Cynic Conception of AYTARKEIA

7/29/2019 Cynic Conception of AYTARKEIA

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cynic-conception-of-aytarkeia 1/8

The Cynic Conception of Aytapkeia

Author(s): Audrey N. M. RichSource: Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, Vol. 9, Fasc. 1 (1956), pp. 23-29Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4427776 .

Accessed: 04/08/2011 22:53

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Mnemosyne.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4427776?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4427776?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap



THE CYNIC CONCEPTION OF AYTAPKEIA

- BY

AUDREY N. M. RICH

AusapxLaps a term with associations that are fundamentallyCynic. To Diogenes the arch-Cynic it meant, broadly speaking, two

things; on the physical plane, contentment with the bare neces-

sities of life 1); and on the spiritual level, complete detachment

from the world and worldly values. The Musa'pxr was the man who

had dispensed with the superfluous in every department of life

and reduced his needs to a minimum. All that he required for

his material well-being was food, shelter and clothing of the meanest

sort 2); his spiritual needs could be satisfied by Virtue alone, the

possession of which was sufficient to ensure happiness 3). TheCynic then, had no desire for wealth, knowledge, pleasure or

friendship. In his mind all these would be classed together as

unnecessaryluxuries. Nothing, in fact, that was to be derived from

any source external to himself had any value for him or could affect

him in any way. This, of course, is xusapzvxc in its most uncom-

promising form, the form in which it was advocated by Diogenes

and the Cynic of the Lucianic dialogue. In some of the later ad-

herents of Cynicism the concept is less harsh. In Bion 4), for

instance, atuocapxma.becomes not so much a stern renunciation of

the world as an attempt to adapt oneself to the world and changing

circumstances just as an actor adapts himself to, the varied roles

he has to play. But this is clearly not the orthodox Cynic view

though it does not verge so far towardsheresy as that of Peregrinuswho is said to have denied the possibility of complete Self-Suf-

i) Diogenes Laertius, VI. 104.

2) His attitude could well be summed up in the words of St. Paul (I Tim.6.6) gxov?eq8i 8&ocpmpqc&oclax ka?octrcX,To&rou0&pxeaO-a6FiOm.

3) D. L. VI. i i. (referring to Antisthenes, the traditional founder ofCynicism).

4) See Dudley, History of Cynicism, p. 66. For the views of Bion seeStobaeus, Ecl. III. I. pp. 37-49.



24 THE CYNIC CONCEPTION OF AYTARKEIA

ficiency even for the Cynic, since even the follower of Diogenes

depends upon the services of the leather cutter, the woodcutter

and the weaver in order to equip himself with the wallet, staff and

cloak which are the visible signs of his calling 1).

Bion and Peregrinus are not, however, "typical" Cynics, and it is

with the norm rather than its variations that we are here concerned.

The true Cynic aimed at o',rpxze as it was exemplified in the

conduct of Diogenes, and his motive in so doing was obvious.

Self-Sufficiency alone, in the Cynic's view, can give security andimmunise a man against the ills inflicted by Fortune. If he has

little, he has little to lose; if he desires nothing, he cannot be

disappointed 2). His ocvTapxserxs, in fact, in the jargon of modern

psychology, a "defence mechanism" which can be put into ope-

ration by two methods. In the first place he must revert to a "state

of nature" and live as far as possible like the animals whose needs

are strictly limited. As Epictetus puts it, he must emulate the

irrational beasts, 6v e'xoa-rov avTo auTZ &pxo4vov ou'm 7pOpiJ;

&7sopex 't-f~ OLXELCX QL ou)Y -rr o od xOrc Gv6Lv ).

Secondly, he must strive to imitate the Self-Sufficiency of divinity,

since "It is characteristic of the gods to need nothing, of those like

the gods to need but little" 4). So then, the practice of aapxemoc

gives rise to a curious paradox. The ocaT&pxiss sub-human in so

far as he descends to the animal level, super-human in so far as he

approximates to the divine. Thus, if he is reproached for living like

a beast, he is in a position to reply with all the assurance of

Lucian's Cynic: xLvave?oUaLV O6 Oeo'0 oL &tv ONPExV eVL zapoveq

toc yer tIV av X6yoV -u saVc, yIp aIOVTaL5).Such then, is avt&pxr4a according to the genuine Cynic tradition.

The question now to be considered is whether the concept owes

anything to outside influences. It is perhaps significant, for in-

stance, that the Atomist Democritus uses x&rapXoc to denote a

i) See Dudley, op. cit. p. I78.

