HILLMAN, THOMAS P., Authorial Statements, Narrative, and Character in Plutarch's 
"Agesilaus-Pompeius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 35:3 (1994:Autumn) p.255 

Authorial Statements, Narrative, 
and Character in Plutarch's 

Agesilaus-Pompeius 

Thomas P. Hillman 

1\:. IMPORTANT but largely overlooked aspect of Plutarch's 
characterization in the Lives is the juxtaposition of, and 

the interplay between, the narrative descriptions of the 
events that reveal his subject's character and the statements or 
comments inserted into the narrative at various points to 
achieve the same end. These authorial statements occur at 
important moments in the subject's life, at which the biog­
rapher pauses, steps back from the narrative of historical 
events, and makes interpretive comments that further reveal 
the character of the great man and its relationship to the history 
of his times. As the narrative once resumed bears out the 
authorial analysis and subsequent statements expand upon it, I 
would argue that Plutarch is not employing these statements 
merely to offer timely pointers, but uses them as a structural 
device to shape the narrative into a more complete portrait of 
his subject's character. Although many such passages appear 
throughout the Lives regardless of their date, length, and the 
depth and complexity of their analysis, a detailed examination of 
the authorial statements in the long and highly complex 
Pompeius will demonstrate their important role in the structure 
of Plutarch's portrait of Pompeius' character.1 Furthermore, 
examination of the Agesilaus will reveal their structural and 
thematic importance for the Agesilaus-Pompeius as a pair. 

As some have regarded all such pauses in the narrative of 
events as digressions deserving censure, an answer to this 

I See e.g. Ant. 4; 24.9-12; 27.3ff; Ak. 16,23; Mar. 7,28.1-7; 31.3; 32.3; Caes. 
15.1-17.1; Dem. 13-14; Demetr. 19-20; Luc. 33.1-4; 36.5ff; 38.2-39.5; Sert. 10. 
Given the rather lengthy literary analysis of this paper, I must forego all 
historical analysis of the passages discussed. 

255 



HILLMAN, THOMAS P., Authorial Statements, Narrative, and Character in Plutarch's 
"Agesilaus-Pompeius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 35:3 (1994:Autumn) p.255 

256 AUTHORIAL STATEMENTS IN PLUTARCH 

CrItIcism is first of all necessary.2 Digression is defined as a 
"[dJeparture or deviation from the subject in discourse or 
writing."3 So, if the purpose of the Lives is the illumination of 
great men's character, any authorial comments that reveal the 
character of a Life's hero cannot justly be called digressions. 
That they retard the narrative of events might be a relevant 
criticism if Plutarch were writing history. For Plutarch, how­
ever, the events narrated are essentially a means of illuminating 
character, no differently than the authorial statements. To 
censure these statements as digressions is to mistake Plutarchan 
biography for history as Ot 'ta<; 8l£~08lKa<; yp<hjfav't£<; l<nOpla<; 
write it (Fab. 16.6).4 Elsewhere Plutarch rejects similar criticisms 
that confuse the differences between history and biography 
(Alex. 1.1-3), and we may reject this criticism here. 

This is not to say that Plutarch never digresses; but true 
digressions, i. e., passages that depart or deviate from the 
subject, differ significantly from authorial statements that focus 
on the character of the hero. Apparently sensing this difference, 
some scholars-among them J. R. Hamilton, C. D. Hamilton, 
and C. B. R. Pelling-recognize that Plutarch often employs 
what they call digressions to expand upon the character of the 
subject as already revealed in the narrative.s Pelling in fact takes 
an important step forward and calls these «characterizing 

2 See e.g. J. and W. Langhorne, Plutarch's Li'lJes (London 1902) xi: "We 
often wished to throw out of the text into the notes those most tedious and 
digressive comments that spoil the beauty and order of his narrative, mortify 
the expectation, frequently, when it is most essentially interested, and destroy 
the natural influence of the story, by turning the attention into a different 
channel. What, for instance can be more irksome and impertinent than a long 
dissertation on a point of natural philosophy starting up at the very crisis of 
some important action?"; A. E. Ward man, Plutarch's Lives (Berkeley 1974) 
174: "[Plutarch's] mind did not have a dramatic cast and the pace is 
constantly slowed by digressions which admittedly instruct but often weaken 
one's attention to the story as a whole." 

3 The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford 1971) 
s.'lJ. "digression (2)." 

4 Cf A. W. Gomme, A Historical Commentary on Thucydides I (Oxford 
1945) 57: " We, however, desperately want history from [Plutarch], particularly 
chronology; and we look in vain, and often quite mistakenly criticize him for 
not doing what he did not set out to do." 

5 J. R. Hamilton, Plutarch, Alexander: A Historical Commentary (Oxford 
1969) xl; C. D. Hamilton, "Plutarch's Life of Agesilaus, " ANRW II.33.6 
(Berlin 1992) 4205, 4207; C. B. R. Pelling, Plutarch, Life of Antony 
(Cambridge 1988) 123, 181, 192,232. 



HILLMAN, THOMAS P., Authorial Statements, Narrative, and Character in Plutarch's 
"Agesilaus-Pompeius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 35:3 (1994:Autumn) p.255 

THOMAS P. HILLMAN 257 

digressions."(, Besides the arguments advanced thus far, how­
ever, an investigation of both Plutarch's use of "authorial 
statements" or "authorial comments" and what everyone, 
including Plutarch, would agree are digressions will justify 
abandoning the use of this term for passages in which Plutarch 
comments on the character of his subject. 

If we first consider several passages that Plutarch explicitly 
regards as digressions, the distinction between these and 
authorial statements on character will become apparent. At 
Alex. 35.1-16 Plutarch begins a discussion of the so-called 
spring of naphtha at Ecbatana and its fiery properties, a topic 
introduced only for its wonder. Before returning to Alexander, 
Plutarch concludes (Alex. 35.16): 'trov IlEV o~v 'tOlOU'tWV 
7tUp€Kl3aO'€WV, av Il£'tpov EXWO'lV, ~'t'tov tawe; Ot OUO'KOAOl 
KU'tTJ'YOP"O'OUO'lV. At Dian 21.6-9 the biographer unfavorably 
compares the behavior of Dionysius, the tyrant of Syracuse, in 
marrying Dion's wife to another man, to the behavior of his 
father when dealing with his sister Theste, the wife of his 
enemy Polyxenus. This comparison says much about the 
character of the elder Dionysius, his sister, and by implication 
the younger Dionysius, but nothing about Dion. The biog­
rapher admits as much by concluding the digression and 
returning to the story as follows (21.9): 'tuu'tu IlEv o~v OUK 
iiXPTJO''tov EX€l 't1)v 7tUpEKI3UO'lV. At Ti. 13.8-15.11 Plutarch 
treats the misfortunes of the tyrant Dionysius after his removal 
from power through sayings and anecdotes that show how he 
endured his circumstances not ignobly (15.1). The digression 
concludes (15.11) in a vein similar to those cited above: 'tuu'tU 
IlEV ouv OUK UAAO'tPlU Tile; 'trov l3(wv uvuypuqril<; ouoE o.XPTJO''tu 
OO~€lV oioll€8u Ill) O'7t€UOOUO'l IlTJOE UO'XOAOuIlEvOle; UKpOU'tu'ie;. 
In an introductory digression (Mar. 1.1-5) Plutarch takes issue 
with Posidonius concerning Roman names and ends thus (1.5): 
de; IlEV o~v 'tuu"ra 7tOAAae; o(owmv E7tlXElp"O'Ele; 'h 'tile; O'uvTJ8due; 
UVWIlUA(U. Likewise at Cor. 11.2-6 Plutarch takes Gaius Mar­
cius' receiving the name Coriolanus as the point of departure 
for a digression on Roman names, but at 11.6 he notes: aAAa 
'tuu'tu IlEV £'t£PCfl Y£VH ypuq>ile; 7tpOa"K€l. 7 

6 See Pelling (supra n.5) 123 ad Ant. 4; cf Ant. 24.9-12; 27.3ff with nn. ad 
loce. 

7 He is perhaps referring to the lost 1tEP1. toov tPlWV QVOllatWv t1. lCUpWV 
(Lamp. Cat. 100), clearly a work of a different y£vo(,. 



HILLMAN, THOMAS P., Authorial Statements, Narrative, and Character in Plutarch's 
"Agesilaus-Pompeius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 35:3 (1994:Autumn) p.255 

258 AUTHORIAL STATEMENTS IN PLUTARCH 

This brief sampling should make it clear that in true digres­
sions Plutarch admittedly departs from the subject of each Life 
to edify or amaze the reader with information that in no way 
reveals the character of, for instance, Alexander, Dion, 
Timoleon, Marius, and Coriolanus. The subject of the digres­
sion may vary from natural phenomena to names to the general 
topic of nobility of character displayed in adverse situations. 
N or does the biographer always signal the end of a digression as 
in these examples with a summary comment including a J.lEvor 
J.lEv o-ov to be answered in the resumed narrative by OE. At 
Pomp. 4.7-10 he conludes an explanation of the Roman wed­
ding hymn, with o~'to<; 6 A.6yo<; m8avfina't6<; EO'tl 'twv 1t£Pl 'tou 
TaA-aotou A-£Y0J.lEVc.oV; and at 25.13, after offering a brief opinion 
on how the sound of human voices could knock a bird from 
the air, he silently returns to the narrative (26.1; c{ Flam. 10.7f). 
Although true digressions may be amply iIfustrated from 
various Lives, only a detailed analysis of authorial statements in 
a single Life will clarify how closely related to the narrative they 
are and how integral to the portrayal of the subject's character. 
Pomp. 46.1-48.12 affords an example of authorial statements in 
conjunction with narrative that is highly complex and central to 
the portrait of Pompeius. 

