Strauss on Xenophon's Socrates Xenophon's Socratic Discourse: An ...

136 THE POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEWER
contrives to make the central one in his discussion of the first chapter
of the section) to the incompleteness of Ischomachos's enumeration
of the kinds of continence required of stewards, he says, "Perhaps
Xenophon merely indicates by this that something of importance is
consciously omitted by him but unconsciously omitted by
Ischomachos" (170). In other words, Ischomachos forgot about a
kind of continence that is necessary. In his discussion of the next
chapter, however, <strong>Strauss</strong> points out that the workers' possession of
continence of the omitted kind would make it more difficult to
secure their obedience, while he adds that the treatment of stewards
does not differ much from that of workers. Here then is the solution
to Ischomachos's omission, a solution which suggests that the omission
does him credit. Yet <strong>Strauss</strong> says merely, "Perhaps this explains
his silence in the preceding chapter on continence regarding the belly,"
the kind of continence in question (172-173).
Only in the context of the larger problem of the section do these
hints begin to make sense. If Socrates' inability to rule stems
ultimately from the unteachability of continence, that inability
would appear to have nothing to do with any difficulty Socrates
might have in dealing with Ischomachos and his kind: can not
Ischomachos be presumed to be a model of continence and
therefore, as far as that goes (cf. 176), of teachability with respect to
virtue. Or is this presumption precisely what <strong>Strauss</strong> wishes to call
into question? Is it perhaps characteristic of Ischomachos to forget to
some extent about continence? (cf. 193 n.2, on Socrates' relative
avoidance of mention of "the vine and its fruit," with 198 n.3 and
context. Regarding continence of the belly in particular, cf. VII.6
and, for <strong>Strauss</strong>'s understanding of this passage, 151.) The central
paragraph in <strong>Strauss</strong>'s discussion of the first chapter of the stewardship
section has one other theme in addition to continence: piety or
the gods. These themes seem to be linked in <strong>Strauss</strong>'s work on the
Oeconomicus as early as his treatment of Chapter I. Socrates, apparently
wishing to avoid an admission that piety is necessary to the
successful. management of the household, gives the impression that
he maintains that "possession of a household" knowledge of how to
increase it, and willingness to work hard and shrewdly to this effect
are the "complete conditions" for such success (98). In this context,
he identifies a sort of man, whom we would be likely to call incontinent
as a slave. <strong>Strauss</strong> renders his explanation as follows: "a man
who wishes to be rich and does not wish to work toward that end is
irrational; his thought is obscured by beings whose slave he is or who