Political Stability in Xenophon's “Cyropaedia”
POLITICAL STABILITY IN XENOPHON’S CYROPAEDIA
Brandon Zitar
Dissertation Prepared for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS
December 2020
APPROVED:
Steven Forde, Committee Chair Richard Ruderman, Committee Member Alexander Duff, Committee Member Rafael Major, Committee Member Martin Yaffe, Committee Member Matthew Eshbaugh-Soha, Chair of the Department of Political Science Tamara L. Brown, Executive Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences Victor Prybutok, Dean of the Toulouse Graduate School
Zitar, Brandon. Political Stability in Xenophon’s “Cyropaedia.” Doctor of Philosophy
(Political Science), December 2020, 177 pp., bibliography, 41 titles.
While there have been several rich studies that have provided insight into the teachings of
Xenophon that emerge from a careful reading of the Cyropaedia, the problem of reconciling the apparent good rule of Cyrus with the ruin of his empire persists. I argue that this problem can be reconciled by focusing on the problem that Xenophon initially informs us he is interested in, political stability.
Copyright 2020
by
Brandon Zitar
ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my Dissertation Committee members, Steven Forde, Richard
Ruderman, Alexander Duff, Rafael Major, and Martin Yaffe for seeing this project through with me. I consider it a privilege and a blessing to have had such insightful instruction and guidance throughout this process.
I would also like to thank my friends, Elliot Montagano whose patience, intellect, and calming influence proved invaluable to this project, and Sebastian Graham whose enthusiasm for the study of political philosophy is contagious. While their counsel and encouragement helped to push me to complete the project, I count their friendship as the greater reward.
I am also indebted to my twin sister, Heidi Keeling, for her continued support and willingness to talk through ideas with me. Her ability to make sense of complex ideas and kind encouragement have often provided much needed wind for my sails.
Finally, I would like to express my unending gratitude for my wise and beautiful wife,
Dani, and our two wonderful children Colton and Cadence. Their patience and support made this endeavor possible. If I have ever accomplished anything of worth, it is because of them.
iii TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1
CHAPTER 2. POLITICAL STABILITY AND THE PERSIAN LAWS...... 8 Introduction ...... 8 What is Political Stability?...... 12 Xenophon’s Reflections ...... 14 The Persian Education: Private vs Public Good ...... 20 Cyrus’ Median Education ...... 27 Military Rule vs Rule of a Polis ...... 28 On the Art of Horsemanship ...... 29 On Hunting...... 30 Conclusion ...... 31
CHAPTER 3. A TALE OF TWO TUNICS...... 33 Introduction ...... 33 The Case of the Tunics ...... 34 Justice and the Rule of Law ...... 38 Justice as What is Fitting ...... 45 Justice and Force ...... 47 The Teacher ...... 50 The Smaller Boy ...... 52 The Bigger Boy ...... 52 Mandane’s Argument...... 55 Conclusion ...... 59
CHAPTER 4. THE TYRANNY OF CYRUS...... 62 Introduction ...... 62 Xenophon’s Definition of Tyranny ...... 62 Strauss and the Tyranny of Cyrus ...... 67 Knowledge as the Basis for Rule ...... 70
iv Willing Obedience ...... 73 Gratitude ...... 76 Tigranes’ Teachings ...... 78 Cyrus and Philosophy ...... 89 The Rule of Cyrus ...... 92 Conclusion ...... 97
CHAPTER 5. THE WISE KING AND THE TYRANT ...... 99 Introduction ...... 99 The Dialogue between Cyrus and Cambyses...... 100 Conclusion ...... 128
CHAPTER 6. A CONSIDERATION OF PHERAULAS ...... 130 Introduction ...... 130 Pheraulas and the Case of the Tunics ...... 132 The Conversion of the Persian Army...... 135 Cyrus’ Speech to the Peers ...... 139 Cyrus, Chrysantas, and Pheraulas: Speeches to the Persians ...... 145 Pheraulas and the Sacian ...... 161 Conclusion ...... 167
CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSION...... 169
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 175
v CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Xenophon’s Cyropaedia can, and indeed, has been read and understood from several different perspectives. To some, it reads as a treatise on leadership and military tactics, to others as a cautionary tale regarding the dangers of tyranny, to others still, a somewhat inaccurate historical accounting of the figure of Cyrus the Great. While the literature that addresses the
Cyropaedia offers insight into these and many other considerations, it remains the case that a unifying theme that connects all of the elements of the Cyropaedia eludes us.
In order to grasp Xenophon’s teachings from the Cyropaedia, a student is forced to confront and disentangle two seemingly contradictory presentations of the good of political life that emerge in the work. Xenophon presents both the rule of law, and the rule of Cyrus as answers to the question: what is the good that should come from political life? The tendency in the scholarship on Xenophon is to focus on only one aspect of this dual consideration. The majority of the scholarship is concentrated on exploring the character of Cyrus. This should come as no surprise when we consider that the majority of the work itself is directed towards a description of Cyrus’ rise to power. While focusing on the narrative of Cyrus can provide many valuable insights, the problem of understanding the ruin of Cyrus’ empire persists and cannot be clearly understood without a broader context.
Treatments of Cyrus and his role in the Cyropaedia can generally be divided into those that consider Cyrus to be a good ruler, and those that consider him to be a poor ruler. Examples of scholarship that considers Cyrus as a good ruler are: Due (1989) which argues that Cyrus’ tragic end demonstrates the excellence of his rule, and Jordavić (2016) which compares the differences between the Persian kingdom, and the empire founded by Cyrus and concludes that
1 Cyrus’ rule represents an enlightened “aristocratic-meritocratic” form of rule. Likewise, Lendon
(2006) holds that the central purpose in Xenophon’s writing the Cyropaedia was to describe a new and superior view of the nature of the relations between states. He contends that this is done through the descriptions of Cyrus’ interactions with other rulers and the way in which Cyrus is able both to keep others in a perpetual state of fear and to ensure gratitude towards himself.
Christesen (2006) argues that the Cyropaedia should be read as a set of recommendations for reforming Spartan military life, and finally, Danzig (2009) which argues that Cyrus demonstrates a beneficial and superior form of justice. While these authors offer insight into the success of
Cyrus, they tend to ignore the condemnation that Xenophon ultimately levels at the empire that
Cyrus creates.
In contrast to the scholarship that focuses on Cyrus as an ideal leader, there are several scholars that contend that Xenophon’s description of the ruin of Cyrus’s empire and of the corruption of the Persians that followed Cyrus out of Persia must be understood as a warning.
Bartlett (2015) concludes that Xenophon weaves subtle criticism against Cyrus through the work. Nadon (2001) argues that the bleak manner in which Xenophon ends the Cyropaedia is meant to serve as a warning against placing one’s hope in political life, and the dangers of political ambition. Field (2012) considers Cyrus to be a flawed ruler and concludes that the failure of his empire does not indicate the limits of political life generally, but rather directs us to consider particular flaws in Cyrus. Field understands the teachings of the Cyropaedia to be a
“warning against single-minded political solutions”.
More recent scholarship has undertaken an exploration of Cyrus’ motivation and character. An example of this is seen in Pangle (2017), which offers an examination of the ambition of Cyrus, drawing instructive conclusions from the text regarding Cyrus’ piety and his
2 desire to be seen as, or become like a god. While this and other scholarship like it, provide many insights into Xenophon’s often subtle critiques of Cyrus and the origins of Cyrus’ ambition,
Xenophon’s concern for political stability is mostly unmentioned.
Both Newell (1983) and Ambler (2001) discuss the dichotomy between the rule of Cyrus and the Persian regime. Newell argues that Xenophon’s treatment of Cyrus represents an experiment in which the rule of law is replaced by the fear of Cyrus. The failure of Cyrus’ empire suggests that the experiment is itself a failure as well. Newell also argues that while
Persia’s inability to satisfy the ambition of Cyrus represents a critique of the Persian system,
Persia does emerge in a more favorable light by the end of the work. Ambler’s introductory essay to his translation of the Cyropaedia notes the incongruence between Xenophon’s concern for political stability, and the narrative of Cyrus. He states “… once Xenophon introduces the
Education by raising the problem of rule, the character of the book changes drastically. Instead of an analytical account of the key elements of the promised political science, the Education becomes a narration of Cyrus’ life, and his work loses all resemblance to a treatise.”1 Both of these works point to a need to consider Xenophon’s concern for political stability, as well as the role of the Persian republic in revealing Xenophon’s teachings.
Perhaps the clearest example of the difficulty of understanding the intent of the
Cyropaedia can be seen when one considers the great success of Xenophon’s Cyrus against the dramatic ruin of his empire with which Xenophon ends the work. If Cyrus is intended to represent excellence in ruling over other human beings, then why does Xenophon end the work with vivid descriptions of the corruption of the people over whom Cyrus ruled? On the other hand, if the Cyropaedia is meant as a warning against the rule of one like Cyrus, why does
1 Ambler, 2001, p. 3.
3 Xenophon devote most of the work to descriptions of Cyrus’s successes both as a ruler and as a military commander?
We can resolve the puzzle we are left with when trying to understand the success of
Cyrus as a general and an emperor with the ruin of his empire by focusing on the problem that
Xenophon initially says that he is interested in addressing; political stability. Xenophon’s descriptions of the successes of Cyrus have the effect of causing us to overlook several subtle, but important, criticisms of Cyrus that Xenophon quietly includes throughout the work. A careful examination of the Cyropaedia shows that Cyrus’ success as a general and an emperor is owed as much to individuals and circumstances outside of his control as it is to his impressive nature.
Examining the rule of Cyrus within a broader consideration of political stability, brings the tension between the apparent good rule of Cyrus and the ruin of his empire into focus and allows for other, and often neglected, features of the work to be understood. If we consider
Xenophon’s concern for political stability to be genuine, then Persia emerges as an independent republic where the rule of law provides an unmatched stability throughout the work. The limitations of political life are shown as Cyrus fails to find fulfillment in his rule, and his empire succumbs to strife and discord immediately upon his death. Finally, buried in the text of the
Cyropaedia is a quiet but powerful directive to consider the good of a private life of leisure.
We may wonder why political stability appears as a central concern in the Cyropaedia.
Compared to the high-minded discussions of the end of political life as found in works like The
Republic, political stability seems to be a rather low standard. Xenophon’s focus on political stability can be seen as a refutation of the impossibly high demand that human beings place on political life, and as a teaching regarding the limitations of politics. Xenophon’s concern with
4 political stability as an end of political life returns us to the question of what the end of political
life should be. Rather than describing this from an abstract position, Xenophon prefers to
address this question from the more practical consideration of what it is that human beings demand from political life. Much of Cyrus’ success is owed to the dissatisfaction of those who choose to follow him with their current regime. From the assimilation of the Persian common class into the Persian infantry, to the promise of revenge he offers Gobryas and Gadatas, Cyrus sows the seed of instability by promising a fulfillment of the desire for justice that human beings have not found in political life. The failure of Cyrus’ empire in achieving a stability that lives
beyond Cyrus’ life directs us to reconsider both Cyrus’ success and the means by which stability
can be achieved. A careful reading shows that the Persian republic described by Xenophon in
the first book remains unchanged throughout the narrative of Cyrus, or in other words, it is the only stable regime discussed by Xenophon in the work.
Xenophon frames his discussion of political stability and its foils in a treatment of
education. The double meaning of the genitive use “of Cyrus” contained in the title suggests that
Xenophon wishes us to focus on both the education that Cyrus receives and the education he
gives. The education Cyrus receives is both formal and informal beginning with his training in
Persia and continuing throughout his time in Media and throughout his conquest. The education
that Cyrus gives can be considered as given to those he rules over as well as to us as we consider his story as recounted by Xenophon. The education he passes to those he rules over is discussed by Xenophon in the last book, and its effect is seen in the ruin of Cyrus’ empire. The education that Cyrus gives to us is found in a consideration of his story and the effect of Cyrus on political stability. The chief lessons of the education that we can gain from a consideration of the story of
Cyrus are brought to light by carefully examining the many understated criticisms of Cyrus, his
5 failure to achieve happiness, and, most importantly, his effect on political stability.
Cyrus’ formal education takes place in Persia where he is educated as a boy in the Persian school of justice. While in Persia he was taught the Persian law, endurance in physical hardship, and soldiering through the practice of hunting. All of these aspects of the Persian education were established to preserve the common good, or the stability of the Persian regime. In educating toward the public good, the Persian regime dampens the instinct for individual competition by rewarding only teachers, or entire tribes, and by enforcing gratitude through their law. Cyrus’ dissatisfaction with the Persian way of life and his desire for individual recognition is shown in his rejection of the Persian law in his ruling in the case of the tunics, where Cyrus replaced the law of ownership with ownership based on what was naturally fitting. During his time in Media
Cyrus is able to find an outlet for his desire for competition and individual recognition. While the
Persian Peers are educated towards a common good, the Medes instead embrace a lifestyle of individual pursuits of pleasure. While Cyrus finds the Median pursuit of pleasure slavish, the opportunity that Median life affords him in pursuing individual accomplishments serves as an informal education which supplants the Persian concern for the common good.
Cyrus’ education continues throughout his conquest and is marked by Xenophon with several key dialogues, beginning with Cambyses’ teachings at the end of the first book and continuing to his conversation with Croesus in the eighth book. Throughout these dialogues
Cyrus is exposed to Socratic teachings and is invited to engage in philosophic discourse. In these instances, what Cyrus appears to learn from these teachings is limited only to those principles that benefit his ambition. Cyrus displays a remarkable disinterest in philosophy throughout the work suggesting that anyone who considers Cyrus’ education should also reflect upon what he limits himself to learning. Cyrus’ ambition is in many ways similar to the ambition of Alcibiades
6 and Critias described by Xenophon in his Memorabilia.2 In the same way that Alcibiades and
Critias only desired to know of political things from Socrates, Cyrus limits himself to those teachings that he believes will benefit him in his conquest.
The education that Cyrus gives to us shows both the dangers of one like Cyrus to the stability provided by the rule of law, and the limitations of political life in leading to happiness.
As he lay on his deathbed, Cyrus reflects on his life and is only able to conclude that he ought to be remembered as being “blessedly happy”, as opposed to actually being happy. Buried in the narrative of Cyrus is the curious story of Pheraulas who was a Persian commoner who, by serving Cyrus, is able to escape the limitations of the common class in Persia to become a wealthy private man. By the end of the work Pheraulas is able to secure a large amount of wealth and is able to find leisure by finding a trustworthy steward to watch over it. Pheraulas is first freed from the burdens of necessity by the wealth provided him by Cyrus and is then freed from the burden of ruling over his wealth by the Sacian who agrees to manage it in his behalf. Upon achieving leisure, Pheraulas states that he believes that he has become most “blessedly happy”.
When compared to Cyrus’ failure to comprehend his own happiness, Pheraulas’ happiness in his private life offers another lesson to us in its demonstration of the limitations of political life.
In this dissertation, I hope to show that the theme of political stability that Xenophon introduces in the beginning of the work continues throughout the work, and that reading the
Cyropaedia as a serious treatment of political stability reveals many valuable teachings that are otherwise obscured by the narrative of Cyrus.
2 Memorabilia, 1.2.12-26.
7 CHAPTER 2
POLITICAL STABILITY AND THE PERSIAN LAWS
Introduction
In a 2017 publication, Lorraine Pangle connects the description and motivation of
Xenophon’s Cyrus to a portion of a speech delivered by Abraham Lincoln. She writes:
Ancient political science was more attentive to this human type [those with “towering ambition”]. It recognized in it the same restless, boundless, dangerous yearnings as Lincoln did, but it also identified something more unified and even higher than the thirst for fame at the core of these men’s ambition. The Socratic student Xenophon, meditating longer than the young Lincoln on these men’s driving passions and, observing first-hand such statesmen, future tyrants, and aspiring conquerors as Pericles, Alcibiades, Critias, and Cyrus the Younger, produced in his historical novel about Cyrus the Elder, the Cyropaedia, what is arguably the richest ancient study of high political ambition. (Pangle, 2017 p. 308)
The tyrants that Lincoln refers to above are such notable historic figures as Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar. In Lincoln's understanding, these tyrants are men of genius and capability.
According to Lincoln, the aim of these tyrants is to create, and through creating, to demonstrate their own genius to the world. Lincoln further suggests in his speech that such genius cannot tolerate existing establishments and will always destroy what is established, in order to create a monument to themselves. Pangle rightly draws a connection between the tyrants discussed by
Lincoln and Xenophon's fictionalized character Cyrus. However, in favor of discussing the attributes and psychology of Cyrus, Pangle does not discuss a portion of Lincoln’s speech that can be just as aptly, and more directly, applied to the teachings found in the Cyropaedia.
Lincoln’s speech, as with Xenophon’s Cyropaedia, is primarily concerned with political stability: 3
3 The portions of Lincoln’s speech that are referred to are taken from: Abraham Lincoln, Address to the Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, January 28th 1837, Lincoln Selected Speeches and Writing Vintage Books/The Library of America, 1992, pp.13-21.
8 …there is even now something of an ill omen among us. I mean the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country; the growing disposition to substitute wild and furious passions in lieu of sober judgements of courts; and the worse than savage mobs for the executive ministers of justice. This disposition is awfully fearful in any community; and now that it exists in ours, though grating to our feelings to admit it, it would be a violation of the truth and an insult to our intelligence to deny. (Lincoln, p. 14)
In both Lincoln’s and Xenophon's understanding, political stability is predicated on a
respect for the rule of law. Lincoln admonishes his audience to develop and maintain a religious
respect for the law.
Let reverence for the laws be breathed in by every American mother to the lisping babe that prattles on her lap. Let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges. Let it be written in primers, spelling-books, and in almanacs. Let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation. (Lincoln, pp.17)
When we consider what it is that forms our moral opinions, there is no higher source of authority
than that which is supplied by religion. We must take this to mean then, that our respect for the
law should be derived from the consideration of law as a moral authority unto itself. The great
accomplishment of western philosophy was to achieve a respect for the moral authority of law,
while allowing for particular laws themselves to be questioned. However, it is often the case that the questioning of particular laws leads to the erosion of the respect for the idea of law that is vital to the maintenance of a political regime.
Xenophon, like Lincoln, relies on a reverence for law as the backbone of a politically stable regime. Xenophon’s detailed account of the Persian regime gives a blueprint for how it is that this necessary respect for law can be formed through a civic education that equates the laws of Persia with justice.
The theme of political stability is introduced by Xenophon in the opening lines of the
Cyropaedia. Xenophon claims that democracies, monarchies, and oligarchies fail when their citizens desire to be ruled in some other way. (1.1.1) Interestingly, we are also told that those
9 tyrants who were able to achieve any lasting rule are all admired for being wise and fortunate
men. What is it that moves human beings to desire a new form of rule? Under what conditions
would a city replace an existing regime with a tyrant? We learn from the Cyropaedia, that the answers to these questions revolve around the human desire for and capacity to believe in justice.
Xenophon demonstrates throughout his discussion of the Persian education and laws that
achieving political stability requires creating and protecting laws that care for the common good.
In order to do this, the individual demands for justice of those who are to guard the laws must be
attached to the law through the rigorous education described by Xenophon. (1.2.2)
As demonstrated throughout Xenophon's work, the rule of law is most threatened by the
ability of a tyrant such as Cyrus to demonstrate the inability of law to satisfy all of the individual needs for justice that exist in a political society.4 As it turns out, human beings will not resist
rule, even by a tyrant as long as they perceive that a tyrant is able to give them justice.5
The second chapter of the first book describes the education and structure of Xenophon’s
fictional Persia. This brief chapter provides the necessary context for understanding the role of
education in forming and maintaining a political society, as well as an example of what
Xenophon understands to be the best kind of laws. Xenophon’s description of Persia, its laws,
and its education, lays out a blueprint for a politically stable society that is ruled by law. This
presentation is compared and measured against the rule of Cyrus.
The almost overpowering description of Cyrus’ excellence, both as a human being and as
a ruler, overshadows and conceals a quiet, but superior, argument for the benefits and even the
4 I am aware that Xenophon himself never calls Cyrus a tyrant, and that there is a good deal of noteworthy scholarship that argues that he is not tyrannical. The argument for why Cyrus is tyrannical is stated fully in chapter 3 of the dissertation, so here I only note that by Xenophon’s understandings of what a tyrant is, as stated in both Cyropaedia and Memorabilia, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that Cyrus is indeed tyrannical. 5 Consider the stories of Gobryas and Gadatas (4.6.1-3 and 5.3.19-20) who are both Assyrian allies that were been wronged by the Assyrian king. It is the promise of justice that compels them to defect to Cyrus.
10 necessity of the rule of law in creating a political society that is stable. This is not to say that law
generally is sufficient, as Xenophon indicates in comparing the laws of his Persia to those of
other Greek cities, to create stability. However, with respect to creating political stability, the
rule of law is revealed to be superior to the rule of a tyrant like Cyrus. By comparing what
Xenophon holds to be the best laws to the best tyrant, Xenophon is able to ultimately
demonstrate the superiority of the rule of law in creating a stable society. Cyrus’ empire appears stable during his life, but the thorough description of its corruption upon the death of its founder should be compared to the original Persian state from which Cyrus emerged.6 By the end of the
work, it is the only regime discussed in any detail whose institutions have remained unchanged.
In creating the narrative of the Cyropaedia, Xenophon describes both the Persian system
of laws and the life of Cyrus the Great. It should be noted that in both cases Xenophon draws on historical examples to illustrate his teachings. However, rather than describing the histories of both as they were, Xenophon remakes both Persia and Cyrus to suit his needs. The obvious departure from historical facts that would have been known to Xenophon has led some to consider Xenophon to be a sub-par historian. However, the fact that Xenophon’s history is so obviously incorrect is evidence that Xenophon must have intentionally deviated from history.
The reasoning behind Xenophon’s decision to make use of real historical characters while
at the same time inventing their histories is worthy of consideration. If Xenophon could not make
use of history as it actually occurred to impart his teachings, why did he not invent new
characters entirely? There must have been some utility in drawing on history that was worth the
risk of being mistaken as a poor historian. Xenophon’s descriptions of both Persia and Cyrus the
6 See 1.2.16 The literature tends to overlook that Xenophon suggests the education of the Peers that he describes is still used in Persia proper at the time he is writing. Further Persia proper, its laws and education are protected from the rule of Cyrus in a deal that Cambyses and Cyrus strike (8.5.25), suggesting that the stability of the Persian republic is preserved by the wise king Cambyses.
11 Great can be seen as corrections to the establishment of laws and the rule of a tyrant. I elaborate on this point in greater detail in the dissertation, and only raise it here to suggest that Xenophon’s intentional alteration of history may suggest that the ideal laws or the best tyrant had never existed at the time Xenophon wrote. It is also possible that Xenophon made use of Persian history in particular as a way to disguise criticisms against the Greeks. Xenophon’s Persia closely resembles the Greek city-state of Sparta, and Xenophon’s Persian laws appear as corrections to the Spartan laws. By describing the laws as Persian, Xenophon is able to avoid the appearance of criticizing Sparta. Though Xenophon was an Athenian, he spent some time in exile in Sparta and served in a military and political capacity in Sparta as well.
What is Political Stability?
The Cyropaedia begins with a theoretical discussion of the causes of political stability and ends with an illustrative example of instability demonstrated through the ruin of Cyrus’ empire. Xenophon’s concern for political stability frames the narrative of Cyrus which suggests that the teachings contained within the narrative should be understood in terms of their effect on political stability. However, while Xenophon indicates the importance of the theme of political stability in the work, he never directly informs us as to what he actually understands political stability to be past the indication that it leads to the duration of a regime.
The indications given that Xenophon is concerned with political stability arise through his discussion of instability. Xenophon’s description of the instability of regimes demonstrates that all of political life is susceptible to the turmoil described by Xenophon. A remedy or solution for the problem of instability is never discussed by Xenophon in the first person. Rather, it is left for us to discover through an examination of the narrative of Cyrus that Xenophon offers. Examining what Xenophon understands political stability to be is a necessary first step in
12 determining how it can be achieved.
Throughout the Cyropaedia Xenophon only discusses three regimes in any detail; Persia,
Media and the empire that Cyrus creates. It is possible to extract Xenophon’s understanding of
political stability through an examination of his discussions of these three differing regimes.
Beginning with the Persian republic, it should be noted that while those Persians who leave with
Cyrus are undoubtedly corrupted, Persia proper remains in the end as it was described in the
beginning. This fact tends to get buried under Xenophon’s colorful description of the Persians
who reside in Babylon.7 The clearest indication that Persia proper remains unchanged throughout
the work can be seen in the remarkable agreement that Cambyses strikes with Cyrus during
Cyrus’ first visit back to Persia after he had left to campaign against the Assyrians. After
establishing that it would not be in the best interest of either the Persians or Cyrus for Cyrus to
rule in Persia proper, Cyrus agrees to the following terms:8
You, Cyrus, that if anyone marches against Persian land or tries to tear up Persia’s laws, that you will give aid with all of your strength; and that you, Persians, that if someone either undertakes to depose Cyrus from his rule or if any of his subjects undertakes to revolt, you will give aid both to yourselves and to Cyrus in whatever he demands. (Xenophon, Cyropaedia p. 263)
When comparing the vast resources of Cyrus’ new empire to that of the Persians, we can see that
it is the Persians who stand to benefit the most from the protection that this arrangement offers.9
It should be noted that Cambyses’ terms include a protection from outside threats as well as any threats to the supremacy of the Persian law. Under this agreement, the Persian law that
Xenophon describes in the beginning is now protected by the tyranny that Cyrus creates.
7 See 8.8.1-27. 8 All quotations of the Cyropaedia are taken from Wayne Ambler’s translation, The Education of Cyrus, Cornell University Press, 2001. 9 We may also add that there is no parallel for Cyrus. He does not stand to benefit in any way by coming to the aid of the Persians.
13 When examining the regimes that Xenophon details throughout the work, a standard of stability emerges that is seen in the ability of one regime to successfully and peacefully pass rule down while maintaining the integrity of their laws. Again, of the three regimes discussed in detail by Xenophon, Persia, Media, and Cyrus’ empire, the only regime that is able to successfully and peacefully pass down rule from one generation to another is Persia.
If it is the case that Persia presents the best example of political stability in the
Cyropaedia, then it is through an examination of Xenophon’s descriptions of the Persian republic that we can best come to understand both what Xenophon understands political stability to be and how it is best achieved.
Xenophon’s Reflections
The first book of Xenophon’s Cyropaedia begins with a series of reflections written in
Xenophon’s own voice. It is in the opening lines of the Cyropaedia that Xenophon indicates his concern for political stability. (1.1.1) While Xenophon’s introductory remarks display a concern on his part for the stability of regimes, or political life, the subject of political stability itself is never explicitly raised as a concern again in the work. This, in and of itself, is a curious feature of the Cyropaedia.
Xenophon’s introductory reflections connect the problem of political instability to human obedience. This can be seen in the movement of his considerations from political regimes to households and then eventually to cattlemen and herds. The theme that binds these considerations together is one of obedience, with a distinction being drawn between the seemingly willing obedience of animals and a human reluctance to being ruled. From this, it is reasonable to assume that achieving willing obedience in human beings is a necessary step in achieving political stability. Xenophon presents the problem of achieving the willing obedience
14 of human beings as an almost insurmountable task: “It is easier given his nature, for a human to
rule all other kinds of animals, than to rule human beings” (1.1.3).
It is upon a consideration of Cyrus, that Xenophon is inclined to amend his position and
admit that ruling over human beings is easy, if one does it with knowledge. This appears to
suggest that Cyrus possesses the knowledge of good rule that Xenophon refers to and is therefore
the answer to the problem of political stability. Cyrus’ marvelous ability to lead and the success
of his empire do indeed demonstrate his ability to rule well, but the ruin of his empire upon his
death casts doubt on the possibility that Cyrus is the answer to Xenophon’s concern for political
stability, or even that Cyrus ever gains the knowledge that Xenophon refers to. It is from these
bearings that much of the literature addresses the Cyropaedia. This has given rise to the
mentioned dispute regarding how we should understand Cyrus’ great success with the sudden
end of his empire.
From the outset, Xenophon appears to be primarily concerned with the causes and foils to
political stability. Xenophon’s opening remarks immediately call our attention to political
stability by reflecting on how many different types of political regimes have been overthrown
throughout history:
How many democracies have been brought down by those who wished the governing to be done is some way other than a democracy; how many monarchies and how many oligarchies have been overthrown by the people; how many who have tried to establish tyrannies have some of them, been at once brought down completely, while others, if they have continued ruling for any time at all, are admired as wise and fortunate men. (Xenophon, 2001, p. 21)
Xenophon begins his description of the different regimes that have been overthrown with
democracy and ends the statement with tyrannies, suggesting that all forms of regimes are
15 susceptible to being overthrown.10
While Xenophon does not explicitly give the answers to what political stability is or how
it can be achieved, the descriptions of instability that he gives do provide some insight.
Xenophon’s examples of instability are limited to instances in which a regime is overthrown
from within. He reflects that democracies are overthrown when the people wished to be
governed in some other way, and monarchies and oligarchies are overthrown by the people.
Curiously, Xenophon is silent as to the reasons why the human beings who overthrow these
different types of regimes wish to be ruled in some other way. The problem of instability does
not appear to be specific to any one regime, but as Xenophon describes it, it is a problem
inherent in political life itself. If the instability that Xenophon describes results from the
recalcitrance of the ruled, then Xenophon must understand political stability to result when the
ruled willingly obey the ruler(s).
While the obedience of the ruled is a necessary component, it is not the only standard that
Xenophon uses to measure political stability throughout the work. Xenophon alludes to the
ancient origins of the Persian empire throughout the Cyropaedia. Considering the short lifespan
of Cyrus’ empire, we may assume the duration of the regime itself must also be evidence of the
stability of a regime. Or that political stability requires that a regime be able to successfully pass
rule from one ruler to another.
Xenophon’s reflections move from a discussion regarding political regimes to a
discussion of household rule, and from household rule to a discussion of cattlemen and herds.
10 See Ambler, 1992. Ambler notes that political stability is inherent in political life. Also, see Strauss 2001, p.32. In discussing Xenophon's Hiero, Strauss notes “Xenophon, the pupil of Socrates, seems to have considered both democracy and Tyranny faulty regimes.” Democracies and Tyrannies are at opposite ends of the political spectrum. The fact that Xenophon considers both to be faulty further suggests that Xenophon also believed that any type of regime is susceptible to instability and sheds some light on why Xenophon chose to present fictitious Persia as the model for stability.
16 Including a discussion of household rule and of herds and herdsmen indicates that there is some
connection between these different types of rule which leads us to consider how these types of
rule differ and if it is possible to realize a similar rule in a political system. Xenophon remarks
that he has seen some private households with many servants, and some with few, "nevertheless,
they the masters were not able to keep these few obedient at all for their use" (1.1.2).
In comparing Xenophon's discussion of political rule to the brief discussion of household
rule that follows, we are shown that both can suffer from instability. In the example of household
rule specifically, this results from the disobedience of the servants. From this, we are able to
conclude that Xenophon understands the problem of rule generally to center on the willingness
of human beings to obey.
The discussion of the masters and the slaves leads us to question how it is that Xenophon understands the two to differ. Cyrus himself distinguishes between the two in what he gives and expects from them. Throughout the Cyropaedia, Cyrus trains himself and those he leads in continence with regard to physical needs. After Cyrus has established his empire, Xenophon informs us that Cyrus does not hold those whom he considers as slaves to any standard of continence. In contrast, Cyrus demands that those he views as rulers practice discipline and restraint with regard to material needs. (8.1.43) While Cyrus’s understanding of the difference
between slaves and those who are free appears to center on continence, the manner in which
Cyrus is able to create loyalty to himself throughout the work further suggests that human beings
can be enslaved outside of physical or material desires and leads us to question if Cyrus has not
enslaved all those he rules over.
Xenophon closes his initial observations by comparing the loyalty of herds to their
masters to that of human beings and their rulers:
17 We thought we saw all these herds more willing to obey their keepers than are human beings their rulers; for herds go wherever their keeper directs them, they feed on whatever land their keepers drive them to, and abstain from whatever lands their keepers turn them from. And as for such profits that arise from these, they allow their keepers to use in whatever way they themselves wish. Nor have we ever perceived a herd uniting against its keeper either so as not to obey or so as not to allow him to use the profits, but herds are more harsh toward all others than they who both rule over and benefit from them; on the other hand, human beings unite against none more than against those whom they perceive attempting to rule them. (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, p. 21)
The comparison of animals to human beings with regard to rule is a continued theme throughout
the work and serves in many ways to prompt us to question what the differences between human beings and animals discussed by Xenophon must be that lead the former to resist rule and the latter to acquiesce to it. In drawing a comparison between ruling over animals and ruling over human beings, a key difference appears to be the desire of human beings to perceive themselves as being free. Overcoming this obstacle to rule centers on the ability of leaders to cause the ruled to believe that their obedience best serves their interest.
The subject of how to secure the loyalty of the ruled makes up a large portion of the conversation between Cambyses and Cyrus before Cyrus leaves the borders of Persia to begin his own rule. From this, we learn that human beings willingly obey those they perceive to be more prudent than themselves: "human beings obey with more pleasure whomever they think is more prudent about their own advantage than they are themselves" (1.6.21). Cambyses’ observation indicates that human beings resist rule. Cambyses further suggests that, at on the condition that they believe the ruler to be more prudent than they are themselves, human beings will allow themselves to be ruled with pleasure. From this it is possible to conclude that when human beings believe that obeying serves their best interests, they do not perceive themselves as actually being ruled. This points to the possibility, both that human beings at a fundamental level desire to be free, and that a ruler can overcome this desire by fostering the belief amongst the
18 ruled he knows better how to serve their interests than they do themselves. In contrast to the
Persian law, Cyrus is able to demonstrate his ability to serve the interests of those he rules by
using a mixture of fear and gratitude as evidence of his ability to both reward and punish those he rules over.
After discussing the differences in regimes, household rule and after comparing ruling human beings to ruling animals, Xenophon informs us that it is upon the considerations he has listed, that he initially was, inclined to this judgment: "It is easier, given his nature for a human being, to rule all the other kinds of animals than to rule other human beings” (1.1.3). If we combine Xenophon’s observation that human beings resist those they perceive to be attempting to rule over them with Xenophon’s judgment regarding human beings’ capacity to rule others, we may conclude both that Xenophon understands the answer to the question of how to rule well over other human beings involves ruling them in such a way as to avoid the perception that they are being ruled. Further, he suggests that it is something in the nature of human beings that prevents us from ruling in this way.
Xenophon’s opening reflections move from a consideration of political stability to a consideration of the difficulty of ruling human beings. While we may be tempted to equate one with the other, the narrative of Cyrus is only given in light of Xenophon’s claim that ruling other human beings is possible and even easy. Even if we hold that Cyrus is the solution to the problem of ruling human beings, the ruin of his empire upon his death suggests that what is necessary for ruling human beings is not sufficient to achieve political stability. In other words, in Xenophon’s understanding, achieving political stability requires more than the obedience of human beings to a living ruler. That is not to say that securing the obedience of the ruled is not necessary for achieving political stability, but rather suggests that what obedience is directed
19 towards must also be considered. The Persian law creates an equality amongst the Peers that
places them all, even the king, as equals under the law. Thus, obedience to the law reinforces an
equality that serves to preserve stability. Obedience to Cyrus, however, is individually rewarded
which creates a competition amongst his followers that teaches them to strive for Cyrus’ favor.
Once Cyrus is dead, the competition remains, but without is without a judge, leading to the instability described in Book Eight.
There can be little question that Cyrus displays a remarkable ability to secure the willing obedience of many, and to compel obedience through fear from those in his charge, and those he
comes in contact with during his campaign.11 However, as we see in his quarreling sons after his death, Cyrus’ ability to win obedience of any kind dies with him.12
The Persian Education: Private vs Public Good
Xenophon begins his description of the Persian education by signaling how the Persian
education differs from the educations of most cities (1.2.2). While this first appears as a simple
comparison between the Persian education and other educations generally, Xenophon suggests
that he believes the Persian education to be superior to the education that most other cities
prescribe. The failure in education that Xenophon alludes to lays the groundwork for an
argument that Xenophon will later develop that connects the education of a city’s citizens to the
human need for justice. Essentially, what occurs as a result of a failure in education is that
individual citizens hold private views of justice that do not conform the laws of the cities. Or,
that if not directed properly, an individual’s preference for themselves will lead to a view of
justice that is against the interests of the city.
11 See 1.1.3, 3.1.20-23. 12 See 8.8.1-2.
20 While Xenophon’s reference to the poor education that most cities use is general, he later
claims that the Persian children go to their schools to learn justice as do Greek children to learn
their letters. (1.2.6) By comparing his fictitious Persian education to the Greek education after condemning the education of “most cities,” Xenophon avoids the appearance of openly criticizing the education of the Greeks while at the same time informing us that he means to correct the Greek education.
