The Respublica Lacedaemoniorum Ascribed to Xenophon

50 Pages·1948·5.969 MB·English

by  Kathleen Mary Tyrer Chrimes

THE
RESPUBLICA
LACEDAEMONIORUM
ASCRIBED TO XENOPHON
BY
K. M. T. CHRIMES
UNI VERSll'Y PH.ESS
~'lANCHES'fER
1948
CONTENTS
pp. 1-8
I THE ORJGINAL FORM OF THE TREATISE
8-17
U PAJ...AEOORAPHICAL CONSIDIRATJONS
III THE ATTRIBUTION TO XENOPHON, AND THE PURPOSE OF
17-30
THE TRIATlSB
IV THE PLACE OP THE TREATISE IN CONT.EMPORAR.Y OR.EEK
LJTIRATUR.E
v
WAS ANTJSTHENBI THB AUTHOR?
THE
RESPUBLICA LACEDAEMONIORUM
ASCRIBED TO XENOPHON
Its Manuscript Tradition and General Significance
I. THE ORIGINAL FORM OF THE TREATISE
publication by F. Ollier· in r934 of a new edition of the
THE
Respublica Lacedaemoniorum 1 ascribed in antiquity to Xenophon
reawakened a long-standing controversy over the character · and
historical value of this treatise. Was ·it, as Ollier himself believes,
a work of propaganda in favour of Sparta? Was it a serious con
tribution to knowledge? Or was it, as some have maintained, 'un
simple produit sophistique, un iloyo~ enwetKnK6~ sans portee pra
tique'? This last suggestion, to which a return will be made
2
later, Ollier himself unhesitatingly rules out, on the grounds that
3
Xenophon may be shown to be the. author, and that all. we know
of Xenophon's personal character forbids us to attribute to him any
mere display of sophistry. . 'II est avant tout homme d'action et
chacun de ses ecrits vise essentiellement un resultat utile.' Ollier's
4
own view about the authorship is that the Respublica was an early
work by Xenophon, written probably at some time between 394
and 3 8 3 B.c., but written in a hurry as a work of propaganda in .
5
favour of Sparta, and never revised~6 · He would explain in this
1 Oilier: Xenophon, La RlpublitjfJe des Lactdl111011ims (text, translation, introduction
and commentary), Lyon; 1934; · · . .
2 Oilier, ibid., Introd., p. n:, quoting the opinion of H. Schenk! (Berl. Phil. Woch.,
XXVIII, 1908, p. 3 5). .
3 pp. 8, 30. ' Oilier, ibid.
5 Ibid., pp. xviii, xxix. The ques.tion of the date is further discussed below, §.III,
P· 17 f .
. 6 Ibid., p. xxv.
2 RESPUBLICA LACEDAEMONIORUM ASCRIBED TO XENOPHON
way certain conspicuous omissions, lack of balance, inaccuracies and
contradictions, faults not characteristic of the later and more leisured
Xenophon. But he suggests a different explanation for what seems,
at least on a first reading, to be the most glaring contradiction of
1
all, namely, the content of the whole of the chapter which appears,
in all of the numerous manuscripts which have been collated, as
2
the last but one (chap. xiv), but is printed by Ollier as the last
(chap. xv).
It is not too much to say· that upon the question of the original
position of this misplaced chapter, and its relation to the rest, depends
the proper assessment of the historical and literary significance of.the
whole treatise. Whereas all the rest of the treatise appears to express
its author's great admiration for Spartan institutions, the chapter in
question is a violent attack on her, and is explained by Ollier as an
addition made later by the author (i.e. in Ollier's view, by Xenophon);
and to be precise, in 378 B.c., when the course of events had forced
him to realise that his earlier admiration for Sparta had been mis
guided. This outburst of spontaneous indignation, according to
Ollier, can never have been intended for publication, because the
contrast of tone with the whole of the rest of the treatise is too glaring.
