Date post: | 02-Jun-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | budbudabuddha |
View: | 217 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 21
8/10/2019 Renehan-The Greek Anthropocentric View of Man (HSCP 85 [1981])
1/21
THE GREEK
ANTHROPOCENTRIC
VIEW OF
MAN
ROBERT
RENEHAN
What
is man without the
beasts?
If
all the
beasts
were
gone,
men would
die
from
a
great
loneliness
of
the
spirit.
For
whatever
happens
to the beasts
soon
happens to man.
-Chief
Seattle,
1854
7Epl
/EVTC
-WV
AACV
pWV
'aUrW,
TEpl
sELV~p0WIolJ
1A'w.
-"Hippocrates"
O
begin
at the
end. Well
into the
Byzantine
period,
probably
n
the
tenth
century,
a certain
Leo
compiled
a little
handbook on the
nature
of
man in which
he
poses
the
question
"What
is man?" Man
is,
he
goes
on
to
reply,
a "rational mortal
animal,
capable
of
thought
and
knowledge,"
(
ov
AoyLKOV
V0Vr7dV,
oi3
a
E7rr
7r7/l)s 8EK8KKV.
Leo has borrowed his
definition verbatim
from
the
ninth-century(?)
reatise
of
Meletius
the
Monk
On the
Constitution
f
Man. Meletius in
his
turn
took the
defini-
tion
directly
from the
bishop
Nemesius
(early
fifth
century?),
who,
in
his
work On
the Nature
of
Man,
prefaces
this
formulation
with the
general
statement
rdV
vOpwrov
cptLov7ra,
"people
define
man."
Gregory
of
Nyssa
similarly
attests the
tralatitious
characterof
the
words:
rT
AoyLKOV
TOOTO
OOV
d
aV0W
YOc
VOU TE
Kal
f'7t&0ET0
6KTLKOV
ELVaL
Kal,
iap~
70'v
W 0
AyO
dyov TO70 O
'
js
p
Taprv'pr
a.1
The
definition
is
by
no means exclusively Byzantine or Christian, scholastic though it
sounds. It
is to be
found in the
pseudo-Galenic
Definitiones
Medicae,2
and
Sextus
Empiricus
quotes
it
more
than once.3
The
earliest traces
of
it seem to
be in
the
pseudo-Platonic
"OpoL4i5A:
vOpwiros
ov...
I
should like
to thank
Professor Albert
Henrichs
of
Harvard
University
for
providing
me
with
several
helpful
references.
1
Leo
Medicus:
p.
17.6
Renehan;
Meletius
Monachus:
p.
6.23-24 Cramer;
Nemesius:
p.
55
Matthaei;
Gregory
of
Nyssa:
De Anima
et
Resurrectione,
PG
46.52
C. The
patristic
tradition
furnishes
further
examples
of
this
definition,
e.g. [Basilius Caesariensis] Contra Eunomium, PG 29.688 B; [Athanasius] Liber
de
definitionibus
PG
28.534
C. In
Latin
compare
Tertullian
Adv. Marc.
11.4.5
animal
rationale ntellectus
t
scientiae
apax (=
PL
2.289A).
2
19.355
K.
3
Outlines
of Pyrrhonism
2.26,
2.21
;
Against
the
Logicians .269.
8/10/2019 Renehan-The Greek Anthropocentric View of Man (HSCP 85 [1981])
2/21
240
Robert
Renehan
E7rtar7TL7qS
777S
KaTcLc
Oyov
EK1LKO'V
E-TwL)
nd in the
Topics
of
Aristotle,
where
he
states with
approval
that one
who characterizes man
as a
(
ov
E
Umatotq
t
8EKTLKdV
as assigned an essential property.4 His language
suggests
that the
words
were
already
a
familiar
formula;
the
spurious
Platonic
definition
points
in the
same direction.
Two
fundamental
pieces
of
information
emerge
from
all
this.
First,
this
definition of
man,
which
was
to
become
orthodox in
Greek
thought,
was
a creation
of
formal Greek
philosophy;
its earlier
distribution and
the
language
itself,
which
is
technical,
establish
this.
Second,
the
specific
difference
which sets
apart
man from all
other
mortal animals
in
this
definition is
his
Aodyo,
his
capacity
for
intellectual
activity.5
This attitude, that man is a rational animal, has been for so long an
accepted
commonplace
in
Western culture
that its
specifically
Greek
origin
is
seldom a
matter
of
conscious reflection. In
reality,
that
man
differs from
animals because of his
intelligence,
so far from
being
a
natural
way
of
looking
at
things,
is
an
exceptional
mode of
thought
in
the
history
of
man
(infra).
Consider
the
very phrase
"rational
animal,"
animal
rationale;
it
is
nothing
but
a literal translation of
?c-ov
AoyLKdV.
This
phrase,
a
stock
definition which
is
found
far more
frequently
than
the
fuller
one
illustrated
above,
succinctly
segregates
man
from all
other
animals
in
a
telling way.
Man
has
the use of
Aodyo
while the
rest
are
dAoya
(ca.
The
pronounced
dichotomy, whereby
man is
rigidly
opposed
to other
animals,
has
scarcely any
rival as a
characteristically
Greek
concept.
Its
significance
can be
appreciated
if
one reflects
that
only
in the
present
century,
with its
increased
interest in the
scientific
study
of
animal
intelligence
and
communication,
has a different
attitude
toward animals
really
begun
to
impose
itself
upon
the
consciousness of
educated men.
It would serve no
practical purpose
to
attempt
a
systematic
collection
of the
numerous
passages
where
?c-ov
AoyLKOV
occurs,
but some
historical
comments
may
not be out of
place.
The
tendency
of
early
Greek
thought
4
132"19
ff;
cf. I33a2O
ff,
134a14
ff.
5
The
point
of
Ovqrdov
n the definition s to
distinguish
man from
dOdvaira
a;
the
particular
reference(s)
varied with
philosophical
school
and
period.
For
instance,
Diogenes
Laertius
7.147
[-
SVF
2.305.15-17]
gives
a Stoic definition
of
OEo'
hich
begins
(pov
cdiva-rov
AoyLKOVj-AEOV
rA.
n
the Placita
of
Aetius
[=
Diels,
Dox. Gr.
p.
432]
the
Kdo'oso
s
described as
a
(4ov
AoyLKdvcOva-rov;
he
ultimate source of
this is the
Timaeus.Christians
thought
also of
angels;
in
Nemesius
(p.
55
Matthaei)
man
is defined
as a
C(ov
AoyLKV
vrq7dv,
O1
Kiat
rLaT7,7"7l
'
EKrLKOKV
..
AOy&KOV U, avL
XWP&a8O7
LWV
dAOYWV'KaL OBvrq'v,
Iva
XwoPOt-i
oYv
Oavd
-wv
AoyLKCV.
Meletius
(p.
6.23
ff
Cramer)
opies
this and addsafter
-rZv
dOavdiwv
AoyLKv
-
yovv
dyydAwv.
ee
also
Theodoretus,
Comm.
n
Ezech.
1.5
(PG
81.824B)
?(ov
KaAE7-aL
AOyKdV,
aL
vOpw7ro,
Kat
d
ayyEAo.
8/10/2019 Renehan-The Greek Anthropocentric View of Man (HSCP 85 [1981])
3/21
The Greek
Anthropocentric
View
of
Man
241
to
regard
man's
essence,
unlike that of other
animals,
as characterized
by
intellect,
culminated
in
Plato,
whose
writings
were to be
of
central
importance in the proliferation of this outlook. One or two representa-
tive,
if
random,
passages
must suffice
to
illustrate the man
~
other
animals
dichotomy
in Plato. In the
Politicus the
Stranger
remarks
ETESr
pL&aa
rpoOJLows3
Jtvat dcL wv ye'qv,
T'
fLev dvOpC6rLvov,
ETEpov
SZv
2AACwv
av1ndv-rwv
OVqplwv
v
(263C)
and
again,
a little later in the
dia-
logue,
d6vO6pwrot,
ov
Sv
rEepOV
OELOdepOV,
cAAca
ydewl
v
avAdVOEpadr&vv
voPLEdov1a
2z7E).
In the
myth
in
the
Protagoras
(32IB)
6
avOepdnrwv
yevor
is contrasted
with
rd
Aoya.
Of
particular
interest
is Plato's
attitude toward
young
children. In the
Republic
(44iA-B),
that
part
of
the soul called r~
AoyLrTLKd'V
s found to be absent from animals (O-qpla)
-
and
from
children
(7raL&a).
The
Timaeus contains a
passage (44A-C)
which teaches that the
soul
of an
infant is
avovg
at
birth,
the
consequence
of
disordered revolutions
(rreplo6So,
repLbopal)
in
the
soul.
Only
gradually
does one
become
E1
pwv,
as these revolutions
become more
orderly,
especially
with the
help
of
proper
education
(TLi
'pOO7 poof7r
raLSv4ewsj).
