Cynic Hero and Cynic King

HACNAR HiilSTAD
CYNIC HERO AND CYNIC KING
EPPSALA 1948
f
í
r
i
i
I
●s
«
»
\
CYNIC HERO AND CYNIC KING
STUDIES IN THE CYNIC CONCEPTION OF MAN
HY
RAGNAR HOlSTAD
UPPSALA 1948
Printed in Sweden
by Cavl Bloms BoMrycIceri A.~B.
Lund 1948.
TO MY WIFE
»STATUI£ of a Cynic.»
r.npitf)!. Miis.. Ronu-.
Ijronze staliio oí ubout

(iAn cxct'M<‘nl c-oj))- iroiii Ihu eiuiy Roínaii Ai,'e ol' a
240 B.C..- K. Sc;m:F()LD. I)ie Bildnisse clcr antiken Dichier, Redner iind DenUer.
Basic. 1943, p. 122.1
Introduction.
The Problem of the Cynics.

It was Ferdinand Dümmler in his disserlation Antislhenica,
1882, followed in 1889 by his Akademika, who first focussed the
serious attention of scholars on the problem presented by the
Cynics in the history of ancient ideas. Dümmler stressed the signi-
ficance of Antisthenes as an anü-Platonist and he found a whole
series of polemicai allusions to Antisthenes in Plato’s works.
Dümmler’s thesis was pushed to extremes by K. JoüL, Der echte
und der xenophontische Sokrates, I, 1893, II: 1 and 2, 1901, who
used a tremendous aniount of unsifted and bewildering material
in his attempt to prove Antisthenes’ central position in Greek
philosophy. JoüL restated his views in a modified form in his
Geschichte der antiken Philosophie, I, 1921. P. Natorp in RE, s.v.
Antisthenes, gives a survey of the earlier literature on the subject
down to 1894 in which he enumerates the »most certain» passages
in Plato which contain references to Antisthenes. A brief but very
instructive account along the same lines was given by A. Gercke
in Gercke-Hoffmann, Geschichte der Philosophie, 1933, p. 36 ff.
Heinrich Maier’s voluminous book Sokrates, 1913, represents a
sober version of Dünimler’s main thesis (vid. especially p. 556 ff).
This far-fetched view of the relationship Plato-Antisthenes, so
dubious on the face of it, was carried to absurd lengths in Joel’s
book, which met with a devastating criticism. H. Gomperz,
in his review of the 2nd volume, Archiv f. Geschichte d. Philo
sophie, 12, 1906, p. 234, characterised the work as »ein grosser
Trümmerhaufen mitten auf der Heerstrasse der Wissenschaft».
So it is all the more remarkable that the theories of Dümmler-
JoÊL found a no less radical exponent in H. Kesters, Antisthène
de la dialeclique, Etude critique et exégétique sur le XXVI® discours
6
de Thémistius, 1935. Kesters’ sensational hypothesis that The-

mistius Or. XXVI is in fact a plagiarism of a work by Antisthenes,
merely disguised by changing the proper names and in other ways,
and that the original work constituted a reply to Plato’s Phaedrus,
met with the same unfavourable criticism as JoEl’s book on
Sócrates. G. Daux sums up his judgement in the following terms,
Revue Archéologique, 9, 1937, p. 115: »Telle est la thèse de M.
Kesters. Elle me parait entièrement ruineuse. Au long du livre, on
ne découvre aucune raison valahle, ni pour enlever le XXVI® dis-
cours à Thémistius, ni pour le donner à Antisthène. L’argumenta-
tion de 1’auteur est parfois déconcertante; les rapprochements qu’il
propose n’ont aucune force probante. A travers ces pages touffues
oü 1’auteur est obligé, par son sujet même, de toucher aux ques-
tions les plus variées, on cherche en vain des jalons solides; on
ne trouve qu’un jeu monotone de vaines hypothèses.»
In direct contradiction to this conceptipn of the problem
of Antisthenes, especially as regards his opposition to Plato, are
those scholars who deny that Antisthenes was an independent and
dominating figure in the conflict of ideas which broke out after
the death of Sócrates. The most radical representative of this
school of thought is ULRICH VON Wilamowitz-Moellendorpf,
who in Die griechische Literatur des Altertums 1912, p. 131, writes
VLtistheL- .Einen Denker und Schriftsteller von besonderer
Bedeutung aus ihm zu machen ist eine der luftigsten Wahngebilde,
Jahrhunderts geschaffen hat,
die sich die Philologie des letzten nicht das
rif^klamation, die freilich wenig taugí, mus , .

S nd st dabei die unertrãgliche Unart, statt d.e bekannten
wtrke und Personen zu verstehen, hinter ihnen verkann^ und
ríorene Grõssen zu suchen. die man sich aus e.gener Macht-
VO
llkommenheit konstruiert.. Wn-AMOWITZ re^states this negat.ve
iudgement on Antisthenes in his book on Plato, 1919
Consistent with this view is, further, Wilamowitz’ demal that
Shenes had any real connection with Cynic.sm or, indeed,
f .nHed a school at all. WILAMOWITZ had been anticipated on
rfomt by E SCHWARTZ in his much-quoted book Charakter-
kõpfe aus der antiken Literatur, Ist ed. 1902. A. E. Taylor, too,
Plato, the Man and his Work, 1937, is ainong those who
7
reject any attempt Io find in Plato traces of polemics against

Antisthenes (e.g. p. 331,1), even in the Euthydemus, Cratylus
and Theaetetus, a point of view which is a corollary to his general
thesis tliat Sócrates is the father of Plato’s theory of ideas. J.
Geffcken, Griechische Literaturgeschichte II, 1934, is far more
favourable in his general estiraate of Antisthenes, and this applies
also to supposed references to Antisthenes in Plato’s writings,
despite the general scepticism with which he approaches this
intricate problem, cf. p. 94 and note 150.
We cannot hope to offcr an exhaustive survey of works done
on this question, but the above will be sufficient to indicate the
hazards that beset research on the topic. The opposing points
of view represei!ted at the beginning of this century by Joi^L and
ScHWARTZ continue to find champions. After Kesters’ above-
mentioned book on Antisthenes there appeared in 1937 the first
attempt at a lengthy monograph on Cynicism — D. Dudley, A
History of Cynicism, From Diogenes to the Century A. D. The
sub-title of this book indicates without further ado to which camp
Dudley belongs. Like E. Schwartz he finds a radical difference
in the way of life of Antisthenes and Diogenes, which Schwartz,
op. cit., II 10, expresses briefly and concisely in the following
terms: »Vor Diogenes konnte es keine Kyniker geben, und das,
was für ihn das Wesentliche war, hat er weder von Antisthenes
noch von irgend jemand gelernt».
Diogenes’ originality did not lie in his doctrines. Both the
form of his writings, so far as it is possible to draw any conclusions
from the list of his works in Diog. L. VI 80, and their content,
reveal Diogenes as an epigon. Th. Gomperz, Griechische Denker,
II 127, calls Diogenes »Vater des praktischen Kynismus» and this is
doubtless true in the main.^ We may, of course, ask what Diogenes’
»practical» Cynicism consisted of, and this straight away brings
us up against the extraordinarily difficult problem of the sources
of the Cynic tradition. Where can we draw the line to limit
what is credible concerning the historical Diogenes in the enormous
mass of aneedote material? What faith can be put in the doxo-
graphy in Diogenes Laertius as against the aneedotes? For it is
obvious that the Diogenes who lurks behind the doxography in
^ So also P. Natorp, Diogenes, RE V 767.

8
Diog. L. VI 70—73 is a different and intellectually more imposing

figure than the burlesque clown of the anecdotes. If we come
to the conclusion that it is lhe Diogenes of the doxographv who
has the greater claim to historical credibility, what is the essential
difference between this Diogenes and Antisthenes as he appears
in Xenophon’s Symposium? The question is pertinent, since we
are justified in querying the traditional linking of Antisthenes
and Diogenes only if we can establish some fundamental difference
in their lives and teaching. What is radically new in Diogenes,
which he learned from nobody and which alone makes him a
Cynic, is characterised by Schwartz, op. cit., II 8 ff, as self-
assurance and paradoxomania in word and deed. But this hardly
conveys anything more than what Gomperz tried to express by
the term »practical Cynicism» wilhout intending to deny thereby
the connection between Antisthenes and Diogenes. Indeed, Anti
sthenes exhibits to a ver>^ high degree both self-assurance and
paradox.
Dudley’s account of the relationship between Antisthenes and
Diogenes is fraught with contradictions as it was bound to be with
his thesis. The difference between the two, to summarise Dudley’s
account, is said to be:
1) that Antisthenes is intellectual but Diogenes unintellectual;

2) that Antisthenes maintains certain moral
norms accepted
by society (he accused Alcibiades of incest), whereas Diogenes
violated all accepted decencies by his ávaíSsia;
3) that Antisthenes’ asceticism is »Socratic» whereas Diogenes’
is rigorous.
Against this we may quote the following from Dudley’s own
exposition,
1) In his chapter on Diogenes, p. 17 ff, Dudley assumes the
of a number of Diogenes’ works which
genuineness were disputed
even in ancient times; he accepts further, in his criticism of K. V.
Fritz’ Quellenuntersuchungen zu Leben und Philosophie des
Diogenes von Sinope, the authenticity of the doxographv and he
quotes a typical example of Diogenes’ eristic.
2) Dudley states apropos of the incest theme in the Diogenes
doxography: of course, these statements cannot be taken at their
face value to imply that Diogenes recommended incest and canni-
balism. We have most of them on the authoritj’^ of sources hostile
9
to the Cynics, and \ve do nol know in whal context they occurred
in Diogenes.» The same sceplicism would be equally in place
vis-à-vis the barocjue anecdotes about Diogenes' shamelessness
even if they contained some germ of truth.
3) Finally, as regards asceticism, Dudley also mentions the
existence of the type of asceticism which was ascribed to Sócrates
and which occurs in a caricatured form in the comic writers
Ameipsias, Eupolis, and Aristophanes. H. Gomperz analysed this
material in an interesting essay, Die sokratische Frage ais geschicht-
liches Problem, Historische Zeitschrift, 129, 1924, p. 375 ff. It will
be preferable to quote his own summing up rather than offer a
paraphrase: »Der geschichtliche Sokrates steht, imter allen Sokra-
tikern, dem Antisthenes am niichsten. Seine àussere Lebensweise
war die der Kyiiiker, er ging barfuss, trug Kutte und Stock,
seine Nahrung war die geringste. Wie sie, lebte er in freiwilliger
Armut dahin, erfüllt von der Ueberzeugung, dass niir freiwillige
Entbehrung. die Gewohnheit, alie Unbilden zu ertragen, gegen die
unvermeidlichen Beschwerden abstumpft und zugleich die natür-
liche Empfanglichkeit für jene einfachen und naturgemassen
Genüsse aufs hõchste steigert, die allein den Menschen wahrhaft
angemessen sind. Wie dem Antisthenes war auch ihm die sparta-
nische Zucht unerreichtes Vorbild . . . Dagegen Hess sich eine
Abweichung des Antisthenes von Sokrates an keinem Punkte nach-
weisen, wenngleich wir von spateren Kynikern (von Diogenes und
seinen Nachfolgern) wissen, dass sie die Beschiiftigung niit Mathe-
matik und Astronomie verworfen und wohl auch die Vorstellung
von der Vorbildlichkeit des tierischen für das menschliche Leben
weiter ais Sokrates selbst ausgebildet haben.» We are not so much
concerned here with what was of main importance to Gomperz —
whether this is the historical Sócrates or not. What is of import
ance in our connection is to note the existence of this pre-Cynic
type of asceticism. The question is whether such a form of asceticism
is so different from Diogenes’ that the later type may be said
to contain something fundamentally new. Dudley, op. cit., p. 10,
believes that this is the case, for he speaks of »the rigid asceticism,
which becomes an end-in-itself, of Diogenes and his associates».
Against Dudley we may quote Schwartz s conception of Diogenes’
asceticism, which he firmly distinguishes, for instance, from the
rigorous asceticism of the Pythagoreans, which, like all such
10
asceticism, had a religious inspiration. It would be a still more

serious objection to Dudley’s thesis to recall Antisthenes’ stern
attitude towards eroticism. Perhaps \ve may find in him, too,
»the rigid asceticism which becomes an end-in-itself». In that case,
the problem would shift to the relationship Socrates-Antisthenes
and the latter would be acknowledged as a Cynic.
Points one and two are clear inconsistencies in Dudley’s own
account; point three demands a careful examination of the material
he bases his views on. But we do not find such source criticism
in Dudley s book. It is not difficult to find anecdotes which show
a rigorous asceticism on Diogenes’ part. The question is whether
they are of any value for the historical Diogenes and do not
rather merely form part of the rich profusion of lègends which
grew up around him. This hrings us up against the problem
of the sources. The fact would seem to be that on the basis of the
availahle material it is not possible to establish such striking
differences between Antisthenes and Diogenes as would permit
us to draw a clear Une of division and declare with Dudley that
the ancient tradition of Diogenes’ having been a pupil of Anti
sthenes is a fiction, a deliberate falsification by the Stoics with
theaim of securing an unbroken Une of siiccession going back
fL other hand, we are surely justified in saying
*^^^®*henes asceticism is merely an intensification of certain
traits of a pre-Cynic »Soeratic
asceticism and that Diogenes con-
tributed a number of equivocal elements which offended the
ordinary man’s sense of decency.
Diog. L. VI 20 contains a number of stories concerning
Diogenes flight from Sinope to Athens. Aceording to one of them,
logenes ather forged counterfeit coins (TcapayapáÇavxoç xò
vo|xia,xa) and this was the oceasion of Diogenes’ exile. In dis-
cussing v this story, Dudley drew on
an unpublished paper
by C. T. Seltman, dealing with the coinage of Sinope, and made
an interesting contribution to the long-continuing discussions about
the relationship between Antisthenes and Diogenes. Seltman later
published a communication on this subject in Transactions of the
Internat. Numismatic Congress, 1938.2 Of coins found in Sinope,
nine bear the official’s name IKESIO, all of which belong to an
2 Also published in Proceedings of the Cambridge Philol. Societu, CXLII
—CXLIV, 1930.
11
issue laler than 360. Furthermore, in the decade following 350

coins with Aramaic lettering were in circulation, struck inter
alia by the Cappadocian Satrap Ariarathes. Of these, no less
than 60 ®/o have becn defaced (this according to Seltman is the
meaning of Txapaxapáxxstv in Diog. L.) in order to withdraw them
from circulation. It was in connection with this that Diogenes’
father Hicesias was renioved from office íor some reason or other
and that Diogenes himself fled to Athens. The conclusion is that
Diogenes did not come to Athens before circa 340 and consequently
with Antisthenes, who cannot
Diogenes had no personal contact
have lived much longer than 366. Thus far Dudley.
This line of argument is, however, open to many objections.
Seltman in the publication mentioned does not go into the
this connection: the
question which is of decisive importance in
exact dalc of the defaced coins. Hc merely gives as extreme limits
362 310. E. S. G. Robinson, however, in his paper A Fmd of
Coins of Sinope, The Numismatic Chronicle, 20, 1920, p. 1 ff,
attempted to assign a more precise date to the coins of Smope
which bear Aramaic lettering (Abdssn and Ariawrath=Ariarathes).
He considers it probable .that his (i.c. Ariarathes’) carliest issues
are to be dated not many years before the conquest of Alexander,
and the bulk of his money may even belong to the period of his
Coins with the Aramaic in-
attempted independence, 328—322.»
scription Abdssn can be dated at the earliest to 345. Robinson
concludes that Sinope regained its independence for a period of
some 15 years, possibly even longer, after the murder of the
Persian Satrap Datames in 362. The find of genuine native Smope
coins which he describes in his paper is assigned by him at least
in part to the period of Sinope’s independence between Datames
and the unknown Abdssn, who was succeeded by Ariarathes. In
Waddington-Babelon-Reinach, Recueil général des monnaies
greeques d’Asie Mineure, fase. I, 1925, p. 192 ff, the coins stamped
with Aramaic letters are dated roughly in agreement with
ROBINSON, although within rather narrower limits, 340—330.
Of the 55 coins with Aramaic lettering which have been found,
no less than 31 have been defaced, a fact which clearly
reflects a real measure of currency reform. Dudley, who as has
been mentioned, dates the infiltration of coins with Aramaic
lettering to the decade after 350, clearly follows Seltman in
12
believing that these coins, which exhibit Sinopean emblems apart

from their Aramaic lettering, were introduced into Sinope from
eisewhere and were there defaced. In other words, this means
that there could never have existed any real Persian power in
Sinope. Similar views were expressed b3^ Six in Numisinatic Chro-
nicle 1885 apropos of Datames, but these were vigorously combat-
ted b\^ David M. Robinson in his article Ancient Sinope. American
Journal of Philology, 27, 1906, p. 246 f. If, then, we follow E. S. G.
Robinson and Reinach, op. cil., p. 192, in accepting D. M. Robin-
son’s view that these Sinope coins with Aramaic letters are con-
clusive evidence that Persian generais held power in Sinope, any
large scale process of cancellation is unthinkable until after the
overthrow of foreign domination in Sinope, that is not until after
322 when Ariarathes was killed. After this jêar the Aramaic in-
scription was again replaced by 2INQ.^ Thus the defacement of
the coinage, if we accept Seltman’s view that this is in fact the
meaning of the word, cannot have any connection with Dio". L.’s
story about Diogenes’ father Hicesias. It is true, of course. that
one of the officials whose name is stamped on the coins from
Sinope bears the name of IKEÎO.^ But this occurs only on one
type of coin which E. S. G. Robinson in the above-mentioned
paper dates to a time after 322 and as such can have nothing to
do with Diogenes’ father. The information contained in Diog. L.,
however, led Reinach, op. cit., p. 193,3 to re-date this type of
coin to the middle of the century. Only new coin finds can decide
the question whether the reasons adduced by Robinson for his
dating, op. cit., p. 13, should outweigh the doubtful evidence
contained in Diog. L.
I do not propose to dwell any further on this question What
has been said is, I hope, sufficient to show that there are no
internai or externai reasons, either in the tradition represented
by the Cynic fragments or in the archaeological finds which
would make plausible, and still less prove, Dudley’s thesis that
there is a philosophical and personal »gap» between Antisthenes
and Diogenes.
The following is the chronological evidence
pertaining to
3 jr, s. G. Robinson, op. cit., p. 10 f.
« The name Hicesias was not unusual in Sinope, see David
M. Robinson,
Ancient Sinope, p. 274.
13
Diogenes’ liie. He is said to have died at the. age of ninety, Diog.

j
I VI 7(5, in Corinth, according to Demetrius on the same day
as Ale.xaiider the Great, Diog. L. VI 79; according to Gensorin, De
die nat. XV 2, Diogenes died at the age of 81. Diog. L. adds to
the above-quoted statenient the information that Diogenes was
an old man at the time of the 113 Olympiad (=328-325). Among
were numhered Onesicritus, the historian
Diogenes’ pupils there *
of Alexander, and the orator Anaximenes of Lampsaciis. It is not
known w hen the former joined Alexander’s expedition but it is
probable that hc was Diogenes’ pupil before 334. Anaxmienes is
stated by Suidas to have been a pupil of Diogenes. Su.das sta es
further thal he was the teacher of Alexander the Great. His dates
are given as 380—320 and his literary aetivity is put as early as
350—340. It is probable that Diogenes’ activity as a teacher was
alreadv in full swing in the preceding decade and that Anaximenes
was his pupil then. The chronological data, at all events, seem
not to exclude the possibility of personal contact between Anti-
Plato and Diogenes. The year
sthenes and Diogenes, or between ^
366 is not the year of Antisthenes’ death as is sta ed by Fabrand
Sayre in his book Diogenes of Sinope. According to Diog. L. VI 1,
he took part in the battle of Tanagra in 426 and, according to
Diodorus XV 76, he was one of the notabilities living at Athens
in 366. These, then, are the termini by which we have to determine
Antisthenes’ span of life. We have no means of deciding the
date of Diogenes’ arrival in Athens.
The first and up to now the only special monograph devoted
to Diogenes is Sayre’s above-mentioned book Diogenes of Sinope,
A Study of Greek Cyiiicism, 1938. Sayre pursues the course set
by Dudley ad absurdum. He consistently rejects any other portrayal
of Diogenes than that presented by the aneedotes. He denies to
Diogenes all writings, any teaching activity, and in consequence
all pupils, any connection with the history of Greek ideas, and
consequently with Antisthenes, and any ethics. He describes him
as a lazy vagabond and beggar, who because of his previous
social position in Sinope considered himself too good, as a refugee
in Athens, to provide for himself by honest work. The only
purpose of any asceticism practised by Diogenes was to attract
atteiition. In aclual fact, he was a glutton when circumstances
per111itted. Nor was he the founder of the Cynic sect, which was
14
the Work of Crates. Grates certainly knew Diogenes, but Diogenes

was never his teacher, only his model. Sayre comes finally to
the conclusion that Diogenes was a madman and he quotes Dio
Chrys. Or. 8,36 and 9,8, Diog. L. VI 54 and Aelian XIV 33. This
picture of Diogenes which he regards as the »true» one, Sayre
contrasts with »the Diogenes Legend» which developed in various
directions and continues to develop. As an example of a modern
contributor to this legend he quotes Th. Gomperz. As against this,
Sayre regards Antisthenes as a true Socratic who enjoyed the
full respect of Plato, Isocrates, and even Aristotle. Antisthenes never
taught in Cjmosarges and was an Athenian with full rights. He
has nothing at all to do with Cynicism. Everything which would
suggest this is a deliberate Stoic falsification. It remains unclear
what canons Sayre applies to distinguish what is pure Diogenes
from what he regards as belonging to the Diogenes legend. He
declares Epictetus and Julian to be idealists with no contact with
reality, whose conception of earlier Cynicism deserves no credence.
The pseudo-Diogenes epistles, which W. Capelle, De Cynicorum
epistulis, p. 17 ff, dates to the first and second centuries A. D.,"*
are dated by Sayre to the first and second centuries B. C., for
which he quotes — Capelle! The story that the statesman Phocion
was one of Diogenes’ pupils, Diog. L. VI 76, is rejected on the
grounds that the story is of unknown date and origin and is also
»tendentious». But the stories about Diogenes’ shamelessness, the
chief sources for which are Diog. L., Dio Chrys., and Julian, are
regarded as true in the main, because these informants are not
opponents of Diogenes. But in this connection Sayre forgets to
»Ut haec pauca, quae de epistularum aetate erui posse videantur, com-
plectar, primo s. secundo p. Chr. n. saeculo plurimae epistulae Diogenis
scriplae sunt, nisi forte nonnullae paulo ante, i.e. primo ante Chr. n. saeculo
exortae sunt. Nam diversis temporibus quamvis non multum distantibus eas
scriptas esse is, qui ea, quae de earum auctoribus disserui, probaverit, concedei.
Quo autem tempore recentissimae earum Diogenis epistularum, quas nos
habemus, conscriplae sint, diiudicari non potest, sed eliam post s. li p. Chr.
nonnullas scriptas esse veri simile est. E.g. eae, quarum auclores sententiis
Platonicis utuntur, forlasse etiam post Cynismi finem s. IV p. Chr. faclum
scriplae sunt, quia eis temporibus, quibus Cynicorum doctrina vigebat, vix
ullus homo sententias adeo cum Cynicorum doctrina pugnantes sub Diogenis
Cynici nomine vendidisset.» Cf. K. v. Fritz, Quellenuntersuchungen zii Leben
und PhUosophie des Diog. von Sinope, p. 63 ff, especially p, 68.
15
mention our oldest source in this matter, the highly lendentious

Philodemus, and lie also forgets his own remark on p. 124 that
the shamelessness of Diogenes in Dio Chrys. rests on oral tradition.
Above all he forgets all the evidence wich points in the opposite
direction and forbids any one-sided verdict in the issue, cf. G. A.
Gerhard, Phoinix von Kolophon, p. 140 ff. These examples of
arbitrariness in the treatment of his sources could be multiplied.
We miss in fact what should be fundamental .. in ,
a monograph
. r
on Diogenes: a systematic survey and a criticai evaluation or le
sources. It is to be feared that both Dudley and Sayre will have
considerable influence on the re-emergence of that burlesque,
vulgar and anti-Cynic portrait of Diogenes which was a product
of Roman imperial times. It is all the more to be feared in that,
as far as I am aware, Sayre’s book has had a favourable reception.
In how differerit and more favourable a light Diogenes may appear
has been shown by H. V. Arnim, Leben und Werke des Dion v.
Prusa, 1898, p. 37 ff,® and more recently by K. Praechter, Die
Philosophie des Altertums, 1926, p. 168 f.
treated in the
The whole complex of problems which is
present study may briefly be said to concern the Cynic con-
ception of man as he appears in the idealisations of the hero
and basileus and in the Cynic pedagogics connected therewith.
It is, of course, possible to present other aspects of the Cynic con-
ception of man, as H. Gomperz, for instance, does in his book Die
Lebensauffassung der griechischen Philosophen und das Ideal der
inneren Freiheit, 1915. It is from this angle that Cynic philosophy
has generally been regarded and this has led to a predominantiy
negative view of the Cynics. The concept of freedom in Cynicism
represents a striving after freedom from something: freedom from
all care about food, clothing, house, home, marriage, children, etc.;
freedom from all ties which morality, law, stale, and community
life in general may put upon the individual; furthermore freedom
from passions, ambitions, intellectual, cultural and religious
demands, etc.; and finally freedom from life itself with the right
to leave it voluntarily if the demand for freedom entails it. This
aspect of the problem of Cynicism contains, of course, a real and
u Cf, also V. Arnim’s review of K. v. Fritz, Qnellenuntersuch., Deutsche
Lit. Zeit. 1926, col. 2418 ff.
16
essential element, not merely of Cynicism, but of the ancient view

of life as a whole. But the problem becomes considerably more
difficult if we search for more positive things. Yet we are justified
in posing this problem, not only by the fact that classical Cynicism
produced a considerable body of literature of various kinds but
also by the fact that some scattered remnants, though few in
number, survive of this literature. One of the losses which scholar-
ship must most deplore is surely the loss of the Gynic writings
of the generation after Diogenes, writings which seem to have been
both comprehensive in scope and of striking originality. We may
perhaps cherish the hope that new pap\TUs finds ma\^ do some-
thing to fill this gap, in view of the fortunate unearthing of
phoenix’ Choliambs, 1899, published by G. R. Gerhard in his
phoinix von Kolophon in 1909, a work rich in material and of
fundamental importance. An approach has been made to Menippus
from two sides: by A. Riese, M. Terenti Varronis Saturarum Me-
ni
ippearum reliquiae, 1865, and by R. Helm, Lucian und Menipp,
1906. The Cynic-Stoic diatribes in Hellenistic literature have been
investigated by J. Geffcken, Kynika und Verwandtes, 1909. For
the earlier Gynic prose works, with the exception of Antisthcnes’
declamations »Ajax» and »Odysseus», we have to content ourselvcs
with paraphrases and brief quotations. A solitary exception to
the meagreness of such quotations is Theodorus’ epitome of Teles’
works, preserved by Stobaeus and edited by O. Hense, Teletis
reliquiae, 1909. Apart from this we have to rely in the main on
the 6th book of Diogenes Laertius and on later writers who
were subject to the influence of Gynic literature, above all Dio
Chrysostomus. Essays on Cynicism are provided by Epictetus,
Lucian, Julian, and also Themistius; we glean scattered items of
information passim in literature, for instance in Athenaeus, Maxim
Qf Tyre, Aelian, Marcus Aiirelius, the Church Fathers, especially
element of Alexandria; further in the gnomological literature,
baeus and Gnomologium Vaticanum, the latter edited by G.
StEBNBACH, Wien. Stud. 9—11, 1887—89, and finally in Suidas.
the Cynicism of the Empire we possess one testimony in the
inal, the considerable epistolographical literature edited by
Epistolographi Graeci, 1873. An evaluation of the
is inescapable once we begin to examine a particular set
source»
and endeavour to assign it to particular personages.
of ideas
17
Conscqiienlly in the present work we have so far as possible

followed the principie that chief value should be attached to the
doxographies in Diog. L. as against the anecdotes. Historical value
is assigned to an anecdote only in so far as it can be related
to the doxographies. Thus the Xeniades story aboiit Diogenes’
slavery is regarded as an early literary complement to the Diogenes
doxography in Diog. L. VI 70—71. On the other hand, the anec
dotes about Diogenes’ rigorous asceticism have been brought into
connection with Onesicritus’ stoiy about Indian asceticism and
consequently, according to our way of thinking, are only of value
for the so-called Diogenes legend. Besides the evidence of the doxo
graphies we should also regard as primary material pure quota-
tions which have no anecdote character. Here belongs the quota-
tion by Themistius from Antisthenes, p. 57 below, which bears the
stamp of a quotation though possibly in a shortened and simplified
form. Here we reckon, too, the speech of Antisthenes in Xenophon’s
Symposium, which even if it is fictitious must likewise be regarded
as intended to give a true characterisation of Antisthenes and his
views. Here belong, further, short quotations of the type of Epict.
IV 6,20, which are clearly distinct from the bonmots of the anec
dotes set in a topical framework. Finally, we must face the difficult
question of the value of authors who wrote under Cynic influence
as sources for earlier Cynicism.
Like K. V. Fritz, Quellenuntersuchungen zu Leben und
Philosophie des Diogenes von Sinope, p. 71 f, we have put a
high assessment on the value of Dio Chrysostomus as a source for
Antisthenes, but we differ from this scholar in regarding Dio
also as a good source for post-Diogenic Cynicism and consequently
indirectly for Diogenes himself. The anonymous Cynic epistles,
which Capelle, as we have mentioned, dated to imperial times,
have not been regarded as valid sources for classical Cynicism.
As for Lucian, Jakob Bernays in his often-quoted book Lukian
und die Kyniker, 1879, expressed in decided terms the opinion
that Lucian was an out-and-out enemy of the Cynics and devoid
of any real understanding of true Cynicism. His point of view
now seems to have been generally abandoned. M. Caster, Lucien
et la pensée religieuse de son temps, 1937, points out how schematic
and stylised Lucian’s satirical representation of the Cynic is, e.g.
the portrait of Alcidamas in the Symposium. In the Demonax, on
2
18
the olher hand, we find the ideal Cynic portrayed, who is thc
object of Lucian’s admiration. Caster holds that pure Cynicisin
and Lucian are fundamentally akin, p. 68: »Dans les écrits de sa
période de production menippéenne, les Cyniques furent ses portc-
paroles au moins autant qu’il était leur imitateur. Antisthène,
Diogène et Crates des Dialogues des Morts, le Cynique et Micylle
de TArrivee aux Enfer, Cyniscos du Zeus réfuté, Lycinos de la
Discussion avec Hésiode, Ménippe enfin, expriment en grande
partie les idees de Lucien lui-même.» Relying on this venera-
tion of Lucian for earlier Gynicism, I have with some hesita-
tion ventured to put forward a new interpretation of Lucian‘s
Heracles as a Sophistic-Cynic allegory, which, at all events in its
elements, goes back to Antisthenes. Unlike Sayre, I also regard
the judgement passed by the »idealists» Epictetus and Julian on
pure Gynicism, and also Lucian’s portrayal of Demonax, as having
a much greater historical value than, for instance, Philodemus’
spiteful pamphlet, which, like Lucian’s Gynic satires and Dio
Ghrysostomus’ attacks on the Gynics in Or. 32, is merely dirccted
against a false and degenerate form of Gynicism. In this connection
it deserves to be mentioned that even Augustine felt called upon
to defend the Gynics against imputations of indecency. De civ.
Dei XIV 20: et nunc videmus adhiic esse philosophos Cênicos;
hi enim sunt, qui non solum amiciuntur pallio, verum etiam
ciavam fenmt. nemo tamen eorum audet hoc facere, quod si
aliqui ausi essent, ut non dicam ictibus lapidantium, certe con-
spuentium salivis obruerentur."'
Apart from this general evaluation of the sources, it seems
to me a correct procedure to set these sources in their idea-
historical framework, which determines their relative importance.
It wili be seen that the method which I followed a priori,
namely of ascribing prime value to the doxographies, is
supported by such idea-historical considerations. The Diogenes
doxography can be explained point by point along these lines,
and the same is true of the pedagogical theories of classical
Gynicism with their two poles of politics and individual ethics.
It is clear that these doctrines may be derived without difficulty
from ideas current in the 4th century. Sayre makes a great
point of the fact that Diogenes carne from Sinope and he uses
^ Cf. J. Bernays, Lukian und die Kyniker, p. 106,26.
19
this circumslancc to plead that Diogcnes’ Cynicism is in the main

an OI●iental phenomcnon. That may or may not be truc, but it is
difficult to arrive at any clcar idea ot what this oriental influence
consisted. Siiiope, because of its good harboiir, seems to have been
a channel for the transit trade between east and west.*^ The city
was originally founded by the Assyrians, was colonised by the
Milesians at the beginning of the 8th century, was occupied in 782
by the Cimmerians but seems not to have suffered any great
devastation since the cit}»^ founded colony of its own in 756 at
Trapezus. In the following century the city was completely
destroyed by the Scythians, but was reconstructed in 630. It is
unknown at what date and to what extent the city carne under
Persian domination. Soon after 444, however, Pericles sent a relief
expedition to Sinope among other places and this later was
followed by an Attic colonisation in the city consisting of 600
colonists. Sinope then seems to have eiijojêd period of rich
prosperity under a democratic government. It was during this
period of Sinope’s history, when from cultural and political
point of view it was predominantly Greek, that Diogenes grew to
manhood. With Datames’ siege of the citj' in 370 we reach the
was
time of the occupation of the city by Persian generais which
broken by a short period of freedom 362—345. We do not know
when Diogenes carne to Athens, but it is possible that his arrival
had some connection with the times of political unrest about 370.
At that time Diogenes may have been thirty or possibly forty
years old. That Athens was his choice of refuge is quite natural
in view of the earlier Athenian colonisation. What is most striking
in this hasty sketch of the city’s history is the strongly Greek
character of Sinope at the time of Diogenes’ youth. To assume
that there was a marked orientalisation even under Datames, who
was in rebellion against the Persian king, and further that this
exerted a decisive influence on Diogenes, always supposing that he
still remained in the city at this time, would appear improbable.
This, of course, is not meant to exclude the possibility that
Diogenes may have derived a general impression of an oriental
view of life in this outpost of Greek colonial power, but we cannot
prodiice any concrete evidence of its significance and extent.
For the following see David M. Robinson, Ancient Sinope, pp. 125 ff,
245 ff.
20
With this short introduction to the problem of the Cynics and

to Cynic literature perhaps enough has been said to give the readcr
an idea of the author’s approach to the questions discussed. This
book, which attempts to bring out certain positive aspects of Cynic
doctrines, and to set this movement in its idea-historical frame-
work, does not claim to be anything more than a contribution to
the discussion of an interesting and difficult subject. On many
points the author would have wished to adduce more extensive
material and to widen the scope of his discussion, but considera-
tions of time and space made this impossible.
For the sake of clarity I insert here a stemma to illustrate
the idea-historical relationships among the Cynics and Stoics down
to Dio Chrysostomus. The direct connection between Antisthenes
9
and Dio Chrysostomus could not be indicated for technical reasons.
® The same is true also of Dio and Zeno.
^ Especially Gorgias. * Xen. Symp. IV 43 f. ® réypaqpe 3è TiaÍYVta

onooS^ã ^sXrjS-uíq: iisptYliéva xai Ilspt óp|Jiü)v 3úo xal Ilpoxpenxtxóv, Diog. L.
VI 83. * Pupil of Theophrastus and Xenocrates, then of Crates, Hense,
Tel. rei., p. 40, author of Xpstai, Diog. L, VI 33; pupils: Theombrotus, Cleo-
menes, Menippus, Diog. L. VI 95. ° Married to Hipparchia, sister of
Melrocles; author of Ualf^na with social tendency, teacher of Metrocles and
Zeno. réYpa;pe xai xpaYqiBíaç âxoúsag cpiXoooíyíaç x^pa,y.TrjpoL, Diog. L.
IV 98.
Son of Onesicritus, author of dialogues and tragedies(?), Diog. L.
VI 80.
’See note 5. ® Wrote about Âlexander the Great as philosopher
king but without Cynic followers. ® Cynic letters, Hercher, Epistologr.
Graec.; papyri; Gerhard, Phoinix v. Kol., CrOnert, Kol. und Mened. 10 Eclec-
tic philosopher, author of Cynic diatribes, Diog. L. IV 46. See Hense, Tel. rei.,
proleg. and index Bioneus. The best known author of Cynic diatribes.
See Hense, Tel. rei. w ^^pet pèv ouv o7cou3atov oò3év xà 3è î^Xía aòxoü
íío ^ ou xaxttYeXtoxôg Yépst xa£ xi íoov xoiç MeXeáYpou, Diog. L. VI 99. 13 Peda-
g 8 writer. Statesinan and poet, wrote in meliambic metre on ethical
jec s m ynic style. Author of polemicai treatises against his former
teacner, the Epicurean Colotes, see CrOnert, Kol. und Mened. “ Poet
writing in choliambic metre, see Gerhard, Phoinix v. Kol. 17
One of the
best poets in the Anth. Palat., author inter alia of a poem on Diogenes but
perhaps not h.mself a Cynic, cf. RE XII: 2, 2023. « Of lhe Cynics and
. oics 10 mentions: Antisthenes, Diogenes, Crates, Bion, Zeno, Cleanthes,
Chrysippus. It seems probable, however, that Dio knew the Cynic pedagogical
writings in the generation after Diogenes. It is doubtful if he fead the Cynic
poets, since he does not mention any of them.
The Sophistsl Sócrates -
Antisthenes
Diogenes
I I
Monimus^ Metrocles * Cratcs’ Philiscus® Hipparchia' Onesicritus
Anonymi9 Bionô Menippus^2 Cleomenes Phoenix Zeno

Leonidas?!^
Teles 11 Euboulusl3
(= Euboulides?)
Cercidasll Menedemusl^ Aristo, Herillus, CIcantbes
Chrysippus
Panactius
Meleager 12
Posidonius
4-
(Lucian) Dio Chrysostomus 18
lO
Chapter I.
The Cynic Conceptíon of the Ideal Hero.
I. Heracles.
A. The Pre-Cynic and the Oldest Cynic Literatiire.

1.
Before we discuss the Cynic fragments which are concerned

with Heracles, it will be necessary to make a brief survey of the
literary treatment of Heracles in order to make clear which of his
characteristics were of most interest at the end of the fifth century.
In Homer Heracles, in common with other Homeric heroes,
was celebrated as a mighty hero, the accomplisher of the dode-
kathlos and a series of other adventures. The poet reproduces the
material of the saga of Heracles with no pedagogical or moral
aims or purposes ^ and consequently does not hesitate to repeat
such things as showed the hero in a dubious light, e.g. E 392 ff,
A 601 ff, 9 24 ff. The martial note is prominent here, as in general,
e.g. B 660; the epithets emphasise the hero’s strength and courage.
The most interesting passage is X 601 ff, the description of
Heracles in the underworld. The grim, terrifying figure is an
unrelieved picture of primitive ferocity. Heracles himself desig-
nates his lot during his life on earth as y.axôv |iópov, .. .
àTzeípsaCrfV, yxXsKoòç ... àáDXouç. A later generation reacted against
this portrayal of the son of Zeus and interpolated three verses
which relate that Heracles himself, the real Heracles, lives among
the Gods.2
The view of Heracles which is presented in the interpolated
lines X 602—604 finds fuller expression in the Homeric hynin
^ Cf. W. Jaeger, Paideia, I 63 ff, esp. pp. 69, 86 f.
" Cf. E. Rohde, Psyche, I 60 f.
23
XV with ils prayer to the son of Zeus who dwells on Olympus

to give àpsxT^v xs y.xi ôXôv.
In Hesiod we cncounler the same marlial Heracles as in
Homer. In lhe Theogony we lind scallered references to the do-
dckathlos and his other feats: 287 ff, 313 ff, 327 ff, 526 f, 530 f,
950 ff. The author of the 'AaTííç shows 1. 128 ff Heracles in full war
array without the attributes, the club and the lion skin, which later
characterise him, a decisive proof of early date.^ Moral and peda-
gogic motives enter as little into Hesiod’s description of Heracles as
into Homer's. The story of the saga is narrated quite objectively.
In Pindar the tone is different, it is more religious and elevated
in its altitude towards the figure of Heracles. The choice of
theme is different from lhe epic. Insiead of martial exploits, peace-
ful, alhletic feats are celebraled, Heracles being represented as
their founder, Ol. II 3, III 11, VI 68 and X 24 ff, Nem. X 53 and
XI 27.^ Heracles introduced into Greece the olive tree, that coun-
lry’s most imporlanl cullivaled plant, which served as lhe emblem
of victory in the Olympic games, Ol. III 11 ff. References to
Heracles’ purely warlike exploits are few. The most extensive of
these we find in Ol. X 26—42, lhe killing by Heracles of Poseidon’s
sons Cleatus and Eurylus. There is a brief reference in Nem. IV
21 ff to Heracles’ expedition against Troy, to which allusion is
also made in Isth. V 37 and VI 27 ff. Delight in battle, a trait
hardly consistent with the ethical motivation, is not found in
Pindar’s Heracles. Pindar presents a morally defensible motive
for his hero’s actions in accordance with his own moralising ideas
of myth and religion.® Important is his view of Heracles as a helper
and giver of strength. The hero’s »philantrophia» is exemplified,
for instance, in the prophecy of the seer Tiresias, Nem. I 60 ff>
about lhe infant Heracles after the killing of the serpents. Wild
beasts on land and sea as well as treacherous men were to be
killed by him. He himself, after completing his mission, was
to live âv elpYjva xòv áírcavxa xpóvov with Hebe as his wife. The
whole conception breathes a totally different spirit from the mad
blood liist which possesses the Heracles of the epic. This note of
a W. SCHMID, Gesch. d. griech. Lit., I 271.

founder of cults.
« Cf. also schol. Olymp. V 10 Drachmann: Heracles as a
Cf. W..ScHMiD, op. cit., I 580,4.
24
philanthropy and sípVjvyj, though lhe lalter may be iiierely coii-

ceived in escalological terms, is a typologicallj^ significant associa-
lion which appears also in the saga, but is given exclusive emphasis
by Pindar.® See also Isthm. IV 52 ff and Nem. III 22 ff. It is this
spiritualised conception which lies behind the prayer in Nem. VII
95 ff for slrength in life’s difficulties.
That this spiritualised idea of the hero is not slrange to the

epic is shown by the Homeric hymn to Heracles with its praver
for ápsxT^v X£ y.cd õXôv.
In Pisancler, fragm. 10 Kinkel, we find an interesting example
of the rationalisation of the material of the saga, a necessarv
prelude to the moral revaluation which was to end in selting up
Heracles as the ideal man:S:ô Kspi aòzoú ó ÍIsÍGccvdpor 'oty.aio-
TXZOV Sè èrJ. yàp xaÔ-apóxTi-a zóvooç èr.oísi.
Here we may also mention Archilochus fragm. 120 Diehl, the
earhest example of Heracles’ epithet KaXXíviy.oc, cf. RE X 1650 ff,
and ’AX£ç:xay.oí, see the examples in RE I 1464 ff and both epithets
in RE Suppl. III 1001 f. On the connections between these two
epithets see O. Weinreich, De dis ignotis quaestiones selectae, pp.
9-ff, 46 ff. Diogenes’ Ep. 36 Hercher provides the first example
ot the epithet KaXXíviy.oc in an apotropaic formula where we should
have expected ’AX£fty.axoc. Probably the identity of the epithets
goes back a long way.
The rehgious and ethical refinement which the figure of

Heracles experienced at the hands of Pindar constitutes itself the
necessary preliminary to the formation of an ideal with Heracles
“ g*''®'' of strenglh in life’s difficuilies.
itferent sef of problems is raised in the drama. In Sophocles’
rrachiniae and Euripides’ Heracles the hero is a deeply Iragic
igure who meefs his fate in the conflict between the divine and
the human. What turns both these plays into tragedies of fate
IS the innocent suffering which relentlessly afflicts Heracles him-
self and his family. This suffering is thrown into sharper relief
in that Heracles represents, on the one hand, the divine through his
relationship with Zeus and, on the other, the human through his
W. SCHMID, op. cit., I Õ79.I8, calls rightly Nem. I 31 ff »das hohe Lied
au erakles». Cf also U. v, Wilamowftz-Moellendorff, Pindaros, p. 2ô6-
2Õ
molher Alcmene.' That Sopliocles in the Trachiniae was deeply

concerned with the problem of the theodicy is shown by Hyllos’
last bitfer words which indicate the irreconcilability between
religious belief and innocent suffering, 1. 1264 Nevertheless,
the play does not dose with a deiiial, but with a steadfast affirma-
tion of religious beliefs, 1. 1278.*^
In Euripides we find a statement of the same religious pro-
bleins as in the Trachiniae, but his solution is a different one.
In the bitter monologue, 1. 1255 ff, Heracles no longer wishes to
call Zeus his father. He rejects the anthropomorphic gods of
mylhology, I. 1345 f, and thereby excludes traditional religion
froni the problem of suffering.^ His solution remains solely on the
human plane, how man himself endures his suffering. The stoic
way of life remains in the last resort the only possible one, even
when it merely consists of a broken resignation, 1. 1357:
võv o’, ü)ç èoixs, zy SouXsuxéov.
Heracles’ kóvoí are represented in tragedy as something which

has certainly benefited mankind, but to him personally they meant
suffering imposed from without. His slavery under Queen Omphale
in the Trachiniae is expressed in 1. 70 f: Xázpiv Tzovelv. . . . zoOz’
IxXtj, cf. 1. 248 ff. On the other hand the life which awaits him
after the completion of his task is called àXoTzrjzti) pí(p, 1. 168; cf.
chorus 1. 821 ff with the prophecy of the end of his suffering,
àvaco^àv^ xeXslv tcóviov, which at the end of the first strophe finds
different expression in the words èTzÍTzovov ... Xaxpstav. In Euri
pides’ play, Amphitryon calls Heracles’ labours in this world
an evil sent bj^ Hera or fate 1. 19 ff, while Amphitryon 1. 22 applies
to his labours the expression èÇs|ióx^’^^2V tióvouç, cf. 1. 1270,|ióxôuç
otiç £xXr/v. In 1. 1192 Heracles is designated by the epithet tioXótíovoç,
while in 1. 1250 Theseus calls him ó uoXXà 6y) xXàç 'HpaocX-^c-
^ Heracles’ characler is utmost brutal and selfish in the Trach., cf.
M. PoHLENZ, Die griech. Tragõdie, p. 209 ff. In Euripides’ play, on lhe other
hand, Heracles is human and more sympathetically described, cf. W. Schmid,
op. cit., III 4.36.
® Cf. W. Schmid, op. cit., II 374 ff, and M. Pohlenz, op. cit., p. 212.
® Cf. R. Jebb, Sopho.cles, V 183: »There is nothing in all Ihis that is
not Zeus: i.e. he is manifested in each and all of these events.»
^ Cf. Theseus’ apology for the gods, 1. 1313 ff.
^ Cf. R. Jebb, op. cit., ad loc.
26
Heracles in his answering speech regards his own labours as a

hardship, 1. 1353, à^àp tíóvwv oy) pupíwy âY£uaá|i'/)v y.xÀ., and
especially 1. 1266 ff, in which Heracles recounls with bitlerness
all the hardship he has to endure because of Hera’s bate, the
murder of the children being the crowning point of his siiffering.
However, in this play we find, to a far greater extent than we
can observe in the Trachiniae, the praise of Heracles as usp-
Y£TT^-. The Trachiniae is not entirely free froin Ihose fealures of
lhe saga which are irreconcilable wilh lhe ethical refineinent of
Heracles. Thus in 1. 277 f the murder of Iphitus is mentioned with-
out any attempt to gloss over the brutal facts, and in 1. 459 f and
passim Heracles’ erotic escapades are mentioned by Deianeira
since, of course, Heracles’ polygamous eroticism constilutes the
cause of the tragedy.^ Traces of the intoxicated Heracles of SatjT
plays and comedy survive in the Trachiniae. But even in this
play the c’j£pYá-r/Ç-theme finds expression although the actual
Word is not used. In 1. 177 Deianeira remarks of herself lhat
she is Tcávxwv àpíaxou cpcoxòc èax£pr/|iévrjV, an expression which
Hyllos repeats almost word for word in 1. 811: Trávxcov âpiaxov
ávopa. In both ca.ses the judgements are psychologically motivaled,
but in I. 1111 Heracles alludes to his task in life and death: y,<xi Çwv
y.ocxoúç Y* v.ai ô-aywy
èxtaájiT/V. In Euripides’ play, however, as
we have said, this motif receives niuch greater emphasis and
realism in what One
might call the âçTjjiépwatç-lheme. Heracles
is the benefaclor of mankind and the founder of civilisalion
through his activity, 1. 8õl í: áâxoy 5è ywpay y.at ^áXaaaay
aYptay èçr/jxEpwaaç. The lerm occurs earlier in 1. 20. The same
theme recurs in the chorus 1. 698 ff: iioy^d”íj(ja.ç xòy áyu|ioy ^'^y.£y
p.-«xw ppoxolç. Through his tzóvoi Heracles becomes a £0£pYéx7jç,
Jj! 1- 1309 Heracles says of Hera: xoò? sÒEpYáxa; ’EXXáooç
aTíwÀsa oòoèy õyxac ahíouç, in the greatest bitterness at the extreme
For different interprelations of lhe rôle of the erolic molif in the lole
Schol. Eurip. Hipp. 545 Schwartz= Jacoby, F Gr
Hist I 223, 6: Tispi xiijc ’IóÀvjs ó Xóyoç õxt 6 xaOxTjs sptos xíjv Of/aXíav áTCÓpB-yjaev.
svco. pev oov çaatv «Ttp«a9-évxa 'HpaxÀéa óxô EOpéxoo v.«l xôv àôeXcpôv aòxrlr-oõ
rap OE.wxeva-. aoxw xíjv ^ópr^v — 7iop9-âat xvjv OlâXíav. 'HpóÔwpos 5s cpyjoiv 5
xou xr,r yálJ-ou -poxsipévou xogeíaç STcâO-Xou 'HpaxÀáa v-.xrjaavxa âTcagioõaS-at
raiiofJ. 5;o xai xaxà xpáxor éXsív xíjv OlyaXíav x«i xoòs ádeX:pobg aúx-rjç
av£AS'.v, Ivjp-Jxov 8s ç-jysív siç Euôiav. Auaípaxos Ôé cpryotv xxX.
27
suffering which he has incurrcd, innocent Ihough he is. In 1. 1252

lie is similarly callecl by Theseiis sõspYézrjÇ ^pozoiai y,ai néyaç cpíXo^.^
Tliiis iii this play the lhemc philanthropici throiigh suffering
is clearly delinealcd. The contrast with Pindar’s conception is
palenl. What is most significant is the stress laid on suffering,
which is, of coiirse, a dramalic necessily. We may pass over the
polilical and patriotic motives which influenced Eiiripides, namely
the reconciliation hetween Attica and the Doric Peloponnese, sym-
bolised in the friendship hetween Theseus and Heracles.'"’ It is
of greater importance that in the final scene of Euripides’ play
the prohlem of innocent suffering finds a purely immanent solu-
tion exemplary for all humanity.** Heracles has descended to the
world of man, exposing himself to the sanie sufferings and the
same capricious fates as man must face.
The drama did not advance to the position of Antisthenes in
regarding Ttóvoç as something good. From Heracles’ own point of
view 7ÍÓV0Ç is an involuntary evil inflicted on him hy fate. This
suffering is brought to its climax by the divine vengeance of
Hera: the mantle of Nessus in the Trachiniae, and the outbreak
of madness, culminating in the murder of his own children in
Euripides’ play, crush the hero, who had hitherto remained
unbroken hy his many labours. The apotheosis referred to in the
Trachiniae, and the submissive resignation to fate in Euripides’
play, hetoken the end of Heracles’ career, filled as it was with
superhuman and beneficent deeds. His rôle as sòspyéxTjç was
played out in a hloody and incomprehensihle finale which exposes
religioíîs helief to doubt and denial.
It is not possible to say in what measure Antisthenes was
influenced hy the tragic representation of Heracles, hut it is dif-
ficult to resist the assumption that he was not uninfluenced by
Euripides’ piefure of Heracles as the suffering benefactor, or again
by the dramatisfs criticism of religion and by the friendship theme
of the final scene. Antisthenes’ thesis Diog. L. VI 2, xai ó'xt ó
Tzóvoç âyaâ’òv ouvéaxTjac 8tà xoO iJtsyáXou 'HpaxXéouç, may possibly
* Cf. Eurip. Syleus, fragni. 692 Nauck: "oÍç pèv ôixaíoiç êvStxog, xote 8’
aõ xaxote Ttávxtüv [aáYtoxo; TCOÀé|itos xatà x9-dva = V. Steffen, Satyr. Graec.
Rei., p- 160; W. Schmid, op. cit., III 436,2.
Cf. W. Schmid, op. cit., III 430 ff.
0 Cf. Soph. Ajax, I. 479, M. Pohlenz, op. cit., p. 316 ff.
28
be modelled on Euripides' Heracles 1. 357 ff, where we find the

expression: vsvvaíojv 5’ ipt-xi ttovíov âvoOaiv àyaXiia. Cf.
Euripides’ Licymnius íragm. 474 Nauck: tüóvoc y*P> Xé'(nuoi'>>,
su-z.Xsía^ TyOLzrip. In lhe last menlioned drama, of whatever cha-
racter it may have been," we find a representation of Heracles
which one might almost call Cynic in character, fragm. 473 Nauck:
'âOXov xà liéy.ax’ àyoí^óv,
TCãaay èv ip'(i\) 7:£ptX£|jLVÓ|X£yoy
oosíay, XéoyTfZ àxpt^üjya.
»Plain, unaccomplished, slaunch to do great deeds, unversed in

talk, with all his store of wisdom curlailed to action», R. D. Hicks,
Diog. L. III 63.
We must turn elsewhere, however, to find the individualistic
allegory which alone makes possible the Cynic use of the material
of the saga.
From a typological point of view we find that the material
of the saga is divided sharply into different characteristic groups.
After the undifferentiated hero of Homer and Hesiod we find, on
the one hand, the elhically and religiously refined Heracles of
Pindar and the Homeric hymns already half way on the road
towards becoming the object of a cult; the same view of Heracles
is evident in the epilhel zaXXtytxoc in Archilochus; àXE^r/cay.oç is
possibly of an equally early date, in any case it was a common
epithet for Heracles in the 5th century. On the other hand we have
the burlesque type of Heracles in the Satyr plays, and finally the
suffering god in Sophocles and the suffering man and benefactor
in Euripides.
The fragment of the Licymnius quoted is an anticipation of
the unintellectual type of Cynic who conceals behind an unpre-
possessing exterior a discriminating character and possesses a
philosophy of life that is first and foremost praclical.
The religious and artistic elaboralion of the figure of He
racles in poetical literature led, as we have seen, to the creation
of a special type of behaviour which we have here characterised
as philanthropia through suffering. This artistic tendency found
its complement in the lonian criticism of myth and in the work
7 Cf. w. SCHMID, op. cit., III 462.

29
of the Sophists. The Irealmenl of Heracles in bolh of these is

interesting.
Heracles plays an important rôle in the logographic litera-
ture. Hecataeus, fragm. 28 ff, Aciisilaus, fragm. 29 ff, Phere-
cydes, fragm. 68 ff, and Hellaniciis, fragm. 102 ff, Jacoby,
F Gr Hist I, constitute the most important remains of this
literature. The myth of Heracles is treated in poetry by Pisan-
der, the crealor of lhe Heracles lype wilh lion skin and club,
and is found in greater detail in Panyassis.® While a certain
rationalistic crilicism makes ilself felt in the logographic litera
ture,” the poetical literature just mentioned contains a recasting
of the Heracles epic in a naluralistic mould, which has left traces
in the later Satyr poetry.^ In this extensive lonian literature about
Heracles an important place is taken by the Sophist Herodonis
of Heraclea in Pontus, the creator of the philosophic Heracles
allegories.
Herodorus 2 wrole the story of Heracles in 17 volumes using
the above-mentioned literature as his source. Jacoby, RE VIII
981, notes a number of differences and agreements between Hero-
dorus and the early literature which are of interest in that they
Show that Herodorus in the selection of his material was not un-
critical in the trealment of his sources. In his comprehensive
history of Heracles, Herodorus, however, did not wish in the first
instance to give an »historical» account of Heracles as Hecataeus
did, but used the saga for speculations of a scientific and cosmo-
logical nature. In view of this, Herodorus was compelled to a great
extent to rationalise the saga and this rationalisation was carried
to the point of allegorical interpretation.^ Herodorus wrote the first
»pragmatic novel» about Heracles,^ since he is no longer merely
® G. Kinkel, Epicor. Graec. Fragm., p. 253 ff.

® Cf. F. Jacoby, Hekataios, RE VII 2741 ff. W. Schmid, op. cit., I 696.
^ Cf. W. Schmid, op. cit., I 296,2.
F. Jacoby, F Gr Hist I 215 ff, 502 ff.
® Cf. F. WippRECHT, Die Entwicklung der rationalist. Mgthendeutung bei
den Griechen, I 38 ff, F. Jacoby, Herodoros, RE VIII 983 f. A typical example
of rationalisation is fragm. 30, of allegorisation fragm. 13 Jacoby.
* U. V. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Herakies, I 100, Jacoby, RE VIII
984 f, cf. aiso id., F Gr Hist I 502.
30
concerned wilh repeating lhe heroic deeds of Heraclcs biil uses

them as a hook on which to hang his pedagogical views.^
At this point we turn oiir attention to Herodorus iragm. 14,
Jacoby, F Gr Hist I 218. In this fragment we have thc remains oí'
an attempt to bring the ni3’thological story of Heracles into har-
mony with the new individualistic ethics by allegorical interprcla-
tion. Mention is made of Heracles* equipment. Beside thc lion skin
and the club, zpia. jjLfp.a are mentioned and the fragment continues:
ÓÍTZBp zpíx {itjÀa i'ssXé'jd-z: xòzov â{xu9-oXÓYVjaav xõ) poTzáÁO) 'sovsú-
aavxa xòv opáxovxz, zovzzGzi vty.rjGX'/za. xòv TzoXuTzoíy.iÁov zf^z T^c/.pã;
è-'.9-i)|iía^ XoY'.'J|JLÒv 5:à -oO po-yxXou zfiz ziiXoGOzícíz, íyoyza. TZzpLpó-
Xaoov Y^walov '^póvT/jia óiz oopàv Xéovxo'. y.al oííxüí' àcpsíXsxo zôí
xpía [JLYjXa, õrc p èaxi zpzíz àpzzxc’ zò |iYj ôpYÍ^sGd‘o.1, zò jiYj cpcXapY^"
P-Iv, zò |iY) 'siXriòovsi'^ 5lx Y»p xoO po“áXou zfjz y.xpzspiy.fiz
y,zí zfjz Gopzç xoj ^'paauxáxou aííyppovoz XoîaiioO èvtV.râs xòv y^/i-vov
’px6X‘qz èíwíO-uiiía- àYüiva, 'siXoGozty^Qxz péxpí 9-aváxou, y.a9-ü)c
HpoBwpoç ó aoswxaxo; auv£Ypá'iaxo. The triad òpYÍ^saô-ai, tipiXapYu-
pciv, x;iXr/Bov£rv, belonging as they do to individualistic ethics, re-
calls Cynic texts immediately, as do the generic term èTütâuníla,
the àYü)v-theme, and the epithets employed in this context: : y.ap-
Xí.pc/.'^- Î>uyy|ç 9-paauxáxoi) aó)'^povoç Xc/YterpoO. We also have
Cynic parallels for the lheme of endurance at the end of the frag-
ment, a
fragment which throws an extraordinarily interesting
ight on the development of the mythology of Heracles in the
direction of individualistic ethics.®
The question of the aulhenticity and the dale of the fragment
just quoted is of considerable importance in this connection, but
naturally it cannot be treated here. It would require an investiga-
on which would be far beyond the scope of the present work.
n ormation respecting Herodorus’ person is scanty. He was the
er of the Sophist Bryson, who is supposed to have been the
pupil of Sócrates and the teacher of the Sceptic Pyrrhon, which
Jacoby’s words, RE VIII 985: «Jedenfalls schcinl eine ethischc Tendenz
oci zu ehlen», contrast with fragm. 14, which .Iacoby himself regards
as genuine. ®
.... sl7tóv-as. Yspwv eí -/.ai Xot-ôv àvsc, x£ 5s, sepT],

et ooAtxov expEXov, Ttpòr tü7j xéXet s5e: |ie ãvetvat -/.ai |iãXÀov èTCtxetvat; As
o the nioUf sxovxa Tcept^óXatov -pevvatov çpóvy,iia w; Sopàv Xéovxo; cf. Diog. L.
VI 4o: Txpo; xòv è '
■Õ Xeovx‘Ã 0-p'J-xò}isvov. íxaàsai. sa;vj, xà x-^r ãpexTi; axpw-
jiaxa -/.axatsyjjvojv.
31
means that hc himself imisl have beeii roughly contemporary

wilh Sócrates. He wrole in lonic biit lhe fragment quoled does
iiot exhibit anj' lonic characlerislics, On lhe olher hand Hero-
dorus is expressiy nienlioiicd as lhe aiithor of thc qiiotation.*
Jacoby, RE MII 984, regards lhe fragment as geniiine, basing
bis vicw on olher fragmenls which afford evidence that Herodoriis
represei!led Heracles as a seer and a philosopher. The allegorical
method iniisl be regarded as Herodoriis’ own.
There is no trace of philanlhropia in the fragment of
Herodorus. The allegory of Prodicus, however, Xen. Mem. II
1, 21 ff = Diels-Kranz II 313, shows that this theme was
also a constituent in the individual-ethical rationalisation of
Heracles. The choice of Heracles, as well as the whole tenor
of this myth, clearly belongs to individualistic ethics and is to
some extent ascetic. We find the first traces of this in Hesiod,
Work and Days, 1. 286 ff. The fact that lhe theme of the »lwo
ways» is incorporated by Prodicus inlo the story of Heracles is
illuminating. It shows the change of attitude towards the myth of
Heracles, of which we have seen an example in Herodorus, where
the tendency towards a certain asceticism found its typical ex-
pression in the term ji-íj cpiXYjoovstv. In Prodicus this theme is de-
veloped also in the skelch of lhe two women Arete and Kakia, as
well as in the programmatic utterance of the formei*. Arete, por-
trayed as shy and modest, contrasts with the Athenian hetaera
who does everything to attract attention to herself by her outward
behaviour and attire.
The ascetic point of view expressed hy Prodicus is clearly
prescriplive. Kakia templs him with xyjv ■fjoíaxYjv xs %cd ^áaxr^v
Ó5ÓV, a life filled with pleasure and free from troubles in which
sexual and economic materialism is prominent. Instead of «phi
lanlhropia» we find its opposile. Heracles need, in fact, have no
fear that he must earn his bread Túovouvxa xai xaXatTiwpoõvxa xõ)
awpaxi Y.cd x*(| . . . àXX’ oíç av oi àXXot èpYáÇiovxai, xoúxoiç aò
yp-fia^Q, oòoevòç à7T£)^ó|A£Voç õ-9’£y av Suvaxèv % xt XEpSàvat. Tiavxay^óO-EV
yàp (íiYsXEtaô-at, xolç èiioi auvoOatv èÇouaíav èyw Traplyw. With this
7 Only conjeclurc, however, for Herodolus slands here as often in the
fragmenls, Jacoby, RE VIII 984, cf. id., F Gr Hisl I 215,9,19,24, 216,17, 217,27,
219,9,13,17,21, 220,34 etc. IJut the laboured isocola of our long fragment soem
fairly conclusivo.
32
Prodicus contrasts the way which Arete proclaims. Arete describcs

the labours belonging lo lhe conditions of life in a whole series
of verbal adjectives: 5’£pa;i£U“éov — — (àssXrjxáov —
Tücipaxáov £'j — £7r’.|i£Xr^x£ov — |ia9-‘/)X£Gv ÒLOv.r^zio'^
èO-iaxÉov — Philanlhropia is menlioned eilher direclly
or indirectly in several of these verbal adjectives. With lhe expres-
sion xoúç x£ èX£uô’£poOv y.a: zoòç èyd'poòç y£’.poDaO'ai, compare
Euripides’ Syleus fragm. 692 Nauck: zoTç |aèv 5i-/.aí
o aõ xay.oTç Tüávxwv [léyiazoç 7ZO?Jtxioç y.axà yô-óva.®
Afler Ihis Areie makes a direct reply lo Kakia. The molivalion
in Ihis rejoinder is inleresling. Prodicus shares it wilh lhe more
refined Cynicism: a hedonislic allraclion lowards a simpler, more
natural way of life as a reaction against artificialily and over-
civilisation. Areie allacks Kakia because lhe crude malerialism
which she represenls does not achieve ils purpose, namely to give
pleasure to mankind. Real pleasure is not the satisfying of needs
not yet felt or artificially stimulated, which is typical of Kakia
(Tcpiv èTuûjiâat Tíávxtav è|jL7tíii7rXaaat), but a sort of asceticism
which belongs to the rhythm of life itself. A description of the
idyllic times of a former age follows Ihis demand for a more
natural way of life.
In Prodicus the motive of philanthropia is conceived as
purely egocentric. etx£ Otiò çíXwv èS'éX£tç à'(a.TzõLQ%xi, xoòr cpíXouc
eu£pY£xr^xéoy are his words, and this is the tenor of the other expres-
sions. In the drama we find nothing of this; there are, however,
a number of outbursts against the ingratitude shown in the face of
all the good deeds which Heracles performed for Greece, and
complaints at the absence of any will to help or repay. When we
compare Prodicus’ picture of Heracles with that found in the
tragedy, we observe that the idea of ttóvoç has undergone a radical
transformation. The revaluation of this idea in the frame-
woik of individualistic ethics involves a change also in the con-
tents. In the drama his ttóvoi are, as we have seen, simply a tech-
nical term for the mythical feats given a philanthropic inler-
pretation by means of the è^Yjiiépioaiç-lheme. They are regarded as
Service and suffering imposed by fate, to which Sophocles adds
the notion of a reward after death. The individual-ethical twist
given to this idea by Prodicus involved a number of modifications:
® V. Steffen, Satijr. Graec. Rei, p. 160.
33
1. his slarling point is different: not a fate imposed from

without but a choice determined from within;
2. lhe molivation is different: not the fulfilment of a com-
pulsion fraught wilh suffering, which only from a rationalistic
point of view is regarded as a good from which others derive
benefit, but the development and completion of one’s own virtue,
the àpsxT^-motive;
3. the course of lhe aclion is different: inslead of the elhically
neutral and brutal physical labours a spiritualisation of the whole
behaviour, as well as the term uóvoç, and ethical akribeia;
4. lhe aim is different: instead of lhe idea of a reward afler
dealh and apotheosis, as in Sophocles, or resignation and self-
sacrifice as in Euripides, we have the nolion of an immanent
happiness, xyjv paxapiaxoxáxYjv eòSaipovíav.
Antisthenes’ equation of ttóvoç = àYaS-óv is fully consislent
wilh Ihis development.
2.
We now turn our attention to the Cynic Heracles fragments.
The first question which arises is: why did Heracles become a
Cynic »saint»? The traditional, which is also the simplest, and
possibly the correct, answer is that Antisthenes, who was not
a full-blooded Athenian — his mother according to Diog. L.
VI 1 was a Thracian taught in the gymnasium on the hill
Cynosarges set apart for vdôi, which was also the site of a famous
temple of Heracles. According to Diog. L. VI 13 and Suidas, the
name Cynic was derived from Cynosarges. Doubt has been cast
as
on this derivation by scholars who do not regard Antisthenes
the real founder of Cynicism. In any event, the reference to a
local »saint» could only offer a superficial explanation of the
Heracles motif.
The historical statements contained in the ancient writers are
supported, however, by psychological considerations: the extra-
ordinary popularity of the saga of Heracles at the end of the 5th
in-
century together with the new conception of Heracles led to an
crease in the material of the saga under the influence of rationalist
criticism, and, above all, allegorisation on individual-ethical lines, a
treatment to which the Tióvot of Heracles especially lent themselves.
in
It was inevitable that the Sophist Antisthenes should engage
3
34
such literary criticism of the myths and thcir allegorisalion. To

these externai circumslances were added decisive inlrinsic factors:
Heracles as the type of Cynic behaviour adumbrated in the frag-
ment of the Likymnios; Heracles as Tcspispyóiisvor, to whom wc
may appiy the anonymous (Euripides?) verses often quolcd by
Diogenes of Sinope, Diog. L. VI 38, Nauck, Adesp. 284:
ãTzoÁiç aoixoç, Tzxxpíooç èax£p'/}jX£VOC,

Tw-cwyè^ —XxvYjXTjç, ^íov lywv xoO'p’ 7j|iépav.
Heracles, whose laborious wanderings Sócrates uses as a com-

parison to describe his own search for the true meaning of the
Delphic Oracle, Plat. Apol. 22 a; Heracles as the suffering eu£p-
the misunderstood hero, the victim of fate; Heracles as
ooOXo; though ^xGiÁsúç; Heracles as the non-intellectual «Willens-
mensch». The myth of Heracles thus offered multitiide of
possibilities for a philosophic sect which in its concentration on
the individual loses and gradually deliberately rejects supra-
individual points of view and connections, a sect which in addition,
because of its social origin in circles without full political rights,
was burdened by social and political discontent which formed an
emotional background to a programme for the revision of values;
a sect which, because of the above mentioned features, is distinctiy
non-intellectual and at the same time strongly emotional, attaches
great importance to will and is inspired by a strong sense of
mission; finally, a sect which for the same reason is international
and whose members were in a peculiar degree Tzepiepy^óiisvoi. The
saga of Theseus provides a suggestive comparison. For it, too,
is ull of heroic deeds which could have lent themselves to alle-
^risation equally well as the nóvoi of Heracles: similarly, we find
ê philanthropia motif, the suffering £Ò£pY£xr^ç, the Tzspiepxóiisvoi:-
mo I etc. But Theseus’ position as a national Athenian hero made
it impossible to
use his story for international purposes. From
a l^ychological point of view the idealisation of Heracles is natural
an easily explicable. A Cynic idealisation of Theseus would have
been an absurdity.
The Cynic hero-idealisations represent a difficult problem
since there is a dearth of reliable material which might throw
light on the matter. All that remains are a few fragments
and some book titles which Diog. L. has preserved. According
35
to Diog. L. VI 16 ff, Antisthcnes \vas tlie aulhor of three works

on Heracles: 'HpaTcX-^c ó |1£íÇwv Tzspi íaxóoç, 'Hpxy.X^ç 9) Míõocç,
"Hpocy.Xfjt: Yj Ttspl 'spovYjasiúç 9j ioxóoç. However, in Diog. L. VI 104
and 105, [Eratosth.] Catast. 40, Aristippus’ Ep. 9 Hercher, only
a 'HpaxXyjç is nientioned,finally in Diog. L.II 61 'HpaxX-î: èXáaawv.
Diogenes of Sinope, according to Diog. L. VI 80, wrote a
tragedy entitled 'HpaxXfjç. But we find no slatements thal the other
Gynics belonging to the oldest period, Grates, Philiscus, Metrocles,
Monimus, Onesicritus, wrote Avorks on Heracles. We can affirm
provisionally that in the earlier Gynicism diminishing use is
made of Heracles as a literary figure. This is connected with a
general literary tendency to which we return later.
Everything which indicates that Antisthenes composed works
on the subject of Heracles is collected in H. Dittmar, Aischines
von Sphettos, p. 300 ff. The following are the references, apart
froin mere titles, according to Dittmar’s numeration:
1. Diog. L. VI 2, cf. Julianus VI 187 B f.

2. Diog. L. VI 104.
3. Diog. L. VI 105, cf. VI 12.
4. [Eratosth.] Gatast. 40, p. 45, ed. Olivieri.
5. Proclus, In Plat. Alcib. I 98, cd. Kreuzer.
6. Plut. De vit. pud. 18= Mor. 536 B.
7. Themistius, Ilept àpexYjc 33 (transiated from the Syrian
by Gildemeister, Rhein. Mus. 27, 1872, p. 450 ff).
Of these fragments Nos. 4 and 5 treat of the same matter,

namely Heracles’ association with the centaur Chiron. No. 6 is
possibly connected with these, being a warning to young nien not
to give heed to flatterers. No. 7 contains a dialogue between
Heracles and Prometheus. The others contain what is most
imporlant and essential, namely the theoretical discussions in
Diog. L. with their proclamation ot tzóvoç.
Only a part of this material can be designated as fragments in
the real sense of the word, namely the statements which are con-
cerned with the Ghiron episode and the story of Prometheus. The
rest are summarised accounts which at íirst sight seem to con-
flict with the fragments. In these latter Heracles is portrayed as a
pupil. He receives instruction in àpsxYj írom the centaur Chiron,
who was renowned for his wisdom, pietj^ and gentleness as well
36
as for his power of seeing into the future. Chiron was the tutor
and friend of many Greek heroes. His relationship with
Heracles was the subject of a number of different versions on
which Antisthenes built his own portrayal of the hero, fragm.
4—5 (6?) constituting the only remains.” They provide us with
but scanty information: Heracles comes to Chiron’s cave and
enjoys the instruction of the centaur: ^y.ousv auxoO, y.aô-áírsp ’Avxt-
a^évTTjç cpTjaiv ó Swy.paxty.òç èv xw 'Hpay.Xst. In the scholia Slroz-
ziana (on which see Dittmar, op. cit., p. 302 f) the text runs:
Chironem . . . inter homines aequissimiim, a quo Aesculapius
medicinam, Achilles citharam, f in astrologiam, Hercules litteras
didicissent. Cuius hospitio Hercules usus, sicut Antisthenes dicit,
etc. Antisthenes was not the source of the story according to which
Chiron met his death as the result of a wound inflicted by Heracles’
arrows which had fallen out of his quiver.^ In the Themistius
fragment Prometheus reproaches Heracles for caring more about
earthly than heavenly things. We return to this point later.
The conclusion which can be drawn from all this is not
far to seek. On the one hand we have a picture of Heracles
as a pupil, on the other hand the TOVOç-proclamation in Diog.
L.’s account. One of the book titles mentioned provides some
enlightenment if it is combined with a remark of Antisthenes
(Diog. L. VI 11) in which the idea of àpsxTQ is coupled with 2w*/.pa-
xiy.T) aòxápy.yj 5è xYjV àpexYjv npòç euoaiiiovíav, iivjôsyèc Tcpoa-
SeonévTjv Sxt iiY) S(i)y.paxty.í)ç Ea/úo?. The work entitled 'Hpay.Xíic
í) TTepi cppovYjacwç 9) layúoç may well have contained such views.^
In his versions of the Chiron and Prometheus episodes, Antisthenes
presented a re-interpretation of the myth of Heracles, possibly on
the lines of Sophistic allegory, and this took the form of a set
instruction: lay^úç> çppóvTjau:> àpexYj. Unfortunately we have no
means of deciding to what extent Antisthenes used or reshaped
the material of the traditional saga.
Heracles as a pupil receiving instruction in apexir) justiíies our
assuming that the portrait of Heracles presented was far removed
from the undisciplined hero of the saga. Diog. L.’s account, too,
contains a number of motifs which are difficult to harmonise with
® Cf. RE III 2305, s.v. Chiron.

^ Dittmar, op. cit., p. 302, polemising with R. Hirzel, Der Dialog, I 120,2.
® Dittmar, op. cit., p. 87, n. 68.
37
the old saga. The general expression tióvoç = «Ya^óv, Diog. L.

VI 2: y.ai Sxt ó tíóvoç àYa3’òv ouvéaxYjas Stà xou jjLSYáXou '^HpaxXéouç
V.0LÍ xou Kúpou, xò |ièv à7rò xü>v 'EXXtqvwv, xò 5è à^ò xwv âp^ápiúv
éXy.úaai;, finds ils full significance only within the framework of
Cynic views of the xéXoç, Diog. L. VI 104: àpéaxet. S’ aòxotç xai
xéXo; eivat xò xax’ àpexYjv Çyjv, (bç 'AvxtaO^évYjç cprjaiv èv xô) 'HpaxXel.
The concept of àpevrj was developed by Antisthenes in a Heracles
Work in which he propounds the Socratic and Sophistic view which
later became canonical: the teachability and indispensability of
virtue, Diog. L. VI 105: àpéaxsc 5’ auxorç xat xYjV àpex^v otSaxxY)v
eivat, xaô-á cpyjGiv ’AvxtaO*évY]ç èv xw 'HpaxXeT, xal àvauópXYjxov
Ò7cáp)^£tV. The natural corollary to this is the Cynic ao<^óç-ideal,
which was later taken over in its entirety by the Older Stoa. The
wise man is faultless, lovable, a friend of his fellows, Diog. L.
VI 105: àÇtépaaxóv xe xòv aoi^òv xat àvap.ápxY)xov xat çtXov xtp ójiotto,
xóîg xe lAYjSev èTitxpeTcetv. In other words, he is the ethical superman-
type, bent on his own perfection. Added to this is the aristocratic
friendship,® which further accentuates the gulf between the wise
man and the broad masses. Prometheus’ words to Heracles in
the Themistius fragment are in the same spirit: when Heracles
learns »what is higher than man he has also learned what
humanity is worth, that is to say he has realised its worthlessness.
We may have doubts about the possibility of harmonising
these general theses with the traditional Heracles stories without
recourse to allegorical treatment on the lines of the Herodorus
fragment. Perhaps the only conclusion to be drawn from the texts
cited is in fact that they point to an allegorical re-interpretation
of the myth of Heracles along purely individualistic lines.
3.
The evidence for Diogenes’ treatment of the story of Heracles

is still scantier than for Antisthenes’, for in the Diogenes tradition
there is only one passage which gives the impression of authenticity
manner
in the sense that it is a true expression of Diogenes’ own
of using this hero-idealisation, Diog. L. VI 70—71. On the other
hand this passage, which I believe is actually an account of Dio-
® In the Heracles mylh e.g. Heracles and Apollo. Heracles and Ghiron,
Heracles and lolaus, Heracles and Theseus.
38
genes »Heracles» or possibly some other work of Diogenes in

which Heracles
was used to present certain pedagogical views, is
of such significance that, as the most important testimony for the
Cynic treatment of Heracles in the 4th century, it influeiices our
whole view of Diogenian Cynicism.
The doxography Diog. L. VI 70—71 forms a well-defined
whole, in which the basic theme is the use and ncccssity for
exercise of body and soul. The passage concludes with a refcrence
to Heracles: Diogenes lived in the same way as he and rated no-
thing higher than freedom. Two problems demand elucidation:
first the date and secondly the concluding reference to Heracles.
The doxographical section which is inserted in the Diogenes
life
comprises §§ 70—73 and stands out from its context because
ot its theoretical character. The doxography contains no anecdotes
or bonniots of the usual type, which are normally scattered over
the whole
account but are concentrated especially in §§ 25—69.
One gets the impression
i that this is a summarised account of a
didactic
^ presentation of the philosopher’s views. Diogenes’ tragedy
wecjxTjç is mentioned as the source of § 73 with an expressed
^servation, however, on the question of authenticity. K. v. Fritz,
vmi zu Leben und Philosophie des Diogenes
" ^ôpe, p. 54 suggests as sources for the other parts of
the doxography the Works IIoXiT£ía and IlepL apeT^ç. His enquiry
is
mainly with the question of the authenticity of the
1 logs, of which he declares the IloXixeca to be unqueslionably
genuine and
probably also the ©uéaxTjç. The HepL àpezfi<;, on the
other hand,
which is the most likely source for the content of
§§ 70—71, is
V. Fritz mentioned only in Sotion’s catalogue § 80, which
V ^ Stoic redaction of Diogenes’ works.
1) that th ^ypothesis rests, therefore, on two assumptions:
jjg . ^ ^ f passage §§ 70—71 constitutes an account of the work
authorsiíi work is not by Diogenes, but of Stoic
its mentio know nothing about the Ilepl àpexy)ç apart from
reveals th^ Sotion’s catalogue. A closer study of the passage
In the the second hypothesis.
a numbe Pâce the passage referred to is characterised by
ãoyriQL pynic words and motifs. v. Fritz himself mentions
cism^^wh^^!!'^’ R- Dudley, A History of Cyni-
o evotes an appendix to this passage, p, 217 ff, adds
39
as well as the reference to Heracles at

eòeçta, tay^óç, eXeu^spía
the end of § 71. One might further add y.axacppóvr/a:ç, euoai-
(jLÓvüK, lhe anlilheses '^à xíjç àpsx^c spva—avtücpsXü)? xat
àxsXwc tioy^srv, xwv àypyjaxwv 7üóvü)v—xoòç xaxà cpúaiv, lhe term ‘tzolv
èxvLXYjaai with its military and agonistic flayour, the Socratic
techniqiie, which enjoyed a special favour with the Cynics, of
using as examples phenomena of everyday life, e.g. craftsmen,
flute players, alhletics, the antithesis to Çfjv sòoat|ióvtoc: Trapa xtjv
àvoiav xaxooatjjiovoOat. The phrases õvxw; vó\iio\ia Trapayapáxxtüv
and lATjOèv ouxco xoiç xaxà vópov (bç xolc xaxà çuaiv otSouç in t le
addendum to the summary account at the end of § 71 refer back
to this cxposé with expressions that are so typically Cynic that
we may suppose that the thesis vóîapa Trapaxapáxxwv was the
subject of a theoretical discussion in the work summarised no less
than the antithesis vó|jloç—(púaiç. The last part of § 71 contains once
more a direct quotation from Diogenes with the pregnant phrase
xòv auxòv yjx.pa.y.zfipa. xou piou Xéywv SteçaYstv, peihaps a \soid
play on Trapayapáxxwv. For the word yapaxxi^p compaie Epictetus
III 22,80.
V. Fritz adds to the above nientioned first four substantives,
which he calls Cynic, a number of »spezifische Schulausdrucke
der Stoa»: ccavxaaíai, àxeXVjc, xà TrpoaYjxovxa otaxopôOaS-a'., xà xaxà
9Óaiv aípeta0ât. It is, however. unthinkable that the terms Trpoayjxwv
and àxsXVjç, which are common in Xenophon, Plato and Aristotle,
should not have occurred in the older Cynic texts. There are in
all only five examples of àxsXVjç in the whole of the Older Stoa,
and not a single one of TrpooTQxwv.^ The phrase noted by v. Fritz,
in the text, where
xà "jrpoaT^xoyxa xaxopô0a6’ac, does not occur
we find only the general expression oòSèv . . . *cò TrapáTcav èv xô
Piíp y(i)piç àaxT^fJscüç xaxop0‘ou(79'ai. ^^^hat holds good foi àxs
and TTpoaYjxwv is also true of xaxopô-óo): it is usual in pre-Cynic
literature and is not exclusively Stoic (11 examples, however, in
the Older Stoa). Finally the phrase xà xaxà cpúatv aEpetaO-at must
be taken in dose connection with the allegory of Prodicus and
its choice between two modes of life, with the emphasis on the one
that is consistem with the Cynic ideal of living xaxà (ûatv. Of the
^ The Sloic word is xò xa9-vjxov. Cf. A. Bonhüffer, Die Ethik des Stoikers
Epictet, p. 199.
40
expressions of the Stoic school there remains to be mentioned

cpavxaaíat. What does this word mean? As Dudley points out,
op. cit., p. 216 f, it has partiy a general meaning »appearance», e.g.
Plat. Theaet. 152 c, cf. 161 e, partly a more technical significance,
Plat. Soph. 264 a: aú|jLji£tÇtç ataS^rjaetoc y.at oóçtjç: »a mixture of
perception and judgement»; cf. Soph. 260 d, 263 d. In Aristotle the
word denotes »an àaô-svVíç xiç ataO-Tjaiç, a residium of sense per
ception in the mind, made weaker by the absence of real sensation»,
Dudley, p. 217. In the Older Stoa the word was of central import-
ance in
the theory of knowledge. The Stoa builds on Sophistic
subjectivism and sensualism and polemises against the theory of
ideas, as did Antisthenes before it. It is possible that Cynicism
was the intermediary through which cpavxaaía attained such im-
portance in the Older Stoa. Epictetus III 24, 67 ff gives a resumé
of Antisthenes’ philosophy: Bià xoOxo èXsYsv 6'xt èç oò jj,’ 'AvxtaO-évrjç
T^Xeuô-spwasv, oôxéxt èooúXeuaa. 7zãç ijX£üd'épo)<Jsv; áxoue, rí ?Ãy£r
èdida^év jis xà èpà y.ai xà oòx èpá. */.x7)atç oòx è|xiQ' ouYysvetç, oíxetoc,
çiXot, auvTQêiç rÓKOi, otarpi^ri, návra, xaõxa ó'xl áXXórpicc. aòv
oõv xí; âvxaaicüv. xaúxvjv êSeiÇév pot ó'xt àxtóXuxov àv-
aváYxaaxov oòdsiç èpTcoo: :aat oúvaxat, oOostç p-.áaaaât áXXwç XP"*^"
oaod-ou ^ d)ç O-éXü). xtç oõv êxt Ixet poa âÇouaíav; The oiily
early Antisthenes parallel is Xen. Symp. IV 34 ff. Even if
this text does not throw direct light on the word «pavxaata, it
exhibits such similarity to the text of Epictetus that we have
some grounds for believing that the latter is actually an exposé of
Antisthenes’ views. It would be remarkable if the most essential
part of this exposé, âvxaoiwv, were not authentic. In any
case the occurrence of the word qjavxaaca in the doxography in
Piog. L. does not constitute a valid reason for condemning the
passage as spurious.
In actual fact, if we compare the various sections with one
another, it is quite clear which part of the doxography bears the
most characteristic Stoic stamp. It is the Tcávxa xwv oocpwy- and vópoç-
sections of § 72, cf. SVF III 158, 11.® v. Fritz regards this part
as
genuine because of the comparatively well authenticated cha-
racter of the üoXtxeta, but the argument is only reasonable if it can
® Cf. aiso SVF III 154,22, 155,35,42, 156,12, 159,12, 160,19.

