Simon the Shoemaker as an Ideal Cynic Hock, Ronald F Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Spring 1976; 17,

1; ProQuest pg. 41

Simon the Shoemaker as an

Ideal Cynic
Ronald F. Hock

CORDING TO DIOGENES LAERTIUS (2.122)

Socrates often visited the

workshop of a shoemaker named Simon, who took notes of
their conversations and even included thirty-three of them in
1
a book. The association of Socrates with Simon is assumed in other
ancient references to this shoemaker-philosopher. 2 Most scholars,
however, have been suspicious. They point out that neither plato nor
Xenophon ever mentions Simon and that the traditions themselves,
besides being late, are scanty, improbable and legendary. Consequently, they deny that Socrates visited Simon's workshop, or even
1 The following abbreviations will be used: DUDLEy=D. R. Dudley, A History of Cynicism
from Diogenes to the 6th Century A.D. (London 1937); VON FRITZ, "Phaidon"=K. von Fritz,
"Phaidon von Elis und der 12. und 13. Sokratikerbrief," Philologus 90 (1935) 240-44; GERHARD
"Legende"=G. A. Gerhard, "Zur Legende vom Kyniker Diogenes," ArchRW 15 (1912)
388-408; GERHARD, Phoinix=G. A. Gerhard, Phoinix von Kolophon (Leipzig 1909); HIRZEL=R.
Hirzel, Der Dialog (Leipzig 1895); HOBEIN=H. Hobein, "L:{p.wv (6)," RE 3A (1927) 163-73;
JOiiL=K. Joel, Der echte und Xenophontische Sokrates (Berlin 1901); KOHLER=L. Kohler, Die
Briefe des Sokrates und der Sokratiker (Philologus Supp!. 20.2, Leipzig 1928); LAU=O. Lau,
Schuster und Schusterhandwerk in der griechisch-romischen Literatur und Kunst (diss. Bonn
1967); MANNEBACH=E. Mannebach (ed.), Aristippi et Cyrenicorum Fragmenta (Leiden 1961);
MERLAN=P. Merlan, "Minor Socratics," JHPhil 10 (1972) 143-52; ROSSETTI=L. Rossetti,
"'Socratica' in Fedone di Elide," StUrb 47 (1973) 364-81; SCHERING=O. Schering, Symbola ad
Socratis et Socraticorum epistulas explicandas (diss. Greifswald 1917); SYKUTRIs=J. Sykutris, Die
Briefe des Sokrates lind der Sokratiker (Paderborn 1933); UEBERWEG-PRAECHTER=F. Ueberweg/
K. Praechter, Philosophie des Altertums 12 (Berlin 1926); WILAMOWITZ=U. von WilamowitzMoellendorff, "Phaidon von Elis," Hermes 14 (1879) 187-93; ZELLER=E. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen 5 (Leipzig 1922).
3 For the references to Simon see, in addition to Diog.Laert. 2.122-23: Pluto Maxime cum
prine. phil. diss. 776B; ps.-Socr. Epp. 9.4; 11, 12, 13, and 18.2; Synes. Dion 1153-55; Ammon.
De interpret. 164A; Suda S.VV. L:wKparYJc and 4Ial3wv. There should be added the reference to
[L:[]p.wv L'w[K]paTLK6, that appears in P.Ross.Georg. 13, which is a list of 19 authors, including
Simon (line 19), that made up one man's library. For the text and restoration [L:[]p.wv, see
G. Zereteli and O. Krueger, Papyri russischer und georgischer Sammlungen, I: Literarische Texte
(Tiflis 1925) 153-58. Cf R. A. Pack, The Greek and Latin Literary Texts from Greco-Roman
Egypt2 (Ann Arbor 1965) 113-14. On Simon see Zeller 111 242-43; Hobein 163-73; Wilamowitz 187-93; Hirzel I 102-05; Joel II 306-07; Schering 19-23; and Lau 189-95.

