II.  So much for their riches.  Now in their political life, Nikias never did anything bold, daring or unjust, for he was outwitted by Alkibiades, and always stood in fear of the popular assembly.  Crassus, on the other hand, is accused of great inconsistency, in lightly changing from one party to another, and he himself never denied that he once obtained the consulship by hiring men to assassinate Cato and Domitius.  And in the assembly held for the dividing for the provinces, many were wounded and four men slain in the Forum, while Crassus himself (which I have forgotten to mention in his Life) struck one Lucius Annalius, a speaker on the other side, so violent a blow with his fist that his face was covered with blood.  But though Crassus was overbearing and tyrannical in his public life, yet we cannot deny that the shrinking timidity and cowardice of Nikias deserve equally severe censure; and it must be remembered that when Crassus was carrying matters with so high a hand, it was no Kleon or Hyperbolus that he had for an antagonist, but the great Julius Caesar himself, and Pompeius who had triumphed three several times, and that he gave way to neither of them, but became their equal in power, and even excelled Pompeius in dignity by obtaining the office of censor.  A great politician should not try to avoid unpopularity, but to gain such power and reputation as will enable him to rise above it.

Yet if it were true that Nikias preferred quiet and security to anything else, and that he stood in fear of Alkibiades in the assembly, of the Spartans at Pylus, and of Perdikkas in Thrace, he had every opportunity to repose himself in Athens and to “weave the garland of a peaceful life,” as some philosopher calls it.  He had indeed a true and divine love of peace, and his attempt to bring the Peloponnesian war to an end, was an act of real Hellenic patriotism.  In this respect Crassus cannot be compared with Nikias, not though he had carried the frontier of the Roman empire as far as the Caspian and the Indian seas.

III.  Yet a statesman, in a country which appreciates his merits, ought not when at the height of his power to make way for worthless men, and place in office those who have no claim to it, as Nikias did when he laid down his own office of commander-in-chief and gave it to Kleon, a man who possessed no qualification whatever for the post except his brazen effrontery.  Neither can I praise Crassus for having so rashly and hurriedly brought the war with Spartacus to a crisis, although he was actuated by an honourable ambition in fearing that Pompeius would arrive and take from him the glory of having completed the war, as Mummius took from Marcellus the glory of winning Corinth.  But on the other hand the conduct of Nikias was altogether monstrous and inexcusable.  He did not give up his honourable post to his enemy at a time when there was hope of success and little peril.  He saw that great danger was likely to be incurred by the general