PDF Xenophon and The Graces of Power A Greek Guide To Political Manipulation Vincent Azoulay Ebook Full Chapter

Xenophon and the Graces of Power A
Greek Guide to Political Manipulation

Vincent Azoulay
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/xenophon-and-the-graces-of-power-a-greek-guide-to-
political-manipulation-vincent-azoulay/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
A Practical Guide to Fascial Manipulation Tuulia

Luomala
https://textbookfull.com/product/a-practical-guide-to-fascial-
manipulation-tuulia-luomala/
Gateway to Statesmanship Selections from Xenophon to

Churchill John A. Burtka
https://textbookfull.com/product/gateway-to-statesmanship-
selections-from-xenophon-to-churchill-john-a-burtka/
The Normalisation of Cyprus’ Partition Among Greek

Cypriots: Political Economy and Political Culture in a
Divided Society Gregoris Ioannou
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-normalisation-of-cyprus-
partition-among-greek-cypriots-political-economy-and-political-
culture-in-a-divided-society-gregoris-ioannou/
Political and Cultural Aspects of Greek Exoticism

Panayis Panagiotopoulos
https://textbookfull.com/product/political-and-cultural-aspects-
of-greek-exoticism-panayis-panagiotopoulos/
Manipulation A Guide to Mind Control Techniques Stealth
Persuasion and Dark Psychology Secrets Deborah Weiss
https://textbookfull.com/product/manipulation-a-guide-to-mind-
control-techniques-stealth-persuasion-and-dark-psychology-
secrets-deborah-weiss/
Surgery of the Inferior Vena Cava A Multidisciplinary

Approach 1st Edition Daniel Azoulay
https://textbookfull.com/product/surgery-of-the-inferior-vena-
cava-a-multidisciplinary-approach-1st-edition-daniel-azoulay/
The Occult Technology of Power The Initiation of the

Son of a Finance Capitalist Into the Arcane Secrets of
Economic and Political Power Anonymous
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-occult-technology-of-power-
the-initiation-of-the-son-of-a-finance-capitalist-into-the-
arcane-secrets-of-economic-and-political-power-anonymous/
GPU Pro 360 Guide to Geometry Manipulation 1st Edition

Wolfgang Engel
https://textbookfull.com/product/gpu-pro-360-guide-to-geometry-
manipulation-1st-edition-wolfgang-engel/
Power from the sun a practical guide to solar

electricity Chiras
https://textbookfull.com/product/power-from-the-sun-a-practical-
guide-to-solar-electricity-chiras/
96109_Xenophon_Prelims:Layout 1 30/8/18 11:58 Page i
XENOPHON AND THE GRACES OF POWER

96109_Xenophon_Prelims:Layout 1 30/8/18 11:58 Page ii
96109_Xenophon_Prelims:Layout 1 30/8/18 11:58 Page iii
X ENOPHON
AND THE
G RACES OF P OWER
A G REEK G UIDE TO
P OLITICAL M ANIPULATION
Vincent Azoulay
Translated by
Angela Krieger
The Classical Press of Wales

96109_Xenophon_Prelims:Layout 1 30/8/18 11:58 Page iv
First published in 2018 by

The Classical Press of Wales
15 Rosehill Terrace, Swansea SA1 6JN
Tel: +44 (0)1792 458397
www.classicalpressofwales.co.uk
Distributor
I. B. Tauris & Co Ltd,
6 Salem Rd,
London W2 4BU, UK
Tel.: +44 (0) 20 7243 1225
Fax: +44 (0) 20 7243 1226
www.ibtauris.com
Distributor in North America

ISD,
70 Enterprise Drive, Suite 2,
Bristol, CT 06010, USA
Tel: +1 (860) 584-6546
Fax: +1 (860) 516-4873
www.isdistribution.com
© 2018
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.
ISBN 978-1-910589-69-4
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Typeset by Louise Jones, and printed and bound in the UK by Gomer Press, Llandysul,
Ceredigion, Wales
–––––––––––––––––
The Classical Press of Wales, an independent venture, was founded in 1993, initially to
support the work of classicists and ancient historians in Wales and their collaborators from
further afield. More recently it has published work initiated by scholars internationally. While
retaining a special loyalty to Wales and the Celtic countries, the Press welcomes scholarly
contributions from all parts of the world.
The symbol of the Press is the Red Kite. This bird, once widespread in Britain, was reduced by
1905 to some five individuals confined to a small area known as ‘The Desert of Wales’ – the
upper Tywi valley. Geneticists report that the stock was saved from terminal inbreeding by the
arrival of one stray female bird from Germany. After much careful protection, the Red Kite now
thrives – in Wales and beyond.
iv
96109_Xenophon_Prelims:Layout 1 30/8/18 11:58 Page v
CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD ix
INTRODUCTION 1
Xenophon, or the Itinerary of a Traitor? 2
A Corpus in All its Fragmentary Splendor 4
The Masks of a Multifaceted man 8
From Charisma to Charis 10
Charis in All Its Forms 11
The Limits of Analysis and Methodological Gains 15
CHAPTER 1 – CHARIS AND ITS CHALLENGES 21

I. The Law of Charis 21
A Social Norm 21
A Universal Form of Anthropology 23
An Immanent Model 25
II. Charis and Authority 27
Horizontal Exchanges and Vertical Links 27
The Delicate Position of the Recipient 32
On the Strangeness of Thracian Customs? 40
III. Charis in Democracy 43
Athens and Its Allies: Imperial Charis 43
Within the City: Charis Placed Under Supervision? 44
The Emergence of a Democratic Form of Charis 46
CHAPTER 2 – LEGITIMATE FAVORS 52

I. Xenophon’s Three Graces 52
Euergetic Spending 52
Honorific Distinctions 56
Charismatic attentions 61
II. Supreme Benefits: Feeding Bodies and Minds 64
An Economy of Alimentary Charis 65
Dangerous Foodstuffs? 67
The Art of Dining 73
From Alimentary Prodigality to Philosophical Euergetism 76
v
96109_Xenophon_Prelims:Layout 1 30/8/18 11:58 Page vi
Contents
III. Contextualizing Favors: The Differential Effectiveness

of Gifts 80
The Spirit of the Gift 81
Xenophon and the Transmutation of Benefits 82
CHAPTER 3 – FROM GOOD DEEDS TO MISDEEDS: THE CORRUPTING

POWER OF CHARIS 89
I. The Ambiguities of Xenia 90
II. Agesilaus and Xenophon: The Incorruptibles? 93
III. From Material Corruption to Spiritual Corruption 98
CHAPTER 4 – BETWEEN CHARIS AND MISTHOS : XENOPHON

AGAINST THE MERCHANTS? 103
I. ‘The Hostile World’ of Goods 104
Buying Gratitude and Selling Favors? 104
Enslaved by Misthos: Democratic Prostitution 107
Refusing Coinage, Rejecting Merchants 111
The Aristocrat and the Mercenary 114
II. The Ambiguous Virtues of Commercial Exchange 122
Small Deals with the Market 122
On the Art of Giving a Salary 124
The Proper Use of Mercenary Service 128
The Poroi: A Conversion to Civic Misthos? 133
CHAPTER 5 – CHARIS AND ENVY 139

I. The Omnipresence of Phthonos: The Social Genesis
of a Feeling 140
The Envy of the People 140
‘Intra-elite’ Rivalries 142
II. Leveling From the Bottom or Redistributing From the Top? 145
Spartan Standardization 145
The Benefits of Charis 149
III. Phthonos and Charis: Dangerous Liaisons 157
Socrates and Envy 157
Self-Praise and the Jealousy of Others 160
Royal Charis and the Phthonos of the Elite 164
CHAPTER 6 – CHARIS AND PHILIA: THE POLITICS OF FRIENDSHIP 169

I. The Debate over Philia 169
Democratic and Aristotelian Philia 169
Xenophon’s Friendships 173
vi
96109_Xenophon_Prelims:Layout 1 30/8/18 11:58 Page vii
Contents
II. Philia and Patronage 174
Socrates and Unequal Friendships 174
Crito, Critobulus, and Their ‘Friends’ 176
Philia and Public Patronage 180
III. From Philia to Philanthrōpia 191
The First Philanthropists 192
Cyrus, Friend of All Men 193
An Inaugural Shift? 195
CHAPTER 7 – CHARIS AND PATERNITY 199

I. From Fraternal Union to Paternal Love 200
Fraternity, or the Power of Solidarity 200
Paternity, or the Paradigm of Debt 204
II. Paternal Power: An Unattainable Dream? 207
Agesilaus: A Father in the City of Brothers? 207
Xenophon, or the Frustrated Father 209
Socrates and the Jealous Fathers 214
III. Cyrus, or the Universal Father 219
From the Perfect Son to the Benevolent Father 220
The Fostering Father 224
Symbolic Fathers and Ideal Sons:The King and the Eunuchs 227
CHAPTER 8 – THE GRACES OF LOVE 229

