Xenophon’s Anabasis of Cyrus

!
Books I-II
• What is the key reason for Cyrus’ expedition?
!
Xenophon presents Cyrus’ motivation as “to avoid being subject to his brother ever
again,” after once having been “in danger and dishonored” by him. (1.1.4) (Artaxerxes had
nearly put him to death because of Tisserphernes’ slanderous accusation that he was plotting
to usurp the thrown, which accusation turned out to a self-fulfilling prophecy. Perhaps this is
an expression of Cyrus’s character-defining determination “to live long enough to win victory
in requiting both those who benefitted him and those who harmed him” (1.9.11); having been
humiliated and nearly killed by his brother, he sought to return the same. Moreover, given his
reverence for the bonds between men and their incumbent responsibilities, perhaps it seemed
to him the deepest injustice that Artaxerxes, who was his brother, and Tisserphenes, who he
had “tak[en] as a friend” to Castolus, had mistrusted and ill-treated him.
! • Unlike the Elder Cyrus, Cyrus has mistresses. Does this fact detract from his military
ability?
!
If anything, it seems to help him; the Cicilian queen Epyaxa, whom he is suspected to
have slept with, provides him with “a great deal of money” (1.2.12) and persuades her husband
to meet and reconcile with him.
! • How does Clearchus persuade the Greeks to go with Cyrus (Book I. 3)? Does Clearchus
tell the truth about Cyrus’ objectives? (If not, why not?) Do most Greek suspect the
truth? Why do they go along with Cyrus?
!
Clearchus first tries to force the Greeks into compliance, for which he is nearly stoned to
death. Clearly, then, when he proceeds to praise and ingratiate himself with them, papering
over the mutual distrust and hostility between the army and its leader with a patriotic
narrative of unity and common interest, he’s fooling no one. And yet, as the Anabasis will often
demonstrate, external displays of virtue and trust are important even if everyone involved
knows they are ‘only’ external. In this case, it’s important to the soldiers that their leader
humbles himself by weeping in front of them, acknowledges that his honor and power comes
from them (1.3.6) and accepts the need to “know how to be ruled as much as to rule" (1.3.15);
especially given that the leader in question has almost been killed by his subordinates, the
acknowledgement enforces boundaries ruled and ruler set to each other’s power and asserts
the right of the ruled to disinvest an exploitative ruler of authority.
!
Thus I view Clearchus’ speech as mostly a symbolic ritual necessary in an extremely delicate
situation with manifold opportunities for either the ruled or the rulers to ruin the other.
Clearchus is also able to make the point that returning back to Greece would be extremely
difficult, and thus implicitly that obeying Cyrus (even against the Great King) is the only viable
option; the fact that he’s forced to make this point through a drama of proxies in the army
instead of arguing it directly participates in the symbolic ritual described above.
Acknowledging that there is no easy solution to their predicament, the soldiers postpone the

1
ultimate decision while protecting themselves against exploitation by their leader. Thus,
rather than a deception of the soldiers, the episode can instead be seen as a bottom-up
soldiers’ strategy to achieve what Xenophon will later often attempt as a top-down general's
strategy (though I discuss qualifications to this characterization below); to maintain the unity
and order, including appropriate hierarchical relations, of the army.
! • What are the similarities and differences between Clearchus and Menon? (Consider
their respective eulogies in Book II.6, as well as that of Proxenos.)
!
Where Clearchus lives for war and activity, perhaps for their own sake, Menon lusts
only for riches and the means to them. Clearchus is not always self-controlled or just (e.g.
when angry he sometimes gives excessive punishments that even he regrets) but he has
principles and a genuine belief in honor; Menon, on the other hand, is extremely cunning (see
his manipulation of Cyrus’s loyalty and generosity) but has no sense of justice or honor
whatsoever, and indeed regards such things as feminine and stupid. Indeed at the risk of being
overly schematic, I'd compare Clearchus to the spirit of Plato’s tripartite soul and Menon to the
appetite; this would leave Proxenus, the upright but naive and guileless would-be philosopher
(as evidenced by his former study with Gorgias), as reason, which innately seeks justice. (Of
course none of these traits are unadulterated in any of the three characters; Proxenus in
particular is depicted as extremely desirous of fame and wealth.) Does Xenophon represent a
more balanced combination of each man’s qualities?
!
If Clearchus has considerable guile and has even experienced Tissaphernes'
untrustworthiness before (Thucydides 8.80.1), why does he allow himself to be slaughtered
(Book II.5)?
!
Books III-IV
• Discuss briefly Xenophon's motive for joining the army (III.1.4-10).
!
Xenophon is persuaded by Proxenus’s promise to make him “a friend of Cyrus… [who
would] be better for himself than his fatherland was.” Thus just like Proxenus, he too
“desires… to become a man competent to do great things” and to “acquire a great name, great
power, and much money.” He is so determined to embark that he disregards Socrates’ advice to
ask the oracle whether he should go, and instead asks which god he should sacrifice to.
! • What are some differences of Xenophon from Clearchos and from Menon? What is the
relation between Xenophon and Proxenos and how does it compare to Xenophon’s
relationship to Socrates of Athens?
!
Many of the strategies of leadership depicted in the opening books, most strikingly those of
Cyrus and Clearchus but also of Menon and Proxenus, prefigure strategies utilized to greater
success by Xenophon in the rest of the Anabasis. Clearchus’s manner of leading the army
through marshy territory, for example—in which he deigns to participate in the dirty and
difficult work, literally getting his hands dirty in the mud, inspiring the rest of soldiers by his
example (11.3.10-12)—recalls one of the staples of Xenophon’s leadership, as does Menon’s guile.
Similarly, Cyrus’s loyalty to his friends and Proxenus’ sense of justice anticipate elements of

