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 UNIVERSITY

1967
 CONTENTS

Abbreviations xi

I n t r o d u c t i o n : Sources a n d M e t h o d s i n t h e S t u d y o f A n c i e n t
Kulturgeschichte . . . . . . . . 1

I. C o m m o n Motifs i n Five A n c i e n t Histories o f Technology 15

II. A Pattern o f Prehistory . . . . . . . 25

III. A l t e r n a t e P a t t e r n s o f Kulturgeschichte: Possible Sources . 47

IV. T h e O r i g i n of Language (Diodorus, V i t r u v i u s , Epicurus) 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. A F o u r t h C e n t u r y V e r s i o n o f P r e h i s t o r y (Laws I I I ) 97

VIII. Plato, Polybius, and Democritus . . . . . 107

i . T h e Genesis a n d E x p a n s i o n o f K o s m o i . . . . 107
2. S o c i e t y a n d t h e F a m i l y . . . . . . 112
3. T h e P o l i t i c a l , t h e M i l i t a r y , a n d t h e R o y a l A r t 120

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 of

Greek T h o u g h t . . . 131

X. The Heirs of Democritus . . . . . . . 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
Cynics) . . . . . . . . 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
3. P h i l o s o p h y a n d Politics (Polybius, the A c a d e m y , Nau-
siphanes) . . . . . . . . 163
4. A Comprehensive Restatement (the Epicureans) . 170

A p p e n d i x I : D i o d o r u s 1.7-8 . . . . . . 174
A p p e n d i x I I : V i t r u v i u s a n d Posidonius . . . . i93
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 . . . . 196
A p p e n d i x I V : Democritus B30 a n d Euhemerus . 202

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

Index . . . . . . . . . . 211
ix
 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 pertinen-
tibus 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
Γ
9 5)·
2

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

*
OTHER ABBREVIATIONS

AGP Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie

AJP American Journal of Philology
BPW Berliner philologische Wochenschrift
CP Classical Philology
Cd Classical Quarterly
CR Classical Review
DAW Β Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Schriften der Sektion für
Altertumswissenschaft
xi
Xll OTHER ABBREVIATIONS

FGrH F. J a c o b y , Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (1923-58)

HSCP Harvard Studies in Classical Philology
JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies
JRS Journal of Roman Studies
Me'lRome Melanges d'arche'ologie et d'histoire de VF\cole frangaise de Rome
MusHelv Museum Helveticum
NGG Nachrichten der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen
NJbb Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Altertum
NPU Neue philologische Untersuchungen
PhilRev Philosophical Review
ProcBritAc Proceedings of the British Academy
PubblTorino Universita di Torino, Pubblicazioni della Facoltä di lettere e Filosoßa
RA Revue archeologique
RAC Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum (Stuttgart 1950- )
RE P a u l y - W i s s o w a - K r o l l , Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissen-
schaft (Stuttgart 1894- )
REA Revue des etudes anciennes
REG Revue des etudes grecques
RendlstLomb Istituto Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere, Rendiconti, Classe di Lettere e Scienze
Morali e Storiche
RendLinc Rendiconti dell' Accademia dei Lincei
RFIC Rivista difilologia e di istruzione classica
RhM Rheinisches Museum für Philologie
RPh Revue de Philologie
SIFC Studi italiani difilologia classica
SO Symbolae Osloenses
SVF Stoicorum veterum fragmenta, coll. H . v. A r n i m (Leipzig 1903-24)
TAPA Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association
TGF Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta , rec. A . N a u c k ( L e i p z i g 1889)
2

vs D i e l s - K r a n z Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker 9

(Berlin 1959-60)
WS Wiener Studien

Publications o f G e r m a n a n d A u s t r i a n learned societies are indicated b y :

Abh (= Abhandlungen), Ber ( = Berichte) or SB (= Sitzungsberichte), followed b y the
city of origin.
 INTRODUCTION

SOURCES AND METHODS INT H E STUDY

OF ANCIENT 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 .
2
For the reinterpretation of the life of primitive man in the light of the first chapters of Genesis
see Uxkull-Gyllenband, 4 7 - 4 8 , and G . Boas, Essays on Primitivism and Related Ideas in the Middle Ages
(Baltimore 1948) 1-67.
3
Homer's attitude, explicit in sporadic and formulaic references (//. 1.272, 5.304, 12.383, 12.449,
20.287) to feats of strength beyond the capacity of men oloi vvv ßpoToi tioiv, is implied in the whole
epic tradition: four centuries after ceasing to exist, the Achaean world continued to supply the
principal subjects of heroic narrative.
 2 DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES OF G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

age w h i c h 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 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 .
All 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 o f accident a n d
chance. 6
As t o its m o n u m e n t a l a n d remarkable 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)
5

"state of nature" was much easier to envision than an "economic," "marital," or "juristic and
ethical" one.
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
6

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.
 INTRODUCTION 3

disagreement; a n d i n a n a l y z i n g i n d i v i d u a l 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 . 8

Such 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 con-
sistently a n d c o m p l e t e l y i n e x t a n t texts. U n f o r t u n a t e l y t h e y 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 corres-
p o n d i n g l y n u m e r o u s . I t w i l l be useful, before p r o c e e d i n g f u r t h e r , 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. 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
Plato's Laws. 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).
8
The passage of Vitruvius discussed below, p. 42, provides a good example.
9
O n what follows cf. Uxkull-Gyllenband, Lovejoy and Boas, Mondolfo, La comprensione del
soggelto umano nell'anlichita classica 629-739; Billeter, "Griechische Anschauungen über die
Ursprünge der Kultur," Beilage zum Programm der Kantonschule Rurich ( 1 9 0 1 ) ; and F . C . Seeliger's
article "Weltaltcr" in Roschers Lexicon, 6.375-417. O f these comprehensive studies Uxkull-
Gyllenband's is probably the best and that of Lovejoy and Boas (who reprint in full all passages
discussed) the most useful. More selective and topical in their treatment are Sikes, The Anthropology
of the Greeks, and Guthrie, In the Beginning. Havelock, 5 2 - 7 3 and 1 0 4 - 2 4 , offers the best and most
complete discussion of the pertinent fifth century texts; Spoerri, 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 for w h i c h we
possess a f r a g m e n t a r y r e c o r d , b u t i t is o n l y here t h a t its existence and
c h a r a c t e r c a n be e x t e n s i v e l y 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 of pre-
history according to the dominant form of livelihood—food-gathering,
herding, or f a r m i n g — i n each successive 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 (FGrH
3 2 8 F 2 , F 9 3 - 9 8 ) ; t h e t i t l e Protogonia (FGrH, 3 2 3 F 5 a , F 7 ) suggests t h a t i t was
t r e a t e d i n t h e Atthis o f C l e i d e m u s as w e l l ; a n d a passage f r o m Pausanias
( 8 . 1 . 4 - 6 ) p o i n t s 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 of early
E g y p t w h i c h a p p e a r s i n 1.10-29 1 S
b o t h extensive a n d i m p o r t a n t .
1 0
See K . Trüdinger, Studien zur Geschichte der griechisch-römischen Ethnographie (Basel 1918) 4 9 - 5 1 .
 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 a n d Isidore o f
Seville. 1 2
T h e i n v e n t i o n s w i t h w h i c h i t deals are b o t h t h e e l e m e n t a r y ones
(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 civilization
depends. M o r e r a r e l y , t h e c r e a t i o n o f cities a n d 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 Kulturgeschichte
i n the w r i t i n g s o f the pre-Socratics. Its appearance time a n d again i n the
surviving fragments (Xenophanes, 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, B144
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 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 with
Kulturgeschichte 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

FGrH 8 T 1
1 1
(Simonides the historian). Isolated references to inventions and inventors appear,
of course, much earlier. See Kleingiinther for a collection and discussion of the relevant passages
down to the end of the fifth century and Thraede for a complete survey of the tradition.
1 2
References to the subject are scattered through Cassiodorus' Variae; see Kremmer, 90—96.
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
1 3

tensive catalogues are found in Tatian, Clement of Alexandria, Gregory Nazianzenus, and Hyginus.
See Kremmer, 7 - 5 8 and 6 4 - 9 0 .
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 . Cicero
finds i n a d m i r e r s o f T h u c y d i d e s ' style (Orator 31) a p e r v e r s i t y c o m p a r a b l e
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 P alam edes (Gorgias, VS 82Bna.3o), Orpheus
( A r i s t o p h a n e s , Ranae 1032), 1 5
H e p h a e s t u s (Hymn. Horn. 20.1-7), or an u n -
n a m e d theos ( E u r i p i d e s , Suppl. 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 docu-
1 4

mentation. T h e Pythia's reference to the Arcadians as balanlphagoi (Herodotus 1.66.2) is perhaps

the earliest.
1 6
O n Orpheus as Kulturbringer see H . Koller, Die Mimesis in der Antike (Bern 1954) 1 8 9 - 9 2 .
1 6
See F . Heinimann, " E i n e vorplatonische Theorie der rexvrj," MusHelv 18 (1961) 118—ig.
 INTRODUCTION 7

m e r i t e d i n Isocrates. T h e Panegyricus (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 ; 1 7

a n d i n a l m o s t i d e n t i c a l passages o f t h e Nicocles ( 5 - 6 ) a n d Antidosis (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 a n c
^ De orat. 1 . 3 5 - 3 6 ; f o r t h e
l a t t e r , Tusc. 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 (AP 3 9 1 - 4 0 1 ) i t is t h e
art o f t h e vates t h a t c h i e f l y 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
Themistius (349A-51A), Xenophon (Oec. 5 . 1 7 ) , a n d T i b u l l u s (2.1.37-66),
that o f the f a r m e r ; 1 8
f o r A e l i u s A r i s t i d e s (Or. 3, p p . 3 2 . 2 3 - 3 4 . 2 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 . 1 9

Further variations o n this epideictic topos were, o f course, possible.

A r i s t o t l e g l o r i f i e d p h i l o s o p h y (Met. 1.981B13-82A1) a n d M a n i l i u s a s t r o n o m y
( 1 . 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 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
phase. M o r e o v e r , 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

1 7
For later references see Dittenberger, Syll. No. 704, p. 3 2 4 . 1 2 - 1 5 (an Amphictyonic inscription
3

of the second century B . C . praising the Athenian demos for raising men from their animal-like
existence); Lucretius 6 . 1 - 4 ; Cicero, Flacc. 6 2 ; Pliny, Ep. 8 . 2 4 . 2 ; Statius, Theb. 1 2 . 5 0 1 - 2 ; Aelian,
W / 3 . 3 8 ; D . L . 5.17.
1 8
It has been plausibly argued that Xenophon and Themistius derive their praise of agriculture
from Prodicus; see Nestle, Hermes 71.153-60.
1 9
Though the humor lies less in the claim itself than in the manner in which it is presented: cf.
De vet. med. 3, where the practice of cooking food is credited with liberating man from the theriodes
diaita of grass and berries from which he once suffered; and Aristotle E M 7 . 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 86
( ' 9 5 5 ) 5 1 - 5 2 ; and Herter, Maia 15.469-83. {/<•? . -
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

have arisen h a d n o t change been continuously i n t r o d u c e d to better the w a y

o f life o f t h e first m e n , a n e a r t h - b o r n a n d f o o l i s h l o t (Pol. 2.1268B30-69A8). 2 0

O v e r six c e n t u r i e s l a t e r , C h r i s t i a n apologists w e r e u s i n g t h e same a r g u m e n t

to defend the new r e l i g i o n against the o l d ( A r n o b i u s 2.66; Prudentius,
Contra Symm. 2.272-317). 2 1

F u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t a n c i e n t theories o f c u l t u r a l o r i g i n s comes f r o m
passages o f a n a e t i o l o g i c a l c h a r a c t e r . T h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t are those w h i c h
seek t o e s t a b l i s h t h e basic c h a r a c t e r o f e x i s t i n g p o l i t i c a l a n d social i n s t i t u t i o n s
b y showing h o w they came into being out of a p r i m i t i v e "state of n a t u r e . "
O n c e a g a i n , t h e m o d e o f a r g u m e n t a t i o n seems t o h a v e b e e n first used b y t h e
Sophists. H o w e v e r o n e wishes t o assess P l a t o ' s o w n share i n t h e c r e a t i o n o f
the Protagoras m y t h , i t is r e a s o n a b l e t o assume a S o p h i s t i c o r i g i n f o r t h e
basic i d e a w h i c h a c c o u n t s f o r its i n c l u s i o n i n t h e d i a l o g u e — t h a t a n u n d e r -
s t a n d i n g o f h o w justice a n d reverence first arose a m o n g m e n c a n t e l l us
s o m e t h i n g a b o u t t h e w a y these concepts o p e r a t e i n c o n t e m p o r a r y society.
A v e r y s i m i l a r p o i n t o f v i e w , at a n y rate, appears i n a n u n q u e s t i o n a b l y
S o p h i s t i c w o r k , t h e treatise o f t h e l a t e f i f t h o r e a r l y f o u r t h c e n t u r y w r i t e r
k n o w n as t h e A n o n y m u s I a m b l i c h i (VS I I 4 0 2 . 2 4 - 3 0 ) ; 2 2
a n d Sophistic i n -
f l u e n c e has o f t e n b e e n suspected i n t h e p o r t i o n o f Republic I I w h i c h , b y w a y
o f a p r e f a c e t o its discussion o f j u s t i c e , tells h o w society first c a m e i n t o b e i n g
through an original division of labor between carpenter, farmer, and
cobbler. 2 3
P l a t o ' s l a t e r essay i n Kulturgeschichte (Laws I I I ) contains a theory
of t h e f a m i l i a l o r i g i n o f society a n d t h e state w h i c h was taken over by
A r i s t o t l e i n t h e f i r s t b o o k o f t h e Politics (1.1252A24-B34) a n d used t h e r e a n d
elsewhere (e.g. Pol. 1.1259.A37-B17; EN 8 . 1 1 6 0 B 2 2 - 6 1 A 9 ) as a n a i d i n a n -
a l y z i n g t h e d i f f e r e n t social r e l a t i o n s h i p s w h i c h existed i n t h e polis o f his o w n
d a y ; a n d P o l y b i u s c o m p o s e d w h a t is p r o b a b l y t h e m o s t r e m a r k a b l e o f a l l
ancient accounts o f social o r i g i n s i n a n e f f o r t t o b r i n g t o l i g h t forces he
b e l i e v e d t o b e s t i l l o p e r a t i v e i n t h e rise a n d f a l l o f p o l i t i c a l i n s t i t u t i o n s
(6.5-9). A s
m i g h t have been expected, the conflict between the idealist ethic
o f t h e Stoics a n d P e r i p a t e t i c s a n d t h e u t i l i t a r i a n o n e o f t h e i r E p i c u r e a n a n d
Sceptic adversaries was accompanied by r i v a l theories o f t h e o r i g i n of
c u l t u r e . T r a c e s o f these theories are t o be f o u n d i n E p i c u r u s a n d several o f
his f o l l o w e r s (see b e l o w , p p . 7 1 - 7 7 ) , i n H o r a c e (Sat. 1 . 3 . 9 9 - 1 1 4 ) , a n d i n
C i c e r o , m o s t e x t e n s i v e l y i n Books I ( 1 1 - 1 4 ) a n d I I ( 1 1 - 1 5 ) o f t h e De officiis,
w h i c h e r e c t a s y s t e m o f p r a c t i c a l ethics o n t h e p r i n c i p l e , first o f to kalon, t h e n

T h e idea is doubtless not original with Aristotle; cf. Isocrates, Euag. 7.

2 0

Gf. also the Kulturgeschichte of Ps.-Lucian, Am. 33—35, which is introduced to show that homo-
2 1

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

of to sympheron, a n d support b o t h doctrines b y extensive references t o

Kulturgeschichte. 2 4

L i n g u i s t i c a n d r e l i g i o u s , as w e l l as s o c i a l , usages c a m e u n d e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n
f r o m t h e same a e t i o l o g i c a l perspective. M o s t surviving accounts o f t h e
origin o f language appear i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h descriptions o f the o r i g i n o f
society o r t e c h n o l o g y , b u t l a n g u a g e is g i v e n separate t r e a t m e n t i n E p i c u r u s '
Letter to Herodotus 7 5 - 7 6 , as i t doubtless w a s i n o t h e r w o r k s n o w lost. T w o o f
the m o s t f a m o u s a n c i e n t e x p l a n a t i o n s o f t h e o r i g i n o f r e l i g i o n c o n n e c t e d i t
w i t h t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f m a n ' s p r i m i t i v e e x i s t e n c e : C r i t i a s ' Sisyphus fragment
(VS 8 8 B 2 5 ) m a k e s t h e gods a useful e x p e d i e n t d e v i s e d t o c o p e w i t h t h e l a w -
lessness i n w h i c h m a n k i n d once l i v e d ; a n d t h e n o t i o n t h a t d i v i n e h o n o r s
were, i n o r i g i n , t h e r e w a r d c o n f e r r e d o n t h e i n v e n t o r s w h o r a i s e d m a n o u t
o f his p r i m i t i v e helplessness a p p e a r s i n t h e w o r k s o f E u h e m e r u s a n d h i s p r e -
cursors a n d f o l l o w e r s . 2 5
T h e c h a r a c t e r o f r e l i g i o u s observances, as w e l l as
t h e i r existence, c o u l d b e e x p l a i n e d i n t e r m s o f Kulturgeschichte. Theophrastus,
i n his w o r k On Piety, discussed t h e e v o l u t i o n o f t h e v a r i o u s f o r m s o f sacrifice
and e x p l a i n e d t h e absence o f a n i m a l o f f e r i n g s i n c e r t a i n c o u n t r i e s as a
survival f r o m the time w h e n m a n was a v e g e t a r i a n ; 2 6
a n d the tragic poet
M o s c h i o n appeals i n s i m i l a r fashion t o t h e h i s t o r y o f c u l t u r e t o e x p l a i n t h e
custom o f b u r y i n g t h e d e a d ( F r . 6 , TGF 8 1 3 - 1 4 ) . 2 7

T h e e v o l u t i o n a r y v i e w o f c u l t u r e is e v e n f o u n d o n o c c a s i o n w h e r e o n e
w o u l d least e x p e c t i t . I t s a p p e a r a n c e i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h P l a t o ' s A t l a n t i s
m y t h (Timaeus , 2 2 B - 2 5 D ; Critias IOCJB-IOD) has a l r e a d y b e e n n o t e d (above,
p. 2). A similar c o m b i n a t i o n o f motifs characterizes the m y t h o f t h e
Politicus, w h i c h , l i k e H e s i o d , looks b a c k t o a m o r e p e r f e c t age i n t h e d i s t a n t
past, b u t , u n l i k e H e s i o d , separates t h i s age f r o m t h e p r e s e n t o n e b y a c a t a -
c l y s m — t h e d e p a r t u r e o f t h e w o r l d ' s d i v i n e s t e e r s m a n — w h i c h necessitates a
l a b o r i o u s a c q u i s i t i o n o f t h e arts necessary f o r s u r v i v a l ( 2 7 4 A - D ) . I n s i m i l a r
fashion, V i r g i l , t h o u g h d e s c r i b i n g i n t h e Georgics a H e s i o d i c g o l d e n age,
concludes h i s a c c o u n t i n a v e r y u n - H e s i o d i c w a y ; n o t s i m p l e d e g e n e r a t i o n ,
but Jupiter's decision to e n d t h e indolence b r e d b y a superabundance of
blessings b r i n g s t h e G o l d e n A g e t o a n e n d , a n d t h e r e s u l t is a s l o w a n d
l a b o r i o u s d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e arts o f c i v i l i z a t i o n ( 1 . 1 4 5 - 4 6 ) : 2 8

labor omnia vincit

i m p r o b u s et duris urgens i n rebus egestas.

For other pieces of Stoic Kulturgeschichte in Cicero cf. Rep. 1.39—41; ND 2 . 1 5 0 - 5 2 . T h e anti-
2 1

Stoic account in Lactantius, Inst. div. 6.10.13—15 may also be Ciceronian in origin.
The view may go back to Prodicus. The testimonia, contradictory and unclear at times, are
2 6

collected in VS 8 4 B 5 .
2 6
Frs. 2 . 2 0 - 2 2 , 3 3 - 3 6 , 4 3 - 4 7 and 1 3 . 3 6 - 5 0 Potscher.
2 7
Cf. also Ovid's aitionfor the nudity of the Luperci (Fasti 2 . 2 8 9 - 3 0 2 ) .
2 8
For the background of this idea see "Hesiode et son influence," Entretiens Hardt 7 (i960)
2 5 8 - 6 3 , and L . P. Wilkinson, " Virgil's Theodicy," C£?57 ( 1 9 6 3 ) 7 7 - 7 8 . FGrH 1 3 4 F 1 7 , p. 7 2 8 . 2 3 - 3 0
(Onesicritus' conversation with the gymnosophists) gives what is perhaps its earliest appearance.
IO I 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

Elsewhere (Aen. 8 . 3 1 4 - 2 3 ) , f o l l o w i n g a t r a d i t i o n k n o w n t o M a c r o b i u s (Sat.

1.7.21) a n d p o s s i b l y V a r r o , V i r g i l m a k e s S a t u r n t h e b r i n g e r o f t h e blessings
o f c i v i l i z a t i o n to a r u d e race w h i c h d i d n o t k n o w t h e m b e f o r e . 2 9
H e r e the
m e t h o d c h o s e n is s o m e w h a t d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h a t o f t h e Georgics, b u t i t achieves
a s i m i l a r compromise between the Hesiodic a n d the later v i e w o f prehistory.
So w i d e s p r e a d w a s t h i s l a t e r v i e w t h a t i t affected e v e n t h e e x p l i c a t o r s o f
H e s i o d . T h e last s u r v i v i n g s a m p l e o f a n c i e n t Kulturgeschichte is i n t h e s c h o l i a
to the Works and Days w r i t t e n i n the eleventh century b y the Byzantine
scholar Johannes Tzetzes (reprinted i n part i n VS I I 137.36-138.13).
T z e t z e s a t t e m p t s — a n d t h e a t t e m p t w a s doubtless n o t o r i g i n a l w i t h h i m (see
below, p p . 148-51)—to make Hesiod's account i n t e l l e c t u a l l y respectable
b y a l l e g o r i z i n g i t . T h e f r e e d o m f r o m l a b o r i n t h e fields w h i c h H e s i o d h a d
d e s c r i b e d becomes a g r i m necessity: t h e r e s u l t , n o t o f a s u p e r a b u n d a n c e of
spontaneous n o u r i s h m e n t , b u t o f a n ignorance o f the techniques o f f a r m i n g .
T h e m e n o f t h e G o l d e n R a c e w e r e h a p p y because, t h o u g h q u i t e w r e t c h e d
b y l a t e r s t a n d a r d s , t h e y k n e w o f n o t h i n g b e t t e r a n d so d i d n o t n o t i c e t h e i r
m i s e r y . O l d age a n d d e a t h w e r e u n k n o w n o n l y because m e n w e r e t o o s i m p l e
as y e t t o k n o w w h a t d e a t h was, h e n c e d i d n o t d r e a d i t , a n d because, i n a n
age w i t h o u t d o c t o r s o r m e d i c i n e , n o o n e ever l i v e d to o l d age.

T h e a b o v e s u r v e y c o u l d doubtless h a v e b e e n m a d e m o r e comprehensive,
b u t i t has t o u c h e d u p o n a l m o s t a l l t h e m a j o r passages a n d types o f passage
i n w h i c h c u l t u r a l h i s t o r y a p p e a r s . B r i e f as m a n y o f these texts are, t h e y are
sufficiently numerous to p r o v i d e b o t h a n abundance a n d a n embarrassment
o f materials for the h i s t o r i a n o f ancient t h o u g h t . For certain portions, at
a n y r a t e , o f his researches t h e r e is n o l a c k o f d o c u m e n t a t i o n ; a t t h e same t i m e
h e m a y w e l l d e s p a i r o f d i s c e r n i n g a n y p a t t e r n i n w h a t is a h e t e r o g e n e o u s
a n d a t t i m e s b e w i l d e r i n g a r r a y o f ideas a n d o b s e r v a t i o n s . A n d a n e x a m i n a -
t i o n o f t h e w o r k o f his predecessors m a y o n l y serve t o c o n f i r m h i m i n his
diffidence a n d scepticism.
D u r i n g t h e past c e n t u r y m a n y o f t h e texts m e n t i o n e d a b o v e h a v e b e e n t h e
object o f repeated efforts i n Quellenforschung. The r e s u l t is a n u m b e r of
studies w h i c h seek t o g r o u p l a r g e bodies o f m a t e r i a l a r o u n d a single g r e a t
n a m e . Posidonius a n d E p i c u r u s figured most p r o m i n e n t l y i n earlier attempts
o f this s o r t ; 3 0
t h e y w e r e n a t u r a l choices g i v e n t h e c o m m a n d i n g p l a c e w h i c h
L u c r e t i u s V occupies a m o n g s u r v i v i n g accounts a n d the vogue enjoyed for
several decades b y " P a n p o s i d o n i a n i s m . " L i t t l e a t t e n t i o n was p a i d t o t h e
2 8
See A . Schmeckel, De Ovidiana Pythagoreae doctrinae adumbratione (Diss. Greifswald 1885) 2 7 - 2 9 ;
and, for the story in Christian writers, G . Boas, Primitivism in the Middle Ages (Baltimore 1948)
195-97·
3 0
Extreme examples are Norden's article in NJbb Suppl. 19.411-25 (Epicurus) and Gerhausser's
Der Protreptikos des Poseidonios 1 6 - 3 0 .
 INTRODUCTION

role w h i c h p r e - H e l l e n i s t i c t h i n k e r s m i g h t h a v e p l a y e d i n s h a p i n g t h e t r a d i -
t i o n , u n t i l t h e p u b l i c a t i o n , i n 1912, o f K a r l R e i n h a r d t ' s a r t i c l e , " H e k a t a i o s
v o n A b d e r a u n d D e m o k r i t " (Hermes 4 7 . 4 9 2 - 5 1 3 ) . R e i n h a r d t a t t r i b u t e d t h e
p r e h i s t o r y f o u n d i n D i o d o r u s 1.8 to H e c a t a e u s o f A b d e r a a n d , t h r o u g h h i m ,
to D e m o c r i t u s . T h i s thesis was a c c e p t e d b y D i e l s i n t h e fifth e d i t i o n o f his
Vorsokratiker and has strongly influenced a l l subsequent investigation. 3 1

R e i n h a r d t h i m s e l f b e l i e v e d (512) t h a t D e m o c r i t u s ' t r e a t m e n t o f t h e s u b j e c t
was a u t h o r i t a t i v e f o r a l l o f a n t i q u i t y ; m o s t o f his f o l l o w e r s h a v e b e e n less
bold, 3 2
b u t t h e y are i n c l i n e d t o see a t least p a r t i a l o r i n d i r e c t D e m o c r i t e a n
i n f l u e n c e i n a l m o s t a l l l a t e r phases o f t h e t r a d i t i o n . E p i c u r u s , Posidonius,
even P l a t o a n d A r i s t o t l e , are a s s u m e d t o be h e a v i l y i n his d e b t .
N e i t h e r R e i n h a r d t ' s w o r k n o r t h a t o f his f o r e r u n n e r s a n d f o l l o w e r s is
r i g o r o u s a n d t h o r o u g h e n o u g h i n its r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s t o c a r r y m u c h c o n v i c -
t i o n . T o o o f t e n single m o t i f s , w h i c h a w i d e r s u r v e y o f source m a t e r i a l w o u l d
have s h o w n t o be q u i t e c o m m o n p l a c e , h a v e b e e n r e g a r d e d as t h e specific
and i d e n t i f y i n g p r o p e r t y o f a single t h i n k e r ; 3 3
or m i n o r similarities o f detail
have b e e n i n v o k e d t o establish a close c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n a u t h o r s w h o s e
basic c o n c e p t i o n s o f the e v o l u t i o n o f c u l t u r e are q u i t e d i f f e r e n t ; 3 4
or an
a u t h o r ' s k n o w n o r p r e s u m e d p h i l o s o p h i c a f f i n i t i e s h a v e b e e n t a k e n as a
satisfactory i n d i c a t i o n o f w h a t source he m u s t necessarily h a v e f o l l o w e d . 3 8

T h i s f r e q u e n t m i s a p p l i c a t i o n o f source c r i t i c i s m p r o v i d e s some g r o u n d s
for scepticism a b o u t t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e w h o l e m e t h o d . H e n c e t h e t e n d e n c y ,
e v i d e n t i n several r e c e n t t r e a t m e n t s o f t h e subject, t o eschew Quellenforschung
altogether i n f a v o r o f a l a r g e l y d e s c r i p t i v e p r e s e n t a t i o n . 3 6
H e r e e m p h a s i s is
p l a c e d o n t h e g e n e r i c s i m i l a r i t i e s w h i c h l i n k a g r e a t v a r i e t y o f texts, a n d t h e
t r a d i t i o n as w e k n o w i t is t r e a t e d as i f i t w e r e a b o d y o f w i d e l y h e l d ideas,
mostly o f u n i d e n t i f i a b l e o r i g i n . W i t h i n t h i s b o d y o f m a t e r i a l , t o b e sure, cer-
t a i n basic d i v e r g e n c e s o f a t t i t u d e m a y b e d i s c e r n e d , b u t t h e i r o u t l i n e s are

3 1
See the literature cited by Spoerri, 4 - 5 .
3 2
So, for example, J . Kaerst, Geschichte des Hellenismus 2 (Berlin 1926) 3 7 3 .
2

3 3
So Dyroff, Z Quellenfrage bei Lukrez 11—12, adduces the mention of acorns as man's earliest
ur

food as evidence for the Peripatetic origin of the doctrines of Lucretius V ; and R . Philippson,
"Ciceroniana I . De Invcntione," NJbb 133 (1886) 4 1 7 - 1 9 , assumes that Cicero, Inv. 1.2-3 d a n

De Oral. 1.35-36 must be Posidonian because they stress the role of the gifted individual in the
cultural process. Against Philippson see H . M . Hubbell, The Influence of Isocrates on Cicero, Dionysius
and Aristides (Diss. Yale 1913) 2 9 - 3 0 .
3 4
For the application of this method to Vitruvius see Appendix I I .
3 6
This is probably the principal reason for the often repeated attempt to find a Stoic source for
the Kullurgeschichte of Polybius. O n the search, and its generally unsatisfactory results, see von
Fritz, The Theory of the Mixed Constitution in Antiquity 55—58 and Walbank, 643—45.
3 6
E.g. in the accounts of Havelock, Guthrie, Mondolfo, Spoerri, and Thraede (cited above,
note 9 ) . Except for the studies of Vlastos [AJP 6 7 . 5 1 - 5 9 ) and K . Westphalen, Die Kulturentstehungs-
lehre des Lukrez (unpubl. diss. Munich 1957, known to me only through the references in Spoerri's
addenda, 2 1 3 - 2 1 ) , no piece of Quellenforschung in this field has appeared in recent years.
12 DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES OF G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

so v a g u e a n d f r a g m e n t a r y as t o be h a r d l y w o r t h s t u d y i n g . T h i s approach
d o u b t l e s s has s o m e t h i n g t o r e c o m m e n d i t a n d has b e e n a d o p t e d i n t h e i n -
t r o d u c t o r y s u r v e y j u s t c o m p l e t e d . T h e p o i n t s o f c o n t a c t b e t w e e n so m a n y
a c c o u n t s , r a n g i n g o v e r a m i l l e n i u m a n d a h a l f i n t h e i r dates o f c o m p o s i t i o n ,
s h o w q u i t e c l e a r l y t h a t w e are d e a l i n g w i t h w h a t m u s t h a v e b e e n , t o some
degree, the c o m m o n p r o p e r t y o f a l l educated m e n . O n e m a y w e l l w o n d e r ,
h o w e v e r , w h e t h e r t h i s is a l l t h a t is i n v o l v e d . F o r t h e r e is n o t h i n g i n p r i n c i p l e
a g a i n s t t h e a s s u m p t i o n w h i c h g u i d e d e a r l i e r Quellenforschung: that portions
o f s u r v i v i n g a c c o u n t s o f c u l t u r a l o r i g i n s are a c o n d e n s e d and fragmentary
r e p o r t o f d o c t r i n e s o n c e d e v e l o p e d m o r e e l a b o r a t e l y i n t h e w o r k s o f a single
t h i n k e r . T h e e v o l u t i o n a r y v i e w o f c u l t u r e w i t h w h i c h w e are c o n c e r n e d m a y ,
c o n c e i v a b l y , b e c o m p a r a b l e t o c e r t a i n c o n t r a c t theories o f t h e o r i g i n o f society
whose p o p u l a r i t y i n the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries cannot be
t r a c e d t o t h e i n f l u e n c e o f a n y one w r i t e r . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , i t is j u s t as
possible t h a t a b e t t e r a n a l o g y is p r o v i d e d b y t h e views w i d e l y c u r r e n t t o d a y
o n t h e subjects o f b i o l o g i c a l e v o l u t i o n a n d p s y c h o a n a l y s i s , v i e w s i n w h i c h i t is
possible t o r e c o g n i z e , s i m p l i f i e d a n d d i s t o r t e d as t h e y o f t e n are, doctrines
w h i c h go back to D a r w i n a n d F r e u d .
E v e n i f t h e second a n a l o g y is m o r e n e a r l y a c c u r a t e , i t n e e d n o t f o l l o w t h a t ,
o n t h e basis o f t h e texts w h i c h n o w s u r v i v e , w e c a n l e a r n a n y t h i n g d e f i n i t e
a b o u t t h e u l t i m a t e sources o f o u r t r a d i t i o n . B u t t h i s f a c t does n o t c o n s t i t u t e
a s u f f i c i e n t r e a s o n f o r a b a n d o n i n g a l t o g e t h e r t h e a t t e m p t t o d o so, i f t h e
a t t e m p t is c a r r i e d o u t w i t h m o r e r e g a r d t h a n was s h o w n i n c e r t a i n e a r l i e r
investigations for the c o m p l e x i t y o f the m a t e r i a l u n d e r consideration a n d
w i t h , p e r h a p s , a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t focus. O n e s h o u l d be c o n c e r n e d less w i t h
specific d e t a i l s o f t r e a t m e n t t h a n w i t h basic a t t i t u d e s a n d w h o l e m o d e s o f
p r e s e n t a t i o n : t h e d i v e r g e n t a p p r o a c h e s whose existence w i t h i n t h e t r a d i t i o n
has a l r e a d y b e e n i n d i c a t e d ( a b o v e , p . 2 ) . A n d one's efforts s h o u l d n o t be
d i r e c t e d , a t least n o t a t t h e outset, t o w a r d i d e n t i f y i n g a specific source. I t is
m o r e i m p o r t a n t t o n o t e w h i c h p a r t s o f t h e t r a d i t i o n seem, b y v i r t u e o f
closely s h a r e d a t t i t u d e s a n d m o d e s o f t r e a t m e n t , t o b e l o n g t o g e t h e r , a n d t o
c o m p l e t e , w h e n e v e r s u c h j u x t a p o s i t i o n s a l l o w i t , t h e d o c t r i n e s w h i c h single
texts m e r e l y h i n t a t o r p r e s e r v e i n f r a g m e n t a r y f o r m . C e r t a i n details o f
t r e a t m e n t w i l l seem c o m m o n p l a c e as l o n g as t h e y are assigned t h e l o w e s t
c o m m o n d e n o m i n a t o r o f significance w h i c h w o u l d a l l o w for t h e i r i n c l u s i o n i n
a n y discussion o f c u l t u r a l o r i g i n s ; t h e y m a y w e l l a p p e a r i n a d i f f e r e n t l i g h t
w h e n v i e w e d a l o n g w i t h related m a t e r i a l against the b a c k g r o u n d o f the
p a r t i c u l a r s c h o o l o f t h o u g h t t o w h i c h t h e y b e l o n g . I n so f a r as t h e m e t h o d
o u t l i n e d succeeds i n d e t e c t i n g , i n p a r t s o f t h e t r a d i t i o n as i t n o w stands,
traces o f a m o r e consistent a n d e l a b o r a t e t h e o r y o f c u l t u r a l h i s t o r y , i t w i l l
n a t u r a l l y p o i n t t o t h e existence o f a c o m m o n source. W h e t h e r i t succeeds i n
 INTRODUCTION 13

i d e n t i f y i n g t h i s source is o f less i m p o r t a n c e ; t o h a v e r e c o v e r e d a m o r e so-

p h i s t i c a t e d v e r s i o n o f a n c i e n t Kulturgeschichte t h a n exists i n s u r v i v i n g texts
w i l l be i n i t s e l f a service t o t h e h i s t o r y o f a n c i e n t t h o u g h t .
O n e c a n n o t p r o m i s e t h a t t h e results a c h i e v e d b y this m e t h o d w i l l be
spectacular, b u t unless its p o s s i b i l i t i e s are a t least p u t t o t h e test t h e r e is a
fair chance t h a t the r e a l achievements o f t h e Greeks i n the r e a l m o f a n t h r o -
p o l o g i c a l s p e c u l a t i o n are b e i n g u n n e c e s s a r i l y i g n o r e d o r o b s c u r e d . 3 7
Hence
the present study, the first eight chapters o f w h i c h are a n exercise i n
Quellenforschung a l o n g t h e lines j u s t suggested.
O u r s t a r t i n g p o i n t w i l l b e a g r o u p o f texts, f o u r H e l l e n i s t i c a n d one
B y z a n t i n e , w h i c h seem t o p r e s e n t a single d o c t r i n e a n d t o p r o v i d e a basis f o r
its p a r t i a l r e c o n s t r u c t i o n . A l l are h e a v i l y t e c h n o l o g i c a l i n t h e i r e m p h a s i s ,
a l t h o u g h , as w i l l b e c o m e a p p a r e n t i n l a t e r stages o f t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n , t h e y
seem t o d e r i v e f r o m a t r a d i t i o n w h o s e p e r s p e c t i v e was m u c h b r o a d e r . Stress
w i l l be p l a c e d t h r o u g h o u t o n t h e set o f r e l a t e d ideas w h i c h these texts c o n -
t a i n , r a t h e r t h a n o n t h e e s t a b l i s h i n g o f d o x o g r a p h i c a l stemmata; a n d i f these
ideas c o m e t o b e d e s i g n a t e d e v e n t u a l l y as D e m o c r i t e a n , t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n is
i n t e n d e d as a s u p p l e m e n t a r y a n d i n some sense s u b o r d i n a t e c o n c l u s i o n , n o t
äs a basic p r e m i s e o n w h i c h t h e w h o l e i n v e s t i g a t i o n m u s t s t a n d o r f a l l . T h e
w o r k s chosen f o r d e t a i l e d e x a m i n a t i o n r e p r e s e n t o n l y o n e o f t h e approaches
to t h e i r s u b j e c t c u r r e n t i n a n t i q u i t y , b u t t h e e v i d e n c e w h i c h t h e y p r e s e n t is
u n i q u e i n t w o w a y s . N o w h e r e else, t o m y k n o w l e d g e , c a n s i m i l a r i t i e s so
close a n d so extensive b e f o u n d ; i t is h e r e , t h e n , i f a n y w h e r e , t h a t a c o m p a r a -
tive s t u d y has a c h a n c e t o r e m o v e some o f t h e gaps a n d u n c e r t a i n t i e s w h i c h
m a r l a r g e p o r t i o n s o f t h e t r a d i t i o n . A n d t h e l i n e o f t h o u g h t w h i c h these five
texts r e p r e s e n t is t h a t w h i c h seems t o h a v e g o n e f u r t h e s t i n its e f f o r t t o v i e w
a l l aspects o f c i v i l i z a t i o n — t e c h n o l o g i c a l , l i n g u i s t i c , s o c i a l — f r o m a n e v o l u -
t i o n a r y s t a n d p o i n t . W e s h a l l t h e r e f o r e b e e x a m i n i n g w h a t was p r o b a b l y t h e
most d e t a i l e d a n d a m b i t i o u s , as w e l l as t h e m o s t n e a r l y r e c o v e r a b l e , o f a l l
a n c i e n t theories o f t h e o r i g i n o f c u l t u r e .
3 7
Cf. Gigon in Gnomon 33.776 (in criticism of Spoerri's tendency to find only "allgemeine
Bildungsgut" in surviving accounts): " . . . das Ziel sinnvoller Forschung ist doch die Wüste
solcher Allgemeinheiten zurückzudrängen zugunsten der gestalteten und gestaltenden Individual-
itäten."
 CHAPTER ONE

COMMON MOTIFS IN FIVE ANCIENT HISTORIES

OF TECHNOLOGY

A l t h o u g h extensive g e n e r i c resemblances c a n b e t r a c e d w i t h i n t h e b o d y o f
a n c i e n t texts r e l a t i n g t o c u l t u r a l o r i g i n s , f e w a c c o u n t s c o n t a i n passages so
closely s i m i l a r as t o m a k e t h e i r d e p e n d e n c e o n a s i n g l e source i m m e d i a t e l y
o b v i o u s . S u c h passages d o , h o w e v e r , e x i s t ; a n d w e s h a l l b e g i n o u r i n q u i r y
w i t h t w o o f t h e m o s t s t r i k i n g . T h e f i r s t is t a k e n f r o m D i o d o r u s ' h i s t o r y o f
early E g y p t ; t h e s e c o n d is a n e x c e r p t f r o m t h e Kulturgeschichte w h i c h appears
i n the second b o o k o f V i t r u v i u s .

ϋ ι ο ο ο κ υ β 1.13.3 V I T R U V I U S 33· 1 6 - 2 3 *

γενομένου γαρ εν τοις ορεσι κεραυνοβόλου δένδρου quodam in loco ab tempestatibus et ventis
και της πλησίον ΰλης καομένης, densae crebritatibus arbores agitatae et inter se
terentes ramos ignem excitaverunt; et eo flamma
vehement! perterriti, qui circum eum locum
fuerunt sunt fugati.
προοελθόντα τον "Ηφαιστον postea re quieta propius accedentes,
κατά την χειμεριον ώραν ήσθηναι διαφεροντως επι cum animadvertissent commoditatem esse mag-
τη θερμασία' nam corporibus ad ignis teporem,
λήγοντος δε του πυρός άει της ΰλης επιβάλλειν ligna adicientes
και τούτω τω τροπψ διατηροΰντα το πΰρ et ita conservantes
προκαλεΐσθαι τους άλλους ανθρώπους alios adducebant
προς την εξ αύτοΰ γινομενην ευχρηστιαν. et nutu monstrantes ostendebant quas haberent
ex eo utilitates.

V i t r u v i u s w r o t e after D i o d o r u s , hence c o u l d h a v e k n o w n a n d r e p r o d u c e d
his w o r k . B u t s u c h differences as t h e r e are b e t w e e n t h e t w o passages d o n o t
1

suggest b o r r o w i n g o f t h i s s o r t . D i o d o r u s places t h e d i s c o v e r y o f f i r e i n E g y p t
and a t t r i b u t e s i t t o a c e r t a i n H e p h a e s t u s , w h o t h r o u g h his a c h i e v e m e n t w i n s
first k i n g s h i p a n d t h e n d i v i n e h o n o r s . V i t r u v i u s , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , does n o t
localize t h e episode, does n o t speak o f a single d i s c o v e r e r , a n d m e n t i o n s n o

* Vitruvius page and line references are to Rose's edition, Leipzig 1867.
1
Diodorus' failure to mention the Roman conquest of Egypt seems to establish 3 0 H . C . as a
terminus ante quern for his work. His own visit to Egypt took place between 60 and 56 B . C . (1.44.1),
and a chronological reference in the passage where the visit is mentioned suggests that luS account
of the country dates from about the same time (see Oldfather's edition, Vol. i . ^ p . viii-xi).
Vitruvius' reference to Augustus (5.1.7) shows that the completion of his work must be,gjaced after
 16 DEMOGRITUS AND T H E SOURCES OF G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

p o l i t i c a l o r r e l i g i o u s consequences. O f t h e t w o t r e a t m e n t s , V i t r u v i u s ' has

every appearance o f b e i n g the o r i g i n a l one. N e i t h e r the c l i m a t e n o r the l a n d -
scape w h i c h D i o d o r u s describes is E g y p t i a n (as R e i n h a r d t p o i n t s o u t , 4 9 9 ) ,
a n d t h e d i s c o v e r y , w h i c h , as i t is p r e s e n t e d i n b o t h D i o d o r u s a n d V i t r u v i u s ,
stems m o r e f r o m a c c i d e n t a n d e x t e r n a l suggestion t h a n f r o m o n e m a n ' s ex-
c e p t i o n a l i n t u i t i o n , is h a r d l y s u f f i c i e n t r e a s o n f o r t h e c o n f e r r i n g o f k i n g s h i p
a n d g o d h o o d . O n l y o n e e x p l a n a t i o n s a t i s f a c t o r i l y a c c o u n t s f o r the r e l a t i o n -
s h i p i n w h i c h t h e t w o passages s t a n d : b o t h w r i t e r s are r e p r o d u c i n g a c o m m o n
source, V i t r u v i u s w i t h some a c c u r a c y , D i o d o r u s w i t h s u c h m o d i f i c a t i o n s as
are necessary t o a d j u s t i t t o a n E g y p t i a n s e t t i n g .
F u r t h e r parallels between t h e portions o f Diodorus a n d V i t r u v i u s f r o m
w h i c h these passages a r e d r a w n c o n f i r m t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . I n t w o p a i r s o f
passages a l m o s t as closely r e l a t e d as t h e t w o j u s t c o n s i d e r e d , b o t h w r i t e r s
discuss t h e o r i g i n o f l a n g u a g e ( D i o d . 1.8.3, V i t r . 3 3 . 2 4 - 2 8 ) a n d t h e q u a l i t i e s
o f m i n d a n d b o d y t o w h i c h m a n owes his t e c h n o l o g i c a l a c h i e v e m e n t s ( D i o d .
1.8.9, V i t r . 3 4 . 2 - 6 a n d 3 6 . 1 - 5 ) . 2
B u t t h e r e is n o w o n e s i g n i f i c a n t difference.
D i o d o r u s ' accounts n o longer come f r o m his description o f early Egypt
( 1 . 1 0 - 2 9 ) b u t f r o m a n e a r l i e r p o r t i o n o f t h e b o o k ( 1 . 8 ) , w h i c h gives a b r i e f
g e n e r a l a c c o u n t o f t h e o r i g i n o f h u m a n c u l t u r e . T h e r e t h e y h a v e t h e same
s e t t i n g as d o t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s i n V i t r u v i u s . O n e m i g h t i n f e r t h a t D i o d o r u s
a n d V i t r u v i u s a r e d r a w i n g o n the same source f o r a l l t h r e e sets o f passages,
a n d t h a t D i o d o r u s has s i m p l y t r a n s f e r r e d o n e o f t h e m t o a n E g y p t i a n c o n t e x t ,
i n w h i c h i t is s o m e w h a t o u t o f p l a c e . A c t u a l l y t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e
t w o w r i t e r s a n d t h e i r c o m m o n source seems t o h a v e b e e n m o r e c o m p l i c a t e d .
I t is p r o b a b l e t h a t w h a t n o w a p p e a r s as 1.8 w a s , i n D i o d o r u s ' i m m e d i a t e
source, c o n n e c t e d s o m e h o w w i t h t h e passage o n t h e d i s c o v e r y o f f i r e as p a r t
o f a s p e c i f i c a l l y E g y p t i a n Kulturgeschichte. F r o m this context i t was detached
by Diodorus a n d transferred t o his general introduction. T h e Kultur-
geschichte w a s itself, h o w e v e r , t h e r e s u l t o f t h e " E g y p t i a n i z a t i o n " of an
earlier general account—the same o n e f r o m w h i c h , u l t i m a t e l y , V i t r u v i u s
derives. T h i s r a t h e r e l a b o r a t e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n , first p r o p o s e d b y R e i n h a r d t
( 4 9 5 - 9 9 ) , has r e c e n t l y b e e n q u e s t i o n e d . 3
R e i n h a r d t ' s critics are w r o n g , I
think, b u t t h e a r g u m e n t s p r o a n d c o n n e e d n o t c o n c e r n us here (for a
defense o f R e i n h a r d t ' s p o s i t i o n , see A p p e n d i x I ) . I t is sufficient f o r o u r
present purposes t o p o i n t o u t t h a t t h e a l t e r n a t i o n o f E g y p t i a n a n d n o n -
E g y p t i a n settings i n t h e p o r t i o n s o f D i o d o r u s w h i c h h a v e close p a r a l l e l s i n
V i t r u v i u s s u p p o r t s o u r o r i g i n a l c o n t e n t i o n t h a t V i t r u v i u s is n o t dependent
on D i o d o r u s . B o t h a u t h o r s d e r i v e e v e n t u a l l y f r o m a single source, a source

2
See below, pp. 33 and 40.
3
Notably by Pfligersdorfer, SBWien 2 3 2 , No. 5 , 1 4 3 - 4 4 a n
d Spoerri, 114—16, 129 and 1 6 3 - 6 4 .
See also Jacoby, FGrH I l i a 39.26-37; 85.30-86.3.
 COMMON MOTIFS I N F I V E A N C I E N T H I S T O R I E S O F T E C H N O L O G Y 17

u p o n w h i c h b o t h t h e Kulturgeschichte o f 1.8 a n d its E g y p t i a n c o m p l e m e n t i n

1.13-29 m u s t , a t least i n p a r t , d e p e n d .

T h e r e are t w o o t h e r a n c i e n t a c c o u n t s o f c u l t u r a l o r i g i n s w h i c h , t h o u g h
l i n k e d b y p a r a l l e l s less s t r i k i n g t h a n those j u s t e x a m i n e d , s t i l l s h o w c l e a r
evidence o f d e r i v a t i o n f r o m a c o m m o n source. T h e s e a p p e a 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 Seneca's 9 0 t h l e t t e r . T h e i n d i v i d u a l passages t o w h i c h
Quellenforschung has m o s t o f t e n c a l l e d a t t e n t i o n are t h e f o l l o w i n g : 4

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

aes atque aurum ferrumque repertumst in hoc . . . dissentio [from Posidonius] sapientes
fuisse qui ferri metalla et aeris invenerint,

ignis ubi ingentis S i l v a s ardore cremarat cum incendio s i l v a r u m adusta tellus

flammeus ardor
horribili sonitu silvas exederat altis
ab radicibus et terram percoxerat igni,
manabat venis ferventibus in loca terrae in summo venas iacentes liquefactas fudisset.
concava conveniens argenti rivus et auri
aeris item et plumbi.

A l t h o u g h L u c r e t i u s a n d Seneca are t h e o n l y t w o a n c i e n t w r i t e r s t o describe

the d i s c o v e r y o f m i n i n g i n this f a s h i o n , t h e passages are t o o b r i e f t o e x c l u d e
a l t o g e t h e r t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e y are s i m p l y r e p r o d u c i n g a w i d e l y p r e -
v a l e n t a c c o u n t , o t h e r specimens o f w h i c h d o n o t h a p p e n t o h a v e s u r v i v e d . 5

T h i s p o s s i b i l i t y m u s t , h o w e v e r , be r e j e c t e d i n v i e w o f f u r t h e r p a r a l l e l s b e -
t w e e n t h e c o n t e x t s i n w h i c h o u r t w o passages o c c u r . L u c r e t i u s a n d Seneca
deal w i t h t h e first m e t a l tools i n close c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e i r a c c o u n t s o f t h e
discovery o f m i n i n g ( L u c r . 5 . 1 2 6 2 - 6 8 , Sen. Ep. 90.11) a n d proceed to
describe, i n t h e same o r d e r , t w o s u b s e q u e n t t e c h n o l o g i c a l developments
m a d e possible b y these m e t a l t o o l s : w e a v i n g ( L u c r . 5 . 1 3 5 0 - 5 3 , Sen. Ep.
90.20) a n d f a r m i n g ( L u c r . 5 . 1 3 6 1 - 6 6 , Sen. Ep. 9 0 . 2 1 ) . W h a t L u c r e t i u s a n d
Seneca share is n o t s i m p l y a n a c c o u n t o f t h e d i s c o v e r y o f m i n i n g , b u t a n
4
Gf. Uxkull-Gyllenband, 34, note 4 4 ; Gerhäusser, Der Protreptikos des Poseidonios 2 7 - 2 8 ; Reinhardt,
Poseidonios 4 0 3 , note 1. The resemblance was first noted by Knaacke, Hermes 16.593, note 2.
5
It is only particular elements of the account which can be paralleled elsewhere in ancient
literature. T h e liquefying of a vein of metal—though not, as here, as an explanation of the original
discovery of mining—appears in Posidonius ap. Strabo 3.147 and Athenaeus 6 . 2 3 3 D - E ; Ps.-Aristotle
Ausc. Mirab. 87, 837A24-26 and Diodorus 5.35.3-4· These texts are given in full in K . Möllenhoff,
Deutsche Altertumskunde 2 (Berlin 1890) 3 1 2 - 1 3 . The spontaneous forest fire, without any further
effects, is found in Manilius 1.856-57; Aetna 3 6 3 - 6 5 ; Lucretius 1 . 8 9 7 - 9 0 0 ; and as early as
Thucydides (2.77.4). Strabo and Diodorus derive directly from Posidonius, though not from the
work used by Seneca. According to Strabo, Posidonius himself introduced his account as a well-
known mythos. Müllenhoff (op. cit., this note, 1.339—42) suggests that Ps.-Aristotle derives from
Timaeus of Tauromenium.
18 DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K ANTHROPOLOGY

a c c o u n t o f m e t a l l u r g y , i t s d i s c o v e r y a n d its effect o n t h e s u b s e q u e n t d e v e l o p -
m e n t o f c u l t u r e . A n d t h e i d e n t i t y o f d e t a i l a n d a r r a n g e m e n t i n t h e t w o ac-
c o u n t s is n o t l i k e l y t o b e a c c i d e n t a l .
Lucretius a n d Seneca a r e d r a w i n g ultimately o n a common source.
Seneca's i m m e d i a t e source w a s , o f course, P o s i d o n i u s : t h e e n t i r e 9 0 t h l e t t e r
is a n a t t a c k o n t h e l a t t e r ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t sapientes p l a y e d a s i g n i f i c a n t p a r t
i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t e c h n o l o g y , a n d t h e passages f r o m t h e l e t t e r w h i c h w e
h a v e c i t e d a r e s i m p l y s u m m a r i e s o f P o s i d o n i u s ' views, here r e p r o d u c e d b y
Seneca i n o r d e r t o r e f u t e t h e m . I t has b e e n suggested o n o c c a s i o n t h a t
P o s i d o n i u s w a s L u c r e t i u s ' source a l s o . B u t t h e suggestion seems r a t h e r u n -
6

l i k e l y . T h e sapientes w h o p l a y so p r o m i n e n t a r o l e i n P o s i d o n i u s ' a c c o u n t o f
prehistory are completely missing f r o m L u c r e t i u s , 7
a n d t h e d i s c r e p a n c y is
best e x p l a i n e d b y a s s u m i n g t h a t t h e y a r e a s p e c i f i c a l l y P o s i d o n i a n m o d i -
f i c a t i o n i n t r o d u c e d i n t o a t r a d i t i o n w h i c h L u c r e t i u s preserves i n p u r e r f o r m .
T h e i r r o l e is, i n f a c t , s o m e w h a t i n c o n g r u o u s , c o m p a r a b l e i n t h i s respect t o
t h a t o f Hephaestus i n D i o d o r u s ' description o f t h e discovery o f fire. L i k e
D i o d o r u s a n d V i t r u v i u s , L u c r e t i u s a n d Posidonius emphasize the role w h i c h
chance a n d e x t e r n a l suggestion p l a y i n t h e development o f technology; a n d

6
E . g . by Gerhausser, Der Protreptikos des Poseidonios 2 7 - 2 8 ; Rudberg, Forschungen zu Poseidonios 8 0 ,
note 1; Diels, SBBerlin 1921, 2 3 7 - 4 4 .
7
T h e contrary has been maintained, largely on the basis of 5 . 1 1 0 5 - 1 1 (cf. Ernout-Robin ad loc.)
and of Lachmann's emendation benigni for et igni i n 1106:
inque dies magis hi victum vitamque priorem
commutare novis monstrabant rebus et igni
ingenio qui praestabant et corde vigebant.
condere coeperunt urbes arcemque locare
praesidium reges ipsi sibi perfugiumque
et pecus atque agros divisere atque dedere
pro facie cuiusque et viribus ingenioque.

The talented individuals of 1107 are (as Spoerri notes, 146, note 16) a motif in Epicurean Kultur-
geschichte as early as Hermarchus (see below, pp. 7 1 - 7 2 ) , hence provide only a generic similarity to
the sapientes of Posidonius. If, on the other hand, the reges of 1109 are identified with the benigni of
1106, the parallel with Posidonius becomes exact. T h e identification, however, is unlikely for
several reasons. Lachmann's emendation is almost certainly wrong: the cities which the kings
founded are not the work of benevolence—they are built for self-protection (Bailey ad loc., calling
attention to praesidium ipsi sibi perfugiumque in 1 1 0 9 ) ; and the parallels between 1105—7 and
both Diodorus and Tzetzes (see below, pp. 22 and 3 6 ) support the mss. reading. Moreover, it is
not at all certain that we should even identify the reges of 1109 with the inventors of 1107 (cf. Merrill
ad loc.; Borle, MusHelv 19.167). T h e connection may simply be that inventors supply the technology
needed for building cities, or that they are the recipients of agros and pecus (compare ingenio in 1107
and m i ) . And if we do grant the correctness of the identification, the linking of early kings and
early inventors is still not exclusively Posidonian (cf. Aristotle, Pol. 3 . 1 2 8 5 B 6 - 9 ; Megasthenes
FGrH 7 1 5 F 1 2 , p. 6 1 7 . 2 - 1 3 ; Euhemerus, FGrH 6 3 F 2 4 ) . T h e existence of these parallels and the
presence of a number of purely traditional or specifically Epicurean elements in other portions of
Lucretius' account of early kingship (see below, Chap. V I , note 18) make the theory of a
Posidonian origin for 5.1105-11 quite unnecessary.
 COMMON MOTIFS I N F I V E A N C I E N T H I S T O R I E S O F T E C H N O L O G Y 19

the sapientes n o less t h a n t h e b e n e f a c t o r - g o d H e p h a e s t u s a r e o u t o f p l a c e i n

such a process. T h e y a r e t h e chosen agents t h r o u g h w h i c h p h i l o s o p h y leads
the race t o a n ever h i g h e r d e s t i n y , y e t t h e y g o a b o u t t h e i r w o r k i n a m o s t
m a t t e r - o f - f a c t , a l m o s t h a p h a z a r d w a y . T h e i r i n v e n t i o n s cause P o s i d o n i u s t o
m a r v e l a t t h e resources o f t h e p h i l o s o p h i c m i n d , 8
y e t a r e , as Seneca p o i n t s
out (Ep. 9 0 . 2 1 , 2 5 , 3 3 ) , o f t h e sort w h i c h c o n t i n u e t o b e p r o d u c e d b y p e o p l e
w h o a r e n o t p h i l o s o p h e r s a t a l l . P o s i d o n i u s p r o v i d e s , i n f a c t , a n e x c e l l e n t ex­
a m p l e o f t h e sort o f contaminatio mentioned i n our introduction. T h a t the
extensive i n t e r p e n e t r a t i o n o f n a t u r a l i s t a n d t e l e o l o g i c a l m o t i f s w h i c h c h a r a c ­
terizes h i s w o r k s h o u l d d i s a p p e a r c o m p l e t e l y i n a l e n g t h y a c c o u n t derived
f r o m h i s is i n c o n c e i v a b l e . 9
T h e p a r a l l e l passages i n L u c r e t i u s , i n a l l o f w h i c h
a c o n s i s t e n t l y n a t u r a l i s t perspective is t o b e o b s e r v e d , m u s t be t a k e n as
evidence f o r use o f a c o m m o n source. 1 0

T h e conclusions r e a c h e d t h u s f a r w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p l i n k i n g
V i t r u v i u s t o D i o d o r u s a n d L u c r e t i u s t o P o s i d o n i u s i n t h e specific passages
e x a m i n e d a r e n e i t h e r n e w n o r , so f a r as I c a n see, s h o u l d t h e y b e c o n t r o ­
versial. T h e e v i d e n c e speaks f o r itself. C e r t a i n i n v e s t i g a t o r s , h o w e v e r , have
sought t o g o f u r t h e r a n d p o s i t a single source f o r a l l f o u r w r i t e r s . 1 1
Their
c o n t e n t i o n is p o o r l y s u p p o r t e d , since i t rests l a r g e l y o n t h e u n t e n a b l e as­
s u m p t i o n t h a t a l l e v o l u t i o n a r y a c c o u n t s o f c u l t u r e m u s t go b a c k t o some o n e
a u t h o r i t y ; b u t i t is also, I believe, c o r r e c t . T w o pieces o f e v i d e n c e , n e g l e c t e d
h i t h e r t o , m a y serve t o p u t t h e h y p o t h e s i s o f a single source o n s o m e w h a t
firmer ground. Lucretius' account of mining and metallurgy is more
complete t h a n Seneca's. I t b e g i n s w i t h w h a t is a p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r b o t h

8
Cf., in Seneca's account, quomodo convenit ut et Diogenen mireris et Daedalum ( 9 0 . 1 4 ) ; facunde
describit ( 9 0 . 2 1 ) ; and the admiring detail with which the workings of the loom are described ( 9 0 . 2 0 ) .
The bounty of nature as well as the power of human logos may have been treated with ,the same
characteristic enthousiasmos. Cf. the account of the liquefying of a vein of metal recorded in Strabo
3-147-
9
For the combination, within a single Posidonian passage, of naturalism and teleology, see
go.22-23, the discovery of the milling of grain and its baking into bread. Here art patterns itself
on nature in two ways: the automatic action of the teeth in chewing food suggests to man the use of
a millstone to serve the same purpose, and the cooking of the grain by fire imitates the cooking which
goes on within the stomach. Obviously, the two types of imitation are quite different. T h e first is a
simple learning from experience and example and can be paralleled throughout the Kulturgeschichte
of Lucretius V . T h e second involves the Aristotelian—and teleological—idea of technc as something
which τά μεν επιτελεί α η φύσις αδυνατεί άπεργάσασθαι, τά δε μιμείται [Phys. 2.199 Α 1
5 — 1
7)· Cf.
Meteor. 4.3811*6—7: μιμείται γαρ η τέχνη την φύσιν επει και η τροφής εν τω σώματι πεφις ομοία εφήσει
εστίν. O n the Posidonian conception of a "teleological" imitation of nature see, in general,
K. Reinhardt, "Poseidonios," Λ Ε 4 3 (1953) 8 0 8 ; and, for the difference between this and "natural­
ist" imitation, Theiler, 100, with note 1.
l e
I n addition to the passages considered in the text, the military excursus of 5 . 1 3 0 8 - 4 9 has been
thought to show Posidonian influence (Diels, SBBerlin 1921, 2 4 3 - 4 4 ) ; D u
against this view see t

Reitzenstein, Orient und Antike 2 . 6 5 - 7 0 .

r*>—<
1 1
See, in particular, Reinhardt, Poseidonios 3 9 2 - 4 0 8 and Uxkull-Gyllenband, 33
20 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

developments, the discovery o f fire ( 5 . 1 0 9 2 - 1 1 0 1 ) ; a n d i t places warfare

( 1 2 8 3 - 8 6 ) , as w e l l as w e a v i n g a n d f a r m i n g , a m o n g t h e arts whose develop-
m e n t was f u r t h e r e d o r m a d e possible b y m e t a l tools. D i o d o r u s , as w e h a v e
seen, describes t h e d i s c o v e r y o f fire; a n d j u s t as t h a t a c c o u n t seemed t o be
a n E g y p t i a n v e r s i o n o f t h e p a r a l l e l a c c o u n t i n V i t r u v i u s , so t h e sequel t o i t i n
his w o r k reads l i k e a n E g y p t i a n v e r s i o n o f L u c r e t i u s . H e p h a e s t u s discovers
fire a n d so i n a u g u r a t e s a d y n a s t y — t h e first t e c h n o c r a c y . H e is succeeded b y
C r o n u s , t h e n b y Z e u s , a n d finally b y O s i r i s , u n d e r whose p a t r o n a g e m i n i n g
a n d t h e w o r k i n g o f g o l d a n d c o p p e r are d i s c o v e r e d a n d t h e n e w technology
a p p l i e d , first t o t h e m a n u f a c t u r e o f w e a p o n s , t h e n t o a g r i c u l t u r e ( 1 . 1 5 ) . 1 2

T h e o n l y i t e m i n L u c r e t i u s w h i c h does n o t h a v e its p a r a l l e l here is w e a v i n g ,

a n d t h e r e is r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e t h a t i t , t o o , a p p e a r e d i n t h e w o r k o n w h i c h
D i o d o r u s d r e w f o r t h i s p a r t o f his A e g y p t i a c a . T h e E g y p t i a n t h e o l o g y w h i c h
is a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e p r i e s t L e o i n a n a p o c r y p h a l l e t t e r o f A l e x a n d e r the
G r e a t t o his m o t h e r resembles these c h a p t e r s o f D i o d o r u s so closely t h a t i t
m u s t be closely r e l a t e d t o t h e i r source (see b e l o w , p p . 1 5 3 - 5 4 ) , a n
d i t as-
cribes t h e d i s c o v e r y o f w e a v i n g t o O s i r i s ' c o n t e m p o r a r y Hermes. 1 3

T o t h i s a r g u m e n t f o r t h e existence o f a single source f o r L u c r e t i u s a n d

D i o d o r u s a n d h e n c e f o r a l l f o u r o f o u r texts, a n o t h e r m a y be a d d e d . T z e t z e s '
c o m m e n t a r y o n H e s i o d (see a b o v e , p . 10) stands i n close, t h o u g h somewhat
p r o b l e m a t i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p t o D i o d o r u s . I t is c l e a r t h a t T z e t z e s has r e a d t h e
first b o o k o f D i o d o r u s — t h e E g y p t i a n p o r t i o n s as w e l l as t h e g e n e r a l m a t e r i a l
i n C h a p t e r 8 — f o r h e gives a p a r t i a l p a r a p h r a s e o f b o t h sections i n his Iliad
scholia (55.28-57.25 H e r m a n n ) . 1 4
F o r his e x p l i c a t i o n o f H e s i o d ' s m y t h o f t h e
G o l d e n A g e , T z e t z e s also b o r r o w s c e r t a i n p h r a s e o l o g y from Diodorus (see
b e l o w , p p . 2 7 - 2 9 ) , b u t these b o r r o w i n g s a p p e a r i n a l a r g e r c o n t e x t w h i c h
seems i t s e l f t o be r e l a t e d t o D i o d o r u s , t h o u g h i n a m o r e i n d i r e c t w a y . The
c h a r a c t e r o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p is w e l l i l l u s t r a t e d b y T z e t z e s ' a l l e g o r i c a l i n t e r -
p r e t a t i o n o f the Prometheus story (74.14-20 Gaisford).
1 2
Diodorus offers an alternate genealogy, according to which not Hephaestus but Helios was
the founder of the dynasty (1.13.2). Since Hephaestus here equals Ptah and Helios equals Amon-Ra,
the variation reflects ultimately a conflation of different native traditions. I f Diodorus himself was
responsible for the conflation, and if Osiris' patronage of the useful arts belonged originally with the
Helios tradition, the parallel drawn in the text between his account and those of Lucretius and
Posidonius is not valid. The first supposition may be correct; the second almost certainly is not.
Hephaestus as founder of the dynasty and Osiris as patron of the arts are already linked in the
closely parallel account of Leo mentioned in the text (see FGrH 6 5 9 F 5 , F 9 ) .
1 3
See Hyginus, Astron. 2.20 and Tertullian, De Pallio 3. These and other remnants of Leo's
theology are printed in FGrH 659 as fragments of the historian Leo of Pella. But the latter's exist-
ence has been inferred, probably erroneously, from a single passage in Arnobius. See Pfister,
Festschrift Klauser, 296—97. The name of the real author of Alexander's letter to Olympias is not
known.
O n Tzetzes' borrowing from Diodorus in general see Spoerri, MusHe.lv
1 4
14.187-88, and the
further literature cited there, 185, note 13.
 COMMON MOTIFS I N F I V E A N C I E N T H I S T O R I E S O F T E C H N O L O G Y 2I

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

τινός, ώς πλησιάσαντες εκεΐσε της θέρμης αισθησιν έσχον, μηχανωνται φυλάζαι το
πυρ και δη σομφοΐς τισι ζΰλοις και νάρθηξι δυναμένοις τοΰτο φνλάζαι κατέκρυφαν,
και ούράνιον πυρ υπάρχον το πριν οντω κατασχεθέν . . . εμνθενθη κλαπηναι . . .

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

κεραυνοβόλου δένδρου (ι.13.3), b u t t h e rest o f t h e passage is closer t o
V i t r u v i u s , b o t h i n c o n t e n t a n d i n p h r a s e o l o g y . T h e discoverers a r e p l u r a l
and a n o n y m o u s , n o t , as i n D i o d o r u s , a n a m e d d i v i n i t y ; πλησιάσαντες recalls
V i t r u v i u s ' propius accedentes (33.19) r a t h e r t h a n D i o d o r u s ' προσελθόντα; and
της θέρμης αϊσθησιν έσχον is n e a r e r t o animadvertissent commoditatem . . . ad
ignis teporem t h a n t o ήσθηναι διαφερόντως έπι τη θερμασίη. O n e is t e m p t e d t o
assume t h a t b e h i n d this p o r t i o n o f T z e t z e s ' a c c o u n t t h e r e lies, u l t i m a t e l y , t h e
source f r o m w h i c h b o t h D i o d o r u s a n d V i t r u v i u s d e r i v e . 1 5

T z e t z e s ' e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e P a n d o r a m y t h ( 7 9 . 4 - 2 1 G a i s f o r d ) suggests t h e
same c o n c l u s i o n . P r o m e t h e u s ( h u m a n f o r e t h o u g h t , perverse i n g e n u i t y ) gives
men f i r e ; t h e i n e v i t a b l e r e s u l t o f t h i s — a l l e g o r i c a l l y , t h e r e s u l t w h i c h Zeus
( d e s t i n y ) b r i n g s t o pass—is t h e a r r i v a l o f P a n d o r a (technology) a n d that
P a n d o r a ' s b o x o f evils, c i v i l i z a t i o n . T h e gifts w h i c h P a n d o r a receives a n d t h e
gods w h o b e s t o w t h e m a r e t h e several p r e r e q u i s i t e s w h i c h m a n needs i n
o r d e r t o p r o d u c e t e c h n o l o g y : τά υλικά και οργανικά f r o m H e p h a e s t u s , το
κατασκεναστικόν και άγχίνουν f r o m A t h e n a , a n d energy a n d wiliness f r o m
H e r m e s , w h o is logos. T h e list p a r t i a l l y p a r a l l e l s D i o d o r u s ' o w n e n u m e r a t i o n
(1.8.9; s e e
b e l o w , p . 40) o f t h e q u a l i t i e s t o w h i c h m a n owes his t e c h n o l o g i c a l
a c h i e v e m e n t s : φυχης άγχίνοια, λόγος, a n d χείρες ( w h i c h w o u l d certainly be
a m o n g τά οργανικά i f n o t τ ά υλικά i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e arts a n d c r a f t s ) .
T z e t z e s ' a c c o u n t o f P a n d o r a ' s gifts is t o o closely c o n n e c t e d w i t h h i s w h o l e
a l l e g o r y t o a l l o w t h e s u p p o s i t i o n t h a t h e has here b o r r o w e d a set o f d e t a i l s
d i r e c t l y f r o m D i o d o r u s ; once a g a i n t h e h y p o t h e s i s o f a c o m m o n source p r o ­
vides t h e m o s t p l a u s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n .
T h a t this source w a s closely c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e o n e used b y L u c r e t i u s is
suggested b y v e r b a l p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n T z e t z e s ' H e s i o d c o m m e n t a r y a n d
B o o k V o f t h e De rerum natura:

TZETZES LUCRETIUS

[The earliest men] άγελαΐον ούζων τον βίον [The earliest men] volgivago vitam tractabant
δίκην •ποιμνίων. (Schol. in Hex. 6 8 . 6 - 7 = VS 68135, more ferarum. (5.932)
Ρ· ' 3 7 - 3 9 - 4 0 )
[The consequences of Prometheus' theft of fire [A bolt of lightning or branches rubbing to­
are to be interpreted as] gether in the wind produced fire; thereafter]
1 5
- Even the phrase KcpavviodtvTos 8eVS/>ou, it should be noted, need not reflect the influence of
Diodorus. T h e interpretation of the myth demanded that fire be ouranion rather than, as in
Vitruvius' account, the result of the friction of branches.
22 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

το μετατραπήναι ΰπό της προβουλίας ταύτης inque dies magis hi victum vitamque priorem
έκείνην τήν προτεραν τον βίου διαγωγήν υπό της commutare novis monstrabant rebus et igni
ευρέσεως τοΰ πυρός, ο και τοις ευροΰσι καί μετα­ ingenio qui praestabant et corde vigebant.
γενεστέρου γέγονε βλάβη. (81.24—27) (5.1105-7)
έπει δε προμηθέστεροι γεγονότες και προβου- inde casas postquam ac pellis ignemque para-
λευτικώτεροι το πΰρ έφεΰρον runt,
καί θερμότερων . . . πραγμάτων ώρέχθησαν καί et mulier coniuncta viro concessit in unum
την τον . . . βίου εκείνου μετέστρεφαν διαγω­
γήν . . . και έκ . . . πυρός αί τεχναι προσεφεν- turn genus humanum primum mollescere
ρέθηααν coepit.
ignis enim curavit ut alsia corpora frigus
non ita iam possent caeli sub tegmine ferre,

δι ων τά ηδέα και τερπνά και άβρότατα γίνεται, et Venus imminuit viris puerique parentum
δίκην γυναικός ημάς καταθέλγοντα και τρυφερω- blanditiis facile ingenium fregere superbum.
τέρους άπεργαζόμενα, ο καλεί πλάσιν γυναικός ό (5.1011-18)
ποιητής. ( 6 8 . 2 4 - 6 9 . 4 = ^ 6 8 6 5 , ρ. 1 3 8 . 8 - 1 3 )

T h e p a r a l l e l s i n t h e l a s t p a i r o f passages r e p r o d u c e d are n o t so c o m p l e t e as
i n t h e o t h e r t w o . L u c r e t i u s speaks o f a n a c t u a l s o f t e n i n g o f d i s p o s i t i o n b r o u g h t
a b o u t b y love a n d f a m i l y l i f e ; i n Tzetzes the softening comes f r o m technology
a n d i t s c o m f o r t s , a n d is o n l y c o m p a r e d t o t h e effects o f a w o m a n ' s charms.
Y e t t h e d i v e r g e n c e is e x p l i c a b l e i f w e assume t h a t T z e t z e s is m o d i f y i n g a n
a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l a c c o u n t s i m i l a r t o t h a t f o u n d i n L u c r e t i u s so t h a t i t w i l l f i t
his P a n d o r a = t e c h n o l o g y e q u a t i o n ; a n d ignis . . . curavit ut corpora frigus . . .
non ita iam possent. . .ferre p r o v i d e s a n e x c e l l e n t gloss f o r t h e o t h e r w i s e r a t h e r
m y s t e r i o u s p h r a s e θερμότερων πραγμάτων ώρέχθησαν.

T z e t z e s ' a c c o u n t , n o less t h a n t h e p a r a l l e l s i n c h o i c e a n d a r r a n g e m e n t of
material between Lucretius a n d Diodorus, provides grounds for believing
t h a t V i t r u v i u s , D i o d o r u s , L u c r e t i u s , a n d Posidonius are dependent, i n part
a t least, o n a c o m m o n s o u r c e ; a n d i f t h i s h y p o t h e s i s is c o r r e c t , T z e t z e s h i m ­
self is a fifth author dependent o n t h e same s o u r c e . 1 6
T h e points o f contact
b e t w e e n o u r five texts c a n b e s u m m a r i z e d as f o l l o w s :

This view is in sharp contrast with that of Spoerri (MusHelv 14.183-88) who argues that
1 6

Tzetzes' commentary merely combines material taken directly from Diodorus with an idealized
view of the state of nature as a Golden Age. There are certainly elements of the latter view in
Tzetzes—elements to which there is no parallel in Diodorus. Moreover, as has been indicated above
(p. 20) Tzetzes certainly knew and used Diodorus. Three considerations, however; seem to me to
tell heavily against Spoerri's contention. (1) Tzetzes' account need not be a combination of "zwei
entgegengesetzte Auffassungen " (Spoerri, 1 8 4 ) ; it can just as easily be regarded as a consistent, or
nearly consistent, exposition of what has been called "hard primitivism" (Lovejoy and Boas, 10).
Because life in the state of nature is recognized as poor, brutish, and short, it does not follow that it is
solitary or nasty. T h e simple life breeds peace and harmony; its privations develop in man a corres­
ponding toughness which makes him insensible to them; and living always at the level of bare
subsistence saves him from the tyranny of superfluous desires. Although Tzetzes fluctuates occasion­
ally in his references to the state of nature, his basic conception of its advantages and disadvantages
is clear and consistent (see 116.13-16: primitive men are free from μισαλληλία, κακοπραγμοαύνη,
φθόνος, but more subject than their descendants to φύχος, καύσων, έπίθεσις των θηρίων). (2) Tzetzes'
 COMMON MOTIFS I N F I V E A N C I E N T H I S T O R I E S O F T E C H N O L O G Y 23

SUBJECT PARALLEL TREATMENTS

DlODORUS VlTRUVIUS TZETZES LUCRETIUS PoSIDONIUS

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

2. M e t a l l u r g y a n d its a p -
plications. * * *
3. S u m m a r y of qualities
which enable m e n to
d e v e l o p technology. * * *

4. L i f e of early man; re-

volutionary effect o f dis-
covery of fire. * *

T h e e x i s t e n c e o f a s i n g l e s o u r c e is n o t g u a r a n t e e d . T h e r e is n o o n e i t e m
w h i c h a p p e a r s i n a l l f i v e t e x t s ; h e n c e i t is c o n c e i v a b l e t h a t t h e f o u r i t e m s
come u l t i m a t e l y f r o m different accounts w h i c h were subsequently combined
i n d i f f e r e n t ways b y o u r five a u t h o r s . S t i l l , the hypothesis o f a c o m m o n source
is w o r t h c o n s i d e r a t i o n a n d , i f p o s s i b l e , f u r t h e r testing. Such a source, i f i t
e x i s t e d , m a y h a v e b e e n a s o r t o f H e l l e n i s t i c koine o n t h e s u b j e c t o f c u l t u r a l
origins—a collection o f isolated observations or summary bits o f d o c t r i n e
l i n k e d l o o s e l y b y t h e i r c o m m o n a s s u m p t i o n o f a n o r i g i n a l a n i m a l - l i k e exist-
ence, f o l l o w e d b y a g r a d u a l d e v e l o p m e n t o f the a r t s . 1 7
O n the other h a n d ,
it may have been something more ambitious, a continuous and unified

whole account, both in its form and in its content, so closely parallels surviving descriptions of the
kynikos bios (see below, pp. 1 4 9 - 5 1 ) that it is hard to believe that the bulk of it was not taken over
directly from a Cynic source. (3) Spoerri's suggestion does not explain the close parallels between
those parts of Tzetzes not connected with Diodorus and other texts which Diodorus resembles quite
closely (see above, pp. 2 0 - 2 2 , and below, pp. 2 9 - 3 0 ) . That Tzetzes should make additions on
his own is natural enough; that they should closely coincide with those other texts in a number of
points is rather unusual. T h e Kulturgeschichte of Tzetzes must have come into being in much the
same way as the zoogony which precedes it in his commentary (67.16-68.1 = VS 6 8 B 5 , p. 1 3 7 . 2 6 -
35). K . Reinhardt has shown, in Kosmos und Sympathie (Munich 1926) 3 9 5 - 9 7 , that the earlier
passage combines direct borrowings from Diodorus 1.7 with material from a separate tradition,
portions of which survive in the Hermippus of Johannes Catrarius (reprinted in pp. 1 3 6 . 3 1 -
137.23). T h e conclusion follows from the fact that, though there are close verbal parallels linking
Catrarius with Tzetzes and Diodorus with Tzetzes, no such parallels link Catrarius with Diodorus.
But Catrarius and Diodorus, though not so closely connected to each other as either is to Tzetzes,
are nevertheless related texts; this is clear from similarities both in the content and in the organiza-
tion of their accounts. Doubtless a similar relationship existed between the tradition to which
Diodorus belongs and the main, Cynic, source used by Tzetzes. And it must have been the wide
range of agreement between Diodorus and this source which suggested to Tzetzes the idea of ex-
panding the latter in one or two places with material drawn from the former.
Cf. Spoerri's view (163) of Diodorus 1.8: "einen Bericht . . . der dem allgemeinen Bildungsgut
1 7

seiner Zeit entsprach." T h e positions of Havelock and Gigon with regard to the sources of this
account are essentially similar, though they would place the origin of most of the material at an
earlier date: "an epitomized amalgam of pre-Socratic speculation" (Havelock, 4 0 8 ) ; the work of
an author who "griechische oder barbarische Anschauungen der Frühzeit vorsokratisch drapierte,
dabei Lehren mehrerer Vorsokratiker, Banales und weniger Banales, zusammenfügte." (Gigon,
Gnomon 3 3 . 7 7 5 ) .
24 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

e x p o s i t i o n i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h c e r t a i n f u n d a m e n t a l premises a n d m e t h o d s .
I f i t was t h e l a t t e r , o r a n y t h i n g a p p r o a c h i n g i t , o n e o u g h t t o b e a b l e t o de-
t e c t b e h i n d o u r texts as t h e y n o w s t a n d t h e basic lines o f t r e a t m e n t a d o p t e d
i n t h e i r source. I b e l i e v e t h a t s u c h lines o f t r e a t m e n t are d i s c e r n i b l e a n d s h a l l
a t t e m p t t o t r a c e t h e m i n t h e c h a p t e r w h i c h f o l l o w s . T h e discussion w i l l seek
t o resolve, as n e a r l y as possible, t h e source p r o b l e m r a i s e d b y o u r texts a n d ,
m o r e i m p o r t a n t , t o m a k e a f i r s t step t o w a r d r e c o v e r i n g t h e lost stages o f t h e
speculative t r a d i t i o n w h i c h they represent.
 CHAPTER TWO

A PATTERN OF PREHISTORY

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

O n e m a y be d i v i d e d f o r c l a r i t y o f p r e s e n t a t i o n i n t o a n u m b e r o f d i f f e r e n t
stages. T h e s e stages, a l o n g w i t h a n i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e a u t h o r s i n w h i c h e a c h
one is r e p r e s e n t e d , are g i v e n i n o u t l i n e f o r m o n p a g e 26. T h e a c c o u n t w h i c h
t h e y e m b o d y is c o n t i n u o u s f r o m t h e b e g i n n i n g s o f t h e h u m a n race t o t h e
b e g i n n i n g s o f r e c o r d e d h i s t o r y . I t starts w i t h a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e earliest
1

c o n d i t i o n o f m a n , a t e c h n o l o g i c a l state o f n a t u r e c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y t h e a b -
sence o f f o u r p r i m e necessities: fire, shelter, c l o t h i n g ( i C ) a n d a steady
food s u p p l y ( 1 D ) , w h e t h e r o b t a i n e d b y f a r m i n g or f o o d - g a t h e r i n g . H i s first
steps t o w a r d c i v i l i z a t i o n t a k e t h e f o r m o f a n a t t e m p t t o satisfy these needs,
first i n a rudimentary, then i n a more complicated w a y : cave-living and
f o o d - g a t h e r i n g (Stage 2) are f o l l o w e d b y t h e d i s c o v e r y o f fire, houses, g a r -
ments o f skins a n d c u l t i v a t e d g r a i n s (Stage 3 ) . O c c u r r i n g a t a b o u t t h e same
t i m e as t h e d i s c o v e r y o f fire are t h e b e g i n n i n g s o f society a n d language
(4A, B ) . B o t h d e v e l o p m e n t s are necessary f o r t h e m o r e e l a b o r a t e t e c h n o -
logies d e s c r i b e d i n Stage 5 : f i r e makes possible t h e tools t h r o u g h w h i c h
advances i n t e c h n o l o g y t a k e p l a c e ; a n d , t h o u g h m a n as a n i n d i v i d u a l m a y
possess t h e h a n d s a n d i n g e n u i t y (6) r e q u i r e d f o r t h e c r e a t i o n o f t h e useful
arts, i t is o n l y t h e p o o l i n g o f a n u m b e r o f t a l e n t s w h i c h m a k e s possible a
r a p i d a n d v a r i e d d e v e l o p m e n t o f t e c h n o l o g y ( 4 C ; 5 F ) . T h e f i n e arts c o m e
at a l a t e r stage ( 7 ) , once t h e pressure t o create n e e d e d i n v e n t i o n s has eased
s o m e w h a t a n d m a n c a n t u r n t o p u r s u i t s w h i c h m i n i s t e r t o p l e a s u r e as w e l l
as u t i l i t y . F i n a l l y , since t h e t r a d i t i o n w i t h w h i c h w e are d e a l i n g is a specula-
tive one, its r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f h u m a n progress c o n c l u d e s w i t h t h e i n v e n t i o n
o f t h e a l p h a b e t a n d w r i t t e n r e c o r d s ( 8 A ) ; w h a t h a p p e n s t h e r e a f t e r is t h e
concern o f the h i s t o r i a n or the a n t i q u a r y , n o t o f the speculative a n t h r o p o -
logist.
1
The continuity of the account must be seen in Lucretius and, more imperfectly, Vitruvius.
Seneca's record of Posidonius is fragmentary, and in Tzetzes and Diodorus there has been extensive
rearrangement and contaminatio (see above, Chap. I , note 16; below, pp. 1 8 7 - 9 2 ) . Several scholars
(Lachmann ad Lucr. 5 . 1 0 9 1 - 1 1 0 0 ; Jelenko, WS 5 4 . 5 9 - 6 9 ; Merlan, Journal of the History of Ideas
11.364-68) find evidence for contaminatio or separate recensions in Lucretius V as well; but against
their analyses sec Barwick, Philologus 9 5 . 1 9 3 - 2 1 1 , and Borle, MusHelv 19.162—76. Reinhardt's
attempt (Poseidonios 4 0 4 - 4 0 6 ) to decompose Vitruvius 34.6-36.18 into two separate strata is dis-
cussed in Appendix I I .
25
26 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

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

1. A T h e earliest men: nomadic * * *

B and dependent on food gathering for their
subsistence; * * *
C fire, clothing, and shelter are unknown, * * *
D as well as the art of storing food; starvation
is frequent. * * *
2. A Initial provisions made for shelter * * * *
B and for the gathering and storing of food. * *
3. A Discovery of houses, * * *
B clothing, *
C fire, * * * *
D and grain and its method of preparation. * *
4. A Formation of the first societies * * *
B and the first languages; * * *
C competition and emulation stimulate the
growth of the useful arts. * * *
5. A Further development of technology made
possible by fire: * * *
B mining and metallurgy, producing tools
which are used in the development or im-
provement of * * *
C warfare, * *
D weaving, * *
E and agriculture; * * *
F cumulative character of the process. * *
6. Summary of factors in the growth of the
useful arts: accumulated experience and
man's natural endowments: hands, speech,
intelligence. * * * *
7. A T h e non-essential arts, among them *
B astronomy, * *
C and music. * * *
8. A Conclusion: the stage of civilization de-
scribed in our earliest written documents; * *
B their late origin accounts for the speculative
character of all reconstructions of pre-
history. * *

S u c h , i n b a r e s t o u t l i n e , is t h e v i e w o f p r e h i s t o r y w h i c h lies b e h i n d a l l five
o f o u r texts. F o r a m o r e d e t a i l e d p r e s e n t a t i o n a n d d o c u m e n t a t i o n w e m u s t
c o n s i d e r t h e successive stages o f o u r t a b l e i n d i v i d u a l l y a n d i n c o n j u n c t i o n
w i t h t h e passages i n w h i c h t h e y a p p e a r . 2

I n what follows sections and sub-sections are titled, numbered, and lettered as in Table 1; and
2

wherever possible Diodorus, Tzetzes, Lucretius, Vitruvius, and Seneca are cited by reference to the
letter and number of the particular subsection in which the passage in question will be found re-
produced.
For convenience, Tzetzes citations will be identified by the page and line number of VS, Vol. I I ,
 A PATTERN OF PREHISTORY 27

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

DIODORUS TZETZES LUCRETIUS

(Α) τους δε εξ άρχης γεννη- (A) ol τότε δε των ανθρώπων ( A ) volgivago vitam tracta-
θεντας των ανθρώπων φασιν εν . . . άγελαΐον διεζων τον βίον bant more ferarum. (5.932)
άτάκτω και θηριώδει βίω καθε- δίκην ποιμνίων επι νομάς έζιόν-
στώτας σποράδην επι τάς νομάς
εζιεναι,

(Β) και προσφερεσθαι της τε (Β) καϊ τοις άκροδρυοις κοινώς (B) quod sol atque imbres
βοτάνης την προσηνεστάτην και και τοις λαχάνοις τρεφόμενοι. dederant, quod terra crearit /
τους αυτομάτους από των δέν­ sponte sua, satis id placabat
δρων καρπούς. ( ΐ . 8 . ι ) pectora donum. ( 5 . 9 3 7 - 3 8 )
(G) τους οΰν πρώτους τών αν­ (C) γυμνοί δε οΰτω τυγχά- (G) necdum res igni scibant
θρώπων μηδενός τών προς βίον νοντες και σκέπης και χρη- tractare neque uti / pellibus
χρησίμων εύρημενου επιπόνως et spoliis corpus vestire fe­
ματων οντες επιοεεις,
διάγειν, γυμνούς μεν εσθητος rarum. ( 5 - 9 5 3 - 5 4 )
όντας> οΐκήσεως τε και πυρός
άήθεις τροφής τε ήμερου παντε­
λώς άνεννοήτονς.
(D) και γάρ την συγκομιδην
(D) και μηδε καρπούς και ά- D) penuria deinde cibi lan-
της άγριας τροφής άγνοοΰντας
κρόδρυα προς άποθήκας συν- guentia leto / membra dabat.
μηδεμίαν τών καρπών εις τάς
αγαγεΐν ειδότες, άλλα μόνην (5.1007-8)
ένδειας ττοιεΐσθαι παράθεσιν. διό
εσθίοντες τροφήν την έφήμερον
και πολλούς αυτών άπολλνσθαι
χειμώνος γεγονότος πολλοί δι-
κατά τους χειμώνας διά τε το
εφθείροντο. (ΐ37·3°-44)
φΰχος και την σπάνιν της τροφής.

(1.8.5-6)

T h e p a r a l l e l s here are q u i t e close. O f t h e basic lacks w h i c h are l i s t e d u n d e r

items C a n d D , D i o d o r u s m e n t i o n s a l l f o u r ; T z e t z e s , t h o u g h o n l y n a m i n g
three, presupposes t h e f o u r t h : fire's o r i g i n a l absence is i m p l i e d b y his m e n ­
t i o n o f its d i s c o v e r y a t a l a t e r stage i n his a c c o u n t ( 3 C ) . L u c r e t i u s does n o t
refer t o a n i n i t i a l i g n o r a n c e o f h o w t o store f o o d , a l t h o u g h , l i k e D i o d o r u s a n d
Tzetzes, he notes t h a t p r i m i t i v e m a n o f t e n d i e d o f s t a r v a t i o n . T h e r e a s o n f o r
the o m i s s i o n is p e r h a p s t o be f o u n d i n a n e a r l i e r passage o f B o o k V , w h i c h
explains t h a t t h e earliest m e n l i v e d a t a t i m e w h e n t h e s p o n t a n e o u s p r o d u c t s
o f t h e e a r t h w e r e m o r e a b u n d a n t t h a n t h e y are n o w ( 5 . 9 4 2 - 4 4 ) :

p l u r i m a [ a r b u t a ] t u r n tellus e t i a m m a i o r a ferebat.
m u l t a q u e praeterea novitas t u r n florida m u n d i
p a b u l a d u r a t u l i t , miseris m o r t a l i b u s a m p l a .

T h i s c o n t r a d i c t s w h a t is said l a t e r a b o u t penuria cibi, n o r is i t t h e o n l y p l a c e

where L u c r e t i u s e x h i b i t s traces o f a p r i m i t i v i s m c o m p l e t e l y a b s e n t from

under Fr. 6 8 B 5 : i.e. " 1 3 7 - 3 6 - 4 ° " means VS 6 8 B 5 , p.137.36-40. "Posidonius" will mean
Posidonius ap. Seneca, Ep. go, and section numbers of that letter will be used to identi" Posidonius -

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

D i o d o r u s a n d r a t h e r o u t o f k e e p i n g e v e n w i t h t h e g e n e r a l t e n o r o f his o w n
account, a l t h o u g h i t c a n b e p a r a l l e l e d i n T z e t z e s (see a b o v e , C h a p . I , n o t e
16). 3
I t is d o u b t l e s s t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h i s s t r a i n i n h i s w o r k w h i c h m a k e s h i m
d w e l l less t h a n d o t h e o t h e r t w o a u t h o r s o n t h e i n i t i a l s c a r c i t y o f f o o d .
The close v e r b a l parallels between Diodorus and Tzetzes m a y be the
r e s u l t o f d i r e c t b o r r o w i n g (see above, p p . 20-22, w i t h note 16); hence i t
c o u l d b e a r g u e d t h a t t h i s p a r t , a t a n y r a t e , o f T z e t z e s ' a c c o u n t does n o t p r o ­
vide independent evidence f o r t h e existence o f a c o m m o n source. B u t the
parallels (noted above, p p . 2 1 - 2 2 ) b e t w e e n Tzetzes a n d L u c r e t i u s i n i t e m
1A 4
suggest t h a t h e r e , as e l s e w h e r e , T z e t z e s is c o n f l a t i n g m a t e r i a l taken
directly from Diodorus with an account which goes b a c k ultimately to
t h e s a m e s o u r c e as b o t h D i o d o r u s a n d L u c r e t i u s . 5

See the parallels with Tzetzes noted by Norden, NJbb Suppl. ig.415—16. Other details in
3

Lucretius' account recall the idealized picture of primitive man which appears in the Politicus of
Plato, in Dio of Prusa, and in Maximus of Tyre (see Spoerri, 1 5 3 - 5 4 ; Grilli, RendhtLomb 8 6 . 3 7 - 3 8 ;
Theiler, 8 1 ) . I n the present passage, however, there may be more than mere "primitivism" in­
volved ; see below, Chap. X , note 71.
4
Though phrased somewhat differently, the three descriptions of primitive life reproduced under
I A are substantially identical. Volgivagus in Lucretius 5.932 is usually taken as equivalent to vagus,
but the closest parallel formation, solivagus (Cicero, Tusc. 5 . 3 8 ; Rep. 1.39; Pliny, NH 8.23) suggests
that it should mean wandering in groups—i.e. as in Tzetzes, agelaion. T h e only other occurrence of
the word is in 4 . 1 0 7 1 : volgivaga Venus ( = Aphrodite pandemos), and this usage supports our interpreta­
tion. Pandemos itself suggests a herd existence (cf. Sophocles, Ajax 175: πανδάμους em βοΰί άγελαίας)
and "street-walking" Venus does not pursue her calling in a solitary waste. Like her, primitive
men are "wanderers among the throng"—volgivagi in relation to one another and to the horde
which they compose, mingling and separating in random and promiscuous fashion (cf., in
Diodorus [ ι Α ] : άτάκτω και θηριώδει βίψ), without the established family and contractual relation­
ships that arise later ( 4 A ) . Volgivago more ferarum is thus a close equivalent for άγΐλαΐον . . . δίκην
ποιμνίων, although, for Tzetzes, the absence of order which characterizes the initial herd means
not confusion but perfect and spontaneous philallelia. Diodorus' expression sporaden might suggest
that he saw primitive man as solivagus rather than agelaios (cf. Aristotle, HA 9.617B21 and Pol.
H 2 5 6 A 2 3 , where the two terms are contrasted). But solitary life could not be ataktos, and men
evidently live close enough to one another to give aid in time of danger ( 4 A ) . Sporaden as used here
must be intended to contrast the situation of 1A with that which exists later—when systemata based
on a common language and mutual assistance have arisen (cf. HA 1.488A2-10, where agelaia are
divided into sporadika and politika, the latter comprising men, cranes, bees, and all creatures whose
herds are linked together by a common ergon). Tzetzes, Diodorus, and Lucretius are all describing
the same sort of situation (on which see below, pp. 83—87), one whose "solitary" and "social"
aspects figure separately in the terms sporaden and agelaion and are united in the unusual compound
volgivagus.
5
T h e same may be indicated by Tzetzes' use of the phrase skepes . . . epideeis ( 1 C ; contrast
oikeseos... aetheis at the corresponding point in Diodorus). T h e former suggests a perspective that is
largely physical: man is so constituted biologically that he must have shelter (skepe) against the
elements in order to survive. T h e latter refers to a lack, not simply of shelter, but of a fixed abode
(oikesis) and, perhaps, of the attitudes and ways (ethe) that go with it (cf. aetheis). T h e preoccupation
with physical and biological considerations suggested by Tzetzes' phraseology is not found to any­
thing like the same degree in Diodorus; and it is, on the other hand, very much in evidence through­
out the accounts of both Lucretius and Tzetzes (see below, pp. 7 8 - 7 9 and 1 7 0 - 7 2 ) .
 A P A T T E R N O F P R E H I S T O R Y 29

I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t Stage 1 a p p e a r s i n o n l y t h r e e o f o u r f i v e t e x t s .
T h e reasons f o r its absence f r o m Seneca a n d V i t r u v i u s w i l l be i n d i c a t e d l a t e r
(below, p. 35).

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

DIODORUS TZETZES LUCRETIUS POSIDONIUS

(A) έκ δε τούτον κατ (Α) λοιπόν κατά μικρόν (A) denique nota vagis (A) [Men first lived]
ολίγον υπό της πείρας τήν ανάγκην άγοντες silvestria templa tene- sparsos et cavis casis
διδασκόμενους εις τε διδάσκαλον, τά κοίλα b a n t . . . nemora atque tectos aut aliqua rupe
τά σπήλαια καταφεύ- των δένδρων και τά cavos montis silvasque suffossa aut exesae
γειν εν τω χειμώνι δασεα και τάς σχισμάς colebant et frutices arboris trunco.
τών πετρών και τά inter condebant squal- (9°·7)
σπήλαια ύπεδνοντο. ida membra, verbera
ventorum vitare im-
brisque coacti. ( 5 . 9 4 8 -
57)
(Β) και τών καρπών (Β) καϊ τους καρπών
τους δυνάμενους φυλάτ- Βνναμενονς φυλάττεσ-
τεσθαι άποτίθεσθαι. θαι μόλις γνωρίσαντες
(ι.8.7) κάί άπαξ αυτούς συνα-
γείραντες εν τοΐς σπη-
λαίοις εναπετίθεντο και
τούτοις ετρεφοντο δι
ολου ενιαυτοΰ.
(138-1-4)

T h e s e p a r a t i o n b e t w e e n Stage 2 a n d Stage 1 is n o t so c l e a r i n L u c r e t i u s
as i t is i n D i o d o r u s a n d Tzetzes. B u t t h e denique nota o f 9 4 8 a n d t h e coacti o f
957 at least i m p l y t h a t h e r e , as i n D i o d o r u s a n d T z e t z e s , t h e silvestria templa
are places i n w h i c h m a n m u s t l e a r n , o r be f o r c e d , t o t a k e shelter. T h e t h r e e
texts are t h u s r a t h e r s h a r p l y set o f f f r o m m o s t o t h e r a n c i e n t a c c o u n t s o f t h e
life o f e a r l y m e n , w h i c h o f t e n m e n t i o n c a v e - d w e l l i n g b u t d o n o t o r d i n a r i l y
v i e w i t as i n i t s e l f a t e c h n o l o g i c a l a c h i e v e m e n t w h o s e d i s c o v e r y is w o r t h y o f
attention. 6

V i t r u v i u s falls i n t o l i n e w i t h t h e m a i n b o d y o f a n c i e n t t h e o r y i n t h i s r e ­
spect; he s i m p l y says t h a t t h e first m e n vetere more ut ferae in silvis et speluncis
et nemoribus nascebantur (33.14-15)3 a n d his r e m a r k s o n m a n ' s earliest d i e t are
e q u a l l y g e n e r a l . L i k e L u c r e t i u s , he does n o t discuss t h e o r i g i n o f t h e a r t o f
f o o d g a t h e r i n g , c o n t e n t i n g h i m s e l f w i t h t h e r e m a r k t h a t t h e first m e n cibo
agresti vescendo vitam exigebant ( 3 3 . 1 5 - 1 6 ) . T h e r e is n o t h i n g h e r e t o suggest
t h a t V i t r u v i u s is d r a w i n g f r o m t h e same source as t h e texts r e p r o d u c e d a b o v e
u n d e r Stage 2. I t is o n l y l a t e r p o r t i o n s o f his n a r r a t i v e w h i c h m a k e t h i s c o n ­
c l u s i o n necessary.
A l l m e n t i o n o f d i e t is o m i t t e d i n Seneca's s u m m a r y o f P o s i d o n i u s , a n d t h e

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

r e f e r e n c e g i v e n t h e r e t o e a r l y m o d e s o f s h e l t e r is as b r i e f as V i t r u v i u s ' . M e n
are said t o h a v e l i v e d o r i g i n a l l y sparsos et cavis casis tectos aut aliqua rupe
suffossa aut exesae arboris trunco ( 9 0 . 7 ) . N o t e , h o w e v e r , t h a t cavis casis, rupe
suffossa, a n d exesae arboris trunco c o r r e s p o n d exactly t o t h e σπήλαια, σχισμάς
των πετρών a n d κοίλα τών δένδρων m e n t i o n e d b y Tzetzes. H e r e , perhaps, the
r e s e m b l a n c e is close e n o u g h t o be m o r e t h a n c o i n c i d e n t a l .

3. ( A ) Invention of houses, (B) clothing, ( C ) fire, and ( D ) grain and its method of
preparation.

VITRUVIUS POSIDONIUS LUCRETIUS

( A ) [ I n the initial human ( A ) [Philosophy taught the ( A ) inde casas postquam

aggregation] coeperunt . . . men who were initially] casis
alii de fronde facere tecta, alii cavis tectos aut aliqua rupe
speluncas fodere sub montibus, suffossa aut exesae arboris
nonnulli hirundinum nidos . . . trunco tecta moliri. (90.7)
imitantes de luto et virgulis
facere loca quae subirent.
(34-6-9)

(B) ac pellis

DIODORUS

(C) quodam in loco ab tem- (Ο) γενομένου γαρ εν τοις ορεσι (G) ignemque p a r a r u n t . . . .
pestatibus et ventis densae κεραυνοβόλου δένδρου και της (5.1011)
crebritatibus arbores agitatae πλησίον ΰλης καομένης, προσ- fulmen detulit in terram mor-
et inter se ramos terentes ignem ελθόντα τον "Ηφαιστον . . . talibus ignem. . . . et ramosa
excitaverunt. . . . qui circum ήσθήναι' . . . λήγοντος δε τοΰ tamen cum ventis pulsa vacil-
eum locum fuerunt. . . propius πυρός αεί της ΰλης έπιβάλλειν και lans / aestuat in ramos in-
accedentes . . . ligna adicientes τούτω τω τρόπω διατηρονντα τό cumbens arboris arbor, /
et ita conservantes [ignem] πυρ προκαλεΖσθαι τους άλλους. exprimitur validis extritus
alios adducebant. ( 3 3 . 1 6 - 2 3 ) ('· 3·3)
Ι
viribus ignis, / et micat inter-
dum flammai fervidus ardor /
mutua dum inter se rami
stirpesque teruntur, / quorum
utrumque dedisse potest mor-
talibus ignem.

(Ι)) πρώτον μεν γαρ παΰσαι της (D) inde cibum coquere ac
άλληλοφαγιας τό τών ανθρώπων flammae mollire vapore / sol
γένος, εύρούσης μεν "Ισιδος τόν docuit, quoniam mitescere
τε τον πυρον καϊ της κριθής multa videbant / verberibus
καρπόν, . . . τοΰ δε Όσίριδος radiorum atque aestu victa per
έπινοησαμένου και την τούτων agros. (5.1092-1104)
κατεργασίαν τών καρπών, ι/δεως
μεταθέσθαι πάντας τήν τροφήν
διά τε τήν ήδονήν της φύσεως
τών ευρεθέντων και διά τό
φαίνεσθαι συμφέρον νπάρχειν
άπέχεσθαι της κατ* αλλήλων
ώμότητος. (1.14-1)
 A PATTERN OF PREHISTORY 3I

T h i s stage b r i n g s w i t h i t fire, c l o t h i n g , a m o r e s a t i s f a c t o r y f o r m o f shelter,

a n d t h e d i s c o v e r y a n d p r e p a r a t i o n o f g r a i n . N o o n e o f these i t e m s is p r e s e n t
i n m o r e t h a n t h r e e texts, a n d o n l y L u c r e t i u s c o n t a i n s a l l f o u r o f t h e m ( i n -
a s m u c h as g r a i n , t h o u g h n o t e x p l i c i t l y m e n t i o n e d i n h i s a c c o u n t , is p r o b a b l y
the f o o d whose c o o k i n g is r e f e r r e d t o i n 5 . 1 1 0 2 ) . 7
Since, however, they rep-
resent e x a c t l y t h e necessities o f life whose absence w a s n o t e d i n S t a g e 1, a n
account o f their discovery was t o be expected. A n d the assumption o f a
c o m m o n source is t h e o n e w h i c h best e x p l a i n s t h e p a r t i a l s i m i l a r i t i e s b e -
t w e e n o u r texts a t t h i s p o i n t . 8

7
T h e food involved grows soft when exposed to fire (ftammae mollire vapore), hence cannot be meat
(cf. 6 . 9 6 6 - 6 9 : "ignis . . . coria et carnem trahit et conducit in unum. umor aquae . . . coria et
carnem mollit durata calore"); and boiling rather than, as here, roasting would be the normal way
of preparing vegetables. Cf. also the cooking of grain described by Posidonius (Sen. Ep. 90.22—23,
discussed above, Chap. I , note 9) and, from unknown heurematistic sources, Pliny, NH 7.191:
"Ceres frumenta [invenit], eadem molere et conficere"; and Cassiodorus, Variae 6.18.6: "Ceres
frumenta dicitur invenisse, Pan autem primum consparsas fruges coxisse perhibetur." ( O n the
relation of such sources to the tradition followed by our five texts, see below, Chap. I l l , note 7.)
8
Two additional passages from Seneca should be mentioned here, though their derivation from
Posidonius is not certain enough to permit their inclusion in the text. T h e first is 9 0 . 1 8 : "tecta
tegimentaque et fomenta corporum et cibi quae nunc ingens negotium facta sunt obvia erant et
gratuita et levi opera parabilia." T h e passage seems to be directed against someone who had main-
tained that fomenta corporum were not easily parabilia—i.e. one of the benefactions philosophy had
conferred on the race (cf. also 90.17). T h e second, more problematical, passage (or, rather, set of
passages) has close parallels in Vitruvius (noted by Rudberg, Forschungen zu Poseidonios 58, and
Blankert, Seneca ep. go, p. 127):

[In primitive times] furcae utrimque suspensae fulciebant casam. fronde in proclive disposita
decursus imbribus quamvis magnis erat. (Sen. Ep. go.io)
[The first builders] virgeam cratem texuerunt manu et vili obliverunt luto; deinde de stipula
aliisque silvestribus operuere fastigium et pluviis per devexa labentibus hiemem transiere securi.
(Sen. Ep. go. 17)
primumque furcis erectis et virgultis interpositis luto parietes texuerunt. . . . vitandoque imbres
et aestus tegebant harundinibus et fronde. postea, quoniam per hibernas tempestates tecta non
poterant imbres sustinere fastigia facientes luto inducto proclinatis tectis stillicidia deducebant.
(Vitr. 3 4 . 1 4 - 2 0 )

The resemblances are quite close, but there is a possibility that Seneca is not here drawing on
Posidonius. T h e architectural developments he describes are not presented as the work of sapientes;
rather, they are achievements of which anyone would have been capable and show that primitive
man was perfectly well protected against the elements before the intrusion of the unnecessary re-
finements in building with which Posidonius credits the sapientes. I t is possible, of course, that
Seneca is using a Posidonian description of early housing for his own purposes. I n 90.17 the deinde
which precedes the reference to fastigia suggests that Seneca is abridging an account which, like
Vitruvius', separated this stage clearly from a preceding one and regarded the construction of
sloping roofs as a device resorted to when flat ones became inadequate. And this would mean that
Seneca's source was concerned, like Posidonius, with the gradual development of the arts—not, as
Seneca himself is, with the joys of an "architectural" state of nature. Posidonian origin is thus
possible, though not certain. I t is quite conceivable, for example, that Seneca is here using
Vitruvius directly.
32 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

Lucretius' account o f the discovery o f fire ( 3 C ) , t h o u g h n o t l i n k e d to

those o f D i o d o r u s a n d V i t r u v i u s b y v e r b a l p a r a l l e l s , is n o t essentially dif­
f e r e n t f r o m t h e i r s . A n d i t offers as a l t e r n a t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n s for t h e o r i g i n a l
fire t h e t w o w h i c h a p p e a r s e p a r a t e l y i n D i o d o r u s a n d V i t r u v i u s : a t h u n d e r ­
s t o r m a n d the r u b b i n g together o f branches.
T w o t h i n g s d i s t i n g u i s h t h e discoveries o f Stage 3 f r o m those o f t h e p r e ­
c e d i n g one. Stage 2 m a y be s a i d t o r e p r e s e n t the most elementary, O r
" t r i a l a n d e r r o r " , phase i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t e c h n i q u e s for s u r v i v a l . T h e
caves, t h i c k e t s , a n d h o l l o w trees m e n t i o n e d b y T z e t z e s a n d P o s i d o n i u s w e r e
p r e s u m a b l y places u p o n w h i c h m e n s t u m b l e d b y c h a n c e as t h e y w a n d e r e d
i n s e a r c h o f f o o d , o r i n w h i c h t h e y w e r e f o r c e d t o t a k e refuge as t h e y fled
f r o m t h e w i l d beasts o r t h e e l e m e n t s (cf. coacti i n L u c r e t i u s 2 A a n d την
ανάγκην σχόντες δώάσκαλον i n t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g passage f r o m T z e t z e s ) . A
l o n g process o f t r i a l a n d e r r o r (cf., i n 2 B , T z e t z e s ' μόλις γνωρίσαντες and
D i o d o r u s ' κ α τ ' ολίγον υπό της πείρας διδασκόμενους) taught them which
f r u i t s w e r e c a p a b l e o f p r e s e r v a t i o n . F o r these a c h i e v e m e n t s m e m o r y is r e a l l y
t h e o n l y m e n t a l f a c u l t y r e q u i r e d . N e i t h e r its a p p l i c a t i o n n o r t h e results o f
its a p p l i c a t i o n serve t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e m a n ' s life g r e a t l y f r o m t h a t o f t h e
animals. 9

W i t h Stage 3, h o w e v e r , t h e m e n t a l a c t i v i t y becomes m o r e c o m p l i c a t e d .
I n t h e fire episode m a n ceases t o be a m e r e user o f w h a t n a t u r e p r o v i d e s .
H i s i n i t i a l r e a c t i o n s are s i m p l y those o f c u r i o s i t y a n d pleasure a t t h e w a r m t h
w h i c h h e e x p e r i e n c e s ; e v e n t u a l l y , h o w e v e r , he m u s t get t h e i d e a o f a d d i n g
f u e l t o s u s t a i n t h e b l a z e a n d use his h a n d s t o d o so. N a t u r e has p r o v i d e d t h e
o p p o r t u n i t y , b u t m a n m u s t h a v e t h e prometheia t o t a k e t h e c o n s t r u c t i v e steps
necessary t o see t h a t t h e o p p o r t u n i t y does n o t slip b y . A c t u a l r e c r e a t i o n o f a
n a t u r a l p h e n o m e n o n r a t h e r t h a n , as h e r e , its m e r e p r e s e r v a t i o n , a c c o u n t s
f o r t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f houses ( 3 A ) . I n p r o d u c i n g t h e l a t t e r , m e n e i t h e r r e ­
p r o d u c e w h a t t h e y h a v e o b s e r v e d , as w h e n t h e y d i g n e w caves; o r else, as i n
t h e i r i m i t a t i o n o f t h e nests o f b i r d s , d e r i v e suggestions f r o m n a t u r e , w h i c h
t h e y t h e n use i n c r e a t i n g s o m e t h i n g w h i c h is a n a l o g o u s t o , t h o u g h n o t a n
e x a c t c o p y of, w h a t has b e e n o b s e r v e d .
T h e s e c o n d d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n Stages 2 a n d 3 is t h a t t h e d e v e l o p m e n t is
n o w c o n c e i v e d w i t h i n a social m e d i u m . Stage 4 , t h o u g h i t has, f o r t h e sake
o f c l a r i t y , been separated f r o m t h e p r e c e d i n g o n e i n o u r t a b l e , describes
events w h i c h o c c u r a t t h e same t i m e as, a n d are i n f a c t i n t e r w o v e n w i t h ,
those o f Stage 3.

4. ( A ) Formation of the first societies; (B) the origin of language; (G) effects of compe­
tition and emulation on the growth of the useful arts.

