aguaplano.

eu Noburu Notomi

Prodicus in Aristophanes

aguaplano
panchenko_abstract.indd 231 20/11/2010 11.51.06
Noburu Notomi, Prodicus in Aristophanes

Estratto da/Excerpt from:

Il quinto secolo. Studi di filosofia antica in onore di Livio Rossetti
a c. di Stefania Giombini e Flavia Marcacci. Aguaplano—Officina del libro, Passignano s.T. 2010, pp. 655-664
[isbn/ean: 978-88-904213-4-1]
Noburu Notomi
Prodicus in Aristophanes

Aguaplano
Noburu Notomi, Prodicus in Aristophanes

Estratto da/Excerpt from:

Il quinto secolo. Studi di filosofia antica in onore di Livio Rossetti
a c. di Stefania Giombini e Flavia Marcacci. Aguaplano—Officina del libro, Passignano s.T. 2010, pp. 655-664
[isbn/ean: 978-88-904213-4-1]

Videoimpaginazione/graphic layout by: Raffaele Marciano.

Proprietà letteraria riservata/All right reserved.

copyright © 2010 by Aguaplano—Officina del libro. www.aguaplano.eu / info@aguaplano.eu

In copertina/Cover: Greece, Athens (Ancient). Erecthion, Caryatide Porch (1860-1890), National Library of Con-
gress, Prints and Photographs Division, Washington, d.c.

Videoimpaginazione/graphic layout by: Raffaele Marciano.

1. Thinkers in Attic Comedies

T oday academic researches are done according to the disciplines,

which are firmly established in modern universities and the aca-
demic world. Yet, Classical Greece of the 5th century BC is not easy to
study in this framework; for, in my view, it was not until early 4th cen-
tury BC when Plato founded the Academy that these disciplines or gen-
res, such as philosophy, natural sciences, politics, rhetoric, and poetry,
were distinguished and established for the first time. Before that, the
division was not clear, but various intellectual activities were developed
through lively competition among thinkers, scientists, poets, sophists,
politicians, and other intellectuals. Therefore, we should be cautious
about “genres” when we treat the Classical or earlier period of Greek
culture. Rather, it was an important issue of this time how they were
generated. To investigate this phase of the Greek history we need some
interdisciplinary approach.
The scarcity of sources inevitably makes us transgress the discipli-
nary borders. Concerning the history of philosophy of the 5th Century
BC, we have to consider even vague references or allusions to think-
ers and thoughts in Attic tragedies and comedies. Apart from Socra-
tes1, whose activities and thoughts were abundantly recorded by his
pupils, the other thinkers suffer severe lack of testimonies. Although
Protagoras was the most influential sophist in the latter half of the 5th
century BC, we only possess two “fragments” of his lost books (DK

1. See Notomi 2008. In addition to Aristophanes’ Clouds, references in Birds 1555, cf.
1282, and Frogs 1491, should be considered. Eupolis (386, 395 PCG) and Ameipsias (9
PCG) also mention Socrates.
656 Noburu Notomi

80B1 “Truth” and B4 “On gods”). Plato’s discussion on his relativism

in the Theaetetus may be made fit to the philosopher’s own scheme.
Therefore, later reports, such that Eupolis made him appear in the lost
Flatterers (421 BC) as a guest of Callias’ house, are counted as major
testimonies of Protagoras.2 He is not mentioned in the extant works
of Aristophanes, but the Clouds clearly uses his thoughts without men-
tioning his name: it includes such notions as “there are two arguments
on each”, “making a weaker argument stronger”, the gender of words,
and the art of rhetoric. Ancient audiences and readers must have clearly
detected Protagoras behind “the sophist Socrates” in this comedy.
We should not be too cautious in using comedies (full of distortion,
parody, attack, and misunderstanding) as evidence for the intellectual
activities of earlier thinkers. But by collecting and examining even a
small number of extant references like archaeological remains, we must
reconstruct their thoughts and activities, probably by appealing to some
imagination. Here we need interdisciplinary approach to this period.

