Greece & Rome, Vol. 50, No.

1, April 2003

WHY S OCRATES WAS NOT A FA RMER:

XEN OPHON'S OECONOMICUS AS A
PHILOSOPHICAL DIALOGUE*

By g a b r i e l d a n z i g

The Oeconomicus is a guide to the art (or science)1 of household

management, one of the most desirable arts a free man in ancient
Greece could wish to acquire (see Plato, Protagoras 319a). It is ®lled
with practical advice on organizing one's household and making a
respectable living in fourth-century Greece. In this sense it belongs to
the classical tradition of advice-literature, a genre which includes such
works as Hesiod's Works and Days, Virgil's Georgics, and even Ovid's Art
of Love. It contains advice on subjects such as how to organize one's
utensils and clothing, proper methods for turning the soil, and even
o€ers some beauty tips for wives. It also includes valuable advice on
inspiring devoted service from one's domestic servants. The work is of
historical value because it provides rare information about the daily life
of ancient Greeks, and in particular about women. It is also one of the
®rst books we know of which is devoted to the subject of economics (in
its antique sense),2 a science that takes its name from the title of this
book.
But there are several features of the work which make it dicult to
conclude that it is really nothing more than a manual of practical
household advice. For one thing, the advice is presented in the form
of a dialogue. In general, when Xenophon had practical advice to o€er,
he used a non-dialogue form (see The Cavalry Commander, On the Art of
Horsemanship, and On Hunting). Why did he adopt the dialogue form
here?
Much odder is the fact that he chose Socrates as his expert in
household management. Although an impressive personality and an
original thinker, Socrates was not exactly a successful householder. By

* This article is based on an introduction to the Hebrew translation of Xenophon's Socratic

dialogues, edited by the author, which is being published by Shalem Press in 2002.
1
Xenophon does not distinguish rigorously between science (episteme) and art (techne), and I
follow his lead in using these terms interchangeably.
2
The original meaning of the term economic is `pertaining to household management'.

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 58 WH Y S OCRATES W AS N OT A F ARM ER

all ordinary standards, he was a miserable failure in all aspects of

household management, both economically, and in terms of the training
of his wife (Xenophon, Symposium 2.10). In order to overcome the
gross improbability of Socrates' giving advice on this subject, Xenophon
presents the bulk of his advice in the form of a recounted conversation
Socrates once had with one Ischomachus, a respectable Athenian
gentleman who could with more right claim knowledge about this
subject. But that only makes the problem more conspicuous: why
introduce Socrates in the ®rst place?3
Another peculiarity which raises diculties for those who think the
work is nothing other than a practical guide to household matters is the
fact that Ischomachus, the great expert on this subject, says there is
nothing to learn about it that is not obvious and known to everyone
already (20.2±11). And he proves this by leading Socrates to discover on
his own all the essentials of good farming (16.8±19.19).4 Clearly the
purpose of the book cannot be to provide advice which everyone already
knows. In order to understand this peculiar and fascinating dialogue we
need to consider ®rst not its homely subject matter, but rather its
dramatic structure.

The Oeconomicus is divided into two parts. Chapters 1±6 record a

conversation between Socrates and Critobulus; chapters 7±21 contain
Socrates' report of a previous conversation he had with Ischomachus.
The composition moves from the most theoretical to the most practical,
from the question of what is wealth, to the detailed discussion of how to
work the land.5 The opening chapter and the ®rst part of the second
chapter (1±2.8), together with the Ways and Means, as well as comments
made in his Symposium, Memorabilia, and Education of Cyrus, comprise
3
Some might argue that by this time Socrates had become a purely literary ®gure, a `wise man'
capable of expounding on all subjects. But this would be to exaggerate the extent to which the
literary Socrates was divorced from the historical. The literary Socrates always retains particular
characteristics that would not characterize a standard wise man: not all wise men were executed by
an Athenian court. Both Xenophon and Plato display the capacity of using other ®gures to
substitute for Socrates when, for one reason or another, Socrates is not appropriate. Xenophon for
example uses Simonides in Hieron, which is set in Sicily, and Plato cannot use Socrates in his Laws,
set in Crete. So it is reasonable to ask why Xenophon chose Socrates here.
4
W. K. C. Guthrie, Socrates (Cambridge, 1971), 17, suggests that he is imitating Plato's
Socrates who, in Meno, persuades an ignorant slave boy that he already knows geometrical
theorems.
5
Noted by S. Pomeroy, Xenophon Oeconomicus (Oxford, 1994), 8.

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 WH Y S OCRATES W AS N OT A F ARM ER 59

Xenophon's contribution to an evidently thriving debate among

Socratics about economic matters. Other contributions may be found
scattered in Plato's Republic and the Laws, in book ®ve of Aristotle's
Ethics and book one of his Politics, in the pseudo-Platonic Eryxias, and in
the pseudo-Aristotelian Oikonomike.
These works raised serious questions about the nature of wealth and
the goals of economic science. Xenophon was fully aware that wealth
cannot be identi®ed with property. In his Symposium (4.34±44), for
example, Antisthenes points out that true wealth is not a matter of
material resources, but is a spiritual or intellectual property, and he
credits Socrates as the source of this conception (4.43). In the Memor-
abilia (4.2.37±8) Socrates argues that wealth consists not in property but
in the ratio of income to expenses. And the question was raised by other
Socratic writers as well.6
Apart from formal arguments about the nature of wealth, the
Socratics seem to have agreed that the possession of unreasonably
large amounts of property is unnecessary. Aristotle makes it abundantly
clear that the accumulation of property ought never be an end in itself,
and seems to imply that some form of wisdom or prudence must be
involved in setting limits to the pursuit of property (Politics 1.3.8±9).
Plato's communistic Republic shows how little importance he attached to
the possession of property. A vast amount of legislation in the Laws is
devoted to ensuring that no one accumulates excessive property, and the
Athenian stranger even argues that a rich man cannot be happy (742e).7
In the Memorabilia (1.6) and in other places, Socrates defends his life of
poverty as a better life than any other. Xenophon's Cyrus distributes
much of his wealth to his friends because he believes that excessive
wealth is a burden (Cyropaedia 8.2.21). It would be strange then if
Xenophon's Socrates were to o€er here a purely conventional account
of wealth, or an account of economics as the science of accumulating
property.
In fact he clearly does not. In the opening chapters of the Oeconomicus
Socrates presents philosophical arguments that undermine common
assumptions about wealth. He argues that ordinary property is not a
form of wealth (chremata) unless its owner knows how to make use of it.
Knowledge is an essential component of wealth because it transforms
6
At a later date, the Socrates of the pseudo-Platonic Eryxias argues that happiness, not property,
is wealth (393e).
7
See G. Danzig and D. Schaps in F. Lisi (ed.), Plato's Laws and its Historical Signi®cance, (Sankt
Augustin, 2001), 143±7.