I 

Plutarch turns from the narrative (Pomp. 46.1) apparently to 
refute erroneous comparisons of the Roman's age to Alexan­
der's at the time of his greatest achievements. 8 He is not, 
however, simply out to confound this inaccurate comparison. 
Rather, this statement is the first of three (46.1-4, 8f; 47.3f) that 
closely interlock with the surrounding and intervening nar­
rative sections (46.5ff; 47.1£). Through them Plutarch moves 
beyond the crude propagandist's comparison to Alexander into 
a far more telling analysis of Pompeius, his character, and his 
career. Thus at 46.2ff he follows up the refutation begun at 46.1 
with a stunning statement: 

ws roVT)'tO y' (Xv £vmu8a 'tou ~tOU 1tauO"a~Evos, axpt ot) 'tilv 
'AAE~av8pou 'tuXT]V EO"XEV' (, 8' £1tEKEtVa XPOVOS a1nq, 'tas ~£V 
ell'tUXtaS TlveyKEv £1ttcp8ovous, aVT]KEo"'tOUS 8£ 'tas 8uO"'tuXiaS. 

8 The irony of course is that Plutarch himself has Pompeius' age wrong. 
Throughout the Pompeius Plutarch scorns the comparison with Alexander, a 
topic I hope to discuss elsewhere. 



HILLMAN, THOMAS P., Authorial Statements, Narrative, and Character in Plutarch's 
"Agesilaus-Pompeius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 35:3 (1994:Autumn) p.255 

THOMAS P. HILLMAN 

Tjv yap EK npocrTlKoV-rWV au-roe; EK-rTtcra-ro Duval-Ltv EV -rfinoAEt, 
-rau-rD Xproj.lEVOe; 1mEp aAAwv ou DtKaiwe;, ocrov EKdvote; icrxuoe; 
npocr£'tiSEt, -rile; eamou b6~Tle; u<patprov, fAaSE Proj.lD Kat 
j.lEYESEt -rile; au-rou DUVUj.lEox; KamAuSde;. Kat KaSunEp -ra 
Kap-rEpro-ra-ra j.lEPTl Kat xwpta -rrov nOAEwv, o-rav 8t~Tl-rat 
nOAEj.ltOUe;, EK£tVOte; npocr-riSTlcrt -rT)V au-rrov icrxuv, oiJ'twe; Dux 
-rile; nOj.lnTltou 8UVUj.lEWe; Kalcrap El;apS£ie; Ent -rT)V nOAtV, c{) 
Ka-ra -rrov aAAwv tcrxucrE, -rou-rov UVbpt\jfE Kal Ka-rE­
~aAEv. Enpax8Tl D' ou-rwe;. 

259 

For Pompeius the unjust use of power on behalf of ill-chosen 
associates nullifies what came before. Better had he died first. 
That Plutarch asserts this hard upon his narration of Pompeius' 
third triumph is surpising enough. Two days, as Plutarch takes 
great pains to tell, were far from sufficient for that triumph, 
which surpassed all previous in its length, scope, and splendor 
(Pomp. 45.1-5); Pompeius became the first Roman ever to 
celebrate triumphs over all three continents (45.6); indeed "it 
somehow seemed that the inhabited world had been subjugated 
by his three triumphs" (45.7). Even more astonishing, however, 
the biographer states this after devoting over a third of the 
entire Life (24.1-42.13; 672 of 1,967 Teubner lines) to the 
campaigns that merited this triumph; he had also capped that 
account with a chapter on Pompeius' glorious refusal to imitate 
$ulla, though he could have done so by popular support alone, 
even without recourse to arms (43.1-5). Finally, as Pompeius' 
third triumph represents the acme of his career, the rapid 
transition from the favorable assessment of ch. 45, from the 
glorious homecoming in 43, and from the lengthy narrative of 
his eastern exploits in 24-42, to the sudden, harsh reflections of 
46 is all the more significant. 9 It clearly indicates to the reader 
not only by the powerful introductory words of 46, but also, 
and more importantly, by the very structure of the Life, that 
the second half of the Pompeius will be radically different from 
the first. 

In all this, ch. 44 alone hints that trouble might await Pom­
peius. There Cato defeats his request for a postponement of the 
consular elections and spurns his attempts at political friend-

9 On the third triumph as Pompeius' acme see B. X. de Wet, U Aspects of 
Plutarch's Portrayal of Pompey," AClass 24 (1981) 128f. Although I would 
suggest that Plutarch's portrait of Pompeius up to ch. 46 is much more subtly 
negative than de Wet recognizes, he correctly sees the biography as written to 
stress the importance of this moment. 



HILLMAN, THOMAS P., Authorial Statements, Narrative, and Character in Plutarch's 
"Agesilaus-Pompeius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 35:3 (1994:Autumn) p.255 

260 AUTHORIAL STATEMENTS IN PLUTARCH 

ship-or corruption, as he sees it-through a marriage alliance 
(44.1-6). Plutarch's description of Cato's behavior here CtT1V 

, '\' t' I ,..... ..... t', ..... 

1tap PT)Ol(XV Kat 'tOY 'tOVOV, cP Jlovo<; EXPT)'tO <paVE pw<; U1tE P 'tWV 
o t Ka tWV, 44.2) forms an important contrast, as will emerge 
below, with that of Pompeius, who has asked that the laws be 
set aside for him (44.1), and with Plutarch's later characterization 
of Pompeius (ilv ya.p EK 1tpOOT)KOV'tWV al)'to<; EK'tftoa'to DuvaJltv 
EV 'tfl 1tOAEt, 'tau'tl1 XproJlEVO<; [I10Jl1tftto<;] 1mEp aAAWV OU 
DtKatw<;, 46.3).10 More immediate proof, however, of the 
sagacity of Cato's judgment on Pompeius in ch. 44 is at hand: 
Cato said that all connected with Pompeius would have had a 
share in the disrepute he had brought on himself by purchasing 
the consulate for the unworthy Afranius: ~e; aU'toe; [I10Jl1tfttoe;] 
apxfte; E<p' ote; Ka'tropSwoEv ro<; JlE"(to'tT)<; ('tUXE, 'tau'tT)v rovtov 
1tOtouv'tu '!Ole; Dl' apETflv K'tftOUOSUl Jlll DuvaJlEvol<; (44.5). The 
women of Cato's family, formerly in favor of the alliance, now 
saw that he had reckoned much better in the matter of 't 0 
1tPE1tOV (44.6). 

How different from the situation in the year 71 upon 
Pompeius' return from Spain, when the Senate had exempted 
him from the lex annalis and a political alliance with him had 
been sought by the proud and powerful M. Crassus, who, 
though despising Pompeius, OUK ES&PPT)OEV 1mu'tElUV IlE'ttEVUl 
1tpO'tEPOV i1 I10Jl1tT)tou DET)Sftval (22.1£). With Crassus there is 
also a contrast, as he is now an enemy who has fled Italy at 
Pompeius' approach (43.2).11 The parallel dismissals of popular 
fears at 21.6ff and 43.1-5 reinforce the overall contrast between 
Pompeius' success in 71 and his failure now-the first he has 
ever experienced. 12 Ominous indeed, but like most omens only 
so in hindsight. Following long triumphant campaigns abroad 
and his glorious homecoming, the hints of trouble in ch. 44 at 
first seem no more than minor matters, a troublous under­
current of the <pSovo<; that all great men must face, especially as 

10 On Cato see 11 f infra. 

II Plutarch doubts whether Crassus truly fled from fear or did so to make 
the slander (Ota~oAiJ) that Pompeius would come as Sulla more believable 
(43.2). In either case their current enmity is clear, despite the awkward public 
reconciliation at 23.1£ when Crassus was last seen, and it underscores the 
difference between 71 and 62. 

12 On the interrelationship between Plutarch's account of 71-70 and this 
period, see T. P. HILLMAN, "Plutarch and the First Consulship of Pompeius 
and Crassus," Phoenix 46 (1992: hereafter 'Hillman') 13M. 



HILLMAN, THOMAS P., Authorial Statements, Narrative, and Character in Plutarch's 
"Agesilaus-Pompeius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 35:3 (1994:Autumn) p.255 

THOMAS P. HILLMAN 261 

Plutarch recapitulates Pompeius' greatness in ch. 45. 13 Only in 
retrospect from the rapid sequence of authorial interpretation 
and narrative beginning with 46.1-4 does the importance of 
Cato and the seemingly minor events of ch. 44 really begin to 
emerge (see 265-68 infra). 

The skillful use of authorial reflection has immediately 
focused the reader's attention on the magnitude of the process 
about to begin. Plutarch discerns a pattern of character in 
Pompeius' use of power in his relations with others. He then 
points to the evidence of the succeeding narrative: E1tpaXS.., 0' 
o,hco~ (46.4). This is all reminiscent of a statement found earlier 
at 23.4ff. There Pompeius' withdrawal from politics after his 
troubled first consulship gives an opportunity for reflection on 
the problems of generals in politics. 14 Accustomed to the simple 
autocracy of the camp, generals fail in the complex world of 
civilian democratic politics, even losing their former stature and 
power if they do not remain discreetly aloof. His concluding 
remark, EOllAcocrE 0' cxu'tel 'tel 1tpaYJlcx'tcx IlE't' OAtyOV Xp6vov 
(23.6), points to the succeeding narrative. There the biographer 
proceeds to show how Pompeius remained aloof from politics 
for a time and how, by allowing others more politically skilled 
to attain his political ends for him, he gained the commands 
against the pirates and Mithridates that raised him to the 
pinnacle he occupies at 45.6-46.1. The narrative from 24.1-45.7 
thus constitutes a partial proof of Plutarch's comments at 23.4ff 
on 'men great from arms'. The full proof of the comments at 
23.4ff must wait for the EU'tUXicxl £1ticpSOVOl and aVllKEcr'tol 
oucr'tUXiat that Pompeius experiences after he returns from the 
East and no longer remains aloof from politics, as he had 
previously done with such great success. 

Plutarch, moreover, has laid the foundation for these 
comments at 23.4ff and the proof that follows by an even earlier 
authorial statement at 13.10f Here, on the occasion of Pom­
peius' receiving the cognomen Magnus for his military exploits 
in Sicily and Africa (13.7ff), he says that 'the Romans of old' 
rewarded actions of political apE'tll with the far loftier cog­
nomen Maximus, thus implying the inferiority of martial 
greatness to political greatness. There follows a narrative that 
shows how Pompeius' claim to his first consulship was strictly 

!3 On <p96vo~ see Wardman (supra n.2) 70f; cf. Hillman 134f. 
14 See Hillman 128-31, 133; Wardrnan (supra n.2) 56. 



