Chapter 6 Agesilaus-Pompey

6.1 Introduction

Agesilaus-Pompey, like Coriolanus-Alcibiades, unites two generals renowned for their military exploits, but in this case the generals were not undefeated. Although their early military campaigns, in Plutarch’s view, made them com- parable to Alexander the Great,1 both Agesilaus and Pompey were associated with catastrophic defeats that marked irreversible turning points for their cities: for Sparta at Leuctra (371 BC) and Rome at Pharsalus (48 BC). In the absence of a Prologue, the precise similarities that prompted Plutarch to pair these men are not known.2 However, Plutarch’s comments in the two Lives and in the synkrisis suggest that political events that “ended an era” explain the pairing.3 In Ages-Pomp, Plutarch places stronger emphasis than in Per-Fab and Cor- Alc on the challenges of managing political alliances and restraining ambition.4 These themes are important throughout the Parallel Lives and have been wide- ly discussed.5 While Pericles and Fabius also included negative lessons tied to excessive rivalry in both civic and military contexts, Agesilaus and Pompey ex- amine the impact of ambition on a wider array of relationships and in a greater variety of situations. In addition, the issues that are raised in Cor-Alc regard- ing the cultivation of good or bad repute and its implications are addressed from a broader perspective. In Ages-Pomp, Plutarch examines the two major

1 See, for example, Ages. 15.3 and Pomp. 46.1. 2 Shipley (1997: 9–14) highlights similarities in fortune, situation and nature that do not persist as the Lives unfold. 3 Similarly, Plutarch paired Nicias and Crassus based on the catastrophic expeditions to Sicily and Parthia (Nic. 1.1). 4 Competitiveness is integral to the desire to stand out and attract glory. Various types of ri- valry are depicted in the Lives: against predecessors (Themistocles vs. Miltiades), contem- poraries (Alcibiades vs. Nicias) or one’s own past record (Coriolanus (Cor. 4.2) and Caesar (Caes. 58.5)). Themistocles’ emulation of Miltiades is cited in the Moralia (84B, 92C, 184D–185A, 800B) and Them. (3.3). Alcibiades’ disruption of the Peace of Nicias is tied to contentiousness (φιλονικίας) and “rivalry in a political struggle” (πολιτικῆς μάχης ἢ ἁμίλλης) (Cor-Alc 2.3). 5 On Plutarch’s treatment of ambition, see Wardman (1974: 115–124), Pelling (1986a/2002; 1988a/2002; 1995/2002; 2012), Duff (1999b), Stadter (2011b/2015), Nikolaidis (2012).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi ��.��63/9789004276611_009 228 Chapter 6 dimensions of ambition—love of reputation and contentiousness—and illus- trates how these passions become liabilities if they are excessive or persist after a man achieves prominence.6 Moreover, Agesilaus’ inappropriate assistance to friends who had violated the law, when combined with his excessive ambi- tion, is shown bringing disgrace on himself and disaster to Sparta.7 Similarly, Pompey’s love of reputation and his submissiveness to others are revealed to be instrumental in facilitating Caesar’s rise to power, his own downfall and the demise of the Roman Republic. Relations with the people are also examined from a new standpoint in this set of Lives. While Pericles, Fabius and Alcibiades were often able to win the support of the people at times of crisis, they were constantly targets of aggres- sive opposition and slander. In contrast, both Agesilaus and Pompey enjoyed exceptional goodwill that was the foundation of stable support from the peo- ple throughout their careers. By describing the private and public actions that fostered and sustained this goodwill, Plutarch portrays his heroes as strong positive paradigms in this critical area of effective leadership. The consistency of Plutarch’s portrait of Agesilaus and Pompey as two men who were praiseworthy in many areas of moral virtue but disastrously ineffective in certain areas of leadership helps explain divergent views about Plutarch’s intended message. Moreno (1992) calls the Life of Pompey “one of the most laudatory Plutarch ever wrote”, while Hamilton (1992) sees Agesilaus as a blended portrait of praise and blame.8 Shipley (1997)9 treats Agesilaus and Pompey as occupying a middle ground in which they are neither simple models for emulation nor negative examples of behavior to avoid. Pompey also is examined from the perspective of various character traits. Stadter (1995) highlights Pompey’s eros,10 and Beneker (2005b) examines the “mishandling of sexual relationships” as a cause of failure and symptomatic of a deeper weakness.11 Beneker (2012; 2014) explores eros more fully as an element un- dermining Pompey’s ability to win in the struggle with Caesar. Xenophontos

6 As discussed in the prior chapter, ambition and love of reputation are on display in Alcibiades, while contentiousness is a central theme in Coriolanus. Ambition is also cen- tral in Marius (excessive ambition) and Pyrrhus (excessive contentiousness). For a broader discussion of Pyrrhus-Marius, see Buszard (2005). 7 Plutarch’s criticism of Agesilaus’ treatment of friends distinguishes his account from Xenophon’s Agesilaus, which praised him for his actions as a friend. 8 Moreno (1992: 138) and Hamilton (1992: 4205–4206). 9 Shipley (1997: 15–16). 10 Stadter (1995) highlights the incident in which Pompey gives up Flora to Geminius at Pomp. 2.3–4. 11 Beneker (2005b: 69–80).