Plutarch, Parallel Lives

Plutarch HOME Parallel Lives or ‘Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans’, is a series of biographies of famous men, arranged in tandem to show their common virtues or failings.
PLUTARCH Parallel Lives Selected Excerpts COMPARISON OF DEMOSTHENES AND CICERO The translation is by Bernadotte Perrin, (Loeb Classical Library edition -Cambridge, MA and London, 1923). These are the most memorable circumstances recorded in history of Demosthenes and Cicero which have come to our knowledge. But omitting an exact comparison of their respective faculties in speaking, yet thus much seems fit to be said; that Demosthenes, to make himself a master in rhetoric, applied all the faculties he had, natural or acquired, wholly that way; that he far surpassed in force and strength of eloquence all his contemporaries in political and judicial speaking, in grandeur and majesty all the panegyrical orators, and in accuracy and science all the logicians and rhetoricians of his day; that Cicero was highly educated, and by his diligent study became a most accomplished general scholar in all these branches, having left behind him numerous philosophical treatises of his own on Academic principles; as, indeed, even in his written speeches, both political and judicial, we see him continually trying to show his learning by the way. And one may discover the different temper of each of them in their speeches. For Demosthenes's oratory was without all embellishment and jesting, wholly composed for real effect and seriousness; not smelling of the lamp, as Pytheas scoffingly said, but of the temperance, thoughtfulness, austerity, and grave earnestness of his temper. Whereas Cicero's love of mockery often ran him into scurrility; and in his love of laughing away serious arguments in judicial cases by jests and facetious remarks, with a view to the advantage of his clients, he paid too little regard to what was decent: saying, for example, in his defense of Caelius, that he had done no absurd thing in such plenty and affluence to indulge himself in pleasures, it being a kind of madness not to enjoy the things we possess, especially since the most eminent philosophers have asserted pleasure to be the chiefest good. So also we are told, that when Cicero, being consul, undertook the defense of Murena against Cato's prosecution, by way of bantering Cato, he made a long series of jokes upon the absurd paradoxes, as they are called, of the Stoic sect; so that a loud laughter passing from the crowd to the judges, Cato, with a quiet smile, said to those that sat next him, "My friends, what an amusing consul we have." And, indeed, Cicero was by natural temper very much disposed to mirth and pleasantry, and always appeared with a smiling and serene countenance. But Demosthenes had constant care and thoughtfulness in his look, and a serious anxiety, which he seldom, if ever, laid aside; and, therefore, was accounted by his enemies, as he himself confessed, morose and ill-mannered. Also, it is very evident, out of their several writings, that Demosthenes never touched upon his own praises but decently and without offense when there was need of it, and for some weightier end; but, upon other occasions modestly and sparingly. But Cicero's immeasurable boasting of himself in his orations argues him guilty of an uncontrollable appetite for distinction, his cry being evermore that arms should give place to the gown, and the soldier's laurel to the tongue. And at last we find him extolling not only his deeds and actions, but his orations also, as well those that were only spoken, as those that were published; as if he were engaged in a boyish trial of skill, who should speak best, with the rhetoricians, Isocrates and Anaximenes, not as one who could claim the task to guide and instruct the Roman nation, the Soldier fullarmed, terrific to the foe. It is necessary, indeed, for a political leader to be an able speaker; but it is an ignoble thing for any man to admire and relish the glory of his own eloquence. And, in this matter, Demosthenes had a more than ordinary gravity and magnificence of mind, accounting his talent in speaking nothing more than a mere accomplishment and matter of practice, the success of which must depend greatly on the good-will and candor of his hearers, and regarding those who pride themselves on such accounts to be men of a low and petty disposition. The power of persuading and governing the people did, indeed, equally belong to both, so that those who had armies and camps at command stood in need of their assistance; as Chares, Diopithes, and Leosthenes of Demosthenes's, Pompey and young Caesar of Cicero's, as the latter himself admits in his Memoirs addressed to Agrippa and Maecenas. But what are thought and commonly said most to demonstrate and try the tempers of men, namely, authority and place, by moving every passion, and discovering every frailty, these are things which Demosthenes never received; nor was he ever in a position to