Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T08:37:02.944Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Xenophon on male love

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Clifford Hindley
Clifford Hindley
Affiliation:
Finchley, London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a previous article I attempted to trace the way in which, for Xenophon, homosexual liaisons might or might not affect the discipline of military life, and the emphasis which he placed upon the virtue of self-control (έγκράτεια) in dealing with desires of this kind. The present paper seeks to broaden the enquiry into a study of Xenophon's attitude to male same-sex affairs in general.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , May 1999 , pp. 74 - 99
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Hindley, C, ‘EROS and military command in Xenophon’, CQ 44 (1994), 347–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Both Sir Kenneth Dover and Michel Foucault, from their different viewpoints, handle the material in this way. See Dover, K. J., Greek Homosexuality (London, 1978)Google Scholar; Foucault, M., The History of Sexuality, vol. 2: The Use of Pleasure, trans. R. Hurley (Harmondsworth, 1986).Google Scholar The relationship of Sokrates to the tradition about him over many areas of interest has been much illuminated by the volume of essays edited by Waerdt, P. A. Vander, The Socratic Movement (Ithaca and London, 1994).Google Scholar

3 Cantarella, E., Bisexuality in the Ancient World, trans Cormac Ó, Cuilleanáin (New Haven and London, 1992), pp. 63f.Google Scholar Thornton, B. S., EROS: The Myth of Ancient Greek Sexuality (Boulder, 1997), pp. 103, 202f.Google Scholar

4 Lac. Pol. 2.12–13. The omission of Athens here is intriguing and hard to explain, though it is to some extent (and in a very different context) repaired in Sokrates’ discourse at Symposium 8.32–4. Unless otherwise specified, the title Symposium in this article refers to Xenophon's work of that name.

5 Ages. 5.4. and 6. See also Symposium 8.8, where Sokrates admires Kallias’ character. The reason for Agesilaos’ restraint was, I believe, not a moral objection to pederasty, but the risk of diplomatic entanglement with an ambitious Persian family (see Hindley [n. 1], pp. 361–5). On the wider literary background for the power of Aphrodite/Eros, see Davidson, James, Courtesans and Fishcakes (London, 1997), pp. 159ff.Google Scholar

6 Hiero 1.33. Cf. Dover (n. 2), pp. 61f. Also, for the meaning of ‘nature’, see Dover, K. J., Greek Popular Morality in the Time of Plato and Aristotle (Indianapolis, 1994), pp. 88–95Google Scholar.

For Hieron as mouthpiece of Xenophon, see below p. 89.

7 Cyrop. 7.5.60: the term for ‘love’ here is øιλεîυ, but surely in the case of wives and παιδικά it does not exclude ༐ρâυ. (Cf. Dover [n. 2], pp. 49–50, on the overlap between øιλíα and 脀ρως.)

At Mem. 2.6.21 friendship or hostility toward others are matters of ‘nature’.

8 Anab. 7.4.7–8. Cf. Dover (n. 2), pp. 51, 62. Xenophon's text is grammatically ambiguous as to who raised the cohort of καλoí. To my mind the more likely candidate, on balance, is Episthenes. But contrast Ogden, D., ‘Homosexuality and warfare in Ancient Greece’, in Lloyd, A. B. (ed.), Battle in Antiquity (London, 1996), p. 126Google Scholar.

For τρóπoς as an individual's character, cf. Cyrop. 8.3.49, and as a national characteristic, Cyrop. 2.2.28.

9 Cyrop. 5.1. 8–18. The passage provides another example of Xenophon speaking through his characters: for while at Cyrop. 2.2.28 Kuros is depicted as deriding a courtier for appearing to have a παιδικά in the Greek fashion, he speaks in Cyrop. 5.1.12 as though homosexual relationships were entirely on a par with heterosexual ones.

10 On the ambivalence of the masculine grammatical gender, see R. Kühner and B. Gerth, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, Satzlehre, Erster Teil (Vierte Auflage, Hannover, 1955), §371–1, p. 82.

