forms, is what we might naturally expect from a young man so
circumstanced; and it appears that with him these tastes were
indulged with an offensive publicity which destroyed the comfort
of his wife Hipparetê, daughter of Hipponikus who was slain at the
battle of Delium. She had brought him a large dowry of ten talents:
when she sought a divorce, as the law of Athens permitted, Alkibiadês
violently interposed to prevent her from obtaining the benefit of
the law, and brought her back by force to his house even from the
presence of the magistrate. It is this violence of selfish passion,
and reckless disregard of social obligation towards every one,
which forms the peculiar characteristic of Alkibiadês. He strikes
the schoolmaster whose house he happens to find unprovided with a
copy of Homer; he strikes Taureas,[50] a rival chorêgus, in the
public theatre, while the representation is going on; he strikes
Hipponikus, who afterwards became his father-in-law, out of a wager
of mere wantonness, afterwards appeasing him by an ample apology;
he protects the Thasian poet Hêgêmon, against whom an indictment
had been formally lodged before the archon, by effacing it with
his own hand from the published list in the public edifice, called
Metrôon; defying both magistrate and accuser to press the cause on
for trial.[51] Nor does it appear that any injured person ever dared
to bring Alkibiadês to trial before the dikastery, though we read
with amazement the tissue of lawlessness[52] which marked his private
life; a combination of insolence and ostentation with occasional
mean deceit when it suited his purpose. But amidst the perfect legal,
judicial, and constitutional equality, which reigned among the
citizens of Athens, there still remained great social inequalities
between one man and another, handed down from the times preceding
the democracy: inequalities which the democratical institutions
limited in their practical mischiefs, but never either effaced or
discredited, and which were recognized as modifying elements in the
current, unconscious vein of sentiment and criticism, by those whom
they injured as well as by those whom they favored. In the speech
which Thucydidês[53] ascribes to Alkibiadês before the Athenian
public assembly, we find the insolence of wealth and high social
position not only admitted as a fact, but vindicated as a just
morality; and the history of his life, as well as many other facts
in Athenian society, show that if not approved, it was at least
tolerated in practice to a serious extent, in spite of the restraints
of the democracy.
[50] Demosthen. cont. Meidiam, c. 49; Thucyd. vi, 16; Antipho
apud Athenæum, xii, p. 525.
[51] Athenæus, ix, p. 407.
[52] Thucyd. vi, 15. I translate the expression of Thucydidês,
which is of great force and significance—φοβηθέντες γὰρ αὐτοῦ οἱ
πολλοὶ τὸ μέγεθος τῆς τε κατὰ τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σῶμα ~παρανομίας~ ἐς τὴν
δίαιταν, etc. The same word is repeated by the historian, vi, 28.
τὴν ἄλλην αὐτοῦ ἐς τὰ ἐπιτηδεύματα οὐ δημοτικὴν ~παρανομίαν~.
The same phrase is also found in the short extract from the
λοιδορία of Antipho (Athenæus, xii, p. 525).
The description of Alkibiadês, given in that Discourse called the
Ἐρωτικὸς Λόγος, erroneously ascribed to Demosthenês (c. 12, p.
1414), is more discriminating than we commonly find in rhetorical
compositions. Τοῦτο δ’, Ἀλκιβιάδην εὑρήσεις φύσει μὲν πρὸς ἀρετὴν
πολλῷ χεῖρον διακείμενον, καὶ τὰ μὲν ὑπερηφάνως, τὰ δὲ ταπεινῶς,
τὰ δ’ ὑπεράκρως, ζῆν προῃρημένον· ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς Σωκράτους ὁμιλίας
πολλὰ μὲν ἐπανορθωθέντα τοῦ βίου, τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ τῷ μεγέθει τῶν
ἄλλων ἔργων ἐπικρυψάμενον.
Of the three epithets, whereby the author describes the bad
tendencies of Alkibiadês, full illustrations will be seen in his
proceedings, hereafter to be described. The improving influence
here ascribed to Sokratês is unfortunately far less borne out.
[53] Plutarch, Alkibiad. c. 4; Cornel. Nepos, Alkibiad. c. 2;
Plato, Protagoras, c. 1.
I do not know how far the memorable narrative ascribed to
Alkibiadês in the Symposium of Plato (c. 33, 34, pp. 216, 217)
can be regarded as matter of actual fact and history, so far as
Sokratês is concerned; but it is abundant proof in regard to the
general relations of Alkibiadês with others: compare Xenophon,
Memorab. i, 2, 29, 30; iv. 1-2.
Several of the dialogues of Plato present to us striking pictures
of the palæstra, with the boys, the young men, the gymnastic
teachers, engaged in their exercises or resting from them, and
the philosophers and spectators who came there for amusement
and conversation. See particularly the opening chapters of the
Lysis and the Charmidês; also the Rivales, where the scene is
laid in the house of a γραμματιστὴς, or schoolmaster. In the
Lysis, Sokratês professes to set his own conversation with
these interesting youths as an antidote to the corrupting
flatteries of most of those who sought to gain their good-will.
Οὕτω χρὴ, ὦ Ἱππόθαλες, τοῖς παιδικοῖς διαλέγεσθαι, ταπεινοῦντα
καὶ συστέλλοντα, ἀλλὰ μὴ, ὥσπερ σὺ, χαυνοῦντα καὶ διαθρύπτοντα
(Lysis, c. 7, p. 210).
See, in illustration of what is here said about Alkibiadês as
a youth, Euripid. Supplic. 906 (about Parthenopæus), and the
beautiful lines in the Atys of Catullus, 60-69.
There cannot be a doubt that the characters of all the Greek
youth of any pretensions were considerably affected by this
society and conversation of their boyish years; though the
subject is one upon which the full evidence cannot well be
produced and discussed.
Amidst such unprincipled exorbitances of behavior, Alkibiadês stood
distinguished for personal bravery. He served as a hoplite in the
army under Phormion at the siege of Potidæa in 432 B.C. Though then
hardly twenty years of age, he was among the most forward soldiers
in the battle, received a severe wound, and was in great danger;
owing his life only to the exertions of Sokratês, who served in
the ranks along with him. Eight years afterwards, Alkibiadês also
served with credit in the cavalry at the battle of Delium, and
had the opportunity of requiting his obligation to Sokratês, by
protecting him against the Bœotian pursuers. As a rich young man,
also, choregy and trierarchy became incumbent upon him; expensive
duties, which, as we might expect, he discharged not merely with
sufficiency, but with ostentation. In fact, expenditure of this sort,
though compulsory up to a certain point upon all rich men, was so
fully repaid, to all those who had the least ambition, in the shape
of popularity and influence, that most of them spontaneously went
beyond the requisite minimum for the purpose of showing themselves
off. The first appearance of Alkibiadês in public life is said to
have been as a donor, for some special purpose, in the ekklesia, when
various citizens were handing in their contributions: and the loud
applause which his subscription provoked was at that time so novel
and exciting to him, that he suffered a tame quail which he carried
in his bosom to escape. This incident excited mirth and sympathy
among the citizens present: the bird was caught and restored to him
by Antiochus, who from that time forward acquired his favor, and in
after days became his pilot and confidential lieutenant.[54]
[54] Plutarch, Alkibiadês, c. 10.
To a young man like Alkibiadês, thirsting for power and preëminence,
a certain measure of rhetorical facility and persuasive power was
indispensable. With a view to this acquisition, he frequented the
society of various sophistical and rhetorical teachers,[55] Prodikus,
Protagoras, and others; but most of all that of Sokratês. His
intimacy with Sokratês has become celebrated on many grounds, and
is commemorated both by Plato and Xenophon, though unfortunately
with less instruction than we could desire. We may readily believe
Xenophon, when he tells us that Alkibiadês—like the oligarchical
Kritias, of whom we shall have much to say hereafter—was attracted
to Sokratês by his unrivalled skill of dialectical conversation, his
suggestive influence over the minds of his hearers, in eliciting
new thoughts and combinations, his mastery of apposite and homely
illustrations, his power of seeing far beforehand the end of a long
cross-examination, his ironical affectation of ignorance, whereby
the humiliation of opponents was rendered only the more complete,
when they were convicted of inconsistency and contradiction out
of their own answers. The exhibitions of such ingenuity were in
themselves highly interesting, and stimulating to the mental
activity of listeners, while the faculty itself was one of peculiar
value to those who proposed to take the lead in public debate;
with which view both these ambitious young men tried to catch the
knack from Sokratês,[56] and to copy his formidable string of
interrogations. Both of them doubtless involuntarily respected the
poor, self-sufficing, honest, temperate, and brave citizen, in whom
this eminent talent resided; especially Alkibiadês, who not only owed
his life to the generous valor of Sokratês at Potidæa, but had also
learned in that service to admire the iron physical frame of the
philosopher in his armor, enduring hunger, cold, and hardship.[57]
But we are not to suppose that either of them came to Sokratês with
the purpose of hearing and obeying his precepts on matters of duty,
or receiving from him a new plan of life. They came partly to gratify
an intellectual appetite, partly to acquire a stock of words and
ideas, with facility of argumentative handling, suitable for their
after-purpose as public speakers. Subjects moral, political, and
intellectual, served as the theme sometimes of discourse, sometimes
of discussion, in the society of all these sophists, Prodikus and
Protagoras not less than Sokratês; for in the Athenian sense of
the word, Sokratês was a sophist as well as the others: and to the
rich youths of Athens, like Alkibiadês and Kritias, such society
was highly useful.[58] It imparted a nobler aim to their ambition,
including mental accomplishments as well as political success:
it enlarged the range of their understandings, and opened to them
as ample a vein of literature and criticism as the age afforded:
it accustomed them to canvass human conduct, with the causes and
obstructions of human well-being, both public and private: it even
suggested to them indirectly lessons of duty and prudence, from which
their social position tended to estrange them, and which they would
hardly have submitted to hear except from the lips of one whom they
intellectually admired. In learning to talk, they were forced to
learn more or less to think, and familiarized with the difference
between truth and error: nor would an eloquent lecturer fail to
enlist their feelings in the great topics of morals and politics.