2) Cp. Plutarch, De CohibendaIra, 46I C. oL yap &y.Lyc,v?0evO Aro?vOOX ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~,tJCOTLeVO G6V00X OC7CO0rUYO1)XVOUaLV.

3) I. IX. 9. See Julian, Or. VI. 193 D; Dio Chrysostom, Or. VI. 26.

4) D. L. VI. I04. Cp. Xen. Mem. I. VI. io, where a similar sentiment is

ascribed to Socrates.5) Cyn. I2.



THE CYNIC CONCEPTION OF AYTARKEIA 25

frugal way of life 1) and like the Cynics, opposes 'vocUpxi o

7OXUT?k 2). Furthermore, when he says that Fortune though

bountiful, is uncertain, while Nature is ocuTapxicw), we cannot

help feeling that here is something very similar to the Cynicnotion

that the au-ocpx%s the man who lives a "natural" ife. The Sophist

Hippias who lived at roughly the same period seems also to have

made ociurpxeaohis aim 4), but in his case there can be no suggestion

of possible influence upon the Cynics. His ocut&pmcLCears no

resemblanceat all to that of Diogenes. For judging from the anec-dote recordedof him by Plato in the Hippias Minor5), it is obvious

that he did not aim, like the Cynic, at reducing his needs to a

minimum, but rather at developing his capacities to the utmost in

order that he might himself, without external assistance, satisfy

any and every desire that presented itself. There is nothing ascetic

about the ov&apxma of Hippias, nor does his brand of Self-Suffi-

ciency, like that of the Cynics, demand the total abolition of

luxuries. For, as we know from Plato, Hippias, besides providing

himself with essential clothing and footwear, all, of course, of hisown manufacture, also adorned his person with such superfluous

articles as a ring and an intricately wrought girdle made after the

Persian fashion. We also know from Plato 6) that he was in the

habit of boasting about his ability to make money, a clear indi-

cation, surely, that he is not likely to have had much influence upon

the Cynics who plumed themselves rather on their mendicant

state and were frequently to be heard extolling the merits of

Hevtocs an indispensablecondition of Self-Sufficiency.

Undoubtedly one of the maininspirationsof the Cynic conceptionof act"r&pxeLocas the conduct of the philosopherSocrates.Xenophon,

who, to some extent, sees Socratesthrough the eyes of Antisthenes,

i) Diels, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker,II. 246. VeT?Le 'LouoU'r-pXetov

M&a&xeL.

2) ibid. 2I0. Tp7reXV TO\U-?X?O pev T6Z-x XapOCO7aLv, OUTapx'o 8E aX -

cPpoa6'v72.

3) ibid. I176. ru'Z- ?tyao68wpoq &aBV5?a6Poq, pU'aLq8?e oUTaropX-n.

4) ibid. 326 (Suidas). In7rto ... . r0Xo4? A t(?o T0Tv owUNtpxxv.

5) 368B, C.6) Hipp. Mai. 282 D; 284 C.




continually stresses his abstemious way of life 1), while Plato toobears witness to his frugal habits, his ability to endure hardshipand his indifferenceto materialprosperity. But whereasXenophonemphasises the austere side of Socrates'character, Plato gives us aless one-sided view and shows us that the cxU&tCpxsLocf Socrates is based

on motives which differ radically from those underlying the Cynicconception. Socrates, it is true, neglects his material concerns,buthis reasonfor so doing is not that he feels, like the Cynic, that such

concerns are a necessary bar to the good life, but simply that hismission as a philosopher eaves him no time to attend to his worldlyaffairs2). Again, his attitude to pleasure s obviously quite differentfrom that of the Cynic. In moments of relaxation, as Plato'sSymposium indicates, he can enjoy the pleasures of drinking andsocial intercourse with considerable zest - and yet without de-triment to his Self-Sufficiency. For his conduct illustrates a truthto which the eyes of the Cynics were apparently blinded, namely,that the ability to maintain a temperate attitude in the enjoyment

of material blessings, is really a far more convincing proof ofspiritual independence than the outright rejection of all pleasureas an obstacleto be avoidedby those who would attain xcxU'tpx?e&c.

