Chapter 5 Coriolanus-Alcibiades

5.1 Introduction

While Pericles-Fabius Maximus presented heroes who were largely positive role models of political and military leadership, Coriolanus-Alcibiades joins two statesmen long viewed as negative figures by historians and other writ- ers. Coriolanus was often labeled as a traitor to his country because he had defected to the Volscians and served as their commander-in-chief in the war against Rome, while Alcibiades famously aided the Spartans against Athens. In presenting the Lives of these two figures within the paradigm of pragmatic biography, Plutarch offered a more nuanced treatment of major incidents in the careers of both men, distinguishing effective strategies to imitate from those that harmed the state and should be avoided. Neither hero is portrayed as vicious or evil by nature, but instead both are depicted as men whose politi- cal and military effectiveness was undermined by specific character flaws and misjudgments that readers should correct or eliminate in their own careers. At the same time, however, both Coriolanus and Alcibiades also supply posi- tive paradigms in some areas of leadership, and the synkrisis finds conduct to praise and censure in both statesmen. Although the Prologue to Cor-Alc has not survived, a number of similarities justify the pairing. Both lost their fathers early in life, with Coriolanus raised by a widowed mother (Cor. 1–2) and Alcibiades by Pericles (Alc. 1). Both men were exiled at the height of their careers and joined the enemy to fight against their native states. Both were undefeated as generals. However, in their character traits, Coriolanus and Alcibiades are presented as virtual opposites: temper- ance, rigidity and anger characterize Coriolanus, while Alcibiades is wanton, flexible and affable. This difference in moral character marks a sharp depar- ture from Plutarch’s other pairings: both Pericles and Fabius, for instance, share the traits of moderation, justice, and composure, while, as noted in the discussion of the Prologues in Chapter 3, Phocion and Cato are described as men who were “of one and the same stamp, shape and color” (Phoc. 3.5) in the blend of virtues and vices in their characters. The marked differences in Coriolanus and Alcibiades can be traced, at least in part, to the two men being opposites in their paideia: Coriolanus lacks training in philosophy (Cor. 1.4), while Alcibiades is sought out and educated by Socrates himself (Alc. 4.1–4). Plutarch also points to the different political arenas in which the two men

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi ��.��63/9789004276611_008 Coriolanus-alcibiades 181 operate, with a contrast being drawn between the absence of bribery and cor- ruption in Coriolanus’ Rome (Cor. 14.3) and the dominance of these factors in Alcibiades’ Athens, where democracy was “extreme” and demagogues cater- ing to the people often determined policy (Cor. 16.3). The fact that both men, despite their different virtues and vices, experience similar failures in political life (condemnation and exile) suggests that Plutarch intended to use this pair of Lives to offer new insights into how ruptures with the people can arise from a variety of behavioral flaws—all of which statesmen must address in order to be effective in public affairs. The absence of a Prologue denies us an explanation for Plutarch’s decision to present the Roman statesman first—Cor-Alc being one of only three pairs (along with Aem-Tim and Sert-Eum) in which the Roman Life is placed before the Greek. Geiger (1981/1995) suggests that the reversal was a literary technique rooted in the material of the two Lives—with the second Life expanding on is- sues raised in the first—and Pelling (1986b; 2001)1 argues that the second Life delivers a more complex and nuanced assessment of a common set of issues. In the case of Cor-Alc, the chronological timing could also explain the order, since Coriolanus lived earlier. However, as we will see, Alcibiades’ recall to Athens and second exile offered an opportunity to explore a wider range of issues tied to rejection, exile and reconciliation and in a more challenging and subtle way than was possible in Coriolanus’ career. Cor-Alc has been analyzed from a variety of perspectives. While the pair is generally viewed as “negative”, neither hero is found to be wholly vicious, and Plutarch’s portrait is seen as ambiguous.2 Russell (1963/1995) considered both heroes to be examples “of vice and moral failure” and Coriolanus as part of “a tragedy of ambition and anger”.3 While Duff (1999b) believes the Life can be viewed as a “practical counterpart” to Plutarch’s On Control of Anger,4 he focuses more broadly on Coriolanus’ lack of paideia and Alcibiades’ individu- ality, without identifying outright condemnation by Plutarch of their “vices”. Verdegem (2010a), in turn, argues that Alcibiades was written as a study in

1 Pelling (1986b: 91/2002: 357). 2 Verdegem (2010b: 59). 3 Russell (1963:22/1995: 358). In later analysis, Russell presents Alcibiades as a “brilliant enig- ma” who lacked temperance and moral integrity and whose “character changes” were delib- erate and reflective of the “versatility of the successful refugee” (Russell (1973/2001: 122–23)). On inconsistencies, see Fulkerson (2012). 4 Duff (1999b: 89).