HILLMAN, THOMAS P., Authorial Statements, Narrative, and Character in Plutarch's 
"Agesilaus-Pompeius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 35:3 (1994:Autumn) p.255 

262 AUTHORIAL STATEMENTS IN PLUTARCH 

military (14.1-21.8), how strife with his more politically adept 
colleague Crassus marred this consulship (22.1-4, 23.1 ff), and 
how the greatest accomplishments of Pompeius' consulship 
were undertaken for purely selfish motives (21.7f) or were not 
really Pompeius' doing at all (22.4).15 Thus Plutarch's method at 
46.1-48.12-a statement that bears upon the character of his 
subject, followed by a narrative to illustrate how his subject's 
character accords with that statement-is paralleled by his 
earlier practice at 13.10f and 23.4ff. Let us now see how the facts 
and statements after 46.1-4 further elaborate the statements 
made there and also consider how they reveal Pompei us' 
character. 

Plutarch's first narrative evidence of the statement at 46.1-4 is 
the successful resistance to the ratification of Pompei us' eastern 
acta (46.5f). Although the Senate's opposition is more politically 
motivated, entirely personal considerations drive Lucul1us, 
Pompeius' inimicus whom the Senate urged to lead in this 
matter (46.5).16 Pompeius had outrageously and intentionally 
insulted Lucullus when he superseded him in command of the 
Third Mithridatic War in 66, and Lucullus had returned from 
Asia to sink himself into wealth and luxury, to be roused only 
by this chance for revenge. Because Cato has previously op­
posed Pompeius with justice (44.1-6), as noted earlier, his 
support of Lucullus here adds probity to this vengeance. This 
attention to Lucullus' motives recalls Pompei us' unjust be­
havior towards him in 66, of which Plutarch gave a full and 
censorious narration as the most blatant example yet of what 
Pompeius was willing to do for ()6~a and cptAmlJ.tia (30.6-31.13). 
As the struggle over ratification of his acta is also about ()6~a (cf 
46.5), Pompeius is not about to relent now. Defeated in the 
Senate, he is thus TjvaYKaSE'to <)YU.l.apXOUal 1tpoacpEl)YElV Kat. 
1tpoaap,tCia8at IlElpaKlOu; (46.7). At this point Plutarch 
launches directly into his second authorial statement, which like 

15 Plutarch portrays the restoration of the tribunate as Pompeius' work 
(22.4), undertaken for the Xapt<; he would win among the oil~o<; and in order 
to prevent anyone else from winning it (21.8). On the reorganization of the 
law courts, Plutarch says (22.4) IW\ 't<l<; oitw<; [TIo~1t11tO<;] 1tI:ptEtOEV aMt<; 
d<; 'tou<; bmfa<; ~E'ta<pEpo~fva<;. which clearly implies that Pompeius was not 
a prime mover of the law. 

16 Plutarch (Pomp. 20.2, 30.8) refers to their ota<popa, a word he commonly 
uses for EXepa. Cf Lue. 41.4. On these words see T. P. Hillman, "The Alleged 
inimieitiae of Pompeius and Lucullus: 78-74," CP 86 (1991) 316 with nn.8-10. 



HILLMAN, THOMAS P., Authorial Statements, Narrative, and Character in Plutarch's 
"Agesilaus-Pompeius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 35:3 (1994:Autumn) p.255 

THOMAS P. HILLMAN 263 

the first is bound to, but looks beyond, the events of the 
moment (46.8f): 

&v 0 ~()£A:\)PO)'t(X'to~ lCal. Spacru"ta'to~ KAro()tO~ avaAa~rov 
a\:)'tov U1tEPPt\jlE 'tC? Olll-Hp, Kal. 1tap' a~iav £v ayop~ KuAw06-
IlEVOV EXrov Kat 1tEpt<PEProv, £XPll'tO 'trov 1tpO~ xapw aXAou lCat 
lCOAaKdav ypacpollEvrov lCal. A£YOIlEVrov ~£~mO)'ti\' lCal. 1tpocr­
En IltcrSov [n'tEt], c001t£p OU lCa'tatcrxuvrov, aAA' EUEPYE'trov, 
ucr't£pov EAa~£ napa llOllnl1{OU, npoEcrSm KtlCEprova, cpiAOV av­
'ta Kat 1tAEtCna of] 1tE1toAt'tEUOIlEvov. KWOUVE'\)ovn yap Kat 
OEOIlEvC? ~ol1edw; ouo' de; a\jllV 1tPOllASEv, aAAa 'tOte; llKoucrw 
anolCA£icra~ 'tllv aVAnov, £-repate; Supate; <PXE'tO amrov. 
KtKEProv O£ cpo~l1edS 'tljv Kpiow imE~llASE 'tlle; 'ProllllS' 

The point of departure here is Pompeius' political failure 
when left to his own devices. This again reminds the reader of 
Pompeius' image as the general at a loss in politics that Plutarch 
has developed throughout his Life, and that the recent 
juxtapositions of military succcess and political failures have 
underscored (Hillman 128-31, 132f). Further, by ranging 
forward in time to show how Pompeius was disgraced and 
diminished by his association with Clodius, Plutarch provides a 
concrete example of the character of the "tribunes and boys" to 
whom Pompeius must turn, having failed against Lucullus, 
Cato, and the Senate.!7 This substantiates the prior general 
remarks on Pompeius' political maladroitness and how the 
unjust use of power for others would ruin him (46.1-4). In turn 
these two points converge with a third that Plutarch has labored 
to make throughout the Life, that Pompeius, when acting 
independently, forms political associations or friendships that 
are momentarily effective, but in the long run counterproduc­
tive (see Hillman 129, 133). All this anticipates the subsequent 
introduction of Caesar, his cpiA.Q(;, who will exceed 'to "Cfl~ apxfl~ 
a~i(j)Jla, lCat "Cponov 'tlYU cST1JlapxiaY "CT)Y una"C£laY lCaelcr"Ca~ 
(47.5). It explains how Pompeius was such an easy mark for 
Caesar. 

That Plutarch chooses specifically to dwell on Pompeius' 
betrayal of Cicero is also significant, if one considers the 
emphasis just placed on the history between Pompei us and 
Lucullus (46.5f). Not only will Pompeius' CPtAO'tlllia and desire 
for cS6~a encourage him unjustly and needlessly to outrage and 

17 ~tpOKtOv ("boy") can be a term of contempt; cf LS] 5.7.J. 2, citing Pluto 
Phil. 6.7. 



HILLMAN, THOMAS P., Authorial Statements, Narrative, and Character in Plutarch's 
"Agesilaus-Pompeius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 35:3 (1994:Autumn) p.255 

264 AUTHORIAL STATEMENTS IN PLUTARCH 

humilitate his enemies, it will allow him to abandon and mistreat 
his friends. By thus pairing Lucullus and Cicero, Plutarch 
brackets the other details on Pompei us' failure and unjust use of 
power, which already resonate with information on his 
character, with key examples of his past and future behavior 
when friendship, enmity, and politics intersect. In this respect, 
too, Plutarch anticipates Pompeius' relations with Caesar in 
order to make them instantly intelligible. He thus integrates 
authorial comments with narrative in a manner that enhances 
the reader's grasp of the character and life of Pompeius. 

With the arrival of Caesar at 47.1, the narrative resumes, and 
all the issues of politics, friendship, and enmity are in play. 
Returning from a military expedition, Caesar grasps that his 
political future depends upon reconciling the enemies Pom­
peius and Crassus. He immediately effects this and attains the 
consulship. This deed Plutarch characterizes as 1tAda'tllv !lEV 
au'tip XaptV £v 'tip 1tapovn Kat Ouva!ltv dO'au8t~ ilVEyK£, !l£YtO''ta 
3£ I1o!l1tllWV E~Aa"'E Kat 'tT)V 1tOAlV (47.1); it was also a 1tpaY!la 
KaAov !l£V O:AA(J)~ Kat 1tOAl'ttKOV, ai'tl~ 3£ <pauATI Kat !l£'tCr 
Onvo'tll'to~ 1m' £Kdvo'U 0''UV't£8EV £1tll3ouA(J)~ (47.2). The wicked 
finesse of Caesar, recently returned from an unimportant, 
untold war, stands in lucid contrast to the incompetence of 
Pompeius, the great general come home to domestic failure. 
This internal aUYKplal~ with Caesar reveals the political defects 
of Pompeius' character that Plutarch has so far stressed: his 
clumsiness when independent and consequent need for others, 
his inability to form and maintain useful political friendships, and 
his alienation from the Senate and its workings. 18 At the same 
time the lessons of his moral defects, namely the selfish, 
unbridled pursuit of glory and ambition, subtly imply that the 
friendship, the <pLAia, formed here will last only so long as it 
abets Pompeius'-and Caesar's-ambition and glory,19 for 
Caesar's ambition and desire for glory, as well as his canny use 
of Pompeius as a means to those ends, have been evident since 

18 On internal aUYKptat~ see D. A. Russell, aOn Reading Plutarch's Li'lJes," 
G&R 13 (1966) 139-54, esp. 150f; T. W. Hillard, aPlutarch's Late Republican 
Lives: Between the Lines," Antichthon 21 (1987) 34ff; Wardman (supra n.2) 
27-36. Cf Pomp. 1.1-4, 3.5, 4.1ff (contrasted with Strabo); 3.1, 4.3-9, 5.1-5 
(with Cinna); 7.6, 8.5f (with Metellus Pius); 16.1-9 (with Catulus). 

19 On the misdirection of ambition from virtue to glory, cf Agis 1.1-2.3 and 
Pomp. 29.1-7; 30.3ff, 8; 31.1-13. See also F. Frazier, a A propos de la philotimia 
dans les Vies. Quelques jalons dans l'histoire d'une notion," RPhil 62 (1988) 
102-27; Wardman (supra n.2) 115-24. 



HILLMAN, THOMAS P., Authorial Statements, Narrative, and Character in Plutarch's 
"Agesilaus-Pompeius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 35:3 (1994:Autumn) p.255 

THOMAS P. HILLMAN 265 

his first appearance at Pomp. 25.8, where he is the lone named 
supporter of Pompeius' bid for the command against the 
pirates: oU'we; 8£ o"uvllyopn 'tip VOIlq>, TIoll1tlltOU Il£V EAaxuHa 
<ppov'tt~rov, U1t08UOIlEVOC; 8£ 'tOV 8ftllov E~ aPxftc; Eau'tip Kat 
K'tWIlEVOe;. 

