APPENDIX 1 WHY IS XENOPHON “THEMISTOGENĒ S OF SYRACUSE”? n the first two books of the Hellenika , Xenophon describes the end of Ithe Peloponnesian War, the rule of the Thirty Tyrants in Athens which followed the city’s defeat, and the civil war that eventually engulfed it. At the beginning of book three, he turns to the postwar period, beginning with the campaign of Cyrus against King Artaxerxes: How Cyrus gathered an army and with it marched up country against his brother, and how the battle took place, and how he died, and how after this the Hellenes came safely back to the sea, has been written by Themistogen ē s of Syracuse. (3.1.2) The reference to “Themistogenē s of Syracuse” in this passage has puzzled generations of scholars. 1 Nothing is known about Themistogenē s or his putative book. No mention of him occurs anywhere outside the pages of Xenophon. 2 Indeed, as early as the first century AD, Plutarch sur- mises that “Themistogen ē s” is a pseudonym for “Xenophon.” 3 Today, 1 For a sample of the explanations of “Themistogen ē s” that have been adduced in more recent times, see Dillery (1998) pp. 6–8; Flower (2012) pp. 53–55; H ø eg (1950); MacLaren (1934); Masqueray (1930) pp. 3–5; Prentice (1947); Rood (2005) p. xix; Strauss (1983) p. 106. To my knowledge, the mystery has never been solved. Yet to Leo Strauss belongs the substantial merit of having indicated that “Themistogen ē s of Syracuse” and the anonymous Syracusan of the Symposium are somehow the same person—Xenophon (1972, p. 178). 2 There is however a brief reference to Themistogen ē s in the Suidas, apparently derived from the Hellenika passage. See Maclaren (1934) p. 241. 3 Plutarch (1936) 345e. Maclaren (1934) states: “To say the least, if there ever were a real Themistogenes and an Anabasis written by him, he had become such an obscure figure by the end of the first century after Christ that a well educated, widely read man like Plutarch 302 APPENDIX 1 this identification is widely accepted and is, I believe, correct. Indeed the notion that Xenophon could have authored a masterpiece like the Anabasis only to refer his readers (in the Hellenika ) to an alternative and obscure account is altogether implausible. Nor can we take refuge in the notion that the Anabasis was perhaps not yet written or published when the Hellenika was given to the public, thus preventing Xenophon from referring to it in the Hellenika . The Hellenika is a late work, ending with an account of the battle of Mantinea (362 BC ). Since Xenophon was in his twenties or early thirties when he joined Cyrus (401 BC ), he would have had to be in his sixties or early seventies when the Hellenika was completed and published (i.e., sometime after 362 BC ). It is unlikely that he waited forty years or more to write and publish his Anabasis , as the notion in question forces us to assume.4 The freshness and vivid- ness of the work militates against such a late composition. The Anabasis was almost certainly written and published before—and, in any case, not after—the Hellenika . We must therefore accept that “Themistogen ē s of Syracuse” is a pseud- onym for “Xenophon of Athens.” But this conclusion only leads to a more difficult problem: Why does Xenophon use a pseudonym at all? Why not say in the Hellenika that the Anabasis has been written by “Xenophon of Athens”? Nothing could have been simpler. In Antiquity, Plutarch surmised that Xenophon used a pseudonym to give greater credibil- ity to the account of his deeds by making it appear as if he had writ- ten about someone else. But this explanation is clearly unsatisfactory. Anyone can see that the Anabasis was written by Xenophon. The work contains details about his thoughts and dreams, his hopes and fears, his private deliberations, his domestic life after the expedition, and so on. No one could have written the book except for Xenophon. The pseudonym “Themistogenē s” does not give greater credibility to the account of his deeds, and neither does the fact that he writes about himself in the third person, a practice which does not exclude his occasional use of the first person in any case (1.2.5, 1.9.22, 1.9.28, 2.3.1; also 2.6.6). Besides, the pseudonym occurs only in the Hellenika . Yet the putative aim ascribed to it would have been more effectively served had the pseudonym been used in the Anabasis . As one scholar nicely puts it, “There is something odd in did not know of his existence. It seems unthinkable that a companion piece to Xenophon’s famous account of the exploits of the Ten Thousand could have suffered such an eclipse at so early a date” (p. 242). 