Abstract
In depicting acts of revolt in his Spartan biographies, Plutarch displays a range of value judgements, condemning some acts but praising others. He appears to have regarded the act of revolt itself as less significant than the identity, the social status and the motives of the person who revolted. If noblemen (and noblewomen) individually or in small groups took—even violent—action in order to preserve the stability of the Lacedaemonian state and its constitution, Plutarch approved. But if members of the lower orders grouped together and demanded change, he depicted them as a mob endangering stability and aristocratic rule.
Zusammenfassung
Plutarch kommt zu einer Reihe unterschiedlicher Werturteile über die revolutionären Handlungen, die er in seinen spartanischen Parallelviten beschreibt, wobei er einige Akte verurteilt, andere hingegen lobt. Dabei war offenbar die revolutionäre Handlung an sich für Plutarch weniger bedeutend als die Identität und der soziale Status des Akteurs sowie dessen Motive. Der Biograph billigte es offenbar, wenn Aristokraten (bisweilen sogar Aristokratinnen) in kleinen Gruppen gewalttätige Maßnahmen ergriffen, um die Stabilität des lakedaimonischen Gemeinwesens (wieder)herzustellen. Wenn hingegen das Volk in gleicher Weise die Initiative ergriff und nach Veränderungen rief, stellt Plutarch dies als Aufstand des Pöbels dar, der Stabilität und aristokratische Herrschaft in Gefahr bringt.
Versions of this paper were read at the postgraduate conference ‘Norm and Transgression in the Ancient World’ at Bonn University on 29 August 2018 and at the postgraduate colloquium ‘Migration, Emotion und Transgression’ at Osnabrück University on 18 January 2019. I would like to thank the participants of both events for their helpful questions and feedback. I am also grateful to Konrad Vössing and Wolfgang Will for comments and advice. All remaining errors are, of course, my own.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Cartledge/Spawforth 1989, 39.
- 2.
Two of many possible examples are Nep. Eum. 8.2–3 (Nepos compares the ‘licentious’ armies of Alexander with those of the late Roman Republic, observing that in both cases the soldiers’ failure to obey commands had resulted in devastating civil wars) and Plut. Pomp. 20.3 (letters to Sertorius written by leading men in Rome who plan ‘to subvert the existing order’ ‘[…] and change the form of government’ (οἳ τὰ παρόντα κινῆσαι βουλόμενοι […] καὶ μεταστῆσαι τὴν πολιτείαν), which Pompey fears will reignite the civil war).
- 3.
οὔτε γάρ πόλεμος οὔτε στάσις οὔτε νεωτερισμὸς περὶ πολιτείαν ἱστόρηται Νομᾶ βασιλεύοντος […] καὶ μακάριον βίον, ἐν ᾧ τὸ κάλλιστον ἁπάσης πολιτείας τέλος ἐστί. Translations from Plutarch’s Lives are by Bernadotte Perrin in the Loeb Classical Library series unless otherwise stated.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
Duff 1999, 9.
- 7.
ἄρχοντα δ̓ αὑτοῖς παρίστατο τῆς ἀγέλης τὸν τῷ φρονεῖν διαφέροντα καὶ θυμοειδέστατον ἐν τῷ μάχεσθαι: καὶ πρὸς τοῦτον ἀφεώρων καὶ προστάττοντος ἠκροῶντο καὶ κολάζοντος ἐκαρτέρουν, ὥστε τὴν παιδείαν εἶναι μελέτην εὐπειθείας. […] γράμματα μὲν οὖν ἕνεκα τῆς χρείας ἐμάνθανον ἡ δ̓ ἄλλη πᾶσα παιδεία πρὸς τὸ ἄρχεσθαι καλῶς ἐγίνετο καὶ καρτερεῖν πονοῦντα καὶ νικᾶν μαχόμενον.
- 8.
See for example Plat. leg. 6.762e ; Plut. mor. 806e . M. Perperna, an officer under Sertorius, can be seen to be a useless and ignoble person by his ability ‘neither to command nor to obey’ (μήτε ἄρχειν μήτε ἄρχεσθαι, Plut. Sert. 27.1 ).
- 9.