In the
Laws
(8o8D)
Plato
actually
writes
that the child
is
the "hardest to
manage
of all
beasts"
(irraTcrov
Olptw...
iUTLEreaXEpL-
codTraov).
A
deficiency
in
AoyLaupds
uffices
to
place
young
humans in
the
category of animals. Naturally, the literalness of this must not be
pressed;
the
language
remains
indicative. This
Platonic
viewpoint
reappears
in
Aristotle,
HA
588a
i
f:
S
La
epeL
S'
oS3v
,
e
ELvT
X
[sc.
7~V
Italsolv]
iA)
g
v
V
ploWv
bvxy
Ka7d7i-v
XpdVOV
oOToov.
The actual
word
AoyLKOr
ever
occurs
in
Plato's
works,
nor is it attested
for
any
earlier
writer.6
Aristotle
has
it,
but
not
the
phrase
(cov
AoyLKdv.7
Who
first
coined
this
expression
is
no
longer
discoverable;
it
seems
to
have
been
especially
popular
with
the
Stoics.8
The
important
point
is
that
ojov
AoyLKdV,
whatever
its
origins,
was
the
private property
of no
particular philosophical school; rather,
it became
common
coin
in the
6
But
see
n.7.
7
There
is one
possible
exception;
lamblichus VP
31 [=
D.-K. VS9
1.99.11-
12
=
Arist.
Fr.
192
Rosea]
states that
Aristotle
mentioned
a
Pythagorean
distinction:
70o
AXo&KOYKO
v
To
'Ipv
ET~ar&
OS,
To
3U
vOpw7rog,
r73
otov
HvOay6pa.
Whether rT'
Aoy&KbV
ov
occurred
in
Aristotle's
Pythagorean
source
or lamblichus
has a
"modernized"
version
is
not
certain.
(Much
more
probably
the latter.
Walter
Burkert,
Lore and
Science
in
Ancient
Pythagoreanism (Cambridge,
Massachusetts,
1972),
p. 144,
is
confident:
"a
phrase
like
Aoy&KbV
,ov
[sc.
in this
very
passage]
betrays
later
terminology.")
The
main
point
is that Aristotle himself
does not use
(Zov
AoyLKdvs part of his own philosophical vocabulary.
8
According
to
Aetius,
Placita
1.3 [=
Diels
Dox. Gr.
282.26-28]
the
Pytha-
goreans
roY7OV
&y
pov
a7xo8t8dvreg
Eyovofl
Cov
AoyYLKV
[sc.
avOpw7rov]
KTA.
This
does
not mean
that
they
were the
first
to do
so;
see also
n.7.
8/10/2019 Renehan-The Greek Anthropocentric View of Man (HSCP 85 [1981])
4/21
242
Robert
Renehan
speech
of
educated Greeks in
general.
A few
examples
will
give
some
idea
of
its
distribution.
Chrysippus
ap.
Plut. Mor.
45oD
=
SVF
3195.10-12
70T
AOyLKO13-VUkLtV
'XOVroS
TpocTXP770caL
ES E"KaGoTTw
Aodyp
a~l
VTO
7TOVTO
KvfEPpvaoOaL
TA.Theol. Arithm.
p.
25.I7
ff
de
Falco
=
Philolaos
Fr.
13
D.-K.
KaG
r7aapEs-
pXat
ro
ov
70o
AoyLKOZ,UTrrEp
a
hdhAo'aos
7-
rEpl UtEWCS
AEyE
K-A.
pictetus
.9.2
71
ydp
cLar
aOpolV
oS;
~pov,
Y77tA9
oyLK'VVqro7dV;
ompare
3.1.25
avOpwiros'
Et
'
7070
E
1
arl
Ow7V
(oov
XPqao7LKoV
vtrautaLS
aOyLK0S.
Women
were
explicitly
included
in
this
category,
Galen
5.742K:
yvVaLKES
. .
.
Kl
aa7
trrapXovaL
AOytLKd
~4a,
TOv
UTrTLV
EirtIrT770/L1
SErKTLK.
(Note
herethe
explication
f
the
shorterdefinition
y
means
of language aken from the fullerversion).For someexamplesfrom the
church
fathers
see G. W. H.
Lampe,
A
Patristic
Greek
Lexicon
s.v.
AoyLKdS
.I. It is
noteworthy
that this
entry,
which fills almost two
large
columns
and illustrates
a
variety
of
meanings
and
usages
of
AoyLKdS
egins
with
just
this
meaning
("rational,
ndowed
with
reason")
and
phrase
-
AoyLKOV
Cov.
By
contrast,
in
LSJ
s.v.
AoytLK'S
his sense
of the
word
is
found
in
fourth
place.
It
can be taken for
granted
hat
by
the
early
Christian
period
?W-ov
AoyLKdV
ad
long
been
as
familiar an
expression
n
Greek as
"rational
animal" s in
English.
Beforeproceeding t is necessary o saysomethingaboutthe meaning
of
(Cov.
For
rd
ca
in
general,
as
well
as
man,
rd
AoytK3V
Wov,
n
parti-
cular,
were
the
object
of
philosophical theorizing
which
resulted
in
various
formal distinctions and
definitions.
A
typical
specimen
is
provided
by
the
pseudo-GalenicDefinitiones
Medicae,
I9.355K.:
5civ
"TlO'va"a E/IvXos,
LaOO)-LK7rKaO'p0/7V
Kal7Tpoal'EUtW
WOVtIEV).10
long
tradition
of
speculation
ies
behind
that
arid
formulation;
he same
holds
true
of
Proclus'
dogmatic
pronouncement
in
his
Neoplatonic
catechism,
the Institutio
Theologica,
proposition
70
(p.
66. 18-20
Dodds):
Z
y~p . . .
yevEioOa
TrrpWrov
v,Et-a ~pov,
E--ra
cOpWrTOV.
a
avupoTos-
OV'KE&C
EUTIV
Y7TOU0T
7~nS
WOLK-S
VVa"?EWS
cOV
84
E
TTLV
E/ITrvEov
Ka alOavdLEvov.
These
passages
set forth what had
come to be
the orthodox Greek
view of
animals.
As man
is
distinguished
by
his
possession
of
reason,
so animals
are
distinguished
by
their
possession
of
the
faculty
of
sensation,
at'cb8lo
.
Occasionally
he
generic
term
(Wov
could
include
plants,
7d vrd,
as well.
Plato
in the
Timaeus,
7B,
writes
rrnv
ydp
oiv
OrIrTEp
pVvETarX7
Tov
77qV,poV
FLEvl
V E
V
KfC
AyoL7o
pOdTara,
9
4/ra
here is equivalent to qaal, "people say," one more indication
of how
familiar
the
expression
was.
For this use of
0-gat
see Rh. Mus.
113.1970.84.
10
The definition
is
repeated
in Nemesius
(p. 55
Matthaei),
Meletius
(p.
6.24-
25 Cramer),
Leo
(p.
I7.7
Renehan),
ahd no doubt elsewhere.
8/10/2019 Renehan-The Greek Anthropocentric View of Man (HSCP 85 [1981])
5/21
The Greek
Anthropocentric
iew
of
Man
243
and
he has
7-r
orad
explicitly
n mind there."
(The
passage
s not
typical
of Plato's
usage.)
The famous
fragment
(I17
D.-K.)
in which
Empe-
docles proclaimsthat he has been a boy and a girl and a bush(Odpvos)
and a bird and
a
fish
may imply
the same belief. But such
an
attitude
was
exceptional;
normally
ra
vrwd
re excluded from
the
category
of
ga?.12
Compare
Plato,
Phaedo
7oD
q
d'vov
Ka7'
vOpWrroV
..DAd
Kat
Ka7r
5WVV
7TVwV K
'UV,
KaL
uAA/v
oaErp
'y
VEULV.
ristotle
is
quite
precise
about
this. PA
653623
if:
7
yap
cov
dpt?6LdtE7r
'XELw
'loel7Lo.
PA
666834
d
Ltv
yap
ov
alaerOqotptarat.
By
this
criterion
r
cOv-rd
re
not
a,
De
Anima
415"2:
70o
8
alaOU7TLKOVpltrat
r
OpEIrr7LKV
V
70S
VrTOZs.
Just
as Greeks
sharply
discriminated
e-
tween men and animals,so they had a similar inclinationto separate
animalsand
plants
more
rigidly
than
is
usual
among
many
early
peoples
(or present-day
"primitives").13
The
very
word
?cov
reveals
how
pronounced
his
tendency
was.
Etymologically,
he term
means
simply
"living
thing"
and should include
plant
as well
as animal life.
That
Plato in
the
Timaeus,
77B,
was
quite
conscious
of
this is
shown
by
Ae'yoo
pOd'-rara,
or that
is
technical
language
with
specific
reference
to the
CpObrrq
vdoaroS,
the true
sense of the
word.
4
Greek modes of
thought
imposed
a
narrower
meaning
upon
C-ov
than it
otherwise
would have had. This is neatly illustratedby a sentence in Aristotle,
GA
73Ib4-5:
S&aQE'pE~
'
aTEL
7Oqar
a
7ray
v
vrwv
j~dvov.