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 60 WH Y S OCRATES W AS N OT A F ARM ER

otherwise useless objects into tools which serve a good purpose.8 This
does not imply that property cannot be an important component of
wealth. But it does make it clear that for someone like Critobulus, who
does not know how to make use of it, property is not a form of wealth at
all. He does not need more property, he needs more wisdom.9
One has to be surprised, therefore, that Socrates ends up agreeing that
Critobulus needs more property than he has (2.1), and that he spends
the vast bulk of his time apparently o€ering him advice concerning how
to acquire it (cf. 2.18). Has Socrates abandoned his views about the
nature of wealth and the goals of economic science?
To understand what is going on here, we need to take into account the
dialogue form of the Oeconomicus. As usual, Socrates is aiming his words
at the particular person with whom he is speaking. What he says to
Critobulus is not the same as what he would say to Antisthenes, for
example.10 The opening arguments have not convinced Critobulus that
he needs to seek wisdom rather than property. Socrates' demonstration
that he himself is wealthier than Critobulus only heightens Critobulus'
desire for more property, and leads him to ask for Socrates' help in
preserving and expanding his fortune.11 Rather than press his views
further, or simply refuse to o€er Critobulus the help he desires, Socrates
o€ers to provide Critobulus with the kind of advice he seeks.
But although Socrates expresses a willingness to help Critobulus, he
clearly has his own aims. At ®rst he does refuse to help Critobulus,
claiming that he has no knowledge of the subject, and would ruin
Critobulus' estate if he attempted to help him (2.11±14). Next he
o€ers to introduce him to others who understand the subject better
than he does (2.15±18). But in the end, he does not even do this.12
Socrates is clearly not interested in providing Critobulus with the
information he seeks. He exploits Critobulus' interest in ®nance in order
to turn him towards higher things.13 His aim is ethical rather than
economic: he wants to persuade Critobulus to adopt the healthy,

8
Compare Lysis 210b-c.
9
See also Memorabilia 4.1.5.
10
See Xenophon, Symposium 4.43. If he resembles anyone, Critobulus resembles the hedonistic
Aristippus, and hence perhaps it is not coincidental that the advice Socrates o€ers him resembles
the advice he o€ers Aristippus (Memorabilia 2.1).
11
See also Memorabilia 2.6.38.
12
His recounted conversation with Ischomachus ®lls in this gap to some extent.
13
A similar tactic may be seen in Socrates' discussion with this same Critobulus at Memorabilia
2.6. Compare also Socrates' discussion with Glaucon in Plato's Republic: the entire educational
system which culminates in philosophy is only brought into existence because Glaucon's demand
for relishes leads Socrates to demand a professional and well-educated army.

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 WH Y S OCRATES W AS N OT A F ARM ER 61

humble lifestyle of a gentleman-farmer. This is why he emphasizes in

chapter four that Cyrus, the king of Persia, worked the land with his own
hands, and why he goes on to o€er high praise for farming in chapter
®ve and in his summary in chapter six.
But this intention is especially evident in his lengthy discussion with
Ischomachus. Ischomachus was certainly a wealthy man; but during the
course of the conversation, Socrates demonstrates an almost complete
lack of interest in Ischomachus' money-making skills (11.11). He is
interested in Ischomachus because he is an example of a real gentleman
(kalos k'agathos), and he hopes to learn something about his general way
of life. Socrates recounts this conversation not simply to teach Crito-
bulus a lesson in ®scal responsibility (a subject which did interest
Xenophon elsewhere ± see Ways and Means, Cyropaedia), but mainly
in order to direct him to a sound way of life, a life of hard work and
responsibility. As he says, agriculture is the most just profession: it
rewards its practitioners strictly in accordance with their e€orts (5.12).
So far is Socrates from encouraging pro®teering that, by the end of his
tale, he is actually criticizing Ischomachus' father on the grounds that he
farms with the ulterior motive of making a pro®t from the resale of the
land (20.26±8).
These simple observations o€er us a ®rst insight into the reason
Xenophon chose Socrates as the main speaker in the Oeconomicus, and
into the nature of the Oeconomicus as a whole. Socrates is appropriate
not because he has any special knowledge about household manage-
ment ± Xenophon is at pains to acknowledge his incompetence in this
®eld (2.11±13) ± but because he o€ers an ethical critique and a
corrective to the economic impulse which motivates men like Crito-
bulus. He is engaged in an act of genuine education, leading
Critobulus away from his pecuniary interests and seeking to turn
him into something better than he is at present. And for this reason
the ®rst theoretical section is a genuine part of the whole: together
with the rest of the work, it aims to reduce Critobulus' preoccupation
with the things that money brings, and to force him, and readers like
him, to ®nd activities worth pursuing for their own sakes. It aims to
turn Critobulus into a respectable Athenian gentleman, a real Ischo-
machus. The Oeconomicus is an ethical dialogue disguised as an
economic treatise.

