Abstract
Recent research has emphasised that economic growth and a comparatively low level of inequality in fifth- and fourth-century BCE Athens rested on the stability and reliability of her public democratic institutions and the vivid competition and specialisation within that framework. With Xenophon, however, we have an author who proposes an alternative—not only in his commonly cited Oeconomicus and Vectigalia but in all his extant writings—by integrating economic matters, and capital in particular, into his model of a perfectly organised and ruled society. Based on the theoretical approach of “regulatory frames”, which explains the dynamic communication process between author and audience via the extant work, I shall argue that Xenophon’s model of capital, economy and society is grounded in mainly Athenian discourses, common at that time, about utility, stability/instability, reliability/lack of trust, economic as well as social competition and risk management. Xenophon gives tentative answers to the question of how a perfect socio-economic system should work, by creating an alternative framework that tends to be extremely elastic, utility-yet community-oriented and totalitarian.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
See Audring and Brodersen 2008, 18–27 with an overview of previous scholarship on both works.
- 2.
- 3.
Economic prosperity of ancient Greece, particularly Athens: Ober 2015. Cf. Ruffing 2019 and Herz 2020. Reliable institutions: besides Ober, see e.g. Lyttkens 2013 and Bresson 2016. Increasing elite influence: Rohde 2019. Complex organisation within NIE framework: von Reden 2019; Terpstra 2019, 8–23. On current trends in ancient economic studies, see Günther and Reinard 2017.
- 4.
See the definition in Piketty 2014, 46. See also the introduction to this volume.
- 5.
Droysen 1897, e.g. 11 (§5); 26 (§37); 27–32 (§38–44). Full discussion in S. Günther Forthcoming [a].
- 6.
For an introduction to frame theories, see e.g. Busse et al. 2018, 22–38. Critical overview and application to ancient studies: E. Günther Forthcoming.
- 7.
On salience as important aspect in framing and the related factors, see the influential paper of Entman 1993.
- 8.
E.g. if one offers someone celebrating their birthday in Europe a long noodle for eating. Though a fairly common practice in China, where it symbolises long life and prosperity, the slot is not (yet) part of the frame “birthday” in Western societies. Such a move at a “typical” Western birthday party certainly could provoke communication about global birthday practices, among other things.
- 9.
In the definition of NIE, an organisation is a group of individuals who share common goals; the organisation is geared to opportunity sets to achieve an aim but limited by institutional constraints (“rules”) or scarcity of any good necessary to reach it. Within such an order an organisation develops certain forms, ways, and means of target achievements. See von Reden 2019, 179–7; Terpstra 2019, 1–32 on the entanglement of public institutions and private forms of enforcement that built such state organisation with regard to economy. On the problematic application of the modern NIE definition of organisation to ancient natural states, see von Reden 2019, 187–8; Terpstra 2019, 8–23.
- 10.
- 11.
See e.g. the arrangement in Flower 2017, though cross-cutting topics are also present.
- 12.
- 13.
Cf. Xen. Oec. 5.2–3 where Socrates talks about banausic occupations (banausikai technai) that are not held in high esteem. Cf. Pomeroy 1994, 235–7 on the moral judgement on those technical jobs by the elite who deemed it not proper for a free Athenian to be involved in such businesses.
- 14.
Cf. Pomeroy 1994, 218 (ad loc.), see also n. 12 above.
- 15.
See Pomeroy 1994, 218–19 on ktēma and chrēma.
- 16.
Cf. ibid., 220–2.
- 17.
On the wise hetaira Aspasia: Xen. Oec. 3.14; cf. Pomeroy 1994, 232–4 (ad loc.); on foreign women in Xenophon’s work, see Baragwanath 2010; especially on the role of women in the Oeconomicus: Föllinger 2002. On the Persian kings’ arrangement of the commonwealth, and particularly the two Cyruses: Xen. Oec. 4.4–25; see S. Günther 2012b.
- 18.
See e.g. Xen. Oec. 21.2.
- 19.
Cf. Pomeroy 1994, 218–19 on the ambiguity of the term chrēma that can also mean money. Arguably, Xenophon consciously plays with the different meanings here.
- 20.
On Bourdieuan ideas avant la lettre in Xenophon, see S. Günther 2019, 75–8.
- 21.
On the use of these financial public obligations in the rhetoric of the Athenian elite: Günther and Weise 2014.
- 22.
Which could be translated as “childish behavior” but has also the connotation of homoerotic affairs: Pomeroy 1994, 229–30 (ad loc.).
- 23.
- 24.