See
also
PA
68I'I3
ff;
De
Anima
413b4.)
According
to
the
normal
rules
of
Greek
7d
a and
7r
~5v-ra
should have been
synonymous;
in
practice
COov,
ften,
is
interchangeable
rather with
O-~plov.
atin
animal
and
English
"animal"
acquire
their
usual
meanings,
again against
the
etymology,
directly
from
Greek
(-ov.
Our
phrase
"animal,
vegetable,
11
Tim.
9oA...
.7~L~a
...
gO
vraS
v)vOuv
oK'
EyyELOV
d~M
O3pdivLov
s
a
different
matter.
12
Cf. A. E. Taylor on P1. Tim. 77A 5. A chapter in the doxographic Placita
of
Aetius
(Diels,
Dox.
Gr.
p.
438)
is entitled
H17~
qiO
Ta
vra
KLE
GCa.
t
begins
HIA0rwv
eaA
KaL
-a
V-~a
E'lvXa
c(ra.
The
only
other
philosopher
adduced
for
such
a
view
is
Empedocles.
13
This,
as a
statement
of
the usual Greek
outlook,
is true
enough,
but
like
all
generalities,
it
runs a risk
of
oversimplification.
The
Greeks were
on
occasion
capable
of
more
flexibility
in this
regard.
See
especially
Aristotle's
remarks
in
HA
588a4 ff,
ovTw
a'
EK
WV
dJv
XWV
&r
Td
qa
/i7afatvEL
&7Ka
/IupKpOV
)
1'al
...
7.
s
iErflaamg
4
a'rcv
[sc.
r-vy
Cvrv]
eI
-a
c
Sa
avveXgs
aTrw.
Aristotle has in
mind
such
animals as the
rn'v,
drKatA'70,
and
arrdyyos.
Cf.
Nemesius
p. 42
Matthaei:
Ta
roava7a
Tv-a
wdo'v7ra
KaIEIV
0ogS
zXovaw
O
rwaato'
7rv
aocwZv.
(The
term
(Wod'vrov
is interesting, but Nemesius appears to be in error when he attributes
it to
'"ol raatol."
LSJ
cite
it
only
as
a variant in
one
passage
of Sextus
Empiricus.
Aristotle
already
had the
concept,
but not the
word.)
14
For
this
use
of adverbial
dp0cl7
see
Burnet on
P1.
Phd.
67B
4.
8/10/2019 Renehan-The Greek Anthropocentric View of Man (HSCP 85 [1981])
6/21
244
Robert
Renehan
mineral"
is a
good example
of
the
persistence
of this
Greek influence."5
To return to the
polarity
which
is
a
principal
concern
of
the
present
paper, that between man, the rational animal, and the irrational animals,
r3
AoyLK'Y
V
ov and
rT Aoya
-a.
As
was
remarked
above,
this
way
of
looking
at
things,
common
to
the Greeks
and
to
many
even
now,16
is
not
nearly
so
natural
as it
may
seem to us.
Frazer
has
observed
"the
sharp
line of
demarcation
which
we draw
between
mankind
and
the
lower animals does not exist for
the
savage.
To
him
many
of the
other
animals
appear
as his
equals
or
even his
superiors,
not
merely
in
brute
force but
in
intelligence."17
These
days
one
may
smile
at
the
facile
use
of
the
condescending
term
"savage,"
but nevertheless
Frazer's basic
point is well taken. In another passage he pertinently remarks of the
"savage"
that
he "is
more liberal and
perhaps
more
logical
than
the
civilized
man ... he
commonly
believes
that animals are
endowed
with
feelings
and
intelligence
like
those
of
men."18
In
fact,
before
the
develop-
ment of
some
technology
in the ancient
world,
it
was
by
no
means
apparent
that man
had
the
advantage
over animals.
In
obtaining
food
and
shelter,
in
defending
themselves
against
natural
enemies,
in,
that
is,
what the
Greeks called
rd
&vayKata,
animals
were
often
clearly
superior.
Early
human
dwellings
were not to
be
compared
in
intricacy
or technical skill with, say, a spider's web, a beehive, or the nests of
certain birds.
No human
hunter could
provide
food
with
the
expertise
and
dependability
of the
eagle
or the
fox. What
reason
had man
to
deny
intelligence
to
animals,
to
feel
superior
to them?
But there came
a
day
when
the
Greeks,
whatever
the
causes,
thought
otherwise.
The
difference
appears
very
subtly
in a sentence
which Seneca
wrote
under
the
influence
of Greek
philosophy:
Tacitis
quoque
et
brutis,
quamquam
in cetera
torpeant,
ad
vivendum
sollertia
est.19
That
animals
possessed
sollertia
had
never been
doubted;
that
they
were
dumb beasts with
no
language
of
their
own
(tacitis
...
et
brutis)
is a Greek
innovation.
Fifth-
century pride
in
technological
progress,
a
pride
which
found
its
most
famous
expression
in the
great
rrohAAa
-d
SELV
chorus
of
Sophocles,
was
doubtless
one
factor,
but
it
cannot
be
the whole
explanation
of
this.
15
Here too a
change
from
the
Greek
attitude
is discernible
in
our
times. In
particular,
the
problem
of
"plant
sensitivity"
is
attracting
considerable
interest.
Whether
music and
soft
speech
are
conducive
to
plant
growth
I must leave
to
others
to
decide.
16
At least
in Western
societies;
I do not feel
competent
to comment
on
the
Orient.
17
Sir
James
George
Frazer,
The Golden
Bough3
(1935),
pt.
V,
vol.
2,
p.
3Io.
18
N.
17
above,
p.
204.
19
Ep.
I21.24.
8/10/2019 Renehan-The Greek Anthropocentric View of Man (HSCP 85 [1981])
7/21
The Greek
Anthropocentric
View
of
Man
245
As
we
shall
see,
the elevation
of
reason
as man's
special prerogative
is
much older
in
Greece.
This is not to say that the problem of animal intelligence was simply
ignored.
Quite
the
contrary.
Apparently
purposive
behavior
on
the
part
of
animals had to be
explained
somehow,
and the Greeks
faced
up
to
the
problem resolutely.
One
approach
was
provided by
the
fertile
new
concept
of
v'ts
which,
among
its
other
meanings,
came to
be
used
in
the sense of
animal
instinct,
as in
Democritus
Fr.
278
D.-K.
89i-Aov
E'c
Kal
ro
Z
aAAoLst
*oLUL
-7Tcvra
yap
iyova
Kca-aL
cKa-r
oqLV
E~rCwEhlr/s7yE otMEJELL9EVcKa.
Then,
as
now,
seemingly
intelligent
animal
activity
was often
explained away
as
instinctive, as,
quite
simply, "natural"; animals behaved as they did
0'retL.
This attitude
appears crystallized
in the
Corpus
Hermeticum
12.1
ovi0ros-
d
vo s
Av
UEIVvOpToL
LO9
4EUT
.
. .
.
E
tE
S
%ro-
c
ayOL9
'
OL9
q
q
rt'Eu-v.
Not
all
thinkers were
prepared
to leave it
at
that.
Aristotle
recognized
intelligence
(OpdoviuLs,
not
voi )
in
certain
animals,
such
as
the bee.
This
was, however,
qualitatively
different
from
human
reason;
man
still
remained an
entity
set
apart.
As Ross has
observed,
""
pdoviqus
as
it
exists in
animals involves
no
Ao'yos.
But
its
existence
in
animals,
in this
wider
sense,
is
pointed
out
even
in the
Ethics
(1141z26;
cf. De
Gen.
An.
753alrI)."
And again "in man a new activity sometimes occurs, which
never
occurs in the
lower
animals. A
man
may
grasp
the
universal."20
Even the
possibility
that animals
actually possessed
Adyo9
was
maintained
by
some,
especially
by
the
Skeptics
and certain
Academics.
Plutarch's
treatises
De
sollertia
animalium
and Bruta
animalia
ratione
uti are
popular
specimens
of
this
viewpoint.
Those who
adopted
such a
stance
were, however,
consciously
departing
anew
from
the
formal
Greek
view
that
man
alone
of
OvqYi&
ca
was
a
AoyKWV
cgov;
that
is,
they
do not
represent
a
continuous
tradition,
the
vestigial
remains of
an
earlier
outlook.
(Doubtless,
in
Greece as
elsewhere, older ways of thought long
survived
among
the
uneducated,
especially
in
country
districts.
This
does
not
affect the
significance
of
what was
new
and
original.)
The
doxographical
handbooks
summarized the
opinions
of
philosophers
on
this
question;
there
still
survives in
one
such
handbook a
chapter
heading
Iodaa
y&'v
4wv
KalV
K
na7vIra
alc8rOT
Katl
hoyLKd.21
The
church
father
Epiphanius
relates
that the
Peripatetic
Strato of
Lampsacus
7T-v
7ov
hAEy
vo
8aEK7CTKV
EVcU.22
The
very
language
(voi
8aEKrKdv)
proves
20
W. D.
Ross
on
Ar.