11 Mem. 2.1.1: ’εδóκει δέ μoι καì τoιαûτα λέγωυ πρoτρέπειυτoùς σuυóυτας ảσκεîυ ༐γκράτειαυ πρɂς ༐πιθuμíαν βρωτoû καì πoτoû καì λαγυεíαu ůπυoυ κτλ. This alignment between sex and other bodily appetites is well analysed in Foucault's The Use of Pleasure (n. 2 above). It is given great prominence by Davidson in relation to Athenian society as a whole (n. 5 above).

By the phrase ‘Xenophon's Sokrates’ I mean the teachings attributed by Xenophon to Sokrates, whether or not the historical Sokrates actually held them. For convenience the name ‘Sokrates’ is used with this meaning (unless indicated otherwise) throughout this article.

12 Mem. 2.2.4–5. Cf. Mem. 2.1.5, where would-be adulterers are counselled (in the interest of avoiding awkward entanglements) to resort to a prostitute—ǒυτωυ δέ πoλλŵυ τŵυ ảπoλυσóυτωυ τῆς τŵυ ảøρoδισιíωυ ༐πιθuμíας. In both passages the masculine participle may include women, but πóρυoι were readily available: see Halperin, D. M., ‘The democratic body: prostitution and citizenship in Classical Athens’, in One Hundred Years of Homosexuality (New York and London, 1990), pp. 88–112.Google Scholar For resort to boys on the part of a frustrated married man, cf. also Euripides, Medea 249 (Dover [n. 2], p. 171, n. 2).

13 Sympos. 4.38.

14 Dover (n. 2), p. 63.

15 Hiero 1.29.

16 Cyrop. 1.4.27–28.

17 See Sympos. 1.10, and Hermogenes’ interjection at Sympos. 8.12. The phrase σώøρωυ ᾤρως is paralleled in the δíκαιoς ᾤρως of Aiskhines 1.136, and a number of other expressions and relationships noted at n. 88 below. Also, see the analysis of ‘reverence’ in Kritoboulos’ speech, p. 88 below.

18 See Hindley (n. 1) for a more detailed examination of these examples. The main references are: Hell. 4.8.18–19, Ages. 5, Hell. 5.4.56–57, 6.1.16. The description of Iason is found in the speech of the admittedly partial Poludamas of Pharsalos, possibly Xenophon's informant on Thessalian affairs (cf. Cawkwell, G., Introduction to Xenophon: A History of My Times, trans. R., Warner [Harmondsworth, 1979, p. 26].Google Scholar The important point here is the probability (based on Xenophon's laudatory introduction—Hell. 6.1.2–3) that the historian would have endorsed Poludamas’ judgement. He himself makes a similar comment about Diphridas, Thibron's successor in Asia (Hell. 4.8.22).

For a survey of homosexuality in Greek armies generally, see Ogden (n. 8).

19 Mem. 1.5.1, 1.5.4, 1.5.6. For the general argument, compare Foucault (n. 2), esp. Part 1.3. On the potential danger of wasting money on παιδικά, see Mem. 1.2.21–3.

For corruption of the young, see Mem. 1.2.1.

20 Mem. 4.5.1–3. Cf. Mem. 2.1.3.

21 Mem. 4.2.35.

22 Mem. 1.2.22. For the language, compare Sokrates’ words (during the discussion of military pederasty) about Pausanias, as ảπoλoγoúμευoς ὑπέρ τŵυ ảκρασíα ༐γκαλιυδoυμέυωυ (Sympos. 8.32)

23 Mem. 1.2.29–31. For the imagery, cf. Plato, Gorgias 494c-e, on which see Winkler, J. J., The Constraints of Desire (New York and London, 1990), p. 53.Google Scholar

24 For privacy and sex, see Halperin (n. 12), p. 91 and p. 182, n. 28.

25 For πειράω in relation to sexual seduction, compare Hipparkhos’ ‘attempts’ on Harmodios’ honour, Thucyd. 6.54.3. and 4 (two separate occasions). Cf. also Xen. Hiero 11.11.

