ON THE MIRROR OF TYRANTS: XENOPHON’S HIERO AND ITS CONTEXT(S)

This article argues that in the Hiero, Xenophon skilfully combines elements of wisdom literature, epinician poetry, the Mirror of Tyrants and logoi Sōkratikoi. In doing so, he pursues two objectives. One is to link his reflections on leadership to respected and influential traditions in order to give his views additional weight and render them interesting for a wider audience. The second objective is to respond to Plato’s challenge to the traditional way of doing politics and, more specifically, the view that it is irremediable. For these reasons, this paper attempts to reconstruct the influence of wisdom literature (hypothēkai, Seven Sages), the Mirror of Tyrants (Isocrates), epinician poetry (Simonides, Pindar) and Plato’s dialogues on the Hiero.

It follows that any divergence in the content matter of Hiero could fit without much difficulty within the frame of Cyropaedia, and even more so since, in addition to the new Assyrian King embodying the prototype of the worst type of tyrant, it also features several "half-bad" or "half-good" autocrats such as Astyages, Cyaxares, Croesus and the King of Armenia. 6 Furthermore, in the episode about the "half-bad" Armenian king, a wise man (sophistēs) is mentioned and his depiction coincides with the image of Socrates. 7 All this leads to the assumption that we should look for Xenophon's impetus for writing the Hiero not so much in the content of the work but in the form.
On these grounds, this study deliberately opts for a different approach. It argues that Xenophon never composed the Hiero to be puzzling. On the contrary, his intention was to compose a sophisticated work with a clear message. 8 It is our lack of understanding of this dialogue's generic context that creates an impression of oddness. Francis Cairns' observation summarizes perfectly the logic adopted by this study: 9 The logical incompleteness and apparent internal inconsistencies of many ancient writings are consequence of their non-individual character, that is, their membership of genres in the sense defined. These writings assume in the reader a knowledge of the circumstances and content of the particular genre to which they belong, and they exploit this knowledge to allow logical connexions and distinctions to remain implicit or be omitted altogether. In ages and civilizations where, as is the case today, writer and audience do not share a common body of knowledge and expectation, such features of literary works may well be faults of composition. But in situations where, as in classical antiquity, writer and audience do have this common background, they can be part of a greater sophistication in the conveying of information.
If a work subtly combines elements of several genres, it is reasonable to assume that the perception of inconsistency can evolve into an impression that one is dealing with an extremely perplexing or even odd text. For these reasons, this paper will focus on Xenophon's subtle playing with different genres and his dialogue with other classical authors, rather than on a dialectical engagement with other modern interpreters of the Hiero. It will also refrain from a thorough examination of Xenophon's reflections on the nature of leadership, since it assumes that all of his writings in this respect represent one and the same view. 10 This study is divided into four sections. The basic premise of the first part (Hiero and the Wisdom Literature) is that Xenophon modelled Hiero after motifs typical for wisdom literature in order to give additional weight to his views and render them interesting for a wider audience. It will show that the tradition of the Seven Sages was popular and fictitious, its ethic was traditional and leaned toward the practical, the contrast sophostyrannos played an important role, and that there is a link to poetry as the most popular tradition of pre-philosophical wisdom. Because of this, in the Classical age individuals and groups who were engaged in cultivating knowledge tended to associate their teachings with the Seven Sages in order to bolster their authority with their audience (e.g., Simonides). Plato, Isocrates and the Peripatetics are illustrations of this tendency being augmented by an additional aspect: invoking the Seven Sages as part of the debate over what type of knowledge and educational scheme might be subsumed under the term philosophy.
This would suggest that Hiero shares many commonalities with wisdom literature: it is in essence an "outsized" anecdote about an encounter between a wise man and a tyrant; no serious effort is made to give the discussion at least a pseudo-credible historical background; the sage is a poet; its practice-oriented ethic is reflected in the fact that advice to the tyrant focuses on mechanisms of rule rather than on the ruler's ethical improvement; 11 the strong emphasis on reciprocity shows that, in key areas, its ethic is in accordance with Greek popular morality. Finally, Hiero was written with an intense dispute between rival political thinkers in mind, which will be discussed later in greater detail.
The second section (Simonides and Plato) examines why Xenophon chose Simonides. It pursues three lines of argument and elucidates the influence of the logoi Sōkratikoi. One of these is that, in the fourth century B.C.E, there was a strong anecdotal tradition involving Simonides that was appealing to Xenophon for several reasons: it focuses on Simonides' personality rather than his work, placing him between the Seven Sages and the Socratics; the apophthegmata ascribed to Simonides exhibit commonalities with proverbs attributed to most renowned poets and to Socratics. Due to these features it made sense for Xenophon to choose Simonides as an interlocutor in the Hiero, because his figure could serve as bridge between the old (poetry, Seven Sages) and new traditions of wisdom (sophistry, philosophy). The second line of argument posits that the same tradition incited Plato to strongly criticise Simonides, which in turn provoked Xenophon to respond. In the Protagoras and the Republic, several of Socrates' interlocutors invoke Simonides as an intellectual authority in order to substantiate their arguments. This forces Socrates not only to refute their standpoints, but also to contradict the view that Simonides is wise and claim that he was not truly free. In this context it is significant that Plato is in complete opposition to Xenophon regarding several important notions and concepts (the hard path of virtue and easy path of vice; re-education of the tyrannical man; justice is to harm one's enemies and help one's friends; the response to the doxa-alētheia challenge). And finally, Xenophon chose Simonides because parallels were drawn even in the Platonic tradition between Plato's links to the Dionysii of Syracuse, Simonides and Hiero, as well as to Solon, Croesus and Cyrus. The third section (The Mirror of Tyrants, Encomium and Epinicion) addresses why Xenophon opted for Hiero as the other interlocutor and examines the impact of the Mirror of Tyrants and praise poetry. An analysis of Isocrates' Mirror of Tyrants reveals several 11 Cf. Leppin 2010. important features of this genre: the contrast bios tyrannikos -bios idiōtikos plays a major role and its origins can be traced back to Plato's response to the democratic controversy polypragmosynē -apragmosynē; the tyrannical life is eulogised, yet this is not to be confused with its advocacy, as its purpose is to repudiate Plato's view that the traditional way of conducting politics is incorrigible; there is a link between the encomium and the moral precepts of the poets, which in turn are related to wisdom literature; advice is to be dispensed in an interesting manner; the ruler being praised should overcome the dichotomy public -private; this type of text is philosophical in nature; the advice is to be directed at a contemporary (not mythical) ruler; the historical context serves as a backcloth, and because of this, its visibility can vary noticeably; and finally, Dionysios I and Cyrus belong to the most popular figures of this genre.
Almost all of these elements can be detected in the Hiero and may be interpreted as a sign of Isocrates' influence. Nonetheless, Xenophon did not just depend upon Isocrates, but also went back to the epinician poets who praised Hiero. They contributed greatly to his rule remaining in the memory of subsequent generations in a considerably more positive light than that of the Dionysii. Given the fragmentary state of Simonides' work, the impact of epinician poetry on Xenophon (and Isocrates) can be determined above all from Pindars' victory odes. An examination of Pindar's Mirror of Tyrants-like passages illustrates how he anticipated some of the key elements of this genre: the character of the ruler takes precedence over the type of constitution; the positive image of the tyrant reveals itself in benevolence towards citizens; the inconsistency of the ruler's happiness and the envy of his subjects are important topics; moral conduct is seen as prerequisite for successful rule; and the juxtaposition of positive and negative patterns of behaviour is a key technique by which ruler is praised.
The fourth and last section (The Principal Message of the Hiero) argues that the main aim of Hiero is to rebut Plato's radical break with the traditional way of doing politics. A comparison of relevant passages from the Hiero, the Gorgias and the Republic reveals significant concurrences between Plato and Xenophon: praise of the bios tyrannikos reflects general opinion; the term zēloûn is used to denote a positive attitude towards tyranny; the illusory nature of the notion of a happy tyrant is revealed through Socratic argument; every aspect of the tyrant's life is determined by his position; the tyrant is absolutely unfree as he is least likely to do what he really wants; etc. Nevertheless, there is one crucial difference, and it makes clear that the function of these parallels is to underline Xenophon's fundamental disagreement with Plato. The principal message of the Hiero is that the tyrant can change and achieve a happy life by following the sophos' instructions. In contrast, Plato argues in the Gorgias and the Republic that the traditional bios politikos ultimately leads to the bios tyrannikos, and the tyrannical man is deaf to all words of truth. Consequently, traditional politics must be rejected and replaced with philosophy. By saying that the tyrant can be transformed, Xenophon claims that even the worst aberrations of traditional politics can be corrected, thus dismissing Plato's stance that (traditional) politics and philosophy are diametrically opposed.