Plut. Lyc. 30.3 ; Ages. 1.3 ; 20.3 ; mor. 202a ; 208b ; 215d ; 816f ; Xen. Ages. 1.3 ; 15.4 .
- 10.
Unlike the term tumultus in the Roman Republic, ταραχή did not denote an official state of emergency but merely a situation of chaos and confusion. Contexts of ταραχή in the Lives range from an army in confusion (Cam. 20.1 ) and turmoil due to stormy weather (Rom. 27.7 ) to civil unrest and stasis (στάσις καὶ ταραχή, Thes. 35.2 ; ταραχή καὶ στάσις, Num. 2.4 ). For tumultus see Golden 2013, 42–49.
- 11.
But note recent work which links Lycurgus to a specific moment in history during the Messenian wars: Schmitz 2018.
- 12.
ἐπανελθὼν οὖν πρὸς οὕτω διακειμένους εὐθὺς ἐπεχείρει τὰ παρόντα κινεῖν καὶ μεθιστάναι τὴν πολιτείαν, ὡς τῶν κατὰ μέρος νόμων οὐδὲν ἔργον οὐδὲ ὄφελος, εἰ μή τις ὥσπερ σώματι πονηρῷ καὶ γέμοντι παντοδαπῶν νοσημάτων τὴν ὑπάρχουσαν ἐκτήξας καὶ μεταβαλὼν κρᾶσιν ὑπὸ φαρμάκων καὶ καθαρμῶν ἑτέρας ἄρξεται καινῆς διαίτης.
- 13.
εἰς ἀγορὰν προελθεῖν ἐκπλήξεως ἕνεκα καὶ φόβου πρὸς τοὺς ἀντιπράττοντας.
- 14.
Comp. Lyc. et Num. 1.4–5 ; comp. Nik. et Crass. 2.3 .
- 15.
τῶν πάλαι τινὲς ὑπούλων καὶ πονηρῶν ὡς διακόσιοι συστραφέντες.
- 16.
I follow Michael Flower in understanding μείζων to mean ‘more serious’ instead of the usual translation of ‘larger’ (so for example in Perrin’s English, and in Konrat Ziegler’s German rendering: ‘eine andere, noch größere Zusammenrottung’). If the second conspiracy had been ‘larger’ than the first, which Plutarch tells us involved some two hundred men, they would hardly have been able to meet ‘secretly in a house’ (εἰς οἰκίαν κρύφα συνερχομένων). In Flower’s view, which I share, the second conspiracy was the more serious one because it involved Spartan citizens. Plutarch does not specify the status of the members of the first conspiracy, who are usually taken to have been hypomeiones (inferiors), perioikoi and/or Helots or neodamodeis. Flower 1991, 87, n. 47.
- 17.
Donald Shipley believes that the second group of conspirators may have been much smaller than reported, and made up of perioikoi rather than full Spartiate citizens (Shipley 1997, 347). Xenophon reports perioikoi deserting Sparta and collaborating with the Thebans after Leuctra, but does not mention any executions: Xen. Hell. 6.5.25 .
- 18.
ὑπούλων καὶ πονηρῶν, Ages. 32.3 .
- 19.
Plut. Cat. mai. 5.1 ; Demetr. 1.4 ; Lyc. 28.6 .
- 20.
Plut. mor. 802e . For an excellent analysis of Plutarch’s portrayal of the people in the Lives see Saïd 2005.
- 21.
This view is echoed by other moralising authors like Valerius Maximus, who praises Agesilaus’ swift action against the conspirators as wise (nihil […] sapientius, Val. Max. 7.2 ext. 15 ).
- 22.
Cf. n. 9 above.
- 23.
Ricardo Martínez-Lacy argues that this fear only developed after the great slave revolts of the second and first centuries BCE: Martínez-Lacy 2004 passim.
- 24.
The term is mentioned but not explained by, amongst others, Xenophon. Scholars “have reasonably deduced that [hypomeiones] were the demoted former Spartiates and their descendants” (Hodkinson 2015, 23).
- 25.
