4. roberto nicolai - at the boundary of historiography xenophon and his corpus

8/18/2019 4. Roberto Nicolai - At the Boundary of Historiography Xenophon and His Corpus

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/4-roberto-nicolai-at-the-boundary-of-historiography-xenophon-and-his-corpus 1/24

4. At the Boundary of Historiography: Xenophon and his Corpus

Roberto Nicolai

1. Historians and Sophists

he ter!s sophist and sophistic are co!!only applied to a di"erse group of

people# united by a broad range of interests# areas of e$pertise# and apreference for disse!inating their %or&s by %ay of public recitations'()*+,-/0. 213 f to an Athenian of the 5fth century BC6# Socrates %as asophist 'Aristophanes Clouds# 273 the sa!e !ust ha"e been true for Herodotusand# to so!e degree# for hucydides as %ell. 283 hucydides# ho%e"er#e$plicitly ta&es a stand against creating a piece !eant si!ply to display hisrhetorical s&ills '1.77.49 instead# he !ade a ;<=> of political?!ilitary history#%hich he addresses to those %ho# through his history# %ould be capable ofunderstanding the dyna!ics of politics and %ar. hucydides@ pole!ic againstthe logographers '1.71.1 anticipated that of lato against the sophists# %hichendo%ed the ter!# sophist# %ith a negati"e connotation. 243 n the cases of

both hucydides and lato# the issue at sta&e %as the control of the educationof the ruling classes.

Current scholarly consensus distinguishes historians fro! philosophers#relegating the so?called sophists to the latter category and therebydisregarding their contribution to the study of the past. But %e can notegeneral historical interests# loo&ing only at the orso&rati&er# in the %or& ofe!ocritus# 2D3 rotagoras# 2E3 Hippias 'in the description of his interests inlato Hippias !aior 7FDd# and Critias 'G+/IJ/. At the sa!e ti!e# the historyof historiography has pri"ileged the strand of so?called KLreat@ historiography#%hich treats the history of the Lree&s and the !aMority of the Barbarians# to

paraphrase hucydides@ incipit. n so doing# it has !arginalied inOuiries intothe distant past '(*<J/++PQJ# as %ell as the "arious for!s of local andregional historiography and the political treat!ent of history in the epitaphs# tosay nothing of poetic %or&s %ith historical content: epic# narrati"e elegy#tragedy 'e.g. hrynichus@ iletou Alosis9 Aeschylus@ ersae# and dithyra!bs'i!otheus@ ersae. he history of historiography# then# has beco!e a historyless of a literary genre than of a !ethod# teleologically proMected to%ards theachie"e!ents of !odern historical science. he loss not only of the sophists@%or&s# %hich had been conde!ned by lato@s Mudg!ent and by Aristotle@sdo$ographies# but also of %hat are classi5ed as !inor branches ofhistoriography has contributed to the e!ergence of a particular picture of the

de"elop!ent of historiography that ta&es us# after the 5rst uneasy steps# to the%ide?ranging -+*Q> of Herodotus and the !ature historical analysis of hucydides# only to decay after%ards into rhetorical or !oralistichistoriographical for!s# or those designed to achie"e dra!atic eTects. nrecent years# this reconstruction of the history of historiography has beenchallenged on !any fronts. 2U3

he ai! of this contribution is a thorough re"aluation of Xenophon@s %or&#particularly in relation to that of another great e$peri!enter of "arious prose



genres# socrates. Xenophon and socrates share paideutic aspirations# afreedo! to !o"e a!ong pree$isting literary genres and the ability to changethe! fro! %ithin# and the tendency to assign a de!onstrati"e and e$e!plaryfunction to historical !atter.

7. A Necessary Re"isionis!

n a fa!ous article fro! 1V8D# Arnaldo o!igliano %rote: WSenofonte tra gliscrittori greci uno di Ouelli che hanno piY urgente bisogno di essere riesa!inatinel loro co!plesso. Za sua singolare e un poco a!bigua personalit[# ricca di!oti"i e di proble!i Ouale pochi# !a incapace di fonderli in !odo che essidi"entino un siste!a e perci\ un progra!!a# ha una perfetta aderena allecondiioni spirituali del Ouarantennio 8V]?8D] a.C.# il Ouale d[ una i!pressionedi "ita intensa# !a dispersa.^ 2F3 n the se"enty years since o!igliano@spronounce!ent# so!e progress has been !ade to%ards a reappraisal ofXenophon@s %or&# but !ore %or& still needs to be done. n fact# if XenophonreOuires a general ree$a!ination# %e cannot today a"oid feeling the need also

to re"ise the interpretation of Xenophon gi"en by o!igliano and successi"ecritics. 2V3 n recent literature on Xenophon# one tendency is clear: often "eryearly on in the introductory chapters# %e 5nd a discussion of the literary genreto %hich the %or& in Ouestion belongs. his pheno!enon is particularly e"identin criticis! of the Cyropaedia# %hich so!e scholars actually describe as acollection of diTerent literary genres# 21]3 so!eti!es e"en resorting to suchblatant anachronis!s as calling the %or& a pedagogical or historical no"el# or a5ctionalied biography. But the di_culties %e ha"e in de5ning the Cyropaedia'along %ith !uch of Xenophon@s %or&# deri"es fro! a faulty approach to theproble! of genres and !odels: Xenophon created literary products that %ereco!pletely disconnected fro! any speci5c occasions of publication# and heused generic strategies appropriate for pree$isting literary genres that headapted to his o%n ai!s. 2113 n this regard# Xenophon is not "ery diTerentfro! socrates# e$cept for the fact that the latter# as a teacher of rhetoric#e$plicitly thought about the choices he !ade# turning his re`ections into toolsfor teaching rhetoric. 2173

Another freOuently e!phasied feature of Xenophon@s %or& is %hat see!s tobe an unusual integration of literature and politics. 2183 nce again# ourcategories of %hat is Kpolitical@ and %hat is Kliterary@ are inadeOuate. And# onceagain# the co!parison %ith socrates is instructi"e. ust li&e Xenophon#socrates did not intend to in`uence the decision?!a&ing process: for this# he%ould ha"e used diTerent tools. Being political for hi!# in fact# !eant inserting

traditional political the!es into speeches de"ised for didactic purposes#teaching politics through political discourse.

inally# to co!plete the picture# Xenophon is often depicted as a splitpersonality# a historian %ith !odest capabilities and an aspiring philosopher oflittle talent. 2143 t is doubtful that the label Kphilosopher@# as %e understand it#can be applied before Aristotleand# in so!e respects# the sa!e can be saidfor Khistorian@# toobut# !ore to the point# Xenophon@s %or&s elude e"en such



an ele!entary distinction as this: historical !aterial is as present in his corpusas is philosophical speculation. n order better to understand Xenophon# %e!ust change our perspecti"e and e$plore not the contents of the "arious %or&sof the corpus but their function %ith respect to their reception.

8. Historical atter in Xenophon@s Corpus

he Helleni&a# inas!uch as it is closest to our standards of historical %riting#ser"es as a good point of entry for our e$ploration of Xenophon@s approach tohistorical !atter. he Helleni&a co"ers only a seg!ent of the past# %ith abeginning arbitrarily deter!ined by the abrupt conclusion of hucydides@ %or&.21D3 do not %ant to resu!e the debate about the original shape of the %or&:%hether# for e$a!ple# the so?called paralipo!ena %as !eant to constitute aunity %ith hucydides9 nor do belie"e that the diTerent stages of its redactioncan be reconstructed %ith any reasonable certaintyindeed# this is in !any%ays a false proble!# ste!!ing fro! our o%n publication practices andpositi"ist obsessions %ith Ouestions of origin and e"olution. 21E3 ithout

"enturing into inde!onstrable hypotheses# %e !ay note only that Xenophon@snarrati"e is continuous9 that is to say# there are no proe!ia or introductions toparticular sections# nor general re!ar&s on the history he is narrating. 21U3 heonly e$ception is the conclusion: the Helleni&a is not itself a %or& that is opento continuation# unless# that is# so!eone should ta&e up the challenge of the5nal pro"ocation. 21F3 he historical e"ents narrated in the Helleni&a as a%hole can only be paradig!s of crisis and confusion# as Xenophon points out inthe conclusion# %here the battle of antinea beco!es the !etaphor of aLreece %ithout stable hege!onies9 but "arious other clearly !ar&ed paradig!sare also introduced in the course of the narrati"e. 21V3 he structure of theHelleni&a is not consistently annalistic# nor does it follo% the Herodotean!odel. 27]3 Rather# Xenophon selects %hat he considers the central the!esand facts and uses the! to search for a beha"ioral !odel that is diTerent notonly fro! the political?!ilitary one e!ployed by hucydides but also fro! theethical perspecti"e of later biography. 2713

he Anabasis# %hich delineates the ideal !ilitary co!!ander 'Xenophonhi!self# also treats only a seg!ent of historyin fact# Xenophon eOuates itdirectly %ith the Helleni&a 'see Helleni&a 8.1.7: WAs to ho% Cyrus collected anar!y and %ith this ar!y !ade the !arch up country against his brother# ho%the battle %as fought# ho% Cyrus %as slain# and ho% after that the Lree&seTected their return in safety to the seaall this has been %ritten by

he!istogenes the Syracusan.^ 2773 Both %or&s# !oreo"er# correspond to

conte!porary de5nitions of the historical genre. 2783 Xenophon@s central roleand the e$e!plarity of his beha"ior in the Anabasis in so!e respects allo% the%or& to be co!pared to the Cyropaedia and the Agesilaus# as %ell as tosocrates@ Cypriot speeches. 2743 hat it is a ne% and inno"ati"e genre isuncontested# but si!ilarities %ith later literary genres certainly should noti!ply that the Anabasis can be de5ned as a co!!entarius or a no"el. heinno"ation consists in the fact that it recounts# in the style of a hucydidean!onograph 'i.e. %ith narration and speeches# an e"ent in %hich the author



