Introduction
Over recent decades, scholarly interest in Phylarchus’ Histories Footnote 1 has concentrated on Polybius’ criticism of that work and the issues around so-called ‘tragic history’, of which Phylarchus was thought to be a leading exponent.Footnote 2 Comparatively little attention has been paid to Phylarchus’ ideas about Sparta and its kings as approached via the fragments or reliquiae preserved in Athenaeus’ The Learned Banqueters.
The present paper examines a single, extensive passage from the twenty-fifth book of Histories, quoted by Athenaeus (FGrH/BNJ 81 F 44 = Ath. 4.20–21, 141f–42f). In this passage, Phylarchus appears to describe the evolution of the Spartan customs related to meals or banquets, as well as depicts King Cleomenes III’s (r. ca. 235–222) disposition and behaviour in various situations. The discussions of this text offered to date have been by no means exhaustive, with the most influential study still being the contribution by Sonia Stelluto, published over thirty years ago. Stelluto focused heavily on the first part of the fragment, reading it as an account of structural change in Spartan society that identified a causal nexus between decadent luxury and the enfeeblement of the Spartan state.Footnote 3 Other scholars have largely agreed with Stelluto’s reading.Footnote 4 This interpretation, however, was developed in close connection with Plutarch’s Lives of Agis and Cleomenes (regarded as based primarily on Phylarchus’ Histories),Footnote 5 and was supplemented by several other fragments of Phylarchus in Athenaeus, while making only limited use of alternative material. This method inevitably projected ideas and views that were specific to Plutarch and Athenaeus onto the interpretation of F 44. Recent studies have indeed suggested that the notion of luxury corrupting the state reflects the contemporary concerns of the two authors, rather than the perspective of third-century historians.Footnote 6 Moreover, the large section of F 44 that focuses on the characterisation of Cleomenes remains particularly understudied. There seems to be a need to interpret it completely anew so as to accommodate the growing body of research on the developments in Spartan kingship in the third century, including the role of Cleomenes in these,Footnote 7 or on the Classical and Hellenistic discourse of kingship.Footnote 8 This reinterpretation can also help achieve the best possible understanding of the fragment as a whole.
This paper provides a close reading of F 44 against the backdrop of the Hellenistic discourse of kingship, on the one hand, and the developments in the Spartan kings’ approach to monarchical rule, on the other. It argues that the characterisation of Cleomenes in F 44 is rooted in a discourse on kingship that was contemporaneous with Phylarchus, and that his text’s prevailing theme is the king’s σωφροσύνη as opposed to ὕβρις. Finally, the paper attempts to show that Phylarchus’ construction of Cleomenes responded to contemporary concerns surrounding a good king as opposed to a hubristic tyrant, in a way that fitted into the worldview of his intended audience.
Shaping the framework for the Hellenistic discourse of kingship
To understand better certain ideas merely alluded to or implied in the Phylarchan fragment, we need first to elucidate the wider context of Greek thinking about kings and kingship from the time Phylarchus wrote his Histories. Through Archaic and Classical times, monarchy proper was known to the Greeks only from myth or as an alien form of rule, the empirically nearest instance of a sole ruler being the τύραννος.Footnote 9 Thus, as recent enquiries have accentuated, the discourse of tyranny was the primary language the Greeks could rely upon when talking about monarchy, and the distinction between τύραννος and βασιλεύς did not come to be clearly delineated until late in the Classical age.Footnote 10 At the same time, we need to take account of the specific evolution of the concept of τύραννος. While it is a relatively established view that the notion of ‘tyrant’ became negative and stereotypical due to specific historical factors over time,Footnote 11 we are only beginning to realise that tyranny acquired an ethical dimension earlier than previously assumed; ὕβρις, with its various emanations, seems to have already come to be regarded as the tyrant’s emblematic vice in the latter half of the fifth century.Footnote 12
The fact that the term τύραννος was largely synonymous with ‘king’ for a long period, and that it was subsequently infused with negative moral qualities, carries several implications for the development of the Classical and early-Hellenistic discourse around kingship. First, every sole ruler came to be conceived as likely, or even bound, to develop ὕβρις (e.g. Hdt. 3.80.3–4). Hubris, in turn, became the primary ‘marker’ that a ruler had become a tyrant. Thus, the famous line of Sophocles reads that it is hubris that ‘begets’ the tyrant (Ὕβρις φυτεύει τύραννον, OT 873). Accordingly, every monarch could have been labelled as a tyrant, depending on whether or not he exhibited the personal traits associated with ὕβρις. Hence, for example, Philip II was portrayed as a typical tyrant by orators and historians on the grounds of his alleged lack of self-control or his indulgence in luxury and extravagance.Footnote 13 Second, just as the τύραννος became an archetype of the ‘bad’ monarch, it also came to serve as the foil for the ideal of the (good) king. Therefore, while in the fourth century different conceptions of kingship emerged,Footnote 14 a common trait between them was that the ideas on the good king were closely intertwined with the image of the tyrant.Footnote 15