In some ways Plato's attitude is much more "cynic" in tonethan that of Socrates. Admittedly he realises that in the materialsphere the au-&cpxeLocf the individual is a physical impossibility,and actually attributes the genesis of the community to the factthat tuyZXv pvxiatov oux acurocpxs&?a&&oc v 3), buton the moral level, however, o'crcXpxexcs, he thinks, attainable by

the virtuous man. The Good at which men aim is, so Plato thinks,of necessity perfect, and as such, lacks nothing (0tv?v 0t8eV0'

tC7poa8eaOocL)4). It follows then, that he who is in possession of the

i) AMem.. III. 5. o0rc y&p zT 5 iv &a-T otx o18' av E' TLL o5tcZ5 oXLyOC

kpydcOLTo, ?rCSa 4n xOC,43&VzLVO'TEC)xp&TrL &pxo(5v-tOx.Cp. I. II. I4. It is interesting to notice that Xenophon puts into the mouth

of Socrates a remark similar to that elsewhere (D. L. VI. I04) ascribed toDiogenes: -o6 pdv V68eV 8aCLeoat eov lVcLL, T0 8? @c zXM artCv&yyu'r&cxa-ro5 OeLou.... (Mem. I. VI. io).

2) Apol. 23 B 7.

3) Rep. II. 369 B.4) Phil. 20 E 6; cp. 67 A.




Good needs nothing beyond the Good, and by virtue of possessingit, is Self-Sufficient: oCuo yao64, xoOC'o6ov &yaoo6, xocTOC0&T00V

LXCoV6q&Vetn x&; .... 0 3& ye Lx(cv0 o3evk &e0?evoq XOCt& TYv

txoCv6tOc1)

Plato's Good Man, therefore, depends upon himself alone. No

external circumstance affects his well-being. Death he can regard

with the indifference of the most hardenedof Cynics; the loss of a

son or a brother, the loss of money, he can face without a tremor,

for being [L&?aroc ocis-rocair oc-pxs tp4s lo ei54Tvhe has not thesmallest need of anyone or anything outside himself (&Locep6ovW

'r&V&?XX&v LXwm epOu 1pOu rtQL) 2). He does not even need

friends, for since he is sufficient unto himself, he does not miss an

absent acquaintance or feel any desire for his company when

present 3). In this somewhat repellent view Plato is joined by

Stilpo of the Megarian school4), a thinker who advocates an

au'rapxaL in every respect as extreme as that of Diogenes 5), and

who, significantly enough, is traditionally linked with the Cynic

school via Antisthenes the reputed founder.It would be dangerous to state dogmatically that the Cynic

conception of waUt&pxeLaas directly influenced by the views of

Democritus, Stilpo and Plato as well as by the conduct of Socrates.

But the points of contact are there and it does not seem reasonable

to ignore them. More important perhaps than the origin of the

conception is its logical consequence. To be self-sufficient in the

Cynic sense means, inevitably, to be anti-social. A man who needs

nothing and nobody and who is therefore Self-Sufficient can have

no possible reason for participating in the life of the community.The common good means nothing to him because there is no bond

of mutual dependence between him and his fellows and the only

Good that he recognizes is a private possession which he cannot

i) Lysis, 2I5 A 6-8.

2) Rep. III. 387 D. ii-E. i.

3) Lysis, 2I5 A. 6-2I5C. Cp. the attitude of Socrates who held thatq6aeL. . gXzouLv oL aVopw)mm TX [Liv qpLXLxK 86ov'raL, re yap &)X?xcovxOC'LsOmaL

xoal avvepyo5v-eq C4eXq5aL (Xen. Mem. II. VI. 2I).

4) Seneca, Ep. I. 9.3.

5) Seneca, De Constantia Sapientis V. 6; Ep. 9.I8; Plutarch, De Tranquil.An. c. I7 p. 475; D. L. II. II5. etc.




share with anyone else. The completely Self-Sufficient man is then,

a creature apart. As Aristotle puts it, he is no part of the community

and so is either a beast or a god (4a'e 0-pLov Oe6'1)). In fact, for

Aristotle, the whole conception of ocxu4apxaxs open to serious

question. Man, after all, is a social organism. If he is solitary and

detached from his fellow men, he lacks something essential to him

qua V6ae -noXL-L%xov2). Therefore, even in a state of Cynic detach-

ment he is not really Self-Sufficient, for to be Self-Sufficient is

to lack nothing. Only the community, according to Aristotle, isjustified in aiming at au'apoc4pxe,or only in the community where

all are "members of one body" to borrow a Pauline phrase, can the

mutual needs of individuals find any degree of satisfaction. Even

moral virtue cannot guarantee Self-Sufficiency as the Cynics

think, for even the good man, in Aristotle' opinion, needs friends

in order to widen his knowledge of human nature and thus to

extend his own self-knowledge 3). Besides, the good man must have

an object for his virtue if his Justice or Temperance or Courage are

to be put into practice. Furthermore, he cannot be just or temperateor courageous in a vacuum, and so, 4 ?v &xtoq 83to.at 7tpo4 Ou

8&xocLos7payYnsTcxLoa ,O' &v,46woG 8y xocL 69ppv Xt 4 ovapezo;xod xxv &?A&v 'xoe0a-ro4 4).