8
Cf. Vitruvius' phrase (33.14) vetere more ut ferae.
 A P A T T E R N OF PREHISTORY 33
VlTRUVIUS ϋιοϋοκυβ LUCRETIUS

(A) ergo cum propter ignis (Α) και πολεμουμένους μεν υπό (A) [Once fire and the com­
inventionem conventus initio των θηρίων άλλήλοις βοηθεΐν forts of family life had effected
apud homines et concilium et υπό τον συμφέροντος διδασκό­ a softening of man's nature]
convictus esset natus et in unum μενους, αθροιζόμενους δε δια
locum plures convenirent. . . . τον φόβον έπιγινωσκειν έκ τον
(33-28-34.2) κατά μικρόν τους αλλήλων
τύπους. (ι.8.2)
θειναι δε φασι και νόμους την tunc et amicitiem coeperunt
"Ισιν, καθ' ους άλλήλοις διδοναι iungere aventes / finitimi
τους ανθρώπους τό δίκαιον και inter sc nec laedere nec
. . . ύβρεως παύσασθαι δια τον violari. ( 5 . 1 0 1 9 - 2 0 )
από τιμωρίας φόβον. ( ι . Ι 4 · 3 )
(Β) τής φωνής δ' άσημου και
(B) in eo hominum congressu (B) at varios linguae sonitus
συγκεχυμένης ούσης, εκ του
cum profundebantur aliter e 10
natura subegit / mittere, et
κατ ολίγον διαρθροϋν τάς λέξ­ utilitas expressit nomina
spiritu voces quotidiana con-
suetudine vocabula ut obti- εις, και προς αλλήλους τιϋέν- rerum. ( 5 . 1 0 2 8 - 2 9 ) ' 2

11
gerant constituerunt. deinde τας σύμβολα περι εκάστου των
significando res saepius in usu υποκειμένων γνώριμον σφίσιν
ex eventu fari fortuito co- αύτοΐς ποιήσαι την περι απάν­
eperunt, et ita sermones inter των έρμηνείαν. (1.8.3)
se procreaverunt. ( 3 3 . 2 4 - 2 8 )

(C) observantes aliena tecta et (G) προτιμάσθαι δε παρα τω (C) inque dies magis hi victum
adicientes suis cogitationibus Όσίριδι . . . τούς τάς τέχνας vitamque priorem / com-
res novas efficiebant in dies ανευρίσκοντας ή μεθοδεύοντας mutare novis monstrabant re­
meliora genera casarum . . . τι των χρησίμων" διόπερ . . . την bus et igni / ingenio qui
quotidie inventionibus glori- γήν εργαζομένους φιλοτίμως praestabant et corde vigebant./
antes alius alii ostendebant έξημερώααι την χώραν. condere coeperunt urbes . . . /
aedificiorum effectus et ita 1
ί ·'5-4-5) . . . reges . . . / et pecus atque
exercentes ingenia certationi- agros divisere atque dedere /
bus in dies melioribus iudiciis pro facie cuiusque et viribus
efficiebantur. ( 3 4 . 1 2 - 1 4 ) ingenioque. (5.1105—12)

1 0
So the mss., though aliter in the sense required ("in different ways") is scarcely attested (see
C. A. R . Sanborn, " A n Emendation of Vitruvius," HSCP 20 [1909] 1 6 7 - 6 8 ) . O f proposed emenda­
tions (see Spoerri, 141, note 131) Krohn's aliter atque aliter is probably the most satisfactory. I suspect,
however, that Vitruvius wrote illiteratae, which makes better sense with e spiritu. Illiteratae voces
(standing for αγράμματοι ψόφοι which Vitruvius would have found in his Greek original—cf.
Aristotle, De intr. 2.16A29) are those which cannot be transcribed, i.e. inarticulate. They are mere
explosions of breath (hence e spiritu) which have not been subjected to the articulating action of the
tongue (cf. diarthroun in the passage of Diodorus which corresponds to the following stage in
Vitruvius' account and, in Cicero, ND 2.149, lingua . . . vocem immoderate profusam fingit et terminal).
Illiteratae appears in the grammarians to describe interjections or animal cries (Priscian, Inst. 1.1-2
and 15.41; Boethius, Herm. pr. 1.2, p. 50.11 Meiser; Herm. sec. 1.2, p. 6 0 . 2 5 ) . Though attested only
in late authors, the word could well have appeared at an earlier date in a passage translated directly
from the Greek. I f this emendation is correct, Vitruvius' illiteratae voces profundebantur exactly parallels
φωνής άσημου και συγκεχυμένης ούσης in Diodorus.
1 1
With vocabula ut obtigerant constituerunt compare, in the sentence which immediately follows in
Diodorus, ώς έτυχε αυνταξάντων τάς λέξεις (1.8.4)·
1 2
Lucretius' account of the origin of language is basically different from those which appear in
Diodorus and Vitruvius (see below, pp. 6 1 - 6 2 ) . It is included, however, at a corresponding point
in his narrative of the origin of culture—hence may be legitimately listed as a parallel passage.
 34 DEMOGRITUS AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K ANTHROPOLOGY

O u r texts g i v e d i f f e r e n t reasons f o r t h e i n i t i a l f o r m a t i o n o f society a n d

p l a c e i t a t s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t p o i n t s i n t h e i r n a r r a t i v e s . F o r D i o d o r u s , social
a g g r e g a t i o n s arise t o p r o v i d e p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e w i l d a n i m a l s , a n d t h e
chronological relationship b e t w e e n this event a n d the technological de-
velopments w h i c h h e describes is n o t m a d e c l e a r . 1 3
V i t r u v i u s makes the
n u c l e u s o f t h e first s o c i e t y t h e observers a n d users o f t h e first fire. I n L u c r e t i u s ,
fire, c l o t h i n g , a n d f a m i l y life produce a softening o f man's disposition w h i c h
m a k e s h i m m o r e i n c l i n e d t o w a r d f r i e n d s h i p w i t h h i s fellows (5.1011-18).
S u c h differences a r e n o t as s i g n i f i c a n t as t h e y m i g h t a t first seem. I t w i l l be
shown later t h a t the views o f Diodorus a n d Vitruvius o n the origin of
society are n o t , perhaps, i n c o m p a t i b l e (below, p p . 6 5 - 6 6 ) . M o r e o v e r , t h o u g h
t h e t h e o r y p u t f o r w a r d b y L u c r e t i u s is n o t p e c u l i a r t o h i s school (cf. t h e
p a r a l l e l passage i n T z e t z e s c i t e d a b o v e ( p p . 2 1 - 2 2 ) , i t is closely c o n n e c t e d w i t h
o t h e r features i n h i s p r e s e n t a t i o n w h i c h d o seem t o b e t y p i c a l l y , i f n o t ex-
c l u s i v e l y , E p i c u r e a n . T h e p r o m i n e n t p o s i t i o n i t occupies m a y , t h e r e f o r e , be
t h e r e s u l t o f E p i c u r e a n m o d i f i c a t i o n s i n t r o d u c e d i n t o a source w h o s e m a i n
a r g u m e n t is f o l l o w e d m o r e f a i t h f u l l y b y D i o d o r u s a n d V i t r u v i u s (see b e l o w ,
p p . 7 8 - 7 9 ) . E v e n a t t h e p r e s e n t p o i n t i n o u r discussion i t s h o u l d b e clear
t h a t t h e differences b e t w e e n o u r t h r e e a c c o u n t s a r e less i m p o r t a n t t h a n t h e i r
c o m m o n t e n d e n c y t o c o n n e c t t h e t e c h n o l o g i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t s o f Stage 3 w i t h
t h e social ones o f Stage 4 . H e p h a e s t u s a n d t h e a n o n y m o u s i n v e n t o r s o f 3 C
assemble t h e i r fellows t o observe t h e i r d i s c o v e r y ; a r c h i t e c t u r e advances
through imitation a n d emulation among a n u m b e r o f builders ( 4 C ) ; a n d
O s i r i s , i n t h e E g y p t i a n c o u n t e r p a r t t o t h i s episode, establishes r e w a r d s f o r
inventors. 1 4
Since e m u l a t i o n i n b r i n g i n g m o r e t e r r i t o r y u n d e r c u l t i v a t i o n
results f r o m O s i r i s ' p o l i c y , i t is n a t u r a l t o assume t h a t some o f these r e w a r d s
took the f o r m o f grants o f l a n d ; 1 5
a n d t h i s is c o n f i r m e d b y t h e p a r a l l e l i n
L u c r e t i u s 5 . 1 1 1 1 . Ingenium ( a l o n g with fades a n d vires) receives agros as its
reward i n p r i m i t i v e society—presumably t h e same ingenium t h a t is d a i l y

1 3
T h e entire arrangement of Diodorus 1.8 is peculiar, the result, probably, of the original inclu-
sion of the material which now appears there in an Aegyptiaca. See Appendix I , pp. 187-92.
1 4
Seneca, Ep. 9 0 . 4 0 , which is sometimes adduced in this connection (Spoerri, 141, note 3 0 ;
Blankert, Seneca ep. 9 0 , pp. 76 and 95) characterizes the golden age as a period when quicquid natura
protulerat, id non minus inuenisse quam inventum alteri monstrasse voluptas erat. T h e passage is not based on
Posidonius, and the parallel with Vitruvius is not, at any rate, very close. T h e latter's account makes
inventa the products of human devising rather than undiscovered aspects of nature's bounty; and
intense competition rather than communistic sharing characterizes their coming into being (con-
trast inter Concordes dividebatur in 9 0 . 4 0 with ingenia exercentes certationibus in Vitruvius). Closer to
Vitruvius are Petronius 8 8 . 2 : priscis . . . temporibus cum . . . summum . . . certamen inter homines erat ne
quid profuturum saeculis diu lateret, and Manilius 1 . 8 3 - 8 4 : quodcumque sagax temptando repperit usus / in
commune bonum commentum . . . dederunt—though the motivation they envision is still a basically dis-
interested one.
1 5
I n the closely related account of Leo (see below, pp. 3 8 - 3 9 ) Osiris bestows an ager on the dis-
coverer of wool (FGrH 65gF9a).
 A P A T T E R N OF P R E H I S T O R Y 35

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

it.
T h a t t h e g r o w t h o f t e c h n o l o g y s h o u l d be p l a c e d i n a social c o n t e x t at t h i s
p o i n t is n o t a r b i t r a r y : t h e d e v e l o p m e n t s d e s c r i b e d are s u c h as are n o t l i k e l y
t o o c c u r so l o n g as m a n lives i n a n i s o l a t e d o r u n o r g a n i z e d c o n d i t i o n . F i r e
requires constant tendance, hence c a n n o t exist w i t h o u t at least a rudi-
m e n t a r y d i v i s i o n o f l a b o r . Houses a n d g a r m e n t s a n d t h e use o f g r a i n c o u l d
arise i n i s o l a t i o n , b u t since t h e i r d e v i s i n g r e q u i r e s some l u c k o r i n g e n u i t y
e v e r y o n e is n o t l i k e l y t o h i t u p o n t h e m o n his o w n . T h e y w i l l b e c o m e p r e -
v a l e n t o n l y w h e n t h e i n v e n t o r ' s i d e a c a n be easily i m i t a t e d o r r e p o r t e d i n
speech, a n d w h e n i m p r o v e m e n t s c a n take place t h r o u g h the p o o l i n g o f a
n u m b e r o f talents. I n Posidonius these f i r s t i n v e n t o r s a p p e a r as a special
class o f p h i l o s o p h e r s w h o g u i d e m a n k i n d i n its progress t o w a r d c i v i l i z a t i o n .
T h e o r i e n t a t i o n o f his a c c o u n t , w h i c h does n o t seek to g i v e a g e n e r a l h i s t o r y
o f t h e r a c e b u t m e r e l y t o t e l l o f p h i l o s o p h y ' s services t o i t , p r o b a b l y explains
his o m i s s i o n o f Stage i . P h i l o s o p h e r s are n o t n e e d e d t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e t r a n -
s i t i o n f r o m t h a t stage t o t h e f o l l o w i n g o n e ; h e n c e t h e t r a n s i t i o n a n d what
precedes i t l i e o u t s i d e t h e scope o f P o s i d o n i u s ' n a r r a t i v e . S i m i l a r considera-
tions e x p l a i n t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g omissions f r o m V i t r u v i u s , w h o is d e s c r i b i n g ,
n o t a l l o f p r e h i s t o r y , b u t o n l y a specific p o r t i o n o f i t , b e g i n n i n g w i t h t h e
social stage o f m a n ' s development.
T h e sapientes o f P o s i d o n i u s b e a r a c e r t a i n r e s e m b l a n c e b o t h t o t h e i n d i -
v i d u a l i n v e n t o r s m e n t i o n e d b y D i o d o r u s a n d V i t r u v i u s a n d t o those ingenio
qui praestabant et corde vigebant, t o w h o m L u c r e t i u s assigns a p r o m i n e n t r o l e i n
the d e v e l o p m e n t of technology. B u t t h e r e s e m b l a n c e s h o u l d n o t be o v e r -
e m p h a s i z e d . I n d i v i d u a l i n v e n t o r s , t h o u g h t h e i r discoveries are t a k e n o v e r
a n d i m i t a t e d b y o t h e r s , d o n o t f o r m a separate class. T h e i n v e n t o r o f one
d a y w o u l d be t h e passive o b s e r v e r o f t h e n e x t , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e v a g a r i e s o f
a c c i d e n t a n d suggestion. A n d t h o u g h t h e n u m b e r o f m e n o f surpassing
ingenium a t a n y g i v e n t i m e m i g h t be s m a l l i n c o m p a r i s o n w i t h t h e t o t a l
p o p u l a t i o n , these m e n w o u l d n o t f o r m a closed c o r p o r a t i o n w i t h access t o a
c o n t i n u o u s a n d u n i v e r s a l f l o w o f i n s p i r a t i o n . T h e r e is t h u s n o r e a s o n t o
abandon o u r e a r l i e r c o n t e n t i o n ( a b o v e , p p . 1 8 - 1 9 ) t h a t t h e sapientes rep-
resent a m o d i f i c a t i o n i n t r o d u c e d b y P o s i d o n i u s h i m s e l f i n t o a t r a d i t i o n w h i c h
was o r i g i n a l l y w i t h o u t t h e m .
This conclusion is, i n f a c t , confirmed by a further contrast between
Posidonius a n d t h e a u t h o r s w h o s e a c c o u n t s are r e p r o d u c e d u n d e r h e a d i n g s
4 A , B, a n d C. N e i t h e r T z e t z e s n o r P o s i d o n i u s describes t h e o r i g i n o f society
for the s i m p l e r e a s o n t h a t , i n t h e i r v i e w , society's b e g i n n i n g s are c o e v a l w i t h
those o f t h e r a c e . T z e t z e s (VS I I 137.41-42) describes p r i m i t i v e m e n ' s
m u t u a l defense a g a i n s t t h e w i l d beasts i n t e r m i n o l o g y w h i c h m a y be b o r -
 36 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

r o w e d f r o m D i o d o r u s . U n l i k e D i o d o r u s , h o w e v e r , h e views this defense, n o t

as s o m e t h i n g t o w h i c h m e n r e s o r t u n d e r t h e pressure o f necessity, b u t as a n
e x p r e s s i o n o f t h e philallelia w h i c h w a s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e race e v e n i n t h e
earliest phases o f its existence. S i m i l a r l y , P o s i d o n i u s sees i n t h e primi mortalium
men w h o naturam incorruptam sequebantur (90.4)—hence displayed f r o m the
outset a w i l l i n g s u b m i s s i o n t o t h e r u l e o f t h e b e t t e r , i . e . t h e sapientes, i n t h e i r
midst. 1 6
I t is j u s t possible t h a t t h i s n o t i o n o f p r e h i s t o r y , w h i c h removes t h e
social aspect o f m a n ' s existence f r o m a n e v o l u t i o n a r y p e r s p e c t i v e , is t h e
o r i g i n a l one i n the t r a d i t i o n w e are e x a m i n i n g , a n d t h a t the extension o f this
perspective t o i n c l u d e society—an extension w h i c h appears i n D i o d o r u s ,
V i t r u v i u s , a n d L u c r e t i u s — i s a l a t e r d e v e l o p m e n t . B u t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y m u s t be
c o n s i d e r e d a v e r y r e m o t e o n e . F o r i t is h a r d t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e i n t i m a t e
r e l a t i o n s h i p w h i c h exists b e t w e e n t h e t e c h n o l o g i c a l a n d s o c i o l o g i c a l aspects
o f t h e n a r r a t i v e s o f D i o d o r u s , V i t r u v i u s , a n d L u c r e t i u s is t h e r e s u l t o f r e ­
visions i n t r o d u c e d i n t o a t h e o r y w h i c h w a s o r i g i n a l l y c o n c e r n e d o n l y w i t h
the d e v e l o p m e n t o f t e c h n o l o g y . F o r P o s i d o n i u s , i t is t h e presence o f t h e
sapientes a n d , f o r T z e t z e s , t h e a s s u m p t i o n o f p r i m i t i v e philallelia w h i c h makes
possible t h e e l i m i n a t i o n o f s o c i o l o g i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s ; a n d b y t h i s t o k e n
b o t h m o t i f s are r e v e a l e d as f o r e i g n t o t h e o r i g i n a l f o r m o f t h e t h e o r y w h i c h
o u r texts are f o l l o w i n g . 1 7

5. ( A ) Further development of technology made possible by the discovery of fire: (B)

mining and metallurgy, producing tools which are used in the development or improvement of
(C) warfare, ( D ) weaving, and (E) agriculture; (F) cumulative character of the process.

LUCRETIUS TZETZES

(Α) γνωσθεντος δε τον πυρός ( A ) inque dies magis hi vic'tum (Α) επει δέ προμηθέατεροι

και τών άλλων των χρήσιμων, vitamque priorem / commu- γεγονότες και προβουλευτικώ-
κατά μικρόν και τάς τέχνας tare novis monstrabant rebus τεροι το πυρ εφεΰρον . . . και
εΰρεθήναι και τάλλα τά δυνά­ et igni / ingenio qui praesta- τήν του βίου εκείνου μετέ-
μενα τον βιον ώφελήσαι. (1.8.8) bant et corde vigebant. στρεφαν διαγαιγήν. (138.8—ίο)
(5.1105-7)

1 6
Posidonius' praise of philosophy as the force which sparsos et cavis casts tectos . . . docuit tecta
moliri (90.7) suggests that he associated the sapientes with the founding of cities, hence with the
creation of society in its higher phases. H e may even have been influenced in some degree by the
other tradition, found in Cicero and the euhemerizers (see below, Chap. V I , note 2 3 ) , which made
certain outstanding individuals responsible for ending a completely savage and cannibalistic state
of nature. But such influence, if present, does not affect substantially the tone of his account or the
character of the early men there described: alti spiritus . . . et. . . adis recentes ( 9 0 . 4 4 ; on the probable
Posidonian origin of this phrase, see Nock, J R S 4 9 . 7 ) .
1 7
T h e distinction, present in Stages 2 and 3, between inventions which originate in one individual
and those which are the common achievement of the race was probably the starting point both for
the Posidonian innovation of the sapientes and for Diodorus' (or his source's) introduction of
Egyptian gods.

DlODORUS
( Β ) εν τη Θηβαίοι χαλκουργείων
ευρεθέντων και χρυσείων,
(C) οπλα τε κατασκευάσασθαι
δι ών τα. θηρία κτείνοντας
(Ε) και τήν γήν εργαζομένους
φιλοτίμως έξημερώσαι την χω­
ράν. (ι.Ι5·5)
A PATTERN OF PREHISTORY 37
LUCRETIUS POSIDONIUS
( Β ) quod superest aes atque (B) in hoc quoque dissentio
aurum ferrumque repertumst / sapientes fuisse qui ferri metalla
. . . / ignis ubi ingentis silvas et aens invenerint cum tn-
ardore cremarat / . · · flam- cendio silvarum adusta tellus
mem ardor / . . . terram per- in summo venas iacentes lique-
coxerat igni, / manabat venis factas fudisset. (90.12)
ferventibus in loca terrae /
concava conveniens argenti
rivus et auri, / aeris item et
plumbi. quae cum concreta
videbant / posterius claro
interea splendere colore /
tollebant nitido capti levique
lepore / et simili formata vide­
bant esse figura / atque lacu-
narum fuerant vestigia cuique. /
turn penetrabat eos posse haec
liquefacta calore / quamlibet
in formam et faciem decurrere
rerum, / et prorsum quamvis
in illo quoque dissentio a
in acuta ac tenvia posse /
Posidonio quod ferramenta
mucronum duci fastigia pro-
fabrilia excogitata a sapienti-
cudendo. (5.1241-65)
bus viris iudicat. (go. 11)
(C) arma antiqua manus
ungues dentesque fuerunt / et
lapides et item silvarum frag-
mina rami / et flamma atque
igncs postquam sunt cognita
primum. / posterius ferri vis
est aerisque reperta.
(5.1283-86)
(D) nexilis ante fuit vestis (D) Posidonius . . . textrini
quam textile tegmen. / textile quoque artem a sapientibus
post ferrumst quia ferro tela dixit inventam. . . .
parantur / nec ratione alia
possunt tam levia gigni / in-
silia ac fusi radii scapique
sonantes. ( 5 . 1 3 5 0 - 5 3 )
(E) at specimen sationis et (E) transit deinde ad agricolas
insitionis origo / ipsa fuit rerum nec minus facunde describit
primum natura creatrix, / proscissum aratro solum . . .
arboribus quoniam bacae hoc quoque opus ait esse
glandesque caducae / tempes- sapientium. (90.20—21)
tiva dabant pullorum examina
subter; / unde etiam libitumst
stirpis committere ramis / et
nova defodere in terram vir-
gulta per agros. (5.1361—66)
38 D E M O C R I T U S AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

VITRUVIUS LUCRETIUS

(F) turn autem instruentes (F) alid ex alio clarescere corde

animo se et prospicientes videbant / artibus ad summum
maioribus cogitationibus ex donee venere cacumen.
varietate artium natis non casas (5.1456-57)
sed etiam domos . . . perficere
coeperunt. ( 3 6 . 8 - 1 2 )

T h e p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n t h e passages i n w h i c h Tzetzes a n d L u c r e t i u s m e n ­
t i o n t h e effect o f f i r e o n m a n ' s w a y o f life h a v e a l r e a d y b e e n n o t e d ( a b o v e ,
p . 2 2 ) . T h e p o r t i o n o f D i o d o r u s p r i n t e d u n d e r A does n o t r e c a l l t h e p h r a ­
seology used b y t h e o t h e r t w o w r i t e r s , b u t i t presents a n i d e n t i c a l i d e a . A n d
t h o u g h t h e r e is n o t h i n g i n P o s i d o n i u s o n t h e i n i t i a l d i s c o v e r y o f f i r e , t h e
s m e l t i n g o f m e t a l s a n d f a s h i o n i n g o f tools d e s c r i b e d i n Β i n his a c c o u n t w o u l d
obviously be impossible w i t h o u t i t .
W e a v i n g ( D ) f o l l o w s t h e d i s c o v e r y o f m e t a l because, as L u c r e t i u s notes,
i t is i m p o s s i b l e w i t h o u t t h e use o f i r o n tools. A g r i c u l t u r e , t h o u g h its b e g i n ­
n i n g s m a y go b a c k t o t h e d i s c o v e r y o f g r a i n ( 3 D ) , 1 8
is g r e a t l y a d v a n c e d b y
the use o f m e t a l s — h e n c e its m e n t i o n a t t h i s p o i n t . T h e p l o w ( P o s i d o n i u s ) , 1 9

the g r a f t i n g o f trees ( L u c r e t i u s ) , a n d t h e e x t e n s i o n o f t h e l a n d u n d e r c u l t i v a ­
t i o n ( D i o d o r u s a n d L u c r e t i u s ) are a l l e x a m p l e s o f such a d v a n c e s . 2 0
Both
Diodorus a n d Lucretius note the connection, although Lucretius mentions
i t i n his passage o n m e t a l l u r g y r a t h e r t h a n i n t h e s e c t i o n d e v o t e d s p e c i f i c a l l y
to a g r i c u l t u r e . 2 1
A l s o c o m m o n t o b o t h w r i t e r s is a n i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e i m ­
plications o f the discovery o f metals for warfare ( C ) . L u c r e t i u s includes here,
a n d D i o d o r u s i n a subsequent passage, 22
a b r i e f description o f earlier methods
o f f i g h t i n g . T h i s i t e m c o u l d go e q u a l l y w e l l a t a n e a r l i e r stage a n d is, i n f a c t ,
f o u n d there i n Tzetzes. 2 3
T h e discrepancies here are r a t h e r m i n o r , suggesting
individual modifications introduced into a c o m m o n tradition.
O n e a d d i t i o n a l text s h o u l d be i n c l u d e d at this p o i n t . T h e priest Leo's
1 8
Although Diodorus does not mention farming explicitly in 3 D , the passage in 1.14 which ex­
plains the custom of offering first fruits at harvest time as a survival of honors first paid to Isis as the
discoverer of grain suggests that it was among the beneficia which she conferred on the race.
And possibly the source followed by Diodorus. Cf. Tibullus, 1.7.29 and Philostephanus ap.
1 8

Servius ad Georg. 1.19 ( = Fr. 28 Miiller), where Osiris is made the discoverer of the plow.
2 0
Agriculture, like weaving, is not mentioned explicitly by Lucretius until a fairly complex
stage in its development has been reached. I n his source more may have been said about the ante­
cedent phases: see the passage from Diogenes of Oenoanda discussed below, p. 56.
2 1
1287—95: et prior aeris erat quam ferri cognitus usus. I . . . I aere solum terrae tractabant
aereque belli / miscebant fluctus et vulnera vasta serebant./ . . . / inde minutatim processit ferreus
ensis / versaque in opprobrium species est falcis ahenae / et ferro coepere solum proscindere terrae.
2 2
1.24.3: διά τό κατ* εκείνους τους χρόνους μήπω των όπλων εύρημένων τους ανθρώπους τοις μεν
ξυλοις άμύνεσθαι τοις άντιταττομένοις, ταΐς δε δοραΐς τών θηρίων σκεπαστηρίοις δπλοις χρήσθαι. On
the context in which this passage appears—Diodorus' account of the Greek and Egyptian H e r a c l e s -
see belowj pp. 4 4 - 4 5 .
2 3
137.41—2: καϊ άλλήλοις κατά θηρίων προσεβοήθουν και συνεμάχοντο γυμνοί γνμναϊς ταις χερσί.
 A P A T T E R N OF PREHISTORY 39

a c c o u n t o f t h e b e g i n n i n g s o f w e a v i n g has a l r e a d y b e e n m e n t i o n e d ( a b o v e ,
p . 20) as c o m p l e t i n g t h e " E g y p t i a n " p a r a l l e l s t o t h e sequence o f d e v e l o p m e n t
presented i n L u c r e t i u s 5.1105-1366. T w o authors, H y g i n u s a n d T e r t u l l i a n ,
preserve a r e c o r d o f L e o ' s a c c o u n t :

c u m L i b e r A e g y p t u m . . . regno teneret et o m n i a p r i m u s h o m i n i b u s
ostendisse diceretur, H a m m o n q u e n d a m ex A f r i c a venisse et pecoris m u l t i -
t u d i n e m ad L i b e r u m adduxisse quo facilius et eius gratia u t e r e t u r et a l i q u i d
p r i m u s invenisse diceretur. . . . ( H y g i n u s , Astron. 2 . 2 0 )
[ I n the t i m e o f Osiris] ad i l i u m ex L i b y a H a m m o n fecit o v i u m dives. . . .
denique M e r c u r i u m a u t u m a n t forte p a l p a t i arietis m o l l i t i e delectatum de-
glubasse o v i c u l a m , d u m q u e p e r t e m p t a t et ( q u o d facilitas materiae suadebat)
t r a c t u prosequente f i l u m e l i q u a t 24
i n p r i s t i n i retis m o d u m q u e m p h i l y r a e
taeniis i u n x e r a t texuisse. ( T e r t u l l i a n , De pallio 3)

T h e p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n these passages a n d those w e h a v e b e e n c o n s i d e r i n g —

especially those g i v e n u n d e r h e a d i n g s 3 C , 4 C , and 5B—could hardly be
closer. H e r e , as i n D i o d o r u s ( 4 C ) , t h e b a c k g r o u n d f o r d i s c o v e r y is O s i r i s '
institution o f rewards for inventors (cf. quo facilius eius gratia uteretur i n
H y g i n u s ) ; a n d t h e process o f d i s c o v e r y is e x a c t l y t h a t w h i c h l e d e a r l i e r t o
fire a n d m e t a l tools. A c h a n c e o c c u r r e n c e (cf. forte palpati arietis i n T e r t u l l i a n )
is f o l l o w e d b y p l e a s u r e (mollitie delectatum—cf. the pleasure at the fire i n
Diodorus [ 3 G ] a n d capti lepore i n L u c r e t i u s [ 5 B ] ) , a n d w h i l e a t t e n t i o n is
o c c u p i e d i n t h i s f a s h i o n t h e useful a p p l i c a t i o n suggests itself. L i k e t h e o b -
servers o f t h e nests o f b i r d s i n V i t r u v i u s ( 3 A ) , M e r c u r y is h e l p e d i n t h e last
stage o f t h e process b y h a v i n g a m o d e l r e a d y a t h a n d : t h e strands o f w o o l are
w o v e n t o g e t h e r i n i m i t a t i o n o f a n e t o f taeniae. T h i s is s t i l l nexile r a t h e r t h a n
textile tegmen (cf. L u c r e t i u s [ 5 D ] ) ; p e r h a p s t h e t r a n s i t i o n t o t h e l a t t e r c a m e
later i n Leo's account. 2 5

A l t h o u g h t h e technologies w h i c h a p p e a r i n t h i s stage are f a i r l y complex,

t h e process l e a d i n g t o t h e i r d i s c o v e r y is essentially s i m i l a r t o t h a t e n v i s i o n e d
i n Stage 3 : o b s e r v a t i o n a n d d i r e c t i m i t a t i o n o f n a t u r e , c o m b i n e d i n some
instances w i t h the application of suggestions received from nature to
s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t c o n t e x t s . F r o m t h e pools o f m o l t e n m e t a l w h i c h t a k e t h e
shape o f t h e g r o u n d o v e r w h i c h t h e y f l o w to t h e m e t a l tools t h e y suggest
(5B) is p e r h a p s a g r e a t e r l e a p o f t h e i m a g i n a t i o n t h a n a n y t h i n g r e q u i r e d i n
Stage 3, b u t t h e d i f f e r e n c e is one o f degree r a t h e r t h a n k i n d . T h e greater
a c h i e v e m e n t s o f Stage 5 d o n o t c o m e f r o m t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f i n t e l l e c t u a l
p o w e r s o f a h i g h e r o r d e r . T h e y are s i m p l y t h e r e s u l t o f t h e phenomenon
m e n t i o n e d b y L u c r e t i u s a n d V i t r u v i u s i n 5 F : o n e t h i n g leads t o anpr|ie^v£ 5 ,
(alid ex alio clarescere corde videbant) so t h a t , as t e c h n o l o g y becomes mqjJe^Bm
2 4
So the mss. and editors, though elicit would seem to be the obvious and necessarv/a^e/itiojQ^cjj'jtut
2 6
For the Egyptians as inventors of weaving, see Ephorus FGrH 7 0 F 5 ; Pliny, JVH yh^Sk I j
II *U [
40 DEMOCRITUS 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 l i c a t e d , t h e r a n g e a n d n u m b e r o f s i t u a t i o n s o u t o f w h i c h suggestions f o r n e w
i n v e n t i o n s arise is v a s t l y i n c r e a s e d . Maiores cogitationes are i n v o l v e d ; b u t t h e y
are, as V i t r u v i u s m a k e s c l e a r , t h e r e s u l t , n o t t h e cause, o f a v a s t l y increased
varietas artium. 26

6. Summary of the factors involved in the growth of the useful arts: accumulated experience
and man's natural endowments: hands, intelligence, rational speech.

LUCRETIUS

usus et impigrae semel experientia mentis

paulatim docuit pedetemptim progredientis.
sic unumquicquid paulatim protrahit aetas
in medium ratioque in luminis erigit oras. ( 5 . 1 4 5 2 - 5 5 )

VITRUVIUS ϋΐΟ-ΒΟ^υ^ TZETZES

[Men came together] habentes καθόλου γαρ -πάντων την χρ€ίαν [Pandora stands for] ή πάντα
ab natura praemium praeter αυτήν διδάσκαλον γενέσθαι τοις δωρουμένη τω βία) συναγωγή
reliqua animalia ut non proni άνθρώποις, ύφηγουμενην οΐ- των τεχνών ή ή εκ πάντων τών
sed erecti ambularent mun- κείως τήν εκάστου μάθησιν εύ- θεών και τών φυχικών δυ­
dique et astrorum magnifi- φυεϊ ζώω και συνεργούς έχοντι νάμεων . . . συγκεκραμένη και
centiam aspicerent, item προς άπαντα χείρας δώρα λαβοΰσα, εκ μεν γάρ πυρός
manibus et articulis quam ' Ηφαίστου τα υλικά και ορ­
vellent rem faciliter tractarent. γανικά, εκ δε της φρονήσεως
(34-2-6) *Αθηνάς το κατασκευαστικόν
cum ergo natura non solum και άγχίνουν . . . τό δ' αναιδές
sensibus ornavissent gentes και δραστήριον .. . εκ του Ερμού
quemadmodum reliqua ani­ και λόγον και φυχής άγχίνοιαν. . .. τοΰ προφορικού λόγου.
malia sed etiam cogitationibus (i.S.i) (79- 3~1 21
Gaisford)
et consiliis. et subiecisset cetera
animalia sub potestate . . . e
fera agrestique vitam ad man-
suetam perduxerunt humani-
tatem. ( 3 6 . 1 - 8 )

A s u m m a r y o f this sort c o u l d come a t almost a n y p o i n t i n a n account o f

the d e v e l o p m e n t o f technology. D i o d o r u s a n d Tzetzes a p p e n d i t t o their
d e s c r i p t i o n s o f t h e f i r s t consequences o f the discovery o f fire; Vitruvius
separates i t i n t o t w o passages w h i c h f r a m e his a c c o u n t o f t h e d e v e l o p m e n t
o f a r c h i t e c t u r e ; L u c r e t i u s uses i t as a c o n c l u s i o n t o his e n t i r e n a r r a t i v e . S u c h
differences, h o w e v e r , a r e r e l a t i v e l y u n i m p o r t a n t . D i o d o r u s gives t h e m o s t
c o m p l e t e v e r s i o n o f a v i e w w h i c h is essentially i d e n t i c a l w i t h those o f
V i t r u v i u s a n d T z e t z e s a n d w h i c h m a y l i e b e h i n d L u c r e t i u s ' t e x t as w e l l .

2 0
With Lucretius compare Manilius 1 . 8 9 - 9 0 : turn belli pacisque artis commenta vetustas; j semper
enim ex aliis alias proseminat usus. Vitruvius' idea is more distinctive and may go back ultimately to
pre-Socratic theories of the intimate connection between what men perceive and experience and
what they think (cf., for example, Empedocles, VS 3 1 B 1 0 6 : irpos -napeöv yap prjns äc'ferai
äv9pü>7Toiaiv). Its presence, at any rate, argues strongly against the attempt to trace all or part of
Vitruvius 2.1 to Posidonius, or any other teleological source. See Appendix I I .
 A P A T T E R N OF P R E H I S T O R Y 4 I

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

pro­
vides s u i t a b l e i n s t r u c t i o n t o a c r e a t u r e " n a t u r a l l y fit f o r i t " (euphyes) a n d
h a v i n g as " c o - w o r k e r s " i n a l l t h i n g s , " h a n d s , r a t i o n a l speech (logos), and
sharpness o f m i n d (anchinoia)." T h e f u n c t i o n o f t h e c o - w o r k e r s is f a i r l y c l e a r .
H a n d s m a k e possible t h e m a n u f a c t u r e o f t o o l s ; r a t i o n a l speech enables t h e
c o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d s h a r i n g o f discoveries (cf. 4 C ) ; a n d anchinoia observes
a n d c a p i t a l i z e s u p o n those n a t u r a l processes o r a c c i d e n t s w h i c h c a n b e m a d e
to serve m a n ' s p u r p o s e s . T h e e x a c t m e a n i n g o f t h e p h r a s e ζωον ευφυές is less
c e r t a i n . A c o m p a r i s o n w i t h V i t r u v i u s , whose t e x t is q u i t e close a t t h i s p o i n t ,
suggests t h a t m a n ' s u p r i g h t s t a t u r e is t h e n a t u r a l s u i t a b i l i t y i n v o l v e d , a n d
this is p r o b a b l y t h e m o s t satisfactory i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . 2 8
I t explains better t h a n
a n y t h i n g else t h e c o n c e p t i o n o f h a n d s , sharpness o f m i n d , a n d speech as co­
w o r k e r s . F o r m a n ' s u p r i g h t s t a t u r e is w h a t frees t h e h a n d s f o r s p e c i a l i z a t i o n
as t o o l - m a k e r s a n d u s e r s ; 29
a n d b y c a u s i n g h i s gaze t o g o f o r w a r d r a t h e r t h a n
d o w n i t subjects a l a r g e r p o r t i o n o f his e n v i r o n m e n t t o t h e a c t i o n o f cogita-
tiones a n d consilia: b y v i r t u e o f his b e i n g a f o r e - l o o k e r , m a n b e c o m e s a f o r e -
t h i n k e r as w e l l . 3 0
F o r t h e same reason, speech is m a d e t o p r o c e e d f o r t h i n t h e
m a n n e r best s u i t e d t o c a t c h t h e a t t e n t i o n o f o t h e r s ; 3 1
a n d the specialization
o f h a n d s as tool-users enables t h e m o u t h t o b e used e x c l u s i v e l y f o r c o m ­
munication. 3 2

2 7
Compare usus el experientia in Lucretius; and for usus as the Latin rendering of chreia, see
Spoerri, 145, note 9 . T h e fluctuation of meaning to which the word chreia is subject (cf. Dihle,
Entretiens Hardt 8.212, note 1, and Thraede, R h M 105.167-68) is usually of minor importance in
interpreting a given piece of Kulturentstehungslehre (hence the translation, "need and use," suggested
by Havelock, 77 and 3 9 2 ) . Chreia-usus is not simply practice or application but the applying or
putting into practice of what is useful or needful (utile, chresimon); and chreia-egestas is not in and of
itself man's teacher—only the impelling force behind his continuing efforts' to find new usus for the
various components of his environment.
2 8
So Pfligersdorfer, SBWien 232, No. 5 , 138, comparing Gregory of Nyssa, Horn. opif. 8.144BC;
cf. also the mention of man's upright stature at the end of the zoogony of Johannes Catrarius (VS
68B5, p. 137.20-21), a passage which closely parallels those which both Tzetzes and Diodorus prefix
to their Kulturentslehungslehren (see above, Chap. I , note 16). Spoerri (151) suggests that tachos
matheseos or docilitas is meant, citing Ps.-Plato, Horoi 413D, where euphyia is so defined. This is
certainly the general sense required by ΰφηγουμένην οίκείως τήν έκαστου μάθησιν; but it is too close
in meaning to anchinoia (defined as euphyia psyches in Horoi 412E and listed along with mneme and
tachutes dianoias as a component of eumathia in Photius, Cod. 2 4 9 440B39—441 A 3 ) ; and it does not
explain synergous. There is no clear and precise reason for the joint effectiveness of docilitas, hands,
logos, and anchinoia, as there is for that of the latter three and upright stature.
2 9
Cf. Aristotle, Part. anim. 4 . 6 8 6 A 2 5 - 2 8 and 6 8 7 A 5 - 7 and Xenophon, Memorabilia 1.4.11. Though
not explicitly present in the latter passage, the idea seems to be implied; see Dickermann, 14.
3 0
Cf. Xenophon, Memorabilia 1 . 4 . n ; Aristotle, Part. anim. 3 . 6 6 2 B 2 0 - 2 2 ; Cicero, ND 2.140 and
the etymologies of prosopon reproduced in Dickermann, 18, note 1. Theiler (29 and 32) derives
the first two texts from Diogenes of Apollonia, citing their references to the purer air which man's
erect stature enables him to breathe (cf. VS 64A19, p. 5 6 . 1 3 - 1 4 ) .
3 1
Aristotle, Part. anim. 3 . 6 6 2 B 2 0 - 2 2 .
3 2
Cf. Gregory of Nyssa, Horn. opif. 8.144BC, 148C-49A—especially 144B: τή τοΰ λόγου χρεία
συνεργός εστί ή των χειρών υπουργία, and 1 4 4 c : συνεργεΐν φημι τάς χείρας τί) εκφωνήσει τοΰ λόγου.
42 D E M O G R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K ANTHROPOLOGY

D i o d o r u s does n o t g o b e y o n d t h e b i o l o g i c a l i d e a o f a c o o p e r a t i o n b e t w e e n
m a n ' s u p r i g h t s t a t u r e a n d h i s o t h e r q u a l i t i e s t o m a k e possible a m o r e effec­
tive utilization of b o t h . 3 3
T o this V i t r u v i u s adds a p u r e l y teleological con­
ception: m a n ' s u p r i g h t p o s i t i o n e n a b l e s h i m t o o b s e r v e mundi et astrorum
magnificentiam. The i m p l i c a t i o n is, t o j u d g e f r o m other contexts where the
i d e a o c c u r s , t h a t t h e s i g h t o f t h e s t a r r y h e a v e n s a w a k e n s m a n t o a n awareness
of a destiny higher t h a n t h a t o f the creeping and c r a w l i n g things around
him. 3 4
The discrepancy b e t w e e n D i o d o r u s a n d V i t r u v i u s is s h a r p , b u t is
p r o b a b l y d u e t o V i t r u v i u s h i m s e l f . T h e n o t e s t r u c k h e r e is a n i s o l a t e d o n e i n
his t e x t , w h i c h e l s e w h e r e shares t h e n o n - t e l e o l o g i c a l o r e v e n a n t i - t e l e o l o g i c a l
mood of Diodorus and Lucretius. 3 5
R a t h e r t h a n assume a c o n s i s t e n t d e l e t i o n
o f t e l e o l o g i c a l m a t e r i a l f r o m a l l t h r e e , o n e m u s t c o n c l u d e t h a t V i t r u v i u s has
here e x p a n d e d his source w i t h a p h i l o s o p h i c a l c o m m o n p l a c e q u i t e a l i e n t o i t .

7. ( A ) The non-essential arts, including (B) astronomy and (C) music.

VITRUVIUS

(A) postquam animadverterunt profusos esse partus naturae et abun-

dantem materiae copiam ad aedificationes ab ea comparatam, tractando
nutrierunt et auctam per artes ornaverunt voluptatibus elegantiam
vitae. ( 3 6 . 1 4 - 1 8 )
DIODORUS LUCRETIUS POSIDONIUS

(Β) περί τε TTJS των άστρων (Β) sol et luna . . . / perdo-

τάξεως cuerunt homines annorum
tempora verti / et certa r a -
tione geri rem atque ordine
certo. ( 5 . 1 4 3 7 - 3 9 )

3 3
Although most of the parallels to Diodorus cited above in notes 2 8 - 3 2 come from passages of
a definitely teleological character, it does not follow (as Pfligersdorfer, SBWien 232, No. 5, 135-42,
and Spoerri, 1 4 8 - 5 2 , maintain) that the passage itself has a teleological source. Aristotle's famous
reinterpretation of Anaxagoras' view of the importance of the human hand (VS 5 9 A 1 0 2 ) shows that
arguments of this sort could be found in a non-teleological setting and were, perhaps, first devised
for such a setting (against the attribution of teleological views to Anaxagoras, see Theiler, 1-5, and
Vlastos, PhilRev 55.53, note 3 ) . Similarly, the fragment of Anaxagoras ( F 5 5 g B 2 i b ) which speaks of
,

man's ability, through experience, memory, skill, and technique, to get honey and milk from the
animals is not itself teleological in character—although it calls attention to a fact which was to be
adduced frequently in later thought of a teleological cast as evidence for the existence of a divine
plan by which man was provided with sufficient sustenance. (For another example of competing
naturalistic and teleological use of the same material, see below, Chap. I l l , note 12.) Ούδεν χρήμα
μάτην γίνεται was a principle to which naturalists (cf. Leucippus, VS 6 7 B 2 ) as well as teleologists
subscribed; and references to man's special physical endowments would be at home in the writings
of either school. Indeed, it is hard to see how any consistent naturalistic attempt to explain the unique
character of human achievement could have dispensed with such references.
3 4
See the examples collected by Dickermann, 9 3 - 1 0 1 , S. Pantzerhielm Thomas, " T h e Prologues
of Sallust," SO 15/16 (1936) 146-51. Even this idea is not necessarily teleological. Cf. Aeschylus,
PV 4 5 4 - 5 7 , and Lucretius 5 . 1 4 3 7 - 3 9 (quoted below under 7 B ) , where observation of the heavens
is said to have given men practical information about the earthly seasons.
Against Pfligersdorfer's teleological interpretation (SBWien 2 3 2 , No. 5 , 135-42) of the im­
3 5

portant role assigned to chreia and didache in Diodorus 1.8, see Spoerri, MusHelv 1 8 . 7 4 - 7 6 ; and, for
alleged teleological elements in other portions of Vitruvius 2.1, see below, Appendix I I .
 A PATTERN OF PREHISTORY 43
DlODORUS LUCRETIUS POSIDONIUS

(G) και περι τής των φθόγγων (C) at liquidas avium voces (G) vis scire quid ilia [philo-
αρμονίας . . . τούτον [Hermes] imitarier ore / ante fuit multo sophia] eruerit? non decoros
πρώτον γενέσθαι παρατηρη- quam levi carmina cantu / motus corporis nec varios per
τήν . . . και τής ευρυθμίας και τής concelebrare homines possent tubam ac tibiam cantus quibus
περί το σώμα πρεπούσης πλάσεως aurisque iuvare. / et zephyri exceptus spiritus aut in exitu
έπιμεληθήναι. ( ι . ι 6 . ι) cava per calamorum sibila aut in transitu formatur in
primum / agrestis docuere vocem. (90.26)
cavas inflare cicutas.

(5-I379-83)

W i t h these i t e m s a n e n t i r e l y n e w phase is r e a c h e d . D i o d o r u s a n d L u c r e t i u s
agree i n m a k i n g m u s i c a n d a s t r o n o m y t h e last, o r a m o n g t h e last, o f t e c h n o ­
logies t o be d i s c o v e r e d . P o s i d o n i u s ' r e m a r k s o n m u s i c p r o b a b l y o c c u p i e d a
s i m i l a r p o s i t i o n i n his a c c o u n t o f t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f c u l t u r e . 3 6
N o n e o f these
a u t h o r s gives a n e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h i s a r r a n g e m e n t , b u t a c o m p a r i s o n w i t h
V i t r u v i u s supplies o n e . T h e l a t t e r notes t h a t , after m e n h a d o b s e r v e d that
t h e y h a d o n h a n d a n abundantem copiam f o r b u i l d i n g , t h e y p r o c e e d e d to
ornare voluptatibus a l i f e w h i c h was a l r e a d y auctam per artes. T h e sequence
artes-copiam-voluptates here applies o n l y t o t h e h i s t o r y o f a r c h i t e c t u r e , b u t i t
is p r o b a b l y t o be c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e d i s t i n c t i o n , d r a w n f i r s t b y D e m o c r i t u s
(B144) a n d m e n t i o n e d s p o r a d i c a l l y i n s u b s e q u e n t w r i t e r s , 3 7
between those
arts w h i c h h a v e t h e i r o r i g i n i n necessity a n d those w h i c h , l i k e m u s i c , arise
o n l y w h e n a c o n d i t i o n o f s u r p l u s has a r i s e n . 3 8
T h e reference t o m u s i c , w h i c h
V i t r u v i u s ' exclusively a r c h i t e c t u r a l subject m a k e s i m p o s s i b l e , is f o u n d i n
Lucretius, D i o d o r u s , a n d Posidonius. Lucretius adds astronomy, and
Posidonius d a n c i n g , t o t h e l i s t o f " n o n - e s s e n t i a l " technai; D i o d o r u s , as o f t e n ,
is m o r e c o m p l e t e : a s t r o n o m y , w r i t i n g , m u s i c , d a n c i n g , a n d w r e s t l i n g a r e a l l
to b e f o u n d a m o n g t h e i n v e n t i o n s o f H e r m e s . 3 9

Such is suggested at any rate by the location of 7 C in Seneca's account, following the items
3 6

reproduced earlier in our text ( 2 A ; 5 B , D , E ) and before later references to those inventions which
can be assigned to specific sapientes of historical times: Anacharsis and Democritus ( 9 0 . 3 1 ) .
3 7
E . g . Isocrates, Bus. 15; Aristotle, Met. 1.981B13—22; Plutarch, Div., p. 113.1—9 Bernardakis;
Maximus of Tyre, 32.3b. For the wording in Vitruvius cf. Cicero, Tusc. 1.62: mansuefacti et exculti a
necessariis artificiis ad elegantiora defluximus. T h e parallel between Vitruvius and Democritus is noted by
Blankert, Seneca ep. 9 0 , pp. 1 3 9 - 4 0 .
3 8
Unlike Democritus and the texts cited in the preceding note, Vitruvius speaks of a natural
copia of whose existence men first become aware at an advanced stage of culture rather than a copia
of life's necessities which they themselves have created. Strictly speaking, then, the succession of
artes-voluptates is the only idea common to Vitruvius and Democritus. I t is quite possible, however,
that the Democritean conception was the one found in Vitruvius' source. T h e context in which the
whole passage appears is a discussion of the various types of natural building materials with whose
properties and uses the architect must be familiar—hence the substitution of a copia ab natura com-
parata for one which was comparata ab hominibus would have been quite natural.
3 9
Diodorus mentions the three-stringed lyre as a specific musical invention of Hermes, and
behind this item in his list there may lie a more detailed account of the process of discovery on lines
comparable to those which appear in Lucretius ( 5 B and 3 C ) , Diodorus ( 3 C ) and Vitruvius ( 3 C ) .

4
44 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

8. Conclusion: ( A ) the state of civilization described in our earliest written documents;

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

DlODORUS LUCRETIUS

(Α) κατά τους Τρωικούς χρόνους, ore τα πλείστα (A) iam validis saepti degebant turribus aevum
μέρη της οικουμένης εζημερωτο γεωργιαις και et divisa colebatur discretaque tellus,
4 0
πόλεσι και πλήθει των κατοικούντων την χωράν iam mare velivolis florebat. . . .
πανταχού. (1.24· 5) auxilia ac socios iam pacto foedere habebant,

(Β) τους μεν ούν πρώτους υπάρχοντας βασιλείς (B) carminibus cum res gestas coepere poetae
ουτ' αύτοι λέγειν έ'χομεν ούτε των ιστορικών τοις tradere; nec multo prius sunt elementa reperta.
έπαγγελλομένοις είδέναι συγκατατιθέμεθα' αδύ­ propterea quid sit prius actum respicere aetas
νατον γάρ τήν εύρεσιν τών γραμμάτων ούτως nostra nequit nisi qua ratio vestigia monstrat.
είναι πάλαιαν ώστε τοις πρώτοις βασιλεύσι (5.1440-47)
ήλικώτιδα γενέσθαι, εί δέ τις και τούτο συγχω-
ρήσαι, τό γε τών ιστοριογράφων γένος παντελώς
φαίνεται νεωστι τω κοινω βίω συνεσταμένον. (ι .9.2)

N o e x t e n d e d a c c o u n t o f t h e phase o f d e v e l o p m e n t i n a u g u r a t e d i n Stage 7
is g i v e n i n o u r t e x t s . T h e r e a s o n is t o b e f o u n d i n t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s w h i c h
a p p e a r h e r e . A m o n g t h e " n o n - e s s e n t i a l " arts is w r i t i n g (cf. its a t t r i b u t i o n t o
Hermes i n D i o d o r u s [ 7 B ] ) . Its invention, along w i t h t h a t o f heroic poetry
( o f w h o s e o r a l b e g i n n i n g s a n t i q u i t y was, n a t u r a l l y , u n a w a r e ) , b r i n g s t o a n
e n d t h e p e r i o d w i t h w h i c h o u r a c c o u n t s are c o n c e r n e d . H e n c e f o r t h i n v e s t i g a ­
t i o n o f t h e p a s t m u s t t a k e as i t s s t a r t i n g p o i n t w r i t t e n r e c o r d s , n o t t h e
vestigia p o i n t e d o u t b y ratio. T r a c i n g t h e g r o w t h o f m u s i c a n d t h e f i n e arts
belongs l a r g e l y t o h i s t o r y , n o t p r e h i s t o r y .
T h e i t e m s f r o m D i o d o r u s p r i n t e d a b o v e are i n c l u d e d w i t h some h e s i t a t i o n ,
i n a s m u c h as t h e y d o n o t r o u n d o f f his a c c o u n t i n t h e w a y t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s
i n L u c r e t i u s d o . T h e y a r e , h o w e v e r , c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e same s u b j e c t : d e ­
l i m i t i n g t h e confines o f h i s t o r y a n d p r e h i s t o r y . 8 A o c c u r s i n t h e course o f
a n a t t e m p t t o s h o w t h a t t h e r e a l a u t h o r o f t h e l a b o r s o f H e r a c l e s was, n o t
H e r a c l e s , b u t " a n o t h e r m a n o f t h e same n a m e " — a n E g y p t i a n w h o l i v e d
m a n y c e n t u r i e s b e f o r e his G r e e k i m i t a t o r . T h e c l u b a n d t h e l i o n ' s s k i n a n d
the s l a y i n g o f w i l d beasts w o u l d , D i o d o r u s argues, h a v e b e e n c o m p l e t e l y

Cf. Isidore, Orig. 3.22.8: "cum regrediens Nilus in suos meatus varia in campis reliquisset animalia,
relicta etiam testudo est. quae cum putrefacta esset et nervi eius remansissent extenti intra corium,
percussa a Mercurio sonitum dedit, ad cuius speciem Mercurius lyram fecit." With the list compare
also Cicero, Tusc. 1.62 (above, note 37) where the first three items—writing, music, and astronomy—
are mentioned among the "superfluous" arts.
4 0
With the walled towns and sailing of 1440—42 one should perhaps compare two passages in
Seneca, Ep. 9 0 : turn arma nec muros nec bello utilia molitur philosophia ( 2 6 ) and posse nos vestitos esse sine
commercio sericorum (15). But reference to commerce and walled cities as among the most striking of
man's achievements would have been, by the first century A . D . , so commonplace that the parallels
are not necessarily significant. Cf. Manilius 1.87-88, Cicero, Off. 2.13 and 15; Sophocles, Ant.
3 3 4 - 3 5 , 3 6 8 - 7 0 ; Euripides, Suppl. 2 0 9 - 1 0 ; Aeschylus, PV 4 6 7 - 6 8 .
 A P A T T E R N OF P R E H I S T O R Y 45

o u t m o d e d a t t h e d a t e assigned t o t h e son o f A l c m e n a , w h e n m e n w e r e a l r e a d y
d w e l l i n g i n cities a n d the l a n d h a d b e e n c l e a r e d o f forests t o m a k e w a y f o r
a g r i c u l t u r e . T h e o r i g i n a l H e r a c l e s o b v i o u s l y b e l o n g s t o t h e earliest stages o f
h u m a n life. T h e cities a n d a g r i c u l t u r e m e n t i o n e d h e r e are p a r a l l e l e d i n
L u c r e t i u s , a n d b o t h w r i t e r s are r e f e r r i n g t o t h e same p e r i o d — t h e g e n e r a -
t i o n s j u s t before t h e T r o j a n w a r , w h i c h w i t n e s s e d t h e l a b o r s o f H e r a c l e s a n d
w e r e t h e earliest p e r i o d d e a l t w i t h i n G r e e k p o e t r y . 4 1
T h e s h i p - f i l l e d sea a n d
t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l alliances o f 1 4 4 2 - 4 3 are p o s s i b l y references t o t h e n a v y o f
A g a m e m n o n a n d t h e o a t h o f t h e s u i t o r s , b o t h o f w h i c h figured i n a n e a r l i e r
and m o r e f a m o u s analysis o f t h e state o f society d e s c r i b e d i n t h e earliest
Greek poetry (Thucydides 1.9). 4 2
D i o d o r u s a n d Lucretius thus characterize
t h e same p e r i o d — t h e t i m e o f t h e T r o j a n w a r a n d t h e g e n e r a t i o n s i m m e d i a t e l y
preceding i t — i n identical terms; a n d contrast i t , explicitly or i m p l i c i t l y , w i t h
w h a t h a d g o n e b e f o r e . C o n c e i v a b l y , D i o d o r u s d r e w his o b s e r v a t i o n s f r o m a
context s i m i l a r to the one i n w h i c h t h e i r L u c r e t i a n c o u n t e r p a r t appears.
F u r t h e r e v i d e n c e f o r t h e existence o f s u c h a c o n t e x t i n D i o d o r u s ' source is
provided by 8 B . 4 3
T h e passage is f r o m a t r a n s i t i o n a l s e c t i o n a t t h e e n d o f t h e
i n t r o d u c t i o n t o B o o k I , w h e r e i t is c l e a r l y o u t o f p l a c e . 4 4
T h e remarks o n the
l a t e o r i g i n o f w r i t i n g a n d w r i t t e n r e c o r d s (here h i s t o r y r a t h e r t h a n p o e t r y )
are t h e same w h i c h L u c r e t i u s makes, a n d D i o d o r u s i n t r o d u c e s these r e m a r k s ,
j u s t as L u c r e t i u s does, i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e m e n t i o n o f a s i t u a t i o n ( h e r e
r u l e b y k i n g s ) w h o s e presence is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e earliest p e r i o d d e s c r i b e d
i n w r i t t e n a c c o u n t s . K i n g s h i p o b v i o u s l y a n t e d a t e s these r e c o r d s , j u s t as does
t h e c i t y l i f e t o w h i c h L u c r e t i u s refers (cf. iam i n 1 4 4 0 ) ; h e n c e k i n g s h i p r e -
ceives f r o m these records o n l y a terminus ante quern. T h e e a r l i e r phases o f k i n g -
ship, like the p r i o r history o f the developed c i v i l i z a t i o n described i n 1440-44,
c a n n o t be k n o w n i n d e t a i l w i t h a n y a c c u r a c y . T h e s i m i l a r i t i e s h e r e are r a t h e r
e x t e n s i v e ; g i v e n t h e o t h e r p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n t h e t w o texts, t h e y m a y w e l l b e
more t h a n coincidental.

T h e passages g i v e n u n d e r h e a d i n g 8 f o r m a n a t u r a l c o n c l u s i o n to w h a t has
been a remarkably consistent and closely-reasoned whole. Even more
strongly t h a n the v e r b a l parallels p o i n t e d o u t i n C h a p t e r I , this u n d e r l y i n g

4 1
Presumably the poets to whom Lucretius refers are those of the epic cycle. T h e earliest events
they recounted (apart from the mythical Titanomachia) were those of the Theban cycle, contem-
porary with the labors of Heracles or slightly before them. A similar line of reasoning on the origin
of heroic poetry may lie behind an item in Pliny's catalogue of inventors: de poematum origine magna
quaestio. ante Troianum helium probantur fuisse (MH 7 . 2 0 5 ) .
4 2
O n the parallels between Lucretius 5 . 1 4 4 0 - 4 7 and the Archaeology see, in general, M . F .
Smith, "Lucretius, De rerum natura, v. 1 4 4 0 - 7 , " Hermathena 98 (1964) 4 9 - 5 0 .
The parallel between this passage and Lucretius 5 . 1 4 4 4 - 4 7 was first pointed out by Dahlmann,
4 3

39, note 1.
4 4
See Appendix I , pp. 177-78 and i g i .
46 D E M O C R I T U S AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

u n i t y a n d c o h e r e n c e o f p l a n r e q u i r e s t h e t h e o r y o f a c o m m o n source. One
f u r t h e r t y p e o f e v i d e n c e r e m a i n s t o b e c o n s i d e r e d . I f o u r texts c a n b e s h o w n
t o b e c h a r a c t e r i z e d , n o t s i m p l y b y a u n i t y , b u t also b y a u n i q u e n e s s o f p l a n ,
t h e i r d e r i v a t i o n f r o m a c o m m o n source c a n b e r e g a r d e d as a l m o s t c e r t a i n .
O b v i o u s l y , c e r t a i n features o f t h e v i e w o f p r e h i s t o r y w e h a v e j u s t a n a l y z e d
c a n b e p a r a l l e l e d e l s e w h e r e ; b u t t h a t t h e v i e w , t a k e n as a w h o l e , is v i r t u a l l y
u n i q u e w i l l b e c o m e c l e a r as w e a t t e m p t t o d e f i n e its essential c h a r a c t e r a n d
c o n s i d e r i t i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e basic c o n c e p t i o n s w h i c h u n d e r l i e o t h e r a n c i e n t
discussions o f t h e o r i g i n o f t e c h n o l o g y .
 CHAPTER THREE

ALTERNATE PATTERNS O F KUL TURGESCHICHTE:

POSSIBLE SOURCES

The character o f t h e h i s t o r i c a l process as c o n c e i v e d i n t h e texts under

e x a m i n a t i o n is c o r r e c t l y , t h o u g h o n l y p a r t i a l l y , d e s c r i b e d b y t h e s u m m a r y
references, p r i n t e d t o g e t h e r u n d e r Stage 6 ( a b o v e , p . 4 0 ) , t o t h e i n t e r a c t i o n
o f n e e d , i n t e l l i g e n c e , h a n d s , a n d erect s t a t u r e . A l l these factors e n t e r i n t o
t h e process o f h u m a n d e v e l o p m e n t ; y e t i t w o u l d b e i m p o s s i b l e , g i v e n a b a r e
m e n t i o n o f t h e m a n d n o t h i n g m o r e , t o r e c o n s t r u c t t h e course w h i c h t h a t
d e v e l o p m e n t takes. O n e c o u l d o n l y say t h a t t h e c o n c e p t i o n o f progress i n -
v o l v e d is c l e a r l y n a t u r a l i s t i c a n d a n t i - t e l e o l o g i c a l , e v e n i f i t does n o t ascribe
e v e r y t h i n g t o b i o l o g i c a l necessity. I t w o u l d be i m p o s s i b l e t o a d d m u c h specific
o r d e t a i l e d i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e w a y i n w h i c h t h i s c o n c e p t i o n is d e v e l o p e d .
T h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t a n d m o s t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f e a t u r e o f o u r five texts is t o
be f o u n d e l s e w h e r e — i n t h e i m p o r t a n c e w h i c h a l l o f t h e m assign t o t h e
individual technological a d v a n c e , a n a d v a n c e w h i c h is a l w a y s p l a u s i b l y
accounted f o r i n terms o f empiricist psychology as t h e r e s u l t o f a c c i d e n t ,
i m i t a t i o n , o r suggestion. T h e h u m a n m o t i v a t i o n i n e a c h episode is b a s i c a l l y
u t i l i t a r i a n , t h o u g h h e d o n i s t i c factors p l a y t h e i r r o l e . T h e w a r m t h o f t h e fire
a n d t h e b r i g h t p a t c h e s o f c o n g e a l e d m e t a l a t t r a c t first b y t h e p l e a s u r e they
a f f o r d ; a p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e i r usefulness comes o n l y l a t e r . A n d i n t h e a d o p t i o n
o f g r a i n as a f o o d ( D i o d o r u s [ 4 D ] ) , p l e a s u r e , t h o u g h i t comes first, is doubtless
as i m p o r t a n t as u t i l i t a r i a n c o n s i d e r a t i o n s ( p u t t i n g a n e n d t o c a n n i b a l i s m ) i n
effecting t h e c h a n g e . S u c h i n d i v i d u a l episodes a r e t h e basic a n d essential
units i n t h e e n t i r e c u l t u r a l process. Progress is s i m p l y a n a c c u m u l a t i o n o f
t h e m , m u l t i p l i e d i n d e f i n i t e l y because o f t h e social c h a r a c t e r o f t h e m e d i u m
i n w h i c h t h e y o c c u r . F o r t h e g r a d u a l i s t i c c o n c e p t i o n o f the i n v e n t i v e process
i n v o l v e d h e r e t o b e a c c e p t a b l e , t h e r e m u s t b e n o gaps i n t h e final account,
no stages i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f c u l t u r e w h i c h are n o t t h o r o u g h l y m o t i v a t e d .
H e n c e t h e d e t a i l w i t h w h i c h e a c h episode is d e s c r i b e d a n d t h e p r e o c c u p a t i o n
w i t h e s t a b l i s h i n g a p r o p e r sequence o f d e v e l o p m e n t s w h i c h is e v i d e n t i n
Lucretius a n d Posidonius. 1
H i s t o r y , t h o u g h b u i l t u p o f discrete events, m u s t
a t t e m p t t o a p p r o x i m a t e a c o n t i n u u m a t a l l p o i n t s . I t is t h i s a t t e m p t w h i c h
1
Cf., for Lucretius, 5 . 1 3 5 0 - 5 3 (Stage 5 D , above), and for Posidonius, Seneca's contemptuous
reference (90.13) to the subtilis quaeslio as to whether forcipes or malleus came first.

47
48 DEMOGRITUS AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K ANTHROPOLOGY

gives t o o u r a c c o u n t s t h e i r essential a n d m o s t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f e a t u r e s ; a n d i t
is t h i s w h i c h s h o u l d f o r m t h e p o i n t o f d e p a r t u r e i n t h e a t t e m p t t o p l a c e t h e i r
theory i n t o the general context o f ancient Kulturgeschichte.

Euhemerist a n d heurematistic writings. T h e texts c o n s i d e r e d i n

C h a p t e r s O n e a n d T w o a r e i n a sense c a t a l o g u e s o f i n v e n t i o n s ; a n d o n e o f
those texts, D i o d o r u s 1 . 1 3 - 2 9 , l i n k s i t s Kulturgeschichte v e r y closely t o a n ex-
p l a n a t i o n o f t h e o r i g i n o f r e l i g i o n w h i c h is q u i t e s i m i l a r t o t h a t g i v e n b y
E u h e m e r u s (see b e l o w , p p . 1 5 3 - 5 5 ) . x t
s h o u l d t h u s c o m e as n o surprise t h a t
t h e w r i t i n g s o f e u h e m e r i z e r s a n d h e u r e m a t i s t s p r o v i d e t h e closest p a r a l l e l s
o f d e t a i l t o o u r f i v e a c c o u n t s . I n these w o r k s o n e f i n d s o n o c c a s i o n , i n a d d i -
t i o n to the simple m e n t i o n o f a n inventor, divine or h u m a n , a description o f
the actual process o f d i s c o v e r y w h i c h recalls Diodorus, Vitruvius, and
L u c r e t i u s . So, f o r e x a m p l e , w e a r e t o l d t h a t t h e P h o e n i c i a n s d i s c o v e r e d t h e
use o f T y r i a n p u r p l e w h e n a d o g b i t i n t o a shell l y i n g o n t h e b e a c h a n d
stained its m o u t h ; a n d p o e t r y came i n t o being w h e n a chance r h y t h m i c a l
utterance struck t h e fancy o f a listener, w h o t h e n i m i t a t e d its p a t t e r n h i m -
self. 2
T h e m o s t s i g n i f i c a n t a n d extensive o f such passages is t h e o n e f r o m
Leo o n the origins o f weaving (see a b o v e , p p . 3 8 - 3 9 ) . T h e t r a d i t i o n r e p -
resented i n o u r texts w a s t h u s n o t a l o n e i n t h e w a y i t c o n c e i v e d o f t h e sepa-
r a t e stages o f t h e i n v e n t i v e process. B u t w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f D i o d o r u s I ,
where t h e r e has b e e n e x t e n s i v e c o n t a m i n a t i o n , n e i t h e r e u h e m e r i z e r s n o r
heurematists offer a n y c l e a r p a r a l l e l t o t h e w a y i n w h i c h o u r t r a d i t i o n
v i e w e d t h e i n v e n t i v e process as a w h o l e . T h e e n t i r e t e n d e n c y o f t h e c a r e f u l
analysis w h i c h o u r texts g i v e t o t h e r o l e p l a y e d b y a c c i d e n t a n d suggestion
i n t h a t process is t o s h o w t h a t i n v e n t i o n s , e v e n i f t h e y go b a c k t o i n d i v i d u a l s ,
are n o t h i n g o u t o f t h e o r d i n a r y . M a n y o f t h e m a r e i n s i g n i f i c a n t w h e n c o n -
s i d e r e d s e p a r a t e l y ; i t is o n l y t h e i r c u m u l a t i v e effect w h i c h is a b l e t o t r a n s f o r m
the character o f m a n ' s existence. F o r t h e e u h e m e r i s t , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d ,
i n d i v i d u a l discoveries a r e s o m e t h i n g so o u t o f t h e o r d i n a r y t h a t t h e y r e s u l t
i n t h e c o n f e r r i n g o f d i v i n e h o n o r s o n t h e m a n responsible f o r t h e m . T h e t w o
t r a d i t i o n s m i g h t w e l l b o r r o w a n d a d o p t motifs f r o m each o t h e r ; 3
a n d either

2
See Cassiodorus, Variae 1.2.7 (Tyrian purple); Gregory Nazianzenus, Or. 4 . 1 0 8 (poetry). O f
particular significance is Cassiodorus' comment: "ut est mos hominibus occasiones repentinas ad
artes ducere, talia exempla meditantes, fecerunt principibus decus nobile." Resemblances between
the heuremata given by Cassiodorus and the list in Hyginus 2 7 4 (see Knaacke, Hermes 1 6 . 5 9 3 - 6 0 0 ;
Kremmer, go—94) show that the account they follow is at least as old as the second century A . D .
3
T h e most conspicuous example is, of course, the euhemerized and Egyptianized Kulturgeschichte
of Diodorus I . A long list of less extensive borrowings could easily be compiled. So, for example,
Dionysus is credited with introducing the art of food gathering (Diodorus 2.38.5), Isis or Osiris
with the discovery of grain and the ending of cannibalism (Plutarch, Is. et Os. 13.356A; Apuleius,
Met. 11.2; and the aretalogies collected and edited by Harder, AbhBerlin 1943, 1 4 . 7 - 2 3 ) ; and
Uranus with the introduction of agriculture (Diodorus 3.56.3). T h e euhemerizing account of
 A L T E R N A T E PATTERNS OF KULTURGESCHICHTE: POSSIBLE SOURCES 49

c o u l d i n c o r p o r a t e o n o c c a s i o n t h e p o i n t o f v i e w w h i c h is t y p i c a l o f t h e o t h e r .
T h e e u h e m e r i s t m i g h t find some i n v e n t i o n s t o o t r i v i a l t o serve as satisfactory
aitiai for a d i v i n e c u l t ; a n d the o t h e r school c o u l d recognize occasions w h e n
t h e a c h i e v e m e n t o f a n i n d i v i d u a l w a s so r e m a r k a b l e as t o w i n h i m s p e c i a l
recognition f r o m society. 4
S u c h m i n o r p a r a l l e l s d o n o t , h o w e v e r , lessen t h e
basic d i f f e r e n c e in approach.
The heurematistic writers, insofar as they speak of mortals or whole
n a t i o n s as i n v e n t o r s , o f f e r a s o m e w h a t closer p a r a l l e l . B u t t h e r e s e m b l a n c e is
still o n l y p a r t i a l . T h e w h o l e idea o f assigning to n a m e d inventors the most
basic d i s c o v e r i e s is o u t o f k e e p i n g w i t h t h e t h e o r e t i c a l a n d i n f e r e n t i a l m e t h o d
announced at the end o f Lucretius V . Such a procedure belongs to history,
not prehistory. Moreover, t h o u g h heurematistic works need not always have
taken the f o r m o f bare catalogues, 5
any coherent arrangement they gave to
their narrative w o u l d almost inevitably have been topical, t r a c i n g the g r o w t h
of each a r t f r o m its b e g i n n i n g to the author's own day. Such a method
would have made any connected historical reconstruction of primitive
life almost impossible. 6
Once more, i t is fairly clear that, i f there are

Diodorus V (source unknown) contains a whole series of such attributions. Mnemosyne is the dis-
coverer of writing (67.3), Hestia of houses ( 6 8 . i ) , the Idaean dactyls of metallurgy (64.1), the
Guretes of hunting (64.1), etc. Cf. also the "Phoenician" anthropology of Sanchuniathon preserved
in Eusebius, where the casas, ignem, and pellis of Lucretius 5.1 o 11 are traced back to the gods Phlox,
Pyr, and Phos and to their grandchildren Hypsouranos and Ousoos (FGrH 7 9 0 F 2 , p. 8 0 8 . 2 - 1 4 ) .
4
Cf. the account of the origin of kingship analyzed below, pp. 9 0 - 9 3 , and the parallels between
it and Diodorus' account of the origin of animal worship (Chap. V I , note 2 0 ) .
5
Kremmer (91, note 1) calls attention to a number of notices in Pliny's catalogue and elsewhere
which mention not only the invention but the state of affairs prior to it (e.g. JVH 7.191: Ceres
frumentum invenit cum antea glande vescerentur; 7.209: tecta longa lhasii invenerunt; antea ex prora tantum et
puppi pugnabatur; and FGrH 7 0 F 5 [Ephorus], which traces a sequence in the development of different
varieties of loom). Such passages suggest to Kremmer that heurematistic works may have contained,
on occasion, non modo nomina enumerata sedetiam narrationem contextam. This may be so, though Thraede's
analysis ( 1 2 3 5 - 4 1 ) of the methods of "research" which have gone into the composition of surviving
lists shows that most, at any rate, of the authors who belong to this tradition were concerned with
the " traditionsbildende Geltung bestimmer Namen, nicht um die Weitergabe wissenschaftlich
gemeinter Erkenntnisse" (RhM 105.186).
* Pliny's example is instructive. The order in which he arranges his heuremata is as follows: ( 1 )
divine inventors, (2) writing, (3) architecture, (4) clothing, (5) medicine, (6) metallurgy, (7)
agriculture, (8) government, (9) warfare, (10) manlike, (11) music, (12) literature, (13) games,
(14) painting, (15) seafaring, (16) animal sacrifices. Certain parallels with the order which lies
behind our texts can be discerned here. (3) and (4) correspond to Stages 3 A and B ; ( 6 ) , ( 7 ) , and
(9) to 5 B , C , and E (with warfare following instead of preceding agriculture); and (11) through (14)
to the arts of leisure (Stage 7 ) . That there is some connection here is quite possible (see further
Uxkull-Gyllenband, 4 5 , with note 2 4 , on the possible use of heurematistic sources by Posidonius).
But Pliny's account is basically different from the ones with which we are concerned in that it lists
under each heading the simplest as well as the most complex of inventions—the individual heuretai
of historical times with the nameless and collective ones of prehistory.
5° D E M O C R I T U S A N DT H E S O U R C E S OF G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

connections with our tradition, they do not extend beyond scattered

borrowings. 7

I n c o m p a r i n g this t r a d i t i o n w i t h other ancient treatments o f the develop-

m e n t o f t e c h n o l o g y o n e finds c o n t r a s t s d i f f e r e n t i n k i n d b u t n o less s i g n i f i c a n t
t h a n t h e ones j u s t c o n s i d e r e d . T h e b o d y o f works surveyed i n the I n t r o d u c -
t i o n c o n t a i n s m a n y passages t o o f r a g m e n t a r y o r a l l u s i v e t o p r o v i d e a satis-
f a c t o r y basis f o r c o m p a r i s o n . T h e s e m a y f o r p r e s e n t p u r p o s e s b e i g n o r e d , as
w e l l as those w h i c h o f f e r w h a t is e s s e n t i a l l y a n e n u m e r a t i o n o f a c h i e v e m e n t s
rather t h a n a connected analysis. 8
W e a r e l e f t w i t h a d o z e n o r so a c c o u n t s
that, like our texts, envision a gradual development o f technology and
assign a p r o m i n e n t r o l e i n t h i s d e v e l o p m e n t to the workings o f need and
u t i l i t y . B u t a l l o f t h e m a r e m a r k e d , e i t h e r b y a t o t a l absence o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r
h i s t o r i c a l m e t h o d o l o g y w e a r e l o o k i n g f o r , o r else b y a l i m i t a t i o n o f its use
i n favor o f quite different procedures. T h e i r n u m b e r is n o t l a r g e ; h e n c e t h e y
m a y be p r o f i t a b l y considered i n d i v i d u a l l y for points o f s i m i l a r i t y a n d con-
trast to o u r five texts.

T h e Protagoras m y t h . P r o t a g o r a s , i f P l a t o ' s a c c o u n t is t o b e credited,

connected the g r o w t h o f technology (demiourgike techne) w i t h t h e l a c k o f a n y

' One or two obvious places where heurematists may have borrowed from our tradition should
be noted here. "Sanchuniathon" (above, note 3) assigns to a certain Aion the discovery of the
nourishment from trees by which men originally sustained themselves (FGrti 7 9 0 F 2 , p. 8 0 7 . 2 1 ) ,
and Pliny (NH 7.194) makes Toxius the discoverer of lutei aedificii, exemplo sumpto ab hirundinum nidis
(cf. Democritus B 1 5 4 ) . A slightly more complicated transfer of material is evident in the following
passages:
H Y G I N U S 274.22 C A S S I O D O R U S , Variae 1.30.5 P L I N Y , NH 7.200
Afri et Aegyptii primum fusti- inter adversarios . . . non erant proelium Afri contra Aegyptos
bus dimicaverunt. post a Belo prius armata certamina, sed primum fecere fustibus.
. . . gladio belligeratum est pugnis se quamlibet fervida
unde bellum est dictum. lacessebat intentio. unde et
pugna nomen accepit; postea
Belus ferreum gladium primus
produxit, a quo et bellum
placuit nominari.

This foolish bit of speculation could not have stood originally in a catalogue of inventors. I t must
have once been a general observation about the development of warfare (cf. Lucretius 5 . 1 2 8 3 - 8 6 )
which occurred in an Egyptian context (cf. Diodorus 1.24.3, discussed above, p. 3 8 , with note 2 2 ,
and pp. 44—45). What appeared there as an indication of the first method of fighting used by the
Egyptians against their neighbors (Aegyptii primum . . . deinde . . .) has become an assertion that the
Egyptians were the first to fight in this fashion (in effect, Aegyptiiprimi. . . deinde alii. . . ) . T h e notice
is of some use, since it gives added reason for linking Diodorus' account of the Egyptian Heracles
(1.24.3) with the main body of his Kulturgeschichte and so with Lucretius 5 . 1 4 4 0 - 4 3 (see above,
pp. 4 4 - 4 5 ) . For further instances where the heurematists may have borrowed from the tradition
we are examining, see below, Chap. I V , note 15.
8
As, for example, the first stasimon of Sophocles' Antigone and parts of the Prometheus. These
texts, though they may reproduce speculation closely akin to that which lies behind our five texts,
are in their present form mere catalogues.
 A L T E R N A T E PATTERNS OF KULTURGESCHICHTE: P O S S I B L E SOURCES 51

n a t u r a l m e a n s o f p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e forces o f n a t u r e u n d e r w h i c h m a n ,
u n l i k e o t h e r a n i m a l s , l a b o r s . H e also c o n n e c t e d t h e f o r m a t i o n o f t h e social
m o r a l i t y o n w h i c h society rests (politike techne) w i t h a s i m i l a r weakness i n t h e
face o f t h e w i l d a n i m a l s w h i c h t h r e a t e n m a n ' s s u r v i v a l . T h e g e n e r a l p i c t u r e
o f m a n ' s earliest m o d e o f existence d r a w n i n t h e m y t h recalls o u r t e x t s , as 9

does its d o u b l e focus o n b o t h t e c h n o l o g i c a l a n d social d e v e l o p m e n t . A n d t h e

reason f o r t h e f o r m a t i o n o f society w h i c h i t gives is e x a c t l y t h e o n e w h i c h
appears i n D i o d o r u s ( 4 A ) . B u t P r o t a g o r a s ' p r e s e n t a t i o n , t h o u g h i t has a
h i s t o r i c a l s e t t i n g , is b a s i c a l l y a n a l y t i c . T h e politike techne a n d demiourgike
techne w h i c h m e n " a c q u i r e " i n successive stages r e p r e s e n t s i m p l y a c o n -
v e n i e n t w a y o f classifying those skills w h i c h m e n m u s t h a v e i f the species is t o
survive; 1 0
t h e r e is n o reason w h y t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f o n e s h o u l d f o l l o w t h a t
o f the o t h e r , as i t does i n P l a t o ' s a c c o u n t . T h e t h e o l o g i c a l aspect o f the myth,
w h i c h m a k e s demiourgike techne a n d politike techne t h e gifts, r e s p e c t i v e l y , o f P r o -
m e t h e u s a n d Zeus t o m a n k i n d , has o f t e n b e e n suspected as a P l a t o n i c a d d i -
t i o n t o t h e t h o u g h t o f the a g n o s t i c P r o t a g o r a s . 1 1
I f so, t h e o r i g i n a l c o n c e p t i o n
m a y h a v e b e e n t h a t society a n d t e c h n o l o g y are s u r v i v a l m e c h a n i s m s d e v e l o p e d
g r a d u a l l y b y m a n k i n d t o c o m p e n s a t e f o r his p h y s i c a l i n f e r i o r i t y t o t h e o t h e r
animals. 1 2
T h i s suggestion, w h i c h p u t s t h e m o s t n a t u r a l i s t i c possible i n t e r -
p r e t a t i o n o n t h e c o n t e n t s o f t h e m y t h , p e r h a p s o v e r c o m p e n s a t e s f o r sus-
pected Platonic r e w o r k i n g . 1 3
B u t e v e n i f i t is c o r r e c t , P r o t a g o r a s ' a c c o u n t
does n o t g o b e y o n d a v a g u e l y c o n c e i v e d t h e o r y o f c h a l l e n g e a n d r e s p o n s e ;
of the m o r e careful a n d detailed naturalistic reconstruction o f history w i t h
w h i c h w e a r e c o n c e r n e d t h e r e is n o t r a c e .
' I n particular, the four necessities of life which form the subject of the sub-headings of Stage I
are present in Prot. 3 2 1 A - D . Summary versions of the list, or of portions of it, are, however, fairly
frequent (cf. Plato, Rep. 2.369D; Cicero, Tusc. 1.62; Dio of Prusa 6 . 2 8 ; Pausanias 8 . 1 . 4 - 6 ; Origen,
Contra Cels. 4.76; Themistius 3 2 3 c ; Nemesius, Nat. horn. 50-51 Matthaei). Here, as elsewhere, the
parallels between the Protagoras myth and our texts do not extend beyond the commonplace.
1 0
For this interpretation see Kleingiinther, 105-6.
1 1
See Havelock, 4 0 7 - 9 , with the literature cited there.
1 2
A teleological version of this idea appears in Origen's polemic against Celsus (see Cataudella,
RendlstLomb 7 0 . 1 8 6 - 9 3 ) . Celsus had evidently adduced the usual Academic and Epicurean (cf.
Lucretius 5.195-234) argument against pronoia based on man's obvious weakness and unsuitability
for survival. Origen replies (4.76) that such natural disabilities are a part of God's plan, in order to
stimulate man to the mental activity and technological achievements which will make up for them
(cf. Virgil, Georgics 1.121—46: Jove puts an end to the Golden Age ut varias usus meditando extunderei
artes). A non-teleological version of the idea, though in connection with the development of a single
techne, appears in De vet. med. 3 : the art of medicine owes its origin to the fact that man was less well
equipped than the other animals with sufficient trophe. His inability to live on the roots and grasses
which sufficed for them led eventually to the scientific study of diet.
1 3
The idea may simply be that man's techne, like the wings of the birds or the swift feet of the hare,
is part of the isonomia of creation which insures survival to all species (cf. Herodotus 3.108; the
teleological passages assembled by Dickermann, 6 9 - 7 1 , in which logos or docilitas takes the place of
the technai mentioned by Protagoras; and, for related ideas in the Presocratics, G . VlastoSj "Equality
andjustice in Early Greek Cosmologies," CP 42 [1947] 156-78). ,
52 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

Republic I I . Socrates' a c c o u n t o f t h e o r i g i n o f t h e polis resembles our

texts i n d i s t i n g u i s h i n g b e t w e e n " e s s e n t i a l " a n d " n o n - e s s e n t i a l " arts ( t h e
d o m a i n s , r e s p e c t i v e l y , o f t h e s i m p l e a n d l u x u r i o u s states), b u t P l a t o makes
no effort to e x p l a i n i n historical terms h o w the division o f labor between
farmer, carpenter, weaver, a n d s h o e m a k e r , w h i c h he assumes t o be t h e
o r i g i n a l o n e i n h u m a n society, comes i n t o b e i n g . T h e w h o l e passage is
analytic, l a c k i n g even the superficially historical a p p r o a c h o f the Protagoras
myth.

Timaeus, Critias, Politicus; Aristotle. I n a t h e o r y set f o r t h with

m i n o r v a r i a t i o n i n t h r e e o f his l a t e w o r k s , P l a t o envisions t h e p r e s e n t i n -
h a b i t a n t s o f t h e e a r t h as descendants o f t h e s c a t t e r e d s u r v i v o r s o f a c a t a c l y s m
w h i c h d e s t r o y e d a p r e v i o u s c i v i l i z a t i o n a n d necessitated a s l o w a n d l a b o r i o u s
r e a c q u i s i t i o n o f t h e needs o f l i f e . 1 4
Aristotle, to judge f r o m a later Peripa-
t e t i c a c c o u n t o f p r e h i s t o r y w h i c h is u s u a l l y b e l i e v e d t o r e p r o d u c e a t h e o r y
t h a t a p p e a r e d first i n t h e De philosophia, 15
f o l l o w e d P l a t o i n his n o t i o n o f
r e c u r r e n t c a t a c l y s m s ; h e seems, h o w e v e r , t o h a v e b e e n m o r e i n t e r e s t e d t h a n
his m a s t e r i n t r a c i n g t h e d i f f e r e n t stages 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 .
B e g i n n i n g w i t h a p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h t h e necessities o f l i f e , m e n d e v e l o p t h e
f i n e a r t s , t h e n t h e a r t o f statecraft, t h e n n a t u r a l p h i l o s o p h y , a n d f i n a l l y
metaphysics. 1 6
A r i s t o t l e , w i t h his d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e f i n e a n d useful
arts, a n d b o t h philosophers, w i t h their n o t i o n o f a laborious d e v e l o p m e n t o f
t e c h n i q u e s t o m e e t t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s i n h e r e n t i n m a n ' s n a t u r a l c o n d i t i o n , show
p o i n t s o f c o n t a c t w i t h o u r texts. T h e r e is n o d e t a i l e d a c c o u n t o f t h e d e v e l o p -
m e n t o f t h e arts i n t h e s u m m a r y r e p o r t s o f A r i s t o t l e ' s a c c o u n t w h i c h s u r v i v e ,
but i t is c o n c e i v a b l e t h a t s u c h a n analysis d i d s t a n d i n t h e o r i g i n a l t e x t ,
r e f l e c t i n g , l i k e t h e b r i e f n o t i c e s i n P l a t o ' s l a t e w o r k s , t h e c o n t e n t o f discus-
sions h e l d i n t h e A c a d e m y i n t h e m i d d l e o f t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y .
But P l a t o a n d A r i s t o t l e , e v e n i f t h e y a l l o w f o r a n analysis o f p r e h i s t o r y
s o m e w h a t s i m i l a r t o w h a t appears i n D i o d o r u s , V i t r u v i u s , a n d L u c r e t i u s ,
c o m b i n e t h i s analysis w i t h c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f a c o m p l e t e l y d i f f e r e n t o r d e r .

1 4
Gf. Critias I O O B - H O D , Tim. 2 2 B - 2 5 D , Pol. 273A-74D.
The account (pp. 7 5 - 7 7 Ross) is preserved in John Philoponus' commentary to the Isagoge of
1 5

Nicomachus of Gerasa ( 1 . 8 - 2 . 4 2 Hoche) and in Asclepius' commentary on the Metaphysics (10.28—

11.36 Hayduck); see A. J . Festugiere, La Revelation a"Hermes trismegiste 2 (Paris 1949) 5 8 7 - 9 1 , with
the literature cited there. The attribution to Aristotle is disputed by L . Taran, AJP 87 (1966) 4 6 7 - 6 8 .
For an Academic treatment of the same theme, see Epinomis 9 7 4 E - 7 6 C , which discusses the
1 6

various achievements which at one time might have earned a man the title sophos but are no longer
sufficient to do so. T h e classification of these achievements partly approximates the division into
historical epochs given by Aristotle: 9 7 4 E - 7 5 C , on arts leading to the acquisition of anankaia, is
followed by 9 7 5 D , on paidia (music, dancing, painting). And common to both authors is the notion
that skill in devising techniques for survival is an early, but outmoded, form of sophia. See also
below, pp. 103—4.
 A L T E R N A T E P A T T E R N S O FK U L T U R G E S C H I C H T E : POSSIBLE SOURCES 53

T h e phase o f h u m a n h i s t o r y w h i c h witnesses t h e g r o w t h o f t e c h n o l o g y is
o n l y p a r t o f a l a r g e r m o v e m e n t . F o r P l a t o i t represents o n e phase o f a c y c l e ,
t h e o t h e r o f w h i c h is t h e age o f t h e i d e a l i z e d A t h e n s o f t h e A t l a n t i s m y t h o r
the wise a n d b e n e v o l e n t r u l e o f daimones d e s c r i b e d i n t h e Politicus—times when
t h e r e w a s n o n e e d f o r t h e s l o w a n d l a b o r i o u s quest o f necessities w h i c h
c h a r a c t e r i z e d t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e p r e s e n t e r a . A r i s t o t l e does n o t e n v i s i o n
such p e r i o d s o f f e l i c i t y , b u t he does see t h e g r o w t h o f t e c h n o l o g y as a p r e l u d e
to a n o b v i o u s l y h i g h e r stage o f d e v e l o p m e n t , w h e r e d i s i n t e r e s t e d s p e c u l a t i o n
on the n a t u r e o f the universe a n d p u r e b e i n g occupies man's a t t e n t i o n . T h e
Platonic a n d A r i s t o t e l i a n conceptions are different, b u t they result i n a
s i m i l a r d o w n g r a d i n g o f t e c h n o l o g y . E i t h e r i t is l a r g e l y i r r e l e v a n t t o t h e t o t a l
scheme o f t h i n g s — a n i n a d e q u a t e e f f o r t t o r e c o v e r t h a t p e r f e c t i o n o f m a t e r i a l
w e l l - b e i n g w h i c h b e l o n g s p r o p e r l y t o a n o t h e r age a n d a n o t h e r o r d e r o f
existence; 17
o r else i t is a m e r e p r e p a r a t i o n f o r w h a t is o b v i o u s l y t o b e m a n ' s
true vocation.
I t is h a r d t o b e l i e v e t h a t such a t t i t u d e s c o u l d ever g i v e rise t o a n a c c o u n t
o f c u l t u r a l o r i g i n s c e n t e r e d , as those o f D i o d o r u s , V i t r u v i u s , a n d L u c r e t i u s
are, o n a n analysis o f t e c h n o l o g y . T h e l a t t e r s u b j e c t m a y be discussed, b u t
only incidentally, b y w a y o f postscript to U t o p i a o r Prolegomena to the
History o f Philosophy. 1 8
W h a t the Platonic a n d Aristotelian attitude could
and i n fact e v e n t u a l l y d i d g i v e rise t o , w h e n c o m b i n e d w i t h o n e s i m i l a r t o
t h a t f o u n d i n o u r texts, is t h e Kulturgeschichte o f Posidonius. T h e l a t t e r was
obviously impressed b o t h w i t h the achievements o f technology a n d w i t h the
attempts o f certain thinkers to supply a naturalistic account o f their origin.
B u t as a teleologist he c o u l d n o t h e l p v i e w i n g m a s t e r y o f t h e useful arts as a
s u b o r d i n a t e a n d p r e p a r a t o r y m a n i f e s t a t i o n o f m a n ' s genius. T o a c c o m m o d a t e
b o t h aspects o f his t h i n k i n g he f o u n d i t necessary t o m o d i f y t h e A r i s t o t e l i a n

1 7
O n this aspect of the Politicus myth, see Havelock, 43.
1 8
Even such ideas on the subject as Aristotle and the Academy have may reflect the theories and
work of their predecessors rather than their own. Behind the presentation of cultural development
found both in the Epinomis and in Aristotle (cf., in addition to the passages cited above [note 1 5 ] ,
Met. 1 . 9 8 1 B 1 3 - 2 2 ) , there probably lies a polemic against those, Isocrates in particular, who con-
demn speculative philosophy as useless (see Einarson, TAP A 6 7 . 2 6 4 - 7 2 , 2 8 2 - 8 4 ) . T h e polemic,
however, uses the ideas of these same opponents: their exclusion of philosophy from among the use-
ful arts is accepted, as is their division of the latter into those which pertain to necessity and luxury
(cf. Isocrates, Paneg. 4 0 , Bus. 15). But philosophy, by virtue of its being sought for its own sake
rather than for any extraneous utility or pleasure it may confer, represents a higher calling. Since it
is good for nothing, it must be good in itself. I f the classification oftechnai into which Aristotle intro-
duces philosophy as a third and higher branch is taken over from his predecessors, so may be the
history of civilization to which, in his view, the study of philosophy forms the final and culminating
phase. (On the derivative character of Peripatetic and Academic Kulturgeschichte, see also below,
pp. 104-5, and Sikes, The Anthropology of the Greeks 6 1 - 6 2 , who notes the contrast between
Democritus B154 and the suggestion in HA 9 . 6 1 2 B 1 8 - 2 1 that birds learned to build nests by imi-
tating human dwellings. The latter passage may be a deliberate correction of the former.)
54 DEMOGRITUS AND T H E SOURCES OF G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

n o t i o n o f t e c h n o l o g y as a p r o l o g u e t o p h i l o s o p h y . W h a t h a d b e e n a m e r e
c u r t a i n - r a i s e r n o w becomes A c t O n e a n d receives t h e same cast o f c h a r a c t e r s
as t h e rest o f t h e p l a y . O n l y b y t h i s m o d e o f p r o c e d u r e w a s i t possible t o
j u s t i f y a m o r e extensive a n d m o r e s y m p a t h e t i c t r e a t m e n t o f t h e s u b j e c t . 1 9

But t h e p h i l o s o p h e r s , as Seneca p o i n t s o u t , sit v e r y i l l i n t h e i r n e w r o l e s . 2 0

T h e g u l f b e t w e e n A r i s t o t l e ' s a t t i t u d e t o w a r d t e c h n o l o g y a n d t h a t o f o u r five
texts is n o w h e r e m o r e e v i d e n t t h a n i n P o s i d o n i u s ' f a i l u r e t o effect a satis-
factory compromise between them.

Laws I I I . H e r e P l a t o keeps t h e c a t a c l y s m t h e o r y o f t h e Timaeus a n d

Politicus b u t introduces a n e w element. T h e p e r i o d w h i c h follows the cata-
c l y s m is n o t o n e o f c o m p l e t e d e p r i v a t i o n ; r a t h e r , m e n r e t a i n f r o m t h e
p r e c e d i n g w o r l d c y c l e j u s t e n o u g h t e c h n o l o g y t o satisfy t h e i r basic w a n t s a n d
a t t h e same t i m e n o t e n o u g h t o i n v o l v e t h e m i n t h e g r e e d a n d c o n t e n t i o u s -
ness b r e d b y t h e m a t e r i a l goods o f c i v i l i z a t i o n . T h e f u r t h e r d e v e l o p m e n t o f
t e c h n o l o g y is i n m a n y w a y s a s i m p l e d e g e n e r a t i o n f r o m a p a s t o r a l Utopia
r a t h e r t h a n a response t o s u d d e n h a r d s h i p . O b v i o u s l y s u c h a v i e w o f h i s t o r y
is e v e n less l i k e l y t h a n t h e o n e j u s t e x a m i n e d t o r e s u l t i n a d e t a i l e d analysis
of t h e g r o w t h o f the arts; a n d i t removes altogether f r o m the e v o l u t i o n a r y
p e r s p e c t i v e a l a r g e p o r t i o n o f t h e i t e m s c o v e r e d i n o u r texts. A c c o r d i n g t o
the thesis d e v e l o p e d b y P l a t o i n Laws I I I , some t e c h n o l o g i e s ( a m o n g t h e m
w e a v i n g a n d p o t t e r y ) a r e n e v e r lost t o m a n k i n d , hence n e v e r n e e d t o b e r e -
discovered. 2 1

Dicaearchus. L i k e the Protagoras m y t h , Dicaearchus' schematization o f

p r e h i s t o r y (see a b o v e , p . 4 ) gives a t r e a t m e n t w h i c h is o n l y s u p e r f i c i a l l y
h i s t o r i c a l . T h e f o o d g a t h e r i n g a n d p a s t u r i n g o f flocks w h i c h f o r m t h e p r i n -
c i p a l o c c u p a t i o n s o f t h e earliest t w o eras d e s c r i b e d i n t h e Life of Greece a r e
p a r t o f a n a n a l y t i c scheme. T h e y r e p r e s e n t t h e e x p l o i t a t i o n , r e s p e c t i v e l y , o f
the i n a n i m a t e a n d a n i m a t e resources w h i c h m a n has a t h i s d i s p o s a l a n d a r e
a c t u a l l y so d e s c r i b e d b y D i c a e a r c h u s . 2 2
H i s a c c o u n t m a d e n o a t t e m p t , so f a r

1 9
Teleology and technology, rather than Hesiodic nostalgia and Ionian science (as suggested by
W. Jaeger, Nemesios von Emesa [Berlin 1914] 1 2 4 - 2 5 ) , seem to me to be the essential ingredients of
the Posidonian compromise. T h e latter combination could have been achieved just as easily by the
" h a r d " primitivism found in Dicaearchus and Tzetzes (see below, pp. 1 4 8 - 5 1 ) .
2 0
Cf. Ep. 9 0 . 1 1 : ista sagacitas . . . non sapientia invenit; 9 0 . 2 1 : improvements in agriculture continue
to be made by cultores agrorum, not sapientes; 9 0 . 2 5 : shorthand is the invention of vilissima mancipia.
2 1
Plato's account, though offering no evidence for the widespread diffusion of the conception of
technological progress present in our texts, is closely related, in another way, to the tradition they
represent. See below, Chapter Seven.
2 2
T h e origin of Dicaearchus' view is doubtless to be found in the Peripatetic conception of all
things as existing for the sake of man (so Uxkull-Gyllenband, 36) and, in particular, in the passage
of the Politics ( 1 . 1 2 5 6 A 3 0 - B 7 ) which classifies the bioi of nomad, hunter, fisherman, and farmer.
 A L T E R N A T E PATTERNS OF KULTURGESCHICHTE: P O S S I B L E SOURCES 55

as o n e c a n t e l l , t o suggest w h y o n e stage s h o u l d p r e c e d e t h e o t h e r , o r w h y t w o
stages c o u l d n o t exist s i m u l t a n e o u s l y . O n e m i g h t e x p e c t , f o r e x a m p l e , t h a t
t h e t e c h n i q u e s o f f o o d p r o d u c i n g w o u l d arise n a t u r a l l y o u t o f those o f f o o d
g a t h e r i n g ; y e t t h e i r a p p e a r a n c e is, f o r some u n s p e c i f i e d reason, d e l a y e d
u n t i l t h e n o m a d i c stage is o v e r . T h e w h o l e course o f d e v e l o p m e n t seems t o
follow a preconceived pattern. Food gathering, pasturing, a n d agriculture
succeed e a c h o t h e r because e a c h o n e represents a stage o f d e v e l o p m e n t w h i c h
is, i n some sense, m o r e a d v a n c e d ( o r m o r e d e g e n e r a t e ) 2 3
t h a n its predecessor.
T h e l o g i c w h i c h lies b e h i n d t h i s s c h e m e o b v i o u s l y has n o t h i n g t o d o w i t h t h e
e f f o r t t o c o n s t r u c t a c o n t i n u u m o f i n d i v i d u a l discoveries w h i c h c h a r a c t e r i z e s
the five texts c o n s i d e r e d i n C h a p t e r T w o . 2 4

T h e o p h r a s t u s , On Piety. T h e o p h r a s t u s ' a t t e m p t t o describe t h e e v o l v i n g

f o r m s o f sacrifice p r a c t i c e d b y m a n is a s p e c i a l a p p l i c a t i o n o f some o f t h e
findings o f Kulturgeschichte. T h e sequence o f d e v e l o p m e n t h e r e c o n s t r u c t s is
as f o l l o w s : m a n ' s o r i g i n a l f o o d consisted o f grasses, a n d t h e c u s t o m o f o f f e r i n g
first f r u i t s p r e v a i l e d t h e n as n o w ; h e n c e t h e n o n - a n i m a l c h a r a c t e r o f t h e
earliest sacrifices. L a t e r , f a m i n e s l e d t o c a n n i b a l i s m a n d , as a c o n s e q u e n c e ,
to t h e s u b s t i t u t i o n o f m e n f o r grass. S u b s e q u e n t l y , t h e d i s a d v a n t a g e s o f s u c h
a p r a c t i c e b e c a m e a p p a r e n t , so t h a t a n i m a l s w e r e o f f e r e d i n s t e a d , a n d t h i s
p r a c t i c e has r e m a i n e d t o t h e p r e s e n t t i m e . 2 5
L i k e o u r five a u t h o r s , t h o u g h
w i t h r a t h e r less success, T h e o p h r a s t u s is seeking t o g i v e a c o n t i n u o u s a n d
p l a u s i b l e a c c o u n t o f a g r a d u a l e v o l u t i o n . T h e r e is n o a t t e m p t t o fit t h e g r o w t h
o f s a c r i f i c i a l customs i n t o a n y o v e r a l l p a t t e r n i n v o l v i n g progressive d e g e n e r a ­
t i o n o r r e f i n e m e n t o f mores. T h e o p h r a s t u s , h o w e v e r , deals w i t h o n l y a single
one a m o n g t h e m a n y technai o f h u m a n l i f e . T h e r e is n o e v i d e n c e t o suggest

Insofar, however, as Dicaearchus does not allow for the coexistence of different forms of bioi his
presentation is even more abstract and schematic than Aristotle's.
T h e character and extent of Dicaearchus' primitivism is debatable: see R . Hirzel, " ΑΓΡΑΦΟΣ
2 3

ΝΟΜΟΣ," AbhLeipzig 20.1 (1903) 88, and Seeliger, "Weltalter," 4 0 9 .

2 4
None of the texts in our tradition treats the life of the herdsman, but it is instructive, for the
sake of contrast, to suggest how such a treatment could have been accommodated in their general
view of historical development. M a n is nomadic to begin with, not because he keeps flocks, but
because he himself moves in flocks like other animals (cf. i A in Diodorus, Tzetzes, and Lucretius).
In the course of foraging for food, primitive man would naturally find himself sharing his pasture
with other animals; some of these he would naturally have to avoid; a few he might be able to kill
and eat; with others he would continue to mingle until some accident suggested to him their
potential usefulness. Domestication would follow by a gradual process and so, with very little change
in the habits of either man or animals, the human flock would become itself a keeper of flocks.
There is nothing of this in Dicaearchus, whose primitive man, rather in the manner of a Peripatetic
philosopher, looks around him, classifies his environment into animal and vegetable, and proceeds
to exploit, in systematic fashion, first one and then the other.
2 5
Frs. 2, 4 , and 1 3 . 1 5 - 5 0 Pötscher. See the analysis in Bernays, Theophrastos' Schrift über
Frömmigkeit 118.
56 DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES OF G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

t h a t h e ever t r e a t e d t h e subject i n m o r e c o m p r e h e n s i v e f o r m . 2 6
H a d he p r o ­
d u c e d s u c h a t r e a t m e n t , o n e w o u l d e x p e c t i t t o h a v e e m b o d i e d i n some d e ­
gree t h e a n a l y t i c a n d t e l e o l o g i c a l schemata f a v o r e d b y his m a s t e r . 2 7

Diogenes of Oenoanda. O n l y w h e n w e t u r n f r o m connected accounts

to f r a g m e n t s — w h o s e evidence, n a t u r a l l y , m a y be q u i t e m i s l e a d i n g — d o w e
find, i n t w o instances, c l e a r p a r a l l e l s t o o u r texts. A c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e course
of technological discovery i d e n t i c a l w i t h t h e one w i t h w h i c h w e are n o w
c o n c e r n e d m a k e s i t s a p p e a r a n c e b r i e f l y i n a f r a g m e n t o f t h e second c e n t u r y
E p i c u r e a n Diogenes o f O e n o a n d a ( F r . n , col. I i - I I n G r i l l i ) . Diogenes
tells h o w , f r o m t h e w r a p p i n g s o f leaves o r hides w h i c h p r o v i d e d t h e first
clothing, m e n came gradually to the idea, first o f felted, t h e n o f p l a i t e d
g a r m e n t s , a n d finally t o t h e i n v e n t i o n o f w e a v i n g . E v i d e n t h e r e is t h e e f f o r t
t o establish a g r a d u a l sequence o f discoveries, so t h a t t h e i d e a f o r e a c h a d ­
v a n c e is as easily a n d as n a t u r a l l y m o t i v a t e d as possible. T h e r e s u l t is a
c o n t i n u i t y o f d e v e l o p m e n t f r o m t h e hides w h i c h a p p e a r u n d e r h e a d i n g 3 B
o f o u r texts t o t h e w o v e n c l o t h o f 5 D ; a n d t h e p l a i t e d c l o t h w h i c h is i n t e r ­
m e d i a t e i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t c o r r e s p o n d s e x a c t l y t o L u c r e t i u s ' nexilis vestis. 28

The e v i d e n c e o f D i o g e n e s suggests, t h e n , t h a t L u c r e t i u s was f o l l o w i n g

E p i c u r e a n sources r a t h e r closely i n h i s e x p o s i t i o n i n B o o k V .

D e m o c r i t u s . O f a s o m e w h a t d i f f e r e n t c h a r a c t e r , t h o u g h j u s t as close, a r e
t h e p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n o u r texts a n d c e r t a i n f r a g m e n t s o f D e m o c r i t u s . Most
o f these p a r a l l e l s h a v e b e e n p o i n t e d o u t a n d discussed b y o t h e r scholars. 29

H e n c e a s u m m a r y e n u m e r a t i o n o f t h e m w i l l b e sufficient h e r e . Something
v e r y s i m i l a r t o t h e i n v e n t i v e process as c o n c e i v e d b y o u r texts is present i n
the fragment ( A 1 5 1 ) w h i c h suggests a n e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e o r i g i n o f t h e
c u s t o m o f b r e e d i n g m u l e s : a c h a n c e m a t i n g o f m a r e a n d jackass was o n c e
observed b y a m a n w h o proceeded t o " t a k e i n s t r u c t i o n " f r o m this a n d t o
develop the custom o f raising mules. T h e later traditions w h i c h credit

2 6
Theophrastus is said to have composed a Peri heurematon (see above, p. 5 ) , and hence it is
sometimes supposed that he concerned himself extensively with Kulturgeschichte (see E . Zeller,
" U b e r die Lehre des Aristoteles von der Ewigkeit der Welt," AbhBerlin 1878, 1 0 7 - 8 ; Dyroff, Z ur

(}uellen.frage bei Lukrez, 1 4 - 1 5 ; but on the character of such works, see above, pp. 4 9 - 5 0 .
2 7
Though Theophrastus voiced doubts about details of the teleological analysis of nature, he
never considered dispensing with the system altogether (O. Regenbogen, R E Suppl. 7 [1940]
1472-76, s.v. "Theophrastos"). Such an innovation did come with Theophrastus' successor
Strato, who also wrote a Peri heurematon; but the latter work seems to have been chiefly a polemic
against Ephorus' treatment of the same subject.
2 8
Also worth comparing with the doctrines of our texts is Diogenes' statement that all arts came
into being through at χρεΐαι και περιπτώσεις μετά τον χρόνου (Fr. 11, col. I I 9 — ) > ΙΙ
περιπτώσεις
( = encounters and so, perhaps, accidents) may be a reference to the specific situations which figure
so prominently in our tradition.
2 9
Notably Reinhardt, passim (cf. also his Poseidonios, 3 9 2 - 4 0 8 ) ; Uxkull-Gyllenband, 2 5 - 3 4 , 4 4 4 6 > _

and Vlastos, AJP 6 7 . 5 1 - 5 9 , PhilRev 55.54, note 7.

 A L T E R N A T E P A T T E R N S O F KULTURGESCHICHTE: P O S S I B L E S O U R C E S 57

D e m o c r i t u s w i t h the i n v e n t i o n o f the a r c h ( B 3 0 0 . 1 4 ) 3 0
or tell h o w he com-
mended Protagoras' i n v e n t i o n o f the porter's c a r r y i n g strap (Gellius, Mod.
Alt. 5.3.1-6) 3 1
n e e d n o t be c r e d i t e d , b u t t h e y d o suggest t h a t t e c h n o l o g y was
o n e o f t h e m a j o r i n t e r e s t s r e v e a l e d i n his w r i t i n g s . A n d t h e s u b j e c t o f S t a g e
5 i n Table 1—the technologies w h i c h arise f r o m the discovery of fire—
suggests t h e D e m o c r i t e a n t i t l e ( B i i e ) AITLCU irepl rrvpos KO.1 TO>V £V -rrvpi. 32
The
distinction between the useful and fine arts c o m m o n to Democritus and
V i t r u v i u s has a l r e a d y been noted (above, p. 43). T h e explanations o f the
discovery o f houses a n d m u s i c f o u n d i n V i t r u v i u s ( 3 A ) a n d L u c r e t i u s (7C)
appear i n Democritus (B154), along with a p a r a l l e l s u g g e s t i o n as t o the
origin of weaving ( o r i g i n a l l y a n i m i t a t i o n o f the spider's w e b ) . Democritus
m a d e M u s a e u s t h e i n v e n t o r o f t h e h e x a m e t e r ( B 1 6 ) ; a n d t h i s suggests t h a t
D e m o c r i t u s , l i k e t h e source f o l l o w e d b y L u c r e t i u s ( 8 B ) , w a s c o n c e r n e d with
t h e o r i g i n o f p o e t r y a n d assigned i t t o a t i m e s l i g h t l y b e f o r e t h e T r o j a n W a r . 3 3

F o r D e m o c r i t u s , as w e l l as f o r o u r t e x t s , n e w i d e a s o r i g i n a t e i n a s m a l l p o r t i o n
of the p o p u l a t i o n ( t h o u g h not, presumably, the same p o r t i o n a l w a y s ) , then
s p r e a d t h r o u g h a s o c i a l m e d i u m ; s u c h , a t a n y r a t e , seems t o be t h e i m p l i c a -
t i o n o f t h e f a m o u s f r a g m e n t o n t h e " f e w a m o n g t h e ones w i t h s k i l l i n s p e e c h "

The source is Posidonius (preserved in Seneca, Ep. 9 0 . 3 2 ) . The passage is incorrectly printed
3 0

by Diels along with Seneca's own comment mentioning another tradition relating to Democritus
( 9 0 . 3 3 : excidit porro vobis ["the further fact has escaped your notice"] eundem Democritum invenisse
quemadmodum . . . calculus in smaragdum converteretur). T h e attribution of the discovery of artificial
emeralds is probably based on the pseudo-Democritea of Bolus (see Diels, ad loc). T h e story about
the arch, coming from a different source and having nothing alchemical about it, is part of a sepa-
rate and perhaps more authentic tradition. It may indicate that architecture was one of the subjects
treated by Democritus in his writings—whence, perhaps, his utilization by Vitruvius (cf. the latter's
reference, 7, Pr. i\ = VS 5 9 A 3 9 , to a work of Democritus on architectural perspective). It is worth
noting that the Kulturgeschichte of Vitruvius I I is introduced as a digression in a passage which
analyzes the qualities of various building materials in terms of the atomic principia through whose
congressus they come into being; and Democritus is explicitly mentioned in this discussion (2.2.1)
as the author of the theorv which lies at the basis of the analysis.
3 1
Gellius gives the fullest version of a story which is at least as early as Epicurus (172 Usener).
3 2
Suggested as the ultimate source for Lucretius 5.1090 ff. by Ernout-Robin, ad loc. T h e work,
like the other books of Aitiai attributed to Democritus, was not included in Thrasyllus' tetralogies,
and it is accordingly regarded as spurious by Nietzsche, Rohde, and Diels (cf. VS, note on I I 9 1 . 1 2 ) ;
see, however, H . Diller, "Wanderarzt und Aitiologe," Philologus Suppl. 26.3 (1934) 4 3 - 4 6 , who
argues that these aetiological writings are "wenn nicht von Demokrit selbst, so doch sicher aus dem
abderitischen Schule."
3 3
Cf. Diodorus, 4.25.1, who makes Musaeus a contemporary of Heracles. Since Musaeus is
hardly separable from Orpheus, it is worth noting that Linus, the inventor of music and teacher of
Orpheus, Heracles, and Thamyras, appears along with Cadmus, the inventor of letters, in Diodorus
3.67.1-2 (from Dionysius Scytobrachion; cf. FGrH 3 2 F 7 , p. 2 3 9 . 2 1 - 2 9 ) . Since epic is here rep-
resented in the person of Thamyras, the collocation of subjects (music, letters, poetry) is exactly
that of the closing portions of Lucretius V ; and the mention of Heracles recalls the corresponding
passage in Diodorus (8A: see above, pp. 44—45).
58 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

(B30), 3 4
w h o a r e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r m a k i n g Z e u s w o r s h i p p e d as k i n g o f t h e
sky. 3 5

Finally, b o t h the accidental a n d empirical character o f the inventive pro­

cess a n d t h e c o l l e c t i v e c h a r a c t e r o f h u m a n a c h i e v e m e n t are r e f e r r e d t o i n a
notice preserved i n a n A r a b i c translation o f G a l e n : " W e f i n d t h a t o f the
b u l k o f m a n k i n d e a c h i n d i v i d u a l b y m a k i n g use o f h i s f r e q u e n t o b s e r v a t i o n s
g a i n s k n o w l e d g e n o t a t t a i n e d b y a n o t h e r ; f o r as D e m o c r i t u s says, e x p e r i e n c e
and vicissitudes h a v e t a u g h t m e n t h i s , a n d i t is f r o m t h e i r w e a l t h o f e x ­
p e r i e n c e t h a t m e n h a v e l e a r n e d t o p e r f o r m t h e t h i n g s t h e y d o " (VS I I
4 2 3 . 1 7 - 2 2 ) . A n d t h e same i d e a c a n p e r h a p s b e t r a c e d i n a n o t h e r f r a g m e n t
( B 1 5 8 ) w h i c h tells h o w " m a n k i n d , t h i n k i n g n e w t h o u g h t s w i t h t h e c o m i n g
of e a c h d a y , d r a w n o n b y t h e i r i m p u l s e t o w a r d o n e a n o t h e r (rfj προς
αλλήλους άρμη) as i f b y a c o r d d r a w n t a u t , p r o c e e d , some f r o m o n e p l a c e ,
some f r o m a n o t h e r , t o t h e i r u n d e r t a k i n g s . " 3 6
T h o u g h t h e phraseology dis­
t a n t l y recalls E m p e d o c l e s , 3 7
t h e horme o f w h i c h D e m o c r i t u s speaks is p r o b a b l y
m o r e i n c l u s i v e , less u n i f o r m l y b e n e v o l e n t t h a n philotes: i t b r i n g s , n o t u l t i m a t e
rest a n d u n i t y , b u t d i v e r s i t y a n d a c t i v i t y . P e r h a p s w e s h o u l d see i n t h e s i m i l e
o f t h e t a u t c o r d a reference t o a l l t h e modes o f i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e w h i c h exist
w i t h i n h u m a n society. M o t i o n a t o n e e n d o f s u c h a c o r d a l w a y s m e a n s some
s o r t o f response a t t h e o t h e r ; t h e s t r o n g e r a n d m o r e n u m e r o u s t h e artemata,
t h e less e a c h m a n is left t o h i s o w n devices. H e n c e t h e n e w t h o u g h t s w h i c h
c o m e i n t o b e i n g w i t h e a c h d a y , t h e diverse sources f r o m w h i c h t h e s t r e a m o f
h u m a n a c t i v i t y is f e d . T h e i d e a is q u i t e s i m i l a r t o o n e w h i c h a p p e a r s i n
3 1
T h e translation of logioi given i n the text is that of Havelock (412) and Pfligersdorfer (WS
6 1 / 6 2 . 9 - 1 9 ) , followed by A . Battegazzore, "Influssi e polemiche nel fr. ( D . K . ) 2 5 di Crizia,"
Dioniso 21 (1958) 46—47. Reinhardt, 5 1 1 , sees in the logioi "die wenigen überlegenen Geister die
zu allen höheren Errungenschaften der Masse vorschreiten"—an interpretation accepted by
Ε . Norden, Agnostos Theos (Leipzig 1913) 3 9 7 - 9 8 , who compares the πυκνός τις και σοφός άνήρ in
Gritias' Sisyphus fragment (VS 8 8 B 2 5 . 1 2 ) . Similarly, W . Jaeger, The Theology of the Early Greek
Philosophers (Oxford 1947) 183—84, considers the logioi a projection into primitive times of the figure
of the Ionian philosopher, and Nock, J R S 49.7, compares a number of passages in later literature
on the nearness to the gods of primitive man and suggests that the logioi are individuals gifted with
some sort of special perception. But the early usages of the word cited by Havelock and Pfligersdorfer
suggest that the only powers separating the logioi from their fellows are those of verbalization. See
also Appendix I V .
Cf., in a later scene of " apotheosis," Livy 1.16.3: "deinde a paucis initio facto, deum deo natum,
3 5

regem parentemque urbis Romanae salvere universi Romulum iubent"; and, in a more general
context, Strabo 2.103, who alleges, in opposition to Posidonius' theories of geographical determina­
tion, that racial and linguistic differences arise κατά έπίπτωσιν και αυντυχίαν. Similarly, τέχναι τι
και δυνάμεις και επιτηδεύσεις άρζάντων τινών κρατοΰσιν αϊ πλειονς εν όποιωοΰν κλιματι.
3 C
Plutarch, who preserves the fragment (Lat. viv. 5 . 1 1 2 9 E ) , cites elsewhere the single phrase
νέα εφ* ήμερη φρονέοντες άνθρωποι (Quaest. conv. 3.6.6551?) 8 - 3 - 7 22D
) » which is the only unquestionably
Democritean part of the passage given in the text. But the echoes of Empedocles (see following note)
and the strongly materialistic cast of the thought suggest that the citation extends further.
3 7
Cf. VS 31B35.5—10, on the φιλότητος ορμή under whose influence πάντα συνέρχεται εν μόνον
είναι . . . συνιστάμεν' άλλοθεν άλλα.
 A L T E R N A T E P A T T E R N S O F KULTURGESCH1CHTE: P O S S I B L E S O U R C E S 59

V i t r u v i u s ( 3 6 . 8 - 1 2 — s e e a b o v e , p p . 3 9 - 4 0 ) ; o n l y h e r e i t is a varietas arte-
matSn r a t h e r t h a n a varietas artium w h i c h gives rise t o maiores cogitationes.

T h e p a r a l l e l s are e x a c t a n d extensive, a n d t h e y take o n f u r t h e r s i g n i f i c a n c e

w h e n v i e w e d a g a i n s t t h e n e g a t i v e results o f t h e rest o f o u r c o m p a r a t i v e i n -
v e s t i g a t i o n . I t is f a i r l y c l e a r t h a t t h e h y p o t h e s i s o f a single source f o r o u r f i v e
texts is c o r r e c t . T h o u g h c e r t a i n affinities t o t h e i r d o c t r i n e s c a n be t r a c e d o v e r
a l a r g e b o d y o f m a t e r i a l , o u r s u r v e y has o n l y served t o t h r o w i n t o s h a r p
r e l i e f t h e essential uniqueness o f those d o c t r i n e s t a k e n i n t h e i r e n t i r e t y . T h e y
seem t o preserve, e v e n i n t h e s u m m a r y f o r m i n w h i c h w e h a v e t h e m , t h e
s t i l l fresh i m p r i n t o f a p o w e r f u l a n d c r e a t i v e i n t e l l i g e n c e , o n e whose t h o u g h t
was e v i d e n t l y t o o i n d i v i d u a l a n d s u b t l e t o be w i d e l y a s s i m i l a t e d , however
m a n y t h e places w h e r e f a i n t echoes o f i t r e m a i n . A n d a t t h i s p o i n t o n e m a y
well wonder whether earlier investigators, inadequate method notwith-
s t a n d i n g , w e r e n o t r i g h t i n a s s u m i n g t h a t t h i s i n t e l l i g e n c e was D e m o c r i t u s ' .
T h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n c a n n o t be r e g a r d e d as c e r t a i n . T h e r e is n o c o n n e c t e d
a c c o u n t o f D e m o c r i t e a n Kulturgeschichte c o m p a r a b l e t o those w e possess f o r
m o s t o f t h e a u t h o r s e x a m i n e d i n t h i s c h a p t e r ; i f t h e r e w e r e , i t m i g h t be c l e a r
t h a t D e m o c r i t u s is as far r e m o v e d as P l a t o , A r i s t o t l e , o r D i c a e a r c h u s from
the t r a d i t i o n p r e s e r v e d i n o u r f i v e texts. M o r e o v e r , t h e v e r y f i d e l i t y with
w h i c h L u c r e t i u s , D i o d o r u s , V i t r u v i u s , a n d P o s i d o n i u s preserve t h e d o c t r i n e s
t h e y r e p r o d u c e m i g h t a r g u e f o r a source less r e m o t e i n t i m e — E p i c u r u s , p e r -
haps, whose w r i t i n g s w e r e k e p t a l i v e i n t h e f i r s t c e n t u r y B . C . i n a w a y those
of Democritus were n o t , 3 8
o r some H e l l e n i s t i c w r i t e r w h o s e n a m e is n o t
r e m e m b e r e d i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h Kulturgeschichte at all.
A f i n a l answer to the question m a y n o t be possible; i t m u s t a w a i t , at a n y
r a t e , a m o r e extensive s t u d y o f t h e t r a d i t i o n e m b o d i e d i n o u r texts. The
passages c o n s i d e r e d t h u s f a r h a v e b e e n c o n c e r n e d l a r g e l y w i t h technology
o r w i t h t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f society i n s o f a r as i t has a n effect o n t e c h n o l o g y .
T h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e t h e o r y t h e y r e p r o d u c e g a v e i n d e p e n d e n t a n d de-
tailed consideration to language, society, a n d social n o r m s has n o t been
c o n s i d e r e d . Y e t i t is o b v i o u s f r o m t h e passages c i t e d a b o v e u n d e r Stage 4 B
( p . 33) t h a t l a n g u a g e , a t least, r e c e i v e d some s u c h c o n s i d e r a t i o n . How
s i g n i f i c a n t a p a r t t h i s a n d r e l a t e d discussions p l a y e d i t w i l l be t h e task o f t h e
n e x t t h r e e c h a p t e r s t o d e t e r m i n e . T h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n w i l l be r e v e a l i n g i n
itself, since t h i s is t h e aspect o f a n c i e n t Kulturgeschichte w h i c h has b e e n least
s t u d i e d ; a n d i t w i l l b r i n g as a n i n c i d e n t a l r e s u l t a b e t t e r c l u e t h a n a n y w e
n o w possess t o t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e source u p o n w h o m t h e five a u t h o r s s t u d i e d
i n Chapters O n e a n d T w o have d r a w n .
3 8
Recognition of an Epicurean source for our tradition would not, of course, preclude the
possibility of extensive Epicurean borrowings from Democritus.
 CHAPTER FOUR

THE ORIGIN O F LANGUAGE

(DIODORUS, VITRUVIUS, EPICURUS)

V i t r u v i u s , D i o d o r u s , a n d L u c r e t i u s i n c l u d e references t o t h e o r i g i n o f s o c i e t y
a n d language at almost exactly corresponding points i n their narratives (see
a b o v e , p . 3 3 ) . L a n g u a g e receives, i n a l l t h r e e instances, a m o r e extended
t r e a t m e n t t h a n s o c i e t y ; h e n c e i t is h e r e t h a t a s t u d y o f t h e n o n - t e c h n o l o g i c a l
p o r t i o n s o f o u r t r a d i t i o n is best b e g u n .