The attitudes and behaviour of the new kings that arose in the third century were confronted with, and had to be somehow integrated into, contemporary thinking about kingship. Given that the discourse of kingship had formed as interrelated with the discourse of tyranny, the topoi linked with tyranny were likely to be activated in reference to the new Hellenistic monarchs.Footnote 16 This was greatly facilitated by the new kings themselves: some elements identified as constitutive of Hellenistic kingship easily overlapped with constructions on the tyrants, in particular with respect to the lifestyle and self-presentation of Hellenistic kings.Footnote 17 More specifically, kings put their wealth and power on display at religious festivals, whenever hosting other kings or emissariesFootnote 18 or when holding banquets and symposia.Footnote 19 In a word, at the core of the new practice of self-presentation in Hellenistic monarchy was τρυφή, which in this context can be defined as extravagance and ostentation.Footnote 20 Since those practices could easily be interpreted as pure excess and manifestation of the king’s sense of superiority, they probably evoked the essential component of the traditional image of the tyrant, namely the vice of ὕβρις.Footnote 21 And that is precisely what seems to have been happening in reference to the actual (or would-be) kings from the very outset of the Hellenistic period. For instance, criticisms of Alexander the Great probably drew on the negative stereotype of the tyrant: the whole section of Arrian’s Anabasis 7. 28–9, as well as 4.7.4, on Alexander’s pompous lifestyle and his supercilious treatment of his subjects, can be regarded as an echo of the early Hellenistic controversies surrounding the king’s hubristic attitude.Footnote 22 Further, Aristobulus disagreed with, and thus implicitly attested, the charge of Alexander’s lack of self-control related to drinking (F 62 ap. Arr. Anab. 7.29.4). We also have quite substantial evidence that Duris of Samos, a forerunner of Phylarchus, highlighted the Successors’ (Polyperchon’s, Demetrius’ Poliorcetes) extravagance, ostentation and lack of self-control in order to present them as tyrants.Footnote 23
Within this context, defining a good king principally meant identifying and elaborating on the traits that inversely correspond to the vices of the stereotypical tyrant. It is likely that kingship was approached in these terms in the treatises entitled Περὶ βασιλείας, or On Kingship, which began to proliferate in the third century.Footnote 24 Our knowledge of the content of those treatises is considerably limited,Footnote 25 but we should note that one was authored by the Stoic Sphaerus of Borysthenes (ca. 285–210), who was close to Cleomenes III for some time.Footnote 26 This brings me to this king’s particular milieu, and his role in revolutionising Spartan kingship.
Cleomenes and the transformation of Spartan kingship
As mentioned above, Spartan double kingship was far from hereditary monarchy sensu stricto. But when the new Hellenistic kingdoms started to appear, the environment of the external politics changed fundamentally, and that called for an adaptation of the traditional role. Contemporary numismatic and epigraphic sources indicate that King Areus I of Sparta (r. ca. 309–265) initiated a transition towards the new model of self-presentation. He instituted Sparta’s first silver coinage, with his own image and superscription in a style similar to that of Alexander and his successors.Footnote 27 Moreover, he was named as king separately from the Spartan state on official interstate documents,Footnote 28 and portrayed on honorary statues in the manner of a Hellenistic monarch.Footnote 29 He also opened up the way for cultural novelties that were alien to Sparta until then, as in ca. 270 Sparta acquired its first theatre of the Hellenistic type.Footnote 30 Furthermore, Areus had very close ties with Ptolemy II, whose display of power and prestige was emblematic of this new type of monarchy.Footnote 31 The trend was probably continued by King Leonidas II (r. ca. 254–235 with a short pause in 242/241), who was raised at the Seleucid court and married the daughter of Seleucus, or of a Seleucid courtier.Footnote 32 It appears to have been ineffectively countered by Leonidas’ co-regent in ca. 244–241, Agis IV, who attempted to address the demographic collapse and issues with the education system that had begun to emerge as problems in Sparta.Footnote 33 Cleomenes III, who took over after his father Leonidas, seems to have exploited the ongoing crisis for remodelling the internal relations of power. The king openly questioned the function of the ephorate as an integral component of the Spartan political system. He had four ephors killed, and took Eucleidas as co-regent, but effectively replaced the traditional Spartan dual kingship with autocracy.Footnote 34 Hence, he figures on a bronze portrait statue with a dedication by Ptolemy III, mentioning him alone as a ‘King of the Lacedaemonians’ (IVO 309). Cleomenes maintained close ties with the court of the Ptolemies, which could not be without impact on the king’s conception of monarchy, or on the general public perception of his kingship.Footnote 35 Moreover, he adopted the contemporary practice of striking coins with his portrait, including the royal diadem depicted on his head.Footnote 36 Overall, while Areus I was the first to implement certain accoutrements of the emerging new monarchies, the turning point in the process of remodelling Spartan kingship was marked by the actions of Cleomenes III.
