Xenophone’s works have been considered a matter of interpretation and controversy, but it has been agreed that he was a true initiator of Socratic political ideals through a Socratic dialogue. In content, Xenophon’s approach differs from Plato’s one. In his early dialogues, Plato develops his protreptic ideas about the excellence(arete), but his approach lacks specific educational contents about the arete of leadership. Xenophon’s Oeconomicus has its relevance to education.
This is precisely what Xenophon’s unique thought would constitute. It is significantly different from Plato’s Socrates. Xenophon’s political ideal is based on the nature of political order that lies in the relation between domination and obedience. ‘Domination’ is not a matter of compulsion but an exemplification of moral superiority whose position can be earned by gaining the respect of his citizen. His political ideal is, in a sense, utopian in the sense that a leadership depends on knowledge of what needs to be done and how to do it. It can be maintained by better education of arete. ‘Obedience’ is, therefore, founded on voluntary consent, the willingness to accept domination. It can be drawn from this discussion that an ideal leader for Xenophon has the divine character that cannot be found in ordinary people. His justification depends on a religious metaphor. Like a shepherd who watches over sheep, God cares for men and a political leader should care for his citizens. Political leaders should pay an ‘attention’(epimeleia) to his subjects. This was a foundation for Greek popular morality. It is important to see that the cultivation of the divine makes possible through the habituation of excellence whose cardinal virtue is devotion to self-control or ‘considerateness’(sophrosyne). This political virtue rests on the citizen’s free will, which is out of gratitude. Can we say that it is too idealistic to suppose the existence of such a terrific leader having this divine character or recognize him? History tells us that there were a number of daunting despots or seductive populists, whose conducts brought forth fatal consequences to their society. In this sense, Xenophon’s ignorance about demonic aspects of political power, its corruptibility, and its augmentative feature has been a matter of controversy. It is my claim, however, that it is not easy to distinguish between a terrific leader and a daunting empire builder.