Z E S

[The earliest men] άγελαΐον ούζων τον βίον

δίκην •ποιμνίων. (Schol. in Hex. 6 8 . 6 - 7 = VS 68135,

Ρ· ' 3 7 - 3 9 - 4 0 )

[The consequences of Prometheus' theft of fire are to be interpreted as]

L U C R E T I U S

[The earliest men] volgivago vitam tractabant more ferarum. (5.932)

[A bolt of lightning or branches rubbing together in the wind produced fire; thereafter]

- 1 5 Even the phrase KcpavviodtvTos 8eVS/>ou, it should be noted, need not reflect the influence of Diodorus. The interpretation of the myth demanded that fire be ouranion rather than, as in Vitruvius' account, the result of the friction of branches.


το μετατραπήναι ΰπό της προβουλίας ταύτης

έκείνην τήν προτεραν τον βίου διαγωγήν υπό της

ευρέσεως τοΰ πυρός, ο και τοις ευροΰσι καί μετα

γενεστέρου γέγονε βλάβη. (81.24—27)

έπει δε προμηθέστεροι γεγονότες και προβου-

λευτικώτεροι το πΰρ έφεΰρον

καί θερμότερων . . . πραγμάτων ώρέχθησαν καί

την τον . . . βίου εκείνου μετέστρεφαν διαγω

γήν . . . και έκ . . . πυρός αί τεχναι προσεφεν-

ρέθηααν

δι ων τά ηδέα και τερπνά και άβρότατα γίνεται,

δίκην γυναικός ημάς καταθέλγοντα και τρυφερω-

τέρους άπεργαζόμενα, ο καλεί πλάσιν γυναικός ό

ποιητής. ( 6 8 . 2 4 - 6 9 . 4 = ^ 6 8 6 5 , ρ. 138.8-13)

inque dies magis hi victum vitamque priorem commutare novis monstrabant rebus et igni ingenio qui praestabant et corde vigebant. (5.1105-7)

inde casas postquam ac pellis ignemque para-runt,

et mulier coniuncta viro concessit in unum

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)

T h e para l le ls i n the last 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 softening 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 t e c h n o l o g y

a n d its c o m f o r t s , a n d is o n l y c o m p a r e d to the effects o f a w o m a n ' s c h a r m s .

Y e t t h e d ivergence is e x p l i c a b l e i f w e assume t h a t Tzetzes 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 e q u a t i o n ; a n d ignis . . . curavit ut corpora frigus . . .

non ita iam possent. . .ferre p r o v i d e s a n excel lent gloss for t h e otherwise r a t h e r

m y s t e r i o u s phrase θερμότερων πραγμάτων ώρέχθησαν.

Tzetzes ' a c c o u n t , n o less t h a n the paral le ls i n choice a n d a r r a n g e m e n t o f

m a t e r i a l b e t w e e n L u c r e t i u s a n d D i o d o r u s , p r o v i d e s g r o u n d s for b e l i e v i n g

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 d e p e n d e n t , i n p a r t

a t least, o n a c o m m o n source; a n d i f this hypothesis is correct , Tzetzes h i m

self is a fifth a u t h o r d e p e n d e n t o n t h e same s o u r c e . 1 6 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 o u r five texts c a n be s u m m a r i z e d as f o l l o w s :

1 6 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. The simple life breeds peace and harmony; its privations develop in man a corresponding 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 occasionally 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'

COMMON MOTIFS IN F I V E A N C I E N T HISTORIES OF T E C H N O L O G Y 23

S U B J E C T P A R A L L E L T R E A T M E N T S

DlODORUS VlTRUVIUS T Z E T Z E S LUCRETIUS PoSIDONIUS

1. D i s c o v e r y of fire. * * *

2. M e t a l l u r g y a n d its a p

plications. * * *

3. S u m m a r y of qualities

w h i c h enable m e n to

develop technology. * * *

4. L i f e of e a r l y m a n ; r e

volutionary effect of dis

covery of fire. * *

T h e existence o f a single source is n o t g u a r a n t e e d . T h e r e is n o one i t e m

w h i c h appears i n a l l f ive texts ; hence i t is conce ivable t h a t the f o u r i tems

come u l t i m a t e l y f r o m d i f f e r e n t accounts w h i c h w e r e subsequent ly c o m b i n e d

i n d i f f e r e n t ways b y o u r f ive 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 possible, f u r t h e r test ing . Such a source, i f i t

existed, m a y have been a sort o f H e l l e n i s t i c koine o n t h e subject o f c u l t u r a l

o r i g i n s — a c o l l e c t i o n o f i so lated observat ions o r s u m m a r y bits o f d o c t r i n e

l i n k e d loosely 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 exist

ence, 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 o f the a r t s . 1 7 O n t h e o t h e r h a n d ,

i t m a y have been s o m e t h i n g m o r e a m b i t i o u s , a c o n t i n u o u s a n d u n i f i e d

whole account, both in its form and in its content, so closely parallels surviving descriptions of the kynikos bios (see below, pp. 149-51) 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. The 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). The 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.

1 7 Cf. Spoerri's view (163) of Diodorus 1.8: "einen Bericht . . . der dem allgemeinen Bildungsgut seiner Zeit entsprach." The 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, Gnomon 33.775).


e x p o s i t i o n i n accordance 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 , one o u g h t t o be able to de

tect 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 l ines 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 bel ieve t h a t such l ines o f t r e a t m e n t are d iscernib le a n d shal l

a t t e m p t to trace t h e m i n the c h a p t e r w h i c h fol lows. T h e discussion w i l l seek

t o resolve, as n e a r l y as possible, the source p r o b l e m raised 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 rs 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 the

speculat ive t r a d i t i o n w h i c h t h e y represent.

C H A P T E R T W O

A P A T T E R N O F P R E H I S T O R Y

T h e Kulturgeschichte w h i c h emerges f r o m the five texts considered i n C h a p t e r

O n e m a y be d i v i d e d for 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. These 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 each

one is represented, are g i v e n i n o u t l i n e f o r m o n page 26. T h e a c c o u n t w h i c h

they e m b o d y is c o n t i n u o u s f r o m the b e g i n n i n g s o f t h e h u m a n race to the

beginnings o f r e c o r d e d h i s t o r y . 1 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

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 ab

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 o r 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 take the f o r m o f a n a t t e m p t to satisfy these needs,

first i n a r u d i m e n t a r y , t h e n i n a m o r e c o m p l i c a t e d w a y : c a v e - l i v i n g a n d

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 iscovery o f fire, houses, gar

ments o f skins a n d c u l t i v a t e d grains (Stage 3 ) . O c c u r r i n g at a b o u t t h e same

t i m e as t h e discovery o f fire are t h e b e g i n n i n g s o f society a n d l a n g u a g e

(4A, B ) . B o t h d e v e l o p m e n t s are necessary for t h e m o r e e laborate t e c h n o

logies descr ibed i n Stage 5 : f i re 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 take 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 the hands a n d i n g e n u i t y (6) r e q u i r e d for t h e c r e a t i o n o f the useful

arts, i t is o n l y the p o o l i n g o f a n u m b e r o f ta lents w h i c h makes 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 ine arts c o m e

at a l a t e r stage ( 7 ) , once the pressure to create needed i n v e n t i o n s has eased

somewhat a n d m a n c a n t u r n to p u r s u i t s w h i c h m i n i s t e r to pleasure as w e l l

as u t i l i t y . F i n a l l y , since the 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 specula

tive one, its r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f h u m a n progress concludes w i t h the i n v e n t i o n

o f the a l p h a b e t a n d w r i t t e n records ( 8 A ) ; w h a t happens thereafter is the

concern o f the h i s t o r i a n o r t h e a n t i q u a r y , n o t o f t h e speculat ive 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 95.193-211, and Borle, MusHelv 19.162—76. Reinhardt's attempt (Poseidonios 4 0 4 - 4 0 6 ) to decompose Vitruvius 3 4 . 6 - 3 6 . 1 8 into two separate strata is discussed in Appendix I I .

25


T A B L E i

Stages in the Development of Culture Occurrence in Texts Vitr. Diod. Tze. Lucr. Pos.

1. A The earliest men: nomadic * * * B and dependent on food gathering for their

subsistence; * * * C fire, clothing, and shelter are unknown, * * * D as well as the art of storing food; starvation

is frequent. * * *

2. A Initial provisions made for shelter * * * * B and for the gathering and storing of food. * *

3. A Discovery of houses, * * * B clothing, * C fire, * * * * D and grain and its method of preparation. * *

4. A Formation of the first societies * * * B and the first languages; * * * C competition and emulation stimulate the

growth of the useful arts. * * *

5. A Further development of technology made possible by fire: * * *

B mining and metallurgy, producing tools which are used in the development or improvement of * * *

C warfare, * * D weaving, * * E and agriculture; * * * F 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 The non-essential arts, among them * B astronomy, * * C and music. * * *

8. A Conclusion: the stage of civilization described in our earliest written documents; * *

B their late origin accounts for the speculative character of all reconstructions of prehistory. * *

S u c h , i n barest 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 f ive

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

consider 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

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 ,

A P A T T E R N O F P R E H I S T O R Y 27

i . The earliest men: (A) nomadic, and (B) dependent on food-gathering for their subsistence; (G) they lack fire, clothing, and shelter, (D) as well as the art of storing food; starvation is frequent.

T Z E T Z E S

( A ) ol τότε δε των ανθρώπων

. . . άγελαΐον διεζων τον βίον

δίκην ποιμνίων επι νομάς έζιόν-

(Β) καϊ τοις άκροδρυοις κοινώς και τοις λαχάνοις τρεφόμενοι.

(C) γυμνοί δε οΰτω τυγχά-

νοντες και σκέπης και χρη-

L U C R E T I U S

( A ) volgivago vitam tracta-bant more ferarum. (5.932)

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 ferarum. ( 5 - 9 5 3 - 5 4 )

guentia leto / membra dabat. ( 5 . 1 0 0 7 - 8 )

D I O D O R U S

(Α) τους δε εξ άρχης γεννη-

θεντας των ανθρώπων φασιν εν

άτάκτω και θηριώδει βίω καθε-

στώτας σποράδην επι τάς νομάς

εζιεναι,

(Β) και προσφερεσθαι της τε

βοτάνης την προσηνεστάτην και

τους αυτομάτους από των δέν

δρων καρπούς. ( ΐ .8 . ι )

(G) τους οΰν πρώτους τών αν

θρώπων μηδενός τών προς βίον

χρησίμων εύρημενου επιπόνως

διάγειν, γυμνούς μεν εσθητος

όντας> οΐκήσεως τε και πυρός

άήθεις τροφής τε ήμερου παντε

λώς άνεννοήτονς.

(D) και γάρ την συγκομιδην

της άγριας τροφής άγνοοΰντας

μηδεμίαν τών καρπών εις τάς

ένδειας ττοιεΐσθαι παράθεσιν. διό

και πολλούς αυτών άπολλνσθαι

κατά τους χειμώνας διά τε το

φΰχος και την σπάνιν της τροφής.

(1.8.5-6)

T h e para l le ls here are q u i t e close. O f t h e basic lacks w h i c h are l i s ted 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 ; Tzetzes, 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 : f ire'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 iscovery at 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 to a n i n i t i a l i g n o r a n c e o f h o w to 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 reason f o r

the omission is perhaps to be f o u n d i n a n ear l ier passage o f B o o k V , w h i c h

explains t h a t the earliest m e n l i v e d at a t i m e w h e n t h e spontaneous p r o d u c t s

o f the e a r t h were 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 iam maiora ferebat. mul taque praeterea novitas t u r n florida m u n d i pabula d u r a t u l i t , miseris mortal ibus ampla .

This contradic ts 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 place

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 absent f r o m

(D) και μηδε καρπούς και ά- D) penuria deinde cibi lan-κρόδρυα προς άποθήκας συν-

αγαγεΐν ειδότες, άλλα μόνην

εσθίοντες τροφήν την έφήμερον

χειμώνος γεγονότος πολλοί δι-

εφθείροντο. ( ΐ37·3°-44)

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.


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 even 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

a c c o u n t , a l t h o u g h i t c a n be p a r a l l e l e d i n Tzetzes (see above, C h a p . I , note

1 6 ) . 3 I t is doubtless t h e presence o f this s t r a i n i n his w o r k w h i c h makes 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 scarc i ty o f f o o d .

T h e close v e r b a l para l le l s b e t w e e n D i o d o r u s a n d Tzetzes m a y be the

resul t o f d i r e c t b o r r o w i n g (see above, p p . 2 0 - 2 2 , w i t h n o t e 1 6 ) ; hence i t

c o u l d be a r g u e d t h a t th is p a r t , a t a n y r a t e , o f Tzetzes' a c c o u n t does n o t p r o

v i d e i n d e p e n d e n t evidence f o r t h e existence o f a c o m m o n source. B u t the

para l le ls ( n o t e d above , p p . 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

1 A 4 suggest t h a t here , as elsewhere, Tzetzes is c o n f l a t i n g m a t e r i a l t a k e n

d i r e c t l y f r o m D i o d o r u s w i t h a n a c c o u n t w h i c h goes b a c k u l t i m a t e l y to

t h e same source 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 . 5

3 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" involved ; see below, Chap. X , note 71.

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. The only other occurrence of the word is in 4 .1071: volgivaga Venus ( = Aphrodite pandemos), and this usage supports our interpretation. 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 relationships 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.

5 The same may be indicated by Tzetzes' use of the phrase skepes . . . epideeis ( 1 C ; contrast oikeseos... aetheis at the corresponding point in Diodorus). The 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. The 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). The preoccupation with physical and biological considerations suggested by Tzetzes' phraseology is not found to anything like the same degree in Diodorus; and it is, on the other hand, very much in evidence throughout the accounts of both Lucretius and Tzetzes (see below, pp. 7 8 - 7 9 and 1 7 0 - 7 2 ) .


I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t Stage 1 appears i n o n l y three o f o u r f ive texts .

T h e reasons for 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

( b e l o w , p . 3 5 ) .

2. (A) Initial provisions made for shelter and (B) the gathering and storing of food.

D I O D O R U S

(A) έκ δε τούτον κατ ολίγον υπό της πείρας διδασκόμενους εις τε τά σπήλαια καταφεύ-γειν εν τω χειμώνι

T Z E T Z E S

(Α) λοιπόν κατά μικρόν

τήν ανάγκην άγοντες

διδάσκαλον, τά κοίλα

L U C R E T I U S

(A) denique nota vagis silvestria templa tene-bant . . . nemora atque

των δένδρων και τά cavos montis silvasque

P O S I D O N I U S

(A) [Men first lived] sparsos et cavis casis tectos aut aliqua rupe suffossa aut exesae

(Β) και τών καρπών

τους δυνάμενους φυλάτ-

τεσθαι άποτίθεσθαι.

( ι .8.7)

δασεα και τάς σχισμάς

τών πετρών και τά

σπήλαια ύπεδνοντο.

(Β) καϊ τους καρπών

Βνναμενονς φυλάττεσ-

θαι μόλις γνωρίσαντες

κάί άπαξ αυτούς συνα-

γείραντες εν τοΐς σπη-

λαίοις εναπετίθεντο και

τούτοις ετρεφοντο δι

ολου ενιαυτοΰ.

(9°·7)

colebant et frutices arboris trunco. inter condebant squal-ida membra, verbera ventorum vitare im-brisque coacti. ( 5 . 9 4 8 -57)

(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 clear 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 948 a n d the coacti o f

957 at least i m p l y t h a t here, as i n D i o d o r u s a n d Tzetzes, 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 , to take shelter. T h e three

texts are thus r a t h e r s h a r p l y set o f f f r o m most o t h e r a n c i e n t accounts o f t h e

life o f e a r l y m e n , w h i c h of ten 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 tse 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 whose d iscovery is w o r t h y o f

a t t e n t i o n . 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 this re

spect; he s i m p l y says t h a t t h e f irst 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

equal ly 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

food 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 the r e m a r k t h a t t h e f irst 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 here to suggest

that 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 above

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 this c o n

clusion 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 Posidonius , a n d t h e

8 Cf. Hymn. Horn. 2 0 . 4 ; Aeschylus, / T 4 5 3 ; Moschion, Fr . 6 . 5 - 6 ( T G F 8 1 3 ) ; Diodorus 5.39.5.

3 « 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

reference g i v e n t h e r e t o e a r l y modes o f shelter is as b r i e f as V i t r u v i u s ' . M e n

are sa id t o h a v e l i v e d o r i g i n a l l y sparsos et cavis casis tectos aut aliqua rupe

suffossa aut exesae arboris trunco ( 9 0 . 7 ) . N o t e , h o w e v e r , t h a t cavis casis, rupe

suffossa, a n d exesae arboris trunco c o r r e s p o n d e x a c t l y to the σπήλαια, σχισμάς

των πετρών a n d κοίλα τών δένδρων m e n t i o n e d b y Tzetzes. H e r e , p e r h a p s , t h e

resemblance 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.

V I T R U V I U S

( A ) [ In 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. ( 3 4 - 6 - 9 )

P O S I D O N I U S

( A ) [Philosophy taught the men who were initially] casis cavis tectos aut aliqua rupe suffossa aut exesae arboris trunco tecta moliri. (90.7)

L U C R E T I U S

( A ) inde casas postquam

(B) ac pellis

(C) quodam in loco ab tem-pestatibus 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 )

D I O D O R U S

(Ο) γενομένου γαρ εν τοις ορεσι

κεραυνοβόλου δένδρου και της

πλησίον ΰλης καομένης, προσ-

ελθόντα τον "Ηφαιστον . . .

ήσθήναι' . . . λήγοντος δε τοΰ

πυρός αεί της ΰλης έπιβάλλειν και

τούτω τω τρόπω διατηρονντα τό

πυρ προκαλεΖσθαι τους άλλους.

( ' · Ι 3·3)

(Ι)) πρώτον μεν γαρ παΰσαι της

άλληλοφαγιας τό τών ανθρώπων

γένος, εύρούσης μεν "Ισιδος τόν

τε τον πυρον καϊ της κριθής

καρπόν, . . . τοΰ δε Όσίριδος

έπινοησαμένου και την τούτων

κατεργασίαν τών καρπών, ι/δεως

μεταθέσθαι πάντας τήν τροφήν

διά τε τήν ήδονήν της φύσεως

τών ευρεθέντων και διά τό

φαίνεσθαι συμφέρον νπάρχειν

άπέχεσθαι της κατ* αλλήλων

ώμότητος. (1.14-1)

(G) ignemque p a r a r u n t . . . . (5.1011)

fulmen detulit in terram mor-talibus ignem. . . . et ramosa tamen cum ventis pulsa vacil-lans / aestuat in ramos in-cumbens arboris arbor, / exprimitur validis extritus viribus ignis, / et micat inter-dum flammai fervidus ardor / mutua dum inter se rami stirpesque teruntur, / quorum utrumque dedisse potest mor-talibus 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

Text Box

A P A T T E R N O F P R E H I S T O R Y 3 I

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 sat isfactory f o r m o f shelter,

a n d t h e discovery a n d p r e p a r a t i o n o f g r a i n . N o one o f these i tems is present

i n m o r e t h a n three texts, a n d o n l y L u c r e t i u s conta ins 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 his 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 re ferred to i n 5 . 1 1 0 2 ) . 7 Since, h o w e v e r , t h e y r e p

resent e x a c t l y the necessities o f l i fe whose absence was n o t e d i n Stage 1, a n

a c c o u n t o f t h e i r d iscovery was t o be expected. A n d the a s s u m p t i o n o f a

c o m m o n source is the one w h i c h best expla ins t h e p a r t i a l s i m i l a r i t i e s be

t w e e n o u r texts a t this p o i n t . 8

7 The 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." (On the relation of such sources to the tradition followed by our five texts, see below, Chap. I l l , note 7.)

8 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. The 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." The 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). The 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):

[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. The 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. It is possible, of course, that Seneca is using a Posidonian description of early housing for his own purposes. In 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. It is quite conceivable, for example, that Seneca is here using Vitruvius directly.


L u c r e t i u s ' a c c o u n t o f the d iscovery 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 para l le l s , is n o t essentially d i f

ferent f r o m theirs . 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 the t w o w h i c h a p p e a r separate ly 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 t o g e t h e r 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 the p r e

c e d i n g one. Stage 2 m a y be said to represent the most e l e m e n t a r y , O r

" t r i a l a n d e r r o r " , phase i n the d e v e l o p m e n t o f techniques for s u r v i v a l . T h e

caves, th ickets , a n d h o l l o w trees m e n t i o n e d b y Tzetzes a n d Posidonius were

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 chance as t h e y w a n d e r e d

i n search o f f o o d , o r i n w h i c h t h e y w e r e forced t o take refuge as t h e y fled

f r o m t h e w i l d beasts o r t h e elements (cf. coacti i n L u c r e t i u s 2 A a n d την

ανάγκην σχόντες δώάσκαλον i n t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g passage f r o m Tzetzes) . A

l o n g process o f t r i a l a n d e r r o r (cf., i n 2B, Tzetzes' μόλις γνωρίσαντες a n d

D i o d o r u s ' κ α τ ' ολίγον υπό της πείρας διδασκόμενους) t a u g h t t h e m w h i c h

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 achievements 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 l i fe g r e a t l y f r o m t h a t o f the

a n i m a l s . 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 the fire episode m a n ceases to 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 react ions are s i m p l y those o f c u r i o s i t y a n d pleasure at the w a r m t h

w h i c h he experiences; e v e n t u a l l y , h o w e v e r , he m u s t get the i d e a o f a d d i n g

fue l to sustain t h e b laze a n d use his hands to 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 have the prometheia to take the c o n s t r u c t i v e steps

necessary to see t h a t the o p p o r t u n i t y does n o t sl ip 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 here, its m e r e p r e s e r v a t i o n , accounts

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 the l a t t e r , m e n e i ther re

p r o d u c e w h a t t h e y have observed, 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 the 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 analogous t o , t h o u g h n o t a n

exact c o p y of, w h a t has b e e n observed.

T h e second di f ference b e t w e e n Stages 2 a n d 3 is t h a t the 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, for t h e sake

o f c l a r i t y , b e e n separated f r o m t h e p r e c e d i n g one i n o u r t a b l e , describes

events w h i c h o c c u r at t h e same t i m e as, a n d are i n fact 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 competition and emulation on the growth of the useful arts.

8 Cf. Vitruvius' phrase (33.14) vetere more ut ferae.

A P A T T E R N OF P R E H I S T O R Y 33

V l T R U V I U S

(A) ergo cum propter ignis inventionem conventus initio apud homines et concilium et convictus esset natus et in unum locum plures convenirent. . . . (33-28-34.2)

(B) in eo hominum congressu cum profundebantur aliter 1 0 e spiritu voces quotidiana con-suetudine vocabula ut obti-gerant constituerunt.1 1 deinde significando res saepius in usu ex eventu fari fortuito co-eperunt, et ita sermones inter se procreaverunt. ( 3 3 . 2 4 - 2 8 )

(C) observantes aliena tecta et adicientes suis cogitationibus res novas efficiebant in dies meliora genera casarum . . . quotidie inventionibus glori-antes alius alii ostendebant aedificiorum effectus et ita exercentes ingenia certationi-bus in dies melioribus iudiciis efficiebantur. (34.12-14)

ϋιοϋοκυβ (Α) και πολεμουμένους μεν υπό

των θηρίων άλλήλοις βοηθεΐν

υπό τον συμφέροντος διδασκό

μενους, αθροιζόμενους δε δια

τον φόβον έπιγινωσκειν έκ τον

κατά μικρόν τους αλλήλων

τύπους. ( ι .8.2)

θειναι δε φασι και νόμους την

"Ισιν, καθ' ους άλλήλοις διδοναι

τους ανθρώπους τό δίκαιον και

. . . ύβρεως παύσασθαι δια τον

από τιμωρίας φόβον. ( ι .Ι4·3)

(Β) τής φωνής δ' άσημου και

συγκεχυμένης ούσης, εκ του

κατ ολίγον διαρθροϋν τάς λέξ

εις, και προς αλλήλους τιϋέν-

τας σύμβολα περι εκάστου των

υποκειμένων γνώριμον σφίσιν

αύτοΐς ποιήσαι την περι απάν

των έρμηνείαν. (1.8.3)

( G ) προτιμάσθαι δε παρα τω

Όσίριδι . . . τούς τάς τέχνας

ανευρίσκοντας ή μεθοδεύοντας

τι των χρησίμων" διόπερ . . . την

γήν εργαζομένους φιλοτίμως

έξημερώααι την χώραν.

ί 1 · ' 5 - 4 - 5 )

L U C R E T I U S

(A) [Once fire and the comforts of family life had effected a softening of man's nature]

tunc et amicitiem coeperunt iungere aventes / finitimi inter sc nec laedere nec violari. ( 5 . 1 0 1 9 - 2 0 )

(B) at varios linguae sonitus natura subegit / mittere, et utilitas expressit nomina rerum. ( 5 . 1 0 2 8 - 2 9 ) ' 2

(C) inque dies magis hi victum vitamque priorem / com-mutare novis monstrabant rebus et igni / ingenio qui praestabant et corde vigebant./ condere coeperunt urbes . . . / . . . reges . . . / et pecus atque agros divisere atque dedere / pro facie cuiusque et viribus ingenioque. (5.1105—12)

1 0 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 emendations (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 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.

3 4 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

O u r texts g ive d i f f e r e n t reasons for 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

place 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

aggregat ions arise t o p r o v i d e p r o t e c t i o n against t h e w i l d a n i m a l s , a n d the

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 b e t w e e n this event a n d t h e t e c h n o l o g i c a l de

v e l o p m e n t s w h i c h he describes is n o t m a d e c l e a r . 1 3 V i t r u v i u s makes the

nucleus o f t h e f irst society t h e observers a n d users o f t h e f irst fire. I n L u c r e t i u s ,

f i r e , c l o t h i n g , a n d f a m i l y l i fe p r o d u c e a sof tening o f m a n ' s d i s p o s i t i o n w h i c h

makes 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 his fel lows (5 .1011-18) .

S u c h differences are 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 at first seem. I t w i l l be

s h o w n l a t e r t h a t t h e v iews o f D i o d o r u s a n d V i t r u v i u s o n t h e o r i g i n o f

society are n o t , p e r h a p s , i n c o m p a t i b l e ( b e l o w , 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 to his school (cf. the

p a r a l l e l passage i n Tzetzes c i t e d above ( 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 his p r e s e n t a t i o n w h i c h d o seem t o be t y p i c a l l y , i f n o t ex

c lus ive ly , 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 , therefore , be

t h e resul 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 whose 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 be low,

p p . 7 8 - 7 9 ) . E v e n at t h e present p o i n t i n o u r discussion i t s h o u l d be clear

t h a t t h e differences b e t w e e n o u r three accounts are 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 . Hephaestus 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 fe l lows 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 advances

t h r o u g h i m i t a t i o n a n d e m u l a t i o n a m o n g a n u m b e r o f b u i l d e r s ( 4 C ) ; a n d

O s i r i s , i n the E g y p t i a n c o u n t e r p a r t t o this episode, establishes r e w a r d s for

i n v e n t o r s . 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 rewards

t o o k t h e f o r m o f grants o f l a n d ; 1 5 a n d this is c o n f i r m e d b y the p a r a l l e l i n

L u c r e t i u s 5.1111. Ingenium ( a l o n g with fades a n d vires) receives agros as its

r e w a r d i n p r i m i t i v e s o c i e t y — p r e s u m a b l y t h e same ingenium t h a t is d a i l y

1 3 The entire arrangement of Diodorus 1.8 is peculiar, the result, probably, of the original inclusion 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. The passage is not based on Posidonius, and the parallel with Vitruvius is not, at any rate, very close. The 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 90.40 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 In the closely related account of Leo (see below, pp. 3 8 - 3 9 ) Osiris bestows an ager on the discoverer of wool (FGrH 6 5 g F 9 a ) .


t r a n s f o r m i n g m a n ' s w a y o f l i fe t h r o u g h f i re a n d the novae res t h a t c o m e w i t h

i t .

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 this

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 descr ibed are such as are n o t l i k e l y

to occur so l o n g as m a n lives i n a n i so lated 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 c o n s t a n t tendance , hence c a n n o t exist w i t h o u t at least a r u d i

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 requires some l u c k o r i n g e n u i t y

everyone is n o t l i k e l y to 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 become p r e

v a l e n t o n l y w h e n the 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 p lace 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 ta lents . I n Posidonius these f i rs t i n v e n t o r s a p p e a r as a special

class o f phi losophers 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 give a g e n e r a l h i s t o r y

o f the race b u t m e r e l y to t e l l o f p h i l o s o p h y ' s services to i t , p r o b a b l y expla ins

his omiss ion o f Stage i . Phi losophers are n o t needed 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 to the f o l l o w i n g o n e ; hence the t r a n s i t i o n a n d w h a t

precedes i t l i e outside t h e scope o f Posidonius ' n a r r a t i v e . S i m i l a r considera

tions e x p l a i n the 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 d e v e l o p m e n t .

T h e sapientes o f Posidonius bear a c e r t a i n resemblance b o t h to 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, to w h o m L u c r e t i u s assigns a p r o m i n e n t ro le i n

the d e v e l o p m e n t o f t e c h n o l o g y . B u t t h e resemblance s h o u l d n o t be over

emphasized. 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 over

a n d i m i t a t e d b y others , 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

day w o u l d be t h e passive observer o f t h e n e x t , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e vagaries o f

accident 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 to 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 thus n o reason to

a b a n d o n o u r ear l ier c o n t e n t i o n (above, p p . 18-19) t h a t t h e sapientes r e p

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 Posidonius 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 .

T h i s c o n c l u s i o n is, i n fact , c o n f i r m e d b y a f u r t h e r c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n

Posidonius a n d t h e a u t h o r s whose accounts are r e p r o d u c e d u n d e r headings

4 A , B, a n d C. N e i t h e r Tzetzes n o r Posidonius describes t h e o r i g i n o f society

for the s i m p l e reason 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 coeval w i t h

those o f t h e race. Tzetzes (VS I I 137.41-42) describes p r i m i t i v e men's

m u t u a l defense against 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 -


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 , he 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 resort u n d e r t h e pressure o f necessity, b u t as a n

expression o f the philallelia w h i c h was character i s t i c o f t h e race even i n the

earliest phases o f its existence. S i m i l a r l y , Posidonius sees i n t h e primi mortalium

m e n w h o naturam incorruptam sequebantur ( 9 0 . 4 ) — h e n c e d i s p l a y e d f r o m the

outset a w i l l i n g submiss ion to the r u l e o f t h e b e t t e r , i .e. the sapientes, i n t h e i r

m i d s t . 1 6 I t is j u s t possible t h a t this n o t i o n o f p r e h i s t o r y , w h i c h removes the

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 perspect ive, is the

o r i g i n a l one i n t h e 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 t h e extens ion o f this

perspect ive t o i n c l u d e s o c i e t y — a n extens ion 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

cons idered a v e r y r e m o t e one. F o r i t is h a r d to bel ieve 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 sociological 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 the result o f re

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 was 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

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 . F o r Posidonius, i t is the presence o f t h e

sapientes a n d , for Tzetzes, 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 sociological cons iderat ions ; a n d b y this t o k e n

b o t h m o t i f s are revea led as f o r e i g n to the o r i g i n a l f o r m o f the 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.

(Α) γνωσθεντος δε τον πυρός

και τών άλλων των χρήσιμων,

κατά μικρόν και τάς τέχνας

εΰρεθήναι και τάλλα τά δυνά

μενα τον βιον ώφελήσαι. (1.8.8)

L U C R E T I U S

( A ) inque dies magis hi vic'tum vitamque priorem / commu-tare novis monstrabant rebus et igni / ingenio qui praesta-bant et corde vigebant. (5.1105-7)

T Z E T Z E S

(Α) επει δέ προμηθέατεροι

γεγονότες και προβουλευτικώ-

τεροι το πυρ εφεΰρον . . . και

τήν του βίου εκείνου μετέ-

στρεφαν διαγαιγήν. (138.8—ίο)

1 6 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. He 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 ) .

1 7 The 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.


DlODORUS

( Β ) εν τη Θηβαίοι χαλκουργείων

ευρεθέντων και χρυσείων,

L U C R E T I U S

( Β ) quod superest aes atque

P O S I D O N I U S

(B) in hoc quoque dissentio

et aens invenerint cum tn-cendio silvarum adusta tellus in summo venas iacentes lique-factas fudisset. (90.12)

aurum ferrumque repertumst / sapientes fuisse qui ferri metalla . . . / ignis ubi ingentis silvas ardore cremarat / . · · flam-mem ardor / . . . terram per-coxerat 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 videbant esse figura / atque lacu-narum 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 pro-cudendo. (5 .1241-65)

in illo quoque dissentio a Posidonio quod ferramenta fabrilia excogitata a sapienti-bus viris iudicat. (go. 11)

(C) οπλα τε κατασκευάσασθαι

δι ών τα. θηρία κτείνοντας (C) arma antiqua manus ungues dentesque fuerunt / et lapides et item silvarum frag-mina rami / et flamma atque igncs postquam sunt cognita primum. / posterius ferri vis est aerisque reperta. ( 5 . 1 2 8 3 - 8 6 )

(D) nexilis ante fuit vestis quam textile tegmen. / textile post ferrumst quia ferro tela parantur / nec ratione alia possunt tam levia gigni / in-silia ac fusi radii scapique sonantes. ( 5 . 1 3 5 0 - 5 3 )

(D) Posidonius . . . textrini quoque artem a sapientibus dixit inventam. . . .

(Ε) και τήν γήν εργαζομένους

φιλοτίμως έξημερώσαι την χω

ράν. (ι .Ι5·5)

(E) at specimen sationis et insitionis origo / ipsa fuit rerum primum natura creatrix, / arboribus quoniam bacae glandesque caducae / tempes-tiva 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)


V I T R U V I U S L U C R E T I U S

(F) turn autem instruentes (F) alid ex alio clarescere corde animo se et prospicientes videbant / artibus ad summum maioribus cogitationibus ex donee venere cacumen. varietate artium natis non casas (5 .1456-57) sed etiam domos . . . perficere coeperunt. ( 3 6 . 8 - 1 2 )

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 re o n m a n ' s w a y o f l i fe have a l r e a d y been n o t e d (above,

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 idea . A n d

t h o u g h t h e r e is n o t h i n g i n Posidonius o n the i n i t i a l d iscovery o f f i r e , the

s m e l t i n g o f metals a n d f a s h i o n i n g o f tools descr ibed i n Β i n his a c c o u n t w o u l d

o b v i o u s l y be imposs ib le w i t h o u t i t .

W e a v i n g ( D ) fo l lows t h e d iscovery o f m e t a l because, as L u c r e t i u s notes,

i t is imposs ib le w i t h o u t the 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

nings m a y go b a c k to t h e d iscovery 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

t h e use o f meta ls—hence its m e n t i o n at this p o i n t . T h e p l o w ( P o s i d o n i u s ) , 1 9

t h e g r a f t i n g o f trees ( L u c r e t i u s ) , a n d the extens ion o f the 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 examples o f such a d v a n c e s . 2 0 B o t h

D i o d o r u s a n d L u c r e t i u s n o t e t h e c o n n e c t i o n , a l t h o u g h L u c r e t i u s m e n t i o n s

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 the section d e v o t e d specif ical ly

t o a g r i c u l t u r e . 2 1 A l s o c o m m o n to 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 the i m

p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e d iscovery o f meta ls for w a r f a r e ( C ) . L u c r e t i u s inc ludes here,

a n d D i o d o r u s i n a subsequent passage, 2 2 a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n o f ear l ier m e t h o d s

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 ear l ier stage a n d is, i n fact ,

f o u n d there i n T z e t z e s . 2 3 T h e discrepancies here are r a t h e r m i n o r , suggesting

i n d i v i d u a l 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 c o m m o n t r a d i t i o n .

O n e a d d i t i o n a l t e x t s h o u l d be i n c l u d e d at th is p o i n t . T h e pr iest Leo's

1 8 Although Diodorus does not mention farming explicitly in 3 D , the passage in 1.14 which explains 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.

1 8 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.

2 0 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 antecedent phases: see the passage from Diogenes of Oenoanda discussed below, p. 56.

2 1 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.

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 Heracles-see belowj pp. 4 4 - 4 5 .

2 3 137.41—2: καϊ άλλήλοις κατά θηρίων προσεβοήθουν και συνεμάχοντο γυμνοί γνμναϊς ταις χερσί.


a c c o u n t o f the 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 (above,

p . 20) as c o m p l e t i n g the " E g y p t i a n " para l le l s to 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 a u t h o r s , 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 Leo'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 pr imus hominibus ostendisse diceretur, H a m m o n quendam ex Afr ica 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 uteretur et a l i q u i d pr imus invenisse diceretur. . . . (Hyginus, 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 pa lpat i arietis m o l l i t i e delectatum de-glubasse ov iculam, d u m q u e pertemptat et (quod facilitas materiae suadebat) tractu prosequente f i l u m e l i q u a t 2 4 i n pr is t in i retis m o d u m q u e m phi lyrae taeniis iunxerat texuisse. ( T e r t u l l i a n , De pallio 3)

T h e para l le ls 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 headings 3 C , 4 C , a n d 5 B — c o u l d h a r d l y be

closer. H e r e , as i n D i o d o r u s ( 4 C ) , the b a c k g r o u n d f o r d iscovery is Osir is '

i n s t i t u t i o n o f r e w a r d s for i n v e n t o r s (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 iscovery is e x a c t l y t h a t w h i c h l e d ear l ier to

f ire a n d m e t a l tools. A chance occurrence (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 pleasure (mollitie delectatum—cf. t h e pleasure at the f i re i n

D i o d o r u s [ 3 G ] a n d capti lepore i n L u c r e t i u s [ 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 this fashion the 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 the 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 at h a n d : t h e strands o f w o o l are

w o v e n together i n i m i t a t i o n o f a net 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 ] ) ; perhaps the t r a n s i t i o n t o t h e l a t t e r came

later i n Leo's a c c o u n t . 2 5

A l t h o u g h the technologies w h i c h appear i n this stage are f a i r l y c o m p l e x ,

the process l e a d i n g t o t h e i r d iscovery is essentially s i m i l a r t o t h a t envis ioned

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 a p p l i c a t i o n o f suggestions rece ived f r o m n a t u r e to

s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t contexts . F r o m the pools o f m o l t e n m e t a l w h i c h take the

shape o f the g r o u n d over 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 perhaps a greater leap o f the 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 the di f ference is one o f degree r a t h e r t h a n k i n d . T h e greater

achievements 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

powers 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 the resul t o f t h e p h e n o m e n o n

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 : one t h i n g leads to 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 So the mss. and editors, though elicit would seem to be the obvious and necessarv/a^e/itiojQ^cjj'jtut 2 6 For the Egyptians as inventors of weaving, see Ephorus FGrH 7 0 F 5 ; Pliny, JVH yh^Sk I j

II *U [

40 D E M O C R I T U S A N D 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 l i c a t e d , the range a n d n u m b e r o f s i tuat ions o u t o f w h i c h suggestions for n e w

i n v e n t i o n s arise is v a s t l y increased. Maiores cogitationes are i n v o l v e d ; b u t t h e y

are, as V i t r u v i u s makes clear, t h e result , n o t t h e cause, o f a vast ly 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.

L U C R E T I U S

usus et impigrae semel experientia mentis

paulatim docuit pedetemptim progredientis.

sic unumquicquid paulatim protrahit aetas

in medium ratioque in luminis erigit oras. (5 .1452-55)

ϋΐΟ-ΒΟ^υ^

καθόλου γαρ -πάντων την χρ€ίαν

αυτήν διδάσκαλον γενέσθαι τοις

άνθρώποις, ύφηγουμενην οΐ-

κείως τήν εκάστου μάθησιν εύ-

φυεϊ ζώω και συνεργούς έχοντι

προς άπαντα χείρας

και λόγον και φυχής άγχίνοιαν.

( i .S . i )

T Z E T Z E S

[Pandora stands for] ή πάντα δωρουμένη τω βία) συναγωγή

των τεχνών ή ή εκ πάντων τών

θεών και τών φυχικών δυ

νάμεων . . . συγκεκραμένη και

δώρα λαβοΰσα, εκ μεν γάρ πυρός

' Ηφαίστου τα υλικά και ορ

γανικά, εκ δε της φρονήσεως

*Αθηνάς το κατασκευαστικόν

και άγχίνουν . . . τό δ' αναιδές

και δραστήριον .. . εκ του Ερμού

. . . τοΰ προφορικού λόγου.

(79- 1 3~ 2 1 Gaisford)

V I T R U V I U S

[Men came together] habentes ab natura praemium praeter reliqua animalia ut non proni sed erecti ambularent mun-dique et astrorum magnifi-centiam aspicerent, item manibus et articulis quam vellent rem faciliter tractarent. (34-2-6)

cum ergo natura non solum sensibus ornavissent gentes quemadmodum reliqua animalia sed etiam cogitationibus et consiliis. et subiecisset cetera animalia sub potestate . . . e fera agrestique vitam ad man-suetam perduxerunt humani-tatem. ( 3 6 . 1 - 8 )

A s u m m a r y o f this sort c o u l d c o m e at a l m o s t a n y p o i n t i n a n a c c o u n t o f

the d e v e l o p m e n t o f t e c h n o l o g y . D i o d o r u s a n d Tzetzes a p p e n d i t t o t h e i r

descr ipt ions o f t h e f i rs t consequences o f the discovery o f f i r e ; V i t r u v i u s

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 the 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 to 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 , are 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 most

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 Tzetzes a n d w h i c h m a y l ie 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 .89-90: 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 4 I

N e e d (chreia) (or p e r h a p s " n e e d a n d use ," t h e u t i l i t a r i a n p r i n c i p l e ) 2 7 p r o

vides sui table i n s t r u c t i o n to a c r e a t u r e " n a t u r a l l y fit for 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), a n d

sharpness o f m i n d (anchinoia)." T h e f u n c t i o n o f the co-workers is f a i r l y c lear.

H a n d s m a k e possible the 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 capital izes u p o n those n a t u r a l processes o r accidents w h i c h c a n be m a d e

to serve m a n ' s purposes. T h e exact m e a n i n g o f the phrase 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 th is p o i n t ,

suggests t h a t m a n ' s u p r i g h t s tature 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 the most satisfactory i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . 2 8 I t expla ins b e t t e r 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 hands , sharpness o f m i n d , a n d speech as co

workers . F o r m a n ' s u p r i g h t s tature 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 ; 2 9 a n d b y causing his gaze t o go 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 to t h e a c t i o n o f cogita-

tiones a n d consilia: b y v i r t u e o f his b e i n g a fore- looker , m a n becomes a fore-

t h i n k e r as w e l l . 3 0 F o r the 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 to c a t c h the a t t e n t i o n o f o t h e r s ; 3 1 a n d the s p e c i a l i z a t i o n

o f hands as tool-users enables t h e m o u t h t o be used exc lus ive ly f o r c o m

m u n i c a t i o n . 3 2

2 7 Compare usus el experientia in Lucretius; and for usus as the Latin rendering of chreia, see Spoerri, 145, note 9. The 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.

2 8 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 tachutes dianoias as a component of eumathia in Photius, Cod. 249 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 Aristotle, Part. anim. 3 . 6 6 2 B 2 0 - 2 2 . 3 2 Cf. Gregory of Nyssa, Horn. opif. 8.144BC, 148C-49A—especially 144B: τή τοΰ λόγου χρεία

συνεργός εστί ή των χειρών υπουργία, and 144c: συνεργεΐν φημι τάς χείρας τί) εκφωνήσει τοΰ λόγου.


D i o d o r u s does n o t go 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 ta ture a n d his 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

t i v e u t i l i z a t i o n o f b o t h . 3 3 T o th is V i t r u v i u s adds a p u r e l y te leo logica l c o n

c e p t i o n : m a n ' s u p r i g h t p o s i t i o n enables h i m t o observe mundi et astrorum

magnificentiam. T h e i m p l i c a t i o n is, t o j u d g e f r o m o t h e r contexts w h e r e t h e

i d e a occurs, t h a t t h e s ight o f t h e s t a r r y heavens awakens m a n t o a n awareness

o f a d e s t i n y h i g h e r t h a n t h a t o f t h e c r e e p i n g a n d c r a w l i n g t h i n g s a r o u n d

h i m . 3 4 T h e d i s c r e p a n c y 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 imsel f . T h e n o t e s t r u c k here is a n i so lated one i n

his t e x t , w h i c h elsewhere shares t h e n o n - t e l e o l o g i c a l o r even a n t i - t e l e o l o g i c a l

m o o d o f D i o d o r u s a n d L u c r e t i u s . 3 5 R a t h e r t h a n assume a consistent 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 , one 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.

V I T R U V I U S

(A) postquam animadverterunt profusos esse partus naturae et abun-dantem materiae copiam ad aedificationes ab ea comparatam, tractando nutrierunt et auctam per artes ornaverunt voluptatibus elegantiam vitae. ( 3 6 . 1 4 - 1 8 )

D I O D O R U S L U C R E T I U S P O S I D O N I U S

(Β) περί τε TTJS των άστρων (Β) sol et luna . . . / perdo-τάξεως cuerunt homines annorum

tempora verti / et certa ra-tione geri rem atque ordine certo. ( 5 . 1 4 3 7 - 3 9 )

3 3 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 4 See the examples collected by Dickermann, 9 3 - 1 0 1 , S. Pantzerhielm Thomas, "The 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 5 Against Pfligersdorfer's teleological interpretation (SBWien 232, No. 5 , 135-42) of the important 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 .


D l O D O R U S

(G) και περι τής των φθόγγων

αρμονίας . . . τούτον [Hermes] πρώτον γενέσθαι παρατηρη-

τήν . . . και τής ευρυθμίας και τής

περί το σώμα πρεπούσης πλάσεως

έπιμεληθήναι. ( ι . ι 6 . ι)

L U C R E T I U S

(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.

( 5 - I 3 7 9 - 8 3 )

P O S I D O N I U S

(G) vis scire quid ilia [philo-sophia] 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)

W i t h these i tems a n e n t i r e l y n e w phase is reached. 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 to be discovered. Posidonius ' 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

authors gives a n e x p l a n a t i o n for this 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 one. T h e l a t t e r notes t h a t , after m e n h a d observed t h a t

they 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 to

ornare voluptatibus a l i fe w h i c h was a l r e a d y auctam per artes. T h e sequence

artes-copiam-voluptates 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 rs 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 subsequent w r i t e r s , 3 7 b e t w e e n 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 surplus has a r i s e n . 3 8 T h e reference t o m u s i c , w h i c h

V i t r u v i u s ' exc lusively a r c h i t e c t u r a l subject makes i m p o s s i b l e , is f o u n d i n

L u c r e t i u s , D i o d o r u s , a n d Posidonius . L u c r e t i u s adds a s t r o n o m y , a n d

Posidonius d a n c i n g , to t h e l is 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 ten ,

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 are a l l

to be 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

3 6 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 7 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. The parallel between Vitruvius and Democritus is noted by 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. It is quite possible, however, that the Democritean conception was the one found in Vitruvius' source. The 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 com-parata 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 (5B and 3 C ) , Diodorus ( 3 C ) and Vitruvius ( 3 C ) .

4

4 4 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

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.

D l O D O R U S

(Α) κατά τους Τρωικούς χρόνους, ore τα πλείστα

μέρη της οικουμένης εζημερωτο γεωργιαις και

πόλεσι και πλήθει των κατοικούντων την χωράν

πανταχού. (1.24· 5)

(Β) τους μεν ούν πρώτους υπάρχοντας βασιλείς

ουτ' αύτοι λέγειν έ'χομεν ούτε των ιστορικών τοις

έπαγγελλομένοις είδέναι συγκατατιθέμεθα' αδύ

νατον γάρ τήν εύρεσιν τών γραμμάτων ούτως

είναι πάλαιαν ώστε τοις πρώτοις βασιλεύσι

ήλικώτιδα γενέσθαι, εί δέ τις και τούτο συγχω-

ρήσαι, τό γε τών ιστοριογράφων γένος παντελώς

φαίνεται νεωστι τω κοινω βίω συνεσταμένον. (ι .9.2)

L U C R E T I U S

(A) iam validis saepti degebant turribus aevum et divisa colebatur discretaque tellus, iam mare velivolis florebat. . . . 4 0

auxilia ac socios iam pacto foedere habebant,

(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 . 1 4 4 0 - 4 7 )

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 texts . T h e reason is t o be f o u n d i n the considerat ions w h i c h

a p p e a r here . 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. i ts a t t r i b u t i o n t o

H e r m e s i n D i o d o r u s [ 7 B ] ) . I t s i n v e n t i o n , a l o n g w i t h t h a t o f hero ic p o e t r y

( o f whose 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 accounts are c o n c e r n e d . H e n c e f o r t h invest iga

t i o n o f t h e past m u s t t a k e as its s t a r t i n g p o i n t w r i t t e n records, 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 ine 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 above 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 are, h o w e v e r , c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e same subject : de

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 occurs 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 labors o f Heracles 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 centur ies before 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

t h e 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 . 2 2 . 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.

4 0 With the walled towns and sailing of 1440—42 one should perhaps compare two passages in Seneca, Ep. 9 0 : turn arma nec muros nec bello utilia molitur philosophia (26) and posse nos vestitos esse sine

commercio sericorum ( 1 5 ) . 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 .


o u t m o d e d at t h e date assigned to 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 been c leared o f forests to 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 Herac les o b v i o u s l y belongs t o t h e earliest stages o f

h u m a n l i fe . 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 here 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 genera

t ions j u s t before t h e T r o j a n w a r , w h i c h witnessed t h e labors o f H e r a c l e s a n d

were 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

the i n t e r n a t i o n a l al l iances o f 1442-43 are possibly 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 the suitors, b o t h o f w h i c h figured i n a n e a r l i e r

a n d m o r e famous analysis o f the state o f society descr ibed i n t h e earl iest

Greek p o e t r y ( T h u c y d i d e s 1 . 9 ) . 4 2 D i o d o r u s a n d L u c r e t i u s thus c h a r a c t e r i z e

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 the generat ions i m m e d i a t e l y

p r e c e d i n g i t — i n i d e n t i c a l t e r m s ; a n d c o n t r a s t i t , e x p l i c i t l y o r i m p l i c i t l y , w i t h

w h a t h a d gone before. C o n c e i v a b l y , D i o d o r u s d r e w his observat ions f r o m a

c o n t e x t s i m i l a r t o t h e 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 evidence for the existence o f such a c o n t e x t i n D i o d o r u s ' source is

p r o v i d e d b y 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 sect ion at 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 r e m a r k s o n t h e

la te 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 records (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 the m e n t i o n o f a s i t u a t i o n (here

r u l e b y kings) whose 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 descr ibed

i n w r i t t e n accounts . K i n g s h i p o b v i o u s l y antedates these records, j u s t as does

the c i t y l i fe 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 ) ; hence k i n g s h i p re

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, l i k e t h e p r i o r h i s t o r y o f the d e v e l o p e d c i v i l i z a t i o n descr ibed i n 1 4 4 0 - 4 4 ,

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 accuracy . T h e s i m i l a r i t i e s here are r a t h e r

extensive; g i v e n the o t h e r para l le 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 be

m o r e t h a n c o i n c i d e n t a l .

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 r e m a r k a b l y consistent a n d closely-reasoned w h o l e . E v e n m o r e

s t r o n g l y t h a n t h e v e r b a l paral le ls 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. The 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 (MH 7 .205).

4 2 On 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 .

4 3 The parallel between this passage and Lucretius 5 . 1 4 4 4 - 4 7 was first pointed out by Dahlmann, 39, note 1.

4 4 See Appendix I , pp. 177-78 and ig i .


u n i t y a n d coherence o f p l a n requires t h e t h e o r y o f a c o m m o n source. O n e

f u r t h e r t y p e o f ev idence r e m a i n s t o be cons idered. I f o u r texts c a n be s h o w n

t o be 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 uniqueness 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 be 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 have j u s t a n a l y z e d

c a n be p a r a l l e l e d e lsewhere; 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 lear as w e a t t e m p t t o def ine its essential c h a r a c t e r a n d

consider i t i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e basic concept ions 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 .

C H A P T E R T H R E E

A L T E R N A T E P A T T E R N S O F KUL TURGESCHICHTE:

P O S S I B L E S O U R C E S

T h e c h a r a c t e r 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 u n d e r

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 , descr ibed 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 (above , p . 4 0 ) , t o t h e i n t e r a c t i o n

o f need , i n t e l l i g e n c e , h a n d s , a n d erect s ta ture . A l l these factors enter i n t o

the 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 be 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 th is 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 feature 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 to t h e

i n d i v i d u a l t e c h n o l o g i c a l advance , a n advance w h i c h is a lways p l a u s i b l y

a c c o u n t e d f o r i n t e r m s o f e m p i r i c i s t p s y c h o l o g y as t h e resul 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 each 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 fire

a n d t h e b r i g h t patches o f congealed m e t a l a t t r a c t first b y t h e pleasure t h e y

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 ] ) , pleasure, 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 considerat ions ( 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 change. S u c h i n d i v i d u a l episodes are t h e basic a n d essential

units i n the 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 occur . F o r the 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 here t o be acceptable , there m u s t be n o gaps i n t h e final a c c o u n t ,

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 .

Hence t h e d e t a i l w i t h w h i c h each episode is descr ibed a n d t h e p r e o c c u p a t i o n

w i t h establ ishing a p r o p e r sequence o f d e v e l o p m e n t s w h i c h is e v i d e n t i n

Lucret ius a n d P o s i d o n i u s . 1 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 at a l l p o i n t s . I t is th is 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

4 8 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

gives t o o u r accounts t h e i r essential a n d most character i s t i c features; a n d i t

is th is 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 to place t h e i r

t h e o r y i n t o t h e g e n e r a l c o n t e x t o f a n c i e n t Kulturgeschichte.

E u h e m e r i s t a n d h e u r e m a t i s t i c w r i t i n g s . T h e texts considered i n

C h a p t e r s O n e a n d T w o are i n a sense catalogues o f i n v e n t i o n s ; a n d one o f

those texts, D i o d o r u s 1.13-29, l i n k s its Kulturgeschichte v e r y closely to 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 to 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 thus come as n o surprise t h a t

t h e w r i t i n g s o f euhemerizers a n d heuremat is ts p r o v i d e the closest para l le ls

o f d e t a i l t o o u r f ive accounts . I n these w o r k s one f inds o n occasion, i n a d d i

t i o n t o t h e s i m p l e m e n t i o n o f a n i n v e n t o r , d i v i n e o r h u m a n , a d e s c r i p t i o n o f

t h e a c t u a l process o f d iscovery w h i c h recalls 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 . So, f o r e x a m p l e , w e are t o l d t h a t the Phoenic ians discovered 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

s t a i n e d its m o u t h ; a n d p o e t r y c a m e i n t o b e i n g w h e n a chance r h y t h m i c a l

u t t e r a n c e s t r u c k t h e f a n c y o f a l istener, 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 the one f r o m

L e o o n t h e o r i g i n s o f w e a v i n g (see above, 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 was thus n o t a lone i n the w a y i t conce ived o f the sepa

r 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 the e x c e p t i o n o f D i o d o r u s I ,

w h e r e t h e r e has been extensive c o n t a m i n a t i o n , n e i t h e r euhemerizers n o r

h e u r e m a t i s t s offer a n y c lear p a r a l l e l to the 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 carefu l

analysis w h i c h o u r texts g ive to t h e r o l e p l a y e d b y acc ident 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 , even i f t h e y go b a c k to 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 are i n s i g n i f i c a n t w h e n c o n

s idered separate ly ; 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 able to t r a n s f o r m

t h e c h a r a c t e r o f m a n ' s existence. F o r the euhemer is 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 are 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 resul t

i n t h e c o n f e r r i n g o f d i v i n e honors o n t h e m a n responsible for 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 mot i f s f r o m each o t h e r ; 3 a n d e i t h e r

2 See Cassiodorus, Variae 1.2.7 (Tyrian purple); Gregory Nazianzenus, Or. 4.108 (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 274 (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 .

3 The 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) . The euhemerizing account of

A L T E R N A T E P A T T E R N S OF KULTURGESCHICHTE: POSSIBLE SOURCES 49

c o u l d i n c o r p o r a t e o n occasion the 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 euhemeris t m i g h t find some i n v e n t i o n s too t r i v i a l to serve as sat isfactory

aitiai 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

the 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 was so r e m a r k a b l e as t o w i n h i m special

r e c o g n i t i o n f r o m soc ie ty . 4 Such m i n o r para l le ls d o n o t , h o w e v e r , lessen t h e

basic di f ference i n a p p r o a c h .

T h e h e u r e m a t i s t i c w r i t e r s , insofar as t h e y speak o f m o r t a l s o r w h o l e

nat ions as i n v e n t o r s , offer a s o m e w h a t closer p a r a l l e l . B u t t h e resemblance is

s t i l l 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 i n v e n t o r s the most

basic discoveries is o u t o f k e e p i n g w i t h the 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

a n n o u n c e d at the e n d o f L u c r e t i u s V . S u c h a p r o c e d u r e belongs t o h i s t o r y ,

n o t p r e h i s t o r y . M o r e o v e r , t h o u g h h e u r e m a t i s t i c w o r k s need n o t a lways have

t a k e n the f o r m o f b a r e cata logues , 5 a n y c o h e r e n t a r r a n g e m e n t t h e y gave to

t h e i r n a r r a t i v e w o u l d a lmost i n e v i t a b l y have been t o p i c a l , t r a c i n g t h e g r o w t h

o f each a r t f r o m its b e g i n n i n g t o the a u t h o r ' s o w n d a y . S u c h a m e t h o d

w o u l d have m a d e a n y c o n n e c t e d h i s t o r i c a l r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f p r i m i t i v e

l i fe a lmost i m p o s s i b l e . 6 O n c e m o r e , i t is f a i r l y c lear t h a t , 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 ) .

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 ) .

5 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

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 ( 1235-41) 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 24, 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.

5 ° D E M O C R I T U S A N D 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

connect ions w i t h o u r t r a d i t i o n , t h e y d o n o t e x t e n d b e y o n d scattered

b o r r o w i n g s . 7

I n c o m p a r i n g th is t r a d i t i o n w i t h o t h e r a n c i e n t t r e a t m e n t s o f the deve lop

m e n t o f t e c h n o l o g y one finds contrasts 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 cons idered . T h e b o d y o f w o r k s 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 lusive to p r o v i d e a satis

f a c t o r y basis f o r c o m p a r i s o n . These m a y f o r present purposes be i g n o r e d , as

w e l l as those w h i c h offer w h a t is essentially a n e n u m e r a t i o n o f achievements

r a t h e r t h a n a c o n n e c t e d ana lys i s . 8 W e are left w i t h a dozen o r so accounts

t h a t , l i k e o u r texts, e n v i s i o n a g r a d u a l 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

assign a p r o m i n e n t r o l e i n th is d e v e l o p m e n t t o the w o r k i n g s o f need a n d

u t i l i t y . B u t a l l o f t h e m are 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 are 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 f a v o r o f q u i t e d i f f e r e n t procedures . T h e i r n u m b e r is n o t l a r g e ; hence t h e y

m a y be p r o f i t a b l y cons idered i n d i v i d u a l l y f o r p o i n t s o f s i m i l a r i t y a n d c o n

trast t o o u r five texts .

T h e Protagoras m y t h . Protagoras , i f Plato 's a c c o u n t is t o be c r e d i t e d ,

c o n n e c t e d t h e g r o w t h o f t e c h n o l o g y (demiourgike techne) w i t h the 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 belligeratum est pugnis se quamlibet fervida unde bellum est dictum. 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. It 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 22, 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. . . ) . The 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.

8 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.

A L T E R N A T E P A T T E R N S O F KULTURGESCHICHTE: POSSIBLE SOURCES 51

n a t u r a l means o f p r o t e c t i o n against the 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 , labors . 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 , 9 as

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 for the 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 one w h i c h

appears i n D i o d o r u s ( 4 A ) . B u t Protagoras ' 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 se t t ing , is bas ica l ly 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 represent 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 have i f the species is to

s u r v i v e ; 1 0 there is n o reason w h y the d e v e l o p m e n t o f one 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 Plato'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 m y t h ,

w h i c h makes demiourgike techne a n d politike techne the gifts, respect ively , o f P r o

metheus a n d Zeus t o m a n k i n d , has o f ten been suspected as a P l a t o n i c a d d i

t i o n to t h e t h o u g h t o f t h e agnostic 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 have been 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 deve loped

g r a d u a l l y b y m a n k i n d to compensate for his p h y s i c a l i n f e r i o r i t y to the o t h e r

a n i m a l s . 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 contents o f t h e m y t h , p e r h a p s overcompensates f o r sus

pected P l a t o n i c r e w o r k i n g . 1 3 B u t even 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 go b e y o n d a v a g u e l y conce ived t h e o r y o f chal lenge a n d response;

o f t h e m o r e c a r e f u l a n d d e t a i l e d n a t u r a l i s t i c r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f 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 there is n o trace .

' In 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 . 7 6 ; 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.

1 0 For this interpretation see Kleingiinther, 105-6. 1 1 See Havelock, 4 0 7 - 9 , with the literature cited there. 1 2 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 . 1 9 5 - 2 3 4 ) 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 (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.