VITRUVIUS 33.24-28 ϋιοϋΟΗυβ 1.8.2-3

in eo hominum congressu [the first human . . . αθροιζόμενους δε . . . έπιγινώσκειν εκ του κατά
aggregation] μικρόν τους αλλήλων τύπους
(A) cum profundebantur aliter e spiritu voces (Α) τής φωνής δ ' άσημου και συγκεχυμένης ούσης

( B ) quotidiana consuetudine vocabula ut obti- (Β) έκ τοΰ κατ ολίγον διαρθρούν τάς λέξεις
1

gerant constituerunt;
(G) deinde significando res saepius in usu (Ο) και προς αλλήλους τιθέντας σύμβολα περι
εκάστου των υποκειμένων

( C ) ex eventu fari fortuito coeperunt

1

( D ) et ita sermones inter se procreaverunt. (Ό) γνώριμον σφίαιν αύτοΐς ποιήσαι την περι
απάντων έρμηνείαν.

LUCRETIUS 5-1028-29

at varios linguae sonitus natura subegit

mittere et utilitas expressit nomina rerum.

D i o d o r u s d i s t i n g u i s h e s f o u r , a n d V i t r u v i u s f i v e , stages i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of
l a n g u a g e . T h e i r a c c o u n t s , e x c e p t f o r t h e a d d i t i o n a l stage i n V i t r u v i u s , a r e
c l o s e l y p a r a l l e l . T h e f i r s t u t t e r i n g o f c o n f u s e d s o u n d s (A) is f o l l o w e d b y t h e
a r t i c u l a t i o n o f these s o u n d s i n t o w o r d s (B); 1
t h e n a c o n v e n t i o n arises by

' Cotidiana consuetudine in Vitruvius' version of this stage might seem to suggest communication
among men, but this does not come until Stage C : deinde . . . fari coeperunt (cf. the definition in
1

Varro, L L 6 . 5 2 : fatur is qui primum homo significabilem ore mittit vocem). What Vitruvius must be refer­
ring to is a period during which, by chattering to themselves, men gradually form the habit of
uttering recognizable patterns of sound (vocabula), rather than mere grunts and cries. They are no
longer dumb or inarticulate, though still infantes. T h e later appearance of the phrase fari coeperunt,
the comparison with Diodorus, and the passages cited below in note 2—all of which make the
second stage in the development of language one in which words are articulated without being given
meanings—demand that we take vocabula in Vitruvius to mean words that have not yet been assigned
meanings. Elsewhere in Latin a vocabulum is always that by which a thing is called, its appellation or
name; but Vitruvius could have been led to this peculiar usage either through imperfect under-

60
 THE ORIGINS O F L A N G U A G E ( D I O D O R U S , V I T R U V I U S , E P I C U R U S ) 61

w h i c h c e r t a i n w o r d s c o m e t o d e s i g n a t e c e r t a i n objects ( C ) ; a n d e v e n t u a l l y
2

a w h o l e l a n g u a g e is c r e a t e d ( D ) . A is t h e o n l y o n e o f these stages w h i c h is
c l e a r l y p a r a l l e l e d i n L u c r e t i u s , w h o , i n a l e n g t h y passage h e r e omitted
(5.1030-go), attempts t o show that m e n , like animals, c a n be expected t o
express t h e i r v a r y i n g sensations a n d e m o t i o n s w i t h c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y v a r i e d
n a t u r a l cries, t h e varies sonitus o f 1028. T h e p h r a s e utilitas expressit nomina
rerum p r e s u m a b l y refers t o a l a t e r stage i n t h e process, t h e e x a c t c h a r a c t e r
o f w h i c h is left u n c l e a r . 3
B u t however Lucretius conceived the workings o f
utilitas i n t h e r e a l m o f l a n g u a g e , i t is m o s t u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e y c o r r e s p o n d e d
t o a n y t h i n g f o u n d i n Stages B , C , a n d D . T h e E p i c u r e a n t h e o r y o f l a n g u a g e
is k n o w n t o us f r o m o t h e r sources a n d is, as w e s h a l l see, q u i t e d i f f e r e n t f r o m
that of Diodorus and Vitruvius.
A l t h o u g h phases A a n d Β i n D i o d o r u s a n d V i t r u v i u s m a y b e c o n s i d e r e d
" n a t u r a l " ones, t h e a c c o u n t , t a k e n as a w h o l e , a p p e a l s t o thesis r a t h e r t h a n
physis f o r i t s e x p l a n a t i o n o f l a n g u a g e . F o r as s o o n as i t b e c o m e s a f o r m o f
c o m m u n i c a t i o n ( i n C ) l a n g u a g e is v i e w e d as t h e p r o d u c t o f n o t h i n g m o r e
t h a n a g r e e m e n t . T h i s c a n b e seen f r o m t h e phrases sermones inter se pro-
creaverunt a n d προς αλλήλους τιθίντας σύμβολα, i n w h i c h the idea o f m u t u a l
a c c e p t a n c e is c l e a r l y p r e s e n t . F o r E p i c u r u s , h o w e v e r , l a n g u a g e is l a r g e l y a
" n a t u r a l " p h e n o m e n o n , a n d L u c r e t i u s , t h o u g h h i s a c c o u n t is less c o m p l e t e ,
f o l l o w s h i m q u i t e closely. N a m e s w e r e n o t a t f i r s t d e l i b e r a t e l y g i v e n t o

standing of a Greek original or through the exigencies of Latin, which in his day may not have
possessed a single accurate equivalent for lexis: locutio, the term used by Boethius (Herrn. Sec.,
p. 5 . 5 - 1 0 Meiser), is first attested in the required sense in Quintilian (1.5.2).
These first three stages are also present in Cicero, Rep. 3.3, which speaks of a process which
2

voces incohatum et confusum sonantes (A) incidit et distinxit in partes (B) et ul signa quaedam sic verba rebus
impressit ( C ) ; and in Horace, Sat. 1 . 3 . 1 0 3 - 4 : donee verba quibus voces sensusque notarent j nominaque
invenere. T h e "marking" of voces is Stage B, that of sensus, Stage C ; earlier (3.100) Horace had spoken
of man as a mutum ("inarticulate," not "mute": cf. Lucretius 5.1088) pecus (Stage A ) . Cf. also
Plato, Prot. 3 2 2 A : φωνήν (Β) και ονόματα ( C ) ταχύ Βίηρθρώσατο; and Euripides, Suppl. 2 0 3 - 4 (in a
passage devoted to Kulturgeschichte): άγγελον γλώσσαν λόγων . . . ώστε γιγνώσκειν όττα (cf. voces
notare).
3
T h e meaning is, I suggest, that whereas nature compelled men to associate certain sounds with
certain objects, the idea of using these sounds for communication came only when men perceived
that their utterances were understood by others—i.e. useful (cf. 1046—48: si non alii quoque vocibus
usi / inter se fuerant unde insita notities est / utilitatis). Once this happened, men would continue to utter
the sounds which objects naturally suggested, but with the expectation now of being understood.
It is only at this stage that voces become nomina. I f this interpretation is correct, it is wrong to attribute
to Epicurus the view that "die ersten erdentsprossenen Menschen bedienen sich bereits der onomata
und der rhemata, besitzen also schon eine artikulierte Sprache" (Spoerri, 137). Language comes into
being by a process, though it is a natural and almost automatic one. For other interpretations of
utilitas expressit nomina rerum, see Dahlmann, 1 6 - 1 7 , and Vlastos, AJP 6 7 . 5 5 , note 20. Whatever we
take to be the meaning, Dahlmann is certainly right in rejecting C . Giussani's effort (Studi Lucreziani
[Turin 1896] 280) to find here a trace of the second, conventional phase in the growth of language
to which Epicurus refers in Ad Herod. 7 5 - 7 6 .
62 DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES OF G R E E K ANTHROPOLOGY

t h i n g s ; r a t h e r , " m e n ' s n a t u r e s a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r d i f f e r e n t n a t i o n a l i t i e s h a d
t h e i r o w n p e c u l i a r feelings a n d r e c e i v e d t h e i r p e c u l i a r i m p r e s s i o n s , a n d so
e a c h i n t h e i r o w n w a y e m i t t e d a i r f o r m e d i n t o shape b y e a c h o f these feelings
and impressions, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e differences produced i n the different
n a t i o n s b y t h e i r p l a c e o f a b o d e as w e l l " (Ad Herod. 7 5 ) . O n l y l a t e r d o m e n
i n t r o d u c e c e r t a i n n a m e s t h r o u g h c o m m o n consent i n o r d e r t o " m a k e t h e i r
m e a n i n g s less a m b i g u o u s t o o n e a n o t h e r a n d m o r e b r i e f l y d e m o n s t r a t e d . "
T h e e x a c t c h a r a c t e r o f l a n g u a g e i n t h e i n i t i a l stage is n o t c o m p l e t e l y clear.
E v i d e n t l y , however, the i n h a b i t a n t s o f a given region w o u l d a u t o m a t i c a l l y
associate c e r t a i n sounds w i t h c e r t a i n objects o r e m o t i o n s — w o r d s w i t h a h i g h
p r o p o r t i o n o f l i q u i d sounds w i t h bodies o f w a t e r , l e t us say, o r h e a v y c o n ­
s o n a n t clusters w i t h feelings o f a n g e r . T h i s b e i n g so, i t w o u l d b e possible f o r
a m a n t o t e l l , i n a g e n e r a l w a y , w h a t his n e i g h b o r was s a y i n g t o h i m ; b u t
to a v o i d a m b i g u i t y a n d l o n g explanations the n a t u r a l v o c a b u l a r y w o u l d
h a v e t o b e s u p p l e m e n t e d b y a c o n v e n t i o n a l o n e . I n a passage whose m e a n i n g
is e v e n m o r e u n c e r t a i n (Ad Herod. 7 6 ) , E p i c u r u s goes o n t o suggest t h a t a n
analogous process w o u l d t a k e p l a c e e v e n w i t h r e g a r d t o c e r t a i n ού συνο-
ρώμενα πράγματα (presumably non-sensible entities like abstractions or
r e l a t i o n s h i p s ) . T h o s e w h o p e r c e i v e d s u c h t h i n g s d i r e c t l y (τους συνειδότας)
w o u l d b e c o n s t r a i n e d a u t o m a t i c a l l y t o u t t e r c e r t a i n sounds i n c o n n e c t i o n
w i t h t h e m ; w h i l e others (subsequently, perhaps) " t a k i n g r a t i o n a l cogniz­
a n c e " o f s u c h e n t i t i e s ( τ ω λογισμω eXopevovs) w o u l d supply " i n t e r p r e t a t i o n "
i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h τήν πλείστην αίτίαν*
T h e w h o l e t h e o r y is a n u n u s u a l o n e , a n d w e d o n o t possess t h e e v i d e n c e
r e q u i r e d f o r r e c o n s t r u c t i n g i t i n its e n t i r e t y . B u t c o n c e r n i n g its g e n e r a l o u t ­
lines a n d its c a n o n i c a l p o s i t i o n i n E p i c u r e a n t h o u g h t t h e r e c a n be l i t t l e
doubt. 5
O b v i o u s l y , i t has l i t t l e o r n o t h i n g i n c o m m o n w i t h t h e d o c t r i n e set
f o r t h i n D i o d o r u s a n d V i t r u v i u s . O f t h e t w o theories, i t is r a t h e r h a r d t o
6

d e t e r m i n e , s i m p l y o n t h e basis o f t h e passages c o n s i d e r e d t h u s f a r , w h i c h , i f
e i t h e r , s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d a n i n t e g r a l p a r t o f t h e t r a d i t i o n o f c u l t u r a l
h i s t o r y w i t h w h i c h w e are c o n c e r n e d . T h e E p i c u r e a n t h e o r y goes f a r t o w a r d
r e m o v i n g the p h e n o m e n o n o f language from an evolutionary perspective;
h e n c e , l i k e t h e c o n c e p t i o n f o u n d i n P o s i d o n i u s o f a social o r d e r c o e v a l w i t h
m a n h i m s e l f (see a b o v e , p p . 3 5 - 3 6 ) , i t o u g h t p e r h a p s t o be r e g a r d e d as a
modification o f the m a i n line o f t h o u g h t evident i n our tradition. O n the
4
Gf. Dahlmann, ίο—11; see below, pp. 7 2 - 7 4 , and Chap. V , note 15.
5
T h e discussions of Giussani [above, note 3 ] 2 7 5 - 8 0 ) , C . Bailey (The Greek Atomists and Epicurus
[Oxford 1928] 2 6 7 - 6 8 ) and P. H . and E . A. D e L a c y (Philodemus: On Methods of Inference [Phil­
adelphia 19411 ' 4 ° ) overestimate the importance of the conventional stage in the theory; see
Vlastos, AJP 67.54, n o t e I D
\ and Spoerri, 136, note 5.
6
T h e inconsistency of Diodorus 1.8.3-4 with Epicurean linguistic theory was first noted by
Dahlmann, 4 0 - 4 1 ; see, further, Vlastos, AJP 6 7 . 5 3 - 5 5 , and Spoerri, 134-41.
 T H E O R I G I N S O FL A N G U A G E ( D I O D O R U S , V I T R U V I U S , E P I C U R U S ) 63

o t h e r h a n d , t h e p o s i t i o n o f D i o d o r u s a n d V i t r u v i u s recalls i n some w a y s t h e
w i d e l y h e l d v i e w w h i c h t r a c e d l a n g u a g e t o a n o r i g i n a l thesis, w h e t h e r o f a
single nomothetes o r o f t h e " m e n o f o l d " a c t i n g as a b o d y . 7
I t reveals l i t t l e i f
any trace o f w h a t was shown i n C h a p t e r T h r e e t o be t h e characteristic
feature o f o u r t r a d i t i o n : t h e preoccupation w i t h e s t a b l i s h i n g a close c a u s a l
sequence o f i n d i v i d u a l h i s t o r i c a l events. I t is c o n c e i v a b l e , t h e n , t h a t l a n g u a g e
d i d n o t receive t h e same c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n o u r t r a d i t i o n as d i d t e c h n o ­
logy, o r t h a t , i f i t d i d , n o clear trace o f such a t r e a t m e n t has survived.
T h e r e is, h o w e v e r , one i t e m i n t h e passages q u o t e d a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h i s
chapter w h i c h , properly interpreted, m a y lead t o a different conclusion. As
has b e e n n o t e d , V i t r u v i u s ' a c c o u n t o f t h e o r i g i n o f l a n g u a g e c o n t a i n s o n e
m o r e stage t h a n does t h a t o f D i o d o r u s . B e t w e e n C (significando res saepius in
usu) a n d D (sermones inter se procreaverunt) t h e r e is t h e p h r a s e : ex eventu fari
fortuito coeperunt ( C ) . T h e p h r a s e m i g h t b e i n t e r p r e t e d s i m p l y as a n e f f o r t t o
1

e m p h a s i z e t h e c h a n c e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r set o f s y m b o l s h i t u p o n , b u t
eventu fortuito o u g h t t o refer t o a single c h a n c e e v e n t , n o t t o t h e w h o l e series
o f c h a n c e associations b e t w e e n s o u n d a n d m e a n i n g w h i c h w o u l d determine
t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e l a n g u a g e . T h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e l i n e is also s t r a n g e : o n e
w o u l d e x p e c t t h e n o t i c e a b o u t t h e b e g i n n i n g s o f speech ( C ) t o p r e c e d e 1

r a t h e r t h a n f o l l o w C (significando res saepius in usu). I s i t possible t h a t C refers,

n o t t o linguistic c o m m u n i c a t i o n , b u t t o sign l a n g u a g e ? T h e m e a n i n g w o u l d 8

t h e n b e t h a t , i n t h e course o f p o i n t i n g o u t t o e a c h o t h e r t h e t h i n g s o f w h i c h
they h a d need, m e n h i t u p o n t h e idea o f using words (already articulated,
b u t n o t assigned m e a n i n g s , i n B ) t o express t h e i r w a n t s . A n d t h e eventus
9

fortuitus t h r o u g h w h i c h t h i s o c c u r r e d m a y h a v e b e e n t h e sort o f c h a n c e e v e n t
w i t h w h i c h w e are f a m i l i a r f r o m t h e discussion o f C h a p t e r O n e .
I f t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is c o r r e c t , D i o d o r u s has o m i t t e d a passage i n h i s
source d e s c r i b i n g t h e first a p p e a r a n c e o f l a n g u a g e a n d i n t e r p r e t e d t h e gene­
r a l s t a t e m e n t a b o u t symhola w h i c h a p p e a r s i n C as r e f e r r i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y t o
v e r b a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n . I t is p e r h a p s s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t i n C n e i t h e r V i t r u v i u s
n o r D i o d o r u s uses t e r m i n o l o g y w h i c h m u s t a p p l y e x c l u s i v e l y t o l a n g u a g e :
symhola r a t h e r t h a n onomata, a n d significando r a t h e r t h a n nomina imprimendo.
A n d elsewhere b o t h L u c r e t i u s (5.1022) a n d V i t r u v i u s (33.22—see a b o v e ,
p. 15) m e n t i o n t h e use o f gestures f o r c o m m u n i c a t i o n before t h e y d e s c r i b e
the b e g i n n i n g s o f l a n g u a g e .

See Spoerri, 138-39, and D . Fehling, RhM 108.219-26, who rightly emphasizes that the view
7

of language in question is essentially "die dem Mythos naher stehende vom heuretes," and so very
different from "die mehr wissenschaftliche der Kulturentstehungslehren" ( 2 i g ) .
With Vitruvius' significando res saepius in usu, compare Agatharchides ap. Diodorus 3.18.6 (on the
8

Ichthyophagoi): διαλεκτοί μη χρήσθαι, μιμητική δε δηλώσει διά τών χειρών διαστ/μαιμειν έκαστα τών
προς την χρεΐαν ανηκόντων (cf. Photius 4 5 Ο Β Ι
°— 1 1 :
μιμητική δηλώσει διοικεΐν πάντα τά προς τον βίον).
9
See above, note 1.
64 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

S u p p o r t f o r o u r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , as w e l l as a c o n f i r m a t i o n o f t h e suggestion
r e g a r d i n g t h e n a t u r e o f t h e eventus fortuitus m e n t i o n e d i n V i t r u v i u s , comes
from t w o passages, o n e i n t h e A e g y p t i a c a o f Diodorus, the other i n
L a c t a n t i u s , b o t h o f w h i c h a r e closely r e l a t e d t o t h e t w o u n d e r d i s c u s s i o n : 10

W h e n m e n were i n the process o f aggregating a n d a b a n d o n i n g their a n i m a l -

like w a y o f life, they a t first fought and ate one another, the stronger always
o v e r p o w e r i n g the weaker. A f t e r w a r d , however, the weaker ones were t a u g h t b y
expedience (sympheron) t o b a n d together a n d make their i d e n t i f y i n g e m b l e m
(semeion) a representation o f one o f the animals w h i c h they subsequently deified.
A l l those w h o were a t a n y t i m e i n fear for their lives w o u l d assemble b y t h e
e m b l e m , thus f o r m i n g a g r o u p w h i c h c o u l d give an attacker pause. T h e practice
spread, so t h a t the h u m a n m u l t i t u d e s became organized i n t o groups (systemata)
each one o f w h i c h regarded t h e a n i m a l w h i c h h a d been its salvation as t h e
greatest o f benefactors a n d conferred o n i t d i v i n e honors. O n account o f this the
separate E g y p t i a n tribes (ethne) d o w n to the present day honor the a n i m a l w h i c h
received d i v i n e honors a m o n g t h e m a t the outset. (Diodorus 1.90.1)

[ P r i m i t i v e m e n ] bestiis et fortioribus a n i m a l i b u s praedae fuisse c o m m e m o r a n t ,

t u m eos q u i a u t l a n i a t i effugerant a u t laniatos p r o x i m i v i d e r a n t , admonitos
p e r i c u l i . . . a d alios homines decucurrisse et p r i m o nutibus v o l u n t a t e m suam
significasse, deinde sermonis i n i t i a temptasse ac singulis quibusque rebus n o m i n a
i m p r i m e n d o p a u l a t i m l o q u e n d i perfecisse r a t i o n e m . (Lactantius, Inst. div.
6.10.13-14)

T h e course o f e v o l u t i o n d e s c r i b e d i n L a c t a n t i u s is e x a c t l y t h a t w h i c h a p -
pears i n D i o d o r u s 1.8: m e n ' s weakness r e l a t i v e t o t h e beasts leads t o a g g r e g a -
t i o n s i n w h i c h speech is d e v e l o p e d . A n d t h e sequence o f gestures f o l l o w e d b y
speech w h i c h has b e e n suggested f o r C a n d C i n V i t r u v i u s e x a c t l y p a r a l l e l s
1

t h e primo nutibus . . . deinde sermonis initia o f L a c t a n t i u s .

T h e D i o d o r u s passage comes f r o m a n a c c o u n t o f t h e o r i g i n o f a n i m a l
w o r s h i p i n E g y p t a n d is i n t e r e s t i n g i n i t s e l f f o r its a n t i c i p a t i o n o f a t o t e m i s t i c
theory o f the origin o f r e l i g i o n . 1 1
T h e process d e s c r i b e d is, h o w e v e r , so
closely a n a l o g o u s t o t h e f o r m a t i o n o f societies w h i c h is t h e subject o f
D i o d o r u s 1.8 (see Stage 4 A - B , a b o v e , p . 3 3 ) t h a t t h e t w o passages c a n n o t
have arisen i n d e p e n d e n t l y . M e n b a n d together for self-protection (with
sympheron h e r e , c o m p a r e hypo tou sympherontos didaskomenous i n 4 A ) ; t h e y t h e n
develop a means o f c o m m u n i c a t i n g w i t h one another (language i n 4B, the
e m b l e m h e r e ) ; a n d t h e systemata t h u s f o r m e d d e v e l o p e v e n t u a l l y i n t o t r i b e s :
T h e relevance of Diodorus 1.90 was first noted by Uxkull-Gyllenband (27, with note 15), that
1 0

of Lactantius by Spoerri ( 1 5 6 - 5 8 ; see also his article in MusHelv 18.79, note 8 3 ) . T h e identity of
Lactantius' source is not known (Spoerri, 158, note 8 ) ; it may, however, be Cicero.
1 1
Cf. Menzel, SB Wien 216, No. 1, 167; T . Hopfner, Plutarch über Isis und Osiris 2 (Prague 1941)
2 6 5 ; H . Bonnet, Reallexikon der ägyptischen Religionsgeschichte (Berlin 1952) 822, col. 2, s.v. "Tierkult."
 T H E O R I G I N S O F L A N G U A G E (DIODORUS, V I T R U V I U S , E P I C U R U S )
6 5

D i o d o r u s notes, i n t h e passage (1.8.4) i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g t h e o n e p r i n t e d

as Stage 4 B , t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l systemata a r e t h e first p a r e n t s o f t h e v a r i o u s
ethne o f t h e w o r l d — j u s t as t h e systemata o f 1.90 a r e t h e ancestors o f t h e d i f f e r e n t
ethne o f E g y p t . T h e v a r i a t i o n i n s u c h s i m i l a r passages b e t w e e n references t o
l i n g u i s t i c a n d n o n - l i n g u i s t i c m e t h o d s o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n suggests t h e use o f
a source w h i c h , l i k e L a c t a n t i u s , m e n t i o n e d o r a l l o w e d f o r b o t h . 1 2
A n d the
same m a y b e said o f t h e c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n t h e h u m a n aggressors o f 1.90 a n d
t h e a n i m a l ones o f 1.8. T h e t e x t o f L a c t a n t i u s as i t n o w stands m e n t i o n s o n l y
t h e l a t t e r . B u t i t is strange t h a t h e s h o u l d d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n bestiis a n d
fortioribus animalibus. Animalibus is s u r e l y a gloss i n t r o d u c e d b y someone w h o
was u n a b l e o r u n w i l l i n g t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e sinister i m p l i c a t i o n s offortioribus.
T h e o r i g i n a l i d e a is p r e s e r v e d i n a f r a g m e n t o f C i c e r o ' s E p i c u r e a n contem-
p o r a r y L u c i u s Saufeius w h i c h e x p l a i n s Latium as t h e n a m e g i v e n t h e p l a c e
w h e r e p r i m i t i v e m e n latuerunt. . . caventes sibi a feris beluis vel a valentioribus
(Servius ad Aen. 1 . 6 ) . 1 3

Both Diodorus (1.90.1) a n d L a c t a n t i u s describe a s i t u a t i o n w h i c h m a y

w e l l b e t h e eventus fortuitus referred to i n V i t r u v i u s . N e w forms o f c o m m u n i c a -
t i o n , l i n g u i s t i c o r n o n - l i n g u i s t i c , arise i n a m o m e n t o f crisis. T h e i r initial
a p p l i c a t i o n m a y b e s o m e t h i n g o f a n a c c i d e n t : t h e sermonis initia o f L a c t a n t i u s
are h a r d l y m o r e t h a n a c r y o f t e r r o r u t t e r e d w i t h o u t k n o w l e d g e o f w h a t its
effect w i l l b e . T h e s u b s e q u e n t d e v e l o p m e n t is n o t c l e a r l y described by
L a c t a n t i u s , b u t D i o d o r u s ' t e x t suggests t h a t d e v e l o p m e n t w o u l d t a k e p l a c e
to t h e degree t h a t t h e n e w m o d e o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n p r o v e d i t s e l f useful. I f
the c r y u t t e r e d succeeded i n s a v i n g t h e u t t e r e r a n d i n w a r n i n g those whose

1 2
This suggestion is also the one which best accounts for the " totemistic" theory of 1.90. Uxkull-
Gyllenband, 27 with note 15, assumed that the author on whom Diodorus has drawn simply trans-
ferred, rather crudely, "die Theorie wonach Verbände durch eine Sprache begründet werden auf
die Verehrung eines Tieres . . . die nun ihrerseits eine Gruppe entstehen lässt." Actually, the
process seems to have been more complicated. T h e emblems of 1.90 were not invented by Diodorus'
source. T h e names of the various nomes of ancient Egypt are often written in hieroglyphics as
insignia (many of them representations of an animal which was the object of a local cult) resting
atop a standard and perch (see K . H . Sethe, "Urgeschichte und älteste Religion der Ägypter,"
Abh.für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, 18.4 [1930] 3 3 - 3 4 ) . Presumably such Standards were at one time
in actual use, and Diodorus' source must have been aware of their existence. I n supposing them to
have been intimately connected with the origin of animal worship, he was evidently following the
same line of reasoning which has led certain modern scholars to a similar conclusion (see A . Moret,
The Nile and Egyptian Civilization [Eng. transl. New York 1927] 3 8 - 5 3 ; A . Moret and G . Davy,
From Tribe to Empire [Eng. transl. New York i g 2 6 ] 1 2 2 - 2 4 ) . What is involved is not mere speculation
but an application of speculative ethnology to observed data. And the application would have
suggested itself more easily if the particular piece of ethnology used embodied, not simply a recogni-
tion of the importance of language as a vinculum societatis, but a more general consideration of the
importance of tangible symbols of tribal identity in the early phases of social development.
I3
' C f . also Isidore, Orig. 1 5 . 2 . 5 - 6 : primum homines . . . nec contra beluas praesidia habebant. . . nec ipsi
inter se homines ab hominibus satis erant tuti—in a passage which, like its counterpart in Lactantius, is
devoted to describing the origin of oppida.
66 DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

assistance h e r e c e i v e d o f i m p e n d i n g d a n g e r , i t w o u l d n a t u r a l l y , l i k e t h e
e m b l e m i n D i o d o r u s , be used a g a i n i n s i m i l a r situations. M e n w o u l d u t t e r i t
w i t h t h e e x p e c t a t i o n o f i t s b r i n g i n g a i d , a n d those w h o h e a r d i t w o u l d r e ­
spond b y assembling to the p o i n t f r o m w h i c h i t came. T h e nucleus o f the
systema w o u l d t h u s b e those w h o g a t h e r e d t o a c o m m o n e m b l e m o r r a l l y i n g
cry, or t o a h a n d signal o r beacon fire—whence, perhaps, the role p l ayed b y
fire i n V i t r u v i u s ' a c c o u n t o f the origins o f s o c i e t y . 1 4
T h e r e is n o r e a s o n w h y
the theory should n o t have envisioned the possibility o f a var i et y o f symbola: 15

whichever type first p r o v e d i t s e l f useful w o u l d c o n t i n u e to be employed.

Eventually, however, the superiority o f verbal to non-verbal communication

1 4
For fire signals as a summons to common defense in historical times, cf. Theognis 5 4 9 - 5 0 , and
Demosthenes, Cor. 169. Gorgias (VS 8 2 B n a 3 o ) includes them among the heuremata of Palamedes,
who is credited by Pliny with the more general signi dationem (NH 7.202).
1 5
I t is just possible that this is the idea behind an obscure passage in Hyginus (274.20—21) on the
origin of the trumpet:
Tyrrhenus Herculis filius tubam primus invenit hac ratione, quod cum carne humana comites
eius vescerentur, ob crudelitatem incolae circa regionem diffugerunt; tunc ille quia ex eorum
decesserat, concha pertusa buccinavit et pagum convocavit. testatique sunt se mortuum sepul-
turae dare nec consumere. unde tuba Tyrrhenum melos dicitur. quod exemplum hodie Romani
servant et cum aliquis decessit tubicines cantant et amici convocantur testandi gratia eum neque
veneno neque ferro interiisse.

Quia ex eorum decesserat makes no sense. Kremmer ( 7 6 - 7 7 ) suggests quia aliquis ex eorum numero decesserat
—which, however, leaves the transition from cannibalism to non-cannibalism unexplained. Rose
(ad loc.) suggests that Tyrrhenus' companions were only thought to be cannibals by the surrounding
incolae. But why, then, should the latter answer what could only seem a summons to their own
destruction? Perhaps ex eorum decesserat mistranslates an εξ αυτών απήλθε in which the subject was
Tyrrhenus rather than some unnamed companion, and in which the verb meant simply "depart."
Tyrrhenus abandons the ways of his companions and summons the pagus to a common defense
against them with a concha pertusa. T h e alliance thus formed would have included, first, a pact
against cannibalism, then the agreement to bury the dead which our text preserves (cf. Moschion,
Fr. 6.32—33 [ T G F 8 1 4 ] where, upon abandoning cannibalism, men make it their custom to bury
their dead μτ/δ' εν όφθαλμοΐς εάν τής πρόσθε θοινής μνημόνενμα δυσσεβοΰς; and, for burial as a
heurema, Diodorus 5.69.5). T h e text as it now stands would thus be the result of modifications trans­
forming a Greek aetiology of the use of the Etruscan trumpet as a call to battle (cf. Aeschylus,
Eum. 5 6 7 ; Euripides, Phoen. 1377; Sophocles, Ajax 17; Anth. Pal. 6.151) into an explanation of the
Roman custom of using it at funerals. Decesserat has taken on a new meaning to suit this context,
and the original connection between burial and the abandoning of cannibalism has been obscured.
Cf. Pliny, NH 7.201, who attributes to Tyrrhenus' son Pisaeus the invention oiaeneam tubam (perhaps
an improvement on his father's concha pertusa), and Juvenal 15.142-59 on the institution of society,
which has removed mankind vetusto de nemore ( 1 5 1 - 5 2 ) and taught them ( 1 5 5 - 5 8 ) :
protegere armis
lapsum aut ingenti nutantem vulnere civem,
communi dare signa tuba, defendier isdem
turribus atque una portarum clave teneri.
Here the tuba as a means of common defense appears in close connection with a situation (prote­
gere . . . civem) which strongly recalls the one described in Lactantius. I f our interpretation of
Hyginus is correct, the concha pertusa may have been another symbolon for which the tradition rep­
resented in Diodorus and Vitruvius envisioned a role in the early history of society.
 T H E O R I G I N S O F L A N G U A G E ( D I O D O R U S , V I T R U V I U S , E P I C U R U S )
67

for m o s t purposes w o u l d i n s u r e i t a m o r e extensive d e v e l o p m e n t ; n e w uses

for speech w o u l d suggest themselves a n d , e v e n t u a l l y , a l a n g u a g e arise.
T h i s c o n c e p t i o n supposes a m u c h closer c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e f o r m a t i o n
o f l a n g u a g e a n d t h e f o r m a t i o n o f society t h a n c o u l d be i n f e r r e d f r o m t h e
texts p r i n t e d u n d e r h e a d i n g s 4 A - B i n Chapter Two. 1 6
L a n g u a g e is n o t
m e r e l y s o m e t h i n g w h i c h society m a k e s possible. F r o m t h e v e r y b e g i n n i n g i t
symbolizes t h e benefits o f c o o p e r a t i o n a n d m u t u a l defense a n d d i r e c t s m e n
to t h e m . I t is t h u s t h e essential m e d i u m f o r t h e w h o l e process b y w h i c h m e n
go a b o u t s e c u r i n g these a d v a n t a g e s . B u t t h e c o n c e p t i o n , e v e n i f i t is riot
present i n t h e passages c o n s i d e r e d i n C h a p t e r T w o , is so closely r e l a t e d t o
t h e v i e w o f t h e g r o w t h o f t e c h n o l o g y w h i c h t h e y e m b o d y t h a t i t is h a r d t o
b e l i e v e i t d i d n o t o n c e f o r m p a r t o f a single a c c o u n t w i t h t h a t v i e w . The
i m p e t u s f o r t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f l a n g u a g e , as f o r t h a t o f t e c h n o l o g y , is a n
eventus fortuitus: a n e w m o d e o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n t r i e d as a last resort i n a
crisis succeeds i n w a r n i n g e n o u g h people so t h a t a successful defense is
p o s s i b l e ; a n d once the u t i l i t y o f l a n g u a g e is t h u s e s t a b l i s h e d , i t w i l l b e c o m e
h a b i t u a l , l i k e a n e w l y d i s c o v e r e d t e c h n i q u e . N e w uses f o r speech, l i k e n e w
techniques, will constantly suggest themselves and become assimilated
t h r o u g h i m i t a t i o n a n d e x c h a n g e i n a social m e d i u m . A n d t h e w h o l e c o n -
ception, l i n k i n g the t w o developments o f l a n g u a g e a n d society, serves t o
m a k e b o t h f o l l o w m o r e p l a u s i b l y f r o m w h a t p r e c e d e s : t h e sequence o f d i s -
crete events w h i c h is b e i n g c o n s t r u c t e d a p p r o a c h e s a step closer t o t h e i d e a l
o f a h i s t o r i c a l c o n t i n u u m (see a b o v e , p p . 4 7 - 4 8 ) .
I f t h i s is i n d e e d t h e l i n e o f t h o u g h t o f w h i c h V i t r u v i u s a n d D i o d o r u s p r e -
serve a f r a g m e n t a r y r e c o r d , a n i m p o r t a n t n e w aspect o f o u r t r a d i t i o n has
b e e n r e v e a l e d . T h e d i s c o v e r y , s i g n i f i c a n t i n itself, has some b e a r i n g o n t h e
p r o b l e m o f sources. V i t r u v i u s a n d D i o d o r u s d o n o t d e r i v e t h e i r t h e o r y o f t h e
o r i g i n o f l a n g u a g e f r o m E p i c u r u s ; a n d t h e i r t h e o r y is so closely s i m i l a r t o its
counterparts o n technology t h a t i t m u s t go b a c k , a l o n g w i t h t h e m , t o a
c o m m o n source. C l e a r l y , t h e n , t h i s c o m m o n source is n o t E p i c u r e a n .
W i t h E p i c u r u s o u t o f c o u r t as a possible source f o r a n y s i g n i f i c a n t p o r t i o n
of o u r t r a d i t i o n , the a r g u m e n t for d e r i v a t i o n f r o m D e m o c r i t u s becomes
s t r o n g e r . W e k n o w t h a t t h e l a t t e r a d v a n c e d several a r g u m e n t s f o r t h e v i e w
t h a t l a n g u a g e is a c o n v e n t i o n a l r a t h e r t h a n a n a t u r a l p h e n o m e n o n (B26):
some w o r d s are s y n o n y m s (isorropa) a n d h o m o n y m s (polysema) o f e a c h o t h e r ;
1 6
Note, however, that Diodorus, by making his ethne descended from linguistic systemata, suggests
that language had a role in the consolidation and continuance of society, if not in its initial forma-
tion; and two passages quoted earlier (above, note 2) for their parallels to the Diodorus-Vitruvius
account of the origin of speech may contain echoes of the same idea. Cicero {Rep. 3.3) speaks of iri^n^ j' ,;
as ante dissociates who were later joined sermonis vinculo; and Horace says that wars contini
language was developed, whereupon men oppida coeperunt munire etponere leges (Sat. i.3.iom<Jjee/dlso
below, pp. 8 5 - 8 6 .
68 DEMOCRJTUS AND T H E SOURCES OF G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

t h e r e e x i s t c e r t a i n t h i n g s (nonyma) f o r w h i c h n o w o r d e x i s t s ; a n d i t is p o s s i b l e
f o r a g i v e n o b j e c t t o r e c e i v e a n e w n a m e . T h i s is, u n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h e o n l y b i t
of Democritus' linguistic theory to survive, 1 7
a n d i t is n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o s h o w
t h a t h e discussed l a n g u a g e i n t h e s a m e w a y as d o V i t r u v i u s a n d Diodorus,
o r e v e n t h a t h e discussed i t s o r i g i n a t a l l . H e m a y h a v e a c c e p t e d t h e t h e o r y
o f a n o r i g i n a l l i n g u i s t i c nomothetes, or have been concerned only with the
question—debated i n t h e Cratylus—of whether words have a n y t h i n g to do
w i t h the real n a t u r e o f the objects they designate. O n e s h o u l d note, h o w e v e r ,
that the m e n t i o n o f the linguistic phenomena to w h i c h Democritus calls
a t t e n t i o n fits m u c h b e t t e r w i t h a n a n a l y s i s o f l a n g u a g e a l o n g t h e l i n e s t a k e n
b y V i t r u v i u s a n d D i o d o r u s t h a n i t does w i t h e i t h e r o f t h e a l t e r n a t e p o s s i b i l i -
ties s u g g e s t e d . F o r s y n o n y m s a n d h o m o n y m s a r e t o b e e x p e c t e d i n a s t r u c t u r e
t h a t has g r o w n u p b y a p i e c e m e a l a n d a t t i m e s h a p h a z a r d process—not i n
the w o r k o f a n o r i g i n a l onomatothetis, w h i c h w o u l d be arbitrary but pre-
sumably self-consistent. 18
And i f Democritus simply meant to d e n y that
w o r d s c a n t e l l us a n y t h i n g a b o u t t h e r e a l n a t u r e o f t h i n g s i t is h a r d t o see t h e
p o i n t o f h i s r e f e r e n c e t o nonyma. Nonyma, o n c e t h e y a r e r e c o g n i z e d as such,
a r e m o r e t h a n l i k e l y t o r e c e i v e n a m e s . T h e y c a n t h u s b e e x p e c t e d t o b e less
n u m e r o u s i n the f u t u r e t h a n t h e y are at present, a n d t h e y were, presumably,

B 1 4 2 , in which the names of the gods are said to be agalmata phoneenta, and VS I I 7 2 . 2 3 - 2 5 ,
1 7

74.18—22 (Leucippus A 6 and 9 ) , comparing atoms to letters, are sometimes adduced in support of
the view that Democritus accepted, to some degree at any rate, a "physis" theory of the relationship
between words and objects: see R . Philippson, "Piatons Kratylos und Demokrit," BPW49 (1929)
923-24; E . Haag, "Platons Kratylos," Tübinger Beiträge ig (1933) 4 6 - 4 8 ; E . Hoffmann, "Die
Sprache und die archaische Logik," Heidelberger Abb. zu Philosophie 3 (1925) 2 5 - 2 6 ; and P. M .
Gentinetta, Z ttr
Sprachbetrachtung bei den Sophisten und in der stoisch-hellenistischen (Diss. Zürich 1961)
2 9 - 3 2 . T h e conclusion seems to me to be unwarranted. T h e alphabet analogies only show that both
linguistic and physical structures are regarded as atomistic—not that one reproduces the other in
some fashion (see A . Pagliaro, " I I 'Cratilo' di Platone," Dioniso 15 [1952] 183-85 and 197, note 8 ;
E . Frank, Plato und die sogenannten Pythagoreer [Halle 1923] 169—71); and it is not words in general
but only certain proper names which are compared in B142 to "voiced images." Greek proper names
did as a rule have some fairly obvious "natural" as well as conventional meaning: "Democritus"
is both a conventional designation for a fifth century philosopher and a "voiced image" of a man
chosen by the people. Likewise with the names of the gods; cf. Democritus' own etymology of
Tritogeneia ( B 2 ) . Phoneenta, it should be observed, ordinarily means "speaking"—not "consisting of
sound''; perhaps we should think of the agalmata as speaking only to those who are capable of under-
standing them—cf. Pindar's /JeAr/ tpcovuevTu OWSTOIOL (01. 2.83—85)—to the philosopher, for example,
who finds in the name " Zeus " a representation of primitive conceptions of deity (see Appendix Four.)
Pagliaro, Dioniso 15.185, and W . K . C . Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy 2 (Cambridge 1965)
476, take agalmata as referring to the mental images which words call forth, in which case the frag-
ment may indicate (as Krokiewicz suggests, Eos 4 7 , No. 1, 4 0 ) that Democritus was concerned with
establishing the verbal and imagistic character of thought (cf. B 1 4 5 : Xoyos Zpyov a/arj). But I doubt
that agalmata phoneenta can have this meaning.
1 8
Cf. Havelock, 118, who suggests that Democritus inferred from "some of the odd and illogical
ways in which language behaves" that "its development depended to some extent on a human
direction which was erratic."
 T H E ORIGINS O F L A N G U A G E ( D I O D O R U S , V I T R U V I U S , E P I C U R U S ) 69

m o r e n u m e r o u s i n t h e past. T h e i r e x i s t e n c e — l i k e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f r e n a m i n g
objects—points to the g r o w i n g a n d evolving character o f l a n g u a g e . 1 9
I t tells
us n o t h i n g a b o u t t h e " t r u e " o r " a r b i t r a r y " c h a r a c t e r o f t h e b o d y o f d e ­
s i g n a t i o n s i n use a t a n y g i v e n p o i n t i n t h e p r o c e s s . 20

T h e r e is t h u s n o e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t , a n d some e v i d e n c e f o r , t h e a s s u m p t i o n
that Democritus envisioned a g r a d u a l g r o w t h of language t h r o u g h piecemeal,
c o n v e n t i o n a l accretions. I f he d i d , a n d i f he considered t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f
technology a n d language i n conjunction w i t h each other, the whole Kultur­
geschichte o f t h e E p i c u r e a n s m a y w e l l h a v e a r i s e n f r o m a D e m o c r i t e a n p r o t o ­
t y p e b y t h e same process o f b o r r o w i n g a n d m o d i f i c a t i o n w h i c h p r o d u c e d
E p i c u r e a n physics. A s m i g h t be e x p e c t e d , D i o d o r u s a n d V i t r u v i u s , h a v i n g
n o s p e c i a l p h i l o s o p h i c bias o f t h e i r o w n , preserve t h e p r o t o t y p e less c o m ­
pletely, b u t w i t h greater fidelity. I t w o u l d be p r e m a t u r e at the present
stage o f o u r i n v e s t i g a t i o n t o a c c e p t s u c h a h y p o t h e s i s , b u t i t is a h y p o t h e s i s
to w h i c h t h e s u c c e e d i n g t h r e e c h a p t e r s o f t h i s s t u d y w i l l b r i n g s t r o n g , p e r ­
haps c o n c l u s i v e , s u p p o r t .
1 8
Note also that Democritus' term nonyma recurs in Diodorus I in an evolutionary context. I n
the Aegyptiaca we are told that, as a result of the ingenuity of Hermes, πολλά των ανωνύμων τυχάν
•προσηγορίας ( ι . 16. ι). O n the relation of this passage to 1.8.3-4 (reproduced at the beginning of
this chapter) see below, pp. 1 0 8 - 9 .
2 0
T . Gomperz (Griechische Denker* [Berlin and Leipzig 1922] 1-329-30), while recognizing that
the fact that "manche Dinge oder Begriffe einer Bezeichnung entraten . . . kann . . . schwerlich
etwas gegen das Vorhandensein eines inneren Bandes zu beweisen scheinen, das die benannte
Dinge mit diesen ihren Namen verbindet," explains Democritus' reference to nonyma in a rather
different fashion. Their existence shows that language lacks the Vollkommenheit and Zweckmässigkeit
which should characterize a natural (or divine) phenomenon. This interpretation assumes that
Democritus is concerned with establishing the arbitrary character of language as a whole. Yet
the fragment speaks only of individual onomata as existing thesei. Democritus may well have held a
similar view about the larger aspects of linguistic usage, but the two problems are different. It would
be quite possible to maintain that, though the individual elements of language are arbitrary and
conventional, the syntactic structures built up out of them do present an accurate reflection of
physis. T h e historical interpretation offered in the text thus seems to me the more plausible explana-
tion for the reference to nonyma in a defense of the view that onomata exist thesei.
 CHAPTER FIVE

THE GENEALOGY OF MORALS (EPICURUS)

I f the reconstruction offered i n C h a p t e r F o u r is c o r r e c t , t h e t r a d i t i o n o f

t h o u g h t w e are e x a m i n i n g m a d e n o s h a r p d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e p r o b l e m s
o f social a n d l i n g u i s t i c o r i g i n s . L a n g u a g e p r o v i d e s t h e essential medium
through which the f o r m a t i o n a n d c o n s o l i d a t i o n o f society takes place.
D i o d o r u s , V i t r u v i u s , a n d L u c r e t i u s are a l l m o r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e p u r e l y
l i n g u i s t i c phases o f t h i s process t h a n t h e y are w i t h t h e social ones; b u t t h i s
s h a r e d p r e o c c u p a t i o n n e e d n o t be a c o n c l u s i v e i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n
o f e m p h a s i s i n t h e t r e a t m e n t f r o m w h i c h o u r a u t h o r s d e r i v e . Since t h e t w o
t o p i c s o f l i n g u i s t i c a n d social o r i g i n s w e r e so closely c o n n e c t e d , t h e y m a y w e l l
h a v e r e c e i v e d e q u a l a t t e n t i o n . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h e texts e x a m i n e d t h u s f a r d o
n o t a l l o w a d e f i n i t e s o l u t i o n t o t h i s p r o b l e m , n o r d o t h e y p o i n t t h e w a y , as
d i d t h e analyses o f l a n g u a g e f o u n d i n D i o d o r u s a n d V i t r u v i u s , t o o t h e r
sources f r o m w h i c h t h e i r a c c o u n t s m a y be s u p p l e m e n t e d .
O u r i n v e s t i g a t i o n h a v i n g r e a c h e d s o m e t h i n g o f a n impasse, a b r i e f d e t o u r
becomes necessary. T h e r e are c e r t a i n E p i c u r e a n texts i n w h i c h a w e l l de-
v e l o p e d t h e o r y o f t h e genesis o f society a n d social n o r m s is t o be f o u n d — a
t h e o r y w h i c h , m o r e o v e r , is closely c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e E p i c u r e a n analysis o f
l a n g u a g e e x a m i n e d i n C h a p t e r F o u r . T h e l a t t e r analysis, as w e h a v e seen,
differs i n i m p o r t a n t w a y s f r o m t h a t w h i c h b e l o n g s t o w h a t m a y be c a l l e d t h e
m a i n s t r e a m o f o u r t r a d i t i o n . I t is j u s t possible t h a t t h e E p i c u r e a n a c c o u n t o f
social o r i g i n s differs i n s i m i l a r f a s h i o n f r o m a discussion o f t h e same s u b j e c t
w h i c h o n c e s t o o d i n t h e m a i n b o d y o f o u r t r a d i t i o n b u t w h i c h has n o t b e e n
preserved i n a n y o f the representatives o f i t c o n s i d e r e d t h u s f a r . I f so, t h e
f o u r theories i n q u e s t i o n — t h e " o r t h o d o x " views of linguistic a n d social
o r i g i n s a n d t h e E p i c u r e a n " v a r i a n t s " — o u g h t t o s t a n d i n a sort o f p r o p o r -
t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p t o e a c h o t h e r . E p i c u r u s ' a c c o u n t o f l a n g u a g e w o u l d be
r e l a t e d t o its c o u n t e r p a r t s i n D i o d o r u s a n d V i t r u v i u s as t h e Epicurean
a c c o u n t o f social d e v e l o p m e n t t o its ( h y p o t h e t i c a l ) c o u n t e r p a r t . T h i s b e i n g
so, o n e s h o u l d b e a b l e , k n o w i n g t h e first t h r e e t e r m s o f t h e p r o p o r t i o n , to
p r e d i c t s o m e t h i n g a b o u t t h e f o u r t h , a n d so t o r e c o g n i z e a n y traces o f i t
which may h a v e s u r v i v e d i n p o r t i o n s o f a n c i e n t Kulturgeschichte not yet
i d e n t i f i e d as b e l o n g i n g t o o u r t r a d i t i o n . I t is w i t h t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y i n m i n d
t h a t w e t u r n t o a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e E p i c u r e a n analysis o f social o r i g i n s .
70
 THE G E N E A L O G Y O F MORALS (EPICURUS) 71

I t has l o n g b e e n r e c o g n i z e d 1
that Epicurus, like certain fifth century
t h i n k e r s , v i e w e d t h e c o m m o n speech a n d t h e c o m m o n n o t i o n s o f r i g h t a n d
2

w r o n g w h i c h o b t a i n i n a g i v e n c o u n t r y as a n a l o g o u s p h e n o m e n a . B o t h c o m e
i n t o b e i n g b y a n a t u r a l process, t o serve u t i l i t a r i a n e n d s ; a n d b o t h h a v e a
v a l i d i t y w h i c h , t h o u g h n o t a b s o l u t e , is nevertheless q u i t e r e a l . T h e y " m a k e
sense" t o a g i v e n p e o p l e b u t a r e m e a n i n g l e s s f o r m a n k i n d i n g e n e r a l .
The s u r v i v i n g w o r k o f E p i c u r u s h i m s e l f contains n o d e t a i l e d discussion o f
the o r i g i n o f n o t i o n s o f r i g h t a n d w r o n g c o m p a r a b l e t o t h e passage o n l a n ­
g u a g e w h i c h a p p e a r s i n t h e Letter to Herodotus. B u t a p o r t i o n , a t least, o f t h e
Epicurean genealogy 3
o f m o r a l s is g i v e n i n a s e c t i o n o f P o r p h y r y ' s De
abstinentia ( I . I O - I I ) w h i c h r e p r o d u c e s t h e t h e o r i e s o f t h e first s c h o l a r c h ,
Hermarchus: 4

I t was w i t h good reason t h a t those w h o first prescribed w h a t w e o u g h t a n d

ought n o t t o d o m a d e n o p r o h i b i t i o n against k i l l i n g other animals. . . . F o r
s u r v i v a l was n o t possible w i t h o u t a n effort a t self-defense o n the p a r t o f those
[ a m o n g p r i m i t i v e m a n k i n d ] w h o shared the same feeding-grounds [tons syntre-
phomenous). B u t some o f the finer natures a t t h a t t i m e [ton tote chariestatdn),
r e m e m b e r i n g h o w they themselves refrained f r o m k i l l i n g their fellows o n ac­
c o u n t o f its usefulness for s u r v i v a l , r e m i n d e d the others also o f w h a t benefit
resulted f r o m their c o m m o n pasturings (tais met' alleldn syntrophiais) i n order that,
r e f r a i n i n g f r o m t h e slaughter o f w h a t was a k i n t o t h e m (apechomenoi tou syn-
genous) they m i g h t preserve the state o f c o m m u n i t y w h i c h c o n t r i b u t e d t o each
i n d i v i d u a l ' s survival. F o r l e t t i n g each other alone (to chdrizesthai) and doing
n o t h i n g injurious t o a n y o f those w h o were collected i n t o the same place was
useful, n o t o n l y for d r i v i n g away the animals o f other species, b u t also against
men w h o came a l o n g w i t h h a r m f u l i n t e n t . U p t o a certain p o i n t t h e n , m e n re­
frained f r o m the slaughter o f w h a t was a k i n to them—as great a p o r t i o n o f t h e i r
k i n d r e d as entered i n t o the same sharing o f the necessities o f life a n d supplied
certain needed services f o r t h e aforementioned purposes [ d r i v i n g a w a y w i l d
beasts a n d h a r m f u l m e n ] . B u t later, w h e n the generation o f the race h a d p r o ­
gressed a n d the animals o f other species h a d been d r i v e n a w a y a n d a n end m a d e
to t h e i r inroads, certain m e n gave r a t i o n a l consideration (epilogismon) to the
advantageousness o f their m u t u a l w a y o f life (tais pros allelon trophais), n o t s i m p l y
1
See Philippson, 298.
2
Cf. Plato, Prot. 3 2 7 E — 2 8 A and Euripides, Suppl. 9 1 1 - 1 7 , where acquiring arete is compared to
learning a language. This, combined with Protagoras' view that right and wrong " a r e " for each
city as they seem to be (Plato, Theaet. 1 6 7 c ) is roughly equivalent to the Epicurean position. Cf.
also the parallel fifth century expressions glossan (or phonen) nomizein (Herodotus 1.142.3, 2.42.4,
4.183.4) and diken nomizein ( 4 . 1 0 6 ) . O n the implications of this view, see Havelock, 192—93.
3
Cf. Porphyry's introductory statement ( 1 . 7 ) : ol he από τον 'Επίκουρου ώσπερ γενεαλογίαν μακράν
οιεξιόντςς φασιν. . . .
4
For general discussions of this passage, see Philippson, 315—19; Haussleiter, Der Vegetarismus in
der Antike 2 8 1 - 8 6 ; and Krohn, Der Epikureer Hermarchos 6—8. Krohn notes (8) what is perhaps a
further fifth century echo: Hermarchus' discussion of the origin of penalties for accidental murder
(not reproduced in the text) recalls Protagoras, VS 8 0 A 1 0 .
 72 DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K ANTHROPOLOGY

u n t h i n k i n g m e m o r y (alogos mneme). Hence they t r i e d i n more secure fashion to

restrain those w h o rashly k i l l e d each other a n d thereby made t h e c o m m o n
defense weaker t h r o u g h their forgetfulness o f w h a t h a d happened i n the past.
A t t e m p t i n g , t h e n , to d o this, they i n t r o d u c e d the legislation w h i c h still holds i n
cities a n d nations, t h e m u l t i t u d e s w i l l i n g l y f o l l o w i n g their lead, inasmuch as
they h a d a better perception already o f the advantage w h i c h l a y i n their aggre­
g a t i n g w i t h one another. F o r k i l l i n g every h a r m f u l t h i n g w i t h o u t quarter, a n d
the preservation o f w h a t was useful for its destruction [non-aggression] c o n t r i ­
b u t e d i n like m a n n e r to security. Hence, o f the aforesaid practices [ h o m i c i d e
a m o n g tribesmen, k i l l i n g o f animals] the one was w i t h good reason p r o h i b i t e d ,
the other p e r m i t t e d .

T h e o r i g i n o f t h e p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t h o m i c i d e is o n e i l l u s t r a t i o n o f t h e
general E p i c u r e a n p r i n c i p l e (RS 3 1 , 3 3 , 3 6 ) e q u a t i n g t h e j u s t a n d t h e
m u t u a l l y a d v a n t a g e o u s . A n d t h e r e is i n d i r e c t e v i d e n c e h e r e o f a n e v e n
closer d e p e n d e n c e o n t h e m a s t e r . H e r m a r c h u s i n t r o d u c e s i n t o h i s a c c o u n t
o f t h e o r i g i n o f social n o r m s t h e same r a t h e r p e c u l i a r d i v i s i o n i n t o " n a t u r a l "
a n d " c o n v e n t i o n a l " ( o r " r a t i o n a l " ) phases w h i c h was f o u n d i n E p i c u r u s '
analysis o f t h e o r i g i n o f l a n g u a g e . 5

M a n ' s o r i g i n a l t e n d e n c y t o r e f r a i n f r o m h o m i c i d e is n o t , e v i d e n t l y , t h e
r e s u l t o f conscious r e f l e c t i o n . T h e c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n n o n - a g g r e s s i o n a n d
s u r v i v a l is s o m e t h i n g w h i c h t h e " f i n e r n a t u r e s " o f t h e t r i b e "remember"
f r o m t h e i r o w n e x p e r i e n c e , e v i d e n t l y i n t h e same w a y as o n e m i g h t r e m e m b e r
a n o b s e r v e d o b j e c t o r e v e n t . P e r h a p s t h e c o n n e c t i o n s h o u l d b e r e g a r d e d as
o n e o f t h e ou synordmena pragmata o f w h i c h , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e E p i c u r e a n analysis
o f l a n g u a g e , some m e n h a v e a d i r e c t i n t u i t i o n (see a b o v e , p . 6 2 ) . O n c e
p e r c e i v e d a n d r e m e m b e r e d , i t is " r e c a l l e d " t o o t h e r m e n w i t h o u t d i f f i c u l t y .
T h e y u n d e r s t a n d w h a t is r e f e r r e d t o , j u s t as t h e y w o u l d i f t h e i r a t t e n t i o n h a d
b e e n c a l l e d t o some u n n o t i c e d p o r t i o n o f t h e i r v i s i b l e e n v i r o n m e n t . I n s i m i l a r
f a s h i o n , o n e w o u l d assume, t h e first p e r s o n t o f o r m a n d u t t e r t h e " n a t u r a l "
word for something is i m m e d i a t e l y understood b y his companions. 6

5
That analysis is introduced as a particular example of the general rule that την φύσιν πολλά
και παντοία υπό αυτών των πραγμάτων διδαχθηναί τε και άναγκασθηναι, τον δε λογισμόν τά ύπό ταύτης
παρεγγνηθεντα ύστερον εζακρφοΰν και προσεξενρίσκειν (Ad Herod. 75) j reappearances of the principle
of development it illustrates are thus to be expected.
6
Cf. the parallel statements on language and ethics found in Epicurus, Ad Herod. 3 8 , and Cicero,
Fin. 1 . 3 0 :
ανάγκη γάρ το πρώτον εννόημα καθ* εκαστον φθόγγον βλεπεσθαι και μηδέν αποδείξεως προσδεΐσθαι.
negat opus esse ratione neque disputatione quam ob rem voluptas petenda fugiendus dolor sit.
sentiri haec putat, ut calere ignem, nivem esse albam . . . quorum nihil oportere exquisitis rationi-
bus confirmare.

With what follows in Fin. 1.30—tantum satis esse admonere. interesse enim inter argumentum . . . et
admonitionem: altera occulta quaedam et quasi involuta aperiri, altera prompta et aperta iudicari—compare the
action of the " finer natures " in "reminding" others of "the benefits from their common pasturings."
 THE G E N E A L O G Y OF MORALS (EPICURUS) 73

I n d e e d , t h e t w o processes a r e i d e n t i c a l w h e n t h e w o r d u t t e r e d is dikaion
or sympheron." 1

L a t e r , w h e n conditions o f life are m o r e settled, a n d b e i n g d e v o u r e d b y

beasts a less f r e q u e n t o c c u r r e n c e , t h e u t i l i t y o f n o n - a g g r e s s i o n b e c o m e s less
e v i d e n t , h e n c e easily f o r g o t t e n . I t m u s t n o w b e a p p r e h e n d e d b y a process
of r e f l e c t i o n , a n d t h e p r o h i b i t i o n against h o m i c i d e to w h i c h such reflection
8

leads c a n n o t c o u n t o n a u t o m a t i c a c c e p t a n c e f r o m t h e w h o l e p o p u l a t i o n . I t
m u s t , t h e r e f o r e , be e m b o d i e d i n l a w s w h i c h , l i k e t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l e l e m e n t s
i n l a n g u a g e , o w e t h e i r o r i g i n a n d d i s s e m i n a t i o n t o c a l c u l a t i o n a n d conscious
a g r e e m e n t . A s s u m i n g t h a t t h e earliest r e m i n d e r s w e r e v e r b a l , t h e w h o l e p r o ­
cess is a n e x a m p l e o f h o w t h e spontaneous a n d necessary w o r d f o r a n
"unperceived t h i n g " 9
becomes at a later date the subject o f " r a t i o n a l
interpretation."
The whole account exactly parallels the description o f the o r i g i n o f
language a n d is o p e n t o s i m i l a r o b j e c t i o n s . I t is d i f f i c u l t t o see h o w t h e
c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n n o n - a g g r e s s i o n a n d s u r v i v a l c a n be d i r e c t l y a p p r e h e n d e d
and r e t a i n e d i n t h e m e m o r y l i k e a series o f sense p e r c e p t i o n s . M e m o r y w i l l
t e l l a m a n t o seek o u t h i s f e l l o w s w h e n i n n e e d o f h e l p ; b u t t o say, " I w i l l
not k i l l t h i s m a n ; h e m i g h t h e l p m e a t some t i m e i n t h e f u t u r e , " r e q u i r e s
f o r e t h o u g h t as w e l l as h i n d s i g h t a n d t h e a r t o f c o n n e c t i n g o n e p i e c e o f d a t a
w i t h a n o t h e r w h i c h is t h e w o r k o f logismos ( o r , m o r e a c c u r a t e l y , synesis), not
o f alogos mneme. S i m i l a r l y , t h o u g h c e r t a i n associations o f s o u n d a n d o b j e c t

7
Gf. Epicurus, RS 3 1 , which defines τό της φύσεως δίκαιον as a σύμβολον τοΰ συμφέροντος εις
το μή βλάπτειν αλλήλους μηδε βλάπτεσθαι. T h e usual translation is "guarantee (or compact) of the
mutually advantageous." But dikaion is what is defined by, or results from, such a compact; it is
strange that it is here declared to be identical with the compact itself. A more natural translation
is "symbol" or "expression" (suggested by Philippson, 292, who notes that the normal expression
for "non-aggression pact" would be, as in RS 33, συνθήκη ϋπερ τοΰ μη βλάτττειν, or, as in Aristotle,
Pol. 3.1280A39, σύμβολα περι τοΰ μή άδικεϊν). "Just" is the name which men give to actions which
are advantageous, the symbol through which the latter are remembered and discussed with a view
to avoiding the doing or suffering of evil. See also below, pp. 8 5 - 8 6 .
8
For the juxtaposition of mneme and epilogismos cf. Pap. Here. 1056 F r . 6 , col. I I 7 - 9 (p. 29 Diano,
3 2 8 - 2 9 Arrighetti) τοΰ εν έαυτώ τέλους μνήμην και επιλογιομόν λαμβάνον. It has been recently argued
that for Epicurus epilogismos, by contrast with logismos, is primarily intuitive: "un atto conoscitivo
che per giungere al suo risultato non abbisogni di alcun particolare processo logico, ma tale da
compiersi piu ο meno nel fatto stesso che la mente si pone a considerare un oggetto" ( G . Arrighetti,
"Sul valore di επιλογίζομαι, επιλογισμός, επιλόγισις nel sistema Epicureo," Parola del Passato 7 [ 1 9 5 2 ]
123-24). Though Arrighetti is probably right in maintaining ( 1 3 7 - 4 4 ) that epilogismos does not mean
"inductive inference" (the view taken by DeLacy, Philodemus: On Methods of Inference [Philadelphia
1941] 154) the difference in meaning seems to lie elsewhere: in the contrast between demonstration
and proof (logismos) and the more informal, common-sense aspects of reason (epilogismos). For a
reply to Arrighetti, see P. H . DeLacy, "Epicurean επιλογισμός," A J P 79 (1958) 179-83.
9
For the use of avvop&v in connection with moral perceptions cf. Polystratus, F r . 7 a 2 - 5 , where it
is suggested that animals have no idea of right and wrong because καλά and αισχρά . . . ου σννοραται
υπ* αυτών.
 74 DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES OF G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

m a y be a u t o m a t i c , t h e c r e a t i o n o f a l a n g u a g e t h r o u g h a n a l o g i c a l extension
o f t h e p r i n c i p l e i n v o l v e d w o u l d be t h e w o r k oflogismos. A n d i f t h e " n a t u r a l "
c r e a t i o n o f s y m b o l s a s s u m e d b y E p i c u r u s is u n l i k e l y , e q u a l l y u n l i k e l y are his
v i e w s a b o u t t h e i r c o m m u n i c a b i l i t y . A s a g e n e r a l r u l e , n e i t h e r t h e sounds
w h i c h o n e m a n associates w i t h c e r t a i n objects n o r t h e v a l u e assessments h e
a t t a c h e s t o c e r t a i n types o f a c t i o n c o u l d be e x p e c t e d t o be immediately
m e a n i n g f u l t o his f e l l o w s .
T h e g r e a t l y e x a g g e r a t e d r o l e w h i c h E p i c u r u s assigns t o i n t u i t i o n i n t h e
i n i t i a l stages o f l i n g u i s t i c a n d social d e v e l o p m e n t is p e r h a p s best i l l u s t r a t e d
b y a c o m p a r i s o n w i t h t h e passage f r o m D i o d o r u s (1.90.1) q u o t e d earlier
(see a b o v e , p . 64) o n t h e e m b l e m w h i c h t h e e a r l y E g y p t i a n s used i n assemb-
l i n g f o r defense. T h e s i t u a t i o n e n v i s i o n e d t h e r e m i g h t f a i r l y be d e s c r i b e d as
o n e i n v o l v i n g t h e use o f alogos mneme r a t h e r t h a n logismos. B u t t h e r e s u l t o f
its a p p l i c a t i o n is m e r e l y t o m a k e m e n seek t h e h e l p o f t h e i r fellows again
w h e n t h e r e is d a n g e r ; t h e r e is n o m e n t i o n o f a n y m o r e c o m p l i c a t e d p e r c e p -
t i o n s r e s u l t i n g f r o m t h e e v e n t . A n d w h a t is r e t a i n e d i n t h e m e m o r y is n o t
e v e n a u n i f i e d p i c t u r e o f t h e w a r d i n g o f f o f a n a t t a c k ; i t is a single sense
i m p r e s s i o n : t h e s t a n d a r d w h i c h is t h e v i s i b l e semeion o f w h a t has happened.
I t has b e e n suggested a b o v e ( p p . 6 5 - 6 7 ) t h a t D i o d o r u s ' a c c o u n t comes f r o m
a c o n t e x t i n w h i c h s u c h semeia w e r e seen as a f i r s t a n d a l m o s t a c c i d e n t a l step
t o w a r d t h e f o r m a t i o n o f a l a n g u a g e . B u t t h i s step is o n l y t h e first o f m a n y .
A g r a d u a l a s s i g n i n g o f s y m b o l s t o n e w s i t u a t i o n s o r objects w o u l d h a v e t o
f o l l o w , a n d t h o u g h t h i s process m i g h t be f u r t h e r e d a t t i m e s b y accidental
o c c u r r e n c e s l i k e t h e i n i t i a l o n e , i t w o u l d h a v e t o i n v o l v e , t o some d e g r e e a t
least, anchinoia a n d prometheia—the conscious c a l c u l a t i o n which, in the
E p i c u r e a n v i e w , b e c o m e s o p e r a t i v e o n l y w h e n t h e g e n e r a l lines o f l i n g u i s t i c
a n d e t h i c a l usage a r e established.
I t is j u s t c o n c e i v a b l e , o f c o u r s e , t h a t P o r p h y r y has a b r i d g e d his source,
and that, were Hermarchus h i m s e l f p r e s e r v e d , t h e sequence o f a c t i o n he
e n v i s i o n e d w o u l d be a series o f c o n c r e t e episodes l i k e t h e o n e i n D i o d o r u s . 1 0

I f , f o r e x a m p l e , i n t h e e a r l y fight f o r s u r v i v a l a t r i b e h a d n e a r l y b e e n a n n i -
h i l a t e d b y e n e m i e s because o f i n n e r dissensions, i t w o u l d be q u i t e n a t u r a l
for the "finer natures" t o say o n s u b s e q u e n t occasions, " D o n ' t fight;
r e m e m b e r w h a t h a p p e n e d last t i m e " ; a n d t h e a d m o n i t i o n w o u l d c e r t a i n l y
be b a s e d u p o n alogos mnSme. B u t t h e o m i s s i o n o f a n y h i n t o f s u c h a n episode,
the extremely abstract character o f the language, a n d the t e r m chariestatoi—
s u g g e s t i n g i n s i g h t s o f a less h o m e l y k i n d — a l l f a v o r o u r e a r l i e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .
P r i m i t i v e m o r a l i t y is a n a t u r a l reflex o f m a n ' s i m m e d i a t e p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e

1 0
We can be fairly sure that Hermarchus is at least being paraphrased rather than quoted. See
Krohn, Der Epikureer Hermarchos 5 - 6 , for a list of words in this passage not attested in other third
century texts.
 THE G E N E A L O G Y O F MORALS (EPICURUS) 75

sympheron as e m b o d i e d i n his w h o l e s o c i a l e n v i r o n m e n t , j u s t as p r i m i t i v e
l a n g u a g e is a d i r e c t reflex o f t h e w a y i n w h i c h h e p e r c e i v e s t h e n a t u r a l
w o r l d . T h e o n l y d i f f e r e n c e is t h a t t h e f o r m e r set o f p e r c e p t i o n s is f o u n d
i n i t i a l l y i n o n l y a s m a l l p o r t i o n o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n , t h e chariestatoi. Neither
morality n o r language is c o n c e i v e d , as is t h e l a t t e r i n Diodorus and
V i t r u v i u s , as t h e r e s u l t o f a series o f r e a c t i o n s t o specific events, r e a c t i o n s
c o n d i t i o n e d b y these events a n d u t i l i z i n g i n c a l c u l a t e d f a s h i o n t h e sugges-
tions t h e y p r o v i d e .
C o n f i r m a t i o n o f t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n comes f r o m L u c r e t i u s , w h o d i s t i n -
guishes t h e s a m e t w o stages i n t h e g r o w t h o f m o r a l s as does H e r m a r c h u s .
The first is c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s w i t h t h e b e g i n n i n g s o f l a n g u a g e ( 1 0 1 9 - 2 0 ) :

t u n c et a m i c i t i e m coeperunt iungere aventes

f i n i t i m i i n t e r se nec laedere nec v i o l a r i .

The i n i t i a l s o c i a l c o m p a c t d e s c r i b e d h e r e seems e v e n m o r e c l e a r l y t h a n i t s
c o u n t e r p a r t i n H e r m a r c h u s t o be t h e p r o d u c t o f a s p o n t a n e o u s p e r c e p t i o n
o f the useful. T h e o n l y cause g i v e n f o r i t s f o r m a t i o n is t h e s o f t e n i n g i n m a n ' s
c h a r a c t e r b r o u g h t a b o u t b y f i r e , houses, a n d f a m i l y a f f e c t i o n . O n c e t h i s has
o c c u r r e d , t h e i m p u l s e t o e n t e r a s o c i a l c o n t r a c t is e v i d e n t l y i m m e d i a t e a n d
almost universal (1024-25):

nec t a m e n o m n i m o d i s poterat concordia g i g n i

sed bona m a g n a q u e pars servabat foedera caste.

E v e n t h e a d m o n i t i o n o f t h e f i n e r n a t u r e s is u n n e c e s s a r y .
O n l y l a t e r a r e f o r m a l l a w s i n t r o d u c e d , t o p r e v e n t t h e excesses s t e m m i n g
f r o m revenge a n d c o m p e t i t i o n for p o w e r (1143-47) : 1 1

1 1
T h e passage here quoted and the earlier one on the social contract are separated by a descrip-
tion of the beginning, degeneration, and end of monarchy (1108—40). T h e notion that monarchy
was a first stage in the development of a legal system, providing the protection achieved later
through laws and responsible magistrates, appears elsewhere in Latin literature (Seneca, Ep. 9 0 . 6 ;
Cicero, Off. 2.41—42), and there are doubtless traces of it here (see below, Chap. V I , note 18). But
Lucretius' basic view of the institution is rather different. Monarchy does not arise in answer to a
social need—it is the result of the attempt on the part of individuals to guarantee themselves
security ( 1 1 2 0 - 2 2 ) :
at claros homines voluerunt se atque potentes
ut fundamento stabili fortuna maneret
et placidam possent opulenti degere vitam.
The attempt to achieve this goal fails because of the rivalries it breeds ( 1 1 2 3 - 2 6 ) :
ad summum succedere honorem
certantes iter infestum fecere viai,
et tamen e summo quasi fulmen deicit ictos
invidia interdum contemptim in Tartara taetra.
Competition for arche may thus be regarded as one of the results of the forgetfulness of the advantages
of cooperation and solidarity which Hermarchus mentions; but in the same passage ( 1 1 4 8 - 5 0 ) ,
 7 6 DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

i n d e m a g i s t r a t u m p a r t i m docuere creare
i u r a q u e constituere u t vellent legibus u t i .
n a m genus h u m a n u m defessum v i colere a e v u m
ex i n i m i c i t i i s l a n g u e b a t ; q u o magis i p s u m
sponte sua cecidit sub leges artaque i u r a .

H e r e , as i n H e r m a r c h u s , t h e i n s t i g a t o r s a r e a s m a l l g r o u p (cf. partim i n 1 1 4 3 ) ,
and t h e i n n o v a t i o n , t h o u g h p r o c e e d i n g f r o m t h e m , receives g e n e r a l s u p p o r t
because o f i t s usefulness.
L u c r e t i u s h i m s e l f m a y b e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e s e n t i m e n t a l lines d e s c r i b i n g
t h e r o l e p l a y e d b y t h e f a m i l y i n t h e w h o l e process ( 1 0 2 1 - 2 3 ) : 1 2

et pueros c o m m e n d a r u n t m u l i e b r e q u e saeclum
vocibus et gestu c u m balbe significarent
i m b e c i l l o r u m esse aecum misererier omnis.

But t h e philanthrdpia e v i d e n t h e r e is A t t i c as w e l l as L u c r e t i a n , 1 3
and to
suppose t h a t imbecillorum esse aecum misererier omnis is a n o t i o n c a p a b l e o f b e i n g
c o n v e y e d i n gestures is q u i t e i n k e e p i n g w i t h E p i c u r u s ' p e c u l i a r v i e w s o n t h e
clarity a n d c o m m u n i c a b i l i t y o f p r i m i t i v e man's perceptions.
T h e i n f l a t e d i m p o r t a n c e w h i c h E p i c u r u s assigns t o t h e n a t u r a l phase i n
the development o f m o r a l s is e x p l i c a b l e as t h e r e s u l t o f a t o o s c r u p u l o u s
a d h e r e n c e t o h i s o w n s e n s a t i o n a l i s m . S i n c e j u s t i c e , d e f i n e d as συμφέρον. ..
τι... ev τη προς αλλήλους κοινωνία (RS 3 6 ) , is a n i d e a w h i c h answers t o
s o m e t h i n g i n r e a l i t y (RS 3 1 : το τής φύσ€ως δίκαιον), i t is aprolepsis r a t h e r t h a n
a false hypolepsis. * 1
A s s u c h i t o r i g i n a t e s w i t h t h e first p e r s o n t o u t t e r t h e
" n a t u r a l " word for i t , 1 5
a n d i n t h e f o r m o f a n βπιβολήν Ιπί τι εναργές

Lucretius himself seems to envision another manifestation of the same tendency: it is the disorder
stemming from immoderate revenge-taking which makes men willing to accept leges artaque iura.
Yet another line of development is suggested by the fragment of Colotes (ap. Plut. Adv. Col. 3 0
1124D) which praises οι νόμους οΊατάζαντες και νόμιμα και τό βασιλευεσθαι τάς πόλεις και άρχεσθαι
καταστήσαντες as bringers of ησυχία and ασφάλεια: without them men would live an animal
existence in which ό προστυχών τον εντυχόντα μόνον ού κατέδεται. Here either kings or constitutional
magistrates are the sequel to a reign of violence which in Lucretius leads only to the latter. T h e
sequence of events envisioned would seem to be similar to that given in Tacitus, Ann. 3.26.3 (to
avoid the primitive rule of vis and ambitio men had recourse to laws—aut statim aut postquam regum
pertaesum). Kingship is thus not always sharply distinguished from other forms of rule in Epicurean
Kulturgeschichte, and it is not, as Philippson maintains ( 3 1 4 - 1 5 ) , a necessary stage in the growth of
society. There is agreement in substance between Hermarchus and Lucretius.
1 2
Cf. P. Boyance, Lucrece et I'e'picure'isme (Paris 1963) 2 4 3 .
1 3
Cf. Lycurgus, Leocr. 141, on the κοινοϋ παρά πααι ελεου due to women and children. T h e speech
antedates Epicurus' arrival in Athens by about a decade.
1 1
For the opposition, cf. Ad Men. 124, and for dikaion as a prolepsis, RS 37 and 3 8 .
F o r this identification of prolepseis with initial impressions either of the objects which men
1 5

encounter in their daily life or of "unperceived things" like dikaion, see Dahlmann, 13-14. O u r
interpretation of Hermarchus and Lucretius may shed some additional light on a question which
has divided both ancient and modern interpreters of Epicurus (on the problem see, most recently,
 T H E G E N E A L O G Y OF MORALS (EPICURUS) 77

( C l e m e n t , Strom. 2.4 = 255 U s e n e r ) , n o t i n logismos. Logismos, w i t h t h e possi­

b i l i t y f o r e r r o r w h i c h i t b r i n g s , comes o n l y a t a l a t e r stage, t o r e m e d y the
forgetfulness which the g r o w i n g c o m p l e x i t y o f life has produced; and its
s o l u t i o n is a n imperfect one: a system o f legal redress t h a t c r e a t e s new
problems i n place o f the o l d ( L u c r . 5.1151):

inde metus maculat poenarum praemia v i t a e . 1 6

Though t h i s p o s i t i o n m a k e s s o m e sense i n E p i c u r e a n t e r m s , i t seems n o t

to have been h e l d w i t h c o m p l e t e consistency b y the school. F r a g m e n t s from
a w o r k o f the second scholarch, Polystratus, e m b o d y a view which, though
c o n t i n u i n g t o m a i n t a i n t h e u n i t y o f dikaion a n d sympheron, gives t o logismos
a m u c h more central role i n the development of morality. 1 7
T h e w o r k is a
polemic against an opponent—presumably Sceptic or Cynic 1 8
—who has

K . Kleve, SO Suppl. 1 9 . 2 3 - 3 4 ) . Diogenes Laertius ( 1 0 . 3 3 ) , followed by most modern commentators,

says that prolepseis are general notions and categories derived directly from observation. F o r Cicero
however {Fin. 1.31; ND 1.44), followed by N . DeWitt {Proceedings of the Royal Society of Canada, Ser.
3, 3 6 , No. 2, 3 6 - 4 4 and Epicurus and his Philosophy [Minneapolis 1954] 142—50) and A . S. Pease (in
his note toND 1.43), prolepseis are innate ideas of justice and other intangibles. T h e source of the
difficulty may be Epicurus himself, who seems to have regarded as arising directly out of experience
certain notions which were usually analyzed in rather different fashion: as innate ideas (the Platonic
doctrine of anamnesis), as the result of conscious reflection (the view of certain Sophists, revived in
the New Academy—cf. Cicero, Rep. 3 . 2 3 ) , or as a combination of the two (the Stoic position—see
below, pp. 1 3 8 - 3 9 ) . Commentators on this doctrine may have been inclined to disregard the non-
immediate, non-obvious objects of prolepsis, either narrowing the meaning of the term so that it
included only those ennoiai whose origin seemed explicable in simple empirical terms (Diogenes
Laertius), or else explaining texts which spoke of prolepseis ofdikaion and the like by importing the
extraneous notion of innatae cogitationes. T h e latter is the procedure followed by Cicero, inspired
perhaps by the example of certain later Epicureans. Cf. Fin. 1.31, where, after stating as the view of
his school that the desirability of pleasure is something "sensed" like the warmth of fire or the
whiteness of snow (quoted above, note 6 ) Torquatus goes on to say that sunt. . . quidam e noslris . . .
qui negent satis esse quid bonum sit quid malum sensu iudicari, sed animo etiam ac ratione intellegiposse . . . itaque
aiunt hanc quasi naturalem atque insitam in animis nostris inesse notionem. (I assume, with Bignone, RFIC
37.62-64 and Reid ad loc, as against Philippson, " Z u Ciceros Erstem Buche de Finibus," R h M 6 6
[1911] 2 3 2 - 3 4 and W . Liebich, " E i n Philodem-Zeugnis bei Ambrosius," Philologus 9 8 [1954]
124-25, that the sensus iudicium mentioned here is a prolepsis, and that the innovation of quidam is not,
as Liebich suggests, a transfer of the Stoic notion of emphytoi ennoiai to an order of phenomena where
the Epicurean idea of prolepsis did not originally apply, but rather an attempt to clarify, perhaps
under Stoic or Platonic influence, an Epicurean use of the term prolepsis which seemed obscure.)
For a comparable fluctuation in the meaning of prolepsis in Stoic texts, see F . H . Sandbach, ""Εννοια
and Πρόληφις in the Stoic Theory of Knowledge," CQ_ 24 (1930) 4 7 - 4 9 .
1 6
O n Lucretius' whole conception of a "natural" society and morality replaced by the city-state
and the rule of law see the discussions of B. Farrington, Science and Society 1 7 . 3 3 3 - 3 7 , " Vita Prior in
Lucretius," Hermathena 81 (1953) 59—62, and "Lucretius and Mamlius on Friendship," Hermathena
83 ( i 9 5 4 ) 10-13·
1 7
T h e work is entitled Περί αλόγου καταφρονήσεων (or Προς τους άλόγως καταθρασυνομενονς των
εν τοις πολλοίς δοξαζομενων) and was edited by C . Wilke (Leipzig 1905). For an analysis of its con­
tents, see Wilke's introduction and Philippson, JVJbb 23.487-94.
1 8
O n his identity see Wilke (above, note 17) xiii-xx, and Philippson, J\fjbb 23.494-506.
78 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

attempted to show the u n n a t u r a l character of h u m a n notions o f r i g h t a n d

w r o n g b y p o i n t i n g o u t t h e i r absence f r o m t h e a n i m a l w o r l d . Polystratus
c a n n o t r e p l y , as a n i d e a l i s t m i g h t , b y p o s i t i n g a n i n n a t e sense o f r i g h t a n d
w r o n g as t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c m a r k o f m a n w h i c h sets h i m a p a r t f r o m t h e beasts.
H e says, r a t h e r , t h a t m a n ' s case is n o t a n a l o g o u s t o t h a t o f t h e animals
because t h e y l a c k logismos—or a t least t h e k i n d o f logismos w h i c h m e n h a v e
(Fr. 6 b 4 - 7 a 7 ) . A n i m a l s t h u s c a n n o t foresee m i s f o r t u n e , o r e v e n a v o i d t h e
r e c u r r e n c e o f t h e s a m e s o r t o f disasters w h i c h t h e y h a v e o n c e suffered (Fr.
3 . 4 - 4 3 6 ) . T h e i n f e r e n c e seems t o be t h a t a l l h u m a n m o r a l i t y , n o t j u s t t h e
l a t e r phases o f i t s d e v e l o p m e n t , is t h e r e s u l t o f a c a l c u l a t e d e f f o r t t o a c h i e v e
w h a t is a d v a n t a g e o u s . 1 9

T h e v a c i l l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e t w o p o s i t i o n s is u n d e r s t a n d a b l e , given the
i n n e r tensions o f a s c h o o l w h i c h a t o n c e g l o r i f i e d a n d d i s t r u s t e d reasoning. 2 0

The " n a t u r a l " v i e w o f m o r a l i t y m i g h t be e x p e c t e d t o a p p e a r w h e n the

C y n i c o r " p r i m i t i v i s t " s t r a i n i n E p i c u r e a n i s m is d o m i n a n t , as i n p o r t i o n s
o f L u c r e t i u s V ; t h e " c o n v e n t i o n a l i s t " o r " i n t e l l e c t u a l i s t " one o n occasions
w h e n t h e r e is n e e d t o d e f e n d t h e s c h o o l a g a i n s t t h e c h a r g e o f a n i m a l i s m . 2 1

B u t t h e f l u c t u a t i o n i n p o i n t o f v i e w m a y be c o n n e c t e d w i t h o t h e r factors
as w e l l . H e r m a r c h u s a n d t h e analysis o f l a n g u a g e i n Ad Herod. 75 t a k e t h e i r
p l a c e a l o n g s i d e t w o passages i n L u c r e t i u s ( 5 . 9 4 2 - 4 4 a n d 1 0 1 4 - 1 6 ) already
n o t e d because o f t h e i r absence f r o m a c c o u n t s w h i c h o t h e r w i s e resemble
Lucretius q u i t e c l o s e l y (see a b o v e , p p . 2 7 - 2 8 a n d 3 4 ) . T h r o u g h a l l these
Epicurean passages a consistent p a t t e r n c a n be t r a c e d : b i o l o g i c a l o r e n ­
v i r o n m e n t a l d e t e r m i n i s m is e m p h a s i z e d a t t h e expense o f t h e p l a y o f a c c i d e n t
and human calculation. 2 2
The earth's greater productivity and man's
greater hardness influence t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e earliest p e r i o d o f h u m a n
history (Lucretius 5.942-44 a n d 9 2 5 - 3 0 ) ; the w a r m surroundings produced

1 9
Gf. D . L . 10.120 ( = Usener 5 1 7 ) :
*l
T v
άνδρείαν φύσει μή γίνεσθαι, Χογισμώ δε τον συμφέροντος.
2 0
O r perhaps it is a difficulty endemic to empiricism. A n identical vacillation has, at any rate,
been pointed out in the thought of Locke, for whom moral ideas are alternately "evident in them­
selves" or principles requiring "reasoning and discourse and some exercise of the mind to discover
the certainty of their truth" (see M . White, Social Thought in America [Boston 1957] 2 6 8 - 7 0 ) . And
the difficulty is compounded by a tendency, in Locke's interpreters as well as Epicurus', to confuse
self-evident notions with innate notions, prolepseis with innatae et insitae cogitationes (see above, note 15,
and for Locke, White, loc. cit.).
2 1
As in the sections of Philodemus' Περί τών θεών, I (col. xv 16-34, PP- 2 6 - 2 7 Diels) which seek
to reply to the charge that, on Epicurean principles, animals are more fortunate than men because
not troubled by the vain fears and imaginings produced by logismos.
2 2
Cf. above, Chap. I I , note 5. Reinhardt (Poseidonios 404) draws a correct contrast between
Diodorus and Vitruvius on the one hand, with their emphasis on "Zufall und Willkür," and
Epicurus on the other, where "die menschliche Entwicklung unter dem Gesetze des Naturzwanges
steht." The difference in attitude is perhaps traceable in so small a point as the emphasis on necessity
in Lucretius' and Tzetzes' closely parallel accounts of how man first took refuge in caves (see above,
p. 2 9 ) ; the corresponding passage in Diodorus has peira rather than ananke.
 T H E G E N E A L O G Y OF MORALS (EPICURUS) 79

b y f i r e a n d h o u s i n g b r i n g a b o u t a s o f t e n i n g i n his c h a r a c t e r (5.1014-16);
p a r t i c u l a r aspects o f c l i m a t e a n d t o p o g r a p h y are r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e c o n -
f i g u r a t i o n s t a k e n b y l a n g u a g e ( E p i c u r u s , Ad Herod. 75) a n d t h e i n i t i a l p r o h i -
b i t i o n a g a i n s t h o m i c i d e is a n a u t o m a t i c r e a c t i o n t o t h e f i g h t f o r s u r v i v a l
( H e r m a r c h u s ) . O n e wonders w h e t h e r the c o m m o n tendency to be observed
h e r e is n o t t h e r e s u l t o f a conscious r e w o r k i n g o f p a r t s o f a n o l d e r t r a d i t i o n
a l o n g s p e c i f i c a l l y E p i c u r e a n lines. I f so, P o l y s t r a t u s ' i n t e l l e c t u a l i s t p o s i t i o n
o n the o r i g i n o f m o r a l i t y m a y reflect t h e t r a d i t i o n i n p u r e r f o r m : the s t a r t i n g
p o i n t , p e r h a p s , f o r t h e r e v i s e d analyses w h i c h a p p e a r i n H e r m a r c h u s a n d
L u c r e t i u s . I t is t h e emphasis o n n a t u r a l i n t u i t i o n t o t h e e x c l u s i o n o f logismos
w h i c h l i n k s b o t h these a c c o u n t s t o t h e E p i c u r e a n t h e o r y o f t h e o r i g i n o f
language; a n d , conversely, t h e presence o f logismos—in the f o r m o f the
c a l c u l a t i o n w h i c h m u s t o c c u r i f m e n are t o seize a n d b u i l d u p o n t h e sugges-
tions p r o v i d e d b y specific situations—is a characteristic feature of the
account o f the origin o f language found i n Diodorus and Vitruvius.
P o l y s t r a t u s , t h o u g h a n E p i c u r e a n , a p p l i e s t o ethics a n a p p r o a c h w h i c h has
something i n c o m m o n w i t h the approaches o f Diodorus and V i t r u v i u s to
language. I t is c o n c e i v a b l e , then, t h a t we have i n Polystratus' account a
r e m n a n t o f w h a t was o n c e t h e f o u r t h t e r m o f t h e p r o p o r t i o n d e s c r i b e d a t t h e
b e g i n n i n g o f this chapter.
P o l y s t r a t u s c o n t a i n s n o reference t o t h e r o l e o f t h e specific s i t u a t i o n i n t h e
e v o l u t i o n a r y process, a n d t h i s is r e q u i r e d i f his w o r k is t o c o m p l e t e o u r p r o -
p o r t i o n i n e x p e c t e d a n d s a t i s f a c t o r y f a s h i o n . B u t e m p h a s i s o n t h e specific
s i t u a t i o n is a characteristic feature of another text—one which recalls
P o l y s t r a t u s i n t h e w a y i t l i n k s a u t i l i t a r i a n m o r a l i t y t o logismos, a n d w h i c h
c o n t a i n s , i n a d d i t i o n , a c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e u n f o l d i n g o f t h e h i s t o r i c a l process
through discrete episodes e x a c t l y paralleling the conception found in
V i t r u v i u s , D i o d o r u s , a n d t h e w h o l e analysis o f t e c h n o l o g i c a l o r i g i n s ex-
a m i n e d i n C h a p t e r T w o . I t is t o a n e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h i s t e x t t h a t w e m u s t n o w
turn.
 CHAPTER SIX

THE GENEALOGY O FMORALS (POLYBIUS)

I n t h e s i x t h b o o k o f his Histories P o l y b i u s i n c l u d e s , as a sort o f preface t o h i s

famous cyclical theory o f the transformation o f constitutions, a n account o f
the d e v e l o p m e n t o f society f r o m i t s h e r d - l i k e b e g i n n i n g s t o t h e c r e a t i o n o f
the first g o v e r n m e n t based o n p o p u l a r consent ( i n t h e special t e r m i n o l o g y
used b y P o l y b i u s , " k i n g s h i p " ) . T h e sources o f t h i s passage h a v e b e e n t h e
s u b j e c t o f m u c h i n v e s t i g a t i o n . E a r l i e r studies assumed S t o i c , P e r i p a t e t i c , o r
1

( m o r e r a r e l y ) A c a d e m i c o r i g i n ; i n r e c e n t years P o l y b i u s has m o r e o f t e n b e e n
seen as a n e c l e c t i c . 2
T h e h i s t o r i a n ' s o b v i o u s a d m i r a t i o n f o r t h e praktikos bios
o f t h e s t a t e s m a n has t e n d e d t o p u t E p i c u r u s o u t o f c o u r t as a possible s o u r c e ; 3

h e n c e t h e v e r y close p a r a l l e l s w h i c h l i n k b o t h H e r m a r c h u s a n d P o l y s t r a t u s
to Polybius have been a l l b u t i g n o r e d . 4

T h e passage i n w h i c h these p a r a l l e l s a p p e a r b e g i n s after t h e f i r s t h u m a n

society has b e e n d e s c r i b e d ( 6 . 5 . 5 - 9 ) , a n a n i m a l - l i k e h e r d (systema) consisting
o f t h e s u r v i v o r s o f a c a t a c l y s m w h i c h has w i p e d o u t a p r e v i o u s c i v i l i z a t i o n .
V i o l e n c e r u l e s , a n d t h e strongest a n d b o l d e s t enjoys u n c h a l l e n g e d p o w e r .

(6.5.10) B u t w h e n , t h r o u g h t h e passage o f t i m e , there arises w i t h i n these

aggregations a c o m m o n n u r t u r e (syntrophia) a n d a c o m m o n w a y o f life (synetheia)
this is the n a t u r a l b e g i n n i n g o f kingship a n d then first does a n o t i o n (ennoia) o f
the fair a n d the j u s t come i n t o being a m o n g m e n , a n d likewise o f their oppo-
sites.
(6.6.1) A n d t h e m a n n e r o f t h e i r b e g i n n i n g a n d c o m i n g t o be is as follows:
(2) the sexual urge b e i n g a n a t u r a l one a n d resulting i n t h e b i r t h o f c h i l d r e n ,
whenever a n y o f t h e c h i l d r e n m e n have b r o u g h t u p reaches m a t u r i t y a n d
neither shows favor t o n o r protects those b y w h o m he has been reared, b u t does
j u s t the opposite, t r y i n g t o say o r d o t h e m h a r m , (3) this is obviously l i k e l y t o
displease a n d offend those present, w h o w i l l have observed parents' concern a n d
suffering o n b e h a l f o f t h e i r c h i l d r e n a n d the care a n d n u r t u r e the latter receive.
(4) F o r , since t h e h u m a n race differs f r o m t h e other animals i n this, trtat i t
1
For a survey of it, see Walbank, 6 4 3 - 4 5 .
2
C f , for example, the views of Taeger, Die Archaeologie des Polybios 1 9 - 2 7 ; Ryffel, ΜΕΤΑΒΟΛΗ
ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΩΝ: Der Wandel der Staatsoerfassungen 1 9 8 - 2 0 2 ; E . Mioni, Polibio (Padua 1949) 6 6 - 6 8 ;
and Walbank, 644.
3
Gf. von Fritz, Theory of the Mixed Constitution 5 5 .
4
They are noted in passing by Walbank, 6 5 3 (ad 6.5.10), and von Fritz, Theory of the Mixed
Constitution 413, note 46.
80
 T H E G E N E A L O G Y O F MORALS (POLYBIUS) 8l

partakes i n t h e faculties o f reason a n d c a l c u l a t i o n (logismos), i t is evident t h a t

the contrast o f behavior j u s t m e n t i o n e d is n o t l i k e l y t o escape t h e i r notice, as i t
w o u l d i n t h e case o f other a n i m a l s ; (5) rather, they w i l l note t h e occurrence
a n d be displeased w i t h the s i t u a t i o n , since they foresee the f u t u r e a n d conclude
t h a t something similar m a y happen to each o f t h e m .
(6) A n d again, w h e n someone has received a i d o r succor f r o m another i n
moments o f danger a n d does n o t show favor to his rescuer, b u t even tries to
h a r m h i m , i t is evident t h a t he is l i k e l y t o displease a n d offend b y such conduct
those w h o observe i t , since they share their neighbor's i n d i g n a t i o n a n d i m a g i n e
themselves i n his position. (7) O u t o f w h i c h s i t u a t i o n there arises i n each m a n a
certain n o t i o n a n d perception o f the character o f the f i t t i n g (kathekon), w h i c h is
the o r i g i n a n d e n d o f justice.
(8) Likewise, whenever someone champions the cause o f a l l i n moments o f
danger a n d supports a n d withstands the attacks o f the fiercest animals, i t is
likely t h a t he w i l l receive f r o m the people marks o f good w i l l a n d pre-eminence,
a n d t h a t the m a n w h o does the opposite w i l l be condemned a n d give offense.
(9) Whence, again, i t is probable t h a t there w i l l arise a m o n g the people some
n o t i o n o f the shameful a n d the good, a n d the difference between t h e m , a n d t h a t
the former w i l l be emulated a n d i m i t a t e d because o f the advantages i t brings
(to sympherori) a n d the latter avoided.

T h e s i m i l a r i t i e s b e t w e e n t h i s a c c o u n t a n d t h e E p i c u r e a n ones j u s t d i s ­
cussed a r e o b v i o u s . T h e existence o f a c c e p t e d ideas o f r i g h t a n d w r o n g is
here l i n k e d , as i n P o l y s t r a t u s , w i t h t h e logismos w h i c h d i s t i n g u i s h e s m a n f r o m
beast ( 6 . 4 ) , a n d t h i s , i n t u r n , is a n a l y z e d b y b o t h w r i t e r s as t h e a b i l i t y t o
foresee f u t u r e i n c o n v e n i e n c e s a n d m a k e p r o v i s i o n t o m e e t t h e m . 5
Polybius

5
T h e relation between the distinction drawn by Polybius and Hermarchus and Hellenistic
controversies over the intelligence of animals is worth noting, since it has some bearing on the
question of the source of the former. The terms logos and logismos are apt to cause confusion because
they may refer to two different things: (A) common sense, the ability to look ahead and plan
[phronesis in Aristotelian terminology), or (B) the ability to apprehend and reason about forms or
first principles (sophia, nous). No school, to my knowledge, ever maintained that animals possess B.
The Stoics denied A to them; the Peripatetics maintained that they possess it to a degree (Aristotle
being more cautious here than his successors; see Brink, 130), and their arguments were used and
expanded by the sceptical Academy in its polemics against the Stoics. For the Stoic position, see
A. Dyroff, " Zur stoischen Tierpsychologie: I I , " Blatter fur das Gymnasial-Schulwesen 3 4 (1898) 4 1 6 - 3 0 ;
A. Bonhoffer, Epiklet unddie Stoa (Stuttgart 1890) 6 7 - 7 6 ; and, for the Academic polemic, Haussleiter,
Der Vegetarismus in der Antike 209—10, and G . Tappe, De Philonis libro qui inscribitur Αλέξανδρος ή
itepi τον λόγον εχειν τά άλογα ζώα quaestiones seleclae (Diss. Gottingen 1912) 2 2 - 3 8 . T h e Stoic view,
probably developed most fully by Posidonius (see Pohlenz, Hermes 7 6 . 1 - 1 3 ) , ascribed to animals
certain innate skills which are divine pronoia's device to insure their survival. These natural skills
are constant and unvarying in every representative of a species (e.g. every swallow's nest is exactly
like every other's), and this is what differentiates them from human techne, which is acquired, not
innate, and varies greatly from individual to individual. T h e terminology used by Polybius and
Polystratus (see above, pp. 7 7 - 7 8 ) suggests the Stoic position rather than the Peripatetic one; and it
is conceivable that Polybius at any rate has been directly, if superficially, influenced by Stoic doctrine
(see Appendix I I I ) . But, unlike the Stoics, neither author is concerned with sophia at all. Whereas
82 DEMOGRITUS AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K ANTHROPOLOGY

refers t o c o m m o n n o t i o n s o f m o r a l i t y as ennoiai ( 5 . 1 0 ; 6.9) o f t h e g o o d , the

shameful, etc. T h e p h r a s e o l o g y suggests i n t e l l e c t u a l p e r c e p t i o n o f a m o r a l
absolute—and a n A c a d e m i c , Stoic, or Peripatetic r a t h e r t h a n a n Epicurean
context. But the meaning o f ennoia demanded by the context is simply
c o m m o n notions a b o u t r i g h t a n d w r o n g — t h e p u r e l y social m o r a l i t y w h i c h
6

Polystratus refers to as τ ά παρ' άνθρώποις νομιζόμενα (col. xiva3~5) j τ

"
κ α λ ά κα.1 α ι σ χ ρ ά νομιζόμενα (xva3-45 x v i a g - i ι ) o r s i m p l y kala a n d aischra
(Fr. 7a2). Polybius does not have the characteristic Epicurean dikaion-
sympheron e q u a t i o n , b u t his statement (6.9) t h a t the g o o d a n d shameful are
s o u g h t o u t a n d a v o i d e d δ ι ά τ ό συμφέρον a m o u n t s t o the same t h i n g . 7

T h e d e t a i l e d a c c o u n t o f t h e process b y w h i c h s o c i a l m o r a l i t y c o m e s i n t o
b e i n g f a l l s i n t o t w o stages ( 5 . 1 0 a n d 6.1-9), the n r s t
o f w h i c h offers close
parallels to b o t h H e r m a r c h u s a n d Diodorus. Polybius reports t h a t d u r i n g

the Stoics would explain moral ideas as a result of man's having a share of divine nous, Polybius
and Polystratus derive them from the operations of a purely utilitarianphronesis. Moreover, there is
no reason to believe that they would have agreed with the Stoics in viewing animal behavior as
completely instinctual. T h e y may have been thinking in terms of a logos-mneme rather than a logos-
physis antithesis: cf., for example, the contrasts between alogos mneme and epilogismos in Hermarchus
and between mneme and anchinoia and oxytes in Photius, Cod. 249 4 4 0 B 3 9 ; or Sextus' definition (Adv.
math. 1.61) of empeiria as a τριβή τις . . . έργάτις άτεχνός τε καΐ άλογος. What Polybius and Polystratus
have in mind is probably much closer to the fairly commonplace recognition of man's superior
ability to control his life than it is to any formal philosophical doctrine; cf. Aeschylus' personification
of human intelligence in the figure of Prometheus, and, more specifically, Alcmaeon of Croton,
VS 2 4 B i a (man differs from the animals in that he alone ξυνίησι, τα δ' άλλα αισθάνεται μεν, ού ξυνίηαι
οε); Anaxagoras, VS 59Α101 (animals have the energetikon—"activist" [cf. ergatis in Sextus]— but
not the learning type of intelligence); Euripides, Tr. 6 7 1 - 7 2 (animals do not possess the use of
synesis); Agatharchides ap. Photius, Cod. 2 5 0 456A29 (animals learn to be prudent not by logos but
παραπεπλεγμένης εναλλάξ τω πάθει της μνήμης).
6
This meaning can be paralleled in contemporary ethnographical writing. Gf. Agatharchides
ap. Diodorus 3.15.2 ( = Photius Cod. 2 5 0 4 4 9 A 2 7 ) : the nakedness and promiscuity of the ichthyophagoi
shows that they have no αισχρών και καλών εννοιαν; and Photius, Cod. 250 4 5 0 B 4 - 8 : τών δε είθισμένων
άνθρώπω προς άνθρωπον ούδε την έλαχίστην διδόασιν εννοιαν. T h e parallel with Polybius is particularly
close in the second example, for it is the failure of the Ichthyophagoi τοις- πάαχοναι συναγανακτεΐν
(B3-4 = Diod. 3.18.5) which makes the author conclude that they have no conception of eithismena
among men. So in Polybius 6.6.6 an ennoia of just and noble arises first among those who share their
neighbor's indignation at some injury he has suffered (συναγανακτοϋντας τω πέλας—see below,
p. 8 9 ) . Diodorus' remark (3.49.2) on a certain tribe of robbers in Libya, οΰτε τοΰ δικαίου λόγον
ούδ* εννοιαν έχον, may also go back to Agatharchides; see H . Leopoldi, De Agatharchide Cnidio (Diss.
Rostock i 8 g 2 ) 3 7 ff. I n all these passages the aischra and kala of which men have no notion are
simply social tabus and mores (eithismena), not moral absolutes.
7
T h e purely verbal character of the parallels between Polybius and the Stoics is nowhere more
apparent than here. A Stoic might maintain the identity of kalon and sympheron (cf. Panaetius' view
as reported by Cicero, Off. 2 . 9 ) ; and he might view as kathekonta (though not as katorthomata) the
social mores whose origin Polybius describes (cf. Chrysippus ap. D . L . 7 . 1 0 8 ) ; but he would never
suggest, as Polybius does here, that men arrive at a perception of the Good and then seek to attain it
διά το συμφέρον. (For an equally un-Stoic use of the kalon-sympheron antithesis, see the passage
discussed by von Fritz, Theory of the Mixed Constitution 57.)
 T H E G E N E A L O G Y O F MORALS ( P O L Y B I U s ) 83

t h e p e r i o d w h i c h f o l l o w s t h e f o r m a t i o n o f t h e i n i t i a l h u m a n h e r d t h e r e arise
among its members sjntrophia a n d synetheia. T h e f o r m e r idea appears i n
H e r m a r c h u s : i t is t h e " f e l l o w p a s t u r e r s " (syntrephomenoi) w h o f o r m t h e first
aggregations a n d t h e m e m o r y o f t h e advantages gained through their
syntrophiai w h i c h creates t h e p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t h o m i c i d e .
P o l y b i u s ' s t a t e m e n t s h o u l d also b e c o m p a r e d w i t h o n e w h i c h , i n D i o d o r u s
1.8, a p p e a r s b e t w e e n t h e m e n t i o n o f t h e i n i t i a l a g g r e g a t i o n s f o r m e d f o r p r o -
t e c t i o n a n d t h e a c c o u n t o f t h e o r i g i n o f l a n g u a g e (see a b o v e , Stage 4 A , p . 3 3 ) .
There m e n a r e said t o h a v e " c o m e g r a d u a l l y t o r e c o g n i z e e a c h other's
m u t u a l characteristics." 8
D i o d o r u s a n d P o l y b i u s seem t o b e d e s c r i b i n g t h e
s u b j e c t i v e a n d o b j e c t i v e aspects o f t h e same process: o n t h e o n e h a n d , a
r e c o g n i t i o n o n t h e p a r t o f m a n o f t h e t r a i t s he shares w i t h his f e l l o w , a n d , o n
the other, a n assimilation o f i n d i v i d u a l characteristics t o each other w h i c h
takes place once m e n are collected i n t o a g r o u p . B o t h p h e n o m e n a are
n a t u r a l consequences o f t h e h e r d l i f e w h i c h P o l y b i u s , H e r m a r c h u s , a n d
D i o d o r u s a l l assume f o r e a r l y m a n . M e n h a v e t h e same basic n e e d s ; h e n c e ,
once assembled, t h e y w i l l a l l seek t o p r o v i d e themselves w i t h t h e same
necessities o f life (syntrophia) a n d b e h a v e i n m u c h t h e same w a y as t h e y d o so
(synetheia). I n this m a n n e r f u r t h e r similarities l i n k i n g t h e m to each other w i l l
b e c o m e a p p a r e n t . A n d t h e i m p l i c a t i o n seems t o b e t h a t l i k e is a t t r a c t e d t o
l i k e , so t h a t such a p e r c e p t i o n w o u l d p r o d u c e a m o r e closely k n i t s o c i a l u n i t . 9

T h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n c a n b e s u p p o r t e d b y f u r t h e r passages i n b o t h P o l y b i u s
and H e r m a r c h u s . T h e f o r m e r ' s a c c o u n t o f t h e i n i t i a l h u m a n a g g r e g a t i o n is
as f o l l o w s ( 6 . 5 . 6 - 7 ) :

W h e n , f r o m the survivors [ o f the i n i t i a l cataclysm] . . . there is b r e d u p anew

w i t h the passage o f t i m e a large n u m b e r o f m e n , then obviously, j u s t as i n the
case o f other animals, so i n their case too, w h e n they have assembled ( w h i c h is
l i k e l y — t h a t they too should collect w i t h those o f their k i n d o n account o f their
n a t u r a l weakness) the strongest a n d boldest w i l l h o l d power, j u s t as i n a n i m a l
herds the strongest m e m b e r lords i t over the rest.

