This article is a contribution towards understanding the term [or concept] of arete in ancient Greece. In general, arete means an excellence or excellent capacity expected to fulfill a function in a certain field. For an instance, arete was used in relation to a hero’s combatcapability in the war. If a hero were able to get a victory, his morality defect or personality defect could be overlooked. The requisite credential for a hero was only to be strong enough to defeat the enemies. Moral virtue was not a requirement to the hero. The hero’s arete is defined not only by his combat capability but also by his speaking ability. Rhetorical ability was even more respected especially in the Greek Classical Age in which the Athenian democracy was established. The great orator was admired as much as the great warrior. Excellency in oratory, a capacity to win a victory in disputes comparable to the ability to win a victory in a combat, could be recognized apart from moral virtue. There arises a risk that falsehood and injustice would lead the city-state to destruction and corruption. It is Plato who noticed the risk; he urged that arete be joined with the moral virtue. According to him, arete could be meaningful and valuable only when it contributes to the peace and prosperity of the polis. Similarly, Aristotle also put an emphasis on moral virtue related to arete. By defining a man who has an arete as a ‘spoudaios’ man, he regarded the city-state (polis) made up of spoudaios citizen as ‘spoudaios’ (‘spoudaios’ can be translated as ‘noble’). That means spoudaios citizen could [should?] be happy in the spoudaios city-state. However, it seems paradoxical that in Poetics Aristotle argues that characters in tragedy and epic are be fallen into a misfortune because of or in spite of his excellence and moral virtue.