Part 9

XIX. Cornelia is said to have borne her misfortunes with a noble and elevated spirit, and to have said of the sacred ground on which her sons were murdered, that they had a tomb worthy of them. She resided in the neighbourhood of Misenum, without making any change in her usual mode of life. She had many friends, and her hospitable table was always crowded with guests; Greeks and learned men were constantly about her, and kings sent and received presents from her. To all her visitors and friends she was a most agreeable companion: she would tell them of the life and habits of her father Africanus, and, what is most surprising, would speak of her sons without showing sorrow or shedding a tear, relating their sufferings and their deeds to her inquiring friends as if she was speaking of the men of olden time. This made some think that her understanding had been impaired by old age or the greatness of her sorrows, and that she was dull to all sense of her misfortunes, while in fact such people themselves were too dull to see what a support it is against grief to have a noble nature, and to be of honourable lineage and honourably bred; and that though fortune has often the advantage over virtue in its attempts to guard against evils, yet she cannot take away from virtue the power of enduring them with fortitude.[123]

COMPARISON OF TIBERIUS AND CAIUS GRACCHUS WITH AGIS AND KLEOMENES.

I. Now that we have completed the narrative of these men's lives, it remains for us to compare them with one another. As for the Gracchi, not even their bitterest enemies could deny that they were the most virtuous of all the Romans, or that they were excellently well nurtured and educated; while Agis and Kleomenes appear to have excelled them in strength of mind, because they both, after having been brought up in the same fashion by which their elders had been corrupted, became the restorers of temperance and simplicity of life. Furthermore, the Gracchi, who lived at a period when Rome was at the height of its greatness and renown, felt ashamed to fall short of the glorious achievements of their forefathers; while the virtuous impulses of the others were not checked by their fathers having pursued the opposite course of policy, or by the miserable and distracted condition of their country. The greatest proof of the unselfishness and indifference to money of the Gracchi is that they filled various offices in the state, and yet kept their hands clean from dishonest gains; while it would be an insult to Agis to praise him for not having taken other men's money, as he gave up to his countrymen his own private property, which alone was worth six hundred talents. If then he thought it discreditable for him to be richer than any of his countrymen, even though his riches were lawfully acquired, what must have been his abhorrence of those who obtain money wrongfully.

II. There was also a great difference in the boldness and extent of their schemes of reform. The Gracchi were chiefly engaged in the construction of roads and the founding of cities, and Tiberius's most important measure of reform was the division of the public lands among the people, while the best act of his brother Caius was the establishment of a mixed tribunal by adding to the three hundred Senators three hundred Roman Knights. The revolution effected by Agis and Kleomenes was of quite a different kind. They thought, in Plato's words, that to proceed by slow degrees was merely cutting off the heads of the hydra,[124] and therefore they by one comprehensive measure swept away all abuses at once: although it would be nearer the truth to say that they swept all abuses out of the state by restoring to it its original constitution. It may also be observed that the reforms of the Gracchi were opposed by some of the most powerful men in Rome, whereas the legislation which was begun by Agis, and completed by Kleomenes, followed a famous and ancient precedent, the rhetras on sobriety and equality which had been communicated to their ancestors by Lykurgus with the sanction of the Pythian Apollo. It is also most important to notice that the reforms of the Gracchi made Rome no greater than she was before, while the acts of Kleomenes enabled him in a short time to make Sparta mistress of the whole of Peloponnesus, and to engage in a contest with the most powerful man of his time, with the object of ridding Greece from Illyrian and Gaulish mercenary troops, and of renewing its ancient glories under the rule of the Herakleidæ.

III. I think too that the deaths of these men show a certain difference in their courage. The Gracchi fought with their countrymen, and were slain by them while flying, while of the other two, Agis may almost be said to have died voluntarily, because he would not put a citizen to death, while Kleomenes, when insulted and ill-treated, fiercely attempted to avenge himself, and as circumstances prevented his succeeding, bravely killed himself. It may be said on the other side that Agis never distinguished himself in the field, and we may set against the many brilliant victories of Kleomenes the scaling of the wall of Carthage by Tiberius Gracchus, no slight achievement, and the peace which he made with the Numantines, by which he saved the lives of twenty thousand Roman soldiers, who could not otherwise have hoped to survive; while Caius, in several campaigns both in Italy and Sardinia, showed great military skill; so that they both might have rivalled the fame of the greatest generals of Rome, had they not been cut off so soon.

