Gray, 'Xenophon Hellenika II.3.11-IV.2.8. Edited with an Introduction, Translation and Commentary', Bryn Mawr Classical Review 9511
URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/stacks/serials/bmcr/bmcr-9511-gray-xenophon

@@@@95.11.12, Krentz, Xenophon Hellenika II.3.11-IV.2.8

Peter Krentz, <i>Xenophon Hellenika II.3.11-IV.2.8. Edited with
an Introduction, Translation and Commentary</i>. Warminster: Aris
and Phillips, 1994. Pp.iv + 220. 9.95. ISBN 0856686417.
  Reviewed by Vivienne J. Gray -- University of Auckland

  This commentary is on that part of Xenophon's <i>Hellenica</i>
which describes the Civil War at Athens after the end of the
Peloponnesian War, the involvement of the Spartans in Asia under
Thibron and Dercylidas, and under Agesilaus up to the time of his
recall, and affairs in Greece up to the outbreak of the
Corinthian War, including Spartan action against Elis, the
accession of Agesilaus, the conspiracy of Cinadon and the
outbreak and first actions of the Corinthian War. There have been
many books written about the history of this period, but this is
the first commentary since Underhill (1900), which means that
there is a lot of catching up to do. I do not comment here on the
first volume in this series. 

  Xenophon is often criticised for his uneven scope. He devotes
about a third of the total narrative dealt with in this
commentary to the Civil War at Athens, which was a single event
among many others that might be considered more important. Krentz
must of course use his own good work on this War, but he does not
rectify the balance. His commentary has 34 pages on this single
event and only 54 on the history of Spartan domestic and foreign
affairs in the rest of Greece and Asia. 

  This is a commentary for historians. The author is indeed an
historian. There is a Greek text, but only occasional assistance
for those who prefer not to rely on the translation. I believe
that this is the policy for the series. The author points to the
qualities that make Xenophon good reading, particularly the way
he tells stories, but there is not much literary analysis. The
historical comment will be of great assistance to those who seek
it. There are for example brief summaries of the careers of each
of the major actors in the events of the period and a great deal
of discussion of the significance of details as well as
explication of topography and other matters. My main reaction to
the other historical parts of the commentary, particularly the
notes that introduce each main episode, was that there is a great
deal of surmise about what Xenophon is trying to tell us. I take
the Athenian Civil War as the first example. It is described as a
paradigm of rulers who fail and of the failure of Spartan methods
of rule (p.122). This is a very political view of the narrative,
as if the author were Thucydides. It does not touch on the
essential theme as Xenophon offers it, which is friendship, and
which explains the disproportionate emphasis on the trial of
Theramenes. Xenophon presents the quarrel between Theramenes and
Critias as a breakdown of their personal friendship
(<i>Hell</i>.2.3.15), the theme of the trial of Theramenes is
precisely the definition of the betrayal of friendship
(<i>passim</i>), the story of the toast of hemlock reinforces
this because it is a reminder of the days when Theramenes and
Critias drank their kinder toasts as friends
(<i>Hell</i>.2.3.56). The Civil War itself sees the continuing
dissolution of friendship in the community, and then a
resolution, with Thrasyboulos refusing to harm the opposition
even when the Spartans have handed them over to him on a plate
('like biting dogs put in collars'), and with the Athenians
swearing to each other at the end 'not to remember harm'
(2.4.40-43). There could have been a bloodbath, but this was
avoided. The speech of Cleocritus in the middle of the account
beautifully expresses the common bonds between Athenians on both
sides (2.4.20-22). This ability to forget the bad and remember
the good and repay in kind becomes the central characterisation
of the Athenians in their subsequent relations with other Greeks,
such as their acceptance of the appeal from Thebes against Sparta
(pp.198-200, but the theme is not noted there), and their
ultimate mirror image acceptance of the appeal from Sparta
against Thebes (6.5.33-48). The contrast between treachery and
friendship is pressed again in the juxtaposition of the treachery
of Euphron and the loyalty of Phlius (7.1.44-7.3.12). For all
that the analysis of the failure of the Thirty and their backers
is interesting to modern historians, this is not the central
issue for Xenophon as I read it. Lysias gives a completely
different report of what Theramenes said in his defence (p.132),
and Xenophon's departure could be explained in terms of this
theme. He was a philosopher, as the introduction to the
commentary says, and quite likely for that reason to highlight
friendship. His <i>Memorabilia</i> (1.2.8) says that Socrates
himself considered the main 'profit' of his philosophy was making
his associates good friends to each other and to himself, and
friendship is a major topic of his instruction
(<i>Mem</i>.2.4-10). 

