-
Introduction
This volume contains the papers presented at the international
symposium Socratica
III. A Conference on Socrates, the Socratics, and Ancient
Socratic Literature, held in
Trento, February 23-25, 2012. This conference was the third of a
series (the editions of
2005 and 2008 were organized by Livio Rossetti and Alessandro
Stavru, joined by Fulvia
de Luise in 2012), whose aim is to promote emerging Socratic
studies, ever more char-
acterized by a new understanding of the complexity of the
cultural and literary phenom-
enon linked to the figure of the Athenian philosopher.
The name of Socrates evokes an elusive intellectual identity,
since many different
Socrateses speak to us, as in a labyrinth of mirrors, in the
testimonies of Plato and
Xenophon as well as in the fragments of lost writings by other
first-generation Socratics.
Even more issues arise around Socrates beyond the circle of his
disciples, as we can glean
through the writings of the comic poets and the sophists. Hence
the difficulty in defining
the intellectual features of the philosopher who gave birth to
the great collective experi-
ence of the Socratic movement. This difficulty reflected itself
in an increasing methodo-
logical caution of scholarship, which ultimately resulted in
suspending the quest for the
historical Socrates.
Socratica III hosted several prominent voices in the recent
debate (together with those
of a new generation of young scholars), which are fueling what
might be called a Socratic
revival. A distinctive feature of this new trend of studies is
to focus on Socrates and his
intellectual movement, i.e. not on the sole Platonic testimony
(which still plays a promi-
nent role in the transmission of the image of the philosopher),
but also on everything which
is around Plato. In contrast with the assumptions that led to
the suspension of the Socratic
question, this trend builds upon the efforts made at different
times to reconstruct the
debate that originated from Socrates teaching.
All those who experienced the three intense days of the
conference had the impression
to be witnessing a real turning point in Socratic scholarship: a
complete reversal, in
comparison with the methodological skepticism of Olof Gigon,
which not only allows to
shed some light on the numerous dark areas of the context in
which the Socratic literature
was born, but also helps to grasp the novelty of Socrates
personality as recorded by
contemporary observers.
In such a perspective, reopening the Socratic problem and posing
again the question
of what Socrates really said (or did) seemed a fruitful
endeavour. And this is probably
the most important scientific achievement of the wide range of
studies presented at the
Conference in Trento. We are therefore very pleased to offer the
testimony of methodo-
logical creativity represented by these essays, which invite
scholars to dare emerging from
the vexata quaestio of the conflictual literary representations
of Socrates.
The papers presented at Socratica III deal with (1) the
intellectual movement
around Socrates, (2) the literary context in which the texts of
the Socratics are framed, (3)
the major topics discussed within this movement, their
development within and outside
the Socratic circle and their reception in Late Antiquity, (4)
the state of the art of the
Socratic question. A qualifying feature of most of the papers
consists in a shift from the
-
Introduction
10
doctrines of the Socratic schools to the dynamic context in
which ideas were presented,
discussed, and eventually fixed within the philosophical and
non-philosophical Greek
literature of the 5th and 4
th centuries B.C.
A number of persons and institutions have supported Socratica
III. Our warmest
thanks go to the International Plato Society (IPS) and the
Istituto Italiano per gli Studi
Filosofici of Naples (IISF), under whose auspices was held the
meeting; the Department of
Philosophy, History and Cultural Heritage (FSBC) and the Faculty
of Humanities of the
University of Trento, and especially its scientific committee
constituted by Paola Gia-
comoni, Maurizio Giangiulio, Giorgio Ieran, Fabrizio Meroi and
Silvano Zucal which
has promoted and supported the event; the Office of Conferences
of the University, whose
support to the program was essential, thanks to the competence
and precious help of
Francesca Menna and Ione Fantini; the Municipality of Trento,
who offered its patronage.
We would also like to thank Paolo Vanini, still a student at the
time of the conference,
whose intense collaboration in the organization and conduct of
Socratica III has been
crucial, in particular for having organised and managed of a
book display which included
the most significant recent studies devoted to the Socratic
literature, as well as for assisting
scholars participating in the conference and for translating
some conferences; in addition
many thanks go to Manuela Valle, who made a substantial
contribution in editing the
essays contained in this volume, as well as in the creation of
the general bibliography and
the index locorum, dedicating herself with careful attention to
apply uniform editorial
criteria to a large number of texts.
Last but not least, we would like to express our gratitude and
affection to Livio
Rossetti, the creator of the Socratica conferences, whose help
has been invaluable.
Fulvia de Luise & Alessandro Stavru
-
The Present State of Socratic Studies: an Overview
Alessandro Stavru
Freie Universitt Berlin
Scholarly literature on Socrates and the Socratics is growing
constantly and steadily. The number of editions, translations,
monographs, collections and articles is increasing from year to
year,1 contributing to a boost of knowledge about Socrates and his
pupils as well as to new ways of interpreting such knowledge. Well
established hermeneutical paradigms spanning from Olof Gigons
skeptic approach to Gregory Vlastos account of the two Socrateses
have been challenged and reassessed, often with the explicit aim to
discover new means to deal with the texts of the first-generation
Socratics. One of the most recent and fruitful approaches concerns
the way these sources are handled. Giannantonis collection, however
successful in providing access to the frag-ments of the minor
Socratics, remained a work for specialists. It was hardly used by
non-classicists mainly because the texts were neither translated
nor thoroughly com-mented. Now, after two decades, things have
changed radically: editions and translations, mostly drawing and
selecting material from the Reliquiae (in some cases even
integrating them) have appeared or are due to appear in different
languages.2 Parallel to this phenomenon is the spawning of
collections of papers devoted to Socrates and the Socratics. We now
have three Companions to Socrates: after that pub-lished by
Blackwell in 2006,3 a Cambridge4 and a Bloomsbury5 Companion have
ap---------------------------------------------
1 In this paper I sketch out the major trends characterizing
Socratic scholarship in the past three years. For a survey reaching
until 2010 see Stavru & Rossetti (2010).
2 In English: Boys-Stones & Rowe (2013). The chapters are
devoted not to single Socratics, but to major themes debated in the
circle of Socrates, i.e. 1. Argument and Truth, 2. Happiness and
the Good, 3. Virtue and Pleasure, 4. Body and Soul, 5. Education,
6. The Erotic Sciences, 7. Alcibiades and Politics, 8. Aspasia and
the Role of Women. 9. God and the World, 10. Lesser Divinities and
Socrates Sign, 11. Debates and Rivalries; in Spanish: Claudia
Mrsico (forth-coming, Madrid, Losada, in 2 volumes containing
fragments on A. The Group of the Socratics, B. Euclides and the
Megarics, C. Aristippus and the Cyrenaics, D. Antisthenes, E.
Phaedo and the Elians/Eretrians, F. Aeschines, G. Simon the
shoemaker); in French: Dimitri El Murr (ANR project; since its
inception following testimonies have been translated and commented
upon: Aristotle (D. El Murr), the Pseudo-Socratic Letters (O.
Renaut), the Latin Church Fathers (L. Saudelli), Ciceros and
Apuleius testimonia (M. Lucciano), Aristoxenus Socrates (M. Narcy).
The texts of Plutarch, Maximus of Tyre, Diogenes Laertius and
Stobaeus are expected to be translated in 2014.
3 Ahbel-Rappe & Kamtekar (2006). 4 Morrison (2011), with
contributions by L.-A. Dorion, The Rise and Fall of the
Socratic
Problem, K. Dring, The Students of Socrates, D.K. OConnor,
Xenophon and the Enviable Life of Socrates, D. Konstan, Socrates in
Aristophanes Clouds, P. Woodruff, Socrates and the New Learning,
M.L. McPherran, Socratic Religion, J. Ober, Socrates and Democratic
Athens, H.H. Benson, Socratic Method, C. Rowe, Self-Examination, R.
Bett, Socratic Ignorance, M. Lane,
-
Alessandro Stavru
12
peared, and a Brill volume with contributions reaching from 5th
Century literature on Socrates to Libanius is in preparation.6
Important collections of essays by major scholars on Socrates have
also appeared: two valuable volumes feature the works that Klaus
Dring7 and Andreas Patzer8 wrote over the last decades, thus
providing comprehensive overviews of their approaches to the
Socratic literature. The same importance applies to the books by
Gabriel Danzig9 and Livio Rossetti10, although in these collections
the contributions go back to a shorter period of time.
-------------------------------------------- Reconsidering
Socratic Irony, T. Penner, Socratic Ethics and the Socratic
Psychology of Action: A Philosophical Framework, C. Bobonich,
Socrates and Eudaimonia, C.L. Griswold, Socrates Political
Philosophy, and A.A. Long, Socrates in Later Greek Philosophy.
5 Bussanich & Smith (2013), with contributions by R.
Waterfield, The Quest for the Historical Socrates; D. Wolfsdorf,
Socratic Philosophizing; W.J. Prior, Socratic Metaphysics; K.
McPartland, Socratic Ignorance and Types of Knowledge; H.H. Benson,
The Priority of Defini-tion; N. Reshotko, Socratic Eudaimonism;
T.M. Brickhouse & N.D. Smith, Socratic Moral Psychology; S.
Obdrzalek, Socrates on Love; C.N. Johnson, Socrates Political
Philosophy; M.L. McPherran, Socratic Theology and Piety; J.
Bussanich, Socrates Religious Experiences; M. Ralkowski, The
Politics of Impiety: Why Was Socrates Prosecuted by the Athenian
Democra-cy?.
6 This Companion-like volume is expected to come out in 2014 for
Brill (eds. F. de Luise, C. Moore, A. Stavru), with contributions
on Socrates as seen by the Comics, the Sophists, the Socratics, the
Peripatus, Hellenism, Roman Empire, Middle Platonism, Diogenes
Laertius, Neoplatonism, and Libanius.
7 Dring (2010), Rossetti (2011), and Patzer (2012). Drings book
contains essays written in the 80s as well as more recent ones:
Antisthenes Sophist oder Sokratiker? (1985), Diogenes und
Antisthenes (1995), Spielereien, mit verdecktem Ernst vermischt.
Unterhaltsame Formen litera-rischer Wissensvermittlung bei
Diogenens von Sinope und den frhen Kyrenaikern (1993), Der
Sokratesschler Aristipp und die Kyrenaiker (1988), Der Sokrates der
platonischen Apologie und die Frage nach dem historischen Sokrates
(1987), Review of R. Kraut, Socrates and the State (1986), Die
Prodikos-Episode im pseudoplatonischen Eryxias(2005), Platons
Garten, sein Haus, das Museion und die Sttten der Lehrttigkeit
Platons (2008), Der Sokrates des Aischines aus Sphettos und die
Frage nach dem historischen Sokrates (1984), Biographisches zur
Person des Sokrates im Corpus Aristotelicum (2007), Gab es eine
Dialektische Schule? (1989), Review of Socratis et Socraticorum
Reliquiae, collegit, disposuit, apparatibus notisque instruxit G.
