Plutarch: Lives of the noble Grecians and Romans
possible enough, that statues may seem to sweat, and to run with tears,
and to stand with certain dewy drops of a sanguine color; for timber and
stones are frequently known to contract a kind of scurf and rottenness,
productive of moisture; and various tints may form on the surfaces, both
from within and from the action of the air outside; and by these signs
it is not absurd to imagine that the deity may forewarn us. It may
happen, also, that images and statues may sometimes make a noise not
unlike that of a moan or groan, through a rupture or violent internal
separation of the parts; but that an articulate voice, and such express
words, and language so clear and exact and elaborate, should proceed
from inanimate things, is, in my judgment, a thing utterly out of
possibility. For it was never known that either the soul of man, or the
deity himself, uttered vocal sounds and language, alone, without an
organized body and members fitted for speech. But where history seems
in a manner to force our assent by the concurrence of numerous and
credible witnesses, we are to conclude that an impression distinct from
sensation affects the imaginative part of our nature, and then carries
away the judgment, so as to believe it to be a sensation: just as in
sleep we fancy we see and hear, without really doing either. Persons,
however, whose strong feelings of reverence to the deity, and tenderness
for religion, will not allow them to deny or invalidate anything of
this kind, have certainly a strong argument for their faith, in the
wonderful and transcendent character of the divine power; which admits
no manner of comparison with ours, either in its nature or its action,
the modes or the strength of its operations. It is no contradiction to
reason that it should do things that we cannot do, and effect what for
us is impracticable: differing from us in all respects, in its acts yet
more than in other points we may well believe it to be unlike us and
remote from us. Knowledge of divine things for the most part, as
Heraclitus says, is lost to us by incredulity.
When Marcius came back to Antium, Tullus, who thoroughly hated and
greatly feared him, proceeded at once to contrive how he might
immediately dispatch him; as, if he escaped now, he was never likely to
give him such another advantage. Having, therefore, got together and
suborned several partisans against him, he required Marcius to resign
his charge, and give the Volscians all account of his administration.
He, apprehending the danger of a private condition, while Tullus held
the office of general and exercised the greatest power among his fellow-
citizens, made answer, that he was ready to lay down his commission,
whenever those from whose common authority he had received it, should
think fit to recall it; and that in the meantime he was ready to give
the Antiates satisfaction, as to all particulars of his conduct, if they
were desirous of it.
An assembly was called, and popular speakers, as had been concerted,
came forward to exasperate and incense the multitude; but when Marcius
stood up to answer, the more unruly and tumultuous part of the people
became quiet on a sudden, and out of reverence allowed him to speak
without the least disturbance; while all the better people, and such as
were satisfied with a peace, made it evident by their whole behavior,
that they would give him a favorable hearing, and judge and pronounce
according to equity.
Tullus, therefore, began to dread the issue of the defense he was going
to make for himself; for he was an admirable speaker, and the former
services he had done the Volscians had procured and still preserved for
him greater kindness than could be outweighed by any blame for his late
conduct. Indeed, the very accusation itself was a proof and testimony
of the greatness of his merits, since people could never have complained
or thought themselves wronged, because Rome was not brought into their
power, but that by his means they had come so near to taking it. For
these reasons, the conspirators judged it prudent not to make any
further delays, nor to test the general feeling; but the boldest of
their faction, crying out that they ought not to listen to a traitor,
nor allow him still to retain office and play the tyrant among them,
fell upon Marcius in a body, and slew him there, none of those that were
present offering to defend him. But it quickly appeared that the action
was in nowise approved by the majority of the Volscians, who hurried out
of their several cities to show respect to his corpse; to which they
gave honorable interment, adorning his sepulchre with arms and trophies,
as the monument of a noble hero and a famous general. When the Romans
heard tidings of his death, they gave no other signification either of
honor or of anger towards him, but simply granted the request of the
women, that they might put themselves into mourning and bewail him for
ten months, as the usage was upon the loss of a father or a son or a
brother; that being the period fixed for the longest lamentation by the
laws of Numa Pompilius, as is more amply told in the account of him.