26 Mem. 1.2.29: ảλλ’ εì καì μηδέυ αὑτɂς πoυηρɂυ πoιŵυ έκεíυouς øαÛλα πράττoυτας ɂρŵυ έπήυει, δικαíως âυ ༐πιτιμŵτo.

27 Mem. 1.2.24.

28 Davidson (n. 5, ch. 9) has recently analysed the link between physical self-indulgence in matters of food and sex and the practice of tyranny in politics.

29 Mem. 2.1.1–20. The nature of the elder Aristippos’ teaching is obscure: cf. Guthrie, W. K. C., Socrates (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 170ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar It would be interesting, however, if he had, as Diogenes Laertius avers, formulated the principle, τɂ κρατεîν κα μ ήττâσθαι ήδoυŵυ âριστoυ, oὑ τɂ μ Χρῆσθαι. In formal terms, at least, this is close to what I believe Xenophon's position to have been. (Diogenes Laertius 2.75: cf. Foucault [n. 2], p. 70.)

The discussion here touches on the broader philosophical question of hedonism. Harold A. S. Tarrant has recently suggested that the formula ‘mastery not abstention’ reflects the moderating influence of Sokrates’ teaching on Aristippos, who may originally have advocated a more extreme hedonism: see H. A. S. Tarrant, ‘The Hippias Major and Socrates’ theories of pleasure’, in Vander Vaerdt (n. 2), p. 124. See also Tarrant's discussion of ‘moderate hedonism’ in Xenophon's presentation of Sokrates (pp. 121ff.).

For the importance of political involvement in the discussion with Aristippos, and the role of self-control in this sphere, cf. D. K. O'Connor, ‘The erotic self-sufficiency of Socrates’, in Vander Vaerdt (n. 2), pp. 159–163: ‘Aristippus’ indifference to politics rather than his hedonism is Socrates’ primary target’ (p. 160).

30 Mem. 2.1.3. Love for a woman can be equally distracting— Cyrop. 5.1.8.

31 Mem. 2.1.21–34.

32 Mem. 2.1.1.

33 Mem. 2.1.30. The strictures against male love here are, I believe, restricted to anal intercourse between adult males, cf. Hindley (n. 1), p. 349. Cf. also Mem. 1.3.5–6.

34 καλŵυ here must surely be masculine. Not only is it picked up by τoιoúτωυ in the following line, but the whole ensuing discussion revolves around boys, and its conclusion (§13) generalizes the message in explicitly masculine terms (…ɂπóταυ îδης τιυά καλóυ). Given the context, one must also allow for the influence of the καλóς—inscriptions on vases: of Robinson and Fluck's list of 283 ‘love-names’ (give or take one or two of doubtful gender) only about 34 (12%) are female. See Robinson, D. M. and Fluck, E. J., A Study of the Greek Love-names (Baltimore, 1937).Google Scholar

For the sentiment, cf. Mem. 2.6.32, 4.2.35, Sympos. 4.54. The ‘appeasing appetite’ argument is applied heterosexually to Antisthenes (Sympos. 4.38), but Sokrates nowhere, I think, contemplates celibacy as total abstinence from women. Indeed, as a married man and a father he could hardly do so. But heterosexual intercourse may be justified more for its role in the procreation of children and the raising of a family than for its pleasure (Mem. 2.2.4).

35 Mem. 1.3.14. Cf. also Mem. 4.1.2.

36 Mem. 2.1.32.

37 Plato, Symposium 217–19. Dover (n. 2), p. 160. Cf. Guthrie (n. 29), pp. 70–8.

38 Anab. 3.4.46–9, 4.4.12–13.

39 Mem. 3.5.15. Cf. Cantarella (n. 3), p. 64. But the evidence suggests to me that Xenophon's attitude to boy-love was far more complex than Cantarella allows.

40 See above pp. 77f. and n. 18.

41 Hell. 4.8.38–9.

42 Anab. 4.6.1–3.

43 Hell. 5.4.25–33 and 6.4.13f. The translation cited is that of Warner. The liaison can be considered independently of the role it may have played in securing Sphodrias’ acquittal. The exact age of the lovers is not known. Xenophon describes Kleonumos as just out of puberty at the time of the Sphodrias affair (378 b. c.). Cartledge, Paul, in the Chronological Table of his Agesilaos (London, 1987)Google Scholar, suggests that Arkhidamos may already have been born when Agesilaos ascended the throne in 400 b. c.