Let let us turn to the last statement (47.3f): 

i1 yap W01tEP £V (J1caq:>ft 'tas a1tOKAtOftS £1tavtoouoa 't11S 1tO­
AEWS icrxuS cis £V OUVEA80ucra Kat YEVOIlEVll 11 ta, 't~v 1tav-ra 
1tpaYlla1a Ka1ao1aOtaOaoav Kat Ka1a~aAouoav avaV1a­
yroVto'tOV p01t~V £1tOtllOEV. 0 you V Ka'twv 'tOUS AEyoV'tas U1tO 
'tfts UO'tEPOV YEVOIlEVllS 1tpOS Katoapa ilOIl1tlltC? btaq:>opus ava­
'tpa1t11Vat 't~V 1tOAtV allap'ttlVftv EAEYEV, ai'!tWIl£VOUS 'to 
'tEAEU'tatOV' 0.0 yap 't~V o'tacrtV 0.00£ 't~V Ex8pav, aAAa 't~V 
ouo'taotV Kat 't~V 0IlOVOtaV au'to)V 't11 1tOAEt KaKov 1tpGnov 
yEV £o8a t Ka 1. Il£yto'tov. 

Here again Plutarch uses the present to illuminate the future, as 
the illustration of Pompei us' failings gives way to a summation 
of their larger historical effects. The destruction of the Republic 
will come to pass (at least partially) because Pompeius' 
character, as revealed throughout the Life, but especially in 
these last few chapters, has led him to form the <plAia with 
Caesar. Cato saw it, having seen through and opposed 
Pompeius at 44.1-6 and 46.6. By inserting Cato's discovery of 
the long term public repercussions of Pompei us' alliance with 
Caesar in its beginning, the biographer serves two purposes. 

First, he ties this statement firmly to the first at 46.1-4, 
although there the focus is more on the personal consequences 
of his friendship with Caesar. The second interpretive passage 
(46.8f), too, though it introduces more detailed public infor­
mation, still attends more to what this information tells us about 
Pompei us, for even the remarks on the very public problems 
of Cicero are a tale told on Pompeius. The third of course 
attends wholly to the historical and political effects of this 
friendship with Caesar. By developing and expanding his focus 
in this way, Plutarch clarifies the close connection between 
character and public events, between ~8oe; and 1tpa~nc;, and he 
signifies the importance of the <plAta of Pompeius and Caesar 
for understanding the rest of the Life. 

Second, he provides the perspective necessary to appreciate 
the significance of Cato's emergence at ch. 44 as well as the 
sagacity of his judgment of Pompeius there. Like Caesar, Cato 
is mentioned only once before the return of Pompeius at 43.1. 



HILLMAN, THOMAS P., Authorial Statements, Narrative, and Character in Plutarch's 
"Agesilaus-Pompeius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 35:3 (1994:Autumn) p.255 

266 AUTHORIAL STATEMENTS IN PLUTARCH 

Like Caesar, that mention adumbrates his character and future 
role in the Life (cf 25.8), for in yet another authorial statement 
(Pomp. 40.2) Plutarch introduces him as 6 ~lA6ao~o<; En j.l£v rov 
v£O<;. i101l O£ ,.1IoyUAllV EXrov 06~av Kat Jl£ya ~pov6)V. Like Caesar, 
he will remain a key figure in the Pompeius, and so the manner 
of his introduction is important. 2o At first Cato might seem only 
to contrast the insolence of Pompeius' uppish freedman, 
Demetrius, the friend Jl£YlO''tOV OUVUJl£vo<; 1tap' au'tcp (40.1). Yet 
Plutarch uses Cato to illustrate Pompeius' use of power for his 
friends and the advantage that they take of Pompeius' good 
nature (39.6): . 

~Eya yap ~v ovo~a 'tf\~ ouva~Eco~, QUK £Aa't'tov 'tf\~ a,PE'tf\~ 
Kat 1tpao'tll'to~· ~ Kat 'ta 1tAetcna 'trov 1tEpt au'tov a.~ap­
'tft~a'ta <ptAffiV Kat ouvft9cov a,1tEKPU1t'tE, KCOAUEtV ~Ev il KOAa­
~EtV 'tou~ 1tOVllPEUO~EVOU~ ou 1tE<pUKffi~, ail'tov OE 1tapEXffiV 'to'i~ 
EV'tuyxavOuot 'tOtOu'tov, O)(J'tE Kat 'ta~ £KEtVffiV 1tAEOVE~ta~ 
Kat ~apu'tll'ta~ EUKOACOS i)1tO~EVEtV.21 

There follows the story of Demetrius in which Cato is 
introduced (40.1-5) and then further illustrations of Demetrius' 
presumption (40.6-9). Pompeius' susceptibility to his friends is 
all part of his character, of his nature (cf 1tE~UKcO<;, 39.6).22 It is 
also the darker side of Pompeius' best characteristic, his "amena-

20 Cato also appears at 40.2-5; 44.1-6; 46.6; 47.4-7; 48.2, 6, 9; 52.1ff; 54.4-9; 
55.9; 56.3; 59.6; 60.7f; 61.1; 65.1; 67.3; 76.2. 

21 Plutarch introduces this authorial statement to explain the way foreign 
nations approached Pompeius to ask his intervention (39.5). He suggests that 
the nations requested Pompeius' friendship because they knew of his 
indulgence of his friends. Again, what is good and beneficial for the general 
and the state in the camp is not so at home, as the subsequent passage makes 
clear when viewed in the context of the Life. 

22 aU 7t£<j>'UK'WC; at 39.6 is quite significant. As nature is, obviously, innate, this 
characteristic must have been present in Pompeius from the beginning and 
must be implicit in the description at Pomp. 1.4. Cf the abstract £V'tE'U~tV at 
1.4 with the concrete 'talC; EV't'UYXUVO'UO'l at 39.6 and EV't'UXE'iv and EV'tEU~EO'l at 
23.4. For an important recent discussion of <j>uO'tC; and ~eOC; see C. Gill, "The 
Question of Character-development: Plutarch and Tacitus," CQ N.S. 33 (1983) 
469-87, esp. 478-81. This study refutes the modern contention that the 
ancients saw character as immutable, as e.g. in A. Dihle, Studien zur 
griechischen Biographie (Gottingen 1956) 60ff; Hamilton (supra n.s) xxxviii-ix; 
F. Leo, Die griechische-romische Biographie (Leipzig 1901) 188ff; R. M. 
Ogilvie, The Roman and their Gods (London 1970) 18. 



HILLMAN, THOMAS P., Authorial Statements, Narrative, and Character in Plutarch's 
"Agesilaus-Pompeius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 35:3 (1994:Autumn) p.255 

THOMAS P. HILLMAN 267 

bility to approach" (\:uapJloO"'tia 1tPOC; EV'tE'UStV', 1.4).23 The 
Pompeius contains several earlier examples of this characteris­
tic: he gives the courtesan Flora to his friend Geminius simply 
because Geminius asked for her (2.5-8); Pompeius spares the 
Sicilian city of Himera and the politician Sthennius when 
Sthennius asks to take sole responsibility for Himera's anti­
Sullan policy (10.11f); Pompeius gladly grants Crassus' request 
for cooperation in their bid for the consulship of 70 (22.1£). Yet 
it is ambition that moves Pompeius to help Crassus, and his 
expectation that he will now have Crass us under obligation 
leads only to trouble (22.3f, 23.1£).24 Here Pompeius' readiness 
to grant requests first conjoins with the parallel theme of 
ambition that the biographer has also been developing. This 
conjunction will reappear after 46.1. Only then it will not be 
Geminius or the harmless fool Demetrius whom Pompeius 
must suffer, but the far more dangerous Clodius and the wily 
Caesar, whose ambition will encompass Pompeius' destruction. 
Ironically, then, Pompeius' best point, when combined with 
ruthless ambition and political incompetence, becomes a two­
edged sword and the principal element in his downfal1.25 

When the narrative resumes at 47.5, the facts prove Plutarch's 
interpretations substantial: Caesar's and Pompeius' friendship 
brings great evils upon the city, and Pompeius' power supports 
Caesar to the detriment of his own reputation. I refer to 
Pompeius' power here rather than Pompeius, because from 
47.5 until Caesar's departure for Gaul (48.9), Caesar, not 
Pompeius, wields Pompeius' power (el Caes. 14.5). This is of 
course precisely what Plutarch said in his first statement (46.3f: 
()t(x 't1l<; ITOJl1tT1l0U ()UVaJlEw<;) and illustrated-through Clo­
dius-in the second (47.8f).26 In alliance with Caesar Pompeius 
proves passive and reactive. Pompeius has in fact always been 

23 Of the characteristics Plutarch lists at 1.4 as responsible for winning 
Pompeius the love of the Roman people, Evaplloo"tia 1tpOs £VtEU~tv comes 
last, is represented as the quality that Pompeius possessed over and above the 
others, and is the only one that Plutarch sees fit to expand upon. 

2. Pomp. 22.2: xai. IlEV'tOt llOIl1tTttOC; 'liya1t'TlOE, 1taAat ~h:6IlEVOC; XPElac; 'ttVOs 
{l1taPS<lt xat CjnAavElpomtas 1tpOs av'tov. Cf Crass. 12.2ff; further discussion in 
Hillman 125ff, Doff. 

25 It is not uncommon in Plutarch for a dominant characteristic to cut both 
ways: see C. B. R. Pelling, "Synkrisis in Plutarch's Lives," in F. E. Brenk and 1. 
Gallo, edd., Miscellanea Plutarchea (=QuadGFiIFerr 8 [1986]) 87f. 

26 Clodius of course, not Caesar, wields Pompeius' power in the second 
digression. The relationship, however, is the same. 



