silence, to what a miserable condition your exile has reduced us at
home. Think now, how unhappy we must be, beyond all other women, when
fortune has made the sight which ought to be most pleasing to us, most
terrible, when I see my son, and your wife here sees her husband,
besieging his native city. Even that which consoles people under all
other misfortunes, prayer to the gods, has become impossible for us. We
cannot beg of heaven to give us the victory and to save you, but our
prayers for you must always resemble the imprecations of our enemies
against Rome. Your wife and children are in such a position, that they
must either lose you or lose their native country. For my own part, I
cannot bear to live until fortune decides the event of this war. If I
cannot now persuade you to make a lasting peace, and so become the
benefactor instead of the scourge of the two nations, be well assured
that you shall never assail Rome without first passing over the corpse
of your mother. I cannot wait for that day on which I shall either see
my countrymen triumphing over my son, or my son triumphing over his
country. If indeed I were to ask you to betray the Volscians and save
your country, this would be a hard request for you to grant; for though
it is base to destroy one's own fellow citizens, it is equally wrong to
betray those who have trusted you. But we merely ask for a respite from
our sufferings, which will save both nations alike from ruin, and which
will be all the more glorious for the Volscians because their
superiority in the field has put them in a position to grant us the
greatest of blessings, peace and concord, in which they also will share
alike with us. You will be chiefly to be thanked for these blessings, if
we obtain them, and chiefly to be blamed if we do not. For though the
issue of war is always doubtful, this much is evident, that if you
succeed, you will become your country's evil genius, and if you fail,
you will have inflicted the greatest miseries on men who are your
friends and benefactors, merely in order to gratify your own private
spite."
XXXVI. While Volumnia spoke thus, Marcius listened to her in silence.
After she had ceased, he stood for a long while without speaking, until
she again addressed him. "Why art thou silent, my son? Is it honourable
to make everything give way to your rancorous hatred, and is it a
disgrace to yield to your mother, when she pleads for such important
matters? Does it become a great man to remember that he has been ill
treated, and does it not rather become him to recollect the debt which
children owe to their parents. And yet no one ought to be more grateful
than you yourself, who punish ingratitude so bitterly: in spite of
which, though you have already taken a deep revenge on your country for
its ill treatment of you, you have not made your mother any return for
her kindness. It would have been right for me to gain my point without
any pressure, when pleading in such a just and honourable cause; but if
I cannot prevail by words, this resource alone is left me." Saying this,
she fell at his feet, together with his wife and children. Marcius,
crying out, "What have you done to me, mother?" raised her from the
ground, and pressing her hand violently, exclaimed, "You have conquered;
your victory is a blessed one for Rome, but ruinous to me, for I shall
retreat conquered by you alone." After speaking thus, and conferring for
a short time in private with his mother and his wife, he at their own
request sent them back to Rome, and the following night led away the
Volscian army. Various opinions were current among the Volscians about
what had taken place. Some blamed him severely, while others approved,
because they wished for peace. Others again, though they disliked what
he had done, yet did not regard him as a traitor, but as a soft-hearted
man who had yielded to overwhelming pressure. However, no one disobeyed
him, but all followed him in his retreat, though more out of regard for
his noble character than for his authority.
XXXVII. The Roman people, when the war was at an end, showed even more
plainly than before what terror and despair they had been in. As soon as
they saw the Volscians retreating from their walls, all the temples were
opened, and filled with worshippers crowned with garlands and
sacrificing as if for a victory. The joy of the senate and people was
most conspicuously shown in their gratitude to the women, whom they
spoke of as having beyond all doubt saved Rome. The senate decreed that
the magistrates should grant to the women any mark of respect and esteem
which they themselves might choose. The women decided on the building of
the temple of Female Fortune, the expenses of which they themselves
offered to subscribe, only asking the state to undertake the maintenance
of the services in it. The senate praised their public spirit, but
ordered the temple and shrine to be built at the public expense.
