A world history of ancient political

thought : its significance and

consequences Black
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/a-world-history-of-ancient-political-thought-its-signific
ance-and-consequences-black/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

A Short History of Western Political Thought 2011th

Edition Spellman W M

https://textbookfull.com/product/a-short-history-of-western-
political-thought-2011th-edition-spellman-w-m/

A history of modern political thought : the question of

interpretation 1st Edition Browning

https://textbookfull.com/product/a-history-of-modern-political-
thought-the-question-of-interpretation-1st-edition-browning/

Revolution and Its Discontents Political Thought and

Reform in Iran Eskandar Sadeghi-Boroujerdi

https://textbookfull.com/product/revolution-and-its-discontents-
political-thought-and-reform-in-iran-eskandar-sadeghi-boroujerdi/

The Hidden Treasure of Black ASL Its History and

Structure Carolyn Mccaskill

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-hidden-treasure-of-black-
asl-its-history-and-structure-carolyn-mccaskill/
The Periodic Table - Its Story And Its Significance 2
ed. Scerri Eric

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-periodic-table-its-story-
and-its-significance-2-ed-scerri-eric/

The Concept of Presocratic Philosophy Its Origin

Development and Significance André Laks

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-concept-of-presocratic-
philosophy-its-origin-development-and-significance-andre-laks/

Modern Dystopian Fiction and Political Thought

Narratives of World Politics Popular Culture and World
Politics 1st Edition Adam Stock

https://textbookfull.com/product/modern-dystopian-fiction-and-
political-thought-narratives-of-world-politics-popular-culture-
and-world-politics-1st-edition-adam-stock/

History Of Management Thought: Genesis And Development

From Ancient Origins To The Present Day Vadim I.
Marshev

https://textbookfull.com/product/history-of-management-thought-
genesis-and-development-from-ancient-origins-to-the-present-day-
vadim-i-marshev/

New Perspectives on Political Economy and Its History

Maria Cristina Marcuzzo

https://textbookfull.com/product/new-perspectives-on-political-
economy-and-its-history-maria-cristina-marcuzzo/
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/8/2016, SPi

A WORLD HISTORY OF ANCIENT

P O L I T I CA L TH O U G H T
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/8/2016, SPi
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/8/2016, SPi

A World History of
Ancient Political
Thought
Its Significance and Consequences

revised and expanded edition

ANTONY BLACK

1
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/8/2016, SPi

3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Antony Black 2009, 2016
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
First edition published 2009
Revised and expanded edition published 2016
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016937497
ISBN 978–0–19–879068–6
Printed in Great Britain by
Ashford Colour Press Ltd, Gosport, Hampshire
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/8/2016, SPi

To my grandchildren
Oisín, Fergus, Zoe,

As are the generations of leaves, so are those of men

(Homer, Iliad VI, 146)
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/8/2016, SPi
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/8/2016, SPi

Preface

This book is about the political thought of ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Israel,
Iran, India, China, Greece, Rome, and early Christianity. It starts with the
earliest written records of political thought in Egypt and Mesopotamia and
ends with the collapse of the Han dynasty and the Western Roman empire.
We examine how sacred monarchy, status groups, justice, equality, and so on
were conceived and debated in different cultures, and what if anything they
had in common. We look at official texts, signs of popular belief, and major
theorists such as Confucius, Plato, Aristotle, and Kautilya—in other words,
both ideology and philosophy.
Why do we need a worldwide study of ancient political thought? We need it
because it will increase our understanding of the political ways of all civiliza-
tions, our own and others. It will reveal something of the storehouse of ethical
and political ideas that has been, and still is, available to such peculiarly social
beings as ourselves. Confucius and Plato, Aristotle and Kautilya may still
speak to us. But before we can understand what they say, we have to under-
stand why they wrote and the problems they faced.
The study of ancient political thought all over the world both develops our
understanding of history and contributes to our understanding of our own
situations and endeavours. Thinkers from cultures other than our own widen
our range of options. They open up new possible ways of thinking about
politics. Reading thinkers of the remote as well as recent past can stimulate us
when we are faced with thorny questions and harsh situations. They remind us
that what seems impossible may have a solution. Without a world history of
ancient political thought, political discourse is impoverished.
We find that most medieval, early modern, and modern political ideas have
roots in the ancient period: the Mandate in China, caste in India, nationhood
in Israel, democracy, liberty, and natural law in Greece and Rome, for ex-
ample. Justice, the rule of law, and meritocracy were widely endorsed. Kautilya
and the Chinese ‘Legalists’ advocated Realpolitik and an authoritarian state.
The conflict between might and right was resolved in many different ways.
Chinese, Greek, and Indian thinkers reflected on the origin and purposes of
the state. The Stoics and Cicero saw humanity as a single unit. Political
philosophy, using logic, evidence, and dialectic, was invented separately in
China and Greece, statecraft in China and India, political science in India and
Greece. This book deals with political philosophy and ideology, religious and
moral thought, and constitutional theory.
Humans have a single biological origin, and today we all interact with one
another in a single global society, whether we like it or not. But between these
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/8/2016, SPi

viii Preface
two points lie very diverse histories. Nowadays it is not nations or faiths but
humanity that is in need of a story. A complete world history of political
thought, coming up to our own period of ‘globalization’, is urgently needed.
I hope one day to undertake this. If I don’t, or if I don’t do so satisfactorily,
I hope someone else will.

PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION

I have undertaken a second edition both because of new work in the field and
because I became aware of shortcomings in the first edition. Yuval Harari
(2011/2014) has argued that it was shared stories and shared ways of looking
at the world which first brought humans together in very large numbers. It was
this which transformed our species from one living in small groups (of say
150) into one in which millions could belong to the same network because
they had a basis for mutual trust. The implications of this for the beginnings of
political thought are momentous. Geoffrey Lloyd’s comparisons of Greek and
Chinese philosophy and science have set a new benchmark for comparative
study, and have implications for the development of political philosophy in
these cultures.
Chapter 1, the first half of Chapter 8, Chapter 12, the Introduction, and
Conclusion have been completely re-written; the rest remains virtually
unchanged.
Having traversed so many fields, I crave the benevolent reader’s pardon for
the many errors and inaccuracies which must remain. As the ancient Greek
said, ‘I am growing old but I am still learning a great deal’.
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/8/2016, SPi

Acknowledgements

This work would have been unthinkable without the help of many scholars
who are experts in fields of which I know little. I am grateful to Kevin Laland
for putting me on the right path in prehistory; to Julian Reade for helping me
with Egypt and Mesopotamia; to Nathan MacDonald for guidance on Israel;
to Anthony Parel for helping me with India; to Christopher Smith for many
suggestions on Rome. I would like above all to thank Yuri Pines for the care
with which he set me right about China. (He was generous enough to show me
his Envisioning Eternal Empire (2009) book before it was published.) Without
him, I could not have dealt at all adequately with this difficult and crucial
topic. I am also grateful to John Dunn, Ron Terchek, Lisa Raphals, Melissa
Lane, Rory Cox, and Jill Harries for their suggestions; and to Richard What-
more and the Institute for Intellectual History at the University of St Andrews
for providing a scholarly milieu. None of these scholars are responsible for the
many errors that remain.
The Nuffield Foundation awarded me two small grants which enabled me to
travel to libraries in Britain. Brian Baxter, who was head of the Politics
Programme in the Faculty of Humanities at the University of Dundee, has
been unfailingly supportive. The inter-library loans staff of the Dundee Uni-
versity Library have been extraordinarily efficient. The University libraries of
St Andrews and Cambridge have been courteous and helpful. I am grateful to
Oxford University Press, in particular Dominic Byatt, the Politics editor, for
their assistance.
It is difficult to know where to begin acknowledging more personal help on
a work which I have been at for so long. I was taught at the Craig School,
Windermere under Edward Hewetson, a rare man. Its motto was ‘nothing
is useful except what is honest (nihil utile nisi quod honestum)’—see below,
p. 230. I was taught at Shrewsbury by two outstanding geniuses in their
profession: Jimmy Street, who made me love Greek and Latin poetry; and
Anthony Chevenix-Trench, who introduced me to Aeschylus (whose words
have strengthened me in difficult hours).
I owe to my mother’s parents, Joseph and Mary Wood, the haven of my
childhood. Debts to friends are the greater for being unspoken. My children
Steve, Tommy, Esther, Matthew, and Christopher are in my thoughts every
day. My grandchildren Oisin, Fergus, and Zoe give me hope for the future. It is
to them that this book is dedicated. My greatest debt is to my wife, Aileen, for
being with me.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/8/2016, SPi
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/8/2016, SPi

