Plutarch: Lives of the noble Grecians and Romans
character and manners they nearly resembled each other, because both were
valiant and diligent, daring and high-spirited, there was yet some
diversity in the one point, that Marcellus in many cities which he
reduced under his power, committed great slaughter; but Epaminondas and
Pelopidas never after any victory put men to death, or reduced citizens
to slavery. And we are told, too, that the Thebans would not, had these
been present, have taken the measures they did, against the Orchomenians.
Marcellus's exploits against the Gauls are admirable and ample; when,
accompanied by a few horse, he defeated and put to fight a vast number of
horse and foot together, (an action you cannot easily in historians find
to have been done by any other captain,) and took their king prisoner.
To which honor Pelopidas aspired, but did not attain; he was killed by
the tyrant in the attempt. But to these you may perhaps oppose those two
most glorious battles at Leuctra and Tegyrae; and we have no statement of
any achievement of Marcellus, by stealth or ambuscade, such as were those
of Pelopidas, when he returned from exile, and killed the tyrants at
Thebes; which, indeed, may claim to be called the first in rank of all
achievements ever performed by secrecy and cunning. Hannibal was,
indeed, a most formidable enemy for the Romans but so for that matter
were the Lacedaemonians for the Thebans. And that these were, in the
fights of Leuctra and Tegyrae, beaten and put to fight by Pelopidas, is
confessed; whereas, Polybius writes, that Hannibal was never so much as
once vanquished by Marcellus, but remained invincible in all encounters,
till Scipio came. I myself, indeed, have followed rather Livy, Caesar,
Cornelius Nepos, and, among the Greeks, king Juba, in stating that the
troops of Hannibal were in some encounters routed and put to flight by
Marcellus; but certainly these defeats conduced little to the sum of the
war. It would seem as if they had been merely feints of some sort on the
part of the Carthaginian. What was indeed truly and really admirable
was, that the Romans, after the defeat of so many armies, the slaughter
of so many captains, and, in fine, the confusion of almost the whole
Roman empire, still showed a courage equal to their losses, and were as
willing as their enemies to engage in new battles. And Marcellus was the
one man who overcame the great and inveterate fear and dread, and
revived, raised, and confirmed the spirits of the soldiers to that degree
of emulation and bravery, that would not let them easily yield the
victory, but made them contend for it to the last. For the same men,
whom continual defeats had accustomed to think themselves happy, if they
could but save themselves by running from Hannibal, were by him taught to
esteem it base and ignominious to return safe but unsuccessful; to be
ashamed to confess that they had yielded one step in the terrors of the
fight; and to grieve to extremity if they were not victorious.
In short, as Pelopidas was never overcome in any battle, where himself
was present and commanded in chief, and as Marcellus gained more
victories than any of his contemporaries, truly he that could not be
easily overcome, considering his many successes, may fairly be compared
with him who was undefeated. Marcellus took Syracuse; whereas Pelopidas
was frustrated of his hope of capturing Sparta. But in my judgment, it
was more difficult to advance his standard even to the walls of Sparta,
and to be the first of mortals that ever passed the river Eurotas in
arms, than it was to reduce Sicily; unless, indeed, we say that that
adventure is with more of right to be attributed to Epaminondas, as was
also the Leuctrian battle; whereas Marcellus's renown, and the glory of
his brave actions came entire and undiminished to him alone. For he
alone took Syracuse; and without his colleague's help defeated the Gauls,
and, when all others declined, alone, without one companion, ventured to
engage with Hannibal; and changing the aspect of the war first showed the
example of daring to attack him.
I cannot commend the death of either of these great men; the suddenness
and strangeness of their ends gives me a feeling rather of pain and
distress. Hannibal has my admiration, who, in so many severe conflicts,
more than can be reckoned in one day, never received so much as one
wound. I honor Chrysantes also, (in Xenophon's Cyropaedia,) who, having
raised his sword in the act of striking his enemy, so soon as a retreat
was sounded, left him, and retired sedately and modestly. Yet the anger
which provoked Pelopidas to pursue revenge in the heat of fight, may
excuse him.
The first thing for a captain is to gain
Safe victory; the next to be with honor slain,
as Euripides says. For then he cannot be said to suffer death; it is
rather to be called an action. The very object, too, of Pelopidas's
victory, which consisted in the slaughter of the tyrant, presenting
itself to his eyes, did not wholly carry him away unadvisedly: he could
not easily expect again to have another equally glorious occasion for the
exercise of his courage, in a noble and honorable cause. But Marcellus,
when it made little to his advantage, and when no such violent ardor as
present danger naturally calls out transported him to passion, throwing
himself into danger, fell into an unexplored ambush; he, namely, who had
borne five consulates, led three triumphs, won the spoils and glories of
kings and victories, to act the part of a mere scout or sentinel, and to
expose all his achievements to be trod under foot by the mercenary
Spaniards and Numidians, who sold themselves and their lives to the
Carthaginians; so that even they themselves felt unworthy, and almost
grudged themselves the unhoped for success of having cut off, among a few
Fregellan scouts, the most valiant, the most potent, and most renowned of
the Romans. Let no man think that we have thus spoken out of a design to
accuse these noble men; it is merely an expression of frank indignation
in their own behalf, at seeing them thus wasting all their other virtues
upon that of bravery, and throwing away their lives, as if the loss would
be only felt by themselves, and not by their country, allies, and
friends.
