renehan-the greek anthropocentric view of man (hscp 85 [1981])

8/10/2019 Renehan-The Greek Anthropocentric View of Man (HSCP 85 [1981])

1/21

THE GREEK

ANTHROPOCENTRIC

VIEW OF

MAN

ROBERT

RENEHAN

What

is man without the

beasts?

If

all the

beasts

were

gone,

men would

die

from

a

great

loneliness

of

the

spirit.

For

whatever

happens

to the beasts

soon

happens to man.

-Chief

Seattle,

1854

7Epl

/EVTC

-WV

AACV

pWV

'aUrW,

TEpl

sELV~p0WIolJ

1A'w.

-"Hippocrates"

O

begin

at the

end. Well

into the

Byzantine

period,

probably

n

the

tenth

century,

a certain

Leo

compiled

a little

handbook on the

nature

of

man in which

he

poses

the

question

"What

is man?" Man

is,

he

goes

on

to

reply,

a "rational mortal

animal,

capable

of

thought

and

knowledge,"

(

ov

AoyLKOV

V0Vr7dV,

oi3

a

E7rr

7r7/l)s 8EK8KKV.

Leo has borrowed his

definition verbatim

from

the

ninth-century(?)

reatise

of

Meletius

the

Monk

On the

Constitution

f

Man. Meletius in

his

turn

took the

defini-

tion

directly

from the

bishop

Nemesius

(early

fifth

century?),

who,

in

his

work On

the Nature

of

Man,

prefaces

this

formulation

with the

general

statement

rdV

vOpwrov

cptLov7ra,

"people

define

man."

Gregory

of

Nyssa

similarly

attests the

tralatitious

characterof

the

words:

rT

AoyLKOV

TOOTO

OOV

d

aV0W

YOc

VOU TE

Kal

f'7t&0ET0

6KTLKOV

ELVaL

Kal,

iap~

70'v

W 0

AyO

dyov TO70 O

'

js

p

Taprv'pr

a.1

The

definition

is

by

no means exclusively Byzantine or Christian, scholastic though it

sounds. It

is to be

found in the

pseudo-Galenic

Definitiones

Medicae,2

and

Sextus

Empiricus

quotes

it

more

than once.3

The

earliest traces

of

it seem to

be in

the

pseudo-Platonic

"OpoL4i5A:

vOpwiros

ov...

I

should like

to thank

Professor Albert

Henrichs

of

Harvard

University

for

providing

me

with

several

helpful

references.

1

Leo

Medicus:

p.

17.6

Renehan;

Meletius

Monachus:

p.

6.23-24 Cramer;

Nemesius:

p.

55

Matthaei;

Gregory

of

Nyssa:

De Anima

et

Resurrectione,

PG

46.52

C. The

patristic

tradition

furnishes

further

examples

of

this

definition,

e.g. [Basilius Caesariensis] Contra Eunomium, PG 29.688 B; [Athanasius] Liber

de

definitionibus

PG

28.534

C. In

Latin

compare

Tertullian

Adv. Marc.

11.4.5

animal

rationale ntellectus

t

scientiae

apax (=

PL

2.289A).

2

19.355

K.

3

Outlines

of Pyrrhonism

2.26,

2.21

;

Against

the

Logicians .269.


2/21

240

Robert

Renehan

E7rtar7TL7qS

777S

KaTcLc

Oyov

EK1LKO'V

E-TwL)

nd in the

Topics

of

Aristotle,

where

he

states with

approval

that one

who characterizes man

as a

(

ov

E

Umatotq

t

8EKTLKdV

as assigned an essential property.4 His language

suggests

that the

words

were

already

a

familiar

formula;

the

spurious

Platonic

definition

points

in the

same direction.

Two

fundamental

pieces

of

information

emerge

from

all

this.

First,

this

definition of

man,

which

was

to

become

orthodox in

Greek

thought,

was

a creation

of

formal Greek

philosophy;

its earlier

distribution and

the

language

itself,

which

is

technical,

establish

this.

Second,

the

specific

difference

which sets

apart

man from all

other

mortal animals

in

this

definition is

his

Aodyo,

his

capacity

for

intellectual

activity.5

This attitude, that man is a rational animal, has been for so long an

accepted

commonplace

in

Western culture

that its

specifically

Greek

origin

is

seldom a

matter

of

conscious reflection. In

reality,

that

man

differs from

animals because of his

intelligence,

so far from

being

a

natural

way

of

looking

at

things,

is

an

exceptional

mode of

thought

in

the

history

of

man

(infra).

Consider

the

very phrase

"rational

animal,"

animal

rationale;

it

is

nothing

but

a literal translation of

?c-ov

AoyLKdV.

This

phrase,

a

stock

definition which

is

found

far more

frequently

than

the

fuller

one

illustrated

above,

succinctly

segregates

man

from all

other

animals

in

a

telling way.

Man

has

the use of

Aodyo

while the

rest

are

dAoya

(ca.

The

pronounced

dichotomy, whereby

man is

rigidly

opposed

to other

animals,

has

scarcely any

rival as a

characteristically

Greek

concept.

Its

significance

can be

appreciated

if

one reflects

that

only

in the

present

century,

with its

increased

interest in the

scientific

study

of

animal

intelligence

and

communication,

has a different

attitude

toward animals

really

begun

to

impose

itself

upon

the

consciousness of

educated men.

It would serve no

practical purpose

to

attempt

a

systematic

collection

of the

numerous

passages

where

?c-ov

AoyLKOV

occurs,

but some

historical

comments

may

not be out of

place.

The

tendency

of

early

Greek

thought

4

132"19

ff;

cf. I33a2O

ff,

134a14

ff.

5

The

point

of

Ovqrdov

n the definition s to

distinguish

man from

dOdvaira

a;

the

particular

reference(s)

varied with

philosophical

school

and

period.

For

instance,

Diogenes

Laertius

7.147

[-

SVF

2.305.15-17]

gives

a Stoic definition

of

OEo'

hich

begins

(pov

cdiva-rov

AoyLKOVj-AEOV

rA.

n

the Placita

of

Aetius

[=

Diels,

Dox. Gr.

p.

432]

the

Kdo'oso

s

described as

a

(4ov

AoyLKdvcOva-rov;

he

ultimate source of

this is the

Timaeus.Christians

thought

also of

angels;

in

Nemesius

(p.

55

Matthaei)

man

is defined

as a

C(ov

AoyLKV

vrq7dv,

O1

Kiat

rLaT7,7"7l

'

EKrLKOKV

..

AOy&KOV U, avL

XWP&a8O7

LWV

dAOYWV'KaL OBvrq'v,

Iva

XwoPOt-i

oYv

Oavd

-wv

AoyLKCV.

Meletius

(p.

6.23

ff

Cramer)

opies

this and addsafter

-rZv

dOavdiwv

AoyLKv

-

yovv

dyydAwv.

ee

also

Theodoretus,

Comm.

n

Ezech.

1.5

(PG

81.824B)

?(ov

KaAE7-aL

AOyKdV,

aL

vOpw7ro,

Kat

d

ayyEAo.


3/21

The Greek

Anthropocentric

View

of

Man

241

to

regard

man's

essence,

unlike that of other

animals,

as characterized

by

intellect,

culminated

in

Plato,

whose

writings

were to be

of

central

importance in the proliferation of this outlook. One or two representa-

tive,

if

random,

passages

must suffice

to

illustrate the man

~

other

animals

dichotomy

in Plato. In the

Politicus the

Stranger

remarks

ETESr

pL&aa

rpoOJLows3

Jtvat dcL wv ye'qv,

T'

fLev dvOpC6rLvov,

ETEpov

SZv

2AACwv

av1ndv-rwv

OVqplwv

v

(263C)

and

again,

a little later in the

dia-

logue,

d6vO6pwrot,

ov

Sv

rEepOV

OELOdepOV,

cAAca

ydewl

v

avAdVOEpadr&vv

voPLEdov1a

2z7E).

In the

myth

in

the

Protagoras

(32IB)

6

avOepdnrwv

yevor

is contrasted

with

rd

Aoya.

Of

particular

interest

is Plato's

attitude toward

young

children. In the

Republic

(44iA-B),

that

part

of

the soul called r~

AoyLrTLKd'V

s found to be absent from animals (O-qpla)

-

and

from

children

(7raL&a).

The

Timaeus contains a

passage (44A-C)

which teaches that the

soul

of an

infant is

avovg

at

birth,

the

consequence

of

disordered revolutions

(rreplo6So,

repLbopal)

in

the

soul.

Only

gradually

does one

become

E1

pwv,

as these revolutions

become more

orderly,

especially

with the

help

of

proper

education

(TLi

'pOO7 poof7r

raLSv4ewsj).

