The Greek Anthropocentric View of Man

Robert Renehan

Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, Vol. 85. (1981), pp. 239-259.

Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0073-0688%281981%2985%3C239%3ATGAVOM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L

Harvard Studies in Classical Philology is currently published by Department of the Classics, Harvard University.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained
prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in
the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/journals/dchu.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For
more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.org
Mon May 7 15:03:22 2007
 T H E GREEK ANTHROPOCENTRIC VIEW O F MAN

W h a t is m a n without the beasts? I f all the beasts were gone, m e n would die
f r o m a great loneliness of the spirit. For whatever happens t o the beasts soon
happens to m a n .
-Chief Seattle, 1854

T 0 begin at the end. Well into the Byzantine period, probably in 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,"
[GOV A O Y L K ~ O
V V ~ T ~ VOG
V , ~ a ~ l T ~ L U sTS E$ K~ T~L K ~ VLeo
. has borrowed this
definition verbatim from the ninth-century(?) treatise of Meletius the
Monk On t h e Constitution of 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 ~ d dv0pwnov
v d p ~ [ o v ~ a"people
i, define man." Gregory
of Nyssa similarly attests the tralatitious character of the words: 76
h o y i ~ d vTOGTO[GOY d a v O P w n o ~VOGT E ~ a 2ln ~ u - m j p ~S Es K T L K ~ ETvaL
V ~ a l
n a p & TOY Z[W TOGA d y o v ~ o i ~i a 0 i' p Z j p ~ p a ~ 7 ; ~T~h e ~ definition
a i . ~ is by
no means exclusively Byzantine or Christian, scholastic though it
sounds. It is to be found in the pseudo-Galenic D e j n i t i o n e s M e d i ~ a e , ~
and Sextus Empiricus quotes it more than once.3 T h e earliest traces of
it seem to be in the pseudo-Platonic " O p o ~(415A: dlv0pwnos [@OV. . .

I should like t o thank Professor Albert Henrichs o f Harvard University for

providing m e with several helpful references.
L e o Medicus: p. 17.6 Renehan; Meletius Monachus: p. 6.23-24 Crarner;
Nemesius: p. 55 Matthaei; Gregory o f Nyssa: De Anima et Resurrectione, P G
46.52 C . T h e patristic tradition furnishes further examples o f this definition,
e.g. [Basilius Caesariensis] Contra Eunornium, P G 29.688 B ; [Athanasius] Liber
de definitionibus P G 28.534 C . I n Latin compare Tertullian A d v . Marc. 11.4.5
animal rationale intellectus et scientiae c a p m (= P L 2.289A).
= '9.355 K.
Outlines of Pyrrhonism 2.26, 2.2 I I ; Against the Logicians I 2 6 9 .
 240 Robert Renehan
&-iuTfjCLrIs
rjjs ~ a r hdyovs
d E ~ E K T L K ~ V~ U T Land
V )
in the Topics of Aristotle,
where he states with approval that one who characterizes man as a &OV

~ E~Ks T L Khas
2 i ~ i u r <S ~ I J assigned an essential p r ~ p e r t y 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 hdyos, his capacity for intellectual a c t i ~ i t y . ~
This attitude, that man is a rational animal, has been for so long an
accepted commonplace in Western culture that its specifically ~ i e e k
origin is seldom a matter of conscious reflection. I n 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 ~ @ OXVo y ~ ~ d v .
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 hdyos while the rest
are soya [@a. T h e 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 [@OVh o y i ~ d voccurs, but some historical
comments may not be out of place. T h e tendency of early Greek thought

1 3 2 ~ 1 f9f; cf. 133-20 f f , 1 3 4 ~ 1 ff.

4
The point of 8qsdv in the definition is to distinguish man from d8a'vasa ( & a ;
the particular reference(s) varied with philosophical school and period. For
instance, Diogenes Laertius 7.147 [= S V F 2.305.15-171 gives a Stoic definition
of 8 ~ d swhich begins 5 5 0 ~ d8a'vasov Aoyc~bv~ ~ A E L O~ Vs h .In the Placita of Aetius
[= Diels, Dox. Gr. p. 4321 the ~ d u p o sis described as a ~ & O V A O ~ L K d8dvasov;
~V the
ultimate source of this is the Timaeus. Christians thought also of angels; in
Nemesius (p. 55 Matthaei) man is defined as a (Sou Aoyr~bv Bqrdv, vov^ ~ a l
E'a~u77jp7)s~ E K T L K ~ .V . . h o y ~ ~ d86,
v Zva xwp~u8fi7&v d/\dywv.~ai8qsdv, iva xwp~o8fi
rGv d8ava'rwv A O ~ L K GMeletius
V. (p. 6.23 ff Cramer) copies this and adds after sGv
ci8avdrwv A O ~ L K G - V +OUV dYYiAwv. See also Theodoretus, Comm. in Ezech. I .5
(PG 81.824 B) (Sou KdEisaL A O Y L K ~~V ,a di av8pwaos ~ a di G Y Y E ~ O S .
 The Greek Anthropocentric View of M a n 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
animals dichotomy in Plato. In the Politicus the Stranger remarks c h c s
other -
p d a .rrpoO+ws 86' cTva~ (Cwv yiv7, i-d p2v &vOpL;.rr~vov,Zrcpov 82 TOY
a"hAwv uvp~dvi-wvB7plwv Zv (263C) and again, a little later in the dia-
logue, dlv0pw.xo~, (Gov 6v Zrcpov O E L ~ T E ~ O V&Ah&
, ydv7 +avhdrcpa a&Gv
vopcdouu~(271E). I n the myth in the Protagoras (321B) i-d &vOpd.rrwv
yivos is contrasted with T& dl\oya. Of particular interest is Plato's
attitude toward young children. In the Republic (441A-B), that part of
the soul called r d A O ~ L U T L K is
~ Vfound to be absent from animals (O7pla)
- and from children (naisla). The Timaeus contains a passage (44A-C)
which teaches that the soul of an infant is d;vovs at birth, the consequence
of disordered revolutions (7rcpio80~, ncpL+opal) in the soul. Only
gradually does one become ++pwv, as these revolutions become more
orderly, especially with the help of proper education (TLS dpB7j rPo+7j
~rai8cducws).In the Laws (808D) Plato actually writes that the child is
the "hardest to manage of all beasts" ( T ~ V T W V Bllplwv. . . 8 u u p c r a ~ c ~ p i -
urdi-arov). A deficiency in hoylupds suffices 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, H A 588" ff: SL(Z+C~EL 8' 038:~ As clnciv 7j $vX7j
[sc. TBV.rral8wv] T+S TBVOTPlwv $uX+s K ~ T &rdv X p d v TOGTOV.
~~ The actual
word A o y i ~ d snever occurs in Plato's works, nor is it attested for any
earlier ~ r i t e r Aristotle
.~ has it, but not the phrase (+OV X O ~ L K ~ Who V.~
first coined this expression is no longer discoverable; it seems to have
been especially popular with the stoic^.^ T h e important point is that
(GOYh o y ~ ~ d vwhatever
, its origins, was the private property of no
particular philosophical school; rather, it became common coin in the

But see n.7.