1 3 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] 1 5 6 - 7 8 ) . ,


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 o u r

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 ( the

d o m a i n s , respect ively , 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

n o e f for t to e x p l a i n i n h i s t o r i c a l t e r m s h o w t h e d i v i s i o n o f l a b o r b e t w e e n

f a r m e r , c a r p e n t e r , weaver , a n d shoemaker, w h i c h he assumes to be the

o r i g i n a l one 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

a n a l y t i c , l a c k i n g even t h e s u p e r f i c i a l l y h i s t o r i c a l a p p r o a c h o f t h e Protagoras

m y t h .

Timaeus, Critias, Politicus; Aristotle. I n a t h e o r y set f o r t h w i t h

m i n o r v a r i a t i o n i n three o f his la te w o r k s , P l a t o envisions t h e present 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 the scattered surv ivors o f a c a t a c l y s m

w h i c h destroyed 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 low 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 A r i s t o t l e , to j u d g e f r o m a l a t e r P e r i p a

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 to 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 f irst 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 catac lysms; he seems, h o w e v e r , to have been m o r e interested t h a n

his master i n t r a c i n g t h e d i f f e r e n t stages i n the 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 fe , m e n develop the

f ine arts , 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

m e t a p h y s i c s . 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 the f ine a n d useful

arts , a n d b o t h p h i l o s o p h e r s , w i t h t h e i r n o t i o n o f a l a b o r i o u s d e v e l o p m e n t o f

techniques t o m e e t t h e d i f f i cu l t ies 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 deve lop

m e n t o f t h e arts i n the s u m m a r y reports o f A r i s t o t l e ' s a c c o u n t w h i c h surv ive ,

b u t i t is conce ivable t h a t such 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 notices i n Plato's la te w o r k s , the c o n t e n t o f discus

sions 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 the f o u r t h c e n t u r y .

B u t P l a t o a n d A r i s t o t l e , even i f t h e y a l l o w for 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 to 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 th is analysis w i t h considerat ions 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. 2 7 3 A - 7 4 D . 1 5 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 .

1 6 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. The 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.

A L T E R N A T E P A T T E R N S O F K U L T U R G E S C H I C H T E : P O S S I B L E S O U R C E S 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 one phase o f a cycle ,

the o t h e r o f w h i c h is the 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 descr ibed i n t h e Politicus—times w h e n

there was n o need f o r t h e s low 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 the present era. A r i s t o t l e does n o t e n v i s i o n

such per iods 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 is interested s p e c u l a t i o n

o n the n a t u r e o f the universe a n d p u r e b e i n g occupies m a n ' s a t t e n t i o n . T h e

P l a t o n i c a n d A r i s t o t e l i a n concept ions are d i f f e r e n t , b u t t h e y resul t 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 for t t o recover 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 belongs p r o p e r l y to 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

e x i s t e n c e ; 1 7 o r else i t is a m e r e p r e p a r a t i o n for w h a t is o b v i o u s l y to be m a n ' s

t r u e v o c a t i o n .

I t is h a r d t o bel ieve t h a t such a t t i t u d e s c o u l d ever g ive 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 centered, 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 subject m a y be discussed, b u t

o n l y i n c i d e n t a l l y , b y w a y o f postscr ipt t o U t o p i a o r P r o l e g o m e n a to t h e

H i s t o r y o f P h i l o s o p h y . 1 8 W h a t t h e P l a t o n i c a n d A r i s t o t e l i a n a t t i t u d e c o u l d

a n d i n fact e v e n t u a l l y d i d g ive rise t o , w h e n c o m b i n e d w i t h one 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 the Kulturgeschichte o f Posidonius . T h e l a t t e r was

obvious ly impressed b o t h w i t h the achievements o f t e c h n o l o g y a n d w i t h the

a t tempts o f c e r t a i n t h i n k e r s to s u p p l y a n a t u r a l i s t i c a c c o u n t o f t h e i r o r i g i n .

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 the 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

1 7 On this aspect of the Politicus myth, see Havelock, 43. 1 8 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 15], 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 ) . The 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 B 1 5 4 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.)

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 of t e c h n o l o g y as a p r o l o g u e to p h i l o s o p h y . W h a t h a d been 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 the same cast o f characters

as t h e rest o f the p l a y . O n l y b y this m o d e o f p r o c e d u r e was 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 the s u b j e c t . 1 9

B u t 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 . 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 f ive

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 Posidonius ' f a i l u r e to effect a satis

f a c t o r y c o m p r o m i s e b e t w e e n t h e m .

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 i n t r o d u c e s a n e w e lement . T h e p e r i o d w h i c h fo l lows t h e cata

c l y s m is n o t one 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 cycle j u s t e n o u g h t e c h n o l o g y to satisfy t h e i r basic w a n t s a n d

at the same t i m e n o t e n o u g h to i n v o l v e t h e m i n the greed 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 ways 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 such a v i e w o f h i s t o r y

is even less l i k e l y t h a n t h e one j u s t e x a m i n e d to result i n a d e t a i l e d analysis

o f t h e g r o w t h o f the a r t s ; a n d i t removes a l t o g e t h e r f r o m the e v o l u t i o n a r y

perspect ive a large p o r t i o n o f t h e i tems covered i n o u r texts. A c c o r d i n g to

t h e thesis d e v e l o p e d b y P l a t o i n Laws I I I , some technologies ( 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 ) are never lost to m a n k i n d , hence never need to be re

d i s c o v e r e d . 2 1

D i c a e a r c h u s . L i k e t h e Protagoras m y t h , D i c a e a r c h u s ' s c h e m a t i z a t i o n o f

p r e h i s t o r y (see above, 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 descr ibed i n the Life of Greece are

p a r t o f a n a n a l y t i c scheme. T h e y represent t h e e x p l o i t a t i o n , respect ively , 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 at his disposal a n d are

a c t u a l l y so descr ibed 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 far

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. The latter combination could have been achieved just as easily by the "hard" primitivism found in Dicaearchus and Tzetzes (see below, pp. 148-51) .

2 0 Cf. Ep. 90.11: 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 The 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 P A T T E R N S O F KULTURGESCHICHTE: POSSIBLE SOURCES 55

as one c a n t e l l , to suggest w h y one stage s h o u l d precede the 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 expect , f o r e x a m p l e , t h a t

the techniques 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 appearance is, f o r some unspec i f ied 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 over. T h e w h o l e course o f d e v e l o p m e n t seems to

f o l l o w a p r e c o n c e i v e d p a t t e r n . F o o d g a t h e r i n g , p a s t u r i n g , a n d a g r i c u l t u r e

succeed each o t h e r because each one 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 (or 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 log ic w h i c h lies b e h i n d this scheme o b v i o u s l y has n o t h i n g to d o w i t h t h e

ef fort to 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 character izes

the five texts considered i n C h a p t e r T w o . 2 4

T h e o p h r a s t u s , On Piety. 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

forms o f sacrifice p r a c t i c e d b y m a n is a special 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 he reconstructs 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 ; hence 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 , famines l e d to c a n n i b a l i s m a n d , as a consequence,

to the 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 disadvantages o f such

a p r a c t i c e became 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 fered i n s t e a d , a n d this

pract ice has r e m a i n e d to the present 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 to g ive a c o n t i n u o u s a n d

plausib le 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 to fit t h e g r o w t h

o f sacr i f ic ia 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 degenera

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 the m a n y technai o f h u m a n l i f e . T h e r e is n o evidence 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.

2 3 The character and extent of Dicaearchus' primitivism is debatable: see R . Hirzel, " ΑΓΡΑΦΟΣ ΝΟΜΟΣ," AbhLeipzig 20.1 (1903) 88, and Seeliger, "Weltalter," 409.

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. Man 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 13.15-50 Pötscher. See the analysis in Bernays, Theophrastos' Schrift über

Frömmigkeit 118.


t h a t he 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 . 2 6 H a d he p r o

d u c e d such a t r e a t m e n t , one w o u l d expect i t to have e m b o d i e d i n some de

gree t h e a n a l y t i c a n d te leo log ica 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 c o n n e c t e d accounts

to f r a g m e n t s — w h o s e 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

find, i n t w o instances, c lear para l le l s to o u r texts. A c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e course

o f t e c h n o l o g i c a l d iscovery 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 makes its appearance 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 , c o l . 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 the first

c l o t h i n g , m e n c a m e g r a d u a l l y t o t h e i d e a , first o f fe l ted , 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 to 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 here is the e f for t

t o establish a g r a d u a l sequence o f discoveries, so t h a t the i d e a f o r each a d

vance 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 resul 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 appe a r u n d e r h e a d i n g 3B

o f o u r texts to the 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 the d e v e l o p m e n t corresponds e x a c t l y to L u c r e t i u s ' nexilis vestis.28

T h e evidence o f Diogenes suggests, t h e n , t h a t L u c r e t i u s 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 his 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 character , t h o u g h j u s t as close, are

t h e para l le 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 . M o s t

o f these para l le l s have been p o i n t e d o u t a n d discussed b y o t h e r s c h o l a r s . 2 9

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 be sufficient here. S o m e t h i n g

v e r y s i m i l a r to t h e i n v e n t i v e process as conce ived b y o u r texts is present i n

t h e f r a g m e n t ( A 1 5 1 ) w h i c h suggests a n e x p l a n a t i o n for 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 chance m a t i n g o f m a r e a n d jackass was once

observed b y a m a n w h o proceeded to " t a k e i n s t r u c t i o n " f r o m this a n d to

deve lop t h e c u s t o m o f r a i s i n g mules . T h e l a t e r t r a d i t i o n s w h i c h c r e d i t

2 6 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, "Uber die Lehre des Aristoteles von der Ewigkeit der Welt," AbhBerlin 1878, 1 0 7 - 8 ; Dyroff, Zur

(}uellen.frage bei Lukrez, 1 4 - 1 5 ; but on the character of such works, see above, pp. 4 9 - 5 0 . 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— Ι Ι )> 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 57

D e m o c r i t u s w i t h t h e i n v e n t i o n o f the a r c h ( B 3 0 0 . 1 4 ) 3 0 o r t e l l h o w he c o m

m e n d e d Protagoras ' i n v e n t i o n o f the p o r t e r ' s c a r r y i n g s trap ( G e l l i u s , Mod.

Alt. 5 . 3 . 1 - 6 ) 3 1 need 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

one o f the m a j o r interests revealed i n his w r i t i n g s . A n d t h e subject o f Stage

5 i n T a b l e 1—the technologies w h i c h arise f r o m t h e d iscovery o f f i r e —

suggests the D e m o c r i t e a n t i t l e ( B i i e ) AITLCU irepl rrvpos KO.1 TO>V £V -rrvpi.32 T h e

d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n the useful a n d f ine arts c o m m o n t o D e m o c r i t u s a n d

V i t r u v i u s has a l r e a d y been n o t e d (above, p . 4 3 ) . T h e e x p l a n a t i o n s o f t h e

discovery o f houses a n d music 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 ( 7 C )

appear i n D e m o c r i t u s ( B 1 5 4 ) , a l o n g w i t h a p a r a l l e l suggestion as t o t h e

o r i g i n o f w e a v i n g ( 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 ) . D e m o c r i t u s

m a d e Musaeus the 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 this 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 ) , was c o n c e r n e d w i t h

the o r i g i n o f p o e t r y a n d assigned i t to a t i m e s l i g h t l y before 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 for o u r texts, n e w ideas o r i g i n a t e i n 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 o u g h n o t , p r e s u m a b l y , the same p o r t i o n a l w a y s ) , t h e n

spread t h r o u g h a social m e d i u m ; such, a t a n y r a t e , seems to be t h e i m p l i c a

t i o n o f the famous f r a g m e n t o n t h e " f e w a m o n g the ones w i t h s k i l l i n s p e e c h "

3 0 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 ( 9 0 . 3 3 : excidit porro vobis ["the further fact has escaped your notice"] eundem Democritum invenisse

quemadmodum . . . calculus in smaragdum converteretur). The attribution of the discovery of artificial emeralds is probably based on the pseudo-Democritea of Bolus (see Diels, ad loc). The 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.

3 1 Gellius gives the fullest version of a story which is at least as early as Epicurus (172 Usener). 3 2 Suggested as the ultimate source for Lucretius 5.1090 ff. by Ernout-Robin, ad loc. The 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 3 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).


( B 3 0 ) , 3 4 w h o are responsible f o r m a k i n g Zeus w o r s h i p p e d as k i n g o f t h e

s k y . 3 5

F i n a l l y , b o t h t h e a c c i d e n t a l a n d e m p i r i c a l c h a r a c t e r o f t h e i n v e n t i v e p r o

cess a n d t h e co l lec t ive 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 to i n a

n o t i c e preserved i n a n A r a b i c t r a n s l a t i o n 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 each i n d i v i d u a l b y m a k i n g use o f his f r e q u e n t observat ions

gains 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 ; for as D e m o c r i t u s says, experience

a n d 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 ex

per ience 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 be t r a c e d i n a n o t h e r f r a g m e n t

(B158) 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

o f each 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 one 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 one place,

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 . " 3 6 T h o u g h t h e phraseology dis

t a n t l y recal ls E m p e d o c l e s , 3 7 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 . Perhaps 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 to a l l the 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 one e n d o f such a c o r d always means some

sort o f response a t t h e o t h e r ; t h e s tronger a n d m o r e n u m e r o u s the artemata,

t h e less each m a n is left t o his 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 each 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 to one w h i c h appears i n

3 1 The translation of logioi given in 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. ) 25 di Crizia," Dioniso 21 (1958) 46—47. Reinhardt, 511, sees in the logioi "die wenigen überlegenen Geister die zu allen höheren Errungenschaften der Masse vorschreiten"—an interpretation accepted by 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 .

3 5 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 determination, that racial and linguistic differences arise κατά έπίπτωσιν και αυντυχίαν. Similarly, τέχναι τι και δυνάμεις και επιτηδεύσεις άρζάντων τινών κρατοΰσιν αϊ πλειονς εν όποιωοΰν κλιματι.

3 C 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 2 2 D ) » 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 59

V i t r u v i u s (36.8-12—see above, p p . 3 9 - 4 0 ) ; o n l y here i t is a varietas arte-

matSn r a t h e r t h a n a varietas artium w h i c h gives rise to maiores cogitationes.

T h e para l le l s are exact a n d extensive, a n d t h e y take o n f u r t h e r s igni f icance

w h e n v i e w e d against the negat ive 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

vest igat ion . I t is f a i r l y c lear t h a t the hypothesis o f a single source f o r o u r f ive

texts is c o r r e c t . T h o u g h c e r t a i n aff init ies to t h e i r doctr ines c a n be t r a c e d over

a large b o d y o f m a t e r i a l , o u r survey has o n l y served to 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 doctr ines 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 to preserve, even i n the s u m m a r y f o r m i n w h i c h w e have t h e m , the

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 creat ive i n t e l l i g e n c e , one whose t h o u g h t

was e v i d e n t l y too i n d i v i d u a l a n d subtle t o be w i d e l y ass imi la ted , h o w e v e r

m a n y the 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 at th is p o i n t one m a y

w e l l w o n d e r w h e t h e r ear l ier invest igators , i n a d e q u a t e m e t h o d n o t w i t h

s t a n d i n g , w e r e n o t r i g h t i n assuming t h a t this 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

most o f the a u t h o r s e x a m i n e d i n th is c h a p t e r ; i f there w e r e , i t m i g h t be c lear

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 f r o m

the t r a d i t i o n preserved i n o u r f ive texts. M o r e o v e r , the v e r y f i d e l i t y w i t h

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 Posidonius preserve the 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 argue for a source less r e m o t e i n t i m e — E p i c u r u s , per

haps, whose w r i t i n g s were k e p t a l ive i n the f i rs t c e n t u r y B . C . i n a w a y those

o f D e m o c r i t u s w e r e 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 whose 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 a t a l l .

A f i n a l answer to t h e q u e s t i o n m a y n o t be possible; i t m u s t a w a i t , a t a n y

rate , 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. T h e

passages considered thus far have been c o n c e r n e d l a r g e l y w i t h t e c h n o l o g y

o r w i t h the d e v e l o p m e n t o f society insofar 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 gave i n d e p e n d e n t a n d de

t a i l e d c o n s i d e r a t i o n to language , society, a n d social n o r m s has n o t been

considered. Y e t i t is o b v i o u s f r o m the passages c i t e d above 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, rece ived some such c o n s i d e r a t i o n . H o w

s igni f icant a p a r t this a n d r e l a t e d discussions p l a y e d i t w i l l be the task o f the

next three chapters to 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 this is t h e aspect o f a n c i e n t Kulturgeschichte w h i c h has been 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 resul t a b e t t e r c lue t h a n a n y w e

n o w possess to the i d e n t i t y o f the source u p o n w h o m the f ive a u t h o r s 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 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.

C H A P T E R F O U R

T H E O R I G I N 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 )

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 society

a n d l a n g u a g e a t a l m o s t e x a c t l y c o r r e s p o n d i n g p o i n t s i n t h e i r n a r r a t i v e s (see

above , 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 e x t e n d e d

t r e a t m e n t t h a n society; hence i t is here t h a t a s t u d y o f the 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 .

V I T R U V I U S 3 3 . 2 4 - 2 8

in eo hominum congressu [the first human aggregation]

(A) cum profundebantur aliter e spiritu voces

( B ) quotidiana consuetudine vocabula ut obti-gerant constituerunt;

(G) deinde significando res saepius in usu

( C 1 ) ex eventu fari fortuito coeperunt

( D ) et ita sermones inter se procreaverunt.

ϋιοϋΟΗυβ 1.8.2-3

. . . αθροιζόμενους δε . . . έπιγινώσκειν εκ του κατά μικρόν τους αλλήλων τύπους

(Α) τής φωνής δ ' άσημου και συγκεχυμένης ούσης

(Β) έκ τοΰ κατ1 ολίγον διαρθρούν τάς λέξεις

(Ο) και προς αλλήλους τιθέντας σύμβολα περι

εκάστου των υποκειμένων

(Ό) γνώριμον σφίαιν αύτοΐς ποιήσαι την περι

απάντων έρμηνείαν.

L U C R E T I U S 5 - 1 0 2 8 - 2 9

at varios linguae sonitus natura subegit mittere et utilitas expressit nomina rerum.

D i o d o r u s dist inguishes f o u r , a n d V i t r u v i u s f ive , stages 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 . T h e i r accounts , except 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 , are

closely p a r a l l e l . T h e f i rs t u t t e r i n g o f confused sounds (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 sounds 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 b y

' Cotidiana consuetudine in Vitruvius' version of this stage might seem to suggest communication among men, but this does not come until Stage C 1 : 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 referring 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. The 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 under-

6 0

T H E ORIGINS OF L A N G U A G E (DIODORUS, 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 come to designate c e r t a i n objects ( C ) ; 2 a n d e v e n t u a l l y

a w h o l e language is c r e a t e d ( D ) . A is t h e o n l y one 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 here o m i t t e d

( 5 . 1 0 3 0 - g o ) , a t t e m p t s t o show t h a t m e n , l i k e a n i m a l s , 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 phrase 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 exact 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 . 3 B u t h o w e v e r L u c r e t i u s c o n c e i v e d t h e w o r k i n g s o f

utilitas i n t h e r e a l m o f language , i t is most 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

t h a t o f D i o d o r u s a n d V i t r u v i u s .

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 be considered

" n a t u r a l " ones, the a c c o u n t , t a k e n as a w h o l e , appeals t o thesis r a t h e r t h a n

physis f o r its 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 soon as i t becomes a f o r m o f

c o m m u n i c a t i o n ( i n C ) language 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 agreement . T h i s c a n be seen f r o m t h e phrases sermones inter se pro-

creaverunt a n d προς αλλήλους τιθίντας σύμβολα, i n w h i c h t h e i d e a o f m u t u a l

acceptance is c l e a r l y present . 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 his a c c o u n t is less c o m p l e t e ,

fo l lows h i m q u i t e closely. N a m e s w e r e n o t at f i rs 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 .5-10 Meiser), is first attested in the required sense in Quintilian (1.5.2).

2 These first three stages are also present in Cicero, Rep. 3.3, which speaks of a process which 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 .3.103-4: donee verba quibus voces sensusque notarent j nominaque

invenere. The "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. 322A: 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 The 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, 16-17, and Vlastos, AJP 67.55, 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 .


t h i n g s ; r a t h e r , " m e n ' s natures 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 received t h e i r p e c u l i a r impressions, a n d so

each 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 each o f these feelings

a n d impressions, a c c o r d i n g to t h e differences p r o d u c e d i n t h e d i f f e r e n t

n a t i o n s b y t h e i r p lace o f abode as w e l l " (Ad Herod. 75) . 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 names 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 to one 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 exact 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 , h o w e v e r , the i n h a b i t a n t s o f a g i v e n r e g i o n 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 heavy c o n

s o n a n t clusters w i t h feelings o f anger. T h i s b e i n g so, i t w o u l d be possible for

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 saying 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 e x p l a n a t i o n s t h e 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 be 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 one. I n a passage whose m e a n i n g

is even m o r e u n c e r t a i n (Ad Herod. 76) , E p i c u r u s goes o n to suggest t h a t a n

analogous process w o u l d take p lace even w i t h r e g a r d to c e r t a i n ού συνο-

ρώμενα πράγματα ( p r e s u m a b l y non-sensible enti t ies l i k e abstract ions o r

r e l a t i o n s h i p s ) . Those w h o p e r c e i v e d such t h i n g s d i r e c t l y (τους συνειδότας)

w o u l d be c o n s t r a i n e d a u t o m a t i c a l l y to 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 (subsequent ly , perhaps) " t a k i n g r a t i o n a l cogniz

a n c e " o f such ent i t ies (τω λογισμω eXopevovs) w o u l d s u p p l y " i n t e r p r e t a t i o n "

i n accordance w i t h τήν πλείστην αίτίαν*

T h e w h o l e t h e o r y is a n u n u s u a l one, a n d w e d o n o t possess the evidence

r e q u i r e d for 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 genera l o u t

l ines 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 there c a n be l i t t l e

d o u b t . 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 the 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 . 6 O f the t w o theories, i t is r a t h e r h a r d to

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 considered thus far , w h i c h , i f

e i t h e r , s h o u l d be cons idered a n i n t e g r a l p a r t o f the 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 far 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 l a n g u a g e f r o m a n e v o l u t i o n a r y perspect ive ;

hence, l i k e the c o n c e p t i o n f o u n d i n Posidonius o f a social o r d e r coeval w i t h

m a n h i m s e l f (see above, p p . 3 5 - 3 6 ) , i t o u g h t p e r h a p s to be r e g a r d e d as a

m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e m a i n l i n e o f t h o u g h t e v i d e n t i n o u r t r a d i t i o n . O n t h e

4 Gf. Dahlmann, ίο—11; see below, pp. 7 2 - 7 4 , and Chap. V , note 15. 5 The 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. DeLacy (Philodemus: On Methods of Inference [Philadelphia 19411 ' 4 ° ) overestimate the importance of the conventional stage in the theory; see Vlastos, AJP 67.54, n o t e I D \ and Spoerri, 136, note 5.

6 The 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 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 ) 63

o t h e r h a n d , the 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 ways 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 to 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 the " 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

a n y trace o f w h a t was s h o w n i n C h a p t e r T h r e e t o be the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c

feature o f o u r t r a d i t i o n : the p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h es tabl i sh ing a close causal

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

l o g y , 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 s u r v i v e d .

T h e r e is, h o w e v e r , one i t e m i n the passages q u o t e d a t the b e g i n n i n g o f th is

c h a p t e r w h i c h , p r o p e r l y i n t e r p r e t e d , m a y l e a d t o a d i f f e r e n t c o n c l u s i o n . As

has been 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 one

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 res saepius in

usu) a n d D (sermones inter se procreaverunt) there is t h e p h r a s e : ex eventu fari

fortuito coeperunt ( C 1 ) . T h e phrase m i g h t be i n t e r p r e t e d s i m p l y as a n ef for t to

emphasize t h e chance c h a r a c t e r o f the p a r t i c u l a r set o f symbols h i t u p o n , b u t

eventu fortuito o u g h t to refer t o a single chance event , n o t to t h e w h o l e series

o f chance 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 d e t e r m i n e

the c h a r a c t e r o f the language . T h e p o s i t i o n o f the l i n e is also s t r a n g e : one

w o u l d expect the not ice a b o u t the b e g i n n i n g s o f speech ( C 1 ) t o precede

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 to l i n g u i s t i c c o m m u n i c a t i o n , b u t t o s ign l a n g u a g e ? 8 T h e m e a n i n g w o u l d

t h e n be t h a t , i n t h e course o f p o i n t i n g o u t to each o t h e r t h e t h i n g s o f w h i c h

t h e y h a d need, m e n h i t u p o n the i d e a o f u s i n g w o r d s ( a l r e a d y a r t i c u l a t e d ,

b u t n o t assigned m e a n i n g s , i n B ) 9 to express t h e i r w a n t s . A n d t h e eventus

fortuitus t h r o u g h w h i c h this o c c u r r e d m a y have been t h e sort o f chance event

w i t h w h i c h w e are f a m i l i a r f r o m the discussion o f C h a p t e r O n e .

I f this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is correc t , D i o d o r u s has o m i t t e d a passage i n his

source d e s c r i b i n g the first appearance 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 ta tement a b o u t symhola w h i c h appears i n C as r e f e r r i n g speci f ica l ly to

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 exc lus ive ly 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 r a t h e r t h a n nomina imprimendo.

A n d elsewhere b o t h L u c r e t i u s (5.1022) a n d V i t r u v i u s (33.22—see above,

p . 15) m e n t i o n the use o f gestures for c o m m u n i c a t i o n before t h e y describe

the b e g i n n i n g s o f l a nguage .

7 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 ) .

8 With Vitruvius' significando res saepius in usu, compare Agatharchides ap. Diodorus 3.18.6 (on the Ichthyophagoi): διαλεκτοί μη χρήσθαι, μιμητική δε δηλώσει διά τών χειρών διαστ/μαιμειν έκαστα τών

προς την χρεΐαν ανηκόντων (cf. Photius 4 5 Ο Β Ι ° — 1 1 : μιμητική δηλώσει διοικεΐν πάντα τά προς τον βίον). 9 See above, note 1.


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 the 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 m e n t i o n e d i n V i t r u v i u s , comes

f r o m t w o passages, one i n t h e A e g y p t i a c a o f D i o d o r u s , t h e o t h e r i n

L a c t a n t i u s , b o t h o f w h i c h are closely r e l a t e d to the t w o u n d e r d i s c u s s i o n : 1 0

W h e n men were i n the process o f aggregating a n d abandoning their a n i m a l like way o f life, they at first fought and ate one another, the stronger always overpowering the weaker. A f t e r w a r d , however, the weaker ones were taught by expedience (sympheron) to b a n d together and make their identi fy ing emblem (semeion) a representation of one o f the animals w h i c h they subsequently deified. A l l those w h o were at any t ime i n fear for their lives w o u l d assemble by the emblem, thus f o r m i n g a group w h i c h could give an attacker pause. T h e practice spread, so that the h u m a n mult i tudes became organized into groups (systemata) each one of w h i c h regarded the a n i m a l w h i c h had been its salvation as the greatest o f benefactors a n d conferred on i t d iv ine 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 div ine honors a m o n g t h e m at the outset. (Diodorus 1.90.1)

[ P r i m i t i v e men] bestiis et fort ioribus animalibus praedae fuisse commemorant , t u m eos q u i aut l a n i a t i effugerant aut laniatos p r o x i m i v iderant , admonitos per icul i . . . ad alios homines decucurrisse et p r i m o nutibus vo luntatem 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 loquendi perfecisse rat ionem. (Lactantius, Inst. div. 6.10.13-14)

T h e course o f e v o l u t i o n descr ibed 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: men's weakness r e l a t i v e to t h e beasts leads to aggrega

t ions i n w h i c h speech is d e v e l o p e d . A n d the sequence o f gestures f o l l o w e d b y

speech w h i c h has been suggested for C a n d C 1 i n V i t r u v i u s e x a c t l y para l le ls

the 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 the 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 se l f for 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

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 . 1 1 T h e process descr ibed is, h o w e v e r , so

closely analogous t o t h e f o r m a t i o n o f societies w h i c h is the subject o f

D i o d o r u s 1.8 (see Stage 4 A - B , above, p . 33) t h a t the t w o passages c a n n o t

have ar isen i n d e p e n d e n t l y . M e n b a n d together for se l f -protect ion ( w i t h

sympheron here , c o m p a r e hypo tou sympherontos didaskomenous i n 4 A ) ; t h e y t h e n

deve lop a means o f c o m m u n i c a t i n g w i t h one a n o t h e r ( language i n 4 B , the

e m b l e m h e r e ) ; a n d t h e systemata thus f o r m e d deve lop e v e n t u a l l y i n t o t r i b e s : 1 0 The 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 ) . The identity of Lactantius' source is not known (Spoerri, 158, note 8 ) ; it may, however, be Cicero.

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 ( 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 ) 6 5

D i o d o r u s notes, i n the passage (1.8.4) i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g the one p r i n t e d

as Stage 4 B , t h a t the o r i g i n a l systemata are t h e f irst p a r e n t s o f the v a r i o u s

ethne o f the w o r l d — j u s t as the systemata o f 1.90 are the 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 such 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 the 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 for b o t h . 1 2 A n d the

same m a y be said o f the c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n the h u m a n aggressors o f 1.90 a n d

the 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

the l a t t e r . B u t i t is strange t h a t he 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 surely 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 to u n d e r s t a n d the 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 preserved i n a f r a g m e n t o f Cicero's E p i c u r e a n c o n t e m

p o r a r y L u c i u s Saufeius w h i c h expla ins Latium as the n a m e g i v e n the place

w h e r e p r i m i t i v e m e n latuerunt. . . caventes sibi a feris beluis vel a valentioribus

(Servius ad Aen. 1 . 6 ) . 1 3

B o t h D i o d o r u s (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 be t h e eventus fortuitus re ferred 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 i n i t i a l

a p p l i c a t i o n m a y be s o m e t h i n g o f a n a c c i d e n t : the 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 be. T h e subsequent d e v e l o p m e n t is n o t c l e a r l y descr ibed b y

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 take p lace

to the degree t h a t the 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 se l f useful . I f

the c r y u t t e r e d succeeded i n sav ing t h e u t t e r e r a n d i n w a r n i n g those whose

1 2 This suggestion is also the one which best accounts for the " totemistic" theory of 1.90. Uxkull-Gyllenband, 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. The emblems of 1.90 were not invented by Diodorus' source. The 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. In 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.

I 3 ' C f . also Isidore, Orig. 15.2.5-6: 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.


assistance he received 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 the

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 s i tuat ions . 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 its 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 re

s p o n d b y assembl ing 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 thus be 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

c r y , o r t o a h a n d s ignal o r b e a c o n f i r e — w h e n c e , perhaps , t h e ro le p l a y e d b y

f ire i n V i t r u v i u s ' a c c o u n t o f the o r i g i n s o f s o c i e t y . 1 4 T h e r e is n o reason w h y

the t h e o r y s h o u l d n o t have e n v i s i o n e d t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f a v a r i e t y o f symbola:15

w h i c h e v e r t y p e f irst 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 e m p l o y e d .

E v e n t u a l l y , h o w e v e r , t h e s u p e r i o r i t y o f v e r b a l to n o n - v e r b a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n

1 4 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).

1 5 It is just possible that this is the idea behind an obscure passage in Hyginus (274.20—21) on the origin of the trumpet:

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 sepul-turae 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. The 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 814] 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). The text as it now stands would thus be the result of modifications transforming 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 (151-52) 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 (protegere . . . 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 represented 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 , E P I C U R U S ) 67

f o r most 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 anguage 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 headings 4 A - B i n C h a p t e r T w o . 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 makes possible. F r o m the v e r y b e g i n n i n g i t

symbolizes the 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 directs m e n

to t h e m . I t is thus t h e essential m e d i u m for the w h o l e process b y w h i c h m e n

go a b o u t secur ing these advantages. B u t t h e c o n c e p t i o n , even i f i t is riot

present i n the passages considered i n C h a p t e r T w o , is so closely r e l a t e d to

the v i e w o f the 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 to

bel ieve i t d i d n o t once 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 . T h e

i m p e t u s for 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 for 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

possible; a n d once the u t i l i t y o f l a n g u a g e is thus establ ished, i t w i l l become

h a b i t u a l , l i k e a n e w l y discovered t e c h n i q u e . N e w uses for speech, l i k e n e w

techniques , w i l l c o n s t a n t l y suggest themselves a n d become ass imi la ted

t h r o u g h i m i t a t i o n a n d exchange i n a social m e d i u m . A n d t h e w h o l e c o n

c e p t i o n , l i n k i n g the t w o d e v e l o p m e n t s 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 precedes: t h e sequence o f dis

crete events w h i c h is b e i n g c o n s t r u c t e d approaches a step closer to 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 above, p p . 4 7 - 4 8 ) .

I f this is i n d e e d the 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

been revealed. T h e discovery, 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 the

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 the

o r i g i n o f l anguage 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 to its

c o u n t e r p a r t s o n t e c h n o l o g y t h a t i t m u s t go back , a l o n g w i t h t h e m , to a

c o m m o n source. C l e a r l y , t h e n , this 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

o f 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

stronger. 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 the v i e w

t h a t language 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 ( B 2 6 ) :

some w o r d s are s y n o n y m s (isorropa) a n d h o m o n y m s (polysema) o f e a c h o t h e r ;

1 6 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 .

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 exist 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 exists; a n d i t is possible

f o r a g i v e n object t o receive 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

o f D e m o c r i t u s ' l i n g u i s t i c t h e o r y t o s u r v i v e , 1 7 a n d i t is n o t suff icient to show

t h a t he discussed l a n g u a g e i n t h e same w a y as d o V i t r u v i u s a n d D i o d o r u s ,

o r even t h a t he discussed its o r i g i n at a l l . H e m a y have accepted 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, o r h a v e been c o n c e r n e d o n l y w i t h t h e

q u e s t i o n — d e b a t e d i n t h e Cratylus—of w h e t h e r w o r d s have a n y t h i n g to d o

w i t h the r e a l n a t u r e o f the objects t h e y designate. O n e s h o u l d n o t e , h o w e v e r ,

t h a t t h e m e n t i o n o f t h e l i n g u i s t i c p h e n o m e n a to w h i c h D e m o c r i t u s 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 analysis o f l a n g u a g e a l o n g the l ines 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 poss ib i l i

ties suggested. F o r s y n o n y m s a n d h o m o n y m s are t o be expected 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 at t imes h a p h a z a r d process—not i n

t h e w o r k o f a n o r i g i n a l onomatothetis, w h i c h w o u l d be a r b i t r a r y b u t p r e

s u m a b l y se l f -consis tent . 1 8 A n d i f D e m o c r i t u s s i m p l y m e a n t to d e n y t h a t

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 his reference t o nonyma. Nonyma, once t h e y are r e c o g n i z e d as such,

are m o r e t h a n l i k e l y t o receive names. T h e y c a n thus be expected t o be less

n u m e r o u s i n t h e f u t u r e t h a n t h e y are at present, a n d t h e y w e r e , p r e s u m a b l y ,

1 7 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) 9 2 3 - 2 4 ; E . Haag, "Platons Kratylos," Tübinger Beiträge ig (1933) 4 6 - 4 8 ; E . Hoffmann, "Die Sprache und die archaische Logik," Heidelberger Abb. zu Philosophie 3 (1925) 2 5 - 2 6 ; and P. M . Gentinetta, Zttr Sprachbetrachtung bei den Sophisten und in der stoisch-hellenistischen (Diss. Zürich 1961) 2 9 - 3 2 . The conclusion seems to me to be unwarranted. The 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) 4 7 6 , take agalmata as referring to the mental images which words call forth, in which case the fragment may indicate (as Krokiewicz suggests, Eos 47, 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.

1 8 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."

T H E ORIGINS OF L A N G U A G E (DIODORUS, 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 the past. T h e i r ex is tence—like t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f r e n a m i n g

objec ts—points t o the g r o w i n g a n d e v o l v i n g c h a r a c t e r 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 de

signations i n use at a n y g i v e n p o i n t i n the p r o c e s s . 2 0

T h e r e is thus n o evidence against , a n d some evidence f o r , t h e a s s u m p t i o n

t h a t D e m o c r i t u s envis ioned a g r a d u a l g r o w t h o f l a n g u a g e t h r o u g h p i e c e m e a l ,

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

t e c h n o l o g y a n d language i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h each o t h e r , t h e w h o l e Kultur

geschichte o f the E p i c u r e a n s m a y w e l l have ar isen 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. As m i g h t be expected, 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 special p h i l o s o p h i c bias o f t h e i r o w n , preserve the p r o t o t y p e less c o m

p l e t e l y , b u t w i t h greater f i d e l i t y . I t w o u l d be p r e m a t u r e at t h e present

stage o f o u r i n v e s t i g a t i o n to accept such a hypothesis , b u t i t is a hypothesis

to w h i c h t h e succeeding three chapters o f this s t u d y w i l l b r i n g s t r o n g , p e r

haps conclusive , s u p p o r t .

1 8 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 ) . On the relation of this passage to 1.8.3-4 (reproduced at the beginning of this chapter) see below, pp. 1 0 8 - 9 .

2 0 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. The 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.

C H A P T E R F I V E

T H E G E N E A L O G Y O F M O R A L S ( E P I C U R U S )

I f t h e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of fered i n C h a p t e r F o u r is correct , the 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 sharp 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 m e d i u m

t h r o u g h w h i c h 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 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 th is process t h a n t h e y are w i t h the social ones; b u t th is

shared p r e o c c u p a t i o n need n o t be a conclusive 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 emphasis 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

topics o f l i n g u i s t i c a n d social o r i g i n s were so closely c o n n e c t e d , t h e y m a y w e l l

have received 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 , the texts e x a m i n e d thus far 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 to this p r o b l e m , n o r d o t h e y p o i n t the 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 , to o t h e r

sources f r o m w h i c h t h e i r accounts 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 de

v e l o p e d t h e o r y o f the genesis o f society a n d social n o r m s is to 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 the 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 have seen,

differs i n i m p o r t a n t ways f r o m t h a t w h i c h belongs to 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 fashion f r o m a discussion o f the same subject

w h i c h once stood 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 been

preserved i n a n y o f t h e representatives o f i t considered thus far . I f so, t h e

f o u r theories i n q u e s t i o n — t h e " o r t h o d o x " views o f l i n g u i s t i c 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 to 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 each o t h e r . E p i c u r u s ' a c c o u n t o f l anguage 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 the E p i c u r e a n

a c c o u n t o f social d e v e l o p m e n t to 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, one s h o u l d be able , k n o w i n g the first three t e r m s o f the 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 the f o u r t h , a n d so t o recognize a n y traces o f i t

w h i c h m a y 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 n o t 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 this poss ib i l i ty i n m i n d

t h a t w e t u r n to a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the E p i c u r e a n analysis o f social o r i g i n s .

70

T H E G E N E A L O G Y O F MORALS ( E P I C U R U S ) 71

I t has l o n g b e e n r e c o g n i z e d 1 t h a t E p i c u r u s , l i k e c e r t a i n f i f t h c e n t u r y

t h i n k e r s , 2 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

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 analogous 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, to serve u t i l i t a r i a n ends; 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 absolute, is nevertheless q u i t e r e a l . T h e y " m a k e

sense" to a g i v e n people b u t are meaningless f o r m a n k i n d i n g e n e r a l .

T h e 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 c o n t a i n s n o d e t a i l e d discussion o f

the 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

guage w h i c h appears i n t h e Letter to Herodotus. B u t a p o r t i o n , a t least, o f t h e

E p i c u r e a n g e n e a l o g y 3 o f m o r a l s is g i v e n i n a sect ion o f P o r p h y r y ' s De

abstinentia ( I . I O - I I ) w h i c h reproduces t h e theories o f t h e f irst scholarch ,

H e r m a r c h u s : 4

I t was w i t h good reason that those w h o first prescribed w h a t we ought a n d ought not to do made no p r o h i b i t i o n against k i l l i n g other animals. . . . For survival was not possible w i t h o u t an effort at self-defense on the part o f those [among 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 syntre-

phomenous). But some o f the finer natures at that t ime [ton tote chariestatdn), remembering h o w they themselves refrained f r o m k i l l i n g their fellows on account o f its usefulness for survival , reminded 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 , refraining f r o m the slaughter o f w h a t was a k i n to t h e m (apechomenoi tou syn-genous) 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 contr ibuted to each individual 's survival. For le t t ing each other alone (to chdrizesthai) and doing n o t h i n g injurious to any o f those w h o were collected into the same place was useful, not only 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 along w i t h h a r m f u l intent . U p to a certain p o i n t then, men refrained f r o m the slaughter o f w h a t was akin to them—as great a p o r t i o n of their k i n d r e d as entered i n t o the same sharing o f the necessities o f life and supplied certain needed services for the aforementioned purposes [ d r i v i n g away w i l d beasts a n d h a r m f u l m e n ] . But later, w h e n the generation o f the race had progressed and the animals o f other species h a d been d r i v e n away and an end made to their inroads, certain men gave r a t i o n a l consideration (epilogismon) to the advantageousness of their m u t u a l way of life (tais pros allelon trophais), not s imply

1 See Philippson, 298. 2 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 "are" 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, 4.183.4) and diken nomizein (4.106). On 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. . . . 4 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 .


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 and thereby made the 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 , then, to do this, they introduced the legislation w h i c h st i l l holds i n cities a n d nations, the mult i tudes w i l l i n g l y fo l lowing their lead, inasmuch as they had a better perception already o f the advantage w h i c h lay i n their aggregat ing w i t h one another. For 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 buted i n l ike manner to security. Hence, o f the aforesaid practices [homicide among 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 against h o m i c i d e is one i l l u s t r a t i o n o f t h e

g e n e r a l E p i c u r e a n p r i n c i p l e (RS 3 1 , 33, 36) e q u a t i n g the j u s t a n d t h e

m u t u a l l y advantageous . A n d there is i n d i r e c t evidence here o f a n even

closer dependence o n t h e master . H e r m a r c h u s i n t r o d u c e s i n t o his 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 " (or " 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

result 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 non-aggression 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 " r e m e m b e r "

f r o m t h e i r o w n experience, e v i d e n t l y i n the same w a y as one m i g h t r e m e m b e r

a n observed ob jec t o r event . Perhaps the c o n n e c t i o n s h o u l d be r e g a r d e d as

one o f t h e ou synordmena pragmata o f w h i c h , a c c o r d i n g to the E p i c u r e a n analysis

o f l a n g u a g e , some m e n have a d i r e c t i n t u i t i o n (see above, 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

been 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 is ib le e n v i r o n m e n t . I n s i m i l a r

fashion, one w o u l d assume, t h e f irst p e r s o n to f o r m a n d u t t e r the " n a t u r a l "

w o r d f o r s o m e t h i n g is i m m e d i a t e l y u n d e r s t o o d b y his c o m p a n i o n s . 6

5 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 rationi-bus 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."

T H E G E N E A L O G Y OF MORALS ( E P I C U R U S ) 73

I n d e e d , t h e t w o processes are 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 dikaion

o r sympheron."1

L a t e r , w h e n c o n d i t i o n s o f l i fe are m o r e sett led, 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 occurrence , t h e u t i l i t y o f non-aggress ion becomes less

e v i d e n t , hence easily f o r g o t t e n . I t m u s t n o w be a p p r e h e n d e d b y a process

o f r e f l e c t i o n , 8 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 r e f l e c t i o n

leads c a n n o t c o u n t o n a u t o m a t i c acceptance 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 , therefore , be e m b o d i e d i n laws 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 lements

i n l a n g u a g e , owe 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

agreement . 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 a n d necessary w o r d f o r a n

" u n p e r c e i v e d t h i n g " 9 becomes at a l a t e r d a t e t h e subject o f " r a t i o n a l

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . "

T h e w h o l e a c c o u n t e x a c t l y para l le l s t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e o r i g i n o f

l a n g u a g e a n d is o p e n t o s i m i l a r object ions . 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 non-aggression 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

a n d 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 his fe l lows 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

n o t k i l l this m a n ; he 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 one piece 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 (or , m o r e a c c u r a t e l y , synesis), n o t

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 obje c t

7 Gf. Epicurus, RS 31, which defines τό της φύσεως δίκαιον as a σύμβολον τοΰ συμφέροντος εις

το μή βλάπτειν αλλήλους μηδε βλάπτεσθαι. The 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 Fr . 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 [1952]

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.

9 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 υπ* αυτών.


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 extens ion

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 of logismos. A n d i f the " n a t u r a l "

c r e a t i o n o f symbols assumed 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 iews 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 . As 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 one 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 he

attaches t o c e r t a i n types o f a c t i o n c o u l d be expected t o be i m m e d i a t e l y

m e a n i n g f u l t o his fe l lows.

T h e g r e a t l y exaggerated 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 ear l ier

(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 assemb

l 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 descr ibed as

one 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 resul t o f

i ts 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 fe l lows a g a i n

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 event . A n d w h a t is r e t a i n e d i n the 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 is ib le semeion o f w h a t has h a p p e n e d .

I t has b e e n suggested above ( 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 such semeia w e r e seen as a f i rs 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 th is step is o n l y t h e first o f m a n y .

A g r a d u a l assigning o f symbols t o n e w s i tuat ions 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 at t imes b y a c c i d e n t a l

occurrences l i k e t h e i n i t i a l one , i t w o u l d h a v e to i n v o l v e , t o some degree at

least, anchinoia a n d prometheia—the conscious c a l c u l a t i o n w h i c h , i n t h e

E p i c u r e a n v i e w , becomes 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 l ines o f l i n g u i s t i c

a n d e t h i c a l usage are establ ished.

I t is j u s t c o n c e i v a b l e , o f course, t h a t P o r p h y r y has a b r i d g e d his source,

a n d t h a t , w e r e H e r m a r c h u s h i m s e l f preserved, 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 concrete episodes l i k e t h e one 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 enemies 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

f o r t h e " f i n e r n a t u r e s " t o say o n subsequent 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 based 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 such a n episode,

t h e e x t r e m e l y a b s t r a c t c h a r a c t e r o f t h e l a n g u a g e , a n d the t e r m chariestatoi—

suggest ing ins ights 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 ref lex 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.


sympheron as e m b o d i e d i n his w h o l e social 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 anguage is a d i r e c t ref lex o f the w a y i n w h i c h he perceives t h e n a t u r a l

w o r l d . T h e o n l y di f ference 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. N e i t h e r

m o r a l i t y n o r l a n g u a g e is conce ived , as is t h e l a t t e r i n D i o d o r u s a n d

V i t r u v i u s , as the resul t o f a series o f react ions t o specific events, react ions

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 sugges

tions 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 th is 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 the same 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 .

T h e f irst 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 ) :

tunc et a m i c i t i e m coeperunt iungere aventes f i n i t i m i inter se nec laedere nec v i o l a r i .

T h e i n i t i a l social c o m p a c t descr ibed here seems even m o r e c l e a r l y t h a n its

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 spontaneous p e r c e p t i o n

o f t h e useful. T h e o n l y cause g i v e n f o r its f o r m a t i o n is t h e sof tening 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 this has

o c c u r r e d , the i m p u l s e to e n t e r a social 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

a l m o s t u n i v e r s a l ( 1 0 2 4 - 2 5 ) :

nec tamen omnimodis poterat concordia g igni sed bona magnaque 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 natures is unnecessary.

O n l y l a t e r are f o r m a l laws 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 ( 1 1 4 3 - 4 7 ) : 1 1

1 1 The 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) . The 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 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

inde m a g i s t r a t u m p a r t i m docuere creare iuraque constituere u t vellent legibus u t i . n a m genus h u m a n u m defessum v i colere aevum ex i n i m i c i t i i s languebat; quo 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 , the i n s t i g a t o r s are a s m a l l g r o u p (cf. partim i n 1143),

a n d 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 ts usefulness.

L u c r e t i u s h i m s e l f m a y be responsible f o r t h e s e n t i m e n t a l l ines 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 muliebreque 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.

B u t t h e philanthrdpia e v i d e n t here is A t t i c as w e l l as L u c r e t i a n , 1 3 a n d t o

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 iews o n t h e

c l a r i t y 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 m a n ' s p e r c e p t i o n s .

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

t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f m o r a l s is e x p l i c a b l e as t h e resul t o f a t o o s c r u p u l o u s

adherence t o his o w n sensat ional ism. Since j u s t i c e , d e f i n e d as συμφέρον. . .

τ ι . . . ev τη προς αλλήλους κοινωνία (RS 3 6 ) , is a n i d e a w h i c h answers t o

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), i t is aprolepsis r a t h e r t h a n

a false hypolepsis.1* A s such 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 " w o r d f o r 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. 30 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. The 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 Cf. P. Boyance, Lucrece et I'e'picure'isme (Paris 1963) 243. 1 3 Cf. Lycurgus, Leocr. 141, on the κοινοϋ παρά πααι ελεου due to women and children. The 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 38. 1 5 For 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. Our 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,


( C l e m e n t , Strom. 2.4 = 255 U s e n e r ) , n o t i n logismos. 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 t h e

forgetfulness w h i c h t h e g r o w i n g c o m p l e x i t y o f l i f e has p r o d u c e d ; a n d its

s o l u t i o n is a n i m p e r f e c t o n e : a system o f l e g a l redress t h a t creates n e w

p r o b l e m s i n p lace o f t h e o l d ( L u c r . 5 .1151) :

inde metus maculat poenarum praemia v i t a e . 1 6

T h o u g h this p o s i t i o n makes some 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 t h e school . F r a g m e n t s f r o m

a w o r k o f the second s c h o l a r c h , Polys tratus , e m b o d y a v i e w w h i c h , t h o u g h

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, gives t o logismos

a m u c h m o r e c e n t r a l r o l e i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f m o r a l i t y . 1 7 T h e w o r k is a

p o l e m i c against a n o p p o n e n t — p r e s u m a b l y Sceptic o r C y n i c 1 8 — w h o 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. For Cicero however {Fin. 1.31; ND 1.44), followed by N. DeWitt {Proceedings of the Royal Society of Canada, Ser. 3, 36, No. 2, 3 6 - 4 4 and Epicurus and his Philosophy [Minneapolis 1954] 142—50) and A. S. Pease (in his note toND 1.43), prolepseis are innate ideas of justice and other intangibles. The 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 non-immediate, 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. The 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 66 [1911] 2 3 2 - 3 4 and W. Liebich, " E i n Philodem-Zeugnis bei Ambrosius," Philologus 98 [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 On 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 17.333-37, " 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 The 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 contents, see Wilke's introduction and Philippson, JVJbb 2 3 . 4 8 7 - 9 4 .

1 8 On his identity see Wilke (above, note 17) xiii-xx, and Philippson, J\fjbb 2 3 . 4 9 4 - 5 0 6 .


a t t e m p t e d t o s h o w t h e u n n a t u r a l c h a r a c t e r o f h u m a n n o t i o n s 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 analogous t o t h a t o f t h e a n i m a l s

because t h e y l a c k logismos—or a t least t h e k i n d o f logismos w h i c h m e n have

( F r . 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 even a v o i d t h e

r e c u r r e n c e o f t h e same sort o f disasters w h i c h t h e y have once suffered ( F r .

3 . 4 - 4 3 6 ) . T h e inference seems to 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 ts d e v e l o p m e n t , is t h e resul t o f a c a l c u l a t e d e f for t t o achieve

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 posit ions is u n d e r s t a n d a b l e , g i v e n t h e

i n n e r tensions o f a school w h i c h at once g l o r i f i e d a n d d i s t r u s t e d r e a s o n i n g . 2 0

T h e " 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 expected t o a p p e a r w h e n t h e

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 need t o d e f e n d t h e school against t h e charge 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 take t h e i r

p lace a longside t w o passages i n L u c r e t i u s ( 5 . 9 4 2 - 4 4 a n d 1014-16) a l r e a d y

n o t e d because o f t h e i r absence f r o m accounts w h i c h otherwise resemble

L u c r e t i u s q u i t e closely (see above, p p . 2 7 - 2 8 a n d 3 4 ) . T h r o u g h a l l these

E p i c u r e a n 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 en

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 at t h e expense o f the p l a y o f a c c i d e n t

a n d h u m a n c a l c u l a t i o n . 2 2 T h e earth 's greater p r o d u c t i v i t y a n d m a n ' s

g r e a t e r hardness i n f l u e n c e t h e c h a r a c t e r o f the earl iest p e r i o d o f h u m a n

h i s t o r y ( L u c r e t i u s 5 . 9 4 2 - 4 4 a n d 9 2 5 - 3 0 ) ; t h e w a r m s u r r o u n d i n g s p r o d u c e d

1 9 Gf. D . L . 10.120 ( = Usener 5 1 7 ) : T*lv άνδρείαν φύσει μή γίνεσθαι, Χογισμώ δε τον συμφέροντος. 2 0 O r perhaps it is a difficulty endemic to empiricism. An identical vacillation has, at any rate,

been pointed out in the thought of Locke, for whom moral ideas are alternately "evident in themselves" 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.).

2 1 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.

2 2 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.


b y f i re a n d h o u s i n g b r i n g a b o u t a sof tening i n his c h a r a c t e r ( 5 . 1 0 1 4 - 1 6 ) ;

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 responsible 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 language ( 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 against 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 w o n d e r s w h e t h e r t h e c o m m o n t e n d e n c y to be observed

here is n o t t h e result 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 speci f ical ly E p i c u r e a n l ines. I f so, Po lys tratus ' 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 t h e o r i g i n o f m o r a l i t y m a y ref lect t h e t r a d i t i o n i n p u r e r f o r m : t h e s t a r t i n g

p o i n t , p e r h a p s , for t h e revised 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 the 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 accounts 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

l a n g u a g e ; a n d , conversely, t h e presence o f logismos—in t h e f o r m o f t h e

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 to seize a n d b u i l d u p o n t h e sugges

t ions p r o v i d e d b y specific s i t u a t i o n s — i s a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c feature o f 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 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 .

Polystratus , t h o u g h a n E p i c u r e a n , appl ies to ethics a n a p p r o a c h w h i c h has

s o m e t h i n g i n c o m m o n w i t h t h e approaches o f D i o d o r u s a n d V i t r u v i u s t o

l a n g u a g e . I t is conce ivable , t h e n , t h a t w e h a v e i n P o l y s t r a t u s ' a c c o u n t a

r e m n a n t o f w h a t was once t h e f o u r t h t e r m o f the p r o p o r t i o n descr ibed at t h e

b e g i n n i n g o f th is c h a p t e r .

Polystratus 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 this 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 expected a n d satisfactory f a s h i o n . B u t emphasis o n t h e specific

s i t u a t i o n is a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c feature o f a n o t h e r t e x t — o n e w h i c h recal ls

Polystratus 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

conta ins , 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

t h r o u g h discrete episodes e x a c t l y p a r a l l e l i n g t h e c o n c e p t i o n f o u n d i n

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 ex

a m i n e d i n C h a p t e r T w o . I t is to a n e x a m i n a t i o n o f th is t e x t t h a t w e m u s t n o w

t u r n .

C H A P T E R S I X

T H E G E N E A L O G Y O F M O R A L S ( P O L Y B I U S )

I n t h e s i x t h b o o k o f his Histories P o l y b i u s i n c l u d e s , as a sort o f preface t o his

f a m o u s c y c l i c a l t h e o r y o f t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f c o n s t i t u t i o n s , 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 society f r o m its h e r d - l i k e b e g i n n i n g s to t h e c r e a t i o n o f

t h e f i rs t 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 th is passage h a v e b e e n t h e

subject o f m u c h i n v e s t i g a t i o n . 1 E a r l i e r studies assumed Stoic , P e r i p a t e t i c , o r

( 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 ten 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 for the praktikos bios

o f t h e s tatesman has t e n d e d to 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

hence t h e v e r y close para l le 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 Polystratus

t o P o l y b i u s h a v e b e e n 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 begins after the f i rs 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) consist ing

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 rules , a n d t h e strongest a n d boldest enjoys u n c h a l l e n g e d p o w e r .

(6.5.10) B u t when, t h r o u g h the passage o f t ime, 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) and a c o m m o n way o f life (synetheia) this is the n a t u r a l beginning o f kingship and then first does a not ion (ennoia) o f the fair a n d the j u s t come into being among men, a n d likewise o f their oppo-sites.

(6.6.1) A n d the manner o f their beginning and coming to be is as follows: (2) the sexual urge being a n a t u r a l one a n d resulting i n the b i r t h o f chi ldren, whenever any o f the chi ldren m e n have brought u p reaches m a t u r i t y a n d neither shows favor to nor protects those by w h o m he has been reared, b u t does just the opposite, t r y i n g to say or do t h e m h a r m , (3) this is obviously l ikely to displease and offend those present, w h o w i l l have observed parents' concern a n d suffering on behalf o f their ch i ldren and the care and n u r t u r e the latter receive. (4) For, since the h u m a n race differs f r o m the other animals i n this, trtat i t

1 For a survey of it, see Walbank, 6 4 3 - 4 5 . 2 C f , for example, the views of Taeger, Die Archaeologie des Polybios 1 9 - 2 7 ; Ryffel, ΜΕΤΑΒΟΛΗ

ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΩΝ: Der Wandel der Staatsoerfassungen 1 9 8 - 2 0 2 ; E . Mioni, Polibio (Padua 1949) 6 6 - 6 8 ;

and Walbank, 644. 3 Gf. von Fritz, Theory of the Mixed Constitution 55. 4 They are noted in passing by Walbank, 653 (ad 6 .5.10), and von Fritz, Theory of the Mixed

Constitution 4 1 3 , note 46.

80

T H E G E N E A L O G Y O F MORALS ( P O L Y B I U S ) 8 l

partakes i n the faculties o f reason and calculation (logismos), i t is evident that the contrast o f behavior just mentioned is not l ikely to escape their notice, as i t w o u l d i n the case o f other animals; (5) rather, they w i l l note the occurrence a n d be displeased w i t h the si tuation, since they foresee the future a n d conclude that something similar may happen to each o f them.

(6) A n d again, w h e n someone has received a id or succor f r o m another i n moments o f danger and does not show favor to his rescuer, b u t even tries to h a r m h i m , i t is evident that he is l ikely to 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 and imagine themselves i n his position. (7) O u t of w h i c h situation there arises i n each m a n a certain n o t i o n and perception of the character o f the f i t t i n g (kathekon), w h i c h is the or ig in a n d end of justice.

(8) Likewise, whenever someone champions the cause o f a l l i n moments o f danger and supports a n d withstands the attacks o f the fiercest animals, i t is l ikely that 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, and that the m a n who does the opposite w i l l be condemned and give offense.

(9) Whence, again, i t is probable that there w i l l arise among the people some not ion o f the shameful and the good, and the difference between t h e m , a n d that the former w i l l be emulated and i m i t a t e d because o f the advantages i t brings (to sympherori) and 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 this 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 dis

cussed are o b v i o u s . T h e existence o f accepted 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 Polystratus , w i t h t h e logismos w h i c h dist inguishes m a n f r o m

beast ( 6 . 4 ) , a n d this , 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 to

foresee f u t u r e inconveniences 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 P o l y b i u s

5 The 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 34 (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 . The 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. The 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


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 ( 5 . 1 0 ; 6.9) o f t h e g o o d , t h e

s h a m e f u l , etc. T h e phraseo logy 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

a b s o l u t e — a n d a n A c a d e m i c , Stoic , o r P e r i p a t e t i c r a t h e r t h a n a n E p i c u r e a n

c o n t e x t . B u t t h e m e a n i n g o f ennoia d e m a n d e d b y t h e c o n t e x t is s i m p l y

c o m m o n n o t i o n s a b o u t r i g h t a n d w r o n g 6 — t h e p u r e l y social m o r a l i t y w h i c h

Polys tratus refers t o as τ ά παρ' άνθρώποις νομιζόμενα ( c o l . x i v a 3 ~ 5 ) j τ "

κ α λ ά κα.1 α ι σ χ ρ ά νομιζόμενα ( x v a 3 - 4 5 x v i a g - i ι ) o r s i m p l y kala a n d aischra

( F r . 7a2) . P o l y b i u s does n o t h a v e t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c E p i c u r e a n dikaion-

sympheron e q u a t i o n , b u t his s t a t e m e n t (6.9) t h a t t h e g o o d a n d s h a m e f u l are

sought 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 t h e same t h i n g . 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 social m o r a l i t y comes i n t o

b e i n g falls i n t o t w o stages (5.10 a n d 6 . 1 - 9 ) , t h e n r s t o f w h i c h offers close

para l le l s t o b o t h H e r m a r c h u s a n d D i o d o r u s . P o l y b i u s r e p o r t s 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. They may have been thinking in terms of a logos-mneme rather than a logos-physis 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. 250 456A29 (animals learn to be prudent not by logos but παραπεπλεγμένης εναλλάξ τω πάθει της μνήμης).

6 This meaning can be paralleled in contemporary ethnographical writing. Gf. Agatharchides ap. Diodorus 3.15.2 ( = Photius Cod. 250 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. The 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 ) 37 ff. In all these passages the aischra and kala of which men have no notion are simply social tabus and mores (eithismena), not moral absolutes.