Met.
98obz2
and
b26,
respectively.
21
Aetius,
Placita
5.20
=
Diels,
Dox.
Gr.,
p.
432.
22
Epitome Haereseum
3.33
=
Diels,
Dox.
Gr.,
p.
592.
Cf.
Plut.
Mor.
961A
=-
Strato,
Fr.
I12
Wehrli.
8/10/2019 Renehan-The Greek Anthropocentric View of Man (HSCP 85 [1981])
8/21
246
Robert Renehan
that
this is a
deliberate
rejection
of the "orthodox" definition of
man.
It
is
explicitly
so in Sextus
Empiricus:
aAAot
qaKOVa
lvWpTOV
Er
t
vaC
-ov
AoytKcVV
r7dV, VO
Kat
7TccrLT7g
ECTCKdV.
ETTEl iV
8E1KvvrUT
EV
7
7Tppr
7-
7TOX-
rpTPd0O
OLTE
OV/o
rSETv
(Z
v
Aoyov,
&dAA
at
voi-
Kal
ErU7L?7
aEKTCKrC
UTrTcTalVTa
TA.23
uch
pronouncements
tend
to
occur
in
polemical
contexts;
they
are,
in
short,
exceptions
that
prove
the
general
rule.
To most
educated
Greeks man had become
the
AoyK0cV
The
standard definitions thus
encapsulate
an
attitude toward man
and
animal
which
may
fairly
be
described
as
severely
anthropocentric.
(That
this
attitude
was
deeply
engrained
in the Greek
mentality
has of course
long been a truism, but one more often glibly parroted than rigorously
documented.)
A few such technical
definitions and formulas
are
hardly,
in
themselves,
adequate
documentation
for the
Anschauung
of
an
entire
people.24
Far
more
impressive
evidence
is
furnished
by
a
widespread
group
of
commonplaces
which do not seem
to
have
been
the
subject
of
special
study.
These
constitute a distinct
topos,
which one
might
describe
as the
"pdvov
'
nov
4wv
dvOpwTros"
opos.
Again
and
again
Greek
writers
point
out
that
man
is
unique
in some
respect.
These
special
characteristics
are
of the most varied
sort,
ranging
from
pecu-
liarities of hair and smells to a participation in the Divine. A very
common
way
of
signalizing
such distinct
properties
of
man
is to
say
"man
alone
of
animals
is
/
has
. .
."
or,
alternately,
to remark "it
is
a
23
Outlines
of
Pyrrhonism
2.26.
In another
passage
Sextus has
an
amusing
encomium
canis
in
which
he
attempts
to demonstrate
against
the
Stoics
that,
on
their
own
premises,
this
poor
creature
possesses
all
the
intellectual
qualities
of
humans
(I.62
ff). Empedocles
was
ridiculed
by
Sextus
for
an even more extreme
view:
'ElTE80KAfjE-L
T
rrapaSo'd7Epov
rdv-ra
jov
OAoyLKa
7vYXaVEtV
aG
ov
S
a
'Advov
A'
Ka'
~bdp677;LgS
pabwov
ravia
yap
UaOLbpv'taWv ELV
al'
co'Laros
taav.'
[= Fr.
i0o.io
D.-K.]. (Against the Logicians 2.286.) For Anaxagoras' views on
vovg
v
arraa&
rokg
oS
see
Aristotle,
De Anima
404bI
ff,
Met.
984bI5
if;
for
Archelaus
see
Diels-Kranz
VS
11.46.23-24
(Xp
aOaea
dp
EKaaro
v Kat
-rwv
owwcv
v4o).
On the
question
of animal
intelligence
see further
Thomas
Cole,
Democritus
and
the
Sources
of
Greek
Anthropology
[=
American
Philological
Association
Monograph
25] (1967),
p.
8i,
n.5.
24
And,
curiously,
Protagoras'
famous
dictum
(Fr.
i),
rrvrwov
XPyCaTLrov
tzpov
ErTiv
avOpwrros,
may
be
no documentation
at
all,
first
appearances
notwith-
standing.
For,
according
to the commonest
interpretation
of that
fragment
(with
which
I
agree),
the
meaning
is that
each individual
man
is the
judge
of
the
reality
of
appearances
for
himself,
a
theory
of extreme
epistemological
subjectivism. avOpw-orog
ere
means
any given
man as
opposed
to
any other,
not
humans
in
general
as
opposed
to other
(Qa.
So,
e.g.,
Plato,
Crat.
385D-386A,
Theaet.
I5IE
ff;
see
also
Theaet.
I6IC,
Legg.
7I6C.
Aristotle
gives
his
opinion
of
this
theory
at
Met.
I053b3:
oi3O'v
')
A'yovre 7TEp1rV
balvovral
re AIyew.
8/10/2019 Renehan-The Greek Anthropocentric View of Man (HSCP 85 [1981])
9/21
The
Greek
Anthropocentric
View
of
Man
247
unique
characteristic of man .. ."
(Z~8ov
CavOpd*'rov
'r1Iv).
I do not
know
of
any
other
people
who have
expressed
themselves
thus
emphatically
in this way.25There is no better proof of the extent to which the Greek
mentality
was
anthropocentric
than
the
remarkable
proliferation
of
this
topos,
which deserves
ample
illustration.
Significantly,
it
appears
in
attempts
to
discover the
etymology
of
the
word
avOpwcrrow
tself.
Plato,
Crat.
399C:
UrnLalVEt
oiro To
4vova
0
avOpo0rro
~m
t
rT&t v iXAa
OBpla
Lv
pt
pa'
v
T
LUKOTE
oWE
avaooy
7era&
ov3)
AvaOpEL,
c
AvOpwros
ava
EWPpaKEV
rOTO
EO
t
[TO]
o7TWCTE-
Kat
cvaOpE_
Kal
AoylE-rat 'roo
OoTWmT-EV
E
TEVOEV
8O
L
dvov y7vOPplOv
odpOas
cvOpw7Tro
ovOpwrro"
wvolcaTOc7,
avap&v
&
o7TWE.
This
idea,
that only man of animals can reflect, that he alone has understanding,
has
very
old roots in
Greece;
Plato is not
even
the
earliest extant writer
to
state
it
explicitly.
Alcmaeon,
Fr.
xa
D.-K.
[= Theophr.
De
Sensibus
25]:
cv0pwTov
yap
7UL
imi^v
cAuwv
[sc.
,wv]
&abEpELv
O-rL /LV
V
VlcL,
rd
8'
AAa
alaOdvE-raL
pLv,
.
vUvvL~cL
'. The Homeric evidence will
be
considered
below.
By
the time
of
Aristotle
it seems
to
have become
a
well-established
commonplace,
as
appears
from
Politics
1253a9
if:
Ao'yov
LdvovOvOpwroS
(EL
X(O
S(vWV..
.
70
ro
y7dp
TpS
rd
iAAa
C5a
ois
avOpW7TroL-t'OV,
TLdoov dyaLOoV
ai
KaKOV
KaL
3&Kalov
Kat
a8
Kov
Kai
-rv
d6AwvaaOeraLav
OXELV.
Similarly, in the pseudo-Platonic Definitions,
415A,
to
which
reference
has
already
been made:
?vOpwirros
Cov
dirrErpov,
lT'ovv,
,7TAaT'rvvxov
-
6
Irdvou
1V
v
dwv
E
TLrLk7-tS7r
KaTa
~dyOUV
8KTCKOV
ErTtL.
The
historian
Polybius
alludes to the belief:
T70
yap
yEvovg
rcav
avOpao'
rvraUvTT
s&akEPOVTo
701TayAAwv
wv,
pLVOLS
701oi
PiLEUTL
vo-
KaU
toyatpov
KTA.26
The
Christian fathers were
happy
to take over this
concept,
for
it
seemed
quite
in
harmony
with the
Scriptures.
To
give
one
example,
Cyril
of
Alexandria
(PG 76.io68C
ff):
pvos
ydp
arrisg
rrapd 7rrvTa
Ta
E
m7T
)
ca
AoyLKdO
'T
.t..
KaTa
7T
ElvaL
Woov
AoyLKdv,
KaL
KaO
cLOAapE7ov,
Kal
T
w'
E7TI
Y9
aPXLKOV,
EV
ECKOVL
OEOl)
7TE,7TOLvqoratG
25
Peoples
directly
influenced
by
Greece are
of
course
no
exception.
It
should
be
noted that
such
"(Cdvog"
ocutions are
used also
of
the
gods,
and
especially
of
Zeus. Fr.
Adesp.
Eleg.
2zW.
ZE
3i
dav-wwv
)v
&S
qdp aKaa
jwO
VOS
XEL.
Thespis
Fr.
3.3
Snell
Tr
8'
7i
1oilvo3 [sc.
Zebs]
OK
VKrla7raa7.
Ion
Fr.
Trag.
