[1] [1053] Must a man abase his glance in entering here, if he carry not with him his city's prestige, as though he had no freedom even to open his mouth in a royal palace unless he has come from a community great and wealthy, and bears with him majestic words, ay, and proud ones also, even such offspring as rhetoric and poetry bring forth, arts and products of the common herd as they are? May he not, without the prestige of his fatherland, purvey the pleasure of delightful and time-honored speeches of praise to win over king and council?

Nay, will you for once admit philosophy to dwell with you and will anyone not fail to recognize her appearing here after so long an interval,[1] or to treat her as the welcome guest and plainly speak some good of her in the presence of those whom it befits? There is need, methinks, of all this, not for her sake but for your own, lest perchance if despised she may become of no value for you.

She, however, shall furnish her discourses, not those of a gay type calculated to allure the young, nor such words as are dissolute of morality or bedecked with phrases for a demonstration of false beauty; but in a different way, one weighty and inspired for those able to attain it, she will employ words virile and sacred, words which disdain to court the bounty of the great by servile adulation. So then they stand firmly, they are those that dare all things, strangers in a royal palace to such a degree as to assert that it will not suffice them if anyone agrees to their passing over the king and all his possessions without praise of every sort, but that they stand ready to wound if opportunity be given and threaten to bite into the heart,[2] not on the surface only, [1056] but to the very core, if so perchance anyone may be helped by suffering.

Freedom of speech should be of great price in the ears of a monarch. Praise at every step is seductive, but it is injurious. It seems to me to resemble those potions, coated with honey, which are offered to men condemned to death. Do you not know that the practice of cookery by its artful seasonings and by summoning up false cravings, is injurious to our bodies, whereas both gymnastics and the art of the physician are saving to them, although they give us pain for the moment?

As to you, I desire that you should be saved, even if you have to suffer in the path of salvation. The very bitterness of salt forbids meat to be corrupted, and truth in discourses preserves the mind of a young sovereign from such paths as the license of power might be open to him. Endure, therefore, the strangeness of my words. Let none among you condemn them as uncouth, nor silence them off-hand for that they are not servants of persuasion, pleasant playmates to the young, but pedagogues of a sort, actually their preceptors and stern to encounter. May you be able to bear with intercourse of this sort, and may your ears not be utterly corrupted by the praises which you want to hear.

Lo, I myself stand before you.[3]

Note 1: A reference to absence of Aurelian, the praetorian prefect, who had been expelled by Gainas.

Note 2: Aristophanes, Acharnians, 1.

Note 3: Homer, Odyssey, 21.207.

---

[2] [1056] Cyrene sends me to you to crown your head with gold and your spirit with philosophy; Cyrene, a Greek city of ancient and holy name, sung in a thousand odes by the wise men of the past,[1] but now poor and downcast, a vast ruin, and in need of a king if perchance she is to do something that maybe worthy of her ancient history. This very need you can remedy whenever you so desire, and it is for you to decide whether I shall bring back to you a second crown from my great and then happy city. Words now are not failing to a city wherewith it may have liberty of speech and may dare to address its sovereign boldly. Truth is the aristocracy of language and no word was ever more shameful or more honorable according to the place of its utterance.

[1057] Let us advance in company with God, and let us attempt the fairest of language or, to speak with more truth, the fairest of deeds. For he who cares for one man and that one the king, devising how he may be most virtuous; that man I say has made the shortest step towards restoring all houses, all cities, and all nations, whether great or small, near or far; for of necessity all of them must profit by the condition of the soul of their king. Is it your will then that we proceed in this wise at first, in order that you may bear with my discourse to the end?

It were wise not to affright the quarry beforehand.[2] Let us enumerate then what things a king should do and what things he should not do, contrasting the base with the noble. Now attend to those things on each side and whenever you recognize that which is worthy, rejoice in it then as your portion adjudged to you by Philosophy, but dismiss the other and determine always to do the one thing and never again the other.

But if in the course of this address some act of yours appears one of those which we know to be wrong and which you so recognize yourself, in that case you should show your anger with yourself and blush because that has come to light which is not worthy of you. Assuredly this color promises that virtue which comes from a change of mind, for this shame is divine and so seems to Hesiod. But he who is obstinate in his faults, who is ashamed to confess an error, does not gain knowledge from repentance nor does he need healing words;[3] nay, a wise man would say that he should be punished. Thus, methinks, is philosophy from the beginning rough and intractable.

Note 1: E.g., Pindar, Pythian Odes 4, 5, 9; Callimachus, Hymn, 2.73, and Epigram, 21.2.

Note 2: Plato, Lysis, 206a.

Note 3: Aeschylus, Prometheus, 378.

---

[3] [1057] Now, inasmuch as I perceive that some you are already disconcerted and take in dudgeon my freedom of speech, let such remember that I announced this as my intention beforehand, and that it was rather their part, as men forewarned, to arm themselves in defense, and to hold their ground against my attacks. None the less you may rejoice in hearing these things that are to follow, for all men are proclaiming them.

And I, too, agree with you, that so great an empire has been accorded to no one man nor such an agglomeration of wealth, beyond that of Darius of old, nor yet so many myriads of horse, of archers and cuirassiers. Against such men as these, if only they have the fortune to find a leader, every attack is impotent. Moreover, cities defying computation bow before you, the greater part of which have never beheld you, nor have even hope of beholding a sight that is indeed beyond their aspirations. These truths must be stated to you by us rather than by anyone else.

What quality then do we possess that they do not share? While they, forsooth, weave praises for you for these very things and proclaim you happy,[1060] I would never praise you in consequence of things such as these. I should offer you my best congratulations. But they are not of one and the same nature, congratulations and praise. Each of them differs from the other. For a man is congratulated on possessions external to himself, but he is praised for his inward gifts, those [1] upon which happiness has her throne. The one is an uncertain gift of fortune, the other a personal virtue of character.[2] In this way the latter is of itself trustworthy, but good fortune is deceptive and often changes to that which is completely opposite. But God himself s needed for a guardian, mind is needed, skill is needed, opportunity is needed, and in sooth many works, in many places and these of all sorts, of which one has no experience, nor is it easy for those who try to gain it. For not so easily as a happy condition comes to men, is it preserved.

You have only to observe in what manner of lives the scenes of the tragedies are cast.[3] They are not those in which private citizens and the poor suffer, but rather the strong, the potentates, the monarchs. For the modest house has no room for the greatness of disaster, nor poverty for the burden of misfortune; but he who is a shining object in his fortune is fated to become also conspicuous in perils and in the other spheres of the demon's activity. But ofttimes, too, virtue has been the beginning of good fortune, and approbation has been the leader of happiness to men,[4] as though Fortune were ashamed not to bear witness to conspicuous virtue.

Now if we are required to make this truth convincing by examples, let us not seek the proof elsewhere. We have to ponder over your sire,[Theodosius I] and you will see that his Empire was given him as a recompense for his virtue. Fortune is not responsible [5] for virtue, but some virtuous deeds, perhaps, have ere drawn even fortune with them. With these deeds, my liege, may you be associated, that philosophy may not speak here in vain! May rule be a sacred possession to you in this, that it has trained you virtue and has brought it forward in quest of material adequate to its inborn greatness, and not incapable of being contained in a principle of life less than the kingly.

You must therefore train yourself to keep up a spirit worthy of a king and you must make a defense on behalf of Fortune, that she may not be indicted for lack of reason on the ground that life has not advanced from like beginnings for your sire and for yourself. For him the soldier's art procured the control of Empire, you that Empire enlists as a soldier and virtue is your debt to Fortune. He acquired his possessions by his labors, but you without labor have come into the heritage of these. There is all need of labor to keep guard over them. This is what I have long been speaking of, this the thing of difficulty which needs a thousand eyes, lest, as is Fortune's wont, she may turn back in the midst of the way, like knavish fellow-companions of a journey, for to such do the wise compare inconstancy. You see in the case of your own sire so clearly proclaimed in public by reason of his successes, that envy did not suffer even his old age to pass without struggles, nor yet the Divinity without a crown. After marching against two usurpers [6] and overthrowing both, on erecting the second trophy, he gave up his life, slain by the hand of no man, but yielding to Nature, [1061] against whom neither is weapon strong nor mind skilled, and leaving you the kingdom uncontested, he has virtue as his epitaph. May virtue preserve it for you and may God preserve it through virtue, for there is need of God everywhere and not least amongst those who are not the contestants or architecture of their fortune, but who, like you, inherit it!

