Public and Private Persuasion in the Historical Works of Xenophon

chapter 16 Public and Private Persuasion in the Historical Works of Xenophon Roger Brock In the past few decades, there has been a major re-appraisal of Xenophon as a writer and thinker, and an increasing appreciation of his subtlety and com- plexity.1 Until recently, however, there had not been a great deal of work spe- cifically focused on his use of direct speech, and his artistry and originality in this aspect of his work still seems to me under-appreciated.2 A comprehensive treatment would require a monograph; in this chapter, I would like to point out what seem to me some of the most noteworthy features of his practice in his historical works. I shall at least touch on all the works with a nominally historical setting, other than the Socratic ones, but focus mainly on the “big three” – Hellenica, Cyropaedia and Anabasis. Just as Xenophon stretches the generic boundaries of historical writing, so speech and rhetoric take a variety of forms in his work. Even at his most his- toriographically conventional, in the Hellenica, he not only presents set-piece speeches, singly or grouped, in the manner of Thucydides, but also harks back to Herodotus’ more fluid use of direct speech in what Vivienne Gray chris- tened as “conversationalized narrative”.3 Indeed, broadly speaking, he is less Thucydidean when he is nominally continuing the older writer’s work: there is only one rhetorical set-piece, the Arginusae trial, in “Part 1” of the Hellenica (that is, to 2.3.10), and only one of substance in each of the first three books, and it is also worthy of note that he avoids any rhetorical treatment of the debate 1 I would like to express my thanks to the audience of the original paper and to Andreas Serafim subsequently for helpful comments and suggestions which have improved this ver- sion. I am also grateful to Emily Baragwanath for an advanced text of her chapter and to Matthew Christ for early sight of part of a forthcoming book on Xenophon and Athens. 2 The recent collection edited by Pontier has taken a significant step in redressing this, as does Baragwanath’s chapter, both of them addressing the whole Xenophontic corpus; Gray (1989) was well ahead of its time in addressing both formal (79–140) and informal (14–78) speech in Hellenica. 3 Gray (1989) 11. The flexibility of Xenophon’s handling of speech is a recurrent theme of con- tributors to Pontier. See also Baragwanath (2017) 279–80. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004412552_017 Public and Private Persuasion in Xenophon 271 on the fate of Athens after her final defeat summarized in 2.2.19–20.4 Only with the outbreak of the Corinthian War in Book 4 does the frequency rise to four or five per book, perhaps because at that point challenges to Spartan supremacy usher in a more unsettled geopolitical climate in which effective rhetoric in diplomatic and military contexts becomes possible and indeed needful. Hence much of the argumentation and persuasive appeal in these speeches is found- ed on the conventional symbouleutic considerations of morality, expediency and feasibility.5 Even in formalized direct speech, however, Xenophon often uses innova- tive formats which depart markedly from the set speeches typical of his pre- decessors. In his presentation of the proceedings after Arginusae (Hell. 1.7), for example, he opens his account with a “conversationalized narrative”, quite unlike Thucydides’ manner, oscillating between direct and indirect speech in a way that seems to mimic the chaotic character of events;6 the proposal of Callixenos which comes in the middle of this is couched in the epigraphic lan- guage of a decree, framed entirely in imperative infinitives, and so far from containing any effort to persuade, is plainly intended to coerce.7 The effect is to throw into sharper relief the one sustained attempt at reasoned argument, the speech of Euryptolemus (1.7.16–33), and to heighten the sense of injustice at its failure; as we shall see, Xenophon is interested in the limits of persuasion as well as its power.8 Equally striking is the speech of Polydamas of Pharsalus to 4 Rawlings (1981) 245–7 speculates that an “Athenian Dialogue” might have formed part of his hypothetical Thucydides Book X. The associated negotiations of Theramenes were evident- ly controversial too, and taken up in later rhetoric: see Krentz (1989) 185–8 on both issues. Xenophon also omits the Spartan offer of peace after the battle of Cyzicus, of which Diodorus (13.52) gives a rhetorical treatment: Rood (2004b) 385–8; however, Rood argues persuasively that despite his selectivity, Xenophon is constantly interacting subtly with his predecessor; so also Tamiolaki (2014). 5 See Usher (2007) 226–8 for a helpful brief survey. Even here, though, his use of rhetoric is always context-specific (Usher also remarks on his “greater interest in personality” (226)), and we do not find the kind of responsion between speeches delivered in different times and places which occurs in Thucydides. Tamiolaki (2014) 124 also notes his move away from the characteristic Thucydidean antilogy towards looser thematic groupings (Tuplin (2014) 93–4 makes the same point for Anabasis), and his willingness to include more than one speech in the same cause (6.3, 6.5). 6 The much more frequent and flexible use of indirect speech is noted by Tamiolaki (2014) 123–4, 135–6 for Hellenica and Tuplin (2014) 85–7 for Anabasis. 7 Or, if the two are not to be distinguished (Introduction p. 3), the persuasion relies simply on threat and the negative emotion of fear. 8 Proposal of Callixenos: 1.7.10–11 with Smyth 2013b and Goodwin MT 750 for the imperative infinitive. Baragwanath (2017) 287, 290–2 highlights the characterization of the Athenian audience and its failures in decision-making; cf. Tamiolaki (2014) 129 on echoes of themes from the Mytilene debate, notably error and regret..

Load more