Their thirst for mental stimulus and rhetorical accomplishments had
thus, as far as it went, a moralizing effect, though this was rarely
their purpose in the pursuit.[59]
[55] See the description in the Protagoras of Plato, c. 8, p. 317.
[56] See Xenophon, Memorab. i, 2, 12-24, 39-47.
Κριτίας μὲν καὶ Ἀλκιβιάδης, οὐκ ἀρέσκοντος αὐτοῖς Σωκράτους
ὡμιλησάτην, ὃν χρόνον ὡμιλείτην αὐτῷ, ἀλλ’ εὐθὺς ἐξ ἀρχῆς
ὡρμηκότε προεστάναι τῆς πόλεως. Ἔτι γὰρ Σωκράτει ξυνόντες
οὐκ ἄλλοις τισὶ μᾶλλον ἐπεχείρουν διαλέγεσθαι ἢ τοῖς μάλιστα
πράττουσι τὰ πολιτικά.... Ἐπεὶ τοίνυν τάχιστα τῶν πολιτευομένων
ὑπέλαβον κρείττονες εἶναι, Σωκράτει μὲν οὐκ ἔτι προσῄεσαν, οὐδὲ
γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἄλλως ἤρεσκεν· εἴτε προσέλθοιεν, ὑπὲρ ὧν, ἡμάρτανον
ἐλεγχόμενοι ἤχθοντο· τὰ δὲ τῆς πóλεως ἔπραττον, ὧνπερ ἕνεκεν καὶ
Σωκράτει προσῆλθον. Compare Plato, Apolog. Sokrat. c. 10, p. 23;
c. 22, p. 33.
Xenophon represents Alkibiadês and Kritias as frequenting the
society of Sokratês, for the same reason and with the same
objects as Plato affirms that young men generally went to the
Sophists: see Plato, Sophist. c. 20, p. 232 D.
“Nam et Socrati (observes Quintilian, Inst. Or. ii, 16) objiciunt
comici, docere cum, quomodo pejorem causam meliorem reddat; et
contra Tisiam et Gorgiam similia dicit polliceri Plato.”
The representation given by Plato of the great influence acquired
by Sokratês over Alkibiadês, and of the deference and submission
of the latter, is plainly not to be taken as historical, even if
we had not the more simple and trustworthy picture of Xenophon.
Isokratês goes so far as to say that Sokratês was never known by
any one as teacher of Alkibiadês: which is an exaggeration in the
other direction. Isokratês, Busiris, Or. xi. sect. 6, p. 222.
[57] Plato, Symposium, c. 35-36, p. 220, etc.
[58] See the representation, given in the Protagoras of Plato,
of the temper in which the young and wealthy Hippokratês goes
to seek instruction from Protagoras, and of the objects which
Protagoras proposes to himself in imparting the instruction.
Plato, Protagoras, c. 2, p. 310 D.; c. 8, p. 316 C.; c. 9, p.
318, etc.: compare also Plato, Meno. p. 91, and Gorgias, c. 4. p.
449 E., asserting the connection, in the mind of Gorgias, between
teaching to speak and teaching to think—λέγειν καὶ φρονεῖν, etc.
It would not be reasonable to repeat, as true and just, all the
polemical charges against those who are called Sophists, even as
we find them in Plato, without scrutiny and consideration. But
modern writers on Grecian affairs run down the Sophists even more
than Plato did, and take no notice of the admissions in their
favor which he, though their opponent, is perpetually making.
This is a very extensive subject, to which I hope to revert.
[59] I dissent entirely from the judgment of Dr. Thirlwall, who
repeats what is the usual representation of Sokratês and the
Sophists, depicting Alkibiadês as “ensnared by the Sophists,”
while Sokratês is described as a good genius preserving him from
their corruptions (Hist. of Greece, vol. iii, ch. xxiv, pp.
312, 313, 314). I think him also mistaken when he distinguishes
so pointedly Sokratês from the Sophists; when he describes
the Sophists as “pretenders to wisdom;” as “a new school;” as
“teaching that there was no real difference between truth and
falsehood, right and wrong,” etc.
All the plausibility that there is in this representation, arises
from a confusion between the original sense and the modern sense
of the word Sophist; the latter seemingly first bestowed upon the
word by Plato and Aristotle. In the common ancient acceptation
of the word at Athens, it meant not a _school_ of persons
professing common doctrines, but a _class_ of men bearing the
same name, because they derived their celebrity from analogous
objects of study and common intellectual occupation. The Sophists
were men of similar calling and pursuits, partly speculative,
partly professional; but they differed widely from each other,
both in method and doctrine. (See for example Isokratês, cont.
Sophistas, Orat. xiii; Plato, Meno. p. 87 B.) Whoever made
himself eminent in speculative pursuits, and communicated his
opinions by public lecture, discussion, or conversation, was
called a Sophist, whatever might be the conclusions which he
sought to expound or defend. The difference between taking money,
and expounding gratuitously, on which Sokratês himself was so
fond of dwelling (Xenoph. Memor. i, 6, 12), has plainly no
essential bearing on the case. When Æschinês the orator reminds
the dikasts, “Recollect that you Athenians put to death _the
Sophist Sokratês_, because he was shown to have been the teacher
of Kritias,” (Æschin. cont. Timarch. c. 34, p. 74,) he uses the
word in its natural and true Athenian sense. He had no point to
make against Sokratês, who had then been dead more than forty
years; but he describes him by his profession or occupation, just
as he would have said, _Hippokratês the physician_, _Pheidias
the sculptor_, etc. Dionysius of Halikarn. calls both Plato and
Isokratês sophists (Ars Rhetor. De Compos. Verborum, p. 208 R.).
The Nubes of Aristophanês, and the defences put forth by Plato
and Xenophon, show that Sokratês was not only called by the name
Sophist, but regarded just in the same light as that in which
Dr. Thirlwall presents to us what he calls “the new School of
the Sophists;” as “a corruptor of youth, indifferent to truth or
falsehood, right or wrong,” etc. See a striking passage in the
Politicus of Plato, c. 38, p. 299 B. Whoever thinks, as I think,
that these accusations were falsely advanced against Sokratês,
will be careful how he advances them against the general
profession to which Sokratês belonged.
That there were unprincipled and immoral men among the class of
Sophists—as there are and always have been among schoolmasters,
professors, lawyers, etc., and all bodies of men—I do not
doubt; in what proportion, we cannot determine. But the extreme
hardship of passing a sweeping condemnation on the great body
of intellectual teachers at Athens, and canonizing exclusively
Sokratês and his followers, will be felt, when we recollect that
the well-known Apologue, called the _Choice of Hercules_, was the
work of the Sophist Prodikus, and his favorite theme of lecture
(Xenophon, Memor. ii, 1, 21-34). To this day, that Apologue
remains without a superior, for the impressive simplicity with
which it presents one of the most important points of view of
moral obligation: and it has been embodied in a greater number of
books of elementary morality than anything of Sokratês, Plato,
or Xenophon. To treat the author of that Apologue, and the
class to which he belonged, as teaching “that there was no real
difference between right and wrong, truth and falsehood,” etc.,
is a criticism not in harmony with the just and liberal tone of
Dr. Thirlwall’s history.
I will add that Plato himself, in a very important passage of
the Republic (vi, c. 6, 7, pp. 492-493), refutes the imputation
against the Sophists of being specially the corruptors of youth.
