871 



XENOPHON. 



XENOPHON. 



672 



chieBy geographical, of the History of the Expedition of Cyrus, &c., 

 4to, London, 1807. There are several English translations, of which 

 that of Spelman is the best known. 



The authorship of the 'Anabasis' is not quite free from doubt, 

 owing to a passage in the third book of the 'Hollenica' (iii. 1, 1), 

 whero the author refers to a work of Themistogenes of Syracuse for 

 the history of the expedition of Cyrus and the retreat of the Greek 

 army to the Euxine. This however is not a complete description of 

 the contents of the ' Anabasis ' of Xenophon, whose narrative also 

 conducts the army from Trapezus on the Euxine to Byzantium, btill 

 the retreat may fairly be considered as having terminated when the 

 army reached a Greek colony on the Euxine, and so indeed it is 

 viewed in the 'Anabasis' (v. 1, 1). There is then perhaps no doubt 

 that Xenophon does refer to the 'Anabasis' which we have; and if 

 this be admitted, the difficulty is not easy of solution. Plutarch (' De 

 Glor. Athen.') supposes that Xenophon attributed the work to Themis- 

 too-enes, in order that people might have more confidence in what was 

 safd of himself. But this is not satisfactory. Others suppose that 

 there was a work by Themistogenes which gave the history of the 

 retreat as far as Trapezus, and that Xenophon published his ' Hel- 

 lenica ' in two parts, and that he first continued the history of the 

 Peloponnesian war to the capture of Athens, which would complete 

 the history of Thucydides, and also carried it to the year B.C. 399. 

 This is the conjecture of Letronne, who connects it with the assump- 

 tion of Xenophon returning to Athens in B.C. 399, as to which there 

 is no evidence. The history up to the year B.C. 399 comprehends the 

 first two books of the ' Hellenica,' and the first paragraph of the third 

 book, in which Themistogenes is mentioned. Letronne assumes that 

 this first part was begun before Xenophon joined the expedition of 

 Cyrus, and was finished either in the interval of his assumed return 

 from Asia and his departure to join the army of Agesilaus, or in the 

 early part of his retreat at Scillus, at which time it is further assumed 

 that he had not yet written the ' Anabasis,' and was obliged to refer 

 to the ' Anabasis ' of Themistogenes, which, it is still further assumed, 

 was already published and known. The rest of the ' Hellenica,' it is 

 assumed, was written later, and perhaps not published till after the 

 death of Xenophon, by his son Diodorus or his grandson Gryllus. If 

 all this assumption is necessary to explain the fact of Xenophon re- 

 ferring to the work of Themistogenes on the ' Anabasis,' we may as 

 well assume that there was no such work of Themistogenes, for we 

 know nothing of it from any other quarter, and that Xenophon for 

 some unknown reason spoke of his own work as if it were written by 

 another person. In reading the 'Anabasis,' it is difficult to resist the 

 conviction that it is by Xenophon, especially when we turn to such 

 passages as that in the fifth book where he speaks of his residence at 

 Scillus, and other passages in which be speaks of his dreams, his 

 thoughts, and other matters which could only be known to himself. 



The ' Hellenica ' ('EXA.Tjvi/cd), in seven books, comprehend a period 

 of forty-eight years, from the time when the history of Thucydides 

 ends, B.C. 411, to the battle of Mantineia, B.C. 362. They record how- 

 ever, as already observed, the assassination of Alexander of Pherse, 

 which took place B.C. 357. The hypothesis that this history consists 

 properly of two works or parts has been mentioned. This is Niebuhr's 

 opinion. [THUCYDIDES.] The ' Hellenica ' have little merit as a his 

 tory. The author was altogether deficient in that power of reflection 

 and of penetrating to the motives of action which characterise the 

 great work of Thucydides. It is generally a dry narrative of events 

 and contains little to move or affect, with the exception of a few 

 incidents which are given with more than the usual detail. The 

 parts also are not treated in their due proportions, and many import 

 ant events are passed over briefly. This, the only proper historica 

 work of Xenophon, does not entitle him to the praise of being a gooc 

 historical writer. It may be urged that the work was only a kind o 

 ' Mcmoires pour servir,' as some have supposed ; but if ib is to b< 

 taken as a continuation of Thucydides, it is a history, and as such i 

 has been considered both in ancient and modern times. There is an 

 English translation of the ' Hellenica ' by W. Smith, the translator o 

 Thucydides. 



The ' Cyropaedia ' (Kvpov iraiSfia) is not an historical but a politica 

 work, in which the ethical element prevails. Its object is to show 

 how citizens can be formed to be virtuous and brave, and to exhibi 

 also a model of a wise and good governor. Xenophon chooses for hi 

 exemplar Cyrus, the founder of the Persian empire, and the Persian 

 are his models of men who are brought up in a true discipline. Tb 

 work has no authority whatever as a history, nor is it even authority fo 

 the usages of the Persians, some of which we know from other writers t( 

 be different from what they are represented to be by Xenophon. Xeno 

 phon borrowed his materials from the Grecian states, and especiall; 

 from Lacedacmon ; and the ' Cyropaedia ' is one of the many proof 

 of his aversion to the usages and the political constitution of his nativ 

 city. The genuineness of the epilogus, or conclusion of the work, ha 

 been doubted by some critics. Its object is to show that the Persian 

 had greatly degenerated since the time of Cyrus. Tho ' Cyropaedia 

 is one of the most laboured of Xenophon's works, and contains hi 

 views on the training of youth, and of the character of a perfec 

 prince. It is an agreeable exposition of principles under the form o 

 a history, and, like Xenophon's other treatises, it contains more o 

 plain practical precepts, founded on observation and supported bj 



ood sense, than any profound views. The dying speech of Cyrus is 

 orthy of a pupil of Socrates. There is an English translation of the 

 Cyropaedia ' by Maurice Ashley Cowper. 



