by Xenophon
CHAPTER 5
What about all the pleasures to which people commonly succumb? [1]Does anyone know of Agesilaus having been conquered by them? This was a man who would no more choose drunkenness than madness, or overeating than idleness.* He never used to eat the two portions he was served at feasts, but gave them away, leaving neither for himself, because in his opinion the reason why the king was served double the amount was not so that he could overeat, but so that he could use it as another way of conferring honour on anyone he wanted [2] to.1 He treated sleep as the subject rather than the master of his activities, and was visibly embarrassed if his bed was not the most modest one around, because he thought that a ruler should be tougher, [3] not softer, than ordinary citizens.2 There were, however, some things of which he was not ashamed to have more than his share – such as direct sunlight in summer and cold in winter – and he made himself work harder than anyone else whenever hard work was called for out on campaign. He thought that this sort of thing would raise morale among his men. In short, then, Agesilaus revelled in hard work and totally avoided idleness.
[4] Where sex was concerned, his self-control was amazing, and is surely worth mentioning for this reason alone. If his abstinence had been due to lack of desire, it would be true to say that anyone else would have done the same; but in fact the desire he felt for Megabates the son of Spithridates was as strong as such a passionate man might be expected to feel for such a good-looking boy. Even so, when Megabates tried to kiss Agesilaus – it is the native Persian way to greet people they respect with a kiss3 – Agesilaus resisted with all his might and refused to let him kiss him. Does this not already indicate a [5] superhuman degree of self-restraint? After that Megabates never tried to kiss him, because he felt insulted, so Agesilaus asked one of his comrades to persuade Megabates to pay his respects to him again. The comrade asked whether Agesilaus would kiss Megabates if his suit was successful. Agesilaus was silent for a while, and then said, ‘By the two gods,4 no – not even if I were suddenly to become the best-looking man in the world, and the strongest, and the fastest runner! I swear by all the gods that I would rather fight that battle all over again than [6] have everything I see turn to gold!’5 Opinions differ on this, I know, but I would maintain with some confidence that for most people these temptations prove more difficult to resist than their enemies do.6 Disbelief may be the general reaction to this statement, since only a few people recognize its truth, but we all know that the more a person is in the public eye, the less he can hide anything he does.7 And yet no one ever reported seeing Agesilaus get up to this kind of activity, and idle conjectures on this score would just have seemed implausible, because when he was abroad he was not in the habit of [7] taking a private house to stay in, but could always be found either in a shrine, where it is impossible to do anything of the kind, or in the open, with the result that everyone could vouch for his self-control, having seen evidence of it with their very own eyes. The whole of Greece knows the facts of this matter, so for me to lie about it would be to fail in my aim of praising Agesilaus and succeed only in incriminating myself.
CHAPTER 6
As for courage, two features of his behaviour seem to me to provide [1] clear evidence of this virtue: first, the enemies he undertook to fight were always the ones who constituted the worst threat to his state and to Greece as a whole; second, in engaging these enemies, he always posted himself in the front line. When his opponents were [2] prepared to join battle, it was not panic-stricken flight on their part that enabled him to defeat them: no, if he set up a victory trophy it was after overcoming his enemies in a close-fought battle. He not only bequeathed to future generations undying memorials of his bravery, but also bore off the field visible signs of the heat of the fighting,1 so that people could use their eyes to assess his character, rather than having to rely on listening to tales.
In actual fact one should really count all the campaigns he launched [3] rather than the victory trophies he set up, because even when his adversaries refused to fight he still overcame them, and did so with less risk and more benefit to the state and his allies. It is the same in athletic competitions too: those who go through uncontested2 win the garland just as much as those who have to fight for their victory.
Turning to his skill, it is impossible to find any of his achievements [4] which do not display it. His attitude towards his fatherland was such that as a result of his exemplary obedience <…>* and because he was so devoted to his friends he earned the unswerving3 loyalty of his friends. He also made his troops both obedient and loyal – and are there any factors more important for the effectiveness of a phalanx of men than good discipline and reliability, the first of which is engendered by obedience and the second by loyalty towards the commander?
