Alcibiades

The ode of Euripides[*](An Epinikion, or hymn of victory, like the extant odes of Pindar.) to which I refer runs thus:—

1. Thee will I sing, O child of Cleinias;
2. A fair thing is victory, but fairest is what no other Hellene has achieved,
3. To run first, and second, and third in the contest of racing-chariots,
4. And to come off unwearied, and, wreathed with the olive of Zeus,
5. To furnish theme for herald’s proclamation.

Moreover, this splendor of his at Olympia was made even more conspicuous by the emulous rivalry of the cities in his behalf. The Ephesians equipped him with a tent of magnificent adornment; the Chians furnished him with provender for his horses and with innumerable animals for sacrifice; the Lesbians with wine and other provisions for his unstinted entertainment of the multitude. However, a grave calumny—or malpractice on his part—connected with this rivalry was even more in the mouths of men.

It is said, namely, that there was at Athens one Diomedes, a reputable man, a friend of Alcibiades, and eagerly desirous of winning a victory at Olympia. He learned that there was a racing-chariot at Argos which was the property of that city, and knowing that Alcibiades had many friends and was very influential there, got him to buy the chariot.

Alcibiades bought it for his friend, and then entered it in the racing lists as his own, bidding Diomedes go hang. Diomedes was full of indignation, and called on gods and men to witness his wrongs. It appears also that a law-suit arose over this matter, and a speech was written by Isocrates[*](Isoc. 16, De bigis.) for the son of Alcibiades Concerning the Team of Horses. In this speech, however it is Tisias, not Diomedes, who is the plaintiff.

On entering public life, though still a mere stripling, he immediately humbled all the other popular leaders except Phaeax, the son of Erasistratus, and Nicias, the son of Niceratus. These men made him fight hard for what he won. Nicias was already of mature years, and had the reputation of being a most excellent general; but Phaeax, like himself, was just beginning his career, and, though of illustrious parentage, was inferior to him in other ways, and particularly as a public speaker.

He seemed affable and winning in private conversation rather than capable of conducting public debates. In fact, he was, as Eupolis says,[*](In his Demes (Kock, Com. Att. Frag. i. p. 281))

1. A prince of talkers, but in speaking most incapable.

Now there was a certain Hyperbolus, of the deme Perithoedae, whom Thucydides mentions[*](Thuc. 8.73.3) as a base fellow, and who afforded all the comic poets, without any exception, constant material for jokes in their plays. But he was unmoved by abuse, and insensible to it, owing to his contempt of public opinion. This feeling some call courage and valor, but it is really mere shamelessness and folly. No one liked him, but the people often made use of him when they were eager to besmirch and calumniate men of rank and station.

Accordingly, at the time of which I speak, persuaded by this man, they were about to exercise the vote of ostracism, by which they cripple and banish whatever man from time to time may have too much reputation and influence in the city to please them, assuaging thus their envy rather than their fear. When it was clear that the ostracism would fall on one of three men—Phaeax, Alcibiades, or Nicias—Alcibiades had a conference with Nicias, united their two parties into one and turned the vote of ostracism upon Hyperbolus. Some say, however, that it was not Nicias, but Phaeax, with whom Alcibiades had the conference which resulted in winning over that leader’s party and banishing Hyperbolus, who could have had no inkling of his fate.

For no worthless or disreputable fellow had ever before fallen under this condemnation of ostracism. As Plato, the comic poet, has somewhere said, in speaking of Hyperbolus,

1. And yet he suffered worthy fate for men of old;
2. A fate unworthy though of him and of his brands.
3. For such as he the ostrakon was ne’er devised.