polis, The Journal for Ancient Greek Political Thought 35 (2018) 499-522 brill.com/polis
Xenophon’s Hipparchikos and the Athenian Embrace of Citizen Philotimia
Benjamin Keim Pomona College, Department of Classics, 551 North College Avenue, Claremont, CA 91711 USA [email protected]
Abstract
Although negotiations over the competing claims of honour (timê) and awards of instantiated honours (timai) were central features of Athenian democracy, the danger- ous ambiguities of philotimia meant that only from the 340s BC were the Athenians explicitly embracing this love of honour and celebrating its display by citizens and non-citizens alike. Here I argue that a close reading of Xenophon’s treatise on cavalry command, Hipparchikos, advances our understanding of this embrace of public-spir- ited honour in three ways. First, Xenophon founds the success of the cavalry on the training of knowledgeable officers who are able to harness the Athenians’ extraor- dinary love of honour, on display and on campaign. Second, he reveals the diverse roles played by timê and philotimia throughout the entire institution of the Athenian cavalry, fostering competitive excellence as well as community amongst cavalry, polis, and gods. Third, Xenophon’s arguments about the nature and negotiation of Athenian honour anticipate the ideological and institutional embrace of citizen honour that, amply attested by epigraphic and literary records, was central to Athenian flourishing during the Lycurgan and Hellenistic eras.
Keywords
Athens – honour – philotimia – democracy – decree – cavalry
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/20512996-12340177Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 04:04:08AM via free access 500 Keim … Ἀλλὰ μὴν φιλοτιμότατοί γε καὶ μεγαλοφρονέστατοι πάντων εἰσίν
Indeed the Athenians are the most honour-loving and high-minded of all peoples … Xen. Mem. 3.5.3 … διατελοῦσι δὲ καὶ τὰ ἄλλα πάν- τ[α] καὶ ἰδίαι καὶ κοινεῖ φιλοτιμούμενοι περί τε τοὺς ἱππεῖς καὶ τὸν δῆμον·
… and in everything else they continue to show love of honour both individually and collectively concerning the cavalry and the People SEG 21.525 ll. 21-3 (tr. AIO) ∵
In his classic discussion of philotimia in democratic Athens David Whitehead explores the ambiguities inherent within the ancient Greek love of honour, as well as the evolving ways in which the Athenians encouraged such ambitions for the good of their community.1 Drawing on diverse literary sources as well as the honorific decrees enacted by dêmos and demesmen alike, Whitehead reminds us that good philotimia focused on the interests of the community (dêmosia), bad philotimia on the interests of the individual (idia). While the love of honour features prominently – if not always explicitly – from the earliest lines of the Homeric epics through the fisnal perorations of classical Athenian oratory, the middle decades of the fourth century BC saw significant changes in Athens’ public acknowledgement of citizen philotimia.2 By the 340s,
1 D. Whitehead, ‘Competitive Outlay and Community Profit: φιλοτιμία in Democratic Athens’, Classica et Mediaevalia, 34 (1983), pp. 55-74, with further elaboration on developments within the demes at D. Whitehead, The Demes of Attica, 508/7 – ca. 250 B.C.: A Political and Social Study (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), pp. 234-52. 2 For recent discussions of these changes see especially P. Liddel, ‘The Honorific Decrees of fourth-century Athens: Trends, Perceptions, Controversies’, in C. Tiersch (ed.), Die Athenische
Polis, The Journal for Ancient Greek Political ThoughtDownloaded from35 (2018) Brill.com10/01/2021 499-522 04:04:08AM via free access Hipparchikos and the Athenian Embrace of Philotimia 501 merely a decade or so after its earliest epigraphic attestations,3 philotimia was enshrined as one of Athens’ cardinal civic virtues and was regularly extolled within decrees honouring citizens for their financial and administrative efforts on behalf of the community.4 Although Whitehead acknowledges Xenophon’s interest in the theory and evolving practice of honour, his opinion of the Athenian polymath as ‘that lat- ter-day champion of the old virtues’ leads him to underestimate the richness and dexterity, and indeed the prescience, of Xenophontic thought.5 Rather than dismissing Xenophon for promulgating a ‘simple, unproblematical idea of philotimia’, we should recognize his anticipation of Athenian honorific practices, not least their celebration of philotimia as the ‘appropriate virtue … of those holding office.’6 Thus in this article I argue that a close reading of Xenophon’s Hipparchikos, a treatise composed in response to the perceived failings of one Athenian institution, the cavalry, advances our understanding of Athens’ broader embrace of citizen philotimia in three significant ways. First, Xenophon argues that the restoration of the cavalry requires officers who are
Demokratie im 4. Jahrhundert – zwischen Modernisierung und Tradition (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2016), pp. 335-58, with further bibliography at nn. 2-3, and the articles collected within S. Lambert, Inscribed Athenian Laws and Decrees in the Age of Demosthenes: Historical Essays (Leiden: Brill, 2018). Lambert assesses the implications of key epigraphic innovations (e.g. the near-simultaneous appearance of ‘hortatory intention’ clauses and explicit men- tions of philotimia), while Liddel addresses the diverse – and often divergent – epigraphic and literary testimonia. On the broader development of Athenian honorific practices across the fourth century, see P. Gauthier, Les cites grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs, BCH Suppl. 12 (Athens and Paris: École française d’Athènes, 1985), pp. 103-12, and the arguments for the Archaic origins and Classical evolution of ‘euergetism’ by M. Domingo Gygax, Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016). 3 For text and discussion of SEG 42.112, a deme decree from Halai Aixonides containing the earliest (ca. 360 B.C.) epigraphic evidence endorsing the philotimia of an Athenian, see P.J. Rhodes and R. Osborne, Greek Historical Inscriptions, 404-323 BC (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), no. 46; later fourth-century comparanda for Athens’ public endorse- ment of philotimia are discussed by Rhodes and Osborne at nos. 89, 95, and 100. 4 The fourth-century canonization of Athenian civic virtues is discussed by D. Whitehead, ‘Cardinal Virtues: The Language of Public Approbation in Democratic Athens’, Classica et Mediaevlia, 44 (1993), pp. 37-75; for philotimia as ‘perhaps the Athenian cardinal value par excellence’, see J. Miller, ‘Euergetism, Agonism, and Democracy: The Hortatory Intention in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Athenian Honorific Decrees’, Hesperia, 85 (2016), pp. 385- 435, p. 406; on the democratisation of philotimia see discussion at n. 22 and after n. 48 below. 5 Whitehead, ‘Competitive Outlay’, p. 57. On the subsequent scholarly reevaluation of Xenophon’s merits see C. Tuplin, ‘Xenophon and his World: An Introductory Review’, in C. Tuplin (ed.), Xenophon and his World (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2004), pp. 13-31, and now the contributions to M. Flower (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Xenophon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017). 6 Whitehead, ‘Competitive Outlay’, pp. 56, 65.
Polis, The Journal for Ancient Greek Political ThoughtDownloaded from35 (2018) Brill.com10/01/2021 499-522 04:04:08AM via free access 502 Keim not merely knowledgeable but are also capable of harnessing their Athenian charges’ extraordinary love of honour. Good leadership in ancient Greece – whether within infantry or cavalry, the Assembly or the oikos, the historical Athenian experience or Xenophon’s idealising treatise – was initially moti- vated by individuals’ appropriate desires for honour, and thereafter realised through careful negotiation of honour(s) by those individuals as leaders.7 Second, because Xenophon portrays the integral roles of timê and philotimia throughout the institution of the Athenian cavalry, careful consideration of this treatise helps us revivify the formulaic and yet fundamental vocabulary of Athenian honorific decrees. Within Hipparchikos we catch glimpses of what it might mean for Athenian cavalry commanders to ‘continue to show love of honour both individually and collectively’ (διατελοῦσι … φιλοτιμούμενοι) and be celebrated for their ‘excellence and love of honour’ (ἀρετῆς ἕνεκα καὶ φιλοτιμίας),8 or for other Athenian officials to display their own ‘fine love of honour’ (καλῶς καὶ φιλοτιμῶς). Third, Xenophon’s arguments about the nature and functions of Athenian honour foreshadow the recognition and renewed celebration of Athenian honour – manifested by polis and politês alike, in their literary and their epigraphic testimonia – that would become fundamental to Athenian self-definition and flourishing during the Lycurgan and Hellenistic eras. Although we cannot justly crown Xenophon for instigating or even inspir- ing these changes to Athenian honorific behavior, we may rightly praise this treatise – with its sensitive emphasis on honour, that ‘powerful driver of the political actions of individuals and communities’ – for enabling us to grasp more readily the theory and the practices of Athens’ embrace of citizen philotimia.9
7 On the role(s) of timê within Xenophontic leadership see V. Azoulay, Xénophon et les graces du pouvoir (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 2004), pp. 99-107, and B. Keim, ‘Honour and the Art of Xenophontic Leadership’, in R.F. Buxton (ed.), Aspects of Leadership in Xenophon, Histos, Suppl. 5 (2016), pp. 121-62; the Socratic roots of Xenophon’s writings on leadership are reexamined by V.J. Gray, Xenophon’s Mirror of Princes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), with brief discussion of Hipparchikos at pp. 35-6. 8 These quotations are taken from SEG 21.525 (ll. 21-23, 35-36, tr. AIO), to which I return in the conclusion. 9 Lambert, Inscribed, p. 73. For a similar approach to Hipparchikos, one that remains hesitant about any claims of Xenophon’s ‘direct influence’ while nonetheless recognising the pre- science of this ‘often misunderstood’ author, see J. Dillery, ‘Xenophon, the Military Review, and Hellenistic pompai’, in C. Tuplin (ed.), Xenophon and his World, pp. 259-76, pp. 264, 274. For further discussion of the relationship between Xenophon’s proposals and Athenian policy see nn. 10 and 48 below.