I. Erotic Reciprocity and Its Dangers 230
Erōs in the Game of Exchange 230
Erōs Goes to War 234
II. The Political Power of the Erōmenos 239
From Love of the City to Love of the Leader 239
Three Paradoxical Erōmenoi 244
III. From Socrates to Cyrus: The Rivalry of Two Graces 249
Strange Beauty Contests 249
Cyrus, or Prince Charming 252
The Politics of Radiance 259
IV. Epilogue: On the Love of Men and the Veneration
of the Gods 266
CONCLUSION 269
Power and Time: The Charismatic Paradox 271
The Miscontemporary 277
PHILOLOGICAL ANNEX: CHARIS IN XENOPHON’S CORPUS 279
vii
96109_Xenophon_Prelims:Layout 1 30/8/18 11:58 Page viii
Contents
NOTES 281
BIBLIOGRAPHY 353
GENERAL INDEX 415
INDEX LOCORUM 433
viii
96109_Xenophon_Prelims:Layout 1 30/8/18 11:58 Page ix
FOREWORD
Published in 2004, the original French version of this book grew out of
the thesis that I defended at the Université Paris-1 Panthéon-Sorbonne in
December 2002 – a long time ago in terms of academic research. The
current revised English edition therefore bears some obvious limitations.
In the original French version, it was possible to take into account
publications dating up until 2002 and even some that appeared in 2003.
For this edition, however, it would have been impossible to read and
comment on everything that has been published in the years since then, so
great was the volume of books and articles about Xenophon that were
being released – even if many of these new books are in fact textbooks or
‘companions’ of various sorts. I have thus been very selective in
introducing recent scholarship into the footnotes.
This decision – primarily dictated by time constraints – inevitably dates
this book, which could cast doubt over whether or not it is still worth
publishing in English. However, I consider this publication justified
because language was what largely prohibited it from being read outside of
France. After all, asking a reader with some but not complete knowledge of
French to read five hundred pages is quite a demand!1
In a nutshell, this book has a number of aims. First of all, it seeks to
offer a general interpretation of Xenophon’s corpus rather than adopting
an approach divided according to specific works or genres. In particular,
I have tried to combat the sterile distinction between ‘Socratic works’ and
‘historical works’ and the way it splits the research among historians,
philologists, and philosophers.
Nonetheless, this global approach does not mean that it is not possible
to pay specific attention to the context in which each work was produced
1 While the book was well received in France, it has not been cited much in the
Anglophone world. Indeed, the only review devoted to it in English was also the
only unfavorable review the book happened to receive. See AC, 76, 2007, 264–6
(Odile De Bruyn); Anabases, 4 2006, 299–300 (Marie-Laurence Desclos);
Athenaeum 94, 1, 317–21 (Cinzia Bearzot); CR n.s. 56, 1 2006, 43–5 (Vivienne J.
Gray); REA 108, 2, 2006, 756–60 (Pascal Payen); REG 119, 1, 2006, 460–2
(Paul Demont); RH 130 (1) 2006, 146–8 (Pierre Pontier); RPh 3e sér. 78 (2) 2004,
375–6 (Claude Mossé); Gnomon 81 (8), 2009, 676-9 (Christian Mueller-Goldingen);
Mouseion (Canada) 6 (1) 2006, 42–5 (Louis L’Allier); Annales HSS 63, 5, 2008,
1037–8 (Patrice Brun).
ix
96109_Xenophon_Prelims:Layout 1 30/8/18 11:58 Page x
Foreword
(be it rhetorical, political, or historical). This subtle recontextualization has

allowed me to reveal not only the complexity of Xenophon’s thinking, with
all its variations and even evolutions, but also the political coherence of
his message. The book sheds light on the underlying mechanisms of his
conception of power, the originality of which emerges when it is examined
alongside the positions of other thinkers in the Athenian intellectual field
(Ober 1998; Azoulay 2007b).
This study reveals how Xenophon’s political thinking was shaped by
charis – a notion that covers an immaterial and impalpable form of power
composed of services rendered, acknowledged loyalty, respect, and
dependency. This charismatic conception ultimately means examining
power ‘at ground level’, not as a fixed object but as something that
circulates. It encounters the tendency in modern historiography to consider
power beyond strictly institutional paths, trying to escape the ‘constitutional-
law trap’ (Finley) that characterizes most of Greek political studies.
Beyond its political content, this study is based on two methodological
biases. It distances itself from Leo Strauss’s theses, which carry so much
weight in the Anglophone world and which tend to make Xenophon a
master of irony, disguising his real intentions ‘between the lines’ of his
books (see, most recently, Burns 2015). If Xenophon is to be taken
seriously, nothing proves that he encrypted his message for a chosen few.
This book also seeks to feed the dialogue between antiquity and the social
sciences. This study is part of a broader reflection on the way in which
historians can appropriate a notion taken from the social sciences – in this
case, charism, which Max Weber conceptualized in his time, and also gift-
exchange, as Marcel Mauss theorized it. It examines how to ensure the
translatability of notions across all disciplines (sociology, anthropology,
history, philosophy, and political science: Azoulay 2014b).
Last but not least, I am pleased to acknowledge the numerous
intellectual and amicable debts that I have contracted all along the way.
I would first like to express my gratitude to Pauline Schmitt, who so
warmly communicated the joy of research and has continually guided me
in my reflections since I first came knocking on her door in 1996 with the
still embryonic idea of working on Xenophon. As this project developed,
a lecture given by Catherine Darbo-Peschanski helped me to formulate my
first working hypotheses. My thoughts equally extend to the prematurely
departed Yvon Thébert, who never stopped encouraging me with his
characteristically communicative enthusiasm. I cannot forget the comments
of my dissertation committee, which helped me avoid numerous errors
and inaccuracies. I am pleased to thank Jean-Marie Bertrand, Patrice Brun,
Paul Cartledge, and François Hartog for their equally thoughtful and
x
96109_Xenophon_Prelims:Layout 1 30/8/18 11:58 Page xi
Foreword
precise reading of my work. Paul Cartledge, in particular, deserves special
recognition for the wonderful help he offered when the time came to revise
the English manuscript. I owe Anton Powell a great deal of gratitude for
agreeing to publish the English version of the book at the Classical Press
of Wales and for his invaluable suggestions concerning the manuscript.
The reader for the Press, J. M. Trappes-Lomax, has also done an extra-
ordinary job verifying the accuracy of my manuscript, which has allowed
me to substantially improve the final text.
I have also been lucky to have enjoyed exceptional working conditions
for several years. I owe them to my colleagues and students at the
Université de Paris I and the Université Marne-la-Vallée, whom I am happy
to thank. A few other institutions have provided precious support. The
Centre Gustave Glotz and the Centre Louis Gernet as well as the
“Phéacie” group to which I belong offered favorable places for engaging
in stimulating intellectual exchange. The École française d’Athènes offered
a pleasant and fruitful working environment thanks to two study grants.
My research has additionally benefitted from a generous group of
friends. Numerous people have followed the development of this work in
varying degrees, subjecting themselves to my moods and kindly spending
time rereading and discussing drafts. I would like to express my appreciation
to Raphaëlle Branche, Christophe Brun, John Dillery, Pierre Fröhlich,
Sophie Lalanne, Bernard Legras, and Yann Potin. Two people in particular
deserve special recognition: Patrick Boucheron, whose critical rigour was
always useful, and Jean-Baptiste Bonnard, whose availability and relevant
opinions never ceased to surprise me. Their critical readings allowed me to
make the manuscript of this study less imperfect.
I could not conclude these acknowledgements without thanking my
brother Pierre and especially my parents, Jacques and Danièle Azoulay,
whose unconditional support has taught me the real meaning of charis.
There is also one last person who alone knows how much this work owes
her, having gently accompanied it, rigorously transformed it, and imbued
it with such grace.
I dedicate this work to Cécile Chainais.
xi
96109_Xenophon_Prelims:Layout 1 30/8/18 11:58 Page xii
96109_Xenophon_Book:Layout 1 30/8/18 12:14 Page 1
INTRODUCTION
As early as the Hellenistic period, Xenophon was celebrated for his