Nevertheless, the women with their own money provided a second image of
the goddess, which the Romans say, when it was placed in the temple was
heard to say,
"A pleasing gift have women placed me here."
XXXVIII. The legend says that this voice was twice heard, which seems
impossible and hard for us to believe. It is not impossible for statues
to sweat, to shed tears, or to be covered with spots of blood, because
wood and stone often when mouldering or decaying, collect moisture
within them, and not only send it forth with many colours derived from
their own substance, but also receive other colours from the air; and
there is nothing that forbids us to believe that by such appearances as
these heaven may foreshadow the future. It is also possible that statues
should make sounds like moaning or sighing, by the tearing asunder of
the particles of which they are composed; but that articulate human
speech should come from inanimate things is altogether impossible, for
neither the human soul, nor even a god can utter words without a body
fitted with the organs of speech. Whenever therefore we find many
credible witnesses who force us to believe something of this kind, we
must suppose that the imagination was influenced by some sensation which
appeared to resemble a real one, just as in dreams we seem to hear when
we hear not, and to see when we see not. Those persons, however, who are
full of religious fervour and love of the gods, and who refuse to
disbelieve or reject anything of this kind, find in its miraculous
character, and in the fact that the ways of God are not as our ways, a
great support to their faith. For He resembles mankind in nothing,
neither in nature, nor movement, nor learning, nor power, and so it is
not to be wondered at if He does what seems to us impossible. Nay,
though He differs from us in every respect, it is in his works that He
is most unlike us. But, as Herakleitus says, our knowledge of things
divine mostly fails for want of faith.
XXXIX. When Marcius returned to Antium, Tullus, who had long hated him
and envied his superiority, determined to put him to death, thinking
that if he let slip the present opportunity he should not obtain
another. Having suborned many to bear witness against him, he called
upon him publicly to render an account to the Volscians of what he had
done as their general. Marcius, fearing to be reduced to a private
station while his enemy Tullus, who had great influence with his
countrymen, was general, answered that he had been given his office of
commander-in-chief by the Volscian nation, and to them alone would he
surrender it, but that as to an account of what he had done, he was
ready at that moment, if they chose, to render it to the people of
Antium. Accordingly the people assembled, and the popular orators
endeavoured by their speeches to excite the lower classes against
Marcius. When, however, he rose to speak, the mob were awed to silence,
while the nobility, and those who had gained by the peace, made no
secret of their good will towards him, and of their intention to vote in
his favour. Under these circumstances, Tullus was unwilling to let him
speak, for he was a brilliant orator, and his former services far
outweighed his last offence. Indeed, the whole indictment was a proof of
how much they owed him, for they never could have thought themselves
wronged by not taking Rome, if Marcius had not brought them so near to
taking it. Tullus, therefore, thought that it would not do to wait, or
to trust to the mob, but he and the boldest of his accomplices, crying
out that the Volscians could not listen to the traitor, nor endure him
to play the despot over them by not laying down his command, rushed upon
him in a body and killed him, without any of the bystanders interfering
in his behalf. However, the most part of the nation was displeased at
this act, as was soon proved by the numbers who came from every city to
see his dead body, by the splendid funeral with which he was honoured,
and by the arms and trophies which were hung over his tomb, as that of a
brave man and a consummate general.
The Romans, when they heard of his death, made no sign of either honour
or anger towards him, except that they gave permission to the women, at
their request, to wear mourning for him for ten months, as if they were
each mourning for her father, her brother, or her son. This was the
extreme limit of the period of mourning, which was fixed by Numa
Pompilius, as has been related in his Life.
The loss of Marcius was at once felt by the Volscians. First of all,
they quarrelled with the Aequi, their friends and allies, and even came
to blows with them; next, they were defeated by the Romans in a battle
in which Tullus was slain, and the flower of the Volscian army perished.
