One of the foundational works of military history and political philosophy, and an inspiration for Alexander the Great, the Anabasis of Cyrus recounts the epic story of the Ten Thousand, a band of Greek mercenaries hired by Cyrus the Younger to overthrow his brother, Artaxerxes, king of Persia and the most powerful man on earth. It shows how Cyrus' army was assembled covertly and led from the coast of Asia Minor all the way to Babylon; how the Greeks held (...) the field against a superior Persian force; how Cyrus was killed, leaving the Greeks stranded deep within enemy territory; and how many of them overcame countless dangers and found their way back to Greece. Their remarkable success was due especially to the wily and decisive leadership of Xenophon himself, a student of Socrates who had joined the Ten Thousand and, after most of the Greek generals had been murdered, rallied the despondent Greeks, won a position of leadership, and guided them wisely through myriad obstacles. In this new translation of the Anabasis, Wayne Ambler achieves a masterful combination of liveliness and a fidelity to the original uncommon in other versions. Accompanying Ambler's translation is a penetrating interpretive essay by Eric Buzzetti, one that shows Xenophon to be an author who wove a philosophic narrative into his dramatic tale. The translation and interpretive essay encourage renewed study of the Anabasis as a work of political philosophy. They also celebrate its high adventure and its hero's adroit decision-making under the most pressing circumstances. (shrink)

Mit einer Anschaulichkeit, die in der antiken Literatur ihresgleichen sucht, schildert Xenophon den abenteuerlichen Putschversuch des jungen persischen Prinzen Kyros gegen seinen Bruder, den Großkönig Artaxerxes II. Xenophon, selbst einer der Heerführer im Krieg 401 v. Chr., schildert packend die Vorgänge und beschreibt authentisch Land und Leute, Sitten und Bräuche. Damit legt er den Grundstein zur Memoirenliteratur: Caesars Gallischer Krieg oder Arrians Alexanderzug sind ohne Xenophon nicht denkbar.

In the Anabasis, his autobiographical account on the retreat of the Greek mercenary army after the defeat of the Persian prince Cyrus the Younger, Xenophon mentions a significant number of sacrifices. This paper deals with the analysis of the ritual, pragmatical, and narratological functions of these references as well as of their lexis and complexity. Therefore also a short overview of the role of sacrifices in the ancient Greek religion with a focus on military contexts is given.

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work.This work is in the public domain in (...) the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)

n interpretation of Xenophon's Anabasis of Cyrus, paralleling the text to Machiavelli's The Prince, and focusing on the question: How did the Socratic education help Xenophon reconcile morality with effectiveness, the noble with the good, as a ruler?

Through a detailed analysis of Xenophon's defence against a charge forhybrisamong the Ten Thousand, this paper discusses violence, reputation and hierarchy in Greek military and social contexts. Contrary to other recent treatments of the episode, the study highlights the centrality of honour/shame dynamics and of desert in establishing and upholding social order, showing that these notions are found consistently in numerous examples as early as Homer. Addressing the apparent lack of strict discipline in Greek armies, the paper concludes that shame (...) and peer pressure had a strong normative power in acknowledging and reconciling personal claims and common interests within a group. (shrink)

The current situation in which the humanities are disparaged affects all university disciplines, including nursing, in whose historical evolution the humanities have always been present in one form or another. Looking beyond this disrepute, this study proposes that nursing renew its attention to classical philosophy. Specifically, it invites a close reading of Xenophon's Anabasis and Plato's Meno, to get three related goals: to show how the use of ancient texts are very valuable tools for the philosophical initiation of nursing (...) students and can help them reflect on their choice of nursing as a practical activity; to reflect on the problem of virtue and the nature of the good life; and to show how the interaction with ancient texts allows students to reflect on questions and issues of life, theirs and others, that are not open to investigation through a purely scientific method. Consequently, both Anabasis and Meno readings strengthen the intellectual relationship between philosophy and nursing, enabling the latter to delve deeper into the key questions of its own thought as a discipline. (shrink)

