Did Plato read Xenophon's Cyropaedia?

Dr. Gabriel A. DanzigClassics – Bar Ilan [email protected]

Did Plato Read Xenophon’s Cyropedia?

Since ancient times learned men have suspected that

Plato and Xenophon were aware of each others’ work and

engaged in some form of literary rivalry. The suspicions

of the ancient critics whose works we have today were not

based on any special information but were speculations

based on the same texts that we also have in front of us.

Aulus Gellius, who is somewhat critical of the theory,

makes this point in speaking of ‘argumenta quaedam

coniectaria ex eorum scriptis’ (14.3.1).

Diogenes Laertius cites the Symposia and Apologies as

rival compositions, and adds that the Memorabilia was a

rival to the Socratic dialogues, and the Cyropedia to the

Republic – with the Laws providing a final Platonic

rejoinder to the Cyropedia (3.34). The idea that Plato’s

reference to Cyrus in the Laws is a response to Xenophon

is found in both Athenaeus (11.504f-505a) and Aulus

Gellius (14.3.3-4). Aulus Gellius mentions the claim

that Xenophon (in the Memorabilia) criticized Plato’s

portrait of Socrates and “negat Socraten de caeli atque

naturae causis rationibusque umquam disputavisse, ac ne

disciplinas quidem ceteras quae maqhvmata Graeci

appellant’ (14.3.5). Athenaeus adds that the conflicting

portraits of Menon found in the Anabasis and Plato’s Menon

(11.505b) are signs of the same literary rivalry.

All of these examples are clearly derived from the

texts we have before us. But if the ancient critics had

no other positive information about the supposed rivalry

than what we have, should we pay any special attention to

their opinions? There are two reasons. First, they

surely had access to works on Cyrus (some of which are

listed by Diogenes Laertius, see below) which are no

longer extant, and yet they did not suggest that Plato

was basing himself on any other account of Cyrus.1

Although it is true that the raw facts are as available

to us as they were to them, it is worth considering the

possibility that ancient readers’ judgements concerning

the value of this evidence may be in some respects sounder

than ours.2 Living at a time when numerous revolutions

have altered drastically the place of literature in

2

society, we may be congenitally obtuse to the nature of

ancient literary rivalry. To cite one example, the

ancient critics seemed to be convinced that Plato and

Xenophon were engaged in rivalry not only by the apparent

references to each others’ works, but even more so by the

fact that they never – in Xenophon’s case only once

(Memorabilia 3.6.1) -- mention each other by name (Aulus

Gellius 14.3.2; Diogenes Laertius 3.34). Surely this

fact would not suggest to many modern critics that the

two writers were engaged in polemics with each other.

But the ancient critics may have known more than we do

about the ways in which ancient writers made war on each

other.3

As I will argue, ancient writers sometimes used

oblique means to criticize each other. In particular,

the rivalry between Plato and Xenophon is characterized

by indirect reference, dismissal, as well as sloppiness,

inaccuracy or divergence.

3

I

While there is no clear proof that Plato read

anything by Xenophon, there is proof that Xenophon read

Plato. Xenophon’s one clear reference to Plato is of

special value since we may be able to learn from it

something about the way Socratic writers referred to and

criticized each other, and this in turn will help us

evaluate Plato’s apparent reference to the Cyropedia.

The one indisputable example of Xenophon’s

responding to Plato is found in his Symposium.4 Here he

refers clearly and critically to comments made by

Phaedrus and Pausanias in Plato’s Symposium. At Symposium

8.9-10 Xenophon’s Socrates speaks of a theory that holds

that there are two Aphroditai, a Pandamos and a Ourania.

This is a clear reference to the contents of Pausanias’

speech in Plato’s Symposium (180d-181d), although Xenophon

does not mention Pausanias’ name here. Later at Symposium

8.32-25, Socrates does refer to Pausanias by name, but

attributes to him arguments that appear in our texts in

the speech of Phaedrus (Symposium 178e3-179a8). While

this may mean that Xenophon had a different text of

4

Plato’s Symposium than ours, it more likely shows the

inexactitude with which Xenophon could refer to another

text.

Xenophon’s Socrates offers two important corrections

to the words of (Phaedrus and) Pausanias: first, he

1 Deborah Gera suggested this line of argument to me, despite the fact that she remains skeptical about the conclusions that I reach here.2 See however Louis-Andrev Dorion, “La responsibilitev deCyrus dans le devclin de l’empire perse selon Platon et Xevnophon,” a paper delivered at the VI Symposium Platonicum, August 2001. He points out the numerous mistakes made by these commentators in understanding the discussion of Cyrus in Plato’s Laws.3 Aulus Gellius argues that there was no literary rivalry between them: the evidence was clearly not unambiguous even to ancient eyes. But his argument is based on an ethical presumption, namely that Plato and Xenophon were too virtuous to engage in rivalry, and evenhe acknowledges that there is a certain rivalry going on,if only a rivalry in virtue.4 Xenophon’s other Socratic writings also offer evidence of Platonic influence on Xenophon. The Apologies contain many similarities: both agree that Socrates: did not prepare a defense speech; claimed to be specially concerned with education; interviewed Meletos; spoke of the complementary Oracle at Delphi; claimed that death ispreferable; said that the daimonion indicated to him that death is preferable; claimed prophecy before death; askedwhether we know who (or what) corrupts the young; presumed that the charge of new deities referred to his daimonion; mentioned Palamedes; and made a speech after the sentencing. In addition, a phrase used by Xenophon at 22 (peri; panto;~ ejpoiei`to) resembles one used by Plato at 21e (peri; pleivstou poiei`sqai). While some ofthese could perhaps be explained as mutual reminiscences of the same historical event, some of the details seem to

5

points out that it is absurd to imagine that an army of

homosexual couples would be successful in battle (8.32-

35). Second, his speech as a whole (8.1-41) appears to

contain implicit criticism of Pausanias. Pausanias’s

speech aimed to persuade young boys to have sexual

relations with the better sort of lover, those who love

them for their characters rather than for their physical

beauty (184c-185c). Xenophon’s Socrates also offers

praise for spiritual rather than physical love (8.7-41),

but he does so in order to persuade Callias to keep his

love for Autolycos on a purely spiritual basis (8.10-12;

8.37-41).5 For this reason, his speech appears to contain

an implicit criticism of Pausanias’ more self-indulgent

speech.

