by Plutarch
In 214 BC Aratus refused the king’s offer to accompany him on his ill-fated campaign in Illyria. Still, Achaea could not avoid its entanglement in Macedonian affairs. In 215 BC, as the hegemon of the Hellenic League, Philip made an alliance with Hannibal, and this treaty led to the First Macedonian War (214–205 BC), of which the disaster in Illyria was only the beginning.9 The Aetolians entered this war on the Roman side, while the Achaeans, as they were in duty bound to do owing to Aratus’ previous diplomacy, fought for Philip. But Aratus saw none of this. He died in 213 BC, the revered architect of the Achaean League.
Plutarch’s Aratus
Aratus is distinct from the other biographies in this volume in that it is not one in a pair of Greek and Roman Lives set in parallel.10 Here, then, Plutarch is able to write for a Greek audience, to whom Macedonians are foreigners (chs. 38 and 47), about a Greek hero who distinguishes himself in a world in which Romans are hardly on the scene. Plutarch covers this same period elsewhere, in his Agis & Cleomenes, and it is clear enough that he viewed this time as an important one in the history of Greece. It is, unfortunately, impossible to determine just when Plutarch wrote Aratus, though it is a fair surmise that it preceded his composition of the Parallel Lives.
The work is dedicated to Polycrates of Sicyon, a descendant of Aratus, and to his two young sons, in the hope that they will find in their distant ancestor a model for emulation (ch. 1).11 Naturally, Plutarch did not expect the boys to grow up to capture citadels or command armies, and elsewhere he cautions his readers against learning the wrong lessons from the martial glory of the Greek past.12 Valour and love of honour were nevertheless enduring virtues, and the vicissitudes of Aratus’ career exhibited the importance of moral excellence in often difficult circumstances. Aratus’ devotion to public life (ch. 10), furthermore, in the view of a man like Plutarch, ought to inspire all Greeks. And Polycrates’ sons had before their eyes living proof of the right way to imitate Aratus, for their father, Plutarch emphasizes throughout the opening chapter, has succeeded in uniting his own excellence with the virtues of his forebear.13 Indeed, this Life is designed to aid Polycrates’ sons in emulating their father by way of their common devotion to the memory of Aratus.
The focus, then, is on Aratus, his deeds and his choices, and Plutarch assumes his readers possess a basic familiarity with the history of the Achaean League. This is why, once he comes to the end of the Cleomenean War, he offers little in the way of historical contextualization, to the extent that a reader will learn little of the Social War and nothing of its resolution. The rise of the Achaeans, covered in the Life’s first thirty-five chapters, and not their subsequent subordination to Macedon, is after all a more inspiring topic for young readers. In the later chapters, more important than any sequence of campaigns is Aratus’ struggle – despite Philip’s moral decline – to preserve his and the league’s independence and integrity, when he alone of Philip’s counsellors will dare to give him wise instead of opportunistic advice (chs. 48 and 50). Here, too – perhaps here especially – there was much for Polycrates’ sons to learn.
This Life, then, is primarily pedagogical, which accounts for its frequently didactic tone.14 At chapter 19, to take a single example, the author presses his young readers to see the contemporary relevance (and share in the excitement) of Aratus’ devotion to honour:
Who would not admire, or even now join in striving to match, the magnanimity of such a hero, who purchased great peril at so high a price, who pledged what were considered the finest of his possessions so that by night he might make his way among his enemies and struggle for his very life, who received no security except the expectation of winning honour?
Similar schoolmasterly moments recur throughout the biography.
