You are on page 1of 5

Agesilaus and the Failure of Spartan Hegemony by Charles D. Hamilton Review by: Everett L.

Wheeler The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 114, No. 3 (Autumn, 1993), pp. 456-459 Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/295528 . Accessed: 20/01/2013 18:35
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Journal of Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Sun, 20 Jan 2013 18:35:26 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

456

BOOK REVIEWS and the Failure of Spartan Hegemony.

CHARLES D. HAMILTON. Agesilaus

Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991. xxii + 280 pp. 8 maps. Cloth, $37.95. Agesilaus, the greatest and most illustrious man of his age in Theopompus' view (FGrH 115F 321 = Plut. Ages. 10.5), would seem, like Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, to "bestride the narrow world / Like a Colossus" (1.3.134)especially if Xenophon's encomium of the lame, short-statured, but long-ruling Spartan king merits belief. This battle-scarred veteran, still leading troops in his eighties, commanded Panhellenic crusades against the Persians and stoutly represented Sparta's cause in the political chaos of the early fourth century. The "Spartan mirage" of historiography owed much to his public image as the "Super-Spartan," the epitome of simplicity, self-restraint, conservatism, and obedience to law. Yet, paradoxically, Agesilaus was a failure. His forty-year reign saw Sparta plummet from the peak of hegemony to the depths of insignificance among major powers. This book seeks to explain the contrast of Agesilaus' personal distinction with Sparta's political collapse and offers a companion to his earlier study of the Corinthian War, Sparta's Bitter Victories (Ithaca 1979). Hamilton, whose preference for the scholarship of Donald Kagan and his students is obvious in the footnotes, defines (ix) three purposes for the work: (I) a study of Agesilaus' domestic and foreign policies that resulted in the failure of Spartan hegemony, (2) analysis of the sources, and (3) setting Agesilaus' reign into a psychohistorical context. The king's Theban obsession (e.g., Plut. Comp. Ages.-Pomp. 3.2) finds a parallel in the author's own fixation in defining his book. The preface and introduction, which could easily have been combined, immediately confound the reader with the work's "three primary contributions" (ix), its "first aim" (x), its double focus (I), its "central theme" (1), its "central focus" (5), and its "several ends" (6). The appeal to a trendy notion like psychohistory (also emphasized on the front flap of the dust jacket) may entice readers to expect an innovative, provocative study. As Hamilton argues (x), we have better sources for assessing Agesilaus' personality than Alexander the Great's, but the result is disappointing. Psychoanalysis, essentially limited to the first chapter (now largely recycled as "Plutarch's 'Life of Agesilaus,'" ANRW 11.33.6 [1992] 4201-21), derives by necessity from Plutarch's biography of Agesilaus, the only source to discuss his formative years. As Hamilton argues, Agesilaus' "ambiguity" in the Spartan system-a prince not expected to become king, and the lame survivor of the prohibition of physically imperfect offspring-fostered a severe identity crisis from which arose an excessive ambition and constant drive for peer approval: hence the "Super-Spartan" public image concealing his insecurity and fear of rejection. Threats to his ambition could result in turning against a friend, e.g., the humbling of Lysander, his former lover, in 396 B.C.; or in bearing a grudge, e.g., the Theban obsession, kindled by the Theban overthrow of his

This content downloaded on Sun, 20 Jan 2013 18:35:26 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS

457

sacrifice at Aulis in 396 B.C. and Thebes' role in starting the Corinthian War, thereby disrupting his campaign against the Persians. But except for borrowing the concept of "identity crisis" from Erickson's classic YoungMan Luther (New York 1958), Hamilton's psychoanalysis is hardly clinical, and the bibliography on psychohistory (12 n. 22) is not otherwise manifest in the footnotes. Readers seeking an adventure in psychohistory will be frustrated, as the book from chapter 2 on becomes a work of traditional scholarship. This book, coming just four years after P. Cartledge's lengthy Agesilaos and the Crisis of Sparta (Baltimore 1987), invites comparison. Cartledge writes under the influence of the Annales school, displaying a penchant for citing Marx and Marc Bloch and for socioeconomic analysis. Thus oliganthropia becomes his key to Sparta's failure, and Agesilaus the individual, as customary in this school of thought, is obscurely submerged in structural analysis. Although both agree that a true biography is impossible, Hamilton asserts (7 n. 1) that Cartledge has inadequately studied Agesilaus' personality and that the fall of Spartan hegemony must be sought in political/diplomatic failings rather than military or socioeconomic factors (x, 256). He declines, however, to examine Cartledge's views systematically and to refute his arguments. Indeed Cartledge's division of his book into "Themes" and "Narrative" is paralleled by Hamilton: chapters 1-3, treating Agesilaus' personality, his life as king and general, and Spartan socioeconomic conditions in the early fourth century, constitute "themes," while chapters 4-8 offer a narrative of Greek history 396-362 B.C. from the Spartan perspective. Here Agesilaus the individual is nearly as obscure in a detailed accounting of all the twists and turns of early fourth-century political events as he was in Cartledge. For Hamilton, Agesilaus' foreign policy alienated Spartan subjects and allies, and he failed to devise new policies to appease the disaffected after the myth of Spartan invincibility was dashed at Leuctra. But this thesis is allowed to emerge from a plethora of narrative details rather than offered in a succinct, tightly argued presentation. Other differences should also be noted. Cartledge favors an "early" chronology for Agesilaus (born 445 or 444 B.C., accession ca. 400, died winter 360/359); Hamilton proposes later dates (born 443/442 B.C., accession 398, died 359/358), without arguments in support. Readers must be content with repeated references to an earlier article (Ktema 7 [1982] 281-96, ignored by Cartledge), and a footnote (18 n. 16) is certainly an obscure place to find Hamilton's first statement on the dates of birth and accession. In use of sources Cartledge preferred accounts in Diodorus and Plutarch, on the grounds that those authors used more impartial sources, and that Xenophon omitted too much in his Hellenica and as a friend of Agesilaus was too indifferent to accuracy. Hamilton, in contrast, seeks to vindicate Xenophon-the source closer to the events merits more credence. He scrupulously and systematically discusses source conflicts for individual events with arguments explaining Xenophon's omissions or justifying preference for his account. Although he rarely shuns speculation, his conjectures are forthrightly acknowledged, and future specialized studies will

This content downloaded on Sun, 20 Jan 2013 18:35:26 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

458

BOOK REVIEWS

have to evaluate them. Editors for the press, however, have done him a disservice in putting so many single-item footnotes at the bottom of the page rather than enclosed by parentheses in the text. These disrupt and distract the reader. Despite Hamilton's emphasis on source analysis, it is also unfortunate that he does not identify which edition of Plutarch's Lives is used, since section numbers of the Loeb, Teubner, and Bude editions differ. More significantly, Cartledge attacked Hamilton's model of factional Spartan politics found in his earlier book, charging a lack of support for this view in the sources, a failure to demonstrate how factions arose and were maintained, and imputation of incompatible foreign and domestic policies to factional leaders. In reply, Hamilton only meekly takes up the gauntlet with a countercharge (42 n. 13) that Cartledge inadequately discussed Spartan politics; his continued emphasis on factional politics (27, 41, 43, 110, 122, 171)generally ignores Cartledge's objections. Differences are crystalized in contrasting assessments of Antalcidas, to Hamilton an opponent of Agesilaus, but to Cartledge a diplomat whose long career attests a working relationship with him. Apart from interpretations of various policies or events, textually this debate must boil down to evaluation of Diod. 15.19.4 and Xen. Hell. 5.4.25. Nevertheless, Hamilton curiously ignores (with a few exceptions) Cartledge's book-a choice not justified by simultaneous composition of the two works, given the span of four years between them. He does not argue down Cartledge's viewpoints or acknowledge where their interpretations agree. One misses his view on Cartledge's acceptance of Hegesilaus = Agesilaus in PLond. 187, taken as proof that Agesilaus served in the Krypteia, or Teles' contradiction (fr. 3 p. 28.7-11 Hense) of Plut. Ages. 1.2 that all Spartan princes went through the agoge. Cartledge's rejection of Teles is not supported by an argument. Yet despite some fundamental differences of methodology and interpretation of individual points, the two books offer basically the same view of Agesilaus: e.g., skepticism of both his public image (he learned cunning from Lysander) and his Panhellenic sentiments (a mask for Spartan imperialism, a contrivance of Xenophon; Thebes as the real object of his hatred); similarly, both see his vote to acquit Sphodrias as a turning point on the road to Leuctra, and both criticize his failure to reform Spartan institutions in the aftermath of Leuctra. Some minor points. Although misprints are rare (e.g., 184, "unperiled" for "unimperiled"; cf. 164, Agesipolis for Cleombrotus) and the style of the book is to latinize Greek terms (e.g., perioecus), some gaffs occur (e.g., 158, Aristeides; but 162, Aristides). Phrases such as "some scholars deny" (93 n. 5) and "some scholars reject" (165 n. 47), when devoid of identities, deter from the work's scholarly purpose. Eight maps artfully supplement the text, but the map of Agesilaus' Boeotian campaigns of 378-377 B.c. fails to distinguish with its arrows Spartan from Theban movements. Military analysis is not Hamilton's strong suit here, and little new is offered. He follows Lazenby on the battle of