Polis, The Journal for Ancient Greek Political ThoughtDownloaded from35 (2018) Brill.com10/01/2021 499-522 04:04:08AM via free access Hipparchikos and the Athenian Embrace of Philotimia 503
1 Xenophon’s Crisis of Athenian Leadership
Xenophon composed Hipparchikos in the later 360s BC, perhaps shortly after his return from exile.10 Although this treatise may be linked thematically with works across the author’s entire corpus,11 its concern with the deterioration and rehabilitation of Athenian leadership particularly echoes Socrates’ con- versations with would-be Athenian officials, especially his exchanges with an affably clueless hipparch (Mem. 3.3)12 and with the younger Pericles (Mem. 3.5).13 While the young cavalry commander merely needs to master every aspect of his new commission, the more experienced stratêgos Pericles casts a worried eye over Athens’ broader civic decline (ἡ πόλις ὅπως ποτ᾽ ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον ἔκλινεν, 3.5.13). He describes a body politic comprised of out-of-shape (3.5.15) and disobedient (3.5.5, 7) Athenians who delight in openly despising their lead- ers (ἀγάλλονται ἐπὶ τῷ καταφρονεῖν τῶν ἀρχόντων) and exploiting their fellow citizen-soldiers (3.5.16). Particularly shocking is the behavior of the hoplitai and hippeis, those well-off citizens who ought to be modeling moral excel- lence (καλοκἀγαθία) yet are instead the most insubordinate (3.5.19). Socrates
10 As both the date of Hipparchikos’ composition and Xenophon’s whereabouts at that time remain uncertain, I prefer to recognise his ‘prescience’ rather than speak of his ‘impact’ or ‘influence’; see also n. 48. On these biographical uncertainties and their implications for our interpretation of this treatise, see especially H.R. Breitenbach, Xenophon von Athen (Stuttgart: Alfred Druckenmüller Verlag, 1966), col. 1763; E. Delebecque, Xénophon: Le Commandant de la Cavalerie (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1973), pp. 19-20; P. Gauthier, ‘Xenophon’s Programme in the Poroi’, in V.J. Gray (ed.) Oxford Readings in Xenophon (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010 [1984]), pp. 113-36, p. 135; and now C. Tuplin, ‘Xenophon and Athens’, in Flower (ed.) Cambridge Companion to Xenophon, pp. 338-59. Delebecque’s commentary remains essential for the study of Hipparchikos, and has now been joined by C. Petrocelli, Senofonte: Ipparchico. Manuale per il commandante di caval- leria (Bari: Edipuglia, 2001), and O. Stoll, Zum Ruhme Athens: Wissen zum Wohl der Polis (Berlin: Frank & Timme, 2010), a précis of which appeared as O. Stoll, ‘For the Glory of Athens: Xenophon’s Hipparchikos
Polis, The Journal for Ancient Greek Political ThoughtDownloaded from35 (2018) Brill.com10/01/2021 499-522 04:04:08AM via free access 504 Keim ultimately attributes this disobedience to the leaders’ ignorance about, and inattentiveness to, their official responsibilities (3.5.18-21, cf. 3.3.14). Together these Xenophontic interlocutors describe a community in which soldiers are physically and psychologically unable to serve, their officers are unable to lead, and these citizens’ joint failures undermine the standing and security of Athens. A similarly troubled vision of the fourth-century Athenian cavalry may be found within Hipparchikos.14 Although there were nominally 1,000 cavalrymen divided into ten tribal regiments (2.1), so few cavalry were actually mustering – perhaps only on the order of 700 – that Xenophon suggests the extraordinary enlistment of two hundred foreigners, the better both to make up numbers and to goad the other cavalrymen into action (9.3).15 Many of the citizens included on the cavalry register were not caring properly for their horses and were argu- ably unfit for any service (1.13-14, cf. Mem. 3.3.4). Apart from their apathetic preparation for campaigning, the cavalry’s displays during public festivals are criticised as frustratingly mundane, no longer embellished by pleasing feats of skill and daring because the hipparchs are no longer able to persuade their men to train vigorously (Hipp. 3.5). The failures of their commanders, from their basic lack of knowledge to their unwillingness to diligently exert their authority (καρτερεῖν δ᾽ἐπιμελόμενοι οὐ πολλοὶ ἐθέλουσι, 4.5), have conditioned these Athenian cavalrymen, like the soldiers of the younger Pericles, to enter into service already despising their elected officers.
14 On the historical development of the Athenian cavalry see especially G. Bugh, The Horse- men of Athens (Princeton: Princeton Univeristy Press, 1988) and I. Spence, The Cavalry of Classical Greece (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993). Xenophon’s concerns may be slightly overwought: while the early years of the restored democracy were difficult for the cavalry, both socially and militarily, by the 360s Athenian hippeis were both better regarded and – as Xen. Hell. 7.5.15-17 suggests with reference to their reclaiming ‘their ancestral glory’ (τὴν πατρῴαν δόξαν) before Mantineia – more successful. On the social rehabilitation of the fourth-century cavalry see especially Spence, Cavalry, pp. 216-30; on the condition of the Athenian cavalry after Mantineia see Bugh, Horsemen, pp. 150-3, and G.J. Oliver, ‘Polis Economies and the Cost of the Cavalry in Early Hellenistic Athens’, in P.G. van Alfen (ed.), Agoranomia: Studies in Money and Exchange Presented to John H. Kroll (New York: American Numismatic Society, 2006), pp. 109-24. 15 Although a significant expenditure that attests Athens’ continued support for their cavalry, the 40 talents said to be spent annually on the maintenance (sitos) allowance sug- gests an enlistment of only about 700 cavalrymen (Hipp. 1.19), a shortfall already hinted at by Xenophon’s encouragement to recruit vigorously, lest the cavalry grow even smaller (ἱππικὸν μὴ μειῶται, 1.2). A similar proposal for the enlistment of foreign cavalry appears at Poroi 2.5, with commentary by P. Gauthier, Un commentaire historique des Poroi des Xénophon (Paris: Librairie Minard, 1976), pp. 65-6.
