Clark, 'Xenophon, Oeconomicus: A Social and Historical Commentary.', Bryn Mawr Classical Review 9503
URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/stacks/serials/bmcr/bmcr-9503-clark-xenophon
@@@@95.3.32, Pomeroy ed. and trans., Xenophon: Oeconomicus
Sarah B. Pomeroy (ed., trans.), Xenophon, Oeconomicus: A
Social and Historical Commentary. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1994. Pp. xii, 388. $75.00. ISBN 0-19-814082-7.
Reviewed by Patricia A. Clark -- University of Victoria
paclark@uvvm.uvic.ca
The appearance of this new edition of Xenophon's
Oeconomicus by Sarah Pomeroy has been long and keenly
anticipated. Now the tension is over, and this signally
informative source can take its place as one of the indispensable
tools for scholars working on such diverse topics as "marriage,
the innate moral, physical, and mental qualities of men and
women; the functioning of domestic and public economies; rural
and urban life; Greek slavery; popular religion; the role of
education, and many other topics" (viii). In fact, and due in no
small measure to P.'s wide-ranging commentary, the
Oeconomicus holds something of significance for students
of philosophy, of language and rhetoric, and of history--
agricultural, military, social, intellectual, economic.
P.'s commentary will undoubtedly appear on the
bibliographies of a variety of courses. I used it as the assigned
text for my senior Greek class last fall. It was a small class,
perhaps fortunately, because due to the prohibitive price of the
volume (originally $90 U.S.; $112.50 Can.) we were forced to
share two copies among us. I found this situation rather sad. The
Oeconomicus is a work whose subject matter and style
invite use not only for graduate seminars in Greek social
history, but certainly also for upper level undergraduate Greek
classes. Arguably, too, the most illuminating section of the book
is not the commentary itself, but P.'s comprehensive introductory
chapters. These are designed, with the exceptions of the more
technical chapters 3 ("Xenophon and Socrates") and 7 ("The
History of the Text"), to be accessible to the Greekless reader.
In conjunction with P.'s smooth English version they make this
book fundamental even for history or 'civilization' courses which
use primary sources in translation. Students should be able to
buy this book. Mercifully a paperback edition will soon be
available and I suppose we must be thankful that the book has
metamorphosed into an affordable commodity so rapidly. It may
finally reach the "students, scholars and amateurs" (97) the
author intends it for.
A couple of caveats however: because P.'s commentary is
historical rather than philological, little attention is paid to
textual or grammatical matters. Consequently there is a real need
now for an ancillary philological commentary if the
Oeconomicus is to meet with the attention it deserves in
the language classrooms. Secondly, and admittedly subjectively,
P.'s style--"lapidary" as one critic kindly put it, "wooden" as
my students more bluntly did--sadly diminishes the lively quality
of the material she is discussing. The commentary is marked
throughout by a dignified but unmitigated austerity. Rather than
arousing an interest in Greek social history, it will rely more
on the enthusiasm and perseverance of the already committed.
The book is divided into the canonical three: a substantial
introductory discussion, text and translation (on facing pages),
and the commentary. There are in addition several well chosen
illustrations (more would have been welcome--particularly in view
of the price), an extensive bibliography, and a Greek index to
the commentary. The author notes (ix) that the MS was completed
in January, 1991, but not published until 1994 and that material
published later than 1991 is only minimally represented. In the
fast-moving field of social history such a time-lag is
regrettable.
The text is the OCT of E.C. Marchant, incorporating
the addenda and corrigenda to his second (1921) edition and two
more recent modifications (at viii. 4, l.18-19 by J. Gil and at
viii. 13, l. 26 by Pomeroy herself).
The translation, however, is completely new, and is particularly
lucid, accurate, and (especially gratifying to students) 'readable'. P. is
a very skillful translator and a lively and attractive prose style does
emerge here. Attribution of dialogue, sometimes problematical, is made
with a firm hand (to repeat--this is not a philological
commentary), and the dialogue form in translation is shaped with a care
for euphony rather than slavish exactitude. For example, in the long
sequences of multiply reported speech (most notably when in Oec.
vii the narrator Xenophon is reporting to the reader the words of
Critobulus reporting Socrates reporting Ischomachus reporting his wife
reporting her parents!), P. has wisely chosen to omit the repeated
translation of jarring expressions such a E)/FH FA/NAI, "he said, he said
to her" (137). P. is particularly sensitive to the difficulty of capturing
effectively nuances of affection and status in terms from daily life. In
her "Remarks on the Translation" (97-101) for example, she demonstrates
historical attempts, felicitous and otherwise, to render such deceptively
simple terms as GU/NAI (P. chooses 'wife') or KALO/S KA)GAQO/S (P. defends
'gentleman'). Here, parenthetically, I must note my own profound gratitude
that P. (surely with tongue in cheek), "rejected the possibility of
rendering the Oeconomicus throughout in gender-neutral language"
(98).
