If it is right in any situation, Menemachus, to invoke these verses, “No one of all the Achaeans will reproach your speech, nor speak against it, though you have not had the final word,”¹ then we should invoke them in the case of philosophers who seek to influence us but neither teach nor explain anything. For they are like people who trim their lamps but add no oil. I see, then, that in accord with your noble status, you are motivated “to be a speaker of words and doer of deeds”² in your native city. Since you have time neither to master the philosopher’s life at first hand through political activity and public contests, nor to become an observer of examples executed in deed rather than in word, and since you are asking me for political advice, I think that I cannot properly refuse. I pray, then, that my effort does justice both to your seriousness for politics and to my eagerness to help. I have, moreover, employed a rather wide variety of examples, as you have requested.

THE PROPER MOTIVATION
FOR A POLITICAL CAREER

First of all, let conscious choice, like a firm and strong foundation, be the basis of your political activity. Moreover, let your choice have its origin in judgment and reason, rather than in the excitement aroused by the vain pursuit of glory, a sense of rivalry, or a lack of other meaningful activities. For just as there are people who have nothing worthwhile to do at home and so pass most of their time in the marketplace, even when they have no need to buy anything, so other people, because they have no private business that is worthy of their attention, throw themselves into public affairs and occupy themselves with politics to pass the time. And many of these people, once they have taken up public affairs on a whim and have had their fill, are not able to retire easily. They suffer the same thing that happens to those who board a ship for a pleasure cruise but then are drawn out to deeper waters. Seasick and distressed, they gaze towards shore, but they are forced to remain onboard and to suffer the reality of their circumstances: “Upon the foaming sea their handsome lovers passed them by, as they went to the divine violence of the ship’s benches that plow the sea.”³ These people greatly denigrate politics because of their displeasure and change of heart, when they fall into disrepute after hoping for glory, or when they are drawn into dangerous and tumultuous affairs after expecting others to fear them on account of their power.

But those who enter politics on the basis of a reasoned judgment, considering it to be the most suitable and honorable task, are surprised by neither of those outcomes and do not change their mind. For we must not enter into public affairs as a money-making occupation, in the way that Stratocles and Dromoclides used to invite each other to ascend the “golden harvest,” as they jokingly used to call the speaker’s platform.⁴ Nor should we act hastily under the influence of a sudden emotion, as Gaius Gracchus did. For he removed himself as far away as possible from politics while the trouble surrounding his brother was still a current affair, but then inflamed with anger at the arrogance of certain people and the insults made against him, he threw himself into public life. He quickly had his fill of governing and glory, however, and although he needed a change of lifestyle and some peace and was seeking to retire, he could not find a way to lay down his power because it had become so great. And so, he was killed before he found a way out.⁵ And those who create personas for themselves to enter political contests and earn glory, as actors do for the theater, are guaranteed to suffer a change of heart, either because they have become enslaved to the people they thought they would rule, or because they have clashed with the people they wished to please. But I think that those who fall into politics accidentally and rashly, as though they have fallen into a well, are confounded and change their minds, while those who make a calm descent, with preparation and deliberation, manage affairs prudently and remain always untroubled, because they have absolute goodness⁶ and nothing else as the purpose of their endeavor.

THE CHARACTER OF THE CITIZENS
AND THE LEADERS

Once they have made a fixed and inflexible decision to enter politics, politicians must turn themselves to understanding the character of the citizens, which reveals itself in a blending of all their individual characters and is quite powerful. For undertaking to mold the character and adapt the nature of the people straightaway is neither easy nor risk-free, but it requires much time and great authority. Just as wine at first is controlled by the nature of those who are drinking it, but then stealthily, by warming and mixing into the drinkers’ bodies, comes to control the drinkers’ character and to change their state, so politicians, until they have established themselves through reputation and trust as steady guides, must adapt themselves to, and work with, the existing character of the people, understanding what pleases them and how they are naturally suited to be led. The Athenian people, for example, are easily excited to anger, easily moved to show mercy, and prefer to make a quick conjecture about something rather than to be calmly taught the facts; they are very eager to assist humble people who lack reputation, and in the same way they welcome and think highly of speeches that are playful and humorous; they take the greatest delight in people who offer praise, and take hardly any offense at those who mock them; they are dreadful even to their leaders, then kindly even to their enemies.

The character of the Carthaginians, however, is quite different: they are bitter, sullen, obedient to their leaders, harsh to their subjects, most ignoble when facing their fears, most wild when angry, insistent in their judgments, and unpleasant and austere with respect to amusement and joy. The Carthaginians would not have left their seats with laughter and applause if Cleon had asked them to postpone the assembly because he had just sacrificed and was about to entertain guests at dinner. Nor, if Alcibiades had let a quail escape from his cloak while speaking, would they have joined eagerly in the hunt and given it back to him.⁷ On the contrary, they would have killed both men for behaving arrogantly and extravagantly. We know this from the example of their own Hanno, whom they accused of tyrannical intentions and banished because he was using a lion as his pack animal on military campaigns. And I personally do not think that the Thebans, having come into possession of their enemies’ letters, would have left them unread, unlike the Athenians who, having captured Philip’s messengers as they were carrying a letter written to Olympias, neither opened the letter nor revealed the intimate message sent by a man abroad to his wife. On the other hand, when Epaminondas was unwilling to defend himself against his accusers but left the theater and went out through the assembly to the gymnasium, I do not think that the Athenians would easily have endured his contempt and pride.⁸ And I think the Spartans were still farther from tolerating the arrogance and buffoonery of Stratocles, who convinced the Athenians to make a thanks-offering for receiving the good news that they had won a victory. Later, when it was announced that Athens had actually been defeated and the people were upset, he asked them what injustice had been done if on his account they had enjoyed themselves for a few days. Now court flatterers, like people who hunt birds, imitate the speech of kings and act the way they do, and so they closely insinuate themselves and lead kings on through deception. But it is inappropriate for the politician to imitate the manners of the people. It is fitting instead to understand them and to take the approach that is most effective for winning over each individual. For ignorance of people’s character leads to missteps and mistakes no less in our political systems than in the entourages of kings.