Xen. Oec. 20.29 (trans. Pomeroy 1994): νὴ Δία, ἐγὼ δέ γέ σοι, ἔφην, ὦ Ἰσχόμαχε, ἐπομόσας λέγω ἦ μὴν πιστεύειν σοι φύσει [νομίζειν] φιλεῖν ταῦτα πάντας ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἂν ὠφελεῖσθαι νομίζωσιν. / “‘By Zeus, Ischomachus,’ I said, ‘I declare to you on oath that I accept your view that all men naturally love those things which they think will bring them profit.’” See n. 22 above.
- 25.
Schorn 2011 = 2012, showing in particular the connections to Xenophon’s Memorabilia, Cyropaedia and the Hiero.
- 26.
Eudaimonia: ibid., passim, esp. 87. On hēgemonia instead of archē: Farrell 2016; Schorn 2011, 86 with n. 102 = 2012, 714f. with n. 102. Contra Dillery 1993. Xen. Hell. 5.2.12–9, the warning of Olynthus’ expansion and the power of the Chalcidian League by the Acanthian ambassador Cleigenes at Sparta in 383 BC, reads like a negative reflection of this. Particularly noteworthy with regard to economic advantages is §16 (trans. Brownson 1921): “You should consider this question also, how you can consistently, after having taken care in the case of Boeotia to prevent its being united, nevertheless disregard the gathering of a much greater power, and what is more, a power which is becoming strong not by land only, but also by sea. For what indeed is there to hinder such expansion, seeing that the country itself possesses ship-timber and has revenues from many ports and many trading-places, and likewise an abundant population on account of the abundance of food?” On the structure of the passage, see Parker 2003, 114–26.
- 27.
Cf. e.g. Xen. Cyr. 1.1.1 with the equalization of form of state and form of oikos management.
- 28.
See S. Günther 2016b, 116f.
- 29.
Even numbers used by Xenophon throughout his treatise: Powell 2021.
- 30.
Though Xenophon does not use the term autarkeia that has a broader meaning of autarkic living in all aspects of life, including any supply with goods, he clearly alludes to this concept in the passages mentioned. Cf. Gauthier 1976, 41 (on Xen. Vect. 1.1); Whitehead 2019, 81–2. See also Xen. Hell. 5.2.16 for Olynthus’ economic “autarky”, above n. 26.
- 31.
Schorn 2011, 86 = 2012, 714.
- 32.
See Buxton 2017.
- 33.
See e.g. Xen. Cyr. 1.6.12–4 for the theoretical scope. In the Anabasis, more than 30 passages relate to market issues. Cf. only Sturz 1801, I, 38–41 (s.v. ἀγορά). For organising public revenues to pay mercenaries, see e.g. Aen. Tact. 13; cf. S. Günther 2014.
- 34.
On the economic behaviour of fourth-century BCE generals, see S. Günther 2016a.
- 35.
See S. Günther Forthcoming [b].
- 36.
Cf. S. Günther 2019, 75–8 on the asymmetrical market principles underlying this and other episodes.
- 37.
On these ruined estates of the nobles: Xen. Oec. 1.16–23, see above.
- 38.
On the loan, see Bresson 2016, 500 n. 80.
- 39.
- 40.
See Wu 2019.
- 41.
See e.g. Xen. Cyr. 7.4.12–13: The handing over of the inventory list, containing the goods in the just conquered city of Sardes, by Croesus to Cyrus symbolizes not only the transfer of rule but also points out the two different ways of rule, Croesus’ pronoia but mistrust, Cyrus’ trust in his subordinates who are nevertheless checked by Cyrus’ friends and higher officials. Cf. Xen. Hiero 9.1–4.
- 42.
See e.g. Xen. Cyr. 1.6.5–6; Oec. 5.11–20; Vect. 6.1–3. On the resemblance of Xenophon’s own oracle experience in the Anabasis (3.1.5–8) in the Vectigalia-passage, see Schorn 2011, 87–8 = 2012, 716–1. On the connection between knowledge, preparation, and order in Xenophon, see S. Günther 2018, 264–8.
- 43.
On the discussion whether there existed a “party” of Eubulus, see Cawkwell 1963, 63–5; Hintzen-Bohlen 1997, 95–105, both in favour of a “party” and an application of Xenophon’s proposal to practice. But cf. Näf 1997, esp. 330–8, who shows the differences between the peace-ideas of Eubulus, Xenophon and Isocrates. However, see also the speeches of Demosthenes in this time (esp. Or. 14, 20, and 22). Hence, while the concrete interdependence between theoretical considerations and practical measures remains unclear, it is without doubt that common topics appear: S. Günther 2016b, 124–5.