44 Hell. 4.1.39. Cf. Herman, G., Ritualised Friendship and the Greek City (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 58f.Google Scholar On the diplomatic overtones of this story, cf. Cartledge (n. 43), p. 193.

45 Cf. Hindley (n. 1), p. 349.

46 Anab. 4.1.12–14, 5.8.4.

47 The circumstances of Xenophon's marriage are obscure. Delebecque, E. (Essai sur la Vie de Xénophon [Paris, 1957], p. 124)Google Scholar dates it to 399 or 398; Anderson, J. K. (Xenophon [London, 1974], p. 162)Google Scholar places it some time after 399 b. c.

48 Anab. 7.3.20.

49 In the light of this conclusion we may look with fresh eyes on the incident of the trumpeter Silanos (Anab. 7.4.116). Doubtless he struck fear into the enemy with his trumpeting. But why is this minor figure given such prominence—even to the mention of his age, when, at eighteen, he was pre-eminently ώραîoς? Is this another young man who caught Xenophon's eye?

50 Mem. 1.3.8–15.

51 Vivienne Gray draws attention to this characteristic of Xenophon's style, both in his historical writing and his more philosophical works. (Gray, V., The Character of Xenophon's Hellenica [London, 1989], pp. 76f.Google Scholar Cf. Gigon, O., Kommentar zum ersten Buch von Xenophons Memorahilien, Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft, Heft 5 [Basel, 1953], p. 110).Google Scholar Further examples of Xenophon's sense of humour are collected in Bassett, S. E., ‘Wit and humor in Xenophon’, Classical Journal 12 (1917), 565–574.Google Scholar

52 See pp. 79–80 above and n. 37.

53 Mem. 1.3.8. Cf. above p. 79 and n. 34.

54 Cf. Sympos. 4.25 where (of a kiss) Sokrates says, oὑ ᾤρωτoς oủδέυ ༐στι δειυóτερoυ ὑπέκκαυμα. The incident of Sokrates nudging Kritoboulos, reported by Kharmides at Sympos. 4.27, suggests that Sokrates shares the susceptibilty, but still he warns against it: the encounter with Kritoboulos, he says, was like a wild beast's bite and gave him a sore shoulder for a week.

55 Mem. 2.6.32.

56 Mem. 1.3.14. The text is that of E. C. Marchant's second edition (OCT, 1921), omitting πρóς before τoιαÛτα.

In essentials following Marchant, I would translate: ‘In this way, then, he thought that those who find their sexual impulses difficult to control should engage sexually <only> in such activities as the mind would not condone unless an urgent bodily need arose, and such as, once the need was there, would not cause trouble’.

The phrase, πάυu δεoμέυou τoÛ σώματoς, seems to conflate two thoughts: a definition of the kind of activity (that which arises from the body's need) and the timing (when that need becomes urgent (πάυu) for actions which otherwise the mind would not condone).

57 For δέoμαι with reference to the sexual urge, cf. Mem. 2.1.30, Sympos. 4.38, 4.15, Hiero 1.33.

58 Gigon (n. 51), p. 117.

59 Cf. Dover (n. 2), pp. 63–5.

60 Denniston, J. D., The Greek Particles (2nd edn, rev. Dover, K. J., Oxford, 1950; repr. Bristol, 1996), p. 209Google Scholar, §(x).

61 Under this heading, Denniston alludes to the commonness of such openings to sentences as oủτω δή, ༐υταÛθα δή (ibid., p. 236).

62 One might also ask whether this phrase implies that there is another class of men (and the whole discussion is carried on from a male perspective)—oí ảσøαλŵς ᾤΧoυτες πρɂς ảøρoδíσια? If so, are they totally abstinent (at least outside marriage), or are they men who, in the phrase attributed to Aristippos, are able to master pleasures without abstaining from them? (See n. 29 above.)