' There is one possible exception; Iamblichus V P 31 [= D.-K. VS9 1.99.11-
1 2= Arist. Fr. 192 RoseS] states that Aristotle mentioned a Pythagorean
distinction: 7 0 0 X O Y L K O ~( 4 0 " 16 ptv i u s ~B ~ d s ,s6 62 a'vOpwxos, 7 8 62 oiov 17uBaydpas.
Whether 76 A O ~ L K ~(SOY V occurred in Aristotle's Pythagoreansource or Iamhlichus
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 X O ~ L K ~&OV V [ S C . in this
very passage] betrays later terminology.") T h e main point is that Aristotle himself
does not use &ov X O Y L K ~ V as part of his own philosophical vocabulary.
According to Aetius, Placita 1.3[= Diels Dox. G r . 282.26-281 the Pytha-
goreans 70LiTov 18v 6pov ~ X O ~ L ~ ~ V XCyouo~ T E S (GOY X O Y L K ~ Y [ S C . Q I V B ~ W X O KTX.
V] This
does not mean that they were the first to d o so; see also n.7.
242 Robert Renehan
speech of educated Greeks in general. A few examples will give some
idea of its distribution. Chrysippus ap. Plut. Mor. 450D = SVF
3.95.10-12 705 X O Y L K O ~ [ ~ O c$duiv
V 78
< x ~ x pv o u~~ ~~$ u~O aE i~ SE " ~ a a ~ a
Adyw ~ a 5x6 l TO~TOV K V ~ E ~ V ~ U ~ Theol.
KT/\. ~ L Arithm. p. 25.17 ff de
Falco = Philolaos Fr. 13 D.-K. ~ a ~l i u u a p c s dPxal TOG (&v TOG
A o y i ~ 0 5O
, U X E~~ a DiAdAaos
l Epictetus 2.9.2
E'v T @ f i p l ~ ~ U E hW i Sy ~KT/\.
i
71 ~ d E'UTLV
p avOPwxos; [GOY, 4 r l ~ l , 9X O ~ L K ~OV V ~ T ~ Vcompare
; 3.1.25
a"v6pwxos E% . TOGTO 8' E'ud 0vT/7dv [@OVX ~ T ~ T L K 4
~a. Vv ~ a u l a i sAOYLKDS.
Women were explicitly included in this category, Galen 5.742K:
y v v a i ~ c s. ..~ a al h a l 5xdpxovaai X o y i ~ d [Ga, TOVT~UTLV E)rriunjTjCL7]s
~ E K T L K ~ . (Note here the explication of the shorter definition by means
of language taken from thefuller version). For some examples from the
church fathers see G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon s.v.
/ \ o y i ~ d sA.I. It is noteworthy that this entry, which fills almost two
large columns and illustrates a variety of -meanings and usages of
hoyi~db s egins with just this meaning ("rational, endowed with reason")
and phrase - A O Y L K ~ V[ &ov. By contrast, in LSJ S.V.h o y i ~ d st his sense
of the word is found in fourth place. It can be taken for granted that by
the early Christian period [@OVh o y ~ ~ dhad v long been as familiar an
expression in Greek as "rational animal" is in English.
Before proceeding it is necessary to say something about the meaning
of 5 4 0 v For T & [ @ a in general, as well as man, 76 A O ~ L K[GOY,
~ V i 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-Galenic Dejnitiones iMedicae, 19.355K.: [Gdv
EIu~iv06ula +$vXos, ~ ~ U O ~ T ~L aK0 ~'dppjlv
~ , ~ a xpoalpcuiv
l K L V O V T ~ C L E ' V ~A
.~~
long tradition of speculation lies behind that arid formulation ; the same
holds true of Proclus' dogmatic pronouncement in his Neoplatonic
catechism, the Institutio Theologica, proposition 70 (p. 66. 18-20
Dodds): 8 ~ydp i . . . y~vbuOaixp&ov o*v, [&ov, E%TU ~ v O p w x o v .~ a l
av8pwnos O;KC!TL ~ U T L V&xo/\ixoduTIsT$S /\OYLK$S W S , 82 <UTLV
~ V V ~ T ~ C L E(@ov
ZCLxviov~ a aloOavdTjCLrvov.
l These passages set forth what had come to be
the orthodox Greek view of animals. As man is distinguished by his
possession of reason, so animals are distinguished by their possession of
the faculty of sensation, aiuOrluis. Occasionally the generic term [@ov
could include plants, ~d ~ I J Tas~ well.
, Plato in the Timaeus, 77B, writes
x 6 v y&p oobv & r i x ~ p6v T ~ C L E T ~705
U X($v,
~ [@ovT ~ C 6v
L~VE'v ~ I / \ Ki y o~i ~ o d p 6 d ~ a ~ a ,

&a; here is equivale~itto 4aol, "people say," one more indication o f how
familiar the expression was. For this use o f +~ur'see Rh. Mus. 113.1970.84.
lo T h e definition is repeated in Nemesius (p. 55 Matthaei), Meletius (p. 6.24-
2 5 Cramer), Leo (p. 17.7 Renehan), and no doubt elsewhere.
 The Greek Anthropocentric View of Man 243
and he has r d +UT& explicitly in mind there.ll (The passage is not typical
of Plato's usage.) T h e famous fragment ( I 17 D.-K.) in which Empe-
docles proclaims that 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 ~h +UT& are excluded from the category of
<+a.12 Compare Plato, Phaedo 70D p < pdvov ~ a r a'vOpdrrwv
' . . .d h d ~ a l
~ a r 54wv
d ~TTdvrwv~ a+v~C;)V,
i ~ aauM7jfl6qv
l 6aarrep :x~i Y ~ v ~ aAristotle
i~.
is quite precise about this. P A 6 ~ 3 ~ 2ff:3 76 ydp [+ov dPi[dCLe6ar+
a~aOqai~ P.A 666e34 76 pav [&OV atuO7juei J p i a r a ~ .By this
criterion rd +VT& are not [&a,De Anima 41 5-2 :TOG 6' a l a O q r ~ ~ oXGw p l ( ~ r a i
76 OPerrri~dvE)v TOTS +urois. Just as Greeks sharply discriminated be-
tween men and animals, so they had a similar inclination to separate
animals and plants more rigidIy than is usual among many early peoples
(or present-day "primitives").13 T h e very word (&ov reveals how
pronounced this tendency was. Etymologically, the 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
h l y o i ~ odpOdrara, for that is technical language with specific reference
to the d p O 6 d~ v~d p~a r o ~the
, true sense of the word.14 Greek modes of
thought imposed a narrower meaning upon <+OV than it otherwise
would have had. This is neatly illustrated by a sentence in Aristotle,
G A 73 I b4-5 : Sia+lpri 6' alaO7joci r d (+a rC;)v [dvrwv pdvov. (See also
P A 681-13 ff; De Anima 413~4.)According to the normal rules of
Greek 5-8 (+a and T& [C;)v~ashould have been synonymous; in practice
(+ov, often, is interchangeable rather with Oqplov. Latin animal and
English "animal" acquire their usual meanings, again against the
etymology, directly from Greek ( $ 0 ~ . Our phrase "animal, vegetable,

l1 Tim. goA . . . +tis . . . J s & a s +v.rbu o 6 E'yye~ou

~ a'MA o6pdurou is a different
matter.
l2 Cf. A. E. Taylor on PI. Tim. 77A 5. A chapter in the doxographic Placita
of Aetius (Diels, Dox. Gr. p. 438) is entitled I I G s 765407 T& +UT& ~ a e i [+a. It
begins 1 7 X d ~ w uO d < s ~ aT&i +VT& TP$uXa (+a. The only other philosopher adduced
for such a view is Empedocles.
l3 This, as a statement of the usual Greek outlook, is true enough, but like
all generalities, it runs a risk of oversimplification. T h e Greeks were on occasion
capable of more flexibility in this regard. See especially Aristotle's remarks in
H A ~ 8 8 ff, +
~ 4OZTU 6' E)K 7 0 u a'$dxwu E;S TA (+a f i ~ ~ a , ! ? a i uK~~~T &P L K ~ ~ U+do's . . . 4
62 p~sd,!?ao~s it a6.rGu [sc. TGU +vrGu] els T& (+a ovvcx.is ~ U T L U A . ristotle has in mind
such animals as the nlv, d ~ a h + + ? , and ondyyos. Cf. Nemesius p. 42 Matthaei:
r d .rorav^.ra n d v ~ a[wd+vra ~ d e i u200s EIXOUULY 01 n d a i o i TGV oo+Gu. (The term
( W ~ + U T O U is interesting, but Nemesius appears to be in error when he attributes
it to "oi n d a r o i . " LSJ cite it only as a variant in one passage of Sextus Empiricus.
Aristotle already had the concept, but not the word.)
l4 For this use of adverbial dpOGs see Burnet on PI. Phd. 67B 4.
244 Robert Renehan
mineral" is a good example of the persistence of this Greek influence.15
T o return to the polarity which is a principal concern of the present
paper, that between man, the rational animal, and the irrational animals,
~d X O ~ L K <&OV
~ Y and T& GXoya <&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. T o 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. 1n another 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."lg 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 T A c i v a y ~ a i a ,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 Grekks, whatever the causes, thought otherwise. T h e
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 aiaendum sollertia est.lg 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 TOM^ T A S E L Vchorus ~ of Sophocles, was
doubtless one factor, but it cannot be the whole explanation of this.