41
be shown that this paragraph is really a paraphrased account of

Diogenes’ Politeia.®
V. Fritz’ method is untenable. No definite conclusions can be
drawn if our point of departure is the individual works of Diogenes,
since references to their content are few and couched only in
general terms. We must date the motifs by connecting them up
with other known texts, But there always remains the uncertainty
inseparable froni doxographic texts of this kindi with the element-
ary, general character usual in ethical and moralising literature
in all ages and especially in Cynic literature, which operates with
a small nuniber of simple themes.
We now proceed to analyse §§ 70—71 and to compare them
with the Aristippus conversation in Xen. Mem. II 1. This passage,
both as regards its contents and its form,’^ resembles the doxography
in Diog. L. and both texts have points of contact with the speech
of Antisthenes in Xen. Symp. IV 34 ff. The Cynic motifs in the
Aristippus conversation are plain for all to see,® although consider-
able divergencies cannot be denied,
The exposition starts with the thesis of the »double training»:
Aixxyjv S’ eXeysv eívat xyjv áaxYjaiv, xy)V jièv cpuxi>tViv, xyjv Sè aio|Aa-
xtxiQv, which introduces § 70. What follows is obscure at first sight:
xaóxY}v xaO-’ y)v èv yuiJ-vaaía auvcêt cpavxaatat sòXuatav izpòz
xà x^ç àpexYjç êpY* 7rapé)(ovxat. Both R. D. HiCKS in his translation
and Dudley, op. cit., p. 217, make xaúxYjvrefer to the immediately
preceding xy)v Ôè aü)|iaxtx7)v. Physical exercise is supposed to pro-
duce these çavxaaíat, which bring about spiritual suppleness for
the performance of àpsxY}. This interpretation is grammatically
the most justifiable. But it is a well known fact that Greek is
not always consistent in its distinction between oõxoc and èxsivoç.
A form of ouxoç may quite well refer to some other word of the
sentence than the nearest. Will the context allow xauxYjv to refer
to xY)v jièv éoxLytYj\>7 The gist of the relevant paragraphs 70 and
71 is: 1) the dual character of áaxrjacç, spiritual and physical,
2) the necessity of this ácaxyjaiç; and 3) the priority of spiritual
àaxTjaiç. It is hardly probable that Diogenes, with his well known
® Cf. also Diog. L. VI 37 which has the same theme.

’ As far as a brief summary and a full text can formally resemble each
other: in this case the thesis and the reference to Heracles.
® Cf. e.g. § 18, Xen. Symp. IV 41 f and Diog. L. VI 45.
42
criticai attitude towards athletics, evidence of which is apparcnt

precisely in § 70, should have championed physical àay.Tioiç as lhe
direct creator of ethically valuableçavtaatai. What he is mainlain-
ing is aaxYjaiç as a psycho-physical principie. Diogenes emphasises
that if flute players and athletes transferred their physical aa-/.'/jcriç
y.al èrd xrjv oòx av 7.at àzsl&z á|ióyOouv. The
unreal conditional sentence implies that áay.Yjaiç as a purely physi
cal phenomenon is useless, and that it is necessarj" to transfer this
aay.r^Gtç to the spiritual plane for it to beconie ethically valuable,
that is to produce euÀucíay TZpòz x?/ç àpsxf/C Epyn. The nalure of
‘71. There we learn that
this áay.TjG'.; is more fully discussed in
it is necessary to choose between useless Tcóvot. again a polemic
against athletes — and natural tzóvo-.. These latter include y.axa-
cppóvYjai; zf^r ‘^SovYj;, in other words they have no direct connection
with gymnastic e.vercise but contain the fulfilment of an ethical
principie, the effects of which extend over the whole of psycho-
physical life. Heracles, in his Cynic transformation, is represented
as a prototype. His crudely physical labours appear in Herodorus
allegorical interpretation as an ethical struggle. The Chiron episode
and the Themistius fragment suggest a similar treatment.
One further detail should be noted, which shows that psychic
áay.7jaiç is considered of greater importance. In § 70 we read: stvat
o’ áTsXvj TY)V é-épav ytúpk xYjC éxépac, oòoev tjxxov eòsçcaç yat iayúoc
£v zoiz Típoo-^y.ouGt yevo\LÍvri(:, wc Tcepi xy]V
If our contention is true that xaóxvjv y.aÔ’9jv y.xX. in the previous
sentence refers to spiritual ácxTjaiC» then xyjv éxspav must mean
this spiritual áay.Yjaiç, which is incomplete without phj^sical àaTCTjatç.
For sOs^ía and laxúç, the latter an Antisthenic term for spiritual
The end
strength, are as it \vere obligatory qualities of the body.
of the sentence, wç Tzepi xy)v Tcspí xò awjia, show’^s that
the whole discussion has been concerned with spiritual áaxTjCTLç.
Otherwise one would have expected reversal of the word order:
-£pi xò awiia y.al Tiepi xyjv The further exposition with

its polemic against athletics warns against one-sidedness in physi
cal áay.*/5aiç, just as previously the incompleteness of a purely
spiritual áay.Tjaiç had been stressed.
A correct interpretation, then, of the doxography seems to
necessitate taking xaúxYiv xa^’ V)v xxX. as referring to spiritual
Cf. Lucian Cyn. 4: àpsxí) Y“P oó)[iaxoç loyjiç.
43
àay.Yja*.; as lhe crcator of such cpavxaaíat wicli give lhe soul

suppleness in Tacing lhe lasks of àpexTQ.
The opera live word in § 70 is Ôixxyjv, and it is obviously used
wilh a polemicai inlenlion — and by this I mean not only lhe
explicil poleinic againsl alhleles biit also lhe expression (bc
XYjv í|íu/^Y)v y.al Tispl xò awpa. For presupposing that lhe exposé is
correct,lhe expression conlains an allack on exclusively inlellectual
culture. This aspect loo, is well represenled in Cynic doclrine.^
Cerlain circles indeed go so far as lo deny complelely all inlellectual
activity. The Diogenes Laertiiis text wilh its slrong emphasis on
both sides of aaxTjaiç occupies in this respect an intermediate
position.
§ 71 conslitutes a further development of this theme. The
imporlance of lhe áaxTja-.ç-motif is maintained: ouSév ys jítjv IXsys
xò Tiapáiíav èv xtõ àaxigasítíç y.axopô-oOaS-at, SuvaxTjv oè xaú-
xYjv Ttãv èxvty.-âai. The contrary of aaxYjaiç is '^Soví^, but lhe úcaxrj-
av; itself is regarded from a hedonistic point of view: v.cd yàp
OLÒxri xrjç '^joovYjç i] y.axa^póvYjatç ‘fjdvvázr] TcpojisXexTjêiaa, y.aci ôoTzsp
oí ouvcOaaO-évxsç ijoécjç i^Yjv àvjoíõ; èni xoòvavxíov jxsxtaaiv, oOxwc oí
xoòvavxtov àaxrjO’£vx£; “ííStov auxwv xwv 'íjoovwv xaxa^povoõat. Finally
we are introduced lo a third theme, lhe y.axà (fúaiv-motif. On
this point the Diogenes Laertius text offers no definition whatso-
ever, but it is obvious that it is concerned with a twofold polemic:
on the one hand against one-sided intellectualism, on the other
against athletes and the like — Séov oòv àvxi xwv àxpY]<jz(i)v tzóvcúv
xoòç xaxà cpúaiv (=●?) oixxY) ãaycYjacç) éXopévouç Çfjv EÒôatpóvwç, Tzapà
X7JV dcvoiay y.ay.oSatpovoOai. If our interpretation of the passage is
correct, it follows that the expression xapà xYjv ávotav cannot
refer to Socratic intellectualism, even if the Cynics closely followed
the Sophists in believing in the teachability of virtue, but ãvotac
means foolishness and unwillingness to follow the Cynic way to
happiness,^ which is characterised not by intellectual deliberations
^ Cf. Diog. L. VI 11, 103 f and passim.

“ Cf. Plat. Tiin. 8fi b: vÓ30v pev ôvj àvoiav auyxwprjxéov, dúo ô’ àvoíaç
Yévv), xó pèv pavíav, xô 8è àpaa-íav. Cf. also Dio Chrj's. Or. 8,5: 8etv ouv xôv
cppóvtiiov àvôpa, ô)3Jtep xóv àvaS-ôv laxpóv, õkou kXsijzoi xápvouoiv, âxst3e iévat
Porj9-Vjaovxa, oõxwç õícoo TcXeíoxof el3tv ãqjpoveg, âxeí paXioxa êTtiôyjpeív ágeXéYX®''''®
xai xoXáôvxa xíjv àvoiav aòxtbv.
44
but by decision, effective training and strength in other words,

a way of life which gives chief emphasis to the will.
If we now compare the text we have analysed with the
Aristippus polemic in Xen. Mem. II 1, we find the following.
The starting point of the conversation is àay.etv í'ÇApá.-
xeiav and the practical question posed is: who shall be king and
who subject? The negative àay.etv èyy.pázeiav of § 1 is comple-
ted in 3 by xò pt-i] cpeÚYetv xou^ tzóvguç, and the àay.etv-concept
is extended from its purely elementary physical significance to
mean philanthropic Service to the subjects. Then the question is
posed: who lives more happily, oí ãpxovzsç or oí àp'/,óii£V0L? Sócra
tes shows that it is the former because of their right of self-deter-
mination. Their ttovoi contain their joy in themselves, § 18: eneiTa
ó iièv éy.ouaíwç xaXaiTzwpwv èn' èXTTíSt. ttovwv eòcppaívexat. The
passage continues: xoÒí^ oè TiovoOvxaç Iva cpíXouç áY^síSôyç yxYjawvxai,
^ 07Z(ú^ èy^ô-poòç yetpwawvxai, ir) iva ouvaxoi yzvóiieyoi y,od xotç ató-
jiaat y,ad -cacç tûyaiç xai xòv éauxfíjv olxov yaXwç oíy.ôiat y.cci xouç
çtXouç eõ Ttoiüiat, y.at xy)v TcaxpíÔa euepYStõiat, tíwç ouy. ói£a3’ai
xoúxouç xat TiovElv i]Òé(az “cà xotaOxa yai Çi)V eòrppaivojiévouç y.xX.
The particular starting point of the conversation — what sort of
person a ruler should be — determines, of course, its philanthropic
character. The allegory of Prodicus, which follows after this
discussion in Xenophon’s text § 21 ff, is concerned with Heracles’
road to virtue. Here, too, great prominence is given to philan-
thropia.® At the conclusion of the discussion Sócrates expresses
himself as follows, 20: êxt 5è aí |ièy ^(xdioxjpyíou y-cu èy. xoõ izccpa-
XpY)p.a -íjooval oõxe atópiaxt eòeÇíav íy.avaí eíaiv èvep-xà^so^-aa, cpaatv
oí Y^^l^vaaxat, oõxe rjíuxt) èiuaxT^jiYjv àÇtdXoYov oôõeiiíav èjATíO toOaiv, aí
5è S-.à
xapxepíaç èmpLéXEiat xõv xaXtõv xe yàYaO^wv êpYí«>v èÇtxvst-
aâc Tioiouatv, ôç çpaoiv oí àYaO-oi <Xv5pe;. In this polemic against
Aristippus we may detect the dual áaxrjaiç: it is necessary to
achieve both
eòe^ta and è7uaxTf)|jnr]. Both these things can be ac-
quired only otà xapxeptaç. In the allegory of Prodicus the rela-
tionship awp,a—t|)uxY) is illuminated by the following words to
Heracles, § 28: eí 8è xat xw awjiaxi poúXet Suvaxòç etvai, x^
OTtYjpexerv èO-taxéov xò awpta* xaí YuiAvaaxéov aòv ttóvoiç xat íopõxt.
Here, too, ÃaxTjgtç is considered as a psycho-physical principie,
The account in § 19 is probably a borrowing from lhe Prodicus alle
gory § 28.
45
although Xenophon betrays no acquaintance with the çavzaata-

theory of the Diogenes Laertius text — the word does not occur at
all in Xenophon — a fact we may attribute to Xenophon’s lack of
understanding for epistemological and theoretical problems in
general.
We now summarise the resemblances between the Aristippus
conversation and the allegory of Prodicus on the one hand, and
Diog. L. VI 70—71 on the other, starting from the latter text.
1) The thesis about dual training in Diog. L. is found through-
out the Xenophon passages: not only the èYxpáxsta-theme in
§ 1 ff etc., which can be brought under the rubric àoxyjaiç
but also the feats of physical endurance §§ 6, 17, 18, 19, 20 in the
Aristippus conversation, § 28 and passim in the allegory of Pro
dicus, i.e. àaxYjoiç a(i)|iaxiXTQ.^
2) The danger of one-sided àaxTjatç awjxaxixiQ is emphasised
in Diog. L. in the polemic against athletes. No such polemic is
found in Xenophon. Cf. on the contrary § 20, where ol y\j\ivaaxaí
are offered as evidence for the harmfulness of aí
-fjSovat to bodily sòsÇca. But the same state of affairs is indicated
in the allegory of Prodicus, § 28: x^ C>7í>]pexeiv è^toxéov xò
a(õ|ia. Nor can we detect in the Aristippus conversation the contrary
point of view, i.e. an attack on one-sided intellectualism, which is
quite natural since Sócrates is the speaker. In the allegory of
Prodicus, on the other hand, Heracles is presented as a decidedly
non-intellectual type.
3) The hedonistic view of dcaxvjotç in Diog. L. shows that what
is meant is not an out-and-out rigorous asceticism. The Xenophon
text represents a similar point of view. So, too, the speech of
Antisthenes in Xen. Symp. IV 39: xat Ttávxa xoívuv xaOxa oOxwc
-íjSéa jjioi Soxet eivat ü)? jxãXXov p-èv 'ÇjSeaS-at ttoiõv gxaaxa aòxôiv
oòx átv £0Çat[i7)v, -^xxov 5é.
4) In both texts the aim and purpose is a practical one con-
cerned with individualistic ethics: sò5a*.{AÓVü)ç Çíjv. So, too, in the
* Cf. Dio. Chrys. Or. 13,16 (Xóyov âpxaiov, Xsyó|ievov útzó tivoç Scüxpátous!):
oò8s|i£av eõpóvxeç oõxs Tcaíôsooiv otjxe ãaxyjaiv íxavíjv oòôè cbcpéXijiov ãvO-ptÓTCoig, r^v
natSeuS-évxeç ôuvyioê39-s xotç ôp8-t&g xat Stxafwç, áXXà prj pXa-
pspÉóg xal áôfxtóç, xxX. Cf. also Antisthenes, Stob. Anth. II 31,68: Asl xoi)g
liéXXovxag àvaS-ouç àvSpag yeviíaeoS-at xó jxèv o(Bp.a yoiivaofoiS àoxetv, xíjv 8è
cpoxîv 7íat8sÚ3e'..
46
speech of Antisthenes: the contrast bctween -:úpavvoi. and

§ 36 f.
5) The expression y.a-rà which appcars in Diog. L. and
probably there refers to fj oizzYj aay.yjatr, is not found in Xcnopbon,
but the general tendency is to preach the importance l'or virtue
of a simple and healthy way of life and its superiority to artificial
over-civilisation. In the speech of Antisthenes the y.xzx çúatv-
theory is pushed to its extremity.^
6) To the supreme importance of the aay.râir-thcme in Diog.
L., oòoáy Y£ . . . '/(opiç ócGy,ri<7S(j)ç, Xenophon corresponds witli a
similar view of í'(y.pá.zzix and -óvo' as a basic principie, just as
in the allegory of Prodicus we íind the expression, S 32: spyov
0£ y.aXòv o’jX£ {)’£Toy o'jz' àyô*p(í)7:£ioy xojpiç è|ioü (sc. ’Apzz-q) YÍyvzzxi.
7) In Diog. L. we have a reference to the ethical necessity
of a deliberate choice depending on an act of will: 5sov oOy dvzi
zõ)v xypriGZíúv —óycoy xoòí^ y.axà 's-jgív £Xo;iéyouç ^“^y eòoxiiióvior, Tzxpx
XYjy xvoLxv y.ay.ooai|ioyoOai. This theme occurs again not only in
the allegory of Prodicus but also in the Aristippus conversa-
tion, § 11: sivxL [LOL òoy,ZL |JL£aY] ZO'JZ(j)V ÓOÓZ, Y/y 7Z£LpüiiJLai pxdí-
Ç£iy. Sócrates disputes this third way and in so doing throws the
alternative into higher relief.
8) The expression in Diog. L. [xr^Sèy èX£’JÔ’£píac Ttpoy.píyíoy is
also the theme of the Aristippus conversation: è^SÊXoyxYjy 3, ó
OÜXü) Otzò xü>y àyxiTtáXwy rj zx
7r£ík,atO£'j|jLéyo^ r/xxoy av boy.si go’.
Xo-.—à uõja áXtay.Eaô-ai § 4, cf. the resem-
17, 18. But here
blances are merely individual-ethical: in both texts the personal
freedom gained by iyy.pxzzix and ácjyv/acç. Cf. the speech of
Antisthenes, § 43: áçtoy 0’ èyyoYjaat, d)c y,xi èXEUô-Epíouç ó zoiouzoz
TtXoOXGÇ
Z Tzxpzyezxi. In the Aristippus conversation, Aristippus main-
tains that existence outside society contains the only possibility of
freedom, §11: oux£ S-.’ xpyjiç oõx£ otà bouXeíxç, àXXà 5t’ èX£u3'£ptaç,
YjTCEp jjiáXioxa 7ípò; EÒoatjioyíay ãyzi. Cf. § 13: oòo’ £íç TtoXixsíay
è{iauxòv y.axay.XEÍw, àXXà çévoç r^xyxxyoü Sócrates’ reply to

this is that such an existence is not possible for human beings.
Freedom achieved in this a-social way is not represented by
Heracles in the allegory of Prodicus.
® E.g. § 38: àv 3é tíoxs xai ã:fpo5ici'.áaat. xò a&\iá. |iou Ôerjthijj» 0'iX(à goi xò
Trapiv ãpxsí ôjxe aí;, âv TípoaéX^-w ÚTtepaoTcáÇovxaí |is 5tà xò [ir^Sáva àXXov
aüxat; áS-áÂctv Tcpcaisvai.
47
9) The polemicai expression in Diog. L., oòoèv Tjxrov sòs^íaç

"/.ai taj^úoc èv xo:r 7zpooYjy,ooGt ysvoiiévrjç, also occiirs in Xenophon,
§ 20: aí |ièv âdiovp'fíai '/.ai ê*/. xoõ Ttapaj^prjjia iôovai ouxs atópaxt
eòsÇíav iy.avaí sígiv èvspYaÇsaO-ai, çaatv oÍ yonvaGzaí, oõxs
èTwcaxYjjiTY^ àçtóXoYov oòosjxíav èp7ro'.o0a:v. The problem of physical
eòsÇía was a hurning question in Socratic circles; cf. Xen. Mem.
III 5,1 õ and 12,1 ff. With aí ... èy. xou Tvapa^p-íjpa -ôovaí cf. the
speech of Antislhcnes, 5? 41: “/.ai tzoXò tzXéov oia^pépsi Twpô- -fjdoviqv,
õxav àya|i£tva.^ xò osTjO-^vat Típoacpéptopai 9j ó'xav xivi xtõv xipítov
)(p(õpat, &G7Zsp y.ai vOv xtõos xto 0aat(p otvto èvxu/tbv oò ôtibwv tzívcú
aòxóv. Xenophon made constant use of this theme in the C3T0-
paedia. It occupies a prominent position also in the allegorj^ of
Prodicus, §§ 30 and 33.
The similarities of theme we have noted do not constitiite a
decisive proof. On the other hand, they provide some grounds for
believing that the passage Diog. L. VI 70—71 is an account of
early Cynic propaganda, and oiir being able to establish this fact
is all the more important in that it is one of the fevv sources of
information about an early Cynic idealisation of Heracles. For
it seems to me quile probable that the concluding words of this
section are to be taken ad notam, in other words Heracles is the
prototype of the way of life which this passage is concerned with
propagating: xoiaOxa SisXéys^co v-ai ttoiwv ècpatvsxo, õvxo)ç vópiapa Tza-
pa/apáxxtüv, prôèv oüxto xote r.axà vópov òç xot? %axà cpúaiv StSoóe*
xòv auxòv yâpa-z.x^^pa xoO |3íoi) Xéywv ôisÇáYstv ôvTcep y.ai ^HpaxXrjç,
p-yjoèv IXeuOepíae Tzpoy.píviov. And if we feel ourselves in a posi
tion to ascribe such views to any particular work, there are no
grounds for following V. Fritz in going outside the catalogue
which Diog. L. himself provides. We have in his list a tragedy
»Heracles» by Diogenes. It is probable that such »tragedies» were
not tragedies in the real sense but rather didaclic writings.®
4.
The Heracles of the early Cynic fragments is conceived along

purely individual-cthical lines. We have seen that this is true in
esscnce, too, of the Heracles we meet in the fragment of Herodorus
and partly also in the allegory of Prodicus. In the latter text, how-
" Cf. W. Cronert, Kolotes and Menedemos, p. 62,303.
48
ever, prominence is givcii lo the philanthropia motif, obvioiisly

under the influence of the saga, No trace oí Ihis traditional pliilan-
thropia is found in fiie few íragments oí‘ early Cynicism. 'Hiat
this was otherwise a trait of the Hcracles of 4tli ceiilury
literature can he secii from Isocrales, who makes constant use
of the hero, e.g. Or. V 114 to Philip of Macedon: Xéyoi 5’ wr
Suv/jadjisvov x—áazç as |ujiV)aaa-9*a: xàç 'HpaxÀsao': Tzpxç 0’J0£
yàp av -õ)V O-swv £V'.oi oavr^-ii'. V xAÁx y.x~x ‘fz ~o ■‘fl òoyji^ Yjilo;
y.zi ■Axyb-püiT.íxy y.x -zriv z'JVOixv, Y/V s:/£V zo-j' "EÀÀyp/a-,
5'j'/zí’
XV óiiouDÍhriVxí èy.sívou jjaoÀ-^[iaa'v. Cf. V 76: xTZXGTjr
xa- “'õl 'EÀÀáSc Hí zr^:. In Lsocrates this comparison with
Heracles finds ils explanation in his desirc to afford a pan-Hellenic
model for Philip. Apart from this we must admit that in coiu-
parison with õth cenlurv interest in Heracles Panyassis, Pindar,
all three Greek íragedilans, Bacchylides, Prodicus and olhers —
the following cenluries show, at least in literature, a striking
lack of concern in the epic of Heracles. l'here is no trace of
original creation or of a re-shaping of the traditional material
with the frcedom which lhe aulhors of the õth century allowed
themselves, Heracles’ naine and varioiis labours are menlioned
passim in literature, buí on tlie whole the references are only in
general terms, so that one never has the impression of a living and
developing litcrary tradition. Plato is illuminating in this respect,
for while he mentions Heracles in all about ícn times, he never
goes into detail: the references are casual and occur chicfly in
transitional passages of the dialo gues.”^ The same is true of Xeno-
phon, in whom, apart from the allegory of Prodicus, the references
to Heracles are extremely causai and scheniatic . Aristotie, like
Plato, has a
nuinber of passages referring to Heracles, none of
which
are of interest. The author of Problemata, 953 a, appiies
to Heracles lhe expression Upx vóooç. All men who have excelled
m philosophy, politics, poetry and the other arts áre characterised
by that tcmperament which is the result of excessive bile, cpacvovxat
\izXx'('/oALyoi dvxs;, and a deleterious excess at that. As an example
Heracles is cited. The author was thinking of the outbreak of niad-
ness in Euripides’ Ileracles, when the hero, after foaming at the
mouth, falis into a deep sleep. This was interpreted as an
' Laíer on we will deal wilh Cral. 411 a and líuthyd. 297 c.
49
epileplic fit. This sober, medicai view of Heracles did not prevent
the aulhor, however, from regarding him as a being of super-
human powers.
The same is true also of the orators, apart from Isocrates.
Demosthenes, for instance, uses Heracles’ name almost exclusively
in oalhs. References of a different kind are found only in a few
passages. The same is true of Aeschines. Lysias mentions Heracles
in one place ® where he speaks of his suvotav zfjç 'EXXáôoç, which
manifested itself in the founding of the Olympic games. In this
passage we note the philanthropia theme to which Isocrates gave
prominence: èxsívoç zoòç zupávvouç sTcauas xat xouc OjSpíÇovxaç
âxwXuaev. Heracles had particular purpose in founding the
Olympic games: ■^'fi^Ga.zo yàp xòv èvS-áSs aúXXoyov àpyi]V yevYjGs-
a9’at xoi(; "EXXvjai zf)ç npòç àXXi^Xouç cptXtaç. As we have mentioned,
Isocrates used Heracles deliberately for purposes of political
propaganda, although in passing he touches on the individual-
ethical side of the hero’s character, V 110: âoíwç av èTréôstÇa
xòv npóyovov Opwv xat x^j cppovrjosí xai x^ (ptXoxijxía xal x^j otxaio-
aúvig TtXéov 5'.£V£Y>'-óvxa Tcávxwv xwv ^
xoO awjiaxoç. Heracles’ real task was his work of pan-Hellenic
reconciliation to build up a front against the barbarians, V 111 ff»
cf. V 132, 144. Isocrates’ examples are interesting in that they
Show a deliberate attempt to use a mythical personage for political
purposes. Isocrates was, however, fully aware of the ethical
propaganda of Heracles. The antithesis belween his individual-
ethical virtues and zy pwjiig zy xoO awjjLaxoç recalls the develop-
ment of the subject by Herodorus, Prodicus and Antisthenes.
It constitutes another example of the preaching of Heracles which
we encountered earlier in Diog. L. VI 70—71.
This comparative neglect of the story of Heracles in extra-
Cynic literature must influence our views of the small number of
Heracles fragments in lhe earlier Cynic tradition. Diog. L. ascribes
three «Heracles» works to Antisthenes and a tragedy to Diogenes,
but nothing is found in the other fourth century Cynics which
even suggests' Heracles-propaganda.^* The conclusion is obvious:
Heracles declined rapidly in popularity both in Cynic and in extra-
Or. 33,1.
If not lhe anonymous Heracles verse Plut. De cx. 5 = Mor. 600 F, which
4
ÕO
Cynic literature. The vogue he enjoyed during lhe wht)Ie 5lh

century in epic, lyric, tragedy, and finally in lhe allegorical and
rationalistic interpretation of ni3’th, did not continue into lhe 4th
centu^3^ The only thing which survived aparl from lhe sterile
references scattered throughout literature, including Isocrates’ poli-
tical propaganda, is the allegory and the individual-elhical pro
paganda in C3'nic circles. But even here interest quickh' declined.
Allegorical interpretation required certain inlellectual powcrs both
in the interprelers and their audience. The growing vulgarisalion
and anti-intellectual proletarisalion of earl3’ Cynicism brought
about the disappearance of the literar3^ Heracles allegory.'
B. Heracles in the Greek Literature of the Roman Age iinder the

Influence of Cynicism.
1.
It is not until Dio Chrysostonms that we find any extensivo

use of Heracles. Besides scattered references to the hero, Dio has
a few longer passages which offer an allegorical exposition of the
mythology of Heracles. In addition to this he providos a sligbtly
recast version of the allegory of Prodicus and other fairly lengthy
exemplifications. If we follow H. v. Arnim’s dating of the
speeches in his Dio von Prusa, it will be seen that all lhe references
to Heracles in Dio which are of interest in this connectioii belong
to the time of Dio’s exile or later.^ There can be no doubt that
this use of Heracles by Dio in the works written during or after
his exile was directly due to his becoming acquainted with a Cynic
way of life and Cynic literature. This permits us to draw certain
general conclusions about earlier Cynic idealisations of Heracles.
At this point we must discuss the views of v. Fritz, who has
dealt with Dio Chr3^sostomus in his investigations into the sources
F. Dümmler, Antisthenica, p, 68=Kleine Schrift., I 71, combines with the

similar verse Diog. L. VI 98= Diels, Poet. Philos. Fragm., p. 222, No. 15.
^ Cf. the surveys in O. Gruppe, Heralcles, RE Suppl. III 1120 f, and
W. SCHMID, op. cit., IV 539 ff.
® Striclly speaking Heracles is mentioned only in four speeches before
lhe exile, and in lhe Ihree spurious speeches Or. 37, 63 and 64. Of the
speeches written during and after lhe exile, Heracles is mentioned in seventeen!
51
of Diogcnes, p. 71 ff. v. Fritz, following the procedure usual in

his monograph, lakes as his slarting point the individual works
of Diogenes and their postulated content and arrives at the con-
clusion that Dio on the whole is useless as a source for our know-
ledge of tlie historical Diogenes and his views, but not for An-
tisthenes. For artistic reasons Antisthenes’ theories are put into
the mouth of Diogenes. The weakness of such a proceeding is
obvious. It appears more clearly when v. Fritz determines what
Diogenes can or cannot have written of the utterances given to
him by Dio in the Diogenian speeches and the royal speeches. In
aclual fact we know absolutely nothing about this. Works may
have been lost, the tities in Diog. L. permit no conclusions, isolated
fragments are not the same as a complete exposé. Only about the
various themes are we in a position to make any statements:
displacements, variations, and the like as compared with the earlier
tradition, idea-historical milieu etc. In individual cases we can
make general statements about Dio’s sources. But the scanty
remains of earlier Cynic literature do not permit any detailed
conclusions.
The eighth oration, which we take as our starting point, con-
tains first a short historical sketch of Diogenes, his meeting with
the Socratics, especially Antisthenes, and his move to Corinth after
Antisthenes’ death. The chief theme of the oration is the struggle
against yjoovtq. The formal resemblance with the doxography
Diog. L. VI 70 ff is clear: -?j6ovYj, ttovoç, ávoia, the polemic against
athletes, eudaemonism etc., and the citing of Heracles as an
example and a niodel. The efforts which the struggle against -^Sov-iq
required are called by Diogenes 13: Ttóvouç . . . jxáXa iaxupoóç xe
%<uX àvrzYjxouc 6tíò àv9’p(í)7C(ov èiATCsTiXYjaixévwv %cd x£xu'^ti)|xev(i)v xcd xàç
jièv 'íjiiépaç õXaç èaí)".óvx(ov, èv Ss xaT; vuÇt ^syxóvxwv. In this con-
neclion it is a misunderstanding on the part of v. Fritz, p. 84,
when he regards the description of tzóvol as àvxaYWviaxaí as an un-
Gynic trait on the grounds that it contradicts the thesis of Anti
sthenes that Tíóvoz=áy(x.%'óv. The polemicai expression in § 28,
óiç, xôv èizÍTzovov j3íov à^-Xtov õvxa, shows fully, on the contrary, that
we have here a piece of typically Cynic propaganda against the
popular view of tíóvoç as a %a%óv. llóvoç is not a good in itself
but becomes a good only when it is put in an ethical context. One
of the finest examples we have of the Cynic diatribe style is tound
52
in this oration, §§ 15—16, wilh an account of all the various kiiicls

of 7ZÓV0L which Cynics willingly take upon themselves merely for
the sake of their own moral development. The term loscs thereby
its peculiar connolation of »suffering»: tzcVíixv 5è y.od çuyyjv ‘/.ai xoo-
^íav y.ai xà zoiauxa |ir/5èv oeivòv aOxü), âXXà Tzávo y.oO'^x,
y.at TZoX)^áy.iç TüaíÇeiv èv aòzoiç xòv ávopa xòv xáXsiov. A nian musl
face these tzóvoi with firm courage, wilhout hesilalion or fcar,
since otherwise the battle against rjdovq would be half lost, í? 18:
èàv iiév xtç Toòz 7ZÓVOUÇ oéyrjzaíi y.axacçpovwv y.ad TrXYjaiáÇvj Tzpod-óiitot:,
oò Tiávu iayúovGi Tüpòç auxóv èàv oè ácpiax-^xaL y.ad àva/wpti»
Tcavzi iieíÇooç y.ad. G'soõpóz£pot Õo-agOgl. A similar resolution, as
Diogenes poínts out, is necessary in pulting out a fire. In this
moral struggle Diogenes compares himself with Heracles. He reali-
ses that men have little interest in his activities in this respect, but
Heracles, too, did not enjoy the consideration he deserved, but in
his time, as today, men showed more admiration for athletes. It
emerges from this contrast between athletes and Heracles that
the point at issue is a spiritualised view of Heracles and his Ttovoi.
As the argument proceeds it becomes clear that we are dealing with
a Cynic polemic against the popular conception of Heracles. The
text reads, § 28: xòv oè 'Hpay.Xéa TrovoOvxa jièv xaí àyo)VLÇóixevov
'fjXéouv, y,(xi êcpaaav auxòv àv^S^pwTTWv àxhXtwxaxov' y.oíi otà xoOxo à8’Xouç
èxáXouv zoòç 7ZÓVGUÇ aòxou y.al xà èpyoí, (bç xòv ènÍTZOVOv ptov à8*X’.ov
õvxa’ àTCoôâvóvxa oè uávxcDv jxáXiaxa xi|Xü)at. y.ad d'aòv vo|xcÇouat y.aí
cpaaiv "Epig ouvotzstv. ywal xoóxw Tiávxeç eijyovzoíi, õtzwc ctòzol
èaovxai àS’Xiot, xw TiXetaxa à'8’XTQaavxi. The picture of Heracles that
Diogenes here adumbrates is that of one exposed to involuntary
suffering through no fault of his own: it is in fact the Heracles of
drama and the traditional saga, e.g. Euripides’ Heracles, 1. 1196:
oux àv etoeiTjç èxspov TcoXujxoî^íl^óxepov TioXuTüXaYXxóxspóv xs '8’vctxwv.
But this was the very point against which Cynic propaganda, sum-
marised in Antisthenes’ catchword 7tóvo5=àYa'9'óv, was directed.
We may detect an echo of this Cynic criticism in the irony evinced
in Dio Chrysostomus towards those who pray for protection from
misfortune to the very one whom they consider the most unfor-
tunate of all.
The moral struggle against i^Sovy) is designated by the tech-
nical term tcóvoc and Heracles is held up as an example. This
implies an allegorisation of Heracles’ activity. But we do not find
53
a complete allegory but an ethical rationalisation of the saga: the

motives for the heroic deeds narrated are ethical. Heracles’
struggle against various persons is a struggle against gluttony,
arrogance, weakness, vanity, and avarice, Dio leaves the allegory
to the reader: it is in any case transparent enough.®
The athletic type of Heracles, with bulging muscles and far
from spiritual appearance, was probably also the object of Cynic
polemic. Diogencs contrasts two types, the athlete and the Cynic
Heracles who has no trait in common with athletes, § 30: tcoO
yàp ay y]Ouvi^9’‘/] TiposX^slv aápxaç 'coaaóxaç xoaouxwv xpewv
osójisvoç Y) âS’òv oOxítíç utcvov TcaS^súSwv; àXX’ y-oíi Xstixóç,
(úGKZp 6i Xáovxsç, ôÇò pXÉTcWV, ôÇò àTtoútúV, oOxs )(£t.|j,ü)VO? oõxe y.au-
|j.axoç cppovxíÇtüv, oòSèv 0£Ó|jl£V0ç axpü)|iáxü)V ^ )(Xavto(i)V y) xaTcr/XWV,
àXXà oÉpjia à|X7í£)(óji£V0i; ÛTrapóv, XnioO tivIwv, xoTç PoT^-
9-üiv, xoòç y.ay.oòç yoXáÇwv. The Cj^nic picture of Heracles which
is prescnted in this passage has nothing in common with the ath
letic, sensual Heracles of satyrical drama and comedy. He is
adapted to the Cynic ideal of behaviour and appears in his new
guise as a Cynic saint, a portrait for which, in all probability, Dio
was directly indebted to earlier Cynic sources. v. Fritz, op. cit,,
p. 85, regards it as not impossible that Antisthenes himself was
the source — a view which is lent some support by the mention
of Heracles and Prometheus as well as of Circe, about whom
Antisthenes wrote a book.
On the other hand, v. Fritz maintains that he has established
»mit ziemlicher Sicherheit» that the long protreptic passage §§ 12
—35 cannot be derived from Diogenes. This belief, like the pre-
ceding, depends on the correctness of v. Fritz’ thesis that Dio for
artistic reasons uses Diogenes as a mouthpiece for Antisthenes
ideas. It is, however, unclear why Dio could not have used a
Diogenian source for this speech. We have already pointed out the
similarities with the doxography in Diog. L. VI 70 ff. Paragraph
14, in which Diogenes proposed that over-fed athletes should be
slaughtered, boiled in saltwater and eaten, is burlesque in character
and we may well credit Diogenes’ grim sense of humour with
such a proposal. In any case the tone of the passage can hardly
be reconciled with v. Fritz’ assertion p. 81: »einmal sleht der
3 § 31 ff.
54
Ton und die ganze Haltung dessen, was Dion bringl, mit dem Slil
der Fragmente aus wahrscheinlich ecliten diogcnischen Schrií teii,
die wir haben, im Widerspruch». Wc say nothing of other cxamples
of vulgar àvaíosia in Dio’s works.
Whereas the Heracles allegory in Or. 8 is mcrely adumbrated
and takes the form of a rationalisation of Heracles’ labours, in
Or.60 we find an interesting example of a fully developed Heracles
allegory.
In this speech Dio presents in dialogue form a version of
the Deianeira saga which in its moralising form is probably a
typical example of the Cjmic method of treating a traditional story.
Under the influence of Deianeira, Heracles becoines soft. The
clothing which Deianeira persuades Heracles to put on symbolises
the change in his way of life, § 8: ócjxa Sè z%\ ozo\% v.atX xrjv dXX‘qv
o:aiTav è7;o:r/a£y aOxòv jisxaâXsry, ítzí xs axpü)|iáx(i)y y.aôsúSovxa y.at
lATj^íl-upauXoOyxa xà tzoXXól, õaíísp s5(í)9-£i TrpóxEpoy, prôè aòxoupYoOyxa
óiLoíx 7ptü|x£yoy, àXXà atxíp X£ èy.TZSTZOvqiiévq) y,ai õ4^(p
y-at oiycp 7jO£c y.oci õfja o-?) xoóxotç érzóiisvx èaxiy. èy. 5è ZYjç ii£Zxô?.fjç
xauxTjç, ÕGTüEp -^y olpai àvxjy.xiov, síç àad-évsiav y,xi jiaXay.tay è|X7T£-
owy xoD G(ü|iaxoç: '/-aL ■fjyqGxiieyoç |x'/iy.éx’ £tyat ^áoioy á's|^á|i£yoy zpv:pf)ç
<Xn.od’£Gd’XL XÒzrjV, OÍjZ(j)Ç Q-q èvéTZpTjGSV XÔZÓV, ÓíllX jlèy y.pEtXXOV oló-
{Xttyoç aiwTjXXa^-Oât xoõ xoioúxou ^íoi>, á|ia oè SuGjÊpaíyioy, ôxt ‘qveo-
X®'co xpuç^ç álóaGÔat. This effeminate Heracles corresponds to the
uxurious athlete in Or. 8,30 — oxpy.xç zoaxózxç E^wy y) xogoóxwv
y.pcwv 5eÓ|1£voç — or the bonvivant Diomedes, § 31 — noíyíXvjv iíyzv
eo^xa Vxa:
xaS-^Gxo èícl ^-póyou tíívwv St’ -íjjiépaç y.at xpufpwy. Simi-
larly the
contrast offered by the characterisation of Heracles in
8,30 has
its parallel in 60,7, which presents a similar picture
I TaiJ-yòç xoO xEtjjLwvo; y.ai xoO ^épooç óiiottoc Ò7:o|A£yü)y
V 0£p|iaxt xoO Xéoyxoç. The parallelism between the two portraits
o eracles shows that Heracles had a fixed and consistent cha-
racter in Dio’s Cynic sources.
The self-immolation of Heracles is described in Or. 8,34 f,
as a final
moral tour-de-force as it were, as a splendid Ser
vice which Heracles renders himself when, because of age and
isease, eTiEtxa otjxat yÓGoo xtyòç y.axaXaôÚGYj^, it becomes im
possible for hini to keep up his old style of living, Ç-^y ójxotwç. Dio,
of course, is fully aware about the nature of this «disease»,
but he rationalises the story: the real reason for Heracles’ suicide
DO
must bc something cthically neutral; hencc the senility of Heracles,

ppaoóxspoc . . . ‘/.ai àaO-evéoxspo!: auxoO, a theme which occurs
also in Lucian’s Denionax 65 and in Diog. L. VI 95, concerning
Metroclcs.** He touches on the real reason with a light hand. It
would be interesting to know if this rationalisation of the motives
for Heracles’ suicide is early or whether it belongs to a later period.
It implies an approval of suicide which does not occur m early
on.
Cynic texts. I shall take up this problem later
It is interesting to compare this with the description of his
death in Or. 60. Here there is no question of avoiding the Deianeira
episode, which obviously caused embarrassment in Or. 8. We
ins true to himselr
compare, for instance, Or. 8,32: Heracles remains
even when confronted with the Amazon queen’s beauty: SsíÇaç òxt
oòy, áv 7COX2 Yjxx7jâ'£ÍYj vAXXouç o05’ av |i£'V£l£
it was not so easy to rationalise the story of Deianeira or piesum
ably that of Omphale. That could only be done at the sacnfice of
Heracles’ glory as a hero. In this way we get the curious complete
allegorisation: Nessus’ rape of Deianeira=the fatal words in w ic
he tempts Deianeira to believe; Deianeira’s cloak = her success u
persuasion of Heracles to alter his mode of life and to hve h e
other men; the corrosive deadly effect of the cloak—the wea ness
and softness which resulted from Heracles’ new »bourgeois» way
of life. In other words he represents a type example of a ynic
who has succumbed in the struggle against -íjoovY), abandoned his
Cynic way of life and become bourgeois. The suicide fulfils the
same function as in Or. 8: flight from a situation in which it has
become no longer possible to live according to one s lights, c,^v
is made still more effective m
ó|ioLü)ç. The paraenetic character
Or. 60 by the allegory with its antithetic form. The physical and
and inevitable
spiritual corruption is depicted as a necessary ^
consequence of Heracles’ adherence to a bourgeois way of lite,
§ 8: &oKep ol\ioíi àvavâlov. Nessus, too, is aware ol this and
calculates that Heracles will be ruined in this wa}', § 5. et
Yàp 5xt aiia xtj) ti£xa.8aX£tv xòv §tov xat xt)v áaxYjatv (! cf. Diog. L.
VI 70 f) Eòxetpwxoc eaxat %at àa^-evYjç. Heracles’ suicide is due
to his guilty conscience. 8: Sjxa [lèv otpetxxov oSó|j.evoc ÃTTifjXXáx-
« Cf. Socrales in Xen. Apol. 6;'for thi.s reference as well as for

criticism and advicc on several poinls in this book I am gralefully in e le
lo Professor G. Rudberg, Uppsala.
56
xoO Totoúxou piou, &\lo. òk ouaxspaívwy, ó'xt Yjvéa/sxo xpu’sfjz

ãôxad-aa. In other words, it is a Cynic 3>sermon» within a makeshift
framework of dialogue passages. The continuous exposition in §§
4—8 is complete and consistent in itself. It is tempting to conclude
that Dio has given us a fairly faithful rendering of a Cynic tra-
dition.
In the conversation between Alexander the Great and Diogenes
in Or. 4, Alexander gets a completely revised Cynic picture of his
TzpÓYovo^ Heracles. v. Fritz, who discusses the problem of the
source of this speech and of Or. 6, disputes the possibility that
Diogenes can be the source of the theories expounded on kingship
and tyranny which we have in both speeches. The reason advanced
for this denial is that it would be difficult to imagine how Diogenes
in his Politeia combined his negative view of the State with the
views expressed in Dio Chrj^sostomus on true and false kingship.
As was indicated in the introduction, such negative arguments
cannot carry any great weight for methodological reasons. More
important are v. Fritz’ positive arguments: various details in
Or. 4 and 6 are indubitably derived from Antisthenes, as, for
instance, the Prometheus-Heracles episode, the discussion on king
ship, and possibly also the comparison with animais, 6, 21 ff. We
have a portrayal of Heracles. The conversation is concerned with
the true king of whom the Cynic Heracles is the prototype, 4, 24:
ó yxp pxoiXsuç àv9-pü)7í(i)v âpiazóç èaxtv, âvõpsiózxzoç a>v xa: otxató-
zxTOç y.al cptXavS^pWTíáxaxoç y.xi àvtxvjxoç ôw tzxvzò^ tzóvou tíxí /taayjç
Í7it9*u|iíaç. But to be a true king requires the possession of âa*.-
XixY] è7íiaxig|i7j, which Zeus bestows at his will. Dio puts into
Diogenes’ mouth the thesis of the dual itaiôsta, obviously an
allegorical interpretation of Heracles’ divine-human oiigin, § 29:
oòx otod‘X, £cp-/], Õzi SixxY) èaxiv tzxiõsííx, 'fj pév X'.ç ôatiióvioç, ^
òk àv^ptoTíívYj; Heracles represents the divine Tzcuòeix, ^ 31: xal
o0x(o OY) Aiòç TTzíSaç èxáXouv oí Tzpózspov xoòc 'cíjC àYaO’^ç Tiatosíaç
èTctxuYXávovxa; xal zxç xvÒpsíouc, TZSTZxiÒeuiíévouç Hpax-
Xéx èxetvov.“ This does not, however, imply the exclusion of the
opposile sort of nxLÒeix. The point of view is similar to that
expressed in Diog. L. VI 70 f as regards “íj Slxxy) aaxrâtç: both
kinds of Tíatosía or áaxTjatç are necessary, but priority is given
° Text and inlerpunclion according to v. Arnim and Cohoon. de Budé
expunges TisTtatôsuiJiévoo;.
57
to oaijjLÓvto:: Tiaiõsta or ●?) òuxtxY] àay.Yjoiç. The operative word

in Ihis passage, as in Diog. L., is 5ixxó<:, § 29: ò'iiü)ç 8è àvaY“/.ata
(sc. i) àv9po)7iíV7] Tiaiosía) TípoaysvéaQ-ai èy.sívy (sc. x^ ôatjxovúp
Tuaiosía), £? òp9’ô)ç yíyvoizo.
In both lhese texts Heracles is quoted as a model. This cannot
be accidental. Among the Antisthenes fragments, Themistius, IIsp:
àpextjc, speaks of a meeting between Heracles and Prometheus
at which Prometheus reproaches Heracles with being concerned
too nuich with the things of this world. Dio Chrysostomus, too,
in Or. 8,33 mentions an encounter between Prometheus and
Heracles, but there is no indication of any advice being given by
Prometheus to Heracles. On the contrary Prometheus’ suffering
is allegorised and he is represented as an ambitious Sophist whose
liver swells or shrinks according as he receives praise or blame.
The Cynic Heracles takes pity on him and puts an end to his
blindness and his ambition: sTíauas xoO xúcpou y.al zfjç cçLXovty.íaç*
y.ai oOxux: (oy^sxo òy.ôí Tzorq^jaç.^ In Or. 6,25 and 29 we have a
negative view of Prometheus. Prometheus’ gift of fire to mankind
has been a bane. Cynic allegory has utilised the niyth to demon-
strate its own pessimism about civilisation. There is, therefore, an
obvious contrast between the Themistius fragment, in which
Prometheus plays the part of the teacher and Heracles receives
instruction, and Dio Chrysostomus, where the Sophist Prometheus
is saved by the Cynic Heracles. There are difficulties in combining
the two points of view as does v. Fritz, op. cit., p. 78. Perhaps it is
not beyond the realm of possibility that the Prometheus reference
in Or. 8 is derived ultimately from an early Cynic source, referring
to an encounter between Prometheus and Heracles, in which not
Prometheus but Heracles was set free fromxDcpoc and cpiXovixía. The
theory of the dual Tcatosca in Or. 4,29 ff certainly resembles that
contained in the fragment of Antisthenes preserved in Themistius:
»Prometheus sprach zum Herakles: sehr verâchtlich ist deine Hand-
lungsweise, dass du um weltliche Dinge dich bemühst, denn du
hast die Sorge um das Wichtigere unterlassen. Denn du bist kein
vollendeter Mann, bis du das gelernt, was hõher ist ais die Men-
schen, und w'enn du dies lernst, lernst du auch das Menschliche.
Wenn du aber allein das Irdische lernst, bist du irrend, wie die
“ A typical exampel of allegory. Cf. Herodorus’ rationalistic account
of lhe same Iheme, fragm. 30 Jacoby.
Õ8
wilden Tiere.» This central theme is common to both. Dio Chrys.

expresses himself thus, § 31: ouy.oOv oazLZ av èy.sívT/V zrjv Tta-.osíay
(xYlv 5a'.}xóviov) zy'(j y,xÁ(b' TZzcpDxéç, paoíiúç y.a: -caúxyjç (zrj-: áv-
d’pü)7zíyriÇ Tzxiòsíxç) 'fC'fVzzxi jiéxoyo^, òXíya ày.oúoxç y.xi ôXiyxytç, xòzx
zx \ié''iGzz y.al y.'jp'.ézxzx y.xi |i£|nj7ixat y.a: cpuJ.áxxs: èv x^/ 4'^X‘ÍI*
As regards human tzxiòsíx Dio writes, § 29: 'íj ok xvd-po)KÍv~íj iv.y.pà
y.xi àaS^svYjc '/«a: tzoXXoòç èyouGx y.ívoóvouç y.xi xtzxzTjV oòy. òXi'('Qy.
Further on in Dio we find in the same way an animal comparison:
he who does not possess lhe true tzx\Zzíx is like those dogs who in
the Chase do not find the right scent and so lead the hunt astray.
Diogenes also speaks of Sophists as a type of those who possess
only human tzxíòzíx. But neither time nor man nor even death can
take wisedom from the man who possesses the true 7:a:o£:a.
We may represent the relationship between the texts of
Antisthenes and Dio Chrysostomus by the foliowing diagram:
Antisthenes’ Heracles Pedagogic.
1. Prometheus instructs Heracles in divine Tzxtozíx.

2. Chiron instructs Heracles in xpszYj.
A B C
Or. 4,29 ff: Or. 8,33: the So- Or. 60: the two lypcs of
5:xxyj 7ZXIOSÍX phist Prometheus Heracles, and the striving
with criticism is aided by the after a spiritualised repre-
of the Sophists. Cynic Heracles. sentation of Heracles.
A has preserved the 7ía:os:a-motif, C is a derivative of the Cynic

re-interpretation of Heracles, B on the other hand represents either
a completei}^ different tradition which has nothing to do with the
Antisthenes fragment or with the TiaiSeta-motif, or we must sup-
pose a further development in the relationship between Prometheus
and Heracles which has resulted in a complete reversal of their
rôles. Various possibilities are open. Dümmler, Antisthenica, p. 14,
thinks that Prometheus and Heracles represent the relationship
between Plato and Antisthenes in a polemicai dialogue, a thesis
adopted by v. Fritz, op. cit., p. 78. Another possibility would be
59
lo supposc lhal Pronictheiis-Heracles represented the relationship

Gorgias-AntisUienes; í‘or Antislhenes’ attitude to his Sophist
teacher might have gone through the same thorough change-over
as in our tcxts.”
It is possildc lhat Dio used as his source a handbook of 4th
century Cynic teaching which did not permit the ascription of
the themes to a particular source or person: the dual Tcaiosta and
the transformation of Heracles are found in the Antisthenes frag-
ment, the formcr niotif mutalis mulandis also in Diogenes in his
áay.râiç-lheory; lhe story of Xeniades in the Diogenes tradition,
to which we return in a later chapter, with its criticism of the
Sophisls and its rcactionarj' spirit, belongs beyond all doubt to
the body of pedagogical material which lies behind the theories
put forward in Or 4. Apropos of the criticism of the Sophists in
Dio we may remark that Chiron, like Prometheus, appears as a
Sophist, Or. 58,2. H. v. Arnim, Dio von Prusa, p. 165 f, points
out Cynic traits in this spcech. If this goes back to a Cynic original,
we have a State of aíTairs similar to the case of Prometheus:
a hero, Chiron, appears in Antisthenes as Heracles’ teacher, but is
dubbed a Sophist by Achilles in Dio. To the Cynic traits of Chiron,
the synonymity of paa-.Xsta—Tcaiosía (cf. the Xeniades pedagogic),
we may add that the Diogeiiian characteristic OTCopXécjíaç Sstvóv
is here used of Chiron, § 4, cf. Or. 4,14 and 24.
In the evidencc adduced in the preceding we have been con-
cerned to show that we find in Dio relatively unequivocal traces
of Cynic Heracles propaganda. The examples quoted show that
the following were its aims:
1. an attack on the popular and traditional view of Heracles
as an unfortunate hero suffering against his own will, as most
clearly portrayed in tragedy;
2. an attack on the likewise popular and traditional view of
Heracles as an athlete, wine-bibber etc., as we find him in comedy,
satyrical drama and Euripides’ Alcestis;®
3. the attempt to achieve a refined picture of Heracles along
’ The most radical way to solve this problem is that adopled by

E. Weber, De Dione Chrys. Cyn. sect., p. 241 ff, who quite simply changes
subject and coniplement in the Themistius text and thus makes it accord
with Dio Chrys.
® Cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 32,94 and 66,23.
60
Cynic lines, in which the divine character of the hero is rationa-

lised, A'.ò^ Túat' :aiS£U|jL£voç:,'’ his externai appearance is preser-
ved as traditional trappings,' and his labours given an allegorical
interpretation.2 His virtues are individual-ethical, but the philan-
thropia theme is preserved and a firm front maintained against
intellectualism and athleticism.
In any case Heracles is not characterised by the one-sidedness
which one is inclined to see in Cynicism and which it doubtless
possessed in its stricter form. ovz-zri tzxiocíol, y/ oizx-q óioy.rfOiç,
like the story of Xeniades, are the expression of an endeavour to
avoid the one-sidedness against which the Cynics fought, whether
it took the form of pure materialism, to use a modern word for
the views attacked in the Themistius fragment, or of Sophistic
intellectualism.
Philanthropia, the most important trait in the traditional
pictiire of Heracles, is not found in the Heracles fragments of
early Cynicism, as we have established above. Prominence is given
to the individual-ethical virtues, but the philanthropia motif is
not entirely excluded from the Heracles propaganda. Dio Chrys.
has preserved traces of it, especially in the Heracles allegory of
Or. 1, a subject to which we return in another context. In Or. 8,30
there occurs the expression zolç à-'{a.doX^ por/S wv, xoòç y.ay.oòc y.oXá-
Çüiv. The Libyan myth of Or. 5,21 exhibits Heracles as active
philanthropically, the èçYjpépwaLç-motif, but this receives an alle
gorical re-interpretation which recalls Herodorus, § 23: 'HpaxXéa
5s xôv y.xi ’AX"/.|n^vyjç è7í£(êXâ*eTv xa: á7TO'^-^vai xaô-apàv xal
T^pepov xrjv a6xoj Siávoiav. xac xoOxo aòxfi) poúXeaô-ai ovjXoOv
xrjv ri\iip(úaiv.
According to Cynic ideas it was an absurdity that Heracles
should suffer any hurt against his own will. A voluntary suffering,
however,, was acceptable to them and it was in this sense that they
interpreted Heracles’ various exploits. Dio gives an example of this
in Or. 8,35. The cleansing of the stables of Augeas is a deliberate
humiliation with a moral purpose in view: Tcpóxspov Sé, ÍVa pY)
Sgx^ g£|iv« xai ii£Y«Xa Epya SiaTrpáxxEa^-ai, xy)v xÓTcpov áTíEX^wv xyjv
® Cf. also Or. 2,78 and 69,1: Heracles is son of Zeus 8tà ãpsxrjv-
» Cf. Or. 9,17.
2 Cf. Or. 5.
® COHOON. V. Arnim expunges PoúÀeaO-at, de Budé ôyjXoõv.
61
y.sijjLévYjv Tzxp' Aò'(é(x., tioXú xt XP^|J.a tcoXXüív èxíõv, èxeívTjv è^scpopet

y.at èy.áSatpsv. Yjysrxo yàp oòy^ yjxxov aòxw OLo.\ia'/ri'zíov etvai y.at tcoXs-
|i7]xéov Tzpòç xY)v Sóçav ^ xà ^yjpía y.at xwv àvS-pwTtwv xoò; y.ay.oúpYOuç.^
This motif will engage our attention in another connection, but
limiting ourselves for thc moment to the qiiestion of Heracles-
idealisations, we may state that the »suffering» element in this
motif is seen from a popular angle. According to Cynic views
there is no suffering from which a positive value may not be
extracted, in other words which may not become an àYaSóv. In
all circumstances man can be master of his situation,'’ and where
fate imposes on a man a biirden greater than he can bear without
abandoning his mode of life, ójiotü);, suicide is open to him
as a final resort to preserve his integrity. From a Cynic point
of view suffering is a oóça against which one fights by submitting
to it, by declaring it paradoxically to be a good. IIóvoç, TzevCx, àooÇta
etc., which in the cyes of the world are evil, all have the epithet
àyacd’óv in Cynic propaganda.
2.
The instances which Epictetus provides of the use of Heracles

in moralising propaganda are few but valuable, since they show
the heights which were attained in the spiritualisation of this
hero. Nowhere in cynizing literature, so far as I am aware, is
such a purely personal-religious use made of the figure of Heracles
and the Heracles epic. Epictetus’ examples are concerned with
different facets of this propaganda: Heracles as a model character,
as a model for the moral struggle, as a model in suffering, and as
a Cynic basileus.
* We have a Sloic parallel in Cleanlhes, SVF I 115,32: útcovoô Sà y.ai
xíjv Tiap* '0|i:fáX7) Xaxpeíav èxsívtp 7ít9-avtbxspov sívat Kpoarjxsív, èfíâivóyzcov
ítáXtv Ôtà xoúxou xã)v TxaXaitüv õxi y.al xous loxupoxáxouç ÚTtoxáxxetv 6eí éauxoòç
xqi XÓYtj> xal xà ònò xoúxoa xpooxaxxójisva Tioietv, el xai S-rjXúxspóv xt xaxà xíjv
a-êtopíav xal xvjv Xoytxvjv oxsc|;i.v Tcpoaxínxsi, xxX. Cf. an Ántisthenes fragment,
Sternuach, Gnom. Vat., No. 11 = U7e/i. Sliid. IX 183: ó aòxòg 3-eaoá|ievoç èv
TTÍvaxi YSYpap-névov xòv ’AxtXXéa Xsíptavt x^ Ksvxaúptp Ôiaxovoó|isvov, eú y®> ^
Tcaiôíov, eíxev, õxi xaiôsías âvexa xal 8-rjpfq) Staxoveiv óxé|iÊtvaç. Cf. C. Robeut,
Dic gricch. Helciensage, II 430 f.
° Cf. a Sloic fragment, SVI*' III 154,3: sívat xòv onooôatov paxaptov, xâv
ó âXáptôoç xaõpoç IxTJ xatóiisvov. And cf. with that the diatribe Dio Chrys.
8,15 ff: xàv 8é-g p,a3xiYOÓ|A£Vov xapxspsiv xal xenvòjievov xal xaòjjisvov |i.y;Ôèv
liaXaxòv èv3t5òvxa- . . . xal xoXXáxis xaíÇeiv èv aüxoiç xòv àvõpa xòv xeXetov.
62
Epictetus gives a description of lhe paragon in III 24.12 ff:

he appears as lhe Cynic vagrant philosopher, whose models are
Odysseus and Heracles, lhe lalter of whom wandcred alioiit on
earth âvô-ptÓTCWv ü^p:v xs y.al âuvojiír^v */.a: xr;v |i£v èy.px?.-
Àov-a '/.ai '/.ad-aipovxa, xYjv 5’ âvxsiaáYOVxa. A similar portrai t is
presented in Epictetus II 16,44. Heracles did not sit at honie
in ease and comfort like his half-brother Eurystheus, but at God’s
behest went his way and fulfilled his moral mission: àÀÀ’ còoèv
'píXxEpOV XOO S*£G0’ ò'.x xoOxo Í7w’.ax£Ú\)-yi ‘/.ai y^v.
è‘/.£Íyq) xoiyjy
7íZL^ó\izvoz '/.aâaípwv àoL'/.íav ‘/.ai àvo|x:ay.
Both these texts are strongly paraenetic: in the first an injimction
to men not to »take root», [xy) èppiÇwaOai [xr^Sè TzpooTze^svy.évx’. zíj
so that enforced separation from honie and friends would cause
pain;‘ in the latter a direct personal application of the tióvgc. of
Heracles in a moral re-interpretation. Just as Heracles during his
life on earth fought for right and justice, so men should carry
on the struggle in their own hearts: àXX’ oO*/. £Í ‘^Hpa-z.ÀY^r y.ai oO
oóvaaa'. y.xd-xípsiv xà âXXóxpia ‘/.a‘/.á, àXX’ oòdè St/Gsúç, 1'ya xà xYjÇ
y.fiç ‘/.aO-ápiQç* xà aauxoO y.á^-apov. èvx£0i)-£v è‘/. xfj? dixyoíxz
£-/.âX£ àvxi IIpG‘/.poúaxoi) ‘/.ai Hy.ipoivoz X’J7ü'/)v, 'póôv, è-iûixíav,
pSovov, â”!.yatp£*/.a‘/.:av, ptXapYupiav, |xaXa‘/.íav, à‘/.paaíay. xauxa o’
oi»‘/. Eaxiy áXXwç è‘/.í3aX£íy, £Í |x‘?j Tcpòz jxóyov xòy xlEÒy àTúojSXÉTíoyxa,
è-/. VO) jxoyo) 7zpoG7Z£KC'^d-ózx, ‘/.xX.® In the last theme,
too, namely that
the moral fight should be carried on with one’s eyes upon God,
Heracles was the model and example, cf. III 24, 16. What stands
out in both the texts quoted is the characterisation of the Heraclean
and Cynic paragon as 7i£pt£pyó[X£vo<;.
In two other passages, which have marked resemblances to
Cf. Hom. p 487.

^ The rationalisation of the Heracles mylh is striking in Epictetus’ way
of interpreting Heracles’ relation to his children. He tries to make a religious
doctrine of it, III 24,14: . .. xai ÊTiatdoTíc.eixo -xal xous Tzoãòaç ànéXstxsv oü
otévü)v oOoè TzoS-tüv oò5’ tí)S òpwavoúç ■^ôst yáp, 5~i oòdBÍg èaxtv ãv9*pt07iog
õpsavós, ã/J.à 7cávxü)v ãsl xai ÔtYjvExws ó Txaxfjp èaxtv ó xrj5<5|i£vog. oò yàp péxpt
ÀÓYO'J YJXYJXÓS'., õxi Tcaxyjp èaxiv ó Zsbç xcôv âvS-pwTrtov, õç ye xal aúxoõ xaxépa
qjsxo aãxov "/tal èy.ãXzi -/.ai ~pòg è-xstvov ã:popwv sxpaxxsv á êítpaxxev.
® Cf. Dio Chrys. 5,23. The triad form used in making the catalogues
of vices is typical; in the Epictetus text quoted, we have the order 3 + 3 + 2;
cf. Dio Or. 8,16 with the order 3 + 3 + 3.
63
the latlcr of lhe above qiioled texts,*’ Epicleliis devotes special

attention to lhe «stniggle» theme, I 6,32 and IV 10,10. Here,
too, we note lhe paraenctic style and the direct personal use of
Heracles’ t:óvg:. — Finally, Heracles is held up as a model of volunt-
ary suffering in III 22,57 and III 26,31 f. The latter of these two
passages is of particular interest in this connection, since it directly
touches on the Cynic basileiis-theory: oò Tíapéysi (sc. Zsó;) jioi
7;oXXá, oOx à^tlova, xpucpãv jis oü 0’ÉXst* oòoè yàp xÇ> 'Hpay.Xst
Tiapst/ív, X(T) DÍzZ x(Tj áauxoO, àXX’ áXXoç èâaíXsusv ^'Apyoüç y.xi
Moy.rjvibv, ó o’ è-exxGOSzo y.xi btzóvsl y,xi lyuiivá^sTo. y.xi rjv
EupuaO-sòr páv, oç Yjv, ouxs ''Apyous Muxyjvwv paaiXsú;, 8ç y’
ouo’ auxòç éxuzov, ô 5’ 'HpaxX-^; árexor^ç yfjç y.xi O-aXáxxrj; ap-
ywv y.xi Y)Y£iiü)v yjv, */.a8-apxr); xôiy.ixç y.xi àvojuaç, síaaywYsuc Ôè
0'.y.xL0GÚv7]ç y.xi óg’.ózt,zo^’ y.xi xaOxa èTzotst y.al y^P-'''°C póvoç.
In Dio Chrys. Or. 4 Heracles is presented as Alexander’s Tzpóyovoç,
and we may siippose that it is this circumstance which impeis
Dio to accenluate the contrast between Alexander, the false king,
and Heracles, the triie king, on the analogy of the antithesis
Alexander-Diogenes. Nothing is found in the passage of Epictetus
which could have been associated with a basileus-theory. On the
contrarjs the allusion to Heracles in III 26,31 is an insertion
clearly different from the context, an example of an almost formal
character. The themes are the usual ones — poor, naked, alone,
but a righleous king. No other Heracles-exemplification known
to me gives so clear and concise a portrait of a Cynic
basileus in so clear-cut a form. That his »suffering» can be
conceived as such only from a popular point of view is shown
by the other last-mentioned text. The voluntary submission to
what fate imposes is a Cynic characteristic which distinguishes
Heracles too, III 22,57: àXX’ ó pèv 'HpaxX-^ç 6ã:ò Eòpua^^éws
YupvaÇópsvoç 0U7C èvóptÇev dc8*Xioc etvat, àXX’ àóxvwç èTrexéXst tzxvzx
zx Tcpoaxaxxópsva.^
° The tliemc: Tíg àv ijv o 'HpaxXi^s, sl |jl7) . . .

* This is above all true of Teles.
64
3.
Lastly \ve must examine some Heracles-exemplifications in

Lucian.
Lucian’s own character and temperament made him sym-
pathetic towards certain aspects of Cynicism: he had the same
negative attitude not merely towards oracles, cult pracliccs and
the like, but aiso towards the melaphysical and religious views
of life in general; the same ironical attitude towards the world
and mankind which distinguishes Cynic humour; the same siiper-
ficiality of thought and lack of understanding for the intellectual
and philosophical approach. On the positive side he was possessed
of idealism in his attitude to the slraightforward way of life which
the Cynics pursued. He admires the great representatives of early
Cynicism — Antisthenes, Diogenes, Crates — and uses them as a
mouthpiece for his own ideais.^ This, however, does not prevent
him from giving an extremely burlesque portrait of Diogenes in the
Vitarum auctio 7—11. Lucian sketches the ideal Cynic in the De-
monax, a work in which, like in the lost Sostratus, Lucian attempt-
ed to Show that his own period had produced Cynic personalitics
of the same mould as classical Cynicism. The reverse side of this
undeniable idealism is his biting and irreconcilable hatred for
the degenerate false Cynicism of the Empire, which under the
cover of this name concealed a moral and social corruption.
In his Convivium Lucian portrayed a Cynic of this type — Alci-
damas, who lacks nothing of vulgar âvatoeta.
Even if Lucian is ironical and satirical through and through,
we may nevertheless assume that there lies behind his salire some
positive aim. This would seem to emerge from his treatment of
Heracles.
The only place in the works of Lucian in which Heracles is
made fun of is Dialogi Mortuorum 16. This work consists of a
dialogue between Diogenes and Heracles in the underworld, in
which Diogenes expresses his wonderment at finding Heracles,
a god to whom sacrifices are offered on earth, among the dead. The
dialogue connects up with the mentioned interpolated verses in
Odyssey X 602—604. E. Weber,De Dione Chrysostomo Cynicorum
“ Cf. M. Caster, Lucien et la pensée réligieuse de son temps, p. 68 ff-

J. Bernays has a quite different view in his book Lukian und die Kyniker.
65
Sectatore, p. 149 ff, clraws from the Lucian passage the conclusion
that its contenl is derived from Diogenes’ tragedy »Heracles»,
which miist thercfore have been a comedy rather than a tragedy.
He is lollowed by Dü.mmler, Akadeinika, p. 205 ff. The assumption
of such a dependcncy of Lucian on Diogenes’ »Heracles» was
refuted hy Helm, Lukian und Menipp, p. 210 ff, who gives a
sober and balanccd appraisal of the value of Tertullian’s Apol. 14,
on which Weber founded his thesis: sed et Diogenes néscio quid
in Herculem Iiidit et Romaniis Cynicus Varro trecentos Joves, siue
lupiteres dicendos, sine capitibus introduxit. Helm plausibly
argiies, »dass Lucian sich unmittelbar an das Epos gewandt hat
und dass dic Anrcgiing dazu von anderer Seite nur sehr gering
gewesen isl». In view of this it is all the more remarkable that
Weber’s thesis is adopted by Sayre, Diogenes of Sinope, p. 62,
with a general reference to Helm’s Lukian und Menipp.^ In actual
fact therc is nothing in this short dialogue of Lucian between
Diogenes and Hcracles’ shade in the underworld except the actual
personages which would necessitate our ascribing it to the Cynic
tradition. The passage in Lucian, however, admits an iiiterpreta-
tion which harmonises with what was assumed above and which
I hope to have demonstrated, nainely the thesis of a Cynic tians
formation of the popular view of Heracles and their propaganda
for a refined conception of Heracles along Cynic lines. The text
of Lucian may in that case go back to a Cynic work of some
kind, possibly by Menippus, the aim of which may have been to
represent Diogenes as ridiculing the popular myth of Heracles. The
treatment may have been on the lines of the Cynic attempt to
propagate a Cynic view of Heracles which, as we have seen,
was in certain essential points in conflict with popular conceptions.
The Work constitutes a violent ridicule of Greek popular escha
as
tology and religion in general, and as such it may be regarded
a Cynic pamphlet.
=* Sayre refers lo Diogenes Ep. 36 Hercher, which is, however. a joke
Ciem. Alex. Prot. II
with the popular Heracles cult. Nor is his quotation from
=StXhlin I 18 convincing; cf. A. Packmohr, De Diogenis Sinop. apopt Ç9-
quaest. sei., p, 21 f. Neilher Dümmler nor Weber and Sayre distin^ns
between the popular and the Cijnic Heracles. Cf. Ciem. Alex. Prot.
StXhlin I 53 f: ’Avxio9-évy]ç pèv yàp oú Kuvtxòv di] xoõxo èvsvóâe,
8s ãxs Yvó)pt]jios, â-sóv oôôsvi âoixévai cpYjaiv” ôidnep aòxôv oüôeiç êx[j.a stv
elxóvos Súvaxat.
66
If the Dial, Mort. 16 can be regarded as a ridicule oí* popular

conceptions of Heracles, the De morte Peregrini 2õ consliliites a
polemic against a Cjmic imitatio Herculis, which according to
Lucian rests on a false conception of Heracles. In opposilion to the
self-advertising Peregrinus, who attempted to create a sensalioii
and Avin notoriety by emulating Heracles’ self-immolation on Oeta,"*
Lucian puts forward a sober and unaffected conception of
Heracles: dcXXtD; xz ô |ièv 'Hpay.Xrjc, zl^zzp dipoí y.cd èxóX\ir,oé xí
toioOtov, 0”ò vóaoi) aòxò lopaasv Otzò xoO Ksvxaypsíoo aipaxoç, w;
çTjatv Y] xpaYwoía, */.a-£c ouxoç Sè xívo- aixíaç £V£*/.£y èp-
cpápwy êauxòy £!ç xò TüOp; yy) At’, ÔTZiúz */.apx£ptay êr:t-
0£tç7]xat y.xX. Lucian is referring to the representation of Heracles
in tragedy. LTrò yóoou is the reason. We may compare with this the
passage from [Aristotle] Probl. 953 a, quoted above p. 48, with its
sober, medicai interpretation: Heracles as an epileptic. A faint echo
of this is preserved in Dio Chrys. Or. 8,34: £7w£txa otpat yóaou xtyòc
y.axaXapoúavjç. But the ethical purposes which inspire his treatment
of Heracles give prominence to other motifs: the senility theme
of Or. 8 and the degeneration theme of Or. 60. Wilamowitz,
Heracles I 102 f, puts forward the suggestion that the account
in Dio Or. 8 goes back to Antisthenes. The actual recommendation
of suiside U71Ò YTQpwç, which is found here, must, however, be con-
siderably later, in any case after Diogenes. Or. 60, on the other
hand, with its negative allegory of the cause of death, seems easier
to associate with the oldest Cynic allegory. But if the fragment
Nauck, Adesp. 370, quoted by Wilamowitz ibid., belongs to
4th century Cynicism, as Wilamowitz assumes, then interesting
hght is thrown
the difficulties which the earlier Cynics had
with this part of the myth of Heracles. The fragment reads:
w xX^poy àp£XYj, XdYOç áp’ -Jjaâ ’- èyòi oé 0£
epYov ây.ouv aò S’ áp’ èSoúXfiUEç
It connects up with the characterisation of Heracles in Euripides’

Heracles, 1. 1357: Heracles under his cruel affliction bows to fate.
Here is no trace of the àp£xi^-hero whom fate cannot quell, but
^ Lucian has not understood that in Peregrinus there could have been
a genuine conviclion. cf. M. Caster, op. cit., p. 69 f.
67
a man crushed by fate, despite a life of àpenfj, who loses his belief
in the valiie of àpsxV). For even virtue has succumbed to fate and
cannot free a man from misfortune.
Disregarding the difficult problem of the Cynic origin of the
fragment, it throws light on the question of how Heracles death is
to be interpreted, whether rationalistically or allegorically, by
insisting on Heracles as an ápexi^-hero. That difficulties were felt
over this is shown by the passages from Dio. The fragment quoted
shows that the question which Euripides posed — the problem
of suffering — has been given a sharper form, the relationship
between àpsx^ and xúy^Yj. It is quite probable that in early Cynic
circles the problem was posed in a more serious way than appears
from the fragmcnts which have been preserved. The themes of
degeneracy, illness, senility, the conflict between àpezri and zúx'0
represent different attempts to resolve the problem presented by
the suicide theme of the myth. In the present connection the
question is: is the Peregrinus motif xapxepta; êvey.ev a genuine
old Cynic motif? H. M. Hornsby, The Cynicism of Peregrinus
Proteus, answers the question in the affirmative, but at the same
time he draws no clear distinction between earlier and later
Heracles idealisations, but puts forward the suggestion of a mysti-
cal element in Cynicism originaling with Antisthenes, which in
Peregrinus finds expression in the imitation of Heracles. Hornsby
quotes a number of examples of Cynic suicides — Diog. L. VI 18,
76, 95, 100, Lucian Demonax 65. None of these examples presents
any theoretical motivation of suicide, and none of them mentions
Heracles as a paragon. The Cynic texts in general give no grounds
for believing that there was a Cynic theory of suicide xapxeptaç
gvexev, which connected iip with the suicide of Heracles. The
only example is in Lucian’s Peregrinus, where Lucian is attacking
such an idealisation of Heracles. By this I do not mean that suicide
did not occur in Cynic circles; on the contrary, but in such cases
the motive was the practical one of inability to preserve a Cynic
way of life. In fact, Lucian represents his Cynic ideal Demonax
as committing suicide for precisely this reason. In the same way
Metrocles: óttò éauxòv TcvtÇa;. On the other hand the motive
for Menippus’ suicide was far from Cynic: õtz’ àd’oiiíaç- According
to Diog. L. a number of stories were current about Diogenes’ death
68
and one of them said he was a suicide.^ Antisthenes refused

to commit suicide.*^ The reflection of Diog. L. that this was due
to weakness and cçtXoÇwta shows distinct signs of later accrclion
under the influence of subsequent views on such questions. If in
general Socratic influence made itself felt in the Cynic tradilion,
on this point in particular it must have exerted a restraining force
at least in 4th century Cynicism.
Despite the dearth of fragments we may detect a cerlain reserve
on the part of the older Cynics with regard to Ihis part of the
myth of Heracles. A theory of suicide y.a.pzzpícx.ç evey.âv in connec-
tion with a rationalisation of Pleracles’ suicide along these liiies is
not conceivable until afler Onesicritus in conformity with the
fundamental oriental asceticism which he introduced into lite-
rature. In my view LuciaiVs own account is a proof of this, since
he names the Indian Brahmans as Peregrinus’ models and refcrs
to Onesicritus. In any case suicide y.apzspíaç avsy.sv, as far as we
know, was never a Cynic thesis. The imitation of Peregrinus is
an
isolated phenomenon, the best proof of which is in Lucian’s
own indignation. Quite different is the theory in Bion, Hense,
Tel. rei.,
p- 16 ff: àXXà |i7) ôuvá|X£yo; íxi ôuôat.|iov£rv <x7ZctXAá,zzo\íac'..
The Otíò *,
f/jpwr-motif in the anecdotes and in Dio Or. 8, 34 approxi-
mates to this view.
Both the passages of Lucian we have quoted are criticai and
satirical, yet they have a positive purpose a sober and rationa-
listic approach to the myth of Heracles. Whether he followed
the Cynic allegorisation of the myth of Heracles may be uncertain,
but it is not implausible. In any case Lucian’s work »Heracles» is
possibly a Cynic allegory free from all traces of irony and satire.
Lucian probably had no ethical ulterior motive in this work,
but reproduced the - story with obvious interest and sympathy.
Lucian is
dealing with the Celtic god Ogmius, but the parallel
rawn with Heracles presupposes a relatively fixed and unequi-
vocal conception of Heracles. In so far as it contains features
which are found in other texts under the influnce of Cynicism,
we
may conclude that the comparison is founded on a Cynic
° Diog. L. VI 76 í: oí Yvtópiiiot ... eíxaÇov xí)v xoõ Tcvsónaxog ouYxpáxyj-

otv. . . . ÒTcéXagov
t:ouxo Típãgai PouXó|jlsvov Xoitíóv ÚTCsgeX9-stv xoõ pCoo.
“ Diog. L. VI 18.
69
representalion of Heracles. Lucian describes a Celtic picture which

represents Heracles as an old man, but in other respects charac-
terised by the familiar Greek paraphernalia, the lion skin, the
Club and the bow. Heracles is followed by a great crowd which is
led on by Heracles in a peculiar way. The people are joined to him
by fine chains of gold and electrum which are fastened to their
ears at one hand and to Heracles’ tongue at the other. Despite the
weakness of their bonds the people do not attempt to free them-
selves; in fact they offcr no resistance but follow Heracles joyfully
and hurry after him, èoiy.óxei: ày^^saô-TjaojJiévoic et XuîQaovxat.
Heracles proceeds with his face turned towards his captives and
he smiles at theni.
The symbolism is explained to Lucian by a Celtic sage. The
chains and their peculiar mode of fastening represent the power
wielded over men by Heracles through his words, the wisdom of
the words of one advanced in years. The Celtic sage concludes his
explanation by giving the general conception of this Heracles:^
xò 6’ oXov y.at aòxòv -fiiietç xòv 'HpaxXéa XÓYíp xà uávxa YjYoú|j.e9'a
èçspYáuaoSâL Gocpòv v.olí 7üett)'0i xà ixXetGxa piaGaG'8'at.
v.al xá Y^ páXYj auxoõ oi Xó'ôi etGtv, ot|iat, òêtç otat euGxo)(ot xat
TayjXç ya: xàç xtxpií)G>tovx£ç* itxepóevxa y^^v xà êTiYj xat Ojisíç
ccaxe etvat. Heracles as an artist in words is a striking phenomenon.
it is an example of an allegory of a different kind from what we
have encountered hitherto, namely Heracles as a dialectician.® In
actual fact thcre are fairly clear traces of such an allegory. The
allegorisation of Heracles’ arrows which pierce the soul points
back to the earlier allegorical form represented by the Herodorus
fragment. In this fragment, as we have seen, two different kinds of
dialectic contend: ó 7coXu7:oÍ7wtXoç x^ç 7uy.pãç èrnô-uixtaç XoYtGjiáç,
and the Heraclean ó '9’paGÓxaxo; GWYJpwv XoYi^cfl^ó^* In this
struggle Heracles triumphs over the former by means of the latter,
" § 6.
» Conccrning Anlistlienes, cf. Diog. L. VI 3: HpwTOç te (bpfoaxo Xoyov elTcwv,
Xôfoz èoxiv ó xò xí í] iaxt ôyjXwv. VI 4: íiaXatoxixós eliii, in dialectic meaning.
VI 13: xeí/Tj %axaoxsuaoxéov èv xoiç aúxÉov àvaXmots XoYia|J.oíç. VI 14: Toüxov
liòvov âx Tíávxtov 2(oxpaxiy.6)v 0eójíO|iTCog âTcaivst xaí cp-qoi Seivôv x’ etvat xat Ôt’
óinxCac èii[isXoüc úxaYaYsa9-ai uav9-’ óvxivouv. ÔtjXov ô’ èx xuiv ouyYP*I^“''“''
xou Ssvoytbvxoç 2i)|i.7íoo£oD, VI 15: o Ôè Sevo^wv iQôtoxov |iev etvat TíSpt xàç
ó|itXías çrjatv aòxòv. VI 19: xòv 3£ov -ôS-a xótov, 'AvxíoHveç, *8e Tcscpoxòjç waxe
ôaxetv xpaStYjv ftyjiiaotv, oò oxòiiaotv.
70
cptXoao-^TQaaç |A£Xpt O-aváxou. It would be extremely casy to fit

Lucian’s allegory into this framework. Here, too, belong Plat.
Crat. 411 a,® Euthyd. 297 c ^ and the important passage Pliit. De E
apud Delphos 6=Mor. 387 D, the origin of which Dümmler,
Akademika, p. 192, would trace back to the Old Academy. The
passage in Plutarch clearly implies a radical transformation of
Heracles. While he was young and had not yet liberaled Prome-
theus or associated with the Sophists in the circle of Chiron and
Atlas, he was Botwxioc» âvaiptõy xY)y oiaXsy.xr/.Yjy xa: xaxa-
YcXüiy xoO 3£? xò Tcpôixoy, xò osúxcpov», the hypolhesis symbolical
of Delphic and human wisdom. In addilion to this he offered
violence to shrines and fought with the god. The passage con
tinues: èTísi TzpoXév *'£ xü) Xpóvo) xat ouxo; lotxs jxayxr/.wxaxoc ó|ioõ
Ysyéaâi xai SiaXsxxixwxaxoç.^ The expression in the Lucian pas
sage quoted above, ao^òy y£vó[L£vov, should probably be inter-
preted in the light of this passage in Plutarch, and it means »after
becoming wise» as against the meaning »to be» in historie tenses
of
YíYvsaÔ-at with a predicate. It seems quite clear to me that
we have here traces of Cynic writing. The passage in Plutarch
alludes to what is relatedin thefragment of Antisthenes,[Eratosth.]
Gatast. 40: Heracles as a pupil of the centaur Chiron. Of the few
surviving Heracles fragments, two others refer to this episode, so
that it is among the best attested features of Antisthenes’ Heracles.
Diog. L. VI 104—105 preserves some indication of the content of
the instruetion which Heracles enjoyed with Chiron; it is the
Sophistic thesis xYjy àpexrjy o-.oaxxTjy elyat. We see in Plato’s Pro-
tagoras, too, traces of the Sophistic dialectic which was required
to demonstrate this, while in the same work we have an example
of the use of Prometheus in a similar connection. In the passage
quoted Plutarch refers briefly both to the Prometheus episode and
to the instruetion of Heracles by Chiron. Without unduly forcing
utarch s mode of expression — I am thinking of the order in
OÕ7TÜ) xòy IIpojxTj^-éa XeXuxwc oôSè xote Tispt xòy Xeípwya otat ’'AxXavxa
® Cf. F. Dümmler. Akademika, p. 1.52.

