Of the historical writings of Xenophon, the or the History of the Expedition of the Younger Cyrus, and of the retreat of the Greeks, who formed part of his army, has immortalised his name. It is a clear and pleasing narrative, written in a simple style, free from affectation; and it gives a great deal of curious information on the country which was traversed by the retreating Greeks, and on the manners of the people. It was the first work which made the Greeks acquainted with some portions of the Persian empire, and it showed the weakness of that extensive monarchy. The skirmishes of the retreating Greeks with their enemies and the battles with some of the barbarian tribes are not such events as elevate the work to the character of a military history, nor can it as such be compared with Caesar's Commentaries. Indeed those passages in the which relate directly to the military movements of the retreating army are not always clear, nor have we any evidence that Xenophon did possess any military talent for great operations, whatever skill he may have had as a commander of a division. The editions of the are numerous : one of the most useful editions for the mere explanation of the Greek text is by Krüger. The work of Major Rennell " Illustrations chiefly geographical of the History of the Expedition of Cyrus, &c London, 1807, 4to." is a useful commentary on the to which may be added various remarks in the London Geographical Journal. (See the Index to the first ten volumes.) The translation by Spelman is perhaps the best English version.

In a passage in the (3.1.1), the author says, "Now how Cyrus got his army together and marched up the country with it against his brother, and how the battle was fought, and how he died, and how after this the Greeks made their retreat to the sea, has been written by Themistogenes of Syracuse." This passage seems sufficiently to indicate the though the extract says nothing of the course which the Greeks took from Trapezus to Byzantium. Plutarch (De Gloria Athen. vol. ii. ed. Wyttenbach) says, that Xenophon attributed the to Themistogenes in order that the work might have more credit, than if it appeared as the narrative of one who had to say so much about himself. We might suppose that there was a work on the expedition of Cyrus by Themistogenes, and that Xenophon wrote his after he had written this passage in the But this is merely a conjecture, and not a satisfactory one. When we read the we never doubt that Xenophon was the author of it, for he speaks of himself in many places in a way in which no other person could speak : he records, for instance, dreams and thoughts, which no one could know except from his evidence. The then, as we have it, was either written by Xenophon, or compiled from his notes; and the reference to the work of Themistogenes either proves that there was such a work, or that Xenophon's work passed under the name of Themistogenes, at the time when the passage in the was written, if Xenophon wrote the passage in the Bornemann's proposal to translate the words in the Θεμιστογένει τῷ Συρακουσίῳ γέγραπται, " das habe ich für den Themistogenes geschrieben" is altogether inadmissible.

The (Ἑλληνικά) of Xenophon are divided into seven books, and comprehend the space of forty-eight years, from the time when the history of Thucydides ends [THUCYDIDES] to the battle of Mantineia, B. C. 362. But the fact of the assassination of Alexander of Pherae is mentioned (6.4. 35), as to which the reference already made to Clinton's Fasti may be consulted. It is the opinion of Niebuhr and others that the Hellenica consists of two distinct parts or works written at different times. The History of Thucydides would be completed by the capture of Athens, B. C. 404, which is described in the second book (Hellen. 2.2); the remainder of this book carries the history to the restoration of Thrasybulus and the exiles, B. C. 403. The second paragraph of the third book in which Themistogenes is mentioned, may be considered as completing the history up to B. C. 399; and a new narrative appears to begin with the third paragraph of the third book (Ἐπεὶ μέντοι Τισσαφέρνης, &c). But there seems no sufficient reason to consider the Hellenica as two works, because an expression at the end of the second book refers to the Athenian amnesty (ἔτι καὶ νῦν ὀμοῦ, &c) of B. C. 403, and because the death of Alexander of Pherae is recorded in the sixth. This would only prove that Xenophon had the work a long time under his hands. The division into books proves nothing, for that was posterior to Xenophon's time. (The Hellenica of Xenophon, and their division into books, by G. C. Lewis, Classical Museum, No. iv. )

The is generally a dry narrative of events, and there is nothing in the treatment of them which gives a special interest to the work. Some events of importance are briefly treated, but a few striking incidents are presented with some particularity. There is an English translation of the by W. Smith, the translator of Thucydides.

