XENOPHON's "ANABASIS" from CHARACTER to NARRATOR Author(S): JONAS GRETHLEIN Source: the Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol

Home , Anabasis (Xenophon), Cerasus (near Trapezus), Hellenica, Ten Thousand

XENOPHON'S "ANABASIS" FROM CHARACTER TO NARRATOR Author(s): JONAS GRETHLEIN Source: The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 132 (2012), pp. 23-40 Published by: Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41722252 Accessed: 11-01-2016 18:52 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies and Cambridge University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Hellenic Studies. http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 192.122.237.41 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:52:30 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Journalof Hellenic Studies 132 (2012) 23^10 doi:10. 1017/S007542691 2000031

XENOPHON'S ANABASIS FROM CHARACTER TO NARRATOR

JONAS GRETHLEIN University of Heidelberg*

Abstract:Xenophon participated in the March of the Ten Thousand, but in theAnabasis , instead of parading his autopsy,he keeps his narratorial persona separate from his character. This separation, however, is subtly blurred when, on theone hand, the narrator adopts the perspective of thecharacter, who is byfar the most prominent focalizing instancein thenarrative, and, on theother hand, the character appropriates narratorial functions: Xenophon the charactercomes to the fore as embeddednarrator and commentator ofthe events. Furthermore, hisreferences tothe pastcan be readas meta-historical,i.e.they shed light on the commemorative actof the Anabasis. While the choice ofa hetero-diegeticnarrator helps Xenophon to enhance the credibility ofthe account of his deeds, the intricate entanglementof narrator and character contributes tothe characterization ofhimself as theprivileged agent in the March of theTen Thousand.

Keywords:Xenophon, Anabasis , Greek historiography, narrative

It is necessaryto gatherthe deeds themselvesnot just as it happens,but to researchabout the same againand againin a laboriousand toilsomeprocess, and mostof all to witnessand see themdirectly (Luc. Hist,conscr. 47).

The high esteem forautopsy which we findin Lucian can be tracedback to the verybeginning of Greek historiography.Herodotus frequentlybacks up his narrativeby referencesto what he has seen himself,and Thucydides,who notes thatthe sightsof ruins can be deceptive (1.10.3), nonethelessemphasizes that he reportswhat he has seen himselfor heard fromeyewitnesses 1 (1. 22.2-3). Xenophon does not provide us with explicitreflections on his method,but thereis no reason to assume that he did not share his predecessors' trustin eyewitnesses. The intro- ductionto the Symposiumrather suggests a similarappreciation of the stance of the eyewitness: 'I want to reveal the events at which I was present from which I know these things...'. Accordingly,the account of Cyrus' death in theAnabasis is backed up by a referenceto Ctesias who was present(1.8.27). It is also worthconsidering whether in Xenophon's historiographie works charactersvoice his own convictionwhen theyemphasize theirstatus as eyewitnessesor criticizethe absence of directexperience in others.2Seen fromthis perspective, it is strikingthat Xenophon does not draw attentionto his status as an eyewitness in the Anabasis. Although Xenophon participatedin the march of the Ten Thousand throughAsia and back to Ionia, and althoughhe played a major role in it (if we believe his account!), theAnabasis is told by a hetero- diegeticnarrator.3

* [email protected] onlyheard what had happenedto Mnasippus,but translationsof the Anabasisare taken,with slight nobodyhad seen it'. Cf.Gray (2003) 116, n.23. modifications,from Waterfield and Rood (2005). I 3 Unlikea homo-diegeticnarrator, a hetero-diegetic thankmy Heidelberg colleague Bill Furley, the journal's narratoris notpart of theaction, cf. Genette (1972) twoanonymous readers and editor for their stimulating 155-56. Thenarratorial personae of ancient historians commentsand suggestions. haveattracted much attention lately, see, for example, 1See, for example, Nenci (1955); Schepens (1980). Dewald(1987); (2002) on Herodotus;Gribble (1998) 2 See, forexample, Hell. 6.2.31,where Iphikrates on Thucydides;Grethlein (2006) on Sallust.See also mistruststhe news about Mnasippus' defeat 'because he Marincola(1997), particularly 63-216.

This content downloaded from 192.122.237.41 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:52:30 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 24 GRETHLEIN

Caesar's Commentariion the Gallic War parallel the Anabasis in thatthe authorchooses a hetero-diegeticnarratorial persona for a narrativein which he figuresas a centralcharacter.4 However, while Caesar publishedBellum Gallicum under his own name, it is disputedhow the Anabasis was published. In his Hellenica , Xenophon refersto a work on the march of the Ten Thousand writtenby Themistogenes(3.1.2), and since elsewherethis name is only mentionedin the Suda, many scholars assume thatit is the pseudonymunder which theAnabasis circulated.5 Jacoby,on the otherhand, insiststhat the Anabasis was an anonymouspublication and thatthe referenceto Themistogenesin the Hellenica was not more than a 'momentous fiction'.6 No matterwhich view we adopt, the use of a hetero-diegeticnarrator makes the narrativelook unbiased in general- Lucian hails Xenophon as a cruyypacpsùçSÍKaioç (Hist, conscr.39) - and in particularlends credibilityto the presentationof his own role in the expedition. Plutarchalready noted thatXenophon had attributedthe Anabasis to Themistogenes'in orderto be trustworthier when referringto himselfas if to another' (De glor. Ath. 1, 345E).7 In the words of a modern scholar,Xenophon's 'works recognise the value of a mostlyimpersonal narrative told in a style largelyfree of rhetoricaladornment, in achieving credibility. It is no coincidence that for the ancientsand (untilrecently) moderns, his work was consideredvery reliable'.8 In thispaper, I would like to take a freshlook at the relationbetween Xenophon the narrator and Xenophon the characterin the narrative.As commentatorssince Plutarchhave pointedout, the two are clearlyseparate, but I shall argue thatthe separationgets subtlyblurred when, on the one hand, the narratoradopts the character'sperspective and, on the other,the characterappro- priatesnarratorial functions.9 I shall investigatethe relevance of Xenophon's perspectivein the narrative(I), his role as embeddednarrator (II), his functionas internalcommentator (III) and the meta-historicaldimension of some of his reflections(IV). Finally,I will suggestthat while the separation of narratorand characterserves the purposes of the former'sself-fashioning, the complex interactionbetween the two contributesto the characterizationof the latter(V). For the sake of clarity,in the followingall unqualifiedreferences to Xenophon will signifythe character in theAnabasis.

I. Xenophon as instance of focalization and beyond focalization10 The Anabasis is writtenfrom the viewpointwhich Lucian has aptlycalled the perspectiveof the Homeric Zeus (Hist, conscr.49). This means thatthe narratorhas insightsinto more or less all aspects of the action which, in the case of the Anabasis , seems to present itself without

4Marincola (1997) 197 notes that the use of the third intoXenophon's consciousness and concludes that the personby Caesar is unusualand deems it possible that it narratorof the Anabasisis only formallyhetero- ismodelled on the example of Xenophon. On the hetero- diegetic,but actually homo-diegetic. However, Dorati diegeticthird-person narrator in Caesar,see Görler underestimatestheliberty which ancient historians take (1976);Reijgwart (1993); Riggsby (2006) 150-55. inreporting the thoughts and feelings of their characters 5 See, for example,Breitenbach (1967) 1645; ingeneral - thismakes the internal focalization through Higgins(1977) 93; Gray(2003) 111, n.2; Tuplin (2003) Xenophonin the Anabasis less unique than he thinks - 154. Waterfield(2006) 190 suggeststhat Themisto- andtends to mix up the level of diegesis with the notion genesmay have been a friendof Xenophon. See also offocalization. Dorati(2007) 105-06. 10De Jong'spioneering applications (1987; 1991) 6FGrH II D 349. havemade Bal's (1985) conceptof focalizationvery 7For further assessments ofXenophon and his style, popularin classicalstudies. However, as forexample fromthe early empire, see Rutherford (1998) 64-79. Nelles(1990) and Rood (1998) show, Bal's verywide 8 Marincola(1997) 10. See also Gray(2004) concept,which also subsumesthe narratorial instance 129-30.On third-person narrative inhistoriography in underfocalization and attributesto each narratorial general,see Kraus (1994) 139. stancea stanceof focalization, is questionable. I shall 9 Thishas alreadybeen noted in passingby Gray thereforestick with Genette 's system (1972), according (2004)132; Purves (2010) 194. Froma differentangle, towhich 'focalization' refers to perception ('qui voiť), see Dorati(2007), who emphasizes the insights given whilevoice signifies the level of utterance ('qui dit').