Giannantoni (1994), Sokrates auf der Opernbhne (2001).
8 In Patzers collection we find quite like in Drings works
reaching back to the 80s, but also a recent paper on Aristophanes:
Sokrates als Philosoph: das Gute (1990), Die Wolken des
Aristophanes als philosophiegeschichtliches Dokument (1993),
Sokrates in den Vgeln und in den Frschen des Aristophanes (2012),
Sokrates in den Fragmenten der Attischen Komdie (1994), Sokrates in
der Tragdie (1998), Die Platonische Apologie als philosophisches
Meisterwerk (2000), Der Xenophontische Sokrates als Dialektiker
(1999), Sokrates und Archelaos (2006), Sokrates als Soldat (1999),
Sokrates und Iphikrates (1985), Beim Hunde! Sokrates und der
Eid
des Rhadamanthys (2003), Sokrates und die Dreiig. 9 Danzig
(2010), containing: Plato and Xenophon on Socrates Behavior in
Court (The Apol-
ogies) (2003), Building a Community under Fire (Crito) (2006),
Disgracing Meletus (Eu-thyphro), Xenophons Socratic Seductions
(Memorabilia), Platos Socratic Seductions (Lysis), Why Socrates Was
Not a Farmer: Xenophons Apology for Socrates in Oeconomicus
(2003).
10 Rossetti (2011). Rossettis collection includes papers
belonging to the most recent phase of his production (from 1998 to
2010): Le dialogue socratique in statu nascendi (2003), LEuthy-dme
de Xnophon (2007), Savoir imiter, cest connatre. Le cas de
Mmorables III 8 (2008), LEuthyphron comme vnement communicationnel
(1998), Le ridicule comme arme entre les mains de Socrate et de ses
lves (2000), La rhtorique de Socrate (2001), Le ct
inauthentique
-
The Present State of Socratic Studies: an Overview 13
13
Even more collections are awaited as proceedings of conferences
which took place or are due to take place in the near future. Since
2011 the Sokratische Gesellschaft holds its annual meetings every
April in Wrzburg,11 and publishes the results of them in the
Mitteilungen der sokratischen Gesellschaft (last issue: nr. 52,
2013).12 In September 2013 (26-28) a conference devoted to The
Philosophical Relevance of the Minor Socratic Schools was held in
Soprabolzano (Italy),13 another one took place in Aix-en-Provence
(France) from December 7-8 (2013) on Socrates at the Agora: What
Purpose Does Philosophical Dialogue Serve Today?,14 and other
events are scheduled for summer 2014 in Tel Aviv (Israel), on Plato
and Xenophon: Comparative Studies15 and Portland (Or-egon).16 A
major ongoing project to be mentioned in this context is that
financed by the French Agence Nationale de Recherche (Socrates:
sources, traditions, usages. Pour une herm-neutique du socratisme
de lAntiquit la fin du Moyen ge). It is coordinated by Dimitri El
Murr in Paris. Its main aim is to translate into French
Giannantonis Reliquiae and, where necessary, to improve on that
edition. The first year of activity (November 2010-December 2011)
has been entirely devoted to the Socrates of Aristotle (which have
been translated and commentated upon by D. El Murr), on which a
workshop has been held in Paris, March 29-31, 2012.17
Scholarly activities on Socrates are constantly increasing, and
one may only wonder where this development will eventually lead.
Socratic scholarship has become extremely
-------------------------------------------- du dialoguer
platonicien (2001), Les socratiques premiers philosophes et Socrate
premier philosophe (2010). For a complete bibliography and access
to previous Socratic writings of Rossetti, go to
http://www.rossettiweb.it/livio/.
11 The last meeting has been held in Wrzburg, Germany, last
April (20-21, 2013). Its topic was Sokrates und die Kunst.
12 President of the Sokratische Gesellschaft is Michael Erler.
Among the papers on Socrates and/or the Socratics published or due
to be duly published in the Mitteilungen are: A. Stavru (2013), K.
Dring (Sokrates und die Musik, forthcoming 2014), M. Steinhart (Ein
Bild von Sokrates, forthcoming 2014), E.M. Kaufmann (Nur die Weisen
knnen tun, was sie begehren? Facetten der Sokrates-Ikonographie,
forthcoming 2014).
13 With papers by C. Rowe (The first generation Socratics and
the Socratic schools), K. Lampe (The Cynic Teles), D. OBrien, A.
Brancacci (Il Socrate di Antistene), V. Tsouna (Platos
representation of the Socratics and their circle), R. Bett (Pyrrho
and the Socratic schools), T. Dorandi (The Socratics in the
Herculaneum Papyri), and L. Rossetti (Lo Zopiro di Fedone (e le
confidenze di Socrate)). Organizer: Ugo Zilioli. The Proceedings
(including also contributions by T. OKeefe, F. Verde, and C.
Mrsico) are scheduled to appear for Acumen by late 2014.
14 Conference organized by the Institute of History of
Philosophy together with the Research Center for Classical
Philosophy Kairos Kai Logos. Organizer: Mieke de Moor.
15 The conference will take place on June, 9-12, at Bar-Ilan
University Tel Aviv. Invited speakers: F. Bevilacqua, L.-A. Dorion,
N. Humble, D. Johnson, D. Morrison, J. Redfield, and A. Stavru.
Academic advisory committee: Gabriel Danzig, Don Morrison, Nili
Alon Amit. Organizer: Gabriel Danzig.
16 Nicholas D. Smith is organizing an NEH Summer Seminar on
Socrates at the Lewis & Clark College Portland, June 22-July
25.
17 With T. Auffret, G. Boys-Stones, O. DJerenian, L.-A. Dorion,
D. El Murr, D. Morrison, M. Narcy, P. Pontier, O. Renaut, G.
Roskam, C. Rowe, L. Saudelli, A. Stavru, C. Vieillard, and V.
Tsouna. See footnote 2 for more details on the translation work
done. For updates see the ANR-website run by Lucia Saudelli, which
contains a useful Socratic bibliography:
http://socrates.hypotheses.org/.
-
Alessandro Stavru
14
variegated and dynamic. Approaches, methodologies, sometimes
even the topics treated are new and original, thus enriching and
refreshing a whole field of studies. But let us look in detail what
kind of topics the scholarship is currently dealing with. Crucial
for understanding the role played by Socrates and his movement in
the 5th and 4th centuries is to trace the elements which led to the
birth and raise of a new prose genre in Greek literature, the
Skratikoi logoi. It is important to note that this genre did not
arise ex nihilo: many of its characteristic features, such as the
authors reluctance to state explicitly his ideas, or even to
identify with them, can be found in a whole generation of sophoi:
as Livio Rossetti suggests, a red thread seems to hold together
Zeno of Elea, the Sophists, Socrates, and the first-generation
Socratics.18 Indeed, many hints point to an interplay between the
texts of the Sophists and those of the Socratics. Andrew Ford, who
is working on this topic since 2006, maintains that Socratic
literature derives not from fifth-century mime or drama (as
commonly acknowledged on the grounds of Aristotles testimony), but
from the context of the burgeoning rhetorical literature of the
period.19 A similar position is held by David Murphy, who, by
claiming that the Skratikoi logoi are not grouped with mimetic
genres, shows that these form instead a genre on their own. Their
influence on Isocrates is patent, as Murphy suggests, since his
speeches respond to views that can only have come from dialogues.20
The uniqueness of the Socratic dialogue is a feature pointed out
also by Luigi Maria Segoloni, according to whom the plok of
dialogue, i.e. its mixture of different genres, reflects its hybrid
nature, being at the juncture between literature and philosophy.
This accounts for the autonomy of dialogue, which obeys to its own
rules, and not to those of other literary genres.21 In fact, there
is no doubt that dialogue is essential for defining the literary
production of the Socratics. Klaus Dring dwells on the well-known
fact that besides Aristippus all the major Socratics wrote
dialogues, whose prime purpose was not to provide accounts of
conversations that actually took place, but to discuss, through
fictitious reconstructions, philosophical issues in the same manner
in which Socrates did.22 A major problem in dealing with the
Skratikoi logoi is that only those of Plato and Xenophon survive
complete. Of the other Socratics we have only fragments: in some
cases significant ones (as Aeschines Alcibiades, Aspasia and
Miltiades, and Phaedos Zopyrus), in other cases scarce ones or even
nothing at all. This lack of primary sources makes it difficult to
determine the exact amount of the Socratic literature and thus to
identify the group of the Socratics: Debra Nails reconstruction,23
however helpful, leaves many questions open as to the extension and
the qualifying features of the Socratic circle. On the issue of who
may be qualified as a Socratic and who not an issue which still
deserves to be tackled systematically Christopher Rowe and Voula
Tsouna provided insightful reflections in recent papers.24 Another
way to deal with the lack of primary sources is to look at the
literary context in which these are embedded, so as to broaden the
picture and understand the general
--------------------------------------------
18 Rossetti (2012), which develops on ideas formulated in
(2010a). 19 Ford (2006), (2008), and (2010). 20 Murphy (2013), 312.
21 Segoloni (2012). A similar approach can be found also in
Segolonis paper in this volume. 22 Dring (2011). 23 Nails (2002).
24 C. Rowe, The first generation Socratics and the Socratic schools
and V. Tsouna, Platos
representation of the Socratics and their circle, papers held at
the Soprabolzano conference men-tioned above.
-
The Present State of Socratic Studies: an Overview 15
15
features of that context. It is, for example, intructive to
observe the way the Socratics deal with the Homeric texts. Chapters
of a recent book by Silvia Montiglio dwells extensively on
Antisthenes and Platos pictures of Odysseus. Anthistenes defense of
Odysseus polytropia is the first extensive endorsement of the heros
character we have in Antiquity. Montiglio claims that Antisthenes
probably inherited his appreciation for Odysseus from his teacher,
Socrates, whose admiration for Odysseus is likely to be
historically founded. It is interesting to note that in Plato
Odysseus is a more complex figure, bearing positive as well as
negative aspects: in the myth of Er for example, he is reborn as a
philosopher in order to remove the troublesome sides of his
personality. 25 A paper by Naoko Yamagata shows the use Plato and
Xenophon make of Homeric quotations and references. It is striking
that Plato, though criticizing epic poetry, introduces Homeric
references far more often than Xenophon, who in the majority of his
writings makes little use of Homer. The exception to this comes in
Xenophons Socratic writings, where Socrates frequently recalls
Homeric references in order to criticize epic poems and rhapsodes
(this does not apply to the Oeconomicus, however, where we have
virtually no reference to Homer). Yamagata explains this difference
by concluding that the historical Socrates probably did use Homeric
references frequently in his conversation, as reported by both
Plato, who loves Homer, and Xenophon, who is not normally keen to
quote Homer.26 Platos rela-tionship toward Homeric poetry is
complex: on the one hand he cannot avoid citing and using it, on
the other he thoroughly attacks it. Recent studies27 focus on this
ambivalence, which is of crucial importance not only for some
famous passages of the Republic (II, III and X), but also for the
juxtaposition of philosophy and poetry we find in the Ion, a
dialogue possibly belonging to the beginning of Platos literary
production.28 The Ancient Quarrel between philosophy and poetry is
debated in a number of recent works dwelling mainly on the Ion.29
References to Homer and poetry seem to play a key role also in
other dialogues, reaching until the very last phase of Platos
production (e.g. in Hippias Minor,30 Symposium,31 Phaedo32,
Phaedrus33, and Laws34). Looking at the literary context in which
the Socratic logoi were written helps us gain insights about their
tendency to follow a general trend toward mixing genres that
becomes --------------------------------------------
25 Montiglio (2011). 26 Yamagata (2012), 144. It is important to
note that Polycrates openly accused Socrates of
availing quotations from Homer in a tendentious manner (e.g.