41

42

SIMON THE SHOEMAKER AS AN IDEAL CYNIC

that Simon ever existed. 3 Simon the shoemaker, it is claimed, was

really the literary creation of another Socratic, Phaidon of Elis, who
wrote a dialogue entitled "Simon" (cf. Diog.Laert. 2.105), which,
except for a few fragments, is now lost. 4
These conclusions about Simon have been vigorously challenged by
R. Hirzel and H. Hobein. 5 The latter argues that the silence of plato
and Xenophon, our two major sources for the companions of Socrates,
is no final proof against Simon's existence, since Xenophon's sojourns
in Athens were short and since even Plato did not otherwise include
all those known to have conversed with Socrates.6 Hobein also argues
that Simon was mentioned not only by Phaidon but probably also by
Antisthenes; thus, if he were mentioned by two early writers, it is
most unlikely that he would have been the literary creation of either.'
But if there are thus no grounds for doubting Simon's existence,S it
must be admitted, as Hirzel does, that very little can be said about the
historical Simon9 except for his association with SocrateslO and a
3 See esp. Wilamowitz 187: "Dass der Schuster Simon keine historische Figur ist, sondern
die ideale Verkorperung der Schuster, mit den en Sokrates zu exemplideren liebte, weiss
jeder Knabe zu sagen." Doubt about Simon's existence had been raised earlier by F. Ast,
Plamns Leben und Schriften (Leipzig 1816) 501-02, and has been reiterated many times
since: K. O. Milller, Geschichte der griechischen Litteratur 11 (Stuttgart 1884) 25; F. Susemihl,
Geschichte der griechischen Litteratur I (Leipzig 1891) 24 n.65; Zeller ITI 243; T. Gomperz,
Griechische Denker4 1I (Berlin and Leipzig 1925) 162; Oberweg-Praechter 155; and]. Humbert,
Socrate et les petits socratiqus (Paris 1967) 280 and 283.
4 See esp. Wilamowitz 187-88. Cf Zeller IT l 243 n.2 and K. von Fritz, "Phaidon (3)," RE 19
(1938) 1541. On Phaidon, see now Rossetti 372-78.
6 See Hobein 163-71 and Hirzel I 102-04, whom Hobein 163 incorrectly includes among
those who deny Simon's existence.
6 Cf Hobein 164-65 and Hirzel I 103-04.
7 Cf Hobein 166-71. The claim that Simon was also mentioned in Antisthenes' "Heracles"
goes back to a perceptive suggestion of F. Diimmler, Antisthenica (diss. Bonn 1882) 37 n.l:
"Fortasse non e Phaedonis dialogo solo innotuit Simo sutor (vide Wilamowitzii commentationem in Hermae tom. XIV p. 187s. 476s.). Nam in epistulis Socraticorum IX, XI, XII,
XIII fingitur familiaritas inter Antisthenem et Simonem intercedere quae non poterat
colligi e Phaedonis dialogo et omnino vix fingi nisi Simo erat ab Antisthene celebratus."
While Diimmler's suggestion is conjectural, it is plausible and has been taken up by Joel
IT 307 n.2 and Schering 36-37.
8 This conclusion receives parallel support from archaeological evidence if, as H. A.
Thompson ("Excavations in the Athenian Agora: 1953," Hesperia 23 [1954] 54-55) claims, a
shoemaker's shop, found outside the southwest corner of the Agora and occupied in the
latter decades of the fifth century, can be identified as Simon's workshop; see the fuller
description and discussion in D. B. Thompson, "The House of Simon the Shoemaker,"
Archaeology 13 (1960) 235-40. The identification is accepted by Lau 192.
I See Hirzel 1104. Cf Schering 21.
10 The association of a shoemaker like Simon with Socrates is probable. On the general

RONALD F. HOCK

43

modest literary-philosophical activity.H For, as will be shown, the

traditional figure of Simon has been shaped less by historical reminiscence than by the philosophical issues and debates in which he played
a not unimportant role, particularly in their Cynic form.
Cynic features in the portrait of Simon have been noticed before,12
but the precise significance of this Cynicized portrait of Simon the
shoemaker has not been seen and it thus becomes the subject of the
present study. Specifically this article seeks to show that the traditions
about Simon the shoemaker have been shaped by his role in debates
over whether the philosopher should associate with kings, and especially by his role in these debates as they were carried on among
Cynics themselves, that is to say, between strict and hedonistic Cynics.
Next to Simon's association with Socrates, the most constant feature
of the Simon tradition is his refusal to leave his workbench and accept
Pericles' support. In Diogenes Laertius (2.123) we have this tradition,
no doubt legendary,13 in which Simon responds to a promise of support from Pericles by saying that he would never sell his freedom of
speech (7Tapp1]cLa). Plutarch's mention of Simon in Maxime cum principibus philosopho esse disserendum 776B also pairs him with Pericles,14
but the function of this pairing here is especially instructive. Plutarch,
as the tractate's title suggests, argues that the philosopher should
associate with rulers (cf 777B),15 but he is also very much aware that
some people16 would disagree with him. These people apparently
opposed philosophers going to court and argued their position, at
practice of holding discussions in the Agora, see H. A. Thompson and R. E. Wycherley,
The Agora of Athens (Princeton 1972) 170-74. On Socrates' practice offrequenting the shops
and tables of the Agora see Pi. Apol. 17c; Hipp.Min. 368B; Gorg. 491A; Xen. Mem. 4.2.1. See
also Lau 191-92.
11 Cf further Hirzel I 104-05, and Hobein 171-73.
12 So, e.g., Wilamowitz 190; Hirzel 1104 n.4; Joel II 307; Gerhard, Phoinix 36; Schering 37;
and Lau 193.
13 Cf. Hobein 163.
a Rossetti 372-73, makes Phaidon's "Simon" the source of Plutarch's reference. That
Plutarch could have read Phaidon's writings, still extant at Plutarch's time (so Sen. Ep.
94.41), is plausible in light of Plutarch's exceptional familiarity with Greek literature, as
shown by P. A. Stadter, Plutarch's Historical Methods (Cambridge [Mass.] 1965) 125-40. The
concern for sources, however, should not distract us from observing the context in which
Plutarch considered it appropriate to mention Simon (whatever its source) as well as
Plutarch's assumption that Simon would be well known to his readers.
15 For Plutarch's overall position see now C. P. Jones, Plutarch and Rome (Oxford 1972)
110-30.
16 Note the we VLOL VO/L{~OVCL in 776B (p.1 line 8 HubertPohlenz).