This content downloaded from 192.122.237.41 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:52:30 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions XENOPHON'S ANABASIS FROM CHARACTER TO NARRATOR 25 mediation. If we leave aside the evaluations of Cyrus (1.9) and the Greek generals whom Tissaphernestraps and kills (2.6), Xenophon largely abstains fromnarratorial intrusions.11 At the same time, much of the narrativeis internallyfocalized throughthe characters. In many passages, the narratoradopts the viewpoint of his charactersand narratesthe action fromtheir perspectives. Not bound to a single characterperspective, he alternatesbetween the viewpoints of differentcharacters and presentsthe action throughthe lenses of various Greek charactersas well as, occasionally, those of their enemies. The dominatingfocalizing instance though is Xenophon whose prominencein books 3-7 is throwninto reliefby his virtualabsence in the firsttwo books.12 To illustratehis role as focalizing instance,I will brieflydiscuss the passage in which thenarrator elaborately introduces him aftermentioning him only in passing in the first two books.13 AfterTissaphernes has killed the majorityof the Greek generals whom he had lured into his camp throughan invitationto a dinnerparty, the Greek mercenariesare seized by confusionand despair (3.1.3). In thisseemingly aporetic situation, the narratorbrings Xenophon onto his stage withthe formula r¡v 8é xiç év ir¡ axpaxiã HevoqxSvA0r|vaïoç ('There was in thearmy a man called 14 Xenophon,from Athens') (3. 1.4). He thenreports how Xenophon came to join the Greek army (3.1.4-11). Admittedly,Xenophon does not appear in too positive a lightwhen Socrates rebukes him, since he consults the Delphic Oracle about which god would granthim a safe journey insteadof askingwhether or not to join Cyrus' armyat all.15 Nonetheless,the one-page flashback adds weight to the new characterwhose prominence is enlarged furtherwhen the narrator continueswith a dream. Despite his worries,Xenophon manages to catch a bit of sleep and sees a lightningbolt strike his father'shouse and set it on fire. On the one hand, this seems to him a good sign, 'since a great lightfrom Zeus had appeared in the midst of troubleand danger' (3.1.12). On the other, the dream instilsfear in him that,just as the fireburns in a circle, he will not be able to leave the countryof the Persian king. Not only does the ancient belief thatdreams were signs from the gods mark Xenophon as a special character,16but the narratoralso presentsthe following narrativeas an explication of the dream (3.1.13): 'But the truemeaning of a vision such as this can be judged by the events which followed the dream'. It is hard to tell if 'the events which followed the dream' only acts to introduceXenophon's firstconsultation with the lochagoi or if it refersto the entirenarrative of theAnabasis which unfoldsthe numeroushindrances encoun- teredby the Greeks on theirway back to Ionia.17 In the lattercase, the entireaccount of the Greeks' retreatwould be presentedunder the auspices of Xenophon's dream. If this seems too far-fetched,it is nonethelessnoteworthy that the narratorfocalizes this turningpoint in the plot throughXenophon and conveys his thoughtsin an interiormonologue, a rare formin Greek historiography:18

11 Bradley(2001) 70 notesthat most of the narra- maintradition, but sees in Theopompus the Athenian' a torialintrusions can be foundin the first two books, an cipherfor Xenophon. On theelaborate introduction of observationto which I shallreturn in sectionIII. On Xenophoninto the narrative, see Dillery (1995) 72-73. narratorialinterventions inthe Hellenica and Anabasis , 14On the Homeric ring, see Tuplin (2003) 126-27. seeGray (2003). 15Rood (2004a) 322; Gray (2004) 131. 12 In BellumGallicum , on the otherhand, the 16Cf. Dillery (1995) 73. See Rinner(1978) for the perspectiveofCaesar is imposedmore strongly on the argumentthat Xenophon's dream evokes Agamemnon's narrativeat thebeginning, cf. Görler (1976) 103-12. dreamin Iliad 2. 17 On the increasingprominence of Xenophonin the WhileDillery (1995) 73 relatesthe portent only to Anabasis, see Bradley (2001). the mobilizationof the demoralizedtroops by 13 1.8.15;2.4.15; 2.5.37-38. Some manuscripts also Xenophon,Ma (2004)336 also sees in it a referenceto readXenophon in 2.1.12, where, however, the majority hisexile. has 'Theopompus'.Erbse (1966) 500 sideswith the 18Cf. Dorati (2007) 108-09.

This content downloaded from 192.122.237.41 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:52:30 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 26 GRETHLEIN

Whyam I lyinghere? The nightis passingand at dawnthe enemy will probably arrive. If we fallinto theking's hands, we'll inevitablydie ingloriousdeaths, after witnessing all themost ghastly scenes one could possiblyimagine and sufferingthe fullrange of the mostgruesome tortures. Yet no one is showingthe slightest interest in defenceor doing anything practical about it... Fromwhat other city do I expecta generalto comeand organizethings? Why am I waiting?How old do I haveto be? I won't getany older at all ifI just surrenderto theenemy today (3.1.13-14).

The narratorthus approaches Xenophon gradually, moving from the past to thepresent, from the outsideto theinside, from indirect to directpresentation of his thoughts:he firstgives his prehistory, thenviews himamong the other Greeks before he reproduceshis thoughtsin a narratorialreport that blends intoa directpresentation of Xenophon's thoughts.The artfulintroduction of Xenophonas directingthe focusof thenarrative adumbrates the crucialrole thathe is to play in the furtherplot. There are many more passages in which the action of the Anabasis is internallyfocalized throughXenophon, among them the narrative'sprobably most famous scene, when the Greeks reachMount Theches and, afterseeing the sea, eruptinto shouting 'Thalatta, thalatta! This scene, one of the numerousfalse closing scenes afterwhich yet othertoils await the Greek mercenaries, is narratedfrom the perspectiveof Xenophon who leads the rearguard. Hearing some noise (4.7.21: Kpauyii),Xenophon and his men firstsuspect an attack. When the noise becomes louder and more articulate,a shout goes up (4.7.23: ßof| bis) and the men begin to rush towardsthe - mountain Xenophonconjectures 'that something of special significancewas happening'(4.7.23). Finally,they can make out the words 'The sea, the sea'. The focalizationthrough Xenophon and therearguard serves as a retardingmoment and helps to build up suspense.Moreover, it is striking thatthe narrative renders a visual experienceprimarily through aural perception.In some codices, the narratormentions the viewing of the sea once at the verybeginning of the passage (4.7.21). Recentinterpreters tend to adopt the readingof the codex Parisinusin whichthese three words are missing- in which case, thereis no directreference at all to the view itself.19Besides enhancing theretardation, the narrative focus on aural signs aligns the historicalagents with the reader of the Anabasis in thatboth only hear about the event. Paradoxically,the absence of a referenceto the visual experienceitself throws into reliefthe view, leaving a blank to be filled by the reader's imagination. The focalizationthrough Xenophon and the gradual disclosure,conveyed through sounds insteadof sight,contribute much to the prominenceof the passage. Instead of discussing furtherexamples of Xenophon's prominence as instances of focalization,I now turnto a passage which is not directlyfocalized throughhim, but in which subtle interactionsbetween his perspectiveand the narrativecan be observed. When the Greeks are at the Pontus,Xenophon is enamouredby the plan to founda colony. However, the seer Silanus, who has made sacrificesto figureout the chances of such an enterprise,is against thisplan and spreads the rumourthat 'Xenophon wants the armyto stayand wants to founda cityfor his own fame and power' (5.6.17). By slylyemphasizing Xenophon's desire to gain gloryand power for himself,Silanus puts Xenophon's plan in a negative light.20He succeeds, the mercenariesare upset and Xenophon cannot realize his aspirationsas an oikistes. While here Silanus gets the betterof Xenophon,the narrator gives the lattera belated moralvictory by addingthe reason why Silanus was so eager to preventa colony. Silanus, he points out, wanted to returnas fast as possible forhe had keptthe 3,000 darics which Cyrus had given him as a rewardfor an accurate prediction(5.6.18, cf. 1.7.18). The narrator'sobservation suggests thatthe personal motivesof which Silanus accuses Xenophon are the veryreason forhis own intrigue.

19 Cf. Waterfieldand Rood (2005) 213; Purves forpersonal glory, but says that he was intrigued by the (2010)189, n.74. ideaof 'acquiring extra land and resources for Greece' 20Silanus' reproach contradicts the presentation of (5.6.15,my italics). thenarrator, who does not mention Xenophon's desire

This content downloaded from 192.122.237.41 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:52:30 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions XENOPHON'S ANABASIS FROM CHARACTER TO NARRATOR 27

Althoughthe narratorreports later rumoursthat Xenophon continuedto pursue his plan of foundinga colony (6.4.4, 6.6.3), he does not vouch forthe truthof these allegationsand even has Xenophon deliver a speech against the accusation that he has corruptedthe seers and triedto force the mercenariesto stay throughfailing sacrifices(6.4.12-13). Nonetheless, the narrator takes up Xenophon's interestin a colony when he devotes a long passage (6.4.3-7) to an area aroundLake Calpe which 'is large enough to accommodate ten thousandpeople' (6.4.3). There is no indicationthat this descriptionis focalized throughXenophon, but the enthusiasticas well - - as detailedreport about all the advantagesof the land harbour,fountain, wood, fertility corre- sponds to Xenophon's interestin the land and plantinga colony. Thus, Xenophon not only guides the narrativeas a focalizinginstance, but his perspectivealso intrudeson the narrativein a more subtleway. While the theme of colonization silently creeps from Xenophon's perspective into the narrator'saccount, another theme that implicitly resonates in the narrative is pointed out explicitlyby Xenophon. Tim Rood notices thatthe Anabasis contains some subtle allusions to Herodotus'account of thePersian Wars,for example thejuxtaposition of barbarian&v0pco7toi and GreekávSpeç which is reminiscentof Xerxes' recognitionthat 'there are manyavGpooJioi, but few ávôpeç' when the firstattempts to take Thermopylaefail (Hdt. 7.210.2). By the same token,the noun gtóXoç and the motifof the crossingof a river(1.2.5) may evoke Xerxes' marchto Greece as a foil for the expeditionof the Ten Thousand.21 The comparison is ambiguous: on the one hand, the Persian Wars affordan example of Greek superiority;on the other,as invaders the Greekmercenaries resemble the Persians attackingGreece. The implicitand subtlereferences to theHistories are buttressedby the explicitjuxtaposition of thecurrent expedition with the Persian Wars which Xenophon voices in the firstassembly of the armyafter the killing of the generals by Tissaphernes (3.2.11-13). Xenophon recalls both the firstPersian invasion which the Atheniansand Plataeans successfullyfought off and the second 'when Xerxes raised an incalcu- lably huge army and attacked Greece' (3.2.13). These triumphsof Greeks over Persians, he claims, ought to instil confidence in the Greek mercenariesthat a safe returnwas possible (3.2.11). Again, the narratorand Xenophon engage in a tightlyknit cooperation; this time,the charactermakes explicitthe themeon which the narrator'svoice only touches. Beneath the overt separation,narrator and characterare closely entangled.

