Alcibiades

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.

Alcibiades was sore distressed to see Nicias no less admired by his enemies than honored by his fellow-citizens. For although Alcibiades was resident consul for the Lacedaemonians at Athens, and had ministered to their men who had been taken prisoners at Pylos,[*](In 425 B.C. Cf. Plut. Nic. 7-8 )

still, they felt that it was chiefly due to Nicias that they had obtained peace and the final surrender of those men, and so they lavished their regard upon him. And Hellenes everywhere said that it was Pericles who had plunged them into war, but Nicias who had delivered them out of it, and most men called the peace the Peace of Nicias. [*](Ratified in 421 B.C. Cf. Plut. Nic. 9 ) Alcibiades was therefore distressed beyond measure, and in his envy planned a violation of the solemn treaty.