acts as the !ain character and beco!es hi!self a paradig! of beha"ior. Zi&ethe Helleni&a# the Anabasis conspicuously lac&s a proe!iu!9 but %hereas thisabsence presents the Helleni&a as a continuation of hucydides# the Anabasisopens as an autono!ous seg!ent of history# beginning %ith the death ofarius. here is a further diTerence bet%een the t%o %or&s: the Anabasis# e"en%ithout a proe!iu!# ne"ertheless has a beginning '%hich pro"ides bac&groundinfor!ation# but it lac&s an e$plicit conclusion or any re!ar&s that could lendan o"erall !eaning to the %or&# or at any rate a &ey to reading it. erhaps the!eaning of the Anabasis is clear enough fro! the narrati"e itself# %hile theintricate aTairs recounted in the Helleni&a close %ith a battle in %hiche"erybody is a %inner and a loser at the sa!e ti!e. Xenophon@s use of apseudony! in the Anabasis# %e should note# sheds so!e light on the !annerof its publication9 Xenophon clearly %anted to disse!inate the %or& as if theenterprise had been recorded by a neutral narrator. 27D3 his %ould lend thedescription of Xenophon@s e$e!plary beha"ior so!e credibility# a ;<=> insidethe %or&# %e !ight say# in the sa!e %ay that the speeches can be de5ned as a;<=># albeit in this case a rhetorical one. 27E3

he Agesilaus begins %ith a clear and uneOui"ocal state!ent of genre# %hichapparently distinguishes it fro! historiography:

J j= k/ 0 mP>-/,+ (*0 )J q>0 + /+= q/+= vGJ/=+=P*,wJ/# kx0 @ P</*>;+=. Pz* {= )J|0 v<+/ } k/ ;x0 (=~*(PJ•€0 P;=+# /z ++ +j /=x= {= P<,=+/ GJQ=x=.

&no% ho% di_cult it is to %rite an appreciation of Agesilaus that shall be%orthy of his "irtue and glory. Ne"ertheless the atte!pt !ust be !ade. or it%ould not be see!ly that so good a !an# Must because of his perfection# shouldrecei"e no tributes of praise# ho%e"er inadeOuate. 'ranslation by 6. C.

archant

Xenophon Agesilaus 1.1

But after a canonical introduction dedicated to the fa!ily and country of thelaudandus# the %or& ta&es a diTerent turn:

‚-J P ~= = ƒ „J-/Q… /G*,qJ+ == †> />P‡-+J/ˆ (G€ Pz* |=v*Px= )J +‰0 *G+0 J+ ),/-J =+QŠx )JJ‡+0 v--•J/.

%ill no% gi"e an account of the achie"e!ents of his reign# for belie"e that hisdeeds %ill thro% the clearest light on his Oualities. 'ranslation by 6. C.archant

Xenophon Agesilaus 1.E

he "erb />P‡-+J/ is less a !ar&er of genre than the phrase ‚-J P ~= =ƒ „J-/Q… /G*,qJ+# %hich is e$plained by (G€ ... |= v*Px=. hee!phasis on *G+/# a characteristic of the enco!iu!# is substantiated in thehistorical account of Agesilaus@ deeds# %hich occupies the central part of the%or& '1.E to 7.81 and %hich itself concludes %ith clear indications of genre:



‹J JJ j= ~ Œ*>J/ k-J |= )Q=+ v*Px= z GQ-x= J**x=G*,<•>. z Pz* +/JJ + )>*Qx= G*+-IJ/# (@ (=J=-J/ =+=(*)I )J •‰0 G/-J/.

Such# then# is the record of !y hero@s deeds# so far as they %ere done before acro%d of %itnesses. Actions li&e these need no proofs9 the !ere !ention of

the! is enough and they co!!and belief i!!ediately. 'ranslation by 6. C.archant

Xenophon Agesilaus 8.1

n addition to the recurrence of the ter!# v*PJ# %e should note the distinctionbet%een ,**0 and )‡*/J# %hich# aside fro! con5r!ing the narrati"e astrue# e!phasies the e$e!plary character of the recent and %ell?&no%n factsthe narrati"e describes. his distinction further recalls# although %ith diTerentter!inology# that !ade by hucydides bet%een ancient history# reconstructed) |= G/ŽJ=-,x= ->Qx= 'Wfro! the clearest signs#^ 1.71.1# andconte!porary history# %hich is based upon eye%itnesses '1.77.7 f.. his

historical section# %hich can be co!pared %ith the sections in the Helleni&ade"oted to Agesilaus# is follo%ed by another one de"oted to Wthe "irtue in hissoul^ '= ƒ w<ƒ J+ (*‡# echoed in su!!ary in chapter 11.6$ceptionally# Must before this passage# Xenophon discusses the genre of theAgesilaus:

(z Pz* ~ k/ >)0 GJ/=IJ/ ++ =)J •*== /0 ++= €=P+= =+/-,x# (z G+‰ ‘+= P)’/+=. G*|+= j= Pz* “G* Š|= †)+Jz )J == ;PJ/ G* J+ˆ vG/J j Q )J G;+= •*‡=+ G-/= ”„Q+0 )~0 )J •,=J+0 *JI+09 P)xQx= j Q (q/’*+= ” =I)JQ J),/-J/ )J v*PJ z GQ-+ q/J9

Ho%e"er# let it not be thought# because one %hose life is ended is the the!e of !y praise# that these %ords are !eant for a funeral dirge. hey are far !oretruly the language of eulogy. n the 5rst place the %ords no% applied to hi! arethe "ery sa!e that he heard in his lifeti!e. And# in the second place# %hatthe!e is less appropriate to a dirge than a life of fa!e and a death %ell?ti!ed–hat !ore %orthy of eulogies than "ictories !ost glorious and deeds ofso"ereign %orth– 'ranslation by 6. C. archant

Xenophon Agesilaus 1].8

He e!phasies that this %or& belongs to the genre of the enco!iu!distinguishing it fro! the •*=+0 'la!entand this is the opposite of %hatsocrates did in his anegyricus# %here a panegyric discourse is co!bined %iththe!es !ore appropriate to epitaphs: 27U3

)JQ+/ — + ;>•= k/ <JG= -/= ˜-J+= G•=J ;P/= G*G*JP,x= G,J/ G*+)J/>;=x=# )J G* ™= + ,/-J =>•;=0 |=G+/|= }GI= G +I0 >+-Q… •JG+;=+/0 G+,)/0 }*‡)J-/=ˆ (=,P)> Pz*z j= ;P/-— J|= †> )JJ)<*-•J/# /)*z @ v/ GJ*JIŽ•J/. kx0 @



) |= šG++QGx=# G/~ -Ž;*/ +I0 G*,PJ-/=# +) ›)=>;+= =>-•=J/G* J|=.

And yet ha"e not failed to appreciate the fact that it is di_cult to co!efor%ard last and spea& upon a subMect %hich has long been appropriated# andupon %hich the "ery ablest spea&ers a!ong our citiens ha"e !any ti!es

addressed you at the public funerals9 for# naturally# the !ost i!portant topicsha"e already been e$hausted# %hile only uni!portant topics ha"e been left forlater spea&ers. Ne"ertheless# since they are apposite to the !atter in hand# !ust not shir& the duty of ta&ing up the points %hich re!ain and of recallingthe! to your !e!ory. 'ranslation by Leorge Norlin

socrates anegyricus U4

Xenophon@s argu!entation here is consistent %ith the ennobling ai!s ofenco!ia# yet his e$plicit re`ections on literary genres and codes arecharacteristic of the 5ctional speeches of the socratean type. t !ay beinstructi"e# then# to thin& of the Agesilaus# li&e socrates@ speeches# as a

literary enco!iu!# not connected %ith any speci5c occasion9 as far as %e cantell# it lac&s only one of the features inherent in socrates@ %or&: it %as not!eant for school use.

n the fourth chapter of Xenophon@s Socratic dialogue# the econo!icus# %e5nd a brief outline of the ;<=J/ 'arts that should be practiced# %ith the œing of ersia held up as e$a!plethat he is here a paradig! is clear fro! Socrates@%ords# Wshould %e be asha!ed of i!itating the œing of the ersians–^'*'J . . . ~ J}-<=•|= €= ž*-|= „J-/;J /‡-J-•J/9 4.4 he ;<=J/practiced by the œing of ersia are agriculture and the art of %ar: the œing ta&escare of the needs of the ar!y# inspects troops# and re%ards %ith gifts and

pro!otions the !ost e_cient co!!anders and ad!inistrators# %hile punishingthe corrupt and ine_cient 'see especially 4.U?V. Already in these 5rstparagraphs# it is e"ident that the œing of ersia in Ouestion is either the Cyrusof the Cyropaedia hi!self or his ho!ony!ous descendent# Cyrus the Ÿounger#the protagonist of the Anabasis. 27F3 n fact# this section of the econo!icuscan be considered to be a "ariation of the the!e of the Cyropaedia# hererealied through the techniOue of the Socratic dialogue. So too# the the!e ofparadeisoi '4.18f.# used here as e"idence of the œing@s co!!it!ent toagriculture# 5nds a parallel in Anabasis 1.7.U and in the !any references toparadeisoi in the Cyropaedia. n the econo!icus# the anecdote at 4.1E refersclearly to Cyrus the 6lder# inas!uch as this Cyrus is de5ned as Wthe !ost %ell?

estee!ed &ing^ '+)/’J+0 . . . „J-/0# but Cyrus the Ÿounger appearsi!!ediately after%ards '4.1F# in addition to ')J his illustrious predecessor.27V3 Cyrus@ s&ills as a co!!ander are not presented in detail but are rathersu!!aried by %ay of a sort of praeteritio that refers to the the!e of theAnabasis: Wne of the !any proofs that he has gi"en of this is the fact that#%hen he %as on his %ay to 5ght his brother for the throne . . .^ 'ranslation by6. C. archant# 4.1F1V. 28]3 nly t%o episodes are e$plicitly recorded: 5rst#the fact that nobody abandoned Cyrus to Moin Arta$er$esalthough !any



troops of the œing defected to Cyrusand# second# the death of all of Cyrus@ŽQ+/ 'e$cept Arieus atop his body at Cuna$a '4.1Ff.9 cf. Anabasis 1.V.7V and1.V.81# al!ost ad littera!. ore space is de"oted to a dialogue bet%een Cyrusand Zysander '4.7]7D# %hich Zysander related to a egarian guest. 2813 hedialogue# &eeping %ith the the!e of the paradeisos that had been in partculti"ated by Cyrus hi!self# closes the entire section# %ith Zysander praisingCyrus as Whappy^ 'JQx= because he is Wa good !an^ '(PJ•€0 . . . (=‡*.

