Plutarch · a new plain-English translation from the original language
Since the facts of the history stand thus, it is clear that the comparison does not admit of many differences or points of unlikeness. Both men waged war against illustrious adversaries — the one against the Macedonians, the other against the Carthaginians — and both won victories that were celebrated far and wide: the one for capturing Macedonia and ending the succession from Antigonus in its seventh king, the other for putting down all the tyrannies
in Sicily and freeing the island — unless indeed one should wish to press the objection that Aemilius fell in with Perseus at the height of his strength, when he had actually defeated the Romans, whereas Timoleon encountered Dionysius when he was utterly worn out and spent; and again, on Timoleon's behalf, that he conquered many tyrants and the great power of the Carthaginians with an army got together by chance, not, as Aemilius did, by employing men experienced in war and trained to obedience,
but with mercenaries and undisciplined soldiers, accustomed to campaign for their own pleasure. For successes achieved with unequal resources bring an unequal share of credit to the general. Since, then, both men proved themselves pure and just in their conduct of affairs, Aemilius appears to have come to his task already prepared for this by the laws and by his fatherland, whereas Timoleon made himself such by his own effort; and the proof of this is that
the Romans of that time were, without exception, uniformly well-disciplined and submissive to their customs, fearing both the laws and their fellow citizens, while among the Greeks there is no leader or general who touched Sicily in that period without being corrupted, except Dion — and even Dion many suspected of reaching for sole rule and dreaming of some Laconian-style kingship. Timaeus even records that Gylippus was banished
by the Syracusans in disgrace and dishonor, condemned for his love of money and his rapacity while in command. And what Pharax the Spartan and Callippus the Athenian did — men who hoped to rule Sicily, and who transgressed the law and broke their pledges — has been recorded by many. And yet who were these men, or how great was the power they actually held, to nurture ambitions of that sort? Of these, the one paid court to Dionysius once the tyrant had lost Syracuse and gone into exile, while Callippus was one of the mercenary captains under Dion. But Timoleon,
sent to the Syracusans with full authority at their own request and entreaty, and owing it to himself not to seek power but simply to keep what he had received when they willingly gave it, made the overthrow of the lawless rulers the very limit of his own generalship and command. Yet this too is remarkable in Aemilius, that after overturning so great a kingdom he did not increase his estate by so much as a drachma, nor did he even look upon or lay hand on the money, though he gave much of it away to others
and made gifts of it. I would not fault Timoleon for taking a handsome house and a landed estate; for it is not shameful to accept such things, but it is nobler not to accept them, and it is a superabundance of virtue when, being free to display it, one shows that one has no need of it. But since, just as a body capable of enduring both cold and heat is by nature stronger for coping with both changes alike,
so too a soul's unmixed vigor and strength, which neither good fortune softens and relaxes into arrogance nor misfortunes humble, appears more complete in Aemilius — for in harsh fortune and great suffering over his children he showed himself no smaller or less dignified than he had appeared amid his successes; whereas Timoleon, though he acted nobly regarding his brother, could not hold out with reason against
his grief, but was so humbled by remorse and sorrow that for twenty years he could not bear to look upon the speaker's platform or the marketplace. One ought indeed to flee from and be ashamed of disgraceful acts, but excessive caution against every kind of ill repute belongs to a character that is gentle and soft, but lacks greatness.