Xenophon
- a celebrated Greek historian and philosopher, born B. C. 445, a pupil of Socrates and a leader of the Greeks in the army of Cyrus the younger, Cic. Div. 1, 25, 52; id. Tusc. 5, 34, 99; id. Sen. 9, 30; id. Leg. 2, 22, 56; Varr. R. R. 1, 1, 8.
- —Hence, Xĕnŏphontēus or -īus, a, um, adj., = Ξενοφώντειος, of or belonging to Xenophon, Xenophontian: genus sermonis, Cic. Brut. 35, 132: Hercules, i.e. mentioned in his writings, id. Fam. 5, 12, 3.
(Ξενοφῶν), historical.
1. A Corinthian, the son of Thessalus. He was victor at the Olympic games, both in the foot-race and in the pentathlum, in the 79th Olympiad. His family belonged to the stock of the Oligaethidae, and was one of the ruling families of Corinth. Pindar's 13th Olympic Ode celebrates his double victory. (Böckh and Dissen on Pindar, l.c. ; Diod. 11.70 ; Paus. 4.24.5, ed. Bekker; Athen. 13.573.)
2. An Athenian, son of Euripides, was one of the generals to whom Potidaea surrendered (Thuc. 2.70). Later in the same year (B. C. 429) Xenophon and two other generals led an expedition against the Chalcideans and Bottiaeans, but were compelled to retreat into Potidaea. (Thuc. 2.79.)
3. A native of Aegium, the son of Menephylus, a victor in the pancratium at the Olympic games, mentioned by Pausanias (4.3.13).
4. A conjuror, who attracted great admiration by his wonderful feats of legerdemain, such as making fire burst forth spontaneously. Cratisthenes of Phlius was his disciple. (Athen. 1.19e. ; D. L. 2.59.)
5. An Achaean, a native of Aegium. He was present, on the side of the Roman general Quinctius, at the conference with king Philip. held at Nicaea, B. C. 198. (Liv. 32.32; Plb. 17.1.) He was one of the ambassadors sent to Rome after the conference. (Plb. 17.10.) He had a son named Alcithus. (Plb. 28.16.) [C.P.M]
(Ξενοφῶν), the Athenian, was the son of Gryllus, and a native of the demus Ercheia. The time of his birth is not known, but it is approximated to by the fact mentioned in the Life of Xenophon by Diogenes Laertius, and in Strabo (p. 403, ed. Cas.) that Xenophon fell from his horse in the flight after the battle of Delium, and was taken up by Socrates, the philosopher, on his shoulders and carried a distance of several stadia. The battle of Delium was fought B. C. 424 between the Athenians and Boeotians (Thuc. 4.96), and Xenophon therefore could not well have been born after B. C. 444. The time of his death also is not mentioned by any ancient writer. Lucian says (Macrob. 21) that he attained to above the age of ninety, and Xenophon himself in his Hellenica (6.4.35) mentions the assassination of Alexander of Pherae which happened in B. C. 357, according to Diodorus (16.14). Between B. C. 424 and B. C. 357, there is a period of sixty-seven years, and thus we have evidence of Xenophon being alive nearly seventy years after Socrates saved his life at Delium. There has been much discussion on the age of Xenophon at the time when he joined the expedition of the younger Cyrus, B. C. 401. Those who would make him a young man between twenty and thirty must reject the evidence as to the battle of Delium. Plutarch has a story that Socrates saved the life of Alcibiades at Potidaea, and that Alcibiades protected Socrates in the retreat after the defeat at Delium (Alcib. 7). The passage in the Anabasis (2.1.12) in which Xenophon is called νεανίσκος is not decisive, for in this passage of the Anabasis the best MSS. read " Theopompus" instead of " Xenophon ;" and, besides this, the term νεανίσκος is not used in such a way as to limit it to a young man. Xenophon seemed to Seuthes (Anab. 7.2.8) old enough to have a marriageable daughter. This question is discussed at some length by C. W. Krüger (De Xenophontis Vita Quaestiones, Halle, 1822). The most probable conclusion seems to be that Xenophon was not under forty at the time when he joined the army of Cyrus. The mode in which Xenophon introduces himself in the Anabasis (3.1) would almost lead to the conclusion that his name ought not to occur in the first two books. (Comp. Clinton, Fast. Hell. B. C. 401.)
Xenophon is said to have been a pupil of Socrates at an early age, which is consistent with the intimacy which might have arisen from Socrates saving his life. Philostratus states that he also received instruction from Prodicus of Ceos, during the time that he was a prisoner in Boeotia, but nothing is known of this captivity of Xenophon from any other authority. Photius (Biblioth. cclx.) says that Xenophon was also a pupil of Isocrates, which may be true, though Isocrates was younger than Xenophon, being born in B. C. 436. A story reported by Athenaeus (x. p. 427) of something that Xenophon said at the table of Dionysius the tyrant, may probably refer to the elder Dionysius who lived till B. C. 367; and if the statement is true, Xenophon must have visited Syracuse. Letronne (Biog. Univ. art. Xenophon), endeavours to show that Xenophon wrote the Symposium and the Hiero before B. C. 401; but his conclusion can hardly be said to be even a strong probability. Xenophon was the editor of the History of Thucydides, but no time can be fixed for this; nor can we assent to Letronne's conclusion that he published the work before B. C. 401. Xenophon may have been at Athens in B. C. 402, and Thucydides may have been dead then ; but these two facts prove nothing as to the time when the work of Thucydides was published. [Thucydides.]
Xenophon in the Anabasis (3.1) mentions the circumstances under which he joined the army of Cyrus the younger, who was preparing his expedition against his brother, Artaxerxes Mnemon, the king of Persia. Proxenus, a friend of Xenophon, was already with Cyrus, and he invited Xenophon to come to Sardis, and promised to introduce him to the Persian prince. Xenophon consulted his master Socrates, who advised him to consult the oracle of Delphi, for it was rather a hazardous matter for hint to enter the service of Cyrus, who was considered to be the friend of the Lacedaemonians and the enemy of Athens. Xenophon went to Delphi, but he did not ask the god whether he should go or not : he probably had made up his mind. He merely asked to what gods he should sacrifice in order that he might be successful in his intended enterprise. Socrates was not satisfied with his pupil's mode of consulting the oracle, but as he had got an answer, he told him to go; and Xenophon went to Sardis, which Cyrus was just about to leave. The real object of the expedition was disguised from the Greeks in the army of Cyrus, or at least they affected not to know what it was. But Clearchus knew; and the rest might suspect. Cyrus gave out that he was going to attack the Pisidians, but the direction of his march must have very soon shown that he was going elsewhere. He led his forces through Asia Minor, and over the mountains of Taurus to Tarsus in Cilicia. From thence he passed into Syria, crossed the Euphrates, and met the huge army of the Persians in the plain of Cunaxa, about forty miles from Babylon. In the affray that ensued, for it was not a battle, Cyrus lost his life, his barbarian troops were dispersed, and the Greeks were left alone on the wide plains between the Tigris and the Euphrates. It was after the treacherous massacre of Clearchus and other of the Greek commanders by the Persian satrap Tissaphernes, that Xenophon came forward. He had held no command in the army of Cyrus, nor had he in fact served as a soldier. In the commencement of the third book of the Anabasis he states how he was called to take a part in conducting the hazardous retreat. Instead of attempting to return by the road by which they advanced, where they would have found no supplies, at least till they reached the Mediterranean, the Greek leaders conducted their men along the Tigris and over the high table lands of Armenia to Trapezus, now Trebizond, a Greek. colony on the south-east coast of the Black Sea. From Trapezus the troops were conducted to Chrysopolis, which is opposite to Byzantium. The Greeks were in great distress, and some of them under Xenophon entered the service of Senthes, king of Thrace, who wanted their aid, and promised to pay for it. The Greeks performed what they agreed to do, but Seuthes was unwilling to pay, and it was with great difficulty that Xenophon got from him part of what he had promised. The description which Xenophon gives (Anab. 6.3,&c) of the manners of the Thracians is very curious and amusing. As the Lacedaemonians under Thimbron were now at war with Tissaphernes and Pharnal azus, Xenophon and his troops were invited to join the army of Thimbron, and Xenophon led them back out of Asia to join Thimbron B. C. 399. Xenophon, who was very poor, made an expedition into the plain of the Caicus with his troops before they joined Thimbron, to plunder the house and property of a Persian named Asidates. The Persian, with his women, children, and all his moveables was seized; and Xenophon, by this robbery, replenished his empty pockets (Anab. 7.8.23). He tells the story himself as if he were not ashamed of it.