indicate literary dependence: the pun on the name of Meletus, for example, which is so appropriate in Plato’s version, in which Socrates is attacking Meletus, seems tofall into this category and probably originated with Plato’s Apology. Similarly, the speech after sentencing, if invented, seems more appropriate in Plato’s version, where it is necessary, in the absence of a narrator, for providing some account of Socrates’ reaction to the sentence. Similarly, there are many places in the Memorabilia where there are apparent references to various Socratic dialogues. (See A.-H. Chroust, Socrates, Man and Myth, South Bend, Indiana, 1957, p. 230 note 39; C. Kahn, Plato and the Socratic Dialogue, Cambridge, 1996, 393-401; and M.Stokes’ comments in the introduction to his Plato: Apology, Warminster, 1997, p. 7)

6

If these comments are meant as criticism of Plato --

as though Plato agreed with what Phaedrus and Pausanias

say -- it is remarkable that Xenophon, himself an author

of dramatic works, should have been unaware that Plato

does not agree with the opinions of all of the characters

in his writings.6 If he was aware of this, his critique

can perhaps be taken as directed towards the speeches of

the characters to whom he refers, and as a supplement to

Socrates’ speech in Plato’s Symposium. It may have

bothered him that while Plato’s Socrates responds

explicitly to Aristophanes, he does not respond clearly

to the speeches of Phaedrus and Pausanias. Xenophon

makes it clearer than Plato did that Socrates would not

have accepted the self-indulgent homosexual theories of

Phaedrus and Pausanias.7 But we should not disregard the

5 For fuller discussion of the evidence for Xenophon’s borrowing from Plato in the Symposium see H. Thesleff (‘The Interrelation and Date of the Symposia of Plato and Xenophon,’ BICS 25, 1978) and B. Huss (Xenophons Symposion, ein Kommentar, Stuttgart and Leipzig, 1999).6 It is also worth taking into consideration the possibility that Xenophon himself agrees with the words of many of his characters, and assumed that Plato did as well.7 One may compare the way in which Xenophon makes it clearer than Plato did that Socrates wanted to die. See Xenophon’s Apology 1.

7

possibility that Xenophon may have found it easier to

criticize Plato on the (disingenuous) presumption that he

agreed with these speeches.

From this example of Xenophon’s treatment of Plato

we can derive some conclusions about how an ancient

Socratic writer could refer to a rival. We note the

following points:

1) Xenophon does not feel obligated to name Plato, but

assumes that the audience will perceive the reference

on its own, just as we can today. This means that

Xenophon’s audience included readers who had read

Plato, which implies of course that there is some

overlap between the readerships of these two authors.

For this reason at least, one would imagine that Plato

would not want to let Xenophontic criticism go

unanswered.

2) The quotation is not exact. This may merely reflect

Xenophon’s own weak memory, but even so it would have

been impossible for him to indulge his weak memory if

the audience he wrote for expected precise references.

8

3) Xenophon refers to Pausanias as an historical figure:

the innocent reader would have no way of suspecting a

reference to Plato’s Symposium, or to any piece of

literature, if he had not previously read it. And yet,

Xenophon presumes that the reader will make the

identification.

As I will try to show, similar points can be made about

Plato’s apparent reference to Xenophon’s Cyropedia in the

Laws.

II

Although it is clear that Xenophon responded to

Plato on at least one occasion, it is less clear that

Plato either read or responded to Xenophon. Holger

Thesleff has argued that on one occasion he did.8 In his

view, Plato’s Symposium was inspired by an earlier version

of Xenophon’s Symposium that did not contain the present

chapter eight. He points out that explicit references to

Plato occur only in the eighth chapter, and that this

chapter in some ways appears awkwardly appended to the

rest of the composition. He shows that similarities 8 See above note four.

9

between the two works found outside of the eighth chapter

are more easily explained as resulting from Plato’s

having read Xenophon than the other way around.

One may add some additional arguments to this

thesis. One motif that appears in both Symposia is the

claim that an army would perform better in battle if its

men were motivated to fight by feelings of erotic

attraction towards their commanders or fellow soldiers.

This notion appears in Phaedrus’ famous claim in Plato’s

Symposium that an army of homosexual lovers would perform

well in battle (178e-179b). Something similar appears

twice in Xenophon’s Symposium. The first occurrence is in

chapter four, where Critoboulos claims that it would be a

good idea to choose a good-looking general for an army

(4.15-16). While it might be tempting to set this

parallel aside as a coincidence, the sheer number of

parallels listed by both Thessleff and Huss shows clearly

that one of our authors has read and is reacting to the

other. Are Critobulus’ words in Xenophon a reaction to

Phaedrus’ words in Plato?

10

I think not. While Phaedrus expresses a thought

that is somewhat rare in Plato (I do not know of any

other place where anything like it appears) Critobulus

expresses a thought which is common in Xenophon. His

comment on the benefits of having a good-looking general

is probably related to Xenophon’s portrayal of the

effects of Cyrus’ good looks on his troops.9 It also

seems connected with his discussions in Memorabilia 2.4 and

2.6. It is an idea which is characteristic of Xenophon,

and this makes it hard to believe, although not

impossible, that it developed out of his reading of

Phaedrus’ speech. It looks more like a source for

Phaedrus’ theory that an army of homosexual lovers would

win in war than a reaction to it: it is easy to

understand why Plato might expand on Xenophon’s short

comment, but hard to understand why Xenophon would make

so little of it in his Symposium if he was reacting to

Plato.

But there is a further reason why it is difficult to

see Critobulus’ comment as inspired by Phaedrus’.

9 See Cyropedia 1.4.27-28; 4.1.22-3. See also Anabasis 7.4.7-11.

11

Xenophon does offer a reaction to that speech later on,

in the eighth chapter. There he reacts by strongly

criticizing the notion that “shameless” homosexual lovers

could possibly have the sense of honor necessary in order

to maintain their places in battle (8.32-35). He clearly

disagrees with Phaedrus’ notion that homosexual lovers

would make a good army, and is only willing to

acknowledge the positive value of good-looks and

“innocent” attraction. It is hard to imagine that

Xenophon developed this idea from reading a speech that

he clearly detested. It is much easier to imagine that

Xenophon placed in Critobulus’ mouth a characteristic

statement about the value of good-looks in a general, and

that Plato read it and expanded upon it in a brilliant

parody in the Symposium. He went so far that Xenophon

felt compelled to react critically and explicitly in

chapter eight of the Symposium, a chapter which must

therefore have been written later. If this is so, note

that Xenophon may have felt compelled to respond to Plato

precisely because Plato was responding to him.10

10 His reaction to the Cyropedia may also be motivated in part by the need to respond to a work which contain implied criticisms of his own Republic. See below.