Xen. Mem. 1.2.56 and 58). On the use of Odyssiac rhetoric in
Xenophon Mem. 4.2 see the contribution by Cristiana Caserta in this
volume.
27 Destre & Herrmann (2011). 28 The Ion may have even been
written when Socrates was still alive (as e.g. Heitsch 2003 and
2004 claims), a possibility that seems to back the hypothesis of
an historical Socrates keen on using frequently references to Homer
in his teaching.
29 Saadi Liebert (2010), Barfield (2011), Trivigno (2012),
Griswold (2012), M. Sentesy, Philosophy and the Struggle Between
Poetry and Expertise, paper held at the SAGP conference, Fordham
University, October 11-13, 2013.
30 Adams (2010). 31 E. Belfiore, The Image of Achilles in Platos
Symposium, paper held at the conference
Plato and the Power of Images, Bryn Mawr Session, October 11-12,
2013. 32 McPherran (2012b). 33 A. Capra, Socrates Plays
Stesichorus, paper held at the CHS Research Symposium, April
27-28, 2012. Andrea Capra has a book project on Platos Four
Muses and the Poetics of philosophy, due to appear for CHS Harvard
University Press.
34 Laks (2011).
-
Alessandro Stavru
16
particularly evident in the sophistic literature. An interesting
paper by Rachel Ahern Knudsen sheds light on the multiple links
connecting poetry, rhetoric and philosophy by examining four hybrid
model speeches: Gorgias Defense of Palamedes, Antisthenes Ajax and
Odysseus, and Alcidamas Odysseus.35 A similar approach can be
noticed in the already mentioned article by David Murphy, whose
concern is to connect passages in Isocrates to dialogues of
Hippias, Antisthenes, and Plato.36 By observing the phenomenon of
the Skratikoi logoi from the perspective of sophistry, and in
particular of Isocrates, this paper succeeds in showing how
dialogues were understood outside the Socratic circle. Another
essential viewpoint on Socrates and the Socratics is that of
Aristophanes. Various approaches to his portrait of Socrates have
been attempted: one is to compare what we find in the Clouds with
the topics discussed in the Skratikoi logoi, taking as authentic
only what is compatible with these; the other is to look beyond the
exaggerations and distortions of Comedy and search for doctrines
which are not attested in the writings of the Socratics. David
Konstan follows the latter option, coming to the conclusion that
Aristophanes assembled a hodge-podge of intellectual pursuits, from
eristic argumenta-tion to speculation about the gods, astronomy,
meteorological phenomena, biology, poetry, and grammar, and
combined them all in Socrates Aristophanes Socrates was a compound
figure, combining characteristics of Protagoras (grammar), Damon
(metrics: cf. Plato Republic 400a), Hippo of Elis (sky as lid), and
Diogenes of Apollonia, who made air the arch-principle of all
things.37 These connections are explored in three learned papers
that provide hints useful to clarify the historical background of
the meteorological doctrines Aristophanes mocks at. It is for
instance unclear whether and to what extent these doctrines should
be attributed to Diogenes or Archelaus, how they relate to each
other, and if they should be understood in the context of
Presocratic physiology.38 In fact, a variety of bodies of knowledge
are attributed to Socrates and his disciples in the Clouds. It is
plausible that Aristophanes not only had a clear idea of the
academic disciplines which were taught in Athens in his time, but
that he expected also his public to have such an idea.39 There are
convincing arguments for thinking that Aristophanes did not provide
a purely fictional account of Socrates, as a completely unrealistic
portrait would have yielded no comic effect. On the contrary, there
is evidence that the Clouds influenced profoundly the common
opinion on Socrates even many years after their rehearsal, fueling
the hostile feelings which led to the accusations brought against
him in 399. Following up on this, Giovanni Cerri claims that there
are solid grounds to believe that the Socrates of the Clouds sticks
to the historical Socrates. Since we have parallel issues in
Aristopha-nes and in the Socratics portraits of Socrates, and as it
is difficult to assume that the latter were relying on the former,
it is possible to infer that both derive from the same source:
-------------------------------------------- 35 Knudsen (2012).
On the connections between Gorgias Defense of Palamedes and
Socratic
literature see the paper by Alonso Tordesillas in this volume.
36 Murphy (2013). 37 Konstan (2011), 85-86. 38 Gbor Betegh thinks
that the Socrates of the Clouds should be related to Archelaus and
not to
Diogenes (G. Betegh, Spoofing Presocratic Arguments. Once again
on Socrates in the Clouds, paper held at the GANPH conference in
Wrzburg, Germany, from September 28 to October 1, 2010). Fazzo
(2009) and Demont (2010) give thorough reconstructions of the
physiological doctrines at the background of Aristophanes
account.
39 Bromberg (2012).
-
The Present State of Socratic Studies: an Overview 17
17
the real Socrates.40 Cerri backs this claim by showing how the
doctrines hinted at in the meteorosophist passages of the Clouds
(e.g. 93-96, 137-179, 187-189, 191-194, 200-217) match with those
expounded in the autobiographical section of the Phaedo
(95e7-100a9). Even the qualification phrontists seems to go back to
the real Socrates, as we can find it in Aristophanes well-known
account of the phrontistrion, in Ameipsias Connos (where the choir
is made of phrontistai: Ath. 218c), in Platos Apology (18b7), and
in Xenophons Symposium (6.6). Some caution should however be
applied when com-bining these parallel passages, as their scope is
by no means identical. The aim of the Comics is to attack Socrates
and his pupils, while the Socratics, by referring to those
accusations, try to show their groundlessness, or to deflect them
on other intellectuals of the time. This is a main issue in Andrea
Capras work, which is devoted to exploring the connections between
Aristophanes and Plato. As Capra shows in detail, references to the
Comics can be found even in lengthy dialogues of Plato such as the
Protagoras.41 Here, Platos attempt is to distinguish between
Sophists and philosophers, in order to deflect Aristophanes
accusations onto the former.
We know that Plato eventually succeeded in establishing this
dichotomy but we also know that at Socrates death, when Plato still
had to emerge as the most distinguished of the Socratics, the term
sophia encompassed quite distinct strands of knowledge. It is a
well-known fact that the eldest Socratic, Antisthenes, had been the
pupil both of Socrates and Gorgias, and that among his writings
were not only dialogues on a variety of issues, but also rhetorical
exercises, such as the Ajax and the Odysseus.42 In order to gain a
comprehensive view of Antisthenes thought his literary production
should be therefore examined in its full breadth. A forthcoming
volume edited by Vladislav Suvk attempts to do so, featuring
contributions by major scholars in Antisthenes and Cynic
tradition.43 Papers by Menahem Luz and Aldo Brancacci follow this
trend, showing how Antisthenes views on education play a pivotal
role for issues which are much debated also among other
-------------------------------------------- 40 Cerri (2012),
157. 41 Capra (2001) and (2004). Capras work focuses also on other
connections between Aris-
tophanes and Platos works, i.e. between the Clouds and the
Symposium (2007a), the Knights and the Gorgias/Republic (2007b),
the Assemblywomen and the Republic (2007c). On these topics see
also Capra (2008) and (2012). On the parallel issues between
Aristophanes Clouds and Platos Phaedo and Protagoras see C.
Caserta, Discorso Forte, Discorso Debole, Discorso Sicuro. Socrate
nelle Nuvole, nel Fedone e nel Protagora (forthcoming).
42 On the two declamatory speeches of Antisthenes see Djurslev
(2011). 43 Suvk (2014), with papers by A. Brancacci, W. Desmond,
L.-A. Dorion, M.-O. Goulet-Caz,
G. Mazzara, L. Navia, and S. Prince. Other contributors to the
volume are P.P. Fuentes Gonzles, L. Flachbartov, S. Husson, G.
Luck, C. Mrsico, and A. Stavru. Most of Vladislav Suvks work on the
Socratics is in Slovak. See e.g. his commentary of Antisthenes
fragments (Kala & Suvk [2010]),
or the two volumes he edited (2006-2007) on The Socratic
tradition of thought from Antiquity to present (resp. 369 and 265
pages), with contributions by V. Suvk (Socratic movement), J.
Gai-da-Krynicka (Socratic question), M. Fedorko (Irony), F. imon
(Medicine), U. Wollner (Friendship), D. Olesiski (Dialectics), M.
Porubjak (Xenophon), A. Kala (Xenophon), D. Kubok (Euclides), V.
Suvk (Cynicism), A. Kala (Cynicism and Stoicism), E. Urbancov
(Cicero), M. Fedorko (Aristo-tle), M. Fridmanov (Arendt), M. Nemec
(Patoka), M. Krik (Socrates Death), I. Komanick
(Responsibility), D. Morse (Pragmatism), M. Krik (Guthrie and
Nehamas), D. Kubok (Elenchus), D. Olesiski (Conscience), D. Rymar
(Qualitative models), P. Labuda (Euthyphro), E. Andreansk (Socratic
Fallacy), J. Petrelka (Division of the Soul), F. imon (Phaedo
118a), E. Urbancov (Natura and virtue), M. Fedorko (Kierkegaard),
D. Morse (Nietzsche), M. Krik (Patoka).
-
Alessandro Stavru
18
Socratics.44 Some of these issues can be found in later Cynics
such as Teles and Epicte-tus,45 although a direct link from
Antisthenes teaching to Cynic (and Stoic) tradition is not always
traceable. The same difficulty applies to the doctrines which were
taught in other so-called Socratic schools, e.g. the Megarian or
the Cyrenaic: recent books by Ugo Zilioli46 and Kurt Lampe47 show
that issues tackled by authors like Eubulides, Diodorus Cronus,
Stilpo, Hegesias, Anniceris, and Theodorus belong to the context of
Hellenistic philosophy, thus having little in common with the
topics discussed among the first-generation Socratics. Another
Socratic on which scholarly work is ongoing is Aeschines of
Sphettus. A new edition of his fragments is in preparation,48 and
topics of the Alcibiades and the Aspasia parallel to those we find
in Plato and Xenophon have been discussed in recent papers.49 This
approach is valuable also for Socratics on which we have only
indirect evidence: by reconstructing what we find about them in
Aristophanes, Plato and Xenophon we can sketch out their
intellectual world, and draw some hypotheses about their main
tenets. Christopher Moore has applied this method on Chaerephon and
Clitophon, providing useful portraits of these companions of
Socrates.50 The next Socratic to be talked about is Xenophon, whose
Socratic writings have been studied with increasing attention since
2001. In the past three years this trend has even intensified: four
new translations of his Socratic works have been published,51 as
well as vast collections of papers both on his Socratic and
non-Socratic writings. Of major im-portance are the proceedings of
the Liverpool conference,52 which encompass contribu-tions dealing
with almost every aspect of Xenophons uvre. A similar approach
char-acterized a conference that took place in Paris in 2011, the
proceedings of which are in preparation,53 and the collection
edited by Vivienne Gray.54 These endeavours show in a
-------------------------------------------- 44 M. Luz,
Antisthenes Concept of Paideia, paper delivered at the XXIII World
Congress of
Philosophy, Athens, August, 4-10, 2013; A. Brancacci, Il Socrate
di Antistene, paper held at the above mentioned Soprabolzano
conference The Philosophical Relevance of the Minor Socratic
Schools. On the political background of Antisthenes paideia see
Brancaccis paper in this volume.