2. Prodicus the Sophist

Prodicus of Ceos was active as a sophist from the late 5th to the be-
ginning of the 4th century BC. His testimonies are included, like other
sophists, in H. Diels & W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker,
vol. II, chapter 84: testimonies about life, writing, and though (in A) are
24, and “fragments” of his works (in B) are 11. Apart from a long quota-
tion of “Choice of Heracles” from Xenophon’s Memorabilia 2.1 (B1, 2),
there is no other substantial fragment, but most testimonies come from
the writers of his next generations of the 4th century BC, namely Plato,
Xenophon, and Aristotle. The collection of Diels-Kranz was edited over
a century ago, and needs critical re-examination concerning the range
and selection of testimonies. The chapter of Prodicus is no exception,
and has much room for revision.
Diels includes Aristophanes, Clouds 360-361 (A5), and a scholion to
this passage (A6, B1). A5 also includes a fragment of Tagenistae, 506
PCG (= 490 Kock), but a reference in Birds 692 is only mentioned in re-

2. Eupolis, Flatterers, fr. 157 PCG: a reconstruction from the combination of DL 9.50
(DK 80A1) and Eustathius, Commenatrii ad Homeri Odysseam, 1. 1547 (A11).
 Prodicus in Aristophanes 657

lation to the Clouds in A5. On the other hand, A10 contains a scholion to
Birds 692 (with the main texts of a full line of 689 and the latter half of
691), after Quintilian’ reference in the Institutio oratoria. The Scholiast
on the Birds criticizes Callimachus, who classified Prodicus as “rhetori-
cian”, and insists instead that he should be called “philosopher”. Since
Diels in his first edition in 1903 did not include the citations from the
Birds, he was obviously interested in this scholion’s comment that re-
gards Prodicus as a natural thinker.
In fact, the passage of the Clouds, to which Diels relates the refer-
ence in the Birds, mentions Prodicus as a respectful wise man.

[Aristophanes, Clouds 359-361: Chorus of Clouds]

σύ τε, λεπτοτάτων λήρων ἱερεῦ, φράζε πρὸς ἡμᾶς ὅτι χρῄζεις
οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἄλλῳ γ’ ὑπακούσαιμεν τῶν νῦν μετεωροσοφιστῶν
πλὴν ἢ Προδίκῳ, τῷ μὲν σοφίας καὶ γνώμης οὕνεκα […].3

Here are two important points to consider. First, Prodicus is called

“celestial expert” (μετεωροσοφιστής) by the Clouds and regarded as a
sort of natural thinker (φυσικός), whereas he is ordinarily deemed a
“sophist” (σοφιστής). Second, he seems to win a special respect because
of “his skill and intelligence”, along with Socrates.
First, it is not only Prodicus among the sophists who was regarded
as a natural thinker. Protagoras was presented as a natural thinker in
Eupolis’ Flatterers (157, 158 PCG), and above all Socrates the sophist
gave much discussion on nature in the Clouds. Whereas Plato and Xen-
ophon depict Socrates as not being concerned with natural inquiry, it
is uncertain whether natural and human or social sciences were clearly
distinguished in the 5th century BC.4 Hippias was known for his wide
knowledge of mathematics, astronomy, and other sciences, and Pro-
tagoras was also reported to have contributed to mathematics. A clear
distinction between “sophist” who teaches rhetoric and treats human af-
fairs only, and “natural thinker” who exclusively concerns natural phe-
nomena may well be an invention in the new framework introduced in

3. “[…to Socrates] and you, priest of the subtlest balderdash, tell us what you desire; /
for we would not give ear to any other present-day celestial expert, / except for Prodicus,
in his case because of his skill and intelligence” (trans. Sommerstein).
4. The historicity of the autobiographical description in Plato, Phaedo 95e-99d, is to
be reconsidered.
658 Noburu Notomi

Plato’s and Aristotle’s academic interests. People of the 5th century BC

did not classify their contemporary intellectuals into “natural thinker/
sophist/philosopher”, as later people did.5 Nature, gods, religious rites,
society, ethics, language, and epistemology were within a single domain
of human wisdom. Prodicus was normally known as a sophist who in-
troduced the subtle distinction of words, but he may have contributed
some other fields including astronomy and natural sciences.
Why do the Chorus of Clouds mention Prodicus here? Socrates in
Plato’s dialogues often declares that he attended Prodicus’ lectures and
learned from him. Therefore, it may be the case that Prodicus is treated
differently from other sophists and respected more in the Clouds. From
this, some scholars suggest that Prodicus obtained a high reputation of
wise man like Thales, and that his moral views were appreciated by the
author Aristophanes.6 However, considering the comic context of the
initiation into sophistic education, we cannot take the Chorus’ refer-
ence to be straightforwardly positive.
Indeed, in the lost play of Aristophanes, Tagenistae, Prodicus was
mentioned as a typical sophist:

[Aristophanes, Tagenistae (Ταγηνισταί) 506 PCG = 490 Kock (Scholion to

Clouds 361)]7
τοῦτον τὸν ἄνδρ’ ἢ βιβλίον διέφθορεν
ἢ Πρόδικος ἢ τῶν ἀδολεσχῶν εἷς γέ τις.8

Here Prodicus was deemed “chattering lot”. Compare Socrates in

the Clouds, whom the Chorus of Clouds call “priest of the subtlest bald-
erdash” (359), and Strepsiades criticizes as “ἀδολέσχης” (1485) in terms

5. At least the word “φιλόσοφος” was scarcely used in the 5th century. I suggest that
the sharp distinction between “philosopher” and “sophist” was invented by Plato in the
4th centuryBC in the context of the Socratic Literature: see Notomi 2008, 2010.
6. Cf. Dover 1968, pp. liv-lvi, and Untersteiner 1949/1961, pp. 162-163. Dover gives
Prodicus a high position, in the same level of Thales. He interprets the references in the
Birds and the Tagenestae in the same direction.
7. Edmonds (1957) suggests that this play was produced in 422.
8. “A book’s spoilt him, or Prodicus, or if not, / Some one at any rate of the chatter-
ing lot” (trans. Edmonds). The second line was cited in Proclus, Commentary in Plato’s
Parmenides, 656, but there it is wrongly combined with the first line of Eupolis’ reference
to Socrates (386 PCG = 352 Kock).
 Prodicus in Aristophanes 659

of “ἀδολεσχία” (1480). Both of them are regarded as sophists who pro-

duce empty words and misleading verbal arguments.
Prodicus was deemed a tough expert in speech and argument, and
like Socrates, someone who corrupts the youth.

3. Birds’ Praisal of Prodicus

Another comedy of Aristophanes’, Birds, produced in 414, features

the mathematician and astronomer Meton, and mentions several other
intellectuals, namely Thales, Socrates, Diagoras of Melos, Gorgias, and
Prodicus.

[Aristophanes, Birds 689-691: Parabasis, Leader of the Chrous]

ἵν’ ἀκούσαντες πάντα παρ’ ἡμῶν ὀρθῶς περὶ τῶν μετεώρων,
φύσιν οἰωνῶν γένεσίν τε θεῶν ποταμῶν τ’ Ἐρέβους τε Χάους τε
εἰδότες ὀρθῶς, Προδίκῳ παρ’ ἐμοῦ κλάειν εἴπητε τὸ λοιπόν.9

The birds sing to the feeble mortals about the immortal and eternal
wisdom. In this parabasis (658-702), the epic language of Hesiod, the
natural philosophy of Empedocles, and the mystic images of the Orphic
are used.10 The birds reject the traditional creation myth, represented
by Hesiod’s Theogony, and introduce a new story of the birth of the
Universe, which has birds as the origin of all things. This passage once
was interpreted as presentation of the sophistic worldview of Prodicus
by Untersteiner and others, but Guthrie criticized that reading and re-
jected it in his History of Greek Philosophy.
Untersteiner reads in the creation myth by the birds a two-stage the-
ory of Prodicus, namely the creation theory depending on Empedocles’
natural philosophy, and the deification of useful objects. For example,
he interprets the “the mortal men” appearing in vocative in 685-687 as
reference to the origin of human beings in that theory.11 By criticizing

9. “So that you may hear correctly from us all about the celestial things, / and with
correct knowledge of the nature of birds and of the origin of gods and rivers / and Erebus
and Chaos; thanks to us, even Prodicus will envy you your knowledge” (trans. Sommer-
stein, with some changes).
10. Cf. Dunber 1995, pp. 428-447.
11. Untersteiner 1954, pp. 209-211; for the Birds, see p. 221, n. 3. On the other hand,
660 Noburu Notomi