IV. In political matters Agis appears to have shown weakness, as he allowed Agesilaus to cheat the citizens out of their promised redistribution of lands, and in a feeble and vacillating manner announced his intention and then abandoned it. The cause of his irresolution was his extreme youth; while Kleomenes on the other hand effected his revolution with too great promptitude and daring, putting the Ephors to death without a trial, when it would have been easy for him to have won them over to his side, and banishing many of the citizens. It is not the part either of a wise physician or of a good politician to use the knife except in the last extremity, but it shows a want of skill in both, and in the latter case it is unjust as well as cruel. Of the Gracchi, neither would begin a civil war, and Caius is said not even to have defended himself when struck, but though forward enough in battle he was loth to fight in a party quarrel; for he appeared in public unarmed, and retired when fighting began, and evidently took more pains not to do any harm than not to suffer any. For this reason we must regard the flight of both the Gracchi as a proof, not of cowardice, but of caution; for they must either have retreated when attacked or have retaliated upon their opponents.

V. The heaviest charge that can be brought against Tiberius is that he deposed his colleague from the tribuneship, and afterwards sought a second tribuneship for himself. As for the murder of Antyllius, Caius Gracchus was most falsely and unjustly accused of it, for he did not wish him to die, and was grieved at his death. Again Kleomenes, not to speak of his massacre of the Ephors, set all the slaves at liberty, and practically made himself despot of the kingdom, although for form's sake he associated his brother with him, who was of the same family. And when Archidamus, who was the next heir to the throne of the other royal house, was persuaded by him to return from Messene to Sparta, as Kleomenes did not avenge his death, he caused men to suspect that he himself had some share in it. Yet Lykurgus, whom he affected to imitate, abdicated the throne of his own free will in favour of his nephew Charilaus, and fearing that if the child died by any mischance he might be thought guilty of having caused its death, he travelled abroad for a long time and did not return until Charilaus had begotten a son to succeed him. However, no Greek can bear comparison with Lykurgus; yet we have proved that Kleomenes effected greater reforms, and showed less respect to the laws than any of the others. Both the Greeks have been blamed for having from the very outset aimed at being nothing more than warlike despots; while the worst enemies of the Romans only charge them with an immoderate ambition, and admit that they became so excited by the contest with their political opponents that the natural heat of their temper drove them in spite of themselves like a baleful gust of wind to advocate extreme measures. What indeed can be more just or honourable than the objects with which they started; for their troubles were brought upon them by the opposition which the rich offered to their laws, so that the one was forced to fight to save his own life, while the other endeavoured to avenge his brother, who was slain without law or justice? From what has been said the reader can himself form an opinion about their respective merits, but if I must say what I think of each, I should give the highest place in respect of virtue to Tiberius Gracchus; I think that the young Agis committed the fewest crimes; while in daring and action Caius fell far short of Kleomenes.

LIFE OF DEMOSTHENES.

I. The writer of the Ode to Alkibiades on the occasion of his winning the chariot-race at Olympia, whether he was Euripides, as is commonly supposed, or some other poet, my friend Sossius tells us that the first thing necessary for a perfectly happy man is that he should be born a citizen of some famous city. But for my own part I believe that for the enjoyment of true happiness, which depends chiefly upon a man's character and disposition, it makes no difference whether he be born in an obscure state or of an ill-favoured mother, or not. It would indeed be absurd if one were to suppose that the town of Iulis, which is only a small part of the little island of Keos or Ægina, which some Athenian bade his countrymen clear away because it was an eyesore to Peiræus, should be able to produce good actors and poets, and yet be unable to bring forth a just, virtuous, sensible and high-minded man. We may reasonably expect that those arts by which men gain glory or profit should be neglected and fall into decay in small and obscure towns; but virtue, like a hardy plant, can take root in any country where it meets with noble natures and industrious disposition. I myself therefore must lay the blame of my intellectual and moral shortcomings, not upon the insignificance of my native city, but upon myself.

II. However, when a man is engaged in compiling a history from materials which are not ready to his hand, but for the most part are to be found scattered through other foreign towns, it becomes really of the first importance that he should live in some famous, cultivated, and populous city, where he can have unlimited access to books of all kinds, and where he can also personally collect and inquire into the truth of those stories which, though not reduced to writing, are all the more likely to be true because they rest upon universal popular tradition. The work of a historian who is deprived of these advantages must necessarily be defective in many essential particulars. Now I, who belong to a small city, and who love to live in it lest it should become even smaller, when I was at Rome, and during my travels in Italy, found my time so taken up with political business and with the care of my pupils in philosophy, that I had no leisure to learn the Roman language, and have only applied myself to Latin literature at a very advanced period of life. In this reading of Latin books, singular as it may appear, I did not find that the words assisted me to discover the meaning, but rather that my knowledge of the history enabled me to find out the meaning of the words. I think that to speak the Latin language with elegance, to understand it readily, and to use its various idioms and phrases correctly, is for a literary man both useful and interesting; but the amount of study and practice which it requires is considerable and should only be undertaken by those who are younger than myself, and who have more leisure time to devote to the acquisition of such accomplishments.