As mentioned, according to Xenophon’s description, the sons of the Peers go to school in
Persia to learn justice as the Greeks go to school to learn their letters (1.2.6). This is a curious comparison and invites a consideration of how it is that one is taught and learns letters. We might reasonably assume that, much as it is today, teaching letters involves beginning at a young age and engaging in constant practice and repetition beginning with individual letters and building towards words and sentences. However, in the Persian system the boys are taught justice, not by rote, per se, but through the example of the elders who spend “most of the day” judging cases among them (1.2.6). If the similarity between the Persians learning justice and the Greeks learning letters is not in the manner in which they are taught, then the similarity may be in the manner in which justice and letters are learned. This suggests that a critical element of the
Persian education system is an early exposure to the Persian laws. Children who are in their early and most formative years are less likely to question the understanding of justice given by the
Persian regime. As Xenophon informs us, the Persian laws start earlier so as to “take care that the citizens will not in the first place even be such as to desire any vile or shameful deed” (1.2.3).
Xenophon’s description of the Persian education is intermingled with descriptions of the customs and mannerisms of the Persians. Similar to the way in which the Spartan constitution discouraged a love for money, Xenophon’s Persians have banished moneymaking from the
21 center of the Republic, or the so called free square, which also serves as the center of political
power in Persia. Xenophon gives us the understanding that the Persians consider moneymaking
to be somehow vulgar, and that the reason for its separation from the political center of Persia is
to ensure that the taint of moneymaking “does not mingle with the good order of the educated.”
Xenophon presents this facet of the Persian way of life as a matter of fact. This has the effect of
assuming that we share in his understanding with regard to the harm that moneymaking would have on the education of the Persians, and we are left without an explicit explanation of the connection between the two.
Moneymaking is an individual pursuit that pits individuals against each other while rewarding them without regard for the common good. We might wonder at a pedagogical approach that censors moneymaking from the view of the educated rather than teaches against its corrupting influence. The fact that moneymaking is banished from the view of the educated suggests that its influence is too powerful a temptation and is therefore better removed from view. Xenophon’s view that something like moneymaking is better to be avoided than attempting to educate individuals against its danger suggests that Xenophon believes that censorship generally is a tool that must be used in the education of a politically stable society.
Xenophon’s introduction to his fictional Persia provides some insight into how it is that moneymaking might interfere with the education of the political rulers of Persia. Xenophon’s
immediate distinction between those cities that care for the common good and those that allow
their children to be educated privately implies that cities that fail in providing an education
which directs their children towards the common good of the city, do so in favor of private
goods. The tension between the good of an individual and that of the city is what gives rise to
Socrates’ recounting of his dialogue with Ischomachus in another of Xenophon’s works, the
22 Oeconomicus. It is this tension that is at the heart of the problem in creating a politically stable regime.
Education is the tool that Xenophon’s Persia uses to connect the self-interest of its citizens to the good of the city. In his own words, Xenophon informs us that human beings will resist being ruled. The key to overcoming this resistance lies in the ability either to compel or persuade humans to be obedient. Cambyses will teach Cyrus that the best way to persuade human beings to be obedient is to convince the ruled that the ruler is more prudent with regard to their own advantage than they are themselves (1.6.21). The great success of the Persian education is that it is able to connect what its citizens understand to be their advantage to the good of Persia itself. We can assume that something about moneymaking interferes with or disrupts this process and has the effect of allowing the Persians to seek their own advantage in making money rather than in serving Persia.
Just as moneymaking has the effect of encouraging individuals to consider their own advantage over the good of the city, Xenophon indicates that the manner in which the city praises individuals for their achievements will have a similar effect. According to Xenophon,
Persia is divided into twelve tribes (1.2.5). The twelve tribes compete for honor amongst the
Persian citizens:
There are public contests in them, and prizes are offered. In whichever tribe there are the most members who are most skillful, most manly, and most obedient, the citizens praise and honor not only their present ruler but also the one who educated them when they were boys. (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, p. 26)
While Persia does encourage competition amongst its citizens, it does so in a way that does not allow for individual achievement to be rewarded. Rather than rewarding accomplished individuals for their feats, the rulers and educators of each tribe are rewarded. In other words, what is valued most in the Persian republic is the ability to teach and lead. It should be noted that
23 in the passage above Xenophon does not appear to distinguish between rulers and educators in
terms of the honors they receive. This is what leads to the difference in educations that
Xenophon points to in the beginning of the chapter. An education in justice, such as the Persians
receive, is necessarily concerned with the common good. Xenophon acknowledges that the
Persian laws begin with a care for the common good. This appears as distinct from the private
good and raises the question of whether or not it is possible to have an education that promotes
both the private and the common good, or if it is always the case that one is gained at the
expense of the other.
The Persian society described by Xenophon bears a remarkable resemblance to the Greek
city-state Sparta. Xenophon presents the Constitution of the Lacedaemonians as being different
from the other Greek city-states in the same way he presents the Persian education as differing
from the education of the Greeks. Both Sparta and Persia use a public education where the other
Greek cities allow for private educations, and both the Persian education and the Spartan
education appear to be lacking in both music and letters.13 Where Xenophon presents the
education that comes from laws given by Lycurgus as superior to those of the other Greek city
states, he presents the Persian education as superior to the Spartans, implying the superiority of
the Persian education to that of any Greek education, including the Spartans.14 While there are
several similarities and differences worth exploring between the education of the Spartans and
that of the Persians, we should first consider the basis on which Xenophon himself judges the
13 See Strauss, 1939. Regarding Xenophon’s treatment of the Spartan constitution, Strauss notes that “Xenophon informs us between the lines that in Sparta there was no education worth mentioning in letters and music.” This appears to be the result of the public Spartan education as opposed to the private education used by other Greek cities. There is similarly no mention of letters or music in Xenophon’s corrected Spartan education that appears in the Cyropaedia. This suggests that Xenophon believes there to be some harm to the public good that can come from an education in music and letters. 14 Ibid. Strauss notes that “A comparison of the two descriptions shows that he considered Persian education definitely superior to Spartan, not to say that he considered the former to be absolutely perfect.”
24 value of the education. If we recall Xenophon’s concern with political stability at the outset of
the work, we may conclude that the basis on which he determines the superiority of an education
lies in its ability to create political stability. From this perspective, understanding the elements of
Xenophon’s fictional Persian education and comparing them to those of the Spartan education
should shed some light on how it is that political stability can be achieved.
Xenophon begins his description of the Persian education by distinguishing between
different understandings of the function of education: “These [Persian] laws do not seem to begin
where they begin in most cities, but by caring for the common good” (1.2.2). A similar remark is
made in the Constitution of the Lacedaemonians. Here, Xenophon points to the difference
between the other Greek cities in which the parents profess to give their sons the best education
by placing them under the care of a moral tutor.15 In both cases, the education is directed towards
the good of the city and compared to that of Greek cities who allow their children to be educated
in private. Xenophon describes the result of these private educations in the Cyropaedia as
follows:
For most cities allow each to educate his own children however he wants, and they allow the adults to live as they please; then they enjoin them not to steal or plunder, not to do violence in entering a house, not to strike whomever it is unjust to strike, not to commit adultery, not to disobey a ruler, and similarly with such matters. If someone transgresses one of these strictures, they punish him. (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, p. 23)
In the Constitution of the Lacedaemonians, Xenophon writes:16
In the other Greek states [other than Sparta] parents who profess to give their sons the best education place their boys under the care and control of a moral tutor as soon as they can understand what is said to them, and send them to school to learn letters, music, and the exercises of the wrestling ground. (Xenophon, Constitution of the Lacedaemonians, pp.141)
15 Xenophon Scripta Minora, Constitution of the Lacedaemonians 2.1. 16 Quotations of Xenophon’s Constitution of the Lacedaemonians are taken from: Xenophon, Scripta Minora, translated by E.C. Marchant and G.W. Bowersock, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, 1968.
25 In distinguishing the effects of these educations from that of the Persian, Xenophon states
that, “the Persian laws, starting earlier, take care that citizens will not in the first place even be
such as to desire to do any vile or shameful deed” (2.1.3). From this we can conclude that
Xenophon understands the education of a city to be directly connected to the good of the city, or
that the political stability of a city is connected to the education of the city.
The Persian education differs and is superior to that of other cities because, rather than
only preventing harm to the city through punishing crime, the Persian education works to ensure
that its citizens have no desire to commit a crime in the first place. The difference between the
strict use of force and a willing desire not to harm the city is comparable to the distinction
Xenophon draws between willing and unwilling obedience throughout the work. (1.6.19-23)
Xenophon has connected the problem of ruling human beings to the ability of a ruler to secure the willing obedience of his subjects, implying that the knowledge of ruling well involves understanding this concept. In introducing the education of the Persians, the superiority of this education rests on the same principle, a willing desire to obey the city. Through the censorship of corrupting influences like the practice of money making, and the early habituation that comes from watching and participating in the cases brought before the Peers to judge, the educated of
Persia learn to attach their desire for justice to the laws of the city, and become willing servants of the Persian law.
Any serious argument in favor of the good of the Persian education must contend with the somewhat buried fact that the Persian regime functions as an oligarchy. Xenophon informs us that only those who can afford an education are permitted to participate in the Persian education, and only those that are educated are allowed to rule in Persia. (1.2.15)
In maintaining that the rule of law and the stability that it provides is meant to be
26 understood as superior to the rule of Cyrus, one is left with two possibilities. The first being that
Xenophon is critical of the oligarchic practices of the Persians. After all, it was due to the exclusion from education and political rule that Pheraulas, the partially educated commoner, was able to convince the Commoners to take up arms alongside the Peers. (2.3.7) Without this motive the Commoners, who made up the vast majority of Cyrus’ initial command, may not have agreed to fight with the Peers at all. However, when we consider that Xenophon was not reporting on an actual Persia, and was instead creating his own, the inclusion of an element that he would criticize becomes questionable.
The second, more likely, possibility that we can turn to in maintaining that Persia is meant to be an example of the best for of rule is the somewhat bleaker teaching that the exclusion of some individuals from the education is necessary. The simple reasoning for this could be that the Peers rely on the commoners for their sustenance. While this appears harsh, it should be remembered that the class distinction can be overcome. Pheraulas, a commoner, was able to receive a portion of the Persian education suggesting that it is possible for a commoner to participate in the Persian education.
Cyrus’ Median Education
After Xenophon describes the Persian laws and system of education, he begins relating the story of Cyrus in a narrative fashion. The narrative begins after Cyrus’ grandfather Astyages, king of Media, has sent for Cyrus and his daughter Mandane. Cyrus has participated in the
Persian education up until this point and is twelve years old when he is called to Media. (1.3.1)
Cyrus spends several years in Media and during this time was a part of the Median court.
While not explicitly described as such, we should understand Cyrus’ time in Media as a
formative and educational experience. The time that Cyrus spends in Media is time that would
27 have been spent in the Persian education had he not been called to Media. Xenophon’s
description of the structure of the Persian regime gives us a way of life to compare to the
description he later gives of Media. By comparing the Persian education that Cyrus would have
received if he had not gone to Media to the experiences he has in Media, we are able to see how
the impact of the deviation in his education affects his rule throughout the book.
Military Rule vs Rule of a Polis
As has been discussed, one of the greatest difficulties in making sense out of the
Cyropaedia is reconciling the tremendous ability of Cyrus in both leading an army and forging and empire with the vivid description of its ruin at the end of the book. I have argued that these two pieces of the work can be reconciled if we take Xenophon’s introductory reflections seriously and approach the work as a treatment of political stability. I argue that Xenophon’s description of Persia, its laws and its system of education provide a blueprint for achieving political stability that is superior to the rule of Cyrus. While this argument may add some clarity to why Xenophon includes such a vivid description of the corruption of Cyrus’ empire, it does not adequately explain why Xenophon would dedicate such a large portion of the book to describing the successes of Cyrus. In addressing this feature of the Cyropaedia, I argue that we need not consider Cyrus to be a failure as ruler generally, but rather that there is a significant difference in how Xenophon understands one should lead in war and how one should rule a political society. It is possible that Cyrus’ successes as military commander can be attributed to his ability to rule an army. One of the teachings that emerge from a study of the Cyropaedia is that proper military rule differs from the proper rule of a city.
Xenophon’s shorter writings are often considered to be “how to” guides that deal with the practical needs one should attend to when performing some task. His shorter writings contain
28 instructions for such subjects as horsemanship, hunting, and how to command a cavalry. While
there exists a body of literature that discusses these writings, very little scholarly attention has
been given to these writings from a political or philosophic perspective. The practical nature of
Xenophon’s writing in these shorter works tends to conceal his more philosophic and political
teachings. A comparison between two of Xenophon’s shorter writings, On Horsemanship and On
Hunting, to the Cyropaedia reveals similarities in how Xenophon educates military leaders and
teaches them to train their subordinates.
On the Art of Horsemanship
Xenophon’s short treatise On the Art of Horsemanship, like the Cyropaedia, discusses the subject of how to lead. The work can be divided into two portions. The first portion of the treatise discusses how best to select and train horses and the second portion addresses how a cavalry leader should best train and lead his subordinates. Referring again to his introductory remarks, Xenophon directs us to consider the difference between ruling over human beings and ruling over animals. While he never explicitly answers this question in the Cyropaedia, he does provide some insight into the differences in On the Art of Horsemanship. During his discussion of training horse Xenophon remarks:17
Now, whereas the gods have given to men the power of instructing one another in their duty by word of mouth, it is obvious that you can teach a horse nothing by word of mouth. If, however, you can reward him when he behaves as you wish, and punish him when he is disobedient, he will best learn to do his duty. (Xenophon, On the Art of Horsemanship, p.341)
As in the Cyropaedia, Xenophon’s chief concern in training horses is how best to win obedience. The difference between horses and human beings lies in the ability of human begins
17 Quotations from Xenophon’s On Horsemanship are taken from: Xenophon Scripta Minora, translated by E.C. Marchant and G.W. Bowersock, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, 1968.
29 to be persuaded to obedience through the use of speech. This suggests that human beings require a form of persuasion that goes beyond the simple use of reward and punishment that Xenophon prescribes for the training of horses.
Xenophon gives us some indication of what is required to win the obedience of human beings in both the Cyropaedia and On Horsemanship. In the Cyropaedia Cambyses informs
Cyrus that there is no better way to win the obedience of those he is leading than convince them that he [Cyrus] knows better how to secure the interests of those he is leading than they do themselves. (1.6.22) A similar sentiment is echoed in On Horsemanship. As noted by Stoll, “One objective of the good commander is to elicit obedience by imbuing every soldier with the sense that his personal fate is safest in the commander’s hands…”18 It should be noted that in both instances, the remarks were made as they pertain to leading individuals in war.
On Hunting
Like Xenophon’s treatise On Horsemanship, his work On Hunting can also be divided into two sections, with the first offering advice on the practical aspects of hunting, and the second offering insight into the political and philosophical considerations. In both the
Cyropaedia and On Hunting, Xenophon connects the practice of hunting to the good of the city.
In Cyropaedia, Cambyses informs Cyrus that the reason that the Persian youth are taught to hunt is to prepare them for war. In On Hunting, Xenophon writes: “But the advantages that those who have attracted by this pursuit will gain are many. For it makes the body healthy, improves the sight and hearing, and keeps the men from growing old; and it affords the best training for war.”19 In the Cyropaedia, Xenophon goes beyond the physical advantages that are listed above
18 Stoll, 2012. 19 Xenophon, On Hunting 12.1.
30 as Cambyses informs Cyrus that the Persian youth are taught to hunt in order to learn how to
deceive and snare their enemies in war. (1.6.28-29) Cyrus’ reaction to this revelation suggests
that the connection between hunting and war had not been explicitly taught to the Persians. This
is somewhat curious and implies that there is some danger in allowing the youth to either openly
train for war, or in connecting their exercises in hunting to waging war, which teaches that
advantage in war belongs to those who can best deceive.
When we consider the difference in leading individuals in war and the manner in which
the Persians are taught to obey the Persian laws, a notable difference that arises is that in war, the
obedience of those who are commanded is directed towards an individual. In the case of the
Persian republic, obedience is directed towards the law. The always pressing necessities of war
make obedience to a set of laws impractical. As we see in Persia, though obedience is given to
the law, a great deal of time is spent arbitrating and determining how to best apply the law. A
wartime environment does not allow for such deliberation, and therefore requires that the power
to judge and decide what course of action to take rest with one individual. Thus, the rule of the
law that is the basis of the Persian regime is incompatible with and could be threatened by the
demands of military rule.
Conclusion
When we consider that the title of the work is the “Education of Cyrus,” we may take it to mean both the education that Cyrus receives and the education with which he supplants the
Persian education. Cyrus replaces the Persian education that directs obedience to the rule of law
through instilling the practice of virtue for its own sake with his own merit system where Cyrus,
rather than the law, is the judge of what is virtuous. If we take the position that Cyrus does in fact
possess the knowledge of how to rule human beings well and is himself the most excellent in
31 compelling the obedience of human beings, we can assume that the answer to the problem of political stability is not to be found in human beings directly ruling over other human beings. In fact, the case of Cyrus illustrates this point. While he lived, Cyrus’ ability to rule allowed him to maintain an empire beyond what any other rulers would have been capable of. The inability of
Cyrus’ sons, whom we may consider both as inferior to Cyrus and as not so different from other rulers, to rule the empire suggests that insofar as political stability is concerned, Cyrus’ remarkable ability ends up being detrimental. These considerations lead to the possibility that
Xenophon means to show that political stability is dependent on a form of rule that differs from human beings ruling over human beings. The discussion of the Persian education is the prelude to what will amount to a quiet, but powerful, argument throughout the work that demonstrates that the key to political stability is the rule of law.
32 CHAPTER 3
A TALE OF TWO TUNICS
Introduction
The third chapter of the first book of the Cyropaedia relates the story of how Cyrus, when called upon by the elders, adjudicated a case regarding property. Cyrus offers this story as evidence that he has learned justice and in response to his mother’s concern for his desire to stay in Media. While Cyrus uses the story as proof that he has learned justice, what Cyrus understands justice to be is initially ambiguous. The case reveals something of Cyrus’ nature, as we learn that, notwithstanding his Persian education, Cyrus knowingly rules against the law. This suggests that the education he was given in Persia has not had the effect of directing his desires towards the good of Persia as with the other Persians, and perhaps, demonstrating an early predisposition to wish to be in a position to determine what is just.20
The story of the tunics is recognized as a key part of Xenophon’s teachings in the
Cyropaedia, but it is not discussed in depth by much of the scholarship. In this brief, but powerful, story, Cyrus, as a young boy, and having been educated in the Persian law, is brought to judge a case of theft in which a bigger boy has taken the tunic of a smaller boy and replaced it with his smaller tunic. Cyrus flouts the Persian law which prohibits taking another’s belongings and instead rules that the new tunic arrangement is more fitting. For his ruling against the law,
Cyrus is admonished and beaten. (1.3.17)
I argue that one of Xenophon’s central purposes in writing the Cyropaedia is to demonstrate the ability of the rule of law to bring about political stability. However, if Xenophon seeks to demonstrate the connection between the rule of law and political stability, then why
20 See Ambler, 1992.
33 does he choose to use such a compelling example of the failure of law to provide that which is
fitting as demonstrated by the story of the tunics. That big boys should have big tunics and little
boys little tunics seems beyond question. However, when we consider the deeper implication of
the violation of the Persian law which holds that those things which one buys or makes is
protected property, we are given cause to reconsider the justness of Cyrus’ ruling. Cyrus’ arrangement can only work if there is always a wise ruler present to ensure the right goods end up with the right people. Xenophon’s use of a scenario that, at least upon first consideration, leads us to consider that Cyrus’ ruling is just, demonstrates the propensity of human beings to regard justice outside of the law. In this way the limitations and fragility of law is demonstrated by showing how the law is necessarily defective and does not always serve the fitting or the just.
The notion that the new tunic arrangement is more fitting for the boys can be questioned if we broaden the definition of what is fitting. Cyrus’ decision to ignore the law can be considered unjust if we hold that the good the rule of law brings about, political stability, serves justice more fully than that which may be individually fitting. In other words, political stability can serve a common good that outweighs any individual need for justice.
Cyrus’ recounting of the case of the tunics occurs near the end of the third chapter in the first book of the Cyropaedia. The story of the two tunics is buried under several contextual layers. The story is also nestled within an argument with his mother and is recounted as a rebuttal to his Mother’s assertion that he will not learn justice if he stays in Media. Finally, the story occurs in the space between, or in the middle of, Cyrus’ education in Persia and his education in
Media, marking a transition that requires an understanding of both educations.
The Case of the Tunics
As noted by Danzig, there is little discussion of the case of the tunics across the literature
34 that discusses the Cyropaedia.21 The lack of scholarly attention may be due in part to the
simplicity of the case itself. Even Danzig, who does discuss the case at length, only sees it as an
illustration of Cyrus’ superior ability to distribute goods in a just manner, or as a demonstration
of Cyrus’ superior ability to provide distributive justice. Danzig’s argument for the superiority of
Cyrus’ distribution of goods is part of his larger argument that views Cyrus as an ideal ruler in
general. This assertion, however, is problematic in that it presupposes an understanding of justice that is nowhere supported by Xenophon throughout the work. This is a clever trap Xenophon sets by using the simple case of misfit tunics. A quick consideration of the case will likely lead to the conclusion that the boys should have tunics that fit. Not only is it better for the boys, but the inability of the Persian law to recognize this, demonstrates a flaw in the law. However, a more careful examination of the story reveals a multitude of possible understandings of what justice is, its relation to law generally, and several possibilities for why Cyrus ruled in the way he did. If anything, Xenophon’s opening concern for the stability of regimes should lead us to consider the possibility that Cyrus’s cavalier dismissal of the Persian law is problematic. As it turns out, the story of the tunics reveals that the law, which is static and unable always to grant what is individually fitting, nevertheless creates stability which more fully serves the good of the city than a ruler such as Cyrus becomes.
Brief as it may be Cyrus’ retelling of his adjudication of the case of the two tunics reveals several possible understandings of justice. In addition, the story gives the reader the clues necessary to understand the success of Cyrus’ imperial project. The case is recounted as follows:
A big boy with a little tunic took off the big tunic of a little boy and dressed him in his own tunic, while he himself put on that of the other. Now I, in judging it fitting for them
21 Danzig, 2009. He notes: “Scholars have long recognized that the anecdote Cyrus tells concerning the exchange of coats between a big boy and a little boy (1.3.16–18) says something about Xenophon’s or at least Cyrus’ view of justice. But it is harder to say what exactly it says, and most commentators have limited themselves to a brief sentence or two on the subject.”
35 recognized that was better for both that each have the fitting tunic. (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, p.32)
One of the most interesting facets of the case of the tunics that Cyrus recounts is the absence of
Cyrus’ reasoning for deciding in the way he did. Cyrus simply states that he “recognized that it
was better for both that each have the fitting tunic” and offers no further defense of his
reasoning. The obvious assumption is that Cyrus judged it was clear that the result was that each
boy had a tunic that was appropriate for his size, and that this was better for both. This could
indicate a preference for ownership based on what is naturally more fitting, which in this case is simple to see.
When put in the proper context, not only does the choice that Cyrus makes become questionable, but Cyrus’ reasoning for ruling in this way becomes suspect as well. In order to bring this out, we should first consider the conditions under which Cyrus imparts the story to his mother. The story is told as a defense of the young Cyrus’ claim that he has already learned what justice is. As Xenophon informs us, the Persians are educated in justice and this is accomplished through the boys both watching and eventually participating in judging cases amongst themselves. (1.2.6) By presenting his knowledge of justice as a result of the Persian education, which his mother initially suggests is the only way he can learn justice, Cyrus leaves her little room to refute his claim. Further, throughout the recounting of the story, Cyrus never actually states what justice is. In other words, he leaves it to his mother to draw her own conclusions regarding what he holds justice to be. This is the charm and the brilliance of the simple story.
When we read it, we too are susceptible to drawing conclusions regarding what Cyrus understands justice to be, though neither Cyrus nor Xenophon directly informs us as to what
Cyrus has learned. At the very least, we can conclude that at a young age Cyrus displays a remarkable ability to use rhetoric to his advantage.
36 Cyrus himself states that the reason that he was chosen to adjudicate the case was because he was accurately versed in justice. If Cyrus was accurately versed in Persian law, we must take his judgment in the case as a claim that, at the least, he held the Persian law to be insufficient to properly settle the matter. Cyrus’ willingness to judge against the Persian law may be due, in part, to his young age, but he must have been aware that the punishment for not judging correctly would be a beating, and he was either willing to accept this, or somehow thought that his judgment would be allowed to stand. In either case, even before Cyrus is introduced to the Median way of life, he displays an alarming propensity to disagree with the
Persian education. This in combination with Cyrus’ position as the son of the king makes Cyrus a very real threat to the Persian way of life.
When compared to the Persian law that protects the private property rights of the Persian citizens, the apparently just solution that Cyrus offers begins to seem less so. There is a great tension between our desire to see that human beings get what they deserve, which is the basis for all human understandings of justice, and the ability to contrive a system of law or find a ruler who is actually capable of matching what is fitting for each individual. While we often associate the notion of people getting what they deserve with a punitive sense of justice, e.g. a criminal receiving a prison sentence, this sentiment can be extended to encompass the belief that good people should receive good things. Simply put, what Xenophon has done by presenting such an apparently simple case is to bring forward a much more complex problem. Human beings demand something from justice that is impossible for political life to achieve, that all receive what they deserve, good and bad. While we hold on to this demand, little consideration is given to what is good or bad for human beings. To further complicate the matter, beliefs regarding what is good, and therefore what is just, differ from place to place. Mandane admits as much in
37 her attempt to persuade Cyrus to return to Persia. (1.3.18) Finally, while individuals may hold differing beliefs regarding what is good, we all tend to believe that we deserve what is good. It is this desire for individual good that the Persian education works to eradicate by replacing this natural desire with a desire for the common good. That the Persian education succeeds in instilling a regard for the common good in its citizens is proof of the ability of a regime to shape its citizens’ beliefs with regard to what is good. That the Persian laws are perpetuated through the use of a rigid education that begins at a young age is proof of the fragility of such a system of laws that promotes the common good over the individual.
Justice and the Rule of Law
In what follows below, I discuss the tension between justice and the law that is revealed in the story of the tunics. In so doing, I compare the contradiction of the law found in Cyrus’ judgment to a portion of the dialogue between Socrates and Hippias as recorded in Xenophon’s
Memorabilia. In response to Hippias’ demand that Socrates give a definition of justice, Socrates simply states that the lawful is just.22 I do not, nor should anyone, take this to be a genuine
reflection of Socrates’ view. Xenophon clearly shows that the law cannot be simply equated with
the just in dialogue between Pericles and Alcibiades, in which Alcibiades is able to prove that
even the law can be tyrannical.23 While the Socratic equation between law and justice may be
read ironically, it is also true that the stability of a city depends, to a large degree, on the ability
of a regime to enforce the notion that the law and justice are the same. Persia is successful in
doing this through its education. It is this equation, and hence the stability of Persia, that is
22 See Memorabilia, 4.4.12. 23 Memorabilia, 1.2.40-46. The translation of Xenophon’s Memorabilia used throughout is taken from Amy Bonnette, Cornell University Press, 1994.
38 threatened by Cyrus. The Cyropaedia reveals the deficiencies of political life, while offering a
practical consideration of the good that comes from stability.24 The revealed limitations of law to
serve the interests of justice, should not be understood as a mandate to disregard the good of law
all together. Indeed, it has been well noted that the teachings of the limits of political life in the
Cyropaedia¸ direct us to consider the Socratic teachings in Memorabilia.25
While we are not able to know why Cyrus decides to reject Persian law, we are given a
defense of the law by the teacher who beats Cyrus for judging incorrectly. “The lawful is just,
and the unlawful violent”. (1.3.17) This forms the basis for the general equation of law and
justice that is necessary for the stability of the Persian regime. Socrates’ discussion with Hippias
in Memorabilia reveals the deep connection between political life and the human need for
justice.26 Hippias approaches Socrates somewhat mockingly and asks if Socrates is still saying
the same things. Socrates replies not only that he is, but that he is also still saying the same
things about the same things. Hippias’ replies “I try always to say something new.” Socrates’
reply may be read as a joke, but as is typical in Xenophon’s writing, it reveals a deeper truth: “If
someone asks how many and which letters are in “Socrates”, do you try and say different things
now from what you said before?”27 That this would be true is ridiculous, but the overt nature of
Socrates’ reply overshadows the deeper implication. If something is true it cannot change. To
move the conversation away from his blunder regarding unchanging things, Hippias quickly
shifts the subject to justice. Hippias must have known that this is the subject that Socrates was
always saying the same things about and must have intended to prove his superiority to Socrates
24 Cf Ambler 1992. He notes that “Even when he was a boy, Cyrus seemed to grasp that Persian laws were defective in their blindness to important individual differences. 25 See Bruell’s Essay, Strauss and Cropsey, p. 104. 26 Memorabilia, 4.4.7-25. 27 Ibid.
39 by demonstrating that he is willing and able to offer a definition of justice where Socrates is not.
However, in the end, while Socrates eventually does offer a definition of justice, Hippias never
does.
Hippias declares that he is now able to say something about justice, “against which
neither [Socrates] or anyone else would be able to speak.”28 When considered with Socrates’
implied assertion that what is true does not change, Hippias is claiming to have discovered the
truth about what justice is. Socrates’ response to this claim has several implications.29
By Hera, he [Socrates] said, great is the good you’re saying that you have found, if jurors will cease being divided in their votes; citizens will cease contradicting one another, bringing lawsuits, and forming factions concerning the just things, the cities will cease disagreeing about the just things and going to war. And for my part, I don’t know how I could leave before hearing you, who has found a good of such magnitude. (Xenophon, Memorabilia, p. 130)
Hippias’ claim that no one would be able to speak against what he has to say is apparently taken
by Socrates to mean both that Hippias has discovered what justice is and that everyone will agree
with and abide by his understanding. The unspoken and obvious error in this statement is
thinking that all people would agree if they were presented with the truth about what justice is.
While Socrates’ reply is ironic, it also implies that disputes over the understanding of what is just
are the cause of citizens being divided, factions within cities being formed, and cities going to
war with each other. The irony of Socrates’ statement can be seen when we consider that the
evils mentioned by Socrates occur because human beings believe they know what justice is, and
have failed to consider, like Hippias, both the difficulty of coming to understand justice, and the,
perhaps greater, difficulty of convincing another of what is just. While Socrates’ reply is ironic,
28 Memorabilia, 4.4.7-25. 29 All quotations from Xenophon’s Memorabilia are taken from Amy Bonnette’s translation, University of Cornell Press, 1994.
40 that the stability of a city depends on an agreement regarding justice is also shown.
Hippias must have realized the error he has made in stating that no one could say anything against his understanding of justice and sidesteps stating his own definition by first demanding that Socrates offer one of his own. Surprisingly, Socrates complies with the demand.
However, before Hippias is given a definition he is willing to contemplate, Socrates first asks him whether it is true that the manner in which he speaks, and acts reveal what Socrates holds justice to be. This allows Socrates to force Hippias to admit that he has never heard Socrates say or seen Socrates do anything unjust. The omission of what Socrates thinks leaves open the possibility that one can speak and behave in a manner that may not actually conform to one’s own beliefs about justice.30 Hippias accuses Socrates of trying to avoid giving his own definition of justice by speaking of what the just don’t do instead of what they do. This raises the question of whether justice requires action, or if refraining from that which is unjust is sufficient. As
Hippias does not appear interested in examining this question, Socrates relents and offers the following as a definition of justice: “the lawful is just.”31
It is only when Socrates gives his definition that Hippias is willing to engage in a conversation about justice. Hippias approaches the examination cautiously by questioning what
Socrates means by lawful and just. Socrates begins with the laws of a city and can get Hippias to agree that the one who obeys the laws of a city is just, and the one who transgresses the laws is unjust. Socrates may have let the matter lay there except for Hippias’s remarkable question regarding the seriousness of the laws. “How can anyone believe that laws or obedience to them are a serious matter, when the very people who set them down often change them, having
30 Cf 1.1.19-20. 31 Memorabilia, 4.4.12.
41 rejected them after scrutiny?” 32 We can add to this the fact that it is also the case that different cities create different laws altogether. It is possible and even likely that a thing is considered just in one city and unjust in another. Socrates implies this by adding war as another demonstration that human beings do not agree on what is just.
Hippias’ argument is that the laws cannot be the same as justice because people do not take the laws seriously. Hippias’s argument focuses on particular laws rather than the idea of law generally. The implication that people do not take that which changes seriously can be applied to
Hippias’ initial comment on finding new things to say and shows a contradiction in how he approaches understanding justice. His statement also shows that while people may not take the law seriously, they do take justice seriously, and assume that it is unchanging. Socrates is able to correct Hippias’ mistake in focusing on particular laws by comparing those who obey law to those who obey orders in war, with the implication being that orders may change in war just as laws do, “Do you think, then, that you behave differently in disparaging those who obey law, because the laws might be repealed, than if you would find fault with those who were orderly in wars, because peace might come to pass?”33 In drawing this comparison, Socrates shifts the focus away from a consideration of particular orders to the good that comes from obeying them.
The result of obeying orders in war is victory. While never explicitly stated as such, we are led to consider whether the stability that obeying the law brings represents a victory or defeat at the hands of the law. While it is true, that many, having their opinion of justice molded by the law, will never consider justice in any broader context, it is also true that with stability comes the freedom for one who is inclined to pursue a knowledge of justice outside of the law. The danger
32 Memorabilia, 4.4.14. 33 Ibid.
42 of this type of consideration being given to an entire city is clearly indicated in Cambyses’
description of the harm that was done to the Persian society by Socratic teachings. (1.6.31-32)
Socrates returns to speaking of the laws of a city and uses the example of the Spartan laws handed down by Lycurgus. Socrates states that if it were not for the obedience to the law that Lycurgus was able to produce, Sparta would have been like every other city.34 This is very
similar to what Xenophon said about what separates his Persia from other Greek cities. (1.2.2)
Socrates goes on to say that, in the city’s opinion, the good that comes from obedience to the
laws of the city is concord. While it is the city that holds this opinion, Socrates goes on to
connect concord with obedience to the laws and further states that the cities with citizens that obey the law become the strongest and the happiest.35 Socrates states that it is the city’s opinion
that concord is what is best. This suggests that individual opinions about what is best can differ.
However, while Socrates leaves the possibility that concord is not what is best open, it is his opinion that obedient citizens lead to a city that is strong and happy. The question that Xenophon poses regarding the overthrow of regimes in the beginning of the Cyropaedia finds its answer here.
Socrates moves from a discussion of written laws to unwritten laws.36 Danzig explores
this difference thoroughly and argues that unwritten laws can be discerned because following
them leads to a natural utility, while disregarding them leads to a natural punishment.37 From this perspective, Danzig is able to build an argument that favors the position that Cyrus takes in deciding the case of the tunics. He writes, “Not only will individual members of society suffer
34 Memorabilia, 4.4.15. 35 Ibid., 4.4.16. 36 Ibid., 4.4.19. 37 Danzig, 2009.
43 from a poor or unjust distribution, but society itself will suffer if as a result of such misdistribution it is unable to mobilize effectively in the face of external threats.” 38 In Danzig’s view, Cyrus’ ruling in the case of the tunics, even though it is contrary to the law, can be seen as just because it serves the social imperative of proper distribution of goods.
While Danzig is not wrong to assert that a poor distribution of goods can negatively impact the ability of a city to defend itself from outside threats, it is not outside threats that
Xenophon refers to in the beginning of the work. Xenophon’s opening reflections are aimed at discovering why it is that human beings overthrow established rulers. The discussion of human obedience that directly follows Xenophon’s opening reflections is also an indication that
Xenophon’s chief concern in writing the Cyropaedia is to explore how regimes achieve stability or become internally sound. Further, while the use of the tunics leads us immediately to consider that Cyrus’ ruling is more fitting for both boys, just distribution requires much more than the ability to fit clothing to human beings properly. The ability to assign what is fitting for different human beings in all circumstances is an impossible task. Finally, Danzig’s argument essentially weighs the good of Cyrus’ distribution against the good of the Persian law. Even if Cyrus has distributed the tunics in this one instance in a more just manner than the law could provide, the greatest good that comes from adhering to the law is the concord that Socrates describes.
Concord amongst the citizens of city creates an internal stability that is more beneficial to a city than the seeing law that Cyrus eventually creates. The infighting and ruin of Cyrus’ empire that occurs immediately following his death is proof of this. If justice is to be measured in the good that it provides to a city, then obedience to the law must be considered just.
The propensity of human beings to view justice as what they believe is owed to them
38 Danzig, 2009.
44 gives rise to the need for some higher authority to adjudicate disputes; “for just as men do, of
course, boys also accuse each other of theft, robbery, violence, deceit, calumny, and other such
things that they are likely to take vengeance on whomever they resolve to have done any of these
injustices.” (1:2.7). Equating what is just with what is legal allows for disputes to be settled
without the knowledge of what is fitting for any potential disputants. The requirement of
knowledge is lowered from the impossibly high standard of knowing what is fitting for
individual human beings in particular situations to knowledge of the law. Under this conception,
it can be argued that what is best for human beings is to follow the law. This would allow for
laws to remain relative with the quality of law only being judged by the ability and willingness of the people to obey it. The equation of the general human concern for justice with the particulars of Persian law is the goal of the Persian education. The extent to which this is successful is directly related to the stability of the regime. It is this formulation for stability that
Cyrus will question and ultimately corrupt.