45 K. Lampe, The Cynic Teles, paper held at the aforementioned
conference held in So-prabolzano, and Johnson (2012).
46 Zilioli (2012) and The Circle of Megara, due to appear for
Acumen in late 2014. 47 Kurt Lampe, The Birth of Hedonism: Cyrenaic
Ethics from Aristippus to Walter Pater,
appearing in 2014 for Princeton University Press. 48 By
Francesca Pentassuglio (Rome). 49 See De Martino (2010), Lampe
(2010), and Yonezawa (2012a). Cf. also the section on Ae-
schines in this volume. 50 Moore (2012a), (2012b), and
Chaerephon the Socratic, Phoenix (forthcoming). 51 In Italian:
Bevilacqua (2010), in French: Bandini & Dorion (2011) on both
of which see the
reviews in this book; in Portuguese: Pinheiro (2011); and in
English: Sanders (2013). 52 Hobden & Tuplin (2012). Following
essays of the nearly 800 pages long volume deal ex-
plicitly with Socrates: D.M. Johnson (2012), M. Stokes (2012),
R. Waterfield (2012), L.-A. Dorion (2012), and S. Schorn (2012) (=
English version of Schorn [2010]).
53 The conference Xnophon et la rhtorique was organized by the
University of Par-is-Sorbonne from December 2-3, 2011, with papers
by C. Tuplin, M. Narcy, G. Cuniberti, M.-P. Nol, M. Tamiolaki, G.
Daverio Rocchi, L.-A. Dorion, P. Pontier, N. Humble, A. Blaineau,
P. Demont, R. Nicolai, M. Casevitz, P. Chiron, L. Pernot, and V.
Gray. Organizer: Pierre Pontier.
54 Gray (2010). With contributions by V.J. Gray, Introduction;
S.B. Pomeroy, Slavery in the Greek Domestic Economy in the Light of
Xenophons Oeconomicus (1989); E. Baragwanath,
-
The Present State of Socratic Studies: an Overview 19
19
paradigmatic way that no rigid division of topics and
disciplines can be drawn in Xeno-phon: a holistic approach is
therefore necessary for every enquiry on his work. This entails
that even those who are interested only in what he reports about
Socrates should take into account non-philosophical writings such
as Cyropedia55 and Poroi.56 As a matter of fact, Socratic topics
can be found in almost every work of Xenophon: this makes it
critical to look for passages that Socratic scholars normally do
not take into account, which are however useful for understanding
peculiar aspects of Socrates personality and teaching.
Among the works devoted specifically to Xenophons portrait of
Socrates, the Belles Lettres collection of Louis-Andr Dorions
articles plays a pivotal role.57 Here we find coherent
reconstructions of Xenophons Socrates most important philosophical
notions, including enkrateia, autarkeia, akrasia, sophia, and
basilik techn. By reading these insightful papers the philosophical
skills of Xenophon become evident, once more showing the inadequacy
of the age-old commonplace that considers him as a dull
didac-ticist, unable to convey the core of Socrates thought. A
similar approach can be seen in David OConnors chapter on Xenophon
in the Cambridge Companion to Socrates.58 Here we find a thoughtful
account of Socratic sophia and ers presented in connection with
other issues such as the common features between Socrates and
Cyrus, or the accusations which led to the conviction of Socrates
in 399. In fact, apologetic aims play a significant part both in
the first section of the Memorabilia (1.1.8-1.2.64) and in the
Apology. Recent papers by Michael Stokes59 and Robin Waterfield60
show that every enquiry into Xeno-phons defensive strategy must
rely on a reconstruction that encompasses issues linked to
chronology, politics, and religion. But there is more to it:
defending Socrates from the accusation of corrupting the youth is
possible only if one addresses his conception of love and
friendship. Kirk Sanders offers an account of the way Xenophon
assesses his rela-tionship with Alcibiades,61 while Tazuko van
Berkel shows how Xenophons commer-cial language of reciprocity does
not imply what modern readers have often labeled as
-------------------------------------------- Xenophons Foreign
Wives (2002); C. Hindley, Xenophon on Male Love (1999); P.
Gauthier, Xenophons Programme in the Poroi (1984); S. Johnstone,
Virtuous Toil, Vicious Work: Xen-ophon on Aristocratic Style
(1994); S. Goldhill, The Seductions of the Gaze: Socrates and His
Girlfriends (1998); D.R. Morrison, Xenophons Socrates as Teacher
(1994); A. Patzer, Xeno-phons Socrates as Dialectician (1999); B.
Huss, The Dancing Socrates and the Laughing Xeno-phon, or The Other
Symposium (1999); L.-A. Dorion, The Straussian Interpretation of
Xenophon: The Paradigmatic Case of Memorabilia IV.4 (2001); P.
Carlier, The Idea of Imperial Monarchy in Xenophons Cyropaedia
(1978); P. Stadter, Fictional Narrative in the Cyropaideia (1991);
E.
Lefvre, The Question of the Good Life. The Meeting of Cyrus and
Croesus in Xenophon (1971); M. Reichel, Xenophons Cyropaedia and
the Hellenistic Novel (1995); H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, The Death of
Cyrus: Xenophons Cyropaedia as a Source for Iranian History (1985);
H.D. Westlake, The Sources for the Spartan Debacle at Haliartus
(1985); H. Erbse, Xenophons Anabasis (1966), J. Ma, You Cant Go
Home Again: Displacement and Identity in Xenophons Anabasis (2004);
P.J. Bradley, Irony and the Narrator in Xenophons Anabasis (2001);
V.J. Gray,
Interventions and Citations in Xenophons Hellenica and Anabasis
(2003). 55 Gray (2011), on which see the review in this book. 56
See Schorn (2010) and (2012). 57 Dorion (2013), which collects
nineteen articles published between 2000 and 2011. 58 OConnor
(2011). 59 Stokes (2012). 60 Waterfield (2012). 61 Sanders
(2011).
-
Alessandro Stavru
20
utilitarianism.62 How peculiar the personality of this Socrates
is can be seen in two other papers addressing his feminism (in
Memorabilia 3.11)63 and his ability to produce laughter (gelopoiia)
in interlocutors (in the Symposium). 64 Since Vincent Azoulays
seminal book65 it is clear that the charismatic features of
Xenophons Socrates play a key role in his way of dealing with
others, both in the microcosmic context of the oikos66 and in the
macrocosmic one of the polis.67 As to the political attitudes
connected to his person-ality, scholars still disagree whether
these can be considered as matching with democra-cy68 or rather
with oligarchy.69
Another Socrates which has undergone great changes in the past
years is that depicted
by Plato. Recent scholarship follows the trend of broadening his
picture(s) of Socrates by going beyond the early dialogues. A whole
series of books follows this path, in the attempt to reconstruct
lines of thought that stretch along vast portions of the Platonic
corpus. David McNeill focuses mainly on ethical and political
aspects in Gorgias, Pro-tagoras, and Republic, drawing interesting
parallels with Nietzsche.70 Laurence Lampert has a similar
approach, being influenced by both Nietzsche and Strauss. He gives
thorough accounts of the Protagoras, the Charmides and the
Republic, paying attention to philo-sophical, dramatic, and
historical detail.71 Even more dialogues (Apology, Theaetetus,
Republic, Phaedo, Euthydemus, Lovers, and Sophist) are examined
in Sandra Petersons seminal book. Addressing the question of why
Platos Socrates seems to differ from dialogue to dialogue, she
argues that all Platonic dialogues show Socrates concerned with
examining his interlocutor and so engaging in the central component
of the complex activity, philosophizing.72 The different views
Plato puts in the mouth of Socrates are neither his own nor
Socrates, but rather those of the interlocutors Socrates is
examining. According to Peterson, these differences therefore
entail neither a development of Platos thought nor a dichotomy
between a Socratic and a non-Socratic period of Platos pro-duction:
contra Vlastos, Socrates remains the same throughout all of Platos
work. An-other book tackling the Platonic corpus as a whole is that
of Nikos Charalabopoulos. The thesis of this volume is interesting
as to the much debated issue of the birth of the Socratic dialogue:
as Platos writings are prose dramatic compositions i.e. works that
consist of the words and deeds of their characters without the
intervention of an authorial voice, their meaning should be
established against the background of contemporary production
-------------------------------------------- 62 Van Berkel
(2010). 63 Calvo, T., Does Xenophons Theodote Dialogue Make
Socrates Out to Be a Feminist?,
paper held at the XXIII World Congress of Philosophy, Athens,
August, 4-10, 2013. 64 Testenoire (2013). 65 Azoulay (2004). 66 See
P. Pontier, : rhtorique et idal dordre dans lEconomique (et
ailleurs), paper
delivered at the conference Xnophon et la rhtorique, Paris,
December 2-3, 2011 and P. Spahn, Xenophons Oikonomikos, paper held
at the Topoi-conference Oikonomia und Chrematistike, Berlin,
November 7-8, 2013.
67 Schorn ([2010] 2012) and Stavru (2013). 68 See Gray (2011b).
69 Bevilacqua (2010) and Gaile-Irbe (2012). 70 McNeill (2010). 71
Lampert (2010). 72 Peterson (2011), 4.
