Complete Works of Xenophon (Illustrated) (Delphi Ancient Classics) (120 page)

6.
As for Courage, he seems to me to have afforded clear proofs of that by always engaging himself to fight against the strongest enemies of his state and of Greece, and by always placing himself in the forefront of the struggle.
[2]
When the enemy were willing to join battle with him, it was not by their panic flight that he won victory, but it was after overcoming them in stubborn fighting that he set up a trophy, leaving behind him imperishable memorials of his own valour, and bearing in his own body visible tokens of the fury of his fighting, so that not by hearsay but by the evidence of their own eyes men could judge what manner of man he was.
[3]
In truth the trophies of Agesilaus are not to be counted by telling how many he set up; the number of his campaigns is the number of them. His mastery was in no way less complete when the enemy were unwilling to accept battle, but it was gained at less risk and with more profit to the state and to the allies. So in the Great Games the unchallenged champion is crowned no less than he who has fought to conquer.
[4]

Of his Wisdom I find the evidence in every one of his deeds. Towards his fatherland he behaved in such a manner that, being entirely obedient to her, he won the obedience of the citizens, and by his zeal for his comrades he held the unquestioning devotion of his friends: and as for his troops, he gained at once their obedience and their affection. Surely nothing is wanting to the strength of that battle-line in which obedience results in perfect discipline, and affection for the general produces faithful promptitude.
[5]
As for the enemy, though they were forced to hate, he gave them no chance to disparage him. For he contrived that his allies always had the better of them, by the use of deception when occasion offered, by anticipating their action if speed was necessary, by hiding when it suited his purpose, and by practising all the opposite methods when dealing with enemies to those which he applied when dealing with friends.
[6]
Night, for example, was to him as day, and day as night, for he often veiled his movements so completely that none could guess where he was, whither he was going, or what he meant to do. Thus he made even strong positions untenable to the enemy, turning one, scaling another, snatching a third by stealth.
[7]
On the march, whenever he knew that the enemy could bring him to an engagement if they chose, he would lead his army in close order, alert and ready to defend himself, moving on as quietly as a modest maiden, since he held that this was the best means of maintaining calm, of avoiding panic, confusion, and blundering, and of guarding against a surprise attack.
[8]

And so, by using such methods, he was formidable to his enemies, and inspired his friends with strength and confidence. Thus he was never despised by his foes, never brought to account by the citizens, never blamed by his friends, but throughout his career he was praised and idolised by all the world.

7.
Of his Patriotism it would be a long task to write in complete detail, for there is no single action of his, I think, that does not illustrate that quality. To speak briefly, we all know that when Agesilaus thought he would be serving his fatherland he never shirked toil, never shrank from danger, never spared money, never excused himself on the score of bodily weakness or old age; but believed that it is the duty of a good king to do as much good as possible to his subjects.
[2]
Among the greatest services he rendered to his fatherland I reckon the fact that, though the most powerful man in the state, he was clearly a devoted servant of the laws. For who would be minded to disobey when he saw the king obeying? Who would turn revolutionist, thinking himself defrauded of his due, when he knew that the king was ready to yield in accordance with the laws?
[3]
Here was a man whose behaviour to his political opponents was that of a father to his children: though he would chide them for their errors he honoured them when they did a good deed, and stood by them when any disaster befell them, deeming no citizen an enemy, willing to praise all, counting the safety of all a gain, and reckoning the destruction even of a man of little worth as a loss. He clearly reckoned that if the citizens should continue to live in peaceful submission to the laws, the fatherland would always prosper and that she would be strong when the Greeks were prudent.
[4]

Again, if it is honourable in one who is a Greek to be a friend to the Greeks, what other general has the world seen unwilling to take a city when he thought that it would be sacked, or who looked on victory in a war against Greeks as a disaster?
[5]
Now when a report reached Agesilaus that eight Lacedaemonians and near ten thousand of the enemy had fallen at the battle of Corinth, instead of showing pleasure, he actually exclaimed: “Alas for thee, Hellas! those who now lie dead were enough to defeat all the barbarians in battle had they lived!”
[6]
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.”
[7]

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.

8.
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.
[2]
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.
[3]
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.”
[4]
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.
[5]

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.
[6]

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.
[7]
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 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 in a public car.
[8]
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.

9.
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.
[2]
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.
[3]

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.
[4]
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.
[5]
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.
[6]

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.
[7]
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.

10.
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.
[2]
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.
[3]

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. 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?
[4]
Justly may the man be counted blessed who was in love with glory from early youth and won more of it than any man of his age; who, being by nature very covetous of honour, never once knew defeat from the day that he became a king; who, after living to the utmost limit of human life, died without one blunder to his account, either concerning the men whom he led or in dealing with those on whom he made war.