l5 Here too a change from the Greek attitude is discernible in our times. I n
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.
l B At least in Western societies; I do not feel competent to comment on the
Orient.
Sir James George Frazer, The Golden Bough3 (1935)~ pt. V, v01. 2, p. 3x0.
l RK.17 above, p. 204.
l9 Ep. 121.24.
 The Greek Anthropocentric V i m of :Van 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 +&LS which, among its other meanings, came to be
used in the sense of animal instinct, as in Democritus Fr. 278 D.-K.
66hov 82 ~ a rlo i s ~ O L [ S~ O L U . nLd v r a y d p Z K ~ O V~ ~r h r a iK ~ T &( ~ ~ U L V
E'nw+chcirls ye o i ) S ~ ~ €i h~ ~€ K c Then,
L. as now, seemingly intelligent
animal activity was often explained away as instinctive, as, quite
simpIy, "natural"; animals behaved as they did +duel. This attitude
appears crystallized in the Corpus Hermeticum 12.1 08ros 62 d voCs 2v
~ h &vOp&no~s
v Ocids ~ U T .L . . f)v 82 r o i s C L I ~ ~{ O
~LOSL7j S+ ~ U L S2uriv. Not
all thinkers were prepared to leave it at that. Aristotle recognized
intelligence ( + p d ~ v ~not
~ s vov^s)
, 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, " + p d ~ r l ~as i s it
exists in animals involves no Xdyos. But its existence in animals, in this
wider sense, is pointed out even in the Ethics ( I 141~26; cf. De Gen. An.
7 53-1 I)." And again "in man a new activity sometimes occurs, which
never occurs in the lower animals. A man may grasp the u n i v e r ~ a l . " ~ ~
Even the possibility that animals actually possessed hdyos 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 @ v ~ T & l e a was a X O ~ L K ~@Vo v ; 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.) T h e
doxographical handbooks summarized the opinions of philosophers on
this question; there still survives in one such handbook a chapter
heading IIdua y l v v [ G w v Kale1 n d v r a alu07r6 ~ a Al O ~ L TK h~e church . ~ ~
father Epiphanius relates that the Peripatetic Strato of Lampsacus T&V
&ov EYE VOC ~ E K T L K ~e Vl v a ~ T. h ~ e~very language (voC ~ E K T L K ~ provesV )

20 W . D . ROSSon Ar. Met. 980b21 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. 9 6 1 A =

Strato, Fr. I 1 2 Wehrli.

246 Robert Renehan
that this is a deliberate rejection of the "orthodox" definition of man. It
is explicitly so in Sextus Empiricus: &UOL Z qbau~ov&v0pwrov E ~ V @OV ~ L

X O ~ L K ~ OvT/rdv,
V V . OGV 8 c i ~ v u r a2v
YOU^ ~ a El ) n ~ u r < p ~S sE K T L K ~E)ml ~ r@
rPTTP;ryrjjs E)roX$s rpdrWOnr~ 038lv GUTL ( $ 0 ~ZAoyov, ~ a vo6
l ~
a l
E ) x L u ~ < ~ ~ s ~ E K T L K~ ~U T rcivra
L K T X . ~Such
~
pronouncements tend to occur
in polemical contexts; they are, in short, exceptions that prove the
general rule. T o most educated Greeks man had become the X O Y L K ~ V
l &c o v .
4

T h e 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 " ~ ~ V OT V ~ (CWV
V ~ V Q ~ W ~ T Otopos.
S " 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

2 3 Outlines of Pyrrhonism 2.26. In another passage Sextus has an amusing

encomium canis in which he attempts t o demonstrate against the Stoics that, o n
their o w n premises, this poor creature possesses all the intellectual qualities o f
humans ( I .62 f f ) . Empedocles was ridiculed b y Sextus for an even more extreme
view: ' E P m 8 o ~ A i j s BTL ~ a ~ a 8 o [ d ~ € x~dov rva i ( i o u A O ~ L K &T U ~ X ~ Y E L V~ a oi i & a
pdvov LM& ~ a $UT& l );?T(;)s y p d b w v " x d v r a y&p ZUOL + p d v ? u ~ v ZXELV~ a vchParos
l aiuav."
[= Fr. I 10.10 D.-K.]. (Against the Logicians 2.286.) For Anaxagoras' views o n
voOs 2v a"xauc. r o i s &ors see Aristotle, De Anima 4 0 4 ~ 1ff, Met. 9 8 4 b ~ 5 ff; for
Archelaus see Diels-Kranz V S 11.46.23-24 ( X p i j u 8 a i y&p Z K ~ U T O VK Q ~T&V [GWVTG
" 8 ) . O n the question o f animal intelligence see further T h o m a s Cole, Democritus
and the Sources of Greek Anthropology [= American Philological Association
Monograph 251 (1967),p. 8 1 , n.5.
24 A n d , curiously, Protagoras' famous dictum (Fr. I ) , x d v ~ w vX p 7 p d ~ w v p i r p o v
( ~ 7 1& ~ Q p w ~ o sm, a y be no documentation at all, first appearances notwith-
standing. For, according t o the commonest interpretation o f that fragment
( w i t h which I agree), the meaning is that each individual m a n is the judge o f
the reality o f appearances for himself, a theory o f extreme epistemological
subjectivism, a'vQpw.rros here means any given m a n as opposed t o any other, not
humans in general as opposed t o other & a . So, e.g., Plato, Crat. 385D-386.4,
Theaet. I ~ I f fE; see also Theaet. 161'2, Legg. 7 1 6 C Aristotle gives his opinion
o f this t h e o ~ yat AV1et. 1053b3 : 0 6 8 2 ~8 4 A i y o v ~ ~T Es P L T T ~ V $ a l v o v ~ a iT L A ~ ~ E L v .
 The Greek Anthropocentric View of Man 247
unique characteristic of man . . ." ( Z ~ L O V civOPd.rrov EIurlv). 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 cilv0pw.rros itself. Plato, Crat. 399C: uvpalvci ro+ro rd 5vopa d
dlv~pwnos6ri r d pav %a erlpla 5 v dp$ 0 6 8 2 ~E)TLUKOXE? 068; &vahoyl[cra~
0682 &va0pci,d 8; dlv0pwnos d p a d d p a ~ c - v rov^ro 6' 2ur1 [rd]"6nw.rrc"-
~ a &va@pci
l ~ a hoyL![crai
l TOGTOi; $nwncv . d v r c ~ ~ 84c v pdvov r&v 017pkwv
dpOi,s d civ0pw.rros "~v0pw.rros" ~ A v o p d u 0 civa0pDv
~, 2 6.rrw.rr.z. 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, ia D.-K. [= Theophr. De Sensibus
251 : av0pw.rrov ydp + 7 p ~ T
i CV %WV [SC. [ ~ w v6ia+lpc~v
] Onri pdvov [ U V I ~ U L ,
rd 8' %a alu0dvcrai plv, 06 [ V V ~ ~8 iU. The
L Homeric evidence will be
considered below. Bv the time of Aristotle it seems to have become a
well-established commonplace, as appears from Politics 1253~9ff:
hdyov 82 pdvov hvOpwxos 2 x ~ ~ r C j v 5 4 ~ ~ .
. . r o C ~ oydp npds r d %a [+a 70;s
& ~ 8 ~ d 7 T o%LOV,
ls TA ~ ~ V O&ya80v^
V K ~ KL ~ K O ~Ka; ^ 8lKak0~Kal & ~ L K O V Kal
7 t h &UWV aZuOr/uiv i)Xciv. Similarly, in the pseudo-Platonic Dejinitions,
41 gA, to which reference has already been made: dl~0~w.rros [+OV h ~ r c p o v ,