7 The 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 OF MORALS ( P O L Y B I U s ) 83

the p e r i o d w h i c h fo l lows 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 there arise

a m o n g its m e m b e r s sjntrophia a n d synetheia. T h e f o r m e r i d e a 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 f irst

aggregations a n d t h e m e m o r y o f t h e advantages g a i n e d t h r o u g h t h e i r

syntrophiai w h i c h creates the p r o h i b i t i o n against h o m i c i d e .

P o l y b i u s ' s ta tement s h o u l d also be c o m p a r e d w i t h one w h i c h , i n D i o d o r u s

1.8, appears b e t w e e n the m e n t i o n o f t h e i n i t i a l aggregat ions f o r m e d f o r p r o

t e c t i o n a n d the a c c o u n t o f the o r i g i n o f l a n g u a g e (see above , Stage 4 A , p . 3 3 ) .

T h e r e m e n are said t o h a v e " c o m e g r a d u a l l y to recognize each other 's

m u t u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . " 8 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

subject ive a n d object ive aspects o f t h e same process: o n t h e one 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

t h e o t h e r , a n a s s i m i l a t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l character ist ics t o each o t h e r w h i c h

t a k e s p lace once m e n are co l lec ted 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 the h e r d l i fe 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 for e a r l y m a n . M e n have t h e same basic needs; hence,

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 l i fe (syntrophia) a n d behave i n m u c h the same w a y as t h e y d o so

(synetheia). I n this m a n n e r f u r t h e r s i m i l a r i t i e s l i n k i n g t h e m to each o t h e r w i l l

become a p p a r e n t . A n d the i m p l i c a t i o n seems to be t h a t l i k e is a t t r a c t e d to

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 social 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 be 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

a n d 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 the 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 fo l low 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 bred u p anew w i t h the passage of t ime a large number of men, then obviously, just as i n the case of other animals, so i n their case too, w h e n they have assembled (which 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 on account o f their n a t u r a l weakness) the strongest and boldest w i l l ho ld power, just as i n a n i m a l herds the strongest member lords i t over the rest.

I t is " n a t u r a l weakness"—hence fear a n d t h e selfish cons iderat ions 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 to seek the c o m p a n i o n s h i p o f his fe l lows. A t the

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 such c o m p a n y t h a n alone

or a m o n g o t h e r a n i m a l s indicates t h a t , even at this stage o f d e v e l o p m e n t ,

there 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 , he 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 18.75, n o t e 6 8 ) .

9 For other passages in Greek literature dealing with the conciliating effects of synitftfu^^^ ^ ^ syntrophia see below, pp. 132-34. -----

A * /

V ' , \ G r « c

8 4 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 social n o r m s t o t h e same n a t u r a l

a f f i n i t y . 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 are i f t h e r e is t o be a single aitia f o r s o c i e t y . 1 1 B u t

D i o d o r u s , P o l y b i u s , a n d t h e E p i c u r e a n s a l l e n v i s i o n a s i t u a t i o n i n w h i c h t h e

t w o factors are s u p p l e m e n t a r y r a t h e r t h a n m u t u a l l y exclusive. M e n are

volgivagi r a t h e r t h a n solivagi. I f t h e y w e r e 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 one t i m e for t h e u t i l i t y o f a c o m m o n defense to

suggest itself . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e need for 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 for t h e i r f o r m i n g

closer aggregat ions . H o w t h e t w o factors m i g h t have 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 above, p . 71) t h a t the p r o

h i b i t i o n against 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 p r o v i d e needed services against

e n e m i e s . " T h e phrase i m p l i e s b o t h a p u r e l y u t i l i t a r i a n a g r e e m e n t a n d a

r u d i m e n t a r y fee l ing o f c o m m u n i t y a r i s i n g f r o m shared experiences a n d h a r d

s h i p s . 1 2 N a t u r a l l y , t h e t w o w o u l d i n t e r a c t o n each o t h e r , f e l l o w s h i p 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 vice versa. A n d b o t h c o u l d be expected 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 detai ls n o t e d thus f a r w o u l d serve to place P o l y b i u s i n the 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 present 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 emphasis 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. It 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. 278 529B22-23—on the bee's oikeiosis for the oak tree). And 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. 48 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 . 10.120: [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."

T H E G E N E A L O G Y O F MORALS ( P O L Y B I U S ) 85

D i o d o r a n v e r s i o n o f th is 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 yet , o f a c o n c e r n w i t h the 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 o t h e r w o r d s , o f t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a n d u n i q u e features o f t h e

Kulturgeschichte present i n D i o d o r u s a n d those accounts , 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 his . B u t t h e second phase ( 6 . 1 - 9 ) O I "

P o l y b i u s ' a c c o u n t o f social o r i g i n s reveals such a c o n c e r n q u i t e c l e a r l y ,

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 af f init ies l i e .

P o l y b i u s describes three p a r a l l e l s i tuat ions ( 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

o r o f i n j u r y to a benefactor o r o f u n u s u a l b r a v e r y o r c o w a r d i c e i n b a t t l e —

w h i c h f o r some reason makes a n i m p r e s s i o n . M e n ref lect 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 reason are able t o i m a g i n e h o w t h e y

w o u l d be affected i f such 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 thus p i c t u r e d are u n p l e a s a n t , t h e y are i n d i g n a n t a n d express

d i s a p p r o v a l o f t h e person responsible f o r t h e i n c i d e n t . I f p leasant , t h e y

praise a n d h o n o r h i m . T h e resul t , i n t h e last episode, is t h a t act ions to 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 t o w h i c h b l a m e is a t t a c h e d

a v o i d e d : i .e. become t h e c o n t e n t o f those social n o r m s w h i c h P o l y b i u s

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 be n a t u r a l t o

assume t h a t s i m i l a r social 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

descr ibed ear l ier .

A l l three episodes are q u i t e analogous 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 ive rise to l a n g u a g e a n d t e c h n o l o g y . T h e y i n v o l v e a s i m i l a r

i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n a s i t u a t i o n a r i s i n g i n m a n ' s n a t u r a l o r social e n v i r o n

m e n t a n d m a n ' s o w n a b i l i t y t o c a l c u l a t e a n d l o o k a h e a d . T h e r e occurs a n

i n c i d e n t o f the sort 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 ,

a n d w h i c h c o n t a i n s w i t h i n i t se l f t h e germs o f subsequent u t i l i t y ( o r , i n

Polybius , d i s u t i l i t y ) f o r m a n . A forest f i re l iquef ies a v e i n o f m e t a l , a c r y o f

t e r r o r proves successful as a r a l l y i n g c r y , some m a n shows s ignal b r a v e r y o r

s ignal 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 looks t o t h e f u t u r e a n d sees t h e

advantages o r disadvantages w h i c h w i l l resu l t i f t h e i n c i d e n t he has witnessed

recurs, o r is d u p l i c a t e d s o m e h o w . T h e m o l t e n m e t a l w h i c h f o l l o w s t h e

contours o f t h e g r o u n d over w h i c h i t f lows m a y assume t h e shapes m e n give

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 safeguard against a t t a c k ; a n y o n e

m a y be t h e r e c i p i e n t o f s ignal g o o d services o r s i g n a l i n g r a t i t u d e . T h e

result is t h a t m a n takes steps to see t h a t w h a t has o c c u r r e d once b y chance

either does n o t o c c u r a g a i n at a l l , o r else recurs f r e q u e n t l y .

I t is perhaps 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 . Fear o f a n e n e m y

is a feel ing so u n i v e r s a l i n t h e h u m a n race a n d so easily m a d e k n o w n t o others


t h a t i t is n a t u r a l t o suppose, as t h e sources o f the passages f r o m D i o d o r u s

a n d 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 d a n g e r w o u l d be one o f t h e

f i rs t n o t i o n s for 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 benefactor 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 to be

i n c i d e n t s w h i c h , l i k e t h e a p p r o a c h o f d a n g e r , are l i k e l y t o be r e g a r d e d 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 be n a t u r a l t o suppose t h a t

t h e f i rst 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 sort w o u l d be nouns o r

adjectives used i n reference t o u n p r o v o k e d v io lence 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 above , p p . 72-73 a n d 7 5 ) , t h e resul t o f a p e r c e p t i o n o f το συμφέρον

iv rfj προς αλλήλους κοινωνία; 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

h a v e t h e i r m e a n i n g s r o o t e d i n a single, shared experience. G e n e r a l i z a t i o n

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 desirable a n d u n d e s i r a b l e

b e h a v i o r f i x e d i n men 's m e m o r i e s b y t h e w o r d s a t t a c h e d 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

are 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, th is fixing

a n d extens ion 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 be 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 is, h o w e v e r , one passage w h i c h suggests t h a t his 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 to note i t (episemainesthai), a n d those w h o

are benefactors receive episemasias eunoikes ( 6 . 8 ) . B y these expressions he

e v i d e n t l y means t h a t t h e 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 benefactor 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 there 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 be n o t e d

a n d 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 he assigns a s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e i n

t h e social process t o logismos, i ts achievements t a k e n stage b y stage are m u c h

1 3 Cf. Xenophon, Mem. 4 .3 .11-12; 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 λογιζόμενοι τε και μνημονενοντες καταμανθάνομεν ΟΤΤΎ] έκαστα συμφέρει. On the parallels between the three passages cited here see, further, Η. K . Schulte, "Orator," Frankfurter Studien zur Religion und Kultur der Antike 11 (1935) 1 9 - 2 0 , and Pfligersdorfer, WS 61/62.31 with note 67.


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 to m e r e alogos mneme. T h e

di f ference is r o u g h l y c o m p a r a b l e t o t h a t observed above ( p . 74) b e t w e e n

H e r m a r c h u s a n d the 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 subt le 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 whose i n f l u e n c e pervades 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 even r e a c h e d i n his n a r r a t i v e . H i s f irst t w o

episodes are t h e sort 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 against v i o l e n c e

m i g h t u l t i m a t e l y arise. B u t at th is 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 io lence is o f the 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 o b v i o u s . P o l y b i u s was e v i d e n t l y a w a r e o f t h e special

c h a r a c t e r o f such types o f b e h a v i o r ; f o r i t is th is awareness w h i c h e x p l a i n s

the re levance t o w h a t fo l lows 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

the a c c o m p a n y i n g consciousness o f m u t u a l character is t ics t h a t arises i n t h e

first herds , p r o v i d e s a necessary b a c k g r o u n d against w h i c h t h e subsequent

i n c i d e n t s o f v io lence 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 .

Soc ia l a t t i t u d e s arise f r o m the sort 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 whose i m p l i c a t i o n s he perceives 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

place 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

g r a t e f u l c h i l d he m e n t i o n s a c o n t r a s t o r d i f ference 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

contrast r e f e r r e d to 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 care for 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 c o n d u c t o f t h e m a n w h o requites h e l p i n b a t t l e w i t h i n j u r y , a n d i n t h a t

o f the 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 . Since 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 to d o so, i t w o u l d be

n a t u r a l to assume t h a t g r a t i t u d e is the m o r e usual 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 u n e x p e c t e d .

A n d the same w o u l d h o l d t r u e for 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 makes t h e m f a i l to 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

b e h a v i o r .

W h i l e th is w o u l d o b v i o u s l y n o t a p p l y t o t h e i n i t i a l c a n n i b a l i s t i c s i t u a t i o n

referred 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 fe . A t th is 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 a n d

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


o c c u r , t h u s i n t e n s i f y i n g t h e v a g u e fee l ing o f greater secur i ty a n d w e l l - b e i n g

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 each other 's presence f r o m t h e

s t a r t . 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 be m o s t p r o

n o u n c e d w h e r e t h e associat ion b e t w e e n i n d i v i d u a l s is c losest—in t h e f a m i l y .

Parents b e c o m e a c c u s t o m e d t o t h e m u t u a l a f f e c t i o n a n d c o o p e r a t i o n w h i c h

character izes t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e i r o f f s p r i n g a l l t h e t i m e t h a t t h e l a t t e r

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 force o f h a b i t , i n t o t h e p e r i o d

w h e n t h e o f f s p r i n g n o l o n g e r need t h e i r p a r e n t s . 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 be 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 io lence

o r 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 t h e c h i l d ' s c o n d u c t . T h e

same react ions , 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 be expected 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

s t a n d i n g .

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 tendencies

t o w a r d r e c i p r o c a l b e h a v i o r w h i c h , a c c e n t u a t e d a n d e x p a n d e d , 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 rcumstances , these tendencies are i n

themselves suff ic ient t o create a p a t t e r n i n t h e l ives 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 greater o r less t h a n n o r m a l . A

m a n , h o w e v e r , u n l i k e t h e 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 people are

i n v o l v e d , his i n d i g n a t i o n o r pleasure w i l l doubtless 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 tuat ions 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 people , t h e y w i l l see t h a t t h e expression o f co l lec t ive

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 person w h o is its object .

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 encourage o r

d iscourage 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 resul t is t h a t , whereas 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

c o u r a g e t e n d t o become s teadi ly m o r e c o m m o n . 1 5

T h e d e v e l o p m e n t here descr ibed is one w h i c h w i l l o c c u r w h e n t h e i n

c idents i n v o l v e d are such as t o p r o d u c e pleasure 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 place w h e n , as i n the f i rs 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 involves a n o t h e r person. T h e n

t h e observer 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 event a n d i n f e r

1 4 For parallel passages containing this view of the effects of synetheia and syntrophia in the animal world, see below, Chap. I X , note 2 .

1 6 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.

T H E G E N E A L O G Y O F M O R A L S ( P O L Y B I U S ) 89

t h a t w h a t has h a p p e n e d to someone else c a n j u s t as easily h a p p e n to h i m

s e l f . 1 6 T h i s inference , l i k e t h e feelings o f surprise a n d c o n c e r n w h i c h precede

i t , has its roots 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

o f 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 lace o f t h e i n j u r e d p a r t y he 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 one 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 .

M e n are l i k e l y to m a k e such 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

just i f ies 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 character is t ics 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 one . 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 factors w h e n he says o f t h e m e n w h o observe a n i n c i d e n t

o f i n g r a t i t u d e t h a t t h e y " s h a r e t h e i r n e i g h b o r ' 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 μεν τ ω ττέλας, αναφέροντας δ '

εφ' αυτούς το παραπλήσιον). 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

c o n s i d e r a t i o n s : t h e observers fear a s i m i l a r fate f o r themselves. B u t t h e

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 , one 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 : the 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 place 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

verbs used b o t h here a n d i n o t h e r passages w h i c h describe t h e g e n e r a l re

act ions to w r o n g d o i n g : προσκόπτειν, δυσαρεστεΐσθαι, συναγανακτεΐν.17 A l l

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 to recognize 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 cont inues 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

o f life's necessities a n d p r o v i s i o n o f needed services w h i c h H e r m a r c h u s

connects w i t h syntrophia (see above, 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 one , n o t o n l y because i t governs 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 associat ion generates a

f e e l i n g o f c o m m u n i t y , a l o n g w i t h c e r t a i n c o m m o n h a b i t s a n d a c o r r e s p o n d i n g

awareness o f t h e m . O n l y af ter such a p e r i o d o f associat ion w i l l d i v e r g e n c e

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 ive 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 l e a d t o t h e c r y s t a l l i z i n g o f a v a g u e l y

d e f i n e d h a b i t i n t o s tandards o f c o n d u c t e n f o r c e d b y social sanct ions. A n d

1 6 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.

1 7 The point is made by von Fritz, Theory of the Mixed Constitution 5 8 .

go 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

o n l y t h r o u g h p e r c e p t i o n o f these gener ic t r a i t s w i l l t h e r e a s o n i n g a n d

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 one i f a n y g e n e r a l

conclusions are t o be 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

one 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 contexts m a k e a n y

reference t o w h a t one m i g h t expect t o figure a longside i n d i g n a t i o n a n d

social 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 fe l lows, i n

t h e p o r t i o n s o f t h e e x p o s i t i o n w h i c h re late t o t h e i n s t i t u t i o n o f k i n g s h i p 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

precede a n d f o l l o w t h e sect ion 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 spir i t necessarily leads a n d rules, for this phenomenon, observed i n the case o f the other, unreasoning animals, must be considered an indisputable example o f inst inctual behavior (physeos ergon alethinotaton). A m o n g t h e m we observe the strongest enjoying unquestioned mastery—among bulls, that is, a n d goats a n d cocks a n d the l ike. I t is l ikely, then, that men as w e l l h a d this mode o f life i n the beginning, h e r d i n g together i n a n i m a l fashion and fo l lowing 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 determined r u l e (horos tes arches)—physical strength, a n d the name 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 [ the ones out o f w h i c h arise the ennoiai described i n 6 .2-9] the leader a n d most powerful m a n always adds his o w n weight 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, then, no longer t h r o u g h fear o f superior force, b u t rather because they approve his j u d g m e n t , they submit to a n d preserve his rule , even i f he is qui te 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 that , 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 for c o m m o n defense against

t h e w i l d beasts. I t is u n d e r t h e absolute sway 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 descr ibed 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 laws 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 , character

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 r o l e . 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 happens 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 (perhaps b y p u n i s h i n g offenders)

a n d gains a r e p u t a t i o n f o r " g i v i n g each 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 ( p O L Y B I U s ) 9 1

e a t i n g disputes) . S u c h a m a n rules b y consent as w e l l as b y force, a n d his

subjects u n i t e to keep h i m i n p o w e r even w h e n he is o l d a n d feeble. T h e

m u t u a l advantages t o be g a i n e d f r o m t h e system are e v i d e n t l y suff ic ient t o

b r i n g a b o u t its 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 f o r t i f y i n g

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 people , a n d exercise, i n g e n e r a l , a r u l e i n

accordance w i t h its wishes. I f t h e y f a i l t o d o so t h e y are deposed ( 6 . 7 . 3 - 4 ) .

So " k i n g s h i p " ( r u l e b y consent 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 advantages

t o be g a i n e d ) replaces t h e p r i m i t i v e r u l e o f force ( " m o n a r c h y " ) . 1 8 Since i t

is his effectiveness b o t h as p u n i s h e r o f offenders a n d a d j u d i c a t o r o f disputes

t h a t w i n s t h e k i n g his p o s i t i o n , i t is reasonable t o assume t h a t p r i v a t e

1 8 There are parallels between this portion of Polybius' account (6.7.4) a n c ^ Lucretius 5 . 1 1 0 8 - 1 1 :

το μεν ούν παλαιόν ένεγήρασκον ταΐς βασιλείαις οι κριθέντες άπαξ . . . τόπους τε διαφέροντας

όχυρονμενοι και τειχίζοντες και χώραν κατακτώμενοι, το μεν της ασφαλείας χάριν, το δε της

δαφιλείας των επιτηδείων τοις 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. The 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. The 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. The 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 outstanding 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. In apportioning goods among their subjects Lucretius' reges are doing the same thing that won Deioces the kingship of the Medes (Herodotus 1 . 9 6 . 2 - 9 8 . 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 Libya); 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). The 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). The 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 1 3 4 F 2 1 , p . 7 3 0 . 2 6 - 2 7 , o n the C a t h a e a n s . fft..< .·' , ..;>-,


reprisals f o r aggressive acts, n o t s i m p l y t h e aggressive acts themselves, w e r e

responsible 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 fe i n t h e earl iest h u m a n aggrega

t i o n s .

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 io lence 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 change 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 be sa id 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 based 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 lace a t t h e expense o f t h e r u l e o f force a n d fear w h i c h p r e v a i l e d

a l m o s t exc lus ive ly a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f m a n ' s h i s t o r y . W e r e i t n o t f o r t h e

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 rs t systemata m i g h t seem t o

h a v e been 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 force, es tab l i sh ing

as i t d i d t h e effectiveness o f a c o m m o n defense against " 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 f i rs t h u m a n aggregat ions c o m e 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 are 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 safeguard themselves f r o m the 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 been s h o w n , t h e s tronger m e m b e r s

o f t h e g r o u p w i l l be d i s c o u r a g e d f r o m a t t a c k i n g t h e i r fe l lows 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 d e f e n d i n g one a n o t h e r i n a n emergency b u t s t i l l w i t h o u t a n y

o f t h e c o m m o n a t t i t u d e s w h i c h m a k e 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 t o fear t h e s t r o n g , o u t o f h a b i t ; t h e s t r o n g w i l l c o n

t i n u e t o take precedence 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 . 1 9 A t t h e same

t i m e , t h e feelings o f g r o u p l o y a l t y a n d a m i c a b i l i t y a w a k e n e d b y close

associat ion 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 be

present , a n d c a n be e x p e c t e d t o g r o w s tronger 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

accepted 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 se l f f e l t against 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 social 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 be 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 the s t ronger 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. 30) which has the practice end only with the discovery of grain and creation of an adequate food supply.


c o n t a c t w i t h one a n o t h e r , so c o m m o n obedience t o t h e s t r o n g e r w o u l d be 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 yet

p r o v i d e . 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 sort o f chrysal is i n w h i c h society

develops u n t i l i t is able to f u n c t i o n w i t h o u t i t . B u t th is d e v e l o p m e n t is, i n

e v i t a b l y , 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 d i s c a r d e d a l t o g e t h e r a l o n g

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 fe w h e r e

t h e system o f social sanctions w h i c h m e n p r a c t i c e a m o n g one a n o t h e r is

inef fect ive . C o m m o n a t t i t u d e s a n d t h e social censure based o n t h e m m a y be

o f considerable 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 ,

b u t t h e y need a spokesman. H e n c e , t h e f o r t u n a t e a p p e a r a n c e o f a m a n w h o

unites 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 the r e c i p r o c a l nexus

a n d m u s t act 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 resul t is n o t o n l y t h e f i rs t t r u e k i n g s h i p b u t

also t h e f i rs t t r u e politeia ( c o m p a r e 5.4 a n d 7.1).

O u r search f o r traces o f a socio logica l c o u n t e r p a r t to 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 the most sat isfactory p u r e l y speculat ive r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f

t h e o r i g i n o f society ever a t t e m p t e d . 2 1 W e h a v e n o t , h o w e v e r , e n c o u n t e r e d

a n y 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 same p r i n c i p l e s

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

react ions o f pleasure a n d displeasure, c o m b i n e d w i t h t h e w o r k i n g s o f

t h e u t i l i t a r i a n ca lcu lus , p r o d u c e a 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 social r a t h e r t h a n n a t u r a l

2 0 The 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.

2 1 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) . The 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 69 [1936] 5 0 9 ; and the generally unsympathetic exposition in von Fritz, Theory of the Mixed Constitution 4 5 - 5 9 ) . An 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.

9 4 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

e n v i r o n m e n t ; a n d these a d a p t a t i o n s suf f ic ient ly m u l t i p l i e d resul t i n a

r a d i c a l a l t e r a t i o n o f a w a y o f l i f e . 2 2

Scat tered 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 were 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 genealogy

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 every appearance o f b e i n g the 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. The frequency with which early kings appear as the founders of cities has already been noted (above, note 18). 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 Ο Ι " 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 .38.4: συνέσει διαφέροντα (Dionysus in India); 3 · 7 ° · 7 : τω κάλλει και ρώμη διάφορον

(Dionysus in Libya); 5 - 7 1 · 1 · διενέγκαι . . . 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 introduced by Zeus τό κατάρχειν ευεργεσίας και πάλιν άμείβεσθαι ταις προσηκονσαις χάρισι τους ευ

ποιήααντας (cf. Polybius 6.6.6-7)· ^ u t 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. The 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.)

A somewhat closer parallel is provided by Isocrates (Helen 32—37). Theseus, observing the dangerous 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. The people, however, entrust him with the task of governing, realizing that his rule will be more reliable and public-spirited than their own. The 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). In 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.


l o g i c a l 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 o r i g i n s whose l i n g u i s t i c a n d t e c h n o

l o g i c a l sections a p p e a r 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 . T h e

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 been t a k e n o v e r a l m o s t u n a l t e r e d

i n 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 ; i ts

socio logica 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 ,

t h o u g h 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 H e r m a r c h u s a n d

L u c r e t i u s ; a n d t h e i n f l u e n c e o f this t r a d i t i o n m a y a c c o u n t f o r t h e i n c l u s i o n

o f a t h e o r y o f l i n g u i s t i c o r i g i n s i n t h e c a n o n i c a l E p i c u r e a n Kulturgeschichte—

t h o u g h this aspect o f E p i c u r e a n d o c t r i n e is, cons idered i n itself, a n essential ly

o r i g i n a l c r e a t i o n .

T w o f u r t h e r pieces o f evidence s h o u l d be m e n t i o n e d here , f o r t h e y b r i n g

i m p o r t a n t c o n f i r m a t i o n t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n j u s t r e a c h e d . A p o r t i o n o f P o l y b i u s '

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 lear p a r a l l e l i n one 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 , Pos idonius ' 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 quique ex his genit i n a t u r a m i n c o r r u p t a m sequebantur,

eundem habebant et ducem et legem, commissi melioris a r b i t r i o . naturae est

e n i m potioribus deteriora summittere. mutis q u i d e m gregibus aut m a x i m a

corpora praesunt aut vehementissima. n o n praecedit armenta degener taurus

sed q u i magni tudine ac toris ceteros mares v i c i t ; e lephantorum gregem excel-

lentissimus d u c i t ; inter homines pro summo est optimus. (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 τοΰτο χρή φύσεως έργον άληθινώτατον νομίζειν παρ' οΐς ομολογουμένως τούς Ισχυρότατους όρωμεν ηγουμένους, λέγω δέ ταύρους αλεκτρυόνας τα. τούτοις παραπλήσια. . . .

(Polybius 6.5.7-8)

Posidonius differs f r o m P o l y b i u s i n t h a t he refers to 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 stronger , f o r the potiores m e n t i o n e d here are those same

sapientes to w h o m he 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 Posidonius 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 Pos idonius 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 at th is p o i n t . 2 5 F o r t h e sapientes here serve e x a c t l y t h e same

2 4 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.

2 5 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

Q.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

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 Pos idonius ' n a r r a t i v e :

t h e a c c o m m o d a t i o n o f a n a t u r a l i s t i c t r e a t m e n t w i t h i n a te leo log ica l f r a m e

w o r k (see above , p p . 5 3 - 5 4 ) . B y i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e observed 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 submiss ion t o t h e " b e s t " (a s u p e r f i c i a l l y easy change

i f w e pos 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) Pos idonius is able t o s u p p o r t w i t h b i o l o g i c a l evidence o f a sort his

e f for 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 even i n t h e earl iest

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 the c o m

b i n a t i o n o f a c c i d e n t a n d i n g e n u i t y b y w h i c h 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 c c o u n t f o r t h e g r o w t h o f t e c h n o l o g y was m a d e 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 chosen agents, o f m a n ' s e x a l t e d dest iny . T h e t w o p a r t s

o f Pos idonius ' a c c o u n t — 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 — h a v e ar isen 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 bel ieve t h a t those d o c t r i n e s w e r e n o t once 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 preserved i n i ts soc io logica 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 this 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

r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e P o l y b i a n a n d E p i c u r e a n genealogy o f m o r a l s .

A l s o i n k e e p i n g w i t h t h e a r g u m e n t o f th is c h a p t e r are t h e conclusions to

w h i c h t h e second piece o f a d d i t i o n a l ev idence m e n t i o n e d above 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 ev idence appears is so extensive t h a t i t m u s t be

c o n s i d e r e d i n a separate c h a p t e r .

•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.

C H A P T E R S E V E N

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 )

W e have a l r e a d y h a d occasion (above, p . 54) to m e n t i o n t h e t h i r d b o o k o f

Plato's Laws a n d to note the differences b e t w e e n its 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 ive 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 di f ference i n p o i n t o f v i e w does n o t , h o w e v e r , exc lude 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 ly b i us , D i o d o r u s , a n d L u c r e t i u s so closely as to suggest t h a t t h e resem

blance 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 , some

t h i n g f u r t h e r m u s t be said a b o u t the g e n e r a l c h a r a c t e r o f Plato '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 Kulturgeschichte o f Laws I I I has been a n a l y z e d , c o r r e c t l y I bel ieve, 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 . 1 T h e

heterogeneous c h a r a c t e r o f the 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 competition in cities ( 6 7 7 A B ) .

3

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

7

1 See Sikes, Anthropology of the Greeks 4 1 ; Uxkull-Gyllenband, 2 8 - 3 0 ; and Havelock, 4 5 - 5 0 .

97

DEMOGRITUS AND T H E SOURCES OF G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y 98

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. The arts of weaving and pottery were retained from the era before the cataclysm and sufficed for man's needs. The 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 ) .

enjoying ancestral laws and the justest of all kingships ( 6 8 O D E ) .

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

8

g (This mode of existence is known as dynas-teia.) ( 6 8 O B )

10 Thus, like birds, they lived in flocks,

11

12 Later, men banded together into larger groups, turned to farming and built walls to protect themselves from the wild beasts ( 6 8 O E - 8 I A ) .

13 The formation of larger aggregations brought about the mingling of different sets of customs ( 6 8 I A B ) ;

14 hence it became necessary to appoint lawgivers to reconcile them. The latter produced a code of laws

15 and replaced the existing dynasteia with kingship or aristocracy ( 6 8 I C D ) .

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 t h e t w o d i f f e r e n t concept ions o f h i s t o r y present here , one m a y be c a l l e d

" 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 at 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 social 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 cap-

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 ( L A W S I I I ) 99

able o f secur ing a n d p r e s e r v i n g for h i m s e l f the blessings o f c i v i l i z a t i o n . T h e

l a t t e r holds t h a t i t was o n l y the 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 e x i s t i n g c o m p l e t e a n d perfect i n p r i m i t i v e m a n . 2 T h e

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 h a v e n o t

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 such change as t h e y have p r o d u c e d

is l a r g e l y for t h e worse.

E l e m e n t s o f these t w o concept ions are p e r h a p s c o m p a t i b l e w i t h one a n

o t h e r a n d c o u l d have 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 be f a i r l y easy, f o r e x a m p l e , to a d o p t t h e progressive

perspect ive 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 one 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 . 3 T w o considerat ions ,

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 have 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 this sort . W h a t has b e e n c a l l e d t h e progressive v i e w appears i n

G r e e k l i t e r a t u r e as e a r l y as the 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, p p . 5 2 - 5 3 ) i n t h e three w o r k s

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: t h e Politicus, t h e Timaeus,

a n d the Critias. I t is reasonable t o assume, t h e n , t h a t i t was t a k e n over b y

P l a t o f r o m ear l ier t h o u g h t ; a n d t h a t t h e o p p o s i n g v i e w ( c o l u m n A ) , w h i c h

appears for t h e f i rs t 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 iews

m a y be possible, i t is n o t to be f o u n d i n o u r present t e x t . A l l the i tems g i v e n

above u n d e r B refer to the var ious stages o f a steady e v o l u t i o n : the f irst m e n

are scattered 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 , l i k e o t h e r a n i m a l s , they f o r m aggregat ions; t h e y t u r n to a g r i c u l t u r e

a n d take 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 aggrega

t ions 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 ,

m e n b e g i n to 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 presented b y P l a t o as p a r t o f a n y causal sequence. H e does

n o t t e l l us w h y clans b a n d together i n t o l a r g e r aggregat ions ; w h y , i n the

m i d d l e o f the w h o l e process, m e n b e g i n to p r o t e c t themselves against 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 before ; 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 the p l a i n s to b u i l d cities. A l l these

events have a n e x p l a n a t i o n i f seen against the 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 represent 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 greater c o m f o r t a n d securi ty . B u t P l a t o has been at some pains t o

2 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.

3 This is essentially the procedure followed by the Cynics in their accounts of early man (see^->o

below, pp. 149-51)· J y \ y ^ 4 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 /

I O O D E M O G R I T U S A N D 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 r o v e , b y t h e i tems 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

t i o n h a d e n o u g h t o satisfy a l l his l e g i t i m a t e needs. F o r g e t t i n g the b a r e

l i v e l i h o o d a n d scant flocks o f 677E' ( B 4 ) , he declares t h a t there was n o short

age o f f o o d ( A 7 ) . N o t h a v i n g the means 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 subsequent p o l i t i c a l a r r a n g e m e n t s are m e r e l y l a r g e r versions o f t h e

same t h i n g ; a n d l a w is n o t h i n g m o r e t h a n a n a t t e m p t to reconci le c o n

f l i c t i n g p a t r i a r c h a l t r a d i t i o n s w h e n t h e y h a p p e n to conf l i c t . I t w o u l d , o f

course, h a v e b e e n possible t o suggest w h y the 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 ;

b u t 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 changes

occur—changes w h i c h are e x p l i c a b l e o n the basis o f the v i e w o f p r i m i t i v e

society 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

f o u n d i n A .

T h e above analysis, as w e l l as w h a t i t suggests a b o u t the presence o f

contaminatio i n Laws 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 P l a t o w i t h

P o l y b i u s ; for a l m o s t 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 o r d e r ,

i n B o o k V I o f t h e Histories:

P O L Y B I U S V I

initial cataclysm; 5 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

creation of generally accepted ideas of right and wrong, 6 - 2 - 9

followed by kings 6 . 1 2 and cities. 7.4

P L A T O

initial cataclysm; 1 loss of technology; 2 men live scattered and without laws; 4 they become more numerous, 6 under leadership of a patriarch (dynas-

teia), 9

living in flocks; 1 o larger aggregations, fortifications, and

agriculture arise; 12-13 creation of a code of nomoi, 14

then kings 15 and cities. 17

6 It is usually assumed that the theory of recurrent cataclysms is a Platonic innovation in Greek Kulturentstehungslehre (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. The 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, Aristotle2 [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

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 ( L A W S I I I ) Ι Ο Ι

O f t h e " p r o g r e s s i v e " i tems i n Plato 's a c c o u n t o n l y 12-13 h a v e n o c o u n t e r

p a r t i n Po lyb ius , a n d t h e i r absence is easily e x p l a i n e d as a resul t o f t h e

l a t t e r ' s exc lusively sociological perspect ive. I t is c lear t h a t the t w o texts d i d

n o t c o m e 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 o t h e r — h e n c e t h e suggestion, o f ten

a d v a n c e d , t h a t P l a t o is a p a r t i a l source f o r P o l y b i u s . 6 I f so, t h e la t ter ' s

success i n e x t r a c t i n g f r o m Plato'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 ref lect t h e i n f l u e n c e o f a n

i d e n t i c a l source, one 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 , b u t

w h i c h P l a t o has subjected to extensive i n t e r p o l a t i o n . 7

S t r o n g s u p p o r t for this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is p r o v i d e d b y t h e t e r m i n o l o g y

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. The 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. The 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 implied 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. The 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."

6 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, Polibio (Padua 1949) 6 6 ; and von Fritz, Theory of the Mixed Constitution 417, note 34.

7 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 im 6. Buch des Polybios," Hermes 81 [1953] 2 9 6 - 9 7 ) .

I 0 2 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 to the p a t r i a r c h a l societies w h i c h preceded t h e

f irst k i n g d o m . R u l e o f the 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 contexts a lways means r u l e b y f o r c e , 8 u s u a l l y

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. 39,

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 preceded the establ ishment 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 . 9 O n e m u s t c o n c l u d e

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 concept 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 applies i t to 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 change. 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 be 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 for vis. T h e n e w a r r a n g e m e n t is

preceded i n his 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 are the c o d i f i c a t i o n o f the nomothetai w h o

b r i n g k i n g s h i p i n t o b e i n g , r a t h e r t h a n t h e c o m m o n l y accepted n o t i o n s o f

r i g h t a n d w r o n g whose f o r m a t i o n is descr ibed i n Polybius 6 . 6 . 1 1

W e are i n a p o s i t i o n to say m o r e a b o u t Plato's source t h a n t h a t i t was t h e

one 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 are p a r a l l e l e d there (Stages 5 E a n d

8 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) 120-21, 155-56. The 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). To my knowledge, however, no satisfactory explanation has been offered. Cf. England: "The 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: " In diesem Abschnitt ist allerdings Platon in der Namengebung besonders ungebunden."

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 ) . The 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 ) .

1 0 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 [ 1 9 4 3 ] 7 9 ) . It 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). It 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 1 The 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. In the process Plato exactly reverses normal Greek ideas by making the king the product, rather than the source, of the earliest nomothesia.

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 ( L A W S I I I ) IO3

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 Plato 's o w n a d d i t i o n s to his source,

has three i tems w h i c h r e a d l i k e a p o l e m i c against t h e v iews o f o u r five

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 ( 5 . 1 3 5 0 - 5 3 ,

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 at a l l per iods o f his h i s t o r y ; 1 2 he 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 ) b e t w e e n

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 emphasis 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 perhaps d i r e c t e d against the 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 .14.1 , Stage 3 D ; cf. above, 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 the 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 above,

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 to establish 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 resume

o f a l l those achievements 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 one t i m e ,

h a v e e a r n e d for t h e i r possessors the 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 , suff icient to d o so. T h e achievements re jected 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 presented i n w h a t seems to

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 reed t h e race f r o m the

curse o f c a n n i b a l i s m a n d discovered 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 speaking, sopkoi; n e i t h e r are those responsible f o r t h e first

houses a n d for m e t a l l u r g y a n d the 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 the 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 the

discoverers o f the m i m e t i c a r t s — m u s i c , d a n c i n g , a n d s i n g i n g ; n o r t h e

founders o f m e d i c i n e , 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 , f a c i l i t y 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 perhaps , b u t n o t sophia.

H e r e w e have i n e x p l i c i t f o r m the t h e o r y o f m a n ' s o r i g i n a l c a n n i b a l i s t i c

1 2 The parallel with Lucretius 5 . 1 3 5 0 - 5 3 was noted by Uxkull-Gyllenband, 34, note 46. 1 3 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 mentioned in Laws 6.782B as a mode of trophe to which man, in common with other animals, once had recourse. The latter passage occurs in an anthropological context which shows several points of similarity with Book I I I :

I I I ( 6 7 6 B C )

άφ* ov πόλεις τ* είσιν και άνθρωποι πολιτ€νόμ€νοι

8οκ€Ϊς άν ποτ€ κατανόησαν χρόνου πλήθος όσον

yeyovev; μνρίαι . . . επι μνρίαις . . . γεγόνασι πό

λεις . . . ουκ ελάττους εφθαρμεναι . . . πεπολιτευ-

μεναι δ* αν πάσας πολιτείας πολλάκις εκα-

σταχον. . . .

V I (781Ε-82Α) χρη . . . σνννο€Ϊν ώς η των ανθρώπων γ€ν€σις η

άρχην ούοεμιαν εΐληχεν . . . η μήκος τι της αρχής

άφ* ου yeyovev άμήχανον άν χρόνον ρσον γεγονό$

cec εΐη. πόλεως συστάσεις και φθοράς, και

επιτηδεύματα παντοία τάξεως τ€ καΙ αταξίας . . .

ουκ οίόμεθα γεγονεναι', ί. ,

IC-4 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

n a t u r e w h i c h was re jected 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 here 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 the 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 re jected there . 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 C h a p t e r s O n e t h r o u g h F o u r . N o r d o t h e s i m i l a r i t i e s e n d here.

B o t h t h e Epinomis a n d the 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 iscovery o f g r a i n ( D i o d o r u s 1.14.1, Stage 3 D ) ; 1 4 b o t h discuss

t h e " f i n e " arts after t h e necessary ones ( the Epinomis d r a w i n g a n e x p l i c i t

d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n τών αναγκαίων κτήσιν a n d παιδιά—975CD); a n d t h e

anchinoia 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) alongside h a n d s a n d

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 reappears

i n t h e Epinomis as a suggested d e s i g n a t i o n for 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 , the passage recalls P o l y b i u s i n its i n

c l u s i o n o f t h e g e n e r a l a n d o r a t o r a m o n g p r a c t i t i o n e r s o f t h e l o w e r f o r m s o f

sophia (975E-76B) . 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

descr ibed b y P o l y b i u s , b u t t h e i r act iv i t ies (descr ibed 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 genera 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 ) ;

a n d t h e o r a t o r s (descr ibed as βοηθοί δίκαις16 ev τη τοΰ λεγζιν ρώμη) have a

r o l e analogous 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 . 1 7

B o t h Laws I I I a n d t h e Epinomis are i n t u r n l i n k e d t o the y o u n g A r i s t o t l e ' s

a c c o u n t o f t h e antecedents o f p h i l o s o p h y (see above, p p . 5 2 - 5 3 ) b y

s i m i l a r i t i e s w h i c h show t h a t a l l three m u s t h a v e h a d a c o m m o n o r i g i n i n t h e

discussions o f the A c a d e m y h e l d i n t h e m i d - f o u r t h c e n t u r y . 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 three accounts have a single a i m : the

d o w n g r a d i n g o f t h e 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 , insofar as t h e y represent r e a l achievements , 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 achievements at 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 en joyed

f r o m t i m e i m m e m o r i a l . T h e Epinomis recognizes the u t i l i t y o f t e c h n o l o g y a n d

the talents o f its creators b u t denies t h a t these talents have a n y t h i n g to d o

1 4 The same connection is drawn in Laws 6.782B. 1 5 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 6 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 56.15; and the passages cited in A. Delatte, Essai sur la politique pythagoricienne (Liege 1922) 49.

1 7 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 15).

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 ( L A W S I I I ) IO5

w i t h w i s d o m i n its highest f o r m . A r i s t o t l e , m o r e generous, gives t o t e c h n o l o g y

a p r e p a r a t o r y b u t s t i l l s u b o r d i n a t e p lace i n m a n ' s i n t e l l e c t u a l d e v e l o p m e n t .

T h a t a l l three c r i t i q u e s s h o u l d be presented i n the f o r m o f Kulturgeschichten

w h i c h are so s i m i l a r to each o t h e r suggests t h a t w h a t a l l three are a t t a c k i n g

is n o t s i m p l y a genera 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 were 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

a c c o u n t o f t h e i r c i v i l i z i n g a c h i e v e m e n t s . 1 8 P l a t o denies i n large p o r t i o n t h e

t r u t h o f this a c c o u n t ; A r i s t o t l e a n d the a u t h o r o f the Epinomis accept i t , b u t

compensate b y e m p h a s i z i n g the essentially s u b s i d i a r y c h a r a c t e r o f the

achievements i t celebrates. I t is n a t u r a l to 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 o r b o d y o f w o r k s w h i c h expla ins t h e s i m i l a r i t i e s

b e t w e e n the Laws, the Epinomis, t h e accounts o f t e c h n o l o g y a n d l a n g u a g e

considered i n C h a p t e r s O n e t h r o u g h F o u r , a n d the sociology o f P o l y b i u s

V I . 1 9

I f t h e above a r g u m e n t is correc t , the Laws a n d t h e Epinomis c o n t a i n i n

d e p e n d e n t evidence f o r a c c e p t i n g the c o n c l u s i o n r e a c h e d i n o u r t w o p r e

c e d i n g c h a p t e r s — t h a t the genealogy 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 evidence 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 the 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 the f o u r t h c e n t u r y m a y n o w be accepted as a

terminus ante quern f o r t h e o r i g i n o f the 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 , therefore , w i t h a d o c t r i n e w h i c h is

p r e - H e l l e n i s t i c a n d , i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y , p r e - P l a t o n i c . T h e a r g u m e n t , p l a u s i b l e

i n i t s e l f (see above, 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 accounts 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 this 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. In 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 (11.7-9 Hayduck). 1 ' 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).

I o 6 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 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 evidence e x a m i n e d i n those

c h a p t e r s — o f a D e m o c r i t e a n 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 thus f a r p r o d u c e d a n y

pos i t ive evidence 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 such evidence is n o t

l a c k i n g . W h e n t h e t w o accounts are cons idered 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 statements f o u n d i n his 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 becomes, 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 Fr . 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.

C H A P T E R E I G H T

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 . 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 descr ibed i n the t h i r d b o o k o f t h e Laws is

c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y the f o r m a t i o n o f successively l a r g e r social aggregat ions,

b e g i n n i n g w i t h the f a m i l y a n d progress ing t h r o u g h c l a n , c i t y , a n d c o n

f e d e r a t i o n (see i n the s u m m a r y g i v e n above, p p . 9 7 - 9 8 , i tems 8, 12, 13, 16,

a n d 18). T h i s aspect o f Plato 's a c c o u n t has some b e a r i n g o n t h e source

p r o b l e m w e are 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 tenet o f a t o m i s t i c physics.

D e m o c r i t u s d e r i v e d the e n t i r e universe f r o m t h e concourse o f a toms i n t o

aggregations 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 to be

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 become progressively l a r g e r ( A 4 0 ) . H e also

seems to have 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

n o n - a t o m i s t i c w r i t e r s . I t designated aggregat ions o f l i v i n g t h i n g s as w e l l

as o f a t o m s , 1 a n d there is n o reason t o bel ieve 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 have been 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 t o

e x p a n d . I f t h e y were n o t so r e g a r d e d , Plato 's a c c o u n t o f the g r a d u a l p r o

gression f r o m f a m i l y to ethnos m a y be t h e resul 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 to sociology.

T h i s suggestion is n o t n e w . T h e " a t o m i s t i c " aff init ies o f t h e d o c t r i n e o f

Laws I I I have been p o i n t e d o u t before a n d t a k e n as suff ic ient 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 . 2 T h e suggestion is a t t r a c t i v e a n d

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 t h e p h i l o

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 . 3 Y e t f o r

the present, a t a n y r a t e , i t m u s t be accepted t e n t a t i v e l y a n d w i t h reservations.

T h e d i v i s i o n o f cities i n t o tr ibes a n d p h r a t r i e s a n d t h e association o f these

cities i n t o e t h n i c leagues a n d al l iances was a s i m p l e fact o f G r e e k social a n d

p o l i t i c a l l i fe , 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 .

1 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.

2 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

3 See the works cited in VS I I 8 2 . 3 8 m ; W. Schmid, Geschichte der griechischen Literature, XMunich 1948) 3 3 1 - 3 2 ; and H . Cherniss, "Plato, 1 9 5 0 - 5 7 , " Lustrum 4 (1959) 3 9 - 4 0 . lj , ' V

107 r ; | t . , !

Ι θ 8 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

I t w o u l d h a v e b e e n a n a t u r a l a s s u m p t i o n , r e q u i r i n g n o b a c k g r o u n d o f

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 others , 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 , therefore , existed separately at one t i m e ; a n d

t h a t g r a d u a l accret ions h a d p r o d u c e d social u n i t s o f the d imensions w i t h

w h i c h t h e Greeks o f m o r e recent t imes w e r e 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 descr ibed 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

f a r 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 separated 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 the a t o m i s t i c

t h e o r y o f cosmic genesis.

T a k e n b y itself, therefore , 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 be sa id , h o w e v e r , once his

a c c o u n t has been e x a m i n e d alongside 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 ,

f o r 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 t h e g r a d u a l e x p a n s i o n o f a n o r i g i n a l n u c l e u s . 4 I n 1.8.4 ( C I - above,

p p . 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

l a n g u a g e are sa id to b e c o m e t h e ancestors o f the ethne o f t h e w o r l d . E v e n

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 achievements o f H e r m e s the 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 names f o r c e r t a i n andnyma. T h e passage has been

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 language

( 1 . 8 . 2 - 4 ) , D u t u p o n closer e x a m i n a t i o n i t becomes f a i r l y c lear t h a t D i o d o r u s

is here 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 iscovery o f names

f o r andnyma, a n d so t h e r e w o u l d be 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 act iv i t ies . M o r e o v e r , a t this 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 be 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

w h i c h receive names as andnyma r a t h e r t h a n s i m p l y as pragmata. W h a t

H e r m e s m u s t be d o i n g is, f i rs t , c r e a t i n g a lingua franca (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 perhaps) 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 names for some o f t h e

andnyma5 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 exact p a r a l l e l i n Laws 3.68 I A - C ( i t e m 14 i n the 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 ) . 6 P l a t o there says t h a t , as t h e separate clans b e g a n

4 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.

P L A T O , P O L Y B I U S , AND DEMOGRITUS I O g

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 ten c o n f l i c t i n g customs.

As a resul t i t was necessary to 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 . 7 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,

i t is character 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 are 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 above , p p . 7 1 -

74, 8 5 - 8 6 ) . A n d i t s h o u l d be 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 be s y n o n y m s a n d h o m o n y m s ,

those examples 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 a n d

i d e n t i c a l responses t o d i f f e r e n t pragmata o f w h i c h D e m o c r i t u s t o o k special

a c c o u n t (see above, 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 coalescing 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 .

These para l le 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 Plato 's a c c o u n t belongs t o t h e t r a d i t i o n w h i c h he a n d

D i o d o r u s are f o l l o w i n g , hence c a n n o t be a n a d d i t i o n o f Plato 's o w n to 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 . Second, i t a l l o w s us t o s u p p l e m e n t

t h e r a t h e r s h a k i l y g r o u n d e d a r g u m e n t f r o m t h e " a t o m i s t i c " c h a r a c t e r o f

Laws I I I w i t h a specific p a r a l l e l to 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 have 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 at 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 (or householders) 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 against 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 Plato 's t o w h a t c a n be r e c o n s t r u c t e d

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. A

kosmos, a c c o r d i n g to one t e s t i m o n y ( A 4 0 . 4 ) , grows a n d flourishes u n t i l i t c a n

n o l o n g e r absorb m a t t e r f r o m outs ide . Elsewhere 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 to 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

D e m o c r i t u s h a d i n m i n d a s i t u a t i o n i n w h i c h t h e y w o u l d h a v e been i d e n t i c a l

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 one a n o t h e r

for t h e a v a i l a b l e atoms. U n d e r these c i rcumstances 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 lways 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 , 8

7 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.


f a i l u r e t o absorb 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 such 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 , to 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 he f inds 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 thus p e r f e c t l y

consistent, as Plato 's is n o t , w i t h w h a t one 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 th is process t o have been. T h e r e is, m o r e o v e r , one specific piece o f evidence

t o suggest t h a t D e m o c r i t u s d i d i n fact offer such a n a c c o u n t , a n d t h a t i t is

echoed i n P o l y b i u s :

ΡοΐΛΈΓυΐ 6 . 5 . 7 - 8

τότε δήπου καθάπερ επί τών άλλων ζώων και έπι

τούτων συναθροιζομένων—δπερ εικός, και τούτους

εις το όμόφυλον συνογελάζεσθαι διά τήν φύσεως

άσθένειαν—ανάγκη τον τη σωματική ρώμη και τη

φυχική τόλμη διαφέροντα, τούτον ήγεΐσθαι και

κρατεΐν, καθάπερ και έτιϊ τών άλλων γενών

άδοξοποιητών ζώων θεωρούμενον τούτο χρή

φύσεως έργον άληθινώτατον νομίζειν, παρ* οΓ?

ομολογουμένως τους Ισχυρότατους όρώμεν ηγου

μένους, λέγω δέ ταύρους κάπρους άλεκτρυόνας,

τά τούτοις παραπλήσια.

D E M O C R I T U S Β Ι 6 4

και γαρ ζώα . . . όμογενέσι ζώοις συναγελάζεται,

ώς περίστεροι περιστεραις και γερανοί γεράνοις

και έπι τών άλλων άλογων ωσαύτως.

A s q u o t e d b y Sextus (Adv. math. 7. n 7) , D e m o c r i t u s B164 compares

a n i m a l aggregat ions , n o t to h u m a n ones, b u t to those o f s i m i l a r l y shaped

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 , supports 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 to have b e e n w i t h m e n as

w e l l . 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 the 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 rea lms 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 to a n i m a l b e h a v i o r to establish w h a t is " n a t u r a l " r a t h e r t h a n

a c q u i r e d i n m a n — u n p a r a l l e l e d e l s e w h e r e . 1 1 Y e t the fact t h a t t h e same c o n

j u n c t i o n o f ideas together w i t h r a t h e r s i m i l a r phraseology appears 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 the

a r g u m e n t o f C h a p t e r Seven has s h o w n ) to 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.

1 0 So Uxkull-Gyllenband, 31, followed by Havelock, 412. 1 1 Its earliest datable appearance is in the Clouds of Aristophanes ( 1 4 2 7 - 2 9 ) .

P L A T O , P O L Y B I U S , AND D E M O C R I T U S I I I

Β 1 6 4 is t h e o n l y p lace i n Greek l i t e r a t u r e before Laws 68ODE w h e r e m a n is

p l a c e d i n a category 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 this m u s t be a l l o w e d to c a r r y some w e i g h t . T h e r e is also a trace o f w h a t

m a y have been one f u r t h e r p a r a l l e l b e t w e e n t h e v iews 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 the earliest h u m a n society, o r , m o r e precisely , 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 .

P o l y b i u s 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 :

f i rs t , t h e naturalness a n d i n e v i t a b i l i t y o f m a n ' s t e n d e n c y t o aggregate after

his k i n d ; secondly, 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 epyov

άληθινώτατον) o f t h e t e n d e n c y f o r t h e strongest m e m b e r o f t h e 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 here is as m u c h a c o m m o n p l a c e as t h e one

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 are c o m b i n e d , as t h e y are i n

P o l y b i u s , t h e resul 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 . 1 3

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 I I I , w h e r e , h o w e v e r , p a r e n t a l r u l e

takes t h e place o f r u l e o f t h e s tronger . T h e resul t , i n Plato '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 this dispenses w i t h t h e i n t e r

a c t i o n o f t h e opposed p r i n c i p l e s o f force a n d consent (see above , 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

t h e m a n w h o is kreittdn i n Plato'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 be 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

exact 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 to be f o u n d i n

t h e p o l i t i c a l f r a g m e n t s o f D e m o c r i t u s , w h e r e t h e c l a i m s ( a n d dangers) o f

s u p e r i o r a b i l i t y are c o n s t a n t l y b e i n g b a l a n c e d against those o f c o l l e c t i v e w i l l

a n d 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 are b a l a n c e d

against t h e p o w e r o f the stronger i n P o l y b i u s ' a c c o u n t . 1 4 T h e one f r a g m e n t

w h i c h expresses most 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 ronger

1 2 Cf., for example, Plato, Gorgias 483AC; Moschion, Fr . 6.15-17 (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 B 1 6 4 , Lana (RendLinc Ser. 8, 5 .187-201) 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. 8 4 , 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 (B245 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 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

( B 2 6 7 : <p"vaei TO ap^ecv OIKITJIOV TO> Kpiaaovi) closely recalls a phrase w h i c h

occurs i n Pos idonius ' discussion o f t h e o r i g i n a l h u m a n aggregate: natura est

potioribus deterioribus summittere.15 W e d o n o t k n o w w h e t h e r t h e p r i n c i p l e

e n u n c i a t e d i n B267 was ever a p p l i e d t o Kulturgeschichte. B u t t h e existence

o f t h e f r a g m e n t does i n d i c a t e t h a t P o l y b i u s ' 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 o f

D e m o c r i t u s .

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 se l f a l l o w us t o c o n c l u d e t h a t , a t

a n y p o i n t w h e r e P o l y b i u s ' v i e w o f t h e b e g i n n i n g s o f society diverges f r o m

Plato 's , t h e f o r m e r represents t h e m o r e f a i t h f u l r e c o r d o f a c o m m o n

D e m o c r i t e a n source. B u t i t does suggest t h a t th is 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 for a n y f u r t h e r D e m o c r i t e a n

para l le 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

Plato 's n o t i o n o f t h e single f a m i l y as t h e nucleus o f society is, as w e have

seen, u n l i k e l y t o be 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 ro le w h i c h

he 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 subsequent d e v e l o p m e n t o f the

social a g g r e g a t i o n . 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 " j u s t e s t

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 o b e y the r u l e o f t h e i r parents . T h e p a t

terns o f obedience 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 change m e n t i o n e d i n t h e re

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 place w h e n there comes a need for

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 such nomoi. H o w far this 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 the ro le o f the f a m i l y i n h u m a n h i s t o r y is

e v i d e n t f r o m B278, w h i c h contrasts h u m a n c h i l d - r e a r i n g a n d its a n i m a l

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 beget c h i l d r e n i n obedience t o the 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 for the a f fec t ion a n d

care w h i c h t h e y l a v i s h o n t h e i r o f f s p r i n g . A m o n g m e n , o n the o t h e r 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 established usage (nomizon)"16 w h e r e b y t h e

parents d e r i v e benef i t f r o m the c h i l d as w e l l . H e r e the p r i n c i p l e g o v e r n i n g

the 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 at a g i v e n p o i n t i n t i m e ; m o r e

over , i t represents a n exchange o f services, n o t the r e n d e r i n g o f obedience to

1 5 The parallels between this discussion and the corresponding portion of Polybius' account have already been noted, above, pp. 9 5 - 9 6 .

1 6 The 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.

P L A T O , P O L Y B I U S , AND DEMOGRITUS 1 13

a super ior . D e m o c r i t u s ' v i e w is, i t s h o u l d be 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 shows:

P O L Y B I U S 6 . 6 . 2 - 5 D E M O C R I T U S B 2 7 8

•πάντων γαρ προς τους συνουσίας όρμώντων κατά

φυσιν, εκ δε τούτου παιδοποιίας αποτελούμενης,

οπότε τις των εκτραφεντων εις ήλικίαν ίκόμενος

μη νεμοι χάριν μηο* άμύναι τουτοι? οΐς εκτρεφοιτ*

αλλά που τάναντία κακώς λέγειν ή δραν τούτους

-εγχειροίη, Βήλον ώς δυσαρεστεΐν και προσκόπτειν

εικός τους συναντάς και συνιδόντας

την γεγενημενην εκ των γεννησάντων επιμελειαν

και κακοπάθειαν περί τά τέκνα και την τούτων

θεραπείαν και τροφήν. του γάρ γένους των

ανθρώπων ταύτη διαφέροντος τών άλλων ζώων η

μονοις αντοΐς μετεστι νου και λογισμού,

φανερόν ώς ουκ εικός παρατρεχειν αυτούς την

•προειρημενην διαφοράν, καθάπερ επι τών άλλων

ζώων, αλλ* επισημαίνεσθαι τό γιγνόμενον και

δυσάρεστεισθαι τοις πάρουσι προορωμενους τό

μέλλον και συλλογιζομένους ότι τό παραπλησιον

εκάστοις αυτών συγκυρήσει.

άνθρώποισι τών αναγκαίων δοκεΐ είναι παΐδας

κτήσασθαι από φύσιος και καταστάσιός τίνος

άρχαίης* δήλον δε και τοις άλλοις ζώοισι. πάνταγάρ

εκγονα κτάται κατά φύσιν επωφελείης ye ουδεμίας

εινεκα *

αλλ* οταυ γενηται ταλαιπωρεί καϊ τρέφει εκαστον

ώς δύναται και ύπερδεδοικε μ^χρι σμικρά και ην

τι πάθη άνιαται. ή μεν φύσις τοιαύτη πάντων

εστίν οσσα ψυχήν €χει.

τω δε άνθρώπω νομίζον ήδη πεποίηται ώστε και

επαύρεσιν τινα γίγνεσθαι από τοΰ εκγόνου.

I n b o t h Polybius 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 o f f s p r i n g are considered. T h e f irst is t h a t w h i c h is n a t u r a l

a n d u n a v o i d a b l e . P r o c r e a t i o n o f c h i l d r e n fo l lows i n e v i t a b l y f r o m m a n ' s

n a t u r e , a n d this i n t u r n leads to p a r e n t a l care for o f f s p r i n g . I n this m a n is n o

d i f f e r e n t f r o m the o t h e r a n i m a l s . A g a i n s t such b e h a v i o r is set t h e speci f ical ly

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 his 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 anger a n d i n d i g n a t i o n .

T h e speci f ical ly h u m a n aspect o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p is said t o be 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 , 1 7 b u t recalls the nomizomena

o f Polystratus ' closely p a r a l l e l analysis (see above, p p . 8 1 - 8 2 ) . T h e r e is,

m o r e o v e r , evidence to show t h a t t h e actions w h i c h a c q u i r e 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 to m a k e p r o p e r r e t u r n t o one's parents , f a i l u r e

to r e p a y benefactors, s h a r i n g i n t h e c o m m o n defence—are precisely those

w h i c h i n the fifth a n d f o u r t h centuries w o u l d have b e e n l i k e l y to be 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 stem. T h r e e closely s i m i l a r texts,

one f r o m A r i s t o t l e ' s Rhetoric ( 1 . 1374A18-25) , one f r o m the Rhetoric to

Alexander u s u a l l y ascr ibed t o A n a x i m e n e s (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 the present passage. F o r these three 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.

ι ΐ 4 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

l a w invo lves 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 be a d h e r e d t o . T h e types specified are as f o l l o w s :

A R I S T O T L E A N A X T M E N E S X E N O P H O N

άγραφα δίκαια: έθος άγραφον: άγραφοι νόμοι:

( ι ) χάριν έχειν τω ποιήσαντι ένεργέταις χάριν άποδιδόναι τους εν ποιοΰντας άντευερ-

εΰ . . . άντευποιεΐν τον εΰ γετεΐν

ποιήσαντα

(2) βοηθητικόν είναι φίλοις φίλους ευ ποιεΐν

(3) γονέας τιμάν γονέας τιμάν

(4) θεούς σέβεσθαι

T h e s i m i l a r i t i e s b e t w e e n A r i s t o t l e a n d A n a x i m e n e s are most 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 der ive f r o m t h e r h e t o r i c a l

t r a d i t i o n o f t h e f i f t h c e n t u r y ; 1 8 a n d t h a t this p o r t i o n o f t h e t r a d i t i o n has its

roots i n Sophis t ic discussions o f nomos is suggested b y t h e para l le 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

H i p p i a s . 1 9 T h e three examples 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 are 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 associates. 2 0 T h i s evidence, c o m

b i n e d w i t h t h a t o f Polys tratus , makes i t v e r y p r o b a b l e t h a t Po lybius was

d r a w i n g u p o n a source w h i c h descr ibed t h e o r i g i n o f three basic nomizomena.