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 62 WH Y S OCRATES W AS N OT A F ARM ER

II

But this is not the only role Socrates is playing here, and this is not the
only message Xenophon has for his readers. After all, Socrates himself is
no Ischomachus. Far from being a respectable gentleman-farmer of the
sort whose lifestyle he is trying to sell to Critobulus, Socrates was just the
opposite. He was not merely ignorant of household management, he was
a living catastrophe with respect to this art, at least as it was usually
understood. If we follow Xenophon's division of household manage-
ment into two parts, that concerned with the duties of the woman, and
that concerned with the duties of the man, we can say without hesitation
that Socrates was a miserable failure in both of its parts. He was known
for his poverty, for walking barefoot, and for never spending a day
working. And he was so unsuccessful in training his wife that her name
has become proverbial for the shrew (cf. Symposium 2.10, Memorabilia
2.2).
So serious a failure in these areas made Socrates ineligible for the
honour and respect of his fellow-citizens, and deprived him of all claim
to the title of a kalos k'agathos. His bizarre lifestyle earned him the public
ridicule of Aristophanes in more than one of his plays, and this ridicule
seems to have re¯ected widespread attitudes (cf. for example Memor-
abilia 1.6, and Plato's Gorgias). Rather than an appropriate symbol of
the upstanding gentleman, Socrates, in a sense, was the anti-gentleman
of Athens, and for this reason he could serve as the inspiration for
Antisthenes and the Cynic school. The existence of this antagonism
between him and the respectable citizens of Athens was something that
both Socrates and his enemies would have gladly acknowledged (see
Phaedo 64a-b). Socrates had little respect for those who, like Critobulus,
took it for granted that their wealth and social standing made them
something worthy of envy. In Plato's Republic, for example, Socrates
challenges the wealthy Cephalus to explain the value of his wealth
(329e±331b), and presents a picture of a regime in which men like
Cephalus are almost non-existent. Xenophon's Symposium is designed
in great part to display Socrates' superiority to his wealthy and respected
host, Callias. It is dicult to imagine, then, that Xenophon used
Socrates in order to praise a way of life he completely rejected.
Socrates appears here not because of his abilities as a householder or
his status as a respectable gentleman, but precisely because he was so far
from all that. The most serious theme of the Oeconomicus is not, in fact,

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 WH Y S OCRATES W AS N OT A F ARM ER 63

Socrates' e€ort to turn Critobulus into an Ischomachus, but rather the

investigation of the mutual antagonism between Socrates the philoso-
pher and Ischomachus the respectable citizen of Athens. As Xenophon
will try to show, far from being an economic failure, Socrates was
actually an eminently successful manager of his own a€airs.14
There is nothing surprising about attributing a loosely apologetic
motive to the Oeconomicus. Xenophon devoted his Apology and Memor-
abilia to defending Socrates from a variety of charges, and even his
Symposium has some important apologetic aims. These works were
designed to show not only that Socrates was innocent of the legal
charges, but also that far from being a miserable failure, he was in fact
a supremely happy person, more deserving of envy than of pity and
contempt. Apologies for Socrates even appear in Xenophon's major
non-Socratic works, Cyropaedia, Anabasis, and Hellenica. All of this
makes it reasonable to suppose that the Oeconomicus too is designed, in
part, to confront one of the charges against Socrates: the charge that he
was a miserable failure as a householder.
There are unmistakable signs of this. It is clearest in chapter eleven,
where Xenophon's Ischomachus says that he spends a great deal of time
preparing for his own self-defence (11.21±5). The words he uses both
recall those used by Socrates (Xen. Apology 2±3) and indicate the vast
di€erence between the two: while both men claim to have spent their
whole life preparing their defences, Socrates meant this in a ®gurative
sense ± that his whole life was an act of justice ± and did not mean that he
wasted even one moment actually writing a speech. Ischomachus, on the
other hand, says quite clearly that he spends a large amount of time
practising speeches for his inevitable day in court. We are invited to
wonder which one of the two spent his time in a more enviable manner.
It is earlier in this same chapter that Xenophon makes the charge
against Socrates explicit:

14
The argument that follows implies the existence of something like irony in Xenophon's
writings. I would not be the ®rst to claim that Xenophon is capable of irony. As Michael Stokes
pointed out to me, Cicero speaks of it in his Brutus (292). Leo Strauss is notorious among modern
scholars for his ironical readings of Xenophon and others. See his On Tyranny: An Interpretation of
Xenophon's Hiero (New York, 1948); Xenophon's Socratic Discourse, An Interpretation of the
Oeconomicus (Ithaca, 1970); Xenophon's Socrates (Ithaca, 1972); see also W. Ambler, `On the
Oeconomicus', in R. Bartlett (ed.), The Shorter Socratic Writings (Ithaca, 1996). Although valuable
insights can be found in Strauss' writings, I hope it will be clear how my approach di€ers from his.
Guthrie (n. 4), 17, also recognizes that some degree of irony can be found in the Oeconomicus. Irony
is not an entirely satisfactory word for what I describe here: I do not think that Xenophon is
insincere in his treatment of the life of householding, but merely that he recognizes and indicates
many of its drawbacks.

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 64 WH Y S OCRATES W AS N OT A F ARM ER

How could I justly correct a man who is a perfect gentleman? I asked. For I am
considered a chatterer and a measurer of the air, and am even called ± the most
ridiculous insult of all ± a pauper! I would be very depressed about this insult,
Ischomachus, if I had not recently bumped into the new horse of Nicias the foreigner.
I saw many spectators walking after him, and I heard some of them having a long
discussion about him. So I went up to the horse-keeper and asked him if the horse had
much money. He looked at me as though I were insane to be asking that, and said, `How
could a horse have money?' I was encouraged when I heard that it is permissible for a
horse to be good if its spirit is by nature a good one. Since, then, it is permissible also for
me to become a good man, give me a complete account of your activities, so that I can
try myself to imitate you starting tomorrow in whatever I am able to learn from listening
to you.15