I t is " n a t u r a l w e a k n e s s " — h e n c e fear a n d t h e selfish c o n s i d e r a t i o n s a r i s i n g

f r o m i t — w h i c h i m p e l s m a n t o seek t h e c o m p a n i o n s h i p o f his f e l l o w s . A t t h e
same t i m e , t h e v e r y fact t h a t he feels m o r e secure i n s u c h c o m p a n y t h a n a l o n e
or a m o n g o t h e r a n i m a l s i n d i c a t e s t h a t , e v e n a t t h i s stage o f d e v e l o p m e n t ,
t h e r e is a c e r t a i n n a t u r a l a f f i n i t y a m o n g m e m b e r s o f t h e same species. A n d
despite H e r m a r c h u s ' s t r o n g emphasis o n u t i l i t a r i a n m o t i v e s , h e t o o assigns a

8
For the idea, cf. Ovid, AA 2.476 (on the primitive state of mankind): iamque diu nulli cognitus
alter erat (a parallel noted by Spoerri, MusHelv 18.75, n o t e
68).
9
For other passages in Greek literature dealing with the conciliating effects of synitftfu^^^ ^ ^
syntrophia see below, pp. 1 3 2 - 3 4 . -----
A * /

V', \ Gr«c
84 DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

s u b o r d i n a t e r o l e i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f s o c i a l n o r m s t o t h e same n a t u r a l
affinity. 1 0

T h e t w o m o t i v a t i o n s , gregariousness a n d self-interest, m i g h t seem c o n t r a ­

d i c t o r y , a n d so t h e y a r e i f t h e r e is t o b e a single aitia f o r s o c i e t y . B u t 1 1

Diodorus, Polybius, a n d the Epicureans a l l envision a situation i n w h i c h the

two factors are s u p p l e m e n t a r y r a t h e r t h a n m u t u a l l y exclusive. M e n are
volgivagi r a t h e r t h a n solivagi. I f they were n o t , there w o u l d never have been
e n o u g h o f t h e m t o g e t h e r a t o n e t i m e f o r t h e u t i l i t y o f a c o m m o n defense t o
suggest itself. O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e n e e d f o r p r o t e c t i o n is t h e m o r e i m ­
m e d i a t e a n d , i n i t i a l l y , a t a n y r a t e , m o r e i m p o r t a n t cause f o r t h e i r f o r m i n g
closer a g g r e g a t i o n s . H o w t h e t w o f a c t o r s m i g h t h a v e w o r k e d t o g e t h e r is
suggested b y P o r p h y r y ' s s t a t e m e n t ( r . i o , see a b o v e , p . 71) t h a t t h e p r o ­
h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t h o m i c i d e e x t e n d e d t o those w h o " e n t e r e d i n t o t h e same
s h a r i n g o f life's necessities a n d h e l p e d provide n e e d e d services against
enemies." T h e phrase implies b o t h a p u r e l y u t i l i t a r i a n agreement a n d a
r u d i m e n t a r y f e e l i n g o f c o m m u n i t y a r i s i n g f r o m s h a r e d experiences a n d h a r d ­
ships. 1 2
N a t u r a l l y , t h e t w o w o u l d interact o n each other, fellowship s t i m u ­
l a t i n g c o o p e r a t i o n a n d v i c e versa. A n d b o t h c o u l d b e e x p e c t e d t o e x t e n d t h a t
consciousness o f m u t u a l t r a i t s w h i c h D i o d o r u s m e n t i o n s .
T h e d e t a i l s n o t e d t h u s f a r w o u l d serve t o p l a c e P o l y b i u s i n t h e g e n e r a l
t r a d i t i o n o f t h o u g h t p r e s e n t w i t h v a r i a t i o n s i n H e r m a r c h u s a n d L u c r e t i u s as
w e l l as i n D i o d o r u s a n d V i t r u v i u s . T h e e m p h a s i s o n logismos suggests t h e

1 0
Cf. De abst. 1.10: άττεχόμενοι του συγγενούς (quoted above, p. 7 ) 1
a n
d 1.7: τάχα μεν και
φυσικής τίνος οικειώσεαις υπαρχονσης τοις άνθρώττοις ττρος ανθρώπους διά τήν ομοιότητα τής μορφής
και τής ψυχής εις το μή προχείρως φθείρειν τό τοιούτον ζώον. Α . Grilli, / / problema della vita contemplativa
nel mondo greco (Milan 1953) 7 3 - 7 4 , believes this to be a Stoic conception which Porphyry has
injected into the discussion on his own. I t is certainly possible that the term oikeiosis did not appear
in Hermarchus' text. Yet the word is not used in its specific Stoic sense (see below, pp. 1 3 8 - 3 9 ) but
in a way which can be paralleled in Theophraslus (ap. Photius, Bibl. 2 7 8 529B22-23—on the bee's
oikeiosis for the oak tree). A n d since the Epicureans recognized the natural character of love for
offspring (cf. Demetrius Laco in Pap. Here. 1012 col. 4 4 . 5 - 4 6 . 1 1 , p. 4 8 de Falco), there is no reason
to believe that they would have denied the existence of a certain natural sociability in man. This
does not mean that they would have assigned to such social impulses a major role in the creation of
society (the view of G . Garbo, "Societa e stato nella concezione di Epicuro," Atene e Roma Ser. 3 ,
4 [ ' 9 3 6 ] , 2 4 3 - 6 2 , which Grilli rightly rejects).
1 1
Carried to their logical extreme, the two ideas become, respectively, the Stoic-Peripatetic
theory of a fully developed social instinct which brings men together, and the view of government
as a compact of weak against strong or of all against all which is advanced by Callicles in the
Gorgias and by Glaucon in Republic I I .
1 2
For comparable views, in an Epicurean context, see Lucretius 4.1283: consuetude concinnat
amorem; D . L . 1 0 . 1 2 0 : [γίνεσθαι\ τήν φιλίαν διά τάς χρείας . . . συνίστασθαι δε . . . κατά κοινωνίαν
τοις ταΐς ήδοναΐς έκπεπληραιμένοις; and Cicero, Fin. 1.69: "itaque primos congressus copulationesque
. . . fieri propter voluptatem; cum autem usus progrediens familiaritatem effecerit, turn amorem
efflorescere tantum ut, etiamsi nulla sit utilitas ex amicitia, tamen ipsi amici propter se ipsos
amentur."
 T H E G E N E A L O G Y OF MORALS (POLYBIUS) 85

D i o d o r a n v e r s i o n o f t h i s t r a d i t i o n ; o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , w e h a v e seen n o t r a c e ,
as y e t , o f a c o n c e r n w i t h t h e r o l e o f specific i n c i d e n t s i n c u l t u r a l c h a n g e — n o
trace, i n other words, o f the characteristic and u n i q u e features o f the
Kulturgeschichte present i n D i o d o r u s a n d those a c c o u n t s , w h e t h e r t e c h n o l o g i c a l
o r l i n g u i s t i c , r e l a t e d m o s t closely t o h i s . B u t t h e s e c o n d phase ( 6 . 1 - 9 ) O I
"
Polybius' account o f social o r i g i n s reveals s u c h a c o n c e r n quite clearly,
m a k i n g i t o b v i o u s t h a t i t is w i t h D i o d o r u s , r a t h e r t h a n w i t h t h e E p i c u r e a n
texts e x a m i n e d i n C h a p t e r F i v e , t h a t his r e a l a f f i n i t i e s l i e .
P o l y b i u s describes t h r e e p a r a l l e l s i t u a t i o n s ( 6 . 2 - 5 , 6 . 6 - 7 , 6 . 8 - 9 ) o u t
°f
w h i c h social a t t i t u d e s arise. I n a l l t h r e e a s i m i l a r process is i n v o l v e d , w h i c h
c a n be s u m m a r i z e d as f o l l o w s : a n i n c i d e n t o c c u r s — a case o f f i l i a l i n g r a t i t u d e
or o f i n j u r y to a benefactor or o f u n u s u a l b r a v e r y or cowardice i n b a t t l e —
w h i c h f o r some reason m a k e s a n i m p r e s s i o n . M e n r e f l e c t o n t h e i n c i d e n t a n d
b y v i r t u e o f t h e i r a b i l i t y t o c a l c u l a t e a n d r e a s o n are a b l e t o i m a g i n e h o w t h e y
w o u l d b e affected i f s u c h i n c i d e n t s w e r e o f g e n e r a l o c c u r r e n c e . I f t h e c o n -
sequences t h u s p i c t u r e d are u n p l e a s a n t , t h e y are i n d i g n a n t a n d express
d i s a p p r o v a l o f t h e p e r s o n responsible for the i n c i d e n t . I f pleasant, they
praise a n d h o n o r h i m . T h e r e s u l t , i n t h e last e p i s o d e , is t h a t a c t i o n s t o w h i c h
praise is a t t a c h e d are i m i t a t e d , a n d those to which blame is attached
a v o i d e d : i.e. b e c o m e t h e c o n t e n t o f those social n o r m s w h i c h Polybius
describes as ennoiai o f t h e g o o d a n d t h e s h a m e f u l . I t w o u l d b e n a t u r a l t o
assume t h a t s i m i l a r s o c i a l sanctions w o u l d arise o u t o f t h e t w o s i t u a t i o n s
described earlier.
A l l t h r e e episodes are q u i t e a n a l o g o u s t o those w h i c h , i n D i o d o r u s a n d
V i t r u v i u s , g i v e rise t o l a n g u a g e a n d t e c h n o l o g y . They involve a similar
i n t e r a c t i o n between a s i t u a t i o n arising i n man's n a t u r a l o r social e n v i r o n -
ment a n d man's o w n a b i l i t y to calculate a n d l o o k ahead. T h e r e occurs a n
i n c i d e n t o f t h e s o r t w h i c h is l i k e l y t o c o m e i n t h e n o r m a l course o f t h i n g s ,
and w h i c h contains w i t h i n itself the germs o f subsequent u t i l i t y (or, i n
P o l y b i u s , d i s u t i l i t y ) f o r m a n . A forest f i r e l i q u e f i e s a v e i n o f m e t a l , a c r y o f
t e r r o r p r o v e s successful as a r a l l y i n g c r y , some m a n shows s i g n a l b r a v e r y o r
signal i n g r a t i t u d e . M a n t h e c a l c u l a t o r l o o k s t o t h e f u t u r e a n d sees t h e
a d v a n t a g e s o r d i s a d v a n t a g e s w h i c h w i l l r e s u l t i f t h e i n c i d e n t h e has w i t n e s s e d
recurs, o r is d u p l i c a t e d s o m e h o w . The m o l t e n metal w h i c h follows the
c o n t o u r s o f t h e g r o u n d o v e r w h i c h i t f l o w s m a y assume t h e shapes m e n g i v e
i t ; a r a l l y i n g c r y m a y serve as a c o n s t a n t s a f e g u a r d a g a i n s t a t t a c k ; anyone
m a y be t h e r e c i p i e n t o f s i g n a l g o o d services o r s i g n a l i n g r a t i t u d e . The
result is t h a t m a n takes steps t o see t h a t w h a t has o c c u r r e d o n c e b y c h a n c e
e i t h e r does n o t o c c u r a g a i n a t a l l , o r else recurs f r e q u e n t l y .
I t is p e r h a p s n o t t o o b o l d t o suggest a f u r t h e r s i m i l a r i t y . F e a r o f a n e n e m y
is a f e e l i n g so u n i v e r s a l i n t h e h u m a n r a c e a n d so easily m a d e k n o w n t o o t h e r s
86 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 a t i t is n a t u r a l t o suppose, as t h e sources o f t h e passages f r o m D i o d o r u s

and L a c t a n t i u s q u o t e d above e v i d e n t l y d i d , t h a t danger w o u l d be one o f the
f i r s t n o t i o n s f o r w h i c h m e n succeeded i n f i n d i n g a c o m m o n l i n g u i s t i c o r n o n -
l i n g u i s t i c s y m b o l . S i m i l a r l y , t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f e x c e p t i o n a l services o r t h e
a t t e m p t t o h a r m a b e n e f a c t o r w h i c h f i g u r e i n P o l y b i u s m i g h t seem t o b e
incidents w h i c h , like t h e a p p r o a c h o f danger, are likely t o be regarded b y
a l l m e n w i t h v e r y s i m i l a r feelings. H e n c e i t w o u l d b e n a t u r a l t o suppose t h a t
the first w o r d s i n d i c a t i n g v a l u e j u d g m e n t s o f a n y s o r t w o u l d b e n o u n s o r
adjectives used i n reference t o u n p r o v o k e d v i o l e n c e o r u n u s u a l w e l l - d o i n g .
I t is possible, t h e n , t h a t b e h i n d P o l y b i u s ' use o f expressions l i k e ennoia lies a n
a c c o u n t o f t h e o r i g i n , n o t s i m p l y oiennoiai o f t h e kalon a n d aischron, b u t o f t h e
w o r d s themselves. S u c h w o r d s w o u l d be, l i k e t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s i n E p i c u r e a n
t h e o r y (see a b o v e , p p . 7 2 - 7 3 a n d 7 5 ) , t h e r e s u l t o f a p e r c e p t i o n o f το συμφέρον
iv rfj προς αλλήλους κοινωνία; b u t , u n l i k e those c o u n t e r p a r t s , t h e y w o u l d
have t h e i r meanings r o o t e d i n a single, shared experience. Generalization
w o u l d o n l y c o m e l a t e r , as t h e specific instances o f d e s i r a b l e a n d u n d e s i r a b l e
behavior fixed i n men's memories b y the words attached t o t h e m came t o be
associated, a l o n g w i t h s i m i l a r instances, i n t o types a n d categories. Since m e n
a r e g u i d e d i n t h e i r c o n d u c t b y t h i n g s l a b e l e d kalon a n d aischron, this fixing
and e x t e n s i o n o f m e a n i n g w o u l d g r e a t l y f u r t h e r t h e process w h i c h P o l y b i u s
is d e s c r i b i n g — t h e s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n o f c o n d u c t i n t o nomizomena.
I t m i g h t b e a r g u e d t h a t P o l y b i u s s i m p l y assumes t h e existence o f l a n g u a g e
t h r o u g h o u t his a c c o u n t a n d does n o t a t t e m p t t o l i n k its rise w i t h t h e social
process. T h e r e i s , h o w e v e r , o n e passage w h i c h suggests t h a t h i s source, a t
least, e n v i s i o n e d a t i m e w h e n l a n g u a g e d i d n o t exist. T h e analyses o f
l a n g u a g e q u o t e d e a r l i e r refer t o w o r d s as semeia o r symbola. P o l y b i u s says o f
filial i n g r a t i t u d e t h a t m e n are l i k e l y t o n o t e i t (episemainesthai), a n d those w h o
are b e n e f a c t o r s receive episemasias eunoikes ( 6 . 8 ) . B y these expressions h e
e v i d e n t l y means t h a t the i n c i d e n t o f i n g r a t i t u d e w i l l be m e n t a l l y n o t e d a n d
r e m e m b e r e d , a n d t h a t t h e b e n e f a c t o r receives respect a n d deference. B u t
b e h i n d t h e t e r m i n o l o g y t h e r e m a y l i e t h e i d e a t h a t , i f a n y t h i n g is t o b e n o t e d
and m a r k e d f o r f u t u r e r e c o g n i t i o n , i t m u s t h a v e , first o f a l l , a n a m e . 1 3

I t is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f P o l y b i u s t h a t , t h o u g h h e assigns a s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e i n
the s o c i a l process t o logismos, its a c h i e v e m e n t s t a k e n stage b y stage a r e m u c h

Cf. Xenophon, Mem. 4 . 3 . 1 1 - 1 2 ; Aristotle, Pol. 1.1253A7-18; and Isocrates, JVicocles 5 - 9

1 3

( = Antidosis 2 5 3 - 5 7 ) , all of which stress the importance of logos in the development of a specifically
human culture and link man's logos very closely to his ability to make judgments about kalon,
dikaion, and sympheron. Xenophon's account is especially relevant, since it contains a conception of
the role of logismos which closely parallels Polybius': λογισμόν . . . ω περι ων αίσθανόμεθα λογι­
ζόμενοι τε και μνημονενοντες καταμανθάνομεν ΟΤΤΎ] έκαστα συμφέρει. O n the parallels between the
three passages cited here see, further, Η . K . Schulte, "Orator," Frankfurter Studien zur Religion und
Kultur der Antike 11 (1935) 1 9 - 2 0 , and Pfligersdorfer, WS 61/62.31 with note 6 7 .
 T H E G E N E A L O G Y OF MORALS (POLYBIUS) 87

less f a r - r e a c h i n g t h a n those H e r m a r c h u s a t t r i b u t e s t o m e r e alogos mneme. T h e

d i f f e r e n c e is r o u g h l y c o m p a r a b l e t o t h a t o b s e r v e d a b o v e ( p . 74) between
H e r m a r c h u s a n d t h e semeion passage i n D i o d o r u s 1.90. H e r e as w e l l as else­
w h e r e , P o l y b i u s offers a r e m a r k a b l y consistent a n d s u b t l e a p p l i c a t i o n o f those
p r i n c i p l e s o f h i s t o r i c a l g r a d u a l i s m w h o s e i n f l u e n c e p e r v a d e s t h e w h o l e specu­
l a t i v e t r a d i t i o n w e are e x a m i n i n g . T h e stage w h e r e a l l m e m b e r s o f society
r e f r a i n f r o m h o m i c i d e is n o t e v e n r e a c h e d i n his n a r r a t i v e . H i s first t w o
episodes are t h e s o r t o u t o f w h i c h a g e n e r a l p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t violence
m i g h t u l t i m a t e l y arise. B u t a t t h i s stage m a n ' s logismos c a n o n l y be s t i m u l a t e d
b y i n c i d e n t s w h e r e t h e v i o l e n c e is o f t h e m o s t s h o c k i n g k i n d — a g a i n s t p a r e n t s
o r c o m r a d e s - i n - a r m s — a n d w h e r e t h e possible u n d e s i r a b l e consequences are
most i m m e d i a t e l y obvious. P o l y b i u s was evidently aware o f the special
c h a r a c t e r o f s u c h types o f b e h a v i o r ; f o r i t is t h i s awareness w h i c h e x p l a i n s
t h e r e l e v a n c e t o w h a t f o l l o w s o f his i n i t i a l m e n t i o n o f syntrophia a n d synetheia.
T h e existence o f a c o m m o n n u r t u r e a n d a c o m m o n w a y o f l i f e , a l o n g w i t h
t h e a c c o m p a n y i n g consciousness o f m u t u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t arises i n t h e
first h e r d s , p r o v i d e s a necessary b a c k g r o u n d a g a i n s t w h i c h t h e subsequent
i n c i d e n t s o f v i o l e n c e are set o f f a n d m a d e t o seem s i g n i f i c a n t .
S o c i a l a t t i t u d e s arise f r o m t h e s o r t o f s i t u a t i o n s w h i c h a n i m a l s o v e r l o o k ,
b u t o f w h i c h m a n takes n o t e a n d w h o s e i m p l i c a t i o n s h e p e r c e i v e s o r foresees.
P o l y b i u s does n o t state e x p l i c i t l y w h y m a n ' s a t t e n t i o n is d r a w n i n t h e first
p l a c e t o w a r d instances o f i n g r a t i t u d e o r b r a v e r y , b u t i n s p e a k i n g o f t h e u n ­
grateful c h i l d he mentions a contrast o r difference o f b e h a v i o r w h i c h m e n
n o t i c e : ουκ ΐΐκος παρατρέγειν χυτούς την προειρημένην διαφοράν (6.4) · T h e
c o n t r a s t r e f e r r e d t o is p r e s u m a b l y t h a t b e t w e e n t h e p a r e n t ' s c a r e f o r t h e
c h i l d a n d t h e c h i l d ' s i n d i f f e r e n c e o r h o s t i l i t y . S i m i l a r diaphorai are i n v o l v e d
i n the conduct o f the m a n w h o requites h e l p i n battle w i t h i n j u r y , a n d i n t h a t
o f t h e c h a m p i o n w h o r e t u r n s t o those w h o assist h i m i n t h e c o m m o n defense
m o r e t h a n t h e y themselves c o n t r i b u t e i n d i v i d u a l l y . S i n c e i t is n o t t h e r e t u r n
o f l i k e f o r l i k e w h i c h calls a t t e n t i o n t o itself, b u t f a i l u r e t o d o so, i t w o u l d b e
n a t u r a l t o assume t h a t g r a t i t u d e is t h e m o r e u s u a l f o r m o f b e h a v i o r i n m a n ' s
p r i m i t i v e state, i n g r a t i t u d e a d e v i a t i o n a n d f o r t h a t reason unexpected.
A n d t h e same w o u l d h o l d t r u e f o r a n i m a l s , since i t is o n l y t h e absence o f
logismos w h i c h m a k e s t h e m f a i l t o n o t i c e t h e diaphora i n v o l v e d i n u n g r a t e f u l
behavior.
W h i l e this w o u l d obviously not a p p l y to the i n i t i a l cannibalistic situation
r e f e r r e d t o i n D i o d o r u s 1.90, i t w o u l d be n a t u r a l a t a m o r e a d v a n c e d stage
o f h e r d l i f e . A t t h i s p o i n t b o t h m a n a n d a n i m a l s h a v e u n d e r g o n e t h e as­
s i m i l a t i n g i n f l u e n c e o f syntrophia a n d synetheia t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e r e w i l l be
a c e r t a i n u n i f o r m i t y i n the w a y t h e y react to s t i m u l i : non-aggression and
h e l p i n defense against o t h e r species w i l l t e n d t o be r e c i p r o c a t e d w h e n t h e y
88 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

occur, thus intensifying the vague feeling o f greater security a n d well-being

w h i c h a n i m a l s o f t h e same species h a v e i n e a c h o t h e r ' s presence f r o m t h e
start. 1 4
T h e effects o f syntrophia a n d synetheia w o u l d n a t u r a l l y b e m o s t p r o -
n o u n c e d w h e r e t h e a s s o c i a t i o n b e t w e e n i n d i v i d u a l s is c l o s e s t — i n t h e f a m i l y .
Parents become accustomed to the m u t u a l affection a n d cooperation w h i c h
characterizes their relationship to their offspring a l l the t i m e t h a t the latter
are g r o w i n g u p , a n d w h i c h m a y c o n t i n u e , b y f o r c e o f h a b i t , i n t o t h e p e r i o d
w h e n the o f f s p r i n g n o l o n g e r need t h e i r parents. T h e i n e v i t a b l e assertion o f
i n d e p e n d e n c e m a y n o t b e n o t i c e d unless i t comes w i t h p a r t i c u l a r v i o l e n c e
or suddenness; t h e n , h o w e v e r , t h e s h a r p b r e a k w i t h t h e e a r l i e r state o f
affairs calls a t t e n t i o n t o t h e diaphora i n v o l v e d i n the child's conduct. T h e
same r e a c t i o n s , t h o u g h t o a less p r o n o u n c e d degree, c o u l d b e e x p e c t e d t o
o c c u r w h e n t h e r e l a t i o n i n v o l v e d is t h a t b e t w e e n c o m r a d e s - i n - a r m s o f l o n g
standing.
I n b o t h t h e h u m a n a n d a n i m a l h e r d , t h e n , t h e r e exist c e r t a i n t e n d e n c i e s
t o w a r d reciprocal b e h a v i o r w h i c h , accentuated a n d expanded, are capable
o f p r o d u c i n g society. U n d e r c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s , these t e n d e n c i e s are i n
themselves s u f f i c i e n t t o c r e a t e a p a t t e r n i n t h e lives o f a n i m a l s a n d m e n whose
v i o l a t i o n w i l l p r o d u c e surprise a c c o m p a n i e d b y pleasure o r displeasure,
d e p e n d i n g o n w h e t h e r r e t u r n f o r services is g r e a t e r o r less t h a n n o r m a l . A
man, h o w e v e r , u n l i k e the a n i m a l s , notices a n d r e m e m b e r s such i n c i d e n t s ,
l o o k i n g t o t h e i r r e c u r r e n c e w i t h fear o r a n t i c i p a t i o n . I f o n l y t w o p e o p l e are
i n v o l v e d , his i n d i g n a t i o n o r p l e a s u r e w i l l d o u b t l e s s c o m e t o n o t h i n g . B u t
w h e n , as i n t h e t h i r d o f t h e s i t u a t i o n s e n v i s i o n e d b y P o l y b i u s , t h e r e a c t i o n
i n v o l v e s a n u m b e r o f p e o p l e , t h e y w i l l see t h a t t h e e x p r e s s i o n o f c o l l e c t i v e
s e n t i m e n t has some effect o n t h e b e h a v i o r o f t h e p e r s o n w h o is its o b j e c t .
H e n c e t h e y cease m e r e l y t o register e m o t i o n s a n d b e g i n t o e n c o u r a g e or
d i s c o u r a g e t h e r e c u r r e n c e o f t h e i n c i d e n t . T h e r e s u l t is t h a t , w h e r e a s a n i m a l
b e h a v i o r r e m a i n s m o r e o r less c o n s t a n t , t h e f o r m s o f b e h a v i o r m e n e n -
courage t e n d to become steadily more c o m m o n . 1 5

T h e d e v e l o p m e n t h e r e d e s c r i b e d is o n e w h i c h w i l l o c c u r w h e n t h e i n -
c i d e n t s i n v o l v e d are s u c h as t o p r o d u c e p l e a s u r e o r displeasure d i r e c t l y —
i.e. i n c i d e n t s i n w h i c h m e n are p e r s o n a l l y i n v o l v e d . A s o m e w h a t s i m i l a r ,
t h o u g h m o r e c o m p l i c a t e d , process takes p l a c e w h e n , as i n t h e f i r s t t w o
episodes o f P o l y b i u s ' a c c o u n t , t h e i n c i d e n t i n v o l v e s a n o t h e r p e r s o n . T h e n
the o b s e r v e r m u s t d r a w a g e n e r a l c o n c l u s i o n f r o m a specific e v e n t a n d i n f e r

For parallel passages containing this view of the effects of synetheia and syntrophia in the animal
1 4

world, see below, Chap. I X , note 2 .

For an explicit statement of the logos-synltheia antithesis which is here inferred for Polybius,
1 6

see Agatharchides ap. Diod. 3.6.2 (a foolish synetheia which remains in operation through the ab-
sence of any logos sufficiently strong to overcome it). There the function oflogos seems to be to remove
what is bad in human synetheia; in Polybius it is to improve and strengthen what is good.
 T H E G E N E A L O G Y O F M O R A L S ( P O L Y B I U S )
89

t h a t w h a t has h a p p e n e d t o someone else c a n j u s t as easily h a p p e n t o h i m ­

self. 16
T h i s i n f e r e n c e , l i k e t h e feelings o f s u r p r i s e a n d c o n c e r n w h i c h p r e c e d e
i t , has its r o o t s i n synetheia a n d syntrophia. W h e n a m a n observes a n i n c i d e n t
of filial i n g r a t i t u d e a n d p u t s h i m s e l f i n t h e p l a c e o f t h e i n j u r e d p a r t y h e is
m a k i n g a n i m p o r t a n t a s s u m p t i o n : n a m e l y , t h a t a l l m e n are b a s i c a l l y a l i k e ,
t h a t w h a t c a n h a p p e n t o o n e o f t h e m m a y j u s t as w e l l h a p p e n t o a n y o n e .
Men are l i k e l y t o m a k e s u c h a n a s s u m p t i o n o n l y w h e n t h e i r experience
j u s t i f i e s i t — i . e . w h e n t h e y l i v e a m o n g a g r o u p o f i n d i v i d u a l s w h o are l i n k e d
t o g e t h e r b y synetheia a n d whose c o m m o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h e y h a v e c o m e t o
recognize.
T h e process is n o t e n t i r e l y a n i n t e l l e c t u a l o n e . P o l y b i u s gives a h i n t o f t h e
existence o f o t h e r f a c t o r s w h e n he says o f t h e m e n w h o o b s e r v e a n i n c i d e n t
of ingratitude that they "share their neighbor's i n d i g n a t i o n a n d p u t t h e m ­
selves i n his p o s i t i o n " ( 6 . 6 : συναγανακτοΰντας μεν τ ω ττέλας, αναφέροντας δ'
εφ' αυτούς το παραπλήσιον). R e s e n t m e n t o b v i o u s l y stems p a r t l y f r o m r a t i o n a l
considerations: t h e observers fear a s i m i l a r f a t e f o r themselves. But the
passage seems t o be d e s c r i b i n g , i n a d d i t i o n , o n e o f t h e f u n d a m e n t a l sources
o f a n y sort o f s y m p a t h y : t h e t e n d e n c y a l l m e n h a v e t o i m a g i n e themselves
i n t h e p l a c e o f t h e sufferer. T h a t s e n t i m e n t is i n v o l v e d is suggested b y t h e
v e r b s used b o t h h e r e a n d i n o t h e r passages w h i c h d e s c r i b e t h e g e n e r a l r e ­
actions t o w r o n g d o i n g : προσκόπτειν, δυσαρεστεΐσθαι, συναγανακτεΐν. 17
All
c o n n o t e a c e r t a i n a m o u n t o f e m o t i o n a l i n v o l v e m e n t . I n t h e l a t e r as w e l l as
t h e i n i t i a l phases o f t h e social process, P o l y b i u s seems t o r e c o g n i z e t h e exist­
ence o f a basic w e l l - w i s h i n g a m o n g m e m b e r s o f t h e same h e r d — a w e l l -
w i s h i n g w h i c h he c o n t i n u e s t o r e g a r d , I suggest, as a p r o d u c t o f t h a t s h a r i n g
of life's necessities a n d p r o v i s i o n o f n e e d e d services w h i c h Hermarchus
c o n n e c t s w i t h syntrophia (see a b o v e , p p . 8 2 - 8 4 ) .
T h e e t h i c o f P o l y b i u s is a social o n e , n o t o n l y because i t g o v e r n s r e l a t i o n s
b e t w e e n m e m b e r s o f a single society, b u t also because, g i v e n t h e g r a d u a l
w o r k i n g s o f t h e m e n t a l a n d h i s t o r i c a l processes, i t c a n n o t arise o u t s i d e o f
society. I t s p r e r e q u i s i t e is a p e r i o d i n w h i c h close a s s o c i a t i o n generates a
feeling of c o m m u n i t y , along w i t h certain c o m m o n habits a n d a corresponding
awareness o f t h e m . O n l y a f t e r s u c h a p e r i o d o f a s s o c i a t i o n w i l l divergence
f r o m c o m m o n p a t t e r n s o f r e c i p r o c a l b e h a v i o r g i v e rise t o those feelings o f
surprise a n d shared i n d i g n a t i o n w h i c h lead to the c r y s t a l l i z i n g o f a vaguely
defined h a b i t i n t o standards o f c o n d u c t enforced b y social sanctions. And
1 6
The third situation is comparable to the discovery of fire, the first two to that of the planting
of seeds (see above, pp. 15 and 3 7 ) . With fire man has merely to find some way of prolonging a
process whose usefulness he cannot help but notice; with the shoots which spring up around the
base of trees he must be able to foresee the potential usefulness of what is of no present concern to
him.
The point is made by von Fritz, Theory of the Mixed Constitution 58.
1 7
go DEMOGRITUS AND T H E SOURCES OF G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

only t h r o u g h p e r c e p t i o n o f these g e n e r i c traits w i l l the reasoning and

c a l c u l a t i n g f a c u l t y c o m e t o t h e r e a l i z a t i o n — a n essential o n e i f a n y general
c o n c l u s i o n s a r e t o b e d r a w n f r o m a single i n c i d e n t — t h a t w h a t h a p p e n s t o
o n e m a n c a n j u s t as easily h a p p e n t o a n y o n e else.
I t m a y seem r a t h e r o d d t h a t P o l y b i u s does n o t i n these c o n t e x t s m a k e a n y
reference to w h a t one m i g h t expect to figure alongside indignation and
s o c i a l s a n c t i o n s : v i o l e n t p r i v a t e r e t a l i a t i o n a n d t h e e n s u i n g b l o o d feuds. T h e
o m i s s i o n is n o t , h o w e v e r , a n o v e r s i g h t . A l l o w a n c e is m a d e f o r these, as w e l l
as f o r a l l t h e v i o l e n t aspects o f m a n ' s e a r l y r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h his f e l l o w s , i n
the portions o f the exposition w h i c h relate to the i n s t i t u t i o n o f kingship a n d
i t s f o r e r u n n e r s . T h e r e l e v a n t passages ( 6 . 5 . 7 - 9 a n C l
6.6.10-12) i m m e d i a t e l y
p r e c e d e a n d f o l l o w t h e s e c t i o n o n t h e ennoiai o f g o o d a n d e v i l j u s t discussed:

[ I n the i n i t i a l aggregations] the one w h o excels i n b o d i l y strength a n d b o l d -

ness o f spirit necessarily leads a n d rules, for this p h e n o m e n o n , observed i n the
case o f the other, unreasoning animals, must be considered a n indisputable ex-
a m p l e o f i n s t i n c t u a l behavior (physeos ergon alethinotaton). A m o n g t h e m we ob-
serve the strongest enjoying unquestioned m a s t e r y — a m o n g bulls, t h a t is, a n d
goats a n d cocks a n d the like. I t is l i k e l y , t h e n , t h a t m e n as w e l l h a d this m o d e o f
life i n the b e g i n n i n g , h e r d i n g together i n a n i m a l fashion a n d f o l l o w i n g the lead
o f the bravest a n d strongest. A m o n g t h e m there was one t h i n g w h i c h d e t e r m i n e d
r u l e (horos tes arches)—physical strength, a n d the n a m e one w o u l d give this
regime is " m o n a r c h y . " . . .

W h e n , i n these situations [ t h e ones o u t o f w h i c h arise the ennoiai described i n

6 . 2 - 9 ] the leader a n d most p o w e r f u l m a n always adds his o w n w e i g h t to the
aforesaid [tendencies] i n keeping w i t h the notions o f the people a n d seems to his
subjects to be the sort w h o gives each m a n his due, t h e n , no longer t h r o u g h fear
o f superior force, b u t r a t h e r because they approve his j u d g m e n t , they s u b m i t to
a n d preserve his r u l e , even i f he is q u i t e a n o l d m a n , defending h i m w i t h a single
w i l l a n d fighting against those w h o lay plots against his power (dynasteia). A n d
i t is i n this fashion t h a t , w i t h o u t its being realized, a k i n g replaces a m o n a r c h —
w h e n reasoning takes over the leadership f r o m d a r i n g (thumos) a n d force.

T h e first h u m a n h e r d is n o t a m e r e a g g r e g a t i o n f o r c o m m o n defense a g a i n s t
t h e w i l d beasts. I t is u n d e r t h e a b s o l u t e s w a y o f its strongest a n d boldest
m e m b e r ( 6 . 5 . 7 ) . A n d t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f social n o r m s d e s c r i b e d i n 6 . 6 . 2 - 9
does n o t l e a d t o t h e d e l i b e r a t e i n s t i t u t i o n o f a set o f l a w s t o enforce t h e m .
T h e first i n n o v a t i o n is o f a m u c h less f a r - r e a c h i n g c h a r a c t e r a n d , c h a r a c t e r -
i s t i c a l l y , arises o u t o f a n a c c i d e n t . H e r e , as i n t h e texts e x a m i n e d i n C h a p t e r s
O n e , T w o , a n d F o u r , t h e eventus fortuitus occupies a c e n t r a l role. A t a c e r t a i n
p o i n t i n h i s t o r y t h e r u l i n g m a n h a p p e n s t o " a d d his w e i g h t " t o t h e force o f
p o p u l a r n o t i o n s o f w h a t is r i g h t a n d p r o p e r ( p e r h a p s b y p u n i s h i n g offenders)
a n d g a i n s a r e p u t a t i o n f o r " g i v i n g e a c h m a n his d u e " ( e v i d e n t l y b y a d j u d i -
 T H E G E N E A L O G Y O F MORALS (pOLYBIUs) 9 1

e a t i n g d i s p u t e s ) . S u c h a m a n r u l e s b y c o n s e n t as w e l l as b y f o r c e , a n d h i s
subjects u n i t e t o k e e p h i m i n p o w e r e v e n w h e n h e is o l d a n d f e e b l e . The
m u t u a l a d v a n t a g e s t o be g a i n e d f r o m t h e s y s t e m a r e e v i d e n t l y s u f f i c i e n t t o
b r i n g a b o u t i t s a d o p t i o n b y t h e m a n ' s successors, w h o go a b o u t fortifying
h i l l t o p s for the p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e i r p e o p l e , a n d exercise, i n g e n e r a l , a r u l e i n
a c c o r d a n c e w i t h its w i s h e s . I f t h e y f a i l t o d o so t h e y a r e d e p o s e d (6.7.3-4).
So " k i n g s h i p " ( r u l e b y c o n s e n t a n d w i t h a r a t i o n a l e x p e c t a t i o n o f a d v a n t a g e s
t o be g a i n e d ) replaces the p r i m i t i v e r u l e o f force ( " m o n a r c h y " ) . 1 8
Since i t
is his effectiveness b o t h as p u n i s h e r o f o f f e n d e r s a n d a d j u d i c a t o r o f disputes
that wins the king his p o s i t i o n , i t is r e a s o n a b l e t o a s s u m e t h a t private

1 8
There are parallels between this portion of Polybius' account (6.7.4) a n c
^ Lucretius 5 . 1 1 0 8 - 1 1 :
το μεν ούν παλαιόν ένεγήρασκον ταΐς βασιλείαις οι κριθέντες άπαξ . . . τόπους τε διαφέροντας
όχυρονμενοι και τειχίζοντες και χώραν κατακτώμενοι, το μεν της ασφαλείας χάριν, το δε της
δαφιλείας των επιτηδείων τοις νποτεταγμένοις.

condere coeperunt urbis arcemque locare

praesidium reges ipsi sibi perfugiumque
et pecus atque agros divisere atque dedere
pro facie cuiusque et viribus ingenioque.

It is possible that Lucretius is here drawing ultimately on the source used by Polybius. I f so, he has
subjected it to characteristically Epicurean modifications. T h e fortifications described are only for
the protection of the kings (ipsi sibi perfugiumque), who are not, as in Polybius, acquiring new lands
but merely dividing up what is already available. T h e benefactor-king is thus transformed into a
good Epicurean in quest of what is useful—ut fundamento stabili fortuna maneret (see above, Chap. V ,
note 11). Yet traces of his original social function are still detectable. T h e division of possessions
pro facie cuiusque et viribus ingenioque is one dictated, not by whim or personal prejudice, but by the
then prevailing notions of what was right and wrong (1112—14):

nam facies multum valuit viresque vigebant.

posterius res inventast aurumque repertum
quod facile et validis et pulchris dempsit honorem.

Here the king is simply society's spokesman in the assigning of rewards for the services of out­
standing individuals (see the parallel passages in Diodorus and Vitruvius discussed above, pp. 34—
3 5 ) ; and Lucretius' source may even have suggested that it was an ability to seem διανεμητικός
τοΰ κατ' άξίαν έκάστοις (Polybius 6.6.10) in the eyes of his subjects that got the king his office. But
the parallels with Polybius should not be stressed unduly. Lucretius' whole account is somewhat
heterogeneous, and most of what is not specifically Epicurean in it can be paralleled elsewhere.
I n apportioning goods among their subjects Lucretius' reges are doing the same thing that won
Deioces the kingship of the Medes (Herodotus 1.96.2-98.1); and their fortification of cities is an
activity with which early kings are frequently credited in history and euhemerist romance: cf.
Ephorus, FGrH 7 0 F 1 4 7 (Minos); Apollonius Rhodius 3 . 1 0 8 8 - 8 9 (Deucalion); Diodorus 2.38.5
(Dionysus in India), 3.61.3 (Cronus in Sicily and L i b y a ) ; Megasthenes, FGrH 7 1 5 F 1 2 , p. 617.2
(Dionysus in India); Pliny, NH 7.194 (Cecrops); Scholiast ad Eurip. Or. 1646 (Pelasgus). T h e
importance of physical beauty in primitive society is stressed in Euhemerus, FGrH 6 ^ 1 4 and
Oracula Sib. 3. 127-28 (beauty determines which among the sons of the world's first ruler, Uranus,
succeeds to his kingdom). T h e Ethiopians (Diodorus 3 . 9 . 4 ; Pomponius Mela 3.86) are crjedited with
the same mode of election, doubtless because of their recognized status as a Naturitlk. also
O n e s i c r i t u s , FGrH 134F21, p . 730.26-27, o n the Cathaeans. fft..< .·' , ..;>-,
92 D E M O G R I T U S AND T H E S O U R C E S O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

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

r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e v i o l e n t c h a r a c t e r o f l i f e i n t h e earliest h u m a n a g g r e g a -
tions.
P o l y b i u s ' insistence o n t h e i n i t i a l r e i g n o f v i o l e n c e a n d t h e r o l e o f t h e
m o n a r c h t u r n e d k i n g i n e n d i n g i t is, l i k e his insistence o n t h e h i s t o r i c a l r o l e
o f synetheia, o f c e n t r a l i m p o r t a n c e f o r t h e w h o l e c o n c e p t i o n o f c o n t i n u o u s
a n d g r a d u a l c h a n g e w h i c h B o o k V I seeks t o d e v e l o p . T h e g r o w t h o f society
m a y b e s a i d t o i n v o l v e , p r i m a r i l y , t h e e x p a n d i n g a n d s t r e n g t h e n i n g o f those
ties b a s e d o n r e c i p r o c a l w e l l - d o i n g w h i c h o r i g i n a t e i n synetheia; t h i s e x p a n s i o n
takes p l a c e a t t h e expense o f t h e r u l e o f f o r c e a n d f e a r w h i c h p r e v a i l e d
almost exclusively at the b e g i n n i n g o f man's history. W e r e i t n o t for the
presence o f t h e m o n a r c h , t h e f o r m a t i o n o f t h e f i r s t systemata m i g h t seem t o
h a v e b e e n a n excessively easy v i c t o r y f o r c o o p e r a t i o n o v e r f o r c e , e s t a b l i s h i n g
as i t d i d t h e effectiveness o f a c o m m o n defense a g a i n s t " a n i m a l s a n d t h e
s t r o n g e r . " B u t w h a t is i n v o l v e d is n o t a r e a l v i c t o r y f o r c o o p e r a t i o n , b u t
m e r e l y a n e n t e r i n g wedge. T h e first h u m a n aggregations come i n t o b e i n g
a l m o s t a c c i d e n t a l l y . T h e y a r e n o t p a r t o f a conscious c o n s p i r a c y o n t h e p a r t
o f t h e w e a k t o s a f e g u a r d themselves f r o m t h e s t r o n g . O n c e t h e p o w e r o f a
g r o u p o f m e n t o d e f e n d themselves has b e e n s h o w n , t h e s t r o n g e r m e m b e r s
o f the g r o u p w i l l be discouraged f r o m a t t a c k i n g t h e i r fellows w i t h o u t p r o -
v o c a t i o n ; b u t , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e w e a k e r w i l l as y e t be d i s o r g a n i z e d —
able t o u n i t e i n defending one another i n a n emergency b u t still w i t h o u t any
of the c o m m o n attitudes w h i c h make c o n t i n u o u s effectiveness possible.
B e h a v i o r p a t t e r n s w i l l t h u s be m o d i f i e d s l i g h t l y , b u t n o t r a d i c a l l y c h a n g e d .
T h e w e a k w i l l c o n t i n u e to fear the strong, o u t o f h a b i t ; the strong w i l l c o n -
t i n u e t o t a k e p r e c e d e n c e o v e r t h e w e a k i n m o s t m a t t e r s ; a n d society as a
w h o l e w i l l f o l l o w t h e l e a d e r s h i p o f t h e strongest a n d b o l d e s t . 1 9
A t t h e same
time, t h e feelings o f group loyalty and amicability awakened by close
a s s o c i a t i o n a n d t h e m e m o r y o f success a c h i e v e d i n c o m m o n defense w i l l b e
p r e s e n t , a n d c a n be e x p e c t e d t o g r o w s t r o n g e r w i t h t h e passage o f t i m e . B y
p l a c i n g t h e rise o f k i n g s h i p a t t h e e n d o f t h e process b y w h i c h g e n e r a l l y
a c c e p t e d n o r m s o f c o n d u c t arise, P o l y b i u s seems t o suggest t h a t , u l t i m a t e l y ,
t h e w i l l o f t h e m a j o r i t y is l i k e l y t o m a k e i t s e l f f e l t a g a i n s t t h e p o w e r o f t h e
i n d i v i d u a l s t r o n g m a n i n a n y s o c i a l g r o u p , b u t o n l y after t h e d e v e l o p m e n t
o f c o m m o n h a b i t s a n d c o m m o n a t t i t u d e s has a r t i c u l a t e d p u b l i c o p i n i o n i n t o
a n i n s t r u m e n t w h i c h c a n b e p o l i t i c a l l y effective.

U n t i l t h a t has h a p p e n e d , h o w e v e r , t h e r u l e o f t h e s t r o n g e r is necessary a n d
e v e n b e n e f i c i a l . F o r , j u s t as fear o f o t h e r a n i m a l s first t h r e w m e n i n t o close

'* O n occasion, there would doubtless be reversions to cannibalism. Cf. Diodorus 1.14.1 (cited
above, p. 3 0 ) which has the practice end only with the discovery of grain and creation of an
adequate food supply.
 THE G E N E A L O G Y O F MORALS (POLYBIUS) 93

c o n t a c t w i t h o n e a n o t h e r , so c o m m o n o b e d i e n c e t o t h e s t r o n g e r w o u l d b e a
cohesive force w h i c h i n c i p i e n t p a t t e r n s o f r e c i p r o c a l b e h a v i o r c o u l d n o t y e t
provide. 2 0

I n a sense, t h e n , p r i m i t i v e m o n a r c h y is a s o r t o f c h r y s a l i s i n w h i c h s o c i e t y
d e v e l o p s u n t i l i t is a b l e t o f u n c t i o n w i t h o u t i t . B u t t h i s d e v e l o p m e n t is, i n -
evitably, never c o m p l e t e d ; g o v e r n m e n t c a n n o t be discarded altogether along
w i t h m o n a r c h y . T h e r e exists a r e s i d u a l set o f s i t u a t i o n s i n h u m a n l i f e w h e r e
the system o f s o c i a l s a n c t i o n s w h i c h m e n p r a c t i c e a m o n g o n e a n o t h e r is
i n e f f e c t i v e . C o m m o n a t t i t u d e s a n d t h e s o c i a l censure b a s e d o n t h e m m a y b e
o f c o n s i d e r a b l e use i n r e s t r a i n i n g aggression a n d m i n i m i z i n g d i s a g r e e m e n t ,
but they need a spokesman. Hence, the fortunate appearance o f a m a n w h o
u n i t e s i n h i m s e l f t h e roles o f s t r o n g m a n a n d b e n e f a c t o r gives rise t o a c o m -
p r o m i s e : s u p e r i o r a b i l i t y a n d s t r e n g t h is b r o u g h t i n t o t h e r e c i p r o c a l n e x u s
and m u s t a c t o n l y i n response t o p o p u l a r w i s h , b u t w i t h i n these l i m i t s
exercise o f p o w e r c o n t i n u e s . T h e r e s u l t is n o t o n l y t h e f i r s t t r u e k i n g s h i p b u t
also t h e f i r s t t r u e politeia ( c o m p a r e 5 . 4 a n d 7.1).
Our search f o r traces o f a s o c i o l o g i c a l c o u n t e r p a r t t o t h e D i o d o r a n a n d
V i t r u v i a n analysis o f l a n g u a g e has l e d us r a t h e r f a r a f i e l d — t o a c o n s i d e r a t i o n
o f w h a t is p r o b a b l y t h e m o s t s a t i s f a c t o r y p u r e l y s p e c u l a t i v e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f
the o r i g i n o f society e v e r a t t e m p t e d . 2 1
W e have n o t , however, encountered
any n e w m e t h o d o l o g y . T h e w h o l e system is b u i l t u p o n t h e s a m e p r i n c i p l e s
as t h e h i s t o r y o f t e c h n o l o g y e x a m i n e d i n C h a p t e r s O n e a n d T w o . I n s t i n c t u a l
reactions o f pleasure a n d displeasure, combined with the workings o f
the utilitarian calculus, produce a series o f a d a p t a t i o n s suggested b y
specific i n c i d e n t s — t h i s t i m e a r i s i n g o u t o f m a n ' s s o c i a l r a t h e r t h a n n a t u r a l

2 0
T h e monarch might be expected to fulfil another function as well. Like the emblem in Diodorus
1.90.1-2, he would serve as a rallying point, an additional symbol of tribal identity. Diodorus him-
self seems to have some such parallel in mind when he goes on to note (1.90.3) that the Egyptian
practice of rewarding benefactors accounts for the divine honors they bestow on their kings as well
as for their worship of animals. One wonders naturally whether the kings did not become entitled
to rewards in the same way as animals—through their role in the creation of the original human
systemata. I f so, the parallel with Polybius is close.
2 1
Cf. the judgment of a modern sociologist: " a plausible account of social genesis, probably the
best offered until the researches of recent ethnologists" (Becker and Barnes, Social Thought from
Lore to Science 1.199). T h e brief summary of Polybius' contributions to the history of political and
social thought which these authors give ( 1 9 9 - 2 0 0 ) is, to my knowledge, the best that has appeared.
The importance of Book V I has been oddly neglected by classical scholars—more than anything,
one suspects, because of a general reluctance among them to take a utilitarian position in ethics
seriously (cf., for example, the summary and unfavorable judgments in Mioni [above, note 2] 75,
and L . Zancan, "Dottrina delle costituzioni e decadenza politica in Polibio," RendhtLomb 6 9
[1936] 5 0 9 ; and the generally unsympathetic exposition in von Fritz, Theory of the Mixed Constitution
4 5 - 5 9 ) . A n exception is Ryffel, who rightly sees in these chapters "ein Meisterstück kulturphilo-
sophischen Spekulation" ( ΜΕΤΑΒΟΛΗ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΩΝ igt, note 351), though he mistakes their
fundamental character as Stoic.
94 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

environment; a n d these a d a p t a t i o n s sufficiently multiplied result i n a

radical alteration o f a w a y o f life. 2 2

S c a t t e r e d p a r a l l e l s t o o u r five t e c h n o l o g i c a l texts w e r e p o i n t e d o u t f r o m
o t h e r a n c i e n t a u t h o r s i n C h a p t e r T h r e e ; P o l y b i u s ' analysis o f t h e g e n e a l o g y
o f m o r a l s is v i r t u a l l y u n i q u e . 2 3
I t bears e v e r y a p p e a r a n c e o f b e i n g t h e socio-
2 2
T o the parallels of detail between Polybius and the texts studied in Chapters One through
Four, two more, of less significance, may be added. Vitruvius (Stage 4 A , cited above, p. 33) says
that the discovery of fire was followed by conventus, concilium, and convictus among men. The last term
is an exact translation of syntrophia, which may have stood in the original Greek. And the mention,
in the corresponding passage of Diodorus (1.14.3), of the role of timoria in securing the rule of dike
over hybris suggests the analogous part played by social censure in Polybius (6.9).
2 3
Such parallels to Polybius as can be adduced involve primarily his conception of the role of
the monarch and king. T h e frequency with which early kings appear as the founders of cities has
already been noted (above, note 1 8 ) . A particularly close parallel to Polybius is provided by
Aristotle, Pol. 3 . 1 2 8 5 B 6 - 9 , which speaks of the first kings as benefactors: either because they led their
people in war (cf. the role of the Polybian monarch), or assembled them into a body (again the
monarch), or granted land (cf. Polybius 6.7.4, quoted above, note 18). The phrase which Polybius
uses to characterize the monarch, τον τή σωματικ-tj ρώμη και ψυχική τόλμη διαφέροντα (6.5·7)> is " ΟΙ

a type which was almost formulaic in certain types of ethnological writing; cf. Hecataeus of Abdera,
FGrH 2 6 4 F 6 . 3 (the founding of the Jewish nation); ήγειτο . . . Μωσής φρονήσει τε και ανδρεία πολύ
διαφέρων, ούτος δε καταλαβόμενος τήν χώραν . . . πόλεις έκτισε; Euhemerus, FGrH 6 3 T 4 C : 01 περι-
γενόμενοι των άλλων ισχύι και συνέσει . . . άνέπλασαν περι αυτούς ύπερβάλλουσάν τινα και θείαν δύναμιν;
Diodorus 2 . 3 8 . 4 : συνέσει διαφέροντα (Dionysus in I n d i a ) ; 3 · 7 ° · 7 :
τω κάλλει και ρώμη διάφορον
(Dionysus in L i b y a ) ; 5 - 7 · ·
1 1
διενέγκαι . . . ανδρεία και συνέσει . . . διό παραλαβόντα τήν βασιλείαν
... μέγιστα ... εύεργετήσαι (Zeus in Crete); Cicero, Sest. 9 1 : qui igitur primi virtute et consilio exstiterunt.
Moreover, early kingship is often associated with the institution of the reign of law: cf. Philochorus,
FGrH328F96, and Schol. αί/Aristoph. PI. 7 (Cecrops); Virgil, Aen. 8 . 3 2 1 - 2 5 (Saturn); Euhemerus,
FGrH 6 3 F 2 4 , and Diodorus 5.73.7 (Zeus); the last passage mentions among the institutions intro­
duced by Zeus τό κατάρχειν ευεργεσίας και πάλιν άμείβεσθαι ταις προσηκονσαις χάρισι τους ευ
ποιήααντας (cf. Polybius 6.6.6-7)· ^ u t
these passages are essentially unlike Polybius in that they
do not share his gradualist perspective. There is no hint in any of them of a slow process leading to
the social solidarity which makes kingship and the rule of law possible. T h e primitive rulers whom
they mention usually unite in themselves the rhome of the monarch and the gnome of the king; they
introduce a new political regime by a virtual fiat. Most of the passages cited come from euhemerizing
or heurematistic works of the sort considered earlier (see above, pp. 48—50), and they stand in
approximately the same relation to Polybius as do those same works to the technological texts
studied in Chapters One and Two. (More often than not, various technological discoveries are
included with cities and laws among the achievements of the early kings with which they deal.)

A somewhat closer parallel is provided by Isocrates (Helen 32—37). Theseus, observing the danger­
ous lives led by the autocrats of his day, decides to show that it is possible to rule and still enjoy the
comforts of "democracy". So he gathers the citizens into a city and establishes a commonwealth
among them. T h e people, however, entrust him with the task of governing, realizing that his rule
will be more reliable and public-spirited than their own. T h e autocrat-turned-king motif recalls
Polybius, and elsewhere (Panegyricus 39—40) Isocrates contrasts the reign of logos ushered in by the
establishment at Athens of the first government with the reign of bia which existed in other parts of
the Greek world (cf. Polybius 6.6.12). I n the event that the theory reproduced in Polybius is as old
as the fourth, or late fifth, century, it is conceivable that Isocrates has used it, disturbing the
sequence of events it envisioned by his insertion of the tradition which connected Theseus with a
democratization of Athenian polity. (For the latter, cf. Euripides, Suppl. 3 5 2 - 5 3 ; Isocrates, Panath.
128; Ps.-Demosthenes, 5 9 . 7 5 ; Theophrastus, Char. 2 6 . 6 ; Aristotle ap. Plut. Thes. 25.) But the
parallel with Isocrates is certainly not sufficient to indicate any widespread familiarity with the
theory of social and political origins which Polybius presents.
 THE G E N E A L O G Y OF MORALS (POLYBIUS) 95

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

logical sections appear i n Diodorus, Vitruvius, and Lactantius. The
t e c h n o l o g i c a l p a r t s o f this t r a d i t i o n h a v e b e e n t a k e n o v e r a l m o s t u n a l t e r e d
in t h e E p i c u r e a n texts e x a m i n e d i n C h a p t e r s O n e t h r o u g h T h r e e ; its
s o c i o l o g i c a l d o c t r i n e s w e r e , I suggest, t h e s t a r t i n g p o i n t f o r t h e r e l a t e d ,
though d i f f e r e n t , theories o f society w h i c h a p p e a r i n Hermarchus and
L u c r e t i u s ; a n d the influence o f this t r a d i t i o n m a y account for the i n c l u s i o n
of a theory o f linguistic origins i n the canonical Epicurean Kulturgeschichte—
t h o u g h t h i s aspect o f E p i c u r e a n d o c t r i n e is, c o n s i d e r e d i n itself, a n essentially
original creation.
T w o f u r t h e r pieces o f e v i d e n c e s h o u l d be m e n t i o n e d h e r e , f o r t h e y b r i n g
i m p o r t a n t confirmation to the conclusion j u s t reached. A p o r t i o n o f Polybius'
a c c o u n t , his d e s c r i p t i o n o f e a r l y m o n a r c h y , has a c l e a r p a r a l l e l i n o n e o f t h e
t e c h n o l o g i c a l texts discussed i n C h a p t e r T w o , P o s i d o n i u s ' a c c o u n t o f t h e
p r i m i t i v e r u l e o f sapientes:

sed p r i m i m o r t a l i u m q u i q u e ex his g e n i t i n a t u r a m i n c o r r u p t a m sequebantur,

eundem habebant et d u c e m et legem, commissi melioris a r b i t r i o . n a t u r a e est
e n i m potioribus deteriora summittere. m u t i s q u i d e m gregibus a u t m a x i m a
corpora praesunt a u t vehementissima. n o n praecedit a r m e n t a degener taurus
sed q u i m a g n i t u d i n e ac toris ceteros mares v i c i t ; e l e p h a n t o r u m gregem excel-
lentissimus d u c i t ; i n t e r homines p r o s u m m o est o p t i m u s . (Seneca, Ep. 90.4-5)

ανάγκη τον τη σωματική ρώμη καϊ τη ψυχική τόλμη διαφέροντα τοΰτον ηγεΐσθαι και
κρατεΐν, καθάπερ και έπι των ά λ λ ω ν γενών άοοζοποιήτων ζώων θεωρούμενον τοΰτο
χρή φύσεως έργον άληθινώτατον νομίζειν παρ' οΐς ομολογουμένως τούς Ισχυρότατους
όρωμεν ηγουμένους, λέγω δέ ταύρους αλεκτρυόνας τα. τούτοις παραπλήσια. ...
(Polybius 6.5.7-8)

P o s i d o n i u s differs f r o m P o l y b i u s i n t h a t h e refers t o r u l e o f t h e b e t t e r r a t h e r
t h a n r u l e o f t h e s t r o n g e r , f o r t h e potiores m e n t i o n e d h e r e a r e those s a m e
sapientes t o w h o m h e ascribes a m a j o r r o l e i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t e c h n o l o g y .
I f , as seems l i k e l y , t h e p a r a l l e l b e t w e e n P o l y b i u s a n d P o s i d o n i u s i n d i c a t e s
use o f a c o m m o n s o u r c e , 2 4
i t is doubtless P o s i d o n i u s r a t h e r t h a n P o l y b i u s
w h o is i n n o v a t i n g a t t h i s p o i n t . 2 5
F o r t h e sapientes h e r e serve e x a c t l y t h e s a m e

I . Heinemann, Poseidomos metaphysische Schrifien 1 . 9 1 , believes that Posidonius' account of

2 4
,

early man is simply a revision and correction of what appeared in Polybius. But the notion of a
group of men qualified by their natural superiority for rule and responsible for raising the race from
its primitive helplessness through technological discoveries antedates both Posidonius and Polybius;
so much is clear from the parallels to it found in euhemerizing texts (see preceding note). It is far
more likely that Posidonius is drawing on this tradition than that he is combining Polybius with a
separate, technological source.
2 5
Innovation is almost certainly involved, since the animal examples adduced by Posidonius
indicate only that rule of the stronger—not rule of the better—is kata physin. We are thus justified in
assuming a more specific source for the present passage than the general Stoic maxim, το κρεϊοοον act
Q.6 D E M O C R I T U S AND T H E S O U R C E S O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

p u r p o s e as t h e y d i d i n t h e t e c h n o l o g i c a l p o r t i o n s o f P o s i d o n i u s ' narrative:
the a c c o m m o d a t i o n o f a naturalistic treatment w i t h i n a teleological frame-
w o r k (see a b o v e , p p . 5 3 - 5 4 ) . B y i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e o b s e r v e d b e h a v i o r o f h e r d
a n i m a l s as a v o l u n t a r y s u b m i s s i o n t o t h e " b e s t " ( a s u p e r f i c i a l l y easy c h a n g e
i f w e p o s i t a c o m m o n source w h i c h spoke s i m p l y o f arche tou kreittonos as
kata physin) P o s i d o n i u s is a b l e t o s u p p o r t w i t h b i o l o g i c a l e v i d e n c e o f a sort his
e f f o r t t o f i n d a p u r p o s e f u l t e n d e n c y t o w a r d p e r f e c t i o n e v e n i n t h e earliest
a n d m o s t " n a t u r a l " phase o f h u m a n existence. I n s i m i l a r f a s h i o n t h e c o m -
bination o f accident a n d ingenuity by which Diodorus, Vitruvius, and
Lucretius account for t h e g r o w t h o f technology was made i n t o t h e g r a d u a l
u n f o l d i n g , t h r o u g h c h o s e n agents, o f m a n ' s e x a l t e d d e s t i n y . T h e t w o p a r t s
of Posidonius' account—technological a n d p o l i t i c a l — h a v e arisen t h r o u g h t h e
a p p l i c a t i o n o f s i m i l a r m o d i f i c a t i o n s t o s i m i l a r n a t u r a l i s t i c d o c t r i n e s ; i t is
h a r d t o b e l i e v e t h a t those d o c t r i n e s w e r e n o t o n c e p a r t o f a single t r a d i t i o n ,
f a i t h f u l l y p r e s e r v e d i n i t s s o c i o l o g i c a l aspects b y P o l y b i u s a n d i n its t e c h n o -
l o g i c a l ones b y D i o d o r u s , V i t r u v i u s , a n d L u c r e t i u s . A n d t h i s c o n c l u s i o n is
t h o r o u g h l y i n k e e p i n g w i t h w h a t o u r e n t i r e c h a p t e r has suggested a b o u t t h e
relationship between t h e Polybian a n d Epicurean genealogy o f morals.
Also i n keeping w i t h t h e a r g u m e n t o f this chapter are t h e conclusions t o
w h i c h t h e second piece o f a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e m e n t i o n e d a b o v e p o i n t s . B u t
t h e a c c o u n t i n w h i c h t h i s e v i d e n c e a p p e a r s is so e x t e n s i v e t h a t i t m u s t b e
considered i n a separate chapter.

•nepiyiveodu) TOV xelpovos (so Blankert, Seneca ep. 9 0 , pp. 30—31, calling attention to Epictetus 1.29.9
and Seneca, Ep. 6 5 . 2 4 ; cf. also SVF 1.228). Seneca, De clem. 1.19.2, also cited by Blankert, is rather
different: there the "natural" character of kingship is established by the valid parallel of the
Bienenstaat.
 CHAPTER SEVEN

A FOURTH CENTURY VERSION O F PREHISTORY

(LAWS III)

W e have already h a d occasion (above, p . 54) t o m e n t i o n t h e t h i r d b o o k o f

P l a t o ' s Laws a n d t o n o t e t h e differences b e t w e e n i t s v i e w o f p r e h i s t o r y a n d
t h a t w h i c h appears i n t h e f i v e texts e x a m i n e d i n C h a p t e r s O n e a n d T w o . A
basic d i f f e r e n c e i n p o i n t o f v i e w does n o t , h o w e v e r , e x c l u d e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y
o f extensive s i m i l a r i t y i n d e t a i l . A t a n u m b e r o f p o i n t s Laws I I I recalls
P o l y b i u s , D i o d o r u s , a n d L u c r e t i u s so closely as t o suggest t h a t t h e r e s e m -
b l a n c e is n o t a c c i d e n t a l . Before c o n s i d e r i n g t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p , h o w e v e r , some-
t h i n g f u r t h e r m u s t be said a b o u t t h e general character o f Plato's w h o l e
conception o f prehistory.

T h e Kulturgeschichte o f Laws I I I has b e e n a n a l y z e d , c o r r e c t l y I b e l i e v e , as

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

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

A B
1 Through cataclysms, plagues, or other causes
the human race has been periodically
destroyed—with the exception of a few
herdsmen living in the mountains,
2 scattered and without any knowledge of
technology
or of the devices which serve greed and compe- 3
tition in cities ( 6 7 7 A B ) .

4 At first men lived in solitude, gaining a bare

But for a long time men still feared to descend
into the plains and so lived a solitary mountain
existence. Friendship and helpfulness charac-
terized their relationship with one another—for
livelihood from their scant flocks. There were
no cities or laws;
5 men were incomplete both as regards good
and evil (677E-78A).
6 As men grew more numerous the present
order of things gradually arose (678B).
7

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

97
 98 D E M O G R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

A
solitude made them glad to see each other when
they met, they were not numerous enough to
create a shortage of food, and the loss of all
technology requiring the use of metals had re-
moved the means of waging war. T h e arts of
weaving and pottery were retained from the era
before the cataclysm and sufficed for man's
needs. T h e absence of wealth and poverty re-
moved the causes of envy and greed and made
men more virtuous. They were too innocent as
yet to question received ideas about things
human and divine. They were more just, more
valiant, and more disciplined than the men of
today (678B-79E).
They needed no laws or lawgivers but lived in 8
families or clans, observing the patriarchal
principle that the eldest shall rule ( 6 8 O A ) .
g (This mode of existence is known as dynas-
teia.) (68OB)

10 Thus, like birds, they lived in flocks,

enjoying ancestral laws and the justest of all 11
kingships ( 6 8 O D E ) .

12 Later, men banded together into larger

groups, turned to farming and built walls to
protect themselves from the wild beasts
(68OE-8IA).

13 T h e formation of larger aggregations brought

about the mingling of different sets of customs
(68IAB);

14 hence it became necessary to appoint law-

givers to reconcile them. T h e latter produced
a code of laws
15 and replaced the existing dynasteia with king-
ship or aristocracy (68ICD).

A third stage of development, in which all 16

manner and misfortune (pathema) of govern-
ment arose, came into being when men for the
first time ventured into the plains
17 and established cities ( 6 8 1 D - 8 2 C ) .
18 Later a new type of organization arose: the
ethnos, formed by an alliance between cities
(682D-83A).

O f the t w o different conceptions o f history present here, one m a y be called

" p r o g r e s s i v e " ( c o l u m n B ) , t h e o t h e r " r e g r e s s i v e , " o r a t least " s t a t i c " ( A ) .
T h e f o r m e r sees h u m a n n a t u r e as e v o l v i n g o v e r a l o n g p e r i o d , d u r i n g w h i c h
t e c h n o l o g y a n d s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s c o m e i n t o b e i n g a n d d u r i n g w h i c h m a n is
t r a n s f o r m e d t h r o u g h t h e i r i n f l u e n c e f r o m a helpless b r u t e i n t o a c r e a t u r e c a p -
 A FOURTH CENTURY VERSION OF PREHISTORY (LAWS III) 99

a b l e o f s e c u r i n g a n d p r e s e r v i n g f o r h i m s e l f t h e blessings o f c i v i l i z a t i o n . T h e
l a t t e r h o l d s t h a t i t was o n l y t h e absence o f p h i l o s o p h i c a l w i s d o m w h i c h k e p t
h u m a n n a t u r e f r o m existing complete a n d perfect i n p r i m i t i v e m a n . 2
The
t e c h n o l o g y a n d social i n s t i t u t i o n s d e v e l o p e d b y his descendants have not
a l t e r e d m a n ' s n a t u r e s u b s t a n t i a l l y , a n d s u c h c h a n g e as t h e y h a v e p r o d u c e d
is l a r g e l y f o r t h e w o r s e .
E l e m e n t s o f these t w o c o n c e p t i o n s are p e r h a p s c o m p a t i b l e w i t h o n e a n -
o t h e r a n d c o u l d h a v e h a d t h e i r o r i g i n as p a r t s o f a single, c o h e r e n t p i c t u r e
o f e a r l y m a n . I t w o u l d b e f a i r l y easy, f o r e x a m p l e , t o a d o p t t h e progressive
p e r s p e c t i v e i n a n a l y z i n g t h e t e c h n o l o g i c a l aspects o f c i v i l i z a t i o n a n d t h e
static o n e i n d e a l i n g w i t h its m o r a l a n d social q u a l i t i e s . T w o c o n s i d e r a t i o n s ,
3

h o w e v e r , i n d i c a t e t h a t w h a t w e h a v e i n Laws I I I is n o t a n o r i g i n a l , c o h e r e n t
p i c t u r e o f t h i s s o r t . W h a t has b e e n c a l l e d t h e progressive v i e w a p p e a r s i n
G r e e k l i t e r a t u r e as e a r l y as t h e Prometheus Bound a n d is also f o u n d ( w i t h t h e
i m p o r t a n t reservations discussed above, pp. 52-53) i n the three works
w h i c h P l a t o w r o t e i m m e d i a t e l y before t h e Laws: t h e Politicus, the Timaeus,
and t h e Critias. I t is r e a s o n a b l e t o assume, t h e n , t h a t i t was t a k e n o v e r b y
Plato f r o m earlier t h o u g h t ; a n d t h a t the opposing v i e w ( c o l u m n A ) , w h i c h
appears for t h e first t i m e i n Greek l i t e r a t u r e h e r e , 4
was o r i g i n a l w i t h h i m .
M o r e o v e r , t h o u g h some sort o f l o g i c a l c o m p r o m i s e b e t w e e n t h e t w o v i e w s
m a y be possible, i t is n o t t o be f o u n d i n o u r p r e s e n t t e x t . A l l t h e i t e m s g i v e n
a b o v e u n d e r B refer t o t h e v a r i o u s stages o f a s t e a d y e v o l u t i o n : t h e first m e n
are s c a t t e r e d n o m a d s w i t h o u t a n y k n o w l e d g e o f t e c h n o l o g y ; i n t h e course o f
t i m e , like other animals, they f o r m aggregations; they t u r n to a g r i c u l t u r e
a n d t a k e measures t o p r o t e c t themselves f r o m t h e w i l d beasts; l a r g e r a g g r e g a -
t i o n s arise a n d w i t h t h e m t h e b e g i n n i n g s o f l a w a n d g o v e r n m e n t ; f i n a l l y ,
men b e g i n t o b u i l d cities. B u t these successive phases i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f
c u l t u r e are n o t p r e s e n t e d b y P l a t o as p a r t o f a n y causal sequence. H e does
not t e l l us w h y clans b a n d t o g e t h e r i n t o l a r g e r a g g r e g a t i o n s ; w h y , i n t h e
m i d d l e o f t h e w h o l e process, m e n b e g i n t o p r o t e c t themselves a g a i n s t w i l d
beasts, w h i c h e v i d e n t l y h a d n o t b o t h e r e d t h e m b e f o r e ; w h y t h e y t u r n t o
a g r i c u l t u r e a n d e v e n t u a l l y descend i n t o t h e p l a i n s t o b u i l d cities. A l l these
events h a v e a n e x p l a n a t i o n i f seen against t h e b a c k g r o u n d o f a n e v o l u t i o n a r y
t h e o r y o f c u l t u r e : t h e y r e p r e s e n t successive a t t e m p t s o n m a n ' s p a r t t o g a i n
for h i m s e l f g r e a t e r c o m f o r t a n d s e c u r i t y . B u t P l a t o has b e e n a t some p a i n s t o

2
Cf. 6 7 9 E , where (as Havelock notes, 4 9 ) , of the four Platonic virtues, only phronesis is lacking in
the characterization of early man as braver, more just, and more disciplined than his descendants.
3
This is essentially the procedure followed by the Cynics in their accounts of early man ( s e e ^ - > o
below, pp. 149-51)· J y \ y ^
4
The notion that the men of old were better and "nearer the gods" was, of course, traditiomyj
but it is first associated with "cultural" primitivism (for this term, see Introduction, note 4) in tee/ >rV
passage under consideration. j1 /
 IOO D E M O G R I T U S A N DT H E S O U R C E S O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

p r o v e , b y t h e i t e m s g i v e n u n d e r c o l u m n A , t h a t m a n i n his p r i m i t i v e c o n d i -
tion had enough t o satisfy a l l his l e g i t i m a t e needs. Forgetting the bare
l i v e l i h o o d a n d s c a n t flocks o f 677E' ( B 4 ) , h e d e c l a r e s t h a t t h e r e was n o s h o r t -
age o f f o o d ( A 7 ) . N o t h a v i n g t h e m e a n s o f w a g i n g w a r , m e n l i v e d a m i c a b l y
w i t h one a n o t h e r ; society was c o m p l e t e w i t h " t h e justest o f a l l k i n g s h i p s , "
so t h a t s u b s e q u e n t p o l i t i c a l a r r a n g e m e n t s are m e r e l y larger versions o f the
same t h i n g ; a n d l a w is n o t h i n g m o r e than an attempt to reconcile con-
flicting patriarchal traditions when they happen to conflict. I t w o u l d , o f
c o u r s e , h a v e b e e n p o s s i b l e t o suggest w h y t h e p r i m i t i v e U t o p i a d i d n o t l a s t ;
but P l a t o does n o t a t t e m p t t o d o so. H e m e r e l y asserts t h a t c e r t a i n c h a n g e s
occur—changes w h i c h are explicable o n t h e basis o f t h e v i e w o f p r i m i t i v e
s o c i e t y f o u n d i n c o l u m n B , b u t q u i t e w i t h o u t m o t i v a t i o n o n t h e basis o f t h a t
found i n A.

The a b o v e a n a l y s i s , as w e l l as w h a t i t suggests a b o u t t h e presence of

contaminatio i n Laws I I I , c a n be s u p p o r t e d b y a c o m p a r i s o n o f Plato with
Polybius; for almost every i t e m i n c o l u m n B reappears, i n i d e n t i c a l order,
i n Book V I o f the Histories:

POLYBIUS VI PLATO

initial cataclysm; 5
5.5 initial cataclysm; 1
loss of technology 5.6 loss of technology; 2
and social usages (epitedeumata); 5.6 men live scattered and without laws; 4
men become more numerous, 5.6 they become more numerous, 6
under leadership of the strongest and under leadership of a patriarch (dynas-
boldest (monorchia); 5.7 teia), 9
they live in herds; 5.7 living in flocks; 1o
larger aggregations, fortifications, and
agriculture arise; 12-13
creation of generally accepted ideas of creation of a code of nomoi, 14
right and wrong, 6-2-9
followed by kings 6.12 then kings 15
and cities. 7.4 and cities. 17

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

1 9 4 8 ] 1 3 0 — 3 8 ) and enabled the Peripatetics to reconcile their doctrine of the eternity of man with
 A FOURTH CENTURY VERSION OF PREHISTORY (LAWS III) ΙΟΙ

O f t h e " p r o g r e s s i v e " i t e m s i n P l a t o ' s a c c o u n t o n l y 12-13 have no counter­

p a r t i n Polybius, and t h e i r absence is easily e x p l a i n e d as a r e s u l t o f t h e
latter's exclusively sociological perspective. I t is c l e a r t h a t t h e t w o texts d i d
not come i n t o b e i n g i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f each other—hence the suggestion, often
advanced, that Plato is a p a r t i a l s o u r c e f o r P o l y b i u s . 6
I f so, the latter's
success i n e x t r a c t i n g f r o m P l a t o ' s a c c o u n t a l l those i t e m s — a n d o n l y t h o s e —
w h i c h f i t his o w n r a d i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t c o n c e p t i o n o f p r e h i s t o r y is m o s t r e m a r k ­
able. I t seems f a r m o r e l i k e l y t h a t b o t h w o r k s r e f l e c t t h e i n f l u e n c e of an
i d e n t i c a l s o u r c e , o n e w h i c h is r e p r o d u c e d f a i r l y f a i t h f u l l y b y P o l y b i u s , but
w h i c h P l a t o has s u b j e c t e d to extensive i n t e r p o l a t i o n . 7

Strong support f o r t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is p r o v i d e d by the terminology

evidence from history and tradition suggesting that human culture was of relatively recent origin
(Bignone, V Aristoteleperduto 2 . 4 6 1 - 7 3 ) . But a theory need not originate where it proves eventually
to be most useful. T h e doctrine of recurring cataclysms appears first in the Timaeus and Critias (see
the parallel passages assembled by R . Walzer, Aristotelis Dialogorum Fragmenta [Florence 1934]
7 0 - 7 1 ) , where it serves the very different purpose of explaining why Egyptian records and tradition
reach back so much farther than their Greek counterparts. T h e fact had attracted attention as early
as Hecataeus and Herodotus (2.143 = FGrH 1 F 3 0 0 ) , and need not have waited until Plato's day to
find an explanation. (The idea of a general cataclysm which failed to reach Egypt is perhaps im­
plied in the same passage of Herodotus: 2.142.4.) It is possible, for example, that the atomistic
analogy between physical and social kosmoi (see below, pp. 1 0 7 - 1 0 ) led to the suggestion that the
latter, like the former, are innumerable and mortal (cf. the μυρίαι. ίπι μυρίαις πάλας of Laws 676B).
Though most—perhaps all—of the pre-Socratics posited an original spontaneous generation of men
from mud and water (cf. VS 1 2 A 3 0 ; 2 1 B 3 3 ; 6 8 A 1 3 9 ) and an eventual destruction of both man and
his cosmos, these theories would not exclude the possibility of the intervening partial phthorai which
Plato describes. T h e myths of floods associated with the names of Deucalion, Dardanus, and
Ogygus, or the belief that spontaneous generation was possible only at the time of the formation
of the whole kosmos (cf. Diodorus 1.7) would have favored the idea that the phthora which accounts
for the recentness of civilization in Greece was partial rather than total. (A single account could, of
course, have allowed for either possibility: cf. Laws 7 8 1 E - 8 2 A ; Aristotle, Pol. 2.1269A4-5.) There is
thus some grounds for accepting Jaeger's contention (Aristotle, 137) that the idea of recurring
cataclysms "cannot have originated in Plato's imaginative brain," but rather "bears the stamp of
Ionian science."
6
Direct or indirect influence of Laws I I I on Polybius is assumed by R . von Scala, Die Studien des
Polybios (Stuttgart 1890) 1 0 8 - 1 3 ; Wilamowitz, GriechischesLesebuch I I , i (Berlin 1902) 120; E . Mioni,
Polibio (Padua 1949) 6 6 ; and von Fritz, Theory of the Mixed Constitution 4 1 7 , note 3 4 .
7
Even if the idea of recurrent, partial cataclysms is a Platonic innovation (see above, note 5 ) , its
presence in Polybius does not tell against the theory of a common source for both accounts. Polybius'
cyclical theory of political change demanded an account which commenced, not with an absolute
beginning, but the return of something which had existed many times before; hence he would have
had reasons of his own for replacing the pre-Socratic idea of the continuity of matter through a total
cataclysm with the Platonic one of the continuity of the human race through a partial one. (For
what is perhaps an echo of the former idea in his text, see Guthrie, In the Beginning 66.) And his source
for the latter notion need not have been Plato. It appears in certain second century writers
("Ocellus Lucanus," Critolaus) along with an account of the process of genesis, akme, and phthora
evident in all earthly things which closely recalls Polybius' own view of the biological law operative
in the history of states (see Ryffel, ΜΕΤΑΒΟΛΗ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΩΝ 2 0 3 - 2 1 ; W. Theiler, "Schichten
im 6. Buch des Polybios," Hermes 81 [ 1 9 5 3 ] 2 9 6 - 9 7 ) .
 I02 DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

w h i c h P l a t o uses i n r e f e r r i n g t o t h e p a t r i a r c h a l societies w h i c h p r e c e d e d t h e
first k i n g d o m . R u l e o f t h e eldest is c a l l e d dynasteia. T h i s is a n u n p a r a l l e l e d
use o f a w o r d w h i c h i n o t h e r c o n t e x t s a l w a y s m e a n s r u l e b y f o r c e , 8
usually
t h a t o f a n a r r o w o l i g a r c h y , b u t i n t w o instances a t least (Isocrates, Paneg. 3 9 ,
Panath. 121) t h e p r i m i t i v e r u l e o f force w h i c h p r e c e d e d t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f
g o v e r n m e n t b y l a w — P o l y b i a n monorchia i n o t h e r w o r d s . O n e m u s t c o n c l u d e
9

t h a t P l a t o a n d P o l y b i u s h a v e d r a w n o n a c o m m o n source w h i c h spoke o f
p r i m i t i v e dynasteia f o l l o w e d b y k i n g s h i p . P o l y b i u s preserves t h e c o n c e p t b u t
uses a d i f f e r e n t t e r m , monarchia; 10
P l a t o keeps t h e t e r m b u t a p p l i e s i t t o a
c o m p l e t e l y d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n . A n d h a v i n g a l t e r e d t h e c h a r a c t e r o f dynasteia
he is f o r c e d t o i n t r o d u c e a f u r t h e r c h a n g e . T h e i n s t i t u t i o n o f k i n g s h i p c a n n o
l o n g e r b e r e g a r d e d as t h e s u b s t i t u t i o n o f ius f o r vis. T h e n e w a r r a n g e m e n t is
p r e c e d e d i n h i s a c c o u n t , as i n P o l y b i u s ' , b y t h e c r e a t i o n o f a set o f n o r m s b y
w h i c h society is t o l i v e ; b u t t h e y a r e t h e c o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e nomothetai w h o
b r i n g kingship i n t o being, rather t h a n the c o m m o n l y accepted notions o f
r i g h t a n d w r o n g w h o s e f o r m a t i o n is d e s c r i b e d i n P o l y b i u s 6 . 6 . 1 1

W e a r e i n a p o s i t i o n t o say m o r e a b o u t Plato's source t h a n t h a t i t w a s t h e

o n e also used b y P o l y b i u s . I t t r e a t e d t e c h n o l o g y as w e l l as society, a n d i n
m u c h t h e same w a y as d i d t h e t r a d i t i o n discussed i n C h a p t e r T w o . T h e
a g r i c u l t u r e a n d f o r t i f i c a t i o n s o f i t e m 12 a r e p a r a l l e l e d t h e r e (Stages 5 E a n d

8
For a collection of examples, see Aalders, Mnemosyne Ser. 4 , 3.304, note 10; K . Stegmann von
Pritzwald, " Z u r Geschichte der Herrscherbezeichnungen von Homer bis Piaton," Forschungen zur
Völkerpsychologie und Soziologie 7 (1930) 1 2 0 - 2 1 , 155-56. T h e fact has been noted by most com-
mentators (cf. R . Weil, V "archeologie" dePlaton 6 8 - 6 9 ; and the notes to 6 8 O B in Taylor's translation
and in the commentaries of Ritter and England). T o my knowledge, however, no satisfactory ex-
planation has been offered. Cf. England: " T h e important point. . . seems to have been the fact
that authority (dynasteia) should attach to any position; hence the term chosen;" Weil: " L a methode
de Platon manque ici de rigueur;" and G . Rohr, Piatons Stellung zur Geschichte (Berlin 1932) 13:
" I n diesem Abschnitt ist allerdings Platon in der Namengebung besonders ungebunden."
6
Polybius himself, it should be noted, speaks of the people who willingly obey the strong man Who
serves their interest as protecting his dynasteia (6.6.11). Also significant is the way the account of
monarchia recalls Diodorus' description of the Trogodytes ( 3 . 3 2 ) . T h e latter are ruled despotically kata
systemata (3.32.1—cf. Polybius 6.5.10), and their leaders are twice referred to as dynastai (32.1, 3 ) .
Polybius' use of the term monarchia is just as peculiar and isolated as Plato's use of dynasteia.
1 0

Nowhere else does it bear the specialized significance it has in Book V I ( F . M . Walbank, "Polybius
on the Roman Constitution," CQ.37 [1943] 79). I t was substituted for the dynasteia which must have
appeared in the historian's source in order to accommodate the Kulturgeschichte of 5 . 1 0 - 6 . 9 to the
theory of the evolution of political constitutions in which it is imbedded. Polybius regards the rise
of culture (somewhat inaccurately) as the "natural genesis of kingship" (cf. 7.1). I t is succeeded by
the acme and decay of this institution, then by the genesis, acme, and decay of aristocracy and
democracy. Monarchia emphasizes more clearly than dynasteia the place which this process is sup-
posed to occupy in the tripartite political cycle. See, further, Cole, Historia 13.460-61.
T h e role of the nomothetes in the coalescing of clans may be a motif which appeared in Plato's
1 1

source (see below, pp. 1 0 8 - 9 ) , but the role is here greatly extended. I n the process Plato exactly
reverses normal Greek ideas by making the king the product, rather than the source, of the earliest
nomothesia.
 A FOURTH C E N T U R Y VERSION OF PREHISTORY (LAWS III) IO3

8 A ) . A n d c o l u m n A , t h o u g h c o n t a i n i n g P l a t o ' s o w n a d d i t i o n s t o his source,

has t h r e e i t e m s w h i c h r e a d l i k e a p o l e m i c a g a i n s t t h e v i e w s o f o u r five
t e c h n o l o g i c a l texts. P l a t o asserts, as i f c o n t r a d i c t i n g L u c r e t i u s (5.1350-53,
q u o t e d u n d e r Stage 5 D ) , t h a t w e a v i n g does n o t d e p e n d o n i r o n tools a n d is
r e t a i n e d b y m a n a t a l l p e r i o d s o f his h i s t o r y ; 1 2
h e d r a w s t h e same c o n n e c t i o n
as d o D i o d o r u s a n d L u c r e t i u s (passages q u o t e d u n d e r Stage 5 C ) between
m e t a l l u r g y a n d w a r f a r e , o n l y i n f e r r i n g f r o m this t h a t p r i m i t i v e m a n was
b e t t e r o f f w i t h o u t b o t h ; a n d his e m p h a s i s o n t h e s o c i a b i l i t y o f p r i m i t i v e m a n
is p e r h a p s d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t t h e t h e o r y o f a n o r i g i n a l c a n n i b a l i s m w h i c h a p ­
pears i n D i o d o r u s ( 1 . 1 4 . 1 , Stage 3 D ; cf. a b o v e , p . 3 0 ) . 1 3

T h e v i e w here a d v a n c e d , t h a t P l a t o is m o d i f y i n g a n d a t t h e same t i m e
c o n d u c t i n g a p o l e m i c against t h e v i e w o f p r i m i t i v e m a n w h i c h a p p e a r e d i n
o u r t r a d i t i o n , gains s u p p o r t f r o m Epinomis 974E-76C ( o n w h i c h see also a b o v e ,
C h a p . I l l , n o t e 16). I n t h e course o f a n a t t e m p t t o e s t a b l i s h t h e n a t u r e o f
t r u e ( p h i l o s o p h i c a l ) w i s d o m t h e a u t h o r o f t h a t treatise gives a b r i e f r e s u m e
o f a l l those a c h i e v e m e n t s a n d q u a l i t i e s o f m i n d w h i c h m i g h t , a t o n e t i m e ,
h a v e e a r n e d f o r t h e i r possessors t h e n a m e ofsophos, b u t w h i c h are n o l o n g e r ,
i n his v i e w , s u f f i c i e n t t o d o so. T h e a c h i e v e m e n t s r e j e c t e d are j u s t t h e ones
w h i c h w o u l d figure i n a h i s t o r y o f c u l t u r e a n d are p r e s e n t e d i n w h a t seems t o
be r o u g h l y c h r o n o l o g i c a l o r d e r . T h e m e n w h o first f r e e d t h e race f r o m t h e
curse o f c a n n i b a l i s m a n d d i s c o v e r e d t h e p r e p a r a t i o n a n d c u l t i v a t i o n o f g r a i n
are n o t , p r o p e r l y s p e a k i n g , sopkoi; n e i t h e r are those r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e first
houses a n d f o r m e t a l l u r g y a n d t h e tools used i n b u i l d i n g , p o t t e r y , a n d
w e a v i n g ; n o r are t h e i n v e n t o r s o f t h e arts o f h u n t i n g a n d d i v i n a t i o n ; n o r t h e
discoverers o f the m i m e t i c arts—music, dancing, and singing; nor the
founders o f medicine, n a v i g a t i o n , a n d j u r i s p r u d e n c e . F i n a l l y , facility i n
r e m e m b e r i n g w h a t is t a u g h t a n d c a l l i n g t o m i n d w h a t is a p p r o p r i a t e i n a n y
g i v e n s i t u a t i o n is anchinoia p e r h a p s , b u t n o t sophia.
H e r e we have i n explicit f o r m the t h e o r y o f man's o r i g i n a l cannibalistic

T h e parallel with Lucretius 5 . 1 3 5 0 - 5 3 was noted by Uxkull-Gyllenband, 34, note 46.

1 2

Plato was certainly acquainted with such theories. Cf. Politicus 271DE, where cannibalism is
1 3

named along with wars and factions as something absent under the rule of the Divine Shepherd—
hence, presumably, characteristic of the present world cycle, or at least portions of it. And it is
mentioned in Laws 6.782B as a mode of trophe to which man, in common with other animals, once
had recourse. T h e latter passage occurs in an anthropological context which shows several points of
similarity with Book I I I :

III (676BC) V I (781Ε-82Α)

άφ* ov πόλεις τ* είσιν και άνθρωποι πολιτ€νόμ€νοι χρη . . . σνννο€Ϊν ώς η των ανθρώπων γ€ν€σις η

8οκ€Ϊς άν ποτ€ κατανόησαν χρόνου πλήθος όσον άρχην ούοεμιαν εΐληχεν . . . η μήκος τι της αρχής
yeyovev; μνρίαι . . . επι μνρίαις . . . γεγόνασι πό­ άφ* ου yeyovev άμήχανον άν χρόνον ρσον γεγονό$
λεις . . . ουκ ελάττους εφθαρμεναι . . . πεπολιτευ- cec εΐη. πόλεως συστάσεις και φθοράς, και
μεναι δ* αν πάσας πολιτείας πολλάκις εκα- επιτηδεύματα παντοία τάξεως τ€ καΙ αταξίας . . .
σταχον. . . . ουκ οίόμεθα γεγονεναι', ί. ,
 IC-4 D E M O C R I T U S AND T H E S O U R C E S O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

n a t u r e w h i c h was r e j e c t e d b y i m p l i c a t i o n i n t h e Laws; a n d i m p l i e d h e r e is
t h e c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n m e t a l l u r g y a n d t h e arts o f w e a v i n g a n d p o t t e r y
e x p l i c i t l y r e j e c t e d t h e r e . I n b o t h p o i n t s t h e Epinomis agrees w i t h t h e t r a d i t i o n
e x a m i n e d i n Chapters O n e t h r o u g h F o u r . N o r d o the similarities e n d here.
B o t h t h e Epinomis a n d t h e texts o f o u r t r a d i t i o n c o n n e c t t h e e n d o f c a n n i b a l ­
i s m w i t h t h e d i s c o v e r y o f g r a i n ( D i o d o r u s 1.14.1, Stage 3 D ) ; 1 4
b o t h discuss
t h e " f i n e " a r t s after t h e necessary ones ( t h e Epinomis drawing an explicit
distinction between τών αναγκαίων κτήσιν a n d παιδιά—975CD); and the
anchinoia w h i c h D i o d o r u s m e n t i o n s ( 1 . 8 . 9 , Stage 6) a l o n g s i d e h a n d s and
r a t i o n a l speech as b r i n g i n g a b o u t t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t e c h n o l o g y r e a p p e a r s
i n t h e Epinomis as a suggested d e s i g n a t i o n f o r a n i n t e l l e c t u a l process i n m a n
w h i c h falls s h o r t o f sopkia. 15
F i n a l l y , t h e passage recalls P o l y b i u s i n its i n ­
clusion o f the general a n d orator a m o n g practitioners o f the lower forms o f
sophia ( 9 7 5 E - 7 6 B ) . B o t h b e l o n g t o a m o r e a d v a n c e d stage o f c u l t u r e t h a n t h a t
d e s c r i b e d b y P o l y b i u s , b u t t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s ( d e s c r i b e d as boetheiai) h a v e close
p a r a l l e l s i n t h e l a t t e r ' s a c c o u n t . T h e g e n e r a l is a boethos f o r t h e w h o l e c i t y ,
l i k e t h e m a n w h o u n d e r t a k e s t h e defense o f a l l i n m o m e n t s o f d a n g e r ( 6 . 6 . 8 ) ;
and t h e o r a t o r s ( d e s c r i b e d as βοηθοί δίκαις 16
ev τη τοΰ λεγζιν ρώμη) have a
r o l e a n a l o g o u s t o t h a t o f t h e f u t u r e k i n g w h o " l e n d s his s u p p o r t " t o p o p u l a r
ideas o f r i g h t a n d w r o n g . 1 7

B o t h Laws I I I a n d t h e Epinomis are i n t u r n l i n k e d t o t h e y o u n g A r i s t o t l e ' s

account o f the antecedents of philosophy (see above, pp. 52-53) by
similarities w h i c h show t h a t a l l three must have h a d a c o m m o n o r i g i n i n the
discussions o f the A c a d e m y held i n the m i d - f o u r t h century. T h o u g h the
m e t h o d s t h e y e m p l o y are d i f f e r e n t , t h e t h r e e a c c o u n t s h a v e a single a i m : t h e
d o w n g r a d i n g o f the achievements o f t e c h n o l o g y a n d t h e useful arts. P l a t o
a t t e m p t s t o s h o w t h a t , i n s o f a r as t h e y r e p r e s e n t r e a l a c h i e v e m e n t s , these arts
are o n l y a m i x e d blessing, a n d t h a t t h e r e a l l y useful a n d necessary a m o n g
t h e m are n o t a c h i e v e m e n t s a t a l l , b u t s o m e t h i n g w h i c h t h e race has e n j o y e d
f r o m t i m e i m m e m o r i a l . T h e Epinomis recognizes t h e u t i l i t y o f t e c h n o l o g y a n d
t h e t a l e n t s o f its creators b u t denies t h a t these t a l e n t s h a v e a n y t h i n g t o d o

1 4
The same connection is drawn in Laws 6.782B.
1 5
O n the similarity of the Epinomis to the technological texts discussed in Chapters One and Two
see also Gerhausser, Der Protreptikos des Poseidonios 30—31, who suggests the possibility of Democritus
as the ultimate common source.
For the notion of boetheia rendered to nomos or to dihaion cf. Antiphon 1.31, Herod. 8 0 , Lysias
1 6

10.32; Anonymus Iamblichi 3 . 6 ; Aristophanes, Plutus 9 1 4 - 1 5 ; Demosthenes 5 6 . 1 5 ; and the

passages cited in A. Delatte, Essai sur la politique pythagoricienne (Liege 1922) 4 9 .
1 7
Even the word boetheia, designating in origin a running (thein) in response to the raising of the
hue and cry (boe)—see W . Schulze, "Beitrage zur Wort- und Sittengeschichte I I , " Kleine Schriften
(Gottingen 1933) 183-89—suggests the most primitive form of mutual succor and, in particular, the
situations envisioned by the texts on the origin of language discussed in Chapter Four (above,
pp. 6 3 - 6 7 , with note 1 5 ) .
 A F O U R T H C E N T U R Y VERSION OF PREHISTORY (LAWS III) IO5

w i t h w i s d o m i n its h i g h e s t f o r m . A r i s t o t l e , m o r e g e n e r o u s , gives t o t e c h n o l o g y
a preparatory b u t still subordinate place i n man's intellectual development.
T h a t a l l t h r e e c r i t i q u e s s h o u l d be p r e s e n t e d i n t h e f o r m o f Kulturgeschichten
w h i c h are so s i m i l a r t o e a c h o t h e r suggests t h a t w h a t a l l t h r e e are a t t a c k i n g
is n o t s i m p l y a g e n e r a l a t t i t u d e b u t a specific w o r k o r b o d y o f w o r k s i n w h i c h
b o t h demiourgike a n d politike techne w e r e g l o r i f i e d b y a c a r e f u l a n d d e t a i l e d
account o f their civilizing achievements. 18
P l a t o denies i n l a r g e p o r t i o n t h e
t r u t h o f t h i s a c c o u n t ; A r i s t o t l e a n d t h e a u t h o r o f t h e Epinomis accept i t , b u t
compensate b y emphasizing the essentially subsidiary character of the
achievements i t celebrates. I t is n a t u r a l t o assume t h a t i t is t h e i r c o m m o n
d e r i v a t i o n f r o m this w o r k or b o d y o f works w h i c h explains the similarities
b e t w e e n t h e Laws, t h e Epinomis, the accounts o f technology a n d language
considered i n Chapters O n e t h r o u g h F o u r , a n d the sociology o f Polybius
VI. 1 9

I f t h e a b o v e a r g u m e n t is c o r r e c t , t h e Laws a n d t h e Epinomis contain i n -

dependent evidence for accepting the conclusion reached i n our two pre-
c e d i n g c h a p t e r s — t h a t t h e g e n e a l o g y o f social n o r m s g i v e n b y P o l y b i u s a n d
t h e closely r e l a t e d histories o f t e c h n o l o g y f o u n d i n D i o d o r u s , V i t r u v i u s , a n d
L u c r e t i u s d i d n o t arise i n d e p e n d e n t l y . Plato's e v i d e n c e is also o f some i m -
p o r t a n c e f o r t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e u l t i m a t e source o f t h e t r a d i t i o n w e are
e x a m i n i n g . T h e m i d d l e o f t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y m a y n o w b e a c c e p t e d as a
terminus ante quern f o r t h e o r i g i n o f t h e t r a d i t i o n i n b o t h its t e c h n o l o g i c a l a n d
sociological phases. W e are d e a l i n g , t h e r e f o r e , w i t h a d o c t r i n e w h i c h is
pre-Hellenistic and, i n all p r o b a b i l i t y , pre-Platonic. T h e argument, plausible
i n i t s e l f (see a b o v e , p . 5 9 ) , f o r p o s i t i n g some source n e a r e r i n t i m e t o t h e
first c e n t u r y a c c o u n t s e x a m i n e d i n C h a p t e r s O n e t h r o u g h T h r e e is t h e r e b y
s h o w n t o be i n v a l i d ; a n d w i t h t h i s a r g u m e n t goes t h e m a i n o b j e c t i o n t o t h e

1 8
Recognition of such an overall indebtedness to pre-Platonic thought need not affect the
validity of the theories advanced by other investigators on the connection between the Epinomis and
the early works of Aristotle. I n particular, Einarson may be right (TAPA 67.283, note 75) in seeing
in the catalogue of lechnai of Epinomis 9 7 4 E - 7 6 C a conflation of Aristotle's classification of the arts
with the procedure adopted in the Euthydemus for determining whether certain professions can
be regarded as epistemai (cf. 2 8 9 A - 9 0 B , where the claims of iatrike, strategike, and rhetorike are ex-
amined and rejected). But such formulations are incomplete. There is, for example, no parallel in
either Aristotle or the Euthydemus to the conceptions of boetheia and anchinoia which appear in the
Epinomis; and the reference in 9 7 5 A to man's original cannibalism contradicts Asclepius' version
(see above, Chap. I l l , note 15) of Aristotle's views on primitive life: Jjoav irardpes /XCTO T4KVU>V . . .
Kai OVK iv airois aSiKia ( 1 1 . 7 - 9 Hayduck).
1
' Though briefer than some of the texts studied in Chapters One and Two, Epinomis 974E-76C
may preserve at one point a more faithful record of the tradition. It includes manlike among the use-
ful arts (9750). Though omitted as a rule from Hellenistic Kulturentstehungslehren, augury and divina-
tion are listed among the civilizing achievements of Prometheus by Aeschylus (PV 4 8 4 - 9 9 ) , and
their institution is assigned by Democritus, perhaps in an anthropological context, to the "men of
old" (A 138).
Io6 DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K ANTHROPOLOGY

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

2 0
One bit of evidence is best mentioned here, since, unlike those to be examined in the next
chapter, it has nothing to do with our authors' social and political theories. Aristotle's rejection of
the authenticity of the works attributed to Orpheus (De philosophia F r . 7 Ross) is perhaps to be under-
stood as part of his general critique of Democritus' theory of culture. For we know that the latter
ascribed the discovery of the hexameter to Musaeus (B16—see above, p. 5 7 ) , from which it is
natural to infer that he believed the poems of the Thracian school of bards to be authentic.
 CHAPTER EIGHT

PLATO, POLYBIUS, AND DEMOCRITUS

i. T H E GENESIS A N D EXPANSION O F KOSMOI

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

characterized b y t h e f o r m a t i o n o f successively l a r g e r social aggregations,
b e g i n n i n g w i t h the f a m i l y a n d progressing through clan, city, a n d con-
f e d e r a t i o n (see i n t h e s u m m a r y g i v e n a b o v e , p p . 9 7 - 9 8 , i t e m s 8, 12, 13, 16,
and 1 8 ) . T h i s aspect o f P l a t o ' s account has some b e a r i n g o n t h e s o u r c e
p r o b l e m w e a r e c o n s i d e r i n g , f o r i t recalls a c e n t r a l t e n e t o f a t o m i s t i c p h y s i c s .
D e m o c r i t u s d e r i v e d the entire universe f r o m the concourse o f atoms into
a g g r e g a t i o n s o r " o r d e r i n g s " (kosmoi) a n d b e l i e v e d a l l o f these kosmoi t o b e
c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y a t e n d e n c y t o b e c o m e p r o g r e s s i v e l y l a r g e r ( A 4 0 ) . H e also
seems t o h a v e g i v e n t o t h e w o r d kosmos a w i d e r r a n g e o f m e a n i n g t h a n d i d
non-atomistic w r i t e r s . I t designated a g g r e g a t i o n s o f l i v i n g t h i n g s as well
as o f a t o m s , 1
a n d t h e r e is n o r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e t h a t these h u m a n a n d a n i m a l
kosmoi w o u l d h a v e b e e n r e g a r d e d as e x e m p t f r o m t h e g e n e r a l t e n d e n c y to
e x p a n d . I f t h e y w e r e n o t so r e g a r d e d , P l a t o ' s a c c o u n t o f t h e g r a d u a l p r o -
gression f r o m f a m i l y t o ethnos m a y b e t h e r e s u l t o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f a t o m -
istic p r i n c i p l e s t o sociology.
T h i s s u g g e s t i o n is n o t n e w . T h e " a t o m i s t i c " a f f i n i t i e s o f t h e d o c t r i n e o f
Laws I I I h a v e b e e n p o i n t e d o u t b e f o r e a n d t a k e n as s u f f i c i e n t i n d i c a t i o n i n
themselves o f s t r o n g D e m o c r i t e a n i n f l u e n c e . T h e s u g g e s t i o n is a t t r a c t i v e a n d
2

fits i n w e l l w i t h evidence suggesting t h a t P l a t o n i c physics, i n the philo-

sopher's l a t e r years, u n d e r w e n t a s i m i l a r D e m o c r i t e a n i n f l u e n c e . 3
Yet for
t h e p r e s e n t , a t a n y r a t e , i t m u s t be a c c e p t e d t e n t a t i v e l y a n d w i t h r e s e r v a t i o n s .
T h e d i v i s i o n o f cities i n t o t r i b e s a n d p h r a t r i e s a n d t h e a s s o c i a t i o n o f these
cities i n t o e t h n i c leagues a n d a l l i a n c e s was a s i m p l e f a c t o f G r e e k s o c i a l a n d
p o l i t i c a l life, o f w h i c h a c o n t e m p o r a r y observer c o u l d h a r d l y be i g n o r a n t .

1
Cf. B 2 5 8 - 5 9 . There is also an implicit link between animate and inanimate kosmoi in B164 (see
below, p. 110), where both are said to illustrate by their behavior the principle that like is
attracted to like.
2
See Uxkull-Gyllenband, 2 9 - 3 0 . Democritean influence is denied by Aalders [Hel derde boek van
Plato's Leges 9 8 - 1 0 0 , 111—15); but he fails to consider the allegedly atomistic motifs which^foyide
Uxkull-Gyllenband with the substance of his argument. A \5
3
See the works cited in VS I I 8 2 . 3 8 m ; W . Schmid, Geschichte der griechischen Literature, XMunich
1948) 3 3 1 - 3 2 ; and H . Cherniss, "Plato, 1 9 5 0 - 5 7 , " Lustrum 4 (1959) 3 9 - 4 0 . lj , ' V
107 r;| ., t
!
Ιθ8 DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES OF G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

I t w o u l d have been a n a t u r a l assumption, r e q u i r i n g no background of

a t o m i s t i c t h e o r y t o s u p p o r t i t , t h a t t h e f a m i l y , w h i c h was t h e smallest o f
these u n i t s a n d t h e basic c o m p o n e n t o f a l l t h e o t h e r s , was also t h e earliest t o
c o m e i n t o b e i n g ; t h a t i t h a d , t h e r e f o r e , existed s e p a r a t e l y a t o n e t i m e ; a n d
t h a t g r a d u a l a c c r e t i o n s h a d p r o d u c e d social u n i t s o f t h e d i m e n s i o n s w i t h
w h i c h the Greeks o f m o r e recent times were f a m i l i a r . M o r e o v e r , t h o u g h
t h e r e is a c e r t a i n s i m i l a r i t y b e t w e e n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t ofethne as d e s c r i b e d b y
P l a t o a n d t h a t o f D e m o c r i t e a n kosmoi, t h e single f a m i l y l i v i n g i n i s o l a t i o n is a
far c r y f r o m t h e m u c h l a r g e r , m o r e t u r b u l e n t οΊνον παντοίων elbiwv (Β 167)
w h i c h is s e p a r a t e d o u t f r o m t h e a l l a t a c o r r e s p o n d i n g p o i n t i n t h e a t o m i s t i c
t h e o r y o f c o s m i c genesis.
T a k e n b y itself, t h e r e f o r e , Plato's a c c o u n t offers n o sure s u p p o r t for t h e
t h e o r y o f a D e m o c r i t e a n source. T h e same c a n n o t b e s a i d , h o w e v e r , o n c e his
a c c o u n t has b e e n e x a m i n e d a l o n g s i d e c e r t a i n o t h e r passages i n t h e t r a d i t i o n
to w h i c h i t , a l o n g w i t h P o l y b i u s a n d t h e t e c h n o l o g i c a l texts s t u d i e d i n
C h a p t e r s O n e a n d T w o , seems t o b e l o n g . T h e e i g h t h c h a p t e r o f D i o d o r u s I ,
for e x a m p l e , posits, j u s t as P l a t o does, a social d e v e l o p m e n t w h i c h proceeds
t h r o u g h the gradual expansion o f an original nucleus. 4
I n 1.8.4 ( - a b o v e ,
C I

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

language a r e s a i d t o b e c o m e t h e ancestors o f t h e ethne o f t h e w o r l d . Even
m o r e s i g n i f i c a n t is t h e passage i n t h e E g y p t i a n p o r t i o n o f t h e b o o k (1.16.1)
w h i c h lists a m o n g t h e a c h i e v e m e n t s o f H e r m e s t h e a r t i c u l a t i o n o f a c o m m o n
speech a n d t h e d e v i s i n g o f n a m e s f o r c e r t a i n andnyma. T h e passage has b e e n
t a k e n as a s i m p l e v a r i a n t o n t h e e a r l i e r a c c o u n t o f t h e o r i g i n o f l a n g u a g e
(1.8.2-4), D u t
u p o n closer e x a m i n a t i o n i t b e c o m e s f a i r l y c l e a r t h a t D i o d o r u s
is h e r e d e s c r i b i n g s o m e t h i n g q u i t e d i f f e r e n t . H e r m e s c a n n o t be t h e o r i g i n a l
onomatothetis; f o r a t a c o m p l e t e l y p r e l i n g u a l stage o f d e v e l o p m e n t , t h e crea­
t i o n o f a c o m m o n l a n g u a g e w o u l d be i d e n t i c a l w i t h t h e d i s c o v e r y o f n a m e s
f o r andnyma, a n d so t h e r e w o u l d b e n o p o i n t i n d i s t i n g u i s h i n g , as D i o d o r u s
does, b e t w e e n t h e t w o a c t i v i t i e s . M o r e o v e r , a t t h i s stage a l l objects w o u l d be
nameless, so t h a t t h e r e w o u l d b e e q u a l l y l i t t l e p o i n t i n r e f e r r i n g t o those
which receive n a m e s as andnyma r a t h e r t h a n s i m p l y as pragmata. What
H e r m e s m u s t b e d o i n g is, f i r s t , c r e a t i n g a lingua franca (ή κοινή δ ι ά λ ε κ τ ο ς ) f o r
a c o u n t r y w h i c h a l r e a d y possesses dialects ( r u d i m e n t a r y p e r h a p s ) spoken
l o c a l l y b y its d i f f e r e n t t r i b e s ; a n d , second, d e v i s i n g n a m e s f o r some o f t h e
andnyma 5
f o r w h i c h n o d e s i g n a t i o n , l o c a l o r o t h e r w i s e , y e t exists. D i o d o r u s '
a c c o u n t has a n e x a c t p a r a l l e l i n Laws 3.68 I A - C ( i t e m 14 i n t h e s u m m a r y
g i v e n i n C h a p t e r S e v e n ) . P l a t o t h e r e says t h a t , as t h e separate clans b e g a n
6

4
O n the following cf. Uxkull-Gyllenband, 2 9 - 3 0 .
* Cf. nSnyma in the Democritean analysis of language, above, pp. 6 7 - 6 9 .
" Noted by Reinhardt, 507.
 P L A T O , P O L Y B I U S , AND D E M O G R I T U S IOg

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

i t is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e w h o l e t r a d i t i o n o f Kulturgeschichte w h i c h w e a r e ex­
a m i n i n g t o d r a w a close c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e c o m m o n speech a n d t h e
c o m m o n social usages p r e v a l e n t a m o n g a g i v e n p e o p l e (see a b o v e , p p . 71-
74, 8 5 - 8 6 ) . A n d i t s h o u l d b e n o t e d t h a t t h e l i n g u i s t i c e q u i v a l e n t s f o r t h e
c o n f l i c t i n g nomoi m e n t i o n e d b y P l a t o w o u l d b e s y n o n y m s a n d homonyms,
those e x a m p l e s o f d i f f e r i n g c o n v e n t i o n a l responses t o i d e n t i c a l pragmata and
i d e n t i c a l responses t o d i f f e r e n t pragmata of w h i c h Democritus took special
account (see a b o v e , p p . 6 7 - 6 9 ) i n f r a m i n g his t h e o r y o f t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l
o r i g i n o f l a n g u a g e , p e r h a p s seeing i n t h e c o a l e s c i n g o f d i f f e r e n t l i n g u i s t i c
systemata t h e i r p r i n c i p a l p o i n t o f o r i g i n .
T h e s e p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n P l a t o , D i o d o r u s , a n d D e m o c r i t u s are i m p o r t a n t
f o r t h r e e reasons. F i r s t , t h e y i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e m o t i f w h i c h has b e e n r e g a r d e d
as a t o m i s t i c i n P l a t o ' s account belongs t o the t r a d i t i o n w h i c h he and
D i o d o r u s are f o l l o w i n g , h e n c e c a n n o t be a n a d d i t i o n o f P l a t o ' s o w n t o w h i c h
t h e r e was n o c o u n t e r p a r t i n t h a t t r a d i t i o n . S e c o n d , i t a l l o w s us t o s u p p l e m e n t
the rather shakily grounded a r g u m e n t f r o m the " a t o m i s t i c " character of
Laws I I I w i t h a specific p a r a l l e l t o D e m o c r i t u s . F i n a l l y , i t suggests t h a t t h e
n o t i o n o f a n e x p a n d i n g social g r o u p , t h o u g h n o t , i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y , o r i g i n a l
w i t h P l a t o , m a y nevertheless h a v e u n d e r g o n e c e r t a i n m o d i f i c a t i o n s a t his
h a n d s . T h e i n i t i a l a g g r e g a t i o n i n D i o d o r u s ' a c c o u n t is n o t a f a m i l y b u t a
systema—a g r o u p o f i n d i v i d u a l s ( o r h o u s e h o l d e r s ) w h o assemble t o g e t h e r f o r
p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e w i l d a n i m a l s . T h e r e s u l t i n g p i c t u r e o f social genesis
p r o v i d e s a f a r closer p a r a l l e l t h a n does P l a t o ' s t o w h a t c a n b e reconstructed
o f t h e D e m o c r i t e a n t h e o r y o f t h e f o r m a t i o n a n d d e v e l o p m e n t o f kosmoi. A
kosmos, a c c o r d i n g t o o n e t e s t i m o n y ( A 4 0 . 4 ) , g r o w s a n d flourishes until i t can
n o l o n g e r a b s o r b m a t t e r f r o m o u t s i d e . E l s e w h e r e i n t h e same passage a n o t h e r
possible cause o f d e s t r u c t i o n is suggested: a kosmos m a y c o m e t o a n e n d b y
c o l l i d i n g w i t h a n o t h e r one. T h e c o l l o c a t i o n o f t h e t w o causes suggests t h a t
Democritus h a d i n m i n d a situation i n w h i c h they w o u l d have been identical
o r n e a r l y so, such as t h a t i n w h i c h w a r r i n g kosmoi c o m p e t e w i t h o n e a n o t h e r
f o r t h e a v a i l a b l e a t o m s . U n d e r these c i r c u m s t a n c e s a b s o r p t i o n o f n e w m a t t e r
w i l l a l w a y s m e a n i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f p a r t o f a n o t h e r kosmos i n t o one's o w n , 8

7
The source drawn upon by Plato and Diodorus need not have attributed the whole process to
a single man. A n indication of the skill shown by certain individuals (perhaps equivalent to the
logioi of Democritus) in suggesting solutions and compromises in specific situations would have been
a sufficient starting point for the more thoroughly individualistic interpretation given by Plato and
Diodorus.
8
Cf. VS 6 8 A 8 4 : φθείρεσθαι τον κόσμον τον μείζονος τον μικρότερον νικώντος.
 110 D E M O C R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

f a i l u r e t o a b s o r b w i l l m e a n c o l l i s i o n a n d d e s t r u c t i o n . I t is e x a c t l y s u c h a
s i t u a t i o n w h i c h , b o t h i n D i o d o r u s a n d i n P o l y b i u s ' closely s i m i l a r a c c o u n t ,
creates t h e first h u m a n a g g r e g a t i o n . M a n m u s t , t o b e g i n w i t h , b u i l d a w o r l d
o f his o w n b y c r e a t i n g safe s u r r o u n d i n g s f o r h i m s e l f i n t h e m i d s t o f t h e v a r i o u s
n a t u r a l a n d a n i m a l kosmoi w i t h w h i c h h e f i n d s h i m s e l f i n c o n t a c t ; a n d he
c a n o n l y s u r v i v e b y t u r n i n g p o r t i o n s o f his e n v i r o n m e n t , w h e t h e r a n i m a t e o r
i n a n i m a t e , t o his o w n use—i.e. b y i n c o r p o r a t i n g p o r t i o n s o f o t h e r kosmoi i n t o
his o w n . 9

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

ΡοΐΛΈΓυΐ 6 . 5 . 7 - 8 D E M O C R I T U S Β Ι 64

τότε δήπου καθάπερ επί τών άλλων ζώων και έπι και γαρ ζώα . . . όμογενέσι ζώοις συναγελάζεται,
τούτων συναθροιζομένων—δπερ εικός, και τούτους ώς περίστεροι περιστεραις και γερανοί γεράνοις
εις το όμόφυλον συνογελάζεσθαι διά τήν φύσεως και έπι τών άλλων άλογων ωσαύτως.
άσθένειαν—ανάγκη τον τη σωματική ρώμη και τη
φυχική τόλμη διαφέροντα, τούτον ήγεΐσθαι και
κρατεΐν, καθάπερ και έτιϊ τών άλλων γενών
άδοξοποιητών ζώων θεωρούμενον τούτο χρή
φύσεως έργον άληθινώτατον νομίζειν, παρ* οΓ?
ομολογουμένως τους Ισχυρότατους όρώμεν ηγου­
μένους, λέγω δέ ταύρους κάπρους άλεκτρυόνας,
τά τούτοις παραπλήσια.

As quoted by Sextus (Adv. math. 7. n 7 ) , Democritus B164 compares

a n i m a l a g g r e g a t i o n s , n o t t o h u m a n ones, b u t t o those o f s i m i l a r l y s h a p e d
a t o m s . T h e reference t o a n i m a l s as aloga, h o w e v e r , s u p p o r t s t h e suggestion
o f those w h o suppose t h e o r i g i n a l c o m p a r i s o n t o h a v e b e e n w i t h m e n as
well. 1 0
T h e r e is n o t h i n g p e c u l i a r l y D e m o c r i t e a n a b o u t t h e i d e a t h a t l i k e is
a t t r a c t e d t o l i k e , i n a l l r e a l m s o f existence. N o r is t h e f o r m o f a r g u m e n t used
— t h e a p p e a l t o a n i m a l b e h a v i o r t o e s t a b l i s h w h a t is " n a t u r a l " r a t h e r t h a n
acquired i n man—unparalleled elsewhere. 11
Y e t t h e f a c t t h a t t h e same c o n ­
j u n c t i o n o f ideas t o g e t h e r w i t h r a t h e r s i m i l a r p h r a s e o l o g y a p p e a r s i n b o t h
P o l y b i u s a n d D e m o c r i t u s , t h a t P o l y b i u s goes b a c k i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y (as t h e
a r g u m e n t o f C h a p t e r S e v e n has s h o w n ) t o a p r e - P l a t o n i c source, a n d t h a t

9
This is what happens, for example, during the original discovery and subsequent application
of fire. A certain natural process impinges on the human kosmos and is then made part of it and
accommodated to its pattern. Similarly, wild animals will be either thrust away and killed or else
domesticated—i.e. forced to conform to and assist in the development of this same human pattern.
1 0
So Uxkull-Gyllenband, 31, followed by Havelock, 412.
1 1
Its earliest datable appearance is in the Clouds of Aristophanes ( 1 4 2 7 - 2 9 ) .
 P L A T O , POLYBIUS, AND DEMOCRITUS III

Β 1 6 4 is t h e o n l y p l a c e i n G r e e k l i t e r a t u r e b e f o r e Laws 68ODE w h e r e m a n is
p l a c e d i n a c a t e g o r y a l o n g w i t h c e r t a i n o t h e r a n i m a l s as a ζδοη synagelastikon—
a l l t h i s m u s t b e a l l o w e d t o c a r r y some w e i g h t . T h e r e is also a t r a c e o f w h a t
may have been one further parallel between the views o f D e m o c r i t u s a n d
P o l y b i u s o n t h e earliest h u m a n society, o r , m o r e p r e c i s e l y , o n t h e p o s i t i o n
w h i c h t h e strongest i n d i v i d u a l s i n i t o c c u p i e d .
Polybius adduces t h e e x a m p l e o f a n i m a l b e h a v i o r t o p r o v e t w o p o i n t s :
first, t h e naturalness a n d i n e v i t a b i l i t y o f man's tendency t o aggregate after
his k i n d ; s e c o n d l y , t h e e q u a l l y n a t u r a l c h a r a c t e r (cf. 6 . 5 . 8 : φύσεως epyov
άληθινώτατον) o f the t e n d e n c y f o r t h e strongest m e m b e r o f the h e r d t o r u l e .
T h e n a t u r a l p r i n c i p l e p r o c l a i m e d h e r e is as m u c h a c o m m o n p l a c e as t h e o n e
t h a t l i k e seeks l i k e . 1 2
Y e t w h e n t h e t w o ideas a r e c o m b i n e d , as t h e y a r e i n
P o l y b i u s , t h e r e s u l t is c o n s i d e r a b l y less c o m m o n p l a c e — a m o r e b a l a n c e d a n d
c o m p l e x p i c t u r e o f t h e state o f n a t u r e t h a n is u s u a l l y f o u n d i n G r e e k t h o u g h t . 1 3

A f a i r l y close p a r a l l e l is f o u n d i n Laws I I I , where, however, parental rule

takes t h e p l a c e o f r u l e o f t h e s t r o n g e r . T h e r e s u l t , i n P l a t o ' s a c c o u n t , is a n
i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f kreittdn w i t h " b e t t e r " , a n d t h i s dispenses w i t h t h e i n t e r ­
a c t i o n o f t h e o p p o s e d p r i n c i p l e s o f f o r c e a n d c o n s e n t (see a b o v e , p p . 9 2 - 9 3 )
t h a t is essential t o P o l y b i u s ' w h o l e c o n c e p t i o n o f p r e h i s t o r y . T h e p o w e r o f
the m a n w h o is kreittdn i n P l a t o ' s sense is f r o m t h e v e r y b e g i n n i n g g e n u i n e l y
p r o d u c t i v e o f a social o r d e r , n o t , as i t is i n P o l y b i u s , s o m e t h i n g w i t h a l i m i t e d
usefulness t h a t m u s t u l t i m a t e l y b e s u p p l e m e n t e d a n d i m p r o v e d u p o n . A m o r e
e x a c t p a r a l l e l t o P o l y b i u s , t h o u g h f r o m a d i f f e r e n t c o n t e x t , is t o b e f o u n d i n
the p o l i t i c a l fragments o f D e m o c r i t u s , where t h e claims ( a n d dangers) o f
s u p e r i o r a b i l i t y a r e c o n s t a n t l y b e i n g b a l a n c e d a g a i n s t those o f c o l l e c t i v e w i l l
and c u s t o m , i n t h e same w a y as h e r d i n s t i n c t a n d s o l i d a r i t y a r e b a l a n c e d
against t h e p o w e r o f the stronger i n Polybius' a c c o u n t . 1 4
T h e one fragment
w h i c h expresses m o s t c l e a r l y t h e n a t u r a l c h a r a c t e r o f r u l e o f t h e s t r o n g e r

1 2
Cf., for example, Plato, Gorgias 483AC; Moschion, F r . 6 . 1 5 - 1 7 (TGF 8 1 4 ) ; Thucydides
5.105.2.
1 3
So much so that at least one modern scholar has declared the combination to be impossible.
Largely on the basis of Democritus B164, L a n a (RendLinc Ser. 8, 5 . 1 8 7 - 2 0 1 ) draws an unnecessary
distinction between a " Democritean " and a " Protagorean " view of the origin of society, in which
the causes of the original aggregation are, respectively, philallelia and the fear attendant on human
weakness (cf. Plato, Protagoras 322B). He thus concludes that a theory of the primitive rule of bia
such as lies behind the picture of human cannibalism in Diodorus 1.90.1 cannot be Democritean,
" a meno di ammettere che gli uomini si sentissero attirati l'uno verso l'altro . . . per mangiarsi a
vicenda" (193, note 1). But the combination of ideas is merely unusual, not impossible (cf. above,
p. 84, with note 11) and fits quite well with Democritean psychology; cf. B 2 0 3 : άνθρωποι τον
θάνατον φεΰγοντες οΊώκουοιν. See also below, p. 131.
1 4
Contrast Democritus' praise of demokralia ( B 2 5 1 ) , nomos ( B 2 4 5 and 2 4 8 ) , and homonoia ( B 2 5 0 )
with the defense of archontes and the exclusion of kakoi from their ranks found in B 2 5 4 and 266. For
the compromise political program to which such considerations seem to have led him see B 2 5 5
(discussed below, pp. 120-21) and Aalders, Mnemosyne Ser. 4, 3.310.
 112 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

(B267: <p"vaei TO ap^ecv OIKITJIOV TO> Kpiaaovi) closely r e c a l l s a p h r a s e w h i c h

o c c u r s i n P o s i d o n i u s ' discussion o f t h e o r i g i n a l h u m a n a g g r e g a t e : natura est
potioribus deterioribus summittere. 15
We do not k n o w whether the principle
enunciated i n B 2 6 7 was e v e r a p p l i e d t o Kulturgeschichte. B u t the existence
of the fragment does i n d i c a t e that Polybius' a c c o u n t o f social genesis is
t h o r o u g h l y c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e g e n e r a l social a n d p o l i t i c a l p h i l o s o p h y of
Democritus.
C o m p a t i b i l i t y o f v i e w p o i n t does n o t i n i t s e l f a l l o w us t o c o n c l u d e t h a t , a t
any p o i n t where Polybius' v i e w o f the beginnings o f society diverges f r o m
Plato's, the former represents the more faithful record of a common
D e m o c r i t e a n s o u r c e . B u t i t does suggest t h a t t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y s h o u l d be b o r n e
i n m i n d — a n d t h a t B o o k V I s h o u l d be e x a m i n e d f o r a n y f u r t h e r D e m o c r i t e a n
p a r a l l e l s , w h e t h e r g e n e r a l o r specific, t h a t i t m a y c o n t a i n .

2. S O C I E T Y A N D T H E F A M I L Y

P l a t o ' s n o t i o n o f t h e single f a m i l y as t h e n u c l e u s o f s o c i e t y is, as w e h a v e

seen, u n l i k e l y t o b e D e m o c r i t e a n . N o less u n - D e m o c r i t e a n is t h e r o l e w h i c h
h e assigns t o t h e f a m i l y t h r o u g h t h e w h o l e s u b s e q u e n t d e v e l o p m e n t o f the
social a g g r e g a t i o n . T h e p r i n c i p l e o f p a t e r n a l a u t h o r i t y is t h a t o n w h i c h a l l
p o w e r u l t i m a t e l y rests: t h e earliest o f p o l i t i c a l a r r a n g e m e n t s is t h e "justest
o f a l l k i n g s h i p s " , i n w h i c h c h i l d r e n obey the rule o f t h e i r parents. T h e pat-
t e r n s o f o b e d i e n c e w h i c h arise t h e r e b y are e v i d e n t l y t h e patriot nomoi t o w h i c h
P l a t o refers, a n d t h e o n l y i n t e r n a l p o l i t i c a l c h a n g e m e n t i o n e d i n t h e r e -
m a i n i n g p o r t i o n o f his a c c o u n t takes p l a c e w h e n t h e r e comes a n e e d f o r
c o m p r o m i s e b e t w e e n d i f f e r e n t sets o f s u c h nomoi. H o w f a r t h i s p i c t u r e is f r o m
a n y possible D e m o c r i t e a n v i e w o f t h e r o l e o f t h e f a m i l y i n h u m a n h i s t o r y is
evident f r o m B278, w h i c h contrasts human child-rearing and its animal
c o u n t e r p a r t . B o t h m e n a n d a n i m a l s b e g e t c h i l d r e n i n o b e d i e n c e t o t h e same
n a t u r a l l a w ; a n i m a l p a r e n t s , h o w e v e r , seek n o r e w a r d f o r t h e a f f e c t i o n a n d
care w h i c h t h e y lavish o n t h e i r offspring. A m o n g m e n , o n the other h a n d ,
" t h e r e has c o m e i n t o b e i n g a n e s t a b l i s h e d usage (nomizon)" 16
whereby the
p a r e n t s d e r i v e b e n e f i t f r o m t h e c h i l d as w e l l . H e r e t h e p r i n c i p l e g o v e r n i n g
t h e p a r e n t - c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p is n e i t h e r i n s t i n c t i v e n o r p a t e r n a l i s t i c . I t falls
w i t h i n t h e r e a l m o f nomas a n d has its o r i g i n a t a g i v e n p o i n t i n t i m e ; m o r e -
o v e r , i t represents a n e x c h a n g e o f services, n o t t h e r e n d e r i n g o f o b e d i e n c e t o

1 5
T h e parallels between this discussion and the corresponding portion of Polybius' account have
already been noted, above, pp. 9 5 - 9 6 .
1 6
T h e general meaning of the term which stood in Democritus' text at this point seems to be
fairly clear, even if the manuscript reading of nomizon is to be rejected. See VS ad toe.
 P L A T O , POLYBIUS, AND DEMOGRITUS 113

a s u p e r i o r . D e m o c r i t u s ' v i e w is, i t s h o u l d b e n o t e d , e x a c t l y t h a t o f P o l y b i u s ,
as a c o m p a r i s o n w i t h 6 . 6 . 2 - 5 s h o w s :

P O L Y B I U S 6.6.2-5 D E M O C R I T U S B278

•πάντων γαρ προς τους συνουσίας όρμώντων κατά άνθρώποισι τών αναγκαίων δοκεΐ είναι παΐδας
φυσιν, εκ δε τούτου παιδοποιίας αποτελούμενης, κτήσασθαι από φύσιος και καταστάσιός τίνος
οπότε τις των εκτραφεντων εις ήλικίαν ίκόμενος άρχαίης* δήλον δε και τοις άλλοις ζώοισι. πάνταγάρ
μη νεμοι χάριν μηο* άμύναι τουτοι? οΐς εκτρεφοιτ* εκγονα κτάται κατά φύσιν επωφελείης ye ουδεμίας
αλλά που τάναντία κακώς λέγειν ή δραν τούτους εινεκα *
-εγχειροίη, Βήλον ώς δυσαρεστεΐν και προσκόπτειν
εικός τους συναντάς και συνιδόντας

την γεγενημενην εκ των γεννησάντων επιμελειαν αλλ* οταυ γενηται ταλαιπωρεί καϊ τρέφει εκαστον
και κακοπάθειαν περί τά τέκνα και την τούτων ώς δύναται και ύπερδεδοικε μ^χρι σμικρά και ην
θεραπείαν και τροφήν. του γάρ γένους των τι πάθη άνιαται. ή μεν φύσις τοιαύτη πάντων
ανθρώπων ταύτη διαφέροντος τών άλλων ζώων η εστίν οσσα ψυχήν €χει.
μονοις αντοΐς μετεστι νου και λογισμού,

φανερόν ώς ουκ εικός παρατρεχειν αυτούς την τω δε άνθρώπω νομίζον ήδη πεποίηται ώστε και
•προειρημενην διαφοράν, καθάπερ επι τών άλλων επαύρεσιν τινα γίγνεσθαι από τοΰ εκγόνου.
ζώων, αλλ* επισημαίνεσθαι τό γιγνόμενον και
δυσάρεστεισθαι τοις πάρουσι προορωμενους τό
μέλλον και συλλογιζομένους ότι τό παραπλησιον
εκάστοις αυτών συγκυρήσει.