D e m o c r i t u s was n o t , o f course, t h e o n l y a u t h o r to d e a l w i t h agraphoi

nomoi,21 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 . 2 2 W h a t is u n p a r a l l e l e d outs ide t h e

t w o passages u n d e r discussion, h o w e v e r , is the n o t i o n t h a t t h e p a t t e r n o f

1 8 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 ) .

2 0 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, Fr . 853 (TGF638); Isocrates, Dem. 16; Plato, Laws 724A, 8 5 4 E ; Lycurgus, Leocr. 15, 94, 9 7 ; Polybius 6.4.5.

2 1 Cf., in addition to the passages cited in the text, Sophocles, Ant. 4 5 4 - 5 5 ; Thucydides 2.37.3. 2 2 It 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 . )

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 accounts w o u l d have i t , t h e i m m e d i a t e a n d i n

e v i t a b l e r e f l e c t i o n o f a character is t ic di f ference b e t w e e n h u m a n a n d a n i m a l

pkysis.23 T h e h i s t o r i c a l perspect ive is m o r e o b v i o u s l y present i n P o l y b i u s

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 bel ieve, a l m o s t c e r t a i n

t h a t B278 was composed f r o m the same perspect ive . T h e phrase 17817 rreTroirjTai

indicates t h a t there 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 exist ; 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 (B144) whose c o n t e x t was u n d e n i a b l y Kultur-

geschichte—the one o n t h e la te o r i g i n o f music . M u s i c a n d o t h e r f ine arts arise

€K TOV rrepievvTos 17817. I n b o t h passages 17S17 emphasizes t h e fact t h a t the c o n d i

t i o n descr ibed has n o t a lways existed. I t is o n l y n o w (f\ht]=nunc detnum), n o t

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 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 became possible.

T h e specific para l le ls 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 have t o say

a b o u t t h e f a m i l y at this p o i n t c a n be s u p p l e m e n t e d b y considerat ions o f a

m o r e genera l n a t u r e . I n a n y D e m o c r i t e a n t h e o r y o f a g r a d u a l l y e x p a n d i n g

social g r o u p the f a m i l y was, as w e have seen, u n l i k e l y to have p l a y e d t h e

same ro le 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 , indicates

t h a t i t m a y have h a d some ro le 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

been. 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 descr ibed i n the Laws, does seem t o see i n t h e l i fe o f the f a m i l y one o f

t h e s t a r t i n g p o i n t s for 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 whose

o n l y c o m m o n a c t i v i t y is self-defence i n t imes 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 to each 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 parents 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 to p r o

v i d e for i t se l f makes such re lat ionships i n e v i t a b l e . I t w o u l d thus be n a t u r a l

to expect 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 to be

a m o n g the f i rs t to arise. O n c e the exchange 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 been 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 advantageous to 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 thus a m o d e l for

o t h e r forms o f koindnia,2i t h o u g h n o t , o f course, the o n l y m o d e l . T h e f r i e n d -

2 3 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 adds 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 ' ; ^ Q

I n a passage a l r e a d y discussed (5 .1021-23, 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 was 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 d b

I 16 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

ship establ ished b e t w e e n t h e g i v e r a n d receiver o f a i d i n m o m e n t s o f d a n g e r

w o u l d doubtless h a v e t h e same a r c h e t y p a l character .

B e g i n n i n g i n th is 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 b a t t l e , p r i n c i p l e s o f i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e a n d r e c i p r o c i t y g r a d u a l l y

become 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

cohesion 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. Po lybius 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 reasoning 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 such a n extension. 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 tronger

b o n d s t h a n force a n d fear ; hence t h e y w i l l be able to 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 the 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 every 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 . 2 5

T h e process, i f e n v i s i o n e d i n th is fashion i n P o l y b i u s ' source, was some

w h a t d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e one descr ibed i n t h e Laws. T h e r e social n o r m s b e g i n

n o t from 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 , coopera

t i o n a n d g r a t i t u d e , b u t obedience t o p a t e r n a l 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 be

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 this p o i n t . H i s v i e w o f

t h e 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 perspect ive 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 Plato 's a c c o u n t are r e l a t e d ;

whereas Plato '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 essen

t 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

sat isfactory m o d e o f existence. W e have seen, h o w e v e r , t h a t this 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 inconsistency f r o m w h i c h his w h o l e a c c o u n t

suffers (above, p . 9 9 ) . Plato 's v i e w o f the 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 lements 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 elements,

be t h e resul 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 to i n t r o d u c e . P l a t o h a d o n l y to m a k e a n aggrega

t i o n o f fami l ies i n t o a set o f i so lated a n d i n d e p e n d e n t households a n d t o

replace 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 .

2 ' 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. 133-37, with note 8 ) , Panath. 1 6 4 - 6 6 , and the section of Herodotus I V discussed below, pp. j 4 3 - 4 5 .

P L A T O , P O L Y B I U S , AND DEMOGRITUS 117

obedience to a u t h o r i t y . A t one p o i n t , h o w e v e r , the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n has n o t

been 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, the m e r g i n g o f

clans descr ibed w o u l d have to come a b o u t t h r o u g h the 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 to a t h i r d . T h e u n i o n o f equals 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 conceived b y

P o l y b i u s ; i t does n o t f o l l o w f r o m Plato's o w n c o n c e p t i o n o f the genesis o f

society i n the p a t r i a r c h a l h o u s e h o l d .

I t is thus 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 ear l ier Kulturgeschichte w h i c h envis ioned a progressive

e x p a n s i o n o f a n o r i g i n a l social n e x u s — b u t w i t h o u t the a u t h o r i t a r i a n i m

p l i c a t i o n s w h i c h are present i n Plato's d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e idea . S u c h a n

a c c o u n t w o u l d have been q u i t e consistent w i t h the 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 i n v o l v e d fits w e l l

e n o u g h w i t h the emphasis p l a c e d i n D e m o c r i t u s B107 o n a g r e e m e n t w i t h

r e g a r d to 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 the 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 the universe is created. 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 subject to i n d i v i d u a l ex

ceptions. T h e r e is n o p e r p e n d i c u l a r d o w n w a r d m o t i o n i n his system, n o

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 , 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 part ic les i n a v o r t e x o r e d d y . 2 6 T h e c o n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h

a toms assume i n such 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 a n d

since the w o r d rhysmos is a p p l i e d i n one f r a g m e n t (B266) to a p o l i t i c a l

i n s t i t u t i o n ( the a u d i t o f of f ic ia ls) , i t is reasonable to 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 they c o n t i n u e to exist, l i k e o t h e r kosmoi, because the 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 to a single p a t t e r n o r g r o u p o f

p a t t e r n s — c o r r e s p o n d i n g to t h e laws, w r i t t e n o r u n w r i t t e n , b y w h i c h t h e y

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 the a u d i t as TU> VVV KaOearwTi pvopto) i n d i c a t e t h a t social p a t t e r n s

were v i e w e d as subject to change. T h e s u r v i v i n g f r a g m e n t s c o n t a i n t w o

suggestions as to the cause posi ted for these changes. B33 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) a n d i n so

d o i n g "creates n a t u r e " (physiopoiei).26 B197 d r a w s a c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n

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, 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 .

2 7 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. 2 8-Presumably the fragment is saying the same thing as Evenus, Fr . 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


anoemones, whose l ives are p a t t e r n e d (rhysmountai) b y 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 the kerde o£ sophia. Since t h e

f irst a g g r e g a t i o n o f m e n b r o u g h t together i n obedience to 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, a n y d e v e l o p m e n t w h i c h

ensues m i g h t be expected 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 the o r d e r i n g p r i n c i p l e s o f the social kosmos; a n d i t is j u s t

such a process w h i c h P o l y b i u s describes. T h e systemata29 whose d e v e l o p m e n t

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 the

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 the resul t o f this g r o w t h is,

u l t i m a t e l y , to replace bia w i t h logismos as the o r d e r i n g p r i n c i p l e o f h u m a n

l i fe ( 6 . 6 . 1 2 - 7 . 3 ) . 3 1 M o r e o v e r , the m e c h a n i s m o f the change is, i f n o t u n

m i s t a k a b l y a n d u n i q u e l y a t o m i s t i c , susceptible o f a n e x c e p t i o n a l l y easy

t r a n s l a t i o n i n t o a t o m i s t i c terms.

T o m a k e this t r a n s l a t i o n w e need o n l y i d e n t i f y 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 the rhysmoi o f

a g i v e n kosmos w i t h t h e shared 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 together .

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

a toms are t h r o w n t o g e t h e r a n d t h e n m a d e to c o n f o r m to rhysmoi t h a t are

c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y a n i n c r e a s i n g 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 means t h a t a n ever l a r g e r p o r t i o n o f the 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 toms w i l l s t a n d i n constant 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 ) .

29 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 ) . The term was atomistic by Epicurus' time {Pap. Here. 993 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 9.1168B31—32: ττόλις . . . και παν άλλο σύστημα.

3 0 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 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.

3 1 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. Of 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 -9 2 ; Krokiewicz, Eos 47, No. 1, 3 5 - 4 3 ; and Luria, DAWB 4 4 . 1 4 - 1 6 ) .

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 atoms. T h i s is the a t o m i s t i c c o u n t e r p a r t to t h a t m u l t i p l i c a t i o n o f t h e

bonds o f koinonia w h i c h was m e n t i o n e d ear l ier as a character is t ic feature o f

the 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 the n e w p a t t e r n s g o v e r n i n g the re la t ionships 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 such as to 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 dest ined to p r e v a i l over the o l d ones. These

n e w rhysmoi f i rst come i n t o c o m p e t i t i o n w i t h the o l d as a result o f the eventus

fortuitus whose ro le 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 ear l ier (above, 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

occurrence o f such eventus fortuiti is most 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

c o n t a i n references t o the size o f t h e aggregat ions w i t h w h i c h t h e y are

d e a l i n g , 3 3 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 considera

t ions s i m i l a r to those w h i c h l ie 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 the n u m b e r o f atoms i n the p h y s i c a l universe

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 chance w o u l d h a v e been

suff icient to create a l l the col locat ions a n d a r r a n g e m e n t s o n w h i c h t h a t

universe rests; o n l y w h e n the 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 suff i

c i e n t l y large 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 te leo log ica 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 have been presented b y m e r e chance

w i t h suff icient instances o f n e w rhysmoi to be able to perceive t h r o u g h

logismos t h e advantages (or disadvantages) i n h e r e n t i n t h e m a n d r e p a t t e r n

t h e i r lives a c c o r d i n g l y . 3 4

O n c e i n a u g u r a t e d , however , the 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 the m o v e m e n t s o f the 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 pervasive a n d p r o n o u n c e d — a n d so capable 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 atoms. H e n c e the p h e n o m e n o n o f cosmic ex

p a n s i o n . 3 5 H e n c e too the f i n a l s u b s t i t u t i o n o f logismos for hia, w h i c h comes

3 2 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 been v i e w e d as a l r e a d y

present i n t h e earl iest , a n i m a l - l i k e a g g r e g a t i o n one c a n , o f course, o n l y speculate . L u r i a has a r g u e d

(DAWB 4 4 . 1 0 - 1 3 ) t h a t D e m o c r i t u s a d d u c e d s i g n i f i c a n t a n i m a l analogues n o t o n l y f o r t h e 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 social p r o h i b i t i o n s g o v e r n i n g sexual 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 such 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 been 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 ev idence 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, at 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 Plato '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 system 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 occurs has n o c lear

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 Cf . L e u c i p p u s , VS 67Λ1, 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. . . .

I 2 0 DEMOGRITUS AND T H E SOURCES OF G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

a b o u t w h e n this same rhysmos is suf f ic ient ly s t r o n g to p r o v i d e , i n d e p e n d e n t l y

o f 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, t h e 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 the kosmos.

T o have i n d i c a t e d t h e l ines 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 social d e v e l o p m e n t m i g h t take is n o t to show t h a t t h e a c c o u n t is

i n fact a t o m i s t i c i n o r i g i n . Y e t t h e para l le ls o n w h i c h the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n rests

are, I t h i n k , suf f ic ient ly n u m e r o u s to be o f some i m p o r t a n c e w i t h i n t h e

c o m p l e x o f evidence considered i n this c h a p t e r . O n e m a j o r e l e m e n t i n t h a t

c o m p l e x has s t i l l to be discussed. I t involves the P o l y b i a n a n d D e m o c r i t e a n

v iews o f t h e b e g i n n i n g s o f k i n g s h i p .

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 to the r e p l a c e m e n t

o f monarchia w i t h basileia s h o u l d be c o m p a r e d w i t h f r a g m e n t B255 o f

D e m o c r i t u s :

P O L Y B I U S 6 . 6 . 1 0 - 7 . 2 D E M O C R I T U S B 2 5 5

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 και ΰπουργεΐν και χαρίζεσθαι, εν τούτω

των πολλών διαλήψεις και δόξη τοις ΰποταττο- ήδη και τό οίκτίρειν ένεστι και τό άμυνειν άλλή-

μένοις διανεμητικός είναι τοΰ κατ' άξίαν έκάστοις, λοισι και τους πολιήτας όμονόονς είναι και άλλα

ούκέτι τήν βίαν δεδιότες τή δέ γνώμη τό πλεΐον αγαθά, άσσα ουδείς αν δνναιτο καταλέξαι.

ευδοκοϋντες ΰποτάττονται και σνσσωζουσι τήν

αρχήν αύτον ομοθυμαδόν έπαμννοντες και δια

γωνιζόμενοι προς τους επιβουλεύοντας αυτοΰ τή

δυναστεία. . . . αύτη καλοϋ και δικαίου πρώτη παρ

άνθρώποις κατά φύσιν έννοια και τών ενάντιων

τούτοις, αύτη βασιλείας αληθινής αρχή και γένεσις.

T h e above passages c o n t a i n i m p o r t a n t s i m i l a r i t i e s . T h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e

dynamenoi i n D e m o c r i t u s is analogous to t h a t o f the προεστώς και την μεγίστην

δνναμιν έχων i n P o l y b i u s , a n d the p a r a l l e l was p r o b a b l y even closer i n

P o l y b i u s ' source. F o r , as w e have seen (above, p p . 101-2) , there is reason

to bel ieve t h a t t h a t source spoke o f dynasteia a n d dynastai r a t h e r t h a n

o f monarchia a n d monarchos. P o l y b i u s ' ΰποταττόμενοι are the μη έχοντες o f

D e m o c r i t u s ; to act κατά τάς τών πολλών διαληφεις is c e r t a i n l y to χαρίζεσθαι

τοις μη έχονσι; a n d t h e t w o passages are 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

v o c a b u l a r y a n d t o n e . Όμοθνμαδόν έπαμΰνοντες i n P o l y b i u s recalls άμΰνειν

άλλήλοισι a n d πολιητας όμονόους i n D e m o c r i t u s ; a n d there is a s i m i l a r

s t r i v i n g for r h e t o r i c a l effect i n the w a y the 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 emphas ized ( c o m p a r e the a n a p h o r a

o f αυτη καλοΰ και δικαίου . . . αϋτη βασιλείας w i t h the p o l y s y n d e t o n o f και

το οίκτίρειν . . . και μη έρημους είναι e t c . ) .

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 121

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 whose 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 to the es tab l i shment o f

those feelings o f f e l l o w s h i p a n d compass ion 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, w h i c h

replaces fear a n d re l iance o n s t r e n g t h i n t h e m i n d s o f subject a n d r u l e r .

T h e r e is n o t h i n g i n e i ther the 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 to r u l e o u t

t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t b o t h s e n t i m e n t 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 a

di f ference i n emphasis is u n d e n i a b l y present . A n d i n k e e p i n g w i t h this

di f ference is a di f ference i n the c h a r a c t e r o f t h e act ions 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 accordance 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 vague e n o u g h to i n c l u d e the adherence to 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 this adherence a n d t h e g i v i n g to each

m a n o f his d u e ( the o t h e r r o y a l a c t i v i t y m e n t i o n e d b y P o l y b i u s ) w o u l d

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 t h e interests o f

t h e p o o r t o those o f the 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 here , b u t one is c e r t a i n l y

far m o r e inc lus ive t h a n the o t h e r . F i n a l l y , o u r passages seem to h a v e been

composed for s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t contexts . 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

late i n as genera l terms as possible the p r e c o n d i t i o n s for a n y t y p e o f social

a c c o r d ; 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 t h e 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 the 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 po l i t ies a n d the f r iendships o f k i n g s " as

great blessings for h u m a n l i fe , does offer ev idence f o r b e l i e v i n g t h a t

D e m o c r i t u s w o u l d have v i e w e d at least the 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 the 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 , 3 6 a n d so i m

p o r t a n t a feature 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 appearance 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 the mores o f f a m i l y l i fe w o u l d also i n d i c a t e

t h a t the perspective o f B255 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 event o f great 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 event. I t c a n n o t be said t h a t the aspect o f the 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 the o t h e r divergences

cons idered—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 generic t h a n specific, e n o u g h to p o i n t to some sort o f c o n n e c t i o n

b u t insuf f ic ient i n themselves to establish t h e existence o f d i r e c t indebtedness.

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 piece o f evidence. A f r a g m e n t

3 6 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.


attributed to A r c h y t a s of T a r e n t u m (VS 4 7 B 3 ) , w h i c h obviously belongs to

the same general tradition as do Polybius a n d Democritus, praises logismos

as a n invention (heuremd) w h i c h reduces strife a n d increases homonoia (cf.

πολιήτας όμονόονς i n B255) by 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 to attain equality."

A r c h y t a s recalls Polybius by his reference to logismos^ a n d Democritus by

his emphasis on economic rather than j u d i c i a l concessions to the poor. T h e

passage thus serves to lessen somewhat the importance 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 similar policy of compromise between the weaker a n d

stronger elements i n the body p o l i t i c ; 3 8 a n d within this very general line of

thought the only thing w h i c h distinguishes Archytas, Democritus, a n d

Polybius is their conviction that the desirable arrangement is one w h i c h came

into being at a given time i n h i s t o r y 3 9 a n d carried with it far-reaching con

sequences.

T o determine whether there is a n y further link between Polybius a n d

Democritus other t h a n this idea w h i c h they share with Archytas, one must

consider not simply the content of the political arrangement w h i c h all 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 third 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 certain notion a n d perception of the character of the fitting,

w h i c h is the origin a n d end of j u s t i c e " ( 6 . 9 ) , or, i n Anaximenes' terminology

(see above, pp. 113-14) a n ethos agraphon prescribing that m e n should φίλους

(ΰ noieiv. I t is obvious that the marks of good wil l a n d pre-eminence referred

to i n 6.8 are i n some sense paral lel 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 internal life of early society. First there is a n

3 7 T h e u s u a l t r a n s l a t i o n 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 " m e a s u r e " :

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 i n t h e i r

d e a l i n g s w i t h each 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 such r e n d e r i n g —

w h i c h w o u l d b r i n g t h e c o n t e n t o f t h e f r a g m e n t i n t o l i n e w i t h t h e p a r a l l e l i n P o l y b i u s — i s t h e o n e

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 are 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 check

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 ref lect o n t h e possible

consequences o f t h e i r a c t i o n s .

3 8 Cf . A n o n y m u s I a m b l i c h i 7.1—2 a n d 8 - 9 ; Isocrates , Areop. 3 1 - 3 5 ; A r i s t o t l e , Pol. 6.1320B9-11. 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 establ ished f o r A r c h y t a s b y his reference t o logismos as a

heurema.

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 123

exercise of force i n restraining the a n i m a l enemies of the h u m a n systema, then

a similar exercise of force (cf. 6.6.10: synepischyei) in seeing to it that the

dialepseis of the m a n y prevail 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 mil itary activity (the province of the prostates mentioned

i n 6.6.8) with the maintenance of the social order (the province of the

m o n a r c h turned king) c a n be paralleled at several places i n G r e e k political

theory, always i n a context of Kulturgeschichte. T w o of 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 unable to defend t h e m

selves against the w i l d beasts because of their lack of politike techne—of w h i c h

polemike techne is, according to Protagoras, a part. W h e n assembled for self-

defense, however, they did wrong (adika) to one another for the same

reason—their lack of politike techne (322B). T h e most striking thing i n this

passage is, as has rightly been pointed o u t , 4 0 the notion that the " p o l i t i c a l "

art has two parts. O n e of these is polemike a n d is brought into p l a y only i n

man's relationship with 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 ( inasmuch

as its absence is accompanied by the presence of adikid).

T h e two portions of politike techne mentioned i n the m y t h correspond

fairly closely to the provinces of the P o l y b i a n prostates 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 without 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. 71-75). F o r the prohibition against unprovoked

homicide—one of the cornerstones on w h i c h a n y art of the practice of 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) and

i n response to the same cause, the promptings of to chresimon in the earliest

stages of 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, pp. 8 1 - 8 4 ) . G i v e n these, a n d given the parallels between

Polybius a n d Protagoras just noted, it is not likely to be coincidental that

there are also close links between H e r m a r c h u s a n d D c m o c r i t u s , 4 1 whose

influence on H e r m a r c h u s ' master is unquestionable a n d who is usually as

sumed with a high degree of probability to have been himself indebted to

Protagoras for a portion of his theories of c u l t u r a l history. T w o fragments

(B257 a n d 259) establish it as a rule that animals " w h o do w r o n g " (ta

adikeonta) m a y be killed with impunity, since the result is conducive 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 By O. Gigon, "Studien zu Platons Protagoras," Phyllobolia für P. von der Miihll (Be 4 1 Noted by Krohn, Der Epikureer Hermarchos 8. H


presented i n language w h i c h m a y have a n echo i n Porphyry's paraphrase of

the latter:

H E R M A R C H U S D E M O C R I T U S

The practice of destroying every harmful thing It is needful to kill those things which do harm without quarter ( T O re λνμαντίκόν πάν KTCLVO- contrary to right (KTCLVGLV χρή τά πημαίνοντα

μενον αφειδώς) and the preservation of what was παρά δίκην) all of them in every way (πάντα περί useful for this act of destruction [i.e. society and παντός). . . . (B258) the prohibition against homicide] contributed . . . of those animals who do wrong and seek to in like fashion to security (els τήν άφοβίαν do wrong the slayer is scot free and this rather σννήργει). (De abst. 1.11) than not killing works toward well-being (προς

eveaTOVv τοντο ερδειν). ( B 2 5 7 )

T h e reference to animals as creatures w h o do w r o n g recalls another motif i n

H e r m a r c h u s , his l i n k i n g of warfare against other animals w i t h the process o f

creating proper relationships a m o n g m e n i n a given social order. A n d this

l inking, w h i c h , as we have seen, is found i n Protagoras a n d Polybius as wel l ,

appears explicitly i n a third fragment:

For letting each other alone and doing nothing Just as it is written with regard to beasts and injurious to any of those who were collected into creeping things among enemies, so does it seem the same place was useful (chresimon), not only needful (chreon) to me to act with regard to men: for driving away animals of other species, but to kill in accordance with ancestral ways the also against men who came along with, hostile enemy thing in every social order. (B259) intent. (De abst. 1.10)

T h e reasoning i n the passage from P o r p h y r y is carried a step further t h a n it

is i n D e m o c r i t u s , to the point where not only killing the enemy but action

w h i c h facilitates ki l l ing the e n e m y is declared to be chreon or chresimon. B u t

the reasoning used is identical.

W e cannot, of course, k n o w for certain w h a t the context of the fragments

of D e m o c r i t u s was. B u t given 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 primitive condition of m a n k i n d is a recurrent

motif i n ancient discussions of the rights a n d wrongs of kil l ing a n i m a l s , 4 2 the

most plausible c o n j e c t u r e 4 3 requires us to assume that Democritus saw the

origin o f society's attitude t o w a r d criminals i n man's early struggle for sur

v i v a l against other species. T h e malefactor is someone who, by his violation

o f the laws o f society, has i n effect put himself outside society a n d must be

destroyed like the animals 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 = Fr . 98 Heinze), the report of Xenocrates' remarks on a prohibition against the slaughter of animals ascribed to the early culture-hero Triptolemus.

4 3 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 dike and chreon.

P L A T O , P O L Y B I U S , AND DEMOGRITUS !25

T h e aspect of Polybius' account w h i c h we have j u s t been considering

serves to place h i m i n a tradition w h i c h goes back at 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

well . W e do not k n o w how m a n y other speculative accounts of cultural

origins propounded a similar view of the relation between dike a n d polemike

techne.*5 I t is possible, however, that the theory was h a n d e d d o w n i n direct

succession from Protagoras to Democritus 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 was the D e m o c r i t e a n version of the theory

w h i c h has influenced Polybius, is the conclusion to w h i c h a further group of

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 have been content w i t h asso

ciating defense against external foes a n d the enforcing of dike i n dealings

a m o n g fellow-citizens, or w i t h indicating the c o m m o n origin of the two

technai i n the demands of the early struggle for survival . I t suggested the

a c t u a l steps through w h i c h these " a r t s " might have arisen. I t is possible that

some of these steps have been omitted i n Polybius' a c c o u n t : that there a p

peared i n his source some description, for example, of how, from expecting

al l to share i n a c o m m o n defence against external enemies, society comes to

expect similar behavior with regard to internal ones, so that w h e n the strong

m a n makes the satisfaction of this expectation easier the continuance a n d

success of his rule is assured. Be that as it may, Polybius preserves a very

clear record of the final stage i n the process a n d of the central role w h i c h one

remarkable i n d i v i d u a l — t h e future basileus—plays i n it.

T h i s idea, w h i c h links a k i n d of basilike techne to that part of politike techne

w h i c h has to do w i t h dike, is lacking from H e r m a r c h u s a n d Protagoras, but

there is something quite comparable to it i n Democritus. B 2 5 8 , after declar-

4 4 Also in favor of ascribing such a linking of warfare and civic virtue to Democritus in Β157, 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 55B157 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):

το λοιπόν βοήθεια γίγνοιτ' αν . . . μυρία μνρίοις, παραινεί [Democritus] τήν τε πολεμικήν τέχνην

ή μέν μεγίστη τ€ και εις πλείστα πολεμική μεγίστην ονσαν έκδιδάσκεσθαι και τους πόνους

κληθεΐσα, στρατηγική τέχνη, εύοοκιμωτάτη προς διώκειν αφ* ών τα μεγάλα και λαμπρά γίνονται

χρείαν. . . . ( 9 7 5 Ε ) τ 0 ' ? άνθρώποις. . . . (Β 157) 4 5 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 .


ing that it is needful to kill a l l those things w h i c h do h a r m contrary to right,

goes o n to a d d that " t h e one w h o does this shall have a greater share of

right-return (dike) a n d security (tharsos) i n a n y kosmos." T h e dike referred to

i n this passage is probably best interpreted as the whole system of reciprocal

relationships b y w h i c h m e n receive due return for services r e n d e r e d . 4 6 I t is

something far more inclusive t h a n the marks of favor a n d pre-eminence a n d

wil l ing obedience w h i c h the king a n d c h a m p i o n enjoy i n Polybius, but

Democritus w o u l d doubtless have viewed the latter as coming under the

general category of dike. T h e activity praised i n B 2 5 8 is referred to i n B259

as kil l ing the enemy i n accordance w i t h patriot nomoi, a n d this is certainly

one w a y of giving each m a n his due i n accordance with the dialepseis of the

m a n y (Polybius 6 . 6 . 1 0 ) . 4 7 I n fact, i f the setting for both passages is the

primitive rule of bia described i n Polybius, giving each m a n his due a n d a d d

ing support to popular attitudes w o u l d of necessity involve i n large measure

kil l ing those w h o do violence to the weak. A n d that Democritus used on

occasion the more general terminology found i n Polybius is indicated by

B 2 6 3 : δίκης καϊ αρετής μεγίστην μετέχει μοΐραν 6 τιμάς αξίας τάς μεγίστας

τάμνων. T h e parallels between the first h a l f of this fragment a n d B259 sug

gest that it belongs to the same group of passages that we 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 but the presence of the words

axias a n d tamnon indicates that the subject is the apportioning of w h a t is due

i n the m a n n e r of Polybius' k i n g . 4 9 I t is reasonable to assume, then, that

Democritus associated, perhaps even more closely t h a n does Polybius, the

politike techne of the j u d g e w h o settles disputes a n d the polemike techne of 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 Democritus make it fairly clear

that the context of fragments B 2 5 7 - 5 9 h a d something to do with Kultur-

geschichte. Since there is no paral lel 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 of dike, one c a n be less

sure about the original context of this p a r t i c u l a r idea. I t is possible, for

example, that Democritus, while assigning to the benefactor mentioned i n

those two fragments a role i n the social process rather like that played by

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 ) .

4 7 The 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 8 Diels suggests the restoration τιμάς τάς άξιας τάμνων τοις άξιωτάτοις. 4 β It 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.

P L A T O , P O L Y B I U S , AND D E M O C R I T U S 127

prostates a n d king i n Polybius, w o u l d still not have placed h i m i n the same

sort of 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 , 5 0 RS 6

IS of part icular interest: ένεκα τοΰ θαρρεΐν £ξ ανθρώπων ην κατά φΰσιν αρχής

καϊ βασιλείας αγαθόν.51 T h e expression θαρρεΐν εξ ανθρώπων recalls θάρσος in

Β257> a n d the tense of ην is most naturally explained by assuming a reference

to the early stages of h u m a n c u l t u r e . 5 2 S u c h a context is also suggested by the

parallels between another RS (7) a n d the passage i n Book V ( 1 1 2 0 - 2 8 )

where L u c r e t i u s describes the collapse of early kingship:

at claros homines voluerunt se atque potentes ut fundamento stabili fortuna maneret et placidam possent opulenti degere vitam:

nequiquam. . . . ut satius multo iam sit parere quietum quam regere imperio res velle et regna tenere.

ένδοξοι και περίβλεπτοι τίνες έβονλήθησαν γενέ

σθαι την εξ ανθρώπων άσφάλειαν οΰτω νομίζοντες

περιποιήσασθαι. ώστε ει μεν ασφαλής ο τοιούτων

βίος άπέλαβον τής φύσεως αγαθόν.

ει δε μή ασφαλής, ουκ έχονσι ου ένεκα εξ αρχής

κατά τό τής φύσεως οίκεΐον ώρεχθησαν.53

Both passages are i n part a polemic against defenders of the active l i f e , 5 4 a n d

the E p i c u r e a n position is supported by a reference to the fate of the first

kings. I t is n a t u r a l to assume that the object of 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 al lowing it a certain val idity:

office a n d kingship did i n fact arise as part of a legitimate attempt to gain

security through service of society. B u t they led ultimately to disaster. T h e

character of the two passages, w h i c h accept a portion of a n earlier analysis

but reject others, is compatible w i t h w h a t we know about the entire rela

tionship between the philosophical systems of E p i c u r u s a n d Democritus.

A n d the analysis of early kingship w h i c h emerges as that of E p i c u r u s ' op

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 what is said of the role of the benefactor i n fragments B258 a n d 263.

T h e argument for assuming that Democritus, like E p i c u r u s a n d Polybius,

discussed kingship i n connection w i t h a consideration of the origin of culture

becomes thereby m u c h stronger; a n d so too does the case for m a k i n g

5 0 See von der Miihll, Feslgabe Kaegi 172—78. 5 1 For the reading adopted here, see C . Diano, "Note Epicuree," SIFC 12 (1935) 8 4 - 8 5 . 6 2 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.

6 3 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 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 .


Polybius' entire account of the beginnings of kingship a n d dike derive from

Democritus.

T h e parallels considered i n this chapter are heterogeneous i n character a n d

u n e q u a l i n importance. N o n e of the resemblances to w h i c h we have called

attention is as striking, taken i n itself, as some of those w h i c h appeared i n

the technological a n d linguistic texts discussed i n Chapters O n e through

F o u r . Y e t taken together they seem to me to provide as strong a case for a

D e m o c r i t e a n influence on Polybius V I as do those examined earlier for a

c o m m o n source for Diodorus, 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

very unlikely that two independently formed views of social development,

both of w h i c h we know to have antedated Plato's Laws, should agree so

thoroughly as to the biological causes of the init ial aggregation of m e n into

societies, as to the character a n d origin of the typically h u m a n parent-chi ld

relationship, a n d as to the connection between the art of warfare w i t h

animals a n d the art of j u s t dealing a m o n g m e n i n primitive society. T h e

conclusion that Polybius is indebted ultimately to Democritus 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 himself m a y

have m a d e i n Democritus ' doctrine cannot, of course, be determined. Some

thing more w i l l be said on 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 of his Histories is a fairly straight

forward historical reconstruction. N o t so Democritus. H i s perspective seems

to have been rather that of H e r m a r c h u s . T h e prohibition against homicide

discussed i n the latter's account is a part of " t h e legislation w h i c h still pre

vails a m o n g cities a n d t r i b e s " o n that subject. T h e approach is aetiological—

a genealogy of existing morals rather t h a n a strictly historical account of

their evolution. S u c h a method was obviously k n o w n a n d used i n the fifth

century. I t appears, for example, i n the Protagoras m y t h 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 of this sort the

various aspects of contemporary social usage m a y have been covered sepa

rately, thus producing a series of Νομικά αίτια (B299g) or αίτίαι περί των

καλών και αισχρών comparable to those περί πυρός και τών iv πνρί w h i c h are

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 of a c o m m o n source for Book V I a n d Laws I I I is correct, the

6 5 I n Section 3 of Chapter Ten. 6 6 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 ) .

P L A T O , P O L Y B I U S , AND DEMOGRITUS 129

assumption of the existence of a historical account used by both Polybius a n d

Plato a n d extant by the middle of the fourth century. I t is possible to square

this d e m a n d w i t h the character of the D e m o c r i t e a n fragments we possess b y

imagining such a n account provided with aetiological digressions where

needed: " a n d here for the first time m e n began to follow the rule w h i c h even

now holds, that, e t c . " 5 7 T h e collectors of gndmai to w h o m we owe the ethical

a n d social fragments w o u l d on this assumption have omitted the historical

material w h i c h surrounded t h e m ; 5 8 whereas Polybius w o u l d have e m p h a

sized the historical element at the expense of the aetiological, introducing the

whole account, not as a n explanation of the genesis of morals, but as a phase

i n the cycle of political a n d social change. T r a c e s of the earlier perspective

m a y r e m a i n i n two passages (italicized i n the translations given below) where

Polybius does break the continuity of his historical narrative to note that

w h a t he is describing is the arche a n d genesis of m o r a l ideas:

When, 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 king— whenever rational calculation begins to rule in place of strength and 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 anything Democritus w o u l d have been likely to u s e , 5 9 the

particular aetiological perspective involved is quite close to that of the

fragments.

Alternate explanations o f the relationship between Polybius a n d

5 7 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 48 (1913) 613, note 3. To 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. 9 7 : κτενώ

και λόγω 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. s 9 On 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 Prodicus' theory of the origin of religion: ίερουργίαν . . . και τελετάς τών γεωργίας καλών έξάπτει

νομίζων και θεών έννοιαν (Diels: εννοιαν mss.) εντεύθεν εις ανθρώπους έλθεΐν.

I 3 0 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 are, of 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 of aetiologies could have been arranged so

as to form i n itself a n d along with its references to the early stages of h u m a n

culture the basis from w h i c h a continuous historical account could be con

structed. Polybius V I a n d Laws I I I w o u l d be, on this theory, independent

conversions of aetiology into history. O r — a third possibility—it is conceivable

that Plato a n d Polybius derive from a n intermediate source, some rhetorician,

historian, or philosopher who w o u l d have constructed a historical account

a r o u n d Democritus ' aetiological i n q u i r y into existing h u m a n m o r e s . 6 0 B u t

whatever share Plato, Polybius, a n d their immediate forerunners m a y have

h a d i n reformulating the D e m o c r i t e a n Kulturgeschichte w h i c h is preserved i n

the Histories a n d the Laws, these contributions seem to have affected the

form i n w h i c h that doctrine was preserved rather than its content. T h e

motifs whose presence c a n be inferred for the source of Plato a n d Polybius

are also present i n such numbers i n Democritus or i n texts w h i c h we c a n

believe on other grounds to derive from h i m that the importance we assign

to such intermediate sources cannot be large. A n d the same m a y be said

about the material c o m m o n to the technological a n d linguistic accounts ex

a m i n e d earlier, where the existence of one or more intermediate sources is i n

certain instances h a r d l y questionable. W i t h either body of texts the argument

for the preservation of most of the essential features of a n ultimately D e m o

critean theory is fairly strong; a n d it becomes, of course, doubly so w h e n the

two bodies of texts are considered i n conjunction with each other—as is

d e m a n d e d both by similarities of method a n d by the close relationship i n

w h i c h both of them stand to Laws I I I . I t c a n be m a i n t a i n e d with a high

degree of probability that the technological histories of Diodorus, 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 of the origin of language

found i n Diodorus, 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 of Polybius

V I a n d the anthropology of Laws I I I are all 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 we attempt, i n our final

two chapters, to assess its place i n the history of G r e e k thought a n d to trace

the channels by w h i c h it was transmitted from its originator to the scattered

body of later sources i n w h i c h it is now 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.

C H A P T E R N I N E

D E M O C R I T E A N S O C I O L O G Y A N D H I S T O R Y I N T H E

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

I f the argument of the preceding chapters is correct, we must assume that

there arose i n Greece toward the end of the fifth century 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 anything 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 phenomenon m a y seem u n

likely; 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 explain w h y D e m o c r i t e a n thought appears so rarely i n later

writers a n d w h y it appears in the places a n d forms i n w h i c h it does.

A simple, though only partial , answer to the first p r o b l e m lies i n the u n

compromisingly naturalistic character of our theory, w h i c h could be ex

pected to fare i l l i n a n age dominated by the teleology of Aristotle a n d the

idealism 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 during a certain phase of its history. T h e i r existence might

have been expected to give a naturalistic doctrine a more vigorous life than

our theory seems to have enjoyed. F o r a fully satisfactory explanation 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 peculiar 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 with w h i c h we have to deal is most evident i n the psycho

logical analysis of the phenomenon of c o m m u n i t y that our texts offer. T h e

social aggregations whose formation is described i n Polybius V I rest, i n the

first place, on a certain n a t u r a l affinity between m a n and m a n : the atomic

principle of like-to-like operates here as it does on all levels of existence. B u t

this affinity i n its purely 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 each other as not. A fully developed social feeling-

comes only later, as a product of the habit of association w h i c h Man's"

physical weakness a n d sexual needs force upon h i m , a n d of a quji;Ce;,^cal-

culating realization that cooperation is more advantageous t h a n agjfce^sion.


O n c e acquired, however, this sociability is capable of intensification a n d

extension. A s our study of the accounts of Polybius V I a n d Laws I I I has

shown, it seems to have been regarded as l inking, first comrades a n d kins

m e n , then fellow-citizens, a n d finally whole cities i n a n expanding nexus of

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 appear i n one form or another

i n the literature of the late fifth a n d fourth centuries to make it clear that

Polybius' view of c o m m u n i t y (though not his analysis of the historical process

by w h i c h c o m m u n i t y c a m e into being) was fairly widely 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 uti l i tarian analysis

of social morality (the Memorabilia being a locus classicus i n antiquity for this

point of v i e w ) ; a n d his ethical 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 ob

servable i n the behavior of both m e n a n d a n i m a l s . 1 T h e latter point,

implici t i n Polybius (see above, pp. 8 7 - 8 8 ) , is made explicit by X e n o

p h o n . 2

T h e idea is certainly not original w i t h h i m . H e s i o d (Works and Days 2 7 6 -

78) found only allelophagia i n the ways of animals toward one another, but

by the end of the fifth century E u r i p i d e s could take a more optimistic view

( A n d r o m a c h e is condemning 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 animals, is (or ought to be)

different by reason of man'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 .18-32) is the attempt, i f not to trace social

morality to a " n a t u r a l " origin i n the family, at least to show how a principle

of wide social application, that of the division of 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 . Dirl-meier, ΦΙΛΟΣ und ΦΙΛΙΑ in vorhellenistischen Griechentum (Diss. Munich 1931) 37—39.

2 Cyrop. 2.1.28; Mem. 2.3.4. Cf. also Aristotle, HA 9.611A7-11 and 6 2 9 B 1 0 - 1 2 . 3 Troades 6 6 9 - 7 2 . Cf. the story in Plutarch (Soli. anim. 13.970AB) and Aristotle (HA 5 . 5 7 7 B 3 0 -

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.

T H E 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 133

n a t u r a l u n i o n of m a n a n d wife a n d the resultant specialization w h i c h assigns

home a n d farm as their respective p r o v i n c e s . 4 G i v e n the association o f the

ideas of political a n d domestic economy w h i c h appears time a n d again i n the

works of Plato a n d X e n o p h o n , 5 the paral le l between state a n d family was

doubtless on occasion d r a w n more explicitly. I t appears i n clear a n d striking

form, though i n a rather different context, i n a passage from the anonymous

second speech against Aristogeiton (Ps.-Demosthenes 2 5 ) . 6 I t is there m a i n

tained ( 8 7 - 8 9 ) that the willingness to overlook those actions on the part of

one's neighbors w h i c h are merely personally displeasing is essential to the

healthy life of the city; a n d it is suggested that civi l life at this point should

model itself u p o n the similar tolerance w h i c h characterizes the relationship

between fathers a n d c h i l d r e n . 7

F o r the larger forms of c o m m u n i t y based on shared attitudes a n d habits

one m a y compare Isocrates' famous praise of Athens (Paneg. 50) as h a v i n g

m a d e the w o r d " G r e e k " synonymous, not w i t h a race, but w i t h a w a y of

life; or his mention, i n a passage full of p a n - H e l l e n i c sentiment, of 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 22, for its similarity to Polybius 6 . 6 . 2 - 5 a n d Democritus B 2 7 8 ) 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). In neither of these passages are there any theological or teleological overtones.

5 Cf. Mem. 3.4.6, 3.6.14; 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. The 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) 5-12. 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.) The 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.

7 The 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] 7-21) , 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 illustration of the όμοιος-όμοίω principle, which is in itself too vague to provide a consistent theory of human koinonia (see below, note 2 3 ) .


Piraeus as a n e m p o r i u m , not of Athens, but of all Greece by reason of the

exchange of needed commodities w h i c h goes on there. 8

T h e single author w h o provides the most extensive record of this attitude

toward c o m m u n i t y a n d amity is Aristotle, i n the portions of his ethical

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 of all k i n d s — k i n s m e n , soldiers, fellow-voyagers, club members a n d

the l i k e — a r e cited from time to time i n the course of Aristotle's attempt to

analyze the sources of friendship; a n d the explanations offered frequently

suggest the line of reasoning present i n Polybius: membership i n the same

species, c o m m o n habits a n d nurture, cooperation i n securing the necessities

of l ife. 9 T h a t such forms of koindnia m a y serve as a basis for larger social

entities is i m p l i e d by several passages w h i c h refer to them as examples either

of politike philia or of those friendships w h i c h are " c o m p o n e n t p a r t s " of

politikephilia.10 " P o l i t i c a l " friendship is presumably that on 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 . 1 1

T h e fact that Aristotle provides fairly extensive statements of 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 of the social process

need not m e a n that he contributed substantially to their expansion a n d

development. T h e r e are such expansions i n the Ethics, but they take a rather

different line. Aristotle himself seems to have been rather uninterested i n the

sort of relationship w h i c h rests o n habit a n d the exchange of utilities. I t

figures i n his work chiefly i n discussions of the lower forms of friendship—

those based o n τό χρήσιμον or τό ήδύ rather t h a n on το αγαθόν.12 T h e last,

8 Paneg. 42. The 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 m e n r s t m e n 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 in Laws 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: μέγα be προς φιλίαν και το συντροφον και το καθ' ήλικα- ήλιξ γαρ ήλικα και οι συνήθεις εταίροι; 1 1 5 9 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 (1159B25-60A30) 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., cited to illustrate the όμοιος-όμοίω principle in E E 7 .1235A4-13; EN 8 .1155A32-35; Rhet. 1.1371B12-17.

1 0 For the former expression cf. E E 7.1242A2, 1242B21-22, and EN 8.1161B13; for the latter, E E 7.1241B25 and EN 8 .1160A8-9.

1 1 Cf. E E 7 .1242B23-25. 1 2 For the position of politike koinonia among those based on ήδΰ or χρήσιμον, cf. E E 7 .1242A6-8,

1242B22-27, and EN 8.1160A11-21.

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 135

w h i c h occupies the position of honor i n his treatment, c a n only exist between

good m e n , hence has little to do w i t h most of the relationships w h i c h go

under the name o( philia.13 A n d even i f one leaves out of account the higher

forms of philia, most relationships w i l l be complicated i n a w a y not e n

visioned by Polybius by the relative worths of the parties i n v o l v e d : there c a n

rarely be the simple exchange of services or feelings of good w i l l w i t h w h i c h

the latter deals. T h e better must receive a return for his participation w h i c h

is i n proportion 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 of koinonia w i t h w h i c h Polybius is p r i m a r i l y

concerned is one about w h i c h Aristotle has strong reservations; a n d its social

implications receive very scant treatment, the whole theory of the expanding

circle of reciprocal ties a n d affections being merely hinted at i n the term

politike philia.15

1 3 For Aristotle's condemnation of the latter, see Dirlmeier (above, note 1) 76, with the passages cited there.

1 4 For "friendships" based on the relationship between superior and inferior see E E 7 .1238B18-39B5, 1241B33-40, 1242A2-6, and 1242B2-21 ; £ jV8. i 1 5 8 B I 1 - 5 9 A 3 3 , 1162A34-B4, and 1163A24-B27.

1 5 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 conceptions are essentially different. Politike philia is a relationship between equals (cf. E E 7 .1242A9-11: other philiai are all καθ' ΰπεροχήν—only politike philia is not merely friendship but a partnership of 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. The 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, authoritarian ones—varieties of φιλία καθ' i-περοχήν (see preceding note). The two conceptions are clearly separated in the Eudemean Ethics, politike philia never being identified with syngenike philia in its authoritarian forms. The 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). The 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. The 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) . The 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. The 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).


T h e s e considerations, along w i t h the specific references to, or echoes of,

earlier writers w h i c h appear i n Aristotle's d i s c u s s i o n , 1 6 make it fairly clear

that he is here d r a w i n g heavily, i f not exclusively, o n w h a t must have been a

fairly widespread set of ideas by the middle of the fourth c e n t u r y , 1 7 one

w h i c h m a y have found a n extensive application i n the D e m o c r i t e a n theory

of the origin of society.

T h e s e ideas do not, however, seem to have been important i n the philo

sophical discussions of subsequent periods. I n Aristotle himself, as we have

seen, they have been largely superseded by a very different conception, of

largely Platonic a n c e s t r y , 1 8 w h i c h makes friendship a partnership based o n

dedication to w h a t is agathon. T h e Aristotelian notion was to persist i n the

Hellenistic p e r i o d 1 9 alongside another, w h i c h is separated from the fourth

century view by differences more subtle but j u s t as significant.

T h i s is the notion of a n a t u r a l , absolute unity of m a n k i n d w h i c h dominates

the classic Peripatetic a n d Stoic theories of c o m m u n i t y . 2 0 T h e s e theories are

1 6 Cf. EN 8.1155A32 ( = EE 7 .1235A4-5) , where the opoios-ouotto interpretation of philia 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 ijSu-Xp^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.

1 7 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. In 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 8 Cf. Lysis 2140D; Rep. 3 5 O B , 3 5 I C E ; Laws 8 3 7 A . 1 8 It forms, for example, a major theme in Cicero's Laelius. 2 0 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 2 6 ) 144—46; Walzer (above, note 7) 2 6 0 ; Tarn , ProcBritAc 1 9 . 1 4 0 - 4 5 ; M . H . Fisch, "Alexander and the Stoics," •AJP 58 (1937) 1 4 9 - 5 0 ; Dirlmeier, Philologus Suppl. 3 0 . 1 ; Philippson, Philologus 8 7 . 4 4 5 - 6 6 ; Pohlenz, AbhGbttingen, Folg. 3, 2 6 ; R . Stark, Aristotelesstudien = Zetemata 8 (1954) 6 0 ; Brink; and Baldry, The Unity of Mankind in Greek Thought 142-44, 178-83. The discusssion in the text follows Pohlenz (12-14)

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 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

the ones most frequently cited i n discussions of ancient humanitas a n d are at

times compared, erroneously, with w h a t appears i n P o l y b i u s . 2 1 T h e P e r i

patetic position seems to have been first stated fully by Theophrastus, frag

ments of whose discussion survive i n P o r p h y r y . 2 2 T h e s e passages develop the

idea of the essential unity of m a n k i n d , supporting their contention w i t h

references to the presence of similar biological needs, feelings, a n d perceptions

i n al l m e n , w h o are thus oikeioi to one another. T h e unity w h i c h they e n

vision is a n absolute a n d universal brotherhood: a fellowship l inking every

m e m b e r of the race to every other qua m a n . 2 3 T h e r e is no suggestion, either

here or i n the account of the doctrine w h i c h appears i n A r i u s D i d y m u s '

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 See Appendix I I I . 2 2 De abst. 3.25 = Llepl evaeßeias, Fr . 20 Pötscher; cf. Bernays, Theophrastos' Schrift über Frömmigkeit

9 6 - 1 0 0 . 2 3 Tarn 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 , Fr . 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, Fr . 98 Heinze, and, for the position attributed to Pythagoras, Iamblichus, VP 108). At most they suggest universal equality, not fraternity. The 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 mankind, but it could just as easily justify racial or local particularism. E N 8.1155A21-22, iSoi δ' άν τις 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). The 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 3 8 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 m m a r y (Stobaeus, Eel. 2-7 = W - H I I 120.17-121.21) o f P e r i p a t e t i c ethics,

t h a t t h e feelings o f c o m m u n i t y w h i c h l i n k a l l m e n m i g h t be a v a r i a b l e

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 u p o n a p r i o r process o f

association a n d a s s i m i l a t i o n . 2 4 N o r is the absence s trange: such a n o t i o n

w o u l d be inconsis tent w i t h A r i s t o t l e ' s w h o l e c o n c e p t i o n o f " m a n " as a

d i s t i n c t a n d fixed species, " p o l i t i c a l " b y its v e r y n a t u r e a n d capable o f

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 to be h u m a n a l together .

A s i m i l a r t e n d e n c y to v i e w h u m a n n a t u r e as a constant is e v i d e n t i n the

d o c t r i n e οϊ oikeiosis, w h i c h p lays a c e n t r a l role i n t h e Stoic e t h i c . 2 5 T h e u n i t y

o f t h e h u m a n race figures here i n t w o d i f f e r e n t ways . T h e m a i n s p r i n g o f

h u m a n m o t i v a t i o n is, for t h e Stoic , a n i n n a t e οίκείωσις προς eavrov, w h i c h

makes every c r e a t u r e 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 disposed t o

w a r d himsel f , his 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 are neces

sary f o r his w e l l - b e i n g . C o n n e c t e d w i t h this is a s i m i l a r oikeiosis t o w a r d his

fe l lows w h o , b y v i r t u e o f generic resemblance, o c c u p y a lesser place i n his

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. Tarn, 141-45). The Stoics and Peripatetics provided a more sophisticated justification for something whose possibility had been revealed in practice. In 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. The 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 philosophers began to speak with real conviction of an actually existent world community. For the contrast between third and first century treatments of the theme see Baldry, The Unity of Mankind in Greek Thought 141-45, 151-66, and 177—99.

2 4 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. The perspective throughout is biological, tracing the various metamorphoses of oikeiotes—not, as is that of the fourth century theory of expanding koinoniai, atomistic.

2 5 The 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 .

2 6 Cf. Cicero, Fin. 3 . 6 2 - 6 3 ( = SVF 3 . 3 4 0 ) ; Berlin Theaetetus Commentary, cols. 7 .26-8.1; Hierocles 11.13—21. This extension of oikeiosis to include one's fellow men is not found in Chrysippus, 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 ) . The 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 consciousness of their own existence. The pleasurable aisthesis which in each individual is directed toward himself is linked to a synaisthesis whose object is one's heteros aulas—the friend. The latter's existence is therefore, like one's own, numbered among things to be sought after for their own sake.


B u t oikeidsis operates 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 its

object is i n the 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 completeness, its

n a t u r a l a n d p r e o r d a i n e d telos; hence m a n ' s c o n c e r n soon ceases to be m e r e

p h y s i c a l p r e s e r v a t i o n 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 . 2 7 A n d since such a n a t u r e does n o t exist i n i s o l a t i o n

b u t is l i n k e d to its fel lows 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 . 6 2 5 - 2 7 ) , the e v e n t u a l result o f oikeidsis is a r a t i o n a l

awareness o f the u n i t y o f the h u m a n race, o r at least o f the spoudaioi w h o are

m e m b e r s o f i t (SVF 1 .222-23) .

T h e Stoics m a y thus be said to recognize a n oikeidsis l i n k i n g a l l m e n , w h i c h

exists o n the leve l b o t h o f i m p u l s e a n d r e a s o n . 2 8 B u t n e i t h e r v a r i e t y u n d e r

goes the sort o f e v o l u t i o n envis ioned i n e a r l i e r theories o f c o m m u n i t y . 2 9

27 SVF 3.178: 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."

2 8 The contrast drawn here between a "natural" and a "rational" oikeidsis (on which cf. Fisch [above, note 20] 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; cf. Cicero, Off. 1.12: natura vi rationis hominem conciliat homini, and, in the Berlin Theaetetus Commentary (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 To the generalization in the text there are two exceptions, or seeming exceptions, important

enough to require notice here. An 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 insufficient 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 . 8 2 ) . The 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. The passage makes explicit the role played by synetheia in the whole process: oratio (1.50), forum, fana,porticus, viae, leges,

iura, iudicia, suffragia (1.53), 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. To 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 .22-23: "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


Oikeiosis is a n i m p l a n t e d fee l ing o f a f f i n i t y , never 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 o f

h a b i t s , a c t i v i t i e s , a n d feelings w h i c h becomes associated most i n t i m a t e l y w i t h

one's p e r s o n a l existence; r a t h e r , i t rests o n a n i n n a t e consciousness o f oneself

as a separate b e i n g , w h i c h exists i n a confused f o r m even i n a n i m a l s a n d

c h i l d r e n . 3 0 I t s extens ion to i n c l u d e one's f e l l o w creatures 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 leve 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 se l f - rea l i zat ion, b u t t h e change is n o t one w h i c h b r i n g s w i t h i t a h e i g h t

ened sense o f k i n s h i p b r e d b y l o n g c o n t a c t : oikeiosis is a u t o m a t i c a l l y re

d i r e c t e d to t h e r a t i o n a l self as i t begins to emerge.

T h e P o l y b i a n analysis o f c o m m u n i t y w o u l d seem to be one w h i c h became

r a t h e r u n u s u a l after 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 , a t least i n Greek

t h o u g h t a t i ts m o r e sophis t icated levels. W h a t dist inguishes P o l y b i u s f r o m

his 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 to a n ear l ier age is, q u i t e s i m p l y , his sense

o f s o c i e t y 3 1 — h i s r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e fact t h a t i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r c a n n o t

r e m a i n c o n s t a n t as l o n g as i t cont inues to be i n v o l v e d i n the social process,

t h a t nomos counts f o r as m u c h as, o r m o r e t h a n , physis a n d logos i n h u m a n

b e h a v i o r . 3 2 T h e P e r i p a t e t i c oikeiotes, b y c o n t r a s t , exists o n l y o n t h e leve l o f

physis, l i n k i n g a l l m e n to one a n o t h e r b y v i r t u e o f c o m m o n t r a i t s 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. The 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. The 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 Old 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. 137-38, 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. 123-24 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). 3 0 Seneca, Ep. 121.13: "infantibus quoque animalibusque principalis partis suae sensus est non

satis dilucidus nec expressus." 3 1 O n Polybius' " soziologischen Betrachtungsweise" see Heinemann, Poseidonios' metaphysische

Schriften 1.107. 32 Nomos, synetheia, and ethismos continued to play a role in the speculations of Hellenistic ethno

graphers, 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


o f t h e m share a t a l l t imes . A n d Stoic oikeidsis m e r e l y adds 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 s t e m m i n g f r o m m a n ' s c o n

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 a n d 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 society 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 rs t b y a n a u t o m a t i c association b e t w e e n objects a n d sounds o r b e t w e e n cer

t a i n act iv i t ies a n d the 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 r e g u l a r i z e the n a t u r a l s i t u a t i o n . I n P o l y b i u s 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 tuat ions 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 such s i t u a t i o n s . Logismos i n a r u d i m e n t a r y

f o r m plays 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 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 makes 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 d i f f e r e n t t r ibes requires t h e a s s i m i l a t i o n o f a l r e a d y d e v e l o p e d

dialects (see above , p p . 1 0 8 - 9 ) — t n a t i n t e l l e c t u a l factors b e c o m e t h e p r e

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 c o n t e m p o r a r y

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 above , p p . 1 1 3 -

14). B u t th is 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 be observed w h e n one c o m p a r e s

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 w i t h t h e m o r e h i s t o r i c a l l y

m i n d e d o f t h e passages considered i n C h a p t e r T h r e e . D i s s i m i l a r as t h e i r

approaches w e r e , a l l o f those passages w e r e at one i n re fus ing t o recognize

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 Posidonius a n d the Euhemer is ts 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 passively at 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 conceive o f society as a

c lassroom; b u t for t h e m the w h o l e h u m a n race becomes a sort 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 systematic fashion, f i rst t h e vegetable, t h e n t h e a n i m a l k i n g d o m

(see above, p p . 5 4 - 5 5 ) ; 3 3 o r else d i r e c t i n g its ac t iv i t ies , a l o n g l ines deter

m i n e d b y the 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 dis interested s p e c u l a t i o n o n n a t u r e a n d p u r e b e i n g

(see above, 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 such 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.

3 3 As the title he chose for his work indicates, Dicaearchus is composing biography, not history.

142 DEMOGRITUS AND T H E SOURCES OF 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 famous

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 the i d e a l state: " T h e r e m u s t be as m a n y

types o f m a n as there 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

pol i t ies arise o u t o f stock o r stone r a t h e r t h a n f r o m the c h a r a c t e r types exist

i 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 the others a l o n g

w i t h t h e m ? " 3 4 T h e i m p l i c a t i o n is c lear : w h a t e v e r i n the social process

c a n n o t be d i r e c t l y e x p l a i n e d i n terms o f i n d i v i d u a l psychology has n o ex

p l a n a t i o n a t a l l . 3 5

B u t i f P o l y b i u s refuses to 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 he neglect i n d i v i d u a l m o t i v a t i o n to concentrate exclusively o n

the w o r k i n g o f social contro ls . 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 or

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 over m e n , its o r i g i n

a n d n a t u r e s h r o u d e d i n m y s t e r y . 3 6 Social n o r m s arise f r o m concrete s i tua

t ions i n w h i c h i n d i v i d u a l choice plays a n i m p o r t a n t , i f n o t exclusive, r o l e ;

a n d o n l y subsequent ly , t h r o u g h d i f f u s i o n a n d h a b i t , d o t h e y become the

rules o f c o n d u c t to w h i c h a l l m e m b e r s i n a society give 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 to separate h i m f r o m Greek t h o u g h t p r i o r

to the late f i f t h c e n t u r y as m u c h as his sociological perspective 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 was i n the late

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 f irst b e g a n to 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 the c o m p l e x o f inst incts , impulses , a n d m e n t a l processes c o m

m o n to 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 find

t h e m s e l v e s . 3 7 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 va r i ou s aspects are the

r e m a r k s o f the Adikos Logos o n the 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 fo l lows the dictates 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 the constant elements i n h u m a n n a t u r e (1 .22.4) ,

a n d A n t i p h o n the 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 the w r o n g - d o i n g d e e m e d to

be so o n l y b y v i r t u e o f nomos (VS 87B44, F r . A c o l . 1 .1-2.20). T h o u g h the

three 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 take to be the c e n t r a l characterist ics

o f h u m a n n a t u r e , t h e y are at one i n t h e i r b e l i e f t h a t r) dvOpanreia <f>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.

3 6 On the conception see, most recently, M . Ostwald, "Pindar, Nomos and Heracles," HSCP 6g (1965) 124-31.

3 7 On the late fifth century view of physis, see F . Heinimann, Nomos und Physis = Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 1 (Basel 1945) 110-162, especially 125-47, on "das menschliche Triebleben" seen as "angeboren . . . und so entweder auf die Götter oder auf unausweichliche Naturgesetzlichkeit zurückgeführt" (126).

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 143

a lways the 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 Socrat ic doc

t r i n e o f the 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 the m e r e l y c o n v e n t i o n a l . T h e psyche is the most i m p o r t a n t

p a r t o f a m a n ; its wel fare has n o t h i n g to d o w i t h t h e e x t e r n a l c i rcumstances

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 each 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 the differences o f h a b i t o r b e l i e f w h i c h

separate t h e m .

