Hiero the Tyrant and Other Treatises (Penguin Classics) (11 page)

[1] Another quality of his that deserves mention is his charm. He had prestige and power and, as if that were not enough, a kingship that was not plotted against, but welcomed, yet no one ever found a trace of arrogance in him; instead, the traits even a casual observer would have noticed were affection and a desire to serve his friends.

[2] While he enjoyed taking part in playful conversations, he also took helping his friends seriously, whenever necessary. His optimism, good humour and constant geniality made people seek his company in large numbers, not just because they hoped to accomplish some business, but also because it was pleasant to spend time with him. Although he was the last person to boast, he was still tolerant of others praising themselves in his hearing, because he did not think they were doing themselves any harm and at the same time were setting themselves good goals to live up to.

[3] However, he could, if the occasion called for it, express himself with haughtiness as well, and this should also not go unrecorded. For instance, he once received from the Persian king a letter on the subject of forging links of hospitality and friendship between them. The letter was brought to him by the Persian who accompanied Callias of Sparta. Agesilaus, however, refused to accept it. He asked the Persian to tell
the king that there was no need for him to send him private letters, but that if he showed himself to be a true friend to Sparta and Greece, he would find no more wholehearted friend than Agesilaus. ‘However,’ he went on, ‘if we find out that he is plotting against us, he can send me all the letters he likes, but he should not imagine that he will have my friendship.’
¹
As far as I am concerned, it is another [4] point to Agesilaus’ credit that he snubbed the king’s offer of guest-friendship and preferred to win the approval of the Greeks.

Something else I applaud in Agesilaus is that he did not think rulers should pride themselves on their relative wealth or on having a greater number of subjects than the next ruler, but on being better people and on having better people under them.

Here is an example of his foresight which I find admirable. Bearing [5] in mind that the more satraps rebelled against the Persian king, the better it would be for Greece, he was not overcome either by the king’s bribes or his power, and refused to enter into formal ties of guest-friendship with him, to make sure that any satraps who wanted to rebel would trust him.

Who could fail to admire the fact that in contrast to the Persian [6] king (who believed that by acquiring a huge fortune he would gain control over the whole world, and so tried to amass all the gold, silver and precious objects in the world), the trappings of Agesilaus’ residence were such that he did not need any of these things. Anyone who finds [7] this hard to believe should look at the kind of house that was sufficient for Agesilaus, and in particular at the front doors. It would not be implausible to think that these were the very doors that Heracles’ descendant, Aristodemus, acquired and set up on his return home.
²
He should also look at the furnishings inside the house, if he can, reflect on the kind of feasts Agesilaus used to provide during sacrificial festivals and listen to the story of how his daughter used to travel down to Amyclae by public cart.
³
And so, because he fitted his [8] expenditure to his income in this way, he never had to do wrong for the sake of money. For all that it is held to be a fine thing to acquire strongholds which are invulnerable to enemy attacks, it is in my opinion far better to equip oneself with a mind that is invulnerable to money, pleasure and fear.
⁴

CHAPTER 9

[1] I shall now go on to explain the difference between his way of life and the boastful pretensions of the Persian king. First, while the Persian made himself seem special by rarely letting himself be seen, Agesilaus enjoyed being constantly in the public eye, because he thought that only offensive practices need be concealed, whereas a life dedicated [2] to noble pursuits gains in lustre from being out in the open. Second, while the Persian prided himself on being hard to approach, Agesilaus was happy to be approachable by anyone. Third, one of the Persian’s affectations was to be slow at conducting business, whereas it gave Agesilaus particular pleasure to grant petitioners’ requests as quickly as possible and send them on their way.
¹

[3] In the matter of personal comfort too it is worth observing how much more easy and simple it was to satisfy Agesilaus. People travelled the world hunting down drinks the Persian king would enjoy, while countless cooks contrived delicacies for him to eat, and the business of getting him to sleep was indescribably complicated. Agesilaus, however, was so hard-working that he was content to eat and drink whatever was accessible and available, and anywhere was good enough [4] for him to take his rest. Apart from the enjoyment he derived from these actual practices, it also made him happy to reflect that while he found his treats all around him, the Persian king patently had to draw his pleasures from the ends of the earth, just to live without distress. [5] It also gave him pleasure to observe that while he knew he could cope without suffering with the structure of things as devised by the gods, the Persian king had too feeble a temperament to endure heat and cold, and had to live like the most helpless of wild creatures, not like a true man.