III. In consequence of these considerations, in this my fifth book of Parallel Lives, which deals with the lives of Demosthenes and Cicero, I intend to describe their several characters, and to compare them with one another by means of their political acts, but I do not mean to examine minutely into their respective speeches, or to decide which of the two was the more pleasing or the more able orator. Were I to attempt such a task, I should be forgetting Ion's proverb about a "fish out of water," like the all-accomplished Cæcilius, who has boldly taken upon himself to write a comparison of Demosthenes with Cicero. Perhaps, however, we might begin to doubt the divine origin of the commandment "know thyself," if we found men always ready to apply it. Indeed Heaven appears to have originally intended to form the characters of Demosthenes and Cicero on the same model, and in some instances to have implanted in them precisely the same qualities, such as great personal ambition, love of freedom, and want of courage in the wars, yet to have left much to chance. I think it would be difficult to find an instance of any two other orators who both rose from a humble station to great power and influence, who both opposed absolute monarchs, both lost favourite daughters, were both exiled and brought back with honour, who both when flying from their country a second time fell into the hands of their enemies, and with whose deaths the liberties of their countrymen were finally extinguished; so that it is hard to say whether their resemblance is due more to nature, which originally moulded their characters alike, or to fortune, which placed then in exactly similar circumstances. First, then, I will relate the life of the elder of the two.

IV. The father of Demosthenes was also named Demosthenes, and belonged, according to Theopompus, to the best class of Athenian citizens. He was commonly called "the sword cutler," because he possessed a large workshop and many slaves skilled in cutlery. As for the accusation which the orator Æschines brings against his mother, that she was the daughter of one Gylon, who was banished for treason, by a foreign woman, we cannot tell whether it is true or only a calumnious imputation. Demosthenes was left an orphan at the age of seven years, and was the heir to considerable property, amounting in all to no less than fifteen talents. He was scandalously ill-used by his guardians, who appropriated much of his income, and neglected the rest so much that he was unable to pay his teachers. He grew up ignorant of much that a boy of good birth is expected to learn, partly for this reason, and partly on account of his weak health, which caused his mother to keep him away from school. He was a sickly child, and it is said that the opprobrious nickname of Batalus was bestowed upon him by his school-fellows because of his bodily weakness. Batalus, according to some writers, was an effeminate flute-player, whose habits were satirized in a comic drama written by Antiphanes. Others assert that Batalus was a poet who wrote in a drunken licentious style; and there seems also some foundation for the belief that this word was used for a certain part of the human body by the Athenians of that time. The other nickname of Demosthenes, Argas, either alludes to his savage and harsh temper, for some poets use the word to mean a snake; or else it refers to his speeches, as wearying those who heard them; for Argas was the name of a poet whose verses were bad and tiresome. And, as Plato says, so much for this.

V. We are told that he was first led to turn his attention, to oratory by the following incident. When Kallistratus was going to make a speech in court about the affair of Oropus[125] great interest was taken in the trial because of the ability of the orator, who at that time was at the height of his reputation, and also because of the important character of the law suit. Demosthenes, hearing his teachers and attendants making arrangement to be present at the trial, persuaded his own servant by great entreaties to take him to hear the speeches. The man, who was intimate with the doorkeepers of the court, managed to obtain a place for Demosthenes, in which the boy could sit unseen by the public and hear all that was said. Kallisthenes spoke very brilliantly and was much admired. He excited the envy of Demosthenes by the honours which he received, as he was escorted home by a long train of friends who congratulated him upon his success; but the boy was even more impressed by the power of his eloquence, which enabled him to deal with everything just as he pleased. In consequence of this Demosthenes neglected all other branches of learning, neglected all the sports of childhood, and laboriously practised and exercised himself in the art of oratory, meaning some day to become an orator himself. He studied rhetoric under Isaeus, although Isokrates was giving lessons at the same time, either, according to some writers, because, being an orphan, he was unable to raise the sum of ten minæ which Isokrates demanded as a fee, or because he thought that the vigorous invective of Isaeus was more what he required to learn. Hermippus informs us that he read in some anonymous work that Demosthenes was a scholar of Plato, and learned much of the art of speaking from him, while he mentions having heard from Ktesibius that Demosthenes had been lent the works of Isokrates and Alkidamas by one Kallias, a Syracusan, and some others, and that he used to read and practise himself in them in secret.

