Democritus and the Sources of Greek Anthropology (Philological Monographs Series Number 25)

DEMOCRITUS A N D T H E SOURCES OF GREEK ANTHROPOLOGY By

THOMAS C O L E Tale

University

PUBLISHED FOR

THE AMERICAN PHILOLOGICAL

ASSOCIATION

B Y T H E PRESS O F

WESTERN RESERVE 1967

UNIVERSITY

CONTENTS

xi

Abbreviations I n t r o d u c t i o n : Sources a n d M e t h o d s i n t h e S t u d y o f A n c i e n t Kulturgeschichte I. II.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

1

.

C o m m o n Motifs i n Five A n c i e n t Histories o f Technology A Pattern o f Prehistory

.

.

.

.

.

15

.

Possible Sources

.

III.

A l t e r n a t e P a t t e r n s o f Kulturgeschichte:

.

IV.

T h e O r i g i n of Language (Diodorus, V i t r u v i u s , Epicurus)

25 47 60

V.

T h e Genealogy of Morals (Epicurus)

.

.

.

.

.

70

VI.

T h e Genealogy o f M o r a l s (Polybius)

.

.

.

.

.

80

VII. VIII.

A F o u r t h C e n t u r y V e r s i o n o f P r e h i s t o r y (Laws I I I ) Plato, Polybius, and Democritus

.

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

K

2. S o c i e t y a n d t h e F a m i l y

o

. s

.

97 .

m

.

o

.

i

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

107

.

107

.

IX.

D e m o c r i t e a n Sociology

a n d H i s t o r y i n the Development

Greek T h o u g h t X.

.

.

The Heirs of Democritus

of

.

.

112 120

3. T h e P o l i t i c a l , t h e M i l i t a r y , a n d t h e R o y a l A r t

131

.

.

.

.

.

.

148

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

148

2. C u l t u r e a n d t h e G o d s ( E u h e m e r i s m a n d R e l a t e d T h e o r i e s )

i53

Cynics) 3. P h i l o s o p h y

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

a n d Politics (Polybius, the A c a d e m y ,

siphanes)

.

4. A Comprehensive

.

.

.

Restatement

.

.

.

(the Epicureans)

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

.

.

Nau-

.

.

.

170

. .

.

174 i93 196

A p p e n d i x I I : V i t r u v i u s a n d Posidonius

.

.

.

.

A p p e n d i x I I I : P o l y b i u s a n d t h e Stoics

.

.

.

.

A p p e n d i x I V : Democritus B30 a n d Euhemerus Selected B i b l i o g r a p h y Index

.

.

. .

. ix

. .

. .

. .

163

202

. .

.

.

207

.

.

.

211

ABBREVIATIONS

W o r k s w h i c h appear i n the Selected B i b l i o g r a p h y o n pages 207-10 are cited i n the footnotes i n shortened f o r m , o m i t t i n g place a n d date o f p u b l i c a t i o n , a n d titles o f articles i n periodicals. A few works are cited b y author's last name alone, as follows: B r i n k , C. Ο . , "Οίκείωσις

a n d Οικειότης:

Theophrastus a n d Z e n o on N a t u r e i n

M o r a l T h e o r y , " Phronesis 1 (1956) 123-45. D a h l m a n n , J . H . , De philosophorum Graecorum sententiis ad loquellae originem pertinentibus capita duo (Diss. L e i p z i g 1928). D i c k e r m a n n , S. O., De argumentis quibusdam apud Xenophontem, Platonem, Aristotelem obviis e structura hominis et animalium petitis (Diss. H a l l e 1909). Havelock, Ε. Α . , The Liberal Temper in Greek Politics ( N e w H a v e n 1957). Kleingünther, Α., "ΠΡΩΤΟΣ ΕΥΡΕΤΗΣ," Philologus S u p p l . 26.1 (1933). K r e m m e r , Μ . , De catalogis heurematum (Diss. L e i p z i g 1890). Lovejoy, A . O . , a n d Boas, G., Primitivism and Related Ideas in Antiquity

(Baltimore

1935)· Philippson, R., " D i e Rechtsphilosophie der E p i k u r e e r , " AGP 23 (1910) 289-337 a n d 433-46. R e i n h a r d t , K . , " H e k a t a i o s v o n A b d e r a u n d D e m o k r i t , " Hermes 47 (1912) 492-513. Spoerri, W . , Späthellenistische Berichte über Welt, Kultur und Götter= Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 9 (1959). Theiler, W . , Zur Geschichte der teleologischen Naturbetrachtung bis auf Aristoteles (Zürich 9 5)· Thraede, K . , " E r f i n d e r , " RAC 5 (1962) 1191-1278. U x k u l l - G y l l e n b a n d , W . v o n , Griechische Kulturentstehungslehren = Bibliothek für Philosophie 26 (1924). W a l b a n k , F. W . , A Historical Commentary on Polybius ( O x f o r d 1957). Γ

2

* OTHER

AGP AJP BPW CP Cd CR DAW Β

ABBREVIATIONS

Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie American Journal of Philology Berliner philologische Wochenschrift Classical Philology Classical Quarterly Classical Review Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Altertumswissenschaft xi

Schriften der Sektion für

OTHER ABBREVIATIONS

Xll

FGrH

F. J a c o b y , Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker

HSCP JHS JRS Me'lRome MusHelv

Harvard Studies in Classical

NGG NJbb NPU PhilRev ProcBritAc PubblTorino RA RAC RE REA REG RendlstLomb RendLinc RFIC RhM RPh

Journal Journal

(1923-58)

Philology

of Hellenic Studies of Roman Studies

Melanges d'arche'ologie et d'histoire de VF\cole frangaise de Rome Museum Helveticum Nachrichten der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Altertum Neue philologische Untersuchungen Philosophical Review Proceedings of the British Academy Universita di Torino, Pubblicazioni della Facoltä di lettere e Filosoßa Revue archeologique Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum (Stuttgart 1950) P a u l y - W i s s o w a - K r o l l , Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (Stuttgart 1894) Revue des etudes anciennes Revue des etudes grecques Istituto Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere, Rendiconti, Classe di Lettere e Scienze Morali e Storiche Rendiconti dell' Accademia dei Lincei Rivista difilologia e di istruzione classica

TAPA TGF

Rheinisches Museum für Philologie Revue de Philologie Studi italiani difilologia classica Symbolae Osloenses Stoicorum veterum fragmenta, coll. H . v. A r n i m (Leipzig 1903-24) Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta , rec. A . N a u c k ( L e i p z i g 1889)

vs WS

D i e l s - K r a n z Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker Wiener Studien

SIFC SO SVF

2

9

(Berlin 1959-60)

Publications o f G e r m a n a n d A u s t r i a n learned societies are indicated b y : Abh (= Abhandlungen), Ber ( = Berichte) or SB (= Sitzungsberichte), followed b y the city of origin.

INTRODUCTION SOURCES AND METHODS OF

ANCIENT

INT H E STUDY KULTURGESCHICHTE

Discussions o f G r e e k t h o u g h t r e l a t i n g t o t h e o r i g i n s o f c u l t u r e o f t e n b e g i n b y distinguishing its t w o m a i n currents, o r c o u n t e r - c u r r e n t s : t h e m y t h o f t h e G o l d e n A g e a n d t h e m y t h o f h u m a n progress—Hesiodic fantasy a n d I o n i a n science. T h e d i c h o t o m y is f u n d a m e n t a l a n d p e r s i s t e n t , b u t i t s h o u l d n o t b e 1

a l l o w e d t o obscure t h e f a c t t h a t t h e r e d i d e m e r g e , d u r i n g t h e course o f t h e fifth

c e n t u r y B . C . , a clear i f l i m i t e d v i c t o r y f o r o n e o f t h e t w o p o i n t s o f v i e w .

I t w a s possible t h e r e a f t e r t o d e b a t e t h e e x t e n t a n d s i g n i f i c a n c e o f w h a t h a d happened,

o r t o seek m o r e f a v o r a b l e

terms f o r t h e defeated

party; the

v i c t o r y i t s e l f was n o t c a l l e d i n t o q u e s t i o n . N o w h e r e , i n f a c t , is t h e effect o f I o n i a n r a t i o n a l i s m o n t h e G r e e k m i n d m o r e s t r i k i n g t h a n i n t h e success o f its c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e t e c h n o l o g i c a l a c h i e v e m e n t s

o f civilization are o f a

r e l a t i v e l y r e c e n t o r i g i n , a n d t h a t m a n ' s life w a s o n c e f a r s i m p l e r a n d p o o r e r m a t e r i a l l y t h a n i t is n o w . T h e s e o p i n i o n s w e n t a l m o s t u n c h a l l e n g e d f r o m t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y u n t i l s u c h t i m e as t h e J u d a e o - C h r i s t i a n doctrine o f the F a l l began t o color ancient conceptions o f p r e h i s t o r y . I n 2

400 B . C . i t w a s s t i l l necessary f o r T h u c y d i d e s t o w r i t e a r e f u t a t i o n o f those w h o w o u l d e x a g g e r a t e t h e scale a n d i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e T r o j a n w a r ; t h e r e is nothing comparable

i n w h a t survives

o f later historical w r i t i n g .

Quite

f o r e i g n t o a l l serious discussions o f t h e p e r i o d a r e b o t h t h e H e s i o d i c v i s i o n of a G o l d e n Race l i v i n g at the b e g i n n i n g o f man's history a n d H o m e r ' s g l o r i f i c a t i o n o f a v a n i s h e d age o f h e r o i c p o w e r a n d s p l e n d o r .

3

Primitivists

might continue, like Hesiod, t o p u t the apex o f h u m a n felicity somewhere i n the r e m o t e past. B u t t h e i r p r i m i t i v i s m is closely l i n k e d w i t h n o s t a l g i a f o r a simpler w a y o f l i f e ; as s u c h i t is essentially u n l i k e H e s i o d ' s i d e a l i z a t i o n o f a n 1

The distinction was first drawn in L . Preller's article, " D i e Vorstellungen der Alten besonders der Griechen von dem Ursprünge und den ältesten Schicksalen des menschlichen Geschlechts," Philologus 7 (1852) 3 5 - 6 0 . O f subsequent discussions, the most important is that in Havelock, 2 5 - 3 5 . For the reinterpretation of the life of primitive man in the light of the first chapters of Genesis 2

see Uxkull-Gyllenband, 4 7 - 4 8 , and G . Boas, Essays on Primitivism

and Related Ideas in the Middle

Ages

(Baltimore 1948) 1-67. Homer's attitude, explicit in sporadic and formulaic references (//. 1.272, 5.304, 12.383, 12.449, 20.287) to feats of strength beyond the capacity of men oloi vvv ßpoToi tioiv, is implied in the whole epic tradition: four centuries after ceasing to exist, the Achaean world continued to supply the principal subjects of heroic narrative. 3

2

DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES OF G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

age w h i c h h e b e l i e v e d t o h a v e b e e n b e t t e r , t h o u g h h a r d l y less c o m p l i c a t e d a n d sophisticated, t h a n his o w n .

4

I n similar fashion, proponents o f a cyclical

v i e w o f h i s t o r y m i g h t b e l i e v e , as H o m e r d i d , t h a t e a r l i e r c i v i l i z a t i o n s w e r e more

elaborate

a n d splendid

t h a n theirs. B u t the A t l a n t i s or p r i m e v a l

A t h e n s w h i c h t h e y e n v i s i o n is a l w a y s s e p a r a t e d f r o m t h e p r e s e n t w o r l d age b y some sort o f c a t a c l y s m ;

m e n are thereby reduced t o the level o f bare

subsistence a n d m u s t p r o c e e d b y g r a d u a l stages t o t h e m o d i c u m o f c i v i l i z a ­ t i o n they n o w enjoy. C o n c e r n i n g t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h i s process a n d its u l t i m a t e w o r t h i n t e r m s o f h u m a n w e l l - b e i n g o p i n i o n s c o n t i n u e d , o f course, t o v a r y g r e a t l y . C i v i l i z a t i o n c o u l d b e r e g a r d e d as a n u n m i x e d blessing, a n u n m i t i g a t e d e v i l , o r s o m e t h i n g i n t e r m e d i a t e b e t w e e n t h e t w o . I t s c r e a t i o n o r r e c r e a t i o n was a l t e r n a t e l y t h e w o r k o f a f e w f a v o r e d ( o r perverse) i n d i v i d u a l s , o r t h e c o l l e c t i v e

achievement

o f a w h o l e r a c e ; a p u r p o s e f u l progress t o w a r d p e r f e c t i o n , o r a series o f some­ what haphazard

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

t i o n a r y perspective All

w e n t m u c h f u r t h e r w i t h some t h a n i t d i d w i t h o t h e r s .

c o u l d agree t h a t t e c h n o l o g y ,

o r t h e b u l k o f i t , was o f r e c e n t

origin.

A b o u t l a n g u a g e t h e r e was less u n a n i m i t y : some m a i n t a i n e d t h a t i t h a d c o m e i n t o b e i n g i n t h e same f a s h i o n as t e c h n o l o g y ; others, h o w e v e r , insisted t h a t i t o w e d i t s o r i g i n t o n a t u r e a l o n e , n o t h u m a n c o n t r i v a n c e . A n d ethics w a s s t i l l h a r d e r t o b r i n g w i t h i n a n e v o l u t i o n a r y perspective.

S o c i e t y a n d social

n o r m s , so m o s t w o u l d h a v e a r g u e d , rest o n m o r a l feelings w h i c h a r e i n n a t e i n m a n f r o m t h e v e r y b e g i n n i n g ; t h e l a t t e r m a y b e subject t o r e f i n e m e n t o r d e c a y b u t n o t t o essential c h a n g e .

5

Such divergences o f a t t i t u d e a n d a p p r o a c h are significant a n d w i l l p l a y a p r o m i n e n t r o l e i n l a t e r p o r t i o n s o f o u r discussion. B u t i t is i m p o r t a n t a t t h e outset t o stress those g e n e r i c s i m i l a r i t i e s w h i c h c a n be t r a c e d t h r o u g h t h e vast m a j o r i t y o f a n c i e n t a c c o u n t s o f t h e o r i g i n o f c u l t u r e . F o r c e r t a i n purposes it mattered little whether

c i v i l i z a t i o n was a m o n u m e n t t o d i v i n e bene­

volence, h u m a n ingenuity, or the indifferent workings chance.

6

As t o its m o n u m e n t a l a n d remarkable

o f accident a n d

character

t h e r e was n o

4

I n the terminology of the authors who have made the most thorough study of the attitudes involved (Lovejoy and Boas, ι—11), Hesiod's "chronological primitivism" is never found in later antiquity apart from "cultural primitivism." A n interesting comment on the change is provided by the text tradition of the Works and Days. Line 120: άφναοί μήλοισι φίλοι μακάρεσαι θΐοϊαιν was

considered spurious by the Alexandrians, presumably because the domestication of animals which it implies seemed to them to belong properly to a later stage of development. See T . G . Rosenmeyer, "Hesiod and Historiography," Hermes 85 (1957) 282—83, who defends the authenticity of the line. Once more in the terminology of Lovejoy and Boas ( 1 4 - 1 5 ) , a "technological" (or linguistic) "state of nature" was much easier to envision than an "economic," "marital," or "juristic and ethical" one. 5

T h e tragic poet Moschion, in a well known fragment { T G F 8 1 4 . 1 8 - 2 2 ) , is either uncertain or indifferent as to the exact character of the civilizing agent: it may have been Promethean intelli­ gence or.necessity or nature herself working through τ-rj μακρά τριβή. 6

3

INTRODUCTION

disagreement; a n d i n a n a l y z i n g i n d i v i d u a l details o f the structure one w r i t e r m i g h t d r a w freely o n t h e w o r k o f another, o f basically different tendency, a d a p t i n g a n d m o d i f y i n g o n l y w h e n a b s o l u t e l y necessary.

7

Moreover,

care-

less a n d u n o r i g i n a l w r i t e r s ( a n d t h e y c o m p r i s e t h e m a j o r i t y o f those whose statements o n t h e subjects h a v e s u r v i v e d ) w e r e q u i t e c a p a b l e o f c o m b i n i n g u n r e l a t e d o r e v e n c o n t r a d i c t o r y m o t i f s w i t h i n a single n a r r a t i v e . Such

8

b o r r o w i n g a n d conflation w o u l d be o f little importance for the

historian i f all the divergent attitudes m e n t i o n e d above were developed consistently a n d c o m p l e t e l y i n e x t a n t texts. U n f o r t u n a t e l y t h e y a r e n o t . O f t e n their character

m u s t b e r e c o n s t r u c t e d , o r t h e i r existence

inferred, from

scattered a n d f r a g m e n t a r y references, i m b e d d e d a t t i m e s i n c o n t e x t s w h i c h are c o m p l e t e l y a l i e n t o t h e m . I t is t h u s a l m o s t i m p o s s i b l e , i n s t u d y i n g a n y one aspect o f a n c i e n t t h o u g h t o n c u l t u r a l o r i g i n s , t o isolate a single t e x t o r g r o u p o f texts as h a v i n g sole r e l e v a n c e

to the problem. Whatever

their

i m m e d i a t e scope, one's i n v e s t i g a t i o n s m u s t rest i n t h e last analysis o n a s u r v e y o f t h e w h o l e r a n g e o f a c c o u n t s e x h i b i t i n g a v i e w o f c u l t u r e w h i c h is i n a n y sense e v o l u t i o n a r y . Since s u c h a v i e w w a s a l m o s t c a n o n i c a l f o r a t h o u s a n d years, a n d t h e p r i m i t i v e c o n d i t i o n o f m a n k i n d a p o p u l a r t h e m e w i t h a v a r i e t y o f w r i t e r s f o r a n e v e n l o n g e r p e r i o d , t h e a c c o u n t s a r e corresp o n d i n g l y n u m e r o u s . I t w i l l be useful, before p r o c e e d i n g f u r t h e r , t o r e v i e w them briefly.

9

T w o texts s t a n d o u t f o r t h e l e n g t h a n d systematic c h a r a c t e r o f t h e i r p r e sentation. Plato's Laws.

T h e y o c c u r i n t h e fifth b o o k o f L u c r e t i u s a n d t h e t h i r d b o o k o f T h e f o r m e r is u s u a l l y , a n d p e r h a p s w r o n g l y , r e g a r d e d as t h e

locus classicus f o r a n c i e n t Kulturgeschichte.

T h e e s t i m a t e is c e r t a i n l y o n e w h i c h

7

Cf. for example the appearance, in both naturalistic and teleological contexts, of arguments drawn from the biological and physiological advantages which distinguish man from other animals (below, pp. 4 1 - 4 2 , with note 33). The passage of Vitruvius discussed below, p. 42, provides a good example. O n what follows cf. Uxkull-Gyllenband, Lovejoy and Boas, Mondolfo, La comprensione del 8

9

soggelto umano nell'anlichita

classica

629-739;

Billeter,

"Griechische

Ursprünge der Kultur," Beilage zum Programm der Kantonschule Rurich

Anschauungen

über

die

( 1 9 0 1 ) ; and F . C . Seeliger's

article "Weltaltcr" in Roschers Lexicon, 6.375-417. O f these comprehensive studies UxkullGyllenband's is probably the best and that of Lovejoy and Boas (who reprint in full all passages discussed) the most useful. More selective and topical in their treatment are Sikes, The Anthropology of the Greeks, and Guthrie, In the Beginning. Havelock, 5 2 - 7 3 and 1 0 4 - 2 4 , offers the best and most complete discussion of the pertinent fifth century texts; Spoerri, 1 3 2 - 6 3 , the most exhaustive examination of all the material which has a bearing on the interpretation of the Kulturgeschichte in Diodorus 1.8; and Thraede, 1192-1241, the most recent and most complete discussion of the heuretes theme. O . Apelt, "Die Ansichten der griechischen Philosophen über den Anfang der Kultur," Jahresbericht

über das Carl Friedrichs-Gytnnasium

zu Eisenach

( 1 9 0 0 - 0 1 ) 5—16; F . D ü m m l e r ,

"Kulturgeschichtliche Forschung im Altertum," Verhandlungen der 42. Versammlung deutscher Philologen in Wien (1893) = Kleine Schriften 2 (Leipzig 1901) 4 4 3 - 6 2 ; and E . Malcovati, " L e idee

sull'umanitä primitiva," RendlstLomb, Ser. 2, 50 (1917) 465—76, confine themselves to a ities. Preller's article (above, note 1) is now of merely historical interest.

4

D E M O G R I T U S AND T H E S O U R C E S O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

m a k e s t o o l i t t l e a l l o w a n c e for t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t L u c r e t i u s ' n a r r a t i v e r e p resents a s p e c i f i c a l l y E p i c u r e a n t r e a t m e n t o f the subject. B u t t h e t e x t is so detailed a n d comprehensive

t h a t i t m u s t o c c u p y a p r o m i n e n t , i f n o t neces-

s a r i l y c e n t r a l , p l a c e i n one's researches. Plato's a c c o u n t (Laws

3.676A-83A),

l o n g e r t h o u g h less t h o r o u g h , treats t h e o r i g i n o f c u l t u r e a n d society as a preface t o t h e p o l i t i c a l h i s t o r y o f t h e Peloponnesus, A t t i c a , a n d Persia. L i k e L u c r e t i u s V , i t is t o o m u c h t h e p r o d u c t o f a specific p h i l o s o p h i c p o i n t o f v i e w t o be used u n c r i t i c a l l y a n d , a t t h e same t i m e , t o o i m p o r t a n t t o be i g n o r e d a l t o g e t h e r . I t represents t h e nearest a p p r o a c h , a m o n g p r e - H e l l e n i s t i c texts, t o a systematic t r e a t m e n t o f its subject. I t offers, m o r e o v e r , a c o m b i n a t i o n o f t e c h n o l o g i c a l a n d social h i s t o r y . T h e presence o f this c o m b i n a t i o n is i n ferable

in many

o f t h e p o r t i o n s o f a n c i e n t Kulturgeschichte

possess a f r a g m e n t a r y

r e c o r d , b u t i t is o n l y here

c h a r a c t e r c a n be e x t e n s i v e l y

for w h i c h

t h a t its existence

we and

documented.

C u l t u r a l h i s t o r y is a s u b o r d i n a t e t o p i c b o t h i n L u c r e t i u s ' p o e m a n d i n P l a t o ' s treatise. T h e r e existed i n a n t i q u i t y w o r k s i n w h i c h i t was t h e p r i n c i p a l o r sole t o p i c , a n d t h e t r e a t m e n t w h i c h i t r e c e i v e d t h e r e m u s t h a v e b e e n m o r e e l a b o r a t e . N o treatises o f t h i s sort h a v e s u r v i v e d , b u t a n u m b e r o f t h e m are k n o w n t o us b y t i t l e o r t h r o u g h s u m m a r y references t o t h e i r c o n t e n t s . T h e m o s t a m b i t i o u s m a y h a v e b e e n t h e Life

of Greece, b y A r i s t o t l e ' s p u p i l

D i c a e a r c h u s o f Messene ( F r . 4 7 - 6 6 W e h r l i ) . Besides p r e s e n t i n g a h i s t o r y o f G r e e k society, D i c a e a r c h u s m a d e a n e f f o r t t o p l a c e t h i s h i s t o r y i n t o t h e l a r g e r c o n t e x t o f h u m a n c u l t u r e as a w h o l e . H i s s c h e m a t i z a t i o n history

according

herding,

or

to

the

dominant

f a r m i n g — i n each

form of

successive

of pre-

livelihood—food-gathering,

stage was

probably

the

most

i m p o r t a n t a n d i n f l u e n t i a l p a r t o f his w o r k . B u t s u r v i v i n g f r a g m e n t s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e d e t a i l s as w e l l as t h e g e n e r a l

pattern of cultural

development

r e c e i v e d t h e i r share o f a t t e n t i o n . W r i t e r s o f u n i v e r s a l h i s t o r y c o u l d b e g i n , i f t h e y w i s h e d , w i t h a piece o f Kulturgeschichte

(e.g. D i o d o r u s S i c u l u s

1.8), a n d so m i g h t l o c a l h i s t o r i a n s ,

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

a p p e a r s i n several f r a g m e n t s o f P h i l o c h o r u s

3 2 8 F 2 , F 9 3 - 9 8 ) ; t h e t i t l e Protogonia t r e a t e d i n t h e Atthis

(FGrH,

(FGrH

3 2 3 F 5 a , F 7 ) suggests t h a t i t was

o f C l e i d e m u s as w e l l ; a n d a passage f r o m Pausanias

( 8 . 1 . 4 - 6 ) p o i n t s t o t h e same c o n c l u s i o n f o r t h e l o c a l h i s t o r i a n s o f A r c a d i a . Moreover, to j u d g e f r o m the procedure followed b y Diodorus i n describing n o n - G r e e k l a n d s (e.g. I n d i a i n 2.38 a n d E t h i o p i a i n 3 . 2 ) , p r e h i s t o r y was o n e o f t h e subjects r e g u l a r l y t r e a t e d i n e t h n o g r a p h i c a l w r i t i n g .

1 0

M a n y o f the

r e l e v a n t passages i n D i o d o r u s are f a i r l y b r i e f , b u t t h e a c c o u n t E g y p t w h i c h a p p e a r s i n 1.10-29 1 0

See

1 S

of early

b o t h extensive a n d i m p o r t a n t .