B u t Socrates' " d i s c o v e r y " o f the self, w h i l e i t involves the same p r e

o c c u p a t i o n w i t h the p r o b l e m o f physis w h i c h appears i n o t h e r la te f i f t h

c e n t u r y w r i t e r s a n d i n Po lyb ius , was e v e n t u a l l y to m a k e t h e sort o f socio

l o g i c a l analysis w h i c h Polybius gives d i f f i c u l t , i f n o t imposs ib le . H e n c e f o r t h

m a n the i n d i v i d u a l became the 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 once

this h a d o c c u r r e d , i t became i n c r e a s i n g l y h a r d to conceive the f o r m a t i o n o f

c h a r a c t e r 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 obscured

b y a n 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 u n i v e r s a l . 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 the w o r l d — o r at least the

p o s s i b i l i t y o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g i t . P o l y b i u s ' a b i l i t y to i n c l u d e 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 the

i n t e l l e c t u a l a tmosphere o f the 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

i n c r e a s i n g l y r a r e t h e r e a f t e r . 3 8

T h e effects o f the Socrat ic r e v o l u t i o n were 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 the texts c i t e d above ( p p . 132-34) f o r t h e i r p a r a l l e l s to the P o l y b i a n

t h e o r y o f koindnia, most o f w h i c h come f r o m the f o u r t h c e n t u r y . 3 9 B u t i f the

perspect ive w h i c h characterizes Polybius c o n t i n u e d to exist for some t i m e

after the i n t e l l e c t u a l events w h i c h were to lead to its v i r t u a l a b a n d o n m e n t ,

the 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 this

perspect ive p o i n t s u n m i s t a k a b l y to the fifth, r a t h e r t h a n to the f o u r t h ,

c e n t u r y . I t s aff inities a n d possible antecedents 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 to a r e m a r k a b l e episode i n the History o f H e r o d o t u s .

T h e passage referred to (4.110.2-117) tells h o w a g r o u p o f Scythians came

t o 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 A m a z o n s . T h e l a t t e r , surv ivors 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 present 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 late 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 separated from t h e

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 cit ies . . . " (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 social 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 are 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 some o f t h e m o s t extensive

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 ingle 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

P o l y b i a n c o u n t e r p a r t . ff<^'


t h e i r unsuccessful f i g h t against the Greeks, l a n d near L a k e M a e o t i s a n d

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 f i rs t , n o t recog

n i z i n g t h e l a n g u a g e , c l o t h i n g , race, o r sex o f the i n v a d e r s , the Scythians

f i g h t w i t h t h e m ; t h e n , d i s c o v e r i n g t h e m t o be w o m e n , t h e i r t h o u g h t s 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 near t h e A m a z o n s , b u t n o t to f i g h t w i t h t h e m , f leeing i f a t t a c k e d

a n d e n c a m p i n g near t h e m a g a i n once the p u r s u i t is over. T h i s is d o n e , a n d

w h e n t h e A m a z o n s discover t h a t t h e i r ne ighbors m e a n t h e m n o h a r m t h e y

i g n o r e t h e m . T h u s the t w o e n c a m p m e n t s g r a d u a l l y get closer, a n d for some

t i m e t h e y share t h e same w a y o f l i fe , h u n t i n g a n d p l u n d e r i n g . T h e A m a z o n s

h a v e the h a b i t o f g o i n g o u t s ing ly a r o u n d n o o n to rel ieve themselves; o n one

such occasion a g i r l is assaulted b y a S c y t h i a n a n d acquiesces. H e indicates

b y gestures ( for there 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 he w i l l

b r i n g a c o m p a n i o n to the same spot t h e n e x t d a y , a n d she agrees to d o l i k e

wise. T h e process cont inues 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 the l a n g u a g e o f the Scythians , b u t , r a t h e r t h a n settle

w i t h a people whose ways t h e y d o n o t share, t h e y persuade t h e i r husbands

to 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 speaking a s l i g h t l y

d i f f e r e n t d i a l e c t o f S c y t h i a n , i n f l u e n c e d b y t h e i r m o t h e r s ' m i s p r o n u n c i a t i o n

o f a n a c q u i r e d t o n g u e .

T h e r e is n o t h i n g i n the w a y this s tory is i n t r o d u c e d to 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 fantast ic , 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 the m a r k s o f b e i n g a t h i n l y disguised piece

o f speculat ive 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 wives i n such r o u n d a b o u t a n d tedious 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 iews i t as a n a t t e m p t

to 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 to those present i n the t h e o r y o f society preserved i n

P o l y b i u s . G i v e n t h e differences o f language , c l o t h i n g , a n d race w h i c h sepa

rate 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 , there is l i t t l e chance 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 too w e a k to have a n y effect

here. 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 the same w a y o f l i fe (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 tr ibes to feel f a i r l y

secure i n each other 's presence. G r a d u a l l y the necessary p r e c o n d i t i o n s for

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 change 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 the gir ls f r o m her c o m p a n i o n s such

as is l i k e l y to o c c u r i n t h e n o r m a l course o f th ings makes possible the f irst

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 tr ibes . T h e sexual 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 the b e g i n n i n g o f the

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


spreads f r o m the isolated instance w h e r e i t b e g a n u n t i l the t w o tr ibes are one

a n d a s s i m i l a t i o n o f l anguage has o c c u r r e d . T h e resul t is a n e w ethnos, speaking

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 was 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 the one w h i c h has served as the source for P o l y b i u s V I . B u t t h e

resemblance is close e n o u g h to 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

rate , 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 f i f t h 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 w o r k s i n w h i c h t h e y a p p e a r e d

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 P o l y b i u s d r a w s ; perhaps t h e y

b e l o n g e d to a n ear l ier stage o f t h o u g h t o u t o f w h i c h the m o r e e laborate 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 para l le l s are a l l the m o r e impressive for t h e i r 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 text . 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 the 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 to i t . I t proceeds i n accordance w i t h a d e f i n i t e idea 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 ac

q u i r e d a n d " a c c i d e n t a l , " hence n o t to 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

a c c o u n t w h i c h a ims a t b e i n g 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 to e x p l a i n . B u t t h o u g h b o t h accounts (Polyb ius m o r e c l e a r l y a n d self

consciously t h a n H e r o d o t u s ) are reconstruct ions 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 genera l p r i n c i p l e s , the f o r m i n w h i c h b o t h are 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 the

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 accounts recognize

r e m a i n i n the b a c k g r o u n d . T h e center 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 the

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 re l iance o n the 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 c e r t a i n r e c u r r e n t

p a t t e r n s , one 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 the 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 be rea l i zed t h a t

this m e t h o d o f speculat ive r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f the past en joyed a r a t h e r l i m i t e d

vogue i n a n t i q u i t y . T h e appeal to eikos was p r o b a b l y the most character is t ic

f o r m o f a r g u m e n t a t i o n i n the late fifth c e n t u r y , e v i d e n t a l ike i n d r a m a ,

h i s t o r y , a n d o r a t o r y . 4 2 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 na ivete 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 . P r o b a b l e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s l i k e 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 considerable 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 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). 4 2 For its use in oratory and tragedy, see F . Solmsen, " Antiphonstudien," JVPU 8 (1931) 5 3 - 5 8 .


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

result 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 hazardous . B u t this boldness w o u l d

doubtless n o t have w e i g h e d h e a v i l y w i t h a f i f t h c e n t u r y audience. A c

c u s t o m e d s t i l l to a c c e p t i n g the poets as a u t h o r i t i e s o n past h i s t o r y , t h e y

w o u l d n o t be t o o insistent o n the tekmeria w h i c h alone c o u l d insure 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 tale . I f the

r e c o n s t r u c t i o n were p l a u s i b l e , t r u e to 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

t e n d n o t to q u e s t i o n i t . H e r o d o t u s ' t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f e t h n o l o g i c a l t h e o r y

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 accordance w i t h

the p r i n c i p l e o f eikos c o u l d be accepted i n the 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 the least sophist icated m e m b e r o f his g e n e r a t i o n .

W h a t evidence we have suggests t h a t the a p p e a l to eikos was m u c h less

p o p u l a r i n the f o u r t h c e n t u r y : the dec l ine i n its use is c l e a r l y traceable i n

o r a t o r y , 4 3 a n d the A r c h a e o l o g y o f T h u c y d i d e s d i d n o t , so far as w e k n o w ,

f i n d a successor. I t is n a t u r a l to associate the change w i t h the g r o w i n g p r e

valence o f m o r e c o n c e p t u a l modes o f t h o u g h t , a process w h i c h c o u l d be

expected to b r i n g w i t h i t a d e m a n d t h a t reconstruct ions o f the past take the

f o r m o f p r i n c i p l e s , evidence, a n d inference, r a t h e r t h a n t h a t o f the l i k e l y

tale . P o l y b i u s ' o w n a c c o u n t , as w e l l as the t e c h n o l o g i c a l a n d l i n g u i s t i c

histories to w h i c h i t is r e l a t e d , conspicuously fails to meet this d e m a n d ; a n d

the d e m a n d is m e t , j u s t as conspicuously , b y a lmost a l l the o t h e r accounts o f

t e c h n o l o g y a n d language 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

trasted 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 accounts was t h e i r

t e n d e n c y 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 large a ro le 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 , Po lyb ius , a n d , as we 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 the 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 far as i t involves the o p e r a t i o n o f genera l forces o r modes 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 to one a n o t h e r . As a result , once t h e i r categories are

accepted, t h e y possess a l o g i c a l coherence a n d causal c o n n e c t i o n w h i c h the

texts o f o u r t r a d i t i o n lack . 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 the faculties o f

the soul i n w h i c h A r i s t o t l e be l ieved, the chrematistikos bios represented b y the

f irst stage i n his scheme o f h i s t o r y (see above, p . 5 2 ) , the praktikos bios o f the

t h i r d stage, a n d the t h e o r e t i c a l p u r s u i t s o f the f i n a l t w o stages f o l l o w one

a n o t h e r w i t h a n i n e v i t a b i l i t y a n d a n appropriateness w h i c h is n o t to be

f o u n d i n the course o f events envis ioned b y D i o d o r u s , V i t r u v i u s , a n d

P o l y b i u s . 4 4 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 the

4 3 Solmsen (above, note 42) 53, note 1. 4 4 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." In 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


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 Plato's r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f the or ig ins o f society i n Republic I I . A n d i n

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 to constant

aspects o f the n a t u r a l e n v i r o n m e n t or to f i x e d stages i n the l i fe o f the cosmos,

is m u c h closer to A r i s t o t l e a n d P l a t o t h a n to D e m o c r i t u s (see b e l o w , p p . 1 7 0 -

73) . I f the 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 lmost 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 Polybius , the refusal

to i n d u l g e i n reconstruct ions o f the past o n the basis oieikos is e q u a l l y charac

terist ic o f a lmost a l l specimens o f Kulturgeschichte d a t i n g f r o m the f o u r t h

c e n t u r y a n d after, a n d p o i n t s even m o r e c l e a r l y to a f i f t h c e n t u r y o r i g i n for

o u r t r a d i t i o n .

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 charge o f lack 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 the subsequent a b a n d o n

m e n t o f the 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 consistently 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 envis ion

i n g a n a lmost 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 the l i k e l y course o f events

to occur , 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 were

i n fact τά γενόμενα.*5 T h e a t o m i c t h e o r y was perhaps the furthest p o i n t

reached b y the late fifth c e n t u r y i n its e f fort to achieve 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 represented a stage

o f r e f i n e m e n t never a p p r e c i a t e d b y most p r a c t i t i o n e r s o f the m e t h o d , m u c h

less b y the m e n o f subsequent ages, w h o were schooled to accept as t r u e o n l y

w h a t c o u l d be phrased i n terms o f u n i v e r s a l laws 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 re lat ionships . H e r e ideal ist a n d n o n - i d e a l i s t a l ike were the heirs

o f P lato . 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 must

have 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

p r o v e . " 4 6

T h e v i r t u a l d isappearance o f the b o d y o f d o c t r i n e whose existence we have

posi ted was thus n a t u r a l , perhaps even i n e v i t a b l e . M o r e t h a n its genera l

eclipse, the isolated 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 requires some ef fort at e x p l a n a t i o n .

the task at h a n d , t h e ro le p l a y e d b y chance a n d t h e s ingle 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 was. h o w e v e r , c a r e f u l l y c i r c u m s c r i b e d — s e c J . D a y a n d M . C h a m b e r s , Aristotle's History of Athenian Democracy = University of California Publications in History, 73 (1962) 4 2 - 6 5 (especia l ly 6 4 : " I n his 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 f irst o f a l l as possible ' n a t u r a l ' d e v e l o p m e n t s . T h e p r e f e r r e d ef f ic ient 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 lelos").

45 και φασι μόνοις τοις άπειρα ποιονσι τά στοιχεία πάντα σνμβαίνειν κατά λόγον ( S i m p l . Phys. 28.1 5 = Κ £ 6 8 Α 3 8 ) . Cf . a b o v e , p . 119.

4 0 F o r t h i s j u d g m e n t o f the greatest o f l a t e r a t o m i s t s o n the w o r k o f his predecessor, see C i c e r o , Ac. 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 esse n a t u r a , neo- u t i l l e , q u i -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 c o r p o r i b u s c o n c r e t a haec 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 haec censet esse D e m o c r i t i n o n docent is sed o p t a n t i s " ( = F r . 32 W e h r l i ) . y' i , - ^ 1 ;

/

C H A P T E R T E N

T H E H E I R S O F D E M O C R I T U S

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 the 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 most n a t u r a l a n d most expected w h e r e

t h e c o n t e x t is consciously 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

re ferred t o i n C h a p t e r T h r e e ; o r w h e r e the subject u n d e r d iscuss ion—

t e c h n o l o g y , f o r 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 ro le

i n 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 . 1 T h e l a t t e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n

expla ins w h y Posidonius a n d t h e A c a d e m y 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 lear (see

above, p p . 5 2 - 5 4 , 1 0 4 - 5 ) . A n d i t also expla ins w h y V i t r u v i u s uses

D e m o c r i t u s i n a passage whose focus is a l m o s t exc lusively 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 , makes c la ims w h i c h its m o r e sophist icated readers m u s t have f o u n d

e x t r a v a g a n t .

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 the o t h e r texts d r a w n u p o n

f o r the reconstruct ions 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 range 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 perspec

t i v e . I n such instances i t is n a t u r a l to assume t h a t the 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 such a f f i n i t y d i d exist. T h e exact c h a r a c t e r o f the r e l a t i o n

ship is o f t e n h a r d t o d e t e r m i n e ; even m o r e so t h e channels 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 become 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 to this subject is w o r t h t h e ef fort . 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 elements i n the w o r k o f the m a j o r ones—even w h e n the

lines o f D e m o c r i t e a n inf luence 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

u n c e r t a i n .

1. T H E S T A T E OF 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 the Kulturgeschichte f o u n d i n Tzetzes has a l r e a d y been

i n d i c a t e d (above, p . 10). I t is a n e f fort to m a k e Hesiod's m y t h o f the 1 Technology might well have its origin in a forest fire; but Herodotus' suggestion (see above,

pp. 143-44) that anything so important as an ethnic alliance could have originated in the outhouse was both unbelievable and undignified.

148

T H E H E I R S O F 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 to 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 the m e t h o d chosen are a l r e a d y present,

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 Plato 's Laws, the earliest o f s u r v i v i n g

a t t e m p t s to ideal ize 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 the 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 inds a l l t e c h n o l o g y based o n t h e use o f metals 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 l i fe unnecessary o r p r e j u d i c i a l to m a n ' s h a p

piness; b u t he c a n n o t b r i n g h i m s e l f to j e t t i s o n the f ru i t s o f c i v i l i z a t i o n

e n t i r e l y . W e a v i n g , p o t t e r y , d o m e s t i c a t e d a n i m a l s , h o u s i n g , r e l i g i o n , a n d 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 to w e l l - b e i n g (see

above, C h a p t e r Seven, note 5) a n d t h e i r existence a c c o u n t e d for 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 above , p p . 5 4 - 5 5 )

the r e l a t i o n s h i p to H e s i o d becomes for t h e f irst t i m e e x p l i c i t (cf. F r . 4 9 ,

p . 24 .3-11 W e h r l i ) , seems to have gone 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 lack o f possessions w o u l d m e a n t h e absence o f greed

a n d c o m p e t i t i o n ( p . 2 4 . 2 0 - 2 2 ) ; b u t whereas P l a t o h a d m a d e the state o f

n a t u r e a p a s t o r a l one, D i c a e a r c h u s describes the earliest m e n as f o o d -

gatherers ( this b e i n g the r e a l m e a n i n g o f Hesiod 's s t a t e m e n t [Works and Days

117-18] t h a t the 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

i ts w a n t s ) , a n d for the 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 above,

p . 98) he substitutes a s c a r c i t y — a scarc i ty w h i c h , since i t preserved 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 f u r t h e r D i c a e a r c h u s w e n t w i t h his p r i m i t i v i s m w e d o n o t k n o w .

W e a v i n g a n d p o t t e r y were doubtless n o t p a r t o f the earliest h u m a n bios as

envis ioned b y h i m ; b u t the 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 ) .

Deta 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 against

D e m o c r i t u s (see above, p . 103). I f , as w e have 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 the most e laborate a n d subtle o f those d e v e l o p e d

i n the late f i f t h c e n t u r y , this v e r y p r e - e m i n e n c e m a y have b e e n w h a t l e d

P l a t o to 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 the person o f its strongest representat ive .

A n d i f there 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 ( o t h e r t h a n those for

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 for i n the same w a y .

Tzetzes' r e l a t i o n s h i p to 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

ha l f , he seems to have used for his c o m m e n t a r y the 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 ear l ier a n d closer. I n c o n t e n d i n g

t h a t the s i m p l e l i fe breeds peace a n d h a r m o n y , t h a t l i v i n g a lways at the

DEMOGRITUS AND T H E SOURCES OF G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

leve l o f b a r e subsistence saves m a n f r o m the t y r a n n y o f superfluous desires,

Tzetzes recalls 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 the i d e a o f a l l e g o r i z i n g

H e s i o d t o c o n s t r u c t a " s c i e n t i f i c " p i c t u r e o f p r i m i t i v e l i f e . 2 B u t Tzetzes' ex

p o s i t i o n o f " h a r d " p r i m i t i v i s m (see above, C h a p t e r O n e , note 16) is far

m o r e t h o r o u g h g o i n g , even, t h a n D i c a e a r c h u s ' , a n d suggests the inf luence o f

the school w h i c h w e n t fur thest i n its r e j e c t i o n o f the amenit ies 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 b y a n u m b e r o f para l le ls

o f d e t a i l b e t w e e n the kynikos bios a n d t h a t w h i c h Tzetzes a t t r i b u t e s to 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 ire a n d its b r i n g e r , w h i c h is c e n t r a l to Tzetzes'

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the 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 Prusa 6.25,

2 9 - 3 0 ; P l u t a r c h , Aq. an ign. 2 . 9 5 6 B ) , 4 as are his r e m a r k s o n the e f feminacy

o f c u l t u r e 5 a n d his a d m i r a t i o n for the l a b o r i o u s l i fe l e d b y ear ly m a n 6 ( this

last c o m b i n e d o n occasion w i t h a m o r e hedonis t ic , b u t e q u a l l y C y n i c , 7

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the state o f n a t u r e ) . T h e r e are C y n i c paral le ls to w h a t

Tzetzes has to say a b o u t the 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 lack

2 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 _ Ι 5 Gaisford): ταΰτα μεν [Hesiod's Prometheus story] τα. μυθικά· και δή . . . κατ' άλληγορίαν μοι μάνθανε.

3 Norden, who first called attention to this piece of Kulturgeschichte (NJbb Suppl. 19.412-22), assumed an Epicurean source. The view is rightly criticized by Reitzenstein, Orient und Antike 2.71-74; 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 in VS I I 137.41-42 and Lucretius 5 . 9 5 8 - 5 9 : nec commune bonum poterant spectare neque ullis / moribus

inter se scibant nec legibus uti.) 1 In 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. Enjoyment 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.

5 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 την γυναικωνιτιν).

6 Compare 101.6-7 {τληπαθαις και έπιπόνως έζων) with Stobaeus, Flor. 29.92 ( = W - H I I I 655.12-17) 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 . Dümmler, Akademika (Glessen 1889) 1 9 0 - 9 2 ; Weber, Leipziger Studien 10.236-57; 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, "Zur 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 H E I R S O F D E M O G R I T U S

o f f e a r , 8 a b o u t the ear ly bounti fulness o f the e a r t h a n d the ease w i t h w h i c h

m a n p r o v i d e d h i m s e l f w i t h the necessities o f l i f e , 9 a n d a b o u t the h a b i t u a t i o n

w h i c h e n a b l e d h i m to bear extremes o f heat a n d c o l d . 1 0 E v e n the social

aspects o f Tzetzes' a c c o u n t o f the state o f n a t u r e have C y n i c o v e r t o n e s ; 1 1

a n d , l i k e h i m , the Cynics seem to have i n t e r p r e t e d a n d a l legor ized the

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 . 1 2

8 117. i—5. Cf . M a x i m u s o f T y r e 36.2FG a n d D i o 6 .34 ( c i v i l i z e d m a n ' s f u t i l e fears o f i l lness 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 .22) o f D i o g e n e s ' c o n

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 the b e h a v i o r o f a mouse 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 6 8 . 1 6 - 1 9 , 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 the 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 was suf f ic ient for his needs; i t was possible i n o n e d a y to co l lec t f o o d suf f ic ient

f o r a w h o l e y e a r ; once th is was 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 . 6.44 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 to h o u s i n g , Seneca, 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 ) . Seneca also speaks ( 9 0 . 4 0 ) o f terra

inlaborala et in usus populorum non diripientium larga (cf. Tzetzes 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 to 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, Stage i D ) . C o n c e i v a b l y Tzetzes 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 he has b e e n i n f l u e n c e d b y a C y n i c

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 Stoic 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 necessari ly

a blessing 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

used 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 Tzetzes ' 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.

1 0 C o m p a r e 116.16-17 ( 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 such) w i t h D i o 6.15, 6 0 . 7 , a n d D . L . C.23 ( o n the synetheia w h i c h e n a b l e d

D i o g e n e s to w i t h s t a n d t h e extremes o f heat a n d c o l d ) , a n d the 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. Tzetzes ' 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 (116 .15) n a s < i t s h o u l d be

observed , n o p a r a l l e l i n D i o d o r u s 1.8. I t thus p r o v i d e s a f u r t h e r a r g u m e n t against 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 fe 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

to syndiagöge, symbiosis, a n d syndiailesis i n 1 16.10 a n d 116.29-117.1, 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 Zeno 's politeia. O n the C y n i c a f f in i t ies 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 ( L o n d o n 1937) 9 8 - 9 9 ; N . Festa, " L a r e p u b b l i c a d i Z e n o n e , " Atti deW

Accademia degli Arcadi 11 (1927) 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 79 (1959)

9 - 1 0 .

1 2 T h e p h r a s e ό επι Κρόνου βίος is used by L u c i a n (Drapclai 17) as a d e s i g n a t i o n f o r the i d e a l l i fe

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 Tzetzes ,

a l o n g w i t h some 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 (36. 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 l i fe w h i c h

is άπόλεμον, άφνλακτον, άσίδηρον. ειρηνικόν, άπεριμάχητον, άνενδεά. Gf. Tzetzes 68.20—25: 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 14.16).


W e d o n o t k n o w at 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 represented i n Tzetzes

t o o k shape, hence c a n n o t say w h e t h e r i t has i n f l u e n c e d P l a t o a n d

D i c a e a r c h u s o r v ice versa. I t has been 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 become c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y C y n i c was f irst 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 the o t h e r h a n d , n o n e o f the 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 for t h e i r

para l le ls to Tzetzes are c e r t a i n l y p r e - H e l l e n i s t i c . 1 4 B u t w h a t e v e r t h e i r

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 , the 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

h e l d b y P l a t o a n d D i c a e a r c h u s represent m o d i f i c a t i o n s o f a n o r i g i n a l l y

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 , to a lesser degree, Dicaearchus are

s h a r p l y opposed to D e m o c r i t u s a n d b o r r o w f r o m h i m o n l y i n o r d e r to m a k e

c lear 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 to be

v a l i d . T h e Cynics a n d D e m o c r i t u s are allies to a p o i n t , a n d this is doubtless

w h a t expla ins t h e i r use o f his doctr ines . 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 to r e g a r d a l l , o r n e a r l y a l l , the usages w h i c h p r e v a i l

i n the p o l i t i c a l a n d social rea lms o f m a n ' s existence as the 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 anxious to establish t h e fact t h a t m a n

once l i v e d a l i fe 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 . 1 5 F o r

a l l these reasons, the Kulturgeschichte o f D e m o c r i t u s was a useful w e a p o n i n

the p r o m u l g a t i o n o f t h e i r v iews, a n d t h e y were w i l l i n g to take i t over i n its

e n t i r e t y — w i t h t w o m a j o r except ions: t h e e v a l u a t i o n p l a c e d o n the w h o l e

process h a d to be e x a c t l y reversed, a n d philallelia rep laced 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 ne ighbors .

A t t e n t i o n has r e c e n t l y b e e n d r a w n t o the ro le w h i c h the " C y n i c

D e m o c r i t u s " m a y have p l a y e d i n t h e t ransmiss ion o f the e t h n i c a l f ragments

w h i c h appear i n t h e c o l l e c t i o n o f S t o b a e u s . 1 6 W e are perhaps j u s t i f i e d i n

assigning to the same figure a s i g n i f i c a n t p lace i n the l a t e r h i s t o r y o f D e m o

c r i t e a n Kulturgeschichte.

1 3 See above, note 6. 1 4 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 x 5 3

2. C U L T U R E AND T H E G O D S ( E U H E M E R I S M AND R E L A T E D T H E O R I E S )

O n e o f the w o r k s m o s t extensively u t i l i z e d i n the reconstruct ions 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 was t h e theologoumena o f D i o d o r u s I . T h e

D e m o c r i t e a n echoes f o u n d i n this t e x t are 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 appear , t h o u g h far m o r e sparsely, i n a n u m b e r o f accounts o f a euheme-

r is t c h a r a c t e r (see above, 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 isolated d o c u m e n t . T h e e n t i r e contents o f D i o d o r u s 1.13-2 9 have

close para l le ls b o t h i n the Sacred Chronicle o f E u h e m e r u s h i m s e l f 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 , the a c c o u n t o f t h e o r i g i n o f the gods a t t r i b u t e d

to the E g y p t i a n pr ies t L e o (cf. above, p p . 3 8 - 3 9 ) . S o m e t h i n g m u s t be said

a b o u t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f these three texts before a n y a t t e m p t is m a d e to

a c c o u n t for the presence o f D e m o c r i t e a n m a t e r i a l i n the 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 be 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 . E U H E M E R U S

Uranus is the first king

on account of his being euer-getikos and epieikes (6.1.6 =

FGrH 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. 3 0 3 . 1 7 -

18),

then by Zeus and Hera (6.1.8 = F 2 , p. 303.19; 1.14.10-12 =

F 1 6 ) ,

who rule the world (1.11.34 =

F'9) -

Zeus introduces the use of grain ( I . i i . 4 5 = F 2 4 ) ,

ends cannibalism (1.13.2 = F 2 2 ) ,

and rules by law (1.11.35 = F 2 0 ) .

Zeus deifies his grandfather Uranus ( I . i i . 6 3 = F 2 i )

13. D I O D O R U S

Helios is the first king (or, according to others, Hephaestus)

on account of the benefit conferred on the race by his discovery of fire ( 1 . 1 3 . 2 - 3 ) . Cronus and Rhea follow ( i - i 3 4 ) .

then Zeus and Hera (1.13.4),

who establish a world kingdom (1.13.4).

They are succeeded by Isis and Osiris (1.13.4). Isis discovers grain

and so puts an end to cannibalism (1 .14.1);

she establishes laws and legal punishments (1.14.3—4). Osiris builds a temple to his father Zeus (1.15.3)

C . I . E O

Vulcan is the first king,

followed by Saturn,

who is the first of the race of Jove (FGrH 6 5 9 F 5 ) .

Isis, who rules with her brother Osiris, discovers grain

while sacrificing to her parents ( F 6 ) .

1 7 The 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).


and encourages the development of useful inventions ( I . I I . 3 5 = F 2 0 ) , 1 8

aided by Hermes ( F 7 ) , 2 " who records the deeds of Zeus on the sacred stele in Panchaea (5.46.8 = F3, p. 3 0 8 . 2 1 - 2 3 )

Zeus carries the blessings of civilization through the whole world ( I . i 1.45 = F 2 4 )

and receives universal honors ( I . 2 2 . 2 I - 2 7 = F 2 3 ) .

Zeus is buried in Panchaea, his grave accessible only to priests (5-44-4 = F 3 , p. 3 0 6 . 1 4 - 1 7 ) .

Artemis and Apollo are the last rulers mentioned on the sacred stele in Panchaea (5.46.8 = F 3 ,

p. 3 0 8 . 1 9 - 2 2 ) .

and establishes rewards for inventors (1 .15.4-5) .

Hermes, the divine scribe, is Osiris' advisor and is responsible for a number of inventions (1 .15.9-16.2).

Osiris carries the blessings of civilization through the whole world (1.17 ff.) 2'

and receives universal honors (1.20.5).

Osiris is buried in Philae, an island accessible only to priests ( 1 . 2 2 . 3 - 6 ) .

Horus, the son of Isis and Osiris, is the last of the divine rulers (1.25.7).

Liber encourages inventors

( F 9 ) - ' 9

Mercury is Liber's counselor ( F 6 ) and discovers the art of weaving ( F 9 ) .

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 be o b v i o u s ; 2 2 a n d almost

as o b v i o u s is the fact t h a t the " E g y p t i a n " version o f Β a n d C m u s t have

served as a m o d e l for the Greek vers ion o f A . Greek t r a d i t i o n does n o t c r e d i t

Zeus w i t h the i n v e n t i o n o f laws 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. 37, Stage 5 B ) and Pliny, NH 7.197: ami metalla et flaturam invenit Cadmus . . . ut alii Thoas aut

Aeacus in Panchaea ( = FGrH 6 3 F 2 8 ) . It is said of Panchaea in Diodorus' excerpts from Euhcmerus that έχει ή χώρα. μέταλλα 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 The 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 demonstrasse (Hyginus, Poet. astr.

2.^2 = FGrH 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. 2 1 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 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 2 [Berlin 1926] 184; and van der Meer. Euhemerus van Messene 132-33). The parallels are too numerous and too exact.

T H E H E I R S O F D E M O C R I T U S 155

a c h i e v e m e n t s ; 2 3 a n d i t is o n l y the 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

the la t ter ' s association w i t h Osir is i n the d y n a s t y o f E g y p t i a n god-kings w h i c h

have suggested the transfer o f D e m e t e r ' s heuremata to the f i g u r e w h o stood at

a c o r r e s p o n d i n g p o i n t i n the 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 Osir is has l e d to t h e c r e d i t i n g o f Zeus

w i t h the f o r m e r ' s w o r l d e x p e d i t i o n ; 2 4 t h e A p o l l o - H o r u s e q u a t i o n accounts

f o r the s tatement , u n a t t e s t e d i n Greek 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 rulers o f the w o r l d (cf. H e r o d o t u s 2.144; M a n e t h o , FGrH

6 o g F 3 a ) ; a n d H e r m e s owes to 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 ) , the ro le he plays as r o y a l advisor , 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 done m o r e t h a n s i m p l y transfer a n

E g y p t i a n t h e o l o g y to Greece: the most i m p o r t a n t differences b e t w e e n o u r

three accounts are i n c o n t e n t a n d tone r a t h e r t h a n i n se t t ing . 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 gods: the ouranioi

(sun, m o o n , a n d elements, w h i c h were h e l d to be d i v i n e b y the f irst 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 at the spectacle o f t h e h e a v e n s — I . I I . I ) a n d

t h e epigeioi ( m o r t a l s w h o receive d i v i n e honors because o f t h e i r services to the

race—1.13.1) . T h e r e 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 -

H e l l e n i s t i c Greek conceptions o f d e i t y . H e r o d o t u s cites w i t h a p p r o v a l

(2.44.5) the p r a c t i c e o f those Greeks w h o p a y h o n o r s to b o t h a m o r t a l a n d a

d i v i n e Heracles ( c o m p a r e Os ir i s ' t w o temples , one to the h e a v e n l y a n d one

to the e a r t h l y Zeus, i n D i o d o r u s 1.15.3); a n d were i t n o t for the fact 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).

2 4 The travels of Dionysus were known to the fifth century (Euripides, Bacchae 13-22) but they assumed much greater importance once seen as the prototype of Alexander's expedition. The 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. Tarn , 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.

2 5 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 ) . The latter is thus unlikely to be original with Diodorus.


there 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 , he w o u l d be

r e a d y t o bel ieve t h a t the 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 names 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 at a m u c h

ear l ier d a t e (2 .146) . 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-

ta iners o f h u m a n l i fe w h i c h , a c c o r d i n g t o Prodicus , f o r m e d the first objects

o f m a n ' s w o r s h i p ; 2 6 a n d P l a t o makes 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

heavens, 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 the earliest Greeks

(Cratylus 397CD). P r o d i c u s m a y even h a v e recognized alongside this class o f

gods a n o t h e r , o f l a t e r o r i g i n , consist ing 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 to 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 never

discussed side b y side i n a single w o r k i n Classical t imes , t h e c lass i f icat ion

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 t r a n s f e r r i n g the i d e a o f d e i f i e d m o r t a l s

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

m i s i n t e r p r e t i n g n a t i v e concept ions a b o u t t h e d i v i n e dynasties w h i c h p r e

ceded 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 the t r a d i t i o n is t h a t o l d —

w o u l d h a v e f o u n d i n i t a n i m p l i e d r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f Greek t h o u g h t .

E u h e m e r u s , 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 he 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 t h e y h a d

26 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 θεούς καλεί είτα -ηλιον και σελήνην (De fide 9-25, Ρ- 5 ° 7 Holl).

2 7 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 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 67 [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 supposed, 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) 210-11 with notes 9, 22, and 27, who accepts Philodemus' testimony.

2 8 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 9 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 van Messene 54—56; Kaerst, Geschichte des Hellenismus 2 2 . i g 3 — 9 4 ; Tarn, Alexander the Great 2.431). But the evidence is not conclusive. (Cf., for what follows, R . Hirzel, Der Dialog 1 [Leipzig 1895] 397, 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


a ro le i n his t h e o l o g y , i t was c e r t a i n l y m i n i m a l . T h e r e is n o trace i n t h e

Sacred Chronicle o f the celestial a n d e a r t h l y pa irs o f deities m e n t i o n e d b y

D i o d o r u s ; 3 0 t h e h e a d o f the Greek p a n t h e o n , w h o has a c o u n t e r p a r t a m o n g

the 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 exploi ts r e c o r d e d o n t h e stele i n Panchaea are 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 his descendants b y H e s i o d , i t is c lear t h a t E u h e m e r u s

views his protagonis ts as i d e n t i c a l w i t h the 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 names.

T h e t h i r d o f o u r accounts, 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 to

have of fered, 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 G r e e k t h e o l o g y w h i c h w e f i n d i n E u h e m e r u s . L e o was r e c k o n e d i n

l a t e r a n t i q u i t y a m o n g famous atheists (FGrH 6 5 9 T 1 - 2 ) , a n d the w o r k i n

w h i c h his t h e o l o g y a p p e a r e d was f r a n k l y sensational i n b o t h f o r m a n d tone .

I t p u r p o r t e d to be a l e t t e r f r o m A l e x a n d e r t o O l y m p i a s c o n t a i n i n g revela

t ions c o n c e r n i n g t h e t r u e n a t u r e o f the gods—revelat ions m a d e to h i m b y the

pr ies 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 2 . 1 9 3 - 9 4 , note 6) are hardly significant, given the confused and heterogeneous character 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 ; Tarn, 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. The 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. The 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. All 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 48 (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" found in the precinct of Zeus] and Pliny's mention [NH 10.4 = FGrH 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 DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES OF 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 Leo's t h e o l o g y d i s t i n g u i s h e d ouranioi f r o m

epigeioi, the tone a n d r e p u t a t i o n o f t h e le t ter are a l i t t l e h a r d to 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 to Leo's a c c o u n t as one i n w h i c h " n o n Picus

et F a u n u s et Aeneas et R o m u l u s ve l e t i a m H e r c u l e s et Aesculapius et L i b e r

Semela natus et T y n d a r i d a e fratres et si quos 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 , S a t u r n u s ,

V u l c a n u s , 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 transferre) 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 ascr ibed here to V a r r o is the same w h i c h appears 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 lear, g i v e n this di f ference i n p o i n t o f v i e w , t h a t Leo's a c c o u n t

c a n n o t be, as has o n occasion been s u g g e s t e d , 3 1 the 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

L e o are m o s t p l a u s i b l y e x p l a i n e d b y 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 to this 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 m o r e " r a d i c a l " c h a r a c t e r o f Leo's e n t i r e t h e o l o g y ,

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 to w h i c h a t t e n t i o n has yet to 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 expect his story o f the gods to be

l o c a l i z e d there . I t is n o t , h o w e v e r (cf. Fga, where we l e a r n t h a t L i b e r gave

to 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 Leo's

s tory is based o n a n o t h e r t r e a t m e n t o f the same s u b j e c t — m o s t l i k e l y the one

used b y D i o d o r u s as w e l l — i n w h i c h Thebes p l a y e d the c e n t r a l ro le . T h e

second p e c u l i a r i t y involves a di f ference b e t w e e n the accounts o f the dis

covery 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 the c u s t o m o f

o f f e r i n g f irst f r u i t s to Isis as a p r o o f o f her discovery o f g r a i n : the 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 ) . L e o

does n o t m e n t i o n the c u s t o m , saying o n l y t h a t Isis d iscovered g r a i n cum

parentibus sacrificaret ( 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 makes sense i n a w a y his does n o t . I t p r o v i d e s

evidence o f a sort for the 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 to the 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 the o t h e r h a n d , seems to be

g i v i n g a per fec t ly 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 inks the dis

c o v e r y to Isis' w o r s h i p o f h e r parents—as i f he were f a m i l i a r w i t h the a c c o u n t

3 1 By Schwartz (above, note 17) 5 0 - 5 2 (positing Dionysius Scytobrachion as a Mittelquelle). 3 2 Jacoby, following R. Reitzenstein (Zwei religionsgeschichtliche Fragen [Strassburg 1901] 22 , note 2)

and followed by Nock, JHS 4 8 . 2 8 , note 37 , Geffcken, R E 24 .2012 , and M . Nilsson, Geschichte der griechischen Religion 2 2 (Munich 1961) 285, 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 296.

T H E HEIRS OF DEMOGRITUS 159

r e p r o d u c e d i n D i o d o r u s b u t h a d m i s u n d e r s t o o d the c o n n e c t i o n pos i ted there

b e t w e e n the discovery 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.

T h e 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 a t has been established b e t w e e n

E u h e m e r u s , L e o , a n d D i o d o r u s ' s o u r c e 3 3 a l lows us to date the 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 to the years a r o u n d 300 B . G . 3 4 a n d to place i t at

the h e a d o f the e n t i r e euhemeris t t r a d i t i o n . A n d w i t h these facts established

i t becomes m u c h easier to u n d e r s t a n d the 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 to 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 most

p l a u s i b l y i d e n t i f i e d as Hecataeus o f A b d e r a ; 3 5 yet even i f he was n o t its

3 3 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 been ra ised here n o r is i t r e l e v a n t

t o t h e present d iscuss ion: 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 source 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 be establ ished. 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 the 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 be 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 igures . A m o r e s u b s t a n t i a l a r g u m e n t for 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 sa id 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 he 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 or " 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 associat ion 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 this d e t a i l a n d , i n d e e d , Leo's

w h o l e s t o r y presupposes is t h o u g h t b y some t o be 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 tete ' a m m o n i e n n e ' a u M u s e e de C h c r c h e l , " RA 30 [ 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

cornes de b e l t e r , " MelRome 61 [ 1 9 4 9 ] 13-17) . T h e first d a t a b l e a u t h o r to l i n k t h e t w o closely 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 i m p o r t a n t

u n t i l the 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 to style h i m s e l f jVeos Dionysos a n d to

h a v e h i m s e l f p o r t r a y e d b y sculptors 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 th is 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 argues t h a t t h e

associat ion b e t w e e n t h e t w o gods 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 dates 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 19 .165-66) to ca. 270 ( G . V a l l a u r i , " E u e m e r o d i

Messene, 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 sa id 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 be 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 course, 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 presuppose t h e existence o f ouranioi

theoi a n d m u s t be f r o m a w o r k i n w h i c h some a t t e n t i o n was p a i d to 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 ( 1 7 5 - 8 8 ) , at t i m e s q u i t e persuas ive ly , f o r t h e l a t e H e l l e n i s t i c c h a r a c t e r o f a n u m b e r o f t h i n g s

i n this s e c t i o n ; h o w e v e r , w e are 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 assume 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 i d e n t i f i c a t i o n goes b a c k t o S c h w a r t z (RhM 4 0 . 2 2 3 - 3 2 ; RE 9 . 6 7 0 - 7 2 ) a n d has been

r e c e n t l y r e a f f i r m e d (against t h e o b j e c t i o n s o f S p o e r r i , 164-211) b y V a l l a u r i , PubblTorino 12, N o . 5,

6-17 , 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 (elsewhere 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

H e c a t a e a n o r i g i n t o w h i c h S c h w a r t z c a l l e d a t t e n t i o n a r c 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 c o n c e r n e d c a n be f a i r l y w e l l es tabl ished o n g r o u n d s n o t c o n s i d e r e d b y S c h w a r t z

or 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 6 0 8 ) , w h o w r o t e

before A l e x a n d e r ( 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 a r e k n o w n t o h a v e c o m p o s e d A e g y p t i a c a are H e c a t a e u s a n d , poss ib ly , 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, be 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

have presented the earl iest E g y p t i a n kings i n so t h o r o u g h l y H e l l e n i c a guise. 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 AND T H E SOURCES OF 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 makes 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 inference f r o m his p lace o f b i r t h , 3 6 the c h a r a c t e r o f the

w o r k a n d its d a t e o f c o m p o s i t i o n w e r e such 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 to his c o m p a t r i o t s , p r o b a b l y

for the f i rs t t i m e , the E g y p t i a n t r a d i t i o n o f p r e - d y n a s t i c god-kings a n d o f

m a k i n g i t u n d e r s t a n d a b l e to t h e m , o u r a u t h o r c o u l d a n d d i d d r a w o n a

n u m b e r o f beliefs a n d pract ices a l r e a d y c u r r e n t i n Greek r e l i g i o n : the 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 equiva lents

i n the E g y p t i a n k i n g l is t) as p a t r o n s o r i n v e n t o r s o f the arts o n w h i c h c i v i l i z a

t i o n rests (cf. P l a t o , Politicus 274 .CD); t h e c u s t o m o f a w a r d i n g d i v i n e o r

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, 27) . 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). Al l three lists seem to have something to do with the enumerations of the principal deities which appear on Egyptian monuments. The 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, "Sur les Dynasties Divines de l'Ancienne Egypte," Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch. 12 (1890) 419—24; K . H . Sethe, "Beiträge zur ältesten Geschichte Ägyptens," 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, Fr . 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). The 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). The 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. 14.10-17). Only the end of his career, for obvious reasons, is different from that of his Egyptian counterpart.

3 6 The "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.


s e m i - d i v i n e honors to m o r t a l benefactors; t h e recent d e i f i c a t i o n o f A l e x a n d e r

a n d his 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 his l i f e t i m e — a s t h e

e q u a l o r super ior o f D i o n y s u s . 3 7 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 he

have f o u n d so m u c h m a t e r i a l to suit his purpose as i n D e m o c r i t e a n Kultur-

geschichte. F o r once the d i v i n e c r a f t s m a n a n d the de i f ied m o r t a l euergetes o f

Greek t r a d i t i o n h a d been fused i n t o a single p e r s o n a l i t y , 3 8 a n d the t y p e so

created i d e n t i f i e d w i t h t h e p r e - d y n a s t i c god-kings , E g y p t i a n t r a d i t i o n was

most 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 observed b y the 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 above, p . 44)

c o u l d be e q u a t e d w i t h t h a t s e p a r a t i n g t h e d y n a s t i c a n d p r e - d y n a s t i c per iods

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 was 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 gods; its n o t i o n o f

the 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 be t a k e n over w i t h o u t essential c h a n g e ; 3 9

a n d its p e r v a d i n g a tmosphere o f mythos (see above, p p . 1 4 5 - 4 7 ) — w h i c h

w o u l d have m a d e i t s o u n d o ld- fashioned i f p r o p o u n d e d i n d i r e c t c o m p e t i t i o n

w i t h the m o r e " m o d e r n " a n t h r o p o l o g y o f A c a d e m i c s a n d Per ipatet ics—was

e m i n e n t l y sui table i n a n a c c o u n t presented, as those f o u n d i n D i o d o r u s '

source a n d subsequent euhemeris t texts r e g u l a r l y are, 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 p r i e s t l y 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 above, note 34) 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 was doubtless, once t r a n s f o r m e d i n t o a n a c c o u n t

o f 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 Osir is o r D i o n y s u s , most w e l c o m e

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 to be t h e h e i r to the u n i v e r s a l i s m o f

A l e x a n d e r a n d w o u l d have r e g a r d e d these gods as his p r o t o t y p e s . 4 1

3 7 See above, note 24, and the tradition regarding Anaxarchus preserved in D. L . g . 6 o = VS 7 2 A 1 , and Arrian, Anab. 4 . 1 0 . 5 = VS 7 2 A 6 .

3 8 This fusion may, of course, have already been effected by l'rodicus—see above, note 27. 3 9 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. 88, 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)) ( B 2 g g a ) ; and, for the possibility that Kulturgeschichte—m 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) 2 0 4 - 1 1 .

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 2 . i g i .


Y e t the m o d i f i c a t i o n s w h i c h t r a n s f o r m e d D e m o c r i t e a n a n t h r o p o l o g y i n t o

E g y p t i a n t h e o l o g y were , i f easy to m a k e , o f f a r - r e a c h i n g consequence. 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 change i n the h is tor ian ' s ent i re

m e t a p h o r . T h e w o r k i n g s o f the 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 analogous to those o f a d e m o c r a t i c assembly: 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

a n d finely accepted or rejected b y the w h o l e plethos. D i o d o r u s ' source shifts

the scene to the palace a n d the c o u r t ; a n d t h e r e b y the beginnings o f h u m a n

c u l t u r e are m a d e over i n the i m a g e o f P t o l e m a i c E g y p t . 4 2

T h e contrast is great , b u t n o t so great as i t was la ter to become. F o r

social factors are n o t a l together e l i m i n a t e d f r o m the perspective o f D i o d o r u s

ι . 11 ff. I n the e a r l y h i s t o r y o f the h u m a n race as there conceived, p o p u l a r

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 occasion the k i n g - g o d even

ceases for a m o m e n t to be a benefactor o p e r a t i n g a p a r t f r o m the 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 to 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 to the a d v a n t a g e o f b o t h . 4 3 E u h e m e r u s ,

b y contrast , presents i n his sociology as w e l l as i n his t h e o l o g y a m o r e

r a d i c a l r e v i s i o n o f ear l ier t h o u g h t . T h e t h e o r y o f de i f ied 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 the 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 E u h e m e r u s to a l l , or n e a r l y a l l , o f the Greek p a n t h e o n : the H e l l e n i s t i c

m o n a r c h , h a v i n g first o c c u p i e d the posit ions o f Dionysus , Heracles , a n d the

E g y p t i a n Osir i s , is n o w i n s t a l l e d i n the seat o f Zeus h i m s e l f . 4 4 A n d w i t h this

n e w c o n c e p t i o n o f the o r i g i n o f the gods goes a n e w v i e w o f the agents i n the

process o f apotheosis. I n the a c c o u n t used b y D i o d o r u s these are 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 Osir is 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 the kings themselves—Osir is ' establ ishing o f temples

to his 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 to p o p u l a r s e n t i m e n t ) 4 5 a n d

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 sel f -dei f icat ion ( L a c t a n t i u s , Inst. div.

4 2 O n the transformation described here see Kaerst, Geschichte des Hellenismus 2 2 . 3 2 2 - 2 5 . 4 3 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 4 For what may be the starting point, in Democritean theory, for this innovation of Euhemerus, see Appendix I V .

4 5 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, Adv. math. 9.17 ( — FGrH 6 3 T 4 C ) : 01 περιγενόμενοι των άλλων . . . σπουδάζοντες μείζονος θαυμασμού

και σεμνότητας τυχεΐν άνέπλασαν περι αυτούς . . . θείαν δύναμιν. (The only report of Euhemerus' doctrine which suggests a direct popular apotheosis is the very summary statement of Sextus, Adv. math. 9.51 = FGrH e^T^b.)

T H E HEIRS OF DEMOCRITUS 163

1.22.2 ff.=FGrH 6 3 F 2 3 ) . 4 6 T h e t e n d e n c y is c lear : the h i s t o r y o f the b e g i n

nings 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 to be seen m o r e a n d m o r e as a h i s t o r y

o f dynast ic po l i t i cs . A n d the 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 , 4 7 i t produces i n the Libyca o f D i o n y s i u s

S c y t o b r a c h i o n 4 8 a w o r k i n w h i c h the r o m a n t i c a n d fantast ic adventures o f

the d i v i n e r o y a l house are a lmost the sole focus o f interest .

T h e 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 a n d its f u r t h e r

t r a n s f o r m a t i o n b y E u h e m e r u s a n d his fo l lowers b r o u g h t i t f a i r l y q u i c k l y

to a stage o f d e v e l o p m e n t i n w h i c h its basic characterist ics were b a r e l y

recognizable . T h e r e was, however , 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 serviceable, a n d there , as we

shal l see, a n t h r o p o l o g y was bet ter able to h o l d its o w n .

3. P H I L O S O P H Y AND P O L I T I C S ( P O L Y B I U S , T H E A C A D E M Y , NAUSIPHANES)

I f the i m m e d i a t e source 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

Polybius is to be sought i n a n y o f the 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

the most l i k e l y choice w o u l d be the A c a d e m y . T h e D e m o c r i t e a n t e x t or

texts w h i c h served as a m o d e l for Laws 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 the school , w h e n c e Polybius h i m s e l f or , m o r e p r o b a b l y , some m e m

ber o f the A c a d e m y — o n e u n i n f l u e n c e d b y Plato 's r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f

D e m o c r i t u s — c o u l d have become 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 to

p r o d u c e the Kulturgeschichte t h a t appears i n B o o k 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 have been one o f Plato'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 the t e a c h i n g o f the M i d d l e A c a d e m y . 4 9 I n

p a r t i c u l a r , the genealogy o f mora ls w h i c h he w o u l d , o n this t h e o r y , have

t r a n s m i t t e d to Polybius has a f a i r l y clear p a r a l l e l i n Carneades. T h e l a t t e r

was responsible for a c lassif ication o f the 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 subsequently t a k e n over 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

Cicero (cf. Ac. 2 . 1 3 0 - 3 1 ; Fin. 2 . 3 3 - 4 3 ; 4 - 4 9 - 5 ° ; 5 - l 6 ~ 2 2 ; Tusc. 5 . 8 4 - 8 5 ;

Leg. 1 .37-39). T h e s t a r t i n g p o i n t for this Carneadea divisio are divergences i n

a t t i t u d e t o w a r d the 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 40.260) 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 to 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 the 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 ia i l p r i m o . " 4 7 T h e changes w h i c h are i n t r o d u c e d i n t o Leo'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 a b o v e ,

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 one 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. " t 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 12, N o . 5 , J & ' - ^ B I , l ^ ' - S 4 9 T h e af f in i t ies b e t w e e n P o l y b i u s a n d t h e M i d d l e A c a d e m y are discussed b y P p g j ^ r f i a n l i , v ' \

Poseidonios' metaphysische Schriften 1.19-25. J<i / | n s ;

d e


accommodatum naturae . . . et tale ut ipsum per se invitaret et alliceret appetitum

animi, quern όρμήν Graeci vocant (Fin. 5.17; cf. όρμώντων κατά φΰσιν a t t h e

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 the 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 this e n d , the e t h i c a l p o s i t i o n o f each

school 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 the e n d is—pleasure,

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 such 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 ( the Stoics, Carneades himsel f , a n d , w i t h m o d i f i c a t i o n s , the P e r i

patetics 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 Carneades 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 the prota kata physin themselves, b u t m e r e l y the

p u r s u i t o f t h e m ( p r e s u m a b l y because the 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 the 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

above, p . 139). F o r Carneades, h o w e v e r — t h o u g h the v i e w was a d v a n c e d ,

a c c o r d i n g to C i c e r o , non tarn ut probaret quam ut Stoicis quibuscum bellum gerebat

opponeret (Fin. 2.42, cf. Ac. 2.131)—honestum remains a means o n l y . T h e

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 whose o r i g i n is descr ibed i n Polybius

V I bear a d e f i n i t e resemblance to this honestum o f Carneades. L i k e i t , t h e y

are a secondary p h e n o m e n o n , a p a r t o f a system w h i c h faci l i tates 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 sat isfact ion, secur i ty f r o m outside

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 honestatis.

T h e t w o posit ions are n o t i d e n t i c a l . A m o n g Carneades ' prota kata physin

are t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y Stoic ones i n v o l v i n g the organism's consciousness

o f its o w n b e i n g : se l f -preservat ion, sensus integri, ingeni motus (Fin. 2 . 3 4 - 3 5 ) ;

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 Stoic t e r m i n o l o g y 5 0 o f w h i c h there is

o n l y the barest trace 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 result is a n a r g u

m e n t w h i c h t u r n s the Stoic oikeidsis d o c t r i n e against i tse l f i n as s t r i k i n g a

fashion as possible: t h e v e r y prota kata physin w h i c h h a d been the s t a r t i n g

p o i n t o f a n ideal is t m o r a l i t y become t h e f i n a l object o f a t o t a l l y u t i l i t a r i a n

one. Carneades is here d i s p l a y i n g t h a t perverseness a n d fondness for

p o l e m i c w h i c h is character i s t i c o f h i m , a n d o f w h i c h there is n o trace i n

P o l y b i u s .

O n e m a y thus exc lude the p o s s i b i l i t y o f d i r e c t 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 Carneades has c l o t h e d i n Stoic t e r m i n o

l o g y for purposes 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 Arces i laus , w h o , l i k e his successor, a t t a c k e d Stoic

d o g m a t i s m , b u t , u n l i k e h i m , d i d n o t a c q u i r e a r e p u t a t i o n f o r d i a l e c t i c a l

5 0 See M . Pohlenz, AbhGottingen Folg. 3, 26.15-16.

T H E H E I R S O F DEMOCRITUS

sensational ism. I t is u n l i k e l y t h a t Arces i laus ' scept ic ism w o u l d h a v e a l l o w e d

h i m to accept a f u l l y deve loped t h e o r y o f c u l t u r a l o r i g i n s o f t h e sort w h i c h

P o l y b i u s proposes; b u t such a t h e o r y c o u l d w e l l have b e e n of fered 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 the ideal is t a n d te leo log ica l

t r e a t m e n t s o f the same subject p u t f o r w a r d b y Stoics a n d Per ipatet ics . W e

k n o w f r o m Cicero (Top. 8 2 ; cf. Part. orat. 62) t h a t i n t h e f irst c e n t u r y the

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 the 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 one 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 Arcesi laus ( D . L . 4 . 2 8 ) .

T h e evidence a d v a n c e d thus far shows t h a n a n A c a d e m i c source for the

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 there are c e r t a i n

t h i n g s i n P o l y b i u s ' o w n w o r k w h i c h m a k e such a t h e o r y v e r y a t t r a c t i v e . By

a c c e p t i n g i t w e c a n a c c o u n t f o r P o l y b i u s ' r a t h e r p u z z l i n g s ta tement (6.5.1)

t h a t his t h e o r y o f the rise a n d f a l l o f states is presented " i n greater 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 ta tement w h i c h reveals a n y t h i n g b u t a

d i r e c t a c q u a i n t a n c e 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 to 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 teacher, t h e exact source o f

w h i c h Polybius 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 been n o t e d (above,

p . 1 2 9 ) — f o r i t w o u l d have been as a n aetiology o f m o r a l ennoiai t h a t a piece o f

D e m o c r i t e a n Kulturgeschichte f o u n d its w a y i n t o the discussions o f t h e

A c a d e m y ; a n d w e c a n also a c c o u n t for t h e fact 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 Polybius 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 the p o i n t o f v i e w Polybius adopts is

n o t so m u c h t h a t o f the 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 (2603) 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 ,

therefore , as a protest of fered 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 school

against some o f the e x t r e m e posi t ions i t a d o p t e d . F i n a l l y , one 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 t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e A c h a e a n league, i n the p e r s o n o f P o l y b i u s ' f e l l o w -

t o w n s m e n E c d e m u s a n d M e g a l o p h a n e s . 5 2 T h e t w o m e n were disciples o f

Arcesi laus, fr iends 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 ( P l u t a r c h ,

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 10.22.2) , 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 . 4.33 (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 Or Ecdelus and Demophanes; see R E s. v. (10.2159 a n d 2 9 · Ι 4 3 ) ·


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

t h e teachings o f p h i l o s o p h y to p o l i t i c s a n d p r a c t i c a l a f f a i r s . " 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 have been expected, g i v e n the

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 a p p e a l for A r a t u s a n d

P h i l o p o e m e n ; for t h e y w e r e the t w o m e n l a r g e l y responsible for the 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 g r e w f r o m p u r e l y e t h n i c b e g i n n i n g s 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 to m a k e the e n t i r e Peloponnesus one

polish T h e h e i r to this 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 ' fa ther L y c o r t a s .

Po lybius 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 a n d he m u s t have

l e a r n e d s o m e t h i n g a b o u t the views o f E c d e m u s a n d M e g a l o p h a n e s w h e n he

composed his l a u d a t o r y l i fe o f t h e i r p u p i l P h i l o p o e m e n . 5 5

T h e last piece o f evidence is i m p o r t a n t i n t h a t i t suggests the 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 Polybius a n d the A c a d e m y .

T h e t w o cornerstones o f A r a t u s ' pol icies were 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 the 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 the t h i r d b o o k o f the 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 desirable 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 the

Peloponnese u n d e r the H e r a c l i d s — w a s destroyed because o f the f a i l u r e o f

t w o o f t h e o r i g i n a l three D o r i a n states to p r o v i d e adequate c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

safeguards against t y r a n n i c a l abuses o f p o w e r b y t h e i r r u l e r s . 5 6 A n d i f

E c d e m u s a n d M e g a l o p h a n e s c o u l d have f o u n d s u p p o r t for t h e i r p r o g r a m

i n Laws I I I , so too c o u l d t h e y have f o u n d s u p p o r t for t h e i r v i e w t h a t p h i l o

sophy a n d p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n p u b l i c l i fe w e n t together. B e h i n d the w h o l e

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 the same c o n v i c t i o n

w h i c h is responsible for the 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

Polybius V I — n a m e l y , t h a t the 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

the p h i l o s o p h e r conta ins lessons o f v i t a l i m p o r t a n c e for the 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 himself . .

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 ) .

5 4 See a.56.2; 2 . 4 7 · 1 1 ! 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 5 The 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 (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.

T H E H E I R S OF DEMOCRITUS

T h e r e m a y w e l l have been, t h e n , a m o n g the m o r e 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 to Laws I I I for s u p p o r t for t h e i r p r o

grams ; a n d w h o m a y , o n occasion, have l o o k e d even 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 Plato's a n d w h i c h , l i k e Plato 's , c o u l d be

i n t e r p r e t e d so as to l e n d s u p p o r t to the aims o f r e p u b l i c a n f e d e r a l i s m . 5 8 T h i s

suggestion c a n be s u p p o r t e d b y t w o o t h e r bodies o f evidence w h i c h also

p o i n t to the 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 .

T h e f irst o f these is composed o f the testimonia r e l a t i n g to the p h i l o s o p h e r

Naus iphanes , w h o , b e g i n n i n g p r o b a b l y i n the late 3 3 0 ' s , 5 9 was head o f a

flourishing 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 Teos (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 75B2, p . 248.18-19) t h a t i t

was the p a r t o f the sophos to take p a r t i n p o l i t i c a l l i fe 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 survive (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 the 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 l i fe . 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 the physiologia to w h i c h

Nausiphanes refers, at 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 the l i n k b e t w e e n

p h i l o s o p h y a n d pol i t i cs w h i c h he 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

pos i ted i n Laws I I I a n d Polybius V I . M o r e o v e r , 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 Book V I , the para l le l s , t h o u g h present , are

generic r a t h e r t h a n specific i n character . L i k e the Stoics, a n d l i k e Polybius

i n his genealogy o f m o r a l s , Naus iphanes seems to have been c o n c e r n e d

w i t h the ro le p l a y e d b y the prota kata physin (see above, p . 164) i n h u m a n

m o t i v a t i o n , for he 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

5 7 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 .

5 8 The 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. In 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. On 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. The 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 13 .465-78. ) 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 ) . The 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 .

5 9 For the chronology of Nausiphanes' life, see von Fritz, R E 3 2 . 2 0 2 1 - 2 3 . 6 0 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 .


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 enable the 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 audience γινώσκειν ο βούλεται ή φύσις

και λέγειν και λέγοντα το προς τήν βούλησιν (λογίζεσθαι') δυνήσεσθαι ( c o l .

