Antisthenes biography books

Table of Contents

Susan Prince’s Antisthenes become aware of Athens is the first recalcitrance of Antisthenes’ fragments with translations and commentary published in set language. As such it represents a milestone in Classical studious studies, and indeed it attempt difficult to think of clean more neglected Classical author overrun Antisthenes or a more required book.

Prince has been valid on Antisthenes since the inappropriate 1990s judging by the truth that her ‘1997 dissertation’ (v) was on Antisthenes. The suppressed suggestion, viz. that this book is the product of get 20 years of consideration short vacation Antisthenes’ fragments and their import, is borne out by interpretation very full collection of salient material in the book’s 784 pages.

Prince’s work comes illadvised during a period of novel interest in Antisthenes. The be foremost translation of all his crumbs into a modern language (Spanish) was only produced as freshly as 2011,¹ and the crowning collection of studies devoted alone to Antisthenes came out provide 2014.² In English only unite previous books have been promulgated on Antisthenes.

In 1986 Politician produced a slim volume Anthisthenes (sic) Sokratikos that briefly on the contrary thoughtfully investigated various aspects objection Antisthenes’ philosophy. Then in 2001 Navia published Antisthenes of Athens, which was little more surpass an extended musing over probity contents of Diogenes Laertius’ ‘Life of Antisthenes’ (6.1–19) that commonly ignored past scholarship as satisfactorily as Antisthenes’ most important leftovers — it offered, for action, not a word of rumour on his two largest leavings, the Ajax and Odysseus ( SSR V A 53 extort 54).³

Prince’s book commences with elegant rather short introduction of 23 pages that includes a conversation of her approach to Antisthenes’ texts (1–8) along with minor comments on the ‘Modern Response of Antisthenes’ (8–11), ‘The Ethos of Antisthenes and the Bounds of Biographical Scholarship’ (11–12), ‘Antisthenes’ Intellectual Position among His Contemporaries’ (12–15), ‘Antisthenes’ Literary and Mental Production’ (15–16), ‘Antisthenes’ Positions incise Ethics’ (16–18), ‘Antisthenes’ Positions desire Language, Rhetoric, Logic, and Knowledge’ (18–22), and ‘Ancient Reception present Antisthenes’ (22–3).

Following that, justness remainder of the book decorous (to page 709) consists close the eyes to texts, translations, and commentary. High-mindedness volume is rounded out strong a concordance to Decleva Caizzi’s edition,⁴ an index of large quantity, selected bibliography, and indices. Infrequent typographical errors were noted.

In terms of presentation, the publication has not been laid favor in the fashion most simply utilised for an edition make famous fragments — viz. with texts, facing page translations, and redouble commentary. Instead the text method each fragment is followed strong its translation, and then soak the commentary pertaining just gap that fragment.

This is distressing, particularly to the extent consider it it makes locating particular balance for comparison awkward — prep added to given that multiple, related versions of many fragments are suave, this is doubly inconvenient. Notch the case of the mortal fragments it sometimes requires probing back over one or pages in order to approximate the translation with the paragraph.

If one is attempting find time for follow a discussion in nobleness commentary against the text alight translation it usually requires exasperating to hold the book start at three places simultaneously.

As for arrangement of the crumbs, Prince follows Giannantoni’s numbering female Antisthenes’ texts from his issue of the fragments of draw back the Socratics.⁵ She retains Giannantoni’s ordering for the laudable grounds of not adding yet in relation to set of new numbers (1, 5), but an opportunity seems to have been missed pileup have made ‘Prince’ the common edition.

Unfortunately, as it stands, the current ordering is quite a distance necessarily the most intuitive chart the most helpful, as Emperor herself notes (4). Wherever viable Giannantoni assigned each fragment with reference to the title in Diogenes Laertius’ catalogue of Antisthenes’ works (6.15–18) that seemed the closest issue, either because the title was specifically mentioned or the load seemed to fit.

In innumerable cases the fragments that arrange assigned to a given give a ring are too sparse to produce up any real picture show the work itself. On ethics other hand, there are ofttimes multiple fragments across various complex that treat common topics, sit if grouped together they buttonhole be interpreted in order private house develop a clear conception comprehensive Antisthenes’ various ethical agendas.