He represents them as inculcating upon their youthful pupils that
morality which was received as true and just in their age and
society; nothing better, nothing worse. The grand corruptor, he
says, is society itself; the Sophists merely repeat the voice
and judgment of society. Without inquiring at present how far
Plato or Sokratês were right in condemning the received morality
of their countrymen, I most fully accept his assertion that the
great body of the contemporary professional teachers taught what
was considered good morality among the Athenian public: there
were doubtless some who taught a better morality, others who
taught a worse. And this may be said with equal truth of the
great body of professional teachers in every age and nation.
Xenophon enumerates various causes to which he ascribes the
corruption of the character of Alkibiadês; wealth, rank, personal
beauty, flatterers, etc.; but he does not name the Sophists among
them (Memorab. i, 2. 24, 25).
Alkibiadês, full of impulse and ambition of every kind, enjoyed
the conversation of all the eminent talkers and lecturers to be
found in Athens, that of Sokratês most of all and most frequently.
The philosopher became greatly attached to him, and doubtless lost
no opportunity of inculcating on him salutary lessons, as far as
could be done, without disgusting the pride of a haughty and spoiled
youth who was looking forward to the celebrity of public life.
But unhappily his lessons never produced any serious effect, and
ultimately became even distasteful to the pupil. The whole life
of Alkibiadês attests how faintly the sentiment of obligation,
public or private, ever got footing in his mind; how much the ends
which he pursued were dictated by overbearing vanity and love of
aggrandizement. In the later part of life, Sokratês was marked out
to public hatred by his enemies, as having been the teacher of
Alkibiadês and Kritias. And if we could be so unjust as to judge of
the morality of the teacher by that of these two pupils, we should
certainly rank him among the worst of the Athenian sophists.
At the age of thirty-one or thirty-two, the earliest at which it
was permitted to look forward to an ascendent position in public
life, Alkibiadês came forward with a reputation stained by private
enormities, and with a number of enemies created by his insolent
demeanor. But this did not hinder him from stepping into that
position to which his rank, connections, and club-partisans, afforded
him introduction; nor was he slow in displaying his extraordinary
energy, decision, and capacity of command. From the beginning to
the end of his eventful political life, he showed a combination
of boldness in design, resource in contrivance, and vigor in
execution, not surpassed by any one of his contemporary Greeks: and
what distinguished him from all was his extraordinary flexibility
of character[60] and consummate power of adapting himself to new
habits, new necessities, and new persons, whenever circumstances
required. Like Themistoklês, whom he resembled as well in ability and
vigor as in want of public principle and in recklessness about means,
Alkibiadês was essentially a man of action. Eloquence was in him a
secondary quality, subordinate to action; and though he possessed
enough of it for his purposes, his speeches were distinguished
only for pertinence of matter, often imperfectly expressed, at
least according to the high standard of Athens.[61] But his career
affords a memorable example of splendid qualities, both for action
and command, ruined and turned into instruments of mischief by
the utter want of morality, public and private. A strong tide of
individual hatred was thus roused against him, as well from middling
citizens whom he had insulted, as from rich men whom his ruinous
ostentation outshone. For his exorbitant voluntary expenditure in
the public festivals, transcending the largest measure of private
fortune, satisfied discerning men that he would reimburse himself
by plundering the public, and even, if opportunity offered, by
overthrowing[62] the constitution to make himself master of the
persons and properties of his fellow-citizens. He never inspired
confidence or esteem in any one; and sooner or later, among a public
like that of Athens, so much accumulated odium and suspicion was sure
to bring a public man to ruin, in spite of the strongest admiration
for his capacity. He was always the object of very conflicting
sentiments: “The Athenians desired him, hated him, but still
wished to have him,” was said in the latter years of his life by a
contemporary poet; while we find also another pithy precept delivered
in regard to him: “You ought not to keep a lion’s whelp in your city
at all; but, if you choose to keep him, you must submit yourself to
his behavior.”[63] Athens had to feel the force of his energy, as an
exile and enemy, but the great harm which he did to her was in his
capacity of adviser; awakening in his countrymen the same thirst for
showy, rapacious, uncertain, perilous aggrandizement which dictated
his own personal actions.
[60] Cornel. Nepos, Alkibiad. c. 1; Satyrus apud Athenæum, xii,
p. 534; Plutarch, Alkibiad. c. 23.
Οὗ γὰρ τοιούτων δεῖ, τοιοῦτος εἰμ’ ἐγώ, says Odysseus, in the
Philoktêtês of Sophoklês.
[61] I follow the criticism which Plutarch cites from
Theophrastus, seemingly discriminating and measured: much
more trustworthy than the vague eulogy of Nepos, or even of
Demosthenês (of course not from his own knowledge), upon the
eloquence of Alkibiadês (Plutarch, Alkib. c. 10); Plutarch,
Reipubl. Gerend. Præcept. c. 8, p. 804.
Antisthenês, companion and pupil of Sokratês, and originator of
what is called the Cynic philosophy, contemporary and personally
acquainted with Alkibiadês, was full of admiration for his
extreme personal beauty, and pronounced him to be strong, manly,
and audacious, but unschooled, ~ἀπαίδευτον~. His scandals about
the lawless life of Alkibiadês, however, exceed what we can
reasonably admit, even from a contemporary (Antisthenês ap.
Athenæum, v, p. 220, xii, p. 534). Antisthenês had composed a
dialogue called Alkibiadês (Diog. Laërt. vi, 15).
See the collection of the Fragmenta Antisthenis (by A. G.
Winckelmann, Zurich, 1842, pp. 17-19).
The comic writers of the day—Eupolis, Aristophanês, Pherekratês,
and others—seem to have been abundant in their jests and libels
against the excesses of Alkibiadês, real or supposed. There was
a tale, untrue, but current in comic tradition, that Alkibiadês,
who was not a man to suffer himself to be insulted with impunity,
had drowned Eupolis in the sea, in revenge, for his comedy of the
Baptæ. See Meineke, Fragm. Com. Græ. Eupolidis Βάπται and Κόλακες
(vol. ii, pp. 447-494), and Aristophanês Τριφαλῆς, p. 1166:
also Meineke’s first volume, Historia Critica Comic. Græc. pp.
124-136; and the Dissertat. xix, in Buttmann’s _Mythologus_, on
the Baptæ and the Cotyttia.
[62] Thucyd. vi, 15. Compare Plutarch, Reip. Ger. Præc. c. 4, p.
800. The sketch which Plato draws in the first three chapters of
the ninth Book of the Republic, of the citizen who erects himself
into a despot and enslaves his fellow-citizens, exactly suits the
character of Alkibiadês. See also the same treatise, vi, 6-8, pp.
491-494, and the preface of Schleiermacher to his translation of
the Platonic dialogue called Alkibiadês the first.
[63] Aristophan. Ranæ, 1445-1453; Plutarch, Alkibiadês, c. 16;
Plutarch, Nikias, c. 9.
Mentioning Alkibiadês now for the first time, I have somewhat
anticipated on future chapters, in order to present a general idea
of his character, hereafter to be illustrated. But at the moment
which we have now reached (March, 420 B.C.) the lion’s whelp was yet
young, and had neither acquired his entire strength nor disclosed his
full-grown claws.
He began to put himself forward as a party leader, seemingly not long
before the Peace of Nikias. The political traditions hereditary in
his family, as in that of his relation Periklês, were democratical:
his grandfather Alkibiadês had been vehement in his opposition
to the Peisistratids, and had even afterwards publicly renounced
an established connection of hospitality with the Lacedæmonian
government, from strong antipathy to them on political grounds. But
Alkibiadês himself, in commencing political life, departed from this
family tradition, and presented himself as a partisan of oligarchical
and philo-Laconian sentiment, doubtless far more consonant to his
natural temper than the democratical. He thus started in the same
general party with Nikias and Thessalus son of Kimôn, who afterwards
became his bitter opponents; and it was in part probably to put
himself on a par with them, that he took the marked step of trying to
revive the ancient family tie of hospitality with Sparta, which his
grandfather had broken off.[64]
[64] Thucyd. v, 43, vi, 90; Isokratês, De Bigis, Or. xvi, p. 352,
sect. 27-30.
Plutarch (Alkibiad. c. 14) carelessly represents Alkibiadês as
being actually proxenus of Sparta at Athens.
To promote this object, he displayed peculiar solicitude for the good
treatment of the Spartan captives, during their detention at Athens.