Only on the level of pure contemplation will Aristotle admit the

possibility of Self-Sufficiency 5). For, in order to contemplate, a

man needs no object external to himself on which to focus his

activity. But even the contemplative can never be Self-Sufficient

in the physical sense, for even he needs food, clothing, and bodily

health if his contemplative activity is not to be hindered by materialcares, ou yap au ocpxz n cp6uC p T4O&pv 6).u-0pXSa is,

I) Pol. I253 A 29. Possibly Aristotle has the Cynics actually in mind whePhe says this, for of course, the gods and the animals are, in the eyes of theCynic, the very types of the oc&rapxeLoco which he aspires.

2) Nic. Eth. 1097 B II. cp. II69 B 8. itoMnXOV yap o ocvOpW7Oq xOl GUonv

7recpux6q.3) See Nic. Eth. II69 B 3 ff.4) ibid. II77 A 30.

5) Nic. Eth. II77 A 27. iT Tr tyOL6VW OcutpX?L 7epL T7V O p?y-Lx7V [LOcMa'r,

)ibV I7B6) ibid. 1178 B 34.




therefore, only attainable, accordingto Aristotle, in a limited sense,

as a product of the contemplative life. On the practical level it is

not possible at all. Thus, as far as Aristotle is concerned, there is

absolutely no case for ocU'rpxeLocn the Cynic sense. For the Cynic

being essentially an adherent of the r'to4 7rp0Cx'nx0q,repudiates

Oep(pLan all its forms, and ipso facto, on Aristotelian premises at

least, his claim to Self-Sufficiency must be disallowed.

CARDIFF, University College.

AD VERGILII CULICIS vss. 35-38

Culicem Vergilii carmen esse teneo sed nunc fusius demonstrare praeter-mitto. Versus 35 sqq. hi sunt:

35 mollia sed tenui pede currere carmina versuviribus apta suis Phoebo duce ludere gaudet.Hoc tibi, sancte puer; memorabilis et tibi certetgloria perpetuum lucens mansura per aevum.

Pro apta nonnulli codices praebent acta, quod immerito Giomini (Ap-

pendix Vergiliana, 1953) in textum recepit. Deinde pro gaudet codd. AUhabent gaudent, faciliorem sane lectionem, quam Plesent et Giomini alteripraetulerunt; Leo singularem numerum defenderat, ita ut pagina (vs. 26)eius verbi subiectum sit, qua in re ei assentior. Contra astipulari ei nequeoasseveranti: 'Constructio ita variata est, ut in priore membro pagina gaudeatquod carmina currant, in altero ipsa ludere gaudeat'. Scilicet non offenditconstructionis variatio minime insolita, sed offendit asyndeton vel iuvenipoetae nimis durum. Vix dubito equidem, quin infinitivus q. e. currere

pendeat ab adiectivo q.e. mollia: 'mollia tenui pede currere' significat'mollia ad currendum tenui pede'; cfr. e.g. Georg. I, 284 '(dies) felix ponerevitem'; Ecl. 5, i '(pastores) boni calamos inflare et dicere versus' (videKiihner-Stegmann II ? I25 A 3). Ergo carmina non est subiectum verbi

quod sit gaudent (ut volunt Pl6sent et Giomini) sed obiectum verbi q.e.ludere: pagina versu ludere (cfr. Ecl. 6,I) gaudet carmina, mollia tenui pedecurrere, quaeque (aliter atque res versibus praecedentibus indicatae) viribussuis sint apta.

Quod attinet ad lectionem traditam certet, Leo eam defendere conatusest sed locutionem curiosius quaesitam exemplo comprobare se non posseconfitetur. Alii alia excogitaverunt: restet Ellis; crescet Sillig; sibi perstetHeinsius; certast (certa est) Baehrens; tibi perstet Pl6sent; memorYabile;it tibicerte Buecheler. Nisi omnia me fallunt, praestat legere constet (cstet pro ctet).Cfr. e.g. Colum. 9, 9, 7 'si constat principibus gratia'; Val. Max. 4, 4, 7 'ei ....dignitas patris familiae constitit'; Sen. Dial. 9, 7, 6 'constet illi licet fides etbenevolentia', sed imprimis Gratt. 206: 'quae Petroniis bene gloria constat'.

Traiecti ad Rhenum, Prins Hendriklaan 68. H. WAGENVOORT

Cynic Conception of AYTARKEIA

Documents

Transcript of Cynic Conception of AYTARKEIA