That sort of thematic approach wreckage more naturally suited to glory form of the surviving substance and makes it easier brand build a substantial argument. As an alternative, by adhering to Giannantoni’s enumeration, Prince is forced to bring on discussions on related topics in a dispersed manner in every part of the commentary, recapitulating each put on ice she revisits an already excuse theme.

Prince presents her settle texts of the fragments arm these are more helpful stomach inclusive than those of prolific previous editor. She has deception a large number of emendations to correct the errors printed in past editions. The nip of translating forces one get at make the text readable, tube thus in the process bear out editing Prince has done come excellent job of cleaning obtain texts that were often unclear.

In another major contribution, Sovereign has added around 20 virgin fragments (listed at 4), wellnigh of which do not viz mention Antisthenes, but which idea demonstrably derived from his exert yourself by comparison with other leftovers. And in fact a change somebody's mind can be made for gear even more fragments to Antisthenes’ corpus.⁶ Prince notes that she has relied on past editions to establish the texts innermost has not independently consulted humble manuscripts.

She has also held in reserve her apparatus to a minimal and eliminated the underdot cherish conjectured papyrus readings – denotation interested scholars will need discover consult a relevant scholarly printing to locate such information (5). Unfortunately, Prince has not in case line numbers for the texts, which for the longer passages can make locating a hole from her commentary in leadership text quite time consuming.

Increase general Prince’s translations are responsible and helpful. She states added intention at the outset disruption present reasonably ‘literal’ translations (6) but has taken care infer ensure that they are drawn in readable English. There curb a few exceptions, where justness translation seems a little overdone (e.g.

t. 79, p. 276).

The commentary on each splinter is presented in three parts: ‘Context of Preservation’, discusses honourableness nature of the work dim passage the fragment was base in (if known); ‘Importance unredeemed the Testimonium’ contains comments condense the relationship of the flake with other fragments of Antisthenes and texts of other authors; ‘Notes’ draws attention to in turn of note in the splinter and explicates difficult passages appreciate text.

A large part hint at Prince’s approach in her explanation is to present a observe of the past scholarship puzzle each fragment. This is greatly useful as a guide down all the previous work market leader various topics, some of which are relatively unknown and dense to locate without assistance. Fall to pieces quite a number of cases, Prince’s review of the done literature constitutes the majority stencil the commentary on a secure fragment, and sometimes her dismal views are not clear.

She does state in her start on that at times she disposition present multiple, competing theories on the other hand will decline to take on the rocks clear position herself in join to avoid offending or divisive readers (6–7; cf. 19). That desire to avoid controversy task perhaps a questionable virtue. She herself notes that her caution in advancing her own opinions will be ‘irritating’ to tiresome readers (6).

In general, where Prince does venture her sketch out views, her argument builds doggedly on the work of former scholars and forms a full basis for further study.

A particular highlight of the perfectly part of the commentary decline Prince’s discussion of the classify of Antisthenes’ works found enclosure Diogenes Laertius (6.15–18 = t.41).

Building on the previous pointless of Decleva Caizzi (see take notes 4) and, in particular, Patzer,⁷ Prince provides almost 40 pages of stimulating analysis and conversation of the structure and description titles of the catalogue spreadsheet the meaning that may cast doubt on gleaned from it (125–163).

Naturally, in a work of that scale on a fragmentary creator there are going to reasonably points one could take channel with.

One example is precise controversy that Prince does gather together address head on – that is, Antisthenes’ relationship to Cynicism. Uncomplicated common modern perception (also common in late antiquity) is ramble Antisthenes was the first pattern the Cynics and so honesty ultimate founder of Cynicism. Empress declines to take a striking position on this issue newest her introduction (10).

One recapitulate left with the overall solution, however, that in her give a positive response Antisthenes is closely associated go-slow Cynicism and the thrust illustrate much of her argument crapper be seen through that crystal. She thinks it likely, on example, that Antisthenes ‘gave irksome impetus…to the…flowering of Cynic literature’ (16) and on occasion she refers collectively to ‘Antisthenes weather the Cynics’ (133, 135).

She also describes part of Odysseus’ speech (t.54) as ‘proto-Cynic’ (226). An argument can be obligated, however, that Antisthenes’ views were by and large incompatible colleague Cynic philosophy. Cynics, for sample, were renowned for having thumb sense of shame whereas Antisthenes’ sense of shame was straight-faced strong that he, almost obsessively, adjusted Euripides’ line ‘What psychotherapy a shameful deed if professor doers do not think so?’⁸ to read: ‘A shameful write down is a shameful deed, not one think so or no.’⁹ It seems most likely focus he was installed as ‘First of the Cynics’ at regular much later date by Cynics who wished to be prepared to trace their philosophical ancestry back to Socrates, the ‘father of philosophy’ as it were.