-
The Present State of Socratic Studies: an Overview 21
21
of texts,73 that is, as an alternative to contemporary theater
plays such as those of Aris-tophanes and Euripides. Evidence on
Platonic dialogue as a new type of drama, or metatheatre, can be
found all across Platos work (the passages of the Ion, the Republic
and the Laws being obviously of major importance). Charalabopoulos
thesis is not new,74 but the way he expounds it is convincing, as
he backs it dwelling extensively on evidence about the performance
of Platonic dialogues in antiquity. This performative aspect is
tackled also by Laura Candiotto,75 according to which Platos
dialogues were not only read aloud within the Academy, but also
rehearsed in public places. Their main scope was therefore
political, i.e. to purify the Athenian community from erroneous
ideas. This happened through an elenctic practice which Candiotto
labels as retroactive, as it in-volved not only Socratess
interlocutors, but also, behind them, the whole audience assisting
in the rehearsal. An approach not very different from Candiottos is
that of Danielle Allen. She holds that Plato made use of his
literary skills to effect a political change. By using language in
a self-conscious attempt to shape peoples minds he thus managed to
transform Athenian culture and politics through writings and public
lectures.76
Athens plays an important role in Platos dialogues. References
to places Socrates used to visit within and outside the polis occur
throughout the Platonic corpus, often providing the settings of
single dialogical units. Two recent publications show how
func-tional this topography is in relation to Socrates
philosophical and political aims.77 These two aspects are closely
intertwined in Plato,78 as in his view practicing the art of
politics goes together with leading a philosophical life.
Christopher Long deals with this in a variety of publications in
which he shows that Socrates is the Platonic political ideal.
Politics involves cultivating the ideals of justice, beauty and the
good, which according to Long is possible only through the
transformative power of Socratic speaking and Platonic writing.79
The relationship of Socrates with Athenian democracy80 is, however,
problem-atic, as his prosecution in 399 shows. Studies on this
well-trodden topic are still flour-ishing, with a strong focus on
the early dialogues of Plato.81 A topic linked to politics, to
which much attention has been devoted in the past years, is that of
Socratic eudaimonism. Different approaches to it can be traced in
Platos dia-logues. Socrates seems to avow two theses incompatible
with each other: that of the
--------------------------------------------
73 Charalabopoulos (2012), 18-19. The issue of Socratic dialogue
is debated in chapter 2: 24-103.
74 See Nightingale (2005) and Puchner (2010). 75 Candiotto
(2012a). See also (2011), (2012b), (2013a), (2013b), and (2013c).
76 Allen (2010), on which see the review of Capra (2012a). 77 Nuzzo
(2011) and N. Charalabopoulos, Pilgrims to Athens: The
Philosophical Topography
of Platos Parmenides, paper held at the conference Platos
Parmenides, Chania (Greece), Sep-tember 26-29, 2011.
78 Comprehensive overviews on Platos Socrates conception of
politics are those of Griswold (2011) and Johnson (2013). On
philosophy as the true political craft (Gorg. 521d) see Shaw
(2011).
79 Long (2011), (2012a), (2012b), and (2014). 80 See Jedan
(2010), Ober (2011), and Y. Kurihara, Socrates as a Radical
Politician, paper
held at the XXIII World Congress of Philosophy, Athens, August,
4-10, 2013. 81 See the translation of and commentary on Euthyphro,
Apology, Crito, and Phaedo by
Christopher Rowe (2010), the anthology edited by Dave Johnson
(2011), with translated extracts from Platos Apology, Laches, and
Gorgias, and Xenophons Memorabilia, and the new German commented
translation of the Apology by Rafael Ferber (2011). On the trial
and related issues see Austin (2010), Bettany (2010), Beys (2010),
Samad (2011), Van Harten (2011), Yonezawa (2012b), and Ralkowski
(2013).
-
Alessandro Stavru
22
equivalence of virtue and happiness and that of the dependence
of happiness on the pos-session of virtue. Christopher Bobonich
sticks to the former: he maintains that Socrates holds a radical
form of rational eudaimonism, according to which external
circumstances (such as bad luck) can neither disrupt nor influence
the agents happiness.82 Rationality, i.e. knowledge of what is good
and bad, is therefore the only possible criterion for taking
practical deliberations concerned with others in the way that most
conduces to ones own happiness. Terry Penner insists on the fact
that according to Platos Socrates every action is generated by the
desire for happiness, that is of what is best for me. This
happiness is, however, not absolute, i.e. the maximum possible
happiness anyone could ideally have, but the maximum of happiness
as is available in a given situation, i.e. a practicable
happiness.83 Such practicability depends on the knowledge of what
is virtue, and such knowledge is general, being the science of what
is good for humans and of the means to that good .84 These two
aspects of Socratic ethics the particular one of the individuals
happiness and the general one of the epistemic means necessary to
achieve this happi-ness harmonize in a paradigmatic way in the
Lesser Hippias (372-376), where the goodness of persons matches
with the functional good arising from knowledge of virtue. Naomi
Reshotko sums up this train of thought as follows: 1. knowledge is
the determining factor in eudaimonia, but knowledge is general and
eudaimonia individual; 2. the pursuit of individual eudaimonia
implies the concern for others eudaimonia; 3. therefore,
eu-daimonia cannot be pursued at the expense of others: Socratic
eudaimonism prompts one to do what is good for oneself and
others.85 The passage of the Lesser Hippias gives a clue to the
much-debated issue concerning whether Socratic ethics should be
considered egoistic or altruistic. Sarah Ahbel-Rappe deals at depth
with this topic, showing how Socrates mission consists in bringing
his interlocutors from a state of unreflective egoism into a state
of harmony with the good, i.e. of freedom from self-interest.86 In
doing so, Socrates pursues the interest of his interloc-utors, who
he strives to make actually happy. Socrates ethics is therefore
based on friendship, i.e. on his paradigmatic altruism. Ahbel-Rappe
points out that this image of a selfness Socrates, who awakens his
fellow citizens to virtue, is not only in Plato:87 we find it also
in Xenophon88 and, as she claims, in Aeschines, whose accounts show
up to which extent the exemplary force of the Socratic paradigm
influenced his companions.
A recurrent issue in Socratic ethics is intellectualism.89 A
recent book by Brickhouse and Smith discusses the most common views
on the topic, proposing a new interpretation
-------------------------------------------- 82 Bobonich (2011).
83 Penner (2011), 265. 84 Penner (2011), 269. 85 Reshotko (2012)
and (2013). 86 Ahbel-Rappe (2010) and (2012). On Socrates
altruistic ethics see also B. Coskun, Soc-
rates Dare to Care, paper held at the XXIII World Congress of
Philosophy, Athens, August, 4-10, 2013. On Platoss Socrates use of
irony and shame to bring about the desire for moral improvement see
Piering (2010).
87 Benson (2013) dwells on the strategy Socrates uses in the
Euthyphro to prompt to virtue. In this dialogue happiness consists
in the health of Euthyphros soul, which is fostered by the
perfor-mance of virtuous actions and the avoidance of vicious
ones.
88 For an account on Socratic eudaimonia as seen by Xenophon see
Vivienne Grays paper in this volume.
89 Sedley (2013) tackles this issue in books 5-7 of Platos
Republic.
-
The Present State of Socratic Studies: an Overview 23
23
of it.90 Two main versions of Socratic intellectualism are
credited among scholars: 1. desire is guided by reason, i.e. one
desires what he thinks is good (Cooper, Irwin, Santas); 2. desire
for the good guides reason, which has to work out the means to
achieve such a good (Penner, Rowe, Taylor). Brickhouse and Smith
reject both interpretations, claiming that appetites and passions
are conative psychic powers which resist reasoning. It is therefore
necessary to discipline them through knowledge-driven self-control
or punish-ments. A disciplined condition is necessary for realizing
that appetites are only apparent goods, and for transforming them
into weak desires that can be eventually handled by reason.
Ethical intellectualism requires a clear understanding of what
Socratic knowledge actually is, given the manifold disavowals of
knowledge we have in the dialogues.91 Is it an expert knowledge
that encompasses epistm, techn and sophia, thus forcing the
interlocutor to become aware of his lack of knowledge (and need to
care for himself)?92 Is such knowledge linked to rhetoric means,
i.e. to a refutational strategy that implies a conditional or
reverse irony?93 Or are we dealing with a self-knowledge that is at
once epistemic and ethical, theoretical and aspirational, and
concerned both with truth and
personal responsibility?94 Is such knowledge coherently present
throughout all of Platos early dialogues, i.e. can we identify a
distinctive Socratic method with a common epis-temological
presupposition?95 Or is it possible to go even further and argue
that a theory of forms is implied already in the early dialogues
(e.g. in the Euthyphro)?96
These questions show the variety of angles from which the issue
of Socratic knowledge can be approached. Its interpretations are of
interest not only for grasping the rational aspects of Socrates
teaching, but also for tackling other issues of his personality
such as Eros and religion. Conferences have been devoted to Platos
depiction(s) of Socratic Eros97 as well as a major book98 and a
variety of essays.99 The conference volume
-------------------------------------------- 90 Brickhouse &
Smith (2010). The main tenets of the book are summarized in
Brickhouse &
Smith (2013). For criticism on them see Rowe (2012). 91
McPartland (2013). See also R. Bett, Socratic Ignorance, paper
delivered at the Soprabol-
zano conference mentioned above. 92 Van der Vaeren (2011). On
Socratic protreptic see Boghossian (2011), Moore (2008) and
(2011), and Rider (2011). 93 On refutation see Doyle (2010),
Ambury (2011), McPherran (2012a), and Collobert (2013).
On irony see Melissa Lanes thorough account, which covers
evidence not limited to Plato (2011), and Vasiliou (2013), who
discusses Vlastos, Nehamas and Ferrari.
94 See the books by Jeremiah (2012) and Christopher Moore,
Socratic Self-Knowledge in Classical Philosophy and Literature
(manuscript under review; with chapters on Heraclitus, the
Sage/Delphic Inscription, and Greek Tragedy, Aristophanes Clouds,
Xenophons Memorabilia 4.2, Alcibiades I, Phaedrus, Charmides,
Philebus, and Protagoras). See also Moore (2012c), (2013), and How
to Know Thyself in Platos Phaedrus, Apeiron (forthcoming). Cf. also
Rowe (2011).
95 Cf. Benson (2011) and (2013), Doyle (2012), Wolfsdorf (2013).
96 Prior (2013). See also Martha Beck, The Socratic Way of Life
vis-a-vis the Theory of Forms
(paper given at the aforementioned SAGP conference at Fordham
University), where the focus is on the autobiographical passage of
the Phaedo.
97 Johnson & Tarrant (2012), featuring the papers from a
conference held in Newcastle, Aus-tralia, December 4-6, 2008, and
Tulli (2013), containing the provisional versions of the papers
given at the IPS conference in Pisa, July 15-20, 2013.