The (Κυροπαιδεία) in eight books, is a kind of political romance, the basis of which is the history of Cyrus, the founder of the Persian monarchy. It shows how citizens are to be made virtuous and brave; and Cyrus is the model of a wise and good ruler. As a history it has no authority at all. Xenophon adopted the current stories as to Cyrus and the chief events of his reign, without any intention of subjecting them to a critical examination; nor have we any reason to suppose that his picture of Persian morals and Persian discipline is any thing more than a fiction, for we know that many of the usages of the Persians in the time of the first Dareius and his successors were different from the usages which Xenophon attributes to the Persians; and Xenophon himself affirms this. Besides this, Xenophon could know no more of the Persians in the time of the first Cyrus than other Greeks; and, setting aside the improbability of his picture, we are certain that he could not know many things which he has introduced into his romance. His object was to represent what a state might be, and he placed the scene of his fiction far enough off to give it the colour of possibility. His own philosophical notions and the usages of Sparta were the real materials out of which he constructed his political system. The is evidence enough that Xenophon did not like the political constitution of his own country, and that a well-ordered monarchy or kingdom appeared to him preferable to a democracy like Athens. The genuineness of the Epilogus or conclusion, in which Xenophon shows how the Persians had degenerated since the time of Cyrus, is doubted by some critics; but there seem to be no sufficient reasons. The author here says that the " Persians of his time, and the rest who were among them, were proved to be both less reverential towards the gods and less just to their kin, and more dishonest towards others, and less courageous in war now than they were before; and if any man has a contrary opinion, he will find, if he looks to their acts, that they testify to the truth of what I say." The is one of the most pleasing of Xenophon's works, and it contains many good hints on the training of youth. Xenophon's remarks are practical; we do not find in his writings any thoughts that strike us as very profound or new, but we always discover careful observation of human life, good sense, and honest purpose. The dying speech of Cyrus (8.7) is worthy of the pupil of Socrates, and Cicero (de Senectute, 22) has transferred the substance of it to enforce his argument for the immortality of the soul. This passage may be assumed as evidence of Xenophon's belief in the existence of the soul (Ψυχή) independent of the organised being in which it acts. " I never could be persuaded," says Cyrus, " that the soul lives so long as it is in a perishable body, and that it dies when it is released from it." The argument of Xenophon bears some resemblance to the argument of Bishop Butler, in his where he treats of a future life (chap. i.). There is an English translation of the by Maurice Ashley Cowper.

The (Ἀγησίλαος) is a panegyric on Agesilaus II., king of Sparta, the friend of Xenophon. That Xenophon wrote such a work is proved by the list of Diogenes, and the testimony of Cicero (Cic. Fam. 5.12), who considers it a monument more glorious than all the statues of kings. Some modern critics do not consider the extant work as deserving of high praise, to which it may be replied, that it will be difficult to find a panegyric which is. It is a kind of composition in which failure can hardly be avoided. However true it may be, it is apt to be insipid and to appear exaggerated.

The (Ἱππαρχικός) is a treatise on the duties of a commander of cavalry, and it contains many military precepts. One would be inclined to suppose that it was written at Athens, but this conclusion, like many others from internal evidence, is not satisfactory. A strain of devotion runs through the treatise; and on this the author makes the following remark near the end : " Now if any one admire that I have often used the expression ` God willing,' he must know that if he happen to be frequently in a state of danger, he will admire the less; and if he consider, that when there is war, the hostile parties form their designs against one another, but very seldom know what designs are formed against them severally. But all these things the gods know, and presignify them to whom they please by means of sacrifices, birds, voices, and dreams."