[6] Here is another exploit of his which is, of course, admirable and impressive. He enhanced his own estate with the kinds of artefacts and possessions you might expect a man to own – that is, he kept a large number of hunting dogs and war-horses – but at the same time he also persuaded his sister Cynisca to breed a team of horses for chariot-racing and so, when she won a victory at the games, he proved
that to keep such a team is not a mark of manly virtue but merely of wealth.
²
And what about the nobility of the following view of his? It [7] was his opinion that his renown would not be increased in the slightest by a victory over ordinary citizens in a chariot-race; but if he won more loyalty from the community than anyone else, gained large numbers of friends of high quality throughout the world, outdid everyone in serving his fatherland and his comrades, and punished his adversaries, this, in his opinion, would make him a champion in the noblest and grandest contest there is,
³
and would earn him the best of reputations not only during his lifetime, but after his death as well.

So much for my tribute to Agesilaus. There is an essential difference [1] between these qualities of his and those of someone who, say, discovers a treasure trove and so increases his wealth, but not his capacity to manage an estate, or of someone who wins a victory thanks to an epidemic in the enemy camp, and so increases his success, but not his military expertise. Anyone who excels in endurance when the time for effort arrives, in bravery when courage is to be tested and in wisdom when there is a need for deliberation, may, it seems to me, fairly be regarded as a man of all-round virtue. The value of the [2] invention of the chalk line and ruler is that without them people could not give their productions straight edges; by analogy, Agesilaus’ virtue seems to me to set an excellent example for anyone who intends to try to acquire manly virtue. I mean, how could anyone become irreligious if he modelled himself on a god-fearing person? How could he become dishonest, violently lawless or weak-willed if he modelled himself on someone who was honest, restrained and his own master? For what was a source of pride for Agesilaus was the fact that he ruled himself rather than the fact that he ruled others; it was not guiding his subjects towards the enemy that made him feel proud, but guiding them towards virtue in all its forms.

It is true that my tribute to Agesilaus follows his death, but I would [3] not have this treatise regarded for that reason as a lament.
¹
It is in fact
a celebration of his life. After all, what I am saying about him now is no more than others used to say about him during his lifetime. Moreover, a life that brought fame and a death that arrived when it was due are hardly the proper subjects for lamentation. On the other hand, what could constitute more fitting themes for celebration than utterly glorious victories and outstandingly valuable achievements? [4] And it can scarcely be right to mourn a person who from childhood onwards longed passionately for fame and won more of it than any of his contemporaries, who was firmly resolved to gain high office and remained undefeated after becoming king, and who after living as long as any human being can expect died with an unblemished record as regards both those he led and those he fought.

[1] I want briefly to recapitulate the various aspects of his virtue, to make my tribute easier to remember.

Agesilaus was a scrupulous observer of sacred places even when they lay in enemy territory, because he thought it just as important to win the gods over to his side on enemy ground as it was in friendly territory.

He never did violence to anyone, even an enemy, who had taken refuge in the sanctuary of a god, because he considered it irrational to describe people who steal from temples as sacrilegious, and then to think that there is nothing irreligious about pulling a suppliant away from the altar where he has taken refuge.
¹

[2] He could constantly be heard to voice his opinion that the gods gain just as much pleasure from pious actions as they do from sanctified shrines.

Success did not make him disdain other people, but give thanks to the gods. He offered up more sacrifices when confident than prayers when hesitant.

He trained himself to respond to fear with a cheerful countenance and to be calm when successful.

[3] The friends he particularly welcomed were not the ones with the
most power, but the ones who were most wholehearted in their friendship.

He never thought the worse of a person for defending himself against injustice, but he did of failure to express gratitude for a favour.
²

He rejoiced to see those who sought base gain living in poverty, and he enjoyed enriching upright people, because he wanted to make it possible for honesty to be more rewarding than dishonesty.