Cicero makes the clearest dispersal vis-à-vis the desire of yell philosophers to be called ‘Socratic’ and to be able put your name down claim their origins from him.¹⁰

One of Prince’s assumptions is characteristic mentioning, due to the accomplishment that she reiterates it advantageous many times throughout her exegesis, and yet it seems foolish.

Prince feels that Odysseus represents ‘in many senses, a leading character for Antisthenes’ (17). She states likewise ‘it is hard embark on doubt that the Homeric Odysseus was a hero for Antisthenes’ (201), and again refers come upon him as ‘his hero Odysseus’ (656). Prince feels that Antisthenes’ discussion of Odysseus’ quality polytropos¹¹ is positive and concludes: ‘In its positive evaluation of Odysseus as a philosophical hero, that text is consistent with nobleness rest of Antisthenes’ literary remains’ (598).

Prince also sees Antisthenes defending ‘the virtue of Odysseus’ (623) and she comments pest ‘the lengths to which Antisthenes went to defend the morality of Odysseus’ (655). In truth, however, a close reading ship the rest of Antisthenes’ intellectual remains seems to reveal prowl he routinely used Odysseus despite the fact that a contra-exemplum.

Antisthenes pretty straightforwardly believed, in common with goodness traditional aristocracy, that a stumpy number of well-born individuals driven a very large share befit inherent excellence or virtue. Specified nobly born men perceived artlessness, steadiness, and intransigence to fix the sort of values give it some thought characterised aristocrats who were gauge to their class.

Odysseus, give the goahead to the other hand, was said by such elites during description Classical period as deceitful, furtive, and mutable. As such crystal-clear was held up by Antisthenes as a proto-demagogue and translation a model of the identification of politician who, by pandering to the demos, was regular traitor to his class; cranium in a very real channel represented the antithesis of what a good man should seek to be.

A failure bring forth appreciate Antisthenes’ deeply conservative blameless stance leads to knock-on stuff in understanding much of circlet work. For example, Prince expresses her puzzlement as to reason Antisthenes made so many interdict statements about the Athenians (12). If she realised that Antisthenes’ views were consistent with those of the old aristocracy, who despised Athenian democracy, the target would be self-evident.

Instead King, rather remarkably, concludes that that question probably does not material much for understanding what Antisthenes wrote (12).

Despite quibbles insist on the layout of the notebook and arrangement of the oddments, as well as with confident conclusions in the argument, redundant must be reiterated what cease important landmark this book represents for Antisthenic studies.

It equitable an achievement for which Emperor is to be heartily congratulated. Having newly edited texts tube reliable English translations available endorse all of Antisthenes’ fragments assembles the corpus of his thought available for study to trig far broader, non-specialist, audience stun has ever been the advise previously.

This in turn holds out the promise that that extraordinarily important, but very exclusively neglected, ancient author will commence to receive the attention without fear properly deserves.

Notes

1. C. Mársico, Los Filósofos Socráticos, Testimonios lopsided Fragmentos II: Antístenes, Fedón, Esquines y Simón, Buenos Aires, 2011.

2.

V. Suvák, ed. Antisthenica Cynica Socratica. Mathésis 9. Prague, 2014. BMCR review: BMCR 2016.07.16.

3. Photo further S. Prince’s BMCR review: 2001.06.23.

4. F. Decleva Caizzi, Antisthenis Fragmenta. Milan, 1966.

5. G. Giannantoni, Socratis et Socraticorum Reliquae, 4 vols., Naples, 1990.

6.

A allocution recently submitted by this commentator titled Antisthenes’ Literary Fragments: Fail to attend with Introduction, Translations, and Commentary newly ascribes a further ennead fragments to Antisthenes.

7. A. Patzer, Antisthenes Der Sokratiker (Diss. Heidelberg). 1970.

8. TrGF 5.1 F 19.

9.

Plut. Quomodo adul. 33c = SSR V A 195.

10. De or. 3.61–2.

11. Prince t. 187 = Porphyry Scholia on Od. 1.1.