THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

The Monstrous Agathocles: Uses of Agathocles in Machiavellis Prince

By

Matthew Harrison Stukus

March 2011
A paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Arts degree in the Master of Arts Program in the Social Sciences

Faculty Advisor: John McCormick Preceptor: Sean Dunwoody

1

In The Prince, Niccol Machiavelli offers many examples of proper political action. Machiavellis most memorable innovation in his works was not to offer moral exemplars, but practical ones: the men who do what is necessary rather than what is right, men who pursue the greater rather than the spiritual good. His pages abound with murderers and thieves, liars and poisoners, traitors and hypocrites, and yet out of his many ancient examples, Agathocles, tyrant of Syracuse, gets the worst treatment from his pen. Of course, this is not entirely unexpected: Agathocles often received poor treatment from authors, and more often as a warning than as anything else. But Machiavelli praises those who are no better, and often much worse, than Agathocles is. His other ancient examples often act immorally and theyreceive praise. Is Agathocles really such a poor example? Agathocles, a side player in the politics of the wider Mediterranean world, lacks the attention that Alexander the Great or the Roman Republic receive. Secondary literature on him is scarce, but it exists nevertheless, as writers are drawn to the force of Agathocless personality and the dynamism of his actions. Russell Price takes Machiavellis criticism of Agathocles literally. He feels that Agathocless actions innately disbar him from glory. No matter how kindly Agathocles ruled ever after, his subsequent career cannot absolve him in Machiavellis eyes because his violent coup leaves a mark that is indelible, like an original sin1 However, Price also mentions that it was a commonplace that outstanding deeds or achievements are soon forgotten unless they are recorded in a memorable way.2 Yet it cannot be true that deeds alone grant glory if writers are necessary in order to perpetuate achievements.

Russell Price, The Theme of Gloria in Machiavelli, in Renaissance Quarterly 30, no. 4 (Winter, 1977): 588-631, here 611. 2 Price, The Theme of Gloria in Machiavelli, 598. As an example, take Sostratus, the Aeginetan, the son of Laodamas. Herodotus mentions him, saying that he was the Greek who made the most money in a commercial venture and that no one else could compare with him. Specifically, he mentions some Samians, who made a profit of sixty talents, which Bill Thayer estimates at

When Price studies Machiavellis comments on King Ferdinand, he notices that he acted similar to Agathocles, yet Ferdinand achieved gloria while Agathocles did not. But he does not examine deeply why that difference should exist. Agathocles is supposedly denied glory because of his violent takeover, yet Cyrus, Moses, and Romulus, all undeniably glorious, did they not all come to power violently? They only differ from Agathocles in the number of victims, not in theirexistence. Having noticed that Agathocles acts like other glorious men and that writers are necessary to produce glory, Price does not take the final step and realize that Agathocless glory or lack of it is not a function of his actions, but ofwriters. If Machiavelli cannot call Agathocles glorious, the fault is not with Agathocles, but with his audience. Several other recent writers realize that Agathocles was intended to be an example to readers.Rafael Major believes that in order [to] examine Machiavellis underlying reasoning, we must first see that the brutal examples of political events may actually serve to distract readers from more serious themes. If this is true, much of The Prince can be characterized as a superficial work that camouflages more profound thoughts.3 Machiavellis Prince is a test designed to produce and reveal judgment in its readers as much as it is a passive lecture. Machiavelli presents his audience with seemingly paradoxical and irreconcilable details that can only be molded into an internally coherent logical system through reflection and deduction. The

1,200,000 USD at 2004 values. And yet these traders could not even compare with Sostratus. However, Sostratus was a hapax legomenon, that is, the entirety of the extant written record mentions him once, and since Herodotus gave us no other details than those mentioned, he remained obscure for centuries. In 1970, an anchor was found off Greece that mentioned an Aeginetan Sostratus. Whether the two Sostrati are one and the same, the fact remains that a man so famous to Herodotus that no mention of his deeds was needed, that his profit was axiomatic, became a hapax legomenon to a modern world that knew nothing about him. Deeds alone cannot produce glory. Words are needed, too. Fergus Millar, Rome, the Greek World, and the East: Volume 1: The Roman Republic and the Augustan Revolution,(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2002), 50. 3 Rafael Major, A New Argument for Morality: Machiavelli and the Ancients, in Political Research Quarterly 60, no. 2 (June 2007): 171-179, here 173.

simple will thusly be led to ruin, the cunning to greatness. Machiavelli wrote the Prince not for everyone, but for the understanding. Nathan Tarcov notes that Agathocles must be viewed in context with other Machiavellian exemplars. Although Agathocles himself is criticized bythe literal text, his qualities and deeds are praised elsewhere by Machiavelli, a fact also noticed by Victoria Kahn. A hopeful orince-tobe who read only Chapter VIII of The Prince would mistake Machiavellis criticism of Agathocles as sincere. But if one reads the book in its entirety, along with Machiavellis other writings, comparing Agathocles with Machiavellis advice and his favorites, it becomes obvious that Agathocles is among the greatest of them. Victoria Kahn also seems to present Agathocles almost as a proto-republican figure. She insists that force and fraud are not necessarily antithetical to republicanism, and that one cannot separate Machiavellis thoughts on the two topics.4 She also notes that representation is a limit on tyrannical power. A dynastic monarch has laws and tradition to help keep him in power. But a tyrant, whose authority stems solely from himself, must take care not to disturb the people too greatly, lest he himself be ousted as he ousted the old rulers. In this analysis, Agathocles is not only a model to budding princes, but budding republicans.He shows a way to destroy an oligarchy and found a new state, an example of a transitory phase between a principality and a true republic. Wayne Rebhorn views Agathocles as neither a warning nor an exemplar, but as a mirror. Rebhorns Foxes and Lions is about Machiavellian princes as confidence man, those who connive at the destruction of all orthodoxiesproduce speeches, put on shows and plays, and invent tricks and stratagems to achieve their ends.5 Rebhorn argues that Renaissance era
4 5

Victoria Kahn, Machiavellian Rhetoric, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 11. Wayne A. Rebhorn, Foxes and Lions, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1988), 16.

Italians were conceiving of themselves as figures similar to Agathocles and many other figures about whom Machiavelli writes, as figures who shapes the world around them, rather than viceversa. Even contemporaries saw a rise (whether real or imagined) in these figures, as evidenced by a quote from Francesco Vettori, a friend of Machiavelli.
I thought to myself with what means, with what deceptions, with how many varied arts, with what industry a man sharpens his wits to deceive another, and through these variations the world is made more beautiful. The mind of this one is made more acute in order to find a new art to deceive, and that of another is made more subtle in order to protect itself. In effect, all the world is a confidence game [ciurmeria], and it begins with the religious and continues on to the lawyers, the doctors, the astrologers, the temporal princes and all those about them, to all the arts and disciplines. And from day to day, everything becomes more subtle and refined.6

As opposed to Medieval men, whose identity came from their ancestry:

Renaissance individuals were conceived as creating themselves; they were the sons of their works more than the sons of their fathers. Writers in the period thus spun out for themselves a myth of man as Proteus or Faustus*, freed from old allegiances, rising and changing solely through the efforts of his will, intelligence, and art. Human beings made themselves through their education, or they made and remade themselves continually as they played role upon role on the great stage of the world.7

The similarities to Agathocles are obvious. The son of a potter, he remade himself into the king of Syracuse. However, although Rebhorn notes that confidence men oftentimes create new orders, he mostly ignores Agathocles, preferring to focus elsewhere. First we must examine Agathoclessisland and its unique history. The ancients had nothing but praise for Sicilys fecundity. Strabo wrote, As for the fertility of the country, why should I speak of it, since it is on the lips of all men, who declare that it is no whit inferior to that of Italy? And in the matter of grain, honey, saffron, andcertain other products, one might call it

Rebhorn, Foxes and Lions, 12-13. Faustus is connected with the Renaissance in another way. The printed book, which made the Renaissance, with its revival of old learning and spread of new knowledge possible, was claimed by some to be the creation of Dr. John Faust. A Czech legend claims that the defeat of Prokop Hols Taborites in 1434 led the Bohemian baccalaureate Jan Kutensk (Johann Kuttenberg) [a.k.a. Faust] to devote himself to the spagyric art, to which end he sold his soul to the devil Duchamor. After his beloved Ludmila sacrificed herself to free him from the devils clutches, he settled in Mainz, where he invented the printing press to the eternal glory of the Slavs. Angelo Maria Ripellino,Magic Prague,trans. David Newton Marinelli, ed. Michael Henry Heim(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), 97 7 Rebhorn, Foxes and Lions, 27.
*

even superior.8Sicily was not only extremely agriculturally productive, owing to the ashes of the ardent Mount Etna, but also commercially well-situated, between Europe and Africa and between the Western and Eastern Mediterraneans. The trades of entire civilizations passed by this tiny island. Syracuse, with its massive and excellent harbors, received the best of both boons, and with its prosperity came power. The city was renowned for its wealth throughout the Mediterranean world. According to legend:
Syracuse was founded by Archias, who sailed from Corinth about the same time that Naxus and Megara were colonised. It is said that Archias went to Delphi at the same time as Myscellus, and when they were consulting the oracle, the god asked them whether they chose wealth or health; now Archias chose wealth, and Myscellus health; accordingly, the god granted to the former to found Syracuse, and to the latter Croton. And it actually came to pass that the Crotoniates took up their abode in a city that was exceedingly healthful, as I have related, and that Syracuse fell into such exceptional wealth that the name of the Syracusans was spread abroad in a proverb applied to the excessively extravagant "the tithe of the Syracusans would not be sufficient for them.9