He whom the Divinity has most largely endowed with fortune, and whom, when still a mere boy, He has made to be called a great king, must choose all labor and abandon all ease. He must share little in sleep and much in anxieties, if he is to be a fitting person to be crowned with the name of “king”. For well says the old proverb “It is not the number of subjects that makes a king any more than a tyrant”.

In truth the tale of his sheep makes not the shepherd more than the butcher who drives the sheep before him to the slaughter, that he may himself take his fill of them and sell them for a feast to others. Equally divided stand the king and the tyrant,[7] I assert, and yet Fortune's gifts are alike to each. Each of the two rules over many men, but he that disposes himself for the manifest good of the governed, and is willing to suffer that there may be no suffering for them, and to encounter danger that they may live without fear, and to keep night vigils, and to sup with cares at his board, that day and night they may have rest from anxieties, this is a shepherd amidst his sheep, a king amongst men.

But whoso exploits his leadership for luxury's sake, whoso squanders his resources in reveling, esteeming that he must needs gratify all his desires, considering that what makes the subject class suffer is the guerdon of his rule among many, and that the pleasure of his soul is to be served by many, and in a word, he who does not fatten his flock, but himself desires to be fattened by it, that man I call a butcher amongst his cattle, and I declare him to be a tyrant whenever that which he rules over is a people endowed with reason.

Now let this be the one principle of kingship for you, and do you test yourself by it as by a touchstone. If you find yourself in harmony with it, you may with every right enjoy the sacred title of a sacred office; but if you are not in harmony with it, endeavor to make straight what is distorted, and to cling to the rule. I do not despair of every progress coming from youth [8] if only someone may spur it on towards zeal for virtue. For youth is strong in its tendency to one side or the other,[9] just as rivers in the first stretches allotted them press on the more insatiably. In this way the young king has need also of philosophy, either to take possession of him beforehand or to restrain him from dispersing his force on either side.

[1064] Some vices are near neighbors to certain vices, and from each of these last there is a slip, not into another virtue but into its neighboring vice. Tyranny dwells near kingship, even next door to it, as foolhardiness near to courage, as license to liberty. The high-minded man, if he is not guarded by philosophy within the realm of virtue, will trip and will become a braggart, and one feeble in judgment instead of high-minded. Fear, therefore, tyranny as being nothing else than the disease of kingship, and learn to discern it by the distinctive marks presented in my discourse, and by the greatest of them, that while the law is his conduct for the king, his own conduct is law for the tyrant.

But power is a substance that they have in common although their lives are antagonistic. Every man treads the heights of good fortune and of happiness when all follows according to his desire, in the course of nature; but desire in turn attends upon prudence, and although she be the mistress of what is without, she yields a share of the kingdom within to the stronger comrade and receives from her the watchwords for necessary action. Power does not suffice for happiness, nor has God placed happiness in strength, but prudence must be present, nay, must be in the first rank, to use such strength in the noblest way.

Now that man I proclaim to be the most complete, and this is true of his life also, who is perfect in both and not halting in either, the man to whom has fallen the task of ruling, knowing the while how to rule. Strength and wisdom when united are irresistible,[10] but separated from each other, untutored force and prudence shorn of strength will be easily overcome.

I have always admired that creation of the wise Egyptians, their Hermes. The Egyptians make the face of their deity double, placing a young one next to an old one,[11] requiring thus of anyone who is to keep good guard over them that he be both wise and strong, as the one thing would be useless without the other. In the same way the Sphinx is erected in their temple closes, a sacred symbol of the coupling of virtues, in strength a wild beast, in prudence a man. And rightly, for strength destitute of prudent leadership is carried capriciously along, mingling all matters together and throwing them into confusion.

On the other hand mind is useless in action when unserved by hands. All virtues are a king's adornment, but prudence is the most kingly of them all. Take to yourself this one, I counsel you, for an associate, for the three sisters will follow the eldest, and you will straightway have them all as comrades in your tent, and on the battlefield as well.

Note 1: Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1.12.

Note 2: Philo, Embassy to Gaius, 1.

Note 3: Dio Chrysostom, Discourse 13.20.

Note 4: Aeschines, False embassy, 131.

Note 5: Philo, Embassy to Gaius, 1.

Note 6: Magnus Maximus (383-388) and Eugenius (392-394).

Note 7: Using “tyrant”, Synesius does not refer to sole ruler (the normal meaning in Greek), but to a dictatorial ruler. The reference is to Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 8.12.

Note 8: Plato, Theaetetus, 146b.

Note 9: Philo, Embassy to Caligula, 29.

Note 10: Plato, State, 473d.

Note 11: Cf. Egyptian tale, 1.11.

---

[4] [1065] I will now make a statement which sounds at first a paradox, but is perchance impregnated with truth itself. Whenever I compare weakness with force, poverty with wealth, and penury in all things with abundance in all things, and if these might be adjudged in regard to each other unmixed with, nay, even separated from, prudence, then poverty, helplessness, and a private life, rather than the greatest leadership, would seem more fortunate for those who have least attained to intelligence and reason. Assuredly they would fall into fewer errors, since the evil in their dispositions would not find an outlet for its energy.

For the exterior forms of good things which my leaders Aristotle and Plato are accustomed to call the instrumental,[1] know how to serve the vices no less than the virtues. Consequently these men and as many torrents of philosophy as have run from them, neither esteemed them worthy of the better title, nor did they relegate them to worse, but call them instruments, at one moment for good and another for evil, depicting them in various colors according to the disposition of those who employed them.

As it is therefore to be prayed for that the “instruments” be out of the evil man's reach so that he may keep his wickedness inactive, so it is that they may be in the hands of one who will use them aright, one by whom all cities and individuals as well may benefit, to the end that his virtuous nature may not wither away without employ, without result, and without recognition, but may spend its force for the wellbeing of men. Use in this way, I entreat you, the good elements which lie ready for you; it is only in this way that you may use things that are good. Let houses, cities, peoples, races, and continents have the benefit of earnest solicitude and forethought, a forethought which God Himself, who has placed Himself as the archetype amidst knowable things, offers you as an image of His own.

He wishes that everything here should be arranged in imitation of the world above. Beloved, then, of the Great King is the one named after Him here, if only he belie not that name. And he does not so belie it if even one or other of these titles of Divinity is present with him. Now, before speaking of this, it would not be ill-timed to discuss first a certain matter concerning philosophy so to make what follows clearer.

Note 1: Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1099a30, 1099b27; Plato, Sophist, 235b.

---

[5] [1065] No term has ever yet appeared in any place that grasps the essence of God, but men once baffled in seeking an image of him desire to touch Him [1] through the things that proceed from Him. Thus you may call Him anything you like, the Creative Father,[2] the Beginning, or the Cause. [1068] All these terms are His relations towards what has proceeded from Him. And so in calling him King, you have attempted to grasp His nature from those over whom He rules, but not by direct touch with Him face to face.

Now then I come to the point when I must mention also, as I promised you, the remaining one of His names. I have kept it back until this opportune moment. What is this thing bound up with and belonging to the king here below, which I said confirmed him and showed him lawfully established, and not falsely named? All men, everywhere, methinks, celebrate the goodness of God, alike peoples that are wise and people that are foolish. In this at least all agree with one another, and speak with the same voice, however they may differ in all other respects in their notions of the Divine element, and however they divide His pure and indivisible nature with a great variety of opinions. But, in sooth, even this undisputed good does not yet disclose to us the throne of God in real existence. That is only gathered from events that follow; for the Good does not come to our hearing as absolute, but as a relative good to those for whom it is an efficacious force and by whom it may be enjoyed. The very thought conveyed in His name is an attempt to signify further that God is the cause of the good. So also the sacred prayers of our fathers in the holy initiations, calling out to the God who is over all, do not glorify His power, but rather bow before His solicitude for us. Of the things that pertain to God, therefore, God is the giver, such as life, being, mind, and indeed anything of a secondary sort, if it be one not unworthy to have come from the first.

