Greek ethics

41 Pages·1967·2.259 MB·English

by  Pamela M. Huby

Greek Ethics
PAMELA M. RUBY, M.A.
Lecturer in Philosophy, University of Liverpool
MACMILLAN
ST MARTIN'S PRESS
-
r£
~ \~ t~ L,)
~. q/f?!2
r
© Pamela M. Huby 1967 CONTENTS
First Edit/on 1967 Editor's Preface page vi
Reprinted 1969
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Published try
MACMILLAN AND CO LTD II. THE BEGINNINGS 3
and Lalistot lae tE Bsosmexb aSyt rCeeatl cLuottnad oalnt dw M Ca 2d ras (i) Background 3
Macmillan South Africa (Publishers) Pry LJd Johannesburg (ii) The Sophists 7
The Mamtillan CompallY of Australia Pry Ltd MelbourI1c
(iii) Democritus 13
The Macmillan Company of Canada Ltd Toronto
Sf Martin's Press Inc New York
Gill and Macmillan Ltd Dublin III. SOCRATES 15
Printed ilt Great Bdtalit by IV. PLATO 26
RICHARD CLAY (THE CHAUCER PRESS) LTD. Note on Platds treatment of Love and Friendship 39
Bunga)'. Suffolk
Library of Congress catalog card no. 67-II4oI V. ARISTOTLE 41
Note on Aristotle's treatment of Friendship 62
VI. AFTER ARISTOTLE 64
(i) Background 64
(ii) Epicureanism 65
(iii) Stoicism 67
Notes 70
BibliograplrJ 74
EDI'TOR'S PREFACE
1. INTRODUCTION
N~w Studies in Ethics is a series of monographs by modern
phl!osophers, drawn from universities in Great Britain the
Umted States a~d Australia. Each author has been ask~d to Greek philosophy traditionally begins with Thales of Miletus in
expound and ctlncall y examine the thought of a phil h the sixth century B.C., but the first philosophers are not known to
or h 1 f hil osop er,
have been interested in ethics. Ethical problems first became
sc 00 0 p osophers, representative of one type of ethical
prominent among the sophists, a class of professional teachers of
theory. The series as a whole Covers the main types of theory
from Greekantiqnity to the present day and meets the need for a 'wisdom', who flourished in the fifth century. We possess only
comprehensive surv.ey of ethics from the point of view of fragments of their writings, but there is enough to show that
contemporary analyncal philosophy. Protagoras of Abdera (c. 485-415), Hippias of Elis (somewhat
younger than Protagoras), and Antiphon of Athens (active about
The Greeks wer~ the Brst to conduct what is recognizable
today as a systematic philosophical discussion of the nature of 420) discussed ethical problems, and where so little remains we
morality. .M rs Huby has produced a comprehensive account of are grateful for two anonymous texts, the Ano1tJmus Iamblichi, i.e.
;h~ tn~an!ngs which they gave to such expressions as 'good', a writer whose works were later used by Iamblichus (c. 4'0 ?), and
virtue ~ voluntary action', 'justice', etc.; and where there the Dissoi Logoi (some time after 400), a roughly written summary
were differences among them concerning the correct definition of sophistic teachings, and for a fragment of the dramatist and
of the.se terms, she has brought these to light. Greek thinkers politician Critias of Athens (c. ,460-403). Gorgias of Leontini
s~met1~es gave the same answers as our contemporaries, sorne (c. 483-375) did not claim to teach ethics, but his speeches Helena
nmes differ~nt ones, both to the practical question: how are and Palamedes contain some views on moral psychology. We may
men t~ attam the good life? and to the philosophical question: fairly assume, too, that some of the arguments put into the mouths
what 1S ,the ~est method .of arriving at an understanding of of individual sophists by Plato are fair accounts of their views.
morality. This study Illuminates the differences and similarities Democritus of Abdera (460-378) produced a sensible rule of
on both counts in a discussion which is at once scholarly and life in his ethical works, but only fragments are left.
readable. Socrates of Athens (469-399)' after a lifetime of active moral
teaching, was put to death on being convicted of impiety and
W. D. HUDSON
corrupting the young. He wrote nothing himself, but is portrayed
in a long series of works by Plato, of which the earlier ones
probably give a faithful picture of his methods, and in the
Memorabilia and other works of Xenophon.
