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