text:
General Comments
No general comments yet
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Alexander the Great did this a lot – dividing military and civil functions, so as not to place too much power in the satraps' hands.
On the Socratic Question, add the most recent contribution:
Nebuchadnezzar's palace at Babylon has indeed been excavated. It was the site of, inter alia, the struggles of Alexander's Successors immediately after his death (
See also
It's just his job as leader; it always was the general's job to sacrifice, or to supervise the pre-battle sacrifices. See
I think it's uncommon in a religious context, but not surprising. Epainein often means 'to thank'. You can see how it gets there: 'praise' to 'commend' to 'thank'.
This is not an exact parallel, but I'm reminded of
See the index to the Loeb, where it is suggested that these Armenian Chaldaeans are a people more correctly known as the Haldi.
For Xenophon what is more important for good leadership, nature (cf. πεφυκότι) or knowledge/education (cf. ἐπισταμένως)?
What is the purpose of this list of (failed) governments? Are there specific historical rules and their failures that Xenophon expects us to have in mind?
Herodotus Histories says the Scythians, although being quite numerous, were unable come to any kind of unified organization (I think he says or implies the same thing about the Thracians), which is of course a suspenseful foil to the Greeks (will they, who are habitually at war with one another, be able to mount a unified resistance against the Persians, or just Medize piece by piece?
When we think about Xenophon's attitude toward empire, we should keep in mind his attention to all the large nations who seemingly failed at this (admirable?) endeavor.
What are we to make of the difference between this and Cambyses' advice to Cyrus (cf.
When you say 'this' are you asking a question about the role of fear in Cyrus' leadership? If so, this is a most interesting one. Ordinarily we associate fear with the tyrant's leadership. Xenophon, however, gives some indication that fear can be a good thing if not a necessary one. He has Tigranes explain how the fear that Cyrus has instilled in the Armenian king has taught him self-restraint (sophrosune). Aglaitadas, in his critique of comic laughter, also says that crying (presumably associated with fear) can teach young boys self-restraint. When Cyrus becomes king of Babylon (which is described as most hostile), Xenophon says that he adopted a style of procession that would both delight his well-wishers but also intimidate any potential enemies.
If we are being charitable to Cyrus' behavior here, it would seem that Xenophon is taking a realist's approach that no matter how benevolent the leader, some of the followers will be incorrigible and overcome only by force, which may sometimes translate into friendship as in the case of the Armenian king. In a similar vein, Xenophon gives a lengthy list of all the reasons that the Medes follow Cyrus in his pursuit of the Assyrians (rather than hang back with Cyaxares), some of which are less noble than others (e.g., some just did it to get rich).
The question of the use of fear is certainly part of the contradiction I see, but more generally, Xenophon here attributes Cyrus' success in ruling men to two elements, fear and the desire to please him. And it is precisely these two that Cyrus will suggest are the best forms of motivation for the leader to employ in
Good question, and it touches on something I have long thought about Xenophon (or "seem to have observed") and that is he is not like Plato in the sense that he does not usually look for a single motive or a single cause to explain something, leadership being a perfect example. At
I also think that the very physical language here is striking. Cyrus prostrates (καταπληξαι) his subjects so they do not raise their hands against him (επιχειρειν αυτω). Free Greek men were very sensitive about physical violence as a threat to their status as free men (there is a good article on Spartiates striking free men with their staffs which I wish I could recall).
There is also the the
The article you're thinking of is, I think, one by Simon
1.1.6–ἐπυθόμεθα καὶ ᾐσθῆσθαι δοκοῦμεν: what sorts of data are covered by these two terms? Does Xenophon imply that he stops short of pure imagination, or could that be covered by "thinking (seeming) to have perceived" something? Consider that δοκέω+ infinitive is one standard way to describe a dream or hallucination…
This is a very interesting question. I wonder how much the second term is Xenophon's way of saying that he is on some level "filling in the gaps" of what he knows. Perhaps there is a parallel between this statement and Thucydides' statement on speeches, that he is giving us what was likely to have been said. There may be a whole theory of empire/leadership behind Xenophon's explanation of Cyrus' success that may be causing him to speculate regularly (rather than strictly fabricate or fictionalize).
Of 24 instances of the form ἐδοκοῦμεν/δοκοῦμεν, it is only here in Chapter One of Book One that we see it coupled with a verb of learning or perceiving (cf. ἐδοκοῦμεν καταμεμαθηκέναι,
A way to start here would be to consider ἐδοκοῦμεν καταμεμαθηκέναι in
In this particular passage we do have a possible contrast with ἐπυθόμεθα, true enough, and, heaven knows, much of the Cyropaedia seems speculative enough. For that general issue see however C.
To what extent is Xenophon's story of Cyrus a "coming of age story" (Bildungsroman)?
How much does Cyrus evolve as a character as a result of his various forms of education?
Cf. his progress in understanding of justice at
Cf. Cyrus' new shyness at
ἤν τις ἐπισταμένως τοῦτο πράττῃ: What was Xenophon's purpose in writing the Cyropaedia if not to answer the theoretical question of how to maintain the willing obedience of followers?
According to this passage, Xenophon would seem to be offering knowledge of proper leadership to his audience.
It's interesting that Greeks of the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.E. talk about monarchy as much as they do, given how little direct experience of it they have. They know about Homeric kingship from the epics, and would have thought of it as part of their past, but it was neither exclusive nor all that powerful, as the plight of Agamemnon in the Iliad makes clear. Spartan "kingship" is obviously a special case, as there were two of them and their powers were pretty limited. The kings of the fourth century Greek world, such as the rulers of Syracuse, Evagoras on Cyprus, and Jason of Pherae, are all closer to tyrants than proper kings, having gained power recently and tending to be relatively short-lived phenomena. The contemporary examples of hereditary kingship other than Persia that Xenophon gives in
There are lots of great lines of inquiry to pursue hear, and I certainly want to hear more about your China-Mediterranean connections! Here's one hypothesis I've been working on for why the Greeks and the "best" Greek thinkers liked monarchy so much. Many of the metaphorical areas they drew from to describe government are in fact monarchical, e.g., the leader as shepherd, the leader as general/pilot, the leader as father, even the leader as physician insofar as the physician possesses special knowledge of how to heal a person, hence the "body" politic. The arguments that Isocrates puts in the mouth of Nicocles in the the speech to the Cyprians are not the best but perhaps they are the most intuitive: the gods, e.g., have a monarchy and humans should try to emulate the gods as best they can. (I often ask my students why Christians done ever refer to their savior as "President" or "Prime Minister" Jesus.) As George Lakoff has argued at length, metaphors govern the way we process the world, so to that extent the Greeks did have "direct experience" of monarchy.
I find the question "why Xenophon thought about monarchy as the best form of government" very intriguing. Note also that in the first paragraph, Xenophon talks only about failures, when he mentions democracies and oligarchies, whereas for "those who tried to exercise tyranny", he establishes a distinction between those who succeed and those who fail. This is peculiar, given that there was no great experience of monarchy (at least of the Persian type) in Greece, whereas there was an example of successful regime, democracy, in the sense that it was more stable than other regimes. Oligarchy, on the other hand, had indeed failed. So, would it be possible that Xenophon was in a sense encouraging Greeks to experiment on sth which was not tested before? And how far had he gone with this idea? Had he seriously considered its feasibility or was it more utopian thinking?
This is a great observation. Certainly there are a number of contextual realities that are somewhat unique for Xenophon's experience. Having grown up in the midst of the Peloponnesian War, particularly as a young adult through the later stages, this might certainly give him a sour disposition towards democracy. Also acknowledging his close association with Socrates, and the lengths he goes to, (as we will see), to import or even manufacture a Socrates-like character in the Cyropaedia highlights the probability that he was very critical of democracy based on the Athenian form. It seems to be a long tradition in academic study of Classical Greece that Athens was the superior polis in all ways, especially government. Is not therefore possible that Xenophon also represents a philosophical reaction to the Periclean Age, where Pericles operates in actuality very much like a constitutional monarch in imperial practice, but for the sake of appearance has no official title? For the sake of argument, during the height of the Athenian Empire, we can just say that the democracy of Athens was something less than a technical democracy, precisely because it was so completely dominated by the efforts of Pericles. Those decades and policies were the antagonist that sparked the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War. Athens as a polis sat at the head of an empire that was anything else – certainly not a democracy. It seems logical that Xenophon correctly saw the dressing of democracy that was (and often still is hailed as a great governmental achievement) as something of a sham. These circumstances also ushered in horrific consequences that affected the entire Greek world, throwing it into political chaos. The democracy which was defended in the Persian Wars, then turned and exiled the most prominent of its defenders, Cimon, Miltiades, Themistocles – even those great leaders held up as the standard Athens had thanked them for their services by exiling them. Very early on Xenophon himself was exiled, therefore is so difficult to see the logic that Xenophon saw democracy as being vulnerable to be counterproductive to itself?
It does seem, especially in the case of the post Peloponnesian War reality, that the varying democracies have failed. At least it is easy to understand why Athenians and other Greeks may come to the conclusion at the end of the 5th Century going into the 4th Century. With that in mind, is it easier to try and "fix" the problems that brought on conflict between Athens and Sparta? And of course attempts were made from within, but those reformers, (who probably had their own not so noble agenda in mind), also failed. Then I ask, would it not be easiest to presume that some other more successful government be the "magical solution" to cure these ails? Of course the Achaemenid Empire had been running at various levels of competency, for over a century.
Perhaps it would be better not to think in terms of the failure of types of government, but rather failure of the polis system itself – after all, the revived democracy of the Athenians restored a credible semblance of empire in a comparatively short time – but in the end, they were still a polis, with all the logistical as well as political liabilities that entails. I think Isocrates concerns himself very much with precisely such limitations.
A brief comment on the success/failure of the Achaemenids – the direct experience of the Athenians, and of Xenophon himself, is that they were at their best noble but unsuccessful imperialists, at worst (the Peace of Antalcidas and the attempt to bribe their way to a favorable outcome of the Peloponnesian War) meddlesome and ignoble. See my other post raising the prospect that this work is not as laudatory as one may think.
I'd like to hear more about why you think Xenophon is not really favorable to Cyrus and early Persia. It feels positive on the surface, and I don't tend to think of Xenophon as being particularly subtle or ironic. The only locus of overt negativity is in the so-called epilogue (
I think that the view that X. is pro-Cyrus and early Persia is predicated on his supposedly pro-Spartan sympathies, but that the argument becomes circular when those who argue that X is unusually pro-Spartan cite the Cyropaedia. I am not at all certain that I am right, but it might prove fruitful to examine.
Another possibility to consider is that Xenophon isn't at all critical of early Persia–I see nothing ironic in his treatment of the Persia of Cyrus' youth–but that the appendix raises questions about what Cyrus does to Persia and the Persians. One doesn't have to claim that everything is ironic (as, say,
In addition to the ruling (in both senses) metaphors that Norman mentions, we might also account for Xenophon's preference for monarchy, or at least the way the text appears to elevate monarchy, by considering the pressure exerted by Cyrus as Xenophon's focus. That is, instead of seeing "the theoretical question of how to maintain the willing obedience of followers" as leading to Cyrus as an example, we might instead consider Cyrus' life itself as the subject that gives rise to this theoretical frame – a frame which, given Cyrus' success, naturally favors monarchy. To put it another way, Cyrus' success as a monarch in the story overdetermines the political philosophy that frames the story. As Steven says regarding the constitutional debate, "monarchy has to win out, not because of the superiority of the arguments but because Darius did, in fact, become king."
That is a very interesting path to consider and part of a larger question I have been wondering about for a while: how was Xenophon's Theory of Leadership (if we may call it that) developed or constructed? I'll state what I think are some obvious answers here and then problematize them a bit. Maybe someone will take them up on a blog post at some point (technically, I am no longer just tackling the question of why Xenophon wrote the Cyropaedia!). On the one hand, Xenophon had some measure of firsthand access to some important leaders, e.g., Agesilaus and Cyrus the Younger, and I would include Socrates as well. He certainly also had access to information, true or otherwise, about Cyrus the Great. Moreover, Xenophon had plenty of experience as a leader himself. So, the questions from here abound: Was his Theory of Leadership an inductive generalization from all of these experiences? Did one particular leader (i.e., Cyrus the Younger) tend to condition the way he processed all other leaders? To this latter question Socrates is most often offered up as the historical "model" that infused Xenophon's understanding of other leaders. For example, in the Cyropaedia, scholars often argue that Cyrus, Cambyses, the tutor of Tigranes, and even Xenophon himself are "Socratic"; but why can't it be the other way around? Maybe Xenophon's understanding of Cyrus the Great influenced his presentation of Socrates. Finally, on the question of the construction of Xenophon's Theory of Leadership, did Xenophon perhaps work out a theory (unpublished) in more of a dialectic manner as
The principle difficulty with determining Plato's view on anything is his use of mythology/poetry to illustrate his points. In the end, we are never certain if he is offering practical advice or commenting on his poetic predecessors – as I argued in a couple of papers I gave on the myth of Er, he is ever backtracking to his war on poetry – only in
I'm not sure about this. In some cases it's clear that Plato is using mythology precisely to oppose the kind of historiographical argument by exemplum that typified 4th century history writing. The
Sorry, I hadn't seen your post before this – certainly,it is difficult, given the pure mass of work in Plato and the time over which the works were composed, to detect a perfectly consistent viewpoint on virtually anything – I agree that his attacks on poetry are on substance, rather than form, and in the end he can tolerate Homer better than he can the tragedians. I am merely stating that
Jwilson (et. al.), could you elaborate on what qualifies something as a manual? I have thought about this issue in the context of agricultural and other didactic poetry, but not government. What are the characteristics of a manual? To what extent do positively-valued/exemplary portraits of leaders, governments, and societies "teach" even when they are not in manual-form?
ἡγήσατο: Why does Xenophon seem to find this a noteworthy and perhaps admirable accomplishment? What is the history of Greek attempts to subdue other nations and establish an empire outside of Greece itself?
Is Xenophon's emphasis more on the willingness than the sheer size of Cyrus' following? cf. ἑκόντων…ἑκόντων
Does Xenophon show an interest in the ability to subdue/unite groups of people in his other works?
The limited success of the Athenians and their allies in "liberating" lands from Xerxes and Artaxerxes I, and the failure of the Spartans and their allies to do the same after the revolt of Cyrus, would also have come to mind. Xenophon describes several such attempts in the
Note that
[2] οὗτος ὁ Κροῖσος βαρβάρων πρῶτος τῶν ἡμεῖς ἴδμεν τοὺς μὲν κατεστρέψατο Ἑλλήνων ἐς φόρου ἀπαγωγήν, τοὺς δὲ φίλους προσεποιήσατο. κατεστρέψατο μὲν Ἴωνάς τε καὶ Αἰολέας καὶ Δωριέας τοὺς ἐν τῇ Ἀσίῃ, φίλους δὲ προσεποιήσατο Λακεδαιμονίους. [3] πρὸ δὲ τῆς Κροίσου ἀρχῆς πάντες Ἕλληνες ἦσαν ἐλεύθεροι· τὸ γὰρ Κιμμερίων στράτευμα τὸ ἐπὶ τὴν Ἰωνίην ἀπικόμενον Κροίσου ἐὸν πρεσβύτερον οὐ καταστροφὴ ἐγένετο τῶν πολίων ἀλλ᾽ ἐξ ἐπιδρομῆς ἁρπαγή.
τὸ ἀνθρώπων ἄρχειν … ἐθελήσαντας πείθεσθαι: Are these actions identical, viewed from complimentary perspectives? Or are the types of "ruling" that don't involve willing obedience or types of willing obedience that don't involve ruling?
ἤθελον αὐτῷ ὑπακούειν: Is this synonymous with Κύρῳ … ἐθελήσαντας πείθεσθαι?
Ruling the willing and ruling the unwilling are the first way in which Plato distinguishes types of constitutions, e.g. at
ἐθελήσαντας πείθεσθαι: What does Cyrus do to win willing obedience/friendship from his followers?
γενεὰν: How interested is Xenophon in Cyrus' lineage? What are the variant accounts?
Another way of asking this question is "How important is lineage for leadership according to Xenophon?"
It seems to me that lineage is absolutely crucial for Xenophon's theory of leadership, which is why he differs from many modern leadership guidebooks which abstract from the particulars of the individual and offer methods that can be adopted by anyone at all. Xenophon seems to recognize that social position is an essential condition for leadership. I am reminded of the story that president Bush II used his mother's Christmas card list to launch his first fundraising campaign. Not everyone can do that, and not everyone is born into royalty. This would be part of Xenophon's realism.
What do you make of Xenophon's statement in
You might want to turn this discussion into a blog post where you ask the question, 'how important is lineage for Cyrus' leadership?' and give some initial hypotheses. The group could collect and discuss passages that help to answer it as well. It occurs to me that we could also bring in other ancient works on leadership that emphasize lineage to a greater or lesser extent.
According to
Why is the work called the Cyropaedia (Kuroupaideia) and how do we know?
Cicero notes that the Cyropaedia is very popular in his day and refers to it as Cyri Vita et Disciplina (
To pick up on the thread that a title may refer to the events of the beginning of a work, as is the case in Anabasis, this would make particular sense to an ancient audience accustomed to referring to poetic works by their first line. As this is not a custom confined to Greece, but with a very long pedigree (e.g. Enuma Elish), an ancient reader would probably have little problem understanding that the "Education of Cyrus" is the starting point, the first book, of a work that includes much more than this. As a multi-book (i.e. multi-scroll) work is only a complete whole in the sense that all the rolls are put together in the same bucket, the idea that the title has value as hermeneutic for understanding anything beyond the first book (pace Tatum and Higgens) is more compelling to a modern reader than it would likely have been to an ancient reader.
On the other hand, one approach to the question of the title's implications for understanding the work might be to ask how the meaning of the title, which has a direct and obvious connection to the first book, might be exploited in oblique ways in later books. To put it another way, book 1 provides a measure for later books. This paradigmatic relationship between book 1 and subsequent books may extend to the title, such that the paideia here is a potential model for things which are sort of like but not exactly "paideia" in later parts of the work.
It seems that there are distinctions between Latin and Greek namings about the whole title of Book. Besides, it would better to have an outline of the microhistory of this term in Xenophon and its counterpart too in order to appraoch the meaning (s) of it.
What is the occasion for Xenophon's reflection that all forms of government are eventually overturned?
Xenophon may be reflecting on the past two hundred years of political life in Athens (
I might suggest that Xenophon rather moves us away from democracy by listing it first, only to leave it behind and make the transition to individual leaders. After all, the reversals of Athenian democracy listed above took place some time before the Cyropaedia was written, and the Athenian democracy was rather stable in the 4th century.It is hard to see an political application of the Cyropaedia at Athens, then–even if one thinks Xenophon was rather anti-democratic, it is hard to imagine him advocating a transition to monarchy. Philip
What is the history of classifying governments according to democracy, monarchy, oligarchy, and tyranny?
"It is acknowledged, namely, that there are in the world three forms of government, autocracy, oligarchy, and democracy: autocracies and oligarchies are administered according to the tempers of their lords, but democratic states according to established laws. And be assured, fellow citizens, that in a democracy it is the laws that guard the person of the citizen and the constitution of the state, whereas the despot and the oligarch find their protection in suspicion and in armed guards. Men, therefore, who administer an oligarchy, or any government based on inequality, must be on their guard against those who attempt revolution by the law of force; but you, who have a government based upon equality and law, must guard against those whose words violate the laws or whose lives have defied them; for then only will you be strong, when you cherish the laws, and when the revolutionary attempts of lawless men shall have ceased" (translation, Charles Darwin Adams).
The Constitutional Debate in
What are the connotations of the terms demokratia, oligarchia, monarchia, tyrannia in the Cyropaedia and in Xenophon in general? Xenophon seems to qualify the tradition about constitutional debates by blurring the distinction between the tyrant and the monarch. In traditional constitutional thought (Herodotus, Plato, Aristotle), tyranny is usually considered the degeneration of basileia/monarchia. Moreover, in the fifth-century B.C., tyranny is loaded with clearly negative overtones (see, for example,
It's a side point, but I think Xenophon would have responded to Aeschines' speech with "hold on, what about Sparta!" The idea that the Spartans were a lawful people goes back at least to the early 5th century (the Thermopylae scene in
For a helpful introduction to many facets of Athenian democracy, see
Why does Xenophon introduce his narrative with a reflection, rather than a direct statement?
Xenophon seems to be attempting to elicit wonder (thauma) in his audience and thereby draw them into the investigation of Cyrus' character as a leader. The repetition of quantitative adjectives, "so many" and "many", contribute to this effect. Herodotus, too, grounds his investigation (historia) on the fact that the deeds of Greeks and barbarians are wonderful (
The word ποτ' is also worth commenting, since it evokes Xenophon's socratic dialogues (cf. the beginning of
Good point. It's also there in the first line of the
As a very complex and key word ἔννοιά (in Plato and Aristotle too), it seems that in Xenophon it can refer to the concrete and un-concrete realities that have come into his mind and he conceived them through reason and then can write about them. Thus they have passed through the judgement of reason and thereby can make his first proposition in the first paragraph of his book.
What did Xenophon's audience know of Cyrus at this point? What were the sources for Xenophon's knowledge of Cyrus? For how long had he known about him?
Many ancient authors, prior to and contemporary with Xenophon, wrote about the Persians: Herodotus, Ctesias, Heracleides of Cyme, Antisthenes, Isocrates, Plato (on the tradition of Persica, see
Norman, I'd like to make a counterargument about Xenophon and Herodotus. It seems perfectly likely to me that Xenophon could assume that his readers were familiar with Herodotus. The reading public in classical Greece was presumably not that large, and any audience that would be interested in the subject matter of the Cyropaedia would also probably be interested in Herodotus. There seems little doubt that Xenophon continued the work of Thucydides in his Hellenica, since he begins right where Thucydides text breaks off. Why not try to outdo Herodotus as well? Herodotus was the great expert on Persia in an earlier generation, a title that I think Xenophon (and also Ctesias) was eager to lay claim to in his own era. In the agonistic society of the Greeks, that usually meant contradicting and even badmouthing their predecessors (the contrast with Chinese historiography is startling – Chinese historians were so respectful of their predecessors that they basically copied what they had written when covering the same ground). Has anyone done a study in which they try to see whether Xenophon may be continuously playing off of Herodotus's account?
The foregoing thoughts about the relationship of Xenophon and Herodotus inevitably get us into the question of what kind of book the Cyropaedia is. Xenophon was an innovator in literary genres, creating or contributing to the early stages of memoir, biography, history, philosophic dialogue, technical manual, and, perhaps, the novel. There was still much fluidity in these genres, and an author can have more than one purpose. In the Cyropoaedia Xenophon gets to do some history of the Herodotean kind (of the distant past – the kind Thucydides disapproved of), to advertise his expertise on Persia (which continued to pose a serious threat to the Greeks – "know your enemy!"), To disseminate his ideas on government, human character, education and other philosophical topics, and to compose attractive fictions. As you know, I think his patron Cyrus the younger gave him some openings. I've always been struck by the constitutional debate in Herodotus. It seems pretty obvious to us that the Persian debaters are tossing around the concepts of Greek political theory, and Herodotus had already obviously run into this criticism, because he insists that he has it from a reliable source. I assume that the source must be Persian. There were Persian families that had lived for generations on the Greek frontier, and some Persians must have learned the Greek language and imbibed Greek ideas, such that they could explain themselves and their civilization in terms the Greeks could understand. Likewise, there were Greek professionals and slaves in Persian service who could also talk across the language and culture boundary. We get a glimpse of this when the claim is made that the Persians descended from Perseus, and the Persian fleet that lands on Delos in 490 gives assurances based on their familiarity with Greek religion. The younger Cyrus spent seven or eight years on the Western frontier, making friends with Greeks (e.g., Lysander, Clearchus) and, it would appear from the Anabasis, learning to speak some Greek. Could he not have told the Greeks in his entourage stories about the great and wise founder of the Empire? And could not this have given Xenophon (who obviously took copious notes on the March into and out of Mesopotamia) an opening and some ideas which he later ran with and, at the least, used as a frame?
I cannot agree more: Cyropaedia should be studied in the context of the historiographical tradition, mainly
Your points are all well made and well taken. And I continue to be intrigued by your parallels with China. I confess that I am something of an agnostic on this question of what Xenophon is really trying to do vis-a-vis previous authors, though I'm ready to be converted at a moment's notice. As I say in my comments to the questions about "occasion" and about "thauma" in
Ah, I just thought of what I hope is a clear example to make my point about Xenophon's audience "reading" Herodotus: If someone today read a new biography of Abraham Lincoln, it would hopefully be the case that this biography was not written totally anew but would rely on and thus in some sense be "responding" to previous biographies and even source material on Lincoln. It would be possible for professional historians of Lincoln to wonder about the new biography's attitude toward these previous sources, noting where they seemed to coincide and where diverge. But (I imagine) for a large portion of the highly literate public, and even of those who were familiar with previous Lincoln biographies, the interaction between the current biography and previous ones would be largely unnoticed. Nevertheless, it would be possible for the new biography to "out do" previous biographies because it was written in a more engaging way and focused on topics and themes that were more appealing to the contemporary audience. (I hesitate to mention Bill
I can't resist… Is the Cyropaedia then akin to the new movie about to hit the theaters – Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Killer? But seriously, our contemporary world that is so awash in books does not provide a good analogy to the situation in classical Greece. Name a Greek text that does not in some way assume knowledge of Homer. Virgil's Aeneid is in constant dialogue with the Iliad and Odyssey. I think ancient people did read that way. Not that Herodotus was anywhere near as important as Homer to the Greeks, but in cultures in which only the few are educated and books are rare, there is a very "academic" quality to the discourse.