98 Belfiore (2012).
-
Alessandro Stavru
24
edited by Marguerite Johnson and Harold Tarrant deals with
Socrates as Lov-er-Educator, the focus being mainly on issues
related to the Alcibiades I.100 Last summer, the 10th IPS
conference was devoted to the Symposium, with more than a hundred
papers on a wide range of topics dealing with Platos different
accounts of Eros.101 The book by Elizabeth Belfiore dwells on the
role erotic art plays in Socrates multi-stage examination and
protreptic programme. Socrates erotik techn has five interrelated
components: 1. Erotic desire; 2. Admission of ignorance; 3. Desire
for wisdom; 4. Socrates claim to be expert in erotic issues (deinos
ta ertika); 5. Commitment to teaching others to pursue wisdom.
Belfiore deals with Alcibiades I, Lysis, Symposium, and Phaedrus,
and shows in detail how Socrates erotic art is connected with
philosophical practice.
A link to rational speculation is evident also in Socratic
religion.102 Mark McPherran examines Socrates religious beliefs
showing how they were integral to his mission of moral examination
and rectification. Drawing on previous studies,103 McPherran
suggests that Socrates merged his religious commitments with those
he derived from rational speculation. By doing so, he reshaped the
traditional beliefs of his time in the service of philosophy. The
result was a rational theology as we find in Plato, which was later
inher-ited by philosophies such as the Stoic.104 Socratic religion
also has, however, non-rational aspects, as John Bussanich
demonstrates. Socrates had plenty of religious experiences
--------------------------------------------
99 De Luise (2012), Pmias (2012), Sheffield (2012), and
Obdrzalek (2013). See also D. Lindenmuth, Platos Lysis: The
Beginning of Socratic Philosophizing paper delivered at the above
mentioned SAGP conference .
100 Johnson & Tarrant (2012), with contributions by M.
Johnson, The Role of Eros in Im-proving the Pupil, or What Socrates
Learned from Sappho; D. Blyth, Socrates and Models of Love; V.
Wohl, The Eye of the Beloved: Opsis and Eros in Socratic Pedagogy;
R. Ramsey, Platos Oblique Response to Issues of Socrates Influence
on Alcibiades: An Examination of the Protagoras and the Gorgias; Y.
Kurihara, Socratic Ignorance, or the Place of the Alcibiades I in
Platos Early Works; J. Mintoff, Did Alcibiades Learn Justice from
the Many?; A. Hooper, The Dual-Role Philosophers: An Exploration of
a Failed Relationship; E. Benitez, Authenticity, Experiment or
Development: The Alcibiades I on Virtue and Courage; M. Sharpe,
Revaluing Megalopsuchia: Reflections on the Alcibiades II; H.
Tarrant, Improvement by Love: From Aes-chines to the Old Academy;
F. King, Ice-Cold in Alex: Philos Treatment of the Divine Lover in
Hellenistic Pedagogy; A. Taki, Proclus Reading of Platos Skratikoi
Logoi: Proclus Observa-tions on Dialectic at Alcibiades 112d-114e
and Elsewhere; F. Renaud, Socrates Divine Sign: From the Alcibiades
to Olympiodorus; N. Morpeth, The Individual in History and History
in General: Alcibiades, Philosophical History and Ideas in Contest;
E. Baynham & H. Tarrant, Fourth-Century Politics and the Date
of the Alcibiades I.
101 The Proceedings of the Pisa conference collect papers on
various issues concerning Platos Symposium (Tulli [2013]). The main
topics dealt with are The Ethics of Eros: Eudaimonism and Agency,
Method Knowledge and Identity, Reading the Symposium: Text and
Reception, The Frame Dialogue: Voices and Themes, Phaedrus and
Pausanias, Eryximachus, The Realm of the Metaxy, Agathon, Literary
Form and Thought in Aristophanes Speech, Diotima and the Ocean of
Beauty, Eros, Poiesis and Philosophical Writing, The Picture of
Socrates, Philosophical Writing and the Immortality of the Soul,
Eros, Psyche, Eidos, Eros and Knowledge, The Ethics of Eros: Life
and Practice, Reading the Symposium: Themes and Literary Tradition,
The Lan-guage of Mysteries, Alcibiades and Socrates (of particular
interest as to Platos account of Soc-rates personality), and
Ascending the Ladder of Love.
102 This link is most evident in Socrates account of teleology,
on which cf. the contribution of Fulvia de Luise in this
volume.
103 McPherran (1996). 104 McPherran (2011) and (2013).
-
The Present State of Socratic Studies: an Overview 25
25
(God-given madness, prophecy, the Delphic oracle, the daimonion,
natural dieties, Ap-ollonian and Dionysian experiences) that
influenced his arguments.105 Indeed, it is im-portant to note the
peculiarity of them. Anna Lnnstrm106 has shown that the uniqueness
of Socrates relationship with the divine 107 characterizes not only
his personal beliefs, but also his moral theology. Divine knowledge
plays a pivotal role in his ethics as well as in his educational
programme.108 Such knowledge is based on his experiences, i.e. not
on what he actively thinks and does, but on what happens to him.
The most evident case here is that of the daimonion,109 a notion
which survives many years after Socrates, be-coming of utmost
importance in Neoplatonism.110
Concluding remarks
A complex picture emerges from this survey. We have seen that in
the past years Socratic studies have been characterized by a
variety of topics and approaches. Skepticism as to the solvability
of Socratic problem is still the main trend in scholarship, as
Lou-is-Andr Dorion and Robin Waterfield have recently
pinpointed.111 Another major trend is that followed by Thomas
Brickhouse and Nicholas Smith. In accordance with Gregory Vlastos,
they claim that a certain amount of relevant Platonic dialogues
feature a uni-tarian view of Socrates philosophy that remains
consistent throughout these texts. This textual basis should
provide a solid ground for investigating the main traits of
Socrates thought such as moral psychology, motivational
intellectualism, and so forth.112 The present overview bears
testimony of yet another trend, which is becoming more popular in
the past years. Its main claim is that the philosophy of Socrates
is indeed beyond our grasp, but that his personality, i.e. his way
of living, behaving, and dealing with others, can be reconstructed
through an intertextual work on parallel passages in the
--------------------------------------------
105 Bussanich (2013). On Socrates beliefs in the Phaedo cf.
Kamen (2013). 106 Lnnstrm (2011), (2012) and (2013). See also her
paper delivered at the Fordham SAGP
conference: On behalf of Euthyphro: A less rationalistic
understanding of piety. 107 We owe to the Comics accounts of hidden
aspects of Socratic religion: Albrile (2012). 108 Layne (2010),
Senn (2012), and P. Michaelides, Silence: The Religious Proof of
Socrates
Wisdom in Platos Apology, paper held at the XXIII World Congress
of Philosophy, Athens, August, 4-10, 2013.
109 See the studies of Jedrkiewicz (2011), Kenny (2013), and
Margagliotta (2013), which pro-vide an overview on the main issues
related to the topic.
110 Two books appeared recently on the Neoplatonic
interpretation of Socrates daimonion: Timotin (2012) and
Margagliotta (2012). Cf. also De Vita (2011). On Socrates in
Hellenistic Phi-losophy see Long (2011a).
111 Dorion (2011) claims that the historical Socrates is out of
reach, and that every recon-struction has therefore to deal with
the different Socrateses of tradition, i.e. the Aristophanic,
the
Platonic, the Xenophontic and the Aristotelian. Waterfield
(2013) follows a more radical path which had already been trodden
by Montuori (1974): as the extant sources do not allow a safe
reconstruction of the philosophy of Socrates, we must rely on the
historical evidence about him, i.e. the different reports we have
on the political background of his trial.
112 Cf. chapter 1 (Apology of Socratic Studies) of Brickhouse
& Smith (2010), 11-42. Chris-topher Rowe (2012) rejects the
idea of a division between Socratic and non-Socratic dialogues: for
him, Plato remained a Socratic throughout his work which entails
that the whole Platonic corpus yields texts that are relevant for
reconstructing Socrates thought. We find a coherent application of
this principle in Boys-Stones & Rowe (2013), where passages of
late dialogues (such as the Laws) are displayed as testimonies of
Socrates thought.
-
Alessandro Stavru
26
Comics, the Sophists, and the first-generation Socratics. Livio
Rossetti has shown that a number of texts refer to a clearly
recognizable Socratic character, whose communica-tional strategies
are represented in a unitarian way throughout the Skratikoi logoi.
Ros-setti labels these strategies as macro-rhetorical: they are
similar to the rhetorical ones of the Sophists, as they involve the
emotions of the interlocutor and are aimed at changing his mind;
but they are also different from them, as they have no doctrine to
convey, being limited to freeing the interlocutor from his
certainties. These traits of a Socrates in action, who does things
with words through psychagogic, protreptic, and maieutic means and
does not impart any wisdom, enable us to draw an intuitive portrait
of his personality. What we have here is, according to Rossetti, a
criterion for distinguishing the historical Socrates from the
Socrates spokesman of Plato.113 This reference to the historical
Socrates has been, since Olof Gigons seminal book, a taboo.114 A
remarkable feature of recent studies is its comeback. We find this
expression in Giovanni Cerris account of the parallel passages on
Socratess confrontation with contemporary physiologia; we spot it
in the title of Andreas Patzers collection of essays, whose aim is
only one: to acquire knowledge about the historical Socrates115.
But we find it implied also in several essays of the present
volume, such as those of Aldo Brancacci, Franco Trabattoni, and
Michel Narcy. Recent works on the way of life of Socrates116 seem
to support this trend, as well as studies on various aspects
connected with his uniqueness117 and outward appearance.118
-------------------------------------------- 113 Rossetti
(2011), 219. This book spawned a vast discussion, of which the
issue nr. 30/2 (2012)
of the Mexican journal Nova Tellus bears testimony (80 pages of
it are a comment on Rossettis theses).
114 Gigon (1947). 115 Patzer (2012), 3. 116 Cooper (2012),
24-69; T. Robinson, Socrates and Plato on Philosophy as a Way of
Life,
paper delivered at the XXIII World Congress of Philosophy,
Athens, August, 4-10, 2013. 117 See e.g. Stavru (2013) and David J.
Murphy, By the Goose, By the Rooster. Socrates Other
Unusual Oaths, paper given at the SAGP conference, Fordham
University, October 11-13, 2013. 118 E.g. A. Stavru, Socrate: la
kalokagathia del filosofo, chapter in Stavru (2011), 99-129. On
Socrates physiognomy see also the papers given at the 37th
meeting of the Sokratische Gesellschaft (April 20-21, 2013):
Matthias Steinhart, Ein Bild von Sokrates and Eva Maria Kaufmann,
Nur die Weisen knnen tun, was sie begehren? Facetten der
Sokrates-Ikonographie. Cf. also the papers delivered at the IPS
conference in Pisa (July 15-20, 2013): Wei Liu, The Ugliness and
Beauty of Socrates: Portraits of Socrates in the Clouds and the
Symposium, and Andrea Capra, Transcoding the Silenus: Aristophanes,
Plato and the Invention of Socratic Iconography.
