Version 2. What does the name Xenophon mean?

Zodiac sign - Aquarius.

Planet - Saturn.

Color - gray.

Auspicious tree - cypress.

The treasured plant is mimosa.

The patron of the name is the owl.

Talisman stone - zircon.

Character.

Xenophon is capricious. In appearance he is simple and simple-minded, but in his actions he is somewhat arrogant. He is stingy and domineering. However, he is usually a very versatile person - and with his many talents he captivates even his ill-wishers. Xenophon's stormy temperament and emotionality periodically give way to isolation and even gloominess. He is amorous, but a feeling that quickly flares up and goes out just as quickly. In the family, Xenophon is the undisputed leader, and if his wife agrees to recognize this role for him, she will become the subject of his constant care.

Numerology of the name Xenophon

Name number: 6

People born under the number six strive for altruism and selflessness, help others, and maintain family and friendly ties. They always make loving parents and children, and they also feel confident working in education, healthcare, and social work. Caring, traditional views, and denial of too drastic changes provide sixes with stability and confidence, but at the same time can make them vulnerable and inert.

The meaning of the letters in the name Xenophon

TO- distinguished by insight, slight nervousness and strong endurance. Regardless of gender, people with the first letter of their name “K” have a strong, strong-willed character. They are distinguished by remarkable stubbornness, which is the reason for the vast majority conflict situations at home and at work.

WITH- characterized by stubbornness, unpredictability and leadership qualities. In their actions they are accustomed to rely on logic and common sense. They can be overly emotional, and sometimes even capricious. They constantly want to stand out from the gray mass. Excessive demands may be placed on the partner.

E- sociability, insight, commercialism and selfishness. Owners of this letter are able to win people over. They are simple and charming at the same time. They constantly strive for a good life, which they value more than friendship. They realize themselves well in creative professions. They are interesting conversationalists.

N- strong, strong-willed and decisive individuals. Quite hardworking, but cannot stand monotonous and boring job. Smart, attractive, present critical thinking. A person takes a long time to choose a chosen one with whom he can live until the end of his days. Loves to take care of loved ones.

ABOUT- open, cheerful and cheerful natures. Those who have the letter "O" in their name are hardworking and possess creative abilities. Professions related to strategic thinking and economics are ideal for them. They are friends only with reliable people whom they trust.

F- adapt well to conditions environment. Always have lots of great ideas. In their stories they are able to embellish and lie a little. They really love helping people. There's never a dull moment with them. Their life is always filled with many interesting events.

T- people with names that begin with this letter are comprehensively developed. They are vulnerable, sensitive and creative people. They try to be fair in everything. They have good intuition and adapt well to different conditions of the surrounding world. Capable of showing generosity.

Name as a phrase

TO- Kako
WITH- Word
E- Esi (Is, Be, Exist)
N- Our (Ours, Yours)
ABOUT- He (Oh, About)
F- Firth (the meaning of the word combines the concepts: Spit, Axis of the World, Base, Source);
T- Firmly

Name Xenophon in English (Latin)

Xenofont

When filling out a document in English, you should write your name first, then your patronymic with Latin letters and only then the last name. You may need to write the name Xenophon in English when applying for a foreign passport, ordering a foreign hotel, when placing an order in an English online store, and so on.

Useful video

Origin of the name Xenophon

Ancient Greek, based on the words “xenos” - “stranger, foreign” and “fon” - “voice”

Characteristics of the name Xenophon

Since his youth, he has been distinguished by a stormy temperament and emotionality, which periodically give way to isolation and even gloominess. In appearance, he is simple and ingenuous, but in his actions he is somewhat impudent. This is a powerful and capricious person, but at the same time he is also versatile: he can often play different musical instruments, draws, is well-read, understands technology. With his numerous talents he captivates even his ill-wishers. He is amorous, but the quickly flaring up feeling goes out just as quickly. In the family, Xenophon is the undisputed leader.

Famous personalities: Xenophon (444 – 356 BC) - famous ancient Greek writer, historian, Athenian general and politician.