K . Trüdinger, Studien zur Geschichte der griechisch-römischen Ethnographie

(Basel 1918) 4 9 - 5 1 .

INTRODUCTION

5

P r i m a r i l y , t h o u g h n o t e x c l u s i v e l y , d e v o t e d t o t h e t e c h n o l o g i c a l aspect o f c u l t u r e was a w h o l e b o d y o f l i t e r a t u r e o n i n d i v i d u a l i n v e n t o r s a n d i n v e n ­ tions. T h e g e n r e e n j o y e d a l o n g a n d , t o us, s o m e w h a t i n e x p l i c a b l e p o p u l a r i t y . Its

b e g i n n i n g s go b a c k t o t h e

fifth

century;

1 1

Ephorus

(FGrH

7oT33d;

F 2 - 5 , F 1 0 4 - 6 ) , H c r a c l i d e s P o n t i c u s ( F r . 152 W e h r l i ) , T h e o p h r a s t u s ( D . L . 5 . 4 7 ) , a n d S t r a t o o f L a m p s a c u s ( F r . 1 4 4 - 4 7 W e h r l i ) are a l l s a i d t o h a v e t r i e d t h e i r h a n d a t i t ; a n d echoes o c c u r as l a t e as Cassiodorus Seville.

1 2

a n d Isidore o f

T h e i n v e n t i o n s w i t h w h i c h i t deals are b o t h t h e e l e m e n t a r y ones

(fire, c l o t h i n g , a n d t h e l i k e ) w h i c h m a d e possible m a n ' s o r i g i n a l s u r v i v a l as a species, a n d t h e m o r e a d v a n c e d ones o n w h i c h a c o m p l e x depends.

civilization

M o r e r a r e l y , t h e c r e a t i o n o f cities a n d l e g a l o r social usages is

i n c l u d e d (e.g. i n P l i n y J\fH 7.194, 2 0 0 ) . I t is u s u a l l y assumed t h a t h e u r e m a t i s t i c w o r k s t o o k t h e f o r m o f s i m p l e catalogues.

Conceivably,

however,

this is t r u e o n l y o f t h e sources, a l l o f t h e m s u m m a r y a n d d e r i v a t i v e , u p o n w h i c h we must rely for o u r knowledge o f the g e n r e .

1 3

T h e originals o n w h i c h

they d r a w m a y w e l l have been fuller, perhaps t r a c i n g i n connected

and

systematic f a s h i o n a succession o f stages i n t h e g r o w t h o f e a c h o f t h e t e c h ­ nologies c o n s i d e r e d . T h e r e were other ancient works devoted exclusively o r p r i m a r i l y to the problem o f cultural origins, b u t we k n o w next to n o t h i n g about t h e m . Tradition

lists a

IJepl

της

iv

άρχη

καταστάσεως

among

the

works

of

P r o t a g o r a s (VS 8 o B 8 b ) , a n d i f P l a t o ' s t e s t i m o n y is c o r r e c t , archaiologiai

were

a m o n g t h e subjects o f t h e p u b l i c discourses o f H i p p i a s o f E l i s (Hipp.

mat.

2 8 5 0 = VS 8 6 A 1 1 ) . T h i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t c u l t u r a l histories w e r e c o m p o s e d b y the

S o p h i s t s ; i t does n o t , h o w e v e r , p r o v i d e a n y basis f o r d e t e r m i n i n g t h e i r

scope a n d c h a r a c t e r . E v e n m o r e p r o b l e m a t i c a l is t h e r o l e o f i n the w r i t i n g s o f the pre-Socratics. Its appearance surviving fragments (Xenophanes,

Kulturgeschichte

time a n d again i n the

VS 2 1 B 4 a n d 18; A n a x a g o r a s ,

FS59B4

and

2 1 ; Archelaus,

VS 6 0 A 1 a n d 4 . 6 ; D e m o c r i t u s , VS 6 8 A 7 5 , 151,

and

154) suggests t h a t i t was o n e o f t h e i r p r i n c i p a l interests. B u t w h e t h e r

this i n t e r e s t ever l e d t o t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f a c o n n e c t e d a n d s y s t e m a t i c

B144 ex­

p o s i t i o n o f t h e subject w e d o n o t k n o w . D i r e c t or i n d i r e c t i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t works specifically concerned Kulturgeschichte FGrH 8 T 1 of course, much down to the end References 1 1

1 2

with

is o f t e n less i m p o r t a n t f o r o u r k n o w l e d g e o f t h e s u b j e c t t h a n

(Simonides the historian). Isolated references to inventions and inventors appear, earlier. See Kleingiinther for a collection and discussion of the relevant passages of the fifth century and Thraede for a complete survey of the tradition. to the subject are scattered through Cassiodorus' Variae; see Kremmer, 90—96.

I n Isidore, see Orig. 3.10.1, 16.1, 2 2 . 8 , 2 5 . 1 ; 4 . 3 . 1 ; 5 . 1 . 1 - 2 ; 6.10.1.

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

6

D E M O C R I T U S AND T H E S O U R C E S O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

t h e i n c i d e n t a l references, r a n g i n g f r o m a f e w lines t o one o r t w o pages i n l e n g t h , w h i c h appear i n contexts devoted to other topics. T h e

frequency

w i t h w h i c h s u c h references o c c u r is r e m a r k a b l e , a n d t h e casualness w i t h w h i c h t h e y are i n t r o d u c e d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e t h e m e was f a m i l i a r . finds i n a d m i r e r s o f T h u c y d i d e s ' style (Orator

Cicero

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

t o t h a t w h i c h w o u l d be r e q u i r e d t o m a k e m e n c o n t i n u e t o feed o n acorns o n c e g r a i n w a s d i s c o v e r e d — a s s u m i n g , e v i d e n t l y , t h a t his readers w o u l d n o t miss t h e reference

t o t h e v i e w o f those h i s t o r i a n s o f c u l t u r e w h o

made

acorns m a n ' s earliest f o o d , o n l y s u b s e q u e n t l y a b a n d o n e d w i t h t h e a d v e n t o f agriculture: p r i m a Ceres ferro m o r t a l i s vertere t e r r a m i n s t i t u i t , c u m i a m glandes atque a r b u t a sacrae deficerent silvae et v i c t u m D o d o n a n e g a r e t . 14

P r i m i t i v e m e n , w i t h t h e i r beds o f leaves, t h e i r g a r m e n t s o f h i d e s , a n d t h e i r d i e t o f b e r r i e s a n d grasses, seem t o h a v e b e e n a p a r t o f t h e stock i n t r a d e o f e v e r y r h e t o r i c i a n a n d p h i l o s o p h e r ; p i t i a b l e o r e n v i a b l e , as t h e w r i t e r ' s o w n c o n v i c t i o n o r t h e course o f his a r g u m e n t m i g h t r e q u i r e , t h e y c o u l d be i n t r o d u c e d i n t o a great d i v e r s i t y o f contexts i n s u p p o r t o f v a r i e d a n d often c o n t r a d i c t o r y conclusions. I n e p i d e i c t i c passages i t was c o m m o n t o p o r t r a y t h e o b j e c t o f one's p r a i s e as s o m e h o w i n t i m a t e l y associated w i t h t h e l a b o r i o u s process w h i c h l e d f r o m savagery

to civilization. T h e

earliest c o n n e c t e d

pieces o f

Kulturgeschichte

w h i c h s u r v i v e are f a i r l y s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d e x a m p l e s o f t h i s t e c h n i q u e . I t is m a n h i m s e l f , t h e m o s t m a r v e l o u s o f t h e w o r l d ' s w o n d e r s , w h o is g l o r i f i e d b y reference t o his t e c h n o l o g i c a l a n d p o l i t i c a l a c h i e v e m e n t s i n t h e first s t a s i m o n o f t h e Antigone]

a n d M a n t h e F o r e t h i n k e r receives a s i m i l a r t r i b u t e

from

A e s c h y l u s i n t h e speeches i n w h i c h P r o m e t h e u s tells o f his services t o t h e race.

I n other accounts

( A r i s t o p h a n e s , Ranae

P alam edes

1032),

1 5

n a m e d theos ( E u r i p i d e s , Suppl.

(Gorgias,

VS

H e p h a e s t u s (Hymn.

82Bna.3o),

Horn.

Orpheus

20.1-7), or an u n -

2 0 1 - 1 5 ) takes t h e p l a c e o f P r o m e t h e u s .

Primitivists, especially the Cynics, were later to c o n d e m n Prometheus for t h e same " s e r v i c e s "

( D i o o f P r u s a 6.25, 2 9 - 3 0 ) . O t h e r s k e p t t h e e p i d e i c t i c

t o n e b u t used t h e topos f o r a n a r r o w e r p u r p o s e . N o t m a n i n g e n e r a l o r h u m a n prometheia,

b u t a p a r t i c u l a r class o f m e n o r a single techne was assigned t h e

p l a c e o f h o n o r i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f c i v i l i z a t i o n . T h o u g h i t is r e a s o n a b l e t o assume t h a t t h i s d e v i c e was d e v e l o p e d b y t h e S o p h i s t s ,

16

i t is first d o c u -

Virgil, Georgics 1.147—49. Other appearances of the view are too numerous to require documentation. T h e Pythia's reference to the Arcadians as balanlphagoi (Herodotus 1.66.2) is perhaps the earliest. 1 4

1 6

1 6

O n Orpheus as Kulturbringer

see H . Koller, Die Mimesis in der Antike (Bern 1954) 1 8 9 - 9 2 .

See F . Heinimann, " E i n e vorplatonische Theorie der rexvrj,"

MusHelv

18 (1961) 118—ig.

INTRODUCTION

m e r i t e d i n Isocrates. T h e Panegyricus

7

(28-40) a n d later the

Panathenaicus

( 1 1 9 - 4 8 ) c e l e b r a t e A t h e n s as t h e b r i n g e r o f t e c h n o l o g y , c u l t u r e , a n d l a w ; a n d i n a l m o s t i d e n t i c a l passages o f t h e Nicocles

( 5 - 6 ) a n d Antidosis

1 7

(253-54)

the same r o l e is assigned t o o r a t o r y . I n h i s 9 0 t h l e t t e r Seneca gives a f a i r l y extensive s u m m a r y ( a n d r e f u t a t i o n ) o f a w o r k i n w h i c h P o s i d o n i u s s o u g h t t o g l o r i f y p h i l o s o p h y b y m a k i n g t h e sapiens t h e m o v i n g force i n a l l stages o f h u m a n progress. C i c e r o a d o p t s t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f I s o c r a t e s o r P o s i d o n i u s as occasion d e m a n d s (cf., f o r t h e f o r m e r , Inv. 1.2-3 l a t t e r , Tusc.

a n c

^ De orat. 1 . 3 5 - 3 6 ; f o r t h e

5.5). O r a t o r a n d philosopher are replaced b y the architect i n

the passage o n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t

o f c u l t u r e f o u n d i n t h e second b o o k o f

V i t r u v i u s (2.1.1-7 = 33.14-36.18 Rose). F o r H o r a c e art

o f t h e vates t h a t c h i e f l y

Themistius

(349A-51A),

that o f the f a r m e r ;

1 8

(AP 3 9 1 - 4 0 1 ) i t is t h e

c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e rise o f c i v i l i z a t i o n ; f o r

Xenophon

(Oec. 5 . 1 7 ) , a n d T i b u l l u s

(2.1.37-66),

f o r A e l i u s A r i s t i d e s (Or. 3, p p . 3 2 . 2 3 - 3 4 . 2

Dindorf),

s a i l i n g a n d t h e seafaring w a y o f l i f e ; a n d O v i d , m o r e f r i v o l o u s l y ,

though

w i t h b e t t e r g r o u n d s , glorifies his o w n ars b y a s s i g n i n g t h e same r o l e t o l o v e (AA

2.473-80).

I n a fragment

o f the comic

poet Athenio

preserved i n

A t h e n a e u s ( 1 4 . 6 6 0 - 6 1 = F r . 1 K o c k ) a c o o k e x p o u n d s t h e v i e w t h a t , because i t p u t a n e n d t o t h e savage d i e t o f r a w flesh o n w h i c h m e n o n c e f e d , h i s o w n profession

m u s t be c o n s i d e r e d

t h e p r i n c i p a l benefactor o f t h e race. T h e

speech is p r e s u m a b l y a p a r o d y o f t h e sort o f passage w h i c h w e h a v e j u s t b e e n c o n s i d e r i n g a n d a s t r i k i n g t e s t i m o n y t o t h e p o p u l a r i t y o f its t h e m e . Further

variations

o n this

epideictic

topos

were,

o f course,

1 9

possible.

A r i s t o t l e g l o r i f i e d p h i l o s o p h y (Met. 1.981B13-82A1) a n d M a n i l i u s a s t r o n o m y ( 1 . 6 6 - 1 1 2 ) b y d e s c r i b i n g , n o t a c u l t u r a l genesis w h i c h t h e y m a d e possible, but

a cultural development

phase. M o r e o v e r ,

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

the phenomenon

o f t h e rise o f c u l t u r e m i g h t

provide

grounds for e x a l t i n g , n o t a p a r t i c u l a r craft, b u t n e w things i n general at t h e expense o f o l d . So A r i s t o t l e p o i n t s o u t , as a possible a r g u m e n t f o r t h e d e ­ sirability o f constitutional change, the fact t h a t c i v i l i z a t i o n w o u l d

never

For later references see Dittenberger, Syll. No. 704, p. 3 2 4 . 1 2 - 1 5 (an Amphictyonic inscription of the second century B . C . praising the Athenian demos for raising men from their animal-like existence); Lucretius 6 . 1 - 4 ; Cicero, Flacc. 6 2 ; Pliny, Ep. 8 . 2 4 . 2 ; Statius, Theb. 1 2 . 5 0 1 - 2 ; Aelian, 1 7

3

W / 3 . 3 8 ; D . L . 5.17. 1 8

It has been plausibly argued that Xenophon and Themistius derive their praise of agriculture from Prodicus; see Nestle, Hermes 71.153-60. 1 9

Though the humor lies less in the claim itself than in the manner in which it is presented: cf. De vet. med. 3, where the practice of cooking food is credited with liberating man from the theriodes diaita of grass and berries from which he once suffered; and Aristotle E M 7 . 1 1 4 8 B 2 2 - 2 3 , which cites cannibalism and the eating of raw flesh as comparable examples of the depravity of which human nature is capable. For the position of De vet. med. in the general context of ancient KulturgqssKichte see H . W. Miller, ΤΑΡΑ

8 0 . 1 8 9 - 9 8 , and " Techne and Discovery in On Ancient Medicintf'sjTAPA

( ' 9 5 5 ) 5 1 - 5 2 ; and Herter, Maia

15.469-83.

{/—
-,

92

D E M O G R I T U S AND T H E S O U R C E S O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

r e p r i s a l s f o r aggressive acts, n o t s i m p l y t h e aggressive acts themselves,

were

r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e v i o l e n t c h a r a c t e r o f l i f e i n t h e earliest h u m a n a g g r e g a tions. P o l y b i u s ' insistence o n t h e i n i t i a l r e i g n o f v i o l e n c e a n d t h e r o l e o f t h e m o n a r c h t u r n e d k i n g i n e n d i n g i t is, l i k e his insistence o n t h e h i s t o r i c a l r o l e o f synetheia, o f c e n t r a l i m p o r t a n c e f o r t h e w h o l e c o n c e p t i o n o f c o n t i n u o u s a n d g r a d u a l c h a n g e w h i c h B o o k V I seeks t o d e v e l o p . T h e g r o w t h o f society m a y b e s a i d t o i n v o l v e , p r i m a r i l y , t h e e x p a n d i n g a n d s t r e n g t h e n i n g o f those ties b a s e d o n r e c i p r o c a l w e l l - d o i n g w h i c h o r i g i n a t e i n synetheia; t h i s e x p a n s i o n takes p l a c e a t t h e expense o f t h e r u l e o f f o r c e a n d f e a r w h i c h p r e v a i l e d almost exclusively at the b e g i n n i n g o f man's history. W e r e i t n o t for the presence o f t h e m o n a r c h , t h e f o r m a t i o n o f t h e f i r s t systemata m i g h t seem t o h a v e b e e n a n excessively easy v i c t o r y f o r c o o p e r a t i o n o v e r f o r c e , e s t a b l i s h i n g as i t d i d t h e effectiveness o f a c o m m o n defense a g a i n s t " a n i m a l s a n d t h e s t r o n g e r . " B u t w h a t is i n v o l v e d is n o t a r e a l v i c t o r y f o r c o o p e r a t i o n , b u t m e r e l y a n e n t e r i n g wedge. T h e first h u m a n aggregations come i n t o b e i n g a l m o s t a c c i d e n t a l l y . T h e y a r e n o t p a r t o f a conscious c o n s p i r a c y o n t h e p a r t o f t h e w e a k t o s a f e g u a r d themselves f r o m t h e s t r o n g . O n c e t h e p o w e r o f a g r o u p o f m e n t o d e f e n d themselves has b e e n s h o w n , t h e s t r o n g e r m e m b e r s o f the g r o u p w i l l be discouraged f r o m a t t a c k i n g t h e i r fellows w i t h o u t p r o v o c a t i o n ; b u t , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e w e a k e r w i l l as y e t be d i s o r g a n i z e d — able t o u n i t e i n defending one another i n a n emergency b u t still w i t h o u t any of

the c o m m o n attitudes w h i c h make

c o n t i n u o u s effectiveness

possible.

B e h a v i o r p a t t e r n s w i l l t h u s be m o d i f i e d s l i g h t l y , b u t n o t r a d i c a l l y c h a n g e d . T h e w e a k w i l l c o n t i n u e to fear the strong, o u t o f h a b i t ; the strong w i l l c o n t i n u e t o t a k e p r e c e d e n c e o v e r t h e w e a k i n m o s t m a t t e r s ; a n d society as a w h o l e w i l l f o l l o w t h e l e a d e r s h i p o f t h e strongest a n d b o l d e s t . time,

t h e feelings

1 9

A t t h e same

o f group loyalty and amicability awakened

by

close

a s s o c i a t i o n a n d t h e m e m o r y o f success a c h i e v e d i n c o m m o n defense w i l l b e p r e s e n t , a n d c a n be e x p e c t e d t o g r o w s t r o n g e r w i t h t h e passage o f t i m e . B y p l a c i n g t h e rise o f k i n g s h i p a t t h e e n d o f t h e process b y w h i c h g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d n o r m s o f c o n d u c t arise, P o l y b i u s seems t o suggest t h a t , u l t i m a t e l y , t h e w i l l o f t h e m a j o r i t y is l i k e l y t o m a k e i t s e l f f e l t a g a i n s t t h e p o w e r o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l s t r o n g m a n i n a n y s o c i a l g r o u p , b u t o n l y after t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f c o m m o n h a b i t s a n d c o m m o n a t t i t u d e s has a r t i c u l a t e d p u b l i c o p i n i o n i n t o a n i n s t r u m e n t w h i c h c a n b e p o l i t i c a l l y effective. U n t i l t h a t has h a p p e n e d , h o w e v e r , t h e r u l e o f t h e s t r o n g e r is necessary a n d e v e n b e n e f i c i a l . F o r , j u s t as fear o f o t h e r a n i m a l s first t h r e w m e n i n t o close '* O n occasion, there would doubtless be reversions to cannibalism. Cf. Diodorus 1.14.1 (cited above, p. 3 0 ) which has the practice end only with the discovery of grain and creation of an adequate food supply.

THE

93

G E N E A L O G Y O F MORALS (POLYBIUS)

c o n t a c t w i t h o n e a n o t h e r , so c o m m o n o b e d i e n c e t o t h e s t r o n g e r w o u l d b e a cohesive force w h i c h i n c i p i e n t p a t t e r n s o f r e c i p r o c a l b e h a v i o r c o u l d n o t y e t provide.

2 0

I n a sense, t h e n , p r i m i t i v e m o n a r c h y is a s o r t o f c h r y s a l i s i n w h i c h s o c i e t y d e v e l o p s u n t i l i t is a b l e t o f u n c t i o n w i t h o u t i t . B u t t h i s d e v e l o p m e n t is, i n evitably, never c o m p l e t e d ; g o v e r n m e n t c a n n o t be discarded altogether along w i t h m o n a r c h y . T h e r e exists a r e s i d u a l set o f s i t u a t i o n s i n h u m a n l i f e w h e r e the

system o f s o c i a l s a n c t i o n s w h i c h m e n p r a c t i c e a m o n g o n e a n o t h e r is

i n e f f e c t i v e . C o m m o n a t t i t u d e s a n d t h e s o c i a l censure b a s e d o n t h e m m a y b e o f c o n s i d e r a b l e use i n r e s t r a i n i n g aggression a n d m i n i m i z i n g d i s a g r e e m e n t , but they need a spokesman. Hence, the fortunate appearance o f a m a n w h o u n i t e s i n h i m s e l f t h e roles o f s t r o n g m a n a n d b e n e f a c t o r gives rise t o a c o m p r o m i s e : s u p e r i o r a b i l i t y a n d s t r e n g t h is b r o u g h t i n t o t h e r e c i p r o c a l n e x u s and

m u s t a c t o n l y i n response t o p o p u l a r w i s h , b u t w i t h i n these l i m i t s

exercise o f p o w e r c o n t i n u e s . T h e r e s u l t is n o t o n l y t h e f i r s t t r u e k i n g s h i p b u t also t h e f i r s t t r u e politeia Our

( c o m p a r e 5 . 4 a n d 7.1).

search f o r traces o f a s o c i o l o g i c a l c o u n t e r p a r t t o t h e D i o d o r a n a n d

V i t r u v i a n analysis o f l a n g u a g e has l e d us r a t h e r f a r a f i e l d — t o a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f w h a t is p r o b a b l y t h e m o s t s a t i s f a c t o r y p u r e l y s p e c u l a t i v e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f the

o r i g i n o f society e v e r a t t e m p t e d .

any

n e w m e t h o d o l o g y . T h e w h o l e system is b u i l t u p o n t h e s a m e p r i n c i p l e s

2 1

W e have n o t , however, encountered

as t h e h i s t o r y o f t e c h n o l o g y e x a m i n e d i n C h a p t e r s O n e a n d T w o . I n s t i n c t u a l reactions the

o f pleasure

utilitarian

a n d displeasure,

calculus,

produce

a

combined

with

the workings o f

series o f a d a p t a t i o n s

suggested b y

specific i n c i d e n t s — t h i s t i m e a r i s i n g o u t o f m a n ' s s o c i a l r a t h e r t h a n n a t u r a l 2 0

T h e monarch might be expected to fulfil another function as well. Like the emblem in Diodorus 1.90.1-2, he would serve as a rallying point, an additional symbol of tribal identity. Diodorus himself seems to have some such parallel in mind when he goes on to note (1.90.3) that the Egyptian practice of rewarding benefactors accounts for the divine honors they bestow on their kings as well as for their worship of animals. One wonders naturally whether the kings did not become entitled to rewards in the same way as animals—through their role in the creation of the original human systemata. I f so, the parallel with Polybius is close. Cf. the judgment of a modern sociologist: " a plausible account of social genesis, probably the best offered until the researches of recent ethnologists" (Becker and Barnes, Social Thought from Lore to Science 1.199). T h e brief summary of Polybius' contributions to the history of political and social thought which these authors give ( 1 9 9 - 2 0 0 ) is, to my knowledge, the best that has appeared. The importance of Book V I has been oddly neglected by classical scholars—more than anything, one suspects, because of a general reluctance among them to take a utilitarian position in ethics seriously (cf., for example, the summary and unfavorable judgments in Mioni [above, note 2] 75, and L . Zancan, "Dottrina delle costituzioni e decadenza politica in Polibio," RendhtLomb 6 9 [1936] 5 0 9 ; and the generally unsympathetic exposition in von Fritz, Theory of the Mixed Constitution 4 5 - 5 9 ) . A n exception is Ryffel, who rightly sees in these chapters "ein Meisterstück kulturphilosophischen Spekulation" ( ΜΕΤΑΒΟΛΗ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΩΝ igt, note 351), though he mistakes their fundamental character as Stoic. 2 1

D E M O C R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

94

environment;

a n d these a d a p t a t i o n s

radical alteration o f a w a y o f life.

sufficiently

multiplied

result i n a

2 2

S c a t t e r e d p a r a l l e l s t o o u r five t e c h n o l o g i c a l texts w e r e p o i n t e d o u t f r o m o t h e r a n c i e n t a u t h o r s i n C h a p t e r T h r e e ; P o l y b i u s ' analysis o f t h e g e n e a l o g y o f m o r a l s is v i r t u a l l y u n i q u e .

