Pericles and the Golden Age of Athens E-Book

Evelyn Abbott

• Herausgeber: Blackmore Dennett
• Kategorie: Lebensstil
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2019

Beschreibung

THIS sketch of the Age of Pericles consists of two parts: in the first and larger part I have endeavoured to trace the growth of the Athenian empire and the causes which alienated Athens and Sparta; in the second I have given a brief account of the government, the art and literature, the society and manners of the Periclean Athens.

It will be seen that I have ventured to form an opinion about the part which Pericles played as a practical statesman widely different from the estimate presented by Grote and Curtius. It is, so far as I can judge, impossible to deny that he destroyed a form of government under which his city attained to the height of her prosperity and that he plunged her into a hopeless and demoralising war. These are not the achievements of a great statesman. And so far as legislation goes, the Age of Pericles is a blank in the history of Athens.

In what then did his greatness lie? The answer is that it lay in the ideals which he cherished. He saw what a city might do for her citizens; and what citizens might do for their city. In the years of peace his dreams took shape, and the result is before us in the Parthenon and the great Funeral Speech: but against the hard obstinacy of facts, which followed the outbreak of the war, he struggled in vain. His visions of empire faded away, and he lived long enough to see the treasury impoverished, the people more than decimated, the most faithful of Athenian allies shut up to certain destruction.

Leseprobe

PERICLES

AND THE

GOLDEN AGE

OF ATHENS

by Evelyn Abbott

Published 2019 by Blackmore Dennett

All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review.

Thank you for your purchase. If you enjoyed this work, please leave us a comment.

1 2 3 4 10 8 7 6 5 00 000

Also available from Blackmore Dennett:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE

CHAPTER I. THE ALCMÆONIDÆ.

CHAPTER II. XANTHIPPUS AND THEMISTOCLES.

CHAPTER III. THE CONGRESS AT CORINTH, AND THE DELIAN LEAGUE.

CHAPTER IV. THE EARLY YEARS OF THE DELIAN LEAGUE – THE FALL OF PAUSANIAS AND THEMISTOCLES.

CHAPTER V. DECADENCE OF SPARTA – REVOLT OF THE HELOTS – BREACH BETWEEN SPARTA AND ATHENS.

CHAPTER VI. THE AREOPAGUS AND EPHIALTES.

CHAPTER VII. THE FIRST WAR BETWEEN ATHENS AND SPARTA.

CHAPTER VIII. THE LAST YEARS OF CIMON.

CHAPTER IX. PEACE AND THE SECOND WAR WITH SPARTA.

CHAPTER X. THE THIRTY YEARS’ PEACE – THURII – SAMOS.

CHAPTER XI. AMPHIPOLIS – THE COMING WAR.

CHAPTER XII. CAUSES OF THE PELOPONNESIAN WAR.

CHAPTER XIII. THE OUTBREAK OF THE WAR.

CHAPTER XIV. FIRST YEAR OF THE WAR – THE FUNERAL SPEECH.

CHAPTER XV. THE LAST YEAR OF PERICLES.

CHAPTER XVI. THE ATHENS OF PERICLES – THE GOVERNMENT, HOME AND FOREIGN.

CHAPTER XVII. THE ATHENS OF PERICLES: ART AND LITERATURE.

CHAPTER XVIII. THE ATHENS OF PERICLES: MANNERS AND SOCIETY – CONCLUSION.

PREFACE

THIS sketch of the Age of Pericles consists of two parts: in the first and larger part I have endeavoured to trace the growth of the Athenian empire and the causes which alienated Athens and Sparta; in the second I have given a brief account of the government, the art and literature, the society and manners of the Periclean Athens.

It will be seen that I have ventured to form an opinion about the part which Pericles played as a practical statesman widely different from the estimate presented by Grote and Curtius. It is, so far as I can judge, impossible to deny that he destroyed a form of government under which his city attained to the height of her prosperity and that he plunged her into a hopeless and demoralising war. These are not the achievements of a great statesman. And so far as legislation goes, the Age of Pericles is a blank in the history of Athens.

In what then did his greatness lie? The answer is that it lay in the ideals which he cherished. He saw what a city might do for her citizens; and what citizens might do for their city. In the years of peace his dreams took shape, and the result is before us in the Parthenon and the great Funeral Speech: but against the hard obstinacy of facts, which followed the outbreak of the war, he struggled in vain. His visions of empire faded away, and he lived long enough to see the treasury impoverished, the people more than decimated, the most faithful of Athenian allies shut up to certain destruction.

I am, of course, under great obligations to previous writers. More especially I am bound to mention the recent German histories of Greece by Duncker, Busolt, and Holm. All are admirable, but in different ways: Duncker, for his political insight; Busolt, for his inexhaustible’ learning; Holm, for his fresh and suggestive criticism. In the description of Athens I have mainly followed Curtius, and the article Athen in Baumeister “Denkmaeler”; in what I have said about the Acropolis I have used Boetticher’s work on the subject...

CHAPTER I. THE ALCMÆONIDÆ.