2
Xenophon’s command, and especially his concluding speech to Seuthes. It seems likely that
these similarities are not coincidental, but rather indicate that Xenophon learned from
observing all these rulers and studying where their strategies met success or failure; if so,
perhaps the first two books chronicle Xenophon’s political (perhaps as opposed to
philosophical) education. This might also explains why what seems perhaps most distinct
about Xenophon’s leadership is the sheer diversity of strategies he employs; at one moment he
seems a common soldier serving as the voice of the army against their self-serving generals, for
example, while in the next he seems a newly ascendent aristocrat maneuvering to found a city
or curry favor with foreign leaders.
!
And yet through all these varied strategies and even objectives (e.g. whether to return to
Greece or yield to the temptation to found a city, whether or not to leave the army), Xenophon
has—or at least masterfully presents himself as having, both in his rhetoric and in the text of
the Anabasis itself,—a set of principles, inner nobility and above all political canny (wisdom?)
that remains constant. In this he resembles Proxenus more than any other leader. And yet like
Proxinus, who desires not only justice but also fame and wealth, and whose steadfastly just
conduct comes from the view that justice is always a means to those profane goods,
Xenophon’s principled conduct is at least to some extent a means to the same ends—fame,
wealth, homecoming—pursued by most others.
!
This is the crucial difference between his relationship to Proxenus and to Socrates. He is a
long-time guest friend of Proxenus; he joins the campaign on his recommendation; when after
the dream he first decides to take initiative it is Proxenus’ captains that he first addresses; and
when he is chosen as general, it is to replace Proxenus. Thus each step towards political rule is
following Proxenus, rather than Socrates. Socrates, on the other hand—who generally abstains
from political life, holding (e.g. in Plato’s Apology) that a philosopher cannot survive in politics
without compromising his duty to himself and the search for truth—advised him to consult
with the gods before joining the campaign, which advice he ignored. (Admittedly, Socrates’
stated reason for caution was a pragmatic consideration related to Athenian-Spartan politics,
rather than a principled objection to political life.) Indeed the very way in which he
misinterprets Socrates’ advice reflects his similarity to Proxenus; he asks the gods about the
proper means to joining the campaign (which god to sacrifice to) rather than the ends
(whether to join).
! • What circumstances, skills, and virtues enable Xenophon to rise to rule? (You may
interpret Xenophon’s use of the dream in Book III; cf. IV.3.8.) How does Xenophon
establish himself with his senior commander Cheirisophus? Assertiveness?
Deception? Patent superiority? (cf. Shaftesbury: “only a philosopher & a divine man
was able to be their Deliverer & bring them out of such an Extreamity…. Distant
allusion to Josua Moses….”)
!
Xenophon’s rise to power could not have occurred without the slaughter of the generals, for
two reasons; first, because it was only given such a power vacuum that the army could accept
the command of a political novice, and second, because Xenophon himself could not have
conceived of taking command if more prominent generals were present. Note his question that
prompts his taking action: “From what city do I expect a general who will carry out these