2 3

I t bears e v e r y a p p e a r a n c e o f b e i n g t h e socio-

2 2

T o the parallels of detail between Polybius and the texts studied in Chapters One through Four, two more, of less significance, may be added. Vitruvius (Stage 4 A , cited above, p. 33) says that the discovery of fire was followed by conventus, concilium, and convictus among men. The last term is an exact translation of syntrophia, which may have stood in the original Greek. And the mention, in the corresponding passage of Diodorus (1.14.3), of the role of timoria in securing the rule of dike over hybris suggests the analogous part played by social censure in Polybius (6.9). 2 3

Such parallels to Polybius as can be adduced involve primarily his conception of the role of the monarch and king. T h e frequency with which early kings appear as the founders of cities has already been noted (above, note 1 8 ) . A particularly close parallel to Polybius is provided by Aristotle, Pol. 3 . 1 2 8 5 B 6 - 9 , which speaks of the first kings as benefactors: either because they led their people in war (cf. the role of the Polybian monarch), or assembled them into a body (again the monarch), or granted land (cf. Polybius 6.7.4, quoted above, note 18). The phrase which Polybius uses to characterize the monarch, τον τή σωματικ-tj ρώμη και ψυχική τόλμη διαφέροντα (6.5·7)> is " ΟΙ

a type which was almost formulaic in certain types of ethnological writing; cf. Hecataeus of Abdera, FGrH

2 6 4 F 6 . 3 (the founding of the Jewish nation); ήγειτο . . . Μωσής φρονήσει τε και ανδρεία πολύ

διαφέρων, ούτος δε καταλαβόμενος

τήν χώραν . . . πόλεις έκτισε; Euhemerus, FGrH

6 3 T 4 C : 01 περι-

γενόμενοι των άλλων ισχύι και συνέσει . . . άνέπλασαν περι αυτούς ύπερβάλλουσάν τινα και θείαν δύναμιν; Diodorus 2 . 3 8 . 4 : συνέσει διαφέροντα (Dionysus in I n d i a ) ; 3 · 7 ° · 7 (Dionysus in L i b y a ) ; 5 - 7 · · 1

1

διενέγκαι

:

τω κάλλει

και ρώμη διάφορον

. . . ανδρεία και συνέσει . . . διό παραλαβόντα τήν βασιλείαν

... μέγιστα ... εύεργετήσαι (Zeus in Crete); Cicero, Sest. 9 1 : qui igitur primi virtute et consilio exstiterunt.

Moreover, early kingship is often associated with the institution of the reign of law: cf. Philochorus, FGrH328F96, and Schol. αί/Aristoph. PI. 7 (Cecrops); Virgil, Aen. 8 . 3 2 1 - 2 5 (Saturn); Euhemerus, FGrH 6 3 F 2 4 , and Diodorus 5.73.7 (Zeus); the last passage mentions among the institutions intro­ duced by Zeus τό κατάρχειν

ευεργεσίας

και πάλιν

άμείβεσθαι

ταις

προσηκονσαις

χάρισι

τους ευ

ποιήααντας (cf. Polybius 6.6.6-7)· ^ these passages are essentially unlike Polybius in that they do not share his gradualist perspective. There is no hint in any of them of a slow process leading to the social solidarity which makes kingship and the rule of law possible. T h e primitive rulers whom they mention usually unite in themselves the rhome of the monarch and the gnome of the king; they introduce a new political regime by a virtual fiat. Most of the passages cited come from euhemerizing or heurematistic works of the sort considered earlier (see above, pp. 48—50), and they stand in approximately the same relation to Polybius as do those same works to the technological texts studied in Chapters One and Two. (More often than not, various technological discoveries are included with cities and laws among the achievements of the early kings with which they deal.) u

t

A somewhat closer parallel is provided by Isocrates (Helen 32—37). Theseus, observing the danger­ ous lives led by the autocrats of his day, decides to show that it is possible to rule and still enjoy the comforts of "democracy". So he gathers the citizens into a city and establishes a commonwealth among them. T h e people, however, entrust him with the task of governing, realizing that his rule will be more reliable and public-spirited than their own. T h e autocrat-turned-king motif recalls Polybius, and elsewhere (Panegyricus 39—40) Isocrates contrasts the reign of logos ushered in by the establishment at Athens of the first government with the reign of bia which existed in other parts of the Greek world (cf. Polybius 6.6.12). I n the event that the theory reproduced in Polybius is as old as the fourth, or late fifth, century, it is conceivable that Isocrates has used it, disturbing the sequence of events it envisioned by his insertion of the tradition which connected Theseus with a democratization of Athenian polity. (For the latter, cf. Euripides, Suppl. 3 5 2 - 5 3 ; Isocrates, Panath. 128; Ps.-Demosthenes, 5 9 . 7 5 ; Theophrastus, Char. 2 6 . 6 ; Aristotle ap. Plut. Thes. 25.) But the parallel with Isocrates is certainly not sufficient to indicate any widespread familiarity with the theory of social and political origins which Polybius presents.

THE

95

G E N E A L O G Y OF MORALS (POLYBIUS)

logical p o r t i o n o f t h a t t h e o r y o f c u l t u r a l origins whose l i n g u i s t i c a n d techno­ logical

sections

appear

i n Diodorus,

Vitruvius,

and Lactantius.

The

t e c h n o l o g i c a l p a r t s o f this t r a d i t i o n h a v e b e e n t a k e n o v e r a l m o s t u n a l t e r e d in

t h e E p i c u r e a n texts e x a m i n e d i n C h a p t e r s

O n e t h r o u g h T h r e e ; its

s o c i o l o g i c a l d o c t r i n e s w e r e , I suggest, t h e s t a r t i n g p o i n t f o r t h e r e l a t e d , though

d i f f e r e n t , theories o f society w h i c h a p p e a r

i n Hermarchus and

L u c r e t i u s ; a n d the influence o f this t r a d i t i o n m a y account for the i n c l u s i o n of a theory o f linguistic origins i n the canonical Epicurean

Kulturgeschichte—

t h o u g h t h i s aspect o f E p i c u r e a n d o c t r i n e is, c o n s i d e r e d i n itself, a n essentially original creation. T w o f u r t h e r pieces o f e v i d e n c e s h o u l d be m e n t i o n e d h e r e , f o r t h e y b r i n g i m p o r t a n t confirmation to the conclusion j u s t reached. A p o r t i o n o f Polybius' a c c o u n t , his d e s c r i p t i o n o f e a r l y m o n a r c h y , has a c l e a r p a r a l l e l i n o n e o f t h e t e c h n o l o g i c a l texts discussed i n C h a p t e r T w o , P o s i d o n i u s ' a c c o u n t o f t h e p r i m i t i v e r u l e o f sapientes: sed p r i m i m o r t a l i u m q u i q u e ex his g e n i t i n a t u r a m i n c o r r u p t a m sequebantur, eundem habebant et d u c e m et legem, commissi melioris a r b i t r i o . n a t u r a e est e n i m potioribus deteriora summittere. m u t i s q u i d e m gregibus a u t m a x i m a corpora praesunt a u t vehementissima. n o n praecedit a r m e n t a degener taurus sed q u i m a g n i t u d i n e ac toris ceteros mares v i c i t ; e l e p h a n t o r u m gregem excellentissimus d u c i t ; i n t e r homines p r o s u m m o est o p t i m u s . (Seneca, Ep. 90.4-5) ανάγκη τον τη σωματική ρώμη καϊ τη ψυχική τόλμη διαφέροντα τοΰτον ηγεΐσθαι και κρατεΐν, καθάπερ και έπι των ά λ λ ω ν γενών άοοζοποιήτων

ζώων θεωρούμενον

χρή φύσεως έργον άληθινώτατον νομίζειν παρ' οΐς ομολογουμένως όρωμεν ηγουμένους,

λέγω

δέ ταύρους αλεκτρυόνας

τα. τούτοις

τούς

τοΰτο

Ισχυρότατους

παραπλήσια.

...

(Polybius 6.5.7-8) P o s i d o n i u s differs f r o m P o l y b i u s i n t h a t h e refers t o r u l e o f t h e b e t t e r r a t h e r t h a n r u l e o f t h e s t r o n g e r , f o r t h e potiores m e n t i o n e d h e r e a r e those s a m e sapientes t o w h o m h e ascribes a m a j o r r o l e i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t e c h n o l o g y . I f , as seems l i k e l y , t h e p a r a l l e l b e t w e e n P o l y b i u s a n d P o s i d o n i u s i n d i c a t e s use o f a c o m m o n s o u r c e ,

2 4

i t is doubtless P o s i d o n i u s r a t h e r t h a n P o l y b i u s

w h o is i n n o v a t i n g a t t h i s p o i n t .

2 5

F o r t h e sapientes h e r e serve e x a c t l y t h e s a m e

I . Heinemann, Poseidomos metaphysische Schrifien 1 . 9 1 , believes that Posidonius' account of early man is simply a revision and correction of what appeared in Polybius. But the notion of a group of men qualified by their natural superiority for rule and responsible for raising the race from its primitive helplessness through technological discoveries antedates both Posidonius and Polybius; so much is clear from the parallels to it found in euhemerizing texts (see preceding note). It is far more likely that Posidonius is drawing on this tradition than that he is combining Polybius with a separate, technological source. Innovation is almost certainly involved, since the animal examples adduced by Posidonius indicate only that rule of the stronger—not rule of the better—is kata physin. We are thus justified in assuming a more specific source for the present passage than the general Stoic maxim, το κρεϊοοον act 2 4

2 5

,

Q.6

D E M O C R I T U S AND T H E S O U R C E S O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

p u r p o s e as t h e y d i d i n t h e t e c h n o l o g i c a l p o r t i o n s o f P o s i d o n i u s ' the a c c o m m o d a t i o n

narrative:

o f a naturalistic treatment w i t h i n a teleological

frame-

w o r k (see a b o v e , p p . 5 3 - 5 4 ) . B y i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e o b s e r v e d b e h a v i o r o f h e r d a n i m a l s as a v o l u n t a r y s u b m i s s i o n t o t h e " b e s t " ( a s u p e r f i c i a l l y easy c h a n g e i f w e p o s i t a c o m m o n source w h i c h spoke s i m p l y o f arche tou kreittonos as kata physin)

P o s i d o n i u s is a b l e t o s u p p o r t w i t h b i o l o g i c a l e v i d e n c e o f a sort his

e f f o r t t o f i n d a p u r p o s e f u l t e n d e n c y t o w a r d p e r f e c t i o n e v e n i n t h e earliest a n d m o s t " n a t u r a l " phase o f h u m a n existence. I n s i m i l a r f a s h i o n t h e c o m bination o f accident a n d ingenuity

by which

Diodorus,

Vitruvius, and

Lucretius account for t h e g r o w t h o f technology was made i n t o t h e g r a d u a l u n f o l d i n g , t h r o u g h c h o s e n agents, o f m a n ' s e x a l t e d d e s t i n y . T h e t w o p a r t s of Posidonius' account—technological

a n d p o l i t i c a l — h a v e arisen t h r o u g h t h e

a p p l i c a t i o n o f s i m i l a r m o d i f i c a t i o n s t o s i m i l a r n a t u r a l i s t i c d o c t r i n e s ; i t is h a r d t o b e l i e v e t h a t those d o c t r i n e s w e r e n o t o n c e p a r t o f a single t r a d i t i o n , f a i t h f u l l y p r e s e r v e d i n i t s s o c i o l o g i c a l aspects b y P o l y b i u s a n d i n its t e c h n o l o g i c a l ones b y D i o d o r u s , V i t r u v i u s , a n d L u c r e t i u s . A n d t h i s c o n c l u s i o n is t h o r o u g h l y i n k e e p i n g w i t h w h a t o u r e n t i r e c h a p t e r has suggested a b o u t t h e relationship between t h e Polybian a n d Epicurean genealogy o f morals. Also i n keeping w i t h t h e a r g u m e n t o f this chapter are t h e conclusions t o w h i c h t h e second piece o f a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e m e n t i o n e d a b o v e p o i n t s . B u t t h e a c c o u n t i n w h i c h t h i s e v i d e n c e a p p e a r s is so e x t e n s i v e t h a t i t m u s t b e considered i n a separate chapter. •nepiyiveodu) TOV xelpovos

(so Blankert, Seneca ep. 9 0 , pp. 30—31, calling attention to Epictetus 1.29.9

and Seneca, Ep. 6 5 . 2 4 ; cf. also SVF 1.228). Seneca, De clem. 1.19.2, also cited by Blankert, is rather different: there the "natural" character of kingship is established by the valid parallel of the Bienenstaat.

CHAPTER A FOURTH

CENTURY

SEVEN

VERSION

(LAWS

O F PREHISTORY

III)

W e have already h a d occasion (above, p . 54) t o m e n t i o n t h e t h i r d b o o k o f P l a t o ' s Laws

a n d t o n o t e t h e differences b e t w e e n i t s v i e w o f p r e h i s t o r y a n d

t h a t w h i c h appears i n t h e f i v e texts e x a m i n e d i n C h a p t e r s O n e a n d T w o . A basic d i f f e r e n c e i n p o i n t o f v i e w does n o t , h o w e v e r , e x c l u d e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f extensive s i m i l a r i t y i n d e t a i l . A t a n u m b e r o f p o i n t s Laws

I I I recalls

P o l y b i u s , D i o d o r u s , a n d L u c r e t i u s so closely as t o suggest t h a t t h e r e s e m b l a n c e is n o t a c c i d e n t a l . Before c o n s i d e r i n g t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p , h o w e v e r , somet h i n g f u r t h e r m u s t be said a b o u t t h e general character o f Plato's w h o l e conception o f prehistory. T h e Kulturgeschichte

o f Laws

I I I has b e e n a n a l y z e d , c o r r e c t l y I b e l i e v e , as

a c o n f l a t i o n o f t w o d i f f e r e n t p o i n t s o f v i e w i n t o a single a c c o u n t . T h e 1

heterogeneous c h a r a c t e r o f t h e w o r k is best i l l u s t r a t e d b y a s u m m a r y w h i c h makes a n a p p r o x i m a t e s e p a r a t i o n o f its t w o " s t r a t a " : A

B 1 Through cataclysms, plagues, or other causes the human race has been periodically destroyed—with the exception of a few herdsmen living in the mountains, 2 scattered and without any knowledge of technology

or of the devices which serve greed and compe-

3

tition in cities ( 6 7 7 A B ) .

4 At first men lived in solitude, gaining a bare livelihood from their scant flocks. There were no cities or laws; 5 men were incomplete both as regards good

and evil (677E-78A). 6 As men grew more numerous the present order of things gradually arose (678B). But for a long time men still feared to descend into the plains and so lived a solitary mountain existence. Friendship and helpfulness characterized their relationship with one another—for 1

7

See Sikes, Anthropology of the Greeks 4 1 ; Uxkull-Gyllenband, 2 8 - 3 0 ; and Havelock, 4 5 - 5 0 . 97

98

D E M O G R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y A

solitude made them glad to see each other when they met, they were not numerous enough to create a shortage of food, and the loss of all technology requiring the use of metals had removed the means of waging war. T h e arts of weaving and pottery were retained from the era before the cataclysm and sufficed for man's needs. T h e absence of wealth and poverty removed the causes of envy and greed and made men more virtuous. They were too innocent as yet to question received ideas about things human and divine. They were more just, more valiant, and more disciplined than the men of today (678B-79E). They needed no laws or lawgivers but lived in families or clans, observing the patriarchal principle that the eldest shall rule ( 6 8 O A ) .

8

g (This mode of existence is known as dynasteia.)

(68OB)

10 Thus, like birds, they lived in flocks, enjoying ancestral laws and the justest of all

11

kingships ( 6 8 O D E ) .

12 Later, men banded together into larger groups, turned to farming and built walls to protect themselves from the wild beasts (68OE-8IA).

13 T h e formation of larger aggregations brought about the mingling of different sets of customs (68IAB);

14 hence it became necessary to appoint lawgivers to reconcile them. T h e latter produced a code of laws 15 and replaced the existing dynasteia with kingship or aristocracy

A third stage of development, in which all manner and misfortune (pathema) of government arose, came into being when men for the first time ventured into the plains

(68ICD).

16

17 and established cities ( 6 8 1 D - 8 2 C ) . 18 Later a new type of organization arose: the ethnos, formed by an alliance between cities (682D-83A). O f the t w o different conceptions

o f history present here, one m a y be called

" p r o g r e s s i v e " ( c o l u m n B ) , t h e o t h e r " r e g r e s s i v e , " o r a t least " s t a t i c " ( A ) . T h e f o r m e r sees h u m a n n a t u r e as e v o l v i n g o v e r a l o n g p e r i o d , d u r i n g w h i c h t e c h n o l o g y a n d s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s c o m e i n t o b e i n g a n d d u r i n g w h i c h m a n is t r a n s f o r m e d t h r o u g h t h e i r i n f l u e n c e f r o m a helpless b r u t e i n t o a c r e a t u r e c a p -

99

A FOURTH CENTURY VERSION OF PREHISTORY (LAWS III)

a b l e o f s e c u r i n g a n d p r e s e r v i n g f o r h i m s e l f t h e blessings o f c i v i l i z a t i o n . T h e l a t t e r h o l d s t h a t i t was o n l y t h e absence o f p h i l o s o p h i c a l w i s d o m w h i c h k e p t h u m a n n a t u r e f r o m existing complete a n d perfect i n p r i m i t i v e m a n . t e c h n o l o g y a n d social i n s t i t u t i o n s d e v e l o p e d b y his descendants

2

The

have not

a l t e r e d m a n ' s n a t u r e s u b s t a n t i a l l y , a n d s u c h c h a n g e as t h e y h a v e p r o d u c e d is l a r g e l y f o r t h e w o r s e . E l e m e n t s o f these t w o c o n c e p t i o n s are p e r h a p s c o m p a t i b l e w i t h o n e a n o t h e r a n d c o u l d h a v e h a d t h e i r o r i g i n as p a r t s o f a single, c o h e r e n t p i c t u r e o f e a r l y m a n . I t w o u l d b e f a i r l y easy, f o r e x a m p l e , t o a d o p t t h e progressive p e r s p e c t i v e i n a n a l y z i n g t h e t e c h n o l o g i c a l aspects o f c i v i l i z a t i o n a n d t h e static o n e i n d e a l i n g w i t h its m o r a l a n d social q u a l i t i e s . T w o c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , 3

h o w e v e r , i n d i c a t e t h a t w h a t w e h a v e i n Laws

I I I is n o t a n o r i g i n a l , c o h e r e n t

p i c t u r e o f t h i s s o r t . W h a t has b e e n c a l l e d t h e progressive v i e w a p p e a r s i n G r e e k l i t e r a t u r e as e a r l y as t h e Prometheus Bound a n d is also f o u n d ( w i t h t h e i m p o r t a n t reservations

discussed

above,

pp. 52-53)

w h i c h P l a t o w r o t e i m m e d i a t e l y before t h e Laws: and

t h e Critias.

i n the three

t h e Politicus,

the

works Timaeus,

I t is r e a s o n a b l e t o assume, t h e n , t h a t i t was t a k e n o v e r b y

Plato f r o m earlier t h o u g h t ; a n d t h a t the opposing v i e w ( c o l u m n A ) , w h i c h appears for t h e first t i m e i n Greek l i t e r a t u r e h e r e ,

4

was o r i g i n a l w i t h h i m .

M o r e o v e r , t h o u g h some sort o f l o g i c a l c o m p r o m i s e b e t w e e n t h e t w o v i e w s m a y be possible, i t is n o t t o be f o u n d i n o u r p r e s e n t t e x t . A l l t h e i t e m s g i v e n a b o v e u n d e r B refer t o t h e v a r i o u s stages o f a s t e a d y e v o l u t i o n : t h e first m e n are s c a t t e r e d n o m a d s w i t h o u t a n y k n o w l e d g e o f t e c h n o l o g y ; i n t h e course o f t i m e , like other animals, they f o r m aggregations; they t u r n to a g r i c u l t u r e a n d t a k e measures t o p r o t e c t themselves f r o m t h e w i l d beasts; l a r g e r a g g r e g a t i o n s arise a n d w i t h t h e m t h e b e g i n n i n g s o f l a w a n d g o v e r n m e n t ; f i n a l l y , men

b e g i n t o b u i l d cities. B u t these successive phases i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f

c u l t u r e are n o t p r e s e n t e d b y P l a t o as p a r t o f a n y causal sequence. H e does not

t e l l us w h y clans b a n d t o g e t h e r i n t o l a r g e r a g g r e g a t i o n s ; w h y , i n t h e

m i d d l e o f t h e w h o l e process, m e n b e g i n t o p r o t e c t themselves a g a i n s t w i l d beasts, w h i c h e v i d e n t l y h a d n o t b o t h e r e d t h e m b e f o r e ; w h y t h e y t u r n t o a g r i c u l t u r e a n d e v e n t u a l l y descend i n t o t h e p l a i n s t o b u i l d cities. A l l these events h a v e a n e x p l a n a t i o n i f seen against t h e b a c k g r o u n d o f a n e v o l u t i o n a r y t h e o r y o f c u l t u r e : t h e y r e p r e s e n t successive a t t e m p t s o n m a n ' s p a r t t o g a i n for h i m s e l f g r e a t e r c o m f o r t a n d s e c u r i t y . B u t P l a t o has b e e n a t some p a i n s t o Cf. 6 7 9 E , where (as Havelock notes, 4 9 ) , of the four Platonic virtues, only phronesis is lacking in the characterization of early man as braver, more just, and more disciplined than his descendants. This is essentially the procedure followed by the Cynics in their accounts of early man ( s e e ^ - > o 2

3

below, pp. 149-51)· J y \ y ^ The notion that the men of old were better and "nearer the gods" was, of course, traditiomyj but it is first associated with "cultural" primitivism (for this term, see Introduction, note 4) in tee/ >rV passage under consideration. j1 / 4

IOO

D E M O G R I T U S

A N DT H E S O U R C E S

O F G R E E K

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

p r o v e , b y t h e i t e m s g i v e n u n d e r c o l u m n A , t h a t m a n i n his p r i m i t i v e c o n d i tion

had

enough

t o satisfy

a l l his l e g i t i m a t e

needs.

Forgetting

the

bare

l i v e l i h o o d a n d s c a n t flocks o f 677E' ( B 4 ) , h e d e c l a r e s t h a t t h e r e was n o s h o r t age o f f o o d ( A 7 ) . N o t h a v i n g t h e m e a n s o f w a g i n g w a r , m e n l i v e d a m i c a b l y w i t h one a n o t h e r ; society was c o m p l e t e w i t h " t h e justest o f a l l k i n g s h i p s , " so t h a t s u b s e q u e n t p o l i t i c a l a r r a n g e m e n t s same t h i n g ;

a n d l a w is n o t h i n g m o r e

flicting patriarchal traditions when

are m e r e l y larger versions o f the

than an attempt

they happen

to reconcile

con-

to conflict. I t w o u l d , o f

c o u r s e , h a v e b e e n p o s s i b l e t o suggest w h y t h e p r i m i t i v e U t o p i a d i d n o t l a s t ; but

P l a t o does n o t a t t e m p t t o d o so. H e m e r e l y asserts t h a t c e r t a i n c h a n g e s

occur—changes w h i c h are explicable

o n t h e basis o f t h e v i e w o f p r i m i t i v e

s o c i e t y f o u n d i n c o l u m n B , b u t q u i t e w i t h o u t m o t i v a t i o n o n t h e basis o f t h a t found i n A.

The

a b o v e a n a l y s i s , as w e l l as w h a t

contaminatio

i n Laws

i t suggests a b o u t

t h e presence

I I I , c a n be s u p p o r t e d b y a c o m p a r i s o n o f Plato

of

with

Polybius; for almost every i t e m i n c o l u m n B reappears, i n i d e n t i c a l order, i n Book V I o f the POLYBIUS

Histories: PLATO

VI

initial cataclysm; 5.5 loss of technology 5.6 and social usages (epitedeumata); 5.6 men become more numerous, 5.6 under leadership of the strongest and boldest (monorchia); 5.7 they live in herds; 5.7 5

creation of generally accepted ideas of right and wrong, 6-2-9 followed by kings 6.12 and cities. 7.4

initial cataclysm; loss of technology; men live scattered and without laws; they become more numerous, under leadership of a patriarch (dynasteia),

1 2 4 6 9

living in flocks; 1o larger aggregations, fortifications, and agriculture arise; 12-13 creation of a code of nomoi, 14 15 17

then kings and cities.

6

It is usually assumed that the theory of recurrent cataclysms is a Platonic innovation in Greek (e.g. by Reinhardt, 5 0 7 - 8 ; Uxkull-Gyllenband, 2 9 ; F . Solmsen, Aristotle's System of the Physical World [Ithaca i 9 6 0 ] 4 3 1 ) ; and if this is so, Polybius is in agreement with the A stratum rather than the B stratum in Plato's account at this point. But the evidence is not conclusive. T h e theory is certainly essential to Plato's purpose. I t accounts for the elements of civilized life which he wishes to give to his nomads: domesticated animals, weaving, pottery, architecture (cf. the houses and beds of 6 7 9 A ) , and a language and religion (inasmuch as the things told "about gods and men" are readily believed, 6 7 9 B C ) ; these are holdovers from an earlier era. At the same time, the theory allows Plato to suggest that what he is describing is a genuine state of nature: the life which the race lives when it has been stripped of the accretions (greed, competitiveness, a critical spirit, and the like) which society and civilization have brought to its real character. Aristotle and his successors were to find the theory equally useful: it fitted in well with the former's theory of the perpetual rediscovery of philosophic truths (W. Jaeger, Aristotle [Eng. transl. Oxford 1 9 4 8 ] 1 3 0 — 3 8 ) and enabled the Peripatetics to reconcile their doctrine of the eternity of man with Kulturentstehungslehre

2

A FOURTH CENTURY VERSION OF PREHISTORY

(LAWS III)

O f t h e " p r o g r e s s i v e " i t e m s i n P l a t o ' s a c c o u n t o n l y 12-13 p a r t i n Polybius,

and

t h e i r absence is easily e x p l a i n e d

latter's exclusively sociological perspective.

