ἐπεὶ δοκοῦμεν οὐκ ἀτόπως τῷ Νικίᾳ τὸν Κράσσον παραβάλλειν, καὶ τὰ Παρθικὰ παθήματα τοῖς Σικελικοῖς, ὥρα παραιτεῖσθαι καὶ παρακαλεῖν ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ τοὺς ἐντυγχάνοντας τοῖς συγγράμμασι τούτοις, ὅπως ἐπὶ ταῖς διηγήσεσιν αἷς Θουκυδίδης, αὐτὸς αὑτοῦ περὶ ταῦτα παθητικώτατος, ἐναργέστατος, ποικιλώτατος γενόμενος, ἀμιμήτως ἐξενήνοχε, μηδὲν ἡμᾶς ὑπολάβωσι πεπονθέναι Τιμαίῳ πάθος ὅμοιον,
I think that Nicias is a suitable parallel to Crassus, and the Sicilian to the Parthian disaster. I must therefore at once, and in all modesty, entreat my readers not to imagine for an instant that in my narration of what Thucydides has inimitably set forth, surpassing even himself in pathos, vividness, and variety, I am so disposed as was Timaeus.
ὃς ἐλπίσας τὸν μὲν Θουκυδίδην ὑπερβαλεῖσθαι δεινότητι, τὸν δὲ Φίλιστον ἀποδείξειν παντάπασι φορτικὸν καὶ ἰδιώτην, διὰ μέσων ὠθεῖται τῇ ἱστορίᾳ τῶν μάλιστα κατωρθωμένων ἐκείνοις ἀγώνων καὶ ναυμαχιῶν καὶ δημηγοριῶν, οὐ μὰ Δία παρὰ Λύδιον ἅρμα πεζὸς οἰχνεύων / ὥς φησι Πίνδαρος, ἀλλʼ ὅλως τις ὀψιμαθὴς καὶ μειρακιώδης φαινόμενος ἐν τούτοις, καὶ κατὰ τὸν Δίφιλον παχύς, ὠνθυλευμένος στέατι Σικελικῷ, /
He, confidently hoping to excel Thucydides in skill, and to make Philistus seem altogether tedious and clumsy, pushes his history along through the conflicts and sea-fights and harangues which those writers had already handled with the greatest success, showing himself, in rivalry with them, not even so much as By Lydian car a footman slowly plodding, / to use Pindar’s comparison, nay rather a perfect example of senile learning and youthful conceit, and, in the words of Diphilus, Obese, stuffed to the full with Sicilian grease. /
πολλαχοῦ δʼ ὑπορρέων εἰς τὸν Ξέναρχον, ὥσπερ ὅταν λέγῃ τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις οἰωνὸν ἡγήσασθαι γεγονέναι τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς νίκης ἔχοντα τοὔνομα στρατηγὸν ἀντειπόντα πρὸς τὴν στρατηγίαν, καὶ τῇ περικοπῇ τῶν Ἑρμῶν προσημαίνειν αὐτοῖς τὸ δαιμόνιον, ὡς ὑπὸ Ἑρμοκράτους τοῦ Ἕρμωνος πλεῖστα πείσονται παρὰ τὸν πόλεμον· ἔτι δʼ εἰκὸς εἶναι τὸν Ἡρακλέα τοῖς μὲν Συρακουσίοις βοηθεῖν διὰ τὴν Κόρην, παρʼ ἧς ἔλαβε τὸν Κέρβερον, ὀργίζεσθαι δὲ τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις, ὅτι τοὺς Αἰγεστέας, ἀπογόνους ὄντας Τρώων, ἔσωζον, αὐτὸς δʼ ὑπὸ Λαομέδοντος ἀδικηθεὶς ἀνάστατον ἐποίησε τὴν πόλιν.
Indeed, he often lapses unawares into the manner of Xenarchus, as, for instance, when he says he thinks it was a bad omen for the Athenians that Nicias, whose name was derived from victory, declined at first to head their expedition; also that, by the mutilation of the Hermae, Heaven indicated to them in advance that by the hands of Hermocrates the son of Hermon they were to suffer most of their reverses during the war; and, further, that it was fitting that Heracles should aid the Syracusans, for the sake of their goddess Cora who delivered Cerberus into his hands, but should be angry with the Athenians because they were trying to succour the Egestaeans although they were descendants of the Trojans, whose city he had once destroyed because of the wrong done him by Laomedon their king.