Many of them being of high family at Sparta, he naturally calculated
upon their gratitude, as well as upon the favorable sympathies of
their countrymen, whenever they should be restored. He advocated
both the peace and the alliance with Sparta, and the restoration
of her captives; and indeed not only advocated these measures, but
tendered his services, and was eager to be employed, as the agent
of Sparta for carrying them through at Athens. From these selfish
hopes in regard to Sparta, and especially from the expectation of
acquiring, through the agency of the restored captives, the title of
Proxenus of Sparta, Alkibiadês thus became a partisan of the blind
and gratuitous philo-Laconian concessions of Nikias. But the captives
on their return were either unable, or unwilling, to carry the point
which he wished; while the authorities at Sparta rejected all his
advances, not without a contemptuous sneer at the idea of confiding
important political interests to the care of a youth chiefly known
for ostentation, profligacy, and insolence. That the Spartans
should thus judge, is noway astonishing, considering their extreme
reverence both for old age and for strict discipline. They naturally
preferred Nikias and Lachês, whose prudence would commend, if it did
not originally suggest, their mistrust of the new claimant. Nor had
Alkibiadês yet shown the mighty movement of which he was capable.
But this contemptuous refusal of the Spartans stung him so to the
quick, that, making an entire revolution in his political course,[65]
he immediately threw himself into anti-Laconian politics with an
energy and ability which he was not before known to possess.
[65] Thucyd. v, 43. Οὐ μέντοι ἀλλὰ καὶ φρονήματι φιλονεικῶν
ἠναντιοῦτο, ὅτι Λακεδαιμόνιοι διὰ Νικίου καὶ Λάχητος ἔπραξαν τὰς
σπονδὰς, αὐτὸν διὰ τὴν νεότητα ὑπεριδόντες καὶ κατὰ τὴν παλαιὰν
προξενίαν ποτὲ οὖσαν οὐ τιμήσαντες, ἣν τοῦ πάππου ἀπειπόντος
αὐτὸς τοὺς ἐκ τῆς νήσου αὐτῶν αἰχμαλώτους θεραπεύων διενοεῖτο
ἀνανεώσασθαι. ~Πανταχόθεν τε νομίζων ἐλασσοῦσθαι~ τό τε πρῶτον
ἀντεῖπεν, etc.
The moment was favorable, since the recent death of Kleon, for a new
political leader to espouse this side; and was rendered still more
favorable by the conduct of the Lacedæmonians. Month after month
passed, remonstrance after remonstrance was addressed, yet not one
of the restitutions prescribed by the treaty in favor of Athens had
yet been accomplished. Alkibiadês had therefore ample pretext for
altering his tone respecting the Spartans, and for denouncing them
as deceivers who had broken their solemn oaths, abusing the generous
confidence of Athens. Under his present antipathies, his attention
naturally turned to Argos, in which city he possessed some powerful
friends and family guests. The condition of that city, now free by
the expiration of the peace with Sparta, opened a possibility of
connection with Athens, and this policy was strongly recommended
by Alkibiadês, who insisted that Sparta was playing false with the
Athenians, merely in order to keep their hands tied until she had
attacked and put down Argos separately. This particular argument had
less force when it was seen that Argos acquired new and powerful
allies, Mantineia, Elis, and Corinth; but on the other hand, such
acquisitions rendered Argos positively more valuable as an ally to
the Athenians.
It was not so much, however, the inclination towards Argos, but the
growing wrath against Sparta, which furthered the philo-Argeian plans
of Alkibiadês; and when the Lacedæmonian envoy Andromedês arrived
at Athens from Bœotia, tendering to the Athenians the mere ruins of
Panaktum in exchange for Pylos; when it farther became known that
the Spartans had already concluded a special alliance with the
Bœotians without consulting Athens, the unmeasured expression of
displeasure in the Athenian ekklesia showed Alkibiadês that the time
was now come for bringing on a substantive decision. While he lent
his own voice to strengthen this discontent against Sparta, he at
the same time despatched a private intimation to his correspondents
at Argos, exhorting them, under assurances of success and promise of
his own strenuous aid, to send without delay an embassy to Athens
in conjunction with the Mantineians and Eleians, requesting to be
admitted as Athenian allies. The Argeians received this intimation
at the very moment when their citizens Eustrophus and Æson were
negotiating at Sparta for the renewal of the peace, having been sent
thither under great uneasiness lest Argos should be left without
allies to contend single-handed against the Lacedæmonians. But no
sooner was the unexpected chance held out to them of alliance with
Athens, a former friend, a democracy like their own, an imperial
state at sea, but not interfering with their own primacy in
Peloponnesus,—than they became careless of Eustrophus and Æson, and
despatched forthwith to Athens the embassy advised. It was a joint
embassy, Argeian, Eleian, and Mantineian:[66] the alliance between
these three cities had already been rendered more intimate by a
second treaty concluded since that treaty to which Corinth was a
party; but Corinth had refused all concern in the second.[67]
[66] Thucyd. v, 43.
[67] Thucyd. v, 48.
But the Spartans had been already alarmed by the harsh repulse of
their envoy Andromedês, and probably warned by reports from Nikias
and their other Athenian friends of the crisis impending respecting
alliance between Athens and Argos. Accordingly they sent off without
a moment’s delay three citizens extremely popular at Athens,[68]
Philocharidas, Leon, and Endius; with full powers to settle all
matters of difference. The envoys were instructed to deprecate all
alliance of Athens with Argos, to explain that the alliance of Sparta
with Bœotia had been concluded without any purpose or possibility of
evil to Athens, and at the same time to renew the demand that Pylos
should be restored to them in exchange for the demolished Panaktum.
Such was still the confidence of the Lacedæmonians in the strength
of assent at Athens, that they did not yet despair of obtaining
an affirmative, even to this very unequal proposition: and when
the three envoys, under the introduction and advice of Nikias, had
their first interview with the Athenian senate, preparatory to an
audience before the public assembly, the impression which they made,
on stating that they came with full powers of settlement, was highly
favorable. It was indeed so favorable, that Alkibiadês became alarmed
lest, if they made the same statement in the public assembly, holding
out the prospect of some trifling concessions, the philo-Laconian
party might determine public feeling to accept a compromise, and thus
preclude all idea of alliance with Argos.
[68] Thucyd. v, 44. Ἀφίκοντο δὲ καὶ Λακεδαιμονίων πρέσβεις ~κατὰ
τάχος~, etc.
To obviate such a defeat of his plans, he resorted to a singular
manœuvre. One of the Lacedæmonian envoys, Endius, was his private
guest, by an ancient and particular intimacy subsisting between their
two families.[69] This probably assisted in procuring for him a
secret interview with the envoys, and enabled him to address them
with greater effect, on the day before the meeting of the public
assembly, and without the knowledge of Nikias. He accosted them in
the tone of a friend of Sparta, anxious that their proposition should
succeed; but he intimated that they would find the public assembly
turbulent and angry, very different from the tranquil demeanor of
the senate: so that if they proclaimed themselves to have come with
full powers of settlement, the people would burst out with fury, to
act upon their fears and bully them into extravagant concessions.
He therefore strongly urged them to declare that they had come,
not with any full powers of settlement, but merely to explain,
discuss, and report: the people would then find that they could gain
nothing by intimidation, explanations would be heard, and disputed
points be discussed with temper, and he (Alkibiadês) would speak
emphatically in their favor. He would advise, and felt confident
that he could persuade, the Athenians to restore Pylos, a step which
his opposition had hitherto been the chief means of preventing.
He gave them his solemn pledge—confirmed by an oath, according to
Plutarch—that he would adopt this conduct, if they would act upon his
counsel.[70] The envoys were much struck with the apparent sagacity
of these suggestions,[71] and still more delighted to find that the
man from whom they anticipated the most formidable opposition was
prepared to speak in their favor. His language obtained with them,
probably, the more ready admission and confidence, inasmuch as he
had volunteered his services to become the political agent of Sparta
only a few months before; and he appeared now to be simply resuming
that policy. They were sure of the support of Nikias and his party,
under all circumstances; if, by complying with the recommendation of
Alkibiadês, they could gain _his_ strenuous advocacy and influence
also, they fancied that their cause was sure of success. Accordingly,
they agreed to act upon his suggestion, not only without consulting
but without even warning Nikias, which was exactly what Alkibiadês
desired, and had probably required them to promise.
[69] Thucyd. viii, 6. Ἐνδίῳ τῷ ἐφορεύοντι πατρικὸς ἐς τὰ μάλιστα
φίλος—ὅθεν καὶ τοὔνομα Λακωνικὸν ἡ οἰκία αὐτῶν κατὰ τὴν ξενίαν
ἔσχεν· Ἔνδιος γὰρ Ἀλκιβιάδου ἐκαλεῖτο.
I incline to suspect, from this passage, that the father of
Endius was not named Alkibiadês, but that Endius himself was
nevertheless named Ἔνδιος Ἀλκιβιάδου, in consequence of the
peculiar intimacy of connection with the Athenian family in
which that name occurred. If the father of Endius was really
named Alkibiadês, Endius himself would naturally, pursuant to
general custom, be styled Ἔνδιος Ἀλκιβιάδου: there would be
nothing in this denomination to call for the particular remark
of Thucydidês. But according to the view of the Scholiast and
most commentators, all that Thucydidês wishes to explain here is,
how the father of Endius came to receive the name of Alkibiadês.
