But the annulling of debts was peculiar to Solon, and was indeed the most effectual way to support the liberty of the people. For laws intended to establish an equality would be of no avail, while the poor were deprived of the benefit of that equality by their debts. Where they seemed most to exercise their liberty, in offices, in debates, and in deciding causes, there they were most enslaved to the rich, and most entirely under their control. What is still more remarkable is, that, though the cancelling of debts generally produces seditions, Solon seasonably applied it, as a strong, though hazardous medicine, to remove the sedition then existing. The measure, likewise lost its infamous and obnoxious nature, when introduced by a man of Solon's probity and character.

If we consider the whole administration of each, Solon's was more illustrious at first. He was an original, and followed no example; besides, by himself, without a colleague, he effected many great things for the public advantage. But Publicola's fortune was more to be admired at last. For Solon lived to see his own establishment overturned; whereas that of Publicola preserved the state in good order to the time of the civil wars. And no wonder; since the former, as soon as he had enacted his laws, left them inscribed on tables of wood, without any one to support their authority, and departed from Athens; whilst the latter remaining at Rome, and continuing in the magistracy, thoroughly established and secured the commonwealth.

Solon was sensible of the ambitious designs of Pisistratus, and desirous to prevent their being put in execution; but he miscarried in the attempt, and saw a tyrant set up. On the other hand, Publicola demolished kingly power, when it had been established for some ages, and was at a formidable height. He was equalled by Solon in virtue

and patriotism, but he had power and good fortune to second his virtue, which the other wanted.

As to warlike exploits, there is a considerable difference; for Daïmachus Platensis does not even attribute that enterprise against the Megarensians to Solon, as we have done; whereas Publicola, in many great battles, performed the duty both of a general and a private soldier.

Again; if we compare their conduct in civil affairs, we shall find that Solon, only acting a part, as it were, and under the form of a maniac, went out to speak concerning the recovery of Salamis. But Publicola, in the face of the most imminent danger, rose up against Tarquin, detected the plot, prevented the escape of the vile conspirators, had them punished, and not only excluded the tyrants from the city, but cut up their hopes by the roots. If he was thus vigorous in prosecuting affairs that required spirit, resolution, and open force, he was still more successful in negotiation, and the gentle arts of persuasion; for, by his address, he gained Porsena, whose power was so formidable, that he could not be quelled by dint of arms, and made him a friend to Rome.

But here, perhaps, some will object, that Solon reI covered Salamis when the Athenians had given it up; whereas Publicola surrendered lands that the Romans were in possession. Our judgment of actions, however, should be formed according to the respective times and posture of affairs. An able politician, in order to manage all for the best, varies his conduct as the present occasion requires; often quits a part, to save the whole; and, by yielding in small matters, secures considerable advantages. Thus Publicola, by giving up what the Romans had lately usurped, saved all that was really their own; and, at a time when they found it difficult to defend their city, gained for them the possession of the besiegers'

camp. In effect, by referring his cause to the arbitration of the enemy, he gained his point, and, with that, all the advantages which he could have proposed to himself by a victory. For Porsena put an end to the war, and left the Romans all the provision he had made for carrying it on, induced by that impression of their virtue and honour which he had received from their general.

LESSON LXXVII.

Timoleon and Paulus Æmilius compared.

IF we consider these two great men as history has represented them, we shall find no striking difference between them in the comparison. Both carried on wars with very respectable enemies; the one with the Macedonians, the other with the Carthaginians; and both with .extraordinary success. One of them conquered Macedon, and crushed the house of Antigonus, which had flourished in a succession of seven kings; the other expelled tyranny out of Sicily, and restored that island to its ancient liberty. It may be in favour of Æmilius, that he had to do with Perseus when in his full strength, and when he had beaten the Romans; and Timoleon with Dionysius, when reduced to very desperate circumstances as, on the other hand, it may be observed to the advantage of Timoleon, that he subdued many tyrants, and defeated a great army of Carthaginians, with such forces as he happened to pick up, who were not veteran and experienced troops like those of Æmilius, but mercenaries and undisciplined men, who had been accustomed to fight only at their own pleasure. For equal exploits, with unequal means and preparations, reflect the greater glory on the general who performs them.

Both paid a strict regard to justice and integrity in their employments. Æmilius was prepared from the first to behave so, by the laws and manners of his country; but Timoleon's probity was owing entirely to himself. A proof of this is, that in the time of Æmilius good order universally prevailed among the Romans, through a spirit of obedience to their laws and usages, and a reverence of their fellow-citizens; whereas, not one of the Grecian generals who commanded in Sicily, kept himself uncorrupted, except Dion and many entertained a jealousy that even he affected monarchy, and dreamed of setting up such a regal authority as that in Lacedæmon. Timæus informs us, that the Syracusans sent away Gylippus loaded with infamy, for his insatiable avarice and rapacity, while he had the command; and many writers give account.of the misdemeanors and breach of articles which Pharax. the Spartan, and Callippus the Athenian, were guilty of, in hopes of gaining the sovereignty of Sicily. But what were these men, and on what power did they build such hopes? Pharax was a follower, of Dionysius, who was already expelled, and Callippus was an officer in the foreign troops in the service of Dion. But Timoleon was sent to be general of the Syracusans, at their earnest request; he had not an army to provide, but found one ready formed, which cheerfully obeyed his orders; and yet he employed this power for no other end, than the destruction of their oppressive masters.

Yet again, it was to be admired in Æmilius, that, though he subdued so opulent a kingdom, he did not add one drachma to his substance. He would not touch, nor even look upon the money himself, though he gave many liberal gifts to others. I do not, however, blame Timoleon for accepting of a handsome house and lands; for it is no disgrace to take something out of so much, but to take nothing at all is better; and that is the most

consummate virtue which shows that it is above pecuniary considerations, even when it has the best claim to make

them.

As some bodies are able to bear heat, and others cold, but those are the strongest which are equally fit to endure either; so the vigour and firmness of those minds are the greatest which are neither elated by prosperity, nor broken by adversity. And in this respect Æmilius appears to have been superior; for, in the great and severe misfortune of the loss of his sons, he kept up the same dignity of carriage as in the midst of the happiest success. But Timoleon, when he had acted as a patriot should, with regard to his brother, did not let his reason support him against his grief; but becoming a prey to sorrow and remorse, for the space of twenty years he could not so much as look upon the place where the public business was transacted, much less take a part in it. A man should, indeed, be afraid and ashamed of what is really shameful; but to shrink under every reflection upon his character, though it speaks a delicacy of temper, has nothing in it of true greatness of mind.

LESSON LXXVIII.

Pelopidas and Marcellus compared..

THESE are the. particulars which we thought worth reciting from history concerning Marcellus and Pelopidas; between whom there was a perfect resemblance in the gifts of nature, and in their lives and manners. For they were both men of heroic strength, capable of enduring the greatest fatigue, and in courage and magnanimity they were equal. The sole difference is, that Marcellus,