본문 바로가기
KCI 등재

크세노폰의 『경영론』에 나타난 유토피아적 관점에 대한 小考

An Essay on Utopianism in Xenophon’s Oeconomicus

지중해지역연구
약어 : JMAS
2018 vol.20, no.2, pp.99 - 117
DOI : 10.18218/jmas.2018.20.2.99
발행기관 : 부산외국어대학교 지중해지역원
연구분야 : 학제간연구
Copyright © 부산외국어대학교 지중해지역원
117 회 열람

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.

크세노폰, 오이코스, 오이코노미아, 에피멜레이아, 칼로스카가토스, 유토피아
Xenophon, Oikos, Oikonomia, Epimeleia, Kaloskagathos, Utopia

  • 1. [단행본] 디오게네스 라에르티오스 / 2016 / 그리스 철학자 열전 / 동서문화사
  • 2. [단행본] 크세노폰 / 2015 / 경영론⋅향연 / 부북스
  • 3. [단행본] 크세노폰 / 2018 / 소크라테스 회상록 / 도서출판 숲
  • 4. [단행본] 크세노폰 / 2015 / 키루스의 교육 / 한길사
  • 5. [단행본] 미셸 푸코 / 2018 / 성(性)의 역사 2 – 쾌락의 활용 / 나남
  • 6. [학술지] 김용민 / 2000 / 정치에 있어서 정의와 우정: 플라톤과 크세노폰 / 한국정치학회보 / 34 : 27 ~
  • 7. [학술지] 오유석 / 2014 / 고대희랍의 가정과 여성 -크세노폰의 Oeconomicus에 나타난 아내의 품성교육을 중심으로- / 도덕윤리과교육 (43) : 187 ~ 43 kci
  • 8. [단행본] Breitenbach, H. R / 1967 / RE 9 A 2 / Spp : 1569 ~
  • 9. [학술지] Danzig, G / 2003 / Why Socrates was not a Farmer: Xenophon’s Oeconomicus as a Philosophical Dialogue / Greece & Rome / 50 : 57 ~
  • 10. [단행본] Dihle, A / 1991 / Griechische Literaturgeschichte
  • 11. [단행본] Döring, K / 1998 / Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie. Die Philosophie der Antike. Band 2/1 : 182 ~
  • 12. [단행본] Ferrario, S. B / 2017 / The Cambridge Companion to Xenophon / Cambridge companions to literature : 57 ~
  • 13. [학술지] Finley, M. I / 1970 / Aristotle and Economic Analysis / Past and Present / 47 : 3 ~
  • 14. [단행본] Finley, M. I / 1973 / The Ancient Economy
  • 15. [단행본] Flower, M. A / 2017 / The Cambridge Companion to Xenophon / Cambridge companions to literature
  • 16. [학술지] Föllinger, S / 2006 / Sokrates als Ökonom? Eine Analyse der didaktischen Gestaltung von Xenophons Oikonomikos / Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft / 30 : 5 ~
  • 17. [단행본] Föllinger, S / 2010 / Die Rezeption der antiken Literatur. Kulturhistorisches Werklexikon / Stuttgart : 1139 ~
  • 18. [단행본] Jaeger, W / 1959 / Paideia III
  • 19. [단행본] Lesky, A / 1971 / Geschichte der griechischen Literatur / Bern
  • 20. [학위논문] Mayr, A / 2016 / Die Idealstaatsmodelle in Platons “Nomoi” und Xenophons “Kyrupädie”, “Hieron”, “Die Verfassung der Spartaner” und “Die Verfassung der Athener” sowie die politischen Systeme Spartas und Athens im Vergleich
  • 21. [단행본] Nickel, R / 1999 / Lexikon der antiken Literatur
  • 22. [단행본] Patzer, A / 1997 / Der fragende Sokrates : 50 ~
  • 23. [단행본] Pomeroy, S. B / 1994 / Xenophon, Oeconomicus: a Social and Historical Commentary
  • 24. [단행본] Pomeroy, S. B / 2010 / Xenophon. Oxford Readings in classical Studies / Oxford : 31 ~
  • 25. [단행본] Scharr, E / 1975 / Xenophons Staats- und Gesellschaftsideal und seine Zeit
  • 26. [단행본] Sorel, G / 1936 / Réflexions sur la violence
  • 27. [단행본] Strauss, L / 1970 / Xenophon’s Socratic Discourse: An Interpretation of the “Oeconomicus”
  • 28. [단행본] Waterfield, R / 1999 / Xenophon and his World : 79 ~
  • 29. [학술지] Wellman, R. R / 1976 / Socratic Method in Xenophon / Journal of the History of Ideas / 37 : 307 ~