It would befit you accordingly not to desert the rank in which you were enrolled nor to shame the identical names, but rather to give yourself up to their imitation, to flood the cities with all things that are good, and to pour all possible happiness on each one of those ruled over. Then only shall we speak the truth in acclaiming you as a great king; not giving you honor by custom merely, not consulting our own advantage, nor seeking to turn away your wrath, but consenting to the very judge in our soul, using our tongue as a sincere interpreter of our thought.

Come then, let me describe for you the king in my discourse as if I had set up a statue of him,[3] and you shall show me this statue moving and animated with the breath of life. I will take along with me for its fashioning, if it be needed, ideas that have come to the minds of the happy men of bygone days. Do you rejoice not the less in it than others, but the more, as unquestionably befitting a king, as on these things the wise men of the past and the present are agreed.

Note 1: 1 John 1.1.

Note 2: Plato, Timaeus, 28c.

Note 3: Plato, State, 420c.

---

[6] [1069] Now first let piety be its foundation, a secure pedestal this, and the statue shall stand thereon unshaken; and never shall a storm overturn it, if it remain clamped to its foundation: nay, it shall rise up with it and appear in many places, and not least upon the summit. Starting from thence, I say that with God's guidance the king ought first to be king of himself, and to establish a monarchy in his soul.[1]

For of this be well assured, that man is not some simple object nor is he cast in one pattern, but God has made to dwell in the constitution of a single creature a host of forces mingled together and with full-toned voices. We are, I think, a monstrous animal more extraordinary than the hydra and still more many-headed.[2] For not with the same part of our nature, of course, do we think and desire, or feel pain and suffer anger, nor is our fear from the same source as our pleasure. Again you will observe how there is a male element in these organs, and a female, and that there is courage and also cowardice. There are in sooth all kinds of opposites within us and a certain medial force of nature runs through them which we call mind. It is this that I desire to reign in the king's soul, destroying the mob rule and democracy of the passions.

So from this hearth would this man be a king using the natural beginning of authority, he who by taming and domesticating the unreasoning parts of the soul, has made them subservient to reason, marshalling their multitude under one intelligent leadership. Such a man as this is godly, whether he be a commoner or a king; but especially is the king divine because he it is who shares his virtue with whole nations, and because many men rejoice in the good deeds of such an one.

It is moreover, in his case a necessity that his inner life should be passed undisturbed and that a divine calm should extend even to his countenance. And this is a sight to inspire not fear but the deepest piety, to wit, his remaining in an unruffled state of dignity, overwhelming his friends, that is to say good men, with admiration, his enemies and wicked men with terror. Nor does change of will invade his spirit, for whatever he does, this he effects by accomplishing those things which have been resolved upon by all the parts of his soul. Thus all things are ordered subject to one rule, and do not think it unworthy for each one of them both to exist as parts and to converge in the One, the whole.

Now whoso separates the conjunctions of these parts, admitting the existence of their numerous energies, and wishes to placate the creature one part at a time, this man you see now lifted up in his mind, now fallen low, now disturbed by a forward impulse, and now by retreat; again by griefs, by pleasures, by absurd desires, and that man is never in agreement with himself.

Well I know what evil things I am to do For passion is stronger than my counsels.

[1072] So said someone who understood the divergence and disagreement of equal forces. What imports most for you therefore, and a very kingly thing this it is too, is the rule over yourself, setting mind to dominate the beast that dwells with us,[4] and seeking not to rule over many myriads of men while you yourself a slave of the most shameful mistresses, of pleasure, of pain, and as many beasts related to these as dwell within the human creature.

Note 1: Isocrates, To Nicocles, 26.

Note 2: Plato, State, 588c; Phaedrus, 230a.

Note 3: Euripides, Medea, 1078.

Note 4: Plato, Phaedrus, 97c.

---

[7] [1072] And now setting forth from his own self the king will meet his friends and neighbors first. With these at his side he will take counsel concerning all matters; these he will greet as friends, with no shade of irony in the word, nor like those who gloss over what is in point of fact rough and abrupt in their despotism with a designation more kindly than the truth. After all what possession is so kingly to him as the friend at his side; what sweeter sharer in his good fortune; who surer to endure an ill turn of fortune with him; who more sincere in praise; who less apt to give pain by a biting admonition? What clearer evidence can the masses have that a king is well-disposed than his manifest power to make those about him always enviable? In this way he will gain the affection of those also who dwell afar, and it will be the prayer of good men to gain the friendship of the king.

Exactly the reverse is the experience of tyrants, whence the witty proverb: “Far from Zeus and his thunderbolt”, which means that because of such as treat their associates with treachery, safety without office is less terrifying than the dangers of public life. One has scarcely time to be envied for friendship with a tyrant before one is an object of pity by reason of his enmity.[1]

Now the king knows that in God is sufficiency unto Himself, and that God, the original essence, is above the ruled over; but that with a man governing many men like himself, his own nature is sufficient to itself for the subtlety of every problem. To remedy therefore the imperfection of nature, he holds close intercourse with his friends,[2] and thereby multiplies his own power. And so he will see the eyes of all, and will take counsel from those opinions of all which tend to one conclusion.[3]

Note 1: Cf. Augustine, Confessions, 8.6.

Note 2: Philo, Who is Heir of Divine Things?, 6.

Note 3: Cf. Dio Chrysostom, Discourse 1 and Discourse 3.

---

[8] [1072] Now we must keep guard over ourselves, and that with our whole understanding. We must if possible employ all the weapons in the court for the purpose that flattery may not slip in wearing the mask of friendship, for by this one thing is royalty plundered, however vigilant the guards. For flattery enters, unless the place be thoroughly defended, far within the treasure-chamber, and attacks the most lordly possession of kings, the soul itself; and the more easily, that love of his comrades is not the least virtue in a monarch.

It was this quality, at all events, that made Cyrus “the pre-eminent”[1] and Agesilaus the most renowned of kings amongst Greeks and foreigners. He will then learn what course to pursue, [1073] and amongst his friends will make his opinion prevail, but he stands in need of many hands that action may follow.

Note 1: Xenophon, Anabasis, 1.90.

---

[9] [1073] Now my speech must go on to lead the king from out his palace, and, after his friends, to hand him over to the soldiers, second friends these; and further to make him descend to the plain and inspect his men, their arms, and their horses. There he will ride with the cavalry, charge with the infantry, arm himself heavily with the hoplites, maneuver with the targeteers, and hurl the javelin with the light-armed troops, enticing every man to living comradeship by association in their operations; so that not merely in semblance shall he call them fellow-soldiers. They will come to know him when he addresses them on the field, and will bear witness that the name is employed at the same time in virtue of his actions.

Perchance you take it ill that we entail labor upon you, but be persuaded by me that toil attacks most lightly the body of a king, for toil vanquishes least of all a man who toils openly. Now when a king exercises his body, keeps the field, and spends his youth in armor, all the cities are spectators. For he draws the eyes of all present upon him, and no one can endure to look elsewhere when a king does anything conspicuously; every act of a king passing into a song rings in the ears of all men. And this custom is capable of bringing goodwill towards him in that the spectacle of a king is not a rare one to his soldiers, and his goodwill greatly strengthens the spirit of the troops.

Now what royalty is more solid than that which is fortified by love, and what individual, however low his condition, is freer from fear or safer from treachery than that king whom his subjects fear not, bur for whom they fear?[1] This soldierly race, however, is simple and noble, and is won over easily by sympathy. Even Plato calls his fighting race “guardians”, and likens them most to the dog,[2] a beast that distinguishes friend and foe by his knowledge and ignorance of them as the case may be. What could be more shameful than to be a king who is recognized only through the painters by the very men who war in his defense.