44

SIMON THE SHOEMAKER AS AN IDEAL CYNIC

least as Plutarch presents it, by appealing to the example of Simon.

On their view the ruler17 who needs advice should say to the philosopher: "Let me change from Pericles or Cato and become Simon the
shoemaker or Dionysius the schoolteacher in order that you might sit
down and converse with me, as Socrates did with those men (that is to
say, with Simon and Dionysius)."18
Whatever the identity of Plutarch's opponents it is clear that the
tradition about Simon's refusal to leave his workshop was used in a
debate over whether philosophers should associate with rulers. This
function of the Simon traditions is found also in the apocryphal letters
of the Socratics.1 9 These letters, our most important source for Simon,
receive detailed treatment later, but at this point in the argument
only a few general observations are required to confirm what was said
about the Plutarch passage. The eighth letter, from Antisthenes to
Aristippus, opens with the thesis: "The philosopher is not to associate
with tyrants nor to be in attendance at Sicilian tables: rather, he is to
be at home and striving to be self-sufficient (a?napK7Jc)."20 The next
five letters (Epp. 9-13) debate this thesis, with Aristippus on one side,
writing from Dionysius' court and thus opposing Antisthenes,21 and
with Simon on the other side, holding philosophical discussion in his
workshop and thus exemplifying the Antisthenian viewpoint. 22 In
these letters, then, Simon, by being allied with Antisthenes, is ex17 The text at this point is corrupt. For ~P 8Pa7TIJTLK6e of the MSS. I prefer Frerich's
emendation a.~p ~YfLOvLK6e(J. Frerichs, Plutllrchi libelli duo politid [diss. Gottingen 1929J 32).
18 Translations, unless otherwise noted, are my own. Again there are textual difficulties;
my translation is based on the Teubner text (p.21ines 2-4 Hubert-Pohlenz). But, whatever
the text, the Loeb trans!' by H. N. Fowler is incorrect. Fowler has rendered we EWKp","!e
K{Vcp as "as Socrates did with Pericles." Context requires that the referent of EKlvcp be
Simon. Cf Rossetti 373 n.33, who translates " ... come faceva Socrate con Simone."
19 For the text of these letters see Kohler 7-57. Her commentary is brief and should be
supplemented by Sykutris, who divides the letters into two groups; in the first are Epp.
1-7. the letters of Socrates, which belong to Cynic literature and are to be dated to the first
century; in the second group are Epp. 8-35 (excepting 28,35, and perhaps 29), the letters of
the Socratics, which were written by another author, who was rhetorically trained and
familiar with Plato's writings as well as various philosophical handbooks. These letters are
dated to the third century. But Cynic influence on the second group also needs to be emphasized, as is done by Schering 32-34 and Kohler 4-5. The dating of these letters may also
need revision, perhaps back to the first or early second century, on which see infra n.62.
20 Ps.-Socr. Ep. 8 (p.22 lines 2-4 Kohler).
21 Ps.-Socr. Epp. 9, 11 and 13 (pp.22-26 Kohler).
U Ps.-Socr. Ep. 12 (p.25 Kohler). Wilamowitz 190 is thus incorrect when he views Simon
as standing midway between Antisthenes and Aristippus.