Sicyon – Clisthenes, the Tyrant – The wedding of Agariste – The “Accursed” – Parties at Athens – The Tyrants and their expulsion – The return of the Alcmæonidæ – Attempts at restoration – Clisthenes, the reformer – Effect of reform.

ABOUT two miles from the shore, at the southeast corner of the Corinthian Gulf, an elevated platform of triangular shape rises steeply between two streams, the Asopus on the east, and the Helisson on the west. The elevation is not great, but the sides of the tableland are so precipitous that only a few narrow paths lead up to it, and for this reason it forms the natural acropolis of the surrounding district. This was the site of the ancient Sicyon, and though the splendid city which once crowned the height has been swept away, the natural features of the place are what they ever were. Looking northward, we see the waters of the Corinthian Gulf, and beyond this the “summits old in story”: Parnassus, sheltering the sacred Delphi; Helicon, the home of the Muses and of Hesiod; and Cithæron, the great rampart which divides Attica from Bœotia. On the east, beyond the Asopus, rises the lofty Acrocorinthus, the most imposing perhaps of all the mountains of Greece; on the west stretches a fair and fertile plain, covered with the olive gardens for which Sicyon was famous. Behind the city, to the south, runs the valley of the Asopus, penetrating into the hills which form the northern rampart of Peloponnesus. Here were the mines of copper, whose produce enabled Sicyon at an early time to win a high place in the history of Grecian art.

In the beginning of the sixth century, B.C., this city was ruled by a Tyrant named Clisthenes, of the race of Orthagoras. In the ears of a Greek, who cherished his freedom above all things, the name of a Tyrant was at all times odious, but the knowledge that they would incur the deadly hatred of their citizens did not prevent ambitious men from aspiring to the sole command of their cities. “Only let me become Tyrant of my city,” cried a contemporary of Solon, “and I will give my body to be flayed, my skin for a bottle.” For seventy years or more before the accession of Clisthenes, Sicyon had been governed by the Orthagoridæ. Their origin was humble, but they had attained to wealth and distinction; the second or third of the family had won an Olympian victory with his four-horse chariot, a distinction coveted beyond all others by a wealthy Greek. Clisthenes outshone all his predecessors; he was one of the foremost of the Tyrants of his time, and under his rule the city enjoyed a prosperity which perhaps was never exceeded before or after.

Unhappily, his greatness was destined to die with him. His only child was a daughter, who could not inherit the position which her father held. But if she could not be Queen of Sicyon, she was at least the greatest heiress of her time, and in seeking a husband for her Clisthenes might choose from the best and richest families in Greece. Herodotus has told, in his inimitable way, the story of the wooing of Agariste. At the festival of Olympia, at which he was victorious in a four-horse chariot, Clisthenes caused a proclamation to be made, that anyone who held himself worthy to become the son-in-law of the King of Sicyon should repair to that city by the sixtieth day after the festival; in a year from the sixtieth day, Clisthenes would betroth his daughter.

“Upon which notification, all such Grecians as thought highly of themselves and their country, went to Sicyon, where Clisthenes had made preparations for races and wrestling. From Italy arrived Smindyrides, the son of Hippocrates, a man plunged in voluptuousness beyond most examples, and born at Sybaris, which was then at the height of its prosperity; with Damasus of Siris, the son of Amyris, surnamed the Wise. From the Gulf of Ionia came Amphimnestus, the son of Epistrophus of Epidamnus; and from Ætolia, Males, the brother of Titormus, who surpassed all the Grecians in strength, and had retired to the extremities of Ætolia. From Peloponnesus arrived Leocedes, the son of Phidon, Tyrant of Argos: of that Phidon, I say, who prescribed measures to the Peloponnesians; and exceeding all the Grecians in arrogance, removed the Elean judges, and assumed to himself the power of appointing the Olympian exercises; Amiantus, an Arcadian of Trapezus, and son of Lycurgus; with Laphanes, the Azanian of Pæus, son of that Euphorion, who, according to a common report, entertained Castor and Pollux in his house, and from that time received all strangers with great hospitality. These, with Onomastus of Elis, the son of Agæus, came from Peloponnesus. From Athens came Megacles, the son of that Alcmæon who visited Crœsus; and Hippoclides, the son of Tisander, in riches and beauty surpassing all the Athenians of his time. From Eubœa, Lysanias alone, a native of Eretria, which was then in a flourishing condition. From Thessaly, Diactorides of Crannon; and from the Molossians, Alcon. All these were pretenders to the daughter of Clisthenes, and arrived in Sicyon before the sixty days were expired. Clisthenes, in pursuance of his design, first examined every one touching his country and descent; after which he detained them a whole year in order to inform himself fully of their fortitude, temperance, institution, and manners; conversing with them frequently, apart and together, and conducting the youngest to the gymnastic exercises. Above all, he endeavoured to discover their inclinations, when he entertained them with feasting; for he tried all experiments, and treated them with great magnificence, during the whole time they stayed with him. But among the several candidates he principally favoured the Athenians, especially Hippoclides, the son of Tisander, because he was esteemed for his courage, and derived his descent from the Corinthian Cypselidæ. When the day was come, which Clisthenes had appointed for the naming of the person he should choose, he sacrificed a hecatomb, and invited the pretenders, with all the Sicyonians, to the feast. After supper they entered into a dispute concerning music and other things that occasionally fell into discourse at that time; and as the wine went warmly about, Hippoclides, with an assuming air, commanded the musician to play a tune called ‘ Emmelia,’ in which, being readily obeyed, he danced with much satisfaction to himself, though Clisthenes, observing all that passed, began to suspect the event. When Hippoclides had finished his dance, and rested some time, he commanded a table to be brought in, which was no sooner done than, mounting upon it, he first imitated the Laconian measures, then danced after the Athenian manner, and, last of all, setting his head upon the table, and erecting his feet, he moved his legs in such postures as he had already practised with his hands. Though the first and second of these dances had sufficiently dissuaded Clisthenes from choosing a son-in-law of so much profligate impudence, yet he contained himself, and would not break out into an open passion. But when he saw him endeavouring with his legs to imitate the actions of his hands, he lost all patience, and cried out: ‘O son of Tisander, thou hast danced away thy marriage.’ The other answered: ‘That is nought to Hippoclides,’ which saying afterwards obtained the authority of a proverb. Then Clisthenes, having commanded silence, spoke to those who pretended to his daughter in these words: ‘I commend you all, and am willing to gratify you all, if I could, without distinguishing any one in particular, to the disadvantage of the rest. But because I have no more than one daughter, and consequently cannot comply with the desires of so many persons, I give a talent of silver to every one of those who shall be excluded, as well in acknowledgment of your readiness to enter into my family by this match, as of the time you have spent in a long absence from your habitations; and I give my daughter Agariste to Megacles, the son of Alcmæon, to be his wife under the conditions and usages of the Athenians.’ Megacles immediately declared his consent, and the nuptials were celebrated in the house of Clisthenes.”

