Comparison of Alcibiades and Coriolanus

Marcius, however, in the first place, did injury to his whole city, although he had not been injured by the whole of it, but the best and strongest part of it shared his wrongs and his distress; in the second place, by resisting and not yielding to the many embassies and supplications with which his countrymen tried to heal his single wrath and folly, he made it clear that he had undertaken a fierce and implacable war for the overthrow and destruction of his country, not that he might recover and regain it.

Further, in this point it may be said there was a difference between them, namely, that Alcibiades, when he went over to the side of the Athenians, was moved by fear and hatred of the Spartans, who were plotting to take his life; whereas it was dishonourable for Marcius to leave the Volscians in the lurch when they were treating him with perfect fairness. For he was appointed their leader,

and had the greatest credit and influence among them, unlike Alcibiades, whom the Lacedaemonians misused rather than used, who wandered about aimlessly in their city, and again was tossed to and fro in their camp, and at last threw himself into the hands of Tissaphernes; unless, indeed, he was all the while paying him court in order that the Athens to which he longed to return might not be utterly destroyed.

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.