Gabriel Danzig

In chapter 3.3 of Cyropaedia, Xenophon offers a wide-ranging meditation on the role of speech in arousing enthusiasm for battle. He emphasizes the uselessness of general exhortations, arguing that being prepared in body and mind is the crucial factor not only for being capable of fighting but also for stirring the right emotions. Although pre-battle exhortations have little utility, however, Cyrus does not condemn their use altogether: he only denies that they are a substitute for rigorous training. The very need for an exhortation implies a lack of readiness on the part of the soldiers and a lack of confidence in them by the leader, and therefore, aside from being superfluous, an exhortation may have a negative effect on the soldiers. The King of Assyria provides a caricature of a bad exhortation by threatening and scaring his soldiers with ill-conceived and inappropriate exhortatory tropes.

The social virtues are not discussed thematically in the Socratic writings of Plato and Xenophon, but they are on display everywhere. Taking Aristotle's accounts of these virtues as a touchstone, this paper explores the portrait of Socrates as a model of good humour in Xenophon's Symposium. While Xenophon is addressing the same issues as Aristotle, and shares some of his red lines, his conception of the ideal humourist and of virtue in general differs from Aristotle's not only in detail but also in general conception. While he never actually violates the rules Aristotle sets down for eutrapelia, Xenophon's Socrates strives not to avoid opposites but to combine them. It is the careful combining of the spoudaion and the geloion that redeems Xenophon's otherwise outrageous portrait of Socratic humour. This suggests a broader paradigm in which virtuous behaviour is a combination of opposites rather than a middle path.

The Socratic elenchos in Xenophon's work plays a central role even though it may seem to have a secondary part. The following article aims to work on the xenophontic characterization of the Socratic elenchos, as well as his assessment from the point of view of its educational qualities. In this sense, the socratic elenchos potentialities will be analyzed in three directions: first, the strictly formative dimension; secondly, its role for acting in political affairs; and, finally, his contribution to the acquisition of the sophrosyne. Through this analysis I will explain why the portrait made by Xenophon of the Socratic elenchos should be understood as supplementary to the portraits made by others and not as an alternative to them.

Xenophon’s anecdote concerning the exchange of clothes between a big boy and a little boy in Cyropaedia offers a valuable framework for understanding his conception of justice and the problematics of administering it. Interpreters have erred by assuming that Cyrus’ teacher, as well as Socrates in Memorabilia, simply identifies the just with the lawful. Rather than identifying the two, both characters argue that the law is just; but they differ widely in their explanations of what makes the law just. For Cyrus’ teacher, the obligation to observe the law rests on a universal pre-legal ban on violence; for Socrates statutory law is to be obeyed for utilitarian reasons. Socrates’ view thus justifies both the teacher’s insistence that Cyrus obey the law—since the law is of benefit to the community—and also Cyrus’ decision to violate the law to achieve a just and beneficial redistribution. But it offers no justification for a universal ban on violence. In conformity with the Socratic principle, Cyrus avoids violence as far as possible, but only for the prudential reasons expressed by his mother. Once he acquires the power to coerce, Cyrus uses it to enforce the principle of proportional equality and meritorious redistribution he had approved in his judgment of the actions of the big boy.

This paper aims to explain the very sharp contrast between the portraits of Critias found in Plato and Xenophon. While depicted as a monster in Xenophon's Hellenica, Critias is described with at most mild criticism in Plato's writings. Each of these portraits is eccentric in its own way, and these eccentricities can be explained by considering the apologetic and polemic aims each author pursued. In doing so, I hope to shed light not only on the relations between these portraits and the works that contain them, but also on the personal relations between Plato and Xenophon and their manner of expressing them in literary productions.

Crito was written in response to popular slanders concerning Socrates’ failure to escape from prison, and accompanying misgivings within the Socratic circle. Plato responds by asking his audience to disregard the slander of the mob and obey the moral expert instead. But he also responds by creating an image of Socrates and his friends widely at odds with the popular slander; by implying that Socrates’ critics were themselves guilty of some of the behaviour they charged against Socrates; by pointing out that Socrates had no viable alternative to death; and, in partial contradiction to all this, by rejecting the popular morality which saw Socrates’ abandonment and death as signs of failure. In the rhetorical climax of the composition, Plato shows that Socrates chose to die rather than victimize or offend the laws of the city, which he represents as sentient beings. The weaknesses that have been perceived in the arguments of the Athenian Laws are not fatal to the composition, because it aims not at a convincing demonstration, but at providing a portrait of Socrates’ own overwhelming conviction of the rightness of his decision.