Justice as What is Fitting
Xenophon’s use of the tunics allows for a play on the word fitting. In this case, the tunics can be observed as physically not fitting either of the boys. This simple device directs us to contemplate whether it is better for human beings to have what is fitting or adhere to established laws regarding property ownership. This speaks to a certain inconsistency within human beings regarding how it is that we understand the good that comes from obeying the law. When our personal interests are at stake, as was the case with the bigger boy, we might break the law. This propensity is drilled out of the Persians through their education in justice which begins at a very young age and takes care to promote the common good over the individual. This creates an attachment to the law that is not rational but cultural. Cyrus proves to be impervious to this sort
45 of indoctrination and as such is a threat to the Persian regime.
In the case of the tunics what is fitting is easily observed. Extending this principle beyond what is physically observable requires a knowledge both of human beings and what is best for them that may not be attainable.39 At the very least it requires a wise ruler that is recognized by
all as being one who can judge. In the case of the tunics, we can only say for sure that the bigger
boy believed that switching the tunics was just. That the bigger boy took the tunic from the
smaller boy suggests that the smaller boy did not recognize the justness of the bigger boy’s
claim.40 In this we see that another function of the law is to constrain the stronger from taking
from the weaker.
As mentioned, putting the notion that justice is what is fitting into practice requires a
knowledge that is beyond the capacity of human beings. This creates a reliance on an outside
authority for an understanding of what is fitting. Later in the story, after Cyrus has craftily
conquered the Armenian king, Cyrus invites the king to come down from his position to stand trial. When the king asks who the judge will be, Cyrus responds, “Clearly he to whom god has granted to treat you as he wishes even without a trial.” (3.1.6) While Cyrus is inviting the king to stand trial, he makes it clear that a trial is a privilege that he is granting. Cyrus’ response has two important implications. First, that the conquered should be subservient to the conqueror, or that might makes right. Second, that his ability to conquer is a divine sign that grants him authority over those he has conquered. When we consider Cyrus’ response to the Armenian king with
39 See Plato’s Republic 331e-332c. This can be compared to Polemarchus’ assertion that justice consists of giving everyone what is owed. What is owed is equated to what is fitting by Socrates. While Polemarchus agrees that this is what justice consists of, it becomes apparent that this understanding of justice is dependent on knowledge and thus Socrates concludes with a need for a philosopher-king, the necessary and sufficient condition for giving everyone what is owed. Incidentally, the philosopher-king is not constrained by any laws. 40 This can be compared to the story of the hawk and the nightingale from Hesiod’s Works and Days, while the stronger may impose their will on the weaker, the weaker will not see it as just. Cyrus adopts a similar attitude when talking to the conquered Armenian king. (3.1.6)
46 Cyrus’ decision to judge in favor of the bigger boy, a somewhat darker possibility for his
decision comes into focus. Cyrus may have sided with the bigger boy simply because he
conquered the smaller boy.
While it may be possible, and even likely, that individual human beings believe justice to
be that which is most fitting, this belief is troubled by a lack of knowledge of what is fitting for
others, and even for ourselves. Under this conception, demands for justice at the individual level
result from what an individual believes they are owed, and so can become an impediment to
creating a stable regime.
Justice and Force
In order to participate in the Persian education and take part in the government of Persia,
an individual and their family must be able to afford to absorb the material losses that a
dedication to the Persian education demands. While never stated as such, this would imply that
the Peers are responsible for providing the money necessary to equip and feed themselves.
Hence, only those with large and established fortunes can send their youth to receive this
education.41
The financial barrier between the ruling class and the rest of the Persian citizens is
incompatible with the type of just distribution that Cyrus seeks to impose through his ruling in
the case of the tunics. We learn that the Persian military is also divided by class distinctions.
Those who are educated in the Persian schools of justice, the Persian Peers, serve as heavy
infantry while the commoners serve as long range fighters using slings, bows, etc. In addition,
the Persian education in justice also includes an education in hunting, which teaches the peers to
41 Pheraulas is the notable exception to this but is only able to complete the education before returning to work. He is not afforded the opportunity to participate in the regime. (see 8:3.37)
47 endure all manner of harsh conditions. (1.2.10) The division that Xenophon creates between the ruling class and the commoners in the Persian military effectively creates a system in which the majority of the military force is concentrated in the same class that receives the Persian education in justice. In other words, those Persians that are taught to love the law are also the ones who have the power to enforce the law. Socrates’ sarcastic reply to Hippias’ claim to have discovered something to say about justice that cannot be refuted by anyone reveals the great difficulty in creating agreement among human beings where justice is concerned. Even the strict
Persian education cannot create an agreement with regard to what justice is among those who participate in it.42 When compared to Socrates’ reply to Hippias in Memorabilia , we see that a level of agreement with regard to what justice actually is among citizens of a city cannot ever reach the level required for citizens not to accuse one another of injustice. The conclusion that is drawn from this is that force will always be necessary to impose justice.
The fact that Xenophon never openly names the regime as an oligarchy may suggest that, like his understated criticism of Cyrus, his failure to identify the oligarchic nature of the Persian regime is meant to indicate a criticism of the regime. While Xenophon never overtly draws attention to the fact that Persia is in fact an oligarchy, this should not overshadow the fact that
Xenophon in his own words states that the Persian laws begin with a care for the common good
(1.2.2). Further, Cambyses, one of the unsung heroes of the work, is a product of this regime.
Rather than being understood as a criticism of the regime, it may be the case that Xenophon is pointing to a necessary feature of any regime that wishes to maintain stability; the ability to impose justice through force.
We may be tempted to think that Cyrus’ ruling in the case of the tunics demonstrates
42 See 1.2.6, the Persian boys being educated commonly accuse each other of committing crimes.
48 Cyrus’ superiority to the Persian regime and establishes him as an ideal leader in Xenophon’s estimation. Yet, a comparison of Cyrus’ ruling in the instance of the tunics to the establishment of his so called “eyes and ears” after he has conquered Babylon, casts doubt on the possibility that Cyrus did, or even intended to, replace the Persian law with a superior form of establishing justice. We are given to understand that Cyrus rewarded those who reported anything they saw or heard that may have been useful to him.43 Cyrus’ use of these types of spies essentially served as a form of censoring with regard to speech and deeds. This should be compared to Socrates’ statements to Hippias in Memorabilia 4.4 in which Socrates asserts that he has shown justice through his speeches and deeds. In both instances, thought is omitted from the discussion. The immediate destruction of Cyrus’ empire shows that while he may have successfully censored the speech and deeds of his subjects, he failed to censor their thoughts. By connecting the Persian citizens’ thoughts to their outward speech and action and binding all three to a love of the law, the Persian system proves superior to Cyrus’ rule in establishing stability.
The fact that Cyrus was beaten for his failure to adjudicate in the favor of Persian law is mentioned twice by Cyrus during his recounting of the case and stands out as a lesson in the necessity of force in imposing any understanding of justice. Cyrus informs his mother that, “the teacher appointed me to judge for others, on the ground that [he] was already accurately versed in justice. And then, in one case, I was beaten because I did not judge correctly.” Cyrus must have been aware that by ruling in favor of the larger boy he would be ruling contrary to Persian law. Ultimately, Cyrus was overruled and beaten for his mistake. It seems unlikely that he knew this would be the outcome and willingly submitted himself to it.
43 See 8.2.10, it appears as though the Cyrus is able to establishes a network of spies through the use of reward that was effective to the point that Cyrus’s subjects were afraid to be caught saying or doing anything that would offend Cyrus. This invites a comparison of the Persian method of censuring thought through their education and Cyrus’ method of censuring words and deeds through fear.
49 Though Cyrus was aware that he was breaking with Persian law, he must have some
reason for believing his verdict would be supported. Cyrus, perhaps, relied on the obvious and
visible fact that the tunics as arranged by the lager boy was more fitting for both boys. Such an
expectation would reveal a serious miscalculation on the part of Cyrus both with regard to the
ability of the law to provide what is fitting, and with regard to the Persian citizens’ attachment to
the law. Cyrus’ desire to disregard established law in favor of what he understood to more fitting
further highlights the necessity of force in maintaining the law.
The Teacher
The teacher in the story can be seen as representing the argument that equates what is
legal with what is just. In this case particularly, this places the teacher as the defender of the
Persian regime. Additionally, the teacher stands as a demonstration of the need for force when
seeking to implement any form of justice. When examining the teacher’s response to Cyrus’
ruling, several interesting points stand out. The teacher’s response to Cyrus’ ruling is recorded as
follows:
Upon this, the teacher beat me saying that whenever I should be appointed judge of what is fitting, I must do as I did; but when one must judge to whom the tunic belongs, then one must examine just possession, whether it is to have taken away by force or to possess what [one has] made or purchased. Since, he said, the lawful is just, and the unlawful violent, he ordered that the judge always cast his vote in conformity with the law. (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, p. 32)
While this suggests that the law in practice ultimately relies on force, it also stands out as somewhat odd considering the teacher’s equation of what is unlawful and violence. The teacher’s admonition to Cyrus connects the lawful to what is just, but the same connection is not made when considering the opposite of what is lawful or what is unlawful. We might expect that if what is lawful is just, then what is unlawful is unjust. Rather than keeping the parallel understandings intact, the teacher instead equates what is unlawful with what is violent. Does
50 this mean that what is violent is always unjust? If so, then the beating Cyrus was given must be considered unjust. This points to a possible admission that the law, which necessarily requires violence for its institution, relies on that which is unjust. In other words, in order to promote law as what is just, injustice in the form of violence is necessary.44
The apparent contradiction that arises from the use of injustice to enforce the law as a form of justice, can be avoided, however, if it is the case that the teacher’s puzzling connection between what is unlawful, and violence is meant to signify that violence or force is only unjust outside of the rule of the law. In order for the teacher’s claim--that what is lawful is just--to be true, what is legal must be understood as just. Justice under this understanding would allow for laws to remain particular to times, places, and cultures. This is one way in which Xenophon’s concern for political stability can be connected to Cyrus’ explanation of his knowledge of justice.
Also embedded in the teacher’s admonition to Cyrus is a legal respect for just ownership defined by Cyrus’ teacher as that which one has made or purchased. The teacher describes this notion of just ownership in contradiction to Cyrus’ ruling which was based on what Cyrus understood to be (and in this case clearly was) the most fitting. In a larger sense, the idea of property ownership described here and enforced by Persian law is always going to appear to be in contention with the idea of justice as what is fitting. The fact that property, defined as what one makes or purchases, is protected by law suggests that something about this understanding does not comport with how individuals would naturally understand ownership or, who should own what. This is an admission that justice, as understood as what is lawful, cannot determine or guarantee what actually is most fitting for those who fall under its jurisdiction or—to put it in the parlance of political philosophy—natural right is often at odds with conventional right.
44 Cf. Memorabilia, 1.2.40-46.
51 The Smaller Boy
While all of the circumstances that lead to the case being adjudicated by Cyrus are not known, it is reasonable to assume that the younger boy pressed charges or accused the bigger boy of theft. This appears, on the surface, as a reasonable reaction to the presumably forced swapping of tunics. However, when considered against the outcome by which a more fitting arrangement for both boys arrived at, it is worth reconsidering the smaller boy’s reaction. That the new tunic arrangement resulted in tunics that fit both boys more appropriately than before is never in question. The smaller boy’s decision to seek adjudication demonstrates that his preference is for the law even when the outcome of breaking the law produces a more fitting outcome than following the law allows for. That the smaller boy prefers the law to what is a more fitting outcome is another demonstration of the limitations of the law in its ability to provide what is fitting, and a testament to the success of the Persian education.
The fact that the law sides with the smaller boy in this instance tends to conceal the possibility that the smaller boy would have resisted swapping tunics even if it were not a violation of the law. While the new tunic arrangement was more fitting, it is unlikely that the smaller boy, or any of us for that matter, would part with our own property on the basis of what is more naturally fitting.
The Bigger Boy
The account Cyrus gives of his adjudication of the case suggests that while Cyrus
knowingly rules against Persian law in favor of what he understands to be fitting, he could only
do so because the bigger boy violated Persian law. Xenophon informs us that, just as men are
prone to do, the youth receiving the Persian education also “accuse each other of theft, robbery,
violence, deceit, calumny, and other such things as are likely” (1.2.6). It does not seem likely,
52 however, that the case of the tunics falls under such expected behavior. While the reasoning of the bigger boy is never discussed, the fact that he went beyond simply robbing the smaller boy of his tunic, and actually swapped the tunics so that they each had a tunic that properly fit, suggests that the bigger boy was not entirely looking out for his own interests, but that he desired an outcome that was beneficial for both. The behavior of the bigger boy, then, amounts not to an attempted evasion of the law but rather, a critique of it.
When considered from the perspective of a boy in the education system that is willing to call the justice of the Persian law into question, the bigger boy becomes a noteworthy character.
We are not privy to any arguments made in the case, but it is never mentioned that the bigger boy actually denied breaking the law. In contrast to the smaller boy who is willing to side with the law even if it is not the best outcome, the bigger boy openly questions the legitimacy of Persian law. Cyrus supports the reasoning of the bigger boy, and it is the bigger boy that essentially shows Cyrus the tension that exists between the law and what is fitting.
Other than Cyrus, none of the other characters involved in the case of the tunics are named in his recounting of the story. There are indications throughout the work the bigger boy in the story is a commoner whose father was able to afford to send him to be educated in the
Persian system.45 This character is identified as Pheraulas and is first mentioned by Xenophon in
Book Two, as “a man who Cyrus was somehow well acquainted with even long ago and was agreeable to him.” (2.3.7) It is not until Book Eight that it is revealed that while Pheraulas was a commoner, he had received the Persian education in justice. (8.3.7)
If Pheraulas is indeed the bigger boy, then we can better understand the bigger boy’s willingness to challenge Persian Law. Several scholars have called attention to the fact that
45 I discuss and defend this possibility in greater depth later in the dissertation.
53 Xenophon subtly shows the Persian regime is really an oligarchy. The fact that Xenophon never overtly states this has led many to conclude that Xenophon is criticizing the oligarchic nature of the Persian regime, and possibly Oligarchy altogether. When viewed in light of Xenophon’s primary concern for political stability, any criticism that he might express should be viewed in terms of the effect that an oligarchic regime might have on the stability of Persia. The fact that the commoners are excluded from participating in the political offices of the Persian regime has created a situation in which the commoners can question its legitimacy. The story of the tunics demonstrates the divide that exists between the Persian commoners and the Peers as a result of the oligarchic nature of the regime.
Returning to the question of how to best secure the obedience of human beings, we now learn obedience amongst the Peers is the result of tradition and the Persian education. As Cyrus points out in a subsequent speech to the Peers, the Persians practice obedience to the law, but have lost the ability to understand the good that comes from it:
I consider our ancestors to be no worse than we. At least they too spent all their time practicing the very things that are held to be the works of virtue. What good they acquired by beings such, I cannot see. (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, p. 44)
Cyrus will challenge the legitimacy of the Persian regime by contending that virtue should be rewarded, and that the Persian regime does not allow for this. The basis for such a claim is directly connected to the bigger boy’s challenge to Persian law in that both instances relies on the understanding of justice as that which is fitting. The meritocracy that Cyrus creates is central to his ability to create his empire. This is not to suggest that Cyrus is simply promoting what he understands to be just, but it must certainly be the case that Cyrus sees the fracture between the
Persian Peers and commoners and understands that he can gain the support of both by replacing the Persian law with a meritocracy of which he is the sole judge.
54 Mandane’s Argument
The story of the tunics is given by Cyrus as an attempt to persuade his mother to allow
him to stay in Media. Mandane’s concern for Cyrus reveals an ethnocentric argument against the
dangers of exposing oneself to differing cultures.46 At this point in the narrative, Mandane is the only character mentioned that is the product of both the culture of Media and of Persia. With this in mind, her defense of the Persian regime becomes somewhat pointed, as she is aware of the corrupting influence that Media will have on Cyrus. It is possible that her true concern, as is revealed after the story of the tunics, lies in Cyrus’ safety in Persia. If Mandane’s concern is only his safety, then it is possible that Cyrus’ response to her questions somehow assuages her concerns. This provides an explanation for why it is that Mandane allows Cyrus to stay behind in
Media and provides some insight into Cyrus’ nature. At a young age Cyrus can thrive in cultures that in many ways offer opposing ideals.
Mandane’s argument is based on three premises. The first is given in response to Cyrus’
desire to stay in Media and takes the form of a question: “But my son, how will you learn justice
here [in Media] when your teachers are there [in Persia]?” (1.3.16). This question suggests first
that there is an objective or universal justice, and second that Persia is the only city that can teach
it. As extreme as this claim appears to be, it reveals the implicit assumption that must underlie
any argument that favors one understanding of justice over another. The Persian political system
only allows those who have completed the Persian education in justice to become members of
the ruling body. The stability of the Persian regime depends on the ability of the ruling class to
accept Mandane’s premise that only the Persian education is an education in justice. Cyrus’
recounting of the tale of the tunics reveals the limits of the ability of the Persian regime to lay
46 See Nadon, 2001, p. 43.
55 claim to a universal understanding of justice.
After Cyrus reveals his knowledge of this to his mother, Mandane has no choice but to rhetorically retreat from her original premise. “But, my child, she said, the same things are not agreed to be just here with your grandfather and in Persia…” (1.3.18). Realizing that Cyrus may have become aware of the limits of Persian law, and perhaps of all law, to satisfy individual demands for justice, Mandane now admits that justice is, in fact, relative to particular places.
The admission that differing cities can hold differing conceptions of justice naturally
invites a comparison between differing understandings of justice, which Mandane foresees and
tries to prevent by continuing with a claim for the superiority of Persian justice over Median;
“…for among the Medes, he [the median king] has made himself the master of everything, but in
Persia to have what is equal is believed to be just.” (1.3.18). This new defense relies on the claim, that justice requires law, which provided an equality among the Persian Peers. The Persian subservience to law is contrasted by the tyranny of Media, where it is thought that the ruler
should have more than all. However, this premise is, as Cyrus may have already suspected,
somewhat flawed. Mandane’s equation between justice and equality does not explicitly define
equality. The condemnation of her father suggests that she is speaking of equality with regard to
property. However, Persian law is incapable of ensuring an equal distribution of property.
Persian law only protects the property of its citizens by asserting that just ownership demands
that whatever one has purchased or made rightfully belongs to them. It is possible that Mandane
is aware of this and tries to conceal this fact in order to convince Cyrus to return home to
complete his Persian education.
It could also be the case that Mandane is instead referring to a type of equality that
Persian law does provide, equality of opportunity. As long as the law protects what one has
56 purchased or made, the opportunity to make or purchase property is only limited by the
capability of the citizens of Persia to do so. However, even this claim for equality is not entirely
accurate. As has been discussed, the oligarchic nature of the Persian regime creates a lasting
inequality between the Peers and the commoners.
Mandane bolsters her claim for the superiority of Persian justice by connecting the ability
of the Persian regime to provide equality by distinguishing between the rule of law and the rule
of one: “And your father is the first both to do what has been ordered by the city and to accept
what has been ordered, and not his soul but the law is his measure.” (1.3.18). Mandane compares the obedience of the king to the tyranny of Astyages, and the Medians, who believe that the ruler should have more that the ruled. Mandane knows that if Cyrus were to learn this and try to enforce it in Persia, that it would not be tolerated.
Mandane concludes her argument by appealing to Cyrus’ concern for his own life. “How will you avoid being beaten to death when you come home if you arrive after having learned from him not the Kingly [way], but the tyrannical, where the thought is that one should have more than all?” (1.3.18). This last argument highlights one of the truths about the Persian regime that is also revealed in the story of the tunics, that Persia does not, and perhaps, cannot, tolerate alternative conceptions of justice. Further, Mandane’s reference to the tyranny of her father is one of the few references to tyranny in the work. Cyrus shows an early indication of his own tyrannical nature in choosing to stay in Media.
Also implicit in Mandane’s last argument is the connection between being exposed to a different understanding of justice, and the willingness to accept a new belief. This demonstrates that, as much as the equation between justice and law is necessary, so also is the need to censor any differing conceptions of justice for the sake of the stability of the Persian regime. If what
57 Mandane is suggesting is true, that Cyrus will fall victim to the temptation of tyranny simply by living in Media, then the first claim she made in defense of the superiority of the Persian regime in providing an education in justice becomes suspect. We are then left to consider whether it is the particular nature of the Median regime that leads to the possibility that exposure will result in
Cyrus choosing the Median over the Persian conception of justice, or whether it is generally the case that exposure to alternative conceptions of justice leads to this possibility. To simplify the problem, the question can be asked, is justice simply what we have been taught by convention, or is there some natural understanding of what justice ought to be that resides in human beings? In the case of the former, threats to existing conceptions of justice could only exist if it is the case that once justice is learned that human beings are susceptible to the possibility that what they have learned is not just.
The Persian education described by Xenophon works to instill a continence in the Persian youth who are taught to eat and drink simple fares, and to endure all manner of harsh conditions.
This is interesting when we consider that it is the Peers who have all of the wealth in Persia as well, and indicates that, at least, part of the education is devoted to inculcating the Peers against pleasure seeking. Mandane clearly fears that Cyrus will come to embrace the notion that those who rule should live more pleasantly than the ruled, and in attempting such in Persia would be killed. As it turns out, this fear is somewhat misplaced. When Cyrus does return, he fits back into his own lifestyle with ease. (1.5.1) Further, once Cyrus is given command of the Persian force, he informs Cambyses that the pleasure-seeking behavior of the Median ruler is shameful and that he means to correct it. (1.6.8). As is shown later, the real danger of Cyrus staying in Media was that it allowed him to learn horsemanship, something not practiced in Persia, and it allowed him
58 to find favor among the Medes so that when they needed military assistance, they requested
Cyrus.
Both Persia and Media present an absolutist view with respect to what the end of life in a
regime should be. What Cyrus must realize, and is indeed able to capitalize on, is that the
citizenry of both cities are not fully satisfied under either conception of justice. It is on the basis
that virtue should be materially rewarded that Cyrus undermines the Peers’ centuries old
education. Conversely, it is the desire for honor and praise that Cyrus can foster in both the
Persian commoners and the Median military that brings these groups to be obedient to himself.
Conclusion
Xenophon opens the Cyropaedia by questioning what it is that leads human beings to wish to overthrow their rulers. While Cyrus is presented as one who has or acquires knowledge of how to rule human beings, it turns out that even he is incapable of creating the same stability that is enjoyed by the Peers.47 Through the narrative that recounts the exploits of Cyrus we learn
why people follow him, but this only indirectly addresses the question of how regimes are
undone. When Cyrus is introduced, Xenophon tells us that:
We know that Cyrus, at any rate, was willingly obeyed by some, even though they were distant from him by a journey of many days; by others, distant by a journey of many months; by others, who had never yet see him, and by others, who knew quite well that they would never see him. Nevertheless, they were willing to submit to him, for so far did he excel other kings - both those who inherited rule from their forefathers and those who acquired it through their own efforts. (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, p. 22)
After describing the various kingdoms Cyrus has subjugated, we learn that Cyrus was able to do so because he “was able to extend fear of himself to so much of the world that he intimidated all,
47 I rely on the descriptive account that Xenophon gives of the ruin of Cyrus’ empire at the end of the book. If Cyrus, or one like Cyrus is the answer to the question of how to create political stability, then the ruin of his empire suggests a bleak outlook for the possibility of stability at all. The fact that the Persian republic remains after Cyrus as it was long before his birth is evidence that stability is possible in a way that Cyrus’ empire did not live up to.
59 and no one attempted anything against him; and he was able to implant in all so great a desire to gratify him that they always thought it was proper to be ruled by his judgment.” (1.1.5) While
Cyrus sees himself as a correction to the defective Persian law, and to the pleasure seeking rule of the Medians, the obedience he garners from his subjects does not come from his ability to persuade them, but from the ways in which he is able to use fear and gratitude to compel obedience. The fact that the stability of his empire did not last beyond his reign suggests that the methods he employed were not sufficient to create lasting stability.
Xenophon’s discussion of the Persian laws and his recounting of the story of the tunics, present an alternative method for creating stability to that of Cyrus. In both cases, human beings are obedient, either to Cyrus or to the Persian law. The careful education required to cultivate obedience to the Persian law should be contrasted to the relative ease and quickness with which
Cyrus is able to gather followers. What the Persian education produces is an attachment to the laws, which in turn are crafted for the good of the city rather than the individual. Much of Cyrus’ success can be attributed the fact he is able to individually reward his followers. While this leads to Cyrus being able to create a powerful military and to build an empire, a focus on individual good also played a large part in the ruin of his empire upon his death.
The story of the tunics demonstrates the complex connections between human beings, law, and individual demands for justice. This simple case leads to a reflection of what justice is, and how a demand for justice is connected to stability. With respect to creating the type of internal stability that Xenophon is concerned with, a city must have some standard of justice that balances fear and a desire to obey. The Persian education accomplishes this through instilling in its ruling class a desire to serve the law and providing the ruling class the power to enforce the law amongst all the Persians. Cyrus recognizes the inability of the law to satisfy individual
60 claims for justice, and more to the point, the inability of the law to provide justice in the fullest sense, that which is fitting. Cyrus can capitalize on these deficiencies and is able to convince those who follow him on his conquest that he can provide a justice that the Persian law could not.
61 CHAPTER 4
THE TYRANNY OF CYRUS
Introduction
I argue that Cyrus is a tyrant, and that it is his tyrannical nature that Xenophon is directing us to consider in light of the of the question of how to create political stability.
Determining what type of ruler Xenophon considers Cyrus to be is a necessary step in uncovering Xenophon’s political teachings in Cyropaedia. In arguing that Cyrus is meant to be understood as the best tyrant, I offer a defense of the notion that Cyrus is a tyrant based on qualifications that Xenophon himself provides and develop an argument for why he is the best tyrant or most excellent tyrant. I then discuss the ways in which Cyrus is able to win obedience and the effects that this has on his rule.
The successes and failures of the regime established by Cyrus serve as a critique of the type of rule that Cyrus establishes. If Cyrus is the best tyrant, then Xenophon is ultimately critical of what even the best tyranny can produce. While Cyrus enjoys many successes as a ruler while he is alive, his regime fails in regard to Xenophon’s principle concern in the
Cyropaedia, which is political stability. If we cannot understand the type of ruler Cyrus is, then the teaching of the dangers to political stability becomes ambiguous, and the argument for the superiority of the rule of law over the rule of Cyrus becomes unclear. If Cyrus is tyrannical, then we can conclude that tyranny presents a threat to the stability that is created by the rule of law, and it is an examination of Cyrus’ rise to power that shows how a tyrant is able to corrupt the rule of law.
Xenophon’s Definition of Tyranny
Tyranny is mentioned on only three occasions in the Cyropaedia. The first mention is
62 made by Xenophon himself in his introductory statement regarding political stability. Speaking of the manner in which regimes are overthrown, Xenophon includes tyrannies in his list and adds a curious qualification, “…how many of them who have tried to establish tyrannies, some of them been brought down at once, while others if they have continued for any time at all are admired as wise and fortunate men.” (1.1.1) The inherent instability of tyrannies is indicated here by Xenophon, who suggests that it takes a tyrant who is thought to be wise and fortunate to rule as a tyrant for any period of time. When we consider all that Cyrus’ was able to achieve, the reference to a wise and fortunate tyrant appears to apply to Cyrus and foreshadows the narrative of Cyrus that Xenophon will deliver.
The second reference to tyranny occurs while Mandane is arguing for her son to return home to Persia after they had traveled to Media to see her father, the king of the Medes,
Astyages. In her plea for Cyrus to return home with her Mandane compares the tyrannical rule of her father to the kingly rule of her husband, Cambyses, “How will you be avoid being beaten if when you come home having learned from him, not the kingly [way] but the tyrannical, where the thought is that one ought to have more than all. But in Persia to have what is equal is believed to be just.” (1.3.18)48 Mandane’s description of her father’s tyranny references the specific form of tyranny practiced in Media where it is thought that the ruler ought to have more than the ruled. As is shown during the first feast that Cyrus attends in Media, Astyages uses his tyranny in the pursuit of pleasure. Not only does Cyrus as a boy dislike the pleasure seeking behavior of his grandfather (1.3.4-5), but Cyrus as a young man believes that this sort of
48 See 8.4.22 Chrysantas refers to Cyrus as a “cold king”. This may suggest to some that Xenophon does not intend us to understand Cyrus as a tyrant. However, we should keep in mind that it was Chrysantas who made the speech to the Persians to convince them to make Cyrus the judge of who is deserving of what in the upcoming campaign, and who was also honored by Cyrus for being the most obedient. Whether Chrysantas is a true sycophant or cunningly self-interested is a question I have not raised, but in either case, his referral to Cyrus as a king is questionable at best, and there is no indication given that Xenophon is using Chrysantas to demonstrate Cyrus’ kingliness.
63 behavior is unworthy of those who rule, and announces his intention to correct the Median form of tyranny. (1.6.8).
In contrasting the kingly rule of Cambyses with the tyrannical rule of her father,
Mandane, states that their rule differs in two key ways. The first, mentioned above, is the notion that all should share equally. When considering the inequality that exists between the Peers and the Commoners, we must take this to be in reference to an attitude of equality among the Peers only. This attitude is reinforced by the Persian education in which the pursuit of individual achievement is discouraged, and ingratitude is punished by law. The second distinction that
Mandane makes between tyrannical and kingly rule is the supremacy of the law. “And your father is first to do what has been ordered by the city and to accept what has been ordered, and not his soul but the law is his measure.” (1.4.18) In Persia, even the king is subject to the law.
Mandane further adds that the king obeys the law over his own soul suggesting that a tyrant disregards established law in favor of the motivations of his soul. Cyrus’s disregard for Persian law, and the law of the nations he conquers is shown throughout, and by the end of the work, he is described as believing that a “seeing law” is superior to any written laws (8.1.21) suggesting that Cyrus has become the type of tyrannical ruler that Mandane is referring to.
The distinction made by Mandane between kingly and tyrannical rule is similar to a distinction made by Socrates in Xenophon’s Memorabilia; “He [Socrates] believed that kingship and tyranny were both types of rule, but that they differed from each other. For he believed that rule over the human beings who are willing, and according to the laws of the city, was kingship, while rule over the unwilling and not according to laws, but however the ruler wished was tyranny.”49 With regard for the standard of law used by Socrates to distinguish between kingly
49 Memorabilia, 4.6.12.
64 and tyrannical rule, Cyrus clearly falls into the tyrannical category. Cyrus not only corrupts the
laws of Persia, but also sees to it that in their place he is made the sole arbiter of who is
deserving of what reward. (2.3.6) We may further add that, also in Memorabilia, Socrates’
definition of rightful rule excludes the possibility that the obedience of the ruled can be acquired
through the use of violence or deceit.50 Throughout the narrative of Cyrus’ conquest both
violence and deceit are used by Cyrus regularly to compel otherwise unwilling people to obey
him.
The standard of willing rule provided by the Socratic distinction is not mentioned by
Mandane in her description of the difference between kingly and tyrannical rule. I suspect the
reason for this is that any practical consideration of the possibility of an entirely willing citizenry
leads to the conclusion that achieving the willing obedience of all that are ruled is not possible. If
we were to apply this standard, it would inevitably lead to the conclusion, that to the extent that
regimes compel otherwise unwilling subjects, they are tyrannical. While Persia is the standard
for kingly rule, or the rule of law, it is clear that the Commoners are compelled towards
obedience, rather than being educated towards it as the Peers. Including the standard of willing
obedience in our understanding of the distinction between a king and a tyrant would not allow
for any clear boundaries between the two to be established, and would leave us with the difficult
task of judging along a gradated scale, i.e. the more willing a population the less tyrannical the
regime.51
The difference between willing obedience and compulsion is raised in a conversation
between Alcibiades and Pericles in Memorabilia and is instructive in the consideration of the
50 Memorabilia, 3.9.10. 51 Understanding the difference between willing and compelled obedience is a necessary part of understanding how Cyrus is able to create his empire and is discussed at greater length as a part of a consideration of Cyrus’ rule.
65 place of willing obedience in a consideration of the tyranny of Cyrus. In this brief conversation, even law is determined to be tyrannical if obedience to it is compelled through force rather than persuasion.52 Pericles can offer no rhetorical refutation of Alcibiades’ claim that the law can be tyrannical. His preference for the validity of the law, even in the face of Alcibiades’ argument, is echoed in the admonishment given to Cyrus by his teacher, when Cyrus first displays his willingness to disregard Persian law, “Since the lawful is just, and the unlawful violent…”.
(1.3.17). Rather than arguing for the justness of the law, the broken parallel given by the teacher instead equates the unlawful with what is violent. Hence, what is lawful cannot be violent, even when force is being used to compel obedience to the law. In the case of both the teacher and
Pericles, rule of law is preferred, while both acknowledge the necessity of upholding the law through the use of force. Acknowledging that compulsion is tyrannical would lead to the conclusion that all regimes are, at least in part, tyrannical. While Xenophon does draw our attention to this possibility, it does not overshadow his primary concern for political stability.
Mandane’s omission of willing obedience in her description of kingly rule subtly hints at the necessity of compelling obedience even under kingly rule.
The last reference to tyranny is found in Cyrus’ response to the gifts that Gobryas has given him: “I think there are many human beings who would not willingly be either impious or unjust, nor would they voluntarily play false, but because no one is willing to bestow upon them vast valuables, tyranny, fortified walls, or children who are worthy of love, they die before it becomes clear what sort of people they were.” (5.2.9) The people that Cyrus is referring to are the Persians who have followed him out of Persia, and the gifts he lists, with the exception of tyranny, are the gifts that Gobryas has given to him. Cyrus adds tyranny to a list of things that
52 Memorabilia, 2.1.41-46.
66 people who are worthy, such as himself and those who followed him from Persia, are deserving
of. This appears to be an acknowledgement on the part of Cyrus that he understands that his rule
is tyrannical.
Strauss and the Tyranny of Cyrus
Strauss raises the point that the rule of Cyrus is not Tyrannical in several places
throughout his analysis of the Hiero and his restatement. The arguments against considering
Cyrus tyrannical that are made by Strauss are the most comprehensive of any found in the
literature, and scholars who have made the same or similar arguments, for the most part, base
their arguments on the teachings of Strauss.
One argument made by Strauss against considering Cyrus as a tyrant is that Xenophon
presents the tyrant as one who “needs guidance by another man in order to become a good ruler;
even the best tyrant, is, as such, an imperfect, and inefficient ruler.”53 If this is the case, then
Cyrus was not in need of any instruction in order to rule well. However, throughout the
Cyropaedia, Cyrus not only receives instruction from several notable characters, but it seems likely that without that instruction, his campaign would have failed. When Cyrus is instructed by others, deficiencies in his rule are revealed. The first, and perhaps most notable, example of these instances occurs when Cyrus is taught by Cambyses as they towards Media. Throughout the dialogue it is revealed that Cyrus has failed to take the necessary measures to provide for his troops (1.6.9-11), and more importantly that Cyrus has failed to consider how to best win the obedience of his men (1.6.21-24) In a similar fashion, Cyrus also receives instruction from
Tigranes, who teaches him how to make effective use of both fear and gratitude to obtain
53 Strauss, On Tyranny, pp. 75 and 121 note 50.
67 obedience.(3.1.16-31) Cyrus is also shown to have also valued the counsel of Pheraulas, the
Commoner who received a partial Persian education.(8.3.5) Without Pheraulas’ assistance it is unlikely that the Persian Commoners would have agreed to follow Cyrus. (2.3.7-15) These three examples are not an exhaustive list of the instruction that Cyrus received throughout his rule, but they do demonstrate that without instruction, Cyrus would not have been able to secure rule over his empire.
The portion of Strauss’ Restatement that deals directly with the Cyropaedia appears as a response to remarks made by Eric Voegelin. Here, Strauss argues that Cyrus’ rule can be distinguished from tyranny for the following reasons. “He is born as a legitimate heir to the reigning king, a scion of an old royal house. He becomes the king of other nations through inheritance or marriage and through just conquest.”54 It is not my purpose to engage directly in the conversation between Strauss and Voegelin, but, rather, to highlight Strauss’ defense of
Cyrus’ legitimacy as a point for the consideration of whether or not we should understand Cyrus as a tyrant.
While it is the case that Cyrus is the rightful heir to the small Persian kingdom, it is the one kingdom in the eastern world he does not actually rule.55 Cyrus does rule over and corrupt the Persian army he leads, but after the dust settles, Persia proper appears to exist as it was described by Xenophon in the second chapter of Book Two.56 After Cyrus’ victory over Babylon he journeys back to Persia and makes an agreement with Cambyses.
But if either you, Cyrus, being raised up by your present fortunes, undertake to rule Persia as you do others, with a view to your own special advantage, or you, citizens
54 Strauss, On Tyranny, p. 182. 55 See 8.5.21-27. 56 Compare Xenophon’s description of the Persian Peer’s education (1.2.3-16) to the description of the Persians in Babylon (8.8.6-26). In both instances Xenophon refers to these groups in the present tense.
