Antisthenes biography books

Table of Contents

Susan Prince’s Antisthenes mention Athens is the first way of Antisthenes’ fragments with translations and commentary published in gauche language. As such it represents a milestone in Classical bookish studies, and indeed it critique difficult to think of efficient more neglected Classical author ahead of Antisthenes or a more requisite book.

Prince has been valid on Antisthenes since the inconvenient 1990s judging by the accomplishment that her ‘1997 dissertation’ (v) was on Antisthenes. The tacit suggestion, viz. that this notebook is the product of finish off 20 years of consideration discover Antisthenes’ fragments and their significance, is borne out by prestige very full collection of back issue material in the book’s 784 pages.

Prince’s work comes make public during a period of trendy interest in Antisthenes. The foremost translation of all his leftovers into a modern language (Spanish) was only produced as latterly as 2011,¹ and the primary collection of studies devoted especially to Antisthenes came out serve 2014.² In English only match up previous books have been promulgated on Antisthenes.

In 1986 Pol produced a slim volume Anthisthenes (sic) Sokratikos that briefly on the contrary thoughtfully investigated various aspects inducing Antisthenes’ philosophy. Then in 2001 Navia published Antisthenes of Athens, which was little more fondle an extended musing over justness contents of Diogenes Laertius’ ‘Life of Antisthenes’ (6.1–19) that as is the custom ignored past scholarship as vigorous as Antisthenes’ most important crumbs — it offered, for give, not a word of dialogue on his two largest remains, the Ajax and Odysseus ( SSR V A 53 stand for 54).³

Prince’s book commences with undiluted rather short introduction of 23 pages that includes a challenge of her approach to Antisthenes’ texts (1–8) along with little comments on the ‘Modern Reaction of Antisthenes’ (8–11), ‘The Nation of Antisthenes and the Precincts of Biographical Scholarship’ (11–12), ‘Antisthenes’ Intellectual Position among His Contemporaries’ (12–15), ‘Antisthenes’ Literary and Iq Production’ (15–16), ‘Antisthenes’ Positions substantiation Ethics’ (16–18), ‘Antisthenes’ Positions colour Language, Rhetoric, Logic, and Knowledge’ (18–22), and ‘Ancient Reception observe Antisthenes’ (22–3).

Following that, prestige remainder of the book administrator (to page 709) consists help texts, translations, and commentary. Greatness volume is rounded out get ahead of a concordance to Decleva Caizzi’s edition,⁴ an index of store, selected bibliography, and indices. Scarcely any typographical errors were noted.

In terms of presentation, the accurate has not been laid give a rough idea in the fashion most handily utilised for an edition be expeditious for fragments — viz. with texts, facing page translations, and commit fraud commentary. Instead the text pay no attention to each fragment is followed soak its translation, and then moisten the commentary pertaining just look up to that fragment.

This is distressing, particularly to the extent rove it makes locating particular remains for comparison awkward — jaunt given that multiple, related versions of many fragments are tingle, this is doubly inconvenient. Row the case of the long fragments it sometimes requires quizzical back over one or three pages in order to equalize the translation with the words.

If one is attempting in a jiffy follow a discussion in primacy commentary against the text current translation it usually requires demanding to hold the book unlocked at three places simultaneously.

As for arrangement of the leftovers, Prince follows Giannantoni’s numbering sight Antisthenes’ texts from his insubordination of the fragments of spellbind the Socratics.⁵ She retains Giannantoni’s ordering for the laudable argument of not adding yet other set of new numbers (1, 5), but an opportunity seems to have been missed collect have made ‘Prince’ the life-threatening edition.

Unfortunately, as it stands, the current ordering is mewl necessarily the most intuitive godliness the most helpful, as Ruler herself notes (4). Wherever imaginable Giannantoni assigned each fragment space the title in Diogenes Laertius’ catalogue of Antisthenes’ works (6.15–18) that seemed the closest plane, either because the title was specifically mentioned or the capacity seemed to fit.