[5] He made it impossible for his enemies to find fault with him – though they could not help resenting him, since he always found a scheme which enabled his side to get the better of them. He would trick them when the opportunity presented itself, beat them to some objective when speed was called for, hide when appropriate, and generally treat them in quite the opposite way from the way he treated [6] his friends. For instance, he treated night exactly like day and, by disguising his location, destination and intentions, treated day like night as well. He negated the strength of his opponents’ strongholds [7] by circumventing, overrunning or stealing into them. Whenever he was on the march and knew that the enemy might choose to engage him in battle, he led his men in a tight formation to enable his efforts to be as concerted as possible, and had their progress resemble that of the most modest of maidens in its orderliness,4 the idea being that this would reduce his men’s liability to fear, dismay, confusion, error and [8] ambush. These tactics of his explain why he was so formidable to his enemies and such a source of encouragement and energy for his friends. And so he lived his life without his enemies ever treating him lightly, without his fellow citizens punishing him, without his friends ever finding fault with him; he was everyone’s favourite and the most idolized person in the world.
CHAPTER 7
[1] As for his patriotism, it would take too long to go through the evidence of this in detail; I think that every single one of his accomplishments is relevant in this context. In brief, then, we all know that if Agesilaus ever thought he could do his fatherland some good, he would not spare any effort, shrink from any danger, hold back any money, or use his physical state or his old age as an excuse.1 No, it was his view that it is in fact the job of a good king to do his subjects as much good as possible.
[2] An aspect of his behaviour that I would count as one of the most important benefits he conferred on his state was that despite his unrivalled political power he was obviously the most assiduous servant of the laws. After all, how could anyone have been prepared to break the law when he saw how law-abiding the king was? How could anyone have attempted a coup out of dissatisfaction with his lot when he knew that the king put up even with restrictions to his power without turning against the laws?2 His attitude towards his political [3] opponents was that of a father towards his sons. He would tell them off for their mistakes, but congratulate them on their creditable achievements and support them in times of trouble. He refused to regard any of his fellow citizens as an enemy and found something to approve of in all of them; he counted the preservation of each and every one of them as a profit and the death of even a worthless one as a loss. He obviously thought that his fatherland’s prosperity depended on his fellow citizens continuing to live in peaceful observance of the laws, and that it would remain strong as long as the Greeks behaved sensibly.
Then again, if it is true that a good Greek is a supporter of Greece, [4] I challenge anyone to name another military commander who would refuse to take a city if he thought that would involve destroying it, and who considered victory in a war against Greeks a catastrophe.3 Once, when he received a report that in the battle at Corinth only [5] eight Spartans had been killed, compared with almost 10,000 of the en
emy, it was plain to see that the news distressed him. In fact he said: ‘Alas, poor Greece! Enough men have just died to have defeated in battle, were they alive, the whole Persian army. ’4 And when the [6] Corinthian exiles informed him of the city’s imminent surrender and pointed to the siege-engines with which they confidently expected to take the walls, he refused to attack, and argued that the proper course of action in the case of Greek cities was to discipline them rather than enslave them. ‘If we annihilate those of our own people who make mistakes,’ he added, ‘the chances are that we will fail to have the means to overcome the Persians.’5
Moreover, if hatred of Persia is also a valid stance, not just because [7] of their earlier invasion, the purpose of which was to reduce Greece to slavery, but also because of their current policy of allying themselves with whichever side in a conflict will enable them to do Greece the most harm, because they bribe those individuals who they think will then be particularly bad for Greece, and because they negotiate a peace which will, in their opinion, be extremely successful at getting us to fight one another – well, it is obvious to everyone what Persia is up to, but who else, apart from Agesilaus, ever got a tribe to revolt against Persia, or made the security of a rebel tribe his responsibility, or, in general, ensured that the Persian king had enough problems to stop him making trouble for Greece? Even when his fatherland was involved in a war against other Greeks, he still bore the common good of Greece in mind and set out by sea with the intention of harassing the Persians in any way that he could.6
CHAPTER 8
[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.
CHAPTER 10
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.