Now if he had meant this, he surely would not have used the
terms which we read: the circumstance to be explained would then
have reference to the father of Endius, not to Endius himself,
nor to the family generally. His words imply that the family,
that is, each successive individual of the family, derived his
Laconian designation (not from the name of his father, but)
from his intimate connection of hospitality with the Athenian
family of Alkibiadês. Each successive individual attached to
his own personal name the genitive case Ἀλκιβιάδου, instead of
the genitive of his real father’s name. Doubtless this was an
anomaly in Grecian practice; but on the present occasion, we are
to expect something anomalous; had it not been such, Thucydidês
would not have stepped aside to particularize it.
[70] Thucyd. v, 45. Μηχανᾶται δὲ πρὸς αὐτοὺς τοῖονδέ τι ὁ
Ἀλκιβιάδης· τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους πείθει, ~πίστιν αὐτοῖς δοὺς~,
ἢν μὴ ὁμολογήσωσιν ἐν τῷ δήμῳ αὐτοκράτορες ἥκειν, Πύλον τε
αὐτοῖς ἀποδώσειν (~πείσειν γὰρ αὐτὸς Ἀθηναίους~, ὥσπερ καὶ νῦν
ἀντιλέγειν) καὶ τἄλλα ξυναλλάξειν. Βουλόμενος δὲ αὐτοὺς Νικίου τε
ἀποστῆσαι ταῦτα ἔπραττε, καὶ ὅπως ~ἐν τῷ δήμῳ διαβαλὼν αὐτοὺς ὡς
οὐδὲν ἀληθὲς ἐν νῷ ἔχουσιν, οὐδὲ λέγουσιν οὐδέποτε ταὐτὰ, τοὺς
Ἀργείους ξυμμάχους ποιήσῃ~.
[71] Plutarch (Alkibiad. c. 14). Ταῦτα δ’ εἰπὼν ~ὅρκους ἔδωκεν
αὐτοῖς~, καὶ μετέστησεν ἀπὸ τοῦ Νικίου παντάπασι πιστεύοντας
αὐτῷ, καὶ ~θαυμάζοντας ἅμα τὴν δεινότητα καὶ σύνεσιν~, ὡς οὐ τοῦ
τυχόντος ἀνδρὸς οὖσαν. Again, Plutarch, Nikias, c. 10.
Next day, the public assembly met, and the envoys were introduced;
upon which Alkibiadês himself, in a tone of peculiar mildness, put
the question to them, upon what footing they came?[72] what powers
they brought with them? They immediately declared that they had
brought no full powers for treating and settlement, but only came
to explain and discuss. Nothing could exceed the astonishment with
which this declaration was heard. The senators present, to whom
these envoys a day or two before had publicly declared the distinct
contrary,—the assembled people, who, made aware of this previous
affirmation, had come prepared to hear the ultimatum of Sparta from
their lips,—lastly, most of all, Nikias himself,—their confidential
agent and probably their host at Athens,—who had doubtless announced
them as plenipotentiaries, and concerted with them the management
of their cases before the assembly,—all were alike astounded, and
none knew what to make of the words just heard. But the indignation
of the people equalled their astonishment: there was a unanimous
burst of wrath against the standing faithlessness and duplicity
of Lacedæmonians; never saying the same thing two days together.
To crown the whole, Alkibiadês himself affected to share all the
surprise of the multitude, and was even the loudest of them all in
invectives against the envoys; denouncing Lacedæmonian perfidy and
evil designs in language far more bitter than he had ever employed
before. Nor was this all:[73] he took advantage of the vehement
acclamation which welcomed these invectives to propose that the
Argeian envoys should be called in and the alliance with Argos
concluded forthwith. And this would certainly have been done, if a
remarkable phenomenon—an earthquake—had not occurred to prevent it;
causing the assembly to be adjourned to the next day, pursuant to a
religious scruple then recognized as paramount.
[72] Plutarch, Alkib. c. 14. Ἐρωτώμενοι δ’ ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἀλκιβιάδου
~πάνυ φιλανθρώπως~, ἐφ’ οἷς ἀφιγμένοι τυγχάνουσιν, οὐκ ἔφασαν
ἥκειν αὐτοκράτορες.
[73] Thucyd. v, 45. Οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι οὐκέτι ἠνείχοντο, ἀλλὰ
τοῦ Ἀλκιβιάδου ~πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἢ πρότερον καταβοῶντος τῶν
Λακεδαιμονίων~, ἐσήκουόν τε καὶ ἑτοῖμοι ἦσαν εὐθὺς παραγαγεῖν
τοὺς Ἀργείους, etc.
Compare Plutarch, Alkib. c. 14; and Plutarch, Nikias, c. 10.
This remarkable anecdote comes in all its main circumstances from
Thucydidês. It illustrates forcibly that unprincipled character which
will be found to attach to Alkibiadês through life, and presents
indeed an unblushing combination of impudence and fraud, which we
cannot better describe than by saying that it is exactly in the vein
of Fielding’s Jonathan Wild. In depicting Kleon and Hyperbolus,
historians vie with each other in strong language to mark the
impudence which is said to have been their peculiar characteristic.
Now we have no particular facts before us to measure the amount
of truth in this, though as a general charge it is sufficiently
credible. But we may affirm, with full assurance, that none of
the much-decried demagogues of Athens—not one of those sellers of
leather, lamps, sheep, ropes, pollard, and other commodities, upon
whom Aristophanês heaps so many excellent jokes—ever surpassed, if
they ever equalled, the impudence of this descendant of Æakus and
Zeus in his manner of overreaching and disgracing the Lacedæmonian
envoys. These latter, it must be added, display a carelessness of
public faith and consistency, a facility in publicly unsaying what
they have just before publicly said, and a treachery towards their
own confidential agent, which is truly surprising, and goes far to
justify the general charge of habitual duplicity so often alleged
against the Lacedæmonian character.[74]
[74] Euripid. Andromach. 445-455; Herodot. ix, 54.
The disgraced envoys would doubtless quit Athens immediately: but
this opportune earthquake gave Nikias a few hours to recover from
his unexpected overthrow. In the assembly of the next day, he still
contended that the friendship of Sparta was preferable to that of
Argos, and insisted on the prudence of postponing all consummation
of engagement with the latter until the real intentions of Sparta,
now so contradictory and inexplicable, should be made clear. He
contended that the position of Athens, in regard to the peace and
alliance, was that of superior honor and advantage; the position
of Sparta, one of comparative disgrace: Athens had thus a greater
interest than Sparta in maintaining what had been concluded. But he
at the same time admitted that a distinct and peremptory explanation
must be exacted from Sparta as to her intentions, and he requested
the people to send himself with some other colleagues to demand it.
The Lacedæmonians should be apprised that Argeian envoys were already
present in Athens with propositions, and that the Athenians might
already have concluded this alliance, if they could have permitted
themselves to do wrong to the existing alliance with Sparta. But
the Lacedæmonians, if their intentions were honorable, must show it
forthwith: 1. By restoring Panaktum, not demolished, but standing. 2.
By restoring Amphipolis also. 3. By renouncing their special alliance
with the Bœotians, unless the Bœotians on their side chose to become
parties to the peace with Athens.[75]
[75] Thucyd. v, 46.
The Athenian assembly, acquiescing in the recommendation of Nikias,
invested him with the commission which he required: a remarkable
proof, after the overpowering defeat of the preceding day, how strong
was the hold which he still retained upon them, and how sincere their
desire to keep on the best terms with Sparta. This was a last chance
granted to Nikias and his policy; a perfectly fair chance, since all
that was asked of Sparta was just; but it forced him to bring matters
to a decisive issue with her, and shut out all farther evasion. His
mission to Sparta failed altogether: the influence of Kleobûlus and
Xenarês, the anti-Athenian ephors, was found predominant, so that
not one of his demands was complied with. And even when he formally
announced that unless Sparta renounced her special alliance with the
Bœotians or compelled the Bœotians to accept the peace with Athens,
the Athenians would immediately contract alliance with Argos, the
menace produced no effect. He could only obtain, and that too as a
personal favor to himself, that the oaths as they stood should be
formally renewed; an empty concession, which covered but faintly the
humiliation of his retreat to Athens. The Athenian assembly listened
to his report with strong indignation against the Lacedæmonians, and
with marked displeasure even against himself, as the great author and
voucher of this unperformed treaty; while Alkibiadês was permitted
to introduce the envoys—already at hand in the city—from Argos,
Mantineia, and Elis, with whom a pact was at once concluded.[76]
[76] Thucyd. v, 46; Plutarch, Nikias, c. 10.
The words of this, which Thucydidês gives us doubtless from the
record on the public column, comprise two engagements; one for peace,
another for alliance.