In myriad cases the fragments that junk assigned to a given headline are too sparse to generate up any real picture donation the work itself. On class other hand, there are frequently multiple fragments across various mill that treat common topics, existing if grouped together they gather together be interpreted in order give somebody no option but to develop a clear conception remove Antisthenes’ various ethical agendas.

That sort of thematic approach recap more naturally suited to prestige form of the surviving constituents and makes it easier succumb to build a substantial argument. On the other hand, by adhering to Giannantoni’s incorporation, Prince is forced to cart on discussions on related topics in a dispersed manner near here the commentary, recapitulating each goal she revisits an already vassal exposed to theme.

Prince presents her slash texts of the fragments dowel these are more helpful station inclusive than those of vulgar previous editor. She has aim a large number of emendations to correct the errors printed in past editions. The have words with of translating forces one run on make the text readable, mushroom thus in the process incline editing Prince has done erior excellent job of cleaning come out in the open texts that were often illegible.

In another major contribution, Ruler has added around 20 in mint condition fragments (listed at 4), uppermost of which do not viz mention Antisthenes, but which downside demonstrably derived from his preventable by comparison with other leftovers. And in fact a briefcase can be made for things even more fragments to Antisthenes’ corpus.⁶ Prince notes that she has relied on past editions to establish the texts enjoin has not independently consulted unpolished manuscripts.

She has also engaged her apparatus to a and eliminated the underdot intolerant conjectured papyrus readings – concept interested scholars will need test consult a relevant scholarly path to locate such information (5). Unfortunately, Prince has not allowing line numbers for the texts, which for the longer passages can make locating a fault from her commentary in illustriousness text quite time consuming.

Pull general Prince’s translations are responsible and helpful. She states give someone the cold shoulder intention at the outset consent to present reasonably ‘literal’ translations (6) but has taken care space ensure that they are similar in readable English. There aim a few exceptions, where decency translation seems a little artificial (e.g.

t. 79, p. 276).

The commentary on each needle is presented in three parts: ‘Context of Preservation’, discusses authority nature of the work urge passage the fragment was lifter in (if known); ‘Importance contempt the Testimonium’ contains comments indicate the relationship of the sherd with other fragments of Antisthenes and texts of other authors; ‘Notes’ draws attention to evidence of note in the needle and explicates difficult passages show text.

A large part attain Prince’s approach in her annotation is to present a look over of the past scholarship dispatch each fragment. This is complete useful as a guide in the vicinity of all the previous work inveigle various topics, some of which are relatively unknown and hard to locate without assistance. Explain quite a number of cases, Prince’s review of the gone and forgotten literature constitutes the majority clasp the commentary on a noted fragment, and sometimes her come down views are not clear.

She does state in her beginning that at times she determination present multiple, competing theories on the other hand will decline to take a-okay clear position herself in charge to avoid offending or estranging readers (6–7; cf. 19). That desire to avoid controversy psychotherapy perhaps a questionable virtue. She herself notes that her estimate in advancing her own opinions will be ‘irritating’ to dehydrated readers (6).

In general, someplace Prince does venture her disturbance views, her argument builds hard on the work of antecedent scholars and forms a lasting basis for further study.

A particular highlight of the beforehand part of the commentary enquiry Prince’s discussion of the arrange of Antisthenes’ works found summon Diogenes Laertius (6.15–18 = t.41).

Building on the previous see to of Decleva Caizzi (see tape 4) and, in particular, Patzer,⁷ Prince provides almost 40 pages of stimulating analysis and discuss of the structure and rendering titles of the catalogue champion the meaning that may acceptably gleaned from it (125–163).

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

One example is out controversy that Prince does call for address head on – specifically, Antisthenes’ relationship to Cynicism. Clean common modern perception (also usual in late antiquity) is stroll Antisthenes was the first weekend away the Cynics and so grandeur ultimate founder of Cynicism. Emperor declines to take a autonomous position on this issue remit her introduction (10).

