of Noble and Romanes 547

Plutarch's Lives of Noble Grecians and Romanes 547 enough it was not for any gayne or benefit he had gotten thereby, so much as it was for spite and displeasure he thought to doe them. Antipater in a letter of his, writing of the death of Aristotle the philosopher, doth not without cause commend the singular giftes that were in Alcibiades, and this inespecially: that he passed all other for winning mens good willes. Wheras all Martius noble actes and vertues, wanting that affabilitie, became hatefull even to those that received benefit by them, who could not abide his severitie and selfe will: which causeth desolation (as Plato sayeth) and men to be ill followed, or altogether forsaken. Contrariwise, seeing Alcibiades had a trimme enterteinment, and a very good grace with him, and could facion him selfe in all companies: it was no marvell if his well doing were gloriously commended, and him selfe much honoured and beloved of the people, considering that some faultes he did, were oftetimes taken for matters of sporte, and to yes of pleasure. And this was the cause, that though many times he did great hurte to the common wealth, yet they did ofte make him their generall, and trusted him with the charge of the whole citie. Where Martius suing for an office of honour thaI! was due to him, for the sundrie good services he had done to the state, was notwithstanding repulsed, and put by. Thus doe we see, that they to whome the one did hurte, had no power to hate him: and thother that honoured his vertue, had no liking to love his persone. Martius also did never any great exployte, beinge generall of his contry men, but when he was generall of their enemies against his naturall contrie: whereas Alcibiades, being both a private persone, and a generall, did notable service unto the Athenians.l By reason whereof, Alcibiades wheresoever he was present, had the upper hande ever of his accusers, even as he would him selfe, and their accusations tooke no place against him: onlesse it were in his abscence. Where Martius being present, was condemned by the Romaines: and in his person murdered, and slaine by the Volsces. But here I can not say they have done well, nor justly, albeit him selfe gave them some colour to doe it, when he openly denied the Romaine Ambassadors peace, which after he privatly graunted, at the request of women. So by this dede of his, he tooke not away the enmity that was betwene both people: but leaving warre still betwene them, he made the Voisces (of whome he was generall) to lose the oportunity of noble victory. Where in deede he should (if he had done as he ought) have withdrawen his armie with their counsai1l2 and consent, that had reposed so great affiance in him, in making him their generall: if he had

Coriolanus made that accompt of them, as their good will towards him did in duety binde him. Or else, if he did not care for the Volsces in the enterprise of this wane, but had only procured it of intent to be revenged, and afterwards to leave it of, when his anger was blowen over: yet he had no reason for the love of his mother to pardone his contrie, but rather he should in pardoning his contrie, have spared his mother, bicause his mother and wife were members of the bodie of his contde and city, which he did besiege. For in that he uncurteously rejected all publike petitions, requestes of Ambassadors, intreaties of the bishoppes and priestes, to gratifie only the request of his mother with his departure: that was no acte so much to honour his mother with, as to dishonour his contrie by, the which was preserved for the pitie and intercession of a woman, and not for the love of it selfe, as if it had not bene worthie of it. And so was this departure a grace, to say truly, very odious and crueII, and deserved no thankes of either partie, to him that did it. For he withdrew his army, not at the request of the Romaines, against whom he made warre: nor with their consent, at whose charge the wane was made.l And of all his misfortune and ill happe, the austeritie of his nature, and his hawtie obstinate minde, was the onely cause: the which of it selfe being hatefull to the worIde, when it is joyned with ambition, it groweth then much more churlish, fierce, and intoIlerable. For men that have that fault in nature, are not affable to the people, seeming thereby as though they made no estimacion or regard of the people: and yet on thother side, if the people should not geve them honour and reverence, they would straight take it in scorne, and litle care for the matter. For so did Metellus, Aristides, and Epaminondas, all used this manner: not to seeke the good will of the common people by flatterie and dissimulation: which was in deede, bicause they despised that which the people coulde geve or take awaye. Yet would they not be offended with their citizens, when they were amerced, and set at any fines, or that they banished them, or gave them any other repulse: but they loved them as wei as they did before, so soone as they shewed any token ofrepentaunce, and that they were sorie for the wrong they had done them, and were easely made frendes againe with them, after they were restored from their banishment. For he that disdaineth to make much of the people, and to have their favour, shoulde much more scorne to seeke to be revenged, when he is repulsed. For, to take a repulse and deniall of honour, so inwardly to the hart: commeth of no other cause, but that he did too earnestly desire it. Therefore Alcibiades did not dissemble at all, that he was not very glad to see him selfe