Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Ancient Greek Ideas on Speech, Language, and Civilization$

Deborah Levine Gera

Print publication date: 2003

Print ISBN-13: 9780199256167

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2010

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199256167.001.0001

(p.227) Index Locorum

Source:
Ancient Greek Ideas on Speech, Language, and Civilization
Publisher:
Oxford University Press

Bold numbers indicate a main entry. Passages appearing more than once on the same page are cited only once in the index.

Achilles Tatius:
5. 5. 4–5 204 n. 68
Acts of the Apostles:
2: 1–4 21 n. 9
Acusilaus:
FGrH 2
F23a 126 n. 53
Aelian:
De Natura Animalium
7. 22 211 n. 96
7.48 211 n. 97
Varia Historia
4. 17 168 n. 192
4.46 186 n. 11
14. 22 197 n.47
14.30 210 n. 95
Aeschylus:
Agamemnon
1050–1 192 n. 32, 204 n. 67
1061 196
Choephoroe
231–2 205 n. 73
Palamedes
fr. 181a 123, 144 n. 113
fr. 182a III 122 n. 41
Prometheus Vinctus
7 148 n. 124
110–11 121 n. 36, 148 n. 123
253–4 121 n. 36, 148 n. 124
442 ff. 114 n. 7
443–71 120–2
459 123
476–506 120–2
484–99 130
612–13 121 n. 36
Septem contra Thebas
348 79 n. 26
Scholia
ad PV 459 122 n. 41
ad Sept. 348 79 n. 26
Aesop:
Fables
384 20 n. 7
387 20 n. 7
Agathar chides:
frr. 31–49 187–90
fr. 78b 211 n. 96
Alcidamas:
Ulixes
22 22 n. 40
(p.228) Alcman:
PMG 76 16 n. 61
Ammonius:
In Aristotelis de Interpretatione Commentarius
23, 2–9 200 n. 52
30, 25–31, 2 200 n. 52
34, 15 ff. 169 n. 199
38, 17 ff. 208 n. 87
Anaxagoras:
DK 59
A102 162 n. 173
A106 137 n. 92
B4 146 n. 115
B21b 146 n. 115, 162 n. 173
Anaximander:
DK12
A10 148 n. 122
Anthologia Latina
2.1528 117 n. 23
Anthologia Palatina
9.451.4 204 n. 65
Apollodorus:
Bibliotheca
3.14.8 204 n. 66
Apollonius Rhodius:
3.1086–9 127 n. 56
Scholia
ad 4.257–62C 78 n. 25, 93 n. 67, 99 n. 84
Thomas Aquinas:
Summa Theologica
1. 107 50 n.105
Quaestiones Disputatae
De Veritate 9. 4 50 n. 105
Aratus:
Phaenomena
96–136 634
112–13 22 n. 15
Scholia
ad Phaen. 132 64 n.146
Archelaus:
DK 60
A1 137 n. 91
A2 137 n. 93
A4 118 n. 25, 137 n. 91, 143 n. 108
Aristophanes:
Birds
199–200 192 n. 32
1681 192 n. 32
Clouds
398 107
658 ff. 139 n. 98
Frogs
93 192 n. 32
680–2 192 n. 32
Thesmophoriazusae
52–4 133 n. 80
1001 –7 208 n. 86
Wasps
569–72 79 n. 26
Scholia
Recentiora ad Nub. 398e 80 n. 30, 85 n. 42, 93 n. 67
Recentiora ad Nub. 398f 81 n. 34, 93 n. 67
Thomas-Triclinus ad Nub. 398b 80 n. 30, 81 n. 34, 93 nn. 66–7
Tzetzes ad Nub. 398a 78 n. 25, 80 n. 30, (p.229) 85 n. 42, 93 n. 67, 99 n. 84
Vetera ad Nub. 398b 80 n. 31, 85 n. 42, 93 n. 67
Vetera ad Nub. 398c 81 n. 34, 93 nn. 66–7
Vetera ad Nub. 398d 80 n. 30, 88 n. 50, 93 n. 67, 99 n. 84
Aristotle:
De Anima
420b16–18 57 n. 131
De Audibilibus
801b5 83 n. 37
Historia Animalium
501a24 ff. 187 n. 13
535a27 ff. 36 n. 69
536b5–8 83
De Interpretatione
16a28–9 36 n. 69
Metaphysica
1010a12–13 202 n. 59
De Partibus Animalium
659b34 57 n. 131
Physica
184b12–14 104 n. 102
Poetics
1454b36–7 203 n. 64
1456b24 36 n. 69
Politics
1253a1–29 36–7, 49
1253a6–7 6 n. 21
1253a9–18 146
1274a25–30 141 n. 105
1254b22–3 207
1334a28–34 29 n. 42
Rhetoric
1355b1–2 36 n. 69
1417b1–2 203 n. 62
Sophistici Elenchi
165a6 ff. 134
Fragments
58 29 n. 42
Athenaeus:
1. 20b–c 197–8
3. 98d–f 33 n. 51
6. 267 ff. 30 n. 43
8. 345e 76 n. 20
14. 66oe ff. 151 n. 133
Athenio:
fr. 1 59 n. 135, 151
Augustine:
Contra Iulianum
4. 12. 60 164 n. 179
De Civitate Dei
16. 3–5 147 n. 120
De Dialectica
6 44 n. 87
10. 9 ff. 44 n. 87
De Magistro
3.5 198
Sermones
180.7.7 50 n. 104
De Trinitate
15. 11. 20 50 n. 104
Aulus Gellius:
5. 14 211 n. 97
10. 4. 2 169 n. 199
Babrius:
Fabulae Aesopicae
Preamble 1–13 19–20
Preamble 14–16 20
(p.230) Babylonian Talmud:
Avoda Zara
53b 147 n. 120
Hagigah
16a 58 n. 132
Callimachus:
Hymn 4 (Delos)
86–99 32 n. 49
189–90 32 n. 49
Fragments
fr. 199 32 n. 49
fr. 114 32 n. 49
fr. 192 (Iambus 2) 312
Diegeses
6. 22–32 31 n. 47
6.26 32
Cicero:
De Inventione
1. 2 143–4
De Natura Deorum
3. 56 116 n. 17
De Officiis
1. 50–1 165 n. 180
De Oratore
1.8. 33–1. 9. 37 144
3. 59. 223 196 n. 44
De Republica
3. 2. 3 144, 164–5
3. 3 158 n. 159
Tusculanae Disputationes
1. 25. 62 168 n. 192
Claudian;
In Eutropium
2. 251–4 81 n. 34, 93 n. 67
Clearchus
fr. 98 76 n. 20
Clement:
Protrepticus
4. 54 32 n. 50
Recognitions
1. 30 147 n. 121
I Corinthians:
14 21 n. 19
Crates:
Beasts
frr. 16–17 30 n. 44
fr. 19 30, 62
[Critias]:
Sisyphus
1–25 144–5
1–2 160 n. 163
Ctesias:
FGrH 688
F34a–b 210
F45.8 208–9
F45. 37 185–7
F45. 40–3 185–7
F45P 185–7
Dalion:
FGrH 666
F1 211 n. 96
Demetrius:
De Elocutione
94–6 180 n. 227
220 180 n. 227
Demetrius Lacon:
P Herc. 1012
lxvii. 7–10 171 n. 202
(p.231) Democritus:
DK 68
A75 167 n. 187
A101 149 n. 128
A151 167 n. 187
B11e 149 n. 128
B142 167 n. 186
B144 167 n. 187
B154 167 n. 187
B164 168 n. 189
Derveni Papyrus:
xviii [xxii], 1–2 179 n. 225
Dicaearchus:
βίος Έλλάδος
fr. 49 62–3
fr. 50 63 n.145
Dio Chrysostom:
6. 22 153 n. 142
6. 25–9 153 n. 142
10. 16 154 n. 143
10.23–4 52
11. 22–4 52
11. 22–3 3 n. 12
12. 28 165–6
12. 65 166 n. 181
12.68 180 n. 227
Scholia
ad 1. 14 210 n. 95
Diodorus Siculus:
1.7–8 159–60
1. 8. 1–3 160–1
1. 8. 2–3 158 n. 159
1. 8. 3 136, 163–4
1. 8. 4 164
1. 8. 5–8 162
1. 8. 9 162
1. 10 ff. 116
1. 13–16 151
1. 13. 3 156–7
1. 14. 1 59 n. 135
1. 16 116–17
1. 43. 6 117 n. 20
2. 55–60 33–5
3. 8. 1–3 193 n. 35
3. 15–21 187–90
3. 35. 10 211 n. 96
5. 46. 7 35 n. 60
5. 75 117 n. 20
Diogenes Laertius:
6. 24 154 n. 143
6. 72–3 60 n.138
6. 73 154 n. 143
6. 103 154 n. 143
7. 55 210 n. 93
7. 89 25 n. 25
Diogenes of Oenoanda:
fr. 11 177
fr. 12 117, 130 n. 69, 134 n. 83, 140 n. 103, 172 n. 104, 177–9
frr. 16–20 130 n. 69
Dionysius of Halicarnassus
De Compositione Verborum
6 133 n. 80
16 180 n. 227
Dissoi Logoi:
DK90
2. 13 110
6. 11–12 140 n. 103
6. 12 82, 98, 108–9
Empedocles:
DK31
B52 148 n. 122
B62 148 n. 122
B128 62
B130 62
(p.232) Epicurus:
Letter to Herodotus
75–7 130 n. 69
75–6 170–4
Etymologicum Magnum
s.v. ἅνθρωπος 36 n. 69
Eubulus:
fr. 108 192 n. 32
Eupolis:
fr. 112 79 n. 26
Euripides:
Cyclopes
120 5 n. 18
425–6 17 n. 65
489–90 17 n. 65
Hecuba
836–40 114 n. 10
Hippolytus
645–8 207 n. 83
Ion
1417–25 205 n. 73
Supplices
194 ff. 114 n. 7
201–13 118–20, 123
203–4 135 n. 86, 146
211–13 130
913–15 140 n. 101
Troades
671–2 119 n. 28
Eustathius
Commentarii ad Odysseam
ad 3. 332 (i, 131) 115 n. 11
ad 9. 189 (i, 331) 6n. 21
ad 9. 447 (i, 356) 14 n. 54
Commentarii ad Iliadem
ad 1. 403 51 n. 110, 53 n. 118
Galen:
De Captionibus
2 193 n. 35
De Usu Partium
3. 1 162 n. 173
Genesis:
2: 19–20 180 n. 226
2: 20 57 n. 128
2: 23 21, 57 n. 128
3: 2–3 57 n. 128
3: 20 21
4: 1 21
10: 9–10 147 n. 120
Genesis Rabbah:
8: n 58 n.132
38: 13 147 n. 121
Gorgias:
Palamedes
30 122 n. 40, 124 n. 46
Gregory of Nyssa:
Contra Eunomium
2. 253–4 131 n. 72
2. 397 179 n. 224
De Opificio Hominis
8. 148d–149a 163 n. 174
Hanno:
Periplus
11 195
Hellanicus:
FGrH 4
F71b–c 153 n. 139
Heraclitus:
DK22
B30 149 n. 127
B32 139 n. 100
(p.233)
B48 139 n. 100
B64 149 n. 127
B66 149 n. 127
B90 149 n. 127
B118 149 n. 127
Herodotus:
1. 34. 2 201
1. 38. 2 201
1. 47. 3 89 n. 56
1. 73 77 n. 21
1. 85 89, 200–1
1. 122 81
1. 142. 3 141 n. 105
2. 2 68–111 passim, esp. 70–1, 78–9, 81, 86 n. 46, 88, 89 n. 57, 90, 99 n. 84
2. 15. 2 76 n. 19, 78, 90 n. 57
2. 28 76
2. 32 195
2. 42. 4 141 n. 105, 194
2. 55–7 209
2. 77. 4 71 n. 3
2. 91. 1 77
2. 154. 2 77
2. 154. 4 77
2. 158. 5 77
2. 164 77
4. 23. 2 193
4. 24 195
4. 78 77 n. 21
4. 106 141 n. 105, 193
4. 108. 2 194
4. 109 194
4. 111–17 196
4. 117 77 n. 21
4. 172 195
4. 183.4 141 n. 105, 193
4. 184 193
4. 196 196 n. 42
5. 93. 2 89 n. 57
6. 138 77 n. 21
Hesiod:
Erga
42–105 47
47–52 152 n. 136
61 ff. 114–15
64 206
78–80 54–5
90–2 47
94–104 55
108 46
109–26 46
112–119 47
112 46
116–19 62
117–18 13 n. 52, 22 n. 15
120 61–2
127–201 47
146–7 61
163 61
276–8 10, 32, 49 n. 101, 60
Theogony
144–5 47 n. 97
535–616 47
535–6 48
561–9 152 n. 136
584 55 n. 123, 114 n. 9
820 ff. 152 n. 136
829–35 51 n. 108
831 53 n. 114
Scholia
ad Theog. 535 48 n. 98
[Hesiod]:
Catalogue of Women
fr. 1. 6–7 48 n. 99
(p.234) Hippocrates:
On Ancient Medicine
[Hippocrates]
περί σαρκῶν
18 136 n. 88, 199 n. 51
Hippolytus:
Refutatio omnium haeresium
6. 8 210 n. 95
Hipponax:
fr. 125 71 n. 3
Homer:
Iliad
1. 250 9 n. 34
1. 403 52 n. 111
1. 423–4 48 n. 99
1. 500–2 91 n. 62
2. 279–80 51 n. 107
2. 594–600 202 n. 60
2. 790–1 51 n. 107
2. 804 2
2. 813–14 52 n. 111
2.867 2
3. 1–7 2
3. 125–8 205 n. 72
3. 212 206 n. 77
4. 34–6 11 n. 45
4. 433–8 2
4. 437–8 2 n. 4
8. 185 15
13. 216 51 n. 107
14. 290–1 52 n. 111
17. 426–40 15
18. 219 3 n. 8
18. 417–20 55 n. 123
18. 419 114
19. 400 15
19. 404–18 15–16, 114
19. 407 3 n. 8,9 n. 34
19. 418 9 n. 34
19. 420 15
20. 74 52 n. 111
20. 248–9 4
21. 465 9 n. 33
22. 248 ff. 11
22. 260–6 11
22. 263 12 n. 47
22. 346–8 11
23. 205–7 48 n. 99