HILLMAN, THOMAS P., Authorial Statements, Narrative, and Character in Plutarch's 
"Agesilaus-Pompeius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 35:3 (1994:Autumn) p.255 

268 AUTHORIAL STATEMENTS IN PLUTARCH 

quite passive in domestic politics, i.e., others have almost always 
gained his desired ends for him. 27 The years 70 and 62-60, when 
he attempts to act alone, are in this respect crucial anomalies that 
reveal his character and its connection to his historical role. 
They do so by their demonstration that, if he cannot success­
fully act alone, his passivity, political in expertise, and inability to 
say no to his friends leave him and-thanks to his power-the 
republic decidedly vulnerable. Three brief examples will make 
these points clear. 

At 47.6-9 Caesar gets Pompeius to state publicly that he will 
use violence to pass Caesar's agrarian legislation-a statement 
Pompeius' friends can only defend by claiming that EK<PUYElV 
au'tov E1t\. Kalpou 'to pft~a. At 47.9f Pompeius' unexpected 
marriage to Julia, daughter of Caesar, is evidence of how 
Pompeius <pavEpoc; ~v 11<>11 1tav'ta1tacrlv fau'tov 'to Kaicrapl 
XPTtcracrOal 1tapa<>E<>coKcOC;. Thereafter (48.1-7) Pompeius, who 
had just won such glory by refusing to be like Sulla (43.1-5), 
uses soldiers and violence to drive off all who would oppose the 
legislation by which his and Caesar's political ends are attained. 
This ends only when Caesar's departure for Gaul is reported at 
48.9. By then, however, Pompeius has already been seduced 
from politics by the love of Julia (48.8) and has become the butt 
of Clodius' demagogic abuses (48.8-12; cf 46.8f). 28 This rapid 
transition back to Clodius further reinforces the connections 
between the authorial statements and the narrative and suggests 
that Pompeius will find no respite even with Caesar gone: other 
demagogues will take his place. 29 Throughout Cato has opposed 
and "as if inspired and possessed by Phoebus kept prophesying 
in the Senate what was in store for the city and Pompeius" 
(48.6).30 

After this complex interweaving of narrative and authorial 
statement at 46.1-48.12, there follows another long narrative 

27 Pomp. 9.1f; 10.1£; 11.1; 13.1-7; 14.1-5, 8ff; 17.3f; 20.If; 25.2-13; 26.3; 30.1-8; 
46.8; 47.6f; 48.8-12; 49.10; 51.1, 6; 52.4; 53.6; 54.3; 58.4-10; 59.3f. On Pompeius' 
passivity in the second part of the Life, see C. B. R. Pelling, "Plutarch's 
Adaptation of His Source Material," JHS 100 (1980) 133f. 

28 Pompeius was censured for his neglect of public affairs while attending to 
his wives: Pomp. 2.9f, 53.1-5, 55.1-5. At 2.9f concern for his 06~a also leads 
Pompeius to abuse a friendship to deflect criticism. 

29 See Pomp. 49.10; 51.1, 6; 52.4; 53.6; 54.3; 58.4-10; 59.3f. 
30 For 'to. ,.t£AAov'ta, cf also Pomp. 47.1: 1tAdcr'tllv JlEv au'tCfl xapw EV 'to 

1tapov'tt Kat OUvaJltv dcrauStc; llV£)'K£, Jl£ytcr'ta OE IloJl1tTJtov £~A.a\jl£ Kat 
'tTtV 1tOAtV. Cato: 47.6; 48.2, 6, 9. 



HILLMAN, THOMAS P., Authorial Statements, Narrative, and Character in Plutarch's 
"Agesilaus-Pompeius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 35:3 (1994:Autumn) p.255 

THOMAS P. HILLMAN 269 

section (49.1-69.8) that, much like the narratIve sectIOn 
(24.1-45.7) after the authorial statement at 23.4ff, further 
corroborates not only the analysis of 46.1-48.12, but also the 
comments at 23.4ff on the vulnerability of "men great from 
arms and out of proportion to civilian democratic equality" in 
the political world. 31 For Pompeius' ambition and contentious­
ness, his lust for power and his political disabilities, his need for 
political friends and allies and his passivity towards them, all 
combine to undermine his strength, to bring on the civil war, 
and then to render him unable to prevent his political allies from 
interfering with his conduct of that war. Plutarch also employs 
two authorial statements to structure and reinforce the 
evidence of the narrative at critical moments. At 49.1-53.6 
Plutarch delineates Pompeius' political career down to the death 
of Julia in 54. During this time Pompeius experiences more of 
the E1HUXiul £1ti<p8ovot and ouO''tuxiut aVllKEO''tot predicted at 
46.2 and initially illustrated in the analysis at 46.1-48.12; and 
Caesar, now grown militarily great from the power Pompeius 
had given him, continues to prove himself the abler politician 
despite his absence in Gaul (51.1ff).32 In this Caesar succeeds so 
well that at the death of Julia he has won the greater share of 
'tlJlll, the object of <plAO'ttJ1iu, among the 0111-10<; (53.6), with 
whom Pompeius was traditionally strongest (el 1.4; Hillman 
132f). At this moment Plutarch pauses to comment on the 
effect of Julia's death in terms of character, for the city (he says) 
immediately began to seethe with political turmoil, w<; 'h 
1tpO'tEPOV 1tUPUKUAU1t'touO'a J1ClAAOV 11 Ka'tElpyouO'a 'trov 
avoprov <plAapxiav OtKElO'tTlC; aVl1PTl'tul (53.7). He adds that 
Crassus' death shortly thereafter removed the last obstacle to 
civil war (53.8f) and comments (53.10): ou't(o<; 'h 'tuXll J1lKPOV 
EO'n 1tpo<; 't~v <puO'tv· OU yap a1t01ttJ11tAllO'lV UUTf1<; 't~v E1tl8uJ1tav, 
01tOU 't00'01:),,[OV 136.80<; 'hYEJ10Vta<; Kat EUPUXWptu<; ODolV 

31 The similarity of 49.1-69.8 to 24.1-45.7 is also reflected in their com­
parable lengths, 672 and 710 Teubner lines respectively; both also contain 
authorial statements (39.6-40.9, 53.7-10) directly related to Pompeius' relations 
with friends. 

32 Successes and failures: 49.1ff, 6f (cf 25.4-10, 30.1-4),10; 51.1, 6ff; 52.1-53.5. 
The authorial statement at 53.7-10 does not mark the end of these successes 
and failures. Plutarch continues to set them forth thereafter. See e.g. 54.3-9, 
55.1-56.3. It is worth noting that, with the exception of Pompeius' success as 
curator annonae (50. Iff), Plutarch often mentions the occasions on which 
Pompeius succeeded by acting properly only in passing on to more detailed 
accounts of improper successes: 52.3f, 55.6-11. 



HILLMAN, THOMAS P., Authorial Statements, Narrative, and Character in Plutarch's 
"Agesilaus-Pompeius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 35:3 (1994:Autumn) p.255 

270 AUTHORIAL STATEMENTS IN PLUTARCH 

av~polv OUK t E1t£crXEV, aAA' Em.Hole; OUK Ev6J,lt~ov apKElV ~'l)crlv 
OUat 'tllv 'PwJ,laiwv apxilv. 33 

Plutarch's comments again build on his previous remarks 
about Pompeius' character, expanding them to include Caesar's 
as well and relating it all to the coming of the civil war. His 
comments on the falseness of their friendship, their insatiable 
lust for power (qnAapxia), and the insufficiency of the empire 
to contain them both also anticipate his comments in his next 
and last authorial statement at 70.1-7. When the narrative 
resumes, Pompeius almost immediately begins to seek the 
means of security against Caesar (54.2) and finds himself new 
political allies among Caesar's enemies in the Senate. Pompeius, 
however, has not fared well in the Senate since his first 
consulship, is distrusted, and lacks the political skills to 
dominate there. 34 As a result, Pompeius has an uncomfortable 
time with the Senate as his ally, even after he is chosen for the 
unprecedented honor of a sole consulship (54.3-56.4). The 
closer the civil war comes, moreover, the less prominent 
Pompeius becomes in the politics of the Senate and the less 
frequently is he present there; the political maneuvers before 
the civil war are largely transactions between the Senate and 
Caesar's minions, Curio and Antonius, towards whom the 
bilJ,loe; is uniformly well-disposed. 35 Once the war comes, his 
political allies invade his general's tent and make it their Senate 
(84.[ 4.]4). In so doing they undermine and eventually ruin 
Pompeius' ability to fight and win the war, because they will not 
allow him to put his plans into effect (61.4) and taunt him when 
he does not think it good strategy to fight Caesar at once 
(67.1-7). Pompeius, politically passive and inept, and dominated 
by his concern with what men think of him (~6~a, 67.7) and 
with his sense of shame towards his friends (ai~c.Oe;, 67.7), is 
overwhelmed by these taunts and begins to prepare for the 

33 K. Ziegler, "Plutarchstudien," Rh M 76 (1927) 48, places the dagger and 
suggests that a word such as qnAapxia has fallen out of the text. 

H On Plutarch's portrayal of Pompeius' relations with the Senate, see 
Hillman 132f. 

35 Contrast the failure of the Pompeian tribune, C. Lucilius Hirrus, to whom 
the Sih.tO~ reacts negatively when he proposes to have Pompeius named dic­
tator (54.3f) with the successes of Antonius and Curio (58.4, 59.3f). Hirrus' 
failure may also be contrasted with the success of the Pompeian tribunes 
Gabinius and Manilius in the years 67-66 (25.3-27.3, 30.1-5). 



HILLMAN, THOMAS P., Authorial Statements, Narrative, and Character in Plutarch's 
"Agesilaus-Pompeius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 35:3 (1994:Autumn) p.255 

THOMAS P. HILLMAN 271 

battle they demand (68.1-69.8). Plutarch then pauses to 
comment on character, nature, and history one last time (70.1 f): 

"HoT] of: aUV8Ttllu'tOC; OlOOIlEVOU 1tUp' all<Po'tEprov ... oAiyOl of: 
'ProllUtrov 01 I3EAna'tol KUt nVE<; 'EAATtvrov 1tUpOV'tE<; E~ro 't1lC; 
llaXT]C; ... eAoytSOV'to TIjv 1tAEOVESlUV KUt <plAOV1KtUV 07tOU <PEP­
ouau 'tilv ltYEIlOVtUV ESE8T]KEV. 01tAU yap aUYYEV1Ka KUt 'tas­
Ets aOEA<put Kut KOlVa aT]llE'iu KUt Ilt&C; 7tOAEroS EUUVOptU 
'toau{l'tT] KUt OUVUlllC; uu'til1tpoC; Euu'tilv aUVE1tl1t'tEV, emOEtK­
VUIlEVT] 'tilv av8pro1ttVT]V <puaw roc; EV 1ta8Et YEVOIlEVT] 'tU<pAOV 
ean KUt IlUVtWOES. 