^ Cf. id., ibid., p. 190.
Cf. Herodorus, fragm. 13 Jacoby: *Hpó3o)pog ôè xóv "HpaxXéa jiávxcv
xal
<pu3txóv yevtíixevov Eoxopet xapà "AxXavxog xoõ Pap^ápou xoõ <>puYÓg 8-.a6é-
Xeo9-ai xoug xoõ xóo|ioo xíovag. alvixxoiiévou toõ póS-oo xyjv xtôv oÕpavíwv áxiaxyj-
í«ív paO-TQoet õtaôéxeoS-ai.
71
aoiptaxalç òisilz'{\iéyoç — we may venture thc assumption that it

was Heracles’ cncounter with Promelheus which prompted him
to the study of philosophy which he afterwards pursued under
Chiroii.^ Thc Themislius fragment fits also into this framework —
Prometheus instriicts Heracles in the divine Tzw.beía.
The passages of Plato, in particular Euthyd. 297 c, show that
Heracles was put forward as a dialectical Champion against the
Sophists. There is no doubt that this feature goes back to Antisthe-
nes. The two different kinds of dialectic in the Herodorus fragment
show that the remarkable phenomenon of Heracles as a dialecti-
cian belongs to the period around 400 B. C. This allegory of the
myths of Heracles may possibly be regarded as an anonymous
Sophistic creation. When Antisthenes abandoned the Sophists,
under the influence of Sócrates, he took the dialectician Heracles
with him and directed his shafts against the Sophists, an exact
counterpart of Antisthenes’ relationship to Gorgias. Thus this motif
supports what we expressed above in our discussion of the rela
tionship between the Antisthenes fragments and Dio Chrys.: the
texts quoted there show on the one hand so many points of contact
with one another that the assumption of a connection is unavoid-
able; on the other hand, the story in Or. 8,33, in which the Sophist
Prometheus is aided by the Cynic Heracles, has no counterpart
in the Antisthenes fragments. We had to assume a development of
the relationship Prometheus Heracles as it appears in the The-
mistius fragments, culminating in a reversal of their rôles, if we
were to trace the story in Or. 8,33 back to Antisthenes.
Heracles as a pupil of the Sophists, as StaXexxixíúxaToç, as a
dialectical Champion against the Sophists, was a strictly limited
phenomenon which has not left many traces in literature. The
passage in Plutarch we have quoted obviously corresponds with
Antisthenes’ portrait of Heracles. Other passages in which Heracles
appears as a philosopher are noted by Gruppe, RE Suppl. III 1011.
But Lucian’s parallel of Heracles and Ogmius does not re-
cur. Disregarding the question whether Lucian actually saw a
Celtic picture representing Ogmius as a personification of the
® Cf. Prometheus as paragon in philosophy, Plat. Prot. 361 d: íjpeaev oõv

poi xal èv T(p |iú9-tp ó IlpopifjS-sòg pãXXov xoõ ’E7U|iy]9-é(os* V
7cpo|i,Yj{)-oúiJievoç ÚTíèp xoõ piou xoõ èpaoxoõ itavxôç xávxa xaõxa npay[íaxsüo-
pai, xxX,
72
Logos, it is clear that this conception of Heraclcs goes

back to Sophistic-Cynic allegory. Despite the scantiness of
the available informalion, the passage from Plularch shows that
the Cynic "Hpay.Xrj^ oiaÀsy.-uixw-a-oç was known in the second
century A. D. Lucian shows a particular liking for the earlier
Cynic literature and perhaps regarded Antisthcnes as a kindred
spirit. Like his predecessor he broke with the Sophists, but, in
the same way as Antisthenes, took the »esprit sophistique» with
him, as Caster, Lucien et Ia pensée religieuse de son temps, p. 381,
points out. His »Heracles» is a íipoXaÀ-.á to a recitation which
Lucian delivered in his old age. It is an elegant form of self-
recommendation to which Lucian had recourse before appearing
in public again after a lapse of several years. Caster, op. cit.,
p. 362, regards it wholly as a work of Lucian’s imagination: »cette
divinité de phantasie est imaginée, dans tous ses details, pour
illustrer le sujet de Ia prolalia: je suis vieux, mais mon éloquence
est encore robuste, riche, entrainente». Why has Lucian made
use of Heracles? He himself suggests that Hermes would
have been a more natural choice, but that he uses Heracles, ozi
Tcapx 7Z0ÁÒ zoO 'EpjioO ia'/_i>póz£po^ ouzoç. The substantive 5ayú;
in this context can only have the significance given to it
by Antisthenes in his work ^HpxyJãjÇ rj Tzspi '^poyrjiBdyç ri ioyjjo<;.
In other words, Lucian’s »Heracles» is a Cynic interpretation of
a really existing or perhaps only imagined picture, an interpreta
tion which is based on the old Cynic allegorisation along dialectical
lines of Heracles’ ttóvoi.
In conclusion we must deal with another passage by Lucian,
Vit. auct. 8. It is quite possible that in this work Lucian
was influenced by Menippus’ àiO'{évo\jt; Tzpxaii;, even though we
cannot determine whether Lucian owed merely the idea to
Menippus or his indebtedness was more extensive. The dialogue
between Diogenes and the auctioneer, if we disregard the ironical
tone, is so full of Cynic elements that we cannot exclude the
possibility of earlier, pre-Menippean sources, whether or not Menip
pus was the intermediary. Here, too, we find a statement about
Heracles: ZvjXorç ôè ôy) zívx; — Tòv 'Hpay.Xéa. — Tí o5v oòyi y,xl
Xeovx-^v àjiTué/TQ; zò [lèv yxp Çúaov êoixxç xuzo). — Touxt \ioi Xsovxyj,
* § 4; the identily between Lucian and the Celtic sage is undubitable.

73
xò xp’.pü)VLoy. axpax£Óo|iai oè õaTíep èy.stvoç èíxl xàç Tjoováç, oò

y.sXsuaxóí;, àXÀà éy.oúaioç, èy.y.aS-àpat xòv ^tov 7rpoa'.poú|i£Voç.
This recalls lhe Herodorus’ fragment with its symbolism. The
externai equipment of the hero in both passages is symbolised
as the individual-ethical struggle against the various forms of
èTítSoiJLÍat. This gives some grounds for ascribing an early date
to both the method and the theme of the passage quoted from
Liician. This allegory in fact enjoyed increased popularity in
Cynic circles of the first century A. D. The best witness is Dio
Chrys. I quole one more example from a different literary genre,
namely the Cynic epistles. The theme in Diog. Ep. 26 Hercher
is xY)c Tcevía^ xyjv àpx-^v sStoxá aoi Sià j3íou. This poverty is demon-
strated by the Cynic equipment which symbolises the weapons of
Heracles: xpíj^wv = Xsovx^, [Sáy.xpov = ^ÓTzaXov. The epistle con-
cludes: ouxw yàp av "Hpáy.Xsiov SiayaaxaíiQ oot (^póyr/pa y-at náavjç
'z6yr,ç y.peíxxov. It is apparent that this deliberate association with
the symbols characteristic of Heracles is the result of renewed
intcrest in classical Cynicism with its rationalistic explanations of
myths and allegories, in other words that we are entitled to draw
from these late examples fairly concrete conclusions about the
Heracles allegories of early Cynicism.
II. Cyrus.
According to Diog. L. VI 15 ff Antisthenes wrote four books

about Cyrus: Kopoi:, Kopoc ^ mpi jiaatXsíaç, Kopoç 7) èpójievoc, Kopoç
7) %axáay.o-oi. On lhe other hand Athenaeus Deipnosoph. V 220 c
speaks of the content èv O-axépw xwv Kúpwv, which Ch. B. Gulick
translates: »Antisthenes, too, in the treatise on the second Cyrus,
abuses Alcibiades» etc., implying that Antisthenes wrote a book
about Cyrus, the founder of the Persian Empire, and another about
the younger Cyrus, the contemporary of Xenophon. The translation
has no support in the lext of Athenaeus,^ nor does the expression
° Cf. Aelian De nal. an. VII 11: ó Ka|i?úaou Küpos ó êxEpog, in contrast
with the younger Cyrus, whom Aelian I õ9 calls Kõpog ó Ssúxspo;. The elder
Cyrus, the founder of Pérsia, is otherwise called K. ó Ttpôxoç, ó Ttpóxepoç;, ó
âpxaíoç, ó TcaXatór, ó Ttpeo^úxepog, ó jiéYaç; the younger Cyrus, son of Darius II
and a contemporary of Xenophon, is called K. ó vetbxepoç, cf. Weissbach,
Kyros, RE Suppl. IV 1132.
74
used by Diog. L. II 61 — àXXà -/.ai t:wv ’Ay-:a9*ávo’j; tóv ts juv.pèy

Kõpov '/.al xòv '"Hpay.Àáa xòv èXáaaü) xai ’AÀ*/.i^'.á5'/;y xai xoò: xwv
áXÀcúV oè èax£U(í)pr^xa' (Aeschines) — enable such a vievv. On the
other hand the Atticist Phrynichus mentions only one work on
Cyrus, Photius Bibl. CLVIII=Migne GUI 432 B: ’Av-taâ£V/jv ii.£xà
xwv Yvrjaíwv aòxoO oúo Xóycov, xoO 7ü£pi Kúpou xa» xoO xspt 'OSuaasíaç,
Cicero, however, Ep. ad Att. XII 38, writes: Kopoç ò\ z mihi sic
placuit ut cetera Antisthenis, hominis acuti magis qmim eruditi.
Ad. MCller, De Antisthenis Cynici vita et scriptis, p. 43 f, inter-
prets the figures inserted in the title by Cicero as referring to
volumes IV and V in the catalogue of wrilings given by Diog. L,
In these were included the works KOpoc and KOpo^ ^ Tíspí paa'.À£Íac.
On this Müller comments: »Portasse ille, qui cum Hercule majore
tomum IV. complebat, major inscribebatur, alter (tom. V.) minor.»
In other words, the elder Cyrus was the subject of a paraenetic
Work contained in the fourth volume; it was of the same individual-
ethical content as the work on Heracles in the same volume, while
the fifth volume contained another work on the younger(?) Cyrus
entitled -£pl âaLX£tai:. This is in any case the thesis accepted by E.
Thomas, Quaestiones Dioneae, p. 6 ff, in his attempt to reconstruct
the content of the works on the two CjTUses. Ch. B. Gulick’s
transiation would seem to rest on the same basis.
Nevertheless this thesis has no other support than the mode of
expression in Diog. L. II 61 which would appear to be more than
flimsy, since there is no evidence of the title ó iitxpòç Kõpoc as
referring to the younger Cvrus.® Müller’s peculiar interpretation
of the
passage in Cicero, the reading of which is by no means
above suspicion, is countered by H. Dittmar, Aischines von
Sphettos, p. 69,14, who gives a short survey of Antisthenes’

Cyrus Works as mentioned in Diog. L. Dittmar proposes
the proper name Kúpioç, which seems to have most manuscript
support,' instead of Kopoç for the two works in the tenth volume.
In Cicero Dittmar would keep the proper name Kúpcraç, an
admirer of Sócrates according to Suidas. Thus in Dittmar’s
view there would remain only two works on Cyrus, both of which
were concerned with the elder Cyrus. Against Dittmar one might
“ Cf. the preceding note.
Ed. Norden, Beitrãge zur Geschichte d. griech. Philos., p. 373 ff, keeps
the appellative -/.úptoç.
75
object that thc proper names he proposes are unknown in Attic

literature,® and that in any case we are completely ignorant of the
relationship of the bearers of these names to Antisthenes. More-
over, lhe reading ROpoç is attested in the Florentine Ms. F, which
with the Codex Borbonicus (B) and the Codex Parisinus (P) is
one of the principal manuscript sources for Diog. L. The conjecture
of Du Bois: KrPCAC>KrPOC A E, retained by H. Sjõgren,® re-
mains dubious, adding yet another to the number of works on
Cyrus mentioned in Diog. L. It is just possible that the ó jicxpòc
Kõpoç namcd in Diog. L. II 61 is a fifth work on Cyrus of small
compass, possibly identical with the Xóyoç Tcept xoO Kopou, of which
Phrynichiis speaks.
Whatever the number of the works on Cyrus, whether there
were two or more, it would appear certain that the Cyrus who
was of such interest to Antisthenes and about whom he wrote so
much, was C3 rus the founder of the Empire and he alone. Neither
fragments nor literary history offers any support for a contrarj^
view.
The fragments of these works are collected by Dittmar,
op. cit., p. 304 ff. They are of the same type as the Heracles
fragments, although still smaller in compass: partly doxographic
information from Diog. L. VI 2 (xai ôzi ó tzóvoç àyad-òv auvéaxTjas
otà xoO jjLEYáXou 'Hpav.Xáouç xa.1 xoO Kópou, xô jièv àTiô xwv 'EXXi^vwv,
xò Sè àTzò xC)v papjSápwv éXxúaaç), partly fragments of dialogue. In
Epict. IV 6,20 Cyrus receives instruction, obviously in paatXiocY]
èTuaxTQjXT): xí oõv XÉYet ’AvxLaD-évY3ç; oòSsTtox’ T^>touaaç; paatXtotóv, ü)
Kõps, Trpáxxecv pev sO, xolvmz 8’ âxoúeiv. This recurs in Diog. L.
VI 3 as a dictum of Antisthenes addressed to Plato.^ In Arsenius’
Ttúviá, ed. Walz, p. 502,- Cyrus appears in the guise of a philo-
sopher: KOpoç ó jSaatXeòc èptoxYjô-elç xí àvaY^taióxaxov síyj jiá^yjjjLa, xò
à7cojiaô’£tv, ecpY], xà y.axá. Ad. Müller, op. cit., p. 44, conjectures
that this is taken from one of Antisthenes’ works on Cyrus, and
8 Kúptog only in Strat. Anth. Pal. XII 215, and in two inscriptions,
Kúpsaç only in Suídas, s.v. Sócrates: Kópsag ôé xtg 6vo|ia, Xtoç xò yéwoç,
úiç ouveodpevog ^X9-e So)y.páxef (j) xaS-euSigoavxi Tiapà xòv xácpov ôvap ôqpfl-eiç
(bpíXyjoev. âKSTíXeuoe 5è eòO-òs âxeívoç, xoõxo póvov àuoXaóoaç xoõ cpiXooó^fOO.
° M. Tull. Cic. ad Att. ep. lib. sed., rec. H. Sjõgren, CoU. script. vet. Upsal.
^ Cf. also Diog. L. VI 7: TiapsxsXeóexó xe xaxcbç âxoúovxag xapxspsTv pãX-
Xov 7] el Xí9-otç xtç páXXotxo.
® Not accessible to me. See Dittmar, op. cit., p. 305 f.
76
he quotes Diog. L. VI 7. I do not know on what text of

Diog. L. this is based.^ In the edition of C. G. Cobet, 18õ0, wliich
R. D. Hicks uses, the passage qiioted has been radically emended:
èpWXTjÔ-! lí Tü)V \Lx%'‘Q\LÓ,z(úv àvaY'/.atóxa-ov, xò Tücptaipsív, £'pvj,
xò à7TO|iav8’áv£iv. The passage has therefore nothing to do with
the Cyrus fragment in Arsenius. However, Diog. L. VI 8 could
provide support for such a theory: èpwxTj^cíc O-ó xou, y.aôá 'sr^GL
Oavíag èv xw IIsp' xwv Swy.pax'.y.ü>y, xí tzoiOjv y.xXòç saoixo,
£'.prj, £Í xà xay.à a íys-iz suy.xá èaxí jjLá9-o*.ç x:apà xwv sioóxwv.
Cf. Diog. L. VI 12 and Epict. III 24, 67 and IV 1,114. Stob. Anth.
II 31, 34, however, preserves a dictuin of Antisthenes which, word
for Word, is identical wilh that of Arsenius. Moreover, this same
fragment recurs in a Leiden Ms., Ty(b\ix’. y.ax’ è/cXoYYjV i~/, xwv ATjjxo-
y.pixGu, Eíüty.GÚpou y.at áxéptov y.aL Tioir/Xüiy y.xl pT/XÓptoy,
published in 1837 by L. R. Beynen, No. 131;^ cf. Philol. VI, 1851,
578 f. If then we may assume, with some probability, that Ihis
is taken from a work by Antisthenes about Cyrus, the following,
contained in Arsenius’ Twytá, Walz, p. 507, may have the same
origin: KOpo^ 6 jjaatXsò' %‘zxaá.\izvór tzoxz yrjvxXyx £\j\iop'ôv y.xl xü>y
7cap£ax(j)xü)y xcvòí; sÍT^óyxoç_ ó'x’. êçeaxí aoi zl D-sÀst /pi^ciaaO-ai paai-
À£c oyxi, £9‘/5* àÀXà jSaaiXst jXT) a(i)z>pov£LV oux sçsaxt.^ — In Alhen. V
220 c, Herodicus maintains that Antisthenes made a bitter attack
on Alcibiades in a work on Cyrus: "AyxíaQ-éyyjí: 5’ èv d-axépo) xwv
Kúpwy y.ay.oXoYwy ’AXy.t^táor^y y.ai Tcapáyojxoy sívxí ?Jy£l y.at £?c
Y'JVaty.ac y.at etc ãXXr^v otatxay. auystyat yáp tpvjaty aOxày y.at
p./ixpt y.at {)-uYaxpt y.at (bç llépaaç.® Salyrus makes a simi¬
lar statement in Athen. XII 534 b ff. Here, too, we find a quo-
tation from Antisthenes: otò y.at ’Ayxta8áy7)ç ó Xwy.paxty.òç (bç Sy]
auxò^ auxÓTixTjç ysYovcjç xoO ’AÀy.t^táooi) íayûpòy auxòy y.at ávSptboY]
y.at àTuatosuxoy’
y.at xoX|i7jpòv y.at (bpatoy è^’ yjXty.taç Ttáavjc YsvéaO-at
H. G. Hübner, Leipzig 1828—31?
Not accessible lo ine. Ms. dates from the 15lh ceiit.; it is possible,
of course, that the Anlhislhenes quotation comes from .Stob. or Diog. L.; that
being lhe case, it has no value as proof. The same is Irue of Arsenius,
cf. RE II 1273 ff, s.v. Arsenius.
The same in a somewhat different form in Sternbach, Gnom. Vaf.,
No. 376= Wíen. Stud. XI 55.
The moral conlrast belween lhe ancient Persians and those of lhe
õlh cent. is first seen in Aeschylus. Cf. also Cyrop. VHI 8.
.So Kaibel in his edition with lhe best Mss: A C E. Ch. B. Gulick
w’rites sO-afSeu' cf. Kaibel ad loc.
77
^TfCsiv.^ It is diílicult lo get a clear idea from this information of

the trealment oí Cyrus by Antisthenes, and, naturally, still more
difíicult lo asccrtain its formal presentation. E. Thomas, Quaestio-
nes Dioneae, p. 6 ff, gives a reconstruction of the context and
H. Dittmar. op. cit., p, 68 ff, does so more fully in his studies on
the porlrayal ot Alcibiades by the Socratic schools. We propose
to choosc another melhod and attempt to set Antisthenes’ portrayal
of Cyrus in a wider framework.
1.
The grealest porlrait of Cyrus either in ancient or modern
times is Xenopliona Gyropacdia. The Cynic traits in this »pedago-
gical novel» have been indicaled long ago. The most extreme view
has been cxprcssed by Karl Joel in Der echte und der xenophon-
tische Sokrates, II: 1, p. 337 f: denn die Cyropaedie strotzt von
nismus; sie ist kynisch von Anfang, vom politischen Hirtenideal bis
zum Schluss, bis zur moralischen Anklage Persiens, sie ist kynisch
im einzelnen, wie wahrlich genug Parallelen zeigten und noch
mehr zeigen werden, und sie ist kynisch in der ganzen Anlage
und Tendenz, ini Programm nicht nur der Tíaiosía: sie ist ein Lob-
schrift auf den anlisthenischen âatXsús ais den Mann
der àp£X7j, ais den Helden des tzóvoc, der èTUjjLéXsta und der cçiXta.»
That the C3U'opaedia exhibits Cynic xótüoi in nianj’^ details is correct.®
But it is open lo queslion whelher lhese xóizoi are necessaril>^ to
be regardcd as Anlislhenic, or whether they may not equally well
be widespread, dorizing, pedagogical material, which became parti-
cularly relevant in the first half of lhe fourth century and so can
prove lillle or nolhing about the queslion of Xenophon’s depen-
dence 011 Anlislhenes.^ When considering their general outlook,
® The olher lexls which Dittmar quoles in his very hypothetical study
and in the list of fra{»inents are too nneertain to be quoted here.
® I cannot, of course, give here a list of Cynic traits in the Cyropaedia,
but only a parallel. G. Rudberg, Sokrates hei Xenoplion, p. 41 ff, points out
Cynic erotic traits in Xenophon’s Memorabilia. In Cyropaedia, too, we have
a Cynic view on this problein, V 1,2 ff, esp. § 12. Panthaia, the predecessor
of Hipparchia, is the ideal woman from Xenophontic-Cynic point of view.
Cf. Diog. L. VI 11.
^ Cf. W. Jaeger, Paideia, III 179 f lo Cynegelicus. G. Rudberg, op. cit.,
p. 41, expresses lhe difference belween Xenophonlic and genuine Cynicism as
follows: »Natürlich haben wir bei Xenoplion mit einer mehr militarisch und
sportmassig ausgestalteten Form des Tvynismus’ zu tun».
78
again, we shall find that Xenophon in all probability so far

diverged from Antisthenes in essential points that we must reject
the idea of any dose dependence.^
We turn our attention first to the porlrayal of Cyrus in the
Cyropaedia. In this work as elsewhere it is Xenophon’s aim to put
forward an educational programme strictly opposed to the
Sophistic and politically unsettling education of the Atheniaii
democracy.® The exponent of this educational scheine is Cyrus,
the founder of the Persian Empire, and in his education lies the
explanation of his government with the legends that surrounded
its history and the benefits it conferred on his people. Whereas
»in most States» laws prohibit and punish, Persian law has a
positive moral aim in educating the people not to have any desire
to commit wicked and shameful deeds, I 2,6: oi |jl£v oyj -alosr ele
"õà oioaay.aÀsIa cpoixwvxsç òiáyoooi [lavS-ávovxs; oixatoaóyyjv y.a,i
XsYOuaiv ôx’. è xoOxo êpyoyxat &Gizzp Tzoep' Sxl '(pá\i\icizoi.
liad'/jaó{i£yot. Besides Siy.aioaúvr; the young are instrueted in
awîpoaúyyj, è*f/.páx£ia as well as in obedience to their superiors. In
addition to this basic moral education they receive physical educa
tion which takes the form of strenuous hunting with the aim of
developing military qualities: bravery and vigilance, familiarisa-
tion with violent exertion, dangerous situations, simplest food,
ability to endure hunger and thirst. Cyrus partook in this training
along with his people. The description of Cyrus’ upbringing is
full oí examples of courage, helpfulness, self-control, and other
basic virtues by which the Cynics, too, set great store.^ Xenophon’s
dose resemblance to other exponents of dpezrj is shown inter alia
“ Cf. Christ-Schmid, Geschichte d. griech. Literatur, I 510 f. H. Maier,
Sokrates, p. 44 ff, goes so far that he sees a deep antagonísm between Anti
sthenes and Xenophon: »Ihm (i.e. Xenophon) war wohl der ganze Mann im
Innersten zuwider». This does not, however, preclude an Antisthenic influence
on the writings of Xenophon, Maier, op. cit., p. 62 ff. Cf. p. 94 below.
^ Cf. W. Jaeger, op. cit., III 158 ff. Xenophon sees an absolute contrast
between the pedagogical statutes of Sparta and those of other cities, cf. Resp.
Lac. 1,2 and 10,4. Cf. also the polemics against the Sophists in Cyneg. 13
and Oecon. 11,25. Cicero writes in Ep. ad Quint. fr., I 1,23: Cyrus ille a
Xenophonte non ad historiae fidem scriptus, sed effigium iusti imperii, cuius
summa gravitas ab illo philosopho cum singulari comitate coniungitur, Weiss-
BACH, Kyros, RE Suppl. IV 1130.
^ Xenophon’s ideal is the old-time Greek v.aXoxâyat^ía, aceording to
which he interprets the Persian paideia. Cf. W. Jaeger, op. cit., III 162.
79
by the trcatmcMit of è'(y,pxzzia. in Cj^rus’ speech I 5,7 ff, which is

the sanie molif as occurs in the allegory of Prodicus: oX zs zQv
TZxpxvzCy.a. ijooyãyv ácTZsy^óiisvoi oòy Iva iiyjoítzozs sò^ppacvd-àjoc, zoOzo
TzpázzovGLV, à/vÀ’ tb' oià TaÚTTjy TYjv èyy.pázsLxv TZoXXocTzXáaLX eíç
zòv Í7ZSLZX xpóvov sOtçpavoj[X£voi oOtw TtapaaxsuáÇovxau The sim-
plicity and naiveté of this pedagogy is, however, merely superficial:
behind it lies the conviction that the hard living conditions of
natural man are more conducive to morality and happiness than
the sheltered existence of civilised man.°
The monarchic ideal which Xenophon constructs on this
foundation nccessarily remains on the plane of individual ethics
without political or social facets. The eÒ£pY£'^'>^C-idea, which
Cyrus represents, is non-political: it is exclusively
(ptXo^jç, never £tj£pY*'^-ív xy)v tcóXiv; cf. V 1,26, VI 1,48, VIII 2,2,
2,9 f, 2,12, 2,22, 7,13, cf. Anab. I 9,11.® In other words, it is a
military »leader-principle», with the niain emphasis on personal
honour and prestige, while politics are of minor importance. This
individualism is pursued into the smallest details. Cyrus is por-
trayed as a well-balanced and good man who attaches his subjects
to himself by affection and considerateness. He is gracious, mer-
ciful and understanding, sensitive to others’ unhappiness, magna-
nimous towards his enemies, etc.^ None of his qualities lies beyond
the reach of the normal human being except in so far as Cyrus’
position gives him tremendous possibilities both for good and
evil.® Thus the eulogy of Cyrus becomes a eulogy of the good man
rather than the great prince. Even of Cjn'us in his youth Xenophon
says I 4,15: xòv jièv oy] 7cX£taxov ypóvov oOxü) StijYev ó Kõpoç,
Tcãaiv ‘fjoovfjç |i£v xai áYaS’oO xivoc auvatxco; cbv, xaxou oè oòoevóc.
Illuminating for Xenophon’s view of Cyrus as basileus are the
words of Chrysantas in VIII 1,1: ’AXXà TioXXáxtç [xèv drj, <b óívSpeç,
° Cf. Oecon. 5,1.

® Cf. Eiliv Skard, Zivei religiôs-politische Begriffe, Eiiergetes — Con
córdia, p. 50 f.
’ E.g. V 4,32, VI 1,36, VII 1,41 and 3,8, VIII 4,31 and pass.
® VI 3,32, Skard, op. cit., p. 50. — Concerning the divinity of Cyrus cf.
Croesus’ words about Cyrus VII 2,42: irpòitov pèv 9-stõv YeY®vóxt, STceixa Sè ôià
paaiXécúv «scpuxóxt, STceixa ô’ áx jcaiôòç âpsxvjv ãaxoõvxi* xôv ô* èpò)v TrpoYÓvcov
àxoúü) tòv Jtpôxov PaoiXsúoavxa apa xe PaoiXéa xai èêú9-spov Yevéo9-at. The
only instance of divine titulation of Cyrus is in Cyrop. VII 1,10: Zebg ocoxíjp xat
●íjYepíbv. Cf. also Oecon. 21,12.
80
y.al aXXo-s y.aTcVÓrâa oxi apywv ouSèv otasápsi Twa^pòc àvaSoO.

The basic principie of Cyrus’ policy is the purely individual-ethical
thesis which Xenophon formulates in VIII 1,12: èvópu£ ok 'õyjv
a’jxY)v y.al aOxG) ac7y.v}':>ív zlvcLi àpzzf^ç. 0’j *'àp wsxo oíóy xs
clva*. |iYj auxóv ya ovxa otov Ssí aXXou^ 7üapop}iãv è-L xà y.aXà y.al
9
àYaÔà Ipva. Xenophon recurs to this principie again and again.
The basileus bases his position of power on his moral superiority.
He is an example to his people not because of any distinct qualities
but because he is pre-eminent in those things which may be ex-
pected of everj^^ man VIII 1,39: zoi'{C(.po^y tzoàO pèv auxò^ oii'^zps.v èv
TzòiaizoLz y.oL/sOXz ^p‘(Oiç . . . TrapáSciYIJâ jxèy o*i) xotoOxov éauxòv
1
7wap£l-/£XO. The qualities on which Xenophon primarily insists in
his ideal king correspond with the individual-ethical view of the
basileus: they are the common, universal virtues — âpsxr/ in its
widest meaning, aw-ppoaúvyj, èY'/-p«X£ta, cp'.Xay9pw-ía, eÒGipeicc, àGv.r^
aiç, -óyo;2 etc. From this point of view lhe political aim of the
basileus remains individual-ethical. The individual is the centre of
attention and the State is of secondary importance, being merely
an aggregate of individuais of high quality. It is remarkable that
Xenophon, who as a military expert might have been expected to
appreciate that a totality is something which transcends a mere
aggregate of individuais, in the Cyropaedia never evolves the idea
of the State but regards it more as a group round Cyrus,
disciples around their master and leader. In portraying Cyrus as
the shepherd of his flock,® as the good father who looks after his
children to the best of his ability,^ Xenophon lays more emphasis
on Cyrus’ personal standing and authority than on the collcctive
“ Cf. I 6,25, VII õ,õõ, VIII 1,21 and 37, 7,23, 8,5. So also Mem. II 1,18 ff,
Oecon. 12,17 ff.
^ Cf. also I 6,8: èyu) 8s oiiioc’., èçT], xòv òcpxovxa oò xôi faôicjpysív xprivat
5’.a'^éps[v xüjv âpyoiJiévcüv, ãXXà x{i) TCpovosív y.al çiXoTroveív.
" Cf, lhe speech of Cyrus I 5,7 ff. Cyrus characlerises the enemies Ihus:
oiixGi l5'.ü)xaC slai y.axà xoò :gvouç, cf. Plat. Prot. 326 e: xvjg ãpsxi^s . . .
lô’.0)x£Úsí.v (only h.l. in Plato; a Protagorean mode of expression). Cf. about
Tzõvoc VII 5,80: oí Y“P tcóvoi õ^ôv xotç àyct.d-olç, cf. I 5,12: 5è osansp
5iaxp-â9-s The conception of Ttóvos is hedonistic, ibid.: Tióvous 8è xoü
■íj8áü)s ■/iYÊpóvas vopíÇexe, cf. Antisthenes in Stob. Ânth. III 29,65: 'H8ovàc xàg
|isxà xoí); Ttóvous 8tü)y.xéov, ãXX’ oôxl npò xwv Tióvtov.
“ VIII 2,14; a Socratic thesis, cf. Xen. Mem. III 2,1 ff.
« VIII 1,1 and 2,9.
81
nature of lhe
group, The same emphasis on the personal is
conveyed by the namc which Cynis gives to himself as »a law that
sees»,^ and the
conception which lies behind this expression: the
band oí devoted subjecls which Cyrus organised about him is
called his »eyes and ears», a band by means of which Cyrus ex-
tended his power, without losing its personal character, far beyond
his own immediate circle.^
lhe individualism implicit in the portrait of Cyrus is all-
pervading. The unquestioning obedience which he exacted is no
contradiction ot this, biit constilutes an important factor in the
educalion oí the young and recurs repeatedly in the Cyropaedia.
Xenophon s anlideniocralic views sharpen the contrast between
the ruler and the
group about him. The Cyropaedia is a portrayal
to a pre-eminent degree of a personal dictatorship. Tò TieíO-eaS-at,
7í£tâpX£tV, always involves siibordination to a person, eilher
Cyrus himselí or his representa tive, and never a common sub-
ordination to a colleclivil3\” It is this strong emphasis on moral
cjualities in the person of the ruler which brings Xenophon into
dose relationship with lhe Cynic Iradition. Xenophon’s basileus and
lhe Cynic saint have this in common — moral pre-eminence. The
collective State which fornis the background to Xenophon’s basi
leus but which is for him of no importance or significance, merges
into the grealer colleclivity of mankind, the undefined and form-
less background against which the Cynic saint stands out as
cleaiiy as does Xenophon’s Cyrus in the giant Persian Empire.
Xenophon s picture of the elder Cyrus was inspired by his
admiralion for the younger Cyrus, whose portrait he had sketched
in the Anabasis I 9.® The latter enlisted the Greek mercenaries
in order to drive his brother Artaxerxes Mnemon from the Persian
throne and to establish himself in his place. This is »Realpolitik»
based on military prowess and power, and it was to this in the
last resort that Xenophon’s paideia was directed, as is shown inter
alia by Cynegeticus 12, where Xenophon speaks about the military
value of hunting.® This purpose, the achievement of political and
VIII 1,22.
“ VIII 2,10 ff. Cf. also Oecon. 12,20.
’ Basileus is a law of higher dignily, VIII 1,22.
® Cf. Ivo Brüns, Das literar. Portrât d. Griechen, p. 142 f.
® Cf. W. Jaeger, op. cit., III 163, 16õ f. The aulhenlicily of Cyneg. is
dispuled, cf. Christ-Schmid, op. cit., I 516.
6
82
military power, determines the ultimate content of Xenophon's pe-

dagogy, with its emphasis on individual-ethical qualities. It is this
which puts it on a different plane from the individual-ethics of
the Cynics, which in its strictest form aims at making the individual
free and independent of supra-individual environment. Xcnophon’s
individual-ethics is in the last resort social ethics. This is shown
clearly by his moralistic conception of history. As soon as political
power ceáses to be based on the moral qualifications of the ruler
or rulers, it declines and becomes finally extinct.^
2.
A comparison with Herodotus* version of the legend of Cyrus

shows clearly to what extent Xenophon’s portrait of Cyrus was
influenced by conceptions foreign to the legend.- The dissimilarities
coiisist principally in the following points:
1) The narration of Cyrus’ childhood.
2) The relationship between Medes and Persians (Aslyages
and Cyrus).
3) The campaigns of Cyrus.
4) The death of Cyrus.
1. Herodotus I 108 ff relates of Cyrus that he was the

son of the Mede king Astyages’ daughter, who was married
to the Persian Cambyses, »a man of noble birth and of a quiet
temper, whom he (sc. Astyages) rated far lower than a Mede of
the middle class». According to Herodotus, Cyrus was removed
because Astyages dreamed that a son of Mandane would becomé
king in his stead. The planned murder of the newly-boirn Cyrus
was frustrated by a series of intervening circumstances, and Cyrus
grew up as the putative son of the cowherd Mitradates and hiá
wife Cyno, or Spako in the Median tongue, who were slaves of
Astyages. When Cytus was 10 years old he was recognised by
^ In this
way Xenophon has looked upon the relation between Medes
and Persians, Cyrop. I 3,2 f, VIII 8,15, between the ancient Persians and
those of his own
time, Cyrop. VIII 8, between Lycurgus’ Sparta and Sparta
of his^ own time, Resp. Lac. 14. Cf. W. Jaeger, op. ciL, III 166. 171 f.
The historicity of the Cyropaedia was already doubted in antiquity,
Cf. Cic. Ep. ad Quint, fr„ I, 123 (see p. 78, n. 3 above).
83
Astyages after hc had revealed his royal character first by his

behaviour in childish play and then by his fearless bearing in
Astyages’ presence. Cyrus was sent back to his real parents in
Pérsia, and he told them about the herdsman and his wife in
whose house he had grown up and constantly praised his foster-
mother Cyno. For this reason his parents spread the story that he
had been reared by a bitch after he had been exposed, so that the
story of his saving might seem the more marvellous to the
Persians.®
A. Bauer, Die Kyros-Sage iind Verwandtes, has investigated
Herodotus’ account of the legend of Cyrus and compared it with
earlier Persian material. He finds that it constitutes a rationalisa-
tion of an older story according to which Cyrus was suckled by
a bitch. Herodotus was acquainted with four versions of the Cyrus
legend but gave preference to the one which he thought most
credible and put forward an explanation for the origin of another
variant.^
Xenophon deletes the whole of this romantic matter which
occupies so large a space in Herodotus’ narrative. It is obvious that
Xenophon has no interest in this motif.® Cyrus is said to be the
son of Cambyses, who is called the king of the Persians and was
of divine origin.» His mother was Mandane, the daughter of the
Mede king Astyages. Cyrus was brought up with his parents
according to Persian custom, but when 12 years old was sum-
moned, together with his mother Mandane, to Astyages. Cyrus
remained several years with Astyages, distinguished himself in
combat with thé Assyrians and returned to Pérsia to take up the
duties which were incumbent on him as a king s son.
Xenophon’s account shows various points of contact with
that of Herodotus: the data about his parents correspond to some
extent,"^ the time of his meeting with Astyages, his fearless bearing
in his grandfather’s presence. Cyrus’ upbringing in the simple
= I 122.
« I 95 and 214.
® Of course he has read lhe different accounts of Cyrus. In view of this,
it is inleresting to reád of the antithesis between Cyrus, «pòixoV |ièv èx S-eôv
YSYovóxi, eTietxa ôè ôtà PaaiXétov líeçoxóxt, and Croesus, Cyróp. VII 2,24.
“ Cyrop. I 2,1, 5,4, VIII 5,22.
^ As to the hisloricity cf. Weissbach, loc. cit., col. 1143.
84
milieu of the herdman becomes in Xenophon an idealised picturc

of Persian upbringing. Persian simplicity in food, drink, etc., of
which Herodotus gives a brief account in I 71, is elaborated by
Xenophon into a description which accords with Doric ideais,
a return to simple life in contrast with the overcivilisation of
Athens (Cjtus the child of nature contrasted with the effeminate
and artificial elegance of Astyages!).® On the other hand, Xenophon
shows no interest in including in his idealisation of Cyrus a theme
which later became an important part of Cynic propaganda —
the doulos-basileus theme.
2. The relationship between Medes and Persiaiis is best
illustrated by the relationship between Astyages and Cyrus. In
Herodotus this relationship is conveyed by means of the story of
Cyrus’ childhood. Cyrus was sent back to his parents and grew
up into »the most manly and most respected of his age-group».’’
After a conspiracy with the disaffected elements in the Median
kingdom he stirred up the Persians to revolt from Astyages, over-
came him in war, deposed him and kept him prisoner till his death.
Xenophon preserves nothing of this account. Instead of the
strained relations between Astyages and C3'rus, the rev'olt ot the
Persians, and the capture and dethronement of Astyages, Xeno
phon has Cyaxares,' Astyages’ son and Cyrus’ uncle, succeed
■^stjâges, and the Median kingdom pass to Cyrus afterwards
through his marriage to Cyaxares’ daughter — clear evidence of
Xenophon’s endeavour to free Cyrus from aggression.
3. The same endeavour emerges clearly in the treatment of
Cyrus’ campaigns. In Herodotus, Cyrus appears as the indefatigable
conqueror, who attacks without provocation one land after
another.2 Xenophon, on the other hand, makes the Assyrian
and the Armenian wars begin with the foreigners’ invasion
of Median-Persian territory.^ The AssjTian war is depicted as
a diplomatically well-prepared war of aggression on the part of
Assyria. Cyrus’ campaigns against various peoples are presented
® Cyrop. I 3,2, cf. II i,6, 4,12, III 1.

° I 123.
^ The only Cyaxares Avhom Herodotus knows is Astyages’ father, I 46.

^ I 178, 190, 201, 204. However, the Lydian war began with Croe-
sus’ attack.
^ I 4,16 ff.
85
as wars of liberation from AssjTÍan overlords. In Herodotus,

however, Cyrus appears as the aggressor. The crowning achieve-
ment of Cyrus’ military successes in Xenophon is represented by
lhe subjiigation of Egypt in Cyropaedia VIII 6,20, a brief indica-
tion of the final extent of Cyrus’ power. Xenophon was not con-
cerned to give any lengthy explanations. Cyrus became lord of
Asia by a series of morally justifiable campaigns. The incorpora-
tion of Southern Asia and North África into his empire constituted
a fulfilment which had its own moral justification. Of all this
Herodotus knows nothing; he merely has an indication in I 153
of an expcdition planned against Egypt. This was carried out by
Cyrus’ son, Cambyses, Hdt. III 1 ff. It is obvious that Xenophon
in his basileus-idealisation was concerned with einphasising his
peaceable character.^
4. In Herodotus’ account the king carne to a miserable end
— he fell in the struggle with the Massagetae, and his body was
mutilated and outraged by Tainyris, their queen. According to
Xenophon, however, Cyrus died, after sacrifice prepared to the
gods, in the midst of his fainily, to whom he made a long farewell
from his earliest
speech. He recalled his good fortune and success ^
childhood onwards. He left his empire to his eldest son Cambyses.
Interesting is Cyrus’ comparison between the king’s lot which
awaited his eldest son Cambyses, and the comfortable private life
that was to be the portion of his other son, Tanaoxares, in his
character as salrap. The king’s position rests on philanthropia,
and brotherly concord is stressed as the natural source of friend-
ship with his subjects. Cyrus orders a simple burial: his body was
to be committed as speedily as possible to the earth, the bene-
faclress of mankind. In its agnostic views the farewell speech
recalls Sócrates’ speech in the Apology. Cyrus’ behaviour m the
face of death also resembles Sócrates .
Xenophon has touched iip his porirait of Cyrus to conform
to his ideal basileus. Pacifism, philanthropia, and Socratic philo-
^ Xenophon gives in Cyrop. I 1.4 a list of the peoples Cyrus subjecled

or ruled over. He modifies, however, his account by saying that Cyrus made
all think that it was besl for them to be ruled by Cyrus. As to the historicity
cf. Weissbach, loc. cit., col. 1152 ff.
° I 214.
° As to the historicity cf. Weissbach, loc. cit., col. 1156 f.
86
sophy characterise the picture hc paints of Cyrus. This touching-up

is carried out so consistently that we must assume he possessed
a clearly thought-out conception of the ideal king. That the
basileus question was one of the most urgent and burning problems
with the Socratics emerges from the list of Antisthenes’ writings
in Diog. L., who includes a series of works on this and related
themes. The Cyropaedia is earlier in date than Plato’s Republic
but presumably later than Antisthenes’ Cyrus, which Dittmar,
Aischines von Sphettos, p. 84, cf. 174, ascribes to the year 390.” It
is, of course, disputable how far Xenophon’s retouching of Hero-
dotus’ picture of Cyrus was influenced by other basileus-portrayers.
It forms part of the larger question of Xenophon’s originality in
general.
3.
Interesting light is thrown on the idealisation of Cyrus if we

examine the portraits drawn by Nicolaus of Damascus and
Dio Chrysostomus. Nicolaus, Jacoby, F Gr Hist II 324, fragm.
66, bases his account of the history of the Persian empire
on earlier
sources, presumably Ctesias, who wrote during
the first half of the fourth century. Ctesias’ historical
writing
is remarkable for its uncritical character, its anecdotes,
legends
etc. The portrait of Cyrus shows that Nicolaus followed a
completely different tradition than Herodotus. He presents
Cyrus as submitting to voluntary slavery because of difficult
material circumstances: Cyrus was a son of Atradates, who
because of poverty took to robbery; his mother was a goatherd.®
Cyrus betook himself to the Median court, where he suffered
severely and was often whipped. But gradually he rose in
the Service in the king’s castle to the position of Xu^voc^ópoç,
and then to oivoyóoç^ displayed uncommon energy and other
virtues, 4)vo)(Ó£’. vúxxa *^|i£pav, ÒTtécpaivé x£ tcoXXyjv awcppoaúvrjv
y-ai àvop£tav, and finally reached a position of power at the
' I.e. the book of Cyrus which is to be found in tom. V of Antisthenes’

writings with the title Kõpog íj jiepl paotXeíaç. In his attempt to reconstruct
this Work, Dittmar regards it as a dialogue.
® Cf. Jacoby’s commentary of the fragm. 66, F Gr Hist II C, p. 251.
® Cf. Weissbach, loc. cit., col. 1143.
87
Median court.^ His father Atradates was made Satrap of Pérsia.

A Vision which his mother.saw in her sleep revealed Cyrus as Asia’s
future ruler. Cyrus was sent to the Cadusi to put down a rebellion,
but allied himself with them and the Persians, fought against
Astyages, was almost defeated, but finally won a decisive victory,
and so became liberator of the Persians.
Or. 15,22 shows that Dio Chrys. was familiar with this tradi-
won from slavery there
tion. In the speech telling how freedom is
is a passage which runs as follows: Tí 5é; èpauxòv ouv. áv aot
ooxfi) èXeu9’£?ü)aaL; Et ys àpyópiôv 7to9-ev xaTaâXo-.ç tw SsaTpdxTfl.
éauxóv, àXXà
OÒ XOOxÓV XÒV XpÓTtOV, àXXà ÔVTtSp KOpOÇ ou {J.ÓVOV
xal népaaç áuavxaç '^XsuÔ-épwae, xoaoOxov ôyXov, oõx£ àpYÚptov oòOEVt
xaxapaXwv oux£ Otiò xou oeanóxou àcp£9-£tç. ^ oò% ota9-a ôxl Xuxvo-
cpópoç2 Kupo? 'AaxuáYOU, xat ÔTZóxe y’ èvE^ûjxVj^r] xa; iSoêv aOxw,
èX£Ú9-Epoç àpa xat jSaaiXEu; èYÉVEXO x^ç ’Aataç á7táaY)ç; EIev. That
Dio utilised the figure of Cyrus to demonstrate the Cynic-Stoic
ideal basileus is shown by two passages which couple Cyrus wit
Alcibiades, an old Cynic antithesis, Or. 21,11 and 25,4 ff. In Or. 21
it is the occurrence of this Cynic antithesis which, according to
V. Arnim, constitutes an indication that the speech belongs to his
himself in the
period of exile.^ Dio thinks that he must excuse
dialogue 6xt ou Tzepi Kúpou xat AXxtptaSou Xeyw, woxEp dl ^
xat vuv, àXXà NéptDVOç xaL xotoúxtov TrpaYpáxtóv V£(i)xéptov xe xat aSoîov
[d)v] pvYjaovsúü). In the text and punctuation of this passage we
have followed de Budé."* Important for the interpretation of t e
passage is the question whether êxt xat vOv is to be construed wi
XéYü) or with õaTCEp ol ao'foí.^ If we take it with XéYw, this means
that Dio was in the habit of referring to Cyrus and Alcibiades, and
that here, too, in a dialogue about the ideal of mascuhne beauty,
that his
we should expect a similar exemplification.» Dio presumes
interlocutor expected something of the sort, In Or. 64,27 Dio( )
1 Cf. Xen. Cyrop. I 3,8 ff, an elucidative instance of how Xenophon deals
with lhe tradition.
2 XuxvoííotôÇ Mss. But probably Xoxôípópoç according to Nicolaus.
“ Dion von Prusa, p. 291 ff.
* DE Budé follows VON Arnim.
° Cf. Cohoon’s text.
êxt xat vüv famous for great beauty.
° According to Xenophon, Cyrus was
Cf. Hdt. I 112 and Justin I 4,12 about Cyrus as a child.
88
mentions Alcibiades precisely because of his personal beauly, and

again in Or. 55,12 among other companions of Sócrates, and again
in Or. 25,4 as an example of a politician Tcávi» xs */.ai yaXs-
7z6(;. These are the few traces in Dio of the antithetic portrayal of
Alcibiades, of which the quotations from Antisthenes in Athenaeus
V 220 c and XII 534 c give evidence: personal beauty, biit moral
corruption. In opposilion to this was the Cyrus tradition which
is based on the SoOXoç-motif and which Dio follows.' This anti-
thesis of Cyrus and Alcibiades has left undeniable traces in Or.
25,4 f. After naming examples of leading Athenian politicians, Dio
mentions Cyrus: íxi oí Kvpov Ilspaãív xtzò ypovoo xivoç, oaípova
Y£V£CT0’ai [*/.ai] âjiXixóv xiva y.al èX£'j3’£piov 5suX£'jovxa; aOxoOc
Mriòoíz Tzpóxs.pov £'í èX£'JÔ’£píav à'pziXexo y.ai Twávxiov Í7zé'p'qvs ozaizó-
xar xò)v y.axà xvjy ’Ao:ay.“ As is shown by Or. 15,22, this passage
must refer to the ooOXoí^-motif of the Cyrus tradition. Criticism of
Athenian politicians is suggested in the very choice of examples,
which include Alcibiades, but it also finds explicit expre.ssion. Dio
seems to have used a descending scale in his political valuations:
Lycurgus, Pisistratus, Cyrus, Numa Pompilius, Philip of Macedon,
Hanno of Carthage, are named as examples of àyaô-ot oaíjxoy£C,
but he wavers in his estimate of later rulers. The parallelism be-
tween Cyrus and Numa is obvious. The antithesis between Cyrus
and Alcibiades, psychologically explicable only in consideration
of the great political expectations which the Athenians placed in
Alcibiades, is also an antithesis between a political power in the
process of development and one falling into dissolution. As a
literary product such an antithesis is conceivable only in an actual
situation where disappointed hopes conferred larger proportions
on
a single individual’s significance and possibilities than would
a sober historical evaluation, for which Cyrus and Alcibiades
would be incommensurables. The few traces found in Dio Chrys.
of this Antisthenic antithesis must be ascribed to a direct Cynic
SoDÀos need not mean aÍ3XP®S- In this case it has certainly not been so.
® Cf. Dio Or. 4,80.
° The text according to de Budé. Cohoon’s alleration ètií yP'=vciv xivá
overlooks the essential thought, that is to say Cyrus’ dramatic melamorphosis
from slave to ruler of Asia of which a hint is given by the words àTtô xpõvou
xcvòç Saíjiova Ysváa0-ai.
89
influence. The expression waTcep ol aoçotin Or. 21,11 niay refer to

such a source.
Dio mentions Cyrus a few times in his writings, but the
references are fleeling and merely exempli gratia. Apart froni
Or. 15,22 the most important passage is Or, 2,77. The second royal
speech consists in a conversation between Philip of Macedon and
Alexander aboiil the Homeric ideal of king and the lessons which
a king may derive therefrom. The exposition does not exhibit any
Cynic features ^ and differs in other respects, too, from Or. 4, for
example, where Alexander is also one of the main personages. The
last section of Ihis oration, however, contains a programme which
may be labelled »Stoic»: Zeus, ó paaiXeòç paatXewv, dxe y.tjos-
|i(bv ‘/.al TíaxYjp y.oLVÒc ày^’pü)7w(üv y.al ^swv, brings about the
downfall of the bad ruler, but rewards the good ruler with long
life.^ In the catalogues of vice, § 75, and virtue, § 77, which Dio
contrasts with each other, the stereotyped and schematic formula-
tion is striking ^ and goes to show that Dio, even in this speech
with its extreme niartial tone, had not diverged far from the
is
Cyiiic-Stoic pattern of such programmatic statements. Cyrus
mentioned with others as an example of a real basileus; xòv oé y®
àvopEíOV y.ai cpiXávô-pwTiov y.at xoíç ÒTCTjywóoiç suvouv -uiiwvxa
jièv XY]v àp£X7]y yal xlvoí^ xíüv aYot^tüV 5óçt(}
Xóxepo;, xoòc Ss àSíy.ouç |j.£xavo£ty àvaYy-áÇovxa, xoiç Sè àaô-Evéatv
àpVjYovxa, x^ç àpsx^? àYájJ.£Voç wç xò tíoXò jièv àY£t (sc. Zeus) TípoC
ota9*áTC£p ày.oúo|i£V KOpóv x£, %xX. It seems as though Dio
is here basing himself on Onesicritiis, Jacoby, F Gr Hist
II 723. Ps.-Lucian. Macrob. 14=fragm. 36 Jacoby, contains a
authorities
reference to Persian yearbooks and to Onesicritus as
for its statement that Cyrus reached the age of 100 and died
of sorrow at his son Gambyses’ cruelty and treachery. The
^ Cf. our last chapter.

2 In lhe Romaii empire this Cynic-Stoic theory became a political institu-
tion, cf. E. Kornemann, Doppelprinzipat und ReicIisteUung im Impenum
Romanum, p. 19,6.
=* This is above all true of the catalogue of vices: oç âv âvS-pwntóV vévyjxat
píatog v.cd àôixog y.ai 7rapávo|iog ãpxwv. rijv lax^v oò xoTg noXeiiímç âvôsixvúpevoç,
deXÃà xoig ÚTcyjxõotg y.ai xotç çíXotç, ãreXyjaxog pèv ‘fjôovcõv, àTCÀYjoxog 8s
na,-
Ó7covo'ôa'. xaxóç, ãiASÍXtxxog òpYia0-£fg, ògòg xpòç ôiapoXág, ã7t6i9-Y]Ç XÓYoiS.
voõpYog, è7Cí3ouXog, xaTíSivdç, aú9-áôrjg, xoàç xaxoòg aõgwv, xoig xpsíxxoai ^S-ovAv,
TtatSeíac ãoúvsxoç, cpíXov oú8éva vo|iíÇo)V oú8’ sxwv, ü)ç IXaxxov aúxoõ xò y.xTjiia, xx?..
90
tradition about Cyrus’ great age seems thcrefore to have some

Persian authority.^ Onesicritus took over this feature and the
rationalised account of Cyrus’ death for precisely the same motives
as we detect in Dio: the righteous man is rewarded with long life.“
The continuation in Dio shows that even where a career distin-
guished by such virtues was brought to a premature end, an
explanation was ready to hand. Where a man’s fate decrees that
he must die before reaching old age, he receives from Zeus im-
niortal renown as did Heracles. The composition of Or. 2 with
Alexander figuring as one of the chief personages in the dialogue,
prevented the further exemplification to which, we may confidently
suppose, Onesicritus gave prime place, namely Alexander himself.
Onesicritus wrote what was a counterpart to Xenophon’s Cyro-
paedia, JlCbç ’AXéçav5po; tíxO-y], Diog. L. VI 84, a work in which
he surpassed all other historians of Alexander in uncritical marvel-
mongering, xspixzoXoyíaí^ Strabo XV l,28=fragm. 16 Jacoby.
The comparison which Diog. L. VI 84 draws betwcen Xenophon
and Onesicritus makes it likely that the latter’s work compared
Cyrus with Alexander the Great. We have already pointed out
the occurrence in the passage in Dio of the motif of advanced age
or immortal renown as a reward for the faithful discharge of royal
duties. Yet another theme is common to Onesicritus and Dio:
ôè áSíxouç |i£xavo£lv àvayy.áÇovxa. Cf. Onesicritus, Strabo XV
1, 63—65=fragm. 17 Jacoby: d)cp£X'.|j,(í>xaxov 5’ éíri xôiv áTiávxwv,
si 61 xoiouxo'. çjpovotEV, oíç 7cáp£axt Súvajitç xoòç iasv éxouotouç ueí-
Êtv awcppovElv, xoòç o’ àxouatouç àva.-^xáê.iv. The occasion for the
comparison between Cyrus and Alexander was found by One
sicritus in the archaeological monuments on Alexander’s route to
the Orient. According to Strabo XV 3,7 f=fragm. 34, 35 Jacoby,
he gave a description of both Cyrus’ and Darius’ tombs together
with their inscriptions.®
* Cf. Plin. Nat. hist. VII 28=fragm. 11 Jacoby: Onesicritus quibus locis
Indiae umbrae non sint corpora hominum cubitorum quinum et binarum
palmaram existere, et viuere annos CXXX, nec senescere sed ut medio aevo
mori. Cf. also Strab. XV 1.34=fragm. 24 Jacoby.
° That Onesicritus had this ethical view seems to be undubilable cf.
his ethical propaganda of Alexander the Great (about which see chapt. II)
and the conneclion Xudpioç — naxpdgioç, fragm. 24 Jacoby.
“ Cf. also Alexander’s own measures to honour the memory of Cyrus:
91
The remarks about Cyrus, which occur in Or. 64, suggest

Herodotean tradition.^ The speech, like Or. 63, is not genuine. The
reference to Astyages’ gold chains in Or. 80,12 belongs possibly
to Gtesias’ version of the Cyrus legend. In any case it is not found
in Herodotus.®
Dio Chrys. took over the lonic stories about the elder Cyrus.
as a
That these stories were utilised for propaganda about Cyrus
philosopher king is shown by an example in Nicolaus of Damascus,
fragm. 67 .Iacoby: õxi KOpoç ó Ilspawv (3aoiXeòc rjv cptXoaocpíaç, eí
xai xtc diXXoz, èjiTisipoc, 'íívxiva r.oLpà toIç páYoiç èTtatSsúS-Y]. Siy.aio-
aúvYjv X£ xal àXig^-siav y.axà OY) xtvaç lüaxptouç vó|i.ou;
xa9-£axü)xaç Ilepawv xot; àpíaxoiç.® As regards Dio, Or. 15,22 goes
to Show that the lonic legends contained factors which could
easily be applied to king-idealisation, doulos>basileus, and all
the more so because lonic historical writing operated with the
the oldest
equation Cyrus=philosopher-king. We maj’^ compare
Attic representations of Cyrus in Aeschylus Pers. 768 ff: Cyrus,
eòoatjxwv àvYjp, as a peacemaker among his friends and in all
his doings free from the wrath of the gods (bç eõ<pp(i)v êcpu. Precisely
in this point the lonic tradition accords with Xenophon’s portrait
in the Cyropaedia, and it is clear that the theme Cyrus=phi o-
sopher-king, which we find in Nicolaus, goes back to an lonic,
rationalised tradition of Cyrus,and both directly and via Xenophon
gave its stamp to Hellenistic conceptions of Cyrus as sapientissimus,
Cic. De rep. I 43, cf. Diodor. IX 22. Contrast with this Plato Leg.
694 c on Cyrus: axpaxr/Y<5v xs àya,%'òv slvcu v.cx.1 ^tiXónoXiv,
8è dp9-^ç oòx YÍípS-at xò TtapáTtav, xxX.^
Xenophon’s interests, however, made it impossible for
him to adopt the doulos-motif of the Cyrus legend. The reason
is not, of course, Xenophon’s criticism of the historical facts, but
Arrian Anab. III 27,5, VI 29,4, Ps.-Cailisth. II 21, Diodor XVII 81, Curl. VII
6,20, Weissbach, loc. cif., col. 1164.
7 Or perhaps Clesian. xal népoat 81 êpépçovxo xijv xúx»jv pexà zr)V Kopoo
oçaYvjv, § 1, can niean Cyrus’s death in the account of Herodolus as well
as in that of Gtesias, cf. Weis.sbach, loc. cit., col. 1156 f. Cf. also § 23.
8 Or. 80 belongs to the exile, v. Arnim, Dio von Prusa, p. 276. In another
speech Cyrus is mentioned as an occasional example, i.e. Or. 56, which also
belongs to the exile, v. Arnim, op. cit., p. 285 ff.
8 Cf. Jacoby’s commentary, F Gr Hist II G, p. 251.
^ Weissbach, loc. cit., col. 1163 f.
92
rather his conservatism as an Athenian which forbade him to apply

such a description to his hero. It would have been repugnant to his
conventional nature to use such violent effects in delineating a
character.2
The question now arises how Antisthenes went to work, and
in determining what his conception of Cyrus was we may start
with the statement in Diog. L. VI 2: xai 6zi ó tzóvoç à-fatí-òv auv-
ÉGxr^GS dix zoO iisyxXov ^HpxxXéovç xxi zoO Kúpoo, zò |ièv xtzò xtõv
'"EàXyívwv, zò 3è X7ZÒ xwv pxp^xptov éXxÚGxç.The parallelism between
Heracles and Cyrus is decisive. The idea of ízóvoç in Heracles’
case went through a curious development which has changed the
legendarj' accounts of heroic deeds and imposed labours inlo the
allegorical individual-ethical interpretalion of Tzóvor as a good.
IIóvoc implies suffering and Service, although in its individual-
ethical transformation this is regarded as voluntary and egocentri-
cally motivated. But the background is clear and was probably
always a more or less determining factor in the allegory. Thus
Tcóvoc is intimately connected with the doulos-idea, and if we
may assume a parallelism between Heracles’ tzóvgl and Cyrus’
TZÓVOl both of them were chosen to demonstrate the Cynic thesis
of 7ZÓVCÇ= xyxd'ÓV we conclude that in the works of Antisthenes
Cyrus must have gone through a period of dovXsíx, the nóvoi of
which served a good purposc. This is the kernel of the lonic
legend. Antisthenes knew the lonic tradition and saw the parallel
ism between the tzóvol of Heracles and Cyrus. For Antisthenes
Cyrus was an ideal king, and what was idealised in him was Cyrus’
personal development from doulos to basileus through his tzóvol,
which are conceived as suffering (the doulos-representation in
Nicolaus of Damascus!) but turn into a good for himself and his
people.
Antisthenes’ posüion in the Greek literature about Cyrus can
be most easily represented by the schema below. Under the concept
^ An interesting comparison is the view of Isocrafes who in lhe legend
of Cyrus finds material for his polemics against Pérsia, V 132: 2xs'|at ô’ tbg
al^xpòv Ttepiopãv xíjv ’Aa(av apeivov npázxovsav xvjr Eòptóxyjç xal Pap3ápoos
sÚTcoptoxépous xu)v 'EÀÀyjvttív õvxotg, êxi 5è xoòg |ièv anó KOpou xíjv âpxv)v sxovxaç,
ov prjxr^p ele ”vjv Ô5óv èçéâXs, âoiXéxr \ieyxXovg TcpoaaYOpeuoixévoys, xoòç Ò'
ã?' 'HpaxÀéooç TZB-puv.óxxg, ov ó ●{sy'/ii'3X<: 5:à xíjv âpsxyjv elç S-souç X'vy]-fx-'s,
xa-Tstvoxspoie ôvó|j,a3'.v vj 'xsívoug TupooaYopswopévoug. wv oySèv èaxéov ouxtoc sxs'.v,
âÀÀ' âvasxpcTixéov xal jxsxaoxaxéov aTcavxa xaúx’ êoxív.
93
»Ionic Cyrus-tradilion we include the disparate elements which

have left traces in lhe Greek texts preserved to us: partly a sober
and criticai conceplion of Cyrus, partly the rich legendary mate-
rial, partly a rationalised Cyriis-idealisation basileus philo-
sophos.
lonic Cyrus-Tradition
Heroíiotus
Plato Ctesias Ântisthcncs The Younger Cyrus
Xenophon
Onesicritus?
Nicolaus of Damascus
Dio Chrys.
Herodotus treats the traditional aceounts with a certain mea-

sure of criticism. Plato follows him in his sober narrative, Leg.
694 c ff and Menexenus 239 d. Ctesias (Nicolaus of Damascus)
represents an uncritical, logographic tradition which contains a
nuniber of variants of the doulos-motif discussed by Herodotus.
Antislhenes niay have derived his knowledge of the theme directly
from Herodotus. It is, however, probable that Herodotus’ account
of Cyrus as a whole repelled Antislhenes because of its brutal, milit-
ary character and its freedom from propaganda.® Antislhenes may
also have been directly influenced by the logographic literature on
which Ctesias based his account of the doulos-episode; in other
words he may have been aware of more complete and radical
variants of this motif than that variant which Herodotus transmits.
This is the case if we may assume that Dio’s account goes back
directly to old Cynic sources, that is to Antislhenes himself, in its
idealisation of Cyrus. There is much to support this view: the
Cyrus-Alcibiades antithesis together with the circumstance that
all notices of Cyrus in Dio belong to the time of his exile or a
subsequent period, in other words after Dio had come into contact
with Cynic literature. We have noled the same circumstances in
® II is probable that the theory of Cyrus’ long life as a reward for
àpexT) in Onesicrilus-Dio, has also been Antisthenes’.
94
the case of Heracles. Xenophon probably owcd his acquainlance

with the individual-ethical interpretation and the propagandistic
purposes of Cyrus’ Tróvot to Antisthenes. In the Memorabilia we
have a proof that discussions in Socratic circles about the basileus
problem gave Xenophon an individual-ethical conception of the
basileus: I 1,16, I 2,39 ff, II 1 ff, II 6, III 2 f, III 5, III 9,10 ff,
IV 6,12 and passim. Xenophon’s Symposium IV 34 ff gives some
indication of the part which Antisthenes played in this connection.
The rest of his material was derived by Xenophon from personal
contact with the lonic tradition of Cyrus via the younger Cyrus.
But the doulos-motif was repugnant to his conservative Attic con-
ceptions, and probably also to his admiration for the younger Cyrus.
This explains his Cynic, individual-ethical treatment of Cyrus in
the Cyropaedia, in which he abandons the doulos-motif of lonic
historical writing, preserved in Herodotus, to which Plato alludes
in the Laws, and which the parallelism between Heracles and
Cyrus together with the general picture presented by Dio Chrys.
leads us to assume was utilised by Antisthenes in his own portrait
of Cyrus.
The individual-ethical interpretation of Cyrus’ tzóvol which
I hope I have made plausible, rules out the definition given by
Dittmar, Aischines von Sphettos, p. 74: »Antisthenes hat den
Kyros nicht ais Tugendmuster nach dem Schema Besonnenheit,
Gerechtigkeit usw. abgehandelt».^ On the contrary, Antisthenes
treated Cyrus as an individual-ethical hero who exhibited, main-
tained and developed a whole series of individual-ethical virtues
in his position as doulos (cf. Nicolaus) and thereby became a
basileus philosophos, the true king.
III. Odysseus.
That Antisthenes adopted to a great extent the rhetorical style
of his teacher Gorgias may be seen from the fictitious forensic
speeches »Ajax» and »Odysseus». H. J. Lulofs, De Antisthenis
studiis rhetoricis, p. 60 ff, publishes the text of both speeches
together with a full discussion of the readings and alsò discusses
* Aceording to B. Keil, Epikritische Isokratesstudien, p. 356,2. — Wether
lhe Heracles material which Dittmar, op. cit., p. 75, quotes from Dio Chrys.
may be applied to Cyrus, is aii open question.
95
the sfyle, p. 78 íf. This investigation strengthens what is suggested

by fragments of his other works: Lulofs quotes p. 22 ff a number
óf examples of antilhesiSj paronomasia, isocola, and homoeoteleuta
in the fragments, examples which are illuminated by comparison
with the Ajax and the Odysseus speeches, the only surviving
complete texts of Antisthenes. The prose rythm has been examined
by Aug. Bachmann, Ajax et ülixes declamationes utrum iure
tribuantur Antisthcni nccne. Bachmann discusses the earlier litera-
ture on the queslion of authenticity, p.3ff. The conclusions reached
by Fr. Blass in his Attische Beredsamkeit 11“ 337 and in his
edition of the speeches in Antiphon orationes, p. 175 ff» are
are in all
supported by thcse sljdistic investigations: the speeches
probability genuine.
The form, however, is a question apart. A closer examination
of his speeches goes to show that Antisthenes, even in these wor s
in which from a formal point of view he stands closest to ns
teacher Gorgias, already provides examples of Cynic
They contain in fact the oldest examples of the discussion o
ideal king.
We must first givc a brief summary of the niotifs in t e a ôf
medes of Gorgias and then compare it with the
Antisthenes. Both speeches are apologias deliveied e ore
assembled army in front of Troy. Palamedes defends
against an accusation by Odysseus of high treason. In t e
thenes speech Odysseus defends himself against Ajax m
dispute about tbe armour of Achilles. The genera
treatment in both these fictitious apologias placed m si
settings shows radical differences in the foliowing .
A. Nalionalism: in Gorgias the contrast Greeks-Barbanaj^
which does not occur in Homer, is further heightene y
expression of Greek national feeling; in Antisthenes ®
trace of this. However, on this point the in
cause the very choice of subject accentuates the
Gorgias the enemy is directly concerned, whereas in Aiax,
the dispute is first and foremost one between Odysseus a^^^
and the enemy is onlj^ incidentally mentioned by name a
in quite a neutral expression as ói Tpwsç.
corporate body,
B. The War: in Gorgias the soldiers are a
96
TÜOLWV TÒ 'caaaólisvov, Twstô-óiisvoç xoTç ápyouaiv, wliereas Anlis-
thenes emphasises individualism.