23. 276–84 15
23. 409 15
23. 442–5 15 n. 60
24. 212–13 11 n. 45
Odyssey
1. 22–6 48 n. 99
1. 170 7 n. 27
1. 183 2 n. 2
2. 88–122 206 n. 75
2. 116–17 114 n. 6
3. 69–74 7
3. 302 2 n. 2
5. 61–2 206 n. 76
5. 196–9 1 n., 48 n. 99
5. 334–5 51 n. 107
5. 334 3 n. 8, 9 n. 34
6. 120–1 9 n. 36
6. 125 3 n. 8, 9
7. 108–11 206 n. 75
7. 110–11 114 n. 6
7. 201–3 48 n. 99
7. 205–6 13
7. 234–5 205 n. 73
7. 245 57 n. 127, 206 n. 76
8. 222 9 n. 33
8. 294 2
8. 552–4 8
8. 575–6 9 n. 37
9. 32 57 n. 127, 206 n. 76
(p.235)
9. 83–4 1 n.
9. 89 9
9. 105–553 1–17 passim esp. 4–8, 11–12,
9. 422 206 n. 77
10. 101 9
10. 103–14 11 n. 43
10. 116–24 11
10. 116 1 n.
10. 124 1 n.
10. 136 9 n. 34, 51 n. 107, 206 n. 76
10. 220–2 206 n. 76
10. 239–40 12, 186 n. 12
10. 239 3 n. 8
10. 305 52 n. 111
10. 325 7 n. 27
11. 8 51 n. 107, 206 n. 76
12. 61 52 n. 111
12. 150 51 n. 107, 206 n. 76
12. 353 ff. 15
12. 449 51 n. 107, 206 n. 76
13. 201–2 9 n. 37
13. 222–3 51 n. 107
14. 43 2 n. 2
14. 187 7 n. 27
15. 264 7 n. 27
15. 453 2 n. 2
16. 161 51 n. 107
17. 291–327 16
19. 105 7 n. 27
19. 175 2
19. 218 205 n. 73
19. 225–6 205 n. 73
19. 399–409 8 n. 30
19. 545 16
24. 298 7 n. 27
Scholia
ad Iliad 1. 403 51 n. no, 53 n. 116
ad Iliad 2. 813–14 51 n. 110, 53 n. 116
ad Iliad 14. 291 51 n. 110, 53 n. 116
ad Iliad 20. 74 51 n. 110. 53 n. 116
Homeric Hymns:
Aphrodite
111–16 54
Apollo
440–7 152 n. 137
Hephaestus
1–7 114 n. 7
Hermes
39–54 114 n. 7
92–3 120 n. 33
108–15 152
Horace:
Odes
1. 10. 1–3 117 n. 21
Satires
1. 3. 99 ff. 117 n. 21, 144
1. 3. 103–4 166 n. 182, 178 n. 221
Hyginus:
Fabulae
143 117–18, 126 n. 54, 153
277 124 n. 48
Iamblichus:
De Vita Pythagorica
82 168 n. 192
168–9 58 n. 134
Inscriptions:
Meiggs-Lewis
7 (a). 4 77–8 n. 22
(p.236) Isocrates:
Antidosis
254 143 n. 107
Nicocles
5–6 142
6 6, 143
7 143 n. 107
Panegyricus
28–50 143 n. 110
48 143 n. 107
Istros:
FGrH 334
F2 152 n. 137
Jubilees
3: 28 20 n. 8, 50 n. 103
12: 25–6 20 n. 8
Lactantius:
Institutiones Divinae
6. 10. 13–14 161 n. 169
Leucippus:
DK67
A6 167 n. 188
Lucian:
Juppiter Tragoedus
13 197 n. 46
De Saltatione
64 197 n. 46
Vera Historia
2. 15 46
Lucretius:
De Rerum Natura
1. 44–9 39 n. 75
1. 815–29 133 n. 80
1. 912–20 133 n. 80
2. 646–51 39 n. 75
2. 1090 ff. 39 n. 75
3. 18–24 39 n. 75
5. 71–2 176 n. 216
5. 146–55 39 n. 75
5. 925 ff. 38
5. 925–1457 174
5. 933–44 22 n. 15
5. 1011–28 157 n. 155
5. 1014–27 174
5. 1022 38, 174
5. 1028–90 38, 130 n. 69, 174
5. 1028–9 176
5. 1028 171 n. 202
5.1030–40 175
5. 1043–55 176
5. 1056–90 175
5. 1091–1104 157 n. 155
5. 1105 ff. 157 n. 154
5. 1161–82 39, 130 n. 69
5. 1390–1404 45
6. 71–9 39 n. 75
Manilius:
Astronomica
1. 66–98 130
1. 85 180 n. 229
Maximus of Tyre
29. 4 210 n. 95
Moschion:
fr. 6 150–1
Nonnus:
Dionysiaca
4. 321 204 n. 68
26. 284 115 n. 13
Origen:
Contra Celsum
1. 24 25 n. 24, 171 n. 203
(p.237) Orpheus:
DK1
B13 179 n. 225
Orphic Hymns:
28.4 115 n. 13
Orphica Fragments
fr.83 53 n. 119
fr. 91 53 n. 119
fr. 292 59 n. 135
Ovid:
Fasti
5. 663–8 117 n. 21
Metamorphoses
1. 76–215 64
1.76–86 65
1. 101–12 22 n. 15
1. 101–18 65
1. 611–747 205 n. 70
6. 576–9 204 n. 69
6. 609 204 n. 69
15. 1 ff. 65
15. 96–102 65
Pausanias:
2. 15–5 126 n. 54
2. 19–5 126 n. 54
8. 1. 4–5 127 n. 55
Philemon:
fr. 96 154 n. 143
Philo:
De Confusione Linguarum
6–8 31
11 199
Legum Allegoriarum
2. 15 144 n. 111
De Opificio Mundi
148 25 n. 26
150 25 n. 24
Quaestiones in Genesim
1. 20 25 n. 26
Philodemus
De Deis
3. 14. 6–8 21 n. 12
De Musica
iv, p. 105 117 n. 22
Philostratus:
Heroicus
33. 1 124 n. 46
Vita Apollonii
6. 1. 2 187 n. 13
Philoxenus:
PMG 819 17 n. 65
Phoronis:
fr. 1 126 n. 53
Photius:
cod. 250
449a–451b 187–90
Pindar:
Olympian
2. 61–77 18–19 n. 4
Paean
8.70–1 114 n. 9
Pythian
12. 6 ff. 114 n. 7
Plato:
Alcibiades I
110d–112d 142
110d–111a 108–9
111a–c 134 n. 83
Cratylus
384d 208
385d–386a 139 n. 99
385d–e 172
(p.238)
389a 169 n. 194
389d–e 169 n. 196
390a 169 n. 194
391c 139 n. 97
39id–e 24 n. 19, 53
396b 26 n. 29
396d 25 n. 22
397b–c 24 n. 20
397c–d 169 n. 194, 184
397c n 6 n. 15, 168 n. 193
397d–398c 25 n. 22
399a 169 n. 195
400d 24 n. 19, 53 n. 115
401b 144 n. 111, 169 n. 194
404c 169 n. 194
407e–4o8b 115–16
409d–e 169 n. 196
410a 24 n. 21
411b 144 n. 111, 169 n. 194
412b 24 n. 21
414c–d 169 n. 195
416a 24 n. 21
418a–c 169 n. 195
418b–419b 24 n. 20
421c 169 n. 196
421d 24 n. 21, 109 n. 118, 184 n.8
421e–422c 169 n. 195
4226–423a 198
424a 169 n. 194
424b–425b 27, 133 n. 80
424d 28
425d–e 169 n. 196
425d 24 n. 20, 28, 116, 168 n. 193
425e–426a 24 n. 21, 109 n. 118, 184 n.8
427a–d 167
431e 169 n. 194
434c–d 24 n. 20
435c 24 n. 20
438c 24 n. 20, 116 n. 15, 168 n. 193
439C 169 n. 194
Euthyphro
6b–c 205 n. 72
Laws
676a–680a 125–6
678d–679c 22 n. 15
678e–679b 148–9
678e 62 n. 143
680b 184 n. 7
713c 22 n. 15
791e–792a 83
Lysis
223a–b 208 n. 86
Phaedrus
267c 139 n. 97
274c–d 116 n. 17, 124–5
Philebus
18a ff. 116 n. 17
18b 125
Politicus
262c–d 192
268e ff. 126 n. 52
269a–274e 22
271c–272d 22–3, 62
272b–c 29 n. 41
277d–278b 206
Protagoras
320c–323a 127–47 passim
320d 148 n. 122
321c 137–8
321d–322a 138
321d 127–8, 133, 148 n. 124
322a 128, 134–5.138 n. 96
(p.239)
322a–b 160 n. 164
322b–c 141
322b 138
322c 128
324b 137 n. 95
3250–3260 140
327e–328a 140
327e 108–9
Republic
369a–372d 29, 61–2, 125
372d–373c 62
452c 184
522d 123–4
Sophist
259e 206 n. 80
262a–e 206
Theaetetus
201d–202c 206 n. 80
2o6d 198 n. 48
Timaeus
22a 126 n. 53
39b 124 n. 45
[Plato]
Axiochus
371c–d 29 n. 42
Epinomis
978c 124 n. 45
Plato Comicus:
fr. 204 114 n. 10
Pliny:
Naturalis Historia
7. 1. 7 191 n. 28
7. 2. 24–5 191 n. 29
7. 23 186 n. 11
7. 191–209 153
8. 107 211 n. 96
11. 270 89 n. 56
36. 200 148 n. 124
Plutarch:
Antony
27. 3–4 193 n. 35
Moralia
356a 151 n. 134
370b 33
406b–e 46 n. 92
635e–638a 161 n. 167
738e–f 124 n. 48
941e 29
959f–963f 58 n. 133
994d–e 58 n. 133
Pollux:
5. 88 79 n. 26
Polybius:
1. 67. 3–11 2 n. 5
Porphyry:
De Abstinentia
1. 4 60 n.137
1. 13–25 58 n. 133
1. 13 60 n. 137
2. 22 58 n. 134
3. 1–7 58 n. 133
3. 3. 6 21 n. 10
3. 4. 5 211 n. 96
3. 5. 4 200 n. 53
3. 25 58 n. 134
4. 2. 1 63 n. 144
Posidonius:
fr. 284 25 n. 27, 150 n. 131
Proclus:
In Cratylum
14 202 n. 61
16 167 n. 186, 171 n. 203
17 169 n. 199
(p.240)
Theologia Platonica
5. 7–8 29
Prolegomenon Sylloge
pp. 24–6 197 n. 47
pp. 269–70 197 n. 47
Propertius:
2. 34. 37–8 16 n. 61
Protagoras:
DK80
A26 139 n. 97
A27 139
A28 139
Quintilian:
10. 1. 10 110
11. 3. 66 198
11.3. 85–7 196–7
Qumran fragments:
4Q464 frr. 2–3 33 n. 55
Seneca:
Epistulae
90. 5 25 n. 27
90. 7–32 150 n. 131
Sextus Empiricus:
Adversus Mathematicos
8. 275 210 n. 93
Pyrrhoniae Hypotyposes
1. 73 200 n. 53
Simplicius:
In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium
27. 18–21 208 n. 87
Sophocles:
Antigone
354–6 145–6
357–9 145
355 6
365–71 147
Nauplius
fr. 432 124 n. 46, 145 n. 115
Palamedes
fr. 479 145 n. 115
Philoctetes
183–5 13
225–35 13
927 ff. 12
936–7 13
Tereus
fr. 595 203 n. 64
Trachiniae
1060 191–2
Statius:
Thebaid
11. 442–3 16 n. 61
Stesichorus:
PMG 213 122 n. 38
Strabo:
1. 2. 6 46 n. 92
14. 2. 28 2 n. 7
Suda
β 229 s. v.
βεκεσέληνε 78 n. 25, 80 n. 31, 85 n. 42, 93 n. 67
Tanhuma Yelamdenu/Midrash Tanhuma
Midrash Tanhuma
Genesis 11 33 n. 55
(p.241) Tauron:
FGrH 710
F1 191 n. 29
Telecleides:
Amphictyons
fr. 1 30 n. 45
Tertullian:
De Pallio
3 206 n. 79
Testament of Judah:
25: 3 33 n. 55
Theocritus:
1. 151 16 n. 62
4. 45–6 16 n. 62
5. 102–3 16 n. 62
11. 19–79 17 n. 65
Theophrastus:
On Fire
1. 1 149 n. 129
Fragments
531 58 n.134
582 149 n. 130
584a 58 n. 134
728–36 149 n. 130
735 124 n. 48
Thucydides:
1. 5–6 184 n. 6
3. 94–5 49, 194 n. 38
Tibullus:
1. 3. 41–6 22 n. 15
Varro:
Lingua Latina
5. 8–9 25 n. 26
6. 36–8 44 n. 87
6.56 45 n. 90
7. 4 44 n. 87
8. 5 44 n. 87
Virgil:
Eclogues
4. 21–2 64
4. 26–45 22 n. 15
4. 42–5 64
Georgics
1. 125–8 22 n. 15
Vita Aesopi:
G
1–8 201
7 55 n.121
Vitruvius:
De Architectura
2. 1–3 147–8, 155–6
2. 1. 1 158–9
2. 1.4–5 184 n. 7
2. 6–7 147–8
9, praef. 17 156 n. 152
Xenophanes:
DK21
B14 50
B15 162 n. 173
B18 118 n. 25
Xenophon:
Anabasis
4. 5. 33 196
5. 4. 34 196 n. 43
Hellenica
2. 1. 15 194 n. 39
Memorabilia
1. 4 162
1. 4. 12 135–6, 143 n. 108
1.4. 14 136
2.7. 13 20
4. 3. 7 149
(p.242)
4.3. 11–12 143
4. 3. 12 115 n. 12
4.4. 19 10 n. 40
Oeconomicus
3. 12–13 207
7. 5 207
7. 10 207

Notes:

(1) I use the words ‘man’ and ‘he’ deliberately here; in many accounts the golden race consists solely of males who are fashioned by the gods or created of earth, and women have not yet been created. Baldry 1952 points out that Hesiod was the first to combine an older tale of the carefree idyllic age of Kronos with the myth of the golden race of men. This period became known as the golden age much later, in the works of Roman writers from the second half of the 1 st cent. BCE onwards, but I shall use the two terms, the golden age and the age of Kronos, interchangeably here.

