Anacharsis: A Tragic Road to Wisdom
Some territories in today’s Ukraine once belonged to an ancient civilization in the North Pontic steppes that were settled by Greek colonists. “Our territories belonged to the ancient Greeks and were dominated by ancient Greek culture for centuries on end...one ought to consider the fact at greater length and depth. In other words, our land belongs to a single culture, whose universality is unmatched and to which the ancient world once belonged,” wrote the distinguished Ukrainian poet and scholar Yevhen Malaniuk.
The ancient Greek city-colonies of the North Pontic region had an enviable level of literacy, as evidenced by numerous inscriptions and other graffiti on tombstones, altars, cooking implements, lead seals, and styluses. Local schools were modeled on those in Greece. Children were taught to write and do simple arithmetic, and were also schooled in the basics of literature and music. According to the Greek rhetorician Dion Chrysostom, nearly all the citizens of Olbia knew Homer’s Iliad by heart.
It is also safe to assume that philosophy was advanced in the North Pontic city-colonies. Most of the settlers were from Ionia, particularly the city of Miletus, from which sprang the first (Miletian) school of philosophy. Naturally, the inhabitants of these city-colonies maintained ties with their parent cities in Ionia, from where they derived their philosophical knowledge. Colonists would visit the metropolis and return home enriched with modern information, fresh knowledge and ideas. Such travelers had an impact on the cultural life of their fellow citizens. The North Pontic colonies were also visited by outstanding Greek cultural figures, among them Aristeas (6-BC), Herodotus (5-BC), and others.
How deeply did ancient Greek culture, including philosophy, penetrate the milieu of the “heathen peoples” that inhabited the North Pontic city-colonies? There is evidence that Hellenized “barbarian” communities emerged in the vicinity of the city- states, including the Callipidea tribes near Olbia and the Meotis, who lived in the vicinity of the Bosphorus. The Scythians also experienced a certain degree of Hellenization.
Mixed Greek-”barbarian” marriages were quite common in the North Pontic area. Some of the outstanding cultural figures of ancient Greece were born in such families, including Demosthenes, whose maternal grandmother was apparently a Scythian from the Bosphorus.
In light of the above, the assumption that the people from the territories that today form part of Ukraine stood at the font of Hellenic philosophy and active intellectual life does not seem paradoxical. This is particularly true of the philosopher Anacharsis, who is repeatedly mentioned in written ancient Greek sources and was even referred to as a sage — a superior intellectual — by some ancient Greeks, including Dion Chrysostom, Diogenes Laertius, Plutarch, Ephorus, and other writers of antiquity. The works of such outstanding Greek and Roman philosophers as Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, and Seneca also contain references to Anacharsis, who is even mentioned by early Christian writers. This is graphic evidence that Anacharsis the thinker was held in considerable esteem.
According to Diogenes Laertius, Anacharsis wrote eight hundred lines of verse about Scythian and Hellenic mores in time of peace and war. Not surprisingly, this work is not extant. The same is true of other ancient philosophers who came before Socrates. There is, however, extant evidence relating to Anacharsis, along with some fifty quotes attributed to him, specifically in regard to human conduct and interrelationships, protecting one’s dignity, envy, the meaning of language, navigation, gymnastics, politics, social order, wine and its excessive consumption, etc.
Anacharsis lived in the 6th century B.C. He was born in the North Pontic area and was considered to be of Scythian parentage. Diogenes Laertius wrote that Anacharsis was a Scythian, the son of Gnur and brother of the Scythian king Kaduif; he was bilingual, owing to his mother’s Greek heritage; during the time of the 48th Olympiad, he arrived in Greece, which was under the rule of the archon Eucrates. Sometime later he returned to Scythia where, owing to his apparent affiliation to the Greek language and culture, he was suspected of dissent and was killed by his brother’s arrow during a hunt. Before dying, he said that his intellect had kept him in Greece, but that envy had destroyed him in his native land. Diogenes Laertius points out that according to numerous sources, Anacharsis died while performing a Greek ritual. Herodotus, the “father of history,” offers more information about his biography, and his works indicate the esteem in which he held both Anacharsis and the Scythian people, the milieu from which he sprang. Herodotus wrote that no one but the Scythian people, and above all Anacharsis, had such a keen intellect in the land adjoining the Black Sea.