68 envying him for his power, try to depose him from his rule, be assured that you will hinder each other in many good things. (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, p. 263)
While Cyrus can legitimately claim the rule of Persia, Cambyses suggests that neither Persia nor
Cyrus would benefit from such an arrangement. Cambyses persuades Cyrus against taking the rule of Persia on the basis that the citizens of Persia would attempt to depose him. Even though
Cyrus is the legitimate ruler of Persia, something about how he rules causes him to be perceived as an illegitimate ruler by the citizens of Persia proper. As it turns out, even a legitimate claim to rule is not enough to prevent a ruler from being considered illegitimate. The price Cyrus pays for the rule of his empire is his legitimate claim to the rule of Persia proper.
Strauss lists marriage into rule as another demonstration of Cyrus’ legitimate rule. Cyrus does marry Cyaxares’ daughter, but his actual rule of Media begins much earlier when he persuades the Median army to follow him. (8.5.17) Cyrus’ subversion of Cyaxares’ rule is illustrated in a dialogue between the two in which Cyaxares takes the position of a rightful king and ruler and accuses Cyrus of stealing his legitimate rule. (5.5.6-44) Cyaxares begins the dialogue by comparing his rightful claim to rule to the apparent greatness of Cyrus.
Because, Cyrus, I think that I am a natural descendent of a father who was a king and of ancestors [who were kings] for as far back as the memory of human beings reaches, and I believe that I myself am a King. Nevertheless, I see myself riding here in this humiliating and unworthy fashion, and I see you present here, great and magnificent, accompanied by my own retinue along with additional power (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, p. 169).
Cyaxares’ claim to rule is legitimate in the same way that Strauss argues that Cyrus’ claim to the
Persian throne is legitimate; Cyaxares inherited the rule from his father Astyages. If Cyrus ought to be considered a legitimate ruler on the basis of his inherited rule, then Cyaxares’ rule must be legitimate as well, and the stripping of his rule by Cyrus, would be illegitimate.
Strauss’ final claim in defending the legitimacy of Cyrus is that what Cyrus has taken, he has done so through just conquest. The justness of coming to the aid of the Medians in repelling
69 the Assyrians is defensible, but the justness of Cyrus’ continued campaign and the eventual
subjection of an entire empire seems less so. Cyrus himself points to the possibility that the
cause he is about to lead the peers on may not be just. Rather than beginning the defense of his
campaign with a declaration of the justness of the cause as one might expect, Cyrus argues that
the “appearance of unjustly desiring what belongs to others is far from impeding us” (1.5.13).
Cyrus seems to understand the necessity of appearing to be just, but his concern for common
conceptions of justice ends once the appearance of complying with the standard is met. Cyrus
concludes his defense of the justness of his campaign, not with a firm declaration, but with a
rhetorical question; “What is more just than defending ourselves, or more noble than aiding
friends?” (1.5.13) While this serves the purpose of leading to the conclusion that Cyrus’ campaign is just and noble, it can only be so as a defensive measure in which both the Persians and Medians are protected. It can be argued that the empire Cyrus creates is the best way to protect both Persia and Media, and while Cyrus is alive it fulfills this purpose, but it becomes clear even before Cyrus engages the enemy that his goals go beyond protecting Persia and her allies, and rather than aiding the Medians, Cyrus sets out from the beginning with the goal of conquering them.57
Knowledge as the Basis for Rule
Xenophon points to knowledge as the means by which human beings can be easily ruled,
and so the connections between knowledge and rule must be discussed here at least to the length
that Cyrus does or does not possess this knowledge. (1.1.3) Xenophon’s assertion, that ruling is
not difficult, if one does it with knowledge, is similar to an assertion made by Socrates in
57 See 1.6.8, where Cyrus indicates that he actually means to begin his campaign by conquering their friends the Medians, rather than actually protect them from the Assyrians.
70 Memorabilia, “He [Socrates] said that kings and rulers are not those who hold the scepters, nor
those elected by just anybody, nor those obtain office by lot, nor those who have used violence,
nor those who have used deceit, but those who understand how to rule.”58 While we may be
tempted to think that Xenophon is merely echoing the assertion from Memorabilia, the standard
of knowledge that Xenophon considers to be necessary to rule well in Cyropaedia is
comparatively much lower. Xenophon does in engage in a comparison of the continence and
virtues of the Persian Peers who live in Persia and those who followed Cyrus to Babylon, but his
principle concern does not appear to be the excellence of the individuals that are the product of
different types of political regimes, but rather, the stability which political regimes can produce.
With political stability as the standard, the knowledge that Xenophon refers to is in relation to the ability to create stability.
In connecting the Xenophon’s opening statements, a formulation emerges in which political stability is achieved by ruling human beings well. Or rather, the proof of ruling human
beings well lies in the stability that is created by the rule. The charm of Cyrus, his excellence in
physical and martial pursuits, and the fact that Xenophon devotes the majority of the work to the
narrative of Cyrus conceals the very question that led Xenophon to consider Cyrus in the first
place, which is; what is the cause of instability in political life? The ruin of Cyrus’ empire and
the utter degeneration of the Persians that followed him into Babylon (8.8.4-22) leave little doubt
that Xenophon did not intend Cyrus’ rule to be understood as an example of the rule with
knowledge that he equates with stability at the beginning of the work.
Xenophon understood that the Socratic standard of rule based on knowledge is a
58 Memorabili,a 3.9.10.
71 theoretical standard that can find no fulfillment in real political life.59 The practical problem of
applying this standard can be stated as follows. If we suppose that there are those that possess the
knowledge that Socrates requires, such individuals would then need to convince everyone they
ruled of their rightful claim to rule. The Socratic injunction, as stated in Memorabilia, prevents
anyone, even one with knowledge, from using violence, or deceit to gain the obedience of the
ruled. The possibility that an entire citizenry could be persuaded to believe not only the
necessity of knowledge as the only claim to rule, but that one actually possesses that knowledge
is unrealistic. Conversely, it is also possible that those who seek rule and do not possess the
required knowledge may be able to convince, at least some, of those they would rule that they
do. Consider Cambyses’ unheeded warnings to Cyrus, “…human beings obey with great
pleasure whomever they think is more prudent about their own advantage than they are
themselves.” (1.6.21), and “human wisdom no more knows how to choose what is best then if someone, casting lots, should do whatever the lot determines.” (1.6.46) While these must appear to Cyrus as advice about how he could secure his own rule, the deeper implication is that human beings seem to require the Socratic standard from those who rule over them, but are unable to discern who actually possess the requisite knowledge. In other words, even the willing obedience of the ruled does not indicate that the ruler has a rightful claim to rule. When
considered in this light, Xenophon’s standard for political stability, while lower than the Socratic
standard of knowledge, is actually achievable in political life. The claim that Cyrus has the
knowledge to rule well must be demonstrated by the stability his rule produces, and while he
achieved a limited stability while he lived, it in no way compares to the stability of the Persian
59 See Nadon, 2001, pp.178-179.
72 republic.60
While it is clear that Cyrus does not possess the knowledge that Xenophon requires, that
does not mean that an examination of the account Cyrus is without value. Through examining the
education Cyrus receives while creating his empire, and the interactions and dialogues that he
has with a diverse set of characters we are able to see the limits of the rule of law, the dangers
that tyranny poses to the rule of law and stability, the motivations of a tyrant, and the disposition
of human beings to desire the justice that Cyrus’ tyranny promises.61 The following sections turn
to a consideration of Cyrus’ rule with these lessons in mind.
Willing Obedience
As was mentioned, Cyrus was able to create some willing obedience among those he
ruled. In fact, a failure to do so would have left him unable to begin his campaign. The theme of
willing obedience is first raised by Xenophon in his initial observations regarding human nature,
where he compares the willing obedience of herd animals to the recalcitrance of human beings.
(1.1.2) The movement from the question of stability to the discussion of obedience shows that
Xenophon holds that willing obedience is a necessary component of stability. This initial
comparison provides the framework for understanding what Xenophon’s means by willing
obedience:
We thought we saw all these herds more willing to obey their keepers than are human
60 Cambyses emerges as the only character in the book that rules human beings with the knowledge that produces stability. This is seen in both the dialogue he has with Cyrus, and in the arrangement that he makes with Cyrus which serves to protect the Persian republic. Cambyses’ role is more fully discussed in the first chapter of the dissertation. 61 See Bartlett, 2015. In concluding his discussion, he states: “We hope to have shown that Cyrus is both deeply attractive and deeply flawed. He seeks to preserve something of the beauty of noble or moral action even as he insists that such action is always good for those who so act.” While I agree with the notion that Cyrus is attractive for the reasons that Bartlett states, I would argue that Cyrus’ motives for his ambition are not as high-minded as Bartlett holds them to be. Cyrus ultimately fails at rewarding good action and can only reward the much more dubious standard of obedience to himself. Further, Cyrus is brought to see his failures in rewarding virtue, and continues his conquest undeterred.
73 beings to their rulers; for the herds go wherever their keepers direct them, they feed on whatever land their keepers deliver them to, and they abstain from whatever lands whatever lands their keepers turn them from. And as for profits that arise from them, these they allow their keepers to us in whatever way they themselves wish. (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, p. 21)
In comparing the willingness of sheep to that of human beings, Xenophon is suggesting that the
solution to gaining the willing obedience of the ruled is to achieve a similar relationship between
the ruler and the ruled as exists between a herdsman and his flocks. Xenophon appears to make
this comparison somewhat in jest, as it is later shown that willing obedience of the kind that
sheep demonstrate towards their keeper is difficult to achieve in even a few human beings and
impossible to achieve in all of one’s subjects. In introducing the notion of willing obedience as a
part of stability, Xenophon is inviting us to consider whether the Persian rule of law or the rule
of Cyrus is more successful at creating willing obedience.
The analogy of the herdsman is raised again at the end of the book when Xenophon
restates an argument reportedly made by Cyrus: “And an argument of his is remembered that
says the functions of a good shepherd and a good king are similar, for he said that just as the
shepherd ought to make use of his flocks while making them happy (in the happiness of sheep, of
course), so a king similarly ought to make use of cities and human beings while making them
happy.” 62 (8.2.14) The shepherd and sheep analogy is well used throughout the New Testament
because of the manner in which sheep respond to and obey the particular call and sound of their
shepherd’s voice.63 This phenomenon is likely what Xenophon has in mind when he states that
herds are “more harsh toward all others than they are toward those that rule over and benefit
from them” (1.1.2). When Xenophon relays Cyrus’ argument he states what he failed to mention
62 In 1.1.2 ἀγέλας is used, which can refer to herd animals generally. In 8.2.14 προβάτων is used which refers more specifically to sheep. 63 See the Gospel of John Ch. 10.
74 in his first comparison between the rule of a shepherd and a ruler, that the happiness of sheep and the happiness of human beings are, in fact, different. In the initial analogy Xenophon makes between a herdsman and his herd we can assume that the willing obedience of the herd is due to the happiness referred to above, but also because of the loyalty that sheep have towards their shepherd, as indicated by his remark regarding the harsh treatment herd animals display towards those other than their keeper. To keep the analogy intact, gaining the same type of willing obedience from human beings would require a ruler to make human beings happy after the manner of human beings and to inspire the same loyalty that sheep show towards their shepherd.
The Persian regime is able to create a sense of loyalty that results from the deep habituation of the Persian law which is given to the Peers through the education described by Xenophon.
However, this loyalty is limited to only the Peers, and is vulnerable to one like Cyrus. As limited as this willing obedience is, it proves far superior to the obedience that Cyrus creates during his rule.
While willing obedience is not in and of itself sufficient evidence of the knowledge of the ruler that is able to win it, Xenophon does understand that it is a necessary component of creating a politically stable society. Xenophon’s fictitious Persia demonstrates the necessity of willing obedience in achieving stability. The Persian Peers are educated towards willing obedience.
Their obedience, however, is not to any one human being, but to the law. The rigorous Persian education that begins at an early age for the Peers demonstrates the difficulty of creating willing obedience to law. The ease with which Cyrus is able to draw many of the Peers to himself is evidence of the tenuous ability of law to command willing obedience.64 It must also be noted
64 See Newell, 1983. Newell states that Cyrus’ displeasure with the Persian regime is an indication of a failure on the part of the regime. While I do not disagree, I would argue that it indicates more of a limitation to the rule of law then a failure.
75 that compared to the Commoners, the Peers make up a small percentage of the overall
population. The Commoners, with only one known and limited exception, do not share in the
education of the Peers. It is therefore unreasonable to think that they would share in the Peers
willing obedience to the Persian law. The Commoners are compelled towards obedience both by
the necessity that requires that they work for their sustenance and by the threat of force that the
better armed and better trained Peers hold over them. In this we see that stability requires willing
obedience, but where obedience cannot be achieved, force and the threat of force are required.
Xenophon invites us to compare the willing obedience that Cyrus achieves to the willing
obedience instilled in the Peers by the Persian education. In comparing the results, Persia is not
only superior in creating stability, but Xenophon very strongly indicates that the quality of the
Persians who make their home in Babylon is inferior to the Persians they left behind. (8.7.1-26)
Gratitude
Much of Cyrus’ ability to win willing obedience from many of those who follow him comes from his ability to earn the gratitude of others. Recall that ingratitude was considered to be a severe offense to the point of punishment under the Persian law. As Strauss notes, however, true gratitude cannot be enforced by law.65 This shows another limitation in the Persian law that
Cyrus was able to exploit. The Persian law considered gratitude to be a form of reciprocation, or
the failure to repay a favor or a debt was considered to be ingratitude. (1.2.7) This understanding
served to create an equality among the Peers in that it assumes that the favors done for one Peer by another can be repaid and appears to exclude the possibility that favors cannot be repaid. As
65 Strauss, 1963 Lectures. While the physical act of not repaying a debt was punishable under the law, true gratitude is a passionate response that binds one toward the object of their gratitude. It is difficult, if not impossible, for a static instrument like the law to engender gratitude in human beings. Cyrus, on the other hand, is able to promise a redress of wrongs that allows him to earn the gratitude of human beings in a way the law cannot.
76 is shown later, debts of gratitude that cannot be repaid represent a great danger to the Persian regime and to the rule of law generally. When a favor of this magnitude is given, the repayment of that favor manifests itself as willing obedience. Xenophon goes on to say that “…for they think that those who are ungrateful would be especially uncaring also about the gods, as well as about parents, fatherland, and friends, and it seems in turn to be the greatest leader to everything shameful.” (1.2.7) When we consider that Persian law considers ingratitude to be the failure to repay a debt and that the consequences of such a failure lead to a disregard for the gods, parents, fatherland, and friends, the danger this poses to rule of law is revealed. Gratitude is deeply connected to willing obedience, without it, obedience to the gods, parents, and fatherland cannot be guaranteed. Cyrus is shown to be clearly superior to the Persian law in creating gratitude in those who follow him. This is clearly evidenced in the speech in which he promises the Peers to reward their virtue in a way that Persia never could. (1.5.6-10) It should also be noted that Cyrus’ ability to make good on his promises, and thus win the gratitude of many, is due to the conquests he engages in that allow him to take vast amounts of wealth and re-distribute it. The Persian law does not allow for this individual type of reward for obedience.
From an early age Cyrus shows an innate capacity and desire to gratify those around him.
Consider the manner in which the young Cyrus interacts with the Median court, where he must have found an outlet for his desire to gratify individuals that he could not have found in Persia.
(1.4.10-11 and 1.4.26) While Cyrus’ desire to gratify others appears charming in a young boy, the motivations behind this impulse are revealed in Cyrus’ later life. Cyrus’ desire to gratify human beings is motivated by the desire to make debtors of all those around him, in return for which he would win their obedience. After completing his conquest of Babylon, Cyrus establishes a law requiring disputants who wished to settle their case with a judge must both
77 concur on who the judge is. Cyrus’ reasoning for this is stated as follows:
Now it is clear that both antagonists would aim at having the best [men] and those who were especially their friends as judges. The one who was not victorious would envy those that were and, and he would hate those who had cast judgement against him. The one who was victorious, on the other hand, would lay claim to having been victorious because of his justice, and he would consequently hold that he did not owe gratitude to anyone. (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, p. 245)
Cyrus’ law both protects him from the hate of those who might otherwise blame him for giving laws that ruled against them and ensures that those who win do not feel a sense of gratitude towards any man. Cyrus’ desire to win the gratitude of his subjects is further explained by Xenophon:
And like others who inhabit cities, those who wished to be first in Cyrus’ friendship would also be envious of one another, and consequently most of them wished one another to be simply out of the way rather than do anything for their mutual good. So this makes clear how he contrived that all those who were superior would love him more than the other. (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, p. 246)
The new regime created by Cyrus disregards the equality that was created by the Persian law and
replaces it with a competition in which all struggle to win the favor of Cyrus.
Tigranes’ Teachings
Cyrus’ first use of gratitude to win the obedience of those he means to conquer occurs
after he has arrived in Media. Cyrus learns from Cyaxares, that the Armenians, who were vassals
of the Medians, had failed to pay the required tribute or supply soldiers to protect against the
impending invasion. Upon learning this, Cyrus sets out with the promise of not only bringing the
Armenians back into the fold, but of also making them better friends to the Medes than they
previously were. (2.4.14) Cyrus is able to outmaneuver the Armenians and consequently captures
the Armenian royal family. (3.1.1-6) In what follows, Cyrus is indeed able to make good on his
promise to Cyaxares, but it is not clear that he would have been able to do so if he were not
instructed in the way that fear could be used to inspire gratitude and loyalty by Tigranes.
78 After Cyrus has surrounded the Armenian king and his family, he offers the king a way
out of a battle that the king would surely lose by inviting him instead to stand trial in which
Cyrus himself would be the judge. (3.1.1-6) It is worth noting that when the Armenian king asks
Cyrus who will preside over the trial, that Cyrus’ response indicates that Cyrus has presumed to fill the role of judge on the authority of the gods. (3.1.6) As the trial commences, Cyrus rhetorically corners the Armenian king into an admission of his guilt and a further admission that, by the king’s own understanding of justice, Cyrus ought to put the king to death. (3.1.9-13)
It is at this point that Tigranes, the son of the Armenian king, and previous hunting partner with
Cyrus intervenes. We are told that Cyrus recalled that Tigranes used to revere a wise man that
had accompanied Tigranes, and that on this basis, Cyrus desired to hear what Tigranes had to
say. (3.1.14) After the trial we learn that the man who had accompanied Tigranes taught him
after the manner of Socrates.66
As the dialogue begins between Tigranes and Cyrus it is important to consider that
Tigranes knows Cyrus and must have some understanding of Cyrus’ broader ambitions. Further,
Tigranes must have recognized in Cyrus’ use of rhetoric as an opportunity to persuade Cyrus
against killing his father by demonstrating the good that Cyrus could achieve by keeping him
alive and on the throne.67 Tigranes had received an education from a Socratic teacher, and was
able to put it to use here, but it must be kept in mind that Tigranes’ overall goal was not to
enlighten Cyrus, but to save his father and his family.
66 See 3.1.38-39, Tigranes’ father had his teacher executed for corrupting his son, or, more precisely, for causing his son to have more affection for the teacher than for his father. This is similar to one of the charges that Socrates’ was executed for. (see Memorabilia 1.1.1, I and Plato’s Apology 24b) Further, we learn from Tigranes that his teacher taught that “…the wrongs that human beings commit out of ignorance are all involuntary.” (3.1.38) Compare this to Socrates’ teaching in Plato’s Gorgias 509e, “…that no one does wrong out of his own wish.” 67 See Bartlett 2015, Tigranes’ Socratic education enabled him to use rhetoric to save the Armenian’s lives.
79 Tigranes persuades Cyrus against punishing the Armenian king by suggesting to him that in so doing he would punish himself by depriving himself of something valuable. (3.1.16)
Tigranes then argues that the king would be valuable to Cyrus if he has become moderate:
Why I think they would be [valuable], if they then become moderate, for it seems to me, Cyrus, to be like this: Without moderation there is no benefit from any other virtue, for what could anyone make of a strong or courageous person if he is not moderate, or of a knight, a wealthy person, or a master of a city? But with moderation, every friend becomes useful and every servant good. (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, p. 88)
In stating that the circumstances the king finds himself in have caused him to become moderate, and therefore useful to Cyrus, Tigranes is suggesting that it is fear that leads to moderation.
Cyrus does not readily accept this and poses the question:
Then you are saying that moderation is something that the soul experiences, like pain, not something it learns, for certainly, if at least the one who is going to become moderate must become prudent, he could not become moderate immediately after having been immoderate. (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, p. 89)
Cyrus learned from Cambyses that prudence, or least the appearance of prudence, was required in order win willing obedience from human beings. (1.6.21-22) His response to
Tigranes directly questions whether or not prudence is necessary to make human beings useful.
As Tigranes continues his argument he replaces the need for prudence, which Cambyses described as knowing what is better for people than do themselves what is good for them, with the notion that human beings will obey those they believe are better than they are themselves:
…when one is defeated in battle, for he who is conquered by strength sometimes thinks that by exercising his body, he will be ready to fight again, and captured cities think that by making additional alliances, they could fight again. Yet people are willing to obey even without necessity those they hold to be better than they are themselves. (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, p. 89)
In Tigranes’ formulation, Cyrus does not have to convince those he desires to rule that he knows what is best for them, and instead is only required to convince them that he is a better human being. Tigranes teaches Cyrus to do this by instilling both fear and gratitude in others. As
80 Tigranes states, knowing one is better is not sufficient on its own to ensure obedience, but also
the fear of punishment must accompany this recognition. (3.1.22-23) According to Tigranes fear of losing what one has is a worse punishment than actually losing it.68 (3.1.24)
Cyrus is pleased with Tigranes’ argument, not only does it allow him to fulfill his word to
Cyaxares by making better friends out of the Armenians, but more so because he has been shown
a way to win willing obedience that does not require the prudence that Cambyses stated was
necessary. Tigranes asks Cyrus, “From whom could you ever receive so much friendship as it is
now possible for you to acquire from us?” (3.1.28) By using fear to establish himself as one
capable of taking the lives and property of those he means to rule Cyrus can create the
moderation referred to by Tigranes, by allowing them to keep their lives and property, Cyrus
creates gratitude and makes friends of his subjects.
Cyrus puts Tigranes’ teaching to the test and allows the Armenian King to keep family
and his throne. In return, the Armenian king offers up all of his wealth and manpower to Cyrus to
use as he sees fit. (3.1.31-33) When Cyrus initially asks the Armenian king why he rebelled
against Cyaxares, he replied that he desired his freedom. (3.1.10) The Armenian’s desire to rebel
is evidence of the defective tyranny of the Medes. While the Armenian king claimed he desired
freedom the king offers all he has to Cyrus, giving some credence to the Tigranes’ assertion that
human beings will willingly obey one that they believe is better than they are. In truth, the
Armenians were not any more free under Cyrus than they were under Cyaxares.
The stories of Gobryas and Gadatas also provide insight into Cyrus’ ability to garner
gratitude from others and use it to his advantage. Gobryas, an Assyrian nobleman by birth
68 This foreshadows a much later conversation that Cyrus has with the Croesus in which Cyrus explains to Croesus that he has solved the problem of needing to guard all of his vast possessions by creating friends who willingly guard it for him. (8.2.19)
81 approaches Cyrus and asks for Cyrus’ help in avenging the murder of his only son who was
killed by the father of the current Assyrian king. 69 (4.6.2-7) In return for Cyrus’ aid, Gobryas
pledges all he has to Cyrus. Similar to Gobryas, Gadatas was mistreated by the Assyrian king
who had him castrated out of jealousy after his wife remarked on Gadatas’ beauty. (5.2.28)
Similarly to Gobryas, Gadatas becomes a willing ally of Cyrus. (5.3.19) Gadatas informs Cyrus
that he has not done anything to warrant his castration at the hands of the Assyrian King, “ And I
swear to you Cyrus, by the gods who both hear and see all, that I have so suffered even though I
have neither said nor done anything unjust or shameful” (5.4.31) In other words, the gods
witnessed how Gadatas has been unjustly treated and have failed to punish the Assyrian king.
Cyrus promises Gadatas justice that the gods were unwilling to provide. Gadatas’ willingness to
accept Cyrus’ help where the gods have failed him reminds us of the Persian belief that
ingratitude leads to a disrespect for the gods. (1.2.7) We may add, that it is not ingratitude
generally, but the desire for justice that leads to the giving gratitude that is owed to the gods to
one like Cyrus who promises to redress for the injuries of men like Gobryas and Gadatas. When
Cyrus’ army conquers Babylon, Gobryas and Gadatas attack the kings’ palace and are able to
take their revenge on the Assyrian king. (7.5.30-32) In their delight over their revenge they
prostrate themselves before the gods, and kiss Cyrus’ hands and feet. This suggests that while
they have not abandoned their respect for the gods entirely, that they hold Cyrus to be similar to
the gods.
The story of Panthea, Abradatas and Araspas is one of the most instructive in the
69 Compare Cyrus’ lack of restraint while hunting (1.4.7-8) to the description of Gobryas son (4.6.3-5). It appears that where Cyrus learned to control his impulse and to seek to gratify others, that Gobryas’ son failed to learn this lesson and was consequently killed for out-performing the Assyrian king. Also, see Bartlett 2015, Cyrus makes use of those who do not have other natural attachments either because they have no sons, as with Gobryas, or they cannot father children, as in the cases of Gadatas and the eunuchs that make up Cyrus’ personal guard.
82 Cyropaedia. It is discussed in more detail below, and is brought up here only to highlight the
prominent role that Cyrus’ ability to engender gratitude plays in his ability to build his empire.70
Panthea, a Susan woman, is captured by Cyrus’ army and because of her profound beauty, is set
aside for Cyrus. (5.1.2). On the grounds that he does not wish to run the risk of being ensnared
by her beauty, Cyrus selects, Araspas, the Mede to whom he had given his Median robe as a
youth, to guard over Panthea.71 Despite his insistence that love is voluntary, Araspas falls in
love with Panthea and betrays Cyrus by proposing a union to Panthea. (6.1.31) Later, rather than
exacting punishment from Araspas, Cyrus instead makes use of the precarious situation that
Araspas has put himself in and enlists him as a spy to scout Assyrian activity in Lydia. (6.1.31-
40). By betraying Cyrus, Araspas had become hated by Cyrus’ men. So, Cyrus proposes to him
that if Araspas pretended to flee Cyrus and defect to Assyrians that they would take him in and
reveal their plans to him. Out of gratitude for Cyrus’ clemency, Araspas accepts this dangerous
mission and departs. (6.1.44)
In addition to providing a useful spy, Araspas’ betrayal allowed Cyrus to earn the
gratitude of Panthea. Panthea’s gratitude stems from a half-truth. While Cyrus protected her from harm, she also believed that Araspas had fled from Cyrus, and was not aware that he had been used as a spy. Seeking to console Cyrus for what she believed to be the loss of Araspas for her sake, she offers to recruit her powerful husband Abradatas to Cyrus’ cause. (6.2.45) Abradatas, out of a sense of gratitude based on the same deception, responds and joins his forces with Cyrus
(6.2.48)
70 See Johnson, 2005. 71 See Strauss, 1963 lectures. Strauss points out that a key difference between Araspas and Cyrus is that Cyrus is un- erotic. This would suggest that Cyrus’ fear of being attracted to Panthea to the point of neglecting other work is feigned.
83 Panthea is described to Cyrus as being noble beyond compare to any other woman
(5.1.7), and Abradatas is described by Xenophon as being naturally handsome and free. (6.4.4).
Notwithstanding their exceptional characters, they are both taken in by Cyrus’ deception and
ultimately pay for it with their lives. It should be noted that throughout the Cyropaedia,
Xenophon often reports on the qualities of his characters indirectly, attributing these reports to
rumor, or myth. The reports of Panthea and Abradatas’ characteristics are stated factually by
Xenophon. The description of Panthea Xenophon tells us, without qualification, came from
Cyrus’ men, and Xenophon himself describes Abradatas as naturally handsome and free.
Notwithstanding their attributes, their loyalty to Cyrus leads to their ruin.
Panthea, as was mentioned, ingratiates herself to Cyrus on the basis of a debt that she
does not correctly understand. Cyrus did keep her safe, but not for any other reason than the
usefulness that she would prove to him. In believing that Cyrus acted solely out of concern for
her, Panthea’s gratitude is misplaced. She shows her gratitude by not only bringing her husband
to Cyrus’ cause, but by also encouraging her husband to repay the supposed favor that Cyrus had
done for her. (6.2.47 and 6.4.7-8) Abradatas becomes so committed to repaying Cyrus that he
takes it upon himself to build the scythed chariots that Cyrus describes (6.2.50), and volunteers
to take the most dangerous assignment in the impending battle against the Assyrians, leading the
chariots against the center of the Assyrian formation. (6.3.35).72
While Cyrus is victorious in the battle against the Assyrians, Abradatas is killed. In order to better understand Abradatas’ deep loyalty towards Cyrus, the circumstances of his death need to be considered. Observing a weakness in the deployment of the Assyrian forces, Cyrus’ plan
72 Cyrus allows the decision regarding the person that will lead the center of the charge to be decided by lot, which Abradatas wins. (6.3.36)
84 was to allow the Assyrian cavalry to surround the center of his formation, keeping his own
cavalry behind his formation. Cyrus’ predicted that the Assyrians would seek to surround the
center of his formation with their cavalry and would then be vulnerable to an assault from the
Persian Cavalry led by himself and Chrysantas. (7.1.5-8) Cyrus believed that once the Assyrians
were attacked by the Persian cavalry that there would be a great deal of confusion resulting in the
breaking of the Assyrian center. (7.1.17). Abradatas is ordered to charge only when the enemy is
in disarray. Xenophon describes Cyrus’ belief that the enemy would break as a boastful, “With
the god’s [help], I will soon show these same flanks to be devoid of enemies. And, do not, I beg
of you, hurl yourself against your adversaries, until you see that those whom you now fear is
running away. Thus did he boast when the battle was about to occur; otherwise, he was not much
of a boaster.” (7.1.17) The battle progresses, initially, as Cyrus predicted, the Assyrian wings
fold in on the center of the Persian formation and Cyrus and Chrysantas mount a successful
assault on the Assyrians. (7.1.23) While much of the Assyrian formation is thrown into chaos
and confusion, the center of their formation, made up of an Egyptian phalanx, stood firm.
(7.1.23-29) Ignoring, Cyrus’ order, Abradatas, followed by only a few loyal men, charges into
the formation and a great carnage ensues. The scythed chariots fall apart and Abradatas is thrown
from his chariot and dismembered. (7.1.31-32)
The failure of the Egyptians to break formation and run represents a grave tactical error on the part of Cyrus. As indicated by Xenophon, Cyrus’ boastfulness prevented from properly considering this outcome. Another failure, albeit somewhat understated, is seen in the scythed chariots, which lost their wheels and threw Abradatas and his men from them. Abradatas’ death is, at least in part, a consequence of these miscalculations.73 It could be argued that Abradatas
73 Even if the Egyptians would have broken formation, it is still likely that Abradatas would have been thrown from
85 ignored Cyrus’ order to withhold his charge until the center of the formation broke, but any
serious consideration of Abradatas’ character would show that once the battle was joined he
would be incapable of restraining himself. Having fully committed himself repaying the great
debt he believed that he owed Cyrus, Abradatas foolishly committed to a charge that had no
chance of success.
While Cyrus’ calculations play a large part in Abradatas’ death, had he not made the charge at all, Abradatas would have survived the battle. With this in mind, we may place some the blame on Panthea who suggests to Abradatas that a life of shame is not worth living before sending him off to battle. (6.4.6)
Abradatas’ and Panthea ‘s characters, as magnificent as they were, were lacking a
prudence that may have saved their lives. A fitting comparison to the story of Abradatas and
Panthea is that of Tigranes and his wife.74 Like with Panthea and Abradatas, Tigranes and his
wife owe their lives to Cyrus.75 However, where Panthea is devoted to repaying Cyrus, Tigranes’
and his wife are not so consumed. After Tigranes’ makes the argument that preserves their lives
and their rule, he and his wife have the following exchange: “Did Cyrus seem to be beautiful to
you too, my Armenian bride? But by Zeus, I did not even look at him. At whom then, asked
Tigranes? At the one, she said, by Zeus, that he would pay with his own life so that I be not a
slave.” (3.2.41) Tigranes’ wife was not charmed by Cyrus as was the rest of the Armenian court
and understood that it was the persuasive argument put forth by Tigranes that had spared their
his faulty chariot. 74 See Strauss, 1963 Lectures. Strauss notes that the story of Tigranes and his wife parallels the story of Abradatas and Panthea in that is both cases, the wives were captured by Cyrus. However, where Panthea convinces Abradatas to serve Cyrus, Tigranes’ wife understands that she owes her freedom to Tigranes who persuaded Cyrus to set his family free. 75 In the case of Tigranes and his wife, the debt is more genuine, at least to the extent that Cyrus allows Tigranes to live long enough to demonstrate his usefulness.
86 lives. Both Tigranes and his wife join Cyrus’ campaign and follow him to Babylon. (8.4.24)
Tigranes’ prudence is aiding Cyrus is shown in remark, “Never be surprised, Cyrus, if I am silent, for my soul has been made ready not to deliberate but to for whatever you order” (5.1.27)
Tigranes understood Cyrus’ ambition, and further understood that only in aiding Cyrus in his campaign would he be able to ensure the continued safety of the Armenians.
Cyrus is made to confront unpleasant truths upon learning of the death of Abradatas.
After the battle, Cyrus learns that Abradatas had been killed, and immediately rushes to the scene of Panthea’s mourning with one thousand of his knights. In addition, Cyrus also commands that they be accompanied by a great display of animals to be sacrificed in honor of the fallen
Abradatas. (7.3.6) Cyrus’ displays of honor are meaningless to an inconsolable Panthea who has been confronted with the reward for the gratitude she showed to Cyrus. Xenophon reports that
Cyrus wept upon seeing Panthea and the corpse of her husband. His grief is compounded when he grasps Abradatas’ hand only to find it severed from the rest of his body. (7.4.8) There is no other indication in the work of Cyrus as an adult, having such a passionate response. Cyrus, like
Panthea, realized that the virtue of Abradatas had been sacrificed to Cyrus’ ambition. Xenophon is clear that Abradatas was “a sight worth looking at even before he was clad in armor.” (6.4.4)
Cyrus is never described in such a way. The death of Abradatas must further represent for Cyrus the hard truth that Cyrus is unable to reward virtue as he had promised at the outset of the campaign.
Panthea also recognizes her mistake in repaying Cyrus’ favor by convincing her husband to so valiantly serve him. Upon seeing Cyrus lift the severed hand of Abradatas, Panthea says to
Cyrus:
The rest is also like this, Cyrus. But why must you see? I know that he suffered this not least because of me, and perhaps no less because of you, Cyrus. For I, foolish I,
87 frequently encouraged him to act in such a way that he might show himself to be a noteworthy friend for you. Accordingly, he himself died a blameless death, but I who exhorted him sit beside him alive. (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, p. 216)
Cyrus does not offer an immediate response to Panthea’s indictment, and “weeps for some time”.
(7.4.11) When he does respond, he does not offer a rebuttal to the blame they share in Abradatas’
death, and instead leaves Panthea with the assurance that Abradatas, having died the “noblest
death” will be greatly honored and memorialized. (7.4.11) In attempting to console Panthea,
Cyrus insists that his deeds will be memorialized, just as he hopes his own will be.76 Panthea
finds no comfort in Cyrus words and takes her own life. (7.4.14-15) Cyrus is stunned by her
suicide indicating, perhaps, that he was not capable of understanding sorrow that Panthea felt
upon realizing her complicity in Abradatas’ death. Some like Gadatas and Gobryas followed
Cyrus in the hope of revenge, others for the hope of material wealth and position. Of all the
motivations of the people who chose to follow Cyrus, Abradatas and Panthea were the purest.
The gratitude that they willingly gave Cyrus is the same that the Persian law attempted to
enforce. Thus, we see in their tragic story, the susceptibility of even those who are virtuous to the
tyranny of Cyrus. The free nature of Abradatas was enslaved by the ability of Cyrus to create a
sense of gratitude in him.
While Cyrus is able to put the lesson in the power of gratitude he learned from Tigranes
to good use, it should not be forgotten that Cyrus also used fear to create obedience in those who
were not willing followers. From the outset, Xenophon informs us that in addition to creating a
desire to gratify him, Cyrus was also “… able to extend fear of himself to so much of the world
that he intimidated all, and no one attempted anything against him.” (1.2.5) We further learn that
76 See 8.7.23. Cyrus admits his own lack of knowledge regarding the state of the soul after death, and is instead more concerned for how he will be remembered after he is dead.