8L!.rrovv,nha~vdvv~ov .o" pdvovrCjv 6 v ~ w Ev ) n i ~ r ~ p ~ s~r ;aj rs hdyovs

d ~ E K T L K ~ V
2u~c.v.T he historian Polybius alludes to the belief: TOG ydp y y d TDV ~ ~ ~ ~
&vOpdnwv~ a d r 8ia+lpov~os
y rDv dlhhwv [ ~ w v8, pdvois a 6 ~ 0 i p s i ~ c u YOU^
r~
~ ahoy~uPov^
l K T ~ The
. ~ ~Christian fathers were happy to take over this
concept, for it seemed quite in harmony with the Scriptures. T o give
one example, Cyril of Alexandria (PG 76.1068C ff): pdvos ydp aatjlds
K ~ .S. . ~ a r rd
rapd ndvra r d E'nl y f s [+a ~ O ~ L E'uri d clvai [+OV h o y i ~ d v~, a l
~ a O dq3ihdPcrov, ~ a TGVi E'n-l y.js & p X i ~ d vE',v c l ~ d v iBe05 .rrc.rroifuOai

2 5 Peoples directly influenced b y Greece are o f course no exception. It should

be noted that such "pdvos" locutions are used also o f the gods, and especially o f
Zeus. Fr. Adesp. Eleg. Z I W .Z E ~~ S~ V T Wa Vh d s + d p p a ~ apoCvos ZXCL. Thespis Fr.
3.3 Snell -rd 6' 486 poCvos [sc. Zcds] 0 t h E'nLosasa~. Ion Fr. Trag. 55.2 Snell Zpyov
8' o"oov Zeds pdvos E(PL'UT~T(IL BE&v. 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. C f . Peace 590, Birds 1546, Th. I 141, Ek. 12." Ussher
on Ar. Eccl. 7-9 quotes Orph. H. 87.8 (Abel) E(v 00;y&p po6vw T ~ W W VTZ) K P L B ~ V
rrhotka~.
28 6.6.4, cited by T. Cole [above,n.231, pp. 8c-81. It is indicative o f the neglect
to which this topos has been subject that Cole omits pdvocs in his translation
("For, since the human race differsfrom the other animals in this, that it partakes
in the faculties o f reason and calculation . . .").
248 Robert Renehan
ALy~~aiT . ~h' e etymology of a ~ 0 ~ w x which os first appears in the Cratylus
survived intact late into the Byzantine period, as, for instance, in the
so-called Etymologicum Magnum S.V. a ~ 0 ~ w x o rs a: p & 76 ~ V W&Opeiv,
<
i y o u v / l A L x ~ i v. pdvos yAp 7 G v ~ X W V[ ~ W dV~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~V /Wxl X L0 x ~si . r a p &
7 d & ~ a @ ~ 2€ 2 a€l6€
~ T W X E V , jiYouv & v a hi ov y ~ [ ~ u @ i ~ a ~ lK O U U C ,7 G v a h w v
5 4 w v p 4 Xoyi[oplvwv ~ a npovoovpLvwv
i KTX.~'
An appreciation of rational speech, Xdyos in its external manifestation,
was particularly characteristic of Greek thought. T h e "hymn" in
praise thereof which Isocrates inserts in the Nicocles (3.5-9, repeated in
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 ( T & [ @ a ) . In the Panegyricus
(4.47-50) a similar encomium occurs; the topos turns up in c. 48: 7 0 ~ 7 0
pdvov E([ &T$VTWV TGV [ ~ W ~V ~ L O~ Vq h p ~~)XOVTES.
v Note how Isocrates
expresses the commonplace with his customary fullness of expression
(inclusion of both formulae, pdvov . . . [ ~ W andV ZGiov, the addition of
the preposition 26 and of ~ T ~ V T W V )Xenophon,
. &lem. 1.4.12: ~ a p+l
y ~ ~ 7 7 $Y vE T$VTWV
TGV [ ~ W EV( ~ ~ V T W p
V~, v 7 vT ~ TGV
V &VO~;TWV ~ T O ~ ~ U ~ V
[sc. OL &ol] orav ~ L M O T Ea;\haxfj $adouuav TOG u ~ d p a ~ o&pf?poCv s 7~ T ~ V

+wv+ ~ a u 7i ] p a l v e i v x & v ~&XX7jXois

a 2 ~ o u X d p ~ 0SO
a . too Ar. H A ~ 3 1-2.
6 ~
Anatomical and physiological features which 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. H A 518~18ff: ~ l u 62 l TGV TPLXGVa l p2v U V ~ ~ E V E a~ lS 6',
;UTE~OV ~ a 7 T d&S ? j X i ~ l aysi Y v d p ~ v a i2v $vOPCjxW pdvW TGV [ ~ w v Sensitiv-
.
ity to certain odors, those which do not contribute to the acquisition of
food, but are merely pleasant in themselves, is peculiar to man, Ar.
De Sensu 444-3 ff: TOGTOp i v OSVrd duq3pav~dv2 i o v &v0p;xov E(u7lv . . .
a b i o v 62 706 Z6iov ~ l v &a V~~ ~ W T O UT ~ ~V o i a d d~u~p 3vv Si& T ~ ] V $d(iv T+V
xepL T ~ VEIY~Lq3aX~~.2g The Hippocratic treatise O n Ancient Medicine
points out that man's food is different from that of all other animals;

27 G e n . I :26. " A n d G o d said, L e t us make m a n in our image, after our

likeness: and let t h e m have dominion over the fish o f the sea, and over the fowl
o f t h e 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 o n quite a different level from that o f the Greeks. G o d
is conceived anthropomorphically - t h e "image" and "likeness" is a literal one
- and man's "dominion" is not explicitly justified b y his unique possession o f a
rational intellect. Indeed, i n chapter three o f Genesis the serpent outwits and
deceives homo sapiens.
2 8 C f . Etymologicum Gudianum s.v. a ' ~ 8 ~ w r r o( s
p . 147.8-10 De Stefani),especially
the phrase rdvos d a'v8pwnos a'vo phdrrci.
2 9 C f . A . E . Taylor o n PI. Tim. 67Az ( p p . 474-475).
 The Greek Anthropocentric V i m of Man 249
the discovery of the science of medicine itself is intimately linked by the
author with this fact.30 T h e "leaping" of the heart in anticipation of
what is to come is confined to man, Ar. PA 669'19 ff: GV dv0p&nw . . TE . ,
ovCL,Balve~t~dvov,As etneiv, ~d.7.ljs nTS7juews 8r.h76 ~ ~ d v 2v o vMnlSt ylveuea~
~ a 7ip0080Kla
l TOG C L I M ~ vK ~T oA ~. ~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. T h e observation of these phenomena
and the realization of their significance were in fact brilliant achieve-
ments. Xen. Mem. 1.4.11 : ~ ~ d v oTGV v 54wv ~ V ~ ~ W T dp0d.v O V hviu~~oav
[SC. 01 8€0l]. . . 2 n e t ~ aTois $v 6;\hots 9 x e ~ o i nd6as
s 2 6 w ~ a v. . . h v 8 p d n y
82 ~ a xeipas
l npooleeuav. Ar. PA 687"4 ff: elpqrat ~ a 8tdrt l pdvov dpOdv
E)UTL T&V 54wv d & V ~ ~ W T O .S dPe+ 8' SVTL7"ljv +&LV 038epla Xpela u ~ e X & v
TGVE ) C L 7 1 P ~ u hM1
0 1 ~ ~hvr;
, r o ~ r w ~ , B ~ a ~~l a vl a ~ d n 0 8 i 8 w ~ e 7vj 4
6 0 ~ s .
oxeipas
'Avataydpas p2v O ~ V+TUL 8th rd. xeipas ~ X ) X E L+V p ~ v ~ p c h ~ a elvar.
rov
r0v