Ambition frequently carries a negative connotation in Plutarch (Plut. Ages. 58.4 ; Agis 2.1 ; Crass. 27.4 ; comp. Lys. et Sull. 4.2 ; Sull. 4.4 ), but since all young Spartans were raised to covet fame and honour (Plut. Ages. 5.3 ), Plutarch has some sympathy with Lysander’s φιλοτιμία, which was due to nurture rather than nature (Lys. 2.2 ). For Plutarch’s thinking on ambition see also the articles by Jeffrey Becker and Christopher Pelling in Humble 2010; Duff 1999, 83–87; Roskam 2011, 208–209; Shipley 1997, 12–13.
- 26.
ἐπεὶ δὲ οὗτος [Καλλίβιος] Αὐτόλυκον τὸν ἀθλητήν, ἐφ᾽ ᾧ τὸ συμπόσιον ὁ Ξενοφῶν πεποίηκε, τὴν βακτηρίαν διαράμενος παίσειν ἔμελλεν, ὁ δὲ τῶν σκελῶν συναράμενος ἀνέτρεψεν αὐτόν, οὐ συνηγανάκτησεν ὁ Λύσανδρος, ἀλλὰ καὶ συνεπετίμησε, φήσας αὐτὸν οὐκ ἐπίστασθαι ἐλευθέρων ἄρχειν.
- 27.
Nemeth 2006, 146.
- 28.
The story is also in Pausanias, who adds the detail that the two were involved in a legal dispute over an (unnamed) possession of the athlete’s before Callibius carried out the unprovoked attack (Paus. 9.32.8 ). It is most likely due to a scribal error that the harmost is called Eteonicus in Pausanias; see Nemeth 2006, 146–7.
- 29.
Plutarch reports that only a short time later, the Thirty condemned the athlete to death in order to please Callibius (Lys. 15.5 ). Diodorus Siculus mentions Autolycus in passing as an outspoken man (ἀνήρ παρρησιαστής), who, like many other Athenians, fell victim to the Thirty. Diodorus makes no mention of any previous confrontation with a Spartan harmost (Diod. 14.5.7 ).
- 30.
Plut. Lyc. 17.3 ; Xen. Lac. 2.10 . On the rigours of Spartan training in obedience and discipline see David 1999.
- 31.
τοῖς δὲ πλείστοις ἐδόκει […] τὸν οἴκοι ζυγὸν οὐ φέρων οὐδ᾽ ὑπομένων ἄρχεσθαι, Lys. 20.6 . See also Duff 1999, 191.
- 32.
τοῦ χρόνου διελθόντος ἀπέπλευσεν εἰς τὴν Σπάρτην ἀτίμως, […] μισῶν δὲ καὶ τὴν ὅλην πολιτείαν ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὴν ὅλην πολιτείαν ἔτι μᾶλλον ἢ πρότερον, καὶ τὰ πάλαι δοκοῦντα συγκεῖσθαι καὶ μεμηχανῆσθαι πρὸς μεταβολὴν καὶ νεωτερισμὸν ἐγνωκὼς ἐγχειρεῖν τότε καὶ μὴ διαμέλλειν […] καὶ διενοεῖτο τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐκ τῶν δυεῖν οἴκων μεταστήσας εἰς κοινὸν ἀποδοῦναι πᾶσιν Ἡρακλείδαις, ὡς δὲ ἔνιοί φασιν, οὐχ Ἡρακλείδαις, ἀλλὰ Σπαρτιάταις; Plut. Lys. 24.2–4 (the story is repeated with minor alterations in Ages. 8.3).
- 33.
- 34.
Flower 2002, 203.
- 35.
Again, comparison is instructive. Xenophon, Lysander’s contemporary, does not mention the scheme at all in his works. The Roman biographer Cornelius Nepos, who was active in the late Republic, a good century before Plutarch, knows of it and devotes an entire chapter of his brief (four-chapter) life of Lysander to the latter’s ‘resolution to do away with the Spartan kings’ (consilia reges Lacedaemoniorum tollere, Nep. Lys. 3.1 , my translation), which he condemns in no uncertain terms: his Lysander is not, like Plutarch’s, an interesting mixture of brilliance and flaws, but merely lucky rather than talented (1.1 ), seditious (1.3 ), and cruel and perfidious (2.1 ). When his scheme is found out, he is deservedly brought to trial and, although acquitted, immediately killed by the Thebans at Haliartos in Nepos’ telescoped version of events (3.4 ), which makes his end look like a death sentence imposed by a higher authority. The last chapter and a half of Nepos’ biography are taken up with more of Lysander’s highly dubious schemes, leaving no doubt at all that this was an undeserving and ignoble character through and through.