63 One may compare the concession to overmastering desire acknowledged in Plato, Phaedrus 256.

64 Mem. 1.2.4.

65 Guthrie (n. 29), pp. 147–64.

66 Mem. 1.4.9, 3.10.3, 4.3.14, 1.2.53; Cyrop. 8.7.17.

67 Mem. 1.2.53, 1.4.13, 1.4.17 (in this section, υoÛς and ΨuΧή are equivalent), 4.3.14, 3.11.10. For ΨυΧή as the seat of virtue, see Mem. 1.2.19, 1.2.23, 2.6.30, 4.1.2, 4.8.1.

68 Mem. 4.1.2. Conversely, it is possible to be μoΧθηρɂς τν ΨυΧήυ: cf. Oecon. 6.16.

69 This is essentially the principle of self-regulation which Foucault develops under the heading ‘Chrēsis’ (n. 2, part 1, ch. 2), though it was no doubt exercised within an overall understanding of custom and law (υóμoς).

70 Mem 1.3.9.

71 Oecon. 2.7. Given the character of Kritoboulos as revealed elsewhere, παιδικά πράγματα must surely refer to the objects of ᾤρως—‘minions’ (Marchant) rather than ‘childish pursuits’ (Waterfield). For Kritoboulos’ marriage, see Oecon. 3.13 and Sympos. 2.3.

72 Oecon. 2.1 αủτɂς δ’ ༐μαuτɂυ ༐ξετάζωυ δoκŵ μoι εὑρíσκειυ ༐πιεικŵς τŵυ τoιoủτωυ ༐γκρατῆ υτα.

73 The wider context concerns the antidote to πλεoυεξíα—what one can properly take for oneself. The reference to τà ảøρoδíσια parallels the immediately preceding comment on moderate participation in food and drink, with κoιυωυεîυ meaning ‘take a share of’ (LSJ), rather than ‘give a share of’ (as Marchant and Tredennick/Waterfield). The latter, as part of a more general mutual assistance (༐παρκεîυ ảλλήλoιζ) only arises in §23, while §22 concerns the familiar theme of moderation in food and drink, and self-control in matters of sex. Cf. Mem. 1.3.14.

74 καρτερεîυ flows from ༐γκράτεια, but does not require the renunciation of pleasure. Cf. the collocation of ༐γκράτεια–καρτερεîυ––δεσθαι at Mem. 4.5.9.

75 The theme of self-discipline over bodily appetites is set at the head of the whole chapter (Mem. 2.6.1). Gigon finds it alien to the subject of contention between good men (Gigon, O., Kommentar zum zweiten Buch von Xenophons Memorabilien, Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft, Heft 7 [Basel, 1956], pp. 146f.).Google Scholar But current views on the risk of pederasty infringing citizen status throw new light on this contention. In regard to pederasty, at least, the moderation advocated in this text may have an important bearing on the mutual adjustments between good men in society.

76 Xenophon, Sympos. 4.10–18. Cf. Plato, Sympos. 180c ff. One cannot go quite so far as to say that Kritoboulos is simply Xenophon's mouthpiece, if only because the former's pleasure in spending money on his παιδικά would clearly attract Xenophon's censure (Mem. 1.2.22).

77 Cf. Plato, Symposium 184a, 185a; Aristophanes, Wealth 153–9; Xenophon, Mem. 1.2.22; Anab. 2.6.6. Cf. Dover (n. 2), pp. 92f., 107. Such expenditure is criticized by Xenophon, but for Aristotle a proper degree of liberality with money is a virtue (Nic.Eth. 4.1, 1119b24ff.).

78 Plato, Symposium 183a, 184b. øιλoπoυώτερoζ corresponds to the more explicit ‘serving as Kleinias’ slave’ in §14. Enslavement to the παιδικά is condemned by Sokrates while it is condoned, if not praised, by Plato's Pausanias.

79 Plato, Symposium 178d–179b. The principle that the lover may be inspired to valour by the presence of his beloved is accepted by Xenophon at Cynegeticus 12.20, though rejected by Sokrates at Sympos. 8.32ff.

