Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T08:24:05.402Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nicias in Thucydides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

H. D. Westlake
H. D. Westlake
Affiliation:
King's College, Newcastle-upon-Tyne
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The informal character of political parties at Athens and the consequent absence of clearly defined party programmes often obscures the principles and aims of Athenian politicians. This obscurity is naturally greatest in the case of ‘moderates’, whose activities consisted largely of opposition to extremist elements of the Left or Right. Hence modern attempts to reconstruct their policies and assess their merits are liable to reach widely differing conclusions. A figure about whom there have been fluctuations of opinion, as well as some misconceptions, is Nicias. A passage in Aristotle used to be accepted as evidence that he was an oligarch, and he was believed by many to have been a pacifist and a friend of Sparta. In an article which has had a deep influence upon subsequent accounts Allen B. West showed that he could be considered neither an oligarch nor a philo-Laconian pacifist. On one point, however, West echoes a commonly accepted view, though he expresses it in very moderate terms: he believes that Thucydides treats Nicias too sympathetically and is inclined to be blind to his faults. This view has been reaffirmed with much greater emphasis by other scholars who have strenuously challenged the impartiality of Thucydides in this respect. Such charges appear to me to have little foundation, and I shall attempt to substantiate my opinion by examining Thucydides’ account of Nicias. First, however, it is pertinent to ask whether the historian can have had any cogent reason for partisanship, and also to seek the source from which the commonly accepted view may have originated.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 35 , Issue 1-2 , April 1941 , pp. 58 - 65
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1941

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 58 note 1 'Αθ. πολ 28. 5. The passage was known before the discovery of the 'Αθηναίων πολτεία for it is quoted by Plutarch, (Nicias, 2. 1)Google Scholar.

page 58 note 2 C.P. xix (1924), 124–46 and 201–28Google Scholar. His conclusions are accepted in the main byGlotz, , Histoire grecque, ii. 632–3Google Scholar, and Reincke, , R.E. xvii. 333Google Scholar. Sanctis, De, Riv. Fil. V (1927), 31–43Google Scholar, still insists on the pacifism of Nicias (this and the paper cited in note 4 are reprinted in his Problemi di storia antica).

page 58 note 3 Op. cit. 142, n. 6. West is dealing only with the period from the death of Pericles to the Peace of Nicias.

page 58 note 4 Sanctis, De, Riv. Fil. vii (1929), 433–56 (especially 448—‘I libri VI e VII della sua storia sono in sostanza l'apologia tanto più efficace quanto meno appariscente del generale che ha voluto la grande spedizione e l'ha condotta al disastro finale’).Google ScholarCohen, , Melangés Glotz, i. 227–39Google Scholar, who shrinks from accusing Thucydides of deliberate partiality, nevertheless uses phrases such as ‘le panégyrique de Thucydide’ (237) and ‘un voile discret jeté souvent par le grand historien sur son insuffisance’ (239). Cf.Reincke, , op. cit. 331–2Google Scholar. who adds Plutarch.

page 58 note 5 West, , op. cit. 220Google Scholar, and A.J.P. xlv (1924), 151–2Google Scholar. He believes that Thucydides was elected in the autumn of 424 to replace Eurymedon, but his very ingenious reconstruction is not wholly convincing.

page 59 note 1 viii. 68. Bury, , Ancient Greek Historians. 121Google Scholar, thinks that he was a friend of Antiphon; of this there is no evidence.

page 59 note 2 West seems to me to exaggerate the extent to which Nicias can be regarded as a continuator of Pericles' policy. The supporters of the one did not by any means coincide with the supporters of the other, and it is hard to believe that Nicias could ever have deliberately started a war. In the Acharnians Dicaeopolis indirectly attacks Pericles, while the policy which he advocates seems to be a comic travesty of that of Nicias. Use of the term Periclean, applied narrowly to war-policy, is misleading after 427, when the effect of the plague on Athenian manpower and of the Lesbian revolt on Athenian finances had created a new situation with which the plans of Pericles were not designed to deal.

page 59 note 3 History of Greece, v. 203–10, and vi. 182–4.