In the

Laws

(8o8D)

Plato

actually

writes

that the child

is

the "hardest to

manage

of all

beasts"

(irraTcrov

Olptw...

iUTLEreaXEpL-

codTraov).

A

deficiency

in

AoyLaupds

uffices

to

place

young

humans in

the

category of animals. Naturally, the literalness of this must not be

pressed;

the

language

remains

indicative. This

Platonic

viewpoint

reappears

in

Aristotle,

HA

588a

i

f:

S

La

epeL

S'

oS3v

,

e

ELvT

X

[sc.

7~V

Italsolv]

iA)

g

v

V

ploWv

bvxy

Ka7d7i-v

XpdVOV

oOToov.

The actual

word

AoyLKOr

ever

occurs

in

Plato's

works,

nor is it attested

for

any

earlier

writer.6

Aristotle

has

it,

but

not

the

phrase

(cov

AoyLKdv.7

Who

first

coined

this

expression

is

no

longer

discoverable;

it

seems

to

have

been

especially

popular

with

the

Stoics.8

The

important

point

is

that

ojov

AoyLKdV,

whatever

its

origins,

was

the

private property

of no

particular philosophical school; rather,

it became

common

coin

in the

6

But

see

n.7.

7

There

is one

possible

exception;

lamblichus VP

31 [=

D.-K. VS9

1.99.11-

12

=

Arist.

Fr.

192

Rosea]

states that

Aristotle

mentioned

a

Pythagorean

distinction:

70o

AXo&KOYKO

v

To

'Ipv

ET~ar&

OS,

To

3U

vOpw7rog,

r73

otov

HvOay6pa.

Whether rT'

Aoy&KbV

ov

occurred

in

Aristotle's

Pythagorean

source

or lamblichus

has a

"modernized"

version

is

not

certain.

(Much

more

probably

the latter.

Walter

Burkert,

Lore and

Science

in

Ancient

Pythagoreanism (Cambridge,

Massachusetts,

1972),

p. 144,

is

confident:

"a

phrase

like

Aoy&KbV

,ov

[sc.

in this

very

passage]

betrays

later

terminology.")

The

main

point

is that Aristotle himself

does not use

(Zov

AoyLKdvs part of his own philosophical vocabulary.

8

According

to

Aetius,

Placita

1.3 [=

Diels

Dox. Gr.

282.26-28]

the

Pytha-

goreans

roY7OV

&y

pov

a7xo8t8dvreg

Eyovofl

Cov

AoyYLKV

[sc.

avOpw7rov]

KTA.

This

does

not mean

that

they

were the

first

to do

so;

see also

n.7.


4/21

242

Robert

Renehan

speech

of

educated Greeks in

general.

A few

examples

will

give

some

idea

of

its

distribution.

Chrysippus

ap.

Plut. Mor.

45oD

=

SVF

3195.10-12

70T

AOyLKO13-VUkLtV

'XOVroS

TpocTXP770caL

ES E"KaGoTTw

Aodyp

a~l

VTO

7TOVTO

KvfEPpvaoOaL

TA.Theol. Arithm.

p.

25.I7

ff

de

Falco

=

Philolaos

Fr.

13

D.-K.

KaG

r7aapEs-

pXat

ro

ov

70o

AoyLKOZ,UTrrEp

a

hdhAo'aos

7-

rEpl UtEWCS

AEyE

K-A.

pictetus

.9.2

71

ydp

cLar

aOpolV

oS;

~pov,

Y77tA9

oyLK'VVqro7dV;

ompare

3.1.25

avOpwiros'

Et

'

7070

E

1

arl

Ow7V

(oov

XPqao7LKoV

vtrautaLS

aOyLK0S.

Women

were

explicitly

included

in

this

category,

Galen

5.742K:

yvVaLKES

. .

.

Kl

aa7

trrapXovaL

AOytLKd

~4a,

TOv

UTrTLV

EirtIrT770/L1

SErKTLK.

(Note

herethe

explication

f

the

shorterdefinition

y

means

of language aken from the fullerversion).For someexamplesfrom the

church

fathers

see G. W. H.

Lampe,

A

Patristic

Greek

Lexicon

s.v.

AoyLKdS

.I. It is

noteworthy

that this

entry,

which fills almost two

large

columns

and illustrates

a

variety

of

meanings

and

usages

of

AoyLKdS

egins

with

just

this

meaning

("rational,

ndowed

with

reason")

and

phrase

-

AoyLKOV

Cov.

By

contrast,

in

LSJ

s.v.

AoytLK'S

his sense

of the

word

is

found

in

fourth

place.

It

can be taken for

granted

hat

by

the

early

Christian

period

?W-ov

AoyLKdV

ad

long

been

as

familiar an

expression

n

Greek as

"rational

animal" s in

English.

Beforeproceeding t is necessary o saysomethingaboutthe meaning

of

(Cov.

For

rd

ca

in

general,

as

well

as

man,

rd

AoytK3V

Wov,

n

parti-

cular,

were

the

object

of

philosophical theorizing

which

resulted

in

various

formal distinctions and

definitions.

A

typical

specimen

is

provided

by

the

pseudo-GalenicDefinitiones

Medicae,

I9.355K.:

5civ

"TlO'va"a E/IvXos,

LaOO)-LK7rKaO'p0/7V

Kal7Tpoal'EUtW

WOVtIEV).10

long

tradition

of

speculation

ies

behind

that

arid

formulation;

he same

holds

true

of

Proclus'

dogmatic

pronouncement

in

his

Neoplatonic

catechism,

the Institutio

Theologica,

proposition

70

(p.

66. 18-20

Dodds):

Z

y~p . . .

yevEioOa

TrrpWrov

v,Et-a ~pov,

E--ra

cOpWrTOV.

a

avupoTos-

OV'KE&C

EUTIV

Y7TOU0T

7~nS

WOLK-S

VVa"?EWS

cOV

84

E

TTLV

E/ITrvEov

Ka alOavdLEvov.

These

passages

set forth what had

come to be

the orthodox Greek

view of

animals.

As man

is

distinguished

by

his

possession

of

reason,

so animals

are

distinguished

by

their

possession

of

the

faculty

of

sensation,

at'cb8lo

.

Occasionally

he

generic

term

(Wov

could

include

plants,

7d vrd,

as well.

Plato

in the

Timaeus,

7B,

writes

rrnv

ydp

oiv

OrIrTEp

pVvETarX7

Tov

77qV,poV

FLEvl

V E

V

KfC

AyoL7o

pOdTara,

9

4/ra

here is equivalent to qaal, "people say," one more indication

of how

familiar

the

expression

was.

For this use of

0-gat

see Rh. Mus.

113.1970.84.

10

The definition

is

repeated

in Nemesius

(p. 55

Matthaei),

Meletius

(p.

6.24-

25 Cramer),

Leo

(p.

I7.7

Renehan),

ahd no doubt elsewhere.


5/21

The Greek

Anthropocentric

iew

of

Man

243

and

he has

7-r

orad

explicitly

n mind there."

(The

passage

s not

typical

of Plato's

usage.)

The famous

fragment

(I17

D.-K.)

in which

Empe-

docles proclaimsthat he has been a boy and a girl and a bush(Odpvos)

and a bird and

a

fish

may imply

the same belief. But such

an

attitude

was

exceptional;

normally

ra

vrwd

re excluded from

the

category

of

ga?.12

Compare

Plato,

Phaedo

7oD

q

d'vov

Ka7'

vOpWrroV

..DAd

Kat

Ka7r

5WVV

7TVwV K

'UV,

KaL

uAA/v

oaErp

'y

VEULV.

ristotle

is

quite

precise

about

this. PA

653623

if:

7

yap

cov

dpt?6LdtE7r

'XELw

'loel7Lo.

PA

666834

d

Ltv

yap

ov

alaerOqotptarat.

By

this

criterion

r

cOv-rd

re

not

a,

De

Anima

415"2:

70o

8

alaOU7TLKOVpltrat

r

OpEIrr7LKV

V

70S

VrTOZs.

Just

as Greeks

sharply

discriminated

e-

tween men and animals,so they had a similar inclinationto separate

animalsand

plants

more

rigidly

than

is

usual

among

many

early

peoples

(or present-day

"primitives").13

The

very

word

?cov

reveals

how

pronounced

his

tendency

was.

Etymologically,

he term

means

simply

"living

thing"

and should include

plant

as well

as animal life.

That

Plato in

the

Timaeus,

77B,

was

quite

conscious

of

this is

shown

by

Ae'yoo

pOd'-rara,

or that

is

technical

language

with

specific

reference

to the

CpObrrq

vdoaroS,

the true

sense of the

word.

4

Greek modes of

thought

imposed

a

narrower

meaning

upon

C-ov

than it

otherwise

would have had. This is neatly illustratedby a sentence in Aristotle,

GA

73Ib4-5:

S&aQE'pE~

'

aTEL

7Oqar

a

7ray

v

vrwv

j~dvov.