Plutarch then picks up on his remarks at 53.10, arguing that if 
the empire as it was not big enough for two such men, all the 
rest of the barbarian world remained to be conquered, and 
concludes with a summary of Pompeius' and Caesar's false 
friendship that bears on their characters and recalls the remarks 
of Cato on this friendship that Plutarch quoted at 47.4. 

Yet the authorial statement at 70.1-7 also plays a larger role in 
the context of the Lt· e: it does not just put a period to 49.1- 69.8 
as the statements an narrative at 46.1-48.12 do to 24.1-45.7, but 
offers summary comment and proof for the role of character in 
history, for Plutarch firmly assigns the blame for the civil war 
and Pompeius' unfortunate decision to fight at Pharsalus to the 
very characteristics that Pompeius has displayed through the 
Life. Pompeius' qltAovtKla first influenced events long ago when 
he refused to let Sulla have the last word about his first triumph 
(14.1-5); and 1tA£OV £~ la seems to compress his q)tAon~ la. his 
cptAapXla (30.8, 53.7), and desire for 86~a into a single word that 
describes his characteristic drive to claim more of 'ttlll). 8uValltC;. 
and 86~a than his peers. Precisely these traits, first and 
foremost, led Pompeius to war, politics, and the need for 
political friendships; and precisely these traits made his political 
inability and personal amenability dangerous to himself and the 
Republic (Hillman 133-36). 

Yet Plutarch's remarks on 1tA£Ov£~ia and <ptACYtlllia clearly also 
have a wider compass. They apply to Caesar, Pompei us' old 
false friend (70.3-7; cf 53.6£), and to the Optimates in Pompeius' 
camp, his new false friends (67.1-10, 76.2), all of whom help 
bring on the war and this battle by their contentious and 
arrogant claims. One should note that in the only previous use 
of 1tA£ov£~ia in this Life (39.6, quoted supra 12), Plutarch says 
that Pompeius endured and abetted the misdeeds of his friends 
because it was not in his nature to stop them and because he 



HILLMAN, THOMAS P., Authorial Statements, Narrative, and Character in Plutarch's 
"Agesilaus-Pompeius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 35:3 (1994:Autumn) p.255 

272 AUTHORIAL STATEMENTS IN PLUTARCH 

was the sort to put up with "their acts of arrogance and 
importunity." Now Pompeius' own 1tA€oVE~tU and CP1AoV1KlU 
combine with his inability to control theirs to destroy 
everything. This authorial statement also clearly recalls an 
authorial statement made early in the Agesilaus and thus indi­
cates that Plutarch is also using these statement to bind these 
Lives together. At Ages. 5.5ff Plutarch f1rst questions, then 
rejects the notion advanced by some that the CP1Ao'ttJlla and 
cpv...ovudu of the powerful are good for the state: at yap 
U1tEpI30AUt 'tow cptAOVtKt&V XUAE1tat 'tats 1tOAE(H KUt JlEYeXAous 
KtV()UVOUs £xouO'at (5.7). Pharsalus bears f1nal witness to this in 
the Agesilaus-Pompeius. Through careful use of authorial 
statement and narrative Plutarch has brought this argument full 
circle. 

II 

As we have just seen in the Pompeius, Plutarch juxtaposes 
and interweaves narrative passages and authorial statements in 
order to present a more complete portrait of Pompeius' char­
acter and, importantly, of how Pompeius' role in, and effect 
upon, events is predicated upon his character. So far from being 
digressive, such statements bear directly upon his subject in the 
Lives, the indication of apE'tll and KaKla through a man's 
1tpa~Ets, as clearly stated at Alex. 1.1ff and elsewhere. 36 Nor is 
the import of these statements in the Pompeius merely or 
strictly local, as they are linked in theme and structure to nar­
rative passages and authorial statements throughout the Life. 
More than that, as the quotation from the Agesilaus clearly 
suggests, the biographer can use this technique to reinforce the 
parallel between two Lives and to emphasize the political and 
historical effects that traits of character shared by parallels can 
have. This point will more clearly emerge from an investigation 
of Plutarch's use of this technique in the Agesilaus. 

In this Life Plutarch introduces and discusses Agesilaus' 
characteristic CP1Ao'ttJllU and cptAOVtKtU more quickly and openly 
than he does in the Pompe ius, where his stress on these 

36 Cf. Aem. 1.1-6; Dem. 11.7; Demetr. 1.1-6; Cim. 2.3ff; Per. 1. 2 ff; Pomp. 8.6£. 
See also Comme (supra n.4) I 54-57; J. R. Hamilton (supra n.5) 103ff. 



HILLMAN, THOMAS P., Authorial Statements, Narrative, and Character in Plutarch's 
"Agesilaus-Pompeius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 35:3 (1994:Autumn) p.255 

THOMAS P. HILLMAN 273 

characteristics is equally pervasive but more subtle. 37 After 
narrating Agesilaus' birth, education, and ascent to the throne 
(1.1-4.6), in which his qnAO'ttl.tia (2.3, 3.5) and qJtAovuda (2.2, 4.4) 
have already received attention, Plutarch pauses in a passage 
quite like those discussed in the Pompeius to comment upon 
Agesilaus' dealings in friendship and enmity with other citizens 
(S.lff):38 

EV bE 'tUt~ npo~ 'tou~ a.AAOU~ noAha.:; OJ-HAtUt.:; EX8pO':; ~v UjlEjl­
mo'tEpo,:; 11 <ptAO~. 'tou~ jlEv yap EXSpOU~ UbLK(o~ OUK EpAun'tE, 
'tOt~ bE <pLAOtS KUt 'ta jlTt OLKUta cruvEnpunE. KUt 'tOu,:; jlEV 
EXSpOUS T1crxuv£'to I.ll, 'ttl.luv KU'tOPSouv'tuS, 'toue; bE <ptAouS OUK 
r,buvu'to \jf£ynv ajlup'tavov'tu~, uAAa KUt po"Srov r,yaAA£'to 
KUt cruvE~UI.lUp'tav(Ov uu'to'i~' oubev yap c?£'to 'trov <ptAtKroV 
imouPYTJl.la't(Ov uicrXpov dvut. 'to'i~ b' ul) btu<popot~ KUt n'tUL­
crucrt nprows cruvuXS0I.lEVOe;, KUt bE"SEtO't crujlnpan(Ov npoSu-
1.l(O~, Eb"jluyroyn KUt npocrT]Y£'tO nav'tu~. 

So dangerous, however, did these winning ways seem to the 
ephors that they fined him, on 'roue; K01VOUe; nOAhae; {8loDe; 
K'tu'ta 1 (5.4). Previously Plutarch had stressed Agesilaus' 
untraditional behavior as king in that he had courted the favor of 
the ephors and gerousia, rather than taking up the customary 
royal q>lAovlKla and 8taq>opa with them (4.4). Now, Plutarch 
makes clear, he is also acting contrary to tradition, for 

37 qnAovuda and its cognates occur eleven times in the Agesilaus (2.2; 4.4; 5.5, 
7; 7.4; 11.6; 18.4; 23.11; 26.6; 33.2; 34.2.), four times in the Pompeius (14.2, 31.2, 
35.1,70.1); qltAmtllta: Ages. 2.3; 3.2, 3; 5.5; 7.4; 8.5; 6 (his); 11.5; 18.5; 20.9; 23.11; 
33.2; cf V1t£K:Ka'\)f!a: Pomp. 30.8; Ages. 5.5. In the Pompeius qnAmtf!ia and its 
cognates do not occur in a reference to Pompeius before 29.4 and after that 
only four more times, although Plutarch makes it quite clear that his nature 
was ambitious: 30.8 (tTl~ £IlCPU'tO'\) qnAottllta~), 38.1, 39.2, 49.14 (1] IToll1tlltO'\) ... 
CPUOt~, OUK [xo'\)oa KaK6TJ9E~ ouo' UVEA.t:u9EPOV OUto> 'to CPtAOttllov). That Plutarch 
is less direct in the Pompeius should cause no surprise, as the biographer will 
often introduce themes in the first Life of a pair that he elaborates in a more 
complete and allusive fashion in the second. For this progress in Philopoemen­
Flamininus, Demetrius-Antonius, and Lysander-Sulla, see P. A. Stadter, "Para­
doxical Paradigms: Lysander and Sulla," in Stadter, ed., Plutarch and the 
Historical Tradition (London 1992) 41-55; Pelling (supra n.25) 83-96. 

38 Just as for Pompeius in his Life, Agesilaus' dealings in friendship, whether 
they increase his own power, harm the state, or both, are prominent in his 
Life: Ages. 3.1-9, 5.1-6.5, 13.1-7, 20.3-9, 23.6-11, 24.4-26.1. Although 
Phoebidas is not represented at Ages. 23.6-11 as a CPtAo~ of Agesilaus, Plutarch 
clearly sees him as such (Pomp. 81.[1.]5f). On Agesilaus' treatment of Ly­
sander see also Pomp. 81.[1.]3f. 



HILLMAN, THOMAS P., Authorial Statements, Narrative, and Character in Plutarch's 
"Agesilaus-Pompeius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 35:3 (1994:Autumn) p.255 

274 AUTHORIAL STATEMENTS IN PLUTARCH 

EotlCEV 0 AaKWVtKOS vOllo8hllS u1tEKKaUlla 'tl1s apE'tl1S EIl~a­
Aiiv ds'tTtv 1toAxtdav 'to qnAOVtKOV Kat <ptAO'tt,llOV, ad nva 
ytvEa8at 'tOtS aya80tS 8ta<popav Kat UlltAAav riVat 1tPOS aA­
ATtAOUS ~OUAOIlEVOS' 'tTtv yap aveu1tdKoucrav 'tip aVEAEyK'tq> 
XaptV, aPrTtv Kat avav'taywvtcr'tOV 01)crav, OUK ope&S 0IlOVotaV 
AEYEcreat (5.5). 