The writings of Herodotus indicate that Anacharsis’s travels throughout the world added to his wisdom. After returning to his native Scythian land, he sailed through the Hellespont and cast anchor at Kizik, where he witnessed the local inhabitants celebrating the day devoted to the Mother of the Gods. He vowed to make a sacrifice to the goddess, if and when he made it back to his homeland, promising that his sacrifice would be carried out according to what he saw in Kizik. After returning to Scythia, he traveled across Hylea (a country located in the vicinity of Achilles’ Route and overgrown with all kinds of trees). Anacharsis traveled far and wide there, and began worshiping the goddess, observing every rite, holding a timbrel and clutching holy images to his chest. As he was performing such rites, a Scythian spotted him and then reported his observations to Emperor Saulus. The latter arrived on the scene and, on seeing Anacharsis perform his rites, shot an arrow and killed him... In other words, the man died because he wanted to introduce foreign traditions, because he communicated with the Greeks, Herodotus wrote.
Herodotus did not live much longer than Anacharsis; he visited the North Pontic area, so we have more reason to trust his story than those of other, later authors, including Diogenes Laertius.
Based on the writings of Herodotus and Diogenes Laertius, and others, several inferences may be drawn from the biography of Anacharsis the thinker. His life and work coincided with the period of maturation of ancient Greek philosophy. Among his contemporaries were Thales, Solon, and other distinguished figures that the Greeks regarded as sages. Anacharsis was not a pureblooded Greek, for he was born in Scythia and his father was from a royal Scythian family. It was precisely Anacharsis’s membership in the Scythian elite that made it possible for him to visit the ancient Greek territories, where he studied Hellenic traditions and associated with many celebrated Greek thinkers. Anacharsis did not accept everything that was considered intrinsic to the advanced ancient Greek civilization. Far from it: he would often lash out at certain elements in the ancient Greek social order. Nevertheless, he must have been inspired by the Hellenic spirit, which had tragic consequences for him. After returning to his native Scythia, he found no understanding, and was killed because he adhered to Greek ways.
Anacharsis was held in esteem in ancient Greece. Noteworthy is Plato’s reference to him in the The Republic, where, in Book X, he draws a line between poetry, fiction writing, art as a whole, and philosophy. He tries to demonstrate that people do not actually need either poetry or any other creative endeavors because such activities only serve to incite the emotions and have no practical value. Philosophy, in Plato’s opinion, must have a practical nature. The next question is formulated precisely in this context: “Or is there any invention of his, applicable to the arts or to human life, such as Thales the Milesian or Anacharsis the Scythian, and other ingenious men have conceived, which is attributed to him?”
In other words, Plato valued Anacharsis as a practical philosopher. Diogenes Laertius wrote that Anacharsis invented an anchor and a potter’s wheel. Of course, this is an overstatement, as the anchor and wheel were invented long before Anacharsis. Such statements, however, imply that Anacharsis was not content with theorizing; he wanted to make sure others would share his knowledge.