12

There are other signs of Xenophon’s priority. One

of the parallels between the two Symposia which is not

noted by Huss or Thessleff is the was in which Socrates

boasts about himself. In both places he boasts that he

has some special knowledge about love. In Plato’s

Symposium, as is well-known, he claims that the only

subject that he knows anything about is love (). In

Xenophon’s Symposium he claims that he is most proud of

his knowledge of pimping (). Once again, given the fact

that there is some relationship between the two works, we

would be hard-pressed to deny that it is expressed here

too. But which way does it go? It seems to me hard to

imagine that Xenophon developed his far more original and

surprising comment from reading Plato’s bland statement.

Once again, Xenophon’s statement seems characteristic of

his entire portrait of Socrates. Pimping, in Xenophon’s

Socratic lexicon, means teaching others how to present

themselves before their fellow citizens and before the

city (). This is in fact what Xenophon’s Socrates does

in the bulk of books two and three of the Memorabilia.

Furthermore, in chapter 3.9 he goes a step further and

13

actually offers advice to a prostitute on how to attract

and satisfy her customers more successfully, thereby

demonstrating his ability as a pimp in the clearest way

possible.11 Is it really likely, then, that Socrates’

clever remark in the Symposium, which is so consistent

with Xenophon’s portrait of Socrates in the Memorabilia,

was inspired by his reading of Plato? Should we imagine

that he was so taken with this joke that he thereafter

made it the basis of his entire portrait of Socrates? It

seems extremely unlikely to me.

Can the same be said for Plato? I do not think so.

While eros is an important theme in Plato’s writings, his

comment in the Symposium that this is the only subject he

really knows does not seem to provide an important key to

understanding very many things in Plato. Obviously Plato

did not embark on his thoughts about Socrates’ erotic

nature simply because of Xenophon’s witty remark. He had

his own ideas about Socratic eros. But Socrates’ remark

in his Symposium, as opposed to the whole concept of

11 See also his remark in Memorabilia 2.6.28 that he can offer aid in catching the kaloi k’agathoi “dia; to; ejrwtiko;~ ei\nai”.

14

Socratic eros itself, does not seem to play an extremely

important role in interpreting the other dialogues.

On the contrary, it seems perfectly likely that

after reading Xenophon’s coarse and misleading

description of the meaning of Socrates’ erotic nature

Plato felt inspired to compose some sort of response.

Socrates’ eros was not to be found in his ability to make

others attractive to their friends. It was a far

profounder quality, one that was intimately connected

with his love of beauty and his love of wisdom. This is

what Plato shows, not only in his Symposium, but also in

his Phaedrus.

If Xenophon’s Symposium is prior to Plato’s, then

clearly he has added the eighth chapter at a later date.

There are in fact signs that this is the case (see

Thessleff). The chief argument against this is that

chapter eight is an integral part of the Symposium.12

Indeed, Socrates uses his speech to make comments on the 12 Op. Cit., p. 14 and especially note 6. I would add to his comments that the speech in chapter eight seems designed to win Lycos’s approval for Socrates’ efforts toimprove Callias’ attitude towards his son Autolycos (see 9.1); and this is quite possibly the reason that this elusive member of the team which prosecuted Socrates is present in the first place. (On this see Huss ad loc.)

15

majority of the previous speakers. One would not want to

imagine the Symposium without his bitchy remarks towards

Antisthenes (which clearly either inspired or were

inspired by Plato’s Alcibiades). The speech as a whole

is of uncertain provenance. On the one hand, its theme,

eros, is the theme of Plato’s Symposium, and therefore it

could easily have been added later in order to offer some

reaction to that speech.13 On the other hand, the speech

clearly is designed to demonstrate Socrates’ ability as a

pimp: the speech is an acknowledged effort to convince

Kallias to behave properly towards Autolykos (). Without

the speech, we would have no demonstration of Socrates’

ability.

These arguments, however, are not compelling by any

means. If Xenophon by hypothesis added this chapter

later, there is no reason why he would not have made some

effort to make it fit into its context. The idea of

having Socrates refer to the previous speeches may have

been suggested by Socrates’ speech in Plato’s Symposium. 13 In addition to the many other parallels listed by Thessleff and Huss, I would add that the description of eros as both young and old seems designed to resolve a controversy between Phaedrus and Agathon in Plato’s Symposium.

16

There is nothing about the rest of the Symposium which

would compell Xenophon to include an illustration of

Socrates’ ability as a pimp; and in fact he acts more as

a nanny than as a pimp when he tries to persuade Kallias

to forego his sexual interest in the young boy.

The only real way one could demonstrate that the

eighth chapter is an inherent part of the composition

would be by showing that something in the remainder would

be inexplicable without the eighth chapter. There is

little that fits this description. The only thing that

might fit this is the presence of Lykon. This Lykon was

probably one of the accusers in Socrates’ trial. What is

he doing here? As the text now stands, one can explain

his presence by referring to his remark in chapter nine

that Socrates is a fine person. Having one of the

accusers acknowledge this is surely a good reason to have

him in the composition, and this is motivated, as the

text stands, by the educational and moralistic speech

that Socrates gives. If that speech were absent, we

would have no incentive for Lykon to make such a remark,

17

and his presence in the composition would seem

perplexing.

.

If so, Xenophon’s Symposium as a whole must have been

written after he read Plato’s Symposium, which would make

it impossible for Plato to have read or reacted to

Xenophon’s Symposium.

III

The one place where it is generally acknowledged

that Plato is reacting to Xenophon is found in the Laws.

In the third book, Plato speaks of Cyrus, King of Persia,

and criticizes him with regard to education (694c-695b).14

These comments have impressed readers from ancient to

modern times as a clear reference to and criticism of the

Cyropedia.15 If that is what they are, it would seem to

show not only that Plato has read the Cyropedia, but also

that he assumes his readers have, and considers the work

serious enough (or potentially damaging enough) to

warrant a response.16 At the same time, it shows again

18

the indirect and sloppy manner by which Socratic writers

could refer to each other. Like Xenophon, Plato does not

mention his rival by name, and treats his rival’s

literary figure (in this case Cyrus) as an historical

one.

But are right to see this as a reference to Xenophon

in the first place? We should certainly consider the

possibility that it is not. A single comment on Cyrus’

education does not necessarily show even that Plato has

read the Cyropedia, much less that he is referring to it.