Another "ariation on the the!e of the Cyropaedia 'although connected also tothe Anabasis# Agesilaus# and to the Hiero as %ell e!erges in the conclusion ofthe dialogue in a discussion de"oted to € (*</)€= =J/ '71.7: 2873

¡~ ¢Q@# vŽ> £ ¤-<J<+0# (z +/# ¥ ¦’)*J0# € G,-J/0 )+/=€= JI0G*,q-/ )J Px*P/)ƒ )J G+//)ƒ )J +})+=+/)ƒ )J G+/)ƒ € (*</)€==J/# ++ ~ -=+++P| -+ P G+‰ /JŽ;*/= P=’§ +‰0 ¨;*+0 |=¨;*x=ˆ

Kf course it is#@ cried scho!achus9 Kbut grant you# Socrates# that in respect of

aptitude for co!!and# %hich is co!!on to all for!s of business ali&eagriculture# politics# estate?!anage!ent# %arfarein that respect theintelligence sho%n by diTerent classes of !en "aries greatly.@ 'ranslation by 6.C. archant

Xenophon econo!icus 71.7

hat leadership s&ills are co!!on not only to agriculture# the topic %ith %hichthe discussion began# but also to politics# econo!y# property !anage!ent# andthe art of %ar con5r!s that this is a &ey the!e in the econo!icus#intentionally placed in a signi5cant position# as in the beginning of theCyropaedia. Xenophon@s use of the sa!e historical e$a!ples in %or&s of

diTerent literary genre# thus# illustrates the interconnections bet%een hishistorical and philosophical %or&s.

4. Cyrus: Bet%een Xenophon and lato

Already in antiOuity an allusion to Xenophon@s Cyropaedia %as recognied inthe third boo& of lato@s Za%s. 2883 he reference in lato# %hich could bee$tended to other %or&s 'no% lost that re"ol"ed around Cyrus ' a! thin&ing of Antisthenes# !ay shed so!e light on the discussion in %hich Xenophon too&part# on his fello% debaters and possible opponents# and on the literary genresin"ol"ed. he passage is usually read in isolation 'EV4c or EV4cEVDb butshould be &ept in the conte$t of the argu!ent. hat said# %e ought to beginfro! EV8dD# %here the Athenian interlocutor raises the Ouestion about thebalance bet%een € +=J*</)= '!onarchy and € •*+= 'freedo!. hee$a!ple that he suggests i!!ediately thereafter is that of the ersian e!pireunder Cyrus 'EV4a7f.. he Athenian poses a further proble!: the crisis of thee!pire under Ca!byses and its reco"ery under arius. He %ill proceed in hisinOuiry# he says# by %ay of di"ination 'EV4c7f. WShall use a &ind of di"inationto picture this–^# 2843 a clai! to %hich %e should pay particular attention#since it clearly indicates that the characters in the dialogue 'and lato hi!self



had no sources on %hich to rely and %ere obliged instead to resort toconMecture# or rather to !antic arts. he passage to %hich refer is as follo%s:

J=+J/ ~ == G* P ‹*+# z j= @ J€= -*J>P= (PJ•€==J/ )J Ž/G+/=# GJ/QJ0 j ›*•0 +< ©Ž•J/ € GJ*,GJ=# +})+=+Q… +j= €= =+= G*+--<>);=J/.

hat no% di"ine regarding Cyrus is this#that# although other%ise a good andpatriotic co!!ander# he %as entirely %ithout a right education# and had paidno attention to household !anage!ent. 'ranslation by R. L. Bury

lato Za%s EV4cDF

he &ey to the passage lies in the proposition# GJ/QJ0 j ›*•0 +< ©Ž•J/'Whe %as . . . %ithout a right education^# %hich so!e scholars ha"eerroneously interpreted as a reference to the education that Cyrus hi!selfne"er recei"ed. 28D3 t is# in fact# clearly e$plained by %hat i!!ediatelyfollo%s: %hile Cyrus %as busy %ith %arfare and could not pay enough attention

to the education of his children and to the ad!inistration of his o%n house#%o!en and eunuchs too& care of these aTairs in accordance %ith the custo!sof the edes but contrary to the "ery diTerent educatory principles of theersians 'EV4eEEVDbF. he "erb “Gx here !eans Wengage in# underta&e^'ZS s.".. 28E3 orion# then# is right to change the ter!s of the proble!: latoagrees %ith Xenophon on the e$cellence of ersian education and on Cyrus@"irtues# but he diTers fro! hi! regarding one i!portant point. or Xenophon#la% by itself is not enough to produce good leaders# and the responsibility fallsentirely on the !en in po%er9 for lato# on the other hand# la%s are thefoundation for a proper education of those %ho %ill be in po%er 'EVEa8F.

t see!s clear# then# that if there is indeed an allusion to the Cyropaedia in the

Za%s# the debate bet%een lato and Xenophon is not so !uch about theeducation of children 'to %hich Xenophon only brie`y refers at U.D.FE# but infact in"ol"es a far !ore i!portant the!e# na!ely the foundation of po%er andthe paideia fro! %hich that po%er deri"es: their disagree!ent# that is to say# isabout the "ery function and role of Za%. 28U3 Cyrus re!ains a paradig!#therefore# but# li&e e"ery paradig!# he can be !anipulated to ful5l diTerentfunctions. Antisthenes# according to iogenes Zaertius 'E.7# used the e$a!pleof Cyrus to de!onstrate that hard %or& is so!ething good 'a freOuent the!e inthe Cyropaedia and in chapter 4 of the econo!icus as %ell. e should note#ho%e"er# that a!ong Antisthenes@ %ritings there are as !any as three %or&sdedicated to Cyrus# in the fourth# 5fth# and tenth "olu!es of his collected %or&s

'E.1E9 E.1F9 the treatise that iogenes assigns to "olu!e 5"e# Cyrus or nœingship# !ight in fact partly o"erlap %ith the contents of the Cyropaedia.

o conclude# the paradig! of Cyrus %as used %ith particular freOuency in %or&srelated to the genre of the politeia# o%ing its popularity both to general Lree&interest in the ersians and to the diTusion of %or&s speci5cally about ersia'Ctesias or at any rate engaged in ersian history and custo!s 'Herodotus.28F3 hat lato belongs to this tradition is con5r!ed by Za%s EVDa7D# a



passage that see!s to recall the 5nal sentence of Herodotus@ %or&# Cyrus@response to Arte!bares 'V.177. 28V3 n Herodotus# as in lato# it is the harshsoil of ersia that engenders strong %arriors and future conOuerors# %ith latospecifying that Ca!byses and Xer$es %ere products of a soft educationentrusted to %o!en and eunuchs in the lu$ury of the court. Herodotus hi!selfsee!s to be one of the authors %ho has contributed !ost to the popularity ofthe paradig!. 24]3 Cyrus@ paradig!atic function should !a&e us rethin& theai! of %or&s that %e are Ouic& to classify either as historical or as philosophicaland %or&s on %hich %e besto% anachronistic labels# as in the case of theCyropaedia.

ne last consideration regarding the origin of the ersian paradig!: as far as%e &no%# it %as 5rst used not by a historian but by Aeschylus# %ho in hisersae e$ploited geographical and anthropological distance in order to endo%%ith e$e!plary force an e"ent that had occurred only eight years before. 2413Already in the ersae %e can note the centrality of the the!e of decadenceresulting fro! the inappropriate use of po%er. n this regard# %e should note

that it is arius and his successor# Xer$es# %ho are introduced in lato@s Za%sdirectly after Cyrus and Ca!byses as e$a!ples# respecti"ely# of re"i"al anddecay 'EVDcDEVEa8.