II. Xenophon as narrator Xenophon's referencesto the Persian Wars lead us to a second point: his speeches.22 Xenophon not only standsout throughthe greatnumber and lengthof his speeches, butthe speeches interact withthe authorialnarrative in manifoldways and therebyblur the borderlinebetween character and narrator.The privilegingof Xenophon as speaker is particularlystriking when he is juxta- posed withother speakers. To returnto a passage thatI have already discussed, afterXenophon has dreamtabout the lightningstriking his father'shouse, he gathersthe lochagoi of Proxenus and assesses the situation(3.1.1 5-25). Deceived by the Persianking, the Greeks are now on their own and musttry to findtheir way back by themselves. All officersagree and ask Xenophon to take the lead; one, however,Apollonides by name and speaking in Boeotian dialect,opposes his advice and argues thatrescue is only possible with the help of the Persian king (3.1.26). In a rejoinder,Xenophon brushes off his objection and recalls once more Tissaphernes' scheme (3.1.27-30). His concludingwords about Apollonides, 'for thisone disgraces his fatherlandand the whole of Greece, since, despite being Greek, he is like this' (3.1.30), gain special meaning when one of the men reveals thatApollonides is not a Greek,but a Lydian (3.1.31). Xenophon's

21 Rood (2004a) 310-11. Xerxes'invasion of fromGreece (1.2.9). 22 Greecealso comesup whenthe narrator mentions the On Xenophon'sspeeches in theAnabasis, see palaceat Celaenae which Xerxes built when he returned Rood(2004a).

This content downloaded from 192.122.237.41 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:52:30 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 28 GRETHLEIN opinion carriesthe day, which marksthe beginningof his ascent in the armyand prominencein the narrative.His superiorityand leading position are formallyreinforced: whereas the narrator presents Apollonides' interventionin indirect speech, Xenophon is granted direct speech. Throughthis distributionof voice, the narrativerepresentation expresses formallythe balance and outcome of the situation;in otherwords, the discourse mirrorsthe story. Such a privileging of one character'svoice is not unusual in historiography,which oftenshifts between directand indirectspeech, but the privilegingof Xenophon is emblematicof the prominentrole his voice will play in the furthercourse of the narrative. Xenophon's voice is endowed with special authorityby correspondencesto the narrator's voice. A strikingecho can be foundin the discussion of how farthe Cyreans should go in their attemptsto appease the Spartan Cleandrus who, angered by Dexippus, threatensto appeal to Greek cities not to take in the army. Unlike some who deem Cleandrus insignificant,Xenophon is aware of Sparta's influence(6.6.12): 'The Spartans are the masters of Greece'. His point echoes a narratorialstatement and is therebycorroborated (6.6.9): 'At thattime all Greeks were ruledby the Spartans'. The personae of characterand narratorare strictlyseparate, but what the formersays ties in nicely withthe view of the latter. In some cases, Xenophon refersto past events covered by the preceding narrative. For instance,in his speech to the lochagoi of Proxenus,Xenophon recalls thatthe king 'is the man who mutilatedthe corpse of his full brotherby cuttingoff his head and his hand, and who then impaled themon a stake' (3.1.17). Since the narratorhas previouslymentioned the mutilationof Cyrus' body (1.10.1), Xenophon's point constitutesan internal homo-diegetic analepsis.23 Xenophon,however, does not merelyrepeat what the narratorhas alreadymentioned, but adds a new detail, namely thatthe limbs were exhibited,thereby underlining the ghastlynature of the deed and buttressinghis point about the king's unreliability. A more extensive internal analepsis voiced by Xenophon can be found in 5.8.1-26.24 Xenophon is accused of hubrissince he has beaten soldiers. When he interrogatesthe firstof his accusers, it turnsout thatthe beating took place while the armywas marchingunder the most adverse circumstances- the mercenarieswere famished,snowed under and being pursued by enemies. The soldierhad been orderedto lead an exhaustedcomrade on a mule and was caught by Xenophonwhen he triedto buryhim alive. In his interrogation,Xenophon elegantlyturns the tables so thatin the end the anonymoussoldier is in need of a justification.Asking if, afterall, Xenophon's interventionhas saved the exhausted soldier from dying, he is silenced by Xenophon's wittyrejoinder (5.8.11): 'Yes, we are all going to die, but does thatmean thatwe have to be buried alive?'. When the crowd shoutsthat he has not received enough of a beating, Xenophon continues to justify the violence which he applied to unruly (5.8.13), exhausted (5.8.14-15) and restingsoldiers (5.8.16). The incidentof thebeating obviously falls intothe turbulent crossing of the Hini valley which the narratorreports in 4.5.7-22. As Xenophon mentions, the army was short of food (5.8.3~4.5.21) as well as under pressurefrom attacking enemies (5.8.3-4.5.12). Some soldiers were so exhaustedand demoralizedthat they refused to marchon (5.8.3-4.5.15). More specifi- cally,Xenophon's explanationthat he had to stirup soldiersbecause those restingwere in danger of freezingand losing theirtoes (5.8.15) harksback to thenarrator's report that some soldierslost their toes and that only permanentmovement saved the others from this fate (4.5.12-13). However, the specific episode under scrutinyin 5.8.1-12 is not part of the narrativewhich containsonly a generalreference to Xenophon's attemptsto discipline his men (4.5.16): 'When

24 23The analepsis refers back to an eventwhich falls On thispassage, see Rood (2004b)210, who inthe time of the main narrative (internal) and belongs to pointsout thatit undercutsthe triumphalism of the itsmain plot (homo-diegetic); cf.Genette (1972) 90-92. journeyback.

This content downloaded from 192.122.237.41 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:52:30 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions XENOPHON' S ANABASIS FROM CHARACTER TO NARRATOR 29

Xenophon came by withthe rearguardand saw them,he begged and imploredthem, using every device and resourceat his disposal, not to fall behind'. The narratordoes not explicitlymention physicalviolence, but it is obvious thatit falls underthe 'devices and resourcesat his disposal'. We can thussay that,in providingnew details,the character'sanalepsis fleshesout the summary of the main narrative- it is a completinginternal homo-diegetic analepsis.25 In some cases, Xenophon narratesevents thatdo not figurein the narrativeat all. A striking example comes rightbefore the passage that I have just discussed. Ironically,the accusation againstwhich Xenophon has to defendhimself is partof a set of tribunalsfor which Xenophon himselfhas paved the way. Afterrejecting rumours that he intendsto lead the army back to Phasis, Xenophon alertsthe soldiers to the dangers of anarchyand relates an incidentthat took place at Cerasus (5.7.5-33): withoutanybody knowing,Clearetus and his messmates triedto conquer one of the places of the Cerasuntiansnearby. They failed, however, and only a few managed to escape. The survivorsthen lynched three elders sentto Cerasus to inquireabout the incident.After that, ambassadors fromCerasus came to theGreek armyand informedthem about whathad happened. While theywere discussingthe burial of thedead Greeks,a groupof soldiers in turmoil,shouting 'Beat, beat, throw,throw', passed, and, given theirexperiences in Cerasus, the ambassadors retreatedto the ships. As Xenophon figuredout, the core of the shouting soldierswere upset about the agoranomoi and others,for reasons of theirown, had joined them. When theysaw the agoranomos Zelarchus go to the sea, theystormed towards him and thereby furtherscared the Cerasuntianswho thoughtthat they were the object of the aggression. Their fear,it turnedout, was not unjustified- finally,they were attackedand some of themdrowned. Xenophon's plea to end this sort of anarchy and to re-establishlaw and order leads to the tribunalsin which he himselfis accused. Xenophon's speech offersa grippingaccount as well as a sharp analysis of the consequences of lawlessness for communities,26but what interestsme most here is thatClearetus' enterprise and the ensuing events do not formpart of the authorialnarrative. Xenophon does not merely add details to events covered by the narrative,but his internalanalepsis fills a paralipsis leftby the narrator.27In otherwords, the narratoremploys Xenophon as an internalnarrator for events thathe does not report. The use of embedded narratorsis quite common in ancient historiography,but has a special ring in the Anabasis , as the extensivenarratorial function of Xenophon subtlyand implicitlyundermines the strictseparation of the narratorialpersona fromXenophon the character. This share of narrativelabour has a furthertwist which comes to light if we look at the paralipsis. As Xenophon remarks,Clearetus goes on his expeditionwhen the Greeks are about to leave Cerasus. At Cerasus, the Greeks make a body count,which lets the narratorgive a very briefsummary:

Whilethey were there, they conducted a reviewof themen under arms and found,on countingthem, thatthere were 8,600 in total. These werethe men left alive, while the rest had been killedby their enemies,by thesnow and in a fewcases by illness(5.3.3).