Polis, The Journal for Ancient Greek Political ThoughtDownloaded from35 (2018) Brill.com10/01/2021 499-522 04:04:08AM via free access Hipparchikos and the Athenian Embrace of Philotimia 505
Despite these contemporary struggles Xenophon believes the Athenians retain grounds for optimism.16 After all, as his Socrates suggests, Athens could still boast about its large and diverse population as well as its glorious history of ancestral excellence (Mem. 3.5.4, cf. Lyc. 1.98).17 More importantly, as attested by numerous triumphs past and present, the Athenians’ honour-loving nature endured. Amidst interstate confusion and military reverses Athenian phi- lotimia continued to manifest itself within the community, as with the exploits of various athletes or with the choristers regularly sent to compete on Delos (Mem. 3.5.18, cf. 3.3.12).18 These competitors were successful, Xenophon argues, because they were led by knowledgeable experts who were able to nurture and direct the citizens’ natural abilities. Such leaders, knowledgeable about not merely their craft but also psychology and pedagogy, are essential for the renewal of the Athenian cavalry.19 If they teach the requisite skills and also inspire the spiritedness of those under their command (Mem. 3.3.7, Hipp. 8.22), if they are diligently attentive to all of their responsibilities, then the cavalry will undoubtedly improve (ἱππεῖς τε γὰρ σὺν θεῷ ἀμείνους, ἤν τις αὐτῶν ἐπιμελῆται ὡς δεῖ, 7.3). Thus with the intention of helping train such leaders Xenophon set out to compose Hipparchikos, our only surviving text addressed to would-be Athenian officers.20
16 On this optimistic tone (‘Xénophon ne croit pas que le déclin soit irréversible …’) see the discussion by Bandini and Dorion, Xénophon, p. 294, as well as the assessment – ‘“aspirational”, even utopian’ – by J. Dillery, ‘Xenophon: the Small Works’, in Flower (ed.) Cambridge Companion to Xenophon, pp. 195-219, pp. 209-11. For robust defense of the claim that there was ‘nothing fundamentally wrong with Athens in the fourth century’, see P.J. Rhodes, ‘The Alleged Failure of Athens in the Fourth Century’, in Electrum, 19 (2012), pp. 111-29. 17 While Xenophon addresses the necessity of enlisting additional cavalrymen, the passages from Hipparchikos and Memorabilia do not raise any concerns about material resources, rather the preparation and psychology of those already enlisted. Composed only a few years later, amidst the aftermath of the Social War, Xenophon’s Poroi suggests ways of revi- talizing the Athenian economy and thereby meeting Athens’ material needs in a suitably just fashion. 18 Compare Demosthenes’ (4.35-37) lament contrasting the splendour of the major Athenian festivals with the ineptitude of their military campaigns. On the relation here between Demosthenic rhetoric and Athenian reality see D. Pritchard, Public Spending and Democracy in Classical Athens (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2015), pp. 114-5. 19 On Xenophon as an exemplar of a significant Greek tradition of military psychology see J.E. Lendon, ‘The Rhetoric of Combat: Greek Military Theory and Roman Culture in Julius Caesar’s Battle Descriptions’, Classical Antiquity, 18 (1999), pp. 273-329, pp. 290-5. 20 While Breitenbach, Xenophon, 1767, rightly notes that little of this Xenophontic instruction is original to this treatise, Hipparchikos should – as Tuplin, ‘Xenophon and Athens’, pp. 344 and 352 has recently confirmed without opining on Xenophon’s where- abouts – be read as an avowedly Athenian (rather than generically Greek) work. See also
Polis, The Journal for Ancient Greek Political ThoughtDownloaded from35 (2018) Brill.com10/01/2021 499-522 04:04:08AM via free access 506 Keim
2 Xenophon’s Athenians and their Philotimia
If Xenophon suggests elsewhere that the love of honour is an innate human characteristic, indeed the characteristic that differentiates humans from ani- mals and real men from mere humans (Hiero 7),21 in his texts for Athenian audiences Xenophon consistently portrays his countrymen as especially sensitive to honour.22 Thus Hipparchikos presents a universalising vision of honour-loving Athenians: aiming to encourage more assiduous training, Xenophon suggests that the hipparchs set out prizes for the cavalry regiments and thereby kindle the competitive fires and ‘love of victory’ within every Athenian heart (τοῦτο πάντας οἶμαι Ἀθηναίους γε μάλιστ’ ἂν προτρέπειν εἰς φιλονικίαν, Hipp. 1.26).23 Not to be outdone by their mounted brethren, the Athenian hoplites are also acknowledged here as potentially superior in their own love of honour (φιλοτιμότεροι, ἢν ὀρθῶς ἀσκηθῶσι σὺν θεῷ, 7.3). Αs this infantry passage suggests, Xenophon recognises that this natural ambition must, with the help of the gods and good leaders, be nurtured and properly trained (ὀρθῶς ἀσκηθῶσι) before the community may benefit. Despite his superlative remarks about Athenian philotimia, Xenophon knows that sensitivity to honour varies among individual Athenians and extends far beyond the borders of Attica. Consider the implications of his
D. Whitehead, Aineias the Tactician: How to Survive Under Siege (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), pp. 35-40. 21 Hiero 7, featuring prominently within a fictitious conversation between the wise Simonides and the eponymous tyrant, stands as Xenophon’s most extensive and most philosophic discussion of honour and the love of honour; for discussion and additional bibliography see V.J. Gray, Xenophon: On Government (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 133-40. While Tamiolaki, ‘Athenian Leaders’, p. 8, suggests that philotimia ‘is not conceived of as a negative quality in the works of Xenophon’, some evidence to the contrary may be found at Keim, ‘Honour’, pp. 127-33. 22 On the Athenians as naturally philotimoi see especially Mem. 3.3.13 and 3.5.3. Although Xenophon is both explicit and superlative in his evaluations of Athenian honour, the centrality of honour to the Athenian experience is not merely a Xenophontic opinion: e.g., the rhetoric of the Periclean epitaphios (Thuc. 2.35.1, 36.1, 44.1), Demosthenes’ On the Crown 18.66, 203 et passim (with the discussion, properly emphasising this theme of honour, by H. Yunis, ‘Politics as Literature: Demosthenes and the Burden of the Athenian Past’, in Arion, 3.8 [2000], pp. 97-118), and discussion of Athenian honorific practices in the conclusion below. 23 On prizes (ἆθλα) as incentives see n. 29 below. Speaking about Antisthenes’ unexpected election as general, Socrates recounts the man’s competitive endeavors and insists that being a ‘lover of victory’ (φιλόνικος) is a good characteristic for a general (Mem. 3.4.3): on the meaning(s) of philotimia, philonikia, and philoneikia within classical Athenian con- versations see especially P.J. Wilson, The Athenian Institution of the Khoregia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 144-197.
Polis, The Journal for Ancient Greek Political ThoughtDownloaded from35 (2018) Brill.com10/01/2021 499-522 04:04:08AM via free access Hipparchikos and the Athenian Embrace of Philotimia 507 suggestion that the cavalry might be strengthened by enrolling 200 foreign hippeis (Hipp. 9.3-6). Quantitatively, these new recruits would restore the cav- alry to nearly full strength; more compellingly, however, their addition would raise the quality of the entire cavalry, by improving discipline (εὐπειστότερον ἄν) and by firing the competitive desires of every cavalryman to demonstrate his own superiority against his companions (φιλοτιμότερον πρὸς ἀλλήλους περὶ ἀνδραγαθίας, 9.3, cf. 9.6 and Anab. 5.2.11ff.).24 Xenophon’s claims about excep- tional Athenian philotimia are not refuted by the fact that foreigners may also respond to honour’s allure, ranging from the younger and older Cyrus to the traders wooed in Poroi to the foreign benefactors regularly celebrated within Athens’ honorary decrees; instead, this passage simply reveals another attempt by Xenophon to harness this fundamental human desire for recognition and guide it towards Athenian interests. If keen love of honour was an Athenian distinctive, those citizens elected to serve as phylarchs and dekadarchs were especially distinguished by their phi- lotimia.25 It was their desire for ‘honour and glory’ that encouraged phylarchs to seek their offices (οἵ γε φυλαρχεῖν ἐπεθύμησαν δόξης καὶ τιμῆς ὀρεγόμενοι, Hipp. 1.23, cf. Mem. 3.1.1), and as we shall see below their philotimia plays a central role in training the cavalry. Stationed at the front of every rank, dekadarchs are commissioned from those who are not merely physically able to shoulder the responsibilities but also ‘most ambitious of hearing and doing something fine’ (φιλοτιμοτάτων καλόν τι ποιεῖν καὶ ἀκούειν, Hipp. 2.2, cf. Mem. 3.1.10, Oik. 21.6). This promotion further fuels the flames of their ambitions, for such men believe that they must do something notable to distinguish themselves and befit their rank (Hipp. 2.6). Thus the hipparch must assess and inspire the phi- lotimia of his subordinates on the training-ground and battlefield; on the other
24 This passage not merely attests rivalry as beneficial and Athenians and non-Athenians competing together, but also, with περὶ ἀνδραγαθίας, echoes the contemporary rise of the ‘new honorific cliché [of] general abstract attributes’ noted by Whitehead, ‘Competitive Outlay’, p. 61, and later revisited in ‘Cardinal Virtues’ and in ‘Andragathia and Aretê’, in L. Mitchell and L. Rubinstein (eds.), Greek History and Epigraphy: Essays in Honour of P.J. Rhodes (Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2009), pp. 47-58. This particular phrase helps confirm Xenophon’s relevance for the evolving Athenian discussion about recogni- tion and honours for citizens: compare Hyperides’ apologia for Lykophron, ca. 333 B.C., which includes an extended discussion of the defendant’s service as hipparch, and cen- ters around his claims of andragathia and of good leadership as confirmed by colleagues, cavalry, and (Lemnian) citizens (1.16-18), with discussion by D. Whitehead, Hypereides (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) ad loc. and M. Faraguna, ‘Lykourgan Athens?’ in V. Azoulay and P. Ismard (eds.), Clisthène et Lycurgue d’Athènes: Autour du politique dans la cité classique (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 2011), pp. 67-86, pp. 80-1. 25 On Xenophon’s leaders as lovers of honour (philotimoi) see Keim, ‘Honour’, pp. 126-7.
Polis, The Journal for Ancient Greek Political ThoughtDownloaded from35 (2018) Brill.com10/01/2021 499-522 04:04:08AM via free access 508 Keim hand, the potential dangers of rampant philotimia amongst both leaders and followers must be checked. Xenophon’s silence here about these dangers, as well as about the philotimia or timai of the hipparchs themselves, comple- ments his emphasis (discussed below) on the civic and religious frameworks within which the cavalry operate.26 Ultimately, given his concerns with the calibre of Athenian leadership, Xenophon wishes to ensure that the would- be hipparchs reading his treatise are worthy of being honoured, rather than merely enamored of the honours they might receive.