give such proof of himself, having never obtained any eminent office, nor led any of those armies into the field against Philip which he raised by his eloquence. Cicero, on the other hand, was sent quaestor into Sicily, and proconsul into Cilicia and Cappadocia, at a time when avarice was at the height, and the commanders and governors who were employed abroad, as though they thought it a mean thing to steal, set themselves to seize by open force; so that it seemed no heinous matter to take bribes, but he that did it most moderately was in good esteem. And yet he, at this time, gave the most abundant proofs alike of his contempt of riches and of his humanity and good-nature. And at Rome, when he was created consul in name, but indeed received sovereign and dictatorial authority against Catiline and his conspirators, he attested the truth of Plato's prediction, that then the miseries of states would be at an end, when by a happy fortune supreme power, wisdom, and justice should be united in one. It is said, to the reproach of Demosthenes, that his eloquence was mercenary; that he privately made orations for Phormion and Apollodorus, though adversaries in the same cause; that he was charged with moneys received from the king of Persia, and condemned for bribes from Harpalus. And should we grant that all those (and they are not few) who have made these statements against him have spoken what is untrue, yet that Demosthenes was not the character to look without desire on the presents offered him out of respect and gratitude by royal persons, and that one who lent money on maritime usury was likely to be thus indifferent, is what we cannot assert. But that Cicero refused, from the Sicilians when he was quaestor, from the king of Cappadocia when he was proconsul, and from his friends at Rome when he was in exile, many presents, though urged to receive them, has been said already. Moreover, Demosthenes's banishment was infamous, upon conviction for bribery; Cicero's very honorable, for ridding his country of a set of villains. Therefore, when Demosthenes fled his country, no man regarded it; for Cicero's sake the senate changed their habit, and put on mourning, and would not be persuaded to make any act before Cicero's return was decreed. Cicero, however, passed his exile idly in Macedonia. But the very exile of Demosthenes made up a great part of the services he did for his country; for he went through the cities of Greece, and everywhere, as we have said, joined in the conflict on behalf of the Grecians, driving out the Macedonian ambassadors, and approving himself a much better citizen than Themistocles and Alcibiades did in the like fortune. And, after his return, he again devoted himself to the same public service, and continued firm to his opposition to Antipater and the Macedonians. Whereas Laelius reproached Cicero in the senate for sitting silent when Caesar, a beardless youth, asked leave to come forward, contrary to the law, as a candidate for the consulship; and Brutus, in his epistles, charges him with nursing and rearing a greater and more heavy tyranny than that they had removed. Finally, Cicero's death excites our pity; for an old man to be miserably carried up and down by his servants, flying and hiding himself from that death which was, in the course of nature, so near at hand; and yet at last to be murdered. Demosthenes, though he seemed at first a little to supplicate, yet, by his preparing and keeping the poison by him, demands our admiration; and still more admirable was his using it. When the temple of the god no longer afforded him a sanctuary, he took refuge, as it were, at a mightier altar, freeing himself from arms and soldiers, and laughing to scorn the cruelty of Antipater. COMPARISON OF PERICLES AND FABIUS MAXIMUS Such is the story of these men's lives, and since both left behind them many examples of civil as well as military excellence, let us consider, in the first place, the matter of their military achievements. Pericles was at the head of his people when its prosperity was greatest, when its own strength was at the full, and its imperial power culminating. Apparently, therefore, it was the general good fortune and vigour that kept him free from stumbling and falling, whereas the achievements of Fabius, who took charge of his city at times of the greatest disgrace and misfortune, did not maintain her safely in her prosperity, but rather lifted her out of disaster into a better state. And besides, the victories of Cimon, and the trophies of Myronides and Leocrates, and the many great successes of Tolmides, made it the privilege of Pericles, during his administration, to enrich the city with holidays and public festivals, rather than to enlarge and protect her dominion by war. Fabius, on the contrary, whose eyes beheld many disgraceful defeats, many cruel deaths of imperators and generals, lakes and plains and forests filled with slain armies, and rivers flowing with blood and slaughter to the sea, put helping and supporting hands to his city, and by his firm and independent course, prevented her from utter exhaustion through the disasters brought upon her by others. 