Simonides, the poet (poiētēs), once paid a visit to Hiero, the despot (tyrannos). When both found time to spare, Simonides said: "Hiero, will you please explain something to me that you probably know better than I?" "And pray what is it," said Hiero, "that I can know better than one so wise (sophos) as yourself?" "I know you were born a private citizen (idiōtēs)," he answered, "and are now a despot (tyrannos). Therefore, as you have experienced both fortunes, you probably know better than I how the lives (bios) of the despot (tyrannikos) and the citizen (idiōtikos) differ as regards the joys and sorrows that fall to man's lot." In addition to the contrast sage -tyrant, there are two more aspects typical of wisdom literature. From the opening sentence we learn only that Simonides "once upon a time" came to Hiero, but everything else is left in the dark. 16 This makes it clear that the conversation's historical context is merely a backdrop. The other aspect is the information that the sage visited the ruler. Herodotus illustrates that both aspects were characteristic of anecdotes about encounters between the sage and the tyrant. 17 In the first half of the fourth century, several important thinkers thematised the sayings of the Seven Sages, and associated them directly or indirectly with their own teachings. The first reliably known to have done so is Plato. The Protagoras is not only the oldest surviving source in which the Seven Sages form a homogeneous collegiums; in addition it declares that Solon is the wisest among them. Plato is also the first to show that, 12 See Gray 1998: 105-122, 159-177, 191-192. 13 Diog. Laert. 1.40-41; see White 2001: 204;Leão 2010: 409. For the notion Seven Sages (hoi hepta sophoi / sophoi / sophistai / hoi hepta / hepta philosophoi; Diog. Laert. 1.22; 9.71) see Barkowski 1923Barkowski : 2242Barkowski -2243Martin 1998: 109;Engels 2010: 7, 9. 14 See Martin 1998: 112-113;Bollansée 1999: 65-75;contra Fehling 1985: 12-19. 15 Xen. Hier. 1.1-2 (trans. E. C. Marchant); see Gray 2007: 31-32. Federico Zuolo (2018 observes: "In 2.5 it is said that Simonides holds gnomē, a traditional form of wisdom".   Hdt. 1.27.2,29.1. in the Classical period, the Seven Sages served as a means of identification and legitimacy for various groups devoted to the cultivation of knowledge (Wissenspflege). Plato's Socrates introduces his genealogy of philosophia as a countermodel to Protagoras' history of sophistry. While the sophist lists renowned poets (inlcuding Simonides) as predecessors of the sophistikē technē and as crypto-sophists, Socrates explains that philosophy has its most ancient roots in Crete and Lacedaemon, and counts the Seven Sages among the cryptophilosophers. 18 It is not surprising then, that numerous collections of sayings by the Seven Sages appeared in the fourth century. More importantly, as philosophy began to delimit from sophistry, rhetoric, poetry, traditional religion and the specialized sciences, there was debate concerning which types of knowledge could be subsumed under the term philosophy and which could not. 19 It appears the debate prompted additional interest in the wisdom of the Seven Sages, which would explain the different roles assigned to them by tradition. Diogenes Laertius says that they were designated as philosophers, poets, men of practical wisdom, and legislators. 20 In the Antidosis, Isocrates contests the application of the term philosophy to the abstract study of reality. At the same time, he associates his conception of philosophy with the Seven Sages and in particular with Solon. 21 The Peripatetics show that, even within one philosophical school, there were diverging opinions, which gave rise to scholarly quandaries over the nature of these divergences. Some believe that Aristotle and Theophrastus saw the Seven Sages as representing bios theōrētikos, but that Dicaearchus believed them to represent bios praktikos. 22 Others, again, assume that Aristotle saw the oldest form of philosophy in their sayings, 23 and that Dicaerchus believed them to be wise but not philosophers as the term was generally understood from Plato onwards. 24 Another important feature of the tradition of the Seven Sages, as noted by Richard Martin and Leslie Kurke, is its connection to the most popular tradition of pre-philosophical (and thus pre-Platonic) wisdom: poetry. 25 A number of ancient sources took pains to portray the Seven Sages as writers of poems. 26 It is particularly remarkable that not only is Solon depicted as a composer of didactic poems (hypothēkai), which is not really surprising, but so, too, is Periander, who, despite having a reputation of being a ruthless tyrant, was counted among the Seven Sages. 27 The ancient world, as Monica Gale remarks, "at most periods 18 Pl. Prt. 316d-317c, 342-343b;Chrm. 164d-165a;Hp. mai. 281c-d;Ti. 20d-e;see Wehrli 1973: 195;Rösler 1991: 361;Martin 1998: 112-113, 120-121, 125 n. 16;Manuwald 1999: 140-144, 324-326, 330-331, 335-337;Althoff -Zeller 2006: 8;Asper 2006: 90-91, 95, 98-101;Engels 2010: 13-15;Leão 2010: 409-414. Rudolf Hirzel (1895 argues that the sophists considered themselves to be successors of the Seven Sages; cf. also Barkowski 1923Barkowski : 2262Barkowski -2263 See Nehamas 1990: 3-16;Nightingale 2004: 17-19, Nebelin 2016 Diog. Laert. 1.40; see White 2001: 202;cf. also Martin 1998: 109. 21 Isoc. 15.183-188, 235, 261-262, 265-271, 312-313;cf. Nehamas 1990: 4-5;Moore 2019: 213-215. 22 Jaeger 1928: 1-34, esp. 3-4, 6, 9-10, 25-33;Scholz 1998: 204-211;Fechner -Scholz 2002: 116-118;cf. also Nightingale 2004: 18-26, esp. 21. 23 Flashar 2004: 262-263;Althoff 2011: 47-49. 24 See White 2001: 195-236;cf. also Nebelin 2016: 58-59. 25 See Martin 1998: 113-115;Gray 2007: 33;Kurke 2011: 101-108, esp. 105-108;Nebelin 2016: 49-50, 75-77. 26 Diog. Laert. 1.29,35,40,61,68,[89][90]97,101;esp. 40. For Diogenes Laertius as a source see Martin 1998: 109;Nebelin 2016: 55. 27 Diog. Laert. 1.61, 97; see also Solon fr. 4.30 W;cf. Wehrli 1973: 200-201;Martin 1998: 111, 115;Kässer 2005: 96. tended to regard all poetry as educational." 28 As a result, ancient literary criticism never devised a category labelled didactic poetry, 29 and it was not at all unusual for poets to be portrayed as bearers of wisdom. 30 Therefore, it is no coincidence that Plato associates his most severe criticism of Simonides with the tradition of the Seven Sages (see below). Furthermore, in this same context, Plato rejects Hesiod's notion of two paths (see below). This is significant insofar as Hesiod was one of the first and foremost representatives of the hypothēkai genre. 31 Tradition does not depict the Seven Sages as teachers of abstract principles. Their wisdom is practical, it resolves difficult questions or situations, and they demonstrate a manifest concern for others. As a rule, their sayings are pithy, without justification, timeless, unrelated to a singular situation, intrinsically imperative and not directed at anyone in particular; several wise men are frequently cited as the authors of one and the same adage. These qualities point to the conclusion that they reflect Greek popular wisdom and general norms of behaviour. 32 It follows that these maxims were only later associated with certain individuals and it is from this that the tradition of the Seven Sages emerged. There are various hypotheses on the causes that gave rise to it (a defence mechanism of Greek identity, the strengthening of Panhellenic unity, the expansion of Delphic influence, the need to adjust the concept of the wise and cunning individual to new challenges, a vehicle for transmitting a typology of aristocratic principles, etc.). 33 Because the sayings of the Seven Sages represent a practical ethic based on insight into the general conditio humana, it is to be expected that, in a society dominated by the polis, their wisdom would often touch on social and political matters. They condemned selfserving, wilful and violent behaviour, so the original intention for many of them was to curb or quash egotistical grasping after honour and power in domineering individuals, as it endangered the stability of the polis. It was thus not unusual for the best-known of the Seven Sages to be associated with public life and political activity in various ways. 34  Pl. Prt. 316d-e; Diog. Laert. 1.12-13; see also Solon fr. 13 W (ll. 51-52); 116;9.38,Pyth. 1.12;4.248;6.49;Nem. 7.23;Isthm. 7.18;Pae. 7b;Thgn. 19,[769][770][789][790]995;Xenoph. B 2 DK (ll. 12,14); see Thayer 1975: 6-10;Mülke 2002: 305;Kurke 2011: 105-106;Itgenshorst 2014: 116-120. 31 Hes. fr. 283-285 M-W; [66][67][68][69]schol. Pind. Pyth. 6.22 Isoc. 2.3, 42-44;cf. Friedländer 1913: 558-572, esp. 564, 571-572;West 1978: 3-25, esp. 23-25;Martin 1984: 32-33, 38-39;Kurke 1990: 89-95, esp. 90-93 with n. 23;192;Kässar 2005: 96;Gale 2005: 101-104;Ford 2010: 146-152;Stamatopoulou 2017: 7-8, 114-115, 118-121, 188-192. 32 See Rösler 1991, 357;Asper 2006: 86-87, 89;Engels 2010: 94-97. 33 See Rösler 1991: 361-364;Id. 2003: 111-113;Asper 2006: 93-95;Leão 2010: 404, 411. Winfried Schmitz (2004 has shown that the influence of didactic literature from the ancient Near East on the Greek wisdom tradition was neither strong nor direct.

34
Sayings: "νόμῳ πείθου -obey the laws" (S 2; D III. 19; Diog. Laert. 1.70); "ἄρχεσθαι μαθὼν ἄρχειν επιστήσῃ -when you learn how to be ruled, you will learn how to rule" (D II. 10; Diog. Laert. 1.60); see Martin 1998: 115;Asper 2006: 87-88, 91;Engels 2010: 13, 90, 92, 94, 97-98. Solon (mediator and lawgiver), Chilon (highranking official) and tyrants (Pittacus, Periander); see also Dicaearch. fr. 30, 31 Wehrli;Diog. Laert. 1.40-1;Cic. Rep. 1.12;De or. 3.137;see Martin 1998: 115. Quite early on, encounters between sages and a powerful tyrant became a distinctive aspect of this tradition. 35 It is seen first in Herodotus, where four sages, who are always counted among the seven, converse with Croesus. 36 According to Herodotus, the Spartan sage Chilon foresaw Peisistratus's rise to power. 37 Later sources say that Solon warned of Peisistratus's tyranny and left his native city of his own accord, since none of his fellow citizens believed him. 38 After seizing power, Peisistratus generously invited the famous statesman to return to Athens. Solon admitted that, of all the tyrants, Peisistratus was the best, but nevertheless refused to return because he rejected tyranny as a matter of principle. 39 Legend has it that Pittacus wanted to renounce power out of the fear of becoming a tyrant. 40 Plato is said to have stricken Periander from the list of the seven since he believed that no tyrant could be a sage. 41 Notions of the sages not permitting themselves to become blinded by the power and opulence of tyranny, remaining loyal to a government based on law, and showing themselves to be more far-sighted than the tyrants, are in sync with wisdom literature as a genre. However, something else in the depiction of these encounters stands out from the ordinary: These same sages, frequently presented as politically active, when meeting with a tyrant are usually described as having distanced themselves from politics. 42 This was probably to emphasise the degree to which the sages disapproved of tyrannical rule or, more specifically, the abuse of political power. The best-known story of a meeting with a wise man -the dialogue between Solon and Croesus in Herodotus -goes a step further. In this anecdote not only has the sage turned his back on political life, but he plainly prefers the life of the common people to all the boons of a tyrant's life by describing a few idiōtai as the happiest of people while refusing to say the same of the despot Croesus: 43 κατεστραμμένων δὲ τούτων καὶ προσεπικτωμένου Κροίσου Λυδοῖσι, ἀπικνέονται ἐς Σάρδις ἀκμαζούσας πλούτῳ ἄλλοι τε οἱ πάντες ἐκ τῆς Ἑλλάδος σοφισταί, οἳ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον ἐτύγχανον ἐόντες, ὡς ἕκαστος αὐτῶν ἀπικνέοιτο, καὶ δὴ καὶ Σόλων ἀνὴρ Ἀθηναῖος, ὃς Ἀθηναίοισι νόμους κελεύσασι ποιήσας ἀπεδήμησε ἔτεα δέκα κατά θεωρίης πρόφασιν ἐκπλώσας, […] θεησάμενον δέ μιν τὰ πάντα καὶ σκεψάμενον ὥς οἱ κατὰ καιρὸν ἦν, εἴρετο ὁ Κροῖσος τάδε· 'ξεῖνε Ἀθηναῖε, παρ᾽ ἡμέας γὰρ περὶ σέο λόγος ἀπῖκται πολλὸς καὶ σοφίης εἵνεκεν τῆς σῆς καὶ πλάνης, ὡς φιλοσοφέων γῆν πολλὴν θεωρίης εἵνεκεν ἐπελήλυθας· νῦν ὦν ἵμερος ἐπειρέσθαι με ἐπῆλθέ σε εἴ τινα ἤδη πάντων εἶδες ὀλβιώτατον.

See
We may therefore conclude that the bios tyrannikos -bios idiōtikos dichotomy was already present in wisdom literature. This conclusion is reinforced by Herodotus' depiction of the meeting between Solon and Croesus becoming a paradigm for the encounter between the sage and the tyrant. 44 Even this cursory glance at the tradition of the Seven Sages points to several elements that would have prompted Xenophon to write a work referring to wisdom literature: 45 it was very popular and widely read, it was obviously fictitious, its ethic was a practical one that summed up behavioural norms traditionally considered desirable, and, finally, the wise man and the tyrant were shown as two antipodes. Through the Hiero, Xenophon associated his own views and teachings with the wisdom tradition, thus providing them with additional significance.
