Lessons from the Past: The Moral Use of History in Fourth-Century Prose

Chapter Three. Xenophon's Hellenica

chapter three Xenophon’s Hellenica
enophon’s Hellenica is notorious for omissions of fact and inequaliXties of treatment.1 These flaws could be explained by the theory that Xenophon wrote different sections at different times, without fully unifying it as a whole. Nevertheless, the Hellenica is coherent as it stands, and Xenophon is certainly consistent in his views on moral virtue throughout ; I therefore treat it as a unified whole.2 In the past, the facile explana1 . Unless otherwise specified, all references to Xenophon in this chapter are from the Hellenica. 2. It is a longstanding debate whether or not Xenophon wrote his Hellenica as a continuous whole, in view of the distinctive differences between 1–2.3.10 in particular and the rest of the work. The definitive expression of the “analysts’” viewpoint, that Xenophon composed the different sections of the Hellenica at different times, is that of Malcolm MacLaren (“On the Composition of Xenophon’s Hellenica,” AJP 55 [1934]: 121–39, 249–62). The strongest arguments for the opposite camp, the “unitarians,” who believe that Xenophon composed the Hellenica as a unified whole, are made by W. P. Henry (Greek Historical Writing: A Historiographical Essay Based on Xenophon’s Hellenica [Chicago: Argonaut, 1967]). Because Xenophon must have written much of the Hellenica long before the time of the Battle of Mantinea (the last event contained in this work), there are necessarily slight variations in language and expression. These need not, however, obscure the essential unity of the work in purpose and methods; see also W. E. Higgins, Xenophon the Athenian: The Problem of the Individual and the Society of the Polis (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1977), 99– 127 and Vivienne Gray (The Character of Xenophon’s Hellenica (London: Gerald Duckworth, 1989), esp. 178–82. 65 66 lessons from the past tion of a pro-Spartan, anti-Theban bias was often invoked;3 more recent examinations, however, have led scholars to question so simple an explanation of Xenophon’s purpose and method.4 The moral and didactic purpose of the Hellenica has been recognized by other scholars5 but not explicitly connected to its alleged shortcomings. I argue that many of the omissions of fact and inequalities of treatment contained in the Hellenica stem not so much from a pro-Spartan, anti-Theban bias as from Xenophon ’s desire to use lessons from the past for the moral instruction of his fellow aristocrats. I begin by examining three of the best-known omissions to see whether they can in fact be attributed to moralizing rather than to bias alone. I then proceed to a review of the passages in which Xenophon specifically lists some of his criteria for selection of material, with the aim of ascertaining the extent to which the desire to provide moral instruction governs his choices. Following this preliminary examination, it is necessary to determine what are the moral virtues with which Xenophon is chiefly concerned in the Hellenica, and then to proceed to a survey of his methods of instructing the reader in these moral virtues. Finally, I attempt to ascertain to what extent Xenophon can be found to have shaped the past to his own ends for moralizing purposes and what message he was trying to convey by doing so. Our three omissions, the foundation of the Second Athenian Confederacy , the foundation of Megalopolis, and the refoundation of Messene, are usually attributed to Xenophon’s alleged pro-Spartan, anti-Theban bias; the latter two in particular have been considered attempts to deny Epaminondas his rightful due.6 Yet, if one examines the narrative in which scholars believe that Xenophon ought to have included these events, it 3. See, e.g., J. B. Bury, The Ancient Greek Historians, (London: Macmillan, 1908; reprint , New York: Dover, 1958), 152. 4. Most recently, see Christopher Tuplin, The Failings of Empire: A Reading of Xenophon Hellenica 2.3.11–7.5.27, Historia Einzelschriften 76 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1993) with a useful summary of earlier views on Xenophon’s purpose, 14–18, and John Dillery, Xenophon and the History of His Times (London: Routledge, 1995). 5. C. H. Grayson, “Did Xenophon Intend to Write History?” in The Ancient Historian and His Materials: Essays in Honour of C. E. Stevens on His Seventieth Birthday, ed. Barbara Levick (Westmead, Farnborough, Hants: Gregg International, 1975), 31–43; George Cawkwell , introduction and notes to Xenophon: A History of My Times (Hellenica), trans. Rex Warner (Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1979), 42–46...