80 On the complex problems surrounding the relationship between the two dialogues on this subject, see Dover, K. J., ‘The date of Plato's Symposium’, Phronesis 10 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, reprinted in Dover, K. J., The Greeks and their Legacy (Oxford, 1988).Google Scholar

81 καì μήυ as ‘progressive’, introducing a new point: see Denniston (n. 60), pp. 351f.

82 Cf. the avoidance of the term τà αìδoîα at Hiero 1.4–5, and, for general usage, Dover (n. 2), pp. 53f. Also, on this passage, see Foucault (n. 2), p. 223: ‘the “thing” is designated by the very impossibility of naming it’.

83 Von Erffa, C. E., ‘AІΔΩΣ und verwandte Begriffe in ihrer Entwicklung von Homer bis Demokrit’, Philologus Supplementband 30, Heft 2 (1937).Google Scholar

84 Cyrop. 1.4.27; Anab. 2.6.19 (cf. Kharmides’ diffidence before the ‘lower orders’ of the ekklesia—Mem. 3.7.6); Anab. 7.7.9 (cf. Anab. 2.5.39); Cyrop. 2.1.25, 4.2.40. Cf. also Aiskhines 1.180.

85 It may well be that adherence to such a view (and the observations that led him to it) underlie Xenophon's sympathy with reported scepticism about the Spartans’ observance of the υóμoζ of Lukourgos which enjoined celibacy in regard to boys— Lac.Pol. 2.14.

86 Cf. Aristotle, Rhetoric 1.5.11 (1361b), and the same author's recognition of the transition, which may (though not invariably) occur with the passing of time, from ᾤρωζ to øιλíα in a relationship, Nic.Eth. 8.4.1–2 (1157a).

87 Aiskhulos, frr. 135, 136 (TrGF). Cf. Dover (n. 2), pp. 197f.

88 Aiskhines 1.136–7; Plato, Symposium 181c, 182a5 (cf. 184d4); Lusias 3.5; Xenophon, Sympos. 1.10, Anab. 4.6.1–3. Dover (n. 2, pp. 42ff.) takes Aiskhines’ δíκαιoζ ᾤρωζ as the text for his analysis of the degree of physical intimacy permitted. See also Dover, K. J., Plato: Symposium (Cambridge, 1980), pp. 95f.Google Scholar(Pausanias); Hindley, C., ‘Law, society and homosexuality in Classical Athens (Comment)’, Past & Present 133 (1991), p. 172CrossRefGoogle Scholar (Pausanias and Lusias 3); above, pp. 76f. (Autolukos). Also cf. Winkler's discussion of the distinction between approved pederasty and the life of the κíυαιδoζ (n. 23, pp. 53f).

89 Cf. Gray, V. J., ‘Xenophon's Hiero and the meeting of the Wise Man and Tyrant in Greek literature’, CQ 36 (1986), 115–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 117. Aalders, G. J. D., ‘Date and intention of Xenophon's Hiero’, Mnemosyne, 4th ser. 6 (1953), 213f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pederasty is the subject of Hiero 1.29–38.

90 According to Dover (n. 80), Xenophon's Symposium was written after the formation of the Sacred Band at Thebes in 378, and Plato's work of the same title, before that date. There also seems some force in the argument that the reference to Spartan leadership (Xenophon, Sympos. 8.39) implies a date before Leuktra (371): see reference to F. Dornseiff at Dover (n. 80), p. 97, n. 41. The arguments linking Hiero with political developments in Syracuse and political assassinations in the ruling house at Pherae seem persuasive, yielding, according to Hatzfeld, a date of 360–355. See Jean Hatzfeld, ‘Note sur la date et l'object du Hiéron de Xénophon’, REG 59 (1946), 54–70; also Delebecque (n. 47), who dates Hiero to 358–357.