The king will benefit by this close intercourse, not only because the army will surround him as one unified organism, but also because many of the incidents on these occasions are, some of them, an exercise in warlike affairs, and at the same time will be initiations, and preparations of a kind, for the function of command and awaken his ambition for great and serious tasks. It is no small advantage in active service that he can address by name a general, a commander of a legion, the commander of a squadron or of a brigade, or a standard-bearer, as the case may be; that he can call up and exhort any of the veterans from his knowledge of them, those I mean who have rank in each infantry or cavalry corps.

Even Homer makes one of the gods take his station in the Achaean conflict and by a touch of his scepter fill [1076] the young men “with mighty force”, so that their spirit “longed still more to fight and to battle,”[3] and they are unable to keep either their feet or hands quiet. Again the verse

Their feet beneath, their hands above, alike quiver with impatience,[4]

signifies that they are self-bidden to dart about in deeds of battle. Now to my thinking a king might achieve this very result if he were to call on his men by name, and would thus rouse to ardor the man insensible to the trumpet's call, and incite the warrior yet more to the fray. For every man desires to toil under the watchful eye of the king. And the poet likewise seems to think that the king thus obtains an immense advantage both in war and in peace, for, noticing this first, the fact that even the common soldiers are known to the king has the greatest influence on the courage of these men,[5] he has not only made Agamemnon call his soldiers by name, but even this leader, according to him, counsels his brother,[6] in addition to this form of address, to distinguish each man by his patronymic and ancestral name, to honor all, and not to be overweening.

Now honoring them is to speak to them in fair words, whenever he himself knows either that any good deed has been done by one of them, or that any success has fallen in his path. Observe Homer. He makes the king the eulogist of a man of the people, and who would not be lavish with his blood when the king has praised him? This benefit then will come to you from frequent contact with your troops, and moreover you will know their characters and their lives, and what post belongs to each in every contingency.

Observe this also. The king is a craftsman of wars, just as the cobbler is a craftsman of shoes.[7] The latter is laughable when he does not know the tools of his craft; how then shall the king understand how to use his tools, namely soldiers, when he does not know these tools?[8]

Note 1: Plutarch, Aratus, 25.7.

Note 2: Plato, State, 375e, 376a, 376b.

Note 3: Homer, Iliad, 13.60 and 13.74.

Note 4: Homer, Iliad, 13.75.

Note 5: Homer, Iliad, 4.231.

Note 6: Homer, Iliad, 10.67.

Note 7: Cf. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1101a.

Note 8: Xenophon, Cyropaedia, 5.3.47.

---

[10] [1076] Now that I have arrived at this point, if I bring down what is the common ground of the discussion into the matter of the present discourse, my shot will not fall, I fancy, off the mark.

Who knows if I shall arouse your soul with the aid of the god when I speak? For the counsel of a true man is excellent.[1]

I assert, in fact, that nothing has done the Romans more harm in past days than the protection and attention given to the sovereign's person, of which they make a secret as though they were priests, and their public exposure in barbaric fashion of the things that pertain to you. Truth and fantasy are not wont to consort together. But do not be incensed, for the fault is not yours, it is the fault rather of those who first created this mischief and transmitted to Time's heritage an evil now zealously maintained.

Accordingly, this majesty and the fear of being brought to the level of man by becoming an accustomed sight, causes you to be cloistered and besieged by your very self, seeing very little, [1077] hearing very little of those things by which the wisdom of action is accumulated. You rejoice only in the pleasures of the body, and the most material of these, even as many as touch and taste offer you; and so you live the life of a polyp of the sea.[2]

As long as you deem man unworthy of you, you will not attain man's perfection. Those with whom you consort in your round of life, and in other ways, and to whom access to the palace is safer from fear than to generals and captains of divisions, those on whom you bestow your royal approval are rather men with small heads and petty minds whom nature by some error stamps amiss, even as dishonest bankers falsify coins.[3] A dullard becomes a gift for a king, and the duller he be the greater the gift. These men at once ready to laugh and weep without measure, playing the buffoon with gestures, noises, and every means in their power, these men I say aid you to destroy your leisure, and encourage by a greater evil that foggy blindness of mind which you have contracted from living a life not in accord with nature. The half-baked thoughts and conversation of these men suit your ears better than a philosophical sentiment, clearly and tersely expressed. And however much pleasure you have derived from this amazing inactivity, distrusting the thinking part of your people, and giving yourself solemn airs before them, while bringing the brainless elements close to you, and stripping before them: you should clearly understand that each thing increases by arts the same as those by which it is welded together.

Review in your mind any kingdom established anywhere you please in the world, whether that of the Parthians, or the Macedonians, or the ancient Medes, or that in which we live now: men of the people who were soldiers as well, for the most part encamping together and sleeping on the ground in their formations, neither sparing themselves labors nor giving way excessively to pleasures, have carried each dominion far and wide. Men like these who acquire such great things though their devotion, and have become inflamed with zeal, would scarcely maintain their ranks without prudence. For good fortune seems to be a burden heavier than lead; at all events it overturns the man who has shouldered it, unless he happens to be all-powerful.

Note 1: Homer, Iliad, 15.403.

Note 2: Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1118a, 1148a, 1150a; Plato, Philebus, 21c.

Note 3: Dio Chrysostom, Discourse 3.18.

---

[11] [1077] Now although nature promises us strength of soul, it is training which perfects it. To this, my liege, philosophy exhorts you, she who is ever on her guard against those consequences which arise from speech; for everything is destroyed by forces which are the contraries of those which sustain it. And I do not think that the ancient institutions of the Romans should be transgressed by the king.

Consider as ancestral traditions of the Romans not the things which yesterday [1080] or the day before came into the commonwealth when it was already changed in its habits, but those by which they won their empire. Come then, in the name of the God who presides over kingship (and you must try to bear with me, for my story bites into the soul) at what period do you esteem the affairs of the Romans to have been in the most flourishing condition? Is it from the time in which you have been robed with purple, and bedecked with gold, when you wear gems from foreign mountains and seas, placing them, now on your brow, now on your feet, now round your waist, now suspended from your person, now buckled on your garments, now used as a seat? You have certainly in that way been made a variegated and multicolored vision like the peacocks, drawing upon yourself the curse of Homer, the 'tunic of stone'.[1]

But not even does this dress suffice you, for you cannot go into the council-chamber of your peers when you have to exercise the rule belonging to your title, either when they are electing magistrates, or when they are seated in counsel for the consideration of any other matter, unless you have wrapped yourself up in such and such a robe. And now you are looked upon by men who may lawfully behold you, and they alone are happy among the senators, as alone of the senators bearing the burden of government.

Nay, you even exult in your burden just like one chained with gold or rather bound by fetters worth many talents, but should not feel the evil at all, nor think that he was enduring terrible things ending in incarceration, for he would be deceived by the very magnificence of his misfortune. But no more will he have liberty to stir than those who are bound in the 'foot-plague', the meanest of stocks. Again, for you the pavement is insupportable, nor may you walk about on earth in its natural state, but gold-dust must be sprinkled upon it, which your wagons and merchantmen bring you from far-away continents. And you have a host not to be despised who besprinkle the mound; or you deem it not kingly, unless you exhibit luxury even in the straps of your sandals.

Do you now fare better since the time when this initiation, usual with emperors, was instituted, and since you have taken to keeping your lairs like lizards, scarcely peeping out at all to enjoy the sun's warmth, lest being men you should be detected as such by men? Or was it then when men living in the throng, blackened by the sun, led armies to battle, and bearing themselves in all other respects simply and artlessly, instead of in a manner suggestive of the dithyramb and the tragic stage, in Lacedaemonian caps, which when seen in statues arouse the laughter of striplings, and not even the old folk think that such kings are fortunate, [1081] but in comparison with you, unfortunate in the extreme?

Now it was not by walling off their own house that they prevented the barbarians either of Asia or of Europe from entering in. Rather by their own acts did they admonish these men to wall off their own by crossing the Euphrates repeatedly in pursuit of the Parthians, and the Danube in pursuit of the Getae and the Massagetae. But now do these nations spread terror amongst you, crossing over in their turn,[2] assuming other names, and some of them falsifying by art even their countenances, so that another race new and foreign may appear to have sprung from the soil, and they dare to demand an indemnity as the price of peace, 'unless thou arm thyself with valor'.[3]

But let all comparisons of the past with the present be dismissed, if you please, that we may not seem to censure you in the guise of good counsel, by showing you that just to the extent that a monarch's regime inclines him to pompous display, to that extent it is deprived of reality.