C. Slaves: Gorgias looks upon the slave with harshness and
suspicion, and for him slavery is the greatest evil; Antisthcnes
represents the slave’s position as something potentially valuablc.
There are no parallels in the text of Antisthenes for Gorgias’
mention of voluntary exile and death, the former as something
unthinkable, the latler considered as a matter of honour. Morc-
over, the speech exhibits a number of conservativc features. Its
propagandisüc tendency is striking and possibly Gorgias had a
definite political purpose with the Palamedes in contrast with the
Helen which he aiso designates as èjxòv Twaívviov.
The differences between Gorgias and Antisthenes in the above
mentioned poinls are evident. Nationalism, militarism, and a
generally conservativc attitude in politics of a propagandisüc
character are unthinkable in Antisthenes, who adopted a criticai
attitude towards contemporary society. If we examine more closely
the speech of Antisthenes it becomes clear that he is conccrned
with a wholly differcnt and new set of problems even in a literary
genre which is formally so rigid and incapable of much develop-
ment. The new problem is the tension existing between two types
of man, which in Antisthenes are represented by Ajax and
Odysseus. It is the tension between the straightforward and ho-
norable Ajax, who is alien to all intrigues, compromises, or innova-
tions, on the one hand, and the crafty Odysseus on the other, the
man who always comes off best by his inventiveness, adaptability
and shamelessness. Sophocles gave an extraordinarily interesting
sketch of these radically different types in his play the Philoctetes,
produced in 411, a play in which the irreconcilable differences in
the characters, Neoptolemus and Odysseus, lead to exciting and
unexpected dramaüc developments. Sophocles’ Philoctetes deals
with a humaii type evoked by demagogy and popular sophistry
in the stress of an unsuccessful and ruthless war. In the Ajax,
Sophocles used the same motif, although the problems posed are
more profound. Ajax stands as the representative of the same
noble, straightforward type as Neoptolemus. We may regard the
Ajax and Odj^sseus speeches of Antisthenes as in their own way
in and evidences of this debate between ideas. Com-
contributions
instance, Philoctetes 108 f and Ajax’ remark about
pare, for
97
Odyssciis in Antisthencs Ajax 5; similarly the complete break

betwccn Ncoplolenius and Odysscus in Philoctetes 1245 f and
the insuperablc dincrcnces lietween Ajax and Odysseus in Ajax 5.
We know cven from other texts which side Antisthenes took
in this debate aljout Odysseus’ character. In this place, too, Antis
thenes took iip the ciidgels for his hero Odysseus. We note the
following motifs in his portrayal of Odysseus;
a. Philanthropia: Od. 8: iúOTzep (oè) oi y.u^£pv^T;ai xy)v vjv.ta
y.al xY^y *?j|t£pav ay.o“oOaiv aóxjovai xoòç vaúxaç, oOxü) oè xat
lYtoYe aè y.al xoòç aXXouç áÍTravxaç awÇw, and passim.
b. Individualism: Odysseus is the individualist of independent
action who saves all others by his own craft and energy, Od. 8.
èYü) oè aoTwXoç auxà £taépxoiiai xà X£*xy], Ttai xwv 7CoX£|xíü)V
xouc 7tpo'SÓXxy.aç èjpTjyopóxxç auxoTc ônXotatv alpo), y.oíí elpt- oxpa-
XYJYÒS y.xi cpóXa; y.al aoO y.al xwv áXXtov áTtávxíüV, %ai olSa xa x
èv8’áo£ y.al xà èv xoíç 7:oX£|jiíot(:, oòxt TcéjXTrcov y.axaay.£íjjó|A£VOV áXXov,
àXX' xòxòç (ítbv).^ In the following paragraph Odysseus is represen-
ted as the adaptable and resourceful individualist who weathers a
circumstances, £xoi|id<: £tjx’ ásí. Odysseus not only saves his o^^n
comrades but also captures Troy singlehanded, § 14.
c. Self-abasement: Odysseus has his servants treat nni
roughly and clothes himself in a slave’s clothes, thus incurring t e
mockery of Ajax, Ajax õ: y.dxò) pèv oòx âv àvaaxoiV^îV
àycoóiúv, oòoè yàp y.ay.wç Tiáaxwv, ó 5è y.àv yp£|j.áii£VOÇ, eS xspoaivsív
XI jiÉXXor oax-.t" jiaaxiYO^JV 7r:ap£tX£ xolç ooúXoiç xod x'J7zxziv ço Oj-C
xà võixa y.al TUJYparç xò TcpóatoTCov, y.á7r£ixa 7í£pipaXó|i£V0ç pàxy],
vjy-xòc ek x£txo" síoouç xwv 7coX£p,íü)v, Í£poouX'iQaaç àTCYjX^s.
seus’ answer to this attack makes his position clear, Od. 1
àXX’ 'íjvly.a av pÉYX'<?Ç xYjvty.aOxa èYÒ) awÇio aé, y.al xoòç
â£t xaxóv XI Ttotíõ, £xwv xà 8ouXo7rp£7í'^ xaOxa ÕTiXa yal 'cà ^ctx'fl ^
xàç jxáaxiYaç, ot’ aç aò àacpaXc&c y.a^£Ú5£tç. We find here a
of elements which characterise the appearance and con
the typical Cynic; the slave’s equipment, xà SouXoTtpsixf) xaOxa o^ .
outward defencelessness, Od. 8, èYÓ) 8è SokXoç, %xX., vo un a ^
suffering,® self-abasement and adaptability, means of realismo
® The lext according to liLASS. Cf. Lulofs, op. cit., p. 74. stress
° In Hoiiier Odysseus maltreals himself, 8 244. Antislhenes lays272 ff.
upon and expands the molif. As to the following motifs, cf. also «
p 217 IT, 283 f. 365 ÍT, x 346 ff, u 66 ff, 242 ff. cp 288 ff.
7
98
deliberale piirpose. see examplcs above and Od. 9: àÀÀ’ oouXo;

£1 ‘/.a: iov xoò; tzoásilíouz y.oc.y.óv zi
opa V. Philanthropy and individualism, too, enter prominently
into the characteristics of this type. Philanthropia finds expression,
for instance, in constant watchíulness to save tbose who are asieep
(a favoured Gynic antithesis), tbat is to say a certain measiirc of
asceticism, for exainples of which see above and Od. 10: y.a: oò5è
yjc 7C(JJ ífcOT£ |X£ a XO, 0)0 P G£ TzoXXxy.i' p,a7Ó|i£voy aa|ji£Vov
7Z£7rauy.£V
àXX’ r^víy.a av pev/J/' aj, zr^Y.y.x^zx è-^ò) oi, y.zX.
Individualism is hcre characterised by tlie popular póvoç-motif,
Od. 2 and 14 and passim by the constant antithesis è'(ó)—Opsíc-
These three main types of Gynic motifs which characterise
the Antisthenic Odysseus are combined in this speech with a
number of other motifs, Socratisms or Gynic zótzoi. We note the
following:
1) The antithesis Xóôt, — gpva, Ajax 1, 7 three examples,
and 8. It is particularly interesting to note how strongh’^ Antisthenes
brings out the latter notion; the examples are full, varied and
probably tj^pically Antisthenic. The familiar dictum of Antisthenes
oòy. £C7~'.v x'/ziXt(S'.v here recurs in a practical application: instead
of useless disputes, action without talk. We should probably also
relate to Antisthenes’ theory of knowledge the expression in § 7:
oòo£|iíav £/ Aovo: TZpòç é’ p'(ov tayúv. Gf. the expression
in Diog.
L. VI 11: aòzxpy.ri oè zr\y ápsxYjv Tzpòz BÒòx'.\io'Axy, jXTjOEVÒc Ttpoa-
Ô£0|X£vr^v 6zi \vf] S(j)y.paxiy.Y/c loyyoz. xiqv x àpEXYjV xôiv èpytov £tvai.
|iYjX£ Xóvwv tüXeíoxwv SEOjxÉv/jv ^xYjxs |iaô-/jiAáxwy.
2) The antithesis Xáâpa — epavEpois, Ajax 5 and 8 with the
reply of Odysseus in Od. 9. It is doubtful whether this was in-
tended as a preliminary discussion of the Gynic Trávxa tíoieÍv èv
xü) |JL£0(|), Diog. D. VI 69. But the problem is posed in a similar
way in that Odysseus’ nocturnal lepoouXta in the guise of a slave
was in itself--- something personally humiliating to him, which,
aceording to Ajax’ conservative point of view, he ought by rights
to conceal and not boast about. Od. 9 should be interpreted along
these lines: Odysseus shrank from nothing which could do damage
to the enemy merely on the grounds that it was shameful.
3) The antithesis y.àY<b jxèv oò% av àvaa/ot|X'//V %a%G)ç ày.oútov,
oòôè yàp xaxwc; Tcáa/^wv, ó 6è y.av yvp£[iá|j,£voc, XEpSaívEtv xi jxÉX-
Xot, Ajax 5. Gf. Antisthenes Diog. L. VI 3: àxoúaac ttoxe ó'xt
99
nXáxtov aOxòv y,xY,G)z Xéyst, paotXty.óv, ic?'//» v-aXwç TroioOvxa y.axwç

ày.oÚ£iv.'
4) Tlie animal coniparisons, Od. 6: üaizzp õ; àypioç òpyTl
X£
cpspó|i£vor, ()d. 14: aè Sé, wç âYW|iat, xy)v cpúatv à7c£ty.áÇ(i)v xo:ç
> YOppáatv, àXXo-.ç Trapéyouat 0£aji£Ú£iv
Vüj9‘éatv SvoL^ y.ai Poua: xoí?:
y.at Ç£i)YVÚva'. aOxoú;. Cf. Diog. L. VI 1, 7, 8.®
5) The y.uj3£pvTgxYjc-simile, Od. 8 quoted above, a.
a£ y.axóv
6j The molir Od. õ: br.ò xíjc yây.fjç SpYíjÇ o"^0[iaí
xt aauxòv èp'(<xaza%'aa. Cf. 4 above.
7) The molil' Od. 12: ç6-óvov 8s xai ã|ia8-t«y vooste. Cf. Od. 4:
Okò Yà? à|ix8';a{ (iv sO séTiovô-as oOSsv oía8-a. y.à-(ò> [lèv oOx dvs:-
Õíí<ü aot xY)v àpia8'íxy «xíov y^P
8aoiv ájiavxsc. Od. 13: ãiia8ía òè xaxèv y.é-(iaxov xotç íyooaiv.
8) The coxía-àvapsía-molif, Od. 13: ÕtóxiYàP
àvõpxtoc eivai, xaí oòx oio8-a 8xi ao-pta xepi TiáXeôv xai avopeia
OU xauxóv èaxtv EayOaat.
9) The Socraüc thesis Od. 6: oòx oia8a Sxi xòv àvopa «v
àYxa-àv o08'' ò-p’ aòxoO XP^l 6p’ Ixépou oS»’ ÒTio xov xoXxptMV
7tay.òv ouo’ óxioOv 7táax£tv; , ,n «
10) The view of Odysseus as xoXúxXaç (ct. Heracles.) xai
xoXivi„xtc xai xoX«p.-óy.*ve;. Od. 14, which reeurs m olher Irag-
menls of Anlislhenes.
11) The ooneepUon of lhe hasileus, Ajax 4: páaxoyxsç sívai
PaocXet; ^spi àpsxDç xpivsiv è^áxpsiâv áXXoic^ . . . âj«> 8^_ exioxa-
piai xoOxo, 8x1 oòSeiç Sv paoiXsí.{ Exavòc wv ●aspi apsxr); xpiv.iv ên
xpéi!,sisv áXXoic pilXXov íjxsp àY«8'8; iaxpôç SiaYvòivai voayY*
xapeí-^. A real king. in lhe matter of .judgmg vn tue, .s to be com-
pared with a good physieian who diagnoses d.seases: he does
nol leave this tÕ others, sinee he alone possesses real eompetence
in the matter.
noted constitute a surpnsingly rich aceu-
The points we have
Gorgianic form. The most
mulation of Socratic-Cynic moliís in
„ L. VI 7: TtapexsXeúsxó xs xaxwç àxúov-

^ Cf. Epict. IV 6,20. Cf. also Dio Õ*
xag xapxspsiv |iãXXov 7] el XíS-ot? 3*^' .j^xo.
Cf. R. IIiRZEL, Der Dialog, I H6-2-
. 77.
® líLAS.s cf. Lulof.s, op. cit., p
: lors, p. »,,, T,. .. aee„r.nn«

to Hla.s.s.
100
important and interesting thing here is lhat we encoiinter

the Cynic behaviour type so clearly delinealed in the Cynicisin ot
the fifth or early fourth century.
Above we ha ve folio wed H. Gomperz in showing how closely
allied lhe Socratic type of condiict is to the Cynic, whether the
latter is genuinely Socratic or a mixture of traits borrowed froin
different sources. The type of conduct which Antisthenes exenipli-
fies in his Odysseus contains an important trait of the Socratic
type: the outward appearance which contrasts with his inner
nature. It is possible that just as Odysseus conceals beneath liis
slave s garb his true self, »the true king», so Antisthenes and his
circle made use of this same motif. Plato in the Syniposium puts
into Alcibiades mouth the words that beneath his unprepossessing
and unlovely appearance Sócrates conceals true beauty. I think it
plausible that Antisthenes deliberately inlroduced this antithesis
into his description of Odysseus,^ and also that the same theme
was applied to Sócrates. Plato made no great play with the motif
but he takes cognisance of the antithesis and uses it with full
artistic effect in the Symposium. We have some grounds for as-
suming that Antisthenes, who in Xenophon’s Symposium roughly
outlines the Cynic type, utilised the same motif for propagandistic
purposes. The fundamental antithesis between exterior and interior
is put forward by Antisthenes in his intervention in Xen. Symp.
IV 34:
— vojuÇü), d) òcvopsç, àvt)‘p(í)7:o’jç oòy. èv xtj) oty.ío xòv tcXoOxov
i XY]V Tüsvíav êxetv àXV âv xat; 4ûxar-. Then follows a descrip
tion of this essential outward poverty and frugal mode of life,
whose raison d’être consists in its rendering men free, § 43: âîov
o èvvoíjaat wç yai èXsu9-eptouç ó xotoOxoç ttXoOxcç 7za.pB'/zxa.L. The
model and prototype for the Cynic ideal of conduct is Sócra
tes, § 43. Stoy.paxYjç xs yocp oõxoç 7cap’ oO è'(ui xoOxov (sc. xòv TtXoOxov
in its Cynic sense) èxxY]aá|x7jv oõx’ àpL9*|iô) oõxs axaS-iiw èTiVjpy.st
\ioL, (xXX Oi\,ÓGov èouvajiTjv (p£psaô*ai, xoctouxóv jioi TcapsStSou. Anti
sthenes declares that he wishes to hand on what he has
received from Sócrates, 43: èyw xs vOv oòSsvt <p%'Ov(í>, àXXà TTãai
xoTç cpíXotç y.at èTítSsiyyúw xvjv á'4>ô-ovcav y.at jisxaotowjju xw poüXo-
p,év({) xoO èv x^ èpL^j ixXoúxou. Outward frugality — inward
riches! The antithesis might also be expressed thus: the geiiuine
Homer offered rich possibilities in that way with all the situations in
which Odysseus appears incognito, cf. v 397 ff and passim.
101
as
in an humble form, It was along these lines that the motif
used in laler times.
The other features, too, we have noted in the character of
the Antisthenic Odysseus fali naturally into the schema conten
versus form: the effective weapons despite the apparent defence
lessness, the inward freedom exhibited by the voluntary choice ot
in the struggle,
outward siiffering and self-abasenient as a nieans m
philanthropia towards all despite outward isolation. t ler an i
theses were added later, the more; consciously elaborated the Cynic
type of behaviour bccame. We encounter also variations on the
themes mentioncd, but the schema content versus form maintains
Christian asceticism and
itself for centuries and finally enters into
Puritanism. ,
Among the various Socratic-Cynic motifs we have especiaUy
noted, the basileus-themc in Ajax 4 deserves our a ,
encounter the view of the true king as a judge o apexig. n i
mode of expression in this eonnection is of interest. f:âvoc
div, xxX., ,lhe king who is competenf.»
up directly with the Sophistic discussions a ou pro e
pLnee, political and ethical competence etc. Co^npare the sh tt
of meaning: PIato’s Prot. 322 c (the allcgory ^
ÍX<«V iaTpix-i)V TCoXXotc Exavóç EôkíxouS. cf- j âXX’
b. Plat. Lys. 204 a: Mà Aí«, V S’ âvd., oô ys avy, «XX
£v.«vòc
, aoycoxvic,
^ Phacdr.
, 258TTb: Sxav
QOR a- iv.avoc *
S aòxoc oíoxiioeicíç, o<tü)ç
CTtXsuc, Critias, Diels-Kranz II 395,3. áov£'v
r ^ f . V TI 1.1: ÕTZIÚÇ íxavòç saxai
Ywapy, Ec-Q íxavoí, Xen. Mcm. II . oòSi xpcxfjv
Isocr. X 38 (Hclen): oo W J XII 132 (Panath.):
ixavoxepov èTravajeaS íxavMxáxooç
8oot pèv eicáOaaw i«i x«c «PX«C ■ xfflv ,pay-
X(ÜV
“ 'toX.xow xac I^^XXo^ ,vith Antisthcncs’ com-
pax«v êrooxaxxiasçv, xxX. A c'êJ Xcnophon’s Cyrop.
parison between king and physicia p^j^wses whereat Cyrus
I 6,15 f. Cyrus receives instruetion from Cambjses, wnerea y
X . 1 Wlnt is desired is not anonymily but
" A perfect propaganda devicel ‘ ^ ^ „,odest form. in which
effecl. The values to be emphasised a richness of the
the very antithesis accentuates the co beggar’s rags etc.
soul in utmosl worldly poverty. the t J Procl.
5 íxavoç in the Antisthenes text is ansoiu .
õvxoç títavoõ xpCveiv TíoiYjxáç.
In Plat. Tim. I 28 c: nXáxwvoç oòx
102
tf
declares his intention of taking pliysicians alon j, with liis army
in order to watch over the soldiers’ healtli: y.a: oí\ix ò) Tzxzsp,
Tüávu íy.avoò; —qy Í2.zpiy.i]y ziyyqy íçsLV |X£x’ è|iauxo0 av5pa'. Wherc-
upon Cambyses answers: ’AXÀ’, (h Tzxi, lyq, o’jxg: |í£V oòz Àsv
waTüsp í|j.aTÍ(i)v paYÉvTtúv zlaí tive; àxôaxaí, oOxo) y.al oí íaxpo:, ôxav
Tivèç voaiQawat, "XO íüjvxai xoúxouç- aoí 0£ xoúxou jX£YaXo7rp QzipX
ígzoíl ‘q zfjZ òyieíoc í{X£Á£ia* xò Yàp ÒLpyjqy |x’/j y.áixv£iv xò axpax£U|xa,
xoú~ou coi osí jié> Kaí xíva oy] iyúi, Irp-q, & Tzdízsp, óõòv íwv xoOxo
Tcpá,zzs’.v íy.oLvò jxai; The exposition in the main is the same as in
Antisthenes, with the difference that it is more clearly expressed
and elaborated in greater detail. In both passages the proíessional
concept ty.avór is transferred from the physician’s art and made
to apply to the king’s activities, as is, mulatis inutandis, the motif
that important duties should not be handed over to inconipetent
or
less competent persons: the most important duty, the prophy-
lactic care oí the army, belongs solely to the king, and thiis the
king s duty, in Xenophon’s view as expressed in the CjTopaedia,
is to a high degree of an ethical natiire. In the same way, in
questions of an ethical kind, it is only the true king who can be
y.ptXY]ç ty.avóç.
Chapter II.
Interpretation of some Cynic political and pedagogical

fragments.
In the preccding chapter we have attempted to throw some

light on the Cynic conception of nian by examining the eve op
ment of Cynic hero-idealisation. Suffering, sei vice, self abasemen ,
everything which myth and legend could insert into tie lon
of 7ZÓV0C, was taken, transformed and allegoiised to bnng it in o
line with lhe Cynic vicw of life. The law which they íoliowed
in so doing was the antithesis: 7T:dvoç=àYa^óv, oO oç ç,
the outward as opposed to the inward etc.
^ ^ chapter we shall be dealing with some Cynic
In the present
will be to Show that
political and pedagogical fragments. Our aim . -i ● «
fourlh century Cy nicism in ccrtain important and «« P°
is dependcnt on the precedent Greek phdosop ly- V
decisive for the question of the Cynic bas.leus-ideahsat.on, a
problem which will occupy us in the last chapter.
I.
Works in Diog. L. VI 15 ff
In the catalogue of Antisthenes
which apparently treated of
there oceurs a number of writings
following (in addition to those
political problems, primarily the
I TtoXtxstaç, Ilepl vójiou ir) Tcept
mentioned above): Ilepí vó\iou ^
ToO ápX£'‘V, 'ApxéXao; y) r.spl
xxXoõ y.al oixaíou, MsvéÇsvoç ^ Yíspt
is likely that Antisthenes
Paaaeíaç. Apart froni these works it is
othcr Works which were
discussed social and political subjects in r confidently assume
of predominantly ethical characler. We ma>extent the Sophists,
that Antisthenes, like Plato and to some
104
especially Protagoras, carried on his literary work for long periods

under the pressure of the conflict between state and individual.“
The quotations froni Antisthenes’ voluminous polilical writ-
ings are few and on the whole late. Here, too, as in the case of his
Works dealing with Heracles and Cyrus, the informalion we have
reveals merely the general tendenc\’ of his work and thoiight. But
what information we have is iinequivocal: lhe emphasis is always
on the individual at the expense of lhe state. The earliest polilical
name
utterances which have been preserved under Antisthenes’
occur in Xenophon’s Sj^mposium. They tell of Antisthenes’ criti-
cism of tyrannical power. This criticisin is typically Cynic. It
slarts with the question of riches and poverty. In Symp. III 8
Antisthenes boasts about his riches and in IV 34 ff he explains this
remark. He is proud of his wealth because, as he says, yo|iíÇw . . .
xou' àv9’p(í)7üO’jç o’jy. Iy xòi óly.o) xòv tíXoõtov v-oti xy)v Tzsvtav sy^siv
áXX’ èv xaTç ú>uyjx.Tz. The polilical crilicism is characterised b\’^ a
wholly individual-ethical spirit: a?a9 ávo|ia'. oè y.ai xupávvooc x'-váç, oi
oOxoD íwsivwa*. ypYjjiáxwv waxs Tcotoüat ttoXò Òsivóxspa. xwv à7Topioxax(OV.
0‘.' svSciav jièv yàp OYjTcou oi jxèy y.XÉTrxouaív, oi oè xoiyjúpvypvGLV,
oi oè àvopaTvooíÇovxaf xúpavvot 5’ siaí xivsc oi ôXouç |xèv oíxooc
TCÓXstC
ávaipoOaiy, áô-póouç o’ àTíoy.xstyouat, TcoXXáxt!^ oè '/.at õXac
XP‘^lxáxü)y sysy.a èâyôpaTTOOtÇoyxat. xoóxouç jièy oòv iycoye '/.at Tiávu
oly.zípü) xfjç a*('ay yaXsTzfjç yóaou. õjiota yáp |J.ot oo/oOat Tzáayetv
&G7zsp st -ctç TíoXXà êyoi y-at TioXXà èaô-twy ixyjostcoxs è|XTCt|X7cXatxo.
“ Cf. .Stob. Anth. IV 4,28 (quoled below p. llõ). Cf. Max. Conf. Loc.
com. X= Migne XCI 780 B, where the samc polilical saying is ascribed to
Diogenes. — We have a short but very good account of Antisthenes’ writings
and doclxines in O. Gigon, Sokrates, p. 292 ff. However, we do not find a
Word there about his politics.
" Cf. Stob. Anth. IV 8,31: ’Avx-.a9-évY;ç ó çtXóoocpos xoúç 8yjpíoos efiasPsGxs-
po'iç SÀ6YSV eívat tíòv xupávvuv. 7ti)9’0|iévoi) ôé xtvoj xyjv alxíav, õxi uJtó pàv
x(üv ÔTjfiCtov oí âõtxoõvxsç âvaipoõvxat. Oito ôè xõ)v xupáwcav ol pvjSèv apapxa-
vovxes. Cf. Stob. Anth. III 10,41: 4>t?.ápYupo{: ou8elç âYa3-óç, oõxe paotXsúç, oüxs
èÀsú9-£poç. Cf. also Sternbach, Gnom. Vat., No. 6=Wí<?n. Stud. IX 180. We
find a good Diogenes parallel i.a. in Stob. Anth. IV 33,26: AiOYévrjg òv6t8íÇov-
xós xtvos aOxw nsvíav, xaxóSatpov, elTísv, oòSéva xopavvouxa Ôux xsvíav átbpaxa,
3ià 3è TcXoõxov xoüs ndcvxas. Cf. also Diogenes Stob. Anth. IV 31,88:'EXsYe 3^
èv ruóXet TcXooaCí?: jiTjxs sv olxííf ãpexíjv olxeiv 3úvaa3-at. According to Cynic view
poverty is preferable as a creator of philosophy, cf. e.g. Stob. Anth. IV 32,11:
AioYévYjs Ttsvíav aõxo8£3axxov s?rj eívat èxixoüpYjpa Tcpó; cpaooo^tav a Y^P âxsívrjv
7csí9-6tv xolc XóYots 7tetpão9-at, xaõx’ èv êpYotS xV)v nsvfav ãvaYoáêeiv, cf. Stob.
Anth. IV 32,19. This view is obvious in the many slories, in which shipwrecks
lOõ
This conlrasts Antisthenes’ own descriptioii of himself:

willi
xai auxôç sOptaxco.
èyá) oè OUXÜ3 jièv TroXXà êxto (bc iióXtç aòxà
The same individual-ethical spirit which characterises tie
general political criticism of the Cynics is evident in the remar s
which Antisthenes directed against particular Greek statesrnen.
Athenaeus reports a bitter attack which Antisthenes niade ac,ams
Pericles because of his relations with Aspasia, XIII 589 e, ^ lere
there is also a reference to Cimon’s; imniorality. In V 220 d we
hear of a charge levelled by Antisthenes against Pericles’ sons
Work ’Aa7waata, which
Xanthippus and Paralus in a separate
Diog. L. includes in his Antisthenes bibliography.
question is probabh' the basis of Athenaeus statement in e
mentioned passage, although he does not ^ ’
Antisthenes collected his various criticisms into ’
IIoX'.x(.y-Ó!^, not included in Diog. L.’s list, about wlnch Athenaeus
informs us that it contained attacks on all the demagogues of
Athens. In VI 2 Diog. L. quotes Hermippus as
statement that Antisthenes appeared at the Ist imian
made a public speech contammg botn p mit
Athenians, Tliebans and Spartans.» his criticism of
manship as snch, quite apart from lhe judgement

The same is true of Plato, as is ff. His enmity
passed on Athenian statesrnen m Gorgia personal
towards Plato provides further ^ í^átl-ov, Atlienaeus
character of Antisthenes’ polemicai activ y t
V 220 d, Diog. L. VI passim).* his own
This personal criticism, ^nt a remarkable
teacher Gorgias, Athenaeus V 220d. did n P gocrates’
judgement on Antisthenes which Xenop P
the direct incilement
i to philosophy.
and loss of all properly are narraled as
cf. Gerhard, Phoinix von Kolophon, p- 100 f-
» V 220 d.
possibly also Plut. Lycurg. 30.
® An instance of such semi-public criticism the other hand
^ Cf. also Athen. XI 507 a and Diog. L. ^ ^/insolence in formal
Stob. Anth. III 2,40. Plato has passed over Anlisi ^
silence. He mentions him by name only
Sócrates’ death. I cannot here discuss the difíicu p
of Antisthenes in PIato’s wrilings.
106
niouth in the Symposium IV 61 ff. Plato in his Symposiuni repre-

senls Sócrates as boasting about his niidwiíery. Xenoplion is not to
be outdone in inventiveness:- in Xen. Synip. III 10 Sócrates ex-
07Í a, and lurlhcr on
presses his pride at his ^pandering». \icLOZp
he expatiates on this art, IV Õ6 ff. H consists in the ability to
discover and bring together people who can be useful to one
another. Antisthenes is precisely such an á,‘{cc^'0Z Hehind
this burlesque figure of speech there lies a warin apprecialion ot
Antisthenes, § 64: xaO-a o-jv ópwv ouvápsvóv os r,oif.v àYa9òv vo|iíuCi)
r.pox'((j}'(òy £'va'.. ó “(àp olóz zz o)V zz xoOr ò)'p£Xí|iouç
aurc' y.0LÍ xoúxoyç SuvájX£V0:^ T.O ;v àXXyjXwv, obzor áv
|iO'. 00-/£: y.al t:óX£ Súvaa9-ai 'fíXaç Tzotzlv y.oLÍ Y^pou^ è-lzrôzíol>z
cuvaY£'.v y.xi t:oXXoO av açtor £iva'. */-«- TióXsa'. y.xi 'síXoir y.ai aup-
*/. y.xricaâ'..^ Cf. Diog. L. VI 14, lõ. The Cynic as a recon-
ciler is a trait which recurs later. For instance, it is strongly
marked in Crates, who seeins to have been especially active in
this rôle. Sócrates’ remark on Antisthenes’ capabilities in this
connection, in its general formulation — the parallelism tzóazic ...
'p:Xa; and YáiJLouc ít.izy^Òzíouç — shows how dose in their view was
■ Xenophon’s Symposium »ein bewussier Gegenslück zum Platonischen»,

H. Maier, Sokrates, p. 17. Cf. G. Rudberg, De tempore conuiuii Xenophontci
adnotatiunculae, Strena Philol. Ups., p. 31 ff, and Th. Mar.schaLL, Unter-
suchungen zur Clironologie der Werke Xenophons, p. 83 ff.
“ Maier, op. cit., p. 45, quotes i.a. this passages as a proof of a malevolent
altitude on the part of Xenophon againsl Antisthenes. I cannol, however,
like Maier see *in dem scherzhaften Loh eine helrachtliche Dosis Bosheit,
in der vielleicht noch die Unzufriedenheit der sokralischen Gemeinde üher
die .Schulgründung und .Schultsiligkeit des Antisthenes nachklingl» (!). The
Arislodemus pa.ssage Mem. I 4 ahout lhe gods, and lhe Hippias conversation
Mem. IV 4 ahout the law are, on the other hand, directed against the religious
indifference and againsl the Sophislic criticism of written laws and Ihus
indireclly against Anlislhenes. Cf. K. VON Fritz, Antisthenes und Sokrates in
Xenophons Symposion, p. 41, and A. KürTE, Aufbau und Ziel von Xenophons
Symposion, p. 38. Cf. aiso I. Bruns, Das literar. Portrüt der Griechen, p. 388 ff,
and the latest, exhaustive work, G. J. Woldinga, Xenophons Symposion,
p. 30 ff.
^ As to lhe relations hetween Sócrates and Antisthenes cf. also Diog. L.
II 31, and Athen. V 216 h: XapíÇsxai. Y“.® ® v.woJv o5-or TxoÀXà Stoxpáxe'.. Cf.
K. V. Fritz, op. cit., p. 22 ff. H. v. Arnim, Dion von Prusa, p. 32, says: »Ohne
Zweifel ist Anthislhenes liefer ais irgend ein anderer Schüler des Sokrates
au.sscr Platon von der Persõnlichkeit und Lehre des Meisters heeinflusst
wordcn>.
107
the relationship bctween State and individual.® It is credible that

this is a genuinc and original Antisthenic inotif. Sócrates qiiotes
several exainples of Antisthenes’ eye for men and his power of
bringing Ihein together. I regard it as not impossible that the
term TzpoaywYÓí is Antisthenes’ own, despite Xeiiophon’s descrip-
tion of Antisthenes in Symp. IV 61 as jxáXa accusa-
tion of TipoaYwyta. The figure of speech is extremely bold and
doubtless was intended to shock. The central motif in Sócrates’
account of Antisthenes’ activity in this connection is mutual
benefit.
We will now devote some attention to another motif which
occurs in the fragments of Antisthenes and which relates to
the preceding, nainely ójióvota. The word occurs but rarely in
pre-Socratic philosophy: we encounter it only a few times in
Heraclitus, Archytas, Democritus, Gorgias, Thrasymachus, and
Antiphon.*’ H. Kramer, Quid valeat ópovota in litteris Graecis,
shows that a more widespread use of opóvota and related words
took place relatively Iate, under the influence of the Sophists.
'OjióvoLa on the one hand has a purely political meaning, concord
between conflicting groups of the community.” The idea was
developed by Gorgias into the notion of a paii-Hellenic alliance
against the barbarians, an idea which was adopted by Isocrates.
On the other hand the word developed in a different direction and
carne to mean harmony with oneself, ójxóvota éauxq). The origm
of this use of the word should perhaps be sought in the meaning
which Kramer in his investigation puts third, p. 45: concors
familaritas in amore vel amicitia posita. According to Kramer
this meaning is not attested before the fourth centur^^ It is typical
“ M. Mühl, Die antike Menschheitsidee, p. 18, quotes i.a. this passage

as a proof of Anfislhenes’ adherence lo the polis-slate as a necessary frame
of hiiman life. But the words are uttered by Sócrates!
“ Cf. Diels-Kranz III 311. As lo the problem of the idenlily belween
Antiphon the Oralor and Antiphon the Sophist, cf. W. Nestle, \om Mijthos
zum Logos, p. 395 ff, W. Schmid, Gesch. d. gricch. JÀt., III 98 ff, and P. voN
DEU Mühll, Ziir Vnecbtheit der antiphontischen Tetralogien, Mus. Helv.
V'; 1, 1948, p. 1 ff.
. 84.
^ For the Ilellenístic Age cf. W. W. Taun, Hellenistic Civilisation, p
® Cf. W. W. Taun, Alexander and the unity of mankind, p. 125 ff.
In the ’OXoiJ.raay.ós, Lysias, too, enterlained lhe same plan against the Western
Greeks, cf. Kramer, op. cit., p. 39 f.
108
of Stoic usage. I quote merely one examplc from later Stoicism,

a fragment from Stobaeus, SVF III 160,13: xá xs Trávxa xwv
GTwOuoaícúv £Ívai (xoivà) Àáyouai, '/.atl’ 5 7,ai xòv wyssXoOvxá xtva
xõ)V TwXrâíov 7.ai éauxòv wyisXsív. T'^v xs ó|xóvoiav èTuaxiQjjLYjv etvat, v.oi-
vwv à*'a0’wv, ot’ o y.aí xoò- oTzouocdoví; Tiávxaç Ó|iovg£Ív àXXi^XGiç Sià xò
aujiçwvElv èy xoíç y.axà xòv ^íov xoòg Sè çjaúXou? oiaytüVoOvxaç Tipò^
àXXi^Xou; èxO-poò^ £tvai y.al y.ay.OTXoir/Xty.oOc àXXiQXwy y.ai TwgXejxíouç.
This doctrine has left a most remarkable and much debalcd
trace in the Sophist Antiphon’s Gorgianic work ll£pi ópovoiaí:,
Diels-Kranz II 3Õ6 Antiphon gives expression to his pcssimistic
view of lifc in terms which are unparalleled in early Greek litera-
ture. The titie Il£p’ ópovotaç; has been the siibject of much discus-
sion, since what has been preserved does not treat of concord. None
of the íragments contains the word ójióvota. This does not,
however, exclude the possibility that Antiphon’s work in its íull
form may hav'e been the expression of a special philosophy ot
ó|ióyoia, which may well have reached a fully developed torm
by the end of the fifth century. I allude to the thesis defended by
Stenzel in RE SuppI. IV (sub Antiphon), that óiióvoia in Antiphon
means ó|ióyoia éauxw. Stenzel has been opposed most recently
by ScHMiD in Geschichte d. griechischen Literatur, III 163 ff, but
as far as I can judge on insufficient grounds. Two reasons seem
to be decisive in this connection. The one is the discrepancy
between Antiphon’s work ’AX-/)9eta, Diels-Kranz II 346 ff, and
Il£p'. ó|iovoíar:, which is insuperable if the latter work is inter-
preted, with Schmid and others, as a political pamphlet cailing
upon opposing parties to reach a reconciliation for the sake of
their country. In the ’AXYj^£ta we find the search for a norm of
conduct which is higher than vójxoç. Antiphon finds this in nature
or, more drastically expressed, in one’s own advantage. We must
either live àTíò xwv ÇujiysEpóvxwv or die à7tò xõiv |iy) Çu|X'^£póvx(i)v.
We can ignore the ethical reasoning in the ’AXig^£ta. The purely
egocentric ethics which is developed on the basis of the theory
y.axà cpúoiv leads to a conflict with social ethics which Antiphon
was powerless to solve.
The second reason which favours Stenzel’s theory is the
interpretation of fragm. 58 in the Il£pl ójxovoíaç. Here we read:
® W. Nestle, op. cit., p. 388, queslions the authenlicity. So also F. Heini-
MANN, Nomos und Physis, p. 134.
109
ôaxi^ Sè opáasiv jxàv otsxai xoò' TtéXa; y.ay.wç, 7t£tosa9’at 5’ ou, ou

ató-ppovsr. This is precisely the problem iii the ’AXi^S-£ta: how can
\ve avoid doing wrong to our neighbours? In the ’AXV)â’£ia Aiiti-
phon shows tlie inadequacy of social morality in this rcspect. In
the Ilepi ópovoíaç the same problem is raised: he who does wrong
to his ncighbour harms himself. The same thought forms the theme
of fragm. 54, the story of the man who refused to help his neigh-
bour and buricd his moncj’^ only to have it stolen. The parallelism
between the moral of this story and the fragment from Stobaeus
quoted above,SVF III 160,13,is obvious. We compare with this Plato
Rcp. I 351 e f on injustice: »Yet is not the power which injustice
exerciscs of such a nature that wherever she takes up her abode,
whether in a city, in an army, in a family, or in any other body,
that body is, to begin with, rendered incapable of uiiited action
by reason of sedition and distraction; and does it not become its
own enemy and at variance with all that opposes it, and with the
just? (èyÔ pòv £Ívat. âauxw xe Tcat xtji èvavxíq) Tiavxi %cd xõ) Sty.aííj);) .. ●
And is not injustice equally fatal when existing in a single person;
in the first place rendering him incapable of action because he is
not at unity with himself, and in the second place making him
an enemy to himself and the just? (Tcpwxov |tèv àoúvaxov aòxòv
TCpáxxEtv TíoiYjaEt axaoiáÇovxa xai ouy ópovoouvxa aòxòv áauxô), sTCstxa
èyO-pòv %ai éauxÇ) yia.t xotç 6'vTtatotç).»^ This throws light on the
individual-ethical development of the idea of ópovoia. Plato de
fines the àSt.xoí as oòy ópovowv aòxòç éauxô). At an earlier
date, in the Lysis, he had been aware of the problem. The passage
reads, 214 e f: ’AXXá pot Sotcouoiv Xéyeiv xouç à-ôí^-oòç Ópoíouç
Etvat àXXi^Xoiç xa.i (píXouç, xouç 8è y.a%oúç, ôuep %cd XÉyExai TXEpt aòxwv,
x£ xat
pTf]0£7C0X£ ÓjlOÍOUÇ pTjO’ ttÒXOUÇ aÒXOLC EtVat, àXX’ èpTcXTQy.XOUÇ
àaxa-B-pTQxouç- ô oè aòxò aòxw àvópoiov síyj %od Siácpopov, Y®
X(p áXXíp ó'po'.oy ^ cpíXov YÉvotx’ áv. Cf. Rep. X 603 e ff.^ It is cleai
that the formula ópovoEÍv éauxw was familiar to Plato in his early
writings, especially if we may suppose that the passage in the first
book of the Republic belongs to the first draft, the Thrasymachus,
^ 13. JOWETT, rite Dialogues of Plato. — Cf. Anacharsis Gnom. Vai. 18:
'O aòxòs èptOTVj9-eiç ókó xtvoç, xí èaxt 7coXé|iiov àv9-pii)7rois, sItcsv aúxol saaxois.
- Cf. also Alc. I 126 c and Dcf. 411 d: 8ixaiooúvy} ó|ióvota cjûx^S
aúxTjv, Phaedr. 237 d—e, Rep. 5õ4 d, Kramer, op. cit., p. 53 f.
110
which later became the prologue to thc Rcpublic.-^ This jôes to

support the interpretation of Antiphon’s work H P ó|xovo:ar along
the lines we have indicated. This puts hack the terminus post (piem
for the expression ópovoLa èxuzG) to the end of the fiflh cenlury.
We may now return to Sócrates’ description of Antistlienes
in Xenophon’s S3’mp, IV 64. The essential point liere i oioz X£
ü)V
zoòr ázzXíiiovz aOxoTc. Such knowledge is called
y.oívòív àvaO-wv, SVF III 160,13, and constitules a definilion
of ó|iovo'.a. With this we may compare Diog, L. VI 6: Ó|iovoo’jvx(ov
xdsXzõ)v Tzavxo! zr. (sc. ’Av' {Hw,ç) yo'j; ta/upoxépav
Cf. another dictum of Antisthenes which Diog. L. preserves
in the same place: èptax-zj{)●£:; x: auxw r,zpL'(i'(0'/tv èv. ê'^yj,
'cò oúvaaâi éauxw ó\iiAzlv. In the same paragraph we íind onc of
Antisthenes’
rare political pronouncements: axo*ôv z'sr^ xoO pèv
aixouç: ~àç cdpoLz i'/.Xé'(ZLw y.ai èv xô) T.oAÍp.M xoò' à./pzío'JZ-, êv Sè
t:oXj,x£ a
”^00; p'/j T:apa(X£raí)-a(. Thcse (piotations may
^'ell be taken in combination: criticism of existing society with
its demand for political opóvoia on the basis of yó|ior. Cf. the
Hippias conversation in Xenophon Mem. IV 4,5 ff espccially 16,
above
and as against this the ópovoia which exists v.axà '^úaiv
the law, hetween brothers for instance and above all between the
’^vise, Cf. Diog. L. VI 12. The culmination of this kind of ópovot a
is the aupJSíto-
concept ójxiXeTv éauxô) .“ The simile in Diog. L- VI 0
■‘ 1''. Dornseiff, Plafons PoiUeia liucit J, PhUolorjus 76, 1641, p. 111 f,

Polemises against this view referring to a parallel passage in the Gorgias.
. o also A. R, Henderickx, Reoue lielqe de Philoloyie et d'IIistoire, 24, 1945,
P. 5 ir,
polemising against R . Preiswerk, Neue philolofjische Untersuchungcn
/. fí uch des phdonischen Stantes.
Ricliness and tyranny as causing disagreement between relatives are
important -o-ot in Cynic preaching, cf. Gerhard, Plwinix, p. 16 f.
As to the conception óiiiÀeív as a political and philosophic lerm,
- passages in Plalo: Rep. IV 428 c f: S3xt xis âTUSxrniyj èv x^
oip .. Uyy,|iã)v oixioO-síari —oLçá. ziat xõv 7co?.ixã>v, ^ oãx ÚTíèp xâiv xf, tzóázi xivos
V ’ üTiep aDr/js oÀr^r, ovxiva xoorô'^ ayxvj xe 7:pós aOxrjV xai r^pòç
áXX a; tíóàsic àp-.sxa ó|i[Àoí; Leg. I 645 b: xal ôxi TtdÀiv xai I8t(í)xy,v, xóv pèv
ãXy,5H5 Xa pc-vxa év sauxo) . . . xoúxo) éTCÓpsvov Ssí TiíÂiv 8è 7j Tiapà
9-£Õ)V x-.vor r
, _ - ^ âpà xoúxou xoO yvóvxo S xa5xa àóyov rtapaXaôãaav, vónov O-siisvyjv,
-rs óii-Xsív xal xaíj âXXai; r.TióXEatv. Phaed. 67 a about the relation between
body and soul: ÈYynáxo) âaóii£9-a xoã elSávat, èàv õxi [iáXixxa pr,5èv óp-Xtüpsv
j<ó|ia |ivjos xoivwvüjpsv, 5xi pv/ íiãsa ãváY'*^^’ 67 c. Cf. Gorg. 513 d. Hep.
VI 496 a f: lIávap:xpov 5y, xi . . . Xeí-isxai xôv xax' âgíav óiuXoúvxtov xiXozozicf..
111
atv TtavTÒ- . . . xsíyou; layupoxápav — niay well be an indicalion

of tliis opposilion l)ctween the artificial ópovota of the State and
the natural ójJLÓvota. Cf. Diog. L. VI 13: xeixoc àacpaXéaxaxov cppó-
vyjaiv *'àp y.axappsiv |iYjT£ Trpooíooaô-at. xsíyvj y.axaay.suaaxáov
èy xoLç, auxfõv àvaXúxoic XoYícrtí-^íC-®
Our assumption that Antisthenes contributed to the interesting
development of the concept of ó|ióyota, which played so important
a part in political thought at the close of the fifth centiirj', a deve-
lopment which transformed it into a piirely individual-ethical
concept, finds further support in a pronouncement in Philodemus
Rhetorica II 223.12 ff, ed. Sudhaus, which as far as I am aware
has not hilherto attractcd attention. So far as emerges írom the
Tht quoted saying of Anllslhencs in Diog. L. VI 6 may be looked upon as
the last liiik in Ihis development. — In Ihis conneclion I cannot forbear
mentioning lhe interesting passage Slob. Anth. III 9.46. which possibly belongs
to Diogenes the Kpicurean, about whom cf. F. SUSEMIHL, Geschichte der
'H -coivuv St-
j( riech. Literaliir in der Aiexandrinerzeit, II 258 f: Atoyévoyç.
y.atoaúvyj íioàXy/V sxe*. pqcaxtóvyjv "ò Y“P p‘íQXê epoôOpe/ov
alax’jvó|isvov Çvjv yjõovvj xtc èaxlv xai íxavóxYj; xòi 3í<p' ó 8è xrjv Sixatoaú/iijv s^cov
sv xfj <puxvj 0’j póvov xote ã?.Xoig ò).páXiiió; êoxtv, âXÀà xoXò páXtoxa ctjxoj auxtp^
oú Y«P Trstpáosxat, aOxòv àôixstv oõSè xaO*’ sv pépoç. oúSè Y“P XÓ7trj»âJ'cip atxtOo
èoxcv oüôs vóaoy à/.Xà xà ala9-y)xyjpta xà xi^s tpúostoç d-sob; Ò7zoXaii^áva)v ^
XPVjasxa!, aõxots’ oãôèv pèv vTcèp xíjv 8úvapcv Tcpáxxwv, cpoXáxxwv 8è xa pa/.iaxa xa
íjSovàe y-aí (btpsXsíar Xappaveov Sià xoúxwv. xai yàp íxtiò ãxovje xol cctio op^ ^
y.ai àjzò xfjs xpoîvjs y.ai Ar.ô (xtbv) àcppoSiaítov íj8ovaL saovxat S.xa.toç soe
Xpwpévíp . . . xal x£v8uvoi yCvo'^zoíi nspi xà xXsíaxoo àgi« Y-a-
oúx ecopaxa;; xtjv c};'jx'íiv xapaxxopévooç xai vuxxóç xal vjpspas. xat e
Xaxxav éxn-ob; f-ixxoãvxag slx^ xai eis t (eíç páx«tP*'' Hai.m. *
Mui.uach, Mss, ^ésíVpa, sxafpav, éxépav). As to hedonism in Antisthenes c .
Anth. III 1,28, 29,65, Xen. Svmp. IV 39, Alhen. XII 513 a, cf. Gerhard, J
p. 74,3; to .Stob. Anth. III 1.28 cf. Stob. III 10.41._Gnom. Vat. 6_and Me rocies
Diog. L. VI 95: xòv xXoüxov pXa^spóv, el p-^ xig «sCco; auxíp XP‘P'’°> ^ ’
op. cit., pp. 106, 115; as to lhe molif P>]Ô3va . . . çoôopevov, cf. Slob. Anl .
III 8,14. As to (oasXetv, cf. Gerhard, op. cit., p. 32 f. ^ „ r,qi S5-
«Cf. Epiphan. Adv. haeres. III 26=D.els, Do.roffr. _Gn,
'AvxioO-évrjs ó sx epofxxvjs líV‘^pàç aòxôs Si 'AO-vjvatoç, «ptox - ^xXyiXot
Í7cs'.xa x-jv.xóç êcprjas pí; xP^vai xà xaxà ÇTjXoxuxsív áxépwv [v] ta âp
aioxpá]. xà 8è XBÍXYj xtüv xdXstóv eivat ojpaXepà íipos xov soto TCpooou^ . ^
Ôè xà xyj; clûxr^S xs£xrj xai àppaY^. Gf.^ atso Apsilaiis Dnom. .Jg„,yt3xat
sptoxTjít-ei; Ú7CÓ xivor, 5ià x£ àxô£xt3'óç S3Xtv v] Ixapxyj. pv) V-a ● ● .' ...
Yáp. oy X£a-oir, àXXà xats xü)v (êvoixoyvxwv ápsxal;). Diogenes o . ●
7,46: 'Op«>v MsYapáas ó A-.oYévriS xà paxpà xs£xr, ^
xoy psYÉ8-oyç xpovoetxe xõiv xsixã>v, à?.Xà xã)v èx aüxíbv ai,vjoopsvtü 138 f.
is an old locus coinmunis. Cf. P. Groeneboom, Aescliylus c y I
112
extremely damaged text, the point iinder discussion is the art oí

reconciling. The exposition takes the form of objections which
are answered. In p. 220,25 ff the same thesis is put forward as
we find Sócrates expressing in Xenophon Symp. IV 64, although
in the reverse order: the man who can reconcile cities can do the
same for individuais. The objection follows, p. 221,19 ff: how
is it possible to reconcile individuais in the same way as one con-
vinces assemblies in cities? It shows lack of understanding oí
philosophy to assert that it is possible bj’’ one and the same method
to reconcile both individuais and groups. After a considerable
lacuna in the text there follows a question which seems to connect
up with this line of argument, p. 223,12 ff:
TÍ OT^TÜOXS oõ-
X£ Xu)7.]páx[7j(:] ó YLV(í)[ay.(DV
£va 7:p]òç £va auXX[Ú£iv lo'.-
7.£V [xajvòç êfva Tipòç
OU-’ ’Avx]ic7â’£[vr,ç oõx£ Zri-
vü)v o5]x£ K[X£áv^v;c oòxz
XpúatjTTTCOC oux[£ áXXoç xt;
xoiaújxaç TzpoY.o[T:à<; tzztzolTi-
ixévot];
The typical example of reconciliation £va 7c pòç £va is given by

Xenophon in his account in Mem. II 3 of Sócrates’ attempt to
reconcile the brothers Chaerophon and Chaerecrates, the foimei
mentioned by Sócrates in Plato Apol. 20 e f as his childhood
friend."^ The fragment of Antisthenes quoted in Diog. L. VI 6
together with the characterisation of Antisthenes in Xen. Symp.
IV 64 forms part of the Socratic knowledge £va 7;pòç eva auXXoEiv.
If Antisthenes used the concept of ójióvota, which seems possible
in view of Diog. L. VI 6, the word had no political meaning. It
signified ójióvoia xwv aTrouSatwv and its ultimate consequence is
Oj-uXsív éauxtí)= ó(j,ovo£lv éauxõ).
Unfortunately we have no fragments which could give us a
clearer idea of the contribution of Antisthenes to the individual-
^ The motive is here as in Symp. IV 64 lhe mutual ulilily, § 19. ítat

ãôsÀçü) ye. íl>; è|j,ol Ôoicsí, ó 9-eó; iTtoÍYjaev èTci psíÇoví (bcpsXsíqt ãXXrjXttív
Xstps xe xal Tióôe y,al òçâ-aXpò) xal xaXXa õaa ãôsXcpà Icpusev âv9-p«)7íois. ópóvota
is also here = è7íioxY)|jiyj v.otvtòv ãY*9'õjv, cf. the Stoíc fragment mentioned above
113
ethical development of ó(ióvoia as a political concept. The part

played Anlistheiies in the history of individualism seems
however to make plausible the interpretation of the fragments
quoted which has been oiitlined above. The light thrown on the
backgroiind of this concept by Antiphon’s works together with
the earlj^ dating of the term 6|ióvoia éauxtõ, which the examples
from Plato siiggest, niay add to the plausibility of the analysis.
Antisthenes, like Antiphon, took up the cudgels against the
bourgeois code of morality and its codified norm, vó|ioç, and set
up the antithcsis vó|jloç — cpuaiç. In a religious fragment this anti-
thesis is formulatcd as a contradiction: Philodemus Ilspt eòaejSsíaç,
p. 72, ed. GOMPERZixaxà vójiov slvai tzoXXoòç d'£oúç, xaxà Sè üpúatv
£va.® This antithesis was turned to political use by Antisthenes,
Diog. L. VI 11: xòv ao(pòv oò xaxà xoòç xsi|iévouç vÓ|Jiol>ç tíoXi-
X£Ú£a8’at xXXà y.ixzx xòv X7)ç ápEX^ç. Cf. a scholion on Homer
0 123, ed, Bachmann: ’Ex xoúxou xat ’Avxia8-£VY]ç cprjoív, wç et xt
Ttpáxxet ô ao'fóç, xaxà uãaav ápexrjv èvepysT. Here we have the
antithesis vó|ioc zy]ç TzóXetúç — vó|jlo$ x^c àpex-^ç which certainly
does not permit the assumption that àpexT^=cpóatç, but puts àpexiQ
on precisely the same plane as cfúatç in contrast with the law.
Probably Antisthenes set up this antithesis by way of polemic
against democracy. Aristotle introduces Antisthenes as the spokes-
man in a context which suggests something of the sort, Pol. 1284
a, where apropos of the ethically superior man we read: õaTcep
yàp 8’£Òv èv àv8’pü)7totç eíxòç etvai xòv xotoOxov. õ^êv ô^Xov, òxt xat
xr)v voiJto8-satav àvav^catov etvat Tzspl xoòç taouc xat xw yévet xat
x^ Suvápet, y.axà oè xwv xoioúxwv oòx êaxt vó|ioç. aòxot yáp eioi
vóiJLOç. y.ai yeXotOí av £t7] vo[Ao8*£xetv xu: 7retpw|ievoç xax’ aòxwv.
Xéyotev yàp «v tacoç &Tzep ’Avxia8’£vyjç ê^Yj xoò; Xéovxa; OTjjjLYjYOpoúv-
X(ÜV xwv oaauíxóowv xat xò taov àçioóvxwv uávxaç èx£tv. This ethical
superiority to others leads to political conclusions, a contrast be-
tween oí aTxouSaíot and ol xaxot, cf. Diog. L. VI 12. Codified laws
are set up for the sake of the latter. Probably we have some
® =Diels, Doxogr. Gr., 538, 7 a. Cf. Cic. De nat. deor. I 13,32, Lact. De
ira XI 14, id. Divin. instil. I 5, 18, Minuc. Fcl. Ocl. XIX 7. Antisthenes has
put down this theory in the 4*uaixós (= Ilepi 4>úo60)ç a’ P’, or 'Eptb-yjfia xspi
<fÚ3eo); P’, Diog. L. VI 17?). Cf. Ciem. Alex. Protr. VI=StXhlin I 53 f (quoted
above p. 65, note 3). Cf. Maier, Sokrotes, p. 446,1.
8
114
justification for regarding the whole passage quoted from Aristotlc’s

politics as representing the views of Antisthenes.
In view of the political criticism which Antisthenes practised,®
there are good grounds for interpreting Antisthenes’ view of vóiioç
in the same way as Antiphon’s criticism in the ’AXr/^£ta of positive
justice. The criticism of justice and of the certainty of justice in this
Work shows that it is not concerned with law as such but with the
codified or customary law of society, and of this Antiphon says,
Diels-Kranz II 360: zi |iàv oOv xt;: xol; xoíaOxa 7zpoo'.z\iévoiz BTZiy.oúpr}-
o’.ç èyÍYVSxo izoLpà xwv v6\imv, xo:ç 5è |jLYj 7tpoaiz\ié\>oiç, àXX’ èvavxioujié-
voi; èXáxxa)ac', oOx àvóvvjxov av -^y xò xol^ vó\lo\ it£la|xa’ vOv oè
cpaíyszcu xol; TzpooLziiévoig xà xotauxa xò èx vójxoo Síxaiov oòy^ íxavòv
èTtr/.oopzív. Antisthenes probably followed such ideas as these in
his own criticism of society, as a consequence of the disturbed
social and political conditions at the dose of the fifth century. His
words in Xen. Symp. III 4 bear witness to a passionate feeling for
justice: àvdpzíx [lèv xai oorpicc sax*. ó'xs pXa^spà xai çtXoiç xai TtóXst
ooxst sívat, Y] 0£ ôtxaioaúvY] oòoè xa3*’ ev au|i.|xtYVuxa'. x^ àotxía.
Other fragments confirm that his political criticism dealt with
the question of SixatoaúvTj, Diog. L. VI 5, 6, 12}
H. Maier can hardly be right in saying, Sócrates p. 47, that
Antisthenes’ theory of virtue, vó|xoç xyjç àpszfjç, was merely »eine
paradoxe Redeweise, die ihn nicht hinderte, über vó|jloc und vójiot
überhaupt grundsatzlich den Stab zu brechen». The material is
insufficient to warrant such conclusions. Maier’s contention that
the thesis in the Hippias conversation Xen. Mem. IV 4, vóimiov
= oíxaiov, is not Cynic, is of course correct, not because of
Maier’s remarks on Antisthenes, but because vójioç in the Hippias
conversation means vó|jioç tt:óX£ü)ç, 13: Ou aia^-ávojxat aou
° Cf. Diog. L. VI õ, 6, 8, Xen. Symp. IV 36, Stob. Anlh III 10,41, IV

4,28, 8,31, 9,10, Max. Conf. Loc. com. IX= MiGNE XCI 781 D. As to the
Aristolle passage quoted above, cf. Antisthenes Gnom. Vat. 10: 0 aúxôç
Xotôopoõvxos aòxóv xtvos ü); oOy. ’A9->}vatov. xai iirjv, eÍTCsv, oúdeig étbpaxs ?.éovta
Kopfv9-’.ov OÜ3’ 'Axxtxóv, ãXX’ oúôèv rjTzo'/ YEVvatóv èazt zò Çtõov.
^ Cf. also Xen. Symp. IV 36. — Gorgias’ influence on Antisthenes may
only have been stylistic and, from the point of content, negative. I call atten-
lion to Antisthenes’ attack on Gorgias in the Archelaus. This may well have been
caused by the fact that Gorgias, according to Plato’s characterisation of him
in the Mcnon (95 c, cf. Gorgias 520 a), removed the õixaioaúvv) from his
teaching. Cf. also J. Kaerst, Gesch. d. HelL, I 85 ff.
115
ÓTrotov vó|U|ioy ^ tzoiov oíxaiov Xéys-ç- Nó|jlouc oè tcóXswç, eîQ. */.xX.

Hippias’ objection to Sócrates’ demand for unquestioning obedience
to its changeable and variable laws, § 14, is also the objection of
Antiphon and certainly also of Antisthenes.- All three ® sought for,
and found in nature a norm that transcends the state, which
makes the laws of the state relative, so that the thesis of the
Hippias conversation is impossible. Ar/.aioaúvY] is not bound up
with the changeable laws of the state but with an unchanging
principie common to all manldnd, çúatç, which, according to
Antiphon’s ’AX-Qd'sia, punishes even the secret transgressor.
Such a point of view resulted in a certain lukewarmness
towards the state. Strong criticism is tinged to some extent with
pessimism. Stobaeus has preserved a quotation from Antisthenes,
Anth. IV 4,28, which, whether genuine or not, gives a correct inter-
pretatioii of the psychological attitude to the state of Antisthenes,
lhe semi-citizen: ’Avx'.a9’év7jç èptoxrjô^síç, ttwç áv xcç 7ipoaeX9’Ot "<10X1-
xsía, sItzs, TtaS-áTcep nvpt, |iYjxs Xtav êyYÚÇ, í'va otáigç, |xV|X£ Tcóppti),
iva pLyáaTTjç.
The meagre material preserved to us does not permit any
detailed conclusions about Antisthenes’ political views. The ethical
criticism of individuais and conditions in society, the individual-
ethical conceptions of ójj-óvoia xaxà (púaiv: óixóvota xõv aTtouSaiiav
> óp,ovoeiv, ó|uXetv éauxw as opposed to the social-ethical con-
ception of ójjióvota oiaxà vó|iov: ojidvota xwv tíoXixíõv, the antithesis
VÓIJLOÇ XY)Ç 7tóX£ü)c — vóiioç xYjç àpsxYjc, thc irreconcilable opposition
between the wise man and the mass of mankind and its political
consequence — the elevation of the wise man over the laws of the
State —are some of the chief motifs which characterise his political
views. Besides this, we have a fragment which in its general for-
mulation strengthens the impression given by the other fragments,
Diog. L. VI 15: oõxoc (sc. Antisthenes) -íjYYÍaaxo xat xíjç Aioyévouç
àTTaS-eíaç xat x^ç Kpáxrjxoc èY^paxstaç xai XYjç ZVjvtüvoç xapxsptaç,
aòxòç OnoO-áiiEVoç x^ TcoXixeía xà 9-£iiéXia. It is obvious that Diog. L.
intends by this characterisation to link Antisthenes firmly to the
Stoic tradition and its conception of the state.
“ Cf. K. JoKl, Solcrates, II H06 ff. who overlooks that vdixoç in the
Hippias conversation is vó|iOç; TtóXstoç.
“ As to Hippias, cf. Plat. Prot. 337 c f.
116
II.
The main lines of Aiitisthenes’ doctrine can be estab-

lished with considerable certainty thanks to early evidence, Xcno-
phon, and bis relation lo the ideas of the Sophistic movement
represented b}' Protagoras, Prodicus, Hippias and Antiphon. Antis-
thenes’ meeting with Sócrates was of decisive importance in bis
life, but he remained to some extent the heir of the Sopbists, and
the conflict between these two major influences was never com-
pletely overcome, a circumstance wbich explains much of the
dualism exhibited in the fragments. But our difficiilties increase
as soon as we turn to Diogenes of Sinope. There is no trace of
Work either by him or about him in contemporary literature, but
copious data appear at a later period and it is possible to elicit
certain details with some degree of accuracy by placing the
material in its proper historical framework.
For the form and organisation of these data as well
as for questions of source-criticism I refer to G. Rudberg, Zur
Diogenes-Tradition, and K. v. Fritz, Quellenuntersuchungen zu
Leben und Philosophie des Diogenes von Sinope.^ Even a hasty
perusal of the account of Diog. L. Ví 20 ff shows that he has been
at pains to arrange his material. The description of Diogenes’ life
goes on until § 24, where the collection of anecdotes begins. These
continue until § 70, where the main points of Diogenes’ philosophy
are outiined, this extending to § 74. At this point the description
of his life is resumed with the stories of his death and an account
of his writings. On the latter Diog. L. offers different information.In
the first and longest catalogue of works, which he presents without
mentioning his source, there are included the writings which con-
cern political subjects: ArjjAog 'A^yjvaíwv, IloXixsía, IIspí TtXoúxoo (?).
In the shorter list, which derives froni Sotion, none of these works
* Diog. L.’s most important sources are Diocles from Magnésia in the
first century B. C. and Favorinus, the pupil of Dio Chrysostom. The references
to the sources are fairly abundant in book VI: §§ 20, 22, 23, 2õ, 26, 29, 30,
31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 43, 73, 7õ, 77, 79, 80 in the Diogenes vita. It is worth
observing that in the §§ 44—69, where we find no indications of sources,
the characler of the anecdotes related is another than in the precceding
paragraphs. Only in this »gap», we find the erotic anecdotes and the most
extreme examples of Diogenes’ âvaíSsia. Cf. also the survey in W. CrõNERT,
Kolotes und Menedemos, p. 133 ff.
117
appears. Sosicrates and Satyrus in Diog. L. assert that Diogenes

wrote little or nothing. However, there can be little doubt of the
authenticity of at least some of the items quoted in the longer
bibliography, the IloXixeía,for instance, and the seven tragedies in
the longer list, together with the dialogues which are mentioned
in both lists.® These alone imply a considerable literary activity,
hardly consonant with the traditional Gynic austerity which
Diogenes in the main represents. We are thus faced with some-
thing psychologically iinique, unique not only from a modern but
also from an ancient point of view, namely a proletarian mode
of life carried to absiird lengths coupled with an extensive literary
activity. This can mean two things: first, that Diogenes is connected
with a particular environment both from an ideological and a
literary point of view;® secondly, that the most absurd accounts
of the proletarian traits in Diogenes’ personal way of life must
be regarded with great suspicionJ
So Dudley, op. cit., p. 26 f, cf. VON Fritz, op. cit., p. 55 ff. Confirmed
in Philodemus are IloXtxsía, ’Axpsús (=eu8atyjc, cf. p. 146, note 3 below).
013Í7100S, «FiXíazos. Crünert, op. cit., p. 62.
° The lisl of wrilings in Diog. L. shows a rcmarkable lack of origmahty:
dialogues, letters, tragedies ●ilh traditional titles. The contents and form
of these categories cannot be judged in detail. The elder tradition contains more
of dialogues and long speeches than the later, which has a pronounced
character of chria, cf. G. Rudberg, Zur Diogenes-Tradition, p. 29 ff. The
dose connection between Antisthenes and Diogenes is a firm tradition which
has ncvcr beeii doubted in ancient time, cf. e.g. Epiphan. Advers. haeres.
111 27 = Diels, Doxogr. Gr., p. 592,1: Aiovévyjç ó líuvixòs ãTtò ^tvtÓTiTjs x:^ç xaxà
xòv rióvxov 7tóÃ6ü); xà «dcvxa 'AvxtoS-évet ouvíjv, Gal. Hist. philos. 3 = Diei.s,
Doxogr. Gr., p. 600,6: o5 (i.e. Antisthenes) AtoyévYjs ysTovE ÇrjXwxíjç repooo-
|ioiü)9-eiç xaxá xà è7tix>]5eú|JLaxa, Lucian De mort. Per. 5,330.
’ H. Maier is correct, op. cit., p. 504: >Zwar war auch dieser nicht der
Clown, ais der er in den Anekdotensamlungen der folgenden Jahrhunderte er-
scheint.» G. Rudrerg, op. cit., p. 37, is of the opinion that the stories of Diogenes
as a beggar are a late Cynic topos, which have nothing to do with the histoncal
most remarkable, however, is
Diogenes and the eldest Cynicism. What is
kernel of trulh even if
the stories of Diogenes’ àvatSeta. These may have a
we must be very careful not to put too much stress on it. Nothing propagates
itself more easily than such anecdotes. With respect to ancient decency,
there seems not to have been any csscntial difference betwen 'cò âpioxãv ev
x^ 11830) and xó xsipoupYstv êv xtj) jiéoo) (!), Diog. L. VI 69. It is perhap.s
possible that lhe former type of «àvaíSeia» in the tradition has later involved
the other type. Cf. Gerhard, Phoinix, p. 140 ff. — As to the externai type,
the ancient authors themselves hesitated about its origin, cf. Diog. L. VI 4,
118
The account of Diogenes’ oóçaí in Diog. L. VI 70 ff deals

principally with two things, and vó|ioç:. Besides tliis Ave
note several particular traits from Diogenes’ tragedies, examples
of Diogenes àvaiSsia. The section which treats of is
completed in an extraordinary way by the anecdotes about Dio
genes being sold into slavery to Xeniades and his education of the
latter s sons in Corinth. In this handling of the áaxTjatc-motif avc
find a trait which to some extent conflicts with the more austere
type of Diogenes, a tendencj^ to hedonism in the doctrine which
undoubtedly goes back to original features of the Heracles »gospel»
and its counterpart the Cyrus idealisation in Xenophon. I refer to
the trealment of this part in the chapter on Cynic hero-idealisation
aboye. As was shown there, we may assume that the exposition
§§ 70 71 is an account of Diogenes’ work »Heracles»; even
if this account has passed through other intermediaries, there
remains in what Diog. L. presents a clear connection with the
Tidvo^-doctrine which Antisthenes exemplified with his Heracles
lype» the antithesis 'cwv àypiQaxwv ttóvcüv — xoòc xaxà cpóaiv.®
This picture of the beneficiai hardship of a natural way of
life as contrasted with the artificial life of civilisation finds its
counterpart in the anecdote about the sons of Xeniades Diog. L. VI
29 ff. The problem of the source of this anecdote with its many
variants is fully discussed by R. Helm, Lucian und Menipp,
p. 227 ff, and by K. v. Fritz, op. cit., p. 22 ff. In §§ 29 and 30 a
Diog. L. names as his source Menippus’ Aioyévou; r.pãaiç. There
the story is told how Diogenes was captured and sold as a slave.
When asked what he could do, Diogenes answered: àvopwv âpyêiv.
To the herald he said: xVjpuaae, êcpY], zl xiç èS-éXsi osaTióxYjv aòxii)
TcpiaaO-ai. He was sold to Xeniades, to whom he remarked that he
must obey him, ei y.a.1 ooOXoç eÍTj- xat yàp laxpòc ^ xvêpvrjzrjç
Yjy oouXoç, TzeiaO-fjvaL àv aòxòí. Thus far the quotation from Me-
nippus. A fuller version of this story is given in § 74 without
13, 21, 22, Gal. Hist. philos. 3=Diels, Doxogr. Gr., p. 600,4: 7jYoõ|JLai ôè xtDv
Stoxpocxtxav ’Avxlo9-svvjv Tiávj TioXXcüv Ysvo^jLévtüv oõSevòs vjoaova eívat [y.axaôeéaxe-
pog 56j, oç XTQV Kuvtxíjv Elg xòv 0ÍOV 7tapTQY«Yev. Cf. also J. Kaerst,
Gesch. d. líellenismiis, II 100,4 (polemising against E. ScHWARTZ, Charakter-
kõpfc).
® Cf. Diog. L. VI 2: xai ôxt ó Ttóvog âYaO-óv ouvéaxyjoe 8tà xoü |jtSYáXou
HpaxXéoUg. In the ideal of xaxà cpúotv hedonism is the essential motive, cf.
lhe allegory of Prodicus.
119
indication of soiirce. Here we get an explanation of the comparison

with caiight fish, with which Diogenes compares himself in § 29:
Diogenes was captured on the voyage to Aegina, possibly as the
result of shipwreck. In general, the story in § 74 corresponds
closely to that in §§ 29 and 30 a. The main theme is the same:
àvS’pcÓ7i(i)v But 74 adds the foliowing: (bvsrxai oy]
auxòv ó SsvtáoYjç y.cd &-Koi.yoc,yòiv eíç xYjV KópivB-ov è7isaxr/as ^xoíc
éauxou Tõatotoiç y.al TCãaav âve)(£ípt<5£ oíxíolv. ó oè oGxcoç auxYjv
£ èxslvoç Tísptubv èXeysv’ àyaO-òc oatpwv etç
èv TTãai ot.£xí0’£t, ôaxs
xY)v oSxtav |jLou EÍasXi^XuO^s.
It is doubtful whether this pedagogical motif goes back to
Menippus. In § 30 a the quotation from Menippus ceases abruptly,
and instead Diog. L. introduces one Euboulus as his source for the
account contained in §§ 30 b and 31. The break in the text makes
it natural to assume a lacuna, since the Euboulus extract pole-
mises against something not contained in the text we now possess.
Who this Euboulus was we do not know. Diog. L. VI 20 mentions
a Euboulides as the aiithor of a book Ilspt Aioyévouç, and it may
well be that they are one and the same person. In § 30 b he is
named as the author of a book AioyIvouç Tcpãatç. This Euboulus,
as his authority for
or possibly Euboulides, is cited by Diog. L.
of Xeniades. The
the story of Diogenes’ education of the sons
account begins: EOpouXoç Sé cpriatv èv xcp èTUYpacpojiévw Aioyévouç
Tcpáaiç ouxiúç âyeiv Tratoaç xou íSsv.aSou, %xX.
It is obvious that the quotation from Menippus originally
contained some reference to Diogenes’ pedagogical activity and
that in some way Euboulus’ account conflicted with it. It is
possible that we have a caricature of this Menippean pedagogy m
Lucian’s Vit. auct. 8 f, where Diogenes gives an account of his
xéxvYj. The comparison with a physician in Diog. L. VI 30 recurs
in this passage. Diogenes declares that he is íaxpôç xõv tzMv. After
this Diogenes gives an account of his method of teaching people
to live in the Cynic manner.
Lucian’s account of Diogenes’ pedagogical principies, which
may be a caricature of that presented by Menippus, has geneially
been regarded as genuinely Cynic. Quite opposed to this is
Euboulus’ account in §§ 30 b and 31. Xeniades charged Diogenes
with the upbringing of his sons and this proceeded in the following
way: oGxwç úcyeiv xouç TcatSaç xoO üsvtaoou, jxsxa xa XotTca |xaS’Yj-
120
|xaxa Í7z<w£us:v, xogsúsiy, actevSovãy, ày.ovTÍÇsiy l-six’ áv zy 7raXaía”pa

oOy. è7ü£xp£-£ xõ) -a-òoxpí^TQ àÔ-XYjx'.y.w^ aYsiv, àXX’ aOxò iióvov âpu9-^-
liauo; )rapiv y.ai cUEÇíaç. y.axEíyoy oè oE TzatSâç TCoXXà TwOiT/Xwy y.at
QO'('(px'szuiv y.a: xõy auxoO AioYÉyou^, TCãaáy x’ lôSoy aúvxojioy Tzpòç
zò £'j|iyr^|ióy£uxoy èTcrjOTiei. èv oty.o) x’ èoíoaaxE oiay.oysLaôa*. Xtx^j
XpW{j.£yoi):^ y.ai u5(i)p Ttíyoyxa;, èy XpÔ) y.oupía^ zs xxí ày.aX-
Xü)“:axouc £Íp'fx^szo y,xi àyíxwvaç y.al àyuTZoSVjxoy; y.ai aiw7ir,Xoò;
y.ai y.aâ’’ aOxoò^ ^XÉTíoyxa^ èy xatç óòoi;. èÇ-^Y^ 5’ aOxouc y.aL ètiI
ocuyYjYÉata. Here Diogenes appears as the representative of an
old-fashioned paideia, closely resembling that of Xenophon’s
Cyropaedia,*^ and to some extent the sketch of Areté in the Prodicus
allegon' (y.aS’ aOxoò^ ^Xbtzovzxç èv xai; óSoíç). This account recalls
the doxography §§ 70—71: the two-fold áay.râtr, the polemic
against athletes/ the £Ò£çta-moüf, opposition to YjSoyyj.^ We have
assumed that this doxographical passage is genuine Diogenic ma
terial, being a summarised account of Diogenes’ work »HeracIes».
The extract from Euboulus, with its dose resemblance to the
doxography, points in the same direction. Diogenes preached a
^ Cf. also Cyneg. 12 and for this K. JolíL, Sokrates, II 297 f.

Cf. Diog. L. VI 49, cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 8,14, Gnom. Vat. 464 (Pylhagoras;
Crates in Max. Conf. Loc. com. XXVII= Migne XCI 876 C): noO-ayópas
vsav.axov ld<bv âa-XyjTixôv olvo) xal xpsoyarííf xai ãaxâsí oápxa tíoXXtjv ÚTioxpé-
çovxa etvsv * Saiixovis, rwaõaa-. xa9-’ éauxoã Txotôv ÔEaiiwxvjptov íoûpóv. Stob. Anth.
M -íéXo; eivj sòcbuxía xal xóvoç c^dxyjç,
a/., -'j/,. otí)|xa„Oo. On the other hand athictes could be used as examples and
paragons in the ethical fight, Stob. Anth. III 5,39: Asivôv êX.xYSv ó Aiorévrjs. eI
ol pè/ ãô-Zv^xai xal oi xiO-apt^ôol fcíozpòç xai yjôovcbv xpaxoDatv, oí psv zf/Ç çtovvjg
Xápiv, oí 3è zoü otópaxoc, atüçpoaúvvjg 5’ ivsxa oúÔeIs xoúxcdv xaxaçpovTjasi. We
have the best known examples of this paraenetic style in St. Paul, e.g. 1. Cor.
9,24 f, cf. R. Bultmann, Der Stil d. Paulin. Predigt u. die kunisch-stoische
Diatribe. ^
- Cf. Diog. L. VI 44, Dio Chrys. Or. 6,21 ff. The best known example of
Cynic anti-hedonism is the Antisthenes quotation in Gellius IX 5: Antisthenes
Socraticus summum malum (sc. voluptatem) dicit; eius namque hoc verbum
esl: pavEtvjv pãXXov íj íjoa-EÍr^v. Cf. Ciem. Alex. Strom. II 20=StXhlin II
171, ibid..
178 f (Diogenes, Antisthenes, Crates), Euseb. Prsep. ev. XV 13=
Dindorf II 369. An old-fashioned conception of paideia like that of the
Xeniades story probably forms the backgroiind of Diog. L. VI 68: xíjv
rtaiSEÍav EliXE zoXç pèv váotç oíüçpoaúvyjv, xolç Ôè npsz^^népoiç 7iapa|iu9-íav, xotg
õè Ttévvjai TcXoõxov, xois Ôè TcXouaíots xóopov sívai. Cf. Diog. L. V 19 (Aristóteles):
X7JV TiatSEfav êXeyev êv pèv zaXç eOxoxíais eivai xdopov, Èv 5è xatç àznyj.oíiç xa-
xa^s-JY^'-'» cf. Gnom. Vat. 50. Cf. Gemhard, Phoinix, p. 122.
121
pedagogical doctrine which has found mention in pedagogical

writings. Diog. L. VI 7õ nientions that Cleomenes, the disciple of
Metrocles and contemporary with Menippus,^ included the Xeniades
story in a work entitled IIatoaYü)Yt.y.óç- This may have presented
a Diogcnic pedagogical doctrine which Cleomenes,for chronological
reasons, can hardly have got from Menippus.^
We have, therefore, in the generation following Diogenes, at
least two authors who probably independently of one another
discussed Diogenes’ pedagogy, Cleomenes and Menippus, the former
of whoni we may assume treated his subject in a serious vein. Such
a serious treatment is represented in Euboulos’ polemic against
Menippus, which puts forward a pedagogy which links up closely
with the doxography in Diog. L. VI 70—71, and occupies a position
in the history of ideas similar to that of Xenophon’s ideal of
paideia. Everything suggests that this serious pedagogy of Diogenes
is the oldest version of the Xeniades story and that in its essentials
it goes back to Diogenes himself.
The many variants of this story need not occupy us here.
O. Hense, Bion bei Philon, p. 232, suggests that the obscene
features of the story found in Philon, Quod omnis probus liber sit,
§ 124=Cohn-Wendland VI 36, and in Cleniens Alex. Paed. III 3=
Stahlin I 245 f, indubitably go back to Bion. The dramatic form,
the sale into slavery, finds its direct model in Euripides’ Sjdeus,**
as Helm, Lucian und Menipp, p. 241 ff, points out. If, with Helm,
we assume that Menippus used this model to create a burlesque
portrait of Diogenes, we seize upon a concrete point in the evolu-
tion of the Diogenes legend and we can form a fairly clear concep-
tion of how the falsification of the historical Diogenes proceeded.
We must bear in mind, however, that the slave motif was present
already in the version of the Xeniades story on which Menippus
drew. The serious account of Diogenes’ pedagogy in Euboulos
presents Diogenes as outwardly a slave but inwardly free and
a master. The motif recurs in the extract from Cleomenes.
Some friends of Diogenes wished to purchase his freedom,
but Diogenes said that that would be foolish: oò ôÈYàp xoòç
Diog. L. VI 95.
^ Helm supposes that Cleomenes and Menippu.s used Metrocles as their
source, Lucian und Menipp, p. 238.
® W. SCHMID, Gesch. d. griecli. Lit., III 626, questions the authenticily.
122
Àéovxa^ ooúÀour £:vat xwv xpsçóvxwy, àXXà xoò^ xpécpovxar xõiv Àsóv-
xíüv. ooúXou Yàp xò tto^slaôâi, xà 5è ^r^pía ^ôpspà xote àv8pó)7wO'.ç
slvat..® Philo, who in his work on inward freedom cites both Euri-
pides’ Syleus and a variant of the Xeniades story, did so with
serious intent.” This implies that the Syleus was a drama with a
serious trend which could be used to expound philosophic freedom
and offered a possibility of relating it with the originally serious
version of the Xeniades story. At any rate, the animal comparison
in Cleomenes is a notion which finds a parallel in the Syleus
fragm. 689 Nauck,® wherc we also find the main theme of
the Xeniades variants: òeqtzózxç ájietvovaí^ aOxoO Típíaa^-at. The
contribution of Menippus to this story, and consequently to the
evolution of the portrait of Diogenes, is thus confined to his utilisa-
tion of the burlesque features in their common model, the Syleus.
In order to produce the burlesque effect he probably made con-
siderable changes in, and additions to, the pedagogical material.
The form given to the áay.Tjatç-motif in the doxography and
in Euboulus’ version of the Xeniades story constitutes a special
type having hedonistic colouring. The treatment of the motif in
other places in Diog. L. represents a different type. The bridge
between the two appears in a story in § 48, where true asceticism
is contrasted with intellectual activity. An example of strict asceti
cism is offered in the story of how Diogenes rolled in the hot
sand in summer and embraced statues in winter, Diog. L. VI 23.^
° The image borrowed from comedy, cf. Aristoph. The Frogs, 1. 1431 ff,
O. Hense, Bion bei Philon, p. 231. As to animal comparisons in Cynic
literature, cf. Gerhard, Phoinix, pp. 23 ff, 48 ff. Tyrants are sometimes
compared with lions, but on the other hand the lion is a Symbol of Cynic
freedom as in the passage quoted, cf. Gerhard, op. cit., p. 28. As to the
motif Ssdoíxévat = ÔouXsúa-.v, cf. Antisthenes .Stob. Anth. 111 8,14: "Ooxtç Sè
é-épo’j; Ôáõoixa, doDXog tuv XéX7]9-£v éaoxóv. We have the most striking insfance
of this in Dio Chrysostom’s description of the frightened tyrant Or. 6.
’§ 123: etx’ âxivsavisuóiisvog ícpòç xóv 7tu9-ó|ASV0V xc&v cbvTjxixÉãç áxóvxtúv,
x£ oíôag; àpêiv, SÍ7XSV, àv9-pó)TCtüv, êvÔo9-ev, ó)g ãoixs, xvjg êXeú9-spov
xai eÜYevàg xai cpúosí PaotXixôv ÓTcrjxoúoTjç. Philo relates the story as support
of his statement § 126; yáp xi paatXtxóv aí eÚYsvstg tpoxaí. As to çúoEi
PaoiXixóv cf. the account Dio Chrys. Or. 4,61 ff.
® V. Steffen, Satyr. Graec. Rei., p. 160 (No. 32).
Cf. also Diog. L. VI 34: Diogenes walks upon snow barefoot and
attempts to eat meat raw, but cannot manage to digest it, cf. § 76: Diogenes
died after ealing an octopus raw. Cf. Plut. Aq. an ign. ulil. 2= Mor. 956 B,
123
To the later group belongs one of the best attested stories which
has been preserved, namely what Diog. L. relates in VI 22 with
Theophrastus as bis source: Diogenes learned Tiópov xy)ç Tíeptaxáaswi:
by observing a mouse |atqxs y.otxTjV èKiÇTjxoOvxa iiVjxs axóxoç sòXa-
|3oÚ|1£vov ^ 7co9'Oõvxá xi xwv ooxoúvxwv àTtoXauaxwv. Of the same
type are the stories contained in Diog. L. VI 37: a boy taught
Diogenes to use nothing but bis hands to drink with, while from
another youth he learned to diminish his equipment still further.
This type of story testifies to a development towards a stricter
asceticism. In this respect the tradition is ambiguous; we can
see this especially in Dio Chrysostomus, who shows no embarrass-
ment in combining hedonistic with strictly ascetic characteristics.
K. V. Fritz, op. cit., p. 36, relies on Theophrastus as his support
in maintaining the priority of the strictly ascetic tendency. But
the type of storj’- found in Theophrastus itself suggests that a
development was taking place. In actual fact we have documentary
evidence for the time when this fundamental asceticism, which
was of oriental origin, became part of Cynic doctrine it began
with Onesicritus. We shall return later to this point.
Now that our connection of the serious pedagogy of Euboulus
with § 70 f of the doxography has established the former as
genuinely Diogenic in its main lines and as earlier than the bur-
lesque and obscene variants of the Xeniades story, we have
increased the possibility of seeing fourth century Cynicism in its
true historical perspective and setting. The pedagogical ideal which
is expounded in Euboulus is Xenophon’s. In our examination of
the Cynic hero-idealisation we analysed §§ 70—71 of the Diogenes
doxography, »the dual training», by comparing it with the Aristip-
pus conversation in Xenophon’s Mem. II 1. There it was shown
that the problems raised in the texts compared are the same,
and that in numerous details, too, the problems are similarly
posed. The same pedagogical views which characterise §§ 70—71
of the doxography are also found in Euboulus’ pedagogy. The
and id.. De esu car. I 6= Mor. 995 C. Cf. v. Fritz, op. cit., p. 30. In these
stories and the like, we have no hedonistic argumentation. That even a rigo-
rous asceticism, however, could be hedonislically motivated, is shown by i.a.
a passage in Epicletus, I 24,6 ff: tò Ôè Yaiivlaai]òv eívat XéfBi õxt xpstoaóv èoxc
Tiáoyjg Tíeptuopçúpou- xô 5’ èit’ âoxpióxtp TtéSfp xa0-súôetv Xéysc ôxt paXaxwxáxTj
xofxTj èoxív.
124
aim of Xenophon’s educalion is to produce rulers, which is

the main theme of the Cyropaedia and also the purpose of the
èyy.pi a-pedagogy of the Aristippus convcrsation, Mem. II 1,6:
0'jy.oOv ooy.sT ooi -zòv {iéXXovxa ãpy^siv âoy.eiv òslv . . In all
Xeniades stories Diogenes appears as ãp/wv and in the Euboulus
extract he presents a typical example of Xenophon’s áp/wv-
pedagogy.i
This combination of education with politics is derived from
the Sophists. The aim of the older Sophists was to produce good
and successful citizens. But only Protagoras seeins to have felt
the necessity for an examination of the question of justice, the
conditioning factor of life in the state.^ With Gorgias a debasenient
of Sophistic education for citizeiiship seems to have set in, if we may
give credence to PIato’s evidence. Formal political education without
the steadying influence of a system of ethics based on an exaniina-
tion of the question of justice produced those resulls of Sophistic
training which were scourged by Plato in his bittcr dialogue the
Gorgias. For Plato this question, politics as a pedagogical problem,
was of paramount interest, and its central idea is the problem of
justice, the »hunt» after Siy.aioaóvr^. The most important evidence
for his views is found in the Republic, the main purpose of which
Werner Jaeger, Paideia II 236, puts in the following words: »It
seems perfectly clear that Plato . .. was not interested in the state
as a technical or psychological problem, but was regarding it merely
as
a frame and a background for education. We may reproach him
for this, accusing him of deifying education; but the fact reniains
that his real problem was paideia. Paideia was for him the solution
of all insoluble questions . . . His rulers are the noblest products
of education, and their duty is to be the noblest educators».
Antisthenes’ own development we must imagine as taking
place on a similar basis. He attacked Gorgias and all demagogues in
Athens and put stress on the question of justice, oixoíioGÓvYj, which
is the most important in the state. But his solution of the problem
was different from Plato’s in that he rejected the theory of ideas.
^ Cf. also Xen. Mem III 9,10: {íaaiXéaç dè Koà üpyovzai; oõ ~obs rá ay.fíKzpa
lyov-cas Bcprj eívai oúôè xoòg útcò tüív xuxóvtojv aípsD-évxaç oúds xobs xXrjpto ?.axóv-
xaj o’jòè zobg ^lajxfiéyoog oôôè xoòs âça;iaxrjaavxac, âXXà xoüç èTitotaiiévouç
âpX£'-v.
'Cf. .1. KAER.ST, op. cit., I C2 ff.
12Õ
Antisthenes’ epistemological fragments reveal Iiim as a Sophist and

Sceptic, and his negalivc altitude towards xà \ux,%'-fi\iaza, which
several fragments betray, is grounded in his sceptic theory of
knowledge.'^ With this intellectual background the question of
õtxaioaúvTj and àpszri was solved in a practical way. There remains
the àpsxYj-fanalicism, of which we have examples in the Antis
thenes speech in Xenophon’s Symposium, and the psychological
view of àpzxri as a psychic »force» in the extraordinarily interesting
pronouncement in Diog. L. VI 11: aòxápotY] oè xv]v àpsxrjv Tzpòç
eòoaijjLovíav, (ítjosvòí^ TipoaosoiiévYjv ôxi jiY) iwy.paxtxYjç ta^ûoç.
This puts a different complexion on the pedagogical probleni.
Xenophon’s pedagogy in Meni. II 1 and in the Cyropaedia is of
a decidedly practical kind. This is also true of the educational
theory of Euhoulus. Here xà |xa^-ig|xaxa have no theoretical in-
teresl. It is merely a question of learning by heart sentences
from gnomological literature and from Diogenes’ own writings.
Yet despite all these differences in depth and method the aim and
purpose of both Plato’s pedagogy and that of Xenophon and the
Cynics is the same to fashion men of ethical superiority who
are first and foremost masters of themselves and consequently
of their environment. This ãpyjüv, the noblest product of educa-
tion», has the noblest duty of being an educator by his own
example. This is a fundamental idea in both Plato and Xeno-
phon. In the extract from Euboulus, Diogenes appears as ápx^v
=TcaioaYWYÓç. In the last chapter we will return to this problem
more fully.
We do not known how far the State in Cynic writings approxi-
mated to Plato’s ideal of the state. Parallels are not wanting. We
have already pointed out the probability of a connection belween
Plato’s and Antisthenes’ conception of the important idea ójióvoia
as an individualistic concept. Other parallels are the problem of
justice, ôixatoaóvY], lhe wide dilference between oi oTzouootíoi oi
●’ Diog. L. III 31, VI 11, 103, IX 53, cf. Plal. Euthyd. 286 c, Anslot.
Melaph. IV 29, 1024 b, VII 3, 1043 b, cf. Alex. Aphr. Com. in Arist. Met., ad
loc. (pp. 434,25, 435,2, 553,32.34, 554,30, ed. Hayduck). Other fragments
Mullach, Fragm. Philos. Gr., II, p. 282, No. 44 and 45. Cf. the short but
very good account in K. PnAECHTER, Die Philosophie cl. Altertums, p. 161 ff.
Antisthenes’ nominalism has been denied by C. M. Gillespie, The Logic of
Antisthenes, Arch. f. Gesch. d. Philos. 26, 1913, and 27, 1914.
126
ápyovTs; and oí tzoXàoí, cça0ÁO'.=oíi àpyó\izvoi, lhe lhesis ãp/tj)v=

-atoavwYÓ;, common possession of women and children, womaivs
full equality with mcn. A clearly Platonic idea recurs in lhe remark
about the wise man contained in the Antisthenes doxography,
iwO! a; xáptv, xal; s.ò’S'JBOzá.zcc,iz
Diog. L. VI 11: Tanióac’.V T£ XS/^VO
auvióvxa y.ai
i èpaa^-âsaô-at 5é* {jlóvov yàp slòévai xòv ao-^íòv
X'Vü)Vyp-í) èpãv. Plalo has a pronouncediy biological view of mar-
riage ànd holds that the state should control the procrealion of
children. This leads to a determinism in his view of man which
was certainly foreign to Sócrates. He who is fortunate enough to
have an admixture of gold in his soul should be honoured and
raised to the class of guardians. But he who receives an admixture
of copper and iron should ruthlessly bc assigned to the place which
is appropriate for one of his make-up, namely among the mecha-
nics and farmers. In the Cynic fragments we often find it em-
phasised that birth and family are valueless things. Tòv Õíy.atov
Tüspt TúXsíovo? TCOtslaO-a'. xoO auYY^voOç it runs in the Antisthenes
doxography, Diog. L. VI 12, and still more forcibly in lhe Diogenes
doxography Diog. L. VI 72: eÒYcVstaç Se y.at oóâç y.ai xà xotaOxa
Tcávxa oié-aiÇc, 7tpoy.oa|iYj|xaxa y.axíaç eivai Xeywv. The biological idea
of Plato, ç jast aoçdç, is Cynic. This is not contradicted by the
Platonic-Cynic thesis yj àpsxYj oioay.xT), which on the contrary con-
stitutes the means whereby he who has the right prerequisites
is brought to full development.
While we may establish a connection, both as regards the
fundamental principies and also in a number of striking details,
between the theory of the state to which Plato’s pedagogical-
polilical theories led him and that contained in the Cynic frag
ments, this does not mean that we can simply utilise Plalo’s
Republic for our conception of Cynic political writings. But we
must be clear that the very thesis àpx(i)v =7caioaYWYÓc, which we
have regarded as a genuine Cynic if not an original Cynic idea,
in itself presupposes a form of society.
III.
Fortunately we possess several fragments of an early Cynic

pocm which describes a Cynic society — Crates’ poem Pera. These
fragments are among the most valuable which have been preserved
127
froin the older Gynic period in that they present exact verbal
quotations instead of lhe short summaries and reminiscences froni
Gynic writings we otherwise possess.^
Grates had a different social background than Antisthenes
and Diogenes. According to the tradition he squandered a con-
siderable fortune and did so in a sensational manner. The loss of
his fortune meant a complete revolution in Grates’ way of life.
However, we nowhere hear that he resorted to mendicanc}^ as the
tradition relates of Diogenes.°
Through his position as coiinsellor and spiritual adviser Grates
carne into contact with the practical problems of life. In Teles’
description of him, see Hense, Tel. Rei., p. 28 f, he appears as
a sort of pre-Ghristian St. Francis, who derived the highest ethical
values from his self-chosen poverty. Metrocles, who first belonged
to the Peripatetic school, gives in Teles a vivid picture of the lavish
material equipment which was demanded for participation in the
instruction of Theophrastus and Xenocrates. He was first liberated
from the dissatisfaction and unrest he felt, despite the excellent
material conditions in the school, by Grates’ doctrine of poverty
as the prerequisite of true inner freedom. Grates bore the nick-
name 0upeTCavoí%x7]ç.® In Julian VI 200 B Grates receives the same
epithet as that given to Diogenes in one of the Xeniades stories:
. . . çpaai xouç "EÀXTjvaç xoi; éauxwv otTCotç èTri xwv TZpo-
TiuXaíoiv' eíaoooç KpáxYjxt 'AyaO^w Aat|jLovi.^ Apul. Flor. 22 provides
an interesting example of Heracles as an ethical model in his fine
description of Grates: . . . Crates ille Diogenis sectator qui ut lar
familiaris apiid homines aetatis suae Athenis cultas est. nulla
* The fragments are collected in H. Diels, Poetar. Philos. Fragm., p. 207 ff,
E. Diehl, Anthol. Lijr. Graec., I: 1. 120 ff. A. Nauck, Tragicor. Graec. Fragm.,
p. 809 ff.
° Cf. Diog. L. VI 87 (ôiaxdoia xáXavxa) and on the olher hand Plut. De
vil. aer. al. 8= Mor. 831 F(ôxxd) xaXávxoiv), Diog. L. VI 88, Suidas, s.v., Gnom.
Vat. 387. As to lhe relaüon between Diogenes and Crates, cf. Diog. L. VI 85:
Crates belonged to xíôv èXXoYC|iü)v xou Kuvòg pafl^yjxàiv, cf. Gal. Hist. philos. 3
=Diels, Doxogr. Gr., p. 600,6 f.
“ Plut. Qu. conv. II l,6= Mor. 632 E, cf. Julian VI 201 B: èTtopsúsxo 8s
ârti xàç xôv çíXtüv éoxfaç àxXyjxoç uai itexXr]|iévoç, ôtaXXáoowv xoàç olxsioxáxooç
àXXifjXotg, eí Tcoxe oxaoiáÇovxag ata0-oixo, èxexípa Sè oú psxà Tiixpíaç, âXXà psxà
X.ápixog, oâx Iva ouxoqpavxsiv ôox^q xoòç otoçpovtoS^évxag, õj^sXetv 8e èOéXtov aúxoóç
●ce èxefvoug xal xobg âxoúovxaç.
^ Hertlein: sverba . . . subdilicia*. W. C. Wright expunges this section.
128
domus umquam clauscí erat nec erat patris famílias tam abscon-
ditum secretum, quin eo tempestive Crates interveniret, litiiim
omnium et iiirqiorum inter propinquos disceptator atque arbiter.
quod Herculem olim poetae memorant monstra illa immania ho-
minum ac ferarum virtiite subeqisse orbemqiie terrac purgasse,
similiter adversum iracundiam et invidiam atque avaritiam atque
libidinem ceteraque animi humani monstra et flagitia philosophus
iste Hercules fuit. eas omnes pestes mentibus exegit, famílias pur-
gavit, malitiam perdomuit, seminudus et ipse et clava insignis,
etiam Thebis oriundas, unde Herculem fuisse memória extat. Here
we have a fully developed picture of the t3'pe of Gj^nic saint, the
reconciler and spiritual giiide, the punisher of all evil, but not
in a spirit of harsh superiority l)ut |i£xà yáptxoç. Diog. L. VI 89
reproduces a saying of Crates, which, if it is genuine, embodies
a more profound psychology and a more merciful and under-
standing view of inan than the harsh, fanatical conception of àpsxi^
of his predecessors: èXsyé x’ àSúvaxov slvxi àotáTüxwxov eOpsív, ãX?.’
õcTwsp èv pota y.at aocTzpóv xtva y.óy.y.ov stvat.
Crates, like the other Cynics, maintains an anti-social attitude
towards contemporary society, breaking with the rigid framework
of its laws and denying its possibility of providing men with a satis-
factorj' measure of security and happiness.® We do not find, how-
ever, any real criticism of society or of the leading figures of
society, such as Antisthenes practised. This suggests altered politi-
cal circumstances. The complications brought about by the wars
of Alexander’s time and the inseciirity of the individual diminished
interest in politics and induced the feeling of helplessness and
pessimism. In Diog. L. VI 93 we read an illuminating anecdote
which was associated with Crates’ name: IIpòç ’AXéçav5pov tíuôó-
jisvov £t ôúXExat aòxou zrjv uaxpíoa ávopS-wO-^vat, ècpr], y.at xt 0£t;
TíáXtv yxp iG(úç ÂXéçavopoç ãXXoç aòxYjv y.axaay.átjj£t.° In the same
passage Crates declares himself in favour of the internationalism
of the nameless poor: £y£tv oè Tíaxpíôa âooÇtav y.at 7t£Vtav àvá-
Xü)xa x-(j 'cú/TQ y.at AtOYévou!; £tvat tioXíxtjç àvETCtpouXEÚxou ®9-óvo).^
8 Cf. Stob. Anth. III 5,52, Diog. L. II 131.