4 To avoid this difficulty, some scholars hypothesize that the Hellenika was published in two distinct phases, the first phase involving the first two books and the beginning of the third, and the second phase the rest of the work. This hypothesis is based on literary dif- ferences between these two sections of text. But it is otherwise unsupported. APPENDIX 1 303 the argument that Xenophon employed a pseudonym to give the account of his achievements greater plausibility but then did not actually include that pseudonym in the text of the Anabasis itself.” 5 The explanation of Themistogen ē s lies elsewhere. Let me try to think through this age-old puzzle, beginning with the obvious. By the time Xenophon published the Anabasis he was an exile. 6 Hence, he would presumably have had to write in book three of the Hellenika that the Anabasis had been written by “Xenophon, the Athenian exile” had he sought to present himself accurately to the public. Was he perhaps reluctant to place the Anabasis under the cloud of his exile? Did he wish to avoid prejudicing his readers? This is part of the explanation of the use of the pseudonym, I believe. Xenophon wished to deemphasize his exile. Yet we cannot rest satisfied with this explanation insofar as it remains open to a powerful objec- tion. For Thucydides, too, was an exile from Athens when he wrote the Peloponnesian War (5.26.5). Yet he describes himself in the first line of the work, and again later on, as “Thucydides the Athenian” (1.1.1, 5.26.1). What prevented Xenophon from doing the same? Let us consider the context of the reference to Themistogen ē s in the Hellenika . We have seen that the first two books of the work describe the end of the Peloponnesian War, the rule of the Thirty Tyrants, and the civil war in Athens. Xenophon makes it perfectly clear that the Athenians suf- fered grievously during this period. For several months they were block- aded by land and sea by the Lacedaemonians before capitulating. Scores of people actually died of starvation during the siege. 7 Afterward, the Long Walls were razed and the Lacedaemonians helped such shady characters as Kritias and Charmides set up the regime of the Thirty. Many inno- cent Athenians were murdered by these tyrannical rulers. 8 The ensuing civil war brought on yet more suffering. Now, Sparta’s victory in the Peloponnesian War was made possible by the financial backing of Cyrus. 9 The Lacedaemonians themselves will acknowledge this after the war. 10 Hence, had Xenophon indicated in the Hellenika —on the heels of his description of the Athenian suffering (in books one and two)—that he had befriended and marched with Cyrus against Artaxerxes, he would have 5 Flower (2012) p. 54. 6 Anabasis 5.3.7, 7.7.57. 7 Hellenika 2.2.11; also §14, §21. 8 Hellenika 2.3.15–23, 2.4.21. According to one report, the Thirty “killed, for the sake of private gain, just about more Athenians in eight months than all the Peloponnesians did in ten years of war”: Hellenika 2.4.21. 9 Hellenika 1.5.1–10, 2.1.11–12, 2.1.13–15, 2.3.7–8; see also 1.4.1–7. 10 Hellenika 3.1.1. 304 APPENDIX 1 cast a very long shadow over his patriotism. He would have reminded the Athenians that he had befriended and helped their mortal enemy. He must have been reluctant to vex them (further) in this way. Hence, he deem- phasized his authorship of the Anabasis at the beginning of book three of the Hellenika , expecting that thoughtful readers would understand, upon reflection, that he had to be “Themistogen ē s of Syracuse.” The foregoing explanation is only a preliminary elucidation of Xenophon’s use of a pseudonym. I will return to the issue since I have not yet resolved it. But first, I have to explain why Xenophon settles on this particular pseudonym. For he could have chosen any pseudonym he fancied. He coined a different one for the Anabasis —“Theopompos of Athens,” as we saw (2.1.12–13). Why does Xenophon wish to come to sight as “Themistogen ē s of Syracuse” in the Hellenika ? 11 “Themistogen ē s” means “the offspring of law” or “he who is born of right” (THEMIS-GIGNOMAI). The name calls attention to Xenophon’s rootedness in justice—or, more precisely, in divine law (THEMIS)—as well as to his origin or parentage. The meaning of the name, however, is obscure. The word “THEMIS” is rare in Xenophon. It occurs only three times, I believe, and not once in either the Hellenika or the Anabasis .12 “Syracuse,” on the other hand, is mentioned frequently in the Hellenika and elsewhere too.