Saints

The Monk Xenophon, his wife Maria and sons Arkady and John, lived in the 5th century in Constantinople. They sent their sons to Beirut for education, but the ship was wrecked. The brothers were thrown ashore in different places, dedicated themselves to God and accepted monasticism. The parents did not receive news about their children for a long time, but the Monk Xenophon, already an old man, maintained firm trust in the Lord, consoled his wife Mary and advised them to believe that their children were preserved by the Lord. A few years later, the couple made a pilgrimage to the Holy Places and met their sons in Jerusalem, who lived in different monasteries. The Monks Xenophon and Maria dedicated the rest of their lives to God, accepting monasticism. The venerable elders, laboring in silence and strict fasting, received from God the gift of miracles.

[rec. on the:] XENOPHON, Anabasis. Translation, article and notes by M. I. Maksimova, M.-L., Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1951, 286 pp., circulation 5000 copies, price 12 rubles. 40 k.

"Anabasis" by Xenophon of Athens is one of the most interesting historical sources of antiquity; its author was a participant, and later the leader, of an expedition of Greek mercenaries who fought on the side of Cyrus the Younger against his brother Artaxerxes. He traveled a long way almost all the way to Babylon and then back to his homeland after the death of Cyrus in the Battle of Kunax. Observant and educated person, Xenophon collected rich material about the most diverse aspects of life in Hellas and Persia in the V-IV centuries. However, this is not what attracts our attention to his work now: given the scarcity of sources that shed light on ancient history northeastern regions of Asia Minor, Xenophon’s messages about local tribes acquire special significance, as they provide the most valuable information to the researcher. In this sense, Anabasis can be compared with the work of Herodotus.

Translations of Anabasis into Russian have their own history. The book first became known in Russia in the second half of the 18th century, when a translation of Anabasis was published from French, which was common at that time. “Anabasis,” published in 1762 under the title “The Tale of the Younger Cyrus and the Return March of Ten Thousand Greeks, translated from French by Vasily Teplov,” is an example of translation art in its ancient sense, in which mastery of the original language, its transmission stylistic features and strict adherence to the text were not considered necessary. The work of Teplov and his unnamed French colleague is not so much a translation of Xenophon as his retelling, containing many additions, abbreviations and explanations, that is, some variations on the theme of “Anabasis”. The beginning of the book gives a clear idea of the translator’s attitude towards the original. Opening Teplov's translation, modern reader will be surprised to find, instead of the familiar beginning, a long discussion about history and destinies Persian power, beginning like this: “After the death of King Cyrus, the Persian state did not have a ruler worthy royal name. During their difficult reign, they considered the false radiance of majesty and all sorts of luxury as glory.” Numerous translations published in the second half of the 19th century. (Yanchevetsky, Kiparisov, Kozakov, etc.), unlike Teplov’s work, are made from the Greek original and are mostly benign from the point of view of philological understanding of the text, but even the best of them, Yanchevetsky’s translation, suffers from the disadvantage inherent in all pre-revolutionary translations - it does not accurately convey the content of the text and artistic features of the original.

The new translation by M. I. Maksimova, as a certain stage that currently completes for us a gradual approach to the original, is somewhat disappointing. True, as far as selective comparison with the Greek text allows one to judge, he gives in general correct understanding it can serve as a guide for those who do not have the opportunity to use the original, but still, due to a number of shortcomings, it cannot be considered as an adequate substitute for the Greek original.

The task facing the translator historical monument, is very complex: on the one hand, he must strive for strict accuracy and clarity in the transmission historical evidence the original, and, on the other hand, skillfully combine the accuracy and clarity of the translation with the reproduction of its stylistic appearance, for only these two aspects in their totality, i.e. the content of the text and its form, can give a truly historical idea of the nature of the translated source. It is a mistake to believe that in order to convey a historical source one can limit oneself to only a literal translation, leaving aside the form in which it was originally expressed. In fact, the use certain vocabulary or the stylistic design of the original greatly help us imagine the social appearance of the writer and the environment to which he addressed his work, and also make us feel the historical atmosphere of the period of creation of the monument, i.e. they are an additional means of historical disclosure of the original. The form of the text, which is so often neglected by translators, requires special attention when it comes to Greek or Roman historical texts, which the ancients themselves considered as literary works. Based on these two criteria, we will evaluate new translation"Anabasis".

