^{page 65 note 2} For a useful discussion see Flashar, H., Der Dialog Ion als Zeugnis platonischer Philosophie (Berlin, 1958)Google Scholar.

^{page 66 note 1} Cf. Protagoras' claim at Pl Prot. 318 DE.

^{page 66 note 2} Cf. Flashar, op. cit. 24 f., who also notes a parallel between Ion 535 E5 and Xen. Symp. 3. 11. But Xenophon's, text of Il. 23. 335–7Google Scholar differs from Plato's, and both from our medieval texts. Dümmler, F., Antisthenica, pp. 29 ff.Google Scholar, saw both the Ion and the Symposium passages as directed against Antisthenes, but failed to make a substantial case for this. See also Wehrli, F., Zur Geschichte der allegorischen Deutung Homers im Altertum (Diss. Basel, 1928), p. 69Google Scholar.

^{page 67 note 1} normally means ‘conjecture, suspicion, guess’ (cf. LSJ s.v.). Cf. also E. Ph. 1133, where it refers to the symbolism of a shield-blazon, and Arist. EN 1128 a 28, where it is used of ‘innuendo’ in modern comedy, as opposed to .

^{page 67 note 2} Cf. Philodemus, , Rhet. I. 164, 174, 181Google Scholar (Sudhaus), Demetrius, On style 99 ff., 151, 243, Cic., Or. 94, 166 f.Google Scholar, etc.

^{page 67 note 3} History of classical scholarship (Oxford, 1968), pp. 35 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 67 note 4} Ibid. pp. 11, 35.

^{page 68 note 1} Cf. Pfeiffer, op. cit. pp. 237, 239.

^{page 68 note 2} Schol, . B Il. 10. 252Google Scholar (= Vors. 61 A 5). Cf. Arist, . Poet. 1461 a 25Google Scholar, where this solution is mentioned.

^{page 68 note 3} It is not clear what form of (or ) Metrodorus wished to read, but he seems to have taken the phrase as meaning ‘the full two parts of the night’. I see no reason to follow Jacoby (FGH 1, 522) in referring this interpretation to Democritus’ pupil, Metrodorus of Chios, or to conjecture ‘Zenodorus’ (Horn ap. Diels, Vors. 61 A 5). In favour of Metrodorus of Lampsacus see Schrader, , Porphyrii Quaest. homericarum ad Iliadem pertinentium reliquiae (Leipzig, 1880), p. 384Google Scholar, Lanata, G., Poetica pre–platonica (Firenze, 1963), p. 247Google Scholar.

^{page 68 note 4} On sophists and ‘Sophists’ see Guthrie, , History of Greek philosophy, III, 27 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 68 note 5} Cf. also Prodicus' identification of the gods with objects in nature such as bread, wine, water, fire, etc. (Vors. 84 B 5 and E. Ba. 274 ff.). One might note too PI. Phdr. 229C ff., where Socrates says that one might reasonably doubt the literal truth of the myth of Boreas and Oreithyia, , and goes on to give a rationalist explanation, .

^{page 69 note 1} For the complete text of Philodemus' reference see Mette, , Sphairopoiia fr. 20Google Scholar.

^{page 69 note 2} See especially Nestle, W., Philologus xx (1907), 503 ffGoogle Scholar. Reinhardt, K., De Graecorum Theologia Capita Duo (Diss. Berlin, 1910), pp. 79 f.Google Scholar, is less convincing. Cf. also Buffière, F., Les Mythes d'Homère et la pensée grecque (Paris, 1956), pp. 127 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 69 note 3} Cf. S., Tr. 94–6Google Scholar (‘stripped of her armour’) .…

^{page 69 note 4} Cf. Kirk, and Raven, , The presocratic philosophers, pp. 385 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 70 note 1} Cf. Lévêque, P., Aurea catena Homeri (Paris, 1959)Google Scholar, Lovejoy, A. O., The great chain of being (Cambridge, Mass., 1957)Google Scholar.