After this disaster they were glad to surrender at discretion, and
become the subjects of Rome.
COMPARISON OF ALKIBIADES AND CORIOLANUS.
I. As all the most memorable achievements of both Alkibiades and
Coriolanus are now before us, we may begin our comparison by observing
that as to military exploits, the balance is nearly even; for both alike
gave proofs of great personal bravery and great skill in generalship,
unless it be thought that Alkibiades proved himself the more perfect
general because of his many victories both by sea and land. Both alike
obtained great success for their native countries while they remained in
command of their countrymen, and both succeeded even more remarkably
when fighting against them. As to their respective policy, that of
Alkibiades was disliked by the more respectable citizens, because of his
personal arrogance, and the arts to which he stooped to gain the favour
of the lower classes; while the proud ungracious haughtiness of
Coriolanus caused him to be hated by the people of Rome. In this respect
neither of them can be praised; yet he who tries to gain the favour of
the people is less to blame than he who insults them for fear he should
be thought to court them. Although it is wrong to flatter the people in
order to gain power, yet to owe one's power only to terror, and to ill
treat and keep down the masses is disgraceful as well as wrong.
II. It is not difficult to see why Marcius is considered to have been a
simple-minded and straightforward character, while Alkibiades has the
reputation of a false and tricky politician. The latter has been
especially blamed for the manner in which he deceived and outwitted the
Lacedaemonian ambassadors, by which, as we learn from Thucydides, he
brought the truce between the two nations to an end. Yet that stroke of
policy, though it again involved Athens in war, rendered her strong and
formidable, through the alliance with Argos and Mantinea, which she owed
to Alkibiades. Marcius also, we are told by Dionysius, produced a
quarrel between the Romans and the Volscians by bringing a false
accusation against those Volscians who came to see the festival at Rome;
and in this case the wickedness of his object increased his guilt,
because he did not act from a desire of personal aggrandisement, or from
political rivalry, as did Alkibiades, but merely yielding to what Dion
calls the unprofitable passion of anger, he threw a large part of Italy
into confusion, and in his rage against his native country destroyed
many innocent cities. On the other hand, the anger of Alkibiades caused
great misfortune to his countrymen; yet as soon as he found that they
had relented towards him he returned cheerfully to his allegiance, and
after being banished for the second time, did not take any delight in
seeing their generals defeated, and could not sit still and let them
make mistakes and uselessly expose themselves to danger. He did just
what Aristeides is so much praised for doing to Themistokles; he went to
the generals, although they were not his friends, and pointed out to
them what ought to be done.
Marcius, again, is to be blamed for having made the whole of Rome suffer
for what only a part of it had done, while the best and most important
class of citizens had been wronged equally with himself, and warmly
sympathised with him. Afterwards, although his countrymen sent him many
embassies, beseeching his forgiveness for their one act of ignorance and
passion, he would not listen to them, but showed that it was with the
intention of utterly destroying Rome, not of obtaining his own
restoration to it, that he had begun that terrible and savage war
against it. This, then, may be noted as the difference between their
respective positions: Alkibiades went back to the Athenian side when the
Spartans began to plot against him, because he both feared them and
hated them; but Marcius, who was in every respect well treated by the
Volscians, could not honourably desert their cause. He had been elected
their commander-in-chief, and besides this great power enjoyed their
entire confidence; while Alkibiades, though his assistance was found
useful by the Lacedaemonians, was never trusted by them, but remained
without any recognised position, first in Sparta and then in the camp in
Asia Minor, till he finally threw himself into the arms of Tissaphernes,
unless, indeed, he took this step to save Athens, hoping some day to be
restored to her.