The preceding discussion provides some additional context for Phylarchus’ account of Hellenistic Sparta and his portrayal of Cleomenes in F 44. If the king was still to be presented to the Greek audience as a good king, all his political manoeuvres notwithstanding, Phylarchus needed to address the key negative traits most closely associated with both the stereotypical tyrant and Hellenistic kings, and demonstrate that they were absent from Cleomenes. Let us now explore how F 44 tackles the state of affairs in Sparta as well as the king’s image in particular, and how it corresponds with the complex conceptual and political background against which it was written.
Phylarchus, F 44 (Ath. 4.20–21, 141f–42f): a close reading and interpretation
The text of Fragment 44 is preserved in book 4 of The Learned Banqueters. While earlier scholars have assumed, on an intuitive rather than analytical basis, that the passage is a verbatim or near-verbatim quotation of Phylarchus,Footnote 37 more recent research on Athenaeus’ habits in quoting provides reasonable grounds for treating F 44 as a literal quotation (even if it is not completely devoid of textual issues).Footnote 38 The text is introduced by τάδε γράφει (‘writes the following [words]’, Ath. 4.20, 141f) and is reported in oratio recta: quotations framed in this manner are nearly 100% verbatim as checked against texts preserved independently.Footnote 39 The fragment can be tentatively divided into two main segments: the first refers in some way to Spartans and mentions the kings Areus I and Acrotatus II (Ath. 4.20, 141f–42b); while the second one characterises Cleomenes himself (4.21, 142b–f). The opening section of the first segment deserves to be quoted in extenso (Ath. 4.20, 141f–42a):Footnote 40
Λακεδαιμόνιοι εἰς μὲν τὰ φιδίτια οὐκ ἤρχοντο κατὰ τὸ πάτριον ἔθος· ὅτε δὲ καὶ παραγένοιντο, μικρὰ < … > συμπεριενεχθεῖσι νόμου χάριν παρεσκευάζετο καὶ † πάλιν αὐτοῖς στρωμναί τε τοῖς μεγέθεσιν οὕτως ἐξησκημέναι πολυτελῶς καὶ τῇ ποικιλίᾳ διαφόρως ὥστε τῶν ξένων ἐνίους τῶν παραληφθέντων ὀκνεῖν τὸν ἀγκῶνα ἐπὶ τὰ προσκεφάλαια ἐρείδειν. οἱ δὲ πρότερον ἐπὶ τοῦ κλιντηρίου ψιλοῦ διακαρτεροῦντες [τῆς κλίνης]Footnote 41 παρ’ ὅλην τὴν συνουσίαν, ὅτε τὸν ἀγκῶνα ἅπαξ ἐρείσειαν < … >
The Spartans would not go to the common messes according to the ancestral tradition. When they did attend, small < … > for those joining in for custom’s sake were prepared; again, their bed spreads were so large, extravagantly adorned, and distinctly embroidered, that some of the invited foreigners were hesitant to rest their elbows on the cushions. In earlier times, they would put up with a bare couch throughout the whole party, once they leaned with their elbow upon it < … >
Scholars seem to have overly focused on this section of the fragment at the expense of the later parts, reading it as a depiction of decadence in third-century Sparta, with a particular emphasis on the suggestion that the traditional φιδίτια degenerated into lavish banquets.Footnote 42 However, as we can see, in the quoted section there are some – hitherto ignored – textual issues: a lacuna between the introductory passage, in which the φιδίτια are mentioned, and the text apparently describing the tendency towards luxurious feasting; then, a lacuna between that text and the rest of the fragment, opening with a phrase about ‘arriving at the truphē described above’;Footnote 43 note also the πάλιν obelised by Olson. This section should therefore be handled with caution, as a lacuna indicates a missing portion of unknown length. It does not compromise the accuracy of the remaining text,Footnote 44 but we should take notice where the lacunae are located, that is in the transition from (i) the mention of the φιδίτια to (ii) the description of sumptuous banquets/symposia, and then from the latter to (iii) the remarks on the instances of ostentation subsumed under the term τρυφή.
