Agesilaus

And when the Corinthian exiles told him that the city was about to be surrendered to them and pointed to the engines with which they were confident of taking the walls, he would not make an assault, declaring that Greek cities ought not to be enslaved, but chastened. And if, he added, we are going to annihilate the erring members of our own race, let us beware lest we lack men to help in the conquest of the barbarians.

Or again, if it is honourable to hate the Persian because in old days he set out to enslave Greece, and now allies himself with that side which offers him the prospect of working the greater mischief, makes gifts to those who, as he believes, will injure the Greeks most in return, negotiates the peace that he thinks most certain to produce war among us — well, everyone can see these things, but who except Agesilaus has ever striven either to bring about the revolt of a tribe from the Persian, or to save a revolting tribe from destruction, or by some means or other to involve the Great King in trouble so that he will be unable to annoy the Greeks? Nay, when his fatherland was actually at war with Greeks, he did not neglect the common good of Greece, but went out with a fleet to do what harm he could to the barbarian.

Another quality that should not go unrecorded is his urbanity. For although he held honour in fee, and had power at his beck, and to these added sovereignty — sovereignty not plotted against but regarded with affection — yet no traces of arrogance could have been detected in him, whereas signs of a fatherly affection and readiness to serve his friends, even if unsought, were evident.

He delighted, moreover, to take his part in light talk, yet he showed an eager sympathy with friends in all their serious concerns. Thanks to his optimism, good humour, and cheerfulness he was a centre of attraction to many, who came not merely for purposes of business, but to pass the day more pleasantly. Little inclined to boastfulness himself, he heard without annoyance the self-praise of others, thinking that, by indulging in it, they did no harm and gave earnest of high endeavour.

On the other hand, one must not omit a reference to the dignity that he showed on appropriate occasions. Thus, when the Persian envoy who came with Calleas, the Lacedaemonian, handed him a letter from the Great King containing offers of friendship and hospitality, he declined to accept it. Tell his Majesty, he said to the bearer, that there is no need for him to send me private letters, but, if he gives proof of friendship for Lacedaemon, and goodwill towards Greece, I on my part will be his friend with all my heart. But if he is found plotting against them, let him not hope to have a friend in me, however many letters I may receive.

In this contempt for the king’s hospitality, as nothing in comparison with the approval of the Greeks, I find one more reason for praising Agesilaus. Admirable too was his opinion that it is not for the ruler with the deeper coffers and the longer roll of subjects to set himself above his rival, but for him who is the better leader of the better people.

Again, an instance of his foresight that I find worthy of praise is this: believing it to be good for Greece that as many satraps as possible should revolt from the king, he was not prevailed on either by gifts or by the king’s power to accept his hospitality, but was careful not to give cause to those who wanted to revolt for mistrusting him.

There is yet another side of his character that everyone must admire. It was the belief of the Persian king that by possessing himself of colossal wealth, he would put all things in subjection to himself. In this belief he tried to engross all the gold, all the silver and all the most costly things in the world. Agesilaus, on the contrary, adopted such a simple style in his home that he needed none of these things.

If anyone doubts this, let him mark what sort of a house contented him, and in particular, let him look at the doors: one might imagine that they were the very doors that Aristodemus, the descendant of Heracles[*](Aristodemus was great-grandson of Hyllus, son of Heracles. Xenophon follows the Lacedaemonian account, according to which Aristodemus himself was leader at the time when the Lacedaemonians obtained Sparta (Hdt. 6.52). His sons, Eurysthenes and Procles, became the first joint-kings.) set up with his own hands in the days of his home-coming. Let him try to picture the scene within; note how he entertained on days of sacrifice, hear how his daughter used to go down to Amyclae[*](To the feast of Hyacinthus; see Xen. Ages. 2.17.) in a public car.

And so, thanks to this nice adjustment of his expenditure to his income, he was never compelled to commit an act of injustice for the sake of money. Doubtless it is thought noble to build oneself fortresses impregnable to an enemy: but in my judgment it is far nobler to fortify one’s own soul against all the assaults of lucre, of pleasure, and of fear.

I will next point out the contrast between his behaviour and the imposture of the Persian king. In the first place the Persian thought his dignity required that he should be seldom seen: Agesilaus delighted to be constantly visible, believing that, whereas secrecy was becoming to an ugly career, the light shed lustre on a life of noble purpose.

In the second place, the one prided himself on being difficult of approach: the other was glad to make himself accessible to all. And the one affected tardiness in negotiation: the other was best pleased when he could dismiss his suitors quickly with their requests granted.

In the matter of personal comfort, moreover, it is worth noticing how much simpler and how much more easily satisfied were the tastes of Agesilaus. The Persian king has vintners scouring every land to find some drink that will tickle his palate; an army of cooks contrives dishes for his delight; and the trouble his lackeys take that he may sleep is indescribable. But Agesilaus, thanks to his love of toil, enjoyed any drink that was at hand and any food that came his way; and any place was good enough to give him soft repose.

Nor was he happy only in this behaviour: he was also proud to reflect that, while he was surrounded with good cheer, he saw the barbarian constrained to draw from the ends of the world the material for his enjoyment, if he would live without discomfort.

And it cheered his heart to know that he could accommodate himself to the divine ordering of the world, whereas he saw his rival shunning heat and shunning cold through weakness of character, imitating the life, not of brave men, but of the weakest of the brutes.

Surely, too, he did what was seemly and dignified when he adorned his own estate with works and possessions worthy of a man, keeping many hounds and war horses, but persuaded his sister Cynisca to breed chariot horses, and showed by her victory that such a stud marks the owner as a person of wealth, but not necessarily of merit.[*](Xen. Hiero 11.5)

How clearly his true nobility comes out in his opinion that a victory in the chariot race over private citizens would add not a whit to his renown; but if he held the first place in the affection of the people, gained the most friends and best all over the world, outstripped all others in serving his fatherland and his comrades and in punishing his adversaries, then he would be victor in the noblest and most splendid contests, and would gain high renown both in life and after death.

Such, then, are the qualities for which I praise Agesilaus. These are the marks that distinguish him, say, from the man who, lighting on a treasure, becomes wealthier but not wiser in business, or from the man who wins victory through an outbreak of sickness among the enemy, and adds to his success but not to his knowledge of strategy. The man who is foremost in endurance when the hour comes for toil, in valour when the contest calls for courage, in wisdom when the need is for counsel — he is the man, I think, who may fairly be regarded as the perfect embodiment of goodness.

If line and rule are a noble discovery of man as aids to the production of good work, I think that the virtue of Agesilaus may well stand as a noble example for those to follow who wish to make moral goodness a habit. For who that imitates a pious, a just, a sober, a self-controlled man, can come to be unrighteous, unjust, violent, wanton? In point of fact, Agesilaus prided himself less on reigning over others than on ruling himself, less on leading the people against their enemies than on guiding them to all virtue.

However, let it not be thought, because one whose life is ended is the theme of my praise, that these words are meant for a funeral dirge.[*](The reference is to the ceremonial hymns sung at or after funerals, which of course contained much that would not have been said or sung in the hero’s life-time.) They are far more truly the language of eulogy. In the first place the words now applied to him are the very same that he heard in his lifetime. And, in the second place, what theme is less appropriate to a dirge than a life of fame and a death well-timed? What more worthy of eulogies than victories most glorious and deeds of sovereign worth?