25 On thecategories, see Genette(1972) 90-92. reflectiononcommunity, seealso Howland (2000), who Gray(2004) 143offers an intriguinginterpretation for comparesitwith Plato's Republic ; on the Ten Thousand thenew information given by Xenophon: 'The primary as a polis-like community, seeNussbaum (1967); Dalby narratorhad no needfor such defence and this perhaps (1992);Hornblower (2004), who views them against the showsthe degreeto whichhe is objectiveabout backgroundof whatwe knowabout other armies in Xenophon'. ClassicalGreece. Zb Dillery(1995) 59-98, who suggests reading the 27Cf. Rood (2007a) 161-62. Genette (1972) 92-93 Anabasisas 'a studyof the evolution and decay of what definesa paralipsisas an omissionnot of a whole wasan idealXenophontic community ora utopia'(63), episode,but of certain aspects of an episode which itself callsit a 'textbookcase' (82). On theAnabasis as a is coveredby the narrative.

This content downloaded from 192.122.237.41 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:52:30 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 30 GRETHLEIN

This retrospectiveis followed by a prolepsis, as the spoils promptthe narratorto map out Xenophon's futurelife (5.3.5-13). Part of the tenthhe investedin a votive dedicationat Delphi to honourApollo, while he leftthe rest,destined for Artemis, with her priestat Ephesus,28before he joined Agesilaus. Afterhis return,the Spartans gave him some land in Scillus where he erected a temenos for Artemis, modelling the temple after the Artemis temple at Ephesus. Besides giving us insightsinto Xenophon's life, this passage has importantfunctions in the narrative. The descriptionof Scillus, its rich vegetation and wealth of domestic and wild animals, and the bucolic life, includingfestivals and hunts,sets up a starkcontrast to the toils of Xenophon and his men on theirretreat.29 Moreover, the idyllic settingconveys the feelingof tranquillityand home for which the Greeks strive - in vain, as their desire for a nostos encountersever new hindrancesand is not even fulfilledat the end since the conclusion remains open.30 Taken togetherwith Xenophon's reportof Clearetus' disaster,the Scillus-eAp/zras/sillustrates the close entanglementof the narratorwith Xenophon. The place where Xenophon's reportof Clearetus' disasterwould belong in thenarrator's account is takenby a far-reachingprolepsis into the life of Xenophon. Xenophon thus fillsa gap in the narrativethat the narratorused to inform the reader about his future. The character'snarratorial function complements, and is comple- mentedby, the narrator'sinterest in the character.The relationshipbetween historians and main charactershas attractedsome attention;it has been explored, forexample, how in the Histories the scientificand historical interestsof Eastern kings parallel Herodotus' inquiry.31 While Herodotusaccentuates differences that throw into relief his own practice,the interactionbetween Xenophon the characterand Xenophon the narratoris tighterand more intense. It is particularly strikinghow the charactersupplements the account of the narrator.

III. Xenophon as commentator Xenophon's prominenceas embedded narratoris closely linked to his functionas the central internalcommentator. It is particularlythis function that undermines the separationof character and narrator.32The Xenophonticnarrator is similarto the Thucydideannarrator in his reticence about narratorialinterventions and comments.33At the same time, in both authors' works the speeches offerassessments at the level of the action. Yet, while Thucydidesconfronts his reader with complex debates evading clear-cut answers, the reader of the Anabasis can rely on the evaluations given by Xenophon, as when, in the passage just discussed, he criticallyanalyses the army'stendency towards anarchy (5.7.13-33). The prominenceof Xenophon as a commen- tatoris already feltright after his introductioninto the narrative. Whereas the narratorgives only fiveparagraphs to Cheirisophus'speech (3.2.2-6), he grants25 paragraphsto Xenophon to assess the situationin which the Greeks find themselves afterthe assault on their generals (3.2.8-32).

28Megabyzus is notan individual name, but the title sonal and periphrastic,and alreadyimplies future ofthe priests of the Ephesian Artemis, cf. Lendle ( 1 995) absence'(341). ad 5.3.5/6. 311 am grateful toone of the anonymous readers for 29Dillery (1995) 90 suggestsfurther that 'perhaps drawingmy attention tothis comparison. On Herodotus the quietand orderedlife we see in thisbucolic andEastern kings, see Christ(1994); on Xerxesas a descriptionis a capsuleor miniature ofthe life he had failedhistorian, see Grethlein(2009) 205-15. 32 hopedto lead as a prominentsettler leader in Asia. Gray(2004) 132notes that 'sometimes we hear Scillus,like Cotyora and PortCalpe, is describedin the Xenophon-characterevaluating in the narrator's glowingterms - a placeblessed by nature'. place',but she onlymentions 6.5.18 and 7.7.23,and 30Cf. Ma (2004)334, who also points out that not doesnot elaborate on this observation. 33 evenScillus offers a stable place, since its description is Cf Marincola(1997) 10. See,however, the quali- inthe past tense and the inscription which the narrator ficationsof Gray (2003). quotesat the end of the digression 'is curiouslyimper-

This content downloaded from 192.122.237.41 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:52:30 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions XENOPHON'S ANABASIS FROM CHARACTER TO NARRATOR 3 1

Later on, when the Greeks march throughArmenia, they encounterChalybes, Taochoe and Phasianoe. Instead of confrontingthem in an open battle,the Cyreansdecide to capturethe high groundquickly and surprisethem. This strategymay seem less thanheroic, but Xenophon wittily justifies it by calling it Kta)7tr|and invokingthe importanceof kà,87tu81Vin Spartan education (4.6.14-15). Cheirisophus'reply, that 'Well, what I have heard is thatyou Atheniansare skilled at stealingyour public funds' (4.6.16), not only adds furtherwit, but also bringsin the Sparta- Athens dichotomy,a theme that resonates in the narrativetime and again. From the angle pursuedhere, it is noteworthythat the narratorhas Xenophon voice a judgementon the strategy of the Greeks and therebydissipate the reader's potentialdoubts about its heroic character. In additionto dominatingthe action,Xenophon also comes to the foreas commentator. While in these examples Xenophon considersthe currentsituation, there are otherpassages in whichhe commentson past eventsand therebytakes up a historian-likestance. Xenophon's first militaryaction in theAnabasis is less thanfortunate (3.3.6-1 1). Aftercrossing the riverZapate, Mithradatesand his cavalryattack the Greeks withbows and slings. Xenophon decides to pursue them,but the lack of horses renderstheir effort ineffective and, on theirretreat, the Persians manage to hit furtherGreeks. Xenophon accepts the critiquethat he put his men at risk forno good reason and adds: 'We should thankthe gods thatthey did not come witha strongforce, but withfew men, so thatthey did not hurtus too badly while showingus where our deficiencieslie' (3.3.14). Of course, as the invocationof the gods reveals, this is firstof all an expressionof relief,but at the same timethe commentdraws the reader's attentionto the dangerof the situation.Had the enemies been more numerous,the consequences would have been disastrous. Such counter- factualswhich elucidate otherpossible outcomes are typical of historianswho use them to re- establishthe openness of the momentfor the historicalprotagonists, something that gets easily lost in retrospect.34To give an example fromthe Anabasis , afterdescribing an unexpectedattack by Kurds,the narrator adds: 'If the Carduchianband had been larger,a substantialnumber of men would probablyhave been killed' (4. 1. II).35 The lesson which Xenophon deduces forthe future does not have a counterpartin the narrator'scounterfactual and drives home the difference between characterand historian,but the parallel musing on an alternativescenario nonetheless underscoreshow the commentsand reflectionswhich Xenophon makes at the level of the action are similarto those made by historiansin theirown voice.36 The most extensiveevaluations given by Xenophon referto his own actions. I have already discussed his defenceagainst the accusation of hubris(5.8.1-26). Afterclarifying the accusation of the anonymous soldier, Xenophon justifies his beating of unruly,exhausted and resting soldiers in general. These disciplinarymeasures, he argues, were in the best interestof the beaten, who, only thanksto the chastisement,are now able to accuse him and who therefore should be as gratefulto him as childrenare to theirparents and teachers(5.8.17-18). Xenophon presents a second lengthyjustification during the expedition with Seuthes (7.6.11-38). Aftersubjugating parts of the coastline of the Propontis,the armycamps northof Selymbriafor nearly two months. Xenophon comes more and more underpressure, as Seuthes withdrawshis favourand simultaneouslythe soldiers complain about not receivingtheir pay. In this situation,envoys fromthe Spartan general Thibron come and ask the mercenariesto join theirexpedition against Tissaphernes. When an assembly is gathered,an anonymousArcadian

34 On counterfactualsin Thucydides, see Flory 35For another counterfactual, see 1.3.2. (1988). Examplesof thisuse of counterfactualsby 36The passages in whichXenophon emerges as a modernhistorians can be foundin Ferguson (1997) and commentatoralso includehis discussionwith envoys Brodersen(2000), the latter on ancienthistory. On the fromSinope, in which he justifies the fact that his men importanceofvirtual history for historical explanation, violentlyentered their apoikia Cotyora (5.5.13-23). seePelling (forthcoming).