RONALD F. HOCK

45

plicitly related to the debate over whether the philosopher should

associate with rulers.23
Given the importance of this debate for the Simon traditions, it is
necessary to indicate some features of the debate, especially which
philosophers lined up on what side, before ,ommenting further on
Simon's role in it. A perusal of Diogenes Laertius is useful, since he was
keenly interested in the relations between philosophers and rulers.24
For example, Diogenes points out that Stoics, such as Chrysippus, said
that the philosopher should engage in politics. 25 Indeed, philosophers
were often invited by kings to their courts 26 and usually they
accepted. 27 Thus we find philosophers of nearly every persuasion at
the court of some king: Xenophon with Cyrus (cf Diog.Laert. 2.4952), Aeschines with Dionysius (2.62-63; cf. 3.36), Aristippus with Dionysius (2.67-69,73,78-82), Theodorus the hedonist with Ptolemy (2.102),
Euphantus with Antigonus Doson (2.110), Diodorus with Ptolemy
Soter (2.111), Menedemus with Nicocreon and Antigonus (2.129, 142),
Plato with Dionysius (3.18-22; cf 6.25-26), Speusippus with Cas sander
(4.1), Xenocrates with Dionysius (4.11), Bion with Antigonus (4.46),
Aristotle with Amyntas, Alexander, Hermias and Philip (5.1-4),
Theophrastus with Cassander and Ptolemy (5.37), Strato with
Ptolemy Philadelphus (5.58), Demetrius with Ptolemy Soter (5.78),
Persaeus and Philonides with Antigonus Gonatus (7.9), Sphaerus with
Ptolemy Philopator (7.177).28
By going to court, Chrysippus adds, philosophers would promote
virtue and restrain vice,29 though some philosophers simply sought
the support and luxury available at court. 30 In any case, Diogenes frequently mentions philosophers giving moral advice and philosophical
Cf. also von Fritz, "Phaidon" 243.
Cf. R. Hope, The Book of Diogenes Laertius (New York 1930) 160-6l.
25 See Diog.Laert. 7.12l.
28 See the letter of Antigonus Gonatus inviting Zeno to come to his court (apud Diog.
Laert. 7.6-7). Cf. also Diog.Laert. 2.49-52 (Xenophon), 129 (Menedemus); 4.37 (Theophrastus); 9.12-14 (Heraclitus).
27 Because of his age Zeno declined Antigonus' invitation but sent Persaeus and Phil onides (cf. Diog.Laert. 7.8-9).
28 On the political activities of Plato and the Academy see A.-H. Chroust, "Plato's
Academy: The First Organized School of Political Science in Antiquity," Review of Politics
23

Z4

29 (1967) 25-40.
29 See Diog.Laert. 7.121. Cf. also the exchange of letters between Antigonus and Zeno
(Diog.Laert. 7.6-9).
80 See Diog.Laert. 2.62--63 (Aeschines), 78-79 (Aristippus); and 4.1 (Speusippus).

46

SIMON THE SHOEMAKER AS AN IDEAL CYNIC

instruction,31 for which they received money and other gifts.32 But
there were also drawbacks and dangers to being a court philosopher.
He was sometimes subject to abuse and humiliation from the king, as
happened, for example, to Aristippus at the court of Dionysius. On
one occasion he had to put up with being spat upon by Dionysius, who
on other occasions compelled him to lecture and commanded him to
dance. 33 Moreover, a court philosopher risked severe punishment if
he spoke to the king with a philosopher's boldness (7TCxppTJda), as we
see in the case of Menedemus. He, along with other philosophers, was
invited to the court of Nicocreon in Cyprus to celebrate a feast with
the king. Menedemus, however, twice rebuked the king and
would have been killed on account of his 7TappTJda had he not
escaped. 34
With regard to the Simon traditions this survey of Diogenes
Laertius explains, for example, why Simon regarded his 7TappTJda as
the price for being supported. This survey also points out that Simon's
refusal to go to Pericles made him an exception among Diogenes'
philosophers. But Simon's action, while uncommon, was not unique.
It matched that of his teacher Socrates, who, according to Diogenes,
declined the invitations of Archelaus of Macedon, Scopas of Crannon
and Eurylochus of Larissa to go to their courts. 3S As we have seen,
Socrates' example was generally ignored by his other disciples-for
example, by Plato and Aristippus. In fact, besides Simon, the only
Socratics who followed him in this matter were Cynics. Diogenes
Laertius includes numerous criticisms by Cynics of the philosophers
who went to court. 36 Thus is explained the Cynic view of Antisthenes
as stated in the Socratic epistles, that the philosopher should not
associate with rulers, as well as his admiration for Simon.
That Simon should have been taken over consciously by the Cynics
is shown by the association of other Cynics with shoemakers. There is,
for example, Lucian's ideal Cynic, Cyniscus, who is paired in the
31 See Diog.Laert. 2.110 (Euphantus), 128 and 141 (Mendemus); 5.2 (Aristotle), 58
(Strato); 7.36 (Persaeus).
38 See Diog.Laert. 2.63 (Aeschines), 67, 81-82 (Aristippus), 115-16 (Stilpo); 3.9 (Plato); 4.38
and 42 (Arcesilaus); 5.58 (Strato); 7.169 (Cleanthes).
88 See Diog.Laert.2.67, 73, 78. Cf. also 3.18 (Plato) and 7.177 (Sphaerus).
uSee Diog.Laert. 2.129-30. Cf. also 3.18-22 (plato) and 5.5, where it is said that Callisthenes' '1rapPTlcla before Alexander cost him his life.
35 See Diog.Laert. 2.25.
36 See Diog.Laert. 6.25-26, 58, 76 (Diogenes).