Socrates was put to death in B. C. 399, and it seems probable that Xenophon was banished either shortly before or shortly after that event. His death during Xenophon's absence in Asia appears to be collected from the Memorabilia (4.8.4). Xenophon was not banished at the time when he was leading the troops back to Thimbron (Anab. 7.7.57), but his expression rather seems to imply that his banishment must have followed soon after. It is not certain what he was doing after the troops joined Thimbron. The assumption of Letronne. that he went to Athens is unsupported by evidence. As we know nothing of his movements, the conclusion ought to be that he stayed in Asia, and probably with Thimbron and his successor Dercyllidas.
Agesilaus, the Spartan king, was commanding the Lacedaemonian forces in Asia against the Persians in B. C. 396, and Xenophon was with him at least during part of the campaign. When Agesilaus was recalled B. C. 394, Xenophon accompanied him (Anab. 5.3.6), and he was on the side of the Lacedaemonians in the battle which they fought at Coroneia B. C. 394 against the Athenians (Plutarch, Agesil. 18). It seems that he went to Sparta with Agesilaus after the battle of Coroneia, and soon after he settled at Scillus in Eleia, not far from Olympia, a spot of which he has given a description in the Anabasis (5.3.7, &c). Here he was joined by his wife Philesia and his children. It has been said that Philesia was his second wife; but when he married her, or where, is unknown. His children were educated in Sparta, or at least Agesilaus advised him to educate them there. (Plut. Agesil. 20.) Xenophon was now an exile, and a Lacedaemonian so far as he could become one.
His time during his long residence at Scillus was employed in hunting, writing, and entertaining his friends; and probably his historical writings, the Anabasis and the Hellenica, or part of the Hellenica, were composed here, as Diogenes Laertius says. The treatise on hunting and that on the horse were probably written during this time, when amusement and exercise of that kind formed part of his occupation. Xenophon was at last expelled from his quiet retreat at Scillus by the Eleans, but the year is uncertain. It is a conjecture of Krüger's that the Eleans did not take Scillus before B. C. 371, the year in which the Lacedaemonians were defeated by the Thebans at the battle of Leuctra. Diogenes says that the Lacedaemonians did not come to the aid of Xenophon when he was attacked by the Eleans, a circumstance that may lead to the probable inference that they were too busily employed in other ways either to prevent his expulsion or to reinstate him; and this is a reason why Letronne supposes that the Eleans probably attacked Scillus in B. C. 368 during the invasion of Laconica by Epaminondas. Xenophon's residence at Scillus in either case was above twenty years. The sentence of banishment from Athens was repealed on the motion of Eubulus, but it is uncertain in what year. In the battle of Mantineia which was fought B. C. 362, the Spartans and the Athenians were opposed to the Thebans, and Xenophon's two sons, Gryllus and Diodorus, fought on the side of the allies. He sent them, says Diogenes, to Athens to fight on behalf of the Spartans. Gryllus fell in the same battle in which Epaminondas lost his life. From the circumstance of Xenophon's two sons being in the battle. Letronne assumes that the decree for Xenophon's banishment must have been repealed before B. C. 362, a conclusion which is far from being necessary. Krüger concludes for other reasons that it was repealed before Ol. 103, that is, before the battle of Mantineia. There is no evidence that Xenophon ever returned to Athens. He is said to have retired to Corinth after his expulsion from Scillus, and as we know nothing more, we assume that he died there. (Ding. Laert.)
The Hipparchicus was written after the repeal of the decree of banishment, and the treatise on the revenues of Athens. The events alluded to in the Epilogus to the Cyropaedia (8.8.4) show that the Epilogus at least was written after Ol. 104. 3. (Diod. 15.92.) Diogenes quotes Stesicleides as authority for Xenophon having died in the first year of the 105th Olympiad, or in B. C. 359. The time of his death may have been a few years later. Compare Clinton, Fasti Hell B. C. 359; Krüger, de Xenophontis, &c. p. 28. Works
The titles of the works of Xenophon which Diogenes enumerates are the same as those which are now extant. He says that Xenophon wrote about forty books (βιβλία), and that they were variously divided, which expression and the list of works which he gives, show that by the word books he meant the several divisions or books of the larger works, and the smaller works which consist of a single book. The number of books of Xenophon thus estimated is thirty-seven, which is tolerably near the number mentioned by Diogenes, and shows that a division of Xenophon's works into books existed at that time. Anabasis
Of the historical writings of Xenophon, the Anabasis, or the History of the Expedition of the Younger Cyrus, and of the retreat of the Greeks, who formed part of his army, has immortalised his name. It is a clear and pleasing narrative, written in a simple style, free from affectation; and it gives a great deal of curious information on the country which was traversed by the retreating Greeks, and on the manners of the people. It was the first work which made the Greeks acquainted with some portions of the Persian empire, and it showed the weakness of that extensive monarchy. The skirmishes of the retreating Greeks with their enemies and the battles with some of the barbarian tribes are not such events as elevate the work to the character of a military history, nor can it as such be compared with Caesar's Commentaries. Indeed those passages in the Anabasis which relate directly to the military movements of the retreating army are not always clear, nor have we any evidence that Xenophon did possess any military talent for great operations, whatever skill he may have had as a commander of a division. The editions of the Anabasis are numerous : one of the most useful editions for the mere explanation of the Greek text is by Krüger. The work of Major Rennell " Illustrations chiefly geographical of the History of the Expedition of Cyrus, &c London, 1807, 4to." is a useful commentary on the Anabasis, to which may be added various remarks in the London Geographical Journal. (See the Index to the first ten volumes.) The translation by Spelman is perhaps the best English version.