But it would be a mistake to conclude that Aratus lacks sophisticated touches. For Aratus, role model that he is, was nonetheless a complex character, as Polybius famously pointed out (4.8):
He had nearly all the qualities that make for a perfect man of affairs. He was forceful in speaking, penetrating in thought and resolute in keeping his own counsel. He was second to none in his capacity for dealing civilly with his political rivals, for making friends and for forming fresh alliances. Furthermore, he was pre-eminent in the art of intrigue, in contriving schemes and in forming plots against an enemy, and he had the endurance and boldness to execute them successfully … But this very same man, whenever he attempted a campaign in the field, was slow in conception, timid in action and wanting in daring. Consequently, the Peloponnese was filled with trophies marking his defeats …
In Plutarch, too, Aratus is an unsimple figure, but his description rewrites Polybius’ in important ways: he is cautious rather than cowardly, more a high-minded statesman than simply a soldier or politician (ch. 10). Yet Plutarch’s Aratus, like Polybius’, is still an imperfect man, and whereas Polybius attributes his deficiencies to the nature of things, Plutarch finds the fault in Aratus’ lack of a properly philosophical education, a recurring theme in his assessments of virtue and vice.15 Even a man, even a man who is a Greek, possessing Aratus’ natural capacities – his intelligence (deinotēs) and quick wit (synēsis) – requires a proper education.16
For Plutarch, Aratus’ most significant failure lay in his decision to make Antigonus hegemon of the Achaean League instead of Cleomenes (ch. 38). The basis for his complaint is plain enough: whatever his faults, Cleomenes was a Greek, whereas Antigonus was a foreigner, and this violation of Panhellenic unity cannot, in Plutarch’s view, be excused entirely by Aratus’ claim that ‘he was not the master of state affairs but was instead mastered by them’ (ch. 41; surely extracted from Aratus’ Memoirs).17 Prior to this decision, Aratus’ excesses are attributed to his hatred of tyranny or passion for freedom (chs. 25, 28, 32), but thereafter he is implicated in Macedonian enormities like the massacre and enslavement of the Mantineans (ch. 45) and the cruel death of Aristomachus (ch. 44).
Aratus was ultimately destroyed, and his household corrupted, by his decision to appeal to the Macedonians, a reality he did not fail to recognize (ch. 52). But this end did nothing to vitiate the man’s greatness or his eternal glory, and the grateful Achaeans elevated Aratus to divine status. Later generations, however, proved less appreciative, perhaps because they failed to grasp the right way to learn from the past. Most of Aratus’ honours, Plutarch complains, ‘have lapsed, owing to the passage of time and changing circumstances’ (ch. 53). And yet the true and enduring legacy of this great man, Plutarch makes clear, can be guaranteed by emulation on the part of the present generation – if, that is, they profit by the instruction of this Life.
Sources
Even in his lifetime, Aratus was a celebrated man, and his policies inspired strong feelings of admiration or dislike (ch. 45).18 He composed Memoirs19 that dealt with his life down to 220 BC, and this work is Plutarch’s principal source for the years leading to the Cleomenean War. Plutarch also read Polybius (who had also read Aratus). Polybius was an authoritative historian in any case, but, because he had himself been a distinguished leader in the Achaean League,20 he had access to local information and traditions inaccessible to other writers. He, too, and predictably, was an admirer of Aratus.21 Polybius’ History and Aratus’ Memoirs are Plutarch’s most important sources for this Life.
A hostile view was available in the History of Phylarchus, who narrated, in twenty-eight books, the events in the Peloponnese that occurred between 272 BC and the death of Cleomenes. Phylarchus was a contemporary of the events he described and no neutral observer: he disliked both the Macedonian monarchy and the policies of the Achaean League but commended Cleomenes highly – too highly in Plutarch’s opinion (ch. 38). His account of this period, a sensationalist piece of writing according to his critics, was nonetheless influential, as is evidenced by Polybius’ lengthy rebuttal of it (2.56–63). Plutarch mined Phylarchus when he composed his Agis & Cleomenes and Pyrrhus, and here he is the likely source for most of the criticisms of Aratus that Plutarch
reports.22
Plutarch also consulted the historian Deinias of Argos (ch. 29), a little-known figure who may have played a role in assassinating the Sicyonian tyrant Abantidas (ch. 3), in which case he would be a slightly older contemporary of Aratus.23 He composed a history of Argos down to his own times, and this work probably informs much of what Plutarch has to say about events at Argos.
Life of Aratus
[271–213 BC]
1. There is an ancient proverb, Polycrates,1 which the philosopher Chrysippus2 cites, not in its correct formulation (because, I think, he was anxious not to say anything inauspicious), but rather as he thought it better: ‘Who will praise a father if not his fortunate sons?’ But he is contradicted by Dionysodorus of Troezen,3 who restores this saying to its true wording: ‘Who will praise a father if not his unfortunate sons?’4
The purpose of this maxim, according to Dionysodorus, is to silence those men who, lacking any fine qualities of their own, endeavour to cover themselves in the virtue of their ancestors by praising them extravagantly.