I n b o t h P o l y b i u s a n d D e m o c r i t u s t w o aspects o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n
parents a n d offspring a r e c o n s i d e r e d . T h e first is t h a t w h i c h is n a t u r a l
a n d unavoidable. Procreation o f c h i l d r e n follows i n e v i t a b l y f r o m man's
n a t u r e , a n d t h i s i n t u r n leads t o p a r e n t a l c a r e f o r o f f s p r i n g . I n t h i s m a n is n o
d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e o t h e r a n i m a l s . A g a i n s t s u c h b e h a v i o r is set t h e s p e c i f i c a l l y
h u m a n : t h a t w h i c h secures t o t h e p a r e n t some e n j o y m e n t f r o m h i s c h i l d , o r
t h a t w h i c h b r a n d s acts o f f i l i a l i n g r a t i t u d e w i t h a n g e r a n d i n d i g n a t i o n .
T h e s p e c i f i c a l l y h u m a n aspect o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p is said t o b e nomizon i n
D e m o c r i t u s . T h e t e r m is n o t f o u n d i n P o l y b i u s , 1 7
b u t recalls t h e nomizomena
o f P o l y s t r a t u s ' closely p a r a l l e l analysis (see a b o v e , p p . 8 1 - 8 2 ) . T h e r e is,
moreover, evidence t o show t h a t t h e actions w h i c h acquire c o m m e n d a t i o n
o r censure i n P o l y b i u s — f a i l u r e t o m a k e p r o p e r r e t u r n t o one's p a r e n t s , f a i l u r e
t o r e p a y benefactors, s h a r i n g i n t h e c o m m o n d e f e n c e — a r e p r e c i s e l y those
w h i c h i n t h e fifth a n d f o u r t h c e n t u r i e s w o u l d h a v e b e e n l i k e l y t o b e desig­
n a t e d b y nomos o r w o r d s i n v o l v i n g t h e same s t e m . T h r e e closely s i m i l a r t e x t s ,
one from A r i s t o t l e ' s Rhetoric (1.1374A18-25), one f r o m t h e Rhetoric to
Alexander usually ascribed t o Anaximenes (1.1421B35-22A2), a n d one f r o m
X e n o p h o n ' s Memorabilia ( 4 . 4 . 1 9 - 2 4 ) , c o n t a i n discussions o f u n w r i t t e n nomoi
w h i c h s t r o n g l y r e c a l l t h e p r e s e n t passage. F o r these t h r e e w r i t e r s , u n w r i t t e n

1 7
Gf., however, 6.4.5, which makes care of parents a practice which is patrion kai synethes (i.e.
part of hoi patriot nomoi) in a well-run democracy.
 ιΐ4 DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

l a w i n v o l v e s t h e e x p e c t a t i o n a m o n g a l l m e m b e r s o f society t h a t c e r t a i n types
o f c o n d u c t w i l l b e a d h e r e d t o . T h e types specified a r e as f o l l o w s :

ARISTOTLE ANAXTMENES XENOPHON

άγραφα δίκαια: έθος άγραφον: άγραφοι νόμοι:

(ι) χάριν έχειν τω ποιήσαντι ένεργέταις χάριν άποδιδόναι τους εν ποιοΰντας άντευερ-
εΰ . . . άντευποιεΐν τον εΰ γετεΐν
ποιήσαντα
(2) βοηθητικόν είναι φίλοις φίλους ευ ποιεΐν
(3) γονέας τιμάν γονέας τιμάν
(4) θεούς σέβεσθαι

T h e similarities between Aristotle a n d Anaximenes a r e m o s t n a t u r a l l y ex­

p l a i n e d o n t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t b o t h passages d e r i v e f r o m t h e r h e t o r i c a l
tradition o f the fifth c e n t u r y ; 1 8
a n d t h a t t h i s p o r t i o n o f t h e t r a d i t i o n has its
r o o t s i n S o p h i s t i c discussions o f nomos is suggested b y t h e p a r a l l e l s i n X e n o ­
p h o n , w h i c h o c c u r d u r i n g t h e course o f a discussion b e t w e e n Socrates a n d
Hippias. 1 9
T h e t h r e e e x a m p l e s o f ethos agraphon a d d u c e d b y A n a x i m e n e s , a l l
o f w h i c h a r e p a r a l l e l e d e i t h e r i n X e n o p h o n o r A r i s t o t l e , i n v o l v e e x a c t l y those
types o f c o n d u c t w i t h w h i c h P o l y b i u s is c o n c e r n e d : t r e a t m e n t o f p a r e n t s ,
b e h a v i o r t o benefactors, a n d a i d t o one's a s s o c i a t e s . 20
T h i s evidence, c o m ­
b i n e d w i t h t h a t o f Polystratus, makes i t very p r o b a b l e t h a t Polybius was
d r a w i n g u p o n a source w h i c h d e s c r i b e d t h e o r i g i n o f t h r e e basic nomizomena.
D e m o c r i t u s w a s n o t , o f course, the o n l y author to deal w i t h agraphoi
nomoi, 21
n o r is t h e c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n a n i m a l a n d h u m a n c h i l d - r e a r i n g u n ­
p a r a l l e l e d elsewhere i n a n c i e n t t h o u g h t . 2 2
W h a t is u n p a r a l l e l e d o u t s i d e t h e
two passages u n d e r discussion, h o w e v e r , is t h e n o t i o n t h a t t h e p a t t e r n o f

1 8
For a fifth century parallel, cf. Euripides, Hec. 800—1: νόμω γάρ τούς θεούς ηγούμεθα και ζωμεν
άδικα και δίκαι' ώρισμένοι, which recalls both Xenophon and Anaximenes' definition (1.1421B36-37)
of dikaion as έθος άγραφον διορίζον τά καλά και αισχρά. And with the references to benefactors compare
VS 8 8 B 2 5 . 3 - 4 (the Sisyphus fragment of Critias): before the introduction of nomoi there was neither
reward for good men nor punishment for bad.
1 8
Sophistic influence is also suggested by the contractual definition of law which immediately
follows Anaximenes' remarks on ethos agraphon ( 1 . 1 4 2 2 A 2 - 4 ) .
2 0
Xenophon's theous sebesthai, which has no parallel in Polybius, Aristotle, or Anaximenes, may
reflect more completely the tradition all four authors are following. Reverence toward gods and
justice toward one's fellows would thus have been linked together as fundamental constituents of
morality: cf. Plato, Prot. 325A and D ; Gorgias, VS 8 2 B 6 , p. 2 8 6 . 1 2 - 1 5 ; and Euripides, Hec. 8 0 0 - 1
(above, note 18). It is possible, however, that Xenophon is making a pious addition to what he
found in his source—an addition suggested by the frequent association oigoneis and theoi in passages
dealing with the fundamental human obligations: cf. Aeschylus, Suppl. 7 0 4 - 9 ; Euripides, F r . 8 5 3
(TGF638); Isocrates, Dem. 16; Plato, Laws 724A, 8 5 4 E ; Lycurgus, Leocr. 15, 9 4 , 9 7 ; Polybius 6.4.5.
Cf., in addition to the passages cited in the text, Sophocles, Ant. 4 5 4 - 5 5 ; Thucydides 2.37.3.
2 1

I t was drawn by the Epicureans (cf. Plutarch, Am. prol. 2-495A=527 Usener), by Ps.-Aristotle,
2 2

Oec. 1.1343B20-23, and by Xenophon, Oec. 7.19. (On the possibility of Democritean influence in
the last-named work, however, see Praechter, Hermes 5 0 . 1 4 4 - 5 0 . )
 P L A T O , P O L Y B I U S , AND D E M O C R I T U S "5

h u m a n c h i l d - r e a r i n g is a nomos w i t h a g i v e n p o i n t o f o r i g i n — a n d so i n a sense
" u n n a t u r a l " — n o t , as o t h e r a c c o u n t s w o u l d h a v e i t , t h e i m m e d i a t e a n d i n -
evitable reflection o f a characteristic difference between h u m a n a n d a n i m a l
pkysis. 23
The historical perspective is m o r e o b v i o u s l y p r e s e n t i n Polybius
since w e possess t h e c o n t e x t o f his r e m a r k s ; b u t i t is, I b e l i e v e , a l m o s t c e r t a i n
t h a t B 2 7 8 was c o m p o s e d f r o m t h e same p e r s p e c t i v e . T h e p h r a s e 17817 rreTroirjTai

i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e was i n D e m o c r i t u s ' v i e w a t i m e w h e n t h e p a r t i c u l a r
nomizon w i t h w h i c h he is d e a l i n g d i d n o t e x i s t ; a n d 17817 is t h e same a d v e r b
used i n a n o t h e r f r a g m e n t (B144) w h o s e c o n t e x t was undeniably Kultur-
geschichte—the o n e o n t h e l a t e o r i g i n o f m u s i c . M u s i c a n d o t h e r f i n e arts arise
€K TOV rrepievvTos 17817. I n b o t h passages 17S17 emphasizes t h e f a c t t h a t t h e c o n d i -
t i o n d e s c r i b e d has n o t a l w a y s existed. I t is o n l y n o w (f\ht]=nunc detnum), n o t
a t a l l p e r i o d s i n m a n ' s h i s t o r y , t h a t a nomizon g o v e r n i n g c h i l d r e a r i n g is
o p e r a t i v e ; i t was w h e n a c o n d i t i o n o f s u p e r f l u i t y h a d o b t a i n e d , a n d o n l y
t h e n (tunc demum), t h a t c e r t a i n arts b e c a m e possible.
T h e specific p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n w h a t P o l y b i u s a n d D e m o c r i t u s h a v e t o say
a b o u t t h e f a m i l y a t this p o i n t c a n be s u p p l e m e n t e d b y c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f a
more general nature. I n any D e m o c r i t e a n theory o f a g r a d u a l l y expanding
social g r o u p t h e f a m i l y was, as w e h a v e seen, u n l i k e l y t o h a v e p l a y e d the
same r o l e as i t has i n P l a t o . A c o m p a r i s o n w i t h P o l y b i u s , h o w e v e r , i n d i c a t e s
t h a t i t m a y h a v e h a d some r o l e a n d suggests also w h a t t h a t r o l e m i g h t h a v e
b e e n . F o r P o l y b i u s , t h o u g h he has n o c o u n t e r p a r t t o t h e l a t e r stages o f t h e
process d e s c r i b e d i n t h e Laws, does seem t o see i n t h e l i f e o f t h e f a m i l y o n e o f
t h e s t a r t i n g p o i n t s f o r a m o r e c o m p l e x social existence. T h e i n i t i a l h u m a n
g r o u p as he conceives i t is a looseiy o r g a n i z e d c o l l e c t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l s w h o s e
o n l y c o m m o n a c t i v i t y is self-defence i n t i m e s o f d a n g e r . I n t h e absence o f
such d a n g e r t h e o n l y i n d i v i d u a l s l i n k e d t o e a c h o t h e r b y a close r e l a t i o n s h i p
w o u l d be p a r e n t s a n d c h i l d r e n , since t h e y o u n g m a m m a l ' s i n a b i l i t y t o p r o -
v i d e f o r i t s e l f m a k e s such r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n e v i t a b l e . I t w o u l d t h u s be n a t u r a l
t o e x p e c t p a t t e r n s o f social b e h a v i o r i n v o l v i n g p a r e n t s a n d c h i l d r e n t o be
a m o n g t h e f i r s t t o arise. O n c e t h e e x c h a n g e o f services b e t w e e n p a r e n t a n d
c h i l d has b e e n r e g u l a t e d b y a system o f c o o p e r a t i o n a d v a n t a g e o u s t o b o t h ,
t h e p r i n c i p l e o f r e c i p r o c i t y m i g h t w e l l be c a r r i e d o v e r i n t o o t h e r types o f
r e l a t i o n s h i p . T h e n o r m a t i v e p a r e n t - c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p is t h u s a m o d e l f o r
o t h e r f o r m s o f koindnia, 2i
t h o u g h n o t , o f course, t h e o n l y m o d e l . T h e f r i e n d -

2 3
X e n o p h o n ( a b o v e , n o t e 22) speaks, l i k e D e m o c r i t u s , o f t h e a c t i o n o f physis a n d nomos i n d e t e r -
m i n i n g t h e mores o f f a m i l y l i f e (7.16; cf. also 7 . 3 0 ) ; b u t t h e r e nomos a d d s n o t h i n g n e w : i t m e r e l y
r a t i n e s w h a t is a l r e a d y i n h e r e n t i n m a n ' s n a t u r e .
2 4
T h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n society a n d f a m i l y m a y h a v e b e e n c o n c e i v e d i n o t h e r t e r m s a r ' ^ l l j j ' ; ^ Q
I n a passage a l r e a d y discussed ( 5 . 1 0 2 1 - 2 3 , see a b o v e , p . 76) L u c r e t i u s suggests t h a t t h e / t f ^ f e c ' t o
secure p r o t e c t i o n f o r t h e i r f a m i l i e s w a s o n e o f t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s w h i c h l e d m e n t o fogirJ^he^nrst
social c o m p a c t (et pueros commendarunt muliebreque saeclum). H e r e t h e E p i c u r e a n a n a l y s j K ^ f j p c i e t e * W
I db
I 16 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

ship established between the giver a n d receiver o f a i d i n m o m e n t s o f danger

w o u l d d o u b t l e s s h a v e t h e same a r c h e t y p a l c h a r a c t e r .
B e g i n n i n g i n t h i s f a s h i o n w i t h t h e m e m b e r s o f a single f a m i l y o r w i t h
comrades i n battle, principles o f interdependence a n d reciprocity g r a d u a l l y
b e c o m e o p e r a t i v e i n a l l types o f r e l a t i o n s h i p , p r o d u c i n g e v e n t u a l l y t h e social
c o h e s i o n o n w h i c h t h e i n s t i t u t i o n o f k i n g s h i p rests. P o l y b i u s h i m s e l f does n o t
describe a n y e x t e n s i o n o f t h e process r e s u l t i n g i n t h e c r e a t i o n o f l a r g e r social
u n i t s , b u t t h e l i n e o f r e a s o n i n g w h i c h u n d e r l i e s his a c c o u n t c o u l d r e a d i l y h a v e
e n v i s i o n e d j u s t s u c h a n e x t e n s i o n . C o o p e r a t i o n a n d f r i e n d s h i p are s t r o n g e r
b o n d s t h a n f o r c e a n d f e a r ; hence t h e y w i l l be a b l e t o h o l d t o g e t h e r l a r g e r
n u m b e r s o f p e o p l e . A n d since t h e p r i n c i p l e o f r e c i p r o c i t y is n o l o n g e r c o n -
f i n e d t o m u t u a l assistance i n b a t t l e b u t is b e i n g c o n s t a n t l y r e a p p l i e d i n n e w
s i t u a t i o n s , m e n w i l l l o o k u p o n e v e r y a d d i t i o n t o t h e o r i g i n a l g r o u p as a
source o f p o t e n t i a l benefits t o t h e m s e l v e s . 25

T h e process, i f e n v i s i o n e d i n t h i s f a s h i o n i n P o l y b i u s ' source, was some-

w h a t d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e o n e d e s c r i b e d i n t h e Laws. T h e r e social n o r m s b e g i n
n o t from t h e f a m i l y c o n c e i v e d as p a r t o f a l a r g e r a g g r e g a t i o n , b u t in t h e
f a m i l y as i t exists i n i s o l a t i o n . A n d t h e i r basis is n o t , as i n P o l y b i u s , c o o p e r a -
t i o n a n d g r a t i t u d e , b u t obedience to paternal a u t h o r i t y .
F a i r l y c l e a r l y , i t is P o l y b i u s r a t h e r t h a n P l a t o w h o is m o r e l i k e l y t o b e
p r e s e r v i n g a n a c c u r a t e r e c o r d o f a c o m m o n source a t t h i s p o i n t . H i s v i e w o f
the f a m i l y fits i n p e r f e c t l y w i t h t h e u t i l i t a r i a n p e r s p e c t i v e e v i d e n t i n t h e
histories o f t e c h n o l o g y t o w h i c h b o t h his a n d P l a t o ' s a c c o u n t are r e l a t e d ;
w h e r e a s P l a t o ' s insistence o n t h e n a t u r a l c h a r a c t e r o f p a t e r n a l r u l e is essen-
t i a l t o his c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e p a t r i a r c h a l h o u s e h o l d as a self-sufficient a n d
s a t i s f a c t o r y m o d e o f existence. W e h a v e seen, h o w e v e r , t h a t t h i s c o n c e p t i o n
is closely b o u n d u p w i t h t h e basic i n c o n s i s t e n c y f r o m w h i c h his w h o l e a c c o u n t
suffers ( a b o v e , p . 9 9 ) . P l a t o ' s v i e w o f t h e e a r l y f a m i l y belongs w i t h t h e m o r e
U t o p i a n e l e m e n t s i n his p i c t u r e o f p r i m i t i v e m a n a n d m u s t , l i k e these e l e m e n t s ,
be t h e r e s u l t o f m o d i f i c a t i o n s w r o u g h t u p o n a t r a d i t i o n w h i c h P o l y b i u s
preserves m o r e f a i t h f u l l y . T h e m o d i f i c a t i o n s , t h o u g h f a r - r e a c h i n g i n t h e i r i m -
p l i c a t i o n s , w e r e f a i r l y easy t o i n t r o d u c e . P l a t o h a d o n l y t o m a k e a n a g g r e g a -
t i o n o f f a m i l i e s i n t o a set o f i s o l a t e d a n d i n d e p e n d e n t h o u s e h o l d s a n d t o
r e p l a c e t h e p r i n c i p l e o f c o o p e r a t i o n a n d r e c i p r o c i t y o f services w i t h t h a t o f

may preserve a motif present in the analysis drawn upon by Polybius. The idea that a man's wife
and children provide a sort of surety for his loyalty to the polls was certainly current in the fifth and
fourth centuries: cf. Thucydides 2.44.3; Aeneas Tacticus 5 . 1 ; Aeschines Falsa leg. 152; and below,
Appendix I I I .
2
' For other pieces of ancient Kulturgeschichte which envision a progressive widening of the social
and economic nexus, see Isocrates, Paneg. 34—42 (see below, pp. 1 3 3 - 3 7 , with note 8 ) , Panath.
1 6 4 - 6 6 , and the section of Herodotus I V discussed below, pp. j 4 3 - 4 5 .
 P L A T O , P O L Y B I U S , AND D E M O G R I T U S 117

o b e d i e n c e t o a u t h o r i t y . A t one p o i n t , h o w e v e r , t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n has n o t
b e e n c o m p l e t e l y c a r r i e d t h r o u g h . T o be p e r f e c t l y consistent, t h e m e r g i n g o f
clans d e s c r i b e d w o u l d h a v e t o c o m e a b o u t t h r o u g h t h e s u b j e c t i o n o f one c l a n
to a n o t h e r , o r o f b o t h t o a t h i r d . T h e u n i o n o f e q u a l s w h i c h does o c c u r is a
l o g i c a l consequence o f t h e process o f social a s s i m i l a t i o n as c o n c e i v e d by
P o l y b i u s ; i t does n o t f o l l o w f r o m P l a t o ' s o w n c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e genesis o f
society i n t h e p a t r i a r c h a l household.
I t is t h u s possible to see, i n b o t h Laws I I I a n d P o l y b i u s V I as t h e y n o w
s t a n d , t h e traces o f a n e a r l i e r Kulturgeschichte w h i c h e n v i s i o n e d a progressive
expansion o f a n o r i g i n a l social n e x u s — b u t w i t h o u t the a u t h o r i t a r i a n i m -
p l i c a t i o n s w h i c h are p r e s e n t i n P l a t o ' s d e v e l o p m e n t o f the idea. Such a n
a c c o u n t w o u l d h a v e b e e n q u i t e consistent w i t h t h e c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e f a m i l y
w h i c h appears i n D e m o c r i t u s ; a n d the v i e w o f koinonia i n v o l v e d fits w e l l
e n o u g h w i t h t h e emphasis p l a c e d i n D e m o c r i t u s B 1 0 7 o n agreement w i t h
r e g a r d t o w h a t is sympheron r a t h e r t h a n syngeneia as t h e basis o f philia (cf.
also B 1 8 6 ) . T h e a c c o u n t is also consistent w i t h w h a t w e k n o w o f D e m o c r i t e a n
s p e c u l a t i o n as t o t h e s t r u c t u r i n g p r i n c i p l e s o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l kosmoi o u t o f
w h i c h t h e u n i v e r s e is c r e a t e d . U n l i k e E p i c u r u s , D e m o c r i t u s d i d n o t e x p l a i n
a t o m i s t i c m o t i o n i n t e r m s o f a single u n i v e r s a l l a w s u b j e c t t o i n d i v i d u a l ex-
ceptions. T h e r e is n o p e r p e n d i c u l a r downward m o t i o n i n his system, n o
t h e o r y o f t h e a t o m i s t i c swerve. R a t h e r , a t o m s are seen as c a u g h t u p i n
d i f f e r e n t kosmoi l i k e p a r t i c l e s i n a v o r t e x o r e d d y . 2 6
The conformation which
a t o m s assume i n s u c h a v o r t e x is i n D e m o c r i t e a n t e r m i n o l o g y a rhysmos, 21
and
since t h e w o r d rhysmos is a p p l i e d i n o n e f r a g m e n t (B266) to a p o l i t i c a l
i n s t i t u t i o n ( t h e a u d i t o f o f f i c i a l s ) , i t is r e a s o n a b l e t o assume t h a t , j u s t as
societies are f o r m e d l i k e a l l o t h e r kosmoi t h r o u g h a g g r e g a t i o n o f l i k e t o l i k e ,
so t h e y c o n t i n u e t o exist, l i k e o t h e r kosmoi, because t h e i n d i v i d u a l a t o m i s t i c
m o t i o n s w i t h i n t h e m c o n f o r m i n t h e m a i n t o a single p a t t e r n o r g r o u p o f
patterns—corresponding to the laws, w r i t t e n or u n w r i t t e n , b y w h i c h they
are r u l e d . B o t h t h e p h y s i c a l a n a l o g y a n d t h e e x p l i c i t w o r d s o f B 2 6 6 ( w h i c h
speaks o f t h e a u d i t as TU> VVV KaOearwTi pvopto) i n d i c a t e t h a t social patterns
were viewed as subject t o c h a n g e . T h e surviving fragments contain two
suggestions as t o t h e cause p o s i t e d f o r these changes. B 3 3 speaks o f didache as
s o m e t h i n g w h i c h " a l t e r s t h e c o n f i g u r a t i o n o f m a n " (metarhysmoi) a n d i n so
doing "creates nature" (physiopoiei). 26
B197 draws a contrast between

2
" It is impossible to determine the exact relationship between the two causes of motion posited
in atomistic texts—cosmic dine and the attraction, interlocking, and rebounding of individual atoms.
But both were essential to the theory. See, on the former, VS 6 7 A 1 , 6 8 A 1 . 4 5 , A 6 9 , 6 8 B 1 6 4 and 167;
and, on the latter, VS 6 7 A 6 , p. 7 2 . 2 6 - 2 7 ; A 1 5 , p. 7 5 . 3 3 - 3 5 ; and 6 8 A 3 7 , p. 9 3 . 2 9 - 3 3 .
2 7
Cf. W 6 7 A 6 , p. 72.21; A 2 8 , p. 78.21; 6 8 A 3 8 , p. 9 4 . 7 ; A 4 4 ; A 1 2 5 ; and B51.
-Presumably the fragment is saying the same thing as Evenus, F r . 9 (Diehl) and Trag. adesp.
28

516 ( T C F 9 4 0 ) , which speak of prolonged melete as equivalent to, or issuing in, physis; see the
118 DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

anoemones, w h o s e lives a r e p a t t e r n e d (rhysmountai) by TOZS rijs TVXTJS KepSeoiv,

a n d daemones, w h e r e t h e p a t t e r n is d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e kerde o£ sophia. Since t h e
first a g g r e g a t i o n o f m e n b r o u g h t t o g e t h e r i n o b e d i e n c e t o a n i n e v i t a b l e l a w
o f n a t u r e w i l l i n e v i t a b l y l a c k sophia a n d didache, any development which
ensues m i g h t b e e x p e c t e d t o i n v o l v e a s u b s t i t u t i o n o f didache a n d sophia f o r
tyche a n d ananke as t h e o r d e r i n g p r i n c i p l e s o f t h e social kosmos; a n d i t is j u s t
s u c h a process w h i c h P o l y b i u s describes. T h e systemata 29
whose development
is t r a c e d i n B o o k V I a c q u i r e a n e w c h a r a c t e r a n d c o n f i g u r a t i o n t h r o u g h t h e
g r o w t h o f social a n d p o l i t i c a l i n s t i t u t i o n s ; 3 0
a n d t h e r e s u l t o f t h i s g r o w t h is,
u l t i m a t e l y , t o r e p l a c e bia w i t h logismos as t h e o r d e r i n g p r i n c i p l e o f h u m a n
life ( 6 . 6 . 1 2 - 7 . 3 ) . 3 1
Moreover, the mechanism o f t h e c h a n g e is, i f n o t u n ­
mistakably and uniquely a t o m i s t i c , susceptible o f a n exceptionally easy
translation into atomistic terms.
T o m a k e this translation w e need o n l y identify the atoms w i t h the i n d i ­
v i d u a l m e n a n d w o m e n w h o m a k e u p t h e social o r d e r i n g , a n d t h e rhysmoi o f
a g i v e n kosmos w i t h t h e s h a r e d h a b i t s a n d i n s t i t u t i o n s w h i c h h o l d i t t o g e t h e r .
P o l y b i u s ' w h o l e a c c o u n t t h e n becomes a d e s c r i p t i o n o f h o w a g r o u p o f l i k e
atoms are t h r o w n together a n d t h e n m a d e t o c o n f o r m t o rhysmoi t h a t a r e
characterized b y a n increasing elaborateness a n d i n n e r h a r m o n y . T h e i n ­
crease i n elaborateness m e a n s t h a t a n ever l a r g e r p o r t i o n o f t h e m o v e m e n t s
o f a n ever l a r g e r n u m b e r o f a t o m s w i l l s t a n d i n c o n s t a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p t o those

discussion in Vlastos, PhilRev 5 5 . 5 5 - 5 6 . Later occurrences of the idea are assembled and discussed by
Lenz, ΤΑΡΑ 73.215-17, who suggests ( 2 1 8 - 2 4 ) that the phrase έθος δεύτερη φύσις in Julian,
Misopogon 353A, goes back to Democritus. I f so, Democritus may have been the source for the
Epicurean use of the idea; cf. Cicero, Fin. 5.74: consuetudine quasi alteram quondam naturam effici, where
the reference is to the doctrine propounded in Fin. 1.69 (cf. above, Chap. V I , note 12, and below,
Chap. I X , note 2 9 ) .
29
Systema in the sense of "aggregation" appears in Polybius (6.5.10), in Diodorus I (1.8.4;
90.1—see above, pp. 6 4 - 6 5 ) and in certain other Hellenistic texts (e.g. Iambulus ap. Diod. 2.57.1 and
Diod. 3.32.1, cited in Chap. V I I , note 9 ) . T h e term was atomistic by Epicurus' time {Pap. Here. 9 9 3
col. 3.U.2, p. 195 Arrighetti) and is used by Diogenes Laertius in reporting the views of Leucippus
and Democritus (VS 6 7 A 1 , p. 71.5; 6 8 A 1 , p. 84.15). Whether it was so used by them we do not
know. It has, however, the same wide range of meaning as kosmos and rhysmos; cf. Aristotle, E N
9.1168B31—32: ττόλις . . . και παν άλλο σύστημα.
Whether Polybius would have regarded this process as a change of rhysmos which physiopoiei we
3 0

do not know. It is worth noting, however, that at three points he insists that the new order of things
is a "natural" one; cf. 6.5.4, φύεσθαι τάς 7Γολιτα'α?; 6.5.10, αρχή βασιλείας φύεται; and 6.7.1, κατά
φύσιν έννοια.
3 1
For Democritus' recognition of logismos as a specifically human excellence compare B187, on
the inadequacy of σκήνεος Ισχύς άνευ λογισμού, with Β57, which contrasts human nobility (ήθεος
εντροπία) with that of animals (σκήνεος εύσθένεια); cf. also B 2 and B 2 3 6 . It need not follow that he was
prepared to give an atomistic account of the workings of logismos. O f this there is no clear trace in
the surviving fragments, though much of what is said in them about the moral and emotional
aspects of human life can be analyzed in atomistic terms (see, for the latter, Vlastos, PhilRev 5 4 . 5 7 8 -
9 2 ; Krokiewicz, Eos 4 7 , No. 1, 3 5 - 4 3 ; and L u r i a , DAWB 44.14-16).
 P L A T O , P O L Y B I U S , A N D D E M O C R I T U S I 19

o f o t h e r a t o m s . T h i s is t h e a t o m i s t i c c o u n t e r p a r t t o t h a t m u l t i p l i c a t i o n o f t h e
b o n d s o f koinonia w h i c h was m e n t i o n e d e a r l i e r as a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f e a t u r e o f
t h e process o f social d e v e l o p m e n t as seen b y P o l y b i u s . 3 2
T h e increase i n
h a r m o n y means t h a t t h e n e w p a t t e r n s g o v e r n i n g t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s o f p a r e n t s
a n d c h i l d r e n , subjects a n d leaders are s u c h as t o m i n i m i z e c o l l i s i o n b e t w e e n
a t o m s — h e n c e m o r e stable a n d so d e s t i n e d t o p r e v a i l o v e r t h e o l d ones. T h e s e
n e w rhysmoi first c o m e i n t o c o m p e t i t i o n w i t h t h e o l d as a r e s u l t o f t h e eventus
fortuitus whose r o l e b o t h i n P o l y b i u s a n d t h e o t h e r texts o f o u r t r a d i t i o n was
discussed e a r l i e r ( a b o v e , p p . 8 5 - 9 1 ) . A n d i t is o n a t o m i s t i c g r o u n d s t h a t t h e
o c c u r r e n c e o f s u c h eventus fortuiti is m o s t p l a u s i b l e . B o t h P o l y b i u s a n d P l a t o
c o n t a i n references t o t h e size o f t h e a g g r e g a t i o n s with w h i c h they are
dealing, 3 3
a n d this suggests t h a t t h e i r source was i n f l u e n c e d b y c o n s i d e r a ­
t i o n s s i m i l a r t o those w h i c h l i e b e h i n d D e m o c r i t u s ' insistence o n a n i n f i n i t e
n u m b e r o f a t o m s : μόνοις τοις άπειρα ποιονσι τα. στοιχεία πάντα συμβαίνειν
κατά λόγον ( Α 3 8 ) . O n l y w h e n t h e n u m b e r o f a t o m s i n t h e p h y s i c a l u n i v e r s e
is i n f i n i t e c a n one p l a u s i b l y m a i n t a i n t h a t m e r e c h a n c e w o u l d h a v e been
sufficient t o create a l l the collocations a n d arrangements o n w h i c h t h a t
u n i v e r s e rests; o n l y w h e n t h e m u l t i t u d e o f m e n g a t h e r e d t o g e t h e r is suffi­
c i e n t l y l a r g e c a n one p l a u s i b l y dispense w i t h t h e o l o g i c a l a n d t e l e o l o g i c a l
causes a n d m a i n t a i n t h a t m e n w o u l d h a v e b e e n p r e s e n t e d b y m e r e chance
w i t h s u f f i c i e n t instances o f n e w rhysmoi t o be able to perceive through
logismos t h e a d v a n t a g e s ( o r d i s a d v a n t a g e s ) inherent i n them and repattern
t h e i r lives a c c o r d i n g l y . 3 4

O n c e i n a u g u r a t e d , h o w e v e r , t h e process is s e l f - p e r p e t u a t i n g a n d c u m u ­
l a t i v e . F o r as t h e m o v e m e n t s o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l m e m b e r s o f each kosmos
become m o r e a n d m o r e i n t e g r a t e d i n t o a h a r m o n i o u s w h o l e , its o v e r a l l
rhysmos becomes m o r e p e r v a s i v e a n d p r o n o u n c e d — a n d so c a p a b l e o f a c c o m ­
m o d a t i n g a l a r g e r n u m b e r o f a t o m s . H e n c e t h e p h e n o m e n o n o f c o s m i c ex­
pansion. 3 5
H e n c e t o o t h e f i n a l s u b s t i t u t i o n o f logismos f o r hia, w h i c h comes

3 2
C o n c e r n i n g t h e c h a r a c t e r a n d n u m b e r o f t h e b o n d s w h i c h w o u l d h a v e b e e n v i e w e d as a l r e a d y
p r e s e n t i n t h e e a r l i e s t , a n i m a l - l i k e a g g r e g a t i o n o n e c a n , o f c o u r s e , o n l y s p e c u l a t e . L u r i a has a r g u e d
(DAWB 44.10-13) t h a t D e m o c r i t u s a d d u c e d significant a n i m a l analogues n o t o n l y for the f a m i l y
i n its m o s t r u d i m e n t a r y f o r m b u t also for m o s t s o c i a l p r o h i b i t i o n s g o v e r n i n g s e x u a l b e h a v i o r as w e l l
as v a r i o u s o t h e r h u m a n nomoi. I t w o u l d f o l l o w t h a t D e m o c r i t u s r e g a r d e d s u c h p h e n o m e n a as
i n s t i n c t u a l a n d o r i g i n a l i n m a n , so t h a t t h e first h u m a n systema w o u l d h a v e b e e n a m u c h m o r e
o r d e r e d a n d h o m o g e n e o u s u n i t t h a n t h e e v i d e n c e o f P o l y b i u s w o u l d suggest. B u t t h e D e m o c r i t e a n
c h a r a c t e r o f t h e passages o n w h i c h L u r i a bases his a r g u m e n t is, a t best, h i g h l y d u b i o u s .
3 3
Cf. i t e m 6 i n o u r s u m m a r y o f P l a t o ' s a c c o u n t ( a b o v e , p . 97) a n d P o l y b i u s 6 . 5 . 6 : όταν . . .
αύξηθή σιιν χρόνοι πλήθος ανθρώπων.
3 4
T h e s y s t e m o f r e w a r d s a n d p u n i s h m e n t s t h r o u g h w h i c h t h e r e p a t t e r n i n g o c c u r s has n o c l e a r
p a r a l l e l i n D e m o c r i t u s ; cf. h o w e v e r w h a t is said a b o u t poena a n d beneficium i n A 7 6 .
3 5
C f . L e u c i p p u s , VS 6 7 Λ 1 , p . 71.9—10: αυτόν τε πάλιν τον περιέχοντα οΐον υμένα ανξεσθαι κατά την
έπέκκρισιν των έξωθεν σωμάτων bivfj τε φερόμενον . . . ών αν επιφανή πάντα επικτάσθαι. . . .
I20 DEMOGRITUS AND T H E SOURCES OF G R E E K ANTHROPOLOGY

a b o u t w h e n t h i s same rhysmos is s u f f i c i e n t l y s t r o n g t o p r o v i d e , i n d e p e n d e n t l y
of t h e c o n s t r a i n i n g i n f l u e n c e o f monarchos o r dynamenoi, the cohesiveness
necessary f o r t h e c o n t i n u e d existence a n d w e l l - b e i n g o f t h e kosmos.
T o h a v e i n d i c a t e d t h e lines w h i c h a n a t o m i s t i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f P o l y b i u s '
a c c o u n t o f s o c i a l d e v e l o p m e n t m i g h t t a k e is n o t t o s h o w t h a t t h e a c c o u n t is
i n f a c t a t o m i s t i c i n o r i g i n . Y e t t h e p a r a l l e l s o n w h i c h t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n rests
a r e , I t h i n k , s u f f i c i e n t l y n u m e r o u s t o be o f some i m p o r t a n c e w i t h i n the
c o m p l e x o f evidence considered i n this chapter. O n e m a j o r element i n t h a t
c o m p l e x has s t i l l t o b e discussed. I t i n v o l v e s t h e P o l y b i a n a n d D e m o c r i t e a n
views o f the beginnings o f kingship.

3. T H E P O L I T I C A L , T H E M I L I T A R Y , AND T H E R O Y A L A R T

P o l y b i u s ' a c c o u n t o f t h e f o r t u n a t e a c c i d e n t w h i c h leads t o t h e r e p l a c e m e n t
of monarchia with basileia s h o u l d be compared with fragment B255 of
Democritus:

P O L Y B I U S 6.6.10-7.2 D E M O C R I T U S B255

έν ots όταν 6 προεστώς και τήν μεγίστην δύναμιν όταν οι δυνάμενοι τοις μή έχονσιν και προτελεΐν
έχων αεί σννεπισχύει τοις προειρημένοις κατά τάς τολμέωσι και ΰπουργεΐν και χαρίζεσθαι, εν τούτω
των πολλών διαλήψεις και δόξη τοις ΰποταττο- ήδη και τό οίκτίρειν ένεστι και τό άμυνειν άλλή-
μένοις διανεμητικός είναι τοΰ κατ' άξίαν έκάστοις, λοισι και τους πολιήτας όμονόονς είναι και άλλα
ούκέτι τήν βίαν δεδιότες τή δέ γνώμη τό πλεΐον αγαθά, άσσα ουδείς αν δνναιτο καταλέξαι.
ευδοκοϋντες ΰποτάττονται και σνσσωζουσι τήν
αρχήν αύτον ομοθυμαδόν έπαμννοντες και δια­
γωνιζόμενοι προς τους επιβουλεύοντας αυτοΰ τή
δυναστεία. . . . αύτη καλοϋ και δικαίου πρώτη παρ
άνθρώποις κατά φύσιν έννοια και τών ενάντιων
τούτοις, αύτη βασιλείας αληθινής αρχή και γένεσις.

The a b o v e passages c o n t a i n i m p o r t a n t similarities. T h e position o f the

dynamenoi i n D e m o c r i t u s is a n a l o g o u s t o t h a t o f t h e προεστώς και την μεγίστην
δνναμιν έχων i n P o l y b i u s , a n d t h e p a r a l l e l was p r o b a b l y e v e n closer i n
P o l y b i u s ' source. F o r , as w e h a v e seen ( a b o v e , p p . 1 0 1 - 2 ) , t h e r e is r e a s o n
to believe t h a t t h a t source spoke o f dynasteia a n d dynastai rather than
o f monarchia a n d monarchos. P o l y b i u s ' ΰποταττόμενοι are t h e μη έχοντες of
D e m o c r i t u s ; t o a c t κατά τάς τών πολλών διαληφεις is c e r t a i n l y t o χαρίζεσθαι
τοις μη έχονσι; a n d t h e t w o passages a r e f u r t h e r l i n k e d b y s i m i l a r i t i e s o f
vocabulary a n d t o n e . Όμοθνμαδόν έπαμΰνοντες i n P o l y b i u s recalls άμΰνειν
άλλήλοισι and πολιητας όμονόους i n D e m o c r i t u s ; a n d t h e r e is a similar
s t r i v i n g f o r r h e t o r i c a l effect i n t h e w a y t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e events m e n ­
t i o n e d i n t h e t w o t e m p o r a l clauses is e m p h a s i z e d (compare the a n a p h o r a
o f αυτη καλοΰ και δικαίου . . . αϋτη βασιλείας w i t h t h e p o l y s y n d e t o n o f και
το οίκτίρειν . . . και μη έρημους είναι e t c . ) .
 P L A T O , P O L Y B I U S , A N D D E M O C R I T U S 121

A l o n g w i t h these s i m i l a r i t i e s are c e r t a i n differences w h o s e i m p o r t a n c e c a n -

n o t be i g n o r e d . O n e misses i n P o l y b i u s a n y reference t o t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f
those feelings o f f e l l o w s h i p a n d c o m p a s s i o n w h i c h a p p e a r so p r o m i n e n t l y i n
D e m o c r i t u s . F o r P o l y b i u s i t is logismos, n o t to oiktirein a n d homonoia, which
replaces fear a n d r e l i a n c e o n s t r e n g t h i n t h e m i n d s o f subject and ruler.
T h e r e is n o t h i n g i n e i t h e r t h e P o l y b i a n o r D e m o c r i t e a n f o r m u l a t o r u l e o u t
the possibility that b o t h sentiment a n d c a l c u l a t i o n are i n v o l v e d , b u t a
difference i n e m p h a s i s is u n d e n i a b l y p r e s e n t . A n d i n keeping with this
d i f f e r e n c e is a d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e a c t i o n s r e f e r r e d t o . P o l y b i u s
speaks o f a c t i o n t a k e n i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h p o p u l a r n o t i o n s o f w h a t is r i g h t ;
D e m o c r i t u s o f assistance ( p r e s u m a b l y e c o n o m i c ) g i v e n b y r i c h t o p o o r . T h e
t e r m charizesthai is v a g u e e n o u g h t o i n c l u d e t h e a d h e r e n c e t o p o p u l a r n o t i o n s
o f r i g h t t h a t P o l y b i u s stresses; a n d b o t h t h i s a d h e r e n c e a n d t h e g i v i n g t o e a c h
m a n o f his d u e (the other r o y a l a c t i v i t y m e n t i o n e d b y Polybius) would
c e r t a i n l y r e q u i r e a r e f r a i n i n g f r o m decisions w h i c h sacrifice t h e interests o f
t h e p o o r t o those o f t h e m o r e p o w e r f u l class o f w h i c h t h e s t r o n g m a n is h i m -
self a p a r t . T h e t w o passages are n o t i n c o m p a t i b l e h e r e , b u t o n e is c e r t a i n l y
f a r m o r e i n c l u s i v e t h a n t h e o t h e r . F i n a l l y , o u r passages seem t o h a v e b e e n
c o m p o s e d f o r s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t c o n t e x t s . D e m o c r i t u s is a t t e m p t i n g t o f o r m u -
l a t e i n as g e n e r a l t e r m s as possible t h e p r e c o n d i t i o n s f o r a n y t y p e o f social
accord; a n d the result c o u l d a p p l y e q u a l l y w e l l to the p r i m i t i v e society
d i v i d e d b e t w e e n s t r o n g a n d w e a k w h i c h P o l y b i u s envisages o r t o a c o m -
m e r c i a l society d i v i d e d b e t w e e n r i c h a n d p o o r . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , B157,
w h i c h speaks o f " g o v e r n m e n t s a n d p o l i t i e s a n d t h e f r i e n d s h i p s o f k i n g s " as
great blessings f o r h u m a n life, does o f f e r evidence for believing that
D e m o c r i t u s w o u l d h a v e v i e w e d a t least t h e i n s t i t u t i o n o f k i n g s h i p as r e s t i n g
o n t h e same sort o f r o y a l g o o d w i l l w h i c h P o l y b i u s d e s c r i b e s , 36
a n d so i m -
p o r t a n t a f e a t u r e o f a n i n s t i t u t i o n m i g h t w e l l h a v e b e e n seen as c h a r a c t e r i z i n g
i t f r o m its i n c e p t i o n . T h e a p p e a r a n c e o f t h e same a d v e r b rjSrj t h a t was used
i n t h e f r a g m e n t s o n m u s i c a n d t h e m o r e s o f f a m i l y l i f e w o u l d also i n d i c a t e
t h a t t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f B 2 5 5 is, a t least p a r t i a l l y , h i s t o r i c a l : m a n ' s s i t u a t i o n
after a c e r t a i n e v e n t o f g r e a t i m p o r t a n c e is b e i n g c o n t r a s t e d w i t h his s i t u a t i o n
before t h a t e v e n t . I t c a n n o t be said t h a t t h e aspect o f t h e t w o passages w e
h a v e j u s t b e e n discussing i n v o l v e s — a n y m o r e t h a n d o t h e o t h e r d i v e r g e n c e s
c o n s i d e r e d — a d i r e c t c o n t r a d i c t i o n . B u t , here as elsewhere, t h e resemblances
are m o r e g e n e r i c t h a n specific, e n o u g h to p o i n t t o some sort o f c o n n e c t i o n
b u t i n s u f f i c i e n t i n themselves t o establish t h e existence o f d i r e c t i n d e b t e d n e s s .
T h i s i m p r e s s i o n is c o n f i r m e d b y a t h i r d p i e c e o f e v i d e n c e . A fragment

3 6
Friendship of kings may refer to private philiai between monarch and individual subjects, but
if it does it is something of an anti-climax after "governments and polities." It is more natural to
assume that it means the sort of royal beneficence to which Polybius refers.
 122 D E M O C R I T U S A N D T H E S O U R C E S O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

attributed to A r c h y t a s of T a r e n t u m (VS 4 7 B 3 ) , w h i c h obviously belongs to

the same general tradition as do Polybius a n d D e m o c r i t u s , praises logismos
as a n i n v e n t i o n (heuremd) w h i c h reduces strife a n d increases homonoia (cf.
πολιήτας όμονόονς i n B 2 5 5 ) b y m a k i n g the r i c h give to the poor a n d the poor
receive from the r i c h , both sides " t r u s t i n g thereby to attain equality."
A r c h y t a s recalls Polybius by his reference to logismos^ a n d D e m o c r i t u s by
his emphasis o n e c o n o m i c rather t h a n j u d i c i a l concessions to the poor. T h e
passage thus serves to lessen somewhat the i m p o r t a n c e of the difference of
emphasis noted between the other two; but i f it makes the links between
them stronger, it also makes them more general. F o r other passages c a n be
cited w h i c h praise a s i m i l a r policy of compromise between the weaker a n d
stronger elements i n the body p o l i t i c ; 3 8
a n d w i t h i n this very general line of
thought the only thing w h i c h distinguishes Archytas, Democritus, and
Polybius is their conviction that the desirable a r r a n g e m e n t is one w h i c h c a m e
into being at a given time i n h i s t o r y 39
a n d c a r r i e d w i t h it far-reaching c o n ­
sequences.
T o determine w h e t h e r there is a n y further link between Polybius a n d
D e m o c r i t u s other t h a n this i d e a w h i c h they share w i t h A r c h y t a s , one must
consider not simply the content of the political a r r a n g e m e n t w h i c h a l l three
authors favor but also w h a t is said i n Polybius about the w a y i n w h i c h it
comes into being. T h e t h i r d of the situations described i n 6 . 6 . 2 - 9 t e n s n o w

whenever anyone champions the cause of all in moments of danger and supports
and withstands the attacks of the fiercest of animals, it is likely that he will
receive from the people marks of good will and pre-eminence, and that the man
who does the opposite will be condemned and give offence.

T h e result is " a c e r t a i n notion a n d perception of the c h a r a c t e r of the fitting,

w h i c h is the origin a n d e n d of j u s t i c e " ( 6 . 9 ) , or, i n A n a x i m e n e s ' terminology
(see above, p p . 113-14) a n ethos agraphon prescribing that m e n should φίλους
(ΰ noieiv. I t is obvious that the m a r k s of good w i l l a n d pre-eminence referred
to i n 6.8 are i n some sense p a r a l l e l to the later honors w h i c h the king receives.
T h e y represent similar returns for similar services—services offered, respec­
tively, i n the external a n d i n t e r n a l life of early society. First there is a n

3 7
The usual translation o f logismos i n t h e A r c h y t a s f r a g m e n t is " p r o p o r t i o n " or "measure":
t h e m a t h e m a t i c a l r a t i o w h i c h establishes a r i s t o c r a t i c o r g e o m e t r i c e q u a l i t y a m o n g m e n in their
d e a l i n g s w i t h e a c h o t h e r . B u t " c a l c u l a t i v e r e a s o n i n g " (so H a v e l o c k , 239) o r some s u c h r e n d e r i n g —
w h i c h w o u l d b r i n g the content o f the f r a g m e n t i n t o line w i t h the parallel i n Polybius—is the one
w h i c h t h e c o n t e x t d e m a n d s . Logismos, w e a r e t o l d ( V S 4 7 B 3 , p . 437.13—438.3), has t h e p o w e r t o c h e c k
those epistamenous logizesthai a m o n g p o t e n t i a l w r o n g d o e r s b y m a k i n g t h e m reflect o n the possible
consequences o f t h e i r actions.
3 8
Cf. A n o n y m u s I a m b l i c h i 7.1—2 a n d 8 - 9 ; I s o c r a t e s , Areop. 3 1 - 3 5 ; A r i s t o t l e , Pol. 6 . 1 3 2 0 B 9 - 1 1 .
3 9
T h i s h i s t o r i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e seems t o be e s t a b l i s h e d f o r A r c h y t a s b y his r e f e r e n c e t o logismos as a
heurema.
 P L A T O , P O L Y B I U S , A N D D E M O C R I T U S 123

exercise of force i n restraining the a n i m a l enemies o f the h u m a n systema, then

a similar exercise o f force (cf. 6.6.10: synepischyei) i n seeing to it that the
dialepseis o f the m a n y p r e v a i l w h e n social mores are violated, or w h e n rights
must be apportioned between contending parties.
T h i s association of m i l i t a r y activity (the province of the prostates mentioned
i n 6.6.8) w i t h the m a i n t e n a n c e o f the social order (the p r o v i n c e o f the
m o n a r c h t u r n e d king) c a n be paralleled at several places i n G r e e k political
theory, always i n a context o f Kulturgeschichte. T w o o f the places we have
already h a d occasion to mention. T h e earlier is the Protagoras m y t h (see
above, p . 5 0 ) , w h i c h tells how early m e n were at first u n a b l e to defend t h e m -
selves against the w i l d beasts because o f their lack of politike techne—of w h i c h
polemike techne is, a c c o r d i n g to Protagoras, a part. W h e n assembled for self-
defense, however, they did wrong (adika) to one another for the same
reason—their lack o f politike techne (322B). T h e most striking thing i n this
passage is, as has rightly been pointed o u t , 4 0
the notion that the " p o l i t i c a l "
art has two parts. O n e o f these is polemike a n d is brought into p l a y only i n
m a n ' s relationship w i t h other animals. T h e other governs their relations
a m o n g themselves a n d seems to have as its m a i n constituent dike ( i n a s m u c h
as its absence is a c c o m p a n i e d b y the presence o f adikid).
T h e two portions o f politike techne mentioned i n the m y t h correspond
fairly closely to the provinces of the P o l y b i a n prostates a n d the P o l y b i a n k i n g ;
a n d a similar division a n d association, though w i t h o u t the same establishing
of explicit categories, appears i n the passage from H e r m a r c h u s discussed i n
C h a p t e r F i v e (above, pp. 7 1 - 7 5 ) . F o r the p r o h i b i t i o n against unprovoked
h o m i c i d e — o n e o f the cornerstones o n w h i c h a n y art o f the practice o f dike
must rest—is there said to have come into existence at the same time as the
practice of destroying w i l d beasts (polemike techne as Protagoras defines it) a n d
i n response to the same cause, the promptings o f to chresimon i n the earliest
stages o f social existence.
O t h e r parallels between Polybius a n d H e r m a r c h u s have been discussed
earlier (above, p p . 8 1 - 8 4 ) . G i v e n these, a n d given the parallels between
Polybius a n d Protagoras j u s t noted, it is not likely to be c o i n c i d e n t a l that
there a r e also close links between Hermarchus and Dcmocritus, 4 1
whose
influence o n H e r m a r c h u s ' master is unquestionable a n d w h o is usually a s -
s u m e d w i t h a high degree of probability to have been h i m s e l f indebted to
Protagoras for a portion of his theories o f c u l t u r a l history. T w o fragments
(B257 a n d 259) establish it as a rule that a n i m a l s " w h o do w r o n g " (ta
adikeonta) m a y be killed w i t h i m p u n i t y , since the result is c o n d u c i v e tcvstfelW
being. T h e idea is the same as that w h i c h appears i n H e r m a r c !
4 0
By O . Gigon, "Studien zu Platons Protagoras," Phyllobolia für P. von der Miihll (Be
4 1
Noted by Krohn, Der Epikureer Hermarchos 8. H
124 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

presented i n l a n g u a g e w h i c h m a y h a v e a n echo i n P o r p h y r y ' s p a r a p h r a s e o f

the l a t t e r :
HERMARCHUS DEMOCRITUS

T h e practice of destroying every harmful thing It is needful to kill those things which do harm
without quarter ( T O re λνμαντίκόν πάν KTCLVO- contrary to right (KTCLVGLV χρή τά πημαίνοντα
μενον αφειδώς) and the preservation of what was παρά δίκην) all of them in every way (πάντα περί
useful for this act of destruction [i.e. society and παντός). . . . (B258)
the prohibition against homicide] contributed . . . of those animals who do wrong and seek to
in like fashion to security (els τήν άφοβίαν do wrong the slayer is scot free and this rather
σννήργει). (De abst. 1.11) than not killing works toward well-being (προς
eveaTOVv τοντο ερδειν). ( B 2 5 7 )

T h e reference to a n i m a l s as creatures w h o do w r o n g recalls another m o t i f i n

H e r m a r c h u s , his l i n k i n g o f warfare against other a n i m a l s w i t h the process o f
creating p r o p e r relationships a m o n g m e n i n a given social order. A n d this
l i n k i n g , w h i c h , as w e h a v e seen, is found i n Protagoras a n d Polybius as w e l l ,
appears explicitly i n a t h i r d fragment:

For letting each other alone and doing nothing
injurious to any of those who were collected into
the same place was useful (chresimon), not only
for driving away animals of other species, but
also against men who came along with, hostile
intent. (De abst. 1.10)
Just as it is written with regard to beasts and
creeping things among enemies, so does it seem
needful (chreon) to me to act with regard to men:
to kill in accordance with ancestral ways the
enemy thing in every social order. (B259)

T h e reasoning i n the passage from P o r p h y r y is c a r r i e d a step further t h a n it

is i n D e m o c r i t u s , to the point w h e r e not only killing the e n e m y b u t action
w h i c h facilitates k i l l i n g the e n e m y is d e c l a r e d to be chreon o r chresimon. B u t
the reasoning used is i d e n t i c a l .
W e cannot, o f course, k n o w for c e r t a i n w h a t the context o f the fragments
of D e m o c r i t u s was. B u t g i v e n the parallels w i t h H e r m a r c h u s a n d given also
the fact that reference to the 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 is a r e c u r r e n t
m o t i f i n a n c i e n t discussions o f the rights a n d wrongs o f killing a n i m a l s , the 4 2

most plausible c o n j e c t u r e 43
requires us to assume that D e m o c r i t u s s a w the
o r i g i n o f society's attitude t o w a r d c r i m i n a l s i n m a n ' s early struggle for s u r ­
v i v a l against other species. T h e malefactor is someone w h o , b y his violation
o f the l a w s o f society, h a s i n effect p u t h i m s e l f outside society a n d must be
destroyed like the a n i m a l s w h i c h threaten its existence.
4 2
Cf., in addition to the passages of Hermarchus cited here, the discussion of Theophrastus which
Porphyry summarizes (De abst. 2 . 2 5 - 3 3 ) and, in the same work (4.22 = F r . 98 Heinze), the report
of Xenocrates' remarks on a prohibition against the slaughter of animals ascribed to the early
culture-hero Triptolemus.
4 3
Advanced by Havelock, 129-30. Cf. also von Fritz in Entretiens Hardt 7 ( i 9 6 0 ) 264, who suggests
a possible connection between the idea of the needful found in B 2 5 6 (δίκη μίν ίατιν Ιρδειν τά χρή
eovTa) and that chreia which looms so large in ancient Kulturgeschichte. This fragment is closely related
to B 2 5 8 and 259 by virtue of the similar association which all three create between the ideas of
dike and chreon.
 P L A T O , POLYBIUS, AND DEMOGRITUS !25

The aspect o f Polybius' account w h i c h w e h a v e j u s t been considering

serves to place h i m i n a t r a d i t i o n w h i c h goes b a c k a t least to D e m o c r i t u s , 4 4

a n d probably, i f Plato's m y t h does not misrepresent h i m , to Protagoras as

w e l l . W e d o not k n o w h o w m a n y other speculative accounts o f c u l t u r a l
origins p r o p o u n d e d a s i m i l a r v i e w o f the relation b e t w e e n dike a n d polemike
techne.* 5
I t is possible, however, that the theory w a s h a n d e d d o w n i n direct
succession from Protagoras to D e m o c r i t u s to E p i c u r u s , a n d that Polybius
stands i n fairly close relation to this line o f intellectual descent. T h a t this
hypothesis is correct, a n d that it w a s the D e m o c r i t e a n version o f the theory
w h i c h has influenced Polybius, is the c o n c l u s i o n to w h i c h a further group o f
parallels between Book V I a n d the fragments point. U n l i k e Protagoras a n d
H e r m a r c h u s , Polybius' source seems not to h a v e b e e n content w i t h asso­
ciating defense against external foes a n d the enforcing o f dike i n dealings
a m o n g fellow-citizens, or w i t h i n d i c a t i n g the c o m m o n o r i g i n o f the t w o
technai i n the d e m a n d s o f the early struggle for s u r v i v a l . I t suggested the
a c t u a l steps through w h i c h these " a r t s " m i g h t h a v e arisen. I t is possible that
some o f these steps h a v e been omitted i n P o l y b i u s ' a c c o u n t : that there a p ­
p e a r e d i n his source some description, for e x a m p l e , o f how, from expecting
all to share i n a c o m m o n defence against external enemies, society comes to
expect s i m i l a r b e h a v i o r w i t h regard to i n t e r n a l ones, so that w h e n the strong
man makes the satisfaction o f this expectation easier the c o n t i n u a n c e a n d
success o f his rule is assured. B e that as it m a y , Polybius preserves a v e r y
clear r e c o r d o f the final stage i n the process a n d o f the c e n t r a l role w h i c h one
r e m a r k a b l e i n d i v i d u a l — t h e future basileus—plays i n it.
T h i s idea, w h i c h links a k i n d o f basilike techne to that p a r t of politike techne
w h i c h has to do w i t h dike, is l a c k i n g from H e r m a r c h u s a n d Protagoras, b u t
there is something quite c o m p a r a b l e to it i n D e m o c r i t u s . B 2 5 8 , after d e c l a r -

4 4
Also in favor of ascribing such a linking of warfare and civic virtue to Democritus in Β 1 5 7 ,
where polemike techne, as well as "governments and polities and the friendships of kings," is glorified
as a source of "great and glorious blessings" to mankind. (Reiske, followed by Diels, reads politike
techne, but in support of the mss. see R . Philippson, " Z u Demokrits fr. 157 D , " BPW 4 6 [ 1 9 2 6 ]
1 1 0 0 - 1 ; H . Langerbeck, " Δ Ο Ξ Ι Σ ΕΠΙΡΥΣΜΙΗ," NPU 10 [ 1 9 3 5 ] 6 1 , note 1 ; Q.. Cataudella,
"Democrito 5 5 B 1 5 7 Diels," Maia 2 [ 1 9 4 9 ] 2 6 8 - 7 3 . ) It is perhaps more than coincidental that the
fragment has a verbal parallel in the passage of the Epinomis whose close connection with the
tradition we are examining was pointed out in Chapter Seven (above, pp. 103—4):

το λοιπόν βοήθεια γίγνοιτ' αν . . . μυρία μνρίοις, παραινεί [Democritus] τήν τε πολεμικήν τέχνην

ή μέν μεγίστη τ€ και εις πλείστα πολεμική μεγίστην ονσαν έκδιδάσκεσθαι και τους πόνους

κληθεΐσα, στρατηγική τέχνη, εύοοκιμωτάτη προς διώκειν αφ* ών τα μεγάλα και λαμπρά γίνονται

χρείαν. . . . ( 9 7 5 )Ε
τ 0
' ?
άνθρώποις. . . . (Β 157)
A possible parallel not mentioned in the text is Republic 374E-76C, where the politike techne of
4 5

the guardians is equated with the watch-dog's two-fold ability to be praos toward oikeioi and chalepos
to enemies. O n the Protagorean affinities of this section of the Republic see above, Introduction,
note 2 3 .
 126 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

i n g that it is needful to kill a l l those things w h i c h do h a r m c o n t r a r y to right,

goes o n to a d d that " t h e one w h o does this shall have a greater share o f
r i g h t - r e t u r n (dike) a n d security (tharsos) i n a n y kosmos." T h e dike referred to
i n this passage is p r o b a b l y best interpreted as the whole system o f r e c i p r o c a l
relationships b y w h i c h m e n receive d u e r e t u r n for services r e n d e r e d . 46
I t is
something far more inclusive t h a n the m a r k s o f favor a n d p r e - e m i n e n c e a n d
w i l l i n g obedience w h i c h the k i n g a n d c h a m p i o n enjoy i n Polybius, b u t
D e m o c r i t u s w o u l d doubtless have v i e w e d the latter as c o m i n g u n d e r the
general category o f dike. T h e activity praised i n B 2 5 8 is referred to i n B 2 5 9
as killing the e n e m y i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h patriot nomoi, a n d this is c e r t a i n l y
one w a y o f giving e a c h m a n his d u e i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h the dialepseis o f the
many (Polybius 6 . 6 . 1 0 ) . 47
I n fact, i f the setting for both passages is the
p r i m i t i v e rule o f bia described i n Polybius, giving e a c h m a n his due a n d a d d ­
i n g support to p o p u l a r attitudes w o u l d o f necessity involve i n large measure
killing those w h o do violence to the weak. A n d that D e m o c r i t u s used o n
occasion the more general terminology found i n Polybius is i n d i c a t e d b y
B 2 6 3 : δίκης καϊ αρετής μεγίστην μετέχει μοΐραν 6 τιμάς αξίας τάς μεγίστας
τάμνων. T h e parallels between the first h a l f o f this fragment a n d B 2 5 9 sug­
gest that it belongs to the same group of passages that w e have been consider­
ing. T h e last h a l f of the fragment is c o r r u p t , 4 8
b u t the presence o f the words
axias a n d tamnon indicates that the subject is the apportioning o f w h a t is d u e
i n the m a n n e r o f Polybius' k i n g . 4 9
I t is reasonable to assume, then, that
D e m o c r i t u s associated, perhaps even more closely t h a n does Polybius, the
politike techne o f the j u d g e w h o settles disputes a n d the polemike techne o f the
c h a m p i o n w h o kills ta adikeonta a m o n g the animals.
T h e parallels between H e r m a r c h u s a n d D e m o c r i t u s m a k e it fairly clear
that the context o f fragments B 2 5 7 - 5 9 h a d something to d o w i t h Kultur-
geschichte. S i n c e there is n o p a r a l l e l i n H e r m a r c h u s to w h a t is said i n 258 a n d
263 about the m a n w h o is to receive the greater share o f dike, one c a n be less
sure about the o r i g i n a l context o f this p a r t i c u l a r idea. I t is possible, for
e x a m p l e , that D e m o c r i t u s , w h i l e assigning to the benefactor m e n t i o n e d i n
those two fragments a role i n the social process rather like that p l a y e d b y
4 6
Expressed in Polybian terms, it is the tendency to give like for like, the departure from which,
whether in the direction of more or less, creates a diaphora which men notice and mark out (see
above, p. 8 7 ) .
4 7
T h e parallel is even closer if, as is probable (see above, pp. 1 1 3 - 1 4 ) , the popular dialepseis and
ennoiai mentioned by Polybius involve types of conduct which the tradition on which he is drawing
viewed as governed by agraphos nomos.
4 8
Diels suggests the restoration τιμάς τάς άξιας τάμνων τοις άξιωτάτοις.
4 β
I t should also be noted that, in assigning to the benefactor a greater share of arete as well as of
dike, Democritus envisions a combination of attainments roughly comparable to that found in the
Polybian basileus, once the latter has coupled superiority in apportioning what is due with his
original superiority in rhome and tolme.
 P L A T O , POLYBIUS, AND DEMOCRITUS 127

prostates a n d king i n Polybius, w o u l d still not have p l a c e d h i m i n the same

sort o f historical context as does Polybius. T h e r e are, however, three a d d i ­
tional E p i c u r e a n texts w h i c h suggest otherwise.
G i v e n the other D e m o c r i t e a n echoes w h i c h the collection c o n t a i n s , 50
RS 6
IS o f p a r t i c u l a r interest: ένεκα τοΰ θαρρεΐν £ξ ανθρώπων ην κατά φΰσιν αρχής
καϊ βασιλείας αγαθόν. 51
T h e expression θαρρεΐν εξ ανθρώπων recalls θάρσος i n
Β257> a n
d the tense of ην is most n a t u r a l l y e x p l a i n e d b y assuming a reference
to the early stages o f h u m a n c u l t u r e . 5 2
S u c h a context is also suggested b y the
parallels between another RS (7) a n d the passage i n Book V (1120-28)
w h e r e L u c r e t i u s describes the collapse o f early k i n g s h i p :

at claros homines voluerunt se atque potentes ένδοξοι και περίβλεπτοι τίνες έβονλήθησαν γενέ­
ut fundamento stabili fortuna maneret σθαι την εξ ανθρώπων άσφάλειαν οΰτω νομίζοντες
et placidam possent opulenti degere vitam: περιποιήσασθαι. ώστε ει μεν ασφαλής ο τοιούτων
βίος άπέλαβον τής φύσεως αγαθόν.

nequiquam. . . .
ut satius multo iam sit parere quietum ει δε μή ασφαλής, ουκ έχονσι ου ένεκα εξ αρχής
quam regere imperio res velle et regna tenere. κατά τό τής φύσεως οίκεΐον ώρεχθησαν.53

B o t h passages are i n p a r t a p o l e m i c against defenders o f the active l i f e , 54

and
the E p i c u r e a n position is supported b y a reference to the fate o f the first
kings. I t is n a t u r a l to assume that the object o f the polemic h a d cited this
example i n his defense, a n d that E p i c u r u s is a l l o w i n g it a c e r t a i n v a l i d i t y :
office a n d kingship d i d i n fact arise as p a r t o f a legitimate attempt to g a i n
security through service o f society. B u t they l e d ultimately to disaster. T h e
c h a r a c t e r o f the two passages, w h i c h accept a p o r t i o n o f a n earlier analysis
but reject others, is compatible w i t h w h a t w e k n o w about the entire r e l a ­
tionship between the philosophical systems o f E p i c u r u s a n d D e m o c r i t u s .
And the analysis o f early kingship w h i c h emerges as that o f E p i c u r u s ' o p ­
ponents is equally compatible both w i t h that w h i c h is found i n Polybius a n d
w i t h w h a t is said o f the role o f the benefactor i n fragments B 2 5 8 a n d 2 6 3 .
T h e a r g u m e n t for assuming that D e m o c r i t u s , like E p i c u r u s a n d Polybius,
discussed kingship i n connection w i t h a consideration o f the origin o f culture
becomes thereby m u c h stronger; a n d so too does the case for m a k i n g

5 0
See von der Miihll, Feslgabe Kaegi 172—78.
5 1
For the reading adopted here, see C . Diano, "Note Epicuree," SIFC 12 (1935) 8 4 - 8 5 .
6 2
So Grilli, RendlstLomb 8 6 . 2 1 - 2 4 , against Bignone's rather improbable suggestion (VAristotele
perduto 2 . 2 6 4 - 8 7 ) that Epicurus is here thinking in terms of the false values which prevailed before
the promulgation of his own ethical system.
6 3
For apxijs we ought perhaps to read simply apxijs, eliminating thereby a superfluous reference
to the time at which the orexis occurred and giving wpexdrjoav the object which it needs. I f this
suggestion is correct the parallel with Lucretius is even closer: apxijs . . . £>pix6r\aav = regere imperio
res velle et regna tenere.
6 4
For a further discussion of this polemic and a suggestion as to the identity of the person or
persons against whom it was directed, see below, pp. 1 6 8 - 6 9 .
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 αίτια ( B 2 9 9 g ) or αίτίαι περί των
καλών και αισχρών 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

6 5
I n Section 3 of Chapter T e n .
6 6
This is certainly the type of composition indicated by A i 51, in which Democritus is seeking an
aitia for the synetheia of breeding mules; and his concern for aetiology in general is strikingly attested
in B 1 1 8 and in Aelian, H N 6.60 ( = A i 5 0 a ) .
 P L A T O , P O L Y B I U S , AND D E M O G R I T U S 129

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 . " 5 7
T h e collectors of gndmai to w h o m we owe the e t h i c a l
and 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 explanations of the relationship between Polybius and

5 7
Gf., in this connection, the parallels between the language of the ethical fragments and early
Greek legal phraseology noted by P. Friedlander, " Υποθήκαι, I I I , " Hermes 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. 9 7 : κτενώ
και λόγω και έργω και ψήφω και τω έμαυτοΰ χειρι . . . ος αν κατάλυση τήν δημοκρατίαν. Cf. Β260:
κιζάλλην και ληστήν πάντα κτείνων τις αθώος αν εΐη και αυτοχειριη και κελευων και ψηφω.
5 8
The number of gnomai preserved from Democritus is not in itself sufficient reason for believing
that his ethica were composed in an exclusively aphoristic style; see Stewart, HSCP 63.188.
s 9
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
Prodicus' theory of the origin of religion: ίερουργίαν . . . και τελετάς τών γεωργίας καλών έξάπτει
νομίζων και θεών έννοιαν (Diels: εννοιαν mss.) εντεύθεν εις ανθρώπους έλθεΐν.
 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 w h i c h is preserved i n
the Histories a n d the Laws, these contributions seem to have affected the
form i n w h i c h that doctrine 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 ex-
a 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 inter-
mediate 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 NINE

DEMOCRITEAN S O C I O L O G Y AND HISTORY IN T H E

DEVELOPMENT OF GREEK 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 feeling-
comes 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;,^cal-
c 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 men and animals. 1
T h e latter point,
i m p l i c i t i n Polybius (see above, p p . 8 7 - 8 8 ) , is m a d e explicit b y Xeno­
phon. 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 and Days 276-

78) found only allelophagia 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 . Dirl-
meier, ΦΙΛΟΣ und ΦΙΛΙΑ in vorhellenistischen Griechentum (Diss. Munich 1931) 37—39.
2
Cyrop. 2 . 1 . 2 8 ; Mem. 2.3.4. Cf. also Aristotle, HA 9.611A7-11 and 629B10-12.
3
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 133

natural union of m a n 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 . 7

For 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

one 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 ,
a n

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.
5
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.
7
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 ) .
134 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

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 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
politikephilia. 10
" 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. 12
T h e last,

8
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 m e n r s t m e n

not find things as they are now but devised them gradually, a process in which the Athenians, who
by common consent have the greatest aptitude for technology, must have played the leading role
( 3 2 - 3 3 ) ; Athens founded the first city, established laws and government, and so substituted reason
for violence in the settlement of men's disputes ( 3 9 - 4 0 : noted above, Chap. V I , note 2 3 ) . Here, as
in Laws I I I , the extending and tightening of the bonds of koinonia is associated with the overall
evolution of human culture.
9
Cf. EN 8.1161B33—35: μέγα be προς φιλίαν και το συντροφον και το καθ' ήλικα- ήλιξ γαρ ήλικα και
οι συνήθεις εταίροι; 1 1 5 9 Β 2
7 — 2
9 · προσαγορευουσι γονν ώς φίλους τους σνμπλους και τους συστρατιώτας,
ομοίως δε και τους εν ταις άλλαις κοινωνίαις, and the whole chapter ( 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., cited to illustrate the όμοιος-όμοίω
principle in E E 7 . 1 2 3 5 A 4 - 1 3 ; EN 8 . 1 1 5 5 A 3 2 - 3 5 ; Rhet. 1.1371B12-17.
1 0
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,
EE 7.1241B25 and EN 8 . 1 1 6 0 A 8 - 9 .
1 1
Cf. E E 7 . 1 2 4 2 B 2 3 - 2 5 .
1 2
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 go
u n d e r the n a m e o( philia. 13
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
forms o f philia, 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
1 3

cited there.
For "friendships" based on the relationship between superior and inferior see E E 7.1238B18-
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
1 5

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
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. 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
Hellenistic p e r i o d 1 9
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 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
T h e s e theories a r e

1 6
Cf. EN 8.1155A32 ( = EE 7 . 1 2 3 5 A 4 - 5 ) , where the opoios-ouotto interpretation of philia is
introduced as an opinion held by one group as against those who suppose friendship to stem from
attraction between enantia. (For Aristotle's transformation of the controversy to fit his own ijSu-
Xp^ai/j.ov-dyaB6v classification, see Walzer [above, note 7] 250.) References to the work of pre-
decessors 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
1 7

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 "match-
ing of characters"—though their frame of reference was social rather than individual. Although
there is some evidence for the existence, before Hellenistic times, of a theory of universal and
spontaneous amity (see below, note 2 3 ) , its influence seems to have been far more restricted than
that of the view under discussion in the text.
1 8
Cf. Lysis 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.
1 8

2 0
These theories have been the subject of extensive investigation in recent years: see H . von
Arnim, "Arius Didymus' Abriss der peripatetischen Ethik," SBWien 204.3 ( 9 6 ) 144—46; ! 2

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,"

•AJP 58 (1937) 1 4 9 - 5 0 ; Dirlmeier, Philologus Suppl. 3 0 . 1 ; Philippson, Philologus 8 7 . 4 4 5 - 6 6 ; Pohlenz,
AbhGbttingen, Folg. 3, 2 6 ; R . Stark, Aristotelesstudien = Zetemata 8 (1954) 6 0 ; Brink; and Baldry, The
Unity of Mankind in Greek Thought 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 D E V E L O P M E N T O F G R E E K T H O U G H T !37

the ones most frequently cited i n discussions o f a n c i e n t humanitas a n d are at

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 . 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 , frag-
ments o f whose discussion survive i n P o r p h y r y . 2 2
T h e s e passages d e v e l o p the
i d e a o f the essential u n i t y o f m a n k i n d , 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
See Appendix I I I .
2 2
De abst. 3.25 = Llepl evaeßeias, F r . 2 0 Pötscher; cf. Bernays, Theophrastos' Schrift über Frömmigkeit
96-100.
2 3
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 dis-
cussed 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
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
3 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

summary ( 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 ethics,

that the feelings o f c o m m u n i t y which link all men m i g h t be a variable
q u a n t i t y whose i n t e n s i t y a n d v e r y existence d e p e n d u p o n a p r i o r process o f
association and assimilation. 2 4
N o r is t h e absence s t r a n g e : such a n o t i o n
would be inconsistent with Aristotle's whole conception of " m a n " as a
distinct and fixed species, " p o l i t i c a l " b y its v e r y nature and capable of
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 altogether.
A similar tendency 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
d o c t r i n e οϊ oikeiosis, w h i c h plays a c e n t r a l role i n the Stoic e t h i c . 2 5
The unity
o f the h u m a n race figures here i n t w o different ways. T h e mainspring of
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 προς eavrov, which
makes every creature f r o m t h e m o m e n t o f its b i r t h f a v o r a b l y disposed t o ­
w a r d 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
2 4

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 5
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 .
2 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,
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 139

But 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 . 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
but 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 w h o are
m e m b e r s o f i t (SVF 1.222-23).
T h e Stoics m a y 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 . 2 8
B u t neither variety under­
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 i n earlier theories of community. 2 9

27
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
2 8

[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;
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 f o r m even i n animals and
children. 3 0
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 century, a t least i n Greek
t h o u g h t at its m o r e sophisticated levels. W h a t d i s t i n g u i s h e s 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 a n d logos i n h u m a n
behavior. 3 2
T h e P e r i p a t e t i c oikeiotes, b y c o n t r a s t , exists o n l y o n t h e l e v e l o f
physis, 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, im-
mediate 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
3 0

satis dilucidus nec expressus."

O n Polybius' " soziologischen Betrachtungsweise" see Heinemann, Poseidonios' metaphysische
3 1

Schriften 1.107.
Nomos, synetheia, and ethismos continued to play a role in the speculations of Hellenistic ethno-
32

graphers, if Agatharchides is at all typical (see O . Immisch, "Agatharchidea," SBHeidelberg 10.7

[1919] 107, and Dihle, Entretiens Hardt 8 . 2 2 3 - 2 4 ) . But in what survives of his work, at any rate,
Agatharchides falls back on synetheia as an explanation only when he has to account for what
 T H E D E V E L O P M E N T OF G R E E K THOUGHT 141

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 cer-
t 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 pre-
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 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 be o b s e r v e d w h e n one compares
Polybius 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 historically
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. 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.
3 3
As the title he chose for his work indicates, Dicaearchus is composing biography, not history.
 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 exist-
i n g w i t h i n t h e m w h i c h , t h r o u g h t h e i r p r e p o n d e r a n c e , c a r r y 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 ex-
planation at a l l . 3 5

But 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 find
themselves. 37
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 <f>vcns is
3 4
Rep. 5 4 4 D E . Cf. the similar remark ä propos of Thracian and Scythian ethnic character at 4 3 5 E .
3 5
Cf. Wilamowitz's characterization of Plato's central innovation in Greek political theory:
"Bald drang er zu der tiefsinnigen auffassung durch, dass die Verfassungen bedingt sind durch die
ganze geistige disposition der menschen, die sie sich machen, und demgemäss die Veränderungen in
der Volksseele den wandel der Verfassungen bedingen . . . " (Aristoteles und Athen [Berlin 1893] '84)·
For what may be a contemporary protest against this tendency in thought, see Lysias 25.8.
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).
 T H E D E V E L O P M E N T OF G R E E K T H O U G H T 143

a 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 " o f t h e self, w h i l e i t i n v o l v e s t h e same p r e -
occupation w i t h t h e p r o b l e m o f physis 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 socio-
l 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 . 3 9
B u t i f the
perspective 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 this
perspective points unmistakably to t h e fifth, rather t h a n to the 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 the
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 . . . " (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<^'
 144 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 i r unsuccessful f i g h t a g a i n s t t h e Greeks, l a n d n e a r L a k e M a e o t i s and

w a n d e r i n l a n d to the i n h a b i t e d p o r t i o n o f the c o u n t r y . A t first, n o t recog-
nizing the language, c l o t h i n g , race, o r sex o f t h e i n v a d e r s , t h e Scythians
f i g h t w i t h t h e m ; t h e n , discovering t h e m to be w o m e n , t h e i r thoughts t u r n
i n a n o t h e r d i r e c t i o n . A b a n d o f t h e i r y o u n g m e n is sent o u t w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s
to e n c a m p n e a r t h e A m a z o n s , b u t n o t t o f i g h t w i t h t h e m , f l e e i n g i f a t t a c k e d
a n d e n c a m p i n g n e a r t h e m a g a i n o n c e t h e p u r s u i t is o v e r . T h i s is d o n e , a n d
w h e n the A m a z o n s discover t h a t t h e i r neighbors m e a n t h e m n o h a r m they
i g n o r e t h e m . T h u s t h e t w o e n c a m p m e n t s g r a d u a l l y g e t closer, a n d f o r some
t i m e t h e y share t h e same w a y o f l i f e , h u n t i n g a n d p l u n d e r i n g . T h e Amazons
h a v e t h e h a b i t o f g o i n g o u t s i n g l y a r o u n d n o o n t o r e l i e v e themselves; o n o n e
s u c h o c c a s i o n a g i r l is assaulted b y a S c y t h i a n a n d acquiesces. H e i n d i c a t e s
b y gestures ( f o r t h e r e is n o c o m m o n l a n g u a g e b e t w e e n t h e m ) t h a t h e w i l l
b r i n g a c o m p a n i o n t o t h e same spot t h e n e x t d a y , a n d she agrees t o d o l i k e -
wise. T h e process c o n t i n u e s u n t i l a l l m e m b e r s o f b o t h g r o u p s are i n v o l v e d .
T h e A m a z o n s l e a r n t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e S c y t h i a n s , b u t , r a t h e r t h a n settle
w i t h a p e o p l e w h o s e w a y s t h e y d o n o t share, t h e y p e r s u a d e t h e i r h u s b a n d s
t o m i g r a t e f a r t h e r i n l a n d . T h e i r descendants g r o w u p s p e a k i n g a s l i g h t l y
different dialect o f Scythian, influenced b y their mothers' mispronunciation
of an acquired tongue.
T h e r e is n o t h i n g i n t h e w a y t h i s s t o r y is i n t r o d u c e d t o suggest t h a t i t is a n y
d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e o t h e r tales, h i s t o r i c a l o r f a n t a s t i c , w i t h w h i c h H e r o d o t u s
a d o r n s his a c c o u n t ; b u t i t bears t h e m a r k s o f b e i n g a t h i n l y disguised piece
o f s p e c u l a t i v e e t h n o l o g y . T h e p r o t a g o n i s t s o f h i s t o r y a n d l e g e n d d o n o t go
a b o u t g e t t i n g themselves w i v e s i n s u c h r o u n d a b o u t a n d t e d i o u s f a s h i o n ; b u t
t h e f o r m i n w h i c h t h e episode is cast makes sense i f one v i e w s i t as a n a t t e m p t
t o e x p l a i n t h e p h e n o m e n o n o f t r i b a l a s s i m i l a t i o n — a n a t t e m p t w h i c h proceeds
a l o n g lines q u i t e s i m i l a r t o those p r e s e n t i n t h e t h e o r y o f society p r e s e r v e d i n
P o l y b i u s . G i v e n t h e differences o f l a n g u a g e , c l o t h i n g , a n d r a c e w h i c h sepa-
r a t e t w o e t h n i c g r o u p s o f d i f f e r e n t o r i g i n s , t h e r e is l i t t l e c h a n c e o f t h e i r
m i n g l i n g : t h e n a t u r a l oikeiotes b e t w e e n a l l m e n is t o o w e a k to h a v e a n y effect
h e r e . P r o x i m i t y , h o w e v e r , a n d p u r s u i n g t h e same w a y o f life (synetheia a n d
syntrophia) w i l l , i f aggression is n o t i n v o l v e d , l e a d t w o t r i b e s to feel f a i r l y
secure i n e a c h o t h e r ' s presence. G r a d u a l l y t h e necessary p r e c o n d i t i o n s f o r
r a p p r o c h e m e n t w i l l arise. B u t w h o l e social g r o u p i n g s d o n o t c h a n g e t h e i r
w a y o f existence at once. T h e process m u s t b e g i n w i t h i n d i v i d u a l s i n a
specific s i t u a t i o n . A s e p a r a t i o n o f one o f t h e g i r l s f r o m h e r c o m p a n i o n s s u c h
as is l i k e l y t o o c c u r i n t h e n o r m a l course o f t h i n g s makes possible t h e first
u n i o n b e t w e e n m e m b e r s o f d i f f e r e n t t r i b e s . T h e s e x u a l act is a p u r e l y n a t u r a l
a n d u n i v e r s a l f o r m o f koindnia—hence its p o s i t i o n at t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e
process o f social t r a n s f o r m a t i o n b o t h here a n d i n P o l y b i u s . T h e n e w synetheia
 THE DEVELOPMENT OF G R E E K THOUGHT 145

spreads f r o m t h e i s o l a t e d i n s t a n c e w h e r e i t b e g a n u n t i l t h e t w o t r i b e s a r e one
a n d a s s i m i l a t i o n o f l a n g u a g e has o c c u r r e d . T h e r e s u l t is a n e w ethnos, s p e a k i n g
a d i a l e c t d i f f e r e n t f r o m , t h o u g h r e l a t e d t o , those o f the g r o u p s o u t o f w h i c h
i t is f o r m e d . 4 0

T h e t h e o r y o n w h i c h H e r o d o t u s is d r a w i n g w a s c l e a r l y m o r e l i m i t e d i n
scope t h a n t h e o n e w h i c h has served as t h e source f o r P o l y b i u s V I . B u t t h e
r e s e m b l a n c e is close e n o u g h t o m a k e i t f a i r l y o b v i o u s t h a t elements, a t a n y
r a t e , o f t h e P o l y b i a n v i e w o f social d e v e l o p m e n t existed i n c e r t a i n p o r t i o n s
o f fifth c e n t u r y l i t e r a t u r e . Perhaps the w o r k o r works i n w h i c h they appeared
were c o n t e m p o r a r y w i t h the one o n w h i c h Polybius draws; perhaps they
b e l o n g e d t o a n e a r l i e r stage o f t h o u g h t o u t o f w h i c h t h e m o r e e l a b o r a t e a n d
i n c l u s i v e t h e o r y present i n P o l y b i u s arose.
T h e parallels are a l l the m o r e impressive for their b e i n g v i r t u a l l y u n i q u e —
a n d i t is p r o b a b l y n o t a c c i d e n t a l t h a t t h e y o c c u r i n a fifth c e n t u r y t e x t . F o r
t h e t y p e o f r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e past w h i c h H e r o d o t u s a n d P o l y b i u s give has
a d e f i n i t e a r c h a i c cast t o i t . I t proceeds i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h a d e f i n i t e i d e a o f
w h i c h elements i n h u m a n b e h a v i o r are fixed a n d " n a t u r a l " a n d w h i c h are ac-
q u i r e d a n d " a c c i d e n t a l , " h e n c e n o t t o be t a k e n for g r a n t e d i n a n a e t i o l o g i c a l
account w h i c h aims a t being v a l i d for a l l occurrences o f the p h e n o m e n o n i t
seeks t o e x p l a i n . B u t t h o u g h b o t h a c c o u n t s ( P o l y b i u s m o r e c l e a r l y a n d self-
consciously t h a n H e r o d o t u s ) a r e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s o f h i s t o r y i n k e e p i n g w i t h
c e r t a i n g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s , t h e f o r m i n w h i c h b o t h a r e cast resembles t h e
aitiai o f poets a n d m y t h o g r a p h e r s m o r e t h a n a p h i l o s o p h i c e x p o s i t i o n o f t h e
causes a t w o r k i n h i s t o r y . T h e p r i n c i p l e s w h i c h b o t h a c c o u n t s r e c o g n i z e
r e m a i n i n t h e b a c k g r o u n d . T h e c e n t e r o f a t t e n t i o n is o c c u p i e d , n o t b y t h e
i n t e r a c t i o n o f u n i v e r s a l a n d i m p e r s o n a l forces, b u t b y a n a r r a t i v e o f specific
events i n v o l v i n g i n d i v i d u a l s . W h a t makes possible this c o m b i n a t i o n o f n a r r a -
t i v e a n d a n a l y t i c elements i n b o t h a u t h o r s is t h e i r r e l i a n c e o n t h e p r i n c i p l e
o f p r o b a b i l i t y (eikos) : 4 1
since h u m a n b e h a v i o r displays certain recurrent
p a t t e r n s , o n e is j u s t i f i e d i n s i n g l i n g o u t a c e r t a i n sequence o f specific events
as t h e l i k e l y one a n d p r e s e n t i n g i t as t r u e h i s t o r y . I t s h o u l d b e r e a l i z e d t h a t
this m e t h o d o f speculative r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f the past enjoyed a r a t h e r l i m i t e d
v o g u e i n a n t i q u i t y . T h e a p p e a l t o eikos was p r o b a b l y t h e m o s t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c
f o r m o f a r g u m e n t a t i o n i n t h e late fifth century, evident alike i n d r a m a ,
history, a n d o r a t o r y . 4 2
I t s p o p u l a r i t y m a y reflect a c e r t a i n n a i v e t e o n the p a r t
o f the audience for w h o m i t was i n t e n d e d . Probable reconstructions like the
A r c h a e o l o g y o f T h u c y d i d e s m a k e c o n s i d e r a b l e use o f tekmeria; P o l y b i u s a n d
4 0
Herodotus' account tends to confirm the conclusion reached in Chapter Eight (see above,
pp. 109, 115-17) that Plato's account of tribal assimilation has arisen through a modification and
correction of previous theories.
4 1
For the term in Polybius, cf. 6.5.7, 5.9, 6.3, 6.4, 6.6, 6.8 (eikos); and 6.6.9 (eulogon).
4 2
For its use in oratory and tragedy, see F . Solmsen, " Antiphonstudien," JVPU 8 (1931) 5 3 - 5 8 .
146 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

H e r o d o t u s are d e a l i n g w i t h events for w h i c h few tekmeria exist, a n d as a

r e s u l t t h e i r r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s are s o m e w h a t h a z a r d o u s . B u t t h i s boldness w o u l d
doubtless not have weighed heavily with a fifth century audience. Ac-
customed still to accepting t h e poets as a u t h o r i t i e s o n past h i s t o r y , they
w o u l d n o t be t o o insistent o n t h e tekmeria w h i c h a l o n e c o u l d i n s u r e t h a t w h a t
t h e y w e r e h e a r i n g was a t r u e a c c o u n t a n d n o t s i m p l y a l i k e l y t a l e . I f t h e
r e c o n s t r u c t i o n w e r e p l a u s i b l e , t r u e t o r e a l i t y as t h e y k n e w i t , t h e y w o u l d
tend n o t to question i t . Herodotus' transformation o f ethnological theory
i n t o S c y t h i a n h i s t o r y shows h o w easily a logos c o n s t r u c t e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h
t h e p r i n c i p l e o f eikos c o u l d be a c c e p t e d i n t h e same s p i r i t as a mythos—and
H e r o d o t u s was c e r t a i n l y n o t t h e least s o p h i s t i c a t e d m e m b e r o f his g e n e r a t i o n .
W h a t e v i d e n c e w e h a v e suggests t h a t t h e a p p e a l t o eikos was m u c h less
p o p u l a r i n t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y : t h e d e c l i n e i n its use is c l e a r l y t r a c e a b l e i n
oratory, 4 3
a n d the Archaeology of Thucydides d i d n o t , so f a r as w e know,
f i n d a successor. I t is n a t u r a l t o associate t h e c h a n g e w i t h t h e g r o w i n g p r e -
valence o f m o r e conceptual m o d e s o f t h o u g h t , a process w h i c h c o u l d be
e x p e c t e d t o b r i n g w i t h i t a d e m a n d t h a t r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s o f t h e past t a k e t h e
f o r m o f p r i n c i p l e s , e v i d e n c e , a n d i n f e r e n c e , r a t h e r t h a n t h a t o f the l i k e l y
tale. Polybius' o w n account, as w e l l as t h e t e c h n o l o g i c a l and linguistic
histories t o w h i c h i t is r e l a t e d , c o n s p i c u o u s l y fails t o m e e t this d e m a n d ; a n d
t h e d e m a n d is m e t , j u s t as c o n s p i c u o u s l y , b y a l m o s t a l l t h e o t h e r a c c o u n t s o f
t e c h n o l o g y a n d l a n g u a g e w i t h w h i c h o u r t r a d i t i o n was c o m p a r e d a n d c o n -
t r a s t e d i n C h a p t e r s T h r e e a n d F o u r . C h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f those a c c o u n t s was t h e i r
tendency to e l i m i n a t e the vagaries o f chance a n d i n d i v i d u a l w h i m w h i c h p l a y
so l a r g e a r o l e i n V i t r u v i u s , D i o d o r u s , L u c r e t i u s , P o l y b i u s , a n d , as w e n o w
see, H e r o d o t u s . T h e y are c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f c u l t u r e o n l y i n
so f a r as i t i n v o l v e s t h e o p e r a t i o n o f g e n e r a l forces o r m o d e s o f existence w h i c h
s t a n d i n f i x e d r e l a t i o n t o o n e a n o t h e r . A s a result, once t h e i r categories are
a c c e p t e d , t h e y possess a l o g i c a l c o h e r e n c e a n d causal c o n n e c t i o n w h i c h t h e
texts o f o u r t r a d i t i o n l a c k . G i v e n the h i e r a r c h i c a l o r d e r i n g o f t h e faculties o f
t h e s o u l i n w h i c h A r i s t o t l e b e l i e v e d , the chrematistikos bios r e p r e s e n t e d b y the
first stage i n his scheme o f h i s t o r y (see a b o v e , p . 5 2 ) , t h e praktikos bios o f the
t h i r d stage, a n d t h e t h e o r e t i c a l p u r s u i t s o f t h e f i n a l t w o stages f o l l o w one
another w i t h a n i n e v i t a b i l i t y a n d an appropriateness w h i c h is n o t to be
found i n the course o f events e n v i s i o n e d by Diodorus, Vitruvius, and
Polybius. 4 4
G i v e n t h a t w e a v i n g , f a r m i n g , b u i l d i n g , a n d s h o e m a k i n g are t h e
4 3
Solmsen (above, note 42) 5 3 , note 1.
4 4
Aristotelian physics provides an interesting parallel. It has been pointed out by B. Snell, The
Discovery of the Mind (Eng. transl. Cambridge [Mass.] 1953) 243, that, for Aristotle, motion is
simply the "actualization of a possibility"—with the result that his theory "does not really penetrate
to the dynamic process, the actual course of motion." I n similar fashion, history becomes the
actualization of the potentiality of the human mind, and the flow of actual events from which it is
composed is forgotten. When the history of a specific place rather than general reconstruction was
 T H E D E V E L O P M E N T O F G R E E K T H O U G H T 147

basic a n d f u n d a m e n t a l categories i n a n y d i v i s i o n o f l a b o r , the same m a y be

said o f P l a t o ' s r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f the o r i g i n s o f society i n Republic I I . And in
this respect E p i c u r e a n t h e o r y , l i n k i n g the d e v e l o p m e n t o f society t o c o n s t a n t
aspects o f the n a t u r a l e n v i r o n m e n t o r t o f i x e d stages i n the l i f e o f t h e cosmos,
is m u c h closer t o A r i s t o t l e a n d P l a t o t h a n t o D e m o c r i t u s (see b e l o w , p p . 170-
7 3 ) . I f t h e e l i m i n a t i o n o f nomos as a n o p e r a t i v e force i n h u m a n h i s t o r y sepa­
rates a l m o s t a l l H e l l e n i s t i c theories o f c o m m u n i t y f r o m P o l y b i u s , t h e refusal
t o i n d u l g e i n r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s o f the past o n t h e basis oieikos is e q u a l l y c h a r a c ­
teristic o f a l m o s t a l l specimens o f Kulturgeschichte d a t i n g f r o m the fourth
c e n t u r y a n d after, a n d p o i n t s e v e n m o r e c l e a r l y t o a f i f t h c e n t u r y o r i g i n for
our tradition.

T h e r e was o n l y one t h e o r y w h i c h c o u l d r e d e e m the a p p e a l to p r o b a b i l i t y

f r o m the c h a r g e o f l a c k o f s o p h i s t i c a t i o n i m p l i e d b y t h e s u b s e q u e n t a b a n d o n ­
m e n t o f t h e m e t h o d ; a n d t h a t was the t h e o r y o f L e u c i p p u s a n d D e m o c r i t u s .
F o r a c o n s i s t e n t l y a p p l i e d a t o m i s t i c v i e w o f society a n d h i s t o r y , b y e n v i s i o n ­
i n g a n a l m o s t i n f i n i t e n u m b e r o f o p p o r t u n i t i e s for t h e l i k e l y course o f events
to o c c u r , does a l l o w one to m a i n t a i n w i t h j u s t i f i c a t i o n t h a t τά έοικότα were
i n fact τά γενόμενα.* 5
The a t o m i c t h e o r y was p e r h a p s t h e f u r t h e s t p o i n t
r e a c h e d b y the late fifth c e n t u r y i n its e f f o r t to a c h i e v e a t r u e p i c t u r e o f the
w o r l d t h r o u g h the p r i n c i p l e o f eikos. As such i t doubtless r e p r e s e n t e d a stage
o f refinement never appreciated b y most practitioners o f the m e t h o d , m u c h
less b y t h e m e n o f subsequent ages, w h o w e r e schooled to a c c e p t as t r u e o n l y
w h a t c o u l d be p h r a s e d i n t e r m s o f u n i v e r s a l l a w s l i n k i n g n a t u r a l constants
i n u n v a r y i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s . H e r e i d e a l i s t a n d n o n - i d e a l i s t a l i k e w e r e the heirs
o f P l a t o . T o t h e m D e m o c r i t u s ' v i e w o f the social a n d c u l t u r a l process m u s t
h a v e seemed r a t h e r l i k e a set o f i n t e r l o c k i n g mythoi—a c o n s t r u c t w h i c h , even
m o r e t h a n his physics, e m b o d i e d a v i e w o f r e a l i t y he " d e s i r e d b u t c o u l d n o t
prove." 4 6

T h e v i r t u a l d i s a p p e a r a n c e o f the b o d y o f d o c t r i n e whose existence w e h a v e

p o s i t e d was thus n a t u r a l , p e r h a p s e v e n i n e v i t a b l e . M o r e t h a n its g e n e r a l
eclipse, the i s o l a t e d s u r v i v a l o f o u r t h e o r y i n a few texts o f w i d e l y v a r y i n g
c h a r a c t e r is w h a t n o w r e q u i r e s some e f f o r t at e x p l a n a t i o n .

t h e task a t h a n d , t h e r o l e p l a y e d b y c h a n c e a n d t h e s i n g l e i n c i d e n t c o u l d h a r d l y be d e n i e d . I t w a s .
however, carefully circumscribed—sec J . Day a n d M . C h a m b e r s , Aristotle's History of Athenian
Democracy = University of California Publications in History, 73 ( 1 9 6 2 ) 4 2 - 6 5 ( e s p e c i a l l y 6 4 : " I n his
p o l i t i c a l t h i n k i n g c h a n g e a n d a c t i v i t y are e x a m i n e d first o f a l l as p o s s i b l e ' n a t u r a l ' developments.
T h e p r e f e r r e d e f f i c i e n t cause is n a t u r e . . . " ; a n d 6 5 : " . . . o n A r i s t o t l e ' s a s s u m p t i o n o n l y those
acts are t r u l y e x p l i c a b l e t h a t h a v e as t h e i r g o a l t h e lelos").
45
και φασι μόνοις τοις άπειρα ποιονσι τά στοιχεία πάντα σνμβαίνειν κατά λόγον ( S i m p l . Phys. 2 8 . 1 5 =
Κ £ 6 8 Α 3 8 ) . Cf. above, p. 119.
4 0
F o r t h i s j u d g m e n t o f t h e greatest o f l a t e r a t o m i s t s o n t h e w o r k o f his predecessor, see Cicero,
Ac. 2 . 1 2 1 : " L a m p s a c e n u s S t r a t o . . . q u i . . . d o c e t o m n i a effecta esse n a t u r a , neo- u t ille, q u i -
asperis et l e v i b u s et h a m a t i s u n c i n a t i s q u e corporibus concreta h a e c esse d i c a t i r i ^ e r i e ' e t o ' i n a n i :
s o m n i a h a e c censet esse D e m o c r i t i n o n d o c e n t i s sed o p t a n t i s " ( = F r . 32 W e h r l i ) . y' i,-^ 1
;

/
 CHAPTER T E N

THE HEIRS OF DEMOCRITUS

G i v e n t h e f u n d a m e n t a l differences w h i c h separate t h e D e m o c r i t e a n v i e w o f
c u l t u r e f r o m l a t e r ones, its s u r v i v a l is m o s t n a t u r a l a n d m o s t e x p e c t e d w h e r e
t h e c o n t e x t is c o n s c i o u s l y f r i v o l o u s , as i n c e r t a i n o f t h e e u h e m e r i z i n g texts
referred to i n Chapter Three; or where t h e subject under discussion—
technology, for e x a m p l e — i s " m i n o r " e n o u g h to j u s t i f y assigning a large role
in its d e v e l o p m e n t to chance a n d l i k e l i h o o d . 1
The latter consideration
explains w h y Posidonius a n d the A c a d e m y o f t h e m i d - f o u r t h c e n t u r y use
D e m o c r i t e a n m a t e r i a l t o w a r d s t h e analysis o f a process whose s u b o r d i n a t e
p o s i t i o n i n t h e scheme o f h u m a n d e v e l o p m e n t is m a d e p e r f e c t l y c l e a r (see
above, pp. 52-54, 104-5). And it also explains why Vitruvius uses
D e m o c r i t u s i n a passage whose focus is a l m o s t e x c l u s i v e l y t e c h n o l o g i c a l a n d
w h i c h , w h e n i t digresses t o t r e a t o f t h e r o l e o f a r c h i t e c t u r e i n a l a r g e r c u l t u r a l
c o n t e x t , m a k e s c l a i m s w h i c h its m o r e s o p h i s t i c a t e d readers m u s t h a v e f o u n d
extravagant.
M o r e p r o b l e m a t i c a l , a n d m o r e i n t e r e s t i n g , are t h e o t h e r texts d r a w n u p o n
for t h e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s o f C h a p t e r s O n e t h r o u g h E i g h t , texts i n w h i c h a
w i d e r r a n g e o f c u l t u r a l p h e n o m e n a are v i e w e d f r o m a D e m o c r i t e a n perspec-
t i v e . I n s u c h instances i t is n a t u r a l t o assume t h a t t h e a u t h o r has some
special a f f i n i t y f o r D e m o c r i t e a n t h o u g h t , o r else is closely d e p e n d e n t o n a
t r a d i t i o n i n w h i c h s u c h a f f i n i t y d i d exist. T h e e x a c t c h a r a c t e r o f t h e r e l a t i o n -
s h i p is o f t e n h a r d t o d e t e r m i n e ; e v e n m o r e so t h e c h a n n e l s t h r o u g h w h i c h a
g i v e n w r i t e r has b e c o m e f a m i l i a r w i t h D e m o c r i t u s . B u t a n y c l a r i f i c a t i o n w e
c a n b r i n g t o t h i s s u b j e c t is w o r t h t h e e f f o r t . I t c a n shed a n i n t e r e s t i n g l i g h t
o n some o f t h e p e r i p h e r a l figures i n t h e h i s t o r y o f H e l l e n i s t i c t h o u g h t as w e l l
as o n some p e r i p h e r a l e l e m e n t s i n t h e w o r k o f t h e m a j o r o n e s — e v e n w h e n t h e
lines o f D e m o c r i t e a n i n f l u e n c e w h i c h i t establishes are h i g h l y t e n t a t i v e a n d
uncertain.

1. T H E S T A T E O F N A T U R E ( P L A T O , D I G A E A R C H U S , T Z E T Z E S ,
AND T H E C Y N I C S )

T h e p u r p o s e o f t h e Kulturgeschichte f o u n d i n T z e t z e s has a l r e a d y been

indicated (above, p. 10). I t is a n e f f o r t t o m a k e Hesiod's myth o f the
1
Technology might well have its origin in a forest fire; but Herodotus' suggestion (see above,
pp. 1 4 3 - 4 4 ) that anything so important as an ethnic alliance could have originated in the outhouse
was both unbelievable and undignified.
148
 T H E HEIRS OF DEMOCRITUS *49

G o l d e n A g e m o r e p l a u s i b l e b y s h o w i n g i t t o be c o m p a t i b l e w i t h a n e v o l u -
t i o n a r y v i e w o f c u l t u r e . T h e a i m a n d t h e m e t h o d c h o s e n are a l r e a d y p r e s e n t ,
i f n o t e x p l i c i t , i n t h e t h i r d b o o k o f P l a t o ' s Laws, t h e earliest o f s u r v i v i n g
a t t e m p t s to i d e a l i z e t h e " t e c h n o l o g i c a l " a n d " p o l i t i c a l " state o f n a t u r e .
W i t h P l a t o t h e a t t e m p t is as y e t s o m e w h a t h a l f - h e a r t e d a n d u n c e r t a i n : he
f i n d s a l l t e c h n o l o g y based o n t h e use o f m e t a l s a n d a l l t h e m o r e c o m p l i c a t e d
f o r m s o f social a n d p o l i t i c a l life unnecessary o r p r e j u d i c i a l t o m a n ' s hap-
piness; b u t he c a n n o t b r i n g himself to j e t t i s o n the fruits o f c i v i l i z a t i o n
entirely. W e a v i n g , pottery, domesticated animals, housing, religion, and a
p a t r i a r c h a l social o r d e r are e v i d e n t l y d e e m e d essential t o w e l l - b e i n g (see
a b o v e , C h a p t e r Seven, n o t e 5) a n d t h e i r existence a c c o u n t e d f o r e i t h e r as a n
i n e v i t a b l e o u t g r o w t h o f m a n ' s n a t u r e o r as a s u r v i v a l f r o m a p r e c e d i n g w o r l d
cycle.
D i c a e a r c h u s , i n whose a c c o u n t o f p r i m i t i v e m a n (see a b o v e , p p . 54-55)
t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p t o H e s i o d becomes f o r t h e first t i m e e x p l i c i t (cf. F r . 4 9 ,
p . 2 4 . 3 - 1 1 W e h r l i ) , seems t o h a v e g o n e s o m e w h a t f u r t h e r t h a n P l a t o . L i k e
P l a t o , he assumes t h a t l a c k o f possessions w o u l d m e a n t h e absence o f g r e e d
a n d c o m p e t i t i o n ( p . 2 4 . 2 0 - 2 2 ) ; b u t w h e r e a s P l a t o h a d m a d e t h e state o f
nature a pastoral one, D i c a e a r c h u s describes t h e earliest men as food-
g a t h e r e r s ( t h i s b e i n g t h e r e a l m e a n i n g o f H e s i o d ' s s t a t e m e n t [Works and Days
1 1 7 - 1 8 ] t h a t t h e e a r t h o f its o w n a c c o r d s u p p l i e d t h e G o l d e n R a c e w i t h a l l
its w a n t s ) , a n d f o r t h e a b u n d a n c e oitrophi m e n t i o n e d i n t h e Laws (see a b o v e ,
p . 98) h e substitutes a s c a r c i t y — a s c a r c i t y w h i c h , since i t p r e s e r v e d m a n k i n d
f r o m t h e i l l effects o f g l u t t o n y , was a blessing i n disguise ( p . 2 4 . 1 5 - 2 0 ) . H o w
m u c h further Dicaearchus w e n t w i t h his p r i m i t i v i s m w e do not know.
W e a v i n g a n d p o t t e r y w e r e doubtless n o t p a r t o f t h e earliest h u m a n bios as
e n v i s i o n e d b y h i m ; b u t t h e p a t r i a r c h a l f a m i l y was ( F r . 52 W e h r l i ) .
D e t a i l s i n Plato's a c c o u n t suggest t h a t he is c o n d u c t i n g a p o l e m i c a g a i n s t
D e m o c r i t u s (see a b o v e , p . 103). I f , as w e h a v e suggested, D e m o c r i t u s ' t h e o r y
o f t h e o r i g i n o f c u l t u r e was t h e m o s t e l a b o r a t e a n d s u b t l e o f those developed
i n the late fifth century, this very pre-eminence m a y have been w h a t led
P l a t o t o m a k e use o f i t . I n r e h a b i l i t a t i n g H e s i o d against I o n i a n r a t i o n a l i s m
t h e l a t t e r was best c o n f r o n t e d i n t h e p e r s o n o f its strongest representative.
A n d i f t h e r e are D e m o c r i t e a n elements i n D i c a e a r c h u s ( o t h e r t h a n those f o r
w h i c h t h e i m m e d i a t e source is P l a t o ) t h e i r presence s h o u l d doubtless be
a c c o u n t e d f o r i n t h e same w a y .
T z e t z e s ' r e l a t i o n s h i p t o D e m o c r i t u s is r a t h e r d i f f e r e n t a n d , i n a sense,
m o r e i n t i m a t e . T h o u g h separated f r o m h i m b y m o r e t h a n a m i l l e n i u m a n d a
h a l f , he seems t o h a v e used f o r his c o m m e n t a r y t h e w r i t i n g s o f a school whose
association w i t h D e m o c r i t u s was m u c h e a r l i e r a n d closer. I n c o n t e n d i n g
t h a t t h e s i m p l e life breeds peace a n d h a r m o n y , t h a t l i v i n g a l w a y s a t t h e
 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

l e v e l o f b a r e subsistence saves m a n f r o m t h e t y r a n n y o f s u p e r f l u o u s desires,

T z e t z e s r e c a l l s D i c a e a r c h u s . E q u a l l y D i c a e a r c h a n is t h e i d e a o f a l l e g o r i z i n g
Hesiod to construct a " s c i e n t i f i c " picture of p r i m i t i v e life. 2
B u t Tzetzes' ex­
position of " h a r d " primitivism (see above, C h a p t e r One, note 16) is f a r
m o r e t h o r o u g h g o i n g , e v e n , t h a n D i c a e a r c h u s ' , a n d suggests t h e i n f l u e n c e of
t h e s c h o o l w h i c h w e n t f u r t h e s t i n its r e j e c t i o n o f t h e a m e n i t i e s o f c i v i l i z a t i o n ,
the C y n i c s . 3

T h i s g e n e r a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n c a n be s u p p l e m e n t e d b y a n u m b e r of parallels
o f d e t a i l b e t w e e n t h e kynikos bios a n d t h a t w h i c h T z e t z e s a t t r i b u t e s t o e a r l y
m a n . T h e c o n d e m n a t i o n o f f i r e a n d its b r i n g e r , w h i c h is c e n t r a l t o T z e t z e s '
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e P r o m e t h e u s m y t h , is a C y n i c m o t i f ( D i o o f P r u s a 6.25,
2 9 - 3 0 ; P l u t a r c h , Aq. an ign. 2 . 9 5 6 B ) , 4
as are his r e m a r k s o n t h e effeminacy
of culture 5
a n d his a d m i r a t i o n f o r t h e l a b o r i o u s l i f e l e d b y e a r l y m a n 6
(this
last combined on occasion w i t h a more hedonistic, but equally Cynic, 7

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the state o f n a t u r e ) . T h e r e are Cynic parallels to what

T z e t z e s has t o say a b o u t t h e euetheia o f p r i m i t i v e m a n a n d his r e s u l t i n g lack
2
Compare Dicaearchus' announced intention, τό λίαν μυθικόν άφέντας εις το τον λόγου φυσικόν
άνάγειν (ρ. ι\.ιο-ιι Wehrli), with Tzetzes ( 6 7 · Ι 4 5 Gaisford): ταΰτα μεν [Hesiod's Prometheus
_ Ι

story] τα. μυθικά· και δή . . . κατ' άλληγορίαν μοι μάνθανε.

3
Norden, who first called attention to this piece of Kulturgeschichte (NJbb Suppl. 19.412-22),
assumed an Epicurean source. T h e view is rightly criticized by Reitzenstein, Orient und Antike
2 . 7 1 - 7 4 ; Seeliger, " Weltalter," 4 0 9 ; and Haussleiter, Der Vegetarismus in der Antike 75, all of whom
regard Tzetzes as a Cynic text. (Cf. in particular the contrast between the emphasis on philallelia
in VS I I 1 3 7 . 4 1 - 4 2 and Lucretius 5 . 9 5 8 - 5 9 : nec commune bonum poterant spectare neque ullis / moribus
inter se scibant nec legibus uti.)
1
I n Plutarch's essay condemnation of fire is linked to an encomium of water, which is nature's
necessary gift to man and one which the race has enjoyed from the very beginning of its existence.
Tzetzes may, therefore, be reproducing a Cynic motif when he speaks (114.16-18 Gaisford) of
early man as enjoying a philosophos bios, άρκούμενοι τοις . . . λαχάνοις και άκροδρυοις και ϋδασι. Enjoy­
ment of rivers, streams, and springs appears as part of the kynikos bios in Maximus of Tyre 3 6 . I F ;
compare also 23.5BC and Dio of Prusa 12.30.
5
Compare 6 8 . 2 4 - 6 9 . 3 ( = VS I I 138.8-12), on the change of man's diagoge brought about by the
discovery of fire and the resulting arts (which are τά ηδέα . . . δίκην γυναικός ημάς . . . τρυφερωτέρονς
άττεργαζόμενα), with Dio 60.8 (Deianeira changed the diaita of Heracles, making him sleep on beds
and eat artificially prepared food, with the result that his life became one of malakia and tryphe).
Cf. also D . L . 6.59 (going from Sparta to Athens is equivalent to going εκ της άνδρωνίτιδος • • . εις
την γυναικωνιτιν).
6
Compare 101.6-7 {τληπαθαις και έπιπόνως έζων) with Stobaeus, Flor. 29.92 (= W-H III
6 5 5 . 1 2 - 1 7 ) and D . L . 6.27 (Diogenes' praise of Sparta). Cf. also the laborious life led by the Cynic
hero Heracles, contrasted with the "Sophistic" hero Prometheus in Dio 8.33 and, evidently, as
early as the time of Antisthcnes, perhaps in conjunction with an attack on the technology for which
the latter was responsible—see F . Buecheler, "Themistios Περί αρετής," Rh Μ 27 ( ' 8 7 2 ) 45°> note 1;
F . D ü m m l e r , Akademika (Glessen 1889) 1 9 0 - 9 2 ; Weber, Leipziger Studien 1 0 . 2 3 6 - 5 7 ; and K . von
Fritz, "Quellenuntersuchungen zu Leben und Philosophie des Diogenes von Sinope," Philologus
Suppl. 18.2 (1926) 78.
' For the fluctuation, see Κ. Praechter, " Z u r Frage nach der Composition des sechsten Rede
des Dio Chrysostomos," Hermes 37 (1902) 2 8 3 - 8 6 ; von Fritz (above, note 6) 4 3 - 4 5 ; F . Sayre,
Diogenes of Sinope (Baltimore 1958) 106.
 T H E H E I R S O F D E M O G R I T U S

of fear, 8
a b o u t t h e e a r l y b o u n t i f u l n e s s o f t h e e a r t h a n d t h e ease w i t h w h i c h
m a n p r o v i d e d h i m s e l f w i t h t h e necessities o f l i f e , a n d a b o u t t h e h a b i t u a t i o n
9

w h i c h e n a b l e d h i m t o bear extremes o f h e a t a n d c o l d . 1 0
E v e n the social
aspects o f T z e t z e s ' a c c o u n t o f t h e state o f n a t u r e h a v e C y n i c overtones; 1 1

a n d , like h i m , the Cynics seem t o h a v e i n t e r p r e t e d a n d a l l e g o r i z e d the

t r a d i t i o n a l r e i g n o f C r o n u s as a p r i m i t i v e U t o p i a . 1 2

8
117. i — 5 . C f . M a x i m u s o f T y r e 36.2FG a n d D i o 6 . 3 4 ( c i v i l i z e d m a n ' s f u t i l e fears o f illness a n d his
i n e f f e c t u a l a t t e m p t s t o a ™ i d i t ) , as w e l l as T h e o p h r a s t u s ' a c c o u n t ( D . L . 6 . 2 2 ) o f D i o g e n e s ' con­
v e r s i o n , w h i c h c a m e f r o m his o b s e r v a t i o n o f t h e b e h a v i o r o f a m o u s e διατρέχοντα . . . και μήτε
κοίτην έπιζητοΰντα μήτε σκότος εύλαβούμενον (cf. L u c r e t i u s 5-973—7^) V ποθονντά τι των δοκούντων
άπολανστών.
9
68.16-19, 7 0 . 9 - 1 0 , 7 ' · ' 9 ; T^.iy-iii, 118.21-22 ( f o o d - g a t h e r i n g was t h e o n l y a r t possessed by
p r i m i t i v e m a n , b u t t h i s w a s s u f f i c i e n t f o r his n e e d s ; i t w a s possible i n o n e d a y t o c o l l e c t f o o d s u f f i c i e n t
f o r a w h o l e y e a r ; o n c e t h i s w a s d o n e , m e n h a d n o f u r t h e r w o r r i e s ) . Cf. D . L . 6 . 4 4 a n d , f o r a s i m i l a r
i d e a a p p l i e d t o h o u s i n g , S e n e c a , Ep. 9 0 . 1 7 : non quilibet virgeam cralem texaerunl manu . . . et hiemem
transiere securi? ( f r o m t h e S t o i c - C y n i c c r i t i q u e o f P o s i d o n i u s ) . S e n e c a also speaks ( 9 0 . 4 0 ) o f terra
inlaborala et in usus populorum non diripientium larga (cf. T z e t z e s 1 1 8 . 6 - 8 : [καρπόν] πολύν τε καϊ μή
φθάνω άρπαζόμενον τοις τότε άλλα φιλαλλήλως σιτονμενον). A b s e n t f r o m Seneca's p r e s e n t a t i o n is a n y
m e n t i o n o f a n i n i t i a l stage i n w h i c h t h e l a c k o f k n o w l e d g e o f h o w t o g a t h e r f r u i t r e s u l t e d i n f r e ­
q u e n t d e a t h (see a b o v e , p . 27, S t a g e i D ) . C o n c e i v a b l y T z e t z e s is h e r e b o r r o w i n g f r o m D i o d o r u s
(see a b o v e , C h a p . I , n o t e 1 6 ) ; b u t i t is e q u a l l y possible t h a t h e has b e e n i n f l u e n c e d b y a Cynic
t r a d i t i o n u n c o n t a m i n a t e d b y a n y S t o i c i d e a o f P r o v i d e n c e . T h e i d e a t h a t l o n g e v i t y is n o t n e c e s s a r i l y
a b l e s s i n g is n o t f o r e i g n t o G r e e k i d e a l i z a t i o n o f Naturvölker (cf. D i o d o r u s 3 . 1 7 . 5 ) ; a n d i t is o n l y
w h e n m o s t r h e t o r i c a l t h a t s u r v i v i n g C y n i c texts suggest t h a t a n a b s o l u t e l y u n m o d i f i e d state o f
n a t u r e was c o m p l e t e l y s u p p o r t a b l e f o r m a n . H a b i t u a t i o n is necessary (see f o l l o w i n g n o t e ) ; D i o g e n e s
u s e d skepe—though spanifis ( D i o 6 . 1 0 ) , m i g r a t i n g l i k e t h e a n i m a l s t o a v o i d e x t r e m e s o f h e a t a n d c o l d
( D i o 6 . 3 2 - 3 3 ) ; a n d , l i k e T z e t z e s ' p r i m i t i v e m a n , he m a d e i t his p r a c t i c e του μεν ψύχους εις τά πεδία
και τά κοίλα καταβαίνειν.