- 44.
On growing expertise in ancient Greece, and particularly Athens, of the fourth-century BC: see e.g. Xen. Mem. 3.4 where Socrates defends the decision to appoint the wealthy Antisthenes as strategos due to his oikonomia-skills, not the disappointed Nicomachides who was an experienced but only tactically versed military. Generally, on the rise of experts in fourth-century BC Athens, especially the entanglement between financial and political expertise, see Rohde 2019, passim. On the rise, differentiation, and professionalisation of various fields, mirrored in the so-called technical literature, see Meißner 1999, esp. 159–61.
Bibliography
Audring, Gert, and Kai Brodersen, eds. 2008. OIKONOMIKA. Quellen zur Wirtschaftstheorie der griechischen Antike. Texte zur Forschung 92. Darmstadt: WBG.
Baragwanath, Emily. 2010. “Xenophon’s Foreign Wives.” In Xenophon (Oxford Readings in Classical Studies), edited by Vivienne Gray, 41–71. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bresson, Alain. 2016. The Making of the Ancient Greek Economy: Institutions, Markets, and Growth in the City-States, translated by Steven Rendall. Princeton: Princeton University Press (originally in French, 2007–2008. L’économie de la Grèce des cités. 2 vols. Paris: Armand Colin).
Bresson, Alain. 2019. “The Athenian Money Supply in the Late Archaic and Early Classical Period.” Journal of Ancient Civilizations 34.2: 135–53. (= Sven Günther and Dorothea Rohde, eds. 200 Years after August Boeckh’s The Public Economy of Athens: Perspectives of Economic History for the 21st Century).
Brownson, Carleton L., trans. 1921. Xenophon in Seven Volumes. II: Hellenica, volume II: Books 5–7. Loeb Classical Library 89. Cambridge MA & London: Harvard University Press & William Heinemann Ltd.
Brownson, Carleton L., trans. 1922. Xenophon in Seven Volumes. III: Anabasis. Loeb Classical Library 90. Cambridge MA & London: Harvard University Press & William Heinemann Ltd.
Busse, Dietrich, Michaela Felden, and Detmer Wulf. 2018. Bedeutungs- und Begriffswissen im Recht. Frame-Analysen von Rechtsbegriffen im Deutschen. Sprache und Wissen 34. Berlin et al.: De Gruyter.
Buxton, Richard Fernando. 2017. “Xenophon on Leadership: Commanders as Friends.” In The Cambridge Companion to Xenophon, edited by Michael A. Flower, 323–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cawkwell, George L. 1963. “Eubulus.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 83: 47–67.
Dillery, John. 1993. “Xenophon’s Poroi and Athenian Imperialism.” Historia 42.1: 1–11.
Droysen, Johann Gustav. 1897. Outline of the Principles of History (Grundriss der Historik). With a Biographical Sketch of the Author, translated by E. Benjamin Andrews. Boston: Ginn & Company.
Entman, Robert M. 1993. “Framing: Towards a Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm.” Journal of Communication 43.4: 51–58.
Farrell, Christopher A. 2016. “Xenophon Poroi 5. Securing a ‘More Just’ Athenian Hegemony.” Polis 33: 331–355.
Figueira, Thomas J. 2012. “Economic Thought and Economic Fact in the Works of Xenophon.” In Xenophon: Ethical Principles and Historical Enquiry, edited by Fiona Hobden and Christopher Tuplin, 665–87. Mnemosyne Supplements 348. Leiden & Boston: Brill.
Flower, Michael A., ed. 2017. The Cambridge Companion to Xenophon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Föllinger, Sabine. 2002. “Frau und Techne: Xenophons Modell einer geschlechtsspezifischen Arbeitsteilung.” In Gender Studies in den Altertumswissenschaften. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen, edited by Barbara Feichtinger and Gregor Wöhrle, 49–63. Iphis. Beiträge zur altertumswissenschaftlichen Gender-Forschung. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.
Gauthier, Philippe 1976. Un commentaire historique des Poroi de Xénophon. Centre Recherches d’Histoire et de Philologie III: Hautes Études du Monde Gréco-Romain 8. Geneva & Paris: Librairie Droz.
Gray, Vivienne J. 2011. Xenophon’s Mirror of Princes: Reading the Reflections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Günther, Elisabeth. Forthcoming. “How to Understand an Owl in Armor: Frames and Framings in Ancient Studies.” In Conference Proceedings “Frames and Framing in Antiquity”, Changchun 16–18 October 2020, edited by Sven Günther and Elisabeth Günther. Changchun: Institute for the History of Ancient Civilizations.