-
Socratica
-
Introduzione al pensiero politico di Antistene
Aldo Brancacci Universit di Roma Tor Vergata
Il catalogo degli scritti di Antistene trasmesso da Diogene
Laerzio costituisce la pi importante testimonianza di cui
disponiamo per determinare con una certa chiarezza il perimetro e
lampiezza del mondo filosofico e intellettuale del Socratico e per
cogliere gli interessi teorici costitutivi del suo pensiero. Se si
esamina la struttura del catalogo, che riproduce gli estremi di
unedizione erudita delle opere antisteniche, non difficile
comprendere come lestensore del catalogo stesso, che molto
probabilmente da identi-ficare con uno Stoico vissuto nel II o nel
I secolo a.C.1, abbia inteso suddividere la pro-duzione letteraria
che aveva di fronte secondo un piano predeterminato, corrispondente
a una precisa partizione della filosofia di Antistene. Dopo il
primo tomo, dedicato agli scritti di genere e di contenuto
retorico, i tomi dal secondo al quinto raggruppano le opere di
contenuto etico e politico; il tomo sesto e parte del settimo gli
scritti logico-dialettici; la seconda parte del tomo settimo i ; i
tomi ottavo e nono comprendono a loro volta i , tra i quali
spiccano, per numero e per importanza, gli scritti di critica
omerica; infine il decimo tomo, in funzione di appendice, raggruppa
gli . Considerando il rilievo della dimensione morale nella
filosofia di Antistene, estremamente probabile che trattazioni di
contenuto etico, comprendenti probabilmente anche estensioni in
senso politico, abbiano potuto essere presenti anche in altre
sezioni, oltre quella specificamente dedicata a tale ambito, della
produzione lettera-ria antistenica. Ci non toglie che i titoli
raccolti nei quattro tomi centrali presentino un interesse
particolare, sia per la specificit del loro tema, sia per il loro
elevato numero, sia infine perch tra essi sono compresi alcuni
scritti che, gi particolarmente noti nellAntichit, sono anche
quelli di cui un maggiore numero di frammenti ci stato
trasmesso.
Dallesame dellintitolazione degli scritti, e, soprattutto, dalla
ricognizione delle te-stimonianze che li riguardano, possiamo
appurare che contenuto politico avevano almeno i seguenti
dialoghi:
1 Sulla giustizia e sul coraggio, Protreptico primo, secondo,
terzo [
, , ]; 2 Sulla legge o Sullo stato [ ]; 3 Sulla legge o Sul
bello e sul giusto [ ]; 4 Ciro [];
-------------------------------------------- 1 Cf. Patzer
(1970), 127.
-
30 Aldo Brancacci
5 Ciro o Sulla regalit [ ]; 6 Aspasia []; 7 Menesseno o Sul
comando [ ]; 8 Archelao o Sulla regalit [ ]. Si tratta di un numero
molto alto di scritti, che non trova riscontro nellattivit di
al-
cun altro Socratico, e che anche sotto questo rispetto colloca
Antistene in una posizione privilegiata rispetto agli altri
Socratici. Costoro, inoltre, sembrano essersi occupati cia-scuno di
un ambito teorico specifico e determinato: dialettico-ontologico
Euclide di Megara, etico Aristippo, etico anche Fedone di Elide, ed
etico-letterario Eschine di Sfet-to. Antistene mostra invece di
aver sviluppato tutta una variet di ambiti filosofici,
ricon-ducibili al patrimonio concettuale socratico o desumibili dal
contesto filosofico coevo, dedicando numerosi scritti specifici a
ciascuno di essi. Vale la pena rilevare che egli stato autore di
sette scritti di carattere retorico, di almeno dieci scritti di
contenuto etico, di otto dambito politico, di undici di contenuto
logico-ontologico-dialettico, di tre scritti di carattere
escatologico, di due di contenuto fisico, cio teologico, di
diciotto rientranti nellambito della critica letterario-musicale e
omerica, nonch di altri scritti di contenuto etico registrati nel
decimo tomo del catalogo.
Se moltissimi di questi ambiti teorici non trovano riscontro,
come si accennato, nellattivit degli altri Socratici, il rilievo
conferito alla riflessione su temi dordine poli-tico accosta
invece, sotto questo profilo, Antistene a Platone. Del resto, una
testimonian-za di Ateneo, la cui fonte il di Erodico, accomuna
decisamen-te Platone e Antistene sotto questo rispetto. Il grande
erudito antico ci trasmette la pre-ziosa informazione che, per i
due filosofi, ad Atene non ci sarebbe un buon consigliere, un
generale assennato, un sapiente degno di credito, un poeta
giovevole al bene comune, unassemblea popolare capace di prendere
decisioni ragionevoli: solo Socrate, per i suoi due discepoli,
avrebbe avuto tali capacit 2. Poich una simile testimonianza
implica, ovviamente, una conoscenza estensiva dei dialoghi, per noi
invece perduti, di Antistene, e la raffigurazione di Socrate che vi
era contenuta, essa per noi della massima impor-tanza. La
testimonianza inoltre assai rilevante in quanto mostra come, sotto
il profilo tematico, i dialoghi platonici e i dialoghi antistenici
potessero essere accostati, e come molti temi fossero a entrambi
comuni: nella fattispecie, temi politici, cospiranti a una critica
della classe politica, delle istituzioni politiche specificamente
democratiche, dei poeti, svolta dal Socrate antistenico, come
anche, nel registro di pensiero che suo pro-prio, dal Socrate
platonico.
I pi antichi testimoni del pensiero di Antistene Isocrate,
Senofonte e Aristotele permettono poi di fare unulteriore
considerazione, relativa, questa volta, alla ricezione, presso i
contemporanei, del pensiero del Socratico. Senza poter entrare qui
in dettagli, baster osservare che per Isocrate Antistene
essenzialmente un dialettico, come risulta in particolare dalle
testimonianze contenute nel Contro i sofisti e nellElogio di
Elena3;
-------------------------------------------- 2 Athen. V 220e-f
(= SSR I C 17 = Herodicus fr. 4 Dring): [sc.
Platoni et Antistheni] , , , , . Su questa testimonianza, cf.
Vassallo (2013), nota 132.
3 Sulla testimonianza isocratea su Antistene rinvio a Brancacci
(1990), pp. 97-104 e (2011a).
-
Introduzione al pensiero politico di Antistene 31
un dialettico, ma anche un filosofo morale, egli per Senofonte,
sul cui pensiero non solo etico, ma anche politico, peraltro,
Antistene ha certamente esercitato un influsso (basti pensare a
tutto quanto si scritto circa i rapporto tra la Ciropedia e gli
scritti anti-stenici dedicati a Ciro)4; a sua volta Aristotele cita
nella Metafisica Antistene e la sua scuola su questioni dordine
logico-ontologico, e nei Topici lo presenta come filosofo famoso
per una sua caratteristica tesi logico-dialettica5. Queste
testimonianze non con-sentono, beninteso, di trarre deduzioni
impegnative circa i termini in cui fu percepita dai contemporanei
la personalit intellettuale e filosofica di Antistene: troppi
tasselli ci man-cano della ricezione di Antistene, come di altri
Socratici, perch le si possano assumere altrimenti che come sguardi
parziali gettati su una superficie che resta per noi
fondamen-talmente oscura6. Di certo, linteresse verso laspetto
politico dellopera antistenica e-merge in piena luce nella
generazione immediatamente successiva a quella di Antistene: da un
lato con lo storico Teopompo, che fu deciso ammiratore dellopera
antistenica7, dallaltro, nellambiente accademico, con Eraclide
Pontico. Il primo si ispirato alle trattazioni dedicate da
Antistene a Ciro e a numerosi altri personaggi, onde Arnaldo
Momigliano ne trasse argomento per mettere in luce il contributo
assicurato da Antistene alla nascente biografia8, laddove il
secondo ha utilizzato lAspasia antistenica per trarre notizie circa
personaggi della vita politica ateniese del secolo precedente9.
In epoca successiva, il pensiero antistenico passa tutto intero
al vaglio delle grandi scuole ellenistiche: cinismo, stoicismo e
anche epicureismo. Il pensiero politico, in parti-colare, trover
eco di trattazione di speciale momento in et imperiale, svolgendo
il suo influsso su tutti quegli autori, appartenenti alle
tradizioni cinica e stoica, ma anche indi-pendenti da queste,
interessati al grande tema della regalit, alla determinazioni delle
virt del re ideale, allopposizione, cos importante nel pensiero
politico antico, tra re e tiranno. Ma anche al di l di questa
tradizione, il rilievo che nelle opere antisteniche potevano avere
temi e riferimenti dordine politico gi solidamente attestato in et
--------------------------------------------
4 Per le relazioni tra Antistene e Senofonte, questione sulla
quale sarebbe qui impossibile dare indicazioni bibliografiche,
rinvio alla nota di Giannantoni (1990), vol. 4, pp. 209-222.
5 Per la testimonianza aristotelica su Antistene rinvio a
Brancacci (1990), 227-262. 6 Del resto, basta pensare ai
riferimenti presenti nella Repubblica di Platone alla citt di
por-
ci, nei quali si scorta una allusione ad Antistene, per indurre
alla cautela, e meditare sulla limita-tezza delle nostre
conoscenze.
7 Cf. Diog. Laert. 6.14 (= SSR V A 22 = 115 F 295 FGrHist II B
p. 600). Su Teopompo segua-ce delle dottrine logico-ontologiche di
Antistene, nella sua operetta Contro linsegnamento di Platone, cf.
Brancacci (1993a), 44-50. Per linflusso esercitato da Antistene su
Teopompo in campo etico-politico cf. Hirzel (1892), e Momigliano
(1931).
8 Cf. Momigliano ([1971]1974), 50: Dietro di loro [= Platone e
Senofonte] sta la personalit problematica di Antistene, pi anziano,
di cui, se fosse meglio conosciuto, potrebbe facilmente risultare
loriginalit e la forza del contributo alla biografia. Oltre a
scrivere due dialoghi su Ciro, che possono aver influenzato la
Ciropedia di Senofonte, Antistene redasse un libro (forse un
dialo-go) su Alcibiade. Vi erano contenuti certamente dei
particolari sulla vita di Alcibiade, soprattutto i suoi rapporti
con Socrate. Si esagera a descrivere questopera come una biografia
di Alcibiade, come fece Mullach nei Fragmenta Philosophorum
Graecorum; ma essa contribu alla sua biografia. Antistene scrisse
anche un attacco contro gli uomini politici ateniesi in generale,
che inevitabilmen-te era pieno di particolari biografici. N
dobbiamo dimenticare che Teopompo, il primo storico che diede largo
spazio alla biografia, era un ammiratore di Antistene, di cui lod
labilit, e che dichiar capace di conquistare chiunque per mezzo dei
suoi piacevoli discorsi (Diogene Laerzio 6.14).