91 Sympos. 4.15.

92 Mem. 2.6.22. This is important evidence for the Greek recognition of a distinction between hubristic and hubris-free sexual relations (though the word uβριζ is not used). On uβριζ in the sphere of sexual activity generally, see Fisher, N. R. E., Hybris (Warminster, 1992).Google Scholar

93 Mem. 4.5.9.

94 Cf. Mem. 2.6.22. One also recalls the Theban polemarchs entrapped by Phillidas with the expectation of a night with the most beautiful courtesans—μάλα ήδέωζ πρoσεδέΧoυτo υuκτερεúειυ (Hell. 5.4.5); or the comment in Oecon. 10.7 that the gods have ordained sexual attraction between members of the same species—καì oì ἄυθρωπoι ảυθρώπoυ σŵμα καθαρɂυ oìoυται ἥδιστoυ εἶυαι. Cf. also Aristophanes, Clouds 1069, with Henderson's, J. comments, The Maculate Muse (Oxford, 1991), pp. 158–9.Google Scholar ήδúζ appears as the description of lovers in erotic inscriptions of the fourth century on Thasos (LSJ, Revised Supplement, Oxford, 1996).

95 Hiero 1.30 and 34–5. Cf. Kritoboulos’ repeated use of ἥδιoυ to show how he places devotion to Kleinias above everything else (Sympos. 4.14–15).

96 Plato, Symposium 180–1. On the chronological precedence of Plato's work, see above, n. 90.

97 Sympos. 8.14: âυ δέ καì ảμøóτερα στέρξωσι …

98 Hiero 1.5 (following Marchant's text of 1925 [Loeb]). The point is made by Simonides, but immediately accepted by Hieron.

99 Sympos. 8.12, Hiero 1.29. On hedonism, see n. 29.

100 σuυouσíα can mean sexual congress, but hardly in this context!

101 Sympos. 8.13. Hiero 1.33: ༐γὼ γàρ δ ༐ρŵ μέυ ΔαïλóΧou ὧνπερ ìσωζ ảυαγκάξει ήøúσιζ ảυθρώπoυ δεîσθαι παρà τŵυ καλŵυ, τoúτωυ δέ ὧν ༐ρŵ τuΧεîυ, μετà μέυ øιλíαζ καì παρà βouλoμέυou πάυu ìσΧuρŵζ ༐πιθuμŵ τuγΧάυειυ, μετàμ༐υ øιλíας καì παρà βouλoμέυou πάυu ìσΧuŵζ ༐πιθuμŵ τuγΧάυειυ. Cf. p. 76 and n. 6 above.

102 Sympos. 8.18, Hiero 1.35.

103 A more balanced view is found in Aristotle, Nic.Eth. 1157a6–12. But see also the recognition in Sympos. 8.27 that the ༐ραστήζ may convert his παιδικά into a good friend (τŵɂρεγoμέυω ༐κ παιδικŵυ øíλoυ ảγαθɂυ πoιήσασθαι: the infinitive is seemingly a metaphorical use of πoιoûμαι = ‘beget’).

104 Isokrates, Helen 65.6; Aiskhines, Fals. Leg. 42.6 (also 52, where the description is glossed as Ψιυ λαμπρóζ); Philemon, Frag. 71. One should perhaps add a possible tenth instance which may be from the fourth century—the apparently undatable Lunkeus as cited in Athenaios, 6.242c, where the noun ༐παøρoδíσια refers to literary elegance. I am most grateful to Mrs Sue Willetts of the Library of the Institute of Classical Studies (London University) for technical guidance with TLG.

105 Herodotos 2.135.2 and 135.5. Xenophon, Sympos. 8.15 (bis), 18; Hiero 1.35.

106 From Homer, Od. 22.444, onwards.

107 Xenophon, Mem. 3.11.

108 Sympos. 3.1, 8.21.

109 Xenophon: Hiero the Tyrant and Other Treatises, trans. R., Waterfield with introductions and notes by P., Cartledge (Harmondsworth, 1997), p. 12.Google Scholar

110 A similar oscillation has already been noted in the two speeches (of Hieron and Sokrates) over the word καλóζ (above, p. 93). A further example of the same logical ploy is found around the word ἥδεσθαι at Mem. 1.3.15.

111 Gray (n. 89), p. 117.

112 Hiero 11.11: ὥστε oủ μóυoυ øιλoîo ἄυ, ảλλà καì ༐ρŵo ὑπ’ ảυθρώπωυ, καì τoɉζ καλoɉζ oủ πειρâυ, ảλλà πειρώμευoυ ὑπ’ αủτŵυ ảυέΧεσθαι ἄυ σε δέoι.