3
measures?” (3.1.14) The catalyst needed for Xenophon to apply his considerable political and
military abilities is a kind of self-confidence and self-reliance, the knowledge that no one else
will solve his problems and the conviction that he can solve them himself. Thus in his from his
dreams in 3.1.11 and 4.3.8 alike, he draws the strength and ambition to take matters in his hand
and rise to power. But self-confidence and self-reliance can only take one so far, and must be
tempered with the humility of knowing that a ruler’s power is based on the activity and
consent of the ruled (as Clearchus and Xenophon discuss at length). It is Xenophon’s mastery
of this dialectic between the individual ruler as self-fashioned individual and as representative
of the collective that lies at the heart of his political wisdom.
! • In III.1, Xenophon gives a speech twice (III.I.34). What are the key differences between
the two versions?
!
In the speech to the captains, he emphasizes that worldly goods—land, provisions, gold
clothing—“lie as prizes” awaiting the taking; in the speech to the generals, he doesn’t mention
such lowly things and indeed invokes a higher ideal of nobility against the profane value of life
itself, stirring them to “compete over dying nobly.” To the captains, he invokes the ideology of
patriotism, arguing that the Greek army has better spirits, bodies and souls than their enemies;
to the generals, he invokes the ideology of aristocratic paternalism, reminding them that their
privileges can only be justified by being “better than the multitude,” and portraying the
soldiers as suffering from a “lack of spirit” rectifiable only by the appointment of more
superiors. To the captains he suggests the possibility of political rise (“show yourself to be the
best of the captains and more worthy to be generals than the generals”), implicitly upsetting
the political order; to the generals, he emphasizes that “good order seems to bring safety.”
Thus the two speeches provide a clear example of Xenophon’s ability to tailor his rhetoric to
the desires and values of his audience, and raises by now familiar questions about where he
himself falls between the competing ideologies: motivated by worldly or higher objectives?
Harboring populist or aristocratic tendencies? A critic or defender of the political status quo?
! • What do we learn of Xenophon’s character in this book—his physical and mental
qualities? (E.g., he dares to start chopping wood naked in the snow, IV.4.12.) How does
Xenophon combine his extraordinary piety with his extraordinary wiliness?
!
Chopping wood in the snow, like dismounting and marching quickly by foot with a heavy
shield and horseman’s breastplate (3.4.48), is of course meant to inspire the soldiers with awe
for his physical capacities, with respect for his willingness to share in lower-status work, and
with resolve to follow his example. And yet in both cases, Xenophon is quickly relieved of the
physical difficulty: in the first, “someone else also got up quickly and, taking over for him, kept
on splitting wood” (my italics); in the second, the soldiers compel the recalcitrant Soterides to
take back his shield, after which Xenophon remounts. In fact we have no reason to believe
Xenophon remarkably physically endowed. Moreover it would be sheer folly to march with
both a shield and a breastplate, and even more so to chop wood in the snow without adequate
clothing; and as 4.3.34 shows, “trying to be manly” is hardly always advisable. Instead, the
purpose of both acts is purely symbolic. Interestingly, their implications straddle both sides of
the divide between the ruler’s authority as stemming from individual superiority or the
qualities of the collective he represents; the symbolic gestures emphasize his shared

4
predicament and responsibilities as the rest of the soldiers while also portraying him as
superior in abilities and determination.
!
Book V
! •
In V.6.28, Xenophon speaks of offering sacrifices in order to discover what he might say,
think, or do (cf. V.7.10 for another grouping of three), but proceeds to say that he offers
sacrifice only concerning speaking and doing. What, then, guides Xenophon’s thinking?
(Related: what might be the meaning of the strange expression, “sacred counsel” in V.
6.4?)
!
“‘Sacred counsel’ seems to me to be present here,” explains Hecatonymus, “since now, if I
manifestly advise well, many will be those who praise me, but if badly, many will be those who
curse me.” Thus good advice would gain him friends and favor, whereas bad advice would
earn him enemies and perhaps even otherworldly penalties (if curses are understood as
threatening such). In this he is quite like Xenophon; what often guides the latter’s thinking, in
other words the process of decisions about how to act and speak, is how those actions and
words will be received by others. Thus when the prospect of founding a city is badly received
by others, Xenophon seems not only to change his decision and rhetoric but also leads him to
(genuinely, in my view) “have given up that other thought”, in other words to have changed his
own mind.
! • Does Xenophon conceive of the idea of founding a city and Asia and why? How does
Xenophon defend himself in the final chapters of Book V against the accusation/
slander that he prefers his private interest to the common good?

