Comparison of Alcibiades and Coriolanus

Furthermore, in the matter of money, we are told that Alcibiades often got it ill by taking bribes, and spent it ill in luxury and dissipation; whereas Marcius could not be persuaded to take it even when it was offered to him as an honour by his commanders. And for this reason he was especially odious to the multitude in the disputes with the people concerning debts, because they saw that it was not for gain, but out of insolence and scorn, that he acted despitefully towards the poor.

Antipater, writing in one of his letters about the death of Aristotle the philosopher,[*](See Comparison of Aristides and Cato, ii. 4. ) says: In addition to all his other gifts, the man had also that of persuasion; and the absence of this gift in Marcius made his great deeds and virtues obnoxious to the very men whom they benefited, since they could not endure the arrogant pride of the man, and that self-will which is, as Plato says,[*](See Coriolanus, xv. 4.) the companion of solitude. Alcibiades, on the contrary, understood how to treat in a friendly manner those who met him, arid we cannot wonder that when he was successful his fame was attended with goodwill and honour, and flowered luxuriantly, since some of his errors even had often charm and felicity.

This was the reason why, in spite of the great and frequent harm done by him to the city, he was nevertheless many times appointed leader and general; while Marcius, when he stood for an office which was his due in view of his valorous achievements, was defeated. And so it was that the one could not make himself hated by his countrymen, even when he was doing them harm; while the other was after all not beloved, even while he was admired.

For Marcius did not, as a commander, obtain any great successes for his city, but only for his enemies against his country; whereas Alcibiades was often of service to the Athenians, both as a private soldier and as a commander. When he was at home, he mastered his adversaries to his heart’s content; it was when he was absent that their calumnies prevailed.

Marcius, on the contrary, was with the Romans when they condemned him, and with the Volscians when they slew him. The deed was not in accordance with justice or right, it is true, and yet his own acts supplied an excuse for it, because, after rejecting the terms of peace publicly offered, and suffering himself to be persuaded by the private solicitations of the women, he did not put an end to hostilities, but allowed the war to continue, while he threw away for ever its golden opportunity.

For he should have won the consent of those who had put their trust in him, before retiring from his position, if he had the highest regard for their just claims upon him. If, on the other hand, he cared nothing for the Volscians, but was prosecuting the war merely to satisfy his own anger, and then stopped it abruptly, the honourable course had been, not to spare his country for his mother’s sake, but his mother together with his country; since his mother and his wife were part and parcel of the native city which he was besieging.

But after giving harsh treatment to public supplications, entreaties of embassies, and prayers of priests, then to concede his withdrawal as a favour to his mother, was not so much an honour to that mother, as it was a dishonor to his country, which was thus saved by the pitiful intercession of a single woman, and held unworthy of salvation for its own sake. Surely the favour was invidious, and harsh, and really no favour at all, and unacceptable to both parties; for he retired without listening to the persuasions of his antagonists, and without gaining the consent of his comrades-in-arms.