It was his practice to be acquainted with all kinds of people, but to [4] be intimate only with the good.

He thought that praise or criticism gave him as much insight into the character of the speakers as it did into the people they were speaking about.

He did not blame people for being taken in by their friends, but he was very severely critical when they were tricked by their enemies; and he thought it clever to practise deception on a mistrustful person, but immoral to do so on a gullible person.

He appreciated being praised by people who were also prepared to [5] find fault with things they found displeasing, and he did not find honest bluntness offensive, but he was as wary of insincerity as of a trap.

He loathed malicious gossip even more than he hated theft, on the grounds that loss of friends is worse than loss of property.

He was tolerant of the mistakes of ordinary citizens, with their [6] limited consequences, but took the mistakes of rulers seriously, on the grounds that they could do far more damage.

In his opinion, manly virtue rather than idleness was appropriate for a king.

Although he received plenty of offers from people who would have [7] done the work for free, he refused to have a physical likeness of himself set up; however, he never stopped working on memorials of his character. He thought that physical likenesses were the province of sculptors, whereas memorials ofhis character were up to him alone, and added that whereas wealthy people might want to leave the first kind of memorial, virtuous people would want to leave the second kind.
³

His attitude towards money was generous as well as honest. The [8] difference, as he saw it, was that while an honest person was content
to leave other people’s money alone, a generous person also had to spend his own money to help others.

He was always in awe of the supernatural, since he believed that a good life is no guarantee of happiness, and that only those who have died a glorious death are happy.

[9] Unwitting neglect of virtue was bad enough, but in his opinion deliberate neglect of virtue was a worse calamity.

He had no desire to be famous for anything unless he had put in the relevant work.

He struck me as one of the few people who regard virtue not as something to be endured but as a comfort to be enjoyed. At any rate, praise gave him more pleasure than money.

The courage he displayed was invariably accompanied by good sense rather than foolish risks,
⁴
and he made a habit of putting his intelligence into practice rather than into theory.

[10] There was no one who was more easy-going with his friends, and no one who was more terrifying to his enemies either. While he could stand any amount of hard work, he was always delighted to give in to a comrade, though he preferred good deeds to physical good looks.

He combined the ability to control himself when things were going well with the ability to be resolute in times of danger.

[11] His cultivation of charm was implemented by his whole way of life rather than by flippancy, and his occasional haughtiness was supported by intelligence rather than insolence. At any rate, he despised arrogance and outdid unassuming people in humility. For instance, he took pride in the plainness of his own dress and the splendid equipment of his troops, in the modesty of his own needs and his generosity towards his friends.

[12] In addition, he was the most implacable of adversaries, but the most lenient of victors.

He was particularly mistrustful of his enemies’ ploys, but particularly amenable to his friends’ requests.

He combined constantly seeing to the safety of his own side with constantly making it his business to nullify the enemy’s plans.

[13] His relatives labelled him ‘a devoted family man’, his intimates ‘unswerving’, his clients ‘ever-mindful’; the oppressed called him their
‘champion’, and those who followed him into danger their ‘saviour, second only to the gods’.

He was the only person, as far as I know, ever to have proved that [14] while physical vigour may deteriorate with age, in good people mental strength is not subject to the ageing process.
⁵
At any rate, he never stopped aspiring to a high and noble reputation, as long as
^*
his body was capable of acting as a vehicle for his mental strength. And so was [15] there anyone who did not prove to be outshone in his youth by the elderly Agesilaus? Was there anyone who in his prime was as terrifying to his enemies as Agesilaus was when he was at the extremity of old age? Whose departure was a greater cause for rejoicing among the enemy than that of Agesilaus, despite the fact that he was an old man when he died? Who could compare with Agesilaus, even when he was on the verge of death, in raising the morale of the troops fighting alongside him? Was there any young man who was missed after his death more than Agesilaus, for all his age? His service to his fatherland [16] during his lifetime was so perfect that even after his death he was still a major benefactor of the state. And so he was brought back to his eternal dwelling-place, with memorials to his courage scattered throughout the world, and a royal tomb in his fatherland.
⁶