The CDPD Public Domain Collection for CDTV 3/CDPDIII.bin/books/plutarch/crasus & nicias

Text File | 1992-07-31 | 11KB | 166 lines

                                      75 AD
                     THE COMPARISON OF CRASSUS WITH NICIAS
                                  by Plutarch
                           translated by John Dryden

  IN the comparison of these two, first, if we compare the estate of
Nicias with that of Crassus, we must acknowledge Nicias's to have been
more honestly got. In itself, indeed, one cannot much approve of
gaining riches by working mines, the greatest part of which is done by
malefactors and barbarians, some of them, too, bound, and perishing in
those close and unwholesome places. But if we compare this with the
sequestrations of Sylla, and the contracts for houses ruined by
fire, we shall then think Nicias came very honestly by his money.
For Crassus publicly and avowedly made use of these arts, as other men
do of husbandry, and putting out money to interest; while as for other
matters which he used to deny, when taxed with them, as, namely,
selling his voice in the senate for gain's sake, and injuring
allies, and courting women, and conniving at criminals, these are
things which Nicias was never so much as falsely accused of; nay, he
was rather laughed at for giving money to those who made a trade of
impeachments, merely out of timorousness, a course, indeed, that would
by no means become Pericles and Aristides, but necessary for him who
by nature was wanting in assurance, even as Lycurgus, the orator,
frankly acknowledged to the people; for when he was accused for buying
off an evidence, he said that he was very much pleased that, having
administered their affairs for so long a time; he was at last accused,
rather for giving than receiving. Again, Nicias, in his expenses,
was a more public spirit than Crassus, priding himself much on the
dedication of gifts in temples, on presiding at gymnastic games, and
furnishing choruses for the plays, and adorning processions, while the
expenses of Crassus, in feasting and afterwards providing food for
so many myriads of people, were much greater than all that Nicias
possessed as well as spent put together. So that one might wonder at
any one's failing to see that vice is a certain inconsistency and
incongruity of habit, after such an example of money dishonourably
obtained and wastefully lavished away.
  Let so much be said of their estates; as for their management of
public affairs, I see not that any dishonesty, injustice, or arbitrary
action can be objected to Nicias, who was rather the victim of
Alcibiades's tricks, and was always careful and scrupulous in his
dealings with the people. But Crassus is very generally blamed for his
changeableness in his friendships and enmities, for his
unfaithfulness, and his mean and underhand proceedings; since he
himself could not deny that to compass the consulship he hired men
to lay violent hands upon Domitius and Cato. Then at the assembly held
for assigning the provinces, many were wounded and four actually
killed, and he himself, which I had omitted in the narrative of his
life, struck with his fist one Lucius Analius, a senator, for
contradicting him, so that he left the place bleeding. But as
Crassus was to be blamed for his violent and arbitrary courses, so
is Nicias no less to be blamed for his timorousness and meanness of
spirit, which made him submit and give in to the basest people,
whereas in this respect Crassus showed himself lofty-spirited and
magnanimous, who having to do not with such as Cleon or Hyperbolus,
but with the splendid acts of Caesar and the three triumphs of Pompey,
would not stoop, but bravely bore up against their joint interests,
and in obtaining the office of censor, surpassed even Pompey
himself. For a statesman ought not to regard how invidious the thing
is, but how noble, and by his greatness to overpower envy; but if he
will be always aiming at security and quiet, and dread Alcibiades upon
the hustings, and the Lacedaemonians at Pylos, and Perdiccas in
Thrace, there is room and opportunity enough for retirement, and he
may sit out of the noise of business, and weave himself, as one of the
sophists says, his triumphal garland of inactivity. His desire of
peace, indeed, and of finishing the war was a divine and truly Grecian
ambition, nor in this respect would Crassus deserve to be compared
to him, though he had enlarged the Roman empire to the Caspian Sea
or the Indian Ocean.
  In a state where there is a sense of virtue, a powerful man ought
not to give way to the ill-affected, or expose the government to those
that are incapable of it, nor suffer high trusts to be committed to
those who want common honesty. Yet Nicias, by his connivance, raised
Cleon, a fellow remarkable for nothing but his loud voice and brazen
face, to the command of an army. Indeed, I do not commend Crassus, who
in the war with Spartacus was more forward to fight than became a
discreet general, though he was urged into it by a point of honour,
lest Pompey by his coming should rob him of the glory of the action,
as Mummius did Metellus at the taking of Corinth, but Nicias's
proceedings are inexcusable. For he did not yield up a mere
opportunity of getting honour and advantage to his competitor, but
believing that the expedition would be very hazardous, was thankful to
take care of himself, and left the commonwealth to shift for itself.
And whereas Themistocles, lest a mean and incapable fellow should ruin
the state by holding command in the Persian war, bought him off, and
Cato, in a most dangerous and critical conjuncture, stood for the
tribuneship for the sake of his country, Nicias, reserving himself for
trifling expeditions against Minoa and Cythera, and the miserable
Melians, if there be occasion to come to blows with the
Lacedaemonians, slips off his general's cloak and hands over to the
unskillfulness and rashness of Cleon, fleet, men, and arms, and the
whole command, where the utmost possible skill was called for. Such
conduct, I say, is not to be thought so much carelessness of his own
fame, as of the interest and preservation of his country. By this
means it came to pass he was compelled to the Sicilian war, men
generally believing that he was so much honestly convinced of the
difficulty of the enterprise, as ready out of mere love of ease and
cowardice to lose the city the conquest of Sicily. But yet it is a
great sign of his integrity, that though he was always averse from
war, and unwilling to command, yet they always continued to appoint
him as the best experienced and ablest general they had. On the
other hand Crassus, though always ambitious of command, never attained
to it, except by mere necessity in the servile war, Pompey and
Metellus and the two brothers Lucullus being absent, although at
that time he was at his highest pitch of interest and reputation. Even
those who thought most of him seem to have thought him, as the comic
poet says-