Plato, also of Athens (427-347), was a disciple of Socrates and
wrote a large number of dialogues, in most of which Socrates is
the chief speaker; among them the Alcibiades I - perhaps not
written by Plato, but a good introduction to his doctrines
Hippias Major and Minor, Charmides, Laches, Lysis, Eutfoidemus,
I
Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Gorgias, Meno, Phaedo, Symposium,
Protagoras, Republic, Philebus, and Laws all contain somethinO' of
importance for ethics. THE BEGINNINGS
b
Aristotle of Stagi ra (;84-;22) came to Athens in ;67 and studied
under and worked with Plato for twenty years. His writings cover
a wide field. The Nicomachean Ethics is his greatest ethical treatise,
BACKGROUND
and the Eud,mialt Ethics is probably also his, but the Magna
MoraNa attributed to him is in fact of later date. His Politics is also Greeks are the only philosophical moralists commonly
relevant. stu!di"d by the Western world who were not influenced by
The Cyrenaics were followers of Aristippus (c. 4;5-;60), but Glristianity, for the compelling reason that all their major ethical
only fragments of their teachings remain. systems were developed long before the birth of Christ. We have
Epicurus of Mytilene (341-27°) came to Athens in 306 and to remember that their basic moral and religious outlook was
set up a school. His influence later spread throughout the Roman different from ours, and that what they valued and admired was
Empire. We have a Letter to Mello,cus on ethical theory and two sometimes very different from what we value and admire. At the
sets of doctrines, the Kyriae Doxae and Sententiae Vaticaltae written same time these differences must not he over-emphasised; the
by him. ' Greeks, like us, were human beings, and shared the common lot of
The Cynics were followers ofDiogenes of Sinope (c. 4 -3 5). humanity, which must provide the raw material for all ethical
00 2
Only fragments of their work remain. systems. Further, in some ways their views have greatly affected
The Stoics were followers of Zeno of Citium (333-264), who Christian thinking; their tradition is not so much an alien as an
came to Athens in about 310 and studied with the Cynics, but ancestral one, which shows differences from our own only because
started a less radical school of his own in about 300. This flour the latter contains other elements as well. We can usually enjoy a
ished and developed until Roman times. Chrysippus of Tarsus Greek tragedy in a straightforward way, and understand the
(280-204) reorganised the movement and systematised its teach passions and the moral issues involved; the attitudes of an Orestes,
ings, and Panaetius of Rhodes (I80-IIO) organised Stoicism in an Antigone, or an Oedipus, are comprehensible to us even when
Rome. Posidonius of Apamea (c. I ;0-46) introduced some we do not share them, and equally we are seldom really puzzled
Platonic elements. Unfortunately we have only fragments of these by the outlook of the historians or the orators.
earlier writers, though we have complete works by the later But differences do exist, and there are times when we are
Stoics - Seneca (4 B.C.-A.D. 65), Epictetus (A.D. 50-130), and genninely at a loss to understand what we read. An outstanding
Marcus Aurelius (A.D. 121-180) - and can learn much from example of this is in Aristotle's Ethics, where he describes a virtue
Cicero (106-4; B.C.), in particular from his De Finibus. foreign to us, hut which he regarded as one of the highest. Here is
what he says:
'It would be equally out of character for the great-souled man
to run away with his arms swinging and to commit an act of
injustice. For what reason would he have to do anything un
seemly, when nothing seems to him of great importance? ... He
is chiefly concerned with matters of honour; he is pleased, but
only to a moderate extent, when he is honoured for good reasons
;
2
and by good men, because he thinks he is getting his due, or at In cases like tllese the difficulties of understanding are obvious,
least something approaching it ... but he will wholly despise but there are other and more subtle problems as well. Many of
honour from the common herd and for trivial reasons. For they these lie in translation, for there are several Greek terms that can
are not on the same plane as he is .... He is the kind of man to do not be translated adequately by anyone English expression, and
good to others, but to be ashamed at receiving benefits, for the which introduce concepts at least slightly different from any of
latter is the mark of an inferior, the former of a superior man. ours. In the course of this study such terms will be discussed as
And when he repays a benefit he will give more than he has the occasion arises.