Note 1: Homer, Iliad, 3.57.

Note 2: A reference to the Battle of Adrianopel in 378 CE.

Note 3: Homer, Iliad, 9.231.

---

[12] [1081] But if, just as this discourse has long dallied over the decoration of your lives, it were also to reserve some little space for the life of kings in the past, whether we call it rusticity, or, if you prefer it, simplicity, in that case prodigality and frugality would fittingly be contrasted with one another; and once you had seen these in their naked reality, you would be enamored of the true beauty of a king, dismissing that which is merely outward appearance and sham.

The one destiny we described in terms of material things for the most part, the other it is not possible to describe in these, and we must obtain it from other sources. Excess of worldly goods does not belong to the second of these lives because it is not striving for them. It would rather be represented by its habits. And yet work advances at once along with the progress of lives that are in confirmity with the law of nature.

It is therefore worthwhile to make mention of the character and achievements of a certain king, for any particular story will suffice to draw all others along in its wake. It is told of one of no great antiquity but such an one as even the grandfathers of our own elders might have known if only they had not begotten their children when young, and not become grandparents during the youth of their own children.

It is said, then, that a certain monarch of those days was leading an expedition against the Parthians,[1] who had behaved towards the Romans in an insulting manner. Now when they had reached the mountain frontiers of Armenia, before entering the enemy country, he was eager to dine, and gave orders to the army to make use of the provisions in the supply column, as they were now in a position to live off the neighboring country should it be necessary. He was then pointing out to them the land of the Parthians. Now, while they were so engaged, an embassy appeared from the enemy lines, thinking on their arrival to have the first conversation with the influential men who surrounded the king, and after these with some dependants and gentleman ushers, but supposing that only on a much later day would the king himself give audience to the embassy.

[1084] However, it turned out somehow that the king was dining at the moment. Such a thing did not exist at that time as the Guards' regiment, a sort of picked force detached from the army itself, of men all young, tall, fair-haired and superb, “their heads ever anointed and their faces fair,”[2] equipped with golden shields and golden lances. At the sight of these we are made aware beforehand of the king's approach, much as, I imagine, we recognize the sun by the rays that rise above the horizon. Here, in contrast, every phalanx doing its duty, was the guard of the king and kingdom. And these kings held themselves in simple fashion, for they were kings not in pomp but in spirit, and it was only within that they differed from other people. Externally they appeared in the likeness of the herd, and it was in such guise, they say, that Carinus was seen by the embassy. A tunic dyed in purple was lying on the grass, and for repast he had a soup of yesterday's peas, and in some bits of salted pork that had grown old in the service.

Now when he saw them, according to the story, he did not spring up, nor did he change anything; but called out to these men from the very spot and said that he knew that they had come to see him, for that he was Carinus; and he bade them tell the young king [Bahram II] that very day, that unless he conducted himself wisely, he might expect that the whole of their forest and plain would be in a single month barer than the head of Carinus.[3] And as he spoke, they say that he took off his cap and showed his head, which was no more hairy than the helmet lying at his side. And he gave them leave if they were hungry to attack the stew-pot with him, but if not in need, he ordered them to depart at once, and to leave the Roman lines, as their mission was at an end.

Now it is said that when these messages were reported to the rank and file and to the leader of the enemy, namely all that had been seen and heard, at once -as might have been expected- shuddering and fear fell upon everyone at the thought of fighting men such as these, whose very king was neither ashamed of being king [1085] nor of being bald, and who, offering them a stew-pot, invited them to share his meal. And their braggart king arrived in a state of terror and was ready to yield in everything, he of the tiara and robes, to one in a simple woolen tunic and cap.

Note 1: In fact, Synesius refers to the Sasanian Persians. He is also mistaken about the emperor: the anecdote about Carinus probably deals with Carus (who campaigned against the Sasanians) or Probus - who did not fight against the Persians, but sent away an embassy with an equally witty reply (Historia Augusta, Probus, 17).

Note 2: Homer, Odyssey, 15.332.

Note 3: In fact, Carinus was not bald; neither was his father, although Carus is shown on several coins with a receding hairline.

---

[13] [1085] And another story more recent than this I think you must have heard, for it is improbable that anyone has never heard of a king who assigned himself the task of getting within the enemy's country for purpose of espionage, by imitating the appearance of an embassy. For it was in those days a duty to the State to take command of cities and armies, and many men foreswore such an office; nay, a certain ruler among them, one who had spent his youth in ruling, renouncing these labors, decided of his own free will to grow old in private life.[Diocletian]

Further, this very title of king, I will show to be recent; for it had become a dead letter to the Romans from the time when the people drove out the Tarquins. For it is from this source that while we call you kings, while we deem you worthy of the title and write you down as such, you, whether you know it or not, yielding to established custom, seem to evade the dignity of the title.[1] An so, when you write to a city, or to an individual, to a viceroy or to a foreign ruler, you have never shown pride in the title of king, but rather you make yourselves absolute rulers.

Now absolute ruler is the designation of a military ruler who undertakes to do all things, and Iphicrates and Pericles sailed from Athens as generals with absolute power, nor did the title wound that people, free from tyrants though it was; for the people itself made appointments to this generalship, as being constitutional.

It is true that in Athens there was a certain individual called king who occupied a petty post, and was accountable for his administration; the people, I suppose, having given him this name in jest, for they were an uncompromisingly free people.[2] Their 'absolute ruler', however, was not a monarch, and both the title and the office were respected.

Is not this, then, clear evidence of a wise policy in the Roman constitution, that although it has manifestly developed into a monarchy, it is cautious in so asserting itself by reason of its hatred of the evils of tyranny, and employs the title of king sparingly. For tyranny makes monarchy to be detested, whereas kingship makes it to be loved; and Plato calls this a divine good amongst men.[3] But this same man also asserts that what shares in the divine destiny is in every case free from vanity.[4] For God is not theatrical, nor a worker of wonders but

… walking in a noiseless path according
to Justice, he directs mortal affairs.[5]

And everywhere He is ready to reveal Himself to that one endowed with a nature to receive Him.

In this sense I maintain that the king is a common source of good and free from arrogance. But if tyrants are always doing astounding things, concealing themselves from the public gaze, and then appearing to the consternation of the beholders, we cannot envy them, [1088] since in default of true majesty they take refuge in a pretence of it, for in the case of one who has no health in him and is conscious of the fact, what means may there be for his escape from contempt except that of escape from publicity?

But up to this day no one has ever despised the sun, although to what spectacle are we more accustomed? And if a king has courage to be a true one and shall not be disproved as such, let him be the most common possession; for he will not be the less admirable in this even if he be not the more.

Further, the lame king whom Xenophon praises [Agesilaus II] throughout all his history was not derided by those whom he led, nor by the nations through whom he led them, nor by those against whom he made his expedition; and yet he lodged in the most public places of each city. Meanwhile he was most conspicuous in all his actions to everyone who desired to see the leader of Sparta. Nay, this man crossed over to Asia with a small army and very nearly succeeded in driving from his kingdom a man receiving homage from numberless people.[Artaxerxes II Mnemon] At all events he drove him from the stronghold of his arrogance.

And so it happened that when recalled by the magistrates in his own city and compelled to give up his military operations in Asia, he achieved many victories in Greece and was defeated in battle by one man only, by the only man who could possibly overcome Agesilaus were the struggle for frugality.[6] This was that Epaminondas whom cities crowned with wreaths, and invited to banquets. But when he accepted such invitations, for one could not do otherwise than accept without incurring injury to his political reputation, he drank nothing but rough wine, 'in order' -so he said- 'that Epaminondas might not forget his home diet.' And when a young Athenian scoffed at the hilt of his sword because it was made of a cheap sort of wood and uncarven, he replied, 'When we fight, you will not make trial of the hilt, but I do not think you will be able to find fault with the blade.'