VI. When he came of age he at once brought a series of actions against his guardians for malversation of his property, while they resorted to every species of legal subtlety and chicanery to avoid making restitution. By publicly pleading his cause, as Thucydides says, "he learned his trade by dangers," and succeeded in recovering some of his paternal estate, though but a small part of that to which he was entitled. He gained, however, confidence and practice as a public speaker, and the fascinating excitement and sense of power which he experienced in these contests emboldened him to become a professional orator and to deal with political matters. We are told that Laomedon of Orchomenus, by the advice of his physicians, used to run long distances as a remedy for a disease of the spleen from which he suffered, until he not only overcame his disorder, but was able to enter for races at the games, and became one of the best long-distance runners of his time. Even so Demosthenes, who was forced by his private misfortunes to make his first appearance as a speaker, gained such skill and power by his success in the law-courts that he soon took the lead among the speakers in the public assembly. Yet when he first addressed the people he was violently coughed down, interrupted and ridiculed, because his speech was found dull and tiresome, being confused in style and strained and artificial in argument. It is said that his voice was weak, and his pronunciation indistinct, and that, as he was frequently obliged to pause for want of breath, it was difficult to follow the meaning of his sentences. At last he left the public assembly and wandered about Peiræus in despair. Here he was met by an old man named Eunomus of Thriasia,[126] who reproved him and told him that he did himself great wrong, because, having a manner of speech extremely like that of Perikles, he permitted himself to be disheartened by failure, and did not face the clamour of the rabble boldly, and did not train his body to be strong enough to support the strain of such contests, but allowed himself to fall into a weakly and effeminate condition.

VII. After a second failure, as he was going home overwhelmed with shame hiding his face in his cloak, Satyrus the actor is said to have followed him and joined him. Demosthenes told him with tears in his eyes that although he had taken more pains than any other speaker, and had devoted all his energes to the study of eloquence, yet he could not gain the ear of the people, but that ignorant drunken sailors were listened to when they mounted the tribune, while he was treated with scorn. On hearing this Satyrus answered, "Demosthenes, what you say is very true, but I will soon apply a remedy, if you will recite to me one of the long speeches from the plays of Sophokles or Euripides." After Demosthenes had recited a speech, Satyrus recited the same speech in turn, and so altered it and gave it so much more grace, by throwing into it the expression which the verses required, that it appeared to Demosthenes to be quite different. Having thus learned how much a speech gains by a really artistic delivery, Demosthenes perceived that it was of but little use for him to study the matter of a speech, unless he also paid attention to the form in which it was to be presented to his audience. He now built for himself an underground study, which remained entire down to the present day, where he daily practised himself in gesture and declamation, and exercised his voice, and where he sometimes spent two or three months at a time with half of his head shaved, so that even if he wished he could not go out of doors.

VIII. He took, however, his themes and subjects for declamation from the various topics of the day, which he learned from those who came to visit him. As soon as they left him he used to return to his study, and repeated aloud in the form of a speech all the news which he had heard, and made comments upon it. He also used to work up any conversations which he heard, into sentences and periods for his orations, and would alter, correct and paraphrase both his own remarks and those of his friends. This gave rise to the opinion that he was not really a man of ability, but that his power and skill as an orator was obtained by laborious study. A great proof of this was thought to be that Demosthenes seldom spoke on the spur of the moment, but often when he was present in the assembly and was called upon by the people to speak, he would remain silent unless he had prepared and meditated over his speech. Many of the other orators ridiculed him for this, and Pytheas in derision said that his arguments smelt of the lamp. To this Demosthenes made the bitter retort, "My lamp, Pytheas, sees very different work from yours." In conversation with others, however, he did not altogether deny the practice, but said that although he never spoke without having made notes, yet that he often spoke without having written down everything that he was going to say. He used to say that this careful preparation of his speeches showed that he was a true lover of the people, and felt a due reverence for them; while, on the contrary, to speak without caring how the people take one's words proves a man to be of an overbearing oligarchical disposition, who would use force rather than persuasion. Many writers allege, as a proof that Demosthenes dared not speak on the spur of the moment, that when he attacked Demades he was always immediately answered by him, but that he never so answered Demades.