received, so that his original benefactor will now be in his debt To fill in the background we also need some knowledge of the
and be in the position of a beneficiary. They appear to have better political systems of the Greeks and of their religious outlook.
memories for favours they have given than for those they have Politically, they lived in many small independent communities.3
received, for the recipient is in an inferior position to the donor, Each community formed a polis, a term which we usually translate
and they wish to be superior, and they enjoy being reminded of as 'city-state'. Each of these city-states consisted of a city, with
the one, but not of the other. .. .' some kind of fortification, and a small piece of surrounding
I
These passages from Aristotle's description of the man he says territory which might contain a number of lesser towns. Thus
he regards as being perfect in virtue are enough to show the Athens consisted of the walled town of Athens and the land of
difficulty. Can Aristotle really have admired a man like that, or was Attica, covering about a thousand square miles and including
he just joking? Scholars are divided about this, and not sur places like Eleusis and Marathon. This small independent state
prisingly. was flanked by others equally independent, and wars between
Another example is Socrates' statement, in Plato's Crito, of them were frequent. So while all Greeks spoke a common lan
the reasons why, when he had been condemned to death, he re guage and shared a common culture, and regarded tllemselves,
fused to flee from Athens but remained to face execution.' It was being Greeks, as superior to all other races, a man's primary
agreed by Socrates and his friends that his condemnation had been allegiance was to his own small city-state, which was tlle centre of
unjust, and it was known that his opponents had no wish for him his economic, religious, social, and cultural life. The inhabitants of
to be put to death, but would have been satisfied to see him go such states fell into three classes: the slaves, who were usually
into exile. Socrates, however, was determined to stay, arguing that not Greek; the resident foreigners, who were free but took no
it was a law of Athens that the decision of the judges must be part in political life ; and the free citizens. Of these free citizens,
final, and that it was wrong to harm Athens by transgressing her only the men had any political function, but in many states, during
laws in any way. For a man's country was more deserving of long periods of their history, all male citizens could play an active
honour than his parents or ancestors, and one ought to bow to the part in governing their community by speaking and voting in the
wishes of a wrathful country even more than to those of a wrath sovereign assembly, serving as jurymen in the courts, and from
ful father, and to do whatever it commanded, even to the point of time to time holding office. They also paid taxes and served in the
facing death. army as reqnired. Even in less democratic constitutions a large
Here again we are all at sea. Was Socrates merely employing fraction of the free male population had an active part to play,
arguments which he thought would appeal to the respectable and there was frequently a lively opposition. Hence nearly all
Crito? Or is Plato trying to clear his name in the eyes of the Greeks were politically conscious from childhood onwards, and
Athenian public by means of arguments which Socrates never in the distinction between a man's public and private life was much
fact used? Or did he in fact accept them? less clear-cut for them than it is for us. And this explains why the
4 j
distinction between political theory and moral tbeory was also
blurred for the Greeks, and why it so often seems to be taken for (il) THE SOPHISTS
granted that the highest virtue for a grown man is tbe ability to The Greeks first became self-conscious about moral problems
govern. At the same time some distinction was made, as we can when tbey came into contact witb peoples whose views differed
see from the fact that Aristotle wrote separate works on ethics from tbeir own. They themselves colonised almost the whole of
and politics. the Mediterranean basin and parts of the Black Sea coast, and tbus
In religion the Greeks had a superabundance of deities of had dealings with peoples of all levels of civilisation and of widely
various kinds.4 At tbe top weretbe gods of Olympus, Zeus and diJfering codes of conduct, from the Egyptians witb their already
his colleagues, immortal, gifted with superhuman powers, but all ancient culture to tbe barbarous tribes of the north and west.