4 And yet it would appear to be not so difficult a task to manage a city when she is humbled by adversity and rendered obedient to wisdom by necessity, as it is to bridle a people which is exalted by prosperity and swollen with insolence and boldness, which is precisely the way in which Pericles governed Athens. Still, the magnitude and multitude of evils which afflicted the Romans revealed the steadfast purpose and the greatness of the man who was not confounded by them, and would not abandon his own principles of action. 2 1 Over against the capture of Samos by Pericles, it is fair to set the taking of Tarentum by Fabius, and against Euboea, the cities of Campania (Capua itself was reduced by the consuls Fulvius and Appius). In open and regular battle, Fabius seems to have won no victory except that for which he celebrated his first triumph;1 whereas Pericles set up nine trophies for his wars on land and sea. 2 However, no such exploit is recorded of Pericles as that by which Fabius snatched Minucius from the hands of Hannibal, and preserved an entire Roman army; the deed was certainly a noble one, and showed a combination of valour, wisdom, and kindness alike. So, on the other hand, no such defeat is recorded of Pericles as that which Fabius suffered when he was outwitted by Hannibal's stratagem of the oxen; he had his enemy imprisoned in the narrow defile which he had entered of his own accord and accidentally, but let him slip away unnoticed in the night, force his way out when day came, take advantage of his adversary's delays, and so conquer his captor. 3 And if it is the part of a good general not only to improve the present, but also to judge correctly of the future, then Pericles was such a general, for the war which the Athenians were waging came to an end as he had foreknown and foretold; for they undertook too much and lost their empire. But it was contrary to the principles of Fabius that the Romans sent Scipio against Carthage and were completely victorious, not through the favour of fortune, but through the wisdom and valour of the general who utterly conquered their enemies. 4 Therefore the very disasters of his country bear witness to the sagacity of Pericles; while the successes of the Romans proved that Fabius was completely in the wrong. And it is just as great a failing in a general to involve himself in disaster from want of foresight, as it is to throw away an opportunity for success from want of confidence. Inexperience, it would seem, is to blame in each case, which both engenders rashness in a man, and robs a man of courage. So much for their military abilities. As for their statesmanship, the Peloponnesian war was a ground of great complaint against Pericles. For it is said to have been brought on by his contention that no concession should be made to Sparta. I think, however, that not even Fabius Maximus would have made any concessions to Carthage, but would have nobly undergone the peril needful to maintain the Roman supremacy. Nevertheless, the courteous and gentle conduct of Fabius towards Minucius contrasts forcibly with the factious opposition of Pericles to Cimon and Thucydides, who were both good and true men and of the highest birth, and yet were subjected by him to ostracism and banishment. 2 But Pericles had greater influence and power than Fabius. For this reason he did not suffer any other general to bring misfortune upon the city by his evil counsels, except that Tolmides broke away from his guidance, carried through by main force a plan for attacking Boeotia, and met with disaster; but the rest all attached themselves submissively to his opinion, owing to the greatness of his influence. 3 Fabius, on the other hand, though sure and unerring in his own conduct of affairs, seems to have fallen short through his inability to restrain others. Surely the Romans would not have suffered so many disasters if Fabius had been as influential with them as Pericles was at Athens. And further, as regards their freedom from mercenary views, Pericles displayed it by never taking any gifts at all; Fabius by his liberality to the needy, when he ransomed at his own costs his captured soldiers, 4 albeit the amount of his property was not great, but about six talents. And Pericles, though he had opportunities, owing to his authority and influence, to enrich himself from obsequious allies and kings beyond all possible estimates, nevertheless kept himself pre-eminently superior to bribes and free from corruption. By the side of the great public works, the temples, and the stately edifices, with which Pericles adorned Athens, all Rome's attempts at splendour down to the times of the Caesars, taken together, are not worthy to be considered, nay, the one had a towering pre-eminence above the other, both in grandeur of design, and grandeur of execution, which precludes comparison.

