V. As to their campaigns, those of Cato added but little to the already vast empire of Rome, while Aristeides was present at Marathon, Salamis, and Platæa, the most glorious of all Grecian victories. We cannot compare Antiochus with Xerxes, nor the destruction of the walls of the Spanish cities by Cato, with the tremendous slaughter of the barbarians by the Greeks, both on sea and land. Aristeides was present at every action of importance, although he gave up his share of glory and rewards, even as he did with gold and silver, to those who needed them more than himself. I cannot blame Cato for always glorifying himself and claiming the first place for himself, although he says in one of his books that it is absurd for a man either to praise or to blame himself; still I think that he who does not even wish for the praises of others, is a more perfect character than he who is always exalting himself. An indifference to popular applause does much to soften the bitterness of political controversy, while on the other hand a love of distinction often leads men to be ill-natured and spiteful to others, a fault which Aristeides entirely avoided, and to which Cato was peculiarly liable. Aristeides saved Athens by supporting the authority of Themistokles on several critical occasions, and even acting as his subordinate; while Cato by his opposition, nearly ruined Scipio's famous expedition to Carthage, in which he defeated the hitherto invincible Hannibal. Nor did he cease his intrigues against Scipio until by calumnious and false accusations he drove him out of Rome, and stigmatized his brother with the disgraceful charge of embezzling the public money. VI. Self-denial, upon which Cato has bestowed such lavish praise, was practised in its purest and brightest form by Aristeides, while Cato seems to have forfeited all claim to this virtue by his unsuitable and unseasonable second marriage. It could not be to his honour, when he was of such a great age, to marry the daughter of his own servant, a man who acted as a public clerk, and to bring her into the house to act as mother-in-law to his son, who was now himself grown up and married. Whether he acted thus from natural inclination, or to spite his son for his behaviour about his mistress, the marriage and the motives which led to it are equally discreditable to him. The sarcastic explanation of it which he gave to his son is utterly untrue; for had he wished to beget other children as noble as his son, he ought to have married a well-born lady at once, and not to have been satisfied with a low intrigue until it was detected, and then to have chosen as his father-in-law, the man whom he could most easily influence, rather than some one whose alliance would bring him honour and advantage. LIFE OF PHILOPŒMEN.