And so the politician, after gaining power and trust, must then attempt to train the character of the citizens, guiding it calmly towards improvement and handling it gently, for changing the disposition of the people is difficult. And you, since you will be living the rest of your life in public as upon a stage, must adorn and arrange your own way of life. If you cannot easily clear your soul entirely of its defects, then remove and curtail the faults that are especially obvious and prominent. For you hear that even Themistocles, when he was intending to get involved in politics, kept himself away from drinking and revelry, but remaining watchful, sober, and reflective, he used to tell his friends that Miltiades’s trophy would not allow him to sleep.⁹ And Pericles transformed himself with respect to both his body and his daily routine, so that he walked slowly, engaged in dialogue mildly, always presented a composed appearance, kept his hand inside his clothing, and made his way along only a single road, the one that led to the speaker’s platform and the council chamber. For a multitude is not easily manipulated by just anybody or easily placed in a captivity that keeps it safe. You must instead be content if the people are not startled by your sight or your voice, as a fearful and wily animal is, and if they accept your authority.

Should politicians, who must pay careful attention to these matters, then neglect the condition of their own life and character, and not worry about how they may be cleansed of all blame and slander? For politicians do not give an accounting only for the things they say and do in the public sphere, but we even inquire into their dinners, sexual activity, marriages, amusements, and all their interests. Do I have to mention Alcibiades? Though he was more effective than anyone else on the public’s behalf and undefeated as a general, his lack of discipline and the audacity of his way of life destroyed him, and he deprived the city of all his benefits on account of his extravagance and licentiousness. And there’s the case of Cimon, whom the Athenians reproached for his wine, and of Scipio, whom the Romans (having nothing else to say) reproached for sleeping. And Pompey the Great’s political enemies used to rebuke him after they observed him scratching his head with one finger.¹⁰ For just as a mole or wart on the face causes more disgust than marks, growths, and scars on other parts of the body, so small faults appear great when observed in the lives of leaders and politicians. This is because the majority believe that important business, such as leadership and politics, also deserves to be free of every oddity and fault. Consider the tribune Livius Drusus, whose house had many rooms that were visible to his neighbors. He was rightly held in high esteem, because when a certain craftsman was promising to rearrange and relocate those rooms for a cost of only five talents,¹¹ Drusus said, “Take ten, and make my whole house visible, so that every citizen may see how I live my life.” For he was a self-controlled and disciplined man. But perhaps he had no need of such visibility, since the people very clearly see in politicians even those character traits, counsels, deeds, and ways of life that appear to be deeply concealed. Judging politicians no less by their private than by their public habits, the people love and admire some, while towards others they feel disgust and scorn.

“What’s this? Don’t cities also employ people who live licentious and dissolute lives?” Of course they do—and pregnant women often crave stones, and people who are nauseated seek out salty or similarly spiced foods, but shortly thereafter they spit them out and reject them. Thus, the people also, because of licentiousness and arrogance or the lack of better leaders, make use of the politicians who are available, even though they find them loathsome and contemptible, but then they are glad when they hear words such as Plato the comic poet makes his character “The People” say: “Grab, grab my hand as quickly as you can! I’m about to elect Agyrrius general!” And again, when “The People” are asking for a basin and a feather in order to vomit, they say, “Mantias has approached my speaker’s platform” and “He feeds foul Cephalus, a most hateful malady.” And when Carbo was promising something to the Roman people and backing his promise with an oath and a curse, the people all took a counter oath not to trust him. In Lacedaemon, when a certain licentious person made an acceptable proposal, the people rejected it, and so the ephors selected one of the elders by lot and ordered him to make the same proposal, thus pouring the proposal, so to speak, from a dirty vessel into a clean one, so that it would be well received by the multitude. Thus, trust in a person’s character and a lack of trust both have great influence in politics.

THE POWER OF SPEECH

Even with this being the case, we must not neglect the grace and power of speech by placing all of our emphasis on virtue. Rather, believing rhetoric to be not the creator of persuasion but a collaborator, we should correct Menander, who said that “the character of the speaker is what persuades, not the speech itself.” In fact, both the character and the speech are important. Unless, by Zeus, someone will argue that just as the pilot not the rudder steers the ship and the rider not the bit turns the horse, so in the art of politics, you persuade a city not with speech but by employing only your character as the tiller and bit. And so, the argument goes, you must take hold of and direct the city from behind, which, as Plato says, is the best way to drive an animal. But I disagree, for those kings who were great and, as Homer says, born-from-Zeus built themselves up with purple robes, scepters, bodyguards, and oracles from the gods, and believing themselves superior they made the multitude their subjects by means of their majesty. Nonetheless, they still wished to be “speakers of words” and did not neglect the grace of speaking “nor the assemblies, so they might become highly distinguished men.”¹² Not only did they long for Zeus of the Council, Warlike Ares, and Athena Patron of the Army, but they also called upon Calliope, “who attends reverend kings”¹³ and who by persuasion tames and charms the arrogance and violence of the people. How, then, can private individuals who wish to lead the city, wearing ordinary clothing and having an ordinary appearance, prevail over and control the people, unless they possess a persuasive and winning ability to speak? Now those who pilot ships have other people give their orders, but politicians ought to possess within themselves both a piloting mind and a commanding speech. Otherwise, they might require the aid of someone else’s voice or end up saying, as Iphicrates did when he was out-spoken by Aristophon, “My opponents have the better actor, but I have the better play.” And thus, they would not often require those verses of Euripides: “I wish the children of wretched mortals were mute,” and “It’s a pity that human deeds cannot speak for themselves. Then, those who are clever at speaking would amount to nothing.”