Plutarch HOME

Parallel Lives or ‘Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans’, is a series of biographies of famous men, arranged in tandem to show their common virtues or failings.

PLUTARCH

Parallel Lives

Selected Excerpts

COMPARISON OF DEMOSTHENES AND CICERO

The translation is by Bernadotte Perrin, (Loeb Classical Library edition -Cambridge, MA and London, 1923).

These are the most memorable circumstances recorded in history of Demosthenes and Cicero which have come to our knowledge. But omitting an exact comparison of their respective faculties in speaking, yet thus much seems fit to be said; that Demosthenes, to make himself a master in rhetoric, applied all the faculties he had, natural or acquired, wholly that way; that he far surpassed in force and strength of eloquence all his contemporaries in political and judicial speaking, in grandeur and majesty all the panegyrical orators, and in accuracy and science all the logicians and rhetoricians of his day; that Cicero was highly educated, and by his diligent study became a most accomplished general scholar in all these branches, having left behind him numerous philosophical treatises of his own on Academic principles; as, indeed, even in his written speeches, both political and judicial, we see him continually trying to show his learning by the way. And one may discover the different temper of each of them in their speeches. For Demosthenes's oratory was without all embellishment and jesting, wholly composed for real effect and seriousness; not smelling of the lamp, as Pytheas scoffingly said, but of the temperance, thoughtfulness, austerity, and grave earnestness of his temper. Whereas Cicero's love of mockery often ran him into scurrility; and in his love of laughing away serious arguments in judicial cases by jests and facetious remarks, with a view to the advantage of his clients, he paid too little regard to what was decent: saying, for example, in his defense of Caelius, that he had done no absurd thing in such plenty and affluence to indulge himself in pleasures, it being a kind of madness not to enjoy the things we possess, especially since the most eminent philosophers have asserted pleasure to be the chiefest good. So also we are told, that when Cicero, being consul, undertook the defense of Murena against Cato's prosecution, by way of bantering Cato, he made a long series of jokes upon the absurd paradoxes, as they are called, of the Stoic sect; so that a loud laughter passing from the crowd to the judges, Cato, with a quiet smile, said to those that sat next him, "My friends, what an amusing consul we have."

And, indeed, Cicero was by natural temper very much disposed to mirth and pleasantry, and always appeared with a smiling and serene countenance. But Demosthenes had constant care and thoughtfulness in his look, and a serious anxiety, which he seldom, if ever, laid aside; and, therefore, was accounted by his enemies, as he himself confessed, morose and ill-mannered.

Also, it is very evident, out of their several writings, that Demosthenes never touched upon his own praises but decently and without offense when there was need of it, and for some weightier end; but, upon other occasions modestly and sparingly. But Cicero's immeasurable boasting of himself in his orations argues him guilty of an uncontrollable appetite for distinction, his cry being evermore that arms should give place to the gown, and the soldier's laurel to the tongue. And at last we find him extolling not only his deeds and actions, but his orations also, as well those that were only spoken, as those that were published; as if he were engaged in a boyish trial of skill, who should speak best, with the rhetoricians, Isocrates and Anaximenes, not as one who could claim the task to guide and instruct the Roman nation, the
Soldier fullarmed, terrific to the foe.

It is necessary, indeed, for a political leader to be an able speaker; but it is an ignoble thing for any man to admire and relish the glory of his own eloquence. And, in this matter, Demosthenes had a more than ordinary gravity and magnificence of mind, accounting his talent in speaking nothing more than a mere accomplishment and matter of practice, the success of which must depend greatly on the good-will and candor of his hearers, and regarding those who pride themselves on such accounts to be men of a low and petty disposition.