But for anyone who, as Pindar puts it, ‘exhibits in his nature the nobility of his forefathers’,5 and who patterns his life after the finest examples in his family’s history – and you are such a man – how could he do better than to recollect the best of his ancestors both by listening, again and again, to their stories and by telling them himself? This is hardly because men of this kind lack virtues of their own or because their renown depends on the glories of others, but rather because they prefer to connect their own achievements with the deeds of their forebears as a means of praising them not only as the founders of their lines but also as guides of their own lives.
This is why, now that I have composed a Life of Aratus, your fellow-citizen and forefather, a figure to whom you do great credit both in your reputation and in your influence, I am sending it to you – not because you have failed to strive from your earliest days to learn as much as possible about the deeds of your distinguished ancestor, but in order that your own sons, Polycrates and Pythocles, may grow up listening to and reading about noble examples from their own family’s past, examples which they will be quite right to imitate. For it is the mark of a man in love with himself, and not of a man who loves what is noble, to believe that he is always superior to everyone else.6
2. With the dissolution of Sicyon’s pure Doric aristocratic constitution – like a harmony ruined by dissonance – the city collapsed into factional strife marked by struggles between ambitious demagogues.7 Nor did this malady and perturbation cease, as one tyrant was exchanged for another, until, after the murder of Cleon,8 Timocleides and Cleinias were elected to be the chief magistrates.9 Now, these were men of high renown and profound influence among their fellow-citizens, but no sooner did a degree of political stability appear to have been restored than Timocleides died and Abantidas, the son of Paseas, tried to make himself tyrant. He murdered Cleinias,10 and of his friends and family, some he exiled, others he put to death. He even tried to kill Cleinias’ son, Aratus, who at the age of seven was left fatherless, but the boy, taking advantage of the disorder in his house, managed to escape with the others who fled. He wandered about in the city, frightened and helpless, until by sheer chance he passed unnoticed into the house of a woman who, although she was a sister of Abantidas, was married to Prophantus, a brother of Cleinias. Her name was Soso. This woman was of a noble disposition, and she believed that it was owing to divine favour that the boy had taken refuge with her. Consequently, she hid him in her house until by night she could send him secretly to Argos.11
3. In this way, Aratus was rescued and succeeded in escaping his peril, and it was from this time on that his character was marked by a fierce and ardent hatred of tyrants12 which grew greater as he did. At Argos he received a liberal education from his hosts and from the friends of his father, and, when he saw how big and strong he was growing, devoted himself to athletic training with such success that he competed in the pentathlon,13 winning wreaths of victory. Even in his statues one can detect his athletic appearance, nor does his intelligent face or his majestic bearing disguise entirely the effects of his hearty appetite or of his exercise with a mattock.14 This perhaps explains why his application to the study of oratory was insufficiently diligent for anyone entering into political affairs,15 although he was probably a more capable speaker than he appears to those writers who base their judgement on the Memoirs16 which he left behind. This work was little more than a pastime, which he hastily composed in the midst of his serious political and military struggles, relying on whatever words happened to come to him at the time.
Abantidas was later assassinated17 by Deinias18 and Aristotle the dialectician.19 He was in the habit of attending their philosophical discussions in the market-place, where he routinely took part in their disputations, and the two men encouraged this practice in order to lay a plot against him and take his life. Paseas, the father of Abantidas, then seized power, but he was treacherously slain by Nicocles, who then proclaimed himself tyrant. It was observed at the time how this Nicocles bore a strong likeness to Periander,20 the son of Cypselus, just as the Persian Orontes21 resembled Alcmaeon, the son of Amphiaraus,22 and just as, according to Myrsilus,23 there was a Spartan youth who looked like Hector and was trampled beneath the feet of a multitude of onlookers, once they perceived the resemblance.
