Gaia : revue interdisciplinaire sur la Grèce Archaïque
Redefining Use, Expenditure and Exchange of Private Wealth: The Socratic Model, Antisthenes and the Cynics Maria Noussia
Abstract The paper focuses on the uses of private wealth by different authors starting with Hesiod. In particular it contrasts the kinds of public expenditure which Socrates and Antisthenes in Xenophon appropriate along with the image of the ideal liturgist. Further examples regarding Diogenes and Crates make clear the philosophical ideal of expenditure of one’s private wealth.
Résumé Les redéfinitions de l’usage de la richesse, de la dépense et des échanges : le modèle socratique, Antisthène et les Cyniques. L’article traite de l’usage de la fortune privée chez les auteurs grecs depuis Hésiode. Il distingue en particulier le type de dépenses dont Socrate et Antisthène empruntent l’image, chez Xénophon, pour peindre le citoyen idéal dans les liturgies dont il s’acquitte. Les exemples tirés de Diogène le Cynique et Cratès de Thèbes montrent une redéfinition philosophique de la richesse et de son usage.
Citer ce document / Cite this document :
Noussia Maria. Redefining Use, Expenditure and Exchange of Private Wealth: The Socratic Model, Antisthenes and the Cynics. In: Gaia : revue interdisciplinaire sur la Grèce Archaïque, numéro 19, 2016. pp. 319-333;
doi : https://doi.org/10.3406/gaia.2016.1712
https://www.persee.fr/doc/gaia_1287-3349_2016_num_19_1_1712
Fichier pdf généré le 03/07/2018 Redefining Use, Expenditure and Exchange of Private Wealth: The Socratic Model, Antisthenes and the Cynics*
MARIA NOUSSIA-FANTUZZI Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
This paper investigates several genres connected with the legendary founders of the Cynic movement regarding use of private wealth and questions of expenditure and exchange; it compares them with passages from Xenophon on Socrates so as to show the overlap and draw conclusions about the distinctive Cynic qualities. The texts we will examine arise outside a strictly economic context since the Cynics rejected work and the function of a social value such as production of goods. In particular, the image, which the sayings (chreiai) 1 employ of the earth’s fruits being consumed on the spot, also opposes another economic value, that of circulation. I begin with some chreiai on the early Cynics which are essentially “pattern stories” 2 into which the names of various figures could easily be inserted without upsetting the theme of the story. Sayings of this type are scattered throughout the works of various authors and compilations.
* This paper was written during my fellowship at the Seeger Center for Hellenic Studies in Princeton. I would like to acknowledge the support provided by the Center during my time there in the summer of 2015. I am grateful to David Sider and the reader of Gaia for their comments. 1. All fragments of Diogenes are collected in volume 2 of Giannantoni (1990, 227–509). On the practice of ancient biographical writing, Lefkowitz (1981) and Graziosi (2002). 2. For other examples of pattern stories in the anecdotic literature, see Steiner (1976, 41, n. 18).
Gaia 19, 2016, p. 319-333 319 GAIA 19
They are generally introduced with a personal name and a verb of speech followed by an accusative with infinitive, or more simply by the use of the genitive of the name of the person to whom the quotation is attributed (e.g. Διογένους ). The fact that some of these stories have been attributed to more than one Cynic reminds us that regarding the anecdote tradition (and the more specific form of thechreia tradition) historicity should not be the primary consideration in our approach to ancient biographies and anecdotes, but that instead they should serve as “a usable consensus of what was said and thought typically about their subject in certain intervening literary and philosophical circles”. 3 Not least, they provide an insight into the reception of the Cynic stance. The sayings approach the topic of wealth owned by people for whom wealth is bad—people who should avoid money entirely. It seems then prima facie that the Cynics simply follow Socrates’ teachings on the topic of wealth; 4 yet this is not a full picture. I then consider the themes of exchange and expenditure, especially through the works of Xenophon and Crates. Here Antisthenes and more clearly the Diogenes of the chreiai as well as Crates seem to advocate a mode of behavior removed from the normal practice and the liturgical institutions of the polis in general and the range of khorêgiai in particular. 5 But even more revealing is the fact that the overall Cynic behavior 6 is not in keeping with the image of Socrates who metaphorically expends himself within the context of the polis as this is celebrated by Xenophon.
The theme of the deployment of wealth through expenditure: some negative examples
1a) Stobaeus 4.31.48 = vol. 2, 242 Giannantoni Διογένους· τοὺς δὲ πολλοὺς τῶν πλουσίων ὁμοίους τοῖς ἐπὶ τῶν δυσβάτων καὶ ἀποκρήμνων φυομένοις δένδροις καὶ ἀμπέλοις. Τόν τε γὰρ τούτων
3. See Steiner (1976, 37) and Krueger (1996, 224). I define the term “anecdote” as “a short and pointed narrative, often of a biographical nature and rarely attributed to an author” following Goldhill (2009, 100). 4. See Schaps (2003, 140–7) for the change of attitude towards wealth around the end of the fifth century with Socrates. For an understanding of wealth in a wholly quantitative way from Hesiod up to Aristotle, see the passages in Desmond (2006, 34). 5. On Cynic views of the city see also the remarks of Moles (1995, esp. 134–41). 6. For arguments that support the idea that Cynicism originates with Diogenes see Goulet-Cazé (1996, 414) with previous literature. She adds, however, evidence which shows that by the middle of the fourth century BC in Athens when a philosopher like Aristotle spoke of the “Dog” his readers would understand that he was alluding to Antisthenes and not to Diogenes.