ΙΟΙ

have no counter­ as a r e s u l t o f t h e

I t is c l e a r t h a t t h e t w o texts d i d

not come i n t o b e i n g i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f each other—hence the suggestion, often advanced, that Plato

is a p a r t i a l s o u r c e f o r P o l y b i u s .

6

I f so,

the

latter's

success i n e x t r a c t i n g f r o m P l a t o ' s a c c o u n t a l l those i t e m s — a n d o n l y t h o s e — w h i c h f i t his o w n r a d i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t c o n c e p t i o n o f p r e h i s t o r y is m o s t r e m a r k ­ able.

I t seems f a r m o r e l i k e l y t h a t b o t h w o r k s r e f l e c t t h e i n f l u e n c e

of an

i d e n t i c a l s o u r c e , o n e w h i c h is r e p r o d u c e d f a i r l y f a i t h f u l l y b y P o l y b i u s , w h i c h P l a t o has s u b j e c t e d Strong

support

to extensive i n t e r p o l a t i o n .

but

7

f o r t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is p r o v i d e d

by

the

terminology

evidence from history and tradition suggesting that human culture was of relatively recent origin (Bignone, V Aristoteleperduto 2 . 4 6 1 - 7 3 ) . But a theory need not originate where it proves eventually to be most useful. T h e doctrine of recurring cataclysms appears first in the Timaeus and Critias (see the parallel passages assembled by R . Walzer, Aristotelis Dialogorum Fragmenta [Florence 1934] 7 0 - 7 1 ) , where it serves the very different purpose of explaining why Egyptian records and tradition reach back so much farther than their Greek counterparts. T h e fact had attracted attention as early as Hecataeus and Herodotus (2.143 = FGrH 1 F 3 0 0 ) , and need not have waited until Plato's day to find an explanation. (The idea of a general cataclysm which failed to reach Egypt is perhaps im­ plied in the same passage of Herodotus: 2.142.4.) It is possible, for example, that the atomistic analogy between physical and social kosmoi (see below, pp. 1 0 7 - 1 0 ) led to the suggestion that the latter, like the former, are innumerable and mortal (cf. the μυρίαι. ίπι μυρίαις πάλας of Laws 676B). Though most—perhaps all—of the pre-Socratics posited an original spontaneous generation of men from mud and water (cf. VS 1 2 A 3 0 ; 2 1 B 3 3 ; 6 8 A 1 3 9 ) and an eventual destruction of both man and his cosmos, these theories would not exclude the possibility of the intervening partial phthorai which Plato describes. T h e myths of floods associated with the names of Deucalion, Dardanus, and Ogygus, or the belief that spontaneous generation was possible only at the time of the formation of the whole kosmos (cf. Diodorus 1.7) would have favored the idea that the phthora which accounts for the recentness of civilization in Greece was partial rather than total. (A single account could, of course, have allowed for either possibility: cf. Laws 7 8 1 E - 8 2 A ; Aristotle, Pol. 2.1269A4-5.) There is thus some grounds for accepting Jaeger's contention (Aristotle, 137) that the idea of recurring cataclysms "cannot have originated in Plato's imaginative brain," but rather "bears the stamp of Ionian science." Direct or indirect influence of Laws I I I on Polybius is assumed by R . von Scala, Die Studien des Polybios (Stuttgart 1890) 1 0 8 - 1 3 ; Wilamowitz, GriechischesLesebuch I I , i (Berlin 1902) 120; E . Mioni, 6

Polibio (Padua 1949) 6 6 ; and von Fritz, Theory of the Mixed

Constitution 4 1 7 , note 3 4 .

Even if the idea of recurrent, partial cataclysms is a Platonic innovation (see above, note 5 ) , its presence in Polybius does not tell against the theory of a common source for both accounts. Polybius' cyclical theory of political change demanded an account which commenced, not with an absolute beginning, but the return of something which had existed many times before; hence he would have had reasons of his own for replacing the pre-Socratic idea of the continuity of matter through a total cataclysm with the Platonic one of the continuity of the human race through a partial one. (For what is perhaps an echo of the former idea in his text, see Guthrie, In the Beginning 66.) And his source for the latter notion need not have been Plato. It appears in certain second century writers ("Ocellus Lucanus," Critolaus) along with an account of the process of genesis, akme, and phthora evident in all earthly things which closely recalls Polybius' own view of the biological law operative in the history of states (see Ryffel, ΜΕΤΑΒΟΛΗ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΩΝ 2 0 3 - 2 1 ; W. Theiler, "Schichten 7

im 6. Buch des Polybios," Hermes 81 [ 1 9 5 3 ] 2 9 6 - 9 7 ) .

I02

DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

w h i c h P l a t o uses i n r e f e r r i n g t o t h e p a t r i a r c h a l societies w h i c h p r e c e d e d t h e first k i n g d o m . R u l e o f t h e eldest is c a l l e d dynasteia. T h i s is a n u n p a r a l l e l e d use o f a w o r d w h i c h i n o t h e r c o n t e x t s a l w a y s m e a n s r u l e b y f o r c e ,

8

usually

t h a t o f a n a r r o w o l i g a r c h y , b u t i n t w o instances a t least (Isocrates, Paneg. 3 9 , Panath.

121) t h e p r i m i t i v e r u l e o f force w h i c h p r e c e d e d t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f

g o v e r n m e n t b y l a w — P o l y b i a n monorchia i n o t h e r w o r d s . O n e m u s t c o n c l u d e 9

t h a t P l a t o a n d P o l y b i u s h a v e d r a w n o n a c o m m o n source w h i c h spoke o f p r i m i t i v e dynasteia f o l l o w e d b y k i n g s h i p . P o l y b i u s preserves t h e c o n c e p t b u t uses a d i f f e r e n t t e r m , monarchia;

10

P l a t o keeps t h e t e r m b u t a p p l i e s i t t o a

c o m p l e t e l y d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n . A n d h a v i n g a l t e r e d t h e c h a r a c t e r o f dynasteia he is f o r c e d t o i n t r o d u c e a f u r t h e r c h a n g e . T h e i n s t i t u t i o n o f k i n g s h i p c a n n o l o n g e r b e r e g a r d e d as t h e s u b s t i t u t i o n o f ius f o r vis. T h e n e w a r r a n g e m e n t is p r e c e d e d i n h i s a c c o u n t , as i n P o l y b i u s ' , b y t h e c r e a t i o n o f a set o f n o r m s b y w h i c h society is t o l i v e ; b u t t h e y a r e t h e c o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e nomothetai w h o b r i n g kingship i n t o being, rather t h a n the c o m m o n l y accepted notions o f r i g h t a n d w r o n g w h o s e f o r m a t i o n is d e s c r i b e d i n P o l y b i u s 6 . 6 .

1 1

W e a r e i n a p o s i t i o n t o say m o r e a b o u t Plato's source t h a n t h a t i t w a s t h e o n e also used b y P o l y b i u s . I t t r e a t e d t e c h n o l o g y as w e l l as society, a n d i n m u c h t h e same w a y as d i d t h e t r a d i t i o n discussed i n C h a p t e r T w o . T h e a g r i c u l t u r e a n d f o r t i f i c a t i o n s o f i t e m 12 a r e p a r a l l e l e d t h e r e (Stages 5 E a n d For a collection of examples, see Aalders, Mnemosyne Ser. 4 , 3.304, note 10; K . Stegmann von Pritzwald, " Z u r Geschichte der Herrscherbezeichnungen von Homer bis Piaton," Forschungen zur Völkerpsychologie und Soziologie 7 (1930) 1 2 0 - 2 1 , 155-56. T h e fact has been noted by most commentators (cf. R . Weil, V "archeologie" dePlaton 6 8 - 6 9 ; and the notes to 6 8 O B in Taylor's translation and in the commentaries of Ritter and England). T o my knowledge, however, no satisfactory explanation has been offered. Cf. England: " T h e important point. . . seems to have been the fact that authority (dynasteia) should attach to any position; hence the term chosen;" Weil: " L a methode de Platon manque ici de rigueur;" and G . Rohr, Piatons Stellung zur Geschichte (Berlin 1932) 13: " I n diesem Abschnitt ist allerdings Platon in der Namengebung besonders ungebunden." 8

6

Polybius himself, it should be noted, speaks of the people who willingly obey the strong man Who serves their interest as protecting his dynasteia (6.6.11). Also significant is the way the account of monarchia recalls Diodorus' description of the Trogodytes ( 3 . 3 2 ) . T h e latter are ruled despotically kata systemata (3.32.1—cf. Polybius 6.5.10), and their leaders are twice referred to as dynastai (32.1, 3 ) . Polybius' use of the term monarchia is just as peculiar and isolated as Plato's use of dynasteia. Nowhere else does it bear the specialized significance it has in Book V I ( F . M . Walbank, "Polybius on the Roman Constitution," CQ.37 [1943] 79). I t was substituted for the dynasteia which must have appeared in the historian's source in order to accommodate the Kulturgeschichte of 5 . 1 0 - 6 . 9 to the theory of the evolution of political constitutions in which it is imbedded. Polybius regards the rise of culture (somewhat inaccurately) as the "natural genesis of kingship" (cf. 7.1). I t is succeeded by the acme and decay of this institution, then by the genesis, acme, and decay of aristocracy and democracy. Monarchia emphasizes more clearly than dynasteia the place which this process is supposed to occupy in the tripartite political cycle. See, further, Cole, Historia 13.460-61. 1 0

T h e role of the nomothetes in the coalescing of clans may be a motif which appeared in Plato's source (see below, pp. 1 0 8 - 9 ) , but the role is here greatly extended. I n the process Plato exactly reverses normal Greek ideas by making the king the product, rather than the source, of the earliest 1 1

nomothesia.

IO3

A FOURTH C E N T U R Y VERSION OF PREHISTORY (LAWS III)

8 A ) . A n d c o l u m n A , t h o u g h c o n t a i n i n g P l a t o ' s o w n a d d i t i o n s t o his source, has t h r e e i t e m s w h i c h r e a d l i k e a p o l e m i c a g a i n s t t h e v i e w s o f o u r t e c h n o l o g i c a l texts. P l a t o asserts, as i f c o n t r a d i c t i n g L u c r e t i u s

five

(5.1350-53,

q u o t e d u n d e r Stage 5 D ) , t h a t w e a v i n g does n o t d e p e n d o n i r o n tools a n d is r e t a i n e d b y m a n a t a l l p e r i o d s o f his h i s t o r y ;

1 2

h e d r a w s t h e same c o n n e c t i o n

as d o D i o d o r u s a n d L u c r e t i u s (passages q u o t e d u n d e r Stage 5 C )

between

m e t a l l u r g y a n d w a r f a r e , o n l y i n f e r r i n g f r o m this t h a t p r i m i t i v e m a n was b e t t e r o f f w i t h o u t b o t h ; a n d his e m p h a s i s o n t h e s o c i a b i l i t y o f p r i m i t i v e m a n is p e r h a p s d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t t h e t h e o r y o f a n o r i g i n a l c a n n i b a l i s m w h i c h a p ­ pears i n D i o d o r u s ( 1 . 1 4 . 1 , Stage 3 D ; cf. a b o v e , p . 3 0 ) .

1 3

T h e v i e w here a d v a n c e d , t h a t P l a t o is m o d i f y i n g a n d a t t h e same t i m e c o n d u c t i n g a p o l e m i c against t h e v i e w o f p r i m i t i v e m a n w h i c h a p p e a r e d i n o u r t r a d i t i o n , gains s u p p o r t f r o m Epinomis

974E-76C ( o n w h i c h see also a b o v e ,

C h a p . I l l , n o t e 16). I n t h e course o f a n a t t e m p t t o e s t a b l i s h t h e n a t u r e o f t r u e ( p h i l o s o p h i c a l ) w i s d o m t h e a u t h o r o f t h a t treatise gives a b r i e f r e s u m e o f a l l those a c h i e v e m e n t s a n d q u a l i t i e s o f m i n d w h i c h m i g h t , a t o n e t i m e , h a v e e a r n e d f o r t h e i r possessors t h e n a m e ofsophos,

b u t w h i c h are n o l o n g e r ,

i n his v i e w , s u f f i c i e n t t o d o so. T h e a c h i e v e m e n t s r e j e c t e d are j u s t t h e ones w h i c h w o u l d figure i n a h i s t o r y o f c u l t u r e a n d are p r e s e n t e d i n w h a t seems t o be r o u g h l y c h r o n o l o g i c a l o r d e r . T h e m e n w h o first f r e e d t h e race f r o m t h e curse o f c a n n i b a l i s m a n d d i s c o v e r e d t h e p r e p a r a t i o n a n d c u l t i v a t i o n o f g r a i n are n o t , p r o p e r l y s p e a k i n g , sopkoi; n e i t h e r are those r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e

first

houses a n d f o r m e t a l l u r g y a n d t h e tools used i n b u i l d i n g , p o t t e r y , a n d w e a v i n g ; n o r are t h e i n v e n t o r s o f t h e arts o f h u n t i n g a n d d i v i n a t i o n ; n o r t h e discoverers

o f the m i m e t i c arts—music,

dancing, and

singing; nor

the

founders o f medicine, n a v i g a t i o n , a n d j u r i s p r u d e n c e . F i n a l l y , facility i n r e m e m b e r i n g w h a t is t a u g h t a n d c a l l i n g t o m i n d w h a t is a p p r o p r i a t e i n a n y g i v e n s i t u a t i o n is anchinoia p e r h a p s , b u t n o t sophia. H e r e we have i n explicit f o r m the t h e o r y o f man's o r i g i n a l cannibalistic T h e parallel with Lucretius 5 . 1 3 5 0 - 5 3 was noted by Uxkull-Gyllenband, 34, note 46. Plato was certainly acquainted with such theories. Cf. Politicus 271DE, where cannibalism is named along with wars and factions as something absent under the rule of the Divine Shepherd— hence, presumably, characteristic of the present world cycle, or at least portions of it. And it is 1 2

1 3

mentioned in Laws 6.782B as a mode of trophe to which man, in common with other animals, once

had recourse. T h e latter passage occurs in an anthropological context which shows several points of similarity with Book I I I : III

V I (781Ε-82Α)

(676BC)

άφ* ov πόλεις τ* είσιν και άνθρωποι πολιτ€νόμ€νοι

χρη . . . σνννο€Ϊν ώς η των

8οκ€Ϊς άν ποτ€ κατανόησαν χρόνου πλήθος όσον

άρχην ούοεμιαν εΐληχεν . . . η μήκος τι της αρχής

yeyovev;

μνρίαι . . . επι μνρίαις . . . γεγόνασι

πό­

εΐη.

πόλεως

εφθαρμεναι . . . πεπολιτευ-

cec

μεναι

πολιτείας

επιτηδεύματα

αν

σταχον. . . .

πάσας

πολλάκις

εκα-

γ€ν€σις η

άφ* ου yeyovev άμήχανον άν χρόνον ρσον γεγονό$

λεις . . . ουκ ελάττους δ*

ανθρώπων

συστάσεις

παντοία τάξεως

ουκ οίόμεθα γεγονεναι',

και

φθοράς,

και

τ€ καΙ αταξίας . . . ί.

,

IC-4

D E M O C R I T U S AND T H E S O U R C E S O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

n a t u r e w h i c h was r e j e c t e d b y i m p l i c a t i o n i n t h e Laws;

a n d i m p l i e d h e r e is

t h e c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n m e t a l l u r g y a n d t h e arts o f w e a v i n g a n d p o t t e r y e x p l i c i t l y r e j e c t e d t h e r e . I n b o t h p o i n t s t h e Epinomis

agrees w i t h t h e t r a d i t i o n

e x a m i n e d i n Chapters O n e t h r o u g h F o u r . N o r d o the similarities e n d here. B o t h t h e Epinomis

a n d t h e texts o f o u r t r a d i t i o n c o n n e c t t h e e n d o f c a n n i b a l ­

i s m w i t h t h e d i s c o v e r y o f g r a i n ( D i o d o r u s 1.14.1, Stage 3 D ) ; t h e " f i n e " a r t s after t h e necessary ones ( t h e Epinomis distinction between anchinoia

τών

αναγκαίων

κτήσιν

1 4

b o t h discuss

drawing an explicit

a n d παιδιά—975CD);

and

w h i c h D i o d o r u s m e n t i o n s ( 1 . 8 . 9 , Stage 6) a l o n g s i d e h a n d s

the and

r a t i o n a l speech as b r i n g i n g a b o u t t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t e c h n o l o g y r e a p p e a r s i n t h e Epinomis

as a suggested d e s i g n a t i o n f o r a n i n t e l l e c t u a l process i n m a n

w h i c h falls s h o r t o f sopkia.

15

F i n a l l y , t h e passage recalls P o l y b i u s i n its i n ­

clusion o f the general a n d orator a m o n g practitioners o f the lower forms o f sophia ( 9 7 5 E - 7 6 B ) . B o t h b e l o n g t o a m o r e a d v a n c e d stage o f c u l t u r e t h a n t h a t d e s c r i b e d b y P o l y b i u s , b u t t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s ( d e s c r i b e d as boetheiai) h a v e close p a r a l l e l s i n t h e l a t t e r ' s a c c o u n t . T h e g e n e r a l is a boethos f o r t h e w h o l e c i t y , l i k e t h e m a n w h o u n d e r t a k e s t h e defense o f a l l i n m o m e n t s o f d a n g e r ( 6 . 6 . 8 ) ; and

t h e o r a t o r s ( d e s c r i b e d as βοηθοί

δίκαις

16

ev τη τοΰ λεγζιν

ρώμη)

have a

r o l e a n a l o g o u s t o t h a t o f t h e f u t u r e k i n g w h o " l e n d s his s u p p o r t " t o p o p u l a r ideas o f r i g h t a n d w r o n g . B o t h Laws account

1 7

I I I a n d t h e Epinomis

o f the

antecedents

are i n t u r n l i n k e d t o t h e y o u n g A r i s t o t l e ' s

of philosophy

(see

above,

pp.

52-53)

by

similarities w h i c h show t h a t a l l three must have h a d a c o m m o n o r i g i n i n the discussions

o f the A c a d e m y

held i n the m i d - f o u r t h century. T h o u g h

the

m e t h o d s t h e y e m p l o y are d i f f e r e n t , t h e t h r e e a c c o u n t s h a v e a single a i m : t h e d o w n g r a d i n g o f the achievements

o f t e c h n o l o g y a n d t h e useful arts. P l a t o

a t t e m p t s t o s h o w t h a t , i n s o f a r as t h e y r e p r e s e n t r e a l a c h i e v e m e n t s , these arts are o n l y a m i x e d blessing, a n d t h a t t h e r e a l l y useful a n d necessary a m o n g t h e m are n o t a c h i e v e m e n t s a t a l l , b u t s o m e t h i n g w h i c h t h e race has e n j o y e d f r o m t i m e i m m e m o r i a l . T h e Epinomis

recognizes t h e u t i l i t y o f t e c h n o l o g y a n d

t h e t a l e n t s o f its creators b u t denies t h a t these t a l e n t s h a v e a n y t h i n g t o d o The same connection is drawn in Laws 6.782B. O n the similarity of the Epinomis to the technological texts discussed in Chapters One and Two see also Gerhausser, Der Protreptikos des Poseidonios 30—31, who suggests the possibility of Democritus as the ultimate common source. 1 4

1 5

For the notion of boetheia rendered to nomos or to dihaion cf. Antiphon 1.31, Herod. 8 0 , Lysias 10.32; Anonymus Iamblichi 3 . 6 ; Aristophanes, Plutus 9 1 4 - 1 5 ; Demosthenes 5 6 . 1 5 ; and the passages cited in A. Delatte, Essai sur la politique pythagoricienne (Liege 1922) 4 9 . 1 6

Even the word boetheia, designating in origin a running (thein) in response to the raising of the hue and cry (boe)—see W . Schulze, "Beitrage zur Wort- und Sittengeschichte I I , " Kleine Schriften (Gottingen 1933) 183-89—suggests the most primitive form of mutual succor and, in particular, the situations envisioned by the texts on the origin of language discussed in Chapter Four (above, pp. 6 3 - 6 7 , with note 1 5 ) . 1 7

IO5

A F O U R T H C E N T U R Y VERSION OF PREHISTORY (LAWS III)

w i t h w i s d o m i n its h i g h e s t f o r m . A r i s t o t l e , m o r e g e n e r o u s , gives t o t e c h n o l o g y a preparatory b u t still subordinate place i n man's intellectual development. T h a t a l l t h r e e c r i t i q u e s s h o u l d be p r e s e n t e d i n t h e f o r m o f

Kulturgeschichten

w h i c h are so s i m i l a r t o e a c h o t h e r suggests t h a t w h a t a l l t h r e e are a t t a c k i n g is n o t s i m p l y a g e n e r a l a t t i t u d e b u t a specific w o r k o r b o d y o f w o r k s i n w h i c h b o t h demiourgike a n d politike

techne w e r e g l o r i f i e d b y a c a r e f u l a n d d e t a i l e d

account o f their civilizing achievements.

18

P l a t o denies i n l a r g e p o r t i o n t h e

t r u t h o f t h i s a c c o u n t ; A r i s t o t l e a n d t h e a u t h o r o f t h e Epinomis compensate b y achievements

emphasizing

the

essentially

subsidiary

accept i t , b u t

character

of

the

i t celebrates. I t is n a t u r a l t o assume t h a t i t is t h e i r c o m m o n

d e r i v a t i o n f r o m this w o r k or b o d y o f works w h i c h explains the similarities b e t w e e n t h e Laws,

t h e Epinomis,

considered i n Chapters VI.

the accounts o f technology a n d language

O n e t h r o u g h F o u r , a n d the sociology

o f Polybius

1 9

I f t h e a b o v e a r g u m e n t is c o r r e c t , t h e Laws

a n d t h e Epinomis

dependent evidence for accepting the conclusion reached

contain i n -

i n our two pre-

c e d i n g c h a p t e r s — t h a t t h e g e n e a l o g y o f social n o r m s g i v e n b y P o l y b i u s a n d t h e closely r e l a t e d histories o f t e c h n o l o g y f o u n d i n D i o d o r u s , V i t r u v i u s , a n d L u c r e t i u s d i d n o t arise i n d e p e n d e n t l y . Plato's e v i d e n c e is also o f some i m p o r t a n c e f o r t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e u l t i m a t e source o f t h e t r a d i t i o n w e are e x a m i n i n g . T h e m i d d l e o f t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y m a y n o w b e a c c e p t e d as a terminus ante quern f o r t h e o r i g i n o f t h e t r a d i t i o n i n b o t h its t e c h n o l o g i c a l a n d sociological

phases. W e

are d e a l i n g , t h e r e f o r e , w i t h a d o c t r i n e w h i c h is

pre-Hellenistic and, i n all p r o b a b i l i t y , pre-Platonic. T h e argument, plausible i n i t s e l f (see a b o v e , p . 5 9 ) , f o r p o s i t i n g some source n e a r e r i n t i m e t o t h e first

c e n t u r y a c c o u n t s e x a m i n e d i n C h a p t e r s O n e t h r o u g h T h r e e is t h e r e b y

s h o w n t o be i n v a l i d ; a n d w i t h t h i s a r g u m e n t goes t h e m a i n o b j e c t i o n t o t h e 1 8

Recognition of such an overall indebtedness to pre-Platonic thought need not affect the validity of the theories advanced by other investigators on the connection between the Epinomis and the early works of Aristotle. I n particular, Einarson may be right (TAPA 67.283, note 75) in seeing in the catalogue of lechnai of Epinomis 9 7 4 E - 7 6 C a conflation of Aristotle's classification of the arts with the procedure adopted in the Euthydemus for determining whether certain professions can be regarded as epistemai (cf. 2 8 9 A - 9 0 B , where the claims of iatrike, strategike, and rhetorike are examined and rejected). But such formulations are incomplete. There is, for example, no parallel in either Aristotle or the Euthydemus to the conceptions of boetheia and anchinoia which appear in the Epinomis; and the reference in 9 7 5 A to man's original cannibalism contradicts Asclepius' version (see above, Chap. I l l , note 15) of Aristotle's views on primitive life: Jjoav irardpes /XCTO T4KVU>V . . . Kai OVK

iv airois

aSiKia

( 1 1 . 7 - 9 Hayduck).

' Though briefer than some of the texts studied in Chapters One and Two, Epinomis 974E-76C may preserve at one point a more faithful record of the tradition. It includes manlike among the useful arts (9750). Though omitted as a rule from Hellenistic Kulturentstehungslehren, augury and divination are listed among the civilizing achievements of Prometheus by Aeschylus (PV 4 8 4 - 9 9 ) , and their institution is assigned by Democritus, perhaps in an anthropological context, to the "men of old" (A 138). 1

Io6

DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K

ANTHROPOLOGY

a l t e r n a t e t h e o r y — s u p p o r t e d b y m u c h o f t h e e v i d e n c e e x a m i n e d i n those chapters—of a Democritean

source.