D. he e!orabilia as a Lenre

n light of atu!@s obser"ation that the e!orabilia begins as an apology and5nishes as an enco!iu!# %e ought to reconsider this %or& %ith an eye to%ardgeneric !ar&ers. 2473 e should 5rst note that the apologetic openingstate!ent uses the sa!e %ords that socrates e!ploys in his anegyricus'ž+,)/0 •JJ-J. he apology proper 5nishes at 1.7.E7E4# at %hich pointXenophon turns to the bene5ts of Socrates@ acti"ity# both in action and in

speech:

ª0 j ~ )J «ŽI= )/ +/ +‰0 -==J0 z j= v*P¬ /)=x= ¨J€=++0 ®=# z j )J /JP=+0# +x= ~ P*,wx £G-J {= /J=>+=-x.

n order to support !y opinion that he bene5ted his co!panions# ali&e byactions that re"ealed his o%n character and by his con"ersation# %ill set do%n%hat recollect of these. 'ranslation by 6. C. archant

Xenophon e!orabilia 1.8.1

he conclusion of the e!orabilia refers precisely to this passage# therebyclosing the e$tensi"e enco!iastic co!ponent in a ring. t is %orth pointing outthat Xenophon# in this recapitulation of Socrates@ "irtues# e!phasies that thei!age he has dra%n corresponds to the truth:

All %ho &ne% %hat !anner of !an Socrates %as and %ho see& after "irtuecontinue to this day to !iss hi! beyond all others# as the chief of helpers in theOuest of "irtue. or !yself# ha"e described hi! as he %as: so religious that hedid nothing %ithout counsel fro! the gods9 so Must that he did no inMury#ho%e"er s!all# to any !an# but conferred the greatest bene5ts on all %ho dealt



%ith hi!9 so self?controlled that he ne"er chose the pleasanter rather than thebetter course9 so %ise that he %as unerring in his Mudg!ent of the better andthe %orse# and needed no counsellor# but relied on hi!self for his &no%ledge of the!9 !asterly in e$pounding and de5ning such things9 no less !asterly inputting others to the test# and con"incing the! of error and e$horting the! tofollo% "irtue and gentleness. o !e then he see!ed to be all that a truly goodand happy !an !ust be. But if there is any doubter# let hi! set the characterof other !en beside these things9 then let hi! Mudge. 'ranslation by 6. C.archant

Xenophon e!orabilia 4.F.11 2483

n closer inspection# %e can see that %e are faced here %ith a !ultilayeredcorrespondence: through his actions# Socrates re"ealed the %ay he %as '1.8.1++0 ®=9 Xenophon# %ho &ne% the %ay he %as '++0 ®=# e!phasies thesorro% of those %ho aspire to "irtue '4.F.119 the picture that Xenophon hasdra%n of Socrates !atches precisely %ith %hat he %as 'ibid. +/++0 ¯= ++=

P /‡P>J/9 and 5nally# in the 5nal synthesis# Socrates see!s to be li&e the!an %ho e$cels in e"ery "irtue 'ibid. )/ +/++0 =J/ ++0 {= Œ> */-0 (=~* )J J/+=;-J+0. Again# the parallel %ith socrates is instructi"e.n the long proe!iu! to the Antidosis# socrates reècts on the genre in %hichhe has chosen to describe his thought and life. socrates represents hi!self ase!bittered by his fello% citiens@ incorrect opinion of hi! and co!!itted to5nding a %ay of e$plaining to the! and to posterity Wthe character that ha"e#the life lead# and the education %hich practice^ ')J €= *G+= °= v<x# )J€= „Q+= °= Š|# )J ~= GJ/QJ= G* ±= /J*Q„x# E. he best solution# itsee!s to hi!# is to %rite a speech that %ould be the "ery i!age of his thoughtand of his life. 2443 n this %ay# he %ould be able to achie"e his t%o !ainobMecti"es: to let his fello% citiens &no% %ho he really is# and# at the sa!eti!e# to lea"e a !onu!ent of hi!self. 24D3

At this point 'F# socrates pauses to reèct on literary genre# reMecting theenco!iu! 'GJ/=I= in fa"or of the Mudicial speech# in particular the apologia.n the sa!e %ay# Xenophon opens his Socratic %or& %ith an articulate apologia.Both strategies# in fact# are designed to !as& an enco!iu!# i!plicitly inXenophon# e$plicitly in socrates# %hose intention# after all# is to use his speechfor pedagogic purposes. hat is denied# of course# is Must %hat is actually done:in socrates@ case# an elaborate enco!iu! 'a self?enco!iu!# !oreo"er# builtinto a !i$ed?genre speech# as the author hi!self ad!its 'Antidosis 17# Ouotedinfra.

socrates@ reèctions on the genre of the enco!iu!# ho%e"er# are not uniOueto the Antidosis: in the Helen and Busiris# he deliberately straddles the linebet%een enco!iu! and apologia9 in the 6"agoras# !oreo"er# he insists that it%as his o%n inno"ation to ha"e co!posed an enco!iu! in prose# and hee$plores another boundary# this ti!e bet%een enco!iu! and protreptic95nally# in !any instances# li&e in the Nicocles# the anathenaicus# and in theafore!entioned Antidosis# socrates reècts on self?enco!iu!. 24E3



E. Xenophon# socrates and the Lenres of rose

f the the!es that Xenophon tends to pri"ilege# a! !ost interested here inpaideia and the e$ercise of po%er. 24U3 t is often in relation to these the!esthat Xenophon introduces historical !atter into his "arious %or&s# in so!ecases closer to the style of hucydidean historiography 'e.g. the so called

paralipo!ena at the beginning of the Helleni&a# in other cases rather fartherfro! this !odel. he %or& that structurally !ost rese!bles the Helleni&a is theAnabasis# to %hich Xenophon hi!self refers in the Helleni&a ostensibly to a"oidrepeating a story. But the Anabasis introduces an i!portant inno"ation: a clearprotagonist# Xenophon hi!self# %ho spea&s about hi!self in the third person.

he role of Xenophon and also of Cyrus the Ÿounger lin&s the Anabasis to theCyropaedia# and to the Agesilaus as %ell# a %or& that is for!ally an enco!iu!and that outlines the characteristics of an ideal co!!ander. Also present in theAnabasis is the the!e of paideia# and not only in the passage that %e !ightcall the Cyropaedia !inor 'Anabasis 1.V: thin&# for e$a!ple# of the pro5le ofro$enus# %ho belie"ed hi!self ready for co!!and because he had studied

%ith Lorgias '7.E.1Ef.# and the entertaining dispute bet%een Xenophon andCheirisophus about );G/= 'stealing in Spartan and Athenian education'4.E.1Df.. ne !ight as& %hy Xenophon does not spea& about his o%n paideiain the Anabasis but appears there already perfectly ready for speech andaction# a sort of Athena# %ho e!erges fully ar!ored fro! the head of ²eus. heans%er lies in the diTerent paradig!s pursued in the Cyropaedia and in theAnabasis.

At the centre of Xenophon@s literary output %e should place the Cyropaedia#%hich shares %ith the Anabasis the centrality of a character %ho e!bodies apolitical and paideutic ideal but is also in so!e parts openly sophistic# %ithdialogues Ouite in har!ony %ith %or&s labeled as Kphilosophical@. 24F3 heother# so?called !inor %or&s# are deeply connected to the !aMor ones: theHiero# a philosophical dialogue on po%er# 24V3 a the!e that freOuently recurs inthe e!orabilia as %ell9 the econo!icus# another dialogue# this ti!e on thethe!e of household ad!inistration# %hich diTers only in scale fro! thego"ern!ent of a city# as Xenophon hi!self a_r!s 2D]3 9 the Constitution of theZacedai!onians# %hich traces Sparta@s success bac& to Zycurgus@ la%s anddiscusses the reasons for the recent crisis of the city9 2D13 the oroi# on there"enues of the city of Athens9 the Cynegeticus# a treaty on hunting as a for!of education9 the n Horse!anship and the Hipparchicus# %hich deal %ith theart of horse!anship fro! the pri"ate and public perspecti"e respecti"ely. 2D73n this last %or&# too# there are allusions to the the!e of paideia: seeHipparchicus 1.U 'the co!!ander !ust !a&e his !en G/•I0 and E.1'co!parison of the ca"alry co!!ander %ith the potter !olding his clay. oredistinct# at least fro! a for!al perspecti"e# are the Apologia# e!orabilia andSy!posiu!# %hich bear the signs of another codi5ed genre# that of the P+/¦+)*J/)+Q. he "ery presence of Socrates as a central character in these%or&s# of course# ensures here too the i!portance of the the!e of education.



ith respect to pree$isting literary production# Xenophon beha"es %ith thegreat freedo! that is granted to prose# e!ploying codes of pre?e$isting genresto change the! fro! %ithin: this is the case %ith hucydidean historiography inthe Helleni&a and in the Anabasis and %ith technical treatises in theCynegeticus# the n Horse!anship# and the Hipparchicus. he philosophicaldialogue# too# is adapted to Xenophon@s o%n interests 'Hiero# econo!icus# asis the enco!iu! 'Agesilaus# a genre %ith a long poetic tradition but a !uch!ore li!ited history as a prose genre 'socrates# as %e recall# had clai!ed thathis 6"agoras %as a co!plete inno"ation. e can thin& about the Constitutionof the Zacedai!onians in the sa!e %ay# a %or& that certainly in"o&es thegenre of the G+/IJ/ but intends to be neither an e$hausti"e e$position ofZycurgus@ la%s# nor a political re`ection along the lines of lato@s Republic andZa%s. 2D83 Any &no%ledge of sophistic prose# no% only di!ly graspable throughbare titles and scanty frag!ents# %ould certainly enable us better tounderstand Xenophon@s attitude to%ards pree$isting prose genres.

e !ust not position Xenophon after hucydides# as an inadeOuate

continuator# or beside lato# as a less percepti"e disciple of Socrates# butrather beside socrates# the other great inno"ator and e$peri!enter of Lree&prose# %ho %as# li&e Xenophon# co!!itted to the the!es of education andpolitics. 2D43 socrates considered the path of rhetoric to be the &ey to theproper for!ation of the citien and the political !an9 Xenophon# on the otherhand# ai!ed at teaching the technical s&ills reOuired by the e$ercise of po%erand# on a reduced scale# in pri"ate life for the ad!inistration of one@s o%nproperty. hese s&ills# all of %hich fall %ithin paideia# range fro! %ar tohorse!anship# fro! hunting to econo!y# fro! constitutional theory todialectic. Both socrates and Xenophon refused to consider philosophy as!erely an abstract speculation# and both clai!ed to be representati"es of the

one philosophy that %as truly useful# capable of shaping co!petent !en andgood citiens. 2DD3 After listing so!e of Socrates@ disciples# Xenophon e$plains%hat pro!pted the! to follo% their teacher: Wnot that they !ight shine in thecourts or the asse!bly# but that they !ight beco!e gentle!en# and be able todo their duty by house and household# and relati"es and friends# and city andcitiens. 2DE3 And he adds: Wf these not one# in his youth or old age# did e"il orincurred censure^ 'e!orabilia 1.7.4F# translation by 6. C. archant. 2DU3 nhis portrait of Agesilaus# %here he focuses on particular character traits# %e5nd those sa!e Oualities described in greater detail:

Another Ouality that should not go unrecorded is his urbanity. or although heheld honour in fee# and had po%er at his bec&# and to these added so"ereigntyso"ereignty not plotted against but regarded %ith aTectionyet no traces ofarrogance could ha"e been detected in hi!# %hereas signs of a fatherlyaTection and readiness to ser"e his friends# e"en if unsought# %ere e"ident. Hedelighted# !oreo"er# to ta&e his part in light tal&# yet he sho%ed an eagersy!pathy %ith friends in all their serious concerns. han&s to his opti!is!#good hu!our# and cheerfulness he %as a centre of attraction to !any# %hoca!e not !erely for purposes of business# but to pass the day !ore pleasantly.Zittle inclined to boastfulness hi!self# he heard %ithout annoyance the self?



praise of others# thin&ing that# by indulging in it# they did no har! and ga"eearnest of high endea"our. n the other hand# one !ust not o!it a referenceto the dignity that he sho%ed on appropriate occasions. 'ranslation by 6. C.archant

Xenophon Agesilaus F.18 2DF3

f %e co!pare these passages %ith socrates@ conception %e 5nd a nu!ber ofcon"ergences:

ho!# then# do call educated# since e$clude the arts and sciences andspecialties– irst# those %ho !anage %ell the circu!stances %hich theyencounter day by day# and %ho possess a Mudge!ent %hich is accurate in!eeting occasions as they arise and rarely !isses the e$pedient course ofaction9 ne$t# those %ho are decent and honorable in their intercourse %ith all%ith %ho! they associate# tolerating easily and good?naturedly %hat isunpleasant or oTensi"e in others and being the!sel"es as agreeable andreasonable to their associates as it is possible to be9 further!ore# those %ho

hold their pleasures al%ays under control and are not unduly o"erco!e by their!isfortunes# bearing up under the! bra"ely and in a !anner %orthy of ourco!!on nature9 5nally# and !ost i!portant of all# those %ho are not spoiled bysuccesses and do not desert their true sel"es and beco!e arrogant# but holdtheir ground steadfastly as intelligent !en# not reMoicing in the good things%hich ha"e co!e to the! through chance rather than in those %hich throughtheir o%n nature and intelligence are theirs fro! their birth. hose %ho ha"e acharacter %hich is in accord# not %ith one of these things# but %ith all of the!these# contend# are %ise and co!plete !en# possessed of all the "irtues.'ranslation by Leorge Norlin

socrates anathenaicus 8]87 2DV3Zi&e socrates# Xenophon has been !isunderstood: his %or&s ha"e beenisolated fro! each other and e"aluated on an essentially for!al basis. hose%or&s that %ere the pieces of a paideutic and political proMect ha"e beenreduced to pa!phlets of interest only to the antiOuarian or specialist in !ilitaryand econo!ic history. But li&e socrates# Xenophon %as read in antiOuity abo"eall as a !odel of clear Attic prose.

n the subMect of literary genres# lea"ing aside the congeries !ethod e!ployedby so!e scholars in order to describe the Cyropaedia# %e !ust entertain thepossibility that Xenophon deliberately practiced a &ind of œreuung der

Lattungen. his possibility %as e$plicitly theoried by Christopher uplin# %hosituates the Cyropaedia Win a crosscut of four Kordinary@ genres^:historiography# enco!iu!# Socratic dialectic# and technical pa!phlet. 2E]3Here# too# it !ay be helpful to thin& of socrates# %ho did not operate as ascientist in search of surprising intersections a!ong diTerent literary genres#but rather created ne% genres# co!pletely unconnected %ith any speci5coccasion and relying instead on %ritten publication. 2E13 Such e$peri!entation%ith literary genres allo%s hi! to use the codes and co!!unicati"e strategies



appropriate to these pree$isting genres %ithout the ne% %or& losing its o%nidentity. Had Xenophon %anted to describe the genre of the Cyropaedia# he!ight ha"e done so along the lines of socrates@ de5nition of his Antidosis '1]?17. Here# socrates 5rst lists the diTerent ele!ents of the %or&: the Mudicialfra!e# the reèctions on culture# the aspects useful for the education of theyoung# and citations fro! his pre"ious %or&s:

or# assure you# it has not been an easy nor a si!ple tas&# but one of greatdi_culty9 for %hile so!e things in !y discourse are appropriate to be spo&en ina court?roo!# others are out of place a!id such contro"ersies# being fran&discussions about philosophy and e$positions of its po%er. here is in it# also#!atter %hich it %ould be %ell for young !en to hear before they set out to gain&no%ledge and an education9 and there is !uch# besides# of %hat ha"e%ritten in the past# inserted in the present discussion# not %ithout reason nor%ithout 5tness# but %ith due appropriateness to the subMect in hand.'ranslation by Leorge Norlin

socrates Antidosis 1] 2E73After e!phasiing the di_culty of !astering the length of the speech and the"ariety of for!s it contains# 2E83 socrates rea_r!s his deter!ination toco!plete it# in spite of his old age# strongly insisting on the "eracity of thespeech. 2E43 He concludes by ad"ising future readers to ta&e into account thefact that they are dealing %ith a !i$ed genre. 2ED3

he 5ctional Muridical fra!e is of course absent fro! the Cyropaedia# %hiche!ploys instead a historical fra!e according to %hich the !aterial is arrangedin chronological order. Also absent is one of the !ost e$traordinary inno"ationsin the Antidosis# na!ely the anthology of so!e passages by the author hi!self.

2EE3 Broad philosophical reèctions and considerations useful on thepedagogical le"el are# ho%e"er# %idely present in this %or&# as is the conceptof (‡•/J# %hich is itself reinforced by the for!ally historical narrati"e.Although it is true that no%here in Xenophon@s %or& do %e 5nd any e$plicitguidelines for the reader# %e should ne"ertheless be on the loo&out for possibleinternal !ar&ers that refer to the recitation: this !ay %ell be the case %ith thebrief su!!aries appended to the beginning of !any boo&s of the Anabasis.

t is also i!portant to recall that# Ouite unli&e other %or&s of Xenophon# theCyropaedia has a proe!iu!# %hich contains a strong !ar&er of genre: thede5nition of the the!e# na!ely the correct e$ercise of po%er '1.1.8 €(=•*’Gx= *</= 'Wto rule o"er !en^9 cf. 1.1.E ai!ed at its o%n preser"ation.

n this basis# Ze"ine Lera !aintains that the proe!iu! is intended to ensurethat the %or& has a place in the genre of the political pa!phlet or KG+/QJliterature@. 2EU3

n the position that ha"e tried to outline# it is no longer !eaningful# in atu!@s%ords# to in"estigate the boundary bet%een history and 5ction. 2EF3 atu!!aintains that Wit %as the generic è$ibility of prose itself that enabledXenophon to !o"e so easily across the boundary bet%een history and 5ction^



and that Wli&e any prose %riter# he %as engaged in the in"ention of his o%ngenre.^ e can agree %ith this for!ulation# e$cept for the idea that a boundarydid# in fact# e$ist: Xenophon %as interested in establishing not so !uch thetruth of his infor!ation as its e$e!plarity. he t%o categories of history and5ction belong to our literary and historiographical perception# not to that of anAthenian of the fourth century. espite i!portant and ad!irable atte!pts li&ethose of Herodotus and hucydides# "ery fe% %ere interested in in"estigatingthe reliability of an account of an e"ent fro! the re!ote past# if it had so!efunda!ental and paradig!atic "alue. At best# they tried to for%ard the !ostli&ely possibility. Si!ilarly# the need to generate ne% paradig!s too&precedence o"er Ouestions of "eritas. hucydides@ genius lies in the fact thathe lin&ed e$e!plarity to the reliability of the reconstruction and that hehighlighted the li!its of his o%n %or& 'and that of others: ancient history canonly be s&etched9 speeches can not be precisely reported. he fact that after

hucydides the lin& bet%een reliability and e$e!plarity %as not consistentlye!phasied is due not the inferior caliber of later historians# but rather to theirdiTerent ai!s. n this point# uplin has said that %e cannot e$clude thepossibility that the Cyropaedia# fro! the point of "ie% of its author# %asessentially an historical %or&. 2EV3 ore precisely# according to uplin#Xenophon %ould not ha"e thought of the !aterial in the Cyropaedia as non?historical# because Lree& authors did not use as a factual fra!e%or& for anhistorical discourse %hat they did not consider to be historical. 2U]3 heCyropaedia# uplin continues# is not 5ction# and the analogy %ith Herodotus and

hucydides is actually inapplicable# as Xenophon is doing so!ething diTerent:he is using a "ersion of the life of Cyrus to illustrate ho% po%er has to bee$ercised. n the basis of his didactic and ideological ai!s# Xenophon#according to this reading# !ade a selection fro! the Achae!enid historicaltradition and fro! other infor!ation gathered directly and indirectly. 2U13 ecannot# then# spea& of 5ctionality9 %e !ust rather Ouestion our o%n concept ofhistory.

Xenophon e$peri!ented %ith se"eral historiographical for!s# so!e that aretoday canonical# others that are far fro! our !odels: his li!inality '%ith respectto !odern categories has !ade hi! an atypical author. t is perhaps ti!e togi"e hi! a !ore appropriate position# ho%e"er# not only in the delicatetransition bet%een the aural and %ritten diTusion of literature but also in thee"olution of historical literature# %hich cannot be separated fro! the genresrelated to sophistic prose: G+/IJ/# enco!ia# technical treatises# and so forth.

he %hole of his corpus could be better understood in apposition to the

polygraphia of other corpora# precisely those# no% alas lost# of the sophists.2U73

Bibliography

AlthoT# . 7]]7. Wor! und un&tion der beiden hippologischen SchriftenXenophons Hipparchicus und e re eOuestri '!it eine! Blic& auf Si!on "onAthen.^ n Anti&e achte$te# ed. . ³gen# 78D7D7. Berlin.



