I. In the first place, the wealth of Nikias was much more honestly and
creditably obtained than that of Crassus. Generally speaking, one
cannot approve of men who make their money from mines, which are as a
rule worked by criminals, or savages, labouring in chains in unhealthy
subterranean dungeons; but yet this method of amassing a fortune seems
much the more honourable, when compared with Crassus's purchase of
confiscated lands and his habit of bidding for houses that were on
fire. Crassus too used to practise these openly, like a trade: while
he was also accused of taking bribes for his speeches in the Senate,
of defrauding the allies of Rome, of currying favour with great ladies
and assisting them to shield offenders from justice. Nothing of this
sort was ever laid to the charge of Nikias, who, however, was
ridiculed for giving money to common informers because he feared their
tongues. Yet this action of his, though it would have been a disgrace
to Perikles, or Aristeides, was a necessity for Nikias, who was
naturally of a timid disposition. Thus Lykurgus the orator excused
himself when accused of having bought off some informers who
threatened him. "I am glad," said he, "that after so long a public
life as mine I should have been at last convicted of giving bribes
rather than of receiving them."

The expenditure of Nikias was all calculated to increase his
popularity in the state, being devoted to offerings to the gods,
gymnastic contests and public dramatic performances. But all the money
he spent that way, and all that he possessed was but a small part of
what Crassus bestowed upon a public feast at Rome for some tens of
thousands of guests, whom he even maintained at his own cost for some
time after. So true it is that wickedness and vice argue a want of
due balance and proportion in a man's mind, which leads him to acquire
wealth dishonestly, and then to squander it uselessly.