The failings of empire

Current views of Xenophon's account of 404-362 BC under-play the fact that it is a chronological report of politico-military events which should be taken seriously and not seen merely as arbitrary pegs for didactic utterances. A reading of this idiosyncratic narrative is offered which shows how, by interplay of direct stress, allusiveness and telling silence, Xenophon invites a largely negative attitude to the major states and their leaders as they strive unsuccessfully for predominance. The record of Spartan aims and achievements is notably gloomy, but Thebes, Athens and Arcadia are also treated with scant respect. The disorder with which the work ends is the logical conclusion and a real source of discontent, not an excuse for terminating a narrative in which its author had lost interest.