III. As to money, Alkibiades has been blamed for receiving it
discreditably in bribes, and for spending it in luxurious extravagance;
while the generals who offered Marcius money as an honourable reward for
his valour could not prevail upon him to accept it. This, however, made
him especially unpopular in the debates about freeing the people from
debt, because it was said that he pressed so hardly on the poor, not
because he wished to make money by them, but purely through arrogance
and pride. Antipater, in a letter to a friend on the death of Aristotle
the philosopher, observes, "Besides his other abilities, the man had the
art of persuasion." Now Marcius had not this art; and its absence made
all his exploits and all his virtues unpleasant even to those who
benefited by them, as they could not endure his pride and haughtiness,
which brooked no compeer. Alkibiades, on the other hand, knew how to
deal on friendly terms with every one, and we need not therefore be
surprised at the pleasure which men took in his successes, while even
some of his failures had a charm of their own for his friends. Hence it
was that Alkibiades, even after inflicting many grievous losses upon his
countrymen, was chosen by them as commander-in-chief, whereas Marcius,
when after a splendid display of courage and conduct he tried for the
consulship which he deserved, failed to obtain it. The one could not be
hated by his countrymen, even when they were ill treated by him; while
the other, though admired by all, was loved by none.
IV. Marcius, indeed, effected nothing great when in command of his own
countrymen, but only when fighting against them, whereas the Athenians
frequently benefited by the successes of Alkibiades, when he was acting
as their commander-in-chief. Alkibiades when present easily triumphed
over his enemies, whereas Marcius, although present, was condemned by
the Romans, and put to death by the Volscians. Moreover, though he was
wrongfully slain, yet he himself furnished his enemies with a pretext
for his murder, by refusing the public offer of peace made by the
Romans, and then yielding to the private entreaties of his mother and
wife, so that he did not put an end to the enmity between the two
nations, but left them at war, and yet lost a favourable opportunity for
the Volscians.
If he was influenced by a feeling of duty towards the Volscians, he
ought to have obtained their consent before withdrawing their forces
from before Rome; but if he cared nothing for them, or for anything
except the gratification of his own passion, and with this feeling made
war upon his country, and only paused in the moment of victory, it was
not creditable to him to spare his country for his mother's sake, but
rather he should have spared his country and his mother with it; for his
mother and his wife were but a part of Rome, which he was besieging.
That he should have treated the public supplications of ambassadors and
the prayers of priests with contempt, and afterwards have drawn off his
forces to please his mother, is not so much a credit to her as a
disgrace to his country, which was saved by the tears and entreaties of
one woman, as though it did not deserve to survive on its own merits.
The mercy which he showed the Romans was so harshly and offensively
granted that it pleased neither party; he withdrew his forces without
having either having come to an understanding with his friends or his
foes. All this must be attributed to his haughty, unbending temper,
which is in all cases odious, but which in an ambitious man renders him
savage and inexorable. Such men will not seek for popularity, thinking
themselves already sufficiently distinguished, and then are angry at
finding themselves unpopular.
Indeed, neither Metellus, nor Aristeides, nor Epameinondas would stoop
to court the favour of the people, and had a thorough contempt for all
that the people can either give or take away; yet although they were
often ostracised, convicted, and condemned to pay fines, they were not
angry with their fellow countrymen for their folly, but came back and
became reconciled to them as soon as they repented. The man who will not
court the people, ought least of all to bear malice against them,
reflecting that anger at not being elected to an office in the state,
must spring from an excessive desire to obtain it.
V. Alkibiades made no secret of his delight in being honoured and his
vexation when slighted, and in consequence endeavoured to make himself
acceptable to all with whom he had to do. Marcius was prevented by his
pride from courting those who could have bestowed honour and advancement
upon him, while his ambition tortured him if these were withheld.
These are the points which we find to blame in his character, which in
all other respects was a noble one. With regard to temperance, and
contempt for money, he may be compared with the greatest and purest men
of Greece, not merely with Alkibiades, who cared only too little for
such things, and paid no regard to his reputation.
LIFE OF TIMOLEON.