And so, the Athenian political system under Pericles was “in name a democracy,” as Thucydides says, “but in fact it was government by the leading man”¹⁴ thanks to the power of his speech. Now Cimon was a good man, and Ephialtes and Thucydides,¹⁵ too, but when Archidamus the Spartan king asked Thucydides whether he or Pericles was the better wrestler, he replied, “No one knows, because whenever we’re wrestling and I throw him down, he argues that he wasn’t thrown, persuades the spectators, and wins the match!” This skill brought not only glory to Pericles but also salvation to the city: convinced by his arguments, Athens preserved the wealth that it possessed and kept itself out of trouble abroad. By contrast, Nicias had the same plan, but lacking a similar ability to persuade and attempting to guide the people with his speech as though with a feeble bit, he could not gain mastery or control, but carried away by the people’s violence, he went off to Sicily and was thrown from the horse.¹⁶ They say not to hold a wolf by the ears, but by the ears is just how one must control the people and a city. Some, who are unpracticed in speaking, seek inelegant and unsophisticated means of getting a hold on the people. By giving feasts, they pull the people by the stomach, or by making donations they pull them by the wallet, or they are constantly putting on war dances or gladiatorial shows, and in this way they lead the people, or rather they court the mob. For true leadership of the people is leadership of those persuaded through speech, while taming the mob as described above is no different from hunting and herding irrational animals.

And so, you must bring to the political contest, which is not a skirmish but an all-out battle, a speaking ability that is well trained in vigor of voice and strength of breath, so that, weary and quenched, you are not overpowered by some “grasping brawler with the voice of the Cycloborus.”¹⁷ Cato the Younger, for instance, when he did not expect to persuade the people or the senate because they had already been influenced by favors and lobbying, used to rise and speak the whole day, and thus he kept them from making a decision. Concerning the preparation and use of your speaking ability, then, what I have written is sufficient, since you are capable of discovering for yourself what follows from it.

ENTERING THE ARENA

There are two routes by which you may enter politics: one, swift and dazzling, leads to glory though not without risk, while the other is slower and more prosaic but provides surer footing. Those who take the first route set forth straightaway from some illustrious, great, and daring deed, as though sailing out from a cape along the sea, and they make their arrival into politics believing that Pindar had it right when he said, “At the start of an undertaking, one must present a brilliant facade.”¹⁸ For the people welcome the newcomer all the more eagerly because they have had enough of the usual politicians, just as the audience at a play welcomes a new actor. Moreover, the offices and powers that accumulate brilliantly and swiftly drive away envy. For Ariston says that fire does not produce smoke nor does glory provoke envy if it flares up promptly and swiftly, but when people build their reputations little by little and at a leisurely pace, other people attack them from all sides. On this account, many aspiring leaders wither and die around the speaker’s platform before they have the chance to bloom. And just as they say about the sprinter Ladas, that “the sound of the race’s start filled his ears,” so when people are crowned for serving on an embassy, celebrating a triumph, or performing brilliantly as general, neither those who are envious nor those heaping scorn can exert any influence. Thus, Aratus earned his reputation by making the downfall of the tyrant Nicocles his first political act; and thus, Alcibiades’s first act was to make an alliance with the Mantineans against the Lacedaemonians. Pompey thought he deserved a triumph when he had not yet been elected to the senate, and when Sulla would not allow it, Pompey declared, “More people worship the sun as it rises than as it sets.” And the Roman people illegally elected Scipio Aemilianus consul when he was only running for aedile, not as the result of any ordinary political start, but because they marveled at his winning a single combat in Iberia while he was yet a young man, and at the deeds he performed soon after as military tribune fighting against Carthage. These accomplishments made Cato the Elder exclaim that Scipio “alone possesses intelligence, while the rest flit around like shadows.”¹⁹

But in our time, when the affairs of cities do not include leadership in war or bringing down tyrants or campaigning with allies, what conspicuous and brilliant entry into politics can we make? There remain public trials and embassies to the emperor, which require people who are eager yet possess both courage and sense. And there are many other opportunities that you may turn to your benefit, either by reviving good practices that have been neglected in our cities, or by discontinuing practices acquired through bad habit that cause the city shame or harm. Consider also an important court case that is well pleaded, a show of good faith as a legal advocate for a weaker person against a stronger opponent, or a frank speech delivered against a corrupt leader in support of justice. All of these things have given some people glorious starts in politics.

But many people who achieved great glory chose the slow and steady route; for example, Aristides, Phocion, Pammenes the Theban, Lucullus the Roman, Cato the Elder, and Agesilaus the Lacedaemonian. Just as ivy intertwines itself with strong trees and climbs upwards with them, so each of these men, while still young and unknown, approached an older man of good reputation, and being gradually elevated by the older man’s authority and increasing in stature by cooperating with him, fixed and rooted himself firmly into political life. In this way, Cleisthenes helped Aristides to grow and Chabrias helped Phocion; Sulla helped Lucullus; Fabius Maximus helped Cato the Elder; Epaminondas helped Pammenes; and Lysander helped Agesilaus. Now Agesilaus, because of ill-timed ambition and jealousy over Lysander’s reputation, insulted and cast aside the man who had been his mentor, but the rest of these men nobly, politically, and until the very end cultivated and helped to adorn the men who had made them brilliant. They were like heavenly bodies that reflect the sun, and in honoring their mentors, they further increased their own stature and made themselves radiant too. Those who disparaged Scipio Aemilianus declared that he was only an actor and that his friend Laelius was the author of his deeds, but Laelius was never flattered by any of these people and never ceased to associate himself with Scipio’s virtue and glory. And Afranius, the friend of Pompey, although he was very humble nonetheless was expecting to be elected consul. But when Pompey was supporting other candidates, Afranius renounced his ambition, declaring that gaining the consulship would not be glorious but would instead cause him grief and distress, if Pompey did not want him to hold the office and was not supporting him. Then, after holding out for just one year, he both won the consulship and preserved Pompey’s friendship.²⁰ And so it happens that those who are mentored by others as they build their reputations are well received by the people and, if they run into trouble, encounter less hostility. For this reason, Philip advised Alexander to take advantage of the fact that someone else was king and, while he was able, to make friends by engaging in pleasant conversation and treating others kindly.