Steven, I would pay good money to see Cyrus team up with Abe Lincoln (or Buffy Summers) to fight vampires, especially after they had eaten some cardamom to give themselves superhuman strength.
The scarcity of books and education in the ancient world and the academic quality of Xenophon's discourse should not lead us to assume that Xenophon was writing exclusively for an informed audience or that such an audience is the only one for whom his text is intelligible.
I suppose we are dancing around the question "how did people read in fourth century Greece?" Starting in late antiquity, we have strong evidence for an educational traditional based on artes memorativae. There is some evidence for this back to the sixth century BCE: aside from an anecdote about Simonides, I believe
I think we're actually seeing things in a pretty similar way. I'm only suggesting that rivalry with Herodotus and some inter-textual playing off of Herodotus is a piece of what he is up to, particularly prominent in book 1. We could, as you suggest, also look closely at the Croesus episode, and Xenophon's version of the death of Cyrus can in no way be reconciled with Herodotus.
I've been thinking more about the relevance of Herodotus to our inquiry. How different, really, is Xenophon's approach to recounting events of a distant past about which he only had so much "information?" Clearly Herodotus took traditions, mostly oral, about the seventh, sixth, and early fifth centuries B.C.E. and fleshed them out into a full narrative, replete with plausible details, emotions, and speeches. What conceivable source could he have had for the dialogue between Periander, the early sixth century tyrant of Corinth, and his estranged son, or for the conversation between the Persian king Xerxes and his uncle, Artabanus, in the king's bedroom that led to the decision to invade Greece? He had, presumably, inherited the framework of the stories, and felt no qualms about filling in the details, characterizing the protagonists, and putting words into their mouths. Of course, the expectations about what an historian should properly do developed subsequently, but even a Thucydides (
Where else is the problem of ruling different ἔθνη treated in ancient Greece? Is it seen primarily as a Persian practice?
To what extent do we see Xenophon (or others) addressing the ways in which Cyrus interacted with other cultures, e.g. by using their language or adopting/respecting their culture? The Cyrus Cylinder is of course a great example of this but it is not clear how consistent the portrait of Cyrus there is with Xenophon's.
Perhaps somewhat akin are Isocrates' views on Philip as a ruler of the Macedonians.
In his reference to human nature, and the human (in)ability to lead others, to what extent is Xenophon aligning himself with the Xenophontic Socrates, who favors the study of human nature over the nature of the universe (cf.
Cyrus himself orders Tigranes to forgive his father for executing his tutor out of envy because it was a "human" mistake (cf. ἀνθρώπινά μοι δοκεῖς ἁμαρτεῖν,
I don't know, but it might be interesting to compare
Is the thauma felt here for tyrants (cf. θαυμάζονται) a feeling of wonder or does it also have connotations of, e.g., respect, moral approval, admiration, or a desire to emulate the tyrant?
The wonder here is passive and not ascribed to Xenophon/the narrator himself, it least not immediately, so if there is any admiration for tyrants we cannot assume he shares it . Xenophon begins the
I realize that I was not clear in my original post. I actually think that thauma here means something more neutral like "wonder" or "amazement" than "admiration." It is possible that Xenophon is saying that the foolish masses might want to be tyrants themselves and thus used a passive verb. But I think the passive verb is more designed to keep the focus on the different types of government in the subject of each sentence. He switches to an active verb and puts estate manages in the accusative in the following sentence because of a different form of indirect discourse. Thus I think his point about thauma is rather that tyrannies (like, say, Ponzi schemes) are so hard to maintain even for short periods of time that you need a lot of cleverness and luck to have any success, more so than the virtue of wisdom. Hence you are not someone to be emulated.
The issue of thauma is indeed complex. There is a French dissertation devoted to this topic, but studies mainly the Homeric epics: C.
Another relevant source on thauma as a historiographical and analytical concept might be analysis of thauma (or rather thôma) in
The possibility of reading thauma with a sense of irony here is intriguing, especially in reference to
This is one of the biggest and most interesting questions of the work (and one certainly tied to many of the other important questions).
According to the spirit and texture of this paragraph, the approach of Professor Sandridge who consider this three words in a meaningful interconnected set seems justifiable. It means that tyrants are very clever (in distinction of wise) and lucky (in distiction of the cause-effect rules).
To what extent there a "Socratic" humor in this somewhat jarring metaphor of herdsmen as "leaders" and thus animals as citizens who might rebel (cf. συστᾶσαν), especially given that the metaphor is usually reversed, as in the
For a comparison between the leader as herdsman metaphor in Plato and Xenophon see
I suppose we must also throw Thrasymachus' comparison from
I like the point of contrast with Thrasymachus in the Republic. Xenophon may more forcefully be making the point that the reason leaders can lead other humans is that humans the metaphor of the leader as herdsman breaks down at a certain point because humans don't like to surrender their "fruits" willingly. It takes a certain kind of leader to care for his/her followers (or, on a more cynical reading, manipulate them) so that they will be willing to share. At
Another essential comparison is
At another time he fell in with a man who had been chosen general and minister of war, and thus accosted him.
Socrates. Why did Homer, think you, designate Agamemnon "shepherd of the peoples"? Was it possibly to show that, even as a shepherd must care for his sheep and see that they are safe and have all things needful, and that the objects of their rearing be secured, so also must a general take care that his soldiers are safe and have their supplies, and attain the objects of their soldiering? Which last is that they may get the mastery of their enemies, and so add to their own good fortune and happiness; or tell me, what made him praise Agamemnon, saying–He is both a good king and a warrior bold?–Did he mean, perhaps, to imply that he would be a 'warrior bold,' not merely in standing alone and bravely battling against the foe, but as inspiring the whole of his host with like prowess; and by a 'good king,' not merely one who should stand forth gallantly to protect his own life, but who should be the source of happiness to all over whom he reigns? Since a man is not chosen king in order to take heed to himself, albeit nobly, but that those who chose him may attain to happiness through him. And why do men go soldiering except to ameliorate existence? and to this end they choose their generals that they may find in them guides to the goal in question. He, then, who undertakes that office is bound to procure for those who choose him the thing they seek for. And indeed it were not easy to find any nobler ambition than this, or aught ignobler than its opposite.
After such sort he handled the question, what is the virtue of a good leader? and by shredding off all superficial qualities, laid bare as the kernel of the matter that it is the function of every leader to make those happy whom he may be called upon to lead. (
βουλομένων: To what extent is the good will of the followers fundamental to successful leadership according to Xenophon (and others)?
We might imagine that the objective prosperity of the followers would be more fundamental to successful leadership, but Xenophon seems to believe that everyone will figure out what is or is not in their benefit eventually that the will is central (cf. his extensive attention to "willing obedience"). Plato Republic characterizes the sophrosune of the polis as the condition in which the rulers and the ruled are in agreement about their respective roles.
It is interesting to note that Xenophon seems to assume that the will of the followers is the basis for a city's stability and prosperity (since he explains the collapse, at least the internal collapse, of a city-state as due to the desire of one part refusing to be governed by another part), whereas we might imagine that a country today could be maintained for a long time without the will of the people (e.g., North Korea). At the end of Book One, Xenophon explains how cities and leaders may ruin themselves with misguided invasions of other countries.
On this topic, see now
Note that the objections to all four forms of government tend to revolve around the character of the rulers, more so than some intrinsic form of rule. Another way of saying this may be that all forms could work if the leaders had the right character (sic Cyrus).
Why does Xenophon assert that it is so hard for a master to employ obedient slaves when he has written a treatise (the
At the end of the
You make a good point: even though there may be some examples of successful leadership, Xenophon seems to focus on the abundance of failures at all levels (including those of other farmers in the
πολλοὺς…τοὺς δεσπότας: What is the history in Greek thought of treating the household as a type of government (and vice versa)?
See also
μὴ οὔτε τῶν ἀδυνάτων οὔτε τῶν χαλεπῶν ἔργων ᾖ τὸ ἀνθρώπων ἄρχειν: To what extent is Xenophon challenging the claim made by the interlocutors (including Socrates) in the Republic that establishing the kallipolis may be impossible?
The relationship between
Could the analogy of ruler with herdsman also have some basis in the Persian material? Cf.
Interesting. If this were somehow the context for Xenophon's reflection here (see the similar question about context in the previous paragraph), how might we account for Xenophon becoming familiar with it? What is he reading or what has he been exposed to to suggest this analogy? If there is a true Persian source, it might make the final "reflection" in
It may also be of significance that
Is the language used here to describe Cyrus' success as a leader reflected in actual Persian inscriptions?
With respect to the question "who was Xenophon the Athenian?": another way of asking this is to ask whom his successors believed him to be. What, in other words, was Xenophon's cultural legacy and where did the Cyropaedia fit into that?
One significant point is that later authors of fictionalized history (or even plain fiction) seem to have adopted "Xenophon" as a coded pen name, e.g. Xenophon of Ephesus, Xenophon of Antioch, and Xenophon of Cyprus; see
I'd also be interested in finding out more about later homages to the Cyropaedia, especially ones which play with notions of genre and authorship. The one I know about is Laurence Sterne's 18th century novel,
I never did get around to finishing it, but what about
Thanks for this recommendation! I just ordered it in paperback, though it looks like you can get it for the Kindle for $0.95.
Totally aside, I taught
I am only one chapter into the
I was just reading a bit on Alexander the Great today, and I came across an interesting factoid. Onesicritus, a Cynic philosopher and Alexander's chief helmsman, "consciously imitated Xenophon's Cyropaedia and tried to turn his Alexander into a philosopher in arms" (
For more on the question of whether Onesicritus is referring to Cyrus the Younger or Cyrus the Great, cf. Lionel
As an introduction to the story of Cyrus itself, this chapter and the following "spoil the ending" (i.e. proleptically summarize the narrative as a whole). How does this change the narrative's effect, or would the reader be familiar enough with the significance of Cyrus to render this question irrelevant?
What are we to make of the differences between this list of the peoples who came under Cyrus's control and what we think we know from other sources? In Herodotus, the Phoenicians, Arabs, and Egyptians only come under Persian control in the time of Cyrus's son and successor, Cambyses, and Egyptian documents essentially confirm Herodotus on this score. There is also ample reason to believe that Xenophon was familiar with Herodotus's text. Is Xenophon drawing on other (Persian?) traditions? Where he diverges from Herodotus, is he (like
Reza Zarghamee's blog posts on this site argue very convincingly that, yes, there could have been an Iranian tradition that leapfrogged back past Cambyses' reign and attributed the conquest of Egypt to Cyrus.
ὡσαύτως δὲ Σακῶν καὶ Παφλαγόνων καὶ Μαγαδιδῶν: Who are the Magadidae?
Most of the other named in this list are ones familiar to educated Greeks (but see Lee Patterson's note to
In this paragraph, Xenophon uses nouns meaning "a man of nation X" as synonyms for "the king of nation X" (ὁ Σκύθης "the Scythian [king]", ὁ θρᾶξ "the Thracian [king]". ὁ Ἰλλυριὸς "the Illyrian [king]"). Are there any parallels, either classical or from other times and places like the early modern European custom of referring to nobles by the name of the largest estate they owned?
Would it be worth adding to the checklist the question why is ἄρχων nominative in the phrase εἰ ἄρχων διαγένοιτο? I think its the same thing as predicate nouns with a copula agreeing with the subject in Latin, but my Greek grammar is limited and I don't remember covering copulae other than ἐιμί in first year.
This is covered in the same expression in
Why does Xenophon neglect to mention the Armenians and Chaldaeans here, both of whom figure prominently in Book Three among Cyrus' allies?
φόβῳ: What is the relationship between the kind of fear that Cyrus inspires in his followers and the kind of fear he himself confesses to have felt throughout the course of his life (cf.
Perhaps we ought to bring the verb καταπλῆξαι to bear here when trying to understand this variety of fear. A closer parallel passage then may be
The fear in
My question is more related to the development of Greek civilization. I'd like to know more about the evolution of army and governance– which comes first, can you have one without the other, (because enforcement of law is dependent and is depended on by creation of laws)? Does Xenophon consider a successful monarch one who has a good military background? Do the people overthrow governments by violence, and does this relate to the idea of citizen-soldiers? I guess I'm asking about the social context and history in which Xenophon's ideas of governance developed.
The leading expert on the Greek way of war is ancient historian Victor
Similarly, the early history of democracy is a very controversial field. India, some of the Punic cities, Greece, and Rome are the best documented cases. I can recommend, but have not read, an anathology edited by Steven
These are all very interesting questions! Let me take a stab at one: Does Xenophon consider a successful monarch one who has a good military background? The short answer is a resounding "yes", although there are plenty of ways to think about this question. On the one hand, military excellence, exhibited either in the role of a commander or (even better) a warrior, is often the basis even for the privilege to speak in a Homeric assembly. Traits of the good general can readily be transformed into good leadership elsewhere, esp. the military commander's attentiveness (epimeleia; see
But I would add two qualifications to this rule. It is not always expected that the would-be monarch will risk himself in battle (see
Finally, while military command is often the basis for a monarch's legitimacy to rule and while military command can be seen as honing the traits necessary for other kinds of leadership, we should remember that monarchs, as many Greeks conceived of them, needed to be much more versatile than your run-of-the-mill military leader. They needed to be, e.g., (literally or metaphorically speaking) physicians, gardeners, teachers, parents, providers, architects, and even philosophers. Hope this helps! You might also like Godfrey Hutchinson 2000 Xenophon and the Art of Command, esp. his chapter on the Ideal Commander.
Is there a reason Xenophon has this bias against democracy versus monarchy and oligarchy?
I'd be interested to know where you see a bias against democracy?
Did Orwell had read the Cyropaedia?
I think it is appropriate here in 1.2 to quote the opening of George
"This single farm of ours would support a dozen horses, twenty cows, hundreds of sheep–and all of them living in a comfort and a dignity that are now almost beyond our imagining. Why then do we continue in this miserable condition? Because nearly the whole of the produce of our labour is stolen from us by human beings. There, comrades, is the answer to all our problems. It is summed up in a single word–Man. Man is the only real enemy we have. Remove Man from the scene, and the root cause of hunger and overwork is abolished for ever." #reception
Would you consider making a "translation diary" a part of the website? I think it could have interesting implications for understanding how a particular student thinks (and struggles) through a translation. It could be made semi-private, or shared with certain people, and might offer an insight into what particular stumbling blocks are most common or what points on grammar should be addressed in the comments (if a student doesn't know what a construction is, he/she might have trouble articulating, or even considering it, a question). This feature could also introduce discussion about how close a translator should keep to the original Greek, and how far one can reasonably stray. If we made one translation communal, we could keep polishing it and using it as a basis for further discussion on the specifics of word choice and what impacts such choices can have (both in Greek and in translation) on the overall meaning. Do you have any plans on expanding the site to include a communal translation, or are there practical concerns that aren't occurring to me?
This is a very good question that we will consider further in light of your points. Right now, there is a Comments section available on each of the Lectiones that we hope those processing/translating the text will use to ask questions and to share their own challenges and solutions (have you tried it? do you find it helpful?).
Your thinking is right in line with ours on the matter of the communal translation. It is definitely something we would like to build into the commentary down the line. We could thus allow anyone to comment on the translation just as we may comment on the Greek text. Such a medium would illustrate well how much is lost in translation and how our own interest in the text can govern what we decide to keep and leave out from the Greek.
Thank you! Yes, I've been reading many of the comments on each chapter, and it is very helpful in placing the text in its proper historical/social context. I certainly find it an excellent space for discussion and expanding my worldview, and in that sense it is more than satisfactory, but the translation could add a whole new dimension. Thank you for fielding so many questions! This is an amazing project.
As someone still struggling to become a comfortable reader of Classical Greek, I think that an online commentary like this has great potential to bridge the traditional gap between the authors of a new student edition and their imagined audience. It can't be easy to guess what points will trip people up, or to remember what problems people seemed to have when you taught this text last spring. It also seems to me that we don't always talk about general issues and methods in translation as much as we should, so some kind of online discussion about problems could be helpful whether or not it turned into a full translation.
I couldn't agree more, Sean, and, as with Melissa, I would encourage you to pose the most challenging questions you can think of in the Lectiones section. Every time I think Xenophon's supposedly simple, elegant Greek has become formulaic, I'm impressed by how carefully he chooses his words and varies his expression, often for more than stylistic reasons.
I wonder if the herdsmen are good leaders only because the herds are good followers? It's true that Cyrus is the exception, but such successful individuals come so rarely that they might be the exceptions that prove the rule. It might also be worth investigating whether or not the success of a herdsman is due to the fact that he is an "other"– and thus unifies the herds when they realize their relative similarities (theoretically anyway– who knows how much sheep and oxen perceive). Do humans overthrow each other because our similarities inspire jealousy– "If Cyrus can be king, why can't I?"
These are, again, outstanding questions. Your question about Cyrus as an exception is very pertinent to the conclusion of the Cyropaedia, where Xenophon says that after Cyrus Persia began to decline, beginning with a neglect of piety. One may either explain this by saying Cyrus is so exceptional a leader that all others pale in comparison or by saying that Cyrus is somehow flawed as a leader because he could not ensure that Persia prospered after his death.
The issue of jealousy (or envy) is a very complicated one. One of the most vexing questions of leadership is the extent to which the leader should be "like" his or her followers. The best leaders seem to vacillate between being just like everyone else (a "man/woman of the people") and something rather extraordinary, even divine. On envy/phthonos, check out this blog post.
I think it's interesting that Xenophon says that Cyrus changed his mind about the relative difficulty of ruling men. When he says "ἤν τις ἐπισταμένως ἐπισταμένως τοῦτο πράττῃ," does he believe that Cyrus is introducing a new form of governance that can be sustained in the future? If it's all down to skill, then Cyrus could potentially teach others this skill, and eventually the world could be united. However, two thousand five hundred years later, with very little unification in sight, we might wonder if men like Cyrus can pass on their knowledge of successful ruling. My question is, did Xenophon think that Cyrus' rule could put an end to tribal warfare?
Xenophon does seem to believe that leadership is teachable, both from what he says here and elsewhere (see
On Cyrus as putting an end to tribal warfare, see his treaty between the Armenians and Chaldaeans in Book Three. Such a treat seems to require a careful application of justice (see the Two Coats Story at the end of
Xenophon compares men to that of domestic farm animals in that men will rise up against one another while domestic animals will not rise up against man. Would that mean that Xenophon is comparing man to wild animals that compete with one another for dominance and survival, and if so why doesn't he address this idea?
This is an important question to continue to think about, but I think that here Xenophon is focused not so much on humans as followers (somewhat analogous to domestic animals) but humans as leaders; and so while their is perhaps an implicit characterization of humans as flawed (e.g., lawless, wild animals), the focus seems to be more on the fact that humans as leaders have a harder time leading humans than domestic animals. The question for Xenophon, then, seems to be not "What's wrong with humans as followers?" so much as "What is lacking in the human as leader?" (note his comment at
Having said this, I wouldn't discourage you from thinking further about how Xenophon regards humans more generally. I could be wrong, I don't think he would say that that humans are naturally wild or lawless, so much as needing a more thorough system of education and more sophisticated leadership than is required of domestic animals. Xenophon is a big proponent of philanthropia (a "love" or "fondness" for humans), in his portraits of Cyrus, Agesilaus, and Socrates, and so I don't think he would advocate such a concept if he didn't think humans, for all their flaws, were on some level "lovable".
Xenophon addresses the fact that Cyrus and the people that he ruled do not understand one another's language. How does this help him become a great leader?
I don't think it helps him become a great leader but is rather a testament to his great leadership, it being hard enough to get those who speak the same language to be on the same page. This may also be a slight dig at
Xenophon and his audience would probably think of the Athenian Empire/Athenian Alliance/Delian League which had collapsed so messily at the end of the Ionian War. The Athenians had made much of pan-Ionianism based on common language and rituals, but at least some insisted that in the end the Ionians had been eager to leave. Depending on his date of writing the Spartan and Theban hegemonies would also come to mind as less-than-appetizing attempts to rule those who spoke a single language. I think it's
Xenophon is praising Cyrus for his apparent ability to overcome language barriers, ethnic barriers, and distance barriers. Which modern American president was nicknamed "The Great Communicator" and praised for his ability to "steer" foreign nations toward American democratic ideals? Do you see any points of comparison between Cyrus as described here and this famous American leader?
Both love riding horses (see
I was wondering does Xenophon, later on, go into more detail about how Cyrus was able to first conquer these nations with only his small band of Persians?
Much of the rest of the Cyropaedia tells this story, though it is interesting to see how many ways Cyrus is able to bring other nations into his empire, some by conquest, to be sure, but more often by forging alliances that are at least on the surface mutually beneficial.
Why does Xenophon choose Cyrus as the topic of his work, as opposed to any other (Greek) leader?
Xenophon writes that Cyrus inspired both fear and a desire to please him, and the tensions between these two ideas are underscored by the use of a μὲν… δὲ… construction. What possible resonances of this paragraph might we read in
μέν . .. δέ need not 'underscore' any tension; cf.
ὁ μὲν ποταμὸς ἡμῖν παρακεχώρηκε: is Cyrus being disingenuous by presenting this as a semi-miraculous occurrence, or is he speaking metaphorically? And are we at all meant to think of Achilles' confrontation with the Scamander here?
ἔχομεν σύμμαχον θεὸν Ἥφαιστον: again (as at paragraph 20 above), how seriously is this being presented as a theological fact and not as mere metaphor? And does this strengthen the possibility of the Homeric allusion I suggested there (since it is Hephaestus who assists Achilles in his conflict with the Scamander)?
σὺν τοῖς θεοῖς: another odd use of this phrase; Cyrus will presumably lead them whether the gods aid him or not. Why, then, does he add this phrase? Is it (contrary to conventional usage) an affirmation rather than a caveat ("with the gods at my side" rather than "gods willing")?
θεοὺς μὲν πρῶτον προσεκύνουν: does this detail simply preserve the proper hierarchy of gratitude (and thus show Gadatas and Gobryas' righteousness), or does it, by juxtaposition of Cyrus and the gods, suggest a near-divine status for the latter?
καὶ τεμένη: this is the first instance of conquered land being granted to the gods as well; why now? Does this contradict the tradition of Cyrus' religious tolerance in any way, or is he simply adding more temples to those already in existence? And why is this the only conquered spot worth transplanting Persian religion to?
μέμψασθαι: is the possibility that the gods may at times be censured being seriously considered here? Is the implication that had the Persian effort failed, the gods might have been blamed? If so, is Cyrus taking for granted that his side is in divine favor?
I suspect that this highly rhetorical opening sentence – of course no-one would blame the gods for delivering them everything they had asked for – is setting up the next sentence, in which Cyrus appears to run the risk of blaming the gods, in offering to reject the eudaimonia of his new situation.
ἑστίας, οὗ οὔτε ὁσιώτερον χωρίον ἐν ἀνθρώποις: does the second clause ("no place is more holy than this") imply that the ἑστίας of the first is more than a metaphor (i.e., is used in a religious sense)? Cf. also the following chapter.
πρῶτον μὲν Ἑστίᾳ ἔθυσεν, ἔπειτα Διὶ βασιλεῖ καὶ εἴ τινι ἄλλῳ θεῷ οἱ μάγοι ἐξηγοῦντο: this is both similar to and different from the sacrifice Cyrus offered when he first set out (
σὺν τοῖς θεοῖς: how does the appearance of this phrase in a description of Cyrus' thought processes rather than his speech affect our view of the role of religion in this narrative?
ἔδοσαν ἡμῖν τυχεῖν ὧν ἐνομίζομεν ἄξιοι εἶναι: what sort of a conception of the divine role in human affairs does this rather contorted phrasing reveal (i.e., why not simply "they gave us what we prayed for")?
τοὺς μὲν οὖν θεοὺς οἴεσθαι χρὴ σὺν ἡμῖν ἔσεσθαι: is the reasoning he gives for this assertion meant as an exhaustive explanation of the cause of divine favor of the Persian side? Are we to believe, in other words, that the Persians had the gods on their sides for no other reason than because the Assyrians were the unjust aggressors?