The man thus distinguished was the heir of the great house of the Alcmæonidæ, a family well known for good and evil in the annals of Athens. They traced their lineage to Alcmæon, the grandson of Nestor, the aged king of Pylus, whose figure is one of the most striking in Homeric story. Driven from the Peloponnesus at the time of the Dorian invasion, they came to Athens, and established themselves as one of the first families of the city. Their kinsmen, the Medontidæ, were for many generations the royal race of Athens, and in the seventh century B.C., when the archonship was still closely restricted to the noble families (the Eupatridæ), Megacles, the grandfather of the youth now chosen by Clisthenes, held the office. In his archonship a distinguished Athenian, named Cylon, attempted to make himself Tyrant of Athens, and seized the Acropolis with a number of followers. The attempt was quickly crushed, but not without fixing a lasting stain on the city. A number of Cylon’s adherents, who had taken refuge at the altars of the gods were induced to leave the sanctuaries by promises of safety, and then treacherously murdered (620? or 612? B.C.). The guilt of their death was laid upon the Alcmæonidæ, who, it was said, had persuaded them to leave the altars. Henceforth the family was known as the “Accursed”; and they were sentenced to banishment from Athens. But either the sentence was revoked, or it was not strictly enforced, for soon afterwards we find Alcmæon, the son of Megacles, leading the Athenian forces in the First Sacred War (595-586 B.C.). Many years later, after the marriage of his son with Agariste, Alcmæon paid a visit to Crœsus, the wealthy King of Lydia, who allowed him to enter his treasure-house and carry away as much gold as he could. Alcmæon made the most of the opportunity. He arrayed himself in the largest and loosest attire he could procure, put on the widest and tallest of top-boots, and thus equipped, entered the chamber. Not content with stuffing his robe and filling his boots to overflowing, he sprinkled golddust on his hair, and crammed it into his mouth, till nothing more could be added to his load. Then he staggered from the room, looking “like anything rather than a man,” greatly to the amusement of Crœsus. The gain thus strangely gotten added largely to the wealth of the family, already increased by the inheritance of Clisthenes. In the troubles which overtook Athens in the second half of the sixth century, the Alcmæonidæ made a not ignoble use of their riches and power, but men did not forget that the curse was still upon them, and that their wealth was derived, in a considerable degree, from their connection with tyrants.