(1) See above, Ch. 2, passim.

(2) Uxkull-Gyllenband 1924; Lovejoy and Boas 1935; Havelock 1957; Guthrie 1957esp. ch. 5, and 1969, iii. 60–8, 79–84; Cole 1967; Gatz 1967; Edelstein 1967; Dodds1973; Conacher 1980, 82–97; Blundell 1986, esp. ch. 7, all discuss ancient theories ofprogress. Gatz 1967, 144–6 presents a salutary warning about distinguishing toosharply between these two models—a descent from a golden age and an ascenttowards civilization—and notes that a whole series of ancient writers make use ofboth approaches in different writings; see too Blundell 1986, 105–6.

(2) See e.g. Crystal 1997, 222–7.

(2) Od. 1. 183; 3. 302; 14. 43; compare 15. 453.

(2) Gatz 1967 is the fullest discussion of the golden age. See too Lovejoy and Boas 1935, esp. ch. 2; Blundell 1986, ch. 6; Guthrie 1957, ch. 4.

(3) See below, Ch. 4.

(3) Lloyd 1976, 10 (ad Hdt. 2. 2) refers to one of the Egyptian names for Egypt, Bakt, and the Egyptian word for bread, pa-ako; see too How and Wells 1928, i. 156 (ad 2. 2. 5) and see Salmon 1956, 323. Bekos is in fact the Phrygian word for bread—see Hipponax fr. 125 West. Herodotus mentions an Egyptian word for bread, κυλλήστις (2. 77. 4).

(3) See Cole 1967, 1–13 and 48–50 on the different kinds of progress narratives. Gatz1967, 230–1 has a vast compendium of ancient references to primitive early men—seehis Ila. 5–6. Blundell 1986, 129 n. 2 has a list of pre-Socratic cultural histories, whileCole 1967, 50–6 lists later accounts.

(4) Compare Cole 1967, 50 n. 8 with Conacher 1980, 86 (and passim).

(4) οὐ γὰρ πάντων ἦεν ὁμὸς θρόος οὐδ’ ἴα γῆρυς ἀλλὰ γλῶσσ’ ἐμέμικτο (Il. 4. 437–8).

(4) See above, Sect. 1.4. Gatz 1967, 156–61 notes that thinkers such as Theophrastus and Posidonius posit a middle way between the alternatives of descent or ascent. They argue for a three-tier model of human development: (i) a primitive, bestial stage, (2) a perfect golden age, (3) technology and its evils. Here the golden age is not the earliest period of human history, the original state of man. In other writers an idyllic age is said to exist in the present day, but far away, in places such as the blessed islands, as in Pindar, Ol. 2. 61–77; see e.g. Dillon 1992, 23–6.

(6) Od. 2. 116–17; 7. 110–11.

(6) See Thuc. 1. 5–6 esp. 1. 6. 6: πολλά δ’ αν και άλλα τις απoδεὶξειε το παλαιόν Έλληνικόν ομοιότροπα τω νυν βαρβαρικώ διαιτώμ,ενον. See the further references col lected by Tuplin 1999, 61 n. 38.

(7) Hymn to Hermes 39–54; Hymn to Hephaestus 1–7. See too Pindar, Pyth. 12. 6 ff.;Aeschylus, ‘V 442 ff.; Eur. Suppl. 194ΓΪ.—the two tragedies are discussed below. Further texts are cited by Kleingünther 1933, 26–39 and O’Brien 1967, 58–9 with n. 6.

(7) See also the openings of two fables found in the Aesop υita, telling of a time when living creatures spoke the same language (as humans): ὅτε ἠ̑ν τὰ ζῳ̑α ὁμόφωνα (fab. 384 Perry = Vita Aesopis ch. 133) and καθ’ ὃν καιρὸν ἠ̑ν ὁμόφωνα τὰ ζῳ̑α τοι̑ς ἀνθρώποις (fab. 387 Perry = Vita ch. 99) and see further Nagy 1979, 314–16; Perry 1962, 314. For a different approach to animal speech in Greek fables, see Pelliccia 1995, 62–3, 68–9.

(7) See too Laws 680b (on political institutions). Vitruvius provides a Roman instance of this approach. He contends that the primitive types of buildings still used in Gaul and Spain, in Colchis and Phrygia, as well as remnants of earlier buildings at Athens, Marseilles, and Rome, point to the development of architecture from rude origins (2. 1.4–5).

(7) Strabo (14. 2. 28) takes βαρβαρόφωνοι to refer to Greeks who spoke harshly, with indistinct enunciation, rather than speakers of a foreign language.

(8) ‘Even if they are intelligible to each other, to the Greek ear their speech is mere phonic “babbling,”’ Ford 1992, 177. For φωνή as a non-human voice or sound, see e.g. Il. 18. 219; Od. 10. 239; for αὐδή as human speech see e.g. Il. 19. 407; Od. 5. 334; 6. 125 and the further references in Clay 1974. Ford (1992, 172–9) has a further discussion of the exact meaning of αὐδή, φωνή, ὄσσα, ὄπα, etc. in Homer; see too Leclerc 1993, 41–8, esp. 45 n. 111 on the use of these terms in Hesiod (and Homer).

(8) See e.g. Jubilees 3: 28 with Charles (1902, 27–8) ad loc; see too 12: 25–6. Jubilees is generally dated to the second half of the 2nd cent. BCE—see Rubin 1998, 309 with n. 16.

(8) For a discussion of the language of the gods in Homer, see above, Sect. 2.3.

(9) Acts of the Apostles 2: 1–4; compare 1 Cor. 14; see the discussion in Baranski 1989, 214.

(9) Compare the animals that are like speaking creatures ζωοι̑αιν ἐοικότα φωνήεσσιν (Theog. 584) which Hephaestus fashions on Pandora’s golden tiara. Athena andHephaestus are also said to have built gold statues which sang (Pindar, Paean 8.70-i).

(10) Eur. Hec. 836–40 (with Σ); Plato Comicus fr. 204 K.-A. See Kassell 1983; Morris 1992, 220ff.; Steiner 2001, 142–3.

(10) In the Callimachus fable discussed below, men and animals originally speak the same language but animals nonetheless have unique υoices of their own. Interestingly, Porphyry (De Abst. 3. 3. 6) refers to men of old who understood all the languages spoken by animals.

(11) FGrH 688 F45. 37 (note that αυτών is an emendation). In the course of this sen tence, Ctesias (or perhaps his epitomator Photius) uses the word ϕωνή in two different ways, first as speech and then as sound. See F 45P a (= Pliny, NH 7. 23) pro voce latratum edere and F 45ρ γ (= Aelian, NA 4. 46) και ϕθέγγονται μεν ουδέν, ώρύονται δé, της ye μην ινδών ϕωνής έπαίουσι. See too Pelhccia 1995, 55–6 n. 89.

(11) SeeGambarara 1989, esp. 89–91; Padel 1992, 6–8; Vernant 1983, 128–30; Allen1948, 37 with n. 4; Kahn 1978, esp. 155–6. Eustathius tells us that in sacrifices thetongue is dedicated to Hermes as a bestower of speech ὡς λόγου δοτη̑ρι Σ ad Od. 3. 332.

(12) Of course, on a certain level, Homer, composing in the Greek of traditional epic, has no choice but to have his interlocutors speak the same language. Even if he were, for example, familiar with Egyptian or the language of the gods, he could scarcely reproduce it for his (uncomprehending) audience ‘and only pedantry would protest at this convention’, Rutherford 1992, 158 (ad Od. 19. 175). Dio Chrysostom (11.22–3) is, in fact, just such a pedant: he attacks Homer for pretending that he understands the language of the gods. My point is that Homer nowhere raises the issue of translating from different languages. See too Pelliccia 1995, 79–80 with n. 132.

(12) See Pelliccia 1995, 104 on this distinction between comprehension and vocal ability and compare above, Sect. 1.4, on the similar position of Odysseus’ men who are turned into non-speaking swine by Circe (Od. 10. 239–40).

(12) Thus Vernant vii in Olender 1992. Compare the suggestion by the poet and Epicurean philosopher Philodemus that Greek (or something close to it) was the language of the gods (De Deis 3.14. 6–8, p. 37 Diels).

(12) See e.g. Xen. Mem. 4. 3. 12 and the further references in Sedley 1973, 60.

(13) Spontaneous production of food: Hes. Erga 117–18; PI. Pol. 271d–272a; Laws 713c; Virg. Ecl. 4. 26–45; Geor. 1. 125–8; Luc. DRN 5. 933–44; Tib. 1. 3. 41–6; Ov. Met. 1. 101–12; compare Pl. Laws 678d–679c and Arat. Phaen. 112–13. See Gale 1994, 165–6 with n. 37.

(13) Aelian, NA (4. 46): μνήμην 8e αυτών [sc. of the Dogheads] ev τοις άλόγοις ¿ποιησάμην, και εΐκότως- έναρθρον γαρ καί εΰσημον καί άνθρωπίνην ϕωνην ουκ έχουσιν. See FGrH 688 F 45. 37 and F 45P (Photius and Pliny) and compare Aristotle, Hist. An. 2. 8; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll.6. 1. 2

(13) γλώσσης ἡγεμονη̑α σοφη̑ς ἰθύντορα φωνη̑ς (Nonnus, Dionys. 26. 284); λόγου θντροι̑σι προφη̑τα (Orphic Hymn 28. 4)-

(14) Compare the development of clothing—leaves and hides, plaited and felted clothes, and finally clothing woven on the loom—outlined by Diogenes of Oenoanda, fr. 12; see above, Sect. 4.5. Ctesias tells us, incidentally, that the Dogheads obtain finer clothes from their fellow Indians through barter (FGrH 688 F 45. 41–2).

(14) Zaidman and Pantel 1994, 196–7. See too Detienne and Vernant 1978, 41; Clay 1989, 110–11.

(15) Compare Thalmann 1992, 81 on the relation between ships and culture.

(15) Socrates’ partner in the dialogue, Cratylus, believes in a namegiver who assignsphilosophically sound names which reveal essences and this leads him to postulate adivine inventor of words (Crat. 438c)—see below, Sect. 5. Elsewhere in the dialogue (397c) Socrates himself allows the possibility that some words originated with asuperhuman power; see Baxter 1992, 42–3.

(16) For a useful survey of recent discussions of the Politicus myth, see McCabe 1997; see too Blundell 1986, 149–53; Dillon 1992.

(17) See Plato, Phaedrus 274c-d;Philebus (i8aff.), where Theuth is said to inventwriting and several other things, but not language; see further below, Sect. 2. Burton1972, 77–9 brings some relevant Egyptian sources on Theuth’s inventions. Cicero (De Natura Deorum 3. 56) points to Hermes’ identification with Theuth and mentions his invention of laws and letters.

(17) See Dillon 1992, 29–30, who thinks that the current tales are a reference to Aesopian fables, and compare Rowe 1995, 194 (ad 272c7–d1). McCabe 1997, esp. 105–8 has an interesting discussion of the reasons why the age of Zeus in Plato’s myth is better suited to philosophizing than the age of Kronos.

(18) See Simone 1998, 171 (on the aim of those who created universal languages): ‘The signified could be “read” in the signifier and in the opposite way, the signifier would be “dictated” by the signified itself.’ Kretzmann 1971, 137: every name would bear its credentials on its face.

(18) Compare Euripides’ Cyclopes: ἀκοώει δ’ οὐδὲν οὐδεὶς οὐδενός (Eur. Cyc. 120).

(19) Divine language: Crat. 391d2–e3; compare 400d6–9; see Baxter 1992, 112 and see below, Sect. 3.

(19) Herodotus uses what seems to be a technical word for experiment, διάπειρα when describing both of Psammetichus’ trials (2. 28. 4; 2. 15. 2); see Christ 1994, 172 and 182–3 with n. 40. Benardete 1969, 41, interprets both experiments as an attempt to go back to beginnings.

(19) Cole (1967, 108–9, 185 with n. 26) argues forcefully that in this passage Hermesdoes not invent or articulate language per se. What he does do, according to Cole, iscreate a common koine for the Egyptians, who already have many dialects, and expandtheir vocabulary by coining new words for objects which have no designation.

(20) Clearchus of Soli fr. 98 Wehrli = Athen. 8. 345e. It seems clear that the παι̑δες of his text should be taken as children, not slaves.

(20) Diod. 5. 75; compare too 1. 43. 6: the Egyptian priests say that Hermes was theinventor of the arts and technology. For more of Hermes’ inventions and discoveries, see the sources cited by Thraede 1962, 1196 and 1220–1 and the discussion inKleingünther 1933, 29–31.

(20) Divine origin of first words: Crat. 438c (Cratylus speaking); see 397b–c (Socrates) and contrast 425d. Corruption of language: e.g. 418b–419b (Socrates); compare 434c–d and see 435c where Cratylus seems to concede that words can change for the worse.