8.5-93 Ρ· ί ο S u d h a u s ; cf. η.η-10, p . g ; χ χ ι ν 1-7, p . ι 8 ) . T h o u g h c o n c e r n e d

p r i m a r i l y w i t h r h e t o r i c , he e v i d e n t l y fe 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

c o u l d p r o f i t f r o m p h i l o s o p h i c a l w i s d o m ( 2 6 . 5 - 9 , p . 3 9 ) , a n d t h e p a r t i c i p a t i o n

o f the sophos i n p u b l i c l i fe is r e w a r d e d , l ike the services o f the k i n g i n

P o l y b i u s ' Kulturgeschichte, 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 m e m o r y

for sk i l l e x p e n d e d i n the services o f s o c i e t y . 6 2 I t is even possible t h a t

Naus iphanes , l i k e P o l y b i u s , saw i n society's a b i l i t y to p r o f i t f r o m the e x a m p l e

a n d i n s t r u c t i o n of fered b y its o u t s t a n d i n g m e m b e r s s o m e t h i n g character is

t i c a l l y h u m a n w h i c h dist inguishes the race f r o m t h e o t h e r a n i m a l s . 6 3

T h e resemblances, 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

Naus iphanes s u r v i v e , d o n o t a l l o w us to go m u c h f u r t h e r t h a n to say t h a t

P o l y b i u s ' v i e w o f the 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 o f p h i l o s o p h y a n d p o l i t i c s

w o u l d have been w a r m l y endorsed b y Naus iphanes a n d vice 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 the

evidence e x a m i n e d ear l ier i n this section l e d us to posi t , a n d his p h i l o s o p h i c a l

aff init ies are j u s t w h a t one w o u l d expect o n the basis o f t h a t same evidence

— 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 for his n o t i o n o f a n

a l l iance 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 the p r o g r a m o u t l i n e d b y

Socrates i n Phaedrus 2 7 1 C - 7 2 B , 6 4 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

f o l l o w e r o f D e m o c r i t u s .

Naus iphanes was the teacher o f E p i c u r u s (Usener 114; VS 7 5 A 1 - 9 ) a n d

so perhaps the Mittelquelle 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

H e r m a r c h u s . W h a t e v e r t h e e x t e n t a n d c h a r a c t e r o f his indebtedness to

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 th ings w h i c h caused the break was the former ' 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 bios. T h e E p i c u r e a n c r i t i q u e o f the l i n k i n g o f

physiologia 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-; xvi 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 xvi 2, p. 8, along with symphylou telous in xvn 1 9 - 2 0 , p. 1 0 ) ; and the expression itself may not go back to Nausiphanes (von Fritz, R E 3 2 . 2 0 2 4 ) . 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 ( χχχν ι ig—22.2, ρ. 33)·

6 4 Cf. F . Susemihl, "Aphorismen zu Demokrit," Philologus 60 (1901) 190. 6 5 Author of a προς τους άπό φυσιολογίας λέγοντας αγαθούς elvai ρήτορας (Frs. 25—27 K-Oerte).

T H E H E I R S O F DEMOGRITUS

b a c k to the f o u n d e r o f the school himsel f . I t w o u l d thus take its p lace 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 above, 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 the act ive l i fe . W e c a n n o t be sure w h o t h e objects o f

this a t t a c k were i n t h e e a r l y days o f the s c h o o l ; N a u s i p h a n e s was doubtless

one o f t h e m , t h o u g h n o t necessarily the o n l y o n e . 6 6 B u t the existence o f the

a t t a c k p r o v i d e s f u r t h e r 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 p h i l o s o p h y 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 the 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 have o n occasion

l i n k e d t h e i r defense o f p o l i t i c a l l i fe to Kulturgeschichte61 a n d a n a c c o u n t o f the

first successful politikos 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 a c c o u n t b o t h w i t h P o l y b i u s a n d D e m o c r i t u s have a l r e a d y been

g i v e n (above, p p . 1 2 2 - 2 8 ) .

T h e evidence discussed i n this sect ion is f r a g m e n t a r y b u t , seen i n its

e n t i r e t y , f a i r l y s igni f i cant . 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 to

a p o l i t i c a l p r o g r a m o f a federal ist ic , a n t i - t y r a n n i c a l t e n d e n c y , w h i c h appears

i n P o l y b i u s a n d Laws I I I ; the role p l a y e d i n A c h a e a n h i s t o r y b y t w o

A c a d e m i c phi losophers d e d i c a t e d to f u r t h e r i n g this p r o g r a m ; t h e para l le ls

b e t w e e n Polybius a n d Carneades; the f o r m e r ' s o w n d i r e c t references to

P l a t o a n d the A c a d e m y ; the c h a r a c t e r o f the E p i c u r e a n p o l e m i c against

defenders o f the act ive l i fe a n d its associat ion w i t h Kulturgeschichte i n

L u c r e t i u s V ; a n d the presence o f the 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 l i k e l y t o have been the object o f this a t t a c k — a l l p o i n t w i t h

n o t e w o r t h y consistency to 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 t h e la te f o u r t h a n d t h i r d centuries a n u m b e r

o f 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 a f f i n i t i e s — w h o

a t t e m p t e d to v i e w the p r o b l e m s o f c i ty-state p o l i t i c s i n the l i g h t o f w h a t t h e y 6 6 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 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 (Fr. 41

Koerte). Another suggestion as to the identity of Epicurus' opponents is offered by Η. M . Hubbell, who sees in 23.11 —13, p. 35 (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 [1920] 326, note 15).

6 7 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. 27.1-7 , p. 4 0 , on reasoning from symbebekotdn in political affairs.

I 70 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

c a l l e d p h i l o s o p h y , a n d t h a t this " 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 the t h e o r y o f the or ig ins 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 to suit his o w n purposes b y P l a t o i n the t h i r d b o o k

o f the Laws. T h a t one o r 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

preserved a v e r s i o n o f D e m o c r i t e a n Kulturgeschichte d e t a i l e d e n o u g h to f o r m

the basis for w h a t appears i n Polybius V I seems to me 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 we shal l come nearer to 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 this . B u t w e have c o m e near e n o u g h , I t h i n k , to p r o v i d e a back

g r o u n d against w h i c h t h e conclusions reached i n C h a p t e r E i g h t w i l l seem

far m o r e n a t u r a l a n d reasonable t h a n t h e y d i d w h e n s u p p o r t e d o n l y b y

evidence d r a w n f r o m P o l y b i u s V I , Laws I I I , a n d the f ragments o f

D e m o c r i t u s .

4. A C O M P R E H E N S I V E R E S T A T E M E N T ( T H E E P I C U R E A N S )

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 the

o r i g i n s o f c u l t u r e a p p e a r e d , n o r i n t o w h a t c o n t e x t 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 surmise, 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 to establish 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 ten a t t r i b u t e d

to o t h e r c a u s e s 6 8 — m o r e a n x i o u s , perhaps , since there was i n his d a y a

te leo log ica 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

r e f u t a t i o n . T h e i d e n t i t y o f purpose was e n o u g h to insure f a i r l y close re

p r o d u c t i o n o f m a n y p a r t s o f the ear l ier d o c t r i n e .

Y e t m o d i f i c a t i o n s there 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 to have been less interested t h a n D e m o c r i t u s i n aet io logy for

its o w n sake, t h e y are n o t l i k e l y to 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 t e s t i m o n y to the shift o f a t t i t u d e s a n a l y z e d i n the

p r e c e d i n g c h a p t e r .

T h e basic t e n d e n c y o f the 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 the expense o f the p l a y o f chance 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 t r i a d i n favor o f the t w o constants

physis a n d logos. T h e result 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 the

d e v e l o p m e n t o f c u l t u r e p r o c e e d 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 far fewer

b y p a t h s a n d d e a d ends t h a n its D e m o c r i t e a n c o u n t e r p a r t . T h e r a n d o m

i n t e r p l a y o f a c c i d e n t , suggestion, a n d a few 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 d e r i v e d the g r o w t h o f t e c h n o l o g y 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 presented i n such a fashion as to suggest a lack

o f conf idence 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 every stage b y a l i s Cf. Diogenes of Oenoanda, Fr . 11 col. 11 4 - 8 Grilli.

T H E H E I R S OF DEMOCRITUS 171

v a r i e t y o f extraneous considerat ions , b e h i n d whose presence one c a n u s u a l l y

detect the in f luence 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 the Cynics

have s u p p l i e d 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 hosti le e n v i r o n m e n t seem m o r e p r o b a b l e ; 6 9 C y n i c i n f l u e n c e

m a y also be responsible for the p r o m i n e n c e i n L u c r e t i u s ' a c c o u n t o f the

n o t i o n t h a t f i r 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 m a n ' s d i s p o s i t i o n (see

above, p . 2 2 ) , 7 0 t h o u g h the Cynics 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 greater s o c i a b i l i t y ; 7 1 a n d E p i c u r u s ' o w n sensat ional ism completes

this t h e o r y o f social genesis b y p o s i t i n g a spontaneous prolepsis o f τοΰ

συμφέροντος έν τή προς αλλήλους κοινωνία as the o r i g i n o f m o r a l i t y . T h e

f o r m a t i o n o f society becomes t h e r e b y s o m e t h i n g far m o r e i n e v i t a b l e a n d

i m m e d i a t e t h a n the d e t o u r b y w a y o f dynasteia e n v i s i o n e d b y D e m o c r i t u s .

8 9 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 characteristically 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). In 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. 5.1017: Venus imminuit viris; 1018: ingenium fregere superbum); contrast Polybius' account, which is concerned with the habit of cooperation and exchange of services which family life breeds.

7 1 The 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. To the parallels discussed in Chapter One (above, pp. 2 1 - 2 2 ) should be added Lucretius 5 - 9 5 7 = l̂ 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 137.38-39 (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. The two theories are probably to be regarded as at least partially independent modifications of Democritean thought. They reveal, however, the common influence of the "hard" 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). ,-/*<·' / f„ , . · . . ! . , . ' • ; Q ,' ·':·'· ·'

I 72 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 h e theories o f G r e e k e t h n o l o g y o n t h e 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 t h e l i n g u i s t i c 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 to leave to chance a n d a n i n i t i a l r a n d o m se lect ion;

a n d , i n w h a t m a y s tem f r o m a r e - e l a b o r a t i o n o f t h e pre-Socrat ic i d e a o f t h e

m o r t a l i t y o f the 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

a n d decay o f o r g a n i s m s , 7 2 E p i c u r u s l i n k s p o r t i o n s o f t h e c u l t u r a l cycle t o

f i x e d phases i n t h e g r o w t h a n d decay o f the n a t u r a l w o r l d . 7 3 F i n a l l y , t h e

passage a t t h e e n d o f L u c r e t i u s V o n the 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 cm e

i n each o f t h e a r t s ; 7 4 a n d B o o k V I opens (1-41) w i t h a passage whose i n

s p i r a t i o n m a y be 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 to m i n i s t e r t o t h e

psychic needs o f a w o r l d whose b o d i l y w a n t s are p r o v i d e d for b y t h e t e c h n o

l o g i c a l achievements o f A t h e n s . I n s i m i l a r fash ion , p h i l o s o p h i c s p e c u l a t i o n

replaces p u r s u i t o f t h e useful a n d p leasurable i n the 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 above, p . 5 2 ) .

Some 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 the 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 to someone a m o n g his successors.

Y e t t h e i r t o t a l t e n d e n c y is too m u c h o f a piece to 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

7 2 See Solmsen, A J P 7 4 . 3 4 - 5 1 . The 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.

7 3 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. The 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, full-grown, 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. The 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, "Sur 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 4 An idea which appears explicitly elsewhere in the book ( 5 . 3 2 4 - 3 7 ) ; see Bignone, L'Aristotele perduto 2 . 4 6 2 - 6 4 .

7 6 Gf. Airs, Waters, Places 12 and 16, cited above, note 70. 7 6 The metaphor—a most appropriate one—is Cicero's (JVD 1.120).

T H E H E I R S O F DEMOCRITUS 173

T h e G a r d e n w h i c h resul ted is one w h i c h bears a d i s t u r b i n g resemblance

i n spots to the closed a n d f i n i t e c u l t u r a l universe descr ibed b y P l a t o a n d

A r i s t o t l e ; a n d i n genera 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 for 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 this v a r i e t y does n o t

s tem f r o m a greater 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

ec lect ic ism 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 t h e

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

f r a m e w o r k o f A c a d e m i c a n d P e r i p a t e t i c ae t io logy a n d fails to p r o d u c e a

satisfactory c o m p r o m i s e . T h a t this 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 most satisfactory 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

to 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 even t o d a y , is a s t r i k i n g

t e s t i m o n y t o t h e q u a l i t y o f t h e o r i g i n a l . T h e l a t t e r m u s t h a v e been a n achieve

m e n t o f t h e f irst o r d e r , c o m p a r a b l e i n some ways to t h e D e m o c r i t e a n system

o f t h e p h y s i c a l universe , t h o u g h dest ined , l i k e i t , t o be neg lected a n d f o r

g 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 one as w e l l as t h e o t h e r const i tutes

a n i r r e p a r a b l e loss to 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 .

A P P E N D I X O N E

D I O D O R U S 1 .7-8*

D i o d o r u s 1.7 begins w i t h a cosmogony w h i c h tells h o w , i n the b e g i n n i n g , the

f o u r e lements 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

were as y e t o f a single aspect. F i r e separated f r o m a i r , r i s i n g to f o r m the

heavens; e a r t h a n d w a t e r r e m a i n e d , d i v i d i n g e v e n t u a l l y i n t o l a n d a n d 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 the rays o f the

sun a n d became s w o l l e n i n its mois ter spots w i t h pustules. W i t h i n the t h i n

m e m b r a n e s w h i c h s u r r o u n d e d these swell ings spontaneous g e n e r a t i o n

o c c u r r e d . W h e n the 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 , the m e m

branes 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 the sun t o o k a w a y its c a p a c i t y

for b r i n g i n g f o r t h the l a r g e r species, w h i c h thereafter p r o p a g a t e d themselves

sexual ly . A s i m i l a r cosmogony a n d zoogony, so D i o d o r u s tells us, accounts

for t h e l ines 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 her

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 the 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 the 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 the 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 text , o f the 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 f i rs t , 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 t e c h n o l o g y .

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 chapters a p p e a r e d

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 cosmogony a n d p r e h i s t o r y , ex

p o u n d e d b y priests as a preface to t h e i r a c c o u n t o f the earliest l i fe i n E g y p t

( 1 . 10-29 i n o u r present 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 Diogenes L a e r t i u s (1 .10) , w h i c h seemed to refer to j u s t the sort

o f " E g y p t i a n " cosmogony a n d z o o g o n y whose existence he h a d pos i ted .

C r i t i c s o f R e i n h a r d t ' s thesis have c o n c e n t r a t e d o n the i m m e d i a t e c o m

p o s i t i o n a l p r o b l e m s raised b y the f irst o f the a r g u m e n t s a d v a n c e d i n its

s u p p o r t . T h e y have 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 subsequent chapters ( J a c o b y , FGrH I l i a 3 9 . 2 6 - 3 7 , a n d S p o e r r i ,

129 a n d 163), or 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. 1 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·

' 7 4

A P P E N D I X O N E : DIODORUS I .j—8 175

doctr ines w h i c h were c o m m o n k n o w l e d g e i n D i o d o r u s ' t i m e ( S p o e r r i , 163)

a n d are hence insuf f ic ient to j u s t i f y the 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 been,

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

(Pf l igersdorfer , SBWien 232, N o . 5, 144). F u r t h e r , t h e y have p o i n t e d o u t

( S p o e r r i , 114-15) t h a t c e r t a i n inconsistencies w i t h i n the t w o chapters suggest

a composi te source for 7-8. R e i n h a r d t ' s second a r g u m e n t has been a l l o w e d

to go, for the most 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 . 2 Since i t has considerable

b e a r i n g o n the issues raised b y the f i rs t , i t deserves res tatement a n d re

e x a m i n a t i o n .

T h e first book 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 , the 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 gone b e f o r e : " a p r o e m o n t h e w h o l e

subject a n d the accounts c u r r e n t a m o n g the E g y p t i a n s a b o u t the o r i g i n o f

the cosmos a n d the 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 the b e g i n n i n g "

(1 .42.1) . T h e cosmogony a n d p r e - h i s t o r y re ferred to is the E g y p t i a n one

w h i c h R e i n h a r d t assumed for D i o d o r u s ' source, a n d its appearance here

gives considerable s u p p o r t to his t h e o r y . 3 T h e passage has been r e g a r d e d as a n

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). I t s o p e n i n g w o r d s , a t a n y rate ,

c a n n o t be b y D i o d o r u s , 4 a n d i t contains i n the p o r t i o n s n o t q u o t e d here

f u r t h e r omissions a n d inaccuracies such as one m i g h t expect f r o m a careless

e d i t o r . B u t i t is h a r d to see h o w mere carelessness c o u l d resul t i n t h e trans

f o r m a t i o n o f the genera 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 speci f ica l ly E g y p t i a n .

N o t h i n g c o m p a r a b l e appears i n the s u m m a r i e s f o u n d i n la ter books o f

D i o d o r u s , a n d there is n o t h i n g i n the b o o k i t se l f w h i c h w o u l d a c c o u n t for

the e r r o r . 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 lear e n o u g h as the t e x t n o w stands. Such a mistake suggests

confusion w i t h a n o t h e r a c c o u n t , one i n w h i c h 1.7 d i d have a n E g y p t i a n

s e t t i n g ; a n d the person most l i k e l y to have m a d e such a c o n f u s i o n w o u l d have

been the a u t h o r h i m s e l f — r e m e m b e r i n g the a c c o u n t w h i c h he d r e w u p o n a n d ,

perhaps , r e p r o d u c e d m o r e accurate ly i n a n ear l ier d r a f t o f his o w n w o r k . 5

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 " 10 be o f m u c h

s igni f i cance . 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 the " o r i g i n o f the 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 subsequent 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 at 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 ear l iest 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 the 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 reference m u s t be, as R e i n h a r d t assumes, to 1.7. 4 T h i s is c lear 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 possible , 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 t h e l i k e , was a l t e r e d b y a n e d i t o r t o m a k e i t c lear t h a t

t h e sect ion r e f e r r e d to 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 one. 5 F o r a c o m p a r a b l e s i t u a t i o n ( i n B o o k X I I I ) w h e r e a passage—this t i m e a preface—seems t o

refer t o a d i f f e r e n t re ce n s i on , see R . L a q u e u r , " D i o d o r c a , " Hermes 86 (1958) 2 8 1 - 8 5 .


T h i s a c c o u n t m a y have left traces elsewhere. Diogenes 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 the E g y p t i a n s , " reports t h a t ,

a c c o r d i n g to t h e m , " t h e f i rs t p r i n c i p l e is m a t t e r a n d subsequent ly t h e f o u r

elements 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 creatures are en

g e n d e r e d . " L a t e r i n his r e p o r t Diogenes m e n t i o n s Hecataeus 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 t h e o l o g y , a n d f r o m this R e i n h a r d t c o n c l u d e d t h a t

the 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 for 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 Diogenes ' test 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 the source o f Diogenes ' 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 cosmogony plus z o o g o n y s i m i l a r to t h a t w h i c h appears i n 1.7; a n d

i t presented i t as t h e t e a c h i n g o f t h e E g y p t i a n s . 6

I f t h e evidence o f these passages is to be d i s r e g a r d e d , one 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 to 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 one 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 ascr ibed to the

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 fe i n E g y p t appe ar p r o

m i n e n t l y i n the 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 the

f irst h a l f o f the 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 to be t o o m u c h to ascribe to co inc idence . 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 accounts for t h e evidence 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 to o c c u p y o u r exclusive a t t e n t i o n .

A c t u a l l y , h o w e v e r , a s o l u t i o n to these p r o b l e m s i n k e e p i n g w i t h

R e i n h a r d t ' s thesis is n o t imposs ib le . 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 b y

assuming a n o r i g i n a l a r r a n g e m e n t o f m a t e r i a l d i f f e r i n g o n l y s l i g h t l y 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 preface set t ing f o r t h the 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 aims 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 t a b l e o f contents a n d a c h r o n o l o g i c a l 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 give a n y

separate t r e a t m e n t to the " v i e w s o n the gods h e l d b y those w h o first estab

l i shed re l ig ious observances," 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 a p p e n d e d

i n s u m m a r y f o r m as occasion arises (6 .1) . W i t h r e g a r d , however , to " 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) D u t not sufficiently emphasized; cf. J . G . Griffith in his review of Spathellenislische Berichte, JHS 8 2 . 1 8 3 : "Hecataeus, if the idea is Egyptian, might have proved an admirable source."

A P P E N D I X ONE : DIODORUS 1.7-8 177

w h o l e h u m a n race a n d t h e events w h i c h have t r a n s p i r e d i n the k n o w n parts

o f the w o r l d , " he promises to give a r e c o r d w h i c h begins w i t h the earliest

t imes a n d is as accurate as the 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 far , 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 the sort 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 choosing

n o t to 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 d i f f i

cult ies :

W i t h regard to the or ig inal coming into being o f m a n k i n d there have been two expressions of view among the most reputable of natura l philosophers a n d historians. Those who posit a w o r l d w i t h o u t beginning and end declare that the h u m a n race also has existed f r o m al l t ime, its generation never having had a starting point . But those who suppose the w o r l d to have a beginning and an end say that , for m a n k i n d as wel l as for i t , there is an or ig ina l coming into being at definite times (6.3).

T h e reference i n 6.2 to 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 the k n o w n parts

o f the w o r l d " c e r t a i n l y seemed to p r e p a r e the w a y for 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 to theories a b o u t the c o m m o n b e g i n n i n g o f the 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 the c o s m o s — w h i c h p r o p e r l y speaking has n o t h i n g to

d o w i t h the h u m a n race at a l l . T h e c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n 6.3 a n d w h a t

fol lows ( C h a p t e r 7) is e q u a l l y tenuous. F o r the b u l k o f the l a t t e r c h a p t e r is

a z o o g o n y : the o r i g i n o f the cosmos occupies a s m a l l space at its b e g i n n i n g ,

a n d the 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 the 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 , 114-15) . 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 the g a p between t w o u n c o n n e c t e d subjects: the h i s t o r y o f the

separate nat ions o f m a n k i n d a n d the spontaneous g e n e r a t i o n o f l i fe a t the

t i m e o f the o r i g i n o f the 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, note 3) to t w o o f the most w i d e l y h e l d

views o n the age o f m a n a n d the cosmos. B u t n e i t h e r o f the concept ions so

i n t r o d u c e d , the one o f the e t e r n i t y o f m a n a n d the cosmos, the 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 d e v e l o p m e n t . 8

A s i m i l a r t r a n s i t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r is e v i d e n t i n the passage w h i c h i m

m e d i a t e l y fol lows the chapters w h i c h R e i n h a r d t be l ieved to have been dis

p 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 (.SIT7 2.168.13 and 169.23-24) are too general to be of any significance.

8 In 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.


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 the k n o w n p o r t i o n s o f the w o r l d o f w h i c h any

m e m o r y r e m a i n s ( g . i ) . " T h e m e n t i o n o f the k n o w n p o r t i o n s o f the w o r l d

recalls 6.2 ( S p o e r r i , 207, w i t h note 8 ) , as i f the w r i t e r were 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 requires the 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 f irst notes the d i f f i c u l t y

o f es tabl ishing w h o the f irst k ings w e r e — g i v e n the obvious newness re la t ive

to the i n s t i t u t i o n o f k i n g s h i p o f the 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 the 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 have 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 the 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, the presence

o f the k ings 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 perhaps i n t r o d u c e d as the ex

a 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 antedate t h e m .

Y e t i f this is the i d e a b e h i n d the present passage, D i o d o r u s m u s t be ex

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 the t h o u g h t was deve loped m o r e

f u l l y .

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 idea. " W i t h r e g a r d to a n t i q u i t y o f race, n o t o n l y the Greeks, b u t also

m a n y o f the 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 la ims, 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 the 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 records ( 9 . 3 ) . " O n c e a g a i n i t is possible to trace a sort o f

tenuous c o n n e c t i o n w i t h w h a t has gone 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 : even the q u e s t i o n o f the 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 the 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 the per

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 the 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 t h e a n t i q u i t y o f the i n s t i t u t i o n s w h i c h they descr ibe; i n the l a t t e r ,

Greeks a n d B a r b a r i a n s are represented as o f f e r i n g the 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 records as r e l i a b l e t e s t i m o n y to the a n t i q u i t y o f t h e i r races. T h e

c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n 9.2 a n d 9.3 is thus 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 the r i v a l c la ims o f d i f f e r e n t nat ions ( 9 . 3 ) , D i o d o r u s de

clines to 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 decis ion to b e g i n w i t h E g y p t

does n o t i m p l y a n y such j u d g m e n t : he is s i m p l y t r e a t i n g the B a r b a r i a n s f irst

i n o r d e r n o t to have to i n t e r r u p t his subsequent a c c o u n t o f the Greeks ( 9 . 5 ) ,

a n d the E g y p t i a n s before the others because o f the genera l interest t h e i r

h i s t o r y holds a n d the t r a d i t i o n s o f the b i r t h s o f the gods a n d the discovery 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 to be c o i n c i d e n t a l t h a t the f irst 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 perfect sequel to

6.2, the last one o f t h a t c h a p t e r to f o r m p a r t o f such a sequence:

6.2 περί τον γένους των απάντων ανθρώπων και των πραχθέντων εν τοις

γνωριζομένοις μέρεσι της οικουμένης, ώς αν ενδέχηται περι των οϋτω παλαιών, ακριβώς άναγράφομεν από τΰιν αρχαιοτάτων χρόνων άρξαμενοι.

9·3 περί δέ της τον γένους αρχαιότητος 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 his subject : the h u m a n race a n d its praxeis i n d i f f e r e n t

parts o f the w o r l d . T h e r e c o r d is to start f r o m earliest t imes a n d be as

accurate as the n a t u r e o f the subject 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 are n o t agreed as to w h o were the earliest rep

resentatives o f the race, a n d have d i f f e r e n t views a b o u t the age o f the

praxeis w h i c h are o n r e c o r d for t h e i r p a r t o f the oikoumene. D i o d o r u s w i l l n o t

decide the d i s p u t e , b u t w i l l t r e a t the subject i n the o r d e r d i c t a t e d b y c o n

venience. A n d so to the b e g i n n i n g o f the A e g y p t i a c a . H e r e e v e r y t h i n g fo l lows

w i t h perfect e c o n o m y a n d logic o f t r e a t m e n t a n d i n w h a t was, I bel ieve, the

o r i g i n a l o r d e r — s u b s e q u e n t l y d i s r u p t e d b y the i n s e r t i o n ( o r t r a n s p o s i t i o n ) o f

Chapters 7 a n d 8.

I t is n o t h a r d to suggest a p l a u s i b l e reason for the i n s e r t i o n . W e k n o w t h a t

1.1-5 was w r i t t e n , 9 o r at least r e v i s e d , 1 0 after the rest o f the w o r k was 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 , the 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 the m o s t n e a r l y perfect o f h u m a n

disc ip l ines ; i t is a t once 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 the c o m m o n achievements a n d character ist ics

w h i c h l i n k a l l m e n to one a n o t h e r as cit izens o f a single race a n d cosmos—

a n d D i o d o r u s ' w o r k is the most c o m p l e t e a n d perfect s p e c i m e n o f the genre

yet p u t before the 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

have felt a c e r t a i n uneasiness. Chapters 7 a n d 8 are the r e s u l t : a n ef fort to

b r i d g e the gap b e t w e e n the 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 the

u n i n s p i r e d c o l l e c t i o n o f excerpts w h i c h fo l lows. F o r t h e y d o d e a l w i t h

h u m a n i t y as a w h o l e i n the m a n n e r p r o m i s e d . S u m m a r y accounts o f the

beginnings o f the cosmos a n d h u m a n life were doubtless a v a i l a b l e i n the

first c e n t u r y B . C . , a n d i t was perhaps a vague f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h the topos w h i c h

suggested to D i o d o r u s the genera l l ines w h i c h the r e v i s i o n o f his t e x t s h o u l d

take. Y e t , as the p a t c h w o r k a r o u n d 7 a n d 8 shows, the w h o l e p l a n was a n . ,<"'"·•;·'.'

9 As suggested by Reinhardt (498), calling attention to 1.4.6: errel δ' ή μέν ύττόθεσις tMi τ*Χο£,-

αί βίβλοι 8έ μέχρι τον ννν ανέκδοτοι τνγχάνονσιν ονσαι. f t / . 1 0 See Laqueur (above, note 5) 2 8 6 - 8 9 . II ^ ί Π

«|( c

ΐ 8 θ 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

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 executed. I f the 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 the detai ls 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 have b o t h e r e d

t o 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

t h e i r t r a d i t i o n , t h e views o f t h e " E g y p t i a n s " o n t h e b e g i n n i n g s o f t h i n g s

c o u l d be expected t o be as r e l i a b l e as a n y . 1 1 T h e e x p e d i e n t resorted to d i d

some v io lence t o D i o d o r u s ' source, b u t was a per fec t ly n a t u r a l one u n d e r the

c i r c u m s t a n c e s . 1 2 I t has left i ts traces, n o t s i m p l y i n the extraneous 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 present set t ing , b u t also, as w e shal 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 reated i n t h e o l d one.

C h a p t e r 10 begins b y g i v i n g the E g y p t i a n s ' reasons for 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 fe ,

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 t h e

t e m p e r a t e c h a r a c t e r o f the E g y p t i a n c l i m a t e : t h e absence o f the extremes 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 l i fe 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 to g ive such a c l a r i f i c a t i o n ; instead he launches, 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 t o show, o n o t h e r g r o u n d s , w h y t h e spontaneous

g e n e r a t i o n , 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, m u s t have b e g u n

i n E g y p t ( 1 . 1 0 . 2 - 3 ) :

A n d they seek to offer i n support o f the theory o f an i n i t i a l spontaneous generat i o n i n their l a n d the fact that even now i n the T h e b a i d on certain occasions the generation o f mice i n such numbers and o f such size occurs that those w h o observe i t are astounded. For some o f t h e m are formed u p to the chest and the forefeet a n d are capable o f movement, b u t have the remaining p o r t i o n o f their body unformed, the m u d sti l l 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 that at the t i m e o f the or ig ina l creation o f the cosmos, when the earth was temperately m i x e d , Egypt above a l l other places w o u l d have been the scene of the generation o f m e n . 1 4 For now, w h e n the rest o f the earth produces n o t h i n g

1 1 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 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).

1 3 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, Fr . 981 ( T G F 6 7 7 ) .

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 l 8 l

o f the k i n d , i t is here only that the phenomenal spontaneous generation of some l i v i n g things is observed.

T w o ideas are presented here, the second o f t h e m s o m e w h a t obscure ly (see

S p o e r r i , 209, note 15). I t is n a t u r a l e n o u g h to a d d u c e c o n t e m p o r a r y spon

taneous g e n e r a t i o n as evidence for its f o r m e r occurrence ( 1 0 . 2 ) , b u t i t is less

easy t o see w h y the fact t h a t n o o t h e r c o u n t r y produces a n i m a l s i n this

fashion proves t h a t E g y p t once p r o d u c e d m e n i n the same w a y (10 .3) .

M o r e o v e r , eukrasia n o w characterizes, n o t E g y p t , b u t the w h o l e e a r t h , a n d

the w o r d seems to have 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 l i fe is f a v o r e d

b y a t e m p e r a t e c l i m a t e , b u t as the 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 Greek

zoology a n d e t h n o l o g y u s u a l l y pos i ted a m i x t u r e , n o t o f heat a n d c o l d , b u t

o f h e a t a n d m o i s t u r e . 1 5 T h e w o r d s , " a t the t i m e o f the o r i g i n o f t h e cosmos

w h e n the 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 to the process descr ibed

i n C h a p t e r 7: the m i n g l i n g o f the sun's w a r m t h w i t h the 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 separated f r o m the sea. T h e r e s u l t i n g eukrasia m a d e the e a r t h

as a w h o l e m u c h m o r e sui ted to the spontaneous 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 the 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 the rest

o f the w o r l d t h e n as i t does n o w , the c o u n t r y was o b v i o u s l y the one most

l i k e l y t o b r i n g f o r t h the 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

t h e m . 1 7 10.2-3 m u s t have once been p a r t o f a n a r g u m e n t deve loped 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.

1 5 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 ; a n 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 intemperate climates of Scythia and Egypt which is preserved in Photius (Cod. 2 4 9 4 4 1 A 1 6 - 1 8 ) , the statement that the Egyptians υπό θάλπους πνκνουμενης της επιφανείας τον σώματος και άπολαμ-

βανομένου εντός τον θερμον πολλού και τον ύγροΰ το δνσκρατον έκληρώσαντο. 1 6 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.

1 7 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 1 0 . 2 - 3 m i ' s original form related Egypt's present productivity to the unusual eukrasia which, on certain occasions, its soil possesses. See below, note 19 .


f u l l y a l o n g those l ines. Basic t o th is 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 possible: i t is a l m o s t necessary.

I t seems l i k e l y , as against 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 precede 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 passage 1 8 w h i c h i n one f a m i l y o f

m a n u s c r i p t s appears b e t w e e n 7 a n d 8 m a y have s o m e t h i n g to d o w i t h this

o r i g i n a l v e r s i o n :

A n d as for the generation o f l i v i n g creatures f r o m the earth, they say that even i f this seem paradoxical to some, the earth's former potency is borne out by w h a t continues to occur even now. For i n the Aegypt ian T h e b a i d , when the N i l e f lood has made the soil moist and the sudden w a r m i n g action o f the sun has caused fermentat ion at m a n y points along the surface, a countless n u m b e r o f mice are b o r n f r o m the earth. A n d they say that i t is obvious, w h a t w i t h the generation o f animals t a k i n g place i n spite o f the earth's hav ing become h a r d and the surrounding atmosphere's having lost its or ig inal eukrasia, that at the t i m e o f the or ig ina l c o m i n g i n t o being o f the 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 earth.

H e r e , j u s t as i n 10.2-3 , 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 the t h e o r y o f a n

o r i g i n a l spontaneous 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 descr ibed i n 10, b u t the m i c e are said t o appear

d u r i n g t h e t i m e o f the N i l e f l o o d w h e n the w a r m t h o f the sun interacts w i t h

the w e t s o i l . 1 9 T h e f i n a l p o r t i o n o f the 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 t e x t n o w s t a n d s , 2 0 seems to present 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 t h e one j u s t r e c o n s t r u c t e d i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h 10.3: i f ,

despite t h e increased hardness o f t h e e a r t h a n d the decreased eukrasia o f the

s u r r o u n d i n g a i r , spontaneous g e n e r a t i o n s t i l l occurs, i t is obvious t h a t a t one

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 E v e r y t h i n g

i n t h e passage e i ther clarif ies a n d completes , o r else reproduces w i t h s l ight

1 8 Printed in the apparatus to Vogel's edition, Vol. I , 13-14. 1 9 The condition so produced is obviously one of unusual eukrasia, and this fact may have played

a part in the argument Diodorus is abridging. The 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).

2 0 The 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.

2 1 Here it is the atmosphere rather than the earth which is eukratos. Obviously, however, the two varieties of eukrasia are closely related. In 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 ΐύκρατότατον προς τήν e£ αρχής τών πάντων ζωογονίαν.


m o d i f i c a t i o n s , the m a t e r i a l o f 10.2-3. 1 1 1 S a s i f D i o d o r u s h a d f i rs t d i v i d e d ,

w i t h l i t t l e r e g a r d for 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 one 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 the 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 omiss ion, 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 . 2 2 I t is i m p o s

sible to t e l l w h i c h o f t h e t w o versions preserved is t h e o r i g i n a l one. F o r

o u r present purposes, h o w e v e r , t h e answer t o th is 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 locate 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 ca me b e t w e e n 7 a n d 10, b u t t h e analysis g i v e n above suggests t h a t

these t w o chapters w e r e once p a r t o f a single w h o l e . I t is even conce ivable

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 together . B u t the para l le 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 above

( p p . 15-16, 4 0 - 4 2 , 6 0 - 6 1 a n d C h a p . I I , notes 10-11) suggest o t h e r w i s e . T h e

s i m i l a r i t i e s b e t w e e n t h e t w o a u t h o r s a n d t h e a p p e a r a n c e i n t h e A e g y p t i a c a

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 the same source as 1.8 (see above ,

p p . 16-17) m a y be e x p l a i n e d i n one o f three ways . 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 for the E g y p t i a n s e t t i n g o f the Hephaestus episode (1.13.3 =

V i t r u v i u s 3 3 . 1 6 - 2 3 ; see above, p . 15) ; 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 received 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 event e i ther (2a) this 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 ( = V i t r u v i u s 3 3 . 2 4 - 2 8 , 3 4 . 2 - 6 , a n d 3 6 . 1 - 8 ; see

above, p p . 33 a n d 4 0 ; o r (2b) 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 9>

l i k e 1.13.3, m u s t have once h a d a n E g y p t i a n set t ing , 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 himsel f .

O f the three possibi l i t ies, 2b is b y far t h e most l i k e l y . T h a t D i o d o r u s s h o u l d

have t ransferred a n episode f r o m one c o n t e x t to a n o t h e r i n t h e m a n n e r

p o s i t e d b y hypothesis 1 is q u i t e possible. B u t t h e Hephaestus 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 the i n v e n t i v e process to Leo's a c c o u n t o f t h e

E g y p t i a n discovery o f w o o l (see above, p . 39) 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 ; a n d this , a l o n g w i t h the o t h e r para l le ls l i n k i n g D i o d o r u s 1.13-29

t o L e o (see above, p p . 153-54) makes i t unreasonable to assume a n y b u t

a n " E g y p t i a n " source for 1.13.3. I t is e q u a l l y unreasonable to assume t h a t

1.13.3 goes back, t h r o u g h some " E g y p t i a n " i n t e r m e d i a r y , to the same

source as 1.8.3 a n < ^ 9 m t n e s a r n e b o o k ( 2 a ) . H y p o t h e s i s 2b , besides b e i n g t h e

2 2 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.


least u n l i k e l y i n itself, gains s u p p o r t f r o m the fact t h a t t h e p r o c e d u r e i t en

visions is t h e same as seems t o have been responsible for the present f o r m o f

C h a p t e r 7.

T h e r e is a d d i t i o n a l evidence w h i c h p o i n t s t o t h e same conc lus ion .

R e i n h a r d t n o t e d (496) t h a t m o s t o f the m a t e r i a l i n 1.8 has close para l le ls i n

the A e g y p t i a c a . These are n o t a lways suff ic ient i n themselves t o g u a r a n t e e

a u n i t y o f source: para l le l s as close, o r n e a r l y as close, c a n o f ten 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 the fact t h a t t h e t w o parts o f

B o o k I n o t o n l y resemble, 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 each 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 t h e " 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 ived i n a disordered a n d animal- l ike condi t ion , proceeding i n scattered fashion to pastures and consuming the most suitable grass and the w i l d fruits f r o m the trees. (1.8.1) I n former times, at the earliest stage o f their existence, the Egyptians subsisted on grass a n d the roots a n d stems of swamp plants. First, and i n greatest quantities, they consumed the so-called agrdstis p l a n t because o f its unusual sweetness and the sufficiency of the nourishment i t provided the h u m a n b o d y — for they observed i t was suited to animals and swiftly increased the size of their bodies. (1.43.1)

Sect ion 8.1 r e p o r t s t h a t m e n fed o n the most sui table grass; 43.1 expla ins

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 T h e

presence o f the l a t t e r is i n t u r n e x p l a i n e d b y the phrase " p r o c e e d i n g to pas

t u r e s " i n 8 . 1 : m a n ' s earliest l i fe 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 the

earliest m e n is closely c o n n e c t e d w i t h the 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 this 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 i ts c r e a t i o n comes f r o m m a n ' s struggle f o r s u r v i v a l against o t h e r species.

Fear a n d t h e teachings o f to sympheron create the f irst aggregat ions; w i t h i n

each 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 the r e s u l t i n g

l a n g u a g e g r o u p s become t h e ancestors o f a l l t h e nat ions (ethne) o f the 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 appears i n 1.90 (above, p . 6 4 ) . As the E g y p t i a n s

are i n the 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, the w e a k e r

m e m b e r s o f t h e race are t a u g h t b y to sympheron to f o r m p r o t e c t i v e systemata

against the stronger . H e r e , as i n 1.8, t h e m e m b e r s o f each systema are l i n k e d

t o g e t h e r 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 (semeion) b e a r i n g the

2 3 Texts which mention grass as man's earliest form of nourishment are fairly frequent (see Spoerri, MusHelv 18.78, notes 74—75). The 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

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f a n a n i m a l — t o w h i c h t h e y r a l l y i n t imes o f d a n g e r , a n d

w h i c h , l i k e language , operates as a u n i f y i n g force t h r o u g h subsequent e v o l u

t i o n : each E g y p t i a n t r i b e (ethnos) w o r s h i p s t h e 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 to be the 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 descended.

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

bet ter w i t h the 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 the m o r e g e n e r a l one o f

1.8. T h e n o t i o n t h a t s m a l l groups o f m e n speaking t h e same t o n g u e m a y

people large 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 the theories 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 one tends to forget 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 g e n e r a t i o n . G i v e n t h e e a r l y p r o

d u c t i v i t y o f the e a r t h , t h e systemata w h i c h arise " a l l over the w o r l d " (8.4)

speaking d i f f e r e n t dialects, w o u l d be far 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 i n t o b e i n g

t h r o u g h the 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; a n d o f th is there

is n o m e n t i o n i n e i ther 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 tr ibes o f a single

c o u n t r y — l o c a l i z e d groups w h i c h c o u l d easily be descended f r o m a single

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 p r o b a b l y c o m p l e t e d o r i g i n

a l l y b y 16. 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 the c o u n t r y " ( p r e s u m a b l y the 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 to

s u p p l y h i m s e l f w i t h the necessities o f l i fe . I n the b e g i n n i n g there was n o

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

a r t 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 to col lect a n d store f r u i t s is descr ibed i n some d e t a i l

( 8 . 6 - 7 ) . T h e o t h e r w a n t s are dismissed i n a single p h r a s e : γνωσθέντος δε

τοΰ πυρός και των άλλων χρησίμων ( 8 . 8 ) . I t is n o t l i k e l y to be m e r e c o i n c i d e n c e

t h a t the subjects w h i c h receive such scant t r e a t m e n t here r e a p p e a r at

greater l e n g t h i n the A e g y p t i a c a . T h e discovery o f f i r e is descr ibed i n t h e

2 4 As Uxkull-Gyllenband points out (27, note 15), 1.90 "gibt die beste Unterlage für Reinhardts These."

2 5 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.

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.)


passage a l r e a d y q u o t e d (above, p . 1 5 ) ; Isis a n d Osir is are responsible for

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 there 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 appears 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 the chapters o f the 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 be closely r e l a t e d to i t : Leo's a c c o u n t o f t h e o r i g i n o f the E g y p t i a n

gods (see above, p p . 3 8 - 3 9 a n d 1 5 3 - 5 4 ) .

These chapters ( 1 . 1 3 - 1 6 ) , t a k e n together 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 are f e w gaps a n d , m o r e s t r i k i n g l y perhaps , 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 to g a t h e r a n d store

f r u i t s , o r w i t h assembl ing 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 achievements i n o t h e r passages o f a euhemeris t ic

c h a r a c t e r . 2 7 T h e one passage w h i c h m i g h t seem to 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 to " 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 co-workers i n a l l t h i n g s "

(see above , p . 4 0 ) . T h e r e 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 o t h e r h a n d , H e r m e s , Osir is , a n d

t h e i r c o m p a n i o n s are a l l m e n to b e g i n w i t h (cf. 13 . 1 : νπάρξαντας θνητούς) a n d

o n l y subsequent ly d e i f i e d . I f d i v i n e honors seem to be 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 greater measure t h e generic

q u a l i t i e s o f t h e r a c e , 2 8 this is a n inconsistency w i t h i n the E g y p t i a n t h e o l o g y

i t s e l f (see above, p . 16), n o t b e t w e e n its 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,

m o r e o v e r , a n inconsistency t h a t is e x a c t l y p a r a l l e l e d i n D i o d o r u s ' 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 the earliest I n d i a n s

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 restated 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 achieve

m e n t s o f t h e i n v e n t o r - g o d D i o n y s u s ( 3 8 . 3 - 6 ) .

2 7 Cf. Diodorus 2 .38.5; 3.56.3, 6 3 . 3 , 70.8, and 73.5; 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 . Ι4 · ΐ )

The 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)·


I f the above analysis is correct , 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 excerpts f r o m d i f f e r e n t parts o f a n o t h e r w o r k — t h e one w h i c h served as a

source for large 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 c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the

a r r a n g e m e n t o f m a t e r i a l w i t h i n the c h a p t e r m i g h t l e a d i n d e p e n d e n t l y to

t h e same conc lus ion . 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 8.4 a n d 8.5

( n o t e d b y S p o e r r i , 162, a n d MusHelv 18 .77-78) . A t th is p o i n t , after de

s c r i b i n g the 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 to m a n ' s

p r i m i t i v e efforts to compensate for the 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 fe . T h e f o r m e r l a c k was m e n t i o n e d at the b e g i n n i n g o f

the c h a p t e r , w h e r e the present passage w o u l d m o r e l o g i c a l l y go. I n a lmost

a l l o t h e r a n c i e n t specimens o f Kulturgeschichte, t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f m a n ' s e a r l y

l i fe 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 re f o r m s a c o n n e c t e d w h o l e ;

a n d cave l i v i n g is a lways m e n t i o n e d before the f o r m a t i o n o f t h e first social

a g g r e g a t i o n s 2 9 — n o t after, as i t is here. E v i d e n t l y i t was d i f f i c u l t for t h e

Greeks to i m a g i n e caves as social d w e l l i n g places.

I f the o r d e r 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 come

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 ight

contrast i n tone b e t w e e n 8.1 a n d 8 . 5 - 9 suggests the same c o n c l u s i o n for those

t w o passages. 8.1 contains n o h i n t o f t h e i n i t i a l scarc i ty 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 the 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 to 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 able to subsist o n grass (cf. S p o e r r i , MusHelv 18.78). A s o m e w h a t

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 the A e g y p t i a c a . Sections 43.1 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

w a t e r 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 the 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

c a n n i b a l i s m . T h e contrast is t h e n a t u r a l resul t o f the presence w i t h i n

D i o d o r u s ' E g y p t i a n chapters o f t w o d i f f e r e n t perspectives. 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 fe o f t h e race as a w h o l e ; the

o t h e r is t h e o l o g i c a l a n d seeks to e x p l a i n re l ig ious 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 . 3 0 T h e l a t t e r n a t u r a l l y a t t r i

butes the 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 to 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 at a l l , r e m a i n a n o n y m o u s . F o r the

ethnologist , progress is g r a d u a l , o f ten 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 to

use o f w h a t n a t u r e has p r o v i d e d ; hence t h e t e n d e n c y , g i v e n t h e p a t r i o t i c

2 9 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 ) .

3 0 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.


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 conceived, to emphasize as m u c h as pos

sible 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 ircumstances for l i fe p r o v i d e d b y the v a l l e y

o f t h e N i l e . Converse ly , t h e h o n o r p a i d to de i f ied i n v e n t o r s seems m o r e

n a t u r a l , a n d the catalogues o f t h e i r 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 benefactions is emphas ized b y as b l e a k as possible a

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 most o f these bene

factors are s i m p l y G r e e k c u l t u r e heroes—Heracles , D i o n y s u s , D e m e t e r — i n

E g y p t i a n dress, there is a t e n d e n c y to conceive o f this helplessness i n terms

w h i c h b e l o n g m o r e to t h e 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 the earliest l i fe o f the E g y p t i a n s w h i c h has a l r e a d y been

q u o t e d i n p a r t (above, p . 184) i l lustrates b o t h methodologies . T h e deve lop

m e n t descr ibed there proceeds i n three 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 come i n t o use;

a n d a f i n a l one w h i c h b r i n g s t h e discovery o f ed ib le gra ins ( 4 3 . 5 ) . A t this

p o i n t the d i v i n e i n v e n t o r s m a k e t h e i r appearance , for t h e discovery o f g r a i n

is a t t r i b u t e d " b y some, to Isis, b y others to one o f the e a r l y kings ( 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 the i n v e n t o r o f t e c h n o l o g y a n d

the arts (reyvcuv /cat Traihei&v), the k ings o f the necessities o f l i fe ( 4 3 . 6 ) . T h e

statements o b v i o u s l y refer b a c k t o the discovery 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 , music , a n d a s t r o n o m y descr ibed i n 1.13-16 a n d connect the theo

l o g i c a l a c c o u n t f o u n d there w i t h t h e e t h n o l o g i c a l one o f 4 3 . 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 di f f icul t ies even w i t h i n the

confines o f a single c h a p t e r . T h e e x t e n t o f the k ing ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n s to the

d e v i s i n g o f the necessities o f l i fe 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 character ize the second m o d e o f l i fe o u g h t to b e l o n g to this

category , b u t t h e y are n o t , e v i d e n t l y , to be r e g a r d e d as the w o r k o f the

kings. T h e a c t i v i t y o f the l a t t e r seems to presuppose a degree o f o r i g i n a l

helplessness greater t h a n t h a t w h i c h D i o d o r u s has i n fact descr ibed i n

4 3 . 1 - 4 . T h e di f f icul t ies w i t h i n 1.8 are o f a r a t h e r analogous character . W e

have a l r e a d y seen t h a t the references to 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 to 4 3 . 1 , whereas 8 . 5 - 9 stands i n a s i m i l a r re la

t i o n s h i p to 13-15. 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 harsher views o f

m a n ' s earliest l i f e , reflect e x a c t l y the c o n t r a s t i n g tones o f the l a t e r p a r t s o f

B o o k I to 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 evidence f r o m D i o d o r u s , n o less t h a n the para l le ls w i t h V i t r u v i u s ,

m a k e the t h e o r y o f a n " E g y p t i a n " o r i g i n for 1.8 a lmost c e r t a i n . T h e m a t e r i a l

o f the 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 the De architectura.

T h e g e n e r a l Kulturgeschichte 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 u l t i

m a t e l y d e r i v e was f irst t r a n s f o r m e d i n t o a specif ical ly 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 the d e v e l o p m e n t o f t e c h n o l o g y became


a cata logue o f d i v i n e i n v e n t o r s ( n o w 1.13-16), to 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 to s u p p l y h i m s e l f w i t h the necessities o f l i fe ( 8 . 5 - 8 as

the b o o k n o w stands) m u s t h a v e been m a d e to f o r m a sort o f p r e f a c e . 3 1 I n

s i m i l a r fashion, a genera l t h e o r y o f the o r i g i n o f language was used i n

d e s c r i b i n g the 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 the E g y p t i a n H e r m e s . A t this stage t h e s ta tement a b o u t the 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 the m o r e

a u t h e n t i c a l l y E g y p t i a n e t h n o l o g y t h a t e v e n t u a l l y became 4 3 . 1 - 4 .

I n t h e second stage o f the process such p o r t i o n s o f the 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 were reassembled 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 genera l s ta tement o f the factors i n v o l v e d i n the

g r o w t h o f technology—ckeires, logos, anchinoia—formed a sui table s u m m a r y

a n d so a p p e a r e d at the e n d o f the 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 for 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 the A e g y p t i a c a ,

i t m u s t h a v e preceded the chapters d e v o t e d to d i v i n e i n v e n t o r s . T h e e t h n o

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 to y i e l d a m o r e genera l r e m a r k a b o u t the

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 at the b e g i n n i n g o f the c h a p t e r

a l o n g w i t h a reference to the 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 race (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 to the passage

(1 .8 .2-4) o n t n e b a n d i n g together for p r o t e c t i o n against w i l d beasts a n d the

subsequent 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 have a p p e a r e d together

w i t h 8 . 2 - 4 i n t r i e A e g y p t i a c a as w e l l (cf. the reference i n 43.4 to e a t i n g the

flesh a n d w e a r i n g the 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 the 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 language were 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 t h e a c c o u n t o f the l i n g u i s t i c a c h i e v e m e n t o f H e r m e s .

T h e process envis ioned 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 the sort

m u s t have o c c u r r e d to create the c o m p l i c a t e d set o f para l le ls 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 . 3 2 A n d i t is j u s t possible t h a t here, as

i n the case o f the cosmogony a n d zoogony a l r e a d y discussed, a n ear l ier

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 to its source, has left traces i n the

e x i s t i n g text .

I n D i o d o r u s ' s u m m a r y o f the contents o f 1.1-41 (see above, p p . 175-76) ,

a n a c c o u n t o f the l i fe 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 referred 3 1 The related account (see above, pp. 153 -54) 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 .

3 2 Pfligersdorfer, while recognizing the connections between 1.8 and the rest of the book, assumes 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 232 , 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 1 8 . 6 3 - 8 2 .

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 , this a c c o u n t seems to be t h o u g h t o f as f o r m i n g

a p a r t o f t h e teachings o f the E g y p t i a n s . 3 3 T h e passage involves 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 stands: i t places t h e a c c o u n t ,

n o t before t h e theologoumena ( 11 -29 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

n a m e s " — a n d a n a c c o u n t 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

es tab l i shment 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 the second i t e m seems to refer to the i n s t i t u t i o n o f temples a n d d i v i n e

honors for Zeus a n d H e r a w h i c h appears 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 42 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 the earliest l i fe o f the

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 above, p . 175) m o r e t h a n one w o u l d expect o f

a n e d i t o r a n d , c o n c e i v a b l y , reproduces a n ear l ier vers ion o f the b o o k .

T h e r e is, i n fact , 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 the ouranioi theoi—the h e a v e n l y bodies a n d the f ive e l e m e n t s —

a n d the e a r t h l y ones—dei f ied i n v e n t o r s a n d benefactors (see 13.1). Since the

reference to the 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

reasonable t o assume t h a t these were the subject o f the f irst t h e o l o g y re ferred

to i n 4 2 ; a n d s i m i l a r l y i t w o u l d be the de i f ied i n v e n t o r s w h o were t h e subject

o f the second. Since the h e a v e n l y gods o b v i o u s l y preceded, a n d the e a r t h l y

ones f o l l o w e d , the 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 the b o o k a l o n g the

lines suggested i n 42 is, i n some ways, m o r e l o g i c a l t h a n the present one. I t is

perhaps s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t a p o r t i o n o f the o r d e r o f t r e a t m e n t envis ioned i n 42

appears i n 43 (see above, p . 188), 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

the 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 fo l lows the a c c o u n t o f

the earliest l i fe 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 to the p o r t i o n o f the 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 the E g y p t i a n r o y a l dynasties ( 4 4 - 6 8 ) , a n d the b r e a k b e t w e e n the

sections o f the 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 the c h a p t e r t h a n

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 to 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 44 begins w i t h a s tatement o n c h r o n o l o g y w h i c h

w o u l d s u i t a b l y m a r k the b e g i n n i n g o f a n e w sect ion; a n d i n the s u m m a r i e s

o f B o o k I , P a r t I I , w h i c h appear i n 42.2 a n d 41.10, the m e n t i o n o f the earliest

l i fe o f t h e E g y p t i a n s fo l lows t h a t o f t h e earliest dynasties, as i f i t were 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 bel ieve, therefore , t h a t the n a r r a t i v e i n w h i c h 8.1 a n d

3 3 The 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.


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 the ouranioi theoi

( n o w i n 11-12) a n d before the e x t e n d e d a c c o u n t 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 begins i n 13 a n d w i t h w h i c h

8 . 5 - 9 was o r i g i n a l l y connected . T h e transfer o f a l l m a t e r i a l w h i c h was n o t

specif ical ly 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 the 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 ; hence i t was n a t u r a l

t o a p p e n d the a c c o u n t o f t h e i r achievements to the ear l ier t h e o l o g i c a l pas

sage. 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 specif ical ly E g y p t i a n to go i n

the preface b u t n o t c o n c e r n e d 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

t r a n s f e r r e d , a l o n g w i t h a b r i e f s u m m a r y ( 4 3 . 5 - 6 ) o f the episode o n d i v i n e

i n v e n t o r s w h i c h once f o l l o w e d i t , to the 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 the a n t i q u i t y o f k i n g s h i p (see above, p . 178) w h i c h is so

o u t o f p lace at the b e g i n n i n g o f 1.9 m a y also be a re l ic o f the " s e c o n d

t h e o l o g y . " T h e o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t the recent o r i g i n o f w r i t i n g prevents exact

k n o w l e d g e 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 Kultur-

geschichte ( P l a t o , Timaeus 23AB; L u c r e t i u s 5.1444-47—see above, p . 4 4 ) .

L u c r e t i u s adds t h a t , as a result , reason a n d inference 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 present customs

is one o f the 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 the Aegyptiaca,zi so D i o d o r u s ' source c o u l d w e l l have c o n t a i n e d the sort o f

m e t h o d o l o g i c a l 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

there a b o u t the earliest k ings w o u l d a p p l y q u i t e w e l l to the d i v i n e i n v e n t o r s

o f t h e second theologoumena: ru lers w h o l i v e d 23,000 to 10,000 years before

t h e w r i t e r ' s o w n t i m e (see the c h r o n o l o g i c a l s tatements o f 2 3 . 1 , 2 6 . 1 , a n d

4 4 . 1 ) , hence, a Greek m i g h t assume, w e l l before t h e c o m p o s i t i o n o f the

p r i e s t l y archives i n w h i c h t h e r e c o r d o f t h e i r achievements was said to be

preserved. T h e w r i t e r o f 43.6 suspects t h a t some o f w h a t is said a b o u t t h e m

m a y have n o basis i n p r i e s t l y t r a d i t i o n at a l l , t h a t t h e n o t i o n o f t h e e a r l y

benefactor-kings is s i m p l y a useful f i c t i o n to encourage successors to i m i t a t e

t h e i r e x a m p l e . O b v i o u s l y , h o w e v e r , he was n o t p r e p a r e d to d e n y t h e i r

existence a l t o g e t h e r ; hence, perhaps , he j u s t i f i e d his i n c l u s i o n o f so m u c h

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 imposs ib le to d o o t h e r

wise a n d s t i l l a t t e m p t to trace the 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 to its b e g i n

nings . T h e o r i g i n a l appearance o f this s ta tement i n t h e p o r t i o n o f t h e w o r k

w h i c h i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w e d the d e s c r i p t i o n o f the earliest l i fe o f t h e

E g y p t i a n s 3 5 c o u l d have suggested its present l o c a t i o n : after D i o d o r u s ' o w n

d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e earliest l i fe o f a l l m a n k i n d .

3 4 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).

3 5 The argument of the two sections (palaiotatos bios and second theologoumena) might have run


T h e Entstehungsgeschichte here 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 t h a n

R e i n h a r d t ' s . I n p lace o f his suggestion o f 7, 8, 10-29 f ° r t n e o r i g i n a l o r d e r o f

chapters , I offer the f o l l o w i n g : 6 . 1 - 2 ; 9 . 3 - 6 ; 10 + 7 (cosmogony a n d zoo-

g o n y ) ; 11-12 (f irst theologoumena); 8.1 (or 8 .1-4) + 4 3 . 1 - 4 ( the earliest l i fe o f

the E g y p t i a n s ) ; 8 . 5 - 9 + I 3 - 2 9 ( 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 the pos

sible a d d i t i o n o f 43.6 + 9.2 ( m e t h o d o l o g i c a l considerat ions) a n d 8 . 2 - 4

( l i n k e d to 16 .1—Hermes a n d l a n g u a g e ) . A l t e r n a t e schemes are o b v i o u s l y

possible, so t h a t the 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 m o r e

d i f f idence t h a n R e i n h a r d t ' s o r i g i n a l one. B u t the basic i d e a b e h i n d b o t h

p r o p o s a l s — t h a t o f t h e o r i g i n a l u n i t y o f 7-8 a n d the A e g y p t i a c a — i s i n d e

p e n d e n t o f t h e detai ls o f t h e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n j u s t of fered, res t ing as i t does o n

para l le ls f a r t o o s t r i k i n g a n d t o o pervasive t o be c o i n c i d e n t a l . H e r e , I a m

c o n v i n c e d , R e i n h a r d t ' s i l l - s u p p o r t e d t h e o r y h i t the m a r k .

somewhat as follows: The 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 ( 4 3 . 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 ) .

A P P E N D I X T W O

V I T R U V I U S A N D P O S I D O N I U S *

V i t r u v i u s ' analysis o f the 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 = 34 .6-36.18

Rose) m a y be s u m m a r i z e d as f o l l o w s :

1. Housing began when men first b u i l t art i f ic ia l caves a n d i m i t a t e d the nests of birds (1.2 = 34.6-8) .

2. Compet ing 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 more skilled (1.2-3 = 34.8-14).

3. T h e first houses were of stakes and interwoven branches covered w i t h m u d (1.3 = 34.14-15).

4. O t h e r men made walls f r o m bricks of 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 under the r a i n , gables a n d eaves were devised (1.3 = 34.18-20).

6. (Pr imit ive examples of housing can st i l l be seen among the barbar ian tribes o f Europe and Asia) (1.4-6 = 34.21-35.24).

7. W h e n , as m e n became more and more skilled, consuetudo developed into ars, certain members of society set themselves u p as fabri (1.6 = 35.25-36.1).