^{page 70 note 2} A Pythagorean source for this allegory was suggested by Boyancé, in RÉG LIV (1941), 155 f.Google Scholar, LXV (1952), 347 f. But his assumption that Oenopides of Chios was influenced by Pythagorean ideas is questionable. Cf. Burkert, W., Lore and science in ancient Pythagoreanism (Harvard, 1972), p. 322Google Scholar. Note also that the Derveni papyrus commentary seems to show strong traces of influence from the school of Anaxagoras. Cf. Merkelbach, R., Zeitschr. f. Pap. u. Epigr. I (1967), 21 ffGoogle Scholar., Burkert, W., Ant. u. Abendl. XIV (1968), 93 ffGoogle Scholar. For other Euripidean instances of Anaxagorean theory presented in semi-allegorical form cf. Vors. 59 A 20 b, 112 (E. fr. 944, 839 N.²).

^{page 70 note 3} Cf. Whitman, C. H., HSCP LXXIV (1970), 37 ff.Google Scholar, in favour of this view.

^{page 71 note 1} Plato also mentions the ‘bindings of Hera by her son’ (i.e. Hephaestus), a non-Homeric myth which is linked to that of Hephaestus’ fall and also similar to the binding of Hera by Zeus. On this see Page, , Sappho and Alcaeus, pp. 258 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 71 note 2} The forces governing Empedocles' cosmic system, Love and Strife, are also, when taken at face value in earlier poetry, essentially what aroused the criticism of Xenophanes.

^{page 71 note 3} Pfeiffer does not discuss the crucial Symposium passage. He also quotes Jacoby's statement that he was ‘vom Beruf Rhapsode’ (op. cit. p. 343. 16). This seems to rest on a misunderstanding of Pl. Ion 530 CD.

^{page 71 note 4} On this ‘edition’ see Wilson, N. G., CR XIX (1969), 369Google Scholar.

^{page 71 note 5} Cf. Meiggs, R., The Athenian empire, pp. 15 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 71 note 6} Philod., περὶ εὐσεβείας, pp. 22 fGoogle Scholar. (Gomperz). Cf. Anaxag. (?) 59 A 20b, E. fr. 944 (Hestia = Earth), and the Derveni papyrus, Arch. Delt. XIX (1964), 24, col. 18Google Scholar.

^{page 72 note 1} Cf. perhaps also Demetrius, On style 101 (although this is in the context of rhetorical allegory).

^{page 72 note 2} As Buffière does, op. cit. p. 135.

^{page 72 note 3} Porphyry ap. Schol, . B Il. 11. 636Google Scholar (FGH 107 F 23).

^{page 72 note 4} Schol, . A Il. 15. 193Google Scholar ( = F 24)

^{page 73 note 1} De Cratete Mallota (Diss. Bonn, 1860), pp. 26, 44 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 73 note 2} Aratea 176; cf. also Helck, J., De Cratetis Mallotae studiis criticis quae ad Iliadem spectant(Leipzig, 1905), pp. 31 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 73 note 3} Maass suggested reading in Schol, . A Il. 15. 193Google Scholar with psilosis. He explained ; as a parenthetic ‘sic’, but this is not used in this way by the Schoia. Helck explained it as meaning ‘as in 190–2’, but this also is not entirely satisfactory, and it remains a puzzle.

^{page 73 note 4} Cf. Mette, , Sphairopoiia, pp. 26 f.Google Scholar n. 6, who holds this view.

^{page 73 note 5} Schol, . B Il. 21. 76Google Scholar (= F 25). I assume that he interpreted the gloss as being connected with (cf. Et. M. s.v.), and that here means ground meal.

^{page 73 note 6} Cf. Pl., Rep. 404 Bff.Google Scholar, Antiphanes fr. 273, Eubulus fr. 120 (Kock); Crates fr. 85 A, ed. Mette, , Parateresis (Halle, 1952);Google Scholar and for Aristarchus, see Hofmann, P., Aristarchs Studien ‘de cultu et victu heroum’ (Diss. Munich, 1905)Google Scholar.

^{page 74 note 1} Cf. Poet. 1461 a 1ff., frr. 160 and 166 (Rose), Pfeiffer, op. cit. pp. 69 f. Note, however, that unlike Stesimbrotus Aristotle uses a non–Greek (Illyrian) custom to explain a Greek practice at Il. 10. 152 f.