But those starting out in politics must not select as a guide someone who is merely highly esteemed and powerful. Rather, they must select someone who has become esteemed and powerful on account of their virtue. Not every tree is willing to accept and support the vine that wraps itself around its branches, but some actually choke and destroy the vine’s growth. Similarly, there are people in our cities who do not love goodness,²¹ but who only love being honored and holding office, and so they do not concede to young people opportunities to perform civic duties. Rather, out of envy they suppress them and make them wither away, as though the young people were depriving them of their own glory, which is like their food. Thus, Marius in Libya and again in Gaul accomplished much through the agency of Sulla, but he stopped giving Sulla duties and dismissed him. He was agitated by his increased stature, but he used Sulla’s seal-ring as a pretext. For when Sulla was serving as quaestor on campaign with Marius in Libya, Marius sent him on a mission that led to the capture of Jugurtha. Because he was young, ambitious, and had experienced his first taste of glory, Sulla did not handle his success with moderation. Instead, he had a seal-ring engraved with an image of the event, that is, with an image of Jugurtha being handed over into his custody, and he used to wear it. Citing this offense, Marius dismissed him. Then Sulla transferred his allegiance to Catulus and Metellus, good men who were opponents of Marius, and swiftly drove Marius into exile and deposed him by means of civil war, after he had very nearly overthrown Rome. Sulla, however, was building up Pompey from the time he was a young man, rising when Pompey came into his presence and uncovering his head,²² and he was also granting to other young men opportunities to play leadership roles. He even encouraged some young men who were reluctant, and so he filled his armies with ambition and zeal. In the end he dominated everyone because he wished not to be alone in power but to be first and greatest among many great men. This is the sort of mentor that we must hold fast and cling to. Now Aesop’s wren was being conveyed on the back of an eagle but then it suddenly flew off and got out in front.²³ We must not, in that manner, snatch glory away from our mentors. We must instead receive glory from them, together with their goodwill and friendship, since, as Plato says, people cannot be good leaders unless they have first been good servants.²⁴

POLITICAL FRIENDSHIPS

Your next step is to make a judgment concerning your friends, for which the attitude neither of Themistocles nor of Cleon is recommended. For Cleon, when he first decided to enter politics, gathered his friends together and then dissolved his friendship with them, on the ground that friendship greatly weakens and corrupts one’s ability to make correct and just political decisions. He would have done better, however, if he had cast greed and contentiousness from his soul and cleansed himself of envy and malice. For cities have no need of people who lack friends and companions, but they do need people who are useful and self-controlled. But as it was, he drove his friends away, “and the heads of a hundred accursed flatterers wagged their tongues in a ring” around him, as the comic poets say.²⁵ He became harsh and overbearing towards those who were reasonable and fair, and he made himself subservient to the multitude in order to win their favor, “tending them like old men and giving them an income.” And finally, he joined forces with the diseased and lowest element of the people against the aristocracy. Themistocles, in his turn, when someone declared to him that he would govern nobly if he treated everyone equally, said, “May I never sit upon the sort of throne that prevents me from giving more to my friends than to everyone else.” But he was wrong to make his politics beholden to his friendships, and wrong as well to make public affairs and the common good subservient to private favors and interests. When Simonides, however, asked for an unjust favor, Themistocles said, “A poet who violates the meter as he sings is no good, and a civic leader who violates the law in granting a favor is unfair.”

But if a ship’s pilot selects his sailors and the ship’s captain selects his pilot, people “who know well how to work the rudder on the stern and to brace the yardarm when the wind is rising,” and if an architect selects the laborers and artisans who will not ruin his work but will help him to execute it in the best way, it would truly be terrible and miserable if politicians, being the finest artisans according to Pindar and the creators of well-ordered government and justice, do not from the start select friends and subordinates who share their passions and their enthusiasm for what is truly good, but instead select friends who are constantly bending them unjustly and violently to other purposes. In that case, they would appear no different from a builder or carpenter who by inexperience and error misuses squares and rules and plumb lines, thereby ensuring that his final product will be misaligned. For friends are the living and thinking tools of politicians, who must not be tripped up along with their friends as they misstep, but who must rather be on their guard not to commit errors even when their friends go wrong. Getting caught up in his friends’ transgressions is precisely what caused shame even to Solon and damaged his reputation among the citizens. For when he had decided to lighten debts and to propose the “shaking-off” (which was what he called the cancellation of debt), he informed his friends, who committed a most unjust act. Moving quickly, they borrowed great sums of money, and when the law was unveiled a short time later, his friends were revealed to have purchased elaborate houses and large tracts of land with the money they had borrowed. And Solon, though he himself was harmed by their actions, was blamed for supporting them in their injustice.