It must therefore, on Ollier's view, have been added by the author
in the margin of his own private manuscript to satisfy his own feelings. a
It will probably be generally agreed that Ollier's explanati()n of
the content of the misplaced chapter is very far from being a con
vincing one, and an attempt will be made in the following pages to
suggest a more plausible alternative. That the chapter actually is
misplaced there can be no doubt, for it appears, in all the manuscripts
1 But see further below, pp. 3 ff.
2 The edition of Pierleoni (Berlin, 1905, also ascribing the authorship to Xenophon)
which has been followed by later editors, lists twenty-eight of these, but P .'s list is not
complete, neither have all been collated (cf. Ollier, op. dt., Introd., p. xlii). Oilier also
remarks (ibid.) that '!'accord est loin d'etre fait completement sur la valeur et les rapports
des principaux manuscrits eux-memes'.
. 3 cf. Ollier, ibid., Introd., p. xvii: 'En composant son epilogue Xenophon se soulageait
par !'expression de ses nouveaux sentiments.'
ORIGINAL FORM OF THE TREATISE
3
which have been examined,1 in a position separating two other chapters
whose contents are homogeneous, and which are logically developed
one from the other. Both these chapters (xiii and xv in the_
manuscripts) are concerned with the powers of the Spartan kings in
war and peace ; the chapter consisting in the violent attack on con
temporary Sparta is an obvious intrusion between them. The
editors all appear to recognise this, even while keeping in their texts
the order which prevails in -the manuscripts.
2
How is the position of the misplaced chapter in the manuscripts
to be explained? The only attempt hitherto made to explain this
seems to be that of Bazin in his edition of 1885,3 which Ollier is
inclined to follow, namely, that the chapter in question was written
later by the author in the margin of his own manuscript copy, and
being placed near the beginning of the second of the chapters con
cerning the Spartan kings, came to be inserted, by an unintelligent
copyist, between these two chapters instead of forming an epilogue
after both of them, i.e. at the end of the whole treatise. This
4
explanation implies -that 924 letters were written in the margin by
the side of about 1,453 (the number in the second of the chapters
concerning the kings) ; but in spite of this the suggestion may be
regarded as palaeographically not wholly impossible. It is, however,
not the only possibility; for example, the last leaf of a codex may
have been accidentally torn off and carelessly replaced the wrong way
round, though it would be necessary to assume in this case that the
two
second chapter of the relating to the kings, amounting to rather
over l,450 letters, occupied exactly a page of the codex. This
5
assumption again would not be impossible.
6
But is it absolutely necessary to assume that the proper place of
on·
1 c-.1;.' ab o ve, p. 2, not-e 2. 2 1er, t·ozt· d. , p. i·x , note 2.
3 H. Bazin, La Rtpublique des Lactdemo11ie11s de Xtnophon, pp. 268 ff.
4 cf. Oilier, ibid., p. xviii, note I. _
5 On the meaning of 'page' in this connection see p. 9, note I.
6 cf., e.g., Rylands Papyri~ vol. i, no. 4 (lines of approximately 50 letters); i/;id., no. 6
(unusually long lines of approximately 60 letters). About 29-34 lines to the page appears
to have been common in codices of the third and fourth centuries A.D.
+
RESP UBLIC.d L..t1CED..t1EMONIOR UM ASCRIBED TO XENOPHON
the misplaced chapter is at the end of the whole treatise? The
assumption that, in view of its contents, the. same author could not
have written it at the same time as the rest of his treatise does, of
cours·e, imply that it was a later addition and should come at the end.