too human in their behaviour. They came close to individual And in turn tbey were threatened by the Persian expansion of the
Greeks because each city had its own patron god or goddess, who first half of the fifth century, which culminated in two invasions of
was particularly worshipped there, as Atbena was at Athens. Greece - tbose repulsed at Maratbon in 490 and Salamis in 480
Some had wider scope, like Apollo of Delphi, whose oracle was _ and made even those who stayed at home acutely aware of an
consulted by states and individuals from far and wide. These alien culture. There were also many differences of outlook among
beings could and did arouse genuine devotion, but their example the Greeks themselves: Athenians differed from Spartans, and
was not such as to inspire anyone to a highly moral way of life. both from Corinthians, and as time passed tbere were great up
There were also numerous lesser and more shadowy beings, like heavals of opinion even witbin a single community, as traditional
the nymphs and river-gods of the countryside, worshipped by the ways of tbought came under attack for a variety of economic and
local people. And finally there were the gods of the mystery political reasons.
religions, like Dionysus, who was worshipped in a frenzied way Two early works illustrate the kind of information educated
and witb a personal enthusiasm quite different from the worship men had at their disposal. In his Journ0' Round the World, Hecataeus
of tbe calmer Olympians. With such a mass of material it would of Miletus described tbe customs of a vast number of peoples
not be surprising if tbe individual's views were a trifle confused; throughout tbe known world, from India to Spain; and the
what is surprising is that in spite of it all the gods were generally starting-point of the famous study of the medical man Hippo
regarded as the guarantors of morality, in tbe sense that both in crates (or one of his followers), Airs, Waters and Places, was tbe
this life and the next tbey were ready to punish misdeeds and fact tbat peoples living in differefit geographical situations differed
reward the good. And tbere was enough of positive good in in many respects, botb physical and mental. Among otber things
popular ideas about tbe gods to enable tbinkers like Socrates and it became clear tbat much tbat one set of people believed to be
Plato to develop tbe idea of a perfectly good divinity, stripped of right anotber thought wrong, and this led men witb enqniring
anthropomorphic accidents and caring for tbe welfare of mankind. minds to ask whetber all such beliefs were just a matter of
A related topic is that of what happens after death, and on this opinion and convention. Sexual practices and metbods of dis
too there seems to have been considerable uncertainty, but enough posing of tbe dead differed in striking ways from one community
positive material for Socrates and Plato to develop their idea tbat to anotber: Egyptian kings by custom married their sisters; many
the soul was immortal. Greek states regarded homosexuality as normal; tbe Parsees
exposed their dead on high towers and the Massagetae of Scythia
tbought it right to eat tbem.' Could anyone of such practices be
regarded as more right tban anotber in an absolute sense? And if
6 7
in these matters what a community thought right was just what standing intellectual issue of the sophistic period, the pf;ysis versus
happened to be the age-old custom of that community, what of nomos debate. This was a wide-ranging argument over whether
right and wrong in general? Might not all moral judgments be characteristic human institutions sum as language, law and
matters of mere convention? So clever men argued, and stirred morality were natural or man-made; for instance, whether there
others to argue against them, and with these arguments moral was only one name for a thing which was its right name (pf;ysis),
philosophy may be said to have begun. or whether all names were equally good, provided only that
This first big argument is associated chiefly with the sophists, some group of men agreed to use them in a particular way
though they were not the only people who took part in it. The (nomos).
sophists were itinerant teachers who, in the fifth century, supplied The terms pf;ysis and nomos have been discussed at length by
the need in Greece for some form of higher education. They were scholars, but for our purposes they can be explained fairly easily.