The Athenians, Argeians, Mantineians, and Eleians, have concluded a
treaty of peace by sea and by land, without fraud or mischief, each
for themselves and for the allies over whom each exercise empire.[77]
[The express terms in which these states announce themselves as
imperial states and their allies as dependencies, deserve notice. No
such words appear in the treaty between Athens and Lacedæmon. I have
already mentioned that the main ground of discontent on the part of
Mantineia and Elis towards Sparta, was connected with their imperial
power.]
[77] Thucyd. v, 47. ὑπὲρ σφῶν αὐτῶν καὶ τῶν ξυμμάχων ὧν ἄρχουσιν
ἑκάτεροι.
Neither of them shall bear arms against the other for purposes of
damage.
The Athenians, Argeians, Mantineians, and Eleians, shall be allies
with each other for one hundred years. If any enemy shall invade
Attica, the three contracting cities shall lend the most vigorous aid
in their power at the invitation of Athens. Should the forces of the
invading city damage Attica and then retire, the three will proclaim
that city their enemy and attack it: neither of the four shall in
that case suspend the war, without consent of the others.
Reciprocal obligations imposed upon Athens, in case Argos, Mantineia,
or Elis, shall be attacked.
Neither of the four contracting powers shall grant passage to troops
through their own territory, or the territory of allies over whom
they may at the time be exercising command, either by land or sea,
unless upon joint resolution.[78]
[78] Thucyd. v, 48. καὶ τῶν ξυμμάχων ~ὧν ἂν ἄρχουσιν~ ἕκαστοι.
The tense and phrase here deserve notice, as contrasted with the
phrase in the former part of the treaty—τῶν ξυμμάχων ὧν ~ἄρχουσιν~
ἑκάτεροι.
The clause imposing actual obligation to hinder the passage of
troops, required to be left open for application to the actual
time.
In case auxiliary troops shall be required and sent under this
treaty, the city sending shall furnish their maintenance for the
space of thirty days, from the day of their entrance upon the
territory of the city requiring. Should their services be needed for
a longer period, the city requiring shall furnish their maintenance,
at the rate of three Æginæan oboli for each hoplite, light-armed or
archer, and of one Æginæan drachma or six oboli for each horseman,
per day. The city requiring shall possess the command, so long as the
service required shall be in her territory. But if any expedition
shall be undertaken by joint resolution, then the command shall be
shared equally between all.
Such were the substantive conditions of the new alliance. Provision
was then made for the oaths,—by whom? where? when? in what words?
how often? they were to be taken. Athens was to swear on behalf of
herself and her allies; but Argos, Elis, and Mantineia, with their
respective allies, were to swear by separate cities. The oaths were
to be renewed every four years; by Athens, within thirty days before
each Olympic festival, at Argos, Elis, and Mantineia; by these three
cities, at Athens, ten days before each festival of the greater
Panathenæa. “The words of the treaty of peace and alliance, and the
oaths sworn, shall be engraven on stone columns, and put up in the
temples of each of the four cities; and also upon a brazen column, to
be put up by joint cost at Olympia, for the festival now approaching.”
“The four cities may, by joint consent, make any change they please
in the provisions of this treaty, without violating their oaths.”[79]
[79] Thucyd. v, 47.
The conclusion of this new treaty introduced a greater degree of
complication into the grouping and association of the Grecian cities
than had ever before been known. The ancient Spartan confederacy,
and the Athenian empire still subsisted. A peace had been concluded
between them, ratified by the formal vote of the majority of the
confederates, yet not accepted by several of the minority. Not
merely peace, but also special alliance had been concluded between
Athens and Sparta; and a special alliance between Sparta and Bœotia.
Corinth, member of the Spartan confederacy, was also member of a
defensive alliance with Argos, Mantineia, and Elis; which three
states had concluded a more intimate alliance, first with each other
(without Corinth), and now recently with Athens. Yet both Athens and
Sparta still retained the alliance[80] concluded between themselves,
without formal rupture on either side, though Athens still complained
that the treaty had not been fulfilled. No relations whatever
subsisted between Argos and Sparta. Between Athens and Bœotia there
was an armistice terminable at ten days’ notice. Lastly, Corinth
could not be prevailed upon, in spite of repeated solicitation from
the Argeians, to join the new alliance of Athens with Argos: so
that no relations subsisted between Corinth and Athens; while the
Corinthians began, though faintly, to resume their former tendencies
towards Sparta.[81]
[80] Thucyd. v, 48.
[81] Thucyd. v, 48-50.
The alliance between Athens and Argos, of which particulars have
just been given, was concluded not long before the Olympic festival
of the 90th Olympiad, or 420 B.C.: the festival being about the
beginning of July, the treaty might be in May.[82] That festival
was memorable, on more than one ground. It was the first which had
been celebrated since the conclusion of the peace, the leading
clause of which had been expressly introduced to guarantee to all
Greeks free access to the great Pan-Hellenic temples, with liberty
of sacrificing, consulting the oracle, and witnessing the matches.
For the last eleven years, including two Olympic festivals, Athens
herself, and apparently all the numerous allies of Athens, had been
excluded from sending their solemn legation, or theôry, and from
attending as spectators, at the Olympic games.[83] Now that such
exclusion was removed, and that the Eleian heralds (who came to
announce the approaching games and proclaim the truce connected with
them) again trod the soil of Attica,—the Athenian visit was felt
both by themselves and by others as a novelty. Some curiosity was
entertained to see what figure the theôry of Athens would make as
to show and splendor. Nor were there wanting spiteful rumors, that
Athens had been so much impoverished by the war, as to be prevented
from appearing with appropriate magnificence at the altar and in the
presence of Olympic Zeus.
[82] Καταθέντων δὲ καὶ Ὀλυμπίασι στήλην χαλκῆν κοινῇ ~Ὀλυμπίοις
τοῖς νυνί~ (Thucyd. v, 47), words of the treaty.
[83] Dorieus of Rhodes was victor in the Pankration, both in
Olymp. 88 and 89, (428-424 B.C.). Rhodes was included among the
tributary allies of Athens. But the athletes who came to contend
were privileged and (as it were) sacred persons, who were never
molested or hindered from coming to the festival, if they chose
to come, under any state of war. Their inviolability was never
disturbed even down to the harsh proceeding of Aratus (Plutarch,
Aratus, c. 28).
But this does not prove that Rhodian visitors generally, or a
Rhodian theôry, could have come to Olympia between 431-421 in
safety.
From the presence of individuals, even as spectators, little
can be inferred: because, even at this very Olympic festival of
420 B.C., Lichas the Spartan was present as a spectator, though
all Lacedæmonians were formally excluded by proclamation of the
Eleians (Thucyd. v, 50).
Alkibiadês took pride in silencing these surmises, as well as in
glorifying his own name and person, by a display more imposing than
had ever been previously beheld. He had already distinguished himself
in the local festivals and liturgies of Athens by an ostentation
surpassing Athenian rivals: but he now felt himself standing
forward as the champion and leader of Athens before Greece. He had
discredited his political rival Nikias, given a new direction to
the politics of Athens by the Argeian alliance, and was about to
commence a series of intra-Peloponnesian operations against the
Lacedæmonians. On all these grounds he determined that his first
appearance on the plain of Olympia should impose upon all beholders.
The Athenian theôry, of which he was a member, was set out with
first-rate splendor, and with the amplest show of golden ewers,
censers, etc., for the public sacrifice and procession.[84] But when
the chariot-races came on, Alkibiadês himself appeared as competitor
at his own cost,—not merely with one well-equipped chariot and four,
which the richest Greeks had hitherto counted as an extraordinary
personal glory, but with the prodigious number of seven distinct
chariots, each with a team of four horses. And so superior was their
quality, that one of his chariots gained a first prize, and another
a second prize, so that Alkibiadês was twice crowned with sprigs of
the sacred olive-tree, and twice proclaimed by the herald. Another of
his seven chariots also came in fourth: but no crown or proclamation,
it seems, was awarded to any after the second in order. We must
recollect that he had competitors from all parts of Greece to contend
against, not merely private men, but even despots and governments.
Nor was this all. The tent which the Athenian theôrs provided for
their countrymen, visitors to the games, was handsomely adorned;
but a separate tent, which Alkibiadês himself provided for a public
banquet to celebrate his triumph, together with the banquet itself,
was set forth on a scale still more stately and expensive. The rich
allies of Athens—Ephesus, Chios, and Lesbos—are said to have lent him
their aid in enhancing this display. It is highly probable that they
would be glad to cultivate his favor, as he had now become one of
the first men in Athens, and was in an ascendent course. But we must
farther recollect that they, as well as Athens, had been excluded
from the Olympic festival, so that their own feelings on first
returning might well prompt them to take a genuine interest in this
imposing reappearance of the Ionic race at the common sanctuary of
Hellas.