Günther, Sven. 2012a. “Einleitung.” In Ordnungsrahmen antiker Ökonomien. Ordnungskonzepte und Steuerungsmechanismen antiker Wirtschaftssysteme im Vergleich, edited by Sven Günther, 1–4. Philippika 53. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Günther, Sven. 2012b. “Zwischen Theorie und Praxis. Der Perserkönig als idealer Ökonom in Xenophons Schriften.” In Ordnungsrahmen antiker Ökonomien. Ordnungskonzepte und Steuerungsmechanismen antiker Wirtschaftssysteme im Vergleich, edited by Sven Günther, 83–96. Philippika 53. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Günther, Sven. 2014. “Framing the Financial Thoughts of Aeneas Tacticus: New Approaches of Theory to Economic Discourses in Antiquity.” Journal of Ancient Civilizations 29: 77–86.
Günther, Sven. 2016a. “Die Söldner und das liebe Geld. Überlegungen zum Zusammenhang zwischen Münzprägung, Söldnertum und Marktgeschehen im 4. Jahrhundert v.Chr.” In Eine neue Prägung. Innovationspotentiale von Münzen in der griechisch-römischen Antike, edited by Benedikt Eckhardt and Katharina Martin, 93–108. Philippika 102. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Günther, Sven. 2016b. “Sonderwirtschaftszonen. Antike Konzeptionen und Konstruktionen am Beispiel des athenischen Piräus.” In Antike Wirtschaft und ihre kulturelle Prägung – The Cultural Shaping of the Ancient Economy, edited by Kerstin Droß-Krüpe, Sabine Föllinger, and Kai Ruffing, 113–30. Philippika 98. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Günther, Sven. 2017. “(K)einer neuen Theorie wert? Neues zur Antiken Wirtschaftsgeschichte anhand Dig. 50.11.2 (Callist. 3 cognit.).” Gymnasium 124: 131–144.
Günther, Sven. 2018. “Breakfast at Xenophon’s. Die erste Mahlzeit des Tages als Spiegel idealer Führungsgrundsätze in der Kyrupädie.” In «Emas non quod opus est, sed quod necesse est». Beiträge zur Wirtschafts-, Sozial-, Rezeptions- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte der Antike. Festschrift für Hans-Joachim Drexhage zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by Kai Ruffing and Kerstin Droß-Krüpe, 264–78. Philippika 125. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Günther, Sven. 2019. “Wiederverwendung – ein ökonomisches Konzept bei Xenophon?” In Gebrauchtwaren und Second Hand-Markt in der Antike, edited by Patrick Reinard, Christian Rollinger and Christoph Schäfer, 61–84. Scripta Mercaturae Beihefte 1. Gutenberg: Scripta Mercaturae Verlag.
Günther, Sven. Forthcoming [a]. “Frames and Framing Theory avant la lettre? Johann Gustav Droysen’s Historik and the Future of Ancient Studies.” In Conference Proceedings “Frames and Framing in Antiquity”, Changchun 16–18 October 2020, edited by Sven Günther and Elisabeth Günther. Changchun: Institute for the History of Ancient Civilizations.
Günther, Sven. Forthcoming [b]. “Let Money Circulate, for the sake of the Commonwealth! A Note on the Afterlife of Anonymus Iamblichi fragment 7 in Xenophon’s Works.” In Proceedings “Vertrauen als ökonomische Ressource in der antiken Marktwirtschaft – Trust as an Economic Resource in the Ancient Market Economy”, Trier 27–29 March 2019, edited by Patrick Reinard and Christian Rollinger.
Günther, Sven, and Patrick Reinard. 2017. “Research Survey: The Ancient Economy—New Studies and Approaches. Introduction; Ancient Greece; Rome (Including Graeco-Roman Egypt).” Journal of Ancient Civilizations 32.1: 55–105.
Günther, Sven, and Franziska Weise. 2014. “Zwischen aristokratischem Führungsanspruch und demokratischem Gleichheitsideal – Überlegungen zur Gymnasiarchie im 5./4. Jahrhundert v.Chr.” In Sport und Recht in der Antike. Beiträge zum 2. Wiener Kolloquium zur Antiken Rechtsgeschichte, 27.–28.10.2011, edited by Kaja Harter-Uibopuu and Thomas Kruse, 59–87. Wiener Kolloquien zur Antiken Rechtsgeschichte 2. Vienna: Holzhausen Verlag.
Herz, Peter. 2020. “Bilanz eines Imperiums. Anmerkungen zum athenischen Staat des 5. Jh. v.Chr.” Journal of Ancient Civilizations 35.1: 71–94.