® Cf. al-so Diog. L. VI í)2: êXeye ôè lAsy.pt xoúxou ôeTv cpiXoaoçstv, |iéxpi
àv dó^íOQiy ot oxpaxvjYot etvat ôvyjXáxai.
1 Cf. al-so Diog. L. VI 98:
129
This background throws the poem Pera into relief. In Crates

we fiiid the drcam of a far-off State, which no evil men or evil
circumstances can reach, Diehl, Anth. lyr. graec. I: 1, 122 f:
llYjpY] xiç TióXiç èax'. |iéa([) èvc oívoti'. xócpü)

y.aXT] y,a.i pa, 7í£píppuxov oOoèv lyôuaa,
£Íç YjV oux£ x'.ç sJaTrXsí àvYjp [iü)pò? Tzapxaizo^
o'jx£ Xíyyoç TzópvTiÇ èTZxyaXXóiisvoç Tzo^T^joiv,
àXXà x)-ú|iov y.al oycópõa cpépet %at aOy.a y.at apxouç.
èç wv ou “oX£|iouat Tipòç àXXrjXouç Tzepi xouxwv,
GÒy ÔTiXa y.éy.xT^vxat 7t£pl y.ép|iaxoç, oò Tzepi oóÇyjç.
ou9’’ Otcò y^pua£Íü)v oouXouixévT] ou9’’ òtc’ Epwxiúy
XYi5tUÓ8’Ü)V OUÔ’ £t Xt OUvéjlTlOpÓV èaxi (píXuPpt.
Contemporary problems are reflected in this poem. What

Crates desires for himself is self-sufficing simplicity and isolation
from other men. A simplc way of life brings contentedness, which
does not breed war. But the basic prerequisite of such contented
ness is ethical in nature.^ The inhabitants of Pera are men who
are not the slaves of pleasure, but who love freedom, the eternal
qxieen, Diehl I: 1, 123:
*?)6ov^j àvopaTCoô(óo£t àooúXwxot y.al áy.va7íX0i

à9‘ávaxov âaíXsiav, èX£u9'£pí'av, [x’] àyxTzãaty.
Although what Crates describes in the Pera is a never-never

land in a form which recalls Homer’s description of Crete,® yet it
oi>x El» Tiátpa liot 7i0pYo?t oõ |i£a oxéY>j,

■jzáoYjg ôè xépaou v.ai 7tóXio|ia xal Sóiioç
stoífioç 7j|iív èvôiatxãaíVai Tzápa.
(Diehl 1:1, 125). Cf. the Heracles verse Diog. L. VI 38, quoted above p. 34:
the same theme but what different atmosphere!
- Cf. Diog. L. VI 89: èg ãatoxfaç yàp xai |ié9-vjs pavíav ã7:epYáÇs36-at.
3 X 172. Cf. Ciem. Alex. Paed. II 10 = Stahlin I 213: Crates’ Pera is com-
pared with xíjv -íjpexépav íióXtv, the heavenly Jerusalem, cf. id., Strom. IV 26
= StXhlin II 324 f: the heavenly Jerusalem = the Stoic heavenly State. Cf.
also Diog. L. II 7 (however in another sense, Anaxagoras): ôxs v.ai ixpòç xov
el-óvxa, oüSév oot péXst Trjg nazpCôog; ei>q>wei, ê^r], èpoi ràp xai oyóôpa |xéXei
XYis TiaxpíSor, Bsígaj xóv Oüpavóv. Another type of political idealisation is
the theory about the Golden Age, of which we have the best Cynic instance
in Max. Tyr. Or. XXXVI, cf. E. Weber, De Dione Chnjs. Cijn. sect., p. 117 ff.
Cf. also Onesicritus’ account of the Gymnosophists, p. 136 below.
9
130
provides an opportunity of discussing real social problems. In

Crates’ new kingdom there is no war. Mcn do not figlit witli each
ollier for food since wliere frugalUy reigns there is enoiigh for
all. Plutarch De san. 7= Mor. 125 F (Diehl I: 1, 123), (jiioles an
extract from the Pera in the following words: ó |xèv oOv Kpá-cr^;
o’.à 'Tpu^Yjv y.al tzoAuzíXzíoív oió\i.evor oòy^ xà^ axáas-.^ "/-ai xàç
xopavvíoa- âjx^úsaíla'. xalc tíóXzgl, jjisxà Traioiã- TZOípyjvEL-
p.7] 7zpò 'pay.-^ç XoTzxò' auço)v
èz axáaty à|Ji|Ji£
Crates embraces Cynic pacifism, which may well have been

introduced by Antisthenes. War creates want and oppression. The
isolation from other men which finds expression in the Pera is
obviously occasioned by the desire to avoid the threat of war.'"
The Pera of Crates provides us with an original picture of
Cynic society. This society resembles Plato’s ideal state in that
it consists of a narrowly limited society isolated from the externai
world. The poem is a aTTouoatoyéXocov, according to [Demetrius]
De eloc. 259, a mixture of Tiaiotá and oeivóxr/c. We must not depart
from this ancient view of the poem, since otherwise we may be
misled into regarding it as devoid of any serious purpose. That
there is no question of a state in the usual sense is, of course, per-
fectly obvious: it deals with the Cynic form of community life.
WiLAMOWiTZ is doubtless right in his formulation of this contrast.
Der Glaube der Hellenen, II 275: »die menschliche Geselischaft
verneint dieser Kyniker nicht, aber ausserhalb des Staates steht
er freilich, und in den ohnmiichtigen hellenischen Stãdten war das
begreiflich.» This »Gesellschaft» is the Cynic’s dream of the ideal
community, without difficulties of sustenance, war or wickedness.
* Cf. Stob. Anth. III 5,47: 'H 8è \iézpoiç (bpiaixsvoi; ■/.axsxouoa xàç rjõovàg
eOxagía ocóÇet |ièv oXy.oog, atj)Çet ôè tíóXsiç xaxà xíjv Kpdcxvjxoç Cf. also
Julian VI 198 and Porphyr. De abstin. I 47. Gerhard, Phoinix, pp. 15, 17,
53, 58.
° Cf. W. Nestle, Der Friedensgedanke in der ant. Welt, p. 31 ff
(’Avx[a9-évyjg ó Sttíxpaxtxóg elTtóvxog xtvóg õxt ó tióXe|íoç ànoXel xoôç Tcévrjxag,
txoXXoòí: pèv ouv, (sçvj), TioiTjoei, Slob. Anth. IV 9,10 = flor. 50,11 M [erralum
in Nestle, p. 33,2]). Cf. Plato’s Rep., Nestle, op. cit., p, 29 f. Cf. also Gnom.
Vat. 385: ('0) auxòs (Crates) xaXoõvxog aòxôv 'AXsgávõpou elç MaxsÕovfav y.al
è7íaYysXÀo|i.évou xàs ãvaszvjasLV [xvjv ;íaxp£Sa xoõ Kpáx-yjxos] sItísv ob
XPTlÇtü xoiaúxyjç Ttaxpíôoc, í^v êxspoc ’AXégav3pos y.aOatpôsi. Cf. p. 128 above.
131
a society in which dwcll men ijdovî àvõpccKOÕóõsL àooúXwxot, men

such as the Cynics endcavour to fashion by their education. There
arc no great possibilities of finding real parallels between the
pcdagogy of the Eiiboiiliis extract Diog. L. VI 30 f and the Pera.
Yet lhe saine spirit brcathes in bolh texts: a simple way of life
and strict moral demands. The idea of inner freedoin was the
keynote of this pedagogy, as the quotation from Cleomenes Diog.
L. VI 75 shows. The Xeniades story with its antithesis of oouXoç=
ápytov also gives prominence to this concept. The antithesis is
naturally enough not found in the Pera, but the idea of freedom
is conceived along the same lines according to the principie that
real freedom lies within us.
We have maintained that the Xeniades pedagogy in the extract

from Euboulus goes back to a genuine, early Cynic theory of
education. It is easy to relate the various motifs in this story
with ideas current in the fourth centurj^: ápxti)v=7catoaYti)YÓç with
the kaleidoscopic background which provided the material for the
political and pedagogical literature of the fifth and fourth cen-
turies; ooOXoç=àpxü)v with Antisthenés’ idealisation of Cyrus; the
pedagogical content with Xenophon’s Cyropaedia. Even the dra-
matic framework in which the Xeniades story moves, the sale
into slavery, has its model in the selling of Heracles as a slave in
Euripides’ Syleus. To such reasons for allocating the Euboulus
pedagog3^ fo fourth century Cynicism we may add Diog. L.’s cita-
tion of his sources, which permits us to draw the conclusion that
two versions of the Xeniades story, one serious and the other
burlesque, received a fixed literary form in the generation after
Diogenes. These versions met with different fates. While the
Euboulus pedagogy with its archaic, dorizing paideia and its
idyllic family life disappears from the Cynic tradition — Diog. L.
is our only source — the burlesque version has left many traces,
the most important in Lucian. What we encounter here has no
resemblance with the extract from Euboulus. Instead of the mild,
hedonistically tinged asceticism, we get a coarse, vulgar and essen-
tially ascetic Cynicism. The separate motifs recur in popular stories
known from other fragments: if you have any money you should
throw it into the sea; you should live in a tub; your pouch should
be filled with beans; your language should be barbaric; away
132
with shame or modesty; finally, die like Diogenes by eating a raw

octopus or cuttlefish. In othcr words, we have only a parody
of the familiar Cynic stories attached to Diogenes or Crates, the
form of degenerate Cynicism which Lucian so violently satirised
elsewhere in his writings. To ascribe this parodied, degenerate
Cynicism to Diogenes himself would be to ignore the difficiilties
in the problem of the sources. There is nothing in the history of
ideas to which we can appeal in trying to prove such an attribu-
tion; all that we have is a number of anecdotes of varying content,
which form the main part of the Cynic tradition. We do not know
the original form assumed by the burlesque in Bion and Menippus;
between these two and Lucian there lies a luxuriant growth of
anecdote extending over roughly 450 years, a growth which has
almost completely obscured all features in the portrait of Diogenes
other than the most baroque ones.
IV.
Our assumption of the authenticity of the extract from

Euboulus raises a number of questions which we can scarcely do
more than indicate. By far the most important concerns the
relationship between the rigorous, the hedonistic, and the tolerant
fragments of Diogenes. The problem can be satisfactorily treated
only by a thoroughgoing investigation of the whole ancient anec
dote tradition. Here we are moving in an unexplored and dangerous
field far below the literary levei. One of the central figures in
this mass of anecdotes was Diogenes of Sinope. The most varied
anecdotes have attached themselves to his name, strictly
rigorous and coarsely hedonistic, serious and burlesque, both
sympathetic and hostile to civilisation. As has been pointed out
above, v. Fritz is firm in maintaining the priority of the rigorous
type, op. cit., p. 42 ff, The hedonistic anecdotes were in-
troduced into the Diogenes tradition by Bion, who never was a
true Cynic. v. Fritz maintains: »der Rigorismus in der krassen
Form, in der er sich in vielen Nachrichten über das Leben des
Diogenes aussert, ist in spaterer Zeit nie mehr vertreten worden.»
Precisely the evidence which V. Fritz offers in support of his thesis
shows his categorical assertion in a peculiar light. He adduces
inter alia Diog. L. VI 23: Diogenes rolls in the burning sand in
133
summer and cmbraces ice-cold statiies in winter. But the priority of

this type of anecdote is not proved by the anecdote itself. As a
matter of fact, Diog. L. qiiotes no source for this particular story
unless \ve regard Theophrastus, who is mentioned in § 22 as the
source of the story of how Diogenes learned izópov Trspiaxáacwc
from a mouse, as the authoritj^ for the whole passage §§ 22—25 a,
at which point Favorinus takes over. But this is a dangerous
method of solving the problem of Diog. L.’s sources and can not
be consistently maintained even for this passage, since in 23 a
Diog. L. introduces no less than three new sources for the state-
ment that Diogenes used a stave and wallet oò p,Y]v èv áoxei, àXXà
y-aô*’ óoóv.*^ The same is true of the story in § 23 b of Diogenes’ tub.
The case is no belter with Diog. L. VI 44: èpóa TroXXáy.iç Xéywv xòv
xwv àv9'pw7iü)v píov píòiov Ottò x(õv -8-£ü)V ôsSóoô-ai, àTroyey.púcpâi ô’
aòxwv Çvjxoúvxwv peXÍTtTjyxa xat púpa y.ac xà TíapaTtXYjoia.^ Here, too,
there is no indication of source.
Thus the question reniains open. Interesting light has been
thrown on it by an article by G. A. Gerhard, Zur Legende
vom Kyniker Diogenes, p. 388 ff. Gerhard shows how the
same anecdotes were ascribed to Aristippus the Cyrenaic and
to Antisthenes or Diogenes only with a twist in the charac-
ter of the anecdotes in a hedonistic or a rigorous direction.
However, Gerhard considers that for psychological reasons
the rigorous character of the Diogenes of the anecdotes may link
up directly with the historical Diogenes and that a more humane
reaction set in with Crates and especially his disciples. A strict
and rigorous movement also continued which actually attempted
to outdo Diogenes himself. Diogenes appears as a misanthrope in
the pessimistic 28th letter of Diogenes. Instead of the mild terms
awcppovíÇsiv, èXéyy-sí-v, voi)9’£xeív, we íind the harsh words
cpEaS-ai, &v£'.StÇ£tv, è7xixtp.ãv, ItcitxXiqxxeiv. Gerhard points out,
Phoinix von Kolophon, p. 37, that most of such verba obiurgandi
occur in the Gynic texts of Roman imperial times, cf. Epict. III
® In order to make his theory about Theophrastus a source for the
rigorous ascelicism in § 23 b, v, Fritz supposes that Athenodorus {=01yni-
piodorus, cf. U. v. Wilamowitz, Antigonos von Karystos, p. 206), Polyeuctus
and Lysanias, mentioned in § 23 a, have appeared as actors conversing about
Diogenes in a dialogue by Theophrastus, But how is then the expression
vMzá. xtvas in § 22 to be explained?!
^ For this story and the like cf. Gerhard, Phoinix, p. 47 f.
134
22,10 and Lucian, Vit. auct. 10. Tliis dual character of the Cynic
tradition is particularly noticeable in the case of those most
imporlant Cynic motifs '^íÀo-Xouxía and zOa/dovíx. The creation of
the legend began immediately after Diogenes’ death and we fiiid
it taking place simultaneously along two lines — the strict and
rigorous, and the hedonistic.
Gerhard, We must point out, however, an importaiit
distinction which Gerhard briefly mentions but v. Fritz wholly
ignores. We must distinguish, although the dividing line is not
clear-cut, between a eudaemonistic asceticism and a thoroughgoing
asceticism. In the former, which can best be dubbed «Socratic »,
the theme is
£uoai|iov'a. One should strive for freedom froni all
externai circumstances so as to lead a life in which one’s needs
are reduced to the absolute minimum. All superfluity in the long
run leads to exhaustion, dissatisfaction and physical and spiritual
weakness; only a simple and healthy way of life y.axà cpúaiv can
create true happiness.® The Euboulus pedagogy is a typical example
of this eudaemonistic asceticism, and the hedonistic motivation
appears in the account of Diogenes’ Heracles» in Diog. L. VI 71,
for which
see the discussion- im the chapter on Heracles. It is
striking that this eudaemonistic asceticism in Xen. Mem. II 1 is
^ Tif polemic against Aristippus the Cyrenaic.

. , 5 content of the thoroughgoing asceticism may be conveyed
.. . place by the translation of as «asceticism» in
s rict sense. Its purpose in this case is not eOSaipovía but
Y «p Xw.a. sceticism is pursued for its own sake and for that
tends to be pushed ad absurdum. The difference
kinds of díoxYjaiç does not consist in the exclusion
modc of lifp rrp went the whole lenglh in declaring that only this
resrpiyyTht V P- ft- we find the
Kuvtxr^ç ôè cpOoooIíâc ^ 34 ff. Cf. also Julian VI 193 D:
Xoao^íccg, zò eòôalpovstv xô
xàç XÕ)V ;.0XXã,v ôdgaç Gnom V f
etvat doy.Bl; elr.sv ó xíç oot «Xooaitüxepoç
Cf. Gnom. Vat. 180-18^ m" «Oxápxeia yáp âaxt cpúaecog TzXooxog,
’0 aôxòç XV/ êv£«v êXsyev Diogenes):
genes): 'O aOxóg êcpy, Jávxa êyty
uXavVjxvjc, 3fov sxcov â-^r,pspoí' bív«£ xa r«P
gxo-.póc elp.. Têpi BÒÕu:nowJ xõ, n ü7t«pxovxa)v xo)v xax ape
P" ● S xtp Ilspatóv paoiXei ãYft)v£oaa9-ai. Cf. p. 34 above.
135
of lhe ÈYy.páxsta-moüf from eudaemonistic àay.r,atç. But in lhe

thoroughgoing asceticism self-restraint is given exclusive em-
phasis. In lhe eyes of lhe rigorously ascetic Diogenes lhe idea of
happiness loses all significance.® A tj'pical example is found in
Diog. L. VI 23 as quoted above.
In lhe light of this definition we should now turn our attention
to the fragments of Onesicritus, Jacoby, F Gr Hist II 723 ff.
According to Diog. L. VI 84 Onesicritus was one of the better
known disciples of Diogenes. As Alexander’s admirai he took
Alexander novel,
part in lhe expedition to índia, wrote an
IIwç ’AXéçavopoç Yjx^Y], and also descriptions of índia. Among
other things he tells the story of an encounter with the so-
called Gymnosophists, an ascetic sect which obviously in his
mind was associated with Diogenes. Strabo gives an account
of it in XV 1,63—65=fragni. 17 a Jacoby. Onesicritus was
information on the
commissioned by Alexander to procure
spot about the philosophy of the Gymnosophists with which
« The same is true also of <paav9-pü>7t£a. The harsh ascetic is a misanthrope
abusing others without any wish lo help lhem, cf. Gerhard. Phoinix, p. 39:
»So ging am Ende der Pliilanihrop ins Gegenleil, den Misanthropen, uber,
ein seltsames Faktum. . . . Je wülender so ein Kyon tobte und polterle,
desto schlimmer war cs vielfach mit den eigenen Tugenden bestelll.» Cf. i.a.
Joh. Chrvs. Hom. 35,4= Migne LXI 302. of Diogenes: âgé;i?.y)ge psv íroXXooç,
find several traces oi
üxpáXvjOE 3s oòSéva (Gerhard, I.c.). In Diog. L., we
this, e.g. VI 4, 21, 24, 32 etc. Gerhard notes some proofs of late Cymc
reaction against this, as well as evident traces of a more humane ear y
Cynicism. He seems, however, to depreciate this trend in favour of the rigorous
Cynicism. The »hedonism» such as that of, for instance, the story in Diog.
L. VI 60, has, of course, nothing to do with the »Socratic» Cynicism of t e
4th century, as Gerhard himself points out, op. cit., p. 44. In Xen. Mem.
II 1 ff, we find an elucidative example of a sort of ÊYXpáxeia, the motive o
which is clearly hedonistic and utilitarian. In this case, it is quite impossible
of the Word. The same
to spcak of rigorous asceticism in the strict sense the utmost
is true of the motif âpxeíaQ-at toÍç itapoõat: to be happy, even in
poverty, that is the xéXoç of the genuinc Cynicism. cf. Crates in Teles. Hense,
Tel. Rei p. 38, cf. pp. 11. 41, 52. This is in fact the real meaning of the
Diogenic\vord Tíapaxapáxxetv xó vó|iia|ia; to declare the evil not only possible
to endure, but to be something good. Cf. Gerhard, Phoinix, p. 56 ff. Cf. also
the conception eòxéXeta, Gerhard, op. cit., p. 72 f. Lovejoy & Boas, Pnmiti-
vism and related ideas in antiqnity, p. 120, rightly point out that the Sophistic-
Cynic doctrine of xaxà çúotv prevented the ideal of self-sufficiency from
taking an extreme ascetic form. Cf. also ibid., p. 127, note 25 (against K.
v. Fritz),
136
Alexander desired dose acquaintance. Oncsicriliis and liis nicn

came upon them while they wcre engaged in tlieir ascctic exerciscs
outside the citj’. Naked and motionlcss, im various positions on
the rocks, they endured the heat of the equatorial sim unlil the
evening. Onesicritus entered into conversation with one of them
and heard an
interesting story. Originally the land was
flowing with
water, milk, hone3% wine and oil. But gradually
because of all this superfluity men fell into gliittony and arrogance
and Zeus put an end to their well-being. Then sophrosyne
and other virtues came into favour and thus restored their prospe-
rity. But once
again superfluity and arrogance now reign and
for that
reason mankind risks losing its well being. Another of
the GjTOnosophists takes up the conversation, and praises Alexan
der the Great because he, with all his great power, desires wisdom.
He is the only philosopher in arms. The most useful thing is that
they are wise who have the power to persuade the willing but
compel the unwilling to moderation pev éy.ouaíouç
awçpov£'.v, xoò- 5’ ây.ouatouç àvaY*/.áÇ£'.v). That doctrine is best
which frees the soul from pleasure and pain (YjòovYjy y.ai XÚTTTjv)
and which teaches that pain and toil are not the same thing since
the one is harmful and the other useful (gx’. Xútítj y.al tüóvgc otacpép£’.'
xò |i£y yàp TzoXéluov, xò 6è cpíXioy aòxGtç). The motive for their
arsh asceticism is conveyed in the following wôrdsrxá ys aiipaxa
àay.oOai Twóyoy, íy’
cd YVW|i.at ptoyyÚGiyxG, xyí' wv y.ai axáa£ic
Tzxóoiey
v.ai aú|iôoXot Tiàacy <xyxd-ã)v Tzxpsisv y.at y.oty^j y.ai cota:
»man trains the body for toil in order that his opinions niay
e strengthened, whereby he may put a stop to dissensions and
e ready to give good advice to all, both in public and in private.»^
ter sa>ing this the Gymnosophist asks whelher such doctrines
are proclaimed in Greece, too. When Onesicritus replies that
Pjthagoras had preached such doctrines and that Sócrates and
Diogenes demanded abstention from flesh food, the Gymnosophist
^ As lo lh*e
, _ nieaning of yvwiivj. cf. Xen. Mem. IV 2,9: Nr xrv "Hpav, s^vj
o loixpdzrtg, àraijiaí yé god. Scóti oOx àpYupíou xai ypuoíoo izposO.ou Ô-riGaupoà;
xexx-^G3-aL iiãÀÀov oo-^ías' ôyJXov Y*p õxt vopíÇec; âpYÚptov xat xpuaíov &ü5èv
peÂx.ô„ i.visiv ãvD-píbiious, xàg 5è xõv goswv ãvSpõiv YVtóiias âpsxTQ "Àouxí-
Çs.v Xvjr y.sy..iTjiiévoys. Oiog. L. VI 104 (Diogenes): ~pòr xòv è7ci8e'.y.vú|JiEvov aíixto
IIOUG-.XOV £sy/ Yvwnatc Yàp ãvSpcòv e>j |ièv olxoüvxac tcóXsi;, eu 8’ oíxoç, oü ^âX-
lioíoi y.ai x£psx-.G|iaGiv. Cf. Eurip. Aniiope, fragm, 200 Nauck. — The trans-
lation by H. L. Jones, The Geography of Strabo.
137
answcrs 6-zi -íkXol |ièv vojxíCot ¥poví|juüç aòxoiç ooxstv, £V o’ á|j.ap-

xáv£t.y, vd|xov izç>b xfjç :p’ja£ü); xt9-£iiÉvouç* oO Y«p (av) aíaxúvsaô-at
YU|ivoòc waTzsp (xòzòv oiá'f£LV, ÁKÒ Xixüiy Çôiyxaç. Then íbllows a
description of how the Gymiiosophists live in their citj’. Every
rich hoiise slands open to them ixÉ)(p'. yuvxiy.ovízidoç, and they are
presenlcd by those they meet in the streets with figs, grapes and
olives.
Onesicritus is deliberately comparing an oriental asceticism
with the forni of asceticism he had come to know at honie in
Greece, the Cynicism of Diogenes. The comparison is to the
disadvantage of Cynicism. In the Gymnosophists he found ascetics
of a far more radical type than he had previously encountered.
In this rcspect he piits Pythagoras, Sócrates and Diogenes on the
sanie plane: they all failed in putting yójioç before cpúaiç. Plutarch
gives us the same information in his account of the Gymnosophists,
Alex. 65=fragm. 17 b Jacoby: xòy 6è Aáyoajuy . . . otaxoúaayxa
TíEpt 21ü)xpáxou^ y.al IluO-ayópou xat Aioyéyouç £Í7T£íy, ü)ç sò'ô£íç |A£V
aòxô) boxoOaív oi ayopEÇ, Xtay oè xoòç yópouç adoyyvó-
ixsyot pEûoxéyat. The more moderate term in Plutarch, Xtay, puts
the problem in its triie perspective. Compared with the rigorous
asceticism of the Gxmmosophists, Diogenes’ way of life is distiiv
guished by too great a regard for law and custoni. Even in anti-
quity the greatest doubts were entertained about the trustworthi-
ness of Onesicritus’ facts (cf. Jacoby II 724, 15). In the present
case, where he is comparing an oriental and a Greek type of asce
ticism, \ve may accept ad notam the views he puts into the mouth
of the Gymnosophist.
We thus obtain confirmation of the priority of what we have
called the eudaemonistic, Socratic type of asceticism. In view of
this evidence, the thoroughgoing rigorous asceticism of the Dio
genes fragments must be regarded as a secondary accretion in the
tradition. This seems to be particularly evident in the story
in Diog. L. VI 23 of Diogenes’ rolling in the hot sand. This
appears to be copied from Onesicritus’ account of the Indian
philosophers lying naked on the hot rocks. Here, too, we have
the model for the stories about Diogenes begging in the streets
and market place. The externai influence on the legends of Dio
genes was exerted from many circles, interested in the matter.
Gerhard’s indication of the part played by the Gyrenaics in this
138
respect constitutes an instructive cxample of the workinfí of thc

formula cui hono: on the one hand a Cyrcnaic attempl to makc
Diogenes into a hedonist, on the other the assumption hy the
Gyrenaics themselves of Cynic traits. Within the Cynic movement
itself the increasing oriental influence on Greek religion following
the time of Alexander created a necessity to maintain the schoors
saint Diogenes as a thoroughgoing, rigorous ascetic.-
V.
We have established above that the principie apyojy = TratS-

a,'((}y(6z presupposes a community of a certain type, limited by the
scope of personal influence. We have now further established that
the strict, rigorous fragments in the Diogenes tradition are the
result of oriental influence on the development of the Diogenes
legend. The historical Diogenes represented a perhaps extreme,
Socratic type of asceticism which is consistent with corporate and
social ideas of an idyllic and eudaemonistic character, with the
emphasis largely on educational eiids. Here we must examine a
few points in the Diogenes material and test them in the light of
the results so far obtained.
The doxography in Diog. L. VI 70 ff contains in § 72 an
account of Diogenes’ politics. v. Fritz, op. cit., p. õ4 ff, regards
this part as genuinely Diogenic, to be more precise, as an extract
from Diogenes’ Politeia. The paragraph in question treats of the
following: a. everything belongs to the wise, b. vó\ioz, c. eò-^évsLcc
xoíi oóçcc, d. ■?) òpS-Y) TíoXtxeía, e. common possession of women
and children.
a. Ilávxa xwv aoccwv eivai y.od xoioúxouç Xóyouç èpwxtüv
oiouç ávü) (cf. § 37) TTpoeipTQy.aiiev tzxvtoc xwv ●9‘Síüv èaxi* cpíXot 5è
xoTç ao'poi; oí ■9’soí- Tcoivà oè xà xwv ipíXwv. návxa ãpa xwv aoipwv.
b. Tíspí x£ xoO vójioi) 6x1 auxoO oòy oíóv xs 7toXixeÚ£a9‘ai*
oò yáp cpTjoiv <5ÍV£U TtóXeiDÇ õêXóç xi elvat àoxetou* àaxetov oè
TzóXiç’ vójiou oè áveu tíoXeíoc oòôèv õyeXoç" âoxetov ápa ó vdjJLOç.
c. £ÒY£V£Ía; oè %ai Õóçaç y,aí xà xoiaOxa Tíávxa SiÉTcaiÇe, 7cpo-
yoaiiTQjjLaxa y.xyíxz £ivai XIy^v
d. póvTjv xe òpÔYjv TcoXixeíav etvat x-íjv èv y.óajiio.
■ Cf. G. A. Gerhard, Zur Legende vom Kyniker Diogenes, p. 394 f.

139
e. eXsY* y.ac xoivàç sívat oelv xàç '(uvaXv.a.c,, '(áôy jiYjõéva

vo|ií;^(i)v, âXXà xòv 7w£Íaavxa x^j TCsiaO-síaig auvstvaf y-oivou; 6è Stà
xouxo y.xí xoòc uíéaç.
This is probably a summary of the main topics in a systematic
exposilion which described a philosopher community of a Platonic
type. Points a, c and e could easily fit into such a theory. Cf. Plato
Rep. IV 423 c, where the suggestion that wives and children should
be common property is put forward by Sócrates on the grounds
ò'xi 0£t xaOxa y.axà xy)v uapoqiíav Tiávxa Sxi páXtaxa %otvà xà cpíXwv
TcoiEtaSat. In the fifth book of the Republic, 449 c ff, the question
recurs in a more detailed form. In the Laws V 739 b f, that State is
regarded as best in which everything, women, children and all
property, are held in common according to the principie y.otvà xà
cptXwv. ^ The Work summarised by Diog. L. in § 72 was probably
similar in contcnt: e is motivated by a. G contains another parallel
with Plato’s Republic: Plato favours State control of procreation
in order to ensure the best possible offspring; the social deter-
minism of the community is combined with a biological deter-
minism which alone decides status and rank among men.
Point b is difficult to interpret, Dudley, op. cit., p. 36, trans-
lates: »As to law: he would say that it is impossible for a society
to exist without law. For without a city no benefit can be derived
from that which is civilized: the city is civilized: there is no benefit
in law without a city: therefore the law is something civilized.»
Decisive for the intcrpretation is the meaning to be assigned to
»niir
àoxEíov. V. Fiutz, op. cit., p. 60, interprets it thus, that vópoç
ein àax£iov ist, und dies àax£tc;V, dies politum, urbanum,das Zivili-
sierte im kynischen Sinne, abgelehnt wird. He is followed by
Dudley who attacks W. Crõnert, Kolotes und Menedemos, p.
65. We may compare a fragment of Cleanthes SVF I 132,19:
íxavwç Sè y.al KX£ávO’Y]ç 7í£pt xò aTcouSatov etvat xyjv TróXtv Xó‘ôy
=» According lo Diog. L. VIII 10, the proverb is Pythagorean. Cf. also

Plat. Lys. 207 c, Phaedr. 279 c, SVF III 154,22, 155,35,42, 156,12, 159,12, 160,19.
Gerhard notes Cynic parallels, Diog. Leg., p. 398,4. In Dio Chrys. Or 10,29,
the motive of the theory aboiit common possession of women is different:
Diogencs refers to the animais and to the Persians. Cf. E. Weber, De Dione
Chrys. Cyn. sect., p. 127 ff. As to the expression tpíXoç 9-scõ, cf. Plat. Symp.
193 b, Rep. X 621c, Tini, 53 d, Leg. IV 716 d, Xen. Symp. IV 48, SVF I 53,8,
III 81,31. Cf. E. Peterson, Der Gottesfreund, Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch., XLII,
1923, p. 161 ff.
140
y<p(í)Trâ£ “ovoOtov OÁ
|J.£V (st) sativ otv.r^T-/(p'.ov xa-aaxíúaajta, £'c
0 y.x':x'st'y(C'/zxz o:y.-/;v ooOvaí y.a: Xx^zlv, c<jy. ígzsicv orj 7zó?.tç
èa-ív: àÀXà «íyjv D~óv áa-'.v ('] tzóaíz c>ly.r,Z‘qp’.ov XGZtioy ccp' sgziv
4 V
Tj 7ZO/ ^TZODOZÍO'/ and xozsiov are hcre svnonvnious ideas. ’AaT£Íov
is the definition of a judicial state. Only such a commiinüy can
give men protection and help: cf. the myth of Protagoras, Plat.
Prot. 322 b, The Sophist Antiphoii shows in the W/.r/d-six that
criticism of society was directed to this verv poinl, Diels-Kr.\nz
II 350: £' }X£V o'jy
TOí' zoíxOzx 7zpooí£|i£voí: e-Tív.oúpY,c7:: è'fí'fV£zo
TZXpX ZÕ)V VÓ[lt!)V, 0£ jiYj 7üpoal'£|j.£voír, àXX’ £vav“íOu|Jt£VO’.c èXxz-
Z(i)g:z- 0’jy. âvóvy,
av y^v zò zoXz yó\ioí :a|ia' vOv 5È zxívszxi zoZç
7:poG' ;|X£vo:: "à zoíxXizx zò èy, vÓ|ío’j Síxaiov oCr/ íxavòv e-iv.oupsív.
Only a community, whose laws rest on a universal principie, 'súglç,
and thereby niake impossible unpunished transgression, can lend
effective protection to its citizens. The contrary is the lawless coni-
munity which Protagoras describes in the myth Plat. Prot. 322 b.
With these considerations in mind we can procccd to examine
the text in Diog. L. VI 72. It appears then that the passagc in Diog.
L. is concerned with the discussion of the state as the guarantor of
right and justice (áax£rov=5íxr^y òoOvat y.xi Xx^stv). The line of
reasoning scems to be the following: the purpose of the state is to
provide legal justice (tzó?az—xgz£íov); law, the purpose of which
is to ensure judicial protection (cf. Antiphon), cannot do so
rvojxoo . . . oòoèv C'ssXoz) except in such a state (vóiior=xozBiov);
if, therefore, the function of the state is to watch over justice and
afford its citizens judicial protection, and on the other hand the
law which gives such protection cannot function outside a judicial
community, it follows that law is necessary for the state.
With this special meaning of xGzaloy the section in question
obtains an interpretation which gives good sense. v. Fkitz main-
tains in his interpretation that the passage contains no judgement
of value. But the Stoic examples exhibit a use of xgzsToç as synony-
mous with
a<uouSaTor, the contrary of çaOXo^. ’Aax£toc iniplies a
Cf. SVF III 81,5: Tòv yàp vó|iov eivat, y.a9-á"£p eííLoiiev, oTZorjSaíov, ó|i&ftoç
Sà xal Tíiv TTÔÀiv. SVF III 80,42: o~o‘j5aZov yàp v) Tzó/.ig y.ai ó õf^fior àaxstóv xi
GÒazrjiix y.ai
-Xv5{)-g; ãvD-pwTZfov útzó vóiíO’j Sioiy.oúfisvov. Ciem. AIe.x. Strom.
IV 26=StXhlin II 324 f, from whom the latler text is taken, compares
this constitutional state with the Church governed hy the Logos, ãTioÀiópxvjxoç,
ãx’jpávvyjxor noXtr êtií y^r- a-áXvjpa O-síov £7:1 <í)S èv oõpavô).
141
decided judgemcnt of value which conccrns the wise man and the
ideal State. For the historical community is not a judicial commu-
nity according to the criticism of Antiphon. If then we follow
V. Fritz in declaring this part of the Diogenes doxography to be
genuine and an extract from Diogenes’ Politeia, we must assume
that this Work contained the same principies of the ideal State as
were later adopted by the Stoa.
With this point d in the doxography agrees: {lóvrjv xs òpB-rjv
TToXiXiíav slvat x^v èv y.óo\iio. We need not imagine that there was
any contrast between the attempt to define the ideal tüóXiç and
was
òp8'Y] TcoXtXcía *?) èv y.óa\uú. The expression "í] òp8*vj TroXtxsta
in the 4th century a term accepted in political writings, a fact
which is obvious from its frequency in Aristotle, e.g. Pol. 1279
a 18 and passim (see Bonitz, Index Aristot., p. 523); cf. Plat. Rep.
VIII 544 a, Polit. 293 a, Ep. VII 330 e. Cf. also Aeschines 2,163.
It is, therefore, not impossible that this term was also used in
Diogenes’ Politeia. However, the applying of the term in the
Diogenes doxography to a »cosmos-state» was something new. The
real content of this theor3’^ of the cosmos-state in Diogenes is, in
fact, an open question and will probablj^ remain such. At all events,
it may have been more than a pure negation of the historical state.
The definition of the concept of tióXiç points in that direction.
Conceptions of a cosmos-state had to find their models in the
ideal TwóXiç the dimensions of which are then extended in absolu-
tum: vójioç= »woiidlaw», 7íóX'.ç=xóg|ioç.
In this connection we must devote a few words to the ex
pression y.oCT|ioíxoXíXYjç, Diog. L. VI 63. W. W. Tarn, Alexander
and the Unity of mankind, p. 125, points out the comparative
rarity of the word. The léxica quote no example before Philo,
a fact which makes it doubtful whether the historical Diogenes
used the word. But we have one example which seems to supporl
Diog. L.’s statement, namely in Lucian’s Vit. auct. 8, where
° As to persons, cf. SVF III 88,36, 88,40, 116,29, 158,23, 168,34. AoxeToç
in an Antislhcnes fragment Philo, Quod oni. prob. lib. sit=Cohn-Wendland
VI 8 f: eis -caõxa ô’ âTiiSíbv (i.c. the wise man’s similarity with a firmly
standing athlete) 'Avtí.oOsvtis eooPáoxaxxov eixsv sívat xòv âoxelov (Í)S T“P
âcppoaúvyj y.oõqjov xal 9spd|ievov, (ouxtoç) çpóvTjois êpujpeioiaévov xal âxXtvès
xal (íápoç exov ãaáXeoxov. Cf. on the other hand Diogenes Max. Conf. Loc.
com. XVII = Migne XCI 824 I): ’Epo)xr)9-slç, xí papóxspov gaaxáÇei, Iqpyj.
"AvQ-pcoTcov ãxaíSsoxov. For âoxetoç about things, cf. SVF III 72,16, 147,10, 176,30.
142
Diogenes, in reply to lhe queslion where he was from, declares,

Uxvzooxi and tlien continues to his amazcd inlerloculor: ToO
*/.óa|jLO’j T:oÁÍzr^y ópàç. R. Helm, Liikian und Menipp, pp. 240 and
246, regards this as clearly a reminiscence from Menippus. Both
examples from Philo, SVF III 82,23 ff, show that thc concept
'/.o(3|jL07i:oXí”rjÇ coheres closely wilh a vóiioc-concepl of cosmic
dimensions. The word has a theoretical background, prior to
which its emergence and use were unlikely. The fragmenls read,
336: ToO vo|ií|JLOu íyòçjòz õvxo; y.OG\i07zoXí~^\j, Tzpòr zò ôúÀ7i|xa
ZfjZ 'SÚGSÜiÇ ZXÇ Tzpxçsiç àTwSoâávovxo;, xa8’ YjV y.xi ò aú|i7ia- y.ÓG\ioç
oioiy.sZzxi. Fragm. 337: ’E òè Tzxax TróXiç £tjyo|ioç iyei TioXixsíav,
xvxYy.xíojç çuváâivc 'cw y,oo\LOTZoXíz-Q 7p-â8-a'. 7zoX’.zzicç yj xa: o6\í.t:xz
ó y.ÓGiioç. Autyj dé èazLV ó zYjC 'púascoç ôpd'ò^ Xóôç, y.zX. In the Yj òp8-Y)
tzoXlzsíx -fi èv y.ó^\uú (Diogenes’ doxograpliy) there reigns ô xy)ç
cpóasw' ôp^òz Xóyoç. The lheory of this universal, supra-state law
of'súcjLz was current when the Sophist Antiphon wrole his ’AÀYj8s:a,
and the problem of the relation of yóp.oz (aclual law or custom)
to was taken over by the Cynics from the Sophists. If we
attribute to Diogenes the creation of the expression xoO y.6ap.o\j
-oXízr^Z (Luc. Vit. auct. 8) we may aiso attribute to him the theore
tical views on which the word rests. This need not imply that in
Diogenes these views had aiready assumed a fixed and exclusively
Stoic form."
The last seclion of the Diogenes doxography, Diog. L. VI 73,
concerns that side of Diogenes’ doctrines which was found
° Questions of that sort about Diogenes, líg v.al “oSanog, seein to have
been popular in order to demonstrate his ready wit, cf, C. Wessely, Neues
über Diogenes den Kyniker.
^ Cf. G. Rudberg, Zum Diogenes-Typus, p. 11 f, and M. Mühl, op. cit.,
pp. 18 ff, 46 ff. Thc above quoted verse Diog. L. VI 38: àTroXic «xotxoç, Tía-cpíSog
ês-cepyjiiévos x-X., and the Crates verse Diog. L. VI 98: oúx eíç xáxpa
[iot TtOpYos, oO [iía Q-íàrcfi xxX., niean in fact the same as xoopoTCoXÍTrys but
from a negative point of view. The same is true of Teles, Hense, Tel. Rei.,
p. 25,6: dúvapat 5è [Jisxapà; ôansp èg èxépa; veò)ç sls êxépav ójioítog sOtiXoeív,
oâxtog êg éxépas xóXewç elç éxépav ó|x&ía); 6Òdai|iov£Ív. Cf. Epict. III 22,22:
y.al 7COÜ ôúvaxaí xig èxpaXeiv; Igto xoõ xósixou oü Súvaxai. õnou Ô’ âv ã7íéX9-ü),
êxsi T^Xtos, èxeí asXifjvr), exaí ãaxpa, êvÓTivta, oltüvoí, í) irpòg 8-soòs ópiXía. Cf. aIso
Chabrias, Gnom. Vat. 559: 'O aúxôs èpttíxyjD-êis xoxaTiòs xtp
xoapoYSvyjs. Gnom. Vat. 115 (Anaxagoras, Diogenes, Aristippus): 'O aòxóg Ttpóç
xòv Soacpopoõvxa, õxt èxl gsvyj; èxsXeóxa, xavxaxóS-sv, ê»rj, ópoía âoxlv yj elç
"AtSou xáO-oÔoç, cf. Max. Conf. Loc. com. XXXVI = Migne XCI 904 B.
143
objectionable and disgusting. We miist devote some attention to

it before we pass on to the exposition of Diogenes’ Politeia con-
tained in the Philodemus papyrus.
The paragraph contains two thiiigs: examples and theoretical
foundation. The source qiioted is Diogenes’ Thyestes, with the
reservation that the tragedies may not be genuine. The text reads,
§ 73 a: Mirjoév ts ãxoTtov sívxi èç EspoO xt XajSsTv 7j xwv Çtõiüv xtvòç
yeúaaaô-af àvóatov etvat xò xai xtõv àvô-pwTcetwv xpswv &(pa~
aô-av, 6-^Xov èx xwv àXXoxptwv è^wv. The theoretical foundation
follows straight on, § 73 b: xat xw òp9’to Xóyto Tcávx’ âv tzxgl xai Sià
Tcávxtov elvat Xlyiov. xai Y“P Típéaç etvat xai èv xw
Xa)(ávíp ápxGV, xzt xtDv awjiáxwv xüiv XotTõwv èv izõíai otá xtvtov
aoT^Xíov Tüópcúv xai ôyy.oyv siaxptvoiiévwv xai auvax|xtÇo|iévü)v, (bç OYjXov
èv xÇ) 0uécx*fl Tüots:.® In 73 c we ha ve the reservation that the
Thyestes is possibly not genuine, whereupon the paragraph
doses wdth the injunction: jiouatxYjç xe xai Yetú|i£xpLXY)ç xai àax-
poXoYtaç xai xõ)v xoioúxtov à|ieXetv, ü)ç àxpV)<7T^wv xai oòx ávaYxaíwv.
The cosmic theories expressed here are Heraclitus’, Diels-
Kranz I 150 ff (see especially fragm. 10, 12, 31, 36, 41 [Tzávza
oià Tiávxwv], 88, 90, 103). Gynicism may, of course, have derived
its view of nature via the Sophists from Anaxagoras, who had con-
siderable influence on Athenian philosophical views (cf. Phaedo),
from Diogenes of Apollonia, and from the Atomists. It is easy to
find fragments which tie up with the main theme of the passage
now under discussion, Ttávx’ èv Trãat xai 5tà xávxa. I content
myself with quoting the following: Anaxagoras, Diels-Kranz
II 32 ff, fragm. 4: ^pT] 5oxetv èvstvat xoXXá xe xai xavxota èv nãai
xoTç CTUYxptvojiévotç xai OTcépfiaxa Tcávxwv y^piq\xáx(úv, fragm. 6: oOxiüç
av eiT] èv Tcavxi Ttávxa' oò5è etvat, àXXà xcavxa Ttavxôç
[lotpav p,exéx£t- Cf. fragm. 9, 11, 12, 16, 17. Diogenes of Apollonia,
Diei.s-Kranz II 59 ff, fragm. 2: èp,oi oè 8oxet . . . xávxa xà õvxa àizò
xoO aòxoO éxepotoOaO’at xai xô auxô etvat. The theory expounded here
® In this text, quoted from Cobet, we have an anakoluth, y-oU connecting
acc. c. inf. with gen. abs., obviously because of the preceding construction
xa£ . . . xaf. For the dative Ttãot to eloxptvopévtov (found in Diog. L. I 7)
we have the construction èv Ttãoi in analogy with the preceding ev x(j> ápxq)
and èv xqi Xaxávtp. In HiCiís’s text, v.olí in the expression Jíóptov xai õyxiúv
has been omitted, but the translation is correct: »and all other bodies also,
by means of certain invisible passages and particles, find their way in and
unite with all substances in the form of vapour.»
144
lallies fullv ^vith lhe lhesis of lhe Diogencs doxography. Cf. nlso
fragm. 3, 4,5. Liglit is llirown on llie cxpressioii -óptov -/.ai õvv.üív by
Empedocles and thc Pvlbagoreans as well as by Ibc Alomisls. liópoc
is one of Empedocles’ main ideas, the pbysiological condition of
individual bodies, and the
every kind of communication between
basis of his theory of cvolution and his theory of knowlcdge, which
were later taken over by the Atomists and Epicurus. That it
strongly influenced the Sophists is shown by the account of (ior-
gias in Plato’s Meno 7(5 c and by the doctrine oí mutual radialion
ascribed to Protagoras in Plato’s Theaetet. 153 e and passini.»
"Oy'/.o: in Democrilus is somelimes similar to áxo|ior (I)ii:i.s-Khanz
II 84,16), somelimes a large conglomeration of aloms, perceptible
to the e\’es or other senses: xoo; (Diels-Kranz
technical term and xà
II 93,29). In Empedocles we find oy‘/.o; as a
vaaxá (Diels-Kranz I 291, 21 and 306, 4). The actual combinalion
-ópo'. y.ai. OY‘/.oi, which occurs in the Diogenes doxography, is not
found in pre-Socratic philosophy,but this does not atfecl the problem,
Both ^vords are in fact early technical terms of natural philosophy
and denote that view of the cosmos according to w hich no niatlei
is isolated and sui generis, but participates in the circulai piocess
of cosmic change. It is to this that the exprcssion auv^xpiôiiévoiv
refers. The compound with auv is not attested in pre-wSocratic
philosophy, but the verb ètaxpú occurs, as do the substantives
àxixtr, àxpór, Diels-Kranz III 82 and 164. It is thus quite possible
to date the passage of Diog. L. under discussion to the fourth
century B. C. The idea that lies behind it is old, the scienliíic terms
are early technical terms, and even if the wdiole line of ícasoning
in this section is foreign to the traditional view' of Diogenes,
which ignores his intellectual side, w’e must still reckon wdth
the possibility that Diogenes justified his radical views wdth plau-
was not, howêver.
sible and appropriate scientific arguments. He
interested in physical or logical problems for their own sake.^
This part of the Diogenes doxography is the only place in the
whole Diogenes tradition where we have a reference to a really
scientific theory as the justification of Diogenes’ view's. Elsewhere
he adduces simple, eristic arguments to support a radical thesis or
® For the flourishing studies of medicine and ils iniporlance even for
the .Sophistic cf. W. Jaeger, Paidein, I 387 f, III 3 ff.
^ Cf. Diog. L. VI 103 and G. Rudberg, Zum Dioyenes-Tijpus, p. 9 f. Cf.
145
an objectionable phcnomenon.^ The question of authenticity is in-

soluble, but in coinparison with the anecdotes the doxography
deserves greater credence. If we assume that it is a summary of
one of Diogenes’ works, we may establish the following facts:
1) His radical views are nothing more than the extreme con-
seqiience ol’ a scientific theory supported by ethnographic facts.
2) The passage 73 a and b contains no positive judgement of
value, but on the contrary questions whether any judgement of
value can have absolute character.
3) The passage contains no word about the desirability of
the realisation of the theory in actual society or in any ideal State.
From the information contained in the doxography we can
therefore draw no conclusion that Diogenes advocated cannibalism.
There is no mention, for instance, that prisoners of war should be
killed and used for food. In general, nowhere in the Cynic tradition,
with the exception of the Philodemus papyri, is the thesis raised
that murder, which is the preliminary to cannibalism, should be
permitted. It is noted that cannibalism occurs among foreign people.
The judgement |xyjo’ àvóatov is justified by the following clause
d)ç oYjXov èx xwv àXXoxpttov è^õv. According to Cynic views only
those sanctions have indubitable validity which are founded in
nature itself, that is to say which occur in a similar form among
all known people. Everything else is convention and may therefore
be queried. The problem is of an obviousl}’' theoretical character.
under particular circumstances it might not be inadmissible to eat
human flesh; moral repugnance at the phenomenon is not com-
mon to all mankind without exception, so that there is no question
of a natural law which metes out certain punishment; from a
scientific point of view all
_ matter is of the same kind, so that
all forms of eating involve a form of cannibalism. The theory is
said to have been expounded in a drama, the Thyestes, in which
Thyestes as a poor beggar (cf. Aristoph. Ach. 434: ©ueaxsta ^áxY])
also Julian VI 190 A. Burlesqiie instances of Diogenes taking part in
sophislic and scientific discussions in Diog. L. V'I 38 f. ^
= A typical instance of Diogenic eristic argumentation Diog. L. VI 6J:
el TÒ âpiOTãv iJiTjôév êaxiv ãxoTiov, oòõ’ èv àôp^ êoxiv àxoTcov ouv. soxi 5 axoTXov
xô àpiaxàv. oòS’ èv àfopq. ãpa àoxlv ãxoTíov. A Socratic method, cf. Xen. Mem.
III 7,4. Cf. O. Gigon, Xenophontea, Eranos Rudbergianus, p. 144. Cf. on the
other hand Stob. Anth. III 33,14: Diogenes reprehends a philosopher who uses
eristic questions.
10
146
comes to his brother Atreus and is ofTered by way oí' recoiiciliation

a meai consisting of Thyestes’ butchered sons. It is possible that
the play contained a scene in which tliis problcm was discussed
in the light of the .scientific theories mentioned above.'^
Our investigations bave attempted to show that the Diogenes
material in the doxography, §§ 72—73, hy no means conflicts \vith
the picture of Diogenes presented in the pedagogy of the Euhoulus
extract, and supports our assumption of a Cynic political theory.
The extreme ascetic traits, as al.so the most haroque of the âvaíosia-
stories in which they are exemplified, have nothing to do with
the historical Diogenes: the cannibalism in § 73 is a logical attack
of purely theoretical character on convenlion and does not riile
out the possibility of a Cynic theory of the ideal slate. The vó|ioc-
part of the doxography shows that such a theory was discussed
and that the question of law and justice constituted the central
problem. Certain similarities with Plato’s Republic are evident,
but it is prohahle that the details were worked out in a more
radical way.
VI.
we note the
At a definite point early in the Cjaiic tradition
beginning of the falsification of the Diogenes tradition. On the
one hand we have Onesicritus’ comparison of the Greek and the
oriental type of asceticism; we have no detailed knowledge of its
influence on the development of the Diogenes legeiid, but the
story of Diogenes’ rolling in the hot sand and the like suggest
a tendency towards a more rigorous type and support the
general assumption that oriental influence on the West alter
Alexander the Great did not leave the Diogenes legend untouched.
On the other hand, we have the obscene and burlesque influence
on the evolution of the portrait of Diogenes. This modification was
® Cf. Philodemus, Pap. Herc. 339, Crünert, op. cit., p. 62: Aòxóg 0-’ ó
Aioyávrjs sv xs xw 'Axpsí (=Thyestes, Diog. L. VI 73, 80, cf. Th. Gomperz,
Eine verschoUene Schrift des Stoikers Kleanthes, der Staat und die sieben
Tragõdien des Cynilcers Diogenes, Zeitschr. f. d. ôsterr. Ggmn., 29, 1878, p. 255)
%ai xtj) OlSÍTtoõi y.al xto <I>iXícxo) xà TiXetaxa xõjv y.axà xvjv noÂixsíav aiaxpòiv
y.al àvoaítüv tí)c ãpéoy.ovxa xaxaxo)píÇeí. In Diog. L. VII 121, we have a notice
which puts this theory in its true perspective: Y^ússoO-aí xe y.ai ãvS-poJTttvtov
oapxtõv y.axà Tísptaxasiv.
147
introduccd in the generation following Diogenes by such pupils

as Bion and Menippus, men of lilerary leanings but of no philo-
sophic gifts. The resiilt of this early falsification can be studied
fiilly 200 years later in two Philodemiis papyri, pap. Herc. 339 (P)
and 15Õ (p) published by W. Cronert, Kolotes iind Menedenios,
p. 53 ff. Besides these \ve have the unnumbered, so-called Vienna
Diogenes papyrus, Cronert, op- cit., p. 49. The first two nientioned
deal with the same subject, namely a violent poleniic against the
Stoics, which sets out to prove that Zeno’s Politeia was in its
essence inspired by Diogenes’ Politeia. Stoic attempts to establish
Zeno’s independence in this work and to assert that Diogenes
Politeia was spurious, are refiited. Finally, a resumé is given of the
content of Diogenes’ Politeia. The Vienna papyrus contains a
number of Diogenes anecdotes which show what kinds of anecdotes
about him were cuiTent in the first century B. C."*
Besides the circumstance that the Philodemus papjTi are of
a pronouncedly poleniic character, we should bear in mind that
Philodemus, who lived in the first century B. C., had no access to
primary Diogenes material but depended on secondary sources.
We may be sure that Philodemus would not have omitted to
mention it if he had studied the original works of Diogenes. Philo
demus’ sources are unknown. He did not make extracts from
Stoic writings about the state and draw conclusions therefrom
about Diogenes’ Politeia, but confronts Stoic material with Dio-
genic obtained from other sources.^ Crônert remarks, p. 63,
that Philodemus’ exposé of Cynic theses seems not to be derived
from a doxographical work but is made up of gleanings from
Cynic literature by an opponent.
In the account of the Cynic theses, Col. VIII X, there recur all
the vulgar traits which we know from the luxuriant growth of Cynic
anecdotes: the Cynic live like dogs, practice Tíapprjaca (presumably
in an obscene sense), public niasturbation, and homosexuality,® have
common possession of wives and children, and in this connection
are accused of incest (p), rape (?: pYjSsvòc pepouç s5c
TcXTjOLaaiJiòv av npóç yé xtva auvxsXfjxai ^tav), prostitution, and
* Cf. also C. Wessely, Neues über Diogenes den Kyniker, and papyrus
Bouriant, CrcJnert, op. cit., p. 148 ff.
° Col. XIV, Crünert, op. cit., p. 01.
“ Cf. Gerhard, Diog. Leg., p. 399 f, and id., Phoinix, p. 140 ff.
148
adultery. Philodemus lingers with evident zest over these accusa-

tions; his own obscene epigrams reveal his inlerest if not his moral
indignation.* In what follows we encounter other parallels with
Plato’s Republic besides common possession of wives and children;
the women have the same dress as the men, the same education,
and they participate naked in men’s gymnastics. In p we get the
astonishing Information that Cynics usually (!) kill dying members
of their family with their own hands and eat them. In P there was
clearly a similar story: y.ai zoòç àvd-ptíyKOvç Sslv (!) Traxpotpovslv.
The Stoic àvSpwTzotfaYta, SVF III 18Õ ff, was equally mis-
interpreted by the opponents. It is mentioned by Sextus Emp.,
Adv. math. XI 192, 194, from whom Diog. L. indubitably derived
the content of VII 121 and 188. All these passages quote Chrysip-
pus as their source. For the Christian Fathers such things were
welcome weapons in their fight against heathen philosophy; cf.
Theophilus, Ad Autolycum III 5. But that these are in fact merely
daring concliisions from a scientific theory, emerges from Plut. De
Stoic. rep. 22=Mor. 1044 F, while Sextus Empiricus’ information
that Chrysippus discussed the theory in his works Uepi otxatoaúvTjç
was
and lispt xou y.aîQy.ovxoc makes it probable that the question
taken up as an ethical problem which found a solution within the
framework of a comprehensive scientific theory along the same
lines as we suggested apropos of the Diogenes doxograph3^ The
statements in the Philodemus papyri have nothing to do with this.
Philodemus ends his resume of Cynic theses with a few words
about the Cynics’ attitude to the state and their fellow men. He
says. Gol. X: y.ad nóXiv fjyslGd-aL ixvjSsptav ü)V è7C'.axá|xeâ pi^xe
vóiiov. The meaning may well be that the Cynic conception of
the State does not correspond with any known, historical form of
State. Philodemus does not go so far as to deny the Cynics all part
in political ideas, which would be impossible after his lengthy
proof that Diogenes actually wrote a Politeia. We may compare
with this what he says about Zeno’s state, Col. XVIII, p. 57
Cronert: àSuváxouç TcáXtv OTtoO-éaetç xolç oòy. oõatv êvo|XO-8-éxst.,
xoòç õvxaç Txapsíç. Zeno emphasised the contrast belween oí gízod-
SaTo’. and oí cpaOXot, making it into a complete antithesis, and he
8^^his State only oí axouSaíot as inhabitants. CRÕNERf quotes
’ Because of his eroticism, he is called »the Greek Ovid», cf. Christ-
SCHMID, Gescit. d. griech. Lit., II 328, 371 ff.
149
apropos of Ihis a crilicism levelled by Atlienaeus against Plato’s

Repiiblic, A th. XI 508 b: Ioitcsv o’jv ó IlXáxiúV oò xoTç oõatv àvS’pw-
7ZOÍÇ Ypáâ'. xoòç vójiouç, àXXà xotç Otí’ aòxou SiaTíXaxxojiévotç, õaxc y.ai
^7}zsíGd'ai xoòç yiprjOG\iévouç. All three theories of the ideal state
mentioned here had much in common with one another and were
exposed to similar crilicism in antiquity.
The most important piece of information which the Philo-
demus papyri afford us is the incontestible authenticity of Dio-
genes’ Politeia and the intimate connection between Diogenes and
Zeno in their Politeia-writings, Col. XIII, XIV and VII, Crõnert,
p. 60 ff. Philodemus refers to (bç aí' x’ àvaYpaqjal xwv Tuváxwv aí
X£ pu^XioO^^xai aYjjxatvouatv, and further to utterances by Cleanthes,
Chrysippus and Antipater. The other important lesson is that we
see here with our own eyes how a movement hostile to the Cynics
deliberately went to work to falsify the Cynic tradition so as to
make it completely unrecognisable. What we encounter in Philo-
demus’ Cynic theses is not philosophy and not ethics. He is con-
cerned with representing Cynicism as a barbarism which would
destroy every conceivable human society. Probably there existed
degenerate Cynic sects which might justify such a point of view.
Lucian in fact gives examples. Certain obscure features, too, in
the story of the movement may well go back to Diogenes himself.
But that is not the whole truth about a movement on which Diog.
L. VI 103 passes the íinal jiidgement: aípsaiv %at xaúxrjv elvat ...
XY]v cptXoaoíptav, oO, 7ca9-á cpaat xtvsç, evaxaatv piou, whose xéXoç was
xò %ax’ àpexYjv Çtjv, Diog. L. VI 104, and whose classical represen-
tatives found admirers until the latest period of the ancient world.
Chapter III.
The Cynic Paideia and the Cynic King

in Dio Chrysostomus.
In our sludy of Heracles, as he appears in Dio Chiysosfomus,

ít was maintained that all Heracles exemplifications of any im-
porlance in Dio belong to the time of his exile, or a later pcriod.
We drew the conclusion that the use made of the figure of Heracles
by Dio was directly influenced hy his contact wilh the Cynic way
characterised
of life and Cynic literature. His portrait of Heracles is
by ethical rationalisation or thoroughgoing allegorical interprelation
of the hero’s tüóvo-.. To this we must add the important TtaiSsía-
motif in Or. 4,29 ff, which, significantly enough, is inserted in a
speech about true kingliness. We propose to study the Tra-.osía-
theme first and afterwards to discuss certain portrayals of the
in Dio.
I.
various
Dio, after reviewing in the first royal speech the
qualities which characlerise the true king,^ relates the allegoiy
about Heracles which he had heard froni an old woman during
the course of his wanderings in the interior of the Peloponnese.
In the full introdiiction to the allegory, §§ 48—58, Dio tries to
Show the divine character of the myth and the truth it contains.
The woman who narrates the allegory had received the gift of
prophesy from the mother of the gods, but she draws a distinction
between herself and other allegedly god-inspired meii and women
in that she does not speak àab^paívouaa y.at TCEpiStvoOaa
y.ad 7r£ipü)jiév7j Ssivòv èppXé7r£'.v, àXXà Tiávu èyxpoLxwç v.aí aw^póvw'.
® cr. the catalogues in lhe last seclion of this chapter. I do not take into
coiisideration tho views held by V. Valdenberg, La théorie monarchique de
Dion Chrijsosiome.
lõl
§ 5(>. The womaii relates the aliegory as a god-given command-

ment, communicated by her to Dio and with the expressed injunc-
tion to Dio to tell the story to the mighty potentates whom he will
soon meet. The follo^Ying points should be noted:
1) Dio distinguishes the aliegory from the miracle stories and
lhe religioiis myths which flourished so abundantly in his own day.
2) Dio distinguishes the aliegory from Sophistic stories, which
are characlerised as oòosvòí; aÇta Tzpòç, xyjv Tiapà xwv èTinzvoictv
y.al Íí 57.
3) The aliegory is compared with the wise and true words
which are imparled to mankind otà xwv Trpwxwv jiavxtxwv xs 7cai
■9‘cía)v àvSpwv, § 57, e.g. Orpheiis, and, although he is not expressly
mentioned, Linus.’’
The aliegory ilself falis into three parts. §§ 59—65 are con-
cerned with the personality of Heracles. §§ 66—83 relate how
Hermes demonstrated kingship and tyranny, symbolised in the
figures of two women, to Heracles, § 84 concludes the narrative
and also the first royal speech with the statement that Zeus
made Heracles king over the whole world: èr.éxpeòev aòxw âat-
Xsúsív xoO aó|i“avxoc àv9’pcí)Kti>v y^vouç, wc õvxi [y.avtj).
Of particular interest is the section devoted to the personality
of Heracles. The story begins with the universally acknowledged
fact that Heracles was the son of Zeus and Alcmene, But then it
assumes a more controversial form: Heracles was king not merely
the whole world.
of Argos but of the whole of Greece, and even
He received a simple, but careful upbringing. The fact that he
went around naked, his only aceoutrements being a lion skin and
a Club, is given an allegorical interpretation: he set no great store
by gold, silver or clothing, but regarded them as devoid of value
for his own person. But that does not imply that he was poor,
since he gave away possessions, land, dwellings, kingdoms and
cities. For he regarded everything as his own property. The
« V. Arnim, Dio von Prusa, p. 476, points oul that Or. 1 is also influenced
by Stoic religiousness. the l>est proof of which in Dio we find in Or. 12. Cf.
H. Binder, Dio Chrys. und Posulonius, and the survey in K. Praechter,
Die Philos. (I. Altert., p. Õ08 f. Dio, Demetrius (cf. Seneca De Prov. V 5 f,
Praechter, op. cit., p. 505) and Epictetus are all good representatives of
the same religious view w, In this case, however, it is an open question if Dio
himself has really regarded his account as a religious document.
1Õ2
theme of solitariness in the mj^th is aiso given an allegorical inter-

pretation. Heracles was auxoupyò; - - . xat zjj 7zpób'\j\ioç y,od
xò ad)jia íy.avò; xal Tcávxwv |iáXtaxa èTZÓvzi, .íj 63. In acliial fact he
was nol a solitary figure since he captured cities and cnished
tyrants. His desire to rule was not inspired personal advantage
but by the wish to benefit mankind.
The whole of this section with its description of the character
of Heracles has no counterpart in the allegory of Prodicus in Xen.
Mem. II 1,21 ff. K. Jofíl, Der echte und der xenophontische
Sokrates, II 125 ff (331 f), tries to show that the allegory of
Prodicus in Xenophon should be ascribed to Antisthenes and not
to Prodicus, but appears not to have won any adherents to this
view.i We prefer to follow the traditional view of the Prodicus
allegory in Xenophon as being an extract from the writings of
Prodicus, although, as Xenophon himself says, Mem. II 1,34, it is
expressed in a simpler and less pretentious form than the original.
Is it possible, then, that Dio has drawn on Prodicus through the
intermediary of Xenophon to illustrate his royal speech? Against
such an assumption we must set the fact that the characterisation
of Heracles in Dio is not found in Xenophon. If we assume that
the allegory itself, §§ 66—83, has been borrowed from Xenophon,
although in a considerably modified form, this means that the
characterisation of Heracles is either Dio’s own work or has been
borrowed from some other source. There are striking siniilarities
between the texts of Xenophon and Dio, as J. Wegehaupt, De
Dione Chrysostomo Xenophontis sectatore, p. 7 f, points out.
G. Capelle, De Cynicorum epistulis, p. 39, in an investigation into
the various versions of the Prodicus allegory, comes to the con-
clusion that Dio’s account is based on a non-extant Stoic or Cynic
allegory of Heracles, as well as on Xenophon’s Prodicus allegory.
Wegehaupt, op. cit., p. 48 ff, regards the characterisation of
Heracles as Dio’s own creation ^ based on a »hisloricising» con-
ception of Heracles; cf. Dion. Hal. I 40 f. Dio attempted to present
a picture of Heracles which approximates Trajan as closely as
possible: »honores atque munus Traiani ad Herculem transtulit».
JoüL, op. cit., II 312 f, on the other hand, regards this representa-
tion of Heracles as a typical example of the Cynic Heracles,
^ W. Nestle, Die Horen des Prodicus, has recently refuted this view.
■ So also P. Hagen, Quaest. Dion., pp. 9 f, 41 f.
153
but does not appear to consider the factual difficulties of this

passage.
It seems now to be clear that both the main sections in Dio
cannot be separated but must be attributed to the same source.
For psychological reasons it is difficult to conceive of Dio’s having
derived the characterisation of Heracles from one source and
the account of Hermes’ instruction of him from another; still less
likely is it that Dio, as E. Weber, De Dione Chrysostomo Cyni-
corum sectatore, p. 244 ff, like Wegehaupt, op. cit., p. 50, sup-
poses, used several sources for the characterisation itself. The
passage in Epictetus III 26,32,^ which Weber adduces in his
support, strengthens the contrary view that the Heracles in Dio s
characterisation I 59 ff is actually the Cynic Heracles. The whole
characterisation is an allegory in the Cynic manner:"* Heracles
as the son of Zeus and Alcmene=the incarnation theme ® (cf. the
aocpóç-idealisation, Diog. L. VI 37, 72®); the theory Atòç 7iatç=
“ See p. 6.3 above.
* I refer to chapt. I, p. 30 ff, p. 45 ff (Heracles as an ethical paragon
in didaclic, allegorical wrilings), p. 50 ff (the decisive point in this connection
is the observation that Heracles in Dio is the Cynic Heracles: all mentions of
Heracles which Dio has belong to his Cynic or post-exile time), p. 68 ff
(Lucian’s Heracles a Cynic allegory?). As yet no monograph has been written
about lhe ancient allegory. The only investigations in this field are, as far
as I know, A. B. Hersman, Studies in Greek Allegorical Interpretation, 1906,
C. Reinhardt, De Graecorum theologia capita duo, 1910, and the surveys by
J. Geffcken in J. Hastings, Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, s.v., and
K. Müller, RE Suppl. IV 16 ff. Cf. also F. Jacoby, RE VIII 984, s.v. Hero-
doros. We have the examples of Antisthenes’ allegory in his Homer inter-
pretations (cf. schol. in a 1, p. 9 f Dindorf) and examples of Diogenes’
allegory in Slob. Anth. III 29, 92: 'O AioYévrjg sXsye xíjv MrjSeiav oocprjv, aXX’
oò çpappaxíôa revEoS-ar Xa|i0ávooaav yà? IxaXaxoòç «v9-pd)jtoug xai xà otóiiata
ôiEcpa-apiiévoug ÚTiô xpucp^ç èv xoiç yuiJ^vaotoig xal xotg Tcupiaxrjpíotg Ôtanovetv xai
loxupoòg Tioieív oypirwvxag- õ9-ev Ttepi aòx^g xíjv Ôófav, õxi xà xpéa ê4.ot)aa
véoug ánoíei,
° This mythological motif is, of course, inlerpreted in an allegorical
way: Heracles is the son of Zeus ôtà XÍJV âpexTQv; cf. Dio Or. 2,78 and 69,1.
Cf. Epict. II 16,44: âXX’ oüôsv çíXxepov xoõ 3-eoõ’ 5tà xoõxo èjxtoxeóSiíj Atòg
uíòç eívat xai ■^v.
6 Cf. Stob. Anth. II 31,76: ’Avxto9-évYjg èpa)Xí)8-eig bnó xivog, x£ ôiôágai xòv
ulôv, eÍTiÊV 6l lièv 9-eoig liéXXei oopptoõv, ^tXõooçov, eI 8è ãv8-pü)7io'.ç, ^rjxopa.
Diog. L, VI 51: xoòg àyaa-oòg àvôpaç 9-eõ)v elxcivag eívat. As to the idea of q>£Xog
9-eoü, cf. p. 139, note 3. Cf. also the Stoic doctrine Diog. L. VII 119 = SVF
III 157, 18: 9-eíoug xe eívat (sc. xoòg oítooôaíoug). exstv yàp êv éauxotg oíovei
1Õ4
7Z£t:x'.5£’J}1£vo:; Hcraclcs as lhe rulcr of lhe earlh = lhe è'(y.pi.zsioL-

Iheme (cf. Epicl. III 2(5,32: Eur}\slheus was only in a superficial
sense kiiig of Argos and Mycenae; in aclual fact, he was not
even ruler of lhese places c' y’ auTÒ; éauxoO, ó S’ "Hpay.Xfj;
á.~á.or^z '(%Z ífaXá-:--/)'* àçtyaòv y.ai Y)Y£{i(bv yjv).' On llie allegorical
interprelalion of lhe yuiivó-;- and póvot-lliemes see al)ove.
However. inlerwoveii wilh Ihis Cynic allegory is a tcndency
towards »historicism». Heracles in reality was a universal king,
as is shown by his temples; he was not naked or poor, since he
gave away immeasurable riches; he was not solilary since he cap-
lured lowns and crushed lyrants.^ The passage in Epiclelus quoled,
on lhe olher hand. is complelely devoid of Ihis tendenej- : the
spiritualised Heracles who appears in Epiclelus is raised above
all »historicisni». Thus, the characterisation of Heracles in Dio
I 59 ff represents not only a Cynic allegorisation of familiar
Heracles themes, but also an attempt to ulilise olher features in
the myths which flourished so abundantly around the figure of
Heracles.'"'
The most important feature, however, in Dio’s characterisa
tion of Heracles is the tzxiòzíoc: 5è y.al tzz-k.o.iòzo\iívoz óltúmz,
0’j TzoAu-poTro)- oOoè T.zpixzG)' ao'4::a|xaai y.ai TkCcvoop'(ri\i.a,aLV âv^-pWTCtov
y.ay.o5a'.|ióyü)v, § 61. I refer to the discussion of the double tzsuosío.
in the chapter on Cynic hero idealisation, p. 56 ff, and to the
9-sôv- 3â 3a0/.ov àíí-sov. Kxcept for the references on p. 139, 3 cf. S\'F III
150,17, 157,22, 166,20, etc. (cf. Index, p. 131 f. ) and .lulian VI 192 A: 'Xr.á-
0-si.av Y«p 7:o’.oiiv:a’. (sc. oi Kovixoi ) ~ò TéÀor- zcü-o 5è ioov èo fõ 0-sòv Y£'^S3i)-ai.
Cf. 196 I): “tn y.ai "(5 âv vjiilv O-scT), -coO"’ S3 :o) VO). Cf 183 A, 184 A,
185 A. Cf. also Wien. apoph. 159: ^‘'."xv.òr ó zíaczo :oòs xtüv âv3-p(Ó7t(ov
ãYaO-oús 9-50Õ tí papos sÀcYav s^siv.
y.ai
’ Cf. also Epict. II 16,44; the words -ap'.Y,=t y.aO-aiptov àdixtav
âvopíav, as well as Epict. III 26,32, xaO-apTijc ãõtxíar y.ai ávo|Ji£as, remind of
the final words in Dio Or. 1,84: Kai 3tà loO-ro t:^s ãv8-ptó~ti)v
oia-c-fipíx eívat, oOx õxi xà 0-rjpia aúxots ãTCVjpovav xóoov y“P pÃá'4jsts
ÃéíDV Tj aOs ãypíos; â/./.‘ ôxi xoôs âvyjpépous xovr^poix* ãvíl-ptbTXOUS sy.óXaÇe
y.ai xôv Oxspy^Yávtov xupávvtov y.axé/.os y.ai ãcpy,pstxo xvjv èsooafav. The defmition
of tyranny is ãvopía; cf. the tyrant catalogues in the last section of this
chapter.
8
Cf. Or. 3,87.
" Cf. also Isocrates V 111, Uiodor. IV 17,1, 18,2, 34,1, 32,2, E. Wkbkr,
De Dione Chrys. Cyn. scct., p. 244. The passages in Isocrates quoled above,
p. 49, Show early instances of such »historicising» Heracles-interpretalion for
lhe purposes of polilical propaganda.
lõõ
disciission of lhe Xeniades story, p. 118 ff. On p. 56 ff we cited

Dio Chrys. Or. 4,29 ff and compared it with the Antisthenes
fragment contained in Themistius and with the Diogenes doxo-
graphy in Diog. L. VI 70 ff. There we found Heracles used as
a modcl l)olh for lhe doiihle Tcaiosía and the doiihle áaxvjaiç. The
Antislhcnic Túa-.Ssía-lhcme coincides with Diogenes’ àaxYjatç-theme,
and this has found its practical forni in Euboulus’ serious version
of the Xeniades story, which, as I hope to have made plausible,
is true to the original and authentic version. It exhibits a peda-
gogical lheory which sees its essential purpose in producing men
Xtx'(j 'cpo'.ÇYj yptüixévoo^ '/.al 05o)p KÍvovxaç, . . . y.ai áyjziúvaç y.ai
àvux:ooY]xo’jç v.al xxi y.a^’ aOxoòc pXÉTwOVxaç èv xatc óõoTç,
Diog. L. VI 31. Nevertheless, this educational theory does not
reject xà Xo*.Kx iixí)rjixaxx, hut altempts r.xaxv . .. ecpoSov oúvxopov
TípÒ' XÒ £'J|Ayrj|JLOV£Ú£tV. The passage in Dio we have quoted,
Or. 1,61, also presents two types of naioeíx. Dio gives a more
complete trealment of these two kinds of 7ca-.0£Ía in Or. 4,29
and Weber himself combines the two passages, op. cit., p. 239,
despite his contention, p. 244, that Dio used a non-Cynic source
for his characterisation of Heracles in Or. 1,59 ff. It seems,
however, to be perfectly clear that the similar TcatOEÍa-tlieme found
in both passages in Dio suggests one and the same conception both
of the person of Heracles and of his idealisation, and that is
the Gynic conception.
We now propose to examine lhe traces of this Gynic theory
of education which are to be found in Dio. But first we will make
the following stalemenl.
The controversial note in Dio’s pedagogical pronouncements
is unmistakable. This is most apparent in the parable of the guides,
Or. 4,33 ff: if we encounter a competent guide, he easily points
out the right way, which we can then immediately pursue by
ourselves; but if we nieet an ignorant Sophist, he will lead us
around in all directions, now to the east, now to the west, now
to the South, without having any certain knowledge himself but
merely guessing at the road and having been previously led astray
himself útcò xo'.oúxtov àXa^óvwv. In this polemic we again en-
counter the theme of the two roads familiar in the stories of
1 Cf. Cnom. líyz. 230: Taú'óv èo-tv óÔyjyóv x'jqF?'òv Xa^stv k<xí aúiiôüXov
ãvórjTov (Plutarch).
156
Heracles. Here lhe false guide is expressly stated to be a Sophist,

àYvoõv y.aci àÀaÇwv oox-.oz-qç. He is compared wilh hounds who
lead tlie hunt astray, aí à|ia0-; y.xi à'/.í>Xaa-0L y.úvs-, and also
wilh eunuchs, oí XGsXyéazoczoi avopsç. The comparisons conclude
wilh lhe following statemenl aboiit lhe disciple of thc Sophists:
TZpÓZôpOV h aoou av à-^íy.oizo . . . rj ylvoiTo àvY)p àYad-òç àéy^v
T£ '/.al âxGÚwv. The same point is made in lhe íirst seclion of
lhe Heracles allegory, Or. 1,61, where we íind lhe antilhesis
7i£7tat5iU|iávoç áTwXw;—oò TzohjzpÓTZoi^ oOòè Tüsptxxwç oo'pía\ia.at y.ad
7iavoupYVj|iaaiv âvS^ptÓTücüv xaxooaiiióvwv, and likewise in Dio’s
introductory words to this allegory 57: oi '{àp àv9’p(í)Xü)v Xó'(oi
xai xà TCávXa O0'SÍG\lXZCX, OÒOSyÒÇ ãÇLOÍ TZpÒÇ ZYjV TZXpà ZÜ)V 9’£ü)V
èxÍTüvc.av y.xi This violent hatred of lhe Sophists, which
finds expression elsewhere, e.g. Or. 54,1, 55,7, 58,2, is all the
more striking in that Dio had been himself a Sophist in his
younger days and had written a particularly bilter work against
the philosophers, Kaxà xwv 'îXogó'£(j)v, and furlher against Mu-
sonius, according to Synesius’ statemenl.^ But lhe same aiithor
also informs us that the intensitv which characterised Dio as a
Sophist in his attacks on the philosophers is also true of Dio
in his character of philosopher, who, when at long last he has
found the true way, oò xaxà [uxpóv, áXX' ôXoiç zoiç íazíoiç xnrjvéxd-rj
zfiç Goy.GZLy.riz TzpoxipÉGStúz. All Dío\h writings which conlain the
educational theories put forward in his attacks on the Sophists
must therefore be regarded as evolved after Dio*s »conversion» to
philosophy, in other words they must belong to the time of Dio*s
exile or thereafter. His philosophic ideal of 7ra*.0£ta was con-
sequently inspired to a considerable extent by Cynic notions. All
speeches to which I refer in this connection are — except for Or.
58 — dated to Dio’s exile or post-exile time by H. v. Arnim, Dio
von Prusa. I cannot here take into consideration the theories by
L. Lemarchand, Dion de Pruse.
It has been previously pointed out that Or. 4,29 ff contains

in its thesis about the double tzxiozíx an obvious parallel with
Antisthenes. The educational programme sketched there can most
briefly be characterised by saying that the emphasis in education
changes from intellectualism to individual ethics. The first kind
2 De Budé II 405 ff.
157
of educalioii is characlerised by Dio tlius; xaXoõat Sè oi tzoXXoi

xaóxYjv jAÈv Tiaiosíav, y,a%’á,7zzp otjjiat TcaiStáv, %ai vojiíÇouai xôv
TtXeíaxa YpájAjiaxa síoóxa, Ilepatocá xs xat 'EXXyjvtxà %at xà 23upti)v
Y.od xà ôivív.wv, y.at TrXsíaxotç èvxuYX“Vovxa jStjSXcoiç, xoOxov aocfó)-
xaxov Y.cd {jLáXtaxa usTiaiosuiiévov. But of the second kind of TZOLiÒsia
he says: xy)v Sè éxépav èvíoxs [xèv TraiSstav, èvíoxe Sè àvSpstav v.cd
jisYaXocppoaúvr^v. That this is merely a shift of emphasis and that
the two kinds are not mutiially exclusive is shown b}' the pro-
nouncement that both kinds of TcaiSeta must be complementary,
eE Sp9’õ)í: “(iyvoLxo. With this we may compare two radically dif-
ferent types of fragment in the Antisthenes tradition;
a) Epict. I 17,12: àpyj\ TtatSsóaewç xwv ôvo|xáxü)V èTZÍov.s'hic.
Cf. the catalogue of writings Diog. L. VI 17: Ilspt TcatSsíaç ^
òvojjLáxtov, íive hooks, Ilspt ôvo|xáxü)v ypYjaeo)ç èptaxtxóç, Ilspt Ipw-
XTâstoç y.at àTíoyptasü)^, Ilspt SóÇyjç y.at èTrtaxTîiTjc, four hooks, Aóçau
èpiGziy.óç, and Ilspt xoO pav9’ávstv Típo^Xi^paxa. Here belongs
also Epict. III 24,67; 3 cf. IV 1,112 ff (xá9-y]pov xà SÓYpaxa,
xt TcpoaVjpxTQxat aot xwv oò awv, xxX.) which has examples from
Antisthenes and Diogenes (cf. Diog. L. VI 8 and 12). Cí. also
Diog. L. VI 3 (Ilptüxóç xs (bpíaaxo Xóyov sítíwv, Xóyoç èaxtv ó xô xt
Y)v ^ saxt SrjXtõv) and Aristotle Metaph. IV 29, 1024 b togethei
wdth the commentaiy thereon in Alexander Aphrod. In Aristo-
telis Metaphysica Commentaria, p. 434 f, ed. Haiduck.^
“ Quoted above p. 40.