Contents

Abbreviations xv
Time Chart xvii

Introduction 1
1. Early Societies and States 6
Human groups 6
Small groups and reciprocal altruism 7
Democracy? 8
Tribes: them and us 9
Social behaviour and intelligence 11
The role of religion 12
Sacred monarchy I 13
2. Egypt 21
Morality: justice 24
Equality 27
Individuals 27
Spin 28
Conclusion 29
3. Mesopotamia, Assyria, Babylon 31
The functions of monarchy 36
Justice 37
City assemblies 39
4. Iran 44
5. Israel 47
The covenant 49
The people of Israel 52
Nation 53
The elders and the people 54
Monarchy 56
The Messiah 59
6. India 65
Castes 67
Kingship 70
Morality and pragmatism 74
Kautilya’s arthashastra: approach and method 75
Kautilya on political economy and foreign policy 77
Buddhism 79
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/8/2016, SPi

xii Contents

7. China 86
The Mandate and the people 89
Status and meritocracy: ‘advance the worthy’ 94
Public service 95
Confucius on li (ritual conduct) and ren (humaneness) 96
Persuasion, not coercion 99
Mozi 100
The origins of the state 101
Shang Yang and Han Feizi: coercion and Realpolitik 103
A new kind of monarchy: the Laozi and Han Feizi 108
The First Emperor 113
Han Confucianism 114
Conclusion 117
8. The Greeks 122
The polis 122
Monarchy 126
Solon at Athens 129
Athens: liberty, equality, and the rule of law 130
Dēmokratia and philosophy 134
Morality 137
The polis and religion 138
Aeschylus 139
Protagoras 141
Socrates 142
Plato 144
The Republic 144
The division of functions: classes 145
Rule by philosophers 147
The Laws 149
Parallels and influence 151
Aristotle 153
The polis 154
Political science 157
Oligarchy and dēmokratia 159
Conclusion 160
General conclusion 161
9. Rome 168
Cicero and the Roman Republic 168
The constitution 168
Political culture 172
Conquest and empire 175
The just war 176
The late republic 176
‘Democracy’ versus ‘aristocracy’ 177
Cicero’s political theory 181
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/8/2016, SPi

Contents xiii
Stoicism and the principate 183
A theory of monarchy 185
Political philosophy 187
10. Graeco-Roman Humanism 192
Globalization 194
Pax romana 194
Cosmopolis 196
Natural law 199
11. The Kingdom of Heaven and the Church of Christ 203
After Jesus 206
How do we know? 207
Ritual 209
The church 210
The state 212
12. Specific Themes: Similarities and Differences Between Cultures 214
Status 214
Sacred monarchy II 217
Power and philosophy in Rome and China 219
The state 221
Republics 221
Subjects 222
Nation 222
Humanity 223
Justice and the purposes of government 224
Morality 225
The rule of law 226
Liberty 227
Theory and practice: ethics and expediency 228
Types of discourse 231
Greece and China 232
Conclusion 236

Bibliography 237
Index 253
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/8/2016, SPi
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/8/2016, SPi

Abbreviations

Full references to books listed below will be found in the Bibliography.

ANE Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to

the Old Testament
B&B Confucius, The Original Analects, trans. Brooks and Brooks
CA Confucius, The Analects (or Sayings)
CAH Cambridge Ancient History
CCRR The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic
CGR The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought
CHAC The Cambridge History of Ancient China
CHC The Cambridge History of China
CHI The Cambridge History of Iran
CHMPT The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought
CHP The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy
EB Ernest Barker, From Alexander to Constantine
ECF The Early Christian Fathers
ECW Early Christian Writings
EG Early Greek Political Thought
EI Encyclopaedia of Islam
HCPT Kung-chuan Hsiao, A History of Chinese Political Thought
HPT Coleman, A History of Political Thought
KA The Kautiliya Arthashastra
KR Kulke and Rothermund, History of India
KRS Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers
Lichtheim Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature
NE Stevenson, A New Eusebius
OCCL The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature
OHAE The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt
OHG The Oxford History of Greece and the Hellenistic World
OHR The Oxford History of the Roman World
ST Sources of Chinese Tradition
VAE Parkinson, Voices from Ancient Egypt
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/8/2016, SPi
 Time Chart

A. Before c. 700 BCE

Egypt Mesopotamia Israel India China Greece

Before 2000 Old Kingdom, First dynasties

2686*–2125* of Sumer,
Middle Kingdom, 2450**–2200**
2055*–1650* Akkad, 2200**–2059**
Instructions of
Ptahhotep;
autobiographies;
Instructions to
Merikare
2000–1000 New Kingdom, Old Babylonia, Israelites in Canaan, Early Rig Veda, Shang dynasty,
1550*–1069* 1798*–1499* 1300/1200** 1300** 1600**–1046
Amenhotep IV Hammurabi, 1792–50* Joshua and Judges, Zhou dynasty,
(Amarna), Assyria, 1750*–612 1200**–1025** 1046–771
1352*–1336* Kingdom of Israel, 1025*–950*
1000–700 First biblical texts, 1000/900** Mahabharata, Spring and Autumn Homer and
Division into Northern and 800**–200 CE** period, 771–453 Hesiod,
Southern Kingdoms, 930* 750–700*
First prophetic texts, 800/700*
Israel conquered by Assyria, 722

Note: Dates marked ** are very imprecise; dates marked * are fairly imprecise.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/8/2016, SPi
B. From c. 700 to c. 200 BCE
Iran Israel India China Greece Rome

700–500 New Babylonia, Deuteronomist Buddha active, Confucius, Solon’s reforms at Athens, 594 Republic
626–539 texts, 622* 550**–500** 551*–479* Thales, first Greek scientist, founded, 509*
Cyrus Reforms of Josiah, active 585 Cleisthenes’
(r. 559*–530) founds 621* reforms, 508
Achaemenid empire, captures Exile in Babylon,
Babylon, 539 587–538
Biblical texts
composed or edited,
550*–450*
500–400 Mozi, 460*–390* Ionian poleis revolt against ‘Struggle of the
Persia, 499 orders’,
Warring States Persians defeated, 490, 480–79 494*–440*
period, 453–221 Dēmokratia at Athens, 461–338
Aeschylus’ Oresteia, 458
War between Athens and Sparta,
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/8/2016, SPi

431–404
Execution of Socrates, 399
Philip of Macedon conquers
Greek poleis, 338
Alexander (336–323) conquers
Persia
400–200 Ashoka king of Shang Yang’s Plato founds Academy, 387; Defeat of
India, reforms in Qin, Aristotle founds Lyceum, 335 Carthage, 202
268–233 356–48 Zeno founds Stoic school, 310
Mengzi, 379*–304*
Daodejing,
350*–250*
Xunzi, 310*–218*
Han Feizi,
280*–233
Unification, 221
C. c. 200 BCE to c. 200 CE
Israel
200–100 Last prophetic texts
100–0
0–200 CE Defeat of Jewish revolts,
66–73, 132–5
India China Rome Christianity
Kautilya’s Arthashatra, Han dynasty, 209 Defeats Greek states, 196–148
from 200 BCE* BCE–220 CE Polybius at Rome, 167–118*
Laws of Manu, T. Gracchus tribune, 133
200 BCE*–200 CE Marius consul six times,
107–100
Cicero active, 81–43
Disintegration of republic,
60–49
Caesar dictator, 47–44
Augustus princeps, 31 BCE–14
CE
Epictetus teaches, 97*–140 CE Death of Jesus, 33 CE**
Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations, First New Testament texts,
174–80 CE 50 CE*
Toleration of Christianity, Nero’s persecution, 64 CE
312 CE Letter of Clement, Bishop of
Rome, 93 CE
Cyprian martyred, 258 CE
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/8/2016, SPi
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/8/2016, SPi
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/8/2016, SPi