320 The Socratic Model, Antisthenes and the Cynics
καρπὸν ἀνθρώπους μὴ λαμβάνειν, κόρακας δὲ καὶ παραπλήσια τούτων ζῷα καταναλίσκειν· ἐκείνους τε τὸν πλοῦτον εἰς μὲν τὰ ἐπιεικῆ τῶν πραγμάτων οὐ κατατίθεσθαι, κόλαξι δὲ καὶ πόρναις καὶ ταῖς αἰσχροτάταις ἡδοναῖς καὶ κενωτάταις δόξαις χορηγεῖν. “Diogenes’ (saying): Most rich people can be compared with fruit trees and vines that grow in inaccessible and precipitous locations; for the fruit of the latter is not gathered by human beings, but only consumed by crows and similar creatures. So they, instead of putting aside the money for appropriate use, they serve as khoregoi to spongers and whores, and the most shameful indulgences and emptiest fancies.” ( Trans. Hard 2013, adapted) The device of synkrisis between the natural world and human behavior adds to the visualization of the Cynic message. Yet, the observation of nature’s life does not offer paradigms of a way of life kata physin (as might be expected) ; 7 rather of the kinds of attitudes to be avoided. A shorter version of this maxim comes from Diogenes Laertius; 8 it narrows its focus on the dissolute people, like the following chreia we will survey: 1b) Diogenes Laertius 6.60 = vol. 2, 321 Giannantoni Τοὺς ἀσώτους εἶπε παραπλησίους εἶναι συκαῖς ἐπὶ κρημνῷ πεφυκυίαις, ὧν τοῦ καρποῦ μὲν ἄνθρωπος οὐκ ἀπογεύεται, κόρακες δὲ καὶ γῦπες ἐσθίουσι. “He compared the dissolute to those fig-trees that grow on the precipices, whose fruit is never tasted by any human being, but is eaten by crows and vultures.” (Trans. Hard 2013) The next chreia, attributed by Stobaeus to Crates, beyond synkrisis, plays on the euphony between kolax and korax to make its point stronger: 1c) Stobaeus 3.15.10 = vol. 2, 54 Giannantoni Κράτης τὰ τῶν πλουσίων καὶ ἀσώτων ταῖς ἐπὶ τῶν κρημνῶν συκαῖς εἴκαζεν, ἀφ᾿ ὧν ἄνθρωπον μηδὲν λαμβάνειν, κόρακας δὲ καὶ ἰκτίνους· ὥσπερ παρὰ τούτων ἑταίρας καὶ κόλακας. “Crates compared the rich and the dissolute to those fig-trees that grow on the precipices, whose fruit is not gathered by human beings, but is eaten by crows and yellow-breasted martens. Just as it happens to their wealth which is consumed by whores and spongers.” The last chreia we will survey had the pair Demosthenes/Diogenes in the editio princeps. The name of Antisthenes is Kaibel’s correction, instead
7. See on the topic Flores-Junior (2005, esp. 159–64). 8. For the chreia tradition in Diogenes Laertius see Kindstrand (1986).
321 GAIA 19 of Demosthenes. 9 I follow Hartlich 10 who attributes to Diogenes the com- parison between fig trees and uncultivated rich: 1d) Galen, Protr. 6.5-6 = vol. 2, 379 Giannantoni Καλῶς οὖν καὶ ὁ Ἀντισθένης καὶ ὁ Διογένης, ὃ μὲν χρυσᾶ πρόβατα καλῶν τοὺς πλουσίους καὶ ἀπαιδεύτους, ὃ δὲ ταῖς ἐπὶ τῶν κρημνῶν συκαῖς ἀπεικάζων αὐτούς. Ἐκείνων τε γὰρ τὸν καρπὸν οὐκ ἀνθρώπους ἀλλὰ κόρακας ἢ κολοιοὺς ἐσθίειν, τούτων τε τὰ χρήματα μηδὲν μὲν ὄφελος εἶναι τοῖς ἀστείοις, δαπανᾶσθαι δ᾿ ὑπὸ τῶν κολάκων, οἵτινες ἐὰν τούτων τύχωσι πάντων αὐτοῖς ἀναλωθέντων ἀπαντῶντες παρέρχονται μὴ γνωρίζειν προσποιούμενοι. 5 Δημοσθένης Ald. Jam.: Ἀντισθένης conj. Kaibel “Both Demosthenes/Antisthenes and Diogenes did well, the first calling the rich and uneducated people ‘golden sheep’ and the latter comparing them with fig trees on cliffs: for their fruit is not eaten by men but by ravens or jackdaws, and the riches of these people are not beneficial to the good persons, but are spent by flatterers who, if they happen to meet them after all the money has been spent, they pass them by, pretending not to know them.” A passage from Antisthenes (fr. 91.3 Caizzi = Philo, quod omn. prob. lib. p. 869) which has the term asteios can help us to understand better the nature of this Cynic saying. Here Antisthenes speaks of the asteios person with a metaphor which conceives his phronêsis as a physical mass: ’Αντισθένης δυσβάστακτον εἶπεν εἶναι τὸν ἀστεῖον· ὡς γὰρ ἡ ἀφροσύνη κοῦφον καὶ φερόμενον, <οὕτως> ἡ φρόνησις ἐρηρεισμένον καὶ ἀκλινὲς καὶ βάρος ἔχον ἀσάλευτον. “Antisthenes said that the good (asteios) person is difficult to bear dus( - bastaktos): just as ignorance is light and flighty,
9. See Boudon (2002, 20–2 and 125). 10. Hartlich (1888, 321). The CUF translation of the passage is different attributing inversely the sayings to the names. 11. See also Plato, esp. Euthydemus (278e–2d) where no good could be truly good without knowledge—that, in fact, wealth, strength, honor, bravery, self-control, industry, cleverness, and even good vision are downright pernicious to the ignorant (281c–d). As Schaps (2003, 144) notes the correspondence between the two authors “surely encourages us to believe that the basic claim had been made by Socrates himself; but Xenophon is putting it to a new use” … “It is only Xenophon who is really talking about wealth: though Plato often mentions wealth, he only includes it as one of many things that are considered good—and never the first or most important”.