This content downloaded from 192.122.237.41 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:52:30 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 32 GRETHLEIN slandersXenophon, who, he claims, is responsiblefor the armynot havingjoined the Spartansa long time ago, but has insteadbrought the armyhere and been made rich by Seuthes while the soldiershave been waitingfor their money in vain. On account of this,Xenophon deservesdeath throughstoning (7.6.9-10). Againstthis accusation, Xenophon deliversa lengthyspeech in which he reviewsthe decision to join Seuthes and also his own conductin general. At the beginning,he pointsout thathe first rejectedSeuthes' attemptsto persuade him to lead the armyto him (7.6.12) and thatonly when Aristarchushindered them from sailing back to Asia did he have the armyconsider Seuthes' offer as an alternativeto Aristarchus'order to go to the Chersonese. The Cyreans themselvesdecided to join Seuthes (7.6.14). The mentionof his presentuneasy relationwith Seuthes then leads Xenophon to a vehementrejection of the claim thathe has been corruptedby giftsfrom Seuthes (7.6.15-20). Xenophon's presentationessentially matches that of the narrative:when Seuthes firstapproaches him and offershim a rewardif he leads the armyover the Hellespont,Xenophon replies thathe will do this anyway and that there is no need for gifts(7.1.5). Later, Seuthes approaches him a second time asking him to join his expedition,but Xenophon turnshim down (7.2.12). Only when Aristarchusdeprives the Greeks of the possibilityof sailing back does Xenophon have the armydecide on Seuthes' plan (7.2.15). A review of this chain of actions in the firstactual encounterbetween Xenophon and Seuthes makes sure thatit sticksin the reader's memory,who can therebyverify the truthof Xenophon's account (7.2.24-28). It divergesfrom the narrativein one minorpoint only. While he claims thatSeuthes sent 'many envoys' to him, the narratorreports only a single embassy thattried to secure the services of the Greek mercenaries (7.2.10). It is hard to decide if Xenophon refersto furtherapproaches which are glossed over in thenarrative or ifhe exaggerateshis steadfastnessfor rhetorical purposes, but even in this case the deviationis too slightto undercuthis claims seriously. Xenophon thendefends the decision to join Seuthes (7.6.24-32). His arguments,notably the necessityto stay,the winter,the difficultiesin providingfood and the threatof a countryfull of enemies,correspond closely to the situationthat we findin the narrative(7.3.5, cf.7.2.15). What is more,these are the veryreasons thatprompted the soldiers to agree to join Seuthes:

Afterthis the floor was givento anyonewho wanted to speak,and quitea fewpeople voiced the same view,that Seuthes' proposals were exactly what they needed: now that it was winter,those who wanted to sail backhome could not do so; therewas no waythey could survive in friendlyterritory ifthey had to buythe necessities of life;and it wouldbe saferfor them to spendtime and gettheir food in hostile territorywith Seuthes than on theirown. The factthat they were going to getpaid, on topof all these advantages,was generallyheld to be a luckybonus (7.3.13).

Strikingly,the soldiers' point thatthey would benefitfrom a mere alliance with Seuthes and thatpay was only a 'lucky bonus', is echoed twice by Xenophon:

Since thiswas thepredicament you foundyourself in, even if I'd arrangedan alliancewith Seuthes withoutdemanding any pay whatsoever,would you have thoughtthat I was failingto takeyour best interestsinto consideration? ... Now,if the person who gave youthis security didn't also pay youwell forit, is thatso terriblea disaster?(7.6.27-30).

In a furtherstep, Xenophon draws attentionto his servicesto the armyin general. He sketches his presentsituation in sombrecolours - he is slanderedin frontof the Spartans, despised by thearmy and an enemyof Seuthes (7.6.34-35) - and contrastsit withall his toilingfor the armyand their sharedsuccesses (7.6.36). Thanksto these,the soldiersare now freeto go whereverthey want to, by land or by sea, and have just been asked to join the powerfulSpartans (7.6.37). Theirpresent ingratitudetowards him is throwninto stark relief by theirattachment to himin toughtimes (7.6.38).

This content downloaded from 192.122.237.41 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:52:30 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions XENOPHON'S ANABASIS FROM CHARACTER TO NARRATOR 33

The two apologetic speeches of Xenophon are firmlyembedded in the plot of the Anabasis. In both situations,Xenophon's leadershipis forcefullychallenged, and even his life is threatened. At the same time, the speeches offerthe reader evaluations of Xenophon - a review of his conductis integratedinto the action of theAnabasis. This internalevaluation which is presented by Xenophon himselfis corroboratedby its persuasive power in the action as well as by corre- spondenceswith the preceding narrative. In the firstscene, the crowdjudges thatthe anonymous victim of Xenophon's beating deserved more (5.8.12) and, in the second, Xenophon receives support from the Spartan Charminus and the anger of the mercenaries is turned against Heraclides (7.6.39-41). The narrativefunction of Xenophon's apologetic speeches as assessments of his person becomes even clearer if we take into account thatthey parallel the evaluations thatthe narrator gives of Cyrus (1.9) and the generals killed by Tissaphernes(2.6).37 In both cases, the conduct of charactersis retrospectivelyjudged in thenarrative. However, the apologetic speeches transfer the evaluation fromthe extra-diegeticto the intra-diegeticlevel and attributeit to the character himself. The parallel between Xenophon's and the narrator'sreviews is underscoredby the focus on the same points. In his defence against the accusation of hubris, Xenophon justifieshis way of discipliningsoldiers (5.8.2-26). The treatmentof soldiers is prominentin the narrator'sassess- ments of Clearchus (2.6.9-10) and Proxenus (2.6.19-20). While the firstwas known for his toughness,the second was only able to handle exemplarysoldiers, because he lacked the ability to punish. At firstsight, Xenophon's attitude seems to be similar to that of Clearchus.38 However, unlike Xenophon, Clearchus is said to have applied violence in anger,an accusation whichXenophon vehementlyrejects (5.8.19). Moreover,their goals were different.Whereas the narratorstates that Clearchus aimed at creatinga generalfeeling of fearin the soldiers- 'a soldier had to be more frightenedof his commandingofficer than of the enemy' (2.6.10) - Xenophon claims to apply violence specificallyto save his soldiers' lives (for example, 5.8.13, 5.8.16). Despite these differences,both were popular with the troops in tough times, but lost their supportwhen the soldiers faredwell (2.6.11-12, 7.6.38, cf. 5.8.25). The same comparison,albeit withdifferent accentuation, is used to express the soldiers' relationto Xenophon and Clearchus. Xenophon compares himselfimplicitly to a fatheror teacherwhen he argues thathe should be held accountable forhis beatingsin the same way thatparents or teachersare (5.8.18). Later he claims that in tough times the soldiers called him a father(7.6.38). In Clearchus' case, the relationbetween pupil and teacheris used to illustratehow the soldiers coped withhis roughness when theywere underpressure, but that,due to his unpleasantnature, he was unpopularin good times (2.6.12). Anotherpoint addressed by Xenophon in his second apologetic speech thatwe also findin the narrator'sassessment of the Greek leaders is interestin wealth. Xenophon emphasizes thathe did not accept the generousgifts offered by Seuthes.39By the same token,the narratornotes that

37On theevaluation of Clearchus,see Roisman as hardas he did'. In thesame vein, Xenophon jumps (1985/1988),who argues that there are tensions between fromhis horse to marchwith his soldiers (3.4.47^8), Clearchus'role in the narrative and his evaluation, and andis thefirst to make fire when the Greeks are snowed Braun(2004) 97-107,who sees in hima 'dangerous under(4.4. 12). Xenophonand Clearchus are also juxta- liaison'.For a differenttake, see Tritle (2004). Onthe posedby the followingecho. Cheirisophuspraises obituaryfor Cyrus, see Sage (1991),who explores its Xenophon(3.1.45): 'I wishwe hada lotmore men like relationto the Cyropaedia , and Braun (2004) 107-30. you'. In 3.2.31,Xenophon himself says: 'From today 38 Thereare furthernotable similarities between theywill see not one but ten thousand Clearchuses, who Clearchusand Xenophon. In 2.3.11-12Clearchus not willprevent the slightest infringement'. onlypunishes those mercenaries who are lazy, but 'at 39 Azoulay (2004) 291-95 elaborateson the thesame time, he wouldstep into the mud himself and narrativeefforts in theAnabasis to clearXenophon of lenda hand,which shamed everyone into working just theaccusation of bribery.