ready to train young men who could pay their fees in the arts of The word physis, whatever its origin may have been, can be
public speaking and debate which were so important to the rising rendered ahnost exactly by our word 'nature'; it has the same
generation of democratic politicians, and the successful ones range and vagueness and gives rise to the same jJhilosophical
passed from city to city with growing reputations and fuller and problems. Nomos is slightly more difficult, because it covers both
fuller purses. written laws and unwritten custom, but for us the translation
The best sophists were men of probity and considerable intelli 'convention' is good enough. 6
gence who interpreted their task of teaching in the widest possible As a background to the dispute there were a number of theories
sense. They did not limit themselves to elocution and persuasive about the origins of civilisation probably taken over from the
speaking, but strove to give their pupils a cultured background, physical philosophers, particniarly, as far as our knowledge goes,
which might include the study of such subjects as law and history from Anaximander in the sixth century. Certainly the idea that
as well as grammar and etymology. In particular they touched men had been savages and that the arts of civilisation had been
on ethics and political theory; hence their interest for us. How acquired slowly was a familiar one, though our knowledge of how
ever, it is also at this point that their peculiar position becomes it was worked outis extremely fragmentary. It was totally opposed
most apparent. Unlike Plato and Aristotle they were not, and to the theory, familiar from the poets, that mankind's present
could not afford to be, scholars dedicated to the pursuit of truth, state was a sad decline from the original Golden Age.
and their interest in ethics was subordinate to their main purpose Once the initial step has been taken of seeing that legal and
of teaching success. Not all sophists were men of the calibre of moral codes differ from people to people, a variety of further
Protagoras, for whom even Plato showed some respect, and some moves becomes possible. We may minimise the differences, and
of them scandalised the more sober Greeks by their apparent argue that any code is better than no code, and that what is
readiness to undermine all moral restraint. Any and every method important is to have a settled system of law and morals of one
that would help their pupils to succeed was valid, and some openly kind or another; or we may stress the differences, and conclude
boasted that they could make the worse cause appear the better. that something is seriously amiss. But here again the roads fork.
They defended themselves by claiming that the man who suc We may argue that by nature the strong man would be aII-power
ceeded, by whatever means, deserved to succeed. fuI, but legal and moral codes are devices of the weak for control
This 'might is right' attitude fits in well with the general ling him; or tl1at by nature all men are equal and that these codes
scepticism aroused by reflection on the great differences in moral are the instruments by which the ruling class imposes its will on
codes found throughout tile world. It is one aspect of the out- the rest of the commuuIty. And even that is not the end, for what
8
9
course of action we recommend will depend on whether we re (iv) the party in power makes laws in its own interests;
gard ourselves as strong or weak, ruler or ruled.
(v) therefore justice is the interest of the stronger.
The:e. are two main points here. One is the notorious difficulty
of decldlUg what ought to be from a knowledge of what is. For The only trick in the argument is in (i). If we add the portion in
instance, even if we decide that nature's laws are ruthless, it does brackets the statement seems to be true, but not if we omit it. But
not follow directly that men ought to be ruthless too. That is only it is only the shorter version, without the words in brackets, that
so if we accept that nature's ways are best. The other is that it is allows us to draw the conclusion at (v).
anyhow very difficult to decide what really are nature's ways. Are After (v) Thrasymachus probably ceased to argue, but the cry
we to look at primitive man, or the animals, or argue in some 'Down with justice' is his obvious final step.
more complicated way, as we shall see later Aristotle did? The Callicles of Acharnae, however, took the argument a stage
~ifficulty has persisted into modern times. It is easy enough, for further. We know nothing of him beyond what Plato tells us in
lUstance, to argue that existing sexual morality is in some ways the Gorgias.9 He was not a sophist but a young Athenian politi
unnatural, but extremely difficult to reach agreement about what cian who had absorbed to the full the teachings of some of the
code would be natural.
sophists. He argues that (in a democracy) the laws and the moral
It is not surprising, in view of all tllese complications that code are made by the multitude of (individually) powerless men
different sophists should have interpreted their basic the~es in who are satisfied if they can ensure that all are on a dead level of
very different ways. And for us there is the further difficulty that equality. But it is nature's law that the better and more powerful
we have only fragmentary knowledge of their views. Because of should rule over and fare better than the weaker, and this we can
this, there is a temptation to attribute to them more profound and
learn both from animals and from the behaviour of the sovereign
consistent theories tllan they are at all likely to have held. We need
states of men. Outstanding men at present are deceived from
not suppose that most of them preached doctrines that would childhood by being told that equality is right and fine, but one day
stand up to close examination: the persuasive power of an argu a superman may arise who will throw off the shackles of morality
ment, and not its objective validity, was what interested them.7 I and obey only nature's dictates - and good luck to him!