322 The Socratic Model, Antisthenes and the Cynics during his discussion with Critobulus that the ignorant and those enslaved to vice would do better without wealth. 12 As Natali 13 shows, this goes back to an instrumental conception of wealth, which is to be considered as such only if it is useful (in the ethical sense). The person who knows how to employ his wealth usefully (beneficially) is a rich person Oeconomicus( 1.8–9, 1.12). Similarly, if one is enslaved to passions, one cannot take care of one’s own goods.
A new ideal of wealth
Besides echoing Socrates, the sayings emphatically invert, while evoking, the archaic and early classical definitions of wealth which were based on a quantitative understanding of and approach to it. Generally speaking, the ancient societies of the Mediterranean encouraged as much accumulation and storage of food (and wealth) as possible, because this was the essential prerequisite for survival as well as providing honor and power for its pos- sessor. 14 For instance, noble birth results from having wealth in the house over a long period. 15 Thus the normal ethos of the household aimed at being plentiful in order to achieve self-sufficiency,autarkeia , 16 and Hesiod spent a good deal of the Works and Days to recommend all the measures which take part of the ideal of economic autarkeia within one’s household (oikos). The achievements of wealth consciously and properly employed, which had been the prominent theme of Hesiod’s Works and Days elaborate and time-consuming precautions, eclipse almost totally any mention of expenditure. In fact, dapanê is attested for the first time in Hesiod but in a context which aims at making it irrelevant, since it is connected with a type of communal meal (eranos) with contributions of the guests to the expense: μηδὲ πολυξείνου δαιτὸς δυσπέμφελος εἶναι· ἐκ κοινοῦ πλείστη τε χάρις δαπάνη τ’ ὀλιγίστη. “And do not be storm-tossed in your mood at a dinner party with many guests: when things are shared in common, the pleasure is the most and the expense is the least.” (Works and Days 722–3, trans. Most)
12. See Schaps (2003, 143). For the view that the Oeconomicus is an ethical dialogue disguised as an economic treatise see Danzig (2010, esp. 239–46). 13. Natali (2001, 276–9). 14. See already West 1981 on Homer, Odyssey 2.338–9. Forbes & Foxhall (1995, 69–70) who studied the problems related to food-storage in antiquity, note that this was only one section of a much larger practice of storage and accumulation which could include more durable items even invisible ones such as a good reputation (the so-called social storage). 15. Seaford (1998, 122). 16. Millett (1984, 96–7) collects all the relevant passages.
323 GAIA 19
The maxims of the Works and Days dealt extensively with the production or the actual producers of wealth, 17 and revolved around an idea of wealth that comes through work and is not presupposed (vv. 644, 361, 382, “it is from working that men have many sheep and are wealthy”); its source is (mainly) land. This ideal of richness finds its end in the simple provision of survival goods. Even if Hesiod speaks of ploutos in the poem (e.g. vv. 313, 377, 381), the concept has nothing to do with its aristocratic forms (which involve κειμήλια and ἀγάλματα) but rather concerns the farmer’s wealth which is limited to a kind of material abundance whose parts are bios and biotos which refer to agricultural produce (vv. 31, 168, 232, 316, 400, 501, 601, 689). Hesiod’s notion of khrêmata, which recalls again the Homeric idea of accumulated goods, is connected to the accumulation at home, and is based on the quantity of usable goods (vv. 407 and 600–5), and not prestige items: 18 Verses 361–3 are prime example of this: 19 Εἰ γάρ κεν καὶ σμικρὸν ἐπὶ σμικρῷ καταθεῖο καὶ θαμὰ τοῦτ’ ἔρδοις, τάχα κεν μέγα καὶ τὸ γένοιτο· ὃς δ’ ἐπ’ ἐόντι φέρει, ὃ δ’ ἀλέξεται αἴθοπα λιμόν. “For if you put down even a little upon a little and do this often, then this too will quickly become a lot; whoever adds to what is already there wards off fiery famine.” Works( and Days 361–3, trans. Most) Similarly vv. 597–608 give another important reference: Δμωσὶ δ’ ἐποτρύνειν Δημήτερος ἱερὸν ἀκτὴν δινέμεν, εὖτ’ ἂν πρῶτα ϕανῇ σθένος ’Ωρίωνος, χώρῳ ἐν εὐαεῖ καὶ ἐυτροχάλῳ ἐν ἀλωῇ. Mέτρῳ δ’ εὖ κομίσασθαι ἐν ἄγγεσιν· αὐτὰρ ἐπὴν δὴ πάντα βίον κατάθηαι ἐπάρμενον ἔνδοθι οἴκου, θῆτά τ’ ἄοικον ποιεῖσθαι καὶ ἄτεκνον ἔριθον δίζησθαι κέλομαι· χαλεπὴ δ’ ὑπόπορτις ἔριθος· καὶ κύνα καρχαρόδοντα κομεῖν, μὴ φείδεο σίτου, μή ποτέ σ’ ἡμερόκοιτος ἀνὴρ ἀπὸ χρήμαθ’ ἕληται. Xόρτον δ’ ἐσκομίσαι καὶ συρϕετόν, ὄφρα τοι εἴη βουσὶ καὶ ἡμιόνοισιν ἐπηετανόν. Αὐτὰρ ἔπειτα δμῶας ἀναψῦξαι φίλα γούνατα καὶ βόε λῦσαι. “Urge your slaves to winnow Demeter’s holy grain when Orion’s strength first shows itself, in a well-aired place and on a well-rolled threshing floor. Bring it in properly, with a measure in storage-vessels. When you have laid up all the means of life well prepared inside your house, then I bid you turn
17. ἔργον and ἐργάζεσθαι (vv. 299, 308, 309, 311, 312, 314, 316, 381 etc.) point to work which aims at production and supplies a livelihood. 18. For the ideas of this section I use Cozzo (1985, esp. 383–4). 19. See also vv. 364–7.