Even though Plutarch admits that some may cite Homer to 
support the assertion that rivalry and enmity among the best 
men are a great good for the commonwealth (5.6), he rejects 
this assertion, seemingly out of hand, before he turns from 
these authorial statements back to the narrative: at yap U1t£P­
~OAat 'troy qnAOYtKtroy xaA£1tat 'tat<; 1tOA£CJt Kat ~£yaAOU<; 
KtYc>UYOU<; £xouCJat (5.7). 

With that, Plutarch commences the tale of Agesilaus' first 
expedition to Asia Minor. But like his return to the narrative at 
Pomp. 46.5, the facts of this narrative bear out his reflections at 
5.1-7, for at 6.1-8.7 Plutarch explores the impact that great 
men's q)tAo'tt~ia, qnAoYtKia, cptAia, and £x8pa can have upon the 
affairs of state: although the expedition to Asia Minor ostensibly 
responds to Persian plans to drive the Spartans from the region 
(6.1), Lysander, Agesilaus' CPtAO<; (6.5), who has already been 
introduced as his boyhood £paCJ'tl)<; (2.1), and as the man who 
most connived at his ascension (3.1-9), has motives of his own. 
He wishes to help his cpiAot in Asia Minor, whom he had left in 
power, but who have fallen KaK&<; C>E xPW~£YOt Kat ~tatm<; 'tOt<; 
1tpa:y~aCJtY (6.2). To this end he instructed these cpiAot to request 
the dispatch of Agesilaus, whom he would accompany as the 
first of his advisors OU c>ta 'tTtY Eau'tou ~OYOY c>o~ay Kal 
c>uya~tY, aAAa Kal 'tTtY , AY'latAaOu CPtAWY, cp ~£isoy £C>OK£t 1"11<; 
~aCJlAEla<; clya86Y C>W1tE1tpax8at 'tily O"'tpa"CTl)'iaY £KElYllY (6.5). 
Plutarch thereby relates the motivation of the expedition and 
the intrigues of its origins primarily to Agesilaus' friendship with 
Lysander and Lysander's with those whom he had left in power 
in Asia Minor. The injustice of these cpiAol, as well as the great 
good Agesilaus thinks that Lysander has done in procuring his 
command, corroborates the statements of 5.1£f on Agesilaus' 
blameworthy exultation in joining in the wrongdoing of his 
friends. At the same time it broadens the scope of these com­
ments by showing them in operation in both domestic and 
foreign politics. 

On this expedition, however, two events reveal more clearly 
Agesilaus' cplAo'tt~ia and cplAoY1Kia and, with the authorial state­
ments of 5.1-7, imply the danger of these characteristics to 



HILLMAN, THOMAS P., Authorial Statements, Narrative, and Character in Plutarch's 
"Agesilaus-Pompeius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 35:3 (1994:Autumn) p.255 

THOMAS P. HILLMAN 275 

Sparta. The first is his ota<popa. with Lysander in Asia that led 
Lysander to plan the overthrow of the Spartan monarchy and 
that would have caused a great revolution, had he not died (8.4; 
cf 20.3ff). The second is the Thebans' disruption of Agesilaus' 
sacrifice at Aulis in Boeotia before his departure for Asia (6.9ff). 
The importance of the second, easily overlooked because its 
effects are not immediate, only becomes apparent as the Life 
develops: from this initial encounter with the Thebans, who 
disappoint his ambition to emulate Agamemnon (6.6-10), Agesi­
laus develops a consuming, lifelong hatred that, as Plutarch 
repeatedly emphasizes, brings out the worst, most excessive 
aspects of his <ptA.o'ttjJ.ia and <ptA.ovtKia. 39 Ultimately his hatred for 
Thebes, when combined with his ambition and contentious­
ness, has disastrous results for Sparta (27.4-28.8, 34.1-35.6). 
Plutarch's intended audience, of course, will have known this 
and he uses that knowledge to his purpose,40 for by juxtaposing 
this narrative passage on Agesilaus' entry into the wider world 
of Hellenic and Persian politics with his rejection of the claim 
that ambition and contentiousness are good for a state internally, 
he has subtly prepared the reader to consider the good and the 
harm that these aspects of Agesilaus' character can and will do 
Sparta externally. Just as he previously broadened the scope of 
his remarks on Agesilaus' behavior regarding his friends, he 
now does the same for his characteristic <ptA.o'ttjJ.ia and <ptAO­
vtKia. 

The perils of ambition and contentiousness, however, that 
Plutarch has hinted at in 5.1-7 and left implicit in the incident at 
Aulis, he brings out explicitly in Agesilaus' owq)QPa. with 
Lysander. No sooner do they arrive in Asia than Lysander's 
power (ouva!-w;) and reputation (a~iffilla) there prove offensive 
and burdensome to Agesilaus (7.1f): 

<Os QVOflU fl£V KUt 0XllflU 'tllS O'tpU'tTl'YLUS (rcEP t) 'tOY 'A YTJOL­
AUOV QV'tu bta 'tOY v6flOV, EPYep bE KUpWV urcaV't(i)v KUt 
buvaflEvov KUt rcpa't'tov'tu rcav'tu 'tOY AUouvbpov. oube1.S yap 

39 Although Plutarch says only that Agesilaus was enraged at the Thebans 
because of this action ('tOtS 'tE 811~aiotS 8HOp"ftO~£voS, 6.11), his later statement 
that Agesilaus always hated them (22.2), and his later outrageous treatment of 
them, clearly indicates that Plutarch sees their behavior at 6.10f as the cause. 
Agesilaus' behavior towards Thebes: 18.4£, 22.1-8, 23.1-11, 26.1-9, 27.4-28.8, 
34.1-35.6. 

40 On Plutarch's use of his audience's knowledge, cf C. B. R. Pelling, 
·Plutarch and Thucydides," in Stadter (supra n.37) 17-21. 



HILLMAN, THOMAS P., Authorial Statements, Narrative, and Character in Plutarch's 
"Agesilaus-Pompeius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 35:3 (1994:Autumn) p.255 

276 AUTHORIAL STATEMENTS IN PLUTARCH 

ivoo~o'H:poe; OUO£ <PO~EpO:)'tEpOe; ilCdvou 'trov de; 'tl,V 'Aoiav 
unoo'taAEv't(J)v iYEvno o'tpa'tTl'Yrov, OUO£ f.LdSova 'toue; <piAOUe; 
UVl,P UAAOe; EUEpy€'t1l0EV, OUO£ lCalCU 'tllAtlCalna 'toue; ix8poue; 
rnOi1l0Ev. 

Indeed the simplicity and slight stature of the king so 
contrasted with the familiar vehemence, gruffness, and laconic 
brevity of Lysander that all flocked to him (7.3; cf 7.1). This was 
hard enough to bear for the rest of the Spartans, but for 
Agesilaus it was intolerable, because he was cptAo-Uj.lO<; and 
~tA.6V1.1CO~ (7.4): Em:t'ta 0' au'tO<; 6 'AYT1criAao~, Ei Kat 1.111 cp80VEPO~ 
11v 1.1110' ilX8E'to 'tOl~ 'ttl.1roI.1EVOt~, aAAa q)1.A6'ttl.1o~ rov crcp60pa Kat 
cptA6vtKO~, £CPO~El'tO 1.111 KaV £VEYKrocri 'tt Aal.11tPOv at 1tpa~Et~, 
'tou'to 'tou Aucravopou YEv11'tat Ota 't11V 06~av. 

As a result, Agesilaus began to oppose all Lysander's counsels, 
to overturn his actions, to punish whom he had rewarded, and 
to reward whom he had punished (7.5ff; cf Pomp. 31.1£). 
Although Agesilaus' intent was no mystery to Lysander, who 
directed his cptAot to court Agesilaus' favor instead (7.8), this was 
not sufficient. Agesilaus appointed Lysander his meat-carver 
and publicly insulted him (8.1). When Lysander bitterly 
complained that the king clearly knew how to diminish his 
friends, Agesilaus responded that he did so only to those who 
wished to be greater than he (8.2). Lysander attempted to 
redeem himself in the field (8.2f), but he would not lay aside his 
anger at the treatment he had received at Agesilaus' hands and 
began to plot to overthrow Sparta's monarchy (8.4). Plutarch 
concludes (8.4-7): 

lCat iOOlCH f.LEYaAllV av anEpyaoao8at lCivllotv flC 'tau'tlle; 
Otaq>ap&e;, d f.Ll, npo'tEpoV f'tEAEU't1l0EV [A uoavopoe;] de; Botco­
'tiav o'tpa'tEuoae;. ou'tco<; ai. <ptAO'ttf.LOt <pUOHe; fV 'tate; nOAt­
'tdate; 'to uyav f.Ll, <puAa~af.LEval, 'tau aya90u f.LE'iSov 'to lCa­
lCOV EXOUOt. lCat yap d AuoavOpoe; ~v <pOp'ttlCOe;, coonEp ~v, unEp­
~aAAcov 't11 <ptAO'ttf.Li<;t 'tOY lCatpOV, OUlC Ttyvon OTtnOU8EV 'AY1lot­
AaOe; hEpav af.LEf.L1t'to'tEpav f1tavop8cootV o1:>oav avO poe; fV­
OO~ou lCal <ptAo'tif.Lou nAllf.Lf.LEAOUV'tOe;. aAA' EOtlCE 'tau'tip 1ta9H 
f.LTt't· flCEtVOe; upxov'tOe; f~ouoiav yvroVat, f.LTte· oinoe; uyvotav 
EVEYlCEtV cruvTt80ue;. 

If we recall that Plutarch ended his last authorial statement 
with a quite similar judgment (5.7), it will be clear that both 
authorial statements and the intervening narrative passage are 
arranged to comment on each other and to confirm the 
judgments at 5.7 and 8.5ff. By this means the biographer again, as 



HILLMAN, THOMAS P., Authorial Statements, Narrative, and Character in Plutarch's 
"Agesilaus-Pompeius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 35:3 (1994:Autumn) p.255 

THOMAS P. HILLMAN 277 

in the Pompeius, reveals the character of Agesilaus and its public 
effect more completely than either type of passage alone could 
have done. Although this integration of narrative and reflection 
is not as complex as at Pomp. 46.1-48.12, the method is the 
same. 

