Classics and the Western Canon discussion
This topic is about
Xenophon
Interim Readings
>
Xenophon: Hiero, or On Tyranny
LOL, David and Gary, I apologize for invoking Godwin’s law, but somehow this reminds me of Hitler, who was so compassionate about animals he was a vegetarian. And yet, he ordered the deaths of millions.Oh and some say he died by suicide.
Lia wrote: "LOL, David and Gary, I apologize for invoking Godwin’s law, but somehow this reminds me of Hitler..."Never heard of Godwin's law till now. I can relate. Thanks.
Gary wrote: "I don't believe Xenophon is being ironic. Questions about the state, the republic, the city, kingship, tyranny were important considerations in Ancient Greece. Hiero is Xenophon speaking to these questions in all seriousness. "I don’t know, Gary, irony could mean saying (or writing) something he “obviously” doesn’t endorse.
Xenophon’s mentor, Socrates, was executed by Athens not long after he left (escaped?), it’s quite possible that certain ideas are so offensive, so dangerous, so threatening to the regime, they can’t talk about it openly, directly.
Maybe he has something serious to say about the polis or leadership, but the content can only be made public as a joke, or irony ...
Lia wrote: "irony could mean saying (or writing) something he “obviously” doesn’t endorse...."I get it. It's just that I think Xenophon is entirely serious here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe he used irony in his other writings. Also, the choices he made during his lifetime supported autocratic instead of democratic rule. He actually took up arms on behalf of Sparta against Athens. (Whether this was before or after he was exiled from Athens is unknown.) He spent most of the latter part of his life as an agent for Sparta at Olympia. He greatly admired Cyrus the Great. In this context, I'm hard put to read Hiero as ironic.
Lia wrote: "Oh and some say he [Hitler] died by suicide. "I actually tried to account for Godwin's Law, aka reductio ad Hitlerum, aka argumentum ad Hitlerum, and aka ad Nazium, by specifying suffering the misery of their tyrannical status . But loosing a war may change a tyrant's perspective.
If Hitler had killed himself in 1939 or 1940, it would have been an exception. However, by the spring of 1945 Hitler's suicide is a bit more understandable. In contrast, his contemporary, Benito Mussolini, held out until executed, as did Saddam Hussein 61 years later in 2006. Napoleon too, held out until his health failed.
Xenophon is one of the most ironic authors of all time, if you suspect that his entire "Col. Blimp" persona was one big put on.Put it this way, anyone who writes so that posterity is more likely to consider him a fool than a philosopher, while being a philosopher the whole time, is deeply, deeply ironic.
Gary wrote: "I get it. It's just that I think Xenophon is entirely serious here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do..."It’s like what @ Wendel said in #47, the interpretation of Xenophon has been debated for centuries with every conceivable position taken by notable commentators.
I’m currently siding with reading Xenophon (especially his “admiration” for Cyrus) as deeply ironic, commentators who expressed that view includes (maybe Nietzsche,) Leo Strauss, more recently Vivienne Gray, and I have to disclose I’m commenting under the influence of Eric Buzzetti, who argues, with textual evidence and line-by-line analysis, that Xenophon’s Anabasis is deeply ironic. I don’t find all his specific claims convincing, but I’m convinced that Xenophon is a grandmaster of irony, even if I don’t fully endorse an “esoteric” (Straussian) reading.
David wrote: "I actually tried to account for Godwin's Law, aka reductio ad Hitlerum, aka argumentum ad Hitlerum, and aka ad Nazium, by specifying suffering the misery of their tyrannical status . But loosing a war may change a tyrant's perspective. ..."😂
I concede! Hitler’s suicide “makes sense”! (Can I have some Hitler-rum now?)
That said, we don’t know those celebrities died because of tyrant-like false facade either. It’s quite possible that they were simply suffering deep depression and convinced that they cannot endure another bout of relapse. In that sense, they’re also jumping from a burning building in order to escape the more immediate flame, and not necessarily to fall to their deaths.
Besides ... I’ve got this feeling that Hiero is actually doing very well, and enjoying the hell out of his tyranny. Despite his complaints, he seems to find pleasure in predatory acquisition and conquest:
“To take from unwilling enemies I myself believe is most pleasant of all things” (1.34).
It seems he’s only arguing with Simonides for the sake of arguing, for the sake of “defeating” the wise-man at his rhetorical game. I suspect he’s not really suffering that miserably ...