ἡμῖν αὐτοῖς παρασκευαστέον: does this imply either that a) divine favor alone is not sufficient or, b) it is contingent on taking this further step, or c) it cannot help with this additional and necessary prerequisite to successful rule?
οἱ θεοὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἀπέδειξαν: why is war craft especially given a divine source here?
What are the major sections of
Cyropaedia 7.5.37–41 Cyrus decides to adopt kingship as a means of government, and devises a plan to ensure the assent of his peers.
Cyropaedia 7.5.42–47 Cyrus addresses his friends and outlines his proposed arrangements to them.
Cyropaedia 7.5.48–57 Cyrus' friends (Artabazus at
Cyropaedia 7.5.58–69 Cyrus then organises his court, establishing his personal bodyguard and the elite forces who will guard his palace in Babylon.
Cyropaedia 7.5.70–86 Cyrus acknowledges that the maintenance of his friends' skills and virtue will be essential for the maintenance of his rule. He exhorts them to hard work and virtue.
This leads straight into Cyropaedia 8.1-5, a response to this speech by Cyrus' Persian friend Chrysantas, and the remainder of chapter 8.1, which describes the administrative arrangements Cyrus puts in place to ensure the stability of his new empire.
How does this section mark a turning point in the Cyropaedia? And how does it fit with other Greek political writing of its time?
This chapter marks a turning point in Cyrus' biography, the end of conquest and the beginning of rule. Xenophon shows Cyrus' awareness of this critical moment through his decision to take on a different form of leadership than the Persian-style generalship he has held up to this point. For those who read the Cyropaedia as a contrast between the republic and the empire as forms of government, this section marks the moment when Cyrus transitions between republican and imperial leadership, and becomes open to accusations that he has become a tyrant; see Nadon 1996:361-74, and Newell 1983:889-906 (see also the authors' later books, Newell 2013 and Nadon 2001. An alternative analysis of Cyrus' political progress is given in Breebaart 1983.
Xenophon here appears to step back from a strong endorsement of this model of kingship, although there is much dispute about this. Xenophon presents this view of kingship, as presented in this passage, as being that of his character Cyrus, focalised through his speech with occasional comments from the narrator. It is the character Cyrus' decision to involve his friends in his exercise of power, and specification of the equipment that is suitable for a king, just as his friends' response to Cyrus, when he appears in full regalia at his procession (ἐκπλαγέντεςτῇπαρασκευῇ, Cyropaedia 8.3.14), is their personal response to his appearance.
What is the significance for the ideological tension between republican and imperial forms of government of the fact that Cyrus establishes himself 'as he thought became a king'?
This chapter marks a turning point in Cyrus' biography, the end of conquest and the beginning of rule. Xenophon shows Cyrus' awareness of this critical moment through his decision to take on a different form of leadership than the Persian-style generalship he has held up to this point. For those who read the Cyropaedia as a contrast between the republic and the empire as forms of government, this section marks the moment when Cyrus transitions between republican and imperial leadership, and becomes open to accusations that he has become a tyrant; see
Xenophon here appears to step back from a strong endorsement of this model of kingship, although there is much dispute about this. Xenophon presents this view of kingship, as presented in this passage, as being that of his character Cyrus, focalised through his speech with occasional comments from the narrator. It is the character Cyrus' decision to involve his friends in his exercise of power, and specification of the equipment that is suitable for a king, just as his friends' response to Cyrus, when he appears in full regalia at his procession (ἐκπλαγέντεςτῇπαρασκευῇ,
To what extent can we separate the character Cyrus from the author Xenophon in this section?
Whether one can read a strong separation between the views of character and author on this matter is disputed; the extent to which Cyrus' views of good government in this section are consistent with what we see elsewhere in Xenophon is a matter of interpretation.
However, some scholars take the distance between character and author even further and interpret Xenophon's positive account of Cyrus' rise to power as an ironic critique of despotic rule. By using the literary device of irony Xenophon can present his critique as apparent approval. Some scholars who adopt this reading of the work (such as
What is the significance of the distance created between Cyrus and his subjects, in terms of other Near Eastern examples and Greek attitudes toward such distancing?
Both the substance of kingship (the practical arrangements for administration of an empire) and its ritual and performative elements (religious ceremonies, processions, special costume, court ceremony) will be established and explored in the following sections of the narrative.
In practice, as the remainder of this chapter explores, the question is one of removing Cyrus from everyday contact with his subjects. This royal distancing and seclusion is a key feature of oriental kingship for Greek authors, as seen in Herodotus' account of the establishment of the empire of the Medes by Deioces (
Although the historicity of this account of the Median empire has been questioned (for example
Principal features of this kind of kingship include the separation of monarch from subjects; elaborate court rituals that restrict access of subjects, even elite ones, to the monarch; surveillance of subjects by the monarch's spies; justice and law becoming identified with the monarch (see
For Xenophon, however, kingship also requires the monarch to provide an example and template (paradeigma) of virtuous behaviour and superlative physical qualities for his courtiers and subjects (
Clearly, within the model as it stands, it is not possible for the vast majority of subjects, excluded from access to the king, to perceive him well enough to gain sufficient knowledge to imitate him. After Cyrus' institution of kingship, the same becomes true of the peers themselves, when they are moved to obedience through emotional responses of wonder and fear (for example at
How influential was Xenophon's account of kingship in Greek political thought?
Xenophon's account of Cyrus' kingship appears to have been influential, based on apparent references to it in other examinations of monarchy by Plato and Aristotle. Plato and Aristotle both draw on this account in their analysis of kingship and the foundation of regimes; Plato chooses Persia under Cyrus and his successors as his example of extreme monarchy (
Xenophon's depiction of Cyrus was thought to have influenced Alexander the Great, via the historian Onesicretus (see comments on Cyrus Paradise at
In what ways might this form of kingship be problematic for Xenophon's Greek readers?
Cyrus' adoption of this mode of kingship, in response to his military success, puzzles many modern readers, who see Xenophon's hero apparently abandoning the positive republican political values of the earlier part of the book, and replacing the Persian republic with an autocratic empire. The imposition of a formalised and multi-layered hierarchy seems a complete reversal of the apparent egalitarianism of the Persian aristocracy, described as homotimoi, 'the same in honour', and Cyrus' own earlier actions as a leader who is effectively first among equals. Cyrus' previous modifications to this system introduced further levels; he armed the Persian commoners in the same way as the homotimoi (
Xenophon indicates some of the problems of this form of kingship by presenting distinctive sets of approaches to rule through descriptions of different societies, so that some aspects of Cyrus' approach to rule in this section will remind readers both of his grandfather Astyages' rule over Media (
How does Xenophon use Cyrus to explore the problem of monarchy and the polis?
Cyrus' story illustrates the problem of one-man rule, which is that a consequence of such a form of rule is the elevation of one man to a status distinct from that of the citizens as a whole. While Cyrus' exceptional qualities might provide some justification for him being elevated in such a fashion, and may even provide utilitarian grounds for treating him in such a way, it is nonetheless a difficulty within the polis ideology of a city of equal citizens (see
While the presence of a monarch was problematic for polis ideology with its emphasis on equality, the idea of monarchy as a means to the good life exerted a fascination for Greek political theorists (
Xenophon treats this theme more expansively than Isocrates does in these works, investigating the problem of the powerful monarch both within the smaller-scale equal society, in his discussion of the relationship between Cyrus as king and his home 'polis' of Persia (
Why does Cyrus seek his friends' approval?
The form of kingship that Cyrus adopts rests on the approval of those whose situation as homotimoi is displaced by the elevation of the king and his separation from them. A similar process occurs in Herodotus' accounts of the rise to kingship of Deioces and Darius. Deioces is elected as king by the Medes (after his friends have lobbied for this outcome,
While Deioces maintains separation because he fears that his former peers will recognise that he is not better than them and thus lacks authority to rule, Xenophon's account of Cyrus presents him as superior in capability to the Persian homotimoi and others who make up his peer group.
However, friendship has a greater significance for kings as a means of controlling and managing relationships with powerful subjects. The relationship of friendship they perceived between the great king and powerful noble subordinates was a further object of fascination to Greek political theorists; Xenophon's exploration of the theme here is expanded both by Plato and Aristotle, who each attempt to define different types of friendship to explain how rulers who are unequal to their subjects can (or cannot) be friends with them (
Would Xenophon's readers have found Cyrus' manipulation objectionable?
Cyrus' use of cunning and apparent deceit in his consolidation of power disappoints modern readers such as Tatum (
However, the use of intelligence and clever trickery (mētis) to consolidate power has a long history and mythology for the Greeks, being thought to start with the gods early in the history of the cosmos in Hesiod's Theogony; Zeus incorporates the personified Metis into himself before she can become the mother of Athene (
Trickery is likewise a part of the process by which Herodotean kings secure power. Deioces does not actively engage in trickery, although his friends improperly influence the debates at which he is chosen as king (
Cyrus' use of trickery is not so much to gain power as to legitimate his friends' (and hitherto equals as homotimoi) exclusion from it. In denying them access to him through this staged encounter, he persuades them to submit to the new court hierarchy in which the relationship between him and his friends can no longer be analysed in terms of strict equality. For some interpreters, this simply formalises a hierarchy that was implicit in the arrangements of Persia, which was not an egalitarian republic, rather than demoting the homotimoi to a lower status than that which they previously enjoyed.
What does the chaos of the unmanageable crowd imply about the success of Cyrus' new form of rule?
The crowd here represents the large number of subjects now under Cyrus' control. But perhaps the idea of the mass (τὸπλῆθος) and the disorder created by the demand to meet Cyrus also suggests that direct relationship between the one ruler and the many ruled will be impossible, other than in a manner resembling conflict. Xenophon describes the crowd pushing (ὠθουμένων), a term used of hoplite encounters, and emphasises this link by describing the scene as a battle (μάχη). Cyrus will use the same language and imagery within his speech (
Are Cyrus' peers described as being part of this crowd?
The relationship between the peers and the crowd is ambiguous in this chapter. The problem that they have is that the presence of the crowd makes it impossible for them to access Cyrus. They cannot easily be discriminated from the crowd (and it is slaves who perform this task on behalf of Cyrus, οἱδὲὑπηρέται … διακρίναντες,
Is this episode an example of Cyrus deceiving his friends?
Cyrus appears to be deceiving his friends here, with promises of attention from him that are not fulfilled (
Readings of the Cyropaedia that emphasise Cyrus' deceit use this episode to illustrate the trickery and the barely disguised force through which Cyrus achieves his goals (
What does this phrase mean, δίκην δεδωκότες ὑπὸ πάντων τῶν ἀναγκαίων?
Xenophon adds a moment of low comedy here to the description of Cyrus' friends, waiting to see him all day, then running off to attend to 'all the necessities'. Delebecque comments that this remark is not in good taste (
How does Cyrus use the Persian lancers (ξυστοφόρων)? How consistent is this with historical Near Eastern practice, and how tyrannical might it seem?
Cyrus prevents the crowd from approaching him by surrounding himself with a circle of Persian lancers (ξυστοφόρων). This use of Persian soldiers as bodyguards prefigures the adoption of the 10,000 Persians as bodyguards and special forces, that Cyrus will implement soon as part of his new royal establishment (
The separation of ruler from ruled by special elite forces or bodyguards is a topos of Greek and other ancient thought on tyranny (such as Herodotus' account of Deioces;
What purpose in Xenophon's narrative does this speech by Cyrus (
In this speech Cyrus attempts to justify the changed arrangements by which he will restrict access to himself, by interposing his friends between himself and the external world. Access to the king will be mediated through his friends, transformed into courtiers. Cyrus presents the new arrangements as a practical response to the unpleasant crowding that he and his friends have endured in Babylon, although the friends may not realise that this situation has largely been engineered by Cyrus to encourage them to accede to the new political order. A change of scale in Cyrus' arrangements is made inevitable by the increased scale of his empire; the crowding may also reflect the status of Babylon as a major city.
Does the problem of the peers getting lost in the crowd symbolise the problem of scaling up rule for the new empire?
To what extent did the Greeks think a leader should "sacrifice" or "offer himself up" to others (cf. ὑφέξει)?
Cyrus suggests here that he has to pay a heavy price for his new role, in that the demands on him prevent him from enjoying the company of his peers as before. The cost of leadership to the leader is a Xenophontic theme that counters the view that power automatically confers happiness on the holder, expressed for example by sophists such as Thrasymachus and Callicles in
Why does Xenophon use the language of parts and wholes (μέρος) and participation (μέτεσται) here?
Cyrus expresses his regrets about the loss of leisure and the company of the peers using the language of parts and wholes (μέρος) and participation (μέτεσται). The verb λογίζομαι might suggest that Cyrus treats this change either as having a value which can be calculated (an interpretation that would support a utilitarian reading of Cyrus' motivation) or as an exercise in philosophical enquiry. Xenophon may be invoking the language of Platonic metaphysics by using these technical terms, and demonstrating his engagement with Plato's more abstract political ontology. (For more on Plato's exploration of parts and wholes, see
Why is the problem of the crowd 'ridiculous' (geloion)?
Cyrus presents the difficult situation in which his friends have found themselves as amusing. Humour and ridicule play an important role in Greek rhetoric and dialogue (
The gentle humour of Cyrus' camp was noticed by Gobryas when he joined them (
What differences does Cyrus identify between the leadership of a general and the rule of a king?
Cyrus here distinguishes the form of leadership he formerly exercised, that of a general on campaign, from the form of leadership he must now exercise as ruler of an empire. He emphasises the distinction in terms of accessibility and visibility. While a good general must be accessible and visible in order to do his job, in order to know what is happening and continually reassess the situation and opportunities, this continuing presence will not, it seems, be as necessary for the rule of an empire. In practice, Xenophon will identify alternative means through which Cyrus maintains the flow of information and analysis that enables him to to act in accordance with opportunity (kairos). The king's eyes and ears, a network of spies (
What is the relationship between knowledge and the kairos?
Xenophon identifies two respects in which the good general should not fall behind others, in gaining appropriate knowledge of his circumstances (τῷ εἰδεναι ἃ δεῖ) and in doing whatever is kairos (τῷ πράττειν ἃν καιρὸςῇ). Knowledge and the ability to make use of the kairos are closely connected.
The ability to spot an opportunity (kairos) and take decisive action to capitalise on it is identified as an important skill of generals and politicians, both by Xenophon in this work and by Plato (notably in
While the concept of the kairos is important in several genres of Greek literature, notably rhetoric and historiography, this refinement of the concept by Plato and Xenophon will be significant for later political thought (
One way in which Xenophon marks Cyrus' development as a leader throughout the Cyropaedia is in showing his ability to identify and act upon opportunity; in particular, it marks the point where his skills and ability to execute surpass those of his uncle Cyaxares, and he takes leadership of the Medes from him (see sections
What is the ideological significance of describing war as the 'most loving of toil' (φιλοπονώτατος)?
The idea of ponos as an aspect of virtue, or means by which individuals may both demonstrate and consolidate their virtue, is central to Xenophon's thought, most fully expressed in the story of the Choice of Heracles (
Within the framework of this ideology of aristocratic ponos, a good leader demonstrates superior capacity to withstand hardship and to work in extreme circumstances; Norman Sandridge cites Xenophon himself chopping wood in the snow as an example (
In transferring this epithet to war, Xenophon personifies it with an apparently positive characteristic. War loves toil, but has halted (ἀναπέπαυται), itself a verb that Xenophon uses for troops on campaign (
Xenophon's use of superlative forms of philo– compound adjectives is also notable, and marks important features of his ethical thought; see
Why is Artabazus the first to respond to Cyrus? What is the function of this speech (
The responses to this speech represent two opposed responses to Cyrus, from his Persian supporters and his Median supporters, represented by Chrysantas (Persian) and Artabazus (Median), respectively. Artabazus, in speaking first, may be seen to have the less serious or important points to make; these will be made by Chrysantas in closing the debate. One might assume that a Median courtier such as Artabazus is already willing to accept a subservient role in the new royal hierarchy, whereas for Chrysantas, as an egalitarian Persian, such a role will require more change and be harder to accept.
Artabazus' speech provides a summary of his involvement with Cyrus, reminding the reader of his participation to Cyrus' rise to power, now to be rewarded with subordinate roles in the new empire.
Why does Artabazus ask for a share of Cyrus' attention? And how does this relate to the theme of 'distributive justice'?
Artabazus' final request for a proper distribution of the specific good (Cyrus' attention and favour) to the most rewarding links this speech back to a major concern of the Cyropaedia as a whole, distributive justice (see note on
How well does Artabazus' appearance here agree with his overall role in the Cyropaedia?
Artabazus is a recurring minor character in the Cyropaedia, whose appearances provide comment on the effectiveness of Cyrus' appearance and arguments, and also an element of humour, through his infatuation with Cyrus. At his first appearance (
In this speech, Artabazus recaps the progress of Cyrus from Persian leader to king through his various military engagements, and underlines the support that Cyrus has received from a series of allies and friends and that has enabled him to succeed. He also outlines the difficulties that Cyrus' friends have experienced in gaining access to him, the costs of doing so in disregarding personal comfort, and the jealousy that access to Cyrus inspires in others.
Artabazus' support for Cyrus' changed role could be predicted from his account of Cyrus' charisma, which he compares to that of a king bee over the hive (
What was Artabazus' role in securing Cyrus' leadership over the Medes?
Artabazus played a pivotal role at two points in the key central episode of the work, in which control of the Median army moves from Cyaxares to Cyrus. When Cyaxares challenges Cyrus to find volunteers to join him in pursuing the Assyrians, Cyrus selects Artabazus, recognising him as the man who had claimed to be his relative in order to kiss him (
After the raid, Artabazus volunteers to continue with Cyrus rather than to return to Cyaxares (
While Artabazus' support may be genuine, the Median soldiers may not know the history of his infatuation with Cyrus, and that he is not choosing to take further action on purely military or pragmatic grounds but because of his desire to be close to Cyrus. In this sense, Artabazus provides a deceptive element, possibly manipulated by Cyrus and certainly enabling Cyrus to manipulate others.
Artabazus' support for Cyrus' proposals here is also pointed. For Artabazus, the new regime proposed by Cyrus is sufficiently similar to the rule of Astyages, and the processes of the Median court, which it is not difficult for him to accept, in the way that it might be for the Persians, who are used to equality and frugality. Hirsch has suggested that Xenophon is, in books 4 and 5, describing a coup by Cyrus against Astyages, rather than a peaceful take-over (
Who were the Hyrcanians?
The historical Hyrcanians (OP Varkana, "People of the Wolf-Land") were a people who lived east of the Caspian Sea (
Hyrcania itself was a fertile agricultural region:
See also
What is the role of the Hyrcanians in the Cyropaedia?
In Xenophon's narrative the Hyrcanians were originally allied with the Assyrians, but defect to Cyrus' side after his defeat of the old Assyrian king (
Why does Artabazus single out Gobryas and Gadatas here?
Cyrus' most recent allies, Gobryas and Gadatas, were gained in the course of his campaigns. Winning them over was a mark of his progress towards building his multinational empire, and also a sign that he was willing to expand his inner circle of friends beyond his close associates from his youth. Artabazus, as a Mede, was an early follower of Cyrus but still outside this Persian inner circle, unlike Chrysantas. The possibility of tension between Cyrus' supporters adds an element of risk to the foundation of empire.
What contrast does Xenophon draw between Cyrus and Artabazus?
Artabazus' contrast between his own limited personal concerns and the pressing matters distracting Cyrus from paying him attention adds an element of humour, but also expresses the distance which Xenophon wishes to point out between the concerns of ordinary individuals and the serious responsibilities of the leader. Cyrus' military concerns, the horses and chariots, are contrasted to Artabazus' lack of responsibility. (There seems to be a similar contrast between Pheraulas and the Sacian solider, to whom he hands over all his possessions, namely there seem to be some who like the responsibility of leadership and some who are just happy to serve. See
How does Xenophon use humour in this speech?
Artabazus' infatuation with Cyrus has provided humour earlier in the book, as well as demonstrating Cyrus' charisma, from his first appearance when he claims to be Cyrus' kinsman to steal a kiss (
Artabazus swears by Mithras. How do Mithras, and other aspects of Persian religion, feature in the Cyropaedia?
This is the only mention of Mithras by name during the course of the work. While Cyrus' piety is a major theme of Xenophon's enquiry, the object of that piety is more usually 'the gods' in general or Zeus, for example when Cyrus is first shown consulting the gods before embarking on an expedition (
However, at
However, as Deborah Gera notes, the religion in the Cyropaedia seems more related to Socratic concerns about the divine than to specific practices and cults, especially Persian and Achaemenid ones (
Norman Sandridge identifies this Socratic concern with epimeleia, which he treats as the leadership quality of attentiveness (
What is known about the cult of Mithras/Mithra in the historical Cyrus' empire?
How does Artabazus' request for a share of Cyrus' attention fit Xenophon's theme of the distribution of goods?
Throughout the Cyropaedia the correct distribution of goods, one of the primary concerns of Greek political thought, has been a continuing theme. This concern extends back to the start of Greek literature, where the correct distribution of war booty in the form of female captives triggers the dispute between Agamemnon and Achilles that opens and drives the plot of the Iliad (see
What is the role of Chrysantas in this speech (Cyropaedia 7.55-56), and how is it consistent with his role elsewhere in the narrative?
Chrysantas acts throughout the Cyropaedia as a representative of the Persian aristocratic values of equality and frugality. He is therefore a foil to the Median values represented by Artabazus; by opposing the Persian and Median supporters of Cyrus, Xenophon can represent two positions from within Cyrus' group of close supporters. Differences between Artabazus' and Chrysantas' responses to Cyrus' proposals are therefore significant. But Chrysantas, as a Persian, also represents Cyrus' more closely than other characters; he is presented as an intelligent and thoughtful man, qualities that counterbalance his short stature and lack of physical strength (
Chrysantas first appeared among Cyrus' Persian friends during his first campaign (
When such a discussion does take place (
Why does Cyrus' need for a home require debate?
Cyrus' move into a palace reflects the change in his status marked by his desire to present himself as a king. It therefore takes on a symbolic importance as well as causing practical changes in the way in which Cyrus will interact with the former homotimoi. Palace building projects featured in the works of several Achaemenid kings, including Darius I at Persepolis, and Artaxerxes II at Susa.
Is there any archaeological evidence for a royal palace at Babylon, or mention of it in other ancient sources?
Nebuchadnezzar's palace at Babylon has indeed been excavated. It was the site of, inter alia, the struggles of Alexander's Successors immediately after his death (
How does moving into the palace mark a significant change for Cyrus?
Apart from his stay with his grandfather Astyages in Media (
By showing Cyrus adopting a permanent home (albeit one from which he will travel frequently as part of the annual royal progress), Xenophon signals the significant change in Cyrus' objectives and methods, from campaigning and conquest to maintaining rule over those already subjected to it. Cyrus' aims and desires may not have changed since the start of his campaign, but in separating the period of conquest and the period of rule Xenophon is making a typically Greek distinction between gaining rule and preserving it (cf.
Why does Cyrus sacrifice to Hestia and Zeus?
By sacrificing to Hestia, goddess of the hearth, before other gods, Cyrus may be indicating that this is his permanent home; likewise, Zeus as the god of hospitality may be being invoked. However, when these gods are paired in the sacrifices that precede Cyrus' first departure from Persia on campaign (
The identification of Hestia with Atar (Fire, in Zoroastrianism at once both a freestanding divinity and a symbol of Ahuramazda) is made by several scholars; see
What is the role of the Magi in Persian religion?
Are there any parallels in other Greek texts for this section on the organisation of royal courts?
The organisation of royal courts was a typical theme of Greek historiography, providing authors with the opportunity to describe a different political system from that of the Greek polis, and also to analyse its operations, strengths and weaknesses.
As with much of this section of the Cyropaedia, Herodotus' account of the rise to power of the founder of the Median empire, Deioces (
Investigations into the historicity of Herodotus' account of Deioces have concluded that Herodotus' account of the Median empire is highly stylised (
There is also an account of the Persian court in the
Is this account of the Achaemenid court and its practices historically accurate?
While the broad strokes of depiction the institutions and practices of Cyrus' empire (
Xenophon wavers between documenting practices and constructing a didactic paradigm; it may not always be possible to identify which process is uppermost in any single example, especially when symbolic practices such as the establishment of bodyguards are being described.
What symbolic role do bodyguards play in accounts of kingship and tyranny?
The idea that tyrants required bodyguards is central to the 'despotic template' (
The presence of a bodyguard emphasises the distance between ruler and ruled, and the possibility of violence and conflict between them. It makes visible the lack of trust and community that characterises tyranny as a deviant form of rule. For Athenians, the most familiar example would be Peisistratos, tyrant of Athens, who receives a bodyguard after using trickery to gain control of the city (
Why is the king most at risk at home?
Palace intrigue and dynastic conflict were thought to be an ever-present danger for monarchs, whether they were formally identified as kings or tyrants;
For ordinary citizens, the household represents a safe space distinct from the public space. But for kings and tyrants whose rule represents the conflation of royal household with the city or state, creating such truly private space is difficult.