3 Xenophon’s Cavalry and its Negotiations of Honour
Within the instruction offered by Hipparchikos the negotiations of honour between commanders and cavalry may be divided into two categories: train- ing the troops and securing their obedience. Whether galloping into battle or gallivanting on display, the cavalry’s performance depends on the quality and quantity of its training. While the contents of this training are described as knowledge,27 the constancy necessary for the habituation of both character and skills requires the hipparch both to inflame his junior officers’ love of hon- our and to satisfy his cavalrymen’s desires for material and non-material goods. Throughout his writings Xenophon prescribes the careful delegation of responsibilities and the encouragement, cascading down the chain of com- mand, of exemplary excellence by competitive mimesis (e.g. Cyr. 8.6.12). Thus after their respective elections the Athenian hipparch is encouraged to con- verse with his phylarchs and ensure that all are of one mind: by conveying his vision for their year of service, the hipparch ensures that his subordi- nates ‘desire, just as he does, good things for the cavalry’ (συνεπιθυμεῖν σοι τῶν καλῶν, 1.8). No longer merely individuals filling elected positions, these officers become fellow-workers (συνεργούς) for the administration and improvement
26 On these potential dangers of excess philotimia within an army see, e.g., Cyr. 3.3.10. Within the Hipparchikos Xenophon does not raise or address excessive philotimia, nor – although he remarks on the philotimia of subordinate officers and elaborates on its usage towards the cavalry’s common good – does he mention the philotimia of hipparchs or the various timai, material or non-material, that they might receive as a result of their election. The sole exception occurs in Hipp. 1.17, with the suggestion that praise (ἔπαινος) might be lav- ished if the hipparch secures a trainer to help the cavalrymen learn how to mount their horses. 27 This knowledge is ideally conveyed by the hipparch himself, on the basis of his studies and experiences, but may be provided by other instructors: see the previous note.
Polis, The Journal for Ancient Greek Political ThoughtDownloaded from35 (2018) Brill.com10/01/2021 499-522 04:04:08AM via free access Hipparchikos and the Athenian Embrace of Philotimia 509 of the cavalry (1.8-9, cf. 1.1, 2.9). Together they may enable and inspire excel- lence among their men. Indeed Xenophon portrays the competitiveness of the phylarchs as the most effective means of ensuring diligent training. Although the hipparch may encourage his troops by reminding them of their civic obligations (1.19, cf. 8.5-7) or suggesting that he will lead them out personally for an inspection (1.20), the primary catalyst for training is the instigation of smaller-scale com- petitions between the phylarchs’ tribal regiments. Describing the necessity of training the cavalrymen to hurl their javelins successfully from their mounts, Xenophon suggests that the phylarchs should be made to process at the front of their regiment’s javelineers. This regular, informal scrutiny of the quantity (if not necessarily quality) of the tribe’s marksmen will stoke the phylarchs’ love of honour (φιλοτιμοῖντο) and thereby encourage their own facilitation of their regiments’ training (1.21). The officers’ individual competitiveness, further enhanced by intertribal competitiveness, compels practice so that each contingent may demonstrate its superiority, besting others and avoiding embarrassment. Here personal ambitions and rivalries are channeled through military structures, stimulating and directing competition for the overall good of cavalry and community. More broadly, Xenophon suggests that the best way to stoke the phylarchs’ philotimia is for the hipparchs themselves to take seriously their responsibilities to arm, train, and perfect their detachments of prodromoi (1.25).28 After ascribing the phylarchs’ office-holding to their phi- lotimia, Xenophon immediately offers their commanding officers suggestions on harnessing and spurring this ambition to good ends. Various incentives are also offered to the regular cavalrymen. Advising the anonymous hipparch, Xenophon’s Socrates suggests that ‘honour and praise’ are the key means of improving materiel and morale among the men as well as their officers (ἐπαίνου καὶ τιμῆς, Mem. 3.3.14). Within Hipparchikos Xenophon suggests that the cavalry will respond positively to reminders about the glory on offer (εὐκλείας) for themselves and their community (1.19, cf. 1.1, 8.7-8), and will be inspired to act boldly so that they might ‘hear some good thing’ in response (8.22). The setting out of prizes (ἆθλα), instantiated hon- ours bearing both material and non-material value, will stimulate the troops’ competitiveness and motivate additional training (1.26).29 Only once the
28 Although Xenophon does not detail the manner in which honour(s) shape the hipparch’s training of these ‘scouts’, both the mechanics he does describe and the mimesis attested among the phylarchs suggest honour’s presence. On the prodromoi see G. Bugh, ‘Cavalry Inscriptions from the Athenian Agora’, Hesperia, 67 (1998), pp. 81-90, pp. 83-9. 29 On the place of ἆθλα within Xenophontic thought see H.R. Breitenbach, Historiographische Anschauungsformen Xenophons (Freiburg: Paulusdruckerei, 1950), pp. 82-7 and Keim,
Polis, The Journal for Ancient Greek Political ThoughtDownloaded from35 (2018) Brill.com10/01/2021 499-522 04:04:08AM via free access 510 Keim sufficiently-incentivised cavalrymen have trained vigorously and mastered these preliminary requirements for able service can they, like their phylarchs, be ‘fellow-workers with their commander’ (συνεργοὶ τῷ ἡγουμενῴ, 2.9). Yet unless the cavalrymen are also obedient (εὐπειθεῖς οἱ ἄνδρες), neither mounts nor materiel nor mastery will be of any use (ὄφελος οὐδέν, Hipp. 1.7, cf. 1.24, Mem. 3.3.8). Their obedience, like their training, must be secured by material and non-material means. Materially, the hipparch must protect and provision his troops, tending to their basic needs while also sharing any bene- fits occasioned by their efforts (6.2-3). As he engages with his men the hipparch must teach them, by word and by action, that their obedience bears good things and that those who are orderly profit far more than the recalcitrant and disorderly (1.24). Non-materially, drawing on the knowledge displayed within the training, the hipparch must demonstrate his superiority as a ‘model of excellence’ in every facet of cavalry service (e.g. 1.20, 25; cf. Mem. 3.3.10).30 Underlying the willing obedience of the cavalry are their friendliness and goodwill towards their officers. Drawing on the imagery of the potter’s wheel, Xenophon argues that nothing may be molded out of men unless they are well disposed towards their leader (φιλικῶς … εὐνοικῶς, 6.1-2). The rhetoric of this chapter subtly acknowledges the perceived crisis of Athenian leadership, with this idealised vision of collegial command posed as the answer to the contem- porary lament: how could a hipparch avoid being mocked and despised by his men (μὴ καταφρονεῖσθαι, 6.4-5, cf. Mem. 4.2.29)? Xenophon suggests that the cavalry, like unruly schoolboys lying in wait for the next hapless substitute, seek trouble from the very start. This outcome can only be avoided by the con- stant display of excellence, for men are least likely to despise that man who shows himself to be the most capable. To this end the hipparch must dem- onstrate his superiority, and thereby simultaneously avoid his men’s disregard and secure their obedience (6.5-6). Xenophon’s hipparch distinguishes himself in several ways. First, as we shall see at greater length below, he is acutely sensitive to the gods and represents the entire cavalry before them (7.1). Second, as manifest particularly with the prodromoi, he encourages others’ actions through the diligence and care with which he teaches himself and trains others (1.25). Third, during the public displays, he confirms his worthiness to serve as hipparch both by galloping con- stantly alongside his rotating troops, and by galloping in a better manner than
‘Honour’, pp. 151-5; more broadly, the differing dynamics of ‘prize’, ‘reward’, and ‘honor’ drive the classical evolution of euergetism described by Domingo Gygax, Benefaction, pp. 170-9, 218-50. 30 Bugh, Horsemen 164; see also Spence, Cavalry, pp. 68-72 and n. 32 below.