« Cf. above p. 12õ, note 3. The following fragments belong here: Anti-
sthenes: Stob. Anth. II 31,33: 'AvttoS-évyjç ó ScDxpaxiitòi: cpiXóaocpoç èptoxyjS-etÇ
Otcó xivoç, 7COÍOÇ oxéçavoç xáXXtoxós èoxiv, eíxev ó àjzò xatôeíaç, Gnoin. Vat. 3:
'0 aòxòg síres xoús ãTtatôsúxouç èvúxvta èypriyopóxa (cf. Clitoplio 408 c!),
Gnom. Vat. 11: 'O aúxòg S-sagápevoç èv nívaxt YSYpappévov xòv ’Axt/.^éa Xeíptüvt
xí}) Kevxaúptp dtaxovoópsvov, eu ye, & xaiSíov, elnsv, õxt xat8e£aç êvexsv xat
S-vjpítj) õtaxovetv úneiieivaç. Diogenes: Diog. L. VI 68 (quoted above p. 120,
note 2), Max. Conf. Loc. com. XLIV = Mjgne XCI 928 B: Toüç eòeiBetç xat
ãTcataeóxoug ópofouç scpyj eívat âXapáoxpoiç sxouatv ògoç, Max. Conf. Loc.
com. XVII= Migne XCI 824 D: 'EptoxTjS-eíç, x£ yrj papúxspov PaoxáÇei, eqpyj.
'AvO^pttíxov ànaíSeuxov. Other examples in Ed. Zeller, Die Pliilos. d. Griech.,
II: 1, 290, notes. Cf. Gerhard, Phoinix, p. 121 f. Such pedagogical sayings are
common and are ascribed to many philosophers. Of course, lacking other
sources, they have but little value as proofs of a philosopher’s pedagogical
views. I refer to the following parallels: Gnom. Vat. 23 (Aristippus); 50 and 55
(Aristotle); 146 (Aristotle, Cleanthes); 166 (Gorgias); 250 (Democrates); 259
(Demetrius); 299 and 302 (Zeno); 314 (Heraclitus); 336 (Theophrastus); 426
158
bj Diog. L. VI 108 in lhe sumniarv of ~u. àpáaxovxa

aO Trapai-oOvxa: Sè za: xà èY‘/.’jy.À'.a |j.aí)y/jiaxz' Ypá|tjiaxa y^'JV
JAT) jjLav9-áv£'.v l-ja-jzsv ó ’Avx’.a\)áv'/i: xo*j' Y3vo|iávo’jç, íva
ix-íj 5:axxpáYO'.vx xo:f aAAoxpiO'.; X£p'.a:poOa’. za: y*w!í av zaí
[louatz-rjv za: ;:ávxa xà xoiaOxa.
These two types of íragment must bc interpretud iii accordance
with Dio 4,29 ff. There can be no doubt tbat both starled írom tbe
same point — tbe antagonism between Ibe Socratic and the
Sophistic elements in Antistbcnes’ own person. Tbis antagonism
found its solution in the thesis about tbe double 7:aiÒ£Ía, Dio Or.
4,29: oOz o:c?0-a,
£»ry, ó'xi otxxv) ècrxiv y/ 7:a:o£Ía, Y/ (láv xír òa:}ióvioç,
íj oè àv9’p(i) VY/; Yj |i£v 0’jv v)£:z |i£YáÀ'/) za: :ayupà za: pa5:'a, i]
0£ âvô-pü): vr^ ji:zpà za: àa\)£VY)ç za: tüoàÀoÒ' £/0’jaa z:vSúvouc
à^táxr^v oOz òÀ:yy/V 0|iW5 0£ âvaYzaía TzpoaYsváaO-a: èz VY/, e: òpâ-wc
yírôi-o. >Hiiman>> íratoEÍa, altbough bazardoiis and inislcading,
is allowed the have some value, biit only in relation to xlivine»
7zz:o
3:, which is called àvopEÍa za: iisjacÀo-spOGVvo. Tbis shirt in
the emphasis may assume a more or a less radical lorm, as is
shown by further examples from Dio. The same shiít is apparent
in the íragment of Antisthenes in Themistius, in the Diogenes
doxography of Diog. L. VI 70—71, and in Euboulus’ version of
the Xeniades story, although in the last text in a remarkably niild
form. As Dio proceeds, this shift of the emphasis in 7T:a:o£:a is
niade apparent by the use of a theme which recurs also in The-
imstius. The man who possesses »divine» 7ca:5s:a easily ípaS:(i)c,
§ 31) acquires »human» 7ta:o£:a. In § 38 Dio further defines this
therne: za: oú, èizsÍTzsp oOxü) 7í£'puzac, èàv è7c:axaji£VOu àvopóç,
ty.avYj ao: èax: |x:a Tjjxépa Tcpò; xò ouy.SEiv xò írpãYlAa za: xyjv xáxvviv,
3ta: ouoèv êxt
SETQa-iQ 7ioiz:X(i)v aocp:a|j,áx(i)v ‘q Xóyoiv.
A good illustration of this motif is found in the anonymous
Work, characterised by its Cynic content, which goes under the
( lato); 484 (Sócrates); Stob. Anth. II 31,35 (Aristotle); Max. Conf. Migne XCI
24 D (Demonax); Wien. apoph. 87 (Aristotle); 110 (anonymus); 129 (Philip);
156 (Chilon); Apost. XIII 45=Corp. Par. Gr. II 585 (anonymus); Gnom. Byz.
—234 (Sócrates, Democrilus, Plutarch, Isocrates, anonymi); Anton.
Mel. I 50= Migne CXXXVI 933 ff.
“ Cf. Diog. L. VI 5: èv z-q . . . xal píj èv zoXz yapzioíç xa-carpáÊiv.
VI 11: aOxápy.vj ôè xíjv àpexvjv Ttpòg Ê55at|iov(av. pTjôsvòs TtpooÕsopévrjv Ôxi pyj
-iwxpaxiy.yjç ioxúog. xvjv x’ âpexTjv xóbv epytuv eívai, p^xs Xóywv TXÀeíaxwv Seopévyjv
pVjxE paa-rjpáxtov (Antisthenes* doxography).
159
nanie of Cebetis Tabula.'^ This puts forward an allegorical inter-

pretation of a picture, and in the section which \ve shall quote
presenlly, llaiosía and WsuSoTüaiosía are contrasted in the form of
two womcn. Men are enjoined by xò Aaijxóytov to tarry awhile
with t[/£u5o7cai5£ía and to take from her what they wish &o7ZBp
ècpóoioy, hut thcn to hasten on TZpòç xy)v àXvjô-tvYjv XlaiSsíav auv-
xó|jiü)!:. The man \vho does not do so comes to a miserable end.
Then the tcxt reads 33, 2 ff: àXXà xí y.sXeúst aòxoò; xò Aai|ióvtov
Xa^siv Tiapà xr^ç Wsuooícaiòsíaç; — Taõxa a 5oy.ec euxpvjaxa ecvac. —
TaOx’ 0’jv xcva èaxc; — rpá|i|iaxa, i'sr], y.ac xwv áXXwv |iaÔ-yj|i.áxü)V
a y.ac ITXáxwv 'S‘qoiv (baavec yâXcvoO xcvoç Ôóva|j.cv eyecv xocc véocç,
cva ecr sxepa Tiep-.aTõwvxac. — Ilóxepov 5è xaõxa Xapecv,
£Í jiéXXec xcç T^çecv Tzpòç xyjv àX7|8’CVY)v Ilaiôecav; ^ ou; — ÂvxyyíT]
IJièy oOôejjLca, s'sr)y xpYjacp.a jiéyxoc èaxc Tõpòç xò auyxo|JUtíxép(i)ç èX^‘scy.
Tipò^ oè xò êXxcouc Y£yéaS’ac ouoèy au|ipáXXexac xaOxa. There is a
striking parallelism in the main thenie of the passages qiioted. It
is easy to ünd similarities of detail. With aoyxo|jL(i)xépü)ç compare
the Xeniades story, Diog. L. VI 31, Diogenes Ep. 30 Hkrcher;’
with è^óocoy cf. Antisthenes Diog. L. VI 6: xocaõx’ scpr] SsZv
8
TTOcecaâ-ac è'.çóoca a y.ac vxvay'qGXVZi (joYKoXoii^-qGsi. This isolated
dictum of Diog. L. is given special significance by comparison
with the parallel in Cebetis Tabula: the only inalienable viaticum is
Tcacosca. Ilacôeca in Cebetis Tabula is defined in the following way,
32,2: 'H áXTjS-rjç èTUGxrjiir] xwy aujicpepóyxwy, Icprj, %ai àacpaXYjç Sóacc
yac êpaca y.ac à|iexa|iéXYjxoç. With this compare the Antisthenes
fragmenf in Philo, Quod omnis probus liber sit, § 28= Cohk-
WiiXDt.AND VI 8,17 f: ’Ayxta5’éyYjç oua|3áaxa%xoy ecTíey ecyac xòy
àaxecoy (bç yàp 7) ácppoaúyT] youcpoy y.ac çepc5|ieyoy, (ouxioc) cppóvrjaLç
“ F, SusEMiHL, Gesch. d. griecli. Lit. in d. Álexandrinerzeit, I 23 ff,

II 657 ff, dates the writing to the 3rd cent. B. C., polemising against K.
Praechter, Cebetis Tabula quanam aetate conscripta esse videatur. Christ-
SCHMID, Gesch. d. griech. Lit., II 367, however, follow the latter in dating the
tabula to the Ist cent. after Christ.
^ Cf. also Diog. L. VII 121: eívat Y“P y'>vio|j.òv oúvxoiiov èn âpe-Yjv
óôóv, (bs ’AtcoXXóÔü)poç êv Cf. Ed. Norden, In Varron. Satiir. Menipp.
obs. sei. p. 313 ff. Cf. also Antisthenes Giiom. Vat. 12: '0 aòxôs sçrj x-fjv âpsxrjv
ppaXÓXoYov (cf. Diog. L. VI 11) etvai, xíjv Ôè xaxíav ânépavxov.
® The same saying is ascribed to Aristippus Max. Conf. Loc. com. XVII
= Migne XCI 824 D. Cf. Gerhard, Phoinix, p. 98 ff.
160
âTcr^psiaixévov y.zi à'/.Xt.V£; */.al ^xpo^ àaáXsuTov. Cf. ahovc, p.

141, note 5.^
The date of Cebetis Tabula is still in fact an open question.
The relationship between its pedagogics and that of Dio-Antisthenes
seems at all events to be clear. In these writings we meet the
same pedagogical views.
Or. 32 is addressed to the inhabitants of Alexandria and
contains a castiga tion of the wicked ways of the Alexandrians.
They have made the same mistake as the Athenians. When Apollo
gave them the injunction that if they wished to have good citizens
in the State, they should give their children’s ears the best possible
things, they adorned their ears with golden rings, a custom which
was more proper to Lydians and Phrygians. The passage goes on,
§ 3: 'EAÀTjvtüv 5è Tratai, xat 'caõxa O-soO Trpoaxáçavxoç, ouy. aXXo
■í^piioÇsv r\ TüatSsta */.at Xóyoc» wv oÍ xuyóvxsc £Í%ó~Mç ávòpsç àyaO’©!
ytYVovxat y.at awx^psç xwv tcóXswv. This theme is the same
which introduces and concludes the allegoiy in Or. 1: Heracles,
7r£7ratO£’jjjL£voç áTrXwc, ^ 61, resolves to follow the road which is
represented by BaoiXaía in the allegoiy. Consequently Zeus
granted him kingship over the whole world, wç õvxt íy.avõ).^ xot-
YapoOv ÔTioi) jièv toot xupavvtoa y.at xúpavvov, èy.óXaÇ£ y.ai àvQpei
Trapá x£ "EXXr/ai y.at Pap^ápotç* ôtzov Sè pzatXeíav y.at jBaatXfia, èxtpa
y.at âcpúXaxx£v. y.at oià xoDxo x^ç y^C àv^pwTCWV awx^pa
sivat, oòy ò'xt xà %-ripía aòxotç àTTY)jiL)V£V . . . âXX’ ó'xt xoòç àvTjiiépouç
y.at TíovT^pouç âv^’p(Ó7rouf: èy.óXaÇ£, y.xX. 84). So the man who
receives the right 7rat0£ta becomes a awxiQp, the peer of Heracles.^
Dio maintains also at the end of Or. 32, § 94 í, that the
Alexandrian does not resemble Heracles but rather a Centaur
or Cjxlops: pãXXov o’ taw; oòy 'HpauXEt TrpoaéotXEV Ojxwv ó
àXXà K£vxaóp(!) xtvt 7) Kóy.XtOTrt 7i:£7r(t)yóxt y.at èpwvxt, xò pèv awpa
Eayuptõ y.at jiEYáXw, xtjv oe otávotav à|ia9*£t.
SVF
® Cf. Dio Or. 32,95: õsiv.vúsiv ú|iãç aütoòç owçpovaç */.al psgafouç-
I 50,1: Tvjv âpsxyjv . . . Xéyov oOoav aúxíjv ó|ioXoYOÚfievov xal pépatov xai âjis-
xáííxtoxov. III 26,43: ccXXrjv (sc. £7ct3xV)ii.rjv) 5è aóoxKj|ia êg ÊTttoxTjii&v xsxvtxtbv èg
aôxoõ sxov xô Pégaiov, tí)g sxooot.v aí âpexaf, Gnom. Byz. 238: Ilãaa ouii-
cpopà y.oúcpy] âoxiv âvSpl [it] xoúcpqi (Euagrius).
^ As to íxavôç, refering to the true king, cf. p. 101 f above. Cf. also
Metrocles Diog. L. VI 94: xoúvxeõQ^sv íjxouev auxoõ xai èysvsxo ãvvjp íxavôç èv
cpiAoaoyta.
^ Cf. E. Skard, Zwei religiõs-politische Begriffe, p. 28 f.

161
The Tcatosta-lheme recurs in § 16 as a »divine» Tíatoeta, a

gift of the gods as a help against human folly, which is depicted
by Dio in 15, lhe conclusion oC which runs: otà yàp àvô-pcüixwv
ávoiav y.od zpucpijv y,ai cpiXoxqitav Suayêp-ijç ó píoç ytai \X£GZÒç dTtázr^ç,
Tzcvr^píacç, aútzt^ç, pupítov áXXwv xaxtDv. Toúxíüv oè êv tapa xat çáp-
paxov èTcotYjaav oí d‘£oi TcatÕstav xat Xóyov, tl) otà ^tou pév xiç XP^‘
psvoç y.at auvsxojç rjXd'é tzozs Tzpòç zéXoç òyièç xat suSatpov. . . .
oí oè otà 7-avxòç àTzstpot xoõ cpappáxou xoúxou xat pyjoÉTCOxe atocppo-
voOvxt XÓYtp xàr àxoàç Ojzéxovzeç óXoxXVjptoç à^Xtot pTjoeptav oxé7C7}v
pvjoè TipoôXvjv lyovxsc àno z&v Tca^wv, xxX. What function this
»divine:> Tâtoeta has is shown by a glance at the catalogues of
vices and virlues contained in the speech. For the sake of clarit}-^
we (luole merely lhe terms which occiir in the respective catalogues.
1) í?§ 27—28: two kinds of oy)|ioç:

Virlues: Vices:
ó pév xt;: oi oè TcXstouç:
1 EUYVWjJ-tOV 1 ^paaetç
1 TCpàOÇ 1 ÒXEpTQâVOt
2 YaXr^vòc ovxwç 4 Suaápsaxot
3 TiappYjata^ 2 átpíxopot
4 jiY) xpucpàv 6 xupávvoiç Spotot xai ttoXò yst-
1 èjziSLxrjç pouc
1 jisYaXótppwv 7 -f) xaxta aòxwv ou pta OÒ5è
5 aEooúpsvoç zovç àyocd-ouç xat âíTzX% àXXà aupTtsçopYjpévY] èx
àvopar xat XóyooC puptwv
5 xotç vou3'£Xoõat xat Stoáaxouat 6 xoixtXov xat Sstvòv ^●>]ptov==
yáptv £tO(ó; Kévxaupot,® SíytYY^Ç» Xtpat-
6 ôv èYÒ) xtO-y^pt xyjç ^staç xat pat, èx TtavxoSaTCWV i^úaeiüv
paotXtxTjç ^óaswc e?ç jxíav popcpyjv e^StüXou §uv-
xt^évxeç
The catalogues are not construeted on any regular principie.

The various members do not correspond in detail or in their order,
but on lhe whole they present the form of an antithesis and this
is clear in the culmination of the two catalogues. In our table the
ideas are rect)i*ded in the order in which they oceur in the text
and similar ideas are marked with the same figure, the antithetic
Cf. § .'S3.
11
162
ideas in lhe catalogue of vices receiving lhe same number as their

corresponding ideas in lhe catalogue of virtues. Anií)ng lhe vices
number three is missing which ought to be xoXay.sía^ and number
seven is missing from the virtues. This antithesis is clearly marked
in Or. 1,61: áTTÀôiç—ou TroXuxpóíiü);.
2) § 37 (cf. § 9õ): §§ 90—91:

Virtues: Vices:
'.ppóvt|io; éxaípa
a(b'spüiv vaaxTQp
SiV.aio; ãXX'fj xtc (fauAT/ è7í'.9'U|iía
£Òxaçía lléô-TJ
Tüpaóxr^;: (1)67) YiJvaty.wv
ójióvoia ô-opupstaO-ai
'XÓajlOÇ TZOAl- ,aç èy.'jpovetv
xo Tüpoaéyctv xoí^ dpô-òii; otvóxípXu^
xò 11Yj Tiávxoxô Çrjxstv Yjòováç Tíópvo;
Yuvat|iav%
Scattered through the whole speech are the shortcomings

which Dio lays at the door of the Alexandfians. Where these form
regular catalogues, we see most clearly that they comprise purely
individual-ethical functions in a style which is characteristic of
Cynic ethical teaching, This is particularly true of the catalogue
of vices in §§ 90—91. It is no less true of the catalogue of virtues
which are almost exclusively individual-ethical in character with
the exception of the expression y.óa|ioç TioXtxsía? and the ó|ióvota-
theme of
37. The »divine» naciosía described by Dio at the be-
ginning of the speech is a purely individual-ethical upbringing
intended to liberate the individual from all the sins of the senses
and the flesh. The social-ethical consequences of this education
are secondary. The central position is occupied by the individual
and the goal is the perfection of the individual. This goal is charac-
terised with great pregnancy in the concluding antitheses in the
catalogues of virtues and vices in §§ 27—28: 9-sía y.ai paatXf/CYj
cpuatç — xò TíotxíXoy y,cd Ocivòv ●9'7jpíov.“
« Cf. Or. 33,13 f.
“ Concerning Diogenes cf. Philo, Quod omn. prob. lib. s, 123, quoted
above, p. 122, note 7.
163
Is this -ato a Cynic? Or. 32 gives us a good indication. After

the introduction, §§ 1—7, Dio in § 8 f moves to the atlack on
the »so-calIed philosophers». This attack is directed first and fore-
most against the vulgar Cynics: xwv oè Kuvtocwv XeYO(i£Vü)v êaxt
jièy èy x^j TróXst TzXfi%'0:; oòv. òXÍYOV, y.at yaô^áítsp áXXou xtvòc TZpáy-
jiaxoç y.at xoúxoo cpopà vó9*ov (Jtévxoi Y^ àYSVvèç àv9’pw7Ttov
oò9*éy, ü)ç siTieív, âTuaxajiévwv, àXXà xpoiy^ç.® Then follows
a description of these vulgar Cynics who merely work mischief
and bring philosophy into discredit and contempt. Thus Dio
recognises the fundamental rightness of their principies while at
the sanie time condemning the practitioners.'^ Dio attached some
importance to making this distinction at the very beginning oí his
speech. He appears in fact in his own person as a Cynic philo-
sopher, 22: èYÒJ 5è áv9'p(i)7Coç oOSsiç oòoajió^B^sv Iv xptpcovúo cpauXto
yxX. Cf. 39 (Dio as the opponent of poets and Sophists): Ssivol
Yàp èy.stvot y-at jisYáXoi ao^taxai yal 'fóiqxBÇ' xà 8’ íjjxexspa ©aõXa
y.at àv xotç XÓYOtC» |iévxot Tíspt (saóXtüv. We íind in §§
10—11 the same antithesis hetween poets and orators on the one
hand who masquerade as philosophers, and the true educator on
the other hand whom Dio characterises as ávôpa . . . y.aSapwç y.at
àoóXw? 7«:appYjataÇó|i£Voy(!), y.at ixyjxe SóÇrjç x^P^v èn' àpôpítp
r.poG7zo'.o6\iBvov, àXX’ èm £Òyota yat yYjSsjioyta xôy áXXwy êxot|ioy,
£? oéot, y.a t y.axaY£Xãa9'at, y.at àxaÇtay tcXtqO-ouç èysYêtv yat S-ópuPov.
This r(Me Dio himself assumes, 12: ’Eyü> JASV y^P oòv. òlu’ èjxauxoO
|iot ooxü) 7ípoeXéa9’at xoOxo, àXX’ Oxò 8at|xovtou xtyòç
also Or. 34,2 ff with exactly the same theme: Oò |iY)y oò5è èx£tyo
XavO-áyet |xs, ó'xt xouç èy xoúxto xtji ayjip.oc.zi auvTjô^sç ixev èaxt xotç tíoX-
Xotç Kuytxoòc xaXsiy. Afterwards Dio dissociates himself from
these vulgar Cynics and States that he himself had come xaxà
xò oatiJtóvtoy . . èpoOyxa y.at au{i|3ouX£Óaovxa, § 4; cf. the self-
confident remarks § 6 f. With Or. 32,11 cf. 34,30; with 32,22 cf.
I follow the translation by COHOON: »And as for the Cynics, as they
are called, it is true that the city contains no small number of that sect, and
that, like any other thing, this too has had its crop — persons whose tenets,
to be siire, comprise practically nothing spurious or ignoble, yet who must
as
make a living —», etc.. It is hardly possible to take vó9-ov and àyevvés
appositional words to cpopá; »a spurious and ignoble crowd of men who, to
be sure, do not know anything»; cf. KÜHNER-Gerth, Gramm. d. griech. Sprache,
II § 403 Y Anm. 3, cf. § 462 1. As to ôp& cf. Demosth. XVIII 61 (LSJ, s.v.).
^ The same is true of Lucian and Julian.
164
3õ,l f; with 32,8 f d’. 3õ,3;^ wilh lhe criticism of lhe Sophisls
32,10 cf. 35,8; with 32,39 cf. 47,8. In Or. 47,24 f we have a
parallel with the Cynic type Or. 32,22, which points right hack
to Antisthenes. Dio here portrays the tyrant, after which there
follows: wv -zi 'izpòz ips ea-tv; Yj ó’xi xyjv or/.íav o:y.o5o|jLã) ;zoÀ’jt£Àw-;
àXÀ’ OU'/. £0) Tüí-Xciv; Yj õx'. Tüop-^úpav auxòç YjjX'pÍ£'j|xat; àXX’ ou '.taOXov
xpiptóvtov; àXX’ 5x1 '/.o|iõ> y.txi '(éyzia, s/.w; xouxo o’ lotúz ou xupavvt'/.óv
âaxiv, àXXà âa:X'y.óv. ££:*/; o’ ouv xtc õxi */.al xò y,or/.õ)Ç à'/.oÚ£'.v '/.aXwc
TzotoOvxa '/,al xoüxo âatX'.'/,óv èaxiv. Cf. Epict. IV 6,20: xí ouv Xé^si
’Avxia9áv'/;ç; ouoéírox’ ^"/.ouaa^; j3aatX’.“/.óv, w Kops, Tipáxxeiv jièv su,
'/.a'/.üi; o’ à'/.oÚ£’.v. Cf. also Diog. L. VI 3, Marc. Antoninus VII 36.^
The comparison with Heracles, the »divine» tzxlSsíoí, the indi-
vidual-ethical catalogues, the ideal Cynic preacher, the opposition
to poetrj% the Sophists, and rhetoric, as well as to contemporary
vulgar Cynicism, while acknowledging the rightness of Cynic
principies, all this favours the view that Or. 32 expounds a genuine
Cynic Tzxiosíx with its roots in classical Cynicism, or, to be more
precise, in the works of Antisthenes.
Other 7üaco£ía-pronouncements by Dio, which obviously be-
long to the time of his exile or subsequent life, support our thesis
that Dio’s Tzaidsíx is that of classical Cynicism.
We turn our attention first to Or. 69. This .speech is one of
Perhaps we have here a reminiscence of Antisthenes: oòòz y“P

ovour YsvásS-a'. Sovaxóv — ct. Diog. L. VI 8. In Or. 70, on the other
hand, Dio has an account of the true philosopher who differs from other men
not onlj' through his mode of life — ãXÂor nèv "oü :pt?.030cpoüvTOõ. â?.?.Crr
ôè TTOÀÀôv ãv3-pw;itov — but also through his externai tj'pe: xai Yàp o-o/,yj
sxápa |i£v zo~j çiÂoooffioõvTOç:, é~épa 8è z&v lôttoTtov xai xaxáxXiaiç xal Y’Jpvá3ta
xai Àc.u-pã xal yj òcàXtj Síatxa, xal xòv 1J.ÈV âxoXouO-oüvxa xal [xóvj xpwpsvov
xoÚTOir 0£i vo|i{Çstv (íjç atÀosoqjícj' Típoaáxovxa xov voõv xóv ôs âv iir,5evi xoúxo)v
õtaYspovxa pr^Sè õXojj êxepov õvxa xü)v TioXXíüv (oi»x) £va exsívtov 8-sxéov, xãv
ll’jp'.áX'.r BlTZYj xe y.al â-aYYslXrjxai ■^●.Xo‘30-^bIy.
° Except for the ahove mentioned parallels, cf. also Or. .33,13 ff. In this
passage we have lhe true Cynic: õxav 8è aüxti-vjpóv xiva xal ouvsaxaXjiévov lôr^xs
xai |xóvov 3x3-t»®vxa, Ttpcuxov aOxóv egsxáÇovxa xal Xo:3opcrõvxa, ixr^ Çtjxslxs Tzapà
Toõ xotoòxoo liYjdspfav O-coxeíav iítíSè ârzáxrj'/, xxX. Cf. Diogenes Stob. Anth. III
1,.55: II'jv9-avoiJi8vou "tvós. Iliür ãv xij éwjzcfõ ÔiSásxaXos Yévoizo, el úxàp tov
XL|JLY. àXXocr, s^Tj, y.al sauxw â |iáXi3xa. Cf. also Diogenes Stob.
III 23,10. Cf. p. 135, note 9, above. As to 32,88 cf. Or. 33,19 If, esp. ií 22; as
to the motif x:a'.Ô£{a = q:áp|jLaxov, 32,15, cf. Or. 33,29: ãXXà aojçpoaúvy) xal voüç
£3X1 xà 3tj)Çovxa.
165
Ihose typical prolreptic 6taXéÇ£*.ç w hich distinguish the preaching

of Dio’s exile.^ It contains, like Or. 24 and 71, a study of the
relationship between philosophy and TíoXuTtpaYP-axsta. The concept
of 7ia:o£Í
___ía pul Ibrward here is the douhle Ttatosí* of Antisthenes.
In 1 the lerminology provides a parallel with Or. 4,29 ff, where
ô‘£Ía TZOLiòzícc is delined as àvSpEÍa and |i£Ya^<>íppoôyT]. In Or.
69,1 Dio says: 8'£la y.ai oEjjivá '^xaiv àvSpsíav “/«al ôixaioaúvirjv y,xi
'.ppóyYjaiv y.ai a’jXXi^j35r^y ápEXYjv Ttdcaav. As an exainple ot a pos-
sessor of Ihis :>divine > xpsxrj Heracles is mentioned together with
others. All mcn wish lo serve and choose as king the man who
àKoõsiy.vôvxt éauxwv y.at
resembles him: y.ai jSaa-.Xéa y.ai apxovxa
xà a-^éxEpa èTiixpé-Eiy, oy ay aw^poya y.ai 5íy.aiov y.ai cppóy’.|ioy òyxwç
’j7ioXa|ij3áy(oa'. y.ai áTrXwç áyopa àYaô’áv. Cl. Or. 1,84. Ihis »divine5>
àp£XYj has the same signiíicance as the »divine» 7íat0£ta in Or.
4,29 IT and 32,16 (íajia y.ai cpxp\ixy.ov ènoírjGXV oi d-soi kxiõsíxv y.ai
XÓYoy). The thcory about lhe doul)le TraioEÍa, which is put forward
in an exlremely radical Ibrm in Or. 4,29 (si òp^-wç í^lso
recurs in Or. 69, expressed in the most explicit terms, § 4: oò
Yàp aXXouc ji-èv cppoyijJLOuç £Íy.òç £tyat, aXXouc oè èjiTtEtpouç xwy àyô-pw-
Tcívwy TtpaYliáxwy, oòoè áXXouc jièy xàyS-pwTcsía èTzíoxxad^xi, áXXouç
oè XX d’£ix, y.xX. There caii scarcely be any doubt that we have
here a paraphrase of Anlisthenes’ doiible tzxiõsíx.^
The emphasis in this pedagogics lies wholly on the ethical side,
XX S-£ía. Human Ihings, xà àvS^pwítsia? have their value solely in
relalion lo xà d-slx. Wilhout Ihis relationship they are valueless and
incapable of bringing happiness. Dio, or his Cynic source, goes
so far as lo say, õ: Tcaíxot ày£i) p-sy auXTjxwy aai y.tô’aptox6iy y.ai
ay.uxoxóji(j)y '/.ai Tiatôoxptjiwy y.ai pYjxópwv '/.ai taxpwy oòx àoúyaxov
àvôpwíxoic |3t.oõy Tíáyu xaXwç y.ai voiiíji-wc» oip.at 6 èyá) y.ai 8i'j
YswpYwy y.ai oíy.ooóiioiv.^ That the notion Sixxóç, however, in Ihis
conceplion of TtaiÔEÍa must be given ils full signiíicance is show n
^ v. .\RNIM, op. cit., p. 267 ff.
The connection belween Antislhenes and Dio in Or. 69 is, in fact. not
limited to Ihis pedagogical thesis. As regards the slyle, we also fmd similarilies
on se\’eral points between this speech and Antislhenes’ »Ajax» and »Odysseus».
“ Cf. Or. 24,4: 5é «pvjpt, izàvxot, TàXÀa ô£y.a xoiaúxyjç ^«lípeXsfaç
-/.ai ÇvjTYjaetüç (sc. ótíoíous xpyj siva- (xai> õ xt péÀxioxov av^ptÓTCtj) èoxív, ou ivexa
XPY] Tcdvxa xàÀ?.a spáxxeiv, 1) ò?.£-j'oo àgta eívai, xip Ôè s-/tslvo êvvovjoavxt xai
guvévxt, xoúxtp xai xò Àsysiv xal xò oxpaxYjYSÍv xai õ xi àv aXXo xot^, feupcpêpov
xe eivai xai èiz' âraa-ti)
166
by lhe detailed accounl in 4, an cxlracl IVom which was (jiiolcd

above. This is also shown bv lhe lacl Ihal tlie social-elliical
coiisequences of lhe »divine > àpsxVj are strongly empliasiscd. To
be an ãvYjp âvaô-óç or an àvvjp aTcoDoalo;, lhe fundamenlal con-
dilion for lhe posilion of jiaaiXstJC, is defined in lhe following
way, $5 2: avops^ otíodoolIoi, y.aXw^ |ièy aOxwv oovájisvoi TzpoíaxaaOai,
y.a.Á(bg 5è olxov oiy.fiGxi, y.aXãç oè ãpçai tzóáso)',* s’j 5è tzXoOxov
èv£●'■/-£iv, s'j Òk Tzsvíav, cO 5è 7zpOGZ'/sy^d’fjvxi 'síXo ’j Sà g'J'('(vAgi,
oíy.xíM' S’ ê-ipsXr^âf/vai Yovétoy, ÒGíü)ç òk D-spaTcsüaai tfsoúc- Dio
gives a furlher deíinilion which we caniiol ignore. This follows
immedialely afler an enumeralion of lhe represenlalives of various
callings and lhe declaralion lhal lhey are all áO-Xioi xai
Then lhe lexl reads > .s 4: áy 5à y) í\i.'Spm\/ '{évrfXca y.cd ò yoOç
àyoíd-òz xa: ^/.ayoi wat xá xs aOxwy Tcpáypaxa cpô-õjç 7Tpáxx£'.y xai
xà xtõy áXXojy, xoúxou; àyáYX.Tj xal £Òoaipóywc ^f^y, vopípouc aySpac
ysvopáyoi»^ xa: àvctô-oO oaípoyo; xu/óyxar xal cpíXou; õyxar xoíc
Is this Cynicism? Not if we compare it with lhe bulk of lhe
anecdote material. But lhe question assumes a quite different com-
plexion if we fix our eyes on lhe do.xographies, which are of far
less equivocai value as sources. I refer to our discussion in lhe
previous chapter. There we attempled to show lhal in Antisthenes
we were concerned with polemics against existing law, as is true
also of Hippias and Antiphon. As against this, yójioc is upheld as
a universal ethical principie which is founded on nature. With
the expression óatwç %zpa.7zz\)Ga.', ^£oúç we may compare lhe fol
lowing: Diog. L. VI 5 (xouç ôuXopéyouç âfl-ayáxouc £lyat l'pr^
0£ly £Òa£j3õ>; xa l oixaíwç: Antisthenes in Stob. Anth. II 31,
76 and Diogenes in Diog. L. VI 51, quoted above p. 153, note 6.^
See also the fragment quoted below from Antisthenes’ religio-
philosophical writings.® With the combination £Òa£^co^ xal Stxatwç,
cf. the book-title in Diog. L. VI 17: Il£pl âSixíaç xal àa£l3£tac.
We also find in the Diogenes doxography a jurisprudenlial argu-
mentation which admits of the interpretation that yópo; in
* Observe the scheniatic sequence of words: aÚTtbv — otxov — t:óXso);; cf.

Or. 49,3: aúxoü — olxía; — TcõÀeo)^ |xeYÍ3'ír/c — áTíávxtov àv9’p«)ic(üv.
® As regards Diog. L. VI 51, Zeller, op. cit., II: 1, 329, note 3, remarks
that this does not contradict the Cynic monotheisni. The same is, ot course,
true of the example from .Stobaeus.
« P. 191.
167
Diogcnes’ lloXtxsía was idenlilied with a universal ethical principie

in contrast with existing law, and further that this vójioç is
necessary lor the state if it is to fiinction as a community based
on law. The central word in this context is StxaioaúvYi and Dio-
genes was concerned to counter the thesis vó|iijiov = vc5|ioç xpç
7TÓX£W<:= 5'y.aiov, Xen. Mem. IV 4,12 ff, and in its stead to uphold
vójJLoç xYjç àpsxfjc or vó|ioç qjúcrsctíç as the only possibly adequate
expression Ibr ôiv.aioaúvYj. If we examine against this backgroun
the social-ethical consequences of àpsxV] in Dio Or. 69, the theses
which are there maintained are seen to be by no means inconsistent
with their attribution to a Cynic source, as we have attempted to
Show. Such a line of argument appears all the more probable i
we consider the example which Dio chooses to illustrate his social
ethics, naniely the Scythians, § 6: S7tú9*ai oò5sv y.wXúovxat o.
vo|j.áosí: |iVjX£ oÍy,íoLz iyjovzsz |ii^X£ yfiv oTzsipovxeç iQ çux£UOVX£ç
oiTcaíü)^ yai y.axà vójxou^ 7íoXtx£Ú£aât.^ This terminologj',^ ^PP
to a nomadic people, has lost all connection with Greek city com
miinities and has become so diluted in meaning that it is apphcable
even to the most primitive forms of human society. In such a
:hich can be
society, where there is no question of written laws n r be
altered at wili, the expressions Siyaíwc yai %axà vó|aouç maj
regarded as synonymous.^ This example of primitive ^
contrasts with Dio's criticism of society in §§ 8—9. In the íirs
place men do not obey the law except out of fear, and such a
morality is ethically valueless.® Secondly, codified law under suc
circumstances must become defective: xoiouxoi oè ôvxsç odpoDVXoci
xoòç voiioO-éxa; y.ai y.oXáÇouat (? Mss. P H write xtÊVxai) xouc
- Dio menlions the .Scythians only a few times and nowhere
s.v oxuí)-£Çstv, and
Otherwise the Scythians were held in bad repute. Cf. LSJ, vou9-éxr)Oiv,
Gnoni. Byz. 2.58: KóXaÇs x«PÍC àpyrjz xóv ájiapxávovxa, xyjòspovixíjv
ãX/và pyj o%u9-iotY)v èpîaívttív àpóxYjxa.
8 Dio has trealed the problem of the written laws as being contrary lo
. 155 f.
lhe customs in Or. 7Õ and 76, according to v. Arnim, Dio von Prusa, p
in a typically Sophistic way. The dating of these speeches is not, how ,
definite. v. Arnim says himself: »Ihre Erhaltung ist bedeutungsvol ur
Verstândnis von Dios Entwickelung, weil sie sich inhaltlich mit vielen Erzeug-
nissen Dios aus seiner spüteren Zeit berühren und dadurch besonders deut ic
seinem Stil
die Umwandlung veranschaulichen, welche Dios »Bekehrung» in
und in seiner Denkweise hervorgerufen hatte.»
® Cf. Or. 76,2: Ôió pot Soxet xiç âv TTpoasixáaai xóv pèv iyypacpov vopov
n Suvápst XYjc xupavvíôos- cpófKp Y«P sxaoôv xai psxà xpooxáYpaxoç ataxpaxxeta .
168
V0|10’JÇ ÜGTZ-p zl aiJLOUaO'. ov ●^poOvTO Toò- iioyaíy.oò' y-a: ouoèv

è-aíov iZ Tzzpi YctO}i£-píaç -oò; ‘(£0)\ié-pxz.^ The wav whieli Dio
recommends is thc Cynic (cf. Diog. L. VI 10 and 105) Ihcorv
àpzTfi = èTTLaxTQjjiYi, xaô’ Y/V siaovxai -zí T:pay.-:áov xòzolz
Ttpay.xáov y.a: tíõ)- piwaovTai áp8>wç.2 When, thcreíore, Dio in tlic
above-quoted extract from § 4 describes the períecl man as vó|i'.|j.oç,
this does not merely implj^ obedience lo existing laws or customs,
but obedience to a universal moral principie which Iranscends
positive law and may either agree or be in conílict with it.* This
interpretation of vó|U|ig' is further coníirmed hv llie conlexl: voju-
lJL0’j; àvopaç *'£V0ji£V0'j^ y.aL à'(x%’oõ 5a:|j,ovor to/óv"»: y.a: 'SÍAOVZ
5v“a-
zoiz ô-£or^ It is possible that the expression à,'{cc\)-o0 o7.í\iovoz
Tu/£tv is a Cynic reminiscence; cf. the parallel \vilh Anlisthenes
in Dio 4,29, 5ai|ióv'.o' tzíxíozíx, and Diogenes’ remark to
Alexander the Greal in the same speech, S 80, ó Sè lòio^ éy.áaxou
voOr, obzóz iaz:: òatjiojv 'coO zyoyzoz àvopóç, àyxd-òç \íkv ó xoO cppoví-
|i.ou y.a: aYaô-oO Sa:|X(í)v, TTOvYjpòç oè ó xoO TrovY/poO,^ and furlher lhe
expression used in the Xeniades story Diog. L. VI 74, à'(ot.^'òç
XtOV O-SVTCtíV
^ Cf. Or. 76,2: */.ai vojiouj |ièv íansv -oÃÃoOr ávrjf/rjiávoyr
«●j-oús. ó); -ovr^po’jr.
- Cf. Or. 14,18: £Ã£>j!>£pía Ttõv è»£i|isvfov ●/.ai y. £xo)Â'Jii3vo)v,
5o’j/.s{a = àYvo-a <ov ts i;£3“'. y.al wv nvj.
^ Diog. L. VI 11. Cf. Or. 76,4: y.aí)-óÀG’> Sè "oOs nèv vg|ig'JS ra-rj av
TzoisX'/ 3o’j/.(i)v Tio/.i-síav, ~à Sè sS>Tj -oõvaviíov èXsuD-époiv. â-/.£ÍvG’ nèv *fàp iroioOsiv
elc "â 3t»|ia-:a ●/.oXaosir Tiapa^íaivoixávo-j Sè l !)-o-j; TTjV Çy/n-av síva: a-Jiipspr^y.ev
al3-/..>vr,v. W3TS è-/.stvor nèv '.fa-jÀwv, oOtos 5è ã*j'athov èaTt, vó|ior. s-. *'ã.o ãíiavxsr
●?,aav à-'aí)-o,{, S-^Xov ÕTi Tüjv è‘j-fpá'^wv f,|iiv G’jSèv ãv IS s'. vóiitov. It-. <Sè> TtÒv
jièv vónwv ãlaiv
-^-i paotXei; èxávo) y.al TtoÂÀà TcpáTTO-Js-. Tiap' a.’J'oúç. "ols
sSl-sa- y.a*/i
VO-. y.aTa-/.oÀo-j9-GÕ3'.v. Cf. also Archytas of Tarentum in Stob. Antii.
IV 1,135 (spurious according to Diei.s-Ku.anz I 439; cf. on tlie otlier hand
A. Dei.atti:, Kssai siir
la PoUiique Pi/lhagoriciennc): vóixtov Sè o |ièv sn'i’iX^S
íla--.Ãe'jr, ó Sè
●fpáiiiia . xpãTos à)v ó vó|io;’ tgútío -'àp (è|i|iov(y) ó [lèv
ílajiÀsú' vo|U|ior, y.xX. Of this law we read in the next fragment, No. 136: As-.
3s TOV VÔ1XC.V ãy.óÀo'j3-ov -;í|i=v y-íos-., S-Jvaxóv xot; xpáYixaa'., co|iq?épovxa x? tio-
Ãtx-.y.^ y.OLvcovíq:* . . àxóXou9-oç |j.èv u)v %a eívj tpóas-., |H|ied|i£VOÇ xò xã;; ©óoioj
Sty.aiov. Cf. E. Goodenolgh, Hellenistic Kingship, p. 59 ff, who as regards lhe
king s superiorily even over his own laws notes Plalo Politic. 300 c and Laws
875 c. The most interesling Aristotie passage, which GoodENOUGH notes, is
Polit. 1284 a wilh its reference lo Anlisthenes. Goodenough overlooks, however,
Anlisthenes’ rôle in this connection, which M. H. Fi.scH, Alexander and lhe
Stoics, p. 147, points out.
* Cf. on the other hand Or. 23,6 ff, e.sp. §§ 9 and 12, and Or. 25,1 ff.
169
oaíjuüv ziz olv.íocy [jloo £casXi^Xu5-c. Cf. Julian VI 200 B.° With the
ípíXoc 0-£oj-lhcme cf. the Diogenes doxography Diog. L. VI 72.
The freíiuency of this theme in eaiiier literature makes it plau-
sible that il occurred also in the earliest Cynic literature; cf.
Xen. Symp. III 14, VIII 3, Mem. II 1, 33 (allegory of Prodicus),
Cyrop. I 6,4.‘=
The misanthropic conclusion to Or. 69 strengthens the ini-
pression that \ve have hefore us — perhaps through early Stoic
intermedia ries a more or less faithful paraphrase of a Cynic
Work; d)ç xò vDv *'£ oOÒèv ^xxov Xav9’ávop£v p£xà y.X£7ixü)V xat
àvopaxooiaxwv xaL Çwvx£ç v.olí au|X7coXix£uó|A£vot. v.ai xaxà
xouxo oòòèv pcXxíooc xcüv O yjptwv èa|i£v. Examples of an embittered
view of mankind are rare in Dio and do not occur, as far as I
am aware, except in speeches which show Cjmic influence, where
meh are compaVed with animais; cf. Or. 6,21;' 13,13 ff; 32,15 and
90; 40,32 and 40; 74,23.
Or. 49 is entitled napaíxYjaiç àpyjqç èv ôuX^: Dio declines elec-
tion to the highest office in the city of Priisa on the ground of
his imminent departure, to which Dio refers also in other speeches,
Or. 45, (47), 50. v. Arnim dates this speech to the spring of A.D.
103.® The composilion of the speech is peculiar in that it com-
prises a detailed and fundamental account of the philosopher’s
positive attitude towards life in the State ® and it is only in the
penultimate chapter that Dio abruptly mentions the impending
election and declares that he cannot possibly offer his Services.
The TiatÒEía-theme recurs several times in this discussion of
fundamental principies; in §§ 1—5 and § 11 we find the terms
7caiO£ta, 7r£7íaio£U|jL£voç, è7tiaxá|X£V0ç, ÔtoácxaXoç, while examples
5 Concerning Crates in Hertlein’s text, cf. above, p. 127. Cf. O. Jakobs-
SON, Daimon och Agathos Daimon, p. õ8 ff. Of special interesl in this con-
neclion are Heracliliis, fragm. 119=Diels-Kranz I 177: íja-og ãv8-p(í)j:tp Ôaí|iü)v,
and Epicharmus, fragm. 17=Diels-Kranz 1 201: ó xpÓTtos âv9-pib7roiat Safiiwv
âYaíl-ó;, oíc Sè “A«-/.ós.
® Other references above, pp. 139, note 3, and lõ3, note 6.
' In Or. 6,25, we find a social criticism which could well have formed
part of Or. 69 as a contrast to the primitive but just Scythian society.
® Dio von Prusn, p. 383 ff.
“ Cf. Or. 20,2 and 47,2 f. Cf. Gnoni. Byz. 84: MyjõeIç xtòv cppovípov xoõ
àp/Eiv à/.ÀoxptoÚ38*w xai yàp ãoegs; 'à àxoaxãv áauxôv x:^ç xwv 8so|iévü)v
eâxpyjoxíag xai ãYevvèç xô xol; cpaúXotg ítapaxtopsív àvorjxtov Yàp xò aípsíoO-at
xaxtòj àpxe^Siâí pãÀÀov ^ xa/.õs ápxetv (Epictetus).
170
of philosophers as teachers and advisers oí‘ kings occur in

4—8. It appears as an introductory thesis in ^ 1: T £■ y.áatv
ày0-pó)7wOi' y.al atosujJLáyotc oõxs àYjSèc xò apys-.y oO yjxXzTzóv.
The term èTZíziv.^qz occurs in the first of the above-quotcd catalogues
of virtues as one of the individual-ethical terms to denote one who
has partaken of the »divine» Tcatosía. The second memher of the
series, 4^ aiSsujiávo', aiso has its counterpart, No. õ. Cf. again
the second catalogue of virtues with the same theme. In Or. 49,
then, we are faced with the same TraiOEÍa-themc we have met
previously, although here it has a different function. The emphasis
changes from individual ethics and prominence is given to a
feature of social ethics (so also Or. 69): Tz<xíOzí<x=àpyri, cpiXóao
ápyo)y. The hasis for such a position as ãpyjmv is £Y*/-páx£ia,
9 ff: ó xoíyuy àsl aOxoO àpys’.* o xÕ> Tzavzi /aXe—wxspoy
-7j GopTzáyxtoy pèy 'EXÀi^ywy, au|jL7:áyx(j>y Sè âp^ápwy lãaatXsústy.^
Then follows a catalogue of vices of the usual kind: òpycd,
cpD-óyoí., cpiÀoy.y.íai. Yjooyaí, èTütôupía*., 90^01, X07:ai. The weapons in
the struggle against these evil things are oí ao'sn\ v.oiX 'spóv.iioi
Xóyoi together with a constant vigilance, yúxxoip y.al pet)-’ vjpépay
cppoyxlôyxa y.al àypuKvo^vza., against hecoming Trpoocxr^ç aOxoO.
Starting from èyy.pázzicc as the central point, the sphere of the
philosopher’s influence and activity is extended ad iníinitum, 5;; 3;
ó oè xô) õyx’. cpiXóaocpox oòy. ãXXo xt 'âyiâexai S'.a7royoóp£voç yj xò
7Z0DÇ cipys.ív y.aXwç ouyVjaExat y.al aOxoO y.al oly.íaç y.al ttoXecd;
\i.zyÍGzr^ç y.al auXXYjÔTjy aTiáyxtoy ày^poiTíwy, ay èTCixpÉTíwat, y.al aOxòç

pèy o’j TüpoaosTQGExat. oOoEyòç ápyovxoç àXX’ ^ xoO Xóyou y.al xoO oI-eoO,
xõ)y 0£ áXXwy àyS-pwTCWV èTupEXEíaâi y.al cppoyx:Ç£'.y ly.ayò^ laxai.
In § 13 the philosophers activity is characterised thus: xoO ys
õyxwç cptXoaóxou xò Ipyoy oò/ EXEpóy èaxty 7] àp/Yj áy^pwuwy.
The 7i:at5EÍa-theme is put to the same use in Or. 68,5 ff, which
contains a clear parallel with the Heracles pedagogics of the
Themistius fragment. The man who has cnjoyed the correct
Tzcaozia. easily masters the other prohlems of life, àpyj.’.y xàç òcXXai:
àpyàç ri zâc ãXXa xà y.otyà èv x^j tíóXe'. upáxxEiy, lí 6, hui withoul
this TüatOEta he comes to grief: oaxtí; 0’ àTTE^úpYâE cppoyiâewç y.al
0'.£voY)ô‘Y^ 7Tà)ç ypv) èTttpsXTjô^Éyxa aOxoO y.al Tzatôsuaiy xcya Tzatoeuô-éyxa
YEyéa^-at. ácyopa àya^òy y.al òta^époyxa xwv tcoXXôív, xoOxov èYtó cpY^pt,
!fúa£(í)ç X£ y^priozfiç xuysty y.al zúyr^<:l ópoíaç. . . . ò 5è xoOxo auyelç
‘ The same thesis in Or. 62 although in negative forni.
171
á.Tcav-a av YjOv, y.aXo); 5ia~pá""ot"o xal ~à |j.£íÇw SoxoOvTa: y.xi -à

'Yliy/.pdTspa. . . . áv£'j 5è -oózoo v.aO-' sv.aaxov |j.èv ~(ov Èvíots
a’JTo) Ti v.a: dXXoíç 'szí'/OL~o ay '/.azopO-wv . . . "ò 5è aú}i.7:av
a]iapTavGi av —p oòoÈv oOÔè tòa"£ tü9£ASÍcô'a'. “aD“a £pY*“
(^0|LÍVG:.
Furiher. wc íincl traces in Dio of the Antislheiüc theoiy tzzíosiz
= ovoiiaT(ov £-:ov.£'4>t;, Epicl.I 17,12;-Cf. Or. 36//S//íuul Or.3S,30.^
Oiir studv of liie tzxío a-lheme ia Dio has sliown thal Dio’s
vicws on Ihis sul^jccl — niaybe through early Stoic interniediaries
fiad
— were iniliienced by classical Cynicism. In bis company we
ourselves involved in ílic ideas and problenis of the -Ith centiiry
B.(X with its ])urning interest in fhc relaíionship between education
and polilics, its opposilion Io the Sophists' nnsiiccessfiil efforts in
this field, and the individual-ethical forin given to educational
a
and polilical theories ●ith the important central themes è'{y.pi.
= ápy^£'.y éa’j-G'j >● àp-/£cv àv\)'pó)7rtov, -a:.0£Ía = àpy;^n and íptXdaoôc
= ápyyov . In Or. 13 we find n final proof that Dio’s educational
ideas are íliose of the fourlh century B.C. In §§ 16—28 Dio quoles
a speech, 7,óyov dpyjxlov, XiYÓpsvov b,^ó xtvo Z ^(oy.páTGuç (?; 1-1,●>
but willi ilie reservation thal he cannot recollect à*/pi,3ü)c á-áv-wv
xÒ)v p-^jiáxtov ir^Sè ôXyjC SiavGÍac (§ 15). The pseudo-Platonic

dialogue, tlie Cditopho, contains passages \vhich sometimes agrce
Word for word with this speech of Sócrates in Dio, and we miisí
suppose eilher that the latter is taken from the Clitopho or that
both texts derive froni a comnion sonrce.
Bolli lhese texts are conccrned with the problem of Tíaiòtícc.
Sócrates, as represented by Dio, allacks traditioiial education.
which ignores its most essential purpose, namely to teach inen to
o0x£ Tíatoíoacv o'jx£
li ve righleously and justly: oòosiicav sOpóv
cxaví]v Guoè d)Y^£X’.j,Lov àvO’pe)ívGCCi <i,acO£u{I'£v ouviâía-ifí
■/.ac
XpYjpaac XpYjaO-ac ôp9-cüC oiy.cíuúç, àXXà pT] pXa;3£p(í>:
àÔc"/.w;, '/.ac Opcv auxo' õ oT.ooòaíózBpov xüjy xp7)|iáxwv, '/.ac ucoc;
■/.ac -0'UYaxpáac '/.ac ■/.ac ào£X'ôcç y.ac cçcXocç, ●/.à“/,£ryoc 6[icy
2 Ci'. al)ove, ]). 1Õ7, and il)id., note 4.

●* Or. y.oíi "ptbTOV ■'£, õ z'. £3-lv ay-zò “o5"o ÚTísp o5 ó ÀÓY'^Í
Yvüjvac oa'.píI)5' ouro yàp àv vir} B à[ia y.al ó~oTóv xí èax:v. oi yàp no/Jôi.
scfTjv, ãvi)'pco7:o'. zó õvoiia aiizó t3«3'. xal cpfVéYro'-'-»^ xoü -páynxzo; éy.áaxou. ~o
3s Tzpàyfi' âyvooüa'.y. oÍ 5è zaíõsojiéroí zoòzo cpp&vcíôuatv, 6re(i)Ç xa'-
5’jvaii'v síayvxat Éxáaxou oü /.éyoyscv. Cf. Clitoplio 409 a f: MV] |ioi xò õvopa
|ióvov à?./.à <i)Ss, xxÂ.
172
16). The educalion wliich Socrales secks and whieh is dirccled

to securing lhe moral períeclion oíThe individual has social-elhical
consequences, S 19: OTZUK oè Tà au}iY£povxa Ojuv ccòzoTz
y.ai x^j Tzxzpíòí y.cLÍ vojJLíjJio); Y.od ò'.y.7.Í(s)z ixâô’’ ó|iovoía? "oÀiTsúasaô-c
y.ai oJy.Vja |iYjl àoiy.òiv aXXo^ aXXov |ir,5è ètciJíouXsúwv, toOto 5è
OÒÒÍ7ZOZZ èiiáâ-iXs, v.-X. Tradilional educalion, which is conlrasled
with Ihis moral educalion, may be characlerised mosl briellv hy
lhe words TiaXaísív, Ypáji|iaxa |jLav3-ávs'.v, 5^ 17. Hui il
is not atlacked per se: lhe passage cites representalives oí’ many
callings whose prolessional competence is not doubled. What is
denied is their competence to promole not merely lhe intercsts of
the State but even their own personal interests, § 19: TaOxa (sc.
y.iô-ap:^£'.v etc.» Y^P àji£LVov èxépur/, y.cd ir^ò xoú-wv ot£a9-£
ávop£C £a£a9’ai y.a: ouvT^!j£c9’ai xá x£ y.oivâ TüpáxxEiv òpS-õiç
y.a: xà The problems raised are the same as Ihosc of Or. 32,68
and 69, and of the Themistius fragment: the opposition belween
»divine» and »human» tzoíiozíoí. The same problem recurs in the
Clitopho, where Sócrates seeks after teachers of justice, OLoáay.aXoi
XYj' 5iy.aioajv/ic, 407 b,"' whereas traditional educalion does not
produce moral men. The social-ethical consequcnces of the indi-
vidual-ethical educalion are marked in both of the texts under
comparison; cf. Dio 13,19 and Clitopho 407 c f.
If \ve now venture outside the speech of Sócrates in Dio,
§ 29 ff, we find a full and extremely interesting discussion of the
idea Stoáay.aXo: xr^c oiy.aioaúvr,: as contained in the (ditopho. In the
remaining part of Or, 13, too, it is clear that Dio is paraphrasing
an ancient source, as he himself states in §§ 29 and 30, and it is
likely that the same source which contains the speech of Sócrates,
§§ 16—28, was also the basis of the remainder of Or. 13. The
words oxi -aiO£Íaç twgXXy/ç y.a: àYaD-fjt oéovxai in § 29 b, which Dio
expressly ascribes to this ancient source, actually recur in § 31,
but here they are used to introduce the discussion of the theme
otoáay.aXor xfjÇ StyaioaúvTjç: if men íind a teacher of justice, they
should place hini £^c xy)v ày.pÓKoXiv, and old and young alike
■* (2f. the definition of ”ai5sia in ^ 27: eiva: 5è ãiiaO-st; ●JX'. TO’>r úâívstv
7} 3Xu-0T0iis:v (ly, éizia~aiiévci'j; oOôè “0Ú5 ôpxeÍ39-a: oòv. eiôó-car, ãXÀà ~obr âyvo-
oüvxas a Isxtv slõóxa xaXòv xal âyaíi-ó'/ àv5pa eiva:.
As to this expression, cf. Plal. Prof. 327 c, Meno 90 b, Xen. Cyrop. I 2,6
(cf. above, p. 78) and 8, Meni. II 2,2 f, IV^ 2,2.
173
should hc ordcrccl lo cnjoy his inslruction, êtog av óÍTtavvsç aoq>oi

Yâvójisvo'. y.xi oiy.oaoGÓvr,/; èpac^ávxsç, yaxacppovYjaavxsç xpoaoO yai
àpYÓpou y.od èXézavzoç y.oci õc}íol) 8y) y.od jxúpoi) y.a: àçpoSiaciov, suoat-
jJLOVcÇ o:y.ü)GL y.a: óípyovxzr jjiáXtaxa xai Trpwxov aòxwv, êTrsixa xaí ^wv
áXXwv àva-pw7w0)v (§ 33).« If, then, we follow v. Arnim, Dio von
Priisa, p. 256 IT, in finding the source of Sócrates’ speech in one
of Antistheiies’ protreptic works, §§ 31—37 may well be based on
the samc source but roughly adapted to a Roman audience
('Ptü|iaíouc 32, Yj TíóXiç ixsyáXrj § 34). But if we disregard the
question whether a work of Antisthenes himself is the direct
source of Or. 13," the fact remains that the educational theme
in this speech is the same as in other speeches of Dio and
this ín the last resort is the Antisthenic theory of oixxy) Tratosta,
put in Diogenes’ mouth by Dio in Or. 4,29 ff, with its insistence
that chief weight in education should be given to õiy.ouooovrj. In
the absence of exact parallels it is impossible to decide whether
the peculiar form given to the oioáay.aXoç-theme is also Antisthenes
in extenso.
Dio makes uniform use of the Tcaiosía-theme. We summarise

the various aspects of his pedagogics:
1) Two kinds of tzqíiõzíol: divine» and »human».
2) «Divine» Ttatosta is of a markedl}^ individual-ethical
character.
3) «Hiiman TzoLiòsia. has value only in relation to »divine».
4) «Divine» Tta.Ssía has more or less strongly emphasised
social-ethical consequences.
first and
5) The man who has received «divine» Tcaiosta is
foreniost master of himself and consequentlj'^ also of others, cpiXó-
Gorçoç,, otoáoy.aXoç = áp/wv.
“ Cf. Diogenes Stob. Anlh. IV 29,19: nuv9-avo|iévoi) xiyôs xívsc «y-
^●ptúTKüv EÒYevéoxaxoi, oí xaxa^povoõvxeg, siTts, iiÀoóxou, Sóçyjç, YjÔoviíjo.
ôè âvavxícDV ÒTTSpáva) õvxsç, resvíaç. aSo^faS, ícóvoo, S-aváxou.
^ Cf. F. Dümmler, Antisthenica, p. 8 ff, and id., Akademika, p. 1 ff, who
supposes that Antisthenes’ Archelaus is the source of Dio Or. 13,16 2^ .
R. Hirzel, Der Dialog, II 118, believes with voN Arnim that it is a protreptic
Work by Antisthenes, but J. Wegehaupt, De Dione Chrys., p. 56 ff, is,
concerning this point, as elsewhere, sceptical regarding Antisthenic influence
on Dio’s writings, believing that Dio only followed Clitopho, «non Clitophonüs
fontem» (p. 61). It is worth mentioning that Wegehaupt had no doubts about
Clitopho as a Platonic work (p. 62).
174
6) »Divine» tzíxiozíoí manifests itself in a Socratic-(>ynic way

of life exemplified in Heracles.
The theory ocoáay.aXoc= àpxwv brings us to the educational

doctrines of Diogenes. \Ve tried to show above that in all pro-
bability the Euboulus version of the Xeniades story in the Diogenes
tradition embodies a serious and authentic Diogenes pedagogics,
while the burlesque Diogenes pedagogics we find in Lucian Vit.
Auct. 8 f is a caricature which possibly follows a Menippean
model, the character of which is unknown to iis, but which in
anj’ case was diametrically opposed to the serious pedagogics of
Euboulus. This in its turn may reflect the pedagogical theories
put forward bj’ Cleomenes in his work UoLiòcí'fii)'(Ly.ó':, which also
treats of the story of Xeniades. The only quotation which Diog. L.
offers from Cleomenes’ work, VI 75, contains the main motif of
all the Xeniades stories, ooOXo;= apyojv, but not in a form which
suggests a burlesque version.
What, then, is the relationship between what we niust con-
sider as the original, authentic, and serious Diogenes pedagogics
and the educational theories of Dio, for which we claim Antisthenic
character on the basis of the theory of y] oitxy] Ttaiõsía? In the ürst
place we may state quite generally that Dio’s use of the Tâtosía-
theme closely corresponds with the educational doctrines of
Diogenes as they appear in the Xeniades story. In both cases we
íind a Twatosía which lays chief emphasis on moral education
leading to a Cynic way of life. This, however, does not assume
the strict and rigorous form which we encounter in certain of the
anecdotes. It is of a type which w'e previously called eudaemonistic
or »Socratic». This Twaiosía does not exclude xà Xonzà {laSigiiaxa,
but these pa^T^paxa have value only in relation to the moral end
of life.®
We may add to this general statement a few^ words on Dio’s
Or. 58, which discusses Achilles’ upbringing by Chiron. v. Arnim,
Dio von Prusa, p. 165 f, denies that this speech contains any nioral-
philosophical tendency. For this reason he ascribes it to Dio’s
Sophistic period and suggests as its source a Satyr play of the
end of the 5th century, comparing it with Euripides’ Heracles,
which contains a similar treatment of the question of the value
» Cf. Diog. L. VI 30 f.
17Õ
of archery. Certain (2ynic traits in the speech lead v. Arnim also

to weigh the possibility that it may have a Cynic source, possibly
Diogenes’ tragedy
Here again we encounter the hunting terminology of the
Euboulus paraphrase, Etitísósiv, xoçsósiv, áTtovxíÇetv» likewise the
main theme of the Xeniades story, § 3, Siatpépei oõv xt jSaatXsústv
7) Tíaiosúetv; and further the terms y.iS-apíCetv, ôpúxxeiv and
the comparison waíisp y.axòv àvopáTcooov, § 3, as a contemptuous
characterisation of the education which Chiron imparts. Chiron
himself is dubbed a Sophist by Achilles. He is also described as
OTiopXéijíac ostvóv, ücsTzsp àoxpaTxií), § 4; cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 4,14
and 24 apropos of Diogenes. The education which Chiron gives
Achilles resembles and is complementary to what we previously
found when discussing Heracles’ instruction by the famous Cen-
taur. We know from the scholia Strozziana ® several of the jiaÔTr]-
jiaxa in which Chiron gave instruction. The cithara is mentioned
for Achilles and litterae for Heracles. In Plutarch and Lucian
traces have been preserved of Heracles’ »literary» schooling.^ To
this literary instruction by Chiron, Dio’s text adds information
about his training of the heroes in hunting. Thus Chiron’s educa
tion of the heroes provides a parallel with the Euboulus pedagogics.
Achilles’ reproach to Chiron that he is a Sophist finds its explana-
tion in these iiaS-Yjiiaxa in which Chiron gives instruction, but
the combination iLaÔ-Yj|JLaxa — xoÇsúsiv, tuTísústv, àxovxtÇsiv is not
a Sophistic TíaiSsía. It has its roots in the Cynic combination of
Sophistic, Socratic and dorizing TcaiSsía.
The psychological contrast between Achilles and Chiron in
Or. 58 is the same as that between Ajax and Odysseus in the
speeches of Antisthenes. Compare the themes of Dio 58,3 and
Antisthenes Od. 6. Odysseus’ words might have been offered by
Chiron as a reply to Achilles’ attack on him: Odysseus’ versatility
in choosing methods of combat contrasts with the single-minded-
ness of Ajax or Achilles. Achilles’ blistering criticism of Chiron
— õcTiep otaxôv àvopáTroSov — might also have been used by
Ajax against Odysseus who allowed himself to be whipped, donned
the attire of a slave and broke into the temple. To Ajax, Odysseus
rejoins, § 10: %aX xoòç TcoXsjitooç àei ocaxóv xi tíoiÕ), exwv xà oouXo-
" See above, p. 36.
* .See above, p. 70.
176
TzpzTzff zcí^-ai. OTzXoL v.cd XX pxy.Yj y.xi xàç \Lxoxiyxz. The lack oTa moral-
philosophical tendency in Or. Õ8 need not exclude the possibility
of a Cynic source. Nor arc Antisthenes* Ajax and Odysscus any-
thing more than porlraits of types.
If, then, we follow v. Arnim in dating the original which Dio
is paraphrasing in Or. 58 as early as circa 400, and if at the same
time the parallelism between Or. 58 and early Cynic writings is
inescapable, it would appear most plausible to assume that this
source is Antisthenes. That Chiron in Dio appears as lhe èpxaxr]z
of Achilles agrees with the Antisthenes fragments.^ In Dio, Achilles
appears as one imbued with courage and marlial spirit. In Sophoc-
les ’A/_'.XX£03' èpxaxxí, which v. Arnim adduces, no parallels are
found with the text of Dio. On the contrary, Sophocles depicts
Achilles as weak, mollem, according to Ovid Trist. II 409 ff.^
There is dose agreement between Chiron’s education of the
heroes, which is developed by Antisthenes in accordance with his
theory of v) Sít:""/] tzxiòsíx, and the Euboulus pedagogics of Diogenes.
This educational ibeorj-^ represents a short-lived intellectual ten
dency in Cynicism. Traces of this Cynic intellectualism are found
in several places in the Cynic tradition, especially in the doxo-
graphies. It is further substantiated by the circunistance that some
of the earliest members of the Cynic school were the authors of
important works, although we can catch only occasional glimpses
of their authorship.
So much for the contents of this educational theory. We now
turn to lhe áp/wv-theme. As we have stated, this is the main theme
of all the Xeniades stories and it was given additional point by
Diogenes’ situation as oouXoç. In the Euboulus paraphrase Dio
genes, the SoOÀoç—ápywv, appears as Tratoaywyóc. The phraseology
of this theme may have an obvious and somewhat trivial origin:
it may be taken from the language of the school. A teacher is said
»to be master» of his pupils, Plat. Lys. 208 c: aè aòxòv èwatv xpyeiv
asaoxoO, ouSè xoOxo èTuxpÉTiouct 001; — nojc yxp, è-KLxpé-
Tcouatv; — ’AXX’ ápyst xíç aou; — OSs, TzxioxyMyóç, — Mwv
ooOXo^ wv; — ’AXXà xí |ii^v; Tjiiéxspóç ys, êcpTj. — *H oetvóv, yjv o’
“ See above, p. 3õ.

Cf. Nauck, Trag. Gr. Fragm., p. 16õ ff=.STEFFEN, Satijr. Gr. Rei., p.
42 ff. — L. Lemarchand, Dion de Pruse, p. 17 f, dates Or. 58 lo Dio’s posl-
exile Ume.
177
âY(í), âX£Ú9*£pov oyxa útzò ôoúXoo apxsaôâi. xi oè Tzotwv aõ oõxoç ó

7za.iòa‘'(Oiyóz oou Òipyj.i; — Âywv SigTCOu, êcfYj, £2ç ocSaay.otXou. — Mwv
jiT) y.a: oòxoi oou apxouaiv, oS oiSáaxaXot; — Ilávxü);; Stqttou. Cf. the
eclucation of lhe guardians’ children in Plato Rep. V 467 d: Kat
àpXovxá? YÉ TÜOU, y]V o’ èYW, oò xouç cpauXoxáxouç aòxoTç èxitaxTQcouatv
àXXà xoòc; £|i7t£tpía x£ y.al -íjXty.ía [xavoòç %e|ióvaç xs xaí Tiacoa-
YtoYouç £Ívat.-‘ The note of genlle railleiy in the Lysis is replaced
in the Repiil)lic l)v a serious tone, but the term ápxtov is the
same and lhe recognised term. In Teles we encounter the theme
TcaioaYWYÓc = apxwv in lhe comparison of the teacher with the
king, Hknsk, Tel. Rei., p. 24 (quoted from Bion, cf. op. cit. p. 6):
xí Ô£ y.ai Sia:p£p£t. ãipysiv ^ l6ui)X£Ú£Iv; oò tioXXõjv xat “i^ptúvxíüv j3a-
ai.X£Ú£tr, âYW Sè òXÍYtóv y.al àviQ|3(i)v iratoaYtOYÒç Y®vóp£voç, y.al xò
X£X£uxatov èpauxoO* xyj yàp olòx%\ èpxstpía xetpoúpsvov y.ai xoòç tcoX-
Xoòç y.al xòv £va, y.xX.^ The quolation from Bion in Teles shows
lhal a serious, philosophical emplo5’ment of this theme belongs
to early Cynic literatiire. The< combination êpóvaç x£ y.al 7cai8a-
YWYoúç; in lhe example from Plato íinds a close parallel in Dio
Chrys. Or. 49,4: OíXtTíTüoc Sé, Sç SoxsT ostvóxaxo: Y^vea^-ai xwv
jBaaiXéoiv, ’AptaxoxéXYjv èTzriyáyBXo xw ulel AXEÇávSpw ôiSáay.aXov
xal òlpxovxa, (i)C aòxôç oòx Iv.avôc wv 7íai8£uaat xY)v paaiXtxYjv éTU-
axVjiJiriV. The nolions that the ruler should be a moral paragon
for his subjects, which Xenophon develops in the Cyropaedia, and
on the othcr hand that the philosopher should be king, the basic
idea of Plato’s Repiiblic, become merely different ways of express-
ing the same ethical theory. Antisthenes in his idealisation of Cyrus
probably followed the latter line, which was given further point
by Cyrus’ development from doidos to basileus philosopbos.
Antisthenes used the theme SoOXoç—13aatX£Óç in his portrayal of
Odysscus. The theme recurs in the idealisation of Diogenes, 8oOXoç=
ápXtov, and ils main point was to show the philosophical inner
freèdom which is founded on moral perfection and not on out-
ward circumstances. The extract from Cleomenes in Diog. L. VI
75 and especially Philo, Quod omnis probus liber sit, § 123=
Gohn-Wendland VI 35, sbow this quite clearly. The passage in
Philo runs: Típòç xòv uuôójisvov xü)V (bvvjxixíüç èxóvxwv, xí otSaç;
■» Cf. aíso Menex. 238 b: ãpxovcac xal BiSaaxáÀoüç . . . 9-soüg. and 240 d:
y)YS|ióvsg y.al 8t5áoxa?.ot . . . -fe'fóne'foi.
ó Cf. Dio Or. 58,3 (Chiron): Aia^épec oõv u PaaiÀeústv TcaíSsósiv;
12
178
ápXciv, :i7:£v, àv9-pá)”ü)v, £vooô*£V, üjr £oi'/.£, ^\jyr^r xò £À£jx)-£poy

y.at £ÒY£V£!; xal tpóasi âatXixòy br,r^Yc,\>or^';. To this lliemc we
must add, as has been mentioned, the educational theme, i.e.
Antisthenes’ hero pedagogics. Both lhese closely connected lhemes
appear combined in the versions of the Xeniades story with its
idealisation of Diogenes. The association of the two types of theme
with each other, as we have suggested, may be due to the phrasco-
logical background. We may therefore represent the facls by the
following scheme:
Antisthenes: Antisthenes:
5o5Xoc= ãpxtov: Chiron =
Heracles, Cyrus, Odysseus SiSásy.aÀos âpsxv^;
Diogenes: ôoõÀog = 5.ç>yjiü'i

Diogenes: 7iai3ocYü)Yóç
Bion: Menippus: C!eomenes: Euboulus:

Obscene version Burlesque ver Serious version Serious version
of the theme sion of the peda of the theme of the pedagógi
SoõÂo;= àpxwv gógica! theme 5oüXoc =- ca! theme
Phüo, Q. om. Lucian, Vit. Dio (Mirys.

prob. lib. s. 124 Auct. 8 f.
Ciemens Alex,
Paed. III 3
It is not possible to decide the question whether Dio, as is

suggested by this scheme, utilised secondary sources or Antisthenic
originais. It is probable that he had recourse to both. At times,
for instance, when reading Or. 58 and 69, we feel convinced that
the basis is a work of Antisthenes. The same is true of Or. 13
in its entirety. But the situation is different when we are faced
with those speeches in which Diogenes is the spokesman. K. v.
Fritz, Quellenuntersuchungen, p. 82, solves the problem, as was
mentioned earlier,® by assuming that Dio puts Antisthenic theories
into Diogenes’ mouth, for the reason that Diogenes simply cannot
have written for example the discussions about true and false
kingship. According to our way of thinking this process may — and
“ See above, p. 51.