113 Gray (n. 89), p. 116.

114 Hiero 8.1, cf. 3.5.

115 Hiero 2.16. For Xenophon's humour, cf. n. 51. Also (for the ironic twist), cf. Hindley (n. 1), pp. 355f. and nn. 38, 39. An element of humour also creeps into the Alkibiades seduction narrative, when Alkibiades complains that Sokrates's rejection had ‘insulted’ him (uβρισευ—usually a strong and serious term): Plato, Symposium 219c.

116 An alternative view is hinted at in the note to Waterfield's translation (n. 3, p. 189), which suggests a possible parallel with Alkibiades’ attempt to seduce Sokrates. Sokrates puts up with this, but clearly does not welcome it, and eschews any physical response. A similar attitude, it might be argued, is implicit in the moral connotation of ảυέΧεσθαι (‘bear with’) in the present passage. But to follow this route for the interpretation of Hiero 11.11 is to entertain a dismissive attitude to sexual pleasure which does not appear elsewhere in the dialogue and is at variance with Xenophon's view of moderate physicality (as argued for in the present article).

117 This argument also rules out the possibility that the words might be a warning against family murders of the kind mentioned in Hiero 3.8.

118 The nearest approach is Lukon's concluding appraisal of Sokrates (Sympos. 9.1). On the other hand, traces of the ‘moderate’ view can be discerned (albeit dimly) in Sokrates’ speech itself: Sympos. 8.14 (love of both body and soul) and 8.27 (growth ‘out of’ pederasty into friendship).

119 Cynegeticus 12.20; contrast Sympos. 8.34.

120 Sympos. 1.1.

121 Sympos. 8.23. Cf. Mem. 4.1.1–5, esp. §5; Lac.Pol. 2.12. Xenophon's conception of Sokratic παιδεíα would require a separate essay, but reference may be made to two recent studies of ‘education through love’ in the Sokratic tradition: C. H. Kahn, ‘Aeschines on Socratic eros’, and D. K. O'Connor, ‘The erotic self-sufficiency of Socrates: a reading of Xenophon's Memorabilia’ (both in Vander Waerdt, n. 2).

Kahn traces the literary history of the theme to Aiskhines of Sphettos, whose dialogues Alcibiades and Aspasia seem to have regarded not only pederastic (probably celibate) love, but also heterosexual (and presumably consummated) love, as the locus for such training. If Kahn's reconstruction of Aiskhines’ fragmentary remains is correct, a striking parallel in thought structure can be discerned in comparing the latter's Alcibiades with Xenophon's Memorabilia 4.1.1–5. Both sequences move from love and companionship, through the rebuke of pride (in ability and possessions), to the need for training in virtue. One may even add to Kahn's idenfication of possible literary influences of Aiskhines upon Xenophon (p. 89, n. 7) the thought that the former's reference to training in horsemanship (ibid., p. 90 and n. 14) may well have prompted the latter's comparison with the breaking-in of horses (Mem. 4.1.3). Xenophon, it seems, was appropriating from the tradition as well as from his own memory an aspect of Sokrates’ teaching which he wished to commend. (On Xenophon's claims to memory, cf. D. Clay, in Vander Waerdt [n. 2], p. 42, n. 43.)

A much more extended study of a sophisticated (but seemingly non-physical) eros as the basis for education is to be found in O'Connor's essay. But O'Connor does not ask (nor, I think, is it relevant to his thesis to ask) whether Xenophon may not have maintained his own, more physical (but still morally structured) view of eros alongside the philosophical exchanges with Sokrates which he presents and the authentic interpretation of the philosopher's (paradoxically complex) virtue which he seeks to evoke.

122 Cf. Mem. 1.2.1–2. The exact significance of the charges against Sokrates has, of course, been much debated. It is enough here to say that one element in this paragraph's description of the charges to be rebutted is making young men ảøρoδισíωυ ảκρατεîζ. In this passage, as in Xenophon's Apologia, the defence lies in an appeal to Sokrates’ self-disciplined character (Apol. Soc. 16).