In a passage in the Hellenica (3.1.1), the author says, "Now how Cyrus got his army together and marched up the country with it against his brother, and how the battle was fought, and how he died, and how after this the Greeks made their retreat to the sea, has been written by Themistogenes of Syracuse." This passage seems sufficiently to indicate the Anabasis, though the extract says nothing of the course which the Greeks took from Trapezus to Byzantium. Plutarch (De Gloria Athen. vol. ii. ed. Wyttenbach) says, that Xenophon attributed the Anabasis to Themistogenes in order that the work might have more credit, than if it appeared as the narrative of one who had to say so much about himself. We might suppose that there was a work on the expedition of Cyrus by Themistogenes, and that Xenophon wrote his Anabasis after he had written this passage in the Hellenica. But this is merely a conjecture, and not a satisfactory one. When we read the Anabasis we never doubt that Xenophon was the author of it, for he speaks of himself in many places in a way in which no other person could speak : he records, for instance, dreams and thoughts, which no one could know except from his evidence. The Anabasis, then, as we have it, was either written by Xenophon, or compiled from his notes; and the reference to the work of Themistogenes either proves that there was such a work, or that Xenophon's work passed under the name of Themistogenes, at the time when the passage in the Hellenica was written, if Xenophon wrote the passage in the Hellenica. Bornemann's proposal to translate the words in the Hellenica, Θεμιστογένει τῷ Συρακουσίῳ γέγραπται, " das habe ich für den Themistogenes geschrieben" is altogether inadmissible. Hellenica (Ἑλληνικά)
The Hellenica (Ἑλληνικά) of Xenophon are divided into seven books, and comprehend the space of forty-eight years, from the time when the history of Thucydides ends [Thucydides] to the battle of Mantineia, B. C. 362. But the fact of the assassination of Alexander of Pherae is mentioned (6.4. 35), as to which the reference already made to Clinton's Fasti may be consulted. It is the opinion of Niebuhr and others that the Hellenica consists of two distinct parts or works written at different times. The History of Thucydides would be completed by the capture of Athens, B. C. 404, which is described in the second book (Hellen. 2.2); the remainder of this book carries the history to the restoration of Thrasybulus and the exiles, B. C. 403. The second paragraph of the third book in which Themistogenes is mentioned, may be considered as completing the history up to B. C. 399; and a new narrative appears to begin with the third paragraph of the third book (Ἐπεὶ μέντοι Τισσαφέρνης, &c). But there seems no sufficient reason to consider the Hellenica as two works, because an expression at the end of the second book refers to the Athenian amnesty (ἔτι καὶ νῦν ὀμοῦ, &c) of B. C. 403, and because the death of Alexander of Pherae is recorded in the sixth. This would only prove that Xenophon had the work a long time under his hands. The division into books proves nothing, for that was posterior to Xenophon's time. (The Hellenica of Xenophon, and their division into books, by G. C. Lewis, Classical Museum, No. iv. )
The Hellenica is generally a dry narrative of events, and there is nothing in the treatment of them which gives a special interest to the work. Some events of importance are briefly treated, but a few striking incidents are presented with some particularity. There is an English translation of the Hellenica by W. Smith, the translator of Thucydides. Cyropaedia (Κυροπαιδεία)
The Cyropaedia (Κυροπαιδεία) in eight books, is a kind of political romance, the basis of which is the history of Cyrus, the founder of the Persian monarchy. It shows how citizens are to be made virtuous and brave; and Cyrus is the model of a wise and good ruler. As a history it has no authority at all. Xenophon adopted the current stories as to Cyrus and the chief events of his reign, without any intention of subjecting them to a critical examination; nor have we any reason to suppose that his picture of Persian morals and Persian discipline is any thing more than a fiction, for we know that many of the usages of the Persians in the time of the first Dareius and his successors were different from the usages which Xenophon attributes to the Persians; and Xenophon himself affirms this. Besides this, Xenophon could know no more of the Persians in the time of the first Cyrus than other Greeks; and, setting aside the improbability of his picture, we are certain that he could not know many things which he has introduced into his romance. His object was to represent what a state might be, and he placed the scene of his fiction far enough off to give it the colour of possibility. His own philosophical notions and the usages of Sparta were the real materials out of which he constructed his political system. The Cyropaedia is evidence enough that Xenophon did not like the political constitution of his own country, and that a well-ordered monarchy or kingdom appeared to him preferable to a democracy like Athens. The genuineness of the Epilogus or conclusion, in which Xenophon shows how the Persians had degenerated since the time of Cyrus, is doubted by some critics; but there seem to be no sufficient reasons. The author here says that the " Persians of his time, and the rest who were among them, were proved to be both less reverential towards the gods and less just to their kin, and more dishonest towards others, and less courageous in war now than they were before; and if any man has a contrary opinion, he will find, if he looks to their acts, that they testify to the truth of what I say." The Cyropaedia is one of the most pleasing of Xenophon's works, and it contains many good hints on the training of youth. Xenophon's remarks are practical; we do not find in his writings any thoughts that strike us as very profound or new, but we always discover careful observation of human life, good sense, and honest purpose. The dying speech of Cyrus (8.7) is worthy of the pupil of Socrates, and Cicero (de Senectute, 22) has transferred the substance of it to enforce his argument for the immortality of the soul. This passage may be assumed as evidence of Xenophon's belief in the existence of the soul (Ψυχή) independent of the organised being in which it acts. " I never could be persuaded," says Cyrus, " that the soul lives so long as it is in a perishable body, and that it dies when it is released from it." The argument of Xenophon bears some resemblance to the argument of Bishop Butler, in his Analogy, where he treats of a future life (chap. i.). There is an English translation of the Cyropaedia, by Maurice Ashley Cowper. Agesilaus (Ἀγησίλαος)
The Agesilaus (Ἀγησίλαος) is a panegyric on Agesilaus II., king of Sparta, the friend of Xenophon. That Xenophon wrote such a work is proved by the list of Diogenes, and the testimony of Cicero (Cic. Fam. 5.12), who considers it a monument more glorious than all the statues of kings. Some modern critics do not consider the extant work as deserving of high praise, to which it may be replied, that it will be difficult to find a panegyric which is. It is a kind of composition in which failure can hardly be avoided. However true it may be, it is apt to be insipid and to appear exaggerated. Hipparchicus (Ἱππαρχικός)
The Hipparchicus (Ἱππαρχικός) is a treatise on the duties of a commander of cavalry, and it contains many military precepts. One would be inclined to suppose that it was written at Athens, but this conclusion, like many others from internal evidence, is not satisfactory. A strain of devotion runs through the treatise; and on this the author makes the following remark near the end : " Now if any one admire that I have often used the expression ` God willing,' he must know that if he happen to be frequently in a state of danger, he will admire the less; and if he consider, that when there is war, the hostile parties form their designs against one another, but very seldom know what designs are formed against them severally. But all these things the gods know, and presignify them to whom they please by means of sacrifices, birds, voices, and dreams." On the Horse (Ἱππική)
The treatise on the Horse (Ἱππική) was written after the Hipparchicus, to which treatise he refers at the end of the treatise on the Horse. " Since," says Xenophon, at the beginning of this treatise, " it happens that I have been accustomed to riding a horse for a long time, I consider that I am well acquainted with horses, and I wish to show my younger friends in what way I think that they may best meddle in the matter of a horse." The treatise is not limited to horsemanship, as regards the rider : it shows how a man is to avoid being cheated in buying a horse, how a horse is to be trained, and the like. In the beginning of the treatise Xenophon refers to a treatise on the same subject by Simon. The Ἱππική was translated into English, and printed by Henry Denham, London, 1584, 4to. Cynegeticus (Κυνηγετικός)
The Cynegeticus (Κυνηγετικός) is a treatise on hunting, an amusement of which Xenophon was very fond; and on the dog, and the breeding and training of dogs, on the various kinds of game, and the mode of taking them. It is a treatise written by a genuine sportsman, who loved the exercise and the excitement of the chase; and it may be read with delight by any sportsman who deserves the name. Constitution of the Spartans (Λακεδαιμονίων Πολιτεία), and the Constitution of the Athenians (Ἀθηναίων Πολιτεία)
The two treatises on the Spartan and Athenian states (Λακεδαιμονίων Πολιτεία, and Ἀθηναίων Πολιτεία) were not always recognised as genuine works of Xenophon, even by the ancients. They pass, however, under his name, and there is nothing in the internal evidence that appears to throw any doubt on the authorship. The writer clearly prefers Spartan to Athenian institutions. The " Republic of Athens" was translated into English by James Morris, 1794, 8vo. Revenues of Athens (Πόροι ἢ περὶ Προσόδων)
A treatise on the Revenues of Athens (Πόροι ἢ περὶ Προσόδων) is designed to show how the public revenue of Athens may be improved : it treats of the mode of increasing the number of resident strangers (μέτοικοι), by improving their condition at Athens, which improvement would ultimately be beneficial to the revenue, and attract strangers; and it recommends such facilities to be given to strangers trading to Athens, as would induce them to come to a port where they were not compelled, as in many ports, to take merchandise, for want of a good current coin, but where they could take silver as a commodity in exchange, if they preferred it : he then proceeds to discuss the mode of improving the revenue by a better management of the Athenian silver mines, and to show that provision may thus be made for the poorer citizens and other purposes, without levying contributions on the allies and the subject states. This treatise was translated into English by Walter Moyle, 1697, 8vo., and is reprinted in his works. Böckh, in his Public Economy of Athens, translated into English by G. C. Lewis, has discussed this treatise of Xenophon, and the matter of it. the Memorabilia of Socrates (Ἀπομνημονεύματα Σωκράτους)