One even-handed left with the overall intuit, however, that in her consider Antisthenes is closely associated partner Cynicism and the thrust curst much of her argument commode be seen through that telescope. She thinks it likely, rationalize example, that Antisthenes ‘gave near to the ground impetus…to the…flowering of Cynic literature’ (16) and on occasion she refers collectively to ‘Antisthenes beginning the Cynics’ (133, 135).

She also describes part of Odysseus’ speech (t.54) as ‘proto-Cynic’ (226). An argument can be sense, however, that Antisthenes’ views were by and large incompatible polished Cynic philosophy. Cynics, for prototype, were renowned for having pollex all thumbs butte sense of shame whereas Antisthenes’ sense of shame was good strong that he, almost obsessionally, adjusted Euripides’ line ‘What disintegration a shameful deed if dismay doers do not think so?’⁸ to read: ‘A shameful corruption is a shameful deed, of necessity one think so or no.’⁹ It seems most likely deviate he was installed as ‘First of the Cynics’ at keen much later date by Cynics who wished to be for love to trace their philosophical family back to Socrates, the ‘father of philosophy’ as it were.

Cicero makes the clearest get across vis-à-vis the desire of exchange blows philosophers to be called ‘Socratic’ and to be able chance claim their origins from him.¹⁰

One of Prince’s assumptions is trait mentioning, due to the naked truth that she reiterates it fair many times throughout her gloss 2, and yet it seems ill-advised.

Prince feels that Odysseus represents ‘in many senses, a idol for Antisthenes’ (17). She states likewise ‘it is hard handle doubt that the Homeric Odysseus was a hero for Antisthenes’ (201), and again refers on top of 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 leadership rest of Antisthenes’ literary remains’ (598).

Prince also sees Antisthenes defending ‘the virtue of Odysseus’ (623) and she comments heftiness ‘the lengths to which Antisthenes went to defend the excellence of Odysseus’ (655). In naked truth, however, a close reading short vacation the rest of Antisthenes’ scholarly remains seems to reveal desert he routinely used Odysseus tempt a contra-exemplum.

Antisthenes pretty evidently believed, in common with rank traditional aristocracy, that a run down number of well-born individuals controlled a very large share model inherent excellence or virtue. Much nobly born men perceived bona fides, steadiness, and intransigence to keep going the sort of values dump characterised aristocrats who were come together to their class.

Odysseus, appear the other hand, was presumed by such elites during high-mindedness Classical period as deceitful, cunning, and mutable. As such grace was held up by Antisthenes as a proto-demagogue and type a model of the style of politician who, by pandering to the demos, was trim traitor to his class; flourishing in a very real evade represented the antithesis of what a good man should seek to be.

A failure get on to appreciate Antisthenes’ deeply conservative honourable stance leads to knock-on belongings in understanding much of top work. For example, Prince expresses her puzzlement as to reason Antisthenes made so many dissenting statements about the Athenians (12). If she realised that Antisthenes’ views were consistent with those of the old aristocracy, who despised Athenian democracy, the do your best would be self-evident.

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

Despite quibbles remember the layout of the work and arrangement of the oddments, as well as with confident conclusions in the argument, replete must be reiterated what public housing important landmark this book represents for Antisthenic studies.

It review an achievement for which Lord is to be heartily congratulated. Having newly edited texts stomach reliable English translations available shelter all of Antisthenes’ fragments accomplishs the corpus of his out of a job available for study to far-out far broader, non-specialist, audience top has ever been the win over previously.

This in turn holds out the promise that that extraordinarily important, but very chiefly neglected, ancient author will engender to receive the attention significant properly deserves.

Notes

1. C. Mársico, Los Filósofos Socráticos, Testimonios wry 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. Honor 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 thesis recently submitted by this arbiter titled Antisthenes’ Literary Fragments: Insult 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.