- 36.
ἐπεχείρησε μὲν οὖν ὁ Λύσανδρος, ὡς εἴρηται, μεταστῆσαι τὰ περὶ τὴν πολιτείαν πρᾳότερον καὶ νομιμώτερον ἢ Σύλλας: πειθοῖ γὰρ, οὐ δι᾽ ὅπλων οὐδὲ πάντα συλλήβδην ἀναιρῶν, ὥσπερ ἐκεῖνος, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὴν ἐπανορθούμενος τὴν κατάστασιν τῶν βασιλέων.
- 37.
σχεδὸν ἀρίστων ἄριστος ἐκρίνετο καὶ πρώτων πρῶτος; my translation.
- 38.
Cf. Plutarch’s contrasting of the upright, but luckless, Callicratidas with Lysander, who is devious but successful: Lys. 7.1 ; for Plutarch’s take on success in general see the discussion in Duff 1999, 97–99.
- 39.
Agesilaus, a more upright Spartan than the unruly Lysander, might on occasion defend even otherwise unacceptable behaviour as long as it served Lacedaemonian interests. Both Plutarch and Xenophon report that when the Lacedaemonian general Phoibidas seized the Theban Cadmeia in peacetime and without warning (and off his own bat), Agesilaus told Phoibidas’ critics that they must consider ‘whether the act itself was serviceable or not; for that which was advantageous to Sparta might well be done independently, even if no one ordered it.’ (τὰ γὰρ συμφέροντα τῇ Λακεδαίμονι καλῶς ἔχειν αὐτοματίζεσθαι, κἂν μηδεὶς κελεύσῃ; Ages. 23.4 ). The story is virtually identical in Xenophon’s Hellenica, one of Plutarch’s sources (Xen. Hell. 5.2.32 ).
- 40.
Duff 1999, 171.
- 41.
Agis 3.1 ; Lys. 17.1 ; cf. also Plut. mor. 239f . The theme is echoed in the Life of Lysander’s Roman counterpart, Sulla, who corrupts and undermines the traditional frugality of his soldiers with rich gifts: Plut. Sull. 12.8–9 .
- 42.
He was not the first to spot the parallels: Cicero had done the same in de officiis, where he criticises both Agis (he does not mention Cleomenes) and the Gracchi for having caused civil strife, and judges that all three brought their violent ends upon themselves: ‘Now, it was on account of just this sort of wrong-doing [i. e. promising land and/or financial reforms] that the Spartans […] put their king Agis to death—an act without precedent in the history of Sparta. […] What shall we say then of our own Gracchi […] was it not strife over the agrarian issue that caused their downfall and death?’ ac propter hoc iniuriae genus Lacedaemonii […] Agim regem, quod numquam antea apud eos acciderat, necaverunt […] quid? nostros Gracchos […] nonne agrariae contentiones perdiderunt? Cic. off. 2.80 , trans. Walter Miller.
- 43.
Marasco 1981, 70–72; Mossé 1991, 307–308.
- 44.
Hodkinson 2005, 23.
- 45.
‚Despite any distribution of land in the archaic period, ownership of landed property was never equal and became more unequal over the course of time.‘ (Hodkinson 2000, 107).
- 46.
προστάττειν τοῖς Σπαρτιάταις ἴσους γενέσθαι πάντας καθ᾽ ὃν ὁ Λυκοῦργος ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἔταξε νόμον; my translation.
- 47.
Hodkinson 2004, 103–105; see also Mossé 1991, 144.
- 48.
πλήθει δὲ πελατῶν καὶ φίλων καὶ χρεωστῶν μέγα δυναμένην ἐν τῇ πόλει καὶ πολλὰ τῶν κοινῶν διαπραττομένην, trans. Robin Waterfield.