will try therefore not to go beyond what is justified by the evi The sophist Antiphon of Athens, in his book on Truth, probably
dence, at the cost of being rather scrappy.
written about 430, attacks the laws in a slightly different way. He
First there are the views that preach nature's way, but interpret points out that often obedience to the laws may be harmful to the
it in different fashions. Probably the most famous of these is the man who obeys, and so be against nature, which urges every man
one put into the mouth of the sophist Thrasymachus of Chalcedon to further his own interests. This is a criticism of the actual work
by Plato in Book I of the Republic. The whole account has been ing of the law, because it punishes those who break it but does
much chewed over,8 but we may assume that Tbrasymachus really nothing to reward those who obey it to their own disadvantage.
did say that justiceis the interest of the stronger, and that he meant Conclusion - down with the law I
by it something like this:
Critias, later notorious as one of the thirty tyrants who ruled
Athens for a short period at the end of the fifth century, and one of
(i) in any community (men say that) it is just to obey the laws the less satisfactory followers of Socrates, added to this an attack
of that communlty;
on religion, saying that it was a device for making people obey the
~~) in any con:munlty the laws are made by the party in power; law even when they were not being observed, because they
(111) the party lU power is the stronger party;
thought the eyes of the gods were upon them.
10
B II
All these views amount to no more than an attack on existing The anonymous writer quoted by Iamblichus, who probably
laws, and advice to disobey them when it is possible and advanta wrote shortly before 400 B.C., reflects the views of Prota goras and
geous to do so. The relativity of laws and moral codes is not a may have been his pupil. He replies roundly to thinkers like
prominent idea in these thinkers, but it was certainly presupposed, Callicles that superman does not and could not exist: any indivi
and it is given a thorough airing in the Dissoi Logoi, a curious dual is at the mercy of his fellows and ought in his own interests
work of sophistic inspiration whose author is unknown. It was to obey the laws of his community. He then gives a straight
written some time after 400. forward account of the benefits of the rule of law and the evils of
It is possible that Hippias of Elis, another sophist of the second its absence. '
half of the fifth century, held a physis theory of a more constructive There is one sophist who stands apart from the rest because
kind. He may have taught that by nature all men are equal and he made no claim to teach virtue, but only rhetoric. This is
should treat each other as brothers, but this is exceedingly Gorgias of Leontini, whose long life is said to have lasted from
conjectural, and it was a long time before theories of that Idod 483 to 375. He has left us some model speeches, which till recently
took root. have been dismissed as mere exercises. But with works of this
The great defender of the opposite view, that laws and moral period it is probably a mistake to do this: the arguments may be
codes ought to be observed, was Protagoras, the first of the treated as seriously as, for instance, the bombastic displays of
sophists. He argued that it is in the interests of all men that laws men like Thrasymachus. In the Helena and the Palamedes Gorgias
should be observed, because the state of nature where there are no makes an incursion into moral psychology, using arguments to
laws is a terrible one. Unfortunately his views have to be re show that wrongdoing is always involuntary, and that neither
constructed from evidence that is not at first sight consistent. Helen nor Palamedes are to blame for their midseeds. Helen, for
Plato gives us two very different aspects of his teaching in two instance, might have been charmed by specious argument or
dialogues, the Protagoras and the Theaetetus. But it is probable overcome by the passion of love, and in neither case was she the
that he was held in sufficient esteem by Pericles to be asked to cause of her wrongdoing. It is all somewhat superficial, but it
draw up a constitution for Thurii, a new colony founded in 444 does raise questions that need an answer. Further, there is a close
by Athens but open to all Greeks, and we may reasonably con similarity between the Palamedes and Plato's Apology of Socrates,
clude that his views were moderate. which suggests that Plato must have been seriously interested in
He started from the fact that there was a great difference the former work.1O
between savages and civilised men. He said that the state of nature
was an evil one and that men achieved a good life, or something
approaching it, only by living in a community under laws and (iii) DEMOCRI"rUS
conventions of behaviour handed on from one generation to There are also similarities to Socrates in another figure of this
another. Hence all laws and moral codes were civilising and period, the rather puzzling Democritus of Abdera, a younger
improving influences, and it was right for each man to obey the contemporary and indeed a fellow townsman of Protagoras.