RONALD F. HOCK

47

Cataplus with a shoemaker named Micyllus. 37 Especially significant

for our analysis, however, is an anecdote about the Cynic Crates which
is used by Teles. In fr.lVB, a diatribe that attempts to refute the common notion that poverty is a hindrance to practising philosophy,
Teles argues that wealthy people have too much to do to have any
leisure for taking up philosophy but that a poor man does not and
thus can turn to philosophy, an argument that is illustrated by an
incident about Crates in the shoemaker shop of a certain Philiscus:
"Zeno said that Crates was sitting in a shoemaker's shop and reading
aloud Aristotle's Protrepticus, which he had written for Themison,
king of Cyprus, saying that no one had more advantage for taking up
philosophy than he had, for he had great wealth to spend on it and a
reputation besides. While he was reading, Zeno said, the shoemaker
paid attention to him and at the same time continued to do his
stitching. Crates remarked, 'It seems to me, Philiscus, that I should
write a Protrepticus for you, since I see that you have more of an advantage for taking up philosophy than the one for whom Aristotle
wrote'."38
This passage is most instructive. First of all, it has the Cynic Crates
associating with a shoemaker, a scene that recalls Socrates conversing
with Simon. 39 Moreover, as in the Plutarch passage, the context of the
anecdote is important. Indeed, the context is the same as in Plutarchthat is to say, the context is whether the philosopher should associate
with rulers. Only this time the reference to a philosopher in a shoemaker's shop is made by a Cynic, one who stands on the other side of
the debate from Plutarch. Thus not only do we have reconfirmed the
appropriateness of citing the example of a philosopher with a shoemaker precisely in the context of this debate, but we also learn that
Crates' association with Philiscus was symbolic-that is to say, it was
consciously done in protest to Aristotle's practice of seeking out kings
for philosophical instruction, as is shown by Crates' intention of

37 Whether Micyllus was already a figure in Lucian's Menippean source or was introduced into the dialogue by Lucian himself is difficult to determine. For these views, see
R. Helm, Lucian und Menipp (Leipzig and Berlin 1906) 63-79, and B. McCarthy, "Lucian and
Menippus," yes 4 (1934) 39-50. In any case, by Lucian's time the pairing of a Cynic with a
shoemaker is obviously a literary convention.
38 Teles, fr.IVB (p.46 lines 6-14 Hense).
n On the relation of Philiscus and Simon see Joel II 307 n.1.

48

SIMON THE SHOEMAKER AS AN IDEAL CYNIC

writing a Protrepticus for Philiscus.'o On Crates' view (as portrayed by

Teles) the philosopher should associate with shoemakers, not rulers,
since Philiscus-in contrast to Themison, who is an example of the
wealthy man with no leisure for philosophyU-can do his work at the
same time as he listens to the philosopher and thus is truly qualified
to take up philosophy.42
It should now be clear that the context, or Sitz im Leben, of the
Simon traditions was the debate over whether the philosopher should
associate with rulers. Socrates, and later the Cynics, said no and chose
to associate with poor shoemakers instead. Thus, besides the pairing
of Socrates and Simon, the following Cynics were paired with shoemakers: Crates with Philiscus, Cyniscus with Micyllus, and Antisthenes with Simon.
It is not enough, however, simply to relate Simon to Cynicism, for
Cynicism itself was a diverse phenomenon. Antisthenes' admiration
for Simon would not be shared by all Cynics, since the debate over
whether the philosopher should associate with rulers divided Cynics,
too, roughly along the lines of the two wings within the Cynic school
-that is to say. strict and hedonistic Cynicism.'3 Important sources
for this intra-Cynic debate are the Cynic anecdotal and epistolary
literature and for our purposes especially those texts that have a Cynic,
usually Diogenes or Antisthenes, and the hedonist Aristippus (who in
these sources speaks for hedonistic Cynicism) attacking one another.44
&0 On the familiar practice of writing books to kings to gain their favor or in gratitude for
support see Diog.Laert. 2.84 (Aristippus), 110 (Euphantus); 4.14 (Xenocrates), 38 (Arcesilaus); 9.109 (Timon). Cf. A.-H. Chroust, "What Prompted Aristotle to Address the Prorrepticus to Thernison of Cyprus?" Hermes 94 (1966) 202-07.
&l On the king having no leisure for philosophy see Diog.Laert. 2.130.
n It is precisely Philiscus' ability to do his work while paying attention to Crates that the
philosopher recognizes and that prompts him to consider writing a Protrepticus for the
shoemaker.
&3 See Gerhard, "Legende" 390: "Ein Hauptvorwurf des Kynischen Asketen brandmerkt
den hedonischen Schlemmer als feigen Parasiten und Fiirstenknecht." On hedonistic
Cynicism, see: Gerhard, Phoinix 32-44,58-59,113-15, 170-72; E. Bevan, "Hellenistic Popular Philosophy," in J. B. Bury et al., The Hellenistic Age (Cambridge 1923) 89-90; UeberwegPraechter 432-35; K. von Fritz, Quellenuntersuchungen zu Leben und Philosophie des Diogenes
(Philologus Suppl. 18,2, Leipzig 1926) 41-47; Dudley 103-06; and MerIan 143-52.
&& That the Cyrenaic Aristippus could be used by Cynics to represent their hedonistic
position in these anecdotes and letters is shown e.g., by Teles' quotation of Aristippus
(see Teles, fr.llI p.29 lines 13-14 Hense [=fr.85 Mannebach]) and by other traditions that
portray Aristippus with Cynic traits, as in Diogenes' taunt that Aristippus was a {Jaa,).'Koc
,rowv (see Diog.Laert. 2.66 [=fr.29 Mannebach]). Cf. also Gerhard, "Legende" 390-91;
Mannebach 69; and Merlan 151-52.