In the Memorabilia of Socrates, in four books (Ἀπομνημονεύματα Σωκράτους) Xenophon defends the memory of his master against the charge of irreligion (1.1 ) and of corrupting the Athenian youth. Socrates is represented as holding a series of conversations, in which he developes and inculcates moral doctrines in his peculiar fashion. It is entirely a practical work, such as we might expect from the practical nature of Xenophon's mind, and it professes to exhibit Socrates as he taught. It is true that it may exhibit only one side of the Socratic argumentation, and that it does not deal in those subtleties and verbal disputes which occupy so large a space in some of Plato's dialogues. Xenophon was a hearer of Socrates, an admirer of his master, and anxious to defend his memory. The charges against Socrates for which he suffered were (Mem. 1.1), that "Socrates was guilty of not believing in the gods which the state believed in, and in introducing other new daemons (δαιμόνια) : he was also guilty of corrupting the youth." Xenophon (100.1, 2) replies to these two charges specifically; and he then goes on to show (100.3) what Socrates' mode of life was. The whole treatise is intended to be an answer to the charge for which Socrates was executed, and it is, therefore, in its nature, not intended to be a complete exhibition of Socrates. That it is a genuine picture of the man, is indisputable, and it is the most valuable memorial that we have of the practical philosophy of Socrates. The Memorabilia will always be undervalued by the lovers of the transcendental, who give to an unintelligible jargon of words the name of philosophy : it comes too near the common understanding (communis senses) of mankind to be valued by those who would raise themselves above this common understanding, and who have yet to learn that there is not a single notion of philosophy which is not expressed or involved by implication in the common language of life. The Memorabilia and the Apology of Socrates (Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους πρὸς τοὺς δικαστάς) have been translated into English by Sarah Fielding. The Apology of Socrates contains the reasons which induced Socrates to prefer death to life. It is not a first-rate performance; and because they do not consider it worthy of Xenophon, some critics would deny that he is the author; but this is an inconclusive reason. Laertius states that Xenophon wrote an Apologia, and the original is as likely to have come down to us as a forgery. The Symposium (Συμπόσιον)
In the Symposium (Συμπόσιον), or Banquet of Philosophers, Xenophon delineates the character of Socrates. The speakers are supposed to meet at the house of Callias, a rich Athenian, at the celebration of the great Panathenaea. Socrates, Cratibulus, Antisthenes, Charmides, and others are the speakers. The accessories of the entertainment are managed with skill, and the piece is interesting as a picture of an Athenian drinking party, and of the amusement and conversation with which it was diversified. The nature of love and friendship is discussed. Some critics think that the Symposium is a juvenile performance, and that the Symposium of Plato was written after that of Xenophon ; but it is an old tradition that the Symposium of Plato was written before that of Xenophon. The Symposium was translated into English by James Wellwood, 1710, reprinted 1750. Hiero (Ἱέρων ἢ Τυραννικός)
The Hiero (Ἱέρων ἢ Τυραννικός) is a dialogue between king Hiero and Simonides, in which the king speaks of the dangers and difficulties incident to an exalted station, and the superior happiness of a private man. The poet, on the other hand, enumerates the advantages which the possession of power gives, and the means which it offers of obliging and doing services. Hiero speaks of the burden of power, and answers Simonides, who wonders why a man should keep that which is so troublesome, by saying that power is a thing which a man cannot safely lay down. Simonides offers some suggestions as to the best use of power, and the way of employing it for the public interest. It is suggested by Letronne that Xenophon may have been led to write this treatise by what he saw at the court of Dionysius; and, as already stated, there is a story of his having visited Sicily in the lifetime of the tyrant of Syracuse. A translation of this piece, which is attributed to Elizabeth, queen of England, first appeared in an octavo volume, published in 1743, entitled " Miscellaneous Correspondence." It was also translated, in 1793, 8vo., by the Rev. James Graves, the translator of the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. The Oeconomicus (Οἰκονομικός)
The Oeconomicus (Οἰκονομικός) is a dialogue between Socrates and Critobulus, in which Socrates begins by showing that there is an art called Oeconomic, which relates to the administration of a household and of a man's property. Socrates (100.4), when speaking in praise of agriculture, quotes the instance of the younger Cyrus, who was found of horticulture, and once showed to the Spartan Lysander the gardens which he had planned and the trees which he had planted with his own hands. Cicero copies this passage, in his treatise on Old Age (de Senectute, 100.17). Xenophon gives the same character of Cyrus, in this passage of the Oeconomicus, which he gives in the Anabasis (1.8, 9), which tends to confirm his being the author of the Anabasis, if it needs confirmation. In answer to the praises of agriculture, Critobulus speaks of the losses to which the husbandman is exposed from hail, frost, drought, and other causes. The answer of Socrates is that the husbandman must trust in heaven, and worship the gods. The seventh chapter is on the duty of a good wife, as exemplified in the case of the wife of Ischomachus. The wife's duty is to look after the interior of the household : the husband labours out of doors and produces that which the wife must use with frugality. The wife's duty is to stay at home, and not to gad abroad. It is an excellent chapter, abundant in good things, worthy of a woman's careful perusal, and adapted to practice. A wife who is perpetually leaving her home, is not the wife that Xenophon would have. It is a notion which one sees in some modern writers, that the attachment of husband and wife, independent of the sexual passion, and their permanent love after both have grown old, is a characteristic of modern society, and that the men of Greece and Rome were not susceptible of that affection which survives the decay of a woman's youth and beauty. The notion is too absurd to need confutation. The duties of a wife, says Ischomachus, give her great opportunities, by exercising which she will not have to fear " that as she grows older she will receive less respect in the house hold, but may be assured that as she advances in life, the better companion she becomes to her husband and the better guardian of her children, the more respect she will receive." This is one of best treatises of Xenophon. It has been several times translated into English. The last translation appears to be by R. Bradley, London, 1727, 8vo. Assessment
A man's character cannot be entirely derived front his writings, especially if they treat of exact science. Yet a man's writings are some index of his character, and when they are of a popular and varied kind, not a bad index. Xenophon, as we know him from his writings, was a humane man, at least for his age, a man of good understanding and strong religious feelings : we might call him superstitious, if the name superstition had a well-defined meaning. Some modern critics, who can judge of matters of antiquity with as much positiveness as if all the evidence that exists were undoubted evidence, and as if they had all the evidence that is required, find much to object to in Xenophon's conduct as a citizen. He did not like Athenian institutions altogether; but a man is under no moral or political obligation to like the government under which he is born. His duty is to conform to it, or to withdraw himself. There is no evidence that Xenophon, after his banishment, acted against his native country, even at the battle of Coroneia. If we admit that his banishment was merited, and that is more than can be proved, there is no evidence that he did any thing after his banishment for which an exile can be blamed. If his preference of Spartan to Athenian institutions is matter for blame, he is blameable indeed. If we may form a conjecture of the man, he would have made an excellent citizen and a good administrator under a constitutional monarchy; but he was not fitted for the turbulence of an Athenian democracy, which, during a great part of his lifetime, was not more to the taste of a quiet man than France under the Convention. All antiquity and all modern writers agree in allowing Xenophon great merit as a writer of a plain, simple, perspicuous, and un-affected style. His mind was not adapted for pure philosophical speculation : he looked to the practical in all things; and the basis of his philosophy was a strong belief in a divine mediation in the government of the world. His belief only requires a little correction and modification, to allow us to describe it as a profound conviction that God, in the constitution of things, has given a moral government to the world, as manifestly as he has given laws for the mechanical and chemical actions of matter, the organisation of plants and animals, and the vital energies of all beings which live and move. Editions
There are numerous editions of the whole and of the separate works of Xenophon. The Hellenica, the first of Xenophon's works that appeared in type, was printed at Venice, 1503, fol. by the elder Aldus, with the title of Paralipomena, and as a supplement to Thucydides, which was printed the year before. The first general edition is that of E. Boninus, printed by P. Giunta, and dedicated to Leo X., Florence, 1516, fol.; but this edition does not contain the Agesilaus, the Apology, and the treatise on the Revenue of Athens. A part of the treatise on the Athenian Commonwealth is also wanting. This edition of Giunta is a very good specimen of early printing, and useful to an editor of Xenophon. The edition by Andrea of Asola, printed by Aldus at Venice, 1525, folio, contains all the works of Xenophon, except the Apology ; though the Apology was already edited by J. Reuchlin, Hagenau, 1520, 4to., with the Agesilaus and Hiero. The Basel edition, printed by N. Brylinger, 1545, fol. is the first edition of the Greek text with a Latin translation. The edition of H. Stephens, 1561, fol., contains an amended text, and the edition of 1581 has a Latin version. The edition of Weiske, Leipzig, 1798-1804, 6 vols. 8vo., did something towards the improvement of the text. The most pretending edition is that of Gail, Paris, 6 vols. 4to. 1797-1804; a seventh volume, in three parts, published afterwards, contains the various readings of three MSS., notices on the MSS. and observations, literary and critical, and an Atlas of maps and plans. This edition contains the Greek text, the Latin version, a French version and notes; the Latin version is that of Leunclavius, occasionally corrected; and the French is not entirely new, for the author took the French versions already existing of various parts of Xenophon's works. Letronne, in his article on Xenophon (Biog. Univ.), has given an account of this pompous edition, which has very little merit. J. G. Schneider revised the edition of Zeune, and the various parts of the works of Xenophon appeared between 1791 and 1815. The editions of the several works are too numerous to be mentioned.
