having described all their actions that seem to deserve commemoration,their military ones, we may say, incline the balance very decidedlyupon neither side. they both, in pretty equal measure, displayed onnumerous occasions the daring and courage of the soldier, and theskill and foresight of the general； unless, indeed, the fact thatalcibiades was victorious and successful in many contests both bysea and land, ought to gain him the title of a more complete commander.that so long as they remained and held command in their respectivecountries they eminently sustained, and when they were driven intoexile yet more eminently damaged, the fortunes of those countries,is common to both. all the sober citizens felt disgust at the petulance,the low flattery, and base seductions which alcibiades, in his publiclife, allowed himself to employ with the view of winning the people'sfavour； and the ungraciousness, pride, and oligarchical haughtinesswhich marcius, on the other hand, displayed in his, were the abhorrenceof the roman populace. neither of these courses can be called commendable；but a man who ingratiates himself by indulgence and flattery is hardlyso censurable as one who, to avoid the appearance of flattering, insults.to seek power by servility to the people is a disgrace, but to maintainit by terror, violence, and oppression is not a disgrace only, butan injustice.
marcius, according to our common conceptions of his character, wasundoubtedly simple and straightforward； alcibiades, unscrupulous asa public man, and false. he is more especially blamed for the dishonourableand treacherous way in which, as thucydides relates, he imposed uponthe lacedaemonian ambassadors, and disturbed the continuance of thepeace. yet this policy, which engaged the city again in war, neverthelessplaced it in a powerful and formidable position, by the accession,which alcibiades obtained for it, of the alliance of argos and mantinea.and coriolanus also, dionysius relates, used unfair means to excitewar between the romans and the volscians, in the false report whichhe spread about the visitors at the games； and the motive of thisaction seems to make it the worse of the two； since it was not done,like the other, out of ordinary political jealousy, strife, and competition.simply to gratify anger from which, as ion says, no one ever yet gotany return, he threw whole districts of italy into confusion, andsacrificed to his passion against his country numerous innocent cities.it is true, indeed, that alcibiades also, by his resentment, was theoccasion of great disasters to his country, but he relented as soonas he found their feelings to be changed； and after he was drivenout a second time, so far from taking pleasure in the errors and inadvertenciesof their commanders, or being indifferent to the danger they werethus incurring, he did the very thing that aristides is so highlycommended for doing to themistocles； he came to the generals who werehis enemies, and pointed out to them what they ought to do. coriolanus,on the other hand, first of all attacked the whole body of his countrymen,though only one portion of them had done him any wrong, while theother, the better and nobler portion, had actually suffered, as wellas sympathized, with him. and, secondly, by the obduracy with whichhe resisted numerous embassies and supplications, addressed in propitiationof his single anger and offence, he showed that it had been to destroyand overthrow, not to recover and regain his country, that he hadexcited bitter and implacable hostilities against it. there is, indeed,one distinction that may be drawn. alcibiades, it may be said, wasnot safe among the spartans, and had the inducements at once of fearand of hatred to lead him again to athens； whereas marcius could nothonourably have left the volscians, when they were behaving so wellto him： he, in the command of their forces and the enjoyment of theirentire confidence, was in a very different position from alcibiades,whom the lacedaemonians did not so much wish to adopt into their service,as to use and then abandon. driven about from house to house in thecity, and from general to general in the camp, the latter had no resortbut to place himself in the hands of tisaphernes； unless, indeed,we are to suppose that his object in courting favour with him wasto avert the entire destruction of his native city, whither he wishedhimself to return.
as regards money, alcibiades, we are told, was often guilty of procuringit by accepting bribes, and spent it ill in luxury and dissipation.coriolanus declined to receive it, even when pressed upon him by hiscommanders as an honour； and one great reason for the odium he incurredwith the populace in the discussions about their debts was, that hetrampled upon the poor, not for money's sake, but out of pride andinsolence.
antipater, in a letter written upon the death of aristotle the philosopher,observes, "amongst his other gifts he had that of persuasiveness；"and the absence of this in the character of marcius made all his greatactions and noble qualities unacceptable to those whom they benefited：pride, and self-will, the consort, as plato calls it, of solitude,made him insufferable. with the skill which alcibiades, on the contrary,possessed to treat every one in the way most agreeable to him, wecannot wonder that all his successes were attended with the most exuberantfavour and honour； his very errors, at times, being accompanied bysomething of grace and felicity. and so in spite of great and frequenthurt that he had done the city, he was repeatedly appointed to officeand command； while coriolanus stood in vain for a place which hisgreat services had made his due. the one, in spite of the harm heoccasioned, could not make himself hated, nor the other, with allthe admiration he attracted, succeeded in being beloved by his countrymen.
coriolanus, moreover, it should be said, did not as a general obtainany successes for his country, but only for his enemies against hiscountry. alcibiades was often of service to athens, both as a soldierand as a commander. so long as he was personally present, he had theperfect mastery of his political adversaries； calumny only succeededin his absence. coriolanus was condemned in person at rome； and inlike manner killed by the volscians, not indeed with any right orjustice, yet not without some pretext occasioned by his own acts；since, after rejecting all conditions of peace in public, in privatehe yielded to the solicitations of the women and, without establishingpeace, threw up the favourable chances of war. he ought, before retiring,to have obtained the consent of those who had placed their trust inhim； if indeed he considered their claims on him to be the strongest.or, if we say that he did not care about the volscians, but merelyhad prosecuted the war, which he now abandoned, for the satisfactionof his own resentment, then the noble thing would have been, not tospare his country for his mother's sake, but his mother in and withhis country； since both his mother and his wife were part and parcelof that endangered country. after harshly repelling public supplications,the entreaties of ambassadors, and the prayers of priests, to concedeall as a private favour to his mother was less an honour to her thana dishonour to the city which thus escaped, in spite, it would seem,of its own demerits through the intercession of a single woman. sucha grace could, indeed, seem merely invidious, ungracious, and unreasonablein the eyes of both parties； he retreated without listening to thepersuasions of his opponents or asking the consent of his friends.the origin of all lay in his unsociable, supercilious, and self-willeddisposition, which, in all cases, is offensive to most people； andwhen combined with a passion for distinction passes into absolutesavageness and mercilessness. men decline to ask favours of the people,professing not to need any honours from them； and then are indignantif they do not obtain them. metellus, aristides, and epaminondas certainlydid not beg favours of the multitude； but that was because they, inreal truth, did not value the gifts which a popular body can eitherconfer or refuse； and when they were more than once driven into exile,rejected at elections, and condemned in courts of justice, they showedno resentment at the ill-humour of their fellow-citizens, but werewilling and contented to return and be reconciled when the feelingaltered and they were wished for. he who least likes courting favour,ought also least to think of resenting neglect； to feel wounded atbeing refused a distinction can only arise from an overweening appetiteto have it.
alcibiades never professed to deny that it was pleasant to him tobe honoured, and distasteful to him to be overlooked； and, accordingly,he always tried to place himself upon good terms with all that hemet； coriolanus's pride forbade him to pay attentions to those whocould have promoted his advancement, and yet his love of distinctionmade him feel hurt and angry when he was disregarded. such are thefaulty parts of his character, which in all other respects was a nobleone. for his temperance, continence, and probity he claims to be comparedwith the best and purest of the greeks； not in any sort or kind withalcibiades, the least scrupulous and most entirely and most entirelycareless of human beings in all these points.
the end