RONALD F. HOCK

49

We begin with an anecdote at Diogenes Laertius 2.68 about Diogenes criticizing Aristippus for his association with the tyrant Dionysius, whose tables allowed Aristippus to live extravagantly. "Diogenes,
washing the dirt from his vegetables, saw [Aristippus] passing and
jeered at him in these terms, 'If you had learnt to make these your
diet, you would not have paid court (Opa1TVtv) to kings', to which his
rejoinder was, 'And if you knew how to associate with men
(av8pcIJ1Totc) [or tyrants (TvpaVVOtc)], you would not be washing vege' "45
t a bles.
This anecdote was very popular,46 even taking on the form of a
letter. 47 Moreover, this same anecdote was told of different philosophers. Significant for us is the version in which Antisthenes has replaced Diogenes. 48 This popular anecdote, summarizing the strict and
hedonistic Cynic views on whether to associate with rulers, thus provides the background for the epistolary clash between Antisthenes
and Aristippus in the letters of the Socratics. 49 The nature of this clash
between strict and hedonistic Cynics, as well as Simon's role in it, will
be clear from a summary of these letters.
The strict Cynic position is presented by Antisthenes in the eighth
letter,50 which is a sharp criticism of Aristippus' extravagant life (TO
1TO,,"VT,,"WC ~fjv) at Dionysius' court. 51 The philosopher, Antisthenes
begins, is not to be at the courts of tyrants or attend Sicilian tables; on
the contrary, he is to stay at home and strive to be self-sufficient
(a:VTapK"lc).52 Moreover, Aristippus is wrong in thinking that the wise
n Diog.Laert. 2.68 (Hick's LCL trans!' [=fr.52A Mannebach]). On the textual problem
see L. Sternbach (ed.), Gnomologium Vaticanum (WS 9-11 [1887-89], repro Berlin 1963) 78.
48 Instances are conveniently collected in frr.52-53 Mannebach.
47 See Diogenes' letter to Aristippus (Ep. 32, pp.246-47 Hercher).
48 See fr.52c Mannebach: Antisthenes, cynicus philosophus, cum oluscula lavaret et animadvertisset Aristippum Cyrenaeum philosophum cum Dionysio tyranno Siculorum ingredientem,
dixit: "Aristippe, si his contentus esses, non regis pedes sequereris." cui respondit Aristippus: "at
tu si posses commode cum rege loqui, non his contentus esses."
49 Sykutris 47 is incorrect, then, when it is said that there is no tradition of a hostile
relationship between Antisthenes and Aristippus, as set forth in these letters. The clash,
says Sykutris, was the author's doing, designed to preserve his intention of producing
letters from Socrates' pupils. For the view that the hostility was traditional, see Hohein 166
and Kohler 100. Mannebach 93 goes so far to say that Aristippus formulated his doctrine of
~~oJl1j specifically against Antisthenes. On the close relationship of Epp. 8-13 see Sykutris 45.
60 On the eighth letter cf. Kohler 100-01 and Sykutris 45-50.
51 On Aristippus living extravagantly see Diog.Laert. 2.68-69, 75-76 and 84. Cf. further
frr.75-76 Mannehach.
n On self-sufficiency see Gerhard, Phoinix 56-58.

50

SIMON THE SHOEMAKER AS AN IDEAL CYNIC

man should acquire much money and have the powerful as friends,
since money is not necessary and the powerful, being unlettered,
cannot be friends. 53 Consequently, Antisthenes' advice is for Aristippus to leave Syracuse and to prefer the hellebore of Anticyra to the
wine at Dionysius' court. 54 Only then will Aristippus exchange his
present sickness and foolishness (mppOC'l)VY}) for health and wisdom
(q,POvy}CLC ).

