 Frontpage for theLoeb Classical Library edition, in two volumes. | |
| Author | Xenophon |
|---|---|
| Language | Ancient Greek |
| Text | Hellenica atWikisource |
Hellenica (Ancient Greek:Ἑλληνικά) simply means writings on Greek (Hellenic) subjects. Several histories of the 4th-century BC Greece have borne the conventional Latin titleHellenica, of which very few survive.[1][2][3] The most notable of the surviving histories is theHellenica of theAncient Greek writerXenophon (also known asHellenika,[4] orA History of My Times[5]).
The work was intended as a continuation ofThucydides'History of the Peloponnesian War, which was left unfinished and ends abruptly in the year 411 BC.[6] Xenophon'sHellenica covers the years 411-362 BC, through the end of thePeloponnesian War and its aftermath.[6][7]
Hellenica is usually considered to be a difficult work for modern audiences to understand, as Xenophon often assumed his reader's knowledge of events.[7]
There are many theories on how and whenHellenica was written,[8] but most scholars believe that Xenophon wrote the majority of it in the later years of his life, from around 362-356 BC.[9] The first section (1.1.1-2.3.10),[10] which covers the end of the Peloponnesian War, was probably written much earlier, in the mid-380s BC.[9] Some have suggested that this early section was an attempt to mimic Thucydides, as it follows a strict chronological structure and minimizes religious significance, however, the respective writing styles are still distinctly different.[11] The later sections through to the end of the work (2.3.11-7.5.27)[10] are less strict in their chronological order, often following singular stories to their completion before going back and filling in events that had happened elsewhere.[12]
WhileHellenica contains inaccuracies, it is generally considered that Xenophon didn't include anything he knew to be untrue.[13][14] He shows a bias towards Sparta, most clearly through his dislike of Sparta's rivalThebes, describing them as foolish and cowardly in battle.[15] The exclusion of certain significant events, such as the establishment of theArcadian League and theSecond Athenian League, the construction ofMegalopolis, and the refoundation ofMessene, all favor Sparta.[16] However, it is possible that these events were left out because they were common knowledge to his readers.[16] Also, despite this reputation for bias,Hellenica includes few evaluative phrases that directly praise or criticize its subjects.[17]
Xenophon wrote his history soon after the events had occurred. As he was himself acavalryman, the importance ofcavalry in battles is emphasized, particularly in reference toPersia.[18] He relied primary on his own memory, as well as testimony of others, mostly friends who visited him.[19] As he trusted these eyewitnesses, rarely did he find multiple sources for an event, resulting in occasionally limited perspectives and unbalanced coverage.[19]
Hellenica is divided into seven books that cover the era between thegolden age of Athens and therise of Macedon.
The first two narrate the final years of the Peloponnesian War, while the remaining books (three to seven) focus primarily onSparta as the dominant city-state in Greece after the Peloponnesian War, continuing into the period known as theTheban hegemony following Sparta's defeat at thebattle of Leuctra.[citation needed] The main concerns are the power struggle between Athens and Sparta, as well as the ideological struggle between democracy and oligarchy.[20]
Book 3 includes a brief description of the expedition ofCyrus the Younger and theTen thousand, in which Xenophon took part and later wrote a history of, theAnabasis.[21]
Unlike the histories of Herodotus and Thucydides, Xenophon'sHellenica has no preface or introduction.[22] This has made it comparatively difficult to judge Xenophon's intentions and methods for writing his history.[23][24] The narrative begins as a continuation of Thucydides' unfinishedHistory of the Peloponnesian War, clearly designated by the opening words ofHellenica, "μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα," which are translated varyingly as "Then,"[25] "After this,"[26] "Some days later,"[27] or "Following these events."[28]
Xenophon ends his history with theBattle of Mantineia in 362 BC. This is viewed as a rather arbitrary choice, as the battle was neither decisive nor conclusive.[29] Despite the Thebans winning the battle, they lost their commander Epaminondas, which led to their inability to capitalize on Sparta's defeat.[30] As a thematic ending, Mantineia represents the fulfillment of hubristic revenge by the Thebans on the Spartans for their oath-breaking seizure of the acropolis at Thebes.[31] Also, Xenophon's sonGryllus, a famous Athenian cavalryman, died in the battle.[32] In general, the mood at the end of the piece is pessimistic, as Xenophon describes the chaos and uncertainty that these conflicts have reached.[33]
The work concludes with an open-ended statement by Xenophon that his history has ended but another historian may continue it.[34] This, along with the opening, has been interpreted by scholar Lisa Irene Hau to symbolize that Xenophon viewed history as a continuous work, in which theHellenica was simply a small piece.[35]
The history begins with the "Decelian War" period of the Peloponnesian War. The rival navies of Sparta and Athens fight campaigns in theHellespont region (1.1). Initially, theAthenian navy saw several major sea victories, atByzantium (1.3) and theArginusae Islands (1.6). Book 1 also narrates restoration ofAlcibiades to the Athenian military and his return to Athens in 407 BC (1.4-5).