324 The Socratic Model, Antisthenes and the Cynics
your hired man out of your house and look for a serving-girl without her own child; for a serving-girl with a baby under her flank is a difficult thing. And get a jagged-tooth dog—do not be sparing with its food, lest some day- sleeping man steal your things from you. Bring in fodder and sweepings, so that there is plenty for the oxen and mules. Then let the slaves relax their knees, and unyoke the pair of oxen.” (Works and Days 597–608, trans. Most) If we now go back to Diogenes’ verb κατατίθεσθαι (in chreia 1a) this has the concrete sense of “to be deposited, to be stored up” and, from a purely economic standpoint, this economic imagery recalls Hesiod’s passages mentioned above as well as the Hesiodic ideal of storage. But, despite the echoes, the evoked Hesiodic mentality is undercut. It is good to note that the word epieikês in Diogenes’ saying is in the neuter (τὰ ἐπιεικῆ τῶν πραγμάτων) 20 because it is an abstraction which refers to a quality and points to the idea of moderation and of non-excessive desires. The attitude is a very general ethical one. The economics of Diogenes are those of a sôphrôn man. We are very far from the private and domestic space of Hesiod or indeed from any other location and there is no relation to material things. That the storage which Diogenes has in mind is of a different sort is also shown in Stobaeus 3.10.62 = VB 240 Giannantoni: Διογένης τοὺς μεγάλα καὶ ἀθρόα λαμβάνοντας μεγαλοπτώχους ἐκάλει. “Those who heap up large stores of wealth Diogenes called arch-beggars (i.e. exceedingly poor)”. (trans. Hard 2013) Similarly in the anecdote of Codex Patmos 263 n. 60 = VB471 C Giannantoni, we note that in contrast with Hesiod’s oikos, the Cynic is himself a vessel filled with good things and without any mention of labor: Παριὼν δέ ποτε τελώνιον ἐρωτηθεὶς μή τι φέρει τῶν τιμίων, συγκατέθετο· ὡς δὲ οὐδὲν εὗρεν ὁ τελώνης ἐρευνῶν καὶ τὸν Διογένην τῆς χλεύης κατηγόρει γυμνώσας τὰ στέρνα, « ἐγὼ μέν », εἶπεν, « μεστὸν φέρω πολλῶν ἀγαθῶν τουτὶ τὸ ἀγγεῖον σὺ δ᾽ ὁρᾶν οὐ δύνῃ, κεκλεισμένους ἔχων τοὺς τῆς ψυχῆς ὀφθαλμούς. » “When he once arrived at a customs post, he was asked whether he was carrying any valuables, and replied that indeed he was. On failing to find anything in his search, the customs official accused Diogenes of making fun of him; but he bared his chest and declared, ‘I’m carrying this vessel filled with any number of good things, but you are unable to see them because you keep the eyes of your soul firmly closed.” ( Trans. Hard 2013)
20. Plato had used the word in Republic 328d–31d in the course of Socrates’ discussion with Cephalus. In answering Socrates’ question “what do you believe is the greatest benefit you have enjoyed from the acquisition of all your wealth?” (330d ), Cephalus says that “it is indeed in this respect that I take the acquisition of wealth to be of the highest value, certainly not for everyone, but for the decent person” (331b). On the terms ἐπιεικής, ἐπιείκεια see de Romilly (1979, 53–63 and 175–96 ). Santoni (1996, 430) notes that in Aristotle ἐπιεικής usually refers to the good man in contrast to the bad one, φαῦλος.
325 GAIA 19
Noble expenditure, khorêgein, and the new standards and models of proper use of “wealth”
In Memorabilia, Xenophon paints Socrates as committed to the manifesta- tions of megaloprepeia, the system of liturgies within which money played an important part in the context of the polis, and transforms the elements of an embedded economy into metaphors for Socrates’ non-economic goals: Ἀλλὰ Σωκράτης γε τἀναντία τούτων φανερὸς ἦν καὶ δημοτικὸς καὶ φιλάνθρωπος ὤν. Ἐκεῖνος γὰρ πολλοὺς ἐπιθυμητὰς καὶ ἀστοὺς καὶ ξένους λαβὼν οὐδένα πώποτε μισθὸν τῆς συνουσίας ἐπράξατο, ἀλλὰ πᾶσιν ἀφθόνως ἐπήρκει τῶν ἑαυτοῦ· ὧν τινες μικρὰ μέρη παρ’ ἐκείνου προῖκα λαβόντες πολλοῦ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἐπώλουν, καὶ οὐκ ἦσαν ὥσπερ ἐκεῖνος δημοτικοί· τοῖς γὰρ μὴ ἔχουσι χρήματα διδόναι οὐκ ἤθελον διαλέγεσθαι. Ἀλλὰ Σωκράτης γε καὶ πρὸς τοὺς ἄλλους ἀνθρώπους κόσμον τῇ πόλει παρεῖχε πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἢ Λίχας τῇ Λακεδαιμονίων, ὃς ὀνομαστὸς ἐπὶ τούτῳ γέγονε. Λίχας μὲν γὰρ ταῖς γυμνοπαιδίαις τοὺς ἐπιδημοῦντας ἐν Λακεδαίμονι ξένους ἐδείπνιζε, Σωκράτης δὲ διὰ παντὸς τοῦ βίου τὰ ἑαυτοῦ δαπανῶν τὰ μέγιστα πάντας τοὺς βουλομένους ὠφέλει· βελτίους γὰρ ποιῶν τοὺς συγγιγνομένους ἀπέπεμπεν. “He (Socrates) showed himself to be one of the people and a friend of man- kind. For although he had many eager disciples among citizens and strangers, yet he never exacted a fee for his society from one of them, but of his abun- dance he gave without a stint to