1 0
Compare 1 1 6 . 1 6 - 1 7 ( t h o u g h l i v i n g a n existence f u l l o f algeina, m e n w e r e so a c c u s t o m e d t o i t
t h a t t h e y d i d n o t feel i t as s u c h ) w i t h D i o 6.15, 6 0 . 7 , a n d D . L . C.23 ( o n t h e synetheia w h i c h e n a b l e d
D i o g e n e s t o w i t h s t a n d t h e e x t r e m e s o f heat a n d c o l d ) , a n d t h e g e n e r a l r e m a r k s o n askesis f o u n d i n
D . L . 6.71. T z e t z e s ' references t o t h e kauson e n d u r e d b y p r i m i t i v e m a n ( 1 1 6 . 1 5 ) n a s
< i t s h o u l d be
o b s e r v e d , n o p a r a l l e l i n D i o d o r u s 1.8. I t t h u s p r o v i d e s a f u r t h e r a r g u m e n t a g a i n s t a s s u m i n g ( w i t h
S p o e r r i : see a b o v e , C h a p . I , n o t e 16) t h a t his a c c o u n t is a s i m p l e c o n f l a t i o n o f m a t e r i a l d r a w n f r o m
D i o d o r u s w i t h a d e s c r i p t i o n o f p r i m i t i v e l i f e as a c o m f o r t a b l e G o l d e n A g e .
1 1
W i t h άγελαϊον διέζων τον βίον . . . κοινώς . . . τοις λαχάνοις τρεφόμενοι (68.6—8) a n d t h e references
t o syndiagöge, symbiosis, a n d syndiailesis i n 1 16.10 a n d 1 1 6 . 2 9 - 1 1 7 . 1 , c o m p a r e 1 ) . L . 6.72 ( w o m e n a n d
c h i l d r e n s h o u l d be h e l d i n c o m m o n ) a n d SVF 1.262 o n t h e βίος . . . ώσττερ αγέλης σύννομου νάμω
αυντρεφομένης o f Z e n o ' s politeia. O n t h e C y n i c a f f i n i t i e s o f t h e l a t t e r w o r k see D . L . 7.4; D . R . D u d l e y ,
A History of Cynicism ( L o n d o n 1937) 9 8 - 9 9 ; N . Festa, "La repubblica di Zenone," Atti deW
Accademia degli Arcadi 11 ( 1 9 2 7 ) 1 1 6 - 2 0 ; a n d H . C. B a l d r y . " Z e n o ' s I d e a l S t a t e , " JHS 79 (1959)
9-10.
1 2
T h e p h r a s e ό επι Κρόνου βίος is used b y L u c i a n (Drapclai 17) as a d e s i g n a t i o n f o r t h e i d e a l life
o f t h e C y n i c (cf. D i o g e n e s , Ep. 3 2 : ελευθερία ή έπι Κρόνου); a n d t h e p a r t i c u l a r p e r s p e c t i v e o f T z e t z e s ,
a l o n g w i t h s o m e o f his p h r a s e o l o g y , is to be f o u n d i n a C y n i c passage o f M a x i m u s o f T y r e ( 3 6 . I H ) .
w h i c h speaks o f t h e poets as a l l e g o r i z i n g (ainittomenoi) i n t h e i r s t o r y o f t h e r e i g n o f C r o n u s a life w h i c h
is άπόλεμον, άφνλακτον, άσίδηρον. ειρηνικόν, άπεριμάχητον, άνενδεά. Gf. Tzetzes 6 8 . 2 0 — 2 5 : βίον
άπλοΰν και άπέριττον και φιλάλληλον . . . δίχα πυρός έπιγνώσεως, ου βασιλείς, ουκ άρχοντας, ον δέσποτας
κεκτημένοι, ού στρατείας, ου βίας, ούχ άρπαγας, άλλα φιλαλληλίαν μόνον . . . ; a n d his l a t e r r e i e r e n c e t o
t h i s as a φιλόσοφον βίον (ι 1 4 . 1 6 ) .
 152 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

W e d o n o t k n o w a t w h a t p e r i o d t h e C y n i c t r a d i t i o n r e p r e s e n t e d i n Tzetzes
took shape, hence cannot say whether it has influenced Plato and
D i c a e a r c h u s o r v i c e versa. I t has b e e n m a i n t a i n e d t h a t t h e p r i m i t i v i s m w h i c h
was t o b e c o m e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y C y n i c was first f o r m u l a t e d b y A n t i s t h e n e s ; 1 3

o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , n o n e o f t h e C y n i c t r a d i t i o n s w h i c h c a n be c i t e d f o r t h e i r
parallels t o T z e t z e s are certainly pre-Hellenistic. 1 4
But whatever their
c h r o n o l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p , t h e C y n i c v i e w o f t h e state o f n a t u r e a n d t h a t
held by Plato a n d D i c a e a r c h u s represent modifications of an originally
D e m o c r i t e a n d o c t r i n e ; a n d t h e i r basic tendencies c a n be d i s t i n g u i s h e d a n d
d e f i n e d w i t h l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t y . P l a t o a n d , t o a lesser degree, D i c a e a r c h u s are
sharply opposed to Democritus a n d b o r r o w f r o m h i m only i n order to make
c l e a r t h e r a t h e r n a r r o w l i m i t s w i t h i n w h i c h t h e y consider his theories t o be
v a l i d . T h e C y n i c s a n d D e m o c r i t u s are allies t o a p o i n t , a n d this is doubtless
w h a t e x p l a i n s t h e i r use o f his d o c t r i n e s . L i k e h i m , t h e y are a n t i - t e l e o l o g i c a l ;
l i k e h i m , t h e y are w i l l i n g t o r e g a r d a l l , o r n e a r l y a l l , t h e usages w h i c h p r e v a i l
i n t h e p o l i t i c a l a n d social r e a l m s o f m a n ' s existence as t h e w o r k o f thesis
r a t h e r t h a n physis; l i k e h i m , t h e y are a n x i o u s t o establish t h e fact t h a t m a n
o n c e l i v e d a l i f e w h i c h was i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m t h a t o f t h e a n i m a l s . 1 5
For
a l l these reasons, t h e Kulturgeschichte o f D e m o c r i t u s was a useful w e a p o n i n
t h e p r o m u l g a t i o n o f t h e i r v i e w s , a n d t h e y w e r e w i l l i n g t o t a k e i t o v e r i n its
e n t i r e t y — w i t h t w o major exceptions: the evaluation placed o n the whole
process h a d t o be e x a c t l y reversed, a n d philallelia r e p l a c e d allelophagia as a
d e s c r i p t i o n o f p r i m i t i v e m a n ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h his n e i g h b o r s .
Attention has recently been drawn to the role which the "Cynic
D e m o c r i t u s " m a y have p l a y e d i n the transmission o f the ethnical fragments
w h i c h appear i n the collection o f Stobaeus. 1 6
W e are p e r h a p s j u s t i f i e d i n
assigning t o t h e same figure a s i g n i f i c a n t p l a c e i n the l a t e r h i s t o r y o f D e m o ­
critean Kulturgeschichte.

1 3
See above, note 6.
1 4
Crates' reference (Frs. 4 and 6, pp. 2 1 8 - 1 9 Diels) to the freedom from greed and warfare
which the inhabitants of Pera owe to their poverty is the earliest certain example from a Cynic
source of the attitude which appears in Plato, Dicaearchus, and Tzetzes.
1 5
For the similarity of the Cynic and Democritean views of the state of nature, compare, in
particular, the two following passages:
Dio 6 . 2 8 : μήτε πυρός οντος μήτε εσθήτος μήτε οικιών μήτε άλλης τροφής ή της αυτομάτου. . . .
Diodorus 1.8.5: γυμνούς μεν εσθήτος οντάς οίκήσεως δέ και πυρός άήθεις, τροφής δ' ήμερου παντελώς
άνεννοήτους. . . .
1 6
See Stewart, HSCP 6 3 . 1 7 9 - 8 8 . The evidence assembled in this article inclines me to the view
that Tzetzes' Cynic source knew Democritus directly rather than (as the parallels between Lucretius
and Tzetzes—see below, note 71—might otherwise suggest) through an Epicurean Mittelquelle.
 T H E H E I R S O F DEMOCRITUS x
53

2. C U L T U R E AND T H E GODS (EUHEMERISM AND R E L A T E D THEORIES)

One o f the works most extensively utilized i n the reconstructions o f

Chapters O n e t h r o u g h E i g h t w a s t h e theologoumena of Diodorus I. T h e
D e m o c r i t e a n echoes f o u n d i n t h i s t e x t a r e n o t e n t i r e l y i s o l a t e d ; c o m p a r a b l e
ones a p p e a r , t h o u g h f a r m o r e sparsely, i n a n u m b e r o f a c c o u n t s o f a e u h e m e -
rist character (see a b o v e , p p . 4 8 - 4 9 ) , n o r is t h e theologoumena t a k e n as a
w h o l e a n i s o l a t e d d o c u m e n t . T h e e n t i r e c o n t e n t s o f D i o d o r u s 1.13-2 9 h a v e
close p a r a l l e l s b o t h i n t h e Sacred Chronicle o f Euhemerus himself a n d i n
a n o t h e r e u h e m e r i z i n g w o r k , t h e a c c o u n t o f t h e o r i g i n o f t h e gods a t t r i b u t e d
to t h e E g y p t i a n p r i e s t L e o (cf. a b o v e , p p . 3 8 - 3 9 ) . S o m e t h i n g m u s t be s a i d
a b o u t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f these t h r e e texts before a n y a t t e m p t is m a d e t o
a c c o u n t f o r t h e presence o f D e m o c r i t e a n m a t e r i a l i n t h e t r a d i t i o n w h i c h t h e y
represent.
T h e p o i n t s o f s i m i l a r i t y m a y b e s u m m a r i z e d as f o l l o w s 1 7
(I = B o o k O n e o f
L a c t a n t i u s ' Inst. div.; 1, 5, 6 = Books 1, 5, a n d 6 o f D i o d o r u s ) :

A. EUHEMERUS 13. DIODORUS C. I . E O

Uranus is the first king Helios is the first king
(or, according to others, Vulcan is the first king,
Hephaestus)
on account of his being euer- on account of the benefit con-
getikos and epieikes (6.1.6 = ferred on the race by his dis-
FGrH 6 3 F 2 , p. 3 0 3 . 1 3 - 1 4 ) . covery of fire ( 1 . 1 3 . 2 - 3 ) .
He is succeeded by Cronus and Cronus and Rhea follow followed by Saturn,
Rhea (6.i.7 = F 2 , p. 303.17- (i-i34).
18),

then by Zeus and Hera (6.1.8 then Zeus and Hera (1.13.4), who is the first of the race of
= F 2 , p. 3 0 3 . 1 9 ; 1.14.10-12 = Jove (FGrH 659F5).
F16),

who rule the world (1.11.34 = who establish a world kingdom

F'9)- (1.13.4).

They are succeeded by Isis and Isis, who rules with her
Osiris (1.13.4). brother Osiris,
Zeus introduces the use of Isis discovers grain discovers grain
grain ( I . i i . 4 5 = F 2 4 ) ,
ends cannibalism (1.13.2 = and so puts an end to cannibal-
F22), ism ( 1 . 1 4 . 1 ) ;

and rules by law (1.11.35 = she establishes laws and legal

F20). punishments (1.14.3—4).
Zeus deifies his grandfather Osiris builds a temple to his while sacrificing to her parents
Uranus ( I . i i . 6 3 = F 2 i ) father Zeus (1.15.3) (F6).

T h e table is based on Jacoby, R E 11.969 (for Diodorus and Euhemerus), and E . Schwartz,
1 7

De Dionysio Scytobrachione (Diss. Bonn 1880) 50-51 (for Diodorus and Leo).
 154 D E M O C R I T U S A N D T H E S O U R C E S O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

and encourages the develop­ and establishes rewards for Liber encourages inventors
ment of useful inventions inventors ( 1 . 1 5 . 4 - 5 ) . (F )-'
9
9

(I.II. 3 5 = F20), 1 8

aided by Hermes ( F 7 ) , " who 2

Hermes, the divine scribe, is Mercury is Liber's counselor
records the deeds of Zeus on Osiris' advisor and is respon­ ( F 6 ) and discovers the art of
the sacred stele in Panchaea sible for a number of inven­ weaving ( F 9 ) .
(5.46.8 = F 3 , p. 308.21-23) tions ( 1 . 1 5 . 9 - 1 6 . 2 ) .

Zeus carries the blessings of Osiris carries the blessings of

civilization through the whole civilization through the whole
world ( I . i 1.45 = F 2 4 ) world (1.17 ff.) ' 2

and receives universal honors and receives universal honors

(I.22.2I-27 = F23). (1.20.5).

Zeus is buried in Panchaea, his Osiris is buried in Philae, an

grave accessible only to priests island accessible only to priests
(5-44-4 = F 3 , p. 3 0 6 . 1 4 - 1 7 ) . (1.22.3-6).

Artemis and Apollo are the last Horus, the son of Isis and
rulers mentioned on the sacred Osiris, is the last of the divine
stele in Panchaea (5.46.8 = F 3 , rulers (1.25.7).
p. 3 0 8 . 1 9 - 2 2 ) .

T h e close c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n A , B , a n d G s h o u l d b e o b v i o u s ; 2 2
a n d almost
as o b v i o u s is t h e f a c t t h a t t h e " E g y p t i a n " v e r s i o n o f Β a n d C m u s t h a v e
served as a m o d e l f o r t h e G r e e k v e r s i o n o f A . G r e e k t r a d i t i o n does n o t c r e d i t
Zeus w i t h t h e i n v e n t i o n o f l a w s a n d t h e e n d i n g o f c a n n i b a l i s m . I t is r a t h e r
D e m e t e r w h o , as b r i n g e r o f g r a i n a n d thesmophoros, is p r o p e r l y assigned these

1 8
Less certain is the parallel between 1.15.5 (the discovery of metals in the Thebaid—see above,
p. 3 7 , Stage 5 B ) and Pliny, NH 7.197: ami metalla et flaturam invenit Cadmus . . . ut alii Thoas aut
Aeacus in Panchaea ( = FGrH 6 3 F 2 8 ) . It is said of Panchaea in Diodorus' excerpts from Euhcmerus
that έχει ή χώρα. μέταλλα δαφιλή χρυσού καΐ . . . σιδήρου (5.46.4 — FGrH 6 3 F 3 , ρ. 308.8-9)· Hence
Jacoby may be right in suggesting (RE 11.954) that Pliny's heurematistic source has drawn on
Euhemerus for its list of invenla. I f this is so, Aeacus was doubtless a man attracted, like Leo's
Ammon ( F 9 ) and the unnamed inventors of Diodorus 1.15.5, by the rewards offered for new
contributions to the welfare of society.
1 9
T h e similarities between this episode in Leo and parallel accounts in Diodorus and Lucretius
are discussed above, p. 39.
2 0
Euhemerus . . . Venerem ait primam sidera constituisse et Mercurio demonstrasse (Hyginus, Poet. astr.
2.^2 = FGrH 6 3 F 7 ) . Of., in Leo's account, F 6 : isis invenit hordei segetem atque inde spicam marito regi et
eius consiliario Mercurio demonstravit.
Schwartz (RE 9.671) considers the passages ( 1 5 . 6 - 8 ; 17-20.5) which speak of Osiris' expedition
2 1

to be a fragment of a later Dionysus romance inserted by Diodorus into the main body of his account,
which derives from a different source. He cites by way of proof the contrast between the Busiris
described in ι 7.3 and the one who appears in 45.4, and notes the parallels between these passages
and Diodorus' subsequent accounts (3.63 ff., 4.2 ff.) of the world expedition of Dionysus. But the
parallel with Euhemerus indicates that the idea, at least, of the world expedition is likely to have
come from the same source as the surrounding material, though Diodorus may have embellished it
with borrowings from elsewhere.
2 2
It is most unlikely that accounts A, B, and C are simply treatments of the same subject matter
from a similar point of view (so J . Kaerst, Geschichte des Hellenismus 2 [Berlin 1926] 184; and van 2

der Meer. Euhemerus van Messene 1 3 2 - 3 3 ) . T h e parallels are too numerous and too exact.
 T H E H E I R S O F D E M O C R I T U S
155

achievements; 2 3
a n d i t is o n l y t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f D e m e t e r w i t h Isis a n d
t h e l a t t e r ' s association w i t h O s i r i s i n t h e d y n a s t y o f E g y p t i a n g o d - k i n g s w h i c h
h a v e suggested t h e transfer o f D e m e t e r ' s heuremata t o t h e f i g u r e w h o s t o o d a t
a c o r r e s p o n d i n g p o i n t i n t h e H e s i o d i c succession o f d i v i n e m o n a r c h s . A
s i m i l a r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f D i o n y s u s w i t h O s i r i s has l e d t o t h e c r e d i t i n g o f Zeus
w i t h the former's w o r l d e x p e d i t i o n ; 2 4
the A p o l l o - H o r u s e q u a t i o n accounts
for t h e s t a t e m e n t , u n a t t e s t e d i n G r e e k m y t h o l o g y , t h a t A p o l l o was t h e last
o f t h e d i v i n e r u l e r s o f t h e w o r l d (cf. H e r o d o t u s 2 . 1 4 4 ; M a n e t h o , FGrH
6 o g F 3 a ) ; a n d H e r m e s owes t o his E g y p t i a n c o u n t e r p a r t , T h o t h (cf. P l a t o ,
Phaedrus 2 7 4 c ) , t h e r o l e h e p l a y s as r o y a l a d v i s o r , i n v e n t o r , a n d s c r i b e . 2 5

O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , E u h e m e r u s has d o n e m o r e t h a n s i m p l y t r a n s f e r a n
E g y p t i a n t h e o l o g y t o G r e e c e : t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t differences between o u r
three accounts are i n content a n d tone r a t h e r t h a n i n setting. D i o d o r u s makes
a clear d i s t i n c t i o n i n his t h e o l o g y b e t w e e n t w o classes o f g o d s : t h e ouranioi
(sun, m o o n , a n d elements, w h i c h w e r e h e l d t o be d i v i n e b y t h e first m e n w h o
l o o k e d u p w i t h a s t o n i s h m e n t a t t h e spectacle o f t h e h e a v e n s — I . I I . I ) and
t h e epigeioi ( m o r t a l s w h o receive d i v i n e h o n o r s because o f t h e i r services t o t h e
race—1.13.1). There is n o t h i n g here w h i c h c a n n o t be p a r a l l e l e d i n p r e -
Hellenistic Greek conceptions o f deity. Herodotus cites with approval
( 2 . 4 4 . 5 ) t h e p r a c t i c e o f those Greeks w h o p a y h o n o r s t o b o t h a m o r t a l a n d a
d i v i n e Heracles (compare Osiris' t w o temples, one to the heavenly a n d one
to t h e e a r t h l y Z e u s , i n D i o d o r u s 1.15.3); a n d w e r e i t n o t f o r t h e f a c t t h a t
2 3
For the connection between the discovery of grain and the end of cannibalism, cf. the passages
from Plato discussed above (p. 104, with note 14).
2 4
T h e travels of Dionysus were known to the fifth century (Euripides, Bacchae 1 3 - 2 2 ) but they
assumed much greater importance once seen as the prototype of Alexander's expedition. T h e
identification, suggested perhaps by the discovery of a Nysa in India (Arrian 5.1—2; see A . D . Nock,
"Notes on Ruler Cult, I - I V , " JHS 48 [1928] 2 4 - 2 7 ) , was probably current in Alexander's lifetime—
perhaps in the works of the poets who glorified his exploits (W. W . T a r n , Alexander the Great 2
[Cambridge 1948] 5 5 - 6 2 ) or perhaps in the prose account of Chares of Mytilene ( L . Pearson, The
Lost Histories of Alexander [New York i g 6 o ] 5 8 ) . Dionysus would thus have been the traveler god
par excellence for anyone writing in the age of the diadochoi.
2 5
Thraede, calling attention to the parallels which link Euhemerus not only to the theologoumena
of 1.13-29 but also to other archaeologiai in the early books of Diodorus, argues that the Egyptian
motifs in Diodorus' report of the Sacred Chronicle are the result of a "zunehmende Orientalizierung
des Euhemerismus" for which not Euhemerus but his followers, Diodorus included, are responsible
(RAC 6 . 8 7 9 - 8 2 ; cf. Spoerri, 194). 1.13-29 becomes, in this view, Diodorus' own transfer of the
Sacred Chronicle to an Egyptian setting. It is, of course, likely enough that Diodorus' report expands
and modifies Euhemerus at points (see below, Appendix Four, notes 2 and 6 ) ; but two considera-
tions seem to me to tell decisively against the theory of extensive revisions advanced by Thraede:
(1) Three of the four Egyptian motifs in Euhemerus—the role of Hermes, Zeus's world expedition,
and his introduction of grain—are verified for Euhemerus by the independent testimony of
Lactantius and Hyginus (cf., for the latter, above, note 2 0 ) . (2) Leo's theology, which was known to
Varro (see Pfister, Festschrift Klauser 2 9 3 - 9 4 ) , probably antedates Diodorus, yet seems to have
drawn on the account preserved in 1.13-29 (see below, pp. 1 5 8 - 5 9 ) . T h e latter is thus unlikely to
be original with Diodorus.
156 DEMOGRITUS AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

t h e r e is n o p l a u s i b l e a c c o u n t o f t h e i r b i r t h a n d e a r l y h i s t o r y , h e w o u l d b e
r e a d y t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e P a n a n d D i o n y s u s w h o m t h e Greeks w o r s h i p w e r e
m o r t a l s b e a r i n g t h e n a m e s o f t w o E g y p t i a n gods w h o f l o u r i s h e d a t a m u c h
e a r l i e r d a t e ( 2 . 1 4 6 ) . S u n a n d m o o n a p p e a r a m o n g those helpers a n d sus-
t a i n e r s o f h u m a n l i f e w h i c h , a c c o r d i n g t o P r o d i c u s , f o r m e d t h e first objects
of man's w o r s h i p ; 2 6
a n d P l a t o m a k e s t h e m , a l o n g w i t h t h e e a r t h , stars, a n d
h e a v e n s , t h e p r i n c i p a l deities b o t h o f t h e b a r b a r i a n s a n d t h e earliest Greeks
(Cratylus 397CD). P r o d i c u s m a y e v e n h a v e r e c o g n i z e d a l o n g s i d e t h i s class o f
gods a n o t h e r , o f l a t e r o r i g i n , c o n s i s t i n g o f persons w o r s h i p p e d o n a c c o u n t o f
t h e i r acts o f euergesia t o t h e r a c e . 2 7
E v e n i f t h e t w o categories w e r e n e v e r
discussed side b y side i n a single w o r k i n Classical t i m e s , t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n
was i m p l i c i t i n G r e e k t h o u g h t . 2 8
I n transferring the idea o f deified mortals
t o e a r l y E g y p t i a n h i s t o r y , t h e t r a d i t i o n f o l l o w e d b y D i o d o r u s was doubtless
misinterpreting native conceptions a b o u t t h e d i v i n e dynasties w h i c h p r e ­
c e d e d M e n e s ; b u t n o f o u r t h c e n t u r y r e a d e r — i f t h e t r a d i t i o n is t h a t o l d —
w o u l d have f o u n d i n i t a n i m p l i e d reinterpretation o f Greek thought.
Euhemerus, o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , does offer such a r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . I t is
possible t h a t h e d e n i e d t h e existence o f ouranioi theoi a l t o g e t h e r ; 2 9
i f they h a d

26
VS 8 4 B 5 . I f we are to believe the late testimony of Epiphanius, Prodicus' list of original gods
almost exactly paralleled that recognized by the Egyptians in I . 11: Πρόδικος τά τέσσαρα στοιχεία
θεούς καλεί είτα -ηλιον και σελήνην (De fide 9-25, Ρ- 5 ° 7 Holl).
2 7
Prodicus' views are here preserved at third hand. Philodemus (De piet. 9.7, p. 75 Gomperz)
tells us that the Stoic Perseus found "not unpersuasive" τά περι τοϋ τά τρέφοντα και ώφελοϋντα θεούς
νενομίαθαι και τετειμήσθαι -πρώτον υπό Προδικου γεγραμμενα, μετά δε ταύτα τους ενροντας ή τροφάς
ή σκεπας ή τάς άλλας τέχνας. As W . Nestle points out (" Bemerkungen zu Vorsokratikern und
Sophisten," Philologus 6 7 [1908] 5 5 6 - 5 8 ) the grammar of the sentence requires that μετά δέ ταύτα
be taken as introducing a second part of Prodicus' theories rather than, as has sometimes been sup­
posed, Perseus' own addition to them. For the contradiction between this and other reports of
Prodicus' views see Pease's note to Cicero, ND 1.38, and M . Untersteiner, The Sophists (Eng. trans.
Oxford 1954) 2 1 0 - 1 1 with notes 9 , 2 2 , and 2 7 , who accepts Philodemus' testimony.
For heroikai and isotheoi timai offered in Classical times to oikists, warriors, kings, lawgivers, etc.,
2 8

see the extensive list in L . Cerfaux and J . Tondriau, Le culte des souverains (Tournai 1957) 4 5 9 - 6 6
and 4 6 8 - 6 9 . As F . Pfister points out (Der Reliquienkult im Altertum 1 [Giessen 1909] 382) everything
which is attributed in Hellenistic times to epigeioi theoi—wanderings, inventions, founding of cities
and cults, tombs—can be paralleled in earlier Heroensagen.
2 9
Most scholars assume that Euhemerus recognized the same division between ouranioi and
epigeioi as appears in Diodorus 1.11 (cf., for example, Jacoby, R E 11.964; van der Meer, Euhemerus
van Messene 54—56; Kaerst, Geschichte des Hellenismus 2 . i g 3 — 9 4 ; T a r n , Alexander the Great 2 . 4 3 1 ) . But
2

the evidence is not conclusive. (Cf., for what follows, R . Hirzel, Der Dialog 1 [Leipzig 1895] 3 9 7 ,
note 1; Langer, ΑΓΓΕΛΟΣ 2 . 5 3 - 5 9 ; Spoerri, 1 9 1 - 9 2 ; Thraede, RAG 6 . 8 8 0 ) . Eusebius, in the
passage (ΡΕ 2.2.59B-61A) in which he reproduces the excerpts from Euhemerus which appeared in
Diodorus V I , speaks of ouranioi and epigeioi theoi (FGrH 6 3 F 2 , p. 3 0 2 . 2 0 - 2 6 ) ; he does not, however,
say that Euhemerus himself recognized or dealt with the difference. One of Eusebius' excerpts from
Diodorus (6.1.8 = FGrH 6 3 F 2 , p. 3 0 3 . 1 5 - 1 6 ) does, it is true, say that Uranus was so named because
he was the first to worship the ouranioi theoi; but this testimony is suspect, inasmuch as it conflicts
at two points with Ennius' version of the Sacred Chronicle (cf. Inst. div. 1.22.7 = FGrH 6 3 F 2 3 , p. 312.11—
12, where the institution of religion is attributed not to Uranus but to his grandson Jove, and
 T H E H E I R S O F D E M O C R I T U S 157

a role i n his t h e o l o g y , i t was certainly m i n i m a l . There is n o t r a c e in the

Sacred Chronicle o f the celestial and earthly pairs o f deities mentioned by
Diodorus; 3 0
t h e h e a d o f t h e G r e e k p a n t h e o n , w h o has a c o u n t e r p a r t among
t h e ouranioi i n D i o d o r u s , is u n m i s t a k a b l y a n epigeios i n E u h e m e r u s . A n d since
t h e e x p l o i t s r e c o r d e d o n t h e stele i n P a n c h a e a a r e r e c o g n i z a b l y those a t t r i -
b u t e d t o U r a n u s a n d h i s d e s c e n d a n t s b y H e s i o d , i t is c l e a r t h a t Euhemerus
v i e w s h i s p r o t a g o n i s t s as i d e n t i c a l w i t h t h e gods w o r s h i p p e d b y t h e Greeks
— n o t as a set o f m o r t a l s b e a r i n g t h e i r n a m e s .
T h e t h i r d o f o u r a c c o u n t s , t h a t o f L e o , deals w i t h E g y p t , b u t i t seems t o
h a v e offered, b y i m p l i c a t i o n at a n y r a t e , t h e same m o r e r a d i c a l i n t e r p r e t a -
t i o n o f Greek theology w h i c h we find i n Euhemerus. L e o was reckoned in
later a n t i q u i t y among famous atheists (FGrH 659T1-2), and the w o r k i n
w h i c h h i s t h e o l o g y a p p e a r e d was f r a n k l y s e n s a t i o n a l i n b o t h f o r m a n d t o n e .
I t p u r p o r t e d t o be a l e t t e r f r o m A l e x a n d e r to Olympias containing revela-
tions c o n c e r n i n g the true n a t u r e o f the gods—revelations m a d e to h i m b y the
p r i e s t L e o u n d e r c o m p u l s i o n a n d w i t h t h e request t h a t the l e t t e r be b u r n e d

1.11.63 = FGrH 6 3 F 2 1 , where the heavens are named after Uranus, not vice versa). References to
ouranioi theoi in the later euhemerizing account of Philo of Byblos (see Kaerst, Geschichte des
Hellenismus 2 . 1 9 3 - 9 4 , note 6) are hardly significant, given the confused and heterogeneous character
2

of that work. Nor is a very strong argument for Euhemerus' recognition of ouranioi provided by the
similarities (see O . Weinreich, "Menekrates Zeus und Salmoneus," Tübinger Beiträge 18 [1933]
1 4 - 1 5 ; T a r n , ProcBritAc 1 9 . 1 4 4 - 4 5 ; Alexander the Great 2 . 4 2 9 - 3 3 ) between Uranus' world kingdom
in the Sacred Chronicle and Alexarchus' Ouranopolis (see above, Chap. I X , note 2 3 ) . For though
we know from Alexarchus' coinage (Weinreich, 13) that sun, moon, and stars were worshipped as
part of his city's pantheon, it need not follow (as Nock, for example, assumes, CR 76.51, note 3) that
they were worshipped in similar fashion in the kingdom of Uranus described by Euhemerus. Use of
Alexarchus would not preclude the possibility of innovations and modifications. Aphrodite Ourania
was worshipped in Ouranopolis, presumably in the same capacity as the sun, moon, and elements
of Diodorus 1.11; and Euhemerus knows of an Aphrodite who may have been called ourania. But
it is fairly clear that she belongs among the epigeioi theoi; cf. F 7 : Veuerem primam ail sidera constituisse
et Mercurio . . . demonstrasse. T h e other astral deities of Alexarchus may have undergone a similar
metamorphosis. Finally, one should note, against the theory of ouranioi theoi in Euhemerus, the
criticism in Sextus, Adv. math. 9.34—that the notion of mortals deified for euergesia does not explain
how the idea of the divine arose in the first place. T h e objection would have had little force had
Euhemerus recognized—or stressed—the existence of ouranioi theoi to whom epigeioi were added at a
later date. A l l things considered, the absence of any certain reference to celestial deities in what
survives of Euhemerus inclines me to the belief that he did not include them in his pantheon. For
our present purposes, however, it is sufficient to emphasize that they play no significant role in his
theology. See, further, note 30 and Appendix I V .
3 0
As R . Hirzel points out, "Die Homonymie der griechischen Götter," BerLeipzig 4 8 (1896) 280.
Neither is there any clear trace in Euhemerus' account of Panchaea of religious observances paid to
gods other than Triphylian Zeus and his descendants. There may well have been a cult of Helios
on the island (cf. Diodorus 5-44.3 = F G r / / 6 3 F 3 , p. 306.14 [on the "water of helios" found in the
precinct of Zeus] and Pliny's mention [NH 10.4 = FGrH 6 3 F 2 9 ] of a solis urbs near Panchaea); but
there is no reason to believe (as van der Meer contends, Euhemerus van Messene 4 2 - 4 3 ) that he was
an ouranios rather than an epigeios (cf. Diodorus 1.13.2, where the first of the epigeioi to rule Egypt is
Helios).
 I 58 D E M O C R I T U S AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

as soon as i t was r e a d ( F i ) . I f L e o ' s t h e o l o g y d i s t i n g u i s h e d ouranioi from

epigeioi, t h e t o n e a n d r e p u t a t i o n o f t h e l e t t e r are a l i t t l e h a r d t o u n d e r s t a n d .
M o r e o v e r , A u g u s t i n e refers t o L e o ' s a c c o u n t as o n e i n w h i c h " n o n Picus
et F a u n u s et A e n e a s et R o m u l u s v e l e t i a m H e r c u l e s et A e s c u l a p i u s et L i b e r
S e m e l a n a t u s et T y n d a r i d a e fratres et si q u o s alios ex m o r t a l i b u s p r o dis
h a b e n t , sed i p s i e t i a m m a i o r u m g e n t i u m d i . . . I u p p i t e r , I u n o , Saturnus,
Vulcanus, V e s t a et a l i i p l u r i m i (quos V a r r o c o n a t u r a d m u n d i partes sive
e l e m e n t a t r a n s f e r r e ) h o m i n e s fuisse p r o d u n t u r " (Civ.Dei8.5 = FGrH 6^gT2a).
T h e v i e w a s c r i b e d here t o V a r r o is t h e same w h i c h a p p e a r s i n D i o d o r u s
1.11; c l e a r l y i t was n o t p u t f o r t h b y L e o .
I t is e q u a l l y c l e a r , g i v e n t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n p o i n t o f v i e w , t h a t L e o ' s a c c o u n t
c a n n o t be, as has o n o c c a s i o n b e e n s u g g e s t e d , 31
t h e source o n w h o m D i o d o r u s
has d r a w n f o r his E g y p t i a n t h e o l o g y . T h e s i m i l a r i t i e s b e t w e e n D i o d o r u s a n d
Leo are m o s t p l a u s i b l y e x p l a i n e d by assuming t h a t the a u t h o r o f Leo's
a c c o u n t is, l i k e E u h e m e r u s , i n d e b t e d t o t h i s s o u r c e . 3 2
T h i s is t h e c o n c l u s i o n
d e m a n d e d b o t h b y the more " r a d i c a l " character o f Leo's entire theology,
a n d b y t w o p e c u l i a r i t i e s i n his a c c o u n t t o w h i c h a t t e n t i o n has y e t t o be
c a l l e d . Since A l e x a n d e r d i d n o t go s o u t h o f M e m p h i s his p r i e s t l y i n f o r m a n t
m u s t be f r o m l o w e r E g y p t , a n d one w o u l d e x p e c t his s t o r y o f t h e gods t o be
l o c a l i z e d t h e r e . I t is n o t , h o w e v e r (cf. F g a , w h e r e w e l e a r n t h a t L i b e r g a v e
to A m m o n a p l o t o f l a n d across f r o m T h e b e s ) , p r o b a b l y because L e o ' s
s t o r y is b a s e d o n a n o t h e r t r e a t m e n t o f t h e same s u b j e c t — m o s t l i k e l y t h e one
used b y D i o d o r u s as w e l l — i n w h i c h T h e b e s p l a y e d t h e c e n t r a l r o l e . The
second p e c u l i a r i t y i n v o l v e s a d i f f e r e n c e between t h e a c c o u n t s o f t h e dis-
c o v e r y o f g r a i n g i v e n b y L e o a n d D i o d o r u s . D i o d o r u s cites t h e c u s t o m o f
o f f e r i n g first f r u i t s t o Isis as a p r o o f o f h e r d i s c o v e r y o f g r a i n : t h e r i t e is a
s u r v i v a l o f a p r a c t i c e i n s t i t u t e d b y Isis' g r a t e f u l c o n t e m p o r a r i e s ( 1 . 1 4 . 2 ) . Leo
does n o t m e n t i o n t h e c u s t o m , s a y i n g o n l y t h a t Isis d i s c o v e r e d g r a i n cum
parentibus sacrificaret ( F 6 ) . L i k e D i o d o r u s , he m e n t i o n s a sacrifice w h i c h uses
g r a i n , b u t D i o d o r u s ' a c c o u n t m a k e s sense i n a w a y his does n o t . I t p r o v i d e s
e v i d e n c e o f a sort f o r t h e t h e o r y b e i n g a d v a n c e d w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e o r i g i n
b o t h o f g r a i n a n d o f t h e d i v i n i t y o f Isis. L e o , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , seems t o be
g i v i n g a p e r f e c t l y g r a t u i t o u s piece o f i n f o r m a t i o n w h e n he l i n k s t h e dis-
c o v e r y t o Isis' w o r s h i p o f h e r p a r e n t s — a s i f he w e r e f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e a c c o u n t

By Schwartz (above, note 17) 5 0 - 5 2 (positing Dionysius Scytobrachion as a Mittelquelle).

3 1

Jacoby, following R . Reitzenstein (Zwei religionsgeschichtliche Fragen [Strassburg 1901] 22, note 2)
3 2

and followed by Nock, JHS 4 8 . 2 8 , note 3 7 , Geffcken, R E 2 4 . 2 0 1 2 , and M . Nilsson, Geschichte der
griechischen Religion 2 (Munich 1961) 2 8 5 , would date Leo early: " . . . die Form seines Buches—
2

Brief Alexanders an Olympias—lässt vermuten dass es bestimmt war, den Griechen eben diese Idee
des Gottkönigtums nahe zu bringen" (RE 11.968). But this form could just as easily be taken as an
indication of late origin. Leo is seeking to popularize ideas already current in certain Greek circles
by exploring their dramatic and sensational possibilities. Cf. Pfister, Festschrift Klauser 2 9 6 .
 T H E HEIRS O F DEMOGRITUS 159

reproduced i n D i o d o r u s b u t h a d misunderstood the connection posited there

b e t w e e n t h e d i s c o v e r y o f g r a i n a n d its use i n a c e r t a i n t y p e o f sacrifice.
The chronological relationship that has been established between
Euhemerus, Leo, and Diodorus' source 3 3
a l l o w s us t o d a t e t h e l a s t - n a m e d
w o r k w i t h some c e r t a i n t y t o t h e years a r o u n d 3 0 0 B . G . 3 4
a n d to place i t at
t h e h e a d o f t h e e n t i r e e u h e m e r i s t t r a d i t i o n . A n d w i t h these facts established
i t b e c o m e s m u c h easier t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p i n w h i c h t h a t t r a d i t i o n
stands t o D e m o c r i t e a n a n t h r o p o l o g y . D i o d o r u s ' source is u s u a l l y a n d m o s t
p l a u s i b l y i d e n t i f i e d as H e c a t a e u s o f A b d e r a ; 3 5
y e t e v e n i f he was n o t its
3 3
T h e q u e s t i o n o f p r i o r i t y b e t w e e n E u h e m e r u s a n d L e o lias n o t b e e n r a i s e d h e r e n o r is i t r e l e v a n t
t o t h e p r e s e n t d i s c u s s i o n : t h e d e p e n d e n c y o f b o t h a u t h o r s o n t h e s o u r c e f o l l o w e d b y D i o d o r u s is
a l l t h a t n e e d b e e s t a b l i s h e d . O n e m i g h t be i n c l i n e d — w i t h o u t , h o w e v e r , a n y c o m p e l l i n g j u s t i f i c a t i o n
— t o assign t h e i n n o v a t i o n b y w h i c h t h e maiorum gentium di a r e d e c l a r e d t o b e o f m o r t a l o r i g i n t o t h e
m o r e f a m o u s o f t h e t w o f i g u r e s . A m o r e s u b s t a n t i a l a r g u m e n t f o r t h e l a t e d a t i n g o f L e o is p e r h a p s
p r o v i d e d b y t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f F g a , w h e r e i t is s a i d t h a t , i n c o m m e m o r a t i o n o f t h e p a r t h e p l a y e d i n
t h e d i s c o v e r y o f w o o l , A m m o n o r " a c c o r d i n g so s o m e " L i b e r is r e p r e s e n t e d i n statues w i t h r a m ' s
h o r n s . T h e close a s s o c i a t i o n b e t w e e n A m m o n a n d D i o n y s u s w h i c h t h i s d e t a i l a n d , i n d e e d , L e o ' s
w h o l e s t o r y presupposes is t h o u g h t b y s o m e t o b e o f f a i r l y l a t e o r i g i n (see M . F a s c i a t o a n d J . L e c l a n t ,
" U n e t e t e ' a m m o n i e n n e ' a u M u s e e d e C h c r c h e l , " RA 3 0 [ 1 9 4 9 ] 3 6 4 , a n d " T y p e s m o n e t a i r e s a
c o r n e s d e b e l t e r , " MelRome 61 [ 1 9 4 9 ] 1 3 - 1 7 ) . T h e first d a t a b l e a u t h o r t o l i n k t h e t w o c l o s e l y is
G a l l i m a c h u s ' p u p i l H c r m i p p u s (ap. H y g i n u s Astr. 2 . 2 0 ) , a n d t h e p a i r i n g d i d n o t b e c o m e important
u n t i l t h e r e i g n o f P h i l o p a t o r ( 2 2 1 - 2 0 5 B.C.), t h e first P t o l e m y t o s t y l e h i m s e l f jVeos Dionysos a n d t o
h a v e h i m s e l f p o r t r a y e d b y s c u l p t o r s as w e a r i n g t h e r a m ' s h o r n s o f A m m o n ( C l e m e n t , Protr. 4 . 5 4 . 2 - 3 ) .
See, h o w e v e r , a g a i n s t t h i s v i e w , A . B . C o o k , ^eus t ( C a m b r i d g e 1914) 3 7 1 - 7 6 . w h o a r g u e s t h a t t h e
a s s o c i a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e t w o g o d s is p r e - A l e x a n d r i a n .
3 4
A terminus ante quern is p r o v i d e d b y E u h e m e r u s ' Sacred Chronicle, suggested d a t e s f o r w h i c h r a n g e
f r o m s o m e t i m e i n t h e 290's ( T a r n , ProcBrilAc 1 9 . 1 6 5 - 6 6 ) t o ca. 2 7 0 ( G . V a l l a u r i , " E u e m e r o d i
M e s s e n e , T e s t i m o n i a n z e e f r a m m e n t i , " PubblTorino 8.3 [ 1 9 5 6 ] 5 ) ; cf. t h e s u r v e y i n v a n d e r M e e r ,
Euhemerus van Messene 9 - 1 2 . T h e terminus post quern m u s t be t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f a G r e e k d y n a s t y i n
E g y p t , i n a s m u c h as p a r t o f w h a t is s a i d i n D i o d o r u s 1.11-29 a b o u t t h e e a r l y g o d - k i n g s m u s t b e r e a d
as L a g i d p r o p a g a n d a . T h i s d a t i n g a p p l i e s , o f c o u r s e , o n l y t o t h e p o r t i o n o f D i o d o r u s w h i c h is
p a r a l l e l e d i n E u h e m e r u s a n d L e o ; a n d t h o u g h these c h a p t e r s p r e s u p p o s e t h e e x i s t e n c e o f ouranioi
theoi a n d m u s t b e f r o m a w o r k i n w h i c h s o m e a t t e n t i o n w a s p a i d t o t h e m , i t n e e d n o t f o l l o w t h a t t h e
discussion o f t h e m was i d e n t i c a l w i t h t h e o n e w h i c h n o w appears i n 1.11.2-12.1 o. S p o e r r i has
a r g u e d (175-88), at times q u i t e persuasively, for t h e late Hellenistic character o f a n u m b e r o f things
i n t h i s s e c t i o n ; h o w e v e r , w e a r e so m u c h b e t t e r i n f o r m e d a b o u t Spdthellenismus t h a n a b o u t its i m -
m e d i a t e predecessor t h a t i t is d a n g e r o u s t o a s s u m e t h a t t h e ideas t o w h i c h S p o e r r i calls a t t e n t i o n
could n o t h a v e a p p e a r e d a t a n e a r l i e r d a t e .
3 6
T h e identification goes b a c k to Schwartz (RhM 4 0 . 2 2 3 - 3 2 ; RE 9 . 6 7 0 - 7 2 ) a n d has b e e n
r e c e n t l y r e a f f i r m e d ( a g a i n s t t h e o b j e c t i o n s o f S p o e r r i , 1 6 4 - 2 1 1 ) b y V a l l a u r i , PubblTorino 12, N o . 5,
6 - 1 7 , a n d N o c k , CR 1 2 . 5 0 - 5 1 . S p o e r r i ' s c e n t r a l c o n t e n t i o n , t h a t t h e p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n t h e E g y p t i a n
t h e o l o g y o f D i o d o r u s a n d o t h e r passages ( e l s e w h e r e i n B o o k I a n d i n D i o g e n e s L a e r t i u s ) o f k n o w n
Hecataean o r i g i n to w h i c h Schwartz called a t t e n t i o n arc too b r i e f o r t o o u n c e r t a i n to be o f a n y
s i g n i f i c a n c e , seems t o m e q u i t e j u s t i f i e d . B u t t h e H e c a t a e a n o r i g i n o f t h e p o r t i o n o f t h e theologoumena
w i t h w h i c h w e are concerned c a n be fairly w e l l established o n g r o u n d s n o t considered b y Schwartz
o r S p o e r r i . O n e o f these is c h r o n o l o g i c a l : b e t w e e n A r i s t a g o r a s o f M i l e t u s (FGrH 608), w h o wrote
before A l e x a n d e r ( S c h w a r t z , " A r i s t a g o r a s , " RE 3 [ 1 8 9 6 ] 8 5 0 ) , a n d E u h e m e r u s t h e o n l y w r i t e r s
w h o are k n o w n to have composed A e g y p t i a c a are Hecataeus a n d , possibly, L e o a n d M a n e t h o . L e o
c a n n o t , as w e h a v e seen, b e D i o d o r u s ' s o u r c e ; a n d i t is h a r d l y l i k e l y t h a t M a n e t h o ' s w o r k w o u l d
h a v e p r e s e n t e d t h e e a r l i e s t E g y p t i a n k i n g s i n so t h o r o u g h l y H e l l e n i c a g u i s e . S p o e r r i , i t is t r u e ,
 I 60 D E M O C R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

a u t h o r , o r i f t h e t r a d i t i o n w h i c h m a k e s h i m a f o l l o w e r o f D e m o c r i t u s rests
o n n o t h i n g m o r e t h a n i n f e r e n c e f r o m his p l a c e o f b i r t h , 3 6
the character o f the
w o r k a n d i t s d a t e o f c o m p o s i t i o n w e r e s u c h as t o f a v o r use o f D e m o c r i t e a n
m a t e r i a l . C o n f r o n t e d w i t h t h e task o f p r e s e n t i n g t o his c o m p a t r i o t s , p r o b a b l y
for the first t i m e , the E g y p t i a n t r a d i t i o n o f pre-dynastic god-kings and of
m a k i n g i t understandable to t h e m , our author c o u l d a n d d i d d r a w o n a
n u m b e r o f beliefs a n d p r a c t i c e s a l r e a d y c u r r e n t i n G r e e k r e l i g i o n : t h e n o t i o n
o f c e r t a i n gods ( t w o o f w h o m , D e m e t e r a n d D i o n y s u s , h a d t h e i r equivalents
i n t h e E g y p t i a n k i n g l i s t ) as p a t r o n s o r i n v e n t o r s o f t h e arts o n w h i c h c i v i l i z a -
tion rests (cf. P l a t o , Politicus 274.CD); the custom of awarding divine or

argues that the dynastic succession of 1.13.2-5 derives partially from Manetho (195, with note 33
and addendum, p. 2 2 2 ) . But the argument is not persuasive. The succession given by Diodorus is
Helios (or "as some say" Hephaestus), Cronus and Rhea, Osiris and Isis (or "according to most"
Zeus and Hera followed by Isis and Osiris), Horus. Manetho has the sequence Hephaestus, Helios,
(Sosis?), Cronus-Rhea, Isis-Osiris, Typhon, Horus (FGrH 6 o g F 3 a , 4, 5 , 2 7 ) . While it is possible to
regard Diodorus' list as a conflation of Manetho's with another tradition, there is no need to do so.
The lists of both authors reflect native tradition: cf. the parallel succession Ptah, R a , Su, Geb
( = Cronus), Osiris, Set ( = Typhon), Horus found in the Turin papyrus ( E . Meyer, "Ägyptische
Chronologie," AbhBerlin 1904, 1.115—17). A l l three lists seem to have something to do with the
enumerations of the principal deities which appear on Egyptian monuments. T h e fluctuation found
there between lists headed by Ptah (Lower Egypt) or one of the sun gods Amon-Ra, Mantu, Atum
(Upper Egypt)—see R . Lepsius, " Ü b e r den ersten Ägyptischen Götterkreis und seine geschichtlich-
mythologische Entstehung," AbhBerlin 1851, 1 6 7 - 9 6 ; G . Maspero, " S u r les Dynasties Divines de
l'Ancienne Egypte," Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch. 12 (1890) 419—24; K . H . Sethe, "Beiträge zur ältesten
Geschichte Ä g y p t e n s , " Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Altertumskunde Ägyptens 3 (1905) 9—shows
that a conflation of different native traditions may lie behind the presence of both Hephaestus
( = Ptah) and Helios ( = Ra) at the head of Diodorus' list (cf. Jacoby, FGrH I l i a 8 4 . 1 6 - 8 5 . 8 ) ; and
a comparable conflation of Greek and Egyptian genealogy may account for the uncertainty as to
the exact position of Zeus in the succession (Greek feeling would favor his insertion between the
Geb-Cronus and Osiris-Dionysus of Egyptian tradition). Either or both pairs of variants could have
appeared in almost any Aegyptiaca (so Vulcan figures as the first king in Leo as well as Manetho,
and another succession—Nile-Hephaestus-Helios—is found in Cicero, ND 3 . 5 4 - 5 5 , Arnobius 4.14,
and D . L . 1.1).

Also worth noting in favor of a Hecataean origin for 1.11 ff. are the parallels between these chap-
ters and Theophrastus ap. Porphyry De abst. 2.5 ( = /7epl evoeßeias, F r . 2 Pötscher). The Egyptians,
according to Theophrastus, first fed on grass (cf. Diodorus 1.43.1), offering the first fruits of their
trophe to the ouranioi theoi (cf. 1.11.1). T h e custom of offering meal at sacrifice is a survival of a later
stage of dietary development (cf. 1.14.2: the custom of offering first fruits of the harvest to Isis cited
as proof of her discovery of grain). T h e Aegyptiaca of Hecataeus was the most up-to-date source of
information on Egypt in Theophrastus' day, and it would have been natural for him to use it. This
and other parallels between Theophrastus and the Egyptian KulturgeschiclUe of Diodorus I (see
W. Jaeger, Diodes von Karystos [Berlin 1938] 123-32) point to a common source in Hecataeus.
Comparable parallels between Diodorus and the Jewish archaeologia which we know to have appeared
in the Aegyptiaca point to a similar conclusion. Moses' position in Jewish prehistory is essentially
that of Osiris in Egyptian: he is a benefactor of the race, the founder of the first city, and the intro-
ducer of the first religion (FGrH 2 6 4 F 6 , p. 1 4 . 1 0 - 1 7 ) . Only the end of his career, for obvious reasons,
is different from that of his Egyptian counterpart.
T h e "tradition" itself exists in a single passage (Clement, Strom. 2.130.4—6), where Hecataeus'
3 6

views on the telos are given along with those of other Abderites.
 T H E H E I R S O F D E M O C R I T U S 161

semi-divine honors to m o r t a l benefactors; t h e recent deification o f A l e x a n d e r

and h i s g l o r i f i c a t i o n — p r o b a b l y b e g i n n i n g even d u r i n g h i s l i f e t i m e — a s t h e
equal or superior o f D i o n y s u s . 3 7
Y e t i n n o area o f G r e e k t h o u g h t c o u l d h e
h a v e f o u n d so m u c h m a t e r i a l t o s u i t h i s p u r p o s e as i n D e m o c r i t e a n Kultur-
geschichte. F o r once t h e d i v i n e c r a f t s m a n a n d t h e d e i f i e d m o r t a l euergetes o f
G r e e k t r a d i t i o n h a d b e e n fused i n t o a single p e r s o n a l i t y , 3 8
a n d t h e t y p e so
created identified w i t h t h e pre-dynastic god-kings, E g y p t i a n t r a d i t i o n was
m o s t easily r a t i o n a l i z e d i n a c o n t e x t suggested b y D e m o c r i t u s . T h e d i s t i n c ­
t i o n o b s e r v e d b y t h e l a t t e r b e t w e e n h i s t o r y a n d p r e - h i s t o r y (see a b o v e , p . 4 4 )
c o u l d be equated w i t h t h a t separating t h e dynastic a n d pre-dynastic periods
o f t h e E g y p t i a n m o n a r c h y ; because o f its emphasis o n t h e i n d i v i d u a l m o m e n t
i n t h e c u l t u r a l process D e m o c r i t u s ' r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f p r e - h i s t o r y w a s easily
b r o k e n d o w n i n t o a series o f episodes i n v o l v i n g d i f f e r e n t g o d s ; its n o t i o n o f
t h e o r i g i n a l b e n e f a c t o r - k i n g c o u l d b e t a k e n o v e r w i t h o u t essential c h a n g e ; 3 9

and its p e r v a d i n g a t m o s p h e r e o f mythos (see a b o v e , p p . 145-47)—which

w o u l d have made i t sound old-fashioned i f p r o p o u n d e d i n direct c o m p e t i t i o n
w i t h the more " m o d e r n " anthropology o f Academics a n d Peripatetics—was
e m i n e n t l y suitable i n a n account presented, as those f o u n d i n D i o d o r u s '
source a n d subsequent e u h e m e r i s t texts r e g u l a r l y a r e , i n t h e guise o f n a t i v e
t r a d i t i o n preserved f r o m t i m e i m m e m o r i a l i n priestly a r c h i v e s . 4 0
N o r were
t h e p r o p a g a n d i s t i c ends o f o u r a u t h o r (see a b o v e , n o t e 3 4 ) i l l served b y his
D e m o c r i t e a n m o d e l . I t s p i c t u r e o f t h e progressive e x p a n s i o n o f a n o r i g i n a l
social a n d e c o n o m i c u n i t w a s doubtless, o n c e t r a n s f o r m e d i n t o a n a c c o u n t
of the t r i u m p h a l c i v i l i z i n g e x p e d i t i o n o f a n Osiris o r Dionysus, most welcome
at the c o u r t o f a p r i n c e w h o l a i d c l a i m t o be t h e heir t o the universalism o f
A l e x a n d e r a n d w o u l d h a v e r e g a r d e d these gods as his p r o t o t y p e s . 4 1

3 7
See above, note 2 4 , and the tradition regarding Anaxarchus preserved in D . L . g . 6 o = VS
72A1, and Arrian, Anab. 4 . 1 0 . 5 = VS 7 2 A 6 .
3 8
This fusion may, of course, have already been effected by l'rodicus—see above, note 27.
3 9
Here, however, Democritus need not have been the only or even the most immediate model.
Cf. Aristotle, Pol. 3 . 1 2 8 5 B 6 - 9 , which makes the first rulers benefactors of society and includes in
their number discoverers of technology; and, even more strikingly, Lycurgus, l^ocr. 8 8 , on the
isotheoi limai paid to early kings of Athens because of their services to the city.
4 0
It is possible, of course, that the new mode of presentation was partially suggested by references
to oriental tradition in Democritus' own writings. Cf. the two doubtfully authentic titles IJcpi τών
cv Βαβυλώνι Ιερών γραμμάτων (B2g8b) and Περί τών ev Meporj (Ιερών γραμμάτων)) ( B 2 g g a ) ; and,
for the possibility that Kulturgeschichte—m the form of a Democritean theory of the origin of writing—
was part of the contents of these works, see R . Eisler, " Z u Demokrits Wanderjahren," AGP 31 (1918)
204-11.
4 1
This application of the Kulturgeschichte of Democritus may have already been present in the
work of his follower Anaxarchus, a contemporary and friend of Alexander and author of a Peri
basileias (VS 7 2 B 1 - 2 ) . For his glorification of Alexander as the equal of Dionysus sec the references
given above, note 3 7 ; and for the general similarity of outlook uniting him and Euhemerus, Kaerst,
Geschichle des Hellenismus 2 . i g i .
2
 162 D E M O C R I T U S AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

Yet the modifications w h i c h transformed Democritean anthropology into

E g y p t i a n t h e o l o g y w e r e , i f easy t o m a k e , o f f a r - r e a c h i n g c o n s e q u e n c e . T h e y
i n v o l v e d n o t h i n g less t h a n a f u n d a m e n t a l c h a n g e i n t h e h i s t o r i a n ' s e n t i r e
m e t a p h o r . T h e w o r k i n g s o f t h e c u l t u r a l process as D e m o c r i t u s views t h e m
are a n a l o g o u s t o those o f a d e m o c r a t i c a s s e m b l y : i n d i v i d u a l suggestions are
b r o u g h t f o r w a r d , t h e n t a k e n u p , m o d i f i e d , a n d a m e n d e d b y o t h e r speakers
and finely a c c e p t e d o r r e j e c t e d b y t h e w h o l e plethos. D i o d o r u s ' source shifts
the scene t o t h e p a l a c e a n d t h e c o u r t ; a n d t h e r e b y t h e b e g i n n i n g s o f h u m a n
culture are made over i n the image o f Ptolemaic Egypt. 4 2

T h e c o n t r a s t is g r e a t , b u t n o t so g r e a t as i t w a s l a t e r t o b e c o m e . F o r
social factors are n o t a l t o g e t h e r e l i m i n a t e d f r o m t h e perspective o f D i o d o r u s
ι. 11 ff. I n t h e e a r l y h i s t o r y o f t h e h u m a n race as t h e r e c o n c e i v e d , popular
s e n t i m e n t plays a d e f i n i t e , i f m i n o r , r o l e ; a n d o n o c c a s i o n t h e k i n g - g o d e v e n
ceases f o r a m o m e n t t o b e a b e n e f a c t o r o p e r a t i n g a p a r t f r o m t h e n o r m a l
w o r k i n g s o f society a n d becomes a n i n d i v i d u a l b o u n d t o serve society b y a
sort o f i m p l i c i t c o m p a c t w h i c h w o r k s t o t h e a d v a n t a g e o f b o t h . 4 3
Euhemerus,
b y c o n t r a s t , presents i n his sociology as w e l l as i n his t h e o l o g y a more
r a d i c a l revision o f earlier t h o u g h t . T h e theory o f deified kings b y w h i c h
D i o d o r u s ' source e x p l a i n e d a p o r t i o n o f t h e E g y p t i a n p a n t h e o n is a p p l i e d
b y Euhemerus to a l l , or nearly a l l , o f the Greek p a n t h e o n : the Hellenistic
m o n a r c h , h a v i n g first o c c u p i e d t h e p o s i t i o n s o f D i o n y s u s , H e r a c l e s , a n d t h e
E g y p t i a n O s i r i s , is n o w i n s t a l l e d i n t h e seat o f Z e u s h i m s e l f . 4 4
A n d w i t h this
n e w c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e o r i g i n o f t h e gods goes a n e w v i e w o f t h e agents i n t h e
process o f apotheosis. I n the account used b y D i o d o r u s these a r e t w o :
p o p u l a r s e n t i m e n t , w h i c h r e w a r d s benefactors l i k e Isis a n d O s i r i s w i t h g o d -
h o o d , a n d t h e a c t i o n o f t h e kings t h e m s e l v e s — O s i r i s ' establishing o f temples
to h i s ancestors. T h e first e x p l a n a t i o n is l a r g e l y a b a n d o n e d b y E u h e m e r u s
( U r a n u s owes his k i n g d o m b u t n o t his g o d h o o d t o p o p u l a r s e n t i m e n t ) 4 5
and
for i t a n o t h e r is s u b s t i t u t e d — Z e u s ' o w n s e l f - d e i f i c a t i o n ( L a c t a n t i u s , Inst. div.

O n the transformation described here see Kaerst, Geschichte des Hellenismus 2 . 3 2 2 - 2 5 .

4 2
2

Cf. 1.90.2 (from the passage already discussed, above, pp. 6 4 - 6 7 , and Chap. V I , note 2 0 ) :
4 3

the Egyptians are especially given to rewarding benefactors, hoping thereby to encourage others to
imitate their example; and cf. 1.43.6: the story of an original dynasty of benefactor kings may be no
more than a useful fiction cultivated to make successors imitate their example.
4 4
For what may be the starting point, in Democritean theory, for this innovation of Euhemerus,
see Appendix I V .
4 5
Popular sentiment is not altogether eliminated from consideration, for the theory presupposes
among the masses a tendency to show awe and reverence for power. But the initiative in all instances
comes from above, even if it is only in the form of action calculated to lead to deification: cf. Sextus,
Adv. math. 9.17 ( — FGrH 6 3 T 4 C ) : 01 περιγενόμενοι των άλλων . . . σπουδάζοντες μείζονος θαυμασμού
και σεμνότητας τυχεΐν άνέπλασαν περι αυτούς . . . θείαν δύναμιν. (The only report of Euhemerus'
doctrine which suggests a direct popular apotheosis is the very summary statement of Sextus, Adv.
math. 9 . 5 1 = FGrH e^T^b.)
 T H E HEIRS O F DEMOCRITUS 163

1.22.2 ff.=FGrH 63F23). 4 6

T h e t e n d e n c y is c l e a r : t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e b e g i n -
n i n g s o f c u l t u r e a n d r e l i g i o n is c o m i n g t o be seen m o r e a n d m o r e as a h i s t o r y
o f d y n a s t i c p o l i t i c s . A n d t h e t e n d e n c y was to c o n t i n u e a n d g r o w m o r e p r o -
n o u n c e d . E v i d e n t i n L e o as w e l l , 4 7
i t p r o d u c e s i n t h e Libyca o f Dionysius
Scytobrachion 4 8
a w o r k i n w h i c h the r o m a n t i c a n d fantastic adventures of
t h e d i v i n e r o y a l house are a l m o s t t h e sole focus o f i n t e r e s t .
The E g y p t i a n r e w o r k i n g o f D e m o c r i t e a n Kulturgeschichte a n d its f u r t h e r
transformation by Euhemerus a n d his f o l l o w e r s b r o u g h t i t f a i r l y quickly
t o a stage o f d e v e l o p m e n t i n w h i c h its basic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were barely
recognizable. T h e r e was, h o w e v e r , a n o t h e r r e a l m o f H e l l e n i s t i c t h o u g h t i n
w h i c h D e m o c r i t e a n a n t h r o p o l o g y was f o u n d s e r v i c e a b l e , a n d t h e r e , as w e
s h a l l see, a n t h r o p o l o g y was b e t t e r a b l e t o h o l d its o w n .

3. PHILOSOPHY AND POLITICS (POLYBIUS, T H E A C A D E M Y , NAUSIPHANES)

I f t h e i m m e d i a t e source f o r t h e D e m o c r i t e a n m a t e r i a l w h i c h a p p e a r s i n
P o l y b i u s is t o be s o u g h t i n a n y o f t h e m a j o r H e l l e n i s t i c p h i l o s o p h i c a l schools
t h e m o s t l i k e l y c h o i c e w o u l d be t h e A c a d e m y . T h e Democritean text or
texts w h i c h served as a m o d e l f o r Laws I I I c o u l d w e l l have r e m a i n e d i n the
l i b r a r y o f t h e s c h o o l , w h e n c e P o l y b i u s h i m s e l f o r , m o r e p r o b a b l y , some m e m -
ber of the Academy—one uninfluenced by Plato's reinterpretation of
D e m o c r i t u s — c o u l d h a v e b e c o m e a c q u a i n t e d w i t h i t a n d m a d e use o f i t t o
p r o d u c e t h e Kulturgeschichte t h a t appears i n Book V I . T h i s A c a d e m i c c o u l d
h a r d l y h a v e b e e n o n e o f P l a t o ' s i m m e d i a t e successors, b u t his p o i n t o f v i e w
fits w e l l e n o u g h w i t h some o f t h e t e a c h i n g o f t h e M i d d l e A c a d e m y . 4 9
In
p a r t i c u l a r , t h e g e n e a l o g y o f m o r a l s w h i c h he w o u l d , o n t h i s t h e o r y , h a v e
t r a n s m i t t e d t o P o l y b i u s has a f a i r l y c l e a r p a r a l l e l i n C a r n e a d e s . T h e l a t t e r
was responsible f o r a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f t h e p r i n c i p a l H e l l e n i s t i c e t h i c a l systems
w h i c h was s u b s e q u e n t l y t a k e n o v e r b y A n t i o c h u s a n d used f r e q u e n t l y i n
C i c e r o (cf. Ac. 2 . 1 3 0 - 3 1 ; Fin. 2.33-43; 4-49-5°; 5- ~22;
l 6
Tusc. 5.84-85;
Leg. 1 . 3 7 - 3 9 ) . T h e s t a r t i n g p o i n t f o r this Carneadea divisio are d i v e r g e n c e s i n
a t t i t u d e t o w a r d t h e basic telos o f h u m a n a c t i v i t y — t h a t w h i c h is aptum et

4 6
R e g a r d e d b y S c h w a r t z (RhM 4 0 . 2 6 0 ) a n d J a c o b y (RE 14.2759) as t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a n d dis-
t i n g u i s h i n g f e a t u r e o f E u h e m e r i s m . T h e i n n o v a t i o n is c e r t a i n l y i n d i c a t i v e o f t h e basic t e n d e n c y o f
E u h e m e r u s ' d o c t r i n e s , b u t i t does n o t seem t o m e t o be as i m p o r t a n t as his e x t e n s i o n o f t h e c a t e g o r y
o f epigeioi theoi t o i n c l u d e m a j o r m e m b e r s o f t h e G r e e k p a n t h e o n . Gf. V a l l a u r i , PubblTorino 12, N o . 5,
15: " l ' a u t o d i v i n i z z a z i o n e segne l ' u l t i m o passo d e l l ' e u e m e r i s m o , n o n g i a i l p r i m o . "
4 7
T h e c h a n g e s w h i c h a r e i n t r o d u c e d i n t o L e o ' s a c c o u n t o f t h e d i s c o v e r y o f g r a i n (see above,
p . 158) h a v e t h e effect o f t r a n s f o r m i n g a n episode i n v o l v i n g r u l e r a n d demos i n t o o n e i n w h i c h a l l
p a r t i c i p a n t s are m e m b e r s o f the r o y a l house. " t
4 8
O n t h e g e n e r a l c h a r a c t e r o f D i o n y s i u s ' a c c o u n t , see V a l l a u r i , PubblTorino 12, N o . 5 , J & ' - ^ B I , l ^ ' - S
4 9
The affinities between Polybius a n d the M i d d l e Academy a r e discussed by Ppgj^rfianli, v
' \
Poseidonios' metaphysische Schriften 1.19-25. J<i / | n s ;

de
 164 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

accommodatum naturae . . . et tale ut ipsum per se invitaret et alliceret appetitum

animi, quern όρμήν Graeci vocant (Fin. 5.17; cf. όρμώντων κατά φΰσιν a t the
b e g i n n i n g o f P o l y b i u s ' a c c o u n t o f t h e o r i g i n o f m o r a l i t y , 6 . 6 . 2 ) . Since r i g h t
c o n d u c t is c o n d u c t d i r e c t e d t o w a r d t h i s e n d , t h e e t h i c a l p o s i t i o n o f e a c h
s c h o o l is closely d e p e n d e n t o n its c o n c e p t i o n o f w h a t t h e e n d i s — p l e a s u r e ,
for e x a m p l e ( A r i s t i p p u s ) , o r absence o f p a i n ( H i e r o n y m u s ) , o r c e r t a i n prota
kata physin s u c h as h e a l t h , p e r s o n a l safety, f r e e d o m f r o m p a i n , s t r e n g t h , a n d
b e a u t y ( t h e Stoics, C a r n e a d e s h i m s e l f , a n d , w i t h m o d i f i c a t i o n s , the Peri­
p a t e t i c s a n d A c a d e m i c s ) . T h e Stoics d i f f e r f r o m C a r n e a d e s i n t h a t t h e y m a k e
t h e a i m o f r i g h t c o n d u c t , n o t t h e prota kata physin themselves, b u t m e r e l y the
pursuit of them (presumably because t h e honestum, t h o u g h i t comes i n t o
b e i n g as a p a r t o f t h e l a t e r phases o f m a n ' s p u r s u i t o f t h e prota kata physin, is
so i m p o r t a n t t h a t a c t u a l a t t a i n m e n t o f t h e l a t t e r becomes i n c i d e n t a l ; see
a b o v e , p . 139). F o r C a r n e a d e s , h o w e v e r — t h o u g h t h e v i e w was advanced,
a c c o r d i n g t o C i c e r o , non tarn ut probaret quam ut Stoicis quibuscum bellum gerebat
opponeret (Fin. 2.42, cf. Ac. 2.131)—honestum r e m a i n s a means only. The
fines r e c o g n i z e d b y h i m are, l i k e those o f A r i s t i p p u s , expertes honestatis (Fin.
2-35)·
I t is o b v i o u s t h a t t h e m o r a l ennoiai w h o s e o r i g i n is d e s c r i b e d i n P o l y b i u s
VI b e a r a d e f i n i t e r e s e m b l a n c e t o t h i s honestum o f C a r n e a d e s . L i k e i t , t h e y
are a s e c o n d a r y p h e n o m e n o n , a p a r t o f a system w h i c h f a c i l i t a t e s t h e a t t a i n ­
m e n t o f c e r t a i n prota kata physin—sexual satisfaction, security f r o m outside
a t t a c k , a p p r o b a t i o n o f one's f e l l o w s — w h i c h are themselves expertes honestatis.
T h e t w o p o s i t i o n s are n o t i d e n t i c a l . A m o n g C a r n e a d e s ' prota kata physin
are t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y S t o i c ones i n v o l v i n g t h e o r g a n i s m ' s consciousness
o f its o w n b e i n g : s e l f - p r e s e r v a t i o n , sensus integri, ingeni motus (Fin. 2.34-35);
a n d t h e w h o l e t h e o r y is c o u c h e d i n S t o i c t e r m i n o l o g y 5 0
o f w h i c h t h e r e is
o n l y t h e b a r e s t t r a c e i n P o l y b i u s (see A p p e n d i x I I I ) . T h e r e s u l t is a n a r g u ­
m e n t w h i c h t u r n s t h e S t o i c oikeidsis d o c t r i n e a g a i n s t i t s e l f i n as s t r i k i n g a
f a s h i o n as p o s s i b l e : t h e v e r y prota kata physin w h i c h h a d been the starting
p o i n t o f a n idealist m o r a l i t y become the f i n a l object of a t o t a l l y u t i l i t a r i a n
one. Carneades is here displaying that perverseness and fondness for
p o l e m i c w h i c h is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f h i m , a n d o f w h i c h t h e r e is n o t r a c e i n
Polybius.
O n e m a y thus exclude the possibility o f direct b o r r o w i n g f r o m Carneades.
B u t i t is possible t h a t b o t h w r i t e r s are i n f l u e n c e d b y a c o m m o n source, a n
e a r l i e r A c a d e m i c discussion w h i c h C a r n e a d e s has c l o t h e d i n S t o i c t e r m i n o ­
l o g y f o r p u r p o s e s o f p o l e m i c . T h e suggestion is consistent w i t h w h a t w e k n o w
( a d m i t t e d l y v e r y l i t t l e ) o f A r c e s i l a u s , w h o , l i k e his successor, a t t a c k e d S t o i c
dogmatism, b u t , unlike h i m , d i d not acquire a reputation for dialectical
5 0
See M . Pohlenz, AbhGottingen Folg. 3 , 26.15-16.
 T H E HEIRS OF DEMOCRITUS

s e n s a t i o n a l i s m . I t is u n l i k e l y t h a t A r c e s i l a u s ' s c e p t i c i s m w o u l d h a v e a l l o w e d
h i m to accept a fully developed theory o f c u l t u r a l origins o f the sort w h i c h
Polybius proposes; b u t such a t h e o r y c o u l d w e l l have been offered b y h i m
disserendi causa—as a sort o f c o n t r a s t e d logos t o t h e i d e a l i s t a n d t e l e o l o g i c a l
t r e a t m e n t s o f t h e same subject p u t f o r w a r d b y Stoics a n d P e r i p a t e t i c s . W e
k n o w f r o m C i c e r o (Top. 8 2 ; cf. Part. orat. 62) t h a t i n t h e first c e n t u r y t h e
q u e s t i o n , a naturane ius profectum sit an ab aliqua quasi condicione hominum et
pactione, was a s t a n d a r d thesis i n t h e A c a d e m i c course o f r h e t o r i c ; a n d t h e
p r a c t i c e o f a r g u i n g o n b o t h sides o f a q u e s t i o n was o n e i n t r o d u c e d i n t o t h e
A c a d e m y b y Arcesilaus ( D . L . 4.28).
T h e e v i d e n c e a d v a n c e d t h u s f a r shows t h a n a n A c a d e m i c source f o r t h e
D e m o c r i t e a n m a t e r i a l i n P o l y b i u s is a t least p o s s i b l e ; 5 1
a n d t h e r e are c e r t a i n
things i n Polybius' o w n w o r k w h i c h make such a t h e o r y very attractive. By
accepting i t we can account for Polybius' rather puzzling statement (6.5.1)
t h a t his t h e o r y o f t h e rise a n d f a l l o f states is p r e s e n t e d " i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l i n
P l a t o a n d c e r t a i n o t h e r a u t h o r s " — a s t a t e m e n t w h i c h reveals a n y t h i n g b u t a
direct acquaintance w i t h P l a t o , b u t w h i c h w o u l d be n a t u r a l e n o u g h i n
reference t o a t h e o r y d e r i v e d f r o m a n A c a d e m i c t e a c h e r , t h e e x a c t source o f
w h i c h P o l y b i u s d i d n o t k n o w ; w e c a n a c c o u n t f o r t h e a e t i o l o g i c a l perspec­
t i v e whose presence i n P o l y b i u s ' a c c o u n t has a l r e a d y b e e n n o t e d (above,
p . 1 2 9 ) — f o r i t w o u l d h a v e b e e n as a n aetiology o f m o r a l ennoiai t h a t a piece o f
Democritean Kulturgeschichte f o u n d its w a y into the discussions of the
A c a d e m y ; a n d w e c a n also a c c o u n t f o r t h e f a c t t h a t t h e A c a d e m y is t h e o n l y
c o n t e m p o r a r y school w h i c h P o l y b i u s m e n t i o n s b y n a m e . T h e passage i n
q u e s t i o n (12.26c) is c r i t i c a l — a n a t t a c k o n t h e νπερβολήν τής παραδοξολογίας
i n w h i c h its m e m b e r s i n d u l g e d . B u t t h e p o i n t o f v i e w P o l y b i u s a d o p t s is
n o t so m u c h t h a t o f t h e d o g m a t i s t w h o rejects a l l d o u b t as t h a t o f t h e m o d e ­
r a t e sceptic w h o finds t h a t even τά καλώς άπορούμενα ( 2 6 0 3 ) are b r o u g h t
i n t o d i s c r e d i t b y a n excessive use o f t h e m e t h o d . T h e passage c a n be t a k e n ,
t h e r e f o r e , as a p r o t e s t o f f e r e d b y one s y m p a t h e t i c i n g e n e r a l t o t h e s c h o o l
a g a i n s t some o f t h e e x t r e m e p o s i t i o n s i t a d o p t e d . F i n a l l y , o n e s h o u l d n o t e
t h a t i t was A c a d e m i c p h i l o s o p h y o f a sort w h i c h was m o s t i n t i m a t e l y l i n k e d
w i t h the history o f the A c h a e a n league, i n the person o f Polybius' fellow-
townsmen Ecdemus a n d Megalophanes. 5 2
T h e t w o m e n w e r e disciples o f
A r c e s i l a u s , f r i e n d s a n d p o l i t i c a l advisors o f A r a t u s o f S i c y o n (Plutarch,
Aratus 5 a n d 7 ) , teachers o f P h i l o p o e m e n ( P o l y b i u s 1 0 . 2 2 . 2 ) , a n d , a c c o r d i n g
5 1
Doxographical tradition, for what it is worth, links Arcesilaus to Democritus via Pyrrhon of
Elis. Cf. Clement, Strom. 1.64 (Pyrrhon and Democritus); D . L . 9.61 = VS 7 2 A 2 (Pyrrhon the pupil
of the Democritean Anaxarchus); D . L . 4 . 3 3 (Arcesilaus and Pyrrhon); and D. L . g.i 14—15
(Arcesilaus and Pyrrhon's pupil Timon—on whose fondness for the works of Democritus see D . L .
9-67)·
5 2
O r Ecdelus and Demophanes; see R E s. v. (10.2159 a n
d 2 Ι
9· 43)·
166 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

to P l u t a r c h (Philopoemen i ) , " f o r e m o s t i n t h e i r t i m e a m o n g those w h o a p p l i e d

the teachings o f p h i l o s o p h y to politics a n d p r a c t i c a l affairs." T h e b o d y o f
t r a d i t i o n w h i c h lies b e h i n d B o o k V I c o u l d h a v e b e e n e x p e c t e d , g i v e n t h e
t h e o r y o f e x p a n d i n g p o l i t i c a l a n d social koinoniai w h i c h i t embodies (see
above, p p . 107-10, 115-16), to have a p a r t i c u l a r appeal for Aratus a n d
P h i l o p o e m e n ; f o r t h e y w e r e t h e t w o m e n l a r g e l y responsible f o r t h e p o l i c y
u n d e r w h i c h the A c h a e a n league grew f r o m p u r e l y ethnic beginnings i n t o
a c o n f e d e r a t i o n whose a i m i t was t o m a k e t h e e n t i r e Peloponnesus o n e
polish T h e h e i r t o t h i s p o l i t i c a l p r o g r a m was P o l y b i u s ' f a t h e r Lycortas.
P o l y b i u s h i m s e l f was f a m i l i a r w i t h A r a t u s ' M e m o i r s , 5 4
a n d he m u s t h a v e
learned s o m e t h i n g a b o u t the views o f Ecdemus a n d Megalophanes w h e n he
c o m p o s e d h i s l a u d a t o r y life o f t h e i r p u p i l P h i l o p o e m e n . 5 5

T h e last p i e c e o f e v i d e n c e is i m p o r t a n t i n t h a t i t suggests t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f
p o l i t i c a l as w e l l as p h i l o s o p h i c a l a f f i n i t y b e t w e e n P o l y b i u s a n d t h e A c a d e m y .
T h e t w o cornerstones o f A r a t u s ' policies w e r e s u p p o r t o f r e p u b l i c a n regimes
against t y r a n n i e s a n d u n i f i c a t i o n o f t h e Peloponnese. A s i m i l a r p o l i t i c a l
p r o g r a m emerges f r o m t h e t h i r d b o o k o f t h e Laws, w h i c h is d e v o t e d i n p a r t
to s h o w i n g h o w a h i g h l y d e s i r a b l e a r r a n g e m e n t — t h e o r i g i n a l u n i t y o f t h e
Peloponnese u n d e r the H e r a c l i d s — w a s d e s t r o y e d because o f t h e f a i l u r e o f
two o f t h e o r i g i n a l t h r e e D o r i a n states t o p r o v i d e a d e q u a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l
safeguards a g a i n s t t y r a n n i c a l abuses o f p o w e r by their rulers. 5 6
And if
Ecdemus a n d Megalophanes c o u l d have f o u n d support for their p r o g r a m
i n Laws I I I , so t o o c o u l d t h e y h a v e f o u n d s u p p o r t f o r t h e i r v i e w t h a t p h i l o ­
sophy a n d p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n p u b l i c life w e n t t o g e t h e r . Behind the whole
a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l a n d h i s t o r i c a l excursus o f t h a t b o o k lies t h e same c o n v i c t i o n
which is responsible for the anthropological a n d h i s t o r i c a l excursus o f
P o l y b i u s V I — n a m e l y , t h a t t h e past h i s t o r y o f p o l i t i c a l regimes as s t u d i e d b y
t h e p h i l o s o p h e r c o n t a i n s lessons o f v i t a l i m p o r t a n c e f o r t h e m a n w h o w o u l d
i n a u g u r a t e o r g u i d e a successful p o l i t i c a l r e g i m e h i m s e l f . .

5 3
For the possible "philosophical" roots of this political program see Plutarch's statement that
Ecdemus and Megalophanes educated their pupil at? κοινόν όφελος rfj Ελλάδι τον άνδρα τούτον από
φιλοσοφίας άπεργαζόμενοι (Philopoemen ι).
5 4
See a.56.2; 2 . 4 7 · ! 2.40.4 with Walbank ad loc.; as well as the detailed account of the political
1 1

settlement effected after Aratus' capture of Sicyon that appears in Cicero, Off. 2.81-83. Cicero's
source in this work is Panaetius, and it is reasonable to assume that it was Polybius' interest in
Aratus and his policies which drew Panaetius' attention to this episode in Achaean history—perhaps
during those discussions of political theory which ihe two men are reported to have held in Rome
(Cicero, Rep. 1.34).
T h e brief summary of Philopoemen's career given in the tenth book of the Histories records
5 5

one piece of instruction they gave ( 2 2 . 5 ) ; the biography may well have provided much richer
documentation. One of the subjects it stressed was the paidike agoge which produced Philopoemen
(10.21.6).
5 6
See 6 9 0 0 - 9 3 0 and, for a more succinct statement of the same contention, Ep. 8.354E.
 THE HEIRS OF DEMOCRITUS

T h e r e m a y w e l l have been, then, a m o n g the more p o l i t i c a l l y m i n d e d o f

Plato's f o l l o w e r s , 5 7
some w h o l o o k e d t o Laws I I I for support for their pro-
g r a m s ; a n d w h o m a y , o n occasion, h a v e l o o k e d e v e n b e y o n d Laws I I I to the
D e m o c r i t e a n t h e o r y w h i c h i n s p i r e d P l a t o ' s a n d w h i c h , l i k e P l a t o ' s , c o u l d be
i n t e r p r e t e d so as t o l e n d s u p p o r t t o t h e a i m s o f r e p u b l i c a n f e d e r a l i s m . 5 8
This
suggestion c a n b e s u p p o r t e d b y t w o o t h e r b o d i e s o f e v i d e n c e w h i c h also
p o i n t t o t h e existence o f such a g r o u p o f p h i l o s o p h e r - p o l i t i c i a n s .
The first o f these is c o m p o s e d o f t h e testimonia r e l a t i n g t o t h e p h i l o s o p h e r
Nausiphanes, w h o , b e g i n n i n g p r o b a b l y i n t h e late 3 3 0 ' s , 5 9
was h e a d o f a
flourishing school o f p h i l o s o p h y a n d r h e t o r i c i n his n a t i v e T e o s (Sextus,
Adv. math. 1.2). H i s u n o r t h o d o x c o n t e n t i o n (VS 7 5 B 2 , p . 2 4 8 . 1 8 - 1 9 ) t h a t i t
was t h e p a r t o f t h e sophos t o t a k e p a r t i n p o l i t i c a l life d r e w f r o m P h i l o d e m u s
a p o l e m i c , p o r t i o n s o f w h i c h s u r v i v e (Rhetorica I I , p p . 1-50 S u d h a u s ) . 6 0

N a u s i p h a n e s ' c e n t r a l c o n t e n t i o n was t h a t t h e p h i l o s o p h e r ' s k n o w l e d g e o f

physiologia w o u l d p u t h i m i n a p o s i t i o n o f a d v a n t a g e i n p o l i t i c a l life. Psycho-
l o g y r a t h e r t h a n a n t h r o p o l o g y a n d p o l i t i c a l h i s t o r y is t h e physiologia to w h i c h
N a u s i p h a n e s refers, a t least i n s u r v i v i n g f r a g m e n t s , so t h a t t h e l i n k b e t w e e n
p h i l o s o p h y a n d p o l i t i c s w h i c h h e envisions is s o m e w h a t d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h a t
p o s i t e d i n Laws I I I a n d Polybius V I . Moreover, even w h e n the fragments
t o u c h o n m a t t e r s t r e a t e d i n B o o k V I , t h e p a r a l l e l s , t h o u g h p r e s e n t , are
g e n e r i c r a t h e r t h a n specific i n c h a r a c t e r . L i k e t h e Stoics, a n d l i k e P o l y b i u s
in h i s g e n e a l o g y o f m o r a l s , N a u s i p h a n e s seems t o h a v e b e e n c o n c e r n e d
w i t h t h e r o l e p l a y e d b y t h e prota kata physin (see a b o v e , p . 164) i n h u m a n
m o t i v a t i o n , f o r h e speaks o f a syngenikon telos t h a t d e t e r m i n e s w h a t a l l m e n o f

57
For the tradition of political activity in the early Academy see Bignone, VAristotele perduto
2 . 2 4 9 - 5 1 and P. M . Schuhl, "Piaton et l'activite politique de l'Academie," R E G 5 9 (1946) 4 6 - 5 3 .
5 8
T h e reconstruction of political history of which Polybius' Kulturgeschichte forms a part cul-
minates, of course, in a defense of that most republican of all regimes, the mixed constitution, with
its balance and separation of powers. I n classifying constitutions and in identifying the best one with
a blend of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, Polybius is following sources which are unlikely
,to go back to Democritus. O n the other hand, these aspects of the political theory of Book V I are
distinct from the notion of an equilibrium of political forces as a prerequisite for the rule of law and
justice. T h e latter idea is just as prominent in the book, and is certainly implicit both in the
Kulturgeschichte of 5.7-6.12 and in the later chapters that are most closely connected with 5 . 7 - 6 . 1 2 .
(On the composite character of Polybius' political theory see, in general, Cole, Historia 1 3 . 4 6 5 - 7 8 . )
The unspoken contract between rulers and people on which kingship rests is an example of such an
equilibrium, and it is the disruption of this and similar balances established between rulers and
people in aristocratic and democratic regimes which, in Polybius' view, always leads to disaster
(cf. 6 . 7 . 6 - 8 ; 6 . 8 . 4 - 6 ; 6 . 9 . 5 - 6 ; 6 . 5 7 . 5 - 9 ) . T h e political theory which emerges from Polybius'
Kulturgeschichte is also in basic accord with what can be reconstructed from the fragments of
Democritus—see above, Chap. V I I I , note 14, and H . Rehm, Geschichte der Staalsrechtswissenschaft
(Freiburg and Leipzig 1896) 5 2 - 5 3 .
5 9
For the chronology of Nausiphanes' life, see von Fritz, R E 3 2 . 2 0 2 1 - 2 3 .
6 0
They are discussed and analyzed in Sudhaus, RhM 4 8 . 3 3 6 - 4 1 ; von Arnim, Leben und Werk
des Dio von Prusn 4 3 - 6 2 ; Philippson, 4 3 8 - 4 6 ; and von Fritz, RE 3 2 . 2 0 2 4 - 2 6 .
 168 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

necessity seek a n d a v o i d ; 6 1
a n d k n o w l e d g e o f t h a t telos w i l l e n a b l e t h e p o l i ­
t i c a l o r a t o r w h e n c o n f r o n t e d w i t h a n a u d i e n c e γινώσκειν ο βούλεται ή φύσις
και λέγειν και λέγοντα το προς τήν βούλησιν (λογίζεσθαι') δυνήσεσθαι (col.
8.5-93 Ρ· ί ο S u d h a u s ; cf. η.η-10, p . g ; χ χ ι ν 1-7, p . ι 8 ) . T h o u g h concerned
p r i m a r i l y w i t h r h e t o r i c , h e e v i d e n t l y f e l t t h a t m o n a r c h as w e l l as o r a t o r
could profit from philosophical wisdom (26.5-9, p. 39), a n d the participation
o f t h e sophos i n p u b l i c life is r e w a r d e d , l i k e t h e services o f t h e k i n g i n
P o l y b i u s ' Kulturgeschichte, b y h o n o r , p o p u l a r respect, a n d g r a t e f u l memory
for s k i l l e x p e n d e d i n t h e services o f s o c i e t y . 62
I t is e v e n possible that
N a u s i p h a n e s , l i k e P o l y b i u s , saw i n society's a b i l i t y t o p r o f i t f r o m t h e e x a m p l e
a n d i n s t r u c t i o n offered b y its o u t s t a n d i n g members something characteris­
t i c a l l y h u m a n w h i c h distinguishes t h e race f r o m t h e o t h e r animals. 6 3

The r e s e m b l a n c e s , t h o u g h t h e y m i g h t be m o r e extensive d i d m o r e o f
N a u s i p h a n e s s u r v i v e , d o n o t a l l o w us t o g o m u c h f u r t h e r t h a n t o say t h a t
Polybius' view o f the complementary relationship o f philosophy a n d politics
w o u l d have been w a r m l y endorsed b y N a u s i p h a n e s a n d v i c e versa. B u t
N a u s i p h a n e s is c l e a r l y t h e sort o f p h i l o s o p h e r - p o l i t i c i a n whose existence t h e
e v i d e n c e e x a m i n e d e a r l i e r i n t h i s section l e d us t o p o s i t , a n d his p h i l o s o p h i c a l
affinities a r e j u s t w h a t o n e w o u l d e x p e c t o n t h e basis o f t h a t same e v i d e n c e
— A c a d e m i c a n d D e m o c r i t e a n . T h e i m m e d i a t e source f o r his n o t i o n o f a n
a l l i a n c e b e t w e e n p s y c h o l o g y a n d r h e t o r i c is surely t h e p r o g r a m o u t l i n e d b y
Socrates i n Phaedrus 271C-72B, 64
a n d d o x o g r a p h i c a l t r a d i t i o n makes h i m a
follower o f Democritus.
N a u s i p h a n e s was t h e t e a c h e r o f E p i c u r u s ( U s e n e r 114; VS 7 5 A 1 - 9 ) a n d
so p e r h a p s t h e Mittelquelle for the D e m o c r i t e a n m a t e r i a l w h i c h appears i n
Hermarchus. Whatever the extent a n d character o f his indebtedness t o
Nausiphanes, E p i c u r u s e v e n t u a l l y b r o k e w i t h h i m ; a n d i t is a f a i r guess t h a t
one o f the t h i n g s w h i c h caused t h e b r e a k was t h e f o r m e r ' s h i g h e v a l u a t i o n o f
r h e t o r i c a n d t h e pragmatikos bios. T h e E p i c u r e a n c r i t i q u e o f t h e l i n k i n g o f
physiologia a n d r h e t o r i c is a t least as o l d as M e t r o d o r u s , 6 5
a n d p r o b a b l y goes

Cf. xvi 2, p. 8 Sudhaus, where there is mention of a [i-Je'Aos-; x v i 4 - 6 : ei] μέ[ν έσ]τι T [ I ] S
άνθρ[ωπος, προς] τούτ[ο ^]epe[TJat; and xvi 12—13: ουδέ τά ζώα [άλλ]ον έπιδ[έ]χεται τ[ρ]όπον. There is
some fluctuation in terminology (syngenikon lelos is attested in xxm 14-15, p. 17, and restored by
von Arnim in x v i 2, p. 8 , along with symphylou telous in xvn 19-20, p. 1 0 ) ; and the expression itself
may not go back to Nausiphanes (von Fritz, R E 32.2024). But the general character of the notion
and its affinities to what figures in Book V I are fairly clear.
6 2
22.3—8, p. 3 3 : το τίμίον και άζιόλογον ev ταλς παρά τών πολλών δόζαις και μνήμαις επί πολιτικαΐς
δινότησι. For Nausiphanes' utilitarianism see also χ χ ι ν 1-8, p. 18.
6 3
This, at any rate, seems to be the view which Philodemus is attacking when he criticizes
Nausiphanes for failing to establish μέχρι τίνος ώφελεΐσθαι τά πλήθη δύναται και κουφίζεαθαι . . .
μάλλον δύναται τών άλλων ζώων ( χ χ χ ν ι ig—22.2, ρ. 33)·
6 4
Cf. F . Susemihl, "Aphorismen zu Demokrit," Philologus 6 0 (1901) 190.
6 5
Author of a προς τους άπό φυσιολογίας λέγοντας αγαθούς elvai ρήτορας (Frs. 25—27 K-Oerte).
 THE HEIRS OF DEMOGRITUS

b a c k t o t h e f o u n d e r o f t h e school h i m s e l f . I t w o u l d t h u s t a k e its p l a c e a l o n g ­
side t h e u n f a v o r a b l e j u d g m e n t o n k i n g s h i p p r o n o u n c e d i n RS 6 a n d 7 a n d
r e p r o d u c e d i n L u c r e t i u s V (see a b o v e , p . 127) as p a r t o f a g e n e r a l a t t a c k
against defenders o f t h e a c t i v e l i f e . W e c a n n o t b e sure w h o t h e objects o f
t h i s a t t a c k w e r e i n t h e e a r l y days o f t h e s c h o o l ; N a u s i p h a n e s w a s doubtless
o n e o f t h e m , t h o u g h n o t necessarily t h e o n l y o n e . 6 6
B u t t h e existence o f t h e
attack provides further d o c u m e n t a t i o n for the t r a d i t i o n o f philosophy l i n k e d
to p o l i t i c s w e are e x a m i n i n g ; a n d t h e c o n t e x t i n w h i c h L u c r e t i u s ' t r a n s l a t i o n
o f RS 7 appears suggests t h a t E p i c u r u s ' o p p o n e n t s m a y h a v e o n o c c a s i o n
l i n k e d t h e i r defense o f p o l i t i c a l life t o Kulturgeschichte 61
a n d a n account o f the
first successful politikos i n h u m a n h i s t o r y — t h e k i n g . T h e reasons f o r l i n k i n g
such a n account b o t h w i t h Polybius a n d D e m o c r i t u s have already been
given (above, p p . 122-28).
T h e evidence discussed i n t h i s s e c t i o n is f r a g m e n t a r y b u t , seen i n i t s
e n t i r e t y , f a i r l y s i g n i f i c a n t . T h e l i n k i n g o f s i m i l a r a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l theories t o
a p o l i t i c a l p r o g r a m o f a federalistic, a n t i - t y r a n n i c a l tendency, w h i c h appears
in P o l y b i u s a n d Laws I I I ; t h e role p l a y e d i n A c h a e a n history b y t w o
A c a d e m i c philosophers dedicated t o f u r t h e r i n g this p r o g r a m ; t h e parallels
between P o l y b i u s a n d C a r n e a d e s ; t h e f o r m e r ' s o w n d i r e c t references t o
Plato a n d the A c a d e m y ; t h e character o f the E p i c u r e a n polemic against
defenders o f t h e active life a n d its association with Kulturgeschichte in
L u c r e t i u s V ; a n d t h e presence o f t h e D e m o c r i t e a n N a u s i p h a n e s a m o n g those
w h o are most likely t o have been t h e object o f this a t t a c k — a l l p o i n t with
n o t e w o r t h y consistency t o a single c o n c l u s i o n . W e are f a i r l y safe, I t h i n k , i n
assuming t h a t there existed i n the late f o u r t h a n d t h i r d centuries a n u m b e r
of t h i n k e r s — o f p r i m a r i l y t h o u g h n o t exclusively A c a d e m i c affinities—who
a t t e m p t e d t o v i e w the problems o f city-state politics i n the l i g h t o f w h a t they
Bignone has argued at length [V Aristolele perdulo 2 . 4 9 - 5 5 , 8 8 - 1 1 2 , 2 4 7 - 7 0 ) in favor of the view
6 6

that the primary object ofEpicurus' attacks was the "scuola platonico-peripatctica". Cf. Philodemus'
criticism of Aristotle's overly favorable evaluation of rhetoiike and politike (Rhet. I I , cols, X L V I I I 2 1 -
Lvm 9, pp. 5 0 - 6 4 Sudhaus). It is with this "scuola" rather than with Nausiphanes (as maintained
by Sudhaus, RhM48.333-35, and R . Philippson, "Timokrates," R E At 1 [1936] 1269) that Bignone
would associate the one opponent whose name we know for sure—the renegade Epicurean
Timocrates. The latter was a contemporary of Metrodorus, who addresses him on two occasions
as physiologe (ap. Plutarch, Non posse suav. vio. 16.1098D and Athenaeus 7.28oA = Frs. 3 9 - 4 0 Kocrte)
and rejects his political theory with the remark recorded by Plutarch ( 1 6 . 1 0 9 8 c ) : oiSev . . . δει
τούς "Ελληνας σώζειν οΰδε έττι σοφία στεφάνου ιταρ' αυτών τυγχάνειν άλλ' έσθίειν και πινειν ( F r . 41
Koerte). Another suggestion as to the identity of Epicurus' opponents is offered by Η . M . Hubbell,
who sees in 23.11 —13, p. 3 5 (ol τους νόμους και τάς πολιτείας γράφοντες τών σοφιστών) a possible
reference to followers of Isocrates "who continued their master's practice of broadening their
instruction in rhetoric by theoretical work on the science of government" ("The Rhetorica of
Philodemus," Trans, and Proc. of the Connecticut Academy of Sciences 23 [ 1 9 2 0 ] 3 2 6 , note 15).
6 7
Cf. von Fritz's suggestions with regard to Nausiphanes, R E 32.2026. It is clear that Nausiphanes
believed some types of historical investigation to be of value to the politician: cf. 2 7 . 1 - 7 , p. 4 0 , on
reasoning from symbebekotdn in political affairs.
 I 70 D E M O C R I T U S AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K ANTHROPOLOGY

c a l l e d p h i l o s o p h y , a n d t h a t t h i s " p h i l o s o p h y , " t h o u g h doubtless composed

l a r g e l y o f c o m m o n p l a c e s , c o u l d have i n c l u d e d a psychology a n d a sociology
i n f l u e n c e d b y t h e t h e o r y o f t h e o r i g i n s o f c u l t u r e w h i c h was o r i g i n a t e d b y
D e m o c r i t u s a n d m o d i f i e d t o s u i t his o w n purposes b y P l a t o i n t h e t h i r d b o o k
o f t h e Laws. T h a t one or m o r e o f the m e m b e r s o f this t r a d i t i o n s h o u l d have
p r e s e r v e d a v e r s i o n o f D e m o c r i t e a n Kulturgeschichte detailed enough to f o r m
t h e basis f o r w h a t a p p e a r s i n P o l y b i u s V I seems t o m e f a i r l y l i k e l y , a n d i t
is r a t h e r u n l i k e l y t h a t w e s h a l l c o m e n e a r e r t o a n i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f P o l y b i u s '
source t h a n t h i s . B u t w e h a v e c o m e n e a r e n o u g h , I t h i n k , t o p r o v i d e a b a c k -
g r o u n d against w h i c h the conclusions reached i n C h a p t e r E i g h t w i l l seem
far m o r e n a t u r a l a n d reasonable t h a n they d i d w h e n supported o n l y by
evidence drawn from Polybius VI, Laws I I I , and the fragments of
Democritus.

4. A COMPREHENSIVE R E S T A T E M E N T ( T H E EPICUREANS)

W e d o n o t k n o w i n w h a t w o r k o r w o r k s o f E p i c u r u s his a c c o u n t o f t h e
origins o f culture appeared, nor into w h a t context a n d w i t h w h a t purpose
he i n t r o d u c e d i t . O n e m a y s u r m i s e , h o w e v e r , t h a t , l i k e D e m o c r i t u s , he was
a n x i o u s t o e s t a b l i s h t h e p u r e l y n a t u r a l c h a r a c t e r o f a process o f t e n a t t r i b u t e d
to other causes —more anxious,
6 8
perhaps, since t h e r e was i n his d a y a
t e l e o l o g i c a l as w e l l as a t h e o l o g i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f h i s t o r y w h i c h r e q u i r e d
refutation. The i d e n t i t y of purpose was enough t o i n s u r e f a i r l y close re-
p r o d u c t i o n o f m a n y parts o f the earlier d o c t r i n e .
Y e t m o d i f i c a t i o n s t h e r e w e r e , some o f t h e m f a i r l y m a j o r ; a n d i n a s m u c h as
E p i c u r u s seems t o h a v e b e e n less i n t e r e s t e d t h a n D e m o c r i t u s i n a e t i o l o g y f o r
its o w n sake, t h e y are n o t l i k e l y t o be g r a t u i t o u s . T a k e n as a b o d y , t h e y p r o -
v i d e o u r best single t e s t i m o n y t o t h e shift o f a t t i t u d e s a n a l y z e d i n the
preceding chapter.
The basic t e n d e n c y o f t h e changes has a l r e a d y been i n d i c a t e d (above,
p p . 7 8 - 7 9 , 147): a n emphasis o n b i o l o g i c a l a n d e n v i r o n m e n t a l d e t e r m i n i s m
at t h e expense o f t h e p l a y o f c h a n c e a n d i m p u l s e , a n d a n e l i m i n a t i o n o f t h e
v a r i a b l e e l e m e n t i n t h e physis-nomos-logos t r i a d i n f a v o r o f t h e t w o constants
physis a n d logos. T h e r e s u l t is a d o c t r i n e w h i c h , t h o u g h i t does n o t m a k e t h e
development of culture proceed i d e o l o g i c a l l y t o w a r d a g o a l , nevertheless
envisions s o m e t h i n g m u c h m o r e n a r r o w l y c i r c u m s c r i b e d a n d w i t h f a r fewer
bypaths and dead ends t h a n its D e m o c r i t e a n counterpart. The random
i n t e r p l a y o f a c c i d e n t , s u g g e s t i o n , a n d a f e w basic givens o f h u m a n n a t u r e ,
f r o m w h i c h D e m o c r i t u s derived the g r o w t h o f technology a n d society, is
r e t a i n e d ; b u t its w o r k i n g s are p r e s e n t e d i n s u c h a f a s h i o n as t o suggest a l a c k
o f c o n f i d e n c e i n t h e m e t h o d . T h e process is h e l p e d a l o n g at e v e r y stage b y a
lis
Cf. Diogenes of Oenoanda, F r . 11 col. 11 4 - 8 Grilli.
 T H E HEIRS OF DEMOCRITUS 171

v a r i e t y o f e x t r a n e o u s c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , b e h i n d w h o s e presence o n e c a n usually
d e t e c t t h e i n f l u e n c e o f n o n - D e m o c r i t e a n sources. D i c a e a r c h u s o r t h e C y n i c s
have supplied the d o c t r i n e o f the greater hardness o f p r i m i t i v e m a n to m a k e
his s u r v i v a l i n a h o s t i l e e n v i r o n m e n t seem m o r e p r o b a b l e ; 6 9
Cynic influence
may also be responsible for the p r o m i n e n c e i n Lucretius' account o f the
n o t i o n t h a t fire, c l o t h i n g , a n d i n d o o r l i v i n g soften man's disposition (see
above, p . 2 2 ) , 7 0
t h o u g h t h e C y n i c s w o u l d n o t , l i k e E p i c u r u s , associate soft­
ness w i t h g r e a t e r s o c i a b i l i t y ; 7 1
a n d E p i c u r u s ' o w n sensationalism completes
this theory of social genesis by positing a s p o n t a n e o u s prolepsis of τοΰ
συμφέροντος έν τή προς αλλήλους κοινωνία as the origin of morality. The
f o r m a t i o n o f society becomes t h e r e b y something far m o r e inevitable and
i m m e d i a t e t h a n the detour b y w a y o f dynasteia envisioned by Democritus.

8 9
Dicaearchus may be responsible for one other "primitivist" detail in Lucretius' account.
Compare 5 . 9 9 0 - 1 0 0 0 and Cicero, Off. 2.16 ( = Fr. 24 Wehrli):
unus enim turn quisque magis deprensus eorum
pabula viva feris praebebat. . . .

at non multa virum sub signis milia ducta

una dies dabat exitio.
est Dicaearchi liber de interitu hominis . . . qui collectis causis ceteris, eluvionis, pestilentiae,
vastitatis, beluarum etiam multitudinis, quarum impetu docet quaedam hominum genera esse
consumpta, deinde comparat quanto plures deleti sint homines hominum impetu, id est bellis
aut seditionibus, quam omni reliqua calamitate.
7 0
It is possible, of course, that the idea that fire and warmth should have at least some effect on
man's character goes back to Democritus; cf., for a similar recognition of the effect of temperature
on human disposition, the early medical treatise, Airs, Waters, Places 12 and 16. What is character­
istically Epicurean and Cynic in Lucretius and Tzetzes is (1) the central position which the notion
has in their accounts of the origin of society, and (2) the emphasis on the immediate physical and
psychological effects of warm surroundings (rather than, say, on the greater dependence on others
which the desire for warmth and related comforts would bring). I n similar fashion, Lucretius'
analysis of the role of the family in the formation of society stresses the softening of man's physical
and psychic disposition (cf. 5 . 1 0 1 7 : Venus imminuit viris; 1 0 1 8 : ingenium fregere superbum); contrast
Polybius' account, which is concerned with the habit of cooperation and exchange of services which
family life breeds.
7 1
T h e list of motifs which appear in Lucretius and Tzetzes but none of the other texts which we
have isolated as belonging to the Democritean tradition is fairly extensive. T o the parallels discussed
in Chapter One (above, pp. 2 1 - 2 2 ) should be added Lucretius 5 - 9 5 7 = l^S I I 138.1 (the role of
necessity; see above, Chap. V , note 2 2 ) ; 5 . 9 4 5 - 5 2 = 114.16-18 Gaisford (primitive man as a water
drinker; cf. above, note 4 ) ; and 5.998 (primitive man died ignaros quid volnera vellenl) = VS I I 137.38-
39 (άπίψυχον οίικ eloorcs οτι πάσχουσι). It is natural to wonder whether, given these resemblances,
the immediate source of Epicurus' whole Kulturgeschichte was not Cynic rather than Democritean
(cf. also the parallel between Lucretius 5 . 9 7 3 - 7 6 and Theophrastus' account of the conversion of
Diogenes, noted above, note 8 ) . It is unlikely, however, that the Cynics would have given to the
later stages of the development of culture the close attention which they receive in Lucretius. T h e
two theories are probably to be regarded as at least partially independent modifications of
Democritean thought. They reveal, however, the common influence of the " h a r d " primitivism
which was characteristically Cynic and of the preoccupation with physis which was characteristic.'
of most Hellenistic thought on the origin of culture. (It is possible, of course, that (fie Cynics were
directly indebted to the Epicureans; but see above, note 16). ,-/*<·' / f„ ,.·..!.,.'
:
• ; Q ,' ·' ·'· ·'
 I 72 D E M O C R I T U S 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

The theories o f Greek e t h n o l o g y o n the c u l t u r a l i m p o r t a n c e o f c l i m a t e a n d

e n v i r o n m e n t are i n v o k e d t o e x p l a i n the linguistic v a r i e t y whose o r i g i n
E p i c u r u s is u n w i l l i n g t o l e a v e t o c h a n c e a n d a n i n i t i a l r a n d o m s e l e c t i o n ;
and, i n w h a t m a y stem f r o m a re-elaboration o f the pre-Socratic idea o f the
m o r t a l i t y o f t h e w o r l d w i t h ideas d r a w n f r o m m e d i c a l studies o f t h e g r o w t h
and decay o f organisms, 7 2
Epicurus links portions o f the c u l t u r a l cycle to
f i x e d phases i n t h e g r o w t h a n d d e c a y o f t h e n a t u r a l w o r l d . 7 3
Finally, the
passage a t t h e e n d o f L u c r e t i u s V o n t h e cacumen r e a c h e d b y c i v i l i z a t i o n m a y
r e v e a l t h e i n f l u e n c e o f t h e A r i s t o t e l i a n i d e a o f a genesis, g r o w t h , a n d a c m e
i n each o f the a r t s ; 7 4
a n d B o o k V I opens ( 1 - 4 1 ) w i t h a passage w h o s e i n -
s p i r a t i o n m a y b e e q u a l l y A r i s t o t e l i a n : E p i c u r u s comes t o m i n i s t e r t o t h e
p s y c h i c needs o f a w o r l d w h o s e b o d i l y w a n t s a r e p r o v i d e d f o r b y t h e t e c h n o -
logical achievements o f Athens. I n similar fashion, philosophic speculation
replaces p u r s u i t o f t h e useful a n d p l e a s u r a b l e i n t h e scheme o f h u m a n
d e v e l o p m e n t p o s i t e d i n t h e De philosophia (see a b o v e , p . 5 2 ) .
S o m e o f these m o t i f s a p p e a r i n f i f t h c e n t u r y l i t e r a t u r e 7 5
a n d m a y have
h a d a p a r t — t h o u g h p r o b a b l y a s u b o r d i n a t e o n e — i n t h e system o f D e m o c r i t u s .
O t h e r s m a y be d u e , n o t t o E p i c u r u s , b u t t o s o m e o n e a m o n g his successors.
Yet t h e i r t o t a l t e n d e n c y is t o o m u c h o f a p i e c e t o suppose t h a t t h e y d o n o t
reflect, i n t h e m a i n , t h e w o r k o f a single i n t e l l i g e n c e — o n e aspect o f t h e
c h a n n e l i n g a n d d a m m i n g effected i n t h e course o f those D e m o c r i t e a n streams
quibus Epicurus hortulos suos irrigavit. 76

7 2
See Solmsen, A J P 7 4 . 3 4 - 5 1 . T h e close analogy developed in Lucretius ( 2 . 1 0 2 3 - 8 9 , 1 1 0 5 - 7 2 ;
5 . 9 4 3 - 4 4 ) between organic and cosmic growth and decay is not attested before Epicurus.
7 3
Other influences as well may be at work here. Grilli (RendlstLomb 8 6 . 1 2 - 1 9 ) has advanced
reasons for believing that certain details in Lucretius' account of the character of the earliest human
life represent an effort to counter Peripatetic arguments (partially reproduced in Philo, Aet. mundi
55 ff.) against the theory of the spontaneous generation of mankind. T h e departure from the
normal mode of genesis to which the Peripatetics objected is made slightly less extreme by having
man born, not, as he evidently was in the zoogonies of Democritus and other pre-Socratics, full-
grown, but as an infant who is subsequently nourished by uteri in the earth. And the unlikelihood of
such a creature's surviving is mitigated by the theory of the mild climate and fruitfulness of the
earth in the early stages of its growth. T h e Democritean answer to such objections would have been,
surely, that in most instances and in most worlds the creature did not survive; and it is interesting
that Epicurus did not, so far as we can ascertain, make use of this argument. Elsewhere (Ad. Herod.
74) he rejects the Democritean idea that there are worlds without life; evidently the idea of a world
without men was equally unacceptable to him. Epicurus here adopts a position rather similar to the
teleological one which he purports to be attacking. Nor is this an isolated instance. Gf., for certain
geometrical or almost "biological" regularities in his atomism for which there is no parallel in
Democritus, C . Mugler, " S u r quelques particularites de l'atomisme ancien," RPh 27 (1953) 1 4 9 -
6 0 , and " L'isonomie des atomistes," RPh 30 (1956) 2 3 1 - 3 6 ; and the passages discussed by F . Solmsen,
"Epicurus and Cosmological Heresies," A J P 72 (1951) 1-23.
7 4
A n idea which appears explicitly elsewhere in the book ( 5 . 3 2 4 - 3 7 ) ; see Bignone, L'Aristotele
perduto 2 . 4 6 2 - 6 4 .
7 6
Gf. Airs, Waters, Places 12 and 16, cited above, note 70.
7 6
T h e metaphor—a most appropriate one—is Cicero's (JVD 1.120).
 T H E HEIRS OF DEMOCRITUS 173

T h e G a r d e n w h i c h r e s u l t e d is o n e w h i c h bears a d i s t u r b i n g r e s e m b l a n c e
i n spots t o t h e closed a n d f i n i t e c u l t u r a l u n i v e r s e d e s c r i b e d b y P l a t o a n d
A r i s t o t l e ; a n d i n g e n e r a l E p i c u r e a n Kulturgeschichte c a n n o t h e l p b u t be dis-
a p p o i n t i n g w h e n c o m p a r e d w i t h its D e m o c r i t e a n m o d e l . I t m a y a l l o w o n
occasion f o r t h e w o r k i n g o f a w i d e r r a n g e o f causes; b u t t h i s v a r i e t y does n o t
s t e m f r o m a g r e a t e r c o m p l e x i t y o f t h o u g h t . I t is a n i n d i c a t i o n r a t h e r o f
e c l e c t i c i s m a n d u n c e r t a i n t y , o f a system w h i c h seeks t o a c c o m m o d a t e the
b o l d a n d b r i l l i a n t hypotheses o f D e m o c r i t u s t o t h e m o r e u n i f i e d a n d o r d e r l y
framework of Academic a n d P e r i p a t e t i c a e t i o l o g y a n d fails t o p r o d u c e a
satisfactory c o m p r o m i s e . T h a t t h i s i n a d e q u a t e c o p y r e m a i n e d f o r n e a r l y t w o
t h o u s a n d years t h e m o s t s a t i s f a c t o r y a c c o u n t o f t h e o r i g i n o f c u l t u r e k n o w n
t o t h e W e s t , a n a c c o u n t w h i c h has its a d m i r e r s e v e n t o d a y , is a s t r i k i n g
testimony to the q u a l i t y o f the o r i g i n a l . T h e l a t t e r m u s t have been a n achieve-
m e n t o f t h e first o r d e r , c o m p a r a b l e i n some w a y s t o t h e D e m o c r i t e a n system
o f the physical universe, t h o u g h destined, like i t , to be neglected a n d for-
g o t t e n i n l a t e r a n t i q u i t y . T h e fate o f t h e o n e as w e l l as t h e o t h e r c o n s t i t u t e s
a n i r r e p a r a b l e loss t o o u r k n o w l e d g e o f a n c i e n t t h o u g h t .
 APPENDIX ONE

DIODORUS 1.7-8*

D i o d o r u s 1.7 begins w i t h a c o s m o g o n y w h i c h tells h o w , i n t h e b e g i n n i n g , the

f o u r e l e m e n t s e m e r g e d f r o m a p r i m e v a l c o n d i t i o n i n w h i c h e a r t h a n d sky
w e r e as y e t o f a single aspect. F i r e s e p a r a t e d f r o m a i r , r i s i n g t o f o r m t h e
heavens; earth a n d water remained, d i v i d i n g eventually i n t o l a n d and sea. 1

T h e e a r t h , s t i l l soft a n d m u d d y , b e g a n to g r o w w a r m u n d e r t h e rays o f t h e
s u n a n d b e c a m e s w o l l e n i n its m o i s t e r spots w i t h pustules. W i t h i n t h e t h i n
membranes which surrounded these swellings spontaneous generation
o c c u r r e d . W h e n t h e e m b r y o s so f o r m e d a t t a i n e d t h e i r f u l l g r o w t h , t h e m e m -
b r a n e s b u r s t , s e n d i n g f o r t h a l l k i n d s o f l i v i n g creatures to i n h a b i t e a r t h , a i r ,
a n d sea. F u r t h e r h a r d e n i n g o f t h e e a r t h b y t h e s u n t o o k a w a y its c a p a c i t y
f o r b r i n g i n g f o r t h t h e l a r g e r species, w h i c h t h e r e a f t e r p r o p a g a t e d themselves
s e x u a l l y . A s i m i l a r c o s m o g o n y a n d z o o g o n y , so D i o d o r u s tells us, a c c o u n t s
f o r t h e lines i n the Melanippe o f E u r i p i d e s w h i c h relate h o w e a r t h , after h e r
s e p a r a t i o n f r o m sky, " b r o u g h t f o r t h i n t o t h e l i g h t o f d a y trees, b i r d s , beasts,
t h e n u r s l i n g s o f t h e sea, a n d t h e race o f m o r t a l m e n . " C h a p t e r 8 c o n t i n u e d
w i t h t h e a c c o u n t , s t u d i e d i n d e t a i l i n the t e x t , o f t h e earliest existence o f
these m e n , p a i n f u l a n d b r u t i s h at first, b u t e v e n t u a l l y t r a n s f o r m e d r a d i c a l l y
t h r o u g h t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f l a n g u a g e , society, a n d technology.
I t was R e i n h a r d t ' s c o n t e n t i o n ( 4 9 5 - 9 8 ) t h a t these t w o c h a p t e r s appeared
i n D i o d o r u s ' source as a n a t i v e v e r s i o n o f c o s m o g o n y a n d p r e h i s t o r y , ex-
p o u n d e d b y priests as a p r e f a c e to t h e i r a c c o u n t o f the earliest life i n E g y p t
( 1 . 1 0 - 2 9 i n o u r p r e s e n t t e x t ) . H e based his t h e o r y o n s i m i l a r i t i e s b e t w e e n
1.7-8 a n d these l a t e r logoi, a n d o n t w o passages, one i n D i o d o r u s (1.42.1)
a n d one i n D i o g e n e s L a e r t i u s ( 1 . 1 0 ) , w h i c h seemed to refer t o j u s t t h e sort
o f " E g y p t i a n " c o s m o g o n y a n d z o o g o n y whose existence he h a d p o s i t e d .
C r i t i c s o f R e i n h a r d t ' s thesis h a v e c o n c e n t r a t e d o n the i m m e d i a t e com-
p o s i t i o n a l p r o b l e m s r a i s e d b y t h e first o f t h e a r g u m e n t s a d v a n c e d i n its
s u p p o r t . T h e y h a v e n o t e d c o n t r a d i c t i o n s b e t w e e n the n a r r a t i v e o f 7-8 a n d
t h a t o f t h e s u b s e q u e n t c h a p t e r s ( J a c o b y , FGrH I l i a 39.26-37, and Spoerri,
129 a n d 163), o r else m a i n t a i n e d t h a t the s i m i l a r i t i e s w h i c h d o exist i n v o l v e
* Cf. page 16, with note 3.
1
Whether air is viewed as containing what was eventually to become earth and water as well as
fire is uncertain. Diodorus is unclear at this point, nor is there any exact parallel in other Greek
cosmogonies; see Spoerri, 17-18, 31-33·
'74
 A P P E N D I X O N E : DIODORUS I .j—8 175

doctrines w h i c h were c o m m o n knowledge i n Diodorus' time (Spoerri, 163)

a n d are h e n c e i n s u f f i c i e n t t o j u s t i f y t h e a s s u m p t i o n o f w h a t w o u l d h a v e b e e n ,
o n D i o d o r u s ' p a r t , a v i o l e n t a n d g r a t u i t o u s r e a r r a n g e m e n t o f source m a t e r i a l
(Pfligersdorfer, SBWien 232, N o . 5, 144). Further, they have pointed out
( S p o e r r i , 1 1 4 - 1 5 ) t h a t c e r t a i n inconsistencies w i t h i n t h e t w o c h a p t e r s suggest
a c o m p o s i t e source f o r 7 - 8 . R e i n h a r d t ' s second a r g u m e n t has b e e n a l l o w e d
to go, f o r t h e m o s t p a r t , u n n o t i c e d a n d u n r e f u t e d . 2
Since i t has c o n s i d e r a b l e
bearing o n t h e issues raised b y t h e f i r s t , i t deserves r e s t a t e m e n t and re-
examination.
T h e first b o o k o f D i o d o r u s is d i v i d e d i n t o t w o p a r t s , t h e second o f w h i c h
opens w i t h a s u m m a r y o f w h a t has g o n e b e f o r e : "a p r o e m o n the whole
subject a n d t h e a c c o u n t s c u r r e n t a m o n g t h e E g y p t i a n s about the o r i g i n o f
t h e cosmos a n d t h e c o m i n g i n t o b e i n g o f a l l t h i n g s f r o m t h e beginning"
(1.42.1). T h e c o s m o g o n y a n d p r e - h i s t o r y r e f e r r e d t o is t h e E g y p t i a n one
which Reinhardt assumed f o r D i o d o r u s ' source, a n d its a p p e a r a n c e h e r e
gives c o n s i d e r a b l e s u p p o r t t o his t h e o r y . T h e passage has b e e n r e g a r d e d as a n
3

i n t e r p o l a t i o n (see O l d f a t h e r ' s e d i t i o n , adloc). Its o p e n i n g words, at any rate,

c a n n o t be b y D i o d o r u s , 4
a n d i t contains i n the portions n o t q u o t e d here
f u r t h e r omissions a n d i n a c c u r a c i e s s u c h as one m i g h t e x p e c t f r o m a careless
e d i t o r . B u t i t is h a r d t o see h o w m e r e carelessness c o u l d r e s u l t i n t h e t r a n s -
f o r m a t i o n o f t h e g e n e r a l m a t e r i a l o f 1.7 i n t o s o m e t h i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y Egyptian.
Nothing comparable appears i n the summaries found i n later books of
D i o d o r u s , a n d t h e r e is n o t h i n g i n t h e b o o k i t s e l f w h i c h w o u l d a c c o u n t f o r
the error. T h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n the E g y p t i a n a n d n o n - E g y p t i a n m a t e r i a l
is c e r t a i n l y c l e a r e n o u g h as t h e t e x t n o w stands. S u c h a m i s t a k e suggests
confusion w i t h another a c c o u n t , one i n w h i c h 1.7 d i d have an Egyptian
setting; a n d the person most l i k e l y to have m a d e such a confusion w o u l d have
b e e n t h e a u t h o r h i m s e l f — r e m e m b e r i n g t h e a c c o u n t w h i c h he d r e w u p o n a n d ,
p e r h a p s , r e p r o d u c e d m o r e a c c u r a t e l y i n a n e a r l i e r d r a f t o f his o w n w o r k . 5

2
So S p o e r r i (115. n o t e 5) dismisses 1.42.1 as t o o " u n g e n a u u n d l ü c k e n h a f t " 10 be o f m u c h
s i g n i f i c a n c e . F o r J a c o b y ' s t r e a t m e n t o f t h e passage, see b e l o w , n o t e 3.
3
J a c o b y (FGrH I I I A 3 0 . 2 4 - 2 5 ) refers t h e s t a t e m e n t o n t h e " o r i g i n o f t h e cosmos a n d t h e c o m i n g
i n t o b e i n g o f a l l t h i n g s " t o 1.10 a n d 1.11.5-12 ( t h e first c h a p t e r o f t h e E g y p t i a n p o r t i o n o f B o o k I
as i t n o w stands a n d t h e s u b s e q u e n t E g y p t i a n t h e o l o g y ) . B u t 1.10 c o n t a i n s n o t h i n g a t a l l a b o u t t h e
o r i g i n o f t h e cosmos a n d is c o n c e r n e d w i t h c o m i n g i n t o b e i n g o n l y as i t i n v o l v e s t h e e a r l i e s t i n -
h a b i t a n t s o f E g y p t , n o t a l l t h i n g s ; a n d 11.5-12 discusses t h e m a i n t e n a n c e o f t h e cosmos, n o t its
f o r m a t i o n . T h e r e f e r e n c e m u s t b e , as R e i n h a r d t assumes, to 1.7.
4
T h i s is c l e a r f r o m t h e w a y i n w h i c h t h e y refer t o t h e a u t h o r i n t h e t h i r d p e r s o n : " T h e first b o o k
o f D i o d o r u s b e i n g d i v i d e d i n t o t w o because o f its l e n g t h . . . . " I t is q u i t e p o s s i b l e , h o w e v e r , t h a t a n
o r i g i n a l ή μεν προ ταύτης βίβλου πΐριέχβί, or the l i k e , was a l t e r e d b y a n e d i t o r to m a k e i t clear t h a t
t h e s e c t i o n r e f e r r e d t o is n o t a n e n t i r e b o o k b u t o n l y h a l t o f o n e .
5
For a comparable situation (in Book X I I I ) w h e r e a passage—this t i m e a preface—seems to
refer t o a d i f f e r e n t r e c e n s i o n , see R . L a q u e u r , " D i o d o r c a , " Hermes 8 6 ( 1 9 5 8 ) 281-85.
I 76 D E M O C R I T U S AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

This account m a y h a v e left traces elsewhere. D i o g e n e s L a e r t i u s , i n his

s u m m a r y (1.10) o f t h e " p h i l o s o p h i c a l ideas o f t h e E g y p t i a n s , " r e p o r t s t h a t ,
a c c o r d i n g t o t h e m , " t h e f i r s t p r i n c i p l e is m a t t e r a n d s u b s e q u e n t l y the four
e l e m e n t s are d i f f e r e n t i a t e d o u t o f i t , a n d c e r t a i n l i v i n g c r e a t u r e s are en-
gendered." L a t e r i n his r e p o r t D i o g e n e s m e n t i o n s H e c a t a e u s i n c o n n e c t i o n
w i t h a p o i n t o f E g y p t i a n theology, a n d f r o m this R e i n h a r d t concluded t h a t
t h e w h o l e passage is H e c a t a e a n . T h e r e is n o j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r this (see FGrH
I l i a , 39.11—18 a n d S p o e r r i , 5 5 - 5 6 ) b u t t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f D i o g e n e s ' t e s t i -
m o n y is n o t t h e r e b y i m p a i r e d . W h o e v e r t h e source o f D i o g e n e s ' i n f o r m a t i o n
was, his a c c o u n t , l i k e t h a t w i t h w h i c h t h e a u t h o r o f 1.42 was f a m i l i a r , c o n -
t a i n e d a c o s m o g o n y p l u s z o o g o n y s i m i l a r t o t h a t w h i c h a p p e a r s i n 1.7; and
i t p r e s e n t e d i t as t h e t e a c h i n g o f t h e Egyptians. 6

I f t h e e v i d e n c e o f these passages is t o be d i s r e g a r d e d , o n e m u s t assume

t h a t D i o d o r u s , i n search o f a g e n e r a l a c c o u n t t o b e g i n his h i s t o r y , h i t u p o n
t h e v e r y o n e w h i c h i n c e r t a i n o t h e r H e l l e n i s t i c texts was a s c r i b e d t o t h e
E g y p t i a n priests whose theories o n t h e o r i g i n o f l i f e i n E g y p t a p p e a r p r o -
m i n e n t l y i n t h e first b o o k o f his o w n w o r k . A n d one m u s t also assume t h a t
t h e a u t h o r o f 1.42, b y m e r e i n a d v e r t e n c e , b r o u g h t his o w n s u m m a r y o f t h e
first h a l f o f t h e b o o k i n t o l i n e w i t h w h a t was said i n those, same texts. T h i s
seems t o be t o o m u c h t o ascribe t o c o i n c i d e n c e . H e r e , at a n y r a t e , R e i n h a r d t ' s
t h e o r y a c c o u n t s f o r t h e e v i d e n c e b e t t e r t h a n a n y o t h e r . T h e consequences
o f r e j e c t i n g i t are j u s t as serious as the c o m p o s i t i o n a l p r o b l e m s r e l a t i n g to
7 - 8 w h i c h i t raises. T h e l a t t e r , i f t h e y exist, c a n n o t be i g n o r e d , b u t n e i t h e r
s h o u l d t h e y be a l l o w e d t o o c c u p y o u r e x c l u s i v e a t t e n t i o n .
Actually, however, a solution to these problems in keeping with
R e i n h a r d t ' s thesis is n o t i m p o s s i b l e . I t c a n be s h o w n t h a t c e r t a i n p e c u l i a r
features o f 7 - 8 a n d t h e i r i m m e d i a t e s u r r o u n d i n g s are best e x p l a i n e d by
assuming a n o r i g i n a l arrangement o f m a t e r i a l differing only slightly f r o m
t h a t w h i c h R e i n h a r d t suggested.