Anacharsis’ practical philosophy was one of the factors that brought him into contact with Solon, the Athenian lawmaker and public figure. Plutarch wrote that Anacharsis was said to have visited Solon’s home in Athens. He came and knocked on the door, saying he was a foreigner and that he was there to offer an alliance of friendship and hospitality. Solon replied that it was best to make friends at home, to which Anacharsis replied that Solon was at home and could therefore seal precisely that kind of alliance. Solon was enchanted by Anacharsis’ inventiveness, bade him welcome and persuaded him to stay in his home for some time. Upon learning his status, Anacharsis ridiculed his work, saying: how can you keep people from committing crimes and engaging in self-indulgence by written laws only, for written laws differ little from cobwebs, as both catch weak and poor individuals, whereas the rich and strong can always break free. Solon is alleged to have objected to that, saying that people make and keep agreements when all parties to them know better than to act otherwise; as for his laws, Solon said he made them in order to satisfy citizens’ interests, by showing just how much more comfortable it was living on the right side of the law than on the wrong side. The end result, however, proved that Anacharsis was right and Solon was wrong.
Here we witness an encounter between people representing two different cultures, each also representing his own philosophy of law. Solon was actually the first to introduce what would be known many ages later as the Western European approach to law. He believed that laws could be made to meet the interests of the people living in a given country, e.g., the social contract, which could serve as the basis of a polity ruled by law.
Anacharsis thought this approach illusory; his was the typical nomad Scythian stand, according to which one lived by the rule of force rather than written canons. He believed that the laws of his day were meant for the weak and poor. Those who possessed strength and money could afford to ignore any laws. Anacharsis’ kind of anarchism was also true of his remote descendants who inhabited the territories of Ukraine.
Anacharsis was rather critical toward the democratic government as practiced by the ancient Greek polis particularly in Athens. Plutarch cites an example illustrating the relationship between Anacharsis and Plato. He wrote that Anacharsis attended the popular assembly and was surprised to note that clever Greeks made statements, while fools conducted business. He must have meant that those who should decide the most important political matters are the best citizens, who are not always appointed in a genuinely democratic manner.
All things considered, Anacharsis differed from the ancient Greek philosophers who preceded Socrates. Whereas they were primarily interested in the basis underlying all things, Anacharsis was concerned with ethical and public matters. He saw the ideal human conduct in adhering to the simple and natural. Diodorus of Sicily cites a conversation that supposedly took place between Emperor Croesus and Anacharsis: Succint speaking was in vogue among enlightened individuals. Croesus showed them (the sages) the wealth and the multitude of subjugated peoples, and then asked Anacharsis, regarding him as the eldest of the sages, which living being was the most courageous. Anacharsis replied that it was wild beasts because they died courageously for their freedom. Croesus thought he had misunderstood and asked the next question, hoping to clarify the matter: Which living creature did Anacharsis consider as abiding by the utmost rule of justice? Again, the philosopher replied that only the wildest of beasts met the criterion; that nature was a divine creation, but that law was a creation of humans, so it was best to use that which was created by nature rather than by man. The emperor wanted to ridicule Anacharsis and asked whether he thought that wild beasts were the wisest living beings. Anacharsis said that he did, and explained that the first sign of wisdom was recognizing the superiority to a creature born of nature than to one born of law. The emperor smiled and pointed out that Anacharsis’ replies stemmed from his bestial Scythian education.
There is nothing coincidental about Anacharsis’ indifferent attitude to earthly riches. Cicero said that Anacharsis the Scythian thought nothing of money, so why couldn’t his philosophers follow suit? In a letter familiar to historians we find these words: “Anacharsis wishes Antonius well. A Scythian cloak is my best cloth, and my bare feet are my best shoes; the earth is my best bed, and my food is best served by my hunger; I feed on milk, cheese, and meat. Therefore, I bid you welcome, as I am a quiet man. As for the luxuries you enjoy, give them to your fellow citizens or to the immortal gods.”
Strange as it may seem, interesting parallels may be traced between the views of Anacharsis and those of Ukrainian philosophers. The Scythian philosopher showed a skeptical attitude toward civilization. He believed that man should adhere to a natural lifestyle, and avoid succumbing to various temptations. In many respects his attitude is reminiscent of the eighteenth-century Ukrainian philosopher Hryhory Skovoroda. Is this sheer coincidence? This question deserves further study.