  The theme of remembering good or ill could be pursued further
in the commentary to encompass Xenophon's presentation of the
causes of Spartan aggression. The introduction (p.6) says that
forgiving and forgetting and their opposites form one of three
major themes that unite the work ('uniting it to some degree
though it is not tightly knit'), but of two signal examples of
the Spartans remembering ill, only one is included in the list of
references there, and there is no further comment on this theme
in respect of Sparta. Krentz notes the double reference to
Spartan anger as motivation for the wars against Elis and Thebes
(p.173, p.197), and he cross refers (p.151) to the impropriety of
anger in a military commander, but makes nothing of its specific
causes. The Spartans are angry in both cases because they
remember harm from long ago, and this is marked by the use of the
actual word for 'remembering' in the decision against Thebes.
Several of the incidents remembered date back to the
Peloponnesian War, as the commentary shows (p.172, 197). The most
memorable is the beating of a 'senior citizen' (or as Krentz
notes possibly a member of the elders who made up the Gerousia
p.172). There were good services that Elis and Thebes had also
provided in the past which the Spartans did not remember. They
are in this respect the contrasting mirror image of the
Athenians. 

  The conspiracy of Cinadon is the only evidence for revolution
in the period under review within the inferior populations of
Laconia that is not the product of invasion. The commentary sees
it as evidence of the hypocrisy of the Spartans, who enslave
their 'neighbours' (this seems to be a particular reference to
the helots and perioeci rather than to the other inferior classes
in Sparta?--all are involved in the conspiracy) while in the
surrounding narrative they profess autonomy abroad and freedom
from Persia and Elis, and also as evidence of their failure to
deal properly with revolts by not attending to their root causes
(pp.178-180). Xenophon does not say as much, and in fact says
nothing like it, but his arrangement of episodes is thought to.
Herodotus more than once refers to the Spartan habit of saying
one thing and doing another. The parallel between Elean and
Spartan perioecic communities is supported in Pausanias (p.173),
but  I wonder whether there is a real ancient parallel between
the defence of the autonomy of properly constituted religious
communities outside Sparta (the cities oppressed by Elis are
still PO/LEIS) and the treatment inside Sparta of helots, who did
not constitute that kind of community, and others who simply had
no rights in thePO/LIS of Sparta. Xenophon makes no later theme
of the internal oppression, though modern historians take it to
be a factor in the decline of Sparta. Disaster near Olynthus
brought out many of the inferior classes including perioeci as
volunteers in support of Sparta (5.3.8-9). The helots took up
arms in support of Sparta in return for their freedom during the
invasion led by the Thebans--scaring them to death of course, but
not deserting them (6.5.28-29). Helots are still thought likely
to be the crews on any ships the Spartans contribute after this
time (7.1.12). In the same invasion, 'some' of the perioeci
promised the Thebans wholesale perioecic revolt (6.5.25), but
only 'some' actually joined the Thebans (6.5.32). Theban
plundering of their homes in Laconia undoubtedly pressured those
who did not desert to change their minds (6.5.32 etc.), but they
would have been likely to give in to this kind of pressure even
without oppression. Skilled slaves also deserted their Athenian
masters during the Decelean War. Xenophon later refers to
desertion by 'many perioeci' and 'all the helots' in the highly
wrought sentence that sets off their desertion against the
loyalty of the Phliasians (7.2.2-3), and this might refer to the
later situation when there seemed no option but to join the other
side, but the rhetorical context would make any reader wonder
about its accuracy. 