The textual issues only add to the noticeable lack of coherence of the entire section. For instance, the οὐκ ἤρχοντο is rendered by Olson as ‘stopped going [to the common messes]’Footnote 45, whereas the subsequent phrase ὅτε δὲ καὶ παραγένοιντο implies that Spartans actually attended the messes, and even suggests that they did not attend them sporadically, since ὅτε with the aorist optative denotes repeated action. Logically, either it is meant here that the Spartans indulged in luxury and turned the messes into sumptuous feasts (but then, why ‘stopping’ or ‘desisting’ from joining them?), or that they would not organise messes and simply indulge in sumptuous feasts. Moreover, in the passage between the two lacunae, in which the luxuriousness is pictured, there is a reference to ‘some of the foreigners/guest-friends who were invited’ (τῶν ξένων ἐνίους τῶν παραληφθέντων). In addition, the description mentions συνουσία, which is closer to a symposium (see e.g. Pl. Leg. 2.652a). These observations, combined with the lacuna between the passage where the common messes are mentioned (the meaning of which remains obscure) and the further description, indicate that there is no clear thematic connection between these passages. In any case, I would abstain from explicitly identifying the account following the first lacuna as a description of φιδίτια. Nonetheless, we cannot exclude that Phylarchus actually wrote that the Spartans began to invite non-Spartans to the common messes, now transformed into extravagant banquets. While ξένοι attending traditional φιδίτια in earlier times would be unusual,Footnote 46 we could accept that in third-century Sparta the messes lost their strict character also in this respect. Then the question would remain as to whose banquets are actually depicted here. We need to take into account that guest-friendship was a predominantly elite institution, which in the Spartan milieu meant it was the domain of prominent and wealthy individuals with strong personal connections to leading Spartiates, especially the king himself.Footnote 47 We can therefore infer that the discussed text describes receiving and entertaining foreign guests by Spartan high-ranking officials, most likely the kings preceding Cleomenes III, rather than by private citizens.Footnote 48 Read in this way, this description would offer a direct parallel and contrast with the account of how Cleomenes received and entertained embassies, which comes in the second segment of the fragment (Ath. 4.21, 142c–e; see below pp. 11–12).Footnote 49
Let us now take a close look at the subsequent portion of text in the fragment (from 142a on), which is free from serious textual issues. It sets the stage for the characterisation of Cleomenes in the following way:
< … > εἰς δὲ τὴν προειρημένην τρυφὴν ἦλθον ποτηρίων τ’ ἐκθέσεις πολλῶν καὶ βρωμάτων παντοδαπῶς πεποιημένων παραθέσεις, ἔτι δὲ μύρων ἐξηλλαγμένων, ὡς δ’ αὕτως οἴνων καὶ τραγημάτων. Καὶ τούτων ἦρξαν οἱ μικρὸν πρὸ Κλεομένους βασιλεύσαντες Ἄρευς καὶ Ἀκρότατος αὐλικὴν ἐξουσίαν ζηλώσαντες.
They arrived at the truphē described above, involving display of numerous cups and services of food prepared in all kinds of ways, of various perfumes, further: wines and desserts. And that had been introduced by those reigning right before Cleomenes, namely Areus and Acrotatus, who emulated the eksousia typical of royal courts.
The initial words εἰς δὲ τὴν προειρημένην τρυφὴν ἦλθον, which immediately follow the lacuna, may seem to pick up some lost part of the text, but they can be also taken as thematically continuing the part about the sumptuous banquets involving ‘guests’ discussed above. The description quoted here also highlights extravagance and engages not merely with the matter of possessing or using wealth, but with putting this possession on display (note the ἐκθέσεις; παραθέσεις). This – luxurious ostentation – would thus be the proper sense of τρυφή in this context.Footnote 50 Moreover, the description is chronologically situated within the period after the reign of Areus I (ca. 309/8–265)/Acrotatus II (ca. 265–262) and before or right at the beginning of Cleomenes III’s ascension to the throne in 235 (note the καίτοι νέος ὢν, ‘although he [Cleomenes] was young’, at Ath. 4.21, 142c). It could have depicted symposia or banquets held by the members of the Spartan elite, possibly by Agiads’ immediate entourage or the ‘court’ of Leonidas II, Cleomenes’ father and immediate predecessor.Footnote 51 Such a description would be analogous to that found in another fragment, where Phylarchus offers a quite extensive account of the attitudes of Alexander’s closest companions (F 41 ap. Ath. 12.55, 539b–40a, discussed below). Further, at 142b, Phylarchus notes that ‘some’ of the other Spartan citizens (τινες τῶν ἰδιωτῶν) outdid Areus I and Acrotatus II in πολυτέλεια, or extravagance,Footnote 52 emphasising how the two kings’ behaviour had an impact on those who imitated them; nevertheless this remains rather far from implying a kind of total degeneration of the majority of Spartans.Footnote 53 His vague reference to private citizens and his indication of a more remote time (that of Areus I and Acrotatus II) than the period of the narrationFootnote 54 suggest that the preceding text concentrates on the kings and their milieux, immediately before or upon Cleomenes’ rise to power. To be sure, we do not know the content that is missing in the lacuna, and knowing that content could still considerably change our view of this part of the fragment.