4. Nicocles was tyrant for four months, during which time he did the city great harm, nearly losing it to the Aetolians when they were laying plans against it.24 By this time Aratus had become a young man who was highly esteemed on account of his noble birth and intelligence, which was clearly neither trivial nor idle, but marked rather by a strikingly mature seriousness and prudence. This is why the exiles from Sicyon took great notice of him, as did Nicocles, who maintained a keen interest in his activities, keeping a secret surveillance on everything the young man undertook. This was not because he feared any enterprise so bold or daring as the one Aratus finally carried out. Instead, he suspected that Aratus was in negotiations with the kings who had been his father’s friends and hosts.25 And in truth Aratus had taken steps along that very path, but when Antigonus26 kept neglecting him and since Egypt and Ptolemy27 were too far away to offer any reasonable expectations of assistance, Aratus resolved to overthrow Nicocles on his own.
5. The first men to whom Aratus conveyed his intentions were Aristomachus28 and Ecdelus.29 The former was an exile from Sicyon, the latter an Arcadian30 from Megalopolis,31 alike a philosopher and man of action, who at Athens had been a close friend of Arcesilaus the Academic.32 These men were enthusiastic in their support, but when he discussed this matter with the other exiles, although some took part because they were ashamed to disappoint the hope he placed in them, most actually tried to dissuade Aratus on the grounds that his inexperience was making him reckless.
His plan was to occupy a site in the territory of Sicyon and, with that as his base, launch attacks against the tyrant. But then there arrived in Argos a man from Sicyon who had broken out of its prison, a brother of Xenocles, himself one of the exiles.33 When he was brought to Aratus by Xenocles, he described how narrow was the section of the city’s wall he had climbed over when making his escape: on the inside, it was almost level with the ground, because it was attached to rocky heights, and on the outside it was not too tall to be surmounted by means of ladders. When Aratus heard this, he sent Xenocles, along with two of his own slaves, Seuthas and Technon, to examine the wall, for he had now made up his mind to risk everything on a single attempt, secret and swift, should it prove possible, instead of struggling in a long war or in open combat – a private individual matched against a tyrant. After they had taken measurements of the wall, Xenocles and his companions returned. They reported that the place in question was neither inaccessible nor even very difficult to manage so far as its natural features were concerned, but it was hard to approach without detection on account of some dogs belonging to a certain gardener: they were small but extremely fierce, an
d impossible to calm down. Aratus immediately set to work to execute this new plan.
6. Now in procuring weapons for themselves they did nothing to attract anyone’s notice, since in those days nearly everybody was occupied in brigandage or in raiding their neighbours. As for ladders, the craftsman Euphranor could assemble them out in the open, because his trade shielded him from any suspicion, and he, too, was one of the exiles. Each of Aratus’ friends in Argos supplied him with ten men, although they possessed only a few slaves, and Aratus himself armed thirty of his own slaves. He also hired a few mercenaries, through the agency of Protos and Xenophilus, who were leaders of a gang of robbers, letting them believe that he was planning a raid on the territory of Sicyon in order to steal the king’s horses.34 He sent most of these men ahead, in small bands, with instructions to wait at the tower of Polygnotus.35 Caphisias was also sent on in advance, along with four others, none of them equipped for combat. Their mission was to come by night to the gardener’s house, pretending to be travellers, so that, after he had taken them in, they could lock up both the gardener and his dogs inside his house, for there was no other way to get past them. The ladders could be dismantled, and so they packed them into boxes, thus concealing them, and sent them ahead in wagons.
During this time there arrived in Argos some spies of Nicocles, and it was reported that they were going about in secret and keeping a close watch on Aratus. Therefore, early one morning, Aratus went outdoors and showed himself in the market-place, where he spent some time with his friends. After that, he exercised in the gymnasium and then led home from the wrestling school a few of the young men with whom he was accustomed to drink and enjoy himself. Later, one of his slaves was seen carrying garlands through the market-place, another purchasing torches, and still another conversing with the women routinely employed to play the harp and flute at drinking parties. Now when the spies saw this, they were fooled completely, and with a laugh said to one another, ‘Truly there is nothing more craven than a tyrant, since Nicocles, although master of a great city and a powerful army, is afraid of a mere boy who squanders on entertainments and carousing what money is left to him in his exile.’