It waswith a touch of true precognition that had the Oracle of Delphi send he who desired a healthy city away from Sicily. For Syracuse, and indeed, all Sicily, was to be far better acquainted with wealth than health. The first Greeks who came to Sicily were explorers and merchants. But soon they were followed by colonists, coming to found new cities and plough new lands, as Archias did. The island, or at least those parts of it under Greek control, was, and felt itself to be, altogether and fully Greek, not just a rude, distant outpost.10 The Sicilians kept in constant contact with Greece and not only participated in the Panhellenic games, but also consulted the oracles.11 It was a prosperous and sophisticated land until Sicily entered the next era of its history.

Strabo,The Geography of Strabo,trans. H.L. Jones,vol. III (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1924), web, September 14, 2010,<http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/6B*.html>, VI.2.7. 9 Strabo, The Geography of Strabo, VI.2.4. 10 M.I. Finley, Ancient Sicily, (Totowa, New Jersey: Roman and Littlefield, 1979), 29. 11 Finley, Ancient Sicily, 31.

According to Marcus Junianus Justinus, no country in all the world produced more tyrants than that tiny island and it would be hard to argue against him.12 Gelon, who reigned in the early fifth century BCE, was but one of these tyrants, but it was from his hands that the next few centuries of Sicilian history came. Although originally tyrant of Gela, he conquered Syracuse, which had lately descended into anarchy, without resistance in 484 BCE.13Gelon, perhaps aware of the citys massive potential, or simply of its awesome defensive capabilities, made Syracuse his new capital. Syracuse was everything to him, and the city flourished and increased right away.14 He raised it into a great city through sheer force, transferring the inhabitants of Camarina and more than half of Gelas population to Syracuse.15Until Rome, Carthage, and the Macedonians finally eclipsed the city in strength, the tyrant of Syracuse was the most powerful man in the Western world.Gelon had made himself the strongest man on the European continent, and second in power only to the Persian Great King in the known world. Indeed, when the Great King Xerxes invaded Greece, it was from Gelon that the Greekssought succor. However, in exchange for his massive army, fleet, and his offer to supply the Greek army with food for the entirety of the campaign, Gelon asked to lead the army, a condition the Spartans refused, or the navy, which the Athenians could not accept.16 Syracuse was the hegemon of Sicily until Rome finally conquered it during the Second Punic War. It produced numerous tyrants, including Dionysius, who, like Agathocles, came to the throne during a Carthaginian war after first acquiring military power.17 While strong tyrants

12

Marcus Junianus Justinus, Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus, trans. John Selby Watson (London: Henry G. Bohn, York Street, Convent Garden, 1853), web, September 10, 2010, <http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/justin/english/index.html>, IV.2. 13 Finley, Ancient Sicily, 51. 14 Herodotus, The History, trans. David Greene (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 523. 15 Finley, Ancient Sicily, 51. 16 Herodotus, The History, 525. 17 Finley, Ancient Sicily, 71.

ruled, some semblance of stability suffused Sicily. When they fell, so too did the islands fortunes. The era immediately before Agathocles was bloodily chaotic. Petty tyrants flourished, mercenary armies dominated the landscape, the rulers human and financial resources plummeted, and the Syracusans must have envied the wisdom of Myscellus while bemoaning their own Archiass immature hastiness.18Timoleon, sent by Corinth to aid Syracuse, succeeded spectacularly, eliminating those petty tyrants from the island, but even he could not establish a firm successor.19 One soon established himself: Agathocles. Although several of Agathocless contemporaries wrote histories about him, none of them survived into the modern era, forever lost centuries ago. Several ancient extant writers, who relied on those now-vanished works,did write about Agathocles, though, the most important of whom are Diodorus Siculus and Marcus Junianus Justinus, also known as Justin. Other writers supplya few snippets of information about him, including Polyaenus and Polybius, but aside from them, there is precious little information about Agathocles in the classical canon. Diodorus Siculuss account of Agathocles is the most detailedof the surviving sources.Although Diodorus admits that Agathocles has great ability, his cruelty is even greater. He lingers on Agathocless punishments, extortions, murders, and massacres. Diodorus claims that Agathocles used to punish a private individual by slaughtering all his kindred, and to exact reckoning from cities by murdering the people from youth up.20 In an instance of rather inventive cruelty, when Agathocles attacked Utica, he constructed a siege engine, hung the prisoners [whom he had earlier captured from near the city] upon it, and brought it up to the

18 19

Finley, Ancient Sicily, 94. Finley, Ancient Sicily, 98. 20 Diodorus Siculus,The Library of History of Diodorus of Sicily, trans. Russel M. Geer,Vol. IX(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957), 227.

walls, forcing the Uticans to attack their own countrymen in order to protect their city,inflicting mental turmoil along with his attack.21 Indeed, after his sanguinary nature, the next most illustrated characteristic of Diodoruss Agathocles is his fondness for psychological warfare and trickery.He has his army light extra fires at night in order to deceive the Carthaginians as to the size of his army.22 Later, he tricks a band of fortified hostile Greek soldiers into a truce before slaughtering them.23 In order to raise his troops morale before a battle, he sets loose owls, birds sacred to Athena. When they came to rest on the soldiers, it was considered a good omen and raised their spirits dramatically, resulting in a dramatic Syracusan victory.24In the end, Agathocles is poisoned and, after suffering terribly, is burned alive by Oxythemis, King Demetriuss envoy.25 Despite such criticisms, however, Agathocles is recognized as sly, intelligent, and popular with the common people. He displays a shocking lack of pride, willing to be laughed at by even the lowest members of society, although admittedly, to Diodorus, this may have been a negative trait. Through deduction, one realizes that he had a remarkably stable government as well, for even when he is believed lost and totally defeated in Africa with no way home, neitherrevolt nor coup happens at home. Diodorus also praises the city of Acragas for trying to do those things for which he criticizes Agathocles, so it seems thatDiodoruss primary problem is with Agathocles as a person, rather than with his deeds. Justin presents a more positive image of Agathocles. Justins Agathocles is generallyvictorious. Despite early setbacks, Agathocles will overcome in the end. He begins life
21

Diodorus Siculus,The Library of History of Diodorus of Sicily, trans. Russel M. Geer,Vol. X(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957), 293. 22 Diodorus, The Library of History, Vol. X, 189. 23 Diodorus, The Library of History, Vol. X, 249. 24 Diodorus, The Library of History, Vol. X, 171. 25 Diodorus Siculus,The Library of History of Diodorus of Sicily, trans. Russel M. Geer,Vol. XI(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957), 29.

as a thief and as a prostitute, to men as a boy and to women as a man. He fails to become tyrant twice, but eventually succeeds after making a deal with Carthage. Although defeated by the Carthaginians in battle, he brings war to Africa and thusly becomes master of the whole island of Sicily, the first man to do so.26 When a mutiny threatens, he pacifies his troops and secretly escapes back home. He invades Italy and has early successes, but contracts a disease there and returns to Sicily where he dies, but surrounded by his weeping wife and children in his bed. Justin blames Agathocles harshly for some of his actions, especially abandoning his troops in Africa twice, but overall focuses more on his military and political virtues. The crimes and violence that Diodorus frequently mentions and with which Polyaenus, as we shall see, is obsessed, are mostly ignored. Instead, Justin writes more about Agathocless ability to deceive all others, his awesome reputation and ability, and his loving family. Polyaenus collected various accounts of trickery and deceit from the ancient world and collected them into his Stratagems of War as a textbook to others. If Agathocles were most outstanding in any field, it was trickery, so it is no surprise that he appears. However, Polyaenus presents the darkest picture of Agathocles by far. His Agathocles is a butcher who delights in others gullibility and murders for no reason. The most hilariously evil anecdote given about him is:
After Agathocles had defeated the Leontines, he sent their general Dinocrates to Leontium; to inform his countrymen, that it was his intention, in the preservation of his prisoners, to rival the glory of Dionysius, who after the battle at the river Eleporus preserved the lives of all the prisoners he had taken. The Leontines in confidence of his promise sent him magnificent presents. Agathocles then ordered all the prisoners to meet him unarmed. When the general, as directed, bade every man, who thought as Agathocles did, hold up his hand. My thoughts, said Agathocles, are to slay every man of you: the number of whom was ten thousand. The soldiers, who surrounded them, according to the tyrants orders immediately cut them to pieces.27

26 27

Justinus, Epitome, XXII.8. Polyaenus, Stratagems of War, trans. R. Shepherd (Chicago: Ares Publishers Inc. 1974), 194-5.