^{page 74 note 2} Heidel, (Proc. Amer. Acad. LVI (1921), 241 ffGoogle Scholar.) wanted to ascribe this to the earlier Anaximander, but Jacoby rejects this. Corssen, (Rh.M. LXVII (1912), 249f.Google Scholar) thought that the notice about the Pythagorean work confused him with Alexander Polyhistor, who wrote a work with the same title (FGH 273 F 94). Jacoby again disagrees.

^{page 74 note 3} Cf. Burkert, , Lore and science, pp. 166 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 74 note 4} Cf. Delatte, A., Études sur la littérature pythagoricienne (Paris, 1915), pp. 109 ffGoogle Scholar., and Détienne, M., Homère, Hésiode et Pythagore (Brussels, 1962)Google Scholar. Neither is sufficiently critical.

^{page 75 note 1} Cf. Burkert, op. cit. pp. 170 ff., West, M. L., Early Greek philosophy and the Orient (Oxford, 1971), pp. 215 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 75 note 2} Cf. Heracleides Ponticus fr. 42 (Wehrli), Call. fr. 191. 59, etc., and Porph. VP 26. For an ingenious explanation of this see Burkert, op. cit. pp. 140 ff.

^{page 75 note 3} Cf. Neanthes, , FGH 84 FGoogle Scholar 29, Diog. Laert, 8. 2, etc., Burkert, , Mus. Helv. XXIX (1972),74 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 75 note 4} Cf. Delatte, op. cit. pp. 114 f.

^{page 75 note 5} See the discussion by Wehrli, , Zur Geschichte der allegorischen Deutung Homers im Altertum, pp. 88 ff.Google Scholar He compares Alcmaeon, Vors. 24 B 4.

^{page 75 note 6} Iambl., VP 164Google Scholar (attributed to Aristoxenus by D.–K. Vors. 1,467)Google Scholar. Cf. ibid. 111, Porph, . VP 32Google Scholar.

^{page 75 note 7} Anecd. Par. 3. 56. Cf. also Chamaileon fr. 4 (Wehrli), Iambi, op. cit. p. 198 (Vors. 1,471)Google Scholar.

^{page 75 note 8} Schol. A Il. 24. 129, Ps. Plut., Vit. Hom. II. 154, Eust. p. 1342Google Scholar. 13. For other examples of connections between the and Homer see Ps. Plut. op. cit. pp. 151–4, and Delatte op. cit. p. 119.

^{page 76 note 1} Cf.Burkert, , Lore and science, pp. 337–50Google Scholar, in favour of the authenticity of the views attributed to Philolaus.

^{page 76 note 2} Cf. D. W. Lucas's discussion ad loc.

^{page 76 note 3} Buffière, op. cit. pp. 159 ff.

^{page 76 note 4} He takes at 1461 335 as ‘(la pique trouvant l'or) droit en face (d'elle)’ (p. 162), which enables him to connect the reference to Glaucon which follows with the problem of the shield.

^{page 77 note 1} .

^{page 77 note 2} Cf. Hiller, , Rh.M. (1886), 431 ff.Google Scholar, Lanata, , Poetica pre-platonica, pp. 279 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 77 note 3} Other scholars named Glaucon or Glaucos were: (a) Glaucon of Teos, who wrote on the art of delivery (Arist, Rhet. 1403 b 26)Google Scholar. (b) Glaucon of Tarsus, who had views about the accentuation of (Schol. A Il. 1. 1); cf. Glaucos on (Schol. BT Il. 16. 414). (c) Glaucon (Ath. 480 F) cited for a Cypriot gloss. (d) Glaucos of Samos, an early writer on accentuation and prosody (Gramm. Lat. ed. Keil, IV, 530. 10 ff.Google Scholar, Pl., Schol.Phaedo 108D f.Google Scholar, mentioned with Hermocrates of Iasos, who seems to have lived c. 300 B.C.). None of these, I think, can be identified with our Glaucon.

^{page 78 note 1} Cf. Caizzi, Fernanda Decleva, Antisthenis Fragmenta (Milano–Varese, 1966), pp. 19 f., 24ff., 43ff.Google Scholar, and the valuable commentary ad loc. There is a review of this by Wehrli, , reprinted in Theoria und Humanitas (Artemis Verlag, 1972), pp. 167 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 78 note 2} Note however that Antisthenes' view is said to have been followed up and elaborated by Zeno, and Zeno's method of interpretation of the gods was allegorical (frr. 166–7 von Arnim).