179
this has the greater probability have taken place among those
authors of the generation after Diogenes who wrote Aioyévouç
Twpãaiç. To the same period and to the same writers we should
probably also ascribe the antithesis Diogenes—Alexander, which
in Dio plays so great a part in the elaboration of true kingship
in Or. 4, an antithesis which was evoked by the unsettled political
conditions which obtained in Greece after the death of Alexander.
Teles provides us with the earliest evidence of Cynic use of
Alexander exempli gratia, Hense, Tel. Rei., p. 43, where Alexander
is addiiced as an example of man’s insatiable striving after more
and more, and ultimately after immortality. With v. Fritz’s
theory, the problem of Alexander as a typical tyrant in Dio is
incomprehensible. If Dio made use of the works of the Diogenes
biographers and this is likely as regards those works of Dio
in which Diogenes himself is the spokesman — there remains,
of course, the problem of what the historical Diogenes has written
of that which Dio tells us about. But this raises the certainly
unsolvable — question of the reliability of the earliest biographers
of Diogenes.
In the second section of the present chapter we shall examine
the ápx^'^-theme and then turn once more to the allegory in Or.
1,66 ff, which was discussed in the introduction to this section.
II.
In lhe preceding section we attempted to show that the treat-

ment of the Traiosta-theme in Dio Chrysostomus is consistent and
goes back to the Antisthenic theory of a double TcaiSeía. The bio
graphers of Diogenes left traces of this view of 7ca:.8sía in their
pedagogical writings, in which Diogenes plays the same part as
Chiron in Antisthenes.
We find several traces in Dio of one feature of this individual-
ethical Traiosía, namely the social-ethical corollaries: áp^siv éauxoO
= ápxstv áv^pü)7to)v. This èYXpáxeta = àp^Vj in its widest meaning
is teachable, and this is the aim and purpose of Cynic uaiSeta.
To be TTETtaiosuiAévoç áTcXc&ç means to be educated in accordance
with Cynic êYxpáxeia-pedagogics. This is why Antisthenes, too,
can designate Alcibiades as àTtaíSsuxoç, Alhenaeus XII 534 c."^
’ Cf. p. 76, note 7, above.

180
The doublc Tzaiòsía of Antisthenes lays chief emphasis oii thc

ethical side. Tà paô-r/iia-ca have significance only in relation to
the basic ethical principie, but in this case they have their value
waTiip âcçóotov. It is only to this type of -aiSsía that Diogenes’
xo' pèv váoi'
remark refers in Diog. L. VI 68: TYjv tzxlozkxv
t:Xoü-
aü)'^poaúvy^v, Totç oè 7íapa|iu9’íay, zolr ok Ttévrât
xov (cf. Antisthenes, Xen. Symp. IV 43), Totç òk TrÀouaíoiC xóajiov
(cf. Antisthenes Stob. Anth. III 1,28, Crates Plut. Gonj. praec.
26= Mor. 141 E, and Ep. 9 Hercher) slvai. We have characterised
this educational theory as an ápywy-pedagogics. From the point
of view of the history of ideas, despite certain differences, it
belongs together with Xenophon’s Cyropaedia and the Aristippus
polemic in Mem. II 1. A basic idea common to these texts is the
part played by the paragon in their pedagogics: áp/wy is a model
and his position is based on his moral supremacy. Gyriis and
Heracles were Gynic exempla virtutis. The passages in Dio which
have been quoted in our study of Dio’s use of Heracles all seem
to indicate a Gynic tradition. We did not include the Heracles
allegory in Or. 1,59 ff among these passages.
As we have pointed out, it is probable that the two sections
in this story of Heracles belong together, §§ 59—65 with their
description of the personality of Heracles and §§ 66—83. The
characterisation of Heracles contains the Antisthenic Tüatosía-
theme, lhe conlrast of TcsTratSsujjiéyo!: aTtXwç — oò TioXuxpÓTrtoc oòok
Ttcpixxõ)^ aorpÍGiiíXGi y.aL TzavoupYYjjxaaLy ày0’p(í)7TO)y y.ay.ooaipoywy, 61.
This Heracles, who has been brought up along Gynic lines, has
his education completed by an allegorical instruclion in the dif-
ference between kingship and tyranny. Xenophon’s Symposiiim
shows inter alia that Antisthenes discussed such problems, IV 34
ff. We do not find there, however, any direct description of the
basileus. Antisthenes sets himself up as the contrast to the tyrants
he describes in § 37. The description of the tyrant in this passage
agrees in its main theme with the description of Tupavvtç in Dio’s
allegory, 80: xò Sè yp’jatoy ataytaxa êcpúXaxxsy. The same cor-
respondence exists between Antisthenes’ description of himself
and thc description of BaaiXeía in Dio, § 72: oò jxyjy èxsívYj ys
oòoèy xtp ypuaõ) TcpoasXyey oòôk èxIpTcsxo. In § 71 we encounler
^ Ceb. Tab., p. 159 f above; cf. Diog. L. VI 31.

181
a complete parallel with Diogenes’ remarks about himself, Dio

Chrys. Or. 4,18. An evil man can as littie behold BaaiXsía, or Dio
genes, as a man with weak eyes can the sun. AtV.Yj, one of the
symbolic personages which surround BaaiXsía, looks y^PY^v Üke
Diogenes, Or. 4,14. If we compare lhe three texts, the Prodicus
allegory in Xenophon’s Mem. II 1,21 ff, the speech of Antisthenes
in Xen. Symp. IV 34 ff, and the Heracles allegory in Dio Or. 1,66 ff,
it is clear that lhe ideas they express belong to the same period in
the history of ideas. It is possible that the allegory in Dio goes
back Io a Cynic Heracles allegory in which Heracles served as a
prototype of the king as contrasled with the tyrant. The observa-
tion that the use made by Dio of the figure of Heracles in other
places is obviously diie to Cynic influence, and further that
Heracles = tzolIç = 7i£7uaiO£U|j.évoç is the same in Or. 1 as in
Or. 4, where there is no doubt that the Antisthenic Heracles is
concerned, seems to favoiir the possibility. The parallels between
the Prodicus allegory in Xenophon and the Heracles allegory in
Dio woiild thiis find lheir explanation, as would also the great
differences between them. We should not need to resort to a hypo-
Ihesis which would require two separate sources for §§ 59—84,
an assumption which musl involve serious psychological difficul-
ties.” Nor is it likely that Dio, in so serious a form as is actually
lhe case, would present something directly borrowed from Xeno
phon, although with considerable modifications of his own, in
view of his sirong condemnation of Prodicus, Or. 54,1, cf. 55,12 f.
The hypolhesis of an Antisthenic or anonymous interpretatio Cy-
nica of the Prodicus allegory as the source of the Heracles allegory
in Dio would solve all difficulties. Such an interpretatio Cynica is
a quite plausible assumption, just as we have interpretations of
the Prodicus allegory which serve rhetorical ends.^ E. Webeb,
De Dione Chr3'sostomo Cynicorum sectatore, p. 248 ff, quotes a
number of Cynic Iraits in the allegory in Dio. Diogenes’ Ep. 30
Hercher provides an example of the theme of the two roads in
the Cynic tradition.^
® (^f. p. 153 f above. Just as E. Weber, De Dione Chrys. Cyn. sect.,

p. 244 f, and J. Wegehaupt, De Dione Chrys. Xen. sect., pp. 7 f and õO,
also J. Alpers, Hercules in bivio, p. 39 f.
^ Alpers, op. cit., p. 36 ff.
- Cf. Capelle, De Cyn. ep., p. 37 ff.
182
However, we find nowhere iii the Cynic fragmenls any mcn-

tion of a Cynic variation on the Prodicus allegory. II is nol siir-
prising that so strongly antithetic a view of life as the Gynics'
operated with the idea that several possible choices were open to
man. This lies in the very nature of their doctrine.^ Nor is it
unlikely that Cynic teaching contained allegorical representations
of Heracles' being faced with a choice of actions. Possibly Or. 60
provides us with an example of such a use of the figure ot
Heracles.^ The Antisthenes fragment in Themistius likewise repre-
sents Heracles as faced with a choice between a brutal, animal
w'ay of life and one which is cultured in the Cynic sense of the
term, and it was probably this choice which was the preliminary
to Heracles’ visit to Chiron. But so long as we have no indication
of a Cynic use of the particular allegory created by Prodicus, of
which the allegory in Dio 1,66 ff is a moderately dose variation,
the question must be left open, despite the fact that the connec-
tion between the characterisation of Heracles in §§ 59—65, which
we regarded as Cynic, and the allegory itself in §§ 66—83 creates
difficulties for the hypothesis of two separate sources. If, notwith-
standing, we follow E. Weber, op. cit., pp. 242 ff and 248 ff, in
postulating two sources — an historical source for the characterisa
tion of Heracles, and a Cynic source (also influencing the characteri
sation? Weber, p. 245) for the allegory — it would be considerably
easier to regard the characterisation as Cynic — as we have done
above, p. 153 ff — and the allegory as Stoic, in which vó|ioc is
deíined as cf. SVF IV 93.'^ E. Thomas, Quaestiones
Dioneae, p. 51 ff (with further literature), assumes a Stoic source
for the allegory itself.
We propose to discuss first Dio Or. 3. As V. Arnim points
out, Dio von Prusa, p. 414, this speech poses one of the most
difficult problems of Dio’s compositional technique. It has heen
3 Capelle, op. cit., p. 30 ff. Cf. Dio Or. 4,33. I call altention to the
following type of anecdotes, Antisthenes Gnom. Vai. 7: '0 auxò? IpcuxvjO-sir útto
xtvoj, xí xòv uíèv ÔtÔágaí, eítcsv eí |ièv 9-sois auxóv ou|iP'.oõv, cp'.Àóoo:pov. sl Sè
ãv9-pü)TCoi;, ^Yjxopa. Cf. Gnom. Vat. 2 (Antisthenes), 171, 192, 197 (Diogenes\
387 (Crates),
Cf. 7: èíxixíS-exat (sc. Deianeira) aüxq) xai oíov Ôv) xò xtõv y'ô-
vaíxtõv al|i’jXov xai xavoupYov oò Tzpóxspov àvyjxs xpiv íj stieiosv aúxòv xxÀ.
3 Cf., however, the Diogenes doxography, Diog. L. VI 72 d, p. 138 ff
above.
183
the subjecl oí a special monograph by P. FisCHER, De Dionis

Ghrysoslomi orationis terliae compositione et fontibus. We cannot
venture answers to lhe manifold questions which the speech raises.
We may, however, say in quite general terms that a work of
literature is not wholly a logical product, and we should beware
of too strict a logical approach. When, for instance, v. Arnim
draslically primes off large paris of lhe Ihird speech — §§ 9 11
(p. 41Õ f), §§ 12—24 (p. 417 f), §§ 58—61 (p. 421), §§ 128—132
(p. 425 f) — for lechnical reasons of composilion, this must be
regarded as a melhod only admissible in special cases where we
have unmislakalile indicalions of lhe intrusion into the text of
scholia or olher foreign matter. An author in composing his work
may draw on a wide range of literature stored up in his memory.
He may organise his material into a whole aceording to a detailed
plan. Bul perhaps more often the connections of the different parts
are purely associative. Such an associative melhod, so sensitive to
externai circumstances, obviously may oceasion serious violations
of logic. Bul it is equally obvious that the grace and charm of an
author often derive from the free flow of his thoughls and words
when he gives free rein to his ideas, narrates whatever oceurs to
him, and only in the last resort assembles his thought around his
theme. It looks as though Dio owes to such a method a great deal
of his art of exposition,
conversation between Sócrates and an
Or. 3 begins with ^
unknown person about the happiness of the Persian king, § 1-
Dio does not recur to this theme until § 29, and then there follows
an unbroken account of a conversation between Sócrates and his
unknown interlocutor lasting until § 42: xotaOxa pèv èxetvoç
XÉYeiv, TTpoxpÉTüCDV àei izpòç àpsxYjV xat psXxtouç Tcotwv xat ápxovxjxç
"/tal lot(í)xaç. ò'|i,ota Sè elp-^xaat Tcept àpx^Ç âciXetaç oí auxov,
d)ç olóv x£ êTcdpevot x^j aocpü)xáxi[j How rich this part is in
Gynic elements is shown by JoÊL, Sokr., II 374 ff. A. SoNNY, Ad
unknown
Dionem Ghrysostomum analecla, p. 160, suggests an
Socratic dialogue as its source. P. Fischer, op. cit., p. 26 f, con-
jectures that this is Antisthenic. Gf. also E. Weber, op. cit.,
p. 233,1, who compares this passage of Dio with Themistius
Ilepl ápsxíjç. E. Thomas, op. cit., p. 18 ff, discusses this section
® A similar theme forms lhe inlroduclion to Or. 6.

184
of Dio under the rubric De aperlis Antisthenis vesligiis >. Con-

sequently we may dispense with an enumeration of Cynic parallels
with the passage of Dio under discussion and proceed from lhe
hypothesis that a pre-Stoic, Socratic-Cynic source is the hasis of
Dio’s account in Or. 3, §§ 1 and 29—41."
The quesiion under discussion, as we have said, is lhe happi-
ness of the Persian king. Sócrates states that he cannot answer
the question put to him since he does not know the great king’s
cast of mind, (b; oOy. oíjxat '('.‘(yó\izyov ”ò z\)Oxi\iovzZv,
òíTZÒ yp\jrj(})\iáz(j)y vj TzóXewv '?/ '/ó)pa,ç, yj aXXojv àvD-ptÓTífov, éy.áa-o) oè
Ttapá T£ aO-oO y.xi z‘7^z aOxoO 5*.avo:ac. In 32 ff Sócrates assemhies
the attrihutes of real power and truc kingsliip and ils contrary
in catalogue form:
BaaiXsú::
a. 32»:
1. G(í)'S'poy/
2. à.'/dps:oz
3. õíy.xioz = iayxjpòz y-od |i .'(íaz'f,y êxü)v xõ) dvxi
5’jvaiuv.
4. {JLS-cà Y'-'tí)|r/)r Tzpxzzayy
b. ( .^ 39;:
vopqio)- \
oiy.aíwf —pocaxavat
I ■
sOvvwjjLtov
Y!.Xáv9pw7LOS
vójujjLo:;;
èTTijisXsr-ai èTzi auizffpíx y.at zm
= 5uvá|l: x£ |i£Y'.axó; èax'. xoti
nu[í'pépoyzi zG)y xpyo\iéy<j)y
pXG'.Á ; xAr^^●G)r.
£’joaí|itov
YpÓV’.|10Ç
p£“aotoo’jç zolç âXXotç zf^z aóxoO
eòoxi\Loyíxr, cf. Antisth. Xen.
Symp. IV 43.
Túpavvoí::
(t. (§ 33; cf. the corresponding numbers in the basileus cata

logue a and in the tyrant catalogue in Or. 1 below):
‘ The passage belween §§ 1 and 28 lias probably also an old source; cf.
§§ 9—10 and Or. (>2,.3.
185
2. Ò ■ AO'
1. àvÓTjTC-:
1. = áaO-cVáoÛipC^ T(ÕV <7'SÓOpCC TCSVYjTWV V."X.
-apávojio'
4. of üjiJpiv £—iy^£'.p(õv
b. 34: cí. the miml)ers in Or. 1 below):

1. acjvaTo: c-pY^'-' eTZiy.axaayirv
2. £“í.\)-’jjt'av ~aOaai
3. À'j7irjV à7^(í)C7auíl'ai = àCT0-£V?]Ç C-J-0- a‘pàòpcí
4. oO 5'JVá[L£VO- -OVOO' UTíOl-lSíVaL
o. à5'jva- cpdj3ov aTisXáaa:
In ^ 35 Socrales adds lhe rerieclion lhal lhe man wlio is even

woakcM' ihan sleep caiinol he 'ayupóc. He cannol even help him-
seir. slill less nthcrs. Wilh lhe lyranf calalogue b cf. Or. 49.9.
f. 40—41):
'ftAYjOGVC:
'fdoxprilixTo;
0^poa--/|Ç
7iapávo[io;
aOxòv o:o[L£vor a'jç£:v jiòvov
TiXzZizx ypY/[LaTa *A£XX-/ji.i£Vc;
li£Y-'^"^C "Àsiaxa; xap::G’j[i£Vc;
Yjòovát gOv. áv “Gxs el7zoi\i'. xòv xo'.oD-
pa\)'Ú[twr I XGV àpyoYZx Yj auxGZpáxopa Yj
●‘ .
a~GV(i)' , 0'.áYfi)v
* j3aa'.Xáa, -oXu
■ 5è jiãXXov xú-
ToO" b~^l^‘/.Ó0\JÇ, YjYOÚ|l£VG; OOÚXo-J:; pstvvGV zat XsuGXY^pa.
i:yj; aO"oD "pü^Y/C
oOoè TCGljLévO^ £t;1.£'.'/.O0í Ij((0V yÔ-oç
âXÀ* (auxòr) izpGiiC/' oâpTiáÇwv "áxI
Yi)'£Íp(0V
Oi' lhe saine lype as reriecled in lhe above catalogues is lhe

íirsl de.scrii)íion ol' lhe king and lyranl in Or. 1, §§ H—
l)egins wilh Homer B 205—6, and gives 1'urlher supporl to the
and
views he i.s expounding by a general refercnce lo olher wise
Irulhrul men, § 14: xaDxa Y«p ój-LGÍcoç xgT:; aXXoL?
ÜO‘pO'.r y.al àXYjô-éaiv àv5páG’-v. Flschkr, op. cil., p. 25 f, regards

186
this interprelation of Homer in Dio as Anlislhenic, a view ex-

pressed previously by E. Weber, op. cit., p. 229 ff (: »Profecto
tota interpretandi ratio Antisthenica esl», p. 231). A glance at the
catalogue-Iike e.xposition, in which the basileus is characterised by
the negation of a series of qualities which distinguish the tyrant,
discloses that it is in the main of the same type as the previously
quoted catalogues (the negated ideas are here included in a positive
form as characteristics of the tyrant).
BaaiXsúç:
pouXiúcGÔ-a'. Oíièp xõv àp)ô|i£vwv
(ppovxíÇsiy » » » Cf. the basileus catalogue b
Tüpoaáysiv xòv voOv aóxo) y.ai xocr above.
67wr//.óoi'
yo|i£’j^ y.a: 7:o’.[i7jy xw õvx*. Àawv Cf.lhe tyrant catalogue c above.
Túpavvoc:
(cf. the corresponding numbers in the tyrant catalogues a
and b in Or. 3)
a 1 àxoXaaxaíysiv
aTüa^ãy
a 1 áyoíaç
a 4 Opp£(i)ç
è|j.7í’.jiíi:Xá|i£yo:;
a 4 07C£pT/Cpayía!;
a 3 Tráor^ç àyo|xíaç
b 1 òp'(aX(^
b 3 XÚTcait^
b 5 cpóôiç Yj ({>uxY) x£xapayix£yr^
a 1 Yjooyaíç
b 2 £7ctS*uiitatç
éaxtáxcDp
Cf. Plat. Rep. 345 c.
Sacxu|i(í)y
y.a9-£ÚS£tv Cf. Or. 3,35.
paôjX£ty Cf. Or. 3,40.
It will be seen that the terms in the tyrant catalogues of Or. 1

and 3 are not merely synonymous but to a great extent identical,
which shows that we are dealing with a relatively fixed and
uniform representation of the tyrant. Dio concludes this section
187
with fhe íollowing words, § 14: ouSstç TwOXS TtovYjpòi^ Tcai àxóXaaxoç
y.ai '^tXox,pTj|xaxoc ouxs aòxô; éauxoO ysvéaôâi ouvaxôc ápx^v oòo’ èy^pa-
X7](: oOxs xtõv áXXwv oOosvó;, oò8’ saxai Twoxè èy.eZvoç PaaiXsúç, oòo’ av
Tcávxs; cpwatv "EXXtjvs? y.al ^ápâpot y.a: ávSpsç y.ai yvvaty.eç, xai
jiY] jióvov àv9-píi)7T:oí. S*au|iáÇtúa!.v aòxôv y.a: ÒTtay.oòwaiv, áXX’ oX x»
õpv’.9'£c 73£xó|jicyoi xal xà ^Y]p:a èv xote ôp£at jiTjSèv y]x-zov xôiv àv-
S-pwTwOJv auyxtop-^j x£ y.ai Troi^j xò 7TpoaxaxxóiJL£Vov. Cf. the tyrant
catalogue í- iii Or. 3 and Antislhenes in Stob. Aiith. III 10,41:
cptXápYupoe oòo£’ç àya^òe oòx£ paaiX£Òe oux£ èX£Ò^£poe. Other pa-
rallels also in Fisciihh, op. cit., p. 26,1.
This concliision to the first king and tyrant catalogue in Or. 1
shows quite clearly that what is aimed at is a definition of the
term basileus. The nian who does not possess the right qualities,
i.e. a character firnilj^ formed along individual-ethical lines, is not
a basileus at all, however great his power as regards externai
things. In Or. 4,24 we find a furlher short definition of the term:
oòoè laxt j3aaiX£Ú£iv xaxíbç oò jiãXXov y.ax&ç áya^òv stvat.® Or.
62,7 contaiiis the following definition: oõxe yàp áçptDv âaiXEÒç
Êaxat TToxé, oò píãXXov ^ xutpXòe 'fjyspwv óooO yévoix’ áv, oòx£ áStyoç,
oò jiãXXoy Yj y.aywy axoXiòe áyiaoç áXXou 7rpoaÔ£Ó|jL£yoç yayóyoc,
oõx£ 0£tXde, oò pãXXov y] Xéwy èXáoJOu Xa^wv í] atSyjpoç %Y]poO
y.al |ioXí|3oou |iaXaytí)X£poe.® The sanie is true of Or. 3: although
Xerxes is by externai standards the niost powerful of kings and
by his externai power can perform the most unbelievable things,
§ 30 f, he is àaO*£yéax£poe . . . xwv aepóSpa 7C£yi^xü)y xat jXYjSè §va
Y^ç X£y.xYj|X£V(oy [BwXov, 33, if he does not possess the moral
character outlined above. With this cf. Antisthenes in Xeii. Sjnnp.
III 8: Tí Y“P £t7T£V, èTít xtvt pÉYa çpoy£tç, d) ’Ayxto^£ysç; ’E7T:t
TcXoÒXtp, ECpT/. Ó |JL£V §Y] 'EppOYÉyi^Ç àVTQpEXO £Í TCoXÒ £17] aòxtj) àpYÒ-
ptoy. ó Sè àTz6i\Loae {lYjoè ôjSoXóy. ’AXXà y^v TcoXXYjy xéxxTjaat; Tawç
ày, ItpYj, AòxoXòxü) xoòxo) fyayY] y^voixo èYXovtaaaât.^ In Xen.
Symp. IV 34 ff Antisthenes sets himself up as the opposite of
® Cf. Kpict. III 22,34: àxuxTjÇ paotÀsàç oO ob pLÔcXXov yj ãxuxTjS S-sds.
® Fischer, op. cit., p. 25.
^ Cf. Diogenes Gnom. Vat. 182: 'O aàxóç lptoxyj9-slg ôtiò 'Apiaxínnoo xí aüxqi
Tcepieyévexo âx cpiÀoooifíaç sítcê’ xô TtXouxstv pTjôè ôpoXôv èyôyxa. Gnom. Vat. 180:
('O) aúxôí: èpcoxyjO-elg xíç èv ãva-ptúxois jc?.oúoioç et^sv ó aòxápxTjç, Good examples
of the motif Tísvfa — JiXoõxos in gnomologic literature in Gnom. Byz., Nos.
189—208. Cf. J. J. VAN Manen, Ilsvfa cn nXouxoç in de periode na Alexander,
p. 56 ff.
188
a lyrant. The stroiig anlitheses are the sanie in lhe lexls under
com pa riso n.
The basileus in Or. 1,12 íT is characterised partly by iiegaling
the qualities of lhe lyrant, partly by lhe positive social-elhical
terms we noted in the above catalogue. We find the saine social
elhics in the basileus catalogue b in Or. 3; ct\ lhe tyrant catalogue
c in the same speech wilh its comparison wilh the herdsinan. Such
a social ethics is of the simplesl possible kind, and it lies up wilh
homeric terminology. Parallel passages for lhe comparison wilh
lhe herdsman are quoled by G. Barner, Comparanlur inler se
Graeci de regenlium hominum virtutibus auctores, p. 13 f, bul il
can hardly be true that Dio is indebted to Plalo for the catalogue
Or. 1,12 ff »aul solum aut cerle potissimum», since the passage
quoted from Rep. 345 c contains no olher resemblance to Dio
1,12 ff than lhe comparison wilh the herdsman and lhe lermino-
logy SaiTupóva y.xi péÀXovxa éaxixGsod'Xi, whereas lhe passage
in Dio contains a complete catalogue which, as we have seen, is
of a relatively fixed and uniform type. The comparison wilh the
herdsman, especially of so simple and uncomplicated a kind as we
have here, was in all probabilily nol unfamiliar to a Homer
specialist like Antisthenes, as has been pointed out by Joel. Sokr.,
I 387 f. Cf. also Fischer, op. cit., p. 26.
Tbe representalions of the basileus and lyrant contained in the
catalogues we have cited have dose parallels in Or. 62, lispt jSacri-
À£Ía' y.xi x'jpavví5oç. V. Arnim, Dio von Prusa, p. 416, regards this
speech as a collection of excerpls from non-extant basileus
speeches. Above we cited a quotation from il which shows that
Or. 62 is also concerned with a definilion of the basileus; lhe term
^xousÚí: belongs properly only to the morally perfecl ruler. The
thesis in this speech is the individual-ethical xpystv éauxoO = ãp/siv
Tíávxwv áv9-ptí)7Cü)v. This thesis forms lhe basis of the catalogues,
which consequently assume lhe usual individual-ethical forni,
§ 2 ff;
Tópavvot;
7íávxü)v èTuâ’U|jLoOatv
cidíy.oL
oòos cívat Tsc. vó|iO’j<:) vo|iíÇo’jatv
OuSÉíwOXS TZXÓOVTXl XpUX(7)VX£r
189
oòoé”G-£ Twaúovxat (sc. y.axwç) Trotoõvxsç

oòoítzozz èji”tji7iÀavxai "íjõóiisvo'.
oòoèv àTcoÀsÍTwOua’. xwv oòôè v,aXCbz XeyoiJ-éviúv
TiàGi '/aXsTiaívouaiv
ouysyô)? òpYtÇovxat
BaaiXcúç:
oòosvòc è7i:'.t)’U|i.£T
cpsíocxai xwv YjOovã)v
oty.atóxspo!: xwv àXXwv, ãxs Tíãat Tcapé/tov xYjv ôtxatoaúvTjv
■íôsxai xol; Tidvotç, ôxi éxwv tiovsÍ
àYaTcà zoòz vó|xou;, ô'xi oò oéSotxs.
To Ihis \vc may add the terms cppóvTjatç, oixaioaúvY], ooizipo-

oúvYi, àvSpsía. In ^ 5 f we íind exempli gratia Sardanapallus,
who rulcd ovcr an immense realm but could not lay claim to
»kingship» anj' more than a mouldering corpse could: âaiXeíac
oè oúoèv Yjv auxòí Típoa-^y.ov, oO páXXov ^ xwv ayjTüopévwv xivl vsxpwv.^
If V. Arnim is right in believing that Or. 62 consists of a col-
lection of excerpts from lost basileiis speeches, this implies that
these last speeches conlained representations of basileus and tyrant
of exactly the same type as the catalogues \ve have quoted from
Or. 1 and 3.
In our introduction \ve suggested that Or. 3,1 and 29—11 is

prol)ably based on a pre-Sloic, Socratic-Cynic source. The repre-
sentation of the basileus in this passage coincides with the
description of the basileus in Or. 1,12—14 and with that in Or. 62.
The pre-Sloic character of these representations becomes perfectly
clear if we compare thein with Dio’s characterisation of the basi
leus in the later parts of Or. 1 and Or. 3. For these speeches have
a common peculiarity in that the representation of the basileus
takes on a more and more Stoic character. By means of this
Progressive »stoicisation» of the material we get a clear picture of
the process whereby the conception of the basileus developed from
an individual-ethical one with its consequent simple and uncom-
plicated social-ethical functions inlo a learned Stoic cosmology.
2 As regards Sardanapallus in Cynic lileralure, cf. Gerhard, Phoinix,

p. 182 ff and pass. (see Index).
190
In Or. 3,õl Dio begins a new exposition of the Iriie l)asileiis,

which is developed in connection with the Stoic idea of God as
the leader in the world state. The earthly hasilciis is wholly a
copy of Zeus-basileus, ó Tüpwxoc '/-al apiaxo; Dsór, S 50. Kverything
which the hasileus undertakes has thus divine motivation. Reli-
gious duties are primary, àpcxrj = oaióx*/]!:, v.olv.íol = ioépzix.
JoÊL, Sokr., I 374 ff, regards both this representation of the
hasileus, §§ 51—85, the section on 'x-.Xía, §§ 86—132, and the
passage at the end of the speech on hunting as the recreation of
the true king, as based on Antisthenes works aboiit ítóvo;. What
JoiEL regards as decisive is the number of parallels from Xeno-
phon in the passage from Dio, a criterion, he says, establishing
Antisthenic writings as common sources. Parallels hetween the
passage in Dio and individual Cynic dieta are in fact often striking,
e.g. § 83 and Antisthenes Stob. Anth. III 29,65 (cf. Athen. XII
513 a); § 97 and Antisthenes Stob. Anth. III, 1,28; § 110 and Diog.
L. VI 72; § 116 f and Diog. L. VI 12 and 105. J. Wegehaupt’s
thesis, De Dione Chrysostomo Xenophontis sectatore, p. 10 ff, that
the Xenophon parallels in Dio are direct citations from Xenophon
is rejected by Joêl, op. cit., II 391 ff, whose remark that so mosaic-
like a procedure is hardly conceivable, is sufficient to carry his
point. However, Joèl’s own views are scarcely more coiivincing.
In actual fact, the Cynic parallels cited by hini are communia bona
of Cynic-Stoic philosophy. Joêl himself also believes that the
Antisthenic sources were only known indirectly to Dio (op. cit.,
p. 391). But this already concedes the possibility, or rather the
probability, that the sources on which Dio drew were influenced
by later ideas. To this we should add the composition of Or. 3
with its clear division between the first and the second descrip-
tion of the basileus in §§ 42 and 50, where Dio quite plainly
indicates his desire to give a more complete portrayal of the basi
leus and one which does more justice to Trajan’s own government
{nepi oè XYjç eòoacp-ovóc xe %al ^staç %axaaxáa£ü)ç x-^ç vOv invApcL-
xoúaT/ç!) than the primitive comparison with the herdsman which
he had used previously. There is nothing in Cynic tradition
which suggests that this detailed, fully developed, and fully
thought-out religious cosmology and social ethics is Cynic at all,
still less Cynic in origin. It is a far cry to these theories from the
interesting but vague indications we possess of Antisthenes’ reli-
191
gious views. Cf. Theodor. Graec. Affect. Curat. I 14=MlGNE

LXXXllI 809 D: Kai ’AvTia^évYjç TTSpl xoO -S-soO xfiiv 6’Xtov ítzò
elxóvoç oò yvtopíÇsxat, òcp9*aX|i&tç oòx õpãxai, oôocvl soiy.e. AiÓTZzp
aòxòv oòo. ç èy-iiaí^sív èç Eixóvoç oóvaxai. Cf. also Diog. L VI 4
and (see abo ve, p. 166), Stob. Anth. II 31,76 (see above, p.
153,6). Other references above, p. 113, note 8. The list of works
in Diog. L. conlains no title which would indicate an exclusively
lheological conlent \vilh lhe possible exception of the ITspt àSixtaç
xal EÒaspsíaç. Julian’s inleresting account VI 199 B of Diogenes
religioiis views points in the same direction: eí 5ê, ôxi pYj TcpoaiQEt
pirjOE èô-EpáTTEUE xouç VEü)ç pYjSÈ xà á'(áX\i(x,xa [iyjSè xouç |3ü)|íoú;, otexat
XLÇ àÔ'EÓXYJXOC elvtXL aVJIXEtOV, OU% Òpâ^cõç VOptÇEf . . . e2 5è èvÓEt TTEpl
^£õv ôpô-wr, -i^pxEi xoOxo póvov* aòx^ Y*P aòxoòç èô-spáTrsuE x^
otooòç oljxai xà xtptwxaxa xwv êauxoO, xò yaôatwaa xíjv éaoxou
i}>u)r7]v otà xwv èvvotfiiv. Cf. also Diog. L. VI 51 (above, p. 153,6)
and Dio Chrys. Or. 6,31.
We incline rather to the view of those scholars who in their
trealmenl of the sources of the section under discussion find
evidence of Sloic influence. Fischer, op. cit., p. 27 ff, compares
Dio Or. 3 with Jiilian Or. 2 and comes to the conclusion that Jul.
II 86 a—92 c=Dio Or. 1,15—31=Or. 3,51 ff are all based on one
and the same Sloic source. H. Binder, Dio Chrysostomus iind Posi-
donius, p. 73 ff (Dio as a theologian), stresses the Stoic character
of Dio’s religious views as does G. Rudberg, Forschungen zu
Poseidonios. E. Thomas, op. cit., p. 27 ff, assembles extensive
extra-Gynic material from authors who wrote Tcspi jSaaiXstaç with
a series of parallels with Dio Or. 1,15—28, which itself constitutes
a parallel with Or. 3,51 ff. Thomas argues the thesis, although he
certainly goes too far in doing so, that Dio in the main based him-
self on later sources. The parallels with Plato, Demosthenes and
Xenophon are explained by Thomas — and by Binder, op. cit.,
p. 71 as due to stylistic reasons: the endeavour to give classical
form to a content of later date; the word-for-word parallels may be
secondary.
Thus the portraits of the basileus as presented by Dio in Or.
1,15 ff and Or. 3,51 ff are distinguished from those contained in
the preceding paragraphs by the religious spirit which suffuses
them. The description in Or. 1,15 is introduced by the following
words: saxt 8y] Tiptõxov pèv ô-eõív èTupEXYjç yai xò Saijióviov Tcpoxtixwv.
192
Similar is lhe inlrodiiclion lo Or. : “po)"ov |táv :)● LAYjÇ,

a T^Y/ávcov T.apx x)s(T)V o~z(ú'. y.a pt')“OV
É
y.a: 'xa/. a \l£paT:£ü ~Ò i)'£TOV, 0'j‘/ ÓlL0/.0''õ)V |iCVOV. àÀÀà y.a'
■xsvo: .va: \l 0-J', iva OY^ '/.at a-j sy.Ty “OÒ- y.a": aç-.av ap-
yov-ra:.Kach (jualily oT llic iej)rcsc*ntation of thc hasileus in Ihis
speecdi is íîven, as wc liave mcnlioned, ils own religious moü-
valion. Tlius lhe ki ng’s care lor men is enjoined iipon him O-ò
■zcO >iz‘'ÍG~o'j His 7:povc:a is a copy ol' lhe divine -póvc:a.
His alliliidc to \vicl\ed men is llie same as lhat ol' God. Iii«j
vot is a copy ol' liie SLin’s, a syml)ol (){■ G()d's uticcasinír
endeavour ô-y^pia: £vsy.£V àvi)-pü)7:o)v y.a: ■j.'"’ Tlie represcnla-
tion of 7ZÓ'/' is clearlv ulilitariíin. d'he molive foi- llie thesis .ss
59 y.a: y.a: ’j“V(o y.a:
*:ti)v Y(Covojv x'ssy.~õc'/
i/.áy.rj-x "poa y.-£CV — is nol doclrinaire ascelicism, Iml a dc-
mand I)v thc diilies of a king wlúch rcíiuire àv5ps:a,
and 'ppóvY^c?:’:. Tliis is requircd
of every kini^ to maintain his
s 60: -cao) ‘fz
position, and tlic conclusion runs, y.p “^V iL£-à
y.a: ao:y.:a tav-a “aO-a
5:y.a:o'7’jvYjÇ y.a: àpsTY/? Y| ixs"à 7ZovY,p:a'"
Y,&£U£:v.
I . o*!)'/.o0v y.a: Y/c:ova á.'/X‘'vyf, ~òv ,j:ov :va: -oD âvaD-oO
jja-jv/.sojç.
The ideas propounded in Ihis poilrayal ol lhe hasileus re-
semble thosc of Xenophon Mem. 11 1, yel we liiid no ír;,ce
Xenophon‘s text of lhe religious niotivaiion of lhe king's aclivity
which seis its stamp on Dio's representalion. This is a decisivc
thesis of a common Anlislhenic source.‘
ohjection lo Joel‘s
The similarily, then. in lhe exordia provides reasons for
finding a parallelism belxveen lhe represenlalions of lhe hasileus
in Or.' 1.15 ff and Or. 3,51 ff- U would, however, ])o of value lo
find furlhcr evidence for this puralleli.sin, Jjccause, aparl froni
Ihi.s 1'eligiou.s exordiuin, lhe lepiesenlation ol lhe king in Qj.
1,15 ff caiinol so clearly be defined as Stoic as llial of Or. 3^55^ ff.
In aclual fact lhe represenlalion in Or. 1.15—85, oecupios an
inlermediate position in lhe threc dcsciiiilions ol lhe hasileus cou-
lained in Ihis si)eech, nol nien.-ly becati.se of ils i)lace in lhe coin-
posiliojj, biil aiso r't.s regaids il.s conlenl. Tlie following is a brief
cafaíogue of tlie maiii lerms and Ihomes of Ov. 1,15 28:
* ^ õ/. Cf. S "'i h a))oiit llic MIM, ll 'áv; -fjr.o'') Y« íoaÀstav tfaíy,
't; ãv Tíáví loxDpáv.
SoIxTulcs, II 381.
193
J? lõ: \)£(T)V £“’.|1sXtQÇ

í; 17: àvv)p(í)7:iov èTuixsXslxat with the herdsman simile
20: Yjjispoc, cfiXávS’ptúTCOç, tXscoç, Tüpàoc
í? 21: '^^.XóTTovoc contrasted with cpiXi^Sovoç and (fiXo^p-îiaxo?
Íí 22: TiaxYjp xwv àp5(0[i£va)v
S 23: sOspYsxòiv T^0£xa'.
Jí 20: ÍTzXózrtZ y.a: àXiQÔÊta = âaiXtxòv v.al çpóvt|iov
Íí 27: 'piÀóxnxor, 7üoX£|uy,óç — £tpY]vty.óç
5^ 28: '^'.À£xa*.po<:, '.piXoTroXtxYjc» cpiXooxpaxutíXYjç with the lierds-
maii simile.
Tliis descriplion of lhe basileus leaves us in some dòubt
whelher il should be connecled with the preceding inlroduclõry
descriplion conlained in §§ 12—14, or whether the exordiuni,
which resemJ)les lhal of Or. 3,51, poinls to a similar Stoic source.
Wegehaupt, op. cit., p. 2 ff, points out a number of parallels
belween Xenophon and Or. 1,15 ff. Thomas, op. cit., p. 23, also
States: Ilaque facile si quis tantum singulas sententias anim-
adverlit, Antisthenem fonlem fuisse suspicetur.» However, Tho
mas’ siiggestion, op. cit., p. 21, carries conviction, namely that
§§ 11b (quotation from Homer)—14 form a separate section, a
sorl of èy.zpoTzri xou Xóyou offering an interpretation of lhe lines
of Homer quoted. § 15 resumes after this digression the proposi-
tion of § 11 a, and ils source is quite different from the inserlion
§§ llb-14.
Bul while no decisive answer can be given to the question,
it is nol essenlial to our purpose. Even if it appears probable that
Or. 1,15 ff and Or. 3,51 ff are based on the same or similar Stoic
sources, we cannot deny to Anlisthenes lhe possibility of having
given expression to the general religious views of which Or. 1,15
also gives evidence.'^ In Or. 53 Dio gives us some more Informa
tion about Antisthenes’ interpretation of Homer, and the Homeric
scholia also provide some examples of it.® It was in this matter
that the Stoies were the heirs of Antisthenes,^ and a sort of com-
pendium of these (Antisthenic-) Stoic, Homeric ideas about the
^ Cf. pp. 166 and 191 above.

® a I, Dindorf. Cf. Dio Or. 61: an Antisthenic Homer-interpretation?
Cf. the fragments collecled in Mullacii, Fragm. Phil. Gr., II, p. 277 ff. Cf.
V. Arnim, op. cit., p. 168.
^ Cf. Barth-Goedeckemeyer, Die Sloa, p. 21.
13
194
basileus is provided by Or. 53,11 1'; cf. Or. 1,38 and 4,39 ff. Or. 2
contains a full characlerisation of the basileus on Homeric lines:
on this see Wegehaupt, op. cit., p. 47 ff, and Thomas, op. cit.,
p. 59 ff. The speech has nothing to do with Cynic Iradition. ün-
forlunately the scholia provide no Information about Antislhenes'
interpretation of Homeric ideas about the basileus.
The question assumes a different aspect when we turn our
attention to the third description of the king in Or. 1, §§ 33—47.
The cosmological section, § 42 ff, ÒTzkp xõy oXctív xíjç oiGty.Vjaswç,**
is purely Stoic in character, with its theory of the world-soul and
its doctrine of man as integral part of the divine cosmos, to which
he must conform; cf. SVF 11,191 ff and Cic. De Nat. deor. II 13,
136 ff (not completely cited in SVF II, 193,34 and 332,38). We
find parallels for this cosmology in Dio Or. 36,21 ff and Or. 40,35
ff.® Binder, op. cit., pp. 51 ff and 74, refers to Posidonius; so
also Thomas, op. cit., p. 55 f. The first part of this description of
the basileus, §§ 37—41, consists in the main of an enumeration
of the epithets applied to Zeus, together with an allegorical inter
pretation. This section has an almost word-for-word parallel in
Or. 12,75 f. We have no Cynic parallels for such name allegories.
Wegehaupt, op. cit., p. 47, compares with this the pseudo-
Aristotelian IIspL xdajiou 8, 401 b. Binder, op. cit., p. 43, also
considers Posidonius as a possible source.
The key words in the above-quoted catalogues of king and

tyrant are tcr/upoç and àaôsvYjç. The man who is ^póvtjxoç is
loyupóç, an Antisthenic thesis probably elaborated by an allego-
risation of Heracles’ The àad-évsta of the tyrant is described
by Antisthenes in Xen. Symp. IV 36 f: Tistvwai )(p7]p,áx(üv, oi’ IvSstav
. . . xXÍTZxouaiy, y.xX., -f] áyav xaXsTiYj vóaoç.^ It is perfectly clear
that this view is intimately connected with Antisthenes’ peda-
gogical theories, which were discussed in the preceding section of
this chapter, as will be seen from a glance of the catalogues of
virtues and vices quoted on p. 161 f. The terminology applied to
ó TieTTaiosupévoç is the same as that applied to the basileus. The
8 A Stoic term; cf. Plut. De Stoic. rep. 9=Mor. 1035 C=SVF III 17,7.
0 Cf. V. Arnim, op. cit., pp. 476 ff, and 487 f.
* Cf. p. 36 above.
2 Cf. p. 187 f above.
195
clivine 7üaio£Ía presupposes S^sía xai paaiXixTj cpúaiç. On the other

hand oí áTzociÒsuzoi, for vvhom Antisthenes cites Alcibiades as an
example, are -upávvotç 0'jioioi xai ttoXò The parallelism
in the terminology is by no means confined to purely individual-
ethical coiicepts. In Or. 69, p. 165 ff above, we found examples of
the same primitive social ethics as we encounter in the basileus
catalogues with their herdsman similes. The expression iised of
the Scylhians in Or. 69,6 — otxaícüç xat xaxà vójiouç TCoXtxsús-
od^cu — is also the term applied to the true king in Or. 3,39:
yojjLÍjitúç xaL Stxaíwç TzposGzxvou.
The portrait of the basileus which we have encountered in
the material quoted hitherto has been that of a king with pro-
nounced individual-ethical qualities, with simple, uncomplicated
social functions illustrated by the herdsman comparison, by the
father figure and by Homeric figures of a different kind. In other
words, he is an idyllic type who belongs historically to Xeno-
phon^s portrait of Gyrus. If in spite of the scanty evidence we
credit Antisthenes with this representation of the basileus, it is
probable that Antisthenes did not elaborate it in his studies of
Gyrus but rather in his interpretations of Homer, and was in-
fluenced in so doing by the ethical approach to political problems
which dominated both Plato and Xenophon.
But in his writings Dio presents a further portrait of the king

which we must now consider, namely f/ie basileus as a solitary,
poor and siiffering figure. This portrait is modelled on Diogenes,
but probably originated in the works of Antisthenes.
The model for this type of basileus was Heracles. We have
already discussed the scanty Gynic evidence for this. Among the
multifarious elements in the portrait of Heracles a prominent
place in mythology and allegory is occupied by those which
describe his manifold sufferings. In Dio. Or. 1,59—65 we have
a summary of the most important themes in this picture of
Heracles: solitariness, nakedness, poverty, homelessness, suffering
(Tcávxwy iiáXtaxa èTtóyet). Yet with all this Heracles was the son
of Zeus and worthy of kingship; cf. Epict. III 26,32: ó 8’ 'HpaxX^ç
x^zxGr^ç, %ai 6’aXáxxyjc ápx^v xat f)Y£|i(l)y 7)y, xaâpxYjç àSixtaç
xat àyo{itac, etaaYtOY£Í>ç 5è StxatoaúyYjç xat óatòxTjxoç- xat xaOxa
èizoCei xai Y^l^yô? xat póyoç. The double aspect presented by the
196
characlerisation in Dio I, 59 ff implies a reaclion against this

portrait of the basileus. Whether this reaction took placc within
or oulside of Cynicism cannot be determined.
Now in Dio we find several examples of a portrayal of lhe
basileus which relate to this conceplion of Heracles. In Or. 9 Dio-
genes plays the part of the suffering basileus, § 8 f: xtvèc jxèv oov
auxòv âô-aóiJLaÇGV ó; ao'.ç(í)xaxov Tcávxwv, xtal 0£ jiacVEO^-ai èòóv.
TüoXXoi 0£ y.axscppóvouv 6)^ TCXwyoO xs xai ouosvÒ!; àçcou, x’.vèç o
èXoioópouv, ol oè 7cpox;yjXay.tÇ£'.v è7i£y£Ípouv, òaxã piTixoOvxE'; Tzpò xwv
7ÜOOWV (úOTzep xocç y.oaív, oi oè xal xoO xpí^tovo^ TjTrxovxo TcpoatóvxEç,
TíoXXoi oè oòx £t(i)V àXX’ YjYaváxxouv, y.aS*á7t£p "Oixr^poç ’^rôLV xòy ’Oôua-
aéa 7rpoa7ía'Ç£tv xouç jAVYjax-íípaç' xày.Etvov Tipòc òXíYa? Yj|i£par £y£YX£Ív
x^v ày.oXaoíav aOxwy y.al x^y Oppty, ó ôè ôjioior Yjy èy ácTcayxt' xto
õyxi Y«p èwy.£t pao-.X£r y.al oegtíóxYí, TixojyoO axoXvjy è/oyxi,
y.í3l7t£ixa èy àyopaTcóootç x£ y.al ôoóXoiç aòxoO axp£"‘-'‘^|i£yo) xpu'iõ)ai y.al
àYyooõaiy ôaxcç èoxí, y.al paocwc çépoyx'. ji£9’úoyxa^ àyOpwTiouç y.al
ixatyoiiéyouç Otíò àYyolaç y.al à|i,a\)-íaç. The lilcrarv protolype for
this is Odysseus. As we have pointed out eaiiier, Antislhenes, in
his extant declamations »Ajax» and »Odysseus», presenled a series
of t5rpologically important concepts which characlerise lhe Gynic
type of behaviour: lhe slave’s garb, outward defencelessness,
humility, solitariness, suffering (TioXúxXac!). In lhe Dio passage
we find a similar situation; Odysseus’ homecoming in the guise
of a slave. Diogenes surpasses Odysseus in patience, but lheir
situation is the same: the true king in slave’s attire among a crowd
of noisy, arrogant, and drunken men.^
The theme of self-abasement w’hich is central to Antislhenes'
»Ajax» and «Odysseus», recurs in Dio in a few places apart froin
3 On several points, the Odyssey olTers exam pies of how Odysseus is

abuscd:
P 218 ff and u 178 ff bj' the herdsman Melanthius; p 445 11 and ç
288 ff by Antinous; r 351 ff and - 66 ff by Eurymachus; u 292 11 by Ctesip-
pus; u 376 ff by all the suitors; ●: 66 ff by Melantho. As to the Dio passage
quoted cf. the following, Gnom. Vat. 181: A-.OYsvyj; s»aa-/.ev -fjaovTiv ãÀrâ-ivvjv
eiva: xô xTjv èv íjouxíq: v.aX íXapóxr/x: sxe:v, àvso 8è xoúxo’j oúSè xà MíSoo
oú5è xà Kpoíaotj xpyjpaxa (bçéÀciia eívaf âàv 5é xis '<1 ÚTtèp psYáÀou vj ÚTisp
liixpoD ÀUTT/ixai, oüx 6Ü5aí|iü)v, àXXà xaxoSaípwv èoxfv. Cf. Stob. Anth. IV 39,21.
Stob. Anth. IV 39,20: Eúdaipovía y«P soxi xô eòcppaíveaa-at â/.r/Sl-iviòs xai
UrjSáTcoxe Xu7tsIo9-at, âv óxoíq) 5’ àv xotsw ^ xaipò> % xtr. Stob. Anth. 1\^ 44,71:
IlepiTxeaòjv 5’ au xta: ouiiTíxtópaaiv sXsy®^’ y®* ^ ãppsvfor Tcpo-
saxîxas" èv 8è xoí<- xoioúxoir xatpoíg vmí xspexíÇojv âvexwpsi.
197
Or. 9,8 i. ^^hich we have quoted. We prcvioiisly noted Or, 8,35:

Hcracles cleans the Augean stables as a deliberate protesl “pò* "“qv
Sóçav.^ We lind a similar exaniple in Or. 47,4. When Heracles
had caplured Egypl, Libya and several other counlries, and had
made liimsell king of all these peoples, hc returned to Argos and
deigncd to clean lhe stables of Augeas ig àXÀa ToiaOxa V 'paOÀa
■/.ai xa-s-wvá. Fhis is nsed as an example to philosophers not to
wilhdraw írom lhe trivial or ditficult duties of polilics despile
lhe slatemenl 6: Tiáa: cpiÁoaóçoir £00 Xa/ èv x"?!
Tiaxpíot o Al lhe end of Ihis speech Dio presents an anti-
thesis belween lhe lyrant and lhe philosopher king which has a
lypological connection wilh the present context. Dio himself has
been acciised oí behaving like a tyrant in Priisa. He rejects this
as ridiciilous and describes how a real tyrant behaves;® lhen
follows, § 24 t, the descriplion of Dio himself as a Cynic philo
sopher which we ciled above p. 164. This hiimilily, whelher Iriie
or false we cannot say, oflen recurs in Dio*s self-portrails. It
belongs lo the externai atlribntes of the lype and has a literary
or mylhological molivalion, as is shown hy the above-qnoted
examples and by lhe quotalion from Antisthenes in Or. 47,25.
The j)hilosopher in his simple Iribon musl siibmit to siiffering and
ignominy. In Or. 47 Dio shows by a series of examples lhal this
innsl be so. The example of Heracles and lhe quotalion from
Antisthenes in lhe same speech show thal il was acliially the diily
of lhe philosopher to submil lo this treatment, whereby he shows
himself as the true king. In Or. 66,23 Dio maintains thal the man
who is free in other respects is also free in the face of abuse, and
Heracles is (piôled as an example: xòv 'HpaxXéa xòv xoO Aiòz ítóaouc
o:£t, j3Xaa'pYi|JL£Tv, xoòç pèv (bc otXwTra, xoòç oè w; ^íaiov, xoòc 5è v.at
|io’.)(òy X£Y£tv ^ x£-/cvoxxóvov; àXX’ optoc oòSèv aòx(T) xoúxtov £[i£X£V,
xxX, We íhid an indicalion of the same lheme in Or. 54,3:
Sócrates is abiised, but his wisdom persisls.'
●« P. 60 f.
® As regards Dio’s personal background, cf. v. .Arnim, op. cit., pp. 334 f,‘
338 f, 353 ff.
*' èyü Y“P èTTíoxanat xtüv xapávvtov spya xocaãxa. iiotxsús"-' ã/.Ào-
xp{«s y-ai 8ia:p9-s£psiv Ttalôa;. ãv9-p(b;co’ji: èÀsu9-épous xútíxsiv (xal) atx£Çsa9-ai
Tiávxtov óptbvxtüv, xoí); 8è xal oxpspXoüv, oíov slç Çéovxa Xé3v3xa xaO-iávxa;, àXXoaç
8è xaxamxxoõvxas' d)v oOSèv sy“ teoi*-
' Cf. Or. .57,4: (õaTtep oOv sl Xo'.8opt5v aóxòv v.ai XéYWv õxi pr/SsTxoxe pv38slg
198
The anecdote literature shows that this »ahu.se > Iheine is an

inseparable component of the Cynic type of behaviour. Typicai
is the frequent introduction to the anecdotes: ’0v£t5’.^ójjL£vÓ5 tcox£,
'OvetotÇovxo; aòxw xtvoç.® The Cynic is reviled for his poverty,
for consorting with oí Trcvr^poí, for his humble origin, and for his
appearance and demeanour. Dio Or. 8,36 presents an example
along the lines of the anecdotes.® All this inay be described as a
non-Iiterary undergrowth in the Cynic tradition whicli may send
up isolated shoots even in so pretentious a writer as Dio Chryso-
stomus. In this connection we should mention a trait which seems
to be constant in anecdotes of this kind and characterises aiso
Dio Or. 8,15 f and 9,8 f. The phiIosopher’s atlitiide to externai
suffering and difficulties is characterised by the expression paôíojç
çépetv, Or. 9,9.^ Diog. L. VI 7 preserves a programmalic pronoiin-
cement by Antisthenes which touches on this point: 7iap£yw£X£Ú£xó
X£ y.ay.wç àv,oúovxa.<; y.apx£p£tv jiàXXov ^ £t Xíô-oir xtç jSáXXoixo.
The Cynic’s answer to an insult or a downright act of violence
merely takes the form of ironical, disarming words, or at its best
a comical aclion which casts ridicule on the offender. He never
enters upon a direct defence, still less does he meei violence with
■^gfíoasv au"^ ouiiPoo/.súaaaO-ai Tispi (lyjôsvòç êiJis/.Xe r.po-pSTZzi'/ -cv 'Ayaiiéiivova

xai xòv ’AxtÀXéa 7i£í9-so9-ai xote obv, àv wxvtjos Xoiõopstv (sc. Nestor).
Cf. V. Arnim, op. cií., p. 410 f.
® Cf. my article, Eine hellenistische Parallele zu 2. Kor. G,3 //, p. 24,1.
9 xaüxa 8è /.éyovxoç xoõ Aioyévooç, Tteptíoxavxo tcoJ.ãoI y.ai xavu -íjSéttíç
'fjxpoõivxo xÉóv Xóytüv. èvvoiQaag 3è olpat xó xoõ 'HpaxXéoue, "oõg páv Àóyoue
àcpi^xe, '/,0L\icd ôs xaO-sÇóiievog èizol&i zi xtôv ãôógtov. sõO-õr oò'/ oi -oÀXoi xaxs^pô-
vouv aõxoõ xai paívsoS-at, Icpaoav, xal TcáÂiv sO-opóôov aoîoxaf, xaO-áxsp èv xs/.-
|iaxt gáxpaxot, xòv õ5pov oõx ópüvxsç. It is interesting to see how Julian took
pains to explain the ãvaíôeta in the Cynic tradition. He has perhaps given the
most correct view of this phenomenon, declaring that the Cj^nic àvafôsta had
a pedagogic purpose, VI 202 B í: exei xai Acoyévyjg stxe ãxéxapSev sl'xs ãxs-
xâxYjosv ÊÍxe àX?.o xt xoioõxov êxpagsv, âoxsp ouv Xéyoyaiv, èv ãyop^., xòv sxeívwv
xaxüiv xõcpov èxoíet, SiÕáoxwv aõxoúe, ôxt xoÀXqi <fau/.dxepa xal x«^-s7ctí)xspa xoúxtov
èxcxTjSsúouoi. xà pèv yáp èoxtv “íipív reàot xaxà tpúaiv, xà Ôè (sc. xà fitatóxaxa xal
pTjôèv -í)pav olxeta x^ çúoet, xpi9g®'^‘»v ápxayal. ouxoqjavxíat, ypa9al ãôixo'.,
Ôiíbgetç âXXcov xotoúxwv oupqjsxwStôv xpayiJtáxtov) ws srtog elxstv oõSsví, xávxa 8è
èx Staoxpoqp^s èxixrjSsúsxat. After having disputed the authenticity of Diogenes’
writings, Julian says, § 186 C: xal el Aioyévoyg 8v) eIsv, oõõèv ãxoxòv èoxt xòv
ooqjòv xaíÇsiv, èxel xal xoõxo xoXXol lyaívovxat xwv çiÀooò^pcov xofiâavxee. Cf.
187 A, 191 B ff, 199 A í, 202 A.
‘ Cf. p. 196, note 3 above.
199
violcMice." The historical foiindation of anecdotes of this kind is

naliirally in general dubioiis, but behind these anecdotes, which
are praclically uniform in tendency, Ibere lies a considered philo-
sopby to wbicb tbe above qiioted pronouncement of Antisthenes
alludes/*
We find in a few places in Dio veritable catalogues of suf-
fering and struggle, tbe most striking one in Or. 8,15 f. Diogenes
has gonc to tbe Isthmian games not as a spectator but because he
is bimself an àYwvtoúpsvoc* To tbe question wbo are bis àvxa-
yioviaxat Diogenes replies, 13: xoòç tióvou::, scpYj, paXa ?ayûpoúç xs
%(xi àvtxT/xouc OtvÒ àvô ptí);:iov Ê|i,7ü£-Xrja|jLévü)v y.od xsxucpcújiévwv yaixàç
|i£V Yjjiápa- òXcLz £a9’tóvx(úv, £v 6è xaic vuÇc ^syXÓvxwv, OtwÒ 8è àvopõv
i^xxüJjxÉvour XsTixíüV X£ y.a: àaápxtov v.xi xwv aYJTjXwv xàc yaaxépxz
|iàXXov £vx£xix7j|jL£v(i)v. At aii carlier point, 8, Diogenes had given a
pregnant description of tbe man of corrupt soul in a catalogue
of vices wbicb is coucbed in tbe same style as tbe tjn-ant cata
logues cited above: ãcppovo? y.xi àixaS-oOc xal SetXfjç xat
●8’paasíaç xai (ptXTjOÓvou xaL àvsX£u9’£pou xal òpyíXyjç xal XuTiYjpàç
xat TtavoúpYOD ocai Trávxa xpÓTZOV oisupôâpiiáv/jç. The opposile of
this lypc of man is ó '(swxioç àvYjp, whose struggle is described
in 55 15 f.^ Tbe diffcrent tbemes in this diatribe are as follows:
1. ó 8È àvYjp ó Ysvvaíoc
2. YjYSixat xoòç ttóvouc àvxaYCOViaxàç pEYíaxouç,
3. xal xoúxotc àsl cptXst xai xy|v vúxxa xat xy]V
Yjiiépav . . .
4. OTièp £ÒSat|iovtaç xa: àpsx^; Tzapà Ttávxa xòv [3tov . . .
5. Xijiü) cptXovstxoOvxa xal '^úxst xal Sítjjoç 67io|iÉvovxa,
5
6. xav di-Q jj,aaxtYOÚ|jL£Vov . . . xal x£p,vó|i£yov xal xaópevov
7. y.xpxspelv (xT/Sev jiaXaxòv èvStSóvxa*
8. Tisvtay 5è xal cpuYY}v xal àooÇtav xal xà xoiaOxa
2 Cf., howevcr, Diog. L. VI 42, an unusual type of anecdole.
3 Gnomologic sayings Tíspi ôpy^g were popular, good examples of which
we find in Gnom. Byz., Nos. 252—266.
“* I have treafed this catalogue, comparing it wilh the catalogue in 2. Cor.
6,3 ff, in my article mentioned above. The Christian sufferings, noted by
St. Paul, are to a great degree the same as those of the philosopher who has
broken with lhe world.
® Cf. SVF III 154,3: sívat xòv aitooSaíov paxápiov. xav õ d>aÀáptSoç xaõpos
èxv} xaiòpsvov.
200
9. |X7]osv 0£tvòy aOxõ) à)Aà Tzávxj y.oO-â,'’

10. %at TCoXXáy.tç TíaíÇstv èv aòxoTç
11. xòv áyopa xòy xéXstoy.
The content of this Tróyoç-concept is thus the three Iriads
5,6 and 8, so arranged as lo form a climax. The eudaemonistic
motivation of the moral struggle (4), the endurance, (3,7), the
absence of effort and strain in this struggle, in which on the
contrary he engages with ease and joy (9,10), are all typical Cynic
traits for which it would be superfluous to quote examples from
the anecdote literature. The noble man who is also perfect (1,11)
is identical with the true king. Cf. the identification Diogenes-
basileus in Or. 9,9: ó oè ô|AOioç Yjy ây ãTcayxr xw õvxt. '(òcp èfóxst.
paaiXst y.xX.
A catalogue of the same kind as the above is fund in Or. 9,11 f.
Diogenes puts on a crown for his victory in the moral struggle
with his opponents whom he describes in the following manner:
o Ô£, üoXXoúç Ys, sItzzV, áyxaYWVtcfxàç y.ai. [iz'(áXò\JZ, oòy^ ola xaOxá
èaxt x« àvopáícoSa xà yOy èyxaO^-a TcaXaíoyxa y.cd 5iay.£Úoyxa y.ai
'cpé)'oyxa, xí) Trayxi 0£ )(aX£7r(i>x£pou;, Ksyíay y.ai y.ai àSoçtay,
£XL 0£
òpYT^v X£ yai XÚTCTjy yai è7r'.â'i»iu'ay y.ai tpóôy y.ai xò Tráyxwy
ajiaywxaxoy ô*7]ptoy, UTüouXoy yai jiaXây.óy, YjooyVjy yj oòõsiç g’jx£
'cõy EXXiQywy oõx£ xioy pap^ápwy àçtoí [iáy£a0’at %cd 7t£pt£Íyai x*^]
y-pcczqooLç, àXXà 7cáyx£ç ííxxYjyxai y.ai à7C£ipT^y.aai Tcpòç xòy áy^ya
xoOxoy, Ilépaat y.ai Míjoot y.ai Sópot y.ai May.£5óy£c ‘/-ai ’A0-r^yatoi
■/.ai Aay.eoaijióyioi, TrXrjv èjioO. The theme of crowning has a pa-
rallel in Gebetis Tabula 22 f. EòoatiAoyta crowns the victor in the
struggle against ’'AYV0ta, IlXáyo?, AÚTrr], ’Oôup|ióc, <l>(.XapYupía,
Ay,paaía, Kay.ia. Cf. also Dio Or. 66,5: the victor’s crown at the
games represents only a futile ambition.^ Or. 1,13 provides a
parallel with the catalogue in Or. 9,12; see the tyrant catalogue
above p. 186, where exactly the same enumeration occurs with
the exception of the triad TCEyiav y.ai rpuyqv y.ai àooçíav, which,
however, recurs in the same form in Or. 8,16. We haye a similar
enumeration in the tyrant catalogue Or. 3,34; see the tyrant
catalogue b above p. 185. I remind the reader that both the tyrant
® Ct. Gnoni. Byz. 238: Ilãoa ouiicpopà xoú^vj doxiv âv8pl hy) xoú^q).
’ Gf, Slob. Anlh. II 31,33: 'AvxioS-évYjg ô Sw/.paxixòg <piÃóao:pog spooxvjfí-elg
Ú7CÓ xivor, Tcotos oxé;pavoç xáXXtaxôç èaxtv, eÍTCsv ó ànó noudeiaç. Cf. also Diog.
L. VI 41.
201
catalogues quoled are probably to be regarded as cxtracts from

pre-Stoic, Cynic works aboiil lhe basileiis.
In Or. 14.18 \ve lind lhe well-known paradox ÒoOÀo^ |iãÀXov
âXs-jQ-spo- zoO iisYáXou ^xT.Àéo)' and jSaaiÀsúç = ooOXor. v. Ahnim,
Dio von Prusa. p. 279, mainlains tbat this speech is oiir best and
fullest source íor lhe Sloic doclrine of lhe freedom of lhe wise
man. Dio shows tbat freedom is knowledge of what it is per-
missil3le to do and what not, in olher words knowledge of good
and evil. Only tbat man is free who possesses this conscioiis. moral
cppóvvja'.;. After this definilion in § 18 a lhere follows lhe above-
mentioned paradox which leads Dio to show tbat a prisoner can
be a king. He Iries to show tbat tbe idea of kingsbip does not
necessarily cxcbide physical captivity. He quotes, besides one
historical examj)le, lhe mytbological figures of Cronos and Odys-
seus. The lext reads, § 21 f; 6 ys ziov ilstõv âatX£Ò^ ó Tzpíozor y.zi
Tcpsa^úzazoç õéoszaí, . . . y.zi jià Aía (>t:' èy^S-poO àoíxto' tzz-
d'óvzz zoOzo, zXX’ Ò7ZÒ xoO Sixaioxáxou xal cpiXxáxou, 6y/Xov 6'xi. d);
j3aatX:xà xa: (juii'sépovzz èy.sívto 5p(T>vcoç. oí õè zoOzo j.ièv zyvooOGi
y.zi oudénoz' av o5Yj8’£t£v Tíxtoy^òv 9j õaaiKÓzr^v rj áooçov YsvÉaââi |3a-
aiXéa, y,zízoí zòv ’0duaaéz àxoúoyx£; Sxi Tixa))'©; wv xai xoò; |ivr,axf)-
pzr ztzdjy oõoèv yjzzgv ^zgUsò; fjv y.zi zrjç oty.ízç xúpio'* ó oè ’Av-
xívouc ‘/íai ó EOpúiiax©:, ouc "OpTjpo; tbvó|ia^£ ^zai/Jzç, aôXioi xa:
oi)axux£tç' àXXà xaOxa páv, wç £*pYjv, zyyooOGr gtjIisíz õè aòxotc ” pi-
xtSéaaí zizpzr xal Gyfjjzzpz y.zi ÔiaSigjiaxa. |iyj XáS-wa: âaiXEtç õv
A clearer picture of this curious conception of the basileus with its
mylhological and literary examples could hardly be desired. A
slriking example of how great was lhe need for mythological
models and how drastically the available material had to be recast
for this purpose, is provided by the statement that Cronos had to
suffer |3aatX'vxà xat aupcçépovxa, and that Zeus acted in this way
out of love.^ Still clearer is the use of Odysseus as an illustration
to set up the antithesis of the true king versus the false kings;
cf. the above-mentioned Or. 9,8 f. Dio’s description of the type
OÒÔÉTTOX’ av OÍ7j8’£l£V 7lXt0)(ÒV Yj 5£ajló)XYJV TQ áOoÇoV Y2V£a8-at
^zGiXéz — is in full agreemenl with the theme SoOXoç = áp/^tov
in the story of Diogenes’ being sold into slavery.®
® Cf. Plal. Eutyphr. õ e f.

° Cf. pp. 118 ff and 170 ff above.
202
We give' a brief summary of the varioiis lhenies in Dio’s

porlrayal of the suffering basileus:
1. the basileus abases himself and performs xà tpaOÀa as a
protest Tzpòz xYjv oóçav;
2. the basileus is reviled;
3. the basileus must endure physical suffering;
4. the basileus must engage in the most severe moral struggle;
5. the basileus=a king disguised as a slave.
It is important to establish the above characterisation of the

suffering basileus before we discuss Dio Or. 4. In the material we
have used up to now in our study of Dio’s treatmént of this theme
we have found no example of the constellation Diògenes—Alexan-
der the Great, on which Or. 4 bases its particular exposition of
the theme in question. This shows that the theme of the suffering ‘
basileus, the slave king, was not exclusively, or even in its origin,
bound up with the association of Diògenes with Alexander the
Great or any other representativo of externai power.^ The passages
quoted use as illustrations the tcóvoi of Heracles or similar ex-
periences of Odysseus such as are familiar to us from the »Ajax»
and »Odysseus» of Antistenes. The quotation from Antisthenes in
Dio Or. 47,25 — :çYj o' oõv xiç 6'xi y.at xò y.ay.ü)c ày.oúetv xaXwç
TcoioOvxa y.ai xoõxo jíaatXiy.óv èaxtv ^ — now leads us to discuss
the bearing of Antisthenes’ writings about Gyrus on this question.
I refer to our discussion above, p. 86 ff, of Dio’s use of Antisthenes’
portrayal of Gyrus. In all probability Antisthenes’ treatment of
Gyrus was founded on the scheme doulos=basileus, and Dio’s use
of this portfait of Gyrus goes back directly or indirectly to Anti
sthenes. In Or. 14 Dio drew on mythology and Homer to show
that a man may be worthy of being king even if he is in the
physical condition of slavery. In Or. 15, which in content is closely
connected with Or. 14, it is shown that the concept »slave» cannot
be defined according to common usage. The author considers that
the original definition may have been different, § 29: ’AXXà jiy)
oGxü)ç 'I Xsyóiisvoi: èÇ ó ÔoOXoç, Ouèp óxou àpYÓptóv xiç
xoO
awjiaxo; y.axéj3aXev 7) ôc av è% SoúXwv XeYOjJiévtóv ysyovdiZi
waTCEp oí TcoXXol vop-íÇouai, toXò oè jiáXXov õairep aveXeú6’epoç y.at
* The material is collected by Sayre, Diògenes, p. 113 f.
- Cf. p. 164 above.
203
oo\jXoTzpsTti]r. TO)v jièv '(à.p Xz'(o|i.évü)v SoúXtov éZoXXoòz ó\LoXo'(riGo\iBy

OYjTlOU £'va'. èXsuSspíOU::, TÕ)V SÉ Y2 SAsuSéptov “oaXou; Twávu SouXo-
TcpETTEic- In lhe sanic way the aulhor dcíincs = cv av ”pòc
àpsx^v y.aXo)ç ysôvcoc= comes to the conclusion that
eòysvtq; in Ihis sense is ideutical wilh âXsú8-£po- like the contrary
àYEVVT^;= ooOÀo;. The distinction hetween slavery and IVeedom is
enlirely ol’ a spiritual nature. Thiis Or. lõ arrives at the same
result as the ahove-ciuoted paradox in Or. 14,18.
As we have indicated it is precisely in Or. 15,22 that we find
an example of how Cyrus the slave sets himself free: y,xi òtzózz
Y’ èv£Í)’U|iYj9-r^ y.ai éSgçsv aOxw, âXsóô-cpo; ápa y.al jSaaiXsòc èyévsxo
zfjç 'Aoíxz áTiáaYj^. The condition for this liberation from a position
of slavery was, of course, the fact that Cyrus was Tzpòç àpsxijv
xaXtõ; ysjovtbz, and this is probably what the author meant to
suggest hy the words ótzótb y £V£0-upr/8’7; xtX. Or. 15, as R. Hir-
ZEL, Der Dial. II 103,2, points oiit, contains siindry material which
seems to I)e derived from an earlier original which has been in-
completely assimilated hy Dio. Hirzel mentions the historical
examples in § 14 ff, the liberation of Messenia by the Thebans
after the battle of Leuctra, § 27 f, and the fact that in § 3 the
gymnasium for vóôi in (Amosarges is assumed to be still in
existence, although it had long ceased to exist even in Demosthe-
nes’ time.** But this evidence for an original, belonging to the
time shorlly after 370, is contradicted by the niention in § 21
of the battle of Chaeronea in 338. Hirzel rejects the idea
of an Antisthenic original, which is, of course, excluded for
chronological reasons. It might perhaps be ascribed to oí
’Avxia9’év£'.o’. who continued Antisthenes’ òvo|xáx(ov è7ztax£<]>t.Cj Aris-
totle Metaph. 1043 b 23: &gzs xTZopix, yjv ol Âvxiaô-évEtot y.at
ol ouxwç àKatSsuxoi YjTtópouv, £X£t xtvà y.aipóv, ôxt oOx êaxt xò
xt èaxiv óptaaaS-ar xôv yàp õpov Xóyov £lvai jiaxpóv àXXà tcoTov {1£V
xí èoxiv èvSéxsaô-ot’, xai StSáâi, óiaTisp àpYÚptov, xí pév èaxtv, ou, õxt
Sè olov xaxxíxspoç. The attempts to define the concept »slave» in
Or. 15 are all rejected except the determination tzoZoç. It would in
any case seem to be clear that Or. 15 preserves an Antisthenic
tradition. And here belongs, too, the portrait of Cyrus on the lines
of doulos=basileus. The problems raised in Or. 14 and 15 are
3 P. 87.
Cf. Demoslh. Or. 23,213.
204
not merely Stoic, as v. Arnim suggesls. They are pre-Stoic and

are related to the attacks by Alcidamas ^ and Antiphon “ on Iradi-
tional conceptions of the idea of ôouÁsía. We are, therefore, fully
justified in dating the theme of the suffering basileus, wilh its
exemplification by Heracles, Odysseus and Cyrus, to 4ih cenlury
Gynicism.
With Dio’s Or. 4 we move forward inlo Hellenistic times. The
question arises: when was the Cynic antithesis Diogenes Alexan-
der the Great created? A necessary psychological condilion for
such a creation is that both personalities shoiild still have been
of topical interest. The political condition is hostility on the pari
of the Cynics towards Alexander.^
F. Weber, Alexander der Grosse im Urteil der Griechen und
Rõíner, p. 7 ff, gives a survey of ancient monographs on Alexan
der. We may distinguish three periods, of which the first merges
into the second: contemporary writers of the period 336—323, lhe
time immediately after Alexander’s death, 323—250,and the period
30 B.G.—200 A.D. We have no certain evidence for any aulhor
of a Work about Alexander for the period circa 250—30 B.G. It
was
in the middle of the first centiiry A.D. that Gurtiiis Rufus,
the only Latin author of an Alexander monograph, composed his
Work, and no other publications on this theme are known until
the reign of Trajan, while Arrian’s Anabasis, our most important
source for Alexander, belongs to the middle of the second century
A.D. A similar situation exists for more extensive historical works
which contain some treatment of Alexander. We find the same
gap of over 200 years between 250 and 30 B.G. To the period
® Aristot. Rhel. I 13, 1373 b 18 (schol., Spengel II, p. 179).

“ Diels-Kranz II 352 f.
As I have already illustrated in the Cynic-Sloic scheme al the end of
the Introduction, I cannot at all follow M. H. Fisca, Alexander and the Stoics,
in his account of Onesicritus, p. 129 ff. Fisch asserts that Onesicritus is the
creator of a Cynic-Stoic admiration for Alexander. He does not, however, take
into consideralion the antithesis Alexander—Diogenes in the version in Dio
Chrys., nor does he observe the inevitable fact that Onesicritus had not
a single Cynic follower. In the great bulk of Cynic anecdotes, I have not found
one
which, like Onesicritus, speaks of Alexander as philosopher-king, not one
which is clearly favourable to Alexander. Fisch’s only source for his thesis of
a continuing Cynic-Stoic tradition about Alexander as philosopber-king is
Plutarch.
205
30 B.C. lo 100 .\.l). helong Diodoriis .Siculus. Nicolaus of l)a-

mascus. Pompeius Trogus, and Timagcnes of Alexandria.
From lhe above list of hislorians we can gel a clear answer
to oiir íirst qucslion, that is, lhe queslion concerning fopical
inlcresl in Alexander lhe Grcal. Il was nol iinlil lhe consolidalion
of Roman power under Auguslus lhal inleresl in Alexander was
revived. There was a clear parallelisin between Alexander‘s world
power and lhe Roman empire, and il was expedienl lo compare
Trajan wilh his model Alexander.^ I)io Chrys. himself made his
own conlrihulion in his second basileus speech. lhe un-('.ynic
characler of which has heen poinled oul above. He composed.
furlher, a work in eighl books lUpi ’AÁ£Eávopo’j àpsTwv. if we
can give credence lo Siiidas. F. Weber. op. cil., p. 108. mainlains,
and prohahilily is on his side, lhal Ihis cannol have heen anylhing
olher lhan a panegyric of Trajan.
Thiis, from lhe point of view of lopicalily. lhe crealion of
lhe anlilhesis Alexander—Diogenes helongs heyond all doiibl lo
lhe period 323—250. Whal is probaldy oiir earliesl evidence for
this slory is foiind in Cicero Tusc. V 32,91 f,'* lhal is lo say in a
period which is complelely harren of hislorical wrilings on
Alexander. Cicero is obvioiisly drawing on lhe same ancienl source
for all lhe anecdoles which he tells in this passage: Sócrates, in
pompa ciim magna vis aiiri argentiqiic ferrctur, »quam multa non
desidero!» inqiiit. Xenocrates, cum legati ab Alcxandro quinqna-
ginta ei talenta attiilissent, quae erat pecunia temporibiis illis,
Athenis praesertim, maxiima, abdiixit legatos ad cenam in Acade-
miam; is apposuit tantiim, quod satis esset, niillo apparatii. cum
postridie rogarent eum, ciii numerari iiiberet, »quid? vos hesterna»
inqiiit »cenida non intellexistis me pecunia non egere9» quos cum
tristioris vidisset, triginta minas accepit, ne aspernari regis liberali-
tntem videreturA at vero Diogenes liberius, iit Cynicus, Alexandro
roganti, iit diceret, si qiiid opus esset, nunc quidem paululiim
« cr. Weber, op. cit., p. 68.