Polis, The Journal for Ancient Greek Political ThoughtDownloaded from35 (2018) Brill.com10/01/2021 499-522 04:04:08AM via free access Hipparchikos and the Athenian Embrace of Philotimia 511 his phylarchs (3.9, 13).31 The Xenophontic hipparch is not merely distinguished from his subordinates by his elected office, but also by the understanding and skill, regularly demonstrated, that establish his worthiness for that office. The hipparch deserves the ascribed honour of his office, for his achievements dem- onstrate his worthiness for that office. This conclusion may be thought rather unsurprising within any classical Greek context and perhaps especially so within a Xenophontic treatise.32 What we must remember, however, is the perceived crisis of contemporary Athenian leadership. This crisis, as conceived by Xenophon and explored within Hipparchikos and Memorabilia, was the result of too many leading citizens tak- ing up offices for which they were not qualified, for which they had neither the knowledge nor the attentiveness necessary for leadership beneficial to their fellow citizens and community.33 The best way to ensure continued obedience among the ranks, and thereby the best chances of success on parade-ground and battlefield alike, was the regular demonstration of excellence by the hip- parch across his entire range of responsibilities. Such demonstrations attest his excellence, set out a superior example for others’ emulation, and encourage his followers in their own pursuit of excellence. The followers willingly obey because their leader is demonstrably superior; his nurturing of their innate abilities helps advance their training and aptitude, and thereby better serve their community.34
31 Compare Demosthenes’ (admittedly antagonistic) charge that Meidias, during his spell as hipparch, was unable to gallop across the Agora (21.171). For commentary on Demosthenes’ rhetoric concerning Meidias’ cavalry service and claims of philotimia, see D. MacDowell, Demosthenes Against Meidias (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), pp. 378-392. 32 On the Homeric origins of such discussions of superiority see J.E. Lendon, ‘Xenophon and the Alternative to Realist Foreign Policy: Cyropaedia 3.1.14-31’, Journal of Hellenic Studies, 126 (2006), pp. 82-98, pp. 66-8. 33 Hidden as an aside within Xenophon’s remarks on campaign maneuvers is a beautiful μέν/ δέ sentence that at once underscores this plight and foreshadows Athenian epigraphic testimonia (Hipp. 4.5): while almost everyone knows these lessons, very few wish to make the concerted effort to implement them (καρτερεῖν δ᾽ ἐπιμελόμενοι οὐ πολλοὶ ἐθέλουσι). On the overarching significance of ἐπιμελόμενοι see n. 43, and compare Hipp. 8.21, which sug- gests that the only obstacle to deploying the prescribed tactics is securing a good leader. 34 Robin Osborne reminds me of the earlier remark by the Old Oligarch (1.3), who suggests that the dêmos actively preferred election (rather than sortition) for the leading military offices, since the safety of the entire community relied on ‘the men most able to hold such offices’ (τοὺς δυνατωτάτους ἄρχειν) serving as stratêgoi and as hipparchs.
Polis, The Journal for Ancient Greek Political ThoughtDownloaded from35 (2018) Brill.com10/01/2021 499-522 04:04:08AM via free access 512 Keim
4 Xenophon’s Cavalry and its Communities of Honour
The position of the cavalry within the restored Athenian democracy was fraught.35 Although the relations between hippeis and dêmos grew warmer as the years went by, and were effectively restored by the time Xenophon com- posed Hipparchikos, within this treatise he is careful to demonstrate – for both pragmatic and political reasons – that the philotimia he is endorsing truly focuses on the good of the community. Thus Xenophon situates the cavalry within two overarching frameworks, comprised of the earthly and heavenly communities, and elaborates on the hipparch’s careful negotiation of honours between cavalry, polis, and gods.36 Together these frameworks restrain outbreaks of destructive, personal philotimia and encourage benefi- cial, civic-minded philotimia. The good hipparch’s responsibilities begin with the acknowledgement of these civic and religious frameworks, and thereaf- ter require the constant, careful negotiation of honour within them, so that achievements wrought by individual philotimia may enhance the honour of the community. This public-spirited aspect was made clear administratively because the hipparchs, although they bore the ultimate responsibility for the adminis- tration of the cavalry, were neither unsupervised nor unaided by their fellow Athenians. It was the polis, Xenophon says, that divided the cavalry into tribal regiments (2.1), elected phylarchs to lead these regiments, and required the Council to assist with administrative matters (1.7-8, cf. 3.14).37 In these ways the Athenians sought to maintain civic oversight of an institution that was integral to their security and that they funded accordingly (1.19, cf. Arist. Ath. Pol. 61.4-7). Even with this assistance the portfolio of the Athenian hipparch involved more than simply training and campaigning. He was required to engage per- suasively with his fellow citizens and to work productively within other civic institutions (Mem. 3.3.11). The cultivation of allies among the Councillors was
35 See n. 14 above. 36 Compare the remark of Luccioni, Les idées, p. 277, that the hipparchs worked ‘dans le cadre des institutions politiques existantes et de l’organisation actuelle.’ On the oft-overlooked theological aspects and implications of Athenian honorific practices see the compelling arguments of E.A. Meyer, ‘Inscriptions as Honors and the Athenian Epigraphic Habit’, Historia, 62 (2013), pp. 453-505. 37 Xenophon also leaves it to the Council to suggest that the cavalry’s exercise be doubled (1.13): although this increased workload was not a punishment per se, such delegation recalls the advice Simonides gives the tyrant Hiero on bestowing awards personally, while requiring others to administer punishment (Hiero 9.2-3).
Polis, The Journal for Ancient Greek Political ThoughtDownloaded from35 (2018) Brill.com10/01/2021 499-522 04:04:08AM via free access Hipparchikos and the Athenian Embrace of Philotimia 513 essential, so that over the course of the year these associates might goad and restrain their fellow Councillors as appropriate (Hipp. 1.8). If the hipparch were unable to persuade sufficient numbers of citizens to muster for the cav- alry, he might be forced to enter into litigation, both to secure additional men for service and to avoid any accusations of favoritism (1.9). He might also be required to teach the city (διδάσκειν τὴν πόλιν) about tactical matters, such as the weakness of cavalry when not closely accompanied by infantry (5.13).38 Such instruction required the hipparch to have the appropriate tactical knowl- edge, the persuasive force to secure the funding and dispatch of these troops, and the ability to deploy this hybrid force appropriately (5.13, 8.19, cf. Dem. 4.33). Commanding a cavalry of one’s democratic countrymen required ample politicking as well as parading. Restoring the cavalry as not merely an effective military but also a suitable civic institution required reiterating its services to the community. Thus the hipparch’s initial prayer is to be offered on behalf of himself, his friends, and his polis (1.1, cf. Mem. 3.3.15), while the phylarchs, encouraging their men to practice javelin-tossing, do so with the stated desire of training as many marks- men as possible for the polis (1.21). Throughout Hipparchikos Xenophon credits his countrymen with an interest in the common good: the cavalrymen would train more diligently if they were reminded about the community’s enor- mous outlays on their service (1.19), or about not merely the individual and civic glory secured by any victory, but also the divinely-sent civic prosperity (εὐδαιμονία) that often accompanies military triumphs (8.7-8). These sugges- tions encourage the support of Athenians, both those in the cavalry and those in the general citizenry, by emphasising the civic focus of these endeavors. Furthermore, their regular public displays establish the cavalry psychologi- cally and physically within their community. From the Agora and the slopes of the Acropolis out to the Lyceum, Piraeus, and perhaps even Phaleron, each of the displays and processions mentioned by Xenophon takes place within the heart of Athens. Mortal viewers’ expectations for ‘festival processions worth seeing’ and ‘the most splendid cavalry displays’ should guide and encourage the cavalry as they prepare (3.1, 9). Xenophon’s emphasis on the splendor and brilliance of the cavalry sought by the polis (1.22-23) suggests the significance of such displays for civic prestige; the more glorious the cavalry and the more compelling their performance, before an audience of mortals and immortals
38 Similar educational vocabulary occurs in the context of Socrates’ suggestion (Mem. 3.3.10) that the hipparch must secure his troops’ obedience by teaching them the benefits of that obedience. On the likely identity, introduction, and use of these infantry (ἅμιπποι) see Bugh, ‘Cavalry’, p. 86.
Polis, The Journal for Ancient Greek Political ThoughtDownloaded from35 (2018) Brill.com10/01/2021 499-522 04:04:08AM via free access 514 Keim
(θεοῖς … θεαταῖς, 3.2-4), the greater the renown they might win for Athens, here by soft power as well as hard.39 From the avowedly political register we turn to the hipparch’s religious responsibilities. While certain characteristics are incumbent on all military leaders, Xenophon believes that the Athenian hipparch ought to excel in two particular areas, being warlike (τὸν πολεμικὸν) and worshipping the gods (διαφέρειν δεῖ καὶ τῷ τοὺς θεοὺς θεραπεύειν, 7.1). If the relevance of ‘warlikeness’ for a military commander is rather obvious, the nature and the meaning of the latter deserve closer scrutiny. Indeed the importance of the hipparch’s rela- tions with the supernatural is a constant refrain throughout the treatise, which begins by prescribing sacrifice and ends by encouraging enthusiastic worship of the gods (θεραπεύωσιν ὅ τι ἂν δύνωνται τοὺς θεούς, 9.9). As Xenophon advises his hipparch (1.1):
First is it necessary to sacrifice to the gods (θύοντα χρὴ … θεοὺς) and pray that you might think, speak, and do those things by which you may lead most acceptably before the gods (θεοῖς … κεχαρισμενώτατα), and also most pleasingly, gloriously, and advantageously (προσφιλέστατα καὶ εὐκλεέστατα καὶ πολυωφελέστατα) for yourself, your friends, and your city.