David wrote: "Not intending to be so morbid, I cannot recall any tyrants suffering the misery of their tyrannical status so much that they commit suicide over it like celebrities seem to do...."Perhaps without initiating "Godwin's Law" (which was a new one to me, too -- thx for the heads up, Lia!), I found it instructive to scan this Wiki list of notable people who died by suicide. A very few minutes suggests political figures (and their associates) throughout history have not been immune.
(Perhaps my curiosity was heightened by watching the CNN episode last night of the triplet brothers adopted by three separate families. My f2f book group had read Identical Strangers years ago. Last night's program skirted some of the factors leading to choices between life and suicide.)
Christopher wrote: "Xenophon is one of the most ironic authors of all time, if you suspect that his entire "Col. Blimp" persona was one big put on.Put it this way, anyone who writes so that posterity is more likely ..."
Irony can certainly be put to very not ironic uses! Not sure directly relevant, but my mind skips to Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonel... -- Had to look this one up, too! Thx, Chris.
Yes, there is controversy about irony in Xenophon and I appreciate all the previous comments on this question. For my part, I think we need to focus on what Xenophon brought to his writing more than on what we bring to our reading. “Irony in Xenophon has become acute enough of a problem for a leading Xenophon scholar, Vivienne J. Gray, to find that her book on Xenophon’s theory of leadership was ‘ambushed’ by the need to address how to read Xenophon, and how not to. Gray finds considerable irony in Xenophon, but it is a remarkably transparent version of irony that is ‘almost painfully explicit.’ The problematic version of irony in Xenophon, for Gray, is a darker sort, the sort that undercuts the apparent meaning of the text. Gray notes that we moderns are fond, indeed unduly fond, of irony; suggests that we are complacently contemptuous of those too blind to see it; and points out that we are sceptical of the sorts of strong leaders she believes Xenophon admires. I will add that contemporary distaste for Sparta may tempt readers fond of Xenophon to question how fond Xenophon could really have been of Sparta. All these factors are warning signs that readers may bring irony to Xenophon rather than finding it in his text.”
Bradley, Patrick J. "Irony and the Narrator in Xenophon's Anabasis", in Xenophon. Ed. Vivienne J. Gray. Oxford University Press, 2010
Right, I more or less agree that moderns sometimes read more irony (or hermeneutics of suspicion, or esoteric exegesis) into the text than is justifiable. My only point is that Xenophon probably did use irony in many of his writings, and the inherent contradictions throughout Hiero is probably a case of irony (saying what he doesn’t endorse while expecting readers to get it.)
This is an interesting review of On Tyranny, including the Strauss-Kojève Correspondence (actually, of On Tyranny) by George Lichtheim.https://www.commentarymagazine.com/ar...
I say interesting, but it is pretty dismissive of both Xenophon and Strauss:
After these lengthy preliminaries, can we at last get down to the real topic? Unfortunately, the answer is no, and for this Strauss must take the responsibility. What is really of importance comes out in his controversy with Kojève, but before he arrives at this point the reader has to make his way through Xenophon’s Hiero and Strauss’s detailed exegesis of this rather slight and inconsequential piece of writing. I am of course aware that in saying this I am offending against the accepted canons of literary decency and good taste. I am also offending against Strauss’s basic assumption, which is that Wisdom is encapsulated in the classical texts he has chosen to interpret. Being in this matter on Kojève’s side, I shall compound the original felony by suggesting that the full meaning of Xenophon can be grasped by an intelligent schoolboy at the first reading. This is such an outrageous statement that I shall make no effort to defend it. I merely observe, in passing as it were, that Xenophon has always been a favorite with schoolmasters (though less so with their pupils).
Thomas wrote: "Gary wrote: "Simonides advises Hiero to act in such a way as to inspire love to earn his subjects' loyalty. Machiavelli instructs the Prince to act in such a way as to instill fear in his subjects...."As I remember it correctly, Machiavelli wrote about those pour rulers who depend on the sympathy of their subjects. They should follow mob's whims, every time give more than before etc. Simonides had a better opinion of humanity.
Simonides' advice is not consistent, he assumed that tyrant has more opportunities to do good or evil than ordinary men but offered to use personal resources to enforce justice, protect their private properties etc. Of course, he believed in the benevolent transformation of the citizens, so the resources should not be infinite. But he certainly did not want to solve the problem of raising money for policy. Short cut - So you have money, use it wisely
Lia wrote: "Well, I still think (on the surface anyway) he’s trying to transform Hiero’s regime by reordering the priorities the different parts of the polis ... and maybe the soul. (Ctrl+F reveals Simonides brings up the soul all over the place.) The core of his proposition is to transform (educate?) his subjects into the kind of virtuous citizens that act out of a sense of honor, love for their tyrant/ city/ regime, and not out of fear or greed. Again, I find that extremely similar to Plato’s Republic. ."For Plato's Socrates, the only state worse than that of a tyrannical man is that of an actual tyrant. I'm not sure if Hiero is a tyrannical man though, and maybe that is the problem. He seems to have his appetites under control, and he recognizes the difference between genuine love and base flattery. Perhaps the fact that he is not happy in his moderation and understanding is a sign of the underlying problem, which Plato's Socrates would diagnose differently than Xenophon's Simonides.