There is no possible place for it anywhere in the main body of the
work, neither· is it conceivable that' a diatribe so short could have
been written earlier than the rest of the treatise as an independent
whole unconnected with it. Historical reasons also forbid · us to
imagine any Greek author writing violently of the empire at
Sp~rtan
one moment, .a nd only later coming to approve of it. But we must
also ask ourselves whether the misplaced chapter and the rest of the
treatise are in fact logically inconsistent in the light of literary tra
ditions of the time, for if they are not inconsistent, then the original
1
position of the misplaced chapter may have been at the beginning of
the treatise rather than the end. ·
But before the full implications of this suggestion can be profitably
_examined, it is necessary to make sure that there is no interna:l evidence
of different dates of composition, or incompatibility in the actual facts
recorded, which would make it impossible to suppose that the main
part of the treatise and the misplaced chapter were composed at the
same time. With regard to the facts recorded, it has already been
indicated that the misplaced chapter condemns · the tyrannical rule
exercised by Spartan harmosts, and the advent of greed and luxury
due to the aban·donment of some of the laws of Lycurgus; the rest
of the treatise consists in a demonstration that Lycurgus' laws, and
especially those which are concerned with the physical · and moral
training of the citizens from their earliest days, have raised one of the
smallest cities in Greece to a position of supremacy.
2
Now it is true that in the main body of the treatise the author
1 i.e. of the half-century or thereabouts preceding 378 s.c. For a discussion of the
precise date to be attributed to the Respublica Lacedaemoniorum, see further below, p. I 8 f.
I Resp. Lac., I. I : di.J.' fyro . iwm]aa~ 'JfOTS d'.i" .q J:na~T'YJ 'l'Wv .o At.:yavOewnoTaTOJV
ev
nolsrov ·oo<ta ~tJVaTWTaTrJ T8 Kal' tJvoµa<tTOT<frf] Tf'j ~Ella& eif>d'Vrj, efJavµaaa o-rcp 'JfOTB
T(!On<[J . "?:Wt" lyive:ro· enel µhrror, Kat:61101JC1a t:d in&Tfl,,eVµaTa TOW Enaet:WTOW' 00Kn£
88avµatO'P.
ORIGINAL FORM OF THE TREATISE s
implies that a great many of the laws of Lycurgus· are· still in force
in his own tiine; but even after compiling a full list of these passages 1
one is not forced to conclude that any material contradiction with
the misplaced chapter is implied. In spite of the concluding words
of the misplaced chapter itself ( cf>aveeot slaw oifrs -rep fJeq'J :n:s1,8oµevoi ovn:
-roii; AvKooeyov v6µoti;) the author need not be supposed to mean that
all the laws of Lycurgus had been abandoned at the time when he
wrote it. Indeed, if he knew anything about Sparta at all, he must
have known that this was not the case; the whole law of the con
stitution, for example, remained materially unchanged long after the
latest possible date of composition for the misplaced chapter.2
What he must mean therefore is that some of the laws of Lycurgus .
were abandoned, with the disastrous results noted in the chapter in
question. The organisation of the Syssitia and all the other sur
vivals from Lycurgus noted in the rest of the treatise do not therefore
in general involve, a con~radiction with the misplaced chapter. One
minor contradiction does certainly occur, if the passage in question
is to be interpreted with absolute literalness. In vii. 6, after men
tioning the unwieldy currency introduced by Lycurgus, the author
says Xf!V<Jlov ye µ~v Kai cl(lyV(!tO'V tesvvii:rat, Kat av -it :n:ov <f>avfj 0 lxrov
~'Y}µtoffrat. ·r:t ,oV'V av BK8t xr2rJµm:u1µ0~ <JnovcMCott'O 811Ba 1] K"ifjO'~ n.J..slovr;
Ji.vna; f} ~· xefiatr; ev</Jeoa'llv~ naeexe1, ; but in spite of the use of the
present .t ense in this passage, the author does not necessarily wish
to· say that all gold and silver is hunted out and the possessor fined
in the Sparta of his own time. No doubt the 'law of Lycurgus, on
the subject was then still in force, though far from being strictly
1 Ibid., iv. 3 · (selection of 300 lnnsi~); v. 3, 6 (regulation of the Syssitia); vi. 2
(any Spartan allowed to punish and admonish other citizens' sons); vi. 3 (practice of
using the property of other Spartan landowners by mutual consent); vii. 6 (ban on gold
and silver, on which see further belowY; viii. r (enforced obedience to the magis
of
trates and to the laws); viii. 4 (power the ephors to suspend magistrates and of
summary jurisdiction); ix. 5, 6 (the unhappy lot of those branded.as cowards, and the
pr~minence in deBT7] of Spartans in, general); xi. 4 (hoplite army organisation); xii.