ἀλλὰ τούτῳ μὲν ἴσως ἀπὸ τῆς αὐτῆς ἐμμελείας ταῦτά τε γράφειν ἐπῄει καὶ τὴν Φιλίστου διάλεκτον εὐθύνειν, καὶ τοῖς περὶ Πλάτωνα καὶ Ἀριστοτέλην λοιδορεῖσθαι· ἐμοὶ δʼ ὅλως μὲν ἡ περὶ λέξιν ἅμιλλα καὶ ζηλοτυπία πρὸς ἑτέρους μικροπρεπὲς φαίνεται καὶ σοφιστικόν, ἂν δὲ πρὸς τὰ ἀμίμητα γίγνηται, καὶ τελέως ἀναίσθητον.
As for Timaeus, he may possibly have been moved to write thus in the exercise of the same critical taste which led him to correct the language of Philistus and abuse Plato and Aristotle; but as for me, I feel that jealous rivalry with other writers in matters of diction is altogether undignified and pedantic, and if it be practised toward what is beyond all imitation, utterly silly.
ἃς γοῦν Θουκυδίδης ἐξήνεγκε πράξεις καὶ Φίλιστος, ἐπεὶ παρελθεῖν οὐκ ἔστι, μάλιστά γε δὴ τὸν τρόπον καὶ τὴν διάθεσιν τοῦ ἀνδρὸς ὑπὸ πολλῶν καὶ μεγάλων παθῶν καλυπτομένην περιεχούσας, ἐπιδραμὼν βραχέως καὶ διὰ τῶν ἀναγκαίων, ἵνα μὴ παντάπασιν ἀμελὴς δοκῶ καὶ ἀργὸς εἶναι, τὰ διαφεύγοντα τοὺς πολλούς, ὑφʼ ἑτέρων δʼ εἰρημένα σποράδην ἢ πρὸς ἀναθήμασιν ἢ ψηφίσμασιν εὑρημένα παλαιοῖς πεπείραμαι συναγαγεῖν, οὐ τὴν ἄχρηστον ἀθροίζων ἱστορίαν, ἀλλὰ τὴν πρὸς κατανόησιν ἤθους καὶ τρόπου παραδιδούς.
At all events, those deeds which Thucydides and Philistus have set forth,—since I cannot entirely pass them by, indicating as they do the nature of my hero and the disposition which lay hidden beneath his many great sufferings,—I have run over briefly, and with no unnecessary detail, in order to escape the reputation of utter carelessness and sloth; but those details which have escaped most writers, and which others have mentioned casually, or which are found on ancient votive offerings or in public decrees, these I have tried to collect, not massing together useless material of research, but handing on such as furthers the appreciation of character and temperament.
ἔνεστιν οὖν περὶ Νικίου πρῶτον εἰπεῖν ὃ γέγραφεν Ἀριστοτέλης, ὅτι τρεῖς ἐγένοντο βέλτιστοι τῶν πολιτῶν καὶ πατρικὴν ἔχοντες εὔνοιαν καὶ φιλίαν πρὸς τὸν δῆμον, Νικίας ὁ Νικηράτου καὶ Θουκυδίδης ὁ Μελησίου καὶ Θηραμένης ὁ Ἅγνωνος, ἧττον δὲ οὗτος ἢ ἐκεῖνοι· καὶ γὰρ εἰς δυσγένειαν ὡς ξένος ἐκ Κέω λελοιδόρηται, καὶ διὰ τὸ μὴ μόνιμον, ἀλλʼ ἐπαμφοτερίζον ἀεὶ τῇ προαιρέσει τῆς πολιτείας ἐπεκλήθη Κόθορνος.
Accordingly, I may say of Nicias, in the first place, what Aristotle wrote, namely, that the three best citizens of Athens,—men of hereditary good will and friendship for the people,—were Nicias the son of Niceratus, Thucydides the son of Melesias, and Theramenes the son of Hagnon. However, this was true of the last in lesser degree than of the other two, because he has been flouted for inferior parentage as an alien from Ceos; and on account of his not being steadfast, but ever trying to court both sides in his political career, was nicknamed Cothurnus.