When next we hear of Megacles he is one of the leaders in the party struggles, which disturbed Athens in the middle of the sixth century B.C. The reforms of Solon had failed to produce the harmony, which their great author had expected; and in twenty or thirty years after Solon’s archonship, the parties of the Shore, the Plain, and the Mountain were again arrayed against each other, each seeking for the foremost place in the city. Megacles, as the head of the house of the Alcmæonidæ, led the party of the Shore; his rivals at the head of the Plain were Miltiades, the chief of the ancient house of the Philaidæ, who claimed descent from Ajax, and Lycurgus. At the head of the Mountain was Pisistratus, of the race of the Nelidæ, who, like the Alcmæonids, claimed descent from Nestor of Pylus. As Plutarch has described them to us, the men of the Plain were chiefly the inhabitants of the plain of Cephisus; – rich land-holders of a strict conservative type, who wished to retain unimpaired all their ancient rights and privileges. The men of the Shore were the inhabitants of the district known as the Paralia, the coast between Athens and Sunium. They included many of the merchant class, who naturally sought to put the claims of wealth above those of birth. The men of the Mountain were the poor goat-herds of the hilly region between the upper valley of the Cephisus and the sea. They were the radical party of the time, whose only hope of improving their condition lay in breaking the power of their opponents, and removing the barriers of birth and privilege. They had found a leader in the ranks of their opponents, a clever and unscrupulous man, who saw clearly that if he triumphed with the aid of peasants and shepherds, there would be no necessity to share his power with his supporters. In 560 B.C., matters came to a crisis, and Pisistratus established himself as Tyrant of Athens. His success was short-lived. Within a very few years his opponents combined and drove him from the city. He retired to his estates in the neighbourhood of Marathon, biding his time. It was not long before the rival parties quarrelled, and Pisistratus at once seized the opportunity to win over Megacles by promising to marry his daughter, (the child of Agariste). By this means he became tyrant of the city a second time. He fulfilled his promise of marrying the daughter of Megacles, but having no wish that his elder sons should be displaced by any child of hers, he treated her in a manner which allowed no hope of offspring. When Megacles became aware of this, he at once threw up all connection with Pisistratus, and went back to his old friends of the Plain. Pisistratus was once more obliged to retire before the combination, and on this occasion he was driven from Attica. He crossed over to Eretria in the neighbouring island of Eubœa, where he remained for ten years, strengthening his position by all possible means. His rivals at Athens looked idly on, while he collected mercenaries and amassed money. At length, believing himself able to win his way back by force, he landed at Marathon, and marched to Athens by the road which, leaving the famous plain at the southern end, crosses over by Hymettus to the city. At Pallene, where the Athenians came out to meet him, an engagement took place, in which Pisistratus, by his superior strategy, outwitted and defeated his enemies. For the third time he appeared in Athens. He was now careful to establish his power on a firm foundation; he surrounded himself with mercenary troops, and drove his rivals out of the country. Among many others Megacles and the Alcmæonidæ; found themselves exiles from their home.

For thirty years or more (541- 509 B.C.), they ate the bread of strangers. In this period Megacles died, and his place as head of the family was taken by Clisthenes, his son by Agariste. As a young man, Clisthenes was probably more active than his father in his efforts to regain his position at Athens, and after the death of Pisistratus, in 527, the prospect was more encouraging. The sons of Pisistratus, Hippias and Hipparchus, who were associated in the government, were not the equals of their father; they had but succeeded to the throne, which he had won. Their conduct soon aroused such bitter hatred that a conspiracy was formed against them, and though Hippias escaped, Hipparchus was slain. This event, which took place in 514, produced a change for the worse in the character of Hippias; he became morose, suspicious, and oppressive. Uncertain of his position at home, he looked for support abroad, and married his daughter to the son of the Tyrant of Lampsacus, through whose good offices he hoped to find favour with the Persian monarch.

The Alcmæonidæ were doubtless well aware of the state of feeling at Athens; they thought the time had come for driving out the tyrant by force, and with this object they entered Attica and established themselves in a fortified position at Lipsydrium, on the slopes of Mount Parnes. But the attempt proved premature. Hippias was able to expel them from the country.

Thus baffled, the exiles sought assistance in another quarter. In 548 the temple of Delphi had been burned down. The rebuilding was made a national work; money was collected from far and near that a temple might be raised worthy of the most famous oracular shrine in the world. The Alcmæonidæ undertook to carry out the reconstruction, and fulfilled their obligations with the greatest liberality, building the front of the temple with Parian marble, when nothing more than ordinary stone was required by the terms of the contract. From this time the family was naturally in great favour at Delphi, and they now made use of their position. They induced the priestess – it was said by bribes – to impress upon all the Spartans who came to the oracle the imperative duty of liberating Athens. The Spartans were slow to answer to the call. They had always been on excellent terms with Pisistratus and his sons, under whose government Athens had been a good neighbour. Why should they begin the quarrel? But the priestess was importunate, and at length Anchimolius, a distinguished Spartan, was sent with an army to expel the tyrants from Attica. The task was not accomplished without difficulty. Anchimolius was defeated, and slain, and even when Cleomenes, the King of Sparta, appeared in person at Athens, it was a mere accident which threw the victory into his hands. The tyrants and their partisans were preparing to sustain a siege in the Acropolis, when news was brought that the children of the family, who were being sent away for safety, had fallen into the hands of the enemy. This at once changed the situation; Hippias agreed to leave the country in five days, and retired to Sigeum, in the Troad.