Fabricius (Bibliotheca Graeca), Schöll (Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur), Letronne (Biog. Univ. art. Xenophon), and Hoffmann (Lexicon Bibliographicum) will furnish full information about the numerous editions and translations. As to the seven Epistles attributed to Xenophon, among the one and forty so-called Socratic Epistles, the same remark applies to them as to most of the Greek literary remains of that class; they are mere rhetorical essays. [G.L]
(Ξενοφῶν), minor literary persons.
1. An Athenian, the brother of the poet Pythostratus. He wrote a biography of Epaminondas and Pelopidas, and some other works. (D. L. 2.59.)
2. An historical writer, the author of an account of Hannibal (ibid.).
3. A native of Lampsacus, a writer on geography, mentioned by Pliny (Plin. Nat. 4.13, 6.31) and Solinus (100.22, 60). He was also in all probability the author of a περίπλους, mentioned by Pliny (7.48; comp. Voss. de Hist. Gr. p. 510, note 34).
4. A native of Antioch, the author of an amatory narrative, or collection of narratives, entitled Βαβυλωνικά. (Suid. s. v.)
5. A native of Ephesus. the author of a romance, still extant, entitled Ephesiaca, or the Loves of Anthia and Abrocomas (Ἐφεσιακὰ, τὰ κατὰ Ἀνθίαν καὶ Ἀβροκόμην). The style of the work is simple, and the story is conducted without confusion, notwithstanding the number of personages introduced. The adventures are of a very improbable kind. Suidas is the only ancient writer who mentions Xenophon. The age when he lived is uncertain. Locella assigns him to the age of the Antonines. Peerlkamp regards him as the oldest of the Greek romance writers, and thinks that he has discovered in other writers of this class traces of an imitation of Xenophon. He also maintains that Xenophon was not the real name of the author, and that, with the exception of Heliodorus, no Greek romance writer published his productions under his real name. Works Ephesiaca Editions
Since Suidas, Angelus Politianus (in the 15th century) was the first writer who mentioned the Ephesiaca of Xenophon. But although he had quoted a passage from the work, its existence was doubted or denied by several scholars of the 17th century. Even after an Italian translation by A. M. Salvini had been published (in 1723), and the Greek text had been printed in 1726, Lenglet du Fresnoy, in 1734, denied the existence of the original.
There is but a single manuscript of the work known (in the monastery of the Monte Cassino). The Greek text was first published by Ant. Cocchi, with a Latin translation (London, 1726). This edition contains numerous errors. A still worse edition was published at Lucca (1781), containing, besides the Latin translation of Cocchi, the Italian version of Salvini, and the French version of Jourdan. Xenophon was still more unfortunate in his next editor, Polyzois Kontu (Vienna, 1793).
A very excellent and carefully prepared edition was published by Baron de Locella (Vienna, 1796). He procured a fresh collation of the manuscript, and availed himself of the critical remarks of Hemsterhuis, D'Abresch, and D'Orville (Miscellaneae Observationes, vols. iii.--vi.), and the labours of F.J. Bast, who had made preparations for editing the work. Locella also prepared a new translation and a commentary. The Ephesiaca was reprinted by C. W. Mitscherlich, in his Scriptores Erotici Graeci. Another good edition is that of P. Hofmann Peerlkamp (Harlem, 1818). The most recent edition is that of F. Passow (Lips. 1833, in the Corpus Scriptorum Eroticorum Graecorum). Translations
There are German translations by G. A. Bürger, Häuslin, E. C. Reiske (or rather his wife), in his collections entitled Zur Moral (Dessau and Leipzig, 1782, and Hellas, Leipzig, 1791), and Krabinger, besides one that appeared anonymously.
In French there are translations by P. Bauche (Paris, 1736), and J. B. Jourdan (Paris, 1748). A translation of the Ephesiaca also forms the seventh volume of the Bibliothèque des Romans traduits du Grec (Paris, 1797). An anonymous translation, with notes, was published at Paris in 1823.
The Italian translation of Salvini has several times been republished.
There is also an English translation by Rooke, London, 1727. Further Information
Comp. Schöll, Geschichte der Griech. Lit. vol. ii. p. 520, &c.; Hoffmann, Lexicon Bibliographicum, s. v.
6. A native of Cyprus, the author of a work of the same kind as the preceding, entitled Κυπριακά. (Suid. s. v.)
7. For some others of this name the reader is referred to Fabricius (Bibl. Gr. vol. iii. p. 1, note a., p. 833; comp. Menag. ad Diog. Laert. 2.59). [C.P.M]
(Ξενοφῶν), the name of two (or more probably three) physicians.
1. A pupil of Praxagoras (Oribas. Coll. Medic. 44.8, p. 12, in Mai's Class. Auct. e Vatic. Codic. Edit. Rom. 1831), who must therefore have lived in the fourth century B. C., perhaps also in the third. He is probably the native of Cos mentioned by Diogenes Laertius (2.6.59); perhaps also the physician quoted by Caelius Aurelianus (De Morb. Chron. 2.13, p. 416). It is also shown by M. Littré (Oeuvres d'Hippocr. vol. i. pp. 75, 76) that he is the person alluded to, but not named, by Galen (Comment. in Hippocr. Prognost. 1.4, vol. xviii. pt. ii. p. 19); and therefore he is perhaps also the physician mentioned by the same author (De Dieb. Decret. 2.7, vol. ix. p. 872), as having written on the subject of critical days.
2. One of the followers of Erasistratus, who lived somewhat earlier than Apollonius of Memphis (Galen, Introd. 100.10, vol. xiv. p. 700), and therefore in the third century B. C., perhaps also in the fourth. He is by some modern writers supposed to be the same person as the physician mentioned above; but it is hardly probable that the same person could have been pupil to both Praxagoras and Erasistratus. He wrote a work on the names of the parts of the human body. (Galen, l.c.) It is not certain which of these two physicans is the person quoted by Oribasius (ibid. 45.11, p. 41), and Soranus. (De Arte Obstetr. p. 257, ed. Dietz.)
3. A native of Cos, and a descendant of the family of the Asclepiadae, who was a physician to the emperor Claudius, and who obtained from him certain privileges for his native island. He was afterwards induced by Agrippina to murder the emperor by means of a poisoned feather, which he introduced into his mouth under the pretence of making him vomit, A. D. 54. (Tac. Ann. 12.61, 67.) [W.A.G]
artists. 1. A sculptor, of Athens, contemporary with the elder Cephisodotus, in conjunction with whom he made the statue of Zeus, which is described under Cephisodotus, No. 1, p. 667b. In another passage, Pausanias mentions the statue of Fortune, carrying her son Plutus, in her temple at Thebes, the face and hands of which, the Thebans said, were made by Xenophon of Athens, and the rest of the work by a native artist, named Callistonicus. (Paus. 9.16.1.)