COOPERATION AMONG POLITICIANS
AND CITIZENS

“All larks must have a crest,” as Simonides says, and all political activity brings some enmity and disagreement. This being the case, the politician is quite right to give this matter some thought. Now most people praise Themistocles and Aristides, who used to set aside their mutual hostility at the border whenever they would go abroad on an embassy or military campaign, then take it up again when they returned. And some give very high marks to Cretinas of Magnesia, who was the political opponent of Hermeias, a man who was out of power but nonetheless possessed an ambitious and brilliant soul. When the war against Mithridates was pressing them and Cretinas saw that their city was in danger, he bid Hermeias to take charge and manage affairs while he went abroad, or if Hermeias preferred, he offered to assume command while Hermeias got himself out of the way. His purpose was to keep their rivalry from destroying the city. The proposal pleased Hermeias, and claiming that Cretinas was more skilled at making war than he was, he withdrew from the city along with his wife and children. Cretinas gave him an escort and furnished him with whatever he had in his own estate that was more useful to refugees than to people under siege. And then he nobly commanded the city, which came very near to destruction, and saved it though there had been little hope. Now if the declaration, “I love my children, but I love my country more,” is noble and the product of a great spirit, was it not even easier for both Cretinas and Hermeias to say, “I hate that man and wish to do him harm, but I love my country more”? For an unwillingness to be reconciled to our personal enemies in situations that cause us to forsake even our loved ones is terribly savage and brutal. But Phocion and Cato²⁶ were even better, for they brought no enmity at all to their political disagreements. Rather, they were stubborn and immovable in political wrangling only when it came to protecting the public welfare, but when they had personal disagreements with their political opponents, they handled them humanely and calmly.

You must not, in fact, consider any citizen to be your personal enemy, unless someone, like Aristion or Nabis or Catiline has appeared, who is a disease or an open sore for the city.²⁷ But those people with whom you are otherwise out of tune you must gently adjust, as a musician tightens and loosens strings, and bring them back into tune, rather than angrily and insolently attacking them when they are making mistakes. And you must treat them rather tactfully, in the manner of Homer, saying for example, “My friend, I thought that you were wiser than the rest”²⁸ and “You know how to come with up a speech better than this one.”²⁹ And if they should say or do something good, you must not be irritated by the honors they receive or be sparing in your compliments of their good works. For thus your criticism, whenever you must make it, will be trusted, and you will divert people from making trouble by building up their virtue and demonstrating to them the sorts of deeds that are more valuable and appropriate. I personally think that politicians should testify to the just actions even of those people with whom they are at odds politically, and they should assist them when they go to trial against false accusers and disbelieve slanders made against them, if the slanders are contrary to their actual conduct. This is how even the infamous Nero behaved not long before he put Thrasea to death: although he especially hated and feared him, nonetheless when someone was accusing Thrasea of judging a court case unfairly and unjustly, Nero supported him, saying, “I wish Thrasea were as excellent a friend to me as he is a judge.”

A LEADER SHOULD DO ANYTHING,
BUT NOT EVERYTHING

Now some people, such as Cato, involve themselves in every aspect of government, in the belief that good citizens, to the best of their ability, never abandon their concern and care for the state. And people praise Epaminondas because he did not neglect his duty even when the Thebans appointed him to an insignificant office out of envy and to insult him. On the contrary, he declared that not only does an office bring distinction to a man, but a man also brings distinction to an office. Then he proceeded to transform that insignificant office into a great and respected honor, even though previously it had involved nothing more than overseeing the clearing of dung and the diverting of water from the streets. And no doubt even I myself provide a good laugh to people visiting our town, when they see me out in public performing similar duties, as I often do. But in this situation Antisthenes’s memorable remark comes to my aid. For when someone expressed surprise that he was personally carrying his salted fish through the marketplace, he said, “Of course I am, since it’s for me.”³⁰ Conversely, when people reproach me for being on the job while tiles are being measured or cement and stones are being delivered, I say to them, “Look, I’m not building these things for myself, but for my native city.” And so it is with many other small projects: people would be petty and parsimonious if they oversaw these projects for themselves and carried them out on their own behalf, but when they undertake them as a public service and on behalf of the city, they are not at all undignified. Indeed, the care and eagerness they devote to small matters becomes even more significant. Others, however, believe that the attitude of Pericles was more honorable and appropriate to his high stature. Among them is Critolaus, the Peripatetic philosopher, who thinks that, just as the Athenians’ state ships Salaminia and Paralus were not launched for ordinary tasks but were reserved for essential and great missions, so political leaders should apply themselves only to the most important and greatest matters, following the example of the king of the universe: “For god lays hold of the great affairs but lets the small ones be, leaving them to chance,” as Euripides says.

I do not agree. Neither, however, do I approve of the excessive love of honor and contentiousness of Theagenes, a man who was victorious at the four great athletic festivals³¹ and in many other competitions, and who won not only in the pancratium³² but also in boxing and the long race. After all this, he was attending a festival held at the shrine of a certain hero, and after the feast had been served to everyone as usual, he leapt up to begin the pancratium, believing that no one else ought to be victorious if he was in the contest. As a result, he collected twelve-hundred victory crowns, most of which you would consider to be essentially worthless. Those who strip³³ for every leadership opportunity are no different from Theagenes: they swiftly make themselves contemptible to the people; they become oppressive and envied when they succeed, and they bring joy to others when they fail; and the very attributes that earned them admiration when they first took office become the source of mockery and ridicule.