88 after establishing himself in Babylon that Cyrus creates a network of spies referred to as the
“eyes and ears of the king” who’s function is to seek out any who speak or act against Cyrus and
to report it to him. (8.2.10)
Cyrus and Philosophy
Cyrus is described by Cambyses as being a lover of learning. (1.6.38) However, as the narrative of Cyrus is developed, we come to understand that Cyrus only pursues learning as a means to his ambitious ends. Throughout the Cyropaedia Cyrus is presented with opportunities to engage in philosophy. The first occurs in during his discussion with his father when he discovers that the deception with which the Persian Peers are taught. (1.6.31) When Cyrus asks why the Peers are deceived in this way, Cambyses relates the story of a man who taught in the
Socratic manner, who taught the Persians:
…both to lie and not to lie, to deceive and not to deceive, to slander and not to slander, to take advantage and not to do so. He defined which of these one must do to friends and which to enemies. And he taught moreover that it was just to deceive even one’s friends, at least for a good [result], and to steal the belongings of friends for a food [result]. (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, p. 55)
While danger of this type of philosophizing among the Persian subjects to the stability of the
Persian republic is shown, it is necessary for the ruler, Cambyses, to understand these teachings in order to wage effective war against Persia’s enemies. Rather than contemplating the teachings that Cambyses has revealed, Cyrus is only interested in how he can use these teaching to gain advantage in the upcoming campaign. (6.1.35)
The second instance in which Cyrus is confronted with the opportunity for philosophic contemplation occurs when he inquires after Tigranes’ former teacher. (3.1.38) As was previously mentioned, Xenophon indicates that Tigranes’ teacher also taught in the Socratic manner. The teaching that Cyrus is invited to consider this time is that the wrongs that people
89 commit, are committed out of ignorance and are involuntary. (3.1.38) While Cyrus does express some wonder at Tigranes’ teacher in exclaiming, “Such a man!”, he ultimately sympathizes with
Tigranes’ father who had the teacher killed; “But by the gods, Armenian, the wrongs you have committed seem to me to be human. Tigranes, have sympathy for your father.” (3.2.40) In similar fashion as the Armenian king, Cyrus will guard against anyone who threatens the affection of the people towards him.
The third instance in which Cyrus is invited to engage in philosophy occurs when his childhood friend Araspas the Mede offers a defense for his betrayal of Cyrus in attempting to take Panthea. Araspas offers the following in defense of his actions:
…for I clearly have two souls. I have now concluded this while philosophizing with the unjust sophist, Love (Ἔρωτος). If indeed the soul is one, it is not at the same time both good and bad, nor does it love both noble and shameful deeds at the same time and at the same time both wish and not wish to do the same things. But it is clear that there are two souls, and whenever the good one conquers, it does what is noble, but whenever the vile one, it undertakes what is shameful. Now, since it took you as an all, the good soul conquers and very much so. (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, p. 183)
Cyrus seems completely disinterested in Araspas philosophic musings, and instead returns the conversation back to Araspas’ task as a spy.77 It is worth considering what has changed in
Araspas to make his good soul now an ally of Cyrus, whereas before he was ready to betray
Cyrus. If Panthea had agreed to run off with Araspas, it is unlikely he would have returned to
Cyrus and sought his forgiveness. Araspas has been moderated in the same way that the
Armenian king was, through fear and gratitude. Araspas argues that Eros overcame his “good soul” and allowed his “bad soul” to govern his actions. It was the fear and gratitude that he came to feel towards Cyrus that led to the conquering of his Eros.
77 See Gera, 1987.
90 The story of Panthea was discussed above with respect to the way in which Cyrus is able to ingratiate others, but it is also helpful in understanding the similarities and differences between tyranny and philosophy. Bruell observes that the similarity between the stories of
Panthea and Cyrus and the story of Theodote and Socrates should lead us to compare Cyrus and
Socrates.78 In following this reasoning, I further argue that this comparison can be more broadly stated as a comparison of the tyrant and the philosopher. The distinguishing feature that Bruell points to is the willingness of Socrates to meet the beautiful courtesan Theodote, and Cyrus’ fear of gazing upon Panthea.79 However, Cyrus’ fear in meeting Panthea may not be as sincere as
Bruell takes it to be. Cyrus eventually does lay eyes on Panthea when she is weeping, and we may add recently widowed, and makes no attempt to win her affection or to stay and gaze upon her. Strauss asserts that Cyrus is un-erotic, and only driven by thymos as shown by his fascination with the corpses after his first battle; “In Cyrus, Eros is sacrificed to thymos.” 80
Rather than being different with respect to being uninterested in beautiful women, Cyrus and
Socrates, or the philosopher and the tyrant are similar. A further comparison of the stories shows that Theodote and Panthea are both attracted to Socrates and Cyrus respectively.81 However where, Theodote is attracted to Socrates because of the use he could be to her, Panthea is attracted to Cyrus out of gratitude, and is consequently of great use to Cyrus. Socrates demonstrated his value to Theodote through dialogue and persuasion. In contrast, Cyrus, somewhat deceptively, wins Panthea’s gratitude leading to the tragic end that was discussed above.
78 See Bruell’s essay on the Cyropaedia Strauss and Cropsey, 1963, p.103. 79 Compare Memorabilia 3.11.1 to Cyropaedia, 5.1.8. 80 See Strauss, lectures on Cyropaedia, 1963. Cyrus un-erotic nature is a correction of Hiero’s eros, or a correction of a bad tyrant. 81 Compare Memorabilia, 3.11.15-18 to Cyropaedia, 6.4.5-8.
91 Cyrus’ final encounter with philosophic teachings occurs in a conversation that he has
with the defeated Lydian king, Croesus. Cyrus has the defeated king brought before him and asks
him “…how the responses of the Delphic oracle turned out” for him. (7.2.15). Croesus reveals
that after having not dealt genuinely with oracle that he inquired of the oracle what he must do in
order to be happy. (7.2.17-20) The oracle’s response to Croesus repeats the Socratic dictum,
“Know thyself”. Croesus further reveals that, initially, he believed knowing oneself to be the
easiest of things. (7.2.21) Croesus’ state that defeat at the hands of Cyrus has revealed to Croesus
that he failed to heed the oracle. (7.2.23-24) In this we see that Croesus’ understanding of what it means to know oneself is limited. His failure against Cyrus represents a failure of calculation, strategy, and likely in military ability, but is taken by Croesus as a sign that Cyrus is fit to rule where he is not: “I undertook the generalship as if I was competent to make war against you-you
who in the first place have sprung from the gods have in the second place have descended from a
line of kings, and thirdly have been practicing virtue since your childhood.”82(7.2.24) The oracle
told Croesus that acquiring self-knowledge would lead to his happiness. Having failed to
understand what it means to know oneself Croesus believes he has failed to follow the god’s
instructions and ends up believing that any happiness he will have now must come from Cyrus.
(7.2.25) Limited as it is, the self–knowledge that Croesus acquires is still more than Cyrus ever
approaches.
The Rule of Cyrus
When compared to the defective tyrant, Hiero, Cyrus does appear to be a better ruler.
Much of the advice that the wise poet Simonides gives to Hiero is put into practice by Cyrus.
82 The notion that Cyrus is descended from the gods likely comes from the Greek tradition that held that the Perseidae or Persians were descended from Perseus, who was himself the son of Zeus.
92 Simonides advises Hiero to not “shrink from spending your private possessions for the common
good.”83 Xenophon informs us that Cyrus understood that “a great deal of money, would need to
be spent on his new empire, and established a system of administration to see that the expenses
of his empire were met. (8.1.13) Where Hiero appears as a slave to his erotic desires, Cyrus is
un-erotic.84 Hiero’s pleasure seeking nature can also be contrasted with the continence of Cyrus.
Hiero posits that the tyrant is at a disadvantage with regard to the pleasures of, sights, sounds,
smells, food and drink, and sex. 85 Cyrus, in contrast is not concerned with pursuing any of these
pleasures. This is first shown when as a boy he showed distaste for the excessive eating and
drinking of the Median Tyrant, Astyages. (1.3.4-6) Cyrus exemplified his belief, “that the ruler ought to differ from the ruled not by his living easily but by taking forethought and by being enthusiastic in his love of labor” (1.6.8) throughout his rule. Xenophon informs us that even as an emperor, that Cyrus believed that he ought to set an example for his subordinates in order to
“incite them to noble and good works.”. (8.1.12) It should not be forgotten, however, that, while
Cyrus rejects the pleasant living of the Medians, he is taken with elegant robes and use of cosmetics worn by the Medians to cover physical defects. (8.1.40-41)
Among the advice Simonides gives to Hiero, Simonides suggests that Hiero should not compete in contests against private men, but that ruler’s contest ought to be measured in the happiness of his subjects, and in this way Hiero would compete against other cities.86 The use of contests is a prominent theme throughout the Cyropaedia. Contests are structured in such a way in Persia as to prevent the honor of victory from be given to individuals. Instead, honor is
83 Hiero, 11.1. 84 Compare Hiero 1.26-32 to Cyrus’ disinterest in Panthea. 85 Hiero, 1.4. 86 Hiero, 11.5-6.
93 bestowed on entire tribes, and on the teachers of those who are victorious. (1.2.12) As a general,
Cyrus organizes contests among his men as an effective means of training them. (1.6.18 and
2.1.22) However, contrary to the advice that Simonides gives Hiero, once Cyrus has become an
emperor, he does participate in contests against private individuals. (8.3.25) Once outside of
Persia, Cyrus is able give in to his desire for individual achievement that was suppressed under
the Persian regime.
Hiero and Cyrus also share a defining trait. They both find pleasure in violence. When
listing the pleasures that the tyrant enjoys less than the private man, Hiero includes the pleasure
of killing one’s enemies:87
For surely when the cities overpower their opponents in battle, it is not easy to express how much pleasure [the men] get from routing the enemy; how much from the pursuit; how much from killing their enemies, how they exult in the deed; how much they receive a brilliant reputation for themselves… (Xenophon, Hiero, p. 9)
The great pleasure that Cyrus enjoys from killing is shown after his first battle, when he is found
starring at the corpses of his enemies and has to be dragged away from the scene. (1.4.24) This apparent lack of self-control on the part of Cyrus is uncharacteristic of his otherwise cold character and shows the extent to which Cyrus is driven by a desire to overcome his enemies.
The improvements on the tyranny of Hiero that are seen in Cyrus may be taken as signifying that Cyrus may have made the successful transition from a tyrant to a king, but this possibility should be tempered by the consideration of the ways in which Cyrus is like Hiero, and the extent to which Cyrus’ actions do not line up with the advice given by Simonides. Cyrus only seems to improve upon Hiero in that he is not enslaved by the physical pleasures that Hiero is. Because of his love of labor and willingness to make an example of it, Cyrus is able to
87 All quotations from Xenophon’s Hiero are taken from Leo Strauss’ translation as found in Leo Strauss On Tyranny, Revised and Expanded Edition University of Chicago Press 1991.
94 effectively see to the administration of his empire. However, Cyrus and Hiero are both similar in
that they both desire the honor that comes from competing in contests. Simonides warns Hiero
that competing against private men will have the effect of making them envious. This was
certainly the case under Cyrus’ rule, as is indicated in the large force of bodyguards and spies he
creates. (7.5.58 and 8.2.12) Both Cyrus and Hiero share a love of violence. Rather than
indicating the movement from tyrant to king the differences between Hiero and Cyrus are more
accurately understood as the movement from an uneducated tyrant to an educated tyrant.
Cyrus recognizes the inability of the Persian law to provide what is individually fitting, or
to give to each individual as they are worthy. When the opportunity arises, Cyrus’ replaces this
law with a meritorious system in which each is promised to earn as they deserve. Cyrus makes a
distinction between those who are slaves and those who ought to rule over others. (8.1.43) In this
Cyrus has done as the Persians who made a similar distinction between Peers and the
Commoners. However, where the Persians based their distinction on a rigorous education that
serves to attach the Peers to the law, Cyrus’ distinction is based solely on his own judgement.
His system of meritorious reward only seems to correct the inability of the Persian law to
properly give to each according to their worth.88 Before conceding to the notion that Cyrus has
improved upon the Persian law we should consider his ability to make good on his promise to
reward people according to their worth. The tragic stories of Panthea and Abradatas are
evidence of Cyrus inability to reward the best people. Further, it becomes apparent that
worthiness under this new system means only one thing, obedience to Cyrus.89 Displays of the
88 See Johnson, 2005. Johnson notes the questionable basis of Cyrus’ meritocracy. Also, compare to Danzig, 2009. Danzig incorrectly mistake Cyrus’ merit system for the general idea of a meritocracy in which people actually are rewarded according to their worth. Such an oversight fails to regard the primary good of the Persian law which is the stability that it provides. 89 Compare 4.1.3-4 with 8.3.21-23. Cyrus reward Chrysantas for his strict obedience to his orders, while Diaphernes who thought to appear “more free” to Cyrus was dismissed from service for his failure to promptly obey Cyrus.
95 obedience Cyrus expected surpass any possible military expediency and are shown after he
becomes emperor. Xenophon informs us that Cyrus subjects prostrated themselves before Cyrus
upon seeing him “either because some had been ordered to initiate it or because they were
stunned by the display.” (8.3.11) In this we see that Cyrus ability to earn willing obedience was
limited, and where willing obedience was not given, obedience was compelled.
The standard that Xenophon instructs us to use when comparing the rule of Cyrus to the
Persian law is the stability that each create. For all his success and abilities, Cyrus’ rule
dramatically fails to achieve stability. Xenophon chooses to end the Cyropaedia with a dramatic
and sarcastic description of utter corruption of the descendants of the Persians who followed
Cyrus to Babylon. (8.8.4-22) It should be noted that the comparison that Xenophon makes is
between the modern-day descendants of the Persians who followed Cyrus to Babylon to the
modern-day descendants of the Persians who remained in Persia. Compare Xenophon’s
description of the Persian Peer’s education (1.2.3-16) to the description of the Persians in
Babylon (8.8.6-26). In 1.2.16 Xenophon refers to the Peers who are educated in Persia in the
present tense “for even now”. Likewise, his description of the degenerated Persians in Babylon is
also given in the present tense. This suggests that the descendants Persians who remained in
Persia proper at the time of Cyrus’ campaign were not corrupted like those who descended from
the Peers who followed Cyrus. This possibility is overlooked in the literature which tends to
obscure the significance of the stability of the Persian regime.90
We learn that immediately upon Cyrus’ death, his empire fell into dissention. (8.8.2.)
While Cyrus incorporated pieces of the Persian education (8.6.10) in his rule, he was unable to
90 The deal that Cambyses makes with Cyrus in 8.5.25 further suggests that Persia proper remained uncorrupted by Cyrus.
96 replicate the stability of the Persian republic. The Persian education and laws rewarded virtue for
the sake of virtue and created an equality before the law that was utterly ruined when Cyrus suggests to the Peers who followed him that virtue ought to be rewarded materially. The merit system that Cyrus created caused a competition among his followers for his favor. While some, like Abradatas were genuine in the desire to serve Cyrus, there is no way to distinguish loyalty to
Cyrus for self-interested reasons from genuine loyalty. It is no wonder then that once the judge of who was deserving was dead, that his “sons immediately fell into dissention”, and the cities
and nations that Cyrus had subjugated revolted. The fear and gratitude that compelled the
obedience of these vanished when Cyrus died.
Conclusion
I hope to have shown that there is sufficient cause to believe that the character of Cyrus
represents the best tyrant for Xenophon. One we allow for this possibility, many of the central
themes of the Cyropaedia become clearer, and we can draw generalizable teachings regarding
the rule of law and the rule of a tyrant. The appeal of Cyrus to those who chose to follow him
willingly is nothing to wonder at when we consider the great promise of reward for their
obedience that Cyrus brings. Dissatisfaction with current political life and the inequalities and
injustices that are a part of any political regime make the promise of one like Cyrus appealing
indeed.
The rule of law is especially susceptible to a tyrant of the kind that Cyrus proves to be.
As it turns out, human beings resist the kind of equality that the rule of law requires for its
maintenance. For those who believe themselves to be better than their fellow citizens under the
law, the appeal of Cyrus’ meritocracy would be hard to resist. Cyrus’ meritocracy is equally
appealing to those who recognize an opportunity to increase their material wealth or advance
97 their station by allying themselves with him. Xenophon shows that the promise of stability offered by strict adherence to the rule of law cannot compare with the allure of Cyrus, showing that the good of stability is not generally considered by the ruled. Ironically, without stability, no other good that comes from political life can be enjoyed.
98 CHAPTER 5
THE WISE KING AND THE TYRANT
Introduction
From the beginning of his introductory reflections, Xenophon reveals that understanding his teaching of tyranny is a necessary part of understanding the Cyropaedia as a whole. In describing the internal instability that befalls all political regimes, Xenophon adds a curious qualification to tyrannies: “and how many who have tried to establish tyrannies have some of them, been at once been brought down completely, while others if they have continued ruling for any time at all, are admired as wise and fortunate men.” (1.1.1) What is it about tyrannies that causes Xenophon to add these qualifications?
The distinction between tyrannies and other regimes is founded upon an understanding of legitimacy. The question of what makes a ruler legitimate is drawn out by Xenophon from two differing perspectives throughout the work: the perspective of those who are ruled, and the more philosophic consideration of who should rule. Early on in Cyrus’ education he is made judge in a case to determine what constitutes just ownership. Cyrus must choose between upholding the law or ruling in favor of an arrangement that provides both the plaintiff and defendant with what is most fitting for both of them.91 While the law, being a “blind” and relatively static instrument,
is unable to provide the most fitting outcome in all scenarios, it offers stability to the Persian
regime. This trade off, stability over what is most fitting, emerges as the central concern
regarding who it is most fit to rule. Cyrus displays a preference for what is fitting over the
Persian law in ruling in favor of the bigger boy (and therewith, in favor of the common good) in
91 See 1.3.16-17, these passages provide a critical framework for understanding the rest of the work and are discussed at length in a previous chapter of the dissertation.
99 the case mentioned above. While this suggests a certain disregard for the law and the stability it promotes, Cyrus’ motivations for this choice are unclear. It is only when Cyrus is granted the opportunity to lead a Persian force in the defense of Persia and her ally Media that we are given some insight into Cyrus’ motivations. As he did in the case he adjudicated as a child, now as a young man, Cyrus extends his willingness to undermine existing Persian law in favor of what he believed to be more fitting. This demonstrates his desire to undermine and conquer the regimes that will make up his empire.
The ability of the law to provide stability in Persia flows from the legitimacy that long habituation and the strict Persian education has granted it. While we enjoy the theoretic perspective that allows for a judgment with regard to the good of law as a function of the stability it provides, this is not the perspective of the Persian citizens. The education of the Peers works to ensure that the Peers believe the Persian law itself to be just. In a similar fashion, the regimes that Cyrus conquers throughout his campaign maintain themselves through a sense of legitimacy that Cyrus disrupts through force and subversion. By considering Cyrus’ desire to create his empire, we can come to an understanding of his motivation. I argue that Cyrus is meant to be understood by Xenophon as tyrannical, and that his tyranny is meant to be considered against the rule of the wise king Cambyses, who serves the Persian law, and maintains the stability of Persia by ensuring that Cyrus does not corrupt it. The dialogue held between Cyrus and Cambyses as they march towards the Median border demonstrates the superiority of the rule of law in creating stability and highlights the Cyrus’ deficiencies as an aspiring emperor.
The Dialogue between Cyrus and Cambyses
Understanding this crucial dialogue requires an understanding of the motives of both
100 Cambyses and Cyrus. These motives are revealed throughout the course of the conversation and provide an initial and necessary framework for examining Xenophon’s teachings. The dialogue that takes place between Cyrus and Cambyses can be broadly understood as an attempt on the part of Cambyses to preserve the Persian regime, and his own rule. The need for Persia to be preserved comes from the threat that Cyrus represents to the stability of the regime should he inherit the rule from Cambyses. Cambyses’ first approach to mitigating the threat that Cyrus poses to the regime is to persuade him toward philosophic contemplation. Cambyses is unsuccessful in this attempt and next turns to ensuring Cyrus’ success outside of Persia. In this regard, Cambyses is successful as the Persian republic’s safety is guaranteed by Cyrus’ new empire, and by Cyrus’ agreement to never seek to rule Persia.
Chapter Six of Book One contains the dialogue held between Cyrus and Cambyses as they travel together toward the Persian border. Similar to Mandane’s discussion with Cyrus,
Cambyses’ motives at the beginning of the dialogue are not entirely clear. Further, as with the discussion between Cyrus and Mandane, Xenophon will use this conversation to advance a teaching regarding justice.
The dialogue presents the strongest argument that Cyrus can make in defense of his own ambition. Cyrus is motivated by a desire to confirm his own virtue, and that he understands this to be possible only through the conquest of nations that he is embarking on. Considering Cyrus’ position in this way allows for a greater understanding of the motivations behind political ambition generally. The motivating force behind Cyrus’ ambition and his imperial project is rooted in a belief that connects ruling other human beings to what is virtuous. From this point of view, Cyrus’ project can be seen as engaging in a contest pitting his own superiority against
101 those he means to rule, and against the abilities of other rulers.92 Cyrus concludes this contest is
necessary once he recognizes the inability of political society to define and reward virtue. This
argument is ultimately defeated by Cambyses. As the dialogue begins, it is not clear if Cambyses
is aware of the speech delivered by Cyrus to the Persian peers. It is, however, made clear that
Cambyses understands the opportunity that the Assyrian aggression has afforded Cyrus.
The conversation between Cyrus and his father as they travel to the Persian border is one
of the most pivotal scenes in the narrative. While it takes on the appearance of a father and king
giving advice to his son and heir, this dialogue also reveals the tension between the legitimacy of
the rule of law and the notion that the one who is most fit to rule should rule.
Nadon offers a discussion of this dialogue in his book Xenophon’s Prince: Republic and
Empire in the Cyropaedia.93 The analysis offered here disagrees, in part, with the analysis offered by Nadon. The disagreements stem partly from a difference in focus with regard to the work generally, and also from a difference concerning how the dialogue’s setting affects our understanding of it. Nadon views Cambyses’ role in the dialogue as one who must argue from a position of weakness.94 He attributes Cambyses’ weakness to two contributing factors: Cyrus’
control of a Persian force and the fact that the fate of the Persian regime rests on Cyrus’ ability to
repel the Assyrian invasion. Understanding the dialogue in this manner leads to the conclusion
that Cambyses is forced to reveal teachings that under normal circumstances he would not have.
Furthermore, casting the dialogue in this light suggests that Cambyses’ argument speaks only to
the practical nature of political rule without refuting any of the arguments put forth by Cyrus. By
92 Cf Hiero 11.7-13. Simonides attempts to dissuade Hiero from competing with the private citizen, and to engage only in a contest with other rulers. Cyrus appears to make this mistake and desires to compete against both. 93 Xenophon’s Prince: Republic and Empire in the Cyropaedia, University of California Press, 2001, p. 164-178. 94 Ibid., p. 166.
102 viewing Cambyses as an unwilling participant in the discussion, the larger philosophic impact of the dialogue is somewhat diluted. I argue that Cambyses not only willingly allows Cyrus to lead the army, but that such an arrangement ultimately serves to protect the Persian republic.
It is not accurate to say that Cambyses would have cause to fear Cyrus on the basis that
Cyrus now commands an army. While Cyrus commands an army, we know that it is not the entirety of the Persian forces, as he will later request reinforcements. Furthermore, while Cyrus has begun his corruption of the Persian education amongst his troops, it is far from complete, and as such, it seems unlikely that at this point Cyrus could turn them on Cambyses and Persia.
Finally, it is difficult to imagine that Cambyses could say anything at this point that would lead
Cyrus to consider turning on him.
It is true that a successful Assyrian invasion of Media would place Persia in danger.
However, if Cambyses possesses and transfers his knowledge of the art of war and leadership to
Cyrus, we must question why Cambyses himself did not lead the army. While Cyaxares wrote to
Cyrus and asked him to try to be the leader of the forces sent, he also wrote Cambyses and the
Persian council to petition for the forces. It is unlikely that Cyaxares would have refused the
Persian troops if Cambyses and the council decided not to send Cyrus as the leader. (1.5.4).
Cyaxares, having seen Cyrus in battle, was aware of his value as a strategist and warrior, and recognized something valuable in Cyrus beyond the strength of the Persian force alone. Had
Cyrus not spent much of his youth in Media, this would not have been possible. While Cyrus’ mother was reluctant to let him stay, we read that Cambyses was pleased when he learned of
Cyrus’ good reputation among the Medes, and that when Cambyses recalled Cyrus to Persia he obediently returned. (1.4.25) Further, though Xenophon is silent on the subject, we can intuit that without Cambyses’ permission Cyrus would not have been able to stay in Media at all. This
103 suggests that Cambyses, being aware of Cyrus’ propensity for tyranny, was carefully preparing
Cyrus to live a life outside of Persia.
If Cambyses has not been caught between the threat of Cyrus and the need to defend
Persia, what could be his motivation for allowing Cyrus to take charge of the troops? The answer may be found when we consider both the real danger Cyrus represents to the stability of the
Persian regime and the fact that he stands to inherit the kingdom from his father. From this perspective, the Assyrian invasion provides both Cyrus and Cambyses an opportunity. Cyrus is able to pursue his imperial ambition and Cambyses is able to remove Cyrus from Persia. That this works out in Cambyses’ favor can be seen in the arrangement that is eventually reached between the two that preserves the Persian regime while at the same time giving it the protection of Cyrus’ empire. (8.5.25) If Cambyses has a genuine concern for the stability of the Persian regime, then the risk of sending Cyrus out with the army is being weighed against the certainty of the corruption of the Persian regime if Cyrus is allowed to inherit it while still in Persia.
Understanding the dialogue from this perspective treats Cambyses and Cyrus as equals in the sense that they share a common goal if not for the same reasoning. Cambyses and Cyrus both wish for Cyrus to be successful in his military campaign. The extent to which each is aware of the others’ goal may be in question, but looking forward, the Persian regime seems to be the long-term beneficiary of Cyrus’ campaign. It is possible that the arrangement between the kingdom of Persia and Cyrus’ empire was Cambyses’ goal all along. Cyrus informs Cambyses of his intention of conquering the Medes at the beginning of their conversation, and rather than acting with any sign of alarm, Cambyses proceeds to teach Cyrus how he might be the most effective general. (1.6.8) It is unlikely that Cyrus, after returning to Persia from Media, could have foresaw the value that his reputation among the Medes would prove. Once he is given
104 command of the Persian force, he clearly sees the opportunity it provides, but Cambyses must
have been aware before Cyrus, showing a foresight that exceeds Cyrus own.
The dialogue reveals that Cyrus has become, or perhaps has always been aware, of the
inability of the political life to provide knowledge of what is just. The political stability of Persia
requires that the Peers believe in the justness of their laws. This is only realizable to the extent
that the city can convince or compel the people of the justness of the city’s laws, customs, and
culture. This is accomplished in Persia through a rigorous education that prevents the Peers from
recognizing the limitation of the law. If justice is considered to be what is most fitting, then the
law, being static, cannot always, or possibly ever provide this.95 Referring back to the story of
the tunics, the law held that it is unjust to take anything by force, even though in this case, the
result was what most fitting. Obedience to the law requires a lowering of the idea of justice as
that which is most fitting for individuals to what is most fitting for the city. This, in turn, reveals
that political stability is the result of a deception undertaken by Persia in the which law is simply
taught as justice, and any considerations of justice outside of the law are prohibited. (1.6.31-33)
For one desiring knowledge of their own virtue, the necessary reduction of justice, or the
elevation of law to justice for the sake of political stability, presents an obstacle. While human
beings generally accept that justice is what is fitting, human beings are flexible in what they
accept as fitting. It is this quality that allows for particular laws to be understood as just. If Cyrus
was not aware of this before his time in Media, he surely must have been after. The sharp
distinction Xenophon draws between the two cultures serves to illustrate this point. While the
people of Persia hold that it is most fitting for all, even the king, to live under the rule of law, the
95 While somewhat understated throughout the work, part of the ability of the Persian regime to maintain the equation between law and justice amongst the Peers is owed to the divine authority that the Persian king who also serves as a prophet has.
105 Medians have been “taught” by Astyages “to have less than himself.” (1.4.18) In some ways the
differences between the Persian preference for austere living and the Median preference for
luxury can be understood as what we may, in the modern world, call a difference in values.
However, while the values themselves differ, they are valued by both cultures to the extent that
each believes that their respective values represent that which is most fitting. Cyrus clearly
recognizes this, and it is therefore not enough for him to be esteemed by any one city.
Cyrus seeks the affirmation of his own virtue through the conquest of all cities. Cyrus’
desire to affirm his own virtue is not the same as a desire for knowledge of justice, but the two
are connected. The Persians Peers practice the virtues taught them by their education because
they believe the Persian law to be just. Cyrus recognizes that their attachment to virtue is not
proof of their virtue and, ignoring the good that does come from such practices, accuses the
Persians of having been duped into practicing virtue for the sake of virtue. (1.5.8) For Cyrus, the
good that should come from virtue is the rule over other human beings.96
Cyrus’ ruling in the story of the tunics shows that his nature was such that he was able to
see beyond the Persian laws and education to question whether Persian law was just. The ability
to understand the imitations of law could have led Cyrus to a philosophic contemplation of
justice. The problem of coming to knowledge of justice presents itself in light of the ability of
human beings to form differing, and often wildly differing, opinions with regard to what is most
fitting. Amongst such a contention of opinions, one who desires a knowledge of justice must
realize the difficulty relying on human opinion or political societies which must cater to them.
96 I am aware that Cyrus uses the argument that their virtuous living should lead to living more pleasantly than those who are not virtuous in the same speech, but it should be noted that Cyrus himself never pursues the pleasant living, preferring instead to maintain the Persian practices of love of labor, physical, and martial excellence. I suspect that the reason Cyrus does not reveal what must be his thoughts on the true reward for virtue is because he also understands that there can only be one ruler.
106 However, once Cyrus is given command of the Persian force, we see that, while he must look
outside of Persia, his concern is in coming to a knowledge of justice, but rather he seeks
knowledge of his own virtue. Having been shown the limitations of the law in Persia, and the
defective form of tyranny of the Medes, Cyrus’ desire to affirm his own virtue takes the form of
a competition in the which his own virtue is affirmed through conquest.
The dialogue between Cambyses and Cyrus spans the entirety of the sixth chapter of
Book One. The setting of the dialogue finds Cyrus and Cambyses traveling together to the
Persian border and opens with a discussion of the gods and the role of prophecy in ruling. We are
given to understand that Cyrus has learned the art of prophecy from his father. (1.6.2) The
reasoning behind Cambyses’ instruction suggests that some good that comes from aligning
prophetic interpretation with the political ruler of the city: “Both seeing what is to be seen and
hearing what is to be heard, you would understand these things yourself and not be dependent on
the prophets, in case they should wish to tell you something different from the signals of the
gods” (1.6.2). While on the surface this may be an innocuous statement, it reveals both that the
art of prophecy can be acquired by learning, and that one who has learned it might willingly
misinterpret the signals from the gods, presenting prophets as potential competitors for rule.
Further, Cambyses’ included the implication that there no signals from the gods, but that the
pretense of piety must be maintained for the sake of the stability of Persia.
The introduction of the dialogue finds Cyrus and Cambyses in agreement with respect to
how one should approach the gods. Cyrus reveals that Cambyses taught him that the most
effective way to approach the gods is the same as it is with human beings generally, and with
friends. (1.6.3) Cyrus agrees with his father and further states that he “is disposed to the gods as though they were his friends” (1.6.4). This curious statement implies a level of equality with the
107 gods that demonstrates that he has failed to understand the lack of divine intervention that
Cambyses has alluded. It is from this position that we can begin to understand what drives
Cyrus’ ambition to rule. Cyrus views himself, if not equal to the gods, then at least highly favored by them. This perspective, combined with the knowledge that Cyrus gained regarding the inability of the Persian laws to give what is fitting, give a sense of legitimacy and piety to the project that Cyrus is seeking to undertake.
Properly approaching the gods, as Cambyses teaches, involves flattering them in times of plenty as opposed to just in times of need and in making the appropriate preparations to bring about the desired outcome before approaching another for help. Cambyses asks if they still agree:
…. that there are things which the gods have granted to human beings who have learned to fare better than those who do not understand… and in which they have granted to the careful to continue more safely than those off their guard, and that …we decided that it was necessary to ask for the good things from the gods only after rendering ourselves such as we ought to be? (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, p. 47)
Cambyses’ teaching places the onus of gaining a desired outcome squarely on the shoulders of the one making the request to the gods, further suggesting their absence. It is possible to argue that the gods view this behavior favorably, and therefore reward it with success, but it can also be the case that Cambyses’ teaching leads to the conclusion that the only guarantees of success that an individual can provide themselves with come from their own efforts. Cyrus’ response to his father indicates that he agrees with the understanding handed down from his father. “It was also necessary for me to obey the argument, for I know that you added that it would not even be right for those who have not learned to ride a horse to ask from the gods to be victorious in a cavalry battle…” (1.6.8). As Ambler notes, the word translated as “right” is themis, which can also be understood as “what is ordained by the gods.” In repeating his father’s teaching, Cyrus
108 includes a list of things that a human being should know how to do before seeking the god’s help:
…for I also know that you added that it would not even be right [athemitos] for those who have not learned how to ride a horse ask from the gods to be victorious in a cavalry battle, nor for those who do not know how to shoot a bow to prevail with bows and arrows over those who know how to use them, nor for those who do not know how to be a pilot pray to pilot ships safely, for such things are contrary to what the gods have set down. (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, p. 47)
Cambyses is clearly suggesting to Cyrus that that the onus of success lies in the preparation of the individual, and not from divine favor. While Cyrus does not dispute the need for preparation, he continues to assert a pious belief in the notion that the gods will favor those that are prepared. This may be taken as a sign of naivety, but when consider that the activities
Cyrus mentioned, warfare, farming, and piloting all involve a fair amount of risk regardless of preparation, the role of divine intervention is not easily dismissed. Further, Cyrus’ desire to prove his own virtue requires that some evidence outside of the human ability to give. Cyrus’ pious attitude reflects his need to affirm his own virtue.
Cyrus concludes the discussion of the role of the gods in granting success by comparing
Cambyses’ teaching of how one should approach the gods to how one should approach human beings. “You said that it is improbable for those pray for what is not right to fail with the gods, just as it is probable for those who ask for what is unlawful to be ineffective with human beings.”
(1.6.6) This has the effect of turning the conversation away from a consideration of the gods to the consideration of how to be successful in gaining favor with human beings.
Cambyses must understand Cyrus’ willingness to disregard the good of established laws in favor of his own judgment and begins his next statement with a more adversarial tone. But did you forget, son, those points by which you and I calculated that it is sufficient and noble for a man, if he should be able take care that he himself become truly noble and good and that both he
109 and the members of his household have sufficient provisions? While this is already a great work,
next to know how to preside over other human beings so that they will have provisions in
abundance and so that they will all be as they must, this certainly appeared to us to be worthy of
wonder. (1.6.7)
Cyrus’ response to this gives the reader insight into a fundamental difference between
Cyrus and Cambyses.
Yes, by Zeus, father…I remember you saying this too. Ruling nobly used to seem to be a very great work to me also, and it still does now, when I calculate it by examining rule itself. But when I consider it by looking at human beings and seeing that even as they are, endure in their rule, and that they, even as they are, will be our antagonists, it seems to me very shameful to be intimidated before such and not be willing to go into contention against them… (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, p. 47)
Cyrus has replaced Cambyses’ wonder (θαυμαστὸν) with regard to how to rule over human
beings with his own calculations (λογίζωμαι). Wonder is the beginning of philosophy.97 It is
wonder that leads one to continually pursue knowledge. A great distinction between Cambyses
and Cyrus, is that where wonder will lead Cambyses to consider the difficulties of ruling well
and the need to pursue knowledge, Cyrus believes both that such knowledge can be easily gained
and that he has the means to acquire it. Furthermore, Cyrus has neglected to respond to the first
portion of Cambyses’ statement regarding what is noble and sufficient for a man and only speaks
to the consideration of ruling over other human beings. This suggests a lack of personal
reflection on the part of Cyrus. Where Cambyses suggests that a pursuit of what is noble and
good is possible for a private individual, the same consideration has not been extended to ruling
over others. Cyrus’ lack of reflection has caused him to fail to consider whether ruling will allow
him to pursue to be noble and good.
97 See Plato’s Theaetetus. wonder as the beginning of philosophy, and Iris as the daughter of Thaumus as a good genealogy.
110 What it is that drives Cyrus towards the creation of empire has been a topic discussed by
many scholars. Most seem to agree that it is somehow the love of honor, praise or recognition
that propels Cyrus towards his goal of empire. While this may be true, there is a deeper
reasoning behind Cyrus’ love of honor that Xenophon imparts to the reader through the
conversation Cyrus has with his father. Cyrus has been exposed to and learns of the relative
nature of virtue. In particular, Cyrus has learned that what is considered virtuous is relative to the
political regime. Hence, justice, or the notion that virtue must be rewarded is similarly relative.
Under such conditions, obtaining knowledge of what is virtuous becomes a difficult task. From a
young age Cyrus has understood justice to be that which is most fitting. In order for this principle
to hold, Cyrus further believes virtue must be rewarded. Cyrus mistakenly disregards the
possibility that virtue could go without reward from wither the gods, or other human beings. In
Cyrus’ view, reward is proof of virtue. For Cyrus, the conquest of if the many cities and nations
he takes control of are the reward for his virtue.