(21) ἅτε περ ἄζυξ ὢν ὥσπερ ἐν πεττοῖς (Pol. 1253a6–7); see Kurke 1999, esp. 259–260. Clay 1983, 126 notes that Eustathius (Σ Od. 9. 189) calls Polyphemus more lawless than the lawless ἀθεμίστων ἀθεμστίτερος.

(21) The Scythian king Scyles who is taught Greek language and letters by his mother (4. 78) is put to death because of his attachment to Greek ways; the half-Pelasgian children taught the Attic tongue and Athenian ways by their captive Athenian mothers (6. 138) are executed for thinking themselves superior; and a Mede youngster tutored in archery and the Scythian language by Scythian hunters is served up as a dish to the Mede king Cyaxares (1. 73). See too Harrison 1998, text near n. 22, who notes that the adult Amazons described by Herodotus find it difficult to learn Scythian (Hdt. 4. 117); see below, Sect. 5.3.

(21) Mercuri, facunde nepos Atlantis quijeros cultus hominum recentum voce formasti{Odes 1. 10. 1–3); compare too Ovid’s reworking of Horace’s stanza (Fast. 5. 663–8). In the Satires (1. 3. 99 ff.), Horace describes humans as developing language on theirown; see below, Sect. 3.

(21) Crat. 425e–426a; compare 421d; see also 410a; 412b; 416a.

(22) The word ἀλογλόσος is found in an early 6th-cent. inscription dedicated by Greek settlers in Egypt—see Meiggs and Lewis 1969, 12–13 (no. 7 (a), line 4), and Lévy 1992, 201 n. 35.

(22) Note, however, the remarks of Baxter 1992, 112, who points to a possible link in the Cratylus between the knowledge of correct names and membership in the golden race of men. Euthyphro, an expert in etymologies, is said to impart a δαιμονία σοφία (396d); subsequently Socrates links δαίμονες, said to be members of the golden race, with wise men (φρόνιμοι καὶ δαίμονες 397d–398c).

(22) Philodemus, De Música iv, p. 105 Kemke = SVFni, fr. 90, pp. 234–5 (Diogenesof Babylon).

(23) See too Anthologia Latina 2. 1528 =(Carm. Epig. 1528), where Hermes istermed the inventor of money and giver of speech lucn repertor et sermonis dator, andthe further references cited by Nisbet and Hubbard 1970, 127–9.

(24) See Origen, Contra Celsum 1. 24 (= SVF ii. 146): φύσει μιμουμένων τω̑ν πρώτων φωνω̑ν τὰ πράγματα (καθ’ ὡ̑ν τὰ ὀνόματα) and Philo, De Opif. Mundi 150 (rational words and rational man). Philo is thought to be influenced by Stoic thought here—see Sluiter 1990, 19–20 with n. 72 and compare Blank 1982, 77 n. 2.

(25) For ancient comments see Suda β 229 s.v. βεκεσέληνε; Σ Tzetz. Ar. Nub. 398a and Σ ad Apoll. Rhod. 4. 257–262c. Fehling (1989, 141) suggests that Hdt. himself expects his readers to draw this conclusion. A wide range of later thinkers also claim that the goats’ bleating lies behind the children’s speech—see Launay 1980, esp. 405 and 412; Katz 1981, 134–5; Genette 1995, 123 and 367 n. 30. While it is clear how the animals’ bleating could give rise to the first syllable ‘be’ of bekos—the second, ‘kos’, is less easily explained—see e.g. Launay 1980, 405. In some ancient accounts (e.g. Σ Tzetz. Ar. Nub. 398a)the children are said to produce the ‘word’ βέκ in the wake of the goats—βὲκ γάρ Φασι καὶ τὰπρόβατα.

(25) In some anthropogonies—e.g. Archelaus DK 60 A4—early men are barely distinguished from animals; see further Blundell 1986, 79–80. O’Brien 1985 argues persuasively that the doctrine of man’s moral and primeval brutishness can be traced noearlier than this very passage of the Supplices and that ideas about man’s primitivebeginnings first circulated in the third quarter of the 5th cent. There are, however, earlier, 6th cent, references to man’s progress—most notably Xenophanes fr. 18—and the discoveries made by men in the history of civilization; see too the referencescollected by O’Brien 1967, 59–66; Kleingünther 1933, 26–9. For general discussionsof these progress passages see the bibliography cited in n. 2 above.

(25) Corruption of men: Diog. Laert. 7. 89; see too SVF iii. 228–36 and see Sluiter 1990, 19–20.

(26) See Ar. Wasps 569–72; Aes. Sept. 348 (with Σ); Eupolis fr. 112 K.−A., where the words for animal bleating—βληχάομαι and βληχή—are used of young children; see Pollux 5. 88. See further Golden 1994, esp. 377–83, who collects characterizations of infants’ and children’s speech in Greek sources.

(26) Both these points are speculative; see Blank 1982, 77 n. 5 and Frede 1978, 69 and 75 n. 17, who cites Philo, De Opif. Mundi 148; Quaest. in Gen. 1. 20; Varro, Lingua Latina 5. 8–9. The first two texts refer to the biblical Adam as wise king and name-giver, while Varro’s royal namegiver is a rex Latinus.

(27) See Od. 1. 170; 10. 325; 14. 187; 15. 264; 19. 105; 24. 298 and see Webber 1989, 4.

(27) Seneca, Ep. 90. 5 = fr. 284 Edelstein–Kidd.

(28) Commentators note a similar link between speech and intelligence—and itsabsence in beasts—in Euripides’ Tro. (671–2): καίτοι τὸ θηριω̑δες α῎φθογγόν τ’ ε῎φν ξυνέσει τ’ α῎χρηστον τῃ̑ φύσει τε λείπεται (Yet an animal is voiceless by nature, lacking inintelligence and wanting in its nature).

(28) Pliny, NH 7. 1.7. AarslefT 1982, 99 n. 39 is the source of this quotation from Leibniz.

(29) κόρον … σημαίνεα … τὸ καθαρὸν αὐτου̑ καὶ ἀκήρατον του̑ νου̑ Crat. 396b. See Baxter 1992, ch. 4 and Barney 1998 on the etymologies of the Cratylus; Sedley 1998b is an interesting attempt to take these etymologies seriously. For the Stoics, see the cautionary comments in Long and Sedley 1987, i. 195; see too Sluiter 1997, 155–63; Amsler 1989.

(29) See Pliny, NH 7. 2. 24 (= FGrH 710 F 1, the sole fragment of Tauron, an other wise unknown, apparently Hellenistic, author). Pliny goes on to tell of the Astomi tribe, described by Megasthenes, who have no mouths and presumably cannot speak (NH 7. 2. 25).

(30) Tongueless mothers: Σ vet. Ar. Nub. 398d. Silent mother(s): Σ rec. Ar. Nub. 398e; Σ Tzetz. Ar. Nub. 398a; Σ Thomas-Triclinius Ar. Nub. 398b. Compare too the ‘foolish’ Greek account of tongueless women mentioned by Hdt. Golden 1995 is a study of instances of ancient Greek ‘motherese’ and baby talk.

(30) Scholars offer different explanations of the name: Πολύφημος can mean ‘much-talked about’ (i.e. the notorious giant) or ‘he who speaks much’. This second interpretation, ‘speaking much’ or ‘having many utterances’, may well be an ironic comment on the isolation of the uncommunicative Cyclops (Higbie 1995, 12), but it could refer to the power of Polyphemus’ final utterance or curse against Odysseus. See Thalmann 1992, 88; and see below. Odysseus is, of course, granted a meaningful name by his grandfather Autolycus (Od. 19. 399–409).

(31) See Launay (1980, 404), who sees the shepherd as a kind of royal delegate. In the variant ancient versions of the experiment where wet-nurses or mothers care for the children the king sends a special emissary to pay a visit and silently check whether the children have learned to speak. See Suda β 229 s.v. βεκεσέληνβ (and Σ vet. Ar. Nub. 398b)—note σιιπῃ̑ παρελθει̑ν; see too Σ vet. Ar. Nub. 398d.

(32) See e.g. Aes. Ag. 1050–1; Ar. Frogs 680–2, compare 93; Birds 199–200, compare 1681. See too Harrison 1998, text near n. 71 and the further references collected by Tuplin 1999, 50 with n. 14; he notes that barbarian speech is compared to the sound of a spluttering frying pan as well (Eubulus fr. 108 K.-A.)

(32) See the useful detailed comparison of the two passages in Conacher 1980, 88–90.

(33) Od. 8. 222; 9. 89; compare Il. 21. 465. See e.g. Dierauer 1977, 12 and Baldry 1965, 12.

(33) Clay (1989, 114–16) notes that in the Hymn to Hermes the young Hermesencounters a slow-witted old man (lines 92–3), who seems to represent a primitivephase of human existence, pre-agricultural and pre-political; the hymn’s old man isreminiscent of the early, uncomprehending humans of the PV.

(34) Single child: Claudian, In Eutropium 2. 251–4; Σ Thomas-Triclinius, Ar. Nub. 398b; Σ Erec. Ar. Nub. 398f; Σ vet. Ar. Nub. 398c. Here we can compare another very gifted child of the wild, Tarzan, who teaches himself not to speak but to read. Lord Greystoke’s son single-handedly manages to decipher the ‘strange little bugs’ of an illustrated alphabetic primer.

(34) See e.g. Il. 19. 407, 418; Od. 6. 125; 5. 334; 10. 136 etc. See too Clay 1974, 130–5 and Ford 1992, 177–8. Another epithet often assigned to humans in epic, μέροπες (Il.1. 250 etc.) was wrongly understood by the ancients to mean ‘articulate’—see Baldry 1965, 204 n. 6; Kirk 1985, 79–80 (ad Il. 1. 250).

(35) Compare Diod. 3. 8. 1–3 and see too Galen, De Captionibus c. 2 (94, 20–96, 3 Edlow), who contends that although neither Persian nor Ethiopian signify anything to Greek speakers, Persian is a superior language because of its sound. Cleopatra is said to have spoken the languages of the Troglodytes and the Ethiopians, along with several other tongues (Plut. Ant. 27. 3–4).

(36) SeePFiio-n, 253–4, 612–13; O’Brien 1967, 60–4.

(36) ἤ ῥ’ οἵ γ’ ὑβρισταί τε καὶ ἄγριοι οὐδὲ δίκαιοι, ἦε φιλόξεινοι, καί σφιν νόος ἐστὶ θεουδής Od. 6. 120–1.

(37) On taxonomy in the Cratylus, see Kretzmann 1971, 128 and compare Baxter 1992, 40–1 with n. 43; see too Crat. 388b–c.

(37) See too Arist. Aud. 801b5 and the further references cited by Golden 1994, 377, nn. 25–6.

(37) See too Odysseus’ arrival at Ithaca (Od. 13. 201–2) and compare 8. 575–6.

(38) Στησίχοροςτὸν Παλαμήδην φησὶν εὑρηκέναι [sc. τα σά στοιχει̂α] (PMG 213).

(38) Thuc. 3. 94. 5; see above, Sect. 2.3.

(39) See Lloyd 1976, 199–200 (ad 2. 42), who defends Herodotus’ description of the Ammonian language and argues for the existence of a lingua franca made up of Cushitic Ethiopian, Egyptian, and Libyan dialects; see too Fehling 1989, 132. Compare also Xenophon’s half-barbarians (μοξοβάρβαροι, Hellenica 2. 1. 15: what lan guage did they speak?). See too Asheri 1994, esp. 48–9; Harrison 1998, text near n. 84 and the further references there.

(40) Aarsleff 1982, 261.

(40) For Palamedes’ inventions see e.g. Gorg. Pal. 30, Alcidam. Ulix. 22, and thefurther references cited by Wust 1942, 2505–8.

(40) See Stokoe and Marschark 1999, 169: ‘One of the spoils of the cognitive revolution has been general acceptance of the assumption that language development onto-logically …is facilitated by the availability of a primitive conceptual system in which concepts and linguistic units are in roughly a one-to-one correspondence. In the case of children acquiring their first language, the situation results from the fact that the language used by adults in the environment is already keyed to dividing up the world in ways that make cognitive and culturally/environmentally relevant sense.’ No adult has divided up the world inhabited by Psammetichus’ children.

(40) Compare the argument made by Xenophon’s Hippias that men could not have composed the unwritten laws respected by everyone, because they do not speak a common language (Mem. 4. 4. 19).

(41) See in particular Aeschylus, Palamedes fr. 182a III Radt (transmitted as ascholion on the invention of number at PV459 καὶ μὴν ἀριθμόν …): καὶ μὴν ταύτην τὴν εν῞ρεσιν Παλαμήδη προση̑φεν [sc. Aeschylus]. ι῎σως δὲ κἀκει̑νος ν̔πὸ του̑ Προμηθέως ε῎μαθε ταυ̑τα.

(41) Compare Rowe 1995, 193 (ad Pol. 272b8–c5), who also thinks that these golden age men could have learned something philosophical from their animal friends.

(42) In some ancient accounts of the experiment the two children are older and first pronounce the word bekos at the age of 3 or even 4: Σ Tzetz. Ar. Nub. 398a; Suda β 229 s.v. βεκεσέληνε (and Σ vet. Ar. Nub. 398b); Σ rec. Ar. Nub. 398e.

(42) See [Pl.] Axiochus 371c–d; Aristotle fr. 58 Rose and the further references in Gatz 1967, 188–9. In the Politics (1334a28–34) Aristotle points out that people—such as the inhabitants of the Islands of the Blessed—who possess every good have a special need for philosophy (and justice and temperance). See too Dillon 1992, 30 and 35 n. 18.

(42) Compare Herodotus’ Carthaginians who barter goods—silently and without personal contact—with a race who live beyond the Pillars of Heracles. They do so by means of smoke signals and dumb show (4. 196). Rotólo 1972, esp. 410–14, and Rochette 1995, n have useful collections of ancient passages relating to the use of gestures, sign language, and non-verbal communication.