2. A sculptor, of Paros, of whom nothing is known, beyond the mention of his name by Diogenes Laertius (2.59). [P.S]
(Ξενοφῶν). (1) An Athenian, the son of one Gryllus, born about B.C. 444. In his early life he was a pupil of Socrates; but the turningpoint in his career came when he decided to serve in the Greek contingent raised by Cyrus against Artaxerxes in 401. Xenophon himself mentions (Anab. iii. 1) the circumstances under which he joined this army. Proxenus, a friend of Xenophon, was already with Cyrus, and he invited Xenophon to come to Sardis, and promised to introduce him to the Persian prince. Xenophon consulted his master, Socrates, who advised him to consult the oracle of Delphi, as it was a hazardous matter for him to enter the service of Cyrus, who was considered to be the friend of the Lacedaemonians and the enemy of Athens. Xenophon went to Delphi, but he did not ask the god whether he should go or not: he probably had made up his mind. He merely inquired to what gods he should sacrifice in order that he might be successful in his intended enterprise. Socrates was not satisfied with his pupil's mode of consulting the oracle, but as he had got an answer, he told him to go; and Xenophon went to Sardis, which Cyrus was just about to leave. He accompanied Cyrus into Upper Asia. In the battle of Cunaxa (B.C. 401) Cyrus lost his life, his barbarian troops were dispersed, and the Greeks were left alone on the wide plains between the Tigris and the Euphrates. (See Cyrus.) It was after the treacherous massacre of Clearchus and others of the Greek commanders by the Persian satrap Tissaphernes (q.v.) that Xenophon came forward. He had held no command in the army of Cyrus, nor had he, in fact, served as a soldier, yet he was elected one of the generals, and took the principal part in conducting the Greeks in their memorable retreat along the Tigris over the high table-lands of Armenia to Trapezus (Trebizond) on the Black Sea. From Trapezus the troops were conducted to Chrysopolis, which is opposite to Byzantium. The Greeks were in great distress, and some of them under Xenophon entered the service of Seuthes, king of Thrace. As the Lacedaemonians under Thimbron, or Thibron, were now at war with Tissaphernes and Pharnabazus, Xenophon and his troops were invited to join the army of Thimbron, and Xenophon led them back out of Asia to join Thimbron (399). Xenophon, who was very poor, made an expedition into the plain of the Caïcus with his troops before they joined Thimbron, to plunder the house and property of a Persian named Asidates. The Persian, with his women, children, and all his movables, was seized, and Xenophon, by this robbery, replenished his empty pockets (Anab. vii. 8, 23). He tells the story himself, and is evidently not at all ashamed of it. In other ways also he showed himself the prototype of an adventurous leader of condottieri, with no ties of country or preference of nationality. He formed a scheme for establishing a town with the Ten Thousand on the shores of the Euxine; but it fell through. He joined the Spartans, as has been seen, and he continued in their service even when they were at war with Athens. Agesilaüs, the Spartan, was commanding the Lacedaemonian forces in Asia against the Persians in 396, and Xenophon was with him at least during part of the campaign. When Agesilaüs was recalled (394), Xenophon accompanied him, and he was on the side of the Lacedaemonians in the battle which they fought at Coronea (394) against the Athenians. As a natural consequence a decree of exile was passed against him at Athens. It seems that he went to Sparta with Agesilaüs after the battle of Coronea, and soon after he settled at Scillus in Elis, not far from Olympia, a spot of which he has given a description in the Anabasis (v. 3, 7). Here he was joined by his wife, Philesia, and his children. His children were educated in Sparta.
Xenophon was now a Lacedaemonian so far as he could become one. His time during his long residence at Scillus was employed in hunting, writing, and entertaining his friends; and perhaps the Anabasis and part of the Hellenica were composed here. The treatise on hunting and that on the horse were probably also written during this time, when amusement and exercise of this kind formed part of his occupation. On the downfall of the Spartan supremacy, at Leuctra in 371, Xenophon was at last expelled from his quiet retreat at Scillus by the Eleans, after remaining there about twenty years. The sentence of banishment from Athens was repealed on the motion of Eubulus, but it is uncertain in what year. There is no evidence that Xenophon ever returned to Athens. He is said to have retired to Corinth after his expulsion from Scillus, and as we know nothing more, we assume that he died there. In the battle of Mantinea (B.C. 362) the Spartans and the Athenians were opposed to the Thebans, and Xenophon's two sons, Gryllus and Diodorus, fought on the side of the allies. Gryllus fell in the same battle in which Epaminondas lost his life. The events alluded to in the epilogue to the Cyropaedia (viii. 8, 4) show that the epilogue at least was written after 362. The time of his death, for reasons given above, seems to have been later than 357.
The following is a list of Xenophon's works: (1) The Anabasis (Ἀνάβασις), a history of the expedition of the Younger Cyrus, and of the retreat of the Greeks who formed part of his army. It is divided into seven books. As regards the title it will be noticed that under the name “The March Up” (ἀνά, i. e. inland from the coast of Cunaxa) is included also the much longer account of the return march down to the Euxine. This work has immortalized Xenophon's name. It is a clear and fascinating narrative, written in a simple style, free from affectation, and giving a great deal of curious information on the country which was traversed by the retreating Greeks, and on the manners of the people. It was the first work which made the Greeks acquainted with some portions of the Persian Empire, and it showed the weakness of that extensive monarchy. The skirmishes of the retreating Greeks with their enemies, and the battles with some of the barbarian tribes, are not such events as elevate the work to the character of a military history, nor can it as such be compared with Caesar's Commentarii. There is no weight whatever in the argument that, because Xenophon (Hellen. iii. 1, 2) speaks of the expedition of Cyrus as having been related by Themistogenes, the Anabasis is therefore not Xenophon's work. The statement can be explained either on the theory that Xenophon speaks of his own work under a fictitious name (which was possibly the case also with the Oeconomicus), or, more simply, by supposing that another account was actually written by Themistogenes. It is known that a separate account was written by Sophaenetus, and there may have been others. If the latter theory be correct, it would be a natural inference that Xenophon's Anabasis was written after the third book of the Hellenica.
(2) The Hellenica (Ἑλληνικά) of Xenophon is divided into seven books, and covers the forty-eight years from the time when the History of Thucydides ends (see Thucydides) to the battle of Mantinea (B.C. 362). The Hellenica is generally a dry narrative of events, and there is nothing in the treatment of them which gives a special interest to the work. Some events of importance are briefly treated, but a few striking incidents are presented with some particularity. The Hellenica was not written at one time. Differences are traced between the first two and the later books as regards the arrangement, which in the earlier books is year by year, while, in the later, events growing out of one another are grouped together; and, as regards political sentiment, in the diminished admiration for Sparta which appears in the last three books. It is clear that book vi. was written after 357, since it mentions the death of Alexander of Pherae (vi. 4, 35); but the first four books were probably written a good deal earlier.
(3) The Cyropaedia (Κυροπαιδεία), in eight books, is a kind of political romance, the basis of which is the history of the Elder Cyrus, the founder of the Persian monarchy. It shows how citizens are to be made virtuous and brave; and Cyrus is the model of a wise and good ruler. As a history it has no authority at all. Xenophon adopted the current stories as to Cyrus and the chief events of his reign, without any intention of subjecting them to a critical examination; nor have we any reason to suppose that his picture of Persian morals and Persian discipline is anything more than a fiction. Xenophon's object was to represent what a State might be, and he placed the scene of his fiction far enough off to give it the colour of possibility. His own philosophical notions and the usages of Sparta were the real materials out of which he constructed his political system. The Cyropaedia is evidence enough that Xenophon did not like the political constitution of his own country, and that a wellordered monarchy or kingdom appeared to him preferable to a democracy like Athens.
(4) The Agesilaüs (Ἀγησίλαος) is a panegyric on Agesilaüs II., king of Sparta, the friend of Xenophon. The genuineness is disputed, not without reason, and a recent critic holds it to be the work of a young rhetorician of the school of Isocrates.