Cyrus has been tuned on to the notion that political regimes can control what a society holds to be virtuous by rewarding their respective notions of virtue. Cyrus is driven by a desire to affirm his own virtue but is unable to satisfy this need through participation in any political regime. The military opportunity afforded to Cyrus by the request for aid from Media places
Cyrus at a crossroads. The dialogue between Cyrus and his father can be understood as Cyrus’ justification for his imperial project on the basis of his desire for affirmation of his own virtue, and Cambyses’ refutation that such a project can, in fact, lead Cyrus to this affirmation.
The use of contests is a recurring theme throughout the discussion and the rest of the work. Cyrus begins by declaring that it seems “very shameful” to him not to contend with human beings who endure in their rule and believe that the ruler must “differ from the ruled by dining
111 more sumptuously, by having more gold at home, by sleeping longer, and by spending his time
freer from every labor than do those who are ruled” (1.6.8). Rather than the Assyrians, it is the
Medians that are the target of Cyrus’ remarks here. This reveals that Cyrus desires to do much
more than aid the Medians in a shared defense against the Assyrians and shows that he means to conquer and correct the Median political regime. Cyrus agrees with the notion that a ruler should differ from the ruled, but Cyrus believes that the ruler should “differ from the ruled not by his living easily but by taking forethought and by being enthusiastic in his love of labor” (1.6.8). The solution to the problem Cyrus faces in coming to a knowledge of virtue, specifically of his own virtue, is to enter into a contest that pits himself against other rulers and those that they rule. If
Cyrus is successful in ruling over others as a ruler who rules because of his superiority in forethought and love of labor, then he can gain affirmation of his own virtue.
After the distinction made between the wonder of Cambyses and the calculation of Cyrus, the dialogue then turns to Cambyses attempting to complete Cyrus’ education of how to rule an army. “But son, he said, there are some respects in which one must not contend against human beings, but against matters themselves” (1.6.9). The following discussion between Cyrus and
Cambyses suggests that if (as Xenophon suggests) Cyrus is indeed a lover of learning, he is either unable or unwilling to learn in the best or truest sense of the word. (1.4.3) Furthermore, we
must ask whether Cyrus is a lover of learning only as it pertains to his desire to conquer and rule.
By moving the direction of the conversation away from the consideration of human
beings and focusing on matters themselves, Cambyses is able to demonstrate that Cyrus, on his
own, did not give proper consideration to the practical matters of caring for his army either
presently, or as a younger man who sought to learn generalship. The lack of consideration given
to learning about the necessary matters raises doubts as to the degree to which we can expect
112 Cyrus to truly contemplate human beings. Cambyses reveals that Cyrus is relying entirely on
Cyaxares to provide for the maintenance of his army, without a sufficient understanding of
Cyaxares’ capability to do so. (1.6.9-10) In both instances, Cyrus appears to have approached the management of his army from a narrow view that failed to take into account the conditions for the most advantageous disposition of his army. Such a consideration indicates that Cyrus believes that the necessary things will be provided and is further evidence of his piety. Further, his lack of consideration reveals that his focus, initially, was limited only to the actual armed contest that would affirm his virtue. To his credit, Cyrus learns from Cambyses’ lesson and cleverly corners Cyaxares into paying for the needs of his men.
At least part of Cyrus’ failure in giving adequate consideration to the concerns Cambyses raises stems from a failure to question or evaluate his circumstances. “Are you asking son, he said, how you might provide a source of resource for yourself? From whom is it more probable that there arise such a source than from one who has power?” (1.6.10). Had Cyrus considered the question now posed to him by his father he would not have found himself in the position of relying solely on his trust of Cyaxares for the welfare of his army. This can be understood as a failure on the part of Cyrus’ calculations, and suggests that had he given proper attention, he would have foreseen the possibilities raised by Cambyses. Further, through the recounting of
Cyrus’ experience with the teacher of tactics, Cambyses is again able to demonstrate that Cyrus fails to recognize the inadequacy of his education in tactics.98
After Cambyses reveals Cyrus’ lack of consideration for those things that are necessary for the success of any army, Cyrus returns the conversation to a consideration of human beings and how to make them hard working and well-conditioned. “But as to their applying themselves
98 1.6.12-13.
113 each to the work of war, father, he said, it seems to me that if someone announces contests and
proposes prizes, he would make them especially well exercised in each” (1.6.19). This is the
second time that Cyrus has referred to the use of contests while conversing with his father.
Where Cyrus held that it was shameful for himself and the Persians generally not to enter into a
contest against the Medians, he now points to a utilitarian aspect of using contests. When Cyrus
declares it shameful not to contend against other regimes, Cambyses diverts the conversation to a
consideration of “matters themselves.” However, when Cyrus raises the possibility of using
contests as a means of conditioning his soldiers, his father responds by saying “You speak most
nobly son…for if you do this, be assured that you will behold your formations always attending
to what is fitting, just like choral dancers” (1.6.18). Cambyses accepts the premise that the use of
contests would be beneficial for the army and makes a curious connection between the
formations of the army and choral dancers. Just like choral dancers are taught to move together
and respond to the orders of the director, so must a military formation move in concert and
respond to the orders of the general. The connection between the two is that both require instant
obedience and coordinated action. From this we can conclude that the good that Cambyses
understands to come from the use of contests lies both in the obedience that they can generate.
The discussion of the use of contests is one of several points in which the dialogue
between Cyrus and Cambyses shares remarkable similarity to the conversation between
Simonides and Hiero found in Xenophon’s Hiero.99 The conversation between Simonides and
Hiero arises as a response to the question of which life is better, the life of a private man or the life of a tyrant.100 Strangely, while Simonides raises the question, it is Simonides near the end of
99 Cf. Hiero, ch.11. 100 See. Hiero, 1.1-2.
114 the discussion who also suggests that the two ways of life should not be compared. “I myself say that it is not fitting for a man who is a tyrant even to compete against private men. For, should you win, you would not be admired, but envied, as meeting the cost by means of many estates, and should you lose, you would be most ridiculed of all” (Hiero 11.6). Simonides understands the value of contests in the same manner as Cambyses, they teach obedience, enthusiasm, and make give the citizens of the city practice in martial exercises. In order for this good to be maintained, Simonides Hiero to not participating in the contests, and thereby not risk others becoming envious of him. Not participating in contests would also allow Hiero to be the judge of the contests and would have the effect of creating a competition among his men for his favor.
Cyrus understands this to the extent that he realizes the need to be recognized as the judge of virtue among his soldiers. (2.3.16)
Ultimately, however, while Cyrus is able to contests to make his men better soldiers, once Cyrus has conquered Babylon and established his empire, he continues his use of contests in an attempt to “implant a competitiveness over noble and good works”, with result being that the best of his men become “injected with strife as well as competitiveness. (8.2.26) This shows that Cyrus has mistaken those who do apparently noble and good works with those who actually are noble and good. While the Persian regime also uses contests, it is not the individuals who compete in them who are praised when victorious, but rather the ruler of the tribe the individuals are form and those who taught the individuals. (1.2.12) Cyrus has failed to understand that contests can only make men better with regard to actions and cannot change the competitor’s motivation for participating in the competition. Persia has understood this and effectively uses contests to produce quality of action without the harmful side effect of creating strife and envy by directing the praise for victory away from the individuals who compete. In other words,
115 contests cannot make good men, they can only improve the ability of men to act in a certain way.
Cyrus’ failure to see his is likely a result of the fact that Cyrus sees himself as engaging in a contest against other rulers, in the which he desires to prove his virtue.
Cambyses’ statement regarding the obedience that the use of contests can generate for the army turns the dialogue to a more general consideration of obedience. Cyrus indicates his pleasure with discussing the means to instill obedience in human beings. “But by Zeus, father, said Cyrus, you seem to me to speak nobly, and I am more pleased with it like this” (1.6.19).
That Cyrus is more pleased to discuss the means by which he can achieve obedience suggests that Cyrus’ ambition limits his desire for knowledge, and again calls into question Xenophon’s assertion that he is a lover of learning.
We may wonder why Cambyses participates in teaching Cyrus how to win the obedience of human begins, given the understanding of both Cyrus’ nature and that Cyrus has already informed him that intends to conquer their allies, the Medes. If Cyrus were to fail in his goal to conquer the Medes Persia would have lost a friend and gained an enemy. Despite this, Cambyses continues to instruct Cyrus, and indeed provides with instruction that is crucial to his efforts.
When we consider that the large empire that Cyrus forms ends up protecting the small Persian republic from any outside threats, Cambyses willingness to teach Cyrus becomes clearer.
Cambyses is able to use his son’s ambitious nature to pride a protection for the Persian regime that Persia, on its own, cold never achieve.
Cyrus approaches the topic of gaining obedience by pointing to his education in Persia. In so doing he notes. “And the majority of the laws also seem to teach especially these two things, to rule and to be ruled” (1.6.20). Cyrus has learned from his beating at the hands of his teacher, that where attachment to the law in Persia fails, force is used. In this regard, the Persian law acts
116 tyrannically.101 Cyrus’ remarks here can be seen as challenging the basis of both the Persian
education and Persian law. In Cyrus’ estimation the Persian law has prevented the Persians from
ruling as they should; over those like the Medes. Rather than connecting Persian law to any
sense of justice, the laws of Persia demonstrate to Cyrus the means by which human beings can
be compelled to obey. Cyrus concludes his statement with the observation that what “especially
incites to obedience is the praising and honoring of the one who obeys and the dishonoring and
punishment of the one who disobeys” (1.6.20). In this understanding, Cyrus makes the claim that
it is a desire for honor that motivates people towards obedience. It is with some caution that the
reader should view this statement as wholly genuine on the part of Cyrus. While material reward
may be a way of demonstrating honor, like the Median robes that Cyrus begins to wear (8.2.8)
Xenophon also states that Cyrus distinguished between those who he thought as slavish and
those who he thought worthy of ruling over them, indicating that he does understand that some
are, like the Astyages, are only motivated by materialism and pleasure. (8.1.43) As is seen, Cyrus
will make use of material rewards as well as honor as a means of motivating those he rules to be
obedient.
Where Cyrus seems to be speaking of attaining obedience from those who are principally
concerned with attaining honor, Cambyses broadens the scope to how obedience can best be won
from all human beings.
Yes, son, this is indeed the road to their obeying by compulsion, but to what is far superior to this, to their being willing to obey, there is another road that is shorter, for human beings obey with great pleasure whomever they think is more prudent about their own advantage than they are themselves. (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, p. 52)
Cambyses’ use of the word compulsion is interesting as Cyrus has stated his belief that both
101 Cf. Memorabilia, 1.4.40-46.
117 praise and punishment can be used to gain obedient. Cambyses appears to be grouping both praise and punishment into forms of compulsion.
By showing that there is an even better way than the honor and punishment described by
Cyrus to gain obedience, Cambyses has revealed that Cyrus is limited in his ability to consider what it is that motivates all human beings. Cambyses’ assertion that there is a shorter way to achieve obedience from all human beings hinges on the ability of human beings to understand what is in their best interest. This differs significantly from what human beings believe to be in tier self-interest, and as such what a person understands as good for them is malleable. Cyrus has already been exposed to and understood that different cities hold different beliefs with regard to what is best for human beings. Cambyses has now connected what is relative amongst human beings, what they think is in their best interest, to the ability to rule well. Cambyses is directing
Cyrus to look past this relativism to learn how to gain true advantage. Cyrus recognizes the implication that such a teaching holds, but only with regard to the act of ruling itself, overlooking the possibility that he may not know what is good for himself. “You are saying, father, that for having obedient subjects, nothing is more effectual than to seem to be more prudent than they”
(1.6.22) Cyrus does, however, pick up on another implication found in Cambyses statement.
Cambyses’ teaching only requires that the ruled believe that the ruler knows what is best for them, which is not necessarily the same as the ruler knowing what is best.
Cyrus accepts his father’s premise, and asks “And how, father, would someone be able to furnish himself with such a reputation as quickly as possible?” (1.6.22). Cambyses’ response is somewhat obvious but is qualified in a manner that appeals to Cyrus directly.
There is no shorter road, son, [he said], to seeming to be prudent about such things as you wish than becoming prudent about them…consider how many things you must contrive for the sake of seeming so. Even if you should persuade many to praise you, so as to gain a reputation, and should receive beautiful accruements for each of these [arts], you would
118 deceive but for the moment; a little later, when put to the test; you would be openly refuted and exposed as a boaster as well. (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, p. 52)
The only time that Cyrus is ever mentioned as boasting in the work by Xenophon is before the battle with Assyrians (7.1.17) While Cyrus, is successful, the claim that Xenophon refers to as boastful is that the Egyptians will break formation and run. This does not happen during the battle, which results in the death of Abradatas. The reference to boasting in Cambyses’ teaching and in Cyrus remarks before the battle show that Cyrus is indeed guilty of not actually being prudent.
Cyrus appears to only accept the notion that prudence is necessary in regard to gaining advantage and seems to dismiss the possibility that he ought to become prudent in understanding what is good for human beings. “How could someone really become prudent about what is going to be advantageous?” (1.6.23). Cambyses must see Cyrus’ limited understanding of the need for prudence but continues to teach him what he is willing to learn. “Clearly son by learning whatever it is possible to know by learning, just as you learned tactics.” (1.6.23) This is an interesting response when we recall that Cyrus learned tactics by seeking to learn the broader art of generalship. It was only with the aid of Cambyses that Cyrus was brought to understand the limited nature of an education in tactics outside that did not include a consideration of such matters as the health or obedience of the army. Cyrus’ failure to consider the broader concerns for the army outside of tactics, suggests that his ambition limits his ability to learn all the things necessary for ruling an army. Furthermore, it was only with the aid of Cambyses that Cyrus was able to discern this failure. Cambyses’ statement implies that Cyrus will require the aid of someone like himself to become prudent, or that Cyrus is unable to be prudent and must rely on someone like Cambyses. Is indicated in the boasting if Cyrus mentioned above, Cyrus only learns to become prudent with regard to gaining the advantage and fails to become prudent with
119 respect to understanding what is good for the people he rules. Cyrus will disregard Cambyses’
teaching regarding the use of prudence to gain the willing obedience of those he rules in favor of
the lesson of fear and gratitude he learns from Tigranes.
Cyrus responds in an argumentative fashion and turns the dialogue to a consideration of
the good of being loved by one’s subjects. “But as for being loved by one’s subjects, which
seems at least to me to be among the most important matters, it is clear that the road to it is the
same as that one should take if he desires to be loved by his friends, for I think one must be
evident doing good for them” (1.6.24). In response to Cambyses’ admonition that he become
prudent, Cyrus responds with a rather mercenary understanding of love. This also demonstrates
Cyrus’ rather limited view on friendship, which, rather than being based on this mercenary type
of love, is based on mutual admiration. While Cyrus appears to be persuaded by the argument
that securing willing obedience hinges on the ability of a ruler to be perceived as being more
prudent with regard to what is good for the ruled than the ruled are themselves, he seems to have
no interest in actually becoming prudent. His concern is limited only to the perception of
prudence, and he now connects this to being loved by his subjects. Cyrus replaces the notion of
knowing what is best for his subjects with “being evident [in]doing good” for them. Again,
Cyrus overlooks thought in favor of action. The argument Cyrus puts forth is as follows; if he is
evident in doing good for his subjects then they will believe he is more prudent than they
themselves are and will be obedient.102 It should be noted that neither Cambyses or Cyrus have addressed the deeper question of what really is good for human beings. While it certainly reflects
a lack of though on the part of Cyrus, Cambyses’ neglect in raising this issue is more likely due
102 Cyrus reference to his friends in this passage can also be read to indicate that Cyrus is referring to doing good in the eyes of the gods, who he has previously understood to be his friends. In other words, the gods will reward Cyrus with the obedience of his subject if he is evident in doing what the gods hold to be good.
120 to the limited nature of political life itself and the constraints of the conversation that he is having with Cyrus.
Cambyses’ response to Cyrus’ argument for being evident in doing good to win obedience points to a great distinction between the Persian Regime and the empire that Cyrus will create.
But son, [he said], it is difficult to be able to do good for those whom one would like to. But to be evident in rejoicing along with them if some good should befall them, in grieving along with them if some evil, in being enthusiastic to join in helping them in difficulties, in fearing lest they should fall in something, in trying to use forethought that they not fail- in these matters one must somehow keep their company very close. (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, p. 54)
Cambyses’ challenge to the notion that one could do good for all leads us to consider under what conditions this could be possible, and points back to the problem of justice raised at the beginning of the book. In the same sense that it is not possible fulfill an entire population’s desire for justice, it is not possible to make an entire population happy. Cyrus views justice as that which is most fitting. The Persian regime has equated what is just with the laws of city to the extent that even the king is subject to the law. Cyrus has recognized the limitation of the law in providing what is fitting and, in the instance of the tunics, sought to supplant the law with what he believed to be most fitting. Cyrus means to place himself outside of any law to become the arbiter of what is most fitting or just for those he rules.
Rather than rejoicing or grieving along with those he rules, as Cambyses’ position under law allows for, Cyrus means to be the cause of rejoicing or grieving, and as such to secure the obedience of those he rules. Cambyses concludes his response to Cyrus by indicating that in addition to rejoicing and grieving with the ruled, the ruler must also, in action, be seen as willing to endure more toil. This statement connects the ideas of rejoicing and grieving with the ruled and being more willing to endure toil to what contributes to a ruler being loved by the ruled. In a
121 similar fashion to the manner in which Cyrus has responded throughout most of the dialogue, he reduces Cambyses’ statement to a limited consideration of how to best rule. “You mean father, he said, that the ruler must have more endurance against everything than do his subjects?”
(1.6.25). Cambyses agrees, but also adds that “honor makes the labors a bit lighter for the ruler, as does the very knowing that his acts do not go unnoticed” (1.6.25). Throughout their conversation, Cyrus has repeatedly dismissed Cambyses’ teachings that lay outside of his own narrow concern in gaining the advantage. Thus far, Cyrus has consistently favored action over thought, and so Cambyses’ teaching regarding how Cyrus should act in having more endurance than his subjects is more favorably received by Cyrus.
After having discussed what is necessary to rule well, Cyrus turns the conversation toward how best to make war. Cyrus asks if the lessons he has learned of how to rule well will also prepare him to make war. What follows next highlights the distinctions between considerations of justice within a city and justice between cities. In order to ensure Cyrus’ military success, Cambyses is compelled to reveal a teaching that Cyrus has partially understood; that what is understood as justice, or the laws of a city, are bounded by the city. What follows from this is that in order to do good for the city, one must be able to do harm to other cities. In response to Cyrus’ question, Cambyses adds another dimension to the discussion of war, gaining the advantage. As it turns out, the teachings he has imparted thus far serve to keep order amongst the troops, but cannot, in and of themselves, guarantee victory. Cambyses reveals that in order to gain the advantage, one must become a “plotter, a dissembler, wily, a cheat, a thief, rapacious, and the sort that takes advantage of his enemies in everything” (1.6.27). Cyrus’ reaction to his father’s latest teaching produces a noteworthy reaction, Cyrus laughs and exclaims: “Heracles,
122 father, what sort of man you say I must become!”103 (1.6.27) Cyrus’ surprise at Cambyses’ revelation reveals a conflict within Cyrus himself. Cyrus’ plan, to engage in a contest in the which he can demonstrate his virtue by conquering otherwise less fitting rulers relies on the premise that the better man will win the contest. Cambyses’ teaching is troubling to Cyrus; project as it suggests that the best man must also be the best at deceiving and plotting. The inclusion of the traits that Cambyses is now suggesting Cyrus must excel in do not comport with what Cyrus has, up until now, held to be the virtues needed to succeed as a conqueror. Cyrus does take heed of this portion of Cambyses’ instruction and becomes an able deceiver.104
Suggesting that Cyrus’ desire to rule outweighs his desire to affirms his virtue.
Up to this point in the dialogue, Cambyses has attempted to persuade Cyrus away from
the use of deception as a means of securing his rule. Not only does Cambyses suddenly depart
from his previous teaching against deception but concludes that by becoming such things Cyrus
“would be a man both most just and most lawful” (1.6.27). In reconciling the rather incongruous
notion that deception can somehow be equated with what is just and what is lawful, we need to
consider the entirety of Cambyses’ teachings thus far. With respect to Cyrus’ rule over the
Persians, Cambyses has promoted actual prudence over the appearance of prudence and the
necessity of ruler being bound by the same laws as the ruled.105 Deception has been advocated by
Cambyses only with respect to the art of prophecy and in making war. These undertakings
103 Cyrus’ invocation of Heracles is interesting when we consider that Heracles was required to perform labors to become a god. 104 The deception in which he earns the gratitude of Panthea is an example of this. (6.2.47) Panthea believes she owes a debt to Cyrus for the loss of Araspas, when in fact, Araspas has become even more valuable to Cyrus as a spy. 105 This can be seen in the introductory remarks regarding the art of prophecy and that the ruler should rejoice with and grieve with the ruled. Both of these teachings at least give the impression that the ruler is subject to the will of the gods, the law, and fortune in the same manner as the ruled.
123 belong to the ruler only. Hence, while the ruler must use deception in order to maintain the stability of the Persian regime, the actual citizens of Persia are forbidden from deceiving another.
Cambyses informs Cyrus that by being deceptive in the way he has described, that he would be “a man most just and lawful” (1.6.27) The Persian equation of the law with justice is again shown, but this also reveals the limit of this understanding of justice in that it shows that the justice of one city requires doing harm to other cities. The ruler can then be seen as lawful inasmuch as he observes the laws and customs of his own city, and just inasmuch he preserves these laws and customs by securing victory in war. If victory in war is best secured through deception, then it becomes just to deceive one’s enemies. These combined teachings reveal that the highest good that Cambyses seeks is the stability and preservation of the Persian regime.
Cambyses’ teachings regarding the necessity of deception show that deception plays a critical role in the maintenance of the Persian regime. In this we see the limits of a political society in which stability is the highest priority. Cyrus’ project is presented as a possible alternative to the limited political life of Persia. In the end, however, we see that Cyrus is not able to make those under his rule better than the Persians, nor is he able to recreate the stability of the Persian republic. Cambyses’ continued focus on prudence throughout the conversation shows that deeper questions regarding what is good for human beings, or what is just cannot be answered by political life. It is in light of this, that Xenophon leads us to consider if political stability is not the highest good that political life can achieve.
As the dialogue proceeds to its end, Cambyses’ teaching regarding deception is fully revealed. Cyrus responds to Cambyses’ revelation of the good of deception in warfare by questioning why the Persian youth are taught the opposite of this. Cambyses reveals that the youth have indeed been taught to do harm through their rigorous training in hunting. This is yet
124 another deception is that the ruler of Persia engages in. That Cyrus would fail to equate his
lessons in hunting to their use in warfare is no small wonder when we learn that if he even
“seemed to wish to deceive anyone, he would get beaten” (1.6.29). Thus, while the Persian youth
are forcefully taught not to deceive their fellow Persians, they are deceptively taught to do harm
to others. The truth that is withheld from the Persian youth in their education, which is now
given to Cyrus, is that it is “useful to know how to do both harm and good to human beings”
(1.6.30). Or that gaining the advantage over requires that one know how to do both good and
harm.
Cambyses offers a defense of the deceptive nature of the Persian education by explaining
the following:
In the time of our ancestors there was once a man who taught justice in the way you insist, both to lie and not to lie, to deceive and not deceive, to slander and not to slander, to take advantage and not to do so. He defined which of these one must do to friends and which to enemies. And he taught moreover that it was just to deceive even one’s friends, at least for a good [result], and to steal the belongings of friends for a good [result]. (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, p. 55)
This recounting bears a remarkable resemblance to Socratic dialogues found in both The
Republic and Memorabilia.106 We can assume that the teacher referred to by Cambyses is indeed
a Socratic philosopher. By presenting the Socratic philosopher as one who knows what Cyrus
has come to understand with regard to the inability of the Persian law to provide what is fitting,
Cambyses leads Cyrus to consider if ruling human beings, can provide Cyrus with the
confirmation of his virtue that he seeks. The presentation of the Socratic philosopher should have
given Cyrus some pause to consider if he could not better pursue his desire for a confirmation of
his virtue with a teacher similar to the one described in the story. In all three cases, the issue that
106 See The Republic 330 c and Memorabilia 4.2.13-19.
125 lies at the heart of the discussion is the ability to understand what is good. Actions commonly
regarded as unjust are excusable and even necessary if they are able to bring about a good
outcome.
As Cambyses continues his defense of the simpler (if false) Persian teaching, it is
revealed that teaching justice in the manner that Cyrus insists on, leads to Persians practicing
deception on each other for the purpose of getting advantage over one another. This poses a
practical problem with regard to the maintenance of the Persian regime and for the good order of
any society. According to Cambyses, this is due to the fact that some, having “natural gifts for
both deceiving and getting the advantage, and perhaps not lacking in a natural gift for the love of
gain did not abstain from trying to take advantage of even their friends” (1.6.31). The harm that
this clearly Socratic form of teaching with regard to the city is revealed to Cyrus, but to little
effect. The harm of the Socratic teaching comes from the uses to which the Persians apply it.
Rather than these teachings the Persians to continue to pursue and come to an understanding of
what is good or just, they use the Socratic teaching to gain advantage over one another. The fault
does not lie with the teachings, but with the audience, who’s ambition to gain advantage
outweighs a desire for knowledge.107 The revelation of this teaching offers an opportunity to
Cyrus, who, from a young age, was able to recognize the limits of the Persian law, and is driven
by a natural desire to excel. In this teaching, Cyrus could have understood the limit of political
life in its ability bring him to an understanding of his own virtue. Instead, as with the Persians
that had received the Socratic teaching, Cyrus uses the teachings of his father to gain advantage
over others. This is notably seen in Cyrus conversation with the Armenian king, during which
107 The examples of Alcibiades and Critias from Xenophon’s Memorabilia further demonstrate the dangers of Socratic teaching to those who are compelled by a desire to rule rather than by a desire for knowledge. (1.2.17)
126 Cyrus rhetorically maneuvers the king into agreeing that his own death sentence was just. (3.1.9-
13)
The dialogue concludes with Cambyses’ strongest refutation of Cyrus’ project. Cambyses has understood the threat that Cyrus represents to the Persian regime should he stay and be allowed to assume the rule of Persia. It is for this reason that Cambyses has allowed him to command the Persian force and has taught how to be a successful commander. That being said, the possibility that Cyrus might abandon his project in favor of the truths that the Socratic teaching described by Cambyses offers, also remains a viable, if unlikely, alternative. However, as Cambyses recognizes, and as remains the case throughout the work will, when Cyrus is presented with an opportunity to engage in philosophy, shows no interest at all.108
Cambyses ends the dialogue stating that “human wisdom no more knows how to choose what is best for them than if someone who is casting lots should do whatever the lot determines”
1.6.44). His abrupt change is tone is evidence that he understands that Cyrus has no interest in pursuing the Socratic teaching outside of his own ambition to rule, and that Cyrus has failed to see that even if he is successful in his imperial project, it will not lead him to knowledge of his own superiority and virtue. Cyrus offers no response and continues on to Media where he will begin his imperial project.
Throughout the course of the dialogue, Cambyses lures Cyrus along by centering his teachings on a subject that Cyrus is keenly interested, the rule of other human beings. Cambyses is the last to speak in the dialogue and leaves Cyrus with the ominous warning that “To many it has not been acceptable to live pleasantly with their share, yet because they desired to be lords
108 See Gera, 1993. Cyrus’ lack of response to response to Araspas’ theory of two souls indicates his disinterest in Philosophy. (6.1.41-42)
127 over all, they lost even what they had” (1.6.44). While Cyrus succeeds and establishes a vast
empire, his final words to his sons and Persian friends suggest that Cyrus’ desire remain
unfulfilled. Cyrus’ informs the group assembled to his deathbed that while he has accomplished
all he has set out to accomplish, that he lived in constant fear. “And throughout the past, I fared
just as I prayed I would, yet a fear accompanied me that in the time ahead I might see, hear, or
suffer something harsh, and it did not allow me to think very highly of myself or to take
extravagant delight.” (8.7.7) Cyrus’ fears were grounded in sight, hearing, and action. Cyrus
neglects to consider, thought. While it is true that, though he ruled absolutely, he could control
the possibilities that cause him to fear, he fails to recognize the freedom from these that pursuing
a life of thought might have provided. Further, the dying Cyrus finds some comfort in believing
that he will be remembered through his sons, or that his empire will last, and that he will be
remembered for bettering his friends and his fatherland: “Now, if I die, I shall leave you alive, -
my sons, you who the gods have granted to born to me. I leave my fatherland and friends happy.
Consequently, how should I not justly obtain for all time the memory of being blessedly happy?”
(8.7.8-9) Cyrus is not even able to believe that he actually is ‘blessedly happy”, and dies with the
only the shallow comfort that he will be remembered as such.109 However, even Cyrus’ belief
that the empire he leaves behind will lead people to remember his as blessedly happy proves to
be incorrect, as we learn that immediately upon his death, his empire fell into dissention. (8.1.2)
Conclusion
Xenophon initially invited us to consider the connection between political stability and
the narrative of Cyrus that his reflections lead him to. In so doing, the threat that Cyrus poses to
109 Compare this to Pheraulas’ assertion that he has become “blessedly happy” after having obtained a life of leisure. (8.3.48)
128 the stability of Persian regime is revealed, and we are led to consider if what makes Cyrus a threat to Persia does not threaten political stability generally. While the flaws of the Persian regime are revealed in Book One, when considered against the concern for political stability that
Xenophon opens the work with, we cannot help but notice that where the Persian regime has enjoyed long-term stability, Cyrus’ empire collapses upon his death. This begs the question, is, or should political stability be the highest aspiration of political life?
Xenophon understands that political stability exists when the ruled are able to view the law as just. It is this reduction of justice that leads Cyrus to the understanding that political life is insufficient to satisfy him or anyone who desires knowledge of their own virtue. The philosophic life as a possible solution to the problem is raised throughout the Cyropaedia. We see from the final dialogue in Book One that Cyrus resists the opportunity for contemplation that Cambyses’ admonition to actually become prudent provides. Rather than a life of contemplation, Cyrus intends to enter into a contest against other rulers and their regimes to fulfill his desire for knowledge of his own virtue.
129 CHAPTER 6
A CONSIDERATION OF PHERAULAS
Introduction
There is very little discussion about Pheraulas in the literature on the Cyropaedia. When introducing the character of Pheraulas, Xenophon informs us that Pheraulas “was one of the
Persian Commoners, a man who was somehow well acquainted with Cyrus even long ago and was agreeable to him. He was not without natural gifts in body, and in soul and was not like a man low born.” (2.3.7) We know that Pheraulas did not accompany Cyrus to Media when Cyrus was a child, and therefore may assume that Cyrus knew Pheraulas from Persia. Further, given
Xenophon’s indication that Cyrus has known and liked him for a long time, we may assume that
Cyrus and Pheraulas are, in fact, childhood friends.
Pheraulas is not mentioned by name again in the work until after Cyrus has conquered
Babylon, near the end of the work.
Cyrus believed that Pheraulas, who was from the class of commoners, was intelligent a lover of beauty, good at putting things in order, and not unconcerned with gratifying him (he was the one who once supported his plan that each be honored in accordance with his merit.). So he called him in and deliberated with him about how he could make his procession most noble for those of goodwill to see, and the most frightening for those that harbored ill will. (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, p. 247)
Returning to Xenophon’s description of Persia, we learn that only those who have been educated in the Persian school of justice are able to become judges and eventually elders who rule in
Persia, and that only those who can afford to not have their children stay home and work are able to send their children to the school of justice. (1.2.15) The natural conclusion is that Persia is, in fact, ruled by an oligarchy. It is not until near the end of the work that we learn that Pheraulas is something of an exception to this rule, in that he was able to obtain a portion of the Persian education. When we consider Pheraulas’ speech, which was delivered at a critical moment for
130 Cyrus’ project, in combination with the knowledge that Pheraulas is also a commoner who has been educated in the Persian school of justice, Pheraulas emerges as a character that is deserving of careful study.
If we combine the knowledge that Cyrus has been well acquainted with Pheraulas with the information we near the end of the book, that Pheraulas was educated in Persian regime, it is possible to conclude that Pheraulas and Cyrus would have been educated in the Persian system together. It is also clear that Cyrus trusted Pheraulas a great deal, and that Pheraulas held a position of high rank under Cyrus’ command. Pheraulas is proof of the argument that Cyrus will make to the commoners, that it is not fitting that the souls of the Peers should differ from those of the Commoners. (2.1.14)
While Pheraulas is not identified until after Cyrus begins his military campaign, I believe there is sufficient evidence to suggest that Pheraulas plays a critical role in Cyrus’ successes before he is mentioned by name. I argue that Pheraulas is both the unnamed bigger boy mentioned by Cyrus in his telling of the case of the tunics (1.3.17), and the unnamed man who addresses Cyrus shortly before he presents the arms to the Persian Commoners. (2.1.12)
Both Cyrus and Pheraulas are able to achieve the lives they sought for outside of Persia.
Cyrus becomes the ruler of a vast empire and Pheraulas achieves a private life of leisure. Neither of these lives could have been realized in Persia. Hence, Cyrus and Pheraulas need to accomplish the same things in order for their separate goals to be realized. In the character of Pheraulas we find an argument for the superiority of the private life that is overlooked in the literature. In achieving a life of leisure, Xenophon informs us that Pheraulas believes himself to be most
“blessedly happy”, whereas Xenophon describes Cyrus on his deathbed as only hoping to be remembered as such.
131 Pheraulas and the Case of the Tunics
In chapter 2 I suggested that Pheraulas is the big bigger boy in the story of the case of the tunics that Cyrus recounts to his mother. If this is the case, then we can trace Pheraulas’ influence on Cyrus back to when Cyrus is a young boy. This also fits with the information that
Xenophon gives to us when he introduces him; that Pheraulas and Cyrus have known each other for some time, and that Pheraulas was agreeable to Cyrus. While the case of the tunics serves to demonstrate the limits of the law in determining and assigning what is fitting to individuals, it also offers nature as a more adequate replacement for the law in determining what is fitting. The bigger boy in the story sought to enforce what was by nature the most fitting arrangement.
Pheraulas appears in Book Eight when Cyrus calls him to deliberate regarding the upcoming procession. After Cyrus and Pheraulas confer, Cyrus gives Pheraulas tunics and cloaks to distribute to the commanders of his army in order that they will obey Pheraulas with greater pleasure. “But that they might hear your commands with greater pleasure, take these tunics and bring them to the leaders of the spearmen, give these cavalry cloaks to the leaders of the knights, and these other cloaks to the leaders of the chariots.” (8.3.6) While Cyrus intended for the gifts to cause the leaders of his army to overlook the fact that it is Pheraulas who is giving them, the leaders voice their displeasure with this fact. “Are you not great Pheraulas, since you will put us in order and tell us what we must do.” (8.3.7) The fact that the leaders of the army are offended by Cyrus’ elevation suggests, that the old Persian class divisions have not been eliminated in
Cyrus’ Babylon. Cyrus’ distribution of tunics near the end of his story can be compared to
Cyrus’ first attempt at distributing tunics in the case that he adjudicated as a child. In the first instance, Cyrus knowingly ruled against the established law in an attempt to enforce what he believed to be the most fitting outcome. From the beating that followed and the admonishment of
132 his teacher, Cyrus learned that what is fitting cannot be allowed when it contradicts Persian law.
Now, near the end of the narrative, after leaving Persia and replacing its laws amongst his army
with his own judgement, Cyrus is again judging who should own which tunic. Only this time,
there is no law to contradict him. While Cyrus has successfully, made himself a “seeing law” it
was not on the soundness of his judgements that he was able to do so but on the strength of his
military.
It is the bigger boy who was the first in the story to recognize that big tunics should belong to big boys and little tunics to little boys. It is nature that made the boys either big or little, and thus nature that determined what size tunic was fitting for each. The bigger boy was acting in accordance with nature by swapping the tunics. As has been previously mentioned, the
bigger boy could have simply taken the bigger tunic from the smaller boy and left it as a simple
robbery. Pheraulas is the only individual throughout the entire work that speaks of nature. In his
speech to the Persian army, Pheraulas indicates that nature is a superior teacher to the Persian
education system, or more accurately put, is superior to the Persian laws. The bigger boy in the
story acts on this very notion which supports the idea that the bigger boy is, in fact Pheraulas.
Pheraulas appears again at the end of the narrative when decisions are being made about who
should own which tunic, only this time, Pheraulas is able to distribute tunics as he sees fits
without running afoul of the law. Near the end of the work we also find out that Pheraulas,
though a commoner, participated in the Persian education as a boy. (8.3.37)
What do you mean, wealthy? I was unmistakably one of those who lived by the work of his own hands, for it was with difficulty that my father educated me in the education of the boys, while he himself worked to support me When I became a youth, he was not able to support me in idleness, so he led me off into the country and bade me work. (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, p. 251)
This final revelation about the character of Pheraulas makes it possible to conclude that
133 Pheraulas is, in fact, the bigger boy in the story of the tunics. Only those boys who are
participating in the Persian education are allowed to adjudicate cases among the other boys in the
education, such as the case of the tunics.