One can hear in these words a not so subtle attack on those who think
that possessions are a crucial part of happiness, and at the same time a
®rst line of defence: Socrates claims that neither money nor a lack of
money make one a good or a bad person. He goes beyond what he said
in the opening of the work, claiming in fact that possessions are not
necessary at all.
But this is not the only defence Xenophon has to o€er, and it is not
the main thrust of the Oeconomicus. A second line of defence opens up
when we consider a comment that Socrates makes in the Symposium.
There he claims that of all his accomplishments, he is most proud of
his ability as a pimp (3.10). He says that although he has never
actually made use of this skill, he could have made a lot of money if he
had. Later he explains that pimping means teaching others how to
present themselves before their fellow citizens, and especially before
the city (4.60). This mildly funny joke is designed to address charges
of incompetence raised against Socrates. The claim that he could have
if he had wanted to appears also, at least implicitly, in Xenophon's
Apology. There Xenophon argues that Socrates' failure in court was
the result of a deliberate strategy designed to achieve an easy and
pleasant death before the onset of senility (1).
The Oeconomicus o€ers a similar line of defence. In chapter two,
Xenophon argues that even on almost conventional grounds, Socrates
was a more successful householder than some of the richest men in
Athens. This is because the true measure of wealth is not the amount of
property one possesses, but the degree of one's ®nancial solvency: the
ratio between income and expenses (2.4±8; cf. Memorabilia 4.2.37±8).
Since Socrates had such low expenses, he was actually wealthier, in an

15
11. 3±6. This and the other translations presented here are my own.

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 WH Y S OCRATES W AS N OT A F ARM ER 65

almost conventional sense, than rich men such as Critobulus, who were
burdened with public responsibilities. Critobulus is good enough to
acknowledge that Socrates, poor as he may seem to be, is a better
®nancial planner than he himself is. He is convinced that if Socrates
were in his position, he would do a much better job of balancing the
books than he himself has done, and he invites Socrates to take charge of
his household (2.9).
Xenophon goes still further in this odd line of argument. Socrates was
not only an expert in balancing the books, not only a good potential
manager, but he was also deeply knowledgeable about the details of
running a household. This claim is somewhat less plausible than the
previous one, since Socrates never demonstrated anything resembling
ability in this area, and never ran a successful household in practice
(2.11±13). In order to make it plausible, Xenophon has to provide a
convincing and reputable outside source for Socrates' knowledge, and
this he does: Socrates learned all about household management from a
conversation he had with the wealthy gentleman, Ischomachus.
Although he did not discover the art on his own, nor practise it himself,
his widely ridiculed chattering paid rich dividends when it brought him
into close conversation with this gentleman. As a result of that con-
versation, Socrates does indeed know all one needs to know about this
subject. Had he wanted to, he could have put this knowledge into
practice for himself: after all, he is still able, on the basis of this ancient
conversation, to o€er good practical advice, useful to men with more
experience than himself, such as Critobulus.

III

But this entire line of reasoning only opens up a more troubling and
genuinely philosophical question: if Socrates really had these abilities,
why didn't he use them? Why did he choose a life of poverty when he
could have been a successful householder or pimp? This question is
serious because it implies that Socrates chose his life of poverty
deliberately, and hence it places before us the unpleasant suggestion
that a life of Socratic poverty might be somehow better for a human
being, better for us, than any alternative. And who would want to
believe that?
This is the central question of the dialogue, and it is the central issue
of economics, as Xenophon understands it. Economics is not simply the

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 66 WH Y S OCRATES W AS N OT A F ARM ER

art of managing one's household, it is the art of managing all aspects of

one's personal life.16 And in this sense, Socrates was an economic
genius.17
The centrality of this issue can be seen if we consider again the
peculiar dramatic structure of the Oeconomicus. The fact that Socrates
retells his former encounter with Ischomachus to Critobulus invites us
to consider that encounter from two entirely di€erent points of view. As
we have observed, the conversation is presented to Critobulus for its
helpful teachings on household management and gentlemanly beha-
viour. It is designed to provide him with a model, Ischomachus, whom
he might really strive to imitate. But that was not the purpose that
Socrates had in mind when he ®rst approached Ischomachus. Socrates'
purpose in speaking with Ischomachus was not to learn the household
arts, or even to learn to become a gentleman, but to ®nd out whether
Ischomachus really was a gentleman or not, and to decide whether or
not his was a life worth imitating (11.6).
Socrates interviewed Ischomachus after having been disappointed
with all the previous candidates he had interviewed (6.12±17). And just
as he considered and rejected the lives of the others, so too Socrates
considered and rejected Ischomachus' way of life. His conversation with
Critobulus took place years later than the conversation with Ischoma-
chus, and yet Socrates still has not acquired any personal experience in
running a household, and still has to refer back to Ischomachus as the
source of all his knowledge in this area. Even during the conversation he
attempts to excuse himself early, apparently out of disinterest (12.1; see
also 11.11). What, then, is wrong with Ischomachus?
Socrates' ultimate critique of Ischomachus is indicated already in the
emphasis he puts on his e€orts to grasp how Ischomachus has earned
the reputation for being a gentleman (6.12±17; 7.2±3).18 The earning of
a reputation is not the same thing as the pursuit of excellence (arete).19
16
Economics is understood in opposition to politics, as the management of private rather than
public a€airs. Aristotle seems to have a similar conception. After de®ning prudence as the ability to
deliberate about what is good and useful for oneself, he then distinguishes between the ability to
perceive one's own good and the ability to perceive the good for men in general. He seems to refer
to those with the former ability as economic experts, and the latter as political experts (Ethics 6.5.5,
especially 1140b8±11). See also Plato, Apology 23b±c. Note that the related term oi1 kei9 ow refers not
merely to things connected with the household, but to anything that is one's own.
17
Compare the Eryxias (especially 393a±394e) which o€ers a de®nition of wealth whereby
Socrates turns out to be extremely wealthy. See also Antisthenes' speech at Memorabilia (4.34±44).
18
At ®rst he refers to Ischomachus as one who truly deserves to be called a kalos k'agathos (6.12).
But this is only his initial judgment, and it must be modi®ed in light of the conversation as a whole.
19
In the speeches of Glaucon and Adeimantus in book two of Plato's Republic, for example, we
®nd very clear recognition of the gap between the reputation for virtue and the possession of it.

