“On meurt deux Source fois, je le vois bien : > > Cesser d’aimer & d’être aimable, > > C’est une mort insupportable : > > Cesser de vivre, ce n’est rien.”
This poignant French verse speaks of two deaths: the end of love and the end of life. Source Many people attribute these words to ancient thinkers like Plutarch. However, this is a common case of historical misattribution. The quote does not come from the ancient Greek historian. Instead, it traces back to 18th-century France, highlighting how easily words can become detached from their true origins.
While this verse is not Plutarch’s, he wrote extensively on themes of strategy, morality, and deception. To understand his actual views on treachery, we must look elsewhere in his work. A far more fitting quote captures his insight into the darker arts of statecraft. It reveals a pragmatic, if unsettling, approach to power. This authentic maxim provides a genuine window into the complex world of ancient Greek politics and warfare.
Plutarch’s Real Maxim on Deception
The genuine quote from Plutarch that perfectly encapsulates the theme of treachery is famously attributed to the Spartan general Lysander. Plutarch records him as saying, “When the lion’s skin will not suffice, we must sew on the fox’s.” This powerful metaphor delivers a clear message. When brute force and open confrontation (the lion’s strength) fail, one must resort to cunning, guile, and deception (the fox’s craftiness).
This idea stands in stark contrast to the popular image of ancient warriors, especially the Spartans. We often imagine them as honorable figures who face their enemies head-on. Yet, this quote suggests a more complex reality. It acknowledges that victory sometimes requires methods that are less than honorable. Furthermore, it implies that a wise leader knows when to be a lion and when to be a fox. This duality is central to understanding the intersection of treaties and treachery in the ancient world.
The Historical Figure: Lysander of Sparta
To grasp the quote’s full weight, we must understand the man who supposedly coined it: Lysander. He was not a king but a Spartan admiral of immense talent and ambition. Lysander rose to prominence during the final, brutal years of the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BCE). This was a devastating conflict between Athens and Sparta, two of the most powerful city-states in ancient Greece. His strategic genius ultimately secured Sparta’s victory.
Plutarch presents Lysander in his famous work, Parallel Lives, as a brilliant but controversial figure. He was known for his charisma and his ability to manage complex alliances, particularly with the Persian Empire. However, he was also infamous for his ruthlessness and his willingness to use deceit to achieve his goals. Plutarch notes that while other Spartans were raised to be direct and honest, Lysander believed in winning by any means necessary. He famously argued that one should deceive boys with dice but deceive men with oaths, a shocking sentiment for the time.
This philosophy directly relates to the idea of “treaty and treachery.” An oath was the foundation of any treaty. By suggesting that oaths were mere tools for manipulation, Lysander placed strategic advantage above sworn agreements. His actions often reflected this belief, as he frequently broke truces and used trickery to defeat his enemies. This pragmatic approach was effective, but it also earned him many critics among his own people, who felt he was abandoning core Spartan values.
A Challenge to Spartan Ideals
Lysander’s mindset was a significant departure from traditional Spartan virtues. The Spartan state, or polis, built its reputation on discipline, austerity, and unwavering courage in battle. Spartan warriors were legendary for their straightforward tactics and their disdain for trickery. They believed their strength and training made deception unnecessary. For them, honor was paramount, and victory without honor was meaningless.
However, Lysander operated in a world where these ideals were becoming a liability. The prolonged Peloponnesian War demanded more than just battlefield prowess. It required political maneuvering, naval strategy, and economic warfare. Lysander understood this changing landscape better than his contemporaries. He saw that Athens could not be defeated by the lion’s skin alone. Therefore, he adopted the fox’s cunning, securing Persian funding and exploiting internal divisions within the Athenian alliance.
Plutarch captures this tension beautifully. Source He shows how Lysander’s success made him a hero, yet his methods made other Spartans deeply uncomfortable. They worried that his reliance on money and deception would corrupt the very fabric of their society. This internal conflict reveals that the debate over ends versus means is as old as politics itself.
The Enduring Legacy of the Lion and the Fox
The concept of using both force and cunning has echoed throughout history. It is a timeless piece of strategic advice that leaders have studied for centuries. Perhaps the most famous successor to this idea is Niccolò Machiavelli. In his 16th-century masterpiece, The Prince, Machiavelli explicitly advises a ruler to emulate both the lion and the fox. He argued a prince must be a lion to frighten away wolves and a fox to recognize traps.
This philosophy, often labeled Machiavellian, is a direct intellectual descendant of the pragmatism shown by Lysander. It prioritizes the stability and security of the state over abstract moral principles. We see this principle play out constantly in international relations, military planning, and even corporate negotiations. Leaders must often balance overt strength with subtle strategy. A treaty may be signed in public (the lion), but back-channel communications and intelligence gathering (the fox) often determine its true outcome.
Ultimately, Plutarch’s account of Lysander serves as more than just a historical narrative. It is a profound exploration of the nature of power. It forces us to question where the line between strategy and treachery lies. By preserving this quote, Plutarch ensures that the timeless dilemma of the lion and the fox continues to challenge our understanding of leadership and morality.