The ' Agesilaus ' ('A-yijcriAaoy) is a panegyric on Xenophon's friend, 

 tie Lacedaemonian king, another evidence of his Laconism or Spartan 

 redilectibns. Cicero (' Ad Fam.,' v. 12) says that he has in this pane- 

 yric surpassed all the statues that have been raised in honour of 

 ings. Many modern critics have passed an unfavourable judgment 

 n this work, and some maintain that it is the work of a sophist or 

 rator of a later age. It has been described as a kind of cento made 

 ip of passages copied literally from the ' Hellenica ' and other works 

 if Xenophon. 



The ' Hipparchicus ' ('Imrcpx"^*) i g a treatise on the command of 

 he cavalry, in which Xenophon gives instructions for the choice of 

 javalry men, and remarks on the duty of a commander of cavalry. 

 ?here is internal evidence that this treatise was written at Athens, 

 }ut there are different opinions as to the time when it was composed. 



The treatise on ' Horsemanship ' ('ImnK^) was written after the 

 Hipparchicus,' to which reference is made at the end of this treatise. 

 ["he author says that he has had much experience as a horseman, and 

 s therefore qualified to give instruction to others. He speaks at the 

 >eginning of a work on the subject by Simon, in whose opinions he 

 coincides, and he professes to supply some of his omissions. This 

 ivork is translated into English, and was printed by Henry Denham, 

 4to, London, 1584. 



The ' Cynegeticus ' (KwijyeTiKtSs) is a treatise on Hunting, a sport of 

 which the author was very fond. It contains many excellent remarks 

 on dogs, on the various kinds of game, and the mode of taking it. 



The treatises on the Republics of Sparta and Athens were not always 

 recognised as genuine works of Xenophon, even by the ancients ; and 

 some modern writers have adopted this opinion. But there is nothing 

 in them which can be urged against Xenophon's authorship. They 

 show his attachment to Spartan institutions, and his dislike of demo- 

 cracy. There is an English translation of the ' Republic of Athens,' 

 by James Morris, 8vo, London, 1794. 



The treatise on the 'Revenues of Athens' (tr6poi ^ irepl irpoff6Stav) 

 has for its object to show how the revenues of Athens, and especially 

 those derived from the mines, may be improved by better manage- 

 ment, and be made sufficient for the maintenance of the poor citizens 

 and all other purposes, without requiring contributions from the allies 

 and subject states. The matter of this treatise is discussed by Boeckb, 

 in his work on the ' Public Economy of Athens.' This treatise was 

 translated into English by Walter Moyle, 8vo, 1697, and reprinted in 

 Moyle's whole works. 



The ' Memorabilia of Socrates,' in four books ('AiroiJ.i'r],uoyevnara 

 2iaKpdrovs), is the chief philosophical work of Xenophon. He defends 

 his master against the charges of irreligion and corrupting the youth 

 of Atbena, and in a series of conversations he introduces Socrates 

 after his fashion as developing and inculcating various moral truths. 

 The tendency of the work is entirely practical, and it may be true, as 

 some writers maintain, that Xenophon has exhibited the teaching of 

 Socrates in a manner more conformable to his own notions than in 

 the full sense and spirit of the Socratic method. But Xenophou was 

 a hearer of Socrates, lived for a long time on terms of intimacy with 

 him, and as he was anxious to defend the memory of his master, und 

 certainly had no pretensions to originality himself as a thinker, we 

 may assume that the matter of the ' Memorabilia ' is genuine, that the 

 author has exhibited a portion of the moral and intellectual character 

 of Socrates, such part as he was able to appreciate, or such as suited, 

 his taste; and that we have in this work as genuine a picture of 

 Socrates as his pupil Xenophon could make. There is an English 

 translation of the ' Memorabilia ' and the ' Apology for Socrates,' by 

 Sarah Fielding. The ' Apology ' (' Airo\oyia SuKpdrovs irpbs rovs Autaff- 

 rds) is not, as the title imports, the defence which Socrates made on 

 his trial, but it contains the reasons which determined him to prefer 

 death rather than to humble himself to ask for his life from his pre- 

 judiced judges. Valcknaer and others do not allow this to be Xeuo- 

 phon's work, because they consider it to be unworthy of him : but if 

 a man is to lose the discredit of a bad work simply because he has 

 written better, many persons may disown their own books. The 

 ' Apology ' is indeed a trivial performance, but Xenophou did write an 

 ' Apology,' according to Laertius, and this may be it. 



The ' Symposium,' or ' Banquet of the Philosophers ' (2,v/ji.ir6fftov), 

 has for its object the delineation of the character of Socrates. It is 

 in the form of a dialogue between Socrates, Antisthenes, Critobulus, 

 and others, at the house of Callias. It contains the opinions of 

 Socrates on the subject of love and friendship. It is an ancient 

 tradition that Xenophon wrote this work after the ' Symposium ' of 

 Plato, and that he designed to correct the view of Socrates which is 

 there given by Plato. Boeckh thinks that Plato wrote his ' Sympo- 

 sium ' after reading that of Xenophon, and that his purpose was to 

 exhibit the ideal of a wise mau iu the person of Socrates. Ast is of 

 the same opinion, and thinks that the ' Symposium ' is a juvenile 

 work. The 'Banquet' was translated by James Well wood, M.D., 

 1710, and reprinted in 1750. 



The ' Hiero ' (Itpwv % Tvpavvucds) is a dialogue between Hiero, tyrant 

 of Syracuse, and the poet Simouides. The tyrant describes the 