There were many works devoted to Cyrus in the fourth

century – Antisthenes alone is reported to have written

two (see Diogenes Laertius 6.16) – and Plato may well have

derived his information about Cyrus from one of them, if

he did not make it up himself.17 Moreover, there are many

divergences and contradictions between Xenophon’s account

of Cyrus and Plato’s. According to Plato, Cyrus married

and had children before he began the wars (694d), whereas

in Xenophon he did not marry until afterwards (8.5.19-20;

28). Plato explains that the children were raised by

newly wealthy women and by eunuchs who spoiled the

19

children by shielding them from all criticism. Cyrus

himself could not take care of their education because he

was still involved in the wars (694d). In Xenophon,

Cyrus had already completed the wars when he married, and

he instituted a regular Persian education for the Persian

children in Babylon (7.5.85). Another contradiction:

according to Plato the traditional Persian education

which Cyrus’ children missed was shepherding (695a),

while according to Xenophon Persian children were trained

in a sophisticated educational system which emphasized

the development of virtue (1.2.2-14).

But despite these divergences and contradictions

there are still good reasons to think that Xenophon was

the main source for Plato’s account of Cyrus. Before

mentioning Cyrus’ failings as an educator, Plato presents

an account of his successes as a leader, and this

account, more than the mere conjunction of Cyrus’ name

with a criticism of his education, provides evidence that

Plato has read Xenophon. This account is not only

accurate, in that it does not diverge from Xenophon’s

account, but it actually offers an excellent and pithy

20

summary of some of the central political teachings of the

Cyropedia. Plato says:

The Persians under Cyrus, possessing the proper

amount of slavery and freedom, began by becoming free

and then became despots over many others. For the

14 It is not clear exactly what the phrase paideiva~ de; ojrqh`~ oujc h|fqai means. It is often taken as meaning that Cyrus himself did not have a good education. However, in the subsequent discussion Plato acknowledges that children of Cyrus’ generation received a good education in shepherding. Moreover, as Lois-Andrev Dorion points out in a paper delivered at the VI Symposium Platonicum, August 2001, “La responsibilitev deCyrus dans le devclin de l’empire perse selon Platon et Xevnophon,” the phrase should mean that he did not understand what a good education is. In the subsequent discussion, however, Plato does not criticize Cyrus’ understanding of education, but rather his failure to provide it personally due to his long absences, which actually implies that he would have done a good job had he been there. Professor Charles Kahn has suggested to me that Plato may have deliberately chosen an ambiguous phrase in order to tie his critique of Cyrus’ efforts as an educator to the title of Xenophon’s book. If this is a reference to the Cyropedia, it seems thatPlato chose to treat the perplexing title of that work asa reference to the education he provided, or failed to provide, to his children, and not merely to the educationhe received which is described in the opening chapters. It has never been clear why Xenophon called his book the education of Cyrus, since the bulk of the book deals mostly with his military accomplishments. It is possiblethat he refers to the education one can receive from reading about Cyrus. But this would not be the only example of a Xenophontic title which refers only to the opening section of the work: Xenophon’s Anabasis is much the same.

21

rulers shared their freedom with the ruled and drew

[them] toward equality; as a result the soldiers felt

more friendly toward their generals and faced danger

with eager spirits. (694a)18

Plato’s words here provide an accurate summary of

Xenophon’s account of the growth of the Persian empire,

and especially of the social revolution Cyrus carried out

15 See S. Hirsch, The Friendship of the Barbarians, Hanover, 1985, 97-100.16 This suggestion is even more plausible if it is true that the Cyropedia was itself a response to Plato’s Republic. Surely it presents Xenophon’s most fully worked out account of political life, and as Deborah Gera says, “Xenophon wished to insure the work a place within the tradition of political treatises.” (Xenophon’s Cyropedia, Oxford, 1993, p. 11). There are a number of specific ways in which the Cyropedia appears to be a response to theRepublic. It opens with a question which may have been inspired by a reading of the Republic: is it possible to rule over human beings? Xenophon may have read the Republic as an anti-political account of politics, as some modern readers have done. When Xenophon offers an account of a conversation between Socrates and Glaucon, Socrates’ chief interlocutor in the Republic, Socrates is portrayed explicitly as aiming to dissuade Glaucon from entering politics. This may be how Xenophon understood Plato’s Socrates’ goal in the Republic. Both Plato and Xenophon see Socrates as essentially non-political: whenthey present practical works on politics (Cyropedia and Laws), they refrain from making Socrates the chief protagonist. This would show, incidentally, that the literary Socrates was not entirely divorced from the historical one, and that he was not interested in practical politics.

22

in the relations between the lower and upper classes in

Persia.

As Steven Hirsch points out, the state of balance

between slavery and freedom may refer to Xenophon’s

description of Cyrus’ father’s regime, in which the

king’s authority is limited by the assembly, the council

and the peers (1.5.5).19 But Plato puts more emphasis on

the changes instituted by Cyrus, and here too he follows

Xenophon’s account. In the Cyropedia, Cyrus’ first act

upon leading the Persian troops out from Persia was to

grant the commoners weaponry like that of the peers.

Cyrus makes it clear that the purpose of granting this

privilege is to encourage these troops to fight well

(2.1.9). Because this act implied granting them equal

rights in Persian society, however, he has to persuade 17 It seems clear that Plato was also influenced by Herodotus’ account of the early Persian empire. See A Cizek, “From the Historical Truth to the Literary Convention: The Life of Cyrus the Great Viewed by Herodotus, Ctesias and Xenophon,” AC 44, 531-552. ??18 This translation and other translations from the Laws are from The Laws of Plato, T. Pangle translator, New York, 1980.19 S. Hirsch, p. 98. On the other hand, this claim is necessary for Plato’s description of the rise of Persia as a kind of degeneration. Hirsch also finds parallels in the changes instituted by Cyrus in books seven and eight.

23

the peers to accept it, which he does. He argues that

arming the commoners will contribute to their eagerness

for war:

…[T]hey are to have arms like ours; for it is not

only the duty of an officer to show himself valiant,

but he must also take care that his men be as valiant

as possible. (2.1.11)

The peers fully understand the importance of

strengthening the war-spirit of the commoners, and one of

them suggests that Cyrus ought to confer the honor,

saying,

when they have taken their place among the peers they

will feel that they hold this honor with more

security because conferred by their prince and their

general than if the same honor were bestowed by us.