An inquiring mind is not a sufficient explanation of the diversity of Xenophon's opus. It is possible that the decision to write Hiero was influenced by something else: the desire to acquaint the broadest possible readership with his views. The Apology, Memorabilia and Symposium were intended for those interested in philosophy and Socratic literature; the Hellenica was for history lovers; Agesilaus, besides satisfying readers of history, would also please those interested in encomia. Anabasis is an autobiographical and historical work as well as a military handbook. The Constitution of the Lacedaemonians can be considered as a politeia writing and was certainly read by those who looked to Sparta as a model. The Cyropaedia belongs to the Mirror of Tyrants genre with elements of an encomium, a historical novel, and a military handbook. Bearing in mind that Xenophon had covered most of the literary genres meant to educate, one might ask why he would not try to meet the needs of those seeking advice and knowledge in wisdom literature. He was obviously aware of it, as he otherwise would not have mentioned its influence on the young, knowledge-thirsty kaloi kagathoi in the Memorabilia. 46    Xen. Mem. 1.6.14 (tous thēsaurous tōn palai sophōn andrōn, hous ekeinoi katelipon en bibliois grapsantes); 4.2.1 (grammata polla syneilegmenon poētōn te kai sophistōn); 4.2.9 (tas de tōn sophōn andrōn gnōmas); see also Aeschin. 3.134-136; Isoc. 1.51-52; 2.13; Pl. Leg. 810e-811a, 886b-e; Diog. Laert. 6.31; cf. Horne & Fritz 1935: 78;Barns 1950: 132. 47 See Gray 1986: 118-121. Nonetheless, there are some questions that are still left unresolved. Uncertainty persists as to why he avoided writing a dialogue between one of the Seven Sages and an infamous tyrant. For this, there are two complementary explanations. The first is that by choosing a poet of renown but never counted among the Seven Sages, Xenophon cleverly evaded having his work reduced to yet another anecdote of an encounter between a sage and a tyrant. Secondly, as shown in the Cyropaedia and Agesilaus, he tended to merging several genres in one work. 48 By not quite adapting the Hiero to the standards of wisdom literature, he left room for the subtle inclusion of elements from other genres, as for instance the Mirror of Tyrants and Socratic literature.

Simonides and Plato
Despite all this, the question remains of why Xenophon chose Simonides and Hiero as the main and only protagonists of this work. Regrettably, the scant sources available only allow us to make assumptions.
In the Archaic era, poets developed various strategies to bolster their authority with their audience. One of these was to claim they were endowed with wisdom. 49 This is probably why Simonides is the oldest known source to speak of the Seven Sages as bearers of wisdom. 50 In the Wasps, Aristophanes tells us that Simonides competed with Lasus, whom some sources counted among the Seven Sages. 51 In addition, Simonides enjoyed the reputation of being extremely clever. 52 Although considered to be a great poet, there were numerous anecdotes in circulation that did not always present him in the best light. 53 He was believed to have been a miser and to have enjoyed the company of unscrupulous power mongers. 54 There are brief anecdotes linking him with Themistocles. 55 It is said that he stayed at the court of the Peisistratids. 56 Wehrli 1973: 199. 51 Ar. Vesp. 1401-1410, Diog. Laert. 1.42; see Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1913: 142, 148;Wehrli 1973: 203. 52 Aristot. Rhet. 1391a8-12; Cic. Nat. D. Plut. An seni 786b; De curios. 520a; Ath. 14.656d-e; P. Hibeh 17; see Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1913: 142, 148-149;Wehrli 1973: 203-204;Bell 1978: 31-39, 44, 61-62, 70-71;Lefkowitz 1981: 50-53. 55 Cic. Fin. 2.32.104; Plut. Vit. Them. 1.1, 5.6, 15.3-4; see also Simon. T. 104,fr. 252,325 Poltera [536,627 PMG]; cf. Bell 1978: 40-43. 56 In the Pseudo-Platonic Hipparchus Socrates says that the Athenian tyrant Hipparchus retained the services of Simonides with large fees and gifts. The son of Peisistratus did this with a view to educating citizens, so that he might rule over them as better men (Pl. Hipparch. 228c); see also Aristot. Ath. Pol. 18.1;cf. Bell 1978: 43;Gray 2007: 33;Rawles 2018: 165-166. 57 Pl. Prt. 339a; Callim. Aet. fr. 64.1-4; Ath.13.125; Cic. De or. 2.86; Quint. Inst. 11.6.11-17; cf. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1913:142-143;Poltera 2008, 455. reconciliation with Theron, the master of Acragas. According to tradition, Simonides died in Acragas in 468, the same year as his patron Hiero. 58 Apart from pointing out Simonides' contacts with tyrants, there are three other significant features of the tradition surrounding him. First, as Mary Lefkowitz notes, anecdotes began to spread about him as early as the fifth century, and in the fourth century the story of his life outstripped interest in his poetry. 59 Secondly, as Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorf has observed, Simonides as a biographical subject is placed between the Seven Sages and the Socratics. 60 Thirdly, as remarked by Fritz Wehrli, Simonides' apophthegmata belong to the same tradition as the chreiai of the Seven Sages and the proverbs of Hesiod and Homer. Unlike these, Simonides' apophthegmata are intrinsically linked to specific situations and reveal individual character traits. They share this feature with anecdotes about the Socratic and post-Socratic philosophers (e.g. Aristippus). 61 These reasons seem to have led Xenophon to include reworked anecdotes about Simonides in his Symposium. 62 Coincidentally or not, Plato can contribute to a better understanding of the background to Xenophon's choice of Simonides as Hiero's interlocutor. The famous philosopher shows that Simonides wanted to be associated with the tradition of the Seven Sages, and in this he was successful. In the eponymous dialogue, Protagoras includes Simonides with Homer and Hesiod among the predecessors of the sophistic movement: 63 ἐγὼ δὲ τὴν σοφιστικὴν τέχνην φημὶ μὲν εἶναι παλαιάν, τοὺς δὲ μεταχειριζομένους αὐτὴν τῶν παλαιῶν ἀνδρῶν, φοβουμένους τὸ ἐπαχθὲς αὐτῆς, πρόσχημα ποιεῖσθαι καὶ προκαλύπτεσθαι, τοὺς μὲν ποίησιν, οἷον Ὅμηρόν τε καὶ Ἡσίοδον καὶ Σιμωνίδην, […] Now, I maintain that the sophist's art is an ancient one, but that the men who practiced it in ancient times, fearing the odium attached to it, disguised it, masking it sometimes as poetry, as Homer and Hesiod and Simonides did, […] Further on in the Protagoras, after naming the Seven Sages, Socrates explains how Simonides, ambitious to be known for wisdom, deliberately disputed Pittacus's saying it is hard to be good: 64 τούτων ἦν καὶ Θαλῆς ὁ Μιλήσιος καὶ Πιττακὸς ὁ Μυτιληναῖος καὶ Βίας ὁ Πριηνεὺς καὶ Σόλων ὁ ἡμέτερος καὶ Κλεόβουλος ὁ Λίνδιος καὶ Μύσων ὁ Χηνεύς, καὶ ἕβδομος ἐν τούτοις ἐλέγετο Λακεδαιμόνιος Χίλων.
[…] It was in this context that the saying of Pittacus-It is hard to be good-was privately circulated with approval (enkōmiazein) among the sages. Then Simonides, ambitious to get a name for wisdom, saw that if he could score a takedown against this saying, as if it were a famous wrestler, and get the better of it, he would himself become famous in his own lifetime.
Obviously stating a commonly-held opinion, Socrates ironically observes in the Republic that Simonides is a wise and godlike man (sophos ... kai theios anēr); later, in a discussion with Polemarchus, he counts him as one of the wise and blessed to whom Pittacus and Bias belong. 65 Other places where Plato mentions Simonides are no less significant. In the Protagoras, Socrates associates him with Prodicus in the context of Hesiod's and Prodicus's notion of the hard path of virtue and the easy path of vice, which, as illustrated by the Memorabilia, plays an important role in Xenophon's thought: 66 καὶ ἴσως ἂν φαίη Πρόδικος ὅδε καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοὶ καθ᾽ Ἡσίοδον γενέσθαι μὲν ἀγαθὸν χαλεπὸν εἶναι· τῆς γὰρ ἀρετῆς ἔμπροσθεν τοὺς θεοὺς ἱδρῶτα θεῖναι· ὅταν δέ τις αὐτῆς εἰς ἄκρον ἵκηται, ῥηϊδίην δἤπειτα πέλειν, χαλεπήν περ ἐοῦσαν, ἐκτῆσθαι.
And if being is not the same as becoming, Simonides does not contradict himself. Perhaps Prodicus and many others might agree with Hesiod that it is difficult to become good: The gods put Goodness where we have to sweat To get at her. But once you reach the top She's as easy to have as she was hard at first.
For Simonides was not so uneducated as to say that he praised all who did nothing bad willingly, as if there were anyone who willingly did bad things. I am pretty sure that none of the wise men thinks that any human being willingly makes a mistake or willingly does anything wrong or bad. They know very well that anyone who does anything wrong or bad does so involuntarily. So also Simonides, who does not say that he praises those who willingly do nothing bad; rather he applies the term 'willingly' to himself. He perceived that a good man, an honorable man, often forces himself to love and praise someone utterly different from himself, one's alienated father perhaps, or mother, or country.
The unspoken message is that the famous poet was not truly free. This standpoint mirrors Plato's line of thinking in the Gorgias and the Republic that the tyrant's evildoings stand in direct correlation to his complete lack of freedom. 70 As will be later shown, Xenophon adopts this view in the first part of the Hiero, only to dispute it in the second part by letting Simonides elaborate how a tyrant can be re-educated.
Socrates' conclusion that discussing poetry is similar to second-rate drinking parties of the agora crowd brings an end to the controversy over the meaning of Simonides' verses in the Protagoras. The kaloi kagathoi avoid such discussions, because almost everyone has a different opinion about what the poets say. Men of culture prefer instead to converse directly with each other, and rely on their own powers of speech to test one another. It is these people who should be imitated. Therefore, all participants in the discussion should put the poets aside and converse directly with each other to test the truth and their own ideas.