page 59 note 4 Op. cit. vi. 183. He accepts a manifestly inferior reading.

page 59 note 5 Cf. vi. 15 (on Alcibiades).

page 59 note 6 On the other hand, it is impossible to agree with Bury, (op. cit. 119)Google Scholar, who considers the passage to be malicious.

page 59 note 7 Ferguson, , C.A.H. v. 308Google Scholar.

page 59 note 8 Even Pericles is not spared (ii. 56).

page 59 note 9 iii. 91; iv. 42–5, 53–7, 129–33. No numbers are given in v. 83. 4, but this obscure passage leaves room for doubt whether Nicias actually left Athens.

page 60 note 1 Cohen, , op. cit. 228Google Scholar.

page 60 note 2 Henderson, , The Great War between Athens and Sparta, 216–17Google Scholar, who quotes earlier writers including Grote.

page 60 note 3 C.P. xix (1924), 212–14Google Scholar.

page 60 note 4 28. 5 (τοῖς σώϕροσι). As the form of sentence shows, those who took politics seriously are contrasted with the irresponsible mob, which treated the incident as a sensational joke.

page 60 note 5 Nic. 8. 1–2, cf. Alcib. 14. 4. The relation of Plutarch and his authorities to Thucydides is discussed below.

page 60 note 6 West, , op. cit. 220–1Google Scholar.

page 60 note 7 v. 16. 1, which Meyer, , Forschungen, ii. 378Google Scholar, interprets as a condemnation of Nicias. The sentiments here attributed to Nicias resemble those censured by Pericles in his last speech (ii. 63–4).

page 60 note 8 Cf. v. 16. 1 on Brasidas and v. 43 on Alcibiades.

page 60 note 9 Cohen, , op. cit. 231–2Google Scholar (cf. Bury, , op. cit. 119Google Scholar). I cannot, however, agree that in the passage quoted above ‘Thucydide a cherché à corriger ensuite la franchise de son aveu’.

page 60 note 10 Aristoph. Peace, passim. The value of this picture as a supplement to the account of Thucydides is noted by Croiset, , Aristophanes and the Political Parties at Athens, 110–11Google Scholar.

page 60 note 11 Plut, . Nic. 9. 8–9Google Scholar, Alcib. 14. 2. His source cannot be traced.

page 61 note 1 Sanctis, De, Riv. Fil. v (1927), 31–43Google Scholar.

page 61 note 2 Lenschau, , Bursian, ccxliv (1934), 65Google Scholar; cf. Glotz, , op. cit. 657Google Scholar.

page 61 note 3 v. 23–4. In A.J.P. lxi (1940), 420–1Google Scholar, I have endeavoured to show why Nicias favoured the conclusion of this alliance.

page 61 note 4 v. 45–6. The motive of Nicias in securing a renewal of the oaths (46. 4–5) is an unessential detail and could well have been omitted. The implications of Thucydides' account are developed in that of Plutarch, (Nic. 10. 7–9)Google Scholar.

page 61 note 5 Meyer, , G.d.A. iv. 472Google Scholar. It must, however, be remembered that Alcibiades was inadequately supported.

page 61 note 6 Alcibiades boasts of his achievement in vi. 16. 6, but it cannot be assumed that Thucydides agreed with him.

page 61 note 7 ii. 65. 11; vi. 15. 4, 28. 2. It might be argued that Thucydides tries to shift the responsibility for the disaster from Nicias to the demos, but ἃλλοις in vi. 15. 4 must include Nicias.

page 61 note 8 See above on v. 16. 1.

page 61 note 9 Cohen, , op. cit. 233Google Scholar.

page 62 note 1 The plan of Lamachus is recorded at some length and with a convincing eloquence of which its originator was probably incapable. According to Busolt, , Gr. Gesch. iii. 2, 1305Google Scholar, Philistus thought the proposal of Lamachus the best, but this is a mere conjecture, which is not supported by Plutarch, (Nic. 14. 3)Google Scholar. Sanctis, De, Riv. Fil. vii (1929), 448–51Google Scholar, strangely believes the account of this council to be a fabrication. If Thucydides invented the plan of Nicias with the object of shielding him, he could surely have found a less discreditable one.

