cients themselves have not agreed on the point. But the sophist mentioned by Xenophon was certainly the personal enemy of Alcibiades, and wrote defamatory invectives against him; so that it is not improbable, some of the most disreputable stories extant may be libels. Athenæus, Deipnosoph., lib. xii. cap. 5. quotes an ill-natured speech of Antipho, respecting the motive of his going to Abydos. Plutarch does ample justice to the sincere and honourable friendship of Socrates, and the discrimination of Alcibiades, in preferring the wise philosopher to all the flatterers and votaries of pleasure by whom he was surrounded: — Οὐδὲν γὰρ ἡ τύχη περιέσχεν ἔξωθεν καὶ περιέφραξε τοῖς λεγομένοις ἀγαθοῖς τοσοῦτον, ὥστ ̓ ἄτρωτον ὑπὸ φιλοσοφίας γενέσθαι, καὶ λόγοις ἀπρόσιτον παῤῥησίαν καὶ δηγμὸν ἔχουσιν, ὅσοις ̓Αλκιβιάδης εὐθὺς ἐξ ἀρχῆς θρυπτόμενος καὶ ἀποκλείομενος ὑπὸ τῶν πρὸς χάριν ἐξομιλούντων εἰσακοῦσαι τοῦ νουθετοῦντος καὶ παι δεύοντος, ὅμως ὑπ ̓ εὐφυΐας ἐγνώρισε Σωκράτη καὶ προσήκατο, διασχὼν τοὺς πλουσίους καὶ ἐνδόξους ἐραστὰς. ταχὺ δὲ ποιησάμενος συνήθη, καὶ λόγων ἀκούσας οὐχ ἡδονὴν ἄνανδρον ἐραςοῦ θηρεύοντος, οὐδὲ φιλημάτων καὶ ψαύσεως προσαιλοῦντος, ἀλλ ̓ ἐλέγχονῖος τὸ σαθρὸν τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ, καὶ πιεζοῦντος τὸν κενὸν καὶ ἀνόητον τύφον, Ἔπληξ ̓ ἀλέκτως δοῦλον ὡς κλίνας πλερόν. · His frolic at Anytus's supper party is related by Plutarch without any mention of Thrasyllus, the only circumstance which can plead any apology for it. Athenaeus introduces it thus : - Επικωμάσας δὲ ποτὲ ὡς ̓́Ανυΐον, ἐραςὴν ὄνια, καὶ πλούσιον, συνεπικωμάζονος αὐτῷ τῶν ἑταίρων ἑνὸς Θρασύλλου, (τῶν πενήτων δ ̓ οὗτος ἦν) προπιών τῷ Θρασύλλῳ τὰ ἡμίση τῶν ποτηρίων τῶν ἐπὶ τῷ κυλικείῳ προκει μένων, ἐκέλευσε τοὺς ἀκολούθους ἀποφέρειν πρὸς τὸν Θρασύλλον· · εἶν' οὕτω φιλοφρονησάμενος τὸν ̓Ανυλον ἀπηλλάσειο, Does not this remind the reader of Lord Byron? Would he not have been likely to administer poetical justice, in contempt of legal, much after the same manner? The next anecdote given by Plutarch is much to the credit of Alcibiades. It relates to ἄνθρωπον, ὥς φασιν, οὐ πολλὰ κεκλημένον, ἀποδόμενον δὲ πάντα, καὶ τὸ συναχθὲν εἰς ἑκατὸν ςαλῆρας τῷ ̓Αλκιβιάδη προσφέροντα, καὶ δεόμενον λαβεῖν. Alcibiades took him under his protection, and made him outbid the old farmers of the revenue. The character of an arrogant and dissipated young nobleman was likely to fall under the lash of so severe and impartial a historian as Thucydides. In the 15th chapter of the 8th book, he ascribes his ill-will and intrigues against Nicias to the following motive: · Ενῆγε δὲ προθυμότατα τὴν σφαλείαν ̓Αλκιβιάδης ὁ Κλεινίου, βουλόμενος τῷ τε Νικίᾳ ἐναν τιοῦσθαι, ὧν καὶ ἐς τὰ ἄλλα διάφορος τὰ πολιτικὰ, καὶ ὅτι αὐτοῦ διαβόλως ἐμνήσθη, καὶ μάλιςα ςρατηγῆσαί τε ἐπιθυμῶν, καὶ ἐλπίζων Σικελίαν τε δι ̓ αὐτοῦ καὶ Καρχηδόνα λήψεσθαι· καὶ τὰ ἴδια ἅμα εὐτυχήσας, χρήμασί τε καὶ δόξῃ ὠφελήσειν. Further on, Thucydides, who weighs men's probable motives