However, our cooperation must not be wanting, but in

every way and by all means we must steel the hearts

of our men. For the braver these men are, the more

to our advantage it will be. (2.1.13)20

20 This and other translations from the Cyropedia are from W. Miller’s translation, Cambridge MA, 1925.

24

Later when Cyrus speaks directly to the commoners he says

,

…in our own country you did not enjoy equal

privileges with us…. Now, however… you are

permitted, if you wish, to receive arms like ours, to

face the same danger as we, and, if any fair success

crowns our enterprise, to be counted worthy of an

equal share with us. (2.1.14)

Plato’s description of this change in Persian society is

in agreement with Xenophon not only about the fact that

Cyrus instituted equality, but also about his purpose in

doing so: to motivate the soldiers to fight with greater

spirit.

Plato continues:

Moreover, if someone among them was prudent and

capable of giving counsel, the king wasn’t jealous

but allowed freedom of speech and honored those

capable of giving counsel; hence, a man was willing

to share his capacity, in their midst, as something

common. Everything prospered for them in those days

25

because of freedom and friendship and a common

sharing in intelligence (694b).

Here Plato raises two themes that are central to the

Cyropedia as a whole: jealousy and freedom of speech. The

contrast between the evil empire of Assyria, based on the

leveling envy of the king, and the meritocracy that Cyrus

institutes, is perhaps the central theme of the whole

book. The theme is introduced with Cyrus as a boy

refusing his grandfather’s offer that he be granted

special hunting privileges (1.4.14) and willing to engage

in contests which he is sure to lose (1.4.4-5). This is

in deliberate contrast to the behavior of the son of the

king of Assyria, who kills a comrade because he beats him

in the hunt (4.6.3-5). As Gadatas later comments, the

King’s great jealousy makes it certain that no

outstanding human beings remain in his camp to fight the

Persians (5.4.36). In contrast with this, Cyrus

institutes a system of meritocracy, in which those who

contribute more are rewarded correspondingly, and in

which Cyrus prefers to make his friends wealthy rather

than himself (2.1.23-24; 2.2.18-28; 3.3.6-8; 4.5.38-55;

26

7.2.7-8; 7.3.1; 8.1.39; 8.2.7-23; 8.4.3-12; 8.4.29-36).

This is one of the reasons that Cyrus’ army wins the

wars.

Freedom of speech is also a theme we see illustrated

in the Cyropedia. Cyrus is not the only one to speak at

public meetings, and he sometimes adopts proposals made

by others. For example, it is Chrysantas who first

proposes using a system of proportionality in dividing

the spoils of war (2.2.17-18). Cyrus agrees and proposes

opening a public debate on the discussion (2.2.18). When

Chrysantes objects that it would be sufficient simply to

proclaim that this is the method by which spoil will be

divided (2.2.19), Cyrus declares that it is important to

allow the debate to be held in public (2.2.19-21).

The presence of any of these themes in Plato’s

description of the regime of Cyrus could be explained

without assuming that Plato knew or reacted to the

Cyropedia. However, the fact that Plato touches on so many

of the central themes of the Cyropedia in such a short

space – while adding nothing foreign to it -- provides

strong evidence that the passage is based on that work.

27

But even here, there is a significant degree of

imprecision. Plato’s description of Persia diverges at

least from the spirit of Xenophon’s account. Cyrus

himself is mentioned only once and in an oblique case

(694a). Rather than speaking of Cyrus, Plato speaks

about the rulers (a[rconte~) and the generals

(strathgoiv) as being responsible for the improvement (or

degeneration) of Persian society. When he does refer to

the ultimate authority in Persia, he calls him simply the

King, without using the name Cyrus explicitly (694b).

None of this contradicts the account in the Cyropedia, but

we do see a general reduction in the importance

attributed to Cyrus. How do we account for this?

It seems to me useless to postulate that Plato is

relying on another source in which Cyrus was less

important than he is in the Cyropedia, or in which the

other generals and “rulers” were more important, although

of course this is not impossible. It seems likely that

other accounts, particularly those which, like

Antisthenes’ dialogues, were named after Cyrus, also

granted him a prominent role in Persian history, as does

28

Herodotus’ History. The relative demotion of Cyrus is

surely Plato’s doing.

This demotion might simply reflect Plato’s concern

with the subject at hand, namely the way in which the

building of an empire can effect social stability. While

Cyrus was perhaps responsible for the changes, it is the

changes themselves that interest Plato at this point, and

therefore he does not need to emphasize Cyrus’ decisive

role in instituting the changes. And yet, when Plato

continues his discussion and offers criticisms of Cyrus’

regime, his name does appear prominently (694c) and he is

clearly the main subject of the discussion (694e-695a).

The fact that Cyrus is not given the credit, but is given

the blame, suggests that Plato is making some effort to

downplay the importance of Cyrus, and if so this

downplaying may be additional evidence of a rivalry with

Xenophon (or another rival who wrote about Cyrus). As

the ancient critics noted, not mentioning a name can be

as significant as mentioning it.

29

IV

But how are we to explain the many divergences and

even contradictions that appear in the remainder of the

discussion? Do these not suggest that Plato has another

source for the history of Cyrus other than Xenophon? I

would resist this conclusion for two reasons. First of

all, as we have noted, divergences and inaccuracies are

not uncharacteristic of fourth century literary

references. Audiences did not necessarily expect

precision in such matters. Secondly, the way in which

Plato introduces the section containing the divergences

actually provides an interesting kind of confirmation

that Plato has read the Cyropedia.

Plato clearly marks this section as his own

invention. The Athenian says that he will use a kind of

prophecy or guessing (the term manteiva in a nominal or

verbal form appears twice in 694c), and uses the term ‘it

seems’ (e[oiken) when he turns to his rival account of

the history of Cyrus (694d).21 This not only indicates

that these sections are invented, it also indicates that

the previous section, the section we have described above

30

-- and that alone -- was not invented, but based on some

kind of source. Plato clearly knew that here his

discussion diverges from his source. This together with

the fact that the previous section provided an accurate

summary of the Cyropedia, provides strong evidence that

Plato did base that section on the Cyropedia.

The Platonic origin of this divergent section is

confirmed by the fact that its details fit so well to

Plato’s over-all purpose in this section. His aim is to

show that the Persians “delighted exclusively and more

than was necessary in monarchy” (693e). For this purpose

he shows how the acquisition of the empire interfered

with the education of the Persian citizens and ultimately

lead to the decline of Persia. He says that Cyrus’

involvement with war prevented him from taking care of

the education of the children (694d). This means that

21 We should acknowledge here that Kleinias responds to the earlier section with the comment, “this seems likely”(e[oiken). This might indicate that even this section ispresented as being based on guesswork. But e[oiken without manteuvomai does not have a very strong force; and even if it does, it may signify only that Kleinias, aCretan who is ignorant of Homer (680c), is ignorant of Xenophon’s account of Cyrus. The Athenian refers only tothe second part of the discussion as being based on guesswork.