all. Some indeed, after getting from him a few trifles for nothing, became vendors of them at a great price to others, and showed none of his sympathy with the people, refusing to talk with those who had no money to give them. But Socrates was considered by for- eigners to have provided honor to the polis much more than Lichas, whose services to Sparta have made his name immortal. For Lichas used to entertain the strangers staying at Sparta during the Feast of the Dancing Boys; but Socrates spent his life in lavishing his gifts and rendering the greatest services to all who cared to receive them. For he always made his associate better men before he parted with them.” ( Xenophon, Memorabilia, 1.2.60–1, trans. Todd 1923 modified). As Natali 21 well notes, Xenophon employs metaphorically the language of liturgies to describe Socrates as useful to the city. Socrates provides benefactions which are analogous to those Athens receives from a rich and noble Athenian (see e.g. the duties listed by Ischomachus in Oeconomicus 11.9–10 22); his magnificence is even bigger than Lichas’ in Sparta, a most
21. Natali (2001, 281–2). 22. “And when I heard this”, I asked, “Do you really want to be wealthy and to bear all the troubles which come from possessing great wealth?”—“Yes, I do very much”, said Ischomachus, “for it seems quite pleasant, Socrates, to honor the gods beautifully, to help one’s friends in time of need, and to make sure that the city is not lacking in ornamenta- tion so far as it is dependent on me.” As their dialogue proceeds it becomes obvious that Socrates does not agree that one needs money in order to honor the gods (see Memorabilia
326 The Socratic Model, Antisthenes and the Cynics conspicuous liturgist himself. This kind of behavior locates Socrates in the public sphere through his continued dapanê and service to the entire city. Socrates is thus portrayed as being conscious of the polis. Indeed, his eco- nomic model appears to be embedded in the polis system and applying to both Athenians and foreigners. He gives without a stint. We could perhaps supplement Natali’s account in noting that Xenophon omits the question of reciprocity, (a)symmetrical mutuality and all issues of benefit in the example of Socrates’ liturgies. Socrates ends up as a superior person who remains unaffected himself while he can benefit others; differently than other rich Athenians, he does not need his wealth to be increasing well (Oeconomicus 11.8) in order to cope with this system of one-sided exchanges. In the above portrayal of Xenophon a further paradox consists in that the paradigm of Socrates divorces the liturgical service of Socrates from money and his civic “virtue” from economic factors. That wealth is not in itself either necessary or adequate for “true” public service also offers a redefinition of what constitutes true public service and true wealth. As presented by Xenophon, the appropriation of the language of expenditure reflects Socrates’ essential concern with moral and civic/ political life and brings his actions within a comprehensible pattern. At the same time, it makes clear the contrast or at least the divergences between the political Socrates and his follower Antisthenes 23 on whom Xenophon’s Symposium (4.40 and 4.43) gives two important reports. Xenophon’s testimony should be preferred because it is earliest, and derives from his own firsthand acquaintance with Antisthenes: Πλείστου δ’ ἄξιον κτῆμα ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ πλούτῳ λογίζομαι εἶναι ἐκεῖνο, ὅτι εἴ μού τις καὶ τὰ νῦν ὄντα παρέλοιτο, οὐδὲν οὕτως ὁρῶ φαῦλον ἔργον ὁποῖον οὐκ ἀρκοῦσαν ἂν τροφὴν ἐμοὶ παρέχοι. Καὶ γὰρ ὅταν ἡδυπαθῆσαι βουληθῶ, οὐκ ἐκ τῆς ἀγορᾶς τὰ τίμια ὠνοῦμαι (πολυτελῆ γὰρ γίγνεται), ἀλλ’ ἐκ τῆς ψυχῆς ταμιεύομαι. “But the most valuable parcel of my wealth I reckon to be this, that even though someone were to rob me of what I now possess, I see no occupation so humble that it would not give me adequate fare. For whenever I feel an inclination to indulge my appetite, I do not buy fancy articles at the market (for they come high), but I draw on the store-house of my soul.” ( Xenophon, Symposium, 4.40–1, trans. Todd) The idea that one’s store-house reside in one’s soul is very far from Hesiod and reminiscent of Diogenes in the anecdote of Codex Patmos 263
1.3.3–4, Symposium 4.49), and he does not agree that Ischomachus’ life is pleasant. Yet, as Danzig (2010, 262–3) well observes he does agree that there is nobility in the effort to do so, and that those who succeed in this must be powerful men, even if he does not say they must be good ones. 23. See below n. 28 on the topic of Antisthenes’ citizenship.