  There is also the form of the story of the conspiracy of
Cinadon to consider, with its use of direct speech and
conventional motifs, and its clearly focused single action
leading to a climax of retribution for one who was 'not of the
equals' but dared to plot in order to be 'inferior to none in
Sparta' (3.3.5, 11). Xenophon frequently uses other plainer modes
of narrative, so that the question of why he chose the form is of
interest, and while story patterns may not completely distort the
truth, their implications need to be faced. My own work in this
area is not overtly historical, and I hope that is one of the
reasons why Krentz found it less helpful than he found Cartledge
and Tuplin (there could be other reasons!), but I find it
disappointing that its implications have not been taken up. The
account of the conspiracy of Cinadon could be read as an exciting
story of a dangerous man who almost managed to achieve his
ambition of being 'inferior to none in Sparta' but was outwitted
by the Spartans. The final comment about the conspirators getting
their 'justice' is like the final comment about Meidias getting
his 'justice' from Dercylidas, which gives the two stories the
same sense of the enemy outwitted to the greater benefit of
Sparta. Krentz notes the climax in the story of Dercylidas
(pp.165-166), but not in the story of Cinadon (p.181). Perhaps
modern readers should beg to differ (amicably, I hope!) in their
interpretations of ancient narratives, but the idea that the
passage reveals Spartan hypocrisy could hardly be the one that
the ancient audiences consistently made. The Spartans and their
loyal allies would cheer as Cinadon was goaded about the streets,
presumably to his death. Champions of Sparta did not die out with
the loss of her hegemonic position, as the Spartan sympathiser of 
Isocrates' <i>Panathenaicus</i> shows. 

  The commentary indeed offers a generally strong anti-Spartan
explanation of Xenophon's narrative, which does not sit well with
his position in Scillus. When Herippidas deprives Spithridates
and the Paphlagonians of 'the goods that were taken' in the raid
on the camp of Pharnabazus and they desert 'on the grounds that
they were' wronged and dishonoured (4.1.21-28), the commentary
notes that Agesilaus though very grieved at their loss did not
discipline Herippidas, which means that the Spartans were
mistreating their Asiatic allies as they had done their Greek
allies (p.205-206), and the translation is made to bear this out
with its narrative reference to 'mistreatment' (p.113). Yet
Xenophon presents this central control of seized goods on other
occasions as essentially good for discipline (3.1.27-28) and
designed to preventing random plundering (3.4.24).  Cyrus the
Great thought that plunder should be centrally controlled so that
the best men should get the greatest share in a formal division
of the booty (<i>Cyrop</i>.7.2.11-13, 7.3.1).

  The English translation is clear and useful for those who are
not fluent in Greek. The instinct for literal translations is
proper in a work in this series. The purist might say that the
style of Xenophon could have been better captured in some places
without too much trouble. I can see of course why the single verb
'he took to his side' cannot sensibly govern both 'some cities by
force' as well as 'some cities voluntarily', so that the second
element is translated out as 'others surrendered
voluntarily'--but it does lose the sense Xenophon is building up
of the increase of forces (p.109 on 4.1.1). In the same section
there seems no real reason to avoid the literal translation 'to
remove/detach some nation from the king' and substitute 'make
some nation revolt from the king'--again the point being made is
the increase of power to Agesilaus. The speech of Cleocritus
poses the problem of translating the solemn tone of the Greek to
match the character of the speaker (p.45 on 2.4.20). I think that
this translation is done very well, but the purist in me says
that details could still be improved. Is 'often' grand enough for
that long 'many times'?  Does 'for the sake of the common safety
and freedom of us both' with those three final English
monosyllables capture the long sonorous phrases of the original?
The phrase 'like blind men' in the speech of Thrasyboulos dangles
misleadingly (p.43, as the Greek does not). 'Noteworthy' (p.37)
does not seem to me an adequate translation of A)CIO/LOGA, long
associated with the great events of history.

  The introduction refers to the evidence for Xenophon's life
and describes his works. There is a fair summary of the nature of
the <i>Hellenica</i> and its competing sources, a chronology, a
good bibliography and some useful maps and plans. The influence
of Socrates on his thought is I think underplayed, and yet this
could help explain for example his emphasis on friendship in the
trial of Theramenes, which already suggests some connexion with
Socrates in the depiction of his death by hemlock. It is possible
to argue that Socrates too died because he was not thought to be
a friend of the regime, as the <i>Memorabilia</i> shows. I am not
sure either that my argument that the narrative previous to
2.3.11 is a bridging narrative written at the same time as the
rest of the work can be dismissed as immaterial on the grounds
that it would have been subsequently revised (p.5). Such
narratives were meant to be different from the rest of the work.
But perhaps I do not follow the reasoning.

  This new commentary on the <i>Hellenica</i> is undoubtedly
needed, but perhaps not as a series of three or possibly even
four separate parts. There is too much that needs to be traced
throughout the work. The commentary under review will do good
service, but a future commentary on the whole work in one volume
should take account of the literary as well as the historical
interpretations of the <i>Hellenica</i>, in order to improve
understanding of how Xenophon and his audiences saw their past.