(43) Athenaeus 6. 267 ff. is the chief source for these comic fragments. See too the refs. collected by Gatz 1967, 116–21 and see Lovejoy and Boas 1935, 38–41 and Blundell 1986, 155–6.

(43) Roads: Od. 10. 103–4; houses: 10. 111;town: 10. 104, 108: greetings: 10. 82–3; assemblies: 10. 114; king 10. 110–11.

(43) Compare too Xenophon’s Mossynoeci who are said to speak to themselves, laugh aloud in private, and dance (Anab. 5. 4. 34).

(44) See the remarks of Phillips 1957, 276–7.

(44) Compare Cic. De Orat. 3. 223, where facial expressions and gestures—which express the emotions of the mind—are said to influence everyone, for everyone feels the same emotions.

(44) See too frr. 16–17 K.–A. See Baldry 1953, esp. 53–4 and below, Sect. 4.

(45) See Il. 4. 34–6 and 24. 212–13 for similar wishes to eat the flesh of one’s enemy and see the stimulating discussion in Rawson 1984.

(45) Adam in his commentary ad loc. (1907, ii. 108) interestingly notes that theknowledge of number is one of the characteristic differences between man and thelower animals—see PI. Tim. 39b and [PL] Epinomis 978c. Speech, of course, isanother such marker.

(45) Telecleides’ Ἀμφικτύονες fr. 1 K.–A.; see esp. 11. 4–5, 13. This comic scenario of a flow of food asking to be consumed is not restricted to portrayals of the golden age and is found in two related utopian or fantastic situations, the world below of Eleusinian mysteries and depictions of life in the lap of Persian luxury; see Gatz 1967, 116–22.

(46) See e.g. Gorg. Pal. 30; Soph. Nauplius fr. 432 Radt. In later sources, such asPhilostratus’ Heroicus (33. 1), Palamedes is depicted as a universal culture hero withpowers closer to those of Prometheus, inventing the seasons and cycle of months, andnaming the year—see Kurke 1999, 250; see too Blundell 1986, 11.

(46) Compare Salmon 1956, 326–7, who suggests that the children are reacting with a Pavlovian response to the shepherd’s arrival at a fixed time every day (καὶ τὴν ὥρην ἐπαγινέειν σΦι αἰ̑γας) with the goats. It is interesting to compare Jean Itard’s report on the first word of the feral child under his care, Victor of Aveyron (see below, Sect. 3). Itard tried to teach Victor to use the word lait to express his desire for milk, but Victor would say lait only after he had received milk, as an expression of joy. Itard terms this use of language ‘merely a vocal sign of the possession of a thing’, and stresses that this is not a useful means of communication. See the translation of Itard’s report (orig. pub. in 1801) in Malson 1972, 121–2.

(46) Lucian, Salt. 64; compare fup. Trag. 13, where Hermes states that he has to resort to gestures because he is not a polyglot and does not speak the language of the Scythians, Persians, Thracians, and Celts. On the ancient view of dance as an autonomous language, capable of conveying words, see further Montiglio 1999.

(47) Callimachus, Iambus 2 fr. 192 PfeifTer. The text of the fragment is based mainly on the lacunose P Oxy. 1011; the first 3 lines are also quoted by other writers. The content of Callimachus’ iambic poem can be supplemented by the Διηγήσεις, a papyrus summary outline of the Hellenistic writer’s poems (Dieg. 6. 22–32). See Perry 1965, 505–6 and 1962, 312–14. Kerkhecker 1999, 49–63 is a recent, comprehensive discussion of the poem. Note his comment on the paradoxical qualities of the tale (58): ‘Zeus takes away from the animals what man already owns—the gift of speech; and he transfers to mankind what the animals still possess—their voices.’

(47) Compare the ὁμόφρονα θυμ,όν (Il. 22. 263) which Achilles and Hector do not share.

(47) Aelian, VH 14. 22; Rabe 1931, 24–6; see too 269–70.

(48) See e.g. Theophrastus, Peplos fr. 735 (Fortenbaugh); Plut. Quaest. Conv.738e—f; Hyginus, Fab. 277 and the further sources cited by Wüst 1942, 2506 andJeffery 1967, 155–7 with n. 10.

(48) See PI. Theaet. 2o6d (where deaf and mute people are said to be unable to indicate what they think about things).

(49) Elsewhere in his writings Callimachus includes other unusual speakers: talking statues, unborn infants, trees, and crows—see frr. 114, 199, Del. 86–99, 189–90 and the further references in Pelliccia 1995, 72–3 with n. 118.

(50) The word προσπίπτοντα may mean either that the children fall upon the shepherd—in the Σ vet. Ar. Nub. 398d we find the paraphrase προσεπήδησαν—or possibly that they fall before him in an attitude of supplication. Grene translates ‘clasped his knees’; see too Salmon 1956, 327.

(50) Clement, Protrepticus 4. 54.

(51) Athen. 3. 98d–f. Heracleides of Lembus is his source.

(51) Pseudo-Hippocrates, περί σαρκών ι8 (xiii. 200 Joly); see Ax 1984, 116–18; and see above, Ch. 4, n. 88.

(52) Ammonius, InArist. de Int. 23, 2–9; 30, 25–31, 2 Busse.

(52) See Hes. Erga 117–18 and see e.g. Kirk 1970, 164.

(52) Compare the myth of the Politicus (268eff.; see above, Sect. 2.1) where menbegin fully grown and fully intelligent, with the world revolving under divine guidance. After a while, the god releases the world, and men gradually lose all memory ofdivine order. Do they lose language as well?

(53) πατέρα θνητω̑ν ἀνθρώπων Phoronis fr. 1. See too πρω̑τον α῎νθρωπον ήενέσθαι Acusilaus FGrH 2 F 23a and see Plato, Tim. 22a.

(53) Porph. De Abst. 3. 5. 4. Compare Sext. Emp. PH 1. 73: supposing that a man were mute, no one would call him irrational.

(54) Eustathius (Σ Od. 9. 447) describes Polyphemus’ address to his ram as an instance of ‘like to like’ (cited by Clay 1983, 120 n. 124). A modern commentator notes that a question asked by Polyphemus (on the whereabouts of Odysseus’ ship—Od. 9. 279–80) displays ‘animal cunning’—Jones 1988, 85 (ad loc.). For the simple language of the age of Kronos, see below, Sect. 2.2.

(54) Paus. 2. 19. 5; 2. 15. 5; Hyginus, Fab. 143.

(55) Paus. 8. 1.4–5.

(55) See the Qumran fragments 4Q464 frr. 2–3; Testament of Judah 25: 3 (p. 78 de Jonge); Tanhuma Yelamdenu/Midrash Tanhuma Genesis 11 (p. 28 Buber). See Eshel and Stone (1995), 218–21; Rubin 1998, 310–11 and the further sources there.

(56) Apoll. Rhod. 3. 1086–9. For some further first men and culture heroes see Sikes 1914, 27–9 (with notes on 105); Guthrie 1957, 21–8 with notes on 112–18; O’Brien1985, 274 with n. 44.

(56) Hdt. 1. 85. 2; compare the earlier words of the Pythian oracle given to Croesuson comprehending the mute and hearing the voiceless καὶ κωΦου̑ συνίημι καὶ οὐ Φωνευ̑ντος ἀκούω (1. 47. 3). Golden 1995, 12 suggests that the story of Croesus’ son should be read as a reversal: normally the day of a child’s first word was a joyous one. Pease 1920 brings some ancient variations on the story of Croesus’ son, including Pliny’s statement that he first spoke at the age of six months (NH 11. 270), but Pliny may be referring to Croesus’ other son, Atys.

(57) ὑπὸ δέους τε καὶ κακου̑ ἔρρηξε Φωνήν Hdt. I. 85. 4; compare ἥντινα Φωνὴν ῥήξουσι πρώτην in our passage. The expression ῥήγνυμι Φωνήν is used once more in Hdt. whena group of allies overcome their fears and speak up only after Sosicles of Corinth has spoken freely (ἃπας τις αὐτω̑ν Φωνὴν ῥήξας 5. 93. 2). Here too there is a sense of an obstacle overcome before they break into speech. When Hdt. refers once again briefly to our experiment he uses a different phrase: 2. 15. 2: οὐδὲ ἔδει σΦέας ἐς διάπειραν τω̑ν παιδίων ἰέναι, τίνα γλω̑σσαν πρώτην ἀπήσουσι.

(59) Κρατύλος … δς το reXevraiov ονθεν coero δεΐν Xéyeiv, άλλα τον δάκτνλον ικίνει μόνον. Arist. Metaphys. 1010a12–13. See Mouraviev 1999, 23–55 for a very full collection of testimonia relating to Cratylus.

(60) Diod. 2. 57. 3–4. Compare the Egyptian hieroglyphics used in Euhemerus’ utopia (Diod. 5. 46. 7) and see Ferguson 1975, 126; Rohde 1914, 252–6 n. 3.

(60) See Allan 1954; Cassin 1987; Baxter 1992, 25–30. Cratylus is reminiscent of Thamyris, the mythical Thracian poet who is struck dumb for claiming to sing better than the Muses. The Muses take away Thamyris’ wondrous voice and make him for get how to play the cithara (Il. 2. 594–600). Both Cratylus and Thamyris are reduced to silence precisely because of their great confidence in their linguistic powers.

(60) Compare Menelaus’ words to his horses at Il. 23. 442–5.

(61) For the former explanation, see Edwards 1991, 284–5 (ad Il. 19. 418) and for the latter, Johnston 1992, esp. 97–8. She notes two other instances of divine horses addressing their masters: a different Xanthus speaks to Castor of the Dioscuri (Alemán, PMG 76), and the horse Areion may have prophesied to the warrior Adrastus in a lost epic work (see Statius, Thebaid 11. 442–3; Propertius 2. 34. 37–8). See too Pelliccia 1995, 105–8.

(61) Proclus In Cratylum 14.

(62) ὡς περί Κρατύλου Αισχίνης on 8ιασίζων και τοιν χεροΐν διασείων (Arist. Rhet. 1417b1–2). See, however, Mouraviev 1999, 27 (ad T50), who suggests emending ονασίζων to δια σιγών i.e. silently. This would mean that the mute Cratylus gesticulat ed with both hands; see too Cassin 1987, 142–3.

(62) Burkert 1996, 85–8 with notes on 211–12; Beaken 1996, 51; see too Launay 1980, 406 and compare e.g. Il. 1. 500–2.

(62) Peradotto 1990, 111–14 demonstrates how the name of Odysseus’ dog Άργος (’swift’ or ‘bright’) is no mere epithet or generic appellation, but a significant name which adds both meaning and irony to the episode. Redfield 1994, 195 notes that dogs in Homer are, with the exception of Argus, anonymous, while horses can have personal names. Lonsdale 1990, 23 points out that Mycenaean tablets indicate that cowsand domestic animals were given names in the Bronze Age, so that it is not unwarranted to expect Polyphemus to name his ram. See too Theocr. 1. 151; 4. 45–6; 5.102–3 (for named sheep, cows, and goats).

(64) Arist. Poet. 1454b36–7; he is referring to Sophocles’ lost tragedy Tereus (fr. 595 Radt). For a comprehensive list of ancient sources on Philomela see Frazer 1921, 98–100 n. 2 (ad Apollod. Bibl.3. 14. 8); see too Forbes Irving 1990, 99–107, 248–9.

(65) See too Anthologia Palatina 9. 451, line 4.

(65) In later classical traditions Polyphemus is known for his singing. See e.g. Eur. Cyc. 425–6, 489–90 (where he sings quite badly); Philoxenus, PMG 819 and Theocr. 11. 19–79 (where he skilfully woos Galatea with his music).

(66) See Dobrov 1993, 204–5, 213–14 and compare e.g. Apollod. Bibl. 3. 14. 8 νϕηνασα ev πίπλψ γράμματα.

(66) Even in the variant versions in the ancient scholia it is another Egyptian king who is said to have performed the experiment- i.e. Σ vet. Ar. Nub. 398c says that it was the Egyptian ruler Sesonchosis. Only in the Thomas-Triclinius scholia Ar. Nub. 398b do we find that an unnamed group of rivalrous Phrygians and Paphlagonians put one child to the test.

(67) Swallows were often associated with unintelligible barbarian chatter in Greek writings; see e.g. Aes. Ag. 1050–1 and Dobrov 1993, 222–3 with n. 74. Interestingly, in earlier Greek sources Procne becomes a nightingale, while Philomela is trans formed into a swallow, but in later Roman accounts it is the tongueless Philomela who is turned into the songbird; see Forbes Irving 1990, 249 and the references cited there.

(67) Tongueless wet-nurses: Hdt. 2. 2. 5; Suda β 229 s.v. βεκεσέληνε; Σ vet. Ar. Nub. 398b, 398c;. Σ rec. Ar. Nub. 398f. Tongueless mothers: Σ vet. Ar. Nub. 398d. Goats: Σ ad Apoll. Rhod. 4. 257–62C; Suda β 229 s.v. βεκεσέληνε (and Σ vet. Ar. Nub. 398b). Single child: Claudian, In Eutropium 2. 251–4; Σ Thomas-Triclinius Ar. Nub. 398b; Σ rec. Ar. Nub. 398f; Σ vet. Ar. Nub. 398c. Silent mother(s): Σ rec. Ar. Nub. 398e; Σ Tzetz. Ar. Nub. 398a; Σ Thomas-Triclinius Ar. Nub. 398b.

(68) Nonnus, Dionys. 4. 321; Achilles Tatius 5. 5. 4–5; see Bergren 1983, 72. Montiglio 1999, 269–70 compares the description of weaving as a silent language in Achilles Tatius 5. 4. 4–5 to parallel descriptions of dance.

(68) Leakey 1994, 109–12.

