Complete Works of Xenophon (Illustrated) (Delphi Ancient Classics)

by Xenophon

  Surely, too, he did what was seemly and dignified when he adorned his own estate with works and possessions worthy of a man, keeping many hounds and war horses, but persuaded his sister Cynisca to breed chariot horses, and showed by her victory that such a stud marks the owner as a person of wealth, but not necessarily of merit. [7] How clearly his true nobility comes out in his opinion that a victory in the chariot race over private citizens would add not a whit to his renown; but if he held the first place in the affection of the people, gained the most friends and best all over the world, outstripped all others in serving his fatherland and his comrades and in punishing his adversaries, then he would be victor in the noblest and most splendid contests, and would gain high renown both in life and after death.

  10. Such, then, are the qualities for which I praise Agesilaus. These are the marks that distinguish him, say, from the man who, lighting on a treasure, becomes wealthier but not wiser in business, or from the man who wins victory through an outbreak of sickness among the enemy, and adds to his success but not to his knowledge of strategy. The man who is foremost in endurance when the hour comes for toil, in valour when the contest calls for courage, in wisdom when the need is for counsel — he is the man, I think, who may fairly be regarded as the perfect embodiment of goodness. [2] If line and rule are a noble discovery of man as aids to the production of good work, I think that the virtue of Agesilaus may well stand as a noble example for those to follow who wish to make moral goodness a habit. For who that imitates a pious, a just, a sober, a self-controlled man, can come to be unrighteous, unjust, violent, wanton? In point of fact, Agesilaus prided himself less on reigning over others than on ruling himself, less on leading the people against their enemies than on guiding them to all virtue. [3]

  However, let it not be thought, because one whose life is ended is the theme of my praise, that these words are meant for a funeral dirge. They are far more truly the language of eulogy. In the first place the words now applied to him are the very same that he heard in his lifetime. And, in the second place, what theme is less appropriate to a dirge than a life of fame and a death well-timed? What more worthy of eulogies than victories most glorious and deeds of sovereign worth? [4] Justly may the man be counted blessed who was in love with glory from early youth and won more of it than any man of his age; who, being by nature very covetous of honour, never once knew defeat from the day that he became a king; who, after living to the utmost limit of human life, died without one blunder to his account, either concerning the men whom he led or in dealing with those on whom he made war.

  11. I propose to go through the story of his virtue again, and to summarize it, in order that the praise of it may be more easily remembered.

  Agesilaus reverenced holy places even when they belonged to an enemy, thinking that he ought to make allies of the gods no less in hostile than in friendly countries.

  To suppliants of the gods, even if his foes, he did no violence, believing it unreasonable to call robbers of temples sacrilegious and yet to consider those who dragged suppliants from altars pious men. [2]

  My hero never failed to dwell on his opinion that the gods have pleasure in righteous deeds no less than in holy temples.

  In the hour of success he was not puffed up with pride, but gave thanks to the gods. He offered more sacrifices when confident than prayers when in doubt.

  He was wont to look cheerful when in fear, and to be humble when successful. [3]

  Of his friends he welcomed most heartily not the most powerful, but the most devoted.

  He hated not the man who defended himself when injured, but such as showed no gratitude for a favour.

  He rejoiced to see the avaricious poor and to enrich the upright, desiring to render right more profitable than wrong. [4]

  It was his habit to associate with all sorts and conditions of men, but to be intimate with the good.

  Whenever he heard men praise or blame others, he thought that he gained as much insight into the character of the critics as of the persons they criticized.

  If friends proved deceivers he forebore to blame their victims, but he heaped reproaches on those who let an enemy deceive them; and he pronounced deception clever or wicked according as it was practised on the suspicious or the confiding. [5]

  The praise of those who were prepared to censure faults they disapproved was pleasing to him, and he never resented candour, but avoided dissimulation like a snare.

  Slanderers he hated more than thieves, deeming loss of friends graver than loss of money. [6] The mistakes of private persons he judged leniently, because few interests suffer by their incompetence; but the errors of rulers he treated as serious, since they lead to many troubles.

  Kingship, he held, demands not indolence, but manly virtue. [7]

  He would not allow a statue of himself to be set up, though many wanted to give him one, but on memorials of his mind he laboured unceasingly, thinking the one to be the sculptor’s work, the other his own, the one appropriate to the rich, the other to the good. [8]

  In the use of money he was not only just but generous, thinking that a just man may be content to leave other men’s money alone, but the generous man is required also to spend his own in the service of others.

  He was ever god-fearing, believing that they who are living life well are not yet happy, but only they who have died gloriously are blessed. [9]

  He held it a greater calamity to neglect that which is good knowingly than in ignorance.

  No fame attracted him unless he did the right work to achieve it.

  He seemed to me one of the few men who count virtue not a task to be endured but a comfort to be enjoyed. At any rate praise gave him more pleasure than money.

  Courage, as he displayed it, was joined with prudence rather than boldness, and wisdom he cultivated more by action than in words. [10]

  Very gentle with friends, he was very formidable to enemies; and while he resisted fatigue obstinately, he yielded most readily to a comrade, though fair deeds appealed more to his heart than fair faces.