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 WH Y S OCRATES W AS N OT A F ARM ER 67

The two may even be in con¯ict: the price of devotion to one's

reputation may be the abandonment of the pursuit of virtue itself,
particularly if reputation is based in part on the acquisition of things
which, like excessive property, are not worth bothering about. Socrates
was surely, in Xenophon's eyes at least, a man of virtue, but he had not
exerted himself to acquire a reputation for it.20
Socrates' ®rst question to Ischomachus already expresses his funda-
mental criticism of Ischomachus' whole way of life:
Why do you sit like this Ischomachus? You do not usually sit around unoccupied. In
general I see you busy at something, or at least not completely at leisure in the market-
place.21

The question is super®cially insulting, challenging Ischomachus to

account for his present irresponsible activity. It contains also an implied
compliment: Ischomachus' present laziness is totally uncharacteristic of
him. And yet, when we re¯ect that being at leisure in the market-place
was precisely what Socrates himself did all day, we may suspect that
there is a note of challenge precisely in that friendly implication. Is it
really better to be, like Ischomachus, a slave to all kinds of serious
responsibilities, as Socrates implies?22 Or is it not a shame that
Ischomachus was so rarely at leisure, so rarely free, like Socrates, in
the market-place?
The conversation recorded here obviously could never have taken
place if Ischomachus had gone about his daily routine on this day as he
did on most other days. Even on this occasion his apparent leisure is
only the unfortunate result of the fact that he has been stood up by some
guests whom he had agreed to meet here (7.2). In order not to break his
promise to them he is forced in vain to wait for them in the market place
during the entire course of his conversation with Socrates (12.1±2).23 As
Socrates says, `By Zeus, you take very strong precautions not to lose that
title of ``gentleman'' that people have given you.' This is emblematic of
20
His close friends, and even his later enemies, could, however, acknowledge his virtue. See
Lykon's comment in the Symposium (9.1).
21
Oec. 7. 1.
22
It is true that in summarizing his conversation with Critobulus, Socrates praises farming for,
among other things, leaving the greatest amount of leisure for taking care of one's philoi (which
includes one's family) and one's city (6.9). But this is only in comparison with other occupations,
which leave still less (4.3). And Socrates does not say that farming leaves time for philosophizing, or
whatever it is that Socrates himself is occupied with, but only for taking care of one's friends and
one's city. As it turns out, farming does seem to make extreme demands on the time of its
practitioners (5.4).
23
Incidentally, this vain wait also demonstrates that Ischomachus' theories about how to arrange
meetings are ine€ective (8.23).

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 68 WH Y S OCRATES W AS N OT A F ARM ER

Ischomachus' whole problem: he is enslaved to his name. And it also

shows that he would never be at leisure if he were not obliged to be so.
There is something admirable about Ischomachus' devotion to duty;
but his lack of leisure is a serious matter. Leisure was not only a valued
feature of anyone's life in Athens,24 it had a particularly high status
among the Socratics. Xenophon's Antisthenes says that his most
valuable possession is the leisure he has to spend with Socrates
(Symposium 4.44). Charmides notes that the prime advantage of
being poor is that one can spend one's time with Socrates without
being subject to criticism (Symposium 4.32). Xenophon himself says
quite clearly that nothing is better than spending time with this great
man (Apology 34; Memorabilia 4.1.1).
On this particular day, Ischomachus has had the great good luck of
running into Socrates. But the event was a rare, and from his point of
view unfortunate, accident, and there are no signs that he made any
good use of the opportunity. Rather than learning anything from
Socrates, he gives him a long lecture on household management. And
there is no reason to think that his meeting with Socrates inspired any
change in him at any later date (cf. Memorabilia 1.4.1).
Ischomachus does invite Socrates to o€er him any criticism he can;
but when Socrates declines to do so, pointing out that it would be
inappropriate for someone with a reputation as bad as his own to o€er
criticisms to a perfect gentleman such as Ischomachus (11.2±3),
Ischomachus accepts this compliment without a second thought. And
yet, there is clearly a good deal of irony in Socrates' words. After all, if
Socrates was not known for challenging the lives of others, what was he
known for? And in any case, Socrates proceeds shortly thereafter to
argue, humorously but seriously, that wealth is absolutely unnecessary
for a man who wants to be good (11.5±6). Here (11.7) as elsewhere in
the dialogue (13.4, 17.10, 20.19), Ischomachus gets the distinct
impression that Socrates is making fun of him. And there are other
criticisms as well, none of which Ischomachus seems to take to heart: for
example, Socrates does not accept Ischomachus' claim that greediness is
a good quality in a potential assistant (12.15±16).25
Socrates wants to know how Ischomachus has earned his great
reputation. It quickly becomes evident that Ischomachus has done so
24
See, for example, Isocrates, Antidosis 39, and Xenophon, Memorabilia 2.6.4, where again
Critobulus is Socrates' interlocutor.
25
But see Memorabilia 3.1.10, where Socrates enunciates Ischomachus' opinion, and compare
Memorabilia 2.6.3.

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 WH Y S OCRATES W AS N OT A F ARM ER 69

