Chapter XLVIII (2)

[165] See the account of the Kylonian troubles, and the sacrilege
which followed, in vol. iii, of this History, ch. x, p. 110.

[166] See Herodot. v, 70: compare vi, 131; Thucyd. i, 126; and
vol. iv, ch. xxxi, p. 163 of this History.

[167] Thucyd. i, 126. ἐκέλευον τοὺς Ἀθηναίους τὸ ἄγος ἐλαύνειν
τῆς θεοῦ.

[168] Thucyd. i, 127.

The influence of Periklês with the Athenian public had become greater and greater as their political experience of him was prolonged. But the bitterness of his enemies appears to have increased along with it; and not long before this period, he had been indirectly assailed, through the medium of accusations against three different persons, all more or less intimate with him,—his mistress Aspasia, the philosopher Anaxagoras, and the sculptor Pheidias. We cannot make out either the exact date, or the exact facts, of either of these accusations. Aspasia, daughter of Axiochus, was a native of Milêtus, beautiful, well educated, and ambitious. She resided at Athens, and is affirmed, though upon very doubtful evidence, to have kept slave-girls to be let out as courtezans; whatever may be the case with this report, which is most probably one of the scandals engendered by political animosity against Periklês,[169] it is certain that so remarkable were her own fascinations, her accomplishments, and her powers, not merely of conversation, but even of oratory and criticism,—that the most distinguished Athenians of all ages and characters, Sokratês among the number, visited her, and several of them took their wives along with them to hear her also. The free citizen women of Athens lived in strict and almost oriental recluseness, as well after being married as when single: everything which concerned their lives, their happiness, or their rights, was determined or managed for them by male relatives: and they seem to have been destitute of all mental culture and accomplishments. Their society presented no charm nor interest, which men accordingly sought for in the company of the class of women called hetæræ, or courtezans, literally female companions; who lived a free life, managed their own affairs, and supported themselves by their powers of pleasing. These women were numerous, and were doubtless of every variety of personal character: but the most distinguished and superior among them, such as Aspasia and Theodotê,[170] appear to have been the only women in Greece, except the Spartan, who either inspired strong passion or exercised mental ascendency.

[169] Plutarch, Periklês, c. 24. Respecting Aspasia, see Plato,
Menexenus, c. 3, 4; Xenophon, Memorab. ii, 6, 36; Harpokration,
v, Ἀσπασία. Aspasia was, doubtless, not an uncommon name among
Grecian women; we know of one Phokæan girl who bore it, the
mistress of Cyrus the younger (Plutarch, Artaxer. c. 26). The
story about Aspasia having kept slave-girls for hire, is stated
by both Plutarch and Athenæus (xiii, p. 570); but we may well
doubt whether there is any better evidence for it than that which
is actually cited by the latter, the passage in Aristophanês,
Acharn. 497-505:—

Κἀθ᾽ οἱ Μεγαρῆς ὀδύναις πεφυσιγγωμένοι
Ἀντεξέκλεψαν Ἀσπασίας ~πόρνα δύο~ or ~πόρνας δύο~.

Athenæus reads the latter, but the reading πόρνα δύο appears
in the received text of Aristophanês. Critics differ, whether
Ἀσπασίας is the genitive case singular of Ἀσπασία, or the
accusative plural of the adjective ἀσπάσιος. I believe that it is
the latter; but intended as a play on the word, capable of being
understood either as a substantive or as an adjective—ἀσπασίας
πόρνας δύο, or Ἀσπασίας πόρνας δύο. There is a similar play on
the word, in a line of Kratinus, quoted by Plutarch, Periklês, c.
24.

At the time, if ever, when this theft of the Megarian youth took
place, Aspasia must have been the beloved mistress and companion
of Periklês; and it is inconceivable that she should have kept
slave-girls for hire _then_, whatever she may have done before.

That reading and construction of the verse above cited, which
I think the least probable of the two, has been applied by the
commentators of Thucydidês to explain a line of his history,
and applied in a manner which I am persuaded is erroneous. When
the Lacedæmonians desired the Athenians to repeal the decree
excluding the Megarians from their ports, the Athenians refused,
alleging that the Megarians had appropriated some lands which
were disputed between the two countries, and some which were
even sacred property,—and also, that “_they had received runaway
slaves from Athens_,”—καὶ ἀνδραπόδων ὑποδοχὴν τῶν ἀφισταμένων
(i, 139). The Scholiast gives a perfectly just explanation of
these last words—ὡς ὅτι δούλους αὐτῶν ἀποφεύγοντας ἐδέχοντο.
But Wasse puts a note to the passage to this effect—“_Aspasiæ
servos_, v, Athenæum, p. 570; Aristoph. Acharn. 525, et Schol.”
This note of Wasse is adopted and transcribed by the three best
and most recent commentators on Thucydidês,—Poppo, Göller, and
Dr. Arnold. Yet, with all respect to their united authority,
the supposition is neither natural, as applied to the words,
nor admissible, as regards the matter of fact. Ἀνδράποδα
ἀφιστάμενα mean naturally (not _Aspasiæ servos_, or more properly
_servas_, for the very gender ought to have made Wasse suspect
the correctness of his interpretation,—but) the runaway slaves
of proprietors generally in Attica; of whom the Athenians lost
so prodigious a number after the Lacedæmonian garrison was
established at Dekeleia (Thucyd. vii, 28: compare i, 142; and
iv, 118, about the ἀυτόμολοι). Periklês might well set forth
the reception of such runaway slaves as a matter of complaint
against the Megarians, and the Athenian public assembly would
feel it so likewise: moreover, the Megarians are charged, not
with having _stolen away_ the slaves, but with _harboring_ them
(ὑποδοχὴν). But to suppose that Periklês, in defending the decree
of exclusion against the Megarians, would rest the defence on
the ground that some Megarian youth had run away with two girls
of the _cortège_ of Aspasia, argues a strange conception both of
him and of the people. If such an incident ever really happened,
or was even supposed to have happened, we may be sure that it
would be cited by his opponents, as a means of bringing contempt
upon the real accusation against the Megarians,—the purpose for
which Aristophanês produces it. This is one of the many errors
in respect to Grecian history, arising from the practice of
construing passages of comedy as if they were serious and literal
facts.