The power of persuading and governing the people did, indeed, equally belong to both, so that those who had armies and camps at command stood in need of their assistance; as Chares, Diopithes, and Leosthenes of Demosthenes's, Pompey and young Caesar of Cicero's, as the latter himself admits in his Memoirs addressed to Agrippa and Maecenas. But what are thought and commonly said most to demonstrate and try the tempers of men, namely, authority and place, by moving every passion, and discovering every frailty, these are things which Demosthenes never received; nor was he ever in a position to give such proof of himself, having never obtained any eminent office, nor led any of those armies into the field against Philip which he raised by his eloquence. Cicero, on the other hand, was sent quaestor into Sicily, and proconsul into Cilicia and Cappadocia, at a time when avarice was at the height, and the commanders and governors who were employed abroad, as though they thought it a mean thing to steal, set themselves to seize by open force; so that it seemed no heinous matter to take bribes, but he that did it most moderately was in good esteem. And yet he, at this time, gave the most abundant proofs alike of his contempt of riches and of his humanity and good-nature. And at Rome, when he was created consul in name, but indeed received sovereign and dictatorial authority against Catiline and his conspirators, he attested the truth of Plato's prediction, that then the miseries of states would be at an end, when by a happy fortune supreme power, wisdom, and justice should be united in one.

It is said, to the reproach of Demosthenes, that his eloquence was mercenary; that he privately made orations for Phormion and Apollodorus, though adversaries in the same cause; that he was charged with moneys received from the king of Persia, and condemned for bribes from Harpalus. And should we grant that all those (and they are not few) who have made these statements against him have spoken what is untrue, yet that Demosthenes was not the character to look without desire on the presents offered him out of respect and gratitude by royal persons, and that one who lent money on maritime usury was likely to be thus indifferent, is what we cannot assert. But that Cicero refused, from the Sicilians when he was quaestor, from the king of Cappadocia when he was proconsul, and from his friends at Rome when he was in exile, many presents, though urged to receive them, has been said already.

Moreover, Demosthenes's banishment was infamous, upon conviction for bribery; Cicero's very honorable, for ridding his country of a set of villains. Therefore, when Demosthenes fled his country, no man regarded it; for Cicero's sake the senate changed their habit, and put on mourning, and would not be persuaded to make any act before Cicero's return was decreed. Cicero, however, passed his exile idly in Macedonia. But the very exile of Demosthenes made up a great part of the services he did for his country; for he went through the cities of Greece, and everywhere, as we have said, joined in the conflict on behalf of the Grecians, driving out the Macedonian ambassadors, and approving himself a much better citizen than Themistocles and Alcibiades did in the like fortune. And, after his return, he again devoted himself to the same public service, and continued firm to his opposition to Antipater and the Macedonians. Whereas Laelius reproached Cicero in the senate for sitting silent when Caesar, a beardless youth, asked leave to come forward, contrary to the law, as a candidate for the consulship; and Brutus, in his epistles, charges him with nursing and rearing a greater and more heavy tyranny than that they had removed. Finally, Cicero's death excites our pity; for an old man to be miserably carried up and down by his servants, flying and hiding himself from that death which was, in the course of nature, so near at hand; and yet at last to be murdered. Demosthenes, though he seemed at first a little to supplicate, yet, by his preparing and keeping the poison by him, demands our admiration; and still more admirable was his using it. When the temple of the god no longer afforded him a sanctuary, he took refuge, as it were, at a mightier altar, freeing himself from arms and soldiers, and laughing to scorn the cruelty of Antipater.

COMPARISON OF PERICLES AND FABIUS MAXIMUS

Such is the story of these men's lives, and since both left behind them many examples of civil as well as military excellence, let us consider, in the first place, the matter of their military achievements. Pericles was at the head of his people when its prosperity was greatest, when its own strength was at the full, and its imperial power culminating. Apparently, therefore, it was the general good fortune and vigour that kept him free from stumbling and falling, whereas the achievements of Fabius, who took charge of his city at times of the greatest disgrace and misfortune, did not maintain her safely in her prosperity, but rather lifted her out of disaster into a better state. And besides, the victories of Cimon, and the trophies of Myronides and Leocrates, and the many great successes of Tolmides, made it the privilege of Pericles, during his administration, to enrich the city with holidays and public festivals, rather than to enlarge and protect her dominion by war.

Fabius, on the contrary, whose eyes beheld many disgraceful defeats, many cruel deaths of imperators and generals, lakes and plains and forests filled with slain armies, and rivers flowing with blood and slaughter to the sea, put helping and supporting hands to his city, and by his firm and independent course, prevented her from utter exhaustion through the disasters brought upon her by others.