The treatise on the Horse (Ἱππική) was written after the to which treatise he refers at the end of the treatise on the Horse. " Since," says Xenophon, at the beginning of this treatise, " it happens that I have been accustomed to riding a horse for a long time, I consider that I am well acquainted with horses, and I wish to show my younger friends in what way I think that they may best meddle in the matter of a horse." The treatise is not limited to horsemanship, as regards the rider : it shows how a man is to avoid being cheated in buying a horse, how a horse is to be trained, and the like. In the beginning of the treatise Xenophon refers to a treatise on the same subject by Simon. The Ἱππική was translated into English, and printed by Henry Denham, London, 1584, 4to.

The (Κυνηγετικός) is a treatise on hunting, an amusement of which Xenophon was very fond; and on the dog, and the breeding and training of dogs, on the various kinds of game, and the mode of taking them. It is a treatise written by a genuine sportsman, who loved the exercise and the excitement of the chase; and it may be read with delight by any sportsman who deserves the name.

The two treatises on the Spartan and Athenian states (Λακεδαιμονίων Πολιτεία, and Ἀθηναίων Πολιτεία) were not always recognised as genuine works of Xenophon, even by the ancients. They pass, however, under his name, and there is nothing in the internal evidence that appears to throw any doubt on the authorship. The writer clearly prefers Spartan to Athenian institutions. The " Republic of Athens" was translated into English by James Morris, 1794, 8vo.

A treatise on the Revenues of Athens (Πόροι ἢ περὶ Προσόδων) is designed to show how the public revenue of Athens may be improved : it treats of the mode of increasing the number of resident strangers (μέτοικοι), by improving their condition at Athens, which improvement would ultimately be beneficial to the revenue, and attract strangers; and it recommends such facilities to be given to strangers trading to Athens, as would induce them to come to a port where they were not compelled, as in many ports, to take merchandise, for want of a good current coin, but where they could take silver as a commodity in exchange, if they preferred it : he then proceeds to discuss the mode of improving the revenue by a better management of the Athenian silver mines, and to show that provision may thus be made for the poorer citizens and other purposes, without levying contributions on the allies and the subject states. This treatise was translated into English by Walter Moyle, 1697, 8vo., and is reprinted in his works. Böckh, in his translated into English by G. C. Lewis, has discussed this treatise of Xenophon, and the matter of it.

In the of Socrates, in four books (Ἀπομνημονεύματα Σωκράτους) Xenophon defends the memory of his master against the charge of irreligion (1.1 ) and of corrupting the Athenian youth. Socrates is represented as holding a series of conversations, in which he developes and inculcates moral doctrines in his peculiar fashion. It is entirely a practical work, such as we might expect from the practical nature of Xenophon's mind, and it professes to exhibit Socrates as he taught. It is true that it may exhibit only one side of the Socratic argumentation, and that it does not deal in those subtleties and verbal disputes which occupy so large a space in some of Plato's dialogues. Xenophon was a hearer of Socrates, an admirer of his master, and anxious to defend his memory. The charges against Socrates for which he suffered were (Mem. 1.1), that "Socrates was guilty of not believing in the gods which the state believed in, and in introducing other new daemons (δαιμόνια) : he was also guilty of corrupting the youth." Xenophon (100.1, 2) replies to these two charges specifically; and he then goes on to show (100.3) what Socrates' mode of life was. The whole treatise is intended to be an answer to the charge for which Socrates was executed, and it is, therefore, in its nature, not intended to be a complete exhibition of Socrates. That it is a genuine picture of the man, is indisputable, and it is the most valuable memorial that we have of the practical philosophy of Socrates. The will always be undervalued by the lovers of the transcendental, who give to an unintelligible jargon of words the name of philosophy : it comes too near the common understanding (communis senses) of mankind to be valued by those who would raise themselves above this common understanding, and who have yet to learn that there is not a single notion of philosophy which is not expressed or involved by implication in the common language of life. The and the Apology of Socrates (Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους πρὸς τοὺς δικαστάς) have been translated into English by Sarah Fielding. The Apology of Socrates contains the reasons which induced Socrates to prefer death to life. It is not a first-rate performance; and because they do not consider it worthy of Xenophon, some critics would deny that he is the author; but this is an inconclusive reason. Laertius states that Xenophon wrote an Apologia, and the original is as likely to have come down to us as a forgery.

