I. Since, then, great changes of fortune took place in each of their lives, let us first consider their power and renown. The position of Demetrius was inherited and already made for him, as Antigonus was the most powerful of the successors of Alexander, and, before Demetrius came of age, had overrun and conquered the greater part of Asia: while Antonius, whose father, though an excellent man, was no soldier, and left him no renown, yet dared to seize upon the empire of CÆsar, with which he was in no way connected, and constituted himself the heir of what CÆsar had won by the sword. Starting as a mere private person, he raised himself to such a height of power as to be able to divide the world into two, and to select and obtain the fairer half for his own, while, without his being even present, his lieutenants and agents inflicted several defeats upon the Parthians, and conquered all the nations of Asia as far as the Caspian Sea. Even that for which he is especially reproached proves the greatness of his power. Demetrius’s father was well pleased at getting Phila, the daughter of Antipater, as a wife for his son, in spite of the disparity of their ages, because he regarded her as his son’s superior; while it was thought to be a disgrace for Antonius to ally himself with Cleopatra, a woman who excelled in power and renown all the Kings of her age, except Arsakes himself. Antonius had made himself so great that men thought him entitled to more even than he himself desired.

II. Demetrius, however, cannot be blamed for attempting to make himself king over a people accustomed to servitude, while it appeared harsh and tyrannical for Antonius to try to enslave the people of Rome just after they had been set free from the rule of CÆsar: and the greatest of his exploits, the war against Brutus and Cassius, was waged with the intention of depriving his countrymen of their liberty. Demetrius, before he became involved in difficulties, used always to act as a liberator towards Greece, and to drive out the foreign garrisons from her cities, and did not act like Antonius, who boasted that he had slain the would-be liberators of Rome in Macedonia. And though Antonius is especially commended for his magnificent generosity, yet Demetrius so far surpassed him as to bestow more upon his enemies than Antonius would upon his friends. It is true that Antonius gained great credit for having caused Brutus to be honourably buried; but Demetrius buried all his enemy’s slain, gave money and presents to his prisoners, and sent them back to Ptolemy.

III. Both were arrogant when in prosperity, and set no bounds to their luxury and pleasures. Yet it cannot be said that Demetrius was ever so immersed in enjoyments as to let slip the time for action, but he only dedicated the superfluity of his leisure to enjoyment, and used his Lamia, like the mythical nightmare, only when he was half asleep or at play. When he was preparing for war, no ivy wreathed his spear, no perfume scented his helmet, nor did he go forth from his bed-chamber to battle covered with finery, but, as Euripides says, he laid the Bacchic wand aside, and served the unhallowed god of war, and, indeed, never suffered any reverse through his own carelessness or love of pleasure. But just as in pictures we often see Omphale stealing the club and stripping off the lion’s skin from Herakles, so Cleopatra frequently would disarm Antonius and turn his mind to pleasure, persuading him to give up mighty enterprises and even necessary campaigns to wander and sport with her on the shores of Canopus and beside the tomb of Osiris. At last, like Paris, he fled from battle to nestle on her breast, though Paris only took refuge in his chamber after he had been defeated in battle, while Antonius, by his pursuit of Cleopatra, gave up his chance of victory.

IV. Moreover, in marrying several wives, Demetrius did not break through any custom, for he only did what had been usual for the kings of Macedonia since the days of Philip and Alexander, and what was done by Lysimachus and Ptolemy in his own time; and he showed due respect to all his wives; while Antonius, in the first place, married two wives at the same time, which no Roman had ever dared to do before, and then drove away his own countrywoman and his legitimate wife to please a foreigner, and one to whom he was not legally married. Yet with all his excesses Antonius was never led by his vices into such sacrilegious impiety as is recorded of Demetrius. We are told that no dogs are allowed to enter the Acropolis,481 because these animals copulate more openly than any others; but Demetrius consorted with harlots in the very temple of the virgin goddess, and debauched many of the Athenian citizens, while, although one would have imagined that a man of such a temperament would be especially averse to cruelty, Demetrius must be charged with this in allowing, or rather compelling, the most beautiful and modest of the Athenians to suffer death in order to avoid outrage. To sum up, the vices of Antonius were ruinous to himself, while those of Demetrius were ruinous to others.

V. Yet Demetrius always behaved well to his parents, whereas Antonius allowed his mother’s brother to perish in order that he might compass the death of Cicero, which was of itself so odious a crime that we should scarcely think Antonius justified if by Cicero’s death he had saved his uncle’s life. With regard to the perjuries and breaking of their words which they both committed, the one in seizing Artabazus, and the other in murdering Alexander, Antonius has a satisfactory defence; for he himself was first deserted and betrayed by Artabazus in Media: while many writers say that Demetrius himself invented false pretexts for his treatment of Alexander, and accused a man whom he had wronged with a design on his life, instead of defending himself against one who was already his enemy. Again, the exploits of Demetrius were all accomplished by himself in person; while, on the other hand, Antonius won some of his most important battles by his lieutenants, without himself being present.

VI. The ruin of both was due to themselves, though in a different manner, for the Macedonians deserted from Demetrius, while Antonious deserted his own troops when they were risking their lives in his defence; so that we must blame the former for having rendered his army so hostile to him, and the latter for betraying so much loyalty and devotion. In their manner of death neither can be praised, but that of Demetrius seems the less creditable of the two, for he endured to be taken prisoner, and when in confinement willingly spent three years in drinking and gluttony, like a wild beast that has been tamed; while Antonius, though he killed himself like a coward, and in a piteous and dishonourable fashion, nevertheless died before he fell into the hands of his enemy.