This sacrifice initiates a continuing relationship of reciprocity between the leader and the gods, a relationship required for the attainment of those mate- rial and non-material goods that denote success. Such piety is necessary yet not sufficient for good leadership, since these gods help those who help them- selves: only after the gods are propitious (θεῶν δ᾽ ἵλεων ὄντων), however, should the hipparch attend to his cavalrymen and their horses (1.2, cf. 5.14). The rep- resentative aspect of the hipparch’s religious duties is made explicit shortly thereafter, with the reminder that he must begin not merely by sacrificing to the gods but by doing so on behalf of the cavalry (ὑπὲρ τοὺ ἱππικοῦ, 3.1). These fundamental responsibilities towards the divine establish the hipparch in his appropriate place vis-à-vis the gods, and are a necessary step towards ordering the chain of command and thereafter enabling success.40
39 On the processions described in Hipp. 3 see, with emphasis on their innovative imitations of combat, Dillery, ‘Military Review’, pp. 260-4. For the splendor and resultant messaging of such productions, compare the Thucydidean crescendo (and Panhellenic audiences) as the Athenian fleet embarks for Sicily (6.30-32.2), or the appeals of Polemarchus and Adeimantus at the start of Plato’s Republic (327a-328b). 40 Conducting a magisterial survey of the religious dimensions of Xenophon’s thought, R. Parker, ‘One Man’s Piety: The Religious Dimension of the Anabasis’, in R. Lane Fox (ed.), The Long March: Xenophon and the Ten Thousand (New Haven: Yale University Press,
Polis, The Journal for Ancient Greek Political ThoughtDownloaded from35 (2018) Brill.com10/01/2021 499-522 04:04:08AM via free access Hipparchikos and the Athenian Embrace of Philotimia 515
Turning from sacrifice to spectacle, this second major responsibility of the Athenian hipparch is also defined by the supernatural. The festival proces- sions will be particularly gratifying to mortal and immortal spectators alike if, as Xenophon recommends, the cavalrymen process through the Agora and honour (τιμώντες) the gods at their respective shrines and statues (3.2, cf. 3.4). These displays will be most pleasing, then, if the cavalry carefully and exhaus- tively honour the gods by acknowledging the immortals’ preeminence and place(s) at the center of Athenian life. While skillful maneuvers might add desirable embellishment, these processions were centered around honour- ing the gods. Xenophon offers such advice not as merely cynical performance guidelines, but in order that the hipparch may enhance these displays by being a good worshipper of the gods (9.8-9, cf. 7.1). The hipparch begins with sacri- fice, ends with worship, and throughout relies not simply on his own efforts, but on the gods’ support of those efforts (e.g., 5.14, 6.1, 7.3, 9.2; cf. Mem. 1.4.10). He is led by the gods in a manner reminiscent of his leadership of those cav- alrymen under his own command. The ability both to lead and to be led is characteristic of good Xenophontic leadership,41 and is especially critical for democratic leadership. Thus within Hipparchikos Xenophon subtly suggests how the tension between egalitarian and hierarchical forces may be resolved justly and ben- eficially for all, with the gods, officers, and cavalrymen collaborating for the public good. This ideal of collegiality has been encountered repeatedly above: the hipparchs are aided by the Council (συνεπιμελεῖσθαι, 1.8) and should have the same desires as their fellow-worker phylarchs (συνεργούς … συνεπιθυμεῖν, 1.8), while their troops, once properly trained, become fellow-workers with their officers (συνεργοί, 2.9). Beyond these human collaborations we are informed repeatedly about the necessity of working ‘with the god’ (e.g., 5.14, 6.1, 7.3 bis, 7.14, 9.2, 9.8), of ‘the gods being propitious’ (1.2, 5.14) or ‘consenting’ (9.7). So insistent and unrelenting is this emphasis that Xenophon acknowledges even some of his contemporaries might be surprised by these exhortations (9.7-8). His explanation is rooted in the language of accompaniment and aid, for the gods offer insight and support that can be found nowhere else. This emphasis on ‘working with the gods’ is particularised with an eye on counsel (συμβουλεύσαιτ᾽, συμβουλεύειν) and strengthened by the prefatory repetition of treacherous plotting (ἐπιβουλεύουσι…τὰ ἐπιβουλευόμενα, 9.8-9). When people
2004), pp. 131-53, p. 133, argues that ‘[f]or Xenophon it makes sense to honour the gods: it is the reasonable, the natural thing to do.’ For elaboration on the ‘material’ and ‘moral’ aspects of Xenophontic success see Gray, Xenophon’s Mirror, pp. 12-5. 41 Consider the remarks of Clearchus (Anab. 1.3) and the elder Cyrus (Cyr. 1.6.20).
Polis, The Journal for Ancient Greek Political ThoughtDownloaded from35 (2018) Brill.com10/01/2021 499-522 04:04:08AM via free access 516 Keim are plotting treachery, only the gods are able to offer counsel; and those who already have a good relationship with the gods, carefully maintained by obser- vance of divine demands, will be more likely to receive such heavenly counsel. Finally, the hipparch is engaged with the gods on behalf of the entire cavalry, and so his attentiveness to these details brings all of the cavalry, leadership, and gods into one allied force, aimed at the good of the community. Ideally, the officers’ efforts are carried out in such a spirit, and to such ends, that their lead- ership may in turn be honoured by those whom they are leading.42 Although the origins of Hipparchikos remain obscure – was Xenophon jot- ting down an aide-mémoire for an old friend or his son Gryllus as they joined up with the struggling Athenian cavalry, or perhaps writing in memoriam after the young man fell heroically at Mantineia? – this treatise endures as a characteristically Xenophontic exhortation to piety, prowess, and persuasive leadership. Such leadership requires would-be hipparchs to acquire the theo- retical knowledge and hone the practical skills that enable their displays of excellence and thereby the willing obedience of their cavalrymen, yet two additional qualities characteristic of our author deserve mention. While the centrality and significance of philotimia throughout this Xenophontic trea- tise have been argued above, I conclude this reading with the advice that the author himself proclaims most important (κράτιστον): ‘Whatever you think is best, ensure that it gets done’ (τὸ ὅσα ἂν γνῷ ἀγαθὰ εἶναι ἐπιμελεῖσθαι ὡς ἂν πρα- χθῇ, 9.2).43 Aware that the informal thoughts (ὑπομνήματα) jotted down within Hipparchikos were not particularly original, Xenophon emphasises the impor- tance of diligent administration: by being attentive to all of his responsibilities (ἐπιμελεῖσθαι, 1.9; ἐπιμελῆται ὡς δεῖ, 7.3), the hipparch will exert good influence on colleagues and cavalrymen (who will, e.g., take better care of their mounts: ἐπιμελεῖσθαι μᾶλλον τῶν ἵππων, 1.13) and he will, with the help of the gods, strive to ensure that his tasks are accomplished for the good of the community (ἐπιμελῆται … σὺν τοῖς θεοῖς, 9.2). Whether or not his efforts are ultimately suc- cessful, there is no shame in trying to aid the community, as Socrates reminds the younger Pericles, while any future successes will adorn commander and community alike (Mem. 3.5.28).
42 Compare Xen. Symp. 8.38, where Socrates suggests that Autolycus the philotimos pankrati- ast will honour greatly whomever best serves as his sunergos, and discussion of SEG 21.525 below. 43 See Bandini and Dorion, Xénophon, ad Mem. 3.5.1 n.1 on ἐπιμελεῖσθαι as the foundation of Xenophon’s Socratic project, as well as Socrates’ remarks to the anonymous hipparch (τοῦ ἱππικοῦ τοῦ ἐνθάδε εἴ τις ἐπιμεληθείη, Mem. 3.3.14). On the resonances of epimeleia within honorific decrees see Whitehead, ‘Cardinal Virtues’, pp. 68-9.
