BOOK REVIEWS 379 Salisbury uses Galla Placidia as a focal point to explore the massive political, religious, and cultural shift that the Roman Empire underwent during this transitional period in Rome’s history. The result is a prosopological history of the Roman Empire from the time of Theodosius to the fall of the Western Empire with a strong emphasis on the development of church doctrine as it affected Late Antique law and culture. The language of the book lacks the precise diction of high scholarship, but the resulting exoteric text is pleasantly accessible. It makes this book an ideal text to supplement the standard Peter Brown textbooks for an undergraduate class on the Late Antique, especially one with a women’s studies emphasis. KRISHNI BURNS University of Akron, kburns1@uakron.edu * * * * * Xenophon the Socratic Prince: The Argument of the Anabasis of Cyrus. By ERIC BUZZETTI. New York: Pallgrave Macmillan, 2014. Pp. xviii + 337. Hardcover, $110.00. ISBN 978-1-137-33330-8. In this book Eric Buzzetti proposes a Straussian reading of Xenophon’s Anabasis. Followinga line of approach familiar from Christopher Nadon’s interpretation of the Cyropaedia,14 Buzzetti argues that the Anabasis reflects a critique of the political life. But he goes even further than Nadon by suggesting that this work ultimately invites its readers to consider the philosophical life of Socrates as an alternative to politics. Buzzetti sees the Anabasis as a philosophical logos and an introduction to philosophyin the form of awar memoir (1–7; 295–300). The book is divided into seven chapters (devoted respectively to the seven books of the Anabasis) and is structured around three models of leaders: the Godlike king (represented by Cyrus the Younger, chapter 1); the Pious King (represented by the Spartan general Klearchos, chapter 2); and the Socratic King (represented by Xenophon the character, chapters 3–7). It also contains three 14 Christopher Nadon, Xenophon. The Socratic Prince, Berkeley, 2001. 380 BOOK REVIEWS appendices and a short bibliography (121–126). Buzzetti’s main assertion, which he unfolds in a linear analysis (often intermingled with too much paraphrasing) throughout his book, is that Cyrus, Klearchos, and Xenophon endeavor but fail to reconcile the noble with the good, or, more specifically, morality with advantage . Consequently, according to Buzzetti, readers who will perceive this failurewill be led to consider “the success embodied bySocrates” (299). Buzzetti offers numerous interesting analyses: he views Cyrus’ death as a “cautionary tale” against his recklessness (68–72) and he offers a nuanced analysis of the obituaries of the Greek generals (104–108). He rightly stresses the occasional blurring of boundaries between Greeks and barbarians (152, 222), he underlines the problems posed by the greediness and lack of order of the soldiers (188) and he illuminates the complexity of motives that underlies Xenophon’s decision to found a colony in Asia (211–217). Buzzetti also presents subtle analyses of the speeches of Greek leaders (especially of Klearchos, and Xenophon, 96–103, 132–137, 277–289). Τhe main problem posed by this study is methodological. Buzzetti follows and expands on the methodological principles set by Leo Strauss.15 Like Strauss, he treats Xenophon asa philosopher who insinuates “the truth” between the lines (the title of the Anabasis is also interpreted “philosophically”, as an “ascent” to the noble, to leadership, an interpretation, however, not corroborated by the text itself). This esoteric writing is justified by fear of persecution (Buzzetti goes so far as to compare ancient Athens with “the contemporary Islamic world”, 8). However , this idea would have made sense only if Buzzetti could prove that this work was written soon after Xenophon left Athens (around 401 BCE); fear of persecution would have seemed then perhaps a plausible political stance. But the evidence about the date of composition does not point towards this direction.16 Furthermore, Buzzetti’s contention about the Anabasis being pervaded by a tension between philosophy and politics (113, 201, 228, 299) and his conception of Socrates as an advocate of the “philosophical life” disregards the fact that the Xenophontic Socrates is a political figure par excellence who embodies a peculiar combination of philosophy with politics, rather than a disjunction 15 The starting point for Buzzetti’s...
Read full abstract