D i o d o r u s opens his e n t i r e w o r k w i t h a p r e f a c e s e t t i n g f o r t h t h e m e r i t s a n d
scope o f h i s t o r y ( 1 . 1 - 3 ) as w e l l as his o w n a i m s a n d m e t h o d s ( 1 . 4 . 1 - 5 ) . T o
this is a p p e n d e d a table o f contents a n d a chronological note (1.4.6-5.2).
C h a p t e r 6 begins w i t h a final r e m a r k o n m e t h o d : D i o d o r u s w i l l n o t g i v e a n y
separate t r e a t m e n t to t h e " v i e w s o n the gods h e l d b y those w h o first estab-
l i s h e d r e l i g i o u s o b s e r v a n c e s , " b u t a n y r e l e v a n t m a t e r i a l w i l l be appended
i n s u m m a r y f o r m as o c c a s i o n arises ( 6 . 1 ) . W i t h r e g a r d , h o w e v e r , t o " t h e
6
To the parallels with D. L . i.io should be added those linking Diodorus' peculiar conception
(above, note i) of the role of air in the creation of the cosmos to what appears in certain Egyptian
creation stories. The parallels are pointed out by Spoerri (i 16-17) D u t
not sufficiently emphasized;
cf. J . G . Griffith in his review of Spathellenislische Berichte, JHS 82.183: "Hecataeus, if the idea is
Egyptian, might have proved an admirable source."
 A P P E N D I X O N E : DIODORUS 1.7-8 177

w h o l e h u m a n race a n d t h e events w h i c h h a v e t r a n s p i r e d i n t h e k n o w n p a r t s
o f t h e w o r l d , " he p r o m i s e s t o g i v e a r e c o r d w h i c h b e g i n s w i t h t h e earliest
t i m e s a n d is as a c c u r a t e as t h e r e m o t e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e subject w i l l a l l o w
( 6 . 2 ) . So f a r , a l l is clear. T r a d i t i o n a l l y , u n i v e r s a l h i s t o r y o f t h e s o r t D i o d o r u s
is w r i t i n g m i g h t o r m i g h t n o t o p e n w i t h a t h e o g o n y . 7
D i o d o r u s is c h o o s i n g
n o t t o d o so. T h e n e x t sentence, h o w e v e r , i n t r o d u c e s some serious diffi-
culties :

W i t h regard to the o r i g i n a l c o m i n g i n t o being o f m a n k i n d there have been t w o

expressions o f view a m o n g the most reputable o f n a t u r a l philosophers a n d
historians. Those w h o posit a w o r l d w i t h o u t b e g i n n i n g a n d end declare t h a t
the h u m a n race also has existed f r o m a l l t i m e , its generation never h a v i n g had
a starting p o i n t . B u t those w h o suppose the w o r l d to have a b e g i n n i n g and an
end say that, for m a n k i n d as w e l l as for i t , there is a n o r i g i n a l c o m i n g i n t o being
at definite times (6.3).

T h e reference i n 6.2 t o a r e c o r d o f " w h a t has t r a n s p i r e d i n t h e k n o w n p a r t s

o f t h e w o r l d " c e r t a i n l y seemed to p r e p a r e t h e w a y f o r a f a c t u a l , n a t i o n - b y -
n a t i o n t r e a t m e n t o f h i s t o r y . T h e present sentence, h o w e v e r , retraces g r o u n d
a b r u p t l y t o theories a b o u t the c o m m o n b e g i n n i n g o f t h e w h o l e race, a n d to
a s u b j e c t — t h e o r i g i n o f t h e c o s m o s — w h i c h p r o p e r l y s p e a k i n g has n o t h i n g to
d o w i t h t h e h u m a n race at a l l . T h e connection b e t w e e n 6.3 a n d what
f o l l o w s ( C h a p t e r 7) is e q u a l l y t e n u o u s . F o r the b u l k o f t h e l a t t e r c h a p t e r is
a z o o g o n y : t h e o r i g i n o f the cosmos occupies a s m a l l space a t its b e g i n n i n g ,
a n d t h e o r i g i n o f m a n is n o t m e n t i o n e d u n t i l t h e q u o t a t i o n f r o m E u r i p i d e s
w i t h w h i c h i t closes ( S p o e r r i , 1 1 4 - 1 5 ) . 6.3 looks r a t h e r l i k e a n i n s e r t i o n i n -
t e n d e d to f i l l t h e g a p b e t w e e n t w o u n c o n n e c t e d s u b j e c t s : t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e
separate n a t i o n s o f m a n k i n d a n d the s p o n t a n e o u s g e n e r a t i o n o f l i f e a t t h e
t i m e o f t h e o r i g i n o f t h e cosmos. T h e t r a n s i t i o n is effected b y a reference,
c o m m o n p l a c e e n o u g h ( S p o e r r i , 206, n o t e 3) t o t w o o f t h e m o s t w i d e l y h e l d
v i e w s o n t h e age o f m a n a n d t h e cosmos. B u t n e i t h e r o f t h e c o n c e p t i o n s so
i n t r o d u c e d , t h e one o f t h e e t e r n i t y o f m a n a n d t h e cosmos, t h e o t h e r o f t h e i r
p e r i o d i c r e c r e a t i o n , is to receive a n y f u r t h e r development. 8

A similar transitional character is e v i d e n t i n t h e passage w h i c h i m -

m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w s t h e c h a p t e r s w h i c h R e i n h a r d t b e l i e v e d t o h a v e b e e n dis-
p l a c e d f r o m t h e i r o r i g i n a l p o s i t i o n . H a v i n g c o n c l u d e d his a c c o u n t o f m a n ' s

' So, for example, theogony was absent from Ephorus but present in Anaximenes of Lampsacus,
whose procedure is cited by Diodorus himself in another context (15.89.3 = FGrH 7 2 T 1 4 ) . I see no
reason to assume, with Spoerri (206, with note 2), the presence of Stoic influence here. The parallels
he cites (.SIT 2.168.13 and 169.23-24) are too general to be of any significance.
7

8
I n 1.10.4 a somewhat similar contrast is drawn between theories which trace the present race
of men alternately to survivors of a flood or to a new brood created from earth after an earlier race
had been completely destroyed. There, however, the bearing which both theories have on the sub-
ject at hand, the antiquity of the Egyptian race, is made quite clear.
I 78 D E M O C R I T U S AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

earliest m o d e o f existence ( 8 . 1 - 9 ) D i o d o r u s proceeds to a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f

" t h e earliest h a p p e n i n g s i n t h e k n o w n p o r t i o n s o f t h e w o r l d o f w h i c h a n y
m e m o r y remains ( g . i ) . " T h e m e n t i o n o f the k n o w n portions o f the w o r l d
recalls 6.2 ( S p o e r r i , 207, w i t h n o t e 8 ) , as i f t h e w r i t e r w e r e r e t u r n i n g f r o m a
digression. I f so, t h e process is one w h i c h r e q u i r e s t h e i n c l u s i o n o f m o r e
i n c i d e n t a l m a t e r i a l before i t is c o m p l e t e . D i o d o r u s first notes t h e d i f f i c u l t y
o f e s t a b l i s h i n g w h o t h e first k i n g s w e r e — g i v e n t h e o b v i o u s newness r e l a t i v e
to t h e i n s t i t u t i o n o f k i n g s h i p o f t h e a r t o f w r i t i n g , p a r t i c u l a r l y t h a t o f w r i t i n g
h i s t o r y ( 9 . 2 ) . T h e c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e p r e c e d i n g is obscure. T h e " m e m o r y "
o f 9.1 m a y be w r i t t e n m e m o r y ; hence 9.2 m i g h t h a v e p e r t i n e n c e as a sort o f
f o o t n o t e o n t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f w r i t t e n source m a t e r i a l . B u t i f so, t h e presence
o f t h e k i n g s r e m a i n s u n e x p l a i n e d . K i n g s h i p is p e r h a p s i n t r o d u c e d as t h e ex-
a m p l e , p a r excellence, o f a n i n s t i t u t i o n w h i c h , t h o u g h m e n t i o n e d o r p r e -
supposed i n a l l o u r earliest d o c u m e n t s , m u s t be assumed to a n t e d a t e t h e m .
Y e t i f t h i s is t h e i d e a b e h i n d t h e p r e s e n t passage, D i o d o r u s m u s t be ex-
c e r p t i n g f r o m a l a r g e r c o n t e x t i n w h i c h t h e t h o u g h t was d e v e l o p e d more
fully.
T h e n e x t sentence adds n o c l a r i f i c a t i o n ; i t m e r e l y i n t r o d u c e s a c o m p l e t e l y
n e w i d e a . " W i t h r e g a r d t o a n t i q u i t y o f race, n o t o n l y t h e Greeks, b u t also
m a n y o f t h e B a r b a r i a n s , p u t f o r w a r d t h e i r c l a i m s , asserting t h e i r o w n a u t o c h -
t h o n o u s o r i g i n a n d p r i o r i t y i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f useful i n v e n t i o n s a n d
k e e p i n g o f w r i t t e n r e c o r d s ( 9 . 3 ) . " O n c e a g a i n i t is possible t o t r a c e a sort o f
t e n u o u s c o n n e c t i o n w i t h w h a t has g o n e before. T h e a r g u m e n t m i g h t be
e x p a n d e d as f o l l o w s : e v e n t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e o r i g i n o f k i n g s h i p is one w h i c h
does n o t a l l o w o f s o l u t i o n because o f its a n t i q u i t y ; h o w m u c h m o r e so t h a t
o f t h e o r i g i n , n o t o f a single i n s t i t u t i o n , b u t o f a w h o l e race. B u t t h e p e r -
spectives o f 9.2 a n d 9.3 c a n be h a r m o n i z e d o n l y w i t h d i f f i c u l t y . T h e f o r m e r
i m p l i e s t h a t t h e r e l a t i v e ages o f w r i t t e n records are n o c r i t e r i o n b y w h i c h to
j u d g e the a n t i q u i t y o f the institutions w h i c h they describe; i n the latter,
Greeks a n d B a r b a r i a n s are r e p r e s e n t e d as o f f e r i n g t h e a n t i q u i t y o f t h e i r o w n
w r i t t e n r e c o r d s as r e l i a b l e t e s t i m o n y to t h e a n t i q u i t y o f t h e i r races. T h e
connection between 9.2 a n d 9.3 is t h u s n o clearer t h a n t h a t b e t w e e n 9.1
a n d 9.2.
I t is o n l y w i t h 9.4 t h a t a l o g i c a l succession o f ideas is re-established.
H a v i n g m e n t i o n e d t h e r i v a l c l a i m s o f d i f f e r e n t n a t i o n s ( 9 . 3 ) , D i o d o r u s de-
clines t o a d j u d i c a t e b e t w e e n t h e m ( 9 . 4 ) . H i s d e c i s i o n to b e g i n w i t h Egypt
does n o t i m p l y a n y s u c h j u d g m e n t : he is s i m p l y t r e a t i n g t h e B a r b a r i a n s first
i n o r d e r n o t t o h a v e t o i n t e r r u p t his subsequent a c c o u n t o f t h e Greeks ( 9 . 5 ) ,
a n d t h e E g y p t i a n s before t h e others because o f t h e g e n e r a l i n t e r e s t t h e i r
h i s t o r y h o l d s a n d t h e t r a d i t i o n s o f t h e b i r t h s o f t h e gods a n d the d i s c o v e r y o f
a s t r o n o m y w h i c h are associated w i t h i t ( 9 . 6 ) .
 A P P E N D I X O N E : DIODORUS 1.7-8 179

I t is n o t l i k e l y t o be c o i n c i d e n t a l t h a t t h e first sentence o f t h e c h a p t e r (9.3)

to f o r m p a r t o f a n a t u r a l sequence o f t h o u g h t w o u l d be a p e r f e c t sequel t o
6.2, t h e last o n e o f t h a t c h a p t e r t o f o r m p a r t o f such a s e q u e n c e :

6.2 περί τον γένους των απάντων ανθρώπων και των πραχθέντων εν τοις

γνωριζομένοις μέρεσι της οικουμένης, ώς αν ενδέχηται περι των οϋτω παλαιών,

ακριβώς άναγράφομεν από τΰιν αρχαιοτάτων χρόνων άρξαμενοι.

9·3 περί δέ της τον γένους αρχαιότητος ου μόνον άμφισβητονσιν "Ελληνες, άλλα και
πολλοί τ ω ν βαρβάρων . . . λέγοντες . . . τάς γενομένας παρ' αύτοΐς πράξεις εκ
πλείστων χρόνων αναγραφής ήξιώσθαι.

D i o d o r u s sets f o r t h h i s s u b j e c t : t h e h u m a n race a n d its praxeis i n different

p a r t s o f t h e w o r l d . T h e r e c o r d is t o s t a r t f r o m earliest t i m e s a n d be as
a c c u r a t e as t h e n a t u r e o f t h e s u b j e c t w i l l a l l o w . T h e r e is a n i n i t i a l d i f f i c u l t y :
Greeks a n d B a r b a r i a n s a r e n o t a g r e e d as t o w h o w e r e t h e earliest r e p ­
resentatives o f t h e race, a n d have different views a b o u t t h e age o f t h e
praxeis w h i c h a r e o n r e c o r d f o r t h e i r p a r t o f t h e oikoumene. D i o d o r u s w i l l n o t
d e c i d e t h e d i s p u t e , b u t w i l l t r e a t t h e subject i n t h e o r d e r d i c t a t e d b y c o n ­
v e n i e n c e . A n d so t o t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e A e g y p t i a c a . H e r e e v e r y t h i n g f o l l o w s
w i t h p e r f e c t e c o n o m y a n d l o g i c o f t r e a t m e n t a n d i n w h a t was, I b e l i e v e , t h e
original order—subsequently disrupted b y the insertion (or transposition) o f
C h a p t e r s 7 a n d 8.
I t is n o t h a r d t o suggest a p l a u s i b l e reason f o r t h e i n s e r t i o n . W e k n o w t h a t
1.1-5 w a s w r i t t e n , 9
o r a t least r e v i s e d , 1 0
after t h e rest o f t h e w o r k w a s c o m ­
p l e t e d . T h e passage is l a b o r e d a n d p o m p o u s , t h e w o r k o f " a s m a l l m a n w i t h
p r e t e n s i o n s " ( N o c k , JRS 4 9 . 5 ) : h i s t o r y is t h e m o s t n e a r l y p e r f e c t o f h u m a n
d i s c i p l i n e s ; i t is a t o n c e m o r e d e l i g h t f u l t h a n p o e t r y a n d m o r e s a l u t a r y t h a n
l a w codes; i t m e m o r i a l i z e s t h e c o m m o n a c h i e v e m e n t s a n d characteristics
w h i c h l i n k a l l m e n t o o n e a n o t h e r as c i t i z e n s o f a single race a n d c o s m o s —
a n d D i o d o r u s ' w o r k is t h e m o s t c o m p l e t e a n d p e r f e c t s p e c i m e n o f t h e g e n r e
y e t p u t before t h e p u b l i c . I n w r i t i n g o r r e v i s i n g these lines D i o d o r u s m a y w e l l
h a v e felt a c e r t a i n uneasiness. C h a p t e r s 7 a n d 8 a r e t h e r e s u l t : a n e f f o r t t o
bridge t h e g a p between t h e h i g h - s o u n d i n g r h e t o r i c o f the preface a n d t h e
uninspired c o l l e c t i o n o f excerpts w h i c h follows. F o r they do deal with
h u m a n i t y as a w h o l e i n t h e m a n n e r p r o m i s e d . S u m m a r y a c c o u n t s o f t h e
b e g i n n i n g s o f t h e cosmos a n d h u m a n life w e r e d o u b t l e s s a v a i l a b l e i n t h e
first c e n t u r y B . C . , a n d i t was p e r h a p s a v a g u e f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h t h e topos w h i c h
suggested t o D i o d o r u s t h e g e n e r a l lines w h i c h t h e r e v i s i o n o f his t e x t s h o u l d
t a k e . Y e t , as t h e p a t c h w o r k a r o u n d 7 a n d 8 shows, t h e w h o l e p l a n w a s a n .
,<"'"·•;·'.'
9
As suggested by Reinhardt ( 4 9 8 ) , calling attention to 1.4.6: errel δ' ή μέν ύττόθεσις tMi τ*Χο£,-
αί βίβλοι 8έ μέχρι τον ννν ανέκδοτοι τνγχάνονσιν ονσαι. f t / .
1 0
See Laqueur (above, note 5) 2 8 6 - 8 9 . II ^ ί Π

«|( c
ΐ8θ D E M O C R I T U S AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

a f t e r t h o u g h t , i m p e r f e c t l y c o n c e i v e d a n d carelessly e x e c u t e d . I f t h e m a t e r i a l
w h i c h c o u l d s u p p l y h i m w i t h t h e details o f his t r e a t m e n t was a l r e a d y o n h a n d
i n a l a t e r p o r t i o n o f B o o k I , i t is u n l i k e l y t h a t D i o d o r u s w o u l d h a v e b o t h e r e d
to l o o k f o r s o m e t h i n g s i m i l a r elsewhere. G i v e n t h e u n d i s p u t e d a n t i q u i t y o f
their t r a d i t i o n , the views o f the " E g y p t i a n s " o n the beginnings o f things
c o u l d be e x p e c t e d t o be as r e l i a b l e as a n y . 1 1
T h e expedient resorted to d i d
some v i o l e n c e t o D i o d o r u s ' source, b u t was a p e r f e c t l y n a t u r a l one u n d e r t h e
circumstances. 1 2
I t has left its traces, n o t s i m p l y i n t h e e x t r a n e o u s m a t e r i a l
w h i c h s u r r o u n d s 7 a n d 8 i n t h e i r p r e s e n t s e t t i n g , b u t also, as w e s h a l l see, i n
c e r t a i n gaps w h i c h t h e i r r e m o v a l c r e a t e d i n t h e o l d one.

C h a p t e r 10 b e g i n s b y g i v i n g t h e E g y p t i a n s ' reasons f o r b e l i e v i n g t h a t t h e i r
c o u n t r y was t h e earliest h o m e o f m a n k i n d . These are t w o : t h e f e r t i l i t y o f t h e
N i l e v a l l e y , w h i c h supplies o f its o w n a c c o r d a b u n d a n t sustenance f o r l i f e ,
a n d t h e eukrasia o f t h e i r l a n d . T h e eukrasia m e n t i o n e d is p r e s u m a b l y the
t e m p e r a t e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e E g y p t i a n c l i m a t e : t h e absence o f t h e e x t r e m e s o f
h e a t a n d c o l d w h i c h w o u l d m a k e life d i f f i c u l t o r i m p o s s i b l e . 1 3
D i o d o r u s does
n o t , h o w e v e r , b o t h e r t o g i v e s u c h a c l a r i f i c a t i o n ; i n s t e a d he l a u n c h e s , r a t h e r
a b r u p t l y , i n t o a n a t t e m p t to show, o n other grounds, w h y the spontaneous
generation, n o t s i m p l y o f m e n , b u t o f a l l l i v i n g creatures, must have b e g u n
in Egypt (1.10.2-3):
A n d they seek to offer i n support o f the theory o f a n i n i t i a l spontaneous genera­
t i o n i n t h e i r l a n d the fact t h a t even n o w i n the T h e b a i d on certain occasions the
generation o f mice i n such numbers a n d o f such size occurs t h a t those w h o ob­
serve i t are astounded. F o r some o f t h e m are formed u p to the chest a n d the
forefeet a n d are capable o f movement, b u t have the r e m a i n i n g p o r t i o n o f their
b o d y u n f o r m e d , the m u d still r e m a i n i n g i n its n a t u r a l state. A n d f r o m this i t is
evident t h a t at the t i m e o f the o r i g i n a l creation o f the cosmos, w h e n the earth
was temperately m i x e d , E g y p t above a l l other places w o u l d have been the scene
of the generation of m e n . F o r n o w , w h e n the rest o f the earth produces n o t h i n g
1 4

Cf. the similar procedure in Porphyry, De abstinentia 2.5 ( = Theophrastus, Ilepl εΰσΐβείας,
1 1

Fr. 1.1—Q Potscher), where it is assumed that the forms of sacrifice first practiced by the Egyptians
were the earliest known to mankind in general.
1 2
A similar transfer doubtless explains the reappearance of a portion of the general anthropology
of 1.8 in the specifically Indian context of Book I I (1.8.9 = 2.38.2).
1 3
Gf. the very similar passage in Justin 2.1.5: "inter Scythas et Aegyptios diu contestio de generis
vetustate fuerit, Aegyptiis praedicantibus . . . Aegyptum ita temperatum semper fuisse ut neque
hiberna frigora nec aestivi solis ardores incolas eius premerent: solum ita fecundum ut alimentorum
in usum hominum nulla terra feracior fuerit. iure igitur ibi primum homines natos videri debere
ubi educari facillime possent." Here fertility and eukrasia are linked in exactly the same way as they
are in Diodorus. Temperate climate and fertile soil often appear in passages dedicated to the praise
of a particular region. See Firmicus Maternus, Math. 1.7.16; Plato, Timaeus 2 4 c ; Oionysius, Antiq.
Rom. 1.37.5; Herodotus 3.106; Euripides, F r . 981 ( T G F 677).
1 4
κατά τήν £ξ αρχής τον κόσμον σνστασίν τής γής ενκράτον καθεστώσης μάλιστ' αν εσχε τήν yeveaiv
των ανθρώπων ή κατ' Αϊγνπτον χώρα. Oldfather translates as if the γής were Egypt. But if this were
 A P P E N D I X O N E : DIODORUS 1.7-8 l8l

o f the k i n d , i t is here only t h a t the phenomenal spontaneous generation o f some

l i v i n g things is observed.

Two ideas a r e p r e s e n t e d h e r e , t h e second o f t h e m s o m e w h a t o b s c u r e l y (see

S p o e r r i , 2 0 9 , n o t e 15). I t is n a t u r a l e n o u g h t o a d d u c e c o n t e m p o r a r y s p o n ­
taneous g e n e r a t i o n as e v i d e n c e f o r its f o r m e r o c c u r r e n c e ( 1 0 . 2 ) , b u t i t is less
easy t o see w h y t h e f a c t t h a t n o o t h e r c o u n t r y p r o d u c e s a n i m a l s i n t h i s
f a s h i o n p r o v e s t h a t E g y p t o n c e p r o d u c e d m e n i n t h e same w a y ( 1 0 . 3 ) .
M o r e o v e r , eukrasia n o w c h a r a c t e r i z e s , n o t E g y p t , b u t t h e w h o l e e a r t h , a n d
the w o r d seems t o h a v e a n e w m e a n i n g . T h e m a i n t e n a n c e o f life is f a v o r e d
by a t e m p e r a t e c l i m a t e , b u t as t h e p r e c o n d i t i o n o f its g e n e r a t i o n G r e e k
zoology a n d ethnology usually posited a m i x t u r e , n o t o f heat a n d cold, b u t
of heat and m o i s t u r e . 1 5
T h e w o r d s , " a t t h e t i m e o f t h e o r i g i n o f t h e cosmos
w h e n t h e e a r t h was t e m p e r a t e l y m i x e d , " m u s t refer t o t h e process d e s c r i b e d
i n C h a p t e r 7: t h e m i n g l i n g o f t h e sun's w a r m t h w i t h t h e m o i s t u r e o f a n e a r t h
o n l y r e c e n t l y s e p a r a t e d f r o m t h e sea. T h e r e s u l t i n g eukrasia m a d e t h e e a r t h
as a w h o l e m u c h m o r e s u i t e d t o t h e s p o n t a n e o u s g e n e r a t i o n o f l i v i n g t h i n g s
t h a n i t is n o w . 1 6
A n d i f t h e p r o d u c t i v i t y o f E g y p t surpassed t h a t o f t h e rest
o f t h e w o r l d t h e n as i t does n o w , t h e c o u n t r y w a s o b v i o u s l y t h e o n e m o s t
l i k e l y t o b r i n g f o r t h t h e greatest p r o f u s i o n o f l i v i n g t h i n g s , m a n a m o n g
them. 1 7
10.2-3 m u s t
h a v e once b e e n p a r t o f a n a r g u m e n t d e v e l o p e d m o r e

Diodorus' meaning one would expect a participial phrase modifying χώρα rather than a genitive
absolute; and καθεστώσης suggests a temporary condition, not the permanent eukrasia which
characterizes Egypt.
1 5
Eukrasia is so defined later in the same chapter ( 1 0 . 5 ) , where the air is said to become
eukratotaton through a mingling of epombria and kauma. Cf. also Theophrastus, Caus. plant. 3 . 2 2 . 3 ;
Pausanias 8 . 2 9 . 4 ; d Diodorus 3 . 2 . 1 (quoted below, note 1 7 ) . From the purely climatic standpoint
a n

of 1 0 . 1 , a mixture of heat and moisture need not be eukratos at all: cf. in the discussion of the in­
temperate climates of Scythia and Egypt which is preserved in Photius (Cod. 2 4 9 4 4 1 A 1 6 - 1 8 ) , the
statement that the Egyptians υπό θάλπους πνκνουμενης της επιφανείας τον σώματος και άπολαμ-
βανομένου εντός τον θερμον πολλού και τον ύγροΰ το δνσκρατον έκληρώσαντο.
1 6
See 7 . 6 , on the inability to produce larger forms of life which comes with the gradual hardening
of the earth. Eukrasia is not mentioned explicitly in Chapter 7 , but the idea is surely present. Cf.,
in the very similar zoogony of Ovid's Metamorphoses I to which Spoerri ( 1 1 7 - 1 9 ) has called attention,
lines 4 3 0 — 3 1 : ubi temperiem sumpsere umorque calorque j concipiunt.
1 7
Compare the somewhat similar line of reasoning which appears in a passage from the
Ethiopian chapters of Diodorus ( 3 . 2 . 1 ) : "And that those who dwell in the south are likely to have
been the first products of spontaneous generation is plain for all to see. For, since it was the sun's
heat which dried the earth when it was still wet at the time of the coming into being of all things
and caused spontaneous generation, it is likely that the place nearest the sun would first bring forth
living creatures." The only difference is that here it is not unusual productivity, but the possession,
to an unusual degree, of one of the prerequisites for such productivity, which is assumed to have
characterized the initial as well as the later periods of a country's history and made it particularly
suited for spontaneous generation. The parallel is even closer if, as is possible, the argument of
10.2-3 i ' original form related Egypt's present productivity to the unusual eukrasia which, on
m s

certain occasions, its soil possesses. See below, note 19.

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

f u l l y a l o n g those l i n e s . Basic t o t h i s a r g u m e n t is t h e m a t e r i a l n o w c o n t a i n e d
i n C h a p t e r 7. R e i n h a r d t ' s t h e o r y o f a n o r i g i n a l c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n 7 a n d 10
is m o r e t h a n p o s s i b l e : i t is a l m o s t necessary.
I t seems l i k e l y , as a g a i n s t R e i n h a r d t , t h a t 7 d i d n o t o r i g i n a l l y p r e c e d e 10
(8 i n t e r v e n i n g ) b u t was c o m b i n e d m o r e closely w i t h i t i n a m a n n e r w h i c h
c a n n o t n o w be e x a c t l y d e t e r m i n e d . A p a s s a g e 18
w h i c h i n one f a m i l y o f
manuscripts appears between 7 a n d 8 m a y have something to do w i t h this
original version:

A n d as for t h e generation o f l i v i n g creatures f r o m the e a r t h , they say t h a t even

i f this seem p a r a d o x i c a l t o some, t h e earth's former potency is borne o u t b y
w h a t continues to occur even n o w . F o r i n the A e g y p t i a n T h e b a i d , w h e n the
N i l e flood has m a d e the soil moist a n d the sudden w a r m i n g action o f the sun
has caused f e r m e n t a t i o n at m a n y points along the surface, a countless n u m b e r
of m i c e are b o r n f r o m t h e e a r t h . A n d they say t h a t i t is obvious, w h a t w i t h t h e
generation o f animals t a k i n g place i n spite o f t h e earth's h a v i n g become h a r d
and the s u r r o u n d i n g atmosphere's h a v i n g lost its o r i g i n a l eukrasia, t h a t at t h e
t i m e o f t h e o r i g i n a l c o m i n g i n t o being o f t h e entire w o r l d a l l kinds o f l i v i n g
creatures were generated f r o m the e a r t h .

H e r e , j u s t as i n 1 0 . 2 - 3 , t n e
c o n t e m p o r a r y p h e n o m e n o n o f the spontaneous
g e n e r a t i o n o f m i c e i n t h e T h e b a i d is a d d u c e d i n s u p p o r t o f t h e t h e o r y o f a n
o r i g i n a l s p o n t a n e o u s g e n e r a t i o n o f a l l l i v i n g creatures. T h e r e is n o m e n t i o n
o f t h e h a l f - f o r m e d specimens d e s c r i b e d i n 10, b u t t h e m i c e are said t o a p p e a r
d u r i n g the t i m e o f the N i l e flood w h e n the w a r m t h o f the sun interacts w i t h
the wet soil. 1 9
T h e f i n a l p o r t i o n o f t h e passage, t h o u g h n o t c o m p l e t e l y i n ­
t e l l i g i b l e as t h e G r e e k text n o w stands, 20
seems t o p r e s e n t a n a r g u m e n t
r a t h e r s i m i l a r t o the one j u s t reconstructed i n connection w i t h 10.3: if,
despite t h e i n c r e a s e d hardness o f t h e e a r t h a n d t h e decreased eukrasia o f t h e
s u r r o u n d i n g a i r , s p o n t a n e o u s g e n e r a t i o n s t i l l occurs, i t is o b v i o u s t h a t a t o n e
t i m e a l l l i v i n g creatures m u s t have been p r o d u c e d i n this w a y . 2 1
Everything
i n t h e passage e i t h e r clarifies a n d c o m p l e t e s , o r else r e p r o d u c e s w i t h s l i g h t

Printed in the apparatus to Vogel's edition, Vol. I , 13-14.

1 8

T h e condition so produced is obviously one of unusual eukrasia, and this fact may have played
1 9

a part in the argument Diodorus is abridging. T h e exceptional eukrasia brought about by the
flooding of the Nile would have made the country, at the beginning of things as well as now, far
more productive of life than the rest of the world—hence best able to engender men. Here eukrasia
plays the same role as southerly location in the argument of 3.2.1 (see above, note 17).
2 0
T h e translation given above rests on Spoerri's plausible conjecture (224, addendum to p. 209,
note 15) of eVel ούν for ΰπό τ' ovv at the beginning of the last sentence in the passage.
2 1
Here it is the atmosphere rather than the earth which is eukratos. Obviously, however, the two
varieties of eukrasia are closely related. I n 7.4 both the moisture of the earth and the homichle of the
night air combine with the sun's heat to further the process of generation; and, as has already been
pointed out (above, note 15), 10.5 speaks of a mingling of epombria and kauma which makes the air
ΐύκρατότατον προς τήν e£ αρχής τών πάντων ζωογονίαν.
 A P P E N D I X O N E : D I O D O R U S 1.7-8 183

modifications, the m a t e r i a l o f 10.2-3. 1 1 1 S a s

i f D i o d o r u s h a d first d i v i d e d ,
w i t h l i t t l e r e g a r d f o r c o n t i n u i t y o f t h o u g h t , a single a c c o u n t i n t o t w o sections
so t h a t i t c o u l d be i n c o r p o r a t e d i n C h a p t e r s 7 a n d 10, t h e n r e w r i t t e n a p o r -
t i o n o f o n e o f these sections so t h a t i t c o u l d a p p e a r i n t h e o t h e r c h a p t e r as
w e l l . L a t e r t h e d u p l i c a t e d m a t e r i a l t o be i n c l u d e d i n C h a p t e r 7 was m a r k e d
f o r o m i s s i o n , b u t r e t a i n e d b y i n a d v e r t e n c e i n some e d i t i o n s . 2 2
I t is i m p o s -
sible t o t e l l w h i c h o f t h e t w o versions p r e s e r v e d is t h e o r i g i n a l o n e . For
o u r present p u r p o s e s , h o w e v e r , t h e a n s w e r t o t h i s q u e s t i o n is u n i m p o r t a n t .
E i t h e r a l t e r n a t i v e p o i n t s t o t h e o r i g i n a l c o n n e c t i o n o f 7 a n d 10.

T o l o c a t e t h e o r i g i n a l c o n t e x t o f 1.8 is m o r e d i f f i c u l t . R e i n h a r d t assumed
t h a t i t c a m e b e t w e e n 7 a n d 10, b u t t h e analysis g i v e n a b o v e suggests t h a t
these t w o c h a p t e r s w e r e o n c e p a r t o f a single w h o l e . I t is e v e n c o n c e i v a b l e
t h a t , w h i l e 1.7 was t a k e n f r o m t h e A e g y p t i a c a , 1.8 has a d i f f e r e n t source
a l t o g e t h e r . B u t t h e p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n D i o d o r u s a n d V i t r u v i u s discussed a b o v e
( p p . 1 5 - 1 6 , 4 0 - 4 2 , 6 0 - 6 1 a n d C h a p . I I , notes 1 0 - 1 1 ) suggest o t h e r w i s e . T h e
similarities between the t w o authors a n d the appearance i n the Aegyptiaca
o f m a t e r i a l w h i c h o b v i o u s l y comes f r o m t h e same source as 1.8 (see a b o v e ,
p p . 16-17) m
ay be e x p l a i n e d i n o n e o f t h r e e w a y s . E i t h e r (1) D i o d o r u s is
d r a w i n g d i r e c t l y o n t h e same source f r o m w h i c h V i t r u v i u s d r e w a n d is h i m -
self responsible f o r t h e E g y p t i a n s e t t i n g o f t h e H e p h a e s t u s episode (1.13.3 =
V i t r u v i u s 3 3 . 1 6 - 2 3 ; see a b o v e , p . 1 5 ) ; o r (2) D i o d o r u s is d r a w i n g o n a n
i n t e r m e d i a t e source i n w h i c h 1.13.3 h a d a l r e a d y r e c e i v e d its E g y p t i a n s e t t i n g .
I n t h e l a t t e r e v e n t e i t h e r (2a) t h i s i n t e r m e d i a t e source is n o t i d e n t i c a l w i t h
t h e source o f 1.8.3 a n
d 9 ( = Vitruvius 33.24-28, 34.2-6, and 36.1-8; see
a b o v e , p p . 33 a n d 4 0 ; o r ( 2 b ) i t is i d e n t i c a l , i n w h i c h case 1.8.3 a n C l
9>
l i k e 1.13.3, m u s t 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 to a n o t h e r i n t h e manner
posited b y hypothesis 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 o f the
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 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 to assume t h a t
1.13.3 goes b a c k , t h r o u g h some " E g y p t i a n " i n t e r m e d i a r y , to the same
source as 1.8.3 a n <
^ 9 m t n e s a r
n e b o o k ( 2 a ) . H y p o t h e s i s 2 b , besides b e i n g t h e

2 2
The quotation from Euripides in 7.7 is perhaps an addition of Diodorus to replace this passage.
For the mention of the loss of the earth's capacity to generate larger creatures, which precedes the
quotation, leads naturally into the detail about the Theban mice.
184 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

least u n l i k e l y i n itself, g a i n s s u p p o r t f r o m t h e f a c t t h a t t h e p r o c e d u r e i t e n -
visions is t h e same as seems t o h a v e b e e n r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e present f o r m o f
C h a p t e r 7.
There is a d d i t i o n a l evidence which points to the same conclusion.
R e i n h a r d t n o t e d ( 4 9 6 ) t h a t m o s t o f t h e m a t e r i a l i n 1.8 has close p a r a l l e l s i n
the A e g y p t i a c a . T h e s e are n o t a l w a y s s u f f i c i e n t i n themselves to guarantee
a u n i t y o f s o u r c e : p a r a l l e l s as close, o r n e a r l y as close, c a n o f t e n be a d d u c e d
i n o t h e r w o r k s . W h a t is m o r e s i g n i f i c a n t is t h e f a c t t h a t t h e t w o p a r t s o f
B o o k I n o t o n l y r e s e m b l e , b u t also c o m p l e m e n t a n d c o m p l e t e e a c h o t h e r ,
j u s t as d o 1.7 a n d 1.10.
T h e o p e n i n g sentence o f 1.8 s h o u l d be c o m p a r e d w i t h a l a t e r d e s c r i p t i o n
o f the " e a r l i e s t w a y o f l i f e " p u r s u e d b y the E g y p t i a n s :

T h e earliest m e n l i v e d i n a disordered a n d a n i m a l - l i k e c o n d i t i o n , proceeding i n

scattered fashion to pastures a n d consuming the most suitable grass a n d the w i l d
fruits f r o m the trees. (1.8.1)
I n f o r m e r times, at the earliest stage o f t h e i r existence, the Egyptians sub-
sisted o n grass a n d the roots a n d stems o f swamp plants. First, a n d i n greatest
quantities, they consumed the so-called agrdstis p l a n t because o f its unusual
sweetness a n d the sufficiency o f the n o u r i s h m e n t i t p r o v i d e d the h u m a n b o d y —
for they observed i t was suited to animals a n d swiftly increased the size o f their
bodies. (1.43.1)

S e c t i o n 8.1 r e p o r t s t h a t m e n f e d o n t h e m o s t s u i t a b l e grass; 43.1 e x p l a i n s

h o w m e n h i t u p o n its use: b y o b s e r v i n g its effect o n o t h e r a n i m a l s . 2 3
The
presence o f t h e l a t t e r is i n t u r n e x p l a i n e d b y t h e p h r a s e " p r o c e e d i n g t o pas-
t u r e s " i n 8 . 1 : m a n ' s earliest life was a n o m a d i c one w h i c h w o u l d n a t u r a l l y
b r i n g h i m i n t o close c o n t a c t w i t h o t h e r g r a z i n g a n i m a l s .
T h e reference i n 8.1 t o t h e d i s o r d e r e d a n d a n i m a l - l i k e c o n d i t i o n o f t h e
earliest m e n is closely c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g passage ( 8 . 2 - 4 ) , w h i c h
describes h o w , o u t o f t h i s c o n d i t i o n , society arose. T h e i m m e d i a t e i m p u l s e
for its c r e a t i o n comes f r o m m a n ' s s t r u g g l e f o r s u r v i v a l a g a i n s t o t h e r species.
F e a r a n d t h e t e a c h i n g s o f to sympheron create t h e first a g g r e g a t i o n s ; within
e a c h o f these p r i m i t i v e systemata a c o m m o n speech develops, a n d t h e r e s u l t i n g
l a n g u a g e g r o u p s b e c o m e t h e ancestors o f a l l t h e n a t i o n s (ethne) o f t h e w o r l d .
A n e x a c t l y p a r a l l e l a c c o u n t a p p e a r s i n 1.90 ( a b o v e , p . 6 4 ) . A s t h e E g y p t i a n s
are i n t h e process o f e m e r g i n g f r o m a n a n i m a l - l i k e existence, t h e weaker
m e m b e r s o f t h e r a c e are t a u g h t b y to sympheron t o f o r m p r o t e c t i v e systemata
a g a i n s t t h e s t r o n g e r . H e r e , as i n 1.8, t h e m e m b e r s o f e a c h systema are l i n k e d
together b y a f o r m o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n — a n e m b l e m (semeion) b e a r i n g t h e
2 3
Texts which mention grass as man's earliest form of nourishment are fairly frequent (see
Spoerri, MusHelv 18.78, notes 74—75). T h e two just considered are, however, the only ones which,
to my knowledge, contain the detail about selecting from among the different grasses available.
 A P P E N D I X O N E : DIODORUS 1.7-8

representation o f a n a n i m a l — t o w h i c h they r a l l y i n times o f danger, a n d

w h i c h , l i k e l a n g u a g e , operates as a u n i f y i n g f o r c e t h r o u g h s u b s e q u e n t e v o l u ­
t i o n : each E g y p t i a n tribe (ethnos) worships the p a r t i c u l a r a n i m a l w h i c h
p r o v e d t o be t h e s a l v a t i o n o f t h e systema f r o m w h i c h i t is d e s c e n d e d .
T h e d e v e l o p m e n t s t r a c e d i n these passages are so s i m i l a r t h a t i n d e p e n d e n t
o r i g i n is u n l i k e l y ; 2 4
i t s h o u l d be n o t e d , m o r e o v e r , t h a t t h e basic i d e a fits
b e t t e r w i t h t h e E g y p t i a n c o n t e x t o f 1.90 t h a n w i t h t h e m o r e g e n e r a l o n e o f
1.8. T h e n o t i o n t h a t s m a l l g r o u p s o f m e n s p e a k i n g t h e same t o n g u e m a y
p e o p l e l a r g e areas w i t h t h e i r descendants is so f a m i l i a r f r o m t h e t h e o r i e s o f
n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y p h i l o l o g y t h a t o n e tends t o f o r g e t t h a t i t is s o m e w h a t
inconsistent w i t h the idea o f spontaneous generation. G i v e n the early p r o ­
d u c t i v i t y o f t h e e a r t h , t h e systemata w h i c h arise " a l l o v e r t h e w o r l d " ( 8 . 4 )
s p e a k i n g d i f f e r e n t d i a l e c t s , w o u l d be f a r m o r e n u m e r o u s t h a n l a t e r n a t i o n a l
g r o u p s : Greeks, Persians, etc. S u c h g r o u p s c o u l d o n l y c o m e into being
t h r o u g h t h e c o m b i n a t i o n o f a n u m b e r o f o r i g i n a l systemata; a n d o f this there
is n o m e n t i o n i n e i t h e r passage. N o d i f f i c u l t y is i n v o l v e d , h o w e v e r , i f t h e
ethne are n o t t h e n a t i o n s o f t h e oikoumene b u t s i m p l y t h e t r i b e s o f a s i n g l e
c o u n t r y — l o c a l i z e d g r o u p s w h i c h c o u l d easily b e d e s c e n d e d f r o m a single
systema. T h e a c c o u n t w h i c h stands i n 8 . 2 - 4 w a s
probably completed origin­
a l l y b y 1 6 . i , w h i c h describes h o w H e r m e s " a r t i c u l a t e d t h e c o m m o n d i a l e c t
o f t h e c o u n t r y " ( p r e s u m a b l y t h e l a n g u a g e o f a l l E g y p t as d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m
those o f its i n d i v i d u a l ethne) 25
a n d e x p a n d e d its v o c a b u l a r y . 2 6

T h e f i n a l p o r t i o n o f C h a p t e r 8 ( 5 - 9 ) describes m a n ' s earliest efforts t o

s u p p l y h i m s e l f w i t h t h e necessities o f l i f e . I n t h e b e g i n n i n g t h e r e was no
k n o w l e d g e o f c u l t i v a t e d f o o d , o r f i r e , o r shelter, o r c l o t h i n g ( 8 . 5 ) . E v e n t h e
art o f g a t h e r i n g w i l d f o o d was u n k n o w n (8.6). T h e l a b o r i o u s process b y
w h i c h m a n l e a r n e d t o c o l l e c t a n d store f r u i t s is d e s c r i b e d i n some detail
( 8 . 6 - 7 ) . T h e o t h e r w a n t s are dismissed i n a s i n g l e p h r a s e : γνωσθέντος δε
τοΰ πυρός και των άλλων χρησίμων ( 8 . 8 ) . I t is n o t l i k e l y t o be m e r e c o i n c i d e n c e
that t h e subjects w h i c h receive s u c h scant t r e a t m e n t here reappear at
g r e a t e r l e n g t h i n t h e A e g y p t i a c a . T h e d i s c o v e r y o f f i r e is d e s c r i b e d i n t h e

As Uxkull-Gyllenband points out (27, note 15), 1.90 "gibt die beste Unterlage für Reinhardts
2 4

These."
Since 1.16 and 1.8 refer to different stages in the development of language, the contrast
2 5

noted by Spoerri, MusHelv 18.73, note 55, between the gradual process described in the former and
the individual act of creation which appears in the latter is no argument against unity of source.
26
την τζ κοινήν διάλεκτον διαρθρωθήναι και πολλά τών ανωνύμων τνχεΐν προσηγορίας. This shows
conclusively that the passage cannot be describing the original formation of language. Creation of
a common language (i.e. choosing from among existing names for identical objects those which are
to be accepted as standard) and naming objects for which no name yet exists are separate activities;
the distinction could not exist were Hermes the original linguistic nomothetes—see above, p. 108.
(Note also that Diodorus' phrase κοινή διάλικτος would, in Hellenistic Greek, be more likely to
suggest a koine than the dialect of a single area.)
 186 DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K ANTHROPOLOGY

passage a l r e a d y q u o t e d ( a b o v e , p . 1 5 ) ; Isis a n d O s i r i s a r e responsible f o r

t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f c u l t i v a t e d f o o d ( 1 4 . 1 ) ; a n d , t h o u g h t h e r e is n o t h i n g
a b o u t c l o t h i n g i n D i o d o r u s , H e r m e s a p p e a r s as t h e i n v e n t o r o f w e a v i n g i n a
w o r k w h i c h so resembles t h e c h a p t e r s o f t h e A e g y p t i a c a o n d i v i n e i n v e n t o r s
t h a t i t m u s t b e closely r e l a t e d t o i t : L e o ' s a c c o u n t o f t h e o r i g i n o f t h e E g y p t i a n
gods (see a b o v e , p p . 3 8 - 3 9 a n d 1 5 3 - 5 4 ) .
T h e s e c h a p t e r s ( 1 . 1 3 - 1 6 ) , t a k e n t o g e t h e r w i t h 1.8, p r o d u c e a n a c c o u n t o f
p r e - h i s t o r y i n w h i c h t h e r e a r e f e w gaps a n d , m o r e s t r i k i n g l y p e r h a p s , n o
d u p l i c a t i o n s . N o g o d is c r e d i t e d w i t h t e a c h i n g m a n h o w t o g a t h e r a n d store
f r u i t s , o r w i t h a s s e m b l i n g m a n k i n d o u t o f his a n i m a l - l i k e state, t h o u g h such
o f t e n a p p e a r as d i v i n e a c h i e v e m e n t s i n o t h e r passages o f a euhemeristic
character. 2 7
T h e o n e passage w h i c h m i g h t seem t o offer such a d u p l i c a t i o n
is 8 . 9 . T h e r e t h e rise o f t e c h n o l o g y is a t t r i b u t e d t o " n e e d i t s e l f " w h i c h sup­
p l i e d " s u i t a b l e i n s t r u c t i o n " t o a " c r e a t u r e w e l l - e n d o w e d a n d possessed o f
h a n d s , r a t i o n a l speech, a n d m e n t a l sharpness as its c o - w o r k e r s i n a l l t h i n g s "
(see above, p . 4 0 ) . There is n o m e n t i o n o f d i v i n e i n v e n t o r s a n d the
w h o l e c o n c e p t i o n o f progress i n v o l v e d m i g h t seem r a t h e r d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h a t
w h i c h appears i n t h e A e g y p t i a c a . O n the other h a n d , Hermes, Osiris, a n d
t h e i r c o m p a n i o n s a r e a l l m e n t o b e g i n w i t h (cf. 1 3 . 1 : νπάρξαντας θνητούς) a n d
o n l y subsequently d e i f i e d . I f d i v i n e h o n o r s seem t o b e s l i g h t l y excessive as
r e w a r d s f o r i n d i v i d u a l s w h o s i m p l y possess i n g r e a t e r m e a s u r e t h e g e n e r i c
qualities o f the r a c e , 2 8
t h i s is a n i n c o n s i s t e n c y w i t h i n t h e E g y p t i a n t h e o l o g y
i t s e l f (see a b o v e , p . 1 6 ) , n o t b e t w e e n i t s p o i n t o f v i e w a n d t h a t o f 8.9. I t is,
moreover, a n inconsistency t h a t is e x a c t l y paralleled i n Diodorus' o w n
I n d i c a ( 2 . 3 5 - 4 2 ) . T h e r e , after a sentence t e l l i n g h o w t h e earliest Indians
l i v e d b y f o o d - g a t h e r i n g a n d c l o t h e d themselves i n t h e skins o f a n i m a l s ( 3 8 . 2 ) ,
t h e d o c t r i n e o f 1.8.9 is r e s t a t e d a n d f o l l o w e d b y a n a c c o u n t o f t h e a c h i e v e ­
ments o f the inventor-god Dionysus (38.3-6).

2 7
Cf. Diodorus 2 . 3 8 . 5 ; 3.56.3, 6 3 . 3 , 7 0 . 8 , and 7 3 . 5 ; 5.65.3 and 6 8 . 1 ; and Philo of Byblos, FGrH
7 9 0 F 2 , p. 807.21. Particularly striking is the comparison and contrast between 5.68.1 and 1.14.1:
Δήμητραν δέ, του οιτοΰ φυομενον μεν ως έτυχε μετά της άλλης βοτανης αγνοουμένου δέ παρ*
άνθρώποις, πρώτην συγκομισαι καϊ την κατεργασίαν αυτοΰ καϊ φνλακήν έπινοήσαι. (5.68. ι)

ενρονσης μεν "Ισιδος τον τε του πυροΰ καϊ της κριθής καρπόν, φυόμενον ώς έτυχε κατά τήν χώραν
μετά τής άλλης βοτάνης, άγνοούμενον δέ υπό τών ανθρώπων, του δέ Όσίριδος έπινοησαμένου και
τήν τούτων κατεργασίαν τών καρπών. . . . ( ι . Ι 4 · ΐ )

T h e passages are almost identical, except that 1.14 omits any reference to συγκομισαι and φυλακή.
The reason must be that Isis' gifts come to a people who have already learned τήν συγκομιδήν τής
άγριας τροφής (8.6) and τών καρπών τους φυλάττεσθαι δυναμένους άποτίθεσθαι (8.7)—hence can apply
the same process to ήμερος τροφή without any teaching.
2 8
O n occasion, the "euhemerist" portions of Diodorus use in connection with divine inventors
the terminology which 1.8 applies to man in general. So Daedalus is said to have received isotheoi
timai because of his euphyia (1.97.6) and the inventor Dionysus achieves prominence because he is
άγχίνους καθ* ύπερβολήν (3.7°·3)·
 A P P E N D I X O N E : DIODORUS 1.7-8 187

I f t h e a b o v e analysis is c o r r e c t , 1.8 is n o t a u n i f i e d w h o l e b u t a c o l l e c t i o n
o f e x c e r p t s f r o m d i f f e r e n t p a r t s o f a n o t h e r w o r k — t h e o n e w h i c h served as a
source f o r l a r g e p o r t i o n s o f D i o d o r u s ' A e g y p t i a c a . A consideration o f the
arrangement o f m a t e r i a l w i t h i n the chapter m i g h t lead i n d e p e n d e n t l y to
t h e same c o n c l u s i o n . T h e r e is a b r e a k i n c o n t i n u i t y b e t w e e n 8.4 a n d 8.5
(noted by Spoerri, 162, a n d MusHelv 1 8 . 7 7 - 7 8 ) . A t t h i s p o i n t , after de-
s c r i b i n g t h e o r i g i n o f t h e ethne o f t h e w o r l d , D i o d o r u s r e t u r n s t o man's
p r i m i t i v e efforts t o c o m p e n s a t e f o r t h e absence o f c u l t i v a t e d f o o d a n d t h e
o t h e r necessities o f l i f e . T h e f o r m e r l a c k was m e n t i o n e d a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f
t h e c h a p t e r , w h e r e t h e p r e s e n t passage w o u l d m o r e l o g i c a l l y g o . I n a l m o s t
a l l o t h e r a n c i e n t s p e c i m e n s o f Kulturgeschichte, the description o f man's early
life w i t h o u t a g r i c u l t u r e , c l o t h i n g , shelter, o r f i r e f o r m s a c o n n e c t e d whole;
a n d cave l i v i n g is a l w a y s m e n t i o n e d before t h e f o r m a t i o n o f t h e first social
aggregations —not 2 9
after, as i t is h e r e . E v i d e n t l y i t was difficult for the
Greeks t o i m a g i n e caves as social d w e l l i n g places.
I f the order i n w h i c h 8.2-4 a n C l
8 . 5 - 9 a p p e a r suggests t h a t t h e y c o m e
f r o m d i f f e r e n t sources, o r f r o m d i f f e r e n t p o r t i o n s o f a single source, a s l i g h t
c o n t r a s t i n t o n e b e t w e e n 8.1 a n d 8 . 5 - 9 suggests t h e same c o n c l u s i o n f o r those
t w o passages. 8.1 c o n t a i n s n o h i n t o f t h e i n i t i a l s c a r c i t y o f f o o d w h i c h figures
p r o m i n e n t l y i n 8 . 5 - 6 , a n d t h e h a r d s h i p s e n d u r e d i n t h e course o f l e a r n i n g
to g a t h e r a n d store f r u i t are d i f f i c u l t t o e x p l a i n i f , as 8.1 i m p l i e s , p r i m i t i v e
m a n was a b l e t o subsist o n grass (cf. S p o e r r i , MusHelv 18.78). A somewhat
s i m i l a r c o n t r a d i c t i o n is f o u n d w i t h i n t h e A e g y p t i a c a . S e c t i o n s 4 3 . 1 a n d 10.1
b o t h e n v i s i o n a n a b u n d a n c e o f f o o d — c h i e f l y i n t h e f o r m o f grass a n d v a r i o u s
water p l a n t s — w h i c h grows spontaneously i n E g y p t ; y e t i n 14.1 i t is t h e
i n v e n t i o n o f a stable f o o d s u p p l y i n t h e f o r m o f g r a i n w h i c h p u t s a n e n d t o
cannibalism. The contrast is t h e n a t u r a l result o f the presence within
D i o d o r u s ' E g y p t i a n c h a p t e r s o f t w o d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e s . O n e is a n t h r o p o -
l o g i c a l a n d e t h n o l o g i c a l , a n d deals w i t h t h e l i f e o f t h e r a c e as a w h o l e ; t h e
o t h e r is t h e o l o g i c a l a n d seeks t o e x p l a i n r e l i g i o u s beliefs as t h e s u r v i v a l o f
honors once p a i d to benefactors a n d i n v e n t o r s . 3 0
The latter naturally attri-
butes 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 o these i n d i v i d u a l s ; i n t h e f o r m e r ,
i n v e n t o r s a n d benefactors, i f m e n t i o n e d a t a l l , r e m a i n a n o n y m o u s . F o r t h e
e t h n o l o g i s t , progress is g r a d u a l , o f t e n i n v o l v i n g l i t t l e m o r e t h a n a p u t t i n g t o
use o f w h a t n a t u r e has p r o v i d e d ; h e n c e t h e t e n d e n c y , given the patriotic

2 9
Cf. the passages discussed or cited above, p. 29, with note 6. Tzetzes' account of primitive man
does mention mutual defense against the beasts along with the absence of cultivated food, shelter,
and clothing (VS I I 1 3 7 . 4 1 - 4 2 ) ; but, unlike Diodorus, Tzetzes envisions no beginning point for
society (see above, pp. 3 5 - 3 6 ) .
3 0
As the Hephaestus episode shows, however (see above, p. 16), the theological portions of the
book have arisen, in part at least, through modification and adaptation of material whose per-
spective was anthropological.
188 D E M O C R I T U S AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

s p i r i t i n w h i c h t h e A e g y p t i a c a is c o n c e i v e d , t o e m p h a s i z e as m u c h as pos-
sible t h e e x c e p t i o n a l l y f a v o r a b l e c i r c u m s t a n c e s f o r life p r o v i d e d b y t h e v a l l e y
o f t h e N i l e . C o n v e r s e l y , t h e h o n o r p a i d t o d e i f i e d i n v e n t o r s seems m o r e
n a t u r a l , a n d t h e catalogues o f their achievements m o r e impressive, i f the
m a g n i t u d e o f t h e i r b e n e f a c t i o n s is e m p h a s i z e d b y as b l e a k as possible a
p i c t u r e o f m a n ' s o r i g i n a l helplessness. M o r e o v e r , since m o s t o f these bene-
factors are s i m p l y G r e e k c u l t u r e h e r o e s — H e r a c l e s , Dionysus, D e m e t e r — i n
E g y p t i a n dress, t h e r e is a t e n d e n c y t o conceive o f t h i s helplessness i n t e r m s
w h i c h belong m o r e to the Greek n o r t h t h a n to the E g y p t i a n south.
T h e passage o n t h e earliest life o f t h e E g y p t i a n s w h i c h has a l r e a d y b e e n
q u o t e d i n p a r t ( a b o v e , p . 184) i l l u s t r a t e s b o t h m e t h o d o l o g i e s . T h e d e v e l o p -
m e n t d e s c r i b e d t h e r e proceeds i n t h r e e phases: a p e r i o d i n w h i c h roots a n d
grasses f o r m m a n ' s d i e t ( 4 3 . 1 - 2 ) ; a second stage ( 4 3 . 3 - 4 ) w h e r e fish a n d
m e a t are a d d e d , a n d g a r m e n t s o f skins a n d houses o f reeds c o m e i n t o use;
a n d a f i n a l one w h i c h brings the discovery o f edible grains (43.5). A t this
p o i n t the d i v i n e inventors make their appearance, for the discovery o f g r a i n
is a t t r i b u t e d " b y some, t o Isis, b y others t o one o f t h e e a r l y k i n g s ( 4 3 . 5 ) . "
M o r e o v e r , " t h e priests s a y " t h a t H e r m e s is t h e i n v e n t o r o f t e c h n o l o g y a n d
t h e arts (reyvcuv /cat Traihei&v), t h e k i n g s o f t h e necessities o f life ( 4 3 . 6 ) . T h e
s t a t e m e n t s o b v i o u s l y refer b a c k t o t h e d i s c o v e r y o f f i r e , g r a i n , m e t a l l u r g y ,
f a r m i n g , m u s i c , a n d a s t r o n o m y d e s c r i b e d i n 1.13-16 a n d c o n n e c t t h e t h e o -
logical account f o u n d there w i t h the ethnological one o f 43.1-4. T h e c o m -
b i n a t i o n o f t h e t w o perspectives creates some d i f f i c u l t i e s e v e n w i t h i n t h e
confines o f a single c h a p t e r . T h e e x t e n t o f t h e k i n g ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o t h e
d e v i s i n g o f t h e necessities o f life is left u n c l e a r . T h e houses a n d g a r m e n t s o f
h i d e w h i c h c h a r a c t e r i z e t h e second m o d e o f life o u g h t t o b e l o n g t o t h i s
c a t e g o r y , b u t t h e y are n o t , e v i d e n t l y , t o be r e g a r d e d as t h e w o r k o f t h e
k i n g s . T h e a c t i v i t y o f t h e l a t t e r seems t o presuppose a degree o f o r i g i n a l
helplessness g r e a t e r t h a n t h a t w h i c h D i o d o r u s has i n f a c t d e s c r i b e d i n
4 3 . 1 - 4 . T h e d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h i n 1.8 are o f a r a t h e r a n a l o g o u s c h a r a c t e r . We
h a v e a l r e a d y seen t h a t t h e references t o m a n ' s earliest d i e t i n 8.1 s t a n d i n
c o m p l e m e n t a r y r e l a t i o n s h i p t o 4 3 . 1 , w h e r e a s 8 . 5 - 9 stands i n a s i m i l a r r e l a -
t i o n s h i p t o 1 3 - 1 5 . T h e t w o passages, w i t h t h e i r m i l d e r a n d h a r s h e r v i e w s o f
m a n ' s earliest l i f e , reflect e x a c t l y t h e c o n t r a s t i n g tones o f t h e l a t e r p a r t s o f
B o o k I t o w h i c h t h e y are r e l a t e d b y c o n t e n t .
I n t e r n a l e v i d e n c e f r o m D i o d o r u s , n o less t h a n t h e p a r a l l e l s w i t h V i t r u v i u s ,
m a k e t h e t h e o r y o f a n " E g y p t i a n " o r i g i n f o r 1.8 a l m o s t c e r t a i n . T h e m a t e r i a l
o f t h e c h a p t e r is t w i c e - r e m o v e d f r o m its c o u n t e r p a r t s i n t h e De architectura.
T h e g e n e r a l Kulturgeschichte from which both Diodorus and Vitruvius ulti-
m a t e l y d e r i v e was first t r a n s f o r m e d i n t o a s p e c i f i c a l l y E g y p t i a n archaiologia.
W h a t was o r i g i n a l l y a n a c c o u n t o f t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t e c h n o l o g y b e c a m e
 A P P E N D I X O N E : DIODORUS 1.7-8 189

a c a t a l o g u e o f d i v i n e i n v e n t o r s ( n o w 1.13-16), t o w h i c h t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f
m a n ' s earliest efforts t o s u p p l y h i m s e l f w i t h t h e necessities o f life ( 8 . 5 - 8 as
t h e b o o k n o w stands) m u s t h a v e b e e n m a d e t o f o r m a sort o f p r e f a c e . 3 1
In
similar fashion, a general t h e o r y o f t h e o r i g i n o f l a n g u a g e w a s used i n
d e s c r i b i n g t h e f o r m a t i o n o f those l o c a l dialects whose rise p r e c e d e d the
a c t i v i t y o f t h e E g y p t i a n H e r m e s . A t t h i s stage t h e s t a t e m e n t a b o u t t h e grass
d i e t o f e a r l y m a n n o w f o u n d i n 8.1 p r o b a b l y f o r m e d p a r t o f t h e m o r e
authentically E g y p t i a n ethnology that eventually became 43.1-4.
I n t h e second stage o f t h e process such p o r t i o n s o f t h e n a r r a t i v e as c o u l d
be easily divested o f t h e i r E g y p t i a n t r a p p i n g s w e r e r e a s s e m b l e d b y D i o d o r u s
i n t o a single u n i t ( 1 . 8 ) . T h e g e n e r a l s t a t e m e n t o f t h e factors i n v o l v e d i n t h e
g r o w t h o f t e c h n o l o g y — c k e i r e s , logos, anchinoia—formed a suitable summary
and so a p p e a r e d a t t h e e n d o f t h e c h a p t e r . T h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f m a n ' s earliest
quest f o r f o o d a n d shelter i m m e d i a t e l y p r e c e d e d i t , j u s t as, i n t h e A e g y p t i a c a ,
i t must have preceded the chapters devoted to d i v i n e inventors. T h e ethno­
l o g i c a l a c c o u n t o f 4 3 . 1 - 4 was m a d e t o y i e l d a m o r e g e n e r a l r e m a r k a b o u t t h e
earliest d i e t o f m a n k i n d . T h i s was t h e n p l a c e d a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e c h a p t e r
a l o n g w i t h a reference t o t h e i n i t i a l d i s o r d e r e d a n d a n i m a l - l i k e c o n d i t i o n o f
t h e r a c e ( 1 . 8 . 1 ) . T h e l a t t e r n o w serves as a n i n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e passage
(1.8.2-4) o n t n e
b a n d i n g t o g e t h e r f o r p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t w i l d beasts a n d t h e
s u b s e q u e n t d e v e l o p m e n t o f l a n g u a g e ; a n d 8.1 m a y h a v e a p p e a r e d together
w i t h 8.2-4 i n t r i e
A e g y p t i a c a as w e l l (cf. t h e reference i n 4 3 . 4 t o e a t i n g t h e
flesh a n d w e a r i n g t h e skins o f a n i m a l s ) . I t is possible, h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e i n i t i a l
steps i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f l a n g u a g e w e r e t r e a t e d o n l y l a t e r , i n c o n j u n c t i o n
w i t h the account o f the linguistic achievement o f Hermes.
T h e process e n v i s i o n e d is r a t h e r c o m p l i c a t e d , b u t s o m e t h i n g o f t h e sort
m u s t h a v e o c c u r r e d t o create t h e c o m p l i c a t e d set o f p a r a l l e l s l i n k i n g 1.8,
1.13-16, 1.43, 1.90, a n d V i t r u v i u s I I . 3 2
A n d i t is j u s t possible t h a t h e r e , as
i n t h e case o f t h e c o s m o g o n y a n d z o o g o n y a l r e a d y discussed, a n e a r l i e r
v e r s i o n o f B o o k I , m o r e closely r e l a t e d t o its source, has left traces i n t h e
existing text.

I n D i o d o r u s ' s u m m a r y o f t h e c o n t e n t s o f 1.1-41 (see a b o v e , p p . 1 7 5 - 7 6 ) ,

a n a c c o u n t o f t h e life o f e a r l y m a n is m e n t i o n e d . L i k e t h e z o o g o n y r e f e r r e d
3 1
T h e related account (see above, pp. 1 5 3 - 5 4 ) of Euhemerus may have had a similar preface.
The summary in Sextus ( = FGrH 6 3 T 4 C ) begins with the phrase ότ' άτακτο; rjv ανθρώπων βίος.
Cf. also Dionysius Scytobrachion, FGrH 3 2 F 7 , p. 2 3 5 . 2 5 - 2 6 = Diodorus 3.56.3.
3 2
Pfligersdorfer, while recognizing the connections between 1.8 and the rest of the book, as­
sumes that the former is drawn from a work of Posidonius, bits of which were inserted by Diodorus
into the Hecataean material of the Aegyptiaca as well (SBWien 2 3 2 , No. 5 , 1 4 3 - 4 4 ; followed here
by Gigon, Gnomon 33.775). It is unlikely, however, that connections as extensive as those which link
the. two portions of Book I could have arisen in this fashion; and the untenability of Pfligersdorfer's
basic premise—the Posidonian origin of 1.7-8—has been amply demonstrated by Spoerri, MusHelv
18.63-82.
I go D E M O C R I T U S AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

t o i n t h e same e n u m e r a t i o n , t h i s a c c o u n t seems t o b e t h o u g h t o f as f o r m i n g
a p a r t o f the teachings o f the E g y p t i a n s . 3 3
T h e passage i n v o l v e s a f u r t h e r
d e p a r t u r e f r o m t h e o r d e r o f B o o k I as i t n o w s t a n d s : i t places t h e a c c o u n t ,
n o t before t h e theologoumena ( 1 1 - 2 9 m o u r
present t e x t ) b u t b e t w e e n a dis­
cussion o f t h e g o d s — " a l l those w h o f o u n d e d cities i n E g y p t b e a r i n g t h e i r
names"—and a n account o f " t h e honors p a i d to the i m m o r t a l s a n d the
e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f t e m p l e s . " T h e m e n t i o n o f e p o n y m o u s gods is f o u n d i n 11.6,
a n d t h e second i t e m seems t o refer t o t h e i n s t i t u t i o n o f t e m p l e s a n d d i v i n e
h o n o r s f o r Zeus a n d H e r a w h i c h a p p e a r s i n 15.3-4. T h e n a r r a t i v e s u m ­
m a r i z e d i n 4 2 e v i d e n t l y i n t r o d u c e d t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e earliest life o f t h e
E g y p t i a n s b e t w e e n p a r t s o f w h a t is n o w a single theologoumena. T h e dis­
c r e p a n c y is, once a g a i n (see a b o v e , p . 175) m o r e t h a n o n e w o u l d expect o f
a n editor a n d , conceivably, reproduces a n earlier version o f the book.
T h e r e i s , i n f a c t , a d i v i s i o n i n t h e theologoumena as i t n o w stands i n t o a
t r e a t m e n t o f t h e ouranioi theoi—the h e a v e n l y bodies a n d t h e f i v e e l e m e n t s —
a n d t h e e a r t h l y o n e s — d e i f i e d i n v e n t o r s a n d benefactors (see 13.1). Since t h e
reference t o t h e f o u n d i n g o f cities occurs i n t h e p a r t o n t h e ouranioi, i t is
r e a s o n a b l e t o assume t h a t these w e r e t h e subject o f t h e first t h e o l o g y r e f e r r e d
t o i n 4 2 ; a n d s i m i l a r l y i t w o u l d b e t h e d e i f i e d i n v e n t o r s w h o w e r e t h e subject
o f t h e second. Since t h e h e a v e n l y gods o b v i o u s l y p r e c e d e d , a n d t h e e a r t h l y
ones f o l l o w e d , t h e b e g i n n i n g s o f c u l t u r e , a d i v i s i o n o f t h e b o o k a l o n g t h e
lines suggested i n 42 is, i n some w a y s , m o r e l o g i c a l t h a n t h e p r e s e n t o n e . I t is
perhaps significant that a p o r t i o n o f the order o f treatment envisioned i n 42
a p p e a r s i n 4 3 (see a b o v e , p . 1 8 8 ) , w h e r e t h e m e n t i o n o f Isis, H e r m e s , a n d
t h e earliest k i n g s — c l e a r l y e a r t h l y g o d s — i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w s t h e a c c o u n t o f
t h e earliest l i f e o f t h e E g y p t i a n s .
C h a p t e r 4 3 , t h o u g h i t does n o t b e l o n g t o t h e p o r t i o n o f t h e b o o k s u m ­
m a r i z e d i n 4 2 , is r a t h e r o d d l y l o c a t e d . I t is i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w e d b y a l o n g
a c c o u n t o f t h e E g y p t i a n r o y a l dynasties ( 4 4 - 6 8 ) , a n d t h e b r e a k b e t w e e n t h e
sections o f t h e b o o k w o u l d c o m e m o r e n a t u r a l l y after t h e c h a p t e r than
before i t . S u c h a d i v i s i o n w o u l d c o r r e s p o n d t o t h a t b e t w e e n h i s t o r y a n d p r e ­
h i s t o r y . M o r e o v e r , C h a p t e r 4 4 begins w i t h a s t a t e m e n t o n c h r o n o l o g y w h i c h
w o u l d suitably m a r k the b e g i n n i n g o f a new section; a n d i n the summaries
o f B o o k I , P a r t I I , w h i c h a p p e a r i n 4 2 . 2 a n d 4 1 . 1 0 , t h e m e n t i o n o f t h e earliest
life o f t h e E g y p t i a n s f o l l o w s t h a t o f t h e earliest dynasties, as i f i t w e r e p u t i n
as a n a f t e r t h o u g h t .
I a m i n c l i n e d t o b e l i e v e , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e n a r r a t i v e i n w h i c h 8.1 a n d

3 3
T h e text, however, is not completely clear at this point. Strict logic requires that 1.42.1: περί
τε των πρώτων γενομένων ανθρώπων και τον παλαιότατου βίον be taken with τά λεγόμενα παρ*
ΑΙγνπτίοις rather than with ή πρώτη βίβλος περιέχει; perhaps, however, περί is being used more
loosely, as if introducing syntactically independent items in a table of contents.
 A P P E N D I X O N E : DIODORUS 1.7-8 191

4 3 . 1 - 4 o r i g i n a l l y a p p e a r e d was l o c a t e d after t h e a c c o u n t o f t h e ouranioi theoi

( n o w i n 1 1 - 1 2 ) a n d before the extended account o f the c o n t r i b u t i o n s to
c i v i l i z a t i o n m a d e b y d i v i n e i n v e n t o r s w h i c h b e g i n s i n 13 a n d w i t h which
8 . 5 - 9 was o r i g i n a l l y c o n n e c t e d . T h e t r a n s f e r o f a l l m a t e r i a l w h i c h was n o t
specifically E g y p t i a n to the preface t e n d e d to m a k e the exact p o s i t i o n o f each
o f these i n v e n t o r s i n t h e h i s t o r y o f c u l t u r e less a p p a r e n t ; h e n c e i t was n a t u r a l
t o a p p e n d t h e a c c o u n t o f t h e i r a c h i e v e m e n t s t o t h e e a r l i e r t h e o l o g i c a l pas-
sage. T h e r e m a i n i n g m a t e r i a l ( 4 3 . 1 - 4 ) — t o o specifically E g y p t i a n t o go i n
the preface b u t n o t concerned w i t h the gods—was s o m e w h a t i n a p p r o p r i a t e l y
transferred, along w i t h a b r i e f s u m m a r y ( 4 3 . 5 - 6 ) o f t h e episode o n d i v i n e
i n v e n t o r s w h i c h o n c e f o l l o w e d i t , t o t h e p o s i t i o n i n w h i c h i t n o w stands.
T h e f r a g m e n t o n t h e a n t i q u i t y o f k i n g s h i p (see a b o v e , p . 178) w h i c h is so
o u t o f p l a c e a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f 1.9 may also be a r e l i c o f t h e "second
theology." T h e observation t h a t the recent o r i g i n o f w r i t i n g prevents exact
knowledge o f t h e r e m o t e past is f o u n d i n o t h e r pieces o f a n c i e n t Kultur-
geschichte (Plato, Timaeus 23AB; Lucretius 5.1444-47—see above, p. 44).
L u c r e t i u s a d d s t h a t , as a r e s u l t , r e a s o n a n d i n f e r e n c e are t h e o n l y sources o f
k n o w l e d g e a b o u t this p e r i o d . I n f e r r i n g past c o n d i t i o n s f r o m p r e s e n t c u s t o m s
is one o f t h e m e t h o d s used i n b o t h t h e t h e o l o g i c a l a n d e t h n o l o g i c a l passages
o f t h e Aegyptiaca, zi
so D i o d o r u s ' s o u r c e c o u l d w e l l h a v e c o n t a i n e d t h e sort o f
methodological passage f r o m w h i c h 9.2 seems t o be d r a w n . W h a t is said
t h e r e a b o u t t h e earliest k i n g s w o u l d a p p l y q u i t e w e l l t o t h e d i v i n e i n v e n t o r s
o f t h e s e c o n d theologoumena: r u l e r s w h o l i v e d 2 3 , 0 0 0 t o 10,000 years before
t h e w r i t e r ' s o w n t i m e (see t h e c h r o n o l o g i c a l s t a t e m e n t s o f 2 3 . 1 , 2 6 . 1 , a n d
44.1), h e n c e , a G r e e k m i g h t assume, w e l l b e f o r e the c o m p o s i t i o n o f the
p r i e s t l y a r c h i v e s i n w h i c h t h e r e c o r d o f t h e i r a c h i e v e m e n t s was s a i d t o be
p r e s e r v e d . T h e w r i t e r o f 4 3 . 6 suspects t h a t some o f w h a t is s a i d a b o u t t h e m
m a y h a v e n o basis i n p r i e s t l y t r a d i t i o n a t a l l , t h a t t h e n o t i o n o f t h e early
benefactor-kings is s i m p l y a useful f i c t i o n t o e n c o u r a g e successors t o i m i t a t e
their example. Obviously, h o w e v e r , he was not prepared to deny their
existence a l t o g e t h e r ; h e n c e , p e r h a p s , he j u s t i f i e d his i n c l u s i o n o f so much
d o u b t f u l l y a u t h e n t i c a t e d m a t e r i a l b y n o t i n g t h a t i t is i m p o s s i b l e t o d o o t h e r -
wise a n d s t i l l a t t e m p t t o t r a c e t h e i n s t i t u t i o n o f k i n g s h i p b a c k t o its b e g i n -
nings. T h e o r i g i n a l appearance o f this statement i n the p o r t i o n o f the w o r k
which immediately followed the description of the earliest life of the
Egyptians 3 5
c o u l d h a v e suggested its p r e s e n t l o c a t i o n : after D i o d o r u s ' own
d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e earliest life o f a l l m a n k i n d .

See 14.2 (giving of the first fruits of the grain harvest to Isis indicates that she was their dis-
3 4

coverer) ; 43.2 (the use of grass in sacrifices shows that it was man's earliest food); 43.4 (reed houses
found in parts of Egypt are survivals of a method of construction more widely prevalent in primitive
times).
3 5
T h e argument of the two sections (palaiotatos bios and second theologoumena) might have run
192 DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

T h e Entstehungsgeschichte h e r e p r o p o s e d is r a t h e r m o r e c o m p l i c a t e d than
R e i n h a r d t ' s . I n p l a c e o f his suggestion o f 7, 8, 1 0 - 2 9 f ° r t n e
original order o f
c h a p t e r s , I offer t h e f o l l o w i n g : 6 . 1 - 2 ; 9 . 3 - 6 ; 10 + 7 ( c o s m o g o n y a n d zoo-
g o n y ) ; 11-12 (first theologoumena); 8.1 ( o r 8 . 1 - 4 ) + 4 3 . 1 - 4 ( t h e earliest l i f e o f
the E g y p t i a n s ) ; 8 . 5 - 9 + I
3 - 2
9 ( c u l t u r e a n d d i v i n e i n v e n t o r s ) , w i t h t h e pos-
sible a d d i t i o n o f 4 3 . 6 + 9.2 (methodological considerations) and 8.2-4
(linked to 16.1—Hermes a n d language). A l t e r n a t e schemes a r e o b v i o u s l y
possible, so t h a t t h e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n m u s t be p u t f o r w a r d w i t h m u c h more
d i f f i d e n c e t h a n R e i n h a r d t ' s o r i g i n a l o n e . B u t t h e basic i d e a b e h i n d b o t h
proposals—that o f the o r i g i n a l u n i t y o f 7-8 a n d the Aegyptiaca—is inde-
p e n d e n t o f t h e d e t a i l s o f t h e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n j u s t o f f e r e d , r e s t i n g as i t does o n
parallels far too s t r i k i n g a n d too pervasive t o be coincidental. H e r e , I a m
convinced, Reinhardt's ill-supported theory h i t the mark.

somewhat as follows: T h e earliest life of the Egyptians was transformed by a series of discoveries,
the last of which was grain ( 4 3 . 1 - 4 ) . This is attributed to Isis, and tradition credits the earliest
kings with similar achievements (43.5). The validity of such stories is questionable: the institution
of monarchy certainly antedates the keeping of written records (9.2), and other explanations for
the origin of the tradition are possible (43.6). For what it is worth, however, the official version is
that the Egyptians were raised from their primeval helplessness ( 8 . 5 - 8 ) by the work of inventors
who became the first kings of the country and were honored as gods ( 1 3 - 2 9 ) .
 APPENDIX TWO

VITRUVIUS AND POSIDONIUS*

V i t r u v i u s ' analysis o f t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f a r c h i t e c t u r e ( 2 . 1 . 2 - 7 = 3 4 . 6 - 3 6 . 1 8
Rose) m a y be s u m m a r i z e d as f o l l o w s :

1. H o u s i n g began w h e n m e n first b u i l t artificial caves a n d i m i t a t e d the nests

o f birds (1.2 = 3 4 . 6 - 8 ) .
2. C o m p e t i n g w i t h one another a n d b u i l d i n g on each other's achievements
they became progressively m o r e skilled (1.2-3 = 34.8-14).
3. T h e first houses were o f stakes a n d i n t e r w o v e n branches covered w i t h m u d
(1.3 = 34.14-15).
4. O t h e r m e n made walls f r o m bricks o f m u d and roofed t h e m w i t h reeds and
foliage (1.3 = 34.15-18).
5. W h e n the roofs so constructed collapsed u n d e r the r a i n , gables a n d eaves
were devised (1.3 = 34.18-20).
6. ( P r i m i t i v e examples o f housing can still be seen a m o n g the b a r b a r i a n tribes
o f E u r o p e a n d Asia) (1.4-6 = 34.21-35.24).
7. W h e n , as m e n became m o r e a n d m o r e skilled, consuetudo developed i n t o
ars, c e r t a i n members o f society set themselves u p as fabri (1.6 = 35.25-36.1).
8. F r o m architecture m e n progressed to the other arts a n d so to the develop-
m e n t o f c i v i l i z a t i o n (1.6 = 36.1-8).
9. L a t e r , huts came to be replaced w i t h houses b u i l t o f b r i c k , stone or t i l e — t h e
result o f the maiores cogitationes w h i c h arose f r o m an increased varietas
artium (1.7 = 3 6 . 8 - 1 2 ) ;
10. a n d f r o m vagantibus iudiciis m e n a r r i v e d at certas symmetriarum rationes (1.7 =
36.12-14).
11. O n c e i t h a d been observed t h a t there was a copia o f b u i l d i n g m a t e r i a l o n
h a n d , m e n proceeded to ornare voluptatibus elegantiam vitae (1.7 = 36.14-18).

O n t h e basis o f a few m i n o r p a r a l l e l s w i t h Seneca's 9 0 t h l e t t e r , e a r l y i n v e s t i -

gators 1
u s u a l l y assumed t h a t t h e source o f t h i s passage was P o s i d o n i u s . T h e
view was rejected by Meyer (Laudes Inopiae 51-54) and Reinhardt
(Poseidonios 4 0 4 - 6 ) , doubtless correctly. Reinhardt, however, detects two
s t r a t a o f c o m p o s i t i o n i n V i t r u v i u s ' a c c o u n t — o n e P o s i d o n i a n (stages 3 - 6 a n d
9-11 a b o v e ) , one D e m o c r i t e a n ( 1 - 2 , 7 - 8 ) . I see l i t t l e reason f o r a c c e p t i n g

* Cf. Chap. I I , notes 1, 26, and 35.

1
Notably W . Poppe, Vitruvs Quellen im 2. Buck 'de architectural (Diss. K i e l 1909) 6 - g ; followed by
Rudberg, Forschungen zu Poseidonios 5 0 ; and Gerhausser, Der Protreptikos des Poseidonios 2 8 .

193
 194 DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES OF G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

t h i s v i e w . Stage 6 is f a i r l y c l e a r l y a d i g r e s s i o n a n d m a y w e l l be P o s i d o n i a n ,
b u t t h e r e is a l m o s t n o t h i n g i n t h e rest o f t h e passage w h i c h j u s t i f i e s t h e
a s s u m p t i o n o f t w o sources, o n e o f w h i c h is t e l e o l o g i c a l i n c h a r a c t e r .
I t is t r u e , as R e i n h a r d t p o i n t s o u t , t h a t 3 - 5 a n d 8 - 1 1 t r a c e six successive
stages i n t h e g r o w t h o f a r c h i t e c t u r e , w h e r e a s 1 , 2 , 7 , a n
d 8 are m o r e g e n e r a l
o r d e a l w i t h a r c h i t e c t u r e i n its social aspects. B u t t h e a c c o u n t f o r m s a l o g i c a l
w h o l e f r o m w h i c h i t is d i f f i c u l t t o d e t a c h a n y o n e set o f i t e m s . I n 3 - 5 are
specific i l l u s t r a t i o n s o f t h e g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s e n u n c i a t e d i n 1-2: imitation,
c o m p e t i t i o n , a n d progress t h r o u g h t h e a c c u m u l a t i o n o f skills. T h e houses o f
m u d a n d t w i g s o f 3 a r e o b v i o u s l y i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e nests o f b i r d s ; 4 m e n t i o n s
a n alternate m e t h o d o f construction, perhaps initiated i n competition w i t h
t h e f i r s t ; a n d 5 describes a n i m p r o v e m e n t b r o u g h t a b o u t t h r o u g h i n c r e a s e d
s k i l l a n d e x p e r i e n c e . M o r e o v e r , 7 - 8 are n o t , as R e i n h a r d t c l a i m s (Poseidonios
4 0 5 , n o t e 1), a d i g r e s s i o n w h i c h d i s t u r b s t h e Zusammenhang b e t w e e n 5 a n d 9.
V i t r u v i u s v i e w s a r c h i t e c t u r e as t h e basic t e c h n o l o g y ; h e n c e i t is p r a c t i c e d
i n i t i a l l y b y t h e w h o l e p o p u l a t i o n . T h e earliest b u i l d i n g s are s u c h as are
w i t h i n t h e c a p a c i t y o f a n y o n e t o p r o d u c e . W h e n , h o w e v e r , t h e task comes t o
be e n t r u s t e d t o specialists ( t h e fabri o f 7—cf. L u c r e t i u s 5 . 1 3 5 4 - 6 0 ) t h e rest
are f r e e d f o r o t h e r t h i n g s ; h e n c e t h e d i g r e s s i o n i n 8 t o n o t e t h a t m a n p r o -
c e e d e d f r o m a r c h i t e c t u r e t o ceteras artes et disciplinas. H a v i n g thus shown
architecture's place in the general scheme of cultural development,
V i t r u v i u s r e t u r n s t o t r a c e its f u r t h e r progress, n o w e x c l u s i v e l y i n t h e h a n d s
o f t h e fabri m e n t i o n e d earlier.
R e i n h a r d t also finds i n 3 - 5 a n d 9 - 1 1 a "Konsequenz der Stufen welche
soll sich eine K o n s e q u e n z des Menschengeistes selber z u e r k e n n e n geben:
seine e i n g e b o r e n e U r t e i l s k r a f t die i h n methodisch S c h r i t t für S c h r i t t die
Möglichkeiten hindurchführt die i h m v o n der N a t u r gegeben sind. . . .
I n s o f e r n also als z w i s c h e n N a t u r u n d K ü n s t e n e i n e i n h e i t l i c h e r Zweck-
zusammenhang b e s t e h t , ist alles E r f i n d e n k e i n E r s c h a f f e n , s o n d e r n U r t e i l
u n d B e u r t e i l i n g der M ö g l i c h k e i t e n die i n diesem Z w e c k z u s a m m e n h a n g von
A n f a n g a n als feste Z a h l e n t h a l t e n s i n d " {Poseidonios 4 0 5 ) . W h i l e t h i s de-
scribes v e r y w e l l t h e sort o f h i s t o r y o f a r c h i t e c t u r e one w o u l d e x p e c t f r o m
P o s i d o n i u s , i t does n o t , I t h i n k , describe t h e t e x t w e h a v e before us. T h e r e
is n o t h i n g eingeborene a b o u t t h e iudicia w h i c h are i n v o l v e d i n t h e w h o l e p r o -
cess: iudicia are m a d e meiiora i n t h e same w a y h a n d s are m a d e tritiores
(7 = 3 5 . 2 5 ) — b y usus. N o r is t h e r e a n y r e a l l i m i t t o t h e Möglichkeiten; t h e y are
l i m i t e d o n l y b y t h e varietas artium w h i c h m a n creates—hence, one w o u l d
assume, l i m i t l e s s . A n d t h e i m p u l s e f o r t h e first a d v a n c e i n a r c h i t e c t u r e i n -
volves, not an unfolding of man's i n n a t e capacities, b u t a response t o
necessity: t h e i n a b i l i t y o f a f l a t r o o f t o s u s t a i n a h e a v y r a i n f a l l . V i t r u v i u s '
p o i n t o f v i e w m a y p r o f i t a b l y be c o m p a r e d a n d c o n t r a s t e d w i t h o n e w h i c h ,
 A P P E N D I X TWO'. V I T R U V I U S AND POSIDONIUS 195

t h o u g h i t n e e d n o t be P o s i d o n i a n , illustrates the latter's teleological con-

ceptions w e l l e n o u g h . 2
G r a t t i u s Faliscus (Cynegetica 6—9) tells us t h a t the
p r i m e v a l r u l e o f e r r o r lasted u n t i l m e n

te sociam, R a t i o , rebus sumpsere gerendis;

hinc omne a u x i l i u m vitae rectusque r e l u x i t
o r d o et contiguas didicere ex artibus artes
3

proserere.

Two details o n l y i n V i t r u v i u s suggest t h e p o i n t o f v i e w R e i n h a r d t de-

scribes: i n 10, t h e passage f r o m vagantibus iudiciis t o certas rationes, as i f some
teleological e n d p o i n t h a d b e e n r e a c h e d ; a n d , i n n , t h e reference t o t h e
bounty o f n a t u r e : prqfusos partus naturae et abundantem materiae copiam ad
aedificationes ab ea comparatam. B u t i f these passages d o r e v e a l a teleological
p e r s p e c t i v e ( a n d t h e n a t u r a l copia o f 11 m a y be a V i t r u v i a n m o d i f i c a t i o n
suggested b y t h e c o n t e x t i n w h i c h t h e digression o n a r c h i t e c t u r e appears—
see a b o v e , C h a p . I I , n o t e 3 8 ) , i t is a p e r s p e c t i v e w h i c h i n t r u d e s o n l y b r i e f l y .
I t is n o w h e r e suggested t h a t m a n ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e copia naturae is a r e a l i z a -
t i o n t o w a r d w h i c h a l l t h e p r e c e d i n g stages o f a r c h i t e c t u r a l d e v e l o p m e n t h a v e
t e n d e d ; a n d t h e v e r y o r d e r o f 10 a n d n , i n w h i c h voluptas f o l l o w s certas
rationes, is a n y t h i n g b u t teleological.

8
O n Grattius and his sources see Spoerri, 162, note 8, with the earlier literature cited there.
3
Compare the teleological language of Ps.-Lucian, Am. 34: technology supplies to endeon in the
various arts, so that each one comes finally to perfection, like the sun obtaining to its proper splendor
after a long night.
 APPENDIX THREE

POLYBIUS AND THE STOICS*

The t h e o r y o f a S t o i c o r i g i n f o r a l l o r p a r t s o f P o l y b i u s V I rests l a r g e l y o n
p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n 6 . 5 - 6 a n d De qfficiis 1.11-14 (from Panaetius). T h e 1

p a r a l l e l s are u n q u e s t i o n a b l y p r e s e n t , b u t t h e y h a v e b e e n , I b e l i e v e , g e n e r a l l y
m i s i n t e r p r e t e d . I f C i c e r o is g i v i n g a n a c c u r a t e a c c o u n t o f his source ( a n d t h e
passage c o i n c i d e s w e l l e n o u g h w i t h a n i n d e p e n d e n t r e p o r t o f w h a t is p r o b ­
a b l y P a n a e t i a n d o c t r i n e i n A u l u s G e l l i u s 12.5.7), P a n a e t i u s ' v i e w o f t h e
genesis o f m o r a l i t y w a s a c o m b i n a t i o n o f t h e o r t h o d o x S t o i c oikeidsis theory
(see a b o v e , p p . 1 3 8 - 3 9 ) w i t h a d i f f e r e n t o n e , o f a m o r e u t i l i t a r i a n cast. I t
c o u l d h a r d l y h a v e s e r v e d as t h e source f o r t h e m o r e c o m p l e t e a n d c o n ­
sistent p r e s e n t a t i o n o f a u t i l i t a r i a n e t h i c w h i c h a p p e a r s i n P o l y b i u s . T h e
r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n P a n a e t i u s a n d P o l y b i u s is best b r o u g h t o u t b y c o n ­
sidering their accounts i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h a third—also f r o m Cicero—in
w h i c h t h e S t o i c oikeidsis d o c t r i n e appears i n u n c o n t a m i n a t e d f o r m . T h e
substance o f t h e t w o C i c e r o n i a n passages is g i v e n i n t h e f o l l o w i n g e x c e r p t s :

A. D E OFFiciis 1.11-14 B. D E FINIBUS 3.20-21 2

Principio generi animantium omni est a natura
tributum ut se vitam corpusque tueatur, de-
clinet ea quae nocitura videantur. . . .
Primum est officium, id enim appello καθήκον,
ut homo se conservet in naturae statu, ut
deinceps ea teneat quae secundum naturam
sint, pellatque contraria . . . prima est enim
conciliatio hominum ad ea quae sunt secundum
naturam.

Commune autem animantium omnium est

coniunctionis appetitus procreandi causa et
cura quaedam eorum quae procreata sint.
Sed inter hominem et beluam hoc maxime
interest quod . . . homo . . . rationis est parti-
ceps. . . . I n primisque hominis est propria veri
investigatio et inquisitio . . . nec vero parva ilia
vis naturae est rationisque quod unum hoc
animal sentit quid sit ordo, quid sit quod
Simul autem cepit intellegentiam vel potius
evvoiav viditque rerum agendarum ordinem et
ut ita dicam concordiam, multo earn pluris
aestimavit quam omnia ilia quae prima dilexerat
atque ita cognitione et ratione collegit ut
statueret in eo collocatum summum illud

* Cf. Chap. V I , note 5 ; Chap. V I I I , notes 24 and 5 g ; and Chap. X , p. 164.

1
O n the two passages see, most recently, H . Erbse, " Z u r Entstehung des polybianischen
Geschichtswerkes," RhM 9 4 (1951) 158-61.
2
O n the character of this passage—an exposition of the "orthodox" position of the O l d Stoa—
see Philippson, " M . Tullius Cicero, Philosophische Schriften," R E A 1 3 (1939) 1139, and
P. M . Valente, L'ethique stoicierme chez Ciceron (Paris 1956) 1-15.
196
 A P P E N D I X
deceat. . . constantem ordinem in consiliis
factisque conservandam putat cavetque ne quid
indecore . . . faciat. . . quibus ex rebus con-
flatur et efficitur id quod quaerimus honestum.
T H R E E : P O L Y B I U S A N D T H E STOICS 197
hominis per se laudandum et expetendum
bonum quod . . . ouoXoyiav Stoici, nos appel-
lemus convenientiam. . . . C u m igitur in eo sit
id bonum quo omnia referenda sunt, honeste
facta ipsumque honestum. . . quamquam post
oritur, tarnen id solum vi sua et dignitate ex­
petendum est. . . .

L i k e P o l y b i u s i n B o o k V I , C i c e r o is a t t e m p t i n g i n these t w o passages t o
analyze t h e o r i g i n o f m e n ' s n o t i o n s o f w h a t is r i g h t a n d p r o p e r (cf., i n
P o l y b i u s 6.6.7, έννοια τοΰ καθήκοντος δυνάμεως, a n d , i n 6.6.9, θεωρίαν . . .
αισχρού και καλοΰ και της τούτων ττρός άλληλα διαφοράς; i n Β , ennoia a n d
kathekon; i n A , sentit quid sit. . . quod deceat. . . ne quid indecore faciat; and, i n
Β a n d A , honestum). M o r e o v e r , b o t h P o l y b i u s a n d C i c e r o r e g a r d s u c h n o t i o n s
as u l t i m a t e l y t h e p r o d u c t o f n a t u r a l i m p u l s e s w h i c h m e n share w i t h o t h e r
a n i m a l s (cf., a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e f o r m e r ' s a c c o u n t o f i n t e r c o u r s e a n d
c h i l d b e a r i n g i n t h e first h u m a n h e r d , hormdntdn kata physin [6.6.2], and
commune . . . animantium omnium . . . coniunctionis appetitus i n A ; a n d w i t h t h e
references t o t h e i n s t i n c t f o r s e l f - p r e s e r v a t i o n a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f b o t h Β a n d
A c o m p a r e t h e S t o i c d o c t r i n e p r e s e r v e d i n D . L . 7 . 8 5 : την δε πρώτην όρμήν
. . . ΐσχειν το ζωον έπι το τηρεϊν εαυτό). B u t these n a t u r a l i m p u l s e s are m o d i ­
f i e d i n some w a y b y a special i n t e l l e c t u a l awareness (cf., i n B , cognitione et
ratione collegit; i n A , homo est rationis particeps; a n d i n Polybius' account of
m e n ' s r e a c t i o n s t o a s i g n a l i n s t a n c e o f f i l i a l i n g r a t i t u d e , μόνοις αύτοΐς μέτεστι
νου και λογισμού [6.6.4])·
Y e t i n P o l y b i u s a n d passage Β , a t a n y r a t e , t h e roles assigned b o t h t o
i m p u l s e a n d reason are c o m p l e t e l y d i f f e r e n t . F o r P o l y b i u s , t h e n a t u r a l i n ­
s t i n c t o u t o f w h i c h m o r a l i t y arises is t h e desire f o r sexual u n i o n w i t h o t h e r s
o f t h e i r k i n d t h a t is o b s e r v e d i n a l l l i v i n g t h i n g s ; i n Β i t is consciousness o f
self a n d t h e i n s t i n c t f o r s e l f - p r e s e r v a t i o n — t h e oikeidsis pros heauton o f S t o i c
e t h i c a l t h e o r y (see a b o v e , p p . 1 3 8 - 3 9 ) .
E v e n g r e a t e r is t h e c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n t h e c o n c e p t i o n s o f ratio w h i c h a p p e a r
i n P o l y b i u s a n d B. F o r P o l y b i u s , reason is s i m p l y a u t i l i t a r i a n c a l c u l u s w h i c h
foresees t h e u n p l e a s a n t consequences o f r e c u r r i n g instances of filial i n ­
g r a t i t u d e o r f a i l u r e t o r e t u r n services r e n d e r e d . I t is essentially t h e s e r v a n t
o f t h e desires, a means o f r e m o v i n g obstacles t o t h e i r f u l f i l m e n t . A n d t h e
kathekon w h i c h i t perceives seems t o be n o t h i n g m o r e t h a n a s y n o n y m f o r t h e
s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e . Β regards reason i n a t o t a l l y d i f f e r e n t l i g h t . P r e s u m a b l y
i t c a n n o t o p e r a t e a p a r t f r o m t h e a p p e t i t e s , b u t its f u n c t i o n , as set f o r t h i n t h e
passage b e g i n n i n g simul autem cepit intellegentiam, is t o p e r c e i v e a higher
h a r m o n y a c c o r d i n g t o w h i c h m e n s h o u l d o r d e r t h e i r existence. O n c e p e r ­
c e i v e d , this h a r m o n y s u p p l a n t s t h e o r i g i n a l objects o f i n s t i n c t u a l horme (cf.,
i n a passage n o t q u o t e d a b o v e , " s e d q u e m a d m o d u m saepe f i t u t is q u i
 198 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

c o m m e n d a t u s sit a l i c u i e u m p l u r i s facit c u i c o m m e n d a t u s q u a m i l i u m a q u o
sit, sic m i n i m e mirum est p r i m o nos s a p i e n t i a e c o m m e n d a r i a b i n i t i i s
n a t u r a e , post a u t e m i p s a m s a p i e n t i a m n o b i s c a r i o r e m fieri q u a m i l i a s i n t a
q u i b u s a d h a n c v e n e r i m u s " [Fin. 3 . 2 3 ] ) . I n t e l l i g e n c e operates o n a base
p r o v i d e d for i t b y t h e a p p e t i t e s , b u t i t m a k e s use o f t h e m o n l y i n o r d e r t o
supersede a n d t r a n s c e n d t h e m .
Between the thoroughgoing utilitarianism o f Polybius a n d the idealism
o f B , A occupies a n i n t e r m e d i a t e a n d a t t i m e s a m b i g u o u s p o s i t i o n . P a n a e t i u s
begins w i t h t h e S t o i c oikeidsis pros heauton, i n a passage w h i c h closely p a r a l l e l s
its c o u n t e r p a r t i n B . T h e n , h o w e v e r , he shifts t o a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e same
n a t u r a l horme w i t h w h i c h P o l y b i u s is c o n c e r n e d , makes a n a n a l o g o u s c o m ­
p a r i s o n b e t w e e n m a n a n d beast, a n d e v e n gives a h i n t o f t h e P o l y b i a n c o n ­
c e p t i o n o f r e a s o n as a n i n s t r u m e n t t h r o u g h w h i c h m a n is e n a b l e d t o satisfy
his desires m o r e c o n v e n i e n t l y :

POLYBIUS 6.6.2-5 DE OFFICIIS 1.11-12

πάντων . . . προς τάς συνουσίας όρμώντων κατά Commune autem animantium omnium est
φύσιν, εκ δε τούτων παιδοποιίας αποτελούμενης, coniunctionis appetitus procreandi causa
οπότε τις των έκτραφέντων εις ήλικίαν ίκόμενος
μή νέμοι χάριν μηδ' άμύναι τούτοις οΐς εκτρέ-
φοιτ' . . . δήλον ώς δυσαρεστεϊν και προσκόπτειν
εικός τους συναντάς και σννιδόντας
την γεγενημενην εκ των γεννησάντων επιμέ- cl cura quaedam eorum quae procreata sint.
λειαν . . . περι τά έκγονα . . . και τροφήν. . . .
του γάρ γένους των ανθρώπων ταύτη διαφέροντος
sed inter hominem et beluam hoc maxime in­
των άλλων ζώων $ μόνοις αύτοΐς μέτεστι νου και
terest quod haec tantum quantum sensu
λογισμού . . . εικός. . . . [αυτούς] έπισημαίνεσθαι
moveatur, ad id solum se accommodat, paulum
τό γιγνόμενον και δυσαρεστεΐσθαι τοις παροΰσι,
admodum sentiens praeteritum aut futurum.
προορωμένους τό μέλλον και συλλογιζομένους ότι homo autem, quod rationis est particeps, per
τό παραπλήσιον εκάστοις αυτών σνγκυρήσει. . . . quam consequentia cernit, causas rerum vidit
earumque progressus et quasi antecessiones non
ignorat, similitudines comparat rebusque prae-
sentibus adiungit atque adnectit futuras, facile
totius vitae cursum videt ad eamque degendam
praeparat res necessarias.
eademque natura vi rationis hominem homini
conciliat et ad orationis et ad vitae socie-
tatem. . . .

M e n , a c c o r d i n g t o P a n a e t i u s , a r e l i k e a n i m a l s i n t h a t t h e y care i n s t i n c t i v e l y
for t h e i r c h i l d r e n , b u t u n l i k e a n i m a l s i n t h a t t h e y foresee f u t u r e e v e n t u a l i t i e s
a n d t a k e steps t o m e e t t h e m ( 1 . 1 1 ) . I f , t h e n , i t is t h i s same i n s t i n c t a c t i n g i n
c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h r e a s o n t h a t hominem homini conciliat (1.12), the m e a n i n g
w o u l d seem t o b e t h a t m e n seek t h e f r i e n d s h i p o f t h e i r f e l l o w s i n o r d e r t o
a c h i e v e a g r e a t e r degree o f safety a n d s e c u r i t y f o r t h e i r f a m i l i e s . Y e t i t t u r n s
o u t t h a t w h a t P a n a e t i u s wishes t o say is q u i t e d i f f e r e n t (Off. 1.12):
 A P P E N D I X T H R E E : POLYBIUS AND T H E STOICS 199
eademque n a t u r a v i rationis h o m i n e m h o m i n i conciliat et a d orationis et a d
vitae societatem, ingeneratque i n p r i m i s p r a e c i p u u m q u e n d a m a m o r e m i n eos
q u i procreati sunt, i m p e l l i t q u e u t h o m i n u m coetus et celebrationes et esse et a
se o b i r i velit, o b easque causas studeat parare ea quae suppeditent et a d c u l t u m
et ad v i c t u m nec sibi soli sed c o n i u g i liberis ceterisque quos caros habeat
tuerique debeat.

N a t u r e a n d r e a s o n are h e r e p r e s e n t e d as m a k i n g m e n desire t h e f e l l o w s h i p
o f others f o r its i n t r i n s i c v a l u e , so t h a t cultus a n d victus are s o u g h t n o t o n l y
for a m a n ' s o w n f a m i l y , b u t f o r a l l those quos caros habeat tuerique debeat.
P a n a e t i u s is o b v i o u s l y t h i n k i n g i n t e r m s o f a g e n e r a l social o b l i g a t i o n , n o t
i n t e r m s o f t h e n a t u r a l desires a n d r a t i o n a l c a l c u l a t i o n w h i c h seemed t o be
u n d e r discussion i n w h a t p r e c e d e d . T h e w h o l e p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n has, i n fact,
s o m e w h a t t h e c h a r a c t e r o f a n i n t e r p o l a t i o n . I n t h e p h r a s e eademque natura vi
rationis, natura refers less t o a n y t h i n g i n t h a t s e c t i o n t h a n t o principio . . .a
natura tributum a t t h e v e r y s t a r t o f t h e w h o l e discussion (see a b o v e , p . 1 9 6 ) .
M o r e o v e r , a l t h o u g h ratio is first m e n t i o n e d (1.11) i n s u c h a w a y as t o suggest
t h a t its f u n c t i o n is t o p r o v i d e f o r a b e t t e r s a t i s f a c t i o n o f desires w h i c h m a n
shares w i t h t h e a n i m a l s , this f u n c t i o n t u r n s o u t (1.12) t o be t h e v e r y d i f f e r e n t
one o f c o n v e r t i n g a cura quaedam eorum quae procreata sint t h a t is communis
amantium omnium ( i . n ) i n t o a praecipuum quendam amorem (1.12) t h a t has as
its o b j e c t n o t o n l y o f f s p r i n g b u t a l l m a n k i n d as w e l l . S o c i e t y a n d f a m i l y
cease t o b e , as was first h i n t e d , i n s t i t u t i o n s d e v i s e d b y r e a s o n f o r t h e b e t t e r
s a t i s f a c t i o n o f w a n t s w h i c h m a n shares w i t h t h e a n i m a l s ; t h e y a r e , r a t h e r ,
t h i n g s w h i c h r a t i o n a l n a t u r e seeks as g o o d i n themselves, i n t h e same w a y
t h a t i r r a t i o n a l n a t u r e seeks c o m f o r t a n d s e l f - p r e s e r v a t i o n . 3
Similarly, the

3
Gf. the closely parallel discussion of human ratio and its effects in De finibus 2.45—47:
Homines enim, etsi aliis multis, tamen hoc uno plurimum a bestiis differunt, quod rationem
habent a natura datam meruemque acrem et vigentem eelerrimeque multa simul agitantem
et. . . sagacem, quae et causas rerum et consecutiones videat et similitudines transferal et
disiuncta coniungat et cum praesentibus futura copulet omnemque complectatur vitae con-
sequents statum. eademque ratio fecit hominem hominum appetentem cumque iis natura et
sermone et usu congruentem u t . . . non sibi se soli natum memincrit, sed patriae, sed suis, ut
perexigua pars ipsi relinquatur. et quoniam eadem natura cupiditatem ingenuit homini vcri
videndi. . . his initiis inducti omnia vera diligimus . . . turn vana falsa fallentia odimus, ut
fraudem periurium malitiam iniuriam. eadem ratio habet in se quiddam amplum atque magni-
ficum . . . atque his tribus generibus honestorum notatis quartum sequitur . . . in quo inest ordo
et moderatio.

Here Cicero gives an abridged version of the doctrine set forth more completely in De qfficiis 1.11—14,
a version unencumbered by any utilitarian hints and overtones. But by eliminating the suggestion
that the superiority of human ratio is evident in the way man goes about caring for his offspring,
he eliminates even the tenuous and specious link which the other passage was able to establish
between the purely calculalive ratio which sees causas rerum et consecutiones and that other rational
faculty which impels man to seek the society and aid of his fellows. (That utilitarian motifs have
been removed from a common source to produce Fin. 2 . 4 5 - 4 7 rather than added to produce Qjf.
 200 D E M O C R I T U S AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

desire f o r t h e o r e t i c a l k n o w l e d g e (vert investigatio atque inquisitio: r.13) a n d a

p e r c e p t i o n o f quid sit ordo, quid deceat (1.14) a r e f u r t h e r r e v e l a t i o n s o f t h e
q u a l i t i e s w h i c h d i s t i n g u i s h m a n as a species f r o m t h e a n i m a l s . I n a t t a i n i n g
to t h e m a n d t o the honestum w i t h w h i c h t h e analysis c o n c l u d e s , h e is a c h i e v i n g
t h e same r e a l i z a t i o n o f his r a t i o n a l n a t u r e t h a t is d e s c r i b e d i n t h e l a t t e r
p o r t i o n o f De Jinibus 3.20-21.
T h e h y b r i d c h a r a c t e r o f De qfficiis 1.11-14 s h o u l d b e e v i d e n t . I t s u t i l i t a r i a n
elements, o n e s h o u l d n o t e , h a v e a p a r a l l e l i n L u c r e t i u s V as w e l l as i n
P o l y b i u s V I . T h e half-suppressed suggestion t h a t m e n c r e a t e d societies i n
o r d e r to p r o v i d e security for t h e i r families appears q u i t e clearly i n 5.1011-21 :

inde casas p o s t q u a m ac pellis ignemque p a r a r u n t

et m u l i e r c o n i u n c t a v i r o concessit i n u n u m

. . . p r o l e m q u e ex se videre creatam,
t u r n genus h u m a n u m p r i m u m mollescere coepit.

tunc et a m i c i t i e m coeperunt iungere aventes

finitimi i n t e r se nec laedere nec v i o l a r i
et pueros c o m m e n d a r u n t m u l i e b r e q u e saeclum.

T h e passage has n o c o u n t e r p a r t i n P o l y b i u s , b u t i t c o u l d f i t v e r y w e l l i n t o
t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e rise o f society w h i c h P o l y b i u s gives (see a b o v e , C h a p .
V I I I , n o t e 2 4 ) . F o r t h e f o r m a t i o n o f f r i e n d s h i p s f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f one's
f a m i l y is a n a t u r a l e x t e n s i o n o f t h e p r i n c i p l e o f s e l f - p r o t e c t i o n w h i c h first
b r o u g h t m e n i n t o h e r d s . I n d e e d , o n e w o u l d e x p e c t such f r i e n d s h i p s t o b e
a m o n g t h e f i r s t stable r e l a t i o n s h i p s t o arise a f t e r t h e p u r e l y " n a t u r a l " ones
w h i c h l i n k m a n w i t h wife a n d parents w i t h c h i l d r e n . Clearly Lucretius a n d
P o l y b i u s are s o m e h o w r e l a t e d t o P a n a e t i u s , b u t t h e m o s t n a t u r a l e x p l a n a t i o n
o f t h e p a r a l l e l s is t h a t t h e l a t t e r is a t t e m p t i n g w i t h o u t c o m p l e t e success t o
m o d i f y t h e t r a d i t i o n w h i c h t h e f o r m e r preserve m o r e f a i t h f u l l y . T h e source
o f Panaetius' knowledge o f this t r a d i t i o n m a y have been Polybius himself. 4

P o l y b i u s ' a c c o u n t , t h o u g h n o t a p r o d u c t o f contaminatio l i k e P a n a e t i u s ' , is

nevertheless n o t e n t i r e l y free f r o m a l i e n elements. Kathekon is c e r t a i n l y a
Stoic t e r m , a n d ennoia, t h o u g h t h e w o r d n e e d n o t h a v e h a d s u c h c o n n o t a t i o n s

1.11-14 follows from a comparison of both passages with Aulus Gellius 12.5 [see above, p. 1 9 6 ] ,
where there are explicit references to utendi consili reputatio, utilitatis contemplatio, and commodorum
delectus.) T h e eliminations were necessary to accommodate the Panaetian oikeiosis theory to its
context in Fin. 2, which is an anti-Epicurean polemic designed to show honestum esse aliquid. . . quod
sit ipsum sua vipropter seque expetendum ( 2 . 4 4 ; cf. Pohlenz, AbhGottingen Folg. 3 , 26.73—76, who suggests
Antiochus as a Mittelquelle for 2 . 4 5 - 4 7 ) .
4
For a similar suggestion with regard to the political theories of Polybius and Panaetius see
M . Pohlenz, "Panaitios," R E 36 (1949) 423, and R . Reitzenstein, "Die Idee des Principats bei
Cicero und Augustus," JVGG 1917, 4 0 6 - 7 .
 A P P E N D I X T H R E E : P O L Y B I U S AND T H E STOICS 201

for Polybius (see a b o v e , pp. 81-82 with n o t e 6 ) , suggests i n i t s e l f t h e

i d e a l i s t c o n t e x t of Fin. 3 . 2 0 - 2 1 , n o t t h e u t i l i t a r i a n o n e o f B o o k V I . O n l y
i n C i c e r o is ennoia a g e n u i n e piece o f i n t e l l e c t i o n , a p e r c e p t i o n o f t h a t i d e a l
h a r m o n y i n w h i c h t h e summum bonum f o r m a n lies. I n P o l y b i u s r e a s o n i n g is
c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e f o r m a t i o n o f m o r a l concepts, b u t o n l y i n d i r e c t l y . I t is
responsible m e r e l y f o r seeing t h e s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e a n d u n d e s i r a b l e i n a g i v e n
s i t u a t i o n . M o r a l concepts o n l y d e v e l o p l a t e r (cf. hypoginesthai i n 6.6.9) D
Y a

process t h e n a t u r e o f w h i c h is n o t specified. W e m u s t t h e r e f o r e r e c k o n w i t h
t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t P o l y b i u s was a c q u a i n t e d — p e r h a p s t h r o u g h P a n a e t i u s —
w i t h a n a c c o u n t s i m i l a r t o Fin. 3 - 2 0 - 2 1 , o n e w h i c h he r e c a l l e d vaguely
w h e n he c a m e t o c o m p o s e , o n t h e basis o f a v e r y d i f f e r e n t source, his o w n
d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e o r i g i n o f m o r a l s . B u t one n e e d n o t assume d i r e c t S t o i c i n -
f l u e n c e . B y t h e second c e n t u r y B . C . c e r t a i n elements o f S t o i c i s m h a d a l r e a d y
a c h i e v e d t h e status o f p h i l o s o p h i c koine; i n p a r t i c u l a r , C a r n e a d e s used t h e
t e r m i n o l o g y o f t h e v e r y oikeidsis d o c t r i n e w i t h w h i c h w e are p r e s e n t l y c o n -
c e r n e d as a means o f d e s c r i b i n g a n d classifying a l l e t h i c a l systems ( t h e
famous Carneadea divisio—see above, pp. 163-64). The presence o f S t o i c
t e r m i n o l o g y w o u l d t h u s be n o sure i n d i c a t i o n o f a n a c q u a i n t a n c e with
S t o i c i s m , e v e n i n a w r i t e r less careless i n his t e r m i n o l o g y t h a n P o l y b i u s . I f
t h e r e w a s a n y s u c h a c q u a i n t a n c e , its i n f l u e n c e o n t h e theories o f B o o k V I
was s u p e r f i c i a l .
 APPENDIX FOUR

DEMOCRITUS B30 A N D E U H E M E R U S *

D e m o c r i t u s ' t h e o r y o f t h e o r i g i n o f r e l i g i o n , w h i c h was p r o b a b l y reproduced

i n Diodorus' source, 1
is w e l l k n o w n : m e n f e a r e d t h u n d e r , eclipses, a n d t h e
l i k e a n d a s s u m e d t h a t gods w e r e t h e cause o f t h e m (A75). The initial pro­
c l a m a t i o n o f this belief b y c e r t a i n members o f a p r i m i t i v e society is p r e ­
sumably w h a t is d e s c r i b e d i n B 3 0 , a f r a g m e n t w h i c h s h o u l d be compared
w i t h t w o e u h e m e r i s t i c passages, o n e o f t h e m f r o m E u h e m e r u s ' o w n account
of the deification o f U r a n u s , 2
t h e o t h e r f r o m t h e v e r s i o n o f t h e same e v e n t
g i v e n b y his f o l l o w e r D i o n y s i u s S c y t o b r a c h i o n ( o n w h o m see a b o v e , p . 163,
w i t h note 4 8 ) .