- 49.
ἔργῳ δὲ μαρτυρῆσαι τὸν Λυκοῦργον ὅτι πολιτείαν μεταβαλεῖν ἄνευ βίας καὶ φόβου χαλεπόν ἐστιν.
- 50.
Gabriele Marasco is surely right in pointing out that this passage echoes the official line given out by Cleomenes (‘il biografo [i. e. Plutarch] rispecchia qui in maniera abbastanza evidente i motivi della propaganda cleomenica’, Marasco 1981, 368); but I would argue that rather than being taken in by that ‘propaganda’, Plutarch chose to follow this line of argument and portray Cleomenes (and Agis before him) as a latter-day Lycurgus. This argument is further strengthened by the fact that Plutarch only mentions in passing the growing military and political threat to Sparta posed by the Achaean League under the leadership of Aratus, which by the time Cleomenes had acceded to the Agiad throne had become the largest power in the Peloponnese. The reforms of the historical Cleomenes will have been in response to that threat, rather than an attempt to return to time-honoured Spartan values and traditions as painted by Plutarch. (For the actions of the historical Cleomenes see Paul Cartledge’s lucid discussion in Cartledge and Spawforth 1989, 48–58.) Plutarch’s biography of Aratus shows that he was quite aware of the military and political background, but chose not to bring it into play in his Life of the two Spartan kings.
- 51.
In fact, a large part of these successes was due to the military might of mercenaries fighting alongside the Lacedaemonians, Cleom. 7.4 .
- 52.
For Plato condemning violent uprisings by the common people (πολλοί) see also Plat. leg. 1.627b .
- 53.
τό τε πάτριον πολίτευμα καταλύσαντος καὶ τὴν ἔννομον βασιλείαν εἰς τυραννίδα μεταστήσαντος, my translation.
- 54.
See for example his unsympathetic treatment of Fulvia in the Life of Mark Antony; Ant. 10.3 .
- 55.
Blomqvist 1997, 78–81.
- 56.
- 57.
ὁ δὲ Ἄγιδος καὶ Κλεομένους νεωτερισμός […] τὴν ἅμα πάντα ἀπαλλάξαι κακὰ καὶ μετασκευάσαι δυναμένην μεταβολὴν ἐπῆγε τοῖς πράγμασιν. ἀληθέστερον δ᾽ ἴσως εἰπεῖν ἐστιν ὅτι τὴν πάντα ἀπεργασαμένην κακὰ μεταβολὴν ἐξήλαυνεν, ἀπάγων καὶ καθιστὰς εἰς τὸ οἰκεῖον σχῆμα τὴν πόλιν.
- 58.
In his insightful discussion of the theme of ambition in the Lives of Agis, Cleomenes and the Gracchi, Geert Roskam points to Plutarch’s statement in the Political Precepts that a politician can break the law ‘when he has necessity as his defence, or the greatness and glory of the action as a consolation for the risk. (mor. 817f ).’ Roskam 2011, 217.
- 59.
ἐν παντὶ τὸ τέλος κεῖται τῆς διαλήψεως ὑπὲρ τούτων οὐκ ἐν τοῖς τελουμένοις, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ταῖς αἰτίαις καὶ προαιρέσεσι τῶν πραττόντων καὶ ταῖς τούτων διαφοραῖς, trans. William Roger Paton. Emphasis added.
- 60.
ἐν δὲ διχοστασίῃ καὶ ὁ πάγκακος ἔλλαχε τιμῆς; comp. Lys. et Sull. 1.1 , my translation.
Bibliography
Blomqvist, K.: From Olympias to Aretaphilia. Women in Politics in Plutarch. In: J. Mossman (Hg.): Plutarch and His Intellectual World. London and Swansea 1997, 73–98.
Cartledge, P.: Agesilaos and the Crisis of Sparta. Cambridge 1987.
Cartledge, P./Spawforth, A.: Hellenistic and Roman Sparta: A Tale of two Cities. London 1989.
David, E.: Sparta’s Kosmos of Silence. In: S. Hodkinson/A. Powell (Hg.): Sparta. New Perspectives. London 1999, 117–146.