Here is how Plato describes the tyrant in Book 9 of the Republic:
And isn't the tyrant confined in a prison of that sort, since by his nature he's the kind of person we've been going over, filled with lots of fears and erotic passions of all varieties? Even though his soul is eager to sop up sensations, isn't he the only one in the city who doesn't have the ability to go out anywhere or to see all the things that other free people are desirious of seeing, but who, ensconced in his house most of the time, lives like a housewife and envies the rest of the citizens when any of them get to go out and see anything good? 579C
It's very interesting to me how well this description matches Hiero's complaints. But Socrates and Simonides have very different ideas about what constitutes the good life. Hiero strikes me as a tyrant who is disappointed that he can't also be a tyrannical man. In order to maintain his tyranny, he in fact must be a kind of ascetic and deny himself the pleasures of the private life. Simonides' solution is to extend Hiero a "noble lie": that he can somehow have both. He can maintain his tyrannical rule and be free himself at the same time.
Simonides' final promise to Hiero is that if he follows his advice, Hiero will acquire "the most noble and most blessed possession to be met with among human beings -- to be happy while not being envied for being happy." This ending mirrors the fairy tale beginning, "once upon a time." It is a myth, isn't it, and aren't we supposed to recognize it as such?
Gary wrote: " For my part, I think we need to focus on what Xenophon brought to his writing more than on what we bring to our reading. "That's a fair criticism, but if we are to read any text closely then I think we're entitled to ask questions of the details. It's always preferable to read a text literally when it is presented literally, but there are signs that this one wasn't designed that way. Xenophon could have written a short treatise on tyranny instead of a dialogue featuring a poet reknowned for his immoderation and a non-Greek tyrant, in which case it would be much easier to take him at face value. But he made it more complicated than that, perhaps because his Athenian audience despised tyranny. Or perhaps because there is a basic contradiction at the heart of tyranny that makes the dialogue form more suitable as a vehicle for discussion. In any case, I think this text is flexible enough to serve as more than a straightforward bit of practical advice for the successful tyrant.
Thomas wrote: “Simonides' final promise to Hiero is that if he follows his advice, Hiero will acquire "the most noble and most blessed possession to be met with among human beings -- to be happy while not being envied for being happy." This ending mirrors the fairy tale beginning, "once upon a time." It is a myth, isn't it, and aren't we supposed to recognize it as such? ” I see what you did there ... a poet ... a tyrant ... a myth. Everything Plato tried to exile or ban.
But, Plato too collapsed his oh so just and ideal Republic, wouldn’t that make it yet another fanciful myth? A nice thing to dream about, pretty, ideal, utopic, not possible?
Hiero also got very quiet towards the end (§10 - 11) ... almost like he got aporia’d.
Which makes me wonder how seriously should we take Plato’s Republic as actual, serious political treatise, as opposed to ... a myth? A thought experiment? A piece of art ... like poetry? (While Plato ostensibly bans bad poets and myths. There’s that familiar inherent contradiction again.)
I am taking your points on board though, I’m wondering if Xenophon is presenting a thought-experiment of what happens when you beautify, dress up, throw poetry upon the most unjust, akrasia-driven regime. Not as serious recommendations for tyrants, but more as the kind of dialogues that induce wonders and aporia, and conducive to exploring what is nobility, what is good, what is justice, what is piety, etc etc.
It's very interesting to me how well this description matches Hiero's complaints. But Socrates and Simonides have very different ideas about what constitutes the good life. Hiero strikes me as a tyrant who is disappointed that he can't also be a tyrannical man. In order to maintain his tyranny, he in fact must be a kind of ascetic and deny himself the pleasures of the private life. Simonides' solution is to extend Hiero a "noble lie": that he can somehow have both. He can maintain his tyrannical rule and be free himself at the same time. Your assessment of Hiero is way more charitable than mine. IMO, he already sees his subjects as his enemies and foreign women as only possible satisfactory mates. (Kind of like an inversion of harming enemies and helping friends). He qualifies as a “true tyrant” in my ledger.
Maybe Xenophon isn’t telling us how tyrannical regimes can be improved. Maybe Xenophon is telling us that some successful polis with happy subjects and wealth and superficial enforcements of justice are merely skilled and evolved tyrannical-regimes... or that justice and virtue and goodness for its own sake etc aren’t necessary for a well-ordered polis (and happy horses.)
Hiero was tyrant of Syracuse, which is in what is now Italy, but it was a Greek colony. Hiero himself was completely Greek in language and culture.
Alexey wrote: "Machiavelli wrote about those poor rulers who depend on the sympathy of their subjects. They should follow mob's whims, every time give more than before etc. "While Machiavelli covered a number of topics in The Prince, in the Chapter titled “Concerning Cruelty and Clemency, and Whether It Is Better To Be Loved Than Feared” (Chapter XVII) he was quite direct.
“Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely … men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared…”
Machiavelli, Niccolò. The Prince. Trans: W.K. Marriott, 1908. Original work published 1532
Isn't this the same question as that addressed in Hiero? If we set aside for the moment the question of irony, I agree with Alexey that "Simonides had a better opinion of humanity." Xenophon seems to say that a good -- even if not moral -- tyrant can effectively lead/guide/cajole his people to the benefit of both people and tyrant without resorting to fear.
About the question of irony in Hiero: I have been listening carefully to those who read Hiero as ironic, indeed as intending something contrary to what was written. I am not trying to change anyone's mind, as there is support for both literal and ironic readings. As I try to better understand an ironic reading, I come to a few observations. Read ironically, should I conclude that Xenophon is a closet democrat? I wonder if an ironic reading presumes that Xenophon wrote primarily for an Athenian audience, and not for the entire Greek-reading world? I can see how the first part of the book on the woes of being a tyrant could be a put-on, as in "he can't be serious." I can see how the very idea of a "good tyrant" might be an oxymoron. I acknowledge Thomas' remark that "featuring a poet reknowned for his immoderation and a non-Greek tyrant" can suggest that things are not as they seem. I can see how an ironic reading would be consistent with his past as Socrates' pupil. Lia even suggests that Hiero is not about "serious recommendations for tyrants, but more as the kind of dialogues that induce wonders and aporia, and conducive to exploring what is nobility, what is good, what is justice, what is piety, etc etc." Read this way, one could conclude that tyranny can't work, be it one of fear or love/loyalty. Because an ironic reading is still a reach for me, I hope others will chime in to expand on or contradict these thoughts.
Irony1 a : humor, ridicule, or light sarcasm that adopts a mode of speech the intended implication of which is the opposite of the literal sense of the words (as when expressions of praise are used where blame is meant) b : this mode of expression as a literary style or form [a gift for irony] c : an ironic utterance or expression
2: a state of affairs or events that is the reverse of what was or of what was to be expected : a result opposite to and as if in mockery of the appropriate result
3 philosophy : a pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another assumed in order to make the other's false conceptions conspicuous by adroit questioning — called also Socratic irony
4 .theater : incongruity between a situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play — called also dramatic irony
Definition of irony from Merriam Webster.
It would take more thought and effort that I am willing to put into this dialogue to try to identify when and where and why and what type of irony Xenophon is using as he moves us through the dialogues between Hiero and Simonides. I don't know that irony is always, including here, "intending something contrary to what was written."
Lia wrote: "Which makes me wonder how seriously should we take Plato’s Republic as actual, serious political treatise, as opposed to ... a myth? A thought experiment? A piece of art ... like poetry?"Socrates' last comment on the 'city in speech' is that it is a pattern, a paradeigmata "laid up in heaven for anyone who wants to see it and for the one who's seen to establish in himself. It makes no difference whether it is or will be present anywhere..." 892b
I think it is serious, but the matter he's concerned with is not the state as much as it is the soul. I know it's a reach to say that Xenophon is doing the same thing here, but it's so tempting when the first thing Xenophon establishes is the unhappy condition of Hiero's soul.
Lily wrote: " I don't know that irony is always, including here, "intending something contrary to what was written." "I agree, and I think it's only Socratic irony that applies here. Socrates feigned ignorance as a pedagogical tool. He preferred asking questions to giving lectures, citing his "ignorance" as justification. This is the kind of "irony" I think we have here. There is a big question at the end of the this dialogue: will Hiero take Simonides' advice? And will taking Simonides' advice make Hiero a happier man? As Lia noted, Hiero is silent at the end of the dialogue. Perhaps we, the readers, are supposed to take up the question from here.
Gary wrote: “should I conclude that Xenophon is a closet democrat? ” I don’t see why you would? My apologies for cosplaying as a broken record, but tyranny in the ancient sense is mostly in contrast with legitimate (basileia) monarchy, not democracy. Let me quote yet another commentator:
source:Date and Intention of Xenophon's "Hiero" Author(s): G. J. D. Aalders
...the monarchy of the Cyropaedia is a legal kingship, a basileia, that of the Hiero is dictatorship, the fruit of usurpation of power by the tyrant. Between those two forms of monarchy, basileia and tyrannis, the Greeks, especially the Socratics, made a sharp distinction . Abhorring tyranny strongly, they were not unfavorably disposed to basileia. Plato e.g. in his Republic does not always draw a sharp distinction between aristocracy and basileia, and in his Laws he reduces the essential types of constitutions to two, monarchy and democracy, represented by Persia and Athens
Backhanded apologia for tyranny doesn’t necessarily imply he’s cheering for democracy, and as Rex said, Plato (or the Socratics in general, IMO) seemed to think democracy and tyranny are next-door neighbors (Also see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato... ) If anything, it could be read as “sprinkle nobility and rhetorics on tyrants and you get pretty close to democracy!” (I.e. still mocking democracy)
Some evidences suggest (though I don’t know how strongly) that wiseman-meets-tyrant was already a popular trope; within the Socratic circle, fictitious tales of Simonides the poet-with-the-reputation-of-being-wise meeting Hiero’s wife also seemed to be so well known that Plato casually alluded to it, and Aristotle wrote about it. I don’t have strong opinions on how that should inform my interpretation of Hiero, but it’s probable that Xenophon is applying a twist on an existing genre that typically involves tyrants ignoring wisemen and getting their comeuppance.
The twist might be a successful tyrant denouncing tyranny, while the “wise man” [naively] argues it’s the best thing in the world if done “right.” I can’t confirm that’s the twist, but suppose that is the case, what does that mean? It could mean so many things. For example, Plato criticized Simonides and Xenophon in some of his writings. Maybe Xenophon is also contesting Plato’s portrayal of poets as undeserving of the “wise” reputation — by having the much maligned Simonides perform a signature Socratic dialogue. ← Full disclosure: I made this up, I have not read commentaries that support this interpretation, but I have read a number of commentaries on the use and misuse of Simonides and tyrants in the Socratic circle and it makes me wonder...
Well, now I have gotten interested, and I see that Plato's discussion of Simonides (or Socrates') is in the Protagoras:'Therefore I will not throw away my span of life to no purpose in searching after the impossible, hoping in vain to find a perfectly faultless man among those who partake of the fruit of the broad-bosomed earth: if I find him, I will send you word.'
(this is the vehement way in which he pursues his attack upon Pittacus throughout the whole poem):
'But him who does no evil, voluntarily I praise and love;—not even the gods war against necessity.'
All this has a similar drift, for Simonides was not so ignorant as to say that he praised those who did no evil voluntarily, as though there were some who did evil voluntarily. For no wise man, as I believe, will allow that any human being errs voluntarily, or voluntarily does evil and dishonourable actions; but they are very well aware that all who do evil and dishonourable things do them against their will. And Simonides never says that he praises him who does no evil voluntarily; the word 'voluntarily' applies to himself. For he was under the impression that a good man might often compel himself to love and praise another, and to be the friend and approver of another; and that there might be an involuntary love, such as a man might feel to an unnatural father or mother, or country, or the like. Now bad men, when their parents or country have any defects, look on them with malignant joy, and find fault with them and expose and denounce them to others, under the idea that the rest of mankind will be less likely to take themselves to task and accuse them of neglect; and they blame their defects far more than they deserve, in order that the odium which is necessarily incurred by them may be increased: but the good man dissembles his feelings, and constrains himself to praise them; and if they have wronged him and he is angry, he pacifies his anger and is reconciled, and compels himself to love and praise his own flesh and blood. And Simonides, as is probable, considered that he himself had often had to praise and magnify a tyrant or the like, much against his will, and he also wishes to imply to Pittacus that he does not censure him because he is censorious.
'For I am satisfied' he says, 'when a man is neither bad nor very stupid; and when he knows justice (which is the health of states), and is of sound mind, I will find no fault with him, for I am not given to finding fault, and there are innumerable fools'
(implying that if he delighted in censure he might have abundant opportunity of finding fault).
'All things are good with which evil is unmingled.'
In these latter words he does not mean to say that all things are good which have no evil in them, as you might say 'All things are white which have no black in them,' for that would be ridiculous; but he means to say that he accepts and finds no fault with the moderate or intermediate state.
Protagoras 345b-346d
My point is, that even here, the necessity of irony comes up.
Lia wrote: "Plato (or the Socratics in general, IMO) seemed to think democracy and tyranny are next-door neighbors (Also see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato... ) ."Wikipedia? Has it come to this? :p
Since this is the Classics and the Western Canon group, see also Plato, Republic, 562A, et seq., where Socrates describes how tyranny develops directly from democracy. (Something to keep in mind as we dive into DiA?)
Full disclosure: I made this up, I have not read commentaries that support this interpretation...
Disclosure unnecessary, and no one needs a commentary in this group to back up an opinion, especially if you can make an original argument based on the text. Just for the record... (but not the broken cosplay one.)
Mark wrote: "Cosplay?"Costume-play.
Thomas wrote: “Wikipedia? Has it come to this? ... Since this is the Classics and the Western Canon group...”
😡 Fight me,
Christopher wrote: "Well, now I have gotten interested..."Also, consider Herodotus and his nice cache of wisemen-meet-rulers (including tyrants) stories. I’m especially fond of the tale of Solon / Croesus:
Herodotus' account of the meeting between Solon and Croesus is a typical example of the story. It is often classified as a Warner story, in which a warning is given and ignored and suffering ensues, and it is indeed a story of that type, for Croesus does ignore Solon's advice about happiness to his great cost. Yet it is also a more general type of story, widespread in Greek literature, in which a wise man converses with a powerful and kingly man." Herodotus begins by identifying Solon as a wise man who goes traveling the world and visits the court of Croesus (1.29). There he meets the tyrant and talks with him about happiness. Croesus recognizes him as a wise man from the outset and asks him to name any man he knows who is completely happy. He confidently expected that Solon would name him, for he had shown the wise man all his wealth and was of the opinion that happiness was wealth. Yet Solon named Tellus as most happy and gave details of his happiness intended as a lesson to the king. Croesus ignored them and asked for the name of the second happiest man, expecting to carry off that prize at least, but Solon named Cleobis and Biton and gave the details of their good fortune too. Croesus was angered that the happiness of these private men had been preferred to his tyrannical wealth (1.32.1). Even when Solon spelled out his message that wealth would not last, Croesus dismissed him and sent him packing, still believing in his own supreme happiness. Subsequently he lost all that wealth and all good fortune, when he was encouraged by the god's ambiguous oracles to attack Cyrus of Persia. Herodotus says that he was ruined precisely because of bis belief that he was happy, which brought on the envy of the gods (1.34.1).
Later in his narrative Herodotus tells another story of this type in which Croesus has been made wise by his suffering and so takes on the role of wise man, with Cyrus as a tyrant (1.87-90). Attacked by Croesus, Cyrus had retaliated and captured both his person and his city, and had tied him on a pyre with fourteen Lydian youths, to be burnt alive. As the fire was lit, Croesus cried out the name of Solon three times, provoking Cyrus to ask about the identity of the man. Croesus replied that he was one who should speak to all tyrants, further interesting Cyrus, who was himself a tyrant. Croesus eventually told Cyrus about Solon's advice on happiness and how it had proved true and was applicable to all men but especially those who believed themselves happy. Cyrus tried to put out the fire, seeing the truth about happiness not lasting right before his eyes, in the shape of the man who had once thought himself so happy, but it had too firm a hold. It was up to the god to save him, and so he did, sending a cloudburst to quench the flames. Croesus then conveyed to Cyrus all the lessons of his suffering and henceforth appears in Herodotus' account always as a wise adviser at Cyrus' side.
Note the similarities:
Simonides visits the court of Hiero, just as Solon visits the court of Croesus. Hiero identifies Simonides as a wise man at the outset of their conversation; Croesus identifies Solon similarly. Both accounts of the meetings are given in largely conversational form. The difference is that the Hiero is in a special conversational form: Socratic dialogue. But the subject they discuss is in both cases the same: the relative happiness of tyrant and private individual. It is not a set topic for conversation in Herodotus as it is in the Hiero, but in asking Solon to name the happiest man and in expecting to be named himself for his tyrannical wealth, Croesus is initiating a discussion in which the nature of happiness is the central issue, and in naming private men like Tellus, and Cleobis and Biton, as most happy, Solon is delivering a judgement on the relative happiness of the tyrant and private individual, in the same way as the Hiero does. This theme is indicated by Croesus' rage at being compared with private men (1.32.2). Herodotus has his wise man and tyrant express views on tyranny quite different from those Simonides and Hiero express in the Hiero, but the types of characters who appear and meet, the circumstance of their meeting, the topic they discuss, and the generally dramatised way they discuss it, these are all traits that the story and the Hiero have in common. This sets the Hiero alongside the other stories of the same sort derived from Herodotus but told about different characters. The resemblances seem to me not at all accidental but proof that the tradition is influencing Xenophon's work.
source: Xenophon's Hiero and the Meeting of the Wise Man and Tyrant in Greek Literature | V. J. Gray |The Classical Quarterly / Volume 36 / Issue 01
Croesus' meeting with Solon is a classic of classics."Look to the end."
I think that they weren't even contemporaries, or it has been otherwise demonstrated that this meeting was 'historically' impossible.
(Just apropos of nothing.)
The dialog seems strangely disconnected from the acts of tyrants that affect both their contemporaries and follow them into posterity; used ultimately to judge them. It more simply seems to assert that being a tyrant is not as impressive or desirable as it is thought to be because all tyrants suffer personal hardships in order to lead due to the nature of their profession. It seems to be to be incomplete because it does not do much to differentiate between those tyrants that might suffer more or less from certain aspects, and why.It comes close at the end when Simonides offers advice, but it could be titled, "It Is Tough to Be a Tyrant" instead of something like, "Good Tyrant Bad Tyrant".
Also, consider Plato’s Second Letter to Dionysius II [probably not authentic, but that’s not the point]:The letter says that the Greeks were talking about the relationship between Plato and Dionysius, which was never totally sunny, because relationships like theirs between the wise and the powerful had always been a common topic of interest among the Greeks. It then offers some examples of how such relationships were portrayed.When men talk about Hiero or Pausanias the Lacedaemonian, they love to bring in Simonides' meetings with them, what he did and said to them. And they regularly celebrate Periander of Corinth and Thales of Miletus together in the same breath, and Pericles and Anaxagoras, and Croesus and Solon too, as wise men, and Cyrus as ruler. And in imitation the poets bring together Creon and Teiresias, and Polyeidos and Minos, Agamemnon and Nestor, Odysseus and Palamedes - it seems to me that the earliest men also linked Prometheus with Zeus in this sort of way - and some of these men they depict in conflict, and others as friends, others still friends at first, then in conflict, and sometimes of like mind, but other times in conflict.This is a clear reference to the stories of meetings of wise men and tyrants. The stories of Solon and Croesus and Cyrus are recognised as part of a tradition of such stories, of which the letter gives further examples. Whoever wrote the letter and however late, he probably had more Greek literature to judge from than we have, so his opinion should not be lightly dismissed ... The writer also says that Simonides and Hiero figured in this tradition; indeed, he names them as his first pair of wise man and tyrant. It is possible and even probable that he had Xenophon's Hiero chiefly and perhaps exclusively in mind... He does generalise and suggest that there was more than one version of meetings of Simonides and Hiero, but this may be a product of his tendentiousness. Still, the story of the encounter between Simonides and Hiero's wife in Plato and Aristotle need not be just elaboration on Xenophon's story of the meeting between Simonides and her husband, and that story is probably earlier than the Hiero in any case, for Plato refers to it as well known in the Republic, which is usually thought to predate the Hiero. Nevertheless, the main point is that the writer ' of the letter says that stories of meetings of Simonides and Hiero were part of the tradition of the meeting of the wise man and the tyrant, and Xenophon's Hiero conforms to his description, just as it conforms to the original Herodotean format of the story of Solon and Croesus. It moves from playful, ironic conflict toward friendship, conforming to the description in this respect, too, just like the other stories.
source: Xenophon's Hiero and the Meeting of the Wise Man and Tyrant in Greek Literature | V. J. Gray |The Classical Quarterly / Volume 36 / Issue 01
Well, but It moves from playful, ironic conflict toward friendship, conforming to the description in this respect, too, just like the other stories. does not really describe the Croesus/Solon encounter in Herodotus.The point of Solon is that he does not flatter Croesus- he absolutely 'no sells' his 'who is the happiest man?' question.
And Crosesus has to learn 'the hard way' that his wealth does not make him happy.
I'm not sure what V. J. Gray is getting at.
Christopher wrote: "I'm not sure what V. J. Gray is getting at. ..."The main thing is that there are many many other tales of wise man meets tyrants in the Greek tradition.
Specifically in this paragraph, the point seems to be that the combination of tyrant + wise-poet + theme:happiness is also not unique. Whatever interpretive commentary on Solon/Croesus is likely insignificant, the only really relevant point is that Xenophon’s Hiero seems to participate in a well established tradition or genre or trope.
Also, Aristotle mentioned Simonides/ Hiero’s wife in Rhetoric 2.16.2:
And it is also reasonable that they be affected in this way (for there are many people who want what they have; whence the remark of Simonides about rich and wise men to the wife to Hiero. She had asked him whether it is better to be rich than to be wise: ‘Rich,’ said he, because he saw the wise sitting at the doorways of the rich), and they also think that they are worthy to rule; for they think that they have the things that make men fit to rule. And in sum, the character of the rich man is that of the mindlessly happy one.
Plato’s commentary on Simonides/ Hiero-Wife conversation is more oblique[Republic]
[489a]
Then suppose you now take this parable to the gentleman who is surprised at finding that philosophers have no honor in their cities; explain it to him and try to convince him that their having honor would be far more extraordinary.
[489b]
I will.
Say to him, that, in deeming the best votaries of philosophy to be useless to the rest of the world, he is right; but also tell him to attribute their uselessness to the fault of those who will not use them, and not to themselves. The pilot should not humbly beg the sailors to be commanded by him—that is not the order of nature; neither are “the wise to go to the doors of the rich”—the ingenious author of this saying told a lie —but the truth is, that, when a man is ill, whether he be rich or poor, to the physician he must go, and he who wants to be governed, to him who is able to govern. The ruler who is good for anything ought not to beg his subjects to be ruled by him; although the present governors of mankind are of a different stamp; they may be justly compared to the mutinous sailors, and the true helmsmen to those who are called by them good-for-nothings and star-gazers.
Well, I like that. Thank you, Lia. Good old Plato.
Lia wrote: "The main thing is that there are many many other tales of wise man meets tyrants in the Greek tradition.Specifically in this ..."
And when Alexander went to see what he could do for Diogenes, D. told him to get out of his sunlight.
Thank you, Christopher. One of the best of the old stories.
Mark wrote: "Well, I like that. Thank you, Lia. Good old Plato."YW. I still can’t decide whether I ‘like’ Plato :p
But, if you’re a Plato-lover about to read DIA, there’s a paper (by a SJC Santa Fe grad! I’m definitely a SJC fan...) comparing Plato and Tocqueville. I know you don’t like to rely on commentaries, but I see these kind of papers more as someone to have “dialogues” with (except they don’t respond to my comments and questions, of course!). See if you can request a copy at your library!
https://fordham.bepress.com/dissertat...
I guess I don't mind being labeled a Potato-lover. It's probably comes from my Irish genes. But I do want to ask naively but not facetiously what "YW" stands for. The notion of comparing Plato and de Tocqueville sounds interesting enough, but after only three chapters I find de Tocqueville's implied belief that there is a supernatural force directing the thoughts and actions of men rather different from maybe how Plato viewed things. I read the abstract from the link you sent. I'm not sure I would understand what the author means by inconstancy.(addition) I like Plato as a writer, and enjoyed the clarity of the quote you chose.
"YW" is nerdspeak for "you're welcome."
Christopher wrote: ""YW" is nerdspeak for "you're welcome.""Thank you!
Thomas wrote: "I think it's only Socratic irony that applies here. Socrates feigned ignorance as a pedagogical tool. He preferred asking questions to giving lectures, citing his "ignorance" as justification. This is the kind of "irony" I think we have here." Socratic irony . . . I can relate to that
David wrote: "It comes close at the end when Simonides offers advice, but it could be titled, "It Is Tough to Be a Tyrant" instead of something like, "Good Tyrant Bad Tyrant".I expect your remark was tongue-in-cheek, but it made me smile, and made me think there's some truth in it.
Gary wrote: "SIDEBAR: Xenophon was a renowned horseman in his day and still is today; his book on horsemanship is still in print. L..."SIDEBAR to the SIDEBAR
I think everyone googling Heiro probably found this, but I would like to ask the marketing department if they knew what they were doing?
HEIRO for Horses
HEIRO (Healthy Equine Insulin Rescue Organicals) is a veterinarian-developed, 100% all natural supplement using high quality, top-rated natural herbs to help safely and naturally combat elevated insulin.
https://www.horse.com/item/heiro/E005...
Classics and the Western Canon
Books mentioned in this topic
The Dawn of Day (other topics)Protagoras (other topics)
On Tyranny, including the Strauss-Kojève Correspondence (other topics)
ON TYRANNY (other topics)
A Modest Proposal (other topics)
More...
SIDEBAR: Xenophon was a renowned horseman in his day and still is today; his book on horsemanship is still in print. Little wonder he speaks more fondly of horses than of men.
https://www.amazon.com/Horsemanship-X...