CHAPTER IV.
XENOPHON.
Xenophon — his character — essentially a man of action and not a theorist — the Sokratic element in him an accessory.
There remains one other companion of Sokrates, for whom a dignified place must be reserved in this volume — Xenophon the son of Gryllus. It is to him that we owe, in great part, such knowledge as we possess of the real Sokrates. For the Sokratic conversations related by Xenophon, though doubtless dressed up and expanded by him, appear to me reports in the main of what Sokrates actually said. Xenophon was sparing in the introduction of his master as titular spokesman for opinions, theories, or controversial difficulties, generated in his own mind: a practice in which Plato indulged without any reserve, as we have seen by the numerous dialogues already passed in review.
I shall not however give any complete analysis of Xenophon’s works: because both the greater part of them, and the leading features of his personal character, belong rather to active than to speculative Hellenic life. As such, I have dealt with them largely in my History of Greece. What I have here to illustrate is the Sokratic element in his character, which is important indeed as accessory and modifying — yet not fundamental. Though he exemplifies and attests, as a witness, the theorising negative vein, the cross-examining Elenchus of Sokrates it is the preceptorial vein which he appropriates to himself and expands in its bearing on practical conduct. He is the semi-philosophising general; undervalued indeed as a hybrid by Plato — but by high-minded Romans like Cato, Agricola, Helvidius Priscus, &c. likely to be esteemed higher than Plato himself.[1] He is the military brother of the Sokratic family, distinguished for ability and energy in the responsible functions of command: a man of robust frame, courage, and presence of mind, who affronts cheerfully the danger and fatigues of soldiership, and who extracts philosophy from experience of the variable temper of armies, together with the multiplied difficulties and precarious authority of a Grecian general.[2] For our knowledge, imperfect as it is, of real Grecian life, we are greatly indebted to his works. All historians of Greece must draw largely from his Hellenica and Anabasis: and we learn much even from his other productions, not properly historical; for he never soars high in the region of ideality, nor grasps at etherial visions — “nubes et inania” — like Plato.
[1] See below, my remarks on the Platonic Euthydêmus, [vol. ii. chap. xxi.]
[2] We may apply to Plato and Xenophon the following comparison by Euripides, Supplices, 905. (Tydeus and Meleager.)
|
γνώμῃ δ’ ἀδελφοῦ Μελεάγρου λελειμμένος,
ἰσον παρέσχεν ὄνομα διὰ τέχνην δορός, εὑρὼν ἀκριβῆ μουσικὴν ἐν ἀσπίδι· φιλότιμον ἦθος, πλούσιον φρόνημα δὲ ἐν τοῖσιν ἔργοις, οὐχὶ τοῖς λόγοις ἔχων. |