5 4 w v $v8pwxov . e ~ h o y o v62 St& rd. ~ P ~ v ~ p c h r €bar.

a ~ o vxeipas haPfidvetv

KTX. SO also Galen, De Usu Partium 3. I [= 3.168 Kuhn] xeipas 84

,~dvos( L X ~ V T W V <+WV ~ V ~ ~ W 2oXev,
X O S Spyava nplnovra DO++ 54y
.6lnovv
8' a37d C L ~ V O VE)v 702s ne{ois E)ydvero ~ a dpedv,
l GTL xeipas 2oXev; ib. 1.3
[= 3.5 Kuhn] OCTW CL2v oo4chrarov TGV {+wv d av0pwnos, O C T ~62 ~ a l
xeipes Spyava n p i n o v ~ a 54yuo+&. This Greek recognition of a connec-
tion between hands and intelligence is particularly remarkable.32 T h e
derivative account of human progress- in the first book of Diodorus
-

Siculus refers to man, e3+vei [ & J ~ a ovvepyo3s

l 2 x ~ v rnpds
~ Znav~a
xeipas ~ a hdyov
- - l
--
~ a +l q $ s &yXlvor.av(1.8.9).T h e collocation is note-
worthy; compare the similar collocation in On Ancient Medicine I :

Kal Ka7h Y V & ~ ~O ~VT ,' ~8;W ~ a E'T;

r$lPovoLv KaTh x€ipa l i T I ~ P L ~Explicit
7j~.
-----.-
awareness of the special connection of hands with man can already be
seen in the familiar fragment [IS D.-K.] of Xenophanes which begins
hhh' € xeipas 2x0" Bdes 1 (Innor. T')+ Xlovres / jj yPd+ar. Xelpecro~ at
<pya reheiv ;reP ~ V S ~ KTX. E S Galen returns again and again to the
uniqueness of man's upright posture. De Usu Partium 3.2 [= 3.179
Kiihn] dpOds 62 p5vos 54wv dxdvrwv d gvOpwnos, pdvw yhp a37@ ~ a r € '
T&VUKEAGV 7j , & L X ~E ) su T ~ v ; see also ib. 15.8[= 4.251 Kiihn]. He makes the
further point that man alone can sit with ease on the hip bones, ib.
3.1 [= 3.173 Kuhn] ~ a rd. ~ w7 s0 v luXlwv p d ~ W
i ~aOi[eaOar.~ ~ q o l E)nl
Chapter 3 ; note especially the wording in the clause ei E)(+KEL I+ dv0pLnq
r a t h i io0Lovr~K ~ nL b o v r ~p o t r e K ~ Trrrrq
L ~ a nla o ~ vE)KT&Sdv0pCjnov.
31 C f . L S J S.W. r r 7 6 i w II, n+?q.~a II, nrj87ors II.
3 2 For some o f the modern literature on this topic see T . Cole [above, n.231,
p . 40 and notes. Contemporary evolutionary theory would o f course side with
Anaxagoras against Aristotle. For Aristotle on hands see also De Anima 432-1 ff.
250 Robert Renehan

pdvos CXci. AS late as the fourteenth century the commonplace was

still being repeated; Ioannes Catrares ap. Diels-Kranz V S 11.137.22-23 :

~ L ~ V OT&V
S ~ ~ A Sw ~v W yV l v c ~ a Ti d fJx?~a dp6ds K U ~npds dAly0V y ? ~~ ~ ~ €
7 ~ 1 .

Various other distinctive human characteristics are mentioned. Man

is the animal who laughs. Pollux 6.200 : y f A a a ~ i ~ dozrw s . ydp dplcov~ai~ d v
avOpwrrov, 671 pdvos El[ & T ~ V T W V TCV 5 4 YEA+. ~ ~Iamblichus, Protrepticus
2 1 , ~ ~&' v: O P ~ ~1'8iovnap&
ov T B tlhha <&a 0 5 ~ 0[sc.s d ykhws] (o'pl[ov~ai yoGv
T L V E S ~ & O V a ; ~ dy c h a a ~ i ~ d~v? v a i.). . &AX& p ~ p 7 u i v6 ~ o CKUT& ~d 8 v v a ~ d v
KT&C#JiAoaoC#JCv ~ aTOG l t 6 i d p a ~ oTsO ~ ' T O U TCV&v8pdnwvJ n r ~ ~ w p c~jTvP O K P -
b w v T E ~d A O ~ L K705 ~ V ~ E ~ ~ U T L K O VEL)?^ S L ~ K ~ L U~ L aV8ia+opdv
l npds ~d AoinB
( & a . Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Pyrrhonism 2.211, refers to the {&ov
d v , Lucian, Vit. Auct. 26, states iv8pwnos p2v y c A a a ~ i ~ d v ,
y E A a u ~ ~ ~and
5vos 8; 03 y c h a a ~ i ~ d Pseudo-Basilius
v. (PG 29.688C) sets out a syllo-
gism in embryo: i'8tov 6 2 &v8pdrrov ~d y c A a a ~ i ~ d KvU, ; €1' T L Y ~ A a u ~ i ~ d v ,
av8pwrros. Uncommon, but perceptive, is the observation made by
"Simonides" in Xenophon's Hiero (7.3): .. - l P O L 8 0 ~ .~. ;. T O ~ T ~ J
~ a ydp
. . .
8~aC#Jkpc~v & v I ) TCV
~ aMwv S ~ W V T, & ~ i p i j sd P k y ~ u 6 a i Man . alone grasps
logical consequences, is "critical," Plut. 386 F: EL' ye T + ~ Sp2v
Jncip&ws TCVn P a y P d ~ w;v) X ~~ i a l 817pla ~ & yvCaiv, &tcoAod8ov 82 8cwplav
K U ~K ~ ~ O L&v6pdnw
V 4
pdvW T U ~ C L ~ ~ ~ W KC#J~OLS. E V And man alonehas freewill,
Marcus Aurelius 10.28 : pdv? T & A O ~ L K5CW @ 8 k 8 o ~ ardi ~ K O U ~ ~~Wn SE a 6 a ~
Tois Y i ~ ~ ~ ~d i ~ , $iAdv n&iv 6 v a y ~ a i o v .Religion is pecu-
i v82~ Crr~uBai
liar to man, Xen. Mem. I .4.13, Plato, Protag. 322A d Zv6pwnos . . . [Cwv
pdvov 8 ~ 0 ; s2vdpia~v(imitated by Philostratus, V A 8.7.7 t~dvov5 4 w v
) ~ ~more fully, AZenex. 237D: avviuri T E S X E ~ ~ XTCV
8 ~ 0 ; s o l 8 ~ and, EL
~ W w [sc.-v [Cwv]
. ical ~ I K ~~ av 6rods
l ~ d v o vvopi[ri. The use of 6 1 ~ in
7 this
latter passage is significant. 6 1 in~ the ~ sknse of "justice" is not an
Attic usage (= ~ L K ~ L O U T~&V8LKaia),
~ , and, where it is found in Attic,
deliberate archaizing should be Here Plato may very well
have in mind ~ e s i o dwho , expresslydistinguished man from animals by
virtue of the fact that man has 6 ; and ~ do not (Erga 276--280, on
~ they
which see below). T h e Christians went beyond earlier thinkers by
applying "man alone of animals" to specifically Christian religious
beliefs. So Nemesius, p. 55 Matthaei: L'S'ov 6: a3rov' [sc. &v8pdrrov]~ a l
2 [ a l P ~ 7 0K ~U ~76 t~dvov'rev &%h~ 54wv ~d T O ~ T O U pa ~ E T & 8a'va~ov