(5) The Hipparchicus (Ἱππαρχικός) is a treatise on the duties of a commander of cavalry, and it contains many military precepts.
(6) The De Re Equestri, a treatise on the horse (Ἱππική), was written after the Hipparchicus, to which treatise he refers at the end of the treatise on the horse. This essay is not limited to horsemanship as regards the rider: it shows how a man is to avoid being cheated in buying a horse, how a horse is to be trained, and the like.
(7) The Cynegeticus (Κυνηγετικός) is a treatise on hunting; and on the dog, and the breeding and training of dogs; on the various kinds of game, and the mode of taking them. It is a treatise written by a genuine sportsman who loved the exercise and excitement of the chase, and it may be read with pleasure by a sportsman of the present day. (8, 9) The Respublica Lacedaemoniorum and Respublica Atheniensium, the two treatises on the Spartan and Athenian States (Λακεδαιμονίων Πολιτεία and Ἀθηναίων Πολιτεία), were both ascribed to Xenophon, but the Respublica Atheniensium is certainly not by his hand. It was written by some one of the oligarchical party, and possibly it is right to date it as early as 420, and therefore to regard it as the earliest Attic prose work. On the other hand, a modern critic of Xenophon (Hartmann) believes it to be by a later writer compiling from Xenophon, Aristophanes, and other sources of information. The same critic denies the genuineness of the Resp. Laced., which is more generally accepted.
(10) The De Vectigalibus, a treatise on the Revenues of Athens (Πόροι ἢ περὶ Προσόδων), is designed to show how the public revenue of Athens may be improved.
(11) The Memorabilia of Socrates, in four books (Ἀπομνημονεύματα Σωκράτους), was written by Xenophon to defend the memory of his master against the charge of irreligion and of corrupting the Athenian youth. Socrates is represented as holding a series of conversations, in which he develops and inculcates his moral doctrines. It is entirely a practical work, such as we might expect from the practical nature of Xenophon's mind, and it professes to exhibit Socrates as he taught. It is true that it may exhibit only one side of the Socratic argumentation, and that it does not deal in subtleties of philosophy. Xenophon was a hearer of Socrates, an admirer of his master, and anxious to defend his memory. The charges against Socrates for which he suffered were, that “Socrates was guilty of not believing in the gods which the State believed in, and introducing other new daemons (δαιμόνια): he was also guilty of corrupting the youth.” Xenophon replies to these two charges specifically, and he then goes on to show what Socrates' mode of life was. The whole treatise is intended to be an answer to the charge for which Socrates was executed, and it is therefore, in its nature, not intended to be a complete exhibition of Socrates. That it is a genuine picture of the man is indisputable, and its value therefore is very great.
(12) The Apology of Socrates (Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους πρὸς τοὺς Δικαστάς) is a short speech, containing the reasons which induced Socrates to prefer death to life. It is not one of the author's best works, and was possibly a rhetorical exercise much later than Xenophon.
(13) The Symposium (Συμπόσιον), or Banquet of Philosophers, in which Xenophon delineates the character of Socrates. The speakers are supposed to meet at the house of Callias, a rich Athenian, at the celebration of the Great Panathenaea. Socrates and others are the speakers. The piece is interesting as a picture of an Athenian drinking-party, and of the amusement and conversation with which it was diversified. The nature of love and friendship is discussed. It is probable that Plato wrote his Symposium later, to some extent as a corrective.
(14) The Hiero (Ἱέρων ἢ Τυραννικός) is a dialogue between King Hiero and Simonides, in which the king speaks of the dangers and difficulties incident to an exalted station, and the superior happiness of a private man. The poet, on the other hand, enumerates the advantages which the possession of power gives, and the means which it offers of obliging and doing services.
(15) The Oeconomicus (Οἰκονομικός) is an excellent treatise in the form of a dialogue between Socrates and Critobulus, in which Socrates gives instruction in the art called economic, which relates to the administration of a household and of a man's property.
In language as well as in politics, Xenophon was a cosmopolitan. His long residence in other lands resulted in his losing or abandoning pure Attic: he admits words from all dialects; hence he cannot be adduced as an authority for strict Attic usage, and it has been well shown by abundant instances that his diction is in many respects an anticipation of the common dialect of the Macedonian period.
Of each of Xenophon's treatises there are from thirty to forty manuscripts. Of the Anabasis, the best is a Codex Parisinus (No. 1640), and dating from the fourteenth century. Of the Cyropaedia, the most esteemed is also in Paris (No. 1635), of the fifteenth century, though a copy at Wolfenbüttel (Codex Guelferbytanus) of about the twelfth century is also valuable. Of the twenty-one manuscripts of the Hellenica, the best are two Codices Parisini (Nos. 1642 and 1738) of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.
Editions of the whole of Xenophon are those of Dindorf, 5 vols. (1875), Henning (1863), and Sauppe (1867). The editio princeps was by Boninus, printed by P. Giunta at Florence in 1516. Good separate editions, with notes, are the following: of the Anabasis by Macmichael (1883), Cobet (1873), bks. i.-iv. by Goodwin and White (1886), Stone (1890); of the Cyropaedia by Holden (1887); of the Hellenica by Breitenbach (1873); Keller (1890); bks. i.-iv. by Manath (1888), bks. i.-ii. by Dowdall (1890); of the Memorabilia by Winans (1878), and Marshall (1891); of the Hieroby Holden (1885); of the Oeconomicus by Holden (1888); of the De Re Equestri by Morgan (1893); of the Agesilaüs by Güthling (1887); of the Symposium by Hug (1880). There is a good English translation of Xenophon by Dakyns, 2 vols. (New York, 1890-93). There is a good lexicon to Xenophon by Sturz (1801), and Sauppe's Lexilogus Xenophonteus (1865) is also recommended. There is a special Wörterbuch zur Xenophon's Anabasis by Vollbrecht (1876). See also Taylor's Syntax to the Anabasis (1880); and on Xenophon the studies by Roquette (1884) and Croiset (1873).
(2) Of Ephesus, a writer of prose fiction, as to whose date and personality nothing is known. His remaining work is entitled Ephesiaca, or the Loves of Anthia and Abrocomas (Ἐφεσιακὰ, τὰ κατὰ Ἀνθίαν καὶ Ἀβροκόμην). The style of the work is simple, and the story is conducted without confusion, notwithstanding the number of personages introduced; but the adventures are of a very improbable kind. Xenophon was possibly the oldest of the Greek romance writers. Editions of his work are those by Peerlkamp (Haarlem, 1818); and by Passow (Leipzig, 1833). See novels and romances.
- son of Menephylus, Olympic victor: Paus. 6.3.13
- Olympic victor: Paus. 4.24.5
- Paus. 8.30.10, Paus. 9.16.2
Xenophon, the son of Gryllus, was born at Athens during the early years of the Peloponnesian War into a family of knights; he died either in Athens or Corinth sometime after 355, making him about seventy-five at the time of his death. He may have been educated by the sophist Prodicus at Thebes, and in all likelihood established some type of connection with Socrates in the last decade of the fifth century. It also seems likely that he was knight under the rule of the Thirty Tyrants at Athens and may have even taken part in the battle of Munychia which brought an end to that regime. In 401 he accepted the invitation of his Theban guest-friend Proxenus to join the Greek mercenaries in the service of the Achaemenid prince Cyrus the Younger who was attempting to usurp the throne of Persia from his brother, Artaxerxes. Following the death of Cyrus at the battle of Cunaxa near Babylon (late summer 401) and the murder of the commanders of the Ten Thousand (as the Greek mercenaries are known), Xenophon was appointed strategos or general and commanded a portion of the troops. After leading them back from the heartland of the Persian empire to the Black Sea and then the coast of Asia Minor, he along with his contingent enrolled in the service of the Spartans then operating in Asia Minor. Fighting there under three successive Spartan commanders Xenophon formed a strong and lasting friendship with the last one, King Agesilaus. In 395, when the home authorities recalled Agesilaus from Asia to lead the Spartan forces against Thebes, Corinth and Athens, Xenophon followed and took part in the battle of Coronea (394). It was shortly after this that Xenophon was exiled from Athens, either because of his participation in the battle of Coronea, or because of this service with Cyrus (an enemy of Athens in the second phase of the Peloponnesian War), or perhaps both. Without a homeland Xenophon's attachments to Sparta became even stronger: sometime shortly after Coronea he was granted an estate by the Spartans at Scillus, a town near Olympia. He had two sons, both born on his estate and educated at Sparta in the agoge (the rigorous Spartan education system designed to produce Spartiates or full citizen-warriors). During his time at Scillus he probably wrote many of his works, remained in touch with his friends at Sparta, but also established and kept up international contacts at the panhellenic festival at Olympia. Although his exile may have been repealed as early as 386, it seems he did not return to Athens but remained at Scillus. After the Spartan defeat at Leuctra in 371 Xenophon was forced to give up his estate and probably went to Corinth. Whether he returned to Athens or stayed at Corinth is uncertain: that some reconciliation took place between Xenophon and his native city seems to be indicated by the focus of his later works on Athenian matters, and by his growing commitment to Spartan and Athenian cooperation. Indeed his eldest son Gryllus was killed fighting for Sparta in an Athenian cavalry contingent in a skirmish before the decisive Spartan defeat at Second Mantinea in 362. References to contemporary events in his last work allow us to say that he was alive in 355; given his extreme old age he surely did not live much longer.