55.2
Snell
Epyov
"'
oov
ZEV's
pdvos
ierirLra-aL
OEcWv.
MacDowell
on Ar.
Vesp. 392
remarks
"
pdvos
is
common
in
prayers;
a
god
is
praised
especially
for
those
qualities
or
functions
which
no other
god
has. Cf.
Peace
590o,
Birds
1546,
Th.
1141,
Ek.
12." Ussher
on
Ar.
Eccl.
7-9
quotes
Orph.
H.
87.8
(Abel)
&v
aoL
ydp
pov'vc
dv-rwwv
TO
Kp
WV
TEAo-raL.
26
6.6.4,
cited
by
T.
Cole
[above, n.23], pp.
8o-8i. It is
indicative of
the
neglectto which this
topos
has
been
subject
that
Cole
omits
pdvoLs
n
his
translation
("For,
since the
human
race
differs from
the other
animals
in
this,
that it
partakes
in the
faculties of
reason and
calculation
.
.
.").
8/10/2019 Renehan-The Greek Anthropocentric View of Man (HSCP 85 [1981])
10/21
248
Robert
Renehan
A
'yE`aL.2
The
etymology
f
dvOpwolros
hich irst
appears
n the
Cratylus
survived intact late
into the
Byzantine
period,
as,
for
instance,
in
the
so-called EtymologicumMagnums.v.
avOpworos-:
Trapa
o
aVW
o
OpE-v,
-7yovv
AETeLv
.
vog
yap
wvAAcv
, ,4w
d
vOpios
alo
A'TEL.
7rapd
To
dva0pELv
a
7TW7TEV,
q'yov
avaAoylcEUatL
a
EISE
Kal
7)KOVUE,
TiwV d
cwv
CCwv
1)
AoyL
dOwVC'Vw
U
CTpovoovPEvwv
KTA.2
An
appreciation
f
rational
peech,Ao'yo
n its
external
manifestation,
was
particularly
characteristic
of
Greek
thought.
The
"hymn"
in
praise
thereof which
Isocrates nserts in the Nicocles
(3.5-9,
repeated
n
the Antidosis
15.253-257),
though
too
long
to
be
reproduced
here,
may
be
taken
as
emblematic.It
is
by
virtue of
speech,
he
there
states
explicit-
ly, that we stand apart from animals (rd
,a).
In the Panegyricus
(4.47-50)
a
similar
encomium
occurs;
the
topos
urns
up
in
c.
48:
roiro
/OVOV
i
drrvTovT
7YWV
?OV
E'LEov
EvElXOVrE.
Note
how
Isocrates
expresses
the
commonplace
with his
customary
fullness of
expression
(inclusion
of both
formulae,
pCovov..
.wv
and
Z'tov,
he
addition of
the
preposition
E'e
and
of
c7rrTvroWv).
enophon,
Mem.
1.4.12:
Kat
C11qv
yAwCZTT4V
E
TCLVTWV
r
WV EXOVTWV,OVC7V T7)VEV
LVXpW7TWV
Eol?/aI v
[sc.
o1
0Eol%]
t2av
dWAAorE
WAAaXi
aaovuav
70To aUrO/Lcros
dpOpoOv
TE
T7l
wov-qv
KaCRl
p771tCvEV
r7Tvra
AA7AOLS
'
lovAdpEOa.
o
too Ar.HA
536b"
2.
Anatomicaland physiologicalfeatureswhich are peculiar to "man
alone of animals"
are
mentioned not
infrequently,
most
noticeably
perhaps
in the
writings
of
Aristotle
and
Galen. Thus
man's hair
is
different,
Ar. HA
518a18
ff:
E'Ll
a
Tv
rpXWVC
tLEv
vyyEvE~L,t
8'
VUTEpOV
KaR
S
-ratK'aS'
yVty va
k
V
cdV
rp
t
-Vp
r7-VSWV.
Sensitiv-
ity
to
certain
odors,
those which do
not
contribute
o
the
acquisition
of
food,
but are
merely
pleasant
in
themselves,
is
peculiar
to
man,
Ar.
De Sensu
44483
ff:
Troo0
P/Lv
Ov
TO
d0'
paU(
dvCov
U
vOp;V
rov
ErTv
.
..
atrcov
70TE
?&LOVE
vE
IVt
vOpWcov
7)1
70TaOLV7)V
ocL?7V
&a
T7p
06WtV
T7rV
7rEpl -V
EyKE0cAOV.29
The
Hippocratic
treatise
On Ancient
Medicine
points
out that
man's
food is different from that of
all other
animals;
27
Gen.
1:26.
"And
God
said,
Let
us make man
in our
image,
after our
likeness: and let them
have dominion
over
the
fish
of the
sea,
and over
the
fowl
of the
air,
and
over the
cattle,
and over
all
the
earth,
and over
every
creeping
thing
that
creepeth
upon
the
earth."
Be
it noted that
this
early
Hebraic "anthro-
pocentricity"
is
actually
on
quite
a
different
level from that of the Greeks.
God
is
conceived
anthropomorphically
-
the
"image"
and "likeness" is
a literal
one
-
and
man's
"dominion"
is
not
explicitly justified by
his
unique
possession
of
a
rational
intellect.
Indeed,
in
chapter
three of
Genesis
the
serpent
outwits
and
deceives homo sapiens.
28
Cf.
Etymologicum
Gudianum s.v.
avOpwrosg
p.
147.8-1o
De
Stefani),
especially
the
phrase
pLzvos
o
alvOpwn7osvwo
l(a7TEL.
29
Cf.
A. E.
Taylor
on
P1.
Tim.
67A2
(pp.
474-475).
8/10/2019 Renehan-The Greek Anthropocentric View of Man (HSCP 85 [1981])
11/21
The Greek
Anthropocentric
iew
of
Man
249
the
discovery
of the science
of medicine itself
is
intimately
linked
by
the
author
with this fact.30 The
"leaping"
of the
heart in
anticipation
of
what is to come is confined to man, Ar. PA
669"I9
ff:
v
a"vOpcd-w1
E
ydp
UV/flalvEL
dvov,
;s
ElvEv,
To
T7jS
7T8`ucoEWSt
T&
o
pLdVOV
v
ATIL8
lvEaeL
Ka
rrpL
OUOKI
L
o
TO
P'AAovTG9
TA.31
Two
aspects
of human
anatomy
in
particular
were
frequently
stressed,
man's
use of his
hands
and
his
ability
to
stand erect
on
two
legs.
The
observation of these
phenomena
and
the
realization of
their
significance
were
in
fact
brilliant
achieve-
ments.
Xen. Mem.
1.4.1
i:
pdvov
T-av
~owv dlvOpwrrov
pGov advvE'u~r
v
[sc.
o0
1Eol]
...
.EITEL-ra
rS
p&
v
JAAoS
Ep7TEToLg
Toas
8WKav
...
.v.pc&
rp
SE
KaL
XE-pag
rpoUEOEURav.
r. PA
687"4
if:
E"laP
Kra
d7&L
dOV
p0OdV
KXTA.
o
also
Galen,
De Usu Partium
3.i
[= 3.168
Kiihn]
XEypa
/
LV
8T
/OdVOS
aITCLvTWy
(WWV
LV~pw7TOS
EUaXEl, opyavea
IrpE7oOra
(cp
(of
-
&o7oUv
('
a-o dv-ov
EdV
o70
TTE~vOS
ETO
KCl
OP
Od,
XEPpas aXEv;
ib.
1.3
[= 3.5
Kuihn]
iVC-w
d
ao4-ra--oV
oV 54ov m
avorpvoS,
oxE7w
8 Kc
XELPES
opyavca
rropov?ra
c
, %o4o,.
This Greek
recognition
of a
connec-
tion between hands and intelligence is particularly remarkable.32The
derivative
account of human
progress
in
the
first
book of
Diodorus
Siculus refers
to
man,
EdVEL
(VE
Kai
UVVEPyO
EXOVL
7T
~'
TaV7Ra
XELpag
Kca
Adyov
Ka&
IvXjs
d
XvWocav
(1.8.9).
The
collocation
is
note-
worthy;
compare
the
similar
collocation
in
On
Ancient
Medicine
I:
WJITEp
KaL
-i-V
aAWv
TEXVEwV
ITcT(r
WV
OL
87ElzLOUpyoL
iioAAbv
JAAov
8La-
'pOvUaLV
KaT
X?"pR
Ka
Kaa
yvc47AvV,
or;-
8
KlC
E7T
ptLKTS.
Explicit
awareness of
the
special
connection
of hands
with
man
can
already
be
seen
in
the
familiar
fragment
[15 D.-K.]
of
Xenophanes
which
begins
&AA'
El
XELpas
lyox"
dEs 4
AEdOVTESJ
)
Yypd
ak
XElpEUUL
KaU
ipya
aEfV
rTEp
danVpES
TA.
Galen returns
again
and
again
to
the
uniqueness
of
man's
upright
posture.
