1 Giannantoni’s 1983 Socraticorum Reliquiae included numerous typographical errors, all repeated in 1990. In some cases, his constitutions of the texts failed to take account of the most recent scholarship available. The review of SSR by S. R. Slings (1996) attacks Giannantoni for depending on H. S. Long’s Diogenes Laertius and overlooking Patzer 1970 on t. 41A. The work’s great merit is the collection and intelligent organization of a very large portion of the surviving testimonia on the minor Socratics.
2 This was Humblé’s 1932 dissertation, only partially published in Humblé 1934.
3 As the best scholarly edition of Antisthenes, Decleva Caizzi’s edition was not surpassed by SSR, because her text is free from error. Moreover, Decleva Caizzi offers commentary on each passage individually, in contrast to the bibliographical essays on broader topics offered in SSR. But she minimizes Xenophon, as well as the late antique commentators on Aristotle and the Homeric scholia, and most of her commentary is very brief, rarely addressing the context in which a passage survives. SSR adds a bulk of textual material (some albeit speculative), which is the major reason that collection was the obvious basis for the next step I take here. Similarly, Suvák 2010 chose SSR as the basis for his translation, with brief commentary, of Antisthenes’ testimonia into Slovak.
4 On Diogenes Laertius, see Marcovich 1999: xiii–xix. The first editions (in Latin translation) appeared in 1472 (Rome) and 1475 (Venice), the Greek in 1533 (Basel) and 1570 (Geneva, bilingual). A published edition of the complete works of Xenophon appeared in 1516 (Venice).
5 More detail on this history can be found in Patzer 1970: 16–44.
6 Wieland’s Aristipp was published in four parts, now in volumes 36–39 of his Collected Works (edited by J. G. Gruber, published by G. J. Göschen in 1824–28, and still circulating in a reprint of this edition). Although Antisthenes is there presented as Socrates’ friend, he is variously called, for example, “runzlig” (shriveled) (p. 72 in Wieland 2011), “sauertöpfisch” (surly) (p. 118), “finster” (stern) (p. 139), and “wasserscheu” (afraid of bathing) (p. 360), and his manner is described as “einseitig” (one-sided) (p. 363). Bruns 1896 brought this portrait of Antisthenes into academic scholarship.
7 The “mask” proposal is introduced explicitly for Aristippus (see p. 201 in Dobson’s 1836 English translation of Schleiermacher’s introductions to Plato) but is implied in the comments about Antisthenenes. In Dobson’s translation, claims about Antisthenes in the respective dialogues appear on p. 202 (Theaetetus), 210 (Meno), 224–25 (Euthydemus), 239–46 (Cratylus), and 250 (the Sophist). See also Patzer 1970:18 n.8, reporting an additional reference in the introduction to Philebus; but this reference appears neither in the 1861 German printing of Schleiermacher’s translations of Plato available to me nor in Dobson’s translation. Schleiermacher also wrote a four-page synthetic account of Antisthenes’ views under the headings “Ethics,” “Physics,” and “Dialectic” in his posthumously published “History of Philosophy” (in Gesammelte Werke, ed. H. Ritter [Berlin, 1839], part 3, vol. 4:90–93).
8 The five editions were published, respectively, in 1844–52, 1865, 1869, 1888, and 1903. Parts of the work were translated into English and other languages, under different titles, beginning in 1868 (Socrates and the Socratic Schools, trans. O. J. Reichel). Reprints are sometimes identified as further editions, but Zeller died in 1908. The fourth edition of 1888 is widely used, from reprints of the 1920s.
9 Dozens of scholars, many still well known (including Diels, Gercke, Gomperz, Heinze, Hense, Hirzel, Kaibel, Robert, Usener, Wackernagel, Wissowa, and Zeller), signed on as subscribers and financial sponsors of the posthumous publication of Dümmler’s collected works in 1901. See also C. W. Müller, Wilamowitz und Ferdinand Dümmler: Ein schlimme Gechichte (Stuttgart: Steiner, 2005). In RE s.v. “Antisthenes” 2543, Natorp lists the passages in Plato that, by time of publication in 1894, had been seriously proposed as references to Antisthenes. In recent scholarship, this list (along with several older parallels) is cited as evidence for nineteenth-century recklessness. But Natorp’s own work appears in the list, and it is not obvious that the list is foolish. Rather, it seems less sound to focus the debate on too few passages, since Plato is a parodist and since a broader view is likely to lead to better conclusions.
10 A related but different synthetic overview of the following issues is in Prince 2006.