The palace holds other dangers too. Cyrus' earlier response to Astyages' behaviour in his Median court (for example,
How unusual is Cyrus in his willingness to make use of eunuchs?
For Greek historians the eunuchs of the Persian court were a barbarian phenomenon illustrative of tyranny and contempt for the individual as potential citizen, yet also the objects of orientalist fascination.
The utilitarian arguments that Xenophon gives to Cyrus for the employment of eunuchs as his personal bodyguard are unusual among Greek texts of this period, but he is attempting to explain a historical phenomenon that was in conflict with his and his readers' values. Gera notes how Xenophon focalises the thought on eunuchs through Cyrus' perspective, distancing the author from the opinions expressed by using a range of third-person verbs to express opinion (
Herodotus describes the way that barbarians trust eunuchs (
For Ctesias, eunuchs were a feature of the Persian court that he documents in detail, for example giving the names of the chief eunuchs of each new king; many such servants are named in the fragments of
Were the eunuchs really castrated?
The question of whether the eunuchs of the Persian court were castrated or not has divided historians, in a continuing debate which throws into question orientalist assumptions attributed to both ancient and modern historians.
One question, raised by Pierre Briant, is whether the Persian word translated by Greek historians as eunuch actually meant castrato, or whether two separate terms, one indicating the castrated slaves, the other the title of a powerful role at court, were conflated by the Greeks. Briant doubts that all the individuals referred to as "eunuchs" in the classical literature were, in fact, emasculated. According to him, the abundance of so-called "eunuchs" reflects a misunderstanding of a Mesopotamian court title sa reshi shari, "he who is stationed at the head of the king" (
Other historians point to the wide range of ancient sources that describe eunuchs as part of the royal court in a range of ancient cultures; see
This question becomes significant because of the powerful status attributed to some eunuchs in the court hierarchy. He also questions questions whether the typical origins of eunuchs, captured as boys, castrated and sold to the court, would fit them to take on the powerful roles held by some eunuch courtiers – such as Gadatas, as Cyrus' most trusted personal servant and organiser of his household. He argues that the figure of the powerful but dangerous eunuch courtier is one imagined by Greek historians (
Is it necessarily the case that eunuchs need masters to protect them?
Xenophon suggests that eunuchs need a master as a patron, because they are held in such low esteem (ἄδοξοι) by others that they need the protection to prevent others from taking advantage of them. But, he goes on to say, eunuchs can be outstanding in their faithfulness to their masters. Although Xenophon does not expand upon these thoughts here, they resemble to some extent the arguments advanced by Aristotle in the Politics that some men are slaves by nature (
Xenophon makes no comment on the processes by which the palace slaves, and those who serve other characters, became eunuchs; but in the case of the elite warrior Gadatas, castrated as a punishment at the behest of the young Assyrian king (
However, access to both the public and private parts of the court complex, and their role as servants and messengers for powerful royal women, gave some eunuchs unusual power within the court.
Why does Xenophon compare eunuchs to animals?
Xenophon conceives of a complicated hierarchy of humans and animals, in which some humans and some animals are valued more highly than others. The situation of the eunuchs of Cyrus' court provides a problematic test case for this hierarchy of species, status and gender.
Xenophon uses animal comparisons to point out situations where an individual acts contrary to the human gender norms he identifies. For humans, there is a sharp division of labour by gender – women work inside the home, men outside it (
In the same way, the conventional wisdom regarding eunuchs that Xenophon identifies is that they lack the essential capacities of men, such as strength and courage (see
But this comparison with animals may seem to dehumanise or devalue the eunuchs (see
Is there any evidence for eunuchs serving as soldiers?
This passage appears to run against the depiction of eunuchs as located within the royal household, suggesting that they maintain a capability for masculine activities such as fighting on foot and on horseback. The only eunuch identified as participating in war in the Cyropaedia is the castrated prince Gadatas.
Do slave eunuchs participate in hunting?
Xenophon here suggests that eunuchs display the same abilities in war and hunting shown by other men. This does not fit well with the division between free men and slaves as participants in hunting set up by Cyrus (
Why does Xenophon emphasise that eunuchs provided Cyrus with bodily/personal service?
Service to the bodies of others is treated by Xenophon as servile in nature. He describes the eunuchs as θεραπευτῆρας to Cyrus; this links his court back to the arrangements of Astyages' court, where the servants to whom Cyrus distributes food are identified as θεραπευταῖς (
Who are the people who bear Cyrus ill-will (τῶν δυσμενῶς ἐχόντων)?
Cyrus clearly has enemies, although he has just defeated the major one, the king of the Assyrians. In the new palace framework, hostility to Cyrus may come from within the empire, whether from subjects outside the palace or courtiers within it. The suggestion here, that it is a large number who are hostile to him (τὸ πλῆθος τῶν δυσμενῶςἐχόντων), might suggest threats from subjects outside the palace, in which case a larger and more militarised bodyguard than that provided by the eunuchs might be necessary.
The idea that Cyrus is under constant threat of violence heightens the concern that his new rule is a form of tyranny.
Why does Cyrus choose the Persians to provide his elite troops and second layer of protection? And how consistent is Xenophon's description of them with other ancient sources?
Who makes up the 10,000 soldiers for Cyrus' second bodyguard?
The number of soldiers in Cyrus' elite regiment, who provide a first line protection for the king, is given as 10,000 by both Xenophon and other sources including Herodotus; in his later procession (
Herodotus also describes the process of constant replacement to ensure that the 10,000 were kept up to strength as the reason that they were called the 'Immortals' (
How does paying for the guard help keep Babylon under control?
The guard of the 10,000 helps to maintain order and protect Cyrus in two ways. Firstly, it provides physical protection for him, both at home and abroad; soldiers surround him wherever he goes. Secondly, the cost of maintaining the guard falls to the citizens of Babylon, and thus impoverishes them into submission.
The deliberate impoverishment of Babylon by the Achaemenid kings is alluded to in other sources. In his controversial tax register of Darius I's satrapies,
Why does Cyrus identify the practice of virtue (τὴντῆςἀρετῆςἄσκησιν) as the key to preserving his rule over so many people?
Cyrus reflects that his forces are outnumbered by those whom they must keep in subjection. However, in a broad application of the principles of geometric equality, in which distributions are made by proportionately with amount of a quality possessed (whether wealth or a character virtue), a few excellent men can dominate the less virtuous many through having greater strength in total.
It is the possession of virtue of pre-eminent quality and quantity that both entitles the king to rule and ensures that he is able to do so effectively.
For a detailed account of the workings of 'geometric equality', see
In practical terms, excellence in the skills of ruling, as well as possession of practical virtues, will be necessary to govern effectively, and these practical skills and capabilities are encompassed by the term aretē. See
What does Xenophon mean by virtue (aretē)?
The idea of virtue or excellence is central to Xenophon's political and ethical thought without its precise nature being fully explored. In some contexts Xenophon's virtue appears to be a particular practical capability, while it also has an ethical component. It is distinct from Plato's exploration of virtue as knowledge.
Virtue is a capacity to perform actions well that is enhanced and preserved through use. In this respect, it is developed through habituation just as much as Aristotle's character virtues are. While Aristotle speaks of habit (ēthos) and habituation, Xenophon tends to refer to virtue as requiring and being gained through practice (askēsis). What this practice of virtue might be and how an individual might participate in it is a theme that appears frequently in the Memorabilia (for example at
Xenophon's conception of virtue as a largely practical ability, and as the means to achieving the desired end, whether stable government or individual fulfilment, has been criticised by many commentators as evidence of a utilitarian ethical philosophy. But the centrality of virtue to Xenophon's thought makes it difficult to align him with modern utilitarianism; perhaps it would be more useful to use Xenophon's ethics to reconsider the nature of ancient virtue ethics, and whether they are compatible with or related to utilitarian approaches to ethics, in a way that the opposed modern ethical systems of utilitarianism and virtue ethics are not.
Did Socrates influence Xenophon's thought on virtue?
Much of Xenophon's writing on virtue is to be found in his Socratic works, which Xenophon represents as a record of Socrates' thought and conversation. Thus readers of
Whether Xenophon's Socratic writings capture the authentic thought of the historical Socrates has been much debated; the differing interests of and dissimilarities between ideas expressed by Plato's character Socrates and Xenophon's character Socrates led Xenophon's depiction of Socrates to be dismissed or valued less highly than Plato's (
On the Socratic Question, add the most recent contribution:
Involving the peers: why does Cyrus select this audience for this speech?
On his military campaigns Cyrus has made many speeches to the peers, or to select groups of leaders. In a sense, the cultural policies that Cyrus wants to institute represent a continuing campaign, and the peers will play their part in delivering it. There is also historical evidence that the Persian aristocracy played an important role in the administration of the empire, and that the king was reliant on their participation: see
The problem of maintaining virtue in the new society is very much one for the elite, those who interact with Cyrus and deliver his rule across the empire. For the vast majority of subjects, the achievement of virtue is not as important as that of the obedience generated by wonder and fear of the great king. But Cyrus here argues that for those who have a share in implementing his rule and governing his empire, continuing devotion to the practice of virtue will be important. The final section of the Cyropaedia, documenting the failure of Persian values and of virtue in the Persian elite and Cyrus' heirs, emphasises this. Cyrus' emphasis on virtue in addressing the peers foreshadows the threat of decline that will be realised in
What does Cyrus achieve with this policy speech (
The final section of this chapter contains a long policy speech by Cyrus, addressing the issue of the maintenance of his rule and empire through the exercise of virtue by Cyrus himself and those for whom he sets the example. It serves as an introduction to the more detailed exploration of the imperial institutions and practices established by Cyrus that will form the bulk of the remainder of the work (see
This speech is answered by one from Chrysantas (
What kind of law is Cyrus invoking here?
Cyrus claims that it is an established universal and eternal nomos that both persons and property captured in war belong to their captors as property, and could be disposed of at will. There is a strong connection between war and slavery in Greek literature, such as the concerns expressed by Homer's Hector about the fate of his wife Andromache if he is killed (
The idea that those conquered in battle became the property of the conquerors was well established in Greek culture, though rarely the subject of explicit discussion (
Why does Cyrus reject luxury?
Cyrus appears to reject the trappings of the luxurious lifestyle associated with the "despotic template." Xenophon has made much use of the contrast between the "hard" lifestyle of the Persians and the "soft" life of the Medes, partly to illustrate the political and ethical differences he gives to the two cultures. In living a hard, Persian life, Cyrus escapes from being easily categorised as an oriental despot.
Herodotus' Cyrus makes similar claims at the close of the Histories (
What use does Xenophon make of the "virtue as craft (technē)" analogy here?
The analogy between virtue and craft (technē) was a feature of ancient ethical thought, particularly apparent in Plato's Socratic works, and also in Xenophon's own Socratic writings; although the analogy appears in many of Plato's works, there is a particularly full exploration in
By conceptualising abstract qualities (such as virtue or knowledge) as a craft (typical crafts invoked in this context are medicine, navigation and expertise in physical training) a model of its possible development within the individual, and a process by which it could be passed from individual to individual, could be developed and explored. See
Both Xenophon and Plato conceptualise kingship itself as a craft in their Socratic writings (see
Here, Cyrus identifies the typical Xenophontic virtues of sōphrosunē and enkrateia, along with physical strength, as attributes that, like a craft, require practice and attention to maintain (see
Do other sources share Cyrus' view that preserving an empire is harder than winning it?
Cyrus claims that it will be harder to maintain his new empire than it was to win it. While creating a new empire involves processes of change, maintaining an empire requires resistance to change. While there are several different Greek views of political change (particularly whether it is a linear or a cyclical process), most historians and philosophers think that change is inevitable, and will usually be for the worst. From Hesiod's myth of the ages (
In Herodotus' histories, kings who inherit rather than conquer their kingdoms fear being seen as potentially weak: Xerxes, as heir to the great king Darius, makes the need to expand rather than simply manage explicit in announcing his reasons for the expedition against the Greeks (
Further claims about the problems of maintaining empire appear in Thucydides' history of the Peloponnesian War, in which Athens struggles to maintain its empire of tribute-paying poleis. Pericles' final speech to the Athenians examines this issue (
How does one practise virtue?
The idea that virtue is an action or set of actions that can be practised is central to Xenophon's ethical thought, and related to Aristotle's idea of virtue as achieved or acquired and developed through habituation. For Xenophon, specific tasks are particularly effective at developing and maintaining virtue within the individual; Xenophon connects physical and intellectual virtues. The paradigmatic activity for practising virtue is hunting, which combines physical exercise, craft skills, and endurance, to develop the prime virtues of sōphrosunē and enkrateia, respectively mental and physical virtues (see
Participation in military training is another route to practising virtue. It involves obedience, exertion, and the experience of being placed in an order.
Does being better than the ruled give you authority to rule them, in Athenian political thought?
It seems axiomatic for Cyrus that the worse should accede to rule by the better. This theory is part of the virtue model of kingship, but also fits into broader structures in Greek thought in which ruling was thought to be the province of the better (as in the idealisation of aristocracy as a form of government, the rule by the best men).
Political authority and political legitimation were not highly developed concepts in Greek political thought (unlike the Romans' auctoritas). Authority might be based on class (as in aristocracy) or simply the exertion of power and force (as in tyranny). The priesthoods included in some roles, such as the kingship of Sparta, might also confer authority on their holders.
Why does Cyrus restrict access to knowledge of the arts of war (πολεμικῆςἐπιστήμης)?
Cyrus argues that, while he and his immediate subordinates should share in the hard work and the hardships of campaign that they expect from those who serve them in war, they should not share scientific knowledge of military expertise with them, as well as limiting their access to arms. Again, this expresses the realpolitik aspects of Cyrus' thought; by maintaining themselves in armed readiness, but restricting others' access to arms, the homotimoi can easily maintain their rule by force (
This section has a Spartan flavour, in that the participation of non-Spartiates in warfare, and the problematic balance between the need for auxiliary troops and the risks of arming and training non-Spartiates was a continuing difficulty for Sparta. However, the point expressed here is more a general and philosophical one than a specific comment on Spartan arrangements (see
What does Cyrus' removal of arms from subordinates and the conquered imply about their access to self-fulfilment (eudaimonia)?
Cyrus acknowledges that the possession of military skill and equipment provides the means to achieving freedom and self-fulfilment, and that they are gifts of the gods.
But his desire to limit access to both the tools and the knowledge of war, as instruments for gaining freedom and happiness, also provides evidence that the cascade of virtue from Cyrus as paradeigma to his subjects (or at least campaign forces, to whom as general he should have some visibility) is limited. Cyrus' subsidiary forces and subjects in this new vision must exist without full knowledge and with limited access to arms; they are in this respect the opposite of the Greek hoplite as arms-bearing citizen with the right to participate in citizen assemblies and political decision-making.
That eudaimonia can cascade down from the ruler to those excluded from knowledge and war is suggested by the acceptance of Croesus to his new situation after his defeat by Cyrus (
What does the ban on holding weapons imply for the participation of slaves in war?
The interpretation of this passage has been controversial. Is the question of restricting access to weapons and military expertise raised here by Cyrus specifically related to this context of the subjugation of the Medes, a broader philosophical point, or does it relate to other historical contexts such as the distinction within Sparta between Spartiate soldiers and subjugated peoples?
Peter Hunt suggests that even if the workers (ἐργάτας) mentioned here are not explicitly slaves, slaves are included a fortiori in the exclusion (
What are the benefits of ponos?
For Xenophon, ponos is an important means by which virtue can developed and maintained. Undertaking ponos is the particular concern of the gentleman. Much of the work identified as ponos is discretionary, leisure activities involving physical activity and training, rather than agricultural labour required for the maintenance of life.
However, the leisure activities identified as ponos do have a practical purpose in training for war, which Xenophon personifies as 'the most loving of ponos' (
Physical toil for subsistence does not seem to count as ponos in Xenophon's categorisation; while aristocratic leisure hunting is valorised as ponos (throughout the Cyropaedia, and in the treatise on hunting, the Cynegeticus), trapping animals for food does not count as ponos in that it does not develop virtue in the same way.
How do hunger and thirst function as themes in the Cyropaedia?
Cyrus suggests here (
The ability to endure hunger and thirst also provides an opposite to the excessive satisfaction of those desires represented by the luxurious life-style that was a feature of the court of Astyages (
Training in endurance of hunger and thirst is part of the regime Cyrus institutes (for example on hunting expeditions,
What is andragathia?
Andragathia is an abstract quality or virtue that encompasses all the characteristics or virtues that a man described as kalos kagathos would possess or embody (see
Why does Cyrus think that virtue is necessary for continuing happiness or good fortune?
Xenophon links virtue closely to eudaimonia, human flourishing or good fortune. Human flourishing is not possible without virtue. In part, this is because of the obvious falsity of the opposite claim, explored here; becoming less virtuous than before should not permit the maintenance of rule, nor should there be any link between vice and eudaimonia.
Again, the relationship between virtue and eudaimonia will be explored in greater detail by Aristotle in his ethical works; Aristotle
Why should the ruler be better than the subject?
The claim that ruler should be better than the subject (in terms of character virtues and of specific capabilities) underlies the virtue theory of kingship that Xenophon explores throughout the Cyropaedia. This speech contains one of its stronger statements in the work; the discussion of exhortation on the battlefield and its role in developing the virtue of the soldiers (
In this virtue theory, kings create and encourage virtue in their subjects by providing them with an example (paradeigma) for imitation (mimesis). In some versions of the theory, the subjects' imitation of the king's virtue can never reach the same quality or quantity, because the king's excellence is of an extreme kind or possessed in an extreme quantity, so that the rational choice for the citizens in seeking eudaimonia (the happiness of the good life) is to subject themselves to the virtuous king in order to maximise their own eudaimonia. This version of the virtue kingship theory (named by Aristotle as pambasileia or complete kingship) is put forward by
To what extent does Xenophon suggest it will be possible for the Persian peers to recreate their own society in the new court at Babylon?
Cyrus hopes that the Persian culture in which he was educated can be transplanted to the new environment of his court at Babylon. This includes the system of paideia in which his education began, and which forms the basis of his character.
The suspicion that Persian paideia may not survive transplantation to Babylon, and that Cyrus may no longer embody its principles, is perhaps suggested by Cyrus' call to the Persians that he and they should mutually monitor each others' behaviour for signs of deterioration. The failure of Persian paideia is identified by Plato as the cause of the decline of the Persian empire and the failure of Cyrus' sons to live up to the example of their father (
The preservation of Persian values in governing the empire was a frequent theme of Greek commentary on Persia; the courts of satraps were expected to maintain the same values (see
Why does Xenophon mention sons here?
The closing section of this speech points to the problem of succession and inheritance. This was broadly recognised by Greek historiographers as a problem for monarchies (as with the good king, bad successor pairs in Herodotus' histories, such as Cyrus and Cambyses). But within the context of the Cyropaedia it will be a specific problem, as Cyrus seeks to ensure the continuity of his empire and peace between his two sons, only one of whom can be the ruler.
Plato's Athenian Stranger argues that Cyrus' failure to educate his sons within Persian culture causes the failure of his empire (
Do Achaemenid sources reflect this concern with sons and succession?
Achaemenid sources reflect a great deal of concern about taking care of future generations, and providing them with advice on how to behave. In the Bisitun Inscription, Darius I admonishes his successors and future generations (see, e.g.,
Why does Cyrus emphasise the extremes of pleasure (ἥδιστα, ἡδίστων) that can be obtained from the satisfaction of the basic appetites for food, drink and rest?
Would being kalos kagathos provide such a strong protection for the individual if it were exemplified by activities other than military training?
πατρὸς: What is Xenophon's source for the attribution of Cyrus' paternity to Cambyses? How likely is it that Cambyses was his father (and that the historical Cyrus was descended from royalty)?
Moreover, (also in Ctesias) Cyrus' mother is called Argoste in formulaic language that resembles Xenophon's here (cf. Ἦν δὲ ὁ Κῦρος του Ἀτραδάτου παῖς, ὅστις ἐλῄστευεν ὑπὸ πενίας.
Ἡ δὲ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ, Ἀργόστη ὄνομα, ἡ Κύρου μήτηρ, αἰπολοῦσα ἔζη,
Also an Old Persian inscription from Pasargadae (
Do you have a guess as to why Xenophon would claim here that there is "agreement" about Cyrus' descent from Mandane? Presumably he has read
This is a small point, but I think the word choice may be important. Although both ὁμολογεῖται and λέγεται are ways to cite authorities without naming them, ὁμολογεῖται is highly marked. (ὁμολογεῖται is used in this sense only here in the Cyropaedia and rarely elsewhere in Xenophon, but λέγεται is quite common). Presuming that Xenophon had read
Good distinction between legetai and homologeitai. There is reason for believing that part of what Xenophon means to do with his account of Cyrus is to "correct" or "explain" other versions.
While I certainly see some validity to this approach, I have my doubts that that's what Xenophon is trying to do. For one, I'm not really convinced that he expected his audience to know their Ctesias or even their Herodotus in great detail (though some readers surely would have). That of course doesn't preclude him from trying to prevent any previous accounts from ever gaining reception. Because Xenophon seems so uninterested in getting a true historical account of Cyrus elsewhere in his work (which is not to say that he wasn't using any sources for Cyrus), it seems likelier to me that he is just trying to give his story the veneer of historical accuracy, especially given the fact that he concludes the previous sub-chapter (
κάλλιστος: What did Xenophon think Cyrus looked like? What did the historical Cyrus look like?
Note the frequency in the later biographical tradition (e.g.
At least in Plutarch there is a tendency to see a person's character in their appearance (cf. Alexander).
Xenophon says at one point that Cyrus had a large build (megethos), but as well as I can recall, that's it. The most we can ascertain of his beauty is that it can make people fall in love with him (Artabazus) and make people jealous (cf. Tigranes' jealous question to his wife in
Cyrus does notice the beauty of others. When asked in <
Is this somewhere where Xenophon is on the cusp of departing from his earlier Greek historian peers? We hear very little about the appearance of historical actors in Thucydides, for example, even Alcibiades. On the other hand, Plato often describes the appearance of Socrates' interlocutors (for example, Theaetetus at the start of
Could one assume that the ancient Persians look like their modern equivalents, or has there been a significant migration of peoples in the area?
Plutarch says that Cyrus was hawk-nosed: "The Persians affect such as are hawk-nosed and think them most beautiful, because Cyrus, the most beloved of their kings, had a nose of that shape" (Πέρσαι τῶν γρυπῶν ἐρῶσι καὶ καλλίστους ὑπολαμβάνουσι διὰ τὸ Κῦρον ἀγαπηθέντα μάλιστα τῶν βασιλέων γεγονέναι γρυπὸν τὸ εἶδος, Plutarch Moralia, Remarkable Sayings of Kings and Great Commanders 172E4-6, translation Goodwin; cf. also Πέρσαι δ', ὅτιγρυπὸς ἦν ὁ Κῦρος, ἔτι καὶ νῦν ἐρῶσι τῶν γρυπῶν καὶ καλλίστους ὑπολαμβάνουσιν,
φιλανθρωπότατος: What does Xenophon mean by this term?
On this see now Norman's own Sandridge 2012.
φιλομαθέστατος: What does Xenophon mean by this term?
Is the character of Zal in the
Note that Ctesias' Cyrus (
φιλοτιμότατος: What does Xenophon mean by this term?
πάντα μὲν πόνον … πάντα δὲ κίνδυνον: What is this significance of a willingness to do all labors and take all risks for Xenophon's Theory of Leadership?
This reminds us of the Alexander tradition, in which he is always the first over the wall, or the tale about him emptying his canteen (citation?) when his men have no water…is this simply part of a cultural definition of leaderly behavior, or could there be a definite line of influence/imitation here?
Both of those anecdotes come from Plutarch, I believe. There is a similar contemporary instance of Isocrates' Evagoras leading the charge in his home-city of Salamis to reclaim his throne. As well as I can tell Cyrus' philokindunia does not seem to be of this kind except in his youth (rushing into the hunt or the skirmish against the Assyrians). At the onset of one of the battles, he does get a little ahead of himself, but nothing comes of it. It is the recklessly bold prince of the Cadusians who pursues the fleeing Armenians or Abradatas charging his chariot into the Egyptians who exhibit this kind of all-out risk-taking (and they both die; the Hyrcanian is even a "lesson" in cutting out ahead of the pack).
It is worth thinking more carefully about what Cyrus' "risking it all" actually means. He seems willing at least to "risk" all of his personal resources to pursue his ambitions.
In general it is a real dilemma for a leader to be "first" in battle and yet live long enough to manage the safety of the followers. Isocrates counsels Philip of Macedon against an "unseasonable philotimia" in risking himself too much in battle. I don't know how far back this dilemma goes. No one in the Iliad (that I can recall) seems to worry what the ramifications would be if Agamemnon or Menelaus were killed in battle. Accordingly to Achilles' criticism of him in
Undertaking all toils is the mark of the leader. It seems that Xenophon's peculiarity lies in the fact that he distinguishes between the supreme toils, undertaken only by leaders and inferior ones, undertaken by the idiotai (cf.
