Xenophon and the historiography of panhellenism

The goal of this dissertation is to provide an analysis of how panhellenic rhetoric and language appears in Xenophon's works. The first two chapters make up an exhaustive biography of Xenophon which explores his Athenian background, and his experiences with Spartans and Persians. Chapter three gives a definition and brief general history of panhellenism, discusses where Xenophon fits into this history, and introduces how panhellenic themes appear in Xenophon's writings. The ideal of a united Greek effort directed at Persia had been popular in Greece since the Persian Wars. The collapse of the Athenian Empire, and the failure of Sparta's hegemony, gave the Persian Great King a greater, indeed, decisive role in Greek affairs. This heightened the desire for cooperation, however unattainable it remained. Loyalty to one's city, and long-standing rivalries invariably took precedence over a general loyalty to Greece. Chapter four examines panhellenic rhetoric in the Anabasis, focusing chiefly on Xenophon's depiction of himself. It follows the Cyreans from the capture of their generals up to the time when they enter the service of the Thracian Seuthes. This furnishes a representative range of situations in which panhellenic themes appear. The next three chapters each present a case study of the way Xenophon uses panhellenic rhetoric. Chapter five explores Clearchus' use of it in the Anabasis to mislead his fellow Greeks, and analyzes how Xenophon slants the portrait of Clearchus for his own purposes. The rhetoric masks the politically unfashionable ambitions of both men. Chapter six analyzes the famous panhellenic outburst of Callicratidas in the Hellenica and shows that he was not a panhellenist and therefore probably was not a conduit for Xenophon's own view of panhellenism. Chapter seven investigates how Xenophon uses panhellenic language in the Agesilaus, and compares the resulting depiction of Agesilaus to the much fuller and more balanced portrait in the Hellenica. A brief conclusion summarizes the results of these investigations and analyses. Panhellenic rhetoric frequently bore no relation to the political and military conditions at hand. Its power worked on an emotional, not logical level.