This book narrates the end of the Peloponnesian War with the surrender of Athens in 404 BC (2.2). The Spartan commanderLysander ordered thelong walls of Athens torn down, and Athens became formally allied with the Spartan hegemony. The Spartans also installed a new government (2.3). Book 2 focuses primarily on the internal politics of Athens following the war. The Spartan-instituted oligarch regime, known as theThirty Tyrants, was overthrown and there was a resumption ofdemocracy in Athens (2.4).
Here Xenophon shifts viewpoint from Athenian to Spartan politics, beginning with a brief account of the expedition of theTen-thousand against the Persian kingArtaxerxes II (3.1). Book 3 narrates the Spartan expedition led byKing Agesilaus in Asia Minor against the Persians (3.4). Thesatraps of Ionia,Pharnabazus andTissaphernes, are prominent characters with shifting allegiances throughout theHellenica.
Primarily concerned with theCorinthian War, Book 4 recalls King Agesilaus'Ionian campaign against Persia of 396–395 BC. During this time, the satrap Pharnabazus bribed Greek states into revolting against Sparta. This eventually led to the Corinthian War, with the states of Athens,Corinth,Argos and Thebes united against Sparta. Agesilaus and his army were recalled in 394 BC from his campaign against Persia (4.2.1-8). This period saw the beginning of the Corinthian War, with the Persian Empire siding with Athens against Sparta. The Persian satrap Pharnabazus let the exiled Athenian generalConon lead the Persian navy in a number of battles, including theBattle of Cnidus in 394 BC (4.3). Conon then convinced Pharnabazus to allow Athens to keep the Persian fleet and to fund the rebuilding of the long walls at Athens (4.8.1-11).
There was a peace conference at the end of the Corinthian War in 387 BC that resulted the "King's Peace" treaty (5.1.29-36). The acropolis in Thebes was seized by the supposed renegade SpartanPhoebidas (5.2.25-36), enabling Sparta to control the city until 378 BC, when a group of Thebans expelled the Spartans and reclaimed the city (5.4.1-12). This later led to theBoeotian War from 378–371 BC.
The Athenian generalIphicrates stealthily travels around thePeloponnesus (6.2.32-39). TheBattle of Leuctra results in a major loss for Sparta against Thebes (6.4.4-21), ending the Boeotian War andSpartan hegemony in Greece, although Sparta would remain influential over the next decade.Theban hegemony begins under the leadership of Theban generalEpaminondas.
During this period Thebes was the ascendant power in Greece. The old power structures fluctuated as new ones came into being. There was briefly an alliance between Athens and Sparta against Thebes. Sparta faced increasing harassment from internal rebellions and outside resistance. The Spartan homeland saw the first invasion in centuries (7.1.1-22). The Theban hegemony ended in 362 BC with thesecond battle of Mantinea (7.5.14-26).