Overall, the characterisation of Cleomenes is foregrounded by an indication that the Spartan kings before him indulged in τρυφή, which may be also taken to imply that they steered towards the vice of ὕβρις; the latter is identified as closely intertwined with τρυφήFootnote 55 also in other places in Phylarchus’ narrative.Footnote 56 Moreover, although the word ἐξουσία typically means ‘power’, ‘office’ or ‘great resources’, it must be here understood in its rare, negative moral connotation: ζηλόω, when used with a non-human object, probably denotes ‘admiring’ or ‘emulating’, e.g., fame, virtue or a similar ethically defined object.Footnote 57 The kings summoned by the passage are therefore meant to have adopted or emulated a specific attitude: unrestrained liberty in exercising and displaying power, which brought them close to arrogance.Footnote 58 Importantly, ἐξουσία is a word associated with either μοναρχία or τυραννίς, rather than βασιλεία,Footnote 59 and could be conceived as closely linked to ὕβρις.Footnote 60 The text implies that ἐξουσία is an overarching concept that involves τρυφή as one of its elements: τρυφή is specified as a kind of ‘natural’ correlate of the adoption or emulation of ἐξουσία of the non-Spartan court.
Which court is identified here as the object of Areus’ and Acrotatus’ emulation? Readings of the passage to date have either pointed to the Persian court or ignored the issue altogether.Footnote 61 Remarkably, Phylarchus’ fragment provides the earliest occurrence of the adjective αὐλικός in (extant) Greek literature. The adjective seems to be a coinage, denoting a lifestyle and mode of behaviour typical of the Hellenistic royal court.Footnote 62 The expression within the context outlined in section 1 suggests that Phylarchus means that the two kings introduced a new way of displaying monarchical power, comparable to the emerging monarchies of the Antigonids, Ptolemies and Seleucids. The starting point and source of this change is thus indicated precisely as the reign of the two kings, something that matches the beginning of Areus’ process of the ‘Hellenization’ of Spartan kingship that is attested by other sources.
That is how Phylarchus depicts the developments around the Spartan kings before Cleomenes, and continues with the section characterising the king, beginning with the words (Ath. 4.21, 142c):
Κλεομένης δὲ πολὺ διενέγκας τῷ τε συνιδεῖν πράγματα καίτοι νέος ὢνFootnote 63 καὶ κατὰ τὴν δίαιταν ἀφελέστατος γέγονεν.
But Cleomenes greatly differed from them in that he was acutely aware of the situation, although he was a young man, and his diaita was completely artless.
Cleomenes is said to have been completely different: διαφέρω with the dative can have a connotation of ‘differ in’ the thing named: here most probably from the other kings mentioned previously. The use of συνιδεῖν paired with πράγματα seems to be purposeful. It is rendered by Olson as ‘understanding of political affairs’, but συνιδεῖν has a slightly different meaning from εἶδον (‘to know’, ‘understand’); the prefix σύν- points toward the fact of being aware that something is morally wrong.Footnote 64 πράγματα alone, that is, without qualification such as the adjective πολιτικά or the genitive τῆς πόλεως, is likely to mean ‘circumstances’ or ‘situation’ in general rather than political affairs sensu stricto.Footnote 65 Phylarchus seems thus to stress Cleomenes’ moral awareness and integrity, hence why he follows with bringing up his δίαιτα, or ‘mode of life’, and then moves on to describe the personal characteristics of the king. Cleomenes’ δίαιτα is illustrated through his attitudes and behaviour during sacrificial festivals (θυσίαι) and in his reception of foreign guests, namely embassies (πρεσβεῖαι). As noted in section 1, the Hellenistic monarchs saw these as opportunities to display power and wealth. Phylarchus points out that Cleomenes’ provisions for the θυσίαι were equal to those of ordinary citizens (Ath. 4.21, 142c):
ἤδη γὰρ τηλικούτων πραγμάτων ἡγούμενος ἔμφασιν τοῖς παραλαμβανομένοις πρὸς τὴν θυσίαν ἐποίει, διότι τὰ παρὰ ἐκείνοις τῶν παρ᾽ αὐτὸν οὐδὲν καταδεέστερον εἴη παρασκευαζόμενα.
Now that he was in charge of so serious matters, he showed clearly to those whom he invited to a sacrificial feast that the arrangements in their own houses are not in any way inferior to his.