Xenophon’s decision to not reveal the fact that Pheraulas participated in the Persian
education until the end of the work is curious. Not in the least because the description of the
Persian education given by Xenophon strongly suggests that the Persian regime is oligarchic in
nature. Pheraulas states that he was only able to participate in the Persian education until he was
a young man. It should also be noted that around the time that Pheraulas was compelled to leave
the Persian education Cyrus had also left and was undergoing an education of a different kind in
Media. Both Cyrus and Pheraulas shared common education as youth, and both left those
educations before they were complete, and both Cyrus and Pheraulas make use of the Persian
expedition to aid Media to undermine and pervert the Persian way of life.
The fact that Pheraulas did not complete the Persian education should lead us to wonder what might have happened if he had. Pheraulas’ education among the Persian Peers ended as he becomes a youth. According to Xenophon, it is when the boys become youth that they begin to attend to the needs of the city. “These youth spend their time in the following way. For ten years after they leave the class of the boys, they sleep around the government buildings, just as we said before, both for the city and for moderation, for this age seems especially on need of care.”
(1.2.9) Pheraulas would have missed this critical component of the Persian education. With his time in the Persian school limited to only the education of the boys Pheraulas would have begun an education in justice, which is primarily taught through the observation of the rulers of the boys judging cases that the boys raise against each other.
The boys who go to school spend their time learning justice. It is said that they go for this purpose, as among us they go to learn their letters. Their rulers spend most of the day
134 judging cases among them, for just as men do, of course, the boys also accuse each other of theft, robbery, violence, deceit, and other such things as are likely; and they take vengeance on whomever they resolve to have done any of these injustices. (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, p. 24)
So, during his time with the boys Pheraulas would have received an education in justice through
the observation of its application according to Persian law, but, failing to continue in his
education, did not connect that education in justice to a desire to do good for the city. Simply
put, Pheraulas received the Persian education in justice, but did not receive the Persian education
in moderation.
When we consider the totality of the information regarding Pheraulas’ past and his long,
but unexplained relationship with Cyrus, it is possible that Cyrus and Pheraulas knew each other
as boys in the Persian school, and that Pheraulas is the individual that first showed Cyrus the inability of the Persian law to provide what is fitting by swapping tunics with a smaller boy.
The Conversion of the Persian Army
Pheraulas is first mentioned by name at a critical moment in Cyrus’ campaign.
Xenophon’s introduction of Pheraulas occurs after Cyrus has delivered two speeches: one to the
Persian Peers under his command, and one to the entire Persian force. Directly following Cyrus’ speech to the entire Persian force, Pheraulas rises and delivers his own speech in support of
Cyrus’ plan to promote the Commoners to fight alongside the Peers as heavy infantrymen. In order to put Pheraulas’ speech into the proper context, it is first necessary to consider both of
Cyrus’ speeches, and the structure of the Persian military before Cyrus took command of his force.
Xenophon offers a limited description of the military training of the Persian Peers during his description of the Persian education (1.2.6-15). As part of their education, the Peers are taught as children and youth to throw spears and shoot bows. The king takes the youth out
135 hunting where they are required to carry a short sword to kill any animals that come into close quarters. As the youth mature, they leave behind the bows and spears and instead are armed as heavy infantry men, with a sword, breastplate and shield. These Peers are sent out on campaign when called upon by the city to do so. Nothing is said of the Persian commoners in regard to their place in the military or their training. It is not until Cyrus is selecting his troops that we learn that the commoners serve in the Persian army in the capacity of targeteers, slingers and archers. (1.5.5) The Persians learn to endure the hardships of war through their hunting expeditions. (1.2.10-11) Further, Cambyses also tells Cyrus that the Persians use hunting in order to teach the Peers to how to gain advantage in war through the use of deception. It is interesting to note that while Xenophon explains how the Persian peers are trained and armed, he is silent with regard to how or even if the commoners receive any type of military training. This is important to bear in mind while considering the argument that Pheraulas presents to the
Commoners to convince them to join the Peers as heavy infantryman.
In describing how Cyrus built his military force, we learn that Cyrus selects two hundred
Peers who then select another eight hundred Peers, totaling one thousand Peers. Each of the thousand Peers selected ten targeteers, ten archers, and ten slingers who were taken from the
Persian Commoners. So, the vast majority of Cyrus’ force is made up of infantry support soldiers rather than infantry. When we consider the circumstances that lead to Cyrus assembling his force, the fact that the majority of his force was made up of targeteers, archers, and slingers makes sense. Persia sent Cyrus at the request of the Median king, Cyaxares, to aid in the defending Media, and in so doing, Persia, from an impending Assyrian invasion. The composition of Cyrus’ force would be useful in repelling an enemy, or as a defensive force, but was not equipped as such to work as an offensive military force. The Persian Peers would have
136 also served as officers for the Commoners, meaning that if they were to be deployed to fight together as infantry, the Commoners would be left without officers. Without an effective infantry, the Persian force sent to aid the Medes could only serve in the capacity of supporting the Median infantry and cavalry. Cyrus’ desire to transform the thirty thousand Commoners into heavy infantrymen, such as the Peers, is the earliest indication that Cyrus does not intend to limit his campaign to a strictly defensive mission. Creating a large heavy infantry force, was the first step Cyrus took towards creating an army that would be capable of large-scale military conquest.
In order to transform his force into the heavy infantry force that he desires, Cyrus makes two speeches. The first is delivered to the Peers only and the second is delivered to the entire body of the Persians. Centuries of education, training, and habituation have established that the
Peers are not only socially superior to the Commoners but are also superior the Commoners in matters of war. In order for Cyrus to create the offensive force he desires, he must convince the
Persians to disregard their educations and training. Also, fighting as a heavy infantryman brings much greater risk to life and limb than as a targeteer, archer, or slinger So in order to convince the thirty thousand Commoners to fight as heavy infantry, Cyrus has to convince them to risk their own safety.
The speech that Cyrus delivers to the one thousand Persian Peers under his command takes place after the Persian force has reached Media. The speech that Cyrus delivers is important in understanding both Cyrus’ ambitions and Xenophon’s teaching of political stability.
Several scholars have noted the ease with the Cyrus is able to undermine and corrupt these Peers loyalty to the Persian laws and education.110 However, while the easy conversion of these Peers is unexpected, it should not be forgotten that Cyrus himself selected the Peers. With this in mind,
110 Nadon, 2001; Bruell, 1987; Tatum, 1989.
137 it is likely that Cyrus would have picked the Peers that would be the most likely to not oppose
his radical departure from the traditional Persian military structure.
After Cyrus is in Media he is faced with a difficult situation. Cyrus desires to transform
the force under his command, but cannot do so without the funds necessary to the arm
Commoners.111 In order to convince Cyaxares to fund this project, Cyrus first undersells the
contribution that the Persian force will make to Cyaxares’ alliance. “…Cyaxares then asked
Cyrus how large an army he was brining. He [Cyrus] said “Twenty thousand of the sort that used
to come to you before as mercenaries, but others are coming from among the Peers, who have
not ever come out [of Persia]” (2.1.2) Ambler notes that the figure of twenty thousand has often
been translated as thirty thousand so as to match the actual number described earlier. However,
he also notes that the more accurate translation is, in fact, twenty thousand112, and he has
translated it as such. This more accurate rendering fits with the idea that Cyrus is intentionally
underselling the Persians to Cyaxares.
After underselling his own force to Cyaxares, Cyrus carefully leads Cyaxares to the
conclusion that the only hope they have in defeating the Assyrians is for the Persian commoners
to be armed like the Peers. Cyrus does this by first prodding Cyaxares to consider the clear
advantage in numbers that the Assyrians have over the Median alliance. (2.1.4-7) However, the
conclusion that Cyaxares arrives at after considering the numbers is that the solution to the
problem is to entreat Persia on the basis of Persia’s self-interest to send more men. (2.1.8) This
conclusion is not unreasonable and must have been anticipated by Cyrus. Increasing the numbers
of the Persian force under Cyrus’ command would certainly seem to be a benefit for Cyrus’
111 1.6.10. Cyrus has not taken thought regarding how his army will be funded. Cambyses appears to be aware of Cyrus’ intentions and instructs Cyrus in how to plan ahead and to entice Cyaxares to fund the Persian force. 112 See Ambler’s notes for Book Two, note 3.
138 ambitions to create an offensive force, but, strangely, Cyrus rejects the possibility that any
number of Persian reinforcements would improve their situation. “But be well assured of this,
…that even if all the Persians should come, we would not exceed our enemy in numbers.” (2.1.8)
The obvious reason for why Cyrus would reject this idea is that the ultimate goal is to get
Cyaxares to arm the thirty thousand commoners under Cyrus command. We must, however,
wonder why Cyrus would not accept Cyaxares’ plan secure reinforcements, and then work
towards combining the Persian Peers and Commoners. Cyrus’ refusal to even consider
reinforcements suggests that Cyrus believes that brining more Persians would run the risk of
upsetting his goal of merging the Peers and the Commoners.
Cyrus causes Cyaxares to be concerned by directing him to consider the numbers of the
opposing forces. Cyaxares is clearly distressed after this consideration and wishes to increase his
chances by increasing his numbers, but Cyrus closes this path to him by informing him that they
cannot match the Assyrian force. Bo so doing, Cyrus has set the groundwork for convincing
Cyaxares that the only solution is to even the odds by arming the Persian commoners in the same
manner as the Peers. (2.1.9) In order to have any chance in further conquest, Cyrus and the
Median alliance must first repel the invasion. Cyrus must have believed that, once armed, the
Persians and the Median alliance would be successful in defeating the Assyrians. The defeat of
the Assyrians does benefit both Cyrus and Cyaxares initially, but Cyrus will eventually strip the
Median military from Cyaxares, so that only Cyrus and the Persians are the long term
beneficiaries of Cyaxares’ willingness to fund the arming of the commoners.
Cyrus’ Speech to the Peers
By the time the body of the Persian force arrived in Media, the preparations for the arming of the Persian Commoners is nearly complete. (2.1.10) At this point in the narrative
139 Cyrus has been instructed by Cambyses that those who are ruled willingly follow their leader on
the condition that they believe that the leader knows what is best for them more than they can for
themselves. (1.6.22) In everyday life this presents more of a difficulty than under the conditions
of war. Simply put, when life and limb are at stake, human beings become more willing to accept
that their commanders know what is best. This plays into Cyrus’ favor and with regard to the
Peers, and it is solely on the basis of the Peers physical safety that Cyrus basis his argument to
the Peers.113 The peculiarity of this has been overlooked in the study of the Cyropaedia. The
Persian Peers have been educated towards a life of austerity and continence that puts the good of the Persia above the good of any individual Peer. They have also been trained in the use of weapons and military tactics. Finally, the education that the Peers receive must necessarily be understood as creating a superior class of people from those who do not receive it. Thus, the
Peers, should understand themselves as abler, more courageous, and more concerned with the preservation of Persia than their own lives. In asking the Peers to accept the commoners as equals on the battlefield, he is essentially asking them to disregard the education that has taught
the Peers that they are superior to the commoners. It should be noted that Cyrus has already
questioned the good of the Persian education in the first speech that he gave to the Peers before
they left Persia. (1.5.6). However, while the first speech served to undermine the Persian
education by questioning the good of the Persian education, Cyrus did not, at that point, suggest
that the Peers and the Commoners were, or at least, should be regarded as equals on the
battlefield. Again, Cyrus could have avoided the possible resentment this assertion would cause
by simply ordering the Peers to fight alongside of the Commoners, and it is therefore the case
113 We can consider the story of Odysseus as an interesting counter to Cyrus’ speech. While both Cyrus and Odysseus needed to motivate their armies to fight, Odysseus appeals to a sense of honor in the nobles and compels the commoners through force where Cyrus only appeals to the safety of the Persian noble class.
140 that Cyrus must have believed the good that came from their willing obedience outweighed the
danger of the Peers rejecting the arming of the Commoners.
Cyrus bases his argument to the Peers on the notion that arming the Commoners like the
Peers will provide the greatest amount of safety to the Peers:
Men, friends, seeing you armed like this and preparing in your souls to join with the enemy in hand-to-hand fighting, but knowing that the Persians who follow you are armed in such a way as to fight when deployed furthest away, I was afraid that, being few and lacking in allies, you might suffer something when you fall upon our many enemies. (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, p. 63)
The soundness of this argument becomes questionable when we consider that the Persian force has only been called upon to defend Media. In a defensive posture, a large fore of targeteers, archers, and slingers would be effective. Cyrus subtly includes the idea that the Persians will be offensive in the above quote, “…when you fall upon your enemies”, suggesting that Cyrus is aware of the fact that Persians force as presently arranged would only make for an effective defense of Media. Cyrus’ expression of concern, “they may suffer something when they fall upon” their enemies suggest the danger lays in attacking, not in defending. It is possible that this did not escape the notice of the Peers, and that the Peers themselves are aware of Cyrus’ plans to take an offensive rather than defensive posture.
Xenophon states that upon hearing Cyrus’ argument for his decision, the Peers were pleased. “They were all pleased, believing that they would enter they would enter the struggle with greater numbers…” (2.1.12) This is not a direct admission that the Peers place their own safety above the Persian education, but in conjunction Cyrus’ argument, that they will be less likely to suffer with greater numbers, suggests that their safety outweighs their disdain at allowing the commoners to be armed in the same manner as they are.
The ease with which the Peers are corrupted can be considered as a sign of a flawed
141 political regime. While the ease with which the Peers accept Cyrus’s radical changes is alarming,
it does not necessarily indicate a flaw in the Persian regime specifically, but rather shows the
inherent weakness in even the most stable regime. As has been argued in the previous chapters,
Xenophon’s description of the Persian system, its laws, and its education should be understood to
be a correction of the Spartan laws. Xenophon’s correction to the Spartan laws, coupled with the
ease with which the Peers are brought to reject the Persian education suggests not that
Xenophon’s Persia specifically is flawed, but that even the most stable regime is fragile, and vulnerable to the same arguments made by Cyrus.
The differences between the Persian Peers and Commoners are brought to the fore during
Cyrus’ integration of both groups into a single heavy infantry unit. Cyrus’ success in merging the
two groups highlights a rather counterintuitive difference between the Peers and the Commoners.
While the Peers are willing to accept the Commoners on the basis of their own increased safety,
the Commoners are willing to risk their lives for the possibility of a share in the honors, and
spoils of war.
After Cyrus speaks, an unnamed individual arises and addresses the Peers. While we
never learn the identity of this individual, there is evidence to suggest that this unnamed
individual is Pheraulas. When Pheraulas is later identified by name by Xenophon, it is when he
delivers a speech to the Commoners that appears in many was to correct, or at least add to, a
previous argument that Cyrus had made to the Commoners. The unnamed individual preforms a
similar function in terms of correcting or adding to a speech that Cyrus has delivered to the
Persians.
Perhaps I will say something to be wondered at, if I advise that Cyrus speak on our behalf when those who are going to become our allies receive their arms. But I know that the arguments of those most competent to do good or evil especially sink into the souls of those who hear them. And if such people give gifts, even if they happen to be lesser than
142 those from equals, the recipients nonetheless esteem them more. (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, p. 64)
The speech of the unnamed individual occurs before Cyrus gives any orders to the Peers
regarding the arming of the commoners. However, the speech strongly suggests that this is what
Cyrus and the Peers were expecting to happen. Cyrus’ project depends on his ability to convince
the soldiers under his command of his ability to properly reward their merit. Presenting the new
arms and strategy to the Persian Commoners himself would provide Cyrus the opportunity to be
seen as the Commoners as the source of their new fortunes. This notion would become diluted if
were to be delivered by the Peers on his behalf. The fact that Cyrus seems to be unaware of this
suggests that, while he excels as a leader in many aspects, he lacks a certain prudence that could
prove disastrous to his own ambitions.
The unnamed individual states that people will except gifts that are less than those that
they would receive from equals.
But I know that the arguments of those most competent to do good or evil especially sink into the souls of those who hear them. And if such people give gifts, even if they happen to be lesser than from those that are equals, the recipients nonetheless esteem them more. (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, p. 64)
This is a curious statement. To unravel its possible meanings, it is necessary to first consider in what context the unnamed individual is using the word “equals”. Or in other words, what is the bases of equality being used by the unnamed individual? It could refer to the military hierarchy of the Persian force, the one who is the “most competent to do good or evil” is the one who outranks the rest. But if this were the case, the inclusion of the notion that individuals can receive gifts from lesser individuals and still esteem them makes no sense. The basis of equality that the unnamed individual is referring to then must be a difference in the quality of human beings themselves. Gifts received from lesser people to greater people will be esteemed under the
143 condition that the lesser are the most competent to do good or evil, where the competency to do
good or evil refers to the ability of the gift giver to do good or evil to the recipient. The inclusion
of this remark subtly suggests that it is possible for a lesser human to rule over greater humans,
or more to the point, that the unnamed individual understands that it is not necessarily the case
that the Peers are greater than the Commoners. The unnamed individual continues his speech by
saying:
Now, then, our Persian comrades will be much more pleased to be called up by Cyrus than by us, and when they are placed in the rank of the Peers, they believe that they will have attained this position more securely when it is conferred by our King’s son and our general than if this same thing were conferred by us. (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, p. 64)
When combined with the first portion of the speech, the implication here is that Cyrus, as their
general, has the greatest ability to cause either good or evil for the Commoners. When Cyrus
delivers his speech to both the Peers and the Commoners, he only mentions the benefits of
following his plan, neglecting to mention what he would do to any of them should they disobey.
This does show Cyrus’ desire to create willing followers, but also suggests that he has failed to
recognize that the threat of punishment may be necessary to compel some of his soldiers.114 This
appears to anticipate the future discussion that Cyrus has with Tigranes after Cyrus has captured
the Armenian king, during which Tigranes imparts a teaching of the usefulness of fear in
inspiring loyalty.
The unnamed individual concludes his speech by suggesting that the more that the Peers
are able to inspire the Commoners, the more useful it will prove to the Peers, “Nor, however,
ought our [efforts] be wanting, but in every way we must whet the men’s spirit, for in whatever
114 See 8.2.10-12 Cyrus establishes a spy network of citizens who report back to him regarding anyone who says or does anything contrary to his rule. While no explicit mention of punishment is made, Xenophon does imply that the use of these so called “eyes and ears” caused the people to fear, suggesting that there was severe punishment for those implicated by them.
144 way they become better, it will be useful to us.” (2.1.12) This remarkable connection closely
resembles Xenophon’s observations regarding the relationship between keepers of animals and
the animals they keep found in 1.1.1. When Xenophon raises the problem of human beings ruling
over other human beings, he discusses differing types of rule to include the rule of cattlemen
over their herds:
… we reflected that cattlemen and horsemen are the rulers of cattle and horses, and that all those called keepers of animals could plausibly be believed to be the rulers of the animals in their charge. We thought we saw all these herds more willing to obey their keepers than are human beings their rulers; for the herds go wherever their keepers direct them, they feed on whatever land their keepers drive them to, and they abstain from whatever land their keepers turn them from. And as for such profits that arise from them, these they allow their keepers to use in whatever way they themselves wish. (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, p. 21)115
Just as the keepers of herds are able to profit from the herds, the Persian Peers, and Cyrus
stand to benefit from the Commoners. It is curious to note that when informing the Peers of his
decision to include the Commoners he bases the decision solely on his supposed concern for the
safety of the Peers, and fails to mention any further use that could come from the integration.
Cyrus’ concern for the safety is clearly a pretense, a cover for his actual goal of creating a force
capable of conquest, and when considered with any scrutiny, Cyrus’ apparent concern for the
Peers safety makes little sense.
Cyrus, Chrysantas, and Pheraulas: Speeches to the Persians
After Cyrus is convinced by the unnamed individual to address the commoners himself,
Cyrus lays the arms purchased by Cyaxares in front of the commoners and delivers a speech to
the commoners aimed at convincing them to join the Peers as heavy infantry fighters. Cyrus
115 Xenophon heavily qualifies this statement, “plausibly believed to be” indicating that he himself does not consider rule over animals to be the same as rule over human beings.
145 begins his speech in the following way, “Persian men, you were both raised in the same
fatherland as we and have bodies no worse than ours, and it is not fitting for you to have souls
that are any worse than ours.” (2.1.15)116 In describing the Persian education Xenophon begins
by stating that the education begins by ensuring that those who are educated do not desire to do
anything vile. In other words, Xenophon claims that the Persian education seeks to educate the
soul by cultivating the desire to only do that which is praiseworthy. In beginning his speech to
the Commoners, Cyrus neglects to mention the Persian education at all, and instead suggests that
the Peers and the Commoners could have equal souls on the basis they have similar bodies and
come from the same fatherland. This is an indirect repudiation of the good that comes from
participation in the Persian Education. As he did when he addressed the two hundred Peers that
he selected, Cyrus again calls the good of the Persian education into question. However, where
Cyrus previously acknowledged that the Persian education had at least taught the Peers virtue,
through it failed to reward it, his statement to the Commoners suggests that the education served
no purpose at all.
Cyrus is remarkably successful in integrating the Peers and the Commoners, and in
training them to fight in the upcoming campaign, suggesting that the Commoners are equally as
capable as the Peers. (2.1.20-30) However, this equality does not stem from an equality of soul
but rather from an equality in obedience to Cyrus. In his dismissal of the good of the Persian
education Cyrus disregards the conditioning of the Peers education that encouraged the Peers to
love labor and endure hardship for the sake of Persia rather than themselves. Cyrus cultivates a
similar desire to endure hardship and love for labor, but rather that working for the common
116 Men here is translated from “Aner”, which is used to differentiate real or courageous men from lesser men (anthropoi). See Newell 1983 for a discussion of Xenophon’s use of Andres and Anthropoi.
146 good, the individuals who make up Cyrus’ command are taught to compete for the recognition and reward of Cyrus. In other words, in creating an equality between the Peers and the
Commoners Cyrus has dramatically lowered the standard from the service to the common good to service in the name of self-interest.
Cyrus does not actually say that the souls of the Peers and the Commoners are the same, but rather suggests that it is fitting that they should be. The use of the word fitting suggests that
Persia has mistakenly taught that the souls of the Peers are greater than those of the Commoners, and is reminiscent of the admonition of the teacher who beat Cyrus for failing to judge the case of the tunics correctly, “ …whenever I should be appointed judge of what is fitting, I must do as
I did but; but when one must judge to whom the tunic belongs, then one must examine what is just possession…” (1.3.17) Surely one of the lessons that Cyrus learned from this teacher was that he could not defy Persian law in favor of what is fitting while in Persia. Once outside of
Persia, the command the thirty-one thousand Persians presents Cyrus with an opportunity to enforce what he believes to be fitting. If we take Cyrus’ speech as sincere, then Cyrus believes that both the Commoners and the Peers should have an equal opportunity to earn the rewards to be won from the campaign against the Assyrians.
Cyrus will eventually spread the merit-based system or meritocracy that he begins with the Persians to the army made up of soldiers from several different countries. The meritocracy that he creates has been pointed to by scholars as superior to the class distinctions imposed by the Persian regime.117 While this does appear to be more equitable than what the Persian regime allowed for, it should not be overlooked that this more equitable meritocracy also provides Cyrus
117 See Nadon 2001, p. 74, Johnson 2005, Bartlett, 2015, Pangle, 2017.
147 with the means to use the Persians in an offensive capacity.118 More to the point, Cyrus’
meritocracy can only function as such if Cyrus actually is a capable judge of who is deserving of
what. Under the merit based system of Cyrus, strict obedience is the measure for reward.119
Cyrus’ ability in this regard is questionable, especially when we consider his inability to reward
Abradatas, one of his most his most loyal men.(7.1.30 and 7.4.8) Even if Cyrus were a capable
judge, and were able to actually reward those who were deserving his meritocracy failed to live
beyond his own rule. Cyrus’ replacement with an education that taught men to serve the common
good with an education that only obedience to himself, created a self-interest among those he ruled that led to strife and contention among his people. (8.2.26)
Cyrus bases his claim for the equality of the souls of the Peers and the Commoners on the notion that both groups are from Persia, but he is silent in regard to the differences in physical training and combat readiness between the two groups. The Peers have been preparing for battle in one fashion or another since they were young men. This is not to say that Cyrus believes that the Commoners will not be able to rise to the challenge of fighting in formation with the Peers.
Cyrus will, in fact, create a leadership style that fosters martial excellence and leadership amongst the Persians under his command that is still studied and admired today. However, while effective in creating a battle-ready force, the training that Cyrus institutes is focused solely on producing results regardless of the motivations. The outcome of this is that Cyrus’ force becomes mercenary, and the Persian education in virtue for sake of virtue is cast aside in favor of the honors and spoils of war bestowed on the men by Cyrus for their performance in battle. The equality that Cyrus institutes among the force he commands ends up amounting to an equality in
118 See Strauss 1963 lecture, “A first-rate politician will never do anything to his own benefit which is not also to the common good.” 119 Compare Cyrus’ praise of Chrysantas (4.1.3-4) to the dismissal of Diaphernes. (8.1.21-23)
148 opportunity to serve him.
Cyrus positions himself as one who can correct what must appear to the Commoners as a miscarriage of justice. “Even though you are such as I say, you did not share equally with us in the fatherland, having not been excluded by us, but by the necessity upon you to provide sustenance.” (1.1.1) Interestingly, rather than blaming the Peers for the institution of a system that regularly excludes the commoners from political rule in Persia, Cyrus takes the same tack as the Xenophon when describing Persia, and blames the Commoners’ second rate status on necessity. While agreeing with the Persian position with regard to the necessity of maintaining a class of Commoners aids Cyrus in avoiding potential hostility between the Peers and
Commoners under his command, it also reveals a teaching regarding the inability of law to correctly distribute what is fitting. The Persian education, which has undisputedly provided
Persia with the greatest example of stability in the book, can only be effective if those educated
are separated from, not only the need to earn a living, but also from the desire to work for any
material gain whatsoever.120 Thus the Persian education, which leads to stability, must be
materially supported by another class of Persians. By laying the blame for the Commoners
station on necessity Cyrus, has tacitly acknowledged this truth.
While the conversion of Cyrus’ command was made possible by a weakness in the
structure of the Persian regime itself, it still required someone with the shrewd understanding of
how to capitalize on the Commoner’s desire for equality. Cyrus certainly takes on this role, but
there is evidence to suggest that it is Pheraulas who is guiding Cyrus through the process of
combining the Persians into a single fighting unit. If it is the case, that Pheraulas is the bigger
boy in the case of the tunics, and the unnamed individual in 2.1.12-13, then it is possible to trace
120 See 1.2.3, the Persian Peers are physically separated from money makers.
149 his influence on Cyrus from near the beginning of the book and throughout Cyrus’ exploits. As
has been mentioned in the second chapter of the dissertation, the bigger boy in the story did not
simply take the smaller boy’s tunic by force. He traded tunics with the smaller and achieved the
most naturally fitting outcome. The idea that nature should be the judge if what is fitting is at the
forefront of the speech that Pheraulas delivers to the Persians. Of all the Persians that Cyrus
knows, Pheraulas would be the one most likely to understand how to motivate the Commoners to
follow Cyrus’ plan to create a single heavy infantry unit.
At the point that Pheraulas makes his speech, Cyrus’ army has already been combined into a single heavy infantry unit, and the men have already begun to train for the upcoming battle with the Assyrians. The speech is delivered to the combined Peers and Commoners but is
directed to the commoners. Pheraulas’ speech follows on the heels of a speech offered by
Chrysantas, whose speech is directed to the Peers. In order understand Pheraulas’ speech, it is
necessary to understand Chrysantas’ speech which directly precedes his. The primary purpose of
both men’s speeches is to secure Cyrus as the ruler of the combined army. In order to accomplish
this, Chrysantas appeals again to the relatively small number of Peer’s concern for their own
well-being, and Pheraulas appeals to the Commoners desire to be rewarded.
Chrysantas’ speech is a prudent exhortation to the Peers, in front of the entire army, to allow the spoils of war to be given to those who are most deserving. In this limited context, the
most deserving are those who are the most obedient and valiant in battle. Previous to delivering a
speech to the entirety of the Persian force, Chrysantas had pointed out to Cyrus and the Peers that
the result of elevating the commoners to fight with the Peers had produced some who were good
and others who were less so. “But my reflection, Cyrus and all you who are present, is that some
have turned out better for us, while others are deserving of less.” (2.1.17-18) Chrysantas phrases
150 his assessment of the commoners in terms of what is good for the Peers, understanding that it will be better for the entire army if the Commoners all fight well.
Chrysantas informs Cyrus that he is concerned that the equal status bestowed upon the
Commoners will have the effect of making all the Commoners, including those who are underserving, believe that they should have an equal share in the rewards of victory. In other words, Chrysantas is pointing out that the equal position that the Commoners hold on the battlefield with the Peers does not make them individually equal. While Cyrus has convinced both the Commoners and the Peers that the Persia has failed to reward according to virtue, the simple combining of the Commoners and Peers has not replaced the need for a judge of who is deserving of what. Chrysantas holds that “…there is nothing more unequal than thinking the bad and the good to deserve equal things.” Stated as such in front of the Peers, this appears to reflect a concern for justice on the part of Chrysantas. However, when Chrysantas speaks in front of the entire Persian army, his concern appears to be grounded in the more practical consideration: “But
I know clearly that if those who are powerful take hold of affairs with vigor, I will get a big share of something good as is just. If the bad do nothing, and the good are dispirited, I fear that I will get a bigger share than I want of something other than the good.” (2.3.6) In other words, victory, and anything that comes from it, whatever the share, is preferable to defeat and the consequences which go with it. Chrysantas’ argument bridges the gap between allowing the Commoners to fight alongside the Peers, and allowing the Commoners, if they prove valiant, to share in the spoils. The Peers were initially convinced of the need to allow the Commoners to fight with them as heavy infantry out of concern for their own safety. At the point that Cyrus initiated this change, he made no mention of the Commoners sharing in the spoils of victory with the Peers, and we may assume that, up until this point in the narrative, the Peers assumed that the honors
151 and spoils of victory would still be theirs to claim. Chrysantas’ argument, that failing to reward the best soldiers will dispirit them to the point of not fighting well, makes it clear to the Peers that in order to guarantee victory, and thus their own safety, they must totally abandon their claim on the honors and spoils of war that their status as Peers granted them and allow for the possibility that the Commoners could win more than the Peers.
The concern raised by Chrysantas represents a critical moment in the early rule of Cyrus.
If Chrysantas is successful in persuading the Peers, then it is clear that there will need to be a judge who replaces Persian system as one who is to decide how to distribute the honors and spoils of war. Cyrus appears as the obvious choice to be such a judge, and while it is certainly
Cyrus’ goal to become the judge of who is deserving in the Persian army, he does not simply proclaim himself to be so as Chrysantas suggests he could. Instead of forcing himself as judge on the Persians, Cyrus decides to hold a council with the entire army. (2.2.17-19) Cyrus has taken his father’s advice and has learned that willing obedience is preferable to compulsion. That being said, a council with the entire army also runs the risk of the army deciding on another judge or system of judgement instead of Cyrus. Interestingly, both Chrysantas and Pheraulas nominate
Cyrus to the position of judge, and no other possibility is mentioned as being considered.
After Chrysantas speaks to the Persians, Pheraulas rises and addresses the Persians.
Chrysantas has made the necessary argument to the Peers, and it is now up to Pheraulas to convince the commoners. The argument Pheraulas makes, however, does not unequivocally seek to place Cyrus as the judge, but rather relies on the notion that nature decides what is fitting for each individual. Pheraulas’ introduction of nature as the proper judge leads to the conclusion that the Persian laws are unnatural and are unable to correctly give to each what is fitting, or what they deserve. The unmentioned corollary to this is that nature can only function as such a
152 judge in the absence of law. The Persian army still falls under the command of Cyrus, and in
order to function at all requires a system of laws and regulations to ensure the discipline and
welfare of the whole. Pheraulas’ argument replaces the Persian education and laws with nature
as the most suitable teacher, but fails to mention that without some type of agreement between
people, nature alone cannot provide stability and the good for all people that comes from it.
Pheraulas tacitly acknowledges this by nominating Cyrus to the position of judge which raises
the question of the extent to which Cyrus can or will understand and reward each of his men’s
nature.
Pheraulas is something of an aberration in the Persian regime. While, he is a commoner,
Xenophon states that “in soul” Pheraulas is not like a man low born. Xenophon’s statement that
Pheraulas possesses natural gifts in both body and soul also indicates that it is these natural gifts
that set him apart from other low born men. When we examine Xenophon’s introduction of
Pheraulas, we are led to the conclusion that the Pheraulas is proof of a serious flaw in the Persian
regime. Leadership in Persia belongs to a wealthy class of aristocrats who send their sons to the
Persian school to be educated. Based on his natural gifts, Pheraulas appears as one who should
rule in Persia, but under the Persian law, he would never be given the opportunity.
While Pheraulas’ exclusion represents a defect in the Persian regime, this should be understood as a general problem with law and not as a specific critique of the Persian regime.
The inability of law to properly assign rule to those who are most naturally fit to rule is precisely the flaw that Cyrus is able to chaptalize on. Thus, we ought to compare the results of Cyrus’s rule to those of Persian rule. In the end, we see that, although Cyrus seeks to remedy the inability of law to assign what is fitting, the empire he establishes fails to achieve stability. Persia, on the other hand, through the use of law, stands as the clearest example of stability in the work.
153 Near the end of the book we learn that, while Pheraulas has been educated as a boy in the
Persian school, he could not afford to continue past his boyhood and as a young man went back to farming to support his father. (8.3.37) Even though Pheraulas was able to participate in the
Persian education, as a boy he was not afforded a chance to rule. It is only outside of Persia, and after Cyrus has undermined the Persian law that Pheraulas is afforded the opportunity to prove his natural ability and to be rewarded for it.
The scene in which Pheraulas addresses the Persian army is the first time that Pheraulas is named by Xenophon in the work. “He [Pheraulas] was one of the Persian Commoners, a man who was somehow well acquainted with Cyrus even long ago and was agreeable to him. He was not with natural gifts both in body, and soul in soul was not like a man lowborn.” (2.3.7)
Xenophon’s introduction of Pheraulas indicates that, much like Cyrus, Pheraulas is not like the other Persians. While both Cyrus and Pheraulas demonstrate flaws in the Persian regime, it should be noted that these two are exceptions that are only able to succeed in their ambitions by leaving Persia. However, where Xenophon openly states that Pheraulas possess natural gifts, his introduction of Cyrus is limited to only hearsay regarding the qualities of Cyrus (1.2.2), indicating that Pheraulas may be more naturally capable than Cyrus.
Pheraulas opens his speech by acknowledging the equality of opportunity that Cyrus has provided to Persian army. “Cyrus and all Persians present, I hold that we are all now setting out on equal footing in a contest of virtue…” (2.3.8). While Pheraulas speaks of virtue in a general sense, it becomes clear as his speech progresses that the only virtue that is required by the
Persians is courage. When compared to the virtues that were taught to the Peers, at least, this seems to be a remarkably low standard.
Pheraulas bases his claim on the equality of the contest on the following: “…for I see that
154 we all exercise our bodies in a similar regimen, that all are deemed deserving of like society, and that all the same [prizes] are set before us all, for to obey the rulers is required of all in common, and I see that whoever is evident in doing so without excuse obtains honor from Cyrus.” The first evidence that Pheraulas offers is that they exercise their bodies in the same fashion. In Cyrus’ initial speech to the Commoners, Cyrus made the claim that the Commoners have bodies that are
“no worse” than the Peers. (2.1.14) Like Pheraulas, Cyrus made this claim as proof of the equality of the Commoners and the Peers. However, where Cyrus directly equates the two,
Pheraulas make the more nuanced argument that recognizes only the potential of the equality in terms of physicality between the Peers and the Commoners. It is similar physical training that leads to similar bodies. In Cyrus’s argument, the basis for equality between the bodies of the
Peers and Commoners was due to the fact that they are all from Persia. However, in Pheraulas’ reasoning it is Persia that has prevented equality in terms of physical training between the two.
Once outside of Persia, and under Cyrus’ direction, the Commoners are allowed to train with the
Peers which in turn leads to an equality in training, but not necessarily equality in ability.
Pheraulas recognition of this appears as a correction to Cyrus’ earlier claim.
The second fact that Pheraulas uses in making his argument for the equality of the contest is that the Commoners and the Peers are “deemed deserving of like society.” As was the case in terms of physical training, the association of the Peers and Commoners was also only made possible once they were outside of Persia. As part of Cyrus’ transformation of the Persian army, the Peers and Commoners were combined into companies, and each company shared a tent. If we recall Xenophon’s description of Persia, the separation of the Peers and the Commoners was a critical component of the Persian education. According to Xenophon, the two groups needed to be separated in order to keep the corrupting influence of money making away from the Peers
155 who were being educated. (1.2.3) Under Cyrus’ rule both the Peers and the Commoners now
share a similar goal in obtaining honors and spoils of war from the upcoming campaign.