Xenophon has traditionally been viewed as a lesser historian and biased moralist, especially when compared to Thucydides andHerodotus.[23][36] Modern scholarship has generally reevaluated these faults, emphasizing his focus on making history come alive for the reader.[37][38]
Xenophon's history focuses on human perspectives.[39] It is not a top-down history like Thucydides, instead it describes specific actions or battles from an individual person or community perspective, often with singular details and imagery.[40][41] Their interactions most often take the form of war and conflict, depicted through the eyes of individuals to show the impacts of the battles on the people themselves.[42] An admirer ofSocrates, Xenophon wroteHellenica as an "ethical history," intended to be educational.[43] It both criticizes and elevates human virtues, filtered through Xenophon's strong moral sense of justice and reciprocity.[44][45]
This individualistic focus can make the work appear episodic and mostly anecdotal.[29] Historian Lisa Hau describes some of these episodes as "moral vignettes," which depict fictional, short conversations between characters in order to deliver a moral lesson, while still being interesting and enjoyable to read.[46] This anecdotal style has led to Xenophon's reputation as a writer of memoirs rather than history, as some events are filled with detail and others are not, regardless of their conventionally ascribed historical significance.[29]
Most scholarship on theHellenica has been in comparison to Herodotus, and most apparently Thucydides.[47] The construction ofHellenica as a continuation of Thucydides' work has led some to see Xenophon as placing himself on a similar level as his predecessor, in practice as well as content.[22]Hellenica is structurally similar to Thucydides, by following a mostly chronological overview, but it is stylistically closer to Herodotus, with its anecdotal focus, as well as its emphasis on religion, omens and oracles.[48][49] However, unlike Herodotus, Xenophon rarely describes his sources or gives multiple perspectives on an event.[48]
TheHellenica Oxyrhynchia is fragmentary text discovered in 1906 in Oxyrhynchus, Egypt.[3] It covers the same time period as roughly the first half of Xenophon’sHellenica.[3] It is likely that theHellenica Oxyrhynchia was written beforeHellenica, and read by Xenophon, despite significant variations.[50] Stylistically it is sparse compared to Xenophon, but still very detailed, and generally considered to be a more factually accurate account.[51] Its discovery proved much of Xenophon's unreliable reputation for scholars of the 19th and 20th centuries AD.[52]
Prior to the discovery of theHellenica Oxyrhynchia fragments, theBibliotheca historica ofDiodorus Siculus was the only surviving complimentary source that historians could use to validate or fill in the gaps of Xenophon's writing.[52] Diodorus, a later historian in the Roman era, wrote his history based on the now-lost works ofEphorus, the Greek writer of the 4th-century BC.[53] The events covered in books 13-15 of Diodorus'Bibliotheca historica overlap with Xenophon’sHellenica. Despite being generally considered by scholars as an amateurish historian who often misplaced names and dates, Diodorus' work is still used in comparative analysis with Xenophon.[54]
Ancient historians commonly used speeches, accurate and invented, in their works.[55] Xenophon was unique in using speeches for individual characterization rather than furthering the themes or ideas of the history overall.[55] These characterizations are created with poetical and rhetorical themes specific to the speakers, and also often include inaccuracies or misleading claims presented by them.[55][56] Speeches can be as important to the history being told as the command of a battle.[57] They are notable too for being generally shorter than those in Thucydides and Herodotus.[58] Xenophon also uses dialogue much more frequently, and the way he often frames speeches as conversational between the speaker and the audience is largely unique.[58][59]
Xenophon himself was very pious, and in the later books ofHellenica,religion and the gods are mentioned often.[59][11] His work is informed by the religious rationalism of Socrates, as he attempted to explain why Sparta, the side he supported and saw as good, suffered and lost, despite the righteousness of the gods.[60][61]Hellenica defines "sins" of the Spartans to explain their losses, mostly involving the breaking of their oath to Thebes.[62][63] These sins are punished by the gods in the form of Spartan defeat, but there are still practical reasons given.[63][59] Unlike in Herodotus, the gods never interfere directly, but their will is enacted through thehubristic events of the story.[62][63] Xenophon's view of piety is that one must offer sacrifices, practice divination, and honor oaths; but one must also be practical and prepared.[64] He is clear too that the gods will punish those who do not follow these laws.[59]