M. I. Maksimova tried to convey the original as literally as possible, maintaining the order of words, accurately, without using synonyms, translating individual words, trying not to deviate from Greek designs; but in this way she did not come closer to the text, but moved immeasurably away from it. Copying the original did not contribute to an accurate disclosure of the meaning of the text, made it difficult to understand and created a text that was stylistically very far from the original and most of all similar to a gymnasium interlinear translation. Due to the desire to copy the original as accurately as possible, the Russian text is sometimes so obscured that it is difficult to understand. Thus, preserving the order of the words of the original creates mysterious phrases like the following: III, 4, 35: “After all, the Persians tie their horses, and, in addition, the horses’ legs, for the most part, are hobbled so that they do not run away, breaking away.” It's unclear about whom we're talking about- about horses or their legs. II, 2, 9: “They swore this, slaughtering a bull, a boar and a ram, over the shield.”

The same method of directly transferring a foreign language structure of speech into a Russian text is used by M. I. Maksimova when transmitting sentences in which the subject is contained in the corresponding form of the predicate. The translator constantly uses personal pronouns rather than nouns in these cases, to the detriment of the clarity of the phrase. Examples of such ambiguity include: III, 4, 1: “They (who? - S.P.) spent this day in the villages.” At the end of the previous chapter we talked about slingers, horsemen and their commanders; here, as is clear from what follows, the entire Greek army is meant. In sentence II, 3, 10: “...They carried out” the word “they” has to be understood as strategists and lohagi, who were not even mentioned in the previous passage. There is a completely unclear phrase in I, 4, 9: “From here Cyrus travels four times, 20 parasangs, to the Gala River... The villages in which they are located.” Copying every phrase of Xenophon with photographic precision. M. I. Maksimova constantly refers to pronouns even to persons who are described throughout a significant passage; Thus, in passage II, 6, 16-20 ff., Proxenus is named only once, and the pronoun “he” is used 12 times, that is, whenever the subject is in the form of a predicate; Meno is named twice, and the pronoun “he” appears 23 times. Some passages are so overloaded with pronouns that they are difficult to understand, for example, VI, 1, 21-23: “He believed that the dream he had when he began to take part in the joint care of the army was sent to him by this god, and then he remembered...” The translator does not omit the pronouns found in the original, even if their rendering runs counter to Russian word usage; I, 2, 7: “... when he considered it necessary to exercise himself and his horses,” or I, 8, 29: “... he killed himself.”

The above material clearly illustrates that it is impossible to achieve a clear and adequate translation by simply tracing the original. On the contrary, such a principle not only removes the translation from the original, but also violates the norms of the Russian language, thus creating an insufficiently clear text, in equally far from both Russian and Greek narrative prose. In this regard, it should be noted that in the translation under review there are many direct errors against the Russian language, making it difficult to understand the meaning and creating ambiguities that are very dangerous especially in historical text. So, for example, in I, 4, 18 the word “in passing” is used instead of “along the way” or “passing by”, clearly to the detriment of the context: “The crossing was always carried out with the help of boats, which Abrokos casually burned in order to prevent Cyrus from crossing” (cf. .I, 6, 1). The use of words is also incorrect in the following places: VI, 5, 9: “... they will be able to attack an upset enemy,” that is, not on an upset enemy, but on his upset ranks. III, 4, 18: “The Greeks set up camp in the villages they encountered,” that is, in the villages they met along the way. The sentence “insulting the guide in the absence of vigilance towards him” (IV, 6, 3) should be understood in the sense that the insult to the guide was combined with insufficiently strict supervision over him. IV, 5, 26; “Barley was floating in the wine at the level with the edges of the vessels and a reed was stuck into it (where? - S.P.).” There is also a direct misunderstanding Greek text, for example, in VI, 1, 14, instead of “the soldiers decided not to harm each other” it should be: “the soldiers decided not to harm the Paphlagonians, but also not to be offended” (cf. V, 8, 25, etc.) .

