Talk:Simon the Shoemaker

mentioned by two early writers?

I notice in the Historicity: Support section of this refashioned page there is the following statement:

As Simon is referenced by Antisthenes and Aristippus in the Cynic epistles, and even partakes in the exchange, it would be unlikely that he would be a literary creation of two early writers, alongside the fabrication of Phaedo of Elis.

These Socratic (Cynic) letters, and specifically those involving Antisthenes, Aristippus and Simon are a fictional creation by a Roman-era writer. This is not a disputed point and R. F. Hock (1976) in the reference given states that the letters are "aprocryphal" (page 44).

Looking at what Hock says on page 42, however, he says:

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.

The point seems to be that Antisthenes may have mentioned Simon in his Heracles, and thus Phaedo and Antisthenes are the two early writers who mention him. It is though, "conjectural" as to whether Antisthenes actually mentions him.

Anyway, I'm just putting this information out here, if anyone wants to correct the page. My days of writing Wikipedia pages on ancient philosophy finished some time ago. :) Pasicles (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I didn't know that about the Cynic epistles. I've made corrections in way I feel is most appropiate. Tradereddy (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)