See

also

PA

68I'I3

ff;

De

Anima

413b4.)

According

to

the

normal

rules

of

Greek

7d

a and

7r

~5v-ra

should have been

synonymous;

in

practice

COov,

ften,

is

interchangeable

rather with

O-~plov.

atin

animal

and

English

"animal"

acquire

their

usual

meanings,

again against

the

etymology,

directly

from

Greek

(-ov.

Our

phrase

"animal,

vegetable,

11

Tim.

9oA...

.7~L~a

...

gO

vraS

v)vOuv

oK'

EyyELOV

d~M

O3pdivLov

s

a

different

matter.

12

Cf. A. E. Taylor on P1. Tim. 77A 5. A chapter in the doxographic Placita

of

Aetius

(Diels,

Dox.

Gr.

p.

438)

is entitled

H17~

qiO

Ta

vra

KLE

GCa.

t

begins

HIA0rwv

eaA

KaL

-a

V-~a

E'lvXa

c(ra.

The

only

other

philosopher

adduced

for

such

a

view

is

Empedocles.

13

This,

as a

statement

of

the usual Greek

outlook,

is true

enough,

but

like

all

generalities,

it

runs a risk

of

oversimplification.

The

Greeks were

on

occasion

capable

of

more

flexibility

in this

regard.

See

especially

Aristotle's

remarks

in

HA

588a4 ff,

ovTw

a'

EK

WV

dJv

XWV

&r

Td

qa

/i7afatvEL

&7Ka

/IupKpOV

)

1'al

...

7.

s

iErflaamg

4

a'rcv

[sc.

r-vy

Cvrv]

eI

-a

c

Sa

avveXgs

aTrw.

Aristotle has in

mind

such

animals as the

rn'v,

drKatA'70,

and

arrdyyos.

Cf.

Nemesius

p. 42

Matthaei:

Ta

roava7a

Tv-a

wdo'v7ra

KaIEIV

0ogS

zXovaw

O

rwaato'

7rv

aocwZv.

(The

term

(Wod'vrov

is interesting, but Nemesius appears to be in error when he attributes

it to

'"ol raatol."

LSJ

cite

it

only

as

a variant in

one

passage

of Sextus

Empiricus.

Aristotle

already

had the

concept,

but not the

word.)

14

For

this

use

of adverbial

dp0cl7

see

Burnet on

P1.

Phd.

67B

4.


6/21

244

Robert

Renehan

mineral"

is a

good example

of

the

persistence

of this

Greek influence."5

To return to the

polarity

which

is

a

principal

concern

of

the

present

paper, that between man, the rational animal, and the irrational animals,

r3

AoyLK'Y

V

ov and

rT Aoya

-a.

As

was

remarked

above,

this

way

of

looking

at

things,

common

to

the Greeks

and

to

many

even

now,16

is

not

nearly

so

natural

as it

may

seem to us.

Frazer

has

observed

"the

sharp

line of

demarcation

which

we draw

between

mankind

and

the

lower animals does not exist for

the

savage.

To

him

many

of the

other

animals

appear

as his

equals

or

even his

superiors,

not

merely

in

brute

force but

in

intelligence."17

These

days

one

may

smile

at

the

facile

use

of

the

condescending

term

"savage,"

but nevertheless

Frazer's basic

point is well taken. In another passage he pertinently remarks of the

"savage"

that

he "is

more liberal and

perhaps

more

logical

than

the

civilized

man ... he

commonly

believes

that animals are

endowed

with

feelings

and

intelligence

like

those

of

men."18

In

fact,

before

the

develop-

ment of

some

technology

in the ancient

world,

it

was

by

no

means

apparent

that man

had

the

advantage

over animals.

In

obtaining

food

and

shelter,

in

defending

themselves

against

natural

enemies,

in,

that

is,

what the

Greeks called

rd

&vayKata,

animals

were

often

clearly

superior.

Early

human

dwellings

were not to

be

compared

in

intricacy

or technical skill with, say, a spider's web, a beehive, or the nests of

certain birds.

No human

hunter could

provide

food

with

the

expertise

and

dependability

of the

eagle

or the

fox. What

reason

had man

to

deny

intelligence

to

animals,

to

feel

superior

to them?

But there came

a

day

when

the

Greeks,

whatever

the

causes,

thought

otherwise.

The

difference

appears

very

subtly

in a sentence

which Seneca

wrote

under

the

influence

of Greek

philosophy:

Tacitis

quoque

et

brutis,

quamquam

in cetera

torpeant,

ad

vivendum

sollertia

est.19

That

animals

possessed

sollertia

had

never been

doubted;

that

they

were

dumb beasts with

no

language

of

their

own

(tacitis

...

et

brutis)

is a Greek

innovation.

Fifth-

century pride

in

technological

progress,

a

pride

which

found

its

most

famous

expression

in the

great

rrohAAa

-d

SELV

chorus

of

Sophocles,

was

doubtless

one

factor,

but

it

cannot

be

the whole

explanation

of

this.

15

Here too a

change

from

the

Greek

attitude

is discernible

in

our

times. In

particular,

the

problem

of

"plant

sensitivity"

is

attracting

considerable

interest.

Whether

music and

soft

speech

are

conducive

to

plant

growth

I must leave

to

others

to

decide.

16

At least

in Western

societies;

I do not feel

competent

to comment

on

the

Orient.

17

Sir

James

George

Frazer,

The Golden

Bough3

(1935),

pt.

V,

vol.

2,

p.

3Io.

18

N.

17

above,

p.

204.

19

Ep.

I21.24.


7/21

The Greek

Anthropocentric

View

of

Man

245

As

we

shall

see,

the elevation

of

reason

as man's

special prerogative

is

much older

in

Greece.

This is not to say that the problem of animal intelligence was simply

ignored.

Quite

the

contrary.

Apparently

purposive

behavior

on

the

part

of

animals had to be

explained

somehow,

and the Greeks

faced

up

to

the

problem resolutely.

One

approach

was

provided by

the

fertile

new

concept

of

v'ts

which,

among

its

other

meanings,

came to

be

used

in

the sense of

animal

instinct,

as in

Democritus

Fr.

278

D.-K.

89i-Aov

E'c

Kal

ro

Z

aAAoLst

*oLUL

-7Tcvra

yap

iyova

Kca-aL

cKa-r

oqLV

E~rCwEhlr/s7yE otMEJELL9EVcKa.

Then,

as

now,

seemingly

intelligent

animal

activity

was often

explained away

as

instinctive, as,

quite

simply, "natural"; animals behaved as they did

0'retL.

This attitude

appears crystallized

in the

Corpus

Hermeticum

12.1

ovi0ros-

d

vo s

Av

UEIVvOpToL

LO9

4EUT

.

. .

.

E

tE

S

%ro-

c

ayOL9

'

OL9

q

q

rt'Eu-v.

Not

all

thinkers were

prepared

to leave it

at

that.

Aristotle

recognized

intelligence

(OpdoviuLs,

not

voi )

in

certain

animals,

such

as

the bee.

This

was, however,

qualitatively

different

from

human

reason;

man

still

remained an

entity

set

apart.

As Ross has

observed,

""

pdoviqus

as

it

exists in

animals involves

no

Ao'yos.

But

its

existence

in

animals,

in this

wider

sense,

is

pointed

out

even

in the

Ethics

(1141z26;

cf. De

Gen.

An.

753alrI)."

And again "in man a new activity sometimes occurs, which

never

occurs in the

lower

animals. A

man

may

grasp

the

universal."20

Even the

possibility

that animals

actually possessed

Adyo9

was

maintained

by

some,

especially

by

the

Skeptics

and certain

Academics.

Plutarch's

treatises

De

sollertia

animalium

and Bruta

animalia

ratione

uti are

popular

specimens

of

this

viewpoint.

Those who

adopted

such a

stance

were, however,

consciously

departing

anew

from

the

formal

Greek

view

that

man

alone

of

OvqYi&

ca

was

a

AoyKWV

cgov;

that

is,

they

do not

represent

a

continuous

tradition,

the

vestigial

remains of

an

earlier

outlook.

(Doubtless,

in

Greece as

elsewhere, older ways of thought long

survived

among

the

uneducated,

especially

in

country

districts.

This

does

not

affect the

significance

of

what was

new

and

original.)

The

doxographical

handbooks

summarized the

opinions

of

philosophers

on

this

question;

there

still

survives in

one

such

handbook a

chapter

heading

Iodaa

y&'v

4wv

KalV

K

na7vIra

alc8rOT

Katl

hoyLKd.21

The

church

father

Epiphanius

relates

that the

Peripatetic

Strato of

Lampsacus

7T-v

7ov

hAEy

vo

8aEK7CTKV

EVcU.22

The

very

language

(voi

8aEKrKdv)

proves

20

W. D.

Ross

on

Ar.