Systematic modernization and vulgarization of the original transports the reader from the atmosphere of the 4th century. BC e. in completely different eras and give a historically incorrect image of the author of Anabasis. Is it fulfilled? self-esteem an oligarch, a representative of the aristocratic elite of Athenian society, could speak and write in this language, for example: V, 7, 5: “soldiers, it has come to my attention that someone has slandered me,” or VII, 7, 40: “ ...it would be a shame for me to arrange my own affairs.” Consider such “literary” expressions as “the matter fell apart” (VI, 3, 9) and “a thorough shake-up” (IV, 6, 15). It is even more surprising to read in a monument from the 4th century. BC e. phrases inspired by the language of modern us official document; VI, 1, 25: “then they began to nominate Xenophon”; III, 2, 38: “discuss activities”; IV, 4, 8: “sufficient guarantee of safety”; IV, 8, 27: “the competition took place with great excitement”; II, 3, 12: “they got involved in the work”; II, 4, 22: “to create a bridgehead” and II, 6, 13: “government decree.” Finally, separate places translations make one forget about the slave-owning formation; castles (VII, 8, 12), squadrons and regiments (I, 2, 16), soldiers (everywhere), watches (IV, 1, 5), squires (IV, 2, 20), vassals (I) begin to flash on the pages , 9, 29), royal standards (I, 10, 12), shells (V, 2, 32), officers (21 notes to Book III), Persian landowners (29 notes to Book VII), etc. d.

Until now, we have considered those consequences of M. I. Maksimova’s translation method, which primarily concerned the essence of the text she transmitted - the ambiguities of translation and historical anachronisms in the transmission of vocabulary, realities, and social terminology. A few words about the reproduction of the very form of the text, i.e. its stylistic features. The transfer of the features of the form acquires urgent authority, especially in cases when it comes to the largest representatives fiction. After all, the memories of Xenophon are not only historical source, but also the most famous monument of the Greek literary prose. Having become acquainted with it for the first time through the translation of M. I. Maksimova, the reader will have the right to think about what made many generations put “Anabasis” among the most remarkable works of world literature? Wouldn't translating the works of a historian who wrote in an elegant Attic manner be a gross violation of the principle historical approach to the monuments of the distant past, the phrases below, written in the style of the offices of the tsarist era? IV, 8, 24: “gifts of hospitality in the form of cattle”; II, 3, 16: “the palm tree from which the cabbage was taken completely withered”; IV, 1, 14: “something to be left in place”; VII, 5, 7: “the soldiers began to scold Xenophon for not receiving their salaries.” The translation is replete with clerical expressions such as “given”, “for the purpose”, “in view of”.

We will allow ourselves to use one more example to explain this systematic destruction of Xenophon's stylistic manner; VI. 4, 1: τη εν τη Ασία. This phrase, not devoid of elegance - “this area, which is called the Calpine Bay, lies in Asian Thrace” - is translated as follows: “ this area, called the Calpine Bay, is located in Asian Thrace.”

M. I. Maksimova also neglects to convey the antitheses so characteristic of the retorted style of Xenophon: sentence I, 8, 9: άλλοι δ’ίππεις, άλλοι τοξόται (“some are horsemen, others are archers”) is translated “were there also various kinds horsemen and shooters." This phrase, despite its brevity, clearly shows the most significant shortcomings of the translation under review; in addition to stylistic inadequacy, it reveals inaccuracy (the words “various kinds” do not belong to the original) and negligence in conveying realities, since the word “strelki”, associated in Russian with warriors armed firearms, in vain replaces here exact term"archers".

To the detriment of clarity, the translator somewhat abuses Greek terms, freely introducing greek words, sometimes confusing even a reader familiar with the language. So, for example, the word “marching blades” (VI, 1, 4) instead of “bed” or “cripida” (III, 4, 8) in the sense of “foundation” makes you think at first. It seems to us that there is no particular need to use words such as “diphros” (VII, 3, 29), “prosody” (VI, 1, 11), “stlengidae” (I, 2, 10), “akontist” (VI , 3, 7), “enomotium” (III, 4, 21), “doriphora” (V, 2, 4), “anaxyrides” (I, 5, 8) and many others, which can be freely conveyed in Russian words.