(rules observed in the camp); xiii., xv. {powers of the kings).
1 As shown, for example, by Aristotle's account in the second book of the Politics,
referring to his own time.
6 RESPUBLICA LACEDAEMONIORUM ASCRIBED TO XENOPHON
observed; but what the author is interested in for the moment in
vii .. 6 is the meaning and significance of the law itself, the eKei to
which he refers in the same passage being not the actual contem
porary Sparta, but the idealised one of which he is calling up a picture
throughout the treatise, with the exception of the misplaced chapter.
His main object, as he explains in the passage which under the
present arrangement of the text constitutes the beginning of the treatise,
is to explain how Sparta came to reach her present supremacy in Greece;
he is therefore more directly concerned with the working of the laws
in the past than with the actual condition of Sparta in the present.
Apparent contradictions jn the recorded facts do not, therefore,
turn out on further examination to disprove the possibility that the
misplaced chapter was written at the same time as the rest of the
work. The question of chronology, though somewhat difficult as
regards the misplaced chapter itself, is simply disposed of so far as
1
the problem at present under discussion is concerned, for the rest.
of the treatise may be seen, even after the most careful examination,
to contain no chronological indications whatever. In these circum
stances it is clearly possible to regard it as having been written at
the same time as the misplaced chapter.
There is an obvious literary parallel for the kind of treatise on.
Sparta which would result supposing that the misplaced chapter were
inserted at the beginning. The Old Oligarch, which: is also ascribed
to Xenophon, but in this case certainly wrongly, furnishes what
would be a striking precedent for a paradoxical opening. The
author announces at the outset his violent disapproval of the Athenian
Empire and all that it stands for, but goes on to say that, so much
being understood, he proposes to show how cleverly the whole
system has been designed to give the Athenians themselves the
power they want.2 In. the same way (supposing the misplaced
1 See further below, § III, .pp. I 7 fF.
2 (Xen.J Ath. Resp., init.: IIeel lie Tij~ )A(J-r;vafuw noAtTela~, 8n µiv elAavro -coV"tov
TOV T(!O:ltOV Tij~ noi.tula, OfJK brmvw ... 6nel t5e wm· 81Jo;ev aV'roi~, w~ eV liwaw~onai
TfJV nol.n::eiw Kat Tdila oianeanovTat 8. lJ01<0V'1t'P aµaeTaVetii TOi~ allot~ "E.U?JO't, TWt~
Wr:o&(4w.
ORIGINAL FORM OF THE TREATISE
chapter in the Spartan Respublica to have formed originally the intro
duction), the author may have begun by announcing his violent
disapproval of the Spartan Empire, and have gone on (in what now
appears in the manuscripts as the first chapter), to say that he pro
poses to show how admirably calculated their whole constitution was
to make them the most powerful state in Greece. In that case the
whole treatise would begin: El bi ·de; µe eeoi-r:o el «al vffv ln µot
µa en
doKoVO't'V oi AvKoV(!YOV v6µot aKlVrJ7:ot luaµevet'P, TOV7:0 L1i' oVK av
fJeaaero<; emotµt. ol6a y(J.e :Jt(JOTeeov µev • • • Then follows a list of
conspicuous differences between ancient · Spartan principles and
modern Spartan practice, the chapter ending· with the observation
that the writer is not surprised by the charges now being brought
against the Spartans, bcetM, <foavegol el<J'iv o&e t'qJ f:Jeq) net06µevot ofJ.,;e i-oi<;
Av«m5eyov v&µoic;-for they are now ceasing to obey the laws of
Lycurgus. Thereupon (on the proposed new hypothesis) would
11