68
See Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1913: 159-191, esp. 165-180;Bowra 1934: 230-239;Woodbury 1953: 135-163, esp. 151-163;Adkins 1960: 166-167, 196-197, 355-359, esp. 355-359;Donlan 1969: 71-95, esp. 82-90;Thayer 1975: 20-25;Dickie 1978: 21-33;Schütrumpf 1987: 11-23;Most 1994: 134-147;Beresford 2009: 185-220, esp. 195-214;Manuwald 2010: 1-24, esp. 6-23. 69 Pl. Prt. 345d-346a (trans. S. Lombardo & K. Bell), 346b; see Manuwald 1999: 328-329, 347-351;Rawles 2018: 164-165. Giovanni Ferarri (1989 notes that Socrates interprets the poem in a manner that "Simonides sounds suspiciously like Socrates himself." The moral is that analysis of poetry is of questionable didactic value; the right path is philosophy. 71 Polemarchus in the Republic declares that, according to Simonides, it is just to give to each what is owed to him. As the discussion continues, Socrates calls Simonides wise and places him on par with Pittacus and Bias. However, Socrates disputes that the famous poet really meant what Polemarchus' said. According to him, the proverb that it is just to benefit friends and harm enemies belongs to people such as the tyrant Periander, the Macedonian King Perdiccas, the Great King Xerxes and the Theban politician Ismenias, who (mistakenly) believed themselves to have great power. 72 In Socrates' view it is never just to harm anyone, which is why a wise man cannot present the view that it is just to render to each his due. The tacit conclusion is that Simonides was not truly wise, since he perceived justice in the same way as do unscrupulous and power-hungry individuals. 73 The Memorabilia show that the tenet to harm one's enemies and help one's friends (reciprocity) occupies a central position in Xenophon's scale of values. 74 It is therefore not surprising that in the Hiero Simonides is designated as the wise man, and that his crucial advice to the master of Syracuse is to treat his subjects according to the principle of reciprocity. 75 Following Thrasymachus's speech on the nature of justice in the Republic, Glaucon goes on to contrast the fates of the perfectly just and the perfectly unjust man, which in wisdom literature corresponds to the encounter between the sage and the tyrant. 76 His argument is augmented by Adeimantus, who, with the help of the antithesis dokein-einai, or doxa-alētheia, shows the destructivity of the conventional lauding of justice, since it praises justice for the benefit it brings rather than for itself. 77 Adeimantus's quotation from Hesiod's verses on the hard road of virtue and the easy road of vice points to a connection between this idea, which Xenophon invokes in the Memorabilia, and Glaucon's story about the perfectly just and perfectly unjust man. 78 Among the poets cited by Adeimantus but not explicitly named is Simonides. In an allusion to him, Adeimantus ironically observes how the sophoi have said that seeming masters the truth and is lord of happiness (to dokein kai tan alatheian biatai kai kyrion eudaimonias). This saying coincides with the message of the first part of Hiero, in which Simonides speaks of the happiness of a tyrant, and Hiero reveals its illusory nature. 79 Like Plato, Xenophon was aware that the doxa-alētheia dichotomy is one of the 71 Pl. Prt. 347c-348a; see also Hp. mi 365d;cf. Ferarri 1989: 102-103;Manuwald 1999: 354-355. Socrates remarks in the Apology that the poets compose their poems without any understanding of what they say, but by some inborn talent and inspiration .  146-147, 151-153, 235. 73 Cf. Pl. Tht. 152b. In the Greater Hippias the distinction between the sophists and the ancient wise men (Bias, Pittacus, Thales etc.) is that the latter kept away from the affairs of state (Hp. mai. 281b-282a).
Another contribution towards a better understanding of the background to Xenophon's choice of Simonides may be Plato's Second Letter. Scholars generally tend to consider it inauthentic, but it nonetheless occupies an important place in the Platonic tradition. 81 It is addressed to Dionysius II and the dramatic action takes place sometime after 360. 82 The Second Letter is significant because it, in the context of the symbiosis of ruler and poet, points to the need to merge wisdom (phronēsis) and great power (dynamis). Among the corroborating examples mentioned are Simonides and Hiero. Although neither the author of this text nor the exact date of its origin is known, it shows that, even in antiquity, parallels were drawn between Plato's links to the masters of Syracuse, Simonides and Hiero, as well as to Solon, Croesus and Cyrus: 83 πέφυκε συνιέναι εἰς ταὐτὸν φρόνησίς τε καὶ δύναμις μεγάλη, καὶ ταῦτ᾽ ἄλληλα ἀεὶ διώκει καὶ ζητεῖ καὶ συγγίγνεται· ἔπειτα καὶ οἱ ἄνθρωποι χαίρουσιν περὶ τούτων αὐτοί τε διαλεγόμενοι καὶ ἄλλων ἀκούοντες ἔν τε ἰδίαις συνουσίαις καὶ ἐν ταῖς ποιήσεσιν. οἷον καὶ περὶ Ἱέρωνος ὅταν διαλέγωνται ἄνθρωποι καὶ Παυσανίου τοῦ Λακεδαιμονίου, χαίρουσι τὴν Σιμωνίδου συνουσίαν παραφέροντες, ἅ τε ἔπραξεν καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς· καὶ Περίανδρον τὸν Κορίνθιον καὶ Θαλῆν τὸν Μιλήσιον ὑμνεῖν εἰώθασιν ἅμα, καὶ Περικλέα καὶ Ἀναξαγόραν, καὶ Κροῖσον αὖ καὶ Σόλωνα ὡς σοφοὺς καὶ Κῦρον ὡς δυνάστην. καὶ δὴ ταῦτα μιμούμενοι οἱ ποιηταὶ Κρέοντα μὲν καὶ Τειρεσίαν συνάγουσιν, Πολύειδον δὲ καὶ Μίνω, Ἀγαμέμνονα δὲ καὶ Νέστορα καὶ Ὀδυσσέα καὶ Παλαμήδη … It is a law of nature that wisdom and great power go together; they exert a mutual attraction and are forever seeking to be united. And men love to converse with one another about them, and to listen to what the poets say. For example, when men talk of Hiero and Pausanias the Lacedaemonian, they like to recall Simonides' connection with them and what he said and did. Likewise they usually celebrate together Periander of Corinth and Thales of Miletus, Pericles and Anaxagoras, and again Croesus and Solon, as wise men, with Cyrus, as ruler. In the same strain the poets couple Creon and Tiresias, Polyeidus and Minos, Agamemnon and Nestor, Odysseus and Palamedes.
Whether these parallels were in vogue before Xenophon wrote the Hiero or after is of no great matter. In either case, Xenophon undeniably made the right choice. In the first, he merely added to something already existing, while in the second, it can be presumed that contemporaries had no difficulty understanding Hiero's tacit message. Here one must not lose sight of Plato's and Aristippus' visits to the court of the Syracuse tyrants, which undoubtedly increased interest in meetings between wise men and tyrants as a motif. The extent to which the reception of Plato and Aristippus in Antiquity was marked by these visits   Pl. Ep. 2.310e-311b (trans. G. R. Morrow); cf. Bell 1978: 84-85;Erler 2007: 311;Gray 1986: 121;Id. 2007: 31-32;Rawles 2018: 167-169. to Sicily is illustrated by Diogenes Laertius, Diodorus of Sicily and Plutarch. 84 It would seem that here again the same saying is attributed to different sages (philosophers). According to Diogenes Laertius, Aristippus responded to a question from Dionysius the Elder as to why philosophers go to rich men's houses, while rich men no longer visit philosophers, by saying that while the former knew what they needed, the latter did not. According to Aristotle's Rhetoric, Simonides replied in similar fashion to Hiero's wife. In the Republic Plato condemns this saying without revealing its initiator. 85 Finally, Isocrates shows that the writers in the Mirror of Tyrants genre had Dionysius the Elder in mind when they wrote their works. While in Evagoras he emphasises that the master of Salamina was a greater ruler than Cyrus the Great, in Nicocles or the Cyprians he praises the achievements of Dionysius I. 86

The Mirror of Tyrants, Encomium and Epinicion
What defines the Hiero is that it was written in dialogue form. The significance of this becomes more apparent when we consider that it is Xenophon's only true dialogue. At the outset, he makes it clear that this literary form interacts with two noteworthy circumstances: first, it is a conversation between a poet (poiētēs) or wise man (sophos anēr) and a tyrant; secondly, the difference between the bios idiōtikos and the bios tyrannikos opens the discussion on tyranny. 87 The conceptual pair tyrannos -idiōtēs points to Xenophon's skilful combination of genres. The influence of wisdom literature is indicated by the fact that in Herodotus, the Lydian tyrant Croesus, in conversation with Solon, objects that the renowned Athenian statesman (sage) ranks his happiness below that of common people (idiōtai), such as Tellus, Cleobis and Biton. 88 In Hiero, too, the difference between idiōtēs and the tyrant uses the example of the gladness and happiness (eudaimonia), which the tyrant enjoys. 89 The dichotomy tyrannos -idiōtēs is also a distinctive feature of the Mirror of Tyrants genre. 90 I have elaborated in detail in other studies that the main impetus for this development came from Plato's Gorgias and Republic. 91 In these dialogues the issue of reeducating the tyrannical man and instructing young, outstanding individuals is elucidated in the context of the antithesis bios praktikos (politikos) -bios theōretikos (idiōtikos). This contrast is in turn congeneric with the dichotomies bios tyrannikos -bios philosophikos and rhetoric -true politics (philosophy), and they all originate from the controversy over the role of polypragmosynē and apragmosynē in Athenian political life. In other words, Plato's 84 Diog. 69,73,[78][79][80][81][82]3.9,[18][19][20][21][22][23]25,[29][30]34,36;esp. 7     analogous application of these dichotomies makes clear that he associates bios praktikos (politikos) with polypragmosynē and rhetoric, and that, in his opinion, this path ultimately leads to the bios tyrannikos. polypragmosynē/polypragmōn (politically active) apragmosynē/apragmōn (politically inactive) rhetoric (simulacrum of true politics) philosophy (true politics) bios praktikos/politikos (traditional politics) bios theōretikos/idiōtikos (philosophy) bios tyrannikos bios philosophikos (philosopher-king) It follows that, by rejecting tyrannical life, Plato also utterly repudiates the traditional way of doing politics and makes rhetoric (embodied by Isocrates' teacher Gorgias) coresponsible for the appearance of individuals such as Callicles. 92 It seems quite logical to assume that Isocrates would regard this as a direct affront to his concept of education, and even more so because, by discussing the (im)possibility of re-educating the tyrannical man, Plato addresses the question of the correct education of young, ambitious individuals.
In the fourth century, Isocrates wielded especially powerful influence with respect to the Mirror of Tyrants and the encomium. He wrote his three Mirrors of Tyrants (To Nicocles, Nicocles or the Cyprians, and Evagoras) around 370. 93 The brief period it took him to write all three may be a good indicator of the attention the genre recieved at the time. 94 Again, this might have prompted Xenophon to consider it desirable or even necessary to write the Hiero in addition to the Cyropaedia.
