The "Arete" of Nicias: Thucydides 7.86 Adkins, A W H Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Winter 1975; 16, 4; ProQuest pg. 379 The Arete of Nicias: Thucydides 7.86 A. w. H. Adkins THE INTERPRETATION of the term apeT-ry as used of Nicias in Thucyd­ ides 7.86 has been much discussed; and it may well appear that enough ink has been spilt on the question already. In this paper, however, I shall approach the subject from a somewhat different angle, drawing upon what I have written elsewhere. I shall employ the distinction between ..lTTJC has certain differences. See MR 19Sff, 205£1', 210f, 226ff, MV 111ff, 124ff, 142. 6 See MR chapters I-S. I See MR 3Sff. 78f. 7 See MR chapter 9. 8 See MR 17Sf and nn. A. W. H. ADKINS 381 8£oc t/J8ovr]cac cfJofJov 20 See MR chapters 9-13. A. W. H. ADKINS 385 E/L{3aArJ 7j {3pOVT7}V, Ot' 6JV EOap7]Wv avaglwc EW VTro V , and their unworthi­ ness is evidently reckoned in terms of traditional competitive apE-n]. Since Thucydides does occasionally use apE-n] where the context necessitates a cooperative interpretation,21 a cooperative 'flavour' cannot be excluded with certainty from this passage: it may be an element of the 'meaning'. My contention is that it is utterly impossible to exclude the much more firmly established, traditional competitive and social connotations of apET~ from any passage where the context itself, or the personal characteristics of the individual of whom the term is used, does not exclude the possibility of understanding it in this manner; and that where the context does not prevent it, such occurrences of apET~ are likely to have been interpreted in purely competitive and social terms. Does the context, or the personal characteristics of Nicias, debar the reader from understanding apE~ in the traditional sense here? It has recently been argued that Nicias' "economic background is that of the slave-owning demagogues like Kleon and Hyperbolos rather than that of the landowner Perikles."22 Thucydides would certainly have refused to regard Clean and Hyperbolos as ayaOot; but it is unnecessary to conclude that, to Thucydides or to other Athenian ayaOoL of his day, Nicias and Clean were socially and economically indistinguishable. Aristotle and his school are a good source for Greek conservative social attitudes.23 In the Politics (1258b 9ff) Aristotle treats farming of all kinds as constituting the true and proper art of getting wealth, for all money-making from the fruits of the earth or from animals is in accordance with cP.,)eLC (1258a 37f). This is contrasted with "that which consists in exchange" which "is justly censured"; for the gain made is not supplied by nature (as in the natural increase of field and flock) but from one's fellows. However, "there is still a third sort of wealth­ getting intermediate between this and the first or natural mode which is partly natural, but is also concerned with exchange, viZ. the industries that make their profit from the earth and from things II As in 1.37.5, discussed in MR 178. This example occurs in a speech. There is no equally clear example in the narrative, where one might have confidence that the values were Thucydides' own. But the speeches testify that the cooperative usage was known to Thucydides, at all events. 22 J. K. Davies, Athenian Propertied Families (Oxford 1971) 404 [hereafter, DAVIES]. 2a See e.g. MR ch. 16, and my From the Many to the One (London and Ithaca 1970) 209fT [hereafter, FM]. 386 THE ARETE OF NICIAS: THUCYDIDES 7.86 growing from the earth which, although they bear no fruit, are nevertheless profitable; for example, the cutting of timber and min­ ing" (1258b 27ff, Jowett's translation). The ideal is to live from what nature provides; and in theory at least the farmer could live entirely from the produce of his farm. Nature, however, also supplies to some landowners timber, stone or metals; but they fall short somewhat of the ideal, since though nature gives them their gains, they cannot consume directly what nature supplies in order to sustain life but must exchange it for what is edible and wearable. Nevertheless, they are clearly distinguished from those censured individuals who live by exchange of what nature has not supplied to them (merchants, re­ tail traders and similar persons), by usury or by service for hire. The author of the Economics recommends24 that so far as property is concerned one should pay attention to that which is in accordance with nature. He holds agriculture in the highest esteem, for reasons similar to those given in the Politics; but "next come all those things which are derived from the earth, such as mining and other arts of the same kind." Aristotle in his ethical, political and social thought frequently offers justifications of attitudes, or rationalisations of prejudices, already held by the Greek aya06c ;25 and there seems no reason to doubt that the Politics and Economics here reflect attitudes already prevalent in Greek society. And when the author of the Economics adds, forgetting mining, "for husbandmen are the only persons whose possessions lie outside the city walls," the observation may be rele­ vant in other respects than those mentioned in the text.26 If one's income is derived from a nasty smelly tannery or a lamp-works in 24 [Dec.] 1.2. Though not by Aristotle, the first book of this work seems to be by a Peri­ patetic writer. 