Now if it is kingship to command, and to command with such forces as do those who know upon what things power is based and upon what sort of lives; we see that it is not from what is unnatural and from luxury, but from moderation and wisdom that all things are brought into order from every source. Arrogance and extravagance must be eliminated from kingship, for there is no common ground between it and those things foreign to it; and indeed my discourse started from this very point.

Note 1: In Latin, the emperor called himself Augustus or imperator, which was translated into Greek as autokrator, 'absolute ruler'.

Note 2: A reference to the official known as archon basileus.

Note 3: Plato, Politicus, 302e.

Note 4: Plato, Phaedrus, 247a.

Note 5: Euripides, Trojan Women, 887-888 = Plutarch, Isis and Osiris, 381b.

Note 6: The Second Battle of Mantineia in 362, described by Plutarch, Agesilaus, 35.

---

[14] [1088] Let us now bring back the argument to its proper beginning, and do you bring back the king to his original function. It will follow of necessity that once our lives have been corrected and Prudence has returned, [1089] the glories of the past will accompany her, and a complete change will take place in all the elements opposed to her.

And do you, my liege, rule over the return of good works, and give us back the king who is a public-spirited servant of his kingdom. In the present state of affairs we can no longer either dally at our ease or make a step in advance, for at present all men are standing on the edge of a razor. We stand in need of God for our affairs and of a king who will avert that destiny of the Roman power which has been long in coming to birth; and while I am abridging the rest of my argument, and at the same time moulding an image of a king which I began to set up as a beautiful statue, I will at least show you clearly that 'this destiny' is imminent unless a wise and strong kingship prevents it in time, and I shall assist you as far as I can in contriving this, to wit, that you may be the one who shall prevent it.

God is always and entirely the ally of the good, and is propitious to them. So then we have left the common duties of the king as modeled in this discourse and have been brought round in opinion to the established order of things. Philosophy demanded of the king that he should often mix with the military, and not keep to his palace, for it taught us that goodwill towards him, his only real safeguard, was fortified by this daily intercourse.

This once admitted, in the company of what race of soldiers should a philosopher devoted to his king desire that he should train his body and dwell in the camps? Evidently with such as the countryside and towns, in a word the land he rules over, gives him as fighting men and selects as guards for the State, and for the laws by which they were nurtured and educated, for these are they whom Plato likened even to watchdogs.[1] But the shepherd must not mix wolves with his dogs, even if caught as whelps they may seem to be tamed, or in an evil hour he will entrust his flock to them; for the moment that they notice any weakness or slackness in the dogs, they will attack these and the flock and the shepherds likewise.

Nor must the legislator give arms to those not born and brought up under his laws, for he has no guarantee of their good conduct from such as these. Truly it is the part of a foolhardy man or of a prophet to see and have no fear of this mass of differently bred youth pursuing their own customs, and at the same time practising the art of war in this country. They must either think all these men to be wise as philosophers; or if they rightly despair of this they must believe that the rock of Tantalus is suspended over the State by fragile cables. For these men will fall upon us the first moment they think the attempt likely to succeed.

Even now some skirmishes of this sort are manifest and certain parts of the empire are becoming inflamed, as though it were a human body in which alien portions are incapable of mingling in a healthy state of harmony. Then in the case of cities as in that of the body, we must separate the alien parts as the sons of physicians and generals would say. [1092] But not to organize a force to cope with these men, and to grant immunity from military service to many who ask for it, and to allow those in the countryside to devote themselves to other callings, as if that barbarian army were our native production, what is this but the act of men hastening to their doom?

Rather than allow the Scythians to be under arms here, we ought to seek from the agriculture so dear to them the men who would fight to defend it, and we ought to enroll all these in a military force, to such a point as to summon the philosopher from his study, the craftsman from his lowlier calling, and from the shop its salesman. As to the crowd of drones who pass their lives in the theatres by reason of their unlimited leisure, we should beg of them to make haste for once in their lives, before they should be turned to tears from their laughter; for there is no motive of either the better or the worse shame that shall stand in the way of the Romans possessing a force of their own.

The same organization holds good for the State as in the family; the male element must defend and the female occupy itself with the care of the household within.[2] How then can you endure that the male element should be foreign? Is it not disgraceful that the empire richest in men should yield the crown of glory in war to aliens? For my own part, however may victories such men might win for us, I should be ashamed of the aid so received. This very thing, 'well I know, I do opine'[3] (for it is obvious to any sensible man) that when the male and female of which we speak do not happen to be brother and sister, or in any other way related, the armed portion of them will need but a slight excuse to demand mastery of the civilians, and then the unwarlike will be pitted against those inured to the shock of arms.

Before matters have come to this pass, one to which they are now tending, we should recover courage worthy of Romans, and accustom ourselves to winning our own victories, [1093] admitting no fellowship with these foreigners, but disowning their participation in any rank.

Note 1: Plato, State, 375e.

Note 2: Plato, Meno, 71e.

Note 3: Unidentified quotation.

---

[15] [1093] But first let all be excluded from magistracies and kept away from the privileges of the council who are ashamed of all that has been sacred to the Romans from olden times, and has been so esteemed. Of a truth both Themis, herself sacred to the Senate, and the god of our battle-line must, I think, cover their faces when the man with the leathern jerkin marches in command of those that wear the general's cloak, and whenever such an one divests himself of the sheepskin in which he was clad to assume the toga, and enters the council-chamber to deliberate on matters of State with the Roman magistrates, having a prominent seat perhaps next to the consul, while the lawful men sit behind him. Then again such as these, when they have gone a little way from the assembly, are again attired in their sheepskins, and once in company of their followers, laugh the toga to scorn, and aver that they cannot even draw the sword in comfort with it.

For my part I wonder at many other things, but not least at this our absurd conduct. All this is in the face that every house, however humble, has a Scythian for slave. The butler, the cook, the water-carrier, all are Scythians, and as to retinue, the slaves who bend under the burden of the low couches on their shoulders that their masters may recline in the streets, these are all Scythians also; for it has been proved of old that theirs is the most useful race, and the fittest to serve the Romans. But that these fair-haired men who arrange their locks like the Euboeans should be slaves in private to the same men whom they govern in public, this is strange, perhaps the most incredible of the spectacle, and I know not what sort of a thing the so-called riddle may be, if this is not one.

In Gaul Crixus and Spartacus practiced the calling of arms in dishonor, in order to become the victims of the Roman populace in the arena, but, when they escaped and bore a grudge against the laws, [1096] they engaged in the so-called Servile War which became the most calamitous campaign of those which the Romans of that time encountered. Against these slaves they had every need of consuls, of praetors, and of the happy fortune of Pompey, for their city was nearly ravaged off the face of the earth. And yet those who revolted along with Spartacus and Crixus were not of the same race as they, nor of the same race as each other. Notwithstanding this, the fate which they shared in common furnished them with a pretext and made them of the same mind.

It is, I suppose, in the nature of things that every slave is the enemy of his master once he has hopes of overcoming him. Is the case then the same with us also? Are we nourishing on an altogether greater scale the germs of untoward troubles? Remember that in our case there are not merely two men, and those dishonored individuals heading a rebellion, but great and pernicious armies who, kinsmen of our own slaves, have by evil destiny poured into the Roman Empire,[1] and furnished generals of great repute both amongst themselves and amongst us, 'by our own coward nature'.[2]

Consider also that in addition to what forces they already possess, they may, whenever they will, have the slaves as soldiers, right reckless and courageous ones too, who will perform the unholiest deeds to glut themselves with independence. This fortress of theirs you must pull down; you must remove the foreign cause of the disease before the festering abscess actually declares itself, before the ill-will of these dwellers in our country is exposed. For evils may be overcome in their infancy, but when they progress they gain the upper hand. The army must be purified by the emperor, as is a heap of wheat from which we separate the coarse grain and what other elements sprout side by side with it, ruinous to the noble and legitimate seed.