[170] The visit of Sokratês with some of his friends to Theodotê,
his dialogue with her, and the description of her manner of
living, is among the most curious remnants of Grecian antiquity,
on a side very imperfectly known to us (Xenophon, Memorab. iii,
11).

Compare the citations from Eubulus and Antiphanês, the comic
writers, apud Athenæum, xiii, p. 571, illustrating the
differences of character and behavior between some of these
hetæræ and others,—and Athenæ. xiii, p. 589.

Periklês had been determined in his choice of a wife by those family considerations which were held almost obligatory at Athens, and had married a woman very nearly related to him, by whom he had two sons, Xanthippus and Paralus. But the marriage, having never been comfortable, was afterwards dissolved by mutual consent, according to that full liberty of divorce which the Attic law permitted; and Periklês concurred with his wife’s male relations, who formed her legal guardians, in giving her a way to another husband.[171] He then took Aspasia to live with him, had a son by her, who bore his name, and continued ever afterwards on terms of the greatest intimacy and affection with her. Without adopting those exaggerations which represent Aspasia as having communicated to Periklês his distinguished eloquence, or even as having herself composed orations for public delivery, we may well believe her to have been qualified to take interest and share in that literary and philosophical society which frequented the house of Periklês, and which his unprincipled son Xanthippus,—disgusted with his father’s regular expenditure, as withholding from him the means of supporting an extravagant establishment,—reported abroad with exaggerating calumnies and turned into derision. It was from that worthless young man, who died of the Athenian epidemic during the lifetime of Periklês, that his political enemies and the comic writers of the day were mainly furnished with scandalous anecdotes to assail the private habits of this distinguished man.[172] The comic writers attacked him for alleged intrigues with different women, but the name of Aspasia they treated as public property, without any mercy or reserve: she was the Omphalê, the Deianeira, or the Hêrê, to this great Hêraklês or Zeus of Athens. At length one of these comic writers, Hermippus, not contented with scenic attacks, indicted her before the dikastery for impiety, as participant in the philosophical discussions held, and the opinions professed, in the society of Periklês, by Anaxagoras and others. Against Anaxagoras himself, too, a similar indictment is said to have been preferred, either by Kleon or by Thucydidês, son of Melêsias, under a general resolution recently passed in the public assembly, at the instance of Diopeithês. And such was the sensitive antipathy of the Athenian public, shown afterwards fatally in the case of Sokratês, and embittered in this instance by all the artifices of political faction, against philosophers whose opinions conflicted with the received religious dogmas, that Periklês did not dare to place Anaxagoras on his trial: the latter retired from Athens, and the sentence of banishment was passed against him in his absence.[173] But he himself defended Aspasia before the diakastery: in fact, the indictment was as much against him as against her: one thing alleged against her, and also against Pheidias, was, the reception of free women to facilitate the intrigues of Periklês. He defended her successfully, and procured a verdict of acquittal: but we are not surprised to hear that his speech was marked by the strongest personal emotions, and even by tears.[174] The dikasts were accustomed to such appeals to their sympathies, sometimes even to extravagant excess, from ordinary accused persons: but in Periklês, so manifest an outburst of emotion stands out as something quite unparalleled: for constant self-mastery was one of the most prominent features in his character.[175] And we shall find him near the close of his political life, when he had become for the moment unpopular with the Athenian people, distracted as they were at the moment with the terrible sufferings of the pestilence,—bearing up against their unmerited anger not merely with dignity, but with a pride of conscious innocence and desert which rises almost into defiance; insomuch that the rhetor Dionysius, who criticizes the speech of Periklês as if it were simply the composition of Thucydidês, censures that historian for having violated dramatic propriety by a display of insolence where humility would have been becoming.[176]

[171] Plutarch, Periklês, c. 24 Εἶτα τῆς συμβιώσεως οὐκ οὔσης
αὐτοῖς ἀρεστῆς, ἐκείνην μὲν ἑτέρῳ βουλομένην συνεξέδωκεν, αὐτὸς
δὲ Ἀσπασίαν λαβὼν ἔστερξε διαφερόντως.

[172] Plutarch, Periklês, c. 13-36.

[173] This seems the more probable story: but there are
differences of statement and uncertainties upon many points:
compare Plutarch, Periklês, c. 16-32; Plutarch, Nikias, c.
23; Diogen. Laërt. ii, 12, 13. See also Schaubach, Fragment.
Anaxagoræ, pp. 47-52.

[174] Plutarch, Periklês, c. 32.

[175] Plutarch, Periklês, c. 7, 36-39.

[176] Thucyd. ii, 60, 61: compare also his striking expressions,
c. 65; Dionys. Halikarn. De Thucydid. Judic. c. 44, p. 924.

It appears, also, as far as we can judge amidst very imperfect data, that the trial of the great sculptor Pheidias, for alleged embezzlement in the contract for his celebrated gold and ivory statue of Athênê,[177] took place nearly at this period. That statue had been finished and dedicated in the Parthenon in 437 B.C., since which period Pheidias had been engaged at Olympia, in his last and great masterpiece, the colossal statue of the Olympian Zeus. On his return to Athens from the execution of