Plutarch closes the paired Lives of Aristides and Cato the Elder by weighing an Athenian statesman who chose poverty against a Roman self-made man who prized frugality but also prided himself on his own wealth and self-praise.
This short comparison essay is the formal synkrisis that Plutarch appends to his paired biographies of Aristides the Athenian and Marcus Cato the Elder. Rather than retelling their lives, Plutarch sets the two men side by side point by point: their rise from modest origins into political life, the rivals they had to outshine (Themistocles for Aristides, the great Roman families for Cato), their military records, their handling of money and household affairs, their generalship, their self-restraint, and their late-life conduct. He treats each life, in his own words, 'like a poem or a painting,' looking for where the parallels converge and where they sharply diverge.
The essay unfolds as a series of escalating contrasts. Aristides is shown never taking first credit for a victory even when he deserved it, remaining desperately poor by choice, and dying without providing dowries for his daughters or money for his own burial, so that his descendants sank into want. Cato, by contrast, built up his estate, wrote instructional works on farming and household management, held the first place in his own victories, and left a line of praetors and consuls for four generations. Yet Plutarch does not let Cato off easily: he presses the question of what frugality is actually for, faults Cato's habitual self-praise and his political vendetta against Scipio Africanus, and closes with an unsparing account of Cato's old-age marriage to his attendant's daughter, which he judges beneath the old man's dignity.
Historically, this comparison matters because it is Plutarch's own summary judgment on two of his most famous subjects, written for a Greco-Roman readership being asked to weigh Greek and Roman virtue against each other on the same moral scale. It shows Plutarch's biographical method at its most explicit: character revealed through poverty, ambition, self-command, and family conduct rather than through military glory alone. The verdict Plutarch reaches -- that poverty freely chosen and put to just use outranks wealth carefully managed -- reflects the moral philosophy that runs through the whole of the Parallel Lives, and it gives modern readers a rare place where Plutarch states his ethical criteria outright instead of leaving them implicit in narrative.
“But if we must take up the comparison point by point, treating each life like a poem or a painting, it is common to both that they advanced, from resources that did not exist, to a political career and reputation through virtue and ability.”
— Comparison Of Aristides With Marcus Cato
“For poverty is nowhere shameful in itself, but only where it is a sign of idleness, intemperance, extravagance, or thoughtlessness; whereas attending a man who is prudent, hardworking, just, brave, and devoted to the public good along with every other virtue, it is a mark of greatness and loftiness of soul.”
— Comparison Of Aristides With Marcus Cato
“The great resource for a political career is not wealth but self-sufficiency, which, because it requires nothing superfluous for itself privately, leads to no distraction away from public business”
— Comparison Of Aristides With Marcus Cato
“poverty is fitting to be ashamed of for those who are poor against their will, but that for those who, like himself, are poor by choice, it is fitting to take pride in it.”
— Comparison Of Aristides With Marcus Cato
“For an old man of such an age to marry, while his own son was already grown and his son's wife a young bride, taking the daughter of an attendant, a man who served the state for pay, as his father-in-law, was nowhere an honorable thing”
— Comparison Of Aristides With Marcus Cato
It is Plutarch's closing synkrisis to his paired Lives of Aristides and Cato the Elder, weighing the two men point by point on their origins, military records, handling of wealth, ambition, and personal conduct. Plutarch treats it as a formal judgment rather than a narrative, explicitly comparing the pair 'like a poem or a painting.' The essay ultimately favors Aristides' chosen poverty and freedom from ambition over Cato's wealth and self-promotion, while still crediting Cato's real achievements.
Plutarch argues that poverty is only shameful when caused by idleness or extravagance, but in a just and capable man it is 'a mark of greatness and loftiness of soul.' He notes Aristides could easily have grown rich by plundering enemy soldiers after his victories but chose not to. Plutarch even cites Aristides' own line, delivered at the trial of Callias, that voluntary poverty is something to take pride in.
Yes. While crediting Cato's frugality, farming writings, and consular victories, Plutarch questions why a wealthy man boasted of needing so little, criticizes his habitual self-praise, blames him for nearly ruining Scipio's campaign against Hannibal out of rivalry, and sharply condemns his old-age marriage to his attendant's daughter as beneath his dignity.
Plutarch reports that Aristides made no provision even for his daughters' dowries or for his own burial. As a result, his descendants fell into poverty, with some reduced to begging and others forced to live on the public dole, in contrast to Cato's line, which produced praetors and consuls for four generations.
Aristides is linked to Marathon, Salamis, and Plataea, though Plutarch notes he was never given first credit for any of them -- Miltiades, Themistocles, and Pausanias each outshone him in the record. Cato held first place in his own victory in Spain as consul and won distinct personal glory as military tribune at Thermopylae against Antiochus, a victory Plutarch says 'drove Asia out of Greece.'
Plutarch contrasts Aristides' complete freedom from ambition, which let him support Themistocles' generalship even as a rival, with Cato's strong share of ambition, which drove his hostility toward Scipio Africanus. He states that this rivalry 'very nearly overturned and ruined' the campaign in which Scipio defeated Hannibal.
Plutarch describes Cato marrying, in old age and while his own son already had a grown wife, the daughter of an attendant who served the state for pay. He calls the match undignified whether motivated by pleasure or by anger at his son over a mistress, and rejects Cato's own justification for it as untrue.
Plutarch leans toward Aristides, holding that his voluntary poverty, freedom from ambition, and untouched self-restraint outweigh Cato's greater wealth, dynastic success, and outright military first-places. He frames self-sufficiency, not wealth or glory, as the truest resource for a life in politics.
Aemilius Paulus · Agesilaus · Agis · Alcibiades · Alexander · Antony · Aratus · Aristides · Artaxerxes · Caesar · Caius Gracchus · Caius Marius