in a nicely poised scale, gives Alcibiades, in a supposed speech to the Lacedemonians, an opportunity of assigning an honourable motive for abandoning the cause of his country, and enlisting under opposite banners :-Επεὶ ὥς γε δυναῖὰ, καὶ οὐχ ἁμαρτήσεσθαι οἶμαι γνώμης, πάνυ θαρσῶ· καὶ χείρων οὐδενὶ ἀξιῶ δοκεῖν ὑμῶν εἶναι, εἰ τῇ ἐμαυτοῦ μετὰ τῶν πολεμιωλάτων, φιλόπολις πολὲ δοκῶν εἶναι, νῦν ἐγκρατῶς ἐπέρχομαι· οὐδὲ ὑποπλεύεσθαί μου εἰς τὴν φυγαδικὴν προθυμίαν τὸν λόγον. He ascribes his conduct to the wickedness of his enemies. The following anecdote proves beyond all question the strong attachment of this gay youth to his philosophical friend. After the defeat of the Athenians at the battle of Delium, Socrates was retreating on foot: Alcibiades brought him safe out of the field, in spite of the enemy who pressed furiously forward, and made a very considerable slaughter. A speech of Andocides against Alcibiades is preserved in the Oratores Græci of Aldus, and the Oratores Veteres of Stephens, in which both his public and private character are virulently attacked. * Plato has two dialogues between Socrates and Alcibiades; one, De Natura Hominis, the other De Voto. Socrates, as usual, drives his pupil into a corner. The oratory of Alcibiades has been much commended by the ancients; but even with them, though the fact be highly probable, the report seems to be little more than that of common fame. The speeches of Thucydides are admirable as characteristic illustrations; but they are not parliamentary reports. Alcibiades was, like other statesmen, a Newmarket man. He won the first, second, and third prizes in person; his chariots won twice in his absence. He is said to have put Eupolis to death for writing a satire against him; in which is supposed to have been the verse quoted by Aulus Gellius: "Eupolidis quoque versus de id genus hominibus consignatissime factus est, λαλεῖν ἄριςος, ἀδυνατώτατος λέγειν : quod Sallustius noster imitari volens, loquax, inquit, magis, quam facundus." * The excellent edition of the Oratores Attici by Bekker, from the Clarendon Press, 1823, supersedes the necessity of any other, except to the professed collector. Eupolis, a native of Athens, is honourably mentioned by Quinctilian and by Horace, who both rank him with Aristophanes and Cratinus. His fragments are scattered up and down in many ancient authors, and have been collected by Grotius. Alcibiades and Phæax are accused of having borrowed the consecrated plate, and having refused to return it, after profaning it by secular uses, till the eve of the sacred processions in which it was to be exhibited. The object of this retention is alleged to be, that strangers might consider it as a private loan. * Phæax is likewise mentioned by Thucydides, lib. v. cap. 4. : — Φαίαξ δὲ ὁ Ἐρασιςράτου, τρίτος αὐτὸς, Αθηναίων πεμπόντων, ναυσὶ δύο ἐς Ἰταλίαν καὶ Σικελίαν πρεσβευλὴς ὑπὸ τὸν αὐτὸν χρόνον ἐξέπλευσε. Nicias and Alcibiades, though not always