WorksXenophon's work may be divided into three main categories: historical, Socratic, and Minor Works.
The Anabasisor ‘Trip Up Country’ (late 370s or 360s) is Xenophon's story of the journey of the ten thousand mercenaries under the command of Cyrus the Younger into the heart of the Persian empire and then back again to the Greek world. It is of particular significance because Xenophon himself served on the expedition and he is prominent from Book 3 onwards. It was probably composed after Xenophon's return to Greece from a memoir he kept while with the Ten Thousand. The Hellenicaor ‘Hellenic Affairs’, is a history of Greece from 411-362 (early in Xenophon's career; early 350s). This work appears to have been written in two phases: the first portion of the work, going down to the beginning of the Thirty Tyrants at Athens in 403 (Xen. Hell. 2.3.10), may well have been one of the first things Xenophon wrote; the second, much larger portion, goes from 403 and extends down to the battle of Second Mantinea (362), and was probably composed very late in Xenophon's life. Due to certain superficial similarities with the work of Thucydides, and especially to the fact that the work picks up roughly where Thucydides leaves off, it is thought to have been conceived originally as a continuation of Thucydides' history of the Peloponnesian War. The testimony of Marcellinus' life of Thucydides (Chap. 45) supports this view. A major break is argued for at 2.3.10 on a number of grounds: stylometric (chiefly distribution of particle usage), change in chronological conventions, change in viewpoint (from Athens to Sparta), and subtle changes in thematic focus (increasing attention to the moral evaluation of individuals). Although frequently faulted for its omissions and Spartan bias, especially when compared with the fragmentary remains of another continuator of Thucydides, the Oxyrhyncus Historian, the Hellenica is our major continuous historical narrative for the crucial period between the latter stages of the Peloponnesian War to the years immediately preceding the rise of Macedon. The Cyropaediaor 'The Education of Cyrus' (370s, revised later) is a long (8 books) biographical treatment of Cyrus the Great of Persia (6th century). This work, which also has a strong claim to be categorized under 'philosophy', is a massive account of the education and training of the ideal king. It comprises elements of historiography, legend, ethnography, and romance, and is thought to be a precursor of the later novel. It contains an epilogue (Xen. Cyrop. 8.8) on the decline of Persia since the time of Cyrus which seems to have been written after the work was completed. The Agesilausis a biography of King Agesilaus of Sparta (c.444/3-360), composed in all likelihood sometime after the winter of 360, when the king died. It too is a study of leadership, but clearly also contains apologetic elements. It overlaps significantly with portions of the Hellenica. Together with the Evagorasof Isocrates Isoc. 9(374) it is one of the first true biographies in Greek literature.
It is difficult to date precisely any of the Socratic works of Xenophon, only that they must have been composed after the philosopher's death in 399. Like Plato and other Socratics, Xenophon felt the need to compose an Apologyor defense of Socrates in response to the charges brought against him by his accusers. Like Plato he also composed a Symposium. The most important of the Socratic works of Xenophon is the Memorabilia, a collection of discussions between Socrates and (typically) young Athenian men which begins in much the same spirit as the Apology, that is in defense of the philosopher. The Oeconomicusis a dialogue between Socrates and an Athenian, Ischomachus, on the subject of house management; it is actually comprised mostly of a reported set of discussions between Ischomachus and his (unnamed) young wife. The work is probably the best introduction into the mind of Xenophon, foregrounding as it does the topic of order, an issue central to his thought. While the Hierodoes not actually feature Socrates, it is clearly a combination of a Socratic dialogue and a Herodotean meeting between a sage and a powerful king (e.g. Solon and Croesus), though interestingly the main speaker is Hieron (king of Syracuse from 478 to 467), not the sage (Simonides the poet, c.557/6-468/7); the conversation, on the subject of tyranny, is imaginary.
Xenophon's interest in practical knowledge and didactic literature is clearly evidenced by a number of smaller works. Like his contemporary Aeneas Tacticus , Xenophon composed two technical handbooks on matters of practical knowledge, On the Cavalry Commanderand On Horsemanship; the On Huntingis widely regarded as not belonging to Xenophon. He also wrote a Constitution of the Lacedaemonians, what is not so much a picture of Spartan government as a valuable description of the Spartan educational system thought to have been set up by the legendary lawgiver Lycurgus (11th-8th?); it, like the Cyropaedia, contains an epilogue (actually the penultimate chapter, Xen. Cyrop.14) which suggests that Spartan society has degenerated. The Poroior On Revenuesis the probably the last thing Xenophon wrote; it attempts to persuade the Athenians to abandon hegemonic war as a way to increase state revenue and adopt instead programs aimed at improving the existing resources of the city-a proposal and conceptual framework virtually without parallel in all antiquity.
NoteThe Constitution of the Atheniansby the so-called 'Old-Oligarch', long thought to be by Xenophon, is widely believed to be not by him. See G. Bowersock's introduction in the last Loeb volume of Xenophon, Xenophon VII Scripta Minora (Cambridge 1968).
Most of the major works of Xenophon are available in Penguin Books translations; especially worth noting are the excellent introductions to Xenophon and his work by George Cawkwell in The Persian Expedition (Harmondsworth 1972) and A History of My Times (Harmondsworth 1979). The Cyropaediais available from the Everyman Library, The Education of Cyrus (London 1992) with excellent notes by Richard Stoneman. Other works that are helpful:
Anderson, J.K., Xenophon (London 1974) Cartledge, Paul, Agesilaus and the Crisis of Sparta (London 1987) Fornara, Charles, The Nature of History in Greece and Rome (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1983) Gray, Vivienne, The Character of Xenophon's Hellenica (Baltimore 1989) Harding, Phillip, From the end of the Peloponnesian War to the Battle of Ipsus, Translated Documents of Greece & Rome 2 (Cambridge 1985) Henry, W.P., Greek Historical Writing (Chicago 1967) Higgins, W.E., Xenophon the Athenian (Albany 1977) Krentz, Peter, Hellenika I-II.3.10 (Warminster 1989) John Dillery- marches with Cyrus against Artaxerxes, king of Persia: Paus. 5.6.5, Paus. 9.15.5
- exiled from Athens: Paus. 5.6.5
- receives Scillus from Lacedaemonians and dwells there: Paus. 5.6.5ff.
- tried by Olympic Council: Paus. 5.6.6
- his tomb: Paus. 5.6.6
- father of Grylus: Paus. 1.3.4, Paus. 8.9.5, 10, Paus. 9.15.5
- wrote history of war between Lacedaemonians and Boeotians: Paus. 1.3.4
- statues perhaps representing his sons: Paus. 1.22.4