  To moderation in times of prosperity he added confidence in the midst of danger. [11]

  His urbanity found its habitual expression not in jokes but in his manner; and when on his dignity, he was never arrogant, but always reasonable; at least, if he showed his contempt for the haughty, he was humbler than the average man. For he prided himself on the simplicity of his own dress and the splendid equipment of his army, on a strict limitation of his own needs and a boundless generosity to his friends. [12] Added to this, he was the bitterest of adversaries, but the mildest of conquerors; wary with enemies, but very compliant to friends.

  While ever ensuring security to his own side, he ever made it his business to bring to nought the designs of his enemy. [13]

  By his relatives he was described as “devoted to his family,” by his intimates as “an unfailing friend,” by those who served him as “unforgetful,” by the oppressed as “a champion,” by his comrades in danger as “a saviour second to the gods.”

  In one respect, I think, he was unique. [14] He proved that, though the bodily strength decays, the vigour of good men’s souls is ageless. At any rate, he never wearied in the pursuit of great and noble glory so long as his body could support the vigour of his soul. [15] What man’s youth, then, did not seem weaker than his old age? For who in his prime was so formidable to his foes as Agesilaus at the very limit of human life? Whose removal brought such welcome relief to the enemy as the death of Agesilaus, despite his years? Who gave such confidence to allies as Agesilaus, though now on the threshold of death? What young man was more regretted by his friends than Agesilaus, though he died full of years? [16] So complete was the record of his service to his fatherland that it did not end even when he died: he was still a bountiful benefactor of the state when he was brought home to be laid in his eternal resting-place, and, having raised up monuments of his virtue throughout the world, was buried with royal ceremony in his own land.

&
nbsp; Socratic Works

  Koroneia, Boeotia — Xenophon was exiled from Athens, most likely because he fought under the Spartan king Agesilaus II against Athens at Koroneia.

  MEMORABILIA

  Translated by E. C. Marchant

  This collection of Socratic dialogues represents Xenophon’s principal defence of Socrates, offering examples of Socrates’ conversations and activities along with occasional commentary from Xenophon. The Memorabilia contains 39 chapters broken into four books; opening with a direct defence of Socrates, with the rest of Book I consisting of an account of Socrates’ piety and self-control. Books II and III are devoted to demonstrating how Socrates benefitted his family, friends and various Athenians that came to him for advice. Book IV turns to a more detailed account of how Socrates educated one particular student, Euthydemus, including an early example of the Argument from Design (the Teleological Argument).

  Xenophon devotes the rest of the Memorabilia to identifying how Socrates benefited his friends and a wide range of other Athenians. The collection consists of episodes, mostly short and none more than a few pages in length, in which Socrates engages with a variety of persons, both named and unnamed companions, rival teachers, famous and less famous Athenians. A few of the interlocutors appear several times. Typically Xenophon introduces the reason why he is writing about a particular conversation and he occasionally interjects a remark into the narrative, or as it reaches its conclusion.

  Xenophon’s portrayal of Socrates was influential in antiquity, helping us to understand how various schools of ancient thought made use of the teachings of Socratic thought. The self-control of Xenophon’s Socrates is in keeping with his role of inspiring ancient cynicism, which was traditionally said to be founded by Socrates’ follower Antisthenes. It is clear that the Stoics made considerable use of Xenophon’s version of the argument from design and their account of natural law also owed something to Socrates, if not only to Xenophon’s Socrates.

  Roman marble bust of Socrates, 1st century, most likely a copy of a lost bronze statue made by Lysippos

  CONTENTS

  BOOK I.

  BOOK II.

  BOOK III.

  BOOK IV.

  BOOK I.

  1. I have often wondered by what arguments those who drew up the indictment against Socrates could persuade the Athenians that his life was forfeit to the state. The indictment against him was to this effect: Socrates is guilty of rejecting the gods acknowledged by the state and of bringing in strange deities: he is also guilty of corrupting the youth. [2]