The departure of their rivals was of course the signal for all the exiled families to return to Athens, and at their head was Clisthenes. What were his views when he found himself once more in the city, it is difficult to say. Perhaps he had dreams of securing for himself the tyranny of which Hippias had been deprived. He might at least look forward to an established position as the foremost man in the city. In either case he was disappointed. No sooner had he returned than he found himself engaged in party quarrels. The oligarchical party, (the remnant we may suppose of the old party of the Plain), of whom Isagoras was now the leader, had no mind to be the subjects of the ambitious Alcmæconidæ, and offered violent opposition to his projects. Finding himself unable to maintain his position without fresh support, Clisthenes determined, as Pisistratus had done before him, to seek the aid of the people; but he sought it in a different manner. He set about rearranging the whole constitution of Athens. Increasing the tribes from four to ten, and the Council from four hundred to five hundred, he gave the people as much authority in elections as he could, and sought in every way to emancipate them from the influence of the great families. Isagoras and his party were taken by surprise; they at once summoned Sparta to their aid, and the appeal was successful. Cleomenes, who was a personal friend of Isagoras, sent a herald to Athens calling on Clisthenes and the Alcmæonidæ to leave the city, as being “under the curse.” Clisthenes at once retired; he had no wish to see the Spartans at Athens, and he expected to secure his recall without difficulty. But Cleomenes was not contented; he soon appeared with a small force at Athens, and in concert with Isagoras he drove no fewer than seven hundred families out of the town. Then he attempted to destroy the Council, and put the government into the hands of three hundred of the friends of Isagoras. The Council refused to submit, and, far from being able to coerce it, Cleomenes and Isagoras found themselves driven into the citadel. Their forces were few in number; they had made no provision for the siege, and after two days the Lacedæmonians came to terms. With a brutal selfishness, of which this is not the only instance, they secured a free passage for themselves, while abandoning their Athenian friends to the mercy of the conquerors. Clisthenes and the seven hundred were at once recalled; their opponents were put to death, and the ground was cleared for the great reformation which Clisthenes now proceeded to carry out. It is true that Cleomenes was not inclined to submit to the humiliating repulse which he had received; and still less so, when he discovered that the Delphian priestess had been bribed into insisting on the liberation of Athens. But he could not induce the Peloponnesian allies, whose contingents formed a considerable part of any force which Sparta could put into the field, to listen to him. A large expedition, which he led as far as Eleusis, melted away, when it heard the object for which it had been collected; and when Hippias was brought from Asia to Sparta, and a general assembly of the Confederation was held to discuss his restoration, the Corinthians, as the foremost of the allies, declared that they would have neither part nor lot in setting up that cruel and bloodthirsty monster, a Tyrant. The subject was dropped, and never revived. Hippias returned to Sigeum, and Athens was henceforth a free city.

We have unfortunately no full account of the measures of Clisthenes. A few sentences, some doubtful in their meaning, contain all the information which has been preserved of the work of the great Reformer. Yet the expulsion of Hippias and the reconstruction of the Athenian constitution, which immediately followed it, were to the Athenians what the Reformation, the Rebellion, and the Revolution combined have been to Englishmen.

Every statesman is of course guided largely by the circumstances of his time; he cannot advise or legislate in the air, but must have something definite in view. We shall see that Pericles trained the Athenians to acquire and maintain an imperial position. Clisthenes had no such aim; he merely sought to secure Athens against the undue influence of great families and its attendant evils – the outbreak of local and domestic faction and the rise of a tyrant. And in this object he succeeded.

All the villages of Attica were collected into a hundred “Demes,” which he distributed among the ten tribes, ten to each. In each Deme he established a local officer, the Demarch, who was supported by a local council. The Demarch managed the affairs of the Deme, arranged for elections, and kept the register of citizens for purposes of contribution or service. The Demes belonging to the various tribes were not adjacent in every case; but sometimes Demes from widely different parts of the country were united in one tribe, doubtless with a view to prevent undue local influence. The whole of the new arrangements were put under the sanction of new religious rites or forms of worship: each Deme had its sanctuary; each tribe its tutelary hero. The political life of the citizens was thus dissociated from the family and domestic life, through which, no doubt, the old houses had largely exercised their power.

Within a very few years after the establishment of the new government, Athens was called upon to undergo a number of trials, each severer than the other; she passed triumphantly through them all, and emerged the greatest city in Greece. “Not in one instance only,” says Herodotus, “but everywhere, it is manifest that freedom of speech is an excellent thing; in the days of their tyrants the Athenians were no better in the field than their neighbours, but no sooner had they got rid of them, than they were first of all. It is therefore quite clear that, when held in subjection, they would not do their best, because they were working for a master, but when they were free, every one did his utmost for himself.” The historian’s remark is true, though in justice to the Athenian Tyrants we must at least allow that their rule, however oppressive, did not prevent the growth of a vigorous population, able and willing to fight their own battles.

CHAPTER II. XANTHIPPUS AND THEMISTOCLES.

Xanthippus – Birth of Pericles – Ionian revolt – Miltiades, the son of Cimon – Battle of Marathon – Condemnation of Miltiades – Themistocles – Aristides and Xanthippus oppose Themistocles – The AElig;ginetan war – Party struggles – Themistocles victorious – Construction of a fleet – The Persian invasion.

