assuming that creativity can come out only in the literate population; but wide
historical variations in the literacy rate do not correlate with creativity (estimates
from McEvedy and Jones, 1978; CHC, 1986, 1979; Rawson, 1985; Havelock,
1982; Jones, [1964] 1986: 874–879, 910–912, 930–934, 992; Mann, 1986: 206–
207, 253–256, 269, 313–316, 336). And we shall see that the concentration of
creativity continues even within the massive highly educated populations of mod-
ern times.
- These initial ratings are relative to any given history: comprehensive volumes treat
more individual figures; specialized histories of particular eras or schools of thought
offer comparisons only within their scope; longer books allow lengthier treatments
of particular philosophers. Sources include both ancient and modern ones. There
are, of course, differences: Sextus Empiricus, Diogenes Laertius (both ca. 200 c.e.),
and the Suidas (ca. 950 c.e.) have somewhat different priorities than we do.
Diogenes Laertius gives 75 pages to Epicurus and 71 to Zeno of Citium but only
49 to Plato. Aristotle is treated as a distinctly secondary figure, receiving 19
pages—the same as Aristippus and less than Pyrrho’s 22 pages (Greek text, 1925
Loeb edition). Diogenes’ relatively modest assessment of Plato was a minority
position in his day, and Diogenes’ preference for Epicureanism was something of
a last gasp for that philosophy. The Suidas (Byzantium) shows virtually no interest
in Latin authors, and does not even mention Lucretius, Seneca, or Augustine. It
also shows little interest in Christian or heretic philosophers, ignores most of the
Middle Platonists, and is very spotty on the Presocratics, giving Heraclitus only 1
reference, compared to 32 for Aristotle and 75 for Plato. Among the Neoplatonists,
Plotinus gets a surprisingly low 3 references, Porphyry 13, Proclus 26. Diogenes
Laertius, writing some 15 generations after the classic age of Greek philosophers,
was of course no more of a contemporary than we are, and the Suidas is 20
generations later than that. My method averages together reputations from differ-
ent periods, using generous cutting points so that persons who had major reputa-
tions for any extended period of time are listed as at least secondary in the overall
scheme.
- Not to be confused with Euclid the Alexandrian geometer, 100 years later.
- In the Confucian school, the canon had an especially privileged position; from the
Han dynasty onwards, it comprised the books which were officially recognized by
the state, and which in later dynasties were used as texts for civil service exami-
nations.
- Compare the figures to whom Sorokin gives most attention in his Contemporary
Sociological Theories of 1928 (in rank order from the top): LePlay, Huntington,
Pareto, Marx, Durkheim, Coste, Engels, De Roberty, and LaPouge. Weber ranks
in the next group of secondary figures along with Winiarsky, Hobhouse, Gum-
plowicz, Ammon, and Gobineau. Our current pantheon members Simmel, Toen-
nies, Comte, Cooley, and Thomas are treated as minor figures; George Herbert
Mead is not mentioned at all.
- In the Greek networks, a couple of important incidental figures connect the great
Roman Stoics Seneca and Epictetus: the emperor Nero and Epaphroditus (187 in
Figure 3.6), Nero’s secretary and owner of the slave Epictetus. Incidental persons
Notes to Pages 58–63^ •^951