4 And yet it would appear to be not so difficult a task to manage a city when she is humbled by adversity and rendered obedient to wisdom by necessity, as it is to bridle a people which is exalted by prosperity and swollen with insolence and boldness, which is precisely the way in which Pericles governed Athens. Still, the magnitude and multitude of evils which afflicted the Romans revealed the steadfast purpose and the greatness of the man who was not confounded by them, and would not abandon his own principles of action.

2 1 Over against the capture of Samos by Pericles, it is fair to set the taking of Tarentum by Fabius, and against Euboea, the cities of Campania (Capua itself was reduced by the consuls Fulvius and Appius). In open and regular battle, Fabius seems to have won no victory except that for which he celebrated his first triumph;1 whereas Pericles set up nine trophies for his wars on land and sea.

2 However, no such exploit is recorded of Pericles as that by which Fabius snatched Minucius from the hands of Hannibal, and preserved an entire Roman army; the deed was certainly a noble one, and showed a combination of valour, wisdom, and kindness alike. So, on the other hand, no such defeat is recorded of Pericles as that which Fabius suffered when he was outwitted by Hannibal's stratagem of the oxen; he had his enemy imprisoned in the narrow defile which he had entered of his own accord and accidentally, but let him slip away unnoticed in the night, force his way out when day came, take advantage of his adversary's delays, and so conquer his captor.

3 And if it is the part of a good general not only to improve the present, but also to judge correctly of the future, then Pericles was such a general, for the war which the Athenians were waging came to an end as he had foreknown and foretold; for they undertook too much and lost their empire. But it was contrary to the principles of Fabius that the Romans sent Scipio against Carthage and were completely victorious, not through the favour of fortune, but through the wisdom and valour of the general who utterly conquered their enemies.

4 Therefore the very disasters of his country bear witness to the sagacity of Pericles; while the successes of the Romans proved that Fabius was completely in the wrong. And it is just as great a failing in a general to involve himself in disaster from want of foresight, as it is to throw away an opportunity for success from want of confidence. Inexperience, it would seem, is to blame in each case, which both engenders rashness in a man, and robs a man of courage. So much for their military abilities.

As for their statesmanship, the Peloponnesian war was a ground of great complaint against Pericles. For it is said to have been brought on by his contention that no concession should be made to Sparta. I think, however, that not even Fabius Maximus would have made any concessions to Carthage, but would have nobly undergone the peril needful to maintain the Roman supremacy. Nevertheless, the courteous and gentle conduct of Fabius towards Minucius contrasts forcibly with the factious opposition of Pericles to Cimon and Thucydides, who were both good and true men and of the highest birth, and yet were subjected by him to ostracism and banishment.

2 But Pericles had greater influence and power than Fabius. For this reason he did not suffer any other general to bring misfortune upon the city by his evil counsels, except that Tolmides broke away from his guidance, carried through by main force a plan for attacking Boeotia, and met with disaster; but the rest all attached themselves submissively to his opinion, owing to the greatness of his influence.

3 Fabius, on the other hand, though sure and unerring in his own conduct of affairs, seems to have fallen short through his inability to restrain others. Surely the Romans would not have suffered so many disasters if Fabius had been as influential with them as Pericles was at Athens. And further, as regards their freedom from mercenary views, Pericles displayed it by never taking any gifts at all; Fabius by his liberality to the needy, when he ransomed at his own costs his captured soldiers,

4 albeit the amount of his property was not great, but about six talents. And Pericles, though he had opportunities, owing to his authority and influence, to enrich himself from obsequious allies and kings beyond all possible estimates, nevertheless kept himself pre-eminently superior to bribes and free from corruption. By the side of the great public works, the temples, and the stately edifices, with which Pericles adorned Athens, all Rome's attempts at splendour down to the times of the Caesars, taken together, are not worthy to be considered, nay, the one had a towering pre-eminence above the other, both in grandeur of design, and grandeur of execution, which precludes comparison.