Xenophon was himself a soldier and participated in some of the battles depicted inHellenica.[66] His reports of the numbers of troops and ships in these battles are considered more accurate than other historians, but he still emphasized and omitted details of battles to fit the narrative of his work.[67][68] Like most ofHellenica, battles focus on individuals and their influence in the larger conflict.[69] Good military leaders are of the utmost importance as motivators and role-models for their soldiers.[70][71] Treating soldiers correctly leads to loyalty, which leads to success in battle, as morale is often more important than strategy.[72][73] Xenophon's good leaders fitHomeric ideals of courage, cunning, and sympathy, and are able to inspire their soldiers.[64] They are not, however, entirely good, and Xenophon presents them as complex as well as honorable.[74] Also, while they keep oaths, perform sacrifices, and are generally appropriately pious, it is not piety alone that wins battles, and the best leaders are always practical as well.[75][76]
Among the competing works with the titleHellenica, the now-lost work byEphorus of Cyme stands out.[1] Ephorus attempted auniversal history, and although he attempted to set apart history from myth, his work began with the mythic origin story of the return of thesons of Hercules.[citation needed] As a pupil of the rhetoricianIsocrates, he was not above embellishing his narrative.[citation needed] He was apparently popular in his time, but his style and theory of history were quickly outdated.[77]
TheHellenica ofTheopompus of Chios, another pupil of Isocrates, was a continuation of Thucydides.[citation needed]
There is evidence thatAnaximenes of Lampsacus wrote aHellenica.[2]
Yet another, fragmentaryHellenica found inpapyrus atOxyrhynchus, is known asHellenica Oxyrhynchia. It covered events from 411 to the year of theBattle of Cnidus, in 395/4 BC. Several historians have been suggested as the authors.[citation needed]
Dillery, John (2013).Xenophon and the history of his timesISBN 9780415091398 (First issued in paperback ed.). London New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.ISBN 978-0-415-09139-8.
Hau, Lisa Irene (2016-07-01).Moral History from Herodotus to Diodorus Siculus. Edinburgh University Press.ISBN 978-1-4744-1107-3.
Higgins, W. E.Xenophon the Athenian: The Problem of the Individual and the Society of the Polis. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1977.
Hobden, Fiona (2020).Xenophon. Ancients in action (1st ed.). London [England]: Bloomsbury Academic. p. 20.ISBN 978-1-4742-9848-3.
Flower, Michael A. (2016-01-01). "Xenophon as a Historian."The Cambridge Companion to Xenophon. Cambridge University Press. pp. 301–322.ISBN 978-1-107-27930-8.
Gray, Vivienne (2012-04-24). "Interventions and Citations in Xenophon's Hellenica and Anabasis." In Gray, Vivienne (ed.).Xenophon, Oxford Readings in the Classics. Oxford University Press.ISBN 978-0-19-538966-1
Marincola, John.Greek Historians. 1. ed. Greece & Rome. New Surveys in the Classics ; No. 31. Oxford: University Press, 2001.
Marincola, John (2016-01-01). "Xenophon'sAnabasis andHellenica."The Cambridge Companion to Xenophon. Cambridge University Press. pp. 103–118.ISBN 978-1-107-27930-8
Mirhady, David C. (2011).Aristotle: Problems, Volume II: Books 20-38. Rhetoric to Alexander. Harvard University Press.
Murray, Oswyn, "Greek Historians", in John Boardman, Jasper Griffin and Oswyn Murray,Greece and the Hellenistic World (Oxford History of the Classical World I, 1986; 1988).
Rood, Tim (2016-01-01). "Xenophon's Narrative Style."The Cambridge Companion to Xenophon. Cambridge University Press. pp. 263–278.ISBN 978-1-107-27930-8.
Underhill, G.E.A Commentary on the Hellenica of Xenophon. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1900. Reprinted Salem, NH, 1984.
Xenophon (2009). Hellenica - A History of My Times by Xenophon - Books I-VII Complete. Edited by Ford, James H. Translated by Dakyns, Henry Graham. EPN Press.ISBN 1-934255-14-9.
Xenophon.Xenophon in Seven Volumes, 1 and 2. Translated by Brownson, Carleton L. Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vol. 1, 1918. Vol. 2, 1921.Available online through Tuft University's Perseus Digital Library Project. Gregory Crane, ed.
Xenophon (2010). Strassler, Robert B. (ed.).The Landmark Xenophon's Hellenika: a new translation. The Landmark Histories. Translated by Marincola, John. Introduction by Thomas, David (1st ed.). New York: Anchor Books.ISBN 978-1-4000-3476-5.
Xenophon; Warner, Rex; Cawkwell, George (1978).A History of My Times (Hellenica). Penguin classics. Harmondsworth, Eng. ; New York: Penguin Books.ISBN 978-0-14-044175-8.