And so, we must not stand aloof from any public duty, but out of goodwill and concern we must be attentive and knowledgeable about everything. And we must not stow ourselves away, like the “sacred anchor” on a ship,³⁴ waiting for our city to experience an extreme need or misfortune. Rather, consider the ships’ pilots. They manage the tiller with their own hands, but they also turn and rotate other devices by means of tackle handled by the crew, while they themselves sit at a distance. Thus, they rely on sailors, bosuns, and their lookouts on the bow, and they often summon some of these crew members to the stern and entrust them with the tiller. In the same way, it is proper that politicians yield to others with goodwill and kindness, allowing them to govern and be summoned to the speaker’s platform. And they must not accomplish all the public’s business by their own speeches, decrees, and actions, but having under them assistants who are trustworthy and of good character, they should assign each one to the task for which they are best suited. Thus, Pericles employed Menippus in the generalship, checked the power of the Areopagus council through the agency of Ephialtes, passed the decree punishing the city of Megara through Charinus, and sent out Lampon to found the colony at Thurii. When power appears to be distributed among many people, not only are we less troubled by an accumulation of envy, but we are also more capable of accomplishing what must be done. For just as the division of the hand into fingers does not render it weak but instead makes it a usable and practical instrument, so those who share political power with others make the work of government more effective by their cooperation. By contrast, there are some who, out of an insatiable desire for glory or power, take full responsibility for the city upon themselves and apply themselves to tasks for which they are neither naturally talented nor trained, as Cleon did when he became general, or Philopoemen as admiral, or Hannibal when he addressed the assembly. Such people have no excuse when they fail, but they must moreover endure the criticism that we read in Euripides, “You’re a carpenter, but you didn’t work with wood.” We might similarly criticize someone by saying, “You’re an unpersuasive speaker, but you were leading an embassy,” “You’re careless, but you became an administrator,” “You’re inexperienced in accounting, but you were acting as treasurer,” or “You’re old and infirm, but you were leading an army.” Pericles, however, shared power even with Cimon, governing in Athens while his rival recruited crews for the city’s ships and made war abroad, for Pericles was more naturally suited to politics, while Cimon was better in war.

The people in every city can be malicious and inclined to find fault with their political leaders. Moreover, unless they observe some partisanship or opposition, the people suspect many good policies of being implemented by conspiracy, which leads especially to criticism of their leaders’ political connections and friendships. Now, politicians must not allow any real hostility or disagreements between themselves to persist, as Onomademus the demagogue of Chios did. After emerging victorious from a factional fight, he would not allow his party to drive all its enemies from the city, “So that we don’t begin to fight with our friends,” he explained, “once we’ve rid ourselves entirely of our enemies.” That approach is simple-minded. But whenever the people are suspicious of some important and beneficial proposal, do not allow every politician to come forward and speak the same opinion, as if by prior agreement. Instead, two or three of your friends should openly disagree and speak calmly in opposition, and then, acting as though their position has been refuted, they should change sides. For by this stratagem, your friends will bring the people along with them, because they appear to have been won over by what is advantageous to the city. In less important matters, however, there is no harm in allowing your friends to rely on their own reasoning and to genuinely disagree, so that when it comes to the most important issues, they may appear to reach consensus about the best course of action without any prearrangement.

It is natural, then, that politicians always provide leadership in a city, just as the queen is leader among bees, and bearing this in mind, politicians must manage public affairs. Even so, they should pursue neither aggressively nor excessively those offices that confer power and are won by election, for there is nothing honorable or democratic in the love of holding office. But they should not refuse an appointment, either, if the people are calling them to serve and bestowing power lawfully. And they should accept and eagerly serve even in positions that are beneath their dignity, for politicians who enjoy renown because they have held the greater offices are obligated in turn to elevate the stature of the lesser offices by holding them, too. And with regard to the most impressive positions, such as the generalship at Athens, membership on the city council at Rhodes, and leadership of our allied Boeotian cities, politicians are likewise obligated to show moderation, giving way sometimes and yielding to others, while in turn adding honor and distinction to the lesser positions. In this way, we may avoid being either despised or envied.

KNOW YOUR PLACE AND YOUR POWER

As you begin every term of office, you must bear in mind the sentiment that Pericles used to repeat to himself whenever he put on the general’s cloak: “Be mindful, O Pericles, that you are leading free people; you are leading Greeks and citizens of Athens.” Not only that, but say this to yourself as well: “You are a governor, but you yourself are also governed; you lead a city that is subject to the proconsul, who is the representative of Caesar. ‘There are no spears upon the plain;’³⁵ Sardis of old is gone, and so is that famous Lydian army.”³⁶ You must wear a cloak suited to your circumstances; you must turn your gaze away from the general’s headquarters and look instead to the speaker’s platform; and you must not think too highly of or place too much trust in your crown, since you can see the proconsul’s boots above your head. Instead, you should imitate the actors: they pour their own emotion, character, and dignity into their performances, but they nonetheless obey the prompter that feeds them lines and do not violate the rhythms and meters of their parts, which are assigned to them by those who run the show.³⁷ For a transgression while in office does not result merely in hissing, mockery, or boos, but “the dreadful punisher, the axe that cuts the neck” has fallen upon many political leaders, as it fell upon your fellow citizen Pardalas when he neglected to observe his limits. And another man, after he was banished to an island, became, in the words of Solon, “a Pholegandrian or Sicinetan, no longer an Athenian, after he changed his homeland.”

When we observe small children playfully attempting to wear their fathers’ boots and to place crowns upon their heads, we laugh. But when our civic leaders foolishly excite the people by encouraging them to imitate those actions, high spirits, and achievements of our ancestors which are ill-suited to our modern times and circumstances, they do something ridiculous but suffer consequences that are no joke, unless they get off easy by being merely despised. For the Greeks of former times have many other accomplishments which political leaders may recount to shape the character of their contemporaries and teach them self-control. Politicians should remind the people of Athens, for example, not of great victories in battle, but they should recall the decree of amnesty passed in the case of the thirty tyrants,³⁸ or the punishment of Phrynichus for recreating the capture of Miletus in a tragedy,³⁹ or how celebratory crowns were worn after Cassander rebuilt the city of Thebes.⁴⁰ Or, when the Athenians learned about the death by clubbing that occurred in Argos, in which the Argives murdered 1,500 citizens, how they ordered a purification to be conducted all around the assembly, or how in the Harpalus affair they searched every house but one, that of a newly married couple.⁴¹ For by imitating actions such as these, modern Athenians can make themselves like their ancestors. But as for the great battles at Marathon, the Eurymedon River, and Platea, and any other accomplishments from the past that would cause the people to swell with pride and become arrogant to no purpose, politicians should leave them to the professors and their schools.