remarkable talent as a writer. The gentleness of his style earned him the
nickname ‘Attic Muse.’1 In one of the earliest known stylistic treatises, the
rhetorician Ps.-Demetrius of Phaleron repeatedly praised him for the
‘grandeur, forcefulness, and grace (χάρις)’ of his writing.2 Athenaeus even
deemed him ‘the most graceful Xenophon (ὁ χαριέστατος Ξενοφῶν),’ 3 an
epithet that was still applied to him in the third century AD by the
rhetorician Menander of Laodicea.4
However, the notion of grace – or charis – is not only relevant when it
comes to describing Xenophon’s style of writing. It constitutes a favorable
means of understanding and characterizing how Xenophon thought about
power.5 The concept of charis recurs throughout his corpus, in which he
mentions the term and its derivatives no fewer than three hundred times.
Analyzing charis therefore makes it possible to remain faithful to both the
letter and the spirit of the text.
At the same time, Xenophon did not theorize charis and its effects as
such. He did not linger over it like a philosopher, in the manner of Aristotle
or Plato. Rather, his remarks were scattered across various literary and
historical contexts. The consequent challenge facing the research presented
in this book is to show that, in spite of and beyond this apparent
fragmentation, Xenophon elaborated a coherent system of thought
(at once undeniably theoretical and practical) around the concept of charis,
thus reflecting transversally on authority and the mechanisms behind it.
Xenophon’s writings also reveal a pivotal period in Greek history, a
transitional era between the world of the cities and that of the Hellenistic
kingdoms. In fact, Xenophon’s works form an appropriate prism for
tackling not the supposed ‘crisis of the city’ during the fourth century, but
the various tensions traversing the Greek world at the time: political and
military tensions between the various hegemonies of Athens, Sparta, and
Thebes; tensions between the Greeks and the Persians, whose relations
oscillated between rejection and fascination; social and political tensions
between oligarchs and democrats within the cities and, in particular,
Athens; and the tensions within the elite itself, which had been upset by
monetarization and haunted by the specter of corruption. Such was the
era that is revealed and in which Xenophon was not a mere witness, but a
melancholic actor.
1
Introduction
Xenophon, or the itinerary of a traitor?

Truly, no state has ever expelled a more degenerate citizen than Xenophon.
Neither was Plato a good citizen; he was not worthy of Athens, adopted
incomprehensible positions, and was like a sinner before the saints that were
Thucydides and Demosthenes, but nonetheless so different from this old
madman! Niebuhr 1826/8, 467.
Retracing Xenophon’s life is rather difficult. To do so, the historian must

make do with late sources (a chapter by Diogenes Laertius and a brief note
in the Souda), which must be combined with the sparse indications that
Xenophon himself provided in his corpus.6 Every aspect of his complex
life can be debated, stimulating the imaginations and speculations of the
scholars interpreting his work and rousing insoluble quarrels among them.
Academic disputes have centered on the date of his birth, the date and cause
of his exile from Athens, the date when his banishment was lifted and he
eventually returned to his homeland, and, of course, the date of his death.7
Out of this accumulation of controversies, a few certainties have
nonetheless emerged. Born around 428, near the start of the Peloponnesian
War, Xenophon was registered in the Athenian deme of Erchia.8 He most
probably descended from a well-to-do family, since he presented himself
in the Anabasis as a horseman (only the rich were able to possess and
maintain horses).9 As a hunting enthusiast (the supreme aristocratic
pastime), the young Xenophon was therefore part of the Athenian
horsemen, who were easily identified by their long hair10 and conservative
political opinions. The hippeis largely supported the oligarchic revolution of
411 and were eventually subjected to intense discrimination after the
democratic regime was restored.11 Following the military collapse of
Athens in 404, they naturally sided with the oligarchs, although some were
reluctant to do so (Bugh 1988, 120–53). It is difficult to say what
Xenophon’s precise role during this bloody period was exactly. There is a
good reason for this, since he carefully eliminated all traces of
autobiography in his account of the civil war in the Hellenica, making
relatively fanciful speculations possible.12 The fact remains that he seems
to have been involuntarily compromised in the exactions of the Thirty.13
Despite the amnesty imposed in 403, horsemen could not feel entirely
at ease under the restored Athenian democracy. Many of them seem to
have left Athens to escape the hostile atmosphere that reigned there.14 This
heavy ambiance became even more oppressive when the last oligarchic
bastion at Eleusis fell despite the renewal of the amnesty (401/0). Tensions
culminated in 399, when the Athenians sent three hundred horsemen
to support the Spartan Thibron in Asia Minor, hoping they would die in
2
Introduction
the process (Hell. 3.1.4). That same year, Socrates was prosecuted and
condemned to death (Anab. 3.1.5–7; Mem. 1.3.9–13).15
However, the young horseman was no longer in Athens when the
philosopher was forced to drink hemlock. In 401, Xenophon had placed
himself in the service of Cyrus the Younger, who, as recounted in the
Anabasis, aspired to the Persian throne. This is the only period of his life
for which a great deal of information is available – though it is not
objective. Following Cyrus’s death in Cunaxa (near present-day Babylon)
and the assassination of the Greek army’s chiefs, Xenophon seems to have
played an important role in the mercenaries’ retreat from Armenia to
Trapezous on the Black Sea during the winter of 401/0 and then toward
Greece and Thrace during the winter of 400/399.
Back in Asia Minor, it seems that Xenophon continued to manage what
remained of the Ten Thousand’s army until 395, serving various Spartan
commanders sent overseas. There he became attached to a new patron:
Agesilaus, King of Sparta.16 Xenophon accompanied him during his Asian
campaign in 394 and also followed him when the sovereign had to return
quickly to Greece to quell the revolt in the cities provoked by Persian gold.
In 394, Xenophon undoubtedy fought against his own compatriots at
Coronea (Hell. 4.3.15–23), definitively burning all bridges with his
homeland – even if some historians estimate that his banishment really
dated back to a few years earlier.17
The fact remains that Xenophon stayed away from Athens for over
thirty years. He hardly suffered materially. Thanks to Agesilaus’s patronage,
he enjoyed a comfortable retirement in Scillus, in the Peloponnese, on
territory Sparta had snatched from Elis (Anab. 5.3.5–7).18 There he married
Philesia, with whom he had two children: Gryllus and Diodorus (DL
2.52).19 However, political vicissitudes put an end to this peaceful period.
He was expelled from his property in 371, following the Spartan defeat at
Leuctra and the major comeback of the Eleans (DL 2.53).20 Nonetheless,
this difficult period coincided with the rapprochement between Athens
and Sparta, now united against the increasing danger represented by
Thebes. Thanks to this reconciliation, Xenophon’s native country seems
to have restored his civic rights, perhaps as early as 369.21
Historians are divided into two camps regarding whether or not he
returned to live in his native city. According to some, he settled in Corinth,
perhaps definitively (Pausanias 5.6.6).22 Others take it for granted that
Xenophon came back to Athens, probably following a stay in Corinth.
Although the latter thesis is based on a questionable isolated account
(Istros, FGrHist 334 F 32), numerous clues suggest that it is true.23 His son
Gryllus served in the Athenian cavalry and died courageously during the
3
Introduction
Battle of Mantinea in 362 (Ephorus, FGrHist 70 F 85).24 Furthermore,

Xenophon’s final works, On the Cavalry Commander and the Poroi, were
explicitly aimed at reforming Athens’ military and financial system.25 It is
therefore probable that he later returned to his native country. Perhaps he
even had a certain air of prestige in Athenian intellectual circles at the time,
since many authors, including Isocrates and Aristotle, seem to have written
eulogies for Gryllus after his death with the avowed goal of honoring the
father through the son (DL 2.55 and Quint., Inst. 2.17.14).26
Xenophon wrote the better part of his works during this very period, in
the calm climate of Athens under Eubulus.27 With the exception of the
Lakedaimonion Politeia (drafted between 394 and 371), nearly all of his works
seem to have been written after 370 (even if the debates surrounding the
dating of the Apology of Socrates and the Anabasis are far from over). After
many years of exile, he finally found a suitable setting for his works and a
broader readership before dying in 355 or shortly after.28
A corpus in all its fragmentary splendor