For Xenophon, the premier example of (reckless) daring in a leader would have been the younger Cyrus at the battle of Cunaxa, as recounted in the Anabasis, which got the Greeks into a heap of trouble. This gets us into the question of whether Xenophon at least partly modeled his depiction of Cyrus the Great on his namesake, the prince whom Xenophon followed into the heart of the Empire. A long time ago I made the case for that (
On this point about what it means exactly for Cyrus to "risk it all", I think you are right that Cyrus the Younger certainly goes beyond the sensible limit of this Xenophon's proscription. As far as I can tell, Cyrus the Elder does not show much of a tendency toward reckless daring beyond his youth, both in the hunt (
Steven, for what it's worth, Simo
The story about Alexander pouring out water in front of his troops also comes from
Yes, this is certainly true. Now we have to decide whether or not we view it as important simply that this is a literary motif, or if it is worth our time to try to distinguish what was ACTUALLY characteristic of Alexander's behavior with relation to Cyrus. For instance, is Alexander's treatment of Sisygambis in
Cyrus gives a similar formulation of how the love of praise can lead to great toil and risk-taking in a speech to his Persian peers as they set out to join the Medan campaign against the Assyrians (cf. ἐπαινούμενοι γὰρ μᾶλλον ἢ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἅπασι χαίρετε. τοὺς δ᾽ ἐπαίνου ἐραστὰς ἀνάγκη διὰ τοῦτο πάντα μὲν πόνον, πάντα δὲ κίνδυνον ἡδέως ὑποδύεσθαι,
τοῦ ἐπαινεῖσθαι ἕνεκα: What is the significance of praise in Xenophon's Theory of Leadership? To what extent does Xenophon distinguish it from flattery?
ἐπαιδεύθη γε μὴν ἐν Περσῶν νόμοις: From what sources is Xenophon's presentation of Persian law and education drawn? How accurately does it reflect what we know of Persian law and custom?
Xenophon's treatment of the Persian educational system (agoge) has long been thought to be based on the Spartan system. Xenophon describes this system in the
Xenophon discusses this educational system also at
ἔστιν αὐτοῖς ἐλευθέρα ἀγορὰ καλουμένη: How much does this environment resemble (and how much is it meant to resemble) the sheltered world of the kallipolis in
How much is this system a historical reality?
It's also worth looking at what
αἱ μὲν γὰρ πλεῖσται: Which city-states does Xenophon have in mind here?
ἔστιν αὐτοῖς ἐλευθέρα ἀγορὰ καλουμένη: What is the archaeological evidence for such a public place?
τούτων δ᾽ ἔστιν ἓν μὲν παισίν … γεγονόσι: What is the history of dividing males into these four age groups?
δώδεκα γὰρ καὶ Περσῶν φυλαὶ διῄρηνται: What are the twelve Persian tribes?
Are they at all related to the many groups of 12 that occur elsewhere in Greek historiography? And which are perhaps pointedly different from the 10 tribes of democratic Athens. The 12 villages of Athens founded by Cecrops and synoecised by Theseus (
ὅπως τὴν ἀρχὴν μὴ τοιοῦτοι ἔσονται οἱ πολῖται οἷοι πονηροῦ τινος ἢ αἰσχροῦ ἔργου ἐφίεσθαι: To what extent is the Persian education necessary for creating the proper kinds of followers for Cyrus' leadership? Is that one of the reasons why Xenophon treats it here (in addition to explaining how Cyrus was educated)?
Is Xenophon taking up the chicken-egg question of which comes first the good leader or the good society (as Plato Republic does)?
Since a great part of Cyrus' leadership consists of doing favors for others, it would seem to be necessary for his followers to know how to show gratitude, which perhaps explains the importance of this virtue in the Persian educational system (cf.
τοξεύειν καὶ ἀκοντίζειν: What did the Persian bow and spear look like? Why were these weapons so important for elite Persian warfare?
κώθωνα: What did this drinking cup look like?
Here is a Corinthian Kothon from the Louvre.
ἄρτον: What do we know about Persian bread-making?
ὄψον: Why does this term mean both "meat" and "relish" or "sauce"?
See Davidson's Courtesans and Fishcakes: The Consuming Passions of Classical Athens for lots on the meaning of ὄψον.
Surely just because it means 'whatever makes your bread less dull'!
τῇ τῶν πεπαιδευμένων εὐκοσμίᾳ: What are the nature and role of arrangement or order in Xenophon's conception of leadership and government?
ὁ Κῦρος: Why is Cyrus referred to here with a definite article, whereas there was no definite article in the previous chapter (where he is mentioned three times)?
What is the history of kardamon (cardamom) in Greek and Near Eastern culture? Is Xenophon tapping into an actual Persian practice of using this plant?
kardamon is mentioned on
According to
What is the significance of Cyrus' beauty? What are its erotic implications? Does it signify noble birth? What role does it play in Cyrus' leadership, for better or worse?
Cf. also
When Xenophon says "among us," is he referring to the Athenians or Greeks in general? Thus, is this reference an indication of who Xenophon's audience is?
λέγεται καὶ ᾁδεται: What is the tradition of celebrating the Persian king in song? #folklore
See also
The coordination recurs later in the book,
What is a sagaris?
What is a gerron?
This and the paragraphs that follow introduce the Persian educational system ostensibly as a way of narrating Cyrus' early years. Why, then, are we presented with a generalizing description of the system rather than a specific description of Cyrus' experience of it? It is only later, most notably in Cyrus' conversations with his father and grandfather, that his particular experience of the Persian system is filled in analeptically (and only partially), and indeed there we learn that he missed a significant portion of this education because of a sojourn with this grandfather. Why, then, the description of the system in such general terms? Is it being held up to us as a model? If so, is it not problematic that Cyrus does not complete the curriculum?
I think it is important to Xenophon's case for Cyrus' worthiness as a leader to show that Cyrus participated in, and excelled at, the same sorts of moral, physical, and martial trials as his Persian and then Medan comrades. The type of leader he seems to be arguing against is the privileged king who did not have to face the same rigors as his followers. Nevertheless it may be the case that Xenophon had no real material to work with for Cyrus' youth before he goes to Media. The same seems true for both Ctesias and Herodotus. Herodotus tells only of Cyrus' birth and rescue by herdsmen and Ctesias tells of Cyrus' ascent (starting as a slave) through Astyages' court. Perhaps the reason for this imbalance in sources (to say nothing of true history) is that there were competing accounts of how Cyrus came to rule the Medes, either as a liberator of the Persians or a charming and legitimate grandson, as Xenophon presents him. But perhaps there was no record, or no need for a record of Cyrus in the Persian educational system.
A few reasons: (1) The system is interesting in its own right; Xenophon is participating in a long, Herodotean tradition of giving time and attention to foreign nomoi even when they appear "superfluous" to the main narrative. (2) Cyrus's only partial participation in the curriculum wouldn't stand out as much if we hadn't been introduced to the abstraction first. (3) I'm not sure whether it's problematic, but Cyrus's unorthodox movement through the curriculum certainly creates a lot of suspense: can he transcend the disruption? What will be the effect on his character? The gap between Cyrus's particular education and what his education should or could have been seems to me emblematic (especially with reference to the work's title) of an underlying concern of the text, i.e., the relationship between abstraction — political philosophy, ethnographic description — and biography, the history of a particular life. How does a writer grapple with these different genres of writing, and how does a reader evaluate the data they provide? If we want to emulate Cyrus, do we have to adopt the Persian educational system? If we adopt this system, how much can we deviate from it? In this sense, it doesn't make sense to speak of a philosophical "frame" around a biographical "story" as I did in my comment on
Most traditions claim that Cyrus was of "mixed race," half Persian (father's side) and half Mede (mother's side). And he seems to employ both Persians and Medes pretty evenhandedly as generals, administrators etc. My sense is that Cyrus's takeover of the Median Empire was not so much a conquest of one people by another as an adjustment of power relations between two relatively closely related Iranian groups (from a Greek perspective they looked similar enough that the terms Persian and Mede could be used interchangeably, although I don't doubt that Persians and Medes were more acutely aware of the differences). Indeed, the Cyropaedia represents it as a quiet coup against Cyaxares, rather than the battle with Astyages found in Herodotus. One interpretation of the later coup of Darius and the six other elite Persian conspirators, as known from the
How influential is this model of education (or Xenophon's description of it, at any rate) on curricular developments in later Greco-Roman society? Is it significant in this regard that educators like
Is the gratitude (charis) described here more of a Greek or Persian value?
ἔτι καὶ νῦν: This phrase and its variants are regular in describing lasting institutions and foundations. This is the first such usage in the work. How is it used here?
This phrase is used later of customs (
The phrase ἔτι καὶ νῦν and its variants (ἔτι καὶ ἐς ἐμέ) is also often used by
That's an interesting question. I think that Xenophon, like his predecessors Hedodotus and Ctesias, had a challenge of linking events in the distant past to his own day, and in convincing their audience to believe them. But then again, its not clear how much of Cyropaedia Xenophon intended to be read as historical fact. A TLG search reveals some examples like
σωφροσύνην: How is σωφροσύνη of value to a prince?
Though "moderation" or "self-control" is very familiar as a Greek value, it has an important resonance in the customary praise of kings. It is important here that the two values Xenophon highlights as part of describing Cyrus' early education are justice and good sense. Justice (δικαιοσύνη, above in section 6) has an obvious role in kingship (e.g. in
One way of tackling this question would be to ask what scenarios Xenophon describes in which sôphrosunê is of value. It would be interesting to know more about what Xenophon means when he says in
The significance of sôphrosunê for a leader may have to do with how the leadership role is conceived. If, for example, the leader is primarily the leader of a roving band of pillagers on horseback, it would seem that sôphrosunê is of less value. You want the leader to lead the charge and take the greatest risks; if he dies, then he may be easily replaced by the next courageous leader. Hence the case of the Hyrcanian king, who is presented in tragic, but heroic light; the same might be said for Abradatas who rushes headlong into the Egyptians on chariot (
On other places where Xenophon talks about sophrosyne, I am not sure what (if any relevance) the mention in
I think Hippolytus is a good figure with which to think about sôphrosunê as it pertains to leadership, though Xenophon does not expound on what I am about to say of him in the Cynegeticus (I think the reference you want is
On the question of self-mastery over food and drink (enkrateia) in Xenophon's Cyrus and Hieron, cf. modern psychology's Marshmallow Test, given in early childhood, as a predictor of the capacity for delayed gratification later in life.
δημοσίᾳ: What is the significance of a publicly funded hunt?
It seems to me that a publicly funded hunt signifies the importance of the act in Persian society, as much as any group activity is for any society. How the collective operates in a hunt, as a simulation of war, is (apparently) central to Persian culture.
Anyway, I think it is vital to have a sense of community in any nation to ensure cohesion– a feeling of shared history tends to help this. If each segment of an armed population (in particular restless young men) gets a chance to gain personal and national glory, revolution is less likely to occur. I think there have been studies on the phenomenon of young men becoming disenchanted when they are unemployed and unengaged in great numbers and taking to rebellion on a large scale. At any rate, with 12 (or however many there actually were) distinct tribes, who likely identified themselves as distinct, a collaborative effort was probably critical to maintaining unity.
"Is this an indication that Xenophon didn't know about any such traditions, that they weren't well-known, or that he simply didn't find them relevant to his argument?"
Xenophon alludes to the Persians having a tradition of oral poetry (
μᾶζα καὶ ἄρτος: What is the difference between maza and artos?
See Cyrus' remarks on the proper nutrition for a long campaign on
ὄψον -explain translation as "relish" compared to τὸ κάρδαμον? How is what they hunt turned into "relish?" What part of an animal would constitute ὄψον? Any chefs out there?
I find this passage to be such a revealing comment about the different attitudes toward meat in the ancient world (when it was common only on festal days) and now. ὄψον (anything boiled, like a meat or a sauce) is "relish" in the sense that it serves to make other foods more palatable; it stimulates the appetite (see
I'm not sure about the parts of the animal–and I'm not much of a chef :-). For another interesting take on how tasty food works to bring delight (or does not), cf.
ἀνδρικώτατοι: What does "manliest" mean in this context?
This is the only occurrence of andrikos in the Cyropaedia. At
εὐπιστότατοι: Why would it be important for a great leader to be obedient?
οἷόνπερ γράφονται οἱ Πέρσαι ἔχοντες: What Persian paintings might Xenophon have had in mind?
See A.
μάχαιραν: What is a machaira?
καλουμένους: How likely is it that Xenophon uses this verb to refer to actual terms in Old Persian?
From where is Xenophon deriving his belief that the Persian mode of living cuts down on all unwanted discharges of fluid and air? Is there any influence from Hippocrates' humoral theory here?
ἡ πολιτεία: Do any other constitutions have such a system of prerequisites?
I think there's at least an allusion to
ἐλευθέρα ἀγορὰ καλουμένη: Is Xenophon translating Old Persian here?
How does the political and judicial role of elder citizens in Xenophon's Persia relate to that of elders in Sparta?
I wonder if it's a bit of a stretch to look for parallels with Sparta here, since elders had similar functions in a great many premodern societies.
Is this another place where Xenophon is revising his views on Sparta? How does the age-class structure here compare with that in Plato's Laws, which gives a significant leadership role to elders?
To what extent Xenophon's description of the Persian educational system match Herodotus' description of Persian nomoi (usages) attested in the first book of his Histories? Is there direct influence? Or would we rather speak about standard notions, views circulating in Greece, about the Persian education system?
It is worth mentioned the content Xenophon gives to the words "justice"and "ingratitude". It reminds us the extremely strict education Spartans gave their children.
Someone is punished for being either "α-χάριστος" or "α-ναίσχυντος" and "α-μελως έχειν".
λέγονται μὲν γὰρ Πέρσαι ἀμφὶ τὰς δώδεκα μυριάδας εἶναι: What does Xenophon mean when he says "they say there are about 12 myriads of Persians"?
οἱ δὲ Περσεῖδαι ἀπὸ Περσέως κλῄζονται: What is the history of the "Perseidai from Perseus" etymology? Does his choice of verb suggest anything about his source?
That should be "Perseidai from Perseus" sorry (although I think the Persai/Perseus connection is attested elsewhere). While this etymology is obvious, Scott
For what it's worth, I wrote a fair amount about this in my book (
εἰς ἄλλον τόπον: Does Xenophon mean to imply that the Persians actually had a designated space for merchants?
λέγουσιν: Is Xenophon reporting a conversation he had with Persian youths (or a report he had from someone about how Persian youths conceive of their education)? Where else do we see Xenophon reporting what the Persians "say" about themselves?
διδάσκουσι δὲ τοὺς παῖδας καὶ σωφροσύνην:What would Xenophon's audience of mid-fourth-century Greeks have understood by sophrosune? How is this virtue best translated into English ("prudence"? "self-discipline"? "moderation"?
My sense from reviewing the use of this term in the Cyropaedia is that sophrosune (perhaps not surprisingly) is something like "the ability to check (though not necessarily eliminate) irrational/destructive/antisocial/immoral impulses by a careful or thorough consideration of the consequences," the most common of these impulses being fear, greed, love, excessive joy, enthusiasm (especially in battle), anger, and pity. To the extent that words like "moderation", "self-restraint", or "sobriety", capture this meaning, I think they are fine translations, but it's probably best to think about such an important word in context whenever it comes up. Xenophon seems most interested in sophrosune as a virtue that checks the impulses of young people (as here and in Cyropaedia 2.2.14, where he has the Persian Aglaitadas explain that fathers teach their children sophrosune by making them cry). It can also be a check against the impulse to rebel from one's master (cf. the question of whether the Armenian king can learn sophrosune after rebelling from the Medes,
ἐλευθέρα: Is the gathering place called "free" because (1) it is free from noise and distraction (as Gleason ad loc. says), (2) open to those who are "non-slaves," or (3) open to those who are "free" from the economic necessity of performing menial labor and could thus avail themselves of the opportunity (cf.
Why does Zonaras (fl. 12th cent. CE) translate Cyrus' three superlative traits as ἀνδρειότατός τε καὶ σωφρονέστατος νουνεχής τε καὶ δικαιότατος (<
The context of the passage in Zonaras clearly demonstrates that he is reading the Cyropaedia (and he alludes to Xenophon). The rest of the passage is a fairly faithful summary or translation, but he does not seem to have made much of an effort to capture κάλλιστος…φιλανθρωπότατος… φιλομαθέστατος…φιλοτιμότατος.
This is for students of Greek mythology: Why is it important that Cyrus' lineage be traced back to the hero Perseus? Who is Perseus? What relationship between the Persians and Greeks is established through this link?
And a follow-up: If Cyrus receives a Persian education (rather than a Greek education), what might he have learned about the hero Perseus?
Did the transfer from childhood (learning about justice and societal interaction) to adolescence involve any sort of test, or was it simply based on age? Did each cohort graduate at the same time, and do we know if anyone was held back for further instruction?
Xenophon says in
I'm not sure if we can answer your other two questions; perhaps someone with greater expertise in Achaemenid Persia than I. Unfortunately Xenophon is one of our primary sources for the Persian education (see
I wonder what Xenophon would make of the current sex scandal with Generals Petraeus and Allen? Here is a good article on generals, military leadership training, and lack of self-control.
διῄρηται δὲ αὕτη ἡ ἀγορὰ ἡ περὶ τὰ ἀρχεῖα τέτταρα μέρη: what is the history of such sentences in Greek and Latin prose? Cf. Julius
I've always taken the old time Persian education as being something Xenophon regards very highly, but is there any hint of litigiousness in this emphasis on having the typical disputes of the young turned into quasi-legal proceedings? And would having an adult resolve these disputes result in the young learning about justice more effectively than having them work it out for themselves? Cyrus himself tells of his undergoing judgement of this sort in
Given that Persian education is rather idealized in these chapters, is it surprising to hear that there are villains to be tracked down and bandits to run down?
ἡ πολιτεία αὕτη, ᾗ οἴονται χρώμενοι βέλτιστοι ἂν εἶναι So the Persians think they have the constitution that produces the best men. Does Xenophon agree? To the extent he does, is there a contrast with the pessimism about leadership at the outset of the work?
Does the account of sweat, urine, and flatulence come as an anticlimax? Do Xenophon's allusions to present day Persia throughout the text prepare us for the so-called palinode in
πρὸς δὲ τούτοις μανθάνουσι καὶ τοξεύειν καὶ ἀκοντίζειν this bit appended to Xenophon's account looks like a glancing allusion to
Does emphasis on appearance (e.g. not to appear insolent, not to spit or blow one's nose publicly etc.) reflect a historical reality concerning Persian customs?
How does this passage relate to
Does the epilogue (
The authenticity of this chapter, the so-called epilogue, has long been the subject of scholarly dispute. I wrote about this in The Friendship of the Barbarians,
It seems to me likely to be authentically Xenophon's, as it seems to conform with his personal experience of the Persians in the retreat of the Ten Thousand, as well as his experience as an Athenian with Persian attempts at bribery and bullying from 420 or so to the Peace of Antalcidas, and the general Greek experience of almost uniform success in combat against the Persians for over 100 years. In fact, one might argue from a Greek perspective that Xenophon would have been forced to write this palinode in order to explain the difference between the Cyrus the Great he imagines and the Persians the Greeks actually knew.
Although we should keep in mind that Artaxerxes I fought the Athenians to a draw, and that Darius II and Artaxerxes II both won their respective Ionian Wars decisively. Like the Hundred Years' War, we tend to remember a few battles more than the general course of events. It is very likely that our sources are biased towards anti-Persian and Panhellenic sentiments, because after Alexander those seemed like the 'right' ones. The frequent references to Xenophon's experiences in
I cannot decide which is more generous – "draw" or "fought" in reference to Artaxerxes 1 – he spent most of his time funding proxies, as I recall. Darius II waited for the Syracusans to do the hard work of beating the Athenians, then went to work on the Ionians, and I seriously doubt that X. had any good opinion of Artaxerxes II, for obvious reasons.
I agree with Sean. The Persians were successful most of the time, from the late fifth century on, in keeping the Greeks weak, divided, and demoralized, largely through a simple combination of money, threats, and strategic alliances. They decided the outcome of the Peloponnesian War, thereby destroying their nemesis, the Athenian Empire, and recouping (through their treaties with Sparta) their former territories in Asia. They used money in the war of the 390s to force Sparta to withdraw its troops from Ionia and bog it down in a trench war around Corinth, and the naval victory over the Spartans at Cnidus made them masters of Aegean waters. The King's Peace was a dictate, with the autonomy clause keeping the Greeks fragmented, and Sparta serving as their enforcer through the 380s and 370s, and Thebes taking over that role in the 360s. If Persia didn't have internal troubles of its own (secession of Egypt, various revolts), they might well have contemplated another invasion of Greece. At mid-century, after the Egyptian revolt had been crushed and Ochus was on the throne – arguably the most formidable military commander since Darius I – Persia looked as strong as ever. No wonder Philip got so much mileage out of the Persian threat, getting himself appointed hegemon of the Greeks – the Greeks were scared. Nobody could have foreseen Alexander, but our views, and those of Greeks in later times, tend to be colored by our knowledge of his success. The Greeks may have regarded Persian tactics as dirty pool, but by any objective standards it was successful – Greece was weak, and Persia appeared to be as formidable and threatening as ever. Indeed, worldly Greeks like Xenophon, who chronicled all this in the Hellenica, must have been ashamed of how easily the Greeks had been played. I suppose you could use this history to argue that the Greeks were bitter about the way the Persians dealt with them, and that we're seeing that bitterness in the accusations in the epilogue. But Xenophon could never say, as Isocrates did, that Persia was weak and the proof was that the Ten Thousand had a cakewalk on their way home.
You both seem only to articulate my point, that it was Persian money and strategy, rather than valor, that allowed them to do as well as they did – and the Spartan withdrawal from Asia Minor had as much to do with Sparta betraying the Greek cause as Persian victory – and an oft-overlooked aspect of the battle at Salamis in Cyprus is that the Athenians, in fact, did win. Only the misadventure of Egypt is a secure "loss" and tells more of the overreach of the Athenians than of Persian capabilities. As for the "cakewalk" of the retreat, Persian treachery and the geography of empire had more to do with that than any martial capacity of the Persians.
In the day of Artaxerxes I, the Athenians and their allies were thrown out of Egypt and had to agree to withdraw from Cyprus in exchange for peace along the Aegean coast. They got to keep the coast, but they had controlled that when Artaxerxes took the throne. Given that Athens had dreamed of taking Cyprus and putting a friendly king in Egypt, I would call that a draw. I certainly think that from the 470s to 394, whichever Greek power was strongest could hold the ports and march around the coast of Anatolia enslaving farmers and burning villages, but they found it very hard to do more than that. Xenophon actually admits the limitations of being able to march where you like but not take walled places when when he compares an army moving through enemy territory without taking cities to a ship sailing the sea (
Much of your argument seems to depend on accepting the authenticity of the Peace of Kallias – do you?
While it is always fun to discuss essentially irresolvable (with our current evidence) problems like the Peace of Callias, my own take on it is that it's not that significant – whether or not there was a formal treaty, there was clearly some sort of understanding between Athens and Persia that prevailed from midcentury till the last phase of the Peloponnesian war. The Athenian Empire was strong enough to keep the Persians out of the Aegean, and fourth century Greeks looked back on Greece's relative strength at that time longingly. But what is more relevant to this enterprise – the circumstances in which the Cyropaedia, and more specifically the epilogue, was written – is the situation in the fourth century and the Greeks' perception of it, which I tried to address in my previous comment. You and the Greeks may not like the way the Persians operated, but the reality was that they were largely successful and that they did not appear to be weak. To the extent that the epilogue stresses Persian weakness, I have difficulty believing Xenophon saw it that way. Isocrates and a few others may have claimed that in order to advance their agenda, and the composer of the epilogue may have been one of these, or someone, like Plato, who objected to Xenophon's moral idealization of the Persians, or someone writing after Alexander's conquest, when the weakness of the Persians was apparent in retrospect.
I cannot agree that the Persians didn't look weak, except in retrospect – there were certainly those who overrated their strength, of course. I doubt that Xenophon would have been one of them, but in the end, that is also an unanswerable question.
I'm not sure it does depend. It seems to me that the evidence is reasonably clear that fighting between the Delian League and Artaxerxes ended around 450 with the Greek withdrawal from Cyprus, and that whether you believe there was a treaty, an informal agreement, or just mutual exhaustion there still was peace. For my thesis I am provisionally accepting a treaty around 448 (the "Peace of Callias"). My views are similar to David
I think that it does – it makes what may be merely strategic exhaustion into a diplomatic victory that evanesces upon inspection. As for the rest, from Thermopylae to Knidos, the Persians won no significant battles outside of finishing off a stranded Greek army in Egypt – and at Thermopylae, they enjoyed an almost ridiculous numerical advantage, while at Knidos, they won the battle with an Athenian admiral. (I omit Cunaxa as a special case, since the Greeks were clearly not defeated, but Artaxerxes did win the battle. Like it or not, I doubt that any Greek hoplite thought of his Persian counterpart as much of a threat, and that deterioration of martial vigor required explanation from X. As to strategic or diplomatic advantages, the Persians did have the advantage that they could play "divide and annoy" with the Greeks, which points to the inferiority of the polis system and X.'s possible dissatisfaction with it that I pointed out in an earlier post. But even the King's Peace didn't achieve a great deal for the Persians.