10

Agathocles acts more like a comic book villain than a flesh-and-blood ruler, and indeed, his lack of remorse is emphasized by another anecdote, in whichafter this slaughter, he laughed with his friends, boasting that After supper we will cast up our oaths.28 He also kills his enemies andhis soldiers who are unwilling to invade Africa with him, attacks his allies, and even sends his son Heraclides as a hostage to a notorious pederast in order to distract his enemy before an attack. Heartless, faithless, and conscienceless, Polyaenuss Agathocles is a bloodthirsty tyrant who revels in others suffering and death, caring only for himself. Polybius mentions Agathocles sparingly. While criticizing his fellow historian Timaeus, an opponent of Agathocles, Polybius contends that Agathocles must have had some fine natural qualities and many endowments and talents for administration.29He supports this, not only with details from Timaeuss now-lost text, but also with a quote from Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus Major, who said that, along wih Dionysius, Agathocles was one of the two men who were the most skillful administrators and most distinguished for boldness combined with prudence.30 His only other germane comment mentions that despite Agathocless cruelty when he came to power, afterwards he was the most humane and mild of rulers.31Polybiuss account is overwhelmingly positive and the only negative characteristic, his cruelty, is greatly qualified by its brief duration. Besides that, Polybiuss Agathocles is talented and skilled; a great leader, not a great butcher. Generally, the classical sources more or less conform to a general picture of Agathocles: a talented but deceitful and violent man. Different accounts emphasize and downplay various

28 29

Polyaenus, Stratagems of War, 194. Polybius, The Histories of Polybius, trans. Evelyn S. Shuckburgh, Vol. 2 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1962), 93 & 170. 30 Polybius, The Histories of Polybius, Vol. 2, 170. 31 Polybius, The Histories of Polybius, trans. Evelyn S. Shuckburgh, Vol. 1 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1962), 583-4.

11

traits, but all of them concede his ability and confess his crimes. Polybius and Justin have the best opinion of him, while Diodorus is more balanced, showing both the good and bad actions of Agathocles more or less equally. Polyaenus shows him only as a madman, whose idea of comedy is murdering a myriad of men. All the sources agree, though, that Agathocles rose from a low station to being the prince of a regional power through his own merit and ability. There are many differences amongst the accounts, though, and apparent contradictions within them. In Diodoruss account, Agathocles brings hostages with him to Africa in order to prevent a revolt while he is away.32 Yet while in Africa, Agathocles sends men who are useless in war back to Syracuse.33Agathocles is evidently unwilling to have men with him who cannot fight, so why would he bring hostages with him, when he was already limited in what he could convoy to Africa? It is more likely that these hostages are really soldiers, possibly unwilling conscripts, but soldiers nevertheless. Throughout the rest of the history, Agathocles never mucks about with hostages. When he fears betrayal, people die. This anecdote serves only to make Agathocless regime look weaker and less stable than it actually was. After taking power, Agathocles lost two large battles to the Carthaginians, left for another continent with an army while Syracuse was besieged (in Justins account, he even refused to tell the Syracusans whither he was going), and was believed hopelessly lost in Africa, all of which occurred without any mentioned attempts at a revolution. He does not even use a bodyguard when entering the assembly, because the crowd is his bodyguard.34 Hostages seem superfluous for so secure a statesman. Another apparent contradiction is the common agreement that Agathocles ceased his cruelties after coming to power with the endless stories of his morbid crimes while tyrant.
32 33

Diodorus, The Library of History, Vol. X, 151-3. Diodorus, The Library of History, Vol. X, 263. 34 Diodorus, The Library of History, Vol. X, 315.

12

Heceased his cruelties towards the Syracusans once he got rid of the nobles there, but continued them towards his enemies. He hated those who had more power than he but loved the common people of Syracuse. After one of his military disasters, rather than return to the safety of Syracuse, he stayed out in the field, distracting the Carthaginian army with himself and his army in order that the Syracusans might quite fearlessly gather in their crops as the season demanded.35 How many other rulers cared so greatly about their citizens welfare? Would Alexander or Napoleon have ever acted thusly? And yet this story comes from the same author who states that, No one of the tyrants before him brought any such achievements to completion nor yet displayed such cruelty toward those who had become his subjects.36Actual instances of this cruelty are nowhere to be found, for Agathocless only victims are the great men and his political enemies. He protects and supports his subjects so long as they support him. One final story that merits mention is found within the pages of Polyaenus. In keeping with his portrayal of Agathocles asirrationally evil, Polyaenus claims that:
Agathocles having embarked in an expedition against Carthage, to try the resolution of his men before he sailed, ordered proclamation to be made; that whoever wished to be excused from the expedition, might go on shore, and take with him whatever property he had on board. As many as took advantage of the proclamation, he ordered to execution, as traitors and cowards.37

Justin, however, records that at this moment, Agathocles told the Syracusans that any who were unwilling to endure a siege were free to leave, and that sixteen hundred did so without consequence mentioned.38He makes no mention of Polyaenuss story,but does say that Agathocles obliged all the slaves that were of age for war, after receiving their freedom, to take the military oath, and put them and the greater part of the soldiers, on ship-board, supposing that, as the condition of both was made equal, there would be a mutual emulation in bravery between
35 36

Diodorus, The Library of History, Vol. X, 131. Diodorus, The Library of History, Vol. IX, 227. 37 Polyaenus, Stratagems of War, 196. 38 Justinus, Epitome, XXII.4.

13

them.39Diodorus relates the same event. In his version, Agathocles saw that the very wealthy citizens were opposed to his policies and himself, so he offered the citizens the same choice that he did in Justins account. Those rich men who left the city with their property, however, were killed by Agathocles and their property confiscated for the war, which is more in line with Agathocless other actions than the other accounts.40 The same choice given to different parties at the same time makes the story suspect. Polyaenus always depicts Agathocles as evil and in his story as only desiring totally devoted troops. Yet Justin has him using conscripts, not volunteers. Diodoruss confirmation of most of Justins details, along with their more convincing portrayal of Agathocles renders their version more probable. It seems that Polyaenus portrayed Agathocles as a worse person than he truly was. Why would he give his soldiers reasons to hate him immediately before departing alone with them to another continent? It sounds implausible and worse, idiotic, especially for someone of Agathocless ability. Polyaenuss story is a corruption of the incident that Justin and Diodorus record. He turns Agathocles from a man whogets rid of his enemies and enriches the state simultaneously before he leaves indefinitely, one who is willing to use former slaves as soldiers, caring more for merit than status, into an immoral butcher who murders indiscriminately, even at the least opportune times. Machiavelli continues the mixture of praise and blame that the ancient authors gave to Agathocles. In The Prince, Agathocles is one of the exemplars for an entire chapter. Unfortunately, that chapter is Of Those Who Have Attained a Principality through Crimes.Machiavelli describes his rise and seizure of power in Syracuse, as well as his triumphs

39 40

Justinus, Epitome, XXII.4. Diodorus, The Library of History, Vol. X, 153.

14

against Carthage. He admits that Agathocles earned his rankthrough skill and ability, yet will not call him virtuous.41 Machiavelliignores Agathocless crimes that occur during his reign and writes that Agathocles used cruelty well by doing all that had to be done at a single stroke, when he first seized power by killing the senate.42 He also avoids mentioning his early years as a catamite, referenced by both Diodorus and Justin. These omissions make him less contemptible and a better example to the reader. Machiavelli did not want to encourage regular violence, nor would his readers have readily emulated a prostitute. Machiavelli leaves out many of Agathocless negative actions, including abandoning his troops, killing his ally, stealing, prostitution, and others. The only ones that remain are his double-cross of the Carthaginians, by attacking them after making a deal with them and coming to power, and his seizure of power, during which he killed the senators and wealthiest citizens. Neither of these is necessarily bad, however, and Machiavelliapproves of both. He believes that potential founders must be alone, which necessitates eliminating the senators, and that in war, fraud is a praiseworthy and glorious thing.43 But after Machiavelli praises Agathocles both explicitly and implicitly, at the last moment heseemingly berates him, saying:
Yet one cannot call it virtue to kill ones citizens, betray ones friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion; these modes can enable one to acquire empire, but not glory. Nonetheless, his savage cruelty and inhumanity, together with his infinite crimes, do not permit him to be celebrated among the most excellent men. Thus, one cannot attribute to fortune or to virtue what he achieved without either.44

41

Niccol Machiavelli, The Prince, trans. Harvey C. Mansfield(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1998), 35. 42 Machiavelli, The Prince, 37. 43 Niccol Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy, trans. Harvey C. Mansfield & Nathan Tarcov (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 29 & 299. 44 Machiavelli, The Prince, 35.

