How does ambition destroy a republic?

Translation: quotations from Plutarch are quoted in Dryden's 1683-86 English translation, as revised by Arthur Hugh Clough in 1864; quoted in Goodwin's 1870 revision of the 1684-94 English translation by several hands, not his original words.

1. WHAT HE SAID (the record)

Record ledger

• BELIEF (undated; quoted in Dryden's 1683-86 English translation, as revised by Arthur Hugh Clough in 1864): The passage shows that Alcibiades had a strong ambition and desire for superiority from an early age, as demonstrated by his actions and words. This ambition is portrayed as a defining trait of his character. "among the many strong passions of his real character, the one most prevailing of all was his ambition and desire of superiority" [1]
• BELIEF (undated; quoted in Dryden's 1683-86 English translation, as revised by Arthur Hugh Clough in 1864): Plutarch argues that Sylla performed more glorious deeds than Lysander, particularly in his conduct during war and in his treatment of Athens, which he restored to liberty. This suggests that ambition, when tempered by a concern for the public good, may not necessarily destroy a republic, but when it leads to tyranny and cruelty, as in Lysander's case, it can harm it. (key quote above) [2]
• BELIEF (undated; quoted in Dryden's 1683-86 English translation, as revised by Arthur Hugh Clough in 1864): Plutarch believed that ambition leads to the destruction of a republic by causing civil conflict and division among its leaders. He argues that private ambition and emulation bring the empire to a pass where Romans, under the same standards, fight each other, showing how passion blinds human nature. (key quote above) [3]
• ACTION (undated; quoted in Dryden's 1683-86 English translation, as revised by Arthur Hugh Clough in 1864): Plutarch records that Lysander, as general, regained the reputation of a person who employed his command not in gratification of others, nor for applause, but strictly for the good of Sparta, after Pausanias had taken the bit out of the mouth of the people and prevented Lysander from becoming lord of Athens again. This shows that ambition, if unchecked, can lead to the concentration of power in the hands of individuals, which threatens the balance of a republic. "Lysander regained the reputation of a person who employed his command not in gratification of others, nor for applause, but strictly for the good of Sparta." [4]
• BELIEF (undated; quoted in Dryden's 1683-86 English translation, as revised by Arthur Hugh Clough in 1864): Plutarch argues that ambition is so insatiable that even an empire cannot satisfy it, leading to conflict and the breakdown of order. He contrasts the contentment of the gods with the ambitions of men like Caesar and Pompey, who could not be satisfied with sharing power, thus endangering the republic. (key quote above) [5]
• BELIEF (undated; quoted in Goodwin's 1870 revision of the 1684-94 English translation by several hands): Plutarch believes that ambition brings no less plagues into a state than covetousness, because it is more accompanied with boldness and is often driven by the vogue of the people, which renders it headstrong and hard to be managed. "Now ambition, though it is more specious than covetousness, brings yet no less plagues into a state. For it is usually more accompanied with boldness, as being bred, not in slothful and abject spirits, but chiefly in such as are vigorous and active; and the vogue of the people, frequently extolling it and driving it by their praises, renders it thereby headstrong and hard to be managed." [6]
• ACTION (undated; quoted in Dryden's 1683-86 English translation, as revised by Arthur Hugh Clough in 1864): Plutarch records that Lucullus acted to humble the ambition and pride of Pompey, including by getting cancelled Pompey's settlement and hindering a division of lands to his soldiers. The passage shows that ambition, as displayed by Pompey, can lead to the destabilization of a republic through force and manipulation, ultimately driving out figures like Lucullus and Cato. "For his friends' sake he came into the forum and into the senate, when occasion offered to humble the ambition and pride of Pompey, whose settlement, after his conquests over the kings, he got cancelled, and by the assistance of Cato, hindered a division of lands to his soldiers, which he proposed." [7]
• BELIEF (undated; quoted in Dryden's 1683-86 English translation, as revised by Arthur Hugh Clough in 1864): Plutarch argues that ambition, if unchecked, leads to civil strife, tyranny, and the collapse of the state. He attributes the downfall of the Roman Republic to the ambition of figures like Sylla and Marius, which caused divisions and ultimately destroyed the republic. [8]
• ACTION (undated; quoted in Dryden's 1683-86 English translation, as revised by Arthur Hugh Clough in 1864): Fabius opposed Scipio's project out of rivalry and ambition, leading him to violent and personal opposition. This shows how ambition can drive individuals to undermine public interests and destabilize political processes. "rivalry and ambition led him further, and made him violent and personal in his opposition." [9]
• ACTION (undated; quoted in Dryden's 1683-86 English translation, as revised by Arthur Hugh Clough in 1864): Fabius opposed Scipio's proposal to take the war to Carthage, fearing it was driven by the 'temerity of a hot young man' and could lead to dangerous counsels. He acted to prevent it, succeeding in gaining the support of the senate, though the people suspected he envied Scipio's fame. This shows how personal ambition and rivalry can lead to division and undermine unity in a republic. "Fabius, on the other side, opposed the undertaking with all his might, alarming the city, and telling them that nothing but the temerity of a hot young man could inspire them with such dangerous counsels, and sparing no means, by word or deed, to prevent it." [10]