A B C
τών λογίων ανθρώπων ολίγοι deinde Pan eum [Iovem] μετά δέ τήν εξ ανθρώπων
άνατείναντες τάς χείρας ενταύθα deducit in montem qui vocatur μετάστασιν . . . αθανάτους τιμάς
ον νυν ήέρα καλεομεν οι Έλληνες, Caeli sella, postquam eo as- άπονεΐμαι [Ούρανω] μεταγα-
πάντα, ζειπαν'), Ζευς μνθέεται cendit, contemplatus est late γεϊν δ' αυτού τήν προσηγορίαν
και διδοΐ και άφαιρεεται και terras ibique in eo monte aram επι τον κοσμον . . . βασιλέα τών
βασιλεύς οντος τών πάντων. creat Gaelo, primusque in ea ολων άναγορεύσαντας.
(Democritus Β30) ara I.uppiter sacrificavit. in eo (Diodorus ^.^6.5 = FGrH ^sFy,
loco suspexit in caelum quod p. 2 3 6 . 1 - 6 )
nunc nominamus idque quod

* Cf. Chap. X , note 4 4 .

1
Cf. 1.11.1: the Egyptians began to worship the ouranioi theoi out of awe and wonder (xora-
TrXayevTas Kai Bavfidoavras) at the spectacle presented by the heavens. T h e passage in itself is too
brief and vague to be linked either with Democritus A 7 5 and B 3 0 (see the works cited and criticized
by Spoerri, 167, note 13) or with later theories which make religion a response to the admiration
aroused by the beauty and order of the universe (so Spoerri himself, 1 6 6 - 6 9 ) . Since, however, it
appears in a context whose Democritean origin is likely on other grounds, it may well represent
Diodorus' own summary of, or generalization from, what would have been recognizably Demo­
critean in his source.
2
T h e version of this account followed here is the one given by Ennius and reproduced in
Lactantius. It conflicts with Diodorus' report of the same account (see above, Chap. X , note 29)
but is far more likely to preserve an accurate record of what Euhemerus wrote. It tells in detail how
the sky came to be named for Uranus, whereas Diodorus only notes in passing that Uranus got his
name because he was the first to honor the ouranioi theoi (6.1.8 = FGrH 6 3 F 2 , p. 3 0 3 . 1 5 - 1 6 ) . It is
obvious from the briefness of his resume that Diodorus was not particularly interested in this portion
of Euhemerus, hence might easily have misunderstood it. (For a suggestion as to how exactly the
misunderstanding might have arisen, see below, note 6.) Even the far more detailed account
( 5 . 4 1 - 4 6 ) of the geography of Panchaea and neighboring islands which Diodorus drew from
Euhemerus seems to have contained inaccuracies: see H . Braunert, " Die heilige Insel dcs Euhemeros,"
RhM 108 (1965) 2 5 5 - 6 8 .

202
 A P P E N D I X F O U R : D E M O C R I T U S B 3 O AND E U H E M E R U S 203

supra mundum erat, quod ae­

ther vocabatur de sui avi
nomine caelum nomen indidit;
idque Iuppiter quod aether
vocatur placans primus caelum
nominavit, eamque hostiam
quam ibi sacrificavit totam
adolevit. (Lactantius, Inst. div.
1.11.63 = F G r / / 6 3 F 2 1 )

T h e m e a n i n g o f A has b e e n m u c h discussed (see a b o v e , C h a p . I l l , n o t e 3 4 ) ,

but a t t e n t i o n has b e e n focused o n t h e m e a n i n g o f logioi, r a t h e r t o t h e ex­
c l u s i o n o f t h e rest o f t h e passage. I n p a r t i c u l a r , t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e
phrases βασιλεύς ούτος των πάντων a n d ον νΰν ήέρα καλέομεν have not been
s u f f i c i e n t l y e x a m i n e d . T h e f o r m e r shows t h a t D e m o c r i t u s r e g a r d e d t h e i d e a
o f d i v i n i t y as s o m e h o w r e l a t e d t o t h a t o f k i n g s h i p . I t is p r o b a b l y t o b e
i n t e r p r e t e d i n t h e l i g h t o f t w o s t a t e m e n t s , o n e i n Isocrates (Nicocles 2 6 ) , t h e
o t h e r i n A r i s t o t l e (Pol. 1 . 1 2 5 2 B 2 4 - 2 7 ) , w h i c h say t h a t m o n a r c h y is assumed
to exist a m o n g t h e gods because i t is t h e earliest o r m o s t w i d e s p r e a d f o r m o f
government among men. T h e similarity o f these t w o passages suggests
d e r i v a t i o n f r o m a c o m m o n , Sophistic source, 3
conceivably Democritus h i m ­
self. T h e v i e w w h i c h t h e y e m b o d y seems, a t a n y r a t e , t o be r e l a t e d t o t h e o n e
d e v e l o p e d i n A . T o give a l l a n d t o take a l l a w a y is t h e p r e r o g a t i v e o f t h e
e a r t h l y k i n g ; r e l i g i o n comes i n t o b e i n g w h e n m e n assume t h e existence o f a n
invisible k i n g above t h e m .
D e m o c r i t u s ' s p e c u l a t i o n seems, h o w e v e r , t o h a v e g o n e a step f u r t h e r . I n
i n v o k i n g Zeus m e n raise t h e i r h a n d s t o " w h a t w e Greeks n o w c a l l a i r . "
E v i d e n t l y , t h e n , t h e y d i d n o t c a l l i t " a i r " themselves. T h e n a m e t h e y used
was, I suggest, " z e u s " , a n d w h a t t h e y said was ( i n t r a n s l a t i o n ) " A i r is k i n g . " 4

D e m o c r i t u s has i n f e r r e d ( c o r r e c t l y , as w e n o w k n o w ) t h a t t h e n a m e Zeus was,

i n o r i g i n , a c o m m o n n o u n d e s i g n a t i n g ta meteora, o n e w h i c h , h o w e v e r , ceased
3
See E . Maass, " Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der griechischen Prosa," Hermes 22 (1887) 588,
who first pointed out the resemblances between the two passages; and E . Norden, Agnosias Theos
(Leipzig 1913) 372, note i , who compares the terminology used by Isocrates (kingship as the
katastasis preferred by the archaioi) with similar fifth century usages (Protagoras B 8 b : περί της εν
αρχή καταστάσεως; Democritus B 2 7 8 : άρχαίης τίνος καταστάσιος.)
4
Cf., in a different context, Aristophanes, Nubes 2 6 4 : ώ Βέσποτ' άναξ άμέτρητ' Άήρ, and
Philodemus, De piet. 5 a , p. 6 g Gomperz (=VS I I 1 0 3 . 3 - 5 ) :
θέρος • • • χείμων και . . . μεθόπωρον
και πάντα ταΰτα άνωθεν διειπετή γείνεται' διο δη και το έξεργαζόμενον γνόντας σέβεσθαι. ού φαίνεται
δ' έμο'ι Δημόκριτος ώσπερ ένιοι τόν. . . . The passage seems to be reproducing Democritus' views on
the origin of religion and harmonizes well enough with the reconstruction given in the text. As the
use of the word dieipete shows, the exergazomenon who is being honored here is Zeus; and the com­
pound is one in which the meteorological associations of the root dyeu- are most evident; cf. the
explanations given by Eustathius and the scholiasts of the phrase διειπετέος ποταμοίο in Od. 4 . 4 7 7 :
το έκπιπτον νδωρ εκ Διός ο έστιν άερος, τον εξ αέρος αρδενομενον, τον ΰπο Διός πληρονμένον. ( O n the
Zeus-air equation see, further, the parallels cited in Q,. Cataudella, "Democrito F r . 5 5 B 3 0
Vorsokr.," Atene e Roma g [ 1 9 4 1 ] 7 7 - 8 0 . )
204 DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES OF G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

to h a v e t h i s m e a n i n g after i t h a d b e c o m e t h e n a m e o f t h e g o d w h o c o n t r o l s
ta meteor a. h

T u r n i n g f r o m A t o Β a n d C, w e find a c o n s i d e r a b l e s i m i l a r i t y b o t h o f ex­
pression a n d i d e a . D e m o c r i t u s ' logioi, r a i s i n g t h e i r h a n d s t o w h a t w e Greeks
n o w call air, have their counterpart i n Euhemerus' Z e u s , r a i s i n g his eyes t o
w h a t we n o w call sky; a n d t h e βασιλεύς . . . των πάντων of A is e x a c t l y
p a r a l l e l e d b y βασιλέα των όλων i n C. W h a t h a p p e n s i n Β a n d C is n o t q u i t e
t h e same as w h a t h a p p e n s i n A . I n D e m o c r i t u s i t is t h e office o f k i n g s h i p
itself that is t r a n s f e r r e d to the skies b y the personification of air; in
E u h e m e r u s a n d D i o n y s i u s i t is a p a r t i c u l a r h o l d e r o f t h e office w h o is so
t r a n s f e r r e d . Y e t t h i s v e r y d i f f e r e n c e is s u c h as t o suggest d e p e n d e n c e o f Β
a n d C o n A . I n r e f e r r i n g t o a i r D e m o c r i t u s m u s t use t h e p e r i p h r a s i s ov νΰν
ήέρα καλέομεν; o t h e r w i s e t h e r e w o u l d be c o n f u s i o n b e t w e e n t h e o r i g i n a l a n d
p r e s e n t m e a n i n g s o f " z e u s . " T h e p a r a l l e l p h r a s e i n E u h e m e r u s is n o t neces­
s a r y ; i t w o u l d h a v e b e e n m u c h easier t o say s i m p l y t h a t J u p i t e r raised his
h a n d s t o a e t h e r a n d g a v e i t f o r t h e first t i m e t h e n a m e o f sky. F o r "aether",
u n l i k e " z e u s " , a c q u i r e s n o n e w m e a n i n g as a r e s u l t o f t h e d e i f i c a t i o n . T h i s
peculiarity i n Euhemerus' a c c o u n t suggests t h a t h e is r e c a l l i n g a n earlier
one i n w h i c h a p h r a s e p a r a l l e l i n m e a n i n g t o caelum quod nunc nominamus was
thoroughly i n place.
T h e above considerations, taken i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h the m a n y parallels
b e t w e e n E u h e m e r u s a n d t h e D e m o c r i t e a n m a t e r i a l i n D i o d o r u s I (see a b o v e ,
pp. 153-54), m a k e a D e m o c r i t e a n o r i g i n for Β a n d G fairly probable. I f o u r
analysis is c o r r e c t , t h e stages b y which Euhemerus' theory of religious
o r i g i n s arose o u t o f its m o d e l s m a y be set f o r t h as f o l l o w s :

A . D e m o c r i t e a n version: (1) t e r r o r a n d w o n d e r at atmospheric phenomena,

followed b y (2) personification o f a i r as basileus.
Β V e r s i o n o f source used b y D i o d o r u s : (1) w o n d e r at spectacle o f heavens,
followed b y (2) personification o f heavenly bodies a n d elements, p r o b a b l y
as basileis, followed b y (3) a d d i t i o n o f outstanding m o r t a l kings to the
p a n t h e o n so created.
C. V e r s i o n o f Euhemerus: (1) w o n d e r at spectacle o f heavens, followed b y
( 2 - 3 ) i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o r association o f a p a r t i c u l a r m o r t a l k i n g w i t h aether.

Stage 1 is n o t c l e a r l y attested i n a n y s u r v i v i n g r e p o r t o f t h e Sacred Chronicle,

b u t its presence t h e r e c a n be i n f e r r e d w i t h some p l a u s i b i l i t y . T h e Caeli sella
m e n t i o n e d i n E n n i u s ' v e r s i o n o f t h e first d e i f i c a t i o n r e a p p e a r s i n D i o d o r u s
( 5 . 4 4 . 6 ^ ^ f / r / / 6 3 F 3 , p . 3 0 6 . 2 1 ) , w h e r e i t is said t o be t h e spot f r o m w h i c h
5
I n support of the interpretation advanced here one may note that it would be in keeping with
the prominence of the logioi in the fragment that the genesis described be primarily an affair of
semantics—one of those name transformations to which Democritus called attention in framing his
thesis theory of the origin of language ( B 2 6 ; cf. above, pp. 6 7 - 6 8 ) .
 A P P E N D I X F O U R : D E M O C R I T U S B30 A N D E U H E M E R U S 2Ο5

Uranus o b s e r v e d t h e sky a n d t h e stars. The t w o passages, t a k e n i n con­

j u n c t i o n w i t h Dionysius Scytobrachion ap. D i o d o r u s 3 . 5 6 . 4 (=FGrH 32F7,
Ρ· 2
3 5 · 3 ° ~ 3 3 ) > w h e r e U r a n u s is t h e f i r s t a s t r o n o m e r , m a k e i t r e a s o n a b l e t o
assume t h a t E u h e m e r u s c r e d i t e d U r a n u s w i t h t e a c h i n g m e n to observe a n d
a d m i r e the heavens a n d t h e i r m o v e m e n t s ; 6
a n d i t w o u l d be q u i t e i n k e e p i n g
w i t h the general tendency o f t h e Sacred Chronicle (see above, p p . 162-63),
that Stage 1 should t h u s be associated w i t h a n i n d i v i d u a l heuretes, rather
t h a n s i m p l y w i t h p o p u l a r feelings o f m a r v e l a n d awe.
I t is possible, o f course, t h a t U r a n u s t a u g h t m e n n o t m e r e l y t o m a r v e l a t
t h e h e a v e n l y b o d i e s , b u t also t o w o r s h i p t h e m (cf. a b o v e , n o t e 1). B u t by
telescoping i n t o a s i n g l e stage ( 2 - 3 ) w h a t h a d b e e n t w o s e p a r a t e stages i n
t h e s o u r c e used b y D i o d o r u s , E u h e m e r u s has c e r t a i n l y e l i m i n a t e d t h e n e e d
for s u c h ouranioi theoi i n his t h e o r y . E i t h e r t h e y w e r e a b s e n t f r o m his w o r k
a l t o g e t h e r , o r m e n t i o n e d i n i t o n l y t o be t o t a l l y d i s r e g a r d e d a t a l a t e r stage
i n t h e n a r r a t i v e (cf. a b o v e , C h a p . X , n o t e 2 9 ) .

" It would have been natural for some of Uranus' discoveries to be named after him, and this
may be the source of Diodorus' statement (6.1.8; cf. above, note 2) that Uranus πρώτον θυσίαις
τιμήσαι τούς ουράνιους θεούς- διο και Ούρανον προσαγορευθ-ηναι. By reading ouranon for Ouranon
(Jacoby, RE 11.957) o r
inserting ton kosmon after dio (Kaerst, Geschichte des Hellenismus 2 .193—94,
2

note 6 , followed by van der Meer, Euhemerus van Messene 44) we can bring a portion at least of
Diodorus' text into line with Lactantius 1.11.63 and with several other passages in later euhemerizers
which speak of transferring a man's name to some part of the cosmos (Dionysius Scytobrachion,
FGrH 3 2 F 7 , p. 2 3 6 . 2 - 3 , 2 3 6 . 3 6 - 2 3 7 . 1 , 2 3 7 . 1 1 - 1 3 ; and Philo of Byblos, FGrH 7 9 0 F 1 , p. 806.5-10;
F 2 , p. 8 0 9 . 1 6 - 1 7 ; F 3 , p. 8 1 4 . 1 1 - 1 2 ) . But the former change introduces an awkward shift of subject,
the latter is needlessly drastic, and both posit a sequence of statements in Diodorus' text which
would imply that Uranus' apotheosis occurred in his own lifetime rather than in that of his grandson.
One would get better sense by reading ouranious for ouranon: " K i n g Heaven was the first to honor
the heavenly gods (i.e. sun, moon, and stars) with sacrifices, which is also why they were given the
epithet 'heavenly'." (Cf. Diodorus 5.67.1, where Hyperion is called the "father" of the celestial
bodies whose movements he discovers and charts.) T h e existence of the epithet ouranioi would of
course facilitate the subsequent renaming of the region in which the bodies bearing it resided, as
well as the identification of these celestial ouranioi, named after their discoverer, with the various
mortal ouranioi (Venus, Mercury, Saturn, etc.), so called because of their descent from Uranus.
Moreover, if Diodorus' report of Euhemerus has in fact transformed Uranus from an astronomer
into the inventor of an astral religion it is easy to see how the misunderstanding might have arisen:
a careless reader would naturally assume that a text which spoke of hoi ouranioi was referring to
gods, not simply to the discoveries of a stargazer.
 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aalders, G . J . D . , Het derde bock van Plato's Leges, I : Prolegomena ( A m s t e r d a m 1943).

, " T h e Political F a i t h o f D e m o c r i t u s , " Mnemosyne Ser. 4, 3 (1950) 302-13.
v o n A r n i m , H . , Leben und Werk des Dio von Prusa ( B e r l i n 1898).
Bailey, C , The Greek Atomists and Epicurus ( O x f o r d 1928).
B a l d r y , H . C., The Unity of Mankind in Greek Thought ( C a m b r i d g e 1965).
B a r w i c k , K . , " Kompositionsprobleme i m 5. B u c h des L u c r e z , " Philologus 95 (1942)
193-229.
Becker, H . a n d Barnes, H . E., Social Thought from Lore to Science 1 (Boston 1938).
Bernays, J . , Theophrastos' Schrift über Frömmigkeit ( B e r l i n 1866).
Bignone, E., UAristotele perduto e la formazione filosofica di Epicuro (Florence 1936).
, "Qua fide quibusque fontibus instructus m o r a l e m E p i c u r i philosophiam
interpretatus sit Cicero i n p r i m o de finibus l i b r o , " RFIC 37 (1909) 54-84.
Billeter, G., " G r i e c h i s c h e A n s c h a u u n g e n über die U r s p r ü n g e der Kultur,"
Beilage zum Programm der Kantonschule Rurich (1901).
BJankert, S., Seneca ep. go over natuur en cultuur en Posidonius als zijn bron ( A m s t e r d a m
1941).
Borle, J . - P . , "Progres ou declin de l ' h u m a n i t e ? L a conception de Lucrece (De
r e r u m n a t u r a v 801-1457)," MusHelv 19 (1962) 162-76.
B r i n k , C. O., "OlKelwois a n d olKeiorr/s: Theophrastus a n d Z e n o o n N a t u r e i n
M o r a l T h e o r y , " Phronesis 1 (1956) 123-45.
Cataudella, Q.., " T r a c c e della sofistica nella polemica celso-origeniana," Rendlst-
Lomb 70 (1937) 185-201.
Cole, T . , " T h e A n o n y m u s I a m b l i c h i a n d his Place i n Greek P o l i t i c a l T h e o r y , "
HSCP 65 (1961) 127-63.
, " T h e Sources a n d Composition o f Polybius V I , " Historia 13 (1964) 4 4 0 - 8 6 .
D a h l m a n n , J . H . , De philosophorum Graecorum sententiis ad loquellae originem pertinenti-
bus capita duo (Diss. L e i p z i g 1928).
D e W i t t , N . W . , " T h e Gods of Epicurus a n d the C a n o n , " Proceedings of the Royal
Society of Canada, Ser. 3, 36.2 (1942) 33-49.
D i c k e r m a n n , S. O., De argumentis quibusdam apud Xenophontem, Platonem, Aristotelem
obviis e structura animalium et hominis petitis (Diss. H a l l e 1909).
Diels, H . , " Lukrezstudien I V , " SBBerlin 1921, 237-44.
D i h l e , A . , " Z u r hellenistischen E t h n o g r a p h i e , " Entretiens Hardt 8 (Geneva 1962)
205-39.
D i r l m e i e r , F., " D i e Oikeiosis-Lehre T h e o p h r a s t s , " Philologus S u p p l . 30.1 (1937).
D y r o f f , A . , ^ur Quellenfrage bei Lukrez (Progr. B o n n 1904).
Einarson, B., " A r i s t o t l e ' s Protrepticus a n d the Structure o f the Epinornis," TAPA
67 (1936) 261-85.
207
2θ8 D E M O C R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

F a r r i n g t o n , B., " S e c o n d T h o u g h t s o n E p i c u r u s , " Science and Society 17 (1953)

326-39·
F e h l i n g , D . , " Z w e i U n t e r s u c h u n g e n z u r griechischen Sprachphilosophie: I I
Φύσις u n d θέσις", RhM 108 (1965) 218-29.
v o n F r i t z , K . , The Theory of the Mixed Constitution in Antiquity ( N e w Y o r k 1954).
, " N a u s i p h a n e s , " RE 32 (1935) 2021-27.
Geffcken, J . , " L e o , " RE 24 (1925) 2012-14.
Gerhäusser, W . , Der Protreptikos des Poseidonios (Diss. H e i d e l b e r g 1912).
G i g o n , O . , R e v i e w o f Spoerri's Späthellenistische Berichte, Gnomon 33 (1961) 771-76.
G r i l l i , Α . , " L a posizione d i Aristotele, E p i c u r o e Posidonio nei confronti della
storia della c i v i l t ä , " RendlstLomb 86 (1953) 3-44.
G u t h r i e , W . K . C , In the Beginning ( I t h a c a 1957).
H a r d e r , R., " K a r p o k r a t e s v o n Chalkis u n d die memphitische Isispropaganda,"
AbhBerlin 1943, 14.1-63.
Haussleiter, J . , Der Vegetarismus in der Antike = Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und
Vorarbeiten 24 (1935).
H a v e l o c k , E . A . The Liberal Temper in Greek Politics ( N e w H a v e n 1957).
H e i n e m a n n , I . , Poseidonios' metaphysische Schriften 1 (Breslau 1921).
H e r t e r , H . , " D i e kulturhistorische T h e o r i e der hippokratischen Schrift V o n der
a l t e n M e d i z i n , " Mala 15 (1963) 4 6 4 - 8 3 .
J a c o b y , F., " E u e m e r o s , " RE 11 (1907) 952-72.
, " H e k a t a i o s aus A b d e r a , " RE 14 (1912) 2750-69.
Jelenko, G., " D i e K o m p o s i t i o n der K u l t u r g e s c h i c h t e des L u c r e t i u s , " WS ^ (1936)
59-69.
Kleingünther, Α . , "ΠΡΩΤΟΣ ΕΥΡΕΤΗΣ," Philologus S u p p l . 26.1 (1933).
K l e v e , K . , "Gnosis theon. D i e L e h r e v o n der natürlichen Gotteserkenntnis i n der
epikureischen T h e o l o g i e , " SO S u p p l . 19 (1963).
K n a a c k e , G., " S t u d i e n z u H y g i n , " Hermes 16 (1881) 5 8 5 - 6 0 1 .
K r e m m e r , M . , De catalogis heurematum (Diss. L e i p z i g 1890).
K r o k i e w i c z , Α . , " Quaestiones D e m o c r i t e a e , " Eos 47.1 (1954) 35-50.
K r o h n , K . , Der Epikureer Hermarchos (Diss. B e r l i n 1921).
L a n a , I . , " L e d o t t r i n e d i Protagora e d i D e m o c r i t o i n t o r n o a l l ' o r i g i n e dello
s t a t o , " RendLinc Ser. 8, 5 (1950) 184-211.
L a n g e r , C , " E u h e m e r u s u n d die T h e o r i e der φύσει u n d θέσει θεοί," ΑΓΓΕΛΟΣ 2
( i 9 2 6 ) 53-59·
L e n z , F . W . , ""Εθος δεύτερη φύσις," ΤΑΡΑ 73 ( 9 4 ) 2 Ι 4 - 3 ·
Γ 2 1

Lovejoy, Α . Ο . , a n d Boas, G., Primitivism and Related Ideas in Antiquity ( B a l t i m o r e

1935)·
L u r i a , S., " Z u r Frage der materialistischen B e g r ü n d u n g der E t h i k bei D e m o k r i t , "
DAWB 44 (1964).
v a n der M e e r , H . F., Euhemerus van Messene (Diss. A m s t e r d a m 1949).
M e r l a n , P., " L u c r e t i u s , P r i m i t i v i s t or Progressivist?" Journal of the History of
Ideas 11 (1950) 364-68.
M e n z e l , Α . , " G r i e c h i s c h e Soziologie," SBWien 216.1 (1937)·
 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 209

M e y e r , W . , Landes Inopiae (Diss. Göttingen 1915).

M i l l e r , H . W . , " O n Ancient Medicine a n d the O r i g i n o f M e d i c i n e , " ΤΑΡΑ 8o
(1949) 187-202.
M o n d o l f o , R., La comprensione del soggetto umano nell' antichitä classica ( I t a l . transl.
Florence 1958).
v o n der M ü h l l , P., " E p i k u r s Κνριαι δόξαι u n d D e m o k r i t , " Festgabe Kaegi ( F r a u e n ­
feld 1919) 172-78.
Nestle, W . , " D i e H ö r e n des P r o d i k o s , " Hermes 71 (1936) 151-70 ( = Griechische
Studien [ S t u t t g a r t 1948] 4 0 3 - 2 9 ) .
N o c k , A . D . , " P o s i d o n i u s , " J A S 49 (1959) 1-15-
, Review o f Spoerri, Späthellenistische Berichte, CR 12 (1962) 5 0 - 5 1 .
N o r d e n , E., " B e i t r ä g e zur Geschichte der griechischen Philosophie," JVJbb S u p p l .
19 (1892) 3 5 - 4 Ö 2 .
6

Pfister, F., " E i n a p o k r y p h e r Alexanderbrief. D e r sogenannte L e o n v o n Pella u n d

die K i r c h e n v ä t e r , " MULLUS, Festschrift Theodor Klauser = Jahrbuch für Antike
und Christentum, Ergänzungsband 1 (1964) 291-97.
Pfligersdorfer, G., "Λόγιοι u n d die λόγιοι άνθρωποι bei D e m o k r i t , " WS 61-62
(1943-47) 5-49·
, " S t u d i e n z u Poseidonios," SBWien 232.5 (1959).
Philippson, R., " D a s Erste N a t u r g e m ä s s e , " Philologus 87 (1932) 4 4 5 - 6 6 .
, " Polystratos' Schrift über die grundlose V e r a c h t u n g der V o l k s m e i n u n g , "
NJbb 23 (1909) 487-509·
, " D i e Rechtsphilosophie der E p i k u r e e r , " AGP 23 (1910) 289-337 and
433-46.
Pötscher, W . , Theophrastos ΠΕΡΙ ΕΥΣΕΒΕΙΑΣ = Philosophia Antiqua 11 (1964).
Pohlenz, M . , " G r u n d f r a g e n der stoischen Philosophie," AbhGöltingen F o l g . 3, 26
(1940).
, " T i e r i s c h e u n d menschliche I n t e l l i g e n z b e i Poseidonios," Hermes 76 (1941)
1-13.
Praechter, K . , " E i n e D e m o k r i t s p u r b e i X e n o p h o n , " Hermes 50 (1915) 144-50.
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 , " Hermes47 (1912) 492-513.
(= Vermächtnis der Antike, Gesammelte Essays zur Philosophie und Geschichtsschreibung
[Göttingen i 9 6 0 ] 114-32).
, Poseidonios ( M u n i c h 1921).
Reitzenstein, E., Theophrast bei Epikur und Lukrez = Orient und Antike 2 (1924).
R u d b e r g , G., Forschungen zu Poseidonios = Skrifter utgifna af K. Humanistika Veten-
skapssamfundet i Uppsala 20.3 (1918).
R y f f e l , Η . , ΜΕΤΑΒΟΛΗ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΩΝ: Der Wandel der Staatsverfassungen = Noctes
Romanae 2 (1949).
v o n Scala, R., Die Studien des Polybios 1 ( S t u t t g a r t 1890).
Schwartz, E., " H e k a t a e o s v o n T e o s , " RhM 40 (1885) 223-62.
, " D i o d o r o s v o n S i z i l i e n , " RE 9 (1903) 663-704.
Seeliger, F . C., " W e l t a l t e r , " Roschers Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie
6 (1924-37) 375-430.
210 D E M O C R I T U S AND T H E SOURCES OF G R E E K ANTHROPOLOGY

Sikes, E . E . , The Anthropology of the Greeks (Cambridge 1914).

Solmsen, F., " Epicurus on the Growth and Decline of the Cosmos," AJP 74 (1953)
34-51·
Spoerri, W., " Z u Diodor von Sizilien 1, 7/8," MusHelv 18 (1961) 63-82.
, "Über die Quellen der Kulturentstehungslehre des Tzetzes," MusHelv 14
(1957) 183-88.
—•—, Späthellenistische Berichte über Welt, Kultur und Götter = Schweizerische Beiträge
zur Altertumswissenschaft 9 (1959).
Stewart, Z., "Democritus and the Cynics," HSCP 63 (1958) 179-91.
Sudhaus, S., "Nausiphanes," RhM 48 (1893) 321-41.
Taeger, F., Die Archäologie des Polybios (Stuttgart 1922).
Tarn, W. W., "Alexander the Great and the Unity of Mankind," ProcBritAc 19
(1933) 123-66.
Theiler, W., %ur Geschichte der teleologischen Naturbetrachtung bis auf Aristoteles
(Zürich 1925).
Thraede, K., " Das Lob des Erfinders. Bemerkungen zur Analyse der Heuremata-
Kataloge," RhM 105 (1962) 158-86.
— , "Erfinder," RAG 5 (1962) 1191-1278.
, "Euhemerismus," RAG 6 (1965) 877-86.
von Uxkull-Gyllenband, W., Griechische Kulturentstehungslehren = Bibliothek für Philo-
sophie 26 (1924).
Vallauri, L . , "Origine e diffusione delP euemerismo nel pensiero classico,"
PubblTorino 12.5 (i960).
Vlastos, G., "Ethics and Physics in Democritus," PhilRev 54 (1945) 578-92 and
55 ( W S ) 53-64.
, " O n the Prehistory in Diodorus," AJP 67 (1946) 51-59.
Walbank, F. W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius (Oxford 1957).
Weil, R., U "archeologie" de Platon = £tudes et commentates 32 (Paris 1959).
Weber, L . , "De Dione Chrysostomo Cynicorum sectatore," Leipziger Studien 10
(1887) 77-268.
 INDEX

abundance, of building materials, 4 3 ; created 3 8

Alexarchus, 1 3 8 , 2 3
157 2 9

by development of technology, 4 3 ; as pre- Alexander the Great, 1 3 7 , 1 5 5 , 161 23 24

requisite for development of fine arts, 4 3 ; of allegorization, of myth of Golden Age, 10,
sustenance in primitive times, 27, 100, 151 1 5 0 - 5 1 ; of Prometheus and Pandora myth,
Academy, anthropological discussions in, 1 0 4 - 5 , 20-21
165, 173; political interests of, 1 6 6 - 6 7 ; ^ a n <
allelophagia, see cannibalism
Polybius, 163, 165, 169-70 aloga, 11 o
accident, in atomistic explanations, 119; as Amazons, 1 4 4 - 4 5
determinant of cultural development, 2, 16, Ammon, 3 9 , 1 5 4 , 1 8
159 3 3

18, 3 5 . 3 9 , 47> 5 6 , 6 3 - 6 7 , 8 5 , 9 0 - 9 1 , 148, 1 7 2 ; analytic accounts of cultural origins, 5 1 - 5 2

not admitted as a cause in certain theories of Anaxagoras, VS ^QA^C); 57 3 0

cultural development, 1 4 6 - 4 7 — A101: 8 2 5

Achaean league, 165-66 — A102: 42 3 3

acme in development of arts, 172 — B 4 and 2 1 : 5

acorns as man's earliest food, 6, 1 1 3 3
Anaxarchus, 1 6 5 5 1

active life, defended and rejected by reference to — K.972A1: 161 3 7

history of culture, 127, 1 6 8 - 6 9 A6: 161 3 7

Aelian, ra . 8: 7 '
3 3
1
B1-2: 161 4 1

Aeneas Tacticus 5.1: 1 1 6 2 4

Anaximander, VS 1 2 A 3 0 : 1 0 1 5

Aeschines Ctes. 78: 1 3 3 5

Anaximenes of Lampsacus, FGrH 72T14: 177 7

— Falsa leg. 1 5 2 : 1 1 6 2 4
Anaximenes, Rhet. ad Alex. 1 . 1 4 2 1 B 3 5 - 2 2 A 2 : 113
Aeschylus, Eum. 5 6 7 : 6 6 1 5
— 1421B36-37: 1 1 4 1 8

— PV: 6, 5 0 , 9 9 8
— 1422A2-4: 1 1 4 1 9

453= 2 9 " anchinoia, 21, 4 0 - 4 1 , 74, 104, 1 8 6 2 8

454-57: 4 2 3 4 Andocides, Myst. 97: 129 5 7

4 6 7 - 6 8 : 44 » 4
animals, behavior of taken as criterion of what
484-99: 5 I 0 1 9 is natural, 9 6 , n o , u g ; defense against, 3 2

491-92: 136 1 6 3 4 - 3 6 , 6 4 - 6 5 , 109, 115, 1 2 3 - 2 6 ; differentiated

— Suppl. 7 0 4 - 0 9 : 1 1 4 2 0
from man by lack of logismos, 7 7 - 7 8 , 8 1 , 8 8 ,
aetiology, 8 - 9 , 4 9 , 5 7 , 3 2
128-30, 1 4 5 - 4 6 , 165, 113, 168, 1 9 7 - 2 0 0 ; intelligence of, 8 1 ; life of 5

•73
compared to that of early man, 7 " , 23, 5 5 , 2 4

80, 8 8 , 9 5 - 9 6 , 152, 184

Aetna 3 6 3 - 6 5 : 1 7 5

Agatharchides, ap. Diodorus 3.6.2: 8 8 , 1 4 1 1 5 3 2 anonyma, 6 8 - 6 9 , ' ° 8 , 1 8 5 s 6

3.7.2: 1 4 1 3 2 Anonymus Iamblichi, 8, 128, 1 4 0 2 9

3.15.2 ( = Photius, Cod. 2 5 0 4 4 9 A 2 7 ) : — 3.6: 1 0 4 1 6

82 s — 7.1-2, 8 - 9 : 1 2 2 3 8

3 - i 8 - 5 ( = 4 5 ° B 3 - 4 ) 82° : Anth. Pal. 6 . 1 5 1 : 6 6 1 5

3.18.6 ( = 4501510-11): 6 3 s Antiphon of Rhamnus 1.31: 104'"

3.18.7: 1 4 1 3 2 — Herod. 8 0 : 1 0 4 1 6

3.34.6 ( = 4 5 5 A i i - i 2 ) : 1 4 1 3 2 92: 129 5 7

— ap. Photius, Cod. 250 4 5 0 B 4 - 8 : 82 s Antiphon the Sophist, VS 8 7 B 4 4 , F r . A col.

456A29: 8 2 s 1 . 1 - 2 . 3 0 : 142
aggregating tendency, in atoms, 107, 110; in — F r . B col. 2 . 1 5 - 3 5 : 1 3 7 2 3

primitive man, 8 3 - 8 4 , 107, n o — n , 131 Antisthenes, 150 , 152 6

agraphoi nomoi, 1 1 3 - 1 5 , 1 2 6 , 1 3 7 4 7 2 3
Apollonius Rhodius 3 . i o 8 8 - 8 g : 9 1 1 8

agriculture, 4, 7, 10, 17, 20, 3 6 - 3 8 , 45, 55 Apuleius, Met. 11.2: 4 8 s

Alcmaeon of Croton, VS 24B1 A : 82 s

Aratus of Sicyon, 165-66
212 DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K ANTHROPOLOGY

Arcadia, 4 , 6 1 4
— Pol. 1 . 1 2 5 2 B 2 4 - 2 7 : 203
Arcesilaus, 1 6 4 - 6 5 1253A7-18: 8 6 1 3

Archelaus, VS 6 0 A 1 : 5 1256A23: 2 8 4

— A4.6: 5 1256A30-B7: 54 2 2

— B 3 : 122 1259A37-B17: 8, 1 3 s 1 6

architecture, 7, 4 3 , 5 7 , 1 9 3 - 9 5 ; cf. houses, 2.1268B30-69A8: 8

shelter 1269A4-5: IOI 6

Archytas, K S 4 7 B 3 : 122 3.1280A39: 7 3 '

Aristagoras of Miletus, 1 5 9 3 5
1 2 8 5 B 6 - 9 : 18', 9 4 2 3
, 161 3 9

Aristides, Or. 3 , pp. 3 2 . 2 3 - 3 4 . 2 Dindorf: 7 6.I32OB9-II: I 2 2 3 8

Aristippus, 164 — Rhet. L 1 3 7 1 B 1 2 — 1 7 : 1 3 4 9

Aristophanes, Nubes 2 6 4 : 2 0 3 4
1373B14-18: 1 3 7 2 3

1 0 7 5 - 7 8 : 142 1 3 7 4 A 1 8 - 2 5 : 113
1427-29: I I O 1 1
— ap. Plutarch, Thes. 2 5 : 9 4 2 3

— Plutus 7, Schol. ad: 9 4 2 3

[Aristotle], Ausc. Mirab. 87, 837A24-26: 17 5

914-15: 1 0 4 1 6
— Oec. 1 . 1 3 4 3 B 1 3 - 2 0 : 1 3 3 4

— Ranae 1032: 6 1343B20-23: 1 1 4 2 2

Aristotle, on origin of culture, 5 2 - 5 4 , 141, 146, Arius Didymus ap. Stobaeus, Eel. 2.7 = W - H n
172-73; on history of philosophy, 52-54, 120.17-121.21: 137-38
100 ,6
104-5 Arnobius 2 . 6 6 : 8
— De intr. 2 . 1 6 A 2 9 : 3 3 1 0
— 4.14: 160 3 6

— De philosophia: 172 Arrian, An. 5 . 1 - 2 : 1 5 5 2 4

Fr. 7 Ross: i o 6 2 0
— 7.11.9: 1 3 7 2 3

F r . 8 pp. 7 5 - 7 7 Ross: 5 2 Asclepius, commentary to Aristotle's Meta-

— EE 7 . 1 2 3 5 A 4 - 1 3 : 134» physics, pp. 1 0 . 2 8 - 1 1 . 3 6 Hayduck: 5 2 1 5

1235A4-5: 1 3 6 1 6
— p. 1 1 . 7 - 9 : 1 0 5 1 8

1236B9-10: 1 3 6 1 6
astronomy, 7, 4 2 - 4 3 , 2 0 4 - 5
1238B18-39B5: 1 3 5 1 4
ataktos bios, 2 8 , 1 8 9 4 3 1

1239A4-5: 1 3 5 1 5
Athena, allegorized as anchinoia, 21
1241B25: 1 3 4 1 0
Athenaeus 6 . 2 3 3 D E : 1 7 5

124IB27-42B27: i34-35nn. Athenio ap. Athenaeus 14.660-61 (Fr. 1 K o c k ) :

— EN 7 . 1 1 4 8 B 2 2 - 2 3 : 7 1 9

7
8.1155A21-22: 1 3 7 2 3

Athens, as bringer of civilization, 7, 1 3 4 ; as 8

"55 32= '36

A 1 6
primitive Utopia, 2, 5 3
1155A32-35: 134 9
Atlantis, myth of, 2, 9 , 5 3
1158BH-59A33: 1 3 5 1 4
atomism, 1 0 6 - 1 0 , 1 1 7 - 2 0 , 147
1159B25-60A30: 134 9 1 0 1 2
, 135 1 5
Attica, 4
1160A31-61A30: 1 3 5 1 6
Augustine, Civ. Dei 8 . 5 : 158
1160B22-61A9:8 authority, paternal, 112, n 6-17
1161B6-7: 134 , 1 3 7 9 2 3
autochthony, 4 , 178; cf. spontaneous generation
1161B13: 1 3 4 , 1 3 5 1 0 1 5

1161B33-35: 134 9
barbarians, antiquity of, 178
1162A9-14: 134 9
beauty as criterion for selection of early kings,
n 6 2 A i g - 2 4 : 133 4
9i 1 8

1162A34-B4: 1 3 5 1 4 bees, 9 6 2 5

1163A24-B27: 1 3 5 1 4
benefactors, 1 8 , 3 5 - 3 6 , 4 8 - 4 9 , 9 3 , 9 4 ,
7 s 3
95",
9.1168B31-32: 1 1 8 2 9
1 2 0 - 2 3 , 1 2 5 - 2 7 , 156, 161, 168, 1 8 7 - 8 8 , 191
H70A25-BI9: 138 2 6
Berlin Theaetetus commentary, col. 5.36-39:
— HA 1 . 4 8 8 A 2 - 1 0 : 2 8 4
13g 2 8

5-577 3°-78AI: 132

b 3
— 7.26-8.1: 138 2 6

9.611A7-11: 1 3 2 2
biological determinism, 2 8 , 4 2 , 7 8 - 7 9 , 5
170-71
617B21: 2 8 4
boetheia, 104
629B10-12: 132 2
Boethius, Herrn, pr. 1.2, p. 50.11 Meiser: 3 3 1 0

— Met. 1 . 9 8 1 B 1 3 - 8 2 A 1 : 7, 4 3 ' , 5 3 3 1 8
— Herrn, sec. p. 5 . 5 - 1 0 : 6 1 1

— Meteor. 4 . 3 8 1 B 6 - 7 : 1 9 9
— Herrn, sec. 1.2, p. 6 0 . 2 5 : 3 3 1 0

— Part. anim. 3.662B20—22: 4 1 3 03 1

bread, invention of, 1 9 9

4.686A25-28: 4 1 2 9
burial, 9 , 6 6 1 6

68 A5-7: i
7 4
2 9

— Phys. 2 . 1 9 9 A 1 5 - 1 7 : 1 9 9
Cadmus, 5 7 a s
 INDEX 213
Callicles, 8 4 1 1
2.81-83: 1 6 6 "
cannibalism, 7 , 5 5 , 6 6 , 1 0 3 - 4 , ' 3 > 5
1 9 1 5 2 r 2
— Orat. 3 1 : 6
Carneades, 169, 2 0 1 ; his Carneadea divisio, — Part. Orat. 6 2 : 165
1 6 3 - 6 4 , 201 Rep. 1.34: 1 6 6 6 4

Cassiodorus, 5 1-39 · a 8
- 4

— Variae, 1.2.7: 4 8 * 1.39-41: 9 2 4

1.30.5: 5 0 7
3 . 3 : 61 \ 6 7 »
6.18.6: 3 1 ' 3-23: 7 7 1 5

Catrarius, Johannes, 2 3 , 4 1 1 6 2 8
— Sest. 9 1 : 9 4 2 8

cataclysms, 2, 9, 5 2 , 54, too 5

— Top. 8 2 : 165
caves as primitive dwelling places, 2 9 - 3 0 — Tusc. 1.62: 43 , 4 4 , 5 1
3 7 3 9 9

Celsus, 5 1 1 2
5-5: 7
challenge and response in development of 5.38: 2 8 4

culture, 9, 51 5-84-85= 163

character of man, variable and constant ele- cities, founding of, 5 , 4 4 , 9 1 , 9 4 , 1 8 2 3
98-100,
ments in, 1 3 9 - 4 3 , 170 1 5 6 , 190
28

chreia, 41, 1 2 3 - 2 4 ; cf. utility Cleidemus, FGrH 3 2 3 F 5 a and 7: 4

Christian views of prehistory, 1, 8, i o 2 9
Clement of Alexandria, 5 1 3

chronology of cultural developments, 4 4 - 4 5 , 47, — Strom. 1.64: 1 6 5 5 1

'91 2.130.4-6: i 6 o ' s

Chrysippus ap. D . L . 7.108: 8 2 ' — Protr. 4 . 5 4 . 2 - 3 : 1 5 9 3 3

Cicero, Ac. 2 . 1 3 0 - 3 1 : 1 6 3 - 6 4 climate, 172, 180-81

— De Oratore 1 . 3 5 - 3 6 : 7, n 3 3 clothing, 5, 27, 3 0 - 3 1 , 5 6 ; cf. weaving
— Fin. 1.30: 7 2 s Colotes ap. Plutarch, Adv. Col. 30.1124D: 7 6 1 1

i-3>: 7 7 1 5 commerce, 4 4 , 134

1.69: 8 i , 1 3 9
4
2 2 9
communication, non-linguistic, 6 4 - 6 6
2-33-43: 163-64 communism among primitive men, 3 4 , 1 5 1 1 4 1 1

2.44: 2 0 0 3 community, Greek theories of, 131-43

2.45: 1 3 9 2 9 competition, among individuals in development
2.45-47: 1 9 9 s
of culture, 3 2 - 3 5 , 1 9 4 ; among kosmoi,
2.82: 1 3 9 2 9
109-10
3.20-21: 196-98, 200 conceptual thought, influence of on theories of
3.23: 139 ', 197-98 2
culture, 146
3.62-63: 138 2 6 confederations, 107, 1 6 6 - 6 7
4 . 4 9 - 5 0 : 163 consciousness, of kind, 8 3 , 8g-go, 1 3 9 - 4 0 ; of
4-79= 4 ° I 2 9 self, 140, 164
5 . 1 6 - 2 2 : 163 contaminatio of sources and theories, 3 ; in
5.17: 164 Diodorus I , 1 8 7 - 8 8 ; in Laws I I I , 9 7 - 1 0 0 ; in
5.65: 1 3 9 2 9 Lucretius V , 2 5 , 1 7 0 - 7 2 ; in Panaetius,
1

5.74: 1 1 8 28 1 9 8 - 2 0 0 ; in Tzetzes, 2 2 l e

— Flacc. 6 2 : 7 ' 1 contractual view, of society, 12, 75, 8 4 ; of law, 1 1

— Inv. 1 . 2 - 3 : 7, 1 1 3 3
114»
— Laelius: 1 3 6 1 9
cooking, 7, 3 1 '
— Leg. 1 . 3 7 - 3 9 : 163 cooperation, in common defense, 113-14, 116;
— ND 1.38: 1 5 6 " in development of arts, 3 5
1.120: 1 7 2 ' 6
cosmogony, 174
2.140: 4 1 3 0
Crates of Thebes, Frs. 4 and 6, pp. 218—19 Diels:
2.149: 3 3 1 0
152»
2.150-52: 9 2 4
criminals, treatment of, 1 2 3 - 2 4
3-54-55: ° l 6 3 5 Critias, K V 8 8 B 2 5 : 9
— Off. 1.11-14: 8 , 1 9 6 - 2 0 0 — B25.3-4: 114 1 8

1.12: 1 3 9 2 8 — B25.12: 5 8 s 4

1.22-23: 1 3 9 2 9 Critolaus, 1 0 1 '

1.50-58: 1 3 9 2 9 Cronus, reign of, 151
2.9: 8 2 ' cumulative character of cultural developments,
2.11—15: 8 3 8 - 4 0 , 1 1 9 - 2 0 , 194
2.13: 4 4 4 0 cyclical theories of history, 2, 5 2 - 5 4 , 1 0 0 , 101', 5

2.i :44
5
4 0 177
2.41-42: 7 5 " Cynics, 6 , 2 3 " , 7 7 , 1 5 0 - 5 2 , 171
214 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
6
Dardanus, i o i B245: I I I 1 4

defense, against animals, 34, 3 5 - 3 6 , 6 4 - 6 5 , B248: I I I 1 4

83-84. 92-93. " 5 . 123- 2 6

; against men, B250: I I I 1 4

64-65, 6 6 , 124-26
1 5
— B 2 5 I : I I I 1 4

deification, of benefactors, 1 5 - 1 6 , 4 9 , 1 5 3 - 6 3 ; B254: I I I 1 4

of self, 1 6 2 - 6 3 B
255= I I I 1 4
, 120-22
Demeter, as bringer of law and grain, 1 5 4 - 5 5 , B256: I 2 4 4 3

160, 186 2 7
B257: 123-27
Demetrius Laco, Pap. Here. 1012 col. 4 4 . 5 - 4 6 . 1 1 , B258: I07 , 124-26 1

p. 4 8 de Falco: 8 4 » 1
B259: I07 , 123-26 1

Democritus, 11, 5 6 - 5 9 , 1 0 6 - 7 3 passim; and B260: I 2 9 5 7

Cynics, 1 5 2 ; and Epicurus, 168, 1 7 0 - 7 3 ; and B263: 126-27

euhemerists, 1 5 9 - 6 3 ; on family, 1 1 2 - 1 5 ; B266: i n , 117 1 4

form taken by his reconstruction of pre- B 2 6 7 : 112

history, 1 2 8 - 2 9 , 1 4 5 - 4 7 ; gaömai of, 129; on B278: i12-15, 203 3

kingship, 1 2 5 - 2 7 ; on language, 6 7 - 6 9 ; on B 2 g 8 b and 2 9 9 a : 1 6 1 4 0

origin of religion, 2 0 2 - 5 ; on politike and B 2 9 9 g : 128

polemike techne, 1 2 3 - 2 7 ; on social concord, B 3 0 0 . 1 4 : 57
120-22; on social origins, 1 0 7 - 1 2 , 1 1 5 - 2 0 ; — VS I I , p. 4 3 2 . 1 7 - 2 2 : 5 8
sources of Polybius' and Plato's knowledge of, Demosthenes, Cor. 169: 6 6 1 4

1 2 8 - 3 0 , 1 6 9 - 7 0 ; and writers on technology, — 25.87-89: 133

148 — 56.15: 104 1 6

— KS68A1: 117 , 2 6
118 , 2 9
130 6 0
— 59-75= 9 4 2 3

A37: 117 26
Deucalion, 1 0 1 5

A38: 1 1 7 ' , 119, 2

147 4 5
diaphora, 8 7 - 8 8 , 1 2 6 4 6

A40: 107, 109 Dicaearchus, on early man, 4 , 5 4 - 5 5 , 1 4 1 ; and

A44: 117 27
Hesiod, 1 4 9 ; and Lucretius, 1 7 1 6 9

A69: 117 26
— F r . 2 4 Wehrli: 1 7 1 6 9

A 7 5 : 5, 2 0 2 , 2 0 3 4
— Fr- 4 9 : 149, i 5 ° 2

A76: 119 3 4
— Fr. 5 2 : 1 3 0 , 1 3 5 , 2 9 1 5
149
A84: 109 s
Diels, H . , 11
A125: 117 27
diet, 5 1 , 1 5 0
1 2 5

A138: 105 1 9
diffusion of new techniques, 5 7 - 5 8 , 142
A139: IOI 5
Dio of Prusa, view of primitive man, 28 s

Aisoa: 128 6 6
— 6.10: 1 5 1 9

A 1 5 1 : 5, 5 6 , I 2 8 5 6
— 6.15: 151"
B2: 6 8 , 118 1 7 3 1
— 6 . 2 5 : 6, 150
B5Ü 117 27
— 6.28: 5 1 , 152 9 1 5

B u e : 57, 128 — 6 . 2 9 - 3 0 : 6, 150

B 1 6 : 57 — 6-32-33: 151 9

B 2 6 : 67, 2 0 4 5
— 6.34: 151 8

B30: 58, 2 0 2 - 4 — 8 . 3 3 : 150«

B 3 3 : 117 — 12.30: 150 1

B57: 118 3 1
— 60.7: 1 5 1 1 0

B 1 0 7 : 117 — 60.8: 150 5

B118: 128 5 6
Diodorus Siculus, on early man, 4, 15-45
B142: 6 8 1 7
passim; and Euhemerus, 153-57, 162-63,
B144: 43, 115 2 0 2 , 2 0 5 ; on
2 6
language, 6 0 - 6 1 , 6 3 - 6 7 , 79,
B145: 6 8 1 7
108-9; a n c
l Leo, 1 5 8 - 5 9 ; methods of com-
B 1 5 4 : 5, 5 0 , 5 3 , 7 1 8
57 position in Chaps. 7 - 2 9 of Book One, 16,
B l
5 7 = '21, 125 4 4 174-92; and Polybius, 83-84, 93 2 0
, 94 2 2
;
B 1 5 8 : 58 sources for Book One, 1 5 9 ; and Vitruvius,
B164: 107 , 110-11, 1
117 26
15-17, 183-84, 188-89
BI67: II7 2 6
— 1.1-5: 179
B I 8 6 : 117 — 1 . 3 - 1 . 6 . 1 : 176
BI87: n 8 3 1
— 1-4-6: 1 7 9 9

B I 9 7 : 117 — 1 . 6 . 1 - 2 : 192
B203: I I I 1 3
— 1.6.2: 1 7 7 - 7 9
B236: n 8 3 1
— 1.6.3: 177
 INDEX
215
1.7: 2 3 1 6
, I O I , 1 7 5 - 7 » >92
5 6
— 1.41.10: 190
1.7.4: I82 2 1
— 1.42.1: 174-76, 1 8 9 - g i
1.7.6: I8I 1 6
— 1.42.2: i g o
1.7.7: I83 2 2
— 1 . 4 3 . 1 : 1 6 0 , 184, 187 3 6

i . 8 : 3 , 4 , 7, 11, 16, 2 0 , 3 4
9 1 3
, 6 4 , 8 3 , 151 — 1.43.1-6: i 8 8 - g 2
177-78 — 1.43.2: 1 9 1 3 4

1 . 8 . 1 : 2 7 , 184, 1 8 7 - 8 9 , 190, 192 — 1.43.4: igi 3 4

1.8.2-3: 3 2 - 3 3 , 6 0 - 6 1 — 1.43.5-6: i g i
1 . 8 . 2 - 4 : 108, 1 8 4 - 8 5 , 1 8 7 , 189 — 1.43.6: 1 6 2 , i g 2 4 3

1.8.3: 16, 183 — 1.44-68: 190

1 . 8 . 3 -4 : 6 2 " , 6 9 1 9
— 1 . 4 4 . 1 : 15», 191
1.8.4: 3 3 1 1
, 6 5 , 108, 1 1 8 2 9
— 1.45.4: 1 5 4 2 1

1 . 8 . 4 - 5 : 187 — 1.90: 6 4 - 6 5 , 8 7 , 9 3
2
», 1 8 4 - 8 5 , 18g
1.8.5: 1 5 2 1 6
— 1.90.1: 74, 1 1 1 1 3

1 . 8 . 5 -9 : 2 7 , 1 8 5 - 9 2 — 1.90.2: 162 4 3

1.8.6: 1 8 6 2 7
— 1.97.6: 1 8 6 2 7

1.8.7: 2 9 , 1 8 6 2 7
— 2 . 3 5 - 4 2 : 186
1.8.8: 3 6 — 2.38: 4
1 . 8 . 9 : 16, 2 1 , 4 0 , 104, 1 8 0 , 183, 186 1 2
— 2.38.2: 1 8 0 1 2

1 . 9 . 1 : 178 — 2 . 3 8 . 2 - 6 : 186
1.9.2: 4 4 , 1 9 1 - 9 2 — 2.38.4: 9 4
2 3

1 . 9 . 2 - 6 : 178 — 2.38.5: 4 8 , 9 1 s l 8
, 186 2 7

'•9-3= ! 7 9 — 3.2: 4
1 . 9 . 3 - 6 : 192 — 3.2.1: 1 8 1 1 5 1 7
, 182 1 9

1.10: 1 7 5 , 192
3 — 3.9.4: 9 1 1 8

1 . 1 0 . 1 : 187 — 3.17.5: 1 5 1 9

1.10.2-3: 180-83 — 3.32.1: 102 , 1 1 8 9 2 9

1.10.4: 1 7 7 8
— 3.32.3: 1 0 2 9

1.10.5: 1 8 1 , 1 5
182 2 1
— 3.49.2: 8 2 s

i . n : 1 5 6 » , 1 5 6 - 5 7 , 158
2 2 9
— 3.56.3: 4 8 , 186 3 2 7

I . I 1-12: 192 — 3.61.3: g i 1 8

1.11-29: 190-91 — 3.63 ff.: 1 5 4 2 1

1 . 1 1 . 1 : 155, 1 6 0 , 2 0 2 3 6 1
— 3.63.3: 1 8 6 2 7

I . l 1.2-12.IO: I 5 9 3 4
— 3.67.1-2: 57 3 3

I.U.5-I2: I75 3
— 3.70.3: 1 8 6 2 7

1.11.6: 190 — 3-70.7: 9 4 2 3

1.13-16: 86, 188-89 — 3.70.8: 186 2 7

1 . 1 3 - 2 9 : 4 8 , 1 5 3 - 5 5 , 192, 193 — 3.73.5: 186 2 7

1 - 1 3 - : ' 5 5 , 186, 190

1
— 4.2 ff.: 1 5 4 "
1.13.2: 2 0 1 2
, 157 3 0
— 4.25.1: 5 7 3 3

1.13.2-5 : 160 3 5
— 5-35-3-4 i 7 : 5

I-I3-3: ! 5 - 1 6
, 2 1 , 3 0 , 183 — 5-39-5: 2 9 6

1.14:38" — 5.41-46: 202 2

1.14.1: 30, 9 2 1 9
, 103, 104, 186, 187 — 5.46.4: 1 5 4 "
1.14.2: 1 5 8 , I 6 0 3 5
, 191 3 4
— 5- 4-i: 49
6 3

I - I 4 - 3 : 33, 9 4 " — 5.65.3: 186 2 7

1.15: 20 — 5.67.1: 205 6

i - i 5 - 3 = >55 — 5.67.3: 4 g 3

1 . 1 5 . 3 - 4 : 190 — 5.68.1: 49 , 186 3 2 7

I
- ' 5 - 4 - 5 : 33 — 5.69.5: 6 6 1 5

i->5-5= 3 7 , 5 4 I 1 8
— 5.71.1: 9 4 2 3

1.15.6-8: 154» — 5.73.7: 9 4 2 3

1.16.1: 4 2 - 4 3 , 6 g 1 9
, 108, 185, 192 — 6.1.8: I 5 6 2 9
, 202 , 205 2 6

1.17.1-20.5: 1 5 4 2 1
— 15-89-3: i 7 7 7

!-'7-3: i54 2 1 — 18.4.4: 1 3 7 2 3

1 . 2 3 . 1 : 191 Diogenes of Apollonia, VS 6 4 A 1 9 , p. 5 6 . 1 3 - 1 4 :

1.24.3: 3 8 2 2
, 50 7
41 » 3

1.24.5: 4 4 Diogenes Laertius 1 . 1 : i 6 o 3 s

1 . 2 6 . 1 : 191 — 1.10: 176

2l6 DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K A N T H R O P O L O G Y

Diogenes (cont.) Democritus, 1 4 1 ; contrasted with that of

— 2.64: 1 4 0 2 9
Diodorus, 7 4 , 7 8 - 7 9 ; contrasted with that of
— 2.85: 140 » 2 Polybius, 8 1 - 8 7 ; i relation to that of the t s

— 4 . 2 8 : 165 Cynics, 1 7 1 7 1

— 4.33: 1 6 5 " Epicurus, and Democritus, 127, 1 6 8 ; and

— 5-i7: 7
Nausiphanes, 1 6 8 - 6 9 > origin of language, o n

— 6.23: 151 1 0
6 1 - 6 2 ; on social origins, 7 0 - 7 9
— 6.27: 150 6 — Ad Herod. 3 8 : 7 2 "
— 6.44: 151* 74: 172 7 3

— 6.59: 150 6
75: 72 , 78-79 6

— 6.71: 151" 7 5 - 7 6 : 9. 6 1 - 6 2
— 6.72: 1 5 1 1 1
— Ad Men. 1 2 4 : 7 6 1 4

— 7.4: 1 5 1 1 1
— RS 6 : 127, 169
— 7-85= 197 7 : 127, 169
— 9.40: 130 s 0 3 1 : 7 2 , 7 3 , 76 7

— 9.61: 1 6 5 " 32: 137 2 3

— 9-67: 1 6 5 6 1 33: 72, 7 3 '

— 9- 'i- 5-
ii l
165" 36: 7 2 , 76
— 10.33: 7 7 1 6 37: 76 1 4

— 10.120: 8 4 1 2 38: 76 1 4

Diogenes of Oenoanda, 3 8 , 5 6 2 0 — 172 Usener: 5 7 3 1

— F r . 1 1 , col. 1 1—11 11 Grilli: 5 6 — 2 5 5 Usener,: 7 6 - 7 7

col. 11 4 - 8 : 1 7 0 6 8 — 5 1 7 Usener: 7 8 1 9

col. n 9 - 1 1 : 5 6 s 8 — Pap. Here. 9 9 3 col, 3.Ü.2, p. 195 Arrighetti:

Diogenes of Sinope, 1 5 0 , 1 5 1 6 9 1 0 118 2 9

— Ep. 3 2 : 1 5 1 1 2 — Pap. Here. 1056, F r . 6 , col. 11 7 - 9 , pp.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom. 1.37.5: 3 2 8 - 3 9 Arrighetti: 7 3 s

180 1 3
epideictic oratory, Kulturgeschichte as a topos in,
Dionysius Scytobrachion, 163 6-7
— FGrH 32F7: 57 , 189 , 202-5 3 3 3 1
Epiphanius, Defide9.25, p. 507 Holl: I 5 6 2 e

Dionysus, as bringer of culture, 160, 1 8 6 ; essential arts, antedate non-essential, 4 2 - 4 3 , 52

world expedition of, 155, 161 Ethiopia, 4 , 9 1 , 1 8 1 l s 1 7

division of labor, 8 , 3 5 , 5 2 , 132-33» 9 4 !

ethnography, 4 , 1 4 0 , 1 8 7 - 8 8 3 2

domestication of animals, 2 , 5 5 4 2 4
ethnos, 1 0 8 - 9 , 1 8 4 - 8 5 ; - tribes C I

dynasteia, 102, 171 euetheia of primitive man, 1 5 0 - 5 1

Euhemerus, date of, 1 5 9 ; on deification of 3 4

Ecdemus, 1 6 5 - 6 6 Uranus, 2 0 2 - 5 ; and Democritus, 2 0 4 - 5 ; on

Egypt, 4 ; divine rulers of, 156, 1 6 0 ; and 3 5
development of culture, 9, 4 8 , 1 4 1 , 1 5 3 - 6 3 ;
Euhemeristic tradition, 1 5 4 - 5 5 ; ^ home a s
Tst
and Diodorus, 1 5 3 - 5 7 , 1 6 2 - 6 3 , 2 0 2 , 2 0 5 ; on 2 6

of mankind, 1 8 0 - 8 3 , 1 8 7 - 8 8 ; as setting for ouranioi and epigeioi theoi, 1 5 6 - 5 7 , 2 0 5 6

Kulturgeschichte, 15-17, 39, 5 0 , 1 5 5 , 179-80, 7 2 6

— FGrH 6 3 x 4 b : 1 6 2 4 5

188-89 T4C: 9 4 , 162 , 1 8 9 2 3 4 5 3 1

eikos: 145-46 F 2 , p. 3 0 2 . 2 0 - 2 6 : 1 5 6 2 9

Empedocles, VS 3 1 B 3 5 . 5 - 1 0 : 5 8 ' 3
F 2 , p. 3 0 3 . 1 5 - 1 6 : I 5 6 , 2 0 2 2 9 2

B106: 4 0 2 6
F 2 - 3 : 153-55
— ap. Arist. Rhet. 1 . 1 3 7 3 B 1 4 - 1 7 : 1 3 7 2 3
F 3 . P- 3 0 6 . 1 4 : 1 5 7 3 0

empiricist psychology, 4 7 F 3 , P- 3 0 6 . 2 1 : 2 0 4 - 5
ennoia, 8 2 , 8 5 - 8 6 , 129, 1 4 1 , 197, 2 0 0 - 1 F3» P- 3 0 8 - 8 - 9 : 1 5 4 1 8

environment, influence of on cultural develop- F : 154 », 157

7
2 2 9

ment, 7 8 - 7 9 , 1 7 0 - 7 2 F I 4 : 9 I 1 8

Ephorus, 5 6 " F 1 9 - 2 4 : 153-55

— FGrH 7oT d:
33 5 F 2 1 : 157 , 202-5 2 9

F2-5: 5 F 2 3 : 162-63
F
5 = 39 > 4 9
26 6 F 2 3 , p. 3 1 2 . 1 1 - 1 2 : 1 5 6 2 9

F104-6:5 F24: 18 , 9 4 7 2 3

F147: 9 1 " — — F28: 154 1 8

Epictetus 1 . 2 9 . 9 : g 6 2 5 — — F29: 157 3 0

Epicurean view of cultural development, 4 , 8 , eukrasia, and spontaneous generation, 1 8 0 - 8 3

10, 1 1 , 7 0 - 7 9 , 1 7 0 - 7 3 ; contrasted with that of euphyia, 4 1 , 1 8 6 2 8
 INDEX 217
Euripides, Bacchae 1 3 - 2 2 : 155 2 4
grass, as food of primitive man, 6 , 7 1 9
, 51 1 2
, 55,
— Hec. 8 0 0 - 1 : 1 1 4 1 82 0
1 6 0 , 184
3 6

— Or. 1646, Schol.: 9 1 1 8

Grattius Faliscus, Cynegetica 6 - 9 : 195
— Phoen. 1 3 7 7 : 6 6 1 5
Gregory Nazianzenus, 5 1 3

— Suppl. 2 0 1 - 1 5 : 6 — Or. 4 . 1 0 8 : 4 8 "

203-4: 6 1 2
Gregory of Nyssa, Horn. opif. 8.144BC: 4 1 2 83 2

209-10: 4 4 4 0
148C-49A: 4 1 3 2

352-53: 9 4 2 3 gymnosophists, 9 2 8

911-17: 7 1 2

— Tr. 6 6 9 - 7 2 : 132 habit, 1 3 1 - 3 2 , 1 4 2 ; cf. nomos, synetheia

671-72: 8 2 s
hands, 2 1 , 4 0 - 4 1
— F r . 8 5 3 (TGF 6 3 8 ) : 1 1 4 2 0
Hecataeus of Abdera, 1 1 , 159, 1 6 0 , 176 3 6

— F r . 9 8 1 {TGF 6 7 7 ) : 1 8 0 1 3
— FGrH 264F6.3: 94 2 3

Eusebius, PE 2 . 5 9 B - 6 1 A : 1 5 6 s 9
F 6 , p. 1 4 . 1 0 - 1 7 : 1 6 0 3 6

Evenus of Paros, F r . 9 Diehl: 1 1 7 2 8

Hecataeus of Miletus, F G r H 1 F 3 0 0 : 1 0 1 5

evolutionary perspective in Kulturgeschichte, 1-3, Hellenistic theories, of community, 1 3 6 - 4 2 ; of

9 . ' 3 . 3 » 5 4 . 6 2 , 139
6 cultural history, 1 4 6 - 4 7 ; of primitive king-
expansion of aggregates, 1 0 7 - 1 0 , 1 1 6 - 1 7 , 1 1 9 " , ship, 1 6 1 - 6 3
I 3 4 , ' 3 5 . 166
8 1 6 Hephaestus, as bringer of culture, 6 ; as dis-
experience, 4 0 , 5 8 , 8 9 ; cf. chreia, tribe, usus coverer of fire, 15, 18, 1 9 - 2 0 ; equated with
external and internal enemies of society, 1 2 2 - 2 6 Ptah, 2 0 , 1 6 01 2 3 5

Heracles, 4 4 - 4 5 , 5 7 , ' 5 5 3 3

Heraclides Ponticus, F r . 152 Wehrli: 5

family, and division of labor, 1 3 2 - 3 3 ; human
Heraclids, 1 6 6
and animal, n o ; influence of on man's
Hermarchus, on social origins, 7 1 - 7 5 ; views on
disposition, 2 2 ; protection of, 7 6 , 1 1 5 " ,
social origins compared with those of Poly-
1 9 8 - 2 0 0 ; as source of social and political
bius, 8 2 - 8 4 , 8 6 - 8 7 ; views on treatment of
institutions, 8 , 8 8 , 1 0 7 - 8 , 1 1 2 - 1 7 , 119, 133,
aggressors in primitive society compared with
1 5
I35 those of Polybius and Democritus, 1 2 3 - 2 6
federalism, 166
— ap. Porphyry, De abst. 1.7.: 8 4 1 0

fine arts, origin of, 4 3 , 5 2 , 5 7 , 104, 115

1.10.11: 7 1 - 7 5 , 8 4 1 0
, 123-26
fire, condemned by Cynics, 1 5 0 ; discovery of,
Hermes, as discoverer of weaving, 3 9 ; as giver
15-16, 3 0 - 3 2 ; effects on human life, 5 , 2 1 - 2 2 ,
of language, 2 1 , 6 9 , 1 0 8 , 185, 1 8 9 ; as 1 9

3 8 , 1 7 1 ; as signal, 6 6
7 0

inventor of music, writing, and dancing, 4 3 ;

Firmicus Maternus 1.7.16: 1 8 0 1 3

as royal counselor, 3 9 ; 1 5 4 , 155 2 0

food, gathering of, 4 , 2 7 , 2 9 , 5 4 , 1 8 6 ; storage of,

Hermippus ap. Hyginus, Astr 2 . 2 0 : 1 5 9 3 3

2 7 , 2 9 , 186
hero cults, 1 5 6 2 8

force, prevalence of in early human relation-

Herodotus, speculative ethnology in, 1 4 4 - 4 6 ,
ships, 9 0 - 9 3 , 9 5 - 9 6 , 1 1 1 - 1 2 , 118, 1 1 9 - 2 0 , 171
148*
forethought, 3 2 , 4 1
— 1.66.2: 6
fusion of customs and languages, 1 0 8 - 9 , ' 4 4 - 4 5 .
— 1.96.2-98.1: 9 1 1 8

185 — 1.142.3: 7 1 2

— 2.42.4: 7 1 2

Gellius, Aulus, Noct. Att. 5 . 3 . 1 - 6 : 5 7 — 2 . 4 4 . 5 : 155

1 2 . 5 . 7 : 196, 2 0 0 3
— 2.68: 1 3 6 1 6

gods, benefactors and inventors worshipped as, — 2.142.4: IOI 5

9, 15-16, 4 8 , 155-58, 186-88, 190-91; — 2.143: IOI 5

homonymous with mortals, 155, 1 5 7 ; as kings — 2

- ' 4 4 : 155
of Egypt, names of, 6 8 , 2 0 3 ; origin of 1 7
— 2 . 1 4 6 : 156
belief in according to Democritus, 2 0 2 ; origin — 3.106: 1 8 0 1 3

of belief in according to Prodicus, 1 5 6 ; — 3.108: 5 1 "

ouranioi and epigeioi, 1 5 5 - 5 8 , 190-91, 2 0 2 1 2
, — 4 . 1 1 0 - 1 7 : 143-45
205 — 4-183.4: 7 * 1

Golden Age, 1, 9 ; allegorical interpretation of, Hesiod, 1, 9 ; and Dicaearchus, 1 4 9 ; and

10, 149, 151 euhemerists, 155, 157; and Laws I I I , 1 4 9 ; and
Gorgias, F S 8 2 B 6 , p. 2 8 6 . 1 2 - 1 5 : 1 1 4 2 0
Tzetzes, 10, 2 0 - 2 1 , 1 4 8 - 4 9
— B n a 3 o : 6, 6 6 1 4
— Works and Days, 117—18: 1 4 9
gradualism, 4 7 , 6 7 , 8 7 , 9 2 120: 2 4

grain, 6 , 3 0 - 3 1 , 9 a * , 104, 154, 1 5 8 - 5 9 , 1 8 6

1 2 7
2 7 6 - 7 8 : 132
2l8 D E M O C R I T U S A N D T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K ANTHROPOLOGY

heurematistic works, 3 , 5, 4 8 - 5 0 9
Isis, as bringer of laws, 3 3 , 155; as discoverer of
Hierocles Stoicus, col. 6 . 2 2 - 1 1 . 2 1 : 1 3 8 2 5 2 6
grain, 3 0 , 4 8 , i 5 8 - g , 1 8 6
3
5
2 7

Hippias of Elis, VS 8 6 A 1 1 : 5 Isocrates, i 6 g 6 6

Hippocratic corpus, Airs, Waters, Places 12 and — Antid. 2 5 3 - 5 4 : 7

16: 1 7 1 , 1 7 2 "
7 0
253-57: 8 6 1 3

— De vet. med. 3 : 7 , 5 1 1 8 1 2
— Areop. 3 1 - 3 5 : 1 2 2 3 8

history, contrasted with pre-history, 4 4 - 4 5 , 4 9 , — Bus. 15: 4 3 , 5 3 3 7 1 8

161, I go; reconstructions of, 1 4 5 - 4 7 — Dem. 1 6 : 1 1 4 2 0

Homer, 1-2 — Evag. 7 : 8 2 0

—11. 1.272, 5 . 3 0 4 , 1 2 . 3 8 3 , 12.449, 2 0 . 2 8 7 : — Helen: 3 2 - 3 7 : 9 4 2 3

1 3
— Nicocles: 5—6: 7
Od. 4 . 4 7 7 : 2 0 3 4 5-9:86 1 3

homicide, 7 1 - 7 2 , 1 2 3 - 2 6 , 1 3 7 2 3 2 6 : 203
homonoia: see social concord — Panath. n g - 4 8 : 7
Horace, AP 3 9 1 - 4 0 1 : 7 1 2 1 : 102
— Sat. i . 3 . g g - i i 4 : 8 128: 9 4 2 3

1.3.100: 6 1 2
164-66: 116 2 5

1.3.103-4: 6 1 2
— Paneg. 2 8 - 2 g : 1 3 4 8

1.3.105: 6 7 1 6
28-40: 7
Horus, 155 32-33: ! 3 4 8

houses, 3 0 - 3 2 ; roofing of, 3 1 8

34-42: 116 2 5

Hyginus, 5 1 3
3 9 : 102
— Astron. 2 . 2 0 : 2 0 1 3
, 39 3 9 - 4 o : 9 4 , 134« 2 3

— Fab. 2 7 4 : 4 8 2
40: 5 3 1 8

274.20-21: 6 6 1 5
42: 134 8

274.22: 5 0 7
5 0 : 133
Hymni Homerici 2 0 . 1 - 7 : 6 isonomia, 5 1 1 3

— 20.4: 2 g 6

Jews, prehistory of, 1 6 0 3 6

Iamblichus, VP 1 0 8 : 1 3 7 2 3
John Philoponus, commentary to the Isagoge of
Iambulus ap. Diodorus 2 . 5 7 . 1 : 1 1 8 2 9
Nicomachus of Gerasa, pp. 1.8-2.42 Hoche:
ignorance, in primitive man, 10, 150—51, 1 7 1 7 1
52 1 5

imitation, as source of arts, 1 9 , 3 2 , 3 4 - 3 5 , 3 9 , 9

Julian, Misopogon 3 5 3 A : 1 1 8 2 8

4 7 , 5 7 , 194 justice, and art of war, 1 2 3 - 2 6 ; Epicurean

India, 4 , 186 definition of, 7 2 - 7 3 , 7 5 - 7 7
individual, gifted, his role in the development of Justin 2.1.5: 1 8 0 1 3

culture, 2, 35—36, 7 2 , 7 4 - 7 5 , 7 6 ; preoccupa- Juvenal 1 5 . 1 4 2 - 5 9 : 6 6 1 5

tion with character of, 143; society likened to,

1 4 1 - 4 2 ; incident in cultural process, 4 7 - 4 8 , kathekon, 8 2 , 1 9 7 - 2 0 1
7

63» 8 5 , 145» 1 6 1 kingship, conferred on benefactors, 15-16, 1 8 , 7

indolence, as characteristic of Golden Age, 9 9 4 , 1 2 5 - 2 7 , 1 6 1 ; date of earliest, 4 5 , 178,

2 3

ingenuity of man, 2 ; cf. anchinoia, forethought, 1 9 1 ; in Epicurean theory, 7 5 , 9 1 , 127, 1 1 1 8

logismos synesis i 6 g ; as guarantee of law and order, 7 6 , 1 1

innate ideas, 2, 7 7 , 7 8 1 5 2 0 go-92, 1 2 5 - 2 7 ; influences primitive notions

instinct, 1 4 2 - 4 3 , 1 9 7 - 2 0 0 ; cf. nature about the gods, 2 0 3 ; in Laws I I I , 1 0 2 ; origins
interdependence, increase of in development of of, 9 0 - 9 3 , 1 2 0 - 3 0 ; in Polybius, 9 0 - 9 3
culture, 5 8 - 5 9 , 1 1 5 - 1 6 , 119 koine dailektos, 108, 1 8 5 2 6

intuition, 7 2 - 7 6 kosmoi, atomistic and social, 107, 1 1 7 - 2 0 ;

inventors, 5, 4 8 - 5 0 , 1 5 3 - 5 6 ; as kings, 1 5 - 1 6 , expansion and destruction of, 1 0 9 - 1 0 , 1 1 9 - 2 0
1 8 , 1 6 1 , 1 8 8 ; deified, 9 , 1 5 - 1 6 , 4 8 , 1 5 5 - 8 8 ,
7 3 9

1 8 6 - 8 8 , 1 9 0 - g i ; divine, 160 Lactantius, Inst. Div. 1.11.63: 1 5 7 , 2 0 5 2 9 6

Isidore of Seville, Orig. 3 . 1 0 . 1 : 5 1 2

— 1.22.2 ff: 1 6 2 - 6 3
—3.16.1: 5 1 2
— 1.22.7: 1 5 6 2 9

— 3.22.8: 5 1 2
, 44 3 9
— 6.10.13-15: g , 64 24

— 3.25.1: 5 1 2
language, articulation of, 33 1 0
; assimilation
-4 -3-i: 5 1 2 and fusion of, 108-9, '44~45, ' 8 5 ; and
— 5.1.1-2: 5 1 2 Hermes, 2 1 , 6 9 , 108, 1 8 5 ; and human 1 9

— 6.10.1: 5 1 2 physique, 4 1 ; and morals, 7 1 , 7 3 - 7 5 , 8 5 - 8 6 ;

— 15.2:5-6: 6 5 1 3 origin of, 9 , 16, 3 2 - 3 3 , 6 0 - 6 9 ; reflection of a s
 INDEX 219
reality, 6 8 ; and society, 3 5 , 6 5 - 6 7 , 85-86; — 5.998:171' 1

thesis and physis theories of, 2, 6 1 , 6 2 - 6 3 , — 5 . 1 0 1 1 - 2 3 : 2 2 , 3 0 , 3 3 , 3 4 , 6 3 , 75, 7 6 , 7 8 - 7 9 ,

6 7 - 6 9 , 109, 2 0 4 6
115 , 171
2 4 7 0
, 200-1
law, origin of, 7 3 , 7 5 - 7 7 , 100, 1 0 2 ; unwritten, — 5 . 1 0 2 4 - 2 5 : 75
see agraphoi nomoi, nomos — 5.1028-29: 33, 60-61
lawgivers, 1 0 2 - 9 — 5.1030-90: 61
Leo "of Pella", incorrect designation for author — 5.1046-48: 6 1 3

of apocryphal letter of Alexander to Olympias, — 5.1087-88: 27, 6 1 2

20 ;1 3
date of, 155 , 2 5
158 , s 2
159 ; 3 3
and — 5.1090-1104: 20. 2 5 ,30, 3 1 , 5 7 1 3 2

Diodorus, 1 5 8 - 5 9 ; on gods, 1 5 3 - 6 3 ; relation — 5.1105-14: 18 , 22, 33, 34, 36, 9 1 7 1 8

of to Euhemerus, 1 5 9 ; on discovery of wool 3 3

— 5.1108-40: 7 5 1 1
, 127
and weaving, 3 9 , 183, 186 — 5 - " 4 3 - 5 i : 75"77, 7 5 1 1

— FGrH 6 5 9 T 1 - 2 : 157 — 5 . 1 2 4 1 - 6 8 : 17, 3 7

T 2 a : 158 — 5.1283-86: 20, 37, 5 0 , 8 4 7 1 2

Ft: 157-58 — 5.1287-95: 3 8 "

F5: 20 1 2
, 153-55 — 5.1308-49: 1 9 1 0

F6: 153-55, ' 5 4 2 0

, 158
-—5-1350-53: "7, 37. 4 7 . 1 I 0
3 1 2

F9: 20 1 2
, 154-55 — 5 - i 3 5 4 - 8 o : 194
Fga: 34 1 5
, 158, 1 5 9 3 3
— 5 - 1 3 6 1 - 6 6 : 17, 3 7
Leucippus, 147 — 5 - I 3 7 9 - 8 3 : 43
— KS67A1: ii7 «, u 8 2 2 9
, 119 3 5
— 5-I437-39: 42
A6: 68 1 7
, 117 2 6 2 7
— 5 . 1 4 4 0 - 4 7 : 4 4 , 5 0 , 191 7

A9: 68 1 7
— 5-'452-55: 40
A15: 117 2 6
— 5 - I 4 5 6 - 5 7 : 3 8 , 172
A28: 117 2 7
-6.1-4: 7"
B2: 42 3 3
— 6 . 1 - 4 1 : 172
like-to-like, principle of, 8 3 - 8 4 , 1 0 0 , 1 3 1 , 1 3 7 2 3
— 6.966-69: 3 1 7

Linus, as inventor of music, 5 7 3 3

Lycortas, 166
L i v y 1.16.3: 5 8 3 5
Lycurgus, Leocr. 15: 1 1 4 2 0

logioi, 5 8 3 1
, 1 0 9 , 2 0 4 ; cf. Democritus B 3 0
7 5
88: 1 6 1 3 9

logismos, in animals, 8 1 ; contrasting roles in 6

94 and 9 7 : 1 1 4 2 0

Vitruvius, Diodorus, and Epicurus, 7 8 - 7 9 ; in 141: 7 6 1 3

Democritus, 118 s
1
; distinguishes man from lyre, invention of, 4 3 3 9

animals, 7 7 - 7 8 , 8 1 , 8 8 , 9 0 , 1 3 2 ; and estab- Lysias 1 0 . 3 2 : 1 0 4 1 6

lishment of social concord, 1 2 1 - 2 2 ; and mora- — 25.8: 142 3 5

lity, 7 7 - 7 8 , 8 1 - 8 2 , 8 4 - 8 6 , 132, 1 4 1 ; as servant

of appetites, 1 9 8 - 2 0 0
longevity, 10, 1 5 1 s
Macrobius, Sat. 1 . 7 . 2 1 : 10
loom, invention of, 1 9 8
Manetho, 159 3 6

Lucian, Am. 3 3 - 3 5 : 8 2 1
— FGrH 6 o g F 3 a : 155, 1 6 0 3 5

34: >95 3 Manilius 1 . 6 6 - 1 1 2 : 7

— Drap. 1 7 : 1 5 1 1 2
-83-84: 34 1 4

Lucretius, fifth book of, 3 - 4 , 10, n 3 3

, 26-45 — 87-88: 44 4 0

passim, 1 7 0 - 7 3 — 8g-go: 4 0 2 6

— 1.897-900: 17 6
— 856-57: 17 5

— 2.1023-89: 172 7 2
mantic art, discovery of, 1 0 5 1 9

— 2.1105-72: 172 7 2
Maximus of T y r e , primitivism in, 2 8 3

— 4.1071: 2 8 4
— 23.5 B C : 1 5 0 4

— 4.1283: 8 4 1 2
— 32-3B: 4 3 3 7

— 5-I95-234: 5 ' 1 2 — 36.1F: 150 4

— 5.324-27: 172 7 4
— 36.IH: 151 1 2

— 5 - 9 2 5 - 3 0 : 78 — 36.2 F G : 1 5 1 8

— 5.932: 2 1 , 27, 2 8 4
medicine, 10, 4 g , 5 1 6 1 2

— 5-937-38: 27 Megalophanes, 165-66

— 5.942-44: 27, 78, 1 7 2 7 2
Megasthenes, FGrH 715F12: 18 , g i 7
1 8

— 5-945-57: 27, 29, 1 7 1 7 1

memory, 3 2 , 7 2 , 8 2 , 8 7 s
„
— 5-958-59: I50 3
Mercury: see Hermes , "'"·' ,
— 5-973-76: ' 5 ' > 1 7 1 8 7 1
metallurgy, 1 7 - 1 8 , 1 9 - 2 0 , 3 6 - 3 8 ^ 163-^4
— 5.990-1000: 1 7 1 6 9
metarhysmor, . 1 7 - 1 8 Instil V *
!«jLi I do \<A

* 3 \ Gtec Q
220 DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES O F G R E E K ANTHROPOLOGY

Metrodorus, Epicurean philosopher, 168 Palamedes, 6 , 6 6 1 4

— Frs. 2 5 - 2 7 Koerte: 1 6 8 6 5
Panaetius, 1 4 0 , 1 6 6 , i g 6 , i g 8 - 2 0 o
2 9 6 4

— Frs. 3 9 - 4 1 Koerte: 1 6 9 6 6
Pandora, allegorized as technology, 2 1
mice, spontaneous generation of, 182 parents, authority of as basis of political order,
mining, 17, 1 9 - 2 0 , 3 6 - 3 7 112, 1 3 5 ; authority of in Plato's account
1 5

mixed constitution, 1 6 7 5 8
of social origins, 1 1 1 - 1 2 , 1 1 6 - 1 7 ; relation
monorchia, 102 of to offspring among men and animals,
morals, origin of, 2, 5 , 7 0 - 9 0 , 1 2 8 - 2 9 , 165, i.i3-«5
197-200 pastoral stage in development of culture, 4 ,
Moschion, F r . 6 (TGF 8 1 3 - 1 4 ) : 2 , 9 , 29«, 6 6 6 1 5
,
54-5 6

I I I 1 2

Pausanias 8 . 1 . 4 - 6 : 4 , 5 1 9

Moses, as culture hero, 9 4 , 1 6 0 2 3 3 5

— 8.2g.4: i8i l s

motion, in Aristotle, 146 4 4

Peloponnesus, early history of, 4 , 166

mules, 5 6
Peripatetics, on intelligence of animals, 8 1 ; 6

Musaeus, 5 7 , 1 0 6 2 0

and Lucretius, 173; on primitive man, 8 , 1 1 , 3 3

music, invention of, 4 2 - 4 3

52, 1 4 1 ; theories of community of, 1 3 6 - 3 8 ,
mythos, in reconstruction of pre-history, 1 4 3 - 4 7 ,
140-41
161
Persia, history of, 4
natural endowments of man, 16, 4 1 - 4 2 , 186 Petronius 8 8 . 2 : 3 4 1 4

naturalism and teleology, ig, 4 2 , 4 7 , 9 5 - 9 6 , s 3 philallelia, 2 8 , 3 6 , 152

4

131 philia, theories of, in Aristotle and his predeces-

nature, and convention in Epicurean linguistic sors, 1 3 4 - 3 6 ; in Democritus, 117, 121
and social theory, 6 1 - 6 2 , 7 2 ; imitated by art, Philo of Alexandria, Aet. mundi 5 5 ff.: 1 7 2 7 3

19*, 3 2 , 3 3 " , 4 7 . 5 7 . " 9 4 ;

1 a n d
nomas, 1 4 0 - 4 3 ,
Philo of Byblos, 1 5 7 ' 2

— FGrH 7 g o F i , p. 8 0 6 . 5 - 1 0 : 2 0 5 6

1 7 0 - 7 1 ; as product of habit, 1 1 7 ; state of, 2 8

F 2 , p. 8 0 7 . 2 1 : 5 0 7

2 , 8 , 149
6

F 2 , p. 8 0 8 . 2 - 1 4 : 4 g 3

Nausiphanes, 1 6 7 - 6 9
F 2 , p. 8 0 9 . 1 6 - 1 7 : 2 0 5 6

— VS 7 5 A 1 - 9 : 168
F 3 , p. 8 1 4 . 1 1 - 1 2 : 2 0 5 6

B 2 , p. 2 4 8 . 1 8 - i g : 167
Philochorus, FGrH 3 2 8 F 2 : 4
navigation, 7, 4 4 , 4 9 4 0 s

necessity, 4 , 3 2 , 4 3 , 7 8 , 1 1 8 ; cf. biological

2 2 — F93"9 8 :
4
— Fg6:g 4
2 3

determinism
need, 4 1 , 1 2 3 - 2 4 Philodemus, Depiet. 5 a , p. 6 g Gomperz: 2 0 3 4

Nemesius, Nat. horn. 5 0 - 5 1 Matthaei: 5 1 9 9-7. P- 7 5 : i 5 6 2 7

Nicomachus of Gerasa, Isagoge, 5 2 1 5 — nepl TWV ßewv I , col. x v 1 6 - 3 4 , PP- 2 6 - 2 7

nomadic life of early man, 2 7 - 2 8 , 55 , 184 2 4 Diels: 7 8 2 1

nomizomena, 8 2 , 112—15; cf. social norms — Rhetorica I I , pp. 1 - 5 0 Sudhaus: 16

nomas, and physis, 1 4 0 - 4 3 , 1 7 0 - 7 1 ; and develop- xvi 2, 4 - 6 and 1 2 - 1 3 , P- 68 8 :
6 1

ment of language, 6 7 - 6 9 , 109 col. 7 . 7 - 1 0 , p. 9 : 168

novelty, defended by reference to Kulturge- col. 8 . 5 - 9 , p. 1 0 : 168
schichte, 7 - 8 x x i v 1 - 8 : 168, 1 6 8 2 2

x x x v i 1 9 - 2 2 . 2 , p. 3 3 : 1 6 8 6 3

Ocellus Lucanus, 1 0 1 ' col. 2 2 . 3 - 8 , p. 3 3 : 1 6 8 6 2

Ogygus, 1 0 1 6
col. 2 3 . 1 1 - 1 3 , p. 3 5 : i 6 g 6 6

oikeios, 1 3 3 5
col. 2 6 . 5 - g , p. 3 g : 168
oikeiosis, Stoic doctrine of, 1 3 8 - 4 1 , 164, 1 9 6 - 9 8 col. 2 7 . 1 - 7 , p. 4 0 : 1 6 9 6 7

oikeiotes, Peripatetic doctrine of, 1 3 7 - 3 8 , 1 4 0 - 4 1 X L V I I I 2 1 - L v m 9 , pp. 5 0 - 6 4 : l o g

66

Onesicritus, FGrH 1 3 4 F 1 7 , p. 7 2 8 . 2 3 - 3 0 : g 2 8
Philopoemen, 1 6 5 - 6 6
— F 2 1 , p. 7 3 0 . 2 6 - 3 7 : 9 1 1 8
philosophy, as benefactor of early man, 7, ] 8 ,
Oracula Sibyllina 3 . 1 2 7 - 2 8 : 9 1 1 8
9> 3 5 3 6 , 9 5 - 9 6 ; as culmination of human
! _

Origen, Contra Cels. 4 . 7 6 : 5 1 9 1 2

history, 7, 5 2 - 5 4 , 1 7 2 ; and politics, 1 6 6 - 6 9 ;
Orpheus, in Aristotle and Democritus, 1 0 6 ; as 2 0
and useful arts, 5 3 1 8

bringer of culture, 6 ; as pupil of Linus, 5 7 s 3

Philostephanus, ap. Servius ad Georg. 1.1g (Fr.
Osiris, as patron of technology, 2 0 , 3 4 , 3 g ; as 28 M ü l l e r ) : 3 8 1 9

discoverer of plow, 3 8 ; equated with 1 9

Photius, Cod. 2 4 9 4 4 0 B 3 9 : 8 2 5

Dionysus, 155, 1 6 1 ; and Zeus, 155 440B39-41A3: 4 1 2 8

Ovid, A A 2 . 4 7 3 - 8 0 : 7, 8 3 s
441A16-18: 1 8 1 1 5

— Fasti 2 . 2 8 g - 3 0 2 : g 27
— Cod. 2 5 0 : see Agatharchides
— Met. 1 . 4 3 0 - 3 1 : 1-81 16
physical inferiority of man, 5 1
 INDEX 221

physics, Democritean, 1 0 7 , 1 4 7 ; Aristotelian, — Theaet. 167c: 7 1 *

146" — Timaeus: 52-54, 99, 1 0 1 5

physiologia, 167-69 22B-25D:9

physique of man, 41—42 2 3 A B : 191
piety, 1 1 4 2 0
24c: 180 1 3

Pindar, 142 pleasure, 3 2 , 3 9 , 4 7 , 195

— 01. 2 . 8 3 - 8 5 : 6 8 " Pliny the Elder, 4 9 "
Plato, on nomos, I 4 3 " ; on origin of culture, 3—4,
3
— JVH7.191: 31',4 9 5

8, 52—55, 9 7 - 1 0 0 ; theory of cultural origins 7-!94= 5 . 5 ° '

connected with that of Polybius, 1 0 0 - 2 , in, 7.196: 3 9 2 5

115-17, 132, 169-70; views on cultural 7.197: 1 5 4 1 8

origins connected with those of Democritus, 7.200: 5, 5 0 7

11, 107-12, 115-17, 119, 1 2 8 - 3 0 , 1 4 9 7.201: 6 6 1 5

— Cratylus: 6 8 7.202: 6 6 1 4

397C°: Ι
Φ 7.205: 4 5 4 1

7.209: 4 9 5

— Critias 1 0 9 B - 1 0 D : 9 , 5 2 , 9 9 , 1 0 1 6

8.23: 28 4

— Euthydemus, 289A-90B: 1 0 5 1 8

10.4: 1 5 7 » 3

— Gorgias: 84* 1

Pliny the Younger, Ep. 8 . 2 4 . 2 : 7 1 7

483AC: I I I 1 2

plow, invention of, 3 8

— Epinomis947E-76C:52 ,103,104,105 16 18 l e
,
Plutarch, Aq. an ign. 2 . 9 5 6 B : 150
125"
— Alex. 3 2 9 C D : 137 2 3

— Ep. 8 . 3 5 4 B : 166 s 6

— Am. prol. 2 . 4 9 5 A : 1 1 4 2 2

— Horoi 4 1 2 E and 4 1 3 D : 4 1 2 8

— Aratus 5 and 7 : 165

— Laws 3 . 6 7 7 Α - 8 3 Α : 3 - 4 , 97-103
— Div. p. 1 1 3 . 1 - 9 Bernadakis: 4 3 "
676BC: 1 0 3 1 3

— Fort. Alex. 3 2 9 C D : 137-38 2 3

6 7 7 E : 100
— Is. et Os. 13.356A: 48°
679AC: 1 0 0 s

— Lat. viv. 5 . 1 1 2 9 E : 5 8 s 6

679E: 9 9 z

— Philopoemen 1 : 166
68OB: 1 0 2 8

— Quaest. corw. 3 . 6 . 6 5 5 D and 8 . 3 . 7 2 2 D : s 8 3 6

68ODE: 111
— Soll. anim. 1 3 . 9 7 0 A B : 1 3 2 3

6 8 I A C : 108
690D-930: 166 5 6
poetry, origin of, 4 4 , 4 8 , 5 7 ; as civilizing force, 7

— Laws 4 . 7 0 8 c : 1 3 2 1
polemike techne, 123-25

4.724A: 1 1 4 2 0
political institutions, 8 , 4 9 ' , 7 6 , 9 3 , 1 6 7 1 1 5 8

6.781E-82A: ιοί , 1 0 3 6 1 3
politics, philosophy and, 166-69

6.782Β: I 0 3 1 3
, I04 1 4
politike philia, 135 15

8.837A: I36 1 8
politike techne, 5 0 - 5 1 , 123

9·854 = " 4
Ε 2 0 Polybius, and Democritus, 107-30 passim,
— Lysis 2 1 4 C D : 1 3 6 1 8 1 3 1 - 3 2 , 1 6 3 - 7 0 ; and Epicurean genealogy of
— Mem 73A and 9 1 A : 1 3 3 5 morals, 8 1 - 8 7 ; and Kulturgeschichte of Laws I I I ,
— Phaedrus 2 7 1 C - 7 2 B : 168 1 0 0 - 2 , 1 1 0 - 1 2 , 1 1 5 - 1 7 , 1 3 2 ; and Posidonius,
2 7 4 c : 155 9 5 - 9 6 ; on social origins, 8 , 8 0 - 9 4 ; o n
sources
— Politicus: 28 , 52-54, g9
3 of community, 1 3 1 - 4 2 ; and Stoics, n 3 5
, 82 , 7

271DE: 103 1 3 196-201

2 7 3 A - 7 4 D : 9, 5 2 1 4 — 2 . 4 0 . 4 : 166
— Protagoras, myth of: 8 , 5 0 - 5 1 , 128 — 2 . 4 7 . 1 1 : 166
318E-19A: 133 5
— 2 . 5 6 . 2 : 166
321AD: 5 1 9
— 6.4.5: 1 1 3 " , 1 1 4 » 2

322A: 6 1 2
— 6 . 5 . 1 : 165
322B: i n 1 3
, 123-25 — 6.5.4: 93, 1 1 8 3 0

3 2 5 A and D : Ι 1 4 2 0
— 6.5.5-9: 80
327E-28A: 7 1 2
— 6.5.6: 1 1 9 3 3

— Republic, Book 2 : 8 , 5 2 , 8 4 1 1
, 147 -6.5.6-7:83
2.350B: 1 3 6 1 8
— 6.5.7: 9 4
2 3
, 145»
2.351CE: 1 3 6 1 8
— 6.5.7-8: 95, n o
2.369D: 5 1 9
— 6.5.7-9: 90
2.374E-76C: 125 4 5
— 6.5.8: I I I
4-435E: 1 4 2 3 4
— 6.5.9: I45 4 1

8.544DE: 1 4 2 3 4
— 6.5.IO: 80, 82-84, I 0 2 9
, Il8 3 0
, 129
222 DEMOCRITUS AND T H E SOURCES OF G R E E K ANTHROPOLOGY

Polybius (cont.) Dicaearchus, 5 5 ; chronological and cultural,s 3

— 6.5.10-6.9: 80-81 2 , 9 9 ; "hard", 2 2 , 5 4 , 150, 1 7 1 "

4 4 1 6 1 9

— 6.6.: 1 0 2 1 0
Priscian, Inst. 1.1-2: 3 3 1 0

— 6.6.1-9: 85-90 1541 :

33 1 0

— 6 . 6 . 2 : 1 6 4 , 197 Prodicus, 156, 1 6 1 3 8

— 6 . 6 . 2 - 5 : 113, 198 — VS 8 4 B 5 : g , 1 2 g , 1 5 6 25
5 9 2 6

— 6.6.3: 1 4 5 4 1
Protagoras, 8, 5 0 - 5 1 , 123, 125
— 6 . 6 . 4 : 8 1 , 8 7 , 1 4 5 " , 197 — VS 8 0 A 1 0 : 7 1 4

— 6.6.6: 82", 8 9 , 1 4 5 4 1
B 8 b : 5, 2 0 3 3

— 6.6.6-7: 9 4 " progressive view of history, 1, 9 8 - 9 9

— 6 . 6 . 7 : 197 prolepsis, 7 6 - 7 7 , 171
— 6 . 6 . 8 : 8 6 , 104, 1 4 5 4 1
Prometheus, allegorical interpretation of, 2 0 - 2 1 ;
— 6.6.8--12: 1 2 2 - 2 9 condemned by Cynics, 6, 1 5 0 ; as culture-
— 6 . 6 . 9 : 8 2 , 9 4 , 1 4 5 , 197, 201
2 2 4 1
bringer, 6 ; cf. Aeschylus, P V
— 6.6.10: g i 1 8
prostates, and king, 1 2 2 - 2 7
— 6.6.10-12: 90-93 pwta kata physin, 164, 1 6 7 - 6 8
— 6.6.10-7.2: 120-22 providence, 2, 5 1 1 2

— 6.6.11: 102 9
Prudentius, Contra Symm. 2 . 2 7 2 - 3 1 7 : 8
— 6.6.12: 9 4 2 3 Ptah, 2 0 , 1 6 0 1 2 3 5

— 6 . 6 . 1 2 - 7 . 2 : 129 Ptolemaic Egypt, influence of on accounts of

— 6 . 6 . 1 2 - 7 . 3 : 118 primitive man, 162
— 6.7.1: 93, 102 , 118 1 0 3 0
punishment: see rewards
— 6.7.3-4: 91 Pyrrhon, 1 6 5 5 1

— 6.7.4: g i , g 4
1 8
2 3 Pythagoreans, 1 3 0 6 0

— 6.7.6-8: 167 s 8

— 6.8.4-6: 167 s 8
Quellenforschung, 1 0 - 1 3
— 6.9.5-6: 167 5 8
Quintilian 1.5.2: 6 1 1

— 6.57.5-9: 167 5 8

— 10.21.6: 1 6 6 5 5
Ra, 160 3 5

— 1 0 . 2 2 . 2 : 165 rational nature of man, 1 3 9 - 4 0 , 1 9 7 - 2 0 0

— 10.22.5: 1 6 6 5 5
reasoning: see anchinoia, forethought, logismos,
— 1 2 . 2 6 c : 165 synesis
Polystratus, 7 7 - 7 9 , 1 1 3 - 1 4 reciprocity, in conferring services, 8 7 - 9 0 , 1 1 2 -
— Περί αλόγου καταφρονήσεων, col. XIVa3~5: 16; increasing importance of, 1 1 6 ; linked to
82 justice, 1 2 6 ; in parent-child relationships,
xva3~4: 82 112-13
xviag-i 1 : 82 reconstruction of prehistory from inference,
F r . 3 . 4 - 4 3 6 : 78 4 4 - 4 5 , 1 4 5 - 4 6 , 191
F r . 6 b 4 - 7 a 7 : 78 Reinhardt, K . , u , 16, 1 7 4 - 7 6 , 182, 184, 192,
Fr. 7a2: 82 193-95
Fr. 7 3 2 - 5 : 7 3 9
religion, origin of, 9, 2 0 2 - 5
Pomponius Mela 3 . 8 6 : 9 1 1 8
reminder, role of in Epicurian genealogy of
ponos, in life of early man, 150 morals, 7 2 - 7 6
popular sentiment, as factor in political develop­ rewards and punishments, 3 4 - 3 5 , 3 9 , 8 5 , 8 8 - 9 0 ,
ment, 9 2 ; reduced importance of in Euhem- 93 , 9 4 > 9 , 168
22 l l 3 i

erus, 1 6 2 - 6 3 , 2 0 5 rhetoric, topoi of derived horn Kulturgeschichte, 6;

Porphyry, De abst.: see Hermarchus and philosophical wisdom, 168
Posidonius, on development of culture, 7, 10, rhysmos, 1 1 7 - 2 0
11, 1 8 - 1 9 , 2 6 - 4 5 passim, 4 g , 5 3 - 5 4 , 1 4 1 ; 6

and Aristotle, 5 3 - 5 4 ; and Diodorus, i 8 g ; 3 2

SIG3
7 0 4 , p. 3 2 4 . 1 2 - 1 5 : 7 "
and Polybius, g 5 ~ g 6 ; and Vitriuvius, 1 9 3 - 9 5 ; Sanchuniathon, 4 g , 5 0 ' 3

cf. Seneca, Ep. go sacrifice, history of, g, 3 8 1 8

, 49*, 55, 158-59,
— ap. Strabo 3 . 1 4 7 : 1 7 5
160 3 5

pottery, 1 0 3 - 4 Saturn, 10
pre-Socratics, 5, 2 3 , ι ο ί , 172 1 7 5
Saufeius, Lucius, ap. Servius ad Aen. 1.6: 6 5
primitive man, 3 - 1 0 , 2 1 , 2 7 - 3 0 , 5 1 - 5 4 , 6 4 - 6 7 , Sceptics, 8, 77
8 7 - 8 8 , 9 0 , 9 5 , 98-gg, 115, 1 2 4 - 2 5 , 1 5 0 - 5 1 , Seneca, De clem. 1.19.2: 9 6 "
162, 184 — Ep. 6 5 . 2 4 : 6 9
2 5

primitivism, 1-2, 2 7 - 2 8 ; character of in — Ep. 9 0 : 7

 INDEX 223

4 - 5 : 95, 9 " 6 spontaneous generation, 101 , 172 ,

5 1 3
180-83;
6: 7 5 " cf. autochthony
7: 2 9 - 3 0 , 3 6 1 6 sporaden, 2 8 4

10:31 s starvation, 2 7 - 2 8 , 1 5 1 9

11: 17» 3 7 , 5 4 2 0 Statius, Theb. 1 2 . 5 0 1 - 2 : 7 ' 1

12: 17, 37 Stobaeus, Flor. 2 g . g 2 = W - H I I I 655.12-17:

13: 4 7 1
150°
14: 1 9 8
Stoics, 8 ; on animal intelligence, 8 1 ; and 5

15: 4 4 4 0 Diodorus, 1 7 7 ' ; and Polybius, 8 2 ' ; i g 6 - 2 0 i ;

17: 3 i > 1 5 18 9 on telos, 6 7 , 164; their theories of community,
18: 3 1 8 136-40
2 0 - 2 1 : 17, 1 9 , 3 7 , 5 4 8 2 0 — SVF 1 . 2 2 2 - 2 3 : 139
22-23: 3 1 ' 1.228: 9 6 "
2 5 : 19, 5 4 2 0
1.262: 1 5 1 1 1

26: 4 4 « 3.178: 1 3 9 "

32-33: 57 3 0
3-I79: I 3 8 2 6

3 3 : 19 3-340: i 3 8 2 6

40: 3 4 " , 151 9

3 - 6 2 5 - 2 7 : 139
44: 3 6 1 6 Strabo 1 . 6 6 : 1 3 7 2 3

— 121.13: 1 4 0 3 0 — 2.103: 5 8 3 5

Sextus Empiricus, Adv. math. 1.2: 167 — 3-147= i 7 , ' 9 5 8

— 1.61: 8 2
5
Strato of Lampsacus, 5 6 "
— · 7 . 1 1 7 : 110 — F r . 3 2 Wehrli: 1 4 7 "
— 9.17: 1 6 2 4 6
— Fr. 144-47: 5
— 9-34: I 5 7 2 9 suggestions, man's use of, 3 9
— 9.51: 162 4 5
survival, struggle for, 5 1 , 6 4 - 6 6 , 1 0 9 - 1 0 , 124,
— 9-127: I 3 7 2 3 171, 172 7 3

sexual needs, 113, 1 4 4 - 4 5 , 9 7 ! symbol, justice as, 7 3 ' ; role of in development of

shelter, primitive, 2 7 , 2 8 , 2 9 - 3 0 s moral notions, 8 6
sign language, 6 3 , 76 symbol of tribal identity, king as, 9 3 ; language, 2 0

Simonides the historian, FGrH 8 T 1 : 5 1 1

emblems, and fire as, 6 4 - 6 7 ; trumpet as, 6 5 1 5

size of aggregations, importance of, 119 symmetry, perception of, 195

social character of morality, 89-go sympathy, sources of, 8 9 ; social importance of,
social cohesion, and expansion of social aggre- 121
gate, 119; and force, 1 1 , 1 1 9 - 2 0 ; and synesis, 7 3 , 8 2 , 1 3 2 ; cf. anchinoia, forethought,
5

institution of kingship, 116 logismos

social concord, origin of, 120-22 synetheia and syntrophia, in animals, 8 7 - 8 8 , 1 3 2 ;
social development, related to technological, 3 2 , contrasted with syngeneia, 1 3 3 ; effects of, 7

8 7 - 9 0 , 9 2 , 1 3 8 , I 3 g ; in ethnographical
s 3
2 9

34-35
writing, 1 4 0 ; in Herodotus, 1 4 4 - 4 5 ; i
3 2
n

social homogeneity, results of, 8 9 - 9 0

Polybius and the Epicureans, 8 3 ; in Vitruvius,
social norms, 2, 8 1 - 8 2 , 112-15, 141
9 4 ; widening range of, 9 2
2 2

social origins, 8 , 3 2 - 3 6 , 7 0 - 9 6 ; in Hermarchus,

syngeneia, 117, 1 3 3 7

7 1 - 7 5 ; in Lucretius, 7 5 - 7 6 ; in Polybius, 8 o - g 4
synonyms, and homonyms, implications of for
social relationships, character of in primitive
society, 1 1 5 - 1 6 ; multiplication of, 116, 119 nature of language, 6 7 - 6 8 , 109
systema, 2 8 , 6 4 - 6 5 , 108, 109, 118, 1 8 4 - 8 5
4

social sanctions, 9 0 , g3
Socrates, 143
softness of civilized man, 22, 1 5 0 , 171 5

Sophists, 5, 6, 8 , 203 Tacitus, Ann. 3 . 2 6 . 3 : 7 6 1 1

Sophocles, 142 Tatian, 5 l a

— Ajax 17: 6 6 1 5 techology, attitude of Plato and Aristotle

175: 2 8 4 towards, 5 3 - 5 4 , 1 0 4 - 5 , 148, 1 4 9 ; develop-
— Antigone: 6 , 5 0 8 ment of, 13, 1 4 - 4 6 passim; in Posidonius,
334-35: 4 4 " 4
53-54
368-70: 4 4 4 0
teleological viewpoint, contrasted with natural-
454-55: 114 2 1
istic, 19, 4 2 , 4 7 , 9 5 - 9 6 , 1 3 1 ; Cynic attitude
3 3

sophos, as defined in the Epinomis, 1 0 3 - 4 toward, 152; elements of in Epicurus, 1 7 0 - 7 3 ;

soul, 143 elements of in Vitruvius, 1 9 4 ^ 5 ; Epicurean
specialization, 194; cf. division of labor polemic against, 1 7 0 ; imilatio seen from, 1 9 9
 224 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

telos, in Nausiphanes, 1 6 7 - 6 8 ; in Polybius and 137.41-42: 3 8 2 3

, 150 , 187 3 2 9

Carneades, 1 6 3 - 6 4 ; in Stoics, 1 3 9 138.1: 1 7 1 ' 1

Tertullian, De pallio 3 : 2 0 , 3 g 1 3
138.1-4: 29
Themistius 3 2 3 c : 5 1 9
138.8-10: 36
— 349 -5IA: 7 a 138.8-12: 22, 150 6

Thamyras, 5 7 3 3 — Hesiod scholia, p. 6 7 . 1 4 - 1 5 Gaisford: 1 5 0 2

tharsos, 1 2 6 - 2 7 68.6-8: 1 5 1 1 1

Thebes, 158 68.16-19: 1 5 1 9

Theognis 5 4 9 - 5 0 : 6 6 1 1
68.20-25: 1 5 1 1 2

theogony, 177 70.9-10: 151 9

Theophrastus, on forms of sacrifice, 9 , 5 5 ; on 71.19: 151*

inventions, 5 , 5 6 s 6
; and Hecataeus of Abdera, 72.17-18: 1 5 1 9

160 3 5
74.14-20: 20-21
— Caus. plant. 3 . 2 2 . 3 : 1 8 1 1 5
7 9 - 4 - 2 i : 21
— Char. 2 6 . 6 : 9 4 2 3
79-13-21:4°
— Ilepi tvoefielas, F r . 1.1—9 Potscher: 1 8 0 1 1
8 1 . 2 4 - 2 7 : 22
Fr. 2 : 9 2 6
, 5 5 " , 160 3 6
101.6-7: 150"
Fr. 4 : 5 5
2 5
114.16: 1 5 1 1 2

Fr. 13.15-50: 9 2 6
, 55 2 5
114.16-18: 150 , 1 7 1 " 4

Fr. 2 0 : 137 , 2 2
138 2 4
116.10: 1 5 1 1 1

— ap. D L 5.47: 5 I 16.13-16: 2 2 1 6

— ap. D L 6.22: 151 8

116.15-17: I5I 1 0

— ap. Porphyry, De abst. 2 . 2 5 - 3 3 : 1 2 4 4 2

116.29-117.1: 1 5 1 1 1

— ap. Photius, Cod. 2 7 8 5 2 9 B 2 2 - 2 3 : 8 4 1 0

117.1-5: 1 5 1 8

Theseus, as institutor of kingship, 9 4 2 3

118.6-8: I 5 I
9

thesis theory of origin of language, 6 1 , 6 3 , 6 7 - 6 9 , 118.21-22: 1 5 1 '

204 6

Thoth, 155 unity of mankind, in Hellenistic thought, 1 3 6 - 4 0 ;

Thucydides, archaeology of, 1, 145 in pre-Hellenistic thought, 1 3 7 2 3

— i-9= 4 5 universal history, 4 , 177

— 1 . 2 2 . 4 : 142 upright stature of man, 4 1 - 4 2
— 2.37.3: 1 1 4 2 1 Uranus, deification of, 1 5 6 - 5 7 , 2 0 3 - 5 2 9

— 2.44.3: 1 1 6 2 4 usus, in development of architecture, 1 9 4 ;

— 2.77-4: I 7 6
produces familiaritas, 139 2 9
; cf. chreia, experi-
— 5.105.2: I I I 1 2
ence, tribe
Tibullus 1.7.29: 3 8 1 9 utility, 8 , 9 , 4 1 , 4 7 , 6 4 - 6 7 , 7 2 - 7 3 , 7 6 - 7 7 , 8 2 , 8 6 ,
— 2.1.37-66: 7 116, 1 3 2 , 134, 1 4 0 , 1 9 9 , 2 0 02 9 3

Timocrates, 1 6 9 6 6

Timon, 1 6 5 s 1 Varro, 10, 1 5 5 , 158 2 5

tools, 3 6 - 3 7 , 1 0 3 - 4 ; f- metallurgy c
— LL 6 . 5 2 : 6 0 1

totemism, 6 4 , 6 5 1 2 Virgil, Aeneid 8 . 3 1 4 - 2 3 : 10

Tragica adespota 5 1 6 (TFG 9 4 0 ) : 1 1 7 2 8
8.321-25: 9 4 2 3

trial and error, 32 — Georgics 1 . 1 2 1 - 4 6 : 5 1 1 2

tribe, 2 , 8 2 ; cf. chreia, experience, usus

6
6
1145-46:9
tribes, origin of, 6 4 - 6 7 , 1 8 4 - 8 5 ; fusion of, 1 0 7 - 9 ; 1.147-49:6
and symbola, 9 3 2 0
; cf. ethnos Vitruvius, on development of architecture,
Trojan war, 1, 4 5 , 5 7 39-40; 193-95; and Diodorus, 16, 1 8 3 ,
trumpet, invention and early use of, 6 6 1 5
188-89; o
discovery of fire, 1 5 - 1 6 ; on early
n

Tzetzes, and Cynics, 1 5 0 - 5 1 ; and Democritus, man, 2 9 - 3 0 , 3 5 ; on formation of society, 3 4 ,

149-50; and Dicaearchus, 149—50; and 6 6 ; on growth of language, 6 0 - 6 1 , 6 3 - 6 7 ; on
Diodorus, 2 0 - 2 1 , 2 2 1 6
, 28-29, 1 5 1 1 0
; on early natural endowments of man, 4 0 - 4 2
man, 10, 2 0 - 2 1 , 2 7 - 3 2 , 1 4 8 - 5 1 ; and Epicur- — De arch. pp. 3 3 . 1 4 - 3 6 . 1 8 Rose: 7
eans, 2 1 - 2 2 , 7 8 2 2
, 171 7 1

3 3 - I 4 " : 29, 32"

1 6

— Iliad scholia, pp. 5 5 . 2 8 - 5 7 . 2 5 Hermann: 2 0 3 3 . 1 6 - 2 3 : 1 5 - 1 6 , 3 0 , 183

— Hesiod scholia, VS I I 1 3 7 . 2 6 - 3 5 : 2 3 1 6
3 3 - I 9 : 21
I 3 7 - 3 6 - 4 4 : 27 33-22: 63
1 3 7 - 3 6 - 1 3 8 - 1 3 : 10 3 3 . 2 4 - 2 8 : 16, 3 3 , 6 0 - 6 1 , 6 3 - 6 7 , 183
I37-38-39: i7 I ? 1 3 3 . 2 8 - 3 4 . 2 : 33
I 3 7 - 3 9 - 4 0 : 21 3 4 - 2 - 6 : 16, 4 0 , 183
 INDEX 225

3 4 - - 9 : 30
6 writing, origin of, 4 3 - 4 5 , 1 6 1 , 178, 191 4 0

34.6-36.18: 193-95
34.12-14: 33
Xenocrates, F r . 9 8 Heinze: 1 2 4 , 1 3 7 4 2 2 3

34.14-20: 3 1 8

Xenophanes, VS 2 1 B 4 : 5
3 5 - 2 5 : 194
— Bi8: 5

3 6 . 1 - 5 : 16
— B33: 101 6

3 6 . 1 - 8 : 4 0 , 183
Xenophon, utilitarianism of in Memorabilia, 132
3 6 . 8 - 1 2 : 38, 59
— Cyrop. 2 . 1 . 2 5 : 1 3 2 1

3 6 . 1 2 - 1 8 : 195
2.1.28: 132 2

36.14-18: 42
8.7.14: 1 3 2 1

— De arch. 5 . 1 . 7 : 1 5 1

— Mem. 1 . 4 . 1 1 : 4 1 2 8 3 0

7.pr.u: 57 » 3

2.3.4: 132 2

vocabula, 6 0 1

3.4.6: 133 5

vocabulary, growth of, 6 8 - 6 9 , ' ° 8 > 1 8 5 2 6

3.6.14: 133 5

volgivagus, 2 8 * , 8 4
4.3.11-12: 8 6 1 3

vortex, atomic, 108, 117

4 . 4 . 1 9 - 2 5 : 113, 1 3 7 2 3

— Oec. 5 . 1 7 : 7
warfare, development of, 1 9 , 2 0 , 3 6 - 3 7 , 5 0 ,
1 0 7

7.16: 115 2 3

1 0 3 ; and justice, 1 2 3 - 2 6
7 . 1 8 - 3 2 : 132
warm surroundings, influence of on man, 2 2 ,
7.19: 1 1 4 2 2

171™
7.30: 115 2 3

water, 151
weakness of early man, 5 1 , 8 3
weaving, 17, 20, 3 7 , 3 9 , 1 0 3 - 4 Zeus, allegorized, 2 0 ; as culture-hero, 9 4 , 2 3

woman, civilization likened to, 22, 1 5 1 5

• 5 4 - 5 5 ; etymology of, 2 0 3 - 4 ; in theories of
world, growth of, 172 Euhemerus, 1 6 2 ; worship of, 57—58, 2 0 2 - 4
wrestling, 4 3 zoogony, 2 3 , 174
1 6