this kind of interpretation as proposed by Untersteiner, Cataudella, and

Nestle, Guthrie suggests that we should not use the Birds to reconstruct
the religious theory of Prodicus.12 Guthrie shares a cautious attitude
with Diels; both do not see in this reference anything other than “ce-
lestial expert”. Yet, neither too much speculation nor too much caution
enables commentators to find out important messages in Aristophanes’
references.
By contrast, commentators of Aristophanes attempt to read more
in the reference to Prodicus in the Birds. Sommerstein’s commentary,
published in 1991, suggests, with reference to Guthrie, that this pas-
sage may be related to Prodicus’ radical view of religion, that gods are
human inventions.13 Nan Dumber, who published a comprehensive
commentary on this play in 1995, points out two important features
concerning Prodicus. First, the adverb “ὀρθῶς” (correctly), repeated in
689 and 691, hints at Prodicus’ sophistic argument. Second, the Birds’
story of the origin of gods corresponds to a similar theory of the gods as
human invention, attributed to Prodicus.
Concerning the first point, let us look at Dunber’s references with
some additional passages. In Plato’s Euthydemus, Socrates says that
“As Prodicus insists, we should first learn the correctness of words
(περὶ ὀνομάτων ὀρθότητος)” (277e: DK 84A16). In several places, Plato
emphasizes the correct distinction of words as a main feature of the
sophist’s art. Prodicus, in the Protagoras, displays some examples of
this art (337a-c = A13; cf. 340a-341b = A14). Socrates uses the phrase
“truth about the correctness of words (περὶ ὀνομάτων ὀρθότητος)” in
the Cratylus in relation to the 50 drachma lecture of Prodicus (384b =
A11), but the “correctness of words” is also ascribed to his senior col-
league, Protagoras (391b-c = DK 80A24). In Phaedrus 267c, the term
“ὀρθοέπεια” is attributed to Protagoras, and it is assumed that this sub-
ject is common to both sophists (DK 80A26). Moreover, Protagoras
in the Protagoras regards correctness as the criterion in interpreting
poetry of Simonides (339a = A25). Plutarch reports in Pericles 36 that

Untersteiner presents an unconvincing argument that Prodicus did not believe deifica-
tion of human beings.
12. Guthrie 1969/1971, pp. 241-242, n. 3, 277.
13. Cf. Sommerstein 1991, p. 241; here, Guthrie 1969/1971, pp. 238-242, 274-280, is
referred to, but as explained above, Guthrie himself does not see any relation between
Prodicus’ theology and the Birds.
 Prodicus in Aristophanes 661

Protagoras once discussed with Pericles the cause of an accidental death

by javelin throw, in accordance with the “most correct argument (κατὰ
τὸν ὀρθότατον λόγον)” (DK 80A10). This implies that the “correctness”
is concerned not only with language but also with logical way of think-
ing. Dunbar also points out that Aristophanes uses in his comedies, in
particular Clouds, the adverb “ὀρθῶς”, in the context of sophistic study
of language.14 No doubt the word “ὀρθῶς” used in Birds 689 and 691 al-
ludes to the sophistic thinking of Prodicus.
The second point concerning the origin of gods is far more impor-
tant. Prodicus is reported to have regarded as “gods” both natural things
that are useful for human beings and men who did useful deeds.15 Be-
cause of this rationalistic view of gods, he was in late antiquity criticized
as “atheist”, along with Diagoras of Melos, Euhemerus, Theodorus of
Cyrene, and Critias, the author of the Sisyphus. On the other hand, this
kind of criticism of Prodicus was not recorded before Cicero and Philo-
demus in the 1st century BC, and therefore, we are not certain whether
Prodicus actually committed himself to such atheism. While, of the so-
phistic views on gods, Protagoras’ agnostic claim is famous (DK 80B4),
the rationalistic view on religion ascribed to Critias and Prodicus, based
on the development of human civilization and society, is probably more
important. If Attic comedies of the 5th century BC already alluded to
this rationalistic theology, we can fill in the gap for the missing part of
the intellectual history.16
Cicero in De natura deorum calls Prodicus “a man who insisted that
things useful for human life had been made gods” (1.37.118). The ra-
tionalistic view that the useful things and the men who designed these
were regarded as gods is also associated with the Stoic Persaeus,17 and
it is sometimes suggested that Prodicus influenced the Stoics. Sextus
Empericus introduces the following thesis of Prodicus:

