§2.1τὰ μὲν οὖν κατὰ τὴν στρατηγίαν ἐφάμιλλα καὶ παράλληλα· τῷ δὲ ἄλλῳ τρόπῳ φιλοπόλεμος μὲν ὁ Εὐμενὴς καὶ φιλόνεικος, ἡσυχίας δὲ καὶ πρᾳότητος οἰκεῖος ὁ Σερτώριος.
Thus, their qualities in generalship were equal and comparable; but in their other character, Eumenes was fond of war and contentious, while Sertorius was attached to peace and gentleness.
ὁ μὲν γὰρ, ἀσφαλῶς καὶ μετὰ τιμῆς βιοῦν ἐξὸν ἐκποδὼν γενομένῳ τοῖς πρώτοις, μαχόμενος καὶ κινδυνεύων διετέλεσε, τῷ δὲ οὐδὲν δεομένῳ πραγμάτων ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς τῆς τοῦ σώματος ἀσφαλείας πρὸς οὐκ ἐῶντας εἰρήνην ἄγειν ἦν ὁ πόλεμος.
For the former, though it was possible for him to live in safety and with honor if he withdrew from the leading men, continued to fight and run risks, whereas the latter, who had no need of affairs, was forced to wage war for the very safety of his own person against those who would not permit him to live in peace.
§2.2Εὐμενεῖ μὲν γὰρ Ἀντίγονος ἐκστάντι τῶν ὑπὲρ τοῦ πρωτεύειν ἀγώνων ἡδέως ἂν ἐχρῆτο τὴν μετʼ αὐτὸν ἀγαπῶντι τάξιν, Σερτωρίῳ δὲ οἱ περὶ Πομπήϊον οὐδὲ ζῆν ἀπραγμόνως ἐπέτρεπον.
For Antigonus would gladly have employed Eumenes, if he had desisted from his struggles for the first place and been content with the rank next to him, whereas Pompey and his associates would not even allow Sertorius to live quietly.
διὸ τῷ μὲν ἑκοντὶ συνέβαινε πολεμεῖν ἐπʼ ἀρχῇ, τῷ δὲ ἀκουσίως ἄρχειν διὰ τὸ πολεμεῖσθαι.
Consequently, it happened that the former went to war voluntarily for the sake of power, while the latter ruled involuntarily because he was warred upon.
§2.3φιλοπόλεμος μὲν οὖν ὁ τῆς ἀσφαλείας τὴν πλεονεξίαν προτιμῶν, πολεμικὸς δὲ ὁ τῷ πολέμῳ κτώμενος τὴν ἀσφάλειαν.
Now, he is fond of war who prefers aggrandizement to safety, but he is warlike who through war acquires safety.
καὶ μὴν θανεῖν γε συνέβη τῷ μὲν οὐ προαισθομένῳ, τῷ δὲ καὶ προσδεχομένῳ τὴν τελευτήν, ὧν τὸ μὲν ἐπιεικείας, φίλοις γὰρ ἐδόκει πιστεύειν, τὸ δὲ ἀσθενείας, βουλόμενος γὰρ φυγεῖν συνελήφθη.
And indeed, death came to the one without his foreseeing it, and to the other when he was even expecting his end; and of these, the former was a sign of honest nature (for he seemed to trust his friends), but the latter of weakness (for in his desire to flee he was captured).
§2.4καὶ τοῦ μὲν οὐ κατῄσχυνε τὸν βίον ὁ θάνατος, πάσχοντος ὑπὸ τῶν συμμάχων ἃ τῶν πολεμίων αὐτὸν οὐδεὶς ἐποίησεν ὁ δὲ φεύγειν μὲν πρὸ αἰχμαλωσίας μὴ δυνηθείς, ζῆν δὲ μετʼ αἰχμαλωσίαν βουληθείς, οὔτε ἐφυλάξατο καλῶς τὴν τελευτὴν οὔθʼ ὑπέμεινεν, ἀλλὰ προσλιπαρῶν καὶ δεόμενος τοῦ σώματος μόνου κρατεῖν δοκοῦντα τὸν πολέμιον καὶ τῆς ψυχῆς αὑτοῦ κύριον ἐποίησεν.
And the death of the former did not disgrace his life, since he suffered at the hands of his allies what none of his enemies had done to him; but the latter, unable to flee before captivity, yet wishing to live after captivity, neither guarded against his end well nor endured it, but by entreating and begging, he made the enemy—who seemed to have power over his body alone—master of his soul as well.