Comparison of Aristides and Marcus Cato

Now that I have recorded the most noteworthy things in the careers of these men also, if one compare the entire life of the one with that of the other, it will not be easy to mark the difference between them, obscured as it is by many great resemblances. And even if, in our comparison, we analyse each life, as we would a poem or a picture, we shall find that the rise to political power and repute in consequence of innate excellence and strength, rather than of inherited advantages, is common to both.

But in the case of Aristides, Athens was not yet great when he rose to eminence, and the leaders and generals with whom he dealt were men of moderate and uniform fortunes. The highest assessment of property in those days was five hundred bushels of grain, the second three hundred, the third and last two hundred.

Whereas Cato, coming from a little town and from ways of life deemed rustic, plunged headlong into the boundless sea of Roman politics when they were no longer conducted by such men as Curius, Fabricius, and Atilius, nor welcomed as magistrates and leaders poor men who had mounted the rostrum after working with their own hands at the plough and the mattock, but were wont to have regard rather for great families and their wealth, largesses, and solicitations, while those who sought office, such was now the power and arrogance of the people, were wantonly handled.

It was not the same thing to have Themistocles for a rival, who was of no illustrious family and had only moderate possessions (he is said to have been worth three, or, at most, five talents when he entered public life), as it was to compete for pre-eminence with such men as Scipio Africanus, Servius Galba, and Quintius Flamininus, having no other advantage than a tongue which spoke boldly for the right.