in most of the cities which he took by assault, committed great slaughter, whereas Epaminondas and Pelopidas never spilt the blood of any man they had conquered, nor enslaved any city they had taken. And it is affirmed, that if they had been present; the Thebans would not have deprived the Orchomenians of their liberty. As to their achievements, among those of Marcellus there was none greater or more illustrious than his beating such an army of Gauls, both horse and foot, with a handful of horse only, of which you will scarce meet with another instance, and his slaying their prince with his own hand. Pelopidas hoped to have done something of the like nature, but miscarried, and lost his life in the attempt. However, the great and glorious battles of Leuctra and Tegyræ may be compared with these exploits of Marcellus. And, on the other hand, there is nothing of Marcellus's effected by stratagem and surprise, which can be set against the happy management of Pelopidas, at his return from exile, in taking off the Theban tyrants. Indeed, of all the enterprises of the secret hand of art, that was the masterpiece. If it be said that Hannibal was a formidable enemy to the Romans, the Lacedæmonians were certainly the same to the Thebans. And yet it is agreed on all hands, that they were thoroughly beaten by Pelopidas, at Leuctra and Tegyræ; whereas, according to Polybius, Hannibal was never once defeated by Marcellus, but continued invincible till he had to do with Scipio. However, we rather believe with Livy, Cæsar, and Cornelius Nepos, among the Latin historians, and with king Juba among the Greek, that Marcellus did sometimes beat Hannibal, and even put his troops to flight, though he gained no advantage of him sufficient to turn the balance considerably on his side; so that one might even think, that the Carthaginian then acted with the art of a wrestler, who sometimes suffers himself to be thrown. But what has been very justly admired in Marcellus is, that, after such great armies had been routed, so many generals slain, and the whole empire almost totally subverted, he found means to inspire his troops with courage enough to make head against the enemy. He was the only man that from a state of terror and dismay, in which they had long remained, raised the army to an eagerness for battle, and infused into them such a spirit, that, far from tamely giving up the victory, they disputed it with the greatest obstinacy. For those very men, who had been accustomed by a run of ill success to think themselves happy if they could escape Hannibal by flight, were taught by Marcellus to be ashamed of coming off with disadvantage, to blush at the very thought of giving way, and to be sensibly affected if they gained not the victory. As Pelopidas never lost a battle in which he commanded in person, and Marcellus won more than any Roman of his time, he who performed so many exploits, and was so hard to conquer, may, perhaps, be put on a level with the other, who was never beaten. On the other hand, it may be observed, that Marcellus took Syracuse, whereas Pelopidas failed in his attempt upon Sparta. Yet, I think, even to approach Sparta, and to be the first that ever passed the Eurotas in a hostile manner, was a greater achievement than the conquest of Sicily; unless it may be said, that the honour of this exploit, as well as that of Leuctra, belongs rather to Epaminondas than to Pelopidas, whereas the glory Marcellus gained was entirely his own. For he alone took Syracuse: he defeated the Gauls without his colleague; he made head against Hannibal, not only without the assistance, but against the remonstrances, of the other generals; and, changing the face of war, he first taught the Romans to meet the enemy with a good countenance. : As for their deaths, I praise neither the one nor the other, but it is with concern and indignation that I think of the strange circumstances that attended them. At the same time I admire Hannibal, who fought such a number of battles as it would be a labour to reckon,' without ever receiving a wound and I greatly approve the behaviour of Chrysantes, in the Cyropædia, who having his sword lifted up and ready to strike, upon hearing the trumpets sound a retreat, calmly and modestly retired without giving the stroke. Pelopidas, however; was somewhat excusable, because he was not only warmed with the heat of battle, but incited by a generous desire of revenge. And, as Euripides says,^ The first of chiefs is he who laurels gain, And buys them not with life: the next is he In such a man, dying is a free and voluntary act, not a passive submission to fate. But beside his resentment, the end Pelopidas proposed to himself in conquering, which was the death of a tyrant, with reason animated him to uncommon efforts for it was not easy to find another cause so great and glorious wherein to exert himself. But Marcellus, without any urgent occasion, without that enthusiasm which often pushes men beyond the bounds of reason in time of danger, unadvisedly exposed himself, and died not like a general, but like a spy; risking his five consulates, his three triumphs, his trophies and spoils of kings against a company of Spaniards and Numidians, who had bartered with the Carthaginians for their lives and services. An accident so strange, that those very adventurers could not forbear grudging themselves such success, when they found that a man the most distinguished of all the Romans for valour, as well as power and fame, had fallen by their hands, amidst a scouting party of Fregellanians, Let not this, however, be deemed an accusation against these great men, but rather a complaint to them of injury done themselves, by sacrificing all their other virtues to their intrepidity, and a free expostulation with them for being so prodigal of their blood as to shed it for their own sakes, when it ought to have fallen only for their country, their friends, and their allies. Pelopidas was buried by his friends, in whose cause he was slain, and Marcellus by those enemies that slew him. The first was a happy and desirable thing, but the other was greater and more extraordinary; for gratitude in a friend for benefits received is not equal to an enemy's admiring the virtue by which he suffers. In the first case there is more regard to interest than to merit; in the latter, real worth is the sole object of the honour paid. LESSON LXXIX. Flaminius and Philopamen compared. IF we consider the extensive benefits which Greece received from Flaminius, we shall find that neither Philopœmen, nor other Grecians more illustrious than Philopomen, will stand. the comparison with him. For the Greeks always fought against Greeks; but Flaminius, who was not of Greece, fought for that country. And at a time when Philopomen, unable to defend his fellowcitizens who were engaged in a dangerous war, passed over into Crete, Flaminius having vanquished Philip in the heart of Greece, set cities and whole nations free. If we examine into their battles, it will appear, that Philopomen, while he commanded the Achæan forces, killed more Greeks, than Flaminius, in asserting the Grecian cause, killed Macedonians. As to their failings, ambition was the fault of Flaminius, and obstinacy that of Philopomen. The former was passionate and the latter implacable. Flaminius left Philip in his royal dignity, and pardoned the Etolians whereas Philopamen, in his resentment against his country, robbed her of several of her dependencies. Besides, Flaminius was always a firm friend to those whom he had once served; but Philopomen was ever ready to destroy the merit of his former kindnesses, only to indulge his anger. For he had been a great benefactor to the Lacedæmonians; yet afterwards he demolished their walls, and ravaged their country; and in the end entirely changed and overturned their constitution. Nay he seems to have sacrificed his life to his passion and perverseness, by too hastily and unseasonably invading Messenia; instead of taking, like Flaminius, every precaution for his own security and that of his troops. But Philopomen's military knowledge and experience was perfected by his many wars and victories. And, whereas Flaminius decided his dispute with Philip in two engagements; Philopomen, by conquering in an incredible number of battles, left fortune no room to question his skill. Flaminius, moreover, availed himself of the power of a great and flourishing commonwealth, and raised himself by its strength; but Philopomen distinguished himself at a time when his country was upon the decline. So that the success of the one is to be ascribed solely to himself, and that of the other to all the Romans. The one had good troops to command; and the other made those so which he commanded. And though the great actions of Philopomen, being performed against Grecians, do not prove him a fortunate man, yet they prove him a brave |