25 As when he explains why barbarians, women and artisans are inferior, using methods derived from his own philosophy (for which see FM 201, 209fl"). I am not arguing that all who shared Aristotle's attitudes would have been able to offer the same justifications for them; merely that the attitudes existed. It is interesting to observe Georgius Agricola (Georg Bauer) some 2000 years later offering very similar arguments in favour of the respectability of mining and investment in mining (De Re Metallica [Basel 1556] Bk. I). He cites Thucydides, but not Nidas, as a distinguished miner of the past. 26 The author of the Economics (1.2) emphasizes that the healthy outdoor work of farming produces good soldiers. Greek miners were slaves and no similar claim could be made for them; but we are concerned here with income derived from mining. not with working oneself with a pick and shovel. (Agricola. in the context of a different kind of warfare, makes a similar claim for mining. Bk. I ad fin.) A. W. H. ADKINS 387 the city, one's fellow-citizens are constantly reminded of the fact; but mines are outside the city, and even were mining not respectable, others are not constantly reminded of the source of the mining mag­ nate's income. As the Politics and Economics tell us, however, ore can be thought of as being, like crops, a product of the earth, so that Nicias and his like had a claim to be deriving wealth from land­ owning27 in the respectable manner ;28 and what more respectable, what more the hallmark of traditional &:PEn} , than land-based wealth? That such distinctions appear tenuous to those who do not share the values and attitudes does not render the values and attitudes any less powerful in those societies and groups which hold them. A Greek of the period could have distinguished socially between Nicias and Cleon; and of course Nicias was considerably more wealthy.29 Nicias cer­ tainly also performed, and performed lavishly,30 the liturgies de­ manded of the wealthy man that showed him in Athenian eyes to be an&:ya8oc 7TOAL'T'YJc.31 Again, in his public life, he favoured the cautious, non-expansionist policy which was the mark of the conservative (and hence of most ayaOoL), at all events after the Cimonian period. Nicias, then, can be regarded as an &:ya86c in the traditional sense. His personal characteristics do not prevent us from thus interpreting &:PEn} in 7.86. Nor does the context. It is true that nine chapters earlier32 Nicias said of himself (7.77.2) Kat'TOt 7TO'\'\~ fJ-€V €C 8EOVC 27 That Nicias invested in slave-miners is the best-known fact about him; but "there can hardly be any doubt that the land known to have been owned by the family [of Nicias] in the mining area in the fourth century, together with investments in slave-miners, provided the basis for its prominence in Athenian public affairs" (Davies 403; my emphasis). Davies adds (p.406) "One cannot be sure that these properties had been in family hands in the fifth century, but the probability is high." Davies also observes (p.403) "It is noteworthy that the prominence of the family varies directly with the prosperity of the silver mines"; which suggests that the link with mining was stronger than would be created simply by investing in slave-miners when mining prospered, in other enterprises at other times. 28 At a more recent date, English landowners whose prosperity greatly increased during the nineteenth century from the exploitation of coal mines on their ancestral land would have been affronted by any comparison of themselves with the 'beer barons' and 'pickle peers' of the period; and though Aristotle and the author of the Economics distinguish between agriculture and mining as sources of wealth, and prefer the former, neither censures mining as they censure other non-agricultural ways of making a living. 29 See Davies 318ff, 403ff. 30 See Davies 403f, and n.38 infra. 81 See MR 198ff, 205ff, MV 124ff, 142; and for Nicias' reputation as a wealthy conservative, Xen. Hell. 2.3.39. 32 As Huart observes, pA51 n.2; and cf J. L. Creed, "Moral Values in the Age of Thu­ cydides," CQ 23 (1973) 222. 388 THE ARETE OF NICIAS: THUCYDIDES 7.86 , t;:. t;:. , '" t;:. \' , (J' t;:. , \' !.J..(J B vOfLLfLa OEOLTlTTJfLat, 710l\/\a OE EC av PW710VC OLKaLa Kat aVE71"'f' ova. ut Nicias' wealth is mentioned not nine chapters before but in the pre­ vious sentence; and this mention would serve to remind Thucydides' earliest readers of Nicias' status as a whole: that he had been socially acceptable and prominent in public life,33 active participation in which certainly justifies the use of the term J7TLn]8EVCLV (cf Thuc. 2.36.4). Furthermore, he had been a reasonably successful general in his day.34 It seems the more likely conclusion, then, that Nicias is being evalu­ ated in terms of criteria less familiar to us than the editors and com­ mentators suggest. Indeed, Gomme virtually acknowledges as much:35 "No one who has read this history up to the present point is likely to have formed a very favourable view of Nikias. His one con­ sistent characteristic is his obsessive anxiety to preserve his own reputation as a successful general." We may look with disfavour on this; but in a competitive shame­ culture such as that of early Greece it is important, for example, both to be a successful general and to have the reputation of being a successful general; and both are traditionally marks of apEn] in Greece.36 Nicias, whether we approve or not, was pursuing