15

Machiavelli may be too sincere here, however.He does not write that Agathocles has no virtue, but that it cannotbe called virtue. He does not write that Agathocles is not an excellent man, but that his traits do not permit him to be celebrated amongst the most excellent men. For someone who normally writes simply, these constructions are inefficient and awkward if we are meant to understand them colloquially, that is, that Agathocles is without virtue and a terrible man. If, however, we take them at their technical meaning, the construction makes much more sense. It is intended to mislead superficial readers but reveal its meaning to careful ones. As he says, his intent is to write something useful to whoever understands it.45 In this way is Agathocles Machiavellis monster. For they say that the word monster has two etymologies. One comes from monstro, meaning I point out, while the other descends from moneo, meaning I warn. The former makes a monster a demonstration. The latter makes it a warning. Although Agathocles at first seems to be a warning, one that shows that acquiring a state by crime gains you no glory, he is actually a demonstration of the fact that glory is not linked with power itself and that not all excellent men can be openly praised. Virtue is rare and fortune uncontrollable, but crime is available to everyone. All it requires is the ability to use it well, as Agathocles did.Agathocles follows most of Machiavellis advice and is no worse than his explicit exemplars. Indeed, by focusing his violence into a single moment, he is arguably one of the most moral people in The Prince. In this interpretation, Machiavelli comments more on society than on Agathocles. Despite Agathocless success and skill, he cannot explicitly be an exemplar. But he is one nevertheless. In the chapters opening paragraph, Machiavelli writes that he will show how people become princes through crime without entering otherwise into the merits of this issue,
45

Machiavelli, The Prince, 61.

16

because I judge it sufficient, for whoever would find it necessary, to imitate them.46 Although he criticizes Agathocles, he does so only after showing his victories and omitting any of his misfortunes. He thusly implies that that those who have the skill and ability of Agathocles should imitate him and come to power in his way. If we compare Agathocles to those men and deeds that earn Machiavellis praise, we can see how closely he conforms to the latter and resembles the former. The most praised men in The Prince are the four founders: Moses, Romulus, Theseus, and Cyrus. Yet their actions are not morallysuperiorto those of Agathocles. Machiavelli himself admits that Moses was forced to kill infinite men who, moved by nothing more than envy, were opposed to his plans.47Is it imaginable that the senators of Syracuse would have felt no envy toward the son of a potter, as Agathocles was? Agathocles would have faced even more envy than Moses had he not first eliminated the Syracusan nobles. And indeed, Machiavelli advises such an action, saying that, To conquer this envy, there is no remedy other than the death of those who have it, and that if these men will not die naturally, one must think of every way of removing them.48Agathocles killed his enemies all at once, but Moses had to kill his enemies again and again, resulting in far more internal opposition than Agathocles faced. Moses kills an Egyptian whom he witnesses beating a Hebrew, hiding his body in the sand.49 He leads the Israelites against countless enemies, leaving slaughter in his wake in order to invade a long ago abandoned homeland, now fertile with new peoples who have spent their entire lifetimes there, as opposed to the Israelites, not one of whom has seen the land to which they travel. While wandering through the desert, Moses faces the possibility of rebellion from
46 47

Machiavelli, The Prince, 34. Machiavelli, Discourses, 280. 48 Machiavelli, Discourses, 280. 49 New American Bible, Exodus 2.11-12 (South Bend, Indiana: Greenlawn Press, 1991), 59.

17

Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. Korah isfurious that Moses has set himself above the others, claiming that the entire nation if Israel is holy, not solely Moses.50 Dathan and Abiram resent having been led out of Egypt, a land of plenty, into the desert.51 In answer to their rather reasonable complaints, the earth swallows up the leaders, while fire consumes the followers.52 Time and time again, Moses ends opposition through only one way: murder. Debates, bribery, compromise, none of these are considered while Moses has his favorite option available and the backing of his god. If Moses is the murderer, Romulus is undoubtedly the betrayer. His first noteworthy act, in conjunction with his brother Remus, is to overthrow his king, Amulius, who is also his grandfathers brother and possibly his own father. When he founds Rome, he kills this same brother, Remus, over a trifle. When none of his neighbors wish for their women to marry into his new city due to the low reputation of its citizens, Romulus deceivesand betrays the Sabines. He proclaimed a splendid sacrifice upon it [a newly discovered altar], with games, and a spectacle open to all people.53 During this celebration, Romulus violates the rules of hospitality, and at a given signal from their king, the Romans seize the Sabines daughters as their new brides. Later, through the intercessions of these same brides, the Sabines and Romans reconcile and become one people with two kings. The Sabine king, Tatius, is later murdered while with Romulus, who does nothing neither to prevent the murder nor avenge it after it happened, which, not surprisingly, led some to say and suspect that he was glad to be rid of his colleague, and

50 51

New American Bible, Numbers 16.1-3, 139. New American Bible, Numbers 16.12-14, 139. 52 New American Bible, Numbers 16.25-35, 139-140. 53 Plutarch, Plutarchs Lives, trans. Bernadotte Perrin, vol. I (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967), 129.

18

indeed, makes it appear that he was complicit in, if not actually behind, the assassination.54Tatius is thus the third ruler to whom Romulus owed allegiance in whose murder he was directly involved. King, brother, colleague; it seems that no position is high, dear, or close enough that Romulus will not betray its holder. Agathocles betrayed his fatherland, which Romulus also did in his revolt against Amulius. Agathocles also betrayed Ophellas, one of Alexanders companions. Ophellas came to Agathocles with an army, but Agathocles soon accused him beforethe Syracusan soldiers, claiming that Ophellas was plotting against them. He then led his army against Ophellas, killed him, and took his army for himself.55 But betrayal cannot be anybarrier to glory. Romulus betrayed his king, his family, his neighbors, and his fellow monarch yet receives none of the opprobrium that Agathocles does. Out of the founders, Theseus is the least competent. After defeating the Minotaur and sailing home, he forgot to change his ships black sail to a white one. Through this failure of forgetfulness, he unwittingly convinced his father, King Aegeus, that his son was dead. Because of this, Aegeus commits suicide, and even Plutarch says that Theseus cannot escape the charge of parricide.56He also goes against the Machiavellian advice to avoid seizing others women, resulting in his downfall.57 Plutarch records:
For instance, he is said to have carried off Anaxo, a maiden of Troezen, and after slaying Sinis and Cercyon to have ravished their daughters; also to have married Periboea, the mother of Aias, and Phereboea afterwards, and Iope, the daughter of Iphicles; and because of his passion for Aegle, the daughter of Panopeus, as I have already said, he is accused of the desertion of Ariadne, [who is said to have hanged herself because of this desertion] which was not honourable nor even decent; and finally, his rape of Helen is said to have filled Attica with war, and to have brought about at last his banishment and death, of which things I shall speak a little later.58

54 55

Plutarch, Plutarchs Lives, 165. Diodorus, The Library of History, Vol. X, 257. 56 Plutarch, Plutarchs Lives, 197. 57 Machiavelli, Discourses, 219. 58 Plutarch, Plutarchs Lives, 67.

19

Theseus is also the only one of the four founders to lose his power while alive. After being captured (while trying to help a friend kidnap another girl), he attempts to return home, only to find that the city has turned against him. When he tries to seize power again, he was repulsed and went into exile, whereas Agathocles ruled until his death. It cannot be lack of political acumen that keeps Agathocles from glory, then, since he never acted with such incompetence as to unwittingly cause a rulers death, nor did he seize and rape women, encouraging hatred against him, nor did he lose his throne. Indeed, his throne was so stable that even his most vociferous critics mention no internal attempts against it. Cyrus is the trickster of the lot, matching Agathocless own cunning. Like Agathocles, he wins through his mind as often as through arms. In order to win a battle against Croesus, whose Lydian cavalry was renowned for its ability, Cyrus uses camels as a vanguard for his own cavalry. Horses unused to these animals can bear neither the sight nor smell of them, and they therefore threw off their riders, brealomg the Lydian cavalrys ranks.59 Cyruss own forces then mopped them up easily, winning the battle. Without its cavalry, the rest of the Lydian army could not withstand the Persians. Later, Croesus, after a battle late in the campaigning season against Cyrus, disbands his army, for he never expected that Cyrus, after so equal an engagement as they had fought, would drive on to Sardis [Croesuss capital].60 Cyrus however, does not disband his army for the winter and invades Lydia with such speed that Cyrus himself serves as the messenger of his own advance and defeats Croesus. When Cyrus attacks Babylon, he makes use of another stratagem.He first digs channels in order to divert the Euphrates River, which runs through the city. Next, he marches off his army, fooling the Babylonians into thinking that he had given up all hopes of carrying the place; and
59 60

Polyaenus, Stratagems of War, 266. Herodotus, The History, 69.