For when men are in private life (idiōtai), many things contribute to their education: first and foremost, the absence of luxury among them, and the necessity they are under to take thought each day for their livelihood; next, the laws by which in each case their civic life is governed; furthermore, freedom of speech and the privilege which is openly granted to friends to rebuke and to enemies to attack each other's faults; besides, a number of the poets of earlier times have left precepts (hypothēkai) which direct them how to live; so that, from all these influences, they may reasonably be expected to become better men. Kings (tyrannoi), however, have no such help; on the contrary, they, who more than other men should be thoroughly trained, live all their lives, from the time when they are placed in authority, without admonition; for the great majority of people do not come in contact with them, and those who are of their society consort with them to gain their favor. Indeed, although they are placed in authority over vast wealth and mighty affairs, they have brought it about because of their misuse of these advantages that many debate whether it were best to choose the life (bios) men in private station (idiōteuontes) who are reasonably prosperous, or the life of princes (tyranneuontes). For when men look at their honors, their wealth, and their powers, they all think that those who are in the position of kings are the equals of the gods; but when they reflect on their fears and their dangers, and when, as they review the history of monarchs, they see instances where they have been slain by those from whom they least deserved that fate, other instances where they have been constrained to sin against those nearest and dearest to them, and still others where they have experienced both of these calamities, then they reverse their judgement and conclude that it is better to live in any fashion whatsoever than, at the price of such misfortunes, to rule over all Asia. And the cause of this inconsistency and confusion is that men believe that the office of king is, like that of priest, one which any man can fill, whereas it is the most important of human functions and demands the greatest wisdom. Now as to each particular course of action, it is the business of those who are at the time associated with a king to advise him how he may handle it in the best way possible, and how he may both preserve what is good and prevent disaster; but as regards a king's conduct in general, I shall attempt to set forth the objects at which he should aim and the pursuits to which he should devote himself. This passage twice emphasises the benefits of bios idiōtikos over bios tyrannikos, only to demonstrate that this view may not necessarily be correct. The first advantage of the life of a private citizen is that there are many circumstances which contribute to his correct education (the absence of luxury, laws, freedom of speech, precepts of poets etc.). Tyrants, however, suffer from a lack of adequate education and honest communication. 97 The second advantage is that tyrannical rule only appears attractive because it inevitably entails many dangers and fears. However, the correct education by means of the Mirror of Tyrants can make up for both disadvantages of the bios tyrannikos. This idea has far-reaching implications, because if it is 97 See Eucken 1983: 218-219 (with parallels to Plato). possible to eliminate the deficiencies of tyrannical life, then Plato's argument that the traditional way of conducting politics is doomed to fail loses its validity. It is therefore not surprising that several scholars have pointed out that Isocrates' passage on the ambivalence of the many in respect to bios tyrannikos echoes Socrates' and Polus' discussion in the Gorgias as to whether the life of the unjust man (tyrannos/rhētōr) is better and happier than the life of the just (idiōtes/philosophos). This debate, in turn, announces the argument between Socrates and Callicles on whether bios praktikos or bios theōrētikos is preferable. 98 The famous orator advises the young ruler to associate himself with renowned poets and sages. 99 Isocrates says that poets have given precepts for the common people (idiōtai) concerning how one should live, but they have neglected to lay down such principles for tyrants. 100 He admits that many of his counsels and proposals have been voiced earlier. He also points out that all people consider the most useful works of poetry and prose to be those that advise us on how to live. However, in spite of how much they stand to gain by them, the people do not like to listen to moral precepts. Hesiod, Theognis and Phocylides are said to have been the best counsellors on human conduct, but the people still prefer trifles to instructions (hypothēkai). And if someone were to compose a selection of the finest maxims (hai kaloumenai gnōmai) from the leading poets, even then the people would rather read the cheapest comedy. 101 It is human nature to prefer what is pleasing to that which is useful. Therefore, the majority would rather listen to fiction than to the most profitable advice. For these reasons, we should admire Homer and the first inventors of tragedy, because, by merging myth and useful advice, they succeeded in getting people to listen to them. 102 In To Nicocles, Isocrates advises the tyrant to overcome the dichotomy publicprivate, as all his subjects' estates (in the end) belong to the ruler, and therefore he needs to take good care of them: 103 φυλακὴν ἀσφαλεστάτην ἡγοῦ τοῦ σώματος εἶναι τήν τε τῶν φίλων ἀρετὴν καὶ τὴν τῶν πολιτῶν εὔνοιαν καὶ τὴν σαυτοῦ φρόνησιν· διὰ γὰρ τούτων καὶ κτᾶσθαι καὶ σώζειν τὰς τυραννίδας μάλιστ᾽ ἄν τις δύναιτο. κήδου τῶν οἴκων τῶν πολιτικῶν, καὶ νόμιζε καὶ τοὺς δαπανῶντας ἀπὸ τῶν σῶν ἀναλίσκειν καὶ τοὺς ἐργαζομένους τὰ σὰ πλείω ποιεῖν· ἅπαντα γὰρ τὰ τῶν οἰκούντων τὴν πόλιν οἰκεῖα τῶν καλῶς βασιλευόντων ἐστί.
Believe that your staunchest body-guard lies in the virtue of your friends, the loyalty of your citizens and your own wisdom (phronēsis); for it is through these that one can best acquire as well as keep the powers of royalty. Watch over the estates of your citizens, and consider that the spenders are paying from your pocket, and the workers are adding to your wealth; for all the property of those who live in the state belongs to kings who rule them well.

98
In Nicocles or the Cyprians, Isocrates says that a major difference between a monarchy and other forms of government is that in the latter, men who enter office for an annual term retire to private life at the end of their term in office. It would then follow that only the tyrant is a true homo politicus, since his "term" is not time-limited. Thus in his case alone the antithesis public -private does not apply, because only monarchs understand the common good (koinon) as their own (idion), and not anyone else's (allotrion) concern. 104 Isocrates in his encomium takes Dionysius the Elder and the Persian Emperor as an example of how autocrats can raise their countries to great power through war. 105 In Evagoras, Isocrates points out some other important features of the Mirror of Tyrants. Again, the conceptual pair idiōtēs -tyrannos takes on an important role. At the beginning of the encomium, Isocrates tells how the ruler of Salamina gave signs of his exceptional nature from an early age, so that everyone believed he would not spend his life as an idiōtēs. The kings of that time rightly feared him, and Evagoras ultimately did indeed achieve the position of a tyrant: 106 παῖς μὲν γὰρ ὢν ἔσχε κάλλος καὶ ῥώμην καὶ σωφροσύνην, ἅπερ τῶν ἀγαθῶν πρεπωδέστατα τοῖς τηλικούτοις ἐστίν. καὶ τούτων μάρτυρας ἄν τις ποιήσαιτο, τῆς μὲν σωφροσύνης τοὺς συμπαιδευθέντας τῶν πολιτῶν, τοῦ δὲ κάλλους ἅπαντας τοὺς ἰδόντας, τῆς δὲ ῥώμης ἅπαντας τοὺς ἀγῶνας ἐν οἷς ἐκεῖνος τῶν ἡλικιωτῶν ἐκρατίστευσεν. ἀνδρὶ δὲ γενομένῳ ταῦτά τε πάντα συνηυξήθη καὶ πρὸς τούτοις ἀνδρία προσεγένετο καὶ σοφία καὶ δικαιοσύνη, καὶ ταῦτ᾽ οὐ μέσως οὐδ᾽ ὥσπερ ἑτέροις τισίν, ἀλλ᾽ ἕκαστον αὐτῶν εἰς ὑπερβολήν· τοσοῦτον γὰρ καὶ ταῖς τοῦ σώματος καὶ ταῖς τῆς ψυχῆς ἀρεταῖς διήνεγκεν, ὥσθ᾽ ὁπότε μὲν αὐτὸν ὁρῷεν οἱ τότε βασιλεύοντες, ἐκπλήττεσθαι καὶ φοβεῖσθαι περὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς, ἡγουμένους οὐχ οἷόν τ᾽ εἶναι τὸν τοιοῦτον τὴν φύσιν ἐν ἰδιώτου μέρει διαγαγεῖν, ὁπότε δ᾽ εἰς τοὺς τρόπους ἀποβλέψειαν, οὕτω σφόδρα πιστεύειν, ὥστ᾽ εἰ καί τις ἄλλος τολμῴη περὶ αὐτοὺς ἐξαμαρτάνειν, νομίζειν Εὐαγόραν αὑτοῖς ἔσεσθαι βοηθόν. καὶ τοσοῦτον τῆς δόξης παραλλαττούσης οὐδετέρου τούτων ἐψεύσθησαν· οὔτε γὰρ ἰδιώτης ὢν διετέλεσεν οὔτε περὶ ἐκείνους ἐξήμαρτεν, […] When Evagoras was a boy he possessed beauty, bodily strength, and modesty (sōphrosynē), the very qualities that are most becoming to that age. Witnesses could be produced for these assertions: for his modesty-fellow-citizens who were educated with him: for his beauty-all who beheld him: for his strength-all the contests1 in which he vanquished his age-mates. When he attained to manhood not only did all these qualities grow up with him, but to them were also added manly courage, wisdom (sophia), and justice (dikaiosynē), and that too in no ordinary measure, as is the case with some others, but each of these characteristics in extraordinary degree. So surpassing was his excellence of both body and mind, that when the kings of that time looked upon him they were terrified and feared for their throne, thinking that a man of such nature could not possibly pass his life in the status of a private citizen (idiōtēs), but whenever they observed his character, they felt such confidence in him that they believed that even if anyone else should dare to injure them, Evagoras would be their champion. And although opinions of him were so at variance, they were mistaken in neither respect: for he neither remained in private life (idiōtēs), nor did them injury: […] In this encomium it is also said that eulogies should praise contemporary figures. Isocrates explains the reason why this was not the case up until then by the human tendency to envy contemporaries. This envy demanded that the subject of praise should be heroic deeds dating from the Trojan War or even earlier. 107 The unspoken reason is, presumably, Isocrates' intention to dissociate the Mirror of Tyrants from democratic political imagery. It often used mythical kings as a mouthpiece for pro-democratic views and as a means to discuss the unity of the city and the position of great men in public life. 108 This is substantiated by the fact that Isocrates uses the figure of the mythical king Theseus, but only in order to create a model for the Athenian demos to imitate. Isocrates' Theseus exercised supreme rule (tyrannein), but as a good, popular leader and not through the coercion typical of autocrats. He was even willing to hand over power to the Athenian people. 109 Isocrates refers to Evagoras as basileus, monarchos, tyrannos, dynastēs, archōn and even politikos. The simultaneous use of these terms, and that they also apply when referring to Nicocles, indicates that their use as synonyms must be intentional. 110 The purpose is to transform the negative term tyranny into a positive one. In this way it is suggested that absolute power need not always corrupt absolutely. Isocrates goes even so far as to use tyranny as an umbrella term that encompasses important notions of good rulership. He notes that Evagoras possessed all the qualities of a king (basileus), he was democratic (dēmotikos) in his service to the people, statesmanlike (politikos) in his administration of the city as a whole, an able general (stratēgikos) in his counsel in the face of danger, and princely (tyrannikos) in his superiority in all these qualities. 111 Isocrates' usage of the word tyranny to show that it is possible to exercise supreme rule without yielding to the temptation to abuse it, is even more visible in the Helen. In this encomium, which was never intended to be a Mirror of Tyrants, Isocrates emphasises that Theseus did not oppress and enslave his fellow citizens. The mythical king did not strive (zēloûn) for such a life in spite of its external blessings, because he was cognisant that the inner being of such rulers is miserable and full of fear. At the same time, Isocrates explicitly says that Theseus ruled as a monarch, tyrant and good leader of the people (dēmagōgos), and he disputes the idea that those who rule by force can be called archontes. 112 The famous orator also emphasises in Evagoras that, before him, encomia were not written in prose. The reason was that poets enjoyed a considerable advantage over prose writers due to the diverse figures of style at their disposal (poetic licence, fiction, metre, rhythm etc.). He therefore had an understanding of those who engage in philosophy and write on numerous subjects but do not compose encomiums: 113 οἶδα μὲν οὖν ὅτι χαλεπόν ἐστιν ὃ μέλλω ποιεῖν, ἀνδρὸς ἀρετὴν διὰ λόγων ἐγκωμιάζειν. σημεῖον δὲ μέγιστον· περὶ μὲν γὰρ ἄλλων πολλῶν καὶ παντοδαπῶν λέγειν τολμῶσιν οἱ περὶ τὴν φιλοσοφίαν ὄντες, περὶ δὲ τῶν τοιούτων οὐδεὶς πώποτ᾽ αὐτῶν συγγράφειν ἐπεχείρησεν. καὶ πολλὴν αὐτοῖς ἔχω συγγνώμην. τοῖς μὲν γὰρ ποιηταῖς πολλοὶ δέδονται κόσμοι· [...] I am fully aware that what I propose to do is difficult-to eulogize (enkōmiazein) in prose the virtues of a man. The best proof is this: Those who devote themselves to philosophy (philosophia) venture to speak on many subjects of every kind, but no one of them has ever attempted to compose a discourse (syngraphein) on such a theme. And I can make much allowance for them. For to the poets is granted the use of many embellishments of language, [...] One of the chief reasons why Isocrates dedicated his work to the ruler of Salamina is because he acquired his throne through his own strength rather than through inheritance. The famous orator then cites Cyrus the Great as a historical figure who, in fact, existed and usually elicits the greatest admiration. While the first fact is not in dispute, the second one is since, according to Isocrates, Evagoras has in all respects surpassed the founder of the Persian Empire: 114 ἀλλὰ μὴν τῶν γ᾽ ἐπὶ τάδε γεγενημένων, ἴσως δὲ καὶ τῶν ἁπάντων, Κῦρον τὸν Μήδων μὲν ἀφελόμενον τὴν ἀρχήν, Πέρσαις δὲ κτησάμενον, καὶ πλεῖστοι καὶ μάλιστα θαυμάζουσιν. ἀλλ᾽ ὁ μὲν τῷ Περσῶν στρατοπέδῳ τὸ Μήδων ἐνίκησεν, ὃ πολλοὶ καὶ τῶν Ἑλλήνων καὶ τῶν βαρβάρων ῥᾳδίως ἂν ποιήσειαν· ὁ δὲ διὰ τῆς ψυχῆς τῆς αὑτοῦ καὶ τοῦ σώματος τὰ πλεῖστα φαίνεται τῶν προειρημένων διαπραξάμενος.