the most sincere friends, leagued together to turn the tables on Hyperbolus, who had levelled a sentence of ostracism against either one of them, or Phæax. This Hyperbolus was the constant butt of the comic writers, and especially of Plato. He is mentioned by Plutarch in the Lives of Alcibiades, Aristides, and Nicias. The best apology that can be made for the treason of Alcibiades to his country, which no injuries can ever justify, is the hospitality, subsist * Ων καὶ τὸν ̓Αλκιβιάδην ἐπηλιῶνιο, καὶ αὐτὰ ὑπολαμβάνονίες οἱ μάλιςα τῷ ̓Αλκιβιάδῃ ἀχθόμενοι, ἐμποδὼν ὄντι σφίσιν αὐτοῖς μὴ τοῦ δήμου βεβαίως προεςάναι, καὶ νομίσανίες, εἰ αὐτὸν ἐξελά σειαν, πρῶτοι ἄν εἶναι, ἐμεγάλυνον, καὶ ἐβόων ὡς ἐπὶ δήμου καλαλύσει τὰ τε μυςικὰ καὶ ἡ τῶν Ἑρμῶν περικοπὴ γένοιτο· καὶ οὐδὲν εἴη αὐτῶν ὅ, τι οὐ μετ ̓ ἐκείνου ἐπράχθη· ἐπιλέγοντες τεκμήρια, τὴν ἄλλην αὐτοῦ ἐς τὰ ἐπιτηδεύματα οὐ δημοτικὴν παρανομίαν. Thucyd. lib. vi. cap. 28. ing anciently on so curious a footing, between his family and the Lacedemonians. In consideration of this tie, he had taken particular care of the prisoners captured at Pylos. Yet in this act he was thwarted, and his jealousy roused by the ascendency of Nicias, who had procured peace and the consequent liberty of the captives; so that he eclipsed Alcibiades in popularity both at home and abroad. The jealous feeling towards Nicias has been touched upon before: it found vent when the Lacedemonians had formed an alliance with the Boeotians, and had delivered Panactus to the Athenians with dismantled fortifications. Alcibiades seized on this opportunity to inflame the minds of his countrymen, and to involve Nicias in a portion of the current odium. The intrigue by which he supplanted Nicias in the confidence of the Lacedemonians, is thus developed by Thucydides : Καὶ λέγοντες ἐν τῇ βουλῇ περί τε τούτων, καὶ ὡς αὐτοκράτορες ἥκουσι περὶ πάντων ξυμβῆναι τῶν διαφόρων, τὸν ̓Αλκιβιάδην ἐφόβουν, μὴ καὶ, ἣν ἐς τὸν δῆμον ταῦτα λέγωσιν, ἐπαγάγωνται τὸ πλῆθος. καὶ ἀπωσθῇ ἡ ̓Αργείων ξυμμαχίας μηχανᾶται δὲ πρὸς αὐτοὺς τοιόνδε τι ὁ ̓Αλκιβιάδης· τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους πείθει, πίςιν αὐτοῖς δοὺς, ἢν μὴ ὁμολογήσωσιν ἐν τῷ δήμῳ αὐτοκράτορες ἥκειν, Πύλον τε αὐτοῖς ἀποδώσειν. πείσειν γὰρ αὐτὸς ̓Αθηναίους ὥσπερ καὶ νῦν ἀντιλέγειν, καὶ τἄλλα ξυναλλάξειν. βουλόμενος δὲ αὐτοὺς Νικίου τε ἀποςῆσαι, ταῦτα ἔπραῖτε, καὶ ὅπως ἐν τῷ δήμῳ διαβαλὼν αὐτοὺς ὡς οὐδὲν ἀληθὲς ἐν νῷ ἔχουσιν, οὐδὲ λέγουσιν οὐδέποτε ταυλὰ, τοὺς Αργείους καὶ Ἠλείους καὶ Μαντινέας ξυμμάχους ποιήσῃ, καὶ ἐγένειο οὕτως. ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ἐς τὸν δῆμον παρελθόντες, καὶ ἐπερωτώμενοι οὐκ ἔφασαν (ὥσπερ ἐν τῇ βουλῇ) αὐτοκράτορες ἥκειν, οἱ Αθηναῖοι οὐκέτι ἠνείχοντο· ἀλλὰ τοῦ ̓Αλκιβιάδου πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἢ πρότερον καλαβοῶνος τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων, ἐσήκουόν τε καὶ ἕτοιμοι ἦσαν εὐθὺς παραγαγόντες τοὺς ̓Αργείους, καὶ τοὺς μετ ̓ αὐτῶν, ξυμε |