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 entan- glementof 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