through undergoing some none-too-pleasant ordeals. The necessity to

waste his time waiting in vain for his irresponsible (or uninterested?)
guests is only the beginning of Ischomachus' problems. He is beset by all
the troubles which beset the wealthy and privileged in Athens (also 2.5±
8, and Xenophon, Symposium 4.29±45). He is forced to fund expensive
city expenditures (7.3), and is constantly in danger of legal proceedings
(11.21±5), motivated undoubtedly by the desire to win a share of his
wealth. He has been beaten by his own supposedly well-trained wife in
some undisclosed domestic squabble (11.25), a fact which seems to cast
some doubt on his earlier account of her excellent behaviour. As we
have seen, like Socrates (Apology 1.2±3), he has spent his whole life in
preparing his legal defence, but unlike him, he has not been willing to
rely on his righteous way of life as his defence, but has actually had to
waste his time preparing speeches for the court, both defence speeches
and speeches for the prosecution. This was something which Socrates
certainly never did (Plato, Euthyphro 2a). Worst of all, because of his
great honesty, he seems doomed to lose his case (11.25). We may note
the fact, not necessarily admirable, that Ischomachus' concern with
®nancial success has led him to hold out great promises of reward to his
subordinates, including the possibility that his wife might enslave him
(7.42), of which her successful prosecution of him seems to be a partial
ful®lment.
But despite all his e€orts to secure a good name, Ischomachus is quite
surprised ± although he remains sceptical ± to hear that some people do
actually call him a gentleman (7.3). He is not used to such treatment
(7.3; 11.21; cf. Symposium 4.3). If all his e€orts for a good name result
in this, are we not compelled to wonder just how successful Ischoma-
chus was after all?
But perhaps the saddest thing is the fact that Ischomachus' success as
a householder is not due to any great virtue or intellectual skill (as
Socrates naively supposes at 15.3), but merely to his untiring hard work
and e€ort, a subject which he is not at all eager to discuss.26 While proud
of his successes, Ischomachus is not interested in speaking about the
nitty-gritty details of his life as a farmer. He prefers to o€er general
praises of his way of life, or to describe the manifold bene®ts he reaps
from his activities (11.9±20). Socrates has to push him into it, insisting
that he not skip over the details of farming through laziness (15.1±3, 6±
9, 13). Ischomachus replies with broad praises of his profession, but

26
On the desirability of reducing ponos see for example Isocrates, Evagoras 45.

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 70 WH Y S OCRATES W AS N OT A F ARM ER

with very few details (15.4, 10±12), a reaction which reminds one of
Polus' reaction to Socrates' ultimately embarrassing questions about the
nature of Gorgias' profession (Plato, Gorgias 447c±9a).
Of his many activities, he is proudest to speak about his ability to
inspire loyal obedience in others. This was implicit in his recounting of
his conversation with his wife, and it is one of the ®rst themes he
discusses at length in connection with his own responsibilities as a
farmer (12; 15.5), and the last to which he returns at the end of the
conversation (21). It is important for him to point out that he has an
assistant who is perfectly capable of taking care of the farm when he is
not there. But this only implies that when he is there, it is he who does
the work. And, as he readily admits when pressed, the best way to get
things done is to be there yourself (12.19±20). So despite the fact that he
spends so much time speaking about his successful training of assistants
(if we include his wife, chapters 7±10 and 12±14), Socrates manages to
get him to admit that, in the end, assistants are really not good enough.
Ultimately, Ischomachus is forced to set this subject aside, as he was
forced earlier to omit speaking about money-making (11.9±11), and to
speak directly about the actual work of farming. He is surprised that
Socrates is seriously interested in this subject (15.3):
`Are you asking, Socrates, that I teach you the art of farming itself?' `Yes, for it seems to
be an art which makes those who know it rich, while those who do not know it live an
impoverished existence, even if they work hard.'

At this point in the conversation, Socrates still supposes that there might
be something to learn about this subject, and that lots of hard work is not
the only recipe for success in it.
Ischomachus makes one last attempt to avoid this discussion by
explaining that there is really nothing to learn about it (15.10±12), but
to no avail: Socrates points out that its ease of learning only makes it more
imperative that Ischomachus teach him about it (15.13). So he is forced
to describe the dirty, grubby work he is involved with each and every day
of his life. He maintains throughout that there is really no special skill or
learning involved in this sort of work (11.10±12; 22.2±5), and attacks
those who make farm-work into a more complicated business than it
really is (16.1). The only diculty, as Ischomachus says repeatedly, is
actually getting out there and doing the work (20; cf. 2.18). You won't
®nd anyone who ran his farm down because he did not know how to sow
seeds evenly: the usual explanation is pure laziness (20.2±5). In Ischo-
machus' view it is diligence (epimeleia) which is most necessary (the word

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 WH Y S OCRATES W AS N OT A F ARM ER 71

and its derivatives occur at least 58 times in the Oeconomicus) and it is

precisely for this reason that Ischomachus has no leisure.
Even Socrates, who has never spent a moment involved in farming, is
led by Ischomachus to recognize that he already has all the essential
knowledge necessary (e.g. 16.8; 18.10). Here, in the mundane details of
good farming practices, we ®nd, at last, grounds for agreement between
the two men on such questions as whether it is best to wear thick clothes
in cold weather (17.3), what is the proper treatment of fallow (17.1),
and when is the best time to plant grain (17.6). Anyone would be able to
agree about these things.
It is true that Ischomachus had claimed that the life of farming
provides many bene®ts other than ®nancial ones (11.9±20; see also
ch. 5). And he consistently praises his own life of hard work. But he
freely admits that he always praises whatever it is that he has decided to
do (11.24). And in the end Socrates is able to show that farming is not
really an activity one would choose for its own sake. He points out that
Ischomachus' father, from whom he acquired his own love of farming,
was really a kind of merchant-farmer, working not for love of work, but
for love of the money to be had from improving and reselling real-estate
(20.27±8). In reply, Ischomachus can only say that Socrates must be
joking (20.29). These are Socrates' last words on the subject of farming.
The only other thing he has left to do is to praise Ischomachus for the
rhetorical skill with which he has presented his case (21.1).
From all we have said, the indictment of Ischomachus is clear enough.
There is something admirable, but also something pitiful and futile in
Ischomachus' untiring e€orts to maintain a good name, e€orts that
come at the expense of the leisure which is necessary for Socrates' way
of life. The lengthy, and to my taste somewhat dull, descriptions of the
actual techniques of farming are surely designed to be useful to those,
such as Critobulus, for whom this is really a worthwhile way of spending
one's life. But at the same time, by laying forth in such detail the real
objects that must occupy Ischomachus' mind from day to day, they do
not make his life seem particularly enviable.