In this regard, it is necessary to say a few words about the transliteration of proper names, geographical names and some terms. M.I. Maksimova in many cases deviates from traditional transcription, but does not adhere to a single principle, transliterating Greek words in such a way that one gets the impression of some arbitrariness in their writing. The translator, along with the correct transliteration of “Pigret” (Πίγρης, ητος), also gives such as “Sosis”, “Forax”, “Opis”, “Timasius” (Τιμασίων, ωωος). Repeatedly M. I. Maksimova preserves Greek diphthongs: “choinik” (I, 5, 6), “Pleisthenes”, “Cleanet”, “Lebadeia” (note 9 to Book III), “Zeus Meilichius” (VII, 8 , 4), but also transliterates traditionally - “Chirisoph”, “Sophenet”. The diphthong αι, transliterated as “e” at the beginning of a word, is sometimes rendered as “a” (“Aet” instead of the usual “Eet”), but in some cases it is completely correct (“Aeolis”). Contrary to Greek transcription spelled "Ennial" instead of "Enial". All this makes it difficult to use the index, especially since in different places in the book the same words are sometimes transcribed differently: for example, in the “Phasis” index, and in approx. 2 to III book. - “Fasid”; the city of Adramytium appears in the index as Atramytium, and there under the word “Thebes Valley” it is transliterated correctly as Adramytium. It should also be noted that the index does not contain words such as, for example, “Xenophon”, “Argo” (VI, 2, 1); “Makista” (VII, 4, 16), etc.

Economic teachings Ancient Rome

1. Economic views of Xenophon

XENOPHON born in Athens in 430 BC (died 355 BC), belonged to a wealthy slave-owning aristocracy. He is a student of the famous ancient Greek philosopher Socrates, a contemporary of Plato. Predecessor of Aristotle. According to their own political views acted as a supporter of aristocratic Sparta and an opponent of Athenian democracy.

Posted by a large number of various works. Economic views reflected in "Domostroye" ("Economykos"), the time of writing is unknown, prepared as a guide for running a slave economy. Defining the subject of home economics, he characterized it as the science of managing and enriching the economy. Xenophon considered agriculture to be the main branch of the slave economy, which he qualified as the most worthy type of occupation. According to Xenophon, “agriculture is the mother and nurse of all arts.” The main goal economic activity he saw it as ensuring the production of useful things, i.e. use values. Xenophon had a negative attitude towards crafts; he considered them an occupation suitable only for slaves. Trade was not included in the category of worthy activities of a free Greek. At the same time, in the interests of the slave-owning economy, Xenophon allowed the use of commodity-money relations.

It was from the name of this work that the name of the science came - economics, although in the time of Xenophon it was understood only as the rules of housekeeping ("oikos" - house, household; "nomos" - law, rule). Due to living conditions it is associated with ruling class. Served Persian despots, Spartan kings, oligarchs, did not get along with Athenian democracy, became her exile.

"Domostroy" contained numerous advice to slave owners in the field of economic activity. Their lot was managing the farm, exploiting slaves, but in no case physical labor. Xenophon expressed contempt for physical labor, qualifying it as an occupation suitable only for slaves. Giving advice on rational housekeeping and exploitation of slaves, he taught to treat slaves like animals.

Xenophon was one of the first among the thinkers of antiquity to devote great attention issues of division of labor, considering it as natural phenomenon, How important condition increasing the production of consumer values. He came close to the principle of manufacturing division of labor. Xenophon was the first to point out the relationship between the development of the division of labor and the market. In his opinion, the division of professions depended on the volume of the market.

Xenophon is an ideologist, first of all, of a natural slave economy. At the same time, he considered the development of trade and money circulation useful for this economy. He saw them as one of the sources of enrichment and advised them to use them to their advantage. Xenophon recognized money as a necessary means of circulation and a concentrated form of wealth. Condemning money as commercial and usurious capital, he recommended accumulating it as treasure.

Xenophon developed an understanding of the dual purpose of a thing: as use value, on the one hand, and exchange value, on the other. Being an ideologist of natural economy, he did not attach special significance exchange value. The value of a thing was made dependent on its utility, and the price was directly explained by the movement of supply and demand.

