Comparison of Alcibiades and Coriolanus

The cause of all this lay in his unsociable, very overweening, and self-willed disposition, which of itself is offensive to most people, and when combined with an ambitious spirit, becomes altogether savage and implacable. Such men pay no court to the multitude, professing not to want their honours, and then are vexed if they do not get them. Certainly there was no tendency to importune or court the favour of the multitude in men like Metellus, Aristides, and Epaminondas;

but owing to their genuine contempt for what a people has the power to give and take away, though they were repeatedly ostracised, defeated at elections, and condemned in courts of justice, they cherished no anger against their countrymen for their ingratitude, but showed them kindness again when they repented, and were reconciled with them when they asked it. Surely he who least courts the people’s favour, ought least to resent their neglect, since vexation over failure to receive their honours is most apt to spring from an excessive longing after them.

Well, then, Alcibiades would not deny that he rejoiced to be honoured, and was displeased to be overlooked, and he therefore tried to be agreeable and pleasant to his associates; but the overweening pride of Marcius would not suffer him to pay court to those who had the power to honour and advance him, while his ambition made him feel angry and hurt when he was neglected.

These are the blame-worthy traits in the man, but all the rest are brilliant. And for his temperance and superiority to wealth he deserves to be compared with the best and purest of the Greeks, not with Alcibiades, who, in these regards, was the most unscrupulous of men, and the most careless of the claims of honour.