Democritus and the Sources of Greek Anthropology [Reprint ed.] 1135752745, 9781135752743, 1555405010, 9781555405014, 1555405142, 9781555405144

Citation preview

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.

{/—
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