Therefore, according to Phylarchus, during festivals Cleomenes demonstrated that he is equal to the rest of the Spartans, rather than displaying his royal superiority and wealth. As for the embassies, Phylarchus seems to depict the official suppers or banquets held by the king for representatives of other states (Ath. 4.21, 142c):
πολλῶν δὲ πρεσβειῶν παραγινομένων πρὸς αὐτὸν οὐδέποτε ἐνωρίστερον τοῦ κατειθισμένου συνῆγεν καιροῦ πεντακλίνου τε διεστρώννυτο οὐδέποτε πλεῖον· ὅτε δὲ μὴ παρείη πρεσβεία, τρίκλινον.
Although numerous embassies were received in audience before him, he never gathered them for dinner earlier than the customary time, and never had more than five couches spread with coverings; when no embassy was present – it was only three couches.
Phylarchus adds that there was no pompous protocol of seating emissaries, and no special place for Cleomenes to sit (Ath. 4.21, 142c–d). The pleasure of listening to songs, music or recitations (ἀκρόαμα) was not offered, which was compensated by having conversation with the king himself (Ath. 4.21, 142f). Thus, no entertainment for the guests was provided, as would be expected at a banquet at the court of a Ptolemy or a Seleucus, and the king was approachable and affable, rather than haughty or distant. Crucially, it is stressed how Cleomenes found a balance between strictness and excess: the wine accompanying the meeting was only slightly better than the standard (and on demand, as opposed to offered, Ath. 4.21, 142d), and he sought a golden mean in arranging the meals (Ath. 4.21, 142e):
τὰ δὲ παρατιθέμενα ἐπὶ μὲν τραπεζίου ἦν τοῦ τυχόντος, τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ ὥστε μήθ’ ὑπεραίρειν μήτ’ ἐλλείπειν, ἀλλ’ ἱκανὰ ἅπασι γίνεσθαι καὶ μὴ προσδεῖσθαι τοὺς παρόντας.
The courses were served on an ordinary table; as for the rest, there would be neither too much nor too little, but rather so that it was adequately enough for everyone, and no one present had to ask for more.
The emphasis on the golden mean continues and culminates in the passage which apparently ‘quotes’ Cleomenes’ own view on δίαιτα (Ath. 4.21, 142e):
οὔτε γὰρ οὕτως ᾤετο δεῖν ὥσπερ ἐν τοῖς φιδιτίοις δέχεσθαι ζωμῷ καὶ κρεᾳδίοις ἀφελῶς οὔτε πάλιν οὕτως ὑπερτείνειν ὡς εἰς τὸ μηθὲν δαπανᾶν, ὑπερβάλλοντα τὸ σύμμετρον τῆς διαίτης. τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἀνελεύθερον ἐνόμιζε, τὸ δ’ ὑπερήφανον.
For he believed that they should not be received with mere broth and bits of meat, as in the common messes, but also not to go to the other extreme – of futilely squandering resources, exceeding the summetron of the mode of life. He considered the former as niggardly, the latter disdainful.
This passage underlines that, when receiving guests, Cleomenes’ δίαιτα represented a mean between two ‘extremes’: austere φιδίτια, on the one hand, and excessive feasting, on the other. The description evokes the virtue of σωφροσύνη, a concept embodying the principle of the golden mean between excess and deficiency in relation to pleasures and appetites.Footnote 66 The golden mean is underscored, first, by the repetition of various words beginning with ὑπερ-, starting with the ὑπεραίρειν in the preceding sentence, then ὑπεραίρω, ὑπερτείνειν and finally the phrase ὑπερβάλλοντα τὸ σύμμετρον. This is the phrasing and framework used for defining σωφροσύνη that we find, for example, in PlatoFootnote 67 and Aristotle.Footnote 68 τὸ σύμμετρον in itself is usually associated with σωφροσύνη, which commonly meant to find proper measure, and indicated opposition to excess.Footnote 69 The perfect moderation is exemplified not only by Cleomenes’ attitude to sensual pleasures, but also by his approach to ostentation related to the squandering of resources (δαπανᾶν).Footnote 70
The antithesis of σωφροσύνη is excess in its manifestation par excellence, namely ὕβρις.Footnote 71 Apart from suggesting σωφροσύνη as Cleomenes’ virtue, and by that alone ruling out ὕβρις, Cleomenes is dissociated from ὕβρις by the remark about steering clear of the ὑπερήφανον. This adjective and its cognates are associated in Greek thinking with ὕβρις as well as τρυφή. For instance, in Aristotle’s Rhetoric (2.1390b32–91a4), the corrupted wealthy become at the same time ὑβρισταί, ὑπερήφανοι and τρυφεροί: ‘insolent’, ‘disdainful’, and ‘luxurious’ or ‘ostentatious’. Further, in Philodemus’ treatise Περὶ ὑπερηφανείας (PHerc. 1008), a person that is ὑπερήφανος is also ‘hubristic’ (ὑβριστής) due to that vice. We may also note how ὑπερήφανος is antithetical to showing σωφροσύνη in Isocrates (Panath. 196).Footnote 72
To sum up, F 44 depicts Cleomenes in contexts which provided Hellenistic monarchs with the opportunity to demonstrate their superiority, wealth and power, as well as to promote self-indulgence. The Spartan king is presented as being utterly unlike such monarchs, thanks to his avoidance of excess or extravagance and lack of any sense of superiority.Footnote 73 He is only slightly indulgent while hosting emissaries, and his δίαιτα is perfectly measured, which marks his golden-mean attitude when it comes to contacts with the outside world. Moreover, the contents of the description imply that the king sought to put on display the virtue of σωφροσύνη and to distance himself from ὕβρις. All in all, Phylarchus portrays Cleomenes not only as being distinct from a typical Hellenistic king but also as embodying the virtue that is the reverse of the vice inherent in the traditional image of the tyrant.