ἐκείνων δὲ πρεσβύτερος μὲν ὁ Θονκυδίδης ἦν, καὶ πολλὰ καὶ Περικλεῖ δημαγωγοῦντι τῶν καλῶν καὶ ἀγαθῶν προϊστάμενος ἀντεπολιτεύσατο, νεώτερος δὲ Νικίας γενόμενος ἦν μὲν ἔν τινι λόγῳ καὶ Περικλέους ζῶντος, ὥστε κἀκείνῳ συστρατηγῆσαι καὶ καθʼ αὑτὸν ἄρξαι πολλάκις, Περικλέους δʼ ἀποθανόντος εὐθὺς εἰς τὸ πρωτεύειν προήχθη, μάλιστα μὲν ὑπὸ τῶν πλουσίων καὶ γνωρίμων, ἀντίταγμα ποιουμένων αὐτὸν πρὸς τὴν Κλέωνος βδελυρίαν καὶ τόλμαν, οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν δῆμον εἶχεν εὔνουν καὶ συμφιλοτιμούμενον.
Of the other two, Thucydides was the older man, and as head of the aristocratic party,—the party of the Good and True,—often opposed Pericles in his efforts to win the favour of the people. Nicias was a younger man. He was held in some repute even while Pericles was still living, so that he was not only associated with him as general, but frequently had independent command himself; after Pericles was dead, Nicias was at once put forward into the position of leader, especially by the party of the rich and noble. These made him their champion to face the disgusting boldness of Cleon.
ἴσχυε μὲν γὰρ ὁ Κλέων μέγα γερονταγωγῶν κἀναμισθαρνεῖν διδούς, ὅμως δὲ καὶ τὴν πλεονεξίαν αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν ἰταμότητα καὶ τὸ θράσος ὁρῶντες αὐτοὶ οἷς πρὸς χάριν ἔπραττεν, οἱ πολλοὶ τὸν Νικίαν ἐπήγοντο. καὶ γὰρ οὐκ ἦν αὐστηρὸν οὐδʼ ἐπαχθὲς ἄγαν αὐτοῦ τὸ σεμνόν, ἀλλʼ εὐλαβείᾳ τινὶ μεμιγμένον αὐτῷ τῷ δεδιέναι δοκοῦντι τοὺς πολλοὺς δημαγωγοῦν.
And yet, for that matter, the common people also held him in favour and aided his ambitions. For although Cleon had great influence with them by coddling them, and giving frequent jobs for pay, yet the very men whose favour he thus sought to gain were aware of his rapacity and fierce effrontery, for the most part preferred Nicias as their champion. The dignity of Nicias was not of the harsh, offensive sort, but was blended with much circumspection, and won control of the people from the very fact that he was thought to be afraid of them.
τῇ φύσει γὰρ ὢν ἀθαρσὴς καὶ δύσελπις, ἐν μὲν τοῖς πολεμικοῖς ἀπέκρυπτεν εὐτυχίᾳ τὴν δειλίαν· κατώρθου γὰρ ὁμαλῶς στρατηγῶν· τὸ δʼ ἐν τῇ πολιτείᾳ ψοφοδεὲς καὶ πρὸς τοὺς συκοφάντας εὐθορύβητον αὐτοῦ καὶ δημοτικὸν ἐδόκει, καὶ δύναμιν οὐ μικρὰν ἀπʼ εὐνοίας τοῦ δήμου παρεῖχε τῷ δεδιέναι τοὺς ὑπερορῶντας, αὔξειν δὲ τοὺς δεδιότας. τοῖς γὰρ πολλοῖς τιμὴ μεγίστη παρὰ τῶν μειζόνων τὸ μὴ καταφρονεῖσθαι.
Timid as he was by nature, and distrustful of success, in war he managed to succeed in hiding his cowardice under a cloak of good fortune, for he was uniformly successful as a general; while in political life his nervousness, and the ease with which he could be put to confusion by accusers, actually tended to make him popular, and gave him in high degree that power which comes from the favour of the people, because they fear men who scorn them, but exalt men who fear them. The multitude can have no greater honor shown them by their superiors than not to be despised.
Cite This Text