the Chuang Tzu, we could assign them a portion of the reputation which has
accrued instead for the book.
Still, we must ask ourselves if having this information would drastically
revise our picture of intellectual structures. Would it cause us to change our
rankings of particular philosophers? Democritus, who wrote many books, all
lost, would probably be further enhanced in our eyes (perhaps especially
casting light on the early development of mathematics); but we rank him as a
major figure in any case. Similarly Chrysippus, who has the reputation as the
most acute technical thinker of the Stoic school. Or in China, Hui Shih, whose
“books filled five carts”; or Kung-sun Lung, the other famous logician. We
would clearly be enriched, but the pattern of eminence in the network chart
would not change. It is conceivable that some figures might be elevated: such
as Leucippus, reputed founder of atomism, but who receives only ancillary
mention, from earliest sources onward, as a predecessor of Democritus. We
would perhaps be full of admiration for the lost works of the logicians of the
Megarian school, and some of the Chi-hsia Academicians might rise to greater
heights in our eyes, which is to say, some secondary figures might move to
borderline major, or some minor figures up to secondary. Still, our indications
of what these figures did do already seem reflected in their remembered repu-
tations. Within broad categories, I believe that we already understand the
stratification of creativity that actually existed.
892 •^ Appendix 2