De
Usu
Partium
3.2 [=
3.179
Kiihn]
dpO8
8~
/dvos
(,ov
W
d
mrrvTrov
vOpworros,
Ldvy
ydp3ELT
K7p
T
E0v
rV
UKEatA&v
p'
VKS
Ealrv; see also
b.
I5.8
[=
4.251
Kiihn].
He
makes
the
further
point
that man
alone
can sit with ease on
the
hip
bones,
ib.
3.I [=
3.I73
Kiihn]
KaL
T
KacLy(EU1OaP7p)(-oVWS
7
V
lX ov
dvqp
30
Chapter
3;
note
especially
the
wording
in
the clause
elt
e7?pKEL
TC
vOpn(p
Tairnd
ro0Blow
KaiL
vov7-c
ot
7E
KaiL
rTc
KaL
7
aLaLV
6crs'
dvOpo"ov.
3'
Cf. LSJ
s.vv.
rT8aw
I,
1n&8fLa
II,
7rTjs'TLSI.
32
For
some
of
the
modern
literature on this
topic
see
T.
Cole
[above,
n.231,
p.
40
and notes.
Contemporary
evolutionary
theory
would of
course side with
Anaxagoras
against
Aristotle. For
Aristotle on hands see
also
De
Anima
432aI
ff.
8/10/2019 Renehan-The Greek Anthropocentric View of Man (HSCP 85 [1981])
12/21
250
Robert
Renehan
7ro0
rW
Tawv
(CWV
w7TapXEt.
AEAle8( KaL
TOVTOTO'
IOOAAog,
a
VOpt-
vowtv
3pOlV
vo
vov
ErTvat
rTovvpw7Tov,
oVKE&6TEl
d
Tt
Ka
7TO
aOE`GEuOaL
pEvos XlEtL.
As late as the fourteenth century the commonplace was
still
being
repeated;
Ioannes
Catrares
ap.
Diels-Kranz VS
II.I37.22-23:
tpdvos
-cv
d&\wv dwv
ylverat
To
aX9t/a
'opOs
Ka
p
7TS~yOV
yr
a7TTE7at.
Various
other
distinctive human
characteristics
are mentioned.
Man
is the
animal who
laughs.
Pollux
6.200:
YhEAarTtKd-
o0Trw
ap
6dpliovrav
V
dvOpw7ToV,
rTt
pdvo0
i;
rvrwv rTwv
wv
yYEA,.
Iamblichus,
Protrepticus
21.K:
.VBpWOU
tOv
iapd
7i
iAa
cia
o
os
[sc.
'
y Awc]
optov7at
yoOv
TrVES' 5ov
auto'
yEAarTtLKoV
vat)
..daAa
'd/u*tv
E1O
KaT
7To
8vvarov
Kr65
ctAoCo'oi
cV
Kat,
ro
tOfTaTOs
oyvTov vG
v.WVP7TrV
V7TEKXMWPV
TPoKp-
Ivwv
E
r7 AoytKoVt
1
yEAarTt(KO
EL
tKp~ttVW
Kal
&a0opiv
rrpos aAotla
+a.
Sextus
Empiricus,
Outlines
of
Pyrrhonism
2.211,
refers
to the
pc-ov
yEaaUT-Kdv,
and
Lucian,
Vit.
Auct.
26,
states
v8Opwrros
v
yEAarTtLKdV,
&vo 8E
oa3
yEAaaotKdv.
seudo-Basilius
(PG
29.688C)
sets
out
a
syllo-
gism
in
embryo:
i'&ov
\
av6pcw7Tov
O
yAtaarTLKoV,
al
E'T
T
yEAaUTtKoV,
dvOpwros'.
Uncommon,
but
perceptive,
is
the observation
made
by
"Simonides"
in
Xenophon's
Hiero
(7.3):
Kat
yap
(LOL
0KE
. . .
TO7U
t
t&a
pEtV
a
V'p
TV
wv
v
Wwv,
7r
TLLqp
S
opeYEcaOat.
an alone
grasps
logical
consequences,
is
"critical,"
Plut.
Mor.
386
F:
E
yE
rs
pv
v7Trdp6EW~tv 7TpaypLdrTWIEXEKaL
7
G
qapla
yv;oLV,
dKOAOV*OOV
8
OECwpGav
Kal
KplULV
VOpW7TO
LdV
7Trrapat8wKEv
7
"
'S.
And
man alone has
free
will,
Marcus Aurelius
0o.28:
pd'vw
0c
AoytKc
5O
8E8o0a
TO
EKOUUWS
TEUOaaL
70tS
ytvO/LEvOts,
ro
8
ETErOat
/tAdv
amr
a&vayKatov.
Religion
s
pecu-
liar
to
man,
Xen.
Mem.
1.4.13,
Plato,
Protag.
322A
'
vO6pwros
..
.
&wv
dvov
OJobEi
gdVLuE
(imitated
by
Philostratus,
VA
8.7.7
t7dvov {4wv
OEoV;
ot'E)
3
and,
more
fully,
Menex.
237D:
UvvE'u
t E
TEPEIXEt
WV
aAAwv
sc.
?TwV]
Kac
8&'KVl
Kal OEo3s
1,vov
VOll
EL.
The
use
of
81Kr
in
this
latter
passage
is
significant.
&81K-
in the sense
of
"justice"
is
not
an
Attic usage (=
&KatoKv'V
, r7 8&Kata), nd, where it is found in Attic,
deliberate
archaizing
should
be
suspected.34
Here Plato
may
very
well
have
in
mind
Hesiod,
who
expressly
distinguished
man from
animals
by
virtue
of
the fact
that
man
has
L'K-r
and
they
do not
(Erga
276-280,
on
which
see
below).
The
Christians
went
beyond
earlier thinkers
by
applying
"man
alone
of animals"
to
specifically
Christian
religious
beliefs.
So
Nemesius,
p.
55
Matthaei:
8c&ov
E
aa3iovo
sc.
&vOpeprov]
KaL
EIalpET0ro
al
7T
oLdvOV
T7Yv
CMv
WOv
T7
TOVITOVU
w/a
/ETa
COlvarTOV
"*See my Studies in Greek Texts. Hypomnemata 43 (Gottingen, 1976), p. 123.
34
As,
for
example,
in the
religiously
conservative
language
of the Laws 777D
.
. .
a
opwyv
vV
&'rlv
[o'ELp
also is uncommon
in Attic
prose],
887B
81Kq1V
70L
.
E.
.
8/10/2019 Renehan-The Greek Anthropocentric View of Man (HSCP 85 [1981])
13/21
The
Greek
Anthropocentric
View
of
Man
251
dvlaTrOata
Kal
Es1a
Oavautlav
XopEiv.
That
this is
a
conscious
extension
of
traditional
notions
is shown
by
the fact that Nemesius
goes
on,
almost
at once, to add
l8ta
a3iovo
Kal
Tiv
7TEXVOV
TE
KaL
E~marTqnc
paO
xarta,
Kal
at
KT7
7Ts
TEXvas
Tavras
E
Vpy7ELLL.
he human
discovery
of
the
various arts
and sciences
had
been a
commonplace
since
at least
the
fifth
century
B.C.
The most awesome
claim
in the entire "man
alone
of
animals"
series is that
man alone
is,
in one
sense or
other,
divine.
Closely
related
to this
is the notion
that man alone
is,
in
essence,
an
imitation
of
the
deity.35
Pl.
Protag.
322A
7TS7)
8~
d
vOpOWrro7S
taS
LEUaXE
opas,
7rpWTrov
EV
ETL
j
0JV
EOo
OEvyyUV7VELcavY
Wov
ldvov
O
EvodOLTEV.
Ar.
PA 656"8ff
q
yap ILdvovsc.
rd
wV
avOpdiov
yEvos]
iETErlx
70 elov Wi
)5ptv
vwpltwov
Wov,
7
)dciaL
a
lrTa
v7C-ov.
Ib.
686"27
ff
p&'v
1
v
ycp
UrTL
p/doVV
TWV
WV
La8To'T
7jv
OVUTLV
WTovo
aL
7qv oUclaV EVELL
OEtav
ipyov
S701T
ELOTTrro
7TO
VOELV
Kal
cpOVE-V.36
Cleanthes,
Hymn
to Zeus
vv.
4-5,
P-
227
Powell
[=
SVF
1.121.37 f]
E
K
Uo0
yap
yEvoS
EcaLE,
t?'Xovt
dp-ja)
AnaXO'VTEs
(LOVVOL,
ua
WEL
TE
Kaz
EpITEt
OVq7T
E7T1
yatav.37
Muso-
nius
Rufus
ap.
Stob.
5.1057
Hense
[=
Fr.
17 Hense],
KaOdhov
8'
avOpw~ros'C
L.a
LEV
G
O
p
vov
WYV
Lmy7EwV
Eca'V.38
Galen,
De
Usu
Partium
1.2
[= 3-3
Kiihn],
uoo?v
yap
70oGo
78
(Cov
[sc.
dvOpOiwoS]
Ka
LdovovTWVE7TY7)e' orV.
b. 13.11 [= 4.126-i27 Kihn], CvOpd
OT,
LLO
AoyLKO*dvETt
v
T
v
d
(jOV
Kat OEOV
LdVOV
iTV
E'L
y-,.