Introduction

Why should we study the history of political thought? And why should we
study the history of ancient political thought? And why above all should we
study the history of ancient political thought all over the world? The answer is,
first, that, like all fields of history, the history of political thought enables us to
see ourselves in context; understanding our own past increases our collective
self-understanding. Secondly, the history of ideas helps us to explain the past
by knowing what can be known about what actors and groups thought, or
said, including the reasons they gave for what they did. Thirdly, the history of
ideas in different cultures and regions throws some light on why certain
political values, certain ways of organizing society, are prevalent in different
cultures and regions today.
Global history is a well-established field. But, in the history of ideas,
globalization still has some way to go.1 While histories of Western political
thought (‘from Plato to NATO’ and so forth) abound, few histories of political
thought in other civilizations are available in Western languages.
And there is, to my knowledge, no history of political thought in the ancient
world taken as a whole. This is astounding when one considers that this was
possibly the most fertile period in the whole history of political thought: it was
then that political philosophy began, independently, in China and in Greece;
when political science was invented in Greece; when statecraft was first studied
in India. Democracy and liberty (as every schoolboy or girl perhaps knows)
began in ancient Greece. Israel led directly to Judaism, and so indirectly to
Christianity and to Islam.
The study of ancient political thought in different cultures reminds us of
where we have been before. It lays before us a storehouse of human reflections
on politics, political power, justice, the purpose of institutions, and many other
topics. It may be objected that ancient political thought, unlike (say) ancient
epistemology or moral philosophy, dealt with situations that were so different
from anything today that they can have no bearing on us.2 Of course the
historian has to consider the question of context very carefully. But, having
said that, one must surely judge each instance on its own merits without
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/8/2016, SPi

2 A World History of Ancient Political Thought

blanket preconceptions. One should not rule out a priori the possibility of
learning from the ancients. There have been Renaissances in the past.
There were astonishing intellectual achievements in the ancient world.
Many, if not most, of the political ideas of the modern world had their origins
there. The works of some ancient thinkers are still discussed today (for
example Confucius, Plato, and Aristotle). It has, for instance, been argued
that Confucius’ views on the relationship between the good life and the state,
between ethics and politics, need to be taken seriously today.3 No one has
considered the question of the relationship between ethics and practicality
with greater acumen than Aristotle and Kautilya. Some early thinkers encap-
sulate millennia of pre-literate thought. What they have to say had been
distilled over generations of human experience and intercourse.
We can learn from thinkers of the remote past, despite the fact that our
material circumstances and means of communication have changed in so
many ways. Skinner is right to remind us that what has been said in the past
cannot mean the same to us as it did then.4 But one must not exaggerate
historical relativity.
It may be doubted whether thinkers in one culture can meaningfully com-
municate with, or learn from, thinkers in other cultures. I would suggest that, if
men and women of different races and cultures can fall in love, if we share
enough human experience to be able to appreciate the art and poetry of other
peoples, then there is no reason to presuppose that we cannot understand other
peoples’ philosophies of state and society. We should at least try. What we
consider our own past is in some ways no less alien to us than a different
culture. If we can empathize with Homer, we can empathize with Confucius.
People of all epochs and all cultures eat, love, compete, co-operate, and fight.
It would be tragic to lose their insights.5 Our own generation is surely no
more intelligent than the last, or they than the ones before them. Cultural
change does not necessarily signify progress, though it may. Thinkers of the
past, and from other cultures, can widen the horizons of all of us, leaders,
citizens, and philosophers. As Geoffrey Lloyd puts it, ‘the value of studying
alternative systems of belief [is] that it helps us to see the limitations of our
own initial assumptions’.6
We may, for example, learn new ways of viewing the relationship between
the individual and the community, how to balance the private and the public
good, the duties of the present to future generations. We can learn both from
what they said, and from the spirit in which they said it, the courage with
which they confronted their crises. One example is the different ways in which
ancient thinkers tried to explain, humanize, and come to terms with the
phenomenon of the large state.
If intellectual history teaches one thing, it is that views about social rela-
tionships and the state, as well as views about the universe, change, sometimes
quite radically, from one time and place to another. It is likely that they will
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/8/2016, SPi

Introduction 3
change again. We need to view the wisdom of the present with the same
scepticism and openness as we view the wisdom of the past.
The study of radically different ideas from other times and places opens up
the mind. That anyone ever believed that the problems of political philosophy
had been solved once and for all7 reveals the capacity of faith to triumph
over history.
It may well be—to some it seems likely—that the most serious issues facing
us today, such as climate change and the clash between modern civilization
and religious fanaticism, or between states and borderless tribes, require for
their solution something more than the preconceptions and paradigms of the
present, or of the West generally.8 Human society is constantly being re-made;
we can never stand back and say, ‘there, that’s done’. Every solution produces a
new problem.
Today all societies interact and affect one another. It is, therefore, more than
ever necessary to understand how other societies function, and how the people
in them think, by looking at the different cultures into which humankind has
been thrust, and divided, in the course of its lifetime. We need a better
understanding of where different ways of thinking are coming from. The
present tendency to focus on Europe or ‘the West’, in research as well as
teaching, can be a barrier to mutual understanding between different cultures.
It privileges one tradition above all the rest.
This imbalance in scholarship is all the more regrettable in an age of
globalization, mass migration, and disputes about national identity and multi-
culturalism. Today, perhaps more than ever before, men and women from
different cultures live in the same neighbourhoods. A worldwide study of the
history of political thought will enable people to make more informed judge-
ments (which, heaven knows, are needed) when different cultures or civiliza-
tions interact.
Some non-Western cultures have revived, both among political thinkers
and among whole populations. Non-Western political cultures play a major
role in regional politics in Muslim-majority countries, in South-East Asia,
India, Russia, China, and Japan; in approximately three-quarters of the world’s
population, in other words.
Understanding different traditions of thought is, therefore, essential for
civic and international harmony. This has always been to some extent the
case, but today it is drastically more so than ever before. In order for people of
different moral, intellectual, and religious backgrounds to understand one
another and to live peacefully together, there has to be dialogue.9 (As Her-
akleitos put it, ‘reason is common to all but most people live as if each had
their own private knowledge’—this is also patently true of cultures.) There
have been dialogues between cultures in the past; and ideas have been trans-
mitted from one culture to another. Lost pasts have been rediscovered. So we
can enter into dialogue and even learn from one another.10
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/8/2016, SPi

