This volume contains the Greek and Latin text and an English translation and commentary on Antisthenes' testimonia. In addition, there is an introduction, concordance of Decleva Caizzi's Antisthenis Fragmenta, an index of source authors and editions, a selected bibliography, an index of Greek and Latin terms and a general index. The book brings the first complete translation of Antisthenes' testimonia into English. The volume displays an impressive level of scholarly competence, and the commentary is highly recommended to anyone working on Antisthenes and the first-generation Socratics.
The book begins with an introductory chapter (pp. 1–23), charting the modern and ancient reception of Antisthenes, and a view on Antisthenes' intellectual position among his contemporaries. Like A. Patzer (Antisthenes der Sokratiker [1970]), P. turns her attention to the literary production of Antisthenes. Subchapters are dedicated to Antisthenes' positions on ethics, language, rhetoric, logic and knowledge. All these themes are in accordance with the main focus of P.’s 1997 University of Michigan dissertation, Antisthenes on Language, Thought and Culture, which was her first attempt at analysing Antisthenes. The introduction to the present book also contains P.’s conclusions about Antisthenes' thinking in the field of language, knowledge and truth (pp. 19–22).
P. explains that the book is primarily a commentary on the edition of the surviving textual passages by and about Antisthenes of Athens. Scholars discussed for a long time whether Antisthenes was merely a jejune Sophist with some interest in Socratic ethics or an important follower of Socrates with significant influence on later Hellenistic philosophy. Modern historians argue for both of these interpretations and up to now have been reluctant to evaluate Antisthenes' importance in the traditions of Socraticism. The problem with the integration of Antisthenes into the history of ancient philosophy arises from the nature of Antisthenes' testimonia: available evidence is very limited. What we have is an anthology consisting of 208 ‘fragments’, including synthetic portraits by Xenophon and Diogenes Laertius, and two short fictional speeches, Ajax and Odysseus, that survive in full. For some scholars this may be too little for a serious interpretation of Antisthenes' thought. For those who suppose, like C. Kahn (Plato and the Socratic Dialogues [1998]), that Antisthenes was one of the most important intellectual figures in the world of post-Socratic Athens there is a great challenge to reconstruct his philosophical position. P. points out again and again that Socrates, Plato and Aristotle lived in a rich intellectual world, where many serious thinkers influenced each other through rivalry and mutual inspiration, and Antisthenes must have been important among these. That is why any effort to achieve a better understanding of Antisthenes must take into account at least the whole corpus of Plato, all of Xenophon and all the fragments of the rest of the Socratics. Furthermore, we must bring into context many important contemporary authors such as Isocrates and Aristotle and later ones such as Dio Chrysostom and Themistius. As P. remarks, sometimes we cannot find an answer, and the question remains on the table (p. 8).
For P. the Socratic movement is part of the Sophistic movement, differentiated to the extent that Socrates taught a special brand of wisdom. Therefore the study of Antisthenes' testimonia must take into account discussions that arose between Socratics and Sophists or among the Socratics. Such an approach is complicated by the problem that not everything anti-Sophistic in Plato or anti-Platonic in Antisthenes is also non-Socratic. One good example is the different way the Socratics grasp the relation between rhetoric and philosophy. Another example is Antisthenes' Homeric criticism: Antisthenes was known for his ethical interpretations of mythical characters (e.g. Heracles, Odysseus), which he took as examples of the Socratic way of living.
Nowadays we have no certainty that any particular word or phrase in the surviving testimony can be attributed to Antisthenes, except perhaps for Ajax and Odysseus. This is the major reason why a commentary is the best form for a basic treatment of Antisthenes' literary legacy. P. argues for a holistic approach to Antisthenes because it is crucial in making progress with ‘fragmentary writers' such as he is. Although I largely agree with this opinion, we should still carefully separate the images of Antisthenes surviving in fourth-century b.c. Socratic literature from their Cynic or Stoic reinterpretations of a few centuries later.
The original text of Antisthenes' testimonia is based on the edition published by G. Giannantoni in 1983 in Socraticorum Reliquiae and republished in 1990 in Socratis et Socraticorum Reliquiae (hereafter SSR). Small adaptations have been made by P. in the length of excerpts and the selection of passages (discussed in the notes). In addition, P. has added a few passages (t. 38B, 51B, 52C, 72B, 84C, 136B, 136F, 159D, 179B, 185B, 192B); moved some into the Antisthenes corpus from elsewhere in SSR or from different sub-positions within the Antisthenes corpus; printed some to which SSR only refers; deleted two testimonia (t. 130, 144); and left in place a dozen passages (from Isocrates, Aristotle, Xenophon, Plutarch, Cynic epistles, etc.) that are conjectural because they do not mention Antisthenes by name.
The addition of some fragments relates to newer editions, for example, of Philodemus or papyrus fragments in t. 175. The inclusion of t. 38B (IG editio minor 10348) is disputable: we have no way of confirming that the inscription on a marble tombstone found in the Piraeus is related to our Antisthenes Socraticus (as P. writes on p. 116, ‘Antisthenes’ is a typically Attic name; moreover, interpretation of the inscription as a joke is uncertain). Likewise, the inclusion of t. 84C (Letters of the Socratics, no. 17.3 Kohler) begs the question how the fictional author of the letter composed around 200 c.e. refers to Antisthenes' writings.
P. divides Antisthenes' testimonia into seventeen sections. Each of them concentrates on particular problems concerning Antisthenes' life, thought and ancient reception: (1) Antisthenes' biography: parents and social status (pp. 27–44); (2) Antisthenes as a follower of Socrates (pp. 45–75); (3) Antisthenes after Socrates (pp. 76–119); (4) Antisthenes' writings (pp. 120–87); (5) The judgment of the arms (pp. 188–232); (6) Testimonia from the first two tomoi (pp. 233–50); (7) Politics and wealth (pp. 251–302); (8) Cyrus, Heracles and Ethics (pp. 303–33); (9) Ethics, toil and pleasure (pp. 334–94); (10) Antisthenes, the Cynics and the Stoics (pp. 395–413); (11) Ethical characters: Alcibiades and Aspasia (pp. 414–21); (12) Language (pp. 422–540); (13) On education (pp. 541–67); (14) Nature, eschatology and theology (pp. 568–83); (15) Studies of Homer (pp. 584–677); (16) Alcibiades and the politicians (pp. 678–87); (17) Imperial imitations (pp. 688–709).
The select bibliography is comprehensive and includes all important interpretations of Antisthenes' thought and related topics in English, Italian, German and French. Readers may find a few minor mistakes in the Latin, German and Italian titles (e.g. Winckelmann's edition of Antisthenis fragmenta was published in Zürich).
The commentary recalls in many ways the traditional works of classical philologists (as P. herself admits, cf. p. vi) and it is highly detailed and systematic. In addition to older philological works the book also offers something more than many traditional commentaries: a strong effort to look for philosophical questions.
Probably only a few people will read the commentary as a continuous text; rather it will be used as a valuable guide to reading particular fragments in the context of surviving testimony. No future readers will be disappointed with this work, and even a person specialising in Antisthenes will find in the book many ideas and suggestions on how to read and interpret him. (This work was supported by the Slovak Research and Development Agency under the contract No. APVV-0164-12.)
