Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) - Volume 1.djvu/226

Rh 208 AXTISTHENES. two works entitled Ct/rus^ on Gorgias in his Arc^r- laus and a most furious one on Plato in liis Satho. (Athen. v. p. 220, b.) His style was pure and ele- gant, and Theopompus even said that Plato stole from him many of his thoughts. (Athen. xi. p. 508, c.) Cicero, however, calls him "homo acu- tus raagis quam eruditus" (ud. Alt xii. 38), and it is impossible that his writings could have de- served any higher praise. He possessed consider- able powers of wit and sarcasm, and was fond of playing upon words ; saying, for instance, that he would rather fall among KopuKes than KoXaKes, for the one devour the dead, but the other the living ; and that one of his pupils stood in need fiL€ia- plov Kaivov, Kol ypacpeiou Kaivov (?. e. Koi vov). Twc declamations of his are preserved, named Ajax and Ulysses, which are purely rhetorical, and an epistle to Aristippus is attributed to him. His philosophical system was almost confined to ethics. In all that the wise man does, he said, he conforms to perfect virtue, and pleasure is not only unnecessary to man, but a positive evil. He is reported to have held pain and even infamy (d^o^la) to be blef^sings, and that madness is pre- ferable to pleasure, though Ritter thinks that some of these extravagances must have been advanced not as his own opinions, but those of the interlocu- tors in his dialogues. According to Schleierraacher {Anmcrhmycn zum Phileb. S. 204), the passage in the Pliilebus (p. 44), which mentions the theory, that pleasure is a mere negation, and consists only in the absence of pain, refers to the opinions of Antisthenes; and the statement in Aristotle {Eth. Nic. X. 1), that some persons considered pleasure wholly worthless (icofjuSij <pavov) is certiiinl}' an allusion to the Cynical doctrine. It is, however, probable that he did not consider all pleasure worthless, but only that which results from the gratification of sensual or artificial desires, for we find him praising the pleasures which spring 4k TTjs ^^ivxris (Xen. Spnp. iv. 41), and the enjoy- ments of a wisely chosen friendship. (Diog. Laert vi. 11.) The summum bonum he phiced in a life according to virtue, — virtue consisting in action, and being such, that when once obtained it is never lost, and exempts the wise man from the chance of error. That is, it is closely con- nected with reason, but to enable it to develop itself in action, and to be sufficient for happiness, it requires the aid of energy {^wKpaTiicrj icrxvs); so that we may represent him as teaching, that the snmnunn bonum, aper?), is attainable by teaching (StSa/cTOj/), and made up of 'pp6v7](Tis and la^x^s. But here he becomes involved in a vicious circle, for when asked what <pp6v7]<Tis is, he could only call it an insight into the good, having before made the good to consist in ^pSinrjats. (Plat. Jfcp. vi. p. 505.) The negative character of his ethics, which are a mere denial of the Cyrenaic doctrine, is further shewn in his apophthegm, that the most necessary piece of knowledge is to KaKo. diro/xaOeiv^ while in his wish to isolate and with- draw the sage from all connexion with others, rendering him superior even to natural aflfection and the political institutions of his country, he really founds a system as purely selfish as that of Aristippus. The Fhysicus of Antisthenes contained a theory of the nature of the gods (Cic. de Nat. Deor. i. 1.3), in which he contended for the Unitj' of the Deit}-, and that man is unable to know him by ANTISTHENES. any sensible representation, since he is unlike any- being on earth. (Clem. Alex. Strom, v. p. 601.) He probably held just views of providence, shew- ing the sufficiency of virtue for happiness by the fact, that outward events are regulated by God so as to benefit the Avise. Such, at least, was the view of his pupil Diogenes of Sinope, and seems involved in his own statement, that all which be- longs to others is truly the property of the wise man. Of his logic we hear that he held definitions to be impossible, since we can only say that every individual is what it is, and can give no more than a desciiption of its qualities, e. g. that silver is like tin in colour. (Arist. Met. viii. 3.) Thus he, of course, disbelieved the Platonic system of ideas, since each particular object of thought has its own separate essence. This also is in conformity with the practical and unscientific character of his doc- trine, and its tendency to isolate noticed above. He never had many disciples, which annoyed him so much that he drove away those who did attend his teaching, except Diogenes, who remained with him till his death. His staflf and wallet and mean clothing were only proofs of his vanity, which Socrates told him he saw through the holes of his coat. The same quality appears in his con- tempt for the Athenian constitution and social in- stitutions generally, resulting from his being him- self debarred from exercising the rights of a citizen by the foreign extraction of his mother. His phi- losophy' was evidentl}' thought worthless by Plato and Aristotle, to the former of whom he Avas per- sonally hostile. His school is classed by Ritter among the imperfect Socraticists ; after his death his disciples wandered further and further from all scientific objects, and plunged more deeply into fanatical extravagances. Perhaps some of their exaggerated statements have been attributed to their master. The fragments which remain of his writings have been collected by Winckelmann (Antisthenes, Fragmenta., Turici, 1842), and this small work, with the account of him by Ritter (Gesch. der Philosophie, vii. 4) will supply all the information which can be desired. Most of the ancient authorities have been given in the course of this article. We may add to them Arrian, Epidet. iii. 22, iv. 8, 11; Lucian, C^wec. iii. p. 541 ; Julian, Orat. vii. [G. E. L. C] ANTl'STHENES {'AvTiaeh-ns), a disciple of Heracleitus, wrote a commentary on the work of his master. (Diog. Laert. ix. 15, vi. 19.) Ifc is not improbable that this Antisthenes may be the same as the one who wrote a work on the succession of the Greek philosophers {at twv (pi a6<pa}v StoSoxot')? which is so often referred to by Diogenes Laertius (i. 40, ii. 39, 98, vi. 77, 87» vii. 168, &c.), unless it appear preferable to assign it to the peripatetic philosopher mentioned by Phlegon. (de Mirabil. 3.) [L. S.] ANTl'STHENES {^Avnceiv-ns), of Rhodes, a Greek historian who lived about the year B. c. 200, He took an active part in the political aflfairs of his country, and wrote a history of his own time, which, notwithstanding its partiality towards his native island, is spoken of in terms of high praise by Polybius. (xvi. 14, &c. ; comp, Diog. Laert. vi. 19.) ' Plutarch {de Fhcv. 22) men- tions an Antisthenes who wrote a work called jSIelcagris, of which the third book is quoted ; and Pliny {H. N. xxxvi. 12) speaks of a person of tlie same name, who wrote on the pyramids ; but