Marcius was no sooner deceased, but the Volscians felt the need of his
assistance. They quarreled first with the Aequians, their confederates
and their friends, about the appointment of the general of their joint
forces, and carried their dispute to the length of bloodshed and
slaughter; and were then defeated by the Romans in a pitched battle,
where not only Tullus lost his life, but the principal flower of their
whole army was cut in pieces; so that they were forced to submit and
accept of peace upon very dishonorable terms, becoming subjects of Rome,
and pledging themselves to submission.
COMPARISON OF ALCIBIADES WITH CORIOLANUS
Having described all their actions that seem to deserve commemoration,
their military ones, we may say, incline the balance very decidedly upon
neither side. They both, in pretty equal measure, displayed on numerous
occasions the daring and courage of the soldier, and the skill and
foresight of the general; unless, indeed, the fact that Alcibiades was
victorious and successful in many contests both by sea and land, ought
to gain him the title of a more complete commander. That so long as
they remained and held command in their respective countries, they
eminently sustained, and when they were driven into exile, 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 public life, allowed
himself to employ with the view of winning the people's favor; and the
ungraciousness, pride, and oligarchical haughtiness which Marcius, on
the other hand, displayed in his, were the abhorrence of the Roman
populace. Neither of these courses can be called commendable; but a man
who ingratiates himself by indulgence and flattery, is hardly so
censurable as one who, to avoid the appearance of flattering, insults.
To seek power by servility to the people is a disgrace, but to maintain
it by terror, violence, and oppression, is not a disgrace only, but an
injustice.
Marcius, according to our common conceptions of his character, was
undoubtedly simple and straightforward; Alcibiades, unscrupulous as a
public man, and false. He is more especially blamed for the
dishonorable and treacherous way in which, as Thucydides relates, he
imposed upon the Lacedaemonian ambassadors, and disturbed the
continuance of the peace. Yet this policy, which engaged the city again
in war, nevertheless placed 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 excite war between the Romans and the Volscians, in the false
report which he spread about the visitors at the Games; and the motive
of this action 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 got any return, he threw whole districts of Italy into
confusion, and sacrificed to his passion against his country numerous
innocent cities. It is true, indeed, that Alcibiades also, by his
resentment, was the occasion of great disasters to his country, but he
relented as soon as he found their feelings to be changed; and after he
was driven out a second time, so far from taking pleasure in the errors
and inadvertencies of their commanders, or being indifferent to the
danger they were thus incurring, he did the very thing that Aristides is
so highly commended for doing to Themistocles: he came to the generals
who were his 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 the other, the better and nobler portion, had actually suffered,
as well as sympathized, with him. And, secondly, by the obduracy with
which he resisted numerous embassies and supplications, addressed in
propitiation of his single anger and offense, he showed that it had been
to destroy and overthrow, not to recover and regain his country, that he
had excited bitter and implacable hostilities against it. There is,
indeed, one distinction that may be drawn. Alcibiades, it may be said,
was not safe among the Spartans, and had the inducements at once of fear
and of hatred to lead him again to Athens; whereas Marcius could not
honorably have left the Volscians, when they were behaving so well to
him: he, in the command of their forces and the enjoyment of their
entire 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 the city, and from general to general in the camp, the latter had no
resort but to place himself in the hands of Tisaphernes; unless, indeed,
we are to suppose that his object in courting favor with him was to
avert the entire destruction of his native city, whither he wished
himself to return.
As regards money, Alcibiades, we are told, was often guilty of procuring
it by accepting bribes, and spent it in in luxury and dissipation.
Coriolanus declined to receive it, even when pressed upon him by his
commanders as all honor; and one great reason for the odium he incurred
with the populace in the discussions about their debts was, that he
trampled upon the poor, not for money's sake, but out of pride and
insolence.
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 great actions 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, we cannot wonder that all his successes were attended with the
most exuberant favor and honor; his very errors, at times, being
accompanied by something of grace and felicity. And so, in spite of
great and frequent hurt that he had done the city, he was repeatedly
appointed to office and command; while Coriolanus stood in vain for a
place which his great services had made his due. The one, in spite of
the harm he occasioned, could not make himself hated, nor the other,
with all the admiration he attracted, succeed in being beloved by his
countrymen.