70. διακονοῦνται δὲ οὐχ ὑπ’ ἀνδραπόδων, ἡγούμενοι συνόλως τὴν θεραπόντων κτῆσιν εἶναι παρὰ φύσιν· ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἐλευθέρους ἅπαντας γεγέννηκεν, αἱ δέ τινων ἀδικίαι καὶ πλεονεξίαι ζηλωσάντων τὴν ἀρχέκακον ἀνισότητα καταζεύξασαι τὸ ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀσθενεστέροις κράτος τοῖς δυνατωτέροις ἀνῆψαν.
70. They are not served by slaves, considering the possession of servants to be entirely against Nature. For Nature has birthed all men free, but the injustices and greed of some, who have emulated the Primal Evil, Inequality, have imposed the yoke of power: stronger over weaker.
70. They are not served by slaves, considering the possession of servants to be entirely against Nature. For Nature has birthed all men free, but the injustices and greed of some, who have emulated the Primal Evil, Inequality, have imposed the yoke of power: stronger over weaker.
Joan Taylor [2020] reads this passage as mere Stoic philosophy, something Philo would adhere to, rationalize lightly. That may be so, but every 'moral-of-the-story' still requires a story, even forgotten ones: so what's the requisite myth (section) that Philo is referencing? Presumably, in some Jewish or another Mediterranean story, Primal Evil 'Inequality' appears. Is it some perversion of “dominion” in Genesis 1.26-28? Or a vague allusion to the Lilith Myth (Lilith rejects her inferior status to Adam, dies and becomes a demon)? Philo never talks of Lilith; while the myth of the Sumerian succubus must be ancient, this would be an early (first?) example. I don't believe that is indicated from context, however (I think it's something else: I smell Archons, and a gnosis of Evil).
For my myth thesis, other passages are suggestive. The 'Primal Evil in Man' himself (rather than 'Society') is Epithumia. Just look at the crazy myth following that one in Philo! Here is the long-form to his shorthand at DVC 70, exemplified emphatically.
De Specialibus Legibus 4.85
τὸ γὰρ ἀψευδῶς ἂν λεχθὲν ἀρχέκακον πάθος ἐστὶν ἐπιθυμία, ἧς ἓν τὸ βραχύτατον ἔγγονον, ἔρως, οὐχ ἅπαξ ἀλλ’ ἤδη πολλάκις ἀμυθήτων κατέπλησε τὴν οἰκουμένην συμφορῶν, ἃς οὐδ’ ὁ σύμπας τῆς γῆς κύκλος ἐχώρησεν, ἀλλὰ διὰ πλῆθος ὥσπερ ὑπὸ χειμάρρου φορᾶς εἰς θάλατταν εἰσέπεσον, καὶ πανταχοῦ πάντα πελάγη πολεμίων κατεπλήσθη νηῶν καὶ ὅσα καινουργοῦσιν οἱ ναυτικοὶ πόλεμοι συνηνέχθη καὶ ἐπιπεσόντα ἀθρόα πάλιν εἰς νήσους καὶ ἠπείρους ὑπεσύρη, διαυλοδρομήσαντα καθάπερ ἐν ταῖς παλιρροίαις ἀφ’ ὧν ἤρξατο φέρεσθαι.
"For the Passion that could be truthfully called the 'Primal Evil' is Craving, of which one very small offspring is Eros. Not once, but now many times, it has filled the inhabited world with countless calamities, which not even the entire circle of the earth could contain. But due to their multitude, as if carried by the rush of a torrent, they fell into the sea, and everywhere all the seas were filled with hostile ships. And whatever naval wars invent came to pass, and falling upon islands and continents all at once, they were dragged under again, running a double course just like in the ebb and flow of tides from the point where they began to be carried."
"For the Passion that could be truthfully called the 'Primal Evil' is Craving, of which one very small offspring is Eros. Not once, but now many times, it has filled the inhabited world with countless calamities, which not even the entire circle of the earth could contain. But due to their multitude, as if carried by the rush of a torrent, they fell into the sea, and everywhere all the seas were filled with hostile ships. And whatever naval wars invent came to pass, and falling upon islands and continents all at once, they were dragged under again, running a double course just like in the ebb and flow of tides from the point where they began to be carried."
On Drunkenness 12 connects DVC 74, ἀπαιδευσία to ἀφροσύνης, in Epithumia's snare : "For right reason prescribes to them, as to priests when sacrificing, a sober life. For wine is a drug of stupefaction, and costly delicacies provoke that most insatiable of beasts, Craving." A myth seems much more obvious here, i.e. the waters of Lethe.
De Ebrietate, Section 12:
ἀπαιδευσία γὰρ τῶν ψυχῆς ἁμαρτημάτων, εἰ δεῖ τἀληθὲς εἰπεῖν, τὸ ἀρχέκακον, ἀφ’ ἧς ὥσπερ ἀπὸ πηγῆς ῥέουσιν αἱ τοῦ βίου πράξεις, πότιμον μὲν καὶ σωτήριον οὐδὲν οὐδενὶ νᾶμα ἐκδιδοῦσα τὸ παράπαν, ἁλμυρὸν δὲ νόσου καὶ φθορᾶς τοῖς χρησομένοις αἴτιον.
"For Willful Stupidity, if one must speak the truth, is the Primal Evil of the Soul's errors, from which, as if from a spring, flow the actions of life, giving forth to no one at all a stream that is drinkable and wholesome, but rather a brackish cause of disease and corruption to those who will make use of it."
"For Willful Stupidity, if one must speak the truth, is the Primal Evil of the Soul's errors, from which, as if from a spring, flow the actions of life, giving forth to no one at all a stream that is drinkable and wholesome, but rather a brackish cause of disease and corruption to those who will make use of it."
In which ancient myth is the ἀρχή κακῶν identified as ἀνισότης?
From context (DVC 70), hinted at, I surmise these possible elements to sketch possibilities of the presumed myth narrative:
a) Nature provides to Men (individuals), both to all (in Big Ways) and in different measures (in Small Ways).
b) In some idyllic period before Evil (e.g. injustices, greed) Men group, like animals herd.
c) Something Happens, at the Societal Stage: Primal Evil arrives as a catalyst.
d) Some men observe a Paradigm of Power, exemplar of Evil.
e) Injustice, Greed and other manifestations of Evil arrive in its train; a chain-of-events occurs.
f) Hierarchies of Oppression are established, based on Primal Evil.
g) Primal Evil becomes Man's Lot, his destiny in the Cosmos, 'yoked to Power.'
In Philo's shorthand, the full myth isn't laid bare, or named. Arguably, DVC overall is inconsistent detailing some myths but not others; here, Philo avoids a superfluous digression. But if there is a Myth behind DVC 70, he could also count on his audience to know what he was talking about.
I dialogued with Claude3 Opus at great length on this. Claude is conservative, and limited, but when you put very detailed evidence to it, also somewhat fruitful. {These are my conclusions, not Claude's.} IF Philo's audience was (primarily) Jewish, his underlying mythos may be a more contemporary interpretation of the 'Tower of Babel.' IF Philo's audience was Roman, his underlying mythos might be an elaboration of 'Romulus and Remus'; a better possibility is that Ovid's Metamorphoses (8 AD) was merely a refined version of a common myth known to most educated Romans. This is admittedly speculative, but offers one distinct and reasonable explanation why Philo could mention this "Primal Evil' trope and then carry on with his intended rhetoric. {Claude3 keeps calling it a "philosophical myth" but cannot name/specify which; that doesn't make sense.}
The long and the short of it, I've found no obvious simple solution to this little mystery.