The introductory chapters deserve particular attention, for
it is here that P. develops a thoughtful and original--almost
revisionist--portrait of Xenophon the man and writer, and the
socio-economic milieu of this work. Accordingly the remainder of
this review will note some of the highlights of this section.
Chapter 1 deals with Xenophon's life, the date of
composition of the Oeconomicus (probably after 362 BCE),
and Xenophon's possible use of earlier Socratic sources
(discussed further in Chapter 2). P. makes a good attempt here to
'marry' the work and its contents with the life of Xenophon as it
is known--a useful exercise bringing worthwhile results, since
the diversity and novelty of the writer's life are reflected in
the abundant variety of his works (8). In this chapter and
throughout, P. emphasizes Xenophon the innovator: "Though
Xenophon was reared in Athens and died there, he was familiar
with the two groups the Athenians themselves considered most
antithetical to themselves: the Spartans and the barbarians (i.e.
non-Greeks). He had lived in urban and rural settings. He had
been a citizen-soldier, a mercenary, and an exile. Though he was
a friend of kings, he respected slaves ..."(8). He was uniquely
equipped by his life experiences to depict the multiple facets of
Athenian domestic and economic activity.
Chapter 2, on language, style, and narrative structure,
develops further the innovative aspect of Xenophon's writing
which, while rhetorically looking back to classical examples
(15), seems in several ways to anticipate the Hellenistic world
and a literary koine (11): first in the assumption of a broad
international elite readership, then in its stylistic
versatility--the importation of foreign or dialect words, the use
of non-Attic forms and syntax, and the invention of new forms. P.
provides an excellent historical overview of the various
assessments of Xenophon's prose style, commenting that modern
analysis of his prose "has not essentially progressed beyond the
observations of the ancient critics" and calling for a
"comprehensive theoretical study of the development of Greek
prose style buttressed by facts and example" (14).
Chapter 3 broaches the 'Socratic Problem', giving a brief
review of the debate around Xenophon's knowledge of Socrates, how
the various literary portraits of Socrates compare, and the
accuracy of each (21). P. concludes that rather than necessarily
having to choose between the Xenophontic and practical Socrates
(for whom there are precedents in the Socratic Antisthenes) or
the Platonic Socrates, the wiser course is to recognize that
Socrates, as a great teacher, adapted his tone and subject matter
so as to engage the best in each pupil: "No doubt with Plato his
discussions were more theoretical while with Xenophon they were
more practical" (25). From this perspective, a Socrates concerned
with estate management and "the context in which men and women
could act in fulfilment of their appropriate virtues" (30) seems
historically little different from the one who questioned
artisans and rhapsodes.
Chapters 4 and 5 on the oikos and the domestic
economy contain some of P.'s most important contributions. The
Oeconomicus is the first extant didactic work to address
this core unit of Greek society (31), but the work should be
viewed as part of a more pervasive fourth century concern with
subversion of the socio-economic structure in the wake of the
Peloponnesian war. P. sees the central focus on the marital
relationship in the Oeconomicus as reflecting more general
fourth century social change: in particular a shift away from the
familial/communal concerns of the fifth century (as exemplified
in e.g. Attic drama or Pericles' Funeral Oration) to a world
transitional to the Hellenistic one with its emphasis on the
individual and private relationships (32). In this transitional
world, Xenophon's oikos may best be described as "an
economic union bound by Eros" (33). For purposes of contrast P.
examines Xenophon's rather exceptional approach to gender roles
in the context of fourth century philosophical and literary
descriptions of norms and ideals (Aristotle, Plato, the orators).
Although Xenophon is in many respects an unquestioning adherent
of the patriarchal system and has developed his own version of
the biological imperative, he is also a 'radical' in that he
envisages a household in which the wife can (when sufficiently
instructed) exercise full authority, even at times over her
husband; in which sexual union for reproduction alone is
inadequate--there must be a bond of partnership based on mutual
attraction; and in which, uniquely, full recognition is given to
the value of women's work (36).
The sustained discussion in chapter 5 underscores the vital
importance of this work for our understanding of the ancient
Greek economy. Oikoi formed the polis and were the
fundamental units of production and consumption, yet, according
to P., "economic historians of the Greek world have virtually
ignored the domestic economy (except its agrarian aspect), and
preferred to discuss industries, banking and trade-routes" (41).