IV

Socrates managed his household on very di€erent principles. He never

seems to have spent much time on farming. In the Memorabilia, Socrates
says that anyone who wants to be a farmer needs to make use of

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 72 WH Y S OCRATES W AS N OT A F ARM ER

divination (1.1.6±8; cf. Oeconomicus 8.16, 11.8, 13). This is necessary

because while it is possible to learn all the skills involved in farming from
human beings, the gods keep to themselves the most important
information: whether or not one will actually bene®t from the crops in
the end. He says the same thing here in the Oeconomicus (5.18±20).
Socrates' attitude towards farming resembles his attitude towards the
unfortunate military campaign which Xenophon undertook (Anabasis
3.1.4±8). In both cases he advises not to proceed without a sure sign from
the gods. This theme is repeated throughout Xenophon's treatment of
military and agricultural endeavours (e.g. Cyropaedia 1.6.1±4). Farmers
who act without consulting the gods, like soldiers who do so, make a
fundamental error: overly con®dent about the predictability of the future,
they fail to appreciate that farming, like soldiering, is a gamble. In fact it is
not just farming and soldiering which require divine assistance. All
practical activities, including household management, require the assist-
ance of the gods if they are to prosper (Memorabilia 1.1.7; Oeconomicus
7.7±8). Ischomachus is foolish if he expects that all his e€orts will pay o€
in the end. If prudence is an essential component of the art of household
management, then Ischomachus is far from being an expert in this art.
In fact he failed miserably, as we happen to know from other sources.
In his speech On the Mysteries, delivered in the year 399 BC, Andocides
speaks of Callias the son of Hipponicus as having married the daughter
of Ischomachus (124). This Callias is the Callias of Xenophon's
Symposium (and Plato's Protagoras), and this Ischomachus appears to
be the same as the Ischomachus of Xenophon's Oeconomicus.27 Accord-
ing to Andocides, Callias sent his young wife away, and began living
with her mother, Chrysilla, the former wife of Ischomachus (whom we
meet at Oeconomicus 7±10). The daughter naturally tried to commit
suicide. After a while, Callias sent the mother away as well, and
attempted to deny his paternity of her child. While Callias is clearly
the chief villain in this story, it is not altogether complimentary to
Chrysilla either. This scandal must have erased any good name that
Ischomachus and his family might have earned previously.28
In addition to this family embarrassment, it appears that Ischomachus
lost the vast proportion of his wealth.29 This would have made it seem

27
This was argued by J. K. Davies, Athenian Propertied Families (Oxford, 1971), 264±8.
28
The role that Ischomachus' daughter played in the scandal may be connected with the odd fact
that Ischomachus o€ers no discussion of the raising of children. Xenophon manages to avoid the
subject by recounting a discussion with his wife that occurred before they had any children (7.12).
29
Davies (n. 27), 266±8.

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 WH Y S OCRATES W AS N OT A F ARM ER 73

doubly odd to readers that Xenophon should have chosen Ischomachus

and his family as models of good, respectable, and successful people.
We have asked why in the world Xenophon chose Socrates as the
leading ®gure in a work on household management; but we are
compelled to ask also why in the world he chose Ischomachus as the
model of a successful householder. This question is particularly dicult
for commentators who believe that Ischomachus is presented as an
admirable model for imitation. But from our point of view, the explana-
tion seems obvious: by using Ischomachus, Xenophon points out that in
addition to all the other drawbacks of his way of life, the kind of success
Ischomachus had achieved is not very reliable.30 Socrates, who enjoyed
every day of his life, and achieved the easiest and most convenient death
possible (Apology 7±8; Memorabilia 4.8.8±10), seems to have managed
his life much better than his more conventional acquaintance. The
indictment of Ischomachus, harsh as it may be, is also an apology for
Socrates.31 Socrates scrupulously avoided all those activities that require
consultation with the gods.32

In his concern for wealth, reputation, and household matters, and in his
willingness to devote his time to pursuing these, while displaying no
interest in philosophy, Ischomachus is the anti-Socrates. For this reason,
it is somewhat odd to note that some scholars have thought that
Ischomachus is to be identi®ed with Xenophon.33 But in fact, the

30
For other explanations see F. D. Harvey, Echos du Monde Classique 28 (NS 3) (1984), 68±70;
D. Nails, Echos du Monde Classique 29 (NS 4) (1985), 97±9; S. Pomeroy, Xenophon's Oeconomicus
(Oxford, 1994), 261±4.
31
The portrait of Socrates that I have o€ered here con¯icts in some ways with the portrait of
Socrates in the Memorabilia, where he is portrayed as upholding ordinary Athenian values. In
particular, it seems to contradict Socrates' words in Memorabilia 2.1, where Aristippus maintains a
position much like the one I attribute here to Socrates, and Socrates shows him why it is untenable.
The Memorabilia is a di€erent kind of apologetic work, one whose aim is to show that Socrates was
a regular guy. The conversation with Aristippus may be designed to show that Socrates rejected a
path that was widely attributed to him: at Plato, Crito 46b€., Socrates seems to take a position
similar to that of Aristippus. The argument with Aristippus shows that the position I am attributing
to Socrates was a position that was known in fourth-century Athens.
32
Note the sailor's sceptical comments about the care gods provide for human beings at 8.16. He
draws the conclusion that he had better make extensive preparations, and not rely on the gods. It is
not clear from the narrative that Ischomachus mentioned this interchange to his wife: at 8.11 he
turns directly to Socrates, and he only returns to the conversation with his wife at 8.17.
33
See E. C. Marchant, Xenophon (Cambridge, MA, and London, 1923), iv, p. xxiv; G. C. Field,
Plato and his Contemporaries (London, 1930), 138.