Xenophon of Athens has long been considered an uncritical admirer of Sparta who hero-worships the Spartan King Agesilaus and eulogises Spartan practices in his Lacedaimoniôn Politeia. By examining his own self-descriptions - especially where he portrays himself as conversing with Socrates and falling short in his appreciation of Socrates' advice - this book finds in Xenophon's overall writing project a Socratic response to his exile and situates his writings about Sparta within this framework. It presents a detailed reading of the (...) Lacedaimoniôn Politeia as a critical and philosophical examination of Spartan socio-cultural practices. Evidence from his own Hellenica, Anabasis and Agesilaus is shown to confirm Xenophon's analysis of the weaknesses in the Spartan system, and that he is not enamoured of Agesilaus. Finally, a comparison with contemporary Athenian responses to Sparta, shows remarkable points of convergence with his fellow Socratic Plato, as well as connections with Isocrates too. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Xenophon and the History of His TimesCharles D. HamiltonJohn Dillery. Xenophon and the History of His Times. London and New York: Routledge, 1995. xii + 337 pp. Cloth, $69.95.Xenophon is rarely portrayed as one of the leading literary figures, or thinkers, of his age: when viewed as a philosopher, he is overshadowed by his great contemporary Plato, and as a historian, he is inevitably, and unfavorably, compared with (...) Herodotus, Thucydides, and the Oxyrhynchus historian. Dillery has gallantly attempted an assessment of Xenophon, arguing that a consistent worldview can be constructed from his works (both historical and philosophical), and that the interpretation which thus emerges shows him to be a perceptive and intelligent, albeit disillusioned, observer of his age. As the author puts it, “I do not attempt to study him as a great, or even good historian. I mean instead to study him as an interpreter, a voice of his age; a thoughtful if not brilliant man who tried to understand his times” (196). The title should not mislead the reader into thinking that this book is primarily concerned with the Hellenica (the Penguin edition translates this text as A History of My Times); on the contrary, although his central burden is to elucidate a number of problematical aspects of the Hellenica, Dillery provides much discussion of the Anabasis, the Cyropaedeia, the Memorabilia, Agesilaus, and the Constitution of the Spartans as well.Dillery’s effort, a work essentially of literary analysis and interpretation, [End Page 167] focuses on the mind of Xenophon as revealed in his writings, and it carefully constructs an integrated reading of Xenophontic texts which, if not absolutely compelling, at least offers suggestive and intriguing insights into the author and his world. Xenophon is presented as a man whose personality and outlook were heavily influenced by three individuals: Socrates, his teacher and mentor; the Persian prince Cyrus, in whose service he marched with the Ten Thousand; and the Spartan king Agesilaus, whose lifelong friend and admirer he became. Disillusioned by the fate of each of his heroes—Socrates’ trial and conviction by the Athenian democracy, Cyrus’ death at the Battle of Cunaxa, and Agesilaus’ inglorious end as a mercenary commander after Sparta’s precipitous decline following Leuctra—Xenophon struggled to make sense of his world and the age through which he lived. This is the theme of the book, to offer an explanation of how Xenophon tried to understand the turbulent and dismally confusing events of the late fifth and early fourth century, which formed the core of his Hellenica.Two early problems addressed concern the beginning and the end of the history, and its composition. Dillery discusses the famous closing remark of the Hellenica, in which Xenophon expresses frustration that the Battle of Mantinea (362) did not produce order and stability in the Greek world, that it settled nothing, although apparently many expected that it would. Why then did Xenophon end his history at this point? Dillery suggests that this was a fitting conclusion precisely because it emphasized “a profound truth about the Greek world: disorder was the typical condition of Greece... a shattering realization for a man [Xenophon] committed to panhellenic ideals and to order in every facet of his world” (27). As for its opening, Dillery adopts the view that the text down to 2.3.10 was written early, was intended to complete Thucydides’ unfinished work, and was influenced by Thucydides’ methods. The second part, he argues, was written as a whole, more than twenty-five years later. Regarding the absence of a preface, he suggests that Xenophon may have wished to emphasize that the work was not unified by a single, central issue and therefore did not merit a formal introduction.Dillery also argues that Xenophon, especially as a result of his experiences with the Ten Thousand and then while in Spartan service under Agesilaus in Asia Minor, came to appreciate the necessity of good order in society, both in the military camp and on campaign as well as in the political community, and the importance of good leadership. Like others among his contemporaries, he also developed strong notions of utopianism and panhellenism, and the failure of... (shrink)

The fifth book of Xenophon's Anabasis presents a puzzle which Mr. Tarn has not discussed in his most stimulating chapter on the ‘Ten Thousand’ in the Cambridge Ancient History. Xenophon is telling the story of the retreat along the shore of the Black Sea. At Cotyora, at Xenophon's own suggestion a general кαθαρμός was held by the survivors. For some time past the troops had been beginning to get badly out of hand. There had been a particularly disgraceful scene (...) at Cerasus, which they had left a week before their arrival at Cotyora. Certain local tribes of the Colchi had sent ambassadors to the Greek army, which was actually leaving the town at the moment of their arrival. Most of the troops were already outside the walls; but some stragglers who were still within the town stoned the ambassadors to death, and a general riot ensued. Now, not a word of this story is told by Xenophon in its proper place in the narrative, where we are simply told that the Greeks left Cerasus, some by sea and seme by land. The whole story is told later in great detail, and in a curious form: as a digression which Xenophon makes in a speech immediately preceding the court of enquiry at Cotyora. (shrink)