This is a fascinating question. On the issue of style, and as you point out in the book (
I have just a few thoughts here on what is, as Allen says, a fascinating (and complex) question. By my count using the Bude editions, Book Eight is considerably longer than any other book in the Cyropaedia at 67 pages, nearly seven of which are devoted to Cyropaedia 8.8. It is nearly twice as long as the shortest book, Book Two at 36 pages, and 20% longer than the second longest book, Book One at 56 pages. If we remove the seven pages of 8.8, then Book Eight is only 7% longer than Book One. This is by no means a proof of inauthenticity, but I think it's worth considering.
On Allen's question on how readers in antiquity would have read
διὰ τὴν ἐκείνων περὶ μὲν θεοὺς ἀσέβειαν, περὶ δὲ ἀνθρώπους ἀδικίαν: are these qualities equated (i.e., symptoms of the same illness in two different contexts) or separate, compounding characteristics? Does ἀσέβεια always imply ἀδικία, or vice versa?
ἐκ τῶν θείων: what can it tell us about the role of religion in this work that Xenophon's narrator, after saying he will begin from religious matters, proceeds to discuss oaths, reputation, and related issues, never once mentioning prayer, sacrifice, or the other outward and visible signs of "piety" as conventionally defined?
ἀσεβεστέρους…ἀνοσιωτέρους…ἀδικωτέρους…ἀνανδροτέρους: how are these four aspects of their decline related? Does Xenophon suggest any causal relationship among them?
ἀσεβεστέρους περὶ θεοὺς: what can Cyrus' example teach us about the role of religion in leadership, and how have the later Persians fallen short of that example such that religion no longer plays its part in a just state?
What are the major sections of
Section outline and overview:
How does the epilogue (
The epilogue seemingly does an about-face from the rest of the Cyropaedia. It moves from celebrating Cyrus as an ideal leader and Persia as a great empire to anti-Persian propaganda.
Because of its perceived shift in tone from the rest of Cyropaedia,
Does the turn Xenophon takes in
Over the past several centuries, numerous scholars have doubted the authenticity of
Against Hirsch's view,
Can the epilogue be reconciled with the main body of Cyropaedia?
Those who doubt the authenticity of
"Flagrant contradictions between the epilogue and the main body of the text are to be found. It is hard to believe that these are mere oversights, the more so since no such striking internal contradictions surface within the body of the work… The contradictions are there, they are glaring, and they are unparalleled elsewhere in the work. They cannot be glossed over."
Belief that the epilogue is not Xenophon's own original conclusion to Cyropaedia uniformly goes hand in hand with the opinion that the apparent change in tone and the inconsistencies of 8.8 (often involving ἔτι καὶ νῦν constructions) are irreconcilable with Cyropaedia's main body of text. Similarly, critics of the epilogue's authenticity argue that
Those who defend the authenticity of
Others, however, argue that the epilogue is in keeping with what comes before it in Cyropaedia.
This is not to say, however, that the inconsistences and contradictions of 8.8 can be easily dismissed, and
In a sense, how to approach the inconsistencies of
How does this passage reach back to the introduction to form a ring composition for Cyropaedia?
Xenophon suggests that the vastness of Cyrus' empire makes Cyrus' ability to govern and the devotion he inspired in his subjects all the more impressive. Xenophon first lays out this programmatic statement at
However, there are other instances of ring composition which close off topics before 8.8. For instance, Xenophon's shepherd metaphor of
What does it mean that Cyrus' relationship with his subjects is likened to that between a father and his children?
Xenophon here revives a metaphor he has used throughout Cyropaedia, likening Cyrus to a father (cf.
Of course, Xenophon's analogy is a common one.
We might contrast Xenophon's parental metaphor with his likening of Cyrus to a shepherd. Recall that at
To whom does παῖδες refer?
παῖδες presents a double reading, referring both to Cyrus' actual sons (introduced very late at
What do we make of the word ἐστασίαζον and what connections might we draw with other Greek literature?
ἐστασίαζον is evocative of Thucydidean stasis. As
Perhaps more germane to Xenophon's concerns in Cyropaedia,
How credible is Xenophon's suggestion that revolt was immediate and that Persia's decline therefore began very quickly after the death of Cyrus?
Xenophon appears to refer to a coup, which coincided with the death of Cyrus' successor, Cambyses II, in 522 B.C. Both Herodotus and Persian sources allege that an impostor, Gaumata, impersonated Cyrus' younger son, Bardiya (Smerdis in Herodotus Histories). (See
However, Xenophon willfully omits historical details from his narrative, for example the successes of Darius and Xerxes. The suggestion that Achaemenid Persia immediately became an unstable state in decline upon the death of Cyrus therefore seems manifestly untrue and invites the reader to view Xenophon's portrayal of old Persia in
Xenophon says he will begin illustrating Persian decline by "teaching about divine things" (διδάσκων ἐκ τῶν θείων), then discusses not explicit worship but rather the keeping of oaths. What does this say about the importance of oaths for Xenophon and how does this fit into broader Greek literary and religious traditions?
Oaths played a fundamental role in Greek religion and are treated as sacrosanct throughout Greek literature. As Jan N.
To the Persians, oaths were perhaps even more sacred than to the Greeks. The Lie is the essence of evil in Darius' epigraphic regime. Darius' tomb inscription at Behistun repeatedly vilifies liars and makes proclamations of Darius' honesty. An inscription of Darius' at Persepolis reads: "Saith Darius the king: May Ahuramazda bear me aid, with the gods of the royal house; and may Ahuramazda protect this country from a (hostile army), from famine, from the Lie! Upon this country may there not come an army, nor famine, nor the Lie" (
Finally, this section represents one of
To what event does Xenophon refer when he writes of betrayal and beheading, and how might Xenophon work his own experience into the narrative?
Tuplin 2013:72
How can
How, if at all, do these negative examples show how Xenophon views monarchic rule? Has Cyrus' positive exemplum been perverted? Is Cyrus himself responsible, at least indirectly, for these heinous acts?
If one reads the main body of Cyropaedia as a celebration of Cyrus as a model of leadership, then one can draw binary contrasts between Cyrus and later bad kings. However, some argue that the epilogue shows the natural results of Cyrus' absolute rule and therefore calls the institution of kingship and Cyrus' methods into question.
Against this view, see
Why does Xenophon emphasize the role of the elite leaders and how does education fit into this program? And what does this passage say about the importance of education to the wellbeing of society?
Xenophon writes that elite leaders (οἱ προστάται) establish character and conduct for the rest of society. This sentiment is echoed at
Xenophon considers the proper education of the nobility essential to state building and leadership. It is from childhood education that the ruling class learns to lead. This lesson plays an important role in the afterlife of Cyropaedia. As
The Persian system of education helped to produce Cyrus, but it also appears to end with Cyrus. Is the system of
Many read Cyropaedia as laying out a system of moral education (possibly pro-Spartan in its sympathies) that Xenophon finds admirable. Xenophon laments this system's perversion and decline. Even
At the very least, the epilogue raises the question of whether such an educational system for the common good is sustainable and can survive despotism. Focusing on the Persian education of
How does this section relate to the earlier discussion of education and punishment, at
How does this rather hyperbolic portrait of Persian passivity and military ineptitude anticipate
Once again, Xenophon must here refer to Persia well after the events of
Thus, the swift transition in
Persian reality, naturally, hardly conforms to the author of the epilogue's lampoon and it is doubtful that Xenophon's fourth-century audience would have taken such a disparaging view of Persian power. If the Cyropaedia was, in fact, completed after 362, it is possible that the Satraps' Revolts and rebellions in Egypt and Phoenicia could have been taken as signs of Persian weakness. However, Artaxerxes Ochus (r. 358-338 BC) put down these rebellions and was a formidable ruler. Whether we read 8.8 as authentic Xenophon or a spurious addition to Cyropaedia, this caricature of Persian weakness rings hollow and could hardly have been taken seriously by its fourth century-audience.
Here and throughout
What earlier passage of Cyropaedia does
This passage reflects back upon
As in
I suggest that this represents the first of several instances in
Two readings appear possible. The first is that Xenophon suggests at
How does the culture of gluttony Xenophon describes revisit the boys' diet in
In what becomes a formulaic pattern in
Because of this, Cyrus determines at
Thus, Xenophon consistently associates gluttony (among other behaviors detailed in
Is Xenophon's condemnation of binge drinking in symposia consistent with his other works, for instance
Xenophon advocates restraint at symposia, not only here in
This praise of Spartan sobriety may be set in contrast to the pervasive drinking culture at Athenian symposia, as depicted in many Attic vase paintings and in
In contrast, Xenophon lampoons his contemporary Persians as so drunk they must be carried out of the party.
How does Xenophon characterize ideal behavior at a symposium? Even if he does not advocate drunkenness, what role do Xenophon (and his Cyrus) afford to frivolity and humor?
While Xenophon may use the Persians to reinforce the virtues of relative sobriety, this is not at all to say that he does not encourage frivolity and humor. For instance, at several points in
Why does Xenophon consistently present new Persian decadence not as the extinction of old Persian culture but rather as the corrupted survival of old Persian culture?
Perhaps there is something especially tragic in a culture that lacks the tools to understand, appreciate, and employ its own customs and heritage. In
Is it possible to reconcile the claim that, since Artaxerxes became a drunk, the king does not hunt nor take others hunting with the emphasis on royal hunting at
Frequent hunts led by the king are an essential element of the ephebes' education and military training at
Xenophon claims the Persians no longer practice horsemanship. What does this imply about their cavalry? What evidence and events does Xenophon ignore when he claims the Persians no longer practice horsemanship?
If Xenophon does invent Cyrus' military reforms (
Several decades after Cyropaedia's composition Alexander fought against large numbers of Persian cavalry, for instance at Issus (333 BC) and Gaugamela (331 BC). Moreover, Xenophon himself lauds the Younger Cyrus' horsemanship at
How does the corruption of the legal system undo both the education of the boys described at
Whereas the children used to hear (ἀκούοντες) cases being judged justly (δίκας δικαίως δικαζομένας, note the wordplay for rhetorical flourish), they now see (ὁρῶσι) that bribes have come to dominate courtroom culture (νικῶντας ὁπότεροι ἂν πλέον διδῶσιν). Once again, the educational system of Cyropaedia has been perverted. Also, Xenophon again emphasizes the importance of role models for education in a just and moral society. The verbs of perception (ἀκούοντες, ὁρῶσι) emphasize that children learn by watching and listening to their superiors, which is a prominent theme in
But it is not only the educational system that has collapsed in this new culture of injustice and corruption;
The study of botany is absent from Xenophon's survey of Persian education in
Botany appears nowhere in the Persian education of
Does Xenophon refer to actual events and/or pervasive stereotypes when he charges that the Persians of his present have become master poisoners?
The claim here seems somewhat odd, since poisoning does not feature prominently in
How does Xenophon characterize the Persians in this chapter? How might this characterization fit both Xenophon's earlier comments on Persian decline in
Xenophon here effeminizes the Persians as more "delicate" (θρυπτικώτεροι) than in Cyrus' day, preserving Median "softness" (μαλακίαν). This furthers Xenophon's agenda in
More generally, Xenophon's characterization of Persian decline provides evidence in support of Edward
Despite this tendency to effeminize the Persians, Greek attitudes towards the Persians were hardly monolithic, even when confined to single texts or authors. Herodotus shows respect for the Persians, for instance in his account of the Battle of Plataea (
What role do clothes play in Persian softness?
Xenophon connects Median dress with luxury (τῇ δὲ Μήδων στολῇ καὶ ἁβρότητι), juxtaposing the corrupting Median ἁβρότης with Persian ἐγκράτεια in a μὲν… δὲ statement. Xenophon seems to place responsibility for this particular form of Persian luxury and decline on the shoulders of Cyrus, since at
As Sarah
Are Xenophon's allegations of decadence in Persian dress consistent with other statements in Cyropaedia?
However, as
What repetitions and patterns appear in Xenophon's syntax and style in
Notice ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ. This is the fifth consecutive paragraph beginning with some variation of ἀλλὰ καὶ (ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ, ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ, ἀλλά τοι καὶ, ἀλλὰ καὶ, ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ).
How effective is Xenophon's use of carpets placed beneath beds as an exemplum of delicacy (θρύψις)? Like several of the exempla above, is this anecdote a nearly comedic piece of rhetorical declamation?
The charge here seems hyperbolic, even by the standards of the epilogue. Nevertheless, the passage does serve Xenophon's agenda of effeminizing the Persians in their delicacy and luxury. While I by no means suggest any direct filiations, we might observe a cultural analogue in
Even if Xenophon does not explicitly signal the Persians of old and their education, how does this description of bodily sensitivity to temperature recall and respond to
Xenophon continues to expound on Persian delicacy, again in direct response to the Persian educational system of
Does Xenophon's claim that the Persians now create human shade, whereas rocks and trees used to suffice, criticize more than their delicacy?
While this passage may well be hyperbolic in its rhetoric, Xenophon appears both to draw upon and manipulate Persian realia. A sculptural relief at Persepolis portrays a seated Xerxes with attendants holding parasols over the king to protect against the sun. As Margaret
We might also read some serious criticism of the Persians and their empire. The comfort of the elite depends upon the domination of others. A delicate, effeminized ruling class uses other humans as technological tools. If we read the Cyropaedia as a critique of imperialism,
Does Xenophon simply use ἐκπώματα as metonymy for material wealth, or does he place special significance upon this particular object and the specific social relationships around it?
Elsewhere in Cyropaedia, Xenophon uses ἐκπώματα to discuss ethics and wealth. For instance, at
How does this section respond to
The passage may represent yet another small point of inconsistency in the epilogue, since
What is at stake in this alleged shift from a landowner-based cavalry to a cavalry that incorporates non-landowners from service professions and how might this reflect Xenophon's politics as they pertain to Greece?
Xenophon suggests that recruiting a cavalry from men who work in service professions creates an effeminate and inefficacious military. On the surface, Xenophon suggests that such men, who have not received the Persian military education, do not have the training necessary to become an elite military force. Class-based concerns may also lie beneath the surface of Xenophon's rhetoric. Xenophon seems to bemoan the possibility that status and power of the Peers are threatened. As
Why does Xenophon decry financial gain as a primary motivation for military service?
The vilification of military service for financial gain seems either to ignore Xenophon's own experience with Greek mercenaries or to suggest that even mercenaries should be guided in their service by more than remuneration. Xenophon may here tap into Greek aristocratic disdain for wage labor, evident in both Plato and Aristotle. See, for instance,
Likewise, Xenophon may here comment on contemporary shifts in Greek military culture, which, traditionally, had relied on an unpaid citizen militia. During Xenophon's own lifetime, Athens paid rowers in the fleet and garrison guards, while Phocis utilized mercenaries in the Sacred War. Demosthenes provides a possible analogue, since in
Is there a tension between Cyrus' endorsement of cosmetics (
Also, note the rhetorical variation. After numerous repetitive and formulaic introductions, Xenophon begins
Why would the movement of friends be restricted within Persia?
The notion that enemies are free to roam Persian territory restates Xenophon's claim at
Which previous sections of Cyropaedia does Xenophon invoke? Can we accept Xenophon's overview of Cyrus' military reforms as grounded in historical fact?
Xenophon invokes Cyrus' reform of the Persian infantry detailed at
Does Xenophon ascribe the poor state of Persian infantry to failures in leadership? Failures in military education? Failures in moral education?
Contemporary Persians have the military equipment they need, but are no longer willing to use them in hand to hand combat (εἰς χεῖρας δὲ ἰέναι οὐδ᾽ οὗτοι ἐθέλουσιν). Note that Xenophon recalls the list of equipment detailed at
Can we draw any connections between Xenophon's caricature of Persian military affairs and certain contemporary characterizations of modern affairs in the Near East?
Problematic racist Orientalizing discourses continue into the present day. Military failures in the Near East are still on occasion cast as failures in character. See, for instance, U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter's recent suggestion that Iraqi forces lack the will to fight.
Is Xenophon's attribution of scythed chariots to Cyrus historically accurate?
Xenophon here recalls Cyrus' implementation of scythed chariots at
Xenophon does appear to represent the function of these chariots accurately (τοὺς εἰς τὰ ὅπλα ἐμβαλοῦντας).
How is Xenophon reworking Cyrus into his narrative in the closing sections of
While the then/now dichotomy has structured the majority of
How, if at all, are the dynamics of Persian education at play in the methods Xenophon claims Cyrus used to command dangerous chariot charges? Does Cyrus' own psychological makeup described at
What does the juxtaposition of Cyrus' methods of inspiring his troops with the claim that contemporary Persian commanders do not know their own troops (οὐδὲ γιγνώσκοντες) attempt to teach about leadership? Does this lesson apply even outside of a military context?
Xenophon suggests that leaders must not be too distant from those under their command and it is important to know one's subordinates. A personal relationship can inspire effort and action more effectively than a command structure alone. And positive reinforcement, reward, and recognition remain powerful motivators. This idea that proximity is necessary for mimesis, and through it the transmission of virtue from ruler to ruled, is one of the important problems considered throughout the Cyropaedia, and the main problem for Cyrus when he assumes Median style kingship and secludes himself from his subjects.
The legacy of Xenophon's observation can be seen everywhere from managerial strategies in the workplace to electoral politics. On the power of reward and recognition for building loyalty and yielding results as a leader, see
If this is too fanciful for belief and borders on satire, what is the rhetorical power of
Xenophon's concluding picture of Persian military ineptitude descends into farce, with the image of charging chariots left empty both by their drivers' incompetence and cowardice. Farcical and embellished though
In his account of Persian decline, especially in military affairs, Xenophon makes no mention of the Persian Wars. Why?
To what does Xenophon refer when he claims the Persians no longer enter into any war without Greeks and how does this signal his own experience?
On Greek soldiers in the service of foreign kings, see also Luraghi 2006 and Hale 2013. On the rhetorical, panhellenist context see especially the speeches of Isocrates.
When Xenophon claims he has accomplished his task (ἐγὼ μὲν δὴ οἶμαι ἅπερ ὑπεθέμην ἀπειργάσθαι μοι) does he refer only to
Xenophon's conclusion is short and abrupt. On the surface, the conclusion seems explicitly to refer to the mission of
However, some who accept
In addition to the positive lessons of leadership running throughout the whole of Cyropaedia, why might the founders of the United States have been interested in
In her blog post on this site,
Jefferson was himself a translator of
"You were sober and hardy; your enemies timid and enervated; you were expert in battle, your enemies unskillful; your leaders were experienced, your soldiers warlike and disciplined. Booty excited ardor, bravery was rewarded, cowardice and insubordination punished, and all the springs of the human heart were in action. Thus you vanquished a hundred nations, and a mass of conquered kingdoms compounded an immense empire.
But other customs have succeeded; and in the reverses attending them, the laws of nature have still exerted their force. After devouring your enemies, your cupidity, still insatiable, has reacted on itself, and, concentrated on your own bowels, has consumed you.
Having become rich, you have quarreled for partition and enjoyment, and disorder hath arisen in every class of society."
Volney goes on to explain how "the Sultan, intoxicated with grandeur" has developed innumerable vices and, "meeting no obstacle to his appetites, he has become a depraved being." Volney outlines the new ignorance of a ruling class that rejects traditional education and appetite for luxury, including the rejection of "the frugal table, plain clothing" and the perverse reliance on fine tapestries and vases.
Do debates surrounding Cyropaedia's epilogue and Xenophon's overall program recall other movements in classical scholarship?
While it is by no means the only analogue, this debate in modern Cyropaedia scholarship evokes trends in Virgilian criticism. Like Cyropaedia,
ἢ ὀλίγῳ πλέον: What is the point of being vague about the age at which Cyrus left the Persian educational system for his grandfather's court in Media? #narratology
Is Xenophon alluding to more than one account for this story or is he merely trying to give the impression of a historical (as opposed to a fictional) account by claiming not to know a detail exactly?
Xenophon is also vague about the number of years that the Persians spend in the first stage of their education (paides), whether 11 or 12 years (
Cf. a similar vagueness about Cyrus' age when the Assyrian king makes his first incursion into Medan territory, prompting the onset of Cyrus' military career (ἀμφὶ δὲ τὰ πέντε ἢ ἑκκαίδεκα ἔτη γενομένου αὐτοῦ,
By contrast the
ταύτῃ τῇ παιδείᾳ ἐπαιδεύθη: To what extent does an education among his fellow Persians (rather than some kind of privileged education) mark Cyrus out as a "man of the people" (dêmotikos)?
τὴν … δικαιοσύνην: To what extent does the description of justice here contrast (and to what extent is it mean to contrast) with the definition of justice in the Republic, where justice is "each person doing his part for the city according to his natural ability"?
To what extent is this story about the two coats a complement to the treaty that Cyrus forges in in
Both works seem to involve an act of doing what is fitting (Plato would seem to agree that it would be "just" for the leader to give the coats to the boys that they are naturally suited to own) but Xenophon seems to be arguing that for the act to be truly just it must also be lawful and done without force (see Danzig on this scene).
μέτρον δὲ αὐτῷ οὐχ ἡ ψυχὴ ἀλλ᾽ ὁ νόμος ἐστίν: What is the history of the debate over whether the law or the leader is supreme in the state? To what extent is Cyrus guided by the principle set forth for the Persian king?
He doesn't quite say that in total (it's complicated); he's not at all sure that there is an actual rather than theoretical possibility of a human leader whose rule would render law unnecessary (just as Aristotle Politics 3 is unsure about the possibility of the related figure of the pambasileus). The implication of the Statesman myth is that this isn't possible, and
Second thoughts: I was being a little pessimistic about the possibility in
στολὴν καλὴν: What did this robe look like?
ἐτίμα καὶ ἐκόσμει: What is the relationship between honor and adornment for Xenophon and the Persians?
Note that at
Perhaps an odd comparison, but Cavendish's life of Cardinal Wosley shows a similar fascination with robes, silver furnishings, etc. as objects marking out the Cardinal's vast wealth & status before his fall. In the preindustrial world items like this counted not only as symbols of status but as real honest to goodness wealth–it's not like one had a large bank account. Robes and jewelry could be a substantial portion of one's wealth. So such items were symbols, but not only symbols.
ἥδετο τῇ στολῇ: To what extent does Xenophon feminize Cyrus by having him delight in his robe?
Note that this is the same verb that Xenophon uses to describe Cyrus' delight in learning to ride a horse (ὑπερέχαιρεν,
Yet the fact that Xenophon calls Cyrus a "lover of being honored" suggests that any weakness evinced by liking this robe is counteracted a desire to be recognized for distinction. Cf. the quote from
The text is sensitive to the feminizing and softening potential of Median luxury, including Median dress, but Cyrus's generosity (
The two words translated as "effeminate" and "effeminacy" in
I'm nervous about gendered language too, but then
I agree; they are certainly not seen as feminine in the same way.
The parallel example of how Cyrus adopts luxurious Median foods perhaps undermines what the narrator says, as you note, at 8.8.15. The Persians before the capture of Babylon are moderate in food: they eat bread, greens, and water (
Reminding us of the surprising ending to
στρεπτοῖς καὶ ψελίοις: What did Xenophon think this jewelry looked like? What did Persian jewelry look like in the time of Cyrus?
How does Cyrus' animosity toward Sacas compare to other instances of envy in the Education of Cyrus, including the Armenian king's envy of Tigranes' tutor, Tigranes' envy of Cyrus (in front of his wife), Cyaxares' envy of Cyrus, Cyrus' followers envy of one another, Hystaspas' envy of Chrysantas, and the Assyrian king's envy of Gadatas and the son of Gobryas?
Many of the instances of envy are closely tied to feelings of love and erotic attraction. Note especially how the Armenian king likens his envy of Tigranes tutor to that of a husband whose wife has had an affair; or how Tigranes himself worries that his wife may be attracted to Cyrus; or how Cyaxares makes the same analogy in describing his envy of Cyrus; or how the Assyrian king envies Gadatas when one of his harem women is attracted to him. Does this suggest that Xenophon's treatment of envy is primarily of a Near Eastern origin (even if we can understand it to some extent in Greek terms; cf.
What is the history of the Persian/Medan practice of giving/liking robes?