^{page 78 note 3} Fr. 52 (Schol. Od. 5. 211, 7. 257) makes a similar point about judging a speech by its context.

^{page 78 note 4} Cf. Eranos XLIX (1951), 16 ff.,Google Scholar LI (1953), 14 ff.

^{page 78 note 5} Riv. crit. di storia della filosofia XVII (1962), 123 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 78 note 6} Cf. fr. 39 A (Philodemus) . Cf. frr. 39B–E, 40A–D. This must be related to his dictum about and in Homer. Note that Zeno is also said to have adopted Antisthenes' monotheism (fr. 164).

^{page 78 note 7} Tate, , CQ XXIV (1930), 6 n. 7Google Scholar, argues that this part of Schol. Il. 15. 123 is not a quotation from Antisthenes. I do not see how one can be definite about this.

^{page 79 note 1} Is this a form of allegory? If so, it provides another instance of this linked to linguistic study. See, however, Philippson, , Hermes LXIV (1929), 166 ff.Google Scholar (cf. Pfeiffer, op. cit. pp. 42 f.), against Democritus as an allegorist. Democritus also said that Eumaeus' mother was Penia (68 B 24), perhaps by contrast with his father Ctesios, (Od. 15. 413 f.;Google Scholar cf. Poros, and Penia, at Pl Symp. 203 BGoogle Scholar). Philippson (op. cit. p. 175) argues that he must have meant that Eumaeus owed his virtues to his upbringing by Poverty, in a metaphorical sense.

^{page 79 note 2} Cf. Luloffs, J., De Antisthenis studiis rhetoricis (Amsterdam, 1900), pp. 42 ff.Google Scholar, and Decleva, pp. 84 f. Horace Ep. 1. 2. 23–6 is very close to Dio Or. 8. 25 and both may derive from a Cynic source (cf. Kiessling–Heinze ad loc.). Antisthenean influence has also been conjectured at Dio Or. 8. 33 (Heracles' encounter with Prometheus). Here Diogenes the Cynic makes Prometheus a sophist suffering from pride and ambition ( and ). Cf. Antisth. fr. 27, where however Prometheus reproaches Heracles with worldliness, and frr. 97, 151–2 (Antisthenean condemnation of ). If this is correct, Antisthenes interpreted Prometheus' punishment allegoiically.

^{page 80 note 1} .

^{page 80 note 2} It is not certain that this story was mentioned by Antisthenes, but it was known in the fourth century B.C. (Dicaearchus fr. 33 Wehrli). Cf. Rostagni, , Studi italiani di filologia classica II (1922), 148 ff.Google Scholar (= Scritti minori 1. 1 ff.) for an interesting, if rather speculative discussion, and see also Decleva, p. 107, Burkert, , Lore and science, p. 115Google Scholar n. 38 (who favours its inclusion in the Antisthenes fragment).

^{page 80 note 3} Proteus was a popular subject of later allegory. Cf. Schol. Od. 4. 384, and Buffière, op. cit. pp. 180 ff., 239, 339 ff., 552, 566f.

^{page 80 note 4} According to some he was called (Diog. Laert. 6. 13).

^{page 80 note 5} Cf. Weber, E., De Dione Chrysostomo Cynicorum sectatore (Diss. Leipzig, 1887), pp. 110 f.Google Scholar, Luloffs, op. cit. p. 58. Another parallel which does not seem to have been noted is that between Antisthenes' (cf. Od. 15. 244 ff.) and Ps. Plat., Axioch. 368 AGoogle Scholar, where Prodicus is said to have quoted these lines in a speech in praise of death (because Amphiaraus was especially dear to Zeus and Apollo, and died before reaching the threshold of old age). Their use for this purpose surely involves a type of . Antisthenes wrote and , and Alcidamas also wrote an .

^{page 81 note 1} The Neoplatonists took Penelope as an allegory of philosophy (Buffière, op. cit. pp. 389 ff.).

^{page 81 note 2} Cf. Wehrli, , Zur Gesch. d. alleg. Deutung, pp. 64 ff.Google Scholar, for some valuable remarks on this.