8. F r o m architecture men progressed to the other arts and so to the development o f c iv i l izat ion (1.6 = 36.1-8).

9. Later , huts came to be replaced w i t h houses b u i l t o f br ick, stone or t i le—the result o f the maiores cogitationes w h i c h arose f r o m an increased varietas artium (1.7 = 36.8-12);

10. a n d f r o m vagantibus iudiciis m e n arr ived at certas symmetriarum rationes (1.7 = 36.12-14).

11. Once i t had been observed that there was a copia o f b u i l d i n g m a t e r i a l on h a n d , men proceeded to ornare voluptatibus elegantiam vitae (1.7 = 36.14-18).

O n the basis o f a few m i n o r paral le ls 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

g a t o r s 1 usua l ly assumed t h a t the source o f this passage was Posidonius . T h e

v i e w was rejected b y M e y e r (Laudes Inopiae 5 1 - 5 4 ) a n d R e i n h a r d t

(Poseidonios 4 0 4 - 6 ) , doubtless c o r r e c t l y . R e i n h a r d t , h o w e v e r , detects t w o

strata 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 for 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. Kiel 1909) 6 - g ; followed by

Rudberg, Forschungen zu Poseidonios 5 0 ; and Gerhausser, Der Protreptikos des Poseidonios 28.

193

194 D E M O C R I T U S AND T H E SOURCES OF G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

th is v i e w . Stage 6 is f a i r l y c l e a r l y a digression a n d m a y w e l l be P o s i d o n i a n ,

b u t there is a l m o s t n o t h i n g i n t h e rest o f the passage w h i c h just i f ies t h e

a s s u m p t i o n o f t w o sources, one o f w h i c h is te leo logica 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 8-11 trace 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 , whereas 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 the 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 one set o f i tems. I n 3 - 5 are

specific i l l u s t r a t i o n s o f the 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: i m i t a t i o n ,

c o m p e t i t i o n , a n d progress t h r o u g h the 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 are 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 a l t e r n a t e m e t h o d o f c o n s t r u c t i o n , p e r h a p s i n i t i a t e d i n c o m p e t i t i o n 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 increased

s k i l l a n d experience. 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 la ims (Poseidonios

4 0 5 , n o t e 1), a digress ion w h i c h d i s t u r b s t h e Zusammenhang b e t w e e n 5 a n d 9.

V i t r u v i u s views 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 ; hence 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 such 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 to

be e n t r u s t e d t o specialists ( the fabri o f 7—cf. L u c r e t i u s 5 .1354-60) t h e rest

are freed f o r o t h e r t h i n g s ; hence t h e digression i n 8 t o n o t e t h a t m a n p r o

ceeded f r o m a r c h i t e c t u r e to ceteras artes et disciplinas. H a v i n g thus s h o w n

a r c h i t e c t u r e ' s p lace i n t h e g e n e r a l scheme o f c u l t u r a l d e v e l o p m e n t ,

V i t r u v i u s r e t u r n s t o t race its f u r t h e r progress, n o w exclusively 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 e a r l i e r .

R e i n h a r d t also finds i n 3 - 5 a n d 9 - 1 1 a " K o n s e q u e n z d e r S t u f e n w e l c h e

sol l s ich eine K o n s e q u e n z des Menschengeistes selber z u e r k e n n e n g e b e n :

seine e ingeborene U r t e i l s k r a f t d i e i h n m e t h o d i s c h S c h r i t t für S c h r i t t d i e

M ö g l i c h k e i t e n h i n d u r c h f ü h r t d i e i h m v o n d e r N a t u r gegeben s i n d . . . .

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 Z w e c k

z u s a m m e n h a n g besteht, ist alles E r f i n d e n k e i n Erschaf fen, 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 d e r M ö g l i c h k e i t e n d i e i n diesem Z w e c k z u s a m m e n h a n g v o n

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 this de

scribes 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 expect f r o m

Posidonius , i t does n o t , I t h i n k , describe t h e t e x t w e have before us. T h e r e

is n o t h i n g eingeborene a b o u t the iudicia w h i c h are i n v o l v e d i n the 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 tritiores

(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; t h e y are

l i m i t e d o n l y b y t h e varietas artium w h i c h m a n creates—hence, one w o u l d

assume, l imi t less . A n d t h e i m p u l s e f o r t h e first advance i n a r c h i t e c t u r e i n

volves, n o t a n u n f o l d i n g o f m a n ' s i n n a t e capacit ies, b u t a response to

necessity: the i n a b i l i t y o f a f l a t r o o f t o sustain a heavy 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 one w h i c h ,

A P P E N D I X TWO'. V I T R U V I U S AND POSIDONIUS 195

t h o u g h i t need n o t be P o s i d o n i a n , i l lustrates the la t ter ' s te leo logica l c o n

cept ions w e l l e n o u g h . 2 G r a t t i u s Faliscus (Cynegetica 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 re lux i t o r d o 3 et contiguas didicere ex artibus artes proserere.

T w o detai ls o n l y i n V i t r u v i u s suggest the p o i n t o f v i e w R e i n h a r d t de

scribes: i n 10, the passage f r o m vagantibus iudiciis to certas rationes, as i f some

te leologica l e n d p o i n t h a d been r e a c h e d ; a n d , i n n , t h e reference t o the

b o u n t y o f n a t u r e : prqfusos partus naturae et abundantem materiae copiam ad

aedificationes ab ea comparatam. B u t i f these passages d o r e v e a l a te leo logica l

perspective ( a n d the 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 a p p e a r s —

see above, C h a p . I I , note 3 8 ) , i t is a perspect ive 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 the copia naturae is a rea l i za

t i o n t o w a r d w h i c h a l l the 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 have

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 n , i n w h i c h voluptas fo l lows certas

rationes, is a n y t h i n g b u t te leologica l .

8 O n Grattius and his sources see Spoerri, 162, note 8, with the earlier literature cited there. 3 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.

A P P E N D I X T H R E E

P O L Y B I U S A N D T H E S T O I C S *

T h e t h e o r y o f a Stoic o r i g i n f o r a l l o r parts o f Polybius V I rests l a r g e l y o n

paral le ls b e t w e e n 6 . 5 - 6 a n d De qfficiis 1.11-14 ( f r o m P a n a e t i u s ) . 1 T h e

p a r a l l e l s are u n q u e s t i o n a b l y present, b u t t h e y have been, I bel ieve, 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 accurate a c c o u n t o f his source ( a n d the

passage coincides 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 Gel l ius 12.5.7), Panaet ius ' v i e w o f the

genesis o f m o r a l i t y was 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 Stoic oikeidsis t h e o r y

(see above, p p . 138-39) w i t h a d i f f e r e n t one, 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 have served as t h e source for the 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 th ic w h i c h appears i n Polybius . T h e

r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n Panaet ius a n d Polybius is best b r o u g h t o u t b y c o n

s i d e r i n g t h e i r accounts i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h a t h i r d — a l s o f r o m C i c e r o — i n

w h i c h t h e Stoic oikeidsis 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 the 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 excerpts:

A. D E OFFiciis 1.11-14 Principio generi animantium omni est a natura tributum ut se vitam corpusque tueatur, de-clinet 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 parti-ceps. . . . In 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

B . D E F I N I B U S 3 . 2 0 - 2 1 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.

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. 1 O n the two passages see, most recently, H . Erbse, "Zur Entstehung des polybianischen

Geschichtswerkes," RhM 9 4 (1951) 158-61. 2 O n the character of this passage—an exposition of the "orthodox" position of the Old 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 : P O L Y B I U S A N D T H E S T O I C S 197

deceat. . . constantem ordinem in consiliis factisque conservandam putat cavetque ne quid indecore . . . faciat. . . quibus ex rebus con-flatur et efficitur id quod quaerimus honestum.

hominis per se laudandum et expetendum bonum quod . . . ouoXoyiav Stoici, nos appel-lemus convenientiam. . . . Cum igitur in eo sit id bonum quo omnia referenda sunt, honeste facta ipsumque honestum. . . quamquam post oritur, tarnen id solum vi sua et dignitate expetendum est. . . .

L i k e Polybius 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 to

analyze t h e o r i g i n o f men'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 τοΰ καθήκοντος δυνάμεως, a n d , i n 6.6.9, θεωρίαν . . .

αισχρού και καλοΰ και της τούτων ττρός άλληλα διαφοράς; i n Β, ennoia a n d

kathekon; i n A , sentit quid sit. . . quod deceat. . . ne quid indecore faciat; a n d , 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 such n o t i o n s

as u l t i m a t e l y the p r o d u c t o f n a t u r a l impulses 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 the b e g i n n i n g o f the 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 the f irst h u m a n h e r d , hormdntdn kata physin [ 6 . 6 . 2 ] , a n d

commune . . . animantium omnium . . . coniunctionis appetitus i n A ; a n d w i t h t h e

references t o the i n s t i n c t f o r sel f-preservat ion at 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 the Stoic d o c t r i n e preserved i n D . L . 7 .85: την δε πρώτην όρμήν

. . . ΐσχειν το ζωον έπι το τηρεϊν εαυτό). B u t these n a t u r a l impulses 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 P o l y b i u s ' a c c o u n t o f

men's react ions to a s ignal instance o f f i l i a l i n g r a t i t u d e , μόνοις αύτοΐς μέτεστι

νου και λογισμού [6.6.4])·

Y e t i n Polybius a n d passage Β , a t a n y r a t e , t h e roles assigned b o t h to

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 , the n a t u r a l i n

s t inct o u t o f w h i c h m o r a l i t y arises is t h e desire for sexual u n i o n w i t h others

o f t h e i r k i n d t h a t is observed 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 for se l f -preservat ion—the oikeidsis pros heauton o f Stoic

e t h i c a l t h e o r y (see above, p p . 1 3 8 - 3 9 ) .

E v e n greater is the contrast b e t w e e n the concept ions o f ratio w h i c h a p p e a r

i n Po lybius a n d B. F o r Po lyb ius , reason is s i m p l y a u t i l i t a r i a n ca lculus w h i c h

foresees the unpleasant consequences o f r e c u r r i n g instances o f f i l i a l i n

g r a t i t u d e or f a i l u r e to r e t u r n services r e n d e r e d . I t is essentially the servant

o f the desires, a means o f r e m o v i n g obstacles to 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 to be n o t h i n g m o r e t h a n a s y n o n y m for the

social ly desirable. 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 operate a p a r t f r o m the appetites , b u t its f u n c t i o n , as set f o r t h i n the

passage b e g i n n i n g simul autem cepit intellegentiam, is to perceive a h i g h e r

h a r m o n y a c c o r d i n g to 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 per

ceived, this h a r m o n y supplants the 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 above, " s e d q u e m a d m o d u m saepe f i t u t is q u i


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 fac i t 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 m i r u m est p r i m o nos sapientiae c o m m e n d a r i ab 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 nobis c a r i o r e m fieri q u a m i l i a s int 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 appetites , b u t i t makes use o f t h e m o n l y i n o r d e r to

supersede a n d t r a n s c e n d t h e m .

B e t w e e n the t h o r o u g h g o i n g u t i l i t a r i a n i s m o f P o l y b i u s a n d the i d e a l i s m

o f B , A occupies a n i n t e r m e d i a t e a n d at t imes a m b i g u o u s p o s i t i o n . Panaet ius

begins w i t h the Stoic oikeidsis pros heauton, i n a passage w h i c h closely paral le ls

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 to a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the 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 analogous 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 even gives a h i n t o f the P o l y b i a n con

c e p t i o n o f reason 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 enabled to satisfy

his desires m o r e c o n v e n i e n t l y :

P O L Y B I U S 6 . 6 . 2 - 5

πάντων . . . προς τάς συνουσίας όρμώντων κατά

φύσιν, εκ δε τούτων παιδοποιίας αποτελούμενης,

οπότε τις των έκτραφέντων εις ήλικίαν ίκόμενος

μή νέμοι χάριν μηδ' άμύναι τούτοις οΐς εκτρέ-

φοιτ' . . . δήλον ώς δυσαρεστεϊν και προσκόπτειν

εικός τους συναντάς και σννιδόντας

την γεγενημενην εκ των γεννησάντων επιμέ-

λειαν . . . περι τά έκγονα . . . και τροφήν. . . .

του γάρ γένους των ανθρώπων ταύτη διαφέροντος

των άλλων ζώων $ μόνοις αύτοΐς μέτεστι νου και

λογισμού . . . εικός. . . . [αυτούς] έπισημαίνεσθαι

τό γιγνόμενον και δυσαρεστεΐσθαι τοις παροΰσι,

προορωμένους τό μέλλον και συλλογιζομένους ότι

τό παραπλήσιον εκάστοις αυτών σνγκυρήσει. . . .

D E O F F I C I I S 1 . 1 1 - 1 2

Commune autem animantium omnium est coniunctionis appetitus procreandi causa

cl cura quaedam eorum quae procreata sint.

sed inter hominem et beluam hoc maxime interest 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 prae-sentibus 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 socie-tatem. . . .

M e n , a c c o r d i n g to Panaet ius , are 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 eventual i t ies

a n d take steps to meet t h e m (1.11). I f , t h e n , i t is this 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 reason t h a t hominem homini conciliat (1 .12) , the m e a n i n g

w o u l d seem to be t h a t m e n seek the f r i e n d s h i p o f t h e i r fel lows i n o r d e r to

achieve a greater degree o f safety a n d securi ty for t h e i r famil ies . Y e t i t t u r n s

o u t t h a t w h a t Panaet ius wishes to 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 : P O L Y B I U S AND T H E STOICS 199

eademque natura v i rationis h o m i n e m h o m i n i concil iat et ad orationis et ad vitae societatem, ingeneratque i n primis praec ipuum q u e n d a m a m o r e m i n eos q u i procreati sunt, impel l i tque ut h o m i n u m coetus et celebrationes et esse et a se o b i r i vel it , ob easque causas studeat parare ea quae suppeditent et ad c u l t u m et ad v i c t u m nec sibi soli sed coniugi liberis ceterisque quos caros habeat tuerique debeat.

N a t u r e a n d reason are here presented as m a k i n g m e n desire the f e l l o w s h i p

o f others for 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 sought 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 for a l l those quos caros habeat tuerique debeat.

Panaetius is o b v i o u s l y t h i n k i n g i n terms o f a genera l social o b l i g a t i o n , n o t

i n terms o f the 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 to be

u n d e r discussion i n w h a t preceded. T h e w h o l e p r e c e d i n g section has, i n fact,

s o m e w h a t the 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 the phrase eademque natura vi

rationis, natura refers less to a n y t h i n g i n t h a t sect ion t h a n to principio . . . a

natura tributum a t the v e r y start o f the w h o l e discussion (see above, p . 196).

M o r e o v e r , a l t h o u g h ratio is f i rst m e n t i o n e d (1.11) i n such a w a y as to suggest

t h a t its f u n c t i o n is to p r o v i d e for a bet ter sat isfact ion o f desires w h i c h m a n

shares w i t h the 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) to be the 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 sint t h a t is communis

amantium omnium ( i . n ) i n t o a praecipuum quendam amorem (1.12) t h a t has as

its object 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 . Society a n d f a m i l y

cease to be, as was f irst h i n t e d , i n s t i t u t i o n s devised b y reason for the bet ter

sat isfact ion o f w a n t s w h i c h m a n shares w i t h the a n i m a l s ; they are, r a t h e r ,

th ings 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 the 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 se l f -preservat ion . 3 S i m i l a r l y , the

3 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 ut . . . 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 magni-ficum . . . atque his tribus generibus honestorum notatis quartum sequitur . . . in quo inest ordo et moderatio.

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.


desire for 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) are f u r t h e r revelat ions o f the

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 the 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 to the honestum w i t h w h i c h t h e analysis concludes, he is a c h i e v i n g

the 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 descr ibed i n the l a t t e r

p o r t i o n o f De Jinibus 3 . 2 0 - 2 1 .

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 be e v i d e n t . I t s u t i l i t a r i a n

elements, one 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 created societies i n

o r d e r to p r o v i d e secur i ty f o r t h e i r famil ies appears q u i t e c l e a r l y i n 5 .1011-21 :

inde casas postquam ac pellis ignemque p a r a r u n t et m u l i e r coniuncta v i r o concessit i n u n u m

. . . prolemque 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 inter 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 muliebreque saeclum.

T h e passage has n o c o u n t e r p a r t i n P oly b ius , 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 above, C h a p .

V I I I , note 2 4 ) . F o r t h e f o r m a t i o n o f f r iendships for 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 extens ion o f the p r i n c i p l e o f se l f -protect ion w h i c h f irst

b r o u g h t m e n i n t o herds. I n d e e d , one w o u l d expect such f r iendships t o be

a m o n g t h e f i rs t stable re la t ionships to arise after the 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 w i f e a n d parents w i t h c h i l d r e n . C l e a r l y L u c r e t i u s 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 to Panaet ius , b u t t h e most n a t u r a l e x p l a n a t i o n

o f t h e para l le 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 to

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 Panaet ius ' k n o w l e d g e o f this t r a d i t i o n m a y have been Polybius h i m s e l f . 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 Panaet ius ' , 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 need n o t have h a d such 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. 196], where there are explicit references to utendi consili reputatio, utilitatis contemplatio, and commodorum

delectus.) The 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 for 2 . 4 5 - 4 7 ) . 4 For a similar suggestion with regard to the political theories of Polybius and Panaetius see

M . Pohlenz, "Panaitios," R E 36 (1949) 4 2 3 , and R . Reitzenstein, "Die Idee des Principats bei Cicero und Augustus," JVGG 1917, 4 0 6 - 7 .

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 201

for P o l y b i u s (see above, p p . 8 1 - 8 2 w i t h note 6 ) , suggests i n i t se l f the

ideal is 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 one 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 the summum bonum for m a n lies. I n P o l y b i u s reasoning is

c o n n e c t e d w i t h the 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 for seeing the social ly desirable 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 deve lop 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 specif ied. W e m u s t therefore 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 to Fin. 3 - 2 0 - 2 1 , one w h i c h he r e c a l l e d v a g u e l y

w h e n he cam e to compose, 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 the o r i g i n o f m o r a l s . B u t one need n o t assume d i r e c t Stoic i n

f luence. 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 the 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 , Carneades used the

t e r m i n o l o g y o f the 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 present ly c o n

c e r n e d as a means 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 (the

famous Carneadea divisio—see above, p p . 1 6 3 - 6 4 ) . T h e presence o f Stoic

t e r m i n o l o g y w o u l d thus 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 w i t h

S t o i c i s m , even 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

there was a n y such a c q u a i n t a n c e , its in f luence o n t h e theories o f B o o k V I

was super f i c ia l .

A P P E N D I X F O U R

D E M O C R I T U S B 3 0 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 the 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 r e p r o d u c e d

i n D i o d o r u s ' s o u r c e , 1 is w e l l k n o w n : m e n feared t h u n d e r , eclipses, a n d the

l i k e a n d assumed t h a t gods w e r e the cause o f t h e m ( A 7 5 ) . T h e i n i t i a l p r o

c l a m a t i o n o f this b e l i e f b y c e r t a i n m e m b e r s o f a p r i m i t i v e society is p r e

s u m a b l y w h a t is descr ibed 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 c o m p a r e d

w i t h t w o euhemer is t i c passages, one o f t h e m f r o m E u h e m e r u s ' o w n a c c o u n t

o f the d e i f i c a t i o n o f U r a n u s , 2 the o t h e r f r o m the v e r s i o n o f the same event

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 above, p . 163,

w i t h n o t e 4 8 ) .

A

τών λογίων ανθρώπων ολίγοι

άνατείναντες τάς χείρας ενταύθα

ον νυν ήέρα καλεομεν οι Έλληνες,

πάντα, ζειπαν'), Ζευς μνθέεται

και διδοΐ και άφαιρεεται και

βασιλεύς οντος τών πάντων.

(Democritus Β30)

B

deinde Pan eum [Iovem] deducit in montem qui vocatur Caeli sella, postquam eo as-cendit, 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 44. 1 Cf. 1.11.1: the Egyptians began to worship the ouranioi theoi out of awe and wonder (xora-

TrXayevTas Kai Bavfidoavras) at the spectacle presented by the heavens. The 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 Democritean in his source.

2 The 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 : DEMOCRITUS B 3 O AND E U H E M E R U S 203

supra mundum erat, quod aether 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 been m u c h discussed (see above, C h a p . I l l , n o t e 3 4 ) ,

b u t a t t e n t i o n has been focused o n t h e m e a n i n g o f logioi, r a t h e r to t h e ex

c l u s i o n o f the rest o f the passage. I n p a r t i c u l a r , the i m p l i c a t i o n s o f the

phrases βασιλεύς ούτος των πάντων a n d ον νΰν ήέρα καλέομεν have n o t been

suf f ic ient ly 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 the idea

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 to 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 to be

i n t e r p r e t e d i n the l i g h t o f t w o statements, one i n Isocrates (Nicocles 2 6 ) , the

o t h e r i n A r i s t o t l e (Pol. 1 .1252B24-27), 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 the gods because i t is the earliest or most w i d e s p r e a d f o r m o f

g o v e r n m e n t a m o n g m e n . T h e s i m i l a r i t y o f these t w o passages suggests

d e r i v a t i o n f r o m a c o m m o n , Sophist ic s o u r c e , 3 c o n c e i v a b l y D e m o c r i t u s 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 rate , to be r e l a t e d to the one

deve loped i n A . T o give a l l a n d to take a l l a w a y is the 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 the existence o f a n

i n v i s i b l e 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, however , to have gone 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 hands to " 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 we n o w k n o w ) t h a t the 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, one w h i c h , h o w e v e r , ceased

3 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 αρχή καταστάσεως; Democritus B 2 7 8 : άρχαίης τίνος καταστάσιος.)

4 Cf., in a different context, Aristophanes, Nubes 2 6 4 : ώ Βέσποτ' άναξ άμέτρητ' Άήρ, and

Philodemus, De piet. 5 a , p. 6g Gomperz (=VS I I 1 0 3 . 3 - 5 ) : θέρος • • • χείμων και . . . μεθόπωρον

και πάντα ταΰτα άνωθεν διειπετή γείνεται' 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 compound 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 .477: το έκπιπτον νδωρ εκ Διός ο έστιν άερος, τον εξ αέρος αρδενομενον, τον ΰπο Διός πληρονμένον. (On the

Zeus-air equation see, further, the parallels cited in Q,. Cataudella, "Democrito Fr . 5 5 B 3 0 Vorsokr.," Atene e Roma g [1941] 7 7 - 8 0 . )


to h a v e th is m e a n i n g after i t h a d become t h e n a m e o f the g o d w h o contro ls

ta meteor a.h

T u r n i n g f r o m A to Β a n d C, w e find a considerable 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 hands to w h a t w e Greeks

n o w c a l l a i r , h a v e t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t i n E u h e m e r u s ' Zeus, r a i s i n g his eyes to

w h a t w e n o w c a l l sky; a n d t h e βασιλεύς . . . των πάντων o f A is e x a c t l y

p a r a l l e l e d b y βασιλέα των όλων i n C. W h a t happens 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 happens i n A . I n D e m o c r i t u s i t is the office o f k i n g s h i p

i t s e l f t h a t is t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e skies b y the p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n o f a i r ; i n

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 the office w h o is so

t r a n s f e r r e d . Y e t th is v e r y d i f ference is such as t o suggest dependence 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 there 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

present 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 phrase 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 to 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 aether a n d gave 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 " a e t h e r " ,

u n l i k e " z e u s " , acquires n o n e w m e a n i n g as a result o f t h e d e i f i c a t i o n . T h i s

p e c u l i a r i t y i n E u h e m e r u s ' a c c o u n t suggests t h a t he is r e c a l l i n g a n ear l ier

one i n w h i c h a phrase p a r a l l e l i n m e a n i n g to caelum quod nunc nominamus was

t h o r o u g h l y i n p lace .

T h e above considerat ions , t a k e n i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h the m a n y paral le ls

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 above,

p p . 1 5 3 - 5 4 ) , 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 f a i r l y p r o b a b l e . I f o u r

analysis is c o r r e c t , the stages b y w h i c h E u h e m e r u s ' t h e o r y o f re l ig ious

o r i g i n s arose o u t o f its models m a y be set f o r t h as f o l l o w s :

A . Democri tean version: (1) terror a n d wonder at atmospheric phenomena,

fol lowed b y (2) personification o f a ir as basileus.

Β Version o f source used b y D i o d o r u s : (1) wonder at spectacle o f heavens, fol lowed b y (2) personification o f heavenly bodies a n d elements, probably as basileis, fol lowed by (3) a d d i t i o n o f outstanding m o r t a l kings to the

pantheon so created.

C. Vers ion o f Euhemerus: (1) wonder at spectacle of heavens, fol lowed b y (2-3) identi f icat ion or association o f a part icular 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 the Sacred Chronicle,

b u t its presence there 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 the first d e i f i c a t i o n reappears i n D i o d o r u s

(5.44.6 ^ ^ f / r / / 6 3 F 3 , p . 306.21) , w h e r e i t is said to be the 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 : DEMOCRITUS B30 AND E U H E M E R U S 2Ο5

U r a n u s observed the sky a n d the stars. T h e t w o passages, t a k e n i n c o n

j u n c t i o n w i t h D i o n y s i u s S c y t o b r a c h i o n ap. D i o d o r u s 3.56.4 (=FGrH 3 2 F 7 ,

Ρ· 2 35·3°~33)> w h e r e U r a n u s is the f i rs t a s t r o n o m e r , m a k e i t reasonable to

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 t h e heavens a n d t h e i r m o v e m e n t s ; 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

w i t h the g e n e r a l t e n d e n c y o f the Sacred Chronicle (see above, p p . 1 6 2 - 6 3 ) ,

t h a t Stage 1 s h o u l d thus be associated w i t h a n i n d i v i d u a l heuretes, r a t h e r

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 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 to m a r v e l at

t h e h e a v e n l y bodies, b u t also t o w o r s h i p t h e m (cf. above, note 1). B u t b y

te lescoping i n t o a single stage ( 2 - 3 ) w h a t h a d been t w o separate stages i n

t h e source used b y D i o d o r u s , E u h e m e r u s has c e r t a i n l y e l i m i n a t e d t h e need

f o r such ouranioi theoi i n his t h e o r y . E i t h e r t h e y were absent f r o m his w o r k

a l together , 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 at a l a t e r stage

i n t h e n a r r a t i v e (cf. above, 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 Ouranon

(Jacoby, RE 11.957) o r inserting ton kosmon after dio (Kaerst, Geschichte des Hellenismus 2 2 .193—94,

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 , 236.36-237.1 , 2 3 7 . 1 1 - 1 3 ; and Philo of Byblos, FGrH 7 9 0 F 1 , p. 8 0 6 . 5 - 1 0 ;

F 2 , p. 8 0 9 . 1 6 - 1 7 ; F 3 , p. 814.11-12) . 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.) The 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.

S E L E C T E D B I B L I O G R A P H Y

Aalders, G . J . D . , Het derde bock van Plato's Leges, I : Prolegomena (Amsterdam 1943).

, " T h e Poli t ical F a i t h of D e m o c r i t u s , " Mnemosyne Ser. 4, 3 (1950) 302-13.

von A r n i m , H . , Leben und Werk des Dio von Prusa (Berl in 1898). Bailey, C , The Greek Atomists and Epicurus ( O x f o r d 1928). Baldry, H . C., The Unity of Mankind in Greek Thought (Cambridge 1965). Barwick, K . , " Komposit ionsprobleme i m 5. Buch 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 (Ber l in 1866). Bignone, E., UAristotele perduto e la formazione filosofica di Epicuro (Florence 1936).

, " Q u a fide quibusque fontibus instructus m o r a l e m E p i c u r i phi losophiam interpretatus sit Cicero i n p r i m o de finibus l i b r o , " RFIC 37 (1909) 54-84.

Billeter, G., "Griechische Anschauungen über die Ursprünge der K u l t u r , " Beilage zum Programm der Kantonschule Rurich (1901).

BJankert, S., Seneca ep. go over natuur en cultuur en Posidonius als zijn bron (Amsterdam

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 natura v 801-1457)," MusHelv 19 (1962) 162-76. B r i n k , C. O. , "OlKelwois and olKeiorr/s: Theophrastus and Zeno 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. Cataudella, Q.., " T r a c c e della sofistica nella polemica celso-origeniana," Rendlst-

Lomb 70 (1937) 185-201. Cole, T . , " T h e Anonymus I a m b l i c h i and his Place i n Greek Pol i t ical T h e o r y , "

HSCP 65 (1961) 127-63. , " T h e Sources and Composit ion of Polybius V I , " Historia 13 (1964) 440-86.

D a h l m a n n , J . H . , De philosophorum Graecorum sententiis ad loquellae originem pertinenti-bus capita duo (Diss. Le ipz ig 1928).

D e W i t t , N . W . , " T h e Gods of Epicurus and 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.

Dihle , A . , " Z u r hellenistischen Ethnographie , " Entretiens Hardt 8 (Geneva 1962)

205-39. D i r l m e i e r , F., " D i e Oikeiosis-Lehre Theophrasts," Philologus Suppl . 30.1 (1937). Dyroff , A . , ^ur Quellenfrage bei Lukrez (Progr. Bonn 1904). Einarson, B., "Aristot le 's Protrepticus and the Structure o f the Epinornis," TAPA

67 (1936) 261-85. 207

2θ8 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

F a r r i n g t o n , B., "Second Thoughts on E p i c u r u s , " Science and Society 17 (1953)

326-39· Fehl ing, D . , " Z w e i Untersuchungen zur griechischen Sprachphilosophie: I I

Φύσις u n d θέσις", RhM 108 (1965) 218-29.

von Fr i tz , K . , The Theory of the Mixed Constitution in Antiquity (New Y o r k 1954). , "Nausiphanes ," RE 32 (1935) 2021-27.

Geffcken, J . , " L e o , " RE 24 (1925) 2012-14.

Gerhäusser, W . , Der Protreptikos des Poseidonios (Diss. Heidelberg 1912). Gigon, O. , Review of Spoerri's Späthellenistische Berichte, Gnomon 33 (1961) 771-76. G r i l l i , Α . , " L a posizione d i Aristotele, Epicuro e Posidonio nei confronti della

storia della c iv i l tä ," RendlstLomb 86 (1953) 3-44. G u t h r i e , W . K . C , In the Beginning ( I thaca 1957). H a r d e r , R., " K a r p o k r a t e s von 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). Havelock, E. A . The Liberal Temper in Greek Politics (New 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 Theorie der hippokratischen Schrift V o n der

al ten M e d i z i n , " Mala 15 (1963) 464-83. Jacoby, 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 Kulturgeschichte des Lucret ius , " WS ^ (1936)

59-69. Kleingünther, Α . , "ΠΡΩΤΟΣ ΕΥΡΕΤΗΣ," Philologus Suppl . 26.1 (1933). Kleve, K . , "Gnosis theon. D i e Lehre von der natürlichen Gotteserkenntnis i n der

epikureischen Theologie ," SO Suppl . 19 (1963). Knaacke, G., " S t u d i e n zu H y g i n , " Hermes 16 (1881) 585-601. K r e m m e r , M . , De catalogis heurematum (Diss. Le ipz ig 1890). K r o k i e w i c z , Α . , " Quaestiones Democri teae," Eos 47.1 (1954) 35-50. K r o h n , K . , Der Epikureer Hermarchos (Diss. Ber l in 1921).

L a n a , I . , " L e dot tr ine d i Protagora e d i Democr i to i n t o r n o al l 'or igine dello stato," RendLinc Ser. 8, 5 (1950) 184-211.

Langer, C , " E u h e m e r u s u n d die Theor ie der φύσει u n d θέσει θεοί," ΑΓΓΕΛΟΣ 2

( i 9 2 6 ) 53-59· Lenz, F. W . , ""Εθος δεύτερη φύσις," ΤΑΡΑ 73 ( Γ 9 4 2 ) 2 Ι 4 - 3 1 ·

Lovejoy, Α . Ο . , a n d Boas, G., Primitivism and Related Ideas in Antiquity (Balt imore

1935)· L u r i a , S., " Z u r Frage der materialistischen Begründung der E t h i k bei D e m o k r i t , "

DAWB 44 (1964). v a n der Meer , 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. Menze l , Α . , "Griechische Soziologie," SBWien 216.1 (1937)·

S E L E C T E D B I B L I O G R A P H Y 209

Meyer , 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). von der Mühl l , P., " E p i k u r s Κνριαι δόξαι u n d D e m o k r i t , " Festgabe Kaegi (Frauen

feld 1919) 172-78. Nestle, W . , " D i e Hören des Prodikos," Hermes 71 (1936) 151-70 ( = Griechische

Studien [Stuttgart 1948] 403-29) . Nock, A . D . , "Posidonius," 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., "Bei träge zur Geschichte der griechischen Philosophie," JVJbb Suppl .

19 (1892) 3 6 5-4Ö2. Pfister, F., " E i n apokrypher Alexanderbrief. Der sogenannte L e o n von Pella u n d

die Kirchenväter , " 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

(1943-47) 5-49· , " S t u d i e n zu Poseidonios," SBWien 232.5 (1959).

Phil ippson, R., " D a s Erste Naturgemässe," Philologus 87 (1932) 445-66. , " 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 Epikureer , " 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 Folg . 3, 26

(1940). , "Tier ische u n d menschliche Intel l igenz bei Poseidonios," Hermes 76 (1941)

1-13.

Praechter, K . , " E i n e Demokri tspur bei X e n o p h o n , " Hermes 50 (1915) 144-50. Reinhardt , K . , "Hekata ios von Abdera 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 Veten-

skapssamfundet i Uppsala 20.3 (1918). Ryffel , Η. , ΜΕΤΑΒΟΛΗ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΩΝ: Der Wandel der Staatsverfassungen = Noctes

Romanae 2 (1949). von Scala, R., Die Studien des Polybios 1 (Stuttgart 1890). Schwartz, E., "Hekataeos v o n Teos," RhM 40 (1885) 223-62.

, " D i o d o r o s von S iz i l ien ," 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.


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 14 (1957) 183-88.

—•—, Späthellenistische Berichte über Welt, Kultur und Götter = Schweizerische 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 Heuremata-

Kataloge," 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.

I N D E X

abundance, of building materials, 4 3 3 8 ; 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, 104-5, 165, 173; political interests of, 1 6 6 - 6 7 ; a n < ^ Polybius, 163, 165, 169-70

accident, in atomistic explanations, 119; as determinant of cultural development, 2, 16, 18, 35. 39, 47> 56, 6 3 - 6 7 , 85, 9 0 - 9 1 , 148, 172; not admitted as a cause in certain theories of cultural development, 146-47

Achaean league, 165-66 acme in development of arts, 172 acorns as man's earliest food, 6, 1 1 3 3

active life, defended and rejected by reference to history of culture, 127, 168-69

Aelian, ra3.38: 7 1 ' Aeneas Tacticus 5.1: 1 1 6 2 4

Aeschines Ctes. 78: 1 3 3 5

— Falsa leg. 152: 1 1 6 2 4

Aeschylus, Eum. 5 6 7 : 6 6 1 5

— PV: 6, 5 0 8 , 99

453= 29" 4 5 4 - 5 7 : 4 2 3 4

4 6 7 - 6 8 : 44 4»

4 8 4 - 9 9 : I 0 5 1 9

4 9 1 - 9 2 : 1 3 6 1 6

— Suppl. 7 0 4 - 0 9 : 1 1 4 2 0

aetiology, 8 - 9 , 49, 5 7 3 2 , 128-30, 145-46, 165,

•73

Aetna 3 6 3 - 6 5 : 17 5

Agatharchides, ap. Diodorus 3 .6.2: 8 8 1 5 , 1 4 1 3 2

3.7.2: 1 4 1 3 2

3.15.2 ( = Photius, Cod. 250 4 4 9 A 2 7 ) : 8 2 s

3 - i 8 - 5 ( = 4 5 ° B 3 - 4 ) : 82° 3.18.6 ( = 4501510-11): 6 3 s

3.18.7: 1 4 1 3 2

3.34.6 ( = 4 5 5 A i i - i 2 ) : 1 4 1 3 2

— ap. Photius, Cod. 250 4 5 0 B 4 - 8 : 82 s

456A29: 8 2 s

aggregating tendency, in atoms, 107, 110; in primitive man, 8 3 - 8 4 , 107, no—n, 131

agraphoi nomoi, 113-15, 1 2 6 4 7 , 1 3 7 2 3

agriculture, 4, 7, 10, 17, 20, 3 6 - 3 8 , 45, 55 Alcmaeon of Croton, VS 24B1 A : 82 s

Alexarchus, 1 3 8 2 3 , 1 5 7 2 9

Alexander the Great, 1 3 7 2 3 , 1 5 5 2 4 , 161 allegorization, of myth of Golden Age, 10,

1 5 0 - 5 1 ; of Prometheus and Pandora myth, 20-21

allelophagia, see cannibalism aloga, 11 o Amazons, 144-45 Ammon, 39, 1 5 4 1 8 , 1 5 9 3 3

analytic accounts of cultural origins, 5 1 - 5 2 Anaxagoras, VS ^QA^C); 5 7 3 0

— A 1 0 1 : 8 2 5

— A 1 0 2 : 4 2 3 3

— B 4 and 2 1 : 5 Anaxarchus, 1 6 5 5 1

— K . 9 7 2 A 1 : 1 6 1 3 7

A 6 : 1 6 1 3 7

B 1 - 2 : 1 6 1 4 1

Anaximander, VS 1 2 A 3 0 : 101 5

Anaximenes of Lampsacus, FGrH 7 2 T 1 4 : 177 7

Anaximenes, Rhet. ad Alex. 1 . 1 4 2 1 B 3 5 - 2 2 A 2 : 113 — 1421B36-37: 1 1 4 1 8

— 1 4 2 2 A 2 - 4 : 1 1 4 1 9

anchinoia, 21, 4 0 - 4 1 , 74, 104, 1 8 6 2 8

Andocides, Myst. 9 7 : 1 2 9 5 7

animals, behavior of taken as criterion of what is natural, 96, n o , u g 3 2 ; defense against, 3 4 - 3 6 , 6 4 - 6 5 , 109, 115, 1 2 3 - 2 6 ; differentiated from man by lack of logismos, 7 7 - 7 8 , 81, 88, 113, 168, 1 9 7 - 2 0 0 ; intelligence of, 8 1 5 ; life of compared to that of early man, 7 " , 23, 5 5 2 4 , 80, 88, 9 5 - 9 6 , 152, 184

anonyma, 6 8 - 6 9 , ' ° 8 , 1 8 5 s 6

Anonymus Iamblichi, 8, 128, 1 4 0 2 9

— 3.6: 1 0 4 1 6

— 7.1-2, 8 - 9 : 1 2 2 3 8

Anth. Pal. 6.151: 6 6 1 5

Antiphon of Rhamnus 1.31: 104'" — Herod. 8 0 : 1 0 4 1 6

9 2 : 1 2 9 5 7

Antiphon the Sophist, VS 8 7 B 4 4 , Fr . A col. 1.1-2.30: 142

— Fr. B col. 2 . 1 5 - 3 5 : 1 3 7 2 3

Antisthenes, 150 6 , 152 Apollonius Rhodius 3 . i o 8 8 - 8 g : 9 1 1 8

Apuleius, Met. 11.2: 4 8 s

Aratus of Sicyon, 165-66

2 1 2 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

Arcadia, 4, 6 1 4

Arcesilaus, 164-65 Archelaus, VS 6 0 A 1 : 5

— A 4 . 6 : 5 — B 3 : 122

architecture, 7, 4 3 , 57, 1 9 3 - 9 5 ; cf. houses, shelter

Archytas, K S 4 7 B 3 : 122 Aristagoras of Miletus, 1 5 9 3 5

Aristides, Or. 3, pp. 3 2 . 2 3 - 3 4 . 2 Dindorf: 7 Aristippus, 164 Aristophanes, Nubes 2 6 4 : 2 0 3 4

1 0 7 5 - 7 8 : 142 1 4 2 7 - 2 9 : I I O 1 1

— Plutus 7, Schol. ad: 9 4 2 3

9 1 4 - 1 5 : 1 0 4 1 6

— Ranae 1032: 6 Aristotle, on origin of culture, 5 2 - 5 4 , 141, 146,

1 7 2 - 7 3 ; on history of philosophy, 5 2 - 5 4 , 1 0 0 6 , 1 0 4 - 5 — De intr. 2.16A29: 3 3 1 0

— De philosophia: 172 Fr. 7 Ross: i o 6 2 0

F r . 8 pp. 7 5 - 7 7 Ross: 52 — EE 7 .1235A4-13: 134»

1 2 3 5 A 4 - 5 : 1 3 6 1 6

1 2 3 6 B 9 - 1 0 : 1 3 6 1 6

1238B18-39B5: 1 3 5 1 4

1 2 3 9 A 4 - 5 : 1 3 5 1 5

1241B25: 1 3 4 1 0

1 2 4 I B 2 7 - 4 2 B 2 7 : i 3 4 - 3 5 n n . — EN 7 .1148B22-23: 7 1 9

8.1155A21-22: 1 3 7 2 3

" 5 5 A 3 2 = ' 3 6 1 6

1155A32-35: 134 9

1 1 5 8 B H - 5 9 A 3 3 : 1 3 5 1 4

1159B25-60A30: 134 9 1 0 1 2 , 1 3 5 1 5

1160A31-61A30: 1 3 5 1 6

1 1 6 0 B 2 2 - 6 1 A 9 : 8 1161B6-7: 134 9 , 1 3 7 2 3

1161B13: 1 3 4 1 0 , 1 3 5 1 5

1161B33-35: 134 9

1162A9-14: 134 9

n 6 2 A i g - 2 4 : 133 4

1162A34-B4: 1 3 5 1 4

1163A24-B27: 1 3 5 1 4

9 . 1 1 6 8 B 3 1 - 3 2 : 1 1 8 2 9

H 7 0 A 2 5 - B I 9 : 1 3 8 2 6

— HA 1 .488A2-10: 2 8 4

5 - 5 7 7 b 3 ° - 7 8 A I : 1 3 2 3

9.611A7-11: 1 3 2 2

617B21: 2 8 4

6 2 9 B 1 0 - 1 2 : 1 3 2 2

— Met. 1 .981B13-82A1: 7, 4 3 3 ' , 5 3 1 8

— Meteor. 4 . 3 8 1 B 6 - 7 : 1 9 9

— Part. anim. 3.662B20—22: 4 1 3 0 3 1

4 . 6 8 6 A 2 5 - 2 8 : 4 1 2 9

6 8 7 A 5 - 7 : 4 i 2 9

— Phys. 2 .199A15-17: 1 9 9

— Pol. 1 .1252B24-27: 203 1253A7-18: 8 6 1 3

1256A23: 2 8 4

1256A30-B7: 5 4 2 2

1259A37-B17: 8, 1 3 s 1 6

2 . 1 2 6 8 B 3 0 - 6 9 A 8 : 8 1 2 6 9 A 4 - 5 : I O I 6

3.1280A39: 7 3 ' 1 2 8 5 B 6 - 9 : 18', 9 4 2 3 , 1 6 1 3 9

6 . I 3 2 O B 9 - I I : I 2 2 3 8

— Rhet. L1371B12—17: 134 9

1373B14-18: 1 3 7 2 3

1374A18-25: 113 — ap. Plutarch, Thes. 2 5 : 9 4 2 3

[Aristotle], Ausc. Mirab. 87, 8 3 7 A 2 4 - 2 6 : 17 5

— Oec. 1 .1343B13-20: 133 4

1 3 4 3 B 2 0 - 2 3 : 1 1 4 2 2

Arius Didymus ap. Stobaeus, Eel. 2.7 = W - H n 120.17-121.21: 137-38

Arnobius 2.66: 8 — 4.14: 1 6 0 3 6

Arrian, An. 5 . 1 - 2 : 1 5 5 2 4

— 7.11.9: 1 3 7 2 3

Asclepius, commentary to Aristotle's Metaphysics, pp. 10.28-11.36 Hayduck: 5 2 1 5

— p. 11.7-9: 1 0 5 1 8

astronomy, 7, 4 2 - 4 3 , 2 0 4 - 5 ataktos bios, 2 8 4 , 1 8 9 3 1

Athena, allegorized as anchinoia, 21 Athenaeus 6 .233DE: 17 5

Athenio ap. Athenaeus 14.660-61 (Fr. 1 Kock):

7 Athens, as bringer of civilization, 7, 1 3 4 8 ; as

primitive Utopia, 2, 53 Atlantis, myth of, 2, 9, 53 atomism, 106-10, 117-20, 147 Attica, 4 Augustine, Civ. Dei 8 . 5 : 158 authority, paternal, 112, n 6 -17 autochthony, 4, 178; cf. spontaneous generation

barbarians, antiquity of, 178 beauty as criterion for selection of early kings,

9 i 1 8

bees, 9 6 2 5

benefactors, 18 7 , 3 5 - 3 6 , 4 8 - 4 9 , 93, 9 4 s 3 , 9 5 " , 1 2 0 - 2 3 , 125-27, 156, 161, 168, 187-88, 191

Berlin Theaetetus commentary, col. 5 . 3 6 - 3 9 : 1 3 g 2 8

— 7 . 2 6 - 8 . 1 : 1 3 8 2 6

biological determinism, 2 8 5 , 4 2 , 7 8 - 7 9 , 170-71 boetheia, 104 Boethius, Herrn, pr. 1.2, p. 50.11 Meiser: 3 3 1 0

— Herrn, sec. p. 5 . 5 - 1 0 : 6 1 1

— Herrn, sec. 1.2, p. 6 0 . 2 5 : 3 3 1 0

bread, invention of, 1 9 9

burial, 9, 6 6 1 6

Cadmus, 5 7 a s

I N D E X 213

Callicles, 8 4 1 1

cannibalism, 7 1 9 , 55, 6 6 1 5 , 103-4, ' 3 2 > r 5 2

Carneades, 169, 2 0 1 ; his Carneadea divisio, 163-64, 201

Cassiodorus, 5 — Variae, 1.2.7: 4 8 *

1.30.5: 5 0 7

6.18.6: 3 1 ' Catrarius, Johannes, 2 3 1 6 , 4 1 2 8

cataclysms, 2, 9, 52, 54, too 5

caves as primitive dwelling places, 2 9 - 3 0 Celsus, 5 1 1 2

challenge and response in development of culture, 9, 51

character of man, variable and constant elements in, 139-43, 170

chreia, 41, 1 2 3 - 2 4 ; cf. utility Christian views of prehistory, 1, 8, i o 2 9

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 : 163-64

— De Oratore 1 .35-36: 7, n 3 3

— Fin. 1.30: 7 2 s

i - 3 > : 7 7 1 5

1.69: 8 4 i 2 , 1 3 9 2 9

2 - 3 3 - 4 3 : 163-64 2.44: 2 0 0 3

2.45: 1 3 9 2 9

2 . 4 5 - 4 7 : 1 9 9 s

2.82: 1 3 9 2 9

3 . 2 0 - 2 1 : 196-98, 200 3 . 2 3 : 1 3 9 2 ' , 197-98 3 . 6 2 - 6 3 : 1 3 8 2 6

4 . 4 9 - 5 0 : 163

4-79= I 4 ° 2 9

5 . 1 6 - 2 2 : 163 5.17: 164 5.65: 1 3 9 2 9

5.74: 1 1 8 2 8

— Flacc. 6 2 : 7 1 ' — Inv. 1 .2-3: 7, 1 1 3 3

— Laelius: 1 3 6 1 9

— Leg. 1 .37-39: 163 — ND 1.38: 1 5 6 "

1.120: 1 7 2 ' 6

2.140: 4 1 3 0

2.149: 3 3 1 0

2 . 1 5 0 - 5 2 : 9 2 4

3 - 5 4 - 5 5 : l 6 ° 3 5

— Off. 1.11-14: 8, 196-200 1.12: 1 3 9 2 8

1.22-23: 1 3 9 2 9

1.50-58: 1 3 9 2 9

2.9: 8 2 ' 2.11—15: 8 2.13: 4 4 4 0

2 . i 5 : 4 4 4 0

2 . 4 1 - 4 2 : 7 5 "

2 . 8 1 - 8 3 : 1 6 6 " — Orat. 3 1 : 6 — Part. Orat. 6 2 : 165 Rep. 1.34: 1 6 6 6 4

1-39-· a 8 4

1.39-41: 9 2 4

3 . 3 : 61 \ 6 7 » 3-23: 7 7 1 5

— Sest. 9 1 : 9 4 2 8

— Top. 8 2 : 165 — Tusc. 1.62: 43 3 7 , 4 4 3 9 , 5 1 9

5-5: 7 5 . 3 8 : 2 8 4

5-84-85= 163 cities, founding of, 5, 44, 9 1 1 8 , 9 4 2 3 , 9 8 - 1 0 0 ,

1 5 6 2 8 , 190 Cleidemus, FGrH 3 2 3 F 5 a and 7: 4 Clement of Alexandria, 5 1 3

— Strom. 1.64: 1 6 5 5 1

2 . 1 3 0 . 4 - 6 : i 6 o ' s

— Protr. 4 . 5 4 . 2 - 3 : 1 5 9 3 3

climate, 172, 180-81 clothing, 5, 27, 3 0 - 3 1 , 5 6 ; cf. weaving Colotes ap. Plutarch, Adv. Col. 30.1124D: 7 6 1 1

commerce, 44, 134 communication, non-linguistic, 6 4 - 6 6 communism among primitive men, 3 4 1 4 , 1 5 1 1 1

community, Greek theories of, 131-43 competition, among individuals in development

of culture, 3 2 - 3 5 , 194; among kosmoi, 109-10

conceptual thought, influence of on theories of culture, 146

confederations, 107, 166-67 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 , 1 7 0 - 7 2 ; in Panaetius, 1 9 8 - 2 0 0 ; in Tzetzes, 2 2 l e

contractual view, of society, 12, 75, 8 4 1 1 ; of law, 1 1 4 »

cooking, 7, 3 1 ' cooperation, in common defense, 113-14, 116;

in development of arts, 35 cosmogony, 174 Crates of Thebes, Frs. 4 and 6, pp. 218—19 Diels:

1 5 2 » criminals, treatment of, 123-24 Critias, K V 8 8 B 2 5 : 9

— B 2 5 . 3 - 4 : 1 1 4 1 8

— B 2 5 . 1 2 : 5 8 s 4

Critolaus, 101' Cronus, reign of, 151 cumulative character of cultural developments,

3 8 - 4 0 , 119-20, 194 cyclical theories of history, 2, 5 2 - 5 4 , 1 0 0 5 , 101',

177 Cynics, 6, 2 3 " , 77, 150-52, 171


Dardanus, i o i 6

defense, against animals, 34 , 3 5 - 3 6 , 6 4 - 6 5 , 8 3 - 8 4 . 9 2 - 9 3 . " 5 . 1 2 3 - 2 6 ; against men, 6 4 - 6 5 , 6 6 1 5 , 1 2 4 - 2 6

deification, of benefactors, 15-16, 4 9 , 1 5 3 - 6 3 ; of self, 162-63

Demeter, as bringer of law and grain, 154-55 , 160, 1 8 6 2 7

Demetrius Laco, Pap. Here. 1012 col. 4 4 . 5 - 4 6 . 1 1 , p. 48 de Falco: 8 4 1 »

Democritus, 11 , 5 6 - 5 9 , 106-73 passim; and Cynics, 152; and Epicurus, 168, 1 7 0 - 7 3 ; and euhemerists, 1 5 9 - 6 3 ; on family, 1 12-15 ; form taken by his reconstruction of prehistory, 1 2 8 - 2 9 , 1 4 5 - 4 7 ; gaömai of, 129; on kingship, 1 2 5 - 2 7 ; on language, 6 7 - 6 9 ; on origin of religion, 2 0 2 - 5 ; on politike and polemike techne, 1 2 3 - 2 7 ; on social concord, 1 2 0 - 2 2 ; on social origins, 107-12 , 1 1 5 - 2 0 ; sources of Polybius' and Plato's knowledge of, 1 2 8 - 3 0 , 1 6 9 - 7 0 ; and writers on technology, 148

— K S 6 8 A 1 : 1 1 7 2 6 , 1 1 8 2 9 , 1 3 0 6 0

A 3 7 : 1 1 7 2 6

A 3 8 : 1 17 2 ' , 119, 1 4 7 4 5

A 4 0 : 107, 109 A 4 4 : 1 1 7 2 7

A 6 9 : 1 1 7 2 6

A 7 5 : 5, 2 0 2 , 2 0 3 4

A 7 6 : 1 1 9 3 4

A 8 4 : 1 0 9 s

A 1 2 5 : 1 1 7 2 7

A 1 3 8 : 1 0 5 1 9

A 1 3 9 : I O I 5

Aisoa : 1 2 8 6 6

A 1 5 1 : 5, 5 6 , I 2 8 5 6

B 2 : 6 8 1 7 , 1 1 8 3 1

B 5 Ü 1 1 7 2 7

B u e : 57, 128 B 1 6 : 57 B 2 6 : 6 7 , 2 0 4 5

B 3 0 : 5 8 , 2 0 2 - 4 B 3 3 : 117 B 5 7 : 1 1 8 3 1

B 1 0 7 : 117 B 1 1 8 : 1 2 8 5 6

B 1 4 2 : 6 8 1 7

B 1 4 4 : 4 3 , 115 B 1 4 5 : 6 8 1 7

B 1 5 4 : 5, 5 0 7 , 5 3 1 8 , 57 B l 5 7 = ' 2 1 , 1 2 5 4 4

B 1 5 8 : 58 B 1 6 4 : 1 0 7 1 , 1 1 0 - 1 1 , 1 1 7 2 6

B I 6 7 : I I 7 2 6

B I 8 6 : 117 B I 8 7 : n 8 3 1

B I 9 7 : 117 B 2 0 3 : I I I 1 3

B 2 3 6 : n 8 3 1

B 2 4 5 : I I I 1 4

B 2 4 8 : I I I 1 4

B 2 5 0 : I I I 1 4

— B 2 5 I : I I I 1 4

B 2 5 4 : I I I 1 4

B 2 5 5 = I I I 1 4 , 120-22

B 2 5 6 : I 2 4 4 3

B 2 5 7 : 123-27 B 2 5 8 : I 0 7 1 , 1 2 4 - 2 6 B 2 5 9 : I 0 7 1 , 123-26 B 2 6 0 : I 2 9 5 7

B 2 6 3 : 126-27 B 2 6 6 : i n 1 4 , 117 B 2 6 7 : 112 B 2 7 8 : i 1 2 - 1 5 , 2 0 3 3

B 2 g 8 b and 2 9 9 a : 1 6 1 4 0

B 2 9 9 g : 128 B 3 0 0 . 1 4 : 57

— VS I I , p. 4 3 2 . 1 7 - 2 2 : 58 Demosthenes, Cor. 169: 6 6 1 4

— 2 5 . 8 7 - 8 9 : 133 — 5 6 . 1 5 : 1 0 4 1 6

— 59-75= 9 4 2 3

Deucalion, 1 0 1 5

diaphora, 8 7 - 8 8 , 1 2 6 4 6

Dicaearchus, on early man, 4 , 5 4 - 5 5 , 1 4 1 ; and Hesiod, 149; and Lucretius, 1 7 1 6 9

— Fr . 24 Wehrli: 1 7 1 6 9

— Fr- 4 9 : 149, i 5 ° 2

— Fr. 5 2 : 1 3 0 2 9 , 1 3 5 1 5 , 149 Diels, H . , 11 diet, 5 1 1 2 , 1 5 0 5

diffusion of new techniques, 5 7 - 5 8 , 142 Dio of Prusa, view of primitive man, 28 s

— 6.10: 1 5 1 9

— 6.15: 1 5 1 " — 6 . 2 5 : 6, 150 — 6 . 2 8 : 5 1 9 , 1 5 2 1 5

— 6 . 2 9 - 3 0 : 6, 150

— 6 - 3 2 - 3 3 : 1 5 1 9

— 6 . 3 4 : 1 5 1 8

— 8 . 3 3 : 150« — 12.30: 1 5 0 1

— 6 0 . 7 : 1 5 1 1 0

— 6 0 . 8 : 1 5 0 5

Diodorus Siculus, on early man, 4 , 15-45 passim; and Euhemerus, 153-57, 1 6 2 - 6 3 , 2 0 2 2 , 2 0 5 6 ; on language, 6 0 - 6 1 , 6 3 - 6 7 , 79, 1 0 8 - 9 ; a n c l Leo, 1 5 8 - 5 9 ; methods of composition in Chaps. 7 -29 of Book One, 16, 1 7 4 - 9 2 ; and Polybius, 8 3 - 8 4 , 9 3 2 0 , 9 4 2 2 ; sources for Book One, 159; and Vitruvius, 15-17, 1 8 3 - 8 4 , 1 8 8 - 8 9

— 1.1-5: 179 — 1 .3-1 .6 .1 : 176

— 1-4-6: 1 7 9 9

— 1.6.1-2: 192 — 1.6.2: 177-79 — 1.6.3: 177

I N D E X 215 1.7: 2 3 1 6 , I O I 5 , 1 7 5 - 7 6 » >92 1.7.4: I 8 2 2 1

1.7.6: I 8 I 1 6

1.7.7: I 8 3 2 2

i . 8 : 3 9 , 4 , 7, 11, 16, 2 0 , 3 4 1 3 , 6 4 , 8 3 , 151 177-78

1 .8.1: 27, 184, 1 8 7 - 8 9 , 190, 192 1 .8 .2-3: 3 2 - 3 3 , 6 0 - 6 1

1 .8.2- 4 : 108, 1 8 4 - 8 5 , 187, 189 1.8.3: 16, 183

1.8.3- 4 : 6 2 " , 6 9 1 9

1.8.4: 3 3 1 1 , 6 5 , 108, 1 1 8 2 9

1 .8.4- 5 : 187 1.8.5: 1 5 2 1 6

1.8.5- 9 : 27, 185-92 1.8.6: 1 8 6 2 7

1.8.7: 2 9 , 1 8 6 2 7

1.8.8: 36

1.8.9: 16, 2 1 , 4 0 , 104, 1 8 0 1 2 , 183, 186 1 .9 .1 : 178 1.9.2: 4 4 , 191-92

1 .9.2- 6 : 178

'•9-3= ! 7 9 1.9.3- 6 : 192 1.10: 175 3 , 192 1 . 1 0 . 1 : 187

1 .10.2-3: 1 8 0 - 8 3 1.10.4: 177 8

1.10.5: 1 8 1 1 5 , 1 8 2 2 1

i . n : 1 5 6 2 » , 1 5 6 - 5 7 2 9 , 158 I . I 1-12: 192 1.11-29: 1 9 0 - 9 1

1.11 .1 : 155, 1 6 0 3 6 , 2 0 2 1

I . l 1 . 2 - 1 2 . I O : I 5 9 3 4

I . U . 5 - I 2 : I 7 5 3

1.11.6: 190

1.13-16: 8 6 , 1 8 8 - 8 9 1 .13-29: 4 8 , 153-55, 192, 193 1-13- 1: ' 5 5 , 186, 190 1.13.2: 2 0 1 2 , 1 5 7 3 0

1.13.2- 5 : 1 6 0 3 5

I - I 3 - 3 : ! 5 - 1 6 , 2 1 , 3 0 , 183 1 . 1 4 : 3 8 "

1.14.1: 3 0 , 9 2 1 9 , 103, 104, 186, 187

1.14.2: 158, I 6 0 3 5 , 1 9 1 3 4

I - I 4 - 3 : 3 3 , 9 4 " 1.15: 20

i - i 5 - 3 = >55 1.15.3- 4 : 190

I - ' 5 - 4 - 5 : 33 i->5-5= 37, I 5 4 1 8

1.15.6-8: 1 5 4 » 1.16.1: 4 2 - 4 3 , 6 g 1 9 , 108, 185, 192 1.17.1-20.5: 1 5 4 2 1

! - ' 7 - 3 : i 5 4 2 1

1 .23.1: 191 1.24.3: 3 8 2 2 , 5 0 7

1.24.5: 4 4 1 .26.1: 191

— 1.41.10: 190

— 1 .42.1 : 174-76, 1 8 9 - g i — 1.42.2: i g o

— 1 .43.1 : 1 6 0 3 6 , 184, 187

— 1 .43.1-6: i 8 8 - g 2

— 1.43.2: 1 9 1 3 4

— 1.43.4: i g i 3 4

— 1 .43.5-6: i g i

— 1.43.6: 1 6 2 4 3 , i g 2 — 1 . 4 4 - 6 8 : 190 — 1 .44.1 : 15», 191

— 1.45.4: 1 5 4 2 1

— 1.90: 6 4 - 6 5 , 8 7 , 9 32 » , 1 8 4 - 8 5 , 18g

— 1 .90.1 : 74, 1 1 1 1 3

— 1.90.2: 1 6 2 4 3

— 1.97.6: 1 8 6 2 7

— 2 . 3 5 - 4 2 : 186 — 2 . 3 8 : 4

— 2 . 3 8 . 2 : 1 8 0 1 2

— 2 . 3 8 . 2 - 6 : 186

— 2 . 3 8 . 4 : 9 42 3

— 2 . 3 8 . 5 : 4 8 s , 9 1 l 8 , 1 8 6 2 7

— 3 . 2 : 4

— 3 . 2 . 1 : 1 8 1 1 5 1 7 , 1 8 2 1 9

— 3 . 9 . 4 : 9 1 1 8

— 3.17 .5: 1 5 1 9

— 3 . 3 2 . 1 : 1 0 2 9 , 1 1 8 2 9

— 3 . 3 2 . 3 : 1 0 2 9

— 3 . 4 9 . 2 : 8 2 s

— 3 . 5 6 . 3 : 4 8 3 , 1 8 6 2 7

— 3 . 6 1 . 3 : g i 1 8

— 3.63 ff.: 1 5 4 2 1

— 3 . 6 3 . 3 : 1 8 6 2 7

— 3 . 6 7 . 1 - 2 : 5 7 3 3

— 3 . 7 0 . 3 : 1 8 6 2 7

— 3-70.7: 9 4 2 3

— 3 . 7 0 . 8 : 1 8 6 2 7

— 3 .73 .5 : 1 8 6 2 7

— 4.2 ff.: 1 5 4 " — 4 . 2 5 . 1 : 5 7 3 3

— 5 - 3 5 - 3 - 4 : i 7 5

— 5-39-5: 2 9 6

— 5 . 4 1 - 4 6 : 2 0 2 2

— 5 . 4 6 . 4 : 1 5 4 "