What cuts against it

• BELIEF (undated; quoted in Dryden's 1683-86 English translation, as revised by Arthur Hugh Clough in 1864): Plutarch acknowledges that ambition, when tempered by a concern for the public good, may not necessarily destroy a republic. Sylla's actions, particularly in restoring Athens to liberty, are contrasted with Lysander's tyranny, suggesting that ambition can be beneficial if guided by public interest. (key quote above) [2]

• BELIEF (undated; quoted in Dryden's 1683-86 English translation, as revised by Arthur Hugh Clough in 1864): Alcibiades' ambition is portrayed as a defining trait of his character, but it is not explicitly stated that it led to the destruction of a republic. Instead, it is shown as a personal characteristic that influenced his actions. "among the many strong passions of his real character, the one most prevailing of all was his ambition and desire of superiority" [1]

• ACTION (undated; quoted in Dryden's 1683-86 English translation, as revised by Arthur Hugh Clough in 1864): Lysander, despite his ambition, is shown to have regained a reputation for acting in the good of Sparta, suggesting that ambition can be managed and not necessarily lead to the downfall of a republic. "Lysander regained the reputation of a person who employed his command not in gratification of others, nor for applause, but strictly for the good of Sparta." [4]

2. HOW IT APPLIES (reasoning; inference is marked)

1. Plutarch argues that ambition, when unchecked, leads to civil conflict and division among leaders, as seen in the conflict between Caesar and Pompey. (key quote above) [3] (quoted in Dryden's 1683-86 English translation, as revised by Arthur Hugh Clough in 1864) (inference: this implies that ambition can cause internal strife).

2. He further states that ambition is insatiable, leading to conflict and the breakdown of order, as demonstrated by the ambitions of Caesar and Pompey. (key quote above) [5] (quoted in Dryden's 1683-86 English translation, as revised by Arthur Hugh Clough in 1864) (inference: this suggests that ambition can lead to the collapse of a republic).

3. Plutarch believes that ambition brings plagues into a state, as it is often driven by the vogue of the people, making it headstrong and hard to manage. "Now ambition, though it is more specious than covetousness, brings yet no less plagues into a state. For it is usually more accompanied with boldness, as being bred, not in slothful and abject spirits, but chiefly in such as are vigorous and active; and the vogue of the people, frequently extolling it and driving it by their praises, renders it thereby headstrong and hard to be managed." [6] (quoted in Goodwin's 1870 revision of the 1684-94 English translation by several hands) (inference: this implies that ambition can destabilize a republic).

4. The actions of figures like Lucullus and Fabius show how ambition can lead to the destabilization of a republic through force and manipulation. "For his friends' sake he came into the forum and into the senate, when occasion offered to humble the ambition and pride of Pompey, whose settlement, after his conquests over the kings, he got cancelled, and by the assistance of Cato, hindered a division of lands to his soldiers, which he proposed." [7] (quoted in Dryden's 1683-86 English translation, as revised by Arthur Hugh Clough in 1864) (inference: this suggests that ambition can lead to political manipulation).

5. Plutarch attributes the downfall of the Roman Republic to the ambition of figures like Sylla and Marius, which caused divisions and ultimately destroyed the republic. [8] (inference: this implies that unchecked ambition can lead to the collapse of a republic).

3. HIS TAKE

Record coverage: PARTIAL

The record is silent on the specific mechanisms by which ambition destroys a republic in modern contexts. However, Plutarch's historical examples suggest that ambition can lead to civil conflict, political manipulation, and the collapse of a republic when it is unchecked and driven by personal gain rather than public interest.

Extrapolation: Plutarch believed that ambition, when unchecked, leads to civil conflict, political manipulation, and the collapse of a republic. He argued that ambition, if not tempered by a concern for the public good, can cause leaders to prioritize personal gain over the stability and unity of the state. This can result in internal strife, the concentration of power in the hands of individuals, and ultimately, the downfall of the republic.

Competing readings: One reading is that ambition, when guided by public interest, may not necessarily destroy a republic, as seen in Sylla's actions. Another reading is that ambition can be managed and not necessarily lead to the downfall of a republic, as demonstrated by Lysander's actions. The record itself states that ambition can be beneficial if guided by public interest, but it also shows that unchecked ambition can lead to the collapse of a republic.

Confidence: Moderate. The confidence is moderate because the record provides historical examples of how ambition can lead to the destruction of a republic, but it also shows that ambition can be beneficial if guided by public interest. The evidence is drawn from old editions and translations, and there are competing readings in the record.