Nay, of those who lived later, perhaps indeed of all, the one hero who was most admired by the greatest number was Cyrus, who deprived the Medes of their kingdom and gained it for the Persians. But while Cyrus with a Persian army conquered the Medes, a deed which many a Greek or a barbarian could easily do, Evagoras manifestly accomplished the greater part of the deeds which have been mentioned through strength of his own mind and body.
Finally, Isocrates' Euagoras shows a different approach to the historical context than Ad Nicoclem and Nicocles. The latter contain only a rudimentary outline of the historical background, so the deliberation on the ideal ruler seems more abstract. In Evagoras the historical figure and his achievements are far more tangible but do not diminish the paradigmatic nature of the reflections it presents. 115 Isocrates' opinions, as cited in To Nicocles, Nicocles or the Cyprians and Evagoras, allow for several conclusions. The contrast bios idiōtikos -bios tyrannikos in Isocrates' Mirror of Tyrants has, as already noted, an undoubtedly Platonic background. But Isocrates gives a response diametrically opposed to this controversy. To Nicocles deliberately accentuates the downsides of bios tyrannikos in order to extol the benefit the Mirror of Tyrants brings to the ruler (reader). The possibility of (re-)educating the tyrant is also implied by Isocrates' intentional use of different terms to denote the power of the ruler of Salamis, as it indicates that absolute power need not necessarily corrupt absolutely. The fact that the tyrant can actually be taught highlights not only the paradigmatic quality of this idealized bios tyrannikos, but also the belief that all the shortcomings of the traditional way of doing politics can be remedied. Moreover, Isocrates' tyrant is obviously willing to embrace philosophy. However, Isocrates' vision of philosophy is in many aspects the inverse of Plato's. 116 The conclusion that Isocrates implicitly establishes a tyrantphilosopher paradigm as a contrast to Plato's philosopher-king concept is therefore not entirely unfounded. 117 To Nicocles also shows an affinity between the encomium and the poetic tradition of dispensing advice on how life should be lived. The use of the terms hypothēkai and gnōmai clearly indicate that he understands this tradition as being close to wisdom literature.
However, the establishment of a connection between his work, poetry and wisdom literature does not prevent Isocrates from saying that the Mirror of Tyrants is still a new literary genre. Its primary novelty is not that it is written in prose, although this too is significant, but that it advises rulers (tyrannos / monarchos / dynastēs) rather than private persons (idiōtai). Isocrates also points out that success in dispensing advice does not depend merely on the degree of its usefulness, but also on whether it has been delivered in an interesting manner. This work shows that a good ruler should not make a distinction between his own estate and the property of the citizens, or in other words, he should not succumb to the dichotomy public -private. In Nicocles or the Cyprians Isocrates explains that the conceptual pair tyrannos -idiōtēs is akin to the distinction between political and apolitical, and that a connection exists with the publicprivate dichotomy. By remarking in Evagoras that those who devote themselves to philosophy have written on many subjects but failed to compose encomiums, Isocrates not only criticizes those philosophers (presumably Plato), but also makes clear that this type of writing should be categorized as philosophical. Isocrates emphasises in the same work that one of the central features of the Mirror of Tyrants should be the celebration of contemporary figures. The comparison of Evagoras with Cyrus the Great shows that the notion of contemporary does not have to be taken in the narrowest sense, but covers any figure who does not spring from the distant past or mythical tradition. 118 The same comparison shows that Cyrus the Great was included in the circle of personalities addressed by the Mirror of Tyrants genre, and the choice of the Great King as a subject of praise was not entirely advantageous. It should also be pointed out that both To Nicocles and Evagoras say that the majority of people perceived tyrannical power to be godlike and as the greatest and most perfect happiness. 119 This shows that the Mirror of Tyrants as a genre adopted the subject of a tyrant's extreme happiness not only from Athenian political experience but also from wisdom literature. Finally, Isocrates' writings make clear that the visibility of the historical context is not fixed. The author can give it a more prominent role in one Mirror of Tyrants, only to put it aside in another.
Even a cursory reading tells us that Xenophon's Hiero matches all the features of the Mirror of Tyrants in Isocrates: it is a work of prose; the idiōtēs -tyrannos distinction plays a key part; the first part of the dialogue emphasises the disadvantages of the tyrannical life, only to show in the second part how to overcome them; the tyrant is a contemporary figure; there is a link with poetry through the character of Simonides, and depicting the poet as sophos anēr connects it to the wisdom tradition; useful advice is wrapped in an intriguing scenario (a dialogue between a famous tyrant and a celebrated poet); and the topic is that of the tyrant's exceptional happiness. Xenophon's Hiero is also a complete homo politicus, chiefly reflected in his inability to ever again become an idiōtēs, and because every aspect of his life is marked by the fact that he is a tyrant. 120 The keynote of Simonides's advice to Hiero in the second half of the dialogue on how to avoid the negative features of tyranny is to overcome the public -private dichotomy and to be concerned with the common good, not as if it belonged to someone else, but as if it were his own. 121 The possibility of transforming the tyrant is also indicated through the terminology referring to the ruler. The Cyropaedia is arranged around historical events, while in the Hiero, the historical context is almost completely sidelined.
Apart from Nicocles and Evagoras, Isocrates mentions only two autocratic rulers by name in his Mirrors of Tyrants: Cyrus the Great and Dionysius the Elder, which shows the powerful attraction both rulers held, directly or indirectly, for writers of this genre. It may be one of the reasons why Xenophon chose to write a Mirror of Tyrants with Cyrus the Great as his principle hero. Furthermore, it is worth recalling that Isocrates wrote a letter to Dionysius I. In the surviving prooemium, Isocrates explicitly states that credence cannot be given to the claim that the master of Syracuse honours only flatterers and despises those who offer him advice. The allegation was made by certain persons associated with Dionysius the Elder. Unlike them, Isocrates is convinced that Dionysius' judgement (gnōmē) and action (praxis) reveal the spirit (dianoia) of a learner, a listener and a discoverer. 122 Unfortunately, we have no detailed information on the nature of his advice to Dionysius the Elder, but it seems to have had a Panhellenic tenor. 123 There is, however, a more subtle alternative to Isocrates' approach, especially if there is no need to explicitly address specific and current political issues such as Panhellenism.
Despite being the most powerful Greek of his age, Dionysius the Elder was infamous even during his lifetime. 124 This contradiction, however, might have favoured the selection of some other successful but less infamous tyrant of Syracuse for the main dramatis persona. Indeed, it makes sense to take Hiero as a tacit counterexample to Dionysius the Elder. Although he introduced a sterner regime than his elder brother Gelon, Hiero was never included among the more notorious tyrants such as Phalaris or Dionysius I. 125 There were telling circumstances in his favour. He took part in the victory over the Carthaginians at Himera (480) and defeated the Etruscans in the naval battle at Cumae (474). Very soon, both victories came to be equated with those of Plataea and Salamis. 126 Gelon and Hiero undoubtedly worked hard at presenting themselves and their success in the best possible light and in Panhellenic dimensions, with the younger brother doing his utmost to push the elder into the background. 127 The Deinomenids gathered numerous poets and intellectuals to their court, but Hiero surpassed all other members of the ruling house. 128 His guests were the greatest poets of the age: Simonides, Pindar, Bacchylides, Aeschylus, and Epicharmus, 129 who contributed greatly to creating and disseminating his image not only as a rich and powerful tyrant, but also as an ideal ruler and patron. 130 The net result was that both contemporaries and later generations tended to view him in a generally favourable light (for a tyrant, that is).
It is also possible that Xenophon's choice of Hiero as dramatis persona was influenced by epinician poetry. 131 One of the most significant pieces of advice from Simonides to Hiero is that the breeders of chariot horses and competitors in chariot races should be drawn from the whole city, because this would bring the ruler the greatest fame and the willing obedience of his subjects. 132 Although the historical Hiero never behaved in this manner, the historical context of his rule is probably most palpable in this advice.
Pindar and Simonides undoubtedly belonged to different generations. Nonetheless, Pindar's poetic memorialisation of Hiero's successes coincides with the years when he, Simonides and Bacchylides were the main exponents of praise poetry in the Greek world. Pindar was the most renowned representative of epinician poetry; Simonides, however, was reputed to be the one who invented the genre. 133 Pindar's poems survived and enjoyed fame, while in Simonides' case the memory of his personality outshone his work. 134 Since the latter's epinicians survive only in fragments, an alternative is to take a closer look at the Boeotian poet's victory odes.