Hintzen-Bohlen, Brigitte. 1997. Die Kulturpolitik des Eubulos und des Lykurg. Die Denkmäler und Bauprojekte in Athen zwischen 355 und 322 v. Chr. Antike in der Moderne. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Jansen, Joseph. 2012. “Strangers Incorporated: Outsiders in Xenophon’s Poroi.” In Xenophon: Ethical Principles and Historical Enquiry, edited by Fiona Hobden and Christopher Tuplin, 725–60. Mnemosyne Supplements 348. Leiden & Boston: Brill.
L’Allier, Louis. 2012. “Why Did Xenophon Write the Last Chapter of the Cynegeticus?” In Xenophon: Ethical Principles and Historical Enquiry, edited by Fiona Hobden and Christopher Tuplin, 477–97. Mnemosyne Supplements 348. Leiden & Boston: Brill.
Lyttkens, Carl H. 2013. Economic Analysis of Institutional Change in Ancient Greece. Politics, Taxation and Rational Behavior. London: Routledge.
Meißner, Burkhard. 1999. Die technologische Fachliteratur der Antike. Struktur, Überlieferung und Wirkung technischen Wissens in der Antike (ca. 400 v.Chr. – ca. 500 n.Chr.). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Näf, Beat. 1997. “Vom Frieden reden – den Krieg meinen? Aspekte der griechischen Friedensvorstellungen der Politik des Atheners Eubulos.” Klio. Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte 79.2: 317–40.
Ober, Josiah. 2015. The Rise and Fall of Classical Greece. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Parker, Victor. 2003. “Sparta, Amyntas, and the Olynthians in 383 B.C. A Comparison of Xenophon and Diodorus.” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie N.F. 146.2: 113–37.
Piketty, Thomas. 2014. Capital in the Twenty-First Century, translated by Arthur Goldhammer. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Pomeroy, Sarah B. 1994. Xenophon, Oeconomicus. A Social and Historical Commentary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Powell, Janet. 2021. “‘An Obol a Day Net’: Problematising Numbers in Xenophon’s Poroi.” Historia 70.1: 2–28.
Rohde, Dorothea. 2019. Von der Deliberationsdemokratie zur Zustimmungsdemokratie: Die öffentlichen Finanzen Athens und die Ausbildung einer Kompetenzelite im 4. Jahrhundert v.Chr. Schriften zur Alten Geschichte 1. Stuttgart: Metzler.
Ruffing, Kai. 2019. “Reiches Hellas?” In Von besten und zweitbesten Regeln. Platonische und aktuelle Perspektiven auf individuelles und staatliches Wohlergehen, edited by Sabine Föllinger and Evelyn Korn, 143–75. Philippika 137. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Schorn, Stefan. 2011. “Xenophons Poroi als philosophische Schrift.” Historia 60, no. 1: 65–93 (= 2012. “The Philosophical Background of Xenophonʼs Poroi.” In Xenophon: Ethical Principles and Historical Enquiry, edited by Fiona Hobden and Christopher Tuplin, 689–723. Mnemosyne Supplements 348. Leiden & Boston: Brill.
Sturz, Friedrich Wilhelm. 1801–4. Lexicon Xenophonteum. 4 vols. Leipzig: Joh. Ambrosius Barth.
Terpstra, Taco. 2019. Trade in the Ancient Mediterranean. Private Order and Public Institutions. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Thomas, David. 2018. “The Enemies of Hunting in Xenophon’s Cynegeticus.” In Plato and Xenophon. Comparative Studies, edited by Gabriel Danzig, David Johnson and Donald Morrison, 612–39. Mnemosyne Supplements 417. Leiden and Boston: Brill.
von Reden, Sitta. 2019. “Die Polis als Organisation der Nutzenmaximierung: athenische und platonische Modelle.” In Von besten und zweitbesten Regeln. Platonische und aktuelle Perspektiven auf individuelles und staatliches Wohlergehen, edited by Sabine Föllinger and Evelyn Korn, 177–98. Philippika 137. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Whitehead, David. 2019. Xenophon, Poroi (Revenue-Sources), translated with introduction and commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wu, Tong. 2019. “From Hunting to Military Success: Battle Descriptions and Ideal Generalship in Xenophon’s Cyropaedia.” Ancient West & East 18: 41–59.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Günther, S. (2022). Framing Capital: Xenophon’s Economic Model and Social System. In: Koedijk, M., Morley, N. (eds) Capital in Classical Antiquity. Palgrave Studies in Ancient Economies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-93834-5_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-93834-5_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-93833-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-93834-5
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)