4 A World History of Ancient Political Thought

In international policy a too West-centred approach has recently had
horrific results: for example, the attempt by Western powers to install liberal
democracy in countries composed of people still deeply divided (as Europe
was 200 or more years ago) into rival sects and tribes. World-wide enquiry
should help to unearth modes of thought which underlie conflicts so that
people can at least understand one another. Otherwise we are condemned to
bands fighting to the death (probably someone else’s) on behalf of proposi-
tions which their adversaries may not understand, may not care about, and
may despise. One hopes that this study will promote mutual understanding
and increased harmony. (This is of course rather optimistic.)
One can only fully understand and appreciate one’s own culture, its histor-
ical origins and development, by comparing it with other traditions and
their development. Otherwise, how can one know what its distinctive features
are and why they arose? Other societies are the nearest thing a historian has
to a repeatable experiment. One indispensable way of explaining sequences
of phenomena is by comparing them with other sequences. Max Weber
(1864–1920) perceived more clearly than anyone before or since the role of
comparison in historical explanation. He formulated a method for comparing
the political ideas of different cultures from all over the world. His compara-
tive method has been enormously influential in the history and sociology of
ideas.11 But no one since has continued this enquiry on the same scale.
World-wide comparison is forbidding; it requires mastery of different
languages and specialisms. Institutional and career pressures discourage
scholars from working outside their own ‘field’, especially today when schol-
arship is becoming increasingly routinized in some countries.12
I have presented the political thought of each civilization separately in
approximate chronological sequence. We start with early humans and prehis-
tory (Chapter 1); then we examine the earliest literate civilizations of Egypt
(Chapter 2) and Mesopotamia (Chapter 3); next, Iran (Chapter 4) and Israel
(Chapter 5); then India (Chapter 6), and China (Chapter 7). Finally we come
to Greece and Rome (Chapters 8–10), and early Christianity (Chapter 11). All
of these left records of what people thought about social relationships and the
state, about the purpose and scope of political authority, about social justice,
rights, and duties, and much else. We conclude by initiating a consideration of
the similarities and differences between these different cultures (Chapter 12).
Our sources include inscriptions, epic poetry, royal proclamations, codes of
law, philosophical and religious texts. Sometimes one may infer something of
what people thought from institutions and the way they were run, from the
conduct of rulers and the (regrettably rare) voices of popular culture. Power
then as now was justified, guided, and sanctified by ideology, spin, and myth.
‘Political thought’ is used here to embrace political philosophy and ethics,
constitutional theory, and political culture. In sometimes using modern West-
ern terms to describe what people in the past and in other cultures were talking
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/8/2016, SPi

Introduction 5
about, I have tried to indicate what exactly it was that ‘monarchy’, ‘law’, ‘the
state’, ‘the people’, and so on meant in each case.13 All dates are BCE unless
otherwise stated.

NOTES
1. Moyn and Sartori (2015); Dunn, ‘Why We Need a Global History of Political
Thought’ (forthcoming).
2. Istvan Hont thought that ancient politics ‘was entirely reshaped in the eighteenth
century’, whereas Quentin Skinner maintains that ‘the modern world continues to
be best understood by reference to categories used by the Greeks and Romans’:
Whatmore (2016) 85–6.
3. Chan (2014); Bell (2015).
4. ‘Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas’: History and Theory 8
(1969), 3–53.
5. Consider, on the other hand, Geertz: ‘The essential vocation of interpretive
anthropology is not to answer our deepest questions, but to make available to us
answers that others, guarding other sheep in other valleys, have given, and thus to
include them in the consultable record of what man has said’ (1973: 30).
6. 2012: 40. Quentin Skinner holds that philosophers today ‘gain from a sense of the
difficulties historical actors faced in solving problems and from knowledge of
different options available to historical agents making political decisions’: What-
more (2016), 73.
7. Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (London: Penguin,
1992). Consider also Daniel Bell, The End of Ideology and the Exhaustion of
Political Ideas in the Fifties, 2nd edn. (New York: Free Press, 1965).
8. ‘The ancients can, and should, be used as a resource for new understanding of
the world’: what Geoffrey Lloyd (2012: 12) says of cosmology may also apply to
politics.
9. Fred R. Dallmayr, Alternative Visions: Paths in the Global Village (Lanham MD:
Rowman and Littlefield, 1998).
10. See Antony Black, ‘Towards a Global History of Political Thought’ in Nederman
and Shogimen (2009: 25–42).
11. See Michael Mann, The Sources of Social Power, vol. 1: A History of Power from the
Beginning to A. D. 1760 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986).
12. ‘Social and institutional resistance…results at the present time in the great isola-
tion of each worker, in the great difficulty of communication and agreement
among them…The major obstacles do not lie in the object of study but in the
subjects who study it’ (Dumont 1975: 170).
13. Dumont has suggested that we should draw elements of ‘a comparative language’
from every civilization: ‘in the present state of knowledge, each civilization…should
deliver some conclusions of general use, should, that is, provide some elements of a
comparative language’ (1975: 159). See Antony Black, ‘Decolonization of Concepts’,
Journal of Early Modern History: Contacts, Comparisons, Contrasts, 1 (1997), 55–69.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/8/2016, SPi

Early Societies and States

It is impossible to know when social reflection, criticism, and idealism began.

But it seems that humans possessed codes of behaviour and social values from
the very start. In order to investigate the beginnings of political thought,
therefore, we have to start with prehistory. We need to look at human groups
before there were states. This is an essential introduction to a study of ancient
political thought. It will indicate the background to the first written records of
political thought, and where the first political thinkers were coming from.

HUMAN GROU PS

Archaeology can tell us something about the structures and behaviour

patterns of early societies (Hodder 1982; Braithwaite 1984). We may compare
this with what anthropologists have discovered about the structures and ideas
of tribal societies today. Moreover, great advances have been made in social
biology over the last fifty or so years. If some ‘sociobiologists’ have been too
quick to identify parallels and continuities between animal, hominid, and
human behaviour, many of those in the social and human sciences have, out
of prejudice or ignorance, unreasonably rejected them. (Aristotle observed
that all human conduct involves ‘nature, custom, and mind (phusis, ethos,
logos)’; Politics 1332a40.) Eating and excreting require forethought. How we
think is patterned by how we live.
When humans first left archaeological traces of their social organization,
let alone of their ideas, they had already passed through many thousands
of generations.1 Considering the changes in political life and outlook
which have occurred over the 5,000 years (approximately 130 generations)
of recorded history, and which nowadays take place within two or three
generations, one can only wonder how many fundamental changes occurred
before records began. Here social biology may throw a glimmer of light.
The way social behaviour has evolved may, first, influence political thought
and practice due to continuities between strategies evolved by natural selec-
tion, and strategies found later in human societies. It may also, secondly, do so
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/8/2016, SPi

Early Societies and States 7

due to predispositions among humans for thinking and behaving in certain
ways. In other words, some cultural phenomena may have their roots in social
biology: we may be psychologically predisposed, through biological evolution,
to find certain relationships, social patterns, and types of leadership satisfying
or difficult because of what happened to our remote ancestors long ago. For
example, both kinship and personal acquaintance remain dominant factors in
all human life. Most moral systems take account of these. We know only too
well how much they affect politics today. None of this means, of course, that
what we like is necessarily either good or useful today; nor that what we dislike
is necessarily wrong or harmful.
Thirdly, humans have modified patterns which developed through natural
selection, for example the regulation of sex by social customs, or the functions
ascribed to the old because of their experience. In modern tribal societies,
elders often play a critical role in settling disputes.2 Humans may, fourthly,
accentuate factors rooted in biological predispositions, for example by speci-
fying and enforcing rules about ownership and about the inheritance of status,
wealth, and power. On the other hand, hunter-gatherer societies may have
bequeathed a contrary predisposition to equality among males.

SMALL G ROUPS AND RECIPROCAL ALTRUISM

Early humans lived in small groups of between twenty and one hundred
persons; today among Yanomamo Indians, ‘communities range in size from
about 40 individuals to about 300’, usually fissioning when they reach
125–150.3 In both early human groups and today, ‘the composition of local
groups…is heavily dominated by related individuals’ (Chagnon 1982: 292); all
or most are kin. According to the theory of inclusive fitness, or kin selection,
‘natural selection favors not the individual that maximizes her reproductive
success but the individual that maximizes her personal reproductive success
plus effects on relatives, devalued by the appropriate degree of relatedness’
(Trivers 1985: 65, summarizing Hamilton). The ‘selfish gene’ syndrome means
that in such groups people are prepared to look after one another and sacrifice
themselves for the group; for in that way they will be increasing the spread of
genes which they share with others in that group.4
Small groups have been around long enough to have influenced human
behaviour patterns and mindsets through natural selection. Reciprocal altru-
ism appears to be one case of this. It has evolved among several species as the
most effective means of maximizing benefits for members of a group within
which there is continuous interaction, and therefore a likelihood of occasions
for ongoing reciprocity.5 It resembles ‘tit-for-tat’, which games theorists have
identified as the most robust strategy: ‘never be the first to defect; retaliate only
after the partner has defected; be forgiving after just one act of retaliation’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 23/8/2016, SPi