O u r c o m p a r i s o n o f P l a t o a n d P o l y b i u s has n o t t h u s f a r p r o d u c e d a n y p o s i t i v e e v i d e n c e f o r t h i s a l t e r n a t e a s s u m p t i o n , y e t s u c h e v i d e n c e is n o t l a c k i n g . W h e n t h e t w o a c c o u n t s a r e c o n s i d e r e d i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h some o f t h e basic p r i n c i p l e s o f D e m o c r i t u s ' w h o l e a t o m i s t i c system, as w e l l as w i t h c e r t a i n specific s t a t e m e n t s f o u n d i n h i s f r a g m e n t s , t h e case f o r a D e m o c r i t e a n o r i g i n b e c o m e s , as w e s h a l l a t t e m p t t o d e m o n s t r a t e , v e r y s t r o n g i n d e e d . 2 0

2 0

One bit of evidence is best mentioned here, since, unlike those to be examined in the next

chapter, it has nothing to do with our authors' social and political theories. Aristotle's rejection of the authenticity of the works attributed to Orpheus (De philosophia F r . 7 Ross) is perhaps to be understood as part of his general critique of Democritus' theory of culture. For we know that the latter ascribed the discovery of the hexameter to Musaeus (B16—see above, p. 5 7 ) , from which it is natural to infer that he believed the poems of the Thracian school of bards to be authentic.

CHAPTER PLATO, i.

POLYBIUS,

EIGHT

AND

DEMOCRITUS

T H E GENESIS A N D EXPANSION O F

KOSMOI

T h e course o f social d e v e l o p m e n t d e s c r i b e d i n t h e t h i r d b o o k o f t h e Laws characterized

b y t h e f o r m a t i o n o f successively l a r g e r social

b e g i n n i n g w i t h the f a m i l y a n d progressing

through clan, city, a n d

con-

f e d e r a t i o n (see i n t h e s u m m a r y g i v e n a b o v e , p p . 9 7 - 9 8 , i t e m s 8, 12, 13, and

1 8 ) . T h i s aspect o f P l a t o ' s

account

is

aggregations, 16,

has some b e a r i n g o n t h e s o u r c e

p r o b l e m w e a r e c o n s i d e r i n g , f o r i t recalls a c e n t r a l t e n e t o f a t o m i s t i c p h y s i c s . D e m o c r i t u s d e r i v e d the entire universe f r o m the concourse o f atoms

into

a g g r e g a t i o n s o r " o r d e r i n g s " (kosmoi) a n d b e l i e v e d a l l o f these kosmoi t o b e c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y a t e n d e n c y t o b e c o m e p r o g r e s s i v e l y l a r g e r ( A 4 0 ) . H e also seems t o h a v e g i v e n t o t h e w o r d kosmos a w i d e r r a n g e o f m e a n i n g t h a n d i d non-atomistic w r i t e r s . I t designated as o f a t o m s ,

1

a g g r e g a t i o n s o f l i v i n g t h i n g s as

well

a n d t h e r e is n o r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e t h a t these h u m a n a n d a n i m a l

kosmoi w o u l d h a v e b e e n r e g a r d e d as e x e m p t f r o m t h e g e n e r a l t e n d e n c y

to

e x p a n d . I f t h e y w e r e n o t so r e g a r d e d , P l a t o ' s a c c o u n t o f t h e g r a d u a l p r o gression f r o m f a m i l y t o ethnos m a y b e t h e r e s u l t o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f a t o m istic p r i n c i p l e s t o sociology. T h i s s u g g e s t i o n is n o t n e w . T h e " a t o m i s t i c " a f f i n i t i e s o f t h e d o c t r i n e o f Laws

I I I h a v e b e e n p o i n t e d o u t b e f o r e a n d t a k e n as s u f f i c i e n t i n d i c a t i o n i n

themselves o f s t r o n g D e m o c r i t e a n i n f l u e n c e . T h e s u g g e s t i o n is a t t r a c t i v e a n d 2

fits

i n w e l l w i t h evidence suggesting

t h a t P l a t o n i c physics,

i n the

sopher's l a t e r years, u n d e r w e n t a s i m i l a r D e m o c r i t e a n i n f l u e n c e .

philoYet

3

for

t h e p r e s e n t , a t a n y r a t e , i t m u s t be a c c e p t e d t e n t a t i v e l y a n d w i t h r e s e r v a t i o n s . T h e d i v i s i o n o f cities i n t o t r i b e s a n d p h r a t r i e s a n d t h e a s s o c i a t i o n o f these cities i n t o e t h n i c leagues a n d a l l i a n c e s was a s i m p l e f a c t o f G r e e k s o c i a l a n d p o l i t i c a l life, o f w h i c h a c o n t e m p o r a r y observer c o u l d h a r d l y be i g n o r a n t . Cf. B 2 5 8 - 5 9 . There is also an implicit link between animate and inanimate kosmoi in B164 (see below, p. 110), where both are said to illustrate by their behavior the principle that like is attracted to like. See Uxkull-Gyllenband, 2 9 - 3 0 . Democritean influence is denied by Aalders [Hel derde boek van Plato's Leges 9 8 - 1 0 0 , 111—15); but he fails to consider the allegedly atomistic motifs which^foyide Uxkull-Gyllenband with the substance of his argument. A \5 See the works cited in VS I I 8 2 . 3 8 m ; W . Schmid, Geschichte der griechischen Literature, XMunich 1

2

3

1948) 3 3 1 - 3 2 ; and H . Cherniss, "Plato, 1 9 5 0 - 5 7 , " Lustrum 4 (1959) 3 9 - 4 0 . 107

lj , ' V r;| ., t

!

Ιθ8

DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES OF G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

I t w o u l d have been

a n a t u r a l assumption, r e q u i r i n g no background

of

a t o m i s t i c t h e o r y t o s u p p o r t i t , t h a t t h e f a m i l y , w h i c h was t h e smallest o f these u n i t s a n d t h e basic c o m p o n e n t o f a l l t h e o t h e r s , was also t h e earliest t o c o m e i n t o b e i n g ; t h a t i t h a d , t h e r e f o r e , existed s e p a r a t e l y a t o n e t i m e ; a n d t h a t g r a d u a l a c c r e t i o n s h a d p r o d u c e d social u n i t s o f t h e d i m e n s i o n s w i t h w h i c h the Greeks o f m o r e recent times were f a m i l i a r . M o r e o v e r , t h o u g h t h e r e is a c e r t a i n s i m i l a r i t y b e t w e e n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t ofethne

as d e s c r i b e d b y

P l a t o a n d t h a t o f D e m o c r i t e a n kosmoi, t h e single f a m i l y l i v i n g i n i s o l a t i o n is a far

c r y f r o m t h e m u c h l a r g e r , m o r e t u r b u l e n t οΊνον παντοίων

elbiwv

(Β 167)

w h i c h is s e p a r a t e d o u t f r o m t h e a l l a t a c o r r e s p o n d i n g p o i n t i n t h e a t o m i s t i c t h e o r y o f c o s m i c genesis. T a k e n b y itself, t h e r e f o r e , Plato's a c c o u n t offers n o sure s u p p o r t for t h e t h e o r y o f a D e m o c r i t e a n source. T h e same c a n n o t b e s a i d , h o w e v e r , o n c e his a c c o u n t has b e e n e x a m i n e d a l o n g s i d e c e r t a i n o t h e r passages i n t h e t r a d i t i o n to

w h i c h i t , a l o n g w i t h P o l y b i u s a n d t h e t e c h n o l o g i c a l texts s t u d i e d i n

C h a p t e r s O n e a n d T w o , seems t o b e l o n g . T h e e i g h t h c h a p t e r o f D i o d o r u s I , for e x a m p l e , posits, j u s t as P l a t o does, a social d e v e l o p m e n t w h i c h proceeds t h r o u g h the gradual expansion o f an original nucleus. pp.

4

I n 1.8.4 ( - a b o v e , C I

6 4 - 6 5 ) t h e o r i g i n a l systemata c o n s t i t u t e d o u t o f t h e speakers o f a single

language

a r e s a i d t o b e c o m e t h e ancestors o f t h e ethne o f t h e w o r l d .

Even

m o r e s i g n i f i c a n t is t h e passage i n t h e E g y p t i a n p o r t i o n o f t h e b o o k (1.16.1) w h i c h lists a m o n g t h e a c h i e v e m e n t s o f H e r m e s t h e a r t i c u l a t i o n o f a c o m m o n speech a n d t h e d e v i s i n g o f n a m e s f o r c e r t a i n andnyma. T h e passage has b e e n t a k e n as a s i m p l e v a r i a n t o n t h e e a r l i e r a c c o u n t o f t h e o r i g i n o f l a n g u a g e (1.8.2-4),

D

u

u p o n closer e x a m i n a t i o n i t b e c o m e s f a i r l y c l e a r t h a t D i o d o r u s

t

is h e r e d e s c r i b i n g s o m e t h i n g q u i t e d i f f e r e n t . H e r m e s c a n n o t be t h e o r i g i n a l onomatothetis;

f o r a t a c o m p l e t e l y p r e l i n g u a l stage o f d e v e l o p m e n t , t h e crea­

t i o n o f a c o m m o n l a n g u a g e w o u l d be i d e n t i c a l w i t h t h e d i s c o v e r y o f n a m e s f o r andnyma, a n d so t h e r e w o u l d b e n o p o i n t i n d i s t i n g u i s h i n g , as D i o d o r u s does, b e t w e e n t h e t w o a c t i v i t i e s . M o r e o v e r , a t t h i s stage a l l objects w o u l d be nameless, so t h a t t h e r e w o u l d b e e q u a l l y l i t t l e p o i n t i n r e f e r r i n g t o those which

receive

n a m e s as andnyma r a t h e r t h a n s i m p l y as pragmata.

H e r m e s m u s t b e d o i n g is, f i r s t , c r e a t i n g a lingua franca

What

(ή κοινή δ ι ά λ ε κ τ ο ς ) f o r

a c o u n t r y w h i c h a l r e a d y possesses dialects ( r u d i m e n t a r y p e r h a p s )

spoken

l o c a l l y b y its d i f f e r e n t t r i b e s ; a n d , second, d e v i s i n g n a m e s f o r some o f t h e andnyma

5

f o r w h i c h n o d e s i g n a t i o n , l o c a l o r o t h e r w i s e , y e t exists. D i o d o r u s '

a c c o u n t has a n e x a c t p a r a l l e l i n Laws

3.68 I A - C

( i t e m 14 i n t h e s u m m a r y

g i v e n i n C h a p t e r S e v e n ) . P l a t o t h e r e says t h a t , as t h e separate clans b e g a n 6

O n the following cf. Uxkull-Gyllenband, 2 9 - 3 0 . * Cf. nSnyma in the Democritean analysis of language, above, pp. 6 7 - 6 9 . " Noted by Reinhardt, 507.

4

IOg

P L A T O , P O L Y B I U S , AND D E M O G R I T U S

t o coalesce, t h e y b r o u g h t w i t h t h e m d i f f e r e n t a n d o f t e n c o n f l i c t i n g c u s t o m s . A s a r e s u l t i t was necessary t o a p p o i n t l a w g i v e r s w h o w o u l d p i c k a n d choose f r o m a m o n g a v a r i e t y o f nomoi those w h i c h w o u l d h e n c e f o r t h h a v e sole v a l i d i t y . D i o d o r u s speaks o f l a n g u a g e , P l a t o o f nomoi; b u t , as w e h a v e seen, 7

i t is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e w h o l e t r a d i t i o n o f Kulturgeschichte

w h i c h w e a r e ex­

a m i n i n g t o d r a w a close c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e c o m m o n speech a n d t h e c o m m o n social usages p r e v a l e n t a m o n g a g i v e n p e o p l e (see a b o v e , p p .

71-

74, 8 5 - 8 6 ) . A n d i t s h o u l d b e n o t e d t h a t t h e l i n g u i s t i c e q u i v a l e n t s f o r t h e c o n f l i c t i n g nomoi m e n t i o n e d b y P l a t o w o u l d b e s y n o n y m s a n d

homonyms,

those e x a m p l e s o f d i f f e r i n g c o n v e n t i o n a l responses t o i d e n t i c a l pragmata i d e n t i c a l responses t o d i f f e r e n t pragmata account

of w h i c h Democritus took

and

special

(see a b o v e , p p . 6 7 - 6 9 ) i n f r a m i n g his t h e o r y o f t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l

o r i g i n o f l a n g u a g e , p e r h a p s seeing i n t h e c o a l e s c i n g o f d i f f e r e n t l i n g u i s t i c systemata t h e i r p r i n c i p a l p o i n t o f o r i g i n . T h e s e p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n P l a t o , D i o d o r u s , a n d D e m o c r i t u s are i m p o r t a n t f o r t h r e e reasons. F i r s t , t h e y i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e m o t i f w h i c h has b e e n r e g a r d e d as a t o m i s t i c i n P l a t o ' s

account

belongs t o the t r a d i t i o n w h i c h he

and

D i o d o r u s are f o l l o w i n g , h e n c e c a n n o t be a n a d d i t i o n o f P l a t o ' s o w n t o w h i c h t h e r e was n o c o u n t e r p a r t i n t h a t t r a d i t i o n . S e c o n d , i t a l l o w s us t o s u p p l e m e n t the rather shakily grounded a r g u m e n t f r o m the " a t o m i s t i c " character Laws

of

I I I w i t h a specific p a r a l l e l t o D e m o c r i t u s . F i n a l l y , i t suggests t h a t t h e

n o t i o n o f a n e x p a n d i n g social g r o u p , t h o u g h n o t , i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y , o r i g i n a l w i t h P l a t o , m a y nevertheless h a v e u n d e r g o n e c e r t a i n m o d i f i c a t i o n s a t his h a n d s . T h e i n i t i a l a g g r e g a t i o n i n D i o d o r u s ' a c c o u n t is n o t a f a m i l y b u t a systema—a

g r o u p o f i n d i v i d u a l s ( o r h o u s e h o l d e r s ) w h o assemble t o g e t h e r f o r

p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e w i l d a n i m a l s . T h e r e s u l t i n g p i c t u r e o f social genesis p r o v i d e s a f a r closer p a r a l l e l t h a n does P l a t o ' s t o w h a t c a n b e

reconstructed

o f t h e D e m o c r i t e a n t h e o r y o f t h e f o r m a t i o n a n d d e v e l o p m e n t o f kosmoi. kosmos, a c c o r d i n g t o o n e t e s t i m o n y ( A 4 0 . 4 ) , g r o w s a n d

flourishes

A

until i t can

n o l o n g e r a b s o r b m a t t e r f r o m o u t s i d e . E l s e w h e r e i n t h e same passage a n o t h e r possible cause o f d e s t r u c t i o n is suggested: a kosmos m a y c o m e t o a n e n d b y c o l l i d i n g w i t h a n o t h e r one. T h e c o l l o c a t i o n o f t h e t w o causes suggests t h a t Democritus h a d i n m i n d a situation i n w h i c h they w o u l d have been identical o r n e a r l y so, such as t h a t i n w h i c h w a r r i n g kosmoi c o m p e t e w i t h o n e a n o t h e r f o r t h e a v a i l a b l e a t o m s . U n d e r these c i r c u m s t a n c e s a b s o r p t i o n o f n e w m a t t e r w i l l a l w a y s m e a n i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f p a r t o f a n o t h e r kosmos i n t o one's o w n , 7

8

The source drawn upon by Plato and Diodorus need not have attributed the whole process to a single man. A n indication of the skill shown by certain individuals (perhaps equivalent to the logioi of Democritus) in suggesting solutions and compromises in specific situations would have been a sufficient starting point for the more thoroughly individualistic interpretation given by Plato and Diodorus. 8

Cf. VS 6 8 A 8 4 : φθείρεσθαι τον κόσμον τον μείζονος τον μικρότερον

νικώντος.

110

D E M O C R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

f a i l u r e t o a b s o r b w i l l m e a n c o l l i s i o n a n d d e s t r u c t i o n . I t is e x a c t l y s u c h a s i t u a t i o n w h i c h , b o t h i n D i o d o r u s a n d i n P o l y b i u s ' closely s i m i l a r a c c o u n t , creates t h e first h u m a n a g g r e g a t i o n . M a n m u s t , t o b e g i n w i t h , b u i l d a w o r l d o f his o w n b y c r e a t i n g safe s u r r o u n d i n g s f o r h i m s e l f i n t h e m i d s t o f t h e v a r i o u s n a t u r a l a n d a n i m a l kosmoi w i t h w h i c h h e f i n d s h i m s e l f i n c o n t a c t ; a n d he c a n o n l y s u r v i v e b y t u r n i n g p o r t i o n s o f his e n v i r o n m e n t , w h e t h e r a n i m a t e o r i n a n i m a t e , t o his o w n use—i.e. b y i n c o r p o r a t i n g p o r t i o n s o f o t h e r kosmoi i n t o his o w n .

9

T h e v i e w o f social genesis f o u n d i n P o l y b i u s a n d D i o d o r u s is t h u s p e r f e c t l y consistent, as P l a t o ' s is n o t , w i t h w h a t o n e w o u l d assume a n a t o m i s t i c a c c o u n t o f t h i s process t o h a v e b e e n . T h e r e is, m o r e o v e r , o n e specific piece o f e v i d e n c e t o suggest t h a t D e m o c r i t u s d i d i n f a c t offer s u c h a n a c c o u n t , a n d t h a t i t is echoed i n Polybius: ΡοΐΛΈΓυΐ 6 . 5 . 7 - 8

D E M O C R I T U S Β Ι 64

τότε δήπου καθάπερ επί τών άλλων ζώων και έπι

και γαρ ζώα . . . όμογενέσι ζώοις

τούτων συναθροιζομένων—δπερ

ώς περίστεροι

εικός, και τούτους

εις το όμόφυλον συνογελάζεσθαι

διά τήν φύσεως

περιστεραις

και έπι τών άλλων άλογων

συναγελάζεται,

και γερανοί

γεράνοις

ωσαύτως.

άσθένειαν—ανάγκη τον τη σωματική ρώμη και τη φυχική τόλμη κρατεΐν,

άδοξοποιητών φύσεως

και

έτιϊ

ζώων

μένους, λέγω τά τούτοις

τών

ήγεΐσθαι άλλων

θεωρούμενον

έργον άληθινώτατον

ομολογουμένως

As

διαφέροντα, τούτον

καθάπερ

τούτο

νομίζειν,

τους Ισχυρότατους

χρή

παρ*

όρώμεν

δέ ταύρους κάπρους

και γενών

οΓ?

ηγου­

άλεκτρυόνας,

παραπλήσια.

quoted

by

Sextus

(Adv.

math.

7. n 7 ) ,

Democritus

B164

compares

a n i m a l a g g r e g a t i o n s , n o t t o h u m a n ones, b u t t o those o f s i m i l a r l y s h a p e d a t o m s . T h e reference t o a n i m a l s as aloga, h o w e v e r , s u p p o r t s t h e suggestion o f those w h o suppose t h e o r i g i n a l c o m p a r i s o n t o h a v e b e e n w i t h m e n as well.

1 0

T h e r e is n o t h i n g p e c u l i a r l y D e m o c r i t e a n a b o u t t h e i d e a t h a t l i k e is

a t t r a c t e d t o l i k e , i n a l l r e a l m s o f existence. N o r is t h e f o r m o f a r g u m e n t used — t h e a p p e a l t o a n i m a l b e h a v i o r t o e s t a b l i s h w h a t is " n a t u r a l " r a t h e r t h a n acquired i n man—unparalleled elsewhere.

11

Y e t t h e f a c t t h a t t h e same c o n ­

j u n c t i o n o f ideas t o g e t h e r w i t h r a t h e r s i m i l a r p h r a s e o l o g y a p p e a r s i n b o t h P o l y b i u s a n d D e m o c r i t u s , t h a t P o l y b i u s goes b a c k i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y (as t h e a r g u m e n t o f C h a p t e r S e v e n has s h o w n ) t o a p r e - P l a t o n i c source, a n d t h a t 9

This is what happens, for example, during the original discovery and subsequent application of fire. A certain natural process impinges on the human kosmos and is then made part of it and accommodated to its pattern. Similarly, wild animals will be either thrust away and killed or else domesticated—i.e. forced to conform to and assist in the development of this same human pattern. So Uxkull-Gyllenband, 31, followed by Havelock, 412. 1 0

1 1

Its earliest datable appearance is in the Clouds of Aristophanes ( 1 4 2 7 - 2 9 ) .

P L A T O , POLYBIUS, AND DEMOCRITUS

Β 1 6 4 is t h e o n l y p l a c e i n G r e e k l i t e r a t u r e b e f o r e Laws

III

68ODE w h e r e m a n is

p l a c e d i n a c a t e g o r y a l o n g w i t h c e r t a i n o t h e r a n i m a l s as a ζδοη

synagelastikon—

a l l t h i s m u s t b e a l l o w e d t o c a r r y some w e i g h t . T h e r e is also a t r a c e o f w h a t may

have been one further parallel between the views o f D e m o c r i t u s a n d

P o l y b i u s o n t h e earliest h u m a n society, o r , m o r e p r e c i s e l y , o n t h e p o s i t i o n w h i c h t h e strongest i n d i v i d u a l s i n i t o c c u p i e d . Polybius adduces t h e e x a m p l e o f a n i m a l b e h a v i o r t o p r o v e t w o p o i n t s : first, t h e naturalness a n d i n e v i t a b i l i t y o f man's tendency t o aggregate after his

k i n d ; s e c o n d l y , t h e e q u a l l y n a t u r a l c h a r a c t e r (cf. 6 . 5 . 8 : φύσεως

άληθινώτατον)

epyov

o f the t e n d e n c y f o r t h e strongest m e m b e r o f the h e r d t o r u l e .

T h e n a t u r a l p r i n c i p l e p r o c l a i m e d h e r e is as m u c h a c o m m o n p l a c e as t h e o n e t h a t l i k e seeks l i k e .

1 2

Y e t w h e n t h e t w o ideas a r e c o m b i n e d , as t h e y a r e i n

P o l y b i u s , t h e r e s u l t is c o n s i d e r a b l y less c o m m o n p l a c e — a m o r e b a l a n c e d a n d c o m p l e x p i c t u r e o f t h e state o f n a t u r e t h a n is u s u a l l y f o u n d i n G r e e k t h o u g h t . A

f a i r l y close p a r a l l e l is f o u n d i n Laws

1 3

I I I , where, however, parental rule

takes t h e p l a c e o f r u l e o f t h e s t r o n g e r . T h e r e s u l t , i n P l a t o ' s a c c o u n t , is a n i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f kreittdn

w i t h " b e t t e r " , a n d t h i s dispenses w i t h t h e i n t e r ­

a c t i o n o f t h e o p p o s e d p r i n c i p l e s o f f o r c e a n d c o n s e n t (see a b o v e , p p . 9 2 - 9 3 ) t h a t is essential t o P o l y b i u s ' w h o l e c o n c e p t i o n o f p r e h i s t o r y . T h e p o w e r o f the

m a n w h o is kreittdn i n P l a t o ' s sense is f r o m t h e v e r y b e g i n n i n g g e n u i n e l y

p r o d u c t i v e o f a social o r d e r , n o t , as i t is i n P o l y b i u s , s o m e t h i n g w i t h a l i m i t e d usefulness t h a t m u s t u l t i m a t e l y b e s u p p l e m e n t e d a n d i m p r o v e d u p o n . A m o r e e x a c t p a r a l l e l t o P o l y b i u s , t h o u g h f r o m a d i f f e r e n t c o n t e x t , is t o b e f o u n d i n the

p o l i t i c a l fragments o f D e m o c r i t u s , where t h e claims ( a n d dangers) o f

s u p e r i o r a b i l i t y a r e c o n s t a n t l y b e i n g b a l a n c e d a g a i n s t those o f c o l l e c t i v e w i l l and

c u s t o m , i n t h e same w a y as h e r d i n s t i n c t a n d s o l i d a r i t y a r e b a l a n c e d

against t h e p o w e r o f the stronger i n Polybius' a c c o u n t .

1 4

T h e one fragment

w h i c h expresses m o s t c l e a r l y t h e n a t u r a l c h a r a c t e r o f r u l e o f t h e s t r o n g e r 1 2

Cf., for example, Plato, Gorgias 483AC; Moschion, F r . 6 . 1 5 - 1 7 (TGF 8 1 4 ) ;

Thucydides

5.105.2. 1 3

So much so that at least one modern scholar has declared the combination to be impossible. Largely on the basis of Democritus B164, L a n a (RendLinc Ser. 8, 5 . 1 8 7 - 2 0 1 ) draws an unnecessary distinction between a " Democritean " and a " Protagorean " view of the origin of society, in which the causes of the original aggregation are, respectively, philallelia and the fear attendant on human weakness (cf. Plato, Protagoras 322B). He thus concludes that a theory of the primitive rule of bia such as lies behind the picture of human cannibalism in Diodorus 1.90.1 cannot be Democritean, " a meno di ammettere che gli uomini si sentissero attirati l'uno verso l'altro . . . per mangiarsi a vicenda" (193, note 1). But the combination of ideas is merely unusual, not impossible (cf. above, p. 84, with note 11) and fits quite well with Democritean psychology; cf. B 2 0 3 : άνθρωποι τον θάνατον φεΰγοντες οΊώκουοιν. See also below, p. 131. 1 4

Contrast Democritus' praise of demokralia ( B 2 5 1 ) , nomos ( B 2 4 5 and 2 4 8 ) , and homonoia ( B 2 5 0 )

with the defense of archontes and the exclusion of kakoi from their ranks found in B 2 5 4 and 266. For the compromise political program to which such considerations seem to have led him see B 2 5 5 (discussed below, pp. 120-21) and Aalders, Mnemosyne Ser. 4, 3.310.