Now if I seem to you to give counsel that is no longer easy to follow, have you not considered to what sort of men and to what sort of race those belong of whom I am speaking to you who are their king? It is a race whom the Romans conquered, and from such conquest their name has been renowned amongst men: further, they govern all men with whom they come in contact, both by their strong arm and by their will, and they have occupied the earth as do the gods, according to Homer,

'Encountering alike the insolence and goodwill of men',[3]

As to these Scythians, Herodotus says that they are all tainted with a feminine malady,[4] and we ourselves see this. These are the men from whose ranks slaves were are recruited everywhere, and who have never owned any land. Hence the proverb “the Scythian wilderness”, for the are always fleeing their own country.

The old historian tells us that the Cimmerians first drove them from their settlements, then others in turn did the same, then the women,[5] then our ancestors, and lastly the Macedonian.[6] Forced by some of these they advanced towards inland nations, [1097] and by others towards those without, nor do they stop until they are delivered up by their pursuers in turn to other nations right in front of them. When indeed they fall suddenly upon those who are not expecting them, they strike them with confusion for some time, as they terrorized the Assyrians of old, and the Medes, and the Palestinians. But in these days they have come to us, not to challenge us in battle, but as suppliants, for they have again been driven away from their country.[7]

Now that they have found, I do not say the arms, but the dispositions of the Romans softer, as was perhaps to be expected when dealing with suppliants, this untutored race has made the natural repayment. It has become insolent and has ignored our kindness. When, then, they paid the penalty for this conduct to your father,[8] who took up arms against them, they again became objects of compassion, and sat at his feet in suppliant guise together with their women, and he who had been their conqueror in war, was quite overcome by pity. He raised them up from their prostate position, made allies of them, and accounted them worthy of citizenship. Moreover, he threw open public offices to them, and made over some part of the Roman territory to their bloodstained hands, expending the magnanimity and nobility of his nature upon a work of clemency.

Unfortunately the barbarian does not understand chivalrous conduct. From the very beginning till now these men have treated us with derision, knowing both what they deserved at our hands, and what they were assumed to deserve; and this reputation of ours has encouraged their neighbors to make their way hither. Now hordes of foreign mounted archers keep pouring forth seeking out our easy-going people, begging for their indulgence and pointing out the case of these scoundrels as a precedent for it.

The evil seems to be growing to the point of 'persuasion by force', as the popular phrase has it. No matter for the phrase; for philosophy must not quarrel over terminology when she is seeking something so serve her thought, even if she has to help herself by picking a phrase out of the gutter, so long as it is perfectly clear and appropriate to the matter in hand.

Well then, how shall we find it other than a difficult task to recover military prestige, and 'to drive from hence these ill-omened dogs'? [9] Only hear me, and this difficult matter will appear the easiest in the world. Once our ranks are increased in numbers, and spirit has gained in the ranks, once the battalions are home-born troops, then do you infuse into the kingdom what is lacking to it now. Homer, too, has sanctified this as the prerogative of chiefs in the words: 'Great is the wrath of divine kings.'[10]

Wrath, therefore, is called for against these men, and they will either till the soil in obedience to orders, even as the Messenians long ago laid down their arms and served the Lacedaemonians,[11] or they will take the same road to flight again, and announce to those beyond the river that their former gentleness no longer survives among the Romans, for that one young and nobly born is their leader, 'A terrible man, who might blame even the blameless.'[12]

[1100] So be it. This assuredly is the nurture and training of a king as warrior; we will next turn our full attention to the king in peace.

Note 1: A reference to the battle of Adrianople.

Note 2: Unidentified quotation.

Note 3: Homer, Odyssey, 17.487.

Note 4: Herodotus, Histories, 1.105; Synesius makes a mistake, because the historian only refers to those Scythians who captured Ascalon in Palestine.

Note 5: Synesius refers to Herodotus, Histories, 1.15 and 4.10.

Note 6: Reference to the Greek colonization of the northern shore of the Black Sea and Alexander's campaign in Sogdia.

Note 7: Two tribes were living in the formerly Scythian country: the Tervingians (later called Visigoths) and the Greutingians (or Ostrogoths). The latter became part of the federation of the Huns; the former, pushed forward by the Huns, had requested for safety in the Roman Empire.

Note 8: Theodosius I defeated the Visigoths in 379, and gave them land in 382.

Note 9: Homer, Iliad, 8.527.

Note 10: Homer, Iliad, 2.196

Note 11: A reference to Sparta's helots.

Note 12: Homer, Iliad, 11.654.

---

[16] [1100] Now the warlike king may be above all a man of peace, for to him alone who is able to inflict injury upon the evildoer is it given to keep the peace. For my own part I should say that the king has, all in all, gained most applause as a peacemaker who, although desiring injustice to none, is nevertheless provided with the power to escape injury at the hands of others; for if he does not war, he will certainly be warred against.

Peace is a happier state than war, because the preparations of war are actually made with a view to peace. The end in view would justly be preferred to those things which exist on its account. Thus it is well that the king give himself up to each half of his command in turn, that body politic divided into two estates, that of the armed men and that of the unarmed; and after consorting with his fighting men, he should visit cities and country districts to which, by the use of the military, we have granted fearless possession of their farms and civic rights.

He will visit again and again in his tours as many races and as many cities as possible; and whatever portion of his Empire he does not reach, even to that he will devote his attention in what is apparently an effective and excellent way.

---

[17] [1100] The institution of embassies, sacred as it is in other respects, is in this connection of the highest value. Conferring with these, the king will know that which is afar no less than that which is near, nor will foresight for his kingdom be bounded by the sense of sight. He can even raise up that which is fallen, though he see it not, can give largess to races in distress, and remit state burdens to such persons as have long been groaning under them. He will break off a war that threatens, and will terminate a war which has broken out, and will adjust everything else in time, for by the agency of embassies he will be able, like the god, 'to see and hear everything'.[1]

To these let him be accessible, and 'gentle as a father',[2] whether they come from near or from afar, for so I have heard Homer speaking once for all of the king that is at peace with himself.

Note 1: Homer, Iliad, 3.277.

Note 2: Homer, Odyssey, 2.234.

---

[18] [1100] First of all, let the soldiers be enjoined to show consideration to the city populations, and to the rural also, and to be as little as possible a burden to them, remembering the duties they have undertaken on their account. For the king fights in their defense, and enlists men to fight in order that the prosperity of the town and the countryside may be preserved.

Whosoever, therefore, keeps the foreign enemy from me, but does not himself treat me with justice, such a man as this seems to me in no wise to differ from a dog who pursues wolves as far away as possible for no other reason than that he may himself slaughter the flock at his leisure, whereas in his fill of milk he has received the due reward of his guardianship.[1] True peace, therefore, comes if the soldiers have been trained to treat civilians as brothers, and only to take what the regulations permit.

Note 1: Plato, State, 416e, 464c.

---

[19] [1100] It is my no means a kingly treat to exhaust cities levying taxes, for to the good king of what use are great possessions? [1101] He does not through vanity of disposition descend to costly activities, nor does he display a vainglorious prodigality in place of a prudent use of his means. He is not the puerile character which would sacrifice the sweat of the honest toilers to the amusements of the stage. He will not have to face the necessity of frequent wars which, as the Lacedaemonians say, 'feed on more than their rations;'[1] for my argument has shown that the good king may be mastered neither by plot nor by attack.

If the objects, therefore, for which he needs taxes have been cut down by him, he stands in no need of a surplus. He can become a most harmless collector of these revenues by canceling the inevitable deficits and by being satisfied with the imposition of such amounts as are commensurate with the means of the taxpayers; but a king who is greedy of money is more shameful than a huckster. The latter, at all events, relieves the want in his own house; but the evil disposition of the former is inexcusable.

For my own part, when I review, as I often do, each one of our passions and consider what sort of men they present us with, men completely engrossed by them, I seem to myself to observe, even among private individuals, that this tribe of business people is the most sordid, the most malicious, the most downright niggardly of all men,[2] and capable of finding a place, not in all respects dishonorable, only in a decaying country. Nay, they themselves are the first to suffer contempt in their own consciences, inasmuch as they have made plans contrary to the purpose of Nature in respect to what is first and what is last. For she ordained the body to be in the service of the soul,[3] and the things without to be for the use of the body, and to this last she gave secondary things, but these men class both soul and body with the third element. Dishonoring themselves, therefore, and reducing the ruling power within them to slavery, how could such men either do or plan anything further that is great and noble? When I define them as more ignoble than ants, and more small-minded, I am not ashamed before Truth; for the ants measure their provisions by the needs of life, but these men think fit to measure life by their need of provision.