31

his marriage and fatherhood had to precede the war. He

says that the children did not get the ordinary Persian

education as shepherds, but were spoiled by their mothers

and other care-takers (694d). It would not have been

appropriate to portray the traditional Persian education

as the well-established education in virtue that Xenophon

portrays (1.2.3-14); for if they had such a system, why

would they allow the acquisition of empire to interfere

with it? Plato has to find a form of education that is

virtuous and yet susceptible to being abandoned by those

who have gained sudden power, and for this purpose the

simple education of a shepherd is perfectly suited. The

fact that these changes fit so well to Plato’s purpose

helps to confirm the suspicion that this section, unlike

the previous one, is invented.22

If this argument is right, and Plato is referring to

the Cyropedia here, then we have reconfirmation of our

thesis that ancient literary references could diverge

widely from the sources to which they refer. Plato is

more conscientious than Xenophon, in that he marks his

32

divergences by calling them guesswork, but he is not more

accurate.

But in Plato’s case, these divergences show us

something else as well. Unlike Xenophon, who attributed

speeches inaccurately, but did not radically change the

contents of those speeches, Plato takes liberty with the

contents of Xenophon’s story of Cyrus themselves. For

this reason it seems that although Plato has read

Xenophon, and is in some sense responding to him, he is

not really taking Xenophon seriously.

Not only does he significantly alter the facts about

Cyrus, but he also fails to address any of the issues

that Xenophon raised in connection with Cyrus, even

though he mentions some of them. Instead he raises his

own issues, pointing out the problems involved with

making drastic changes in the social organization of a

city, the dangers involved in excessive wealth and the

importance of strict education. Unlike Xenophon, who at

times at least is willing to take on Plato fairly

directly, Plato prefers a somewhat more oblique approach.

He reacts to Xenophon by dismissing him out of hand,23 and

33

goes on to pursue his own agenda. That agenda does not

seem to be dictated in any way by Xenophon.

This explains why Plato can take the liberties he

does, but it also offers an additional reason to think

that the description of the virtues of Cyrus’ regime,

which as we noted resemble the Cyropedia so closely, are in

fact based on Xenophon. This section is actually

22 On the other hand, I found no linguistic evidence in Plato’s discussion of Cyrus that he has Xenophon’s work in mind. The passage uses perfectly normal Platonic vocabulary, and contains nothing that is especially characteristic of Xenophon or of the Cyropedia. I checked the words: douleia, eleutheria, to ison, prothumos, phronimos, phthoneros, parresia, sumbouleuo, koinon, (eis) to meson, and koinonia. All of these terms of course are extremely common in Greek political discourse, and there would be nothing surprising or significant about finding them scattered profusely throughout the Cyropedia. In fact, however, I did not find that that they were. These terms did not appear in any great frequency, and not in contexts which suggest any connection with the Laws passage. This may weaken the argument that Plato has Xenophon in mind here.But it probably reflects nothing other than the fact thatauthors do not necessarily adopt the vocabulary of texts to which they refer. This may be seen when Xenophon’s Socrates refers to Phaedrus’ speech in Plato’s Symposium ( X. Symposium 8.32-3). He adopts almost no linguistic elements from the Platonic passage: where Plato speaks of a povli~ or stratovpedon, Xenophon speaks of a stravteuma; where Plato says that such an army would “beat, so to speak, all of mankind”, Xenophon says that it would be ajlkimwvtaton. While close linguistic parallels could, if found, provide valuable confirmation of a literary relationship, their absence signifies nothing.

34

somewhat superfluous. In order to pursue his own agenda,

Plato does not need to display the virtues of Cyrus’

regime, but only to point to the political successes he

achieved and the dangers this brought. The fact that the

praises are somewhat out of place suggests that Plato

felt obliged to include this positive description of the

regime instituted by Cyrus in consideration of a well-

known account of the virtues of Cyrus’ regime, one whose

contents were like those of the Cyropedia. It also shows a

further aspect of Plato’s method in dealing with

Xenophon: acknowledgement precedes dismissal.24

Even where Plato diverges from Xenophon, there are

signs of possible Xenophontic influence. Plato claims

that Cyrus was unable to take sufficient care of the

education of his children because he was involved in

accumulating herds (ajgevlai) of human beings and animals

(694e). This is a striking expression, and one that 23 This is also the way that Athenaeus understands Plato’s reaction to Xenophon’s treatment of Menon (11.505b). As I am trying to show, Plato’s discussion ofCyrus does not take issue with any of the important ideasthat Xenophon raised. He grants the virtuous character of Cyrus’ regime without any ado, and finds other groundson which to criticize it.24 So too Xenophon is willing to grant that Pausanias’ theory of two Aphroditai is correct (Symposium 8.9-10).

35

recalls the very opening words of the Cyropedia, where

Xenophon raises the difficulty of ruling over men, and

contrasts it with the ease of ruling over other herds

(1.1).25 Similarly, the reference to the fact that

eunuchs were put in charge of the children’s education

recalls Xenophon’s striking discussion of the virtues of

eunuchs (7.5.60-65), a discussion which is immediately

followed by Cyrus’ discussion of the need to maintain the

traditional Persian virtues, and to educate the children

in the traditional Persian manner (7.5.85). This

proximity may have suggested to Plato that the eunuchs,

who serve as personal guards in Xenophon, would make

ideal targets as those responsible for the poor education

of Cyrus’ children. The reference is widely divergent,

but still identifiable, and it responds to Xenophon’s

praise of eunuchs, characteristically, by belittling

them.

V

25 More elaborate animal imagery does of course occur in Plato’s Republic and Statesman as well.

36

From all of this I conclude that Plato did read

Xenophon, that the Cyropedia was known to his readers, and

that, perhaps for this very reason, he felt compelled to

respond to it in some way. It is not surprising that his

account contains divergences, that he does not name

Xenophon, or that he treats Cyrus as an historical rather

than a literary figure: we saw all these features in

Xenophon’s treatment of Plato’s Symposium. But here the

divergences are substantive, and this seems indicative of

Plato’s dismissive attitude towards Xenophon.