112

(B267:

D E M O C R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

a

n

αγαθόν.

51

ην κατά φΰσιν

T h e expression θαρρεΐν εξ ανθρώπων

RS 6

50

αρχής

recalls θάρσος i n

d the tense of ην is most n a t u r a l l y e x p l a i n e d b y assuming a reference

to the early stages o f h u m a n c u l t u r e .

5 2

S u c h a context is also suggested b y the

parallels between another RS (7) a n d the passage i n Book V

(1120-28)

w h e r e L u c r e t i u s describes the collapse o f early k i n g s h i p : at claros homines voluerunt se atque potentes ut fundamento stabili fortuna maneret et placidam possent opulenti degere vitam:

ένδοξοι και περίβλεπτοι

τίνες έβονλήθησαν

σθαι την εξ ανθρώπων άσφάλειαν οΰτω περιποιήσασθαι.

γενέ­

νομίζοντες

ώστε ει μεν ασφαλής ο τοιούτων

βίος άπέλαβον τής φύσεως αγαθόν.

nequiquam. . . . ut satius multo iam sit parere quietum quam regere imperio res velle et regna tenere.

ει δε μή ασφαλής, ουκ έχονσι ου ένεκα εξ αρχής κατά τό τής φύσεως οίκεΐον

ώρεχθησαν.

53

B o t h passages are i n p a r t a p o l e m i c against defenders o f the active l i f e ,

54

and

the E p i c u r e a n position is supported b y a reference to the fate o f the first kings. I t is n a t u r a l to assume that the object o f the polemic h a d cited this example i n his defense, a n d that E p i c u r u s is a l l o w i n g it a c e r t a i n v a l i d i t y : office a n d kingship d i d i n fact arise as p a r t o f a legitimate attempt to g a i n security through service o f society. B u t they l e d ultimately to disaster. T h e c h a r a c t e r o f the two passages, w h i c h accept a p o r t i o n o f a n earlier analysis but reject others, is compatible w i t h w h a t w e k n o w about the entire r e l a ­ tionship between And

the philosophical systems o f E p i c u r u s a n d D e m o c r i t u s .

the analysis o f early kingship w h i c h emerges as that o f E p i c u r u s ' o p ­

ponents is equally compatible both w i t h that w h i c h is found i n Polybius a n d w i t h w h a t is said o f the role o f the benefactor i n fragments B 2 5 8 a n d 2 6 3 . T h e a r g u m e n t for assuming that D e m o c r i t u s , like E p i c u r u s a n d Polybius, discussed kingship i n connection w i t h a consideration o f the origin o f culture becomes 5 0

thereby

m u c h stronger;

a n d so too does the case for m a k i n g

See von der Miihll, Feslgabe Kaegi 172—78.

For the reading adopted here, see C . Diano, "Note Epicuree," SIFC 12 (1935) 8 4 - 8 5 . So Grilli, RendlstLomb 8 6 . 2 1 - 2 4 , against Bignone's rather improbable suggestion (VAristotele perduto 2 . 2 6 4 - 8 7 ) that Epicurus is here thinking in terms of the false values which prevailed before the promulgation of his own ethical system. For apxijs we ought perhaps to read simply apxijs, eliminating thereby a superfluous reference to the time at which the orexis occurred and giving wpexdrjoav the object which it needs. I f this suggestion is correct the parallel with Lucretius is even closer: apxijs . . . £>pix6r\aav = regere imperio 5 1

6 2

6 3

res velle et regna tenere. 6 4

For a further discussion of this polemic and a suggestion as to the identity of the person or persons against whom it was directed, see below, pp. 1 6 8 - 6 9 .

128

D E M O G R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

P o l y b i u s ' entire a c c o u n t o f the beginnings o f kingship a n d dike derive from Democritus. T h e parallels considered i n this c h a p t e r are heterogeneous i n c h a r a c t e r a n d u n e q u a l i n i m p o r t a n c e . N o n e o f the resemblances to w h i c h w e h a v e c a l l e d attention is as striking, t a k e n i n itself, as some o f those w h i c h a p p e a r e d i n the technological a n d linguistic texts discussed i n C h a p t e r s O n e through F o u r . Y e t t a k e n together they seem to m e to provide as strong a case for a D e m o c r i t e a n influence o n Polybius V I as do those e x a m i n e d earlier for a c o m m o n source for D i o d o r u s , V i t r u v i u s , L u c r e t i u s , a n d Posidonius. F o r it is v e r y u n l i k e l y that two independently formed views o f social development, b o t h o f w h i c h w e k n o w to h a v e antedated Plato's Laws,

should agree so

thoroughly as to the biological causes o f the initial aggregation o f m e n into societies, as to the c h a r a c t e r a n d origin o f the typically h u m a n p a r e n t - c h i l d relationship, a n d as to the c o n n e c t i o n between the a r t o f warfare w i t h a n i m a l s a n d the a r t o f j u s t dealing a m o n g m e n i n p r i m i t i v e society. T h e conclusion that Polybius is indebted ultimately to D e m o c r i t u s for the theory of social genesis found i n his sixth book is almost inescapable. W h a t the intermediate sources were a n d w h a t alterations they or Polybius h i m s e l f m a y h a v e m a d e i n D e m o c r i t u s ' doctrine cannot, o f course, be determined. S o m e ­ t h i n g more w i l l be said o n this subject l a t e r ;

5 5

for the present one point is

w o r t h noting. W h a t Polybius presents i n the sixth book o f his Histories

is a fairly straight­

forward historical reconstruction. N o t so D e m o c r i t u s . H i s perspective seems to h a v e been r a t h e r that o f H e r m a r c h u s . T h e p r o h i b i t i o n against h o m i c i d e discussed i n the latter's a c c o u n t is a p a r t o f " t h e legislation w h i c h still p r e ­ vails a m o n g cities a n d t r i b e s " o n that subject. T h e a p p r o a c h is a e t i o l o g i c a l — a genealogy o f existing m o r a l s r a t h e r t h a n a strictly historical a c c o u n t o f their evolution. S u c h a m e t h o d w a s obviously k n o w n a n d used i n the fifth century.

I t appears, for e x a m p l e ,

i n the Protagoras

myth

a n d i n the

A n o n y m u s I a m b l i c h i (see above, p . 8 ) . I n a treatment o f this sort the various aspects o f c o n t e m p o r a r y social usage m a y have been covered sepa­ rately, thus p r o d u c i n g a series o f Νομικά καλών και αισχρών

αίτια

( B 2 9 9 g ) or αίτίαι

περί

των

c o m p a r a b l e to those περί πυρός και τών iv πνρί w h i c h a r e

attributed to D e m o c r i t u s (see above, p . 5 7 ) .

5 6

O n the other h a n d , the parallels between Polybius a n d Plato d e m a n d , i f our theory o f a c o m m o n source for Book V I a n d Laws

I I I is correct, the

I n Section 3 of Chapter T e n . This is certainly the type of composition indicated by A i 51, in which Democritus is seeking an aitia for the synetheia of breeding mules; and his concern for aetiology in general is strikingly attested in B 1 1 8 and in Aelian, H N 6.60 ( = A i 5 0 a ) . 6 5

6 6

129

P L A T O , P O L Y B I U S , AND D E M O G R I T U S

assumption of the existence o f a historical a c c o u n t used b y both Polybius a n d Plato a n d extant b y the m i d d l e o f the fourth century. I t is possible to square this d e m a n d w i t h the c h a r a c t e r o f the D e m o c r i t e a n fragments w e possess b y i m a g i n i n g s u c h a n a c c o u n t p r o v i d e d w i t h aetiological digressions w h e r e n e e d e d : " a n d here for the first time m e n b e g a n to follow the rule w h i c h even n o w holds, that, e t c . " and

5 7

T h e collectors of gndmai to w h o m we owe the e t h i c a l

social fragments w o u l d o n this assumption have omitted the historical

material which surrounded t h e m ;

5 8

whereas Polybius w o u l d h a v e e m p h a ­

sized the historical element at the expense o f the aetiological, i n t r o d u c i n g the whole account, not as a n e x p l a n a t i o n o f the genesis o f morals, b u t as a phase i n the cycle o f political a n d social change. T r a c e s o f the earlier perspective m a y r e m a i n i n two passages (italicized i n the translations given below) w h e r e Polybius does break the continuity o f his historical n a r r a t i v e to note that w h a t h e is describing is the arche a n d genesis o f m o r a l i d e a s : W h e n , after a time, common nurture and common habits develop within the herds, then for the first time does there come to man a perception (βννοια) of the good and the just and likewise of their opposites. And the manner of their origin is as follows: since the sexual urge is natural in men and results in the procreation of children. . . . (6.5.10) I n this manner, without anyone's realizing it, the monarch becomes a k i n g — whenever rational calculation begins to rule i n place of strength a n d daring (θυμός). This is the natural beginning of a perception (evvoia) within man of the just and the good and of their opposites—this is the origin and coming to be of true kingship. F o r men preserve the rule, not only of the first king, but also of his descendants. (6.6.12-7.2) T h o u g h the terminology at this point, referring to m o r a l notions as ennoiai, departs from a n y t h i n g D e m o c r i t u s w o u l d have been likely to u s e ,

5 9

the

p a r t i c u l a r aetiological perspective i n v o l v e d is quite close to that o f the fragments. Alternate 5 7

explanations

of

the

relationship

between

Polybius

and

Gf., in this connection, the parallels between the language of the ethical fragments and early

Greek legal phraseology noted by P. Friedlander, " Υποθήκαι, I I I , " Hermes 4 8 (1913) 6 1 3 , note 3. T o the passages cited there should be added Antiphon, Herod. 92 : την ΐσην γε δύναμιν έχει όστις τε αν τ-rj χειρϊ άποκτείνη αδίκως και όστις τή ψήφω; and the decree quoted in Andocides, Aiyst. και λόγω

9 7 : κτενώ

και έργω και ψήφω και τω έμαυτοΰ χειρι . . . ος αν κατάλυση τήν δημοκρατίαν. Cf. Β260:

κιζάλλην και ληστήν πάντα κτείνων τις αθώος αν εΐη και αυτοχειριη και κελευων και ψηφω. 5 8

The number of gnomai preserved from Democritus is not in itself sufficient reason for believing

that his ethica were composed in an exclusively aphoristic style; see Stewart, HSCP

63.188.

O n the Stoic affinities of these terms see Appendix I I I . Ennoia is, however, attested in later reports of the teaching of fifth century thinkers. Cf. Themistius 349E (=VS I I 3 1 7 . 2 3 - 2 4 ) on s 9

Prodicus' theory of the origin of religion: ίερουργίαν . . . και τελετάς νομίζων και θεών έννοιαν (Diels: εννοιαν mss.)

τών γεωργίας

εντεύθεν εις ανθρώπους έλθεΐν.

καλών

έξάπτει

I30

D E M O C R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

D e m o c r i t u s are, o f course, possible. O u r first suggestion (above, p . 128) m a y be right, i n w h i c h case the series o f aetiologies could have been a r r a n g e d so as to form i n itself a n d along w i t h its references to the early stages o f h u m a n culture the basis from w h i c h a continuous historical account c o u l d be c o n structed. Polybius V I a n d Laws

I I I w o u l d be, o n this theory,

independent

conversions o f aetiology into history. O r — a t h i r d possibility—it is conceivable that Plato a n d Polybius derive from a n intermediate source, some r h e t o r i c i a n , historian, o r philosopher w h o w o u l d have constructed a historical a c c o u n t a r o u n d D e m o c r i t u s ' aetiological i n q u i r y into existing h u m a n m o r e s .

60

But

w h a t e v e r share Plato, Polybius, a n d their i m m e d i a t e forerunners m a y have h a d i n reformulating the D e m o c r i t e a n Kulturgeschichte the Histories

a n d the Laws,

w h i c h is preserved i n

these contributions seem to have affected the

form i n w h i c h that doctrine w a s preserved r a t h e r t h a n its content. T h e motifs whose presence c a n be inferred for the source o f Plato a n d Polybius are also present i n s u c h n u m b e r s i n D e m o c r i t u s or i n texts w h i c h w e c a n believe o n other grounds to derive from h i m that the importance we assign to s u c h intermediate sources c a n n o t be large. A n d the same m a y be said about the m a t e r i a l c o m m o n to the technological a n d linguistic accounts exa m i n e d earlier, w h e r e the existence o f one o r more intermediate sources is i n c e r t a i n instances h a r d l y questionable. W i t h either body o f texts the a r g u m e n t for the preservation o f most o f the essential features o f a n ultimately D e m o c r i t e a n theory is fairly strong; a n d it becomes, o f course, doubly so w h e n the two bodies o f texts are considered i n conjunction w i t h e a c h other—as is d e m a n d e d both b y similarities o f m e t h o d a n d b y the close relationship i n w h i c h both o f t h e m stand to Laws

I I I . I t c a n be m a i n t a i n e d w i t h a h i g h

degree o f p r o b a b i l i t y that the technological histories o f D i o d o r u s , Tzetzes, V i t r u v i u s , L u c r e t i u s , a n d Posidonius; the accounts o f the origin o f language found i n D i o d o r u s , V i t r u v i u s , a n d L a c t a n t i u s ; the social history o f Polybius V I a n d the anthropology o f Laws

I I I are a l l D e m o c r i t e a n ; a n d the tradition

w h i c h these texts represent w i l l be so referred to as w e attempt, i n our final two chapters, to assess its place i n the history o f G r e e k thought a n d to trace the channels b y w h i c h it was transmitted from its originator to the scattered body o f later sources i n w h i c h it is n o w preserved. 6 0

I f we could be surer than we are as to its exact character and importance, fourth century Pythagoreanism would be an obvious possibility for the intellectual milieu from which this intermediate source arose. The parallels between Polybius, Democritus, and Archytas have already been noted (above, pp. 1 2 1 - 2 2 ) , and the tradition which links the Pythagoreans both to Plato and to Democritus was a well established one. Cf. especially Aristoxenus' story (ap. D. L . 9 . 4 0 = VS I I 82.38—83.2) of how the two Pythagoreans Amyclas and Cleinias dissuaded Plato from burning the writings of Democritus.

CHAPTER DEMOCRITEAN

NINE

S O C I O L O G Y AND

DEVELOPMENT

OF GREEK

HISTORY

IN T H E

THOUGHT

I f the a r g u m e n t of the preceding chapters is correct, we must assume that there arose i n G r e e c e t o w a r d the e n d of the fifth c e n t u r y a theory of c u l t u r a l origins w h i c h was vastly more elaborate a n d subtle t h a n a n y t h i n g w h i c h preceded or followed it, but w h i c h largely disappeared from philosophic discussions almost as soon as formulated. T h e p h e n o m e n o n m a y seem u n l i k e l y ; it is certainly r e m a r k a b l e — h e n c e the attempt, i n this a n d the following chapter, to e x p l a i n w h y D e m o c r i t e a n thought appears so r a r e l y i n later writers a n d w h y it appears i n the places a n d forms i n w h i c h it does. A simple, though only p a r t i a l , answer to the first p r o b l e m lies i n the u n compromisingly naturalistic c h a r a c t e r of our theory, w h i c h c o u l d be

ex-

pected to fare i l l i n a n age d o m i n a t e d b y the teleology of Aristotle a n d the i d e a l i s m of Plato. B u t there were certainly non-teleological schools of thought i n the fourth a n d later centuries: the C y n i c , the Sceptic, the E p i c u r e a n — even the L y c e u m d u r i n g a c e r t a i n phase of its history. T h e i r existence might have been expected to give a naturalistic doctrine a more vigorous life t h a n our theory seems to have enjoyed. F o r a fully satisfactory e x p l a n a t i o n one must look elsewhere, to a sociological perspective a n d historical methodology w h i c h are characteristic of our texts a n d w h i c h , i f not p e c u l i a r to the late fifth century, are nevertheless at home there i n a w a y they are i n no other period. T h e perspective w i t h w h i c h we have to deal is most evident i n the p s y c h o logical analysis of the p h e n o m e n o n of c o m m u n i t y that our texts offer.

The

social aggregations whose formation is described i n Polybius V I rest, i n the first place, on a c e r t a i n n a t u r a l affinity between m a n a n d m a n : the atomic p r i n c i p l e of like-to-like operates here as it does on a l l levels of existence. B u t this affinity i n its p u r e l y n a t u r a l form is very w e a k : the first m e n , though they m a y feel more comfortable

a m o n g their fellows t h a n elsewhere, are

almost as likely to eat e a c h other as not. A fully developed social feelingcomes only later, as a p r o d u c t of the habit of association w h i c h M a n ' s " p h y s i c a l weakness a n d sexual needs force u p o n h i m , a n d of a quji;Ce;,^calc u l a t i n g realization that cooperation is more advantageous t h a n agjfce^sion.

132

D E M O C R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

O n c e a c q u i r e d , however, this sociability is capable of intensification a n d extension. A s o u r study o f the accounts o f Polybius V I a n d Laws

I I I has

s h o w n , it seems to h a v e been regarded as l i n k i n g , first comrades a n d kins­ m e n , t h e n fellow-citizens, a n d finally whole cities i n a n e x p a n d i n g nexus o f koindniai. A l t h o u g h no complete analysis of the social process developed along these lines survives elsewhere, enough of its elements a p p e a r i n one form or another i n the literature of the late fifth a n d fourth centuries to m a k e it clear that Polybius' view o f c o m m u n i t y (though not his analysis of the historical process b y w h i c h c o m m u n i t y c a m e into being) was fairly w i d e l y held d u r i n g the period. X e n o p h o n , for example, shares w i t h Polybius the u t i l i t a r i a n analysis of social m o r a l i t y (the Memorabilia

being a locus classicus

i n antiquity for this

point of v i e w ) ; a n d his e t h i c a l theory, like that of Polybius, mingles utile a n d dulce. P r o x i m i t y a n d c o m m o n habits breed affection, a n d the process is o b ­ servable i n the b e h a v i o r o f both i m p l i c i t i n Polybius phon.

men and animals.

T h e latter

point,

explicit b y

Xeno­

1

(see above, p p . 8 7 - 8 8 ) , is m a d e

2

T h e i d e a is certainly not o r i g i n a l w i t h h i m . H e s i o d (Works 78) found only allelophagia

and Days

276-

i n the w a y s o f a n i m a l s t o w a r d one another, b u t

by the e n d of the fifth c e n t u r y E u r i p i d e s c o u l d take a more optimistic v i e w ( A n d r o m a c h e is c o n d e m n i n g r e m a r r i a g e ) : ά λ λ ' ουδέ πώλος ήτις αν διαζυγη της σνντραφείσης ραδίιος έλξει ζυγόν, καίτοι το θηριώδες άφθογγον τ' έφν ζυνέσει τ' άχρηστον τη φύσει τε λείπεται.

3

T h e last two lines suggest w h a t Polybius states, that h u m a n behavior, though rooted i n the same n a t u r a l tendencies as that of a n i m a l s , is (or ought to be) different by reason o f m a n ' s intelligence

(synesis

i n E u r i p i d e s ; logismos i n

Polybius). Also i n X e n o p h o n (Oec.

7 . 1 8 - 3 2 ) is the attempt, i f not to trace social

m o r a l i t y to a " n a t u r a l " origin i n the family, at least to show h o w a p r i n c i p l e of wide social a p p l i c a t i o n , that of the division o f labor, arises out of the

1

Cyrop. 2.1.25, 8.7.14. Cf. also Plato, Laws

7 0 8 c : το εν τι είναι γένος ομόφαινον και όμόνομον έχει

τινά φιλίαν, and, for the importance of philiai of this sort in fifth and fourth century society, F . Dirlmeier, ΦΙΛΟΣ 2

3

und ΦΙΛΙΑ

in vorhellenistischen Griechentum (Diss. Munich 1931) 37—39.

Cyrop. 2 . 1 . 2 8 ; Mem. 2.3.4. Cf. also Aristotle, HA 9.611A7-11 and

629B10-12.

Troades 6 6 9 - 7 2 . Cf. the story in Plutarch (Soli. anim. 13.970AB) and

Aristotle (HA

5.577B30-

78A1) of the mule employed in carrying building material for the Propylaeum who, after being released as too old for work, continued of his own accord to run alongside his former companions and so was granted maintenance at public expense as a reward for philotimia.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF GREEK THOUGHT natural union of m a n

133

a n d wife a n d the resultant s p e c i a l i z a t i o n w h i c h assigns

h o m e a n d f a r m as their respective p r o v i n c e s .

4

G i v e n the association o f the

ideas o f p o l i t i c a l a n d domestic e c o n o m y w h i c h a p p e a r s time a n d a g a i n i n the works of Plato a n d X e n o p h o n ,

5

the p a r a l l e l b e t w e e n state a n d f a m i l y w a s

doubtless o n o c c a s i o n d r a w n m o r e explicitly. I t a p p e a r s i n c l e a r a n d s t r i k i n g form, t h o u g h i n a r a t h e r different context, i n a passage from the a n o n y m o u s second speech against A r i s t o g e i t o n ( P s . - D e m o s t h e n e s 2 5 ) . I t is there m a i n ­ 6

t a i n e d ( 8 7 - 8 9 ) t h a t the willingness to overlook those actions o n the p a r t o f one's neighbors w h i c h a r e m e r e l y p e r s o n a l l y displeasing is essential to the h e a l t h y life o f the c i t y ; a n d it is suggested t h a t c i v i l life at this p o i n t s h o u l d m o d e l itself u p o n the s i m i l a r tolerance w h i c h c h a r a c t e r i z e s the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n fathers a n d c h i l d r e n . For one

7

the l a r g e r forms o f c o m m u n i t y based o n s h a r e d attitudes a n d habits

m a y c o m p a r e Isocrates' famous praise o f A t h e n s (Paneg.

5 0 ) as h a v i n g

m a d e the w o r d " G r e e k " s y n o n y m o u s , n o t w i t h a r a c e , b u t w i t h a w a y o f life; o r his m e n t i o n , i n a passage full

of pan-Hellenic

sentiment, o f the

4

Xenophon's perspective is teleological and theological: the varying natural capacities of man and woman are an indication of the fact that God has provided for the well-being of both. But this perspective need not be the original one. Cf. Ps.-Aristotle, Oec. 1.1343B 13-20 (cited above, Chap. V I I I , note 2 2 , for its similarity to Polybius 6 . 6 . 2 - 5 d Democritus B278) and E N 8.1 i 6 2 A i g - 2 4 , which contrast animal synousia (existing only for teknopoiia) and its human counterpart (involving a division of labor and exchange of needed services). I n neither of these passages are there any theo­ logical or teleological overtones. a

5

n

Cf. Mem. 3.4.6, 3 . 6 . 1 4 ; Plato, Meno 7 3 A , 91 A ; and the epangelma of Protagoras in Prot. 3 1 8 E - 1 9 A .

The parallel between oikos and polis is also in Aesch. ctes. 78. T h e idea, of course, is implicit in the very term oikeios, with its extension of meaning to include fellow-citizens and fellow-nationals as well as members of the same household. For representative examples of the two usages see J . P. A . Eernstman, ΟΙΚΕΙΟΣ

ΕΤΑΙΡΟΣ

ΕΠΙΤΗΔΕΙΟΣ,

Bijdrage

tot de kennis van de terminologie

der vriendschap bij de grieken (Diss. Utrecht 1932) 5 - 1 2 . 6

This passage, along with a number of others, was assigned by M . Pohlenz, "Anonymus nepi νόμων," NGG 1924 19-37, to an anonymous fourth century political treatise. (The passages are reprinted in M . Untersteiner, Sofisti, Testimonianze

e Frammenti 3 [Florence 1954] 193—207.) T h e

attribution has been questioned (notably by M . Gigante, ΝΟΜΟΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ [Naples 1956] 2 6 8 - 9 2 ) because of the somewhat contradictory views appearing in different portions of the material assigned by Pohlenz to the Anonymus. Whether the passage with which we are concerned is from a political treatise or not, it is reasonable to assume that its point of view played a role in the political discussions of the time. T h e set of ideas with which we are concerned is obviously related to two other views of philia current in the fifth and fourth centuries—the one which derives philia from syngeneia (on which see Dirlmeier [above, note 1] 7 - 2 1 ) , and the one which explains it as a manifestation of the universal attraction of like for like (see R . Walzer, " Magna Moralia und Aristotelische Ethik," NPU 7 [1929] 2 4 5 - 4 6 ) . For syntrophia and synetheia are frequent concomitants of syngeneia as well as a form of homoiotes. But in both instances there is a difference. Syngeneia is static and kata physin; synetheia is evolving and kata nomon. And the friendship based on synetheia and syntrophia is a very special illustra­ tion of the όμοιος-όμοίω principle, which is in itself too vague to provide a consistent theory of human koinonia (see below, note 2 3 ) . 7

D E M O C R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

134

Piraeus as a n e m p o r i u m , n o t o f A t h e n s , b u t o f a l l G r e e c e b y reason o f the exchange o f needed commodities w h i c h goes o n t h e r e .