After Pelopidas's death, his friends, for whom he died, made a funeral
for him; the enemies, by whom he had been killed, made one for Marcellus.
A noble and happy lot indeed the former, yet there is something higher
and greater in the admiration rendered by enemies to the virtue that had
been their own obstacle, than in the grateful acknowledgments of friends.
Since, in the one case, it is virtue alone that challenges itself the
honor; while, in the other, it may be rather men's personal profit and
advantage that is the real origin of what they do.
ARISTIDES
Aristides, the son of Lysimachus, was of the tribe Antiochis, and
township of Alopece. As to his wealth, statements differ; some say
he passed his life in extreme poverty, and left behind him two
daughters whose indigence long kept them unmarried: but Demetrius,
the Phalerian, in opposition to this general report, professes in his
Socrates, to know a farm at Phalerum going by Aristides's name, where
he was interred; and, as marks of his opulence, adduces first, the
office of archon eponymus, which he obtained by the lot of the bean;
which was confined to the highest assessed families, called the
Pentacosiomedimni; second, the ostracism, which was not usually
inflicted on the poorer citizens, but on those of great houses, whose
elation exposed them to envy; third and last, that he left certain
tripods in the temple of Bacchus, offerings for his victory in
conducting the representation of dramatic performances, which were
even in our age still to be seen, retaining this inscription upon
them, "The tribe Antiochis obtained the victory: Aristides defrayed
the charges: Archestratus's play was acted." But this argument,
though in appearance the strongest, is of the least moment of any.
For Epaminondas, who all the world knows was educated, and lived his
whole life, in much poverty, and also Plato, the philosopher,
exhibited magnificent shows, the one an entertainment of flute-players
the other of dithyrambic singers; Dion, the Syracusan, supplying the
expenses of the latter, and Pelopidas those of Epaminondas. For good
men do not allow themselves in any inveterate and irreconcilable
hostility to receiving presents from their friends, but while looking
upon those that are accepted to be hoarded up and with avaricious
intentions, as sordid and mean, they do not refuse such as, apart from
all profit, gratify the pure love of honor and magnificence.
Panaetius, again, shows that Demetrius was deceived concerning the
tripod by an identity of name. For, from the Persian war to the end
of the Peloponnesian, there are upon record only two of the name of
Aristides, who defrayed the expense of representing plays and gained
the prize neither of which was the same with the son of Lysimachus;
but the father of the one was Xenophilus, and the other lived at a
much later time, as the way of writing, which is that in use since the
time of Euclides, and the addition of the name of Archestratus prove,
a name which, in the time of the Persian war, no writer mentions, but
which several, during the Peloponnesian war, record as that of a
dramatic poet. The argument of Panaetius requires to be more closely
considered. But as for the ostracism, everyone was liable to it,
whom his reputation, birth, or eloquence raised above the common
level; insomuch that even Damon, preceptor to Pericles, was thus
banished, because he seemed a man of more than ordinary sense. And,
moreover, Idomeneus says, that Aristides was not made archon by the
lot of the bean, but the free election of the people. And if he held
the office after the battle of Plataea, as Demetrius himself has
written, it is very probable that his great reputation and success in
the war, made him be preferred for his virtue to an office which
others received in consideration of their wealth. But Demetrius
manifestly is eager not only to exempt Aristides but Socrates
likewise, from poverty, as from a great evil; telling us that the
latter had not only a house of his own, but also seventy minae put out
at interest with Crito.
Aristides being the friend and supporter of that Clisthenes, who
settled the government after the expulsion of the tyrants, and
emulating and admiring Lycurgus the Lacedaemonian above all
politicians, adhered to the aristocratical principles of government;
and had Themistocles, son to Neocles, his adversary on the side of the
populace. Some say that, being boys and bred up together from their
infancy, they were always at variance with each other in all their
words and actions as well serious as playful, and that in this their
early contention they soon made proof of their natural inclinations;
the one being ready, adventurous, and subtle, engaging readily and
eagerly in everything; the other of a staid and settled temper,
intent on the exercise of justice, not admitting any degree of
falsity, indecorum, or trickery, no, not so much as at his play.
Ariston of Chios says the first origin of the enmity which rose to so
great a height, was a love affair; they were rivals for the affection
of the beautiful Stesilaus of Ceos, and were passionate beyond all
moderation, and did not lay aside their animosity when the beauty that
had excited it passed away; but, as if it had only exercised them in
it, immediately carried their heats and differences into public
business.
Themistocles, therefore, joining an association of partisans,
fortified himself with considerable strength; insomuch that when some