In Domostroy, the following principles were formulated in the form of dialogue:

1. Effective exploitation of slaves- the owner often has to exhort the slaves, make promises, because good hope A slave needs it no less than a free man, so that he has the desire to stay with the owner. Slaves can be made obedient by eating beyond measure, although this method is only suitable for animals; praise from the owner also affects slaves. Xenophon tried to soften the crisis of slavery by softening the contradictions between the master and the slaves.

2. He strongly speaks out for natural farming and against the commercial and industrial direction of the economy. The author believes that natural farming does not divide people into rich and poor, since everyone produces on their own plot of land no more than is necessary for consumption and does not participate in trade operations, does not use land for production for sale and for enrichment.

3. Idealization Agriculture, contrasting his craft: "The craft is provocative, it bad reputation- is natural, it condemns a person to a sedentary lifestyle (harmful to the body) and deprives people of the sun."

4. The concept of wealth - a fund of personal consumption and a means of acquiring political friends.

5. “Value” is something good” and depends on the usefulness of things. Useful objects are valuable, harmful ones are not.

6. Despite obvious sympathy for subsistence farming Xenophon took great interest in the problem of money. “When you have purchased as many utensils as are needed for the household, you rarely buy more”; on the contrary, no one has so much money that he does not want to have even more of it, and if someone has it in excess, then burying the excess receives no less pleasure than if he had used it. "It is no longer possible to deny the importance of money Xenophon's advice: save money for a rainy day, and also in order to be able to expand your farm if necessary. money is a treasure, concentrated wealth that can always be used. Another function of money is to serve as a medium of exchange. But money as commercial and usurious capital evoked sharp condemnation from Xenophon.