P. objects strongly to the "anachronistic" view of traditional
economic theories, particularly that of the late M.I. Finley,
whose vision she (rather carpingly) attacks, saying that he
excluded aspects of the economy which the Greeks themselves
regarded as central: production in the private sphere and
especially "the contribution of women, both slave and free"(43).
P. prefers the theory of A.V. Chayanov (44) who insists that
analyses of different types of economies must be in terms
specifically appropriate to each and who examines organization
for production by paying particular attention to the smallest
units of production before attempting a synthetic overview. In
the case of the oikos of the Oeconomicus we have,
for example, a primary economic unit combining the
characteristics of a family-run farm with a business dependent
upon slave labour (44-45).
Xenophon's fascination with matters economic (cf. especially
Revenues) narrows its focus in the Oeconomicus to
the domestic economy: to the division of labour between the sexes
and to the enhancement of the value of private property (46). P.
discusses at length the currently debated state of agriculture in
Attica after the disruptions of the Peloponnesian War, concluding
that concern over food supply in the fourth century played some
part in Xenophon's decision to write what is in effect a treatise
on effective estate management (50). P. argues that many of
Xenophon's descriptions, "the position of the wife, the treatment
of slaves, and the importance accorded to education", so
apparently idealistic, were nonetheless in some respects
normative (51). There is a tension constantly present and hard to
resolve between P.'s two portrayals of Xenophon: he is a radical
and idealist and at the same time the embodiment of fourth
century upper-class mores. Certainly ambiguity and paradox are
true and inevitable facts of life, but it is not always clear to
me how and where in Xenophon's world the lines are to be drawn.
Nonetheless P. is undoubtedly right to say that by using the
Oeconomicus in conjunction with other sources, legitimate
inferences may be made, not just about the changing relationship
between the sexes, but particularly about actual classical
agricultural goals and practices. There follows a detailed
analysis of the management of land capital, income and profit,
and systems of record keeping in classical Attica with specific
reference to the evidence uniquely provided by the
Oeconomicus.
In a section entitled "The Economics of Patriarchy", P.
further clarifies her reservations with respect to traditional
economic theories. Positing the sexual division of labour as
"fundamental to Greek society" (57), P. explains that in
societies characterized by such a division, "where most women are
excluded from the labour market, cash economy, and ownership of
the means of production, the categories that have been applied by
economic historians are relevant almost exclusively to males who
participate in the cash economy" (57). P. then proceeds to
examine Xenophon's domestic economy from the perspective of women
and household slaves. She elucidates his depiction of marriage as
an economic union forming the basis of the household, stating
that for Xenophon the family is a partnership for production. A
wife's education, as Ischomachus in the Oeconomicus
clearly indicates, is an investment which will enhance the value
of the oikos as she learns management skills, and, by
instructing the slaves in turn, increases their value. Xenophon
"is the first Greek author to give full recognition to the
use-value of women's work, and to understand that domestic labour
has economic value even if it lacks exchange-value" (59). This
enlightened viewpoint, as P. points out, is only beginning to
gain hard won credence among economists today.
The penultimate introductory chapter (the final chapter
gives the history of the text) is a fascinating account of the
Oeconomicus after Xenophon. The Romans apparently loved
it--largely for agrarian reasons. During the early Renaissance
the humanist interest in the family caused many writers to seize
upon ancient texts concerned with husbands, wives, and the proper
gender roles. The Oeconomicus, however, apparently lacking
in appropriate hierarchical principles, although read and quoted,
languished behind the more popular works of Plutarch and Ps.
Aristotle's Oeconomica (74-75). But in 16th century
England matters were different, and Xenophon's works became
esteemed and influential. The prevalence of educated women (among
them Queen Elizabeth I, who is said to have translated Xenophon's
Hiero) acted as a spur to a long sequence of translations
of the Oeconomicus. Viewed as an explicit model of conduct
for wives, Xenophon's household manual spawned numerous domestic
books of instruction for women written in dialogue form (85). P.
closes her discussion of the reception of the text with a brief
but perceptive review of the various streams of feminist response
to the ideas about gender expressed in the Oeconomics.
These thoughtful pages should be required introductory reading
for all students of women and the family in antiquity.
This will long be a standard work. Thanks to P.'s careful
analysis, Xenophon, so long despised as being less than
Thucydides--and not even Herodotos--can at last be appreciated
for some individual and perhaps even radical perspectives on
personal relationships and the domestic economy.