!
He gives two reasons: that the Greek forces are well-trained and powerful enough to make the
idea viable, and that it would be “a noble thing… for Greece” to acquire land and power by
founding a city. Silanus accuses him of a third reason, which he does not of wanting to “obtain
a name and power for himself.” In neither the text nor his speech does he explicitly deny this
personal ambition (indeed in another context, namely the offer of sole rulership of the army,
he admits to its temptation); rather, he demonstrates his willingness to sacrifice personal
ambition by giving up the thought of founding a city. The distrust of his loyalty to the common
good continues, however. He attempts to counter it in 5.8 by emphasizing the irrationality of
opposing the common good even from a self-interested point of view (5.7.9) and by recalling
the many ways in which he has served the collective’s interests and respected their political
authority—but also by arguing that ordered hierarchy is needed to protect against the ruinous
anarchy of “self-elected generals”, in other words by arguing that the collective good can only
be secured by respecting the authority of rulers. In 5.8 he also portrays the harsher sides of his
style of leadership as necessary for maintaining the order of the army, but crucially also as
motivated by “having gained experience of this [the debilitation of idleness in the cold] in my
own case”; for a collective to function, the rulers must be both a part of and above the ruled.
!
Books VI-VII
!
5
 • On several occasions, Xenophon considers leaving the army. What makes him to do so?
And what makes him stay?
!
As for what made him want to leave, one can take him at his own word: “For back when
I was first heading homeward, I set off, on the one hand, with a great deal of praise from you
[the soldiers] and, on the other hand, with glory, on account of you, from the other Greeks; and
I was trusted by the Lacedaemonians.” (7.6.33) He had achieved both personal glory and had
served the army’s interests while maintaining good relations with the Spartan rulers of Greece,
and thus his work seemed to be done. He stayed because of that third consideration: “Anaxibus
bade him depart only after first crossing back over [with the others].” (7.1.4) Later, he stays
because of the first and third considerations, to avoid being blamed for “the army’s creeping
out so slowly” to the Spartan count. (7.1.8) Later still, he stays because of the first and second
considerations: the soldiers beg him “not to go away before leading the army away and giving it
over to Thibron,” after having accused him (in absentia) of wanting to depart for selfish and
corrupt reasons.
! • How does Xenophon adapt himself (and his troops) to Spartan preponderance?
!
He advocates prudential obedience and respect, reminding the soldiers that the Spartans
"stand foremost over Greece” when they mock Cleander. Later, in a more dire situation, he
exhorts them to consider the immense Spartan military might, alliances, and recent victory
over Athens. "Because you are Greek,” he says, “try to obtain what is just by obeying those who
stand foremost over the Greeks.” (5.1.30) But when prudence seems to him to dictate
disobedience, he ignores Aristarchus’s summons and joins Seuthes instead. Thus his
obedience towards the Spartans is far from unconditional.
! • Why is Xenophon somewhat tempted by the offer to assume sole generalship and why
does he refuse it? How does he conceive of the relevant common good and its relation
to his own good? What do we learn about Xenophon from his respective dispositions
toward founding a city and heading up a monarchy?

!
He is tempted both for personal glory and because he believes he “could be of some good to
the army." He knows, however, how fickle the winds of fortune and favor are for rulers, and he
is highly aware of the “danger of throwing away the reputation he had already earned.”
Perhaps he is more aware of this danger after his aborted attempt to found a city cost him the
trust of many of the soldiers. Thus he consults the gods and accepts their warning. He does try
to make the most of the situation, though, by initially presenting his refusal of the position
only as for the interest and unity of the army (and only admitting that he had consulted the
gods when forced).
!
Xenophon does not mention any harm to the army that could result from his rulership; thus his
refusal seems to be a prioritization of the protection of his already-earned reputation and
safety over the good to the army his rule could obtain. Even his description of the omen seems
to bear this out: “it is rather the eagle in flight that gains provisions”, he writes, suggesting that
he is motivated by the prospect of personal gain (and perhaps even inviting a comparison to
the soldiers constantly on the lookout for loot).