33 See m y Studies in Greek Texts.Hypomnemata 43 (Gottingen, 1976), p. 123.

a4 AS, for example, in the religiously conservative language o f the Laws 777D

d . . . a@wv T+V S L ' K ~ V [ U ~ P ~ ~aEhL0V is uncommon in Attic prose], 887B ~ L K T V

 The Greek Anthropocentric View of M a n 25 1

ctvlu~auOai~ a 6:s l ct8avaulav xwpciv. That this is a conscious extension

of traditional notions is shown by the fact that Nemesius goes on, almost
at once, to add 2 6 1 ~6; a&roC~ ar dl 7 8 v T E X V ~ VT E ~ aEl) X L U T ~ pa07jpara,
~&V
~ a ali ~ a r dT ~ rkXvas
S ra&-as EIv~py~iai. The human discovery of the
various arts and sciences had been a commonplace since at least the
fifth century B.C.
T h e 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
5 Protag. 322A Inci87j 82 d dlVOPw~osOclas ~ E T ~ U Xpolpas,
d e i t ~ . ~P1. E
n p 8 r o v p2v 8id T;/V TOG BEOC u u y y k v ~ i a v[ ~ W pdvov
V 6 ~ 0 ; sI V ~ ~ L U E V.
Ar.
P A 656"s ff i j pdvov [sc. ~d ri3v &vOph.irwvykvos] ~ E T ~ X ETOG L O~lou 78v
4 p i v yvwplPwv [ ~ w vi j, p d h i u ~ a.irdvrwv. Ib. 686a27ff dpOdv $V ydP IUTL
pdvov 7 8 v S ~ W V6 ~ d7 6 T;/V @ULV i oirulav c l v a ~Oclav . 2pyov

a&oC ~ a r;/v
62 705 ~ E K ~ L~ $ ~ o v c i Cleanthes,
L O ~ ~ T 76
O VV O E ~ v.~~
Hymn to Zeus vv.
4-5, p. 227 Powell [= SVF 1.121.37f ] EIK UOC ydp ykvos Iupkv, t $ X ~~t
p l t ~ ~ phaXdvrcs
a / ~ O C V O L&a, [;EL T E ~ a ;p;o.rr~i
l O V ~ T ' E l ~ ly a i a ~ . ~MUSO-
'
nius Rufus ap. Stob. 5.1057 Hense [= Fr. 17 Hense], ~ a e d h o v6 2
&Opw.iros plp7pa p2v OEOC pdvov T&V E ) X L ~ E ~ W V E ) U T ~ V . ~ ~Galen, De Usu
Partium 1.2[= 3.3 Kiihn], ao+dv ydp TOCTO 76 &ov [SC. ZVO~WTOS]~ a l
pdvov T ~ IT; V yijs O~iov.Ib. 13.1I [= 4.126127Kiihn], &vOphrrq~, SL~TL
h o y ~ ~ dIUTL
v T;/V +uX;/v 76 [@ov ~ a Ociov l v 2rrl y+s. Genesis
~ ~ d v oT&V
I :~6~~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. T h e 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
hdyos -the usual touchstone of the divine in man -as a peculiar
prerogative of men. Oratio ad Graecos, c. 15:ZUTL ydp U V O ~ W T O S oGX,

35 For a brief discussion, with references, o f this latter concept see HSCP
68. I 964,383-384.
36 C f . also EN I 177~26-31;I 1 5 3 ~ 3 i2s different:n d w a y i p + E L ~ X E LT L B~iov.
37 Verse 5 is modeled on 11. I 7.447 = Od. 18.131,n d v ~ w vo"ooa T E yaiav T ? ~ L
VVEL'EL T E ~ a ~i ~ ' P ? T
ThEeL preceding
. verse in the Odyssey is oljsdv ~ K L ~ V ~ T E ~ O V
yaia TPEI+EL d v B P ~ n o ~the
; corresponding line in the Iliad is a comparably
lugubrious specimen o f pessimismus Homericus. Imitation o f a verse from these
Homeric contexts strongly suggests that Cleanthes intends here a conscious
correction o f Homer.
38 C f . A. C. van Geytenbeek, Musonius Rufus and Greek Diatribe (Assen,

19s6931, P . 24.
~ a El ~ E Vd B E ~ Sn o ~ . r j o w p wlvh'pwnov K~T' EiKdva T j p ~ ~ & p a~v a ~l a 8 ' d p o l w o ~ v ;
compare above, n.27.
 252 Robert Renehan

oGxl ~ d o"po~a
v r o i s 1 4 0 ~~s ~ d r r o v r&Xhd
a ,
rdv .rrdppw ~ ~ v & ~ ~ ~ w . r r d r ~ r o s . r r ~ d s
airrdv 82 r d v ecdv K E X W ~ ~ K ~The T ~ contrast
.
between men and other [&a
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 pIp77pa motif
one step further, De Usu Partium 1.22 [= 3.80 Kuhn] a&& [sc. T@
7 r 1 e 7 j K W ] r d udp7rav a G p a pIprIpa Y c A ~ i d ~U~ T L V&vOpd.rrov. Evidently he
considered the point of some importance, for he repeats it more than
once. Ib. 15.8 [= 4.252 Kuhn] p l p q p a ydP ychoiov &vBp~.rrov[@ov
E ' 8 ~ 8 C f ( a ~~ T~Cv ~ ~ X O; Vsee also 3.16 [= 3.264-265 Kiihn], I 1.2 [= 3.848
Kiihn]. 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., T L Q ~ ~ K W dV ~ d h h ~ u r oa lsu X p d s d v 8 p d ~ w vY&EL u v p ~ ~ c ~ v . ~ ~
Thus we conclude this sampling of the "pdvov r G v [ ~ W aVv O P ~ . r r o ~ "
topos. It would not be difficult to quadruple these specimens, so
thoroughly and rigorously anthropocentric had the Greek mind
bec0me.~1If 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 ( $ 0 ~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. T h e 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: ~ d d s70L n l 8 u v ?rap& naralv,

ak1 ~ a h d r .
Numerous examples could also be adduced f r o m Latin sources directly
influenced b y the Greek. Suffice t o mention, exempli gratia, Pliny's ~Vatural
History, preface t o Book V I I (. . . ante omnia unum animantium . . . uni animan-
tium . . . uni . . . uni . . . uni . . . uni . . . uni . . . uni . . .).
4 2 A t least so far as is known at present. I f earlier foreign systems existed, they

hardly influenced Aristotle's original researches.