Aoulay# . 7]]4. X´nophon et les grµces du pou"oir. e la charis au charis!e.aris.

Bianco# 6. 1VV8. Wl capitolo X della Za&edai!onion oliteia attribuita aSenofonte.^ useu! Hel"eticu! D8:1774.

Canfora# Z. 1VU]. ucidide continuato. adua.Cole# . 1VFE. WZe origini della retorica.^ ¶uaderni ·rbinati di Cultura Classica78:U71.

. 1VV1. he rigins of Rhetoric in Ancient Lreece. Balti!ore.

Corcella# A. 7]]U. W!!agini dei ersiani. Appunti su eter ulius unge.^ n Congli occhi degli antichi. ilologia e politica nelle stagioni della cultura europea#Atti del Con"egno internaionale di studi# aler!o?Agrigento# 7U7V sette!bre7]]E# ed. L. Nuo# 7487UF. aler!o.

. 7]1]. Wane# crescione e sale. Za dieta dei ersiani tra Senofonte e

Lirola!o.^ ¶uaderni di storia U7:81FF.Cuniberti# L. 7]]U. Wer chi scri"e Senofonte– l ruolo dei Zacede!oni nellaproduione e riceione dell@opera di Senofonte.^ œte!a 87:8UV8V].

illery# . 1VVD. Xenophon and the History of his i!es. Zondon.

orion# Z.?A. 7]]8. W·ne allusion [ la Cyrop´die au li"re des Zois 'EV4c.^ nlato@s Za%s: ro! heory into ractice# ed. S. Scolnico" and Z. Brisson# 7F17FD. San&t Augustin.

6uc&en# C. 1VF8. so&rates: seine ositionen in der Auseinandersetung !it deneitgen³ssischen hilosophen. Berlin.

errucci# S. 7]]1. W“GJq ;P/=. l +P+P*,Ž+0 tra storia e oratoria.^ Se!inariro!ani di cultura greca 4:1]817E.

lo%er# . 7]]E. WHerodotus and ersia.^ n he Ca!bridge Co!panion toHerodotus# ed. C. e%ald and . arincola# 7U47FV. Ca!bridge.

Lianotti# L. . 1VV]. WLli 6guali di Sparta.^ n Senofonte. Z@ordina!ento politicodegli Spartani# 1U8V. Za citt[ antica D. aler!o.

Lray# . . 7]]U. Xenophon on Lo"ern!ent. Ca!bridge.

Lrethlein# . 7]]U. Whe Her!eneutics and oetics of e!ory in Aeschylus@s

ersae.^ Arethusa 4]:8E88VE.Hornblo%er# S. 7]]U. Warfare in Ancient Ziterature: the arado$ of ar.^ n

he Ca!bridge History of Lree& and Ro!an arfare: Lreece# the Hellenisticorld and the Rise of Ro!e# ed. . Sabin et al.# 77D8. Ca!bridge.

Hu!ble# N. 7]]4. Whe Author# ate and urpose of Chapter 14 of theZa&edai!onion oliteia.^ n uplin 7]]4:71D77F.



Ze"ine Lera# . 1VV8. Xenophon@s Cyropaedia. Style# Lenre and Ziterary echniOue. $ford.

Zip&a# . 7]]7. Xenophon@s Spartan Constitution. ntroduction# e$t#Co!!entary. Berlin.

eulder# . 1VFV. WZa date et la coh´rence de la R´publiOue desZac´d´!oniens de X´nophon.^ Z@AntiOuit´ classiOue DF:U1FU.

o!igliano# A. 1V8D. WZ@ege!onia tebana in Senofonte e in 6foro.^ Atene eRo!a 8.7:1]111U ¸ A. o!igliano 1VF7. Za storiogra5a greca. urin. 7]4774.

ueller?Loldingen# C. 7]]U. Xenophon. hilosophie und Leschichte. ar!stadt.

Nicolai# R. 1VV7. Za storiogra5a nell@educaione antica. isa

. 7]]4a. Studi su socrate. Za co!unicaione letteraria nel secolo a.C.e i nuo"i generi della prosa. Ro!e.

. 7]]4b. Wsocrate e le nuo"e strategie della co!unicaione letteraria:l@Antidosi co!e Wantologia d@autore.^ n Za cultura ellenistica. Z@opera letterariae l@esegesi antica. Atti del Con"egno# ·ni"ersit[ di Ro!a Wor ergata^ 7774sette!bre 7]]8# ed. R. retagostini and 6. ettori# 1FU1VU. Ro!e.

. 7]]4c. W()*J-/0.^ n Ze$icon Historiographicu! Lraecu! et Zatinu!1# ed. C. A!polo et al.# EEU]. isa.

. 7]]D. W!ero# ucidide e latone sulla preistoria dell@u!anit[ e sullefondaioni di citt[.^ Se!inari ro!ani di cultura greca F:78U7E1.

. 7]]E. Whucydides continued.^ n A Co!panion to hucydides# ed. A.Renga&os and A. sa&!a&is# EV1U1V. Zeiden.

. 7]11. WZogos idas&alos: irect Speech as a Critical ool in hucydides.^n hucydidesa iolent eacher–# ed. L. Rechenauer and . othou# 1DV?1EV.Loettingen.

o!eroy# S. B. 1VV4. Xenophon. econo!icus# A Social and HistoricalCo!!entary. $ford.

Rebenich# S. 1VVF. Xenophon. ie erfassung der Spartaner. ar!stadt.

Rood# . 7]]4. WXenophon and iodorus: Continuing hucydides.^ n uplin7]]4:8418VD.

Roscalla# . 1VV1. Senofonte. 6cono!ico# intr.# trad. e note di . R.# con unsaggio di . Zana. ilano.

Rossi# Z. 6. 1VU1. W generi letterari e le loro leggi scritte e non scritte nelleletterature classiche.^ Bulletin of the nstitute of Classical Studies 1F:EVV4.

. 7]]]. WZa letteratura alessandrina e il rinno"a!ento dei generi letteraridella tradiione.^ n Za letteratura ellenistica. roble!i e prospetti"e di ricerca.



Atti del ColloOuio internaionale ·ni"ersit[ di Ro!a Wor ergata^# 7V8] aprile1VVU# ed. R. retagostini# 14V1E1. Ro!e.

Schepens# L. 7]]E. WStoriogra5a e letteratura antiOuaria. Ze scelte di eli$ acoby.^ n Aspetti dell@opera di eli$ acoby# Se!inari Arnaldo o!igliano#Scuola Nor!ale Superiore di isa# 1F1V dice!bre 7]]7# ed. C. A!polo# 14V

1U1. isa.

. 7]]U. Wucidide Kin controluce@. Za guerra del eloponneso nellastoriogra5a greca del secolo a.C.^ n l dopoguerra nel !ondo greco. olitica#propaganda# storiogra5a# ed. Z. Santi A!antini# DUVV. Ro!e.

Segoloni# Z. . 1VV4. Socrate a banchetto. l Si!posio di latone e iBanchettanti di Aristofane. Ro!e.

Se"ieri# R. 7]]4. Whe !perfect Hero: Xenophon@s Hiero as the 'Self?a!ing ofa yrant.^ n uplin 7]]4:7UU7FU.

a!iola&i# . 7]]F. WZes H´lleniOues entre tradition et inno"ation. Aspects de larelation interte$tuelle de X´nophon a"ec H´rodote et hucydide.^ Cahiers des´tudes anciennes 4D:1DD7.

atu!# . 1VFV. Xenophon@s !perial iction: n the 6ducation of Cyrus.rinceton.

ho!as# R. 7]]]. Herodotus in Conte$t. Ca!bridge.

uplin# C. . 1VVU. WXenophon@s Cyropaedia: 6ducation and iction.^ n 6ducationin Lree& iction# ed. A. H. So!!erstein and C. Atherton# ED1E7. Bari.

# ed. 7]]4. Xenophon and his orld. apers ro! a Conference Held in

Zi"erpool 1VVV. Stuttgart.ela eMada# . 1VVF. ost H. R. Breitenbach: res decadas de estudios sobre

enofonte# 1VEU1VVU. ²aragoa.

ootnotes

2 bac& 3 1. Nicolai 7]]4c.

2 bac& 3 7. Segoloni 1VV4.

2 bac& 3 8. ho!as 7]]].

2 bac& 3 4. n the i!plications of the ter! +P+P*,Ž+0 for the %ay in %hich the

%or& %as published# see errucci 7]]1.2 bac& 3 D. iogenes Zaertius V.4V: ž* |= = ¹J„|=/ *|= P*J,x=#ž* |= = º*§# ž* -+*Q>0# »JJ¼)€0 P+0# ½*P/+0 P+0# ¡+/)zJŒ/J.

2 bac& 3 E. iogenes Zaertius V.DD: ž* G+/QJ0# ž* |= +) ›*•|0 +I0(=•*’G+/0 G*J--+;=x=# ž* 0 = (*<ƒ )JJ-,-x0.



2 bac& 3 U. Nicolai 7]]E and Schepens 7]]E.

2 bac& 3 F. o!igliano 1V8D:7]F.

2 bac& 3 V. A "ery useful o"er"ie% of Xenophontic scholarship in the last thirtyyears of the t%entieth century can be found in ela eMada 1VVF.

