Plutarch's Lives: Volume I

Comparison of Paulus Aemilius and Timoleon

I. The characters of these men being such as is shown in their histories, it is evident that in comparing them we shall find few differences and points of variance. Even their wars were in both cases waged against notable antagonists, the one with the Macedonians, the other with the Carthaginians: while their conquests were glorious, as the one took Macedonia, and crushed the dynasty of Antigonus in the person of its seventh king, while the other drove all the despots from Sicily and set the island free. Unless indeed any one should insinuate that Aemilius attacked Perseus when he was in great strength and had conquered the Romans before, whereas Timoleon fell upon Dionysius when he was quite worn out and helpless: though again it might be urged on behalf of Timoleon that he overcame many despots and the great power of Carthage, with an army hastily collected from all sources, not, like Aemilius, commanding men who were inured to war and knew how to obey, but making use of disorderly mercenary soldiers who only fought when it pleased them to do so. An equal success, gained with such unequal means, reflects the greater credit on the general.

II. Both were just and incorruptible in their conduct: but Aemilius seems to have had the advantage of the customs and state of feeling among his countrymen, by which he was trained to integrity, while Timoleon without any such encouragement acted virtuously, from his own nature. This is proved by the fact that the Romans of that period were all submissive to authority, and carried out the traditions of the state, respecting the laws and the opinions of their countrymen: whereas, except Dion, no Greek leader or general of that time had anything to do with Sicilian affairs who did not take bribes: though many suspected than Dion was meditating making himself king, and that he had dreams of an empire like that of Sparta.

Timaeus tells us that the Syracusans sent away Gylippus in disgrace for his insatiable covetousness, and the bribes which they discovered that he received when in command. And many writers had dwelt upon the wicked and treacherous acts which Pharax the Spartan and Kallippus the Athenian committed, when they were endeavouring to make themselves masters of Sicily. Yet, what were they, and what resources had they, that they conceived such great designs: the one being only a follower of Dionysius when he was banished from Syracuse, the other a captain of mercenaries under Dion? But Timoleon, who was sent to the Syracusans as generalissimo at their own request and prayer, did not seek for command, but had a right to it. Yet when he received his power as general and ruler from them of their own free will, he voluntarily decided to hold it only till he should have expelled from Sicily all those who were reigning despotically. In Aemilius again we must admire this, that he subdued so great an empire and yet did not enrich himself by one drachma, and never even saw or touched the king's treasures, although he distributed much of them in presents to others. And still, I do not say that Timoleon is to be blamed for having received a fine house and estate; for there is no disgrace in receiving it by such means, though not to take it is better, and shows almost superhuman virtue, which cares not to take what is lawfully within its reach. Yet, as the strongest bodies are those which can equally well support the extremes of heat and cold, so the noblest minds are those which prosperity does not render insolent and overbearing, nor ill fortune depress: and here Aemilius appears more nearly to approach absolute perfection, as, when in great misfortune and grief for his children, he showed the same dignity and firmness as after the greatest success. Whereas Timoleon, though he acted towards his brother as became a noble nature, yet could not support himself against his sorrow by reason, but was so crushed by remorse and grief that for twenty years he could not appear or speak in the public assembly. We ought indeed to shrink from and feel shame at what is base; but the nature which is over–cautious to avoid blame may be gentle and kindly, but cannot be great.