Genesis
I:2639
made
ready
a
welcome
reception,
first
on
the
part
of
Philo
and
then of the
Christians,
for the
Greek
philosophic
idea that
man
was
an
"image
and likeness"
of
God. The
long history
of
that
concept
in
Christian
theology
cannot
be
traced
here,
but one
passage,
from
the
"renegade"
Tatian,
may
be
adduced.
It
shows
that
man's
uniqueness
in
this
regard
could
be
maintained even
by
those
who
did
not
accept
Adyos
-
the
usual
touchstone of the
divine in
man
-
as
a
peculiar
prerogative of men. Oratio ad Graecos, c. 15:
uare
ap
XvOpwTosro
oi
x,
35
For
a brief
discussion,
with
references,
of
this
latter
concept
see
HSCP
68.1964.383-384.
36
Cf.
also
EN
1I77b26-31;
1153b32
is different:
rr'v-ra
yap
bUUoe iXE
OELOV.
37
Verse
5
is
modeled
on II.
17.447
=
Od.
18.131,
7rw?vrwv
aa
a
E
yatav
brt
irvelEL
TE
Ka
EprL.
The
preceding
verse in
the
Odyssey
is
od0d24v
lKVO7EpOV
yara
rpE10E
vOpWbrroCo;
the
corresponding
line in
the
Iliad is
a
comparably
lugubrious
specimen
of
pessimismus
Homericus. Imitation of a
verse
from
these
Homeric
contexts
strongly
suggests
that
Cleanthes
intends
here a
conscious
correction
of
Homer.
38
Cf. A. C. van Geytenbeek, Musonius Rufus and Greek Diatribe (Assen,
1963),
p.
24.
S
Kal
ErTEV
OE0S
In0M7'GWLYEV
vUpW7TOV
aT
ELKOva
lE-rpaV
aL
KQY
dojoLwav;
compareabove,
n.27.
8/10/2019 Renehan-The Greek Anthropocentric View of Man (HSCP 85 [1981])
14/21
252
Robert
Renehan
WE7TEp
OL
KOpaKWVOL
80
t
LaT7OVU,
ov
AOtKV,
VOK
q
a
Lt
SEK"LKV
'SELXo'rETatL
ap
Ka7T
vcToVS
a
Td
aAoya
oV
Kal
E.TtuT-qojrlS
EK1LKa.
LdVoS
~E
avOpw7TOS
oELKCOV
aL
/jLOLWULS
OOEOv
"
AE'YWdv8Opw7Tov
o XToV
oLo~a
roZs
~o
o7TPC
7aov'a,
dAAa
'v
rnoppWo
tv
avopcoTron'og
Tpo
awrov
E
7v OEOV
KEXoWPKoda.
he contrast between men
and
other
(6a
could
hardly
be
expressed
more
emphatically
than it is
in
these
(and
similar)
passages.
There
is
no
question
of
other animals
sharing
in
the
divine.
This
is
well
brought
out
by
Galen,
who
takes the
pi-q
tpa
motif
one
step
further,
De
Usu Partium
1.22
[=
3.80
Kilhn]
ai-rc
[sc.
7r
7TL6jCKp]
7
ULloTavtraV
atta
tutqta
yEAotov
aUTV
vOpWrOv.
Evidently
he
considered
the
point
of
some
importance,
for he
repeats
it more
than
once. Ib. i5.8 [=
4.252
Kiihn] tCtt4rt
ydap
,yEAoZoV
vEpnov Wov
E&4cLaatLEv
57rdpXov;
see also
3.-6
[=
3.264-265
Kiihn],
I1.2
[=
3.848
Kiuhn].
This
analogy,
which
sharply
contrasts
even
the
most
anthropoid
of
animals
with
man,
is
old,
as
can be
seen
from
Heraclitus,
Fr.
82
D.-K.,
OTLCOIKOV
KdAALtaogS
laX(pos
dvavOpowv
vEt
aV/fldwAAv.40?
Thus we
conclude
this
sampling
of the
"t'dvov
i-ycv
Awv
davOpworo,"
topos.
It
would
not
be difficult
to
quadruple
these
specimens,
so
thoroughly
and
rigorously
anthropocentric
had
the
Greek mind
become.41
If
a
change
were
to
be
effected,
perhaps
the
most
promising
approach lay in taxonomy, the scientific study of the classificati6n of
animals
(and
plants).
For
such
a
study, by
assigning
man
a definite
place
in
a
larger
order
of
animals,
might
lead
to
the
conclusion
that
he
was
but
one
(Wov
among
many.
It
is
known
from the accurate
represen-
tation
of
animals
in
the
art of earlier
peoples
that the
Greeks
were not
the first
to
engage
in
the careful
observation
of animal
anatomy.
But
taxonomy
as such
begins
with
them.42
Even
in Greece
the
earliest
known
divisions
are casual
and
rough-hewn.
The so-called
"koisches
Tiersystem,"
which
has
been reconstructed
from
the
Hippocratic
work Regimen 2.46 ff, is exaggerated. There different varieties of
flesh
and
meat
(animals,
birds,
fish)
are listed
in order to describe
their
effect
as
food
upon
humans;
then the
effect
of
such
items
as
birds'
eggs,
cheese,
water,
wine,
etc.,
is
described.
Such
a
pragmatic
account
hardly
constitutes,
or
implies,
a formal
taxonomy
undertaken
for its
own
40
Pindar,
Pyth. 2.72-73
perhaps
belongs
here:
KaAo'S
o
TL'wv
Tapa
TaLalv,
EL't
KaAo'.
41
Numerous
examples
could
also
be
adduced
from Latin
sources
directly
influenced
by
the
Greek.
Suffice
to
mention, exempli
gratia,
Pliny's
Natural
History,prefaceto BookVII
(..
. ante omniaunumanimantium .. uni animan-
tium
...
uni...
uni...
uni... uni...
uni
...
uni...).
42
At least
so far
as
is
known
at
present.
If earlier
oreign
systems
existed,
they
hardly
influenced
Aristotle's
original
researches.
8/10/2019 Renehan-The Greek Anthropocentric View of Man (HSCP 85 [1981])
15/21
The Greek
Anthropocentric
iew
of
Man
253
sake. For that one must
go
to
Aristotle.43
His
zoological
works
cannot,
on the
whole,
be described as
anthropocentric.
Solmsen
has
recently
written: "While the Timaeus is
anthropocentric,
Plato
contenting
him-
self with
some
very
few
and
very
brief
glances
at
other
living
creatures,
Aristotle's
biology
has
the
entire
variety
of animals for its
subject.
Man,
with whom Aristotle is
preoccupied
in his ethical
and
political
writings,
is in
the
biology
just
one of
the
large
variety
of
beings."44
This
"new
biology"
had
within
itself
a
potential
for
diminishing
the Greek
proclivity
towards
anthropocentricity.
In
actuality, nothing
of the sort
happened.
Aristotle
himself,
apart
from the
zoological
works,
reveals
a
quite anthropocentric
outlook,
which
is
concisely
summed
up
in
the
Politics,
1253"3i-32:
EAEwE01s
f1lE'A'clr-ov
TWv
poWV
avOpWTOdS
cr-Lv.
What
distinguishes
man
is,
of
course,
the intellectual
faculty
in
his
soul,
De
Anima
414bi19,
TE'pOLS,
8
KacL
7~T
LVO)7LKOV
7E
KcLL
VO0,
OtOV
aVOpdCFTOLS
aL%
t
L
7
TOLOTOV
ETEpOV
7aLV
TqLLWTEpOV.
ut
even
in the
zoological
treatises,
this bias
appears,
GA
737b26
if:
vfv 8'
&7T0
r
8/10/2019 Renehan-The Greek Anthropocentric View of Man (HSCP 85 [1981])
16/21
254
Robert Renehan
especially
because of
his
intellect,
as
quite
discrete from
animals
appears
already
in the oldest
extant
works
of
Greek
literature. The
anthropocentric attitude is not a creation of Greek
philosophy.
Here, as
often,
the
professional
philosophers merely
developed
into
coherent
theory
old,
half-expressed
beliefs
deeply
rooted
in the
Greek
conscious-
ness.
In
the
Odyssey,
when
Odysseus'
men
are
turned into swine
by
Circe,
the
poet
describes
them as follows:
o
SE
aoviawv
Lv
'XOv
KE~aAa
V
TE
TPtXGS
E
/
K
SE/LaS
,
ctcrlp
voVN
jv(LgTdOS
qS"T
VETc POS
TEp.45
It
is not
a
question
of two
(or
more)
different
types
of
vov^,
those
of
men
and
of
animals
;46
clearly
the
poet
sees
vo?s,
"mind,"
as
something
which
men
have and
animals do
not.47
A later
age
might
talk,
for
in-
stance, of vois as a distinguishing property of human, as opposed to
animal,
nature;
presumably
Greeks of the Homeric
period
did
not
yet
possess
the
linguistic equipment
for
that.