14. Dunbar 1995, pp. 433-434; 1998, pp. 294-295: Ach. 397, Nu. 659, Ra. 1180-1; cf.
Nu. 227-229, 250-251.
15. The testimonies concerning this issue are collected in DK 84 B5. See also Guthrie
1969/1971, pp. 238-239, and Untersteiner 1949/1961, p. 192.
16. Jaeger 1947, pp. 179, 249, n. 29, and Dodds 1960, pp. 104-105, point out that
Teiresias’ words in Euripides’ Bacchae, 274-285, also allude to Prodicus’ doctrine. Yet, it
is far more difficult to identify allusions in tragedy, since there is no explicit reference to
contemporary people or events in Attic tragedies. Jaeger examines the Birds in 63-64, but
does not consider its reference to Prodicus.
17. Cf. Philodemus, De piet. c9, 7 p. 75; Cicero, De natura deorum, 1.15.38.
662 Noburu Notomi

The ancients accounted as gods the sun and moon and rivers and springs
and in general all the things that are of benefit for our life, because of the
benefit derived from them, even as the Egyptians deify the Nile. (tr. Bury)18

Sextus then introduces other examples, namely bread as Demeter,

wine as Dionysus, water as Poseidon, and fire as Hephaestus. Also, ac-
cording to Themistius in Oratio 30, Prodicus insisted that religious cer-
emonies and the idea of gods had been generated in human beings from
those things.
When the Chorus of Birds say that “you may hear correctly from us,
all about the celestial things, and with correct knowledge of the nature
of birds and of the origin of the gods and rivers and Erebus, and Chaos”,
what they reject is the traditional creation myth, represented by He-
siod’s Theogony. On the other hand, by saying “even Prodicus will envy
you your knowledge”, the Birds mean that he promoted a new view of
the origin of gods, which rejects the traditional Hesiodic theology, be-
fore them. Considering the context, I suggest that we should see this as
reference to Prodicus’ rationalistic view, that the origin of gods was in
human beings, rather than to his natural philosophy. This explains why
it is Prodicus, not other natural philosophers, for example, Anaxagoras,
who is picked up here.
The expression “of the origin of gods and rivers and Erebus and Cha-
os” reminds us of Theogony 108-110, “how at the first gods and earth
came to be, and rivers.” But at the same time, it reminds us of the fa-
mous example of the river Nile, which Prodicus thought the Egyptians
had deified. There appear many gods of rivers in Homer and Greek
mythology, but nevertheless “river” was an impressive example of the
natural existence useful for human being, later regarded as “god”. This
was clearly the original point of Prodicus’ sophistic theology.
Dover sees the passage of the Birds as positive evaluation of intellec-
tual inquiry of Prodicus, which has nothing to do with rationalistic reli-
gion.19 Diels and Guthrie also treat it as reference to natural philosophy
of celestial bodies, etc. But Dunbar clearly regards this as a response to
Prodicus’ surprising view on gods and religion: “It may be only Prod.’s

18. Cf. Sextus Empiricus, Adversus Mathematicos, 9.18: a similar report is seen in
9.51-52.
19. Cf. Dover 1968, p. lv. Dover generally rejects any interpretation to read deep phil-
osophical meaning in the Clouds.
 Prodicus in Aristophanes 663

shocking attitude to religion that Ar. had in mind here; ‘You presum-
ably know’ (perhaps many of the audience did know) ‘what Prod. has
said on how the gods came to be—his version of the γένεσις θεῶν; we
birds know better, and once you’ve heard from us the correct version,
you can tell Prod. to go to hell.”20
Looking back to the other reference in the Clouds, we now see a new
meaning. When the Chorus of Clouds mention Prodicus, in particular,
as “celestial expert”, they may well be alluding to his problematic view
of gods. In fact, just after the Clouds’ address, Socrates exposes a scan-
dalous argument to deny the existence of Zeus (367 ff.). The name of
Prodicus may naturally have reminded his contemporary audience of
the rationalistic view of gods that overturns the traditional religion, just
as the Socrates of the comedy demonstrates.
With a strong satire, the Chorus of Birds count as their contempo-
rary rival Prodicus, who had presented the rationalistic and evolution-
ary view of the origin of gods and religion through deep investigation
into nature and human beings. In this context, the use of the adverb
“correctly”, which is characteristic of Prodicus’ style, shows the author’s
ironical intention. If this interpretation is correct, we can see that the
rationalistic theology of Prodicus was already known in his contempo-
rary society, and we can trace its evidence four centuries back from Cic-
ero and Philodemus. Aristophanes ridiculed that view by forwarding a
more excentric myth of the origin of the universe centralized in birds.
Here, we can observe a cheerful and open atmosphere of the intellectual
exchange of the 5th century BC, in contrast with the gloomy attack of
“atheism”, directed to Prodicus a few centuries later.

