A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology. By various writers. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

208 ANTISTHENES.
two works entitled Cyrus, on Gorgias in his Archelaus and a most furious one on Plato in his Satho.
(Athen. v. p. 220, b.) His style was pure and elegant, and Theopompus even said that Plato stole
from him many of his thoughts. (Athen. xi. p.
508, c.) Cicero, however, calls him " homo acutus magis quam eruditus" (ad. Att. xii. 38), and
it is impossible that his writings could have deserved any higher praise. He possessed considerable powers of wit and sarcasm, and was fond of
playing upon words; saying, for instance, that he
would rather fall among Kopdices than KoAdaces, for
the one devour the dead, but the other the living;
and that one of his pupils stood in need f/3sAraplov KawoIVs, Kac 'ypacpeiov KcaLoV (i. e. Kal vyo).
Two 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
(dPoia) to be blessings, and that madness is preferable to pleasure, though Ritter thinks that some
of these extravagances must have been advanced
not as his own opinions, but those of the interlocutors in his dialogues. According to Schleiermacher
(Anmerkungen Czu Phileb. S. 204), the passage in
the Philebus (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 (Ethi.
Nic. x. 1), that some persons considered pleasure
wholly worthless (Kot e pav^ov) is certainly 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 Eic
"rTs yvxusys (Xen. Symp. iv. 41), and the enjoyments of a wisely chosen friendship. (Diog.
Laert. vi. 11.) The summum bonum he placed 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 connected with reason, but to enable it to develop
itself in action, and to be sufficient for happiness,
it requires the aid of energy (2cwKparIucKT) iXs);
so that we may represent him as teaching, that the
summum bonum, idperT, is attainable by teaching
(SsaKardv), and made up of <ppodv?7ois and louxus.
But here he becomes involved in a vicious circle,
for when asked what ()p6vpor's is, he could only
call it an insight into the good, having before
made the good to consist in ()ppO'r-qs. (Plat.
Rep. 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 id oicacd
darojLaO8v, while in his wish to isolate and withdraw the sage from all connexion with others,
rendering him superior even to natural affection
and the political institutions of his country, he
really founds a system as purely selfish as that of
Aristippus.
The Physicus of Antisthenes contained a theory
of the nature of the gods (Cic. de Nat. Deor. i.
13), in which he contended for the Unity of the
Deity, 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, shewing the sufficiency of virtue for happiness by the
fact, that outward events are regulated by God so
as to benefit the wise. Such, at least, was the
view of his pupil Diogenes of Sinope, and seems
involved in his own statement, that all which belongs 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 description of its qualities, e. g. that silver is like
tin in colour. (Arist. lMet. 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 doctrine, 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 staff and wallet and mean
clothing were only proofs of his vanity, which
Socrates told him he saw through the holes o!
his coat. The same quality appears in his contempt for the Athenian constitution and social in
stitutions generally, resulting from his being him
self debarred from exercising the rights of a citizec
by the foreign extraction of his mother. His phi
losophy was evidently thought worthless by Plati
and Aristotle, to the former of whom he was per
sonally hostile. His school is classed by Ritte
among the imperfect Socraticists; after his deat]
his disciples wandered further and further from a]
scientific objects, and plunged more deeply int
fanatical extravagances. Perhaps some of thei
exaggerated statements have been attributed t
their master. The fragments which remain of hi
writings have been collected by Winckelman
(Antisthenes, Fragmenta, Turici, 1842), and thi
small work, with the account of him by Rittc
(Gesch. der Phlilosophie, vii. 4) will supply all th
information which can be desired. Most of th
ancient authorities have been given in the cours
of this article. We may add to them Arriai
Epiclet. iii. 22, iv. 8, 11; Lucian, Cynic. iii.
541; Julian, Orat. vii. [G. E. L. C.]
ANTI'STHENES ('AvKurTLo-'s), a disciple
HERACLEITUS, wrote a commentary on the wor
of his master. (Diog. Laert. ix. 15, vi. 19.) '
is not improbable that this Antisthenes may I
the same as the one who wrote a work on tI
succession of the Greek philosophers (at rd
ihXo(r6dpwv 6raoxal), which is so often referred
by Diogenes Laertius (i. 40, ii. 39, 98, vi. 77, 8
vii. 168, &c.), unless it appear preferable to assil
it to the peripatetic philosopher mentioned I
Phlegon. (de Mirabil. 3.) [L. S.]
ANTI'STHENES ('A-ernOlems), of RHODI
a Greek historian who lived about the year B.
200. He took an active part in the politic
affairs of his country, and wrote a history of 1
own time, which, notwithstanding its partiali
towards his native island, is spoken of in terms
high praise by Polybius. (xvi. 14, &c.; con
Diog. LaZrt. vi. 19.) Plutarch (de Fluv. 22) mc
tions an Antisthenes who wrote a work call
Meleagris, of which the third book is quoted; a
Pliny (H. N. xxxvi. 12) speaks of a person of t
same name, who wrote on the pyramids; I