20

they therefore became more remiss in their defense of it.61He then suddenly diverts the river using his channels and marches his troops underneath the citys walls, capturing it effortlessly. His greatest tricks, however, he saved for entire peoples. He manipulated and lied to entire civilizations in order to make them go down the path that he desired. After he defeated the Lydians, formerly a martial people, he changed their culture utterly. Cyrus has them change their manner of dress and their hobbies into those considered more feminine. He encourages them to abandon a hard, militaristic life for a soft one of luxury. Within a few decades, the Lydians were no longer a byword for martial prowess, but for pusillanimous decadence. Even his own nation was a subject of his designs. For instead of moving the Persian nation to a fertile land full of luxury and wealth, he has them remain in their rocky domain. Artembares, when he asked Cyrus why he does not move the Persians to someplace better, received the answer that, From soft countries come soft men. It is not possible that from the same land stems a growth of wondrous fruit and men who are good soldiers.62With his plan, Cyrus prolonged the Persian Empire, the largest in the ancient world. Even Agathocles, with his many tricks and plans and stratagems, never had any that were so long-term as Cyruss multigenerational plan to maintain his nations empire. How then does Agathocles differ from these four great exemplars? Moses is bloodier, Romulus less trustworthy, Theseus less competent, and Cyrus trickier. Agathocles, despite his many faults, is no worse than the great founders of antiquity who are so frequently lionized. There are two main differences between him and them. For one, Agathocles is low-born. His father was a potter. Moses was adopted into the Egyptian royal family. Cyrus is the grandson of the Median king and son of the Persian. Romulus and Theseus descend at the very least from
61 62

Polyaenus, Stratagems of War, 265-6. Herodotus, The History, 664.

21

royalty and possibly from the immortal gods themselves. Agathocles is the only one with no connection to a royal line. It cannot simply be his low beginnings that arouse such dislike for him, for Plutarch, while describing Romulus, says that it is laudable to rise to eminence from the smallest beginnings, which no one can doubt Agathocles did.63 If anything, his rise was greater than Romulus, for Romulus was king of a small town in rustic Latium, while Agathocles became king of the great city of Syracuse and hegemon of the entire island of Sicily. An ignoble birth separates Agathocles from his rivals for glory. The second difference between Agathocles and the others is his relationship to writers and nobles, who often patronize the former. As Plutarch muses:
And verily it seems to be a grievous thing for a man to be at enmity with a citywhich has a language and a literature. For Minos was always abused and reviled in the Attic theatres, and it did not avail him either that Hesiod called him most royal or that Homer styled him a confidant of Zeus, but the tragic poets prevailed, and from platform and stage showered obloquy down upon him, as a man of cruelty and violence. And yet they say that Minos was a king and lawgiver, and that Rhadamanthus was a judge under him, and a guardian of the principles of justice defined by him.64

Thisis Agathocless historical downfall. Unlike the four founders, who create nobles, Agathocles came to power atop a mountain of aristocratic corpses, four thousand according to Diodorus.65As for historians, Diodorus tells us that Timaeus, banished from Sicily by Agathocles and otherwise powerless against him, got revenge through his histories.66The four founders all had writers who praised and honored them, and all had successors who would have had an interest in legitimating their predecessor, unlike Agathocles. Moses, Romulus, and Theseus were the national heroes of the three most influential cultures on Western civilization. Cyrus, lacking a great Persian historian or poet to glorify him, nevertheless attracted Greek admirers, including

63 64

Plutarch, Plutarchs Lives, 195. Plutarch, Plutarchs Lives, 31-33. 65 Diodorus, The Library of History, Vol. IX, 247. 66 Diodorus, The Library of History, Vol. XI, 31-33.

22

Herodotus and Xenophon. Even the Hebrews Jehovah admires him, for Cyrus is even Gods instrument of justice against Babylon in the Bible. Throughout his career, Agathocles favors the common man and oppresses the nobles. After the mass optimicide with which he began his reign, he plays the part of a democrat, convincing the people to elect him general with absolute power, rather than receiving power from the great men of the city.67 After coming to power, he abolishes debts and engages in land reform, redistributing land to the poor, presumably land from the recently killed senators.68 Even after securing himself on his throne, he continues his friendship with the commoners. He won no slight popularity by aiding many, by encouraging no small number with promises, and by currying favour from all by philanthropic words.69 He let men speak against him and laugh at him, and even performed for their amusement at meetings of the assembly, mocking and mimicking the other speakers.70Rather than hide his origin as the son of a potter, he boasted of his craftsmanship, firmly associating himself with the commoners, rather than the rulers.71 His actions made him so popular that he needed no bodyguard, unlikethe earlier tyrant Dionysius.That ruler was so unable to trust anyone that he never had his hair cut, afraid to let anyone bring a razor so close to his head and neck.72Even more extreme, Dionysius had his bed surrounded by a ditch, crossable only by a wooden bridge. After crossing the bridge to reach his bed, he drew it back with him, preventing anyone from approaching him as he slept.73 Is a greater contrast between security and paranoia possible? Unfortunately, the common man rarely

67 68

Diodorus, The Library of History, Vol. IX, 251. Diodorus, The Library of History, Vol. IX, 251. 69 Diodorus, The Library of History, Vol. IX, 251-3. 70 Diodorus, The Library of History, Vol. X, 315. 71 Finley, Ancient Sicily, 102. 72 Diodorus, The Library of History, Vol. X, 317. 73 Marcus Tullius Cicero, Ciceros Tusculan Disputations, trans. C.D. Yonge (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1877), 111.

23

writes history. Those who recorded and retold Agathocless deeds were often those who had the most reason to hate him. Agathocles compares quite favorably with Machiavellis four founders, but how does he compare to Machiavellis own advice in The Prince and Discourses? Agathocles came to power through popular support. Machiavelli advises that one who becomes prince through the support of the people should keep them friendly to him, which should be easy for him because they ask of him only that they not be oppressed.74 This Agathocles surely did. His debt and land reforms garnered him the support of the lowest classes, while he helped the farmers of Syracuse by using his army to distract the Carthaginians so that the Syracusans could harvest their crops in peace. He never gave them new nobles who might oppress them, nor did he oppress them himself. He was so humble that upon assuming the title of king, he did not even wear a royal diadem, but only a chaplet, the symbol of a priesthood to which he had belonged back when he first seized power.75 Indeed, with his inability to suffer superiors and remarkable kindness to the people, it seems that Agathocles had a commoners disposition and asked only not to be oppressed, though in a more active and violent way. Agathocles never turned on the common people and therefore never had to fear them. The most infamous piece of Machiavellian wisdom is the advice that it is better to be feared than loved. Everyone forgets that he also says that one would want to be both the one and the other, but that it is difficult to put them together.76But Agathocles not only achieved both, but he did soin an especially useful way. For the nobles, who have the greater power to harm, through conspiracy and inviting foreign aid, feared him because of his violence. But the
74 75

Machiavelli, The Prince, 40. Diodorus, The Library of History, Vol. X, 291. 76 Machiavelli, The Prince, 66.

24

people, who have the greater power to protect and succor, through their ability to defend the homeland and protect the prince, loved him because of his kindness. And Machiavelli recommends that princes learn to live in a manner and act in a mode that will make them revered and loved, so that no one can hope, by killing him, to save himself.77 That way few will conspire against the prince, for they will not suppose that they have the peoples support, so that even if they succeed, punishment is inevitable. The devotion of the common Syracusans for Agathocles better protected him from conspiracy than any soldiers ever could. Machiavelli believes that the best way to avoid hatred is to abstain from ones subjects property and women, and while Agathocles did the latter, it cannot be said that he refrained from taking others property. However, the only instances of this happening to his own citizens are when he first seized power and when he was about to leave for Africa. In the first instance, the property appears to have been redistributed to the poor and in the second was for the war effort and the citys greater good. In neither instance did he act in order to enrich himself and perhaps this is how he escaped hatred. Because these instances were brief aberrations, he never created the impression that he would begin regularly seizing property.Although he probably gained hatred, it was not strong, since so few ever tried to do away with him. One of Machiavellis dearer beliefs and one that he tried to implement in his own lifetime is the importance of arming ones own people. In Discourses, he argues that not gold, as the common opinion cries out, but good soldiers are the sinew of war and that one cannot win without such soldiers.78 In The Prince, he explains that the best soldiers are ones citizens, never

77

Niccol Machiavelli, Florentine Histories, trans. Laura F. Banfield and Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), 316. 78 Machiavelli, Discourses, 148.