The hedonistic Cynic position is provided in the ninth letter, which

is Aristippus' reply to Antisthenes. 55 The letter opens with delightful
irony: "Antisthenes, we surely are unhappy! For how can we be
anything but unhappy since we are with a tyrant and eating and
drinking extravagantly (7ToAvTALf!-) every day and are anointed with
some of the most fragrant perfumes ... "56 Aristippus refers to the
clothes, money and three women also given to him by Dionysius and
wonders when someone will deliver him from the cruelty of Dionysius !57 Aristippus then mocks Antisthenes' Cynic way of life by advising him to wash and drink from a fountain and to wear the same
filthy cloak summer and winter, as is fitting for a free man (eAv8poc)
living in Athens. 58 He adds that he is sending him lupines to eat after
his lecture on Heracles and concludes by advising him to go and converse with Simon the shoemaker, about whom he says: HAs far as you
are concerned, there is no one greater in wisdom (ccxPLa), nor will there
ever be. "59
With this mention of Simon in the ninth letter we thus have the
shoemaker-philosopher introduced into the debate. In fact, the
eleventh letterG relates him to it explicitly. Aristippus, having made
use of his friendship with Dionysius in order to save the lives of some
youths, writes to Aeschines and says of Antisthenes: HIt is not acceptable to him to make use of tyrant friends, but ... (it is acceptable to
him) to court (8pa7Tvw) Simon."61
On Antistheoes' criticisms if. Sykutris 47.
On hellebore cf Kohler 101.
6600 this letter cf Kohler 101-03 and Sykutris 50-51.
541 Ps.-Socr. Ep. 9.1 (p.22 line 3-p.23 line 2 Kohler).
57 On these gifts cf Sykutris 48 no.2-5.
68 On these Cyoic features cf Sykutris 49 nn.2-5.
61 Ps.-Socr. Ep. 9.4 (p.24 lines 10-11 Kohler).
60 00 this letter cf Kohler 103 and Sykutris 50-51.
61 Ps.-Socr. Ep. 11 (p.25 lines 2-7 Kohler). Note the use of BEp<HrEQEU'.
63

RONALD F. HOCK

51

In the twelfth letter6 2 Simon himself enters the debate with a letter
to Aristippus. 63 Simon has heard that Aristippus mocks his cocp{a
before Dionysius. Then he says: "I admit that I am a shoemaker and
do such things, and I am ready, if necessary, to cut straps for the purpose of admonishing (dc vovOfclav) foolish men who think that they
are living in accordance with the teaching of Socrates when they are
living in great luxury."64 Simon adds that Antisthenes will chastise
him and his foolish children, since Aristippus had mocked their
manner of living. Simon closes with a sample of his cocpta: "Remember
hunger and thirst, for these can do great things for those who are
pursuing self-control,"65 a maxim in keeping with strict Cynicism.
Aristippus' reply to Simon makes up the thirteenth letter. 66 He
denies that he mocked Simon; Phaidon did, when he said that Simon
was wiser than Prodicus of Ceos, whose encomium on Heracles Simon
had refuted. 67 Aristippus says that he admires him, since he, though
only a shoemaker, is so wise that Socrates and many aristocratic
youths are persuaded to converse with him.6s But then Aristippus'
sa On this letter cf Kohler 103-04 and Sykutris 51-54. Scholarly attention to this letter
has a bearing on the dating of the letters of the Socratics (ef supra n.19). Wilamowitz 189-92
claimed Phaidon's "Simon" as the source for Epp. 12 and 13. W. Capelle, De Cynicorum
epistulis (diss. Gottingen 1896) 8-10, observed similarities between Simon's letter and Ps.Diog. Ep. 29 and argued that both go back to the Phaidonic source. Schering 37 n.2, however, traced both back to Antisthenes' "Heracles." Then Sykutris 51-53 denied any common source and considered Simon's letter to be literarily dependent on Ps.-Diog. Err. 29
and 32, a conclusion important for dating the letters of the Socratics. For if the apocryphal
letters ofDiogenes were written in the first century B.C. or first century (on which see now
V. Eme1janow, The Letters of Diogenes [diss. Stanford 1968] 4-5), then the letters of the
Socratics must be later still. But if there is literary dependence, it would seem the other
way around, as argued by von Fritz, "Phaidon" 24D-44. Thus an early dating for the letters
of the Socratics would be required. But while theories of literary dependence do not seem
necessary since the similarities can be accounted for by common dependence on Cynic
traditions, an earlier dating, say the first century, does seem plausible because other data
regarding Simon cluster around the first century: Seneca's use of Phaidon's writings (ef
supra n.14), Plutarch's mention of Simon, and Theodorus' abridgement of Te1es with its
mention ofPhiliscus (on which see Dudley 85 n.1).
63 With Simon's letter the debate is no longer between two characters, as in the anecdotes (and still in Ps.-Diog. Ep. 32), but is now carried on with three. with the ridicule being
shifted to Simon's shoe making.
6& Ps.-Socr. Ep. 12 (p.25 lines 3-6 Kohler). On Simon in the Cynic role of vov8t:~c see Gerhard. Phoinix 35-36.
86 Ps.-Socr. Ep. 12 (p.25 lines 9-10 Kohler).
18 On this letter cf Kohler 103-04 and Sykutris 54-57.
81 On this point ef Hirzel I 112 n.3.
f8 Cf Wilamowitz 191.