There are signs of a link between Pindar's poetry and the Mirror of Tyrants. Pindar, as observed by Leslie Kurke, has "adapted the subject matter and conventions of hypothēkai to the genre of epinician." 135 Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff noted that Pindar anticipated the peri basileias literature in his advice in Pythian Ode 1 that was dedicated to Hiero. 136 Werner Jaeger remarks that, "The eulogy on Evagoras is a prose parallel to the Pindaric encomium-as is shown by Isocrates' deliberate introduction of the old name, encomium". 137 Other scholars did not restrict themselves to general observations and presented strong arguments that Pindar's odes to Hiero influenced Isocrates's Mirror of Tyrants. 138 William H. Race went furthest in this respect. He observed the overlapping of structure (a eulogy of a father framed by addresses to the son), themes (the advantages of earlier writers, the difficulty of praising contemporaries, the problems of phthonos, the superiority of poems over statues) and intention (exhortation to the next generation to maintain the high standards of their fathers' achievements). 139 If correspondences indeed exist, then we may well ask why Isocrates did not want his Mirrors of Tyrants to be linked to Pindar. In To Nicocles, he cites Homer, Hesiod, Theognis, Phocylides and the first inventors of tragedy as representatives of didactic poetry but conspicuously omits Pindar. 140 In his entire opus, Isocrates mentions Pindar only once, in Antidosis 166, and then as a rival who has undeservedly outshone him. While Pindar was richly rewarded for a single line praising Athens, Isocrates' native city behaved shabbily towards him, though he eulogized (enkōmiazein) it much more amply and nobly. 141 At the beginning of the To Nicocles, Isocrates tries to introduce his Mirror of Tyrants as a new genre, not only because it is written in prose, but also because it addresses rulers rather than private persons. However, as the dialogue develops, the famous orator admits that many of his counsels and proposals have been uttered earlier. 142 This inconsistency indicates that Isocrates was aware that the Mirror of Tyrants was not a total novelty. In view of this, the conspicuous avoidance of Pindar's name was meant to forestall the possibility of an annoying rival once more overshadowing Isocrates' achievements. It is possible that Xenophon was aware of all this. If so, in choosing Hiero he wished to show that his Mirror of Tyrants did not blindly follow Isocrates but instead harkened back to an older tradition. The implicit invocation of Pindar's authority has an added advantage in that it further substantiates Xenophon's position in relation to Plato, since the latter admired Pindar and liked to recite his verses. 143 In his odes, Pindar often resorts to expressions and ideas familiar to the typology of tyrants and the Mirror of Tyrants, and thus portrays a model of a just ruler.
In Olympian 1, Pindar sings of wise poets arriving at Hiero's blessed hearth (makaira hestia) and that, like a good shepherd, he wields his sceptre in Sicily of many flocks. 144 In Pythian 1, Pindar advises Hiero not to heed the citizens' envy (phthonos) of his fine deeds, since they perceive them as the successes of others (esloisin allotriois), but to steer his men with the rudder of justice. There are many witnesses of both good and bad; if someone wants to enjoy a good reputation then let him be generous (towards the poets) and like a helmsman, set his sail to the wind and not allow himself to be deceived by glib profit seeking (kerdos). 145 The poet in Pythian 2 tells his patron that he can display his success with a liberal spirit (eleuthera phrēn), as he is rich in possessions and in wisdom. 146 The poet further emphasises that Hiero's judgments are mature, and they allow him to praise the lord of Syracuse with a riskless utterance on every account. 147 Pindar calls on Hiero to learn what kind of man he is and to show himself to be so, to not fall for the schemes of insincere flatterers and deceitful citizens, and to exercise caution towards profit dishonestly acquired. 148 A feature of Pythian 2, which is important for Greek political thought, is that it contains the earliest tripartite classification into the government of one, of the few, and of the many. Pindar clearly holds that the personal qualities of the individual are more important than the characteristics of the constitution. His standpoint is that the straight-talking man excels in every form of government; at the same time, he avoids any ranking of the three types of rule. 149 In the closing verses of Pythian 2, the poet says that, although human fate is in the hands of the god who now raises a man up and then again gives great glory (mega kydos) to others, this does not heal the mind of the envious (phthoneroi). Therefore, it is best to bear this yoke lightly and to keep the company of good men (agathoi). 150 In Pythian 3, Pindar says that Hiero holds sway like a king (basileus) in Syracuse, is gentle with the citizens, does not envy the good (agathoi) and is a marvellous father to strangers. 151 He is not merely a tyrant (tyrannos); he is a leader of the people (lagetas). 152 He is attended by good fortune (moir' eudaimonias), but at the same time, the poet warns him that a secure life was not granted to either Cadmus or Peleus, who of all mortals had enjoyed the greatest happiness (olbos). Hiero should know that, for every blessing, the immortals grant men grief two-fold. Fools cannot bear this with dignity, but good men (agathoi) can by turning their better side outward. 153 The verses from Pindar anticipate some key elements of the Mirror of Tyrants. The ruler's personality outweighs the type of government in importance. A positive image of the tyrant is expressed by comparing him with a shepherd and a helmsman; the parallel use of terms such as tyrannos, lagetas and basileus; and by pointing out his righteousness, wisdom and graciousness towards fellow citizens (both the multitude and the elite). A recurring theme is the inconstancy of the ruler's (human) happiness, which is in the lap of the gods. The poet calls on Hiero not to strive for dishonest gain, to suffer the blows of fate with grace and dignity, speak straightforwardly, quietly suffer the burden of other people's envy, associate with the agathoi and not to listen to flatterers and their slander, which can be understood as advice on the importance of moral conduct for a good and successful rule.
Pindar's odes dedicated to the ruler of Syracuse can help us understand Xenophon's Hiero in yet another aspect. The juxtaposition of positive and negative patterns of behaviour is one of the key methods by which Pindar praises the tyrant. While Croesus (kindly excellence and good reputation) and Pelops (eternal glory) serve as models for individuals and rulers who have sufficient self-knowledge to establish a good relationship with both gods and people, Tantalus (insatiable nature), Typhon (attempted to overthrow the divine order of things), Phalaris (burned men in a brazen bull), Ixion (ingratitude and disregard for the distance between gods and mortals), Coronis (unfaithful to a god and tried to deceive him) and Asclepius (longed for what is out of reach: immortal life) serve as counterexamples of individuals guided by unrestrained and deluded ambition. 154 By this quite simple method, Pindar succeeds in distancing the laudandus from all the negative features of a tyrant and associating him only with what is positive in human behaviour and that of a ruler. The best example of this approach is the use of Croesus as a positive paradigm in Pythian 1. 155 Herodotus and Xenophon demonstrate that the Lydian king usually served as a negative model in Greek literature. 156 Pindar, however, overcomes this obstacle by placing Croesus in opposition to the worst possible tyrant in the image of Phalaris. When compared with an autocrat who allegedly burned people alive in a bronze bull, all deficiencies of the Lydian king seem petty. Even though he does not compare Hiero with any other tyrant, Xenophon essentially uses the same method. With the aid of Simonides's mirroring of established opinion on tyranny and Hiero's criticism of it, Xenophon separates the Syracusan tyrant from all the negative features of tyrannical power; in the second part of the dialogue, by means of Simonides's advice on how to become a happy tyrant, he goes on to associate him with the positive characteristics of a good ruler.

The Principal Message of the Hiero
From what has been said so far, we see that the composition and message of the Hiero were influenced by wisdom literature, epinician poetry and the Mirror of Tyrants. The characterisation of Simonides as a wise man was also strongly influenced by Plato. His unfavourable opinion of the celebrated poet involves a noticeably clear rejection of key values in Xenophon's thought. However, the congruities between Xenophon and Plato do not end there.
The Hiero consists of two parts. In Part 1 (1-7), Simonides extols the blessings of tyranny, while Hiero claims that it is all an illusion and that a tyrant fares much worse in reality than the common man does. Having accepted this point of view, in the second part of the dialogue (8-11), Simonides explains what the other ought to do in order to rule to his own and the general satisfaction. The composition of the first part of the Hiero differs widely from the customary -the wise man praises tyranny and the tyrant condemns it. Moreover, in the course of the dialogue, the tyrant succeeds in demonstrating to the wise man that he is wrong. There is a simple explanation for these peculiarities. Simonides' lauding of the benefits of bios tyrannikos is easier to understand if we note that in several places he admits that it reflects the views of the masses, 157 so in the first part of the dialogue he is not so much presenting a personal viewpoint as repeating established opinion. Hiero's rebuttal of the theory of the tyrant's happiness is not a refutation of Simonides but rather of a common perception that tyrannical rule is a blessing for the potentate, because it brings him power, wealth, and pleasure. 158 That Hiero does not refute Simonides is important for yet another reason. Besides the fact that in Part 2 Simonides uses Socratic arguments, it directly challenges one of Plato's main points of critique. This concerns Socrates' deduction in Progatoras that Simonides did not eulogise tyrants voluntarily. He was compelled to, from which it follows that the poet was neither a sage nor a truly free man. 159 In this respect, it is no less significant for an understanding of the Hiero that Simonides' praise of autocratic rule coincides with Polus's glorification of tyranny in the Gorgias. Here, again, Plato emphasises that this is based on common belief. 160 Plato's Socrates reveals that conventional opinion on the tyrant's happiness is nothing other than a misconception. 161 Two other circumstances indicate that Xenophon had the Gorgias in mind when he wrote. First, Hiero uses Socratic argument to reject the illusory notion of a happy tyrant. 162 Secondly, in a context that discards this widely held opinion, it is stated in the Hiero that because of this impression that tyrants are happy, many yearn (epithymein) for tyrannical power and envy (zēloûn) the tyrant. 163 Envy, however, is a predominantly negative feeling and does not necessarily imply a profound desire for its object. The importance of this difference may be perceived in Isocrates's use of phthonos and zēloûn in Evagoras. He applies the first term when he says that, out of sheer envy, no writer so far had praised his 157 Xen. Hier. 1.9, 16-17;2.3-5;cf. Gray 2007: 36-37, 109, 112-113, 120. 158 Gray (1986: 115): "The identification of Simonides as a wise man who nevertheless seeks wisdom from others establishes his Socratic nature from the start. [...] Simonides uses the typical Socratic manner, 'thinking' and 'supposing' things are as he describes them. But the main Socratic feature is Simonides' irony."; cf. also 116-117, 120;Id. 2007: 34, 36;Schorn 2008: 188-193;Zuolo 2018: 567, 575. 163 Xen. Hier. 1.9. contemporaries; he uses the second to show that his praise of Evagoras is meant to encourage others to imitate this ruler. 