25

mercenaries, and that a wise prince, therefore, has always avoided these arms [mercenaries] and turned to his own.79 Agathocless only marked instance of large numbers of mercenaries comes from his time in Africa, when he was unable to obtain Syracusan reinforcements. And even in this case, Agathocles first killed their old commander, Ophellas, then enticed Ophellass former soldiers into joining his side with generous promises after defeating them in a short battle.80 By acting thusly, he eliminated any other leader these troops might have had and only likely focus for rebellion. Considering his frequent trips to other lands, it is doubtful whether he could have used many mercenaries. The Ten Thousand, also Hellenic mercenaries, frequently had to be coaxed and bribed and even tricked by Cyrus the Younger into traveling deeply into the Persian Empire. If Sicilian mercenaries were similar, they would have opposed any voyages to Africa or Italy with Agathocles. Before departing Syracuse, Agathocles had freed the slaves who had formerly belonged to those wealthy men who left before the siege and were cut down.81After granting them their freedom, he made them into citizen soldiers and enlisted them in his expeditionary army to Africa.82 Perhaps not ideal, but nevertheless, Agathocles usedrecently freed men, who had only just received a share in the state and therefore would be most eager to fight well in order to return and enjoy it, as soldiers. By freeing them himself, he not only ensures their loyalty to Syracuse, but to the prince personally. Surely Machiavelli would have been proud of the creation of such an army.

79 80

Machiavelli, The Prince, 55. Diodorus, The Library of History, Vol. X, 257. 81 Diodorus, The Library of History, Vol. X, 153. 82 Justinus, Epitome, XXII.4.

26

In addition to his army, Agathocles also possessed military skill, a trait Machiavelli recommends when he writes that a prince should have no other object, nor any other thought, nor take anything else as his art but that of war and its orders and discipline.83 Agathocles often led his armies personally, and despite his two defeats against Carthage in Sicily, managed to hold his army together.He was also gifted enough strategically to see that victory in Sicily lay in Africa. As a common soldier, he was so skilled that he rose to the rank of praetor.84Even as an exile, he had an army so powerful that he had become an object of dread not only to his fellow citizens by also to the Carthaginians.85 At the twilight of his life, when he invaded Italy, the Brutii were alarmed at his name and immediately tried to solicit alliance and friendship with him.86From the beginning of his career to its end, he was a feared commander, and his military ability kept him as safe from external threats as much as the peoples love for him kept him safe from internal ones. As for Agathocless seminal event, his violent takeover of Syracuse, the event for which he is most often maligned, that too conforms to Machiavellis teachings. Machiavelli states that an orderer should contrive to have authority alone, and that often men cannot work well, since the said envy does not permit them to have the authority that it is necessary to have in things of importance.87 By killing the senators of Syracuse, Agathocles did both at once. He made himself alone and eliminated those who, due to his low birth and great power, would have envied and hindered him.Machiavelli also points out that no prince can live secure in his principality as long as those who have been despoiled of it are living.88 And those who conspire

83 84

Machiavelli, The Prince, 58. Machiavelli, The Prince, 34. 85 Diodorus, The Library of History, Vol. IX, 241. 86 Justinus, Epitome, XXIII.2. 87 Machiavelli, Discourses, 29 & 279. 88 Machiavelli, Discourses, 216.

27

against the prince are great men or those very familiar to the prince.89 Agathocles killed off the senators who had power before he seized it and, since they were also the great men of Syracuse, this action made him doubly secure from conspiracies. Machiavelli clearly admires Cesare Borgia and praises him for his ruthless murder of Remirro de Orco. Cesare, having found the Romagna to be criminally anarchic, installed de Orco, a cruel and ready man to reduce it to peace and obedience.90 De Orco succeeded, but incurred the peoples hatred while doing so. In order to show that if any cruelty had been committed, this had not come from him but from the harsh nature of his minister, de Orco, Cesare had him placed one morning in the piazza as Cesena in two pieces, with a piece of wood and a bloody knife beside him.91 Thusly did Cesare show that the old days were over and new ones were to begin. Cruelty was gone, dispatched by more cruelty, but there would be cruelty no more. That episode is remarkably similar to how Agathocles took over in Syracuse. The oligarchy had caused class strife and brought war with Carthage. There was unequal land distribution and much debt, reading backwards from the reforms Agathocles implemented. Had he taken power peacefully and through the methods of the system, he would have appeared to be the proverbial dux novus similis duci seneci.* By murdering the entire senatorial order, Agathocles could make it no clearer that his rule would be entirely different. Those who disliked the old way, the vast majority considering Agathocless longevity and stability, could never have been courted so quickly nor so successfully without such an explicit display of the difference between Agathocles and the Syracusan senate.
89 90

Machiavelli, Discourses, 221. Machiavelli, The Prince, 29. 91 Machiavelli, The Prince, 30. * New boss same as the old boss

28

It is entirely possible that Agathocles was even aiming for the heights of glory. In Discursus florentinarum rerum post mortem iunioris Laurentii Medices, [N]o man is so exalted as much for any action as those who have with laws and institutions reformed republics and kingdoms; after the gods, these are the most praised.92Before Agathocless seizure of power, Syracuse was suffering through class-warfare and was ruled by a weak oligarchy.93 Viewed in one way, his actions were merely selfish and expedient. Yet perhaps he was a reformer, or even a creator, not merely a destroyer, of orders. Agathocles swept away the old oligarchy. Not only did he exterminate the senate, but there are several reports of him removing the wealthy, or at least their wealth, from Syracuse. Without the oligarchs, and without the tyrant after Agathocless own death, the power vacuum, provided another petty tyrant failed to arise, could have been filled by the people. After all, by eschewing mercenaries in his frequent wars, Agathocles had armed and trained a large portion of the citizenry. A citizen militia, the backbone of a strong republic, came into existence without any resistance from the recently deceased nobility. Not only did Agathocles give power to the commoners, but pride. For unlike most rulers, who seek to elevate themselves, he elevated the ruled, instead. He had them elect him as their ruler, rather than nakedly seizing it. He gave them land and took away their debts. As mentioned above, he encouraged the rabble to feel irreverence toward their leaders, rather than to think themselves beneath the ruling classes. He mocked others of high standing in front of the commons, turning their rulers into a comedy. Such an attitude towards ones prince is far less fitting for a tyranny or a monarchy than it is for a republic or a democracy.

92

Niccol Machiavelli, Discursus florentinarum rerum post morten iunioris Laurentii Medices, cited in Russell Price, The Theme of Gloria in Machiavelli, in Renaissance Quarterly 30, no. 4 (Winter, 1977): 588-631, here 595. 93 Finley, Ancient Sicily, 101.

29

It is impossible to discern Agathocless true motivation, of course, but how many founders knew the ultimate consequences of their actions? He failed in founding anything that survived his death and he was ultimately succeeded by other tyrants, but the oligarchy was eliminated for centuries. His actions were those that a proto-republican might have employed while shifting a state from oligarchy to republic. He prepared the people to fight for themselves and removed their oppressors so that they themselves might grow in stature and rule. Had things gone slightly differently, Agathocles himself might have become the fifth founder. Even more illustrative than these comparisons is one to a man almost universally praised by Machiavellis contemporaries: Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus Major, defeater of Hannibal and victor at Zama. He is the hero of Petrarchs Africa and held up as a paragon of (admittedly pagan) virtue. Yet he and Agathocles are truly not so different. The two men are almost mirror images of each other. They take similar paths but make opposite choices, and after their deaths, so too do their reputations. As Machiavelli says when comparing Scipio with Hannibal, it is possible for two men to achieve the same effect with opposing means provided they both have sufficient virtue.94 Unfortunately, the most useful source for Scipios life, Plutarchs biography of him, was lost centuries ago. But much remains to present a vivid picture of the general. Like Agathocles, his rise to power came through the military in a war against the Carthaginians. As a mere youth, he saved his father during a battle against his future nemesis Hannibal, beginning his meteoric rise.95 After the Battle of Cannae, when the flower of Roman youth and military pride were reaped by Hannibals tactical genius, the senators themselves, led by Caecilius

94

95

Machiavelli, Discourses, 264. Paulus Orosius,Seven Books of History against the Pagans,trans. I.W. Raymond, ( New York: Columbia University Press, 1936),web, September 12, 2010, <http://sites.google.com/site/demontortoise2000/orosius_book4>, 4.14.