8 A World History of Ancient Political Thought

(Axelrod 1981). Among chimpanzees, the ‘tremendous need for reconciliation
with their opponents probably reflects the importance of alliances, since each
individual is both friend and foe, depending on context’ (Trivers 1985: 376). In
groups of up to ten, evolved reciprocal behaviour allows members to behave
altruistically towards others without expecting reciprocation from the same
individual (‘indirect reciprocity’) (Krebs and Davies 1984: 83–4).
This is obviously where size matters. Relationships have to be quite different
in larger human societies. Here, altruistic behaviour cannot be an evolved
strategy; it can come only from moral education and/or a Hobbesian threat of
coercive sanctions against defaulters. The latter can, presumably, make it
rational for humans to practise reciprocal altruism in larger groups. So too
could education if it is reliably inculcated and widespread so as to affect
behaviour, and so increase the expectation of reciprocity from others,
throughout that society. Reciprocal altruism has featured, as we shall see, in
the ethical doctrines of several mature cultures (first, and most obviously, in
Confucius) (below, p. 98). Social biology seems to suggest that coercive power
was only part of a more complex scenario.
Trivers has also suggested that ‘a sense of fairness has evolved in human
beings as the standard against which to measure the behaviour of other
people, so as to guard against cheating in reciprocal relationships…Since
small inequities repeated many times over a lifetime may exact a heavy toll
in inclusive fitness, selection may favour a strong show of aggression when the
cheating tendency is discovered’.6
The priority of justice as a social and political norm is indeed found in all
cultures (Rappaport 1999: 323; below, p. 224). Humans seem to have evolved a
particular sensitivity to ‘violations of conditional rules that express social
contracts’ (Laland and Brown 2002: 169); Rappaport suggests that breach of
contract is ‘the only act that is always and everywhere held to be immoral’
(1999: 132). This could also be a reaction to the highly-developed ability of
humans to mind-read, manipulate, and deceive (Krebs and Davies 1984: 389).
Both morality and law are peculiar to humans, and they are human
universals (Brown 1991): only humans make moral choices, and all humans
make moral choices. Morality constitutes, as it were, the grammar of behav-
iour for speaking intelligent beings; the capacity to take part in morality seems,
like ordinary grammar, to be hard-wired. Again, only human societies have
laws; and every human society has laws (whether formal or informal).7

DEMOCRACY?

In the small face-to-face groups of very early human society, many decisions
were probably made by consensus. In village communities in modern Africa,
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
denticulations; shell more or less acuminate, small, aperture entire,
operculum corneous or calcareous. Brackish or fresh water. Jurassic
——. Principal genera: Baicalia, with its various sub-genera (p. 290);
Pomatiopsis, Hydrobia, Bithynella, Micropyrgus (Tertiary), Pyrgula,
Emmericia, Benedictia, Lithoglyphus, Tanganyicia, Limnotrochus (?),
Jullienia, Pachydrobia, Potamopyrgus, Littorinida, Amnicola,
Fluminicola (subg., Gillia, Somatogyrus), Bithynia, Fossarulus
(Tertiary), Stenothyra.
Fam. 18. Assimineidae.—Ctenidium replaced by a pulmonary sac,
no true tentacles, eye-peduncles long, retractile; radula that of
Hydrobia; shell small, conoidal, operculum corneous, nucleus sub-
lateral. Eocene——. Genera: Assiminea, Acmella.
Fam. 19. Skeneidae.—Radula resembling that of Hydrobia; shell
very small, depressed, widely umbilicated, operculum corneous.
Pleistocene——. Single genus, Skenea.
Fam. 20. Jeffreysiidae.—Mantle with two pointed ciliated
appendages in front, tentacles ciliated, eyes sessile, far behind the
base of the tentacles; marginal teeth sometimes absent; shell small,
thin, pellucid, whorls rather swollen, operculum with marginal
nucleus, divided by a rib on the inner face. Recent. Genera:
Jeffreysia, Dardania. Marine, living on algae.
Fam. 21. Litiopidae.—Epipodium with cirrhi on each side,
operculigerous lobe with appendages; radula rissoidan; shell small,
conical, columella truncated, operculum corneous. Eocene——.
Genera: Litiopa, living on the Sargasso weed, suspended by a long
filament; Alaba, Diala.
Fam. 22. Adeorbidae.—Radula essentially rissoidan; shell
depressed, circular or auriform, widely umbilicated, operculum
corneous, paucispiral, nucleus excentrical. Pliocene ——. Principal
genera: Adeorbis, Stenotis, Megalomphalus.
Fam. 23. Viviparidae.—Snout blunt, tentacles long, right tentacle
in the male deformed, pierced with a hole corresponding to the
aperture of the penis, two cervical lobes, the right being siphonal,
foot with an anterior transverse groove; teeth broad, shallowly
pectinate at the ends; shell turbinate, whorls more or less rounded,
aperture continuous, operculum corneous, nucleus sub-lateral, with
a false sub-central nucleus on the external face. Animal
ovoviviparous. Fresh-water. Cretaceous ——. Genera: Vivipara (=
Paludina), subg., Cleopatra, Melantho, Tulotoma; Tylopoma
(Tertiary), and Lioplax.
Fam. 24. Valvatidae.—Branchia exserted, bipectinate, carried on
the back of the neck, a filiform appendage (Fig. 66, p. 159) on the
right of the neck, penis under the right tentacle, prominent, eyes
sessile, behind the tentacles; radula like that of Vivipara; shell small,
turbinate or flattened, operculum corneous, nucleus central. Fresh
water. Jurassic ——. Single genus, Valvata.
Fam. 25. Ampullariidae.—Snout with two tentacles, tentacles
proper very long, tapering, eyes prominently pedunculate, two
cervical lobes, the left siphonal, respiratory cavity divided by a
partition, a large branchia in the right chamber, the left functioning as
a pulmonary sac (Fig. 65, p. 158); radula large, central tooth
multicuspid, base broad, lateral and marginals falciform, simple or
bicuspid; shell large, turbinate or flattened, spire small, whorls
rounded; operculum generally corneous, nucleus sub-lateral, false
nucleus as in Vivipara. Fresh water. Cretaceous ——. Single genus,
Ampullaria (subg., Ceratodes, Pachylabra, Asolene, Lanistes, and
Meladomus).
Fam. 26. Cerithiidae.—Branchial siphon present, short, eyes
variable in position; central tooth small, evenly cusped, lateral
hollowed at base, multicuspid, marginals narrow; shell long,
turriculate, whorls many, generally tuberculate, varicose or spiny,
aperture sometimes strongly channelled; operculum corneous,
subcircular, nucleus nearly central. Marine or brackish water. Trias
——. Principal genera: Triforis, shell small, generally sinistral;
Fastigiella, Cerithium (Fig. 12, p. 16), Bittium, Potamides (subg.,
Tympanotomus, Pyrazus, Pirenella, Telescopium, Cerithidea,
Lampania, all brackish water), Diastoma (Eocene), Cerithiopsis;
Ceritella (Jurassic), Brachytrema (Jurassic), and Planaxis (subg.,
Quoyia and Holcostoma).
 Fam. 27. Modulidae.—No siphon, radula of Cerithium; shell with
short spire, columella strongly toothed at the base, aperture nearly
circular. Recent. Single genus, Modulus.
Fam. 28. Nerineidae.—Shell solid, long, sub-cylindrical, aperture
channelled, columella and interior of whorls with continuous ridges,
extending up the spire. Genera: Nerinea (Trias to Cretaceous),
Aptyxiella (Jurassic).
Fam. 29. Melaniidae.—Border of mantle festooned, foot broad,
with an anterior groove, penis present; radula closely resembling that
of Cerithium; shell long, spiral, with a thick periostracum, surface
with tubercles, ribs, or striae, suture shallow; operculum corneous,
paucispiral, nucleus excentrical. Animal ovoviviparous. Fresh water.
Cretaceous ——. Principal genera: Melania (with many sections or
sub-genera), Pachychilus, Claviger (= Vibex), Hemisinus, Pirena,
Melanopsis, Tiphobia, Paludomus (subg., Philopotamis, Tanalia,
Stomatodon), Hantkenia (Eocene), Larina (?).
Fam. 30. Pleuroceridae.—Mantle edge not festooned, no
copulatory organ, otherwise like Melaniidae; operculum with nucleus
sub-marginal. Animal oviparous. Fresh-water. Cretaceous ——.
Genera: Pleurocera (including Io, Fig. 12, p. 16, Angitrema, Lithasia,
Strephobasis), Goniobasis, Anculotus, Gyrotoma.
Fam. 31. Pseudomelaniidae.—Shell resembling that of
Melaniidae, but marine. Genera: Pseudomelania, Loxonema,
Bourguetia, Macrochilus. Palaeozoic to Tertiary strata.
 Fig. 275.—Melania confusa
Dohrn, Ceylon.
Fam. 32. Turritellidae.—Mantle with a siphonal fold on the right
side; radula variable (p. 224); shell long, whorls many, slowly
increasing in size, transversely ribbed or striated, aperture small;
operculum corneous, nucleus central. Jurassic ——. Principal
genera: Turritella, Mesalia, Protoma, Mathilda (?).
Fam. 33. Coecidae.—Tentacles long, eyes sessile at their base;
shell small, spiral in the young form, spire generally lost in the adult,
the shell becoming simply a straight or curved cylinder; operculum
corneous, multispiral. Eocene ——. Single genus, Coecum.
Fam. 34. Vermetidae.—Visceral sac greatly produced, irregularly
spiral, no copulatory organs (radula, Fig. 126, p. 223), shell tubular,
irregularly coiled, last whorls often free, aperture circular; operculum
corneous, circular, nucleus central. Carboniferous ——. Principal
genera: Vermetus; Siliquaria (Fig 153, p. 248), a long fissure, or
series of holes, runs along a considerable part of the shell,
operculum with outer face spiral, elevated.
Fam. 35. Strombidae.—Foot narrow, arched, metapodium greatly
produced, snout long, eye peduncles long, thick, eyes elaborate,
siphon short, penis prominent, bifurcate; central tooth with strong
median cusp, marginals falciform, slender, edge more or less
denticulate; shell solid, spire conical, outer lip generally dilated into
wings or digitations, channelled before and behind, a labial sinus at
the base, distinct from the anterior canal; operculum small for the
aperture, corneous, claw-shaped, edge notched. Lias ——. Genera:
Strombus (Fig. 99, p. 200); Pereiraea (Miocene), Pteroceras (Fig.
277; digitations of the outer lip very strong), Rostellaria (spire
produced, anterior canal very long), Rimella, Pterodonta, Terebellum
(base of shell truncate, spire short).