Davies, P. J. V.: Plutarch, Lysander, and a Disappearing Heraclid Reform. In: GRBS 58. 2018, 523–541.
Duff, T.: Moral Ambiguity in Plutarch’s Lysander. In J. Mossman (Hg.): Plutarch and his intellectual world: essays on Plutarch. London 1997, 169–187.
Duff, T.: Plutarch’s ‘Lives’. Exploring Virtue and Vice. Oxford 1999.
Erskine, A. (Hg.): Plutarch. Hellenistic Lives, Oxford 2016.
Flower, M.: Revolutionary agitation and social change in Classical Sparta. In: M. Flower (Hg.): Georgica: Greek studies in honour of George Cawkwell. London 1991, 78–97.
Flower, M.: The Invention of Tradition in Ancient Sparta. In: A. Powell/S. Hodkinson (Hg.): Sparta: Beyond the Mirage. London 2002, 191–218.
Golden, G.: Crisis Management during the Roman Republic. The role of political institutions in emergencies. Cambridge 2013.
Hemelrijk, E.: Masculinity and Femininity in the Laudatio Turiae. In: CQ 54. 2004, 185–197.
Hodkinson, S.: Property and Wealth in Classical Sparta. London 2000.
Hodkinson, S.: Female Property Ownership and Status in Classical and Hellenistic Sparta. In: T. J. Figueira/P. Brulé (Hg.): Spartan Society. Swansea 2004, 103–136.
Hodkinson, S.: Transforming Sparta. New Approaches to the Study of Spartan Society. In: AH 41–44 2015, 1–42.
Humble, N. (Hg.): Plutarch’s Lives. Parallelism and Purpose. Swansea 2010.
Marasco, G.: Commento alle biografie plutarchee di Agide e di Cleomene, 2 vols. Rome 1981.
Martínez-Lacy, R.: Fear as a factor in slave revolts. In: Fear of Slaves – Fear of Enslavement in the Ancient Mediterranean (Discourse, Representations, Practices). Rethymnon 4–7 novembre 2004. Besançon 2007, 35–38.
Mossé, C.: L’image de Sparte dans les Vies parallèles de Plutarque. In: N. Birgalias/K. Buraselis/P. Cartledge (eds): The Contribution of Ancient Sparta to Political Thought and Practice. Athens 2002, 303–314.
Nemeth, G.: Kritias und die Dreißig Tyrannen. Stuttgart 2006.
Pelling, C.: The Moralism of Plutarch’s Lives. In: D. Innes/H. Hine/C. Pelling (Hg.): Ethics and Rhetoric. Classical Essays for Donald Russell on his seventy-fifth Birthday. Oxford 1995, 205–220.
Pelling, C.: Plutarch’s adaptation of his source-material. In: C. Pelling (Hg.): Plutarch and History. Swansea 2002, 91–115.
Roskam, G.: Ambition and Love of Fame in Plutarch’s Lives of Agis, Cleomenes and the Gracchi. In: CPh 106. 2011, 208–225.
Saïd, S.: Plutarch and the people in the Parallel Lives. In: L. De Blois et al. (Hg.): The Statesman in Plutarch’s Works, Volume II: The Statesman in Plutarch’s Greek and Roman Lives. Leiden 2005, 7–25.
Schmitz, W.: Lykurgs Gesetz über die Kinderzeugung und seine zweite und dritte Rhetra. In: Chiron 48. 2018, 107–141.
Shipley, D. R.: A Commentary on Plutarch’s Life of Agesilaos: Response to Sources in the Presentation of Character. Oxford 1997.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Herrad, I. (2020). When is Revolt not Revolting?. In: Gilhaus, L., Herrad, I., Meurer, M., Pfeiffer, A. (eds) Transgression und Devianz in der antiken Welt. Schriften zur Alten Geschichte. J.B. Metzler, Stuttgart. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-476-05508-8_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-476-05508-8_5
Published:
Publisher Name: J.B. Metzler, Stuttgart
Print ISBN: 978-3-476-05507-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-476-05508-8
eBook Packages: J.B. Metzler Humanities (German Language)