327 GAIA 19 n. 60 = VB471 C Giannantoni, where he presents himself as a vessel filled with good things. Also Ἄξιον δ’ ἐννοῆσαι ὡς καὶ ἐλευθερίους ὁ τοιοῦτος πλοῦτος παρέχεται. Σωκράτης τε γὰρ οὗτος παρ’ οὗ ἐγὼ τοῦτον ἐκτησάμην οὔτ’ ἀριθμῷ οὔτε σταθμῷ ἐπήρκει μοι, ἀλλ’ ὁπόσον ἐδυνάμην φέρεσθαι, τοσοῦτόν μοι παρεδίδου· ἐγώ τε νῦν οὐδενὶ φθονῶ, ἀλλὰ πᾶσι τοῖς φίλοις καὶ ἐπιδεικνύω τὴν ἀφθονίαν καὶ μεταδίδωμι τῷ βουλομένῳ τοῦ ἐν τῇ ἐμῇ ψυχῇ πλούτου. Καὶ μὴν καὶ τὸ ἁβρότατόν γε κτῆμα, τὴν σχολὴν ἀεὶ ὁρᾶτέ μοι παροῦσαν, ὥστε καὶ θεᾶσθαι τὰ ἀξιοθέατα καὶ ἀκούειν τὰ ἀξιάκουστα καὶ ὃ πλείστου ἐγὼ τιμῶμαι, Σωκράτει σχολάζων συνδιημερεύειν. Καὶ οὗτος δὲ οὐ τοὺς πλεῖστον ἀριθμοῦντας χρυσίον θαυμάζει, ἀλλ’ οἳ ἂν αὐτῷ ἀρέσκωσι τούτοις συνὼν διατελεῖ. Οὗτος μὲν οὖν οὕτως εἶπεν. ῾Ο δὲ Καλλίας, Νὴ τὴν ῞Ηραν, ἔφη, τά τε ἄλλα ζηλῶ σε τοῦ πλούτου καὶ ὅτι οὔτε ἡ πόλις σοι ἐπιτάττουσα ὡς δούλῳ χρῆται οὔτε οἱ ἄνθρωποι, ἂν μὴ δανείσῃς, ὀργίζονται. “And it is worth noting that wealth of this kind makes people generous, also. My friend Socrates here and I are examples. For Socrates, from whom I acquired this wealth of mine, did not come to my relief with limitation of number and weight, but made over to me all that I could carry. And as for me, I am now niggardly to no one, but both make an open display of my abundance to all my friends and share my spiritual wealth with any one of them that desires it. But—most exquisite possession of all!—you observe that I always have leisure, with the result that I can go and see whatever is worth seeing, and hear whatever is worth hearing and—what I prize highest—pass the whole day, untroubled by business, in Socrates’ company. Like me, he does not bestow his admiration on those who count the most gold, but spends his time with those who are congenial to him. So help me Hera, commented Callias, among the numerous reasons I find for congratulating you on your wealth, one is that the government does not lay its commands on you and treat you as a slave, another is that people do not feel resentful at your not making them a loan.” ( Xenophon, Symposium, 4.43–5, trans. Todd) Here Antisthenes defines himself as if being a member of the (Athenian) elite 24 since he has time for leisure activities and he prides himself for the luxuriousness. However the tendency to luxury is not translated in the squandering of his resources. In Antisthenes’ statement about the open display of his wealth and in the act of generosity which is characteristic of the sphere of leitourgeiai we get the Antisthenic version of megaloprepeia, the generous public expenditure of wealth by those who can afford it; 25 it is thus possible to speak of an aristocratic construction of self-image generated by this individualistic display. Antisthenes seemingly appropriates the image of a voluntary or an ideal liturgist being particularly free with his wealth which is irreducible. In doing so, however, Antisthenes escapes
24. See below n. 28 on his citizenship. 25. On the stereotypically rigid etiquette of giving see Herman (1987, 89).
328 The Socratic Model, Antisthenes and the Cynics the “enslavement” to the city as is recognized by Callias in the passage above 26 and he does not have to have his wealth increasing well. The means of exchange is new, but, like money, is easy to transport and can be put to a multiplicity of uses. However, different from the rich liturgists, it is less the case here that the giver is willing to recognize the power of the recipient over him. On the contrary he elects the receiver on the basis of his moral qualities and virtues. This aspect of “wealth” circulation is not a mark of submission, a tax obligation, a payment like Critoboulus’ or Ischomachus’ examples in Xenophon who speak of the duties that weighed heavily on the richest. 27 The two texts apply alternative frames and construct a divergence, not to say an opposition, between Socrates’ and Antisthenes’ practices, two kinds of “public expenditure”, and the stereotypical discourse of megaloprepeia and demonstrative expenses. The texts express similar sentiments. However in Socrates’ example the notion of wealth is redefined together with the thinking about social ideals in a frame which is and remains the civic one. In Antisthenes, although initially characterized as a possession (something acquired from Socrates, compared to a cloak or a house or any other com- modity), the notion of wealth is redefined together with the thinking about non civic ideals. 28 In the particular philosophical perspective of Socrates and Antisthenes, expenditure of wealth is channeled to relationships which are fully shared and reciprocated since they are defined asphiliae (a distinction between services to individuals and services to the collectivity). The Cynic texts concerning Diogenes and Crates we will next examine also open up the topic of the private use of wealth and point to the theme of the best deployment of wealth revisited by a Cynic perspective. The honorable use of wealth through willing expenditure by rich people had been first advocated by the poetry of Pindar. Expenditure within the civic