FROM the time that his reforms were completed, little is known of Clisthenes. He is said to have been ostracised, and the same fate twice befel his son Megacles, whose daughter Dinomache became the mother of Alcibiades. But Hippocrates, the younger brother of Clisthenes, was the father of a second Agariste, and from this daughter, who married Xanthippus of the old Athenian family of the Buzygæ, was born Pericles.

Though not himself an Alcmæonid, Xanthippus seems to have acquired a considerable portion of the influence of the family by marrying into it. For sixteen years (from 494 to 478) he was one of the most prominent men in Athens. It was he who brought Miltiades to trial; who, with Aristides, endeavoured to thwart the plans of Themistocles. In 479 he commanded the Athenian ships at Mycale; and, in the ensuing spring, he conquered Sestos. Then, like so many of the leading Greek statesmen in the evening of their lives, he disappears from our view and nothing more is recorded of him.

Pericles was probably born about the year 493 B.C. Even before his birth, indications of his future greatness were not wanting. Herodotus, at any rate, believed a story, which was current in his time, that Agariste, a few days before the birth of her great son, dreamed that she was delivered of a lion. The year of his birth was not a happy one in Athenian annals. In 494 B.C. the great city of Miletus had fallen before the arms of Persia, and the ill-timed and disastrous revolt of the cities of Ionia, in which Athens had played no creditable part, was brought to an end amid universal desolation and destruction. The victorious Phœnician fleet pressed onwards to the north of the Ægean with nothing to check its course. The Chersonese, which for two generations had been governed by members of the Athenian house of the Philaidæ, passed into the possession of the Persians, and Miltiades, the son of Cimon, the present ruler, came flying home with all his goods in five triremes, one of which was captured by the enemy. The bitter feeling aroused at Athens by these reverses is shown by the treatment of the poet Phrynichus, who had chosen the capture of Miletus for the subject of a tragedy. The artistic success of the drama was so great that the audience were moved to tears, but the subject was felt to be too painful for a play, and the poet was fined one thousand drachmæ (about £35) for reminding his countrymen of their misfortunes.

On his return to Athens, Miltiades found that he was by no means at the end of his troubles. We have seen that the two great families of the Alcmæonidæ and Philaidæ had stood at the head of rival parties at Athens in the political factions of the sixth century; Megacles, the grandfather of Agariste, had led the Shore; Miltiades, the uncle of the present ruler of the Chersonese, had led the Plain. Though the old factions were at an end, the Alcmæonidæ were by no means pleased to see the chief of their rivals back in the city. Miltiades had shewn himself daring and unscrupulous in his management of the Chersonese; his wealth was great; his family had been conquerors at Olympia; he was perhaps descended from Cypselus, the Tyrant of Corinth, and for many years of his life he had occupied the position of an irresponsible despot. Would such a man consent to be an equal among equals in his old city? In the interval which had elapsed since Miltiades had taken the place of his elder brother, Stesagoras, in the Chersonese, Athens had gone through the crisis which we have described in the preceding chapter. When he left the city, the tyrants were still on the throne; when he returned, the reforms of Clisthenes had been firmly established for more than ten years. To a man of such experiences, accustomed to the unlimited exercise of personal power, “freedom of speech” was not likely to commend itself. Xanthippus and his friends determined, if possible, to get rid of the danger. They brought an action against Miltiades, immediately after his return to Athens, charging him with tyrannical government in the Chersonese. The charge was ridiculous. The Athenians had nothing whatever to do with the government of the Chersonese. The first Miltiades had gone out at the invitation of a native tribe to protect them against the incursions of their neighbours on the north, and the “tyranny” thus acquired had remained in the hands of the family ever since. Under such circumstances Miltiades was, of course, acquitted; the plot of his enemies entirely broke down.

Three years later came the invasion of the Persians under Datis and Artaphernes, ending in the battle of Marathon. On this occasion we hear nothing of Xanthippus, but we can hardly suppose that he took no part in the defence of his country. It is true that, fifty years later, in the time of Herodotus, the Alcmæonidæ were suspected of having carried on some treacherous negotiations with the invaders. It was even said that they raised aloft the shield which gave the signal to the Persians to re-embark from Marathon and hasten to Athens in the hope of surprising the city. And those who were hostile to the family might remind the Athenians that they owed their wealth in a great degree to the tyrants of Sardis and Sicyon; that Clisthenes himself had sought the aid of Persia in strengthening his position against Isagoras. But even if the story of the shield is true, there is no proof that Xanthippus acted with the Alcmæonidæ in this matter; and in the great invasion of Xerxes in 480 B.C. he certainly took a prominent part in the destruction of the Persian fleet. In the next year (489 B.C.) Xanthippus was the chief actor in a scene which has left a lasting stain on himself and his city. The victory of Marathon was chiefly due to Miltiades; it was he who brought on the engagement, and he was chief in command on the day when the battle was fought. Such a brilliant success greatly improved his position in the city, and excited in his enemies a still deeper hatred. Ever on the watch for an opportunity to pull down their rival, it was not long before they found one. Soon after his victory Miltiades came before the Athenians with a request that a squadron of seventy ships might be placed at his disposal. The purpose for which he required them he would not disclose, though pledging his word that the expedition would add largely to the wealth and prosperity of the city. The request being granted, he sailed with the ships to Paros, an island which at this time was subject to Persia. From the Parians he demanded one hundred talents, and when they refused to pay he blockaded the city. So vigorous and successful was the resistance offered that, after a long delay, Miltiades, himself dangerously wounded, was compelled to return home. His enemies, with Xanthippus at their head, at once attacked him for misconduct in the enterprise. They declared that he had deceived the Athenians, and, so far from adding to their wealth and prosperity, had wasted the treasure and lives of his fellow-citizens. For such an offence death was the only adequate penalty. Miltiades was unable to reply in person; he was carried into court, while his friends pleaded his cause. The sentence was given against him, but the penalty was reduced from death to a fine of fifty talents. So large a sum was more than even Miltiades could pay; he was thrown into prison as a public debtor, where he soon died from the mortification of his wound.