The gardener Cyrus in
Is the reference to the difficulty of rearing horses in Persia derived from the passage in the Odyssey where Telemachus rejects Menelaus' offer of horses (
Hard to reconcile Xenophon's claim that horses were rare in Persia with other evidence for the importance of horses in the Achaemenid period. See the
I think there is some evidence in Herodotus of a tradition that the Persians were originally infantry who learned to fight on horseback from the Medes. Certainly, the Persians always relied on their infantry in battle. Herodotus' story of the battle of Sardis (
It may be that the Persians learned about horse riding from the Medes. I believe horses came to Western Asia around 2000 B.C.E. from the Caucasus region, not that far from Persia. Perhaps their homeland was not that favorable for horse-raising, as Xenophon suggests here, but nearby places like Media were, and wouldn't the pre-imperial Persians have needed horses to contend with Medes, Assyrians and other potential threats? So I'm still a bit puzzled by Xenophon's claim. They certainly were using horses by Darius's time – how else could he have dealt with the Scythians, and cavalry certainly play a role in Herodotus's account of the Scythian expedition, the expeditionary force that failed at Marathon in 490, and the great army of invasion in 480, and, as you point out, Cyrus used cavalry at Sardis in 546 (are horses really freaked out by the smell of camels?). Darius's co-conspirator, Aspathines, who must have been born in Cyrus's time, has a name formed from the Persian root for horse (but not many Persians do, in contrast to Greek and other horse-loving elites). And, of course, Xenophon and the 10,000 had to deal with Persian cavalry on the Anabasis (
I've argued in my article (
οἷα δὴ παῖς φύσει φιλόστοργος: What is the significance of Cyrus' "affection"? Is φιλοστοργία an emotion, or tied to the emotion of love somehow?
Cf. Cyrus' similar behavior at
What is the significance of Astyages' beauty and Cyrus' appreciation of his beauty with respect to his father's?
ὡς δὲ ἀφίκετο τάχιστα καὶ ἔγνω ὁ Κῦρος τὸν Ἀστυάγην τῆς μητρὸς πατέρα ὄντα: Is Xenophon rewriting a happier "recognition scene" to
Here Cyrus takes in the physical features of his grandfather rather than vice-versa in
Cyrus also exhibits the same freedom of speaking that he shows in
This is an interesting question – I wonder whether there is more going on here than Cyrus' display of his extraordinary tact, even at this young age (it seems important, however, that this is what Xenophon chooses to highlight in his first narrative about his hero). Beauty and power often go hand in hand; Xenophon ties beauty to power elsewhere as well: so in the Hiero, Simonides argues that tyranny makes a man more handsome: αὐτὸ γὰρ τὸ τετιμῆσθαι μάλιστα συνεπικοσμεῖ, ὥστε τὰ μὲν δυσχερῆ ἀφανίζειν, τὰ δὲ καλὰ λαμπρότερα ἀναφαίνειν (
Thanks for these references, esp. to the
μυσαττόμενον: What do we know of a Persian tradition of regarding certain foods as polluting?
This is the only instance of this verb in Xenophon. There is only one other usage in the fourth century, by
What do we know of Medan eating practices? How likely is it that Xenophon has any valid knowledge of these practices?
Is Xenophon portraying Cyrus as the founder of the Persian practice of using the lavish banquet as a means of showing gratitude and winning the loyalty of followers (as opposed to an indulgence in luxury)?
See the fragment of
What is the relationship between good horsemanship and good leadership?
See Cyrus' proposal that the Persians become horsemen at
What do horses symbolize for Xenophon and Cyrus?
See the story of the horse race and the Sacian horseman at
In Zoroastrianism (illustrated in
What is the relationship between this scene (
In both versions the author makes reference to the elegance with which the wine is poured, and Astyages' observance of this (
In Xenophon the wine-pourer Sacas seems to perform the double role of pouring the wine and serving as something of a secretary to Astyages by mediating access to him. In Ctesias eunuchs seems to perform some of the latter role. Though a wine-pourer, Cyrus asks a eunuch to tell him the "right time" to ask permission to leave (cf. ὅταν ᾖ καιρὸς,
Why does Xenophon choose this moment as the first to narrate in singulative fashion (the first narrative "scene")?
This is an excellent question (born from an interesting observation), to which I can only pose a guess: it may be that Xenophon's source material began with his time among the Medes but contained no accounts of his prior childhood. It is noteworthy, I think, that the Persian education is described without any mention of Cyrus participating in it until he returns from Media. Much of what follows
This is a very good question. Norman may be right that the source material plays a role, but even so, this is a very appropriate place to begin if Xenophon's interest is primarily political rather than ethical. The move to Media provides Cyrus with the first opportunity to display his political instincts. It illustrates his first "conquest". Although he starts from a privileged position as the grandson of the king, he nevertheless has to prove himself more than he would at home. Moreover, he is invited not simply because he is a grandson but because his reputation has gone before him.
Why does
Why does Xenophon switch back now to an "iterative" mode of narration?
Is there any significance (and if so, what might it be) to the similarity between how Cyrus treats Astyages and Cyaxares here and how Pantheia treats Araspas in Book 5 (
φασι … λέγεται: Are these verbs for introducing indirect discourse meant to reflect an actual source for this scene (none are extant), a distinction between appearance and reality, or simply a stylistic device for good story-telling?
παλτὸν: Was there a servant in Medan/Persian culture whose job it was to distribute javelins?
Maybe this would be the best place to ask this question: are there slaves in Persia prior to Cyrus' career as general? There are slaves in Media (Sakas, the slaves who riot in the Median camp at
μισῶ αὐτόν: Does Xenophon's diction (and pithy formulation) for Cyrus here (as opposed to the verb phthoneo) suggest an attempt to characterize Cyrus more childishly?
ἄκοντα: Does Mandane exhibit the same leadership principles (here, the willing obedience of the followers) that Xenophon portrays in others?
Note her concern that Cyrus will not learn proper notions of justice by remaining in Media (
συμπαίστορας: This is one of only three instances of this word until the 2nd century CE (according to the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae). Why did Xenophon use it here?
Xenophon has Astyages employing a number of rhetorical strategies seemingly aimed at pleasing the mind of a child. Note the many indefinite adjectives designed to emphasize the grandfather's desire to satisfy Cyrus' every wish. And note the term, ὥσπερ οἱ μεγάλοι ἄνδρες, "just like the big boys," calculated to appeal to Cyrus' aspirations to adulthood. Perhaps συμπαίστορας is also part of this strategy in that it suggests Astyages is choosing his words very carefully. συμπαίστορας might also remind us of Cyrus' playmates in
Why does Xenophon neglect to give Cyaxares' name here?
Discuss this question in a blog post here.
Perhaps this is the place to ask Why does Cyrus have his education interrupted? Perhaps it is merely a side-effect of Xenophon's desire to portray the scenes of young CYrus in Media. But the effect is tat CYrus gets some education in Persia and some in Media. This is emphasized in the debate with Mandane, which suggests quite strongly that we are to view Cyrus as a product not only of a mixed lineage but also of a mixed education. I imagine that one point is simply to suggest the advantages of exposure to more than one politeia, especially for a future imperial power. But more interesting to me is: What elements of Persia and what of Media are adopted by Cyrus and what roles do they play in the "regime" he constructs? Is there a doubleness of some sort in that regime?
I wonder if there is any tradition in Greek thought that one's character could sufficiently be established by age 12 or 13, such that the likelihood that the child could resist any form of corruption is significantly greater. Perhaps not, since Xenophon seems to think that the teenage years require the greatest attention (cf. δοκεῖ γὰρ αὕτη ἡ ἡλικία μάλιστα ἐπιμελείας δεῖσθαι,
See my comment on
Well, if the Persian education produced superb leaders, then the problem Xenophon presents at the outset of the Cyropaedia would have been solved already–just send your lads to Persia, and they'll be capable leaders. So I suppose there is a sense in which we should expect Cyrus will need to transcend this educational system, for all its apparent value. Perhaps it forms good followers but not great leaders? If so, given the obvious similarities to Sparta (with 'improvements'!), this would lead us to wonder if Sparta could produce capable leaders.
What is the significance of Cyrus's description of the meal as a "road" (ὁδός), through which the Medes "wander" (πλανώμενοι)? Are there any parallels for this image?
This scene started with Astyages giving Cyrus παντοδαπὰ ἐμβάμματα καὶ βρώματα (
I thought that Astyages genuinely felt, as he told Cyrus in the previous paragraph, "γευόμενος δὲ καὶ σύ, ἔφη, γνώσῃ ὅτι ἡδέα ἐστίν"– he'd like it if he tried it.
I thought the focus was more on Cyrus' reaction, and that perhaps that was the more inappropriate (disrespecting a foreign king)– until one considers the likely purpose of such an anecdote relating Cyrus' precociousness, fearlessness, and self-control.
Considered in that light, then any Astyages-shaped figure is supposed to test Cyrus' meddle. In the previous section, Xenophon took pains to describe the typical Persian upbringing and their focus on ingraining self-control, especially about food, so this is probably a reinforcement of the fact that Cyrus was a well-educated boy.
Why does Mandane evince such concern that Cyrus' Persian morality remain intact? She is, after all, a Mede herself and, as Cyrus himself stresses here, Astyages is her own father (Cyrus calls the Median king σὸς πατήρ twice in this paragraph). Are her comments critical of Astyages' kingship, or are they merely meant to point out the differences between the two styles of kingship and warn Cyrus away from a mindset that will do him no favors among his own people? What is Mandane's role in Cyrus' education?
How does Xenophon characterize Cyrus as a boy in this and similar scenes from the court of Astyages, and how is that boyhood character referenced in portrayals of him at later stages?
It may be of interest (though perhaps only tangentially so) in answering this question to note that the rhetorician
His reply to the question about who's the fairest shows considerable charm & finesse. One wonders what his mother was thinking!
γευόμενος δὲ καὶ σύ: How does this "testing scene" relate to Araspas' later attempts to convince Cyrus to gaze upon Pantheia?
Is Xenophon incorporating the Persian tradition recorded by Herodotus, whereby Persians deliberate while intoxicated and revisit their resolution when sober (
It doesn't seem very similar at first, but the joke about ἰσηγορία might connect it to some extent. Do we have any other evidence to associate this quality with the Medes? Or could this be a subtle dig at the Athenians, who are better known for that quality? We could then have a little parody both of Persian and Athenian deliberative practices.
ὥσπερ καὶ αὐτὸς εἰώθει πορεύεσθαι: Is the reference to Astyages' riding in the pluperfect tense significant?
What other examples of the wise, or wise-cracking, child are there in ancient literature?
Nothing from pagan Greek or Latin literature comes to mind, except perhaps the anecdote about Alexander and Bucephalus, but I wonder if there might be something in the multi-lingual genre of wisdom literature. Our "from the mouth of babes comes truth" seems to be a reworking of New
I can think of two pretty good parallels and two lesser ones. The first is the young Artemis on Zeus' lap listing all the honors she wants him to give her (
There is a long tradition in American sitcom of a wise-cracking (if not wise) kid, beginning perhaps with
I wonder about this tradition in Iranian folklore.
Gorgo is a very good example, and I'll have to think about the parallels to those Hellenistic scenes.
In an instance of accidental wisdom, Ascanius, son of Aeneas, at
The tone of this interchange reminds me of the dialogue between Pericles and Alcibiades at
Similarly to David's question, how does this relate to the equivalent story in Nicolas of Damascus, Excerpta de Insidiis? Nicolas was a contemporary of Augustus who wrote very prolifically in Greek. In this story Cyrus comes to court as a poor young man and as time passes he becomes a follower of the king's cupbearer and pours wine for the king's companions (homotrapezoi). Astyages sees him pour wine and is impressed, so that when his cupbearer becomes old and sick he picks Cyrus to replace him. This passage is considered to be based on either Ctesias or Dinon, but Lenfant, the latest editor of Ctesias, favours Ctesias; its
See Due
ἐπεὶ δὲ ἔφη τὸ μὲν νόμιμον δίκαιον εἶναι, τὸ δὲ ἄνομον βίαιον: What else does Xenophon have to say about this definition of justice? What do other Classical Athenians have to say?
An excellent treatment of the Two Coats story may be found in
Has anyone done any work on the amount of "cosmetics" and focus on appearances and the connection to marked and unmarked genders? Do we know if the Persian language in this period assigned male as marked? Typically, the marked gender (in most modern societies, female) is the one that puts more effort into appearance and cosmetics. Does the linguistic theory hold here?
From the little bit of Old Persian and linguistics I have done, I think its treatment of gender rather resembles Latin or Classical Greek: a masculine/feminine/neuter system with no gender more marked than another (and unlike for example Modern German with forms like masculine "Professor" but feminine "Professorin"). I suspect that when referring to groups of mixed gender the masculine was preferred, but I'm not sure if our corpus is big enough to tell (maybe some of the Old Persian tablets from the Persepolis Fortification and Persepolis Treasury collections that mention groups of workers?) For Achaemenid Persian women in general see M.
On the Old Persian language in general, see R. G.
Is it a normal custom to show gratitude to servants in this way or is Xenophon stating this to show how generous Cyrus is?
Cf. the fragment of
Is there more information on equestrian training in antiquity as linked to leadership? The most obvious example is probably the precocious Alexander and his horse, Bucephalus, but perhaps it is the only one needed to demonstrate the utility of experiencing control over an animal and mastering a skill used in war. By being the only one who could tame Bucephalus, the young Alexander could begin to understand when to persuade, punish, or reward his subjects. I suppose the question is if there is evidence that equestrian training was common for youths who were expected to take power.
An excellent source for all things equine is Glenn
What is the significance of the young man as a wine-pourer/cup-bearer?
The most famous example of this phenomenon is the Trojan prince, Ganymede, becoming the cup-bearer of Zeus.
The poison Sakas testing for is of course not alcohol but intended to protect against something rather worse: the cupbearer's participation in an assassination plot. Is there any resonance with that darker possibility here?
This is the sort of observation I expected to find in the Struassian
At any rate, one could argue that one has here, in nuce, the whole of the Cyropaedia: Cyrus charms and serves his way to the top. Whether there appears to be anything dark about that may say more about the reader than the author.
What's going on with Median ἰσηγορία? Is this a little Xenophontic jibe directed toward Athens, which was famed for that "freedom/license/excessive of speech"?
προσιὼν: How much daring is indicated by the fact that Cyrus makes an approach to the fathers of his contemporaries? Is this an instance of Cyrus' philokindunia?
τοῖς ἡλικιώταις συνεκέκρατο: How does this interaction with his Medan agemates compare with Cyrus in
ὑπηρετήσων ὅ τι οἴοιτο χαριεῖσθαι: How does tending to the sickness and injuries of others figure in to the leadership of Cyrus?
More generally, what is the history of the leader-as-healer/physician metaphor?
More specifically, what is the significance of all these forms of "tending", e.g., being beside the sick person, weeping continually, fearing for the person's death, being prompt about pleasing the person at all hours of the night?
What is the significance of the fact that Cyrus is caring for Astyages, whom in other versions of the story Cyrus comes to supplant as king of the Medes (but who will later die in Book One and pass the reign to his son, Cyaxares)?
There is a later tradition (Arab and European), for example, of Alexander the Great mourning the dying/dead Darius III as part of his succession to the Pesian throne.
Alexander is also portrayed as a healer, having learned from Aristotle according to
For a literary account of this scene see the
Xenophon may be rewriting the story of Cyrus' rise to power by giving Astyages a different kind of death, i.e., by natural causes. In
After capturing Astyages he does honor him as a father (
τέλος δὲ καὶ ἣν εἶχε στολὴν τὴν Μηδικὴν ἐκδύντα δοῦναί τινι: We learn in
Discuss this question in a blog post here.
διὰ τὸ φιλομαθὴς εἶναι πολλὰ μὲν αὐτὸς ἀεὶ τοὺς παρόντας ἀνηρώτα πῶς ἔχοντα τυγχάνοι: To what extent is Cyrus' natural curiosity later reflected in
This is an interesting parallel! Here, Xenophon casts Cyrus as a future philosopher-king, like Alexander is cast by
The primary source is Darius' autobiography at Nasht-i Rustam (
Continuing with the line taken by Sean, I don't think we can expect to find a Persian concept paralleling that of the Greek philosopher king. Rather, in keeping with the assertions made by Darius in his inscriptions that Sean has pointed to, we can wonder about what a Zoroastrian (by which I mean whatever form of early Zoroastrianism Darius and his successors subscribed to) wise king should look like. Bruce
I like idea of the Achaemenid pursuit of perfect world order influencing Xenophon, who often celebrates eutaxis and euthemosune as a quality shared by governments, armies, and personal estates alike (
Is Xenophon portraying Cyrus as another Odysseus (on a boar-hunt)?
Cf. Homer
Possibly (although the modes of hunting are different, and different modes of hunting seem to bear some significance elsewhere in Plato and Xenophon). Other significant boar hunts are that for the Calydonian boar (
How does Cyrus speak? Is his manner of speech distinct from other speakers within the work or in other works?
Cyrus' transition from talkative lad to somewhat more laconic but charming (ἐπίχαρις) youth is presented in the best possible light. It is not an over-boldness (θράσος) but rather ἁπλότης καὶ φιλοστοργία. Recent scholarship, along these lines, finds in many conversations in the Cyropaedia a "Socratic tenor"
Are there any extant literary predecessors to Xenophon that deal with these aspects of maturation in childhood? If not, how do we account for Xenophon's description here (other than perhaps personal experience with his own son, Gryllus)?
Note the recurrence of the puppy imagery to describe immature behaviour (τὸ σκυλακῶδες τὸ πᾶσιν ὁμοίως προσπίπτειν οὐκέθ᾽ ὁμοίως προπετὲς εἶχεν).
What is the significance (as a leadership trait) of Cyrus' willingness to laugh at himself in failure?
Similarly, how does this relate to other Greek depictions of those who lose competitions, and how losers should behave? By Greek heroic standards Cyrus seems remarkably philosophical about losing.
Could one contrast
That is a very interesting suggestion. The idea of laughter as a negative force is brought up a little later in the work, by the rather dour Persian Aglaitadas in
νομιῶ ὅσα ἂν ἴδω θηρία, ἐμοὶ ταῦτα τρέφεσθαι: Does Cyrus' passion for hunting outside his grandfather's garden betray a desire for empire (in whatever form), given that hunting in the Cyropaedia is regarded as preparation for warfare/conquest? If so, what is the nature/basis of this desire and does Xenophon cast the desire for empire in a positive or negative light?
On the other hand, does Cyrus' passion for going outside also suggest a desire for adventure, a longing to discover all of the world's wonders and furthermost limits, a passion so often depicted in the
Given that Cyrus' uncle is Cambyses, whom he will later outmaneuver, it seems to me there's some foreshadowing of that in his saying that he'll credit Astyages with any beast he kills. That is, the youthful Cyrus smartly/cunningly gives others the credit while at the same time showing himself increasingly independent of them, just as the older Cyrus will take Cambyses' troops, do with them what Cambyses couldn't, and make them his troops.
αὐτὸς ἤδη Σάκας ἑαυτῷ ἐγίγνετο: Is this Xenophon's attempt to explain the alternate version in
σὺ γὰρ νῦν γε ἡμῶν ἔοικας βασιλεὺς εἶναι: What is "kingly" about Cyrus' behavior on the hunt?
Cf. the story of Alexander taming Bucephalus in
I'd look to the immediate context: Cyrus shows himself brilliantly able to forestall punishment and manipulate Cyaxares and Astyages by distributing the spoils to Astyages. Cyaxares' comment shows a surprising amount of insight for one who will later be so thoroughly outmaneuvered by Cyrus. There is boldness here not only on the hunt but in the court.
What is the significance of the fact that this is the second time Cyrus has asked for his grandfather's permission to distribute meats to others?
Is Cyrus' willingness to give into peer pressure here (which we might describe as a manifestation of his philotimia) a good quality or a bad one for a leader to have?
ὁ μέντοι Ἀστυάγης ἐπεὶ ἔγνω αὐτὸν λυπούμενον ἰσχυρῶς: To what extent is sulking an important (passive-aggressive) leadership trait?
Cf. Alexander sulking in his tent to convince his troops to continue his campaign across the Ganges (
Achilles in the
I wonder how much of this whole episode is passive-aggressive. At paragraph 12 above I thought Cyrus was being entirely manipulative, goading his friends into begging him to go to Asytages; he had after all just had a very successful encounter with his πάππος.
Βut in 13 the narrator, who is presumably reliable, tells us that Cyrus was stung by their words and then had to gird up his loins to go to Astyages, implying it wasn't all a show.
Perhaps it's a bit of both–that's how we passive-aggressive types tend to experience life in any event, unsure of how manipulative we are being. In that case, we might say that Cyrus learns that he can use a certain shyness to his advantage just as effectively as he used his chattery childhood. Unless I'm reading way too much into this, the psychological realism here, mixed with acute observation of the development of an adolescent, is rather acute.
παρακαλοῦντι ὀνομαστὶ ἕκαστον: Why is it important for a leader to know the names of the followers?
I wonder whether this is another piece of hunting imagery, noting the importance that
I think the hunting analogy is quite apt. Both Cyaxares will make a close analogy between his followers and faithful dogs (
οὐδ᾽ ὁπωστιοῦν φθονερῶς: What is the significance of phthonos (or its absence) in a leadership context?
What is the point of being vague about Cyrus' age? (cf.
Note that, as best we can calculate, this was the age of the younger Cyrus when he was sent out to command Persian forces on the Western frontier.
ἐπεθύμησε καὶ αὐτὸς θηρᾶσαι: Is this the same hunt on which Gobryas' son is lured to the Assyrian king's palace to marry his daughter and then is enviously murdered by the Assyrian prince (
I think that the contrast here is with the location of the hunts – this one on border territory suggests the 'rite of passage'/ephebic model outlined by Pierre
What is revealed about Astyages and Cyrus' qualities as a general in this passage?
What is revealed about Cyaxares and Cyrus' qualities as a general in this passage?
ὥσπερ δὲ κύων γενναῖος ἄπειρος ἀπρονοήτως φέρεται πρὸς κάπρον: What is the significance of the recurrent metaphor of Cyrus as dog/puppy in this chapter (cf. ὥσπερ σκύλακι γενναίῳ ἀνακλάζοντι,
ἑώρα τὸ πρόσωπον τοῦ πάππου ἠγριωμένον ἐπὶ τῇ θέᾳ τῇ αὑτοῦ: What does Cyrus' behavior reveal about his character? Do we see similar behavior in him elsewhere?
Is there any relation between this story and the story of Leontius, son of Aglaion, who cannot keep from looking at bodies that have been executed at the Piraeus (for which he chastises himself), a story designed to illustrate a distinction between the appetitive and spirited parts of the soul (
ἣν εἶχε στολὴν τὴν Μηδικὴν ἐκδύντα δοῦναί τινι: Does giving away this Medan robe (as his grandfather had given it to him; cf.
What knowledge do we have of Persian pederasty? To what extent is this story a Greek/Xenophontic invention?
It is presumably significant that Araspas is a Mede, not a Persian, given the contrast between the customs of the two peoples early in the Cyropaedia, and the fact that his ignorance of Persian kissing customs is thematic here. Hence this episode tells us nothing about pederasty among the Persians (though your question of course wasn't about this episode, but any background knowledge we might possess).
Araspas, as we later learn in the Pantheia episode, is not particularly self-controlled. Cyrus, rather like Socrates in this respect, appears perfectly comfortable with homoerotic banter, but does not appear to get very involved in physical consummation of such desires (not that we hear of any heterosexual consummation on his part either, save in parenting).
σκαρδαμύττω … ἀσκαρδαμυκτί: What is the significance of winking here and the apparently slow passage of time when a lover is away from the beloved? Is this a romantic sentiment from Iranian folklore?
The root appears only once elsewhere in Xenophon, also in an erotic context with kissing (
How is this episode about Artabazus' love for Cyrus connected to the surrounding text?
The episode picks up on the themes of love and shame, and feeling shame before a loved one, with which
ὦ παῖδες … ἐθηρῶμεν: What is the significance of Cyrus' criticism of the Medan paradise?
Is it to point up the degeneracy of the Medan empire (picking up Hirsch's point at
Those are fascinating possibilities, but I think we can understand Cyrus's comments more locally. He criticizes the Medan paradise (1) because he's used up most and the best of the game within the enclosure, as we learn at
τὸ πρόσωπον τοῦ πάππου ἠγριωμένον ἐπὶ τῇ θέᾳ τῇ αὑτοῦ: why is Astyages angry at the sight of Cyrus? Is it because Cyrus has been disobedient throughout this skirmish, because he is μαινόμενον τῇ τόλμῃ, because he was staring at the corpses of the dead, or for another reason?