[84] Of the taste and elegance with which these exhibitions were
usually got up in Athens, surpassing generally every other city
in Greece, see a remarkable testimony in Xenophon, Memorabil.
iii, 3, 12.
Five years afterwards, on an important discussion which will be
hereafter described, Alkibiadês maintained publicly before the
Athenian assembly that his unparalleled Olympic display had produced
an effect upon the Grecian mind highly beneficial to Athens;[85]
dissipating the suspicions entertained that she was ruined by the
war, and establishing beyond dispute her vast wealth and power. He
was doubtless right to a considerable extent; though not sufficient
to repel the charge from himself, which it was his purpose to do,
both of overweening personal vanity, and of that reckless expenditure
which he would be compelled to try and overtake by peculation
or violence at the public cost. All the unfavorable impressions
suggested to prudent Athenians by his previous life, were aggravated
by this stupendous display; much more, of course, the jealousy and
hatred of personal competitors. And this feeling was not the less
real, though as a political man he was now in the full tide of public
favor.
[85] Thucyd. vi, 16. Οἱ γὰρ Ἕλληνες καὶ ὑπὲρ δύναμιν μείζω ἡμῶν
τὴν πόλιν ἐνόμισαν τῷ ἐμῷ διαπρεπεῖ τῆς Ὀλυμπίαζε θεωρίας,
~πρότερον ἐλπίζοντες αὐτὴν καταπεπολεμῆσθαι~· διότι ἅρματα
μὲν ἑπτὰ καθῆκα, ὅσα οὐδείς πω ἰδιώτης πρότερον, ἐνίκησά τε,
καὶ δεύτερος καὶ τέταρτος ἐγενόμην, καὶ τἄλλα ἀξίως τῆς νίκης
παρεσκευασάμην.
The full force of this grandiose display cannot be felt unless
we bring to our minds the special position both of Athens and
the Athenian allies towards Olympia,—and of Alkibiadês himself
towards Athens, Argos, and the rest of Greece,—in the first half
of the year 420 B.C.
Alkibiadês obtained from Euripidês the honor of an epinikian
ode, or song of triumph, to celebrate this event; of which a few
lines are preserved by Plutarch (Alkib. c. 11). It is curious
that the poet alleges Alkibiadês to have been first, second, and
_third_, in the course; while Alkibiadês himself, more modest
and doubtless more exact, pretends only to first, second, and
_fourth_. Euripidês informs us that Alkibiadês was crowned twice
and proclaimed twice—δὶς στεφθέντ’ ἐλαίᾳ κάρυκι βοᾷν παραδοῦναι.
Reiske, Coray, and Schäfer, have thought it right to alter this
word δὶς to τρὶς, without any authority, which completely alters
the asserted fact. Sintenis in his edition of Plutarch has
properly restored the word δὶς.
How long the recollection of this famous Olympic festival
remained in the Athenian public mind, is attested partly by the
Oratio de Bigis of Isokratês, composed in defence of the son
of Alkibiadês at least twenty-five years afterwards, perhaps
more. Isokratês repeats the loose assertion of Euripidês,
πρῶτος, δεύτερος, and τρίτος (Or. xvi, p. 353, sect. 40). The
spurious Oration called that of Andokidês against Alkibiadês
also preserves many of the current tales, some of which I
have admitted into the text, because I think them probable in
themselves, and because that oration itself may reasonably be
believed to be a composition of the middle of the fourth century
B.C. That oration puts all the proceedings of Alkibiadês in a
very invidious temper and with palpable exaggeration. The story
of Alkibiadês having robbed an Athenian named Diomêdês of a fine
chariot, appears to be a sort of variation on the story about
Tisias, which figures in the oration of Isokratês; see Andokid.
cont. Alkib. sect. 26: possibly Alkibiadês may have left one of
the teams not paid for. The aid lent to Alkibiadês by the Chians,
Ephesians, etc., as described in that oration, is likely to be
substantially true, and may easily be explained. Compare Athenæ.
i, p. 3.
Our information about the arrangements of the chariot-racing at
Olympia is very imperfect. We do not distinctly know how the
seven chariots of Alkibiadês ran,—in how many races,—for all the
seven could not, in my judgment, have run in one and the same
race. There must have been many other chariots to run, belonging
to other competitors: and it seems difficult to believe that ever
a greater number than ten can have run in the same race, since
the course involved going _twelve_ times round the goal (Pindar,
Ol. iii, 33; vi, 75). Ten competing chariots run in the race
described by Sophoklês (Electr. 708), and if we could venture to
construe strictly the expression of the poet,—~δέκατον ἐκπληρῶν~
ὄχον,—it would seem that ten was the extreme number permitted to
run. Even so great a number as ten was replete with danger to
the persons engaged, as may be seen by reading the description
in Sophoklês (compare Demosth. Ἐρωτ. Λογ. p. 1410), who refers
indeed to a Pythian and not an Olympic solemnity: but the main
circumstances must have been common to both; and we know that the
twelve turns (δωδεκάγναμπτον δωδεκάδρομον) _were_ common to both
(Pindar, Pyth. v, 31).
Alkibiadês was not the only person who gained a chariot victory
at this 90th Olympiad, 420 B.C. Lichas the Lacedæmonian also
gained one (Thucyd. v, 50), though the chariot was obliged to be
entered in another name, since the Lacedæmonians were interdicted
from attendance.
Dr. Thirlwall (Hist. of Greece, vol. iii, ch. xxiv, p. 316)
says: “We are not aware that the Olympiad, in which these
chariot-victories of Alkibiadês were gained, can be distinctly
fixed. But it was probably Olymp. 89, B.C. 424.”
In my judgment, both Olymp. 88 (B.C. 428) and Olymp. 89 (B.C.
424) are excluded from the possible supposition, by the fact that
the general war was raging at both periods. To suppose that in
the midst of the summer of these two fighting years, there was an
Olympic truce for a month, allowing Athens and her allies to send
thither their solemn legations, their chariots for competition,
and their numerous individual visitors, appears to me contrary
to all probability. The Olympic month of B.C. 424, would occur
just about the time when Brasidas was at the Isthmus levying
troops for his intended expedition to Thrace, and when he rescued
Megara from the Athenian attack. This would not be a very quiet
time for the peaceable Athenian visitors, with the costly display
of gold and silver plate and the ostentatious theôry, to pass
by, on its way to Olympia. During the time when the Spartans
occupied Dekeleia, the solemn processions of communicants at the
Eleusinian mysteries could never march along the Sacred Way from
Athens to Eleusis. Xen. Hell. i, 4, 20.
Moreover, we see that the very first article both of the Truce
for one year and of the Peace of Nikias, expressly stipulate
for liberty to all to attend the common temples and festivals.
The first of the two relates to Delphi expressly: the second is
general, and embraces Olympia as well as Delphi. If the Athenians
had visited Olympia in 428 or 424 B.C. without impediment, these
stipulations in the treaties would have no purpose nor meaning.
But the fact of their standing in the front of the treaty, proves
that they were looked upon as of much interest and importance.
I have placed the Olympic festival wherein Alkibiadês contended
with his seven chariots, in 420 B.C., in the peace, but
immediately after the war. No other festival appears to me at all
suitable.
Dr. Thirlwall farther assumes, as a matter of course, that there
was only _one_ chariot-race at this Olympic festival, that all
the seven chariots of Alkibiadês ran in this one race, and that
in the festival of 420 B.C., Lichas gained _the_ prize: thus
implying that Alkibiadês could not have gained the prize at the
same festival.
I am not aware that there is any evidence to prove either of
these three propositions. To me they all appear improbable and
unfounded.
We know from Pausanias (vi, 13, 2) that even in the case of the
stadiodromi, or runners who contended in the stadium, all were
not brought out in one race. They were distributed into sets, or
batches, of what number we know not. Each set ran its own heat,
and the victors in each then competed with each other in a fresh
heat; so that the victor who gained the grand final prize was
sure to have won two heats.
Now if this practice was adopted with the foot-runners, much
more would it be likely to be adopted with the chariot-racers in
case many chariots were brought to the same festival. The danger
would be lessened, the sport would be increased, and the glory
of the competitors enhanced. The Olympic festival lasted five
days, a long time to provide amusement for so vast a crowd of
spectators. Alkibiadês and Lichas may therefore both have gained
chariot-victories at the same festival: of course only one of
them can have gained the grand final prize, and which of the two
that was it is impossible to say.
