Cynic Hero and Cynic King: studies in the cynic conception of man

Citation preview

HACNAR HiilSTAD

CYNIC HERO AND CYNIC KING

EPPSALA 1948

f

4

I

í

r

i

4

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^ 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 cannibalism. 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 geschichtliches 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 Sokratikern, 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 natürliche Empfanglichkeit für jene einfachen und naturgemassen Genüsse aufs hõchste steigert, die allein den Menschen wahrhaft angemessen sind. Wie dem Antisthenes war auch ihm die spartanische Zucht unerreichtes Vorbild . . . Dagegen Hess sich eine Abweichung des Antisthenes von Sokrates an keinem Punkte nachweisen, wenngleich wir von spateren Kynikern (von Diogenes und seinen Nachfolgern) wissen, dass sie die Beschiiftigung niit Mathematik 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 contributed 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 discussing 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 inattempted 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 Chronicle 1885 apropos of Datames, but these were vigorously combatted 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. Robinson’s view that these Sinope coins with Aramaic letters are conclusive 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 j^ear the Aramaic inscription 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 IKE^IO.^ 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 AntiPlato 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, complectar, 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. in , a monograph We miss in fact what should be fundamental .. . 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. The whole complex of problems which is

treated in the

present study may briefly be said to concern the Cynic conception 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 conception 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 scholarship 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 something 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 Meni 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 and endeavour to assign it to particular personages. of ideas

source»

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 quotations which have no anecdote character. Here belongs the quotation 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 portcparoles 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 veneration of Lucian for earlier Gynicism, I have with some hesitation 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 conspuentium salivis obruerentur."' Apart from this general evaluation of the sources, it seems to me a correct procedure to set these sources in their ideahistorical 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 period of rich colonists. Sinope then seems to have eiijoj^ed prosperity under a democratic government. It was during this cultural and political period of Sinope’s history, when from 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 framework, 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 considerations 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.

® réypaqpe 3è TiaÍYVta ^ Especially Gorgias. * Xen. Symp. IV 43 f. 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, Cleomenes, 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 Eclectic 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 ^i^Xía aòxoü íío ^ ou xaxttYeXtox^og Yépst xa£ xi íoov xoiç MeXeáYpou, Diog. L. VI 99. 13 Pedag 8 writer. Statesinan and poet, wrote in meliambic metre on ethical jec s m ynic style. Author of polemicai treatises against his former “ Poet teacner, the Epicurean Colotes, see CrOnert, Kol. und Mened. 17 writing in choliambic metre, see Gerhard, Phoinix v. Kol. 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.

Teles 11

4(Lucian)

Meleager 12

Menippus^2

Anonymi9

Bion^o

Metrocles *

Monimus^

The Sophistsl

I I

CIcantbes

Posidonius

Panactius

Chrysippus

Herillus,

Zeno

Onesicritus

Leonidas?!^ Aristo,

Phoenix

Hipparchia'

Menedemusl^

Philiscus®

Cercidasll

Dio Chrysostomus 18

Euboulusl3 (= Euboulides?)

Cleomenes

Cratcs’

Diogenes

Antisthenes

Sócrates -

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 dodekathlos 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 designates 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 ôX^ov. In Hesiod we cncounler the same marlial Heracles as in Homer. In lhe Theogony we lind scallered references to the dodckathlos 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 pedagogic 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, peaceful, 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 counlry’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 coiiceived in escalological terms, is a typologicallj^ significant associalion 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 õX^ov. 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.aioTXZOV 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 himself 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

au

W. SCHMID, op. cit., I Õ79.I8, calls rightly Nem. I 31 ff »das hohe Lied 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 affirmation of religious beliefs, 1. 1278.*^ In Euripides we find a statement of the same religious probleins 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,|ióx^ouç 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 uspY£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 without 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, 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 ^ap^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'-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 individualethical virtues and zy pwjiig zy xoO awjjLaxoç recalls the development 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 extraCynic 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 extraOr. 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’ political 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 conclusion that Dio on the whole is useless as a source for our knowledge of tlie historical Diogenes and his views, but not for Antisthenes. 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, contains 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 %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 tradition. 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: otxatózxTOç 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 ^aa*.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 HpaxXéx 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) aaxr^atç: 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 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 ^aXáptôoç 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

£-/.^aX£ àvxi IIpG‘/.poúaxoi) ‘/.ai Hy.ipoivoz X’J7ü'/)v, 'pó^ov, è-i^uixíav, 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£vopóz£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^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 portrayed as a well-balanced and good man who attaches his subjects to himself by affection and considerateness. He is gracious, merciful and understanding, sensitive to others’ unhappiness, magnanimous 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,