This content downloaded on Sun, 20 Jan 2013 18:35:26 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS

459

Leuctra and perpetuates Buckler's conjecture (totally lacking textual support) that Agesilaus commanded at Second Mantineia. In sum, Hamilton presents an excellent synthesis of Spartan history for the years 404-ca. 360 B.C. His psychoanalysis of Agesilaus will prove useful, and his study of the sources should provoke further discussion. Like Cartledge, he has attempted to write that hybrid book so popular with today's publishersa work for both scholars and the general public. Whereas the bulk of Cartledge's work and its "chatty" verbosity with lame attempts at humor may deter popular readers, Hamilton's more succinct style and compact volume will encourage use by advanced undergraduates and graduate students. But after two major works on Agesilaus since 1987, can much new (historically speaking) remain to be said in Hamilton's projected "Historical Commentary on Plutarch's Agesilaus" (ANRW II.33.6 [1992] 4421)? Perhaps he is reserving his real reply to Cartledge for that work.
EVERETT L. WHEELER
DUKE UNIVERSITY

W. W. FORTENBAUGH al., editors. Theophrastus of Eresus: Sources for His et Life, Writings, Thought and Influence. Edited and translated by W. W Fortenbaugh, P. M. Huby, R. W. Sharples (Greek and Latin), and D. Gutas (Arabic), together with A. D. Barker, J. J. Keaney, D. C. Mirhady, D. Sedley, and M. G. Sollenberger. Part 1, Life, Writings, Various Reports, Logic, Physics, Metaphysics, Theology, Mathematics. Part 2, Psychology, Human Physiology, Living Creatures, Botany, Ethics, Religion, Politics, Rhetoric and Poetics, Music, Miscellanea. Leiden, New York, and Cologne: E. J. Brill, 1992. x + 465 (pt. 1); viii + 705 (pt. 2) pp. (Philosophia Antiqua, 54.1-2)
ADELE TEPEDINO GUERRA, editor. Polieno, Frammenti. Edizione, traduzione,

e commento. Naples: Bibliopolis, 1991. 219 pp. Cloth, price not stated. (La Scuola di Epicuro, 11; Frammenti dei Kathegmones, 2) Fortenbaugh and his colleagues have collected into two volumes thousands of passages from Greek, Latin, and Arabic sources that either mention Theophrastus by name or are similar to passages that mention him. Chronologically the passages extend from Aristotle's Willto Pico della Mirandola, Conclusiones. They are arranged in a numbered sequence, from 1 to 741, with nine more in an appendix. Many of the numbers offer more than one text, in which case they have lettered subdivisions. For example, four passages that comment
on Theophrastus' phrase xaCTa JrtQoXrlViv are numbered l1OA, 11OB,110c, 11OD.

Other numbers provide lists of references rather than texts. Thus 18, List of

This content downloaded on Sun, 20 Jan 2013 18:35:26 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

You might also like