XENOPHON

Ξενοφω̃ν, 1) son of Thessalus from Corinth, won the victory in Olympic Games OK. 464 BC; 2) historian, son of Gryll from the deme of Erhei in the Aegean region, believed to have been born c. 445 BC, and maybe only in 431, at least in Anabasis he considers himself to be young. He was one of the most devoted students and friends of Socrates and a contemporary of Plato and Alcibiades. Introduced him to Socrates a special case: the philosopher met him in a narrow alley, blocked his way with a stick and asked him where such and such supplies were sold. Having received an answer, he again asked where they were formed. honest people. When K. found it difficult to answer, Socrates said: “Follow me and you will find out.” From that time on, K. became a most devoted follower and student of Socrates. The participation attributed to him in the battle of Delium undoubtedly dates back to a later time; There is also no indication that he took part in the Peloponnesian War: he probably devoted this time to his scientific education. K. also studied eloquence with the sophist Prodicus, and Socrates, they say, encouraged him to become a historian. At the end of the Peloponnesian War, K.'s friend, Proxenus, began to call him to Sardis to introduce him to Cyrus the Younger. Since K. did not like the state of affairs in Athens, he willingly followed this invitation (Anab. 3, 1, 4), soon entered into close relations with Cyrus and participated in his campaign against Artaxerxes Mnemon, without actually holding any military position. After the battle of Kunax, he was chosen, along with 4 others, to lead the retreat and at the same time showed so much intelligence, courage and fearlessness, such wise compliance with other commanders and a generous renunciation of the leadership offered to him over the entire army, that he will always occupy a prominent place in military history, although his activities are not colored by the glory of his victories. When the army reached Byzantium, K. persuaded him to enter the service of the Thracian king Sevtus, who was preparing to conquer his father’s kingdom again. When this succeeded, the Spartans, who sent their commander Thibron to fight against the Persian satraps Tissaphernes and Pharnabazus, invited K. to join with the entire army to Thibron. K. led the army to Pergamum and handed over the leadership to Fibron. For participating in the campaign of Cyrus the Younger and for transferring troops to the Spartans, the Athenians punished K. with exile. This circumstance probably prompted him to continue serving in the army, the main command over which, after Thibron, passed to Derkyllidas. Later we meet K. in Asia in the army of the Spartan king Agesilaus, with whom, thanks to a long relationship, he concluded the most. When Agesilaus was called back to provide assistance to the oppressed fatherland, K. accompanied him and in 394 BC he fought in the Battle of Coronea against the Thebans and Athenians. From here he went to Sparta and received from the Spartans as a gift an estate at Scylla, not far from Olympia, on lands taken from the Eleans. Here he indulged in his favorite pastimes: agriculture, hunting and horse breeding, and here he wrote most of his works. When the Athenians abandoned the alliance with the Thebans and then entered into an alliance with Sparta, K. sent his two sons, Diodorus and Gryllus, to fight for the Lacedaemonians in the ranks of the Athenian auxiliary army. Diodorus returned from the campaign unharmed, but Gryllus fell in the battle of Mantinea. K. received the news of the death of his son while he was making a sacrifice. He took off the wreath that was placed on his head, and when he was told that his son had died a glorious death, he put the wreath back on and uttered the words famous in ancient times: “I knew that I had given birth to a mortal.” K.'s transition to the side of his fatherland seems to have prompted the Athenians to remove his disgrace, on the advice of Eubulus, in 369. But it is not known whether he returned to Athens after he was expelled from Scylla by the Eleans; he died, without any doubt, in Corinth in 354 or 353 BC. K. cannot be ranked among the most outstanding and wise men of antiquity, but, in any case, among the most noble; in him the Greek ideal of human perfection was fully realized: the uniform formation of soul and body. As a student of Socrates, he has internalized the teachings and mode of action of his teacher to such an extent that, transmitting his words, he completely relegates his personality to the background. From Socrates he acquired prudence and a practical outlook on things: this is noticeable in all his writings; From Socrates he learned piety and the rule of turning to the instructions of the gods, which he always tried to recognize and carry out with almost excessive accuracy. In my own way practical direction he differs significantly from the ideal views of Plato, but the legend about hostile relationship between both writers there is a fiction of a later time. Works by K.: Memories of Socrates, Memorabilia (Commentarii) Socratis, 4 books; Based on the defense of Socrates, who was accused of denying the gods and corrupting youth, K. more accurately depicts the character and personality of the philosopher than in his dialogues Plato, who moves from the simple teaching of his teacher into the realm of ideas, while K. strictly adheres to reality and conveys it skillfully , truthfully and impartially. Naturally, when various directions Both writers each portrayed Socrates in their own way, but it would hardly be correct to conclude from this that there was enmity between them. Ed. Korais (1825), Herbst (1827), Sauppe (1834), M. Seyffer (3rd ed., 1869), Kühner (1857, 3rd ed., 1876), Breitenbach (4th ed., 1870 ). Socrates' defense, α̉πολογία Σωκράτους, has no of great importance and is considered false by many scientists. It explains