Comparison of Alcibiades and Coriolanus

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.

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.