26. Ischomachus too suffers from all the troubles that beset the wealthy Athenians (see Oeconomicus 2.5–8, Symposium 4.29–45; he is forced to fund expensive city expenditures (7.3). 27. Καὶ γὰρ δὴ καὶ προσετάττετο μὲν ἀεί τί μοι δαπανᾶν ὑπὸ τῆς πόλεως, ἀποδημῆσαι δὲ οὐδαμοῦ ἐξῆν. Νῦν δ’ ἐπειδὴ τῶν ὑπερορίων στέρομαι καὶ τὰ ἔγγεια οὐ καρποῦμαι καὶ τὰ ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας πέπραται, ἡδέως μὲν καθεύδω ἐκτεταμένος, πιστὸς δὲ τῇ πόλει γεγένημαι, οὐκέτι δὲ ἀπειλοῦμαι, ἀλλ’ ἤδη ἀπειλῶ ἄλλοις, ὡς ἐλευθέρῳ τε ἔξεστί μοι καὶ ἀποδημεῖν καὶ ἐπιδημεῖν· ὑπανίστανται δέ μοι ἤδη καὶ θάκων καὶ ὁδῶν ἐξίστανται οἱ πλούσιοι. Καὶ εἰμὶ νῦν μὲν τυράννῳ ἐοικώς, τότε δὲ σαφῶς δοῦλος ἦν· καὶ τότε μὲν ἐγὼ φόρον ἀπέφερον τῷ δήμῳ, νῦν δὲ ἡ πόλις τέλος φέρουσα τρέφει με. Ἀλλὰ καὶ Σωκράτει, ὅτε μὲν πλούσιος ἦν, ἐλοιδόρουν με ὅτι συνῆν, νῦν δ’ ἐπεὶ πένης γεγένημαι, οὐκέτι οὐδὲν μέλει οὐδενί. Καὶ μὴν ὅτε μέν γε πολλὰ εἶχον, ἀεί τι ἀπέβαλλον ἢ ὑπὸ τῆς πόλεως ἢ ὑπὸ τῆς τύχης· νῦν δὲ ἀποβάλλω μὲν οὐδέν (οὐδὲν γὰρ ἔχω), ἀεὶ δέ τι λήψεσθαι ἐλπίζω. (Symposium, 4.30-31) 28. This may be due also to the fact that Antisthenes was probably not an Athenian citizen since he was the son of a Thracian slave. As Tsouna McKirahan (1994, 384) remarks “in this contingent situation he was unlikely to feel the ‘slave’ or the ‘offspring’ of the laws, ( Plato, Crito 50e) of any particular city.”
329 GAIA 19 space was regarded as useful in the context and performance of the liturgies the polis required from its wealthy citizens. In Nemean 1.31–2, Pindar states that he would not hide great wealth within his house if he had it: Οὐκ ἔραμαι πολὺν ἐν μεγάρῳ πλοῦτον κατακρύψαις ἔχειν, ἀλλ’ ἐόντων εὖ τε παθεῖν καὶ ἀκοῦ- σαι φίλοις ἐξαρκέων. “I do not long to keep much wealth in my hall, having hidden it away, but instead to enjoy what I possess and to be well spoken of while satisfying my friends.” ( Pindar, Nemean 1.31–2) As Kurke 29 notes of the poet “given a sufficiency of wealth, he would spend his money in such a way that he would earn a good reputation, assisting his philoi”. By contrasting invisible and visible wealth the poet advocates the social (and political) embedding of property in his description of the effects of the use of his wealth and the status it creates. 30 Money in itself, saved and stored away, could not result in such a desirable effect. With the Cynics Diogenes and Crates of Thebes, elite liturgical expendi- tures are more remarkably or more clearly viewed as wasteful examples. A high point in the Cynic trend of giving new meanings to traditional ideas (in particularly those which were the staple of the classical polis) is the use of verb khorêgein in chreia 1a. Diogenes employs it not as a commentary on someone’s khoregic career but with the extended meaning “to provide, to furnish abundantly”, a development which originated from the image of the khorêgos as the figure ready to provide whatever might be needed. 31 Diogenes’ words regarding a bad, pleasure-seeking khorêgia can be said to imply an indirect and polemical allusion and to reflect the view of elite liturgical expenditures as a wasteful example (after all khorêgein primarily concerns the institution of khorêgia and the ethics of “noble expenditure” which this social performance involved stood at the ideological and mate- rial heart of the city). Diogenes then possibly speaks with a mission here and the mission would be to undermine the prestige and the power this social performance involved as well as the Athenian society’s proper use of its surplus wealth. On another instance, Crates of Thebes (SH 359.10–1) speaks clearly against one form of liturgy in the practice of cult (to sacrifice abundantly) and against a logic of expenditure for the gods which was central to the
29. Kurke (2013, 198–9). 30. On the notion of dapanê in Pindar see Hummel (1996). 31. See Wilson (2000, 71).
330 The Socratic Model, Antisthenes and the Cynics
Greek concept of religion. 32 In doing so he seems to agree with Socrates’ view that one needs no money in order to honor the gods (see Memorabilia 1.3.3–4, Symposium 4.49–50). The vow, which Crates overturns when he says that he will appease the gods not with costly dainties but with pious virtues, was that if a benefit was conferred, then a gift, usually sacrifice, would be made in return: Χρήματα δ’ οὐκ ἐθέλω συνάγειν κλυτά, κανθάρου ὄλβον μύρμηκός τ’ἄφενος χρήματα μαιόμενος, ἀλλὰ δικαιοσύνης μετέχειν καὶ πλοῦτον ἀγινεῖν εὔφορον, εὔκτητον, τίμιον εἰς ἀρετήν. Tῶν δὲ τυχὼν ‘Ερμῆν καὶ Μούσας ἱλάσομ’ ἁγνάς οὐ δαπάναις τρυφεραῖς, ἀλλ’ ἀρεταῖς ὁσίαις. “As for money I desire not to amass conspicuous wealth, seeking after the wealth of the beetle or the substance of the ant; nay, I desire to possess justice and to collect riches that are easily carried, easily acquired, of great avail for virtue (valuable for virtue). If I may but win these I will appease Hermes and the holy Muses not with costly dainties but with pious virtues.” (Crates SH 359.10–1) In preferring as gift to the gods a (pious) virtue, Crates proposes a qualified rejection of dapanê, here connected with the epithet trypheros. The Cynic texts we examined in our discussion above, point to a new phil- osophical ideal of use, expenditure and exchange of one’s private wealth. The Athenian institution of the Khoregia can be said to be transformed into a Cynic “institution” with the Cynic “liturgist” embracing the ethics of “noble expenditure” all from a very particular philosophical perspective.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOUDON Véronique, Galien, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 2002. COZZO Andrea, “Lavoro ed arricchimento negli ‘Erga’ di Esiodo”, Studi Storici, 26, 1985 (2), pp. 373–88. DANZIG Gabriel, Apologizing for Socrates. How Plato and Xenophon Created our Socrates, Lanham, Lexington Books, 2010.