When the narrative resumes, Agesilaus promptly directs his 
qnAO't1.Jlla and qaAov tlcla outward to the war against the 
barbarians, winning glory for his victories and excellent qualities 
(9.1-12.9)-even befriending the son of his enemy Pharnabazus 
(13.1-4). The narrative thus affords proof of the good that 
ambition and contentiousness can do if directed to the proper 
object, as Plutarch's previous juxtaposition of narrative and 
authorial statement has implied (supra 21£). The biographer then 
pauses at 13.5ff to comment on Agesilaus' dealings in friendship, 
pointing out how he would countenance and even encourage 
injustice done by them or on their behalf (13.1-7). This 
statement, too, comes at a critical moment in Agesilaus' life, as 
he is about to be recalled to Greece precisely when he is most 
successful in Asia and planning to invade Persia (14.1-15.8). 
Returning to Greece as ordered, Agesilaus redirects his <ptAO­
't1.Jlla. and <ptAOvucl.a into conflicts against other Greeks, conflicts 
in which he repeatedly indulges his enmity towards the Thebans 
-former friends on whom Agesilaus turns just as he did on 
Lysander-and repeatedly supports injustices of his <ptAOt, 
especially when the injustice is to Thebes. 41 This change in the 
direction of his <ptAottllta and <ptAovuda will of course result first 
in the death of many Greeks, who, as Agesilaus says, "could 
have battled and defeated all the barbarians in the world" (16.6; 
cf Pomp. 703ff), and ultimately in Sparta's defeat at the hands of 
the Thebans (27.4-28.8, 34.1-35.6). 

Plutarch, moreover divides the narrative of Agesilaus' return 
to Greece and his subsequent conflicts there into two sections 
(14.1-19.4, 20.1-32.4) by inserting another authorial statement at 
19.5-11, after Agesilaus' important victory at Coroneia. Here he 
describes how well Agesilaus still fits in at Sparta upon his return 
because he, unlike most Spartan generals, has remained un­
affected by his time at war (ef Pomp. 23.4ff). This harks back to 

the good relations Agesilaus had enjoyed with the ephors, 
gerousia, and people before his departure for Asia, and looks 
forward to his ability to influence Spartan policy, to protect his 

41 18.4f; 22.1-8; 23.1-26.9; 27.4-28.8, 34.1-35.6; Pomp. 81.[1.]3-6. 



HILLMAN, THOMAS P., Authorial Statements, Narrative, and Character in Plutarch's 
"Agesilaus-Pompeius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 35:3 (1994:Autumn) p.255 

278 AUTHORIAL STATEMENTS IN PLUTARCH 

friends from their misdeeds, and to save the Spartans from 
losing their city as well as their hegemony by stopping them 
from unwisely going out to fight the invading Thebans after 
Leuctra. 42 The latter action occasions another authorial 
statement at 33.1-4 in which Plutarch points out that Agesilaus 
was able to save Sparta because 'trov EJlG)'U'twv 1ta8rov cptA..o'tlJllac; 
leat cptAovtlda<; a1tocna<;. Expi)cra'to 'to\.<; 1tpaYJlacrtv acrcpaAro<; 
(33.2). 

Thus, just as we have seen in the Pompeius, Plutarch here too 
weaves together narrative and authorial statement in such a way 
as to emphasize themes that are important throughout the Life 
and to deliver a more complete portrait of Agesilaus' character 
and its effect upon events than a straight narrative of events 
alone could have done. His attention to misdirected ambition 
and contentiousness and to friendship and enmity pursued in 
conjunction with them will continue into the Pompeius and find 
its final expression, as we have seen, in the authorial statement at 
Pomp. 70.1-7, where Plutarch points out that, if Pompeius and 
Caesar had joined together to direct their 1tA£OV£~la, cptAOVtKla, 
and their armies against the barbarians rather than against each 
other, none could have withstood them. Plutarch's use of 
authorial statements and narrative to characterize Agesilaus also 
suggests, however, the difference between Agesilaus and 
Pompeius. Pompeius' time in the camp has left him unsuited for 
civilian politics (Pomp. 23.4ff) and thus prey to more politically 
adept friends (39.6, 46.2ff); unlike Agesilaus he evidently cannot 
lay aside his own ambition and contentiousness at need. 
Together these defects leave him unable to control his political 
friends and allies effectively or to resist their panic once the civil 
war begins (Pomp. 60.5-61.6), unable to refuse their desire to 
fight at Pharasalus when he knows better (67.1-10; cf 76.2), and 
unable to act in a rational manner when the tide of the most 
critical battle of his life turns against him (n.lff). The passions of 
1tA£OVE~la and cptA..oVtKla leave him "blind and mad," as Plutarch 
implies at 70.2 Thus, although Agesilaus costs Sparta its 
hegemony over Greece, Agesilaus saves Sparta and preserves its 
freedom by refusing to fight the Thebans after Leuctra, despite 
extreme pressure to do so at Sparta; Pompeius, however, 
abandons Rome to Caesar, and then "all but allow[s] himself to 
be coerced into risking the empire and its freedom on a roll of 

42 4.2-6, 5.2ff, 15.2, 17.1ff, 20.3-21.1, 23.1-26.9, 28.1-8, 30.1-33.4, 34.1-7, 
35.1-6. 



HILLMAN, THOMAS P., Authorial Statements, Narrative, and Character in Plutarch's 
"Agesilaus-Pompeius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 35:3 (1994:Autumn) p.255 

THOMAS P. HILLMAN 279 

the dice" at Pharsalus because his friends were mocking him 
(84.[4.]4). These differences Plutarch stresses again in the 
O'UYKPlO'l~ that follows their Lives (84.[4.]1-10), where he 
severely censures Pompeius and compares him negatively to 
Agesilaus in this regard. 

This analysis of Plutarch's Agesilaus-Pompeius should make it 
clear that Plutarch's authorial statements pertain directly to his 
subject and bear no resemblance to his true digressions that arise 
in some way from the narrative, but reveal nothing about the 
character of a man and its historical role (supra 256£). Rather he 
has labored to integrate these statements with the narrative in 
such a way that each comments on the other and together they 
give a more coherent and, therefore, more cogent structure to 
his portraits of Agesilaus and Pompeius, both separately and as a 
pair. One may of course discern the use of this technique in one 
Life of a pair without reference to the other, as I initially did in 
the Pompeius. Yet it is only when the two Lives are read 
together, as they were meant to be, that the full implications of 
this technique for the form and meaning of this pair may be 
appreciated: for without knowing that Plutarch, beginning at 
Ages. 5.1-7, has rejected the notion that the q>lAo'ttJ.lia and 
qnAovtlda of the powerful are good for the state, the reader of 
the Pompeius cannot fully grasp that Plutarch's statement on 
1tAEOvd~ia and q>lAovlKia at Pomp. 70.1-7 is part of an argument 
that includes the analysis of Pompeius' character-and indeed 
reaches beyond it, in conjunction with the analysis of Agesilaus' 
character, to illustrate the link between the character traits of 
great men and the events of history. In like manner the reader 
of the Agesilaus alone can also miss the full meaning of 
Plutarch's statement at 5.7, because the Agesilaus presents only 
one part of his argument against the excesses of <ptAmlJ.lia and 
<ptAoVlKta. Despite all the harm that Agesilaus' ambition and 
contentiousness cause Sparta, he can in the end lay them aside to 
save the state. Without reading the Pompeius, which shows the 
harm done when a man cannot act like Agesilaus, the other part 
of Plutarch's argument is missing. Thus Plutarch's use of 
authorial statements binds together the portraits of the Lives 
individually and as part of the larger argument of the pair. 
Without them, history and biography would differ less. 

Given Plutarch's pervasive use of this technique to such good 
effect in the Agesilaus-Pompeius, it would be quite surprising if 
he did not similarly employ the authorial statements found in 
Lives written earlier and later to strengthen the individual 



HILLMAN, THOMAS P., Authorial Statements, Narrative, and Character in Plutarch's 
"Agesilaus-Pompeius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 35:3 (1994:Autumn) p.255 

280 AUTHORIAL STATEMENTS IN PLUTARCH 

portraits of these Lives and to bind them to their parallels 
through reinforcing the overall themes of the pair. Without 
further investigation one may certainly support this contention 
by adducing the complex juxtapositioning of narrative and 
authorial statements in the Lucullus, a very early Life, and the 
Marius, a very late Life, perhaps even the last. 43 Plutarch's 
practice would doubtless vary from Life to Life and pair to pair. 
Yet his employment of this technique in Lives written at 
different times strongly suggests that he will often employ 
authorial statements as an important, perhaps even an essential, 
element in a form of biography that is comprised, not of a series 
of narrative episodes whose progress is interrupted and retarded 
by moralistic and pedantic digressions, but of an interlocking 
series of narrative episodes and authorial statements; through 
these he structures his portrait of his subject in terms of 
character and historical role and repeatedly makes his voice 
heard by his audience, as he interprets his material and conducts 
the exposition of his argument about the role of character in life 
and history.44 

MANCHESTER, N.H. 
March,1995 

43 See Lue. 33.1-39.5; Mar. 28.1-32.6. Cimon-Lucullus is not earlier than the 
second, nor later than the fourth pair written; Agesilaus-Pompeius clearly 
seems the fifteenth; and Pyrrhus-Marius may be the last. See C. P. Jones, 
"Towards a chronology of Plutarch's Works," JRS 56 (1966) 67ff; C. Carena, 
M. Manfredini, and L. Piccirili, Plutarco, Le vite di Cimone e di Lucullo 
(Milan 1990) xxxv; M. van der Valk, "Notes on the Composition and 
Arrangement of the Biographies of Plutarch," in Studi in onore di Aristide 
Colonna (Perugia 1982) 301-37. 

44 In this respect he is, ironically, like Herodotus, whose voice is commonly 
and intentionally present in his narrative. See C. Dewald, "Narrative and 
Authorial Voice in Herodotus' Histories," Arethusa 20 (1987) 147-70.