  First then, that he rejected the gods acknowledged by the state — what evidence did they produce of that? He offered sacrifices constantly, and made no secret of it, now in his home, now at the altars of the state temples, and he made use of divination with as little secrecy. Indeed it had become notorious that Socrates claimed to be guided by ‘the deity:’ it was out of this claim, I think, that the charge of bringing in strange deities arose. [3] He was no more bringing in anything strange than are other believers in divination, who rely on augury, oracles, coincidences and sacrifices. For these men’s belief is not that the birds or the folk met by accident know what profits the inquirer, but that they are the instruments by which the gods make this known; and that was Socrates’ belief too. [4] Only, whereas most men say that the birds or the folk they meet dissuade or encourage them, Socrates said what he meant: for he said that the deity gave him a sign. Many of his companions were counselled by him to do this or not to do that in accordance with the warnings of the deity: and those who followed his advice prospered, and those who rejected it had cause for regret. [5] And yet who would not admit that he wished to appear neither a knave nor a fool to his companions? but he would have been thought both, had he proved to be mistaken when he alleged that his counsel was in accordance with divine revelation. Obviously, then, he would not have given the counsel if he had not been confident that what he said would come true. And who could have inspired him with that confidence but a god? And since he had confidence in the gods, how can he have disbelieved in the existence of the gods? [6] Another way he had of dealing with intimate friends was this: if there was no room for doubt, he advised them to act as they thought best; but if the consequences could not be foreseen, he sent them to the oracle to inquire whether the thing ought to be done. [7] Those who intended to control a house or a city, he said, needed the help of divination. For the craft of carpenter, smith, farmer or ruler, and the theory of such crafts, and arithmetic and economics and generalship might be learned and mastered by the application of human powers; [8] but the deepest secrets of these matters the gods reserved to themselves; they were dark to men. You may plant a field well; but you know not who shall gather the fruits: you may build a house well; but you know not who shall dwell in it: able to command, you cannot know whether it is profitable to command: versed in statecraft, you know not whether it is profitable to guide the state: though, for your delight, you marry a pretty woman, you cannot tell whether she will bring you sorrow: though you form a party among men mighty in the state, you know not whether they will cause you to be driven from the state. [9] If any man thinks that these matters are wholly within the grasp of the human mind and nothing in them is beyond our reason, that man, he said, is irrational. But it is no less irrational to seek the guidance of heaven in matters which men are permitted by the gods to decide for themselves by study: to ask, for instance, Is it better to get an experienced coachman to drive my carriage or a man without experience? Is it better to get an experienced seaman to steer my ship or a man without experience? So too with what we may know by reckoning, measurement or weighing. To put such questions to the gods seemed to his mind profane. In short, what the gods have granted us to do by help of learning, we must learn; what is hidden from mortals we should try to find out from the gods by divination: for to him that is in their grace the gods grant a sign. [10]

  Moreover, Socrates lived ever in the open; for early in the morning he went to the public promenades and training-grounds; in the forenoon he was seen in the market; and the rest of the day he passed just where most people were to be met: he was generally talking, and anyone might listen. Yet none ever knew him to offend against piety and religion in deed or word. [11] He did not even discuss that topic so favoured by other talkers, “the Nature of the Universe”: and avoided speculation on the so-called “Cosmos” of the Professors, how it works, and on the laws that govern the phenomena of the heavens: indeed he would argue that to trouble one’s mind with such problems is sheer folly. [12] In the first place, he would inquire, did these thinkers suppose that their knowledge of human affairs was so complete that they must seek these new fields for the exercise of their brains; or that it was their duty to neglect human affairs and consider only things divine? [13] Moreover, he marvelled at their blindness in not seeing that man cannot solve these riddles; since even the most conceited talkers on these problems did not agree in their theories, but behaved to one another like madmen. [14] As some madmen have no fear of danger and others are afraid where there is nothing to be afraid of, as some will do or say anything in a crowd with no sense of shame, while others shrink even from going abroad among men, some respect neither temple nor altar nor any other sacred thing, others worship stocks and stones and beasts, so is it, he held, with those who worry with “Universal Nature.” Some hold that “What is” is one, others that it is infinite in number: some that all things are in perpetual motion, others that nothing can ever be moved at any time: some that all life is birth and decay, others that nothing can ever be born or ever die. [15] Nor were those the only questions he asked about such theorists. Students of human nature, he said, think that they will apply their knowledge in due course for the good of themselves and any others they choose. Do those who pry into heavenly phenomena imagine that, once they have discovered the laws by which these are produced, they will create at their will winds, waters, seasons and such things to their need? Or have they no such expectation, a
nd are they satisfied with knowing the causes of these various phenomena? [16]

  Such, then, was his criticism of those who meddle with these matters. His own conversation was ever of human things. The problems he discussed were, What is godly, what is ungodly; what is beautiful, what is ugly; what is just, what is unjust; what is prudence, what is madness; what is courage, what is cowardice; what is a state, what is a statesman; what is government, and what is a governor; — these and others like them, of which the knowledge made a “gentleman,” in his estimation, while ignorance should involve the reproach of “slavishness.” [17]

  So, in pronouncing on opinions of his that were unknown to them it is not surprising that the jury erred: but is it not astonishing that they should have ignored matters of common knowledge? [18] For instance, when he was on the Council and had taken the counsellor’s oath by which he bound himself to give counsel in accordance with the laws, it fell to his lot to preside in the Assembly when the people wanted to condemn Thrasyllus and Erasinides and their colleagues to death by a single vote. That was illegal, and he refused the motion in spite of popular rancour and the threats of many powerful persons. It was more to him that he should keep his oath than that he should humour the people in an unjust demand and shield himself from threats. [19] For, like most men, indeed, he believed that the gods are heedful of mankind, but with an important difference; for whereas they do not believe in the omniscience of the gods, Socrates thought that they know all things, our words and deeds and secret purposes; that they are present everywhere, and grant signs to men of all that concerns man. [20]