Fig. 276.—Development of
Coecum: A, showing the
gradual formation of septa;
a, apex; ap, aperture; ss, first
septum; s´s´, second
septum. (After de Folin.) B,
adult form of C. eburneum
Ad., Panama, x 10.
Fam. 36. Chenopodidae (= Aporrhaidae).—Foot flat; lateral and
marginal teeth not denticulate; shell resembling that of Strombus,
outer lip dilated, wing-like, no labial sinus. Jurassic ——. Genera:
Chenopus (= Aporrhais, Diastema, Malaptera, Harpagodes, Alaria)
(last four from Secondary strata).
Fam. 37. Struthiolariidae.—Radula allied to that of Strombus,
marginals occasionally multiplied; shell buccinoid, very solid, outer
lip thickened, canal short, operculum claw-shaped, notched, nucleus
terminal. Tertiary ——. Single genus, Struthiolaria (subg.,
Perissodonta, marginal teeth multiplied).
 Fam. 38. Cypraeidae.—Mantle with two large lateral lobes
reflected and meeting over the shell, siphon small; central and lateral
teeth bluntly tricuspid or multicuspid, laterals fairly broad, edges
cusped or finely pectinate; shell polished, solid, spire generally
concealed in the adult or overlaid with enamel, aperture straight,
narrow, nearly as long as the shell, toothed at the sides, channelled
at each end, labium inflected; no operculum. Jurassic ——. Genera:
Ovula (including Amphiperas, Transovula, Cyphoma, Radius,
Simnia), Pedicularia, Cypraea (with subg., Cypraeovula, Cypraedia,
and Trivia), and Erato.
Fam. 39. Doliidae.—Foot expanded, wider and longer than the
shell, truncated and thickened in front, siphon very long and narrow;
central tooth with very strong median and small lateral and basal
cusps, lateral and marginals bluntly falciform; shell ventricose,
without varices, spire short, outer lip generally simple, anterior canal
rather wide, no operculum. Cretaceous ——. Genera: Dolium (subg.,
Malea, outer lip thickened, denticulate, reflected); Pirula, mantle with
two lateral lobes reflected over part of the shell, shell fig-shaped (Fig.
278).

Fig. 277.—Three stages in the growth of

Pteroceras rugosum Sowb., E. Indies,
showing the development of the ‘fingers.’
 Fam. 40. Cassididae.—Foot broad, siphon long (radula, Fig. 125,
p. 223); shell ventricose, with varices, spire short, outer lip reflected
or thickened, anterior canal short, recurved narrow; operculum semi-
lunar, with ribs radiating from a marginal nucleus. Cretaceous ——.
Genera: Cassis (subg., Semicassis and Cypraecassis), Morio (=
Cassidaria), Oniscia.
Fam. 41. Columbellinidae.—Shell solid, ribbed, usually
cancellated, with an oblique posterior canal, columella callous, more
or less reflected. Genera: Columbellina, Columbellaria, Zittelia,
Petersia, Alariopsis (?). Secondary strata only.
Fam. 42. Tritonidae.—Foot short, narrow; siphon short, not
prominent; radula allied to that of Cassididae; shell thick, varicose;
outer lip inflected and thickened, canal long, periostracum often thick
and hairy, operculum corneous, nucleus terminal or sub-marginal.
Cretaceous ——. Genera: Triton (Fig. 191, p. 275; subg., Epidromus,
Plesiotriton, Simpulum, Ranularia, Argobuccinum); Persona,
aperture toothed, narrow; columella reflected upon the last whorl;
Ranella, shell dorso-ventrally compressed, generally with two
continuous lateral varices, posterior canal present.
The position of the following four families is doubtful:—
Fam. 43. Oocorythidae.—Siphon short, foot broad, eyes absent,
radula taenioglossate; shell buccinoid or cassidiform, operculum
corneous, spiral. Recent. Single genus, Oocorys.
Fam. 44. Subulitidae.—Shell elongate, fusiform, smooth; suture
shallow, base truncate or rounded, aperture channelled or notched.
Ordovician to Trias. Genera: Subulites, Fusispira, Euchrysallis.
 Fig. 278.—Pirula
Dussumieri Val.,
Philippines. × ½.
Fam. 45. Seguenziidae.—Radula taenioglossate, shell trochiform,
aperture channelled, columella twisted, operculum multispiral,
nucleus central. Pliocene ——. Single genus, Seguenzia.
Fam. 46. Choristidae.—Anterior tentacles united by a frontal veil,
posterior simple; eyes absent, foot with tentaculae before and
behind; three central teeth, outer marginal with a basal plate; shell
helicoid, suture deep, peristome continuous, operculum corneous,
paucispiral. Pliocene ——. Single genus, Choristes.
Section II. Heteropoda.—Foot fin-shaped, not flat.
The Heteropoda are free-swimming Mollusca, being, like the
Pteropoda, Gasteropoda modified to suit their pelagic environment.
Their nervous system is streptoneurous, and they are therefore
probably derived from the Prosobranchiata, but they are highly
specialised forms. Pelseneer considers them far more widely
removed from the Streptoneura than the Pteropoda are from the
Euthyneura. They swim on the surface “upside down,” i.e. with the
ventral side uppermost.
The tissues and shell are transparent, permitting observation of
the internal organs. In the Pterotrachaeidae the foot takes the form
of a fan-shaped disc, usually furnished with a sucker. The body is
compressed at the posterior end, often with a ventral “fin.” In Atlanta
the foot consists of three very distinct parts: a propodium, a
mesopodium, on which is a small sucker, and a metapodium, which
carries the operculum. The branchiae are carried on the visceral sac,
and are free in Pterotrachaea, slightly protected by the shell in
Carinaria, and entirely covered in Atlanta; absent altogether in
Firoloida.
The head carries two tentacles (except in Pterotrachaea), with
large, highly organised eyes on short lobes at their outer base. The
alimentary tract consists of a long protrusible proboscis, with a
taenioglossate radula (Fig. 132, p. 227), a long oesophagus, and a
slightly flexured intestine. In Atlanta the visceral sac is spiral and
protected by a spiral planorbiform shell; in Carinaria the visceral sac
is small, conical, protected by a very thin capuliform shell. There is
no shell in Pterotrachaea or Firoloida.
The Heteropoda are dioecious. In the male there is a flagellum
behind the penis, which is near the middle of the right side.
Pterotrachaea lays long chains of granular eggs, and has been
noticed to produce a metre’s length in a day. The eggs of Atlanta are
isolated. The embryo has a deeply bilobed velum.
Fam. 1. Pterotrachaeidae.—Body long, with a caudal “fin;”
branchiae dorsal, free or partly protected by a shell; foot consisting
of a muscular disc, with or without a sucker.
Pterotrachaea proper has no mantle, shell, or tentacles. The
branchiae are disposed round the visceral sac, at the upper part of
which is the anus. In Firoloida the body is abruptly truncated behind,
with a long filiform segmented caudal appendage; visceral sac at the
posterior end: fin-sucker present or absent in both male and female.
Cardiapoda resembles Carinaria, but the visceral sac is more
posterior and is only slightly protected by a very small spiral shell.
Carinaria (Fig. 279) has a rugose translucent skin, visceral sac sub-
median, apparently pedunculated, covered by a capuliform shell.
The larval shell, which persists in the adult, is helicoid.
Fam. 2. Atlantidae.—Shell spiral, operculate, covering the animal.
Branchiae in a dorsal cavity of the mantle; foot trilobed, with a small
sucker on the mesopodium.
 The shell of Atlanta is discoidal and sharply keeled, while that of
Oxygyrus is nautiloid, with the spire concealed, no keel, aperture
dilated.
(c) Gymnoglossa.—Radula and jaws absent; proboscis
prominent, sexes probably separate, penis present. The section is
probably artificial and unnecessary, the families composing it being,
in all probability, Taenioglossa which have lost their radula in
consequence of changed conditions of life (pp. 79, 225).