(69) For speech as the distinguishing characteristic of man in Aristotle see e.g. Rhet. 1355b1–2; De int. 16a28–9; Poet. 1456b24; Hist. An. 535a27ff. and see Clark 1975, 23–5, 37–8, 101–2. Other Greek writers, from Homer onwards, also saw language as man’s unique possession—see the discussion and references in Renehan 1981; Pelliccia 1995, 25–6, 62, and passim; Dierauer 1977, 12, 32–4, 125–8, 234–6, 268–70. Note too the series of ancient etymologies (collected by Dickerman 1909, 25 n. 1) which derive the very word ἄνθρωπος from the faculty of articulate speech, e.g. Etym. Magn. s.v. ἄνθρωπος: παρὰ τὸ ἔναρθρον ἔχειν τὴν ὄπα, τουτέστι τὴν φωνήν.

(69) See Lucretius, DRN 5. 1028ff., n6 1 ff. and Diogenes Oen. frr. 12, 16–20 Smith; both of which apparently derive from Epicurus, Nat., book 12. See Obbink 1996, 306 and the further evidence he cites there for the content of Epicurus’ lost work. See too Long and Sedley 1987, ii. 145–6 and compare Epicurus, Ep.Hdt. 75–7 for asimilar sequence of a discussion of religion following upon an analysis of the origin of language.

(69) Ovid, Met. 6. 576–9. See too Met. 6. 609, where Philomela’s hand is said to act for her voice, pro voce manus fuit.

(70) Ovid, Met. 1. 611–747; seeesp. 1. 649. De Luce 1993, in an interesting study of the motif of the power of speech, i.e. the relation between humanity and articulacy, in the Met., discusses both Io and Philomela.

(71) See e.g. Buxton 1994, 122–8 and Blundell 1998, 65–72.

(71) DRN ζ. 1028–90; esp. 1028–40, 1057–61. See Bailey’s very useful commentary (1947, iii. 1486–97) on the entire passage and Snyder 1980, ch. 1.

(72) Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Eunomium 2. 253–4 (p. 287 Jaeger).

(72) Il. 3. 125–8. Compare too the picture of the gigantomachy woven into Athena’s peplos by the young girls of Athens (PI. Euthyph. 6b–c) and see Scheid and Svenbro 1996, ch. 1.

(73) Od. 7. 234–5; 19. 218 and 225–6; Aes. Choe. 231–2; Eur. Ion 1417–25.

(74) SeeBergren 1983 for an illuminating discussion of the links between female lan guage and weaving in Greek thought. She terms weaving the ‘sign-making activity of women par excellence’ (71).

(75) Od. 2. 88–122; see 7. 108–11.

(75) See DRN 1. 44–9 = 2. 646–51; 2. 1090 ff.; 3. 18–24; 5. 146–55; 6. 71–9 and the sources on Epicurean accounts of the gods in Long and Sedley 1987, i. 139–49; ii. 143–54. See too Nussbaum 1994, 251–9 and below, Sect. 4.5.

(75) Rousseau was similarly concerned with the relation between language andthought, since, in his view, early humans needed words in order to refer to concepts, and concepts in order to form words. Siissmilch apparently formulated this aporia independently of Rousseau; see Stam 1976, 102; Ricken 1994, 145–6.

(76) δεινή deos αύδήεσσα: Od. 10. 136; II. 8; 12. 150; 12. 449; see above, Sect. 2.3. Weave at their looms: Od. 5. 61–2; 10. 220–2. Deceitful (δολόεσσα): η. 245; g. 32. See further Nagler 1996, esp. on their prophetic powers.

(77) There are many other 18th- and 19th-cent. figures who discussed the origin of language and saw the first language as a poetic tongue meant to express emotions. A partial list would include Bernard de Mandeville, Thomas Blackwell, William Warburton, Etienne de Condillac, Lord Monboddo (James Burnett), James Harris, Johann Hamann, and Johann Herder. See Stam 1976, passim, and the brief survey of Seuren 1998, 76–9. Abrams 1953, 78–82, has an illuminating discussion.

(77) See e.g. μύθους και μηδεα … ΰϕαινον Il. 3.212; δόλους και μήτιν ΰϕαινον Od. 9. 422.

(79) Interestingly, Hermes, who, as we have seen, is often credited with the inven tion of language, is said to have invented weaving as well—see Tertullian, De Palito 3 (= FGrH 659 F9b) and Cole 1967, 20 and 38–9.

(80) Dion. Hal. De Comp. Verb. 6; Lucretius, DRN 1. 815–29; 912–20, etc. SeeFriedlánder 1941 and compare the discussion in the Cratylus (424b–425b on forming words from primary elements (above, Sect. 2.1). Aristophanes has a playfuldescription of the tragedian Agathon bending verbal timbers into shape and lathingand gluing songs together (Thesm. 52–4).

(80) See too PI. Soph. 259e; Theaet. 201d–202c.

(83) It is interesting to note a passage in the Platonic Alcibiades (ma-c) where Socrates, when demonstrating that Greek speakers all agree on the meaning of words, uses ‘stone’ and ‘wood’ as examples of quintessential words. (For sticks and stones as ‘paradigms of the contemptibly commonplace’, see the passages collected by Denyer (2001, 123) in his note ad Ale. mbii—ci.) See too the first words supposedly taught by Diogenes of Oenoanda’s hypothetical schoolteacher (fr. 12 Smith; below, Sect. 5).

(83) Hippolytus in Euripides’ play of that name would like to reduce women to the speechlessness of animals. He suggests that women should be made to live with dumb biting beasts so that they will neither be addressed nor have an audience (Eur. Hipp. 645–8). For the assimilation of infant speech to that of animals, see above, Sect. 3.2.

(84) In Hdt.’s phrasing οἵτινες γενοίατο πρω̑τοι (2. 2). Σ ad Apoll. Rhod. 4. 257–262c calls this the question of who were γηγενει̑ς; other scholiasts (e.g. Σ vet. Ar. Nub. 398d; Σ Tzetz. Ar. Nub. 398a) see it as a quarrel or contest between various nations over ἀρχαιότης. See Vannicelli 1997, 210–11 for further discussion and references.

(84) See Pomeroy 1994, 272–3 (ad Oec. 7. 10).

(86) See e.g. PI. Lys. 223a-b and Ar. Thesm. 1001–7 for the broken Greek of slaves.

(86) See Ax 1984, 98. Interestingly, the absence of reference to articulated speech inEur. Suppl. 203–4—see above, Sect. 1—has led Scaliger and other scholars to emendline 204b to ὡς γεγωνίσκειν ὀπί (or ο῎πα) i.e. a god gave humans speech ‘that we mayspeak out clearly’, in place of the transmitted text ω῞στε γιγνμώσκειν ο῞πα ‘so that wemight understand discourse’. See Collard 1975, ii. 163 (ad 203–4), who rejects theconjecture.

(87) Ammonuis, In Anst.de Int. 38, 17 ff. (Busse) and Simplicius, Cat. 27. 18–21; he is also said to have named two further slaves Mev, and Ac, and his daughter ‘Theognis’. See Sedley 1973, 63, who suggests that Diodorus produced the slaves as a kind of walking argument against the contention that language was natural. Baxter 1992, 19 notes that Hermogenes’ strong version of conventionalism entails treating language literally as one’s slave, one’s personal property to be dealt with as one pleases.

(87) Varro, Lingua Latina 6. 36–8; 7. 4; 8. 5. See Blank 1982, 21; Frede 1978, esp. 69; Harris and Taylor 1997, 47–59, esp. 56–9. Compare too the 1st-cent. CE grammarian Philoxenus, who wrote of monosyllabic verbs (περì μονοσυλλάβων ῥημάτων) from which all other nouns and verbs were derived. See too Augustine De Dialéctica 6 and 10. 9 ff.

(88) Thus Lamrnli 1962, i. 81–4, and ii. 150–1 esp. nn. 583 and 585, who compares, among other ancient parallels, the discussion in the Hippocratic περὶ σαρκω̑ν 18 (xiii. 200 Joly), where the unknown author argues that without a tongue to articulate we would not be able to speak clearly and would produce only one sound (ἡ δὲ γλω̑σσαποιει̑ σαφηνίζειν. η῎ν δὲ μὴ ἡ γλω̑σσα ἀρθροι̑οὐκ α῎ν σαφέως διαλέγοιτο, α῎λλ’ η῎ ε῞καστα φύσει τὰ μονόφωνα). Lamrnli (i. 81–4, 136–41) also points to the analogy between creating orderly speech out of confused sounds and the more general fashioning of order out of chaos which is commonly found in Greek cosmogonies.

(88) See Bigwood 1993.

(90) At times, Varro goes beyond words to syntax when speaking of language. He argues that animals lack syntax and claims erroneously that the Latin word for speak ing loqui is connected to locus a place and implies being able to put words in the right place. Varro, Lingua Latina 6. 56; see Sorabji 1993, 81.

(91) DK 60 A4. 5–6; compare Ai. 17.

(92) πρω̑τος δὲ ει῏πε φωνη̑ς γένεσιν τὴν τον̑ ἀέρος πλη̑ζιν (DK 6θ Αι. ιy). In fact, Archelaus was not the first—see DK 59 A106, where Anaxagoras, Archelaus‘teacher, is said to have described sound as a product of collision of air.

(92) Plut. DePyth. Orac. 406b-e; Strabo 1. 2. 6. See Abrams 1953, 79.

(93) DK 60 A2: Αρχέλαοςἐδόζαζε τὸ δίκαιον καὶ αἰσχρὸν οὐ φύσει ει῏ναι, ἀλλὰ νόμῳ\see 60 A1. 16 for a very similar statement.

(93) Speech issues from thought: Diog. Laert. 7. 55 = Long and Sedley 1987, 33H; see 33A. Internal speech: Sext. Emp. Adv. Math. 8. 275 = Long and Sedley 1987, 53T. See Glidden 1994, esp. 132–3, and Everson 1994, 8–9.

(95) Hippol. Refut. 6. 8; see too Max. Tyre 29. 4; Aelian, VH 14. 30; Σ Dio Chrys. Or. 1. 14. These stories are discussed by Osborne 1987, 70–2 and 232–3.

(95) See Prot. 321C4: τὰα῎λλα ζῳ̑α and compare 324b1 where the phrase ω῞σπερ θηρίον ἀλογίστως ‘like a beast, irrationally’ is used. See O’Brien 1985, 273 and Morgan 2000, 140–1 with n.15.

(96) See Aelian, NA 7. 22; Pliny, NH 8. 107; FGrH 666 F 1 (Dalion); Porph. De Abst. 3.4. 5. Diodorus (3. 35. 10 = Agatharchidesfr. 78b) calls this tale fanciful. Some of these ancient authors call the hyena a crocottas (κροκόττας).

(96) See Pucci 1977, 84–5 and 116 n. 4; see too Blundell 1986, 138–44 and the further references there.

(97) See Aelian, NA 7. 48; compare Aul. Gell. 5. 14 and see the discussion in Osborne 1990, 18.

(97) See e.g. the explanation of the Cyclopes’ name (Theog. 144–5), an etymology which is not found in Homer, and see further Leclerc 1993, 150–1, 272–6.

(97) ὀρθοέπεια: DK 80 A26 (=P1. Phaedrus 267c); ὀρθότης ὀνομάτων. DK 80 A27 (=P1. Cratylus 391c).

(98) It is possible that Protagoras thought μ-ηνι,ς should not be feminine becausewrath is a masculine trait, but perhaps his argument was based on morphology, andthe form of the word is what seems masculine; compare Arist. Clouds 658 fF. See tooGentinetta 1961, 24–34, who contends that Protagoras conceived of an original language with a natural fit between words and things.

(98) See for the following paragraph Vernant 1980a; 1980b; Detienne 1981; Pucci 1977, 82 ff. See too Σ ad Hes. Theog. 535 ἐκρíν∊το τí θεòς καì τí ἄνθρωπος ἐν τῇ Μηκώνῃ and see Thalmann 1984, 99 with 214 n. 45. Leclerc 1993, 106–7 points out how in Hesiod, unlike Homer, mortal men rarely encounter gods directly.

(99) For men and gods dining together—in a general atmosphere of intimacy—see the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women (fr. 1. 6–7). Thalmann 1984, 89–92, 99–102 (and notes on 214–15) discusses the epic use of the theme of common (and separate) meals to describe the closeness (and distance) between men and gods. He sees the Catalogue fragment, Hesiod’s myth of the metallic ages, and the Prometheus episode at Mekone, as three variations on the same theme of an original intimacy and subse quent separation between gods and men. In Homer it is only faraway, otherworldly people, isolated from ordinary mortals who feast with the gods: the Ethiopians both dine with the deities and offer them animals (77. 1. 423–4; 23. 205–7; Od. 1. 22–6), while the Phaeacians are joined by the gods at their feast when they sacrifice hecatombs (Od. 7. 201–3). When Calypso and Odysseus dine together on different food (Od. 5. 196–9) their joint meal only points to the vast differences between them. See Vidal-Nacquet 1996, 49–50 with n. 78; Dillon 1992, 24–5; Nagy 1979, 213–18.

(99) See Classen 1959, 35 and compare Bett 1989, esp. 153–61; compare PI. Crat.383d—386a. See too Fehling 1965. 212–17; Baxter 1992, 147–51; Guthrie 1969, iii.204–9; Kerferd 1981, 68–9. Vlastos 1946, 53–4 with n.19 (= 1993, 353–4) notes thatthere is no ancient evidence for Protagoras upholding the conventional theory ofnaming.

(100) See esp. DK 22 B48, B32 and see Sluiter 1997, 169–70; Sikes 1914, 63.