30

Metellus,contemplated abandoning Italy entirely. But Scipio prevented him with drawn sword and forced him instead to swear to maintain the defense of his country.96 Soon after yet another disaster befell the Romans when their two generals in Spain, Scipios father and uncle, fell in battle simultaneously. The senators planned an election to choose a proconsul to go to Spain, but no candidate was willing to go. Then, Scipio declared that he was a candidate, and took his place on higher ground from which he could be seen. [N]ot only all the centuries, but also every single man voted that Publius Scipio should have the command in Spain.97 After acquiring this command, Scipio defeated the Carthaginians in Spain, conquered the province for Rome, and returned to much glory. He then received a new command and moved against a new enemy: Carthage. In this move, Scipio consciously imitated Agathocles. When Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus Cunctator, whose delaying tactics had saved Rome earlier in the war, tried to dissuade Scipio and the senate from an invasion of Carthage, Scipio reminded Fabius Maximus that Agathocles had crossed over to Africa and thusly diverted the war to the country from which it had come, taking it away from his own, just as Scipio now proposed to do.98 And indeed, his plan succeeded. Carthage recalled Hannibal, ending the war in Italy. Yet the same path was walked in two wildly different ways, starting from their very beginnings. Agathocles was the son of a potter. Scipio was born a patrician. Scipios father and uncle were both consuls. His ancient gens had a long history of serving the republic. Admittedly, Scipio was a young consul, but with a family such as his, there was little doubt that he would one day attain that rank. Agathocles had to rise from nothing.
96 97

Orosius, History against the Pagans, 4.16. Titus Livius,History of Rome,trans. Frank Gardner Moore,vol. VII (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1919), 71. 98 Titus Livius,History of Rome,trans. Frank Gardner Moore,vol. VIII (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1919), 183.

31

Throughout his career, Scipio reflected his upper-class upbringing. Scipio went thoroughly Greek, wearing a Greek mantle and sandals, strolling about in the gymnasium, giving attention to books in Greek and physical exercise and leaving behind the old Roman ways.99 He associated with many writers and historians, patronizing their works. While Agathocles hated those above him, however, Scipio admitted no superior. After the defeat of Antiochus, Publius Scipios brother Lucius was called upon in the senate house for an account of four million sesterces and so Lucius produced a ledger of sums received and paid from which the hostile accusations could have been disproved.100 Publius, however, was insulted. He:
[T]ore it up in indignation that a matter which had been supervised by himself as Legate should be called into question. Moreover, he spoke as follows: Conscript Fathers, I am not rendering to your treasury as the servant of another mans authority an account of four million sesterces, a treasury which by my leadership and auspices I made richer by two hundred million. For I do not think malignity has reached such a pitch that my innocence needs investigation. For when I subjected all Africa to your power, I brought nothing back to be called mine except a surname. So I was not made greedy by Punic treasures nor my brother by those of Asia, but each of us is richer by envy than by money.101

Nor did he consider the tribunes, representatives of the people, any more competent to judge him. Marcus Naevius accused him of taking money from Antiochus in exchange for a favorable peace. Scipio:
[A]fter a few preliminary remarks such as were called for by the dignity and renown of his life, said: I recall, fellow citizens, that this is the day on which in Africa in a mighty battle I conquered Hannibal the Carthaginian, the most bitter enemy of your power, and won for you a splendid peace and a glorious victory. Let us then not be ungrateful to the gods, but, I suggest, let us leave this worthless fellow, and go at once to render thanks to Jupiter, greatest and best of gods. 102

Having said this, he strolled towards the temple, followed by:

[T]he senate, the entire equestrian order, and all the common folk. The upshot was that the Tribune made his plea before the people without any people; deserted, he remained alone in the
99

Livius, History of Rome, vol. VIII, 285. Valerius Maximus,Memorable Doings and Sayings,trans. D.R. Shackleton Bailey,vol. I (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000), 301. 101 Valerius Maximus, Memorable Doings and Sayings, vol. 1, 301. 102 Aulus Cornelius Gellus,Attic Nights,trans. John C. Rolfe,vol I. (Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1927)web, September 14, 2010,<http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Gellius/4*.html>, 4.18.
100

32

Forum, his false charge covered with derision. To escape the shame of it, he repaired to the Capitol and from Scipios accuser became his reverent admirer.103

Was anyone so contemptuous of the Roman people since Coriolanus himself? Compare Scipio to Agathocles, who freely invited others mockery and jokes, allowing the common man to speak against him freely, thinking it no insult to be less than sacred, unlike the thin-skinned Scipio. It is no surprise that Scipio once called his own mindmy greatest soothsayer, thinking himself more correct than anyone else, and therefore injudicable.104 Despite this haughty nature, despite his obvious opinion that he, not Jupiter, was optimus maximus,*Scipio, unlike Agathocles, refused any higher honors. Agathocles, when he came to power, first pretended to resign, in order that his soldiers would beg for his return and grant to him the tyranny of Syracuse.105 It is doubtful from his future behavior, however, that Agathocles ever sought anything less than absolute power. But Scipio rejected any title greater than imperator. In Spain, he was hailed by Spaniards as king, but he rejected such a title as being unendurable to Romans.106 From the Romans themselves, he rejected even more.
They wished to set up statues to him in the place of assembly, the rostra, the senate house, finally in the very sanctuary of Jupiter Best and Greatest; they wished to place his effigy dressed in triumphal attire close to the Capitoline couches; they wished to give him a Consulship to continue through all the years of his life and a Dictatorship in perpetuity. None of which would he suffer to be conferred upon him either by popular resolution or by decree of the senate, thereby showing himself almost as great a man in refusing honours as in deserving them.107

In their origins, their behavior, their attitudes, their personalities, their magnanimity, Scipio and Agathocles are almost perfect opposites. How can two men walk along the same path to the same place with such different steps? How good of an example, then, is Scipio?
103 104

Valerius Maximus, Memorable Doings and Sayings, vol. 1, 303. Livius, History of Rome, vol. VII, 163. * Best and greatest 105 Diodorus, The Library of History, Vol. IX, 251. 106 Livius, History of Rome, vol. VII, 291. 107 Valerius Maximus, Memorable Doings and Sayings, vol. 1, 341.

33

Many found him to be an excellent example of ability and behavior. His salvation of the Roman Republic against its greatest enemy resonated down the centuries. Even in the days ofGaius Julius Caesar, centuries later, there was an ancient oracle to the effect that it was always the prerogative of the family of the Scipios to conquer in Africa, of which Caesar took advantage by placing the otherwise unknown Scipio Sallustio in the front of his armies during his battles on the continent, as though Sallustio were the commander.108 Scipio certainly possessed the military skill that Machiavelli recommended. Moreover, he read histories and consider[ed] in them the actions of excellent men.109 Machiavelli specifically cites that Scipio modeled himself after Cyrus the Great, yet as mentioned above, when he sought to invade Carthage, it was not Cyrus, but Agathocles that he mentioned. And indeed, Cyrus would have been an unlikely model to seek to emulate in this instance, for it was when Cyrus invaded an enemy homeland that he was killed and his head was placed in a wineskin of blood. Polybius says that Scipio pretended to be acting on some divine suggestion in order to guarantee that common men would follow his plans, following in the footsteps of Numa Pompilius, second king of Rome, who likewise fakes divine inspiration in order that the warlike Romans would convert to his religious ways.110Scipio apparently made use of a wide range of historical actors when considering his decisions. His imitation of Numa fulfilled another Machiavellian precept. For he admits that it is detrimental to be merciful, faithful, humane, honest, and religious, but useful to seem so.111 It would presumably be useless or worse to be actually led by the Roman gods, whose god of war preferred the battle won by brute force, which merited a sacrifice of a bull, to a battle won by
108 109

Plutarch, Plutarchs Lives, trans. Bernadotte Perrin, vol. VII (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967), 565. Machiavelli, The Prince, 60. 110 Polybius, The Histories of Polybius, Vol. 2, 3. 111 Machiavelli, The Prince, 70.

34

stratagem, which earned only a cock. But if one were merely thought to be led by the gods, no disadvantage is gained, yet many boons are acquired. Many will thusly follow Scipio more readily and question him less. Scipios kindness was well known. By freely returning a captured wife to her husband, Scipio won over much of Spain to the Roman side.112 However, he was too merciful. His allies loved him and his enemies admired him, but no one feared him, resulting in only a tenuous loyalty, as proven by how his own countrymen actively sought to end his later political career. Agathocles left Sicily entirely without the slightest murmur against his rule. Scipio once fell ill with an alarming malady in Spain and the whole country rose up in mutiny until his recovery.113 According to Machiavelli, [t]his arose from nothing but his excessive mercy, which had allowed his soldiers more license than his fitting for military discipline and [s]uch a nature would in time have sullied Scipios fame and glory if he had continued with it in the empire, but while he lived under the government of the Senate, this damaging quality of his not only was hidden, but made for his glory.114 Scipio had other faults as well. Not only did he allow the Carthaginian general Hasdrubal to escape from Spain towards Italy after his defeat, but Hannibal himself slipped through Scipios fingers after Zama, finding his way to King Antiochus, yet another enemy of Rome. Considering the sheer number of Agathocless enemies and rivals, such as the Syracusan senate and Ophellas, who died at his hands it is unlikely that he would have allowed such an egregious and potentially fatal military error. Whereas Agathocles died in power, Scipio died an unappreciated exile. With a heavy heart must he have remembered Hannibals advice on the eve

112 113

Machiavelli, Discourses, 262. Livius, History of Rome, vol. VIII, 97. 114 Machiavelli, The Prince, 68.