Although he read and responded to the Cyropedia, Plato

does not seem to have engaged himself directly with its

issues. At most there are some possible signs of

influence.26 In the Laws, Plato presents a detailed

account of a good political regime, and, in contrast to

his Republic, is seriously concerned with a regime which

might actually be instituted. This practical interest

makes it much closer in spirit to the Cyropedia than to the

Republic, although even here there are of course enormous

differences.27 There are some formal similarities: the

Laws is the first Platonic dialogue in which Socrates is

37

completely absent, as he is of course from the Cyropedia

and the Hiero.28 And both of the works are set on the

margins of the Greek world, in the far east or the

distant west. But these similarities do not necessarily

show any influence.

There are some more substantial ways in which the

Laws seems to be reacting to ideas set forth in the

Cyropedia. One example is at the very beginning of the

Laws. The Athenian rejects the idea that a good society

would be organized for the sake of victory in war (628c-

e). While there may be many possible sources for this

idea, one possible source is surely the Cyropedia.29 There

Xenophon shows vividly how participation in war is vital

for the maintenance of social cohesion. His Cyrus seems

to think that there is no point in maintaining an army if

one does not intend to use it (1.5.9-11), and that

involvement in war can help improve the social relations

between his soldiers (3.3.9-20). He shows how the

prospect of war helps convince his troops to adopt a

system of proportional equality in dividing the goods

(2.2.17-28; 2.3.1-16; 4.5.38-58).30 And he shows that

38

relations between the Armenians and the Chaldaeans could

be improved only when a constant state of conquest was

imposed upon them by war (3.2.22-24). The opening of the

Laws may be Plato’s response to this conception.31

A second example of the possible influence of the

Cyropedia may be found in the educational role of drinking

parties that Plato describes in the first two books of

the Laws.32 This idea may have been inspired, in part, by

the numerous convivial scenes in the Cyropedia, which serve26 In addition to these parallels, see the commentary by K. Schopsdau, Platon: Nomoi I-III, Gottingen, Vandenhoeck & Puprecht, 1994, passim.27 Xenophon is almost entirely concerned with the question of how to get in control of an empire, as he says in the very first chapter of the Cyropedia, and only to a secondary degree with the question of what sort of regime to institute. The nature of Cyrus’ regime appearsto be determined in great part by the practical necessityof maintaining rule. In the Laws, on the other hand, Plato is mainly concerned with the kind of regime that ought to be instituted, and while he does display great concern for the question of how to convince the rulers and people to adopt this regime, he is not primarily concerned with the question of how to obtain rulership inthe first place. The opportunity to rule is granted fromthe beginning by the fact that Kleinias and Megillus havebeen asked to provide a constitution for a new settlement. 28 See above note 13. Note that both Xenophon and Plato set aside the notion of a trained philosopher becoming king in favor of a politically capable leader who is opento philosophy. In the Cyropedia, it is Cyrus’ father who presents the closest parallel to Socrates (1.6). CompareLaws 711a-712a.

39

political or ethical purposes. In particular, we may

mention the scene in which Gadatas joins the Persians for

a Persian style meal on the grounds of his estate (5.2.5-

22). He we find Xenophon’s definitive statement about he

value of Persian eating parties. I will quote a portion

of Gadatas’ reflections:

But he soon perceived the temperance of the soldiers

who sat at meat with him; for no Persian of the

educated class would allow it to appear that he was

captivated with any kind of food or drink, either

with his eyes gloating over it or his with his hands

greedy to get it, or with his thoughts so engrossed

by it as to fail to observe things that would attract

his attention if he were not at meat; but just as

good horsemen do not lose their self-command when on

horseback but can ride along and at the same time see

and hear and say whatever they should, so also the

educated Persians think that at their meals they

ought to show themselves sensible and temperate; and

to become excited over food or drink seems to them

altogether swinish and bestial. (5.2.17)33

40

Here Xenophon uses the dinner party as an opportunity for

the display of metriovth~ or its opposite. What is

significant here is the function that the meal plays in

revealing the character of the diners within the context

of a work on political philosophy. But at the same time,

one has to acknowledge that Plato takes the theme a lot

further than Xenophon did, and uses it for his own

purposes.

29 Even if Plato is responding to a ‘Spartan’ theory of politics, rather than to Xenophon, we should remember that Xenophon’s Cyropedia has itself been accused of pro-Spartanism. The only other extant source that seems a possible candidate is Thucydides’ History which grants an important role to motion and unrest.30 Xenophon’s treatment of the division of spoils should be compared with Aristotle’s discussion of distributive justice in the Ethics 5.3 (1131a10-1131b24) and with Plato’s discussion of proportional equality in the Laws (757b-757d)31 One can speculate that the opening of the Cyropedia similarly contains Xenophon’s attack on Plato’s Republic, accusing that work of dismissing the possibility of successful political activity too quickly. It is characteristic of Xenophon to respond to difficult theoretical problems with simplistic but persuasive observations based on experience. See for example the proof Socrates offers in Xenophon’s Symposium that courageis teachable (2.12). Similarly, the Cyropedia’s portrait of the virtues of war may have been aimed at the Republic, in which war is portrayed as an unfortunate result of thegreed of non-philosophical spirits (372c-d). Plato’s aborted Critias, which would have provided his portrait of the city at war, may have been a first attempt to answer Xenophon’ account of the wars of Cyrus.

41

Another example of possible influence lies in the

use of pseudo-history as a mode of argumentation.

Throughout the Cyropedia, Xenophon uses the fictitious

story of Cyrus as a way of proving that it is possible to

rule over human beings (see 1.1.3-5). In a similar way,

Plato, in the third book of the Laws, uses a pseudo-

historical account in order to demonstrate his theses

concerning political regimes. He emphasizes that he is

speaking not on the basis of theory, but on the basis of

actual historical fact: “so we won’t be investigating

the same argument on the basis of some empty figment, but

on the basis of something that really happened and

possesses truth.” (683e-684a). This imaginative

reconstruction of “real” history and its use for

philosophic argument within a work of political

32 In contrast to the Laws, the Republic is an ascetic work, in which all of Glaucon’s desires for luxuries are ‘purged’ in the strict regimen of the Guardians (372c-d; 419a-421c??). Xenophon’s willingness to present the virtue of moderate indulgence may have presented a challenge to Plato to which he felt obliged to respond.33 Xenophon may be referring to the educational benefits of play when he has Aglaitadas make the argument, accepted by no one, that one learns more from weeping than from laughing (Cyropedia 2.2.14). See also Xenophon’sSymposium 1.1, and Memorabilia 4.1.1.

