This article reconstructs the work of John Moles, eminent classicist with a wide range of interests, as a historian of ancient philosophy. The article focuses on Moles’ studies of Dio Chrysostom, Cynicism, and Aristotle’s Poetics. In particular, the article presents Moles’ ever original interpretations, based on an exceptional knowledge of the ancient sources and modern scholarship. The article highlights the fundamental characteristics of Moles’ approach to the history of ancient philosophy, which is grounded in a firm historical basis and in detailed, acute, and always rigorously demonstrative analyses of texts. Moles’ contribution to the history of ancient philosophy is marked by strong ethical motivations and a commitment to trace in classical texts not just mere data, but rather values and ideas to be preserved and reflected upon.
BrancacciA. (1993). Struttura compositiva e fonti della iii Orazione Sulla Regalità di Dione Crisostomo: Dione e l’Archelao di Antistene in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt hrsg. von W. Haase und I. Temporini vol. 36 5 de Gruyter Berlin-New York pp. 3226–3266.
MolesJ. (1986). Cynicism in Horace Epistles 1 in Papers of the Liverpoool Latin Seminar Fifth Volume 1985 (ARCA Classical and Medieval Texts Papers and Monographs 19) edited by F. Cairns F. Cairns Publications Ltd Liverpool pp. 33–60.
MolesJ. (1993b). «The Classical Review» 43 pp. 256–258.
MolesJ. (1995a). The Cynics and politics
in A. Laks & M. Schofield (eds) Justice and Generosity. Studies in Hellenistic Social and Political Philosophy Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium Hellenisticum CUPCambridge pp. 129–158.
MolesJ. (2000a). The Cynics in The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought edited by C. Rowe and M. Schofield in association with S. Harrison and M. Lane Cambridge University Press (2005 2010) pp. 415–434.
MolesJ. (2017 – to be confirmed). Antisthenes Dio and Virgil on the Education of the Strong in Word and context in Latin poetry edited by J. Wisse & A.J. Woodman (“Cambridge Classical Journal Suppl.” Vol. 40) CUP Cambridge.
MolesJ.(forthcoming):Defacing the currency: Cynicism in Dio Chrysostom read in Liverpool June 30th 2001.
Woodman (2015). I wish to thank Federico Santangelo (University of Newcastle) for kindly providing many bibliographical materials to which I did not have immediate access; Clemence Schultze and George Boys-Stones (University of Durham) for their invaluable collaboration; Damien Patrick Nelis (Université de Genève) for the information he kindly gave to me; Nicolò Benzi (University College London) for translating this article into English; and finally Ruth Moles for making available to me John Moles’ unpublished articles and for her exquisite kindness.
Cf. Desideri (1978). See also my review of Desideri’s monograph in «Elenchos» i (1980) pp. 390–396.
Cf. Jones (1978).
Cf. von Arnim (1898).
Cf. Moles (1983a) and Moles (1990).
Cf. Moles (1984) in which he demonstrates that the traditional dating of the speech to Trajan’s age is correct and that the thesis expounded in Desideri (1978) p. 279 also criticized in Jones (1978) p. 119 and by many others is wrong. It clashes on the one hand with the testimony of Orationxlv 2 (which clearly shows that Dio never met Nerva after the latter became emperor) and on the other hand with a series of indications in Orationiii which contain ideas incompatible with a performance of the text before Nerva but which on the contrary are very favourable to the thesis of its performance before Trajan.
Cf. Moles (1990) pp. 361–363.
Moles (1990) pp. 268–269.
Cf. Brancacci (1993).
Cf. Höistad (1948).
Cf. Moles (1990) p. 364.
Russell (1992). See also Moles’ review of the book in Moles (1993b).
Cf. Moles (2000).
Cf. Wilhelm (1918).
Moles (2005) p. 130.
Most recently Trapp (2000).
Most recently Brancacci (1993); Brancacci (2000a); Brancacci (2005).
On these works see Brancacci (1986) pp. 247–253 and 260–263.
Cf. Brancacci (2000b) and Brancacci (2002).
On this work see Husson (2011).
Cf. Schofield (1991) pp. 133–134.
Cf. Goulet-Cazé (1982).
We must first mention Moles (2006) and Moles (2011a). In addition see Moles (2011b); Moles (2014).