This content downloaded from 192.122.237.41 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:52:30 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 34 GRETHLEIN

Clearchus' interestin material gains was small compared to his infatuationwith war (2.6.6), whereas Menon, who receives an extremelynegative evaluation, is said to have had a strong desire forriches (2.6.21). These similaritiesdraw our attentionto the parallel between the narratorialevaluations and Xenophon's justificationspeeches, and reveal thatthe latter,in additionto theirfunction in the plot, offerthe reader an assessmentof the main character. It is strikingthat the evaluationsby the narratorare in the firsttwo books and thereforeoccur before Xenophon entersthe plot. Xenophon thus not only becomes the main characterof the rest of the narrative,but also takes over fromthe narratorthe functionof giving an evaluation of the main character(s). The strict separationof narratorand characteris silentlyundercut by the narratorialfunctions fulfilled by Xenophon. The simultaneous appearance of Xenophon and furtherretreat of the narratorfrom the surfaceof his narrativecan also be noted in otherregards. P.J.Bradley observes thatthe first- person interventionsand othernarratorial intrusions are nearly exclusively limitedto the first two books.40 He interpretsthe strongervisibility of the narratorat the beginningas the attempt to establish a narratorialpersona. While Bradley ignores some narratorialintrusions,41 his observation is rightin general and ties in nicely with my interpretationof the evaluations. Strikingly,the fourinstances of narratorialego which Bradley notes all come in the narrator's assessmentsof Cyrus and Clearchus. The strongerprominence of the narratorat the beginning not only serves to lay out the persona of the narrator,but his greaterreticence in the following books may also be linkedto the dominance of a characterwho takes over some of the functions of the narrator.42 The similarityof Xenophon as a commentatorto thenarrator is also strikingin his long speech to Seuthes with which he persuades the Thracian king to fulfil his promises to the army (7.7.20-47). Xenophon emphasizes the need to reciprocatefavours (7.7.23) and points out that trustworthinessand reliabilitypay off:43

It'splain to me thatthe shifty words of untrustworthy men have no purpose,authority or value, whereas thewords of those who areknown for their cultivation of truthare as effectiveas thephysical strength of othersat gettingthem whatever they want (7.7.24).

Exactly the same appreciationof trustworthiness,connected with an emphasis on the benefits to be gained fromit, can be foundin the narrator'scomment on Cyrus:44

... he demonstrated,first, that the qualityhe held mostimportant when he was makinga treatyor enteringinto a contractor making a promisewas hisown personal integrity. This is whythe cities here trustedhim and put themselves into his hands,and why individuals trusted him too (1.9.7-8).

40Bradley (2001) 70-72. See also Gray(2003) 42To Bradley's claim that 'by muting the explicit "I" 111-15on first-person interventions. of his narratorialpersonality, the narrator removes a 41 For example,citations, as discussedby Gray barrierbetween himself and thereader' (2001) 72, I (2003)115-22, also constitute narratorial interventions. wouldadd that the character Xenophon takes over large See,for example, 3.4.11, 7.2.5. However,the majority partsof the mediating function. ofthe citations, most of which are anonymous anyway, 43The emphasis on trustworthiness andreliability is comein thefirst two books. Anotherdevice which balancedby the great role of deceit in the action. See, makesthe presence of thenarrator felt is thepresen- forexample, Wencis (1977/1978) on imo'|/ia. 44 tationof diverging accounts. See, for example, 7.1.14. On parallelsbetween Xenophon's justification Fora discussionof what constitutes a narratorial inter- andearlier judgements on charactersin thenarrative, vention,see Gribble (1998) 47. see alsoHirsch (1985) 35-36.

This content downloaded from 192.122.237.41 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:52:30 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions XENOPHON'S ANABASIS FROM CHARACTER TO NARRATOR 35

Cyrus' generosityand his strivingto returnall favoursand to supporthis friendsare at thecore of his obituary(1.9.20-28). The benefitsof this attitudecome to the fore even in his failed attemptto overpowerthe king: many Persians change fromthe king's camp to his camp, while converselyOrontas is the only Persian to betrayhim forthe king. Withthe exceptionof Ariaeus, who commanded the cavalry,all his friendsand followersdie for him in the Battle of Cunaxa (1.9.29-31). The similaritybetween Xenophon's reflections and the narrator's evaluation of Cyrus reinforcesthe juxtaposition of the two barbarianprinces, who bothengage Greek mercenariesfor quick and clandestineoperations in orderto win what theyconsider to be rightfullytheirs.45 The parallel underscoresthe feelingthat the armyhas moved in a circle.46 For my argument,it is crucial that,once more, Xenophon makes commentsreminiscent of those made by the narrator. Xenophon adds to his reflectionson trustand reciprocitythe followingstatement about values:

It is my view,Seuthes, that there's no possessionwhich brings greater honour and gloryto a man, especiallyif he's in a positionof leadership,than courage, justice and generosity.The man who possessesthese qualities is richnot just becauseof all his friends,but because there are alwaysothers who would like to become his friends.If he does well, he's surroundedby people who sharehis pleasure,and ifhe meetswith a setback,he's notshort of peopleto helphim out (7.7.41-42).

It is not difficultto see thatXenophon here voices the very value systemthat underlies the narrator'sevaluations of Cyrus and the Greek generals - virtue,justice and nobilitytrump materialpossessions. The high degree of abstractionand its place at the end of the narrative make this statement,together with the reflectionon trustand reciprocity,into somethingthat is close to a concludingcomment on the marchof the Ten Thousand.47 The factthat this comment is voiced by Xenophon is emblematicof a narrativein which thischaracter has takenover signif- icant narratorialfunctions, particularly the task of judging, fromthe retreatingnarrator.48

IV. Xenophon and history In a final step, I would like to touch upon a parallel between Xenophon the characterand Xenophonthe narrator. A sharedinterest in thepast adds anotherfacet to themanifold interaction betweennarrator and characterwhose use of history,I suggest,can be read as meta-historical,i.e. as providingan implicitcomment on how to read theAnabasis*9 The entanglementof character withnarrator may be less obvious than in Xenophon's activitiesas focalizing instance,narrator and commentator,but, given its intricacy,is at least worthconsidering. It is strikinghow oftenXenophon invokesthe past, includingboth Greece's historyin the fifth centuryBC and morerecent events.50 Xenophon also employsvocabulary that is typicalof historians,for example when he refersto the victoryof the Greeks over Xerxes:

45 The similaritiescan be speltout further.As he sounds like a 'mouthpiecefor the narrator Howland(2000) 882-83 points out, just as Cyrusdoes, Xenophon'. 49 Seuthes'makes promises of payand territory that he Forsimilar interpretations, see the contributions ultimatelycannot (or will not) fulfil'. Moreover, both toGrethlein and Krebs (2012): ancient historians often liketo share their food (1.9.25-26, 7.3.22). usereferences tothe thatis a anteriorto 46 'plu-past', past Cf.Lossau (1990) 51; Howland(2000) 878; Ma thepast narrated by the historian, toshed light on their (2004)335. ownwork. inthe Anabasis have 47 Meta-literaryaspects Onthe open closure of the Anabasis , see Bradley alreadybeen noticed by Rood (2004a) 318. 50 (2001)81-83; Tuplin (2003) 129, who speaks of 'partial In additionto the examples discussed above, see closure';Purves (2010) 191. thenumerous frombook 7: 7.1.26-27,7.6.24, 48 passages Rood(2007b) 61, elaborating on Xenophonand 7.6.37-38,7.7.25-27. theadvice he gives at the end of the Anabasis , notes that

This content downloaded from 192.122.237.41 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:52:30 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 36 GRETHLEIN

The trophiesstill stand, as visibleproof (xEK|if]pia) of theirprowess, but the most important evidence (paptúpiov)is thefreedom of thecities where you were born and raised(3.2.13).

Xenophonnot only sharesthe historians' interest in proofs,but both T£K|if|piov and (¿aptúpiov are firmlyestablished terms for evidence in historiography,the formeralso being used by the narratorof theAnabasis himself(1.9.30; see also Hell. 5.2.7).51 Of course, recallingthe past in a speech or conversationis differentfrom writing history, but the character'shistorian-like take on the past invitesa comparisonof his referencesto the past with the Anabasis as a historical account. Let us brieflylook at two appeals made to the soldiers to recall past battles. I have already mentionedXenophon's firstspeech in the assembly,which recalls to the mercenaries' mindsthe victoriesin the Persian Wars:

I'm goingto remind(

The past serves as a model forthe presentin a normativeas well as a descriptiveway - the braveryof the ancestors obliges the Greeks and, at the same time, their success against the Persian masses illustratethat they have a chance of survival. In Bithynia,Xenophon addresses his men to prepare them for battle after crossing a ravine (6.5.23): 'Men, remember (àvam|j.vf|OKeo0s)all the major battlesin which you have engaged the enemyand defeatedthem with the help of the gods and rememberwhat happens to those who flee fromtheir foes'. Xenophon here invokes the past of the Cyreans as a model fortheir performance in the present situation:they have become theirown exemplum. Needless to say, such appeals are a commonplace in the battlenarratives of ancienthistoriog- raphy,but I thinkthat they have special significancein theAnabasis. In 6.5.24, Xenophon closes his exhortatoryspeech: 'It is sweet thatwhoever says or does now somethingmanly and beautiful creates a memory(|ivf||xr|v) of himselfin the thingshe wants to'. Afterinvoking the past as a model forthe present,Xenophon envisages the memoryof the Ten Thousand in times to come. His promise can be read as a metalepsis in which the narratorhas a character(here uncon- sciously) referto the narrativeof which he is part- theAnabasis itselfis the ^ivf](ir|of the march of the Ten Thousand.52 The use of the same stem,|j.vr||x-, for Xenophon's acts of memoryand, implicitly,the Anabasis' narrativeunderscores their similarityand suggests a meta-historical reading:Xenophon's use of the past can be read as an implicitmirror of how theAnabasis ought to be read. Justas Xenophon evokes models of the past, the Anabasis offersexempla for emulation. Such an interpretationseems to be confirmedby the receptionhistory of the marchof the Ten Thousand. The thesis that Xenophon wrote the Anabasis as a plea for a new pan-hellenic expeditionto Asia may be open to challenge,53but the deploymentof Xenophon and the Greek mercenariesas a positive model is well attested. In the Hellenica, for example, Lysander persuades Agesilaus to undertakean expedition to Asia, 'thinkingthat the Greeks would be superioron the sea, and takinginto account the land forcethat had gone up countrywith Cyrus, how it was saved' (3.4.2).54 Polybius startshis assessment of Alexander's decision to attack Persia (3.6.10): 'The firstcause was the returnof the Greeks with Xenophon fromthe upper satrapies,in which none of the barbariansdared to face themalthough they traversed the whole ofAsia, which was hostileto them'. In Arrian's Anabasis, Alexanderhimself invokes Xenophon

51 53 Cf.Gray (2004) 135. Fora recentreview, see Rood (2004a). 54 52On metalepsisin ancientliterature, see de Jong See alsoJason of Pherae in Hell. 6.1.12. (2009).

This content downloaded from 192.122.237.41 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:52:30 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions XENOPHON'S ANABASIS FROM CHARACTER TO NARRATOR 37 and his men, who, withoutall the allies at his disposal, managed to defeat the Persian king (2.7.8-9). These passages do not directlyreference the Anabasis , but, given the prominence whichthe work enjoyed in antiquity,it is not too fancifulto assume thatthey at least partlyrelied on its testimony.This use of theAnabasis parallels the way in which Xenophon in theAnabasis draws upon the past. As I have pointed out, Xenophon's way of invokingthe past is hardly extraordinary,but the receptionof the Anabasis along the lines of Xenophon's use of the past corroboratesits meta-historicalcharacter. This being said, Xenophon's attitudetowards the past does not work simplyas a mirror,but also throwsinto relief the characterof theAnabasis throughtensions. At the close of the speech withwhich Xenophonjustifies the beatingof soldiers,he complains about the selective memory of the soldiers who only recall negative experiences(5.8.26): 'And yet,it is right,just, holy and sweeterto remembergood ratherthan bad things'.55Xenophon's emphasis on positive deeds as the object of memorychimes well with reflectionsfound in the Hellenica. For example, when the authormentions the successful defence of the Phliasians against the siege of theArgives, he adds (7.2.1): 'All historiansremember great cities, if theyhave achieved something.But it seems to me that,if a small city has done many great deeds, this is even worthierof presentation'.56 Thus, the commentof the characterseems to reflectthe predilectionof the narrator.At the same time,Xenophon's commentis pointedlyplaced afteran elaborationthat casts some of themerce- naries in a bad light.57 Seen fromthis perspective,Xenophon's reflectioncontrasts with the Anabasis and throwsinto relief its complex narrativetechnique: while generallyhighlighting deeds worthyof emulation,the Anabasis also featuresquestionable behaviour.58 Ironically,in this case the negative materialis introducedinto the narrativeby the characterwho argues in favourof rememberinggood deeds. The relationbetween the Anabasis and Xenophon's commentson memoryand the past is multi-faceted. While Xenophon's use of the past as a model for emulation prefiguresthe receptionof the Anabasis , his thoughtson memorydo not always map easily onto its narrative and provoke the reader to furtherreflection. The meta-historicalsignificance for which I have argued adds a particularlycomplex point to the interactionbetween characterand narratorthat unfoldsbeneath their neat separation:one of the reasons why the functionof theAnabasis is still discussed59is that it is very poor in explicit narratorialreflections.60 At the same time, the character's use of the past and comments on memoryprovide an implicit discussion of the Anabasis and its commemorationof the marchof the Ten Thousand.

V. Conclusion Althoughhe had participatedin the marchof the Ten Thousand, Xenophon chose forhis account of it a hetero-diegeticnarrator who is distinctfrom his own characterand holds back withnarra- torialintrusions. Following Plutarch'slead, scholarshave pointedout thatthe choice of a hetero- diegeticnarrator makes the positive presentationof his own deeds more credible. My readingof the Anabasis can draw our attentionto anotheraspect of its narratorialpersona. I have argued thatthe perspective of Xenophon the characterpervades the narrativethrough focalization and at a more subtle level, as when the narratoradopts his interestin potentialplaces fora colony,and that,on the otherhand, throughembedded narratives,comments and meta-historicalreflections,

55 Rood (2007b) 55 notesthe similaritywith 59See, forexample, on theapologetic tendency of complaintsof the ThucydideanPericles about the the Anabasis, Dürrbach(1893); Erbse (1966); selectivememory of the Athenians. Waterfield(2006) 190. Rood (2004a) 322 notesa 56 Forfurther passages, see Gray (2003) 112-15. 'slighttension between the claim that Xenophon does 3' I owethis point to one of the anonymous readers. exaggeratehis influenceand the claim thathe is 58 Gray(1989) 31-32,47^48 notesXenophon's defendinghimself'. See also thediscussion of Tuplin tendencyinthe Hellenica to throw into relief good moral (2003) 154. achievementthrough a contrast with negative cases. 60Cf. Rood (2007a) 152.

This content downloaded from 192.122.237.41 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:52:30 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 38 GRETHLEIN

Xenophon fulfilssignificant narratorial functions. This entanglementof narratorand character underthe surfaceof theclean separationsuggests that the unintrusive hetero-diegetic narrator not only serves to render the narrativecredible, but also contributesto the characterizationof - Xenophon. There are some ambiguous aspects of Xenophon in additionto Socrates' rebuke, the failureof his plans to founda colony and the finalraid on a Persian noblemanmay be named here61- but on the whole the portrayalis overwhelminglypositive.62 The narratorialprivileges of Xenophon as well as the absorptionof his perspectiveby the narratorplay an importantrole in creatingthis positive presentation of Xenophon. The narrator'stendency to adopt Xenophon's perspectiveendows him withauthority, his echoes of narratorialstatements underscore his relia- bilityand his evaluationsillustrate his superiorjudgement. Needless to say,these effectsdepend on the separationof characterfrom narrator. It is the implicitblurring of the borderlinebetween the two thatcontributes to the presentationof the character. This readingties in nicely with threeobservations. First,it is noteworthythat the Hellenica as well as the Anabasis is told by a narratorwho rarelyintrudes on the narrative,but thatthe narratorialreticence in the Anabasis is greater.63It would be hard to explain this by generic differences,but it makes good sense if we take intoaccount the narratorialfunctions given to the main characterin theAnabasis. In the account of the marchof the Ten Thousand,Xenophon the narratorretreats further from the narrativeto make room forXenophon the character. Moreover,as Bradley notices,most of the few narratorialinterventions occur in the firsttwo books of the Anabasis. The factthat the virtualretreat of the narratorafter the firsttwo books convergeswith the introductionof Xenophon into the plot underscoresthat Xenophon fills the gap leftby the retreatingnarrator. This is illustratedby the parallels between Xenophon's justi- ficatoryspeeches and the narrator'sevaluation of Cyrus and the murderedgenerals forwhich I have argued in section III. Finally,Rood observes thatXenophon 'progresses fromthe impetuousyoung Athenian who ignores Socrates' advice to the hardenedgeneral who is able to act as advisor himself'.64 The impressionthat Xenophon develops in the course of theAnabasis is reinforcedby his narratorial privilegeswhich, as we have seen, increaseat the end of the narrative.It is when the mercenaries are alreadyback in Europe, duringthe expeditionwith Seuthes, that Xenophon gives the lengthy justificationspeech in whichhe reviewsnot only thedecision tojoin Seuthes,but also his general conduct (7.6.11-38). Even laterin the narrativecomes the speech in which Xenophon reflects on reliabilityin a way thatis stronglyreminiscent of the narratorin Cyrus' obituaryand makes a commenton virtuesthat reads like a conclusion to thenarrative (7.7.41-42). The impressionthat - Xenophon's personalityhas developed relies not so much on his role in the plot afterall, he loses more and more of the favourof the mercenariesand stands withhis back to the wall - as on his increased activityas commentator. Building on, and subtly undermining,the overt separation of narratorand character,the narratorialprivileges of Xenophon and the subtle penetrationof thenarration by his stance contributemuch to establishinghim as the centralagent in the Anabasis. Through play with voice and perspective,Xenophon, while being only a historicalagent, is endowed with some of the superioritythat is reservedfor historians, in this case Xenophon lookingback to his own past experiences.