Met.

98obz2

and

b26,

respectively.

21

Aetius,

Placita

5.20

=

Diels,

Dox.

Gr.,

p.

432.

22

Epitome Haereseum

3.33

=

Diels,

Dox.

Gr.,

p.

592.

Cf.

Plut.

Mor.

961A

=-

Strato,

Fr.

I12

Wehrli.


8/21

246

Robert Renehan

that

this is a

deliberate

rejection

of the "orthodox" definition of

man.

It

is

explicitly

so in Sextus

Empiricus:

aAAot

qaKOVa

lvWpTOV

Er

t

vaC

-ov

AoytKcVV

r7dV, VO

Kat

7TccrLT7g

ECTCKdV.

ETTEl iV

8E1KvvrUT

EV

7

7Tppr

7-

7TOX-

rpTPd0O

OLTE

OV/o

rSETv

(Z

v

Aoyov,

&dAA

at

voi-

Kal

ErU7L?7

aEKTCKrC

UTrTcTalVTa

TA.23

uch

pronouncements

tend

to

occur

in

polemical

contexts;

they

are,

in

short,

exceptions

that

prove

the

general

rule.

To most

educated

Greeks man had become

the

AoyK0cV

The

standard definitions thus

encapsulate

an

attitude toward man

and

animal

which

may

fairly

be

described

as

severely

anthropocentric.

(That

this

attitude

was

deeply

engrained

in the Greek

mentality

has of course

long been a truism, but one more often glibly parroted than rigorously

documented.)

A few such technical

definitions and formulas

are

hardly,

in

themselves,

adequate

documentation

for the

Anschauung

of

an

entire

people.24

Far

more

impressive

evidence

is

furnished

by

a

widespread

group

of

commonplaces

which do not seem

to

have

been

the

subject

of

special

study.

These

constitute a distinct

topos,

which one

might

describe

as the

"pdvov

'

nov

4wv

dvOpwTros"

opos.

Again

and

again

Greek

writers

point

out

that

man

is

unique

in some

respect.

These

special

characteristics

are

of the most varied

sort,

ranging

from

pecu-

liarities of hair and smells to a participation in the Divine. A very

common

way

of

signalizing

such distinct

properties

of

man

is to

say

"man

alone

of

animals

is

/

has

. .

."

or,

alternately,

to remark "it

is

a

23

Outlines

of

Pyrrhonism

2.26.

In another

passage

Sextus has

an

amusing

encomium

canis

in

which

he

attempts

to demonstrate

against

the

Stoics

that,

on

their

own

premises,

this

poor

creature

possesses

all

the

intellectual

qualities

of

humans

(I.62

ff). Empedocles

was

ridiculed

by

Sextus

for

an even more extreme

view:

'ElTE80KAfjE-L

T

rrapaSo'd7Epov

rdv-ra

jov

OAoyLKa

7vYXaVEtV

aG

ov

S

a

'Advov

A'

Ka'

~bdp677;LgS

pabwov

ravia

yap

UaOLbpv'taWv ELV

al'

co'Laros

taav.'

[= Fr.

i0o.io

D.-K.]. (Against the Logicians 2.286.) For Anaxagoras' views on

vovg

v

arraa&

rokg

oS

see

Aristotle,

De Anima

404bI

ff,

Met.

984bI5

if;

for

Archelaus

see

Diels-Kranz

VS

11.46.23-24

(Xp

aOaea

dp

EKaaro

v Kat

-rwv

owwcv

v4o).

On the

question

of animal

intelligence

see further

Thomas

Cole,

Democritus

and

the

Sources

of

Greek

Anthropology

[=

American

Philological

Association

Monograph

25] (1967),

p.

8i,

n.5.

24

And,

curiously,

Protagoras'

famous

dictum

(Fr.

i),

rrvrwov

XPyCaTLrov

tzpov

ErTiv

avOpwrros,

may

be

no documentation

at

all,

first

appearances

notwith-

standing.

For,

according

to the commonest

interpretation

of that

fragment

(with

which

I

agree),

the

meaning

is that

each individual

man

is the

judge

of

the

reality

of

appearances

for

himself,

a

theory

of extreme

epistemological

subjectivism. avOpw-orog

ere

means

any given

man as

opposed

to

any other,

not

humans

in

general

as

opposed

to other

(Qa.

So,

e.g.,

Plato,

Crat.

385D-386A,

Theaet.

I5IE

ff;

see

also

Theaet.

I6IC,

Legg.

7I6C.

Aristotle

gives

his

opinion

of

this

theory

at

Met.

I053b3:

oi3O'v

')

A'yovre 7TEp1rV

balvovral

re AIyew.


9/21

The

Greek

Anthropocentric

View

of

Man

247

unique

characteristic of man .. ."

(Z~8ov

CavOpd*'rov

'r1Iv).

I do not

know

of

any

other

people

who have

expressed

themselves

thus

emphatically

in this way.25There is no better proof of the extent to which the Greek

mentality

was

anthropocentric

than

the

remarkable

proliferation

of

this

topos,

which deserves

ample

illustration.

Significantly,

it

appears

in

attempts

to

discover the

etymology

of

the

word

avOpwcrrow

tself.

Plato,

Crat.

399C:

UrnLalVEt

oiro To

4vova

0

avOpo0rro

~m

t

rT&t v iXAa

OBpla

Lv

pt

pa'

v

T

LUKOTE

oWE

avaooy

7era&

ov3)

AvaOpEL,

c

AvOpwros

ava

EWPpaKEV

rOTO

EO

t

[TO]

o7TWCTE-

Kat

cvaOpE_

Kal

AoylE-rat 'roo

OoTWmT-EV

E

TEVOEV

8O

L

dvov y7vOPplOv

odpOas

cvOpw7Tro

ovOpwrro"

wvolcaTOc7,

avap&v

&

o7TWE.

This

idea,

that only man of animals can reflect, that he alone has understanding,

has

very

old roots in

Greece;

Plato is not

even

the

earliest extant writer

to

state

it

explicitly.

Alcmaeon,

Fr.

xa

D.-K.

[= Theophr.

De

Sensibus

25]:

cv0pwTov

yap

7UL

imi^v

cAuwv

[sc.

,wv]

&abEpELv

O-rL /LV

V

VlcL,

rd

8'

AAa

alaOdvE-raL

pLv,

.

vUvvL~cL

'. The Homeric evidence will

be

considered

below.

By

the time

of

Aristotle

it seems

to

have become

a

well-established

commonplace,

as

appears

from

Politics

1253a9

if:

Ao'yov

LdvovOvOpwroS

(EL

X(O

S(vWV..

.

70

ro

y7dp

TpS

rd

iAAa

C5a

ois

avOpW7TroL-t'OV,

TLdoov dyaLOoV

ai

KaKOV

KaL

3&Kalov

Kat

a8

Kov

Kai

-rv

d6AwvaaOeraLav

OXELV.

Similarly, in the pseudo-Platonic Definitions,

415A,

to

which

reference

has

already

been made:

?vOpwirros

Cov

dirrErpov,

lT'ovv,

,7TAaT'rvvxov

-

6

Irdvou

1V

v

dwv

E

TLrLk7-tS7r

KaTa

~dyOUV

8KTCKOV

ErTtL.

The

historian

Polybius

alludes to the belief:

T70

yap

yEvovg

rcav

avOpao'

rvraUvTT

s&akEPOVTo

701TayAAwv

wv,

pLVOLS

701oi

PiLEUTL

vo-

KaU

toyatpov

KTA.26

The

Christian fathers were

happy

to take over this

concept,

for

it

seemed

quite

in

harmony

with the

Scriptures.

To

give

one

example,

Cyril

of

Alexandria

(PG 76.io68C

ff):

pvos

ydp

arrisg

rrapd 7rrvTa

Ta

E

m7T

)

ca

AoyLKdO

'T

.t..

KaTa

7T

ElvaL

Woov

AoyLKdv,

KaL

KaO

cLOAapE7ov,

Kal

T

w'

E7TI

Y9

aPXLKOV,

EV

ECKOVL

OEOl)

7TE,7TOLvqoratG

25

Peoples

directly

influenced

by

Greece are

of

course

no

exception.

It

should

be

noted that

such

"(Cdvog"

ocutions are

used also

of

the

gods,

and

especially

of

Zeus. Fr.

Adesp.

Eleg.

2zW.

ZE

3i

dav-wwv

)v

&S

qdp aKaa

jwO

VOS

XEL.

Thespis

Fr.

3.3

Snell

Tr

8'

7i

1oilvo3 [sc.

Zebs]

OK

VKrla7raa7.

Ion

Fr.

Trag.

55.2

Snell

Epyov

"'

oov

ZEV's

pdvos

ierirLra-aL

OEcWv.

MacDowell

on Ar.

Vesp. 392

remarks

"

pdvos

is

common

in

prayers;

a

god

is

praised

especially

for

those

qualities

or

functions

which

no other

god

has. Cf.

Peace

590o,

Birds

1546,

Th.

1141,

Ek.

12." Ussher

on

Ar.

Eccl.

7-9

quotes

Orph.

H.

87.8

(Abel)

&v

aoL

ydp

pov'vc

dv-rwwv

TO

Kp

WV

TEAo-raL.

26

6.6.4,

cited

by

T.

Cole

[above, n.23], pp.

8o-8i. It is

indicative of

the

neglectto which this

topos

has

been

subject

that

Cole

omits

pdvoLs

n

his

translation

("For,

since the

human

race

differs from

the other

animals

in

this,

that it

partakes

in the

faculties of

reason and

calculation

.

.

.").


10/21

248

Robert

Renehan

A

'yE`aL.2

The

etymology

f

dvOpwolros

hich irst

appears

n the

Cratylus

survived intact late

into the

Byzantine

period,

as,

for

instance,

in

the

so-called EtymologicumMagnums.v.

avOpworos-:

Trapa

o

aVW

o

OpE-v,

-7yovv

AETeLv

.

vog

yap

wvAAcv

, ,4w

d

vOpios

alo

A'TEL.

7rapd

To

dva0pELv

a

7TW7TEV,

q'yov

avaAoylcEUatL

a

EISE

Kal

7)KOVUE,

TiwV d

cwv

CCwv

1)

AoyL

dOwVC'Vw

U

CTpovoovPEvwv

KTA.2

An

appreciation

f

rational

peech,Ao'yo

n its

external

manifestation,

was

particularly

characteristic

of

Greek

thought.

The

"hymn"

in

praise

thereof which

Isocrates nserts in the Nicocles

(3.5-9,

repeated

n

the Antidosis

15.253-257),

though

too

long

to

be

reproduced

here,

may

be

taken

as

emblematic.It

is

by

virtue of

speech,

he

there

states

explicit-

ly, that we stand apart from animals (rd

,a).

In the Panegyricus

(4.47-50)

a

similar

encomium

occurs;

the

topos

urns

up

in

c.

48:

roiro

/OVOV

i

drrvTovT

7YWV

?OV

E'LEov

EvElXOVrE.

Note

how

Isocrates

expresses

the

commonplace

with his

customary

fullness of

expression

(inclusion

of both

formulae,

pCovov..

.wv

and

Z'tov,

he

addition of

the

preposition

E'e

and

of

c7rrTvroWv).

enophon,

Mem.

1.4.12:

Kat

C11qv

yAwCZTT4V

E

TCLVTWV

r

WV EXOVTWV,OVC7V T7)VEV

LVXpW7TWV

Eol?/aI v

[sc.

o1

0Eol%]

t2av

dWAAorE

WAAaXi

aaovuav

70To aUrO/Lcros

dpOpoOv

TE

T7l

wov-qv

KaCRl

p771tCvEV

r7Tvra

AA7AOLS

'

lovAdpEOa.

o

too Ar.HA

536b"

2.

Anatomicaland physiologicalfeatureswhich are peculiar to "man

alone of animals"

are

mentioned not

infrequently,

most

noticeably

perhaps

in the

writings

of

Aristotle

and

Galen. Thus

man's hair

is

different,

Ar. HA

518a18

ff:

E'Ll

a

Tv

rpXWVC

tLEv

vyyEvE~L,t

8'

VUTEpOV

KaR

S

-ratK'aS'

yVty va

k

V

cdV

rp

t

-Vp

r7-VSWV.

Sensitiv-

ity

to

certain

odors,

those which do

not

contribute

o

the

acquisition

of

food,

but are

merely

pleasant

in

themselves,

is

peculiar

to

man,

Ar.

De Sensu

44483

ff:

Troo0

P/Lv

Ov

TO

d0'

paU(

dvCov

U

vOp;V

rov

ErTv

.

..

atrcov

70TE

?&LOVE

vE

IVt

vOpWcov

7)1

70TaOLV7)V

ocL?7V

&a

T7p

06WtV

T7rV

7rEpl -V

EyKE0cAOV.29

The

Hippocratic

treatise

On Ancient

Medicine

points

out that

man's

food is different from that of

all other

animals;

27

Gen.

1:26.

"And

God

said,

Let

us make man

in our

image,

after our

likeness: and let them

have dominion

over

the

fish

of the

sea,

and over

the

fowl

of the

air,

and

over the

cattle,

and over

all

the

earth,

and over

every

creeping

thing

that

creepeth

upon

the

earth."

Be

it noted that

this

early

Hebraic "anthro-

pocentricity"

is

actually

on

quite

a

different

level from that of the Greeks.

God

is

conceived

anthropomorphically

-

the

"image"

and "likeness" is

a literal

one

-

and

man's

"dominion"

is

not

explicitly justified by

his

unique

possession

of

a

rational

intellect.

Indeed,

in

chapter

three of

Genesis

the

serpent

outwits

and

deceives homo sapiens.

28

Cf.

Etymologicum

Gudianum s.v.

avOpwrosg

p.

147.8-1o

De

Stefani),

especially

the

phrase

pLzvos

o

alvOpwn7osvwo

l(a7TEL.

29

Cf.

A. E.

Taylor

on

P1.

Tim.

67A2

(pp.

474-475).


11/21

The Greek

Anthropocentric

iew

of

Man

249

the

discovery

of the science

of medicine itself

is

intimately

linked

by

the

author

with this fact.30 The

"leaping"

of the

heart in

anticipation

of

what is to come is confined to man, Ar. PA

669"I9

ff:

v

a"vOpcd-w1

E

ydp

UV/flalvEL

dvov,

;s

ElvEv,

To

T7jS

7T8`ucoEWSt

T&

o

pLdVOV

v

ATIL8

lvEaeL

Ka

rrpL

OUOKI

L

o

TO

P'AAovTG9

TA.31

Two

aspects

of human

anatomy

in

particular

were

frequently

stressed,

man's

use of his

hands

and

his

ability

to

stand erect

on

two

legs.

The

observation of these

phenomena

and

the

realization of

their

significance

were

in

fact

brilliant

achieve-

ments.

Xen. Mem.

1.4.1

i:

pdvov

T-av

~owv dlvOpwrrov

pGov advvE'u~r

v

[sc.

o0

1Eol]

...

.EITEL-ra

rS

p&

v

JAAoS

Ep7TEToLg

Toas

8WKav

...

.v.pc&

rp

SE

KaL

XE-pag

rpoUEOEURav.

r. PA

687"4

if:

E"laP

Kra

d7&L

dOV

p0OdV

KXTA.

o

also

Galen,

De Usu Partium

3.i

[= 3.168

Kiihn]

XEypa

/

LV

8T

/OdVOS

aITCLvTWy

(WWV

LV~pw7TOS

EUaXEl, opyavea

IrpE7oOra

(cp

(of

-

&o7oUv

('

a-o dv-ov

EdV

o70

TTE~vOS

ETO

KCl

OP

Od,

XEPpas aXEv;

ib.

1.3

[= 3.5

Kuihn]

iVC-w

d

ao4-ra--oV

oV 54ov m

avorpvoS,

oxE7w

8 Kc

XELPES

opyavca

rropov?ra

c

, %o4o,.

This Greek

recognition

of a

connec-

tion between hands and intelligence is particularly remarkable.32The

derivative

account of human

progress

in

the

first

book of

Diodorus

Siculus refers

to

man,

EdVEL

(VE

Kai

UVVEPyO

EXOVL

7T

~'

TaV7Ra

XELpag

Kca

Adyov

Ka&

IvXjs

d

XvWocav

(1.8.9).

The

collocation

is

note-

worthy;

compare

the

similar

collocation

in

On

Ancient

Medicine

I:

WJITEp

KaL

-i-V

aAWv

TEXVEwV

ITcT(r

WV

OL

87ElzLOUpyoL

iioAAbv

JAAov

8La-

'pOvUaLV

KaT

X?"pR

Ka

Kaa

yvc47AvV,

or;-

8

KlC

E7T

ptLKTS.

Explicit

awareness of

the

special

connection

of hands

with

man

can

already

be

seen

in

the

familiar

fragment

[15 D.-K.]

of

Xenophanes

which

begins

&AA'

El

XELpas

lyox"

dEs 4

AEdOVTESJ

)

Yypd

ak

XElpEUUL

KaU

ipya

aEfV

rTEp

danVpES

TA.

Galen returns

again

and

again

to

the

uniqueness

of

man's

upright

posture.

De

Usu

Partium

3.2 [=

3.179

Kiihn]

dpO8

8~

/dvos

(,ov

W

d

mrrvTrov

vOpworros,

Ldvy

ydp3ELT

K7p

T

E0v

rV

UKEatA&v

p'

VKS

Ealrv; see also

b.

I5.8

[=

4.251

Kiihn].

He

makes

the

further

point

that man

alone

can sit with ease on

the

hip

bones,

ib.

3.I [=

3.I73

Kiihn]

KaL

T

KacLy(EU1OaP7p)(-oVWS

7

V

lX ov

dvqp

30

Chapter

3;

note

especially

the

wording

in

the clause

elt

e7?pKEL

TC

vOpn(p

Tairnd

ro0Blow

KaiL

vov7-c

ot

7E

KaiL

rTc

KaL

7

aLaLV

6crs'

dvOpo"ov.

3'

Cf. LSJ

s.vv.

rT8aw

I,

1n&8fLa

II,

7rTjs'TLSI.

32

For

some

of

the

modern

literature on this

topic

see

T.

Cole

[above,

n.231,

p.

40

and notes.

Contemporary

evolutionary

theory

would of

course side with

Anaxagoras

against

Aristotle. For

Aristotle on hands see

also

De

Anima

432aI

ff.


12/21

250

Robert

Renehan

7ro0

rW

Tawv

(CWV

w7TapXEt.

AEAle8( KaL

TOVTOTO'

IOOAAog,

a

VOpt-

vowtv

3pOlV

vo

vov

ErTvat

rTovvpw7Tov,

oVKE&6TEl

d

Tt

Ka

7TO

aOE`GEuOaL

pEvos XlEtL.

As late as the fourteenth century the commonplace was

still

being

repeated;

Ioannes

Catrares

ap.

Diels-Kranz VS

II.I37.22-23:

tpdvos

-cv

d&\wv dwv

ylverat

To

aX9t/a

'opOs

Ka

p

7TS~yOV

yr

a7TTE7at.

Various

other

distinctive human

characteristics

are mentioned.

Man

is the

animal who

laughs.

Pollux

6.200:

YhEAarTtKd-

o0Trw

ap

6dpliovrav

V

dvOpw7ToV,

rTt

pdvo0

i;

rvrwv rTwv

wv

yYEA,.

Iamblichus,

Protrepticus

21.K:

.VBpWOU

tOv

iapd

7i

iAa

cia

o

os

[sc.

'

y Awc]

optov7at

yoOv

TrVES' 5ov

auto'

yEAarTtLKoV

vat)

..daAa

'd/u*tv

E1O

KaT

7To

8vvarov

Kr65

ctAoCo'oi

cV

Kat,

ro

tOfTaTOs

oyvTov vG

v.WVP7TrV

V7TEKXMWPV

TPoKp-

Ivwv

E

r7 AoytKoVt

1

yEAarTt(KO

EL

tKp~ttVW

Kal

&a0opiv

rrpos aAotla

+a.

Sextus

Empiricus,

Outlines

of

Pyrrhonism

2.211,

refers

to the

pc-ov

yEaaUT-Kdv,

and

Lucian,

Vit.

Auct.

26,

states

v8Opwrros

v

yEAarTtLKdV,

&vo 8E

oa3

yEAaaotKdv.

seudo-Basilius

(PG

29.688C)

sets

out

a

syllo-

gism

in

embryo:

i'&ov

\

av6pcw7Tov

O

yAtaarTLKoV,

al

E'T

T

yEAaUTtKoV,

dvOpwros'.

Uncommon,

but

perceptive,

is

the observation

made

by

"Simonides"

in

Xenophon's

Hiero

(7.3):

Kat

yap

(LOL

0KE

. . .

TO7U

t

t&a

pEtV

a

V'p

TV

wv

v

Wwv,

7r

TLLqp

S

opeYEcaOat.

an alone

grasps

logical

consequences,

is

"critical,"

Plut.

Mor.

386

F:

E

yE

rs

pv

v7Trdp6EW~tv 7TpaypLdrTWIEXEKaL

7

G

qapla

yv;oLV,

dKOAOV*OOV

8

OECwpGav

Kal

KplULV

VOpW7TO

LdV

7Trrapat8wKEv

7

"

'S.

And

man alone has

free

will,

Marcus Aurelius

0o.28:

pd'vw

0c

AoytKc

5O

8E8o0a

TO

EKOUUWS

TEUOaaL

70tS

ytvO/LEvOts,

ro

8

ETErOat

/tAdv

amr

a&vayKatov.

Religion

s

pecu-

liar

to

man,

Xen.

Mem.

1.4.13,

Plato,

Protag.

322A

'

vO6pwros

..

.

&wv

dvov

OJobEi

gdVLuE

(imitated

by

Philostratus,

VA

8.7.7

t7dvov {4wv

OEoV;

ot'E)

3

and,

more

fully,

Menex.

237D:

UvvE'u

t E

TEPEIXEt

WV

aAAwv

sc.

?TwV]

Kac

8&'KVl

Kal OEo3s

1,vov

VOll

EL.

The

use

of

81Kr

in

this

latter

passage

is

significant.

&81K-

in the sense

of

"justice"

is

not

an

Attic usage (=

&KatoKv'V

, r7 8&Kata), nd, where it is found in Attic,

deliberate

archaizing

should

be

suspected.34

Here Plato

may

very

well

have

in

mind

Hesiod,

who

expressly

distinguished

man from

animals

by

virtue

of

the fact

that

man

has

L'K-r

and

they

do not

(Erga

276-280,

on

which

see

below).

The

Christians

went

beyond

earlier thinkers

by

applying

"man

alone

of animals"

to

specifically

Christian

religious

beliefs.

So

Nemesius,

p.

55

Matthaei:

8c&ov

E

aa3iovo

sc.

&vOpeprov]

KaL

EIalpET0ro

al

7T

oLdvOV

T7Yv

CMv

WOv

T7

TOVITOVU

w/a

/ETa

COlvarTOV

"*See my Studies in Greek Texts. Hypomnemata 43 (Gottingen, 1976), p. 123.

34

As,

for

example,

in the

religiously

conservative

language

of the Laws 777D

.

. .

a

opwyv

vV

&'rlv

[o'ELp

also is uncommon

in Attic

prose],

887B

81Kq1V

70L

.

E.

.


13/21

The

Greek

Anthropocentric

View

of

Man

251

dvlaTrOata

Kal

Es1a

Oavautlav

XopEiv.

That

this is

a

conscious

extension

of

traditional

notions

is shown

by

the fact that Nemesius

goes

on,

almost

at once, to add

l8ta

a3iovo

Kal

Tiv

7TEXVOV

TE

KaL

E~marTqnc

paO

xarta,

Kal

at

KT7

7Ts

TEXvas

Tavras

E

Vpy7ELLL.

he human

discovery

of

the

various arts

and sciences

had

been a

commonplace

since

at least

the

fifth

century

B.C.

The most awesome

claim

in the entire "man

alone

of

animals"

series is that

man alone

is,

in one

sense or

other,

divine.

Closely

related

to this

is the notion

that man alone

is,

in

essence,

an

imitation

of

the

deity.35

Pl.

Protag.

322A

7TS7)

8~

d

vOpOWrro7S

taS

LEUaXE

opas,

7rpWTrov

EV

ETL

j

0JV

EOo

OEvyyUV7VELcavY

Wov

ldvov

O

EvodOLTEV.

Ar.

PA 656"8ff

q

yap ILdvovsc.

rd

wV

avOpdiov

yEvos]

iETErlx

70 elov Wi

)5ptv

vwpltwov

Wov,

7

)dciaL

a

lrTa

v7C-ov.

Ib.

686"27

ff

p&'v

1

v

ycp

UrTL

p/doVV

TWV

WV

La8To'T

7jv

OVUTLV

WTovo

aL

7qv oUclaV EVELL

OEtav

ipyov

S701T

ELOTTrro

7TO

VOELV

Kal

cpOVE-V.36

Cleanthes,

Hymn

to Zeus

vv.

4-5,

P-

227

Powell

[=

SVF

1.121.37 f]

E

K

Uo0

yap

yEvoS

EcaLE,

t?'Xovt

dp-ja)

AnaXO'VTEs

(LOVVOL,

ua

WEL

TE

Kaz

EpITEt

OVq7T

E7T1

yatav.37

Muso-

nius

Rufus

ap.

Stob.

5.1057

Hense

[=

Fr.

17 Hense],

KaOdhov

8'

avOpw~ros'C

L.a

LEV

G

O

p

vov

WYV

Lmy7EwV

Eca'V.38

Galen,

De

Usu

Partium

1.2

[= 3-3

Kiihn],

uoo?v

yap

70oGo

78

(Cov

[sc.

dvOpOiwoS]

Ka

LdovovTWVE7TY7)e' orV.

b. 13.11 [= 4.126-i27 Kihn], CvOpd

OT,

LLO

AoyLKO*dvETt

v

T

v

d

(jOV

Kat OEOV

LdVOV

iTV

E'L

y-,.