 The Greek Anthropocentric View of Man 253

sake. For that one must go to A r i ~ t o t l e 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, 1253~3 1-32: T E X E W ~ E ~~S~ ~ A T L U T OT&V
V ~ V Q ~ W ~E)UTLV. T ~ S

What distinguishes man is, of course, the intellectual faculty in his soul,
De Anima 414~1&19, & ~ ~ O L 82 S ~ a 76 i ~ L ~ V O ~ J T LTEK ~ ~V a vov^s,
l otov
&vBPdno~s~ a €'I l TL TOLO~^TOV Z T E ~ O V~ U T L V$ T L ~ L ~ T E ~ OButV . even in the
zoological treatises, this bias appears, GA 737b26 ff: vi?v 8' &nd T&V
n p d ~ w va ' p ~ ~ k onvp D ~ o v. CUTL 82 T& T U E L <&a~ np&a, ~ o ~ a 82 h aT&
<WOTOKO~~VT~ ~, aT Ol ~ T W VavBPwnos TPOTOV.I n these treatises, as we have
seen, man is singled out as a "divine" animal; above all, it is in them
that the "man alone of animals" motif occurs so often. Accuse Aristotle
of some inconsistency, if you will; there is no doubt of man's special
status in all Aristotle's thought. Moreover, he taught explicitly that
plants and animals existed for man's benefit, Politics 1256~15ff:
O ~ ~ T ~76O TEV $VT& TDV( ~ W V &EKEV E?V(ZL ~ aT& l ;Ma (@aTGVa'v8pdnwv
XGLV . . . a ' v a y ~ a i o vTGV 8v8pdnwv ~ V E K E Va&& n a ' v ~ ai r c n o ~ r J ~ 6 v~aj ~/ v
$durv. T h e Stoics adopted the same position, S V F 2.333.22-24:
irpo7yov~kvws V 8 ~ 82
y&p ~d A O ~ L K ~(&ov, d ~ j / va 6 ~ o fX
i p ~ l a Kv T ~ ~ V~~ Ja l
T& Gird T$S y$s $udCLeva. Such dogma was gladly adopted by the
Christians who could read in Genesis that God had given man dominion
over the rest of creation. It is no accident that the Stoic fragment just
cited has been preserved by Origen.
Of considerable interest is the fact that the tendency to regard man,
4 3 Cf. W. D. ROSS,A ristotle6 (1959), p. 114: "Not only was Aristotle the first
person to whom it occurred to collect the available information about the
animal species, but he was also the first to undertake the problem of their
classification." Ross gives a good summary of Aristotle's views. T h e difficult
question of the Aristotelian classification of animals, which has a literature of
its own, does not concern us here. T o what extent, indeed whether, Aristotle
constructed one consistent taxonomic system is not the point. I t is rather that
the main outlines of a general division of animals into certain basic orders
is discernible in his writings, and that man can be placed into one of these
orders.
4 4 Hermes 106.1978.479-480.
254 Robert Renehan
especially because of his intellect, as quite discrete from animals
appears already in the oldest extant works of Greek literature. T h e
anthropocentric attitude is not a creation of Greek philosophy. Here, as
often, the professional philosophers merely developed into coherent
theory old, half-expressed beliefs deeply rooted in the Greek conscious-
ness. I n the Odyssey, when Odysseus' men are turned into swine by
Circe, the poet describes them as follows: ot 82 ou&v p2v 2 x K~E +~$ \ ~ ~
+wvrjv TE i-plxas TE / ~ aGkpas,
l a 3 r d p voCs qv :pnr8os i s r d ndpos r r ~ p . ~ 5
It is not a question of two (or more) different types of vov^s, those of
men and of animals;46clearly the poet sees vov^s, "mind," as something
which men have and animals do not.47 A later age might talk, for in-
stance, of VOGS 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 voGs separated men from animals in Homer, it also
linked them with the gods. Zeus has a ~ 6 0 sAnother. ~ ~ subtle distinction
of epic usage points up the fact that a real difference was sensed be-
tween men and animals. In Homer the (eschatological) +vX7j flies off at
death. It has been remarked that in four passages the $vpds is described,
untypically, as flying away upon death; in each instance the Ovpds
belongs to an animal.4g Snell explains this usage as follows: "people
were averse to ascribing thepsyche, which a human being loses when he
dies, also to an animal. They therefore invented the idea of a thyrnos
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 VOCSand $vX?j. Those are not insignificant differences.
Hesiod introduces yet another important difference, Erga 276-279:

" 10.239-240.
4 T v e n if it were, the contrast therein implied would set men off from animals.
*' It is in keeping with Homeric beliefs that man loses "06s upon death. T h e
blind seer Tiresias is the exception that proves the rule; even in Hades his
4 p i v e r ;p;~.rre80/ EL'OL. / TG ~ a TlE @ ~ ( ; T L vdov ~ d npc p~q ~ d d v /~ oZq (Od.
~ a ;u.~~Exv&J~ ~L

10.493-qgj). I n Il. 23.104 it is said of the shades in Hades that 4 p i v r s c l i x EVL

.irdpxav. Od. I I .475-476 . . . "Ai8do8~. . . E"vea TE V E K P O ~ i+pa8d~r~ ~ [ O V O L .

4 8 11. I 5.461 06 hijOr Ards X U K L V ~ V vdov; see also 15.242, 16.103, 17.176.
49 See especially Bruno Snell, Tlze Discovery of the .Wind, pp. I 1-12 = D ie
Entdeckung des Geistes4 (Gottingen, 1975), p. 21. T h e passages are 11. 16.469
(horse), 23.880 (dove), Od. 10.163 (deer), 19.454 (boar).
50 See above, 11.49. Snell does not, however, mention Od. 14.426 ~ d 8' v 2A~ne
#vX$ (of a boar). This does not refute his conjecture, which is based upon a
general aversion, not an absolute rule.
 The Greek Anthropocentric View of Man 255
&v8p&roia~6' WWKE61K7V. iuan has 6 1 ~ a 7s a gift from the gods; fish and

beasts and birds do not. Centuries later Plato wrote that man had a

kinship with the god@ and that accordingly man alone of animals

practiced 6 1 ~ 7(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

Sol7 6 1 ~ 7 ~ T
) .h e
continuity of the tradition is particularly clear here.
Examination of Hesiod's standard for the presence or absence of 6 1 ~ 7
proves revealing. Because they have no 6 1 ~ 7other , living things, unlike
man, eat one another; they are, in a word, cannibals. T h e 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, 4.106: 'AV~~O+C$JOL 62 C I Y p i & ~ a ~rrdv~wv
a
&V~~&~~TTWV
~)XOUUL $&a, O&E 8 1 ~ V7O~~ ~ ~ O V T O$TE
-- ES vdPY O ; ~ E V ; X P E C ~ ~ E V O LAristotle

in the Nicomachean Ethics explicitly describes cannibalistic dispositions

as "beastlike" ( e 7 p i & 8 ~ ~ Is 1, 4 8 ~ 1 9 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 (@a is not apparent.53 Probably he had not
reflected one way or the other. T h e 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 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. 108; h. Apoll. 335-336; Pindar Nem. 6.1 ff. Philosophical teaching about
the kinship of man with the divine had its ancestors.
5 2 That cannibalism was thoroughly abhorrent to the Greeks from early times
is clear from 11. 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.1.
63 One cannot be sure whether Hesiod knew the word &ov; most likely he
did. I t is first attested in Semonides (Fr. 13 W.), from whom Hesiod is not that
far removed in time. T h e argument from silence would be worthless here.
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 6 1 ~ ~ .
There is a passage in Archilochus which may seem to weaken the
force of the Hesiodic evidence, Fr. 177 West [= 94 Diehl]:

This is the only place in early Greek literature where ~ I is Kattributed

~
to animals. T h e testimonium counts for nothing, not because it is
unique, but because it occurs in a fable, that of the fox and the eagle. It
is normal practice in fables to represent animals behaving like humans,
with human values, usually to inculcate some moral lesson. Nothing
whatsoever about the actual attitudes of a people toward animals can be
inferred from their use of such fables. For the present question the most
significant thing about fables is that they are rare in the remains of early
Greek and never seem to have been fully accepted into the corpus of
serious literature. T h e simplest explanation of this is that the con-
descending attitude of the Greeks toward animals prevented them from
elevating the genre. It seemed too homely to them. Man had to remain
on center stage.
We have made a long journey backward, from late Byzantine scrib-
blers to Homer and Hesiod. T h e results of this survey may perhaps throw
a little light on some of the directions which Greek religion and philo-
sophy took. First, there is the widespread sociological phenomenon
known as totemism. Central to this is a belief that a given clan or tribe
is descended from, and is akin to, a particular animal or plant, which
accordingly enjoys special treatment from the group in question.
 The Greek Anthropocentric View of Man 257
Strenuous efforts have been directed toward the discovery of totemism
in G r e e ~ e . 5Nilsson,
~ for one, has opposed this vigorously: "It is
unproved and doubtful whether totemism ever existed among the
forefathers of the Greeks, and, if it did exist, the totemistic ideas and
rites were transformed under the influence of a new world of ideas, in
particular agrarian ideas, so that they can no longer with certainty be
pointed to as t o t e m i ~ t i c . "T~h~e great historian of ancient religion has
put his finger on it. If ever the ancestors of the Greeks practiced tote-
mism, their beliefs have changed so drastically as to make the original
concepts no longer recognizable. Nilsson mentions the influence of
agrarian ideas, and rightly so. But whether the Greeks never had
totemism at all or rather suppressed it, in either case a fundamental
factor surely was their "elitist" attitude vis-ic-vis animals. I n sharp
contrast to numerous peoples all over the world, they objected to
having animals as relatives. With theriomorphism, the representation
of deities in animal form, the situation is even clearer. Not that therio-
morphic gods did not exist in Greece; old ways die hard. But there
would be little point in tallying up the animal gods found there. Place
theriomorphism and anthropomorphism in the scales and there is no
doubt which would tip the beam. T h e contrast with Greece's neighbor
Egypt, to go no further, is obvious. T h e Greek view of man as an
intelligent being, set apart from the animals and even, in one or other
sense, akin to the gods, created a climate most favorable for the develop-
ment of anthropomorphism. And develop it did, more fully and consis-
tently than anvwhere else. There is a bon mot to the effect that in the
Homeric poems three categories of human beings appear - the
commoners, the nobles, and the gods. Aristotle recognized the pheno-
menon long before: ;orrep 62 ~ a rcil eZ6'617 i a v ~ o i &$O~OLOV^OLV
s oL( d v B P ~ r r o ~ ,
OCTW ~ a7069; f i l o ~ sT&V O ~ & VT.h~e Greeks
~ could conceive of none better
in whose image to fashion the gods than man himself. T h e chief
anthropomorphic gods of the Greeks were not characterized by the
grotesque or exaggerated features found so commonly in the gods of
other peoples;57 they were rather paragons of physical human beauty.
I n their conduct they were, alas, all too human. I n short, anthropo-
morphism was brought to perfection by the Greeks and therein, para-
doxically, lay the seeds of its destruction. Their gods had become too
much like men to be accepted as gods. T h e attacks of Xenophanes and
5 4 For an amusing sketch o f a typical attempt see W. K. C. Guthrie, T h e
Greeks and Their Gods, p. 22.
5 5 A History of Greek Religion, p. 78.
56 Pol. I ~ 5 2 ~ 2 6 - 2 7 .
5 7 Such representations o f course are not unknown in Greece.
258 Robert Reneha~z
others on the anthropomorphic deities are well known and need not be
rehearsed here. At the obvious risk of oversimplification I shall set out
the historical sequence quite baldly. Had not the Greeks held the
severely anthropocentric view of the world which they did, with its
unequivocal and untypical elevation of man over animals, anthro-
pomorphism in Greece would never have reached such a perfectly
developed state. And had not anthropomorphism so evolved, traditional
Greek religion would not have been vulnerable to the devastating
attacks made upon it by reflective men, who now found themselves
confronted with a momentous choice to make. They could either
abandon all belief in the gods, or they could assume the difficult task
of creating new theologies. Almost without exception they chose the
latter. Vlastos has observed, "When one reads the Presocratics with
open mind and sensitive ear one cannot help being struck by the
religious note in much of what they say. Few words occur more fre-
quently in their fragments than the term 'god.' "58 I n a remarkably
short period of time Plato and Aristotle, building upon - and departing
from - the foundations of their predecessors, were to work out the
concept of an incorporeal deity, a concept which remained fundamental
in Western theology for over fwo thousand years. But that is a different
and it is time to conclude this one. I can think of no better
conclusion than the words of a Stoic fragment: o i r ~o6v c i ~ 0 ~ w r r o e t Sd. j ~
0 ~ d c . 6 0All things considered, that is a surprise ending.61

5 0 Philosophical Quarterly 2.1952.97 = Studies in Presocratic Philosophy, ed.

Furley and Allen, vol. I ( 1 9 7 0 ) p.
~ 92. Vlastos gives figures from the Wortindex
t o Diels-Kranz Vorsokr.: eight columns o f listings for Beds, as against six for
~ ~ U andL S less than six for ~ d u p o s . H e might have added almost t w o more

columns o f O E ~ O S .
5 9 For this question see m y " O n the Greek Origins o f the Concepts Incor-
poreality and Immateriality," i n G R B S z I . I 980.105-1 38.
O 0 S V F 2.311.36-37 = Clem. Alex. Strom. 7.7, p. 852 Pott. Compare Diog.
Laert. 7.141 = S V F 2.305.15-17 Otdv . . . /17) c b a ~. . . b v O p w ~ d p o p ~ o v .
T h a t anthropomorphism alone is the magic key t o a full understanding o f
the beginnings o f Greek philosophy and theology is a thesis so naive that I had
better state outright that such is not m y belief. T h e problem is o f course far more
complex than that and the emphatic, not t o say curt, language o f m y concluding
paragraph is intended merely as a corrective t o certain failures t o take adequate
cognizance o f this important factor. For detailed treatments o f the whole
question see W . Jaeger, The Theology of the Early Greek Philosophers (Oxford,
1947), and G . Vlastos' valuable commentary o n that work, "Theology and Philo-
sophy i n Early Greek Thought" (Philosophical Quarterly 2.1952.97-123 =
Studies in Presocratic Philosophy, ed. Furley and Allen ( N e w Y o r k , 1970),
 The Greek Anthropocentric View of Man 259
pp. 92-129.) Vlastos finely observes "the unique achievement of the Presocratics
as religious thinkers . . . in a word, lies in the fact that they, and they alone, not
only among the Greeks but among all the people of the Mediterranean world,
Semitic or Indo-European, dared transpose the name and function of divinity
into a realm conceived as a rigorously natural order and, therefore, completely
purged of miracle and magic." (PQ p. I 16 = Studies p. I I 9.) But such an achieve-
ment was inconceivable so long as thinkers (such as Hesiod) could still accept
anthropomorphic deities. Their philosophical teachings prove that even the
earliest Presocratics no longer found anthropomorphism adequate. Xenophanes
is not the first thinker to reject it; he is rather the first (of whom we know) to
undertake a positive attack upon the anthropomorphic gods. That is, the argu-
ment in the text that fully developed anthropomorphism was one direct cause
of the first philosophical "theologizing" is not open to chronological objections.
(Vlastos' criticism of Jaeger's use of the term "theology" [PQ pp. 101-103 =
Studies pp. 98-99] seems a bit over-subtle to me; whatever the historical origins
and connotations of the Greek word B~ohoyLa,t he English word "theology" (and
German Theologie) is not at all misleading in such a study. For the history of
the Greek word see the references in The Cambridge History of Later Greek
and Early Medieval Philosophy, ed. A. H. Armstrong (Cambridge, 1970)) p. 429
n.4).