This dreadful plague must therefore be driven away from the king himself and his subjects alike, that a good king may rule over good subjects; and zeal for virtue must be introduced in its place. In this struggle for virtue let the king himself become both the champion and the umpire.

It is shameful, as someone has said, that there should be public javelin contests and competitions in boxing, and wreaths of victory awarded to the victors in these contests, and that none should enter competitions in self-control, none in virtue.[4] It is probable, I think, nay, more than probable, it is quite certain that the cities which followed such a policy on the part of their king as this would lead the life of the fabled Golden Age of yore, having no time for evil, but leisure for good and, in the first place, for piety.

The king himself will lead us to this virtue, seeking from a divine source the direction of every deed, whether great or small. More wondrous than all else is it, methinks, to hear or to behold the king when, in the midst of his people, he holds up his hands and bends his knee before that King who is at once his own and that of his people.[5] [1104] And it is reasonable to assume that the Divinity will be rejoiced when glorified by devotion from a pious king, and will make such an one His own in sacred union.

Thus, in addition to being a lover of God, he becomes more than all a lover of man, for he shows himself to his subjects in the image of the King by whom he is ruled. In such a state as this, what needful thing is likely to be wanting? But my discourse must return to the subject of a moment ago.

Note 1: Plutarch, Life of Cleomenes, 27.

Note 2: Plato, State, 581d.

Note 3: Aristotle, Politics, 1254b.

Note 4: Euripides, fragment 284 [Nauck].

Note 5: A possible reference to Arcadius' father Theodosius, who was, in 390, not above doing penance.

---

[20] [1104] We made beneficence a stamp of kingship, passing in review again 'the giver of good gifts', 'the kindly one', names belonging also to God. Now let all these very properties and as many as were mentioned in their company before I promised to model the king in my discourse, be assigned to their right places, and let the image be completed. The chief of these ideas, perhaps, was that being able to originate good works he will not tire in this employment any more than does the sun when he gives his beams to plants and animals, for it is no labor to him to shine, inasmuch as he holds brightness in his being and is a fountain of light. And so the king, once that he has placed himself in this category of existence, will of himself order all, to whatever extent he reached that which is ruled over.

Moreover, as for those who are near the throne, who are second to him alone and who are superior to the others, he will organize them by the kingly harmony of the soul, namely such men as are useful for each measure of the distributed power. From the very beginning the care of men will thus make greater progress in proportion as a greater number are engaged in the task.

[21] [1104] Now you will have to send out governors also to foreign parts, in so great an Empire as this. And the next step is to give the preference in your choice to those who administer with justice, for this kind of foresight is divine and magnificent. Now truly to seek to know each place, man, and dispute would need much detailed discourse, and not even Dionysius,[1] who had established himself as ruler of a single island, and not even the whole of that, would have been capable of this charge. But by the help of a few agents it is possible to care for the many. This has always been called a divine and universal solicitude which, though it is grounded in a strong character and does not stoop to haphazard details, nevertheless does not escape from them.

God, in using this solicitude, does not Himself elaborate each of the details here below, but rather uses Nature as His right hand, remaining true to His own character, and is the cause of good works even to the last one of them, for He becomes the cause of causes. It is in this way that a king must inquire into the administration of the State. Let him distribute his rule as much as possible amongst the justest and best administrators.

There is a reason for this, for he will become more easily intimate with a few than with many, and he will more easily notice the failures or successes of a few. Let his choice of those who are to rule be of the best, and not of the richest,[2] as it now is. We submit our bodies not to the richest physicians, [1105] but to those who are most skilful in their profession; and so the ruler shall be chosen who has most knowledge of ruling, rather than the rich man, since through him more things are likely to turn out for the worse than for the better.

How, indeed, is it right that he should rule who, from the very evil of human nature, has accumulated wealth, and not the man who is poor, though he is just and law-abiding, and who, though the very fact that he is just, is not ashamed to dwell with poverty? But the other man who has become rich by hook or by crook, and has thereby purchased his office, could never know what manner of man a dispenser of justice might be.

For it is evident, for example, that such a one would not easily hate injustice, or show a contempt for possessions, nor would he fail to make the magistrate's house a place of sale for decisions in the courts. It is little likely that he should look gold in the face with stern eyes, and pass on. On the contrary, he would regard it with veneration, surrender to it, and in the end embrace it; for he feels only gratitude towards it, inasmuch as he has taken administration in exchange for a measure of wealth, and has hired cities like any other commodity. He knows well that through this he is illustrious and sits in high places, looked up to by many other people, and by the just whether they be prosperous or poor.

But achieve thou something to be envied for its virtue, even if it live with poverty. Let not a man's prudence escape you, nor the rest of that swarm of the soul's virtues which is concealed under a poor garb. Nay, drag him out in full view and demand that he make his virtue public, for it is not right that it should stay at home, but rather should it be in the field and engaged in battle. For know well that, whereas you will immediately herald them, it is you yourself who shall be extolled throughout, having furnished to succeeding time a pattern of a happy kingdom. And if you do this, you will quickly see many ashamed of the wealth their work has earned, and others taking pride in self-chosen poverty. Moreover, men's notions concerning it will change, so that to seek out wealth will be a reproach, and that the maintenance of poverty will be considered an honor.

Of many gifts which God has bestowed on kingship, gifts enviable and happy, not the least, -nay, perhaps the greatest- is this, which all men should admire and praise, to wit, the power that the king holds over the soul of his subjects, and which enables him to change their opinion of his character, burnt in though it was by old habits and early indulgence, by showing that he honors its opposite and sets high value on it, for in whatsoever the king rejoices, this must at once increase and be adopted by the majority.[3]

Note 1: Tyrant of Syracuse from 405 to 367.

Note 2: Aristotle, Politics, 1273a23.

Note 3: Aristotle, Politics, 1273a.

---

[22] [1105] Now that I have come to this part of my discourse, I have some desire to offer up a prayer also in behalf of my own darling.[1] May you, my liege, be enamored of Philosophy and real education. For it follows of necessity from what has been said, that you have many rivals in love for whom there is also a certain use; [1108] since now the danger is that her flame may be extinguished through neglect, and that in a little time not even a spark will be left for those who desire to kindle it.

Is it then on account of Philosophy that I have made this prayer, or is it true that she will in no wise suffer, even if she dwells apart from men? For she has her home with God, with whom, even when she is here below, lies her chief concern. And what time this earthly dwelling-place doth not admit her when she comes down to us, she dwells beside the Father and is entitled to say to us

I need not all such honor as this, I pride myself as honored by the decree of Zeus.[2]

Now the affairs of men become worse or better or altogether happy, just as she is present or absent. For these things, therefore, as well as for Philosophy, I have prayed; and may I have the fortune to get an answer to the prayer which Plato offered up, but without success.[3] Would that I might see you take to yourself Philosophy in addition to kingship. No longer shall any man henceforth hear me saying anything concerning kingship. It is indeed time that I were silent, since in this one word I have summed up all.

And, if this is the case, I have given you what I proposed in the first instance, when I myself promised to show you the statue of a king in language. And since the word is in reality the shadow of the deed,[4] I sought, reversing the process, to make it living and moving through you. Now this I shall see at no distant future, and you will render unto me the reality of the king, if my words shall not merely wait at the portals of your ears for admission, but shall rush in and take their abode in the inmost parts of your soul. In truth I am persuaded that Philosophy has not been aroused to the exhortation without divine assistance; for God, as can be readily conjectured, is eagerly zealous to advance your fortunes. And I should justly be the first to rejoice over the sapling sprung from my seed, making trial of such a king as I am now molding in you, whensoever I give and receive speech concerning the requests of the cities.

Note 1: Plato, Gorgias, 482a.

Note 2: Homer, Iliad, 9.607-608.

Note 3: Plato wanted that the ideal state would be ruled by philosophers.

Note 4: Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Philosophers, 9.37.