Despite the gaps in the available sources, Xenophon’s trajectory offers a
glimpse of a complex figure who committed multiple transgressions.
A disciple of Socrates, this young elite-member began his career in Asia
among the troops of the barbarian prince Cyrus the Younger, thus crossing
the frontiers between the Greeks and the Persians. He equally crossed the
boundaries separating Athens and Sparta, long living in exile with his city’s
worst military and political enemies. In his writings, he fought democracy
both within and outside Athens. Xenophon cannot be easily reduced to a
specific political position or a stereotyped system of thought. He was in
turn a member of a troop of mercenaries and a rich landowner, at once
Athenian by birth and Lacedaemonian at heart, exiled and then reintegrated
in his city at the end of his life, and fascinated by the noble Cyrus’s Persia
while simultaneously a fervent advocate of Panhellenism.
These perpetual oscillations are expressed in the vast fragmentation of
his work. There is the plurality of the ‘literary’ genres he explored, for
Xenophon – ever the polymorphous writer – left an imposing and varied
body of work. He devoted as much time to history (Hellenica) as to the
works of praise (Agesilaus), advice (Hiero), and defense (Apology of Socrates).
He wrote his war memoirs (Anabasis) as well as numerous technical
treatises (On the Art of Horsemanship, On the Cavalry Commander, the Poroi,
and On Hunting), Socratic dialogues (Oeconomicus, Memorabilia), a Symposium,
and even a form of ‘historical novel’ (Cyropaedia). Then there is the plasticity
and variety of his style. Unlike many of the writers who were his
contemporaries, Xenophon deftly handled different forms of eloquence,
4
Introduction
thus earning the admiration of rhetoricians during the imperial period (e.g.
Dio Chrysost., 18.14–17).29
The diversity of subjects and forms leads to the variety of geographical
spaces in Xenophon’s corpus, between the Athens of the Oeconomicus and
the Sparta of the Lakedaimonion Politeia, between the Persia of the Cyropaedia
and the Sicily of the Hiero. Responding to this spatial diversity is a certain
temporal fragmentation. While the Hellenica and the Anabasis resemble
logbooks based on the current events of his day, Xenophon also enjoyed
meditating on Cyrus the Elder’s bygone Persia or conjuring up the vanished
Sparta of Lycurgus. Finally, there is the fragmentation of the points of view
employed for the same topic. What do Agesilaus’s praise of frugality have
in common with the celebration of Cyrus the Elder’s sumptuous lifestyle?
How is it possible to reconcile Xenophon’s proclaimed admiration for
certain Persian royal practices and the Panhellenic rhetoric found in the
Agesilaus?30 How should the critique of democratic functioning (as it is
emphasized in the Memorabilia and the Hellenica) be articulated alongside
the proposals for democratic reform formulated in the Poroi?
In order to compensate for this disparate impression, some interpreters
have tried to trace the chronological evolution of Xenophon’s thinking,
speaking of his conversion to ‘monarchist ideas’ following a period of
real laconophilia and his much later rallying to the democratic regime.31
Nonetheless, these efforts to recreate a coherent chronological timeline
seem bound to fail, if only because of the uncertainty involving the dating
of the works. The Cyropaedia – which was unquestionably monarchist in its
inspiration – was composed at the end of the 360s, during the same period
when it seems that Xenophon wrote the Cavalry Commander in the hope of
gently reforming the army in democratic Athens.32 These contradictions
again do not only arise when different works are placed alongside each
other. Xenophon did not hesitate to abruptly shift perspective within a
given work, as attested by the disillusioned chapters in the Lakedaimonion
Politeia and the Cyropaedia or the changing viewpoints proposed by the
protagonists of the Hellenica.33
Other ways of reading Xenophon have been proposed in order to
eliminate this disparate impression. The American philosopher Leo Strauss
developed an original approach to Xenophon’s corpus by identifying an
underlying organizing principle: irony. Wishing to ‘reconsider the
traditional view of Xenophon,’ which was almost ‘an insult to this truly
royal soul,’ Strauss claimed that ‘such a man was he that he preferred to go
through the centuries in the disguise of a beggar rather than to sell the
precious secrets of Socrates’ quiet and sober wisdom to a multitude.’34
To put it differently, Xenophon apparently concealed precious teachings
5
Introduction
‘between the lines’35 of his text so that a scholar of Strauss’s caliber might
unearth such priceless nuggets. The idea was emulated by many, with
numerous commentators pursuing the irony and double meanings in
Xenophon’s texts.36
Such an approach sometimes seems debatable, since it relies on the
heavy presupposition that the author was a persecuted man whose work
was marked by this status.37 The fear of criticism and insults allegedly led
Xenophon to disguise his intentions ‘between the lines.’ Yet nothing
supports such an interpretation. It is difficult to see what threat would have
restricted the author from writing to the point that he would encrypt his
message for a chosen few, since Athenian writers never hesitated to drag
the democratic regime through the mud. Far from being representative,
Socrates’s trial was something of an exception in this respect.38 Supposing
that he wrote part of his work in Scillus, Xenophon would not have needed
to conceal his intentions. If he wrote it in Athens, again, nothing forced
him to disguise his thinking in order to criticize the regime. Provided that
they were kept a distance from the political arena and its struggles, every
opinion could in fact circulate freely, as the very existence of the Academy
attested. While the pressures of Xenophon’s political and social context
were undeniable (he never attacked the democratic regime directly),39 they
were never strong enough to justify the hypothesis supporting an esoteric
art of writing.
Furthermore, Strauss’s interpretation is accompanied by a highly
debatable method of reading. Despite basing his interpretation of the texts
on Xenophon’s supposed persecution, Strauss paradoxically refuses to
take into account the ‘historical situation’ in which the author lived,40
subsequently sinking into a hermeneutical confinement that leads to a form
of interpretive delirium.41 For him, each of the Athenian writer’s phrases
becomes enigmatic and even ironic, and the whole body of work is
transformed into something that needs to be deciphered. In the end, the
Straussian way of reading reveals far more about Strauss’s own subtlety
than Xenophon’s.42 Worst of all is that such an approach continues to take
the writer for a fool. ‘Straussian’ interpreters desperately want to find
hidden meaning in Xenophon’s work because they consider his explicit
statements exceedingly vulgar and clumsy. Despite reaching diametrically
opposed conclusions, they ultimately take up the same premises as the
writer’s staunch detractors.
But does abandoning this sort of reading not precisely present the
risk of returning to the usual hypothesis, which stresses the author’s
fundamental incoherence? According to a fashionable opinion during the
nineteenth century, Xenophon had exhausted himself with projects that
6
Introduction
were too great for his weak intellectual caliber.43 That would explain the
disparate nature of his corpus, since he dissipated himself in multiple
activities, fluttering from one topic to the next without ever mastering any
of them.44 As a pale imitator of Thucydides, he was said to be of limited
interest to historians;45 as a mediocre copy of Plato, he only deserved
disdain from philosophers.46 From this perspective, Xenophon has often
been considered with condescension, viewed as a stale old military man
who wrote his memoirs in order to edify his contemporaries47 when he
was not being taken for both a traitor and an officially acknowledged fool.48
Nonetheless, his reputation for incoherence only dates back to the
nineteenth century.49 It owes much to the disciplinary categorizations of
the time, which distanced philosophers from historians and literary critics.
It would be wrong to forget that, up until the eighteenth century, Xenophon
was universally admired for his didacticism as well as for his political
observations and remarkable style. During the Renaissance, he was
appreciated precisely for his eclecticism. In 1581, Henri Estienne reedited
Xenophon’s works by adding a discourse entitled Sur le Devoir de joindre Mars
aux Muses: l’exemple de Xénophon (De coniungendis cum Marte Musis, exemplo
Xenophontis). In this opuscule dedicated to James VI, King of Scotland,
Estienne delimits the best education for leader and prince, advocating a
happy symbiosis between military education and philosophical and literary
learning. In this ‘mirror for princes,’ Xenophon embodies the model to be
followed for his dual position as disciple of Socrates and improvised leader
of the Ten Thousand, since he symbolized the happy alliance between the
pen and the sword, or beautiful style and military art.50
The variety of Xenophon’s talents was appreciated in antiquity. His
Cyropaedia was a lauded and imitated model, considered one of the
precursors of the Greek novel that emerged in the imperial period.51 There
is endless proof of the favor Xenophon enjoyed. Other than Xenophon of
Ephesus, the Souda claimed that two other novelists adopted his name
when they wrote: Xenophon of Antioch, author of the Babyloniaca; and
Xenophon of Cyprus, author of the Cypriaca.52 When writers were not
directly borrowing his name during the imperial period, they paid homage
to the titles of his works. Arrian, for example, recounted Alexander’s
conquest in an Anabasis that was destined to rival Xenophon’s work
(Arrian, Anab. 1.12.3).53 Far from being appreciated solely for his style,
Xenophon was simultaneously admired for his political and moral
teachings. During the Hellenistic and Roman periods, his reflections served
as a useful vade-mecum for all politicians. Alexander probably read him,
Cato the Elder admired him, Scipio procured his books as soon as he
could, Caesar knew him well, and Cicero even translated him.54 Thus,
7
Introduction
Xenophon was unanimously esteemed for his diverse qualities, which were
at once literary, political, and philosophical.
The masks of a multifaceted man

Without pleading for a return to blissful admiration, I would like to
propose a few reading guidelines that respect the variety of the corpus,
take into account what is explicitly said in Xenophon’s texts (which in no
way excludes the existence of irony), and strive to link this back to the
context of rhetorical, political, and historical production. With this in mind,
Xenophon’s corpus seems marked less by irony than by a plurality of
points of view. Depending on the context, Xenophon summoned different
facets of his character without making it necessary for the reader to seek
out the inner irony or incoherence at all costs. This study calls for a way
of reading that, according to a perspective first explored by Maurice
Halbwachs,55 remains sensitive to the individual actors’ many affiliations,
their successive or simultaneous socialization in various groups, and the
many points of view they can raise. In fact, the multiple contexts for action
invoke the dispositions of individuals (themselves plastic) differently.
Xenophon was not an incoherent human being, but a multifaceted man.
This plurality first emerges in the multiple disguises Xenophon adopted
as a writer. He wrote part of his work using disguises for the occasion and
skillfully handled the art of ‘feigning not to write.’56 In his historical work
the Hellenica, he thus voluntarily concealed himself behind his illustrious
elder Thucydides. Not only did he not seek to appropriate his predecessor’s
work (of which he was perhaps the editor),57 but he inscribed his own
account within the absolute continuity of the History of the Peloponnesian War.
The Hellenica begins almost exactly where Thucydides’s work ends, without
Xenophon deeming it necessary to insert a preface claiming his role as
author.58 Similarly, he chose to attribute the paternity of the Anabasis, his
best-known work, to someone else: Themistogenes of Syracuse.59 As for
the Memorabilia, his major Socratic work, it also perhaps corresponded to
a certain denial of his role as author. According to Luciano Canfora, the
work may have first circulated not under Xenophon’s name, but as a
collection of accounts emanating from Socrates himself. Once again, the
writer apparently concealed himself behind one of his mentors, leaving a
work with no signature or auctor.60
Xenophon did not only like to conceal himself as an author. In his
corpus, he sometimes effaced all traces of his presence as a direct participant
in the events he recounted. In the Hellenica, he thus continually hides
himself, making abundant use of periphrasis that, while still making his
presence felt, never openly admits to it. He is undoubtedly speaking of
8
Introduction
himself in veiled terms when he evokes ‘the leader of Cyrus’ former
troops,’ and he is also probably including himself implicitly among ‘the
men who had made the march up country with Cyrus’ or ‘the very stalwart
horsemen who were about’ the king of Sparta (respectively Hell. 3.2.7;
3.1.6; 4.3.6; Ages. 2.2–3).61 But nothing explicitly proves this. When he
suddenly makes an explicit appearance, he does not always do so in a
favorable light. In the Memorabilia, he depicts himself as a thoughtless man,
reprimanded by Socrates who even goes as far as calling him a fool (Mem.
1.3.13).62 In the Anabasis, he portrays himself as a reckless young man,
incapable of understanding the precious advice that Socrates shares with
him (Anab. 3.1.5–7).63
Xenophon’s difficulty assuming his roles as author and actor was
probably not the sign of an uneasiness specific to him alone. In some ways,
all of this hiding behind another character was a way for him to make
himself known to a specific group of readers and to plead his own case
mezza voce.64 Like a hunter hiding his tracks, he could indulge in a subtle
apology for his behavior, whether this be during the delicate period of the
Thirty or his enlistment with the Spartans in Asia Minor. These various
masks left him more free to respond to the implicit or explicit accusations
that both democrats and his elite peers aimed at him (see infra, chapters 3
and 4). Concealing himself also offered another advantage. It allowed him
to make a grand entrance in a story when he eventually decided to appear
in it. In this respect, the Anabasis represents a real tour de force, with
Xenophon deliberately delaying his appearance as a protagonist in the
account until Book 3 in order suddenly to emerge heaven-sent when all
seems lost.65
Thus, the changing political contexts contribute to explaining
Xenophon’s use of masks. Yet it in no way implies that there are messages
hidden between the lines. On the contrary, Xenophon did not adopt
pseudonyms to travesty what he was saying. Rather, he did so in order to
lend an even greater power of conviction to his words (Plutarch, On the
Fame of the Athenians 345e). This apologetic – and not ironic – desire is
omnipresent in his writings, often justifying the many points of view he
adopts. Through his journey in Asia and his friendships, Xenophon was
under a great deal of pressure, and he constructed his corpus according to
the accusations made against him and his friends by responding to these
attacks. For instance, the Anabasis was intended as an act of retaliation
against those who accused him of participating in Cyrus the Younger’s
questionable campaign. There was also an apologetic goal in the Apology of
Socrates (of course) as well as in the Memorabilia and the Symposium, works
offering all sorts of opportunities to clear Socrates of the accusations aimed
9
Introduction
against him.66 Similarly, his posthumous praise for Agesilaus sought to

respond to the criticisms that the Spartan king’s behavior had generated
(see infra, chapters 3 and 4).
These pleas were in no way an expression of disinterested concern. By
thus defending his intellectual and political patrons, Xenophon indirectly
pursued his own apology, since he implicitly replied to those who might
have reproached him for associating with unsavory men. Nonetheless, his
position was not purely defensive. In fact, he was convinced that he had
found true models of authority in Socrates, Agesilaus, both Cyruses, and
himself. Having lived according to alternating hegemonies and having been
disappointed by the civic institutions of his time, Xenophon was in search
of exceptional men whose power could resist the onslaught of time and
ensure the serenity of the ‘best’ – or, it might as well be said, prominent
citizens. This quest for an ideal leader, which was often a melancholic and
sometimes disillusioned one, was one of the guiding threads behind his
writings. In order to respond to the crumbling of the old principles of
authority, Xenophon conceived a complex intellectual construction around
the figure of an ideal and charismatic leader.
From charisma to charis

In his works, Xenophon described many forms of power built on legal,
dynastic, and traditional foundations. When he revealed the things he truly
admired, however, he never highlighted such aspects. When writing the
Lakedaimonion Politeia, he emphasized that laws and institutions were not
what made the Spartan regime so unique but, rather, the Spartan way
of living (ἐπιτηδεύµατα: Lak. Pol. 1.1). For the Greeks and especially
Xenophon, a politeia could not be reduced to an abstract governmental
structure. It also encompassed the attitudes, traditions and customs specific
to a particular regime.67
In any case, Xenophon distrusted institutional rules whenever they were
not guaranteed by the presence of a competent guardian. As he strongly
recalls in the Cyropaedia (8.1.8): ‘whenever the person in charge (ὁ ἐπιστάτης) is
better, the established institutions (τὰ νόµιµα) are purer; but when he is worse,
norms are more corrupt.’68 While this assertion, which Xenophon
continually repeated, is by no means original,69 it is nonetheless symbolic
of his views. Focusing his attention on the ruler simultaneously did away
with the institutions, or at least marginalized their role. The leader became
the repository for a heroic mission, on the condition that he garnered the
support of his subordinates without outside help and without relying on
civic loyalty or the prestige of dynastic continuity.70 According to Weber,71
that was the very definition of charismatic authority, a definition that the
10
Introduction
German sociologist applied (no doubt incorrectly) to the relationships
established between Athenian demagogues and the dēmos.72
Concrete content for this charismatic domination needs to be given.
The notion is all too often reduced to an undefinable form of political
seduction – one that resists a set definition and concerns the ineffable and
the mystical.73 Xenophon’s corpus provides much more concrete content,
or at least that is my hypothesis. In his view, charisma is constructed
through specific procedures and techniques that can be grasped across the
multifaceted concept of charis (‘grace’, ‘favor’) in all its forms.
Charis in all its forms

The semantic field of charis has been delineated by philologists over a
century. They all agree on the fundamental signification of the term,
whereby charis first refers to everything that produces joy and pleasure.74
The noun has subsequently evolved based on this central signification.75 As
early as the Homeric epics, the word had already assumed various meanings
that can roughly be separated into two groups. Firstly, charis designated an
individual’s or an object’s power to seduce. It thus included the ‘celestial
grace’ that Athena bestowed upon Odysseus as well as the ‘radiance’ of a
pair of earrings, or the ‘charm’ of a certain discourse (Od. 6.229–35;
23.156–7; Il. 14.182–3; Od. 8.167). The value of the noun, which was
common to all eras, originated in the idea of ‘grace’ and ‘beauty,’ which
could bring delight and joy.76
Charis could also refer to a gift or a favor.77 In fact, it sometimes assumed
the concrete signification of ‘benefaction’ and applied to the service
granted to someone in order to delight or please. Here, the link to the
original signification – that which produces joy – remains quite clear. Yet,
gift and countergift are etymologically linked in Indo-European languages,
which is why charis quickly came to designate the payment in return, or the
countergift destined to respond to the initial benefit.78 Finally, much later
on (after Homer), the term again evolved, assuming the abstract meaning
of ‘gratefulness’ and ‘gratitude.’79
Charis thus appears to have covered all aspects of relationships of
reciprocity, defining the range of reciprocal social pleasures.80 In fact, if
the term’s various connotations are analyzed, it becomes clear that charis
indicated either the subject’s state (joy or pleasure), the object’s attribute
(radiance, charm, or beauty), an act of generosity (benefit, good deed), or
an attitude resulting from it (gratitude).81
Xenophon’s writings do not put all of these meanings into equal practice.
Nearly all of the occurrences in fact refer to the realm of reciprocity and
the exchange of benefits, at the expense of the register of charm and
11
Introduction
radiance.82 Nonetheless, such a general observation does not suffice. The

plasticity of charis cannot be confined to its capacity to designate the back-
and-forth nature of exchange, and a philological study alone cannot reveal
the large gamut of exchanges that the term can cover. Depending on the
situation, charis corresponded to material or symbolic transactions, capable
of describing at once an exchange (political or sexual), an economic
or philosophical transaction, and a familial or religious tie. A purely
philological approach to this notion also encounters another uncertainty.
Depending on the context, charis assumed either a positive or a negative
meaning and could designate both ‘good’ and ‘bad’ gifts, misdeeds as well
as good deeds. Only a close study of the texts and their contexts can reveal
these normative connotations.
But it would be illusory to remain limited to a strictly philological
approach, which would inevitably lead to a reification of the term by
transforming it into some sort of magical formula. In order to understand
how the notion of charis works in Xenophon’s corpus historically, the
methodological approach must be broadened in three ways.
The first approach remains philological. Charis provides a guiding thread
and a solid mooring for this study because it articulates a whole series of
complex notions that have to be taken into account in order to grasp how
the exchange generally functions. Without professing to be exhaustive, the
verbs eu poiein and euergetein (to do good deeds or, in the passive voice, to
receive good deeds) should be cited, along with their derivatives euergesia
and euergetēs; vocabulary surrounding the gift also comes to mind,
implementing nouns such as dōron and dōrea, verbs such as lambanein,
didonai, and dōreisthai, and closely-related notions such as philanthrōpia, all
occurrences that equally deserve to be considered.83 By thus broadening the
philological field of investigation, I intend to access the social phenomenon
behind the words.
The second opening is more directly historical, since charis not only
carried multiple connotations. In Xenophon’s time, the term was already
similar to a concept that had been distorted by historical evolution, and
the writer was in some ways a recipient of underlying intellectual and
political traditions that, from Homer to Herodotus, informed his thinking.
Being a member of the aristoi, he called upon certain archaic resonances of
the concept, referring to a time when the notion was still intimately
associated with the lifestyle of the social and cultural elite of the Greek
world:84 ‘Grace (χάρις) was the highest virtue of aristocratic style, denoting
the perfection of bodily form and movement, the numinous value
bestowed on agalmata, the radiant circuit of gift exchange, and the pleasures
of festivity.’85 Added to the weight of this heritage was the immediate
12
Introduction
impact that the society of his time had on Xenophon’s work. Through the
reciprocity it implied, charis harmoniously blended into the Athenian
ideological panorama.86 It thus played a central role in tragedy, which often
played on the ambiguities surrounding the notion.87 It also occupied a
privileged place in orators’ arguments88 and honorific decrees,89 two other
types of sources that specifically dealt with democratic practices and
imaginary.
Xenophon’s conceptions can only be understood in the light of this
overall context, since he maintained an ambivalent relationship to the
democratic political culture of his time. While he often virulently criticized
the practices of his native land Athens, he was no less a recipient of the
realm of references that constitute the indispensable framework for
understanding his positions. The ideas Xenophon advocated should also
be related to those held by other Athenian dissenters who were writing
during the same period. By situating the author halfway between those
who would in some ways end up reconciling themselves with democracy
(such as Isocrates and Aristotle) and those who, like Plato, were radically
opposed to it, the originality of his positions can be gauged.90 A historical
reading thus implies shedding more light on and multiplying the number
of external references to which his work is compared. Here more than
anywhere else, an understanding of what made him unique has to be
refracted through an understanding of the general.91
No reading would be satisfying without one final attempt at broadening
the approach. Inasmuch as charis largely refers to the sphere of exchange
in Xenophon’s works, no analysis can dispense with the anthropology of
the gift that was elaborated following Marcel Mauss’s study.92 While the
question of the exchange, as it appeared in Mauss, was forged across distant
areas of investigation (the Maori and some Indian tribes in northwestern
America), it found a relevant sphere of application in Greece. With its
implied reciprocity, charis corresponds perfectly to a system of reciprocal
services and the continuous exchange of gifts and countergifts that were
foundational for the Maussian theory of the exchange. According to Denis
Vidal, charis shaped Mauss’s thinking, perhaps without his awareness of it,
for there is no explicit allusion to it in his corpus.93
In return, the anthropology of the gift makes it possible to clarify how
the charis functions. From Mauss, the fundamental idea of a system of
services, at once free and mandatory, is retained. While it is crucial that the
appearances of freedom in the exchange be respected, transactions are
rigorously obligatory at heart. In this respect, the gift is always a vector of
authority, even if it is not explicitly asserted as such. Mauss’s work also
teaches that the exchange is not restricted to material and substantial gifts.
13
Introduction
Far from exclusively involving ‘property and wealth, movable and

immovable goods, and things economically useful,’ the exchange is above
all expressed by ‘acts of politeness: banquets, rituals, military services,
women, children, dances, festivals, and fairs.’ 94 Once again, this is a way of
uniquely echoing the concept of charis, which can precisely include rather
diverse types of transactions.
Without delving into the debates that Mauss’s work has raised,95
numerous critical rereadings have provided useful clarifications to help
investigate further the functioning of charis and exchange in Greece and,
especially, in Xenophon’s writings. Moving away from the structuralist
vision that turns the theory of the gift into a scientific and mechanical type
of law,96 Claude Lefort has thus stressed the conflictual aspects of the
exchange, whereby all services are to some degree agonistic, marking men’s
and women’s struggle for mutual acknowledgement.97 In opposition to the
concept of ‘pure gift’ developed by British and American anthropologists,
Pierre Bourdieu has emphasized the way in which the exchange, beneath
its altruistic façade, is always the founding act of a moral debt, which is
itself a principle of personal domination. Benefits often seem gratuitous
because ‘the lapse of time between the gift and the countergift makes it
possible to mask the contradiction between the experienced (or desired)
truth of the gift as a generous, gratuitous, unrequited act, and the truth that
emerges from the model, which makes it a stage in a relationship of
exchange that transcends singular acts of exchange.’ 98
These rereadings encourage sensitivity to the social differentiations and
political struggles that are played out in the exchange. They highlight the
fundamental heterogeneity of reciprocity according to the respective places
that the diverse partners occupy within it. Gifts can be hierarchical – for
example, aiming to create or symbolize differences in status – or, on the
contrary, they can be redistributive and egalitarian, destined to reestablish
an equality that has been lost. This perspective encourages the develop-
ment of a typological approach capable of taking these differences into
account. I will speak of ‘balanced reciprocity’ when the gift and the
countergift are relatively equivalent and the partners in the exchange enjoy
a similar status and of ‘unbalanced’ or ‘asymmetrical reciprocity’ when
transactions do not compensate for each other and involve individuals
whose statuses are too different from each other.99
But a study of charis that only adopts a social and political approach to
the exchange is hardly satisfactory. Anglo-Saxon anthropologists have
challenged the very use of the concept of the gift as a univeral key valid for
all times and places. According to them, the very idea of the ‘gift’ must be
historicized. It is not enough to highlight the role of time within the
14
Introduction
exchange; the way in which time and historical processes transform the
actual structure of the gift, which is all too often conceived as atemporal,
must also be understood. All things considered, the ‘gift’, as Mauss theorized
it, seems to be a mythical construction or by-product of Occidentalism.100
Its emergence in the works of anthropologists paradoxically owes much to
the imaginary capitalist order. The ideology of the ‘gift’ has been constructed
as the mirror of the market relations that have blossomed throughout the
Western world with the capitalist revolution of the nineteenth century: ‘the
question arises of whether the postulated gift is anything other than the
inversion of the commodity’; as Nicholas Thomas puts it, ‘the older
anthropological construct of the gift depended more upon an inversion of
the category of the commodity than upon anything which really existed in
indigenous Oceanic societies.’101
While the critique is strong, it in no way challenges the use of the
anthropology of the gift within the context of the Greek world. In fact,
Greece was the place where the first monetarized economy in history
emerged. In this respect, Greek society is distinct from most of the
societies studied by anthropologists. Feeling the threat represented by the
irruption of coinage and the development of market exchange, the elite of
the archaic and early classical periods constructed their own ideology of the
gift in a way that was diametrically opposed to the ideology of commerce.
Greece therefore represents a privileged field of study when it comes to
noticing the overlapping redefinitions of ‘gift’ and ‘market,’ charis and
misthos, without one being able to challenge the relevance of such a
distinction, since Greece was the very birthplace of this opposition.102
Using this philological and anthropological basis, I would like to weave
together strands that, despite being disjointed, are no less complementary,
all within a properly historical perspective. A solid philological foundation
– the notion of charis – should make it possible to ask questions in the very
terms in which the Ancients formulated them: in short, ‘to think Greek
about what is Greek’.103 At the same time, the anthropological perspective
is likely to provoke a decentering and establish a circulation between
modern and ancient concepts in what I hope will be a fruitful exchange.104
The limits of analysis and methodological gains

By making charis the cornerstone of this study, I am deliberately renouncing
the task of exhaustively describing the manifestations of power in
Xenophon’s corpus. Such an undertaking has already been more or less
positively attempted using the handy divisions passed down through the
classical political tradition.105 Furthermore, my study does not shed light on
another important pillar of authority alongside charis: phobos, or fear. Fear
15
Introduction
conceals a singular power over men. It is, as Xenophon himself said, what
‘cast[s] down the soul more than all other passions’ (Cyr. 3.1.25) and ‘makes
men more attentive, more obedient, and more amenable to discipline’.
(Mem. 3.5.5) As a military chief, he himself did not hesitate to resort to
terror when the circumstances demanded it (Anab. 5.8.18 and 20).106 As for
the Spartan political system, a great deal of its effectiveness resided in the
fear that the magistrates inspired in the rest of the Lacedaemonians.107
However, fear was not enough to guarantee lasting authority in the long
term. Clearchus’s misadventures in the Anabasis each demonstrate the
limits of a strict policy based on terror. As soon as the Greek soldiers were
able to, ‘many would desert him [Clearchus]; for he was not gracious
(ἐπίχαρι), but always severe and rough, so that the soldiers had the same
feeling toward him that boys have toward a schoolmaster.’ (Anab. 2.6.12)108
In order to establish his power in a lasting way, the charismatic leader had
to know how to to handle deftly both the carrot and the stick, benefits and
fear, charis and phobos, all according to the model embodied by Cyrus the
Elder and celebrated as soon as the Cyropaedia begins (1.1.5): ‘He ruled over
these nations, even though they did not speak the same language as he,
nor one nation the same as another; for all that, he was able to cover so vast
a region with the fear which he inspired (τῷ ἑαυτοῦ φόβῳ), that he struck all men
with terror and no one tried to withstand him; and he was able to awaken
in all so lively a desire to please (χαρίζεσθαι) him, that they always wished to
be guided by his will.’109
Nonetheless, while fear occupies a certain place in the ideology of power
displayed by Xenophon, its place remains marginal in his corpus. Despite
this first assertion at the beginning of the Cyropaedia, fear tends to disappear
from the narrative (with a few rare exceptions) and gives way to an analysis
of the sovereign’s magnanimity, which radiates from charis.110 The same
observation holds for Cyrus the Younger, Agesilaus, and especially Socrates.
On the condition that it is granted its rightful place in Xenophon’s
corpus (in other words, that of a concept which, while central, hardly sums
up all of Xenophon’s conceptions), charis presents a number of metho-
dological advantages. Through the reciprocity it implies, charis makes it
possible to tackle the question of power in terms of relationship and not
institution. It encourages the identification of authority with a constantly
mobile relational network often not guaranteed by any political or social
institution. Charis covers an immaterial and impalpable form of power
composed of services rendered, acknowledged loyalty, respect, and
dependency. Examining authority based on the concept of charis ultimately
means looking at power ‘at ground level,’ as something that circulates and
not as a fixed object.111
16
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
mies, tahdonko ruveta hänen vaimoksensa!
Vähää ennen joulua olin lukenut, että rakastettuni oli nimitetty

sairashuoneen lääkäriksi pieneen, kaukana olevaan seutuun, ja nyt
vei hän vaimonsa kotiinsa.
Tuntui surkealta ja häpeälliseltä seurata hänen elämänsä

tapauksia aivan samalla tavalla, kuin muut saattoivat sen tehdä, ja
kun käteeni rutistin sanomalehden, minä melkein halveksin häntä ja
tuntui hyvältä ja helpottavalta olla katkera ja kova.
En tahtonut häntä muistella; en hetkeäkään ajatella, että hän nyt

palkitsisi tuon alttiin sielun seitsemänvuotista uskollisuutta.
Kuumeen polttaessa suoniani ehdotin, että päivä kulutettaisiin

huvituksissa — iloissa.
Teimme ensin rekiretken; sitten tarjosi pormestari päivällistä

shampanjan kera — ei sovi keski-ikäisen naima-aikeissa olevan
ruotsalaisen tyytyä vähempään — ja sitten joimme kahvia ja
kuuntelimme musiikkia kullatussa kahvilassa ja tulimme kotiin
myöhään hämärissä.
Olisimme päättäneet päivän eräässä teatterissa, mutta täti Agneta

ei jaksanut enää ja uskoi, että me toisetkin voisimme paremmin, jos
joisimme teetä kotona rauhassa.
Tuli oli sammunut vieraskamarin pesässä; punainen hiillos henki

vielä lämpöä ja heikkoa valoa. Huoneessa tuntui hyasintin ja kielon
tuoksua ja kodin lämmin, hauska ilma lehahti meitä vastaan.
Istuuduin korkeaselkäiseen iso-isäntuoliin. Täti Agneta tipsutti

keittiöön ja pormestari käveli edestakaisin lattialla.
»Te olette ollut niin iloinen tänään, neiti», sanoi hän pysähtyen ja
laski kätensä tuolini selustalle. »Minulle on ollut mieluista nähdä teitä
sellaisena. — Ensi aikoina olitte niin kalpea ja hiljainen. Mutta
olittehan ollut sairas?»
»Niin, olin ollut sairas.» vastasin hajamielisesti. Ehkäpä hehkui

palanut roihu toisessakin kodissa illanhämyssä? Ehkä oli ilma
sielläkin hellä ja lämmin? Ei, ei ajatella, ei ajatella!
Pakotin itseni kuuntelemaan pormestaria, joka seisoi puhellen

hiukan pitemmältä ilostaan, nähdessään minut iloisena ja sitten
yksinäisestä kodistaan, ja kuinka hän tulisi meitä kaipaamaan. Ja
kuinka olikaan, kysyi hän minulta enkö voisi päättää tulla
sulostuttamaan tätä yksinäistä kotia.
»Ymmärrän kyllä hyvin, ettette te koskaan voi tuntea minua

kohtaan sitä kuin minä teitä», jatkoi hän lämpimämmällä äänellä, »ja
mielessäni välkähti, että tekisin viisaasti, jos vastaanottaisin hänen
rehellisen kätensä, sillä minä — minä rakastan teitä.»
Tuo sana koski minuun, en saattanut sitä kuulla, ja minä ojensin

käteni estääkseni sen toistamista.
Mutta tämän käsitti kosijani kehoitukseksi, hän kumartui

lähemmäksi minua ja hänen silmiinsä syttyi äkkiä tuli, joka samalla
sammui, mutta joka kertoi minulle, että minua hän pyysi ja tahtoi
omistaa eikä vaimoa noin vain ylimalkaan.
Tätä en ennen tullut ajatelleeksi: taikka olin ajatellut, niinkuin sitä

koneellisesti ja kylmästi ajattelee kaikenlaisia kohtauksia — en ollut
tuntenut sitä. — Mutta samalla kuin tunsin sen, tiesin myöskin, ettei
hän koskaan voisi saada sitä, mitä pyysi.
Huuliani, joita yhden ainoan lemmensuutelot olivat pyhittäneet, ei
saanut toinen koskettaa.
Kauvas häipyivät arkionnen unelmat ja kotoiset hauskuudet hänen

rinnallaan. Minua tympäisi tuo kunnon mies ja hänen lempivä
katseensa. — Mitäpä voisi hän minulle tarjota? Ei hän voinut saada
verenpisaraakaan minussa liikkeelle.
Siirsin tuolini kauvemmaksi ja aloin, hämilläni ja änkyttäen, outoa

työtä, rukkasten antamista.
Ja tein sen niin huonosti, että pormestari katsoi vastaajan syyt

mitättömiksi ja täydensi omaa puhettaan.
Hän kävi kaunopuheiseksi ja innokkaaksi ja puhui itsensä

lämpimäksi, mutta lämpöä minä vähimmin halusin.
Viimein täytyi minun sanoa hänelle, että aivan hiljattain olin

rakastanut, toista niin, kuin minulle oli mahdollista ja etten vielä
voinut kuvitellakaan voivani antaa toiselle hituistakaan siitä
mieltymyksestä, jota vaimon tulisi tuntea miestänsä kohtaan.
Sanan »vielä» pistin lauseeseen kohteliaisuudesta häntä kohtaan,

mutta hän tarttui siihen, kuin olisi se ollut pääasia puheessani.
»Emme puhu siitä nyt sen pitemmältä.» sanoi hän, »minä voin
odottaa. Te olette minulle niin rakas. — Kesän puoleen tulen
uudelleen, teen kysymykseni vielä kerran ja toivon ajan auttavan
minua.»
Luulen, että hän piti aikaa korkeampana oikeuspaikkana, jossa

jutut hitaasti päätettiin. Herra pormestari »kävi kuninkaissa»
kosimisensa kanssa. Kuningas Aika parantavalla voimallaan
varmaan päättäisi asian hänen edukseen.
Seuraavana päivänä matkusti hän hallitsemaan kaupunkiansa ja

koska täti Agneta näytti vähemmän pettyneeltä, kuin mitä luulin,
otaksun minä, että hän oli tehnyt toivehikkaan aikateoriiansa
tädillekin selväksi.
Keskusteluamme emme uusineet. Vähää ennenkuin hän matkusti,

täti
Agnetan hyväntahtoisesti kadottua, sanoi hän vainen:
»Luvatkaa minulle, armas, kalpea lapsi, että toisinaan muistelette

minua, joka tästä päivästä alkaen, siihen asti, kunnes kesä-aurinko
paistaa, joka päivä tahdon ajatella sitä hetkeä, jolloin taasen saan
pyytää onneani.»
Hän suuteli kättäni monta kertaa ja painoi sitä rintaansa vasten

nöyrällä hellyydellä, joka ei mitään pyytänyt, vaan ainoasi antoi. —
Ja siilon houkutteli hänen hellyytensä minua eikä tympäissyt.
Mutta ei, en tahdo antaa pelkurimaisen suojaa, turvaa ja kotia

kaipaavan tunteen houkutella itseäni. Se ei kumminkaan koskaan
voisi korvata sitä, mitä vainen yksi voipi antaa.
*****
Ajatukset liikkuvat vyöryävässä sekasorrossa nyt, kun teen

tilinpäätökseni vuoden viimeisenä päivänä.
Kirkas ja kylmä on talviyö, kalpeita ovat kuvat niistä ihmisistä, joita

olen kohdannut — nyt kun ne kulkevat sisäisen katseeni sivu.
Hänelläkin, jota rakastan, on harso silmillä, mutta lempeni elää.
Vieläkin saatan tuntea autuaan väreilevän tunteen hänen
syleilyssään; vieläkin saatan kuulla sydämellisen sävyn hänen
äänessään. »Rakastaa sinua enemmän kuin kaikkia muita — se ei
olisi paljon!» sanoi hän kerran.
Kun kesäinen onni oli täysinäinen, hallitsin minä ihanaa

nykyisyyttä. Nyt hallitsee ajatukseni ihanaa menneisyyttä, jota ei
mikään maailmassa voi riistää minulta pois. Koskaan ei muistojeni
onni saata kuolla, rakkauteni ei koskaan muuttua tavaksi.
Ja minä olen elänyt, sillä olen tuntenut, tuntenut niin, että sydän on
ollut haljeta ilosta ja surusta.
Maljani on täysi muistojen primuloita, jotka eivät koskaan kuihdu.
Loppu.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK KAKSITOISTA
KUUKAUTTA ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in
these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it
in the United States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of
this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept
and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and
may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the
terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of
the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as
creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research.
Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given
away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with
eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject
to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free

distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree
to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from
the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in
paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be

used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a
few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.
See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with
Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in
the United States and you are located in the United States, we do
not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing,
performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the
work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of
course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely
sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of
this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its
attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without
charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the
United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms
of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this
work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes
no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in
any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™
work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or
with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is
accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived

from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the
United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must
comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted

with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of
this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a
part of this work or any other work associated with Project
Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this

electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you
provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work
in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in
the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing

access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™

electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe
and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating
the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may
be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to,
incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a
copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except

for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph
1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner
of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party
distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this
agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and
expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO
REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF
WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE
FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it,
you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must
return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity
that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a
replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in
lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may
demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted
by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability,
costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or
indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur:
(a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b)
alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project
Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.
It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and
donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a
secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help,
see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,

Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can
be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the
widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small
donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax
exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating

charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and
keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in
locations where we have not received written confirmation of
compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of
compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where

we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no
prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in
such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make

any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of
other ways including checks, online payments and credit card
donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed

editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how
to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

PDF Xenophon and The Graces of Power A Greek Guide To Political Manipulation Vincent Azoulay Ebook Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PDF Xenophon and The Graces of Power A Greek Guide To Political Manipulation Vincent Azoulay Ebook Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PDF Xenophon and The Graces of Power A Greek Guide To Political Manipulation Vincent Azoulay Ebook Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Xenophon and the Graces of Power A

Greek Guide to Political Manipulation

A Practical Guide to Fascial Manipulation Tuulia

Gateway to Statesmanship Selections from Xenophon to

The Normalisation of Cyprus’ Partition Among Greek

Political and Cultural Aspects of Greek Exoticism

Surgery of the Inferior Vena Cava A Multidisciplinary

The Occult Technology of Power The Initiation of the

GPU Pro 360 Guide to Geometry Manipulation 1st Edition

Power from the sun a practical guide to solar

XENOPHON AND THE GRACES OF POWER

The Classical Press of Wales

First published in 2018 by

Distributor in North America

CHAPTER 1 – CHARIS AND ITS CHALLENGES 21

CHAPTER 2 – LEGITIMATE FAVORS 52

III. Contextualizing Favors: The Differential Effectiveness

CHAPTER 3 – FROM GOOD DEEDS TO MISDEEDS: THE CORRUPTING

CHAPTER 4 – BETWEEN CHARIS AND MISTHOS : XENOPHON

CHAPTER 5 – CHARIS AND ENVY 139

CHAPTER 6 – CHARIS AND PHILIA: THE POLITICS OF FRIENDSHIP 169

CHAPTER 7 – CHARIS AND PATERNITY 199

CHAPTER 8 – THE GRACES OF LOVE 229

PHILOLOGICAL ANNEX: CHARIS IN XENOPHON’S CORPUS 279

GENERAL INDEX 415

INDEX LOCORUM 433

(be it rhetorical, political, or historical). This subtle recontextualization has

As early as the Hellenistic period, Xenophon was celebrated for his

Xenophon, or the itinerary of a traitor?

Retracing Xenophon’s life is rather difficult. To do so, the historian must

Battle of Mantinea in 362 (Ephorus, FGrHist 70 F 85).24 Furthermore,

A corpus in all its fragmentary splendor

The masks of a multifaceted man

against him.66 Similarly, his posthumous praise for Agesilaus sought to

From charisma to charis

Charis in all its forms

radiance.82 Nonetheless, such a general observation does not suffice. The

Far from exclusively involving ‘property and wealth, movable and

The limits of analysis and methodological gains

Vähää ennen joulua olin lukenut, että rakastettuni oli nimitetty

Tuntui surkealta ja häpeälliseltä seurata hänen elämänsä

En tahtonut häntä muistella; en hetkeäkään ajatella, että hän nyt

Kuumeen polttaessa suoniani ehdotin, että päivä kulutettaisiin

Teimme ensin rekiretken; sitten tarjosi pormestari päivällistä

Olisimme päättäneet päivän eräässä teatterissa, mutta täti Agneta

Tuli oli sammunut vieraskamarin pesässä; punainen hiillos henki

Istuuduin korkeaselkäiseen iso-isäntuoliin. Täti Agneta tipsutti

»Niin, olin ollut sairas.» vastasin hajamielisesti. Ehkäpä hehkui

Pakotin itseni kuuntelemaan pormestaria, joka seisoi puhellen

»Ymmärrän kyllä hyvin, ettette te koskaan voi tuntea minua

Tuo sana koski minuun, en saattanut sitä kuulla, ja minä ojensin

Mutta tämän käsitti kosijani kehoitukseksi, hän kumartui

Tätä en ennen tullut ajatelleeksi: taikka olin ajatellut, niinkuin sitä

Kauvas häipyivät arkionnen unelmat ja kotoiset hauskuudet hänen

Siirsin tuolini kauvemmaksi ja aloin, hämilläni ja änkyttäen, outoa

Ja tein sen niin huonosti, että pormestari katsoi vastaajan syyt

Hän kävi kaunopuheiseksi ja innokkaaksi ja puhui itsensä

Viimein täytyi minun sanoa hänelle, että aivan hiljattain olin