Pheraulas concludes his list of reasons for why he holds the upcoming contest equal by
stating that the prizes set before them are equal. In Pheraulas’ assessment, the Peers and the
Commoners have been given an equal opportunity to prove themselves and to win the prizes that
come with victory in combat. Unlike in Persia, where the law restricts what its citizens can
receive, war provides an opportunity for the Peers and the Commoners alike to receive gain
according to their merit.
In a sense, Cyrus has moved the Persian force he commands towards a democratic form
of rule by appearing to give them a choice in their leadership.121 Pheraulas acknowledges this at
the end of his speech, “I recommend that you enter into the fray of this battle against the
educated, for they are men now caught in a democratic struggle.” (2.3.15). However, in order for
the rule of the army to become truly democratic, Cyrus would have to abdicate his position as
general and bow to the will of the majority. Cyrus does give the appearance of leaving the
decision of leadership up to the commoners, but both the support of both Chrysantas and
Pheraulas, leaves little possibility that the army would choose another individual over Cyrus. So,
while Cyrus has given the appearance of democratizing the army, in truth, he has managed to
make willing followers of his men without risking a loss of power. With the help of Chrysantas
and Pheraulas, he has replaced the Persian law, which considered the wealthy and educated Peers
as more deserving than the Commoners, with a merit based system, and has left the choice of who will be the judge of who is deserving up to the army. At the end of the book we are informed that Chrysantas was willing to say to the Persian men things that Cyrus was ashamed to
121 Strauss, 1963.
156 say. “Whatever points he perceived that I wished the allies to know, but was ashamed to say
about myself, he said himself, declaring them as his own judgement.” (8.4.11) This revelation
shows that, at the least, that Chrysantas was duplicitous with Cyrus in manipulating the opinion
of the men to ensure Cyrus role as their judge. While a similar indication of Pheraulas’ similar
involvement is not given, it is reasonable to assume that Pheraulas’ persuasion of the
Commoners was also coordinated by Cyrus.
The Commoners, who had been up to this point oppressed for centuries by the Peers,
desired to move from the oligarchic rule of Persia towards a democratic form of rule that would
give them a voice in the political system and the opportunity to gain wealth and status. Cyrus
capitalizes on this desire by offering a merit-based system to the Commoner that allows them the
opportunity to win spoils and honor. Cyrus could not have transformed his army without the
support of the Commoners, and he could not have won that support without the help of
Pheraulas. Pheraulas’ endorsement of Cyrus ensured that the Commoners would select Cyrus as
the one who should be the judge of who is deserving of spoils and honors.
After making his case for the equality of the contest they are about to enter into,
Pheraulas next makes an argument that actually considers the Commoners as superior to the
Peers. He rests his argument on two claims. The first, is that close quarter fighting, such as both the Commoners and Peers will soon engage in, is natural to all human beings. The second, is that necessity is actually a superior teacher than the Persian education.
Pheraulas makes his first point by connecting the mode of close quarter fighting that both groups have now been trained in, to nature. “Now the mode of battle that has been shown to us is one that I see all human beings understand by nature, just as also the various other animals each know a certain mode of battle, that they learn not from another, but from nature.” (2.3.9)
157 Connecting the close quarter style of fighting to nature is a necessary step in the eventual
argument that will hold the education of the Commoners as superior to that of the Peers. It is
necessary for Pheraulas to give some evidence that the training the Peers have received while in
Persia in close quarter combat does not make them superior to Commoners. He does this both by suggesting that success in close quarter fighting comes from enthusiasm rather than skill, and that close quarter fighting is natural for human beings, and therefore does not require training.
Only after Pheraulas negates the possibility that the Peers are superior fighters can he then make the case that necessity has given the Commoners a superior education.
In asserting that the Commoners and the Peers are equally capable close quarter fighters,
Pheraulas introduces the idea that nature can be a teacher.122 This is a curious claim, if nature is
a teacher it does not teach through education. It would be more accurate to say that nature
provides innate qualities and imposes necessities on human beings. The obvious implication that flows from this assertion is that the Persian education has usurped rule from those who are more naturally fit to rule.
Pheraulas asserts than in terms of physically preparing the Commoners, necessity has been a superior teacher to the Commoners than the Persian education in continence has been to the Peers, “…for there is no teacher of these things who is superior to necessity…”. (2.3.14) In making this assertion, he has failed to point out a key difference between the two. Even if necessity is a superior teacher, the education that necessity has given the commoners was forced upon them. In other words, the Commoners were forced to learn the harsh lessons that Pheraulas is referring to which had the effect of preparing the Commoners for the hardships of the
122 It should be noted that while Pheraulas makes this claim, the entire Persian force has been re-organized and trained in close quarter combat. The Peers would have received years of training when compared to the Commoners, thus part of Pheraulas’ goal appears to be to alleviate any fears that the Peers would outperform them and be the only ones recognized by Cyrus.
158 upcoming campaign. There is no indication that the Commoners would ever choose to willingly
subject themselves to these hardships. In contrast, the Peers have been educated to towards
continence and, rather than living lavishly as the wealthy in Media do, choose to learn to endure
hardship. This is not to say that the Peers, by virtue of their education are morally superior to the
Commoners. Pheraulas himself is proof that superior souls can be found amongst the
Commoners. The distinction between the willingness of the Peers, by virtue of their education, to choose to endure hardship as contrasted with the Commoners who have hardship imposed on them demonstrates the superiority of the Persian education over nature in creating stability. The necessity imposed on the Commoners has taught them to endure hardship for the sake of simple survival, where the education has taught the Peers to willingly endure hardship for the sake of the common good.
Pheraulas concludes his speech by encouraging the commoners to enter into a contest, not
against the enemy, but against the Peers. “And to you men and fellow Commoners, I recommend
that you enter into the fray of this battle against the educated, for they are men now caught in a
democratic struggle.” (2.3.15) Pheraulas’ closing remarks show that, at least part, of the motivation of the Commoners to join with the Peers as heavy infantry men flows from a desire to
demonstrate their superiority to the Peers. The resentment of the Commoners illustrates another
danger inherit in the Persian system of law, that Cyrus is able to capitalize on.
When considering Pheraulas’ speech we should question the sincerity of the arguments
made by Pheraulas. Looking to the end of the work, Pheraulas eventually becomes a wealthy and
trusted member of Cyrus’ command, which could not have happened if the Persian Commoners
did not join with the Peers and defeat the Assyrians.123 Also, it is important to note that at the
123 See Nadon, 2001 p. 72.
159 time that Pheraulas gives his speech, the Commoners had been living and training with the Peers,
and while the Persians are victorious, it is impossible to know whether it was due the training
they had received, nature, as Pheraulas claims, or some combination of the two.
In his analysis of Pheraulas’ speech, Nadon takes Pheraulas’ arguments as sincere, and notes that while Pheraulas maintains that nature has provided the Commoners with a superior education, it has not provided the needed motivation to persuade the Commoners to fight with the Peers.124 As Nadon points out, Pheraulas argues that “a life of honor is more pleasant”, which
is what allows him to draw the conclusion that a judge of who is deserving of honor is
necessary. While Nadon makes several important points, in considering Pheraulas’ speech to be
sincere, he overlooks the possibility that Pheraulas’ motivation in giving the speech is much
more calculated if not mercenary. Throughout the work, Pheraulas makes a remarkable
transition from a poor Commoner in the Persia to a wealthy and free landowner under Cyrus’
rule in Babylon. Pheraulas change in fortune would not have been possible were it not for the
Commoners joining the Peers. The sincerity of Pheraulas’ speech is further called into question
when we consider that Pheraulas’ claim for the superiority of nature in giving the Commoners an
education is undercut by the failure of a natural education to lead them to the most pleasant life,
as he claims, the life of honor.
The argument that Pheraulas makes for the superiority of nature is the best argument that
one he could make on behalf of the Persian Commoners who have not been educated as the
Peers. Strauss notes that that the argument made by Pheraulas is the argument made more
generally for the good of democracy.125 Pheraulas’ argument, in part, serves as an answer to the
124 Nadon 2001, pp. 74-75. 125 See Strauss, 1963.
160 question posed by Xenophon at the beginning of the work showing why it is that those who live under an oligarchic regime would desire to move towards democracy.126 However, while it is the case that Pheraulas makes the democratic argument, the natural conclusion for this argument would be that nature should be the judge of who is deserving. Pheraulas does not reach this conclusion but instead asserts that it is Cyrus who should be their judge, casting serious doubt on the democratic aspirations of Pheraulas.
Pheraulas and the Sacian
The final mentions of Pheraulas occur around the time that celebrations and games are being held by Cyrus to honor his victory over Babylon. While listing the winners of a horse race in which Cyrus and several other characters who have been played a part in the narrative participate, Xenophon relates a story of how an unnamed Sacian and Pheraulas meet one another.
After concluding this brief story, Xenophon finishes the list of race winners. That Xenophon includes the story of how the Sacian came to meet Pheraulas in his description of the race and its winners indicates that we must pay attention to how this story and the race might be connected.
Rather than holding an open race amongst all of the men, each tribe holds its own race and Cyrus rewards the individual winners. When we compare this to the Persian contests described by
Xenophon in the first book, the contests held by Cyrus encourage an individualism that is tempered in the Persian system. In Persia, the twelve tribes compete against one another for the honor of the tribe, rather than the honor of any one individual. Cyrus has somewhat inverted this practice allowing individuals to compete within their own nationalities.
Interestingly, the winners of the races between the individual nationalities are with few
126 Cf. Plato’ Republic 546a-569c.
161 exceptions characters from the story. “He [Cyrus] himself rode with the Persians, and he was victorious by far, for horsemanship had been a special care of his. Of the Medes, Artabazus was victorious, for Cyrus had given him his horse, of the Syrians who had revolted, Gadatas, of the
Armenians Tigranes; of the Hyrcanians, the son of the cavalry commander, of the Sacians, a private man with his horse left the other horse nearly half a race course behind.” (8.3.25) With the exception of the Sacian, all of the other winners were somehow indebted to Cyrus.
After the Sacian’s impressive performance, Cyrus asks the Sacian if he would be willing to trade his horse for a kingdom. The Sacian replies that he would not, but that he would be willing to trade it for the gratitude of a good man. (8.3.25) We would expect that Cyrus would offer his own gratitude in exchange to the Sacian, but instead, Cyrus points to the men gathered and informs the Sacian that if he threw a rock in any direction, he could not fail to hit a good man. The Sacian, obliges, and with closed eyes, throws a dirt clod which strikes Pheraulas as he is riding away to fulfill an order from Cyrus. From this, Pheraulas and the Sacian are able to create a lasting relationship between them that benefits them both greatly. Cyrus enthusiastically pursues the gratitude of other. What the Sacian has suggested, that Cyrus be indebted to him, must have been repugnant to Cyrus. The Sacian was a private man, and as such, did not owe his fortune to Cyrus.
Xenophon’s description of the meeting of Pheraulas and the Sacian, makes it very clear that their meeting is owed mostly to chance or fortune. Not only was Pheraulas riding his horse at a high rate of speed when he was struck, but the Sacian had even closed his eyes when he threw the dirt clod. Thus, the beneficial arrangement that the two establish was made possible by chance. When we consider the great successes of Cyrus, the role that chance or fortune played is often understated, but Cyrus’ campaign would not have been possible at all if circumstances
162 beyond his control had not evolved in such a way as to create the need for the Persians to provide
military support to the Medians. The reference to chance that Xenophon’s points to in inventing
the meeting between Pheraulas and the Sacian reminds us of the sobering advice that serves as
the final word in the dialogue between Cambyses and Cyrus; “Thus human wisdom no more
knows how to choose what is best that if someone, casting lots, should do whatever the lot
determines.” (1.6.46) Because of their chance encounter, Pheraulas and the Sacian create a mutually beneficial relationship.
Pheraulas and the Sacian arrive at an arrangement after engaging in a dialogue that is strikingly similar to the presentation of the problems of tyrannical rule as discussed by the tyrant
Hiero in another of Xenophon’s works.127 In both instances, one who, having acquired wealth,
must now protect their wealth., and care for the people they now rule over. This creates a burden
on the individual that prevents them from being able to enjoy their wealth. The central question
posed in the Hiero is which life is better between the private life and that of a tyrant.
Pheraulas, in a manner similar to Hiero, complains that the burdens of his newly acquired
wealth and household prevent him from enjoying his position, “Do you not know that I now eat,
drink, sleep in no way more pleasantly than when I was poor?” (8.3.40) After hearing a similar,
and more drawn out, argument Simonides asks Hiero why he does not simply leave the life a
Tyrant.128 Hiero responds that it would be impossible to do so because of the debts he owes and
the threat to harm from the people he has subjugated.129 When the Sacian poses the same
question to Pheraulas, Pheraulas gives a different response, “Having money is not so pleasant as
losing it is painful.” (8.3.42) The difference in the responses may be, in part, due to a difference
127 See Strauss, 1963. 128 Hiero, 7.11. 129 Ibid., 7.12.
163 in circumstance, Pheraulas rules over a household and Hiero over a city. The difference in their
response also indicates a difference in the desires of the two. During the dialogue between
Simonides and Hiero, it is revealed through Simonides recommended corrections to the tyranny
of Hiero that Hiero does not know what he wants from his tyranny or how to get it. Pheraulas, on
the other hand, appears to be more self-aware.130 Where Hiero is unwilling to give up his rule,
Pheraulas himself suggests that he give over the rule of his wealth and household to the Sacian indicating that he desired neither for their own sake.
The dialogue between Hiero and Simonides ends before we know to what extent, if any, that Hiero makes use of the advice given him by Simonides. In the case of Pheraulas, however, he is able to relieve himself of the burdens of his wealth and rule by reaching an agreement with the Sacian in the which the Sacian rules over his household and protects his wealth. Xenophon states that the Sacian believed that he had “…become happy because he ruled over much money” and that Pheraulas “…believed he was most blessedly happy because he had a steward to provide him with leisure to do whatever was pleasant to him.” 131(8.3.48) Pheraulas believes himself to
be blessedly happy because of the leisure that his arrangement with the Sacian allowed him to
have. Such leisure would have been impossible to obtain if Pheraulas had remained a commoner
in Persia, thus acquiring wealth was necessary, but only as a means to this end.
Xenophon concludes the story of Pheraulas and the Sacian by describing Pheraulas in the
following way: “Pheraulas’ character was companion loving, and nothing seemed so pleasant or
beneficial as to serve human beings, for he held human beings to be the best of all the animals
130 Strauss 1963; Strauss notes that Pheraulas’ response to the Sacian is more honest than Hiero’s response to Simonides. 131 See Ambler 2001 p. 280. Ambler notes that the μακάριος (makarios) is the word translated as “blessedly happy”, and that this term should be distinguished from εὐδαιμον (eudaimon). It should be further noted that Xenophon refrains from actually stating that either Pheraulas or Cyrus are objectively blessedly happy leaving Pheraulas with believing that he is and Cyrus only hoping to be remembered as such.
164 and the most grateful.” (8.3.49) For Strauss, this description of Pheraulas indicates a naiveté on
the part of Pheraulas, and shows that he has failed to see “the corruption of man’s nature”.132
Similarly, Nadon reads finds that Pheraulas as naïve and trusting pointing to Pheraulas’ implicit
trust of the Sacian. When read outside of the consideration of Pheraulas’ role throughout the
Cyropaedia, Pheraulas certainly does appear to be naïve in the final scenes he is mentioned in by
Xenophon. However, a careful consideration of Pheraulas reveals a character whose ability to
use people and circumstance to their own benefit that is equal to, if not greater than, Cyrus’s own
ability. Throughout the Cyropaedia, Pheraulas’ circumstances changed from being a poor
commoner doomed to work the rest of his life for his own sustenance in Persia to a wealthy and
free man with leisure who is protected and provided for by Cyrus. If it is the case, as I have
argued, that Pheraulas’ influence over Cyrus can be traced back to their time together in the
Persian school, then it would also be the case that Pheraulas has been making use of Cyrus and
Cyrus’ ambition throughout Xenophon’s entire telling of his story of Cyrus. Further, when all is
said and done Xenophon tells us that Pheraulas believed himself to be “blessedly happy”.133 In
reflecting on his life and rule, Xenophon never indicates that Cyrus believed himself to be
“blessedly happy”. Rather Cyrus believes that he should be remembered as being “blessedly
happy”. (8.7.9 and 8.7.25) Pheraulas’ belief that he is blessedly happy when contrasted Cyrus’
hope to be remembered as such indicates superiority of the private life over that of the ruler.
Xenophon concludes his description of Pheraulas in the following way:
He saw that those who are praised by someone praise them eagerly in return; that they regard as being well disposed to them they are well disposed in return; that those whom
132 Strauss, 1963. 133 See Ambler 2001 p. 280. Ambler notes that the μακάριος (makarios) is the word translated as “blessedly happy”, and that this term should be distinguished from εὐδαιμον (eudaimon). It should be further noted that Xenophon refrains from actually stating that either Pheraulas or Cyrus are objectively blessedly happy leaving Pheraulas with believing that he is and Cyrus hoping to be remembered as such.
165 they know love them, these they are not able to hate; and that they are more willing than all other animals to return their parents services both when they are alive and after they are dead. He judged the other animals to be more ungrateful and more unfeeling than human beings. (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, p. 253)
The connection between animals and human beings returns us to the beginning of the work and
Xenophon’s statement of the problem of political stability. However, where Xenophon initially
considered human beings to be more recalcitrant than herd animals, Pheraulas finds them to be
the most grateful of animals, under certain conditions.134 Rather, than indicating ignorance on the
part of Pheraulas, Xenophon’s description here suggests that Pheraulas was able to men grateful
and obedient in the same way that Cyrus was. However, where the end of Cyrus, ambition is to
rule over an empire, Pheraulas’ ambition is for leisure.
While Xenophon’s description of Pheraulas certainly seems to reflect a naiveté on the
part of Pheraulas, consider how Pheraulas dealt with the envy of the commanders to whom he
was asked with delivering the cloaks from Cyrus. He disobeys Cyrus and allows the commanders
to choose their own cloaks and then entreats them to keep the fact that he allowed them to pick
their own cloaks from Cyrus. Xenophon states that as a consequence, “… the one receiving the
cloak forgot about his envy, and immediately consulted him about which he should take”.135
(8.3.8) Pheraulas’ ability in disarming the envy of the commanders shows a remarkable ability
on his part to understand human beings. Pheraulas’ belief in the disposition of human beings is
based on a notion of reciprocity, by placing himself in a position of servitude, Pheraulas is able
to receive the gratitude of others. There is no better example of this than Pheraulas’ service to
Cyrus. Throughout his service to Cyrus, Pheraulas was able to achieve the life he desired most.
134 It should be noted that Xenophon’s initial description is limited to herd animals and that he makes no such qualification when describing Pheraulas. This is possibly due to the fact that Pheraulas seeks friendship rather than rule over other human beings. 135 Recall that Cyrus also consulted with Pheraulas (8.3.5).
166 Conclusion
While I have argued and hoped to have shown that Pheraulas plays a more prominent role in the narrative of Cyrus than commonly understood, why Xenophon chose to spread important facts about Pheraulas throughout the work, and more importantly how a study of Pheraulas enhances our understanding of the Cyropaedia has not been fully addressed. One possible reason
Xenophon would have chosen to conceal truths about Pheraulas until the end of the work is that a full consideration of the role that Pheraulas plays throughout the work leads the reader to conclude that Cyrus’ success would not have been possible without Pheraulas. This has the effect of taking away from the charm of Cyrus that Xenophon overtly portrays. Xenophon’s alarming description of the ruin of Cyrus’ empire after Cyrus has died leads us to reconsider Cyrus’ successes and to wonder what factors outside of Cyrus were involved in the successes that he enjoyed. When we begin to pick apart the narrative of Cyrus, Pheraulas appears as an important part of that success.
Cyrus and Pheraulas have very different goals, and both men need to get out of Persia to achieve those goals. While Cyrus is driven by his ambition to rule, Pheraulas’ motives are not totally apparent until the very end of the work when he manages to achieve both wealth and leisure. Both men achieve their goals, but Xenophon reserves his highest praise for Pheraulas.
Xenophon uses “blessed happiness” as an indication of what both Pheraulas achieved by fulfilling their ambition. Where Pheraulas is said to believe that he has become “blessedly happy” Cyrus falls far short the mark and can only say that he ought to be remembered as being
“blessedly happy.” This is an indication that Xenophon himself regards a private life leisure to be superior the life of a ruler like Cyrus.
Another teaching that emerges from a consideration of Pheraulas is that Pheraulas’
167 success in achieving a wealthy private life would not have been possible without the ambition and protection of Cyrus. Xenophon is clear that even though Pheraulas was by nature, not fit to be a commoner in the Persian system, he depended on Cyrus for his own success and protection.
While Pheraulas appears to be very trusting of the Sacian to whom he entrusts his wealth and household, it is his long-term relationship with Cyrus ensures his safety.136 This more generally show the connection between political and private life. While Xenophon tacitly acknowledges that Pheraulas life is superior to Cyrus’ he also shows that achieving and maintaining such a life requires the protection of one like Cyrus.
A consideration of Pheraulas can also shed light on the problem of ruling over human beings that Xenophon raises at the beginning of the book. Xenophon initially contends that human beings are recalcitrant and impossible to rule. He immediately amends his initial assessment upon a consideration of Cyrus and concludes that ruling over human beings can be easy if one does it knowledge. I argue that Pheraulas plays a crucial role in Cyrus successes and therefore that understanding Pheraulas’ role in the Cyropaedia leads to an understanding of the knowledge of rule that Xenophon refers to.
136 Cf. Nadon 2001, p. 151.
168 CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSION
I hope to have shown the benefit that can come from a consideration of the theme of political stability when reading the Cyropaedia, and that such a consideration brings other features of the work to the surface that are worthy of our attention. When we take Xenophon’s concern for political stability as a genuine concern and as a continued theme throughout the work, we are able to properly understand the rule of Cyrus. This view reconciles the puzzle created by Cyrus’ successes and the ruin of his empire and allows us to more clearly see
Xenophon’s criticisms of Cyrus.
Xenophon introduces Cyrus with the promise of revealing to us the knowledge that he states is necessary to rule well over human beings. A careful reading of the narrative of Cyrus reveals that Cyrus himself never acquires this knowledge, for if he had, that knowledge would have produced stability in his rule. That is not to say that an examination of the story of Cyrus cannot lead to the knowledge that Xenophon promises. The knowledge of ruling human beings well is found in the many teachings that Cyrus receives from characters like Cambyses, Tigranes, and Araspas, many of which were only partially received, or even ignored by Cyrus. When we strip away the wisdom imparted by Cambyses, and the help that Cyrus receives from individuals like Tigranes and Pheraulas, Cyrus appears somewhat less worthy of the wonder with which he is often considered.
When we allow some credit for Cyrus’ successes to be given to those who instruct him throughout his life, we are left with an image of an impressive man who, for all his abilities, was never able to fully comprehend the nature of his own ambition, or whether or not his ambition could be satisfied through the conquest he engages in. The ruin of Cyrus’ empire and the
169 degeneration of the Persians who followed him demonstrates Cyrus’ failure to rule well, and the speech he delivers on his death bed demonstrates his failure to understand himself, his ambition, the stability of his empire, or his own happiness. Xenophon informs us that immediately upon
Cyrus’ death his empire fell into dissention with cities and nations revolting. (8.8.1) The strife that emerged upon Cyrus’ death was a direct result of Cyrus’ rule. In his effort to ensure that virtue was practiced, Cyrus introduces competition amongst those who rule under him. This shows Cyrus’ limited understanding regarding the dangers of individual competition to stability, as the result instead was the injection of strife and discord into his empire. (8.2.27) Cyrus understood, in a limited sense, the good of the Persian practice of virtue, but failed to understand that its continued practice was due to the Persian education that educated towards the common good and subdued the instinct for individual recognition.
Xenophon’s description of the Persians who descended from those who followed Cyrus from Persia shows that even the pretense of virtuous practice that Cyrus maintained in his empire died with him. Throughout the Cyropaedia, Cyrus limits his considerations of what he ought to do to that which he believes will be the most advantageous to his conquest, never pausing to consider what might be advantageous for himself. After his death, the practice of gaining advantage by any means necessary is what is rewarded by those who rule in his former empire.
(8.8.5) Xenophon further describes those who descended from Cyrus’ followers as being worse in every way than their ancestors. Xenophon describes them as being more unjust, lazy, and effeminate. (8.8.6-15) Xenophon states the Persian practice of teaching justice to children by allowing them to hear cases being justly adjudicated does not exist among these Persians because now the children understand that “whichever side bribes more wins”. (8.8.13) Cyrus’ perversion of the Peer’s education supplanted the Persian practice of virtue for the good of Persia and
170 replaced it with an education in self-interest where his people are taught to gain their own
advantage by any means. Xenophon could have discussed the degeneration of the Persians who
followed Cyrus without comparing them to the Persians who remained in the Persian republic.
The fact that he engages in this discussion directs us to make the same comparison. When we do,
the most obvious differences between Cyrus’ empire and Persia that is seen is the stability that
Persia enjoys that Cyrus’ empire fails to achieve. The Persian Peers who are practiced in
enduring hardship and who spend their time in the service of Persia are also shown to be superior
to the descendants of the Persians who follow Cyrus. Finally, the Persian education and laws
emerges as superior to Cyrus in its ability to create lasting obedience. If we consider Xenophon’s
initial concern for stability to be genuine, then Cyrus’ failure to achieve it should lead us to
reconsider his successes which in turn should lead us to the conclusion that the example of
stability that Xenophon puts forth in the work is found in Persia. This small republic is protected
externally by its geography, and eventually by the empire that Cyrus creates. Persia is further
protected from internal corruption by the rule of law to which the rulers are educated in from a
young age to uphold and defend.
While Xenophon gives Persia as the only example of stability in the work, the stability
that Persia is able to produce is shown to be fragile. This is shown by the rigorous education that
is required to be able to rule in Persia, by Cyrus himself, and by the ease with which Cyrus is
able to corrupt the Peers under his command. Perhaps the greatest drawback seen in the Persian
regime is the inability of the Persian law to give to each what is fitting. It is this limitation that
Cyrus identifies at a young age and exploits when given command of the Persian force.
We may wonder why if, Xenophon invented his version of Persia, and he intended it to stand as the example of stability in the work, he allowed such weaknesses to be evident.
171 Conversely, we may wonder why his Cyrus, whose rule is antithetical to stability, is such an
attractive character. While Xenophon’s depiction of both Persia and Cyrus are fabricated,
Xenophon’s portrayal of the difficulty with which human beings are brought to allow themselves
to be ruled by the law is very real. Thus, the limitations of the Persian rule of law, represents the
limitations to the rule of law generally, and the attractiveness of Cyrus represents the attraction
of human beings to one like Cyrus. Cyrus is wonderfully successful in attracting human beings to
follow him. This is in large part due to his ability to provide justice to human beings that they
otherwise felt was denied them. To the Peers he promises to reward their virtuous practices, and
to the commoners, Cyrus promises them a chance to earn position and riches that would never be
possible in Persia. To the powerful rulers like Gadatas and Gobryas, Cyrus offers revenge for
their mistreatment at the hands of the Assyrian king.
In all the reasons for why people followed Cyrus, the concern for stability is absent.
While this is not surprising, it is worth reflecting on the extent to which any human beings would
desire stability over the promise of justice that Cyrus brings. We also see that Cyrus is not
limited in his ability to only attract those who he can benefit in some way. Abradatas’ extreme
loyalty to Cyrus was not in the hope of gaining anything from Cyrus, but rather was given
because of the virtuous nature of Abradatas who felt obligated to be as good a friend to Cyrus as
he perceived that Cyrus was to him. While his tragic end showed the limit of Cyrus’ ability
reward virtue, it also showed Cyrus’ ability to attract those who are virtuous. This scene can be
compared to the virtues of the Peers that Cyrus accused of practicing virtue for the sake of virtue.
While Cyrus uses this accusation to promise them rewards, the truth is that the Persian practice
in virtue produced stability. That the Peers fail to consider this further demonstrates the low
priority that human beings actually give to stability. When we compare the virtue of Abradatas to
172 that of the Peers, we see that virtue properly directed can produce stability, but that neither Cyrus nor Persia are able to individually reward virtuous human beings.
Xenophon’s concern for political stability at the outset of the Cyropaedia initially appears to us as puzzling. When discussing political life and its ends, political stability appears to be a rather low threshold. It is not until we are shown the ruinous effect that Cyrus has on those he rules over that we see that what appeared as a relatively low goal for political life is actually the highest goal that political life should aspire to. This is not to say that stability is the only good that Xenophon is concerned with, but rather that the consideration of other goods, or even what is good cannot occur without stability first in place.
In closing, Xenophon’s Cyropaedia contains many wonderful teachings that could not be fully explored in this dissertation. Of particular note, is the absence in Xenophon’s opening lines of such things as freedom and happiness that we might consider to be necessary components of stability. This is curious, when we consider that the unhappiness of the ruled is, at least, a potential cause of instability. Xenophon and Cyrus both compare human beings to herd animals, but only Cyrus considers that part of his role in ruling over human beings is to provide for their happiness. (1.1.2 and 8.2.14) In believing that Cyrus could or even should strive to make those he ruled happy, we see that he failed to understand Cambyses’ warning that “it is difficult in all times to do good for whom one would like to.” (1.6.24) This is, perhaps, Xenophon’s way of suggesting that political life itself is limited in its ability to provide happiness. With regard to his own happiness, when looking back on his life Cyrus never actually says that he was or is happy.
He begins his deathbed speech to his sons and friends by telling them that they should “say and do everything about me as about one who was happy.” (8.7.6) As Cyrus does throughout the work, he neglects to mention thought, relying instead on the reputation he might gain for being
173 happy through speech and deeds only. Cyrus’ desire for people to remember him as being happy is much different than Cyrus being happy. It may be that Cyrus desires the reputation for happiness more than actually being happy. Even if this is the case, Cyrus’ inability to objectively state that he is or was happy, demonstrates a lack on his part to consider if the object of his ambition could make him happy.
174 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ahn, D. (2008). The politics of royal education: Xenophon’s Education of Cyrus in early eighteenth-century Europe. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(4), 439–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.05.008
Ambler W. (1992) Xenophon’s Education Through Cyrus. The World and I, 7(11)
Bartlett, R. C. (2015). How to Rule the World: An Introduction to Xenophon’s The Education of Cyrus. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055414000550
Bruell, C. (1963) Xenophon, p. 90-117. Strauss, L., & Cropsey, J. (1987). History of Political Philosophy (3rd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Burns, T. W. (2015). Brill’s Companion to Leo Strauss’ Writings on Classical Political Thought (Brill’s Companions to Classical Reception). Brill.
Christesen, P. (2006). Xenophon's "Cyropaedia" and Military Reform in Sparta. The Journal of Hellenic Studies. 126, 47-65.
Danzig, G. (2009). Big Boys and Little Boys: Justice and Law in Xenophon’s Cyropaedia and Memorabilia. Polis: The Journal for Ancient Greek Political Thought, 26(2), 271–295. https://doi.org/10.1163/20512996-90000154
Danzig, G. (2018). Plato and Xenophon (Mnemosyne, Supplements). BRILL.
Ellis, A. (2016). A Socratic History: Theology in Xenophon’s Rewriting of Herodotus’ Croesus Logos. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 136, 73–91. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0075426916000069
Field, L. K. (2012). Xenophon’s Cyropaedia: Educating our Political Hopes. The Journal of Politics, 74(3), 723–738. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381612000424
Gera, D. L. (1987). The dialogues of the Cyropaedia. Oxford University Press.
Hobden, F., Tuplin, C., & Gish, D. (2012). Xenophon: Ethical Principles and Historical Enquiry (Mnemosyne, Supplements / Mnemosyne, Supplements, History and) (Bilingual ed.). Brill Academic.
Johnson, D. M. (2005). Persians as Centaurs in Xenophon’s Cyropaedia. Transactions of the American Philological Association, 135(1), 177–207. https://doi.org/10.1353/apa.2005.0010
Jordovic, I. (2016). Kingdom versus empire in Xenophon’s Cyropaedia. Balcanica, 47, 35–53. https://doi.org/10.2298/balc1647035j
175 Lendon, J. E. (2006). Xenophon and the alternative to realist foreign policy: Cyropaedia 3.1.14 – 31. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 126, 82–98. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0075426900007679
Lorch, B. (2010). Xenophon’s Socrates on Political Ambition and Political Philosophy. The Review of Politics, 72(2), 189–211. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0034670510000021
Melina Tamiolaki. (2016). Emotion and Persuasion in Xenophon’s Cyropaedia. Phoenix, 70(1/2), 40. https://doi.org/10.7834/phoenix.70.1-2.0040
Moles, J. (1992). Xenophon’s Hellenica - Vivienne Gray: The Character of Xenophon’s Hellenica. P. x + 219. London: Duckworth, 1989. £24. The Classical Review, 42(2), 281– 284. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0009840x00283753
Nadon, C. (1996). From Republic to Empire: Political Revolution and the Common Good in Xenophon’s Education of Cyrus. American Political Science Review, 90(2), 361–374. https://doi.org/10.2307/2082890
Nadon, C. (2001). Xenophon’s Prince: Republic and Empire in the Cyropaedia (First ed.). University of California Press.
Newell, W. R. (1983). Tyranny and the Science of Ruling in Xenophon’s “Education of Cyrus.” The Journal of Politics, 45(4), 889–906. https://doi.org/10.2307/2130417
Newell, W. R. (1988). Machiavelli and Xenophon on Princely Rule: A Double-Edged Encounter. The Journal of Politics, 50(1), 108–130. https://doi.org/10.2307/2131043
Newell, W.R. (2005) Is there an Ontology of Tyranny, p. 141-148. Koivukoski, T., & Tabachnick, D. E. (2005). Confronting Tyranny: Ancient Lessons for Global Politics (Annotated ed.). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Pangle, L.S. (2017). Xenophon on the Psychology of Supreme Political Ambition. American Political Science Review, 111(2), 308–321. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055416000721
Pangle, L. S. (2018). The Radicalness of Strauss’s On Tyranny. Interpretation: A Journal of Political Philosophy, 45(1), 49–67. https://doi.org/10.1163/20512996-90000124
Pownall, F. (2015). Xenophon in Moral Education- H. Lu Xenophon’s Theory of Moral Education. P. x + 241. Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2015. Cased, £47.99. ISBN: 978-1-4438-6880-8. The Classical Review, 66(1), 47–49. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0009840x15001900
Rood, T. (2015). Political Thought in Xenophon: Straussian Readings of the Anabasis. POLIS, The Journal for Ancient Greek Political Thought, 32(1), 143–165. https://doi.org/10.1163/20512996-12340041
176 Sage P.W. (1994). Dying in Style: Xenophon’s Ideal Leader and the End of the “Cyropaedia.” Dying in Style: Xenophon’s Ideal Leader and the End of the “Cyropaedia,” 90(2), 161– 174. https://doi.org/10.1163/20512996-90000124
Strauss, L. (1968). ON TYRANNY. Revised and Enlarged. Cornell University.
Strauss, L., & Cropsey, J. (1987). History of Political Philosophy (3rd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Strauss, L. (1963). Strauss Lectures on Cyropaedia. The Leo Strauss Center. http://leostrausstranscripts.uchicago.edu/navigate/8/table-of-contents/
Strauss, L., & Bruell, C. (2004). Xenophon’s Socrates (1st ed.). St. Augustine’s Press.
Tarcov, N. (2005) Tyranny from Plato to Locke, p. 123-140. Koivukoski, T., & Tabachnick, D. E. (2005). Confronting Tyranny: Ancient Lessons for Global Politics (Annotated ed.). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Tuplin, C. (1992). The Cyropaedia - Bodil Due: The Cyropaedia: Xenophon’s Aims and Methods. P. 264. Aarhus University Press, 1989. D. kr. 162. The Classical Review, 42(2), 284–285. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0009840x00283765
Vandiver, J. (2014). Xenophon contra Plato: Citizen Motivation and Socratic Biography. Polis, The Journal for Ancient Greek Political Thought, 31(1), 74–102. https://doi.org/10.1163/20512996-12340004
Whidden, C. (2007). The Account of Persia and Cyrus’s Persian Education in Xenophon’s Cyropaedia. The Review of Politics, 69(4), 539–567. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0034670507000952
Whidden, C. (2008). Cyrus’s Imperial Household: an Aristotelian Reading of Xenophon’s Cyropaedia. Polis: The Journal for Ancient Greek Political Thought, 25(1), 31–62. https://doi.org/10.1163/20512996-90000124
Xenophon, Translated by Ambler, W. (2001). The Education of Cyrus (Agora Editions) (1st ed.). Cornell University Press.
Xenophon, Translated by Ambler, W., & Buzzetti, E. (2008). The Anabasis of Cyrus (1st ed.). Cornell University Press.
Xenophon, Translated by Bartlett, R. C. (2006). The Shorter Socratic Writings: “Apology of Socrates to the Jury,” “Oeconomicus,” and “Symposium” (1st ed.). Cornell University Press.
Xenophon, Translated by Bonnette, A. L., & Bruell, C. J. (2001). Memorabilia (Agora Editions) (1st ed.). Cornell University Press.
177