Genesis

I:2639

made

ready

a

welcome

reception,

first

on

the

part

of

Philo

and

then of the

Christians,

for the

Greek

philosophic

idea that

man

was

an

"image

and likeness"

of

God. The

long history

of

that

concept

in

Christian

theology

cannot

be

traced

here,

but one

passage,

from

the

"renegade"

Tatian,

may

be

adduced.

It

shows

that

man's

uniqueness

in

this

regard

could

be

maintained even

by

those

who

did

not

accept

Adyos

-

the

usual

touchstone of the

divine in

man

-

as

a

peculiar

prerogative of men. Oratio ad Graecos, c. 15:

uare

ap

XvOpwTosro

oi

x,

35

For

a brief

discussion,

with

references,

of

this

latter

concept

see

HSCP

68.1964.383-384.

36

Cf.

also

EN

1I77b26-31;

1153b32

is different:

rr'v-ra

yap

bUUoe iXE

OELOV.

37

Verse

5

is

modeled

on II.

17.447

=

Od.

18.131,

7rw?vrwv

aa

a

E

yatav

brt

irvelEL

TE

Ka

EprL.

The

preceding

verse in

the

Odyssey

is

od0d24v

lKVO7EpOV

yara

rpE10E

vOpWbrroCo;

the

corresponding

line in

the

Iliad is

a

comparably

lugubrious

specimen

of

pessimismus

Homericus. Imitation of a

verse

from

these

Homeric

contexts

strongly

suggests

that

Cleanthes

intends

here a

conscious

correction

of

Homer.

38

Cf. A. C. van Geytenbeek, Musonius Rufus and Greek Diatribe (Assen,

1963),

p.

24.

S

Kal

ErTEV

OE0S

In0M7'GWLYEV

vUpW7TOV

aT

ELKOva

lE-rpaV

aL

KQY

dojoLwav;

compareabove,

n.27.


14/21

252

Robert

Renehan

WE7TEp

OL

KOpaKWVOL

80

t

LaT7OVU,

ov

AOtKV,

VOK

q

a

Lt

SEK"LKV

'SELXo'rETatL

ap

Ka7T

vcToVS

a

Td

aAoya

oV

Kal

E.TtuT-qojrlS

EK1LKa.

LdVoS

~E

avOpw7TOS

oELKCOV

aL

/jLOLWULS

OOEOv

"

AE'YWdv8Opw7Tov

o XToV

oLo~a

roZs

~o

o7TPC

7aov'a,

dAAa

'v

rnoppWo

tv

avopcoTron'og

Tpo

awrov

E

7v OEOV

KEXoWPKoda.

he contrast between men

and

other

(6a

could

hardly

be

expressed

more

emphatically

than it is

in

these

(and

similar)

passages.

There

is

no

question

of

other animals

sharing

in

the

divine.

This

is

well

brought

out

by

Galen,

who

takes the

pi-q

tpa

motif

one

step

further,

De

Usu Partium

1.22

[=

3.80

Kilhn]

ai-rc

[sc.

7r

7TL6jCKp]

7

ULloTavtraV

atta

tutqta

yEAotov

aUTV

vOpWrOv.

Evidently

he

considered

the

point

of

some

importance,

for he

repeats

it more

than

once. Ib. i5.8 [=

4.252

Kiihn] tCtt4rt

ydap

,yEAoZoV

vEpnov Wov

E&4cLaatLEv

57rdpXov;

see also

3.-6

[=

3.264-265

Kiihn],

I1.2

[=

3.848

Kiuhn].

This

analogy,

which

sharply

contrasts

even

the

most

anthropoid

of

animals

with

man,

is

old,

as

can be

seen

from

Heraclitus,

Fr.

82

D.-K.,

OTLCOIKOV

KdAALtaogS

laX(pos

dvavOpowv

vEt

aV/fldwAAv.40?

Thus we

conclude

this

sampling

of the

"t'dvov

i-ycv

Awv

davOpworo,"

topos.

It

would

not

be difficult

to

quadruple

these

specimens,

so

thoroughly

and

rigorously

anthropocentric

had

the

Greek mind

become.41

If

a

change

were

to

be

effected,

perhaps

the

most

promising

approach lay in taxonomy, the scientific study of the classificati6n of

animals

(and

plants).

For

such

a

study, by

assigning

man

a definite

place

in

a

larger

order

of

animals,

might

lead

to

the

conclusion

that

he

was

but

one

(Wov

among

many.

It

is

known

from the accurate

represen-

tation

of

animals

in

the

art of earlier

peoples

that the

Greeks

were not

the first

to

engage

in

the careful

observation

of animal

anatomy.

But

taxonomy

as such

begins

with

them.42

Even

in Greece

the

earliest

known

divisions

are casual

and

rough-hewn.

The so-called

"koisches

Tiersystem,"

which

has

been reconstructed

from

the

Hippocratic

work Regimen 2.46 ff, is exaggerated. There different varieties of

flesh

and

meat

(animals,

birds,

fish)

are listed

in order to describe

their

effect

as

food

upon

humans;

then the

effect

of

such

items

as

birds'

eggs,

cheese,

water,

wine,

etc.,

is

described.

Such

a

pragmatic

account

hardly

constitutes,

or

implies,

a formal

taxonomy

undertaken

for its

own

40

Pindar,

Pyth. 2.72-73

perhaps

belongs

here:

KaAo'S

o

TL'wv

Tapa

TaLalv,

EL't

KaAo'.

41

Numerous

examples

could

also

be

adduced

from Latin

sources

directly

influenced

by

the

Greek.

Suffice

to

mention, exempli

gratia,

Pliny's

Natural

History,prefaceto BookVII

(..

. ante omniaunumanimantium .. uni animan-

tium

...

uni...

uni...

uni... uni...

uni

...

uni...).

42

At least

so far

as

is

known

at

present.

If earlier

oreign

systems

existed,

they

hardly

influenced

Aristotle's

original

researches.


15/21

The Greek

Anthropocentric

iew

of

Man

253

sake. For that one must

go

to

Aristotle.43

His

zoological

works

cannot,

on the

whole,

be described as

anthropocentric.

Solmsen

has

recently

written: "While the Timaeus is

anthropocentric,

Plato

contenting

him-

self with

some

very

few

and

very

brief

glances

at

other

living

creatures,

Aristotle's

biology

has

the

entire

variety

of animals for its

subject.

Man,

with whom Aristotle is

preoccupied

in his ethical

and

political

writings,

is in

the

biology

just

one of

the

large

variety

of

beings."44

This

"new

biology"

had

within

itself

a

potential

for

diminishing

the Greek

proclivity

towards

anthropocentricity.

In

actuality, nothing

of the sort

happened.

Aristotle

himself,

apart

from the

zoological

works,

reveals

a

quite anthropocentric

outlook,

which

is

concisely

summed

up

in

the

Politics,

1253"3i-32:

EAEwE01s

f1lE'A'clr-ov

TWv

poWV

avOpWTOdS

cr-Lv.

What

distinguishes

man

is,

of

course,

the intellectual

faculty

in

his

soul,

De

Anima

414bi19,

TE'pOLS,

8

KacL

7~T

LVO)7LKOV

7E

KcLL

VO0,

OtOV

aVOpdCFTOLS

aL%

t

L

7

TOLOTOV

ETEpOV

7aLV

TqLLWTEpOV.

ut

even

in the

zoological

treatises,

this bias

appears,

GA

737b26

if:

vfv 8'

&7T0

r


16/21

254

Robert Renehan

especially

because of

his

intellect,

as

quite

discrete from

animals

appears

already

in the oldest

extant

works

of

Greek

literature. The

anthropocentric attitude is not a creation of Greek

philosophy.

Here, as

often,

the

professional

philosophers merely

developed

into

coherent

theory

old,

half-expressed

beliefs

deeply

rooted

in the

Greek

conscious-

ness.

In

the

Odyssey,

when

Odysseus'

men

are

turned into swine

by

Circe,

the

poet

describes

them as follows:

o

SE

aoviawv

Lv

'XOv

KE~aAa

V

TE

TPtXGS

E

/

K

SE/LaS

,

ctcrlp

voVN

jv(LgTdOS

qS"T

VETc POS

TEp.45

It

is not

a

question

of two

(or

more)

different

types

of

vov^,

those

of

men

and

of

animals

;46

clearly

the

poet

sees

vo?s,

"mind,"

as

something

which

men

have and

animals do

not.47

A later

age

might

talk,

for

in-

stance, of vois as a distinguishing property of human, as opposed to

animal,

nature;

presumably

Greeks of the Homeric

period

did

not

yet

possess

the

linguistic equipment

for

that.

