<GetPassage xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns="http://chs.harvard.edu/xmlns/cts">
            <request>
                <requestName>GetPassage</requestName>
                <requestUrn>urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1:A.anniceris_1</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1:A.anniceris_1</urn>
                <passage>
                    <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"><text xml:base="urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1"><body xml:lang="eng" n="urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1"><div type="textpart" subtype="alphabetic_letter" n="A"><div type="textpart" subtype="entry" xml:id="anniceris-bio-1" n="anniceris_1"><head><persName xml:lang="la"><surname full="yes">Anni'ceris</surname></persName></head><p>(<persName xml:lang="grc"><surname full="yes">Ἀννίκερις</surname></persName>), a Cyrenaic
      philosopher [<ref target="aristippus-bio-4">ARISTIPPUS</ref>], of whom the ancients have left
      us very vague and contradictory accounts. He is said to have ransomed Plato for 20 minae from
      Dionysius of Syracuse (<bibl n="D. L. 2.86">D. L. 2.86</bibl>); but we read, on the other
      hand, that he was a disciple of Paraebates, whose succession from Aristippus in the order of
      discipleship was as follows:--Aristippus, Arete, Aristippus the younger, Antipater,
      Epitimedes, Paraebates. Plato, however, was contemporary with the first Aristippus, and
      therefore one of the above accounts of Anniceris must be false. Hence Menage on Laertius (<hi rend="ital">l.c.</hi>) and Kuster on Suidas (<hi rend="ital">s. v.</hi>) have supposed that
      there were two philosophers of the name of Anniceris, the one contemporary with Plato, the
      other with Alexander the Great. If so, the latter is the one of whose system some notices have
      reached us, and who forms a link between the Cyrenaic and Epicurean schools. He was opposed to
      Epicurus in two points: (1) he denied that pleasure was merely the absence of pain, for if so
      death would be a pleasure; and (2) he attributed to every separate act a distinct object,
      maintaining that there was no general end of human life. In both these statements he
      reasserted the principle of Aristippus. But he differed from Aristippus, inasmuch as he
      allowed that friendship, patriotism, and similar virtues, were good in themselves; saying that
      the wise man will derive pleasure from such qualities, even though they cause him occasional
      trouble, and that a friend should be chosen not only for our own need, but for kindness and
      natural affection. Again he denied that reason (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ὁ λόγος</foreign>)
      alone can secure us from error, maintaining that <hi rend="ital">habit</hi> (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀνεθίζεσθαι</foreign>) was also necessary. (Suidas and Diog. Laert. <hi rend="ital">l.c.;</hi>
      <bibl n="Clem. Al. Strom. ii. p. 417">Clem. Al. Strom. ii. p. 417</bibl>; Brucker, <hi rend="ital">Hist. Crit. Phil.</hi> 2.3; Ritter, <hi rend="ital">Geschichte der Phil.</hi>
      7.3.) Aelian (<bibl n="Ael. VH 2.27">Ael. VH 2.27</bibl>) <pb n="181"/> says, that Anniceris
      (probably the elder of the two) was distinguished for his skill as a charioteer.</p><byline>[<ref target="author.G.E.L.C">G.E.L.C</ref>]</byline></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>