Nonetheless
they
felt
it
at
some
level. And
if
voLs
separated
men
from
animals
in
Homer,
it
also
linked
them with
the
gods.
Zeus
has
a
vdos.48
Another subtle
distinction
of
epic usage points
up
the
fact
that a
real
difference was sensed
be-
tween
men
and
animals.
In Homer
the
(eschatological) vyx74
lies off at
death.
It
has been
remarked
that in four
passages
the
Ov6~d
is
described,
untypically,
as
flying
away
upon
death;
in each instance the
Ovtds-
belongs to an animal.49 Snell explains this usage as follows: "people
were averse to
ascribing
the
psyche,
which
a
human
being
loses
when
he
dies,
also to an animal.
They
therefore
invented
the
idea
of
a
thymos
which
leaves
the
animal
when
it
expires."50
The Homeric
poets,
there-
fore,
tended
to
think
of
men as set
apart
from
animals
by
virtue of
their
possession
of
voiVs
and
.vX".
Those
are not
insignificant
differences.
Hesiod
introduces
yet
another
important
difference,
Erga
276-279:
roi&
yalp
dv~pu~otcna
o4Lov
SLETacE
Kpoid'wv,
1X0Vcn
kEV
Kal
77paUl
cL
OUUVOL9
7TETE7JVOLS
E(TELV
aAA7qAovN,
6TEL OOV
0LK7)
caUt
/LET aV-Sr
/
45
10.239-240.
46
Even if
it
were,
the contrast
therein
implied
would
set men
off
from animals.
4
It is
in
keeping
with Homeric
beliefs
that man
loses
vo^is
upon
death.
The
blind
seer
Tiresias
is
the
exception
that
proves
the
rule;
even
in Hades
his
OPE'VES
L/iTE8OL
'LUL
/C5
Kati
r
Ev77&rt
voov
7TO'pE
7TEqSO'vEta
oLA
1TE7TvvxJIa&
Od.
10.493-495).
In
II.
23.104
it
is said of the shades
in Hades
that
9p'vets
oK
"PV
vrarTav.
Od.
1.475-476
.
.
.
"Ardobe
..
~Eva
7E
VEKpOL
/
aftpa8EEs'
ov.L,
48
II.
I5-46I
o1
A^OE
A
Ls
r7TVKlVdv
ov;
see
also
15.242,
16.103,
17.I76.
4
See
especially
Bruno
Snell,
The
Discovery
of
the
Mind,
pp.
I1-12
=
Die
Entdeckung
des
Geistes4
(G6ttingen,
1975),
P.
21. The
passages
are II.
16.469
(horse), 23.880 (dove), Od. 10.163 (deer),
19.454
(boar).
50 See
above,
n.49.
Snell
does
not,
however,
mention
Od.
14.426
-v
a'
AEnE
qvX"i
(of
a
boar).
This
does
not
refute
his
conjecture,
which is based
upon
a
general
aversion,
not
an absolute
rule.
8/10/2019 Renehan-The Greek Anthropocentric View of Man (HSCP 85 [1981])
17/21
The Greek
Anthropocentric
View
of
Man
255
avOpnrroVn
8'
WKE
8&1K-
Man has
&1K9
s a
gift
from
the
gods;
fish
and
beasts
and birds do not. Centuries
later Plato wrote that man had
a
kinship with the
gods51
and that accordingly man alone of animals
practiced
81Kqr
supra).
In the
Protagoras
myth
it is
even
stated that
Zeus
gave justice
to
men;
the words are the same as in Hesiod
(322
C
Sol0
1q81KiV).
The
continuity
of
the tradition
is
particularly
clear
here.
Examination
of Hesiod's standard for the
presence
or absence of
8tKrq
proves
revealing.
Because
they
have
no
&81Kq,
other
living things,
unlike
man,
eat one
another;
they
are,
in a
word,
cannibals. The
Greeks
regarded
cannibalism
with
abhorrence;
one tends to
forget
that not
all
societies
do. Herodotus mentions several times a northern race
of
"man-eaters"; the language which he uses to describe them is reminis-
cent of
Hesiod,
4.Io6:
'Av"po
bdyoL
84
dypud;ara rrcxvrwv cvOpdrrwv
Xovea 0Ea,
o"'
1K-qV
O3
?OV7oro
7E
vc~wo
OU8
V
XpEwpLEvoL.
ristotle
in
the Nicomachean
Ethics
explicitly
describes cannibalistic
dispositions
as
"beastlike"
(OpPEL~S
I
148b19).52
Whether
Hesiod considered
fish,
beasts,
and birds
here as three
separate
"orders" of animals
(to employ
a later
terminology)
or whether the three nouns are used
collectively
as
a
poetic
periphrasis
for
?5a
is not
apparent.53
Probably
he
had
not
reflected
one
way
or
the other.
The
important point
is
that
fishes,
beasts, birds, whether one group or three, all go together in opposition
to man.
From this
it
follows that for Hesiod
the
cannibalism
consisted
either
in
any
animal
eating
any
other
(if
one
group)
or in
any
fish,
beast,
or
bird
eating, respectively,
any
other
fish,
beast
or
bird
(if
three
groups).
That
Hesiod
is
thinking only
of
species
which
are
cannibalistic
in the strict
sense,
whereby
one
member of the
species
eats
another
member
of the same
species,
is
out of
the
question.
The
general,
or
rather
universal,
mode of
expression
in
Erga 276
ff
excludes
that.
Any
lingering
doubts can be
removed
by
reference to the
fable
of
the hawk and the nightingale in Erga 202 ff (two different species of
birds).
But if this
is
so,
then
Hesiod has a
point
of
view
toward
animals
drastically
different
from ours.
For
a
fox
to
eat
a
hare,
an
eagle
to
eat
a
51
That
men
were
actually
related to
the
gods
is an old
Greek
belief;
see
Hes.
Erg. io8;
h.
Apoll. 335-336;
Pindar Nem.
6.1
ff.
Philosophical
teaching
about
the
kinship
of
man with the
divine had
its ancestors.
52
That cannibalism
was
thoroughly
abhorrent to
the
Greeks
from
early
times
is
clear
from II.
4.34-36,
22.346-347,
24.212-213
(to
say
nothing
of the
Laestry-
gonians
and the
Cyclops);
see also
Xen. Anab.
4.8.14.
For
cannibalism
as
a
feature
of
primitive
life in the theories
of
the classical
period
see
W. K.
C.
Guthrie, In the Beginning (Ithaca, 1957) p. 95 with
n.i.
59
One
cannot be sure
whether Hesiod knew
the word
?W-ov;
most
likely
he
did. It is
first attested in Semonides
(Fr. 13 W.),
from
whom
Hesiod is not
that
far
removed
in time.
The
argument
from
silence would be
worthless
here.
8/10/2019 Renehan-The Greek Anthropocentric View of Man (HSCP 85 [1981])
18/21
256
Robert Renehan
chicken,
a shark a tuna
-
these
are to us no
more
examples
of
cannibal-
ism than
for
a
man to
eat the same
items.
And
if
an
eagle
is
a
cannibal for
eating a rabbit, a man is more so, for he is more closely related to the
rabbit.
Hesiod can
escape
the
charge
of
illogicality
only
if
we
recognize
what
his
premise
was,
that
all
animals
(or
all
fishes, beasts,
birds)
constitute
one
broad
class
(or
three)
on a
par
with
man,
so
that
mutual
conduct
within the
group
is
equivalent
to
mutual
conduct
among
men.
Presumably
when
a
lion eats
a
deer,
it
is
comparable,
say,
to a
Greek
eating
a
Trojan.
This
is not to
say
that Hesiod had
thought
all this
out.
Quite
the
contrary.
His
unconscious,
doubtless
inherited,
inclination
toward
animals
was
to
lump
them
all
together
when
brought
into
explicit
connection with man. Plato was to do the same thing; see especially
Polit.
263
C
(supra,
p.
241).
This
is
the
real
significance
of
the
passage.
It
demonstrates
a
rigid polarity,
one
in
which man
clearly
appears
superior.
He has
&K-7.
There
is a
passage
in Archilochus which
may
seem to weaken the
force
of the
Hesiodic
evidence,
Fr.
177
West
[=
94 Diehl]:
C
ZEVf,
rrTTEP
EV,
CZ
o
VeYovpaLVOvpaTOS',
%;
8' py'rtY2
)
2
v5pV
v
p
AEwpya
Kat,
GELLoTa,
ot
8e
Oijptwv
v;[pLS
TE
Kati
8LK?7
LEXEL.
This
is the
only place
in
early
Greek literature
where
38K
is
attributed
to
animals.
The
testimonium counts
for
nothing,
not
because
it is
unique,
but
because
it occurs in
afable,
that
of the fox and
the
eagle.
It
is