La pratique de la divination, telle que Xénophon l’expose tout au long de l’Anabase, est la mise en œuvre d’un mode de communication avec les dieux qui peut emprunter des formes diverses, mais dont la principale est le sacrifice et l’observation des signes positifs ou négatifs, offerts par les victimes. Elle suppose une bienveillance de la divinité toujours prête, semble-t-il, à répondre aux questions posées par les hommes, dans le domaine public comme dans le privé, pourvu que ces questions soient (...) légitimes. Le reste de l’œuvre relève de la même conception, influencée par Socrate, comme le suggèrent les Mémorables, et trouve son origine dans la consultation de l’oracle de Delphes, au moment de son départ pour l’expédition organisée par Cyrus et qui deviendra l’expédition dite des Dix Mille.Divination, as described by Xenophon in the Anabasis, represents a means of communication with the gods, which can take several forms. The offer of a sacrifice is the first of these, with the observation of the signs given by the victims. This practice assumes that the gods are kind and that they are always ready to respond to questions posed by people either in public or in private, if these questions are legitimate. The same idea, influenced by Socrates, is found in all Xenophon’s works, as evidenced in the Memorabilia, beginning with Xenophon’s consultation of the Delphic oracle on joining Cyrus’ expedition, which would known as the “Ten Thousand” expedition. (shrink)

Not only was it a reference to Ismenias the Theban (Men. 90a4-5) that allowed nineteenth-century scholars to establish a date of composition for Plato’s Meno on the basis of Xenophon’s Hellenica but beginning with “Meno the Thessalian” himself, immortalized as a scoundrel in Xenophon’s Anabasis, each of the four characters in Plato’s dialogue is shown to have a Xenophontic resonance, thus revealing Meno to be Plato’s tombeau de Xénophon.

Nothing about Xenophon's Hellenica is more outrageous than his treatment of the relations of Persia and the Greeks. It was orthodoxy in the circle of Agesilaus that Theban medizing, barbarismos, had sabotaged the plans for a glorious anabasis and recalled him to the defence of his city . Not until the Thebans woo and win the fickle favour of the King , does anything like detail emerge. In the regrettable interlude, the less said the better. If the third speech (...) of Andocides had not survived, there would have been some tangled theorizing about a note in Didymus , especially as regards ‘the ambassadors who in Sparta consented’, but sober historical judgement would never have transgressed so far from the text of Xenophon as to postulate a Peace Congress in Sparta as well as in Sardis in 392. Likewise, the merest chance of epigraphic survival assures us that the oaths, which the ‘Athenians and the Spartans and the other Greeks’ swore in 387/6, ‘the King swore’ — and so on. If we did not have the reflection of Ephorus in Diodorus, albeit a mirror cracked and blemished, we would be sadly astray in 375 and 371. When, however, the despicable Thebans become the King's favoured power, disgraceful scenes unfold. ‘Pelopidas very much had things his own way with the Persian; he could say that the Thebans alone of the Greeks had fought on the King's side at Plataea, that they had never afterwards campaigned against him, that the Spartans were at war with them because they would not join Agesilaus…etc.’ . A Persian is found at Thebes reading out the contents of a Royal Rescript, after displaying the Royal seal ; at Sparta twenty years before, such details had been left to the imagination. The cause of Xenophon's method in this matter is not for the moment under discussion, but rather the consequence, viz. our uncertainty about what precisely the King's Peace said. There was a document, inscribed on stone pillars and displayed in the national shrines . If ever a copy turns up, what can we expect to find? The measure of our uncertainty was provided by Wilcken, who produced a curious hypothesis which found little sympathy; that he could do so shows the state of the evidence. Some effort of the imagination is needed, and those who gravely disapprove of conjectures of what might have been the case need read no further. At the end one can be sure of very little. Conjectures, however, have been uttered, en passant, elsewhere. What may prove to be a chorus of disdain has begun. A formal confession may be welcome. (shrink)

1. IN the C.Q.xxxiv , pp. 118 ff., I wrote on ‘Some Uses of the Imperfect in Greek’ . It occurred tome to check the suggestions there made by examining all the instances in one author. I had no hesitation in choosing Herodotus, who of all authors, except perhaps Homer, presents the most baffling diversity of types . For purposes of comparison I also read Thucydides and Xenophon's Anabasis 1–4. It would appear that Thucydides retains something of Herodotus' freedom, (...) Xenophon comparatively little. (shrink)