The thea here, I believe, refers to Cyrus' act of looking at or gazing upon the dead bodies (cf. ἐθεᾶτο in the previous clause). I hadn't thought about it much before, but Cyrus seems to be in an Achilles-like rage here (maybe we are to imagine him on the verge of mutilating one of the bodies?). It would seem, though, that the sense of shame he feels at his grandfather's gaze has some effect on him; I don't think Cyrus shows any behavior like this afterward. I suggest above that this behavior may be an allusion to a similar scene of gazing at dead bodies in
Is Astyages angry at Cyrus' "gazing" (ἐθεᾶτο , θέᾳ) at the fallen in itself or Cyrus' persistence in gazing? I suggest the latter. "Gazing" (θεᾶσθαι) at battlefield dead does not seem a blameworthy activity in and of itself. In
I adopted "gloat" from
That's an intriguing reading of thea I hadn't considered. I had read it as 'the sight of him (returning from the battle).' As for whether Cyrus does this again,
The discussion of enedra in this paragraph brings up trhe topic of whether it is the Persians and Assyrians who so frequently stage ambushes, or was it also Greek practice (something many modern commentators deny is an integral part of Greek warfare). Cf.
ὡς δ᾽ οὐκ ἀπεδίδρασκεν ἐκ τοῦ ἡττᾶσθαι εἰς τὸ μὴ ποιεῖν ὃ ἡττῷτο, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκαλινδεῖτο ἐν τῷ πειρᾶσθαι αὖθις βέλτιον ποιεῖν: How does this fit into Classical Greek debates in general, and early-fourth-century debates in particular, about the relationship between education and aristocratic excellence?
Compare the later discussion when Cyrus proposes to train and arm the Persian commoners like the peers.
Why do we see this entire hunt through Astyages eyes?
Does anyone else feel 'robbed' of an account of a conversation between Astyages and Cyrus after the battle? Cyrus keeps his escort out in front of him in an effort to avoid making eye contact with his grandfather, which I suppose explains the absence of any conversation here, but that of course is just another way of saying that Xenophon decided not to discuss why Astyages was upset–i.e., to discuss the very things the earlier comments on this chapter go into. Perhaps Astyages is indeed dumbstruck by Cyrus (cf. ὑπερεξεπέπληκτο in the next chapter, a very rare word)–though that is just another reflection of the narratological choice.
What was Cyrus attempting to achieve with his question here?
My guess is that he expected the answer he got, but that Astyages said a bit more than he expected. That is, Cyrus would be content to receive a whipping upon his return, so long as he was treated the same way otherwise–all the more so if the whipping were no more severe than that he got the first time around, i.e., no whipping at all! But Astyages quickly adds that it would be foolish of him to allow his grandson to risk his life for some meat, momentarily checking Cyrus' plan.
We see the runaway slave analogy again in the trial of the Armenian (
διὰ τὸν πόλεμον So were the Medes and Assyrians at war? In what sense?
Unless I'm missing something, this is the first hint of any such conflict. Perhaps we're just to think of the sort of low-scale conflict over borderlands that may have be endemic in the ancient–Greek? Persian?–world. I wonder if this event plays any role in the later great conflict between Media and Assyria, which is obviously on a different order of magnitude. Clearly the Assyrians are the aggressors, as they hunt on Median land, but Cyrus' bold pursuit does not merely chase off the hunters and retake their kills, but results in many dead Assyrians. Could it be that in some sense Cyrus' boldness contributes to the Assyrian decision to attack Media later? Or are we to think of it mainly as an isolated episode that showcases Cyrus' character in formation?
To what extent is Xenophon closing Book One by giving an explanation for the decline in the various forms of government that he reflected on at the outset of the work (
Is Cambyses saying that piety (eusebeia) is most essential to the success of any state?
When Xenophon discusses Persian decline in
Cambyses does certainly give piety a very important role, particularly in making the fundamental decision of how aggressive & ambitious to be in pursuit of power. I'm frankly not sure, however, how much his cautionary words here resonate with 8.8, because there the Persian problem isn't with being overly aggressive (rather the opposite, perhaps–being complacent and soft). Cambyses' warnings would seem to apply to the Cyrus of Herodotus, who went a river too far and ended up with his head in a sack of blood. As one with a weakness for 'dark' readings of the Cyropaedia, I'm tempted to see Cambyses' remarks as casting doubt on Cyrus' whole imperial exercise. But it is certainly possible to read them as simply making the case for the importance of divination. Cambyses' lesson about divination is very close to that Socrates gives in
Perhaps one important question to ask would be whether Cyrus consults the gods about these sorts of large issues. I.e., not whether he should attack now rather than later, but whether he should wage war at all, build an empire, etc.
ὁ πατὴρ: What do we know of Cyrus' relationship to his father from other sources? To what extent is Cambyses a "Socratic" figure in this scene?
As far as the question of his "Socratic" nature is concerned,
What I am about to say is obviously part of a larger discussion, but it seems to me that "Socratic" features are so prevalent in the Cyropaedia, in Cambyses, Cyrus, the tutor of Tigranes, and Xenophon himself (especially in the opening sections of
λόγου τοιοῦδε: What is the proper translation of 'logos' in this context? Is it some kind of formal lesson or just a simple conversation?
To what extent are these specific explanations here drawn from Herodotus' Histories?
Ἑστίᾳ πατρῴᾳ καὶ Διὶ πατρῴῳ: Why does Xenophon single out these gods for Cyrus to pray to?
There is a tradition that Hestia always receives the first portion when sacrificing to the gods (e.g.,
Could the adjective πατρῴος be, in fact, a way Xenophon marks this as an interpretatio Graeca of Persian divinities and not simply coloratura on his part?
See a related question on
Why is Cambyses (or, as some critics think, Xenophon) hating on manteis here?
With no obvious editorializing Xenophon has Cyrus work with diviners at
It's possible he's thinking of Nicias in Syracuse, who failed to retreat in time because of what the manteis said; he is criticized for this (implicitly) in
The following dialogue between Cyrus and his father, Cambyses, has many parallels to the Socratic dialogues depicted in the Memorabilia both in form and content. Nevertheless, the dialogue takes place between a king and son. To what extent is Xenophon capturing a Persian tradition of the king as responsible for preparing his son to be the next ruler (perh. with cognate examples in the
Cyrus also attempts to instruct his sons, Cambyses and Tanaoxres, on his deathbed (
This is the first mention of hunting birds in the Cyropaedia. What is the tradition of doing this in Greek and Persian culture?
In the
What is the significance of attentiveness (epimeleia) to leadership?
To what extent does Cyrus play the role of physician or healer to his followers?
In what ways does Cyrus carry out his father's advice to set up contests for his troops?
Where else do we see the principle of "willing obedience" in Xenophon's Theory of Leadership? How clear is his definition of "willing"?
It looks like the argument here is that followers will willingly obey a leader in any area where they recognize his superiority to them. Presumably they also need good reason to believe he has their best interest at heart, as Xenophon goes on to say just a bit later. Examples of experts like doctors and ship captains make the definition quite reasonable, but Cyrus will lay claim to a more universal sway–leadership that is all-encompassing. There the analogy with the expert gets strained, at least from a modern liberal perspective: do we recognize that there are leaders who are better able to look after us, all things considered, than we are able to look after ourselves? One wonders how we would differ from natural slaves (via Aristotle's definition) were this the case.
To be clear, I'm not at all sure that this is a thought Xenophon wants us to have–i.e., that we are to see willing obedience as somehow sinister. The problem comes when the willing obedience we would all (presumably) want to give a general, say, becomes the willing obedience no free Greek (to employ ancient terminology) would want to give any sole ruler. Xenophon's insistence that ruling is the same on any scale–oneself, household, city–might get us into trouble here, especially when coupled with the lack of any clear demarcation between military and political leadership in a work like Cyropaedia.
Is Xenophon here echoing Plato's many discussions about the appropriateness of payment for education, and the importance of the possession of specialist expertise?
Firstly, one has to admire Xenophon's literary skill in weaving discussions about the nature of education into the narrative fabric of the Cyropaedia. But the language here of techne, learning and knowledge seems to point to discussions on the possibility of teaching and pay familiar from Platonic dialogues such as the Protagoras and Meno. Xenophon elsewhere has an interesting reverse take on this topos; in
I suspect yes. I'm wondering, too, about the Tigranes' sophist-tutor in
How does this passage (
What kind of teacher might this have been? Is this a reference to sophists and their ability to argue both sides of an argument? And why are these capabilities presented as negative ones – lying, being greedy, deceiving and slandering?
Sophists could be one target, but Socrates and the Spartans are also possibilities. Socrates was quite willing to share with a fairly young companion that it was just that it is just for a general to deceive his enemies–and even his own troops, when doing so will boost their morale and lead them to victory (
And of course Spartan boys were encouraged to live off the land–and friendly land at that, so via plundering friends. The use of the term 'rhetra' is probably a hint that Sparta is at least part of what is on Xenophon's mind (so Christopher
What is the significance of hunting hares in Greek literature?
Xenophon describes the contemporary practice of hare hunting with dogs and nets in great detail in the Cynegeticus. But Plato outlaws it in the
This may not be entirely relevant, but on a quick reread of Herodotus I was struck by the fact that hare-hunting and trickery in relation to Cyrus comes up there as well: Harpagus uses a hare to send Cyrus a message at
Since the ancients often used soothsayers to decide what the gods wanted them to do militarily, there is a double danger here. First of all, doing your own intelligence gathering is much more reliable than relying on diviners. Secondly, diviners will often tell the decision-maker what he wants to hear (I.e. "cooking intelligence" still a modern problem). Cyrus has been taught to take his own readings, as it were, to avoid at least one of these problems. Ancient commanders do not have the option of ruling out such religious rites altogether,[see
The treatment of deception and trickery here seems negative, but in a military context, saying that the Spartans were good at this sort of thing means that it was considered good military practice. By Xenophon's time, the use of trickery, ambush and treachery was so common, no commander could operate an army without training his men in such operations, especially if he were commanding light-armed troops. See
Xenophon may allude to the dangers of being caught with your pants down (or tunic up, for a Greek) in his account of the Athenian Civil War of 404/403 BCE. When the democrats had seized the fort of Phyle, and the pro-Spartan party had tried and failed to throw them out, the Spartophiles settled down to watch Phyle from a distance. The democrats attacked them at dawn, when they were starting to move around and curry their horses, and routed them (
The description of luring the enemy into a trap by false flight is one of the oldest stratagems in warfare. [
This is a metaphor for an ambush. One must be trained to find a proper location to set up the operation, to lure the enemy into the trap, and to close the trap. People on such operations must usually work alone. they have to keep their wits about them, and they have to spend (sometimes) long hours waiting for their prey. They must not be given over to cowardice or panic (like the hare).
This is an extended paragraph on the art of intelligence gathering for a commmander. Operating by day or night (the latter being particularly tricky). where to station sentinels (installation security), how to gather geographical intelligence (ravines and rivers), how the enemy is armed and how many of them there are(cavakry ir infantry), finding out the enemy's plans (by spying?), and even what the enemy is doing against you (counterintelligence). This is a very sophisticated breakdown for an ancient text of what still remains modern practice.
This is an extended paragraph on the art of intelligence gathering for a commmander. Operating by day or night (the latter being particularly tricky). where to station sentinels (installation security), how to gather geographical intelligence (ravines and rivers), how the enemy is armed and how many of them there are(cavakry ir infantry), finding out the enemy's plans (by spying?), and even what the enemy is doing against you (counterintelligence). This is a very sophisticated breakdown for an ancient text of what still remains modern practice.
ὅπως τὰ τῶν πολεμίων ἄν τις μάλιστα αἰσθάνοιτο, ἢ ὅπως τὰ σὰ οἱ πολέμιοι ἥκιστα εἰδεῖεν certainly counts as intelligence gathering and 'counterintelligence', but the rest is a list of situations and tasks and how to deal with them–not how to know they are coming, know how the enemy is utilizing them, etc. It looks like it's more tactics (in the etymological sense) than anything else . . .
Actually, remove the previous comment, it was meant for 43. Here is my comment on 44:Here is another comment on taking the auspices. Although leaders like Caesar and Xenophon did not put much stock in bird calls or gut gazing and preferred real intelligence gathered by their men on the ground, it was never wise to refuse to read the signs or do anything publicly against the auspices. Although a commander might be a non-believer personally, his men may very well have bought into the old superstitions and no sensible commander would want his men going in to a battle thinking they were cursed or had offended gods working against them.
Sorry to be quarrelsome, but what's the evidence for Xenophon preferring 'real intelligence' to divination? This looks like an anachronistic rationalization to me; in particular, the trust in 'intelligence' seems somewhat unfounded–intelligence gathering has not been a major theme of Cambyses' remarks (at least in my reading). Socrates gives pretty much the same advice regarding divination in Memorabilia 1.1, and he didn't have a superstitious army to buttress. On Xenophon's attitudes see R.
ὅτε τὰ ἄριστα πράττοι: Where else is Xenophon/Cyrus concerned with proper behavior during times of prosperity?
Cf. Cyrus' concern for the Armenian king's arrogant behavior while in good fortune (
Are there other instances of a father teaching a son divination?
In the
Do Cambyses' goals here for the kalokagathos and even for the leader coincide with Cyrus' speech to the Homotimoi about virtue being worthless if it leads to no gain?
That is, is Cambyses articulating the old ways (which Cyrus said in the last chapter were foolish) or Cyrus' new attitude? I think Cambyses' views are a bit more conventional. The kalokagathos does have to secure what he needs for himself and his family, in addition to being recognizably kalokagathos. And the leader needs to provide for others in abundance, while seeing to it that they are as they should be. While there's no need for the kalokagathos to gain more than what he already has, ἔκπλεω suggests that the leader must provide bountiful goods.
Is Cyrus' trust in Cambyses reasonable, or a sign of immaturity?
Cyrus' inattentiveness to matters of supply reminds one a bit of Glaucon (Plato's brother) at Memorabilia 3.6. Glaucon was laughed from the rostrum in the Athenian Assembly and then shown up by Socrates in conversation for his ignorance of Athenian military preparedness.
Alternatively, we could see Cyrus' lack of knowledge and trust in Cambyses more as a means for Xenophon to introduce these topics in a naturalistic way than as an insight into Cyrus' level of knowledge at this point.
Heretofore in their conversation, Cyrus and Cambyses were repeating previous conversations–there were no new lessons.
Here, on the other hand (I'm comparing section 9 with my note), Cyrus is a very apt student, who at once sees the advantage of providing his men with supplies himself–thus well applying the teaching Cambyses gave him in more general terms. He also recalls the argument he made to his own troops earlier about failing to get any advantage out of one's resources (// leaving the field idle; 1.5.8ff). *If* we are to read this as psychologically naturalistic, Cyrus initially trusted Cambyses to provide enough supplies, but then immediately grasped the advantage to providing additional supplies himself.
Note here how Xenophon varies the conversational structure: here Cyrus retells a previous occasion where Cambyses showed him the shortcoming of another teacher. Add this to (a) the two discussing previous lessons together and (b) Cambyses providing new lessons.
The substance of the conversation here is very close to
Re the ease in identifying healthy locales, cf. Ischomachus' teaching on how easy it is to identify good farmland (
καὶ εἴ τις ἄλλος θεῶν ἀνεφαίνετο, οὐδενὸς ἠμέλει: Is this more a comment on Cyrus' religious tolerance or on his thorough attention to the gods in general?
ἡδόμενοι τῇ εἰρήνῃ: Where else do we see the effects of peace in the Cyropaedia?
ἥδεσθαι τῇ ὑπὸ πάντων τιμῇ: What is the significance of Cyrus' philotimia here?
τὰς θυγατέρας ἔχουσα καὶ τὸν νεώτερον υἱόν: How consistent is Xenophon about the members of the Armenian king's family? Perhaps more importantly, why should he feel the need to be consistent? (Cf. τὸν νεώτερον υἱὸν Σάβαριν καὶ … τὰς θυγατέρας,
Where else do we see Cyrus denying gifts and money from others?
What is the tradition of the leader putting money to use as opposed to hoarding it in the ground?
κοσμήσεσθε κάλλιον καὶ ἥδιον τὸν αἰῶνα διάξετε: What is the tradition of spending one's resources to adorn oneself more beautifully and live a more pleasurable life?
τὸν εὐεργέτην, τὸν ἄνδρα τὸν ἀγαθόν: What is the significance of these titles?
ἕως ἐκ τῆς χώρας ἐξέπεμψαν: How does this escort out of the Armenian territory compare to Cyrus' departure from Media as a boy (
αὐτὸς δὲ σὺν Τιγράνῃ καὶ Περσῶν τοῖς ἀρίστοις ἐθήρα ὅπουπερ ἐπιτυγχάνοιεν θηρίοις καὶ ηὐφραίνετο: What is the significance of this brief mention of a hunting trip, akin to the ones Cyrus is said to have take with Tigranes in his youth?
αὐτὸς κεκοσμῆσθαι: How does this notion of adornment (kosmos) compare with other examples in the Cyropaedia?
πάντως δὴ ἀναμιμνῃσκώμεθα: Where else do we see Cyrus concerned with proper behavior in prosperity (in this case being mindful of the behavior and virtues that led to prosperity)?
See the question and comment on Cyropaedia 1.6.3.
ἡ πειθὼ καὶ ἡ καρτερία καὶ οἱ ἐν τῷ καιρῷ πόνοι καὶ κίνδυνοι: Where else are these qualities discussed in the Cyropaedia (or in Xenophon)?
What are the differences between philotimia and phthonos in this passage?
Does Cyrus actually need to persuade Cyaxares to invade Assyria? If so, what rhetorical devices does he use in his speech?
αἱ μάχαι κρίνονται μᾶλλον ταῖς ψυχαῖς ἢ ταῖς τῶν σωμάτων ῥώμαις: Where else do we see the sentiment that souls more than strong bodies win battles?
Διὶ βασιλεῖ, ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις θεοῖς: Why is Cyrus praying to Zeus "the king" here? What other gods does he have in mind?
ἥρωας γῆς Μηδίας οἰκήτορας καὶ κηδεμόνας: Who are the heroes of the land of Media and why are they referred to in this way? (Cf. Cyrus' departure from Persia into Media at
Διὶ πατρῴῳ: Why does Cyrus now make offerings to "paternal" Zeus, when he had just sacrificed to Zeus "the king"?
ἥρωας Ἀσσυρίας οἰκήτορας: Who are the heroes of Assyria?
ὅπερ καὶ νῦν ἔτι ποιοῦσιν οἱ βάρβαροι βασιλεῖς: What other sources do we have for barbarian ditch-digging around a camp?
What other sources do we have for this treatment of horses?
This is not an exact parallel, but I'm reminded of
ὁ μὲν Ἀσσύριος καὶ ὁ Κροῖσος: Why does Xenophon use the definite article with the Armenian king and Croesus, then not use it for Cyrus and Cyaxares, but then use it the second time he mentions them in this paragraph?
φοβουμένους: Where else does Xenophon/Cyrus show concern that a leader's fear may adversely affect the followers (cf.
μηδαμῶς: Where else does Cyrus disagree with Cyaxares? Is there a consistent basis for their different views?
Is the point of this paragraph to contrast Cyrus' cautiousness with his previous emphasis on haste and speed (tachos)?
ἐστεφανωμένος: This is the first mention of crowns and crowning in the Cyropaedia, for religious purposes or otherwise. Why does Xenophon focus on crowns now and in the following paragraphs?
μάντεις: Why is Xenophon interested in diviners here when he hasn't discussed them since Cambyses' remarks at
Or perhaps the other way around? That is, to corroborate the diviners' consensus by his own skill; in Cambyses' advice, at any rate, part of the point (if I am reading it correctly) was that Cyrus' should learn the diviner's art so that he could not be taken for a ride.
The singularity of this moment, both in the description of Cyrus crowning himself and in the emphasis on the consensus between diviners and leader about the gods' will, does seem to mark this point out as one of critical importance to the narrative progression. Is this because it is the first real test of Cyrus' leadership against the enemy that presents the greatest obstacle to his rise to power? If so, why is it important to emphasize at this critical juncture that the gods give their approval AND predict victory?
If we read it together with the passage you cited (
How do the views expressed here, and in the following paragraphs, relate to the investigation Cyrus began at a banquet into the educability of the Persian commoners (
Where else does Xenophon/Cyrus discuss the idea that leading can build better character in the leader?
To what extent might Cyrus be attempting to make the upper-class Persian peers feel special and important compared to the newly-introduced Persian commoners (who now have the opportunity to win equal honors and spoils of war)? If he is doing this, does it make him "manipulative"?
τῇ δ᾽ ἡλικίᾳ καὶ φρονιμώτεροι: What age are the Persian commoners? How do we know they are older than the peers?
Where else do we see Cyrus' views on speaking to the troops collectively versus through a chain of command (cf.
καὶ εἴ τις μαλακίζοιτο, καὶ τοῦτον ὁρῶντες οὐκ ἂν ἐπιτρέποιτε αὐτῷ: Where else do we see this (shaming) role for the rearguard spelled out?
ἄνδρες Ἀσσύριοι: How does the (elder) Assyrian king's speech compare with those of Cyrus? What values does he articulate? How does he compare here with elsewhere (cf.
οἱ μὲν νικῶντες τά τε ἑαυτῶν σῴζουσι: Where else do we see the discussion of consequences in war for the victors and the defeated?
Κῦρος ἀπεκρίνατο: Where else do we see Cyrus disagreeing with Cyaxares? What does the disagreement reveal about their respective characters?
Where else does Cyrus engage in psychological warfare, or at least show an awareness of the psychological state of his enemy (cf.
Χρυσάντας ὁ Πέρσης: Why does Xenophon feel the need to identify Chrysantas as a Persian? He has already named him nine times (as recently as
σὺ ἀμείνους ποιήσαις τοὺς στρατιώτας: How does the discussion here fit with other discussions about the (drastic) changeability of human character (cf. the Armenian king, the Chaldaeans, the Persian commoners, even Cyrus himself as a young man).
οὐκ ἂν οὖν τοξότας γε: Where else do we see discussions of moral virtue as a physical/intellectual skill, like spear-throwing, horsemanship, and music?
πρῶτον μὲν νόμους ὑπάρξαι δεῖ τοιούτους: How consistent are Cyrus' views on the necessity of laws and teachers with those of the traditional Persian education (
ὡς χρὴ ἐπαίνου μὲν ἕνεκα πάντα μὲν πόνον, πάντα δὲ κίνδυνον ὑποδύεσθαι: How does this sentiment compare with the description of the consequences of Cyrus' love of being honored, or philotimia (ὥστε πάντα μὲν πόνον ἀνατλῆναι, πάντα δὲ κίνδυνον ὑπομεῖναι τοῦ ἐπαινεῖσθαι ἕνεκα,
αὐτοῖς στεφάνοις: Why is it important enough to note, both here and in Cyrus' exhortation immediately following, that these men are still wearing their crowns from the sacrifice?
See the discussion on
προσευξάμενος τοῖς θεοῖς: Why does Cyrus pray yet again to the gods, when he has already received their blessing to proceed? Is this gratuitous piety?
Ζεὺς σύμμαχος καὶ ἡγεμών: What purpose does the passing of this σύνθημα serve?
More importantly, how does it relate to the use of the paean immediately following, as well as (perhaps) the "crowning" of the rearguard (see above on
δεισιδαίμονες: could this adjective have any pejorative sense here, as it does, e.g., in
What is the significance of phthonos in this passage? Is Cyrus ethically consistent in his evaluation of this emotion in others?
See a discussion of phthonos and envy in the Cyropaedia in this blog post.
†ἀμαθεστέρας†: What is the problem with the text here?
ἀμαθεστέρας is the form attested by the y-group of codices (WDF). The H manuscript has sôphron-' over an erasure.
At this and several other points, Xenophon reveals that he considers Armenia and Chaldaea to be neighbours, and Chaldaea to be a mountainous country (cf.
These "Chaldaeans" are not the same as the ones from southern Mesopotamia.
Wonderful (and a reminder why we're supposed to start with questions). Its interesting that Strabo equates the Chalybes and (Armenian) Chaldaioi, whereas Xenophon seems to separate them in the Anabasis. I can see the bibliography that your key refers to under [right sidebar] -> Contents -> Further Reading, but where is that journal abbreviation defined?
Sorry about that, Sean! REArm is the standard abbreviation for Revue des Études Arméniennes.
See the index to the Loeb, where it is suggested that these Armenian Chaldaeans are a people more correctly known as the Haldi.
Who is the συνεθήρα and σοφιστήν? What is the relationship between hunting and education in Xenophon's thought?
I am fascinated by this question. The sophist-tutor's execution and serene death are discussed at
In any case, it is interesting to ponder what the sophist was doing as a "hunting companion". He is probably not there to proffer knowledge on what animals to hunt and what not to hunt (cf.
That's very interesting – and another intriguing example of how thinking about context and possible references (Greek v Persian) brings in many different layers and possibilities. So different audiences might interpret this passage differently, based on their own context and experience.I think that there is some slippage here between the metaphorical use of hunting, in which Plato often characterises Socrates and others as hunters, and the actual hunting which was closer to Xenophon's heart.
For further discussion of the hunting scene, see David Branscome's comment here.
Is there any historical basis for Tigranes?
As I've discussed elsewhere in this commentary, there are bits of information here and there