52

SIMON THE SHOEMAKER AS AN IDEAL CYNIC

attack becomes direct: "But now we know what kind of person you
are, for Antisthenes visits yoU."69 Aristippus then invites Simon to
Dionysius' court. "You can do your philosophy (cpt"}..ococ/)fliv) especially
in Syracuse,70 for leather straps and goods are valued here. Moreover,
do you not know that I, desiring shoes at all times, will make your
trade into something marvelous? But as for that barefoot Antisthenes,
what else has he done than to bring about idleness and no sales since
he persuades the youth and every Athenian to go barefoot? See, then,
how much of a friend I am-one who is content with leisure and
pleasure (~Sovr})."71 Thus, if Simon saw it his way, he would admire
him and "ridicule those who have long beards and staffs for their own
boasting, those who are dirty and lousy and who have long nails like
beasts and whose tenets are contrary to your trade."72
It should now be clear from this summary of these letters of the
Socratics that the debate contained in them simply develops the clash
concisely expressed in the anecdote with which we began this analysis.
The basic issue motivating all these letters (Epp. 8-13) has been
whether to associate with rulers and lead an extravagant life. Consequently, this epistolary debate, written in a style conforming to the
conventions of letter writing73 and expanded, as has been noted, by
drawing on traditions about the various personalities involved and on
Cynic commonplaces and popular conceptions about Cynics, is to be
interpreted in terms of the intra-Cynic debate between strict and
hedonistic Cynics.
Within this specific context the figure of Simon the shoemaker is to
be viewed. Mocked by Aristippus, Simon is also admired by Antisthenes and so functions-for strict Cynics at least-as an ideal Cynic,
one who might be called the 'working-philosopher', who by staying
at his workbench preserves his 1TappTJcla and attains aVT&pKa. That
Simon functions in these letters as an ideal Cynic is indicated also by
I t Ps.-Socr. Ep. 13.1 (p.26 lines 9-10 Kohler). In view of the debate between strict and
hedonistic Cynics it is significant that it is precisely Antisthenes' association with Simon that
Aristippus objects to.
70 Wilamowitz 190 understands 'TJ .p">"OCO.pEtV as vovOEcla av8pdnrwv a.ppovwv (from Ep. 12),
but, as Sykutris 54 n.7 points out, Wilamowitz has missed Aristippus' ironic reference to
Simon's trade, as the context makes clear.
71 Ps.-Socr. Ep. 13.1-2 (p.26 lines 10-17 Kohler).
71 Ps.-Socr. Ep. 13.2 (p.26 lines 19-22 Kohler).
73 For details see Sykutris 118-19.

RONALD F. HOCK

53

Xenophon's praise of him in the eighteenth letter,74 which concludes

as follows: "Greet Simon the shoemaker and praise him because he
persists in devoting himself to the teachings of Socrates and uses
neither poverty nor his trade as pretexts for not doing philosophy,

like some others who do not want to understand fully nor esteem the
teachings of Socrates."75
To sum up, while the earlier historical and source-critical studies of
Simon the shoemaker have yielded few if any significant results, a
traditionsgeschichtliche investigation of the Simon traditions proves
much more useful. In fact, the results of the latter method help to
explain why the other approaches have yielded so little: Simon the
shoemaker came to function in a very specific context, whether the
philosopher is to associate with rulers (or cobblers); moreover, Simon
was admired really only by strict Cynics, that is to say, by those who
represented the minority opinion on this question. Thus, whatever
can be said about the historical Simon or about the ultimate literary
sources of the Simon tradition, we must acknowledge this debate and
these Cynics as chiefly responsible for preserving and shaping the
traditions about Simon the shoemaker.76
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

November, 1975

On this letter cf. Kohler III and Sykutris 69-70.

Ps.-Socr. Ep. 18.2 (p.35 lines 12-17 Kohler).
76 I wish to thank Professor Abraham]. Malherbe of Yale University for his guidance and
many valuable suggestions in the course of writing this paper.
74

75