9 Cf. Dittmar (1912), 1-17.
-
32 Aldo Brancacci
ellenistica. Ci emerge in particolare da alcune note
testimonianze di Ateneo, il quale conosce i dialoghi antistenici,
ed anche in grado di citarne degli stralci, e la cui fonte molto
antica: Erodico il Crateteo, grammatico del II sec. a.C.,
successore di Cratete di Mallo, autore di un , e da identificarsi
con lErodico altrove detto di Babilonia10. Da queste testimonianze
apprendiamo che il Politico di Antistene (e la bont
dellinformazione anche rivelata dal fatto che Ateneo ha cura di
rilevare che tale scritto era un dialogo) conteneva una di tutti i
demagoghi di Atene senza eccezione, e che una analoga requisitoria
era levata specificamente contro il retore Gor-gia
nellArchelao11.
Poich il Politico titolo che non trova riscontro nel catalogo
laerziano degli scritti, si ipotizzato, ma senza fondamento, che
esso corrisponda al Sulla legge o Sullo stato del terzo tomo12.
Questa ipotesi non tiene conto del fatto che politikos logos
espressio-ne corrente nella tradizione letteraria antica per
indicare un discorso che interessa i cittadini, per cui semmai pi
corretto identificare tale Politico (che non va certo inteso come
titolo antistenico) con uno dei Protreptici, sia perch sappiamo con
certezza che anche questi scritti erano dialoghi13, sia, inoltre,
perch proprio il carattere di un discor-so rivolto ai cittadini ha
il lungo estratto-parafrasi da uno scritto antistenico conservato
da Dione Crisostomo, estratto che la massima parte degli studiosi
ha identificato appunto come proveniente da uno scritto di
Antistene e in particolare da uno dei suoi Protrepti-ci14. In ogni
caso, allanalisi di questo testo che dobbiamo volgerci per
cogliere, innan-zitutto, quel nesso tra etica e politica che alla
base della riflessione politica di Antiste-ne, e che fornisce la
migliore via di accesso per accostarsi ad essa.
Allinizio di tale lungo estratto, Dione stesso ammette
apertamente che il discorso che si appresta a riferire non suo, ma
che si tratta di un logos antico, pronunciato da un certo Socrate,
un uomo che non cess mai, ovunque e di fronte a chiunque, di
sgridare gli uomini, e di declamare, nelle palestre, nel Liceo,
nelle botteghe, nelle piazze, come un deus ex machina15: e questa
immagine grandiosa di Socrate, esemplata su quella metafora
teatrale diffusa nel circolo socratico, e particolarmente
sviluppata, come altrove ho mostrato, da Antistene16, limmagine che
nella storia degli studi stata chiamata, peraltro non senza
ragione, del Socrate cinico, ma che per scrupolo di esattezza
storica dovremmo chiamare piuttosto del Socrate antistenico. Alla
sua fonte, Dione si riferisce del resto fin dallinizio, quando,
dopo aver riportato le parole su Socrate sopra citate, e aver
paragonato Socrate stesso a un deus ex machina, subito aggiunge:
come qualcuno ha detto ( )17.
Nella storia degli studi, si pensato da parte di molti che tale
estratto fosse desunto dallArchelao di Antistene, basandosi in
particolare sulla menzione del re Archelao di
-------------------------------------------- 10 Su Erodico cf.
Dring (1941). Cf. anche Brisson (1993). 11 Cf. Herodic. ap. Athen.
V 220d (= SSR V A 204 e 203). 12 Cf. Chroust (1957), 281 n. 822;
Decleva Caizzi (1966), 101; Patzer (1970), 113. 13 Cf. Diog. Laert.
6.1 (= SSR V A 11). 14 Impossibile dare qui tutte le indicazioni
bibliografiche, delle quali si trover una ricca rasse-
gna in Giannantoni (1990), vol. IV, 350-353. Pi recentemente,
anche Moles (2005) sottolinea la discendenza antistenica di Dio
Chrysost. orat. 13.30.
15 Dio Chrysost. orat. 13.14 (= SSR V A 208). 16 Cf. Brancacci
(2002). 17 Cf. Dio Chrysost. orat. 13.14 (= SSR V A 208).
-
Introduzione al pensiero politico di Antistene 33
Macedonia che Dione fa in chiusura e a suggello della sua
citazione; ma a mio giudizio pi probabile che la fonte di Dione sia
uno dei Protreptici. Ci rivelato dalla natura stessa dellestratto,
che un protreptico alla filosofia, come evidenzia, in modo
chiaris-simo, la dichiarazione finale di Dione:
E, parlando in questo modo, egli esortava i suoi ascoltatori a
prendersi cura di porre mente alle sue parole, e darsi alla
filosofia: infatti egli sapeva che ricercando questo essi non
avrebbero fatto altro che filosofare. Infatti, ricercare e ambire a
diventare uomo di compiuta virt non altra cosa che filosofare.
Tuttavia, egli non impiegava spesso questo termine, ma li spingeva
semplicemente a ricercare come diventare uomini virtuosi18.
Lestratto serbato da Dione rivela inoltre immediatamente di
essere tratto da un dia-logo, perch, dopo aver riportato una lunga
allocuzione iniziale di Socrate, Dione ha cura di riassumere in
qualche riga il contenuto della replica o obiezione che nel dialogo
gli era rivolta appunto da un interlocutore, o forse da pi dun
interlocutore. Ora, costui nomi-nato come qualcuno dei politici o
dei retori19, il che ci fa pensare che con Socrate in questo
dialogo discutessero almeno uno o due rappresentanti di queste
categorie, senza che ci sia possibile, naturalmente, identificarli.
Ed era molto probabilmente questa situa-zione dialogica che
consentiva e originava quella requisitoria contro i demagoghi
ateniesi di cui ci parla Erodico presso Ateneo. Sempre riferendoci
a siffatta struttura drammatica, non possiamo non pensare alle
analoghe costruzioni prospettate in vari dialoghi platoni-ci, in
tutta una variet di situazioni e contesti: dallexetasis degli
uomini politici ateniesi compiuta da Socrate nellApologia, ai tre
grandi interlocutori sofisti di Socrate nel Gor-gia, e ancora al
giudizio espresso sugli uomini politici ateniesi nel Menone e
naturalmen-te al dialogo con Trasimaco e a tutto il confronto con
la cultura della nuova generazione influenzata o segnata dalla
sofistica condotto dal Socrate platonico nella Repubblica.
Lallocuzione iniziale celebre, e merita di essere citata:
Dove vi lasciate sospingere, uomini? Ignorate che non fate
alcuna delle cose necessarie, pre-occupandovi delle ricchezze e
procurandovele in ogni modo, cos da averne in grande quantit e
lasciarne ancora di pi ai vostri figli? Eppure voi tutti allo
stesso modo avete trascurato pro-prio i figli, e prima ancora voi
stessi, loro padri, non avendo saputo trovare n una forma di
educazione n una regola di vita, idonea e giovevole agli uomini,
istruiti nella quale potranno usare le ricchezze rettamente e
giustamente, non in modo dannoso e ingiusto, e trattare senza danno
non solo voi stessi (cosa che considerate pi importante delle
ricchezze), ma anche i fi-gli, le figlie, le mogli, i fratelli, gli
amici, e che permetterebbe anche a voi di usarle rettamente per
essi20.
-------------------------------------------- 18 Dio Chrysost.
orat. 13.28 (= SSR V A 208):
[ ] . . , .
19 Dio Chrysost. orat. 13.23 (= SSR V A 208). 20 Dio Chrysost.
orat. 13.16 (= SSR V A 208): , ,
, , ; , , , , [], [] , , .
-
34 Aldo Brancacci
Lesordio del discorso conservato da Dione, ma solo lesordio,
anche citato nel Clitofonte, dove vale a caratterizzare in modo
emblematico i modi e i contenuti del magi-stero socratico21, anche
se lautore del Clitofonte se ne avvale per mostrare tutti i limiti
di quellinsegnamento, che, esaurendosi nella protreptica, si mostra
poi incapace di precisa-re in modo chiaro e rigoroso che cosa sia
la giustizia, ma solo capace di indirizzare ad essa. Questo
particolare prova la grande popolarit dellimmagine di Socrate
veicolata dal Protreptico di Antistene e, appena pi indirettamente,
anche la sua sostanziale atten-dibilit storica, perch non c motivo
di pensare che Antistene mettesse in circolazione una immagine di
Socrate che non corrispondesse a quella reale. Al riguardo,
importante ricordare la dichiarazione di Alcibiade nel Simposio
platonico, l dove il giovane affer-ma:
[] quando si ascolta te [= Socrate] o i tuoi discorsi ( )
riferiti da un altro ( ), anche se chi li riferisce molto inetto,
li ascolti donna o uomo o ragazzo, ne restiamo colpiti e
posseduti22.
Questo passo prova che discorsi di Socrate potevano essere
ripresi e recitati, proba-bilmente in forma rielaborata, dai suoi
amici e pi intimi compagni, talch non affatto da escludere che
almeno questo incipit cos celebre e caratteristico del Protreptico
di Antistene riproduca una movenza dei logoi propri del Socrate
storico.
In ogni caso lattacco del logos protreptico ci appare costruito
su temi e parole dordine centrali nel magistero antistenico: il
tema dellignoranza (agnoia), la svaluta-zione e anche il biasimo
delle ricchezze, il motivo del retto uso (orth chrsis), e del retto
uso delle ricchezze in particolare (chrsis tn chrmatn), il valore
della paideia e dellasksis, lopposizione tra virt e vizio
(giustizia/ingiustizia, retto/dannoso), il valore dellhikanon, cio
della competenza, e naturalmente la critica delleducazione
tradiziona-le23. Tutto ci espresso con quel tono insieme severo e
appassionato che, almeno nei
-------------------------------------------- 21 Cf. [Plat.]
Clitoph. 407a9-d2. infondata la presunzione che il lungo estratto
riportato da
Dione derivi dal Clitofonte, come ritengono alcuni autori. solo
lesordio del discorso riportato da Dione, infatti, che combacia con
lesordio del Clitofonte stesso. Il resto del discorso di Socrate
citato nel Clitofonte prosegue poi per altra strada, e daltra parte
del tutto diverso dal Clitofonte il seguito (molto pi lungo) del
discorso citato da Dione. Stando cos le cose, molto pi corretto
concludere che Dione Crisostomo e il Clitofonte si riferiscono
entrambi al Protreptico di Antistene, costituendo due rami
indipendenti della stessa tradizione. Del resto, lipotesi estrema
che Dione abbellisca e sviluppi liberamente lincipit del
Clitofonte, si scontra con la grande omogeneit e coerenza
dellestratto, e con il fatto che Dione, allinizio e alla fine di
esso, delimita con chiarezza la sua citazione (cf. i paragrafi 14 e
28), rinviando anche, con lo di orat. 13.14, alla sua fonte. E
tutto ci, senza ancora parlare del riferimento della vittoria di
Conone a Cnido del 394, che, come faceva notare Dmmler, seguendo
Usener, rivela traccia sicura di uno scritto an