(101) Compare Euripides’ Supplices (913–15), where Adrastus points out to Theseusthat courage can be taught to men, just as a child can be taught to speak and hear matters it does not yet understand … ἡ δ’ εν̓ανδρία διδακτός ει῎περ καὶ βρέφος διδάσκεται λε4γειν ἀκούειν θ’ ω῟ν μάθησιν οὐκ ε῎χει. Note the ἀκούειν: as in the earlier Suppl. passage (above, Sect. 1), language is a two-way channel for speaking and listening.

(101) The word δαíς, normally used only of human meals or sacrifices and meals for the gods, points to the culinary divide between the gods and men, on the one hand, and animals, on the other. If Homeric men normally do not dine with the gods, they certainly do not eat with animals either. Feasting and justice, dais and dike associate men with the gods and distinguish them from animals: the absence of ethical rules in the world of beasts is linked to their dietary habits (see Hes. Erga 276–8). See too Said 1979, esp. 17–18; Rundin 1996, esp. 188–9; Detienne 1981, esp. 218–19; Renehan 1981, 254–6.

(102) Bryce 1983, 204. Compare Arist. Physica 184b12–14: καὶ τά παιδία τὸ μὲν πρω̑τον προσαγορεύει πάντας τοὺς ἄνδρας πατέρας καὶ μητέρας τὰς γυναι̑κας ὕστερον δὲ διορίζει τούτων ἑκάτερον.

(103) Compare the description of a child’s acquisition of language in the Dissoi Logoi (6. 11–12): we learn to speak from our parents—some of us more and some of us less, some from fathers and some from mothers. See too Diogenes of Oenoanda’s ironicdescription of the way the alleged first teacher of language goes about teaching wordsto the multitudes (fr. 12 Smith; below, Sect. 5).

(103) It is worth comparing here the account found in the book of Jubilees, a work dating to the second half of the 2nd cent. BCE (above n. 8) which supplements the story of Adam as found in Genesis. Animals lose the common tongue they share with Adam, after he is expelled from Eden. After leaving paradise, Adam immediately offers spices or incense (but not meat!) as a sacrifice (Jubilees 3: 28).

(104) Aug. De Trinitate 15. 11. 20; see too Sermones 180. 7. 7 and the further refer ences and discussion in Kirwan 1994, 208–10.

(104) Modern commentators try to resolve this problem in different ways. Taylor (1976, 84 ad Prot. 322D1) suggests that men lived at first in primitive social units, like those of families, ‘since the development of such institutions as language … presupposes at least a rudimentary form of community’. See Kerferd 1981, 140, who contends that language need not have been social in origin (but offers no alternative explanation of its source here); he thinks that Protagoras’ men did not necessarily live in any sort of community at first; see too Kerferd 1953.

(105) See Aquinas, Summa Theologica 1.107 esp. art. 1 and 4; Quaestiones LHsputatae: De Veníate qu. 9 art. 4: dicitur ángelus unus alten loqui, manifestando ei intenorem mentis conceptum; Dante, De Vulgari Eloquentia 1. 2. 1–3; 1. 3. 1. It is interesting to note how closely DVE 1. 2. 1–2 echoes the Aristotle Politics passage. See too Chretien 1979 and Baranski 1989, esp. 210 and 217.

(105) See Havelock 1957, 29, 94 and 192–3. Cole (1967, 71 n. 2) notes the parallel Herodotean expressions γλω̑σσαν/φωνὴν νομίειν and δίκην νομίζειν, citing Hdt. ι. 142. 3; 2. 42. 4; 4. 183. 4; 4. 106. See too Stam 1976, 107–8, who notes Hamann’s interpretation of Aristotle, Pol. 1274a25–30, where Lycurgus, Charondas, and other lawgivers are mentioned. Hamann takes Onomacritus to be both the inventor of language and the deviser of laws.

(107) See Od. 16. 161 οὐ γάρ πως πάντεσσι θεοì φαíνονται ἐναργεîς and compare e.g. II. 2. 790–1; 13. 216; 2. 279–80; Od. 13. 222–3 and the further references collected by Garvie 1994, 87 on Od. 6. 20–49. In the Odyssey both Circe and Calypso are termed dread goddesses of human speech δεινὴ θεòς αὐδήεσσα (Circe: Od. 10.136=11.8 = 12. 150; Calypso: Od. 12. 449) and these minor goddesses who live on earth apparently can speak in a human way; compare Od. 5. 334–5. See Clay 1974, 133; Ford 1992, 178 and compare Nagler 1996.

(107) ‘yis paragraph is reproduced in Antidosis 254. Slightly later in the Nicocles, this praise of speech per se will shade into a discussion of rhetoric, the art of speakingproperly (τὸλέγειν ὡς δει̑ Nic. 7), i.e. Isocrates’ real agenda. At Paneg. 48 whenpraising philosophy, Isocrates uses similar language (του̑το μόνον ἐξ ἁπάντων τω̑ν ζῴων ι῎διον ε῎φυμεν ε῎χοντες) without really distinguishing between (1) the simple fact ofspeech, (2) eloquence, and (3) philosophy.

(108) Compare δηλου̑ν πρὸς ἡμα̑ς αὐτοὺς περὶ ω῟ν α῎ν βουληθω̑μεν (Isoc. Nicocles 6) with καὶ σημαίνειν πάντα ἀλλήλοις α῞ ἐβουλόμεθα (Xen. Mem. 1. 4. 1 2). Uxkull-Gyllenband1924, ιο-ιι with η. 2ΐ points to the parallel between Isocrates’ words ἀλλὰ καὶ συνελθόντες πόλεις ᾠκίσαμεν καὶ νόμους ἐθέμεθα καὶ τέχνας ευ῞ρομεν (Nicocles 6) andArchelaus’ description of man’s unique accomplishments καὶ νόμους καὶ τέχνας καὶ πόλεις καὶ τὰ α῎λλα συνέστησαν (DK 60 A4. 6; see above, text near nn. 91–4).

(108) See Ford 1992, 180–97 for an analysis of these terms in Homer and see Leclerc 1993, 41–8. Ford also discusses the powerful voices of the gods, and the anomalous, multiple voices of the monster Typho, described by Hesiod (Theog. 829–35). Typho, in addition to speaking the language of the gods, makes the sounds of a bull, a lion, a dog, etc.

(110) Homer raised by Muses: Σ bT ad Il. 1. 403: ὡς μουσοτραφὴς καì τὰς παρὰ θεοîς ἐπíσταται λέξεις; Σ b ad Il. 2. 813–14 ὡς μουσοτραφὴς οἶδε τὴν τŵν θεŵν διάλεκτον; see too Eustathius on Il. ι. 403. Inspired by them: ΣT ad Il. 14. 291 οἶδε δὲ τὰ θεŵν ὡς ὑπò Μουσŵν καταπνέομενος. Learned from them: ΣT ad Il. 20. 74 παρὰ Μουσŵν τοûτο οἶδεν.

(110) Busiris, passim; Paneg. 28–50; see Edelstein 1967, 85 and Guthrie 1969, iii. 80 n. 2 and 83–4.

(111) 77. 1. 403; 2. 813–14; 14. 290–1; 20.74; Od. 10. 305; 12. 61. Güntert 1921, esp. 89–130, is the classic study of the language of the gods; Bader 1989, esp. ch. 3, is a fairly recent study with a full bibliography on earlier work.

(111) Compare Philo, Leg. Alleg. 2.15 for a similar brief mention of wise men inventing language: σοφοὺς τοὺς πρώτους τοι̑ς πράγμασι τὰ ὀνόματα θέντας; see too PI. Crat. 401b and41 ib, and below, Sect. 5.

(113) For these two favourite keywords in accounts of early man, see above, Sect. 1. Compare too the Palamedes adesp. fr. 470 Nauck (discussed above, Sect. 2) wheremen are termed θηριώδης but clearly possess language.

(114) See West 1966, 387 (ad Hes. Theog. 831; contrast West 1997, 352–3) versus Clay 1972 and Ford 1992, 180–9.

(115) See e.g. Soph. Palamedes fr. 438 Nauck (=479 Radt); Nauplius fr. 399 Nauck (=432 Radt) and the further references cited by Nestle 1910, esp. 134–7. Segal 1981 discusses Sophocles’ exploration of civilization in his plays; see in particular 4, 52–9, 93–8, 133–7, 161–6, 241–5, 333–40, 392–9 on the role and status of language. Uxkull-Gyllenband 1924, 10–11 argues for the likely influence of Archelaus (above, text near nn. 91–4 and n. 108) and Anaxagoras (frr. 4, 21b) on Sophocles’ ode. See too Kahn 1981, 96–7, 104–5.

(115) See Cratylus 400d6–9 (and above, Sect. 1); see Baxter 1992, 112.

(116) See Σ b T ad 77. 1. 403: τὰ τελειότερα θεοîς ἀντíθησιν; ΣT ad Il. 20. 74: τινὲς δὲ τὰ εὐφραδέστερά φασιν αὐτòν περιτιθέναι <τοîς θεοîς>; ΣT ad Il. 14. 291: τò εὔφωνον ὄνομα τοîς θεοîς τíθησιν; Σb ad Il. 2. 813–14: τὴν μὲν δημωδεστέραν ἀνθρώποις, τὴν δὲ ἀληθῆ θεοîς προσάπτει.

(117) Bader 1989, 256–7 sees this exclusively nominal character as an expression of the attempt to apprehend the mysteries of the universe by naming them. But perhaps these nouns reflect the view of language as simple nomenclature.

(118) Thus Eustathius on Il. 1. 403: εὐγενέστερον … καì σεμνότερον ἔτι δὲ καì ὀγκηρότερον εἰς φωνήν.

(118) Pace Lloyd 1976, 5 and cf. Harrison 1998, text near nn. 150–1. Harrison points out that in the Cratylus (425e–426a; cf. 421d) some barbarian words are said to be older than Greek.

(119) See frr. 83 and 91 Kern and compare Gambarara 1984, 109.

(120) See Genesis 10: 9–10. The depiction of Nimrod as master architect of Babel isfound in both Jewish and Christian sources—see Babylonian Talmud Avoda Zara 53b etc.; Augustine, De Civitate Dei (16. 3–5).

(121) Again this story is found in both Jewish and Christian sources: Genesis Kabbah 38: 13; Clement, Recognitions 1. 30.

(122) Anaximander: DK 12 A10. Empedocles: DK 31 B52 and B62. Protagorasmyth: PI. Prot. 32od. See too e.g. the further passages discussed by Blundell 1986, 31–2, 39, 42–3, 56–7, 68–9.

(123) διδάσκαλο? τέχνης πάσης βροτοΐς πέφηνε και μέγας πόρος PV ι ίο–11; see too lines 7253–4.

(123) It is perhaps misguided to ask who actually invented this human language. Could it be Hephaestus? Elsewhere he grants speech to his lifelike golden female attendants (Il. 18. 417–20) and, indeed, even the monsters fashioned by Hephaestus for Pandora’s crown seem to be creatures with voices (ζωοîόαν ϲ᾽οικóτα φωνήεσσιν Theog. 584). But that is not the same as inventing a language and his skills are along different lines, more magical and mechanical; compare Pelliccia 1995, 90–2.

(124) PI. Prot. 321 d. Compare Pliny, NH 36. 200, who, when discussing variouscrafts and industries, concludes that there is almost nothing that is not brought to afinished state by means of fire (nihilpaene non igniperfici).

(124) Here it is worth comparing the Houyhnhnms of Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels; see Stam 1976, 57–9. Stam notes that these imaginary, rational horses had few words because they had few needs. They had no disagreements, did not find it necessary to argue or analyse, were incapable of lying, and could not understand the mendacity of supposedly civilized Yahoos.

(127) Heraclitus: DK 22 Bu 8; B30, B90, B64, B66, etc. Stoics on fire: Long andSedley 1987, 46 A-P (i. 274–9; ii. 271–7).

(127) The outstanding mythological instance is of course that of the Sirens; compare the way δολόεσσα alternates with αὐδὴ∊σσα in the description of Circe and Calypso in Homer (Od. 7. 245; 9. 32) and see Nagler 1996, 147–9 with n. 19. See further below, Sect. 5.3.

(128) Democritus: DK 68 A101; see too e.g. Guthrie 1957, 51, 59–60 and 132 n. 23. Democritus is said to have written a work Causes of Fire and of the Things in Fire (atrial περί πυρός και των εν πνρί DK 68 Β11 e), but the work may be spurious. See Cole 967, 57 with n. 32.

(128) Adam speaks at Genesis 2: 20 (naming animals) and 2: 23 (recognizing and naming woman), before Eve’s address to the serpent at Genesis 3: 2–3. Trabant 1996, 45 argues that Eve is the first speaker in a biblical dialogue. See too Baranski 1989, esp. 221–2, who collects a series of pre–Dante misogynist views on women’s inferior linguistic capacities found in writers such as Paul, Jerome, Aquinas, etc.

(129) η του πυρός φύσις ιδιαιτάτα? έχει δυνάμεις των απλών De Igne i. i.

(130) Fr. 729 Fortenbaugh; the treatise devoted to inventions and discoveries was entitled περὶ εὑρημάτων (On Inventions) or perhaps πέπλος (Robe)—see frr. 582, 728–36 Fortenbaugh. One fragment of this work tells of the invention of letters (fr. 735) and another of the invention of the art of words (τὲχνην λόγων) by the Syracusan Corax (fr. 730a-c).

(131) See Arist. De Part. Anim. 659b34; De Anima 420b16–18.

(131) Compare Posidonius’ claim that philosophy—and specific philosophers—discovered the arts and techniques of daily life (Seneca, Ep. 90. 7, 11–13, 20–6, 3i-2 = fr.284 Edelstein-Kidd).

(132) Compare a different system of distinguishing between men and beasts found in Jewish rabbinic sources: ‘Six things are said of human beings. In regard to three they are like ministering angels … they have understanding … walk erect… and talk in the holy tongue … In regard to three they are beasts … they eat and drink … propa gate … and relieve themselves like beasts’ (Babylonian Talmud Hagigah 16a and Genesis Rabbah 8: 11).