why Socrates chose to lose his life rather than beg the judges for mercy. Ed. (together with Συμπόσιον) Bornemann (1824 - Revel, συμπόσιον φιλοσόφως shows how Socrates knew how to use the time devoted to pleasure to communicate the most fascinating thoughts about beauty and love. Ed. (together with an apology) Bornemann (1 824), Lange (2- e ed., 1825), Herbst (1830), Mehler (1850). household, οι̉κονομικòς λόγος, represents a conversation about economic management, especially agriculture, and the main person talking is Socrates. Ed. Herbst (1840), Breitenbach (1841). K. also received and developed his political beliefs from Socrates, who, being a cosmopolitan, could not come to terms with the actions of the Athenian people. This is dissatisfaction people's government in Athens it passed from Socrates to K., who, during his stay in Asia, became friends with Cyrus and Agesilaus and here became convinced of how much good one man with unlimited power can do if he wants. Therefore, the monarchy became the ideal of K.; he, however, strictly distinguishes it from tyranny. In his "Hieron", Ίέρων (ed. Frotscher, 1822 and R. Hanow 1835, together with the symposium and Agesilaus), representing the conversation between Simonides and Hiero, we see a depiction of all the sufferings and deprivations inherent in tyranny, and at the same time the means by which a ruler can arrange the happiness of many. And how can a ruler satisfy his purpose, how can he become not only a conqueror, but also a father? defeated peoples, this explains the political novel "The Education of Cyrus", Κύρου παιδεία, Institutio Cyri, in 8 books; it describes the upbringing and character of an impeccable ruler according to the rules of Socrates on the historical but idealized basis of the story of Cyrus the Elder. Ed. Lange (3rd ed., 1822), Bornemann (1828), Holtzmann (18330, Jacobitz (1843), Hertlein (1871), Breitenbach (1875). Historical writings K. have the character of chronicles, they simply present an image of almost remarkable historical events without a guiding idea. The idea of government by the gods human affairs although it is visible in places, it is not the main idea, and where it is noticed, the presentation is rarely flawless; Greek history, Έλληνικά, Historia Graesa, falls into two parts: the first two books can be considered a continuation of the history of Thucydides until the end of the Peloponnesian War, the rest covers the period from the end of this war to the battle of Mantinea. There is no reason to count these two parts as two individual essays, although they are written in different times. For K., history becomes the history of Sparta, and he himself is a historian of the Dorians and a glorifier of the exploits of Agesilaus, and he either does not mention Alcibiades, Conon, Timothy, Iphicrates, Pelopidas, Epaminondas at all, or speaks about them only in passing. Ed. Cobet (1862), Breitenbach (1853 and 1863), Büchsenschütz (4th ed., 1876), Kurz (1873). Anabasis, α̉νάβασις Κύρου, Expeditio Cyri, in book 7, represents, so to speak, the connecting link between both parts of the history of Greece; it describes in great detail the retreat of 10,000 Greeks from Central Asia. This essay, written 18 and 20 years after the events described in it, is probably based on notes made during the campaign. Since K. constantly talks about himself in the 3rd person, some critics, according to Hell. 3, 1, 2, attributed this work to Themistogenes, but without any reason. Ed. Lange (1822), Jacobs (1825), Rorro (1827), Krüger (1826), K. Matthiä (1859), Hertlein (1857), Kühner (1852), Rendanz (1875), Breitenbach (1865), Vollbrecht (1873) ) critical ed., Dindorf (1852, 2nd ed.), Cobet (1859), Breitenbach (1867). Appendix to Greek history it could be considered word of praise Agesilaus, considered by many to be fraudulent. It is distinguished by a deeper characterization of this king (ed. Heiland, 2nd ed., 1846. Breitenbach, 1846). There are also works (but dubious): Spartan government structure and the Athenian state system, Λακεδαιμονίων πολιτεία and Άθηναίων πολιτεία. (Ed. Λακ. π. Haase, 1833, with important commentary. Άθ. πολ. Kirchhoff, 1874), essay on increasing income, πόρου or περὶ προσόδων (ed. Zuborg, 1876, van Deventer, 1851), Cavalry Master's Guide , ι̉ππαρχικός, and articles about hunting (κυνηγετικός) and about horse riding (περὶ ι̉ππικη̃ς). Ed. complete essay H. Stephanus (2nd ed., 1881), Weiske (1798 ff.), Schneider (1790 ff.). Sturz, lexicon Xenophonteum (1801 ff.), Sauppe, lexilogus Xenophonteus (1869). Already the ancients gave due praise to the art of K.'s presentation, calling him the Attic bee or muse. The euphony of speech, clarity, softness, flexibility and simplicity, devoid of any oratorical embellishment, constitute a significant feature of his presentation, although this, however, is associated with a certain dryness of style, a lack of objectivity and developed artistic form. But, in any case, one can join the opinion of Quintilian, who says (10, 1, 82): in labris eius sedisse quandam persuadendi deam. More carefully processed than others: Κύρου παιδεία, Οι̉κονομικός AND Συμπόσιον. Sometimes poetic or outdated expressions or expressions from simple speech distort the purity of language; 3) K. from Kos, physician to Emperor Claudius, whom he poisoned at the instigation of Agrippina. Tac. ann. 12, 61, 67; 4) erotic, originally from Ephesus, lived perhaps in the 5th century. from R. X. and wrote a novel entitled: Έφεσιακά, τὰ κατὰ Άνθίαν καὶ Άβροκόμην (ed. in the collection of Greek erotica, especially Hoffmann-Peerlkamp, 1818). The style of the essay is simple and clear; 5) son of the poet Euripides, was among the Athenian military leaders at Potidaea in 429. Thuc. 2, 70. 76; 6) a sculptor and foundry who, together with Cephisodotus, made Zeus on the throne, Artemis Soteira and an image of the city goddess for the megapolitans. Paus. 8, 30, 5.