It was for the sake of others that I first undertook to write
biographies, but I soon began to dwell upon and delight in them for
myself, endeavouring to the best of my ability to regulate my own life,
and to make it like that of those who were reflected in their history as
it were in a mirror before me. By the study of their biographies, we
receive each man as a guest into our minds, and we seem to understand
their character as the result of a personal acquaintance, because we
have obtained from their acts the best and most important means of
forming an opinion about them. "What greater pleasure could'st thou gain
than this?" What more valuable for the elevation of our own character?
Demokritus says, that we ought to pray that we may meet with propitious
phantasms, and that from the infinite space which surrounds us good and
congenial phantasms, rather than base and sinister ones, may be brought
into contact with us. He degrades philosophy by foisting into it a
theory which is untrue, and which leads to unbounded superstition;
whereas we, by our familiarity with history, and habit of writing it, so
train ourselves by constantly receiving into our minds the memorials of
the great and good, that should anything base or vicious be placed in
our way by the society into which we are necessarily thrown, we reject
it and expel it from our thoughts, by fixing them calmly and severely on
some of these great examples. Of these, I have chosen for you in this
present instance, the life of Timoleon the Corinthian, and that of
Aemilius Paulus, men who both laid their plans with skill, and carried
them out with good fortune, so as to raise a question whether it was
more by good luck or by good sense that they succeeded in their most
important achievements.
I. The state of affairs at Syracuse, before the mission of Timoleon to
Sicily, was this. Dion had driven out the despot[A] Dionysius, but was
immediately afterwards slain by treachery, and those who, under Dion,
had freed the Syracusans, quarrelled amongst themselves. The city, which
received a constant succession of despots, was almost forsaken because
of its many troubles. Of the rest of Sicily, one part was rendered quite
ruined and uninhabited by the wars, and most of the cities were held by
barbarians of various nations, and soldiers who were under no paymaster.
As these men willingly lent their aid to effect changes of dynasty,
Dionysius, in the twelfth year of his exile, collected a body of foreign
troops, drove out Nysaeus, the then ruler of Syracuse, again restored
his empire, and was re-established as despot. He had strangely lost the
greatest known empire at the hands of a few men, and more strangely
still became again the lord of those who had driven him out, after
having been an exile and a beggar. Those then of the Syracusans who
remained in the city were the subjects of a despot not naturally humane,
and whose heart now had been embittered by misfortune:[B] but the better
class of citizens and the men of note fled to Hiketes, the ruler of
Leontini, swore allegiance to him, and chose him as their general for
the war. This man was nowise better than the avowed despots, but they
had no other resource, and they trusted him because he was a Syracusan
by birth, and had a force capable of encountering that of their own
despot.
[Footnote A: [Greek: tyrannos], here and elsewhere translated _despot_,
means a man who had obtained irresponsible power by unconstitutional
means.]
[Footnote B: Compare Tacitus, "eo immitior quia toleraverat."]
II. Meanwhile the Carthaginians came to Sicily with a great fleet, and
were hovering off the island watching their opportunity. The Sicilians
in terror wished to send an embassy to Greece, and ask for help from the
Corinthians, not merely on account of their kinship with them, and of
the many kindnesses which they had received from them, but also because
they saw that the whole city loved freedom, and hated despots, and that
it had waged its greatest and most important wars, not for supremacy and
greed of power, but on behalf of the liberty of Greece. But Hiketes who
had obtained his post of commander-in-chief with a view, not to the
liberation of Syracuse, but the establishment of himself as despot
there, had already had secret negotiations with the Carthaginians,
though in public he commended the Syracusans, and sent ambassadors of
his own with the rest to Peloponnesus: not that he wished that any
assistance should come thence, but, in case the Corinthians, as was
probable, should refuse their help because of the disturbed state of
Greece, he hoped that he should more easily be able to bring matters
round to suit the Carthaginian interest, and to use them as allies
either against the Syracusan citizens, or against their despot. Of this
treacherous design he was shortly afterwards convicted.