20. Dunber 1995, p. 437; cf. Dunber 1998, p. 297.

664 Noburu Notomi

Bibliography

Diels-Kranz 1952: H. Diels-W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, II, 6.

Aufl., Berlin.
Dodds 1960: E.R. Dodds, Euripides, “Bacchae”, edited with introduction and
commentary, 2nd edition, Oxford.
Dover 1968: K.J. Dover, Aristophanes, “Clouds”, edited with introduction and
commentary, Oxford.
Dunbar 1995: N. Dunbar, Aristophanes, “Birds”, edited with introduction and
commentary, Oxford.
Dunbar 1998: N. Dunbar, Aristophanes, “Birds”, edited with introduction and
commentary, Oxford [Student edition].
Edmonds 1957: J.M. Edmonds, The Fragments of Attic Comedy, I, Leiden.
Guthrie 1969/1971: W.K.C. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy, III [The
Fifth-Century Enlightenment. Part 1, The Sophists], Cambridge.
Jaeger 1947: W. Jaeger, The Theology of the Early Greek Philosophers, Ox-
ford.
Notomi 2008: N. Notomi, The Birth of the Philosopher: People around Socra-
tes, in L. Rossetti-A. Stavru (Eds.), Socratica 2005, Studi sulla letteratura
socratica antica, Bari, pp. 355-370.
Notomi 2010: N. Notomi, Socrates versus Sophists: Plato’s Invention?, in
L. Rossetti-A. Stavru (Eds.), Socratica 2008. Studies in Ancient Socratic
Literature, Bari, pp. 71-88.
Sommerstein 1991: A.H. Sommerstein, The Comedies of Aristophanes. 6, “Birds”,
London.
Untersteiner 1949/1961: M. Untersteiner, Sofisti, Testimonianze e Frammenti,
Firenze.
Untersteiner 1954: M. Untersteiner, The Sophists, tr. by K. Freeman, Oxford.
 Il quinto secolo. Studi di filosofia antica in onore di Livio Rossetti

Introduzione di Stefania Giombini e Flavia Marcacci 11

Bibliografia degli scritti di Livio Rossetti 29

PHYSIS

Beatriz Bossi, Parménides, DK 28 B 16: ¿el eslabón perdido?, p. 45; Omar D. Álvarez
Salas, Intelletto e pensiero nel naturalismo presocratico, p. 63; Miriam Campolina Di-
niz Peixoto, Physis et didachê chez Démocrite, p. 83; Antonietta D’Alessandro, Dem-
ocrito: visione e formazione dei colori nel De sensu et sensibilis, p. 101; Carlo Santini,
Democrito, Lucrezio e la poesia delle cose impercettibili (De r.n. 3,370-395), p. 113;
Daniela De Cecco, Anassagora B4 DK (B4a; B4b): esame delle fonti, p. 123; Serge
Mouraviev, L’Exorde du livre d’Héraclite. Reconstruction et Commentaire, p. 135;
Dario Zucchello, Parmenide e la tradizione del pensiero greco arcaico (ovvero, della
sua eccentricità), p. 165; M. Laura Gemelli Marciano, Il ruolo della “meteorologia” e
dei “discorsi sulla natura” negli scritti ippocratici. Alla ricerca di un “canone” per
lo scritto medico?, p. 179; Daniel W. Graham, Theory, Observation, and Discovery in
Early Greek Philosophy, p. 199.