l£O OW:' a'A'lJ C'I,. e' yw' B' 'V'V, O'IY j(Ja~ 'lW'tB\ WC' <; 'YCJ' ..~::- 7t:I a(!i1'j 7:W-'IJ O'1A tyav( } (!OJ1tOiaI 'troV 1t0lA"I£ (J)V
QlO<Ja ~V'Va7:ro'ta:rri 'f8 Kal ovoµaa'to'fai'11 ev 7:fl 'E).).6.0,, e<f>av'Yj, l()a'6µaaa {frtp
noTe -reoncp 'tOVT~ syeve'tO" Bn8t µi'Vt'Ol Ka'fBVO'YjO'a Ta en1:rrjl>eVµa-,:a 't'WV
EnaeTiarwv, ovKen 80avµa~ov.1 He then goes on in the rest of the
treatise to describe the whole constitution and laws of Lyct.trgus as
being the foundation and whole· explanation of Sparta's prosperity
and power. In brief paraphrase, we might then render the whole
introduction to the treatise as follows: 'The Spartans are now all
powerful, but hated and in danger of attack, because they have
ceased to obey the laws of Heaven or their own laws either. · But
I ask myself how they ever attained to this supremacy, seeing what
a very small population they had, and I conclude that strict obedience
to the laws of Lycurgus was the reason. These laws I will now
pr9ceed to describe.' Any non-Spartan writer setting out to eulogise
Sparta at any time in the quarter-century following her defeat of
Athens might well feel .. that he needed to make a previous explanation
and apology of the sort contained in the misplaced chapter. ·
It could not be denies! that the logical sequence in such an
1 Rup. Lac. 1, init. (Ollier,_ Pierleoni cett.).
8 REBPUBLICfi LACEDAEMONIORUM ASCRIBED TO XENOPHON
introduction would be perfectly sound, and in the matter of rhetorical
form it would conform to. Aristotfe's recommendation that the
exordium of a .loyo~ l7tu5et1eTtKo~ 1 should 'strike the keynote' ( 10
tvllomµw) of the whole work, as in music, 2 and also to the precepts
of famous earlier rhetoricians, that in such a composition the exordium
should be. concerned with praise or blame.3 The use of lle for the
second word ( el ll8 -rl~ µe ·e eon:o) , which the· suggested transposition
would involve, is certainly very uncommon ·but not unprecedented,
as we see from the opening words not only of the Old .O ligarch
(neel ~8 -rij~ s AOrJ'Palwv noA.it:eW.~) but of Xenophon's · Oeconomicu_s
(1]Kovaa lle no-re a~t:oii) and his Apologia (IroKeai:ov~ lle lUufv µoi tJ01eei
elvai µ'PT}afJijvai). Since there appears to be an absence of ·other
parallels, an ancient critic who assumed the Xenophontic origin of
all these three last-named works might indeed regard the peculiar
opening of the Respublica Lacedaemoniorum as tending to confirm
Xenophon's authorship, suppc>sing that ·in. his time the misplaced
chapter appeared in published versions at the beginning of the work.
That under this arrangement the whole work would end with a
complete hexameter (xv. 9) may possibly be an additional indication
that its author originally intended it to appear in this form.
II. PALAEOGRAPHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
IN view of all the arguments which have now been adduced in favour
of identifying the misplaced chapter as ·the introductory one, we
should appear. to be justified in looking for some pala~graphical
explanation of its displacement. Since it is the whole of a chapter
which has become displaced, and since all the manuscripts. which
have been examined; show the same feature, it seems clear that in
the archetype of the surv_iving manuscripts the misplaced chapter
1 The Rtsp. Lac. conforms to the definition of the .A&yo, enwetK?i1eo~ in Arist., Rlztt.~
III. ·12. 6-a theoretical work, intended to be read aloud to a select audience (if., Resp.
Lac., xiv. r: 'sl ds -rl' µe lflO'To'), and therefore the most highly polished; from the
point of view of form, of all types of rhetoric. · · ·
8 Rltet., III. 14. 1. 8 Ibid., 14. z (citing Gorgias and Isocrates).