Fig. 279.—Carinaria mediterranea Lam., Naples: a,

anus; br, branchiae; f, foot; i, intestine; m, mouth;
p, penis; s, sucker; sh, shell; t, tentacles. × ½.
Fam. 1. Eulimidae.—Proboscis very long, retractile, mantle
forming a siphonal fold; shell small, long, subulate, polished; suture
shallow, aperture continuous, operculum present or absent. Animal
often parasitic, sucking the juices of its host by its long proboscis.
Trias——. Genera: Eulima (subg., Subularia, Arcuella, Apicalia,
Mucronalia, Stiliferina, and others), Stilifer, Scalenostoma, Niso, and
Hoplopteron.
Fam. 2. Pyramidellidae.—Tentacles auriform, proboscis as in
Eulimidae, a prominent mentum or flap under the buccal orifice; shell
usually small, conical; suture shallow, apical whorls (the embryonic
shell) sinistral (p. 250), operculum corneous, paucispiral; nucleus
excentrical. Trias——. Genera: Pyramidella (subg., Syrnola,
Otopleura, Chrysallida, Mumiola), Odostomia, Eulimella,
Murchisoniella, Turbonilla (subg., Dunkeria and Cingulina).
(d) Rachiglossa (p. 220).—Proboscis long, retractile; siphon
distinct, radula without uncini, sometimes without laterals; teeth
strongly cusped; shell generally wholly external.
Fam. 1. Muricidae.—Eyes sessile at the outer base of the
tentacles, penis large, behind the right tentacle, radula within the
retractile proboscis, central tooth (Fig. 119, p. 220) with at least three
strong cusps, laterals plain; shell solid, more or less tuberculate,
spiny and varicose, anterior canal varying from a mere notch to a
long channel. Cretaceous——. Principal genera: (i.) Muricinae,
nucleus of operculum sub-terminal; Trophon, Typhis, Murex (with
many subdivisions), Ocinebra (including Cerastoma, Vitularia, and
Hadriania), Urosalpinx, Eupleura, Pseudomurea. (ii.) Purpurinae,
nucleus of operculum lateral; Rapana (including Latiaxis), Purpura
(with subg., Cuma, Iopas, Vexilla, and Pinaxia), Monoceros
(including Chorus), Purpuroidea (Secondary strata), Pentadactylus,
Sistrum, Concholepas.
Fam. 2. Coralliophilidae.—Animal living in Madrepores, resembling
Purpura, radula absent; shell variously shaped, often deformed or
tubular, operculum that of Purpura, if present. Miocene——. Principal
genera: Rhizochilus, Coralliophila, Leptoconchus, Magilus (Fig. 29,
p. 75), Rapa.
Fam. 3. Columbellidae.—(Radula, Fig. 123, p. 222.) Shell small,
solid, fusiform, aperture narrow, canal short, outer lip thickened.
Miocene——. Single genus, Columbella (subg., Nitidella, Anachis,
Meta, Strombina, Atilia, Conidea, Amphissa, Mitrella, and others).
Fam. 4. Nassidae.—Foot long and broad, often with terminal
appendages; siphon long, eyes on outer base of tentacles, central
tooth of radula arched, multicuspid, lateral strongly bicuspid, with
small denticles between the cusps; shell rather small, buccinoid,
columella more or less callous, outer lip thickened, often toothed;
operculum corneous, edges often toothed. Miocene——. Principal
genera: Nassa (with many sections), Amycla, Desmoulea,
Cyclonassa, Canidia (subg., Clea and Nassodonta), Dorsanum,
Bullia (= Buccinanops, Fig. 62, p. 185), Truncaria.
Fam. 5. Buccinidae.—Siphon rather long, eyes at outer base of
tentacles; central tooth of radula with 5 to 7 cusps, laterals bicuspid
or tricuspid (Fig. 118, p. 220); shell more or less fusiform, thick,
covered with a periostracum, canal of varying length, outer lip simple
or thickened; operculum corneous, nucleus variable in position.
Cretaceous——. Principal genera: Group i. Chrysodomus (with
sections Neptunea, Volutopsis, Pyrolofusus, Jumala), subg., Sipho;
Siphonalia (subg., Kelletia). Group ii. Liomesus (= Buccinopsis).
Group iii. Buccinum (Fig. 1 b, p. 6; subg., Volutharpa, Neobuccinum).
Group iv. Cominella, Tritonidea, Pisania, Euthria; Anura (Miocene),
Genea (Pliocene), Metula, Engina. Group v. Phos, Hindsia. Group vi.
Dipsaccus (= Eburna), Macron. Group vii. Pseudoliva.
Fam. 6. Turbinellidae.—Central tooth of radula tricuspid, median
cusp strong, lateral bicuspid, cusps unequal (Fig. 117, p. 220); shell
fusiform or pear-shaped, heavy, canal often long, operculum
corneous, claw-shaped, nucleus terminal. Miocene——. Principal
genera: Turbinella, Cynodonta, Tudicla (subg., Streptosiphon);
Piropsis (Cretaceous), Perissolax (Cretaceous), Strepsidura
(Eocene, subg., Whitneya), Melapium, Fulgur (= Busycon, Fig. 150,
p. 249, including Sycotypus), Melongena (subg., Pugilina, Myristica);
Liostoma (Eocene), Hemifusus (subg., Megalatractus),
Ptychatractus, Meyeria.
 Fig. 280.—Turbinella
pyrum Lam., Ceylon.
× ⅔.
Fam. 7. Fasciolariidae.—Eyes at the outer base of the tentacles
(radula, Fig. 121, p. 221); shell fusiform, spire long, canal often very
long, columella often with a fold at the base; operculum corneous,
nucleus terminal. Cretaceous——. Principal genera: Fusus
(including Sinistralia, Aptyxis, Troschelia), with subg., Serrifusus
(Cretaceous), Clavella (subg. Thersites), Fasciolaria, Latirus (subg.
Polygona, Peristernia, Leucozonia, Lagena; Mazzalina (Eocene),
Chascax).

