Comparison of Demosthenes and Cicero

whereas Cicero was often carried away by his love of jesting into scurrility, and when, to gain his ends in his cases, he treated matters worthy of serious attention with ironical mirth and pleasantry, he was careless of propriety. Thus, in his defence of Caelius, he said that his client, surrounded as he was by great luxury and extravagance, did nothing out of the way when indulging in pleasures; for not to enjoy what is in one’s possession was madness, he said, particularly when the most eminent philosophers assert that true happiness consists in pleasure.[*](Cf. Cicero, pro Caelio, 12, 28; but Plutarch’s interpretation does Cicero great injustice. Cf. 17, 39 f.)

And we are told that when Cato prosecuted Murena, Cicero, who was then consul, defended him, and because of Cato’s beliefs made much fun of the Stoic sect, in view of the absurdities of their so-called paradoxes;[*](Cf. pro Murena, 29-31.) and when loud laughter spread from the audience to the jurors, Cato, with a quiet smile, said to those who sat by: What a funny man we have, my friends, for consul!

And it would seem that Cicero was naturally prone to laughter and fond of jesting; his face, too, was smiling and peaceful. But in that of Demosthenes there was always a certain intense seriousness, and this look of thoughtfulness and anxiety he did not easily lay aside. For this reason his enemies, as he himself says,[*](In Phil. ii. 30.) called him morose and ill-mannered.

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.