Comparison of Demosthenes and Cicero

Still further, then, in their writings it is possible to see that the one touches upon his own praises cautiously and so as not to give offence, when there was need of this for some weightier end, while on other occasions he is careful and moderate; whereas Cicero’s immoderate boasting of himself in his speeches proves that he had an intemperate desire for fame, his cry being that arms must give place to the toga and the laurel of triumph to the tongue.[*](Cedant arma togae, concedat laurea laudi (in Pisonem, 29, 72 ff.).)

And at last he praises not only his deeds and actions, but also his speeches, both those which he delivered himself and those which he committed to writing, as if he were impetuously vying with Isocrates and Anaximenes the sophists, instead of claiming the right to lead and instruct the Roman people,

1. Steadfast, in heavy armour clad, destructive to foes.

It is necessary, indeed, that a political leader should prevail by reason of his eloquence, but ignoble for him to admire and crave the fame that springs from his eloquence. Wherefore in this regard Demosthenes is more stately and magnificent, since he declares that his ability in speaking was a mere matter of experience, depending greatly upon the goodwill of his hearers,[*](Cf. On the Crown, 277.) and considers illiberal and vulgar, as they are, those who are puffed up at such success.

It is true that in haranguing and guiding the people both had equal power, so that even those who controlled armies and camps had need of their services; Chares, Diopeithes, and Leosthenes needed Demosthenes, and Pompey and the young Caesar needed Cicero, as Caesar himself says in his Memoirs addressed to Agrippa and Maecenas.

But what is thought and said most of all to reveal and test the character of a man, namely power and authority, which rouses every passion and uncovers every baseness, this Demosthenes did not have, nor did he give any such proof of himself, since he held no conspicuous office, nor did he even command the force which was raised by him against Philip;

whereas Cicero was sent out as quaestor to Sicily, and as pro-consul to Cilicia and Cappadocia, at a time when the love of wealth was at its greatest height, and when those who were sent out as praetors and governors, feeling that theft was an ignoble thing, resorted to open plundering, so that the taking of property was not thought heinous, but he who did this in moderation was held in high esteem; and yet Cicero gave many proofs of his contempt for wealth, and many of his humanity and goodness.