Not only must you ensure that both you and your native city are beyond reproach in the eyes of our Roman rulers, but you should always have a friend among those very powerful higher-ups, someone to provide steady support for your political activity. The Romans, in fact, are quite enthusiastic in promoting their friends’ political interests. Moreover, the advantage you receive from your friendship with a Roman leader may nobly contribute to your city’s prosperity, just as Polybius and Panaetius bestowed great benefits upon their cities as a result of the goodwill that Scipio showed to them. Or consider the case of Augustus and Arius. After Augustus captured Alexandria, he entered the city with Arius as his escort and conversed with him alone among his companions.⁴² And then, when the Alexandrians were expecting to be treated harshly and were entreating Augustus to spare them, he announced that he would make peace with them on account of their city’s great renown and in honor of its founder, Alexander, “and thirdly,” he added, “as a favor to my friend here.” This sort of favor is incomparable, superior even to those lucrative governorships or the administration of provinces, which most people grow old pursuing at the doors of others⁴³ while they neglect affairs at home. Or perhaps we should revise the verses of Euripides: if we must stay up all night, pay court to others, and subject ourselves to the company of our leaders, it is most noble to submit to such things on behalf of our city, but in all other cases, we should welcome and foster friendships that we form on the basis of equality and justice.⁴⁴

Although we must make our cities obedient to those in authority, we must not humiliate them in the process: just because our cities’ legs have been bound, we need not offer up their necks in addition. Some civic leaders do this, however, by referring matters great and small to Roman governors and so bringing the reproach of servitude upon their city. Or rather, they utterly destroy their political systems, making them hesitant, fearful, and entirely powerless. For just as some people have developed the habit of neither dining nor bathing without the advice of a doctor, and thus they do not enjoy even the level of health that nature gives freely, so some politicians seek the Romans’ judgment about every decree, council meeting, civic honor, or administrative action. In doing so, they compel their governors to become their masters, even against their will. The cause of this behavior is primarily the greed and contentiousness of the leading citizens, who either attack the weaker citizens and force them to flee the city, or who bring in the Roman authorities when they are fighting with each other and cannot tolerate losing. As a result, the senate, assembly, courts, and every civic office lose their power.

A good civic leader must keep everyone engaged in the political process, pacifying private citizens by ensuring equality and powerful citizens by allowing cooperation. Moreover, they must resolve difficult issues by applying a sort of political therapy to them as though they were terrible diseases. In the political give-and-take, civic leaders must prefer to lose rather than to win by violence and by terminating their fellow citizens’ rights, and they must ask others to think likewise by teaching them how destructive political rivalries can be. But in reality, to avoid yielding honorably and gracefully to their fellow citizens, to the members of their local tribes,⁴⁵ to their neighbors, or to their colleagues in office, politicians take their disagreements straight to the doors of public advocates and put them in the hands of lawyers, to their own detriment and disgrace. When doctors are unable to cure a disease completely, they draw it outward to the surface of the patient’s body. But when good politicians are unable to maintain their cities entirely untroubled, they will attempt to conceal whatever elements are causing disturbance and partisanship, and then to treat and manage them in a way that requires as little external doctoring and medicine as possible. For political leaders should make a conscious choice to promote stability and to avoid the madness and turmoil that arise from the vain pursuit of glory, as I have said. There should be boldness in the leaders’ disposition, however, and “let there be a confident, fearless strength, such as comes upon men who face hostile adversaries in defense of their country,”⁴⁶ and who do battle in difficult circumstances and trying times. For politicians must not create storms themselves, but neither should they abandon their cities when storms fall upon them. They must not be the cause of instability, but when their cities have become unstable and imperiled, they must come to their aid by speaking freely and directly, as though dropping that “sacred anchor,” in the direst of circumstances.

TREAT OTHERS WITH RESPECT

Above all, we must honor every public office, treating it as a great and sacred thing. We must honor every officeholder, too, knowing that concord and friendship towards our colleagues pay much greater honor to a public office than do crowns and purple cloaks. But those who make serving in the army and training together as youths the start of their friendships, but then make sharing a generalship or an elected office the cause for enmity, cannot escape one of three evils. For they either believe their colleagues to be their equals and so they fight against them; or they believe them to be superior and so they envy them; or they believe them inferior and so they despise them. We must, however, pay court to the colleague who is superior, make the inferior better, and honor the equal. We must, moreover, welcome and be friendly to everyone, on the ground that we have become their friends not at dinner, over drinks, or in our home, but through the popular vote, and that our mutual goodwill is a sort of inheritance from our native cities. Indeed, Scipio Aemilianus was criticized at Rome because he gave a feast for his friends at the dedication of the temple to Hercules, but he neglected to invite his colleague Mummius.⁴⁷ For even if in other respects they did not consider themselves friends, in situations like the dedication they used to think it right to honor each other and be courteous on account of the shared office. Therefore, seeing that Scipio, who was admired in all other respects, earned the reputation for being contemptuous by neglecting such a small act of kindness, should we expect other politicians to be seen as fair and moderate when they impede the dignity of their colleagues, spitefully oppose their opportunities to act on their ambition, and in short arrogantly assign and attract all political duties to themselves while taking them away from others? I remember that when I myself was still a young man, I was sent with someone else on an embassy to the proconsul. Somehow the other person was left behind, and so I alone met with the proconsul and completed the mission. When I returned and was about to make my report, my father approached me and spoke with me privately, bidding me not to say, “I went” but “we went,” and not “I said” but “we said,” and so in all other respects to give my colleague a share of the accomplishment. For not only is such an act fair and humane, but it also takes away the thing that causes grief, namely, the envy of someone else’s glory. For this very reason, accomplished people give some credit for their success to the gods and to luck, as when Timoleon dedicated a temple to the goddess of chance after destroying the tyrannies in Sicily. Python, when the Athenians were marveling at him and honoring him for killing Cotys, said, “God did it, through the agency of my hand.” And when someone said that Sparta was preserved because its kings were skilled in leading, Theopompus, king of the Lacedaemonians, replied, “No, because the people are skilled in obeying.”

