Abstract
ABSTRACT Anger as a disvalue: Xenophon versus Homer The paper analyzes the attestations of ὀργή, ὀργίζομαι and χαλεπαίνω in the corpus of Xenophon and compares the concept of anger that emerges with that found in the Homeric poems, particularly the Iliad. In Xenophon, anger is generally to be rejected, as it impairs clear judgment, leads to relational conflicts, and results in serious errors. Anger is considered acceptable only in situations of extreme necessity – specifically, as a means to rouse and motivate soldiers to action. The framework within which Xenophon operates is that of the qualities required in a man who holds power. This reversal of Homeric ethics forms part of a broader search for new educational models, a pursuit shared by other slightly earlier or contemporary authors such as Thucydides, Isocrates, and Plato.