Abstract

This gracefully written book about Xenophon is primarily intended to present a sympathetic account of the writings of that much maligned and underrated ancient soldier, statesman, and philosopher. Professor Higgins is a "student of literature" who does not attempt to elicit Xenophon’s political philosophy; what he does attempt to do is to present an accurate and sympathetic portrait of a great writer and disciple of Socrates. Such a venture is long past due, and Higgins is especially successful. His careful and sensitive reading of the Xenophonic corpus is nothing short of admirable. The book contains seven chapters beginning with an account of how to read Xenophon: his comments on Xenophonic use of irony are especially instructive. But despite his efforts to contrast one work with another—e.g., the Hiero or Kyroupaideia with the Lacedaemonian Constitution—the author fails to observe larger structural similarities. He seems to be unaware, for example, that there is a significant similarity in the way the Kyroupaideia ends and the way the Lacedaemonian Constitution ends. If he is aware of the parallel peculiarities in these two works, he fails to draw any conclusion from the similarity. This oversight leads Higgins to miss the major points of these two treatises: regimes founded as solidly as Sparta with institutional support for law will last much longer than regimes, such as Persia, which depend upon the actual presence of one strong ruler. That is why Cyrus’s empire collapsed. As soon as Cyrus died: "his children at once fell into dissension, cities and nations began at once to revolt." The Spartan regime, despite its questionable customs and despite its constitutional deficiencies such as the dual monarchy, survived long after the death of Lykourgos. It eventually became the most admired regime of ancient times—not Persia. But Xenophon questions this reputation in the name of justice and piety.