35

of Zama, that [t]he greatest good fortune is always the least to be trusted.115 So furious was he at his fatherlands betrayal that, buried abroad, he ordered inscribed on his tomb Ungrateful country, you do not even have my bones, a permanent scar of shame on Romes honor.116 Scipio, perhaps more than any other ancient, relied on his lucky fortune. Machiavelli critiques those princes who rely solely on their fortune and come to ruin when their luck changes.117 How else can Scipio be described? When on trial, he relied solely on past fortune to escape. His services to Rome were great, but memories fade. Unlike Fabius Maximus Cunctator, who served Rome to the end of his days, who never sat on his laurels nor used past deeds to escape current predicaments, Scipio won his glory and held onto it for as long as it lasted him. And once it was gone, Scipio found himself a bitter exile. Despite winning his laurels against a perfect example of the vicissitude and unreliability of fortune, Scipio did not learn the lesson in time. Scipio acquired a better reputation through many of the same means as the four founders. Winners are heroes and those they murder are ipso factothose who deserved to be murdered by a hero. Those criminals who are infamous have merely been on the losing side, as Agathocles was, whose state fell to the Romans shortly after his death.118 Scipio was friendly with many writers who spread word of his heroics even before his exile. Scipios success came about partly, as Machiavelli says, because he had a massive senatorial empire at his back to support him. The movers and shakers of Rome supported him as a bold soldier and a member of their class. Agathocles destroyed his senate. He had no safety net. His failures had no godparents, as Scipios did. Any mistake could have utterly lost him his power.
115 116

Livius, History of Rome, vol. VIII, 479. Valerius Maximus, Memorable Doings and Sayings, vol. 1, 477. 117 Machiavelli, The Prince, 99. 118 Machiavelli, The Prince, viii.

36

It seems then, that Agathocles is perhaps the best of the ancient exemplars of Machiavellis advice. Why then is he not explicitly so? Agathocles is Machiavellis most practical example for the same reason that he must be an implicit one only: he is an ordinary man. Agathocles is no secret son of royalty nor hereditary monarch nor papal child, like those that Machiavelli also praises. He is an example that anyone can emulate. In order to mimic Moses, one must be chosen by God. To mimic Romulus, one must be the son of Mars. But to be a second Agathocles requires only talent, an opportunity, and a willingness to overthrow the aristocratic order. Agathocless Sicily lay disunited, a fragmented and tiny land surrounded by young and vigorous superpowers. To the north lay the unstoppable Romans, still confined to Italy for now, but soon to leave their cradle, apparently immune to temporary setbacks as that republican juggernaut relentlessly spread across their peninsula. Like the Spartans, their empire reached as far as the points of the swords, and their swords were to carry them across the world. To the south were the wealthy and worldly Carthaginians, descendants of the first explorers to sail beyond the Mediterranean and around Africa. They had small colonies in western Sicily, but preferred trade to farming and rarely sought the hegemony that Syracuse desired, although at times their rivalry with the Greeks erupted into war. To the east battled the Diadochi, Alexander the Greats successors, dangerously experienced in war and insatiable for more. Their wars ignored Sicily, but the possibility of an outright victory by one of them must surely have haunted the worst nightmares of Agathocles. His own island would be lost in even the smallest of their empires, yet he still considered himself their peer, styling himself king in their fashion, leaving behind the old title of tyrant.

37

Compare this world with Machiavellis. As seen by comparing Figure 1 and Figure 2, they are rather similar geopolitically. Machiavellis Florence is a small, yet disproportionally powerful, region surrounded by its voracious, violent, and vigorous superpower neighbors. Spain, France, the Holy Roman Empire, and the vast Ottoman Empire wait in the wings for Florentine weakness so that they can devour tiny Tuscany. And yet a man of Agathoclean ability can provably preserve his state and increase his glory, even in war against one of his stronger neighbors. Comparable situations with regards to the dispersal of regional power further increase Agathocless aptitude as an exemplar above all others. Few other historical examples mentioned by Machiavelli lived in a world that so greatly mirrored his own. Agathocles has both virtues and vices, but so does every other example that Machiavelli gives. The four founders lack anything special about them that elevates them beyond this humble potters son. They were simply more favored by writers and that is the reason for their greater glory.Agathocles, meanwhile, earned his position through talent alone, but few hold him up as an example to follow. Even Machiavelli must refrain from explicitly using Agathocles as an example, since his means of coming to power involved revolution and the execution of the citys ruling class. Despite that crime, Agathocles does all the right things in order to stay in power safely and securely, plus he treats his subjects well, helping them as much as he can. A nightmare to nobles, a warning to simple readers, and an example to the talented, Agathocles is truly a monster in every sense of the word.

38

Figure 1

39

Figure 2

119

Europe in 1519, JPG, web, September 19, 2010, <http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~andersonfamily/Maps/1519Europe.jpg>

119

40

Bibliography Primary Sources Cornelius Gellus, Aulus. Attic Nights. Trans. John C. Rolfe. Vol I. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1927. Web. September 14, 2010. <http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Gellius/4*.html> Diodorus Siculus. The Library of History of Diodorus of Sicily. Trans. Russel M. Geer. Vol. IX, X, & XI. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957. Europe in 1519. JPG. Web. September 19, 2010. <http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~andersonfamily/Maps/1519Europe.j pg> Finley, M.I. Ancient Sicily. Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman and Littlefield, 1979. Herodotus. The History. Trans. David Greene. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987. Junianus Justinus, Marcus. Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus. Trans. John Selby Watson. London: Henry G. Bohn, York Street, Convent Garden, 1853. Web.September 10, 2010.<http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/justin/english/index.html> Livius, Titus. History of Rome. Trans. Frank Gardner Moore. Vol. V, VI, VII, & VIII. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1919. Machiavelli, Niccol. Discourses on Livy. Trans. Harvey C. Mansfield and Nathan Tarcov. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1996. Machiavelli, Niccol. Florentine Histories. Trans. Laura F. Banfield and Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988.
41

Machiavelli, Niccol. The Prince. Trans. Harvey C. Mansfield. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1998.

New American Bible. South Bend, Indiana: Greenlawn Press, 1991. Orosius, Paulus. Seven Books of Historyagainst the Pagans. Trans. I.W. Raymond. New York: Columbia University Press, 1936. Web. September 12, 2010. <http://sites.google.com/site/demontortoise2000/orosius_book4>

Plutarch. Plutarchs Lives. Trans. Bernadotte Perrin. Vol. I& VII.Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967.

Polyaenus. Stratagems of War. Trans. R. Shepherd. Chicago: Ares Publishers Inc. 1974. Polybius. The Histories of Polybius.Trans. Evelyn S. Shuckburgh. Vol. 1 & 2.Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1962.

Strabo. The Geography of Strabo. Trans. H.L. Jones. Vol. III. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1924. Web. September 14, 2010. <http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/6B*.html>

Tullius Cicero, Marcus. Ciceros Tusculan Disputations. Trans. C.D. Yonge. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1877.

Valerius Maximus. Memorable Doings and Sayings. Trans. D.R. Shackleton Bailey. Vol. I & II. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000.

Secondary Sources Kahn, Victoria. Machiavellian Rhetoric: From the Counter-Reformation to Milton. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994.

42

Kahn, Victoria. Virt and the Example of Agathocles in Machiavellis Prince. In Representations no. 13 (Winter, 1986): 63-83.

Major, Rafael. A New Argument for Morality: Machiavelli and the Ancients. In Political Research Quarterly 60, no. 2 (June 2007): 171-179.

Millar, Fergus. Rome, the Greek World, and the East:Volume 1: The Roman Republic and the Augustan Revolution. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 2002.

Price, Russell. The Theme of Gloria in Machiavelli. In Renaissance Quarterly 30, no. 4 (Winter, 1977): 588-631.

Rebhorn, Wayne A. Foxes and Lions: Machiavellis Confidence Men. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1988.

Ripellino, Angelo Maria. Magic Prague. Trans. David Newton Marinelli. Ed. Michael
Henry Heim. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. Tarcov, Nathan. Quentin Skinners method and Machiavellis Prince. In Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and his Critics. Ed. James Tully. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988.

43
Word to PDF