Plutarch · a new plain-English translation from the original language
Of the deeds we have set out, all that we judge worthy of note and memory, one can see that their military actions do not tip the scale heavily toward either man; for both alike, in their generalships, displayed many acts of soldierly daring and courage, and many too of skill and foresight,
except that someone might wish to declare Alcibiades the more complete general, on the ground that both by land and by sea, in many contests, he went on winning and succeeding; whereas the fact that, when present and in command, each always plainly set his own side's affairs upright, and again, still more plainly, did harm to them when he changed sides, held true of both alike.
As for their political conduct, the sober-minded loathed the excessive wantonness of Alcibiades and the impurity of his vulgarity and buffoonery in his crowd-pleasing dealings with the many; while the Roman people hated that of Marcius as altogether graceless, haughty, and oligarchic.
Neither, then, is to be praised; yet the man who plays the demagogue and courts favor is less blameworthy than those who abuse the many in order not to seem to play the demagogue. For it is shameful to flatter a people for the sake of gaining power, but to be strong through being feared, and through doing harm and oppressing, is, beyond the shame, also unjust.
That Marcius, then, is supposed to have been a man simple and straightforward in character, while Alcibiades was unscrupulous in his politics and untruthful, is not unclear. Above all they accuse him of malice and deceit, whereby, as Thucydides has recorded, he tricked the Spartan envoys and broke the peace.
But this policy, though it again threw the city into war, made it strong and formidable, since the alliance of the Mantineans and the Argives was won over through Alcibiades. Marcius, on the other hand, likewise through deceit, brought Romans and Volscians into war with each other, falsely slandering those who had come to the games, as Dionysius has recorded; and the motive makes the deed the more base,
for it was not out of rivalry, nor out of political contest or competition, as with the other, but in gratifying his own anger — from which, as Dio says, no one ever got any benefit — that he threw many parts of Italy into confusion and, in his fury against his fatherland, wasted many cities that had done no wrong. And yet Alcibiades too, through anger, became the cause of great disasters for his fellow citizens.
But when he first learned that they were repenting, he showed good will, and when again cast off, he did not gloat over the generals' mistakes, nor did he look on while they took bad counsel and ran into danger, but did the very thing for which Aristides is especially praised in his dealings with Themistocles: even though no friendship existed between himself and the men then holding command, he approached them anyway and instructed them in what the situation required.
Marcius, on the other hand, first did harm to the whole city, though he had not suffered at the hands of the whole, but only the best and most powerful part had joined in wronging him and had shared his grief; and then, though many embassies and entreaties sought to heal a single fit of anger and ignorance, he was not softened nor did he yield, but made it plain that his aim was to destroy his fatherland and cast it down, not merely to be restored and return home — having taken up a grievous and implacable war.
But someone will say that in this Alcibiades differed: for Alcibiades, being plotted against by the Spartans, changed sides to the Athenians out of both fear and hatred of them, whereas it was not honorable for Marcius to abandon the Volscians, who were doing everything justly toward him. For he had been appointed their leader and held the greatest trust, together with command,
not as that other man, whom the Spartans used rather than employed, wandering about the city and then again rolling about in the camp, until at last he gave himself over into the hands of Tissaphernes — unless indeed, by Zeus, it was out of longing that Athens should not be utterly destroyed, so that he might return, that he paid this court.
As for money, then, Alcibiades is recorded as having often taken it wrongly from bribes, and as having spent it badly on luxury and licentiousness; but Marcius, when the generals offered it to him with honor, could not be persuaded to take it. For this reason he was above all burdensome to the many in the disputes over debts against the people, since he seemed to be insulting the poor not for gain but out of arrogance and contempt.
Now in one of his letters Antipater, remarking on the passing of the philosopher Aristotle, says, "besides everything else, the man also had the gift of persuasion." But this quality, being absent from the deeds and virtues of Marcius, made them burdensome even to those who benefited by them, since men could not endure his haughtiness and that self-will which, as Plato said, dwells with solitude; whereas Alcibiades, on the contrary, knew how to deal familiarly with those he encountered, so it is no wonder that, in the matters where he was successful, his reputation flourished, blooming with good will and honor, since even some of his errors often carried charm and grace.
Hence this man, though he had done the city no small or few harms, was nevertheless repeatedly appointed leader and general, while the other, though he sought office after many feats of valor and manly deeds, fell from the office that was rightfully his. Thus the citizens could not bring themselves to hate the one even while suffering ill at his hands, while it was the other's lot, though admired, not to be loved.
And indeed Marcius achieved nothing for the city while he generaled, but only against his fatherland while with the enemy; whereas the Athenians profited from Alcibiades both when he often served as soldier and as general — for when present he mastered his enemies as much as he wished, and when absent, slanders against him prevailed —
and Marcius, while present, was condemned by the Romans, and while present, was destroyed by the Volscians — unjustly and impiously, to be sure — yet he himself furnished the plausible pretext for it, in that he did not accept the terms of settlement publicly offered, but, privately persuaded by the women, did not put an end to the enmity, but, while the war still stood, let slip the moment and destroyed it,
for having persuaded those who had trusted him, he ought to have withdrawn, if he set the greatest store by justice toward them. But if he cared nothing for the Volscians, and was leading the war on merely wishing to glut his own anger, and then let it drop, it was not honorable that he should have spared his fatherland for his mother's sake, but rather that, together with his fatherland, he should have spared his mother — for his mother too was a part, and his wife too was a part, of the fatherland he was besieging.
And that, having dealt harshly with the public supplications and the entreaties of envoys and the prayers of priests, he should then grant the withdrawal as a favor to his mother, was not an honor to his mother, but a dishonor to his fatherland, which was being saved by pity and intercession made for one woman's sake, as though it were not worthy to be saved for its own sake — for the favor was invidious and harsh and truly graceless, and had in it nothing of fair dealing toward either side: for he withdrew neither persuaded by those he was warring against, nor having persuaded those warring alongside him.
The cause of all this was the unsociable and excessively haughty and self-willed quality of his character, which in itself is burdensome to the many, but when joined to ambition becomes altogether savage and implacable. For such men do not court the many, on the ground that they have no need of honor, and then grow harsh when they do not obtain it. Since, as for not being obsequious nor courting the crowds, Metellus too had this quality, and Aristides, and Epaminondas;
but because they truly held in contempt the things of which the people are master to give or take away, when ostracized and voted out of office and repeatedly condemned, they did not grow angry at the citizens for their ingratitude, but welcomed them again when they repented, and were reconciled when called upon. For the man least given to courting favor ought least to be given to taking vengeance on the many, since being harsh at not obtaining honor springs precisely from too eager a craving for it.
Alcibiades, then, did not deny that he rejoiced when honored and chafed when overlooked, and for this reason he tried to be agreeable and pleasing to those present; but Marcius' pride would not let him court those who had power to honor him and so increase his arrogance, while at the same time his ambition gave him anger and grief whenever he was neglected.
And these are the points on which one might find fault with the man; but in all else he is brilliant, and in his self-restraint and his command over the love of money he deserves comparison with those Greeks who were finest and most upright — certainly not, by Zeus, with Alcibiades, who surpassed everyone in shamelessness on these matters and cared least of all for what was honorable.