164 The fact that zēloûn appears in Hiero in conjunction with epithymein, a term which is clearly positive towards the object of the feeling, shows that zēloûn cannot be translated as merely a feeling of envy, and that the emotion subsumes other meanings (to emulate, strive towards, look up to). For this reason, Xenophon also used the verb phthonein, rather than zēloûn, when he speaks of negative envy of the tyrant's happiness. 165 This versatile use of zēloûn in the Hiero fully matches the manner in which it is used by Polus and Socrates in the Gorgias. 166 We should bear in mind that Simonides also says that the most capable yearn for tyranny, a thought which would certainly have been more than acceptable to Callicles. 167 In addition to these similarities between the first part of the Hiero and Plato, there are others that are no less important. Frequently in the sources, and simultaneously with the celebration of the tyrant's happiness, reference is made to its transience, thus accentuating its illusory nature. 168 When Hiero points out the mere semblance of the tyrant's happiness, this does not depart from the traditional typology of tyrants. In one respect, however, it diverges, and this can be explained by Plato's influence. According to Hiero, every aspect of the tyrant's life and activity is determined by his position. Part 1, almost two-thirds of the entire dialogue, includes examples from all spheres of the bios tyrannikos (freedom of movement, bodily pleasures, love, respect for others, family, friendship, everyday joys, sleep, personal safety etc.). These show how he only seemingly possesses great power, for it is precisely this power which prevents him from achieving what is truly good for him. 169 Whatever he does, the tyrant will always act to his own detriment. He only appears to have complete freedom of action, because he does not enjoy true freedom of will. Compulsion (anankē) rules his life and he is forced to act unjustly. 170 The complete loss of control over every area of his life is expressed in Hiero's sentence that the tyrant spends his days and nights like someone whom all men have condemned to death. The way out is not a return to the life of a private person, as this is impossible -once a tyrant, always a tyrant. 171 If there is any doubt left that Hiero is referring to anything other than absolute loss of freedom of will, it is dispelled by his conclusion that tyranny is a great evil from which the only real escape is suicide: 172 καὶ ἔγωγε τὸν μὲν οὕτω τιμώμενον μακαρίζω· αἰσθάνομαι γὰρ αὐτὸν οὐκ ἐπιβουλευόμενον ἀλλὰ φροντιζόμενον μή τι πάθῃ καὶ ἀφόβως καὶ ἀνεπιφθόνως καὶ ἀκινδύνως καὶ εὐδαιμόνως τὸν βίον διάγοντα· ὁ δὲ τύραννος ὡς ὑπὸ πάντων ἀνθρώπων κατακεκριμένος δι᾽ ἀδικίαν ἀποθνῄσκειν, οὕτως, ὦ Σιμωνίδη, εὖ ἴσθι, καὶ νύκτα καὶ ἡμέραν διάγει. ἐπεὶ δὲ ταῦτα πάντα διήκουσεν ὁ Σιμωνίδης, Καὶ πῶς, ἔφη, ὦ Ἱέρων, εἰ οὕτως πονηρόν ἐστι τὸ τυραννεῖν καὶ τοῦτο σὺ ἔγνωκας, οὐκ ἀπαλλάττῃ οὕτω μεγάλου κακοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ οὔτε σὺ οὔτε ἄλλος μὲν δὴ οὐδεὶς πώποτε ἑκὼν εἶναι τυραννίδος ἀφεῖτο, ὅσπερ ἂν ἅπαξ κτήσαιτο; ὅτι, ἔφη, ὦ Σιμωνίδη, καὶ ταύτῃ ἀθλιώτατόν ἐστιν ἡ τυραννίς· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀπαλλαγῆναι δυνατὸν αὐτῆς ἐστι. πῶς γὰρ ἄν τίς ποτε ἐξαρκέσειε τύραννος ἢ χρήματα ἐκτίνων ὅσους ἀφείλετο ἢ δεσμοὺς ἀντιπάσχων ὅσους δὴ ἐδέσμευσεν, ἢ ὅσους κατέκανε πῶς ἂν ἱκανὰς ψυχὰς ἀντιπαράσχοιτο ἀποθανουμένας; ἀλλ᾽ εἴπερ τῳ ἄλλῳ, ὦ Σιμωνίδη, λυσιτελεῖ ἀπάγξασθαι, ἴσθι, ἔφη, ὅτι τυράννῳ ἔγωγε εὑρίσκω μάλιστα τοῦτο λυσιτελοῦν ποιῆσαι. μόνῳ γὰρ αὐτῷ οὔτε ἔχειν οὔτε καταθέσθαι τὰ κακὰ λυσιτελεῖ.
And, for myself, I count him a happy man (makarizein) who is honoured thus; for I perceive that, instead of being exposed to treason, he is an object of solicitude, lest harm befall him, and he lives his life unassailed by fear and malice and danger, and enjoys unbroken happiness (eudaimonōs). But what is the despot's (tyrannos) lot? I tell you, Simonides, he lives day and night like one condemned by the judgment of all men to die for his wickedness (adikia)." When Simonides had listened to all this he asked: "Pray, how comes it, Hiero, if despotism is a thing so vile (ponēros), and this is your verdict, that you do not rid yourself of so great an evil (megalos kakos), and that none other, for that matter, who has once acquired it, ever yet surrendered despotic power?" "Simonides," said he, "this is the crowning misery (athliōtatos) of despotic power (tyrannis), that it cannot even be got rid of. For how could any despot ever find means to repay in full all whom he has robbed, or himself serve all the terms of imprisonment that he has inflicted? Or how could he forfeit a life for every man whom he has put to death? Ah, Simonides," he cried, "if it profits any man to hang himself, know what my finding is: a despot has most to gain by it, since he alone can neither keep nor lay down his troubles with profit." The thought that a tyrant is actually a wretched man (athlios) who has lost all freedom of will is an important moment in Plato's condemnation of tyranny. 173 In the Gorgias, Plato's Socrates says that tyrants (rhetors, i.e politicians) are the least able to do what they really want, because even though they can kill or banish whomever they like and seize any property they wish, they do not do what is genuinely best for themselves. The very fact that, in this discussion, Socrates rejects Polus' idea that the power of the tyrant to kill whomever he wants or take the property he desires should be emulated (zēloûn) goes against any accidental coincidence with the Hiero: 174 Σωκράτης: φημὶ γάρ, ὦ Πῶλε, ἐγὼ καὶ τοὺς ῥήτορας καὶ τοὺς τυράννους δύνασθαι μὲν ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν σμικρότατον, ὥσπερ νυνδὴ ἔλεγον· οὐδὲν γὰρ ποιεῖν ὧν βούλονται ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν· ποιεῖν μέντοι ὅτι ἂν αὐτοῖς δόξῃ βέλτιστον εἶναι.
Socrates: I say, Polus, that both orators and tyrants have the least power in their cities, as I was saying just now. For they do just about nothing they want to, though they certainly do whatever they see most fit to do (dokein).
S. Now whenever people do things, do they do these intermediate things for the sake of good ones, or the good things for the sake of the intermediate ones? Polus: The intermediate things for the sake of the good ones, surely [...] S. And don't we also put a person to death, if we do, or banish him and confiscate his property because we suppose that doing these things is better for us than not doing them? [...] S. Since we're in agreement about that then, if a person who's a tyrant or an orator puts somebody to death or exiles him or confiscates his property because he supposes that doing so is better for himself when actually it's worse, this person, I take it, is doing what he sees fit, isn't he? P. Yes S. And is he also doing what he wants, if these things are actually bad? Why don't you answer? P. All right, I don't think he's doing what he wants. S. Can such a man possibly have great power in that city, if in fact having great power is, as you agree, something good? P. He cannot. S. So, what I was saying is true, when I said that it is possible for a man who does in his city what he sees fit not to have great power, nor to be doing what he wants. P. Really, Socrates! As if you wouldn't welcome being in a position to do what you see fit in the city, rather than not! As if you wouldn't be envious whenever you'd see anyone putting to death some person he saw fit, or confiscating his property or tying him up! S. Justly (dikaiōs), you mean, or unjustly (adikōs)? P. Whichever way he does it, isn't he to be emulated (zēlōtos) either way? S. Hush, Polus. P. What for? S. Because you're not supposed to emulate (zēloûn) the unenviable (azēlōtos) or the miserable (athlios). You're supposed to pity them S. Very well. Of two people, each of whom has something bad in either body or soul, which is the more miserable (athliōteros) one, the one who is treated and gets rid of the bad thing or the one who doesn't but keeps it? P. The one who isn't treated, it seems to me. S. Now, wasn't paying what's due getting rid of the worst thing there is, corruption (ponēria)? P. It was. S. Yes, because such justice makes people self-controlled, I take it, and more just. It proves to be a treatment against corruption. P. Yes. S. The happiest man (eudaimonestatos), then, is the one who doesn't have any badness (kakia) in his soul, now that this has been shown to be the most serious kind of badness. P. That's clear. S. And second, I suppose, is the man who gets rid of it. P. Evidently S. This is the man who gets lectured and lashed, the one who pays what is due. P. Yes. S. The man who keeps it, then, and who doesn't get rid of it, is the one whose life is the worst (kakista). P. Apparently. S. Isn't this actually the man who, although he commits the most serious crimes and uses methods that are most unjust, succeeds in avoiding being lectured and disciplined and paying his due, as Archelaus according to you, and the other tyrants, orators, and potentates have put themselves in a position to do? P. Evidently.
In the Republic, Plato emphasises that the tyrannical man is least likely to do what he wants; his soul is insatiate, full of disorder, repentance and fear. The only one who is even more wretched (athliōteros) than him is the tyrannical man who does not live a private life (bios idiōtikos) but succeeds in becoming an actual tyrant. 175 Such a state of mind entirely corresponds to the condition described by Xenophon's Hiero. 176 There are other considerable coincidences between Part 1 of Hiero and the description of tyrannical rule in the Republic. 177 If the correspondences are well founded, the question arises as to why Xenophon's Hiero would advocate the same point of view as Plato's Socrates, as this might lead to the assumption that Xenophon actually agrees with Plato's negative opinion of Simonides. 178 However, this is contradicted by two facts. The first, as was previously mentioned, is that when Simonides speaks of the happiness of tyrants, he is presenting a general belief rather than his own. The second is connected to Part 2 of Hiero. One of the main conclusions of Gorgias and the Republic is that tyrannical man cannot change. For this reason, Socrates, despite all his efforts, fails in getting through to Callicles. 179 Part 2 of Hiero, however, describes a completely different situation. The on-going dialogue between Simonides and Hiero shows that a tyrant can change and achieve a happy life by following the poet's instructions, which are in fact nothing other than Xenophon's own ideas. This is reflected in Xenophon's terminology. The word tyranny is omnipresent in Part 1. 180 Yet, in Part 2 it is used only in respect to Hiero or in the context of the traditional type of tyrannical rule. For the model of rule proposed by Simonides the neutral word ruler is used. 181 Thus, the purpose of Hiero's utter despair is not to conjure up the impossibility of a transformation for tyrannical man, but to be the introduction to it. 182 It is obvious that, when writing the Hiero, Xenophon was guided not only by the desire to cover the genres of the Mirror of Tyrants, the encomium, and wisdom literature in another way; the work also directly criticises Plato's thinking that tyrannical man is incapable of change, a position explicitly linked to the view that the philosopher (the true wise man) should renounce the world of traditional politics in order to pursue genuine politikē technē. 183 Thus, Xenophon's refutation of Plato's standpoint is not to be confused with an advocacy of tyrannical rule. If it is indeed possible to teach the unteachable and to remedy the deficiencies of the worst type of political rule, then despite all its shortcomings, the traditional way of doing politics is not obsolete, provided of course that the advice of the author of the Mirror of Tyrants is taken to heart. It also means that, in Xenophon's view, philosophy and politics are not two antipodes, as Plato believes.
In conclusion it can be said that Xenophon's Hiero is a truly sophisticated work. It combines elements of several genres while subtly but uncompromisingly criticising a rival political thinker. Both Xenophon and Isocrates composed Mirror of Tyrants writings in order to counter Plato's complete break with traditional politics. This circumstance reveals not only the importance of this rift for the emergence of this genre, but also that Plato's contemporaries were already well aware of its radical and far-reaching effect on political thought.