Interestingly, certain elements of this depiction seem to be a mirror reflection of a passage in Polybius that discusses the hubristic tyrant as opposed to the lawful king, and which belongs to the section where he theorises the cycle of constitutions (Polyb. 6.3–10). Here, Polybius describes the transformations of political constitutions, and one of the stages is the shift from βασιλεία to τυραννίς.Footnote 74 He states that the foundation of βασιλεία is justice and reason, and discusses in detail the personal characteristics of the king. Those include: not manifesting one’s superiority, i.e. living ‘like everyone else’ (παραπλήσιον ἔχειν τὴν βιοτείαν τοῖς ἄλλοις, Polyb. 6.7.5), having a δίαιτα, or ‘mode of life’ similar to the rest of the populace (ὁμόσε ποιούμενοι τοῖς πολλοῖς ἀεὶ τὴν δίαιταν, ibid.), as well as avoiding ‘arrogance’, or ‘disdain’ for the citizens (τῆς μὲν βασιλείας κωλυομένης ὑπερηφανεῖν, Polyb. 6.10.8). Kingship evolves into tyranny when the king loses control over desires (ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις), and starts to believe that he can outrank his subjects in extravagant ostentation (Polyb. 6.7.7). That shift in the king’s attitude marks the exact moment of the transition from βασιλεία to τυραννίς, and is considered by Polybius as a manifestation of the individual’s ὕβρις (τὰς τῶν ἐφεστώτων ὕβρεις, Polyb. 6.7.9). According to Phylarchus, Cleomenes excercised perfect moderation in pleasures, remained frugal in the domestic context and was not haughty. His δίαιτα was precisely that of the Polybian true king: ‘not different from that of the general populace’ as Polybius has it (Polyb. 6.7.5). Moreover, just as in Polybius’ theory the true king was supposed to keep away from ὑπερηφανεῖν, in F 44 Cleomenes ‘considers’ that excessive spending and ostentation would be ὑπερήφανον (Ath. 4.21, 142e). The affinity between these two passages is noteworthy, since F 44 predates Polybius’ work. We know well that Polybius criticised Phylarchus’ account on the actions of Cleomenes,Footnote 75 but ultimately his opinion on the king himself seems to have been positive, for he praises Cleomenes as being ‘kingly by nature’ (βασιλικὸς τῇ φύσει, Polyb. 5.39). This indicates that Polybius agreed with the personal characteristics of the king as propagated by Phylarchus,Footnote 76 and even that he ‘silently’ used and adopted Phylarchus’ portrait of the king in his constitutional theorising (if we take into account the conceptual parallels highlighted above).Footnote 77 While Polybius certainly drew on multiple traditions to advance the theory of constitutional transformations,Footnote 78 Phylarchus could well have been one of the influences behind Polybius’ account of the ethical distinction between βασιλεία and τυραννίς.
But Polybius is not the only parallel that we can summon for F 44. Specifically, depiction of Cleomenes can be seen as including certain elements of the model of virtuous monarchy, in that it implies the virtue of σωφροσύνη, as well as the notion of the king as a role model that has considerable impact on his subjects (especially at Ath. 4.21, 142b).Footnote 79 The analysis of F 44 also indicated that Phylarchus possibly engaged with philosophical thought. Phylarchus, just as Polybius, could have been acquainted with several theories of kingship, including for instance the one that was presumably included in the treatise on kingship of the Stoic Sphaerus.Footnote 80 Although I would not venture to suggest that Phylarchus adhered to a single theoretical model, I read all these correspondences as sign of his acquaintance, and engagement, with the various strands of the contemporary discourse on kingship.