2 bac& 3 1]. See e.g. atu! 1VFV:$"9 Ze"ine Lera 1VV8:19 Aoulay 7]]4:$# %hospea&s of a W!onstru! litt´raire.^

2 bac& 3 11. he e$peri!ental nature of Xenophon@s %or&s has !ade it di_cultto classify the! by genre: for e$a!ple# according to atu! 1VFV:8D# Xenophonappears to us as a no"elist but !aintains a "ague pro5le in ter!s of literarygenre. he co!parison %ith the no"el is actually unhelpful# and it e"en causesproble!s on the le"el of literary syste! and functions of the "arious genres.

atu! 1VFV:4]f.# also states that Xenophon had a Wprotean i!agination#^ %hichled hi! to %or& si!ultaneously on %hat %e no% regard as diTerent literaryfor!s.

2 bac& 3 17. n socrates# see Nicolai 7]]4a. y research on the literary genresused by socrates has its roots in# and originates fro!# Rossi 1VU1 and Rossi7]]].

2 bac& 3 18. atu! 1VFV:$i" spea&s of Wpolitical uses of 5ction.^

2 bac& 3 14. n the tendency to separate the historian fro! the philosopher#see illery 1VVD:U# including nD '%ith his e$a!ple of the Ca!bridge History ofClassical Ziterature9 so!e negati"e opinions about Xenophon can be found inthe e$a!ples suggested at 7DDnE. n Xenophon as a second?class author# apale i!itator of hucydides# and an uni!pressi"e copier of lato# see Aoulay7]]4:$.

2 bac& 3 1D. or a cogent analysis of passages that attest an a%areness inXenophon of hucydides@ %or&# on both a the!atic and "erbal le"el# see Rood7]]4. n the co!ple$ relationship bet%een the Helleni&a and Herodotus and

hucydides# see a!iola&i 7]]F. !portant contributions to the reinterpretationof the eloponnesian ar by fourth?century historians can be found inSchepens 7]]U.

2 bac& 3 1E. n this issue# note the balanced position of illery 1VVD:171D.

2 bac& 3 1U. illery 1VVD:1] deals %ith the absence of a proe!iu! andconcludes '11: WXenophon !ay ha"e deliberately a"oided an introduction#

inas!uch as it %ould ha"e de!anded# a!ong other things# that he e$plains%hat %as i!portant about the recent past and ho% it e$plained the presentand future# so!ething he !ay %ell ha"e been unable to do.^

2 bac& 3 1F. he conclusion of the Helleni&a does not allo% us to consider it asinco!plete: so atu! 1VFV:D]9 see also 4E on the di_culties of trying tode"elop a consistent the!e and building a coherent literary genre. heconclusion of the Helleni&a %ith the battle of antinea# %hich did not pro"e to



be as crucial as Xenophon had e$pected# is the obMect of i!portant re!ar&s byillery 1VVD:1U8F.

2 bac& 3 1V. Nicolai 7]]E:U]]U]7. n the conclusion# see U]7f. aradig!srelated to indi"iduals and co!!unities are analysed in illery 1VVD:1781UE#especially in part # deal Co!!unity# deal Zeader: aradig! as History.

2 bac& 3 7]. See e.g. illery 1VVD:4.

2 bac& 3 71. See Nicolai 7]]E:EVDU]E# for a de5nition of the genre of theHelleni&a and the function of this %or&# %ith a discussion of recent bibliography.n Xenophon@s proMect# see illery 1VVD# especially the conclusion# 7417D4.

2 bac& 3 77. 0 j= +¾= ‹*+0 -*,, -=;q )J +@ v<x= (=;„> G€= (Ž=# )J 0 ¿ ,<> P;=+# )J 0 (G;•J=# )J 0 ) ++(G-’•>-J= + À>=0 G •,JJ=# Á/-+P;=/ Â ¦*J)+-Q¬P;P*JGJ/. 'ranslation by C. Z. Bro%nson his passage in the Helleni&a sharesso!e features of the su!!aries at the beginning of Boo&s 7# 8# 4# D and U#

%hich are not generally accepted by editors. or a diTerent position# seeCanfora 1VU]:7E# %ith earlier bibliography.

2 bac& 3 78. socrates Antidosis 4D *+/ j z0 G*,q/0 z0 = +I0 G+;+/0-=JPJPI= „+‡•>-J=# anathenaicus 1 +‰0 2sc. |= Px=3 z0 GJJ/z0G*,q/0 )J +‰0 G+;+0 +‰0 Ã>=/)+‰0 q>P+;=+0# Aristotle Rhetoric1.4.18E]a8E?8U J |= G* z0 G*,q/0 P*JŽ=x= -+*QJ/. Hornblo%er7]]U:8]# co!pares the Anabasis to Caesar@s Co!!entarii and stresses thatboth %or&s are deeply apologetic. shall not consider the details that thisco!parison entails# but doubt that the apologetic ai! pre"ails in Xenophon.

2 bac& 3 74. atu! 1VFV:D states that the Cyropaedia is co!parable to

socrates@ Cypriot speeches# if not for its literary type# at least as far asconcerns it intentions.

2 bac& 3 7D. According to atu! 1VFV:17# the detach!ent of the authorÄnarratoris a rhetorical strategy borro%ed fro! hucydides.

2 bac& 3 7E. or this interpretation of speeches in historiography# %ith particularattention to hucydides# see Cole 1VFE and 1VV1 and Nicolai 1VV7:E8EV.

2 bac& 3 7U. Cuniberti 7]]U:8FD# highlights the %ay in %hich Xenophon %illinglystresses Wla natura pubblica della laudatio del re Agesilao.^ As Cuniberti latersays# WSenofonte propone cosÅ un enco!io di fronte a tutti# una sorta dipanegirico# ri"olto# co!e Ouello di socrate# a tutti i Lreci e 5naliato acelebrare il re spartano# per il Ouale inutile chiedere onori# perch´ gli sono gi[attribuiti dalla legge di Zicurgo# che lo innala ad eroe# !a necessarioperpetuarne la !e!oria.^

2 bac& 3 7F. or parallel passages# see Anabasis 1.V.14f.# 1.V.1V# 1.V.777E andCyropaedia F.7.F and F.E.11.



2 bac& 3 7V. See on this topic o!eroy 1VV4:74F: the confusion bet%een Cyrusthe 6lder and Cyrus the Ÿounger see!s to be deliberate9 Xenophon !ight ha"etransferred the "irtues of the 6lder to his unluc&y na!esa&e.

2 bac& 3 8]. )J ++ )‡*/J J G+z GJ*;-<>J/# )J £G G*0 „J-/QJ0 Â (ŽÂ G+*+ J<+=+0.

2 bac& 3 81. o!eroy 1VV4:7D1 hypothesies that Xenophon used either ersiano_cials or Ctesias.

2 bac& 3 87. %ill not address here the proble! of the stages of publication ofthe econo!icus# %hich pri!arily in"ol"es the passage Ouoted here. n thissubMect# see Roscalla 1VV1:717D.

2 bac& 3 88. o!eroy 1VV4:7E# and Corcella 7]1]:4U.

2 bac& 3 84. „+-• ++= J=Q… /J=+>•;=0 <*’•J# translation by R. L.Bury.

2 bac& 3 8D. orion 7]]8.2 bac& 3 8E. As in Republic 8.411cD: +-/)0 j )J Ž/+-+ŽQJ0 ~ “G>J/.

2 bac& 3 8U. Xenophon Cyropaedia F.1.F: kJ= j= £ G/-,>0 „Qx=P;=>J/# )J•J*’*+= z =/J G*,J/ˆ kJ= j <Q*x=# ŽJ*+=.

2 bac& 3 8F. n the diTering perceptions that the Lree&s had of the ersiansand their fortune in %estern culture# see Corcella 7]]U and Corcella 7]1]# %ithbibliography.

2 bac& 3 8V. lo%er 7]]E:7FU.

2 bac& 3 4]. See lo%er 7]]E:7F7# according to %ho! Herodotus had enoughcultural distance to gi"e an i!partial account of Cyrus@ failures.

2 bac& 3 41. n the ersae as a re`ection on !e!ory# open to interpretation ona !eta?literary le"el9 on the creation of identity through ethnic andchronological distance9 and on the relation bet%een past and present intragedy# see Lrethlein 7]]U.

2 bac& 3 47. atu! 1VFV:D4.

2 bac& 3 48. |= j ¦x)*,>= P/P=x-)=x=# ++0 ®=# + (*0 Ž/;=+/G,=0 v/ )J == /J+-/ G,=x= ,/-J G+•+=0 )I=+=# 0«Ž/’J+= Æ=J G*€0 (*0 G/;/J=. + j= ‡# +/++0 ¯= ++=P /‡P>J/# -„~0 j= +˜x0 Ç- >j= = 0 |= •|= P=’>0G+/I=# Q)J/+0 j Ç- „,G/= j= >j /)*€= >;=J# «ŽI= j z;P/-J +‰0 <*x;=+0 JÂ# P)*J~0 j Ç- >;G+ G*+J/*I-•J/ €È/+= (= + „Q+=+0# Ž*=/+0 j Ç- ~ /JJ*,=/= )*Q=x= z„Qx )J z <Q*x >j + G*+-I-•J/# (@ J,*)>0 =J/ G*€0 ~=+x= P=|-/=# )J=€0 j )J P¬ }GI= )J /+*Q-J-•J/ z +/JJ#)J=€0 j )J x0 +)/,-J/ )J ÉJ*,=+=J ;PqJ/ )J G*+*;wJ-•J/G@ (*~= )J )J+)JPJ•QJ=# )/ +/++0 =J/ ++0 {= Œ> */-0



(=~* )J J/+=;-J+0. } ; ¬ ~ (*;-)/ JJ# GJ*J„,x= € x=®•+0 G*€0 JJ +˜x )*/=;x.

2 bac& 3 44. Antidosis U: P+0 Ç-G* })= 0 0 /J=+QJ0 )J |= x=|= 2+3 „„/x;=x=.

2 bac& 3 4D. bid.: =I= + )JJ/Ž•‡--•J/ G+‰ ),/+= |= <J)|=(=J•>,x=.