Fig. 281.—Latirus
(Leucozonia) cingulatus
Wood, Panama.
 Fam. 8. Mitridae.—Siphon rather long, with anterior appendages,
eyes on the side of the tentacles, proboscis very long; radula
variable, laterals sometimes lost (Fig. 120, p. 221); shell fusiform,
solid, spire more or less pointed, columella with several prominent
folds, the posterior the largest, aperture rather narrow, no operculum.
Cretaceous——. Principal genera: Mitra (with many sections), subg.,
Strigatella, Mitreola, Mutyca, Dibaphus; Plochelaea (Tertiary), Thala;
Turricula (with several sections), Cylindromitra, and Imbricaria.
Fam. 9. Volutidae.—Foot broad in front, head laterally dilated into
lobes, on which are placed the sessile eyes; siphon prominent, with
appendages at the base (radula, Fig. 122, p. 221); shell thick, often
shining, fusiform, globular or cylindrical, columella projecting
anteriorly, with several folds, the anterior of which is the largest,
aperture notched, canal not produced, operculum generally absent.
Cretaceous——. Principal genera: Cryptochorda (Eocene), Zidona,
Provocator, Guivillea, Yetus (= Cymbium), Voluta (with many
sections), Volutolithes (chiefly Eocene), Volutolyria, Lyria, Enaeta,
Volutomitra.
Fam. 10. Marginellidae.—Foot broad, siphon without appendages,
mantle largely reflected over the shell; radula without laterals, central
tooth comb-like, cusps rather blunt; shell oval or conoidal, polished,
aperture narrow, outer lip thickened, columella with many folds; no
operculum. Eocene——. Principal genera: Marginella, with many
sections and so-called sub-genera; Persicula, Pachybathron (?),
Cystiscus, Microvoluta.
 Fig. 282.—Voluta nivosa
Lam., West Australia.
× ⅔.

Fig. 283.—Oliva porphyria

Lam., Panama.
Fam. 11. Harpidae.—Foot large, with a transverse groove,
separating off a semi-lunar propodium; mantle partly reflected over
the shell; shell ventricose, polished; spire short, strongly
longitudinally ribbed, ribs prolonged over the suture, columella
callous; no operculum. Eocene——. Single genus, Harpa (subg.,
Silia).
Fam. 12. Olividae.—Propodium semi-lunar, with a longitudinal
groove above, mesopodium reflected laterally over the shell; central
tooth of radula tricuspid on a very broad base, lateral simple,
hooked; shell sub-cylindrical or fusiform, polished; aperture narrow,
operculum present or absent. Cretaceous——. Principal genera:
Oliva (Figs. 283, and 98, p. 199), Olivancillaria (including Lintricula
and Agaronia), Olivella, Ancilla (subg., Ancillina).
(e) Toxoglossa (p. 218).—Radula with normal formula 1·0·1,
teeth large; oesophagus with a large poison gland; animal
carnivorous, exclusively marine.

Fig. 284.—Terebra
subulata L., Ceylon.
 Fig. 285.—Pleurotoma
tigrina Lam., E. Indies.
Fam. 1. Terebridae.—Eyes at the end of the tentacles, shell
subulate, many whorled, operculum with terminal nucleus. Eocene
——. Single genus, Terebra, with several sections.
Fam. 2. Conidae.—Eyes on outer side of tentacles, siphon
prominent; shell conical or fusiform, aperture narrow. Cretaceous
——. Principal genera: Conus, shell solid, spire short, aperture
narrow, straight, internal partitions partly absorbed; Conorbis,
Genotia (with several sections, chiefly Tertiary), Pusionella,
Columbarium, Clavatula, Surcula, Pleurotoma; Borsonia (Eocene),
Drillia (subg., Spirotropis), Bela, Mangilia (including Daphnella,
Clathurella, and others), Halia.
Fam. 3. Cancellariidae.—Proboscis short, usually no radula, shell
oval, columella strongly plicate; no operculum. Cretaceous——.
Single genus, Cancellaria (subg., Merica, Trigonostoma, Admete).
 CHAPTER XV
CLASS GASTEROPODA (continued): OPISTHOBRANCHIATA AND
PULMONATA

Order III. Opisthobranchiata

Visceral loop not twisted (except in Actaeon) in a figure of 8
(Euthyneurous type, p. 203), auricle usually behind the ventricle,
ctenidium often replaced by secondary branchiae, pallial cavity, if
existing, more or less open, shell present or absent, operculum
absent (except in Actaeon), animal hermaphrodite, with separate
sexual openings, marine only.—Carboniferous to present time.
The character of their nervous system decisively removes the
Opisthobranchiata from the Prosobranchiata, and approximates
them to the Pulmonata. Actaeon, however, which is streptoneurous,
as well as possessing an operculate shell with prominent spire,
forms an interesting link with the Prosobranchiata. At the opposite
extreme to Actaeon stand forms like Siphonaria and Gadinia, which
are probably close links with the Pulmonata (p. 19). The generative
system of the whole group, which is, as in the Basommatophora, of
the hermaphrodite type, without mutual fecundation, is another link
of connexion with the Pulmonata. The respiratory organs present the
most varied forms, sometimes consisting of one ctenidium (never
two), sometimes of secondary branchiae, variously placed, while
sometimes no special organ exists.
The prolongation of the foot into lateral epipodia or parapodia
(possibly to aid in swimming), and the effect of the epipodia upon the
shell, according as they involve it completely or partially, are among
the most instructive features of the Opisthobranchiata. If the epipodia
are developed on the anterior portion of the body, and do not
become reflected, they may, as in most Pteropoda Thecosomata, not
directly affect the shell. But when, as in the Tectibranchiata, the
epipodia are medio-lateral, and tend to envelope the shell, their
effect may be traced by a series of forms varying in proportion to the
amount of shell-surface covered by the epipodia. The two principal
lines along which modification takes place are the gradual reduction
of the spiral nature of the shell, and the gradual lessening of its
solidity. Both these changes are the direct result of the additional
protection afforded to the visceral mass by the reflected epipodia,
which renders the existence of a shell less and less necessary. A
precisely similar line of change is seen in the Pulmonata, culminating
in forms like Arion (p. 174).

Fig. 286.—Illustrating the transition of form in

the shell of Tectibranchiata from the
pointed spiral to the almost flattened plate:
A, Actaeon; B, Aplustrum; C, Cylichna; D,
Atys; E, Philine; F, Dolabella; G, Aplysia;
H, Pleurobranchus. (Not drawn to scale.)
 Fig. 287.—Illustrating the gradual covering of the shell
in the Tectibranchiata by the epipodia and mantle:
A, Haminea; B, Scaphander; C, Aplustrum; D,
Aplysia; E, Philine; c.d, cephalic disc; ep, ep,
epipodia; sh, shell. (Not drawn to scale.)
The habits of life of the Opisthobranchiata are very varied. Some,
especially the heavier types, burrow in sand, and are then usually
furnished with a broad cephalic disc, as a digging apparatus; some
(certain Bulla) flit about in shallow pools on mud flats; others
(Phyllirrhoe and the Pteropoda) swim freely in the open sea; others
(most Nudibranchiata) crawl slug-like on sea-weeds or corallines,
and in colour singularly harmonise with their environment (p. 71 f.);
others again (Siphonaria, Gadinia), stick limpet-like to rocks between
tide marks. As a rule, they occur only in clean salt water, but
Embletonia has been found in the Victoria Docks at Rotherhithe, as
well as in parts of the Baltic, where the water has only 7 parts of salt