8

T h e single a u t h o r w h o provides the most extensive r e c o r d o f this attitude toward community

a n d a m i t y is Aristotle, i n the portions o f his e t h i c a l

treatises w h i c h deal with, philia.

T h e feelings of good w i l l w h i c h exist between

associates o f a l l k i n d s — k i n s m e n , soldiers, fellow-voyagers, c l u b members a n d the l i k e — a r e cited from time to time i n the course o f Aristotle's attempt to analyze the sources o f friendship; a n d the explanations offered

frequently

suggest the line o f reasoning present i n P o l y b i u s : m e m b e r s h i p i n the same species, c o m m o n habits a n d n u r t u r e , cooperation i n securing the necessities of life.

9

T h a t s u c h forms o f koindnia

m a y serve as a basis for larger social

entities is i m p l i e d b y several passages w h i c h refer to t h e m as examples either of politike

philia

politikephilia.

10

o r o f those friendships w h i c h are " c o m p o n e n t

p a r t s " of

" P o l i t i c a l " friendship is p r e s u m a b l y that o n w h i c h the

polis

rests, though Aristotle extends the term to include international a l l i a n c e s .

11

T h e fact that Aristotle provides fairly extensive statements o f the ideas w h i c h lie b e h i n d the P o l y b i a n a n d D e m o c r i t e a n view o f the social process need n o t m e a n that h e contributed substantially to their expansion a n d development. T h e r e are s u c h expansions i n the Ethics,

but they take a rather

different line. Aristotle h i m s e l f seems to have been rather uninterested i n the sort o f relationship w h i c h rests o n h a b i t a n d the exchange o f utilities. I t figures i n his w o r k chiefly i n discussions o f the lower forms o f f r i e n d s h i p — those based o n τό χρήσιμον

or τό ήδύ r a t h e r t h a n o n το αγαθόν.

T h e last,

12

Paneg. 4 2 . T h e statement comes at the end of a discussion of Athens' contributions to civilization which shows clearly the influence of fifth century Kulturgeschichte: Athens gives men religion and agriculture, the two boons which free him from an animal-like existence ( 2 8 - 2 9 ) j did not find things as they are now but devised them gradually, a process in which the Athenians, who by common consent have the greatest aptitude for technology, must have played the leading role ( 3 2 - 3 3 ) ; Athens founded the first city, established laws and government, and so substituted reason for violence in the settlement of men's disputes ( 3 9 - 4 0 : noted above, Chap. V I , note 2 3 ) . Here, as 8

m

in Laws

e

n r s t

m

e

n

I I I , the extending and tightening of the bonds of koinonia is associated with the overall

evolution of human culture. 9

Cf. EN 8.1161B33—35:

οι συνήθεις εταίροι; 1 1 5 9

μέγα be προς φιλίαν και το συντροφον και το καθ' ήλικα- ήλιξ γαρ ήλικα και Β 2

7

— 2

9 · προσαγορευουσι γονν ώς φίλους τους σνμπλους και τους

συστρατιώτας,

ομοίως δε και τους εν ταις άλλαις κοινωνίαις, and the whole chapter ( 1 1 5 9 B 2 5 - 6 0 A 3 0 ) from which this passage is taken; 1162A9—14: έστι δε φιλία . . . μάλλον εν τοις όμοίοις, όσω οίκειότεροι και έκ γενετής ύπάρχουσι

στέργοντες

αλλήλους,

και οσω όμοηθεστεροι οι . . . σύντροφοι και παιδευθεντες

ομοίως;

I Ι6ΙΒ6—7: friendship links every man προς πάντα τον δυνάμενον κοινωνήσαι νόμου και συνθήκης; and the proverbs κολοιός παρά κολοιόν, άνθρωρος άνθρώπω, etc., principle in E E 7 . 1 2 3 5 A 4 - 1 3 ; 1 0

EE

cited to illustrate the

όμοιος-όμοίω

EN 8 . 1 1 5 5 A 3 2 - 3 5 ; Rhet. 1.1371B12-17.

For the former expression cf. E E 7.1242A2, 1 2 4 2 B 2 1 - 2 2 , and EN 8.1161B13; for the latter, 7.1241B25 and EN 8 . 1 1 6 0 A 8 - 9 .

1 1

1 2

Cf. E E 7 . 1 2 4 2 B 2 3 - 2 5 .

For the position of politike koinonia among those based on ήδΰ or χρήσιμον, cf. E E 7 . 1 2 4 2 A 6 - 8 ,

1 2 4 2 B 2 2 - 2 7 , and EN 8 . 1 1 6 0 A 1 1 - 2 1 .

T H E DEVELOPMENT OF G R E E K THOUGHT

135

w h i c h occupies the position o f h o n o r i n his t r e a t m e n t , c a n o n l y exist b e t w e e n good m e n , h e n c e h a s little to do w i t h most o f the relationships w h i c h u n d e r the n a m e o( philia. forms o f philia,

13

go

A n d e v e n i f one leaves out o f a c c o u n t the h i g h e r

most relationships w i l l be c o m p l i c a t e d i n a w a y not e n ­

v i s i o n e d b y P o l y b i u s b y the relative worths o f the parties i n v o l v e d : there c a n r a r e l y be the simple e x c h a n g e o f services or feelings o f good w i l l w i t h w h i c h the

latter deals. T h e better m u s t receive a r e t u r n for his p a r t i c i p a t i o n w h i c h

is i n p r o p o r t i o n to his o w n greater m e r i t s .

1 4

T h u s , insofar as it applies to

i n d i v i d u a l relationships, the sort o f koinonia w i t h w h i c h P o l y b i u s is p r i m a r i l y c o n c e r n e d is one a b o u t w h i c h Aristotle h a s strong r e s e r v a t i o n s ; a n d its social i m p l i c a t i o n s receive v e r y scant t r e a t m e n t , the w h o l e t h e o r y o f the e x p a n d i n g circle o f r e c i p r o c a l ties a n d affections b e i n g m e r e l y h i n t e d at i n the t e r m politike

philia.

15

For Aristotle's condemnation of the latter, see Dirlmeier (above, note 1) 76, with the passages cited there. For "friendships" based on the relationship between superior and inferior see E E 7.1238B181 3

1 4

39B5, 1 2 4 1 B 3 3 - 4 0 , 1 2 4 2 A 2 - 6 , and 1 2 4 2 B 2 - 2 1 ; £ j V 8 . i 1 5 8 B I 1 - 5 9 A 3 3 , 1 1 6 2 A 3 4 - B 4 , and 1163A24-B27.

Aristotle associates the notion of politike philia with another, found here and elsewhere in his work (most strikingly in the early chapters of the Politics: cf. especially 1 . 1 2 5 9 A 3 7 - B I 7 ) , which makes the family the archetype of the polls, the polis a sort of family writ large. But the two concep­ tions are essentially different. Politike philia is a relationship between equals (cf. E E 7 . 1 2 4 2 A 9 - 1 1 : other philiai are all καθ' ΰπεροχήν—only politike philia is not merely friendship but a partnership of 1 5

friends [i.e. equals—cf. 7.1239A4—5: at μέν γάρ φιλίαι κατά το ίσον, αϊ δέ καθ' νπεροχήν είσι. φιλίαι μεν ονν αμφότεροι, φίλοι δ' οι κατά την ισότητα];

Ι 2 4 2 Β 2 Ι — 2 2 : ή δε κατ' ίσα φιλία έστιν ή -πολιτική;

and ΕΝ 8.1161 Β Ι 3 : politikai koinoniai linked with phyletikai and symploikai). When Aristotle speaks of politike philia, the politeia he has in mind is any kind of commonwealth—anything that is not monarchy or "dynastic" oligarchy. T h e politeia of which the family is the archetype is, on the other hand, any one of the three sound constitutions (monarchy, aristocracy, timocracy) envisioned by the Aristotelian scheme of classification or any one of their corrupt aberrations (tyranny, oligarchy, democracy). And the relationships of master to slave, father to son, husband to wife, or brother to brother which have their counterparts in the various forms ofpolitieia are, for the most part, authori­ tarian ones—varieties of φιλία καθ' i-περοχήν (see preceding note). T h e two conceptions are clearly separated in the Eudemean Ethics, politike philia never being identified with syngenike philia in its authoritarian forms. T h e Nicomachean Ethics is less careful, inserting (1159B35—60A3) a mention of the father-son relationship into a section (1159B25-60A30) which is largely concerned with various egalitarian koinoniai which are "components" of the "political" one (see above, note 10). T h e parallel between oikos and various politeiai is developed at greater length in the latter work (EN 8.1160A31—61A30 — E E 7.1241827-40 and 1242A27-B2)—hence, perhaps, its encroachment on the other set of ideas. T h e two conceptions stand in roughly the same relationship to each other as do the Polybian and Platonic notions of the expanding range of koinonia (see above, pp. 115-17). T h e various egalitarian koinoniai of a commonwealth are quite literally "portions" of a larger civic one: all individual groups are linked eventually to all others by ties of philia, and it is possible to conceive the actual stages by which an ever increasing number of them could be brought into an expanding and tightening social nexus. There are no comparable relationships of seniority and authority between families in an aristocratic or monarchic state; and though it would have been possible to envision the descendants of a single patriarch multiplying to produce a state, neither Plato nor Aristotle seems to have done so. T h e union of clans in Laws I I I proceeds on egalitarian principles (see above, p. 117), as does the union of tribes and phratries from which Aristotle's pupil Dicaearchus derives the polis (Fr. 52 Wehrli).

136

D E M O C R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

T h e s e considerations, a l o n g w i t h the specific references to, o r echoes of, e a r l i e r writers w h i c h a p p e a r i n Aristotle's d i s c u s s i o n ,

16

m a k e it fairly c l e a r

t h a t h e is here d r a w i n g h e a v i l y , i f not e x c l u s i v e l y , o n w h a t must h a v e b e e n a fairly w i d e s p r e a d set o f ideas b y the m i d d l e o f the fourth c e n t u r y ,

1 7

one

w h i c h m a y h a v e f o u n d a n extensive a p p l i c a t i o n i n the D e m o c r i t e a n t h e o r y of the o r i g i n o f society. T h e s e ideas d o not, h o w e v e r , seem to h a v e b e e n i m p o r t a n t i n the p h i l o s o p h i c a l discussions o f s u b s e q u e n t periods. I n A r i s t o t l e himself, as w e h a v e seen, t h e y h a v e b e e n l a r g e l y superseded b y a v e r y different c o n c e p t i o n , o f largely Platonic a n c e s t r y ,

1 8

w h i c h m a k e s friendship a p a r t n e r s h i p b a s e d o n

d e d i c a t i o n to w h a t is agathon. Hellenistic p e r i o d

1 9

T h e A r i s t o t e l i a n n o t i o n w a s to persist i n the

alongside a n o t h e r , w h i c h is s e p a r a t e d from t h e fourth

c e n t u r y v i e w b y differences m o r e subtle b u t j u s t as significant. T h i s is the n o t i o n o f a n a t u r a l , absolute u n i t y o f m a n k i n d w h i c h d o m i n a t e s the 1 6

classic P e r i p a t e t i c a n d S t o i c theories o f c o m m u n i t y .

2 0

Cf. EN 8.1155A32

interpretation of philia

( = EE 7 . 1 2 3 5 A 4 - 5 ) , where the opoios-ouotto

T h e s e theories a r e is

introduced as an opinion held by one group as against those who suppose friendship to stem from attraction between enantia. (For Aristotle's transformation of the controversy to fit his own ijSuXp^ai/j.ov-dyaB6v classification, see Walzer [above, note 7] 250.) References to the work of predecessors is probable, though less certain, in the dokei with which many of the doctrines discussed by Aristotle are introduced (see Havelock, 3 1 7 ) ; and the fifth century parallels to what is said in E E 7.1236B9-10 about the "comings together and partings of birds that soothsayers speak of" (cf. Aeschylus, PV 4 9 1 - 9 2 ) and the friendship of sandpiper and crocodile (cf. Herodotus 2.68) suggest use of an earlier literary source—perhaps a work on philia. See Walzer (above, note 7) 2 5 0 ; Dirlmeier (above, note 1) 20 (on the antecedents of Aristotle's treatment of syngenike philia); and, most extensively, Havelock, 295—326. I n analyzing large portions of Aristotle's treatment of friendship as the result of the modification and "correction" of the view of previous thinkers, Havelock seems to me to be quite correct, though one might quarrel with certain details of his interpretation. I n particular, I would question the contrast he draws (298) between the philia which is conceived as an "intimate understanding, a meeting of minds and matching of characters" (Aristotle) and philia as " a spontaneous feeling of sympathy or goodwill which all members of a species are supposed by definition to feel for each other . . . " (the fourth century view). Earlier thinkers tended, I believe, to be just as concerned as Aristotle with a "matching of characters"—though their frame of reference was social rather than individual. Although there is some evidence for the existence, before Hellenistic times, of a theory of universal and spontaneous amity (see below, note 2 3 ) , its influence seems to have been far more restricted than that of the view under discussion in the text. 1 7

1 8

Cf. Lysis 2 1 4 0 D ; Rep. 3 5 O B , 3 5 I C E ; Laws

837A.

I t forms, for example, a major theme in Cicero's Laelius. These theories have been the subject of extensive investigation in recent years: see H . von Arnim, "Arius Didymus' Abriss der peripatetischen Ethik," SBWien 204.3 ( 9 6 ) 144—46; Walzer (above, note 7) 2 6 0 ; T a r n , ProcBritAc 1 9 . 1 4 0 - 4 5 ; M . H . Fisch, "Alexander and the Stoics," 1 8

2 0

!

•AJP 58 (1937) 1 4 9 - 5 0 ; Dirlmeier, Philologus Suppl. 3 0 . 1 ;

AbhGbttingen,

2

Philippson, Philologus 8 7 . 4 4 5 - 6 6 ; Pohlenz,

Folg. 3, 2 6 ; R . Stark, Aristotelesstudien = Zetemata 8 (1954) 6 0 ; Brink; and Baldry, The

Unity of Mankind

in Greek Thought 1 4 2 - 4 4 , 1 7 8 - 8 3 . T h e discusssion in the text follows Pohlenz ( 1 2 - 1 4 )

against Dirlmeier ( 4 7 - 7 5 ) in distinguishing oikeiotes from oikeiosis and in recognizing the latter as a specifically Stoic doctrine. (A similar point had been made earlier by Walzer and Philippson [ 4 6 4 - 6 5 ] against von Arnim, and by Fisch against Tarn.) I assume with Brink (138, note 83) against

T H E

the

D E V E L O P M E N T

O F G R E E K

T H O U G H T

!37

ones most frequently cited i n discussions o f a n c i e n t humanitas

times c o m p a r e d , erroneously, w i t h w h a t a p p e a r s i n P o l y b i u s .

a n d are at 2 1

T h e Peri-

patetic position seems to h a v e b e e n first stated fully b y T h e o p h r a s t u s , fragments o f whose discussion survive i n P o r p h y r y . i d e a o f the essential u n i t y o f m a n k i n d ,

2 2

T h e s e passages d e v e l o p the

s u p p o r t i n g their c o n t e n t i o n w i t h

references to the presence o f s i m i l a r b i o l o g i c a l needs, feelings, a n d p e r c e p t i o n s i n a l l m e n , w h o are thus oikeioi

to o n e a n o t h e r . T h e u n i t y w h i c h t h e y e n -

v i s i o n is a n absolute a n d u n i v e r s a l b r o t h e r h o o d : a fellowship l i n k i n g e v e r y m e m b e r o f the r a c e to e v e r y other qua m a n .

2 3

T h e r e is n o suggestion, either

here o r i n the a c c o u n t o f the d o c t r i n e w h i c h a p p e a r s i n A r i u s

Didymus'

Pohlenz (12) that the oikeiotes of Theophrastus is not simply a biological fact but the feeling of kinship to which the former gives rise. 2 1

2 2

See Appendix I I I . De abst. 3.25 = Llepl evaeßeias, F r . 2 0 Pötscher; cf. Bernays, Theophrastos' Schrift über Frömmigkeit

96-100.

T a r n seems to me to be largely correct in insisting (ProcBritAc 19.124-26) that this idea is not attested before Alexander. The passages which can be cited to prove the contrary are either negative in their emphasis, calling attention to the absence of physical differences between Greeks and Barbarians (Antiphon, VS 8 7 B 4 4 , F r . B , col. 2 . 1 5 - 3 5 ) , or to the non-existence of natural slavery (Alcidamas, as preserved by the scholiast to Arist. Rhet. 1.1373B18), or else simply concerned with certain general rules which have a validity not limited by time and place (the agraphoi nomoi discussed in Xenophon, Mem. 4 . 4 . 1 9 - 2 5 , and Aristotle, Rhet. 1373B7-18, or abstinence from homicide; for the latter cf. Empedocles ap. Arist. Rhet. 1373B14-17 and Sextus Empiricus, Adv. math. 9.127, Xenocrates, F r . 98 Heinze, and, for the position attributed to Pythagoras, Iamblichus, VP 108). At most they suggest universal equality, not fraternity. T h e όμοιος-όμοίω theory (above, note 7) could be, of course, and eventually was, put to the service of a genuine doctrine of the unity of man­ kind, but it could just as easily justify racial or local particularism. E N 8.1155A21-22, iSoi δ' άν τις 2 3

και iv rais

πλάναις ώς οίκεΐον ά-πας άνθρωπος άνθρώπω και φίλον, is the only passage in which the

Hellenistic universalism is clearly foreshadowed, and it does not prove that the idea was already well developed in Classical times. It should be emphasized, however, that the transition to the new conception must have been a natural and gradual one. By the middle of the fourth century certain circles of the Greek community had accepted a view which placed no bar in principle on the unity of mankind; for the community of acquired habits and exchange of utilities on which philia is based are open potentially to all men (cf. EN 8.1161 B6—7 on friendship προς -πάντα δυνάμενον κοινωνήσαι νόμου και συνθήκης, in which the

position of one of the Hellenistic schools has already been reached: cf. Epicurus, RS 3 2 ) . I f no one talked of universal philia it was simply because no one dreamed that the situation in which such could exist would ever arise. Alexander's conquests created such a situation, and it is reasonable to suppose that it was his action rather than any revolutionary ideal of koinonia introduced by him which led to the appearance of universalistic ideas in the generations following him. Once a mingling of habits and sharing of utilities throughout the oikoumene became possible, it was natural, on fourth century principles, to assume that philia would follow. Alexander may have drawn the logical conclusion at about the same time as a number of his contemporaries. O f the various views on the subject attributed to him (Arrian 7.11.9; Strabo 1.66; Plutarch, Fort. Alex. 329CD, Alex. 2 7 ) , only the last, which proclaims all men to be children of earth and heaven, can be interpreted as an affirmation of the absolute, abstract unity which was to figure in Hellenistic thought; and taken in context the statement reads as little more than a variant on the traditional view of Zeus as -πατήρ ανδρών Τ Ϊ θεών τΐ (see Ε . Badian, "Alexander the Great and the Unity of Mankind," Historia 7 [ • 9 5 8 ] 426—27). T h e others refer, not to an existing brotherhood, but to one which Alexander proposes to create—probably by acts like the resettlements and intermarriages of Diodorus 18.4.4

ι 8

D E M O C R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

3

summary that

the

( S t o b a e u s , Eel.

2-7 = W - H I I 1 2 0 . 1 7 - 1 2 1 . 2 1 ) o f P e r i p a t e t i c

feelings o f c o m m u n i t y

which link

all men

q u a n t i t y whose i n t e n s i t y a n d v e r y existence d e p e n d association would

be

and

assimilation.

inconsistent

distinct and

fixed

with

2 4

m i g h t be

whole

species, " p o l i t i c a l " b y

conception

its v e r y

such a n o t i o n

of " m a n "

nature

and

similar tendency

d o c t r i n e οϊ oikeiosis, o f the h u m a n race

as

capable

d e v i a t i o n f r o m this n o r m o n l y at the p r i c e o f ceasing t o be h u m a n A

ethics,

variable

u p o n a p r i o r process o f

N o r is t h e absence s t r a n g e :

Aristotle's

a

a of

altogether.

t o v i e w h u m a n n a t u r e as a c o n s t a n t is e v i d e n t i n t h e

w h i c h plays a c e n t r a l role i n the Stoic e t h i c . figures

here i n t w o different ways. T h e

h u m a n m o t i v a t i o n is, f o r t h e S t o i c , a n i n n a t e οίκείωσις makes every creature

2 5

The

unity

mainspring of

προς

eavrov,

f r o m t h e m o m e n t o f its b i r t h f a v o r a b l y

which

disposed t o ­

w a r d h i m s e l f , h i s o w n p r e s e r v a t i o n , a n d w h a t e v e r e x t e r n a l t h i n g s a r e neces­ s a r y f o r h i s w e l l - b e i n g . C o n n e c t e d w i t h t h i s is a s i m i l a r oikeiosis

t o w a r d his

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

H e n c e m a n ' s c h a r a c t e r as a ζωον

συναγελαστικόν.

26

(cf. in Plutarch, Fort. Alex. 329D, μείξας τους βίους και τα ήθη και τους γάμους και τάς δίαιτας), which would extend the effects of synetheia and syntrophia to the whole world. The first person to have taken the idea of Zeus as a common father seriously may have been Cassander's eccentric brother, Alexarchus, who was allowed to found and rule a colony of "children of Uranus"—perhaps a miniature model of a world state (cf. T a r n , 1 4 1 - 4 5 ) . T h e Stoics and Peripatetics provided a more sophisticated justification for something whose possibility had been revealed in practice. I n building their own theories, however, they largely disregarded the ladder of expanding koinoniai by which the Greeks had ascended to the cosmopolitan thought and practice of the Hellenistic age. T h e nature of which they speak in proclaiming the natural unity of mankind tends, as a result, to be largely an ideal human nature; and it was perhaps only with the advent of Rome and the realization of that political and economic unity whose possibility was first revealed by Alexander that philo­ sophers began to speak with real conviction of an actually existent world community. For the con­ trast between third and first century treatments of the theme see Baldry, The Unity of Mankind in Greek Thought 1 4 1 - 4 5 , 1 5 1 - 6 6 , and 177—99.

Theophrastus, it is true, speaks of fellow-citizens as οικείους . .. τω της τε γης και τής προς αλλήλους ομιλίας κοινωνεΐν (Fr. 2 0 . 4 - 5 Potscher), but this is an isolated reference in a passage dedicated wholly to syngeneia or to such ethos and trophe as all mankind has in common. Moreover, there is no suggestion that the smaller groups with which he deals are component and prior parts of the larger ones. T h e perspective throughout is biological, tracing the various metamorphoses of oikeiotes—not, as is that of the fourth century theory of expanding koinoniai, atomistic. 2 4

T h e most extensive of surviving presentations is Hierocles, col. 6.22—11.21. For a brief survey of other texts see Pohlenz, Die Stoa 2 . 6 5 - 6 6 . Cf. Cicero, Fin. 3 . 6 2 - 6 3 ( = SVF 3 . 3 4 0 ) ; Berlin Theaetetus Commentary, cols. 7 . 2 6 - 8 . 1 ; Hierocles 11.13—21. This extension of oikeiosis to include one's fellow men is not found in Chrysippus, 2 5

2 6

who says only (SVF 3.179) οίκειονμεθα προς αυτούς εύθνς γενόμενοι και τά μέρη και τά έκγονα εαυτών.

Conceivably it entered the school at a later date, perhaps as a result of Peripatetic influence (cf. Brink, 138 and 1 4 0 - 4 1 ) . T h e germ of the idea is already present in Aristotle's analysis (EM 9.1170A25—Β 19) of the pleasure which all men, and in particular agathoi, derive from conscious­ ness of their own existence. T h e pleasurable aisthesis which in each individual is directed toward himself is linked to a synaisthesis whose object is one's heteros aulas—the friend. T h e latter's existence is therefore, like one's own, numbered among things to be sought after for their own sake.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF G R E E K THOUGHT But

139

oikeidsis o p e r a t e s i n a n o t h e r m a n n e r as w e l l . T h e self w h i c h f o r m s i t s

o b j e c t is i n t h e process o f e v o l u t i o n t o w a r d m a t u r i t y a n d c o m p l e t e n e s s , i t s n a t u r a l a n d p r e o r d a i n e d telos; h e n c e m a n ' s c o n c e r n s o o n ceases t o b e m e r e physical preservation a n d w e l l - b e i n g , b u t r a t h e r t h e w e l l - b e i n g o f his per­ fected r a t i o n a l n a t u r e . but

2 7

A n d since s u c h a n a t u r e does n o t exist i n i s o l a t i o n

is l i n k e d t o i t s f e l l o w s t h r o u g h o u t t h e cosmos a n d b e n e f i t e d b y w h a t e v e r

benefits

t h e m (SVF

3.625-27),

the eventual

r e s u l t o f oikeidsis

is a r a t i o n a l

awareness o f t h e u n i t y o f t h e h u m a n r a c e , o r a t least o f t h e spoudaioi m e m b e r s o f i t (SVF

w h o are

1.222-23).