But whenever some great and useful deed must be accomplished, one that requires a mighty struggle and much effort, you should attempt in those situations to select your most powerful friends, or rather to select the most amenable among those that are most powerful. For those sorts of people will least of all work against you and will be especially cooperative, since they possess wisdom that is not mixed up with contentiousness. Moreover, you must understand your own nature. When you are faced with a task that you are not best suited to accomplish, select as your colleagues those who are more capable rather than those who are like you, as Diomedes did when he selected the cleverest man to accompany him on his spying mission and passed over men who were brave.⁴⁸ For in this way political actions are more balanced, and contentiousness does not arise among ambitious people who have different virtues and abilities. And so, if you are not an accomplished speaker, select someone trained in rhetoric to be your colleague in a lawsuit or your partner on an embassy, just as Pelopidas chose Epaminondas; if you are unpersuasive and haughty when addressing the people, as Callicratidas was, select a partner who is gracious and courteous; and if your body is weak and ill-suited for exertion, select a partner who is industrious and strong, as Nicias selected Lamachus. For thus we would envy Geryon’s many legs, hands, and eyes, if he were controlling them all with a single soul.⁴⁹ But politicians, if they are of one mind, by pooling not only their persons and their resources but also their luck, capabilities, and virtues for a single purpose, can be more highly esteemed for a combined effort than for an individual accomplishment. This is contrary to the example of the Argonauts, who abandoned Hercules and then were compelled to save themselves and steal the golden fleece via the women’s quarters, with the aid of spells and potions.⁵⁰

THE REWARD OF POLITICS

People entering some temples leave their gold outside, but no one, to put it simply, brings iron into any temple. Since the speaker’s platform is the temple common to Zeus of the Council and Protector of the City, and to Law and to Justice, right there on the spot strip away from yourself greed and avarice, as you would strip off iron covered in rust or a disease of the soul. Cast these vices away into the marketplace of the retailers and moneylenders, “and turn yourself away from them,”⁵¹ in the belief that politicians who make money doing the public’s business steal from temples, from tombs, and from friends; that they profit from treachery and from bearing false witness; that they are untrustworthy advisors, lying jurors, and corrupt leaders; that they are sullied—to put it simply—with every form of injustice. And therefore, I need not say much about that.

Now the love of honor, although it is a more impressive quality than the love of profit, is no less ruinous to a political system. For a love of honor makes people bolder and more reckless; it is a natural component not of sluggish and humble policies, but of those that are especially vigorous and impetuous; and the wave of praise that surges from the mob often helps to elevate and inflate one’s love of honor, rendering it uncontrollable and unmanageable. Plato used to say that young people must be taught from childhood that it is not right to wear gold on their bodies or to possess it, since they have their own personal gold intermixed into their soul, hinting (I think) at the virtue that is part of human nature and received at birth.⁵² In the same way, let us hold our love of honor in check by referring to honor as gold that we possess within ourselves, uncorrupted, uncontaminated, and undefiled by envy or reproach, and at the same time increased by the counting up and examining of our deeds and political accomplishments. Thus, we have no need of honors that are painted, sculpted, or wrought in bronze, which in fact enhance the reputation of someone else, since they inspire admiration not for the person for whom they were made but by whom they were made, as with the Trumpeter and the Discus Thrower.⁵³ And so Cato the Elder, at a time when Rome was already filled with statues, would not allow one to be made of himself, saying, “I would prefer to have people asking why there is no statue of me rather than asking why there is one.” For material honors arouse envy, and the people believe that they owe a favor to politicians who have not received them, while they view those politicians who have received them as overbearing, as though they were seeking public service in return for payment. Just as the person who sails past Syrtis⁵⁴ but then capsizes crossing the sea has done nothing great or noble, so the politician who has supervised the treasury and public revenue but then fails to measure up in the presidency or the town hall not only strikes against a high promontory but likewise ends up sinking.⁵⁵

The best politician, then, has no need of material honors, but even avoids and refuses them. But if some favor or kindness cannot easily be declined because the people are eager to bestow it, then for politicians who compete not for money or gifts but because the political contest is truly sacred and awards a crown,⁵⁶ an inscription is sufficient, or a brief notice, a decree, or a palm-branch, such as Epimenides received from the Acropolis after he purified the city. Anaxagoras declined the honors that were offered to him: he asked instead that children be allowed to play and take a holiday from their lessons to celebrate the day of his death. For an honor must not be a payment for the service performed but a symbol, so that it may last a long time. Consider the three hundred statues of Demetrius of Phalerum: not one ever saw rust or tarnish, but they were all toppled in his own lifetime. As for the statues of Demades, they were melted down to make chamberpots. And many material honors have suffered similar fates, after people came to be annoyed not only by the depravity of the recipient but also by the magnitude of the gift. And so, thrift is the finest and most stable safeguard of honor, whereas magnificent, inflated, and weighty rewards are swiftly toppled, just like badly proportioned statues.