In the (Συμπόσιον), or Banquet of Philosophers, Xenophon delineates the character of Socrates. The speakers are supposed to meet at the house of Callias, a rich Athenian, at the celebration of the great Panathenaea. Socrates, Cratibulus, Antisthenes, Charmides, and others are the speakers. The accessories of the entertainment are managed with skill, and the piece is interesting as a picture of an Athenian drinking party, and of the amusement and conversation with which it was diversified. The nature of love and friendship is discussed. Some critics think that the is a juvenile performance, and that the Symposium of Plato was written after that of Xenophon ; but it is an old tradition that the of Plato was written before that of Xenophon. The was translated into English by James Wellwood, 1710, reprinted 1750.

The (Ἱέρων ἢ Τυραννικός) is a dialogue between king Hiero and Simonides, in which the king speaks of the dangers and difficulties incident to an exalted station, and the superior happiness of a private man. The poet, on the other hand, enumerates the advantages which the possession of power gives, and the means which it offers of obliging and doing services. Hiero speaks of the burden of power, and answers Simonides, who wonders why a man should keep that which is so troublesome, by saying that power is a thing which a man cannot safely lay down. Simonides offers some suggestions as to the best use of power, and the way of employing it for the public interest. It is suggested by Letronne that Xenophon may have been led to write this treatise by what he saw at the court of Dionysius; and, as already stated, there is a story of his having visited Sicily in the lifetime of the tyrant of Syracuse. A translation of this piece, which is attributed to Elizabeth, queen of England, first appeared in an octavo volume, published in 1743, entitled " Miscellaneous Correspondence." It was also translated, in 1793, 8vo., by the Rev. James Graves, the translator of the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius.

The (Οἰκονομικός) is a dialogue between Socrates and Critobulus, in which Socrates begins by showing that there is an art called Oeconomic, which relates to the administration of a household and of a man's property. Socrates (100.4), when speaking in praise of agriculture, quotes the instance of the younger Cyrus, who was found of horticulture, and once showed to the Spartan Lysander the gardens which he had planned and the trees which he had planted with his own hands. Cicero copies this passage, in his treatise on Old Age (de Senectute, 100.17). Xenophon gives the same character of Cyrus, in this passage of the which he gives in the (1.8, 9), which tends to confirm his being the author of the if it needs confirmation. In answer to the praises of agriculture, Critobulus speaks of the losses to which the husbandman is exposed from hail, frost, drought, and other causes. The answer of Socrates is that the husbandman must trust in heaven, and worship the gods. The seventh chapter is on the duty of a good wife, as exemplified in the case of the wife of Ischomachus. The wife's duty is to look after the interior of the household : the husband labours out of doors and produces that which the wife must use with frugality. The wife's duty is to stay at home, and not to gad abroad. It is an excellent chapter, abundant in good things, worthy of a woman's careful perusal, and adapted to practice. A wife who is perpetually leaving her home, is not the wife that Xenophon would have. It is a notion which one sees in some modern writers, that the attachment of husband and wife, independent of the sexual passion, and their permanent love after both have grown old, is a characteristic of modern society, and that the men of Greece and Rome were not susceptible of that affection which survives the decay of a woman's youth and beauty. The notion is too absurd to need confutation. The duties of a wife, says Ischomachus, give her great opportunities, by exercising which she will not have to fear " that as she grows older she will receive less respect in the house hold, but may be assured that as she advances in life, the better companion she becomes to her husband and the better guardian of her children, the more respect she will receive." This is one of best treatises of Xenophon. It has been several times translated into English. The last translation appears to be by R. Bradley, London, 1727, 8vo.