         "A brave man anywhere but in the field."

There was no help, however, for the Romans, against his passion for
command and for distinction. The Athenians sent out Nicias against his
will to the war, and Crassus led out the Romans against theirs;
Crassus brought misfortune on Rome, as Athens brought it on Nicias.
  Still this is rather ground for praising Nicias, than for finding
fault with Crassus. His experience and sound judgment as a general
saved him from being carried away by the delusive hopes of his
fellow-citizens, and made him refuse to entertain any prospect of
conquering Sicily. Crassus, on the other hand, mistook, in entering on
a Parthian war as an easy matter. He was eager, while Caesar was
subduing the west, Gaul, Germany, and Britain, to advance for his part
to the east and the Indian Sea, by the conquest of Asia, to complete
the incursion of Pompey and the attempts of Lucullus, men of prudent
temper and of unimpeachable worth, who nevertheless entertained the
same projects as Crassus, and acted under the same convictions. When
Pompey was appointed to the like command, the senate was opposed to
it; and after Caesar had routed three hundred thousand Germans, Cato
recommended that he should be surrendered to the defeated enemy, to
expiate in his own person the guilt of breach of faith. The people,
meantime (their service to Cato!), kept holiday for fifteen days,
and were overjoyed. What would have been their feelings, and how
many holidays would they have celebrated, if Crassus had sent news
from Babylon of victory, and thence marching onward had converted
Media and Persia, the Hyrcanians, Susa and Bactra, into Roman
provinces?
  If wrong we must do, as Euripides says, and cannot be content with
peace and present good things, let it not be for such results as
destroying Mende or Scandea, or beating up the exiled Aeginetans in
the coverts to which like hunted birds they had fled, when expelled
from their homes, but let it be for some really great remuneration:
nor let us part with justice, like a cheap and common thing, for a
small and trifling price. Those who praise Alexander's enterprise
and blame that of Crassus, judge of the beginning unfairly by the
results.
  In actual service, Nicias did much that deserves high praise. He
frequently defeated the enemy in battle, and was on the very point
of capturing Syracuse; nor should he bear the whole blame of the
disaster, which may fairly be ascribed in part to his want of health
and to the jealousy entertained of him at home. Crassus, on the
other hand, committed so many errors as not to leave fortune room to
show him favour. It is no surprise to find such imbecility fall a
victim to the power of Parthia; the only wonder is to see it
prevailing over the wonted good fortune of Rome. One scrupulously
observed, the other entirely slighted the arts of divination: and as
both equally perished, it is difficult to see what inference we should
draw. Yet the fault of over-caution, supported by old and general
opinion, better deserves forgiveness than that of self-willed and
lawless transgression.
  In his death, however, Crassus had the advantage, as he did not
surrender himself, nor submit to bondage, nor let himself be taken
in by trickery, but was the victim only of the entreaties of his
friends and the perfidy of his enemies; whereas Nicias enhanced the
shame of his death by yielding himself up in the hope of disgraceful
and inglorious escape.

                                 THE END