Nonetheless

they

felt

it

at

some

level. And

if

voLs

separated

men

from

animals

in

Homer,

it

also

linked

them with

the

gods.

Zeus

has

a

vdos.48

Another subtle

distinction

of

epic usage points

up

the

fact

that a

real

difference was sensed

be-

tween

men

and

animals.

In Homer

the

(eschatological) vyx74

lies off at

death.

It

has been

remarked

that in four

passages

the

Ov6~d

is

described,

untypically,

as

flying

away

upon

death;

in each instance the

Ovtds-

belongs to an animal.49 Snell explains this usage as follows: "people

were averse to

ascribing

the

psyche,

which

a

human

being

loses

when

he

dies,

also to an animal.

They

therefore

invented

the

idea

of

a

thymos

which

leaves

the

animal

when

it

expires."50

The Homeric

poets,

there-

fore,

tended

to

think

of

men as set

apart

from

animals

by

virtue of

their

possession

of

voiVs

and

.vX".

Those

are not

insignificant

differences.

Hesiod

introduces

yet

another

important

difference,

Erga

276-279:

roi&

yalp

dv~pu~otcna

o4Lov

SLETacE

Kpoid'wv,

1X0Vcn

kEV

Kal

77paUl

cL

OUUVOL9

7TETE7JVOLS

E(TELV

aAA7qAovN,

6TEL OOV

0LK7)

caUt

/LET aV-Sr

/

45

10.239-240.

46

Even if

it

were,

the contrast

therein

implied

would

set men

off

from animals.

4

It is

in

keeping

with Homeric

beliefs

that man

loses

vo^is

upon

death.

The

blind

seer

Tiresias

is

the

exception

that

proves

the

rule;

even

in Hades

his

OPE'VES

L/iTE8OL

'LUL

/C5

Kati

r

Ev77&rt

voov

7TO'pE

7TEqSO'vEta

oLA

1TE7TvvxJIa&

Od.

10.493-495).

In

II.

23.104

it

is said of the shades

in Hades

that

9p'vets

oK

"PV

vrarTav.

Od.

1.475-476

.

.

.

"Ardobe

..

~Eva

7E

VEKpOL

/

aftpa8EEs'

ov.L,

48

II.

I5-46I

o1

A^OE

A

Ls

r7TVKlVdv

ov;

see

also

15.242,

16.103,

17.I76.

4

See

especially

Bruno

Snell,

The

Discovery

of

the

Mind,

pp.

I1-12

=

Die

Entdeckung

des

Geistes4

(G6ttingen,

1975),

P.

21. The

passages

are II.

16.469

(horse), 23.880 (dove), Od. 10.163 (deer),

19.454

(boar).

50 See

above,

n.49.

Snell

does

not,

however,

mention

Od.

14.426

-v

a'

AEnE

qvX"i

(of

a

boar).

This

does

not

refute

his

conjecture,

which is based

upon

a

general

aversion,

not

an absolute

rule.


17/21

The Greek

Anthropocentric

View

of

Man

255

avOpnrroVn

8'

WKE

8&1K-

Man has

&1K9

s a

gift

from

the

gods;

fish

and

beasts

and birds do not. Centuries

later Plato wrote that man had

a

kinship with the

gods51

and that accordingly man alone of animals

practiced

81Kqr

supra).

In the

Protagoras

myth

it is

even

stated that

Zeus

gave justice

to

men;

the words are the same as in Hesiod

(322

C

Sol0

1q81KiV).

The

continuity

of

the tradition

is

particularly

clear

here.

Examination

of Hesiod's standard for the

presence

or absence of

8tKrq

proves

revealing.

Because

they

have

no

&81Kq,

other

living things,

unlike

man,

eat one

another;

they

are,

in a

word,

cannibals. The

Greeks

regarded

cannibalism

with

abhorrence;

one tends to

forget

that not

all

societies

do. Herodotus mentions several times a northern race

of

"man-eaters"; the language which he uses to describe them is reminis-

cent of

Hesiod,

4.Io6:

'Av"po

bdyoL

84

dypud;ara rrcxvrwv cvOpdrrwv

Xovea 0Ea,

o"'

1K-qV

O3

?OV7oro

7E

vc~wo

OU8

V

XpEwpLEvoL.

ristotle

in

the Nicomachean

Ethics

explicitly

describes cannibalistic

dispositions

as

"beastlike"

(OpPEL~S

I

148b19).52

Whether

Hesiod considered

fish,

beasts,

and birds

here as three

separate

"orders" of animals

(to employ

a later

terminology)

or whether the three nouns are used

collectively

as

a

poetic

periphrasis

for

?5a

is not

apparent.53

Probably

he

had

not

reflected

one

way

or

the other.

The

important point

is

that

fishes,

beasts, birds, whether one group or three, all go together in opposition

to man.

From this

it

follows that for Hesiod

the

cannibalism

consisted

either

in

any

animal

eating

any

other

(if

one

group)

or in

any

fish,

beast,

or

bird

eating, respectively,

any

other

fish,

beast

or

bird

(if

three

groups).

That

Hesiod

is

thinking only

of

species

which

are

cannibalistic

in the strict

sense,

whereby

one

member of the

species

eats

another

member

of the same

species,

is

out of

the

question.

The

general,

or

rather

universal,

mode of

expression

in

Erga 276

ff

excludes

that.

Any

lingering

doubts can be

removed

by

reference to the

fable

of

the hawk and the nightingale in Erga 202 ff (two different species of

birds).

But if this

is

so,

then

Hesiod has a

point

of

view

toward

animals

drastically

different

from ours.

For

a

fox

to

eat

a

hare,

an

eagle

to

eat

a

51

That

men

were

actually

related to

the

gods

is an old

Greek

belief;

see

Hes.

Erg. io8;

h.

Apoll. 335-336;

Pindar Nem.

6.1

ff.

Philosophical

teaching

about

the

kinship

of

man with the

divine had

its ancestors.

52

That cannibalism

was

thoroughly

abhorrent to

the

Greeks

from

early

times

is

clear

from II.

4.34-36,

22.346-347,

24.212-213

(to

say

nothing

of the

Laestry-

gonians

and the

Cyclops);

see also

Xen. Anab.

4.8.14.

For

cannibalism

as

a

feature

of

primitive

life in the theories

of

the classical

period

see

W. K.

C.

Guthrie, In the Beginning (Ithaca, 1957) p. 95 with

n.i.

59

One

cannot be sure

whether Hesiod knew

the word

?W-ov;

most

likely

he

did. It is

first attested in Semonides

(Fr. 13 W.),

from

whom

Hesiod is not

that

far

removed

in time.

The

argument

from

silence would be

worthless

here.


18/21

256

Robert Renehan

chicken,

a shark a tuna

-

these

are to us no

more

examples

of

cannibal-

ism than

for

a

man to

eat the same

items.

And

if

an

eagle

is

a

cannibal for

eating a rabbit, a man is more so, for he is more closely related to the

rabbit.

Hesiod can

escape

the

charge

of

illogicality

only

if

we

recognize

what

his

premise

was,

that

all

animals

(or

all

fishes, beasts,

birds)

constitute

one

broad

class

(or

three)

on a

par

with

man,

so

that

mutual

conduct

within the

group

is

equivalent

to

mutual

conduct

among

men.

Presumably

when

a

lion eats

a

deer,

it

is

comparable,

say,

to a

Greek

eating

a

Trojan.

This

is not to

say

that Hesiod had

thought

all this

out.

Quite

the

contrary.

His

unconscious,

doubtless

inherited,

inclination

toward

animals

was

to

lump

them

all

together

when

brought

into

explicit

connection with man. Plato was to do the same thing; see especially

Polit.

263

C

(supra,

p.

241).

This

is

the

real

significance

of

the

passage.

It

demonstrates

a

rigid polarity,

one

in

which man

clearly

appears

superior.

He has

&K-7.

There

is a

passage

in Archilochus which

may

seem to weaken the

force

of the

Hesiodic

evidence,

Fr.

177

West

[=

94 Diehl]:

C

ZEVf,

rrTTEP

EV,

CZ

o

VeYovpaLVOvpaTOS',

%;

8' py'rtY2

)

2

v5pV

v

p

AEwpya

Kat,

GELLoTa,

ot

8e

Oijptwv

v;[pLS

TE

Kati

8LK?7

LEXEL.

This

is the

only place

in

early

Greek literature

where

38K

is

attributed

to

animals.

The

testimonium counts

for

nothing,

not

because

it is

unique,

but

because

it occurs in

afable,

that

of the fox and

the

eagle.

It

is

renehan-the greek anthropocentric view of man (hscp 85 [1981])

Documents