page 62 note 2 vii. 42. 3 (the survey of Demosthenes, which will be mentioned below).

page 62 note 3 Cf. Plut, ., Nic. 16. 1–6 and 17. 1Google Scholar. Plutarch, however, wishing to focus attention on Nicias and perhaps influenced by the Acharnians, exaggerates the subordination of Lamachus.

page 62 note 4 Cf. vii. 42. 3, where the withdrawal is attributed to Nicias. Contemporary opinion at Athens is represented by a reference in the Birds (640, μελλονικιν), produced early in 414.

page 62 note 5 Gomme, , Essays in Greek History and Literature, 167, n. 2Google Scholar.

page 63 note 1 Here as elsewhere it may be assumed that Thucydides does not merely guess the feelings of Nicias. Abbott, , Thucydides, 86–8Google Scholar, points out that where he is uncertain he admits uncertainty and does not speculate. The clumsily repetitive character of vii. 48–9 is designed to stress the indecision of Nicias.

page 63 note 2 He insists that an open vote should not be recorded (50. 3), and his motive is perhaps not merely to conceal the decision from the Syracusans but also to render more difficult the substantiation of charges against himself and his colleagues after their return to Athens. Thucydides, however, does not make this point clear.

page 63 note 3 So Plutarch, interprets it in Comp. Nic. et Crass. 5. 4Google Scholar.

page 63 note 4 Philistus is no doubt responsible for several proper names not found in Thucydides and for some details which would impress a youthful eyewitness (Busolt, , Hermes, xxxiv (1899), 287–91)Google Scholar; Timaeus probably for omens and oracles (ibid. 295–6).

page 63 note 5 Theon, , Progymn. in Rhet. Graec. (ed. Spengel, ) ii. 63. 25Google Scholar. His charge of plagiarism, though certainly exaggerated, doubtless has some foundation (Laqueur, , R.E. xix. 2416Google Scholar).

page 64 note 1 Fr. 46, F.H.G. i. 189. A fragment of Timaeus (fr. 103, F.H.G. i. 219) implies condemnation of the Athenian expedition, and Laqueur, , op. cit. 2426Google Scholar, believes that he was hostile to Nicias.

page 64 note 2 The arguments here attributed to Nicias are among those which in Thucydides (vii. 48) he uses in opposing withdrawal from Syracuse. They appear to have been deliberately misplaced by some writer who wished to represent him as incapable of consenting to offensive action even where it was clearly desirable.

page 64 note 3 Busolt, , op. cit. 292–5Google Scholar, attributes all the criticisms of Nicias' generalship (whether founded upon the account of Thucydides or upon independent information) to Philistus. This is unwarranted.

page 64 note 4 Cf. also Nic. 15. 3–4 with Thuc. vi. 62. On the condemnation of the part played by Nicias in the debate on Pylos (which cannot be affected by the Sicilian tradition, though it may be influenced to some extent by comedy) see above, 60, n. 5.

page 64 note 5 According to Pausanias (i. 29. 12) it was because he had acted dishonourably that his name did not appear in an inscription at Athens which gave a list of the dead. But Pausanias may well be mistaken in assuming the deliberate omission of his name; the inscription can scarcely have been a complete casualty list, which would be enormous, and may have referred only to certain tribes. The quotation from Philistus contained in this passage concerns only the voluntary surrender of Nicias and has nothing to do with the inscription.

page 64 note 6 xviii. 2–3. The date of the speech is c. 396.

page 65 note 1 The Laches is dated by most scholars among the earliest Platonic dialogues. The dramatic date is c. 423–420, when the reputation of Nicias stood high, but readers could not be expected entirely to forget subsequent events.

page 65 note 2 This article was accepted for publication by Philologus shortly before the outbreak of war. Since, very naturally, no proofs have been received, I have now considered myself justified in submitting it to this journal. Revision has caused me to make a few unimportant changes.