° Diogenes’ lelters (oí interest in our connection are Nos. 4 and 40;
cf. 23 and 33) cannot be clated with cerlainty. Capelle, De Cijn. ep., p. 17 ff,
dales niosl of theni to the 2nd cenl. after Clirist, see above, p. 14; .Schaf.staedt,
üe Diog. ep., on the other hand, dates them to the Ist cent. B. C. The view
of Capelle is generally accepted.
1 Cf. Plut. De Stoic. rep. 20= Mor 1043 D.
206
inquit »a sole», offecerat videlicet apricanti. et hic quiclem dispu-

tare solebat, quanto regem Persarum vita fortunaque superaret;
sibi nihil deesse, illi nihil satis umquam fore; se eius voluptates
non desiderare, quibus numquam satiari ille posset, suas eum con-
sequi nullo modo posse.^ Xenocrates and Diogenes were contein-
poraries. The former, who was Speusippus’ successor as head of
Plato’s Academy, died in 314. Sayre, Diogenes of Sinope, p. 110 f,
conjectures that Cicero derived the story from Satyrus’ biography
of Diogenes or from Onesicritus’ book on Alexander. This is un-
certain. At all events, Onesicritus is unthinkable as a source for a
hostile anecdote about Alexander. It is clear enough from the
context that Cicero in the Tusculans, written in the summer of
45,® is citing a hostile version. This emerges also from the fact
that after 48 Cicero seems to have undergone a change in his
estimate of Alexander the Great, Ep. ad Att. XIII 28: tu non vides
ipsum illum Aristotelis discipulum, summo ingenio, summa mo
déstia, postea quam rex appellatus sit, superbum, crudelem, iin-
moderatum fuisse9^
We now turn to our second question, concerning the existence
of hostility towards Alexander as a condition for the emergence
of the antithesis Alexander—Diogenes. Right from the very be-
ginning of Alexander’s political and military activity he was
inevitably the heir to the passionate opposition to Philip of which
the rebellions of 336 and 330 are clear evidence. However, this
political opposition is not the most important factor from our point
of view, although it was the primary one. As F. Weber, op. cit.,
p. 93, maintains, it can hardly have been for the sake of political
principies that there was a Cynic opposition to Alexander. Indeed,
Demosthenes’ burning nationalism can scarcely have evoked any
more enthusiastic response among the internationally minded
Cynics. But Weber, on the other hand, is completely wrong in
naming Onesicritus’ panegyric of Alexander as the only (Weber’s
italics) pre-Christian Cynic estimate of Alexander and in drawing
the conclusion that there is no Cynic tradition at all which is
hostile to Alexander (Weber’s italics). W. Hoffmann, Das litera-
rische Portrât Alexanders des Grossen, p. 9 ff, gives a correct
® Cf. a similar anecdote about Epaminondas, Gerhard, Phoinix, p. 58.
® Schanz-Hosius, fíõmische Literaturgesch., I 506.
* Werer, op. cit., p. 43 f.
r'
207
account oí‘ lhe positioii of Onesicritus. He was never a Cvnic

philosophcr and made no conlribulion to Cvnic philosophy. His
admiration í‘or Alexander led him to clolhe Alexander in the cloak
of lhe Cynic king. J)iit his allempl to niake propaganda for Alexan
der as the (Lynic hasileiis was a complete failure. He gained no
adherents at all among the Cynics.
However, we are nol completely without Cynic evidence for
Alexander if we turn our backs for the time being on the anecdote
literaliire and Dio Chrys. In Teles we read apropos of man s
insaliability, Hense. Tel. rei., p. 43: oiv.ézTtZ èazív èXsúô-spoç airsó-
osi Y£véa9'ai.* xav xoúxou xú/to, tzívz' sxo). YÉyovsv £Xsú9’£poç*
SoOXov £Ò8’Òc £7u9*uii£r xxyjaaa9-at. '(é'(ovz xoõx’ aOxõ). £X£pov Tzpòz
a7i£Ú8£t xxYjaaaO-ar |iía yáp, Èap oO tzois íxa 5ÓO,
£Íxa xàYpóv, £Íx’ ’A9’Yivaío? . . . apcai, £Íxa |3aat-
X£uaat, £Íxa, &07zsp ’AXáçav5poc, à9-ávaxo; Y-véaô-af si 8è xaL xoúxou
xúyôi, oíjiat, íva Zeòç '(évr,zoLi èizi^-vii-qosi. xrwç oOv ó xoioOxoc
èvoE-^ç; If we bear in mind Teles’ dependence on the earlier
Cynics Metrocles and especially Bion. it is highly probable that his
parenthetic reference to Alexander is to be regarded as traditional.
Alexander is presented as a type of man who is driven on ad
absurdum by his ambition so far as to demand in the last resort
immorlality and divinity. We thus establish the existence of Cynic
hostility to Alexander as early as the first half of the third century.
To this we may add lhe interesting Berlin papyrus P. 13044,
which was published by U. Wilcken in his essay, Alexander der
Grosse und die indischen Gymnosophisten. Wilcken dates this
roíighly to the year 100 B.C., and it is possibly even older, The
papyrus deals with the same theme as Strabo‘s extract from
Onesicritus, but in a radically different way. Onesicritus’ account
sets Alexander in a favourable light. He tries to show Alexander
as basileus philosophos, and it is Onesicritus himself who inter-
views the Gymnosophists on the instructions of Alexander. In the
papyrus, on the other hand, it is Alexander who personally puts
áicopa èpwxYjiiaxa to the Gymnosophists. In the tradition repre-
sented by the papyrus, Alexander appears as the ruthless conqueror
and tyrant who, before executing the captured philosophers,
amuses himself by posing difficult questions to them, on the
answers to which their lives depend. The Gymnosophists, however,
by their ingenuity compel Alexander to set them free.
208
It is thus quite clear that we have here Iwo differenl Iradilions,

one favourable and the other hostile to Alexander, Strabo expressly
mentions the lack of agreement among the historians he quotes
XV 1,68. Both Onesicritus and the papyrus tradition have left
clear traces in Plutarch, since in »Alexander 64 and 65 he quotes
both these different versions, which are linked together in a make-
shift way. The Peripatetic ® Megasthenes, who lived circa 350—
290, is quoted by Strabo XV 1,68 and by Arrian Anab. VII 2,2 ff.
Here we find the antithesis philosopher—tyrant,so hostile to Alexan
der, in Megasthenes’ account of Alexander’s meeting with the
Gymnosophists. Mandanis, or as Arrian writes, Dandamis, contests
the divinity of Alexander, claims divinity for himself, refuses to
accept Alexander’s gifts, wç oòosiç ‘/.ópoç, and shows no fear of
Alexander’s threats. He is èXsúOspoç. Calanus, on the other hand,
who succumbed to temptation by Alexander was |iáX'.axa aOxoO
àzpáxwp and, as Strabo expresses it, ày.óXaaxo; àvâ pwTzo; y.al xaTc
'AXsÇávSpou xpaTcéÇai!; 0£OouX(i)ii£Voç. Arrian in the same passage ^
recounts the meeting between Alexander and Diogenes and com-
ments on both accounts in the following terms: ouxco xoi oO Trávx'^
£çcü xoõ èTZLVoeiv xà 7.p£txx(i) Y)v
ÂXéçavSpoç, àXX’ èx oó^TiZ Y«p
OEivwç èY"/.pax£txo. This antithesis between philosopher and tyrant
is supplemented with the information that the Gymnosophists were
clad in the Cynic manner: qui amiculo duplici contenti reliqiio
vesfitu carebant; cf, Diog. L. VI 13.^ In Onesicritus they appear
completely naked.
WiLCKEN,pp. cit., p, 177, atlduces Cynic interest in such matters
as a reason for assuming a Cynic source for the questions embraced
by the tradition represented in the papyrus; cf. Lucian Demonax
39. This gives us a specific illustralion of Peripatetic-Cynic col-
laboration, which is all the mpre probable in that Teles, Hense
p. 40, informs us that Metrocles enjoyed the instruclion of Theo-
5 So Christ-Schmid, Gesch. d. griech. Lit., II 227,7; cf. the polemics
against this by O. Stein, RE XV: 1, 265. Stein points out Cynic Iraits in
Megasthenes.
“ VII 2,1. In VII 1,5, Arrian tells without indication of sources ahout
another meeting between Alexander and the Gymnosophists. Megasthenes is
not quoted until VII 2,4, but as is shown by the parallel passage in Strabo,
Megasthenes is the source of Arrian from VII 2,2 b; cf. Stein, loc. cit., p. 246.
’ In the Metzer Epitome, edited by O. Wagner, Jahrb. f. class. PhiloL,
Suppl. 26, p. 93 ff; see Wilcken, op. cit., p. 173 f.
209
phraslus and Xenocrales, both of whom showed hostility lowards

Alexander/ In lhe above-qiioted passage from Teles, Alexander
is quoled as an example of a man who is driven on by his ambition
to claim divinily for himself. We find lhe same theme in lhe quola-
lion from Megasthenes in both Slrabo and Arrian. The constella-
tion Alexander versus lhe Gymnosophists in their Cynic garb leads
eo ipso to lhe constellation Alexander—Diogenes himself.
This ('.ynic hoslilily to Alexander, as we have said, is not of
a political characler. Bul it seems probable lhat lhe opposition of
lhe Peripatelics to Alexander was, in its origin, politically moli-
vated.’’ It is certain lhat Alexander aroused bitter personal haíred
by his cruel murder of Callisthenes.^ Once this feeling was aroused
there was no lack of occasions for painting lhe personality of
Alexander in lhe darkest colours »als der vom Übermasse seiner
Machl berauschte, vom Glanze seines Glückes geblendete Despot».“
In particular, Alexandcr*s boundless ambition, his xpucpTQ and
erolomania, seem to have been lhe object of censure. This provided
Cynicism with ready material for the construclion of its tj^pical
Alexander. The contrast belween absolule monarchy and »den
Absolulismus des philosophischen Regimenls» is manifested
morally, but is not of a fundamental nature, as in fact Onesicritus'
attempt shows.®
It Ihus appears to be clear lhat lhe antilhesis Alexander—
Diogenes belongs to the first half of the third century. It is only
lhen thal we find lhe historical and psychological conditions
necessary for the emergence of the constellation Alexander the
tyrant versus Diogenes the true king. The next epoch when similar
conditions where present falis in imperial limes and by then the
antilhesis had long become familiar.^
® Weber, op. cit., p. 31 f, and \V. Hoffmann, Das liter. Portrât Alex. d.
Gross,, pp. 4, 6, 16 ff. — The Gymnosophist episode is not treated by E. Me-
DERER, Die Alexanderlegenden bei den âltesten Alexanderhistorikern.
® Cf, Hoffmann, op. cit., p. 2 ff. Weber’s polemics, op. cit., p. 91 ff.
against Hoffmann is not convincing.
‘ Cf. Hoffmann, op. cit., p. 6, Eicke, Veter. philos. qualio fuerint de .Alexan-
dro matjno iudicia, p. 14, and, on the other hand, Weber, op. cit., pp. 30 f and
35; cf. also J. Stroux, Die .>itoisclte Beurteilung .\le.randers des Grossen, p. 229.
-■ Hoffmann, op. cit., p. 7.
® Cf. Hoffmann, op. cit., p. 8 ff.
Weber, op. cit., p. 67. Cf, ibid., p. 22, note 3.
14
210
It is difficult lo get any clear piclure of the atliliide of the

early Stoics to Alexander since we lack early evidence. Eraloslhe-
nes commended Alexander’s cosmopolitanism as conlrasled with
the doctrinaire distinction between Hellenes and Barbarians which
Aristotle maintained, Strabo I 4,9; cf. Plut. De Alex. fort. 1,6.®
This, the sole expression of approval by Eratosthenes as regards
Alexander, may possibly represent Stoic views. Biit Eratosthenes
is as little representative of Stoicism as Onesicritus is of Cynicism.
More important is the information provided by Plutarch, De Stoic.
rep. 20=Mor. 1043 D, who relates that Gallisthenes was blained,
while Ephorus, Xenocrates and Menedemus earned Stoic approval
for refusing to have anything to do with Alexander. We have no
such information about Chrysippus, which it would have been
natural for Plutarch to communicate in this context, 1043 B f:
àXX’ aòxò; ó XpóaiTTTtoç èv xw Trpwxw Trspl Bíwv âatXsíav xs xòv
ao;pòv ây.ouacwí^ àvaoé/eaôât êyst, xpyjpaxtÇójisyov à7z' aOxYjç* xav
aòxòc Paa!.X£Ú£tv |iYj oóvYjxai, ai)|ipuóa£xat âaiX£Í xal axpax£Úa£xat
Ii£xà PaaiXéwç, oíoç yjv ’Ioávûpaoç ó SxúÔT/Ç y) A£Úxü)V ó riovxtxóç.
Both kings who are quoted as examples of monarchs with whoni
Chrysippus recommends the wise man to associate, recur in Dio
Chrys. Or. 2,77. They are included with Cyrus and others as
instances of exemplary rulers to whom Zeus granted longevity
as a reward. We might have expected Chrysippus to choose an-
other more obvious example if Alexander had in fact cor-
responded to his ideal.
However, J. Stroux, Die stoische Beurteilung Alexanders des
Grossen, has found some passages not observed before, which
throw some light on the early Stoic view of Alexander. Stroux
refers to Quintilian Institut. Or. I 1,8=SVF III 220,33, who has a
quotation from Diogenes Babylonius, the disciple of Chrysippus.
There we learn that the cause of Alexander’s faults was the per-
verted education he received from Leonidas, his pciedagogus.
Stroux points out that the whole passage in Quintilian, where we
find the Diogenes quotation, belongs to an early, however post-
Chrysippean,Stoic writing Ilspi TiaíSwv dyoyyrjç. It is most interesting
and instructive to see how, on the other hand, Plutarch, Alex. 5, 22,
25, describes Leonidas. As Stroux supposes, Plutarch here follows
Onesicritus and this admirer of Alexander has also consistently
® Hoffmann, op. cit., p. 15 f.
211
described Leonidas in lhe sanu* way as he j»lorified the great king.

Thus we are indebled lo Stroux for a clear confirmation of
our view of Onesicritus and bis isolaled posilion in tbc ('.ynic-
Sloic Iradition about Alexander. Perhaps we have here a re-
minder of ('.ynic pedagogics wilh ils purpose to fosler Iriie kings.
Leonidas was nol a pciedagof/us according to Cynic-Stoic prin
cipies, and this could serve as an explanation of Alexander's be-
coniing a tyrant instead of a true king.*^
L. Eicke, Veterum philosophorum (jualia fuerint de Alexandro
Magno indicia, p. 12 ff, mentions a nuinlíer of passages froin
Cicero which contain adverse jiidgements of Alexander and niay
possibly derive from Panaetius: De off. I 2(j.90, II 15,õ3," Dc
republ. III 14,24,« Tusc. III 10,21. IV 37,79.^‘ The brief coinnients
we get here agree in their tenor with Cicero*s own jiidgement on
Alexander Ep. ad Att. XIII 28.^ Tusc. V 32.91 f. which contains
the Alexander-Diogenes story, we have previously qiiotcd. The
miich disputed problem of the sources of the Tusculans allows
all possibilities of Cynic-Stoic infhience. The adverse judgemenl
on Alexander which we found in Cicero's philosophic writings
makes it probable that it was Cicero’s dose study of philosophy
which was responsible for the views on Alexander contained in lhe
lelter to Atticus we have quoled. F. Weber, however, op. cit.,
p. 94, denies out of hand the existence of any early Sloic tradition
hoslile to Alexander, just as he disputes any corresponding Cynic
views.^ But Hoffmann, op. cit., p. 50 ff, has shown convincingly
that the unfavourable picture of Alexander contained in Seneca is
in all probability a stylisalion of traditional material and that
Seneca moves within a relatively fixed schema. There are, of
course, reasons for suspecting that the comparison and contrast
of Heracles with Alexander in Seneca De ben. I 13,3 owes much
to Cynic-Stoic inspiration: Quid enim iUi simile hahebat vesanus
adulescens, cui pro virtute erat felix temeritas? Hercules nihil sihi
® M. H. FisCH, op. cit., p. 150 f, polemises against SxROUX, but his pole-
mics contains nothing but categorical statements.
7 Cf. Schanz-Hosius, op. cit., I 520.
1 See p. 206 above.
2 Cf. the polemics by Stroux, op. cit., p. 234.
212
oicit; orbem terrarum transivit non concupiscendo, sed indicando,

quid vinceret, malorum hostis, bonorum vindex, terrarum maris
que pacator; at hic a pueritia latro gentiumque vastator, tam
hostium pernicies quam amicorum, qui summum bonum duceret
terrori esse cunctis mortalibus, oblitus non ferocissima tantum, sed
ignavissima quoque animalia timeri ob malum virus.^ In lhe pas-
sage quoted Seneca depicts AIexander’s boundiess ambition in lhe
same manner as Teles had done earlier:^ tamquam coelum, quod
mente vanissima complectabatur, teneret, quia Herculi aequa-
batur.^ In this connection Teles makes lhe following comment,
Hense p. 43: tíwç oOv ó xoiouxoç oux èvo£T^ç; y) tzoío. ypvjiiáxwv
OTrapçti; (xüiv) xoioúxcov èTCiô-ujuwv àTCoXúsi; oi âaiXscç aòxoi
tioXXy); èTzápypvzeç y.ai Tzpoaóòoüç lAsyáXac íyovxBç oòSèv Tjxxov
aTíavtÇouatv, otxX. Compare with this lhe comparison between lhe
Stoic philosopher and Alexander, Seneca De ben. VII 2,5: Et ne
illum existimes parvo esse contentam, omnia illius sunt, non sic,
quemadmodum Alexandri fuerunt, cui, quamquam in litore rubri
maris steterat, plus deerat, quam qua venerat. Illius ne ea qiiidem
erant, quae tenebat aut vicerat, etc. Cf. also Ep. 119,7: y>at parum
habet qui tantum non alget, non esurit, non sitit». plus Jiippiter
non habet. numquam parum est quod satis est, et numquam mul
tam est quod satis non est. post Dareum et Indos pauper est Alexan
der. Eicke, op. cit., p. 21 ff, who quotes this material from Seneca
for reasons of dating, also comes to the conclusion that there is
striking uniformity in the terms which Seneca applies to Alexan
der. And this scholar obviously weighs the possibility that Seneca
drew on Stoic sources.®
Supposing, then, that Cicero’s and Seneca’s conceplion of
Alexander is based on a study of Stoic writings, as seems not im-
piobable, we must reckon with a Cynic-Stoic tradition of hostility
to Alexander which persisted in a comparatively unimpaired form
from the time of the Peripatelic-Cynic collaboration in this field
Cf. Hoffmann, op. cit., p. 54,4, who with this Heracles characterisation
compares Epict. III 26,32, Dio Chrys. Or. 5,23, Julian Ad Them. 253 c, and
Ovid. Metam. IX 241.
“ Above p. 207.
® Cf. also Sen. Ep. 59,12.
P. 29: »Itaque rationes Stoicorum, quae, cum philosophus ipse digni-
tate summa uteretur, quamquam non abiectae, tamen paululum neglectae
erant, cum acerbitate et severitate redintegratae sunt.»
213
in the lirst half of lhe Ihird century. Al lhal lime lhe anlilhesis
Alexancler lhe lyranl versus lhe Cynic philosopher was crealed,
possibly as a reply to Onesicritus' attempl to popularise lhe con-
ceplion of Alexaiider as a philosopher king. We may regard it as
certain lhal the anlilhesis Alexander—Diogenes was crealed al the
same time.
Or. 4, as Diogenes himself says in lhe introduclion, consliliiles

an allempl to describe lhe encounler betwben Alexander lhe Great
and Diogenes as it probably happened, (b; 6è eiy.òz âv.sivotc
a9-at x^v Çuvouaíav. Dio points out lhal many wrile and speak on
Ihis subject with astonishmeiit and wonder lhal so powerfiil a
king did not scorn lo associate with a poveiiy-slriken philosop lei.
Dio allacks Ihose who oò póvov xàXrjîí oiYjYoOvxai <wsp. Xw..ou
xioy, àXXà -/.aí aOxol TíXáxxouatv òr.sp^xXXovxsç -/.xX. We are per-
wilh oí ÊTtaivoOvxs;.
haps justified in identifying oi Oíísp^áXXovxsç lhal he inlends
In his introduclion Dio is at pains lo proclaim
to oppose lhe panegyric represenlalion of Alexander. n ac , le
porlrait of Alexander which he presenls in Oi. is ex leme >
hoslile lo lhe king. This is lhe porirail of Alexander which Dio
regarded as lhe correcl one when he composed his tourlli hasilens
oration. We relurn later to the question of the date.
of Alexander and Diogenes
In §§ 4—10 Dio gives a description
which is in lhe form of a catalogue. After he has depicted . exan-
der s enormous ambition, which is not conlent merely wilh human
fame Inil if it were possible would desire lhal of animais too, Dio
the form of a comparison
propounds lhe first anlilhesis in Or. 4 in
between Diogenes and Alexander which Alexander himself de-
velops. It has lhe following appearance:
Porlrait of Diogenes §§ 7—10:

1. âvopsía
2. y.apx£pía
3. oóÇa
4. póvoc ÒLTziizi Kávu àocpaXà);
o. 0’jSÉva àv8'pw7Uoy OTtifjst SxoTtsúwv, àXXà
6. xàXTjO-Yj Tipòç àíiavxaç Xlyôv y.al
7. ou6£{Jiíay opay^pYjy y£y.xr/ji£yoc
8. WC è^0ÓX£X0 ETlpaXXE %cd
214
9. Twv Tcpoy.stjlévwv oòõevòç àizzzxy^yjxvz otal

10. TÒv píov êÇT] jjLÓvoç, ôv ”?jY£Txo àptaxov v.cd eòoaijxovéaxaxov, v.ctX
11. oòy, av YjXXáçaxo xyjv èv.stvou paatXsíav oòSè xòv xwv llspawv
x£ yai MtqSwv tíXouxov àvxt x^ç éauxoO Tísvtaç.
Alexander is inspired with feelings of astonishment and envy,

y.al è^r^XoxÚKst, occasioned chiefly by Diogenes’ fame
which he had managed to win despite his poverty. The portrait of
Diogenes is highly stylised and comprises first an introduclion to
Diogenes, who then makes his personal appearance in the speech.
The portrait of Alexander stands in contrast to this description of
Diogenes and its details form a series of antitheses with the con-
stituent elements in the portrait of Diogenes (see the corresponding
numbers):
Portrait of Alexander §§ 7—10:

4. eoet X7)ç May.soóvwv ● ● . £l IXÉXXo'. PaSíÇ£'.V ÔTTOt
ôóXoixo y.ai
9. xuYX«V£tv 6v èTTtSuiior-
7. y^^\jQÍo\i y.al àpYUplou TiajiTtóXXou èÔ£cxo,
8. wax£ è7C'.X£X£Oai xt (bv è[ÍoÚX£X0'
5. ■8’£pa;i£ux£ov aòxw xoúç x£ âpyovxaç y.al xòv áXXov oyXov

XÓYOiç x£ y.al oiópoii^.
In this description, as might be expected, we find no anti

theses corresponding to the ideas àvopEÍa and y.apxEpía. In Peri-
patetic propaganda against Alexander his personal bravery was
discouhted by use of the term xúyvj,’ while his way of life was
chaiacterised by the term xpucpVj. But the self-portrait of Alexan-
dei in Dio presents quite a different aspect. Alexander despises
others and ascribes his unique position to his own y.apx£pla:
V£xo yccç dxi pty.poO ot£!ç8’ap]X£vot 7távx£; £lal xàç «jíuxàç Ò7tô
xpucpíjf: y.at àpYÍaç y.al xoO %£pSaíV£tv %al '?]5ov^ç HyzzovBç,. Dio
— or his source
chosen the method of granting Alexander
certain meritorious characteristics in order to give still greater
prominence to Diogenes’ superiority.® The remaining elements in
both catalogues form typical Cynic antitheses:
’ Hoffmann, I
op. cit., p. 6. We find this already in Dcmosthenes; cf.
Weber, op. cit., p. 19.
8 Cf. also § lõ: Alexander is 9-appaXéoç.
21Õ
TcappYjota — y.oXay.sía
Tzsvia. — íwXoõxoç
èXsu9’£pía — SouXsía
To these is added the antithesis jióvoç — ^áXayç, thal is to say

àocpáXsta — which later on in the speech is developed along
pacifist lines. The final characteristic of Diogenes’ way of life is
£Òoa'.|j,ovía.
This introductory description of the two personalities shows
clearly that Dio is here not theorising aboiit the basileus as such.
Alexander is not so iniich the tyrant in the ordinary sense of the
terin as an iinfree and unhappy man full of erroneous ideas about
the true values of life. In fact, the passage in Dio siiggests a reason
for this, § 6: véoç iòv y.ai xpacp£t(: àv paatXiy.w xócpo). Diogenes’
aiin is now to teach Alexander what true kingship is. The different
elements in this exposition can most easily be represented in the
forin of a scheme.
Antislhenes: the double paideia illustrated by Heracles in

4, 29 ff.
Homer: Heracles: Archelaus:

§21 f: allegory of § 31: ó 7t£7i:ai8£U|i£voc §71 f: itpÓYOvoç
ÊoO uíóç-concept § 72 f: upÓYovoç aiTíóXoc
§ 40 ff: otoxp£cpT^ç
StícpiXo^
herdsman comparison
âaiXEÚç, oò XÓYq) xu)(óv, àXX’ êpYW (§ 72).
The three models on which this conception of the basileus is

built represent two different aspects. The Homeric model is the
same as we find in Or. 1, §§ 11—14. The introduction to the
dialogue in Or. 4,17 is the same as in Or. 3,1: in both cases
enquiry is made about the Stávoia of the ruler in question in
order to pass judgement on his Eu8a!.|iovía or worthiness to be
king.® The definition of the basileus is on individual-ethical lines
in both Or. 1,3 and 4; cf. above p. 186 f and Or. 4,24: ó Yàp §«-
^ Cf. 4,53: ’AX/.’ oòSèv sssiç. ítXsov oòôsvôg oú5s x«p 5vx:
216
oiXsòç àvô-pwTtwv ãp-.GZóq èoxtv, âyopsiótaxoc wv y.ai oiy.atóxaxoc

y.cd çJtXavô-ptOTióxaxoc àvív.Yjxo^ Okò Ttavxòc tióvou y.al Tüáar^ç
âTwtûjiíaç. From this there emanate simple, social-elhical fiinc-
tions philanthropia, the herdsman comparison, etc. Interesling is
the allegorical-ethical interpretation of the S^soO uEóç-concept and
of the Homeric expressions oioxpcqji^ç and 5ií'ptXoç as 'ptXía, ô\ió-
voia Trpòç xòv -B^sóv, § 43: ô; av oõy xw Alt cptXo!: y.al ópovo^j Tüpèç
èy.stvov, laô-’ Stíw; áSty.ou xtvòç è7u5-uiiY)a£t 7rpáY|iaxoç r] TrovTjpóy
XI y.al alaxpòy 5iayoYj^Y)a£xai; Cf. § 22. I refer to our study above
of the ó|ióyota-concept in Antisthenes which seems to iniply pre-
cisely this harmony with the moral principie that the wise man
embodies in his own person, óîóyota éauxiõ. It is possible that this
Homeric allegory in Dio is a reminiscence of Antisthenes’ ójióyota-
theory, just as we find unmistakable traces of Antisthenes in the
pedagogical theories’§ 29 ff. In any case this ethical concept of
^£0'piXta belongs to the Socratic circle; cf. F. Dirlmeier, 0EO-
OIAIA—OIAOGEIA, pp. 61 f, 189 f. See also above, p. 193 f.
In the exemplificátions featuring Heracles and Archelaus we
turn to that side of the conception of the basileus which concerns
the outward
appearance of the true king. Diogenes compares the
externai attributes of royal power, the diadem, the sceptre, the
tiara, with the bands tied round the necks of exposed children
so that they can be recognised, § 25; and in § 46 f the struggle
for power between kings is compared with children’s games.
Children know that the victor in their king games is not a real
king, but the son of an artisan or perhaps even a riin-away slave.
Alexander, however, does not know himself, § 56; he is ÒoOXoç
oóçTfÇ, § 60, and lacks the true mark of kingliness which is to
be unarmed, § 63. Alexander actually sleeps with his weapons
and thus shows that he is a slave even to fear, which is the Cynic
êxsio xaúxr,ç Siavoíaç, xxX. In the continuation of Or. 4,17 Dio says:
VJXÜ) (sc. Alexander) yàp sk' aOxô xoüxo, àiiauxõv xs xapágcDV aoi x*xa|jia9-srv v.ai
Oa ô'|óii£vo5. AXXà xaXsTcõç, (sc, Diogenes), |íe àv Idoir, warcsp xô çwí; oí
xa o|iiiax« ão9-âvstç. The motif reminds us of the Heracles allegory in Dio Or.
1,71; xo JxpóotüTcov -.paiôpòv ónoõ y.al osiivóv, ág xoòg nèv ãyaÔ-oòç ótTiavxas 9-ap-
psív óptõvxaç, y.axôv Ôè |xyj5éva ÔúvaoO-a; TcpootSsiv, urj fiôcÀXov íj xòv àaô-evTj xòv
ãva3?>8'iat Ttpôg xô xoõ yjXío-j y.úxÀov. This spicndour of Diogenes is of
course
an evident indication of his true kingship. Cf. E. Goodenough, Hel-
lenistic Kingship, pp. 82 f and 88, and the polemics again.st him by M. H.
Fisch, Alexander and the Stoics, p. 144 ff.
217
answer to Onesicritus' thesis of Alexander as èv ôtiXoiç,

Slrabo XV 1, 64. Diogenes qiioles as an illiistration the queen bee
who alone possesses no sting because no one disputes her posi-
tion.^ The passage then reads, § 65 f: Xò Sé, y.aci -òv ô-upòv
èv 1QXOV7JIJLÉVOV, oüxio:; y.sd ^íatov xévxpov.
GÒy. xTZoppífpíxg xaOxa a vOv èx**'^» èçiüjJiíSa Xa^wv Xaxpsúcjsic 'cotç
aOxoO xpetxxoaiv, àXXà TíeptsXsúarj otáSri|Aa Ixwv y-axaveXao-ov; pr/.pcp
oè Oaxspov tato; Xó'ôv '^ÓGsig y.oLi xiápoív, &a7zsp oÍ àXsxxpuóvsc;
After the allegorical account of the Persian prisoner who was
allowed to enjoy all the glory of regai power l)cfore bcing exe-
cuted, Dio retiirns to his adnionishment, § 70 f: |ít) gOv Ttpóxspov,
(O |iáxat£, j3aatX£Ó£tv èTitxsípst Ttpiy 7^ '^povfjaxi" xéio; Sá, £'4>7j, xpcix-
xov prjSèv 7i:pGaxáxx£iv, àXXà pdvov aüxòv Sttpô-épav sxovxa.
Alexander'gives expression to his astonishment that Diogenes
should advise him, the descendant of Herácles and king of Greece
and Macedonia, to don the skin of an animal. Diogenes refers him
to his TtpÓYOVoc, the herdsman Archelaus and returns for the third
time to his adnionishment, § 72: àXX’ av àTtaXXavtiC xoO xócçoo xa-
xtõv vOv TcpaYliáxiov. èa^ paaiXEÚç, oò XÓYtp xuxóv, àXX’ èpYtp* xat xpaxTQ-
a£t; oò póvov xtõv àvSpcÕv áirávxtov, àXXà xat xwv Yuvatxtõv, üar.sp
ó 'HpaxX^ç. Sv aou cpflç TxpÓYOVOv £tvat. The story of the women
whom Herácles vanquished is told in the Lybian fable Or. õ,
an allegorical account of how man is made captive and destroyed
by his èTuûptat. Diogenes’ fourth adnionishment to Alexander
would follow quite naturally from such an allegorical account
of the necessity to niaster one’s è7Uû|itat, 75: Eò Sà taS-t,
Sxi oò TtpóxEpov io-Q paaiXsòç Trpiv av ÍMo’q xòv aòxoO Saí|iova xat
^£pa7T£Òaaç tb; Òsi àxoSEt^Tflç àp'/iy.óy x£ xat èXsu^éptov xai jSaat-
Xtxóv, àXXà ü)ç võv èx^^C» SoOXov xai àv£X£Ò8’£pov xat TrovYjpóv.
This brings us to the question of the conclusion of the fourth
speech. v. Arnim, Dio von Prusa, p. 412 ff, considers the possi-
bility of an alternative conclusion: either the daemon-passage,
§ 75 to the end, should be comiected with § 72 a -?jv ó 'ApêXao;,
or he would tack the Libyan fable Or. 5 onto the end of § 74.
R. Hirzel, Der Dialog, II 108,3, against whom v. Arnim pole-
mises, considers the possibility of an oral insertion of the fable
betweeii § 74 and § 75, unless previous knowledge of the fable
‘ Cf. Xen. Gyrop. V 1,24. Cf. also Sen. De ciem. I 19,2 f: rex ipse sine
aculeo est; . . . Exemplar hoc magnis regibus ingens.
218
was assumed. But it is presumed to be unknown to Alexander.

Apart from this \ve find an expression in Or. 5,18 which possibly
implies a refcrencc to the expression in Or. 4,3 xuyx*vojjl£v oyoXyjv
áYovxs;: y.aí yáp XOl y.at xò XoiKÒv xoO jiúôu xaúxig xpÉTCsiv ou
XaXsTiòv ávôpl àooXéaxTQ xal TíXstü) ax£OÒv üj lo£t, axoXy)v áyovxi.
We shall return to this point in a moment.
The portrait of the hasileus which Diogenes sketches in this
way, with its use of Heracles and Archelaiis as examples, agrees
with the description of the hasileus which we discussed above,
p. 195 íf. Diogenes not only gives instruclion about the true king,
but he himself both here and in Or. 9,9 is Xü) , õvxi paa'.X£Úç.
Alexander is àvsXsú^-spoc, § 75, ooõXoç, §§ 60 and 75, whereas
Diogenes is the freest of man,§ 59. In order to becoine a real king
Alexander must exchange his royal splendour for the philosopher’s
ragged cloak and first learn to ihaster himself before he can rule
others. Still more, he must put on the slave’s garment, èÇco|j.tç,
and serve xotç aòxou xpEtxxoaiv, § 66. We íind a parallel to this
idea, nmUitis mutanclis, in Or. 49,8: KeXxoL oè oüç ôvojiáÇouat
Apuíoaç, y.ac xoúxouç 7T£pi iiavxtxYjv õvxas y-OLí XY]V áXXyjv oocpíav wv
àv£u xoiç ^paaiX£õa-.v ouoèv èÇTjv 7cpáxx£tv ou5è [3ouX£Ú£a0'ai, wax£ xò

jièv àXYjO-èç âxEtvouç ápÊiv, xoòç ôè paoiXéaç auxwv OTC'/jpáxac y.ai
otaxóvouç yÍYVEaOâi x^ç èv 0-póvotc XP^<70íÇ y.aOT^jjtévouç y.od
otXLaç |i£YaXaç oJxouvxaç xat tioXuxeXwç eòwxoÎaévouc. The thought
in Or. 4,66 is that Alexander must deliberately walk the road of
suffering and Service and submit to the philosopher’s instruetion
and way of life, just as Heracles lived with and learned from
Chiion, in order that in this way he may avoid false kingship, of
which Or. 49,8 offers examples.^ This may be called, if it is a
permissible expression, a »salvation regimen», which Alexander
is recommended to follow in order to become §aaiX£Úç, oò XóYq>
xuxóv, àXX êpYq), § 72, a regimen so drastic that Alexander ceases
to be PaatXeuç xw Xòyw. This portrait of the hasileus is wholly
non-political: hasileus is an allegorical term and coincides with
the introduetory comparison between Alexander and Diogenes
with its antithetic strueture, whereas the Homeric allegories in
§ 21 ff and § 40 ff represent divergent themes. The herdsman
" Cf. Antisthenes Gnom. Vat. 11: 'O aü-ôç 9-saaá|isvoç èv Ttívaxt y^YP*!^-
|iévov tóv AxtXXéa Xsípwvt xíp Ksvxaúptp ôiay.ovoú|isvov, eõ ys, w TCaiôíov, eÍTrev,
õxt TíaiSêíac svsxEv xai 9->]pío) Siaxovsiv ÓTtéiistvaç.
219
simile conlains a description of lhe good and bad herdsman,

§ 44 f, hut il does not recur as a description of lhe true basileus,
in which guise lhe philosopher, lhal is to say Diogenes himself,
appears.
The only parallels we have for this ciirious conception of lhe
basileus are contained in lhe pseudo-Diogenic episties Nos. 23, 24,
33 and 40 Hercher.^ In lhe shorl 24th epislle we read: Ei %-éXziz
y.aÀòr xi-^cc^òz Y£véo9‘aí, á.7Zoppí^7.z o sxsiç ítzí piy,oz
TtapaysvoO TZpòz ●?j|xãc. But Alexander cannot comply with Dio
genes’ admonishment because of his affeclion for Hephaestion,
We have longer dialogues in episties 33 and 40. The latler is par-
ticularly distinguished for its uncompromising malignancy which
is in no way surpassed by Seneca’s lurid piclure of Alexander.
Somewhal less severe and uncompromising is Dio’s representation
of Alexander in Or. 4. We should not, however, be justified in
drawing anylhing more than purely artistic conclusions from this.
Hoffmann, op. cit., p. 76 ff, misunderstands the panegyric vestiges
which remain in Dio’s porlrayal of Alexander in Or. 4. These have
only an artistic function and do not signify that it is Dio’s inten-
tion to present a fundamentally more favourable picture of
Alexander than that contained in the epistle. Alexander’s bravery
and self-mastery lie nierely on the surface. In lhe presence of Dio
genes he is revealed as a slave, a prey to fear and xstapayiiévoç,
§ 19, cpXsyópsvo;, Jí 52, xsS-opu^TQjiévoç, 77, with many expres-
sions referring to Alexander’s volatile emotional life. It is only
from fear of incurring a stain on his reputalion that he does not
give way Io his impulses and murder Diogenes, § 60: V)ntoT«o
yàp xòv ’AXéçavSpov ôoOXov õvxa xf^; oóÇyjç y.oLÍ oòSÉKox’ àv apap-
xóvxa uspt èxstvYjv.
When did Dio compose Or. 4? The difference between the

laudatory porlrayal of Alexander in Or. 2 and the lurid piòture
we find in Or. 4 is so great that it is inconceivable that they can
belong to the same period of Dio’s literary activily. Consequentiy,
V. Arnim’s suggestion, Dio von Prusa, p. 399 ff, that Dio delivered
the fourlh speech in Rome before the assembled court headed by
Trajan on the emperor’s birthday, 18th September 103, seems to
* See Hoffmann, op. cit., p. 72 ff.

220
be quite unacceptable.^ Dio’s text contains not a single word which

suggests that this speech was delivered in the presence of lhe
emperor. The expression in Or. 4,3 — xuYXávojisv oypX^v
àTZÒ xwv áXX(i)v TcpaYpáxwv — from which V. Arnim draws such
dubious conclusions,® may be nothing more than a rhetorical
phrase with np further implications than lie on the surface; cf.
Plat. Phaedr. 227 b and 229 e.® If, however, we take it, as was
suggested, with the same phrase in Or. 5,18 — an obvious com-
bination — this phrase admits of a more subtie interpretation
which is decisive for the date of Or. 4. In Or. 5,18 Dio, after an
allegorical interpretation of the Libyan fable, remarks that it is
not difficult to give a complete interpretation of this fable àvSpl
àooXéayîg y.al tcXsíw ayzòòv 7) eoei a^ôXYjv áYovxt. Whoni has Dio
in mind as the man who has more leisure than he needs and who
is characterised by the lerm àooXéayjjC? Why should it not be an
ironical descriplion of Dio himself, as he was during his period
of exile? Furthermore, the Libyan fable fits remarkably well into
the context after § 74 in Or. 4. The passage about the daemon,
§ 75 to the end, comes quite naturally after such an allegory about
human emotions, ótzolóv èaxi xò xwv è7í'.^'U|U(õy '(évoç, ò'xi áXoYot
ouaai xal ■0’7]puí)5£'.ç, sTiâtxa -^dovqv xiva Tcapaosiv.vúouaai , Tzpoax'fó-
|i£vat xouç xyorjTODç aTiáxig y.xi yoTjzsíx, 5iaç9’£í'pouatv olxXLGZX xxi
âXssivóxaxa, Or. 5,16. V. Arnim’s objeclions, op. cit., p. 412, to
Hirzel in this connection seem to me not well founded. The
expression in Or. 4,3 refers to Dio’s freedom from all lies and
duties during his exile. This would provide us with direct testi-
mony for dating Or. 4 to the period of his exile, which the con-
tents of the speech would also require, inasmuch as its hostility
to Alexander is absolutely inconsistent with Dio’s altitude towards
Trajan as the imitator of Alexander, as Eicke, op. cit., p. 38 ff,
has convincingly shown.
With the dating of Or. 4 we end this chapter and also our
study of Cynic hero and Cynic king. Despite the difficulües which
^ Hofkmann, op. cit., p. 75 ff, also follows v. Arnim in fhis point, and
because of this he does not undersiand the panegyric remainders in Or. 4.
® P. 400:
»Er heweist, dass Dio zu der sfândigen Umgehung des Kaisers
gehõrt.
® Eicke, op. cit., p. õo f, declares that the passage §§ 1—,3 cloes not
helong to Or. 4, hut this assumption is quite unnecessary.
221
accompany every invesligation of llu* Cynic Iradilion and which

preclude results which reaUij can bc proved, it is clear that lhe
Cynic preaching also contained, among olher things, a conceplion
of kingship of a unique characler — lhe solitary, poor, and suf-
fering basileus. That here are found points of contacl for lhe
Chrislian preaching is apparent." The question of lhe origin of
this Hellenic ideology has not heen posed. Siich a question deniands
an examination on a wider base than has heen here possible. One
finds an answer in so far as the material of the Cynic-Sloic tradi-
tion provides it. Earlier we have the well-known Platonic passages
concerning the completely jiist man who has to endiire every hurt
in order, at last, to he crucified, Gorgias 473 c and Rep. II 361 d.®
My study has tried to show, in any evenl, that the Cynic Heracles-
allegory has played a decisive rôle in this conneclion. Even Anti-
sthenes’ works on Odysseus and Cyrus have heen infliienced by
the same and similar motifs. After his dealh, Diogenes is described
in lhe rôle of the slave-king who is mocked and ridiculed hut at
last raised above all surrounding adversilies.
The other side of this Cynic conception of kingship is lhe
purely ethical. What is here Cynic or non-Cynic cannot be decided.
We are concerned with a question, popular and much discussed
in lhe 4th century B.C., the question of the true king's ethical
qualifications and their indispensabilily as conditions for lhe posi-
tion of basileus. Xenophon and Plato have hoth given evidence,
each one in his own way, of the central rôle which this pedagogical
molif has played in the Socratic circle. The Antisthenic-Diogenic
theory of lhe double uatSsta, resp. áay.râiç, must he looked upon
as emanating from the same Socratic source.® The slress lies on
individual ethics, the »divine» TcatSsía.^ The pedagogical theories
of Dio Chrysostomus, brought forth in argument against the
’ Cf. above, p. 199, notes 4 and 5. A parallelism along these lines belween
Phil. 2, 5—11 and Plut. Alex. virt. s. fort. 1, 8 has been pointed out by
A. Ehrhardt, Ein antikes Herrscherideal, Evangelische Theologie, 1—3,
p. 101 ff; whether the exegetic conclusions are correct lies outside my com-
petence to judge.
8 G. Rudberg, Zum platonischen Tlirasymachos, Synib. Osl. 23, p. 2 ff.
0 Cf. E. Elorduy, Die Sozialphilosophie der Stoa, p. 183 ff. Elorduy,
however, judges too narrowly the rôle of Diogenes in this conneclion.
1 The importance for Cynicism of the doric pedagogy has been treated
by E. Ollier, Le Mirage spartiate, II, p. 3 ff.
222
Sophists, are without doubt direclly influenced by Ihis Socratic-

>nic pedagogy. Or. 13 and 15 give clear testimonies. Or. 1 and 3
their gradual changing of the basileus-conception in a Sloic
irection give evidence of lhe same thing. To what an extent,
owever, a simple and uncomplicated individual-elhics has piit its
b^^W offícial royal litles in later times, has been shown
i!* sn interesting arlicle on Hellenistic ideal of
ideolo a strange although not singular fale for an
been*íêlop^d^^^^^ Powers, in a struggle against whom it had
- Das heUenistische
J^õnigsideal nach Inschriften und Papyri. Arch. für
Papyrusforsch., 12, 1937
Índices.
I.
abuse-lhcme lt)(>, 198 1‘ pa3-.Às*j; 34, 44. 56. 61. 63. 76, 79 ff.
àSixía 62 f, 89, IM. 154 85 ff, 89, 92. 94 f. 99. 101 f, 104.
ãôo=ía 52, 61, 128, 173, 199 f 122, 124. 151. 160. 165 f. 168. 177 f,
âxpasía 62 179—220
allegory 29 f, 33 f, 37, 50, 52 f, 54 if, pápaios 160
57, 60, 68 ff, 72 f, 92, 150 ff, 153 f, bfliaviour. lype of 9, 28. 34. 53. 97 f,
159, 179 ff, 216 ff 100, 164, 197 f. 216 ff
ã|ia9-£a 99, 156
âvaYxáÇstv 89 f, 136 cannibalism 143 ff, 146, 148
àvaíõsta 8, 14 f, 116 f, 118, 146, 198 catalogues, see vices and virlues
ãvôpsía 56, 76, 86, 89, 99, 114, 157, civilisation 26, 57, 79. 118
165 coins 10 ff
animal 56, 58, 61, 99, 119, 122, 169 collectivily 80 f
àvoia 39, 43, 46, 51, 161 concord, see ôpõvota
ãvo|i£a 62 f, 154 conservalism 92, 96, 98
àv9-pü)7iocpaYÍa, see cannibalisin convention 145 f
âxaíôEoxos 76, 141 cosmology 143 f, 194
ãpexf, 31 ff, 35 ff, 39, 58, 66 f, 70, 78, cosmos-slate 141
80, 89, 98 f, 101, 104, 113 ff, 125 f, crilicism 64, 104 f, 110, 114 f, 128,
149, 153, 160, 165 ff, 168, 190 149, 103
âpxv] 46, 73, 170 f, 179—220 Cynic name 33
àpXtov 44, 63, 80, 89, 118 f, 124 ff, 131, Cynic Iradilion, falsification of 146 ff
138, 154, 165, 170 f, 176 ff, 179— Cynic lype, see Iiehaviour
220 Cynics, characlerisalion of 34
ãsê^sca 190 Cynicism, degenerale 64, 132, 163
ãaxTjs-.s 38 ff, 41 ff, 44 ff, 55 ff, 59 f, Cynosarges 33, 203
80, 118, 120, 122, 134 f, 154, 170
asceticism 8 ff, 31, 45, 68, 122 f, 131 ff, Ôafiicúv 88, 119, 127, 163, 166, 168 f.
134 ff, 137 f, 146, 192 217
ãoxsto; 138 ff. 141, 159 defencelessness 97, 101, 217
âa8-ávsta 54 f, 58, 194 f degeneration 54 f, 66
athletics 42 f, 45, 51 ff, 54, 60, 120, democracy 113
141 determinism 126, 139
Alomists 143 f dialectic 69 ff
aàxápxsta 134 diatribe 51 f, 199 f

224
3-.8áoxaXoc 78, 164, 172 f, 177 Ydc|ios 106, 139

Ôtxatooúvy; 56, 63, 78, 91, 111, 114 f, YVíójirj 136
124 ff, 165 ff, 172 f, 195 Gymnosophisls 129, 135, 207 f
SouÀsía 46, 86, 92, 94, 96, 168, 202 ff,
215 happiness, see eudaipovía
SoõXoc 97 f, 118, 121 f, 174 ff, 177 f, YjôoviQ 38, 43 ff, 47, 51 f, 55, 73, 111,
202 f 120, 129 f, 134, 136, 173
SoõÀoç—gastXeúc 34, 84, 88, 91 f, 100, hedonisra 32, 43, 111, 118, 120, 122 f,
121 f, 131, 177, 201—220 132, 134 f, 138
3ôga 61, 126, 134, 138, 173 íxavós 101 f, 151 f, 160, 166, 170
historicism 152, 154
education, see Tcaiôsía Homer-inlerpretation 193 f
âçcStov 159 ó|iiÀeív 110
3Yy.pá-cia 44 ff, 78 f, 80, 115, 124, ó|ióvoia 85, 107 ff, 125, 216
134 f, 154, 170 f o;:Xov 97, 101, 216 f
èXsuÔ-epía 15, 39 f, 46 f. 100, 104, 127, hunting 78, 81, 120, 175
129, 131, 168, 177, 201 ff, 215
STtiO íapa xal qpápiiaxov 161
'W-n âoiXixvj 56, 75, 124
S7iia-j|i(a 217, 220 la-póc 99 f, 101 f, 118 f
eristic 145, 157 ideas, theory of 124 f
eroticism 10, 26, 77, 148 incest 8 f, 147
ethics, individual 30 ff. 45 f, 47 f, individualism 97 f (see also ethics, in
49, 60, 73, 78 ff, 81 f, 92, 94, 104 f, dividual)
109, 111 ff, 115, 156, 162, 170, 188, intellectualism 43, 60, 144, 156, 176
195, 215 f loXÚç. loxopós 36, 39, 42, 47, 61, 72,
ethics, social 108, 115, 162, 166 f, 170, 76, 98 f, 125, 153, 160, 194
172, 179, 188, 195, 216 isolation 129 f
justice, see Stxaioaúvr^
sMaiiiovte 33, 39, 43 ff, 46, 51, 68, 79,
98, 125, 134 f, 142, 166
suspYéxTjc 26 f, 34, 48, 79 xapXÊpía 66 íT
eüegfa 39, 42, 47, 120 Xapaxxigp 38, 47
eüaégeta 80, 104, 166 king, see
ègrjiiépwatg 26, 32, 60 knowledge, theory of 125
xoXaxeía 215
family 131 xoojioTioXtxyjç 141 t
cpavxaota 39 ff, 43 xcopog 138 ff, 141 f
9tXav8-pü)7tía, see philanthropia
çtXapYupía 62, 104 law, see vópos
9ÍX0C, Xétov 53 f, 113, 122
see friendship
literature, Cynic 16
çfXoç 9-sou 139, 153, 166, 168 f, 215 f
XÓYOS 61, 142, 170, 182
90?0S 62, 111, 122, 215
XÓYOg-lpYov 98, 104, 215, 217 f
freedom, see êXsuS-epfa
XÒTcrj 62, 111, 136, 161
friendship 27, 37, 85, 106
çO-óvos 62, 99 f
paXaxta 54, 61, 153
52, 142, 199 f
man, two types of 96 f
39, 43, 46 f, 108, 110, 113, 115, materialism 32, 60
118, 134 f, 137, 140, 142 |iá8-í)|ia 155, 158, 174 f, 180
22Õ
miülarism 78 f, 81 f, 06 -õvo; 27 r, 32 f. 38 IT, 42 f. 44. 46.

niisanlliropy 133, 135. 160 .-)1 f. 61 ff, 72. 80. 02. 118. 136,
nionarchic ideal oí Xenophoii 70 f 152. 173, 100 í
póvoc 152, 154, 215 possession. commoii 138 1. 148
imirdcr 82, 145, 148 poverty. sce ~='A%
-&■ .-.X 80. 102
nafioiialism 05 t' Ts-JÔo-a-.Ssía lõO
nature, see psychology 125, 128
vó|io; 30 f, 47, 78, 81, 108, 110, 113 ff, Pylhagorcan.s 0 f
118, 128, 137 ff, 140 ff, 146, 148 f,
166 ff ralionalisalion 24, 20. 33. .53. 55. 57,
VÓ30C 99, 104, 111 60, 62, 68, 150
rcconcilcr 106. 112, 128
religiousncss, Cynic 1.53. 166. 101
ol)Scenity 146 ff (se also ãvaíõsia)
reward 80 f
ôp‘,'Vj 99, 199
ricluicss, see
orienlal iiiflueiice 19, 137 f, 146
.Salyr poelry 26, 29, 53

pacifism 85, 130 Science 143 ff, 148 (sce also ]iá8-r;na)
7iai8aYft>YÓC 125 f, 131, 138, 176 ff, sclf-abascmenl 60 f, 07, 101. 106 f
210 f
seiiilily 54 f, 66
waiõeta 46, 56 ff, 59 ff, 71, 78, 81 f, Service 92, 218
84, 89, 91, 119 ff, 123 ff, 131, 134, shamelessness, see âvaiSs-.a
138, 148, 150—181, 200, 210 f shepherd 80
Tcapaxapáxxstv 10 f, ,39, 47, 135 .Sinope 18 f
Kapávopoç 89 slaverj', see doa/.sia
noLppyjoía 163, 215 oocpía 94, 114
Tiaxvjp 62, 80, 89 aotpós 37, 126, 136, 138, 153
Tcaxpíg 128, 130 3(í)cppft)v, 0(0?p03Óv>j 78, 80, 120, 136,
pedagogy, see ícaiôeía 160, 180
Tcevía 52, 61, 73, 100, 104, 127 f, 130, Sophist 57 ff, 70 ff, 78, 101, 103 f,
134, 151, 154, 173, 187, 199 f, 215 107, 116, 124 f, 142 ff, 151 ff, 155 f,
Pera 129 ff 163, 175
Ttepispxópsvog 34, 62
oojTYjp 154, 160
Peripaletics 208 f
sources of the Cynic Iradition 7 f, 10,
pessimism 57, 115, 128, 133 14 f, 16 ff
philanthropia 23, 27 f, 31 f, 44, 48 f, ouoaSatos 61, 108
.56, 60, 80, 85, 89, 97 f, 101, 135, STáatç 130, 136
216
State, see “oÀixsta
philosopher in arms 136 oxéçavog 157, 200
philosopher-king 91, 93 f, 170 ff, 177, stoicism 189 ff, 194, 201
204 Stoics 39 f, 108, 141, 147, 210 ff
TtXoúxoc 46, 100, 104, 110 f, 120, 134, struggle, moral 51 ff, 55, 61 ff, 73,
136, 173, 180, 215 101, 199 f
ítoXixeía, TióÀ-.C 46, 56, 80, 103 ff, 106, suffering 24 ff, 27, 52, 57, 60 f, 63, 92,
110, 113 ff, 124 ff, 129 f, 138 ff, 97, 101, 195—220
141 f, 145, 148 f, 160, 167 ff suicide 54 f, 61, 66 ff
15
226
-.sXyor 110 f. 122, 130, 152, 154, 160, 164, 167,
x=-/.vo7:o’ía 126 179—220
-Akoç, 37, 134 f, 149
theodicy 2õ war 95 f, 129 f
5Vr^p£ov, see animal weapon, see õnÀov
-pyçrj 54 f, 63, 130, 153, 161, 214 vices, catalogues of 53, 62, 89, 161 f,
tOsoç 57, 215 170, 184 ff
-Jy/r^ 66 f, 214 virlues, catalogues of 78 f, 89, 161 f,
lyranny, tyrani, xúpavvog Õ6, 104, 110, 184 ff, 193
II.
Alcibiades 73, 76, 87 f Epicletus 61—63
Alexander the Great 135 f, 179, 202, Euboulus 119—125, 131 f, 134
204—220
Euripides 24—27
Antiphon 107—110, 140
Antisthenes passim, esp. Gorgias 94 ff, 114, 124
Heracles 35 ff, 57 ff, 70 f
Cyrus 73—77, 92 ff Heracles, represenlation of
Odysseus 94—102 in Homer 22 f
politics 103—115 in Pindar 23 f
in Pisander 24
Bion 68, 121, 147 in Archilochus 24, 28
in drama 24 ff, 52
Chiron 35 ff, 58 f, 70 f, 174 ff in logographic literature 29 ff
Cleomenes 121 f in Prodicus 31 f
Crates 126—131 in Cynis writings 34 ff
in Isocrates 48 f
Cyrus, Cynic writings and fragments
73—77 in Plalo 48
— representation of in Xenophon 48
in Xenophon 77 ff, 83 ff, 9i f 94 in Aristotle 48 f
in Herodotus 82 ff, 93 in Demosthenes 49
in Nicolaus 86 f, 91, 93 in Aeschines 49
in Dio 87 ff, 93, 202 f in Lysias 49
in Onesicritus 89 f in Dio Chrys. 51 ff, 54 ff, 57, 60 f,
in Plato 91, 93 63, 150 ff, 180 ff, 195 ff
in Antisthenes 92 f in Epictetus 61 ff
in Lucian 64—73
Demonax 64, 67 Herodorus 29 ff
Dio Chrys. 50—61, 86—94, 150—220 Herodotus 82—86
Diogenes passim, esp. Hippias 114 f
Heracles 37—47 Homer 22 f, 97, 100, 129, 196, 215 f
pedagogy 116—126
Isocrates 48 f, 92
politics 138—146
lhe king 213—220 Lucian 64—73
227
Menippus Oã, 07, 72, 118 f. 121. 147 Prodicus in l'l‘. -14 -47
Melrocles 55, 07, 121, 127 Proinelheus õ7 fí', 70 f
Nicolaus of Dnmascus 80 T, 01 .Sócrates 100, 100 f, 110. 110. 171 ff,

18:í ff
Odysseu.s 94—102
Sophocle.s 24 ff
Onesicriliis 89 f, 185 ff
Themislius 57 f
Peregrinus 00 ff
Philodemus 147 ff Xcniades. sec Kubouliis
Plalo 70 f, 98, 105, lOt) f, 124 ff Xenophon passim. esp. 44 47. 77—82
Bibliography.
Alpers, J., Hercules iii bivio. Disserlatio inauguralis. Gõttingcii 1912.
Arnim, H. von, Loben und Werke des Dio von Prusa. Berlin 1898.
Arni.m, J.
VON Adler, M., Sloicorum veterum fragmenta. I—IV. (SVF; is
quoted in volume, page, line). Leipzig 1903—24.
Bach.mann, a., Ajax et Ulixes declamationes utrum iure Iribuantur .\iitistheiii
necne. Commentatio philologica. Münster 1911.
Barner, G., Comparantur inter se Graeci de regentium homiiuim virtutibus
auctores. Dis.sertalio. Marburg 1889.
Barth, P. Goedeckemeyer, a., Die Stoa. Stuttgart 1941.
Bauer, A., Die Kyros-Sage und Verwandtes. Sitzungsberichte der philosophiscb-
hislorischen Classe der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Band
100. Wien 1882.
Bernays, J., Lukian und die Kyniker. Berlin 1879.
Binder, H., .Dio Chrysostomus Posidonius. Quellenuntersucluingen zur
leo ogie des Dio von Pru.sa. Inaugural-Dissertation. Tübingen. Borna-
Leipzig 1905.
Blass, F., Allische Bercdsamkeil. I—III. Leipzig 1887—1898.

Bonhoffeb a. Die Elhik des .Stoikers Epiclel. Slultgarl 1894.
NS, ., as iterarische Porlrat der Griechen im fünften und vierten Jahr-
bundert vor Christi Geburt. Berlin 1890.
Bult.niann, B., Dei Slil der Paulinischeii Predigt und die kj-nisch-stoischc
la ri le. 'orschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen
Testaments, 13. Gõttingen 1910.
rACTîm T ^Jîcorum epistulis. Disserlatio inauguralis. Gõttingen 1896.
c3’w’wr!e" '937.
iin 1 9 \t-n‘ Bescliichle der griechischeil Lilteralur. I—II: I
VTT 1 ^ der klassischen Alterlums-Wissenschaft,
VII: 1 und 2: 1 und 2. München 1912-24.
, ^\., Kolotes und Menedemos. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Philo-
kunde hera Studien zur Paleographie und Papyrus-
von C. Wessely, 6. Leipzig 1906.
Delatte, a., Essai
I.' 1 i ** polilique Pylhagoricienne. Bibliotbèquc de la Fa
culte de Philosophle et Lettres de rUniversité de Liège. Fase. 29. Liège-
Paris 1922.
Diels, H. Kranz, W ., Die bragmente der Vorsokratiker. I—III. (Is quoted in

volume, page, line). Berlin 1934 -37.
229
Dirlmkikh, HK0‘1»IAIA—«MAOBKIA. Pliiloloûs. 5)0. I.oipzi}'

Dittmar, H., Aiscliiiies von Spheltos. Sludicn ziir Literaturjíeschichle der
Sokralikcr. 1'nler.siiclnmííeii iind Fragmente. Philologi.sche Inlersuchun-
gcn herausgegeben von Kiessling nnd F. v. Wilamowilz-Moellendorff.
liefl 21. líerlin 1912.
Dornseiff, F., Plalon.s Politeia líuch I. Hermes lerralnm above, p. 110, note 3),
76. Berlin 1941.
Dudlry, I)., A Hi.slory of ('.ynicism. I'rom Diogenes to Ibe 6tb century .\. D.
London 1937.
DüMMLER, F., Antisibenica. Dissertalio inaiiguralis. Bonn 1882. I = Kleine
Scliriften I. Leipzig H)01).
— .\kademika. Beilrãge znr Lileraliirgescliiclite der sokrati.scben Scbulen.
Gics.sen 1889.
Furiiahdt, a., Ein antikes llerr.scberideal. Fvangeliselie Tlieologie, 1—3. Mün-
cben 1948—49.
Eicke, L., Velerum i)bilosopliorum {|ualia fiierinf de .Vlexandro Magno indicia.
Dissertalio inauguralis. Rostock 1909.
Elorduy, E., Die .Sozialpbilosopbie der .Sloa. Pbilologns. .Supplementband
28: 3. Leipzig 1936.
Fisch, M. H., Alexander and tbe Stoics. .\merican Journal of Pbilology, 58.
Ballimore 1937.
Fi.scher, P., De Dionis Clirysostomi Oralionis tertiae composilione et fontibus.
Dis.serlatio pbilologa. Bonn 1901.
Fritz, K. von, Quellenuntersucbungen zii Leben imd Pbilosopbie des Diogenes
von Sinope. Pbilologus. Supplementband 18: 2. Leipzig 1926.
— Antistbenes und Sokrates in Xenopbons Symposion. Rbeiniscbes Museum
84. Frankfurt am Main 1935.
Geffcken, J., Griecbi.scbe Literalurgescbicbte. I—II. Bibliotbek der klassiscben
Allerlumswis.senscbaften, berausgegeben von J. Geffcken, 4. Heidelberg
1926—34.
— Kynika und Verwandtes. Heidelberg 1909.
Gercke, A.—Hoffman, E., Gescbicbte der Pbilosopbie. Einleitung in die Alter-
luniswissenscbaft. 11:2. Leipzig-Berlin 1933.
Gerhard, G. a., Pboinix von Kolopbon. Texte und Untersucbungen. Leipzi«.
Berlin 1909. **
— Zur Legende vom Kyniker Diogenes. Arcbiv für Religionswissenscbafl
15. Leipzig 1912.
Gigon, 0., Sokrates. Sein Bild in Dicbtung und Gescbicbte. Bern 1947.
— Xenopbontea. Eranos Rudbergianus. Eranos, 44. Uppsala 1946.
Gillespie, C. M., Tbe Logic of ,A.ntistbenes. Arcbiv für Gescbicbte der Pbilo-
sophie, 26—27. Berlin 1913—14.
GOMPERZ, H., Die sokraliscbe Frage ais gescbicbtlicbes Problem. Historiscbe
Zcitscbrift, 129. Müncben-Berlin 1924.
Die Lebensauffassung der griecbi.scben Pbilosopben und das Ideal der
innercn Freibeit. Jena 1915.
Gomperz, Th., Eine verschollene Scbrifl des Stoikers Kleantbes, der Staat und
230
die sieben Tragõdien des Cynikers Diogenes. Zeilschrifl fiir die osler-
reichischen Gymnasien, 29. Wien 1878.
— Griechische Denker. Eine Geschichte der anfiken Philosophie. I—III.
II" Leipzig 1903.
Goodenough, E. R., The political philosophy of Hellenistic Kingship. Yale
Classical Studies, 1. New Haven 1928.
Hagen, P., Quaestiones Dioneae. Disserfatio inauguralis. Kiel 1887.
Hastings, J., Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics. Edinburgh 1908—26.
Heinimann, F., Nomos und Physis. Herkunfl und Bedeulung eiiier .●Vnlilhcse
im griechischen Denken des 5. Jahrhunderts. Inaugiiral-Di.s.sert alion.
Basel 1945.
Helm, R., Lucian und Menipp. Leipzig-Berlin 1906.
Henderickx, a. R., Eersle boek van Platoons .Slaal. Revue Belge de Philologie
et d’Histolre, 24. Bruxelles 1945.
Hense, o., Bion bei Philon. Rheinisches Museum, 47. Frankfurt ani Main 1892.
Hersman, a. B., Studies in Greek allegorical Interpretatiion. Dissertation.
Chicago 1906.
Hirzel, R., Der Dialog. Ein literaturhistorischer Versuch. I—II. Leipzig 1895.
Hoffmann, W., Das literarische Portrât Alexanders des Grossen im griechi
schen und rõmischen Altertum. Inaugural-Disserlation. Leipzig 1907.
Hõistad, R., Eine hellenistische Parallele zu 2. Kor. 6,3 ff. Coniectanea Neo-
testamentica, 9. Uppsala 1944.
Hornsby, H. M., The Cynicism of Peregrinus Proteus. Hermathena, 48. Dublin-
London 1933.
Jacoby, F., Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. I—111. (F Gr Hisl;

is quoted in volume, page, line). Berlin-Leiden 1923 43.
Jaeger, W., Paideia. Die Formung des griechischen Menschen. I. Berlin-
eipzig 1934. II III. Paideia; the Ideais of Greek Culture. Oxford
1944—15.
JAKOB.SSON, O., Daimon och
1925. Agathos Daimon. Akademisk avhandling. Lund
JoEl, K., Geschichte der antiken

Philosophie. I. Tübingen 1921.
— Der echte und der
xenophontische Sokrates. I—II: 1—2. Berlin 1893—
1901.
Kaerst, J., Geschichte des Hellenismus. I®. Leipzig-Berlin 1927. IF. Das Wesen
des Hellenismus. Leipzig-Berlin 1926.
Isokratcsstudien. Hermes, 23. Berlii. 1888.
vvvT.*’ dialeclique. Étudc crilique el exégétique sur le
.e iscours de Thémistius. Thèse. Recueil de travaux publiés par
les membres des Conférences d’Histoire et de Philologie, 2:31. Louvain
1935.
Kornemann, E., Doppelprinzipat und Reichsteilung im Imperium Romanum.

Leipzig-Berlin 1930.
KÕRTE, A., Aufbau und Ziel von Xenophons Symposion. Berichte über die
M sâchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig.
Philologisch-historische Klasse. 79: 1. Leipzig 1927.
231
KKAMKn. H.. Qiiid valeal o;ióvo'.a in liUiTÍs (irafcis. Disserlalio iiiaufíuralis.
Gotlinycn
KünNKii, R.
(jKnTii. B., Au.sfiihrliciu* Graimnatik der }*riecliischen Sprachc.
Satzlehrc. I—n. Hannovcr-Leii)zií' 1898—1‘)04.
Lemarchand, L., Pruse. Les oevres d avant l exil. Tlièse. Paris 192G.
Liddele—SCOTT—JONES. ^ Greek-Rnglisli Lexicon (LS.!). Oxford 1925 40.
Lovejoy, a. o.—Boas, (}.. PriniÜivism and relaled Ideas in antiquity. A do-
cumenlory Hislory of Priinilivism and relaled Ideas, 1. BalUmore 1935.
Luloi-s, H. J., .\nlisthenis sludiis rhetoricis. Specinien litterariiim inaugn-
rale. Amsterdam 1900.
Maier, H., Sokrales. .Sein Werk imd seine gescliichlliche Stellung. Tühingen
1913.
Manen, J. J., Ilev.a en IIÀoòtOs in tk' periode na .\lexander. Proefschrift.
Ulrechl-Zulphen 1931.
Mar.sciiall, Th., Pnlersucliiingen zur Chronologie der Werke Xenophons.
Inaugural-Dissertalion. München 1928.
Mederer, I£., Djç Alexanderlegenden hei den allesten .Mexanderhislorikern.
Würzhurger .Sludien zur .Alterlumswissenschaft, 8. .SluMgart 193(5.
MLhl, M., I)ie aniike Menschheilsidee in ihrer geschichllichen Entwicklung.
Das Erbe der Alten, 14. Leipzig 1928.
Mühll, P. von der, Zur Unechlheil der antiphonlischen Telralogien. Museum
Helvelicum, ó: 1. Basel 1948.
Müller, A., De Anlisthenis Cvnici vila el scriptis. Dis.serlalio inaugiiralis. Mar-
burg 1800.
Nestle, W., Der Friedensgedanke ini der anliken Well. Pbilologus. Supple-
mentband 31:1. Leipzig 1938.
Die Horen des Prodikos. Hermes, 71. Berlin 193(5.
— \om Mythos zum Logos. Die .Solbslenlfallung der griecbiscben Denkens
von Homer bis aiif die Sophislik und Sokrales. Slullgart 1940.
Norden, Ed., Beilrage
znr Geschichle der griecbiscben Philosophie. Jahrbiicher
lur classische Philologie. Supplemenlband 19. Leipzig 1893.
In Varronis Saluras Menippeas observaliones seleclae. Jahrbiicher fiir
classische Philologie. Supplemenlband 18. Leipzi» 189*>
“‘■■'"'■n.nh'''' "● dé‘sparlo dans l anli-
“1! rír'
nales de 1 Université de Lyon, 3: 13. Paris 1943
A"-
aTSinoponah apop.hegmalia quaeslionos seleclac.
Commenlalio phdologica. Münsler 1913.
Paulv-\Vissowa-Kroll-Mittelhaus, Real-Encyclopãdie der classischen

Alterlumswissenschaft (RE). Slullgart 1894—.
2ur Oeschichle eines roligiõaen Ter-

’7 tf n . . S'“"8=»-'-Gotha 1923.
POHLLNZ, M., Die griechische Tragõdie . Leipzig-Berlin 1930
Praechter, K., Die Philosophie des Alterlunis.
Fr. Ueberwegs Grundriss der
Geschichle der Philosophie, I. Berlin 1926.
— Gebetis Tabula
ciuanam aelale con .scripia esse videalur. Disserlalio in-
auguralis. Marburg 1885.
232
Preiswerk, R., Neue philologische Uniersuchungen zum I. Buch des plalo-

nischen Slaates. Freiburg (Schweiz) 1939.
RE, see Pauly.
Reinhardt, C., De Graecorum lheologia capita duo. Dis.scrla(i inauguralis.
Berlin 1910.
Robert, C., Die griechische Heldensage. I—II. Griechische Mythologic von
L. Preller. II: 1—2. Berlin 1920—21.
Robinson, d. M., Ancient Sinope. American Journal of Philology, 27:2—3.
Baltimore 1906.
Robinson, E. S. G., A Find of Coins of Sinope. The Numismatic Chronicle, 20.
London-Paris 1920.
Rohde, E., P.syche. Seelencult und Unslerblichkeil.sglaube der Griechen. I—II.
Tübingen 1925.
Rudberg, G., Forschungen zu Poseidonios. Kungl. Humanisliska Veten.skaps-
samfundet, 20:3. Uppsala 1918.
De tempore conuiuii Xenophonlei adnolatiunculae. Strena philologica.
Festskrift tiliagnad Professor Per Persson. Uppsala 1922.
— Zur Diogenes-Tradition. Symbolae Osloenses, 14. Oslo 1935.
Zum Diogenes-Typus. Symbolae Osloenses, 15—16. Oslo 1936.
— Sokrales bei Xenophon. Upp.sala Universitets Arsskrifl, 1939:2. Uppsala
1939.
— Zum platonischen Thra.symachos. Symbolae Osloenses, 23. Oslo 1944.

Sayre, F., Diogenes of Sinope. A Study of Greek Cynicism. Inaugural Disserta-
lion. Baltimore 1938.
SCHAFSTAEDT, H., De Diogeiiis epistulis. Dissertatio inaugurali.s. Gõttingen 1892.
SCHANZ, II.—Hosius, C., Geschichte der rõmischen Literatur. I—II. Müller-
Otto, Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft. VIII; 1—2. München 1927—35.
ScHMiD, \\. StXhlin, o., Geschichte der griechischen Literatur. Die klassische
Penode der griechischen Literatur von W. Schmid. I—IV. Müller-Olto,
Handlmch der Altertumswissenschaft. VII:- 1:1—4. München 1929—46.
SCHUBART, W., Das hellenistische Kõnigsideal nach Inschrifteii und Papvri.
Archiv íur Papyrusforschung, 12. München 1937.
SCHWARTZ, Ed., Charakterkõpfe aus der antiken Literatur. I—II. Leipzig-
Berlin 1919.
Seltmann, C. T., Diogenes of Sinope, son of the banker Hikesias. Transactions

of the International Numismatic Congress 1936. Edited by J. A. H.
Mattingly and E. S. G. Robinson. London 1938.
Skard, E., Zwei religiõs-politische Begriffe. Euergeles-Concordia. Avhand-
linger utgitt av Det Norske Videnskabs-Akademi i Oslo. 2. Hist.-Filos.
Klasse. 1931. No. 2. Oslo 1932.
SONNY, A., Ad Dionem Chrysostomum analecta. Kiev 1896
STROUX, J., Die stoische Beurteilung Alexanders des Grossen. Philologus, 88.
Berlin 1933.
SUSEMIIIL, F„ Geschichte der griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit.
I—II. Leipzig 1891—92.
SVF, see .Arnim, J. von.
^ 'üSKI .'íizdi.ri I :jj -jn--!
oUnpi.iiAviu .j u,-u[.Mjii|.)iqos,).Í .i.).ii|i iii uoip.)ut) .lop om|(1osoi!1|,i 0|(| “:>I
’<)í; —SííOI
uinsMOAi!ji-uiup.ioisuiv ●]ji.U|osioo.i(i qosiuiopiTov
●II l Minqii.nmuoo iio iuiAuioíi.i]o.q| uinis-ocIuiAS suoqdmtAx ●'r '!) ‘voNKriOAV
■S0()f
iiAíIii|qos,imuio(i -(p^ Mx i(HU -'M'’rinqos' s«p .inj
11 -iX uumMífo.i(i sup .inj uoíjiqqosM
-iu:uo(] ui siuiiis'i:miiA'o0.i,i Mf) smji iiiiiz [ ti.iqODi.ir)
11.ip j.»q .‘ítiiiiii.)|ni.n||A]\; ii.iq.ís!isi[lutoijiu .ij|) HuiippiAxiii'.] .n\'/ AV
●}:rm ●'ssirpi ,iq.is'r.io|sui
‘\l,qi\iq.>MK>ssiA\ -i'’P 'í^sno.id .lop .iiq.)!.iA(|s-Muiiz
-ns ●iiojsqqdosDuiuA'!-) n-Hp^sipui oip pun osso.i;) .i.ip .iOi>m!xoiv ".1 ‘.‘v:niO'ilAV
t.í;—i>;í)I ii [ 'ii.ni.5|ion -lop o(|mqp .iO(^[ —
●(iIC.I ●II—I ●i">I’d<I
T.Iül
nq.iAji-í^r/djoq 's’ :! 'i.ikamiaíí.i;) -i.)p .inipi>i 0[([ ●oq.íu.i(Is’ pnii .inp;.tA|n
.iq.isqiii.^pq pim .iq.)s!qj.)i.i.i .pd ■siuii|.i.inv ^"'^P ,iq.isuio.ir.iíi .ii([ —
'lS'S’t iiipi.íji q- ■((.i()pu.>i[.ioj\;-zirA\ouii:i[A\. 'A pn” 'V
u.í([.ií7.í?fsinM.ii| 'u.>í!iinq.ins.i.)]U 1 'Hpjsiuoiopq,! ●S()]S.\.H!\j noA SOUOÍ?i)llV
●‘.TiS’l n!l-i'ni II j s-.ipHÍi.m:.i ■.v;<).\ '.1 ■.●i.nic)ciXM'ri:i()i\'-z.i.iA\()iv v'iiA\.
z-i.>iIuio!) .io]u>.ii]_i_ I i!.iq.'>^P'-\-l ‘■-'‘M '"'M* ^●5ii'*nOi([ ●i.íqn s-.nio\- “'p “,\-iHSs:iA\
íí!zdi.)'i 'XI
-U.’S'S‘IA\SllOIpiq-Pi .inj Aiq.i.iv *<.ni<)ps'.)i!nl) spcuiHi sip .i([ ●●() -irJKUl.xiHAV
'<)(iXI ■squ-iiitímíii!
oip;j.iAssi(i sipioqdouAX oui<)P'isA.iqp .hioi(| 0(| -q- 'J.d.lvlKlOMAV
●(iOC.l í7izd!,ri-i:n.iod-iMs-s.iq) ●uoiiiri.Ms-sid oq.isiiinuiqsiioq
.iip UI siq .i.niipq pun u.iq.t.p.i;) -i^p uii .'sso.i>) ,i.)p .i.ipunx.qv ●●.●[ ■Hl-lu:-lA\
íítzdi.i'! ‘OI 'A!í7n[iqiqq iiAq.isissiq.') .inz
●:ws’i
11.1] pn IX -l''í7|zdi.»' ] M.io] uin.i<).)iiiA') <mn)isi)SA.iqp .mnid -»d 'd ‘>i:tHMA\
dniil 'OI- 'K.mh.i.u]) s.ipni;.[
s.ip .inA.pi MuioisosA.iq-) inqd ,ip .HiInq.iJiMmui .i].io._)qi irj -‘a ■!)UMH.x;-K['IVA
-sdipiq |.» sumi(Ii.i.)su| s.ip .ijiU'>pi!.i\' d : | '.i.m.iuij\' 'pvcYqp K.inni
●uoiY -s.ip p;.i._iu.i.i ii.iu.i.ip ●‘H.I. 'HDVXiMVi 'd ‘.xodiiuvq dl Â\ ●.s;<)-ií>.xi(UiVAV
●(U)(i! rlizdi.id ●'^qn.iníiiUMi! oiiid-i.issid Mn.nioid s-.nio|is.nnii;') ' d ‘SVKOIIJ,
■LVA\l inqniod ^!‘l '‘'dV '''l.I. ●"l'Mci "'A ‘HodAVX
■()5;í»1 iiopiiod ●iHii|rs]|i\r;) .'ipnMn.in - -
●Xíriil ■(;! ●AtiMpiMV MS11Í.IH oq)
|o sHiiip.i.Mo.i,] p‘'!>l”‘d\: .1" Aipid ●'tp pni; pM.i;) .np .Mpui:x.)(\- ●'aV A\
y.y.õ
Contents.
Inlroduclion. The Problem of lhe Cynics o
C h a p t e r I.
The Cyiiic Conceplion of lhe Ideal Hero 22
I. Heracles 22
A, The Pre-Cynic and lhe Oldest Cynic Lileralure 22
B. Heracles in lhe Greek Lileralure of lhe Roman Age under
lhe Influence of Cynicism 50
II. Cyrus .. 73
III. Odysseus 94
C h a p l e r II.
Inlerprelalion of some Cynic polilical and pedagogical fragmenls 103
C h a p l e r III.
The Cynic Paideia and lhe Cynic King in Dio Chrysoslomus ... 150
índices 223
Bibliography 228
Pricfi í(i Sw(.(íish crowns
n shiiiifUiii

Cynic Hero and Cynic King - Ragnar Hoistad

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cynic Hero and Cynic King - Ragnar Hoistad

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HACNAR HiilSTAD

Ijronze staliio oí ubout

The Problem of the Cynics.

de Thémistius, 1935. Kesters’ sensational hypothesis that The-

rif^klamation, die freilich wenig taugí, mus , .

reject any attempt Io find in Plato traces of polemics against

^ So also P. Natorp, Diogenes, RE V 767.

Diog. L. VI 70—73 is a different and intellectually more imposing

1) that Antisthenes is intellectual but Diogenes unintellectual;

asceticism, had a religious inspiration. It would be a still more

issue laler than 360. Furthermore, in the decade following 350

believing that these coins, which exhibit Sinopean emblems apart

Diogenes’ liie. He is said to have died at the. age of ninety, Diog.

the Work of Crates. Grates certainly knew Diogenes, but Diogenes

mention our oldest source in this matter, the highly lendentious

essential element, not merely of Cynicism, but of the ancient view

Conscqiienlly in the present work we have so far as possible

this circumslancc to plead that Diogcnes’ Cynicism is in the main

With this short introduction to the problem of the Cynics and

® The same is true also of Dio and Zeno.

^ Especially Gorgias. * Xen. Symp. IV 43 f. ® réypaqpe 3è TiaÍYVta

Anonymi9 Bion^o Menippus^2 Cleomenes Phoenix Zeno

The Cynic Conceptíon of the Ideal Hero.

A. The Pre-Cynic and the Oldest Cynic Literatiire.

Before we discuss the Cynic fragments which are concerned

XV with ils prayer to the son of Zeus who dwells on Olympus

a W. SCHMID, Gesch. d. griech. Lit., I 271.

philanthropy and sípVjvyj, though lhe lalter may be iiierely coii-

That this spiritualised idea of the hero is not slrange to the

The rehgious and ethical refinement which the figure of

molher Alcmene.' That Sopliocles in the Trachiniae was deeply

võv o’, ü)ç èoixs, zy SouXsuxéov.

Heracles’ kóvoí are represented in tragedy as something which

Heracles in his answering speech regards his own labours as a

suffering which he has incurrcd, innocent Ihough he is. In 1. 1252

be modelled on Euripides' Heracles 1. 357 ff, where we find the

»Plain, unaccomplished, slaunch to do great deeds, unversed in

7 Cf. w. SCHMID, op. cit., III 462.

of the Sophists. The Irealmenl of Heracles in bolh of these is

® G. Kinkel, Epicor. Graec. Fragm., p. 253 ff.

concerned wilh repeating lhe heroic deeds of Heraclcs biil uses

.... sl7tóv-as. Yspwv eí -/.ai Xot-ôv àvsc, x£ 5s, sepT],

means that hc himself imisl have beeii roughly contemporary

Prodicus contrasts the way which Arete proclaims. Arete describcs

1. his slarling point is different: not a fate imposed from

such literary criticism of the myths and thcir allegorisalion. To

ãTzoÁiç aoixoç, Tzxxpíooç èax£p'/}jX£VOC,

Heracles, whose laborious wanderings Sócrates uses as a com-

to Diog. L. VI 16 ff, Antisthcnes \vas tlie aulhor of three works

1. Diog. L. VI 2, cf. Julianus VI 187 B f.

Of these fragments Nos. 4 and 5 treat of the same matter,

® Cf. RE III 2305, s.v. Chiron.

the old saga. The general expression tióvoç = «Ya^óv, Diog. L.

The evidence for Diogenes’ treatment of the story of Heracles

genes »Heracles» or possibly some other work of Diogenes in

as well as the reference to Heracles at

expressions of the Stoic school there remains to be mentioned

® Cf. aiso SVF III 154,22, 155,35,42, 156,12, 159,12, 160,19.

be shown that this paragraph is really a paraphrased account of

® Cf. also Diog. L. VI 37 which has the same theme.

criticai attitude towards athletics, evidence of which is apparcnt

-£pi xò awiia y.al Tiepi xyjv The further exposition with

àay.Yja*.; as lhe crcator of such cpavxaaíat wicli give lhe soul