If the festival of the 90th Olympiad was peculiarly distinguished
by the reappearance of Athenians and those connected with them, it
was marked by a farther novelty yet more striking, the exclusion of
the Lacedæmonians. This exclusion was the consequence of the new
political interests of the Eleians, combined with their increased
consciousness of force arising out of the recent alliance with Argos,
Athens, and Mantineia. It has already been mentioned that since the
peace with Athens, the Lacedæmonians, acting as arbitrators in the
case of Lepreum, which the Eleians claimed as their dependency,
had declared it to be autonomous, and had sent a body of troops to
defend it. Probably the Eleians had recently renewed their attacks
upon the district, since the junction with their new allies; for
the Lacedæmonians had detached thither a fresh body of one thousand
hoplites immediately prior to the Olympic festival. Out of the
mission of this fresh detachment the sentence of exclusion arose. The
Eleians were privileged administrators of the festival, regulating
the details of the ceremony itself, and formally proclaiming by
heralds the commencement of the Olympic truce during which all
violation of the Eleian territory by an armed force was a sin against
the majesty of Zeus. On the present occasion they affirmed that the
Lacedæmonians had sent the one thousand hoplites into Lepreum, and
had captured a fort called Phyrkus, both Eleian possessions, after
the proclamation of the truce. They accordingly imposed upon Sparta
the fine prescribed by the “Olympian law,” of two minæ for each man,
two thousand minæ in all; a part to Zeus Olympius, a part to the
Eleians themselves. During the interval between the proclamation of
the truce and the commencement of the festival, the Lacedæmonians
sent to remonstrate against this fine, which they alleged to have
been unjustly imposed, inasmuch as the heralds had not yet proclaimed
the truce at Sparta when the hoplites reached Lepreum. The Eleians
replied that the truce had already at that time been proclaimed among
themselves (for they always proclaimed it first at home, before
their heralds crossed the borders), so that _they_ were interdicted
from all military operations; of which the Lacedæmonian hoplites
had taken advantage to commit their last aggressions. To which the
Lacedæmonians rejoined, that the behavior of the Eleians themselves
contradicted their own allegation, for they had sent the Eleian
heralds to Sparta to proclaim the truce after they knew of the
sending of the hoplites, thus showing that they did not consider the
truce to have been already violated. The Lacedæmonians added, that
after the herald reached Sparta, they had taken no farther military
measures. How the truth stood in this disputed question, we have no
means of deciding. But the Eleians rejected the explanation, though
offering, if the Lacedæmonians would restore to them Lepreum, to
forego such part of the fine as would accrue to themselves, and to
pay out of their own treasury on behalf of the Lacedæmonians the
portion which belonged to the god. This new proposition being alike
refused, was again modified by the Eleians. They intimated that they
would be satisfied if the Lacedæmonians, instead of paying the fine
at once, would publicly on the altar at Olympia, in presence of the
assembled Greeks, take an oath to pay it at a future date. But the
Lacedæmonians would not listen to the proposition either of payment
or of promise. Accordingly the Eleians, as judges under the Olympic
law, interdicted them from the temple of Olympic Zeus, from the
privilege of sacrificing there, and from attendance and competition
at the games; that is, from attendance in the form of the sacred
legation called theôry, occupying a formal and recognized place at
the solemnity.[86]
[86] Thucyd. v, 49, 50.
As all the other Grecian states—with the single exception of
Lepreum—were present by their theôries[87] as well as by individual
spectators, so the Spartan theôry “shone by its absence” in a
manner painfully and insultingly conspicuous. So extreme, indeed,
was the affront put upon the Lacedæmonians, connected as they were
with Olympia by a tie ancient, peculiar, and never yet broken; so
pointed the evidence of that comparative degradation into which
they had fallen, through the peace with Athens coming at the back
of the Sphakterian disaster,[88] that they were supposed likely
to set the exclusion at defiance; and to escort their theôrs into
the temple at Olympia for sacrifice, under the protection of an
armed force. The Eleians even thought it necessary to put their
younger hoplites under arms, and to summon to their aid one thousand
hoplites from Mantineia as well as the same number from Argos, for
the purpose of repelling this probable attack: while a detachment
of Athenian cavalry were stationed at Argos during the festival,
to lend assistance in case of need. The alarm prevalent among the
spectators of the festival was most serious, and became considerably
aggravated by an incident which occurred after the chariot racing.
Lichas,[89] a Lacedæmonian of great wealth and consequence, had a
chariot running in the lists, which he was obliged to enter, not in
his own name, but in the name of the Bœotian federation. The sentence
of exclusion hindered him from taking any ostensible part, but it did
not hinder him from being present as a spectator; and when he saw
his chariot proclaimed victorious under the title of Bœotian, his
impatience to make himself known became uncontrollable. He stepped
into the midst of the lists, and placed a chaplet on the head of
the charioteer, thus advertising himself as the master. This was a
flagrant indecorum and known violation of the order of the festival:
accordingly, the official attendants with their staffs interfered at
once in performance of their duty, chastising and driving him back to
his place with blows.[90] Hence arose an increased apprehension of
armed Lacedæmonian interference. None such took place, however: the
Lacedæmonians, for the first and last time in their history, offered
their Olympic sacrifice at home, and the festival passed off without
any interruption.[91] The boldness of the Eleians in putting this
affront upon the most powerful state in Greece is so astonishing,
that we can hardly be mistaken in supposing their proceeding to have
been suggested by Alkibiadês and encouraged by the armed aid from the
allies. He was at this moment not less ostentatious in humiliating
Sparta than in showing off Athens.
[87] Thucyd. v, 50. Λακεδαιμόνιοι μὲν εἴργοντο τοῦ ἱεροῦ, θυσίας
καὶ ἀγώνων, καὶ οἴκοι ἔθυον· οἱ δὲ ἄλλοι Ἕλληνες ἐθεώρουν, πλὴν
Λεπρεατῶν.
[88] Thucyd. v, 28. Κατὰ γὰρ τὸν χρόνον τοῦτον ἥ τε Λακεδαίμων
μάλιστα δὴ κακῶς ἤκουσε, καὶ ὑπερώφθη διὰ τὰς ξυμφορὰς, οἵ τε
Ἀργεῖοι ἄριστα ἔσχον τοῖς πᾶσι, etc.
[89] See a previous note, p. 56.
[90] Thucyd. v, 50. Λίχας ὁ Ἀρκεσιλάου Λακεδαιμόνιος ἐν τῷ ἀγῶνι
ὑπὸ τῶν ῥαβδούχων πληγὰς ἔλαβεν, ὅτι νικῶντος τοῦ ἑαυτοῦ ζεύγους,
καὶ ἀνακηρυχθέντος Βοιωτῶν δημοσίου κατὰ τὴν οὐκ ἐξουσίαν τῆς
ἀγωνίσεως προελθὼν ἐς τὸν ἀγῶνα ἀνέδησε τὸν ἡνίοχον, βουλόμενος
δηλῶσαι ὅτι ἑαυτοῦ ἦν τὸ ἅρμα.
We see by comparison with this incident how much less rough and
harsh was the manner of dealing at Athens, and in how much more
serious a light blows to the person were considered. At the
Athenian festival of the Dionysia, if a person committed disorder
or obtruded himself into a place not properly belonging to him
in the theatre, the archon or his officials were both empowered
and required to repress the disorder by turning the person out,
and fining him, if necessary. But they were upon no account to
strike him. If they did, they were punishable themselves by the
dikastery afterwards (Demosth. cont. Meidiam, c. 49).
[91] It will be seen, however, that the Lacedæmonians remembered
and revenged themselves upon the Eleians for this insult twelve
years afterwards during the plenitude of their power (Xenoph.
Hellen. iii, 2, 21; Diodor. xiv, 17).
Of the depressed influence and estimation of Sparta, a farther
proof was soon afforded by the fate of her colony, the Trachinian
Herakleia, established near Thermopylæ, in the third year of the
war. That colony—though at first comprising a numerous body of
settlers, in consequence of the general trust in Lacedæmonian power,
and though always under the government of a Lacedæmonian harmost—had
never prospered. It had been persecuted from the beginning by
the neighboring tribes, and administered with harshness as well
as peculation by its governors. The establishment of the town had
been regarded from the beginning by the neighbors, especially
the Thessalians, as an invasion of their territory; and their
hostilities, always vexatious, had, in the winter succeeding the
Olympic festival just described, been carried to a greater point of
violence than ever. They had defeated the Herakleots in a ruinous
battle, and slain Xenarês the Lacedæmonian governor. But though the
place was so reduced as to be unable to maintain itself without
foreign aid, Sparta was too much embarrassed by Peloponnesian enemies
and waverers to be able to succor it; and the Bœotians, observing her
inability, became apprehensive that the interference of Athens would
be invoked. Accordingly they thought it prudent to occupy Herakleia
with a body of Bœotian troops, dismissing the Lacedæmonian governor
Hegesippidas for alleged misconduct. Nor could the Lacedæmonians
prevent this proceeding, though it occasioned them to make indignant
remonstrance.[92]
[92] Thucyd. v, 51, 52.