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 74 WH Y S OCRATES W AS N OT A F ARM ER

reasons for such statements are not so dicult to see: Xenophon did not
lead the life of an impoverished philosopher, but that of a successful
soldier and commander, and later a wealthy estate-owner and writer-
apologist. His own life resembled that of Ischomachus much more than
that of Socrates.
It is not just these bare biographical facts which distinguish Xenophon
from Socrates. In his own writings, Xenophon represents himself as at
best an imperfect follower of the great master. In only two places does
Xenophon portray a discussion between himself and Socrates, and on
both occasions he is reprimanded severely. In the Memorabilia (1.3.8±
13), Xenophon expresses sympathy for Critobulus (the same Critobulus
whom Socrates educates in the Oeconomicus)34 for kissing beautiful
young boys. Socrates calls Xenophon a wretch if he does not realize how
dangerous it is to do such a thing (cf. Symposium 4.25±6). In the
Anabasis (3.1.4±7), Xenophon approaches Socrates to ask his advice
about entering the service of Cyrus as a soldier of fortune. Socrates
regards this as a very questionable proposition, and sends Xenophon to
the Oracle at Delphi to ask whether it would be a good idea or not.
Xenophon, apparently worried that he might get a negative answer,
merely asked the Oracle which gods he should propitiate before setting
out, a course of action that earned him Socrates' severe reprimand. Why
does Xenophon record these embarrassing exchanges?
These conversations show that Xenophon was not a model student by
any means. But it would certainly be wrong to conclude that they also
indicate that Xenophon rejects Socrates' way of life, preferring the life of
an Ischomachus. Although Xenophon did not live as Socrates, this does
not mean that he did not recognize his superiority. Xenophon is fully
aware that Socrates was in the right, and he himself in the wrong, both in
regard to the kissing of young boys, and in regard to the decision to go to
war. Xenophon's own views about the dangers of beautiful young
people are evident throughout his writings (e.g. Cyropaedia 5.1.12);
and, as is well known, the military expedition with Cyrus ended in
disaster, with the Greek army barely managing to organize a successful
retreat back to Greece. As a result of the expedition, and of Xenophon's
further involvement with the largely Spartan mercenary army, Xeno-
phon was later exiled from Athens, which is precisely what Socrates had
warned him against (Anabasis 3.1.5). As Xenophon says, Socrates gave

34
For this reason, it is quite possible that Critobulus rather than Ischomachus represents
Xenophon in the Oeconomicus.

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 WH Y S OCRATES W AS N OT A F ARM ER 75

excellent advice, and `those who listened to him prospered while those
who did not regretted it' (Memorabilia 1.1.4). In all of his Socratic
writings, there is great praise for Socrates, and almost no hint of any
criticism of him. So to say that Xenophon disagrees with Socrates and
prefers the views of Ischomachus would be a rather odd conclusion.
Although Xenophon did not always listen to Socrates, and did not adopt
his extreme way of life, he does not take any pride in that fact. He seems
rather to acknowledge his mistakes, and to recognize that on the whole
Socrates lived a better life than he did himself. If he is an Ischomachus,
he is an apologetic one.
On the other hand, it is hard to imagine that Xenophon wrote the
Oeconomicus as a parody of his own way of life. The book is ®lled with
clever practical advice that Xenophon clearly thinks is valuable for those
who choose as he did to run a household. And it may be that in this,
what may be the last of his Socratic writings, he was even willing to voice
some reservations about Socrates. If Socrates criticizes Ischomachus
throughout the work, it is also true that Ischomachus gets in a few good
shots at Socrates. He seems to ridicule (anachronistically) Socrates' later
e€orts to train Critobulus by saying that only diligent people can train
others to be diligent (12.17±18). He seems to poke fun at Socrates when
he says that bad servants should be given inferior clothes (13.10), of the
sort, presumably, that Socrates would have been wearing throughout the
conversation (cf. Memorabilia 1.6). And in the rather heated ®nal
portion of the discussion,35 he says that those who do not know any
money-making occupation clearly intend to live by thievery, by robbery,
or by begging (20.15), the kind of accusation which Aristophanes made
against Socrates in the Clouds (177±9).
These are serious charges, and if Socrates was able to ignore them,
Xenophon was not. If the Oeconomicus is in some sense an apology for
Socrates' way of life, before the court of public opinion, it is also, to a
lesser degree, an apology for Xenophon's way of life, before the higher
court of Socrates' opinion. In the central chapter of the work, chapter
eleven, Xenophon o€ers the most direct confrontation between the two
ways of life he is considering. Here Socrates asks the question rather
directly (11. 9±10):
And when I heard this, I asked, `Do you really want to be wealthy and to bear all the
troubles which come from possessing great wealth?' `Yes, I do very much,' said
Ischomachus, `for it seems quite pleasant, Socrates, to honor the gods beautifully, to

35
It is this that prompts Socrates to insult Ischomachus' father.

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 76 WH Y S OCRATES W AS N OT A F ARM ER

help one's friends in time of need, and to make sure that the city is not lacking in
ornamentation so far as it is dependent on me.' `The things you say are quite noble,
Ischomachus,' I said, `and be®tting a powerful man. This is undeniable. For some
people are not able to survive without relying on others, and many are satis®ed if they
are able to provide enough for themselves. But those who are able not only to manage
their own households, but also to produce surplus which enables them to ornament the
city and support their friends, how could one not regard them as impressive and
powerful men?'

Socrates does not agree that one needs money in order to honour the
gods (Memorabilia 1.3.3±4; Symposium 4.49), and he certainly does not
agree that Ischomachus' life is pleasant. But he does seem to acknow-
ledge the achievement and even the nobility involved in the humble task
(but one which is rarely done well) of running a respectable household.
As we know, Xenophon never had a chance to speak with Socrates
again, after his ill-fated campaign into Persia. In Ischomachus' reply,
and in Socrates' acknowledgement of the power of his words, we may
hear something of Xenophon's belated apology to his beloved teacher
and of his request for sympathetic understanding. The pride in being
able to support and help one's family, friends, and city was something
that Xenophon could not easily set to one side, even if, on a good day, he
could recognize that this sort of pride was false. And when Socrates
responds that there is some truth in his words, Xenophon may feel that
he has ®nally been granted (or has granted himself) the quasi-approval
of the man he admired above all others, but whose way of life was too
dicult for him to adopt for his own. In a sense, then, the Oeconomicus is
both Xenophon's parting words about Socrates, and Socrates' parting
words about Xenophon.

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press