T h e Stoics m a y t h u s b e s a i d t o r e c o g n i z e a n oikeidsis l i n k i n g a l l m e n , w h i c h exists o n t h e l e v e l b o t h o f i m p u l s e a n d r e a s o n . goes t h e s o r t o f e v o l u t i o n e n v i s i o n e d 27

2 8

i n earlier

B u t neither variety under­ theories

of community.

2 9

SVF 3 . 1 7 8 : τεχνίτης γαρ ούτος \λόγος\ έπιγίνεται της ορμής; Seneca, Ep. 121.15: "unicuique

aetati sua constitutio est, alia infanti, alia puero, alia seni: omnes ei constitution! conciliantur in qua sunt"; Cicero, Fin. 3 . 2 3 : "quemadmodum fit ut is qui commendatus sit alicui pluris eum faciat cui commendatus quam ilium a quo sit, sic minime mirum est primo nos sapientiae commendari ab initiis naturae, post autem ipsam sapientiam nobis cariorem fieri quam ilia sint a quibus ad hanc venerimus." T h e contrast drawn here between a "natural" and a "rational" oikeidsis (on which cf. Fisch [above, note 2 0 ] 149-50) is not found in any ancient text. They represent two currents in Stoic thought about community, rather than the two halves of a single, well articulated theory. One could be stressed at the expense of the other; or the same phenomenon explained in terms of both; 2 8

cf. Cicero, Off. 1.12: natura vi rationis hominem conciliat homini, and, in the Berlin Theaetetus Com­ mentary (col 5.36—39) : 17 μέν yap προς εαυτόν οΐκείωσις φυσική εστίν και άλογος, ή δβ προς τούς πλησίον φυσική μεν και αύτη, ού μεντοι άνευ λόγου. 2 9

T o the generalization in the text there are two exceptions, or seeming exceptions, important enough to require notice here. A n Epicurean doctrine preserved most completely by Cicero, Fin. 1.69 (see above, Chap. V I , note 12), holds that amicitia, though based ultimately on utility, comes in the course of a relationship to be sought for its own sake because of the familiaritas which usus brings about: " si loca, si fana, si urbes, si gymnasia, si campum, si canes, si equos, si ludicra exercendi aut venandi consuetudine adamare solemus, quanto id hominum consuetudine facilius fieri poterit et justius?" This theory, however, is described by its proponent (Velleius) as the work of certain timidiores Epicurei who were seeking an answer to the charge that the ethic of the school made in­ sufficient allowance for the claims of friendship; and in the next book it is dismissed by Cicero as a later addition to the tenets of Epicurus: aliud humanius . . . recentiorum, numquam dictum ab ipso Mo

(2.82). T h e accuracy of the statements of Velleius and Cicero has been challenged (see Bignone, RFIC 3 7 . 7 7 - 7 8 ) , but even if something comparable to Fin. i.6g appeared in Epicurus himself it is unlikely to have been part of his main line of thought on the subject of friendship. More incontestably part of a major doctrine of an important thinker is the theory put forward in Cicero, Off. 1.54, which traces a widening circle of human coniunctiones beginning with coniugium and proceeding through domus, fratrum

coniunctiones, and adfinitates to res publico.

T h e passage makes

explicit the role played by synetheia in the whole process: oratio (1.50), forum, fana,porticus,

viae, leges,

iura, iudicia, suffragia ( 1 . 5 3 ) , sepulcra, and monumenta maiorum (1.55) are all named as things whose sharing goes to make up that vita viclusque communis and similitude

morum (1.58) on which amicitia

rests. T o this are added the giving and receiving of needed services. (1.56: "communitas . . . quae conficitur ex beneficiis ultro et citro datis acceptis"; cf. also 1 . 2 2 - 2 3 : "debemus . . . communes utilitates in medium adferre mutatione officiorum, dando accipiendo, turn artibus, turn opera, turn facultatibus devincire hominum inter homines societalem." Fin. 2.45 and 5.65, often cited as a parallel to Off. 1.54, speak in a superficially similar way of a widening circle of friendships, but

140

D E M O C R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

Oikeiosis

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

h a b i t . Oikeiosis

pros heauton is n o t d i r e c t e d t o w a r d t h e a c q u i r e d c o m p l e x

of

h a b i t s , a c t i v i t i e s , a n d f e e l i n g s w h i c h b e c o m e s associated m o s t i n t i m a t e l y w i t h one's p e r s o n a l e x i s t e n c e ; r a t h e r , i t rests o n a n i n n a t e consciousness o f o n e s e l f as a s e p a r a t e b e i n g , w h i c h exists i n a c o n f u s e d children.

3 0

f o r m even i n animals

and

I t s e x t e n s i o n t o i n c l u d e o n e ' s f e l l o w c r e a t u r e s is e q u a l l y n a t u r a l

a n d i m m e d i a t e . Oikeidsis

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

a n d s e l f - r e a l i z a t i o n , b u t t h e c h a n g e is n o t o n e w h i c h b r i n g s w i t h i t a h e i g h t e n e d sense o f k i n s h i p b r e d

by long contact:

oikeiosis

is a u t o m a t i c a l l y

re-

d i r e c t e d t o t h e r a t i o n a l self as i t b e g i n s t o e m e r g e . T h e P o l y b i a n a n a l y s i s o f c o m m u n i t y w o u l d seem t o be o n e w h i c h b e c a m e rather unusual

after

the m i d d l e o f the f o u r t h

t h o u g h t at its m o r e sophisticated

century,

a t least i n

levels. W h a t d i s t i n g u i s h e s

Greek

Polybius

from

h i s c o n t e m p o r a r i e s a n d l i n k s h i m t o a n e a r l i e r age is, q u i t e s i m p l y , his sense of

society —his 3 1

r e c o g n i t i o n o f the fact

t h a t i n d i v i d u a l character

cannot

r e m a i n c o n s t a n t as l o n g as i t c o n t i n u e s t o be i n v o l v e d i n t h e s o c i a l process, t h a t nomos c o u n t s f o r as m u c h as, o r m o r e t h a n , physis behavior. physis,

3 2

T h e P e r i p a t e t i c oikeiotes,

a n d logos i n h u m a n

b y c o n t r a s t , exists o n l y o n t h e l e v e l o f

l i n k i n g a l l m e n to one another b y v i r t u e o f c o m m o n traits w h i c h a l l

there is nothing in either of the former two passages to suggest the possibility of psychological development. T h e various relationships mentioned are simply the successive manifestations of a natural instinct which remains constant from the start.) It is clear that the oikeiosis doctrine of De qfficiis I involves what has been termed the fourth century view of koinonia, but it is almost as clear that the doctrine is foreign to early Stoicism. Cicero's source here is Panaetius, whose eclecticism was notorious (Fin. 4 . 7 9 ) ; and it is probable that Panaetius has modified the orthodox oikeiosis theory with material drawn from other sources. T h e innovations stress the more concrete, immediate forms of koinonia at the expense of the cosmic unity envisioned in other presentations of the doctrine. They are thus quite in keeping with the "humanizing" of the O l d Stoic teaching evident throughout the work of Panaetius. It has been suggested (Brink, 138) that Panaetius was indebted to the Theophrastan doctrine of oikeiotes for the changes he introduced, and the succession of koinoniai mentioned in Off. 1.54 bears a certain resemblance to that traced in Dicaearchus (Fr. 52 Wehrli). But Panaetius' strong evolutionary perspective, to which there is no parallel in either Theophrastus or Arius (see above, pp. 1 3 7 - 3 8 , with note 2 4 ) , and his equally strong emphasis on the utile as a vinculum societatis suggest to me a different source: Aristotle, perhaps, or the earlier thinkers on whose theories of koinonia Aristotle seems to have drawn (see above, p. 136, with notes 16 and 17). For Panaetius' acquaintance with pre-Platonic thought see the notices regarding his studies of the Socratics (D. L . 2.85 and 64 = Frs. 1 2 3 - 2 4 van Straaten); Cole, HSCP 6 5 . 1 2 8 - 4 4 (parallels between De qfficiis I I and the Anonymus Iamblichi); and A . Grilli, / / problema della vita contemplativa nel mondo

greco (Milan 1953) 137-61 (Panaetius and the Democritean ideal of euthymia). Seneca, Ep. 121.13: "infantibus quoque animalibusque principalis partis suae sensus est non satis dilucidus nec expressus." O n Polybius' " soziologischen Betrachtungsweise" see Heinemann, Poseidonios' metaphysische 3 0

3 1

Schriften

1.107.

Nomos, synetheia, and ethismos continued to play a role in the speculations of Hellenistic ethnographers, if Agatharchides is at all typical (see O . Immisch, "Agatharchidea," SBHeidelberg 10.7 [1919] 107, and Dihle, Entretiens Hardt 8 . 2 2 3 - 2 4 ) . But in what survives of his work, at any rate, Agatharchides falls back on synetheia as an explanation only when he has to account for what 32

141

T H E D E V E L O P M E N T OF G R E E K THOUGHT

o f t h e m share a t a l l t i m e s . A n d S t o i c oikeidsis m e r e l y a d d s t o a p u r e l y n a t u r a l a f f i n i t y a n e q u a l l y u n i v e r s a l i n t e l l e c t u a l one

stemming

from man's

con-

sciousness o f his r a t i o n a l n a t u r e . A s i m i l a r p o l a r i z a t i o n o f p h e n o m e n a i n t o t h e r e a l m s o f physis

and

logos

distinguishes t h e E p i c u r e a n t r e a t m e n t o f t h e o r i g i n o f s o c i e t y a n d l a n g u a g e f r o m its c o u n t e r p a r t s i n P o l y b i u s a n d D i o d o r u s . L a n g u a g e a n d m o r a l s arise f i r s t b y a n a u t o m a t i c a s s o c i a t i o n b e t w e e n objects a n d sounds o r b e t w e e n cert a i n a c t i v i t i e s a n d t h e i d e a o f s u r v i v a l ; t h e n a f u l l y d e v e l o p e d logismos enters i n to i m p r o v e a n d regularize the n a t u r a l situation. I n Polybius a n d D i o d o r u s , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , l i n g u i s t i c a n d social usage is b u i l t u p g r a d u a l l y , t h e p r o d u c t , n o t s i m p l y o f i n s t i n c t , b u t also o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n s o u t o f w h i c h t h e i m p u l s e f o r t h e i r d e v e l o p m e n t o r i g i n a l l y comes a n d o f t h e h a b i t s w h i c h arise g r a d u a l l y o u t o f a series o f s u c h s i t u a t i o n s . Logismos

in a rudimentary

f o r m p l a y s a r o l e , b u t i t is o n l y a t a m u c h l a t e r s t a g e — w h e n t h e

establishment

o f g o v e r n m e n t m a k e s i t t h e basis o f p o l i t i c a l a n d social a c t i o n , o r w h e n t h e m e r g i n g o f t w o different tribes requires the assimilation o f already developed d i a l e c t s (see a b o v e , p p . 1 0 8 - 9 ) —

t n a t

i n t e l l e c t u a l factors

become the

d o m i n a n t ones. P o l y b i u s h i m s e l f is n o t e n t i r e l y free f r o m t h e

pre-

contemporary

t e n d e n c y t o e n c r o a c h o n t h e r e a l m assigned t o c u s t o m a n d h a b i t : w h a t is nomizon i n D e m o c r i t u s becomes i n his a c c o u n t a n ennoia (see a b o v e , p p .

113-

14). B u t t h i s i n f l u e n c e does n o t e x t e n d t o m o r e t h a n t h e t e r m i n o l o g y used i n c e r t a i n passages. S i m i l a r differences i n v i e w p o i n t c a n Polybius

be o b s e r v e d w h e n

one

a n d t h e o t h e r texts o f o u r t r a d i t i o n w i t h t h e m o r e

m i n d e d o f t h e passages c o n s i d e r e d

i n Chapter Three.

compares historically

D i s s i m i l a r as t h e i r

a p p r o a c h e s w e r e , a l l o f those passages w e r e a t o n e i n r e f u s i n g t o r e c o g n i z e society as s o m e t h i n g sui generis a n d i n d e a l i n g w i t h i t i n essentially i n d i v i d u a l ist t e r m s . F o r P o s i d o n i u s a n d t h e E u h e m e r i s t s society becomes a m e r e p r o j e c t i o n o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l : a g r o u p o f disciples seated p a s s i v e l y a t t h e feet o f sapientes o r k i n g . D i c a e a r c h u s a n d A r i s t o t l e d o n o t c o n c e i v e o f society as a c l a s s r o o m ; b u t f o r t h e m t h e w h o l e h u m a n race b e c o m e s a s o r t o f c o r p o r a t e i n d i v i d u a l , l o o k i n g a r o u n d a n d t a k i n g stock o f its e n v i r o n m e n t , t h e n

ex-

p l o i t i n g i n s y s t e m a t i c f a s h i o n , first t h e v e g e t a b l e , t h e n t h e a n i m a l k i n g d o m (see a b o v e , p p . 5 4 - 5 5 ) ;

3 3

o r else d i r e c t i n g its a c t i v i t i e s , a l o n g lines

deter-

m i n e d b y t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f its o w n i n n e r b e i n g , f r o m p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h u t i l i t y a n d pleasure to disinterested speculation o n n a t u r e a n d p u r e

being

(see a b o v e , p . 5 2 ) . T h e a t t i t u d e w h i c h lies b e h i n d s u c h theories is p e r h a p s strikes him as an absurdity or aberration in the behavior of barbarian races (cf. Diodorus 3 . 6 . 2 ; 7.2; 18.7; 34.6 = Photius, Cod. 250 4 5 5 A 1 1 - 1 2 ) . There is nothing to suggest that he would have regarded civilized morality as depending ultimately on anything so variable and haphazard. As the title he chose for his work indicates, Dicaearchus is composing biography, not history. 3 3

142

D E M O G R I T U S AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

best s u m m e d u p i n t h e o b s e r v a t i o n w i t h w h i c h P l a t o i n t r o d u c e s his f a m o u s a c c o u n t o f t h e d e g e n e r a t i o n o f t h e i d e a l s t a t e : " T h e r e m u s t be as m a n y types o f m a n as t h e r e are o f p o l i t i e s , " says Socrates, " — o r d o y o u f a n c y t h a t p o l i t i e s arise o u t o f stock o r stone r a t h e r t h a n f r o m t h e c h a r a c t e r types existi n g w i t h i n t h e m w h i c h , t h r o u g h t h e i r p r e p o n d e r a n c e , c a r r y t h e others a l o n g with t h e m ? "

3 4

T h e i m p l i c a t i o n is c l e a r : w h a t e v e r i n t h e social

process

c a n n o t b e d i r e c t l y e x p l a i n e d i n t e r m s o f i n d i v i d u a l p s y c h o l o g y has n o explanation at a l l . But

3 5

i f P o l y b i u s refuses t o v i e w society i n c o m p l e t e l y i n d i v i d u a l i s t t e r m s ,

n e i t h e r does h e n e g l e c t i n d i v i d u a l m o t i v a t i o n t o c o n c e n t r a t e e x c l u s i v e l y o n the

w o r k i n g o f social c o n t r o l s . H e does n o t , l i k e P i n d a r o r H e r o d o t u s o r

Sophocles, speak o f nomos as a k i n g r u l i n g u n c h a l l e n g e d o v e r m e n , its o r i g i n and

nature shrouded i n mystery.

3 6

S o c i a l n o r m s arise f r o m c o n c r e t e s i t u a -

t i o n s i n w h i c h i n d i v i d u a l c h o i c e p l a y s a n i m p o r t a n t , i f n o t exclusive, r o l e ; and

o n l y subsequently, t h r o u g h diffusion a n d h a b i t , d o they become the

rules o f c o n d u c t t o w h i c h a l l m e m b e r s i n a society g i v e a u t o m a t i c o r n e a r l y a u t o m a t i c obedience. T h i s aspect o f his analysis serves t o separate h i m f r o m G r e e k t h o u g h t p r i o r to t h e l a t e f i f t h c e n t u r y as m u c h as his s o c i o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e does f r o m t h a t o f his H e l l e n i s t i c predecessors a n d c o n t e m p o r a r i e s . F o r i t w a s i n t h e l a t e f i f t h c e n t u r y t h a t G r e e k t h i n k e r s first b e g a n t o v i e w physis as s o m e t h i n g a p a r t f r o m nomos: as t h e c o m p l e x o f i n s t i n c t s , i m p u l s e s , a n d m e n t a l processes c o m mon

t o a l l m e n a p a r t f r o m t h e p a r t i c u l a r social c o n t e x t i n w h i c h t h e y

themselves.

37

find

T y p i c a l o f t h e n e w a t t i t u d e i n its v a r i o u s aspects a r e t h e

r e m a r k s o f t h e Adikos Logos o n t h e f r e e d o m f r o m social taboos w h i c h his p u p i l w i l l e n j o y i f he f o l l o w s t h e d i c t a t e s o f physis

( A r i s t o p h a n e s , Clouds

1075-78),

T h u c y d i d e s ' c o n c e r n w i t h t h e c o n s t a n t elements i n h u m a n n a t u r e ( 1 . 2 2 . 4 ) , and

A n t i p h o n t h e Sophist's d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n " n a t u r a l " w r o n g - d o i n g —

t h a t w h i c h carries w i t h i t its o w n p e n a l t y — a n d t h e w r o n g - d o i n g d e e m e d t o be so o n l y b y v i r t u e o f nomos (VS 8 7 B 4 4 , F r . A c o l . 1 . 1 - 2 . 2 0 ) . T h o u g h t h e t h r e e d i f f e r r a d i c a l l y i n w h a t t h e y w o u l d t a k e t o be t h e c e n t r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f h u m a n n a t u r e , t h e y a r e a t o n e i n t h e i r b e l i e f t h a t r) dvOpanreia vcns is 3 4

Rep. 5 4 4 D E . Cf. the similar remark ä propos of Thracian and Scythian ethnic character at 4 3 5 E .

3 5

Cf. Wilamowitz's characterization of Plato's central innovation in Greek political theory: "Bald drang er zu der tiefsinnigen auffassung durch, dass die Verfassungen bedingt sind durch die ganze geistige disposition der menschen, die sie sich machen, und demgemäss die Veränderungen in der Volksseele den wandel der Verfassungen bedingen . . . " (Aristoteles und Athen [Berlin 1893] '84)· For what may be a contemporary protest against this tendency in thought, see Lysias 25.8. O n the conception see, most recently, M . Ostwald, "Pindar, Nomos and Heracles," HSCP 6g 3 6

(1965) 1 2 4 - 3 1 . 3 7

O n the late fifth century view of physis, see F . Heinimann, Nomos und Physis = Schweizerische

Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft

1 (Basel 1945) 1 1 0 - 1 6 2 , especially 1 2 5 - 4 7 , on "das menschliche

Triebleben" seen as "angeboren . . . und so entweder auf die Götter oder auf unausweichliche Naturgesetzlichkeit zurückgeführt" (126).

143

T H E D E V E L O P M E N T OF G R E E K T H O U G H T

a l w a y s t h e same i n c e r t a i n o f its aspects, a n d t h a t " n a t u r a l " a c t i o n is d i s t i n c t f r o m , t h o u g h n o t necessarily c o n t r a r y t o , nomos. T h e S o c r a t i c

doc-

t r i n e o f t h e soul reveals a n essentially s i m i l a r c o n c e r n w i t h s e p a r a t i n g t h e r e a l a n d essential f r o m t h e m e r e l y c o n v e n t i o n a l . T h e psyche is t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t p a r t o f a m a n ; its w e l f a r e has n o t h i n g t o d o w i t h t h e e x t e r n a l

circumstances

o f a m a n ' s l i f e ; a n d b y v i r t u e o f its possession e a c h i n d i v i d u a l is l i n k e d w i t h a l l o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s regardless o f t h e differences

o f h a b i t or belief w h i c h

separate t h e m . B u t Socrates' " d i s c o v e r y " occupation

o f t h e self, w h i l e i t i n v o l v e s

w i t h t h e p r o b l e m o f physis

t h e same p r e -

w h i c h appears i n other late

fifth

c e n t u r y w r i t e r s a n d i n P o l y b i u s , was e v e n t u a l l y to m a k e t h e sort o f sociol o g i c a l analysis w h i c h P o l y b i u s gives d i f f i c u l t , i f n o t i m p o s s i b l e .

Henceforth

m a n t h e i n d i v i d u a l b e c a m e t h e center o f p h i l o s o p h i c a t t e n t i o n ; a n d o n c e t h i s h a d o c c u r r e d , i t b e c a m e i n c r e a s i n g l y h a r d to c o n c e i v e t h e f o r m a t i o n o f character

a n d p e r s o n a l i t y as p r o c e e d i n g

i n accordance w i t h a n y t h i n g b u t

t h e i r o w n i n n e r l a w . T h e social aspect o f h u m a n existence becomes o b s c u r e d b y an o v e r r i d i n g p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h the i n d i v i d u a l a n d the universal. I n finally

g a i n i n g his o w n soul H e l l e n i c m a n h a d lost t h e w o r l d — o r at least t h e

possibility o f understanding i t . Polybius'

a b i l i t y to include b o t h w i t h i n a

single focus f a i r l y w e l l p i n p o i n t s his t h e o r y o f society as a p r o d u c t o f t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l a t m o s p h e r e o f t h e late fifth c e n t u r y — i m p o s s i b l e before t h e n a n d increasingly rare

thereafter.

38

T h e effects o f t h e S o c r a t i c r e v o l u t i o n w e r e o b v i o u s l y n o t felt i m m e d i a t e l y : witness t h e texts c i t e d a b o v e ( p p . 1 3 2 - 3 4 ) f o r t h e i r p a r a l l e l s t o t h e P o l y b i a n t h e o r y o f koindnia, m o s t o f w h i c h c o m e f r o m t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y . perspective

3 9

B u t i f the

w h i c h c h a r a c t e r i z e s P o l y b i u s c o n t i n u e d to exist f o r some t i m e

after t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l events w h i c h w e r e to l e a d t o its v i r t u a l

abandonment,

t h e m e t h o d o l o g y he uses to c o n s t r u c t a h i s t o r i c a l a c c o u n t e m b o d y i n g perspective

points unmistakably

to t h e

fifth,

rather t h a n to the

this

fourth,

c e n t u r y . I t s affinities a n d possible a n t e c e d e n t s are w e l l i l l u s t r a t e d b y c a l l i n g a t t e n t i o n t o a r e m a r k a b l e episode i n t h e History o f H e r o d o t u s . T h e passage r e f e r r e d to ( 4 . 1 1 0 . 2 - 1 1 7 ) tells h o w a g r o u p o f S c y t h i a n s c a m e to i n t e r m a r r y w i t h a b a n d o f w a n d e r i n g Amazons. T h e latter, survivors f r o m 3 8

P o l y b i u s ' p e r s p e c t i v e is s u c c i n c t l y p r e s e n t i n t h e passage o f H i p p o l y t u s w h i c h s u m m a r i z e s t h e

Kulturentstehungslehre o f a n o t h e r l a t e fifth c e n t u r y t h i n k e r , A r c h e l a u s : " m e n w e r e s e p a r a t e d

from

o t h e r a n i m a l s a n d t h e n d e v e l o p e d leaders a n d l a w f u l usages a n d t e c h n i q u e s a n d cities . . . "

the (VS

6 0 A 4 . 6 ) . T h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f m a n is c o n c e i v e d i n s o c i a l r a t h e r t h a n i n d i v i d u a l t e r m s , b u t cities a n d l a w f u l usages a r e t h i n g s o f his o w n d e v i s i n g . 3 9

A l s o f r o m t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y , o f course, is t h e w o r k w h i c h c o n t a i n s s o m e o f t h e m o s t e x t e n s i v e

o f s u r v i v i n g discussions o f t h e f o r m a t i v e p o w e r o f nomos—Plato's

Laws.

B u t P l a t o n i c nomos

\p&$!kr g

c o d i f i c a t i o n o f a s i n g l e nomolhetes a n d so less i n t i m a t e l y i n v o l v e d i n t h e social process t h ^ i ^ J ^ t s Polybian counterpart.

ff

l i k e 1.13.3, m u s t h a v e once h a d a n E g y p t i a n s e t t i n g , f r o m w h i c h t h e y h a v e been r e m o v e d b y D i o d o r u s himself. O f t h e t h r e e possibilities, 2 b is b y f a r t h e m o s t l i k e l y . T h a t D i o d o r u s s h o u l d h a v e t r a n s f e r r e d a n episode f r o m o n e c o n t e x t posited b y hypothesis

to a n o t h e r i n t h e

manner

1 is q u i t e possible. B u t t h e H e p h a e s t u s episode is so

s i m i l a r i n its c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e i n v e n t i v e process t o L e o ' s a c c o u n t E g y p t i a n d i s c o v e r y o f w o o l (see a b o v e , p . 39) t h a t i n d e p e n d e n t

o f the

o r i g i n is

u n l i k e l y ; a n d t h i s , a l o n g w i t h t h e o t h e r p a r a l l e l s l i n k i n g D i o d o r u s 1.13-29 t o L e o (see a b o v e , p p . 153-54) makes i t u n r e a s o n a b l e

t o assume a n y b u t

a n " E g y p t i a n " source f o r 1.13.3. I t is e q u a l l y u n r e a s o n a b l e 1.13.3 goes b a c k , t h r o u g h some " E g y p t i a n " source as 1.8.3

a n