In the account which Herodotus gives of this event we are informed that Miltiades attacked Paros from motives of private vengeance, and that he received his wound while seeking an interview with the Parian priestess of Demeter. But as we are not told what was the object of the interview, and as the cause assigned for the private quarrel is quite incredible, this account is not of much value. On the other hand it is obvious that Miltiades, if he wished to detach the wealthy island of Paros from Persia, would desire his object to be kept as secret as possible. He well knew that a project openly discussed in the Athenian Assembly would be known at Paros long before he could reach the island. The secrecy of the expedition was therefore justifiable. The object was not less so. Paros as a subject of Persia was a source of danger in the Ægean; if the Athenians conquered the island they would have a base of operations in the Cyclades, from which they could intercept such an expedition as that which brought Datis to Marathon. But Miltiades failed, and failure at the moment was intolerable. In the animation of their recent victory the Athenians forgot how inadequate were the means at their disposal for the capture of walled cities; they thought that there could be no limits to their success; and the enemies of Miltiades took advantage of this feeling to bring about his ruin. His condemnation was one in a long series of similar punishments. The Athenians never learnt to be just to those who served them, or to distinguish between treachery and errors of judgment. It was the natural result of such conduct that those who entered their service were compelled to sacrifice their devotion to their country to the precautions necessary for their own safety.

We have very little information about the state of Athens immediately after the battle of Marathon. So far as we can tell, for the chronology is most uncertain, she was now engaged in a war with Ægina, which though at first carried on with vigour, at length lapsed into inactive hostility, neither side being able to inflict any serious mischief on the other. Meanwhile a man was rising to power who may be said to have created the history of Athens for the rest of the century, – Themistocles, the son of Neocles.

What we know of the birth and early life of this eminent man is derived from the biography written by Plutarch, a late author, whose accuracy depends on that of the writers from whom he collected his information – writers often divided by centuries from the facts which they recorded. We are told that he was not born of true Athenian blood, his mother being an alien. The sons of such mixed marriages were not without political rights at Athens, but they `lay under certain social disadvantages. They could not train or exercise with the young Athenians of pure descent; a separate gymnasium was assigned to them – the Cynosarges – on the banks of the Ilissus, outside the walls of the city. From his early youth, therefore, Themistocles found himself separated from those ancient families, who had been the ruling power in Athens. He could not expect the support which came to them from their equals. Yet his spirit would not allow him to be content with any but the foremost place in the city. While he was yet a boy his schoolmaster had predicted his future greatness; whether he would be famous for his virtues or his vices he could not say, but famous he would certainly be. His father, observing his inordinate ambition, sought to win him from a public career by pointing to the hulls of some disused triremes. These had once been employed in the service of the city – gallant ships, the pride of those who manned them; and what were they now? But Themistocles was not to be shaken in his purpose. As a young man he had fought at Marathon; and the trophy of Miltiades would not let him rest. Was it possible for him, without friends, without wealth, to win success even more brilliant than that of the great chief of the Philaidæ? Was it possible to raise Athens, which had just achieved so remarkable a victory, to a position of irresistible power, and wrest from Sparta the leadership of Greece?

On the very day of Marathon, Themistocles had probably made up his mind that the Persians would visit Greece again. What was to keep them away, so long as they were masters of the Ægean? He was also aware that Athens, above all cities, was the object of the wrath of Darius. How could she be saved? Recent experience was entirely in favour of the army. At Marathon the Athenian hoplites had put to flight a host ten times their own in number; but the fleet had been unable to reduce the single city of Paros. For the last twenty years Athens had been uniformly successful on land, while nothing decisive had been done in the maritime war with Ægina. With such evidence before them, few men would have ventured to strike into the line which Themistocles took – a line which implied an entirely new departure in the military history of Athens. With an insight almost incredible he perceived that the Athenians could become a maritime nation, that Athens possessed harbours large enough to receive an enormous fleet, and capable of being strongly fortified; that in possession of a fleet she could not only secure her own safety, but stand forth as a rival power to Sparta.