42

philosophy34 is distinctly reminiscent of the claim in the

opening of the Cyropedia and of its method throughout.35

Another area in which the Laws may have been

influenced by Xenophon – this time his Symposium rather

than his Cyropedia – is in Plato’s attitude towards

homosexuality. In his earlier writings, Plato portrayed

characters who openly praised homosexual behavior (in

particular, Phaedrus and Pausanias in the Symposium), and

while his Socrates was never as enthusiastic about it as

they, and even gave some signs of disinterest, he never

condemned homosexuality, and he even expressed frequently

his appreciation of good-looking young men.

In contrast with this, Xenophon has strong

reservations about homosexual behavior. As we have seen,

in his Symposium, Xenophon’s Socrates takes Plato’s

Phaedrus and Pausanias to task for their indulgent

34 Precedents could also be sought in Hesiod, Herodotus and Thucydides as well. However, I would presume that Plato read these authors in his youth, and yet did not adopt this strategy at an early stage. This approach in the Laws is new for Plato, and it may be connected with his recent reading of a contemporary author such as Xenophon.35 It differs from mythological stories such as that toldby Protagoras (Protagoras 320c-322d) since it relates to actual events in Greek and oriental history.

43

theories of homosexual love. And he refers to homosexual

lovers in the harshest terms (8.32-5). In his Cyropedia,

while Xenophon allows his Cyrus to use his good looks in

order to inspire devoted service from his troops (above

note eight), he offers no positive portrayal of

homosexual behavior, and when presenting a portrait of

the greatest sexual temptation possible, he naturally

chooses a woman for the role (5.1.7-8).

As is well-known, in the Laws, Plato expresses his

opposition to homosexuality in very strong terms (636c-d,

836c, 838e-839a, 841d). The first passage appears to be

inspired by Xenophon’s Symposium. Plato introduces his

remarks by speaking of playing (paizon) and being serious

(speudazon), words which recall the opening of Xenophon’s

Symposium (1.1), and he refers in this same passage to

Ganymede (see Symposium 8.30). There is nothing

surprising about Plato’s reacting here to Xenophon’s

words in the Symposium, particularly when we recall that

those words were themselves critical of Plato.

While it is possible that these themes could have

been inspired by other sources, or could be simply the

44

result of Plato’s own developing reflections on political

matters, the first three of them could have been inspired

by the Cyropedia, and all of these occur within the first

three books of the Laws. This suggests that the first

three books were written shortly after Plato read the

Cyropedia. Further, most of the examples I have brought

from the Cyropedia (except for the reference to the

eunuchs) occur in the first three books of the Cyropedia,

which may suggest that Plato did not get far in his

reading. There would of course be nothing surprising

about the fact that Plato does not register these themes

as debts to Xenophon.

But despite these possible signs of influence, the

Laws as a whole is not devoted to any direct confrontation

with the Cyropedia. Most of the issues which Xenophon

raises, concerning the nature of justice, the proper use

of deception, the best means of unifying and motivating

men for a common purpose, of avoiding envy and rebellion,

of distributing spoils and using wealth for creating

bonds of loyalty, are simply not addressed in the Laws.

45

The Laws for its part addresses constitutional issues that

do not appear in the Cyropedia at all.

In the most general sense, one could say that

Plato’s Laws presents an alternative to the sort of regime

Xenophon presented in the Cyropedia. In the Cyropedia,

Xenophon presented a picture of a unified army at war; in

the Laws, Plato presents a portrait of a unified city at

peace. In the Cyropedia, Xenophon showed how a single man

can organize an entire empire; in the Laws, Plato shows

how good laws can organize a city. Only in this general

sense could the Laws as a whole be seen as a response to

the challenge of the Cyropedia.

Epilogue:

In this discussion, I have relied on the assumption

that the texts as we have them are the texts as they were

when Plato and Xenophon first published them. This is a

useful working hypothesis, but it may not be true at all.

It is possible that the authors have re-written their

works at different times, and therefore that we may not

have the original version of the work of one which the

46

other read. As we have noted, Plato may have seen a

different version of Xenophon’s Symposium than the one we

have in our hands before writing his own Symposium.

This problem may affect the Cyropedia as well. As the

text stands today, Plato’s criticism of Cyrus’ education

of his children seems to be derived from Xenophon himself

who speaks in the epilogue to his work of the decline of

the Persian empire, attributing it to the behavior of his

children (8.8.2). This fact makes Plato’s criticisms

curiously unimpressive. This epilogue has often been

suspected of being a later addition, and it is surely

worth considering the possibility that Xenophon himself

added it later in order to nullify or pre-empt Plato’s

criticism.

Plato criticizes Cyrus not only for offering his

children a poor education, but also for failing to take

proper care of his household (oijkonomiva). As is well

known, Xenophon wrote his Oeconomicus on the subject of

household management, and in that work Cyrus receives if

not a starring role then at least an honorable mention

47

(4.16). This too may be an example of Xenophon’s

reaction to Plato’s criticism in the Laws.

Bibliography

Translations:

The Cyropedia, Walter Miller translator, Cambridge MA, 1925.

The Laws of Plato, Thomas Pangle translator, New York, 1980.

Secondary Material:

Chroust, Antoine-H? Socrates, Man and Myth, South Bend,

Indiana, 1957.

Cizek, A., “From the Historical Truth to the Literary

Convention: The Life of Cyrus the Great Viewed by

Herodotus, Ctesias and Xenophon,” AC 44, 531-552.

Dorion, Louis-Andrev “La responsibilitev de Cyrus dans

le devclin de l’empire perse selon Platon et Xevnophon,”

a paper delivered at the VI Symposium Platonicum, August

2001.

Gera, Deborah, Xenophon’s Cyropedia, Oxford, 1993.

Hirsch, Stven, The Friendship of the Barbarians, Hanover, 1985.

48

Huss, Bernard, Xenophons Symposion, ein Kommentar, Stuttgart

and Leipzig, 1999.

Kahn, Charles, Plato and the Socratic Dialogue, Cambridge, 1996.

Schopsdau, K? Platon: Nomoi I-III, Gottingen, Vandenhoeck &

Puprecht, 1994.

Stokes, Michael, Plato: Apology, Warminster, 1997.

Thesleff, Holger, ‘The Interrelation and Date of the

Symposia of Plato and Xenophon,’ BICS 25, 1978.

49