— 5 - 6 4 - i : 4 9 3

— 5 . 6 5 . 3 : 1 8 6 2 7

— 5 . 6 7 . 1 : 2 0 5 6

— 5 . 6 7 . 3 : 4 g 3

— 5 . 6 8 . 1 : 4 9 3 , 1 8 6 2 7

— 5 . 6 9 . 5 : 6 6 1 5

— 5 . 7 1 . 1 : 9 4 2 3

— 5 .73 .7 : 9 4 2 3

— 6.1 .8: I 5 6 2 9 , 2 0 2 2 , 2 0 5 6

— 15-89-3: i 7 7 7

— 18.4 .4: 1 3 7 2 3

Diogenes of Apollonia, VS 6 4 A 1 9 , p. 5 6 . 13-14: 4 1 3 »

Diogenes Laertius 1.1: i 6 o 3 s

— 1.10: 176

2 l 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

Diogenes (cont.) — 2 . 6 4 : 1 4 0 2 9

— 2 . 8 5 : 1 4 0 2 » — 4 . 2 8 : 165 — 4 . 3 3 : 1 6 5 "

— 5 - i 7 : 7 — 6 . 2 3 : 1 5 1 1 0

— 6 . 2 7 : 1 5 0 6

— 6 . 4 4 : 151* — 6 . 5 9 : 1 5 0 6

— 6 . 7 1 : 1 5 1 " — 6 . 7 2 : 1 5 1 1 1

— 7 .4 : 1 5 1 1 1

— 7-85= 197 — 9 . 4 0 : 1 3 0 s 0

— 9 . 6 1 : 1 6 5 " — 9-67: 1 6 5 6 1

— 9-ii'i-l5- 1 6 5 " — 10.33: 7 7 1 6

— 10.120: 8 4 1 2

Diogenes of Oenoanda, 3 8 2 0 , 56 — Fr . 11 , col. 1 1—11 11 Grill i: 56

col. 11 4 - 8 : 1 7 0 6 8

col. n 9 - 1 1 : 5 6 s 8

Diogenes of Sinope, 1 5 0 6 , 1 5 1 9 1 0

— Ep. 3 2 : 1 5 1 1 2

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom. 1.37.5: 1 8 0 1 3

Dionysius Scytobrachion, 163 — FGrH 3 2 F 7 : 5 7 3 3 , 1 8 9 3 1 , 2 0 2 - 5

Dionysus, as bringer of culture, 160, 186; world expedition of, 155, 161

division of labor, 8 , 35, 5 2 , 132-33» ! 9 4 domestication of animals, 2 4 , 5 5 2 4

dynasteia, 102, 171

Ecdemus, 165-66 Egypt, 4 ; divine rulers of, 156, 1 6 0 3 5 ; and

Euhemeristic tradition, 1 5 4 - 5 5 ; a s ^Tst home of mankind, 1 8 0 - 8 3 , 1 8 7 - 8 8 ; as setting for Kulturgeschichte, 15-17, 39 , 5 0 7 , 1 5 5 2 6 , 1 7 9 - 8 0 , 1 8 8 - 8 9

eikos: 1 4 5 - 4 6 Empedocles, VS 3 1 B 3 5 . 5 - 1 0 : 5 8 3 '

B 1 0 6 : 4 0 2 6

— ap. Arist. Rhet. 1 .1373B14-17: 1 3 7 2 3

empiricist psychology, 4 7 ennoia, 8 2 , 8 5 - 8 6 , 129, 141 , 197, 2 0 0 - 1 environment, influence of on cultural develop

ment, 7 8 - 7 9 , 170-72 Ephorus, 5 6 "

— FGrH 7oT33d: 5

F 2 - 5 : 5 F 5 = 3 9 2 6 > 4 9 6

F 1 0 4 - 6 : 5 F 1 4 7 : 9 1 "

Epictetus 1 .29.9: g 6 2 5

Epicurean view of cultural development, 4 , 8 , 10, 11, 7 0 - 7 9 , 170-73; contrasted with that of

Democritus, 1 4 1 ; contrasted with that of Diodorus, 74, 7 8 - 7 9 ; contrasted with that of Polybius, 8 1 - 8 7 ; i t s relation to that of the Cynics, 1 7 1 7 1

Epicurus, and Democritus, 127, 168; and Nausiphanes, 1 6 8 - 6 9 > o n origin of language, 6 1 - 6 2 ; on social origins, 7 0 - 7 9

— Ad Herod. 3 8 : 7 2 " 7 4 : 1 7 2 7 3

7 5 : 7 2 6 , 7 8 - 7 9

7 5 - 7 6 : 9 . 6 1 - 6 2 — Ad Men. 124: 7 6 1 4

— RS 6 : 127, 169 7: 127, 169 3 1 : 72, 7 3 7 , 76 3 2 : 1 3 7 2 3

3 3 : 72, 7 3 ' 3 6 : 72, 76 3 7 : 7 6 1 4

3 8 : 7 6 1 4

— 172 Usener: 5 7 3 1

— 255 Usener,: 7 6 - 7 7 — 517 Usener: 7 8 1 9

— Pap. Here. 993 col, 3.Ü.2, p. 195 Arrighetti: 1 1 8 2 9

— Pap. Here. 1056, Fr . 6, col. 11 7 - 9 , pp. 3 2 8 - 3 9 Arrighetti: 7 3 s

epideictic oratory, Kulturgeschichte as a topos in, 6 - 7

Epiphanius, De fide 9 .25, p. 507 Holl: I 5 6 2 e

essential arts, antedate non-essential, 4 2 - 4 3 , 52 Ethiopia, 4 , 9 1 l s , 1 8 1 1 7

ethnography, 4 , 1 4 0 3 2 , 1 8 7 - 8 8 ethnos, 1 0 8 - 9 , 1 8 4 - 8 5 ; C I - tribes euetheia of primitive man, 150-51 Euhemerus, date of, 1 5 9 3 4 ; on deification of

Uranus, 2 0 2 - 5 ; and Democritus, 2 0 4 - 5 ; on development of culture, 9, 4 8 , 141 , 1 5 3 - 6 3 ; and Diodorus, 153-57 , 1 6 2 - 6 3 , 2 0 2 2 , 2 0 5 6 ; on ouranioi and epigeioi theoi, 156-57, 2 0 5 6

— FGrH 6 3 x 4 b : 1 6 2 4 5

T 4 C : 9 4 2 3 , 1 6 2 4 5 , 1 8 9 3 1

F 2 , p. 3 0 2 . 2 0 - 2 6 : 1 5 6 2 9

F 2 , p. 3 0 3 . 1 5 - 1 6 : I 5 6 2 9 , 2 0 2 2

F 2 - 3 : 153-55 F 3 . P- 3 0 6 . 1 4 : 1 5 7 3 0

F 3 , P- 3 0 6 . 2 1 : 2 0 4 - 5 F3» P- 3 0 8 - 8 - 9 : 1 5 4 1 8

F 7 : 1 5 4 2 » , 1 5 7 2 9

F I 4 : 9 I 1 8

F 1 9 - 2 4 : 153-55 F 2 1 : 1 5 7 2 9 , 2 0 2 - 5 F 2 3 : 162-63 F 2 3 , p. 3 1 2 . 1 1 - 1 2 : 1 5 6 2 9

F 2 4 : 1 8 7 , 9 4 2 3

— — F 2 8 : 1 5 4 1 8

— — F 2 9 : 1 5 7 3 0

eukrasia, and spontaneous generation, 1 8 0 - 8 3 euphyia, 4 1 , 1 8 6 2 8

I N D E X 217

Euripides, Bacchae 1 3 - 2 2 : 1 5 5 2 4

— Hec. 8 0 0 - 1 : 1 1 4 1 8 2 0

— Or. 1646, Schol.: 9 1 1 8

— Phoen. 1377: 6 6 1 5

— Suppl. 2 0 1 - 1 5 : 6 2 0 3 - 4 : 6 1 2

2 0 9 - 1 0 : 4 4 4 0

3 5 2 - 5 3 : 9 4 2 3

9 1 1 - 1 7 : 7 1 2

— Tr. 6 6 9 - 7 2 : 132 6 7 1 - 7 2 : 8 2 s

— Fr . 853 (TGF 6 3 8 ) : 1 1 4 2 0

— Fr . 9 8 1 {TGF 6 7 7 ) : 1 8 0 1 3

Eusebius, PE 2 .59B-61A: 1 5 6 s 9

Evenus of Paros, Fr . 9 Diehl: 1 1 7 2 8

evolutionary perspective in Kulturgeschichte, 1-3,

9. ' 3 . 3 6 » 54. 6 2 , 139 expansion of aggregates, 107-10 , 116-17, 1 1 9 " ,

I 3 4 8 , ' 3 5 1 6 . 166 experience, 4 0 , 5 8 , 8 9 ; cf. chreia, tribe, usus external and internal enemies of society, 1 2 2 - 2 6

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, 76, 1 1 5 " , 1 9 8 - 2 0 0 ; as source of social and political institutions, 8 , 8 8 , 1 0 7 - 8 , 112-17, 119, 133,

I 3 5 1 5

federalism, 166 fine arts, origin of, 4 3 , 5 2 , 57 , 104, 115 fire, condemned by Cynics, 150; discovery of,

15-16, 3 0 - 3 2 ; effects on human life, 5, 2 1 - 2 2 , 38 , 1 7 1 7 0 ; as signal, 66

Firmicus Maternus 1.7.16: 1 8 0 1 3

food, gathering of, 4 , 27, 2 9 , 5 4 , 186; storage of, 27, 29 , 186

force, prevalence of in early human relationships, 9 0 - 9 3 , 9 5 - 9 6 , 111-12, 118, 1 1 9 - 2 0 , 171

forethought, 32 , 41 fusion of customs and languages, 1 0 8 - 9 , ' 4 4 - 4 5 .

185

Gellius, Aulus, Noct. Att. 5 . 3 . 1 - 6 : 57 12.5.7: 196, 2 0 0 3

gods, benefactors and inventors worshipped as, 9, 15-16, 4 8 , 1 5 5 - 5 8 , 1 8 6 - 8 8 , 1 9 0 - 9 1 ; homonymous with mortals, 155, 157; as kings of Egypt, names of, 6 8 1 7 , 2 0 3 ; origin of belief in according to Democritus, 2 0 2 ; origin of belief in according to Prodicus, 156; ouranioi and epigeioi, 1 5 5 - 5 8 , 1 9 0 - 9 1 , 2 0 2 1 2 , 205

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 2 0

— B n a 3 o : 6, 6 6 1 4

gradualism, 4 7 , 6 7 , 8 7 , 92 grain, 6, 3 0 - 3 1 , 9 a 1 * , 104, 154, 1 5 8 - 5 9 , 1 8 6 2 7

grass, as food of primitive man, 6 , 7 1 9 , 5 1 1 2 , 55 , 1 6 0 3 6 , 184

Grattius Faliscus, Cynegetica 6 - 9 : 195 Gregory Nazianzenus, 5 1 3

— Or. 4 . 1 0 8 : 4 8 " Gregory of Nyssa, Horn. opif. 8.144BC: 4 1 2 8 3 2

148C-49A: 4 1 3 2

gymnosophists, 9 2 8

habit, 131-32, 142; cf. nomos, synetheia hands, 2 1 , 4 0 - 4 1 Hecataeus of Abdera, 11 , 159, 1 6 0 3 6 , 176

— FGrH 264F6.3: 9 4 2 3

F 6 , p. 1 4 . 1 0 - 1 7 : 1 6 0 3 6

Hecataeus of Miletus, F G r H 1 F 3 0 0 : 1 0 1 5

Hellenistic theories, of community, 1 3 6 - 4 2 ; of cultural history, 1 4 6 - 4 7 ; of primitive kingship, 161-63

Hephaestus, as bringer of culture, 6 ; as discoverer of fire, 15, 18, 1 9 - 2 0 ; equated with Ptah, 2 0 1 2 , 1 6 0 3 5

Heracles, 4 4 - 4 5 , 5 7 3 3 , ' 5 5 Heraclides Ponticus, Fr . 152 Wehrli: 5 Heraclids, 166 Hermarchus, on social origins, 7 1 - 7 5 ; views on

social origins compared with those of Poly-bius, 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 , 1 2 3 - 2 6 Hermes, as discoverer of weaving, 3 9 ; as giver

of language, 2 1 , 6 9 1 9 , 108, 185, 1 8 9 ; as inventor of music, writing, and dancing, 4 3 ; as royal counselor, 3 9 ; 1 5 4 2 0 , 155

Hermippus ap. Hyginus, Astr 2 . 2 0 : 1 5 9 3 3

hero cults, 1 5 6 2 8

Herodotus, speculative ethnology in, 1 4 4 - 4 6 , 148* — 1.66.2: 6 — 1 . 9 6 . 2 - 9 8 . 1 : 9 1 1 8

— 1.142.3: 7 1 2

— 2 . 4 2 . 4 : 7 1 2

— 2 . 4 4 . 5 : 155 — 2 . 6 8 : 1 3 6 1 6

— 2 . 1 4 2 . 4 : I O I 5

— 2 .143: I O I 5

— 2 - ' 4 4 : 155 — 2 . 1 4 6 : 156 — 3 . 1 0 6 : 1 8 0 1 3

— 3 . 1 0 8 : 5 1 " — 4 . 1 1 0 - 1 7 : 143-45

— 4 - 1 8 3 . 4 : 7 1 * Hesiod, 1, 9 ; and Dicaearchus, 149; and

euhemerists, 155, 157; and Laws I I I , 149; and Tzetzes, 10, 2 0 - 2 1 , 1 4 8 - 4 9 — Works and Days, 117—18: 149

1 2 0 : 2 4

2 7 6 - 7 8 : 132

2 l 8 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

heurematistic works, 3 9 , 5, 4 8 - 5 0 Hierocles Stoicus, col. 6 . 2 2 - 1 1 . 2 1 : 1 3 8 2 5 2 6

Hippias of Elis, VS 8 6 A 1 1 : 5 Hippocratic corpus, Airs, Waters, Places 12 and

16: 1 7 1 7 0 , 1 7 2 " — De vet. med. 3 : 7 1 8 , 5 1 1 2

history, contrasted with pre-history, 4 4 - 4 5 , 4 9 , 161, I go; reconstructions of, 145-47

Homer, 1-2 —11. 1.272, 5 . 3 0 4 , 12.383, 12.449, 2 0 . 2 8 7 :

1 3

Od. 4 . 4 7 7 : 2 0 3 4

homicide, 7 1 - 7 2 , 1 2 3 - 2 6 , 1 3 7 2 3

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 2

1 .3 .103-4: 6 1 2

1.3.105: 6 7 1 6

Horus, 155 houses, 3 0 - 3 2 ; roofing of, 3 1 8

Hyginus, 5 1 3

— Astron. 2 . 2 0 : 2 0 1 3 , 39 — Fab. 2 7 4 : 4 8 2

2 7 4 . 2 0 - 2 1 : 6 6 1 5

2 7 4 . 2 2 : 5 0 7

Hymni Homerici 2 0 . 1 - 7 : 6 — 2 0 . 4 : 2 g 6

Iamblichus, VP 108: 1 3 7 2 3

Iambulus ap. Diodorus 2 . 5 7 . 1 : 1 1 8 2 9

ignorance, in primitive man, 10, 150—51, 1 7 1 7 1

imitation, as source of arts, 19 9 , 32 , 3 4 - 3 5 , 39 ,

4 7 , 57 , 194 India, 4 , 186 individual, gifted, his role in the development of

culture, 2, 35—36, 72, 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 1

indolence, as characteristic of Golden Age, 9 ingenuity of man, 2 ; cf. anchinoia, forethought,

logismos synesis innate ideas, 2, 7 7 1 5 , 7 8 2 0

instinct, 1 4 2 - 4 3 , 1 9 7 - 2 0 0 ; cf. nature interdependence, increase of in development of

culture, 5 8 - 5 9 , 115-16, 119 intuition, 7 2 - 7 6 inventors, 5, 4 8 - 5 0 , 1 5 3 - 5 6 ; as kings, 15-16,

1 8 7 , 1 6 1 3 9 , 1 8 8 ; deified, 9 , 15-16, 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 1 2

— 3 . 1 6 . 1 : 5 1 2

— 3 . 2 2 . 8 : 5 1 2 , 4 4 3 9

— 3 . 2 5 . 1 : 5 1 2

- 4 - 3 - i : 5 1 2

— 5 . 1 . 1 - 2 : 5 1 2

— 6 . 1 0 . 1 : 5 1 2

— 1 5 . 2 : 5 - 6 : 6 5 1 3

Isis, as bringer of laws, 33 , 155; as discoverer of grain, 3 0 , 4 8 3 , i 5 8 - 5 g , 1 8 6 2 7

Isocrates, i 6 g 6 6

— Antid. 2 5 3 - 5 4 : 7 2 5 3 - 5 7 : 8 6 1 3

— Areop. 3 1 - 3 5 : 1 2 2 3 8

— Bus. 15: 4 3 3 7 , 5 3 1 8

— Dem. 16: 1 1 4 2 0

— Evag. 7 : 8 2 0

— Helen: 3 2 - 3 7 : 9 4 2 3

— Nicocles: 5—6: 7 5 - 9 : 8 6 1 3

2 6 : 203 — Panath. n g - 4 8 : 7

1 2 1 : 102 128: 9 4 2 3

1 6 4 - 6 6 : 1 1 6 2 5

— Paneg. 2 8 - 2 g : 134 8

2 8 - 4 0 : 7

3 2 - 3 3 : ! 3 4 8

3 4 - 4 2 : 1 1 6 2 5

3 9 : 102 3 9 - 4 o : 9 4 2 3 , 134«

4 0 : 5 3 1 8

4 2 : 134 8

5 0 : 133 isonomia, 5 1 1 3

Jews, prehistory of, 1 6 0 3 6

John Philoponus, commentary to the Isagoge of Nicomachus of Gerasa, pp. 1 .8-2.42 Hoche: 5 2 1 5

Julian, Misopogon 3 5 3 A : 1 1 8 2 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 1 3

Juvenal 1 5 . 1 4 2 - 5 9 : 6 6 1 5

kathekon, 8 2 7 , 197-201 kingship, conferred on benefactors, 15-16, 18 7 ,

9 4 2 3 , 125-27, 1 6 1 ; date of earliest, 4 5 , 178, 1 9 1 ; in Epicurean theory, 7 5 1 1 , 9 1 1 8 , 127, i 6 g ; as guarantee of law and order, 7 6 1 1 , go-92, 1 2 5 - 2 7 ; influences primitive notions about the gods, 2 0 3 ; in Laws I I I , 102; origins of, 9 0 - 9 3 , 1 2 0 - 3 0 ; in Polybius, 9 0 - 9 3

koine dailektos, 108, 1 8 5 2 6

kosmoi, atomistic and social, 107, 1 1 7 - 2 0 ; expansion and destruction of, 109-10 , 119-20

Lactantius, Inst. Div. 1.11.63: 1 5 7 2 9 , 2 0 5 6

— 1.22.2 ff: 162-63 — 1.22.7: 1 5 6 2 9

— 6 . 1 0 . 1 3 - 1 5 : g 2 4 , 6 4 language, articulation of, 3 3 1 0 ; assimilation

and fusion of, 1 0 8 - 9 , ' 4 4 ~ 4 5 , ' 8 5 ; and Hermes, 2 1 , 6 9 1 9 , 108, 185; 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 ; a s reflection of

I N D E X 219

reality, 6 8 ; and society, 35, 6 5 - 6 7 , 8 5 - 8 6 ;

thesis and physis theories of, 2, 6 1 , 6 2 - 6 3 ,

6 7 - 6 9 , 109, 2 0 4 6

law, origin of, 73, 7 5 - 7 7 , 100, 102; unwritten, see agraphoi nomoi, nomos

lawgivers, 102-9

Leo "of Pella", incorrect designation for author of apocryphal letter of Alexander to Olympias, 2 0 1 3 ; date of, 1 5 5 2 5 , 1 5 8 s 2 , 1 5 9 3 3 ; and Diodorus, 1 5 8 - 5 9 ; on gods, 1 5 3 - 6 3 ; relation of to Euhemerus, 1 5 9 3 3 ; on discovery of wool and weaving, 3 9 , 183, 186

— FGrH 6 5 9 T 1 - 2 : 157 T 2 a : 158

F t : 157-58

F 5 : 2 0 1 2 , 153-55

F 6 : 153-55, ' 5 4 2 0 , 158 F 9 : 2 0 1 2 , 154-55 Fga: 3 4 1 5 , 158, 1 5 9 3 3

Leucippus, 147 — K S 6 7 A 1 : i i 7 2 « , u 8 2 9 , 1 1 9 3 5

A 6 : 6 8 1 7 , 1 1 7 2 6 2 7

A 9 : 6 8 1 7

A 1 5 : 1 1 7 2 6

A 2 8 : 1 1 7 2 7

B 2 : 4 2 3 3

like-to-like, principle of, 8 3 - 8 4 , 100, 131, 1 3 7 2 3

Linus, as inventor of music, 5 7 3 3

Livy 1.16.3: 5 8 3 5

logioi, 5 8 3 1 , 1 0 9 7 , 2 0 4 5 ; cf. Democritus B 3 0

logismos, in animals, 8 1 6 ; contrasting roles in Vitruvius, Diodorus, and Epicurus, 7 8 - 7 9 ; in Democritus, 1 1 8 s 1 ; distinguishes man from animals, 7 7 - 7 8 , 8 1 , 8 8 , 9 0 , 132; and establishment of social concord, 1 2 1 - 2 2 ; and morality, 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 s

loom, invention of, 1 9 8

Lucian, Am. 3 3 - 3 5 : 8 2 1

3 4 : > 9 5 3

— Drap. 17: 1 5 1 1 2

Lucretius, fifth book of, 3 - 4 , 10, n 3 3 , 2 6 - 4 5 passim, 170-73 — 1 . 8 9 7 - 9 0 0 : 17 6

— 2 . 1 0 2 3 - 8 9 : 1 7 2 7 2

— 2 . 1 1 0 5 - 7 2 : 1 7 2 7 2

— 4 . 1 0 7 1 : 2 8 4

— 4 . 1 2 8 3 : 8 4 1 2

— 5 - I 9 5 - 2 3 4 : 5 ' 1 2

— 5 . 3 2 4 - 2 7 : 1 7 2 7 4

— 5 - 9 2 5 - 3 0 : 78 — 5 . 9 3 2 : 2 1 , 27, 2 8 4

— 5 - 9 3 7 - 3 8 : 27 — 5 . 9 4 2 - 4 4 : 27, 78, 1 7 2 7 2

— 5 - 9 4 5 - 5 7 : 27, 29 , 1 7 1 7 1

— 5 - 9 5 8 - 5 9 : I 5 0 3

— 5 - 9 7 3 - 7 6 : ' 5 ' 8 > 1 7 1 7 1

— 5 . 9 9 0 - 1 0 0 0 : 1 7 1 6 9

— 5 . 9 9 8 : 1 7 1 ' 1

— 5 . 1 0 1 1 - 2 3 : 2 2 , 3 0 , 3 3 , 3 4 , 6 3 , 75, 76, 7 8 - 7 9 ,

1 1 5 2 4 , 1 7 1 7 0 , 2 0 0 - 1

— 5 . 1 0 2 4 - 2 5 : 75 — 5 . 1 0 2 8 - 2 9 : 33, 6 0 - 6 1 — 5 . 1 0 3 0 - 9 0 : 61

— 5 . 1 0 4 6 - 4 8 : 6 1 3

— 5 . 1 0 8 7 - 8 8 : 27, 6 1 2

— 5 . 1 0 9 0 - 1 1 0 4 : 2 0 . 2 5 1 , 3 0 , 3 1 , 5 7 3 2

— 5 . 1 1 0 5 - 1 4 : 1 8 7 , 22 , 33, 3 4 , 36, 9 1 1 8

— 5 . 1 1 0 8 - 4 0 : 7 5 1 1 , 127

— 5 - " 4 3 - 5 i : 7 5 " 7 7 , 7 5 1 1

— 5 . 1 2 4 1 - 6 8 : 17, 37

— 5 . 1 2 8 3 - 8 6 : 2 0 , 37 , 5 0 7 , 8 4 1 2

— 5 . 1 2 8 7 - 9 5 : 3 8 "

— 5 . 1 3 0 8 - 4 9 : 1 9 1 0

- — 5 - 1 3 5 0 - 5 3 : "7 , 37. 4 7 1 . I 0 3 1 2

— 5 - i 3 5 4 - 8 o : 194 — 5 - 1 3 6 1 - 6 6 : 17, 37

— 5 - I 3 7 9 - 8 3 : 43 — 5 - I 4 3 7 - 3 9 : 42 — 5 . 1 4 4 0 - 4 7 : 4 4 , 5 0 7 , 191

— 5 - ' 4 5 2 - 5 5 : 4 0 — 5 - I 4 5 6 - 5 7 : 3 8 , 172 - 6 . 1 - 4 : 7 "

— 6 . 1 - 4 1 : 172

— 6 . 9 6 6 - 6 9 : 3 1 7

Lycortas, 166

Lycurgus, Leocr. 15: 1 1 4 2 0

8 8 : 1 6 1 3 9

94 and 9 7 : 1 1 4 2 0

1 4 1 : 7 6 1 3

lyre, invention of, 4 3 3 9

Lysias 10 .32: 1 0 4 1 6

— 2 5 . 8 : 1 4 2 3 5

Macrobius, Sat. 1 .7 .21: 10 Manetho, 1 5 9 3 6

— FGrH 6 o g F 3 a : 155, 1 6 0 3 5

Manilius 1 .66-112: 7

- 8 3 - 8 4 : 3 4 1 4

— 8 7 - 8 8 : 4 4 4 0

— 8g-go: 4 0 2 6

— 8 5 6 - 5 7 : 1 7 5

mantic art, discovery of, 1 0 5 1 9

Maximus of Tyre, primitivism in, 2 8 3

— 23.5 B C : 1 5 0 4

— 32-3B: 4 3 3 7

— 3 6 . 1 F : 1 5 0 4

— 3 6 . I H : 1 5 1 1 2

— 36.2 F G : 1 5 1 8

medicine, 10, 4 g 6 , 5 1 1 2

Megalophanes, 1 6 5 - 6 6

Megasthenes, FGrH 7 1 5 F 1 2 : 1 8 7 , g i 1 8

memory, 32 , 72, 82 s , 87 „

Mercury: see Hermes , "'"·' , metallurgy, 17-18, 1 9 - 2 0 , 3 6 - 3 8 ^ 163-^4

metarhysmor, . 1 7 - 1 8 I n s t i l V *

!«jLi I do \<A

* 3 \ G t e c Q

2 2 0 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

Metrodorus, Epicurean philosopher, 168 — Frs. 2 5 - 2 7 Koerte: 1 6 8 6 5

— Frs. 3 9 - 4 1 Koerte: 1 6 9 6 6

mice, spontaneous generation of, 182 mining, 17, 1 9 - 2 0 , 3 6 - 3 7 mixed constitution, 1 6 7 5 8

monorchia, 102 morals, origin of, 2, 5, 7 0 - 9 0 , 1 2 8 - 2 9 , 165,

1 9 7 - 2 0 0 Moschion, Fr . 6 (TGF 8 1 3 - 1 4 ) : 2 6 , 9 , 29«, 6 6 1 5 ,

I I I 1 2

Moses, as culture hero, 9 4 2 3 , 1 6 0 3 5

motion, in Aristotle, 1 4 6 4 4

mules, 5 6 Musaeus, 5 7 , 1 0 6 2 0

music, invention of, 4 2 - 4 3 mythos, in reconstruction of pre-history, 1 4 3 - 4 7 ,

161

natural endowments of man, 16, 4 1 - 4 2 , 186 naturalism and teleology, ig, 4 2 s 3 , 4 7 , 9 5 - 9 6 ,

131 nature, and convention in Epicurean linguistic

and social theory, 6 1 - 6 2 , 7 2 ; imitated by art, 19*, 3 2 , 3 3 1 " , 4 7 . 57 . " 9 4 ; a n d nomas, 1 4 0 - 4 3 , 1 7 0 - 7 1 ; as product of habit, 1 1 7 2 8 ; state of, 2 6 , 8 , 149

Nausiphanes, 1 6 7 - 6 9 — VS 7 5 A 1 - 9 : 168

B 2 , p. 2 4 8 . 1 8 - i g : 167 navigation, 7, 4 4 4 0 , 4 9 s

necessity, 4 , 3 2 , 4 3 , 7 8 2 2 , 118; cf. biological determinism

need, 4 1 , 1 2 3 - 2 4 Nemesius, Nat. horn. 5 0 - 5 1 Matthaei: 5 1 9

Nicomachus of Gerasa, Isagoge, 5 2 1 5

nomadic life of early man, 2 7 - 2 8 , 55 2 4 , 184 nomizomena, 8 2 , 112—15; cf. social norms nomas, and physis, 1 4 0 - 4 3 , 1 7 0 - 7 1 ; and develop

ment of language, 6 7 - 6 9 , 109 novelty, defended by reference to Kulturge

schichte, 7 - 8

Ocellus Lucanus, 1 0 1 ' Ogygus, 1 0 1 6

oikeios, 1 3 3 5

oikeiosis, Stoic doctrine of, 1 3 8 - 4 1 , 164, 1 9 6 - 9 8 oikeiotes, Peripatetic doctrine of, 137-38, 1 4 0 - 4 1 Onesicritus, FGrH 134F17, p. 7 2 8 . 2 3 - 3 0 : g 2 8

— F 2 1 , p. 7 3 0 . 2 6 - 3 7 : 9 1 1 8

Oracula Sibyllina 3 . 1 2 7 - 2 8 : 9 1 1 8

Origen, Contra Cels. 4 . 7 6 : 5 1 9 1 2

Orpheus, in Aristotle and Democritus, 1 0 6 2 0 ; as bringer of culture, 6 ; as pupil of Linus, 5 7 s 3

Osiris, as patron of technology, 2 0 , 3 4 , 3 g ; as discoverer of plow, 3 8 1 9 ; equated with Dionysus, 155, 1 6 1 ; and Zeus, 155

Ovid, A A 2 . 4 7 3 - 8 0 : 7, 8 3 s

— Fasti 2 . 2 8 g - 3 0 2 : g 2 7

— Met. 1 . 4 3 0 - 3 1 : 1-81 1 6

Palamedes, 6, 6 6 1 4

Panaetius, 1 4 0 2 9 , 1 6 6 6 4 , i g 6 , i g 8 - 2 0 o Pandora, allegorized as technology, 21 parents, authority of as basis of political order,

112, 1 3 5 1 5 ; authority of in Plato's account of social origins, 111-12, 116-17; relation of to offspring among men and animals, i . i 3 - « 5

pastoral stage in development of culture, 4 ,

5 4 - 5 6

Pausanias 8 . 1 . 4 - 6 : 4 , 5 1 9

— 8 . 2 g . 4 : i 8 i l s

Peloponnesus, early history of, 4 , 166 Peripatetics, on intelligence of animals, 8 1 6 ;

and Lucretius, 173; on primitive man, 8 , 1 1 3 3 , 5 2 , 1 4 1 ; theories of community of, 1 3 6 - 3 8 , 1 4 0 - 4 1

Persia, history of, 4 Petronius 8 8 . 2 : 3 4 1 4

philallelia, 2 8 4 , 3 6 , 152 philia, theories of, in Aristotle and his predeces

sors, 1 3 4 - 3 6 ; in Democritus, 117, 121 Philo of Alexandria, Aet. mundi 55 ff.: 172 7 3

Philo of Byblos, 1 5 7 2 ' — FGrH 7 g o F i , p. 8 0 6 . 5 - 1 0 : 2 0 5 6

F 2 , p. 8 0 7 . 2 1 : 5 0 7

F 2 , p. 8 0 8 . 2 - 1 4 : 4 g 3

F 2 , p. 8 0 9 . 1 6 - 1 7 : 2 0 5 6

F 3 , p. 8 1 4 . 1 1 - 1 2 : 2 0 5 6

Philochorus, FGrH 3 2 8 F 2 : 4 — F 9 3 " 9 8 : 4 — F g 6 : g 4

2 3

Philodemus, Depiet. 5a , p. 6g Gomperz: 2 0 3 4

9-7. P- 7 5 : i 5 6 2 7

— nepl TWV ßewv I , col. xv 1 6 - 3 4 , PP- 2 6 - 2 7 Diels: 7 8 2 1

— Rhetorica I I , pp. 1-50 Sudhaus: 16 xvi 2, 4 - 6 and 12-13, P- 8 : 6 8 6 1

col. 7 .7-10, p. 9 : 168 col. 8 . 5 - 9 , p. 10: 168 x x i v 1 -8: 168, 1 6 8 2 2

xxxvi 1 9 - 2 2 . 2 , p. 3 3 : 1 6 8 6 3

col. 2 2 . 3 - 8 , p. 3 3 : 1 6 8 6 2

col. 23 .11-13 , p. 3 5 : i 6 g 6 6

col. 26.5 -g , p. 3 g : 168 col. 2 7 . 1 - 7 , p. 4 0 : 1 6 9 6 7

X L V I I I 2 1 - L v m 9 , pp. 5 0 - 6 4 : log 6 6

Philopoemen, 165-66 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 , 172; and politics, 1 6 6 - 6 9 ; and useful arts, 5 3 1 8

Philostephanus, ap. Servius ad Georg. 1.1g (Fr. 28 Müller): 3 8 1 9

Photius, Cod. 249 4 4 0 B 3 9 : 8 2 5

4 4 0 B 3 9 - 4 1 A 3 : 4 1 2 8

4 4 1 A 1 6 - 1 8 : 1 8 1 1 5

— Cod. 2 5 0 : see Agatharchides physical inferiority of man, 51

I N D E X 221

physics, Democritean, 107, 147; Aristotelian, 1 4 6 "

physiologia, 167-69 physique of man, 41—42 piety, 1 1 4 2 0

Pindar, 142

— 01. 2 . 8 3 - 8 5 : 6 8 " Plato, on nomos, I43 3"; on origin of culture, 3—4,

8, 52—55, 9 7 - 1 0 0 ; theory of cultural origins connected with that of Polybius, 1 0 0 - 2 , i n , 115-17, 132, 1 6 9 - 7 0 ; views on cultural origins connected with those of Democritus, 11 , 107-12 , 115-17, 119, 1 2 8 - 3 0 , 149

— Cratylus: 6 8

3 9 7 C ° : ΙΦ

— Critias 1 0 9 B - 1 0 D : 9 , 5 2 , 9 9 , 1 0 1 6

— Euthydemus, 2 8 9 A - 9 0 B : 1 0 5 1 8

— Gorgias: 8 4 * 1

483AC: I I I 1 2

— Epinomis947E-76C:5216,103,104,10518 l e ,

1 2 5 "

— Ep. 8 . 3 5 4 B : 1 6 6 s 6

— Horoi 4 1 2 E and 4 1 3 D : 4 1 2 8

— Laws 3 . 6 7 7 Α - 8 3 Α : 3 - 4 , 9 7 - 1 0 3 676BC: 1 0 3 1 3

6 7 7 E : 100 679AC: 1 0 0 s

6 7 9 E : 9 9 z

6 8 O B : 1 0 2 8

6 8 O D E : 111

6 8 I A C : 108

6 9 0 D - 9 3 0 : 1 6 6 5 6

— Laws 4 . 7 0 8 c : 1 3 2 1

4 . 7 2 4 A : 1 1 4 2 0

6 . 7 8 1 E - 8 2 A : ι ο ί 6 , 1 0 3 1 3

6.782Β: I 0 3 1 3 , I 0 4 1 4

8 . 8 3 7 A : I 3 6 1 8

9 · 8 5 4 Ε = " 4 2 0

— Lysis 2 1 4 C D : 1 3 6 1 8

— Mem 73A and 91A: 1 3 3 5

— Phaedrus 271C-72B: 168 2 7 4 c : 155

— Politicus: 2 8 3 , 5 2 - 5 4 , g9 2 7 1 D E : 1 0 3 1 3

2 7 3 A - 7 4 D : 9, 5 2 1 4

— Protagoras, myth of: 8 , 5 0 - 5 1 , 128 3 1 8 E - 1 9 A : 1 3 3 5

321AD: 5 1 9

3 2 2 A : 6 1 2

3 2 2 B : i n 1 3 , 123-25

325A and D : Ι 1 4 2 0

3 2 7 E - 2 8 A : 7 1 2

— Republic, Book 2 : 8, 5 2 , 8 4 1 1 , 147 2 .350B: 1 3 6 1 8

2.351CE: 1 3 6 1 8

2.369D: 5 1 9

2.374E-76C: 1 2 5 4 5

4-435E: 1 4 2 3 4

8.544DE: 1 4 2 3 4

— Theaet. 167c: 7 1 *

— Timaeus: 5 2 - 5 4 , 9 9 , 1 0 1 5

2 2 B - 2 5 D : 9 2 3 A B : 191

2 4 c : 1 8 0 1 3

pleasure, 3 2 , 3 9 , 4 7 , 195 Pliny the Elder, 4 9 "

— J V H 7 . 1 9 1 : 3 1 ' , 4 9 5

7-!94= 5. 5 ° ' 7 . 196: 3 9 2 5

7.197: 1 5 4 1 8

7 . 2 0 0 : 5, 5 0 7

7 . 2 0 1 : 6 6 1 5

7 . 2 0 2 : 6 6 1 4

7 . 2 0 5 : 4 5 4 1

7 . 2 0 9 : 4 9 5

8 . 2 3 : 2 8 4

10 .4 : 1 5 7 3 »

Pliny the Younger, Ep. 8 . 2 4 . 2 : 7 1 7

plow, invention of, 3 8 Plutarch, Aq. an ign. 2 . 9 5 6 B : 150

— Alex. 3 2 9 C D : 1 3 7 2 3

— Am. prol. 2 . 4 9 5 A : 1 1 4 2 2

— Aratus 5 and 7 : 165

— Div. p. 1 13 .1 -9 Bernadakis: 4 3 " — Fort. Alex. 3 2 9 C D : 1 3 7 - 3 8 2 3

— Is. et Os. 13.356A: 48°

— Lat. viv. 5 . 1129E: 5 8 s 6

— Philopoemen 1 : 166

— Quaest. corw. 3 .6 .655D and 8 . 3 . 7 2 2 D : s 8 3 6

— Soll. anim. 1 3 . 9 7 0 A B : 1 3 2 3

poetry, origin of, 4 4 , 4 8 , 5 7 ; as civilizing force, 7 polemike techne, 1 2 3 - 2 5 political institutions, 8 , 4 9 ' , 7 6 1 1 , 9 3 , 1 6 7 5 8

politics, philosophy and, 1 6 6 - 6 9 politike philia, 13515

politike techne, 5 0 - 5 1 , 123

Polybius, and Democritus, 1 0 7 - 3 0 passim, 131-32, 1 6 3 - 7 0 ; and Epicurean genealogy of morals, 8 1 - 8 7 ; and Kulturgeschichte of Laws I I I , 1 0 0 - 2 , 110-12 , 115-17, 132; and Posidonius, 9 5 - 9 6 ; on social origins, 8 , 8 0 - 9 4 ; o n sources of community, 1 3 1 - 4 2 ; and Stoics, n 3 5 , 8 2 7 , 1 9 6 - 2 0 1

— 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 2 » — 6 . 5 . 1 : 165 — 6 . 5 . 4 : 9 3 , 1 1 8 3 0

— 6 . 5 . 5 - 9 : 8 0

— 6 . 5 . 6 : 1 1 9 3 3

- 6 . 5 . 6 - 7 : 8 3

— 6 . 5 . 7 : 9 42 3 , 1 4 5 »

— 6 . 5 . 7 - 8 : 9 5 , n o

— 6 . 5 . 7 - 9 : 9 0

— 6 . 5 . 8 : I I I — 6 . 5 . 9 : I 4 5 4 1

— 6 . 5 . I O : 8 0 , 8 2 - 8 4 , I 0 2 9 , I l 8 3 0 , 129

2 2 2 D E M O C R I T U S AND T H E SOURCES OF G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

Polybius (cont.) — 6 . 5 . 1 0 - 6 . 9 : 8 0 - 8 1 — 6 . 6 . : 1 0 2 1 0

— 6 . 6 . 1 - 9 : 8 5 - 9 0 — 6 . 6 . 2 : 164, 197 — 6 . 6 . 2 - 5 : 113, 198 — 6 . 6 . 3 : 1 4 5 4 1

— 6 . 6 . 4 : 8 1 , 8 7 , 1 4 5 " , 197 — 6 . 6 . 6 : 8 2 " , 8 9 , 1 4 5 4 1

— 6 . 6 . 6 - 7 : 9 4 " — 6 . 6 . 7 : 197 — 6 . 6 . 8 : 8 6 , 104, 1 4 5 4 1

— 6.6.8--12: 122-29 — 6 . 6 . 9 : 8 2 , 9 4 2 2 , 1 4 5 4 1 , 197, 201 — 6 . 6 . 1 0 : g i 1 8

— 6 . 6 . 1 0 - 1 2 : 9 0 - 9 3 — 6 . 6 . 1 0 - 7 . 2 : 120-22 — 6 . 6 . 1 1 : 1 0 2 9

— 6 . 6 . 1 2 : 9 4 2 3

— 6 . 6 . 1 2 - 7 . 2 : 129 — 6 . 6 . 1 2 - 7 . 3 : 118 — 6 . 7 . 1 : 9 3 , 1 0 2 1 0 , 1 1 8 3 0

— 6 . 7 . 3 - 4 : 91 — 6 . 7 . 4 : g i 1 8 , g 4 2 3

— 6 . 7 . 6 - 8 : 1 6 7 s 8

— 6 . 8 . 4 - 6 : 1 6 7 s 8

— 6 . 9 . 5 - 6 : 1 6 7 5 8

— 6 . 5 7 . 5 - 9 : 1 6 7 5 8

— 10.21 .6: 1 6 6 5 5

— 1 0 . 2 2 . 2 : 165 — 10.22.5 : 1 6 6 5 5

— 12.26c: 165 Polystratus, 7 7 - 7 9 , 113-14

— Περί αλόγου καταφρονήσεων, col. XIVa3~5: 82

x v a 3 ~ 4 : 82 xviag-i 1 : 82 Fr. 3 . 4 - 4 3 6 : 78 Fr. 6 b 4 - 7 a 7 : 78 Fr . 7 a 2 : 82 Fr. 7 3 2 - 5 : 7 3 9

Pomponius Mela 3 . 8 6 : 9 1 1 8

ponos, in life of early man, 150 popular sentiment, as factor in political develop

ment, 9 2 ; reduced importance of in Euhem-erus, 1 6 2 - 6 3 , 205

Porphyry, De abst.: see Hermarchus Posidonius, on development of culture, 7, 10,

11, 18-19, 2 6 - 4 5 passim, 4 g 6 , 5 3 - 5 4 , 1 4 1 ; and Aristotle, 5 3 - 5 4 ; and Diodorus, i 8 g 3 2 ; and Polybius, g 5 ~ g 6 ; and Vitriuvius, 1 9 3 - 9 5 ; cf. Seneca, Ep. go — ap. Strabo 3 . 147: 17 5

pottery, 1 0 3 - 4 pre-Socratics, 5, 2 3 1 7 , ι ο ί 5 , 172 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

Dicaearchus, 5 5 s 3 ; chronological and cultural, 2 4 , 9 9 4 ; "hard", 2 2 1 6 , 5 4 1 9 , 150, 1 7 1 "

Priscian, Inst. 1.1-2: 3 3 1 0

1 5 4 1 : 3 3 1 0

Prodicus, 156, 1 6 1 3 8

— VS 8 4 B 5 : g 2 5 , 1 2 g 5 9 , 1 5 6 2 6

Protagoras, 8, 5 0 - 5 1 , 123, 125 — VS 8 0 A 1 0 : 7 1 4

B 8 b : 5, 2 0 3 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, 150; as culture-bringer, 6 ; cf. Aeschylus, P V

prostates, and king, 122-27 pwta kata physin, 164, 167-68 providence, 2, 5 1 1 2

Prudentius, Contra Symm. 2 . 2 7 2 - 3 1 7 : 8 Ptah, 2 0 1 2 , 1 6 0 3 5

Ptolemaic Egypt, influence of on accounts of primitive man, 162

punishment: see rewards Pyrrhon, 1 6 5 5 1

Pythagoreans, 1 3 0 6 0

Quellenforschung, 10-13 Quintilian 1.5.2: 6 1 1

R a , 1 6 0 3 5

rational nature of man, 1 3 9 - 4 0 , 1 9 7 - 2 0 0 reasoning: see anchinoia, forethought, logismos,

synesis reciprocity, in conferring services, 8 7 - 9 0 , 1 1 2 -

16; increasing importance of, 116; linked to justice, 126; in parent-child relationships, 112-13

reconstruction of prehistory from inference, 4 4 - 4 5 , 145-46, 191

Reinhardt, K . , u , 16, 174-76, 182, 184, 192,

193-95 religion, origin of, 9, 2 0 2 - 5 reminder, role of in Epicurian genealogy of

morals, 7 2 - 7 6 rewards and punishments, 3 4 - 3 5 , 39, 8 5 , 8 8 - 9 0 ,

93 , 9 4 2 2 > l l 9 3 i , 168 rhetoric, topoi of derived horn Kulturgeschichte, 6 ;

and philosophical wisdom, 168 rhysmos, 117-20

SIG3 704, p. 3 2 4 . 1 2 - 1 5 : 7 " Sanchuniathon, 4 g 3 , 5 0 ' sacrifice, history of, g, 3 8 1 8 , 49* , 55, 158-59,

1 6 0 3 5

Saturn, 10 Saufeius, Lucius, ap. Servius ad Aen. 1.6: 65 Sceptics, 8, 77 Seneca, De clem. 1.19.2: 9 6 "

— Ep. 6 5 . 2 4 : 9 6 2 5

— Ep. 9 0 : 7

I N D E X 223

4 - 5 : 95, 9 6 " 6 : 7 5 " 7: 2 9 - 3 0 , 3 6 1 6

1 0 : 3 1 s

1 1 : 17» 37, 5 4 2 0

12: 17, 37

13: 4 7 1

14: 19 8

15: 4 4 4 0

17: 3 i 8 > 1 5 1 9

18: 3 1 8

2 0 - 2 1 : 17, 19 8 , 37, 5 4 2 0

2 2 - 2 3 : 3 1 ' 2 5 : 19, 5 4 2 0

2 6 : 4 4 «

3 2 - 3 3 : 5 7 3 0

3 3 : 19 4 0 : 3 4 " , 1 5 1 9

4 4 : 3 6 1 6

— 121.13: 1 4 0 3 0

Sextus Empiricus, Adv. math. 1.2: 167 — 1 .61 : 8 2

5

— · 7.117: 110 — 9 .17: 1 6 2 4 6

— 9-34: I 5 7 2 9

— 9 . 5 1 : 1 6 2 4 5

— 9-127: I 3 7 2 3

sexual needs, 113, 1 4 4 - 4 5 , ! 9 7 shelter, primitive, 27, 2 8 s , 2 9 - 3 0 sign language, 6 3 , 76 Simonides the historian, FGrH 8 T 1 : 5 1 1

size of aggregations, importance of, 119 social character of morality, 89-go social cohesion, and expansion of social aggre

gate, 119; and force, 11 , 1 1 9 - 2 0 ; and institution of kingship, 116

social concord, origin of, 120-22 social development, related to technological, 32 ,

3 4 - 3 5 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 15-16; multiplication of, 116, 119 social sanctions, 9 0 , g3 Socrates, 143 softness of civilized man, 22, 1 5 0 5 , 171 Sophists, 5, 6, 8 , 203 Sophocles, 142

— Ajax 17: 6 6 1 5

175: 2 8 4

— Antigone: 6, 5 0 8

3 3 4 - 3 5 : 4 4 4 " 3 6 8 - 7 0 : 4 4 4 0

4 5 4 - 5 5 : 1 1 4 2 1

sophos, as defined in the Epinomis, 1 0 3 - 4 soul, 143 specialization, 194; cf. division of labor

spontaneous generation, 1 0 1 5 , 1 7 2 1 3 , 1 8 0 - 8 3 ; cf. autochthony

sporaden, 2 8 4

starvation, 2 7 - 2 8 , 1 5 1 9

Statius, Theb. 1 2 . 5 0 1 - 2 : 7 1 ' Stobaeus, Flor. 2g.g2 = W - H I I I 6 5 5 . 1 2 - 1 7 :

150° Stoics, 8 ; on animal intelligence, 8 1 5 ; and

Diodorus, 1 7 7 ' ; and Polybius, 8 2 ' ; i g 6 - 2 0 i ; on telos, 6 7 , 164; their theories of community, 1 3 6 - 4 0 — SVF 1 . 2 2 2 - 2 3 : 139

1.228: 9 6 " 1.262: 1 5 1 1 1

3 . 1 7 8 : 1 3 9 "

3 - I 7 9 : I 3 8 2 6

3 - 3 4 0 : i 3 8 2 6

3 - 6 2 5 - 2 7 : 139 Strabo 1.66: 1 3 7 2 3

— 2 . 1 0 3 : 5 8 3 5

— 3-147= i 7 5 , ' 9 8

Strato of Lampsacus, 5 6 " — Fr. 32 Wehrli: 1 4 7 " — Fr . 1 4 4 - 4 7 : 5

suggestions, man's use of, 39 survival, struggle for, 5 1 , 6 4 - 6 6 , 1 0 9 - 1 0 , 124,

171, 1 7 2 7 3

symbol, justice as, 7 3 ' ; role of in development of moral notions, 8 6

symbol of tribal identity, king as, 9 3 2 0 ; language, emblems, and fire as, 6 4 - 6 7 ; trumpet as, 6 5 1 5

symmetry, perception of, 195 sympathy, sources of, 8 9 ; social importance of,

121 synesis, 73, 8 2 5 , 132; cf. anchinoia, forethought,

logismos synetheia and syntrophia, in animals, 8 7 - 8 8 , 132;

contrasted with syngeneia, 1 3 3 7 ; effects of, 8 7 - 9 0 , 9 2 , 1 3 8 s 3 , I 3 g 2 9 ; in ethnographical writing, 1 4 0 3 2 ; in Herodotus, 1 4 4 - 4 5 ; i n

Polybius and the Epicureans, 8 3 ; in Vitruvius, 9 4 2 2 ; widening range of, 92

syngeneia, 117, 1 3 3 7

synonyms, and homonyms, implications of for nature of language, 6 7 - 6 8 , 109

systema, 2 8 4 , 6 4 - 6 5 , 108, 109, 118, 184-85

Tacitus, Ann. 3 . 2 6 . 3 : 7 6 1 1

Tatian, 5 l a

techology, attitude of Plato and Aristotle towards, 5 3 - 5 4 , 1 0 4 - 5 , 148, 149; development of, 13, 14-46 passim; in Posidonius, 5 3 - 5 4

teleological viewpoint, contrasted with naturalistic, 19, 4 2 3 3 , 47 , 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, 170; imilatio seen from, 1 9 9


telos, in Nausiphanes, 1 6 7 - 6 8 ; in Polybius and Carneades, 1 6 3 - 6 4 ; in Stoics, 139

Tertullian, De pallio 3 : 2 0 1 3 , 3 g Themistius 3 2 3 c : 5 1 9

— 3 4 9 a - 5 I A : 7 Thamyras, 5 7 3 3

tharsos, 126-27 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 s 6 ; and Hecataeus of Abdera, 1 6 0 3 5

— Caus. plant. 3 . 2 2 . 3 : 1 8 1 1 5

— Char. 2 6 . 6 : 9 4 2 3

— Ilepi tvoefielas, Fr . 1.1—9 Potscher: 1 8 0 1 1

Fr . 2 : 9 2 6 , 5 5 " , 1 6 0 3 6

Fr . 4 : 5 52 5

Fr . 1 3 . 1 5 - 5 0 : 9 2 6 , 5 5 2 5

Fr . 2 0 : 1 3 7 2 2 , 1 3 8 2 4

— ap. D L 5 . 4 7 : 5

— ap. D L 6 . 2 2 : 1 5 1 8

— ap. Porphyry, De abst. 2 . 2 5 - 3 3 : 1 2 4 4 2

— ap. Photius, Cod. 278 5 2 9 B 2 2 - 2 3 : 8 4 1 0

Theseus, as institutor of kingship, 9 4 2 3

thesis theory of origin of language, 6 1 , 6 3 , 6 7 - 6 9 , 2 0 4 6

Thoth, 155 Thucydides, archaeology of, 1, 145

— i-9= 4 5 — 1.22.4: 142

— 2 .37 .3 : 1 1 4 2 1

— 2 . 4 4 . 3 : 1 1 6 2 4

— 2.77-4: I7 6

— 5 . 1 0 5 . 2 : I I I 1 2

Tibullus 1 .7.29: 3 8 1 9

— 2 . 1 . 3 7 - 6 6 : 7 Timocrates, 1 6 9 6 6

Timon, 1 6 5 s 1

tools, 3 6 - 3 7 , 1 0 3 - 4 ; cf- metallurgy totemism, 6 4 , 6 5 1 2

Tragica adespota 516 (TFG 9 4 0 ) : 1 1 7 2 8

trial and error, 32 tribe, 2 6 , 8 2 6 ; cf. chreia, experience, usus tribes, origin of, 6 4 - 6 7 , 1 8 4 - 8 5 ; fusion of, 1 0 7 - 9 ;

and symbola, 9 3 2 0 ; cf. ethnos Trojan war, 1, 4 5 , 5 7 trumpet, invention and early use of, 6 6 1 5

Tzetzes, and Cynics, 1 5 0 - 5 1 ; and Democritus, 1 4 9 - 5 0 ; and Dicaearchus, 149—50; and Diodorus, 2 0 - 2 1 , 2 2 1 6 , 2 8 - 2 9 , 1 5 1 1 0 ; on early man, 10, 2 0 - 2 1 , 2 7 - 3 2 , 1 4 8 - 5 1 ; and Epicureans, 2 1 - 2 2 , 7 8 2 2 , 1 7 1 7 1

— Iliad scholia, pp. 5 5 . 2 8 - 5 7 . 2 5 Hermann: 20 — Hesiod scholia, VS I I 1 3 7 . 2 6 - 3 5 : 2 3 1 6

I 3 7 - 3 6 - 4 4 : 27

137-36-138-13: 10 I 3 7 - 3 8 - 3 9 : i 7 I ? 1

I 3 7 - 3 9 - 4 0 : 21

1 3 7 . 4 1 - 4 2 : 3 8 2 3 , 1 5 0 3 , 1 8 7 2 9

1 3 8 . 1 : 1 7 1 ' 1

1 3 8 . 1 - 4 : 29 1 3 8 . 8 - 1 0 : 36 1 3 8 . 8 - 1 2 : 22 , 1 5 0 6

— Hesiod scholia, p. 6 7 . 1 4 - 1 5 Gaisford: 1 5 0 2

6 8 . 6 - 8 : 1 5 1 1 1

6 8 . 1 6 - 1 9 : 1 5 1 9

6 8 . 2 0 - 2 5 : 1 5 1 1 2

7 0 . 9 - 1 0 : 1 5 1 9

71.19: 151* 7 2 . 1 7 - 1 8 : 1 5 1 9

7 4 . 1 4 - 2 0 : 2 0 - 2 1

7 9 - 4 - 2 i : 21

7 9 - 1 3 - 2 1 : 4 ° 8 1 . 2 4 - 2 7 : 22 1 0 1 . 6 - 7 : 150" 114.16: 1 5 1 1 2

114 .16-18: 1 5 0 4 , 1 7 1 " 116.10: 1 5 1 1 1

I 16 . 13-16: 2 2 1 6

116.15-17: I 5 I 1 0

1 1 6 . 2 9 - 1 1 7 . 1 : 1 5 1 1 1

117.1-5: 1 5 1 8

1 1 8 . 6 - 8 : I 5 I9

1 1 8 . 2 1 - 2 2 : 1 5 1 '

unity of mankind, in Hellenistic thought, 1 3 6 - 4 0 ; in pre-Hellenistic thought, 1 3 7 2 3

universal history, 4 , 177 upright stature of man, 4 1 - 4 2 Uranus, deification of, 1 5 6 - 5 7 2 9 , 2 0 3 - 5 usus, in development of architecture, 194;

produces familiaritas, 1 3 9 2 9 ; cf. chreia, experience, tribe

utility, 8 , 9, 4 1 , 4 7 , 6 4 - 6 7 , 7 2 - 7 3 , 7 6 - 7 7 , 8 2 , 8 6 , 116, 132, 134, 1 4 0 2 9 , 1 9 9 3 , 200

Varro, 10, 1 5 5 2 5 , 158 — LL 6 . 5 2 : 6 0 1

Virgil, Aeneid 8 . 3 1 4 - 2 3 : 10

8 . 3 2 1 - 2 5 : 9 4 2 3

— Georgics 1 .121-46: 5 1 1 2

1 1 4 5 - 4 6 : 9 1 . 1 4 7 - 4 9 : 6

Vitruvius, on development of architecture, 3 9 - 4 0 ; 1 9 3 - 9 5 ; and Diodorus, 16, 183, 1 8 8 - 8 9 ; o n discovery of fire, 15-16; on early man, 2 9 - 3 0 , 3 5 ; on formation of society, 34 , 6 6 ; on growth of language, 6 0 - 6 1 , 6 3 - 6 7 ; on natural endowments of man, 4 0 - 4 2 — De arch. pp. 3 3 . 1 4 - 3 6 . 1 8 Rose: 7

3 3 - I 4 " 1 6 : 29 , 3 2 " 3 3 . 1 6 - 2 3 : 15-16, 3 0 , 183

3 3 - I 9 : 21 3 3 - 2 2 : 63 3 3 . 2 4 - 2 8 : 16, 33, 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

I N D E X 225

3 4 - 6 - 9 : 30 3 4 . 6 - 3 6 . 1 8 : 193-95 3 4 . 1 2 - 1 4 : 33 3 4 . 1 4 - 2 0 : 3 1 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 3 6 . 1 4 - 1 8 : 42

— De arch. 5 .1 .7: 1 5 1

7 . p r . u : 5 7 3 » vocabula, 6 0 1

vocabulary, growth of, 6 8 - 6 9 , '°8> 1 8 5 2 6

volgivagus, 28* , 8 4 vortex, atomic, 108, 117

warfare, development of, 1 9 1 0 , 2 0 , 3 6 - 3 7 , 5 0 7 , 103; and justice, 123-26

warm surroundings, influence of on man, 22 , 1 7 1 ™

water, 151 weakness of early man, 5 1 , 83 weaving, 17, 2 0 , 37 , 3 9 , 1 0 3 - 4 woman, civilization likened to, 22 , 1 5 1 5

world, growth of, 172 wrestling, 4 3

writing, origin of, 4 3 - 4 5 , 1 6 1 4 0 , 178, 191

Xenocrates, Fr . 9 8 Heinze: 1 2 4 4 2 , 1 3 7 2 3

Xenophanes, VS 2 1 B 4 : 5 — B i 8 : 5

— B 3 3 : 1 0 1 6

Xenophon, utilitarianism of in Memorabilia, 132 — Cyrop. 2 .1 .25: 1 3 2 1

2.1 .28: 1 3 2 2

8.7 .14: 1 3 2 1

— Mem. 1 .4.11: 4 1 2 8 3 0

2 . 3 . 4 : 1 3 2 2

3 . 4 . 6 : 1 3 3 5

3.6 .14: 1 3 3 5

4 . 3 . 1 1 - 1 2 : 8 6 1 3

4 . 4 . 1 9 - 2 5 : 113, 1 3 7 2 3

— Oec. 5 .17: 7 7 .16: 1 1 5 2 3

7 . 1 8 - 3 2 : 132 7.19: 1 1 4 2 2

7 . 3 0 : 1 1 5 2 3

Zeus, allegorized, 2 0 ; as culture-hero, 9 4 2 3 , • 5 4 - 5 5 ; etymology of, 2 0 3 - 4 ; in theories of Euhemerus, 162; worship of, 57—58, 2 0 2 - 4

zoogony, 2 3 1 6 , 174

democritus and the sources of greek anthropology (philological monographs series number 25)

Documents