laws of his own community. At the same time one constitution or Although he was a voluminous writer our knowledge of him is
moral code might be rather better than another, and the wise limited to a collection of fragments, from which he emerges as a
man would be able to appreciate such differences and to teach positive thinker who had no dealings with sophistry but taught a
them to others. As such a wise man himself, he claimed to instruct way of life which recognised the importance of the soul and of
others. virtue.
He is not primarily famous for his ethics, but for his atomic
theory of the constitution of the universe, which is the distant
ancestor of modern atomic theories and must be understood by III. SOCRATES
us as the background to his ethics. He taught that matter was made
up of innumerable small, hard indivisible bits, called atoms,
combined together in various ways, and that the soul itself, being
The sophists had an .unsettling influence, but this was only one
material, was made up of extremely fine atoms. These would be
factor in the decay of morals and decency which we observe at
dispersed at death, so that there need be neither fear nor hope of a
the end of the fifth century. Another factor was the long and
life after death. Since this life was the only one, it is not surprising
disastrous war between Athens and Sparta, which lasted on and off
that Democritus' chief concern was to tell men how to enjoy it.
from 431 to 404 B.C., and involved nearly the whole of the Greek
In doing so he raised the next great topic of Greek ethics, the
world. The Golden Age of Pericles, in which Athenian culture
nature of happiness. The essence of this was a tranquil state of
reached its highest peak, was succeeded by war, plague, and
mind, and to attain it a man needed to take thought, to limit his
disillusionment. Moral standards, both public and private, slipped,
aspirations to his abilities, to think little of worldiy goods which
and men were uneasily aware that something had gone badly
are at the mercy of fortune, and to take pleasure in friends he has
wrong. Sober citizens blamed the new intellectuals, including, in a
chosen, rather than in having children whose characters he cannot
blanket condemnation, physicists and physiologists, sophists, and
choose.
a man of quite a different stamp, Socrates of Athens. Socrates did
All this is on a straightforward prudential footing, but there
indeed resemble the sophists in his influence on the young and the
are also some fragments which bear a close resemblance to the
power of his intellect, but he differed by his refusal to accept pay
kind of thing that Socrates was saying at about the same time.
ment for his work and his pure moral fervour.
'Ignorance of what is better is the cause of doing wrong'; 'The·
It is, however, very difficult to get a clear picture of his life and
man who does wrong is more unhappy than the man who suffers
work. He wrote nothing himself, and it is one of the puzzles of
wrong'. These fragments are tantalising, for it is not at all clear
history to reconcile the accounts of him left us by Plato and
how he reached such conclusions; but we must assume that it
Xenophon with the comic portrait in the Clouds of Aristophanes
was without the hard reasoning that brought Socrates to the same
and the evidence of a number of lesser or more remote writers.
point." It is also rather mysterious that though Aristotle made a
The Clouds" shows him as a representative of the intelligentsia,
careful study of Democritus, Plato does not mention him, parti
studying the heavens like the physical philosophers, but also
cularly as he anticipated one of the points discussed in the Philebus,
educating the young to bandy words, and worse, with their ciders,
the recognition of a calm middle state between violent pleasures
as the sophists did. Xenophon shows us a kindly, but rather prosy
and pains.
old moraliser, and Plato a man of intellectual and moral genius.
Democritus is important, however, chiefly for another reason:
Even on the factual level there are difficulties. For instance, both
his physical system and a good deal of his ethics were taken over
Xenophon and Plato wrote an account of his Apology, the speech
bodily by Epicurus. He used them as the foundation of one of the
he was supposed to have made at his trial, and these accounts are
two great practical philosophies of the age which followed
entirely different; both cannot be true, and it is probable in fact
Alexander's epoch-making conquests.
that neither is intended to be an accurate account of what was
said. The conventions of the time would allow much freedom of
15
14