This becomes even more evident when we compare Phylarchus’ characterisation of Cleomenes with another passage from his Histories, namely the fragment about Alexander the Great (F 41 = Ath. 12.55, 539b–40a).Footnote 81 This passage characterises the king in similar settings to those found in F 44, but Alexander’s attitude and behaviour in these settings are the complete opposite to those of Cleomenes. For instance, while in Cleomenes’ chamber only five couches were present when receiving embassies (normally even less, Ath. 4.21, 142c), Alexander had a tent capable of containing a hundred couches, and which was supported by fifty golden pillars. There was no etiquette regarding the place where Cleomenes reclined, while Alexander used to sit on a golden chair placed in the middle of the tent. Further, Cleomenes talked to each of his guests, while no one dared to approach Alexander of his own accord, so great was his dignity (ἀξίωμα).Footnote 82 Finally, Alexander is said to have squandered great sums (δαπάνης) on his ostentatious arrangements, while Cleomenes consciously refrained from doing that (note the εἰς τὸ μηθὲν δαπανᾶν at Ath. 4.21, 142e). It seems that, to Phylarchus, Alexander was the epitome of haughtiness, ostentation and, by implication, ὕβρις, with Cleomenes representing his antithesis. Parallel to this negative portrayal of Alexander, Phylarchus spotlighted similar vices in numerous Hellenistic monarchs: their sense of superiority, often bolstered by flatterers, and lack of moderation figure prominently in the extant fragments of the Histories.Footnote 83
In the light of Cleomenes’ adoption of certain attributes of the new Hellenistic kingship, as well as his push towards autocracy, it is significant that Phylarchus still presents him as a good king, specifically by describing his virtues and attitudes in antithesis to those of other contemporary monarchs. Although Cleomenes went even further than Areus I in reshaping Spartan kingship, Phylarchus blames the latter and Acrotatus for emulating a ‘court-like’ mode of life, and conversely highlights Cleomenes’ moderation, self-control and near equality with his ‘subjects’. On the whole, Phylarchus seems to have assumed that the worldview of his intended audience could accommodate Cleomenes’ shift towards the new model of monarchy, provided that the king remained untainted by the core vices that marked the difference between a good king and a hubristic tyrant.
Conclusion
In this article I have endeavoured to advance an interpretation of Phylarchus’ F 44 that opens up new ways of understanding his characterisation of Cleomenes, as well as his perspective on the socio-political dynamics in Hellenistic Sparta. My reading of the fragment also gives insights into Phylarchus’ view on Hellenistic kings and kingship in general.
To achieve this, I have combined analysis of the broader historical and conceptual context with close scrutiny of the text of F 44. Phylarchus’ depiction of Cleomenes can be better understood against the backdrop of contemporary practices and discourse of the nascent Hellenistic βασιλεία, as well as by considering how Spartan kingship was transformed, particularly by the figure at the centre of F 44. The new reading of this fragment that I have proposed underscores its engagement with the evolution of Spartan kingship and Cleomenes’ role in that process, and thus distances itself from the conventional interpretation of this passage that sees it as primarily concerned with changes in Spartan society as a whole.
In this study I have exemplified how setting F 44 against its broader background, on the one hand, and paying close attention to its phrasing and textual matters, on the other, can help to disentangle it from the secondary context in which it is preserved by Athenaeus as the intermediate author, or ‘cover-text’.Footnote 84 Moreover, I have only sparingly and cautiously made use of works that have been regarded as based mainly on Phylarchus’ Histories, in particular those of Plutarch. My results can now pave the way for new analyses of Plutarch’s adaptation of the Phylarchan material. For instance, we can enquire whether Plutarch’s predominantly negative view of most Hellenistic rulers, including the charge of them being hubristic, is due to Phylarchus as a formative influence on that author.Footnote 85
Since, as I hope to have shown, Phylarchus operates within a framework informed by the philosophical notion of σωφροσύνη to depict and explain Cleomenes, his importance as a thinker has been emphasised. In other words, the reading of F 44 that I have offered in this paper suggests that Phylarchus’ work was philosophically imbued, or at least much more intellectually sophisticated than Polybius’ treatment of that author would lead us to assume. Moreover, as Polybius’ reputation in the modern world also rests on what he says about political institutions in the sixth book,Footnote 86 highlighting the traces of Polybius’ ‘silent’ use of Phylarchus’ portrait of Cleomenes in the former’s constitutional theorising allows us to conclude that Phylarchus has had considerable, albeit indirect, influence on the history of European and American political thought.
Acknowledgements
This article has been written within the framework of project no. 2023/51/D/HS2/00526, funded by the National Science Centre, Poland. I wish to thank the anonymous referees of The Cambridge Classical Journal for their useful and insightful comments, which have helped to significantly improve this paper. I would also like to express my deep sense of gratitude to Lea Niccolai for her kind guidance and assistance with the submission of this paper.
Open access