traditional , , apETTJ· Nicias, I conclude, is evaluated primarily in terms of traditional criteria of excellence. Since apEn] is untranslatable, I cannot offer an adequate rendering of Thucydides' Greek. In paraphrase, what he wishes to convey is that Nicias was least worthy of the Greeks of the time to come to such extreme misfortune, inasmuch as he had sus­ tainedlyendeavoured to satisfy all the-primarily competitive and social-demands made upon an aya(J6c by Athens, and possessed the characteristics of position and wealth which were necessary condi­ tions of being considered aya(J6c in the first place. Nicias is evaluated as aya(Jot characters are evaluated, or evaluate themselves, in tragedy, or as the Plataeans evaluate themselves in Thucydides, when they claim that their--competitive and social----&pEn] renders them un­ worthy of misfortune.37 There is no irony in those passages; and there was no necessity whatsoever for the Greeks of Thucydides' day to 33 See Davies 403f. 3& Even in the last retreat he had shown himself competent. See HCT ad loe. 35 Lee.dt. 38 See MR 58 and passim. 37 See my "Aristotle and the Best Kind of Tragedy:' CQ 16 (1966) 91-95. A. W. H. ADKINS 389 regard the judgement that Nicias was unworthy of misfortune in virtue of the possession of traditional apErr] as either ironic or bizarre. Speculative Postscript The only element of Thucydides' judgement which might have raised the eyebrows of his contemporary readers is the claim that Nicias was least worthy of the Greeks of his day to suffer such a mis­ fortune. Why Nicias in particular? The Greeks had had in Thucydides' day more distinguished generals and politicians who were socially acceptable, any of whom in terms of traditional apEn] might have been regarded as less agwc of such DVCTvxta. For the form of Thucyd­ ides' judgement, it should be noted, does not restrict it to those Greeks who were aya80t and suffered the extremes of misfortune; it covers those Greeks who were aya8ot, whether they suffered such misfortune or not. What of Pericles? (The problem is not eased by interpreting apErr] cooperatively: Nicias was a decent man, no doubt, by the standards of his day, but neither Thucydides nor anyone else represents him as outstandingly just.)38 38 RCT (loc.dt.) holds that "Nikias' character and even his military reputation were secure in the fourth century." I am here, however, discussing the connotation of apn"'ri as applied to him in Thuc. 7.S6. Even works written only a little later might be misleading here, since the connotation of ap£-rr] changed in fourth-century writers (see MR chs. 10-16); but in fact the fourth-century works cited by RCT, though interesting, seem not to ascribe cooperative excellences to Nicias as marks of his ap£-rr]. The Laches discusses courage as an &p£"T~; Lys. ls.ill is concerned to portray Nicias as 170AAWV P.EV Ka, a.ya8wv ai"TLOC 'Tjj 176A£L Y£i'£VTJp.£voc. 17A£i'C"Ta OE Ka, p.£YLC"Ta KaKI¥ Tove 1ToA€p1ove £lpyacp.£voe, marks of traditional com­ petitive ap£-rr] frequently cited by the orators (MR 198ft); Oem. 3.21 mentions Nicias to introduce praise ofthe military and imperial glories offifth-century Athens; while Ath.Pol. 28.5 praises Nicias, Thucydides son of Melesias and Theramenes as "the best statesmen of Athens, after those of early times." The company kept by Nicias here suggests that Aris­ totle's claim that almost everyone would agree with the evaluation is a somewhat partisan statement. In any case, none of these fourth-century writers is concerned with Nicias' cooperative excellences; and if one studies Plutarch's account (Nic. 4 and 5), it appears that Nicias' 'generOSity' amounted as much to buying off his foes as to assisting the worthy; while his 'severe dedication to public duty' is represented as being in part due to his fear of sycophants, in part a public relations exercise by Hiero; and the account of his 'strict religious observance' is accompanied by Thucydides' disparaging evaluation of it. Plutarch, as HCT reminds us, "claims (Nic. 1.5) to have taken some trouble to collect material illustrative of the man's character." If the ascribed motives and accompanying circum­ stances were part of the tradition, it seems unlikely that many readers between Nicias' day and Plutarch's regarded all of this behaviour as praiseworthy; and in the fifth century any that was praiseworthy (save for help given to members of his own group) would merit commendation as ap£n1. or as a means to the attainment of ap€n1, solely insofar as it 390 THE ARETE OF NlCIAS: THUCYDIDES 7.86 We may reply that this is an obituary, and that no one is on oath when writing an obituary; but it is still of interest to inquire why the judgement occurs in Nidas' obituary rather than elsewhere. Here I must be somewhat speculative, since no rigorous demonstration is possible in such matters. Modern readers are apt to emphasize the differences in personality and intellect between the cautious, superstitious Nicias and the intellectual (allegedly) detached Thucydides. The differences are undeniable; but for fellow-members of a society differences of personality and intellect are not the only discernible, nor always the most significant, differences. Social, economic and political factors may have a role to play. Now Nicias' and Thucydides' economic status was similar, and high :39 each must have been among the wealthiest citizens of Athens, a tiny group.