Polis, The Journal for Ancient Greek Political ThoughtDownloaded from35 (2018) Brill.com10/01/2021 499-522 04:04:08AM via free access Hipparchikos and the Athenian Embrace of Philotimia 517
5 Putting Hipparchikos in its Athenian Honorific Context
In 281/0 BC Dromocles of Oa proposed a decree honouring the hipparchs Alcimachus and Nicogenes, as well as their eleven phylarchs, for their exem- plary leadership the previous year.44 Subsequently ratified and inscribed for display on two separate stelai, this honorific decree celebrates extraordinary service amidst institutional crisis.45 As Athens emerged once more from Macedonian control, these officers not only restored the ranks and capabili- ties of the cavalry but also ensured that their 300 hippeis would be useful for the entire community (ὅπως ἂν χρήσιμον ἧι τῶι δήμωι, l. 5, cf. ll. 16-7). Echoing Xenophon’s exhortations, the attentiveness with which the honorands discharged their duties is emphatically affirmed (cf. the ἐπιμελ- cognates at ll. 4, 6, 11, 14, 18, 38), as is their public-spirited philotimia (ll. 22, 36, 38) – indeed both virtues are joined together in the hortatory intention clause, ‘so that oth- ers appointed in the future may also show love of honour in managing the cavalry’ (φιλοτιμῶνται ἐπιμελεῖσθαι, l. 38, tr. AIO).46 While Dromocles rather assiduously details the diverse tasks discharged by these officers,47 his sum- mary use of ἀρετῆς ἕνεκα καὶ φιλοτιμίας (l. 36) need not be limited to the actions specified; while we cannot recover exactly what the proposer and his audience understood by the formulaic ‘on account of excellence and love of honour’, our reading of Xenophon’s Hipparchikos has revealed the fundamental and wide-ranging importance of public-spirited philotimia for the success of the Athenian cavalry. More broadly, our reading of Hipparchikos suggests we should recognize Xenophon as a prescient contemporary guide to Athens’ fourth-century
44 SEG 21.525. On this decree and the handful of other honorific decrees associated with the early Hellenistic Athenian cavalry (including the contemporary SEG 46.167 [282/1 B.C.] and IG II3 1 949 [ca. 281-279 BC]), see Oliver, ‘Polis Economies’, and A. Bayliss, After Demosthenes: The Politics of Early Hellenistic Athens (London: Continuum, 2011), p. 112; on the absence of a twelfth phylarch (the tribe Aigeis failed to supply one) and the legislation that resulted (ll. 11-14), see Bugh, Horsemen, pp. 186-8. 45 On the broader contours of this third-century crisis and its impact on Athenian honorific practice, see Miller, ‘Euergetism’, pp. 408-13. 46 On hortatory intention clauses and their regular invocation of philotimia, see Miller, ‘Euergetism’; Domingo Gygax, Benefaction, pp. 220-223; and especially Lambert, Inscribed, pp. 71-92. 47 The officers of SEG 21.525 are honoured for lawfully administering their offices (ll. 3-4); ensuring the cavalry are useful for the dêmos (ll. 4-5); recording the katalogê and add- ing 100 hippeis to the cavalry (ll. 6-11); ensuring that phylarchs were appointed (ll. 11-14); overseeing the timêseis and dokimasiai (ll. 14-18) as well as sitos distribution (ll. 18-21); and everything else they did (ll. 21-23). As they served κατὰ τοὺς νόμους, so they are said to be honoured κατὰ τὸν νόμον (‘according to the law[s]’, ll. 4, 35).
Polis, The Journal for Ancient Greek Political ThoughtDownloaded from35 (2018) Brill.com10/01/2021 499-522 04:04:08AM via free access 518 Keim embrace of citizen philotimia.48 Although within this manual he neither pro- poses any civic honours nor elaborates on the particular honour(s) accruing to worthy hipparchs, Xenophon underscores the significance of carefully- harnessed philotimia for the renewal of the Athenian cavalry, of Athenian leadership, and ultimately of the Athenian community itself. Merely a decade or so after he composed Hipparchikos, the Athenians would begin explicitly and far more democratically acknowledging their fellow citizens’ love of hon- our, not only through instantiated honours awarded to individuals but also by the ready explication of Athenian citizen identity and obligation in terms of honour. Rather than offering occasional awards for extraordinary leadership or military successes, as with the megistai timai received by Conon and a hand- ful of other commanders earlier in the century, now the dêmos was explicitly encouraging every citizen to identify as a philotimos and endorsing their pur- suit of andragathia and good works on behalf of the community.49 Although a detailed argument for this ‘honorific turn’ in fourth-century Athens must be made elsewhere, here I would suggest there are four significant ways in which careful consideration of Xenophon’s perspectives may enrich our continuing discussions of citizen philotimia and, more broadly, the politics of honour throughout the Athenian democracy.50 First, while the fourth-century
48 On my preference for ‘prescience’ rather than ‘influence’ vel sim. see n. 10 above. Debates over the degree of Xenophon’s influence on Athenian policy continues, with the classic remarks remaining those by G. Cawkwell, ‘Eubulus’, Journal of Hellenic Studies, 83 (1963), pp. 47-67 and Gauthier, Poroi, pp. 223-31, and ‘Programme’, pp. 135. Although Cawkwell (p. 66) does acknowledge the unrealised mercenary reform of Hipp. 9.3, such debates have generally focused on Poroi: see discussion by Dillery, ‘Military Review’, p. 264, and Tuplin, ‘Xenophon and Athens’, pp. 352-3. While I have argued throughout for the prescience of Xenophon’s arguments and their value for our own interpretations of Athenian practices, I am not suggesting – especially if he remained (largely) absent from Athens – that his was the only, or even the most persuasive, voice for these sentiments in mid-fourth-cen- tury Athens: see, e.g., the apologetic rhetoric of the self-identified philotimos citizen in Isaeus’ On the Estate of Apollodorus (7.33-42) or Demosthenes’ concern (20.103 et passim) that Leptines’ legislation would leave the dêmos bereft of philotimoi. 49 On Conon and his honours see Dem. 20.68-72, with commentary by C. Kremmydas, Commentary on Demosthenes Against Leptines (Oxford: Oxford Univeristy Press, 2012) and M. Canevaro, Demostene, Contro Leptine (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016) ad loc.; for fur- ther discussion of the megistai timai see Domingo Gygax, Benefaction, pp. 192-9. For an intriguing glimpse of ‘every citizen’ as the target of post-Social-War conversations about the democratisation of honours and honorands, compare these illustrious earlier timai with the rather humble yet more prolific honours mooted at Dem. 20.122. 50 Such a history of this ‘honorific turn’ would – as Whitehead and more recently Liddel have emphasised – integrate the full breadth of the epigraphic and literary records (in order that we might make the most of their fragmentary and often-contrasting perspec- tives) and would be sensitive, as with Domingo Gygax’s exploration of the Archaic roots
Polis, The Journal for Ancient Greek Political ThoughtDownloaded from35 (2018) Brill.com10/01/2021 499-522 04:04:08AM via free access Hipparchikos and the Athenian Embrace of Philotimia 519 evolutions in Athenian honorific practices ‘might be seen as reactive to devel- opments at home and overseas’, ranging from the disastrous conclusions of the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC) and Social War (357-355 BC) to ongoing dip- lomatic and commercial endeavors across the Aegean,51 we should not focus on the trees so much that we overlook the forest, the Athenians’ ‘heightened sense of decline’.52 Whether or not we choose to invoke the language of ‘crisis’ concerning this particular polis or the polis generally,53 their changing circum- stances after Mantineia and the Social War convinced the Athenians once again to reevaluate their interests in, and incentives for, their fellow citizens’ civic agency.54 Second, Athenian concerns about this decline of their community were accompanied ‘by an acute sense that the performance of the polis is cru- cially dependent on the performance of its officials’ and that such performance might well be improved both by awarding new honours and encouraging their public-spirited pursuit.55 While their ancestors recognised officials for merito- rious service already during the fifth century,56 later Athenians would endorse and underwrite the remarkable expansion and elaboration of such honours from the 350s onwards;57 and as we survey this bureaucratic landscape, the ter- rain on which Whitehead originally deployed his hippic metaphor of dêmosia
of euergetism, to the continuities influencing – as well as the qualitative and quantita- tive innovations marking – mid-fourth-century Athenian honorific practices. For the Athenians, from their navigation of Archaic crises (e.g. Solon fr. 5, Hdt. 1.59-61) through their scrutiny and selection of democratic officials (e.g. the career of Alcibiades, Lysias’ dokimasia speeches, and n. 56), were neither individually nor institutionally unaware of honour and its love; yet amidst their fourth-century retrenchment they resolved to polish, flash, and dig in the spurs of dêmosia philotimia in new ways. 51 Liddel, ‘Honorific’, p. 353. 52 Lambert, Inscribed, p. 74. 53 On the long-running question of ‘crisis’ see Rhodes, ‘Alleged Failure’. 54 Earlier examples of an under-duress dêmos reassessing the politics of Athenian citizen honour include the recalls of the atimoi in 481/0 (Arist., Ath. Pol. 22.8) and 405 (Xen. Hell. 2.2.11); on the debates surrounding the honours extended to incentivise non-citizen sup- port for the restoration of the democracy in 404/3, see Rhodes and Osborne no. 4. 55 Lambert, Inscribed, p. 95. On the award of honours for good service see also Liddel, ‘Honorific’, p. 335 and Domingo Gygax, Benefaction, pp. 180, 220. 56 Notable examples include the crown awarded Pericles (Lyc. fr. 58 Conomis), the praise showered upon Rhinon and his colleagues for 403/2 BC ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 38.4), and the crowns regularly awarded to the Council (e.g. Dem. 22.5 and discussion by P.J. Rhodes, The Athenian Boule [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972], pp. 14-6). 57 Consider the significant changes represented both by the dedication by Euktemonides (IG II3 4 57 of 357/6 BC) and, fifteen years later, by the series of decrees honouring the Council and especially Phanodemos for their service (IG II3 1 306 of 343/2 BC). See now S. Lambert, ‘357/6 BC: A Significant Year in the Development of Athenian Honorific Practice’, AIO Papers no. 9.