32. The performance of a religious duty required the costs associated with the animal sacrifice, including for the cult instruments and auxiliary personnel to be paid. On the theme of reciprocity between gods and humans with sacrifices see Parker (1998, 105–25). Xenophon in the Memorabilia tries with arguments to show that Socrates, despite his poverty, was useful to his city also in matters of sacrifices to the gods. See Natali (2001, 281) and further below.
331 GAIA 19
DESMOND William D., The Greek Praise of Poverty. Origins of Ancient Cynicism, Notre Dame (Indiana), University of Notre-Dame Press, 2006. FLORES-JUNIOR Olimar, “Cratès, la fourmi et l’escarbot : les cyniques et l’exemple animal”, Philosophie Antique, 5, 2005, pp. 135–71. FORBES Hamish & FOXHALL Lin, “Ethnoarchaeology and Storage in the Ancient Mediterranean Beyond Risk and Survival”, in J. Wilkins, D. Harvey & M. Dobson (eds), Food in Antiquity, Exeter, University of Exeter Press, 1995, pp. 69–86. GIANNANTONI Gabriele (ed.), Socratis et Socraticorum Reliquiae, Elenchos 18, 1990, pp. 227–509 (vol. 2); pp. 413–41 (vol. 4). GOLDHILL Simon, “The Anecdote: Exploring the Boundaries between Oral and Literate Performance in the Second Sophistic”, in W. Johnson & H. Parker (eds), Ancient Literacies: The Culture of Reading in Greece and Rome, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009, pp. 96–112. GOULET-CAZÉ Marie-Odile, “Who was the First dog”? in R. Bracht Branham & M.-O. Goulet-Cazé (eds), The Cynics. The Cynic Movement in Antiquity and Its Legacy, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London, University of California Press, 1996, pp. 414–5. GRAZIOSI Barbara, Inventing Homer: The Early Reception of Epic, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002. HARD Robin, Diogenes the Cynic. Sayings and Anecdotes with Other Popular Moralists, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013. HARTLICH Paul, De exhortationum a Grecis Romanisque scriptatum historia et indole, Leipzig, Hirschfeld, 1889. HERMAN Gabriel, Ritualised Friendship and the Greek City, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1987. HUMMEL Pascale, “Le labeur et la grâce. Étude d’une constellation lexi- cale, dapanè, ponos et charis dans Pindare”, RPh, 70, 1996 (2), pp. 249–54. KINDSTRAND Jan Fredrik, “Diogenes Laertius and the Chreia Tradition”, Elenchos, 7, 1986, pp. 219–43. KRUEGER Derek, “The Bawdy and Society. The Shamelessness of Diogenes in Roman Imperial Culture”, in R. Bracht Branham & M.-O. Goulet-Cazé (eds), The Cynics: The Cynic Movement in Antiquity and Its Legacy, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London, University of California Press,1996, pp. 222–39. KURKE Leslie, The Traffic in Praise [1991], Berkeley, University of California Press, 20132. LEFKOWITZ Mary R., Lives of the Greek Poets, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981. MILLETT Paul, “Hesiod and his World”, PCPhS, 210, 1984, pp. 84–115. MOLES John L., “The Cynics and Politics”, in A. Laks & M. Schofield (eds), Justice and Generosity: Studies in Hellenistic Social and Political Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1995, pp. 129–58.
332 The Socratic Model, Antisthenes and the Cynics
NATALI Carlo, “Socrate dans l’Économique de Xénophon”, in J.-B. Gourinat (ed.), Socrate et les Socratiques, Paris, Vrin, 2001, pp. 263–88. PARKER Robert, “Pleasing Thighs: Reciprocity in Greek Religion”, in C. Gill, N. Postlethwaite & R. Seaford (eds), Reciprocity in Ancient Greece, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1998, pp. 105–25. ROMILLY Jacqueline de, La douceur dans la pensée grecque, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1979. SANTONI Anna, “Sul termine ἐπιεικής nell’ ‘Athenaion Politeia’ di Aristotele”, in M. S. Funghi (ed.), ΟΔΟΙ ΔΙΖΗΣΙΟΣ. LE VIE DELLA RICERCA. Studi in onore di Francesco Adorno, Firenze, Olschki, 1996, pp. 427–35. SCHAPS David M., “Socrates and the Socratics: When Wealth Became a Problem”, CW, 96, 2003, pp. 131–57. SEAFORD Richard, Reciprocity and Ritual, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1994. STEINER George, “Diogenes’ Mouse and the Royal Dog: Conformity in Nonconformity”, CJ, 72, 1976, pp. 36–46. TSOUNA MCKIRAHAN Voula, “The Socratic Origins of the Cynics and Cyrenaics”, in P. A. Vander Waerdt (ed.), The Socratic Movement, Ithaca-London, Cornell University Press, 1994, pp. 367–91. WEST Stephanie, Omero, Odissea, libri I-IV: Introduzione generale di Alfred Heubeck e Stephanie West, introduzione, testo e comment a cura di S. West, Roma-Milano, Fondazione Lorenzo Valla-Mondadori, 1981. WILSON Peter, The Athenian Institution of the Khoregia, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000.
333