2 bac& 3 4E. Nicolai 7]]4a:FUVV.

2 bac& 3 4U. See e.g. atu! 1VFV:8U# according to %ho! the largest part ofXenophon@s career is dedicated to the the!e of the Kideal leader@# a the!ee$plored by %ay of diTerent literary genres: philosophic dialogue# technical!onograph# enco!iu!# philosophical and !ilitary !e!oir# philosophy# andhistory. he enOuiry into the true nature of po%er is a central the!e in ueller?Lodingen 7]]U analysis. See also Aoulay 7]]4:$i"# %ho deals %ith the Ouestfor !odels of authority# in"estigated fro! diTerent points of "ie%.

2 bac& 3 4F. Ze"ine Lera 1VV8:7E181.

2 bac& 3 4V. Lray 7]]U:8E# obser"es that Si!onides@ aporetic style in thedialogue can be co!pared to that of Socrates in the e!orabilia. See also 7#%here she e!phasies the di_culty of deciding %hether Xenophon preferredthe rule of the la% 'Constitution of the Zacedai!onians or personal rule'Hiero. he fact# highlighted by Lray# that si!ilar di_culties arise %henco!paring lato@s Za%s and Republic# de!onstrates that this is a falseproble!. ¶uestions posed by diTerent %or&s are in part independent fro! eachother# and the idea of constructing a syste!atic political philosophy# aside fro!being anachronistic# ta&es no account of the dyna!ics of the literary syste!.

ther proble!atic co!binations# related to la% and personal po%er# aresuggested by Lray 7]]U:17f.: Cyropaedia F.1.74# econo!icus 17.7]. n theHiero# see also Se"ieri 7]]4.

2 bac& 3 D]. e!orabilia 8.4.E and 8.4.17. See o!eroy 1VV4:741# in particularon the re%ards to subordinates# co!!on in ersian ad!inistration and used inhouse&eeping by so!achus and his %ife.

2 bac& 3 D1. See Lray 7]]U:8V: Xenophon@s inno"ation consists in ascribingSpartan success to the consistent plan of only one legislator. n theConstitution of the Zacedai!onians see Lianotti 1VV]9 Rebenich 1VVF9 andZip&a 7]]7. n the proble!atic chapter 14# see eulder 1VFV9 Bianco 1VV89

and Hu!ble 7]]4.2 bac& 3 D7. See AlthoT 7]]7.

2 bac& 3 D8. According to Lray 7]]U:4]# the focus of the Constitution of theZacedai!onians on education i!plies that it does not ai! to be a co!pletecatalogue of Sparta@s la%s.



2 bac& 3 D4. According to uplin 1VVU:EE# W6ducation is aperhaps thegreatsocial or cultural issue of the later classical era#^ and the Cyropaedia# Antidosisand Republic# are contributions to the sa!e debate.

2 bac& 3 DD. According to Lray 7]]U:8# Xenophon %as a philosopher capable ofcontributing to political thought. he proble!# of course# is %hat %e !ean by

Kphilosopher@. n the relationship of Xenophon to conte!porary philosophicaltrends# see 6uc&en 1VF8.

2 bac& 3 DE. +< Ê=J >>P+*/)+ ” /)J=/)+ P;=+/=+# (@ Ê=J )J+Q )(PJ•+ P==+/ )J +Œ)¬ )J +});J/0 )J +})Q+/0 )J ŽQ+/0 )J G/ )JG+QJ/0 =J/=+ )J|0 <*-•J/. socrates also dis!isses the charge that hega"e instruction in %riting Mudicial speeches: Antidosis 7# 8] and 77F.

2 bac& 3 DU. )J +x= +0 +Ë =’*+0 +Ë G*-„*+0 ¯= +Ë—G+Q>- )J)€= +j= +Ë— J}QJ= v-<=.

2 bac& 3 DF. mz ~= q/= P J+ )J € Ë<J*/ ~ -/xG‘-•J/ˆ Ì P

šGJ*<+->0 j= /0# GJ*+->0 j =,x0# G*€0 j ++/0 „J-/QJ0# )JJ>0 +) G/„++;=>0 (@ (PJGx;=>0# € j= P,J<+= +) ;/0# € j Ž/-+*P+= )J •*JG/)€= |= ŽQx= )J ~ Š>|= )J=>-==. )J ~= I< j= È/-J GJ//)|= Px=# -=-G+JŠ j G‘= k / ;+/ŽQ+/0. /z j € ËG/0 )J Ë•+0 )J ( J*€0 =J/ G++‰0 G+Q/ ~+ /JG*,qJ-•JQ / =+= =)J G>-/,Š/=# (z )J + È/+= />*/=.È)/-J @ ¯= ++0 PJ>P+*I= kx0 |= GJ/=+=x= Jš+‰0 + „J*;x0†)+=# ¿P+=+0 „,G/= +j= J+0# šG/-<=I-•J/ j =*J0 (PJ•+‰0v--•J/. (z ~= )J ƒ PJ+P=x+-=§ P 0 )JQ*x0 <*+ +GJ*J/G;+=.

2 bac& 3 DV. ÍQ=J0 +¾= )J| GGJ/;=+0# G/~ z0 ;<=J0 )J z0

G/-‡J0 )J z0 =,/0 (G++)/,Šx9 ž*|+= j= +‰0 )J|0 <*x;=+0+I0 G*,PJ-/ +I0 )Jz ~= ¿;*J= ¨),->= G*+-GQG+-/# )J ~= qJ=G/< |= )J/*|= v<+=J0 )J =J;=>= 0 G € G+‰ -+<,Š-•J/ +-Ž;*+=+0ˆ vG/J +‰0 G*G=x0 )J /)JQx0 £/+=J0 +I0 (G>-/,Š+-/# )J z0 j= |= x= (>QJ0 )J „J*>J0 )x0 )J…Qx0 Ž;*+=J0# -Ž‘0 @ J+‰0 0 =J€= JŽ*+,+0 )J*/x,+0 +I0 -=+-/ GJ*;<+=J0ˆ v/ +‰0 |= j= ¿+=|= ()*J+=J0# |= j -Ž+*|= ~ QJ= ¿x;=+0# (@ (=*x|0 = JJI0/J)/;=+0 )J 0 Ž-x0 (qQx0 ©0 ;<+=0 P<,=+=ˆ ;J*+=#kG* ;P/-+=# +‰0 ~ /JŽ•/*+;=+0 šG€ |= G*JP/|= >@q/-J;=+0 Jš|= >@ šG*>Ž,=+0 P/P=+;=+0# (@ ;=+=J0 ƒ ,q/

ƒ |= ¾ Ž*+=+=x= )J ~ ‘+= <JQ*+=J0 +I0 /z <>= šG,*qJ-/=(PJ•+I0 ” +I0 /z ~= Jš|= Ž-/= )J Ž*=>-/= q (*<0 P/P=+;=+/0. Í+‰0j ~ =+= G*€0 Î= +x=# (z )J G*€0 “GJ=J JJ ~= q/= 0 w<0,*+-+= v<+=J0# ++0 Ž> )J Ž*+=Q+0 =J/ )J ;+0 =*J0)J G,-J0 v</= z0 (*,0.

2 bac& 3 E]. uplin 1VVU:EU.

2 bac& 3 E1. Nicolai 7]]4a.



2 bac& 3 E7. Ï-/= Pz* |= PP*J;=x= v=/J j= = /)J->*Q¬ G*;G+=J>•=J/# z j G*€0 j= +‰0 +/++0 (P|=J0 +< É*+=J# G* jŽ/+-+ŽQJ0 GGJ**>-/J-;=J )J >x)J ~= =J/= J0ˆ v-/= ; /)J +/++=# ° |= =x;*x= +I0 G z J•‡JJ )J ~= GJ/QJ= £*|-/=()+-J-/= {= -==;P)+/# G+z j )J |= šG@ + G,J/ PP*J;=x=P)JJ/P;=J +I0 == P+;=+/0# +) (Px0 +@ ()JQ*x0# (zG*+->)=x0 +I0 šG+)/;=+/0.

2 bac& 3 E8. Antidosis 11: Í+-++= +¾= )+0 P+ -=/I= )J +-JJ0};J0 )J +-++= (‡x= (Ž-’-J0 -=J*-J/ )J -=JPJPI= )J z0G/Ž*+;=J0t +})/|-J/ JI0 G*+/*>;=J/0 )J G,-J0 G+/-J/ -ŽQ-/= JJI0£++P+;=J0 + G,= /)*€= ®= v*P+=.

2 bac& 3 E4. Antidosis 11: z G+0 j= (>•QJ0 }*>;=+= . . . .

2 bac& 3 ED. Antidosis 17: »*~ j +‰0 /q/=J0 J€= G*|+= j= 0 Æ=+0/)+ + P+ )J G*€0 ÉG,-J0 z0 šG+•;-/0 JJ0 PP*J;=+G+/I-•J/ ~= ()*J-/=.

2 bac& 3 EE. Nicolai 7]]4b.

2 bac& 3 EU. Ze"ine Lera 1VV8:119 see also 18: Xenophon insists that theCyropaedia is not Must a portrait of an ancient ersian œing but his o%ncontribution to conte!porary political theory.

2 bac& 3 EF. atu! 1VFV:DU.

2 bac& 3 EV. uplin 1VVU:EF.

2 bac& 3 U]. uplin 1VVU:VE.

2 bac& 3 U1. uplin 1VVU:1D8.2 bac& 3 U7. n Xenophon@s polygraphia# see the eTecti"e de5nition in Aoulay7]]4:$i: WS@en tenant au$ seuls ou"rages parus dans la collection desuni"ersit´s de rance# cette liste donne l@i!pression d@un in"entaire [ lar´"ert# Mu$taposant genres# th!es et espaces sans n´cessit´ apparente.^

4. roberto nicolai - at the boundary of historiography xenophon and his corpus

Documents