Polis, The Journal for Ancient Greek Political ThoughtDownloaded from35 (2018) Brill.com10/01/2021 499-522 04:04:08AM via free access 520 Keim philotimia ‘as a spur as well as a rein, in attacking apathy and keeping the cum- bersome wheels of the democratic administration in motion’, we are no longer surprised to find the underestimated yet effective Xenophon already cantering about. Third, through his constant testimony about the presence and power of the gods, Xenophon urges us to take seriously the religious – as well as personal and political – contexts within which these civic honours were negotiated.58 Athens’ exhortations of citizen philotimia were regularly characterised not merely by kalôs and dêmosia but by eusebôs, by display within religious as well as political offices, and were thus extended with divine as well as institutional oversight.59 Finally, just as Xenophon’s advice for Athenian renewal was predicated on the exemplary philotimia of all his countrymen, so the Athenians’ own acknowledgement and encouragement of citizen philotimia was avowedly democratising. While the surviving literary sources tend to glorify the con- tributions made by elite benefactors, recent scrutiny of the honorific decrees preserved within the epigraphic record has revealed a rather different story, one in which expenditure of personal wealth is by no means necessary and a great many of the proposers, honorands, and their offices are rather obscure.60 Here we may ultimately find Xenophon’s most significant contribution to our conversations about democratic Athenian honour. Given the centrality of honour to his own anthropology and his regular insistence on the preva- lence of philotimia throughout the Athenian citizenry, I would argue that Xenophon encourages us to explore this love of honour as a fundamental fea- ture of the Athenian experience, across the dêmos and across the centuries, even if the dangers of citizen philotimia circumscribed its public acknowledgement before the 350s. Recently recognised for the democratic aspects of his Socrates
58 On the implications of these religious contexts see especially Meyer, ‘Inscriptions’, p. 487, who acknowledges the ‘incomplete and highly idiosyncratic’ nature of the Athenian epi- graphic habit yet reminds us that ‘[t]he intersection of honorific and pious purpose may, however, help to explain Athenian epigraphical choices in the fourth century consider- ably better.’ 59 For example, while the idiosyncratic λίαν φιλοτίμως (‘extreme love of honour’, RO no. 46 l.3) may be explained by its innovative adaptation of philotimia within a standard deme decree, I would suggest its deployment within an avowedly religious context – crowning a priest of Apollo Zoster for executing ‘his priestly duties in a fine and pious manner and worthily of the god’ (ll. 2-3) – helped mitigate concerns. 60 On the obscurity of honorands see Liddel, ‘Honorific’, p. 342; on offices, Liddel, ‘Honorific’, p. 343, Whitehead, ‘Competitive Outlay’, p. 65 n. 32, Miller, ‘Euergetism’, p. 415; and on proposers and on this democratisation generally, Lambert, Inscribed, p. 203.
Polis, The Journal for Ancient Greek Political ThoughtDownloaded from35 (2018) Brill.com10/01/2021 499-522 04:04:08AM via free access Hipparchikos and the Athenian Embrace of Philotimia 521 and his writings,61 Xenophon suggests the possibility of a vibrant philotimia that was neither fetished by the elite nor emasculated by the dêmos, but was a constant motivation carefully managed across Athens’ democratic centuries.62 For, as they sought to negotiate claims and awards of honour against an evolv- ing backdrop shot through with ‘contradictions and tensions’, the Athenian dêmos retained its control as the font and guardian of civic honour and worked, in old ways as well as new, to ensure that the honour of polis and politês were appropriately aligned.63 The centrality of these aspects of timê and philotimia within the resur- gent Athens of the Lycurgan era may be shown by brief consideration of two famous texts from the 330s. First, the oath of the Athenian ephebes is framed in terms of shame and honour, reaching its climax with the insistence that they ‘will honour the ancestral religion’ (τιμήσω ἱερὰ τὰ πάτρια, l. 16).64 Entrance into the body politic was conceived in terms of honour, and some of the earliest ephebic inscriptions affirm the ambitious attentiveness (καλῶς καὶ φιλοτίμως ἐπεμελήθη) of their leaders in training and acculturating their young charges.65 Philotimia was a significant motivation, now readily and regularly – if not universally – mentioned within the documents of this transformative civic institution. Similarly, the arguments offered by Lycurgus within his prosecution of Leocrates paint an ideologically-charged portrait of honour at the heart of every good Athenian citizen’s identity and experience. The Athenians alone, Lycurgus argues, know how to honour good men (1.51, cf. 1.74 and Dem. 20.107);66
61 For an extensive overview of this democratic Xenophon and these recent discussions see V.J. Gray, ‘Xenophon’s Socrates and Democracy’, Polis, 28 (2011), pp. 1-32; for an intriguing reading of Poroi 5 that finds Xenophon not merely useful but also rather dêmos-minded, see C.A. Farrell, ‘Xenophon Poroi 5: Securing a “More Just” Athenian Hegemony’, Polis, 33 (2016), pp. 331-55. 62 For a less optimistic view of Xenophon’s relationship to that ‘democratic emasculation of φιλοτιμία which is so characteristic of the orators’, see R. Seager, ‘Xenophon and Athenian Democratic Ideology’, Classical Quarterly, 51 (2001), pp. 385-397, pp. 392-4. 63 On the ‘negotiation’ of honours between mass and elite see Domingo Gygax, Benefaction, pp. 18, 42; he discusses the dêmos’ control of these honours at pp. 180, 223. 64 For text and commentary see Rhodes and Osborne, Inscriptions, no. 88 §i. On the fourth- century political and religious contexts of the Oath see P. Cartledge, After Thermopylae (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), and on the significance of the ἱερά within this Oath and Athenian citizenship see J. Blok, Citizenship in Classical Athens (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), pp. 57-99. 65 Thus Reinmuth no. 1, l. 16, and no. 2, ll. 60-61. For further commentary on Reinmuth 2 see Rhodes and Osborne no. 89. 66 For discussion of this passage and the broader aspects of ‘Athenian exceptionalism’ see Domingo Gygax, Benefaction, pp. 124-38.
Polis, The Journal for Ancient Greek Political ThoughtDownloaded from35 (2018) Brill.com10/01/2021 499-522 04:04:08AM via free access 522 Keim furthermore, if they fail to punish the treacherous Leocrates, the Athenians will betray their distinctively pious, reverent, and honour-loving ways (πρός τε τοὺς θεοὺς εὐσεβῶς καὶ πρὸς τοὺς γονέας ὁσίως καὶ πρὸς τὴν πατρίδα φιλοτίμως ἔχειν, 1.15). Michele Faraguna has rightly emphasised the connecting themes of religion and impiety within this speech,67 and here we find not merely asebeia but timê repeatedly invoked with regard to Leocrates’ disregard for the tradi- tional religious and civic honours (e.g. τὰς ἐν τοῖς νόμοις τιμάς, 1.1; τὰς πατριοὺς τιμάς, 1.97, cf. his discussion of the Ephebic Oath at 1.77-8). Lycurgus’ addresses to the dikasts themselves portray them individually as philotimoi: who, he asks, is so uninterested in honour (ἀφιλότιμος) that he would not wish to join the fifth-century Athenian crewmen for their victorious struggle at Salamis (1.69), nor hear now about those achievements that won their ancestors honour (ἐφιλοτιμοῦντο, 1.98, cf. Dem. 20.10)? By his rhetoric Lycurgus both normalises and co-opts such citizens, who are ‘ambitious on behalf of the community’ (φιλοτιμεῖσθαι μὲν πρὸς τὴν πόλιν): how could such a citizen side with Leocrates, whose patent treachery was a stumbling block for anyone seeking such hon- our (ὃς αὐτοῦ πρώτου τὰς φιλοτιμίας ἠφάνισεν, 1.140)? This world of citizen honour described within Against Leocrates is characteristically Lycurgan, yet merely in degree rather than in kind, its continuities – as Graham Oliver has argued – far outstripping its contrasts.68 Both the near-universality of citizen philotimia and its potential benefits for the community had been explored by Xenophon decades earlier. Now Lycurgus and the next generation of Athenians could nurture their love of honour and harvest the benefits of public-spririted philotimia for their community.
Acknowledgements
This article arose out of discussions on Xenophontic leadership with Richard Fernando Buxton. I am grateful to Richard for his initial encouragement to elaborate on these ideas, and to Paul Cartledge, Stephen Lambert, and Robin Osborne, as well as Peter Liddel and the Polis readers, for their commentary on subsequent versions of this article. Responsibility for all interpretations and infelicities herein remains entirely my own.
67 Faraguna, ‘Athens?’, p. 73. 68 G. Oliver, ‘Before “Lykourgan Athens”: the origins of change’, in Azoulay and Ismard (eds.), Clisthène et Lycurgue d’Athènes, pp. 119-31.
Polis, The Journal for Ancient Greek Political ThoughtDownloaded from35 (2018) Brill.com10/01/2021 499-522 04:04:08AM via free access