But how could Themistocles induce the Athenians to abandon the line in which they had been so successful for a mode of warfare in which even Miltiades had failed? After the fall of the great general, the conduct of affairs was in the hands of Xanthippus, whom we know, and Aristides. Both these men after the battle of Salamis took a prominent part as leaders of the Athenian fleet, but ten years earlier they were by no means prepared for the change which Themistocles was medi tating. This is more especially true of Aristides. He had been a friend of Clisthenes; he was known as an admirer of Spartan customs; and doubtless looked on a trained army as the great bulwark of a state. He had been second in command at Marathon, and was now the most eminent general at Athens. From him Themistocles could only expect the most resolute opposition.

Xanthippus and Aristides could reckon on the support of old traditions and great connections. Themistocles had no support of the kind. He had to make his party. He began by collecting round him a few energetic men, who were perhaps convinced by his arguments, or at any rate jealous of the power of the great families. These he formed into an association for the spread of his views, – the first instance, so far as we know, of a political “club” at Athens. At a later time such clubs were common enough; in fact they were the principal means by which the aristocratical or oligarchical party at Athens preserved what influence it had. They were always regarded with some suspicion, and the more severely they were treated the more dangerous they became. In this early instance the significance of the movement was probably disregarded. Conscious of their own position, Aristides and Xanthippus looked with contempt upon the knot of men who began to gather round their unmannerly and uncultivated leader.

And they might perhaps have maintained their position if it had not been for the Æginetan war. That unlucky struggle had begun, soon after the reforms of Clisthenes, with an unprovoked attack of the Æginetans on the coast of Attica (506 B.C.). It was renewed when the Æginetans gave earth and water to the heralds of Darius in 491, and though suspended at the time of the Persian invasion, it broke out again with renewed ferocity soon afterwards. The Æginetans succeeded in carrying off a mission-ship, which was conveying some of the leading Athenian citizens to the festival of Poseidon on the headland of Sunium. The Athenians, in revenge, attempted a coup d’état in concert with Nicodromus, a dissatisfied Æginetan oligarch, who promised to raise the people at the same moment that an Athenian fleet attacked the city. But the Athenians had not sufficient ships for the purpose – for Ægina could put seventy vessels on the water, – and while they were obtaining others from Corinth, time passed on, and they arrived at Ægina a day too late. The Æginetan oligarchs got rid of their domestic enemies by a horrible massacre, and after some contests fought with varying fortune, they finally succeeded in defeating the Athenian fleet. From this time onwards hostilities ceased on a large scale; each city ravaged the coasts of the other as opportunity offered.

Such experiences naturally caused a change in the minds of the Athenians. Had they driven the Persians into the sea only to be defeated, harried, and defied by a neighbouring island? If they could have the Æginetans on land they would soon give an account of them; but now the warfare lay on a different element. It was clear that the old arrangements for the navy were quite inadequate to the task which was now required of them. Yet the leaders of the state made no proposals. They seemed content with a navy of fifty or seventy ships, regardless of past defeats and present devastations. Miltiades had been condemned for his failure at Paros, but failure at Ægina was treated in quite a different manner. These may have been the murmurs which Themistocles and his associates sought to diffuse through the city. In the confidence that they were gaining ground, he came forward publicly with proposals of naval reform, and, as he expected, he drew upon himself the strenuous opposition of Aristides.

We need not assume that Aristides had contracted that dislike of a seafaring population which was so marked a feature among the philosophers of the next century; but he could not avoid seeing that a fleet was useless without rowers, and that the rowers would be drawn from the lowest class of citizens. The defence of the city would no longer be in the hands of that middle class, who were at least able to supply themselves with a suit of armour, but in the hands of men who must be paid for their labour. Aristides was slow to perceive that this class might be as patriotic and trustworthy as the citizens of higher position. At a later time he redeemed his error, but for the present he employed all his influence in thwarting the plans of Themistocles. So severe was the contest that the public peace was in danger. Aristides was heard to confess that the Athenians would be wise if they threw both himself and his opponent into the pit into which great criminals were cast. Affairs were at a dead lock. It was clear that nothing decisive could be done in the Æginetan war unless the proposals of Themistocles were carried; it was equally clear that they never would be carried while Aristides and Xanthippus were at hand to oppose them. Under these circumstances recourse was had to the safety-valve of the constitution. Ostracism was proposed and accepted; and in this manner, by 483 B.C., Themistocles had got rid of both of his rivals in the city.

He was now master of the situation. The only obstacle to the realization of his plans was the expense involved in building ships. And this he was able to meet by a happy accident, which brought into the treasury at this time a large surplus from the silver mines from Laurium. Various accounts are given of the precise method in which the fleet was built, and none is perhaps more worthy of credit than another. But, by the summer of 480, the Athenians, who previously had borrowed twenty ships of the Corinthians in order to bring up their navy to a total of seventy, were able to launch a hundred and eighty vessels, besides providing twenty for the use of the Chalcidians of Eubœa. These, or the greater part of them, as we know, on the testimony of Herodotus, were primarily built with a view to the war with Ægina, but, when the news of the second Persian invasion arrived, that quarrel was made up, and the Athenians were at liberty to devote their whole strength to the salvation of Greece