LOGOS

Dmitri Panchenko, The Cultural Florescence of Fifth-Century Athens in Compara-

tive Perspective, p. 215; Gianfranco Maddoli, L’immagine dell’Umbria nel V secolo
a.C., p. 229; Emidio Spinelli, Presocratici scettici? Assunti genealogici nel Varro di
Cicerone, p. 235; Maria Michela Sassi, Senofane critico dell’antropomorfismo, p. 247;
Giuseppe Mazzara, Aspetti gorgiani e pitagorici nel socratico Antistene, p. 257; Kseni-
ja Maricki Gadjanski, δισσοι λογοι and Modern Linguistics, p. 269; Stefania Giom-
bini, Flavia Marcacci, Dell’antilogia, p. 277; Rafael Ferber, Zeno’s Metrical Paradox
of Extension and Descartes’ Mind-Body Problem, p. 295, Marcella G. Lorenzi, Mauro
Francaviglia, Continuo o discreto? Dai paradossi di Zenone alla meccanica quantis-
tica, p. 311; Diskin Clay, The Art of Platonic Quotation, p. 327; Tomás Calvo-Martínez,
Las hipótesis del Fedón y la dialéctica como arte del diálogo, p. 339; Franco Ferrari,
Equiparazionismo ontologico e deduttivismo: l’eredità di Parmenide nella gymnasia
del Parmenide, p. 357; Michel Narcy, Calliclès est-il un bon interprète du Gorgias?,
p. 369; Graciela E. Marcos de Pinotti, Ser y aparecer en Protágoras, p. 379; Thomas
M. Robinson, Socrates on Soul and Immortality, p. 389.
ETHOS

Delfim F. Leão, The Seven Sages and Plato, p. 403; Gabriele Cornelli, Sulla vita
filosofica in comune: koinonía e philía pitagoriche, p. 415; Mario Vegetti, Il medico
antico fra nomadismo e stanzialità (dal V secolo a.C. al II secolo d.C.), p. 437; Fran-
cesco De Martino, Aspasia e la scuola delle mogli, p. 449; Francisco Bravo, Entre
la euthymía de Democrito a la eudaimonía de Aristóteles, p. 467; Chiara Robbiano,
L’immutabilità come valore morale: da Parmenide (B8, 26-33) a Platone (Rep.
380d1-383a5), p. 483; Renzo Vitali, Stasis come rivoluzione, p. 493; Walter O. Ko-
han, Sócrates en el último curso de Foucault, p. 503; Giovanni Cerri, Tesi di Platone
sulla ragion politica del processo a Socrate e sulla natura della sua attività propa-
gandistica, p. 519; Christopher Rowe, Boys, Kingship, and Board-games: A Note on
Plato, Politicus 292E-293A, p. 529; Gerardo Ramírez Vidal, Los sofistas maestros de
política en el siglo V, p. 535; Rachel Gazolla, Intorno alla Paideia di Socrate e dei
Cinici, p. 547; Gilbert Romeyer Dherbey, Socrate educateur, p. 563; Giovanni Caser-
tano, La regina, l’anello e la necessità, p. 587.

PATHOS

Maria de Fátima Silva, Euripides and the Profile of an Ideal City, p. 603; Patrizia
Liviabella Furiani, Il V secolo, tra fiction e realtà, nel romanzo di Caritone, p. 617;
Maria do Céu Fialho, The Rhetoric of Suffering in Sophocles’ Philoctetes and Colo-
neus: A Comparative Approach, p. 645; Noburu Notomi, Prodicus in Aristo-
phanes, p. 655; Enrique Hülsz Piccone, Huellas de Heráclito en tres fragmentos
‘filosóficos’ de Epicarmo, p. 665; Alessandro Stavru, Il potere dell’apparenza: nota
a Gorgia, Hel. 8-14, p. 677; Lidia Palumbo, Scenografie verbali di V secolo. Appunti
sulla natura visiva del linguaggio tragico, p. 689; Nestor L. Cordero, Les fonde-
ments philosophiques de la ‘thérapie’ d’Antiphon. Les vertus thérapeutiques du logos
sophistique, p. 701.

***

Per l’amico Livio

Massimo Capponi, L’originalità e il valore dell’ipertesto dialogico-interattivo tra cre-

atività e simulazione, p. 715; Chiara Chiapperini, L’incontro con Livio Rossetti, la nas-
cita di Amica Sofia… e alcune osservazioni sull’arte della “maieutica”, p. 725; Nestor
L. Cordero, D’un citoyen d’Élée à l’autre, p. 735; Gerardo Ramírez Vidal, Omar D.
Álvarez Salas, Livio Rossetti y la UNAM, 25 años de cooperación y amistad, p. 737;
Thomas M. Robinson, Livio Rossetti and the International Plato Society, p. 743; Mar-
ian Wesoły, I Owe so much to Professor and my Friend Livio Rossetti…, p. 745.

***

Tabula gratulatoria 749

aguaplano.eu Noburu Notomi

Prodicus in Aristophanes

aguaplano