(133) Athenio fr. ι Κ.—A. (= Athe n. 14. 66oefF.). Athenio’s date is uncertain, withscholars suggesting the 4th, 3rd, or 1st cent. BCE; see K.-A. 1983, iv. 13.

(133) See in particular, Plut. De Esu Cam. 994d–e; De Soll. Anim. 959f–963f; Porph. DeAbst., esp. 1. 13–25; 3. 1–7, and the further references in Sorabji 1993, 80–6, with nn. 19–32. See too Dombrowski 1987 and Tsekourakis 1987, esp. 383–6.

(134) Pythagoras and Theophrastus are two (relatively early) thinkers associated with this argument—see Iamblichus, VP 168–9; Porph. De Abst. 3. 25 and 2. 22 (= Theophrastus frr. 531 and 584a Fortenbaugh). Pythagorean vegetarianism should, of course, be linked with the theory of transmigration of souls. See too Sorabji 1993, ch. 10, esp. 131–3; Tsekourakis 1987, 373–4.

(134) Compare Plut. De Is. et Onr. 356a.

(135) Orpheus: fr. 292 (Kern). Isis and Osiris: Diod. 1. 14. 1 etc.; see too Athenio fr. 1 K.-A. and below, Sect. 4.4. See Renehan 1981, 255–6; Detienne 1981; Blundell 1986, 214–15, 223–4; see too Pelliccia 1995 78–80. Segal 1981, 29–42 is a particular ly helpful analysis of the cultural implications of cannibalism.

(136) See e.g. Zeus’ conquest of Typhon, Hes. Theog. 820 ff. and see furtherDetienne and Vernant 1978, 77–83. On Prometheus and Zeus see Hes. Theog. 561–9;Erga 47–52; on the golden age, above, Sect. 2.3.

(137) Hephaestus teaches fire arts: Istros FGrH 334 F 2. Apollo’s fire: HomericHymn to Apollo 440–7. For the way the characters and skills of various gods aredefined in relation to their use of fire, see Detienne and Vernant 1978, 280–3.

(137) See Porph. De Abst. 1.4, 13 and Blundell 1986, 75; Detienne 1981, esp. 218–19.

(139) FGrH 4 F 71b: ἐν Λήμνῳ πρώτως ε;ὑρέθη τό τε πυ̑ρ καὶ αἱ ὁπλουργίαι. Compare F71c, where fire is not mentioned, and see Kleingünther 1933, 127.

(142) Dio Chrys. Or. 6. 22, 25–9; see too the further sources cited by Cole 1967, 150.

(143) Antisthenes: Diog. Laert. 6. 103; see too Dio Chrys. Or. 10. 16 and Philemonfr. 96 K.-A. for negative evaluations of human reasoning (ειάνοια and λόγος respectively) as superfluous. Contrast Diog. Laert. 6. 73 and 6. 24 where Diogenes theCynic is said to attach great importance to λόγος—speech and/or reason.

(143) See Balaudé 1997; Gatz 1967, 155–6—he compares Laws 678c More generally, Plato seems influenced by Empedocles for the cycles of his myth—see Guthrie 1965, ii. 248–9; 1978, v. 194; Blundell 1986, 147 ff.

(144) Dicaearchus fr. 49 W. (=Porph. De Abst. 4. 2. 1). See Lovejoy and Boas 1935, 93–6; Guthrie 1957, 74–7; Blundell 1986, 153–4; Vidal-Nacquet 1986.

(152) Vitruvius wrote the De A rehitec tura after 27 BCE, while the terminus ante quern for Diodorus is 30 BCE; see Cole 1967, 15 with n. 1, who finds no firm evidence forDiodorus influencing Vitruvius directly, but pays close attention to the parallelsbetween the anthropological texts of the two writers in chs. 1, 2, and 4 of his book. Vitruvius mentions Lucretius and his contribution to knowledge (De Arch. 9, praef.•7).

(154) Lucretius’ account of fire is an appendix or footnote of sorts tacked on to hisearlier account of the origin of civilization in DRN $. ion— p28; he then continues theprogress account at lines 1105 ff.

(155) DRN 5. 1091–1104. See Gale 1994, 177–8, who notes that Lucretius deliberately plays with the idea of fire as a gift from heaven, replacing Prometheus with athunderbolt.

(159) For this interpretation oí vocabula as articulate sounds rather than words, seethe convincing arguments and parallels—particularly Diod. 1.8. 2–3 and Cic. Rep. 3.3 (both discussed below)—adduced by Cole 1967, 60–1 nn. 1–2. If we take vocabula to mean ‘words’ we can perhaps understand that these first words are individual ones, with different objects assigned different sounds by different people. Coining standardized words to be used by the group as a whole would then be the next stage of language development. Or else these original words are shared by all and the next stageof language outlined by Vitruvius involves expanding speech to larger syntacticblocks. Neither of these interpretations is immediately apparent from Vitruvius‘text.

(163) Compare in particular the opening of the Sisyphus fragment (ἄτακτοςβίοςκαὶ θηριώδης ι–2) above, Sect. 3, with Davies 1989, 18–19. See too O’Brien 1985, 264–5 with η. 5.

(167) See above, n. 75, and see Stam 1976, 81–2. The actual question of the chickenand egg is raised by Plutarch as one of the topics of his Q. Symp. 635c—638a.

(169) Inst. Div.6. 10. 13–14. Spoerri 1961, 79–81 with n. 83 notes the great similarity between Diodorus and Lactantius, but thinks that there are no gestures inDiodorus 1. 8; he takes τύπους (75 n. 68) to mean ‘[menschliche] Gestalt’. Lactantius’source is unknown, but may have been Cicero—see Spoerri 1959, 158 n. 8; Cole1967, 64 η. ίο. Cole (ι 967, 63–7) thinks that the accounts of Diodorus, Vitruvius, andLactantius contain traces of a theory according to which the very first act of communication was a non-verbal one, used in a crisis; this successful act then led to the gradual development of speech.

(173) Aristotle, De Part. Anim. 10. 687a: Αναξαγόρας μὲν οὐ̑ν φησι διὰ τὸ χει̑ρας ἔχεινφρονιμώτατον εἰ̑ναι τω̑ν ζῴων ἄνθρωπον (—DK 59 Αιθ2; compare B21b). See too thestatement by Galen, De Usu Partium 3. 1 (=111. 168 Kühn) χείρας μεν οη μόνος απάντωνζώων άνθρωπος εσχεν, όργανα πρέποντα ζώω σοφω. (Aristotle himself argues thereverse, i.e. that man received hands because he is the wisest.) For the importance ofhuman hands see e.g. Xenophanes DK 21 B15 and the further references cited by Dickerman 1909, 27–9 and Renehan 1981, 249. See too Vlastos 1946, 57 (= 1993, 356–7); Spoerri 1959, 148–52.

(174) See Gregory of Nyssa, De Opif. Horn. c. 8 p. 148a-149a and see Cole 1967, 40–2. Dickerman 1909, 15–17 esp. n. 1, brings a series of sources linking hands and speechand notes that the two are ‘consociatae’.

(177) Compare Allen 1948, 36–7; Vlastos 1946, 52 η. 114 (= 1993, 353 n. 14).

(179) divinus ignis ingenii et mentis (Augustine, Contra Iulianum 4. 12. 60).

(180) Compare Cic. De Off. ι. 50–1 where reason and speech (ratio et oratio) are said to underlie human society.

(181) Dio Chrys. Or. 12. 28; the translation is that of Russell (1992, 179) in hiscommentary ad loc. Compare too 12. 65 where Dio notes that men, lacking except inrelation to voice and speech, have an incredible wealth of language, giving names—sometimes more than one—to everything they perceive.

(182) See Cole 1967, 61 n. 2 for other ancient sources which list these stages oflanguage, most notably Hor. Sat. 1.3. 103–4.

(186) DK 68 B26 = Proclus, In Cratylum 16. The four features are termed πολνσημον,σόρροπον, μετώννμον, νώνυμον respectively. Barnes 1982, 468–70 offers a differentinterpretation of the intent and content of Democritus’ words here. For a modernrecasting of Democritus’ arguments, see Harris 1980, 103–4. Democritus also refers, puzzlingly, to the relation between word and thing and the validity of names when hedescribes the names of gods as αγάλματα φωνήεντα (DK 68 Β142), variously translated by commentators as ‘voiced images’, ‘statues with voices’, ‘images in sound’, and’speaking images’. The attribution of this fragment to Democritus may be a scribalerror—see Baxter 1992, 158 with n. 245 and Steiner 2001, 123 with n. 177. SeeGuthrie 1965, ii. 475–6; Cole 1967, 68 n. 17; Barnes 1982, 468–70 for different interpretations of this enigmatic fragment.

(187) Cultural history fragments of Democritus: DK 68 A75; A151; Β144, Β154. Seetoo the further fragments cited and discussed by Havelock 1957, 115–24.

(188) DK 67 A6. See Gentinetta 1961, 60–7; Kraus 1987, 164–7 and above, Sect. 2.1with n. 36.

(189) DK 68 B164. In this fragment Democritus compares the attraction of like tolike into herds in the animal world with the aggregation of atoms, but scholars suggest that there was a comparison with men forming societies as well. See Uxkull-Gyllenband 1924, 31; Havelock 1957, 118; Cole 1967, 110–11.

(192) The Pythagoreans are said to have been the first thinkers to have introducedthe figure of the namesetter or ονοματοθέτης. Pythagoras supposedly gave thesecond place in wisdom to the one who set down names for things (ο τοίτ πράγμασι τάονόματα 0e/xevos); first place is reserved for number. The Pythagorean inventor ofnames, like that of the Cratylus, is an indeterminate figure—either a god, daimon, ordivine man—and should not be identified with Pythagoras himself. WhilePythagoras introduced a whole series of new words, he clearly was not an inventor oflanguage per se. See Aelian, VH 4. 17= DK 58 C2; Iamblichus, VP 82= DK 58 C4; Cic. Tuse. 1. 25. 62 and the discussions in Kraus 1987, 39–40; Vogel 1966, 135–6,218–20.

(193) Crat. 438c; see 397c and 425d.

(194) Single (clever) individuals: 389a, 404c, 424a, 43ie, etc. Group: 401b, 418a, 439c, etc. Ancient: 397c—d, 41 ib, etc. Barbarian: 390a.

(195) Crat. 4i8a-c; see 399a and 4i4c-d. In some passages of the Cratylus, firstnames are taken as simple, more basic elements of language which underlie—logically and not necessarily temporally—more complex words. See e.g. 42ie—422c withRobinson 1955, esp. 226 (=1969, 106) and Anagnostopoulos 1973–4, esp. 318–25;both argue persuasively against the idea that the Cratylus is concerned with the origin of language. Compare too Baxter 1992, 41–3.

(196) Crat. 409d-e; see 389d-e; 421c; 425d-e.

(199) See e.g. Aulus Gellius 10. 4. 2; Ammonius, InArist. de Int. 34, 15 ff. (Busse);Proclus, In Cratylum 17. The latter two authors note that there is not always a sharpdistinction between ‘natural’ and ‘conventional’. See too Allen 1948, 36–7, 52–3 andFehling 1965, 218 ff.

(202) See Sedley 1973, 18–19 and 59, who compares—in addition to Lucretius 5.1028 natura subegit (see below)—the fragment of the Epicurean, DemetriusLacon φύσει 8é τάς ττρώτας των ονομάτων αναφωνήσεις γεγονεναι λεγομεν (Here.1012 lxvii. 710). Sedley notes that άναφωνησαι is used of primitive, instinctivespeech.

(203) Bursting forth: Origen, Contra Cels. 1. 24=Usener fr. 334; Sneezes andgroans: Proclus In Cratylum 16 = Usener fr. 335.

(204) Thus Brunschwig 1994, 34, who makes use of the phrase ονόματα και ρήματα found in Diogenes of Oenoanda (fr. 12, ii. 13–14 Smith; see below, text near nn.220–2) to substantiate this claim. (Brunschwig also discusses—and dismisses—theargument that Epicurus’ first stage of language is a private one, with each individualproducing his own unique language.) Compare Vlastos 1946, 51–3 (= 1993, 352–4):‘In Epicurus’ first stage, we find a system of natural sounds which though rough andready is language in all its essentials’, and note his disagreement (n. 16) with thosewho contend that the first stage includes only emotional cries with no words for external objects. Compare the reservations of Cole 1967, 61 n. 3.

(216) See Sedley 1973, 18 with n. 91 (who quite rightly points to the parallel between DRN 5. 1028–9 and 5. 71–2); Bailey 1947, 1490–1; Cole 1967, 61 n. 3; Snyder 1980, 16–22. Spoerri 1959, 137 argues for a single-stage first language.

(221) See above, n. 204. Compare too, Horace, writing before Diogenes ofOenoanda, who has primitive men use verbs and nouns once they begin to articulatetheir cries and feelings in speech: donee verba, quibus voces sensusque notarent nomi-naque invenere (Sat. 1. 3. 103–4 > see above, Sect. 3). Verba clearly is ρήματα, while nomina is ονόματα; see too Snyder 1980, 21–2.

(224) Contra Eunomium 2. 397, pp. 327–8 Jaeger.

(225) For the semi-divine Orpheus as a namegiver of sorts see DK ι Β13 and the Derveni papyrus xviii [xxii], 1–2; see too Cratylus 400c, 402a. Baxter 1992, 130–9 convincingly portrays Orpheus as someone who refashions and improves existing language, only occasionally introducing new names; see too Gambarara 1989, 83–4.

(226) Genesis 2: 19–20. See Harris and Taylor 1997, ch. 3, esp. 41–2.

(227) See Demetrius, De Elocutione 94–6 and 220; compare Dion. Hal. De Comp.Verb. 16; DioChrys. Or. 12. 68.

(229) tunc et lingua suas accepit barbara leges (Manilius, Astronómica 1. 85).