61As Dillery(1995) 91 noteson thelatter point, Gray(2004) 136also tiesin with my thesis: the narra- 'onecannot resist noting that the episode represents the torialpersona is more secular in the Anabasis than in the verykind of independent action aimed at profit that he Hellenica,but 'his charactershowever, particularly earlierso oftendeplored'. For a morepositive evalu- Xenophon,acknowledge the role of thegods in their ationof theepisode, see Azoulay(2004) 303. On affairsinstead'. 64 criticalaspects of Xenophon'spresentation in the Rood (2007a) 162. Cf.Howland (2000) 876. Anabasis,see Higgins(1977) 93-98. See,however, Tuplin (2003) 149, who is scepticalabout 62See, for example, Cawkwell (2004) 59. thedevelopment thesis. 63Cf. Gray (2004) 132. Anotherobservation of

This content downloaded from 192.122.237.41 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:52:30 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions XENOPHON'S ANABASIS FROM CHARACTER TO NARRATOR 39

Bibliography Azoulay,V. (2004) 'The ambitionsof a mercenary',in R.J.Lane Fox (ed.), TheLong March.Xenophon and theTen Thousand (New Haven) 289-304 Bal, M. (1985) Narratology.Introduction to theTheory of Narrative (Toronto) Bradley,RJ. (2001) 'Ironyand the narrator in Xenophon'sAnabasis' , in E. Tylawskyand C.G. Weiss(eds), Essays in Honorof GordonWilliams: Twenty-Five Years at Yale(New Haven) 59-84 Braun,T. (2004) 'Xenophon'sdangerous liaisons', in R.J.Lane Fox (ed.), TheLong March. Xenophon and theTen Thousand (New Haven) 97-130 Breitenbach,H.R. (1967) "Xenophon',Paulys Realencyclopädieder classischenAltertumswissenschaft 9.2, 1569-2052 Brodersen,K. (2000) VirtuelleAntike. Wendepunkte der Alten Geschichte (Darmstadt) Cawkwell,G. (2004) 'When,how and why did Xenophon write the AnabasisT , in R.J.Lane Fox (ed.), The LongMarch. Xenophon and theTen Thousand (New Haven) 47-67 Christ,M.R. (1994) 'Herodoteankings and historicalinquiry', ClAnt 13, 167-202 Dalby,A. (1992) 'Greeksabroad. Social organisationand foodamong the Ten Thousand', JHS 112,16-30 de Jong,I. (1987) Narratorsand Focalizers: ThePresentation of the Story in theIliad (Amsterdam) - (1991) Narrativein Drama: TheArt of Euripidean Messenger-Speech (Leiden) - (2009) 'Metalepsisin ancientGreek literature', in J.Grethlein and A. Rengakos(eds), Narratology and Interpretation.The Contentof the Form in Ancient Literature (Berlin and New York)87-1 16 Dewald,C. (1987) 'Narrativesurface and authorialvoice in Herodotus'Histories' , Arethusa20, 147-70 - (2002) "'I didn'tgive myown genealogy":Herodotus and theauthorial persona', in E. Bakker,I. de Jongand H. van Wees (eds), Brill's Companionto Herodotus(Leiden) 267-89 Dillery,J. (1995) Xenophonand theHistory of his Times(London) Dorati,M. (2007) 'Alcuneambiguità del narratoredell' Anabasi',QUCC 85.1, 105-13 Dürrbach,F. (1893) 'L'Apologiede Xénophondans '' Anabase',REG 6, 343-86 Erbse,H. (1966) 'XenophonsAnabasis', Gymnasium 73, 485-505 FergusonN. (ed.) (1997) VirtualHistory. Alternatives and Counterfactuals(London) Flory,S. (1988) 'Thucydides'hypotheses about the Peloponnesian War', TAPhA118, 43-56 Genette,G. (1972) FiguresIII (Paris) Görler,W. (1976) 'Die Veränderungdes Erzählstandpunktesin Caesars Bellum Gallicum ', Poetica 8, 95- 119 Gray,V. (1989) TheCharacter of Xenophon s Hellenica(London) - (2003) 'Interventionsand citationsin Xenophon,Hellenica and Anabasis', CO 53.1, 111-23 - (2004) 'Xenophon',in I. de Jong,R. Niinlistand A.M. Bowie (eds), Narrators, Narratees, and Narrativesin Ancient Greek Literature (Leiden) 129^6 Grethlein,J. (2006) 'The Unthucydideanvoice of Sallust',TAPhA 138, 299-327 - (2009) 'How notto do history.Xerxes in Herodotus'Histories', AJPh 130, 195-218 Grethlein,J. and Krebs, C. (eds) (2012) Timeand Narrativein Ancient Historiography. The 'Plupas t 'from Herodotusto Appian (Cambridge) Gribble,D. (1998) 'Narratorinterventions in Thucydides', JHS 118,41-67 Higgins,W.E. (1977) Xenophonthe Athenian: The Problem of theIndividual and theSociety of the Polis (Albany) Hirsch,S.W. (1985) TheFriendship of the Barbarian. Xenophon and thePersian Empire (Hanover) Hornblower,S. (2004) "'This was decided"(sõoÇs xauxa). The armyas polis in Xenophon'sAnabasis - and elsewhere',in R.J. Lane Fox (ed.), The Long March.Xenophon and the Ten Thousand(New Haven)243-63 Howland,J. (2000) 'Xenophon'sphilosophic Odyssey. On theAnabasis and Plato'sRepublic', American PoliticalScience Review 94.4, 875-89 Kraus,C.S. (1994) Livy.Ab urbecondita. Book VI (Cambridge) Lendle,O. (1995) Kommentarzu XenophonsAnabasis (Darmstadt) Lossau,M. (1990) 'XenophonsOdyssee', A&A 36, 47-52 Ma, J.(2004) 'You can'tgo homeagain: displacement and identityin Xenophon'sAnabasis', in R.J.Lane Fox (ed.), TheLong March: Xenophon and theTen Thousand (New Haven) 330-45 Marincola,J. (1997) Authorityand Traditionin Ancient Historiography (Cambridge)

This content downloaded from 192.122.237.41 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:52:30 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 40 GRETHLEIN

Nelles,W. (1990) 'Gettingfocalization into focus', Poetics Today 11, 365-82 Nenci,G. (1955) 'II motivodell'autopsia nella storiografia greca', Studi Classici e Orientali3, 22-46 Nussbaum,GB. (1967) The Ten Thousand. A Studyin Social Organisationand Actionin Xenophon's Anabasis(Leiden) Pelling,C. (forthcoming)'Historical explanation and what didn't happen: the virtues of virtual history', in A. Powell(ed.), Hindsight(Swansea) Purves,A. (2010) Space and Timein Ancient Greek Narrative (Cambridge) Reijgwart,E.J. (1993) 'Zur Erzählungin CaesarsCommentarli', Philologus 137, 18-37 Riggsby,A.M. (2006) Caesar in Gaul and Rome.War in Words(Austin) Rinner,W. (1978) 'Zur Darstellungsweisebei Xenophon,Anabasis III 1-2', Philologus122, 144-49 Roisman,J. (1985/1988) Klearchosin Xenophons Anabasis, ScriptaClassica Israelica 8/9,30-52 Rood,T. (1998) Thucvdides.Narrative and Explanation(Oxford) - (2004a) 'Panhellenismand self-presentation.Xenophon's speeches', in R.J.Lane Fox (ed.), TheLong March.Xenophon and theTen Thousand (New Haven) 305-29 - (2004b) TheSea! TheSea! TheShout of the Ten Thousand in theModern Imagination (London) - (2007a) 'Xenophon',in I. de Jongand R. Nünlist(eds), Timein AncientGreek Literature (Leiden) 147-64 - (2007b) 'Advice and advisersin Xenophon'sAnabasis' , in D.J. Spencerand E.M. Theodorakopoulos (eds),Advice and itsRhetoric in Greeceand Rome(Bari) 47-61 Rutherford,I. (1998) Canonsof Style in theAntonine Age. Idea-Theory in itsLiterary Context (Oxford) Sage,P.W. (1991) 'Tradition,genre, and characterportrayal. Cyropaedia 8.7 andAnabasis 1.9', GRBS 32, 61-79 Schepens,G. (1980) L'Autopsiedans la méthodedes historiensgrecs du Vesiècle avantJ.-C. (Brussels) Tritle,L.A. (2004) 'Xenophon'sportrait of Clearchus.A studyin post-traumaticstress disorder', in C. Tuplin(ed.), Xenophon and his World(Stuttgart) 325-39 Tuplin,C. (2003) 'Heroes in Xenophon'sAnabasis' , in A. Barzanò,C. Bearzotand F.L. Gattinoni(eds), Modellieroici dall'antichità alla culturaeuropea (Rome) 115-56 Waterneid,R. (2006) Xenophons Retreat.Greece, Persia, and theEnd of theGolden Age (Cambridge MA) Waterfield,R. and Rood,T. (2005) Xenophon.The Expedition of Cyrus(Oxford) Wencis,L. (1977/1978)'Hypopsia and thestructure of Xenophon'sAnabasis' , CJ 73, 44-49

This content downloaded from 192.122.237.41 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:52:30 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions