A History of My Times

Xenophon's History of My Times picks up roughly where Thucydides left off. After finishing the account of the long and exhausting Peloponnesian War, Xenophon continues with stories of intrigues, betrayals, campaigns and bravery up to the year 362 BC. The Corinthian War, Greek incursions in Asia Minor, and Xenophon's Spartan heroes are all depicted in this work. It's not nearly as good as Thucydides, nor nearly as exhaustive. Thucydides devoted about 600 pages (in my edition) to the first twenty years of the Peloponnesian War; Xenophon covers almost fifty years in about 350 pages. And while Thucydides's historical method has earned him the title of "first modern historian" and set the standard for centuries afterward, Xenophon is selective in his detail, sometimes wrong, and often biased. But Xenophon is still a gifted writer and the story he tells is brisk and exciting, if not necessarily the whole picture. The thing I disliked about reading this book, the Penguin Classics edition, was the notes by George Cawkwell. He sets out well enough in the introduction that Xenophon's history is flawed and among the least of his works, being far inferior to something like The Persian Expedition, but Cawkwell litters the text with footnote after footnote pointing out Xenophon's every mistake and omission. It was instructive, at first, to know how Xenophon's account differed with that of other historians, but by the time I was a third of the way through the notes had the exasperating effect of a know-it-all heckler during an admittedly flawed but entertaining speech. That said, Xenophon's history is still worth reading, and this translation by Rex Warner is excellent--fast-paced and very readable. If you're looking for history that Thucydides did not live to write about, this is one good place to find it. Recommended.

This is by all means a heavily underrated book. Xenophon lays bare the essential characteristics of his (and our) time and its crucial kernel, independence. Inside the Greek cities, independence meant democracy, which was the political regime in Athens. The latter's arch-rival, Sparta, had an oligarchic rule, a government controlled by a king and the aristocracy. When Sparta defeated Athens, it put immediately a lackey oligarchic government (the Thirty) in place. The oligarchs could `do exactly what they liked with the state.' They went on a killing spree, murdering all democratic opponents, in casu, `more Athenians than all the Peloponnesians did in ten years of war.' They confiscated illegally the property of resident aliens and when people could vote, it was in full view. Xenophon knows perfectly the importance of education: `For I know that in Persia everybody except one man is educated to be a slave rather than stand up for himself.' Inside the Peloponnesus, independence meant freedom for every city: `the cities must be independent, which means not to set up your own government ... what you aim at is not that they should govern in accordance with the laws, but that they should be strong enough to hold down the city by force. This makes it look like as though what gives you pleasure is dictatorship and not constitutional government.' The Greek cities fought against each other to become `like the king of Persia ... the richest man on earth ... he gets his revenue from a continent.' The reward for control was solid tribute, but also the goldmines of Mount Pangaeum. This continuous infighting and the relentless changes of alliances were a catastrophe for the populations. The inhabitants of the conquered cities were enslaved and sold or slaughtered, the crops and towns burned, cattle and precious metals stolen. The city was completely annihilated. The war ended with the peace of Antalcidas in 387 B.C. on very favorable terms for Sparta. Xenophon's book could also serve as a manual for vicious (bribery, infiltration, spying, informants) or clever diplomacy: `guard against the emergence of any single strong Greek state by seeing that they were all kept weak by constantly fighting among themselves.' It is also an encyclopedia for military tactics: where, when and how to fight and how to keep the morale of the troops high. He is also a fine psychologist: `people call a man `good' merely because he has been good to them.' To the contrary of his joke, `even the golden plane tree was not big enough to give shade to a grasshopper', Xenophon's book puts many authors in the shadow. A must read for all historians and lovers of classical literature.

The title refers to the complete randomness of the document survival process. We know that only a small fraction of the works of Aristophanes, Euripides, Plato, Livy (the historian), Aristotle and other "greats" survived the ages. The Gospel of Mark, which both Luke and Matthew tries to supplant, survived only because the splinter group that used it was located in the desert and the dryness increased longevity. Thucydides recorded the first part of the Peloponnesian War and Xenophon presents witness to the last few years. Remarkably, both men were participants and their history is based on first-hand knowledge of the events and people. The city-states of Thebes, Athens and Sparta vied for supremacy with shifting allegiances and no clear winner. The writing is good, very good when one considers the various replications and translations that have brought the work to this point. Xenophon introduces speeches and comments of participants and instead of just recording battles and events, he begins the process of writing a moral history - assigning blame, making choices on good and bad, presenting justifications and the reasons why certain people acted as they did. THe author was one of the first of the new breed - those who sought to present human action that was not directed by the caprice of gods or nature. As such he succeeded admirably.

For people who have read Thucydides, this is an exemplary companion to his PELOPONNESIAN WAR. There are likely to be many readers out there who were dismayed at the conclusion of this text as it is incomplete. Of course, this is not the great historian's fault; he died while writing his epic historical treatise.Enter Xenophon. He picks up almost right where Thucydides leaves off and traces the murky Grecian politics over the next 40 years or so, after which time Thebes would assert herself as the foremost power in the Greek world.Along the way, Xenophon painfully recounts the demise of his beloved Spartans. His distaste for the Thebans is readily evident, and one must weigh the veracity of some of his descriptions of battles against his inherent Laconian prejudice. Rex Warner, the translator, does an excellent job of point out specific places where modern scholars have called into question Xenophon's honesty as well as his aptitude as an historian.Nevertheless, for all the Xenophon-bashing that the 20th century has accrued, I still firmly believe he is well worth reading. He is one of the very few primary sources that we have for the demise of Alcibiades, the disastrous 30 Tyrants of Athens, the campaigns of King Agesilaus, the decisive battle of Leuctra and so much more. Hence, the present text is a MUST for the modern classical historian.

Xenephon, one of the most interesting figures to come down to us, continues the Peloponesian war (431-404/3) of Thucydides. He covers the last 6-7 years of the war, and some of the history thereafter. If you read Thucydides, you've got to read this book as well. A pretty good translation too!