SALLUST’S COMPARISON OF CÆSAR AND CATO
“After hearing and reading of the many glorious achievements which the Roman people had performed at home and in the field, by sea as well as by land, I happened to be led to consider what had been the great foundation of such illustrious deeds. I knew that the Romans had frequently, with small bodies of men, encountered vast armies of the enemy; I was aware that they had carried on wars with limited forces against powerful sovereigns; that they had often sustained, too, the violence of adverse fortune; yet that, while the Greeks excelled them in eloquence, the Gauls surpassed them in military glory. After much reflection, I felt convinced that the eminent virtue of a few citizens had been the cause of all these successes; and hence it had happened that poverty had triumphed over riches, and a few over a multitude. And even in later times, when the state had become corrupted by luxury and indolence, the republic still supported itself, by its own strength, under the misconduct of its generals and magistrates; when, as if the parent stock were exhausted, there was certainly not produced at Rome, for many years, a single citizen of eminent ability. Within my recollection, however, there arose two men of remarkable powers, though of very different character, Marcus Cato and Caius Cæsar, whom, since the subject has brought them before me, it is not my intention to pass in silence, but to describe, to the best of my ability, the disposition and manners of each.
“Their birth, age, and eloquence, were nearly on an equality; their greatness of mind similar, as was also their reputation, though attained by different means. Cæsar grew eminent by generosity and munificence; Cato by the integrity of his life. Cæsar was esteemed for his humanity and benevolence; austereness had given dignity to Cato. Cæsar acquired renown by giving, relieving, and pardoning; Cato by bestowing nothing. In Cæsar there was a refuge for the unfortunate; in Cato, destruction for the bad. In Cæsar, his easiness of temper was admired; in Cato, his firmness. Cæsar, in fine, had applied himself to a life of energy and activity; intent upon the interests of his friends, he was neglectful of his own; he refused nothing to others that was worthy of acceptance, while for himself he desired great power, the command of an army, and a new war in which his talents might be displayed. But Cato’s ambition was that of temperance, discretion, and, above all, of austerity; he did not contend in splendour with the rich, or in faction with the seditious, but with the brave in fortitude, with the modest in simplicity, with the temperate in abstinency; he was more desirous to be, than to appear, virtuous; and thus, the less he courted popularity, the more it pursued him.”[e][122]
FOOTNOTES
[119] [Florus[d] says: “Scipio got off in a ship but, as the enemy overtook him, he thrust his sword into his bowels; and when some one asked where he was, he returned this answer: ‘The general is well.’” Appian[f] says: “he ran his sword through his body, and threw himself into the sea.”]
[120] [Says Florus[d]: “Petreius slew both Juba and himself; and the half-consumed meats and funeral dishes were mixed with the blood of a king and a Roman.”]
[121] [Florus[d] in Roman fashion says: “Hearing of the defeat of his party, he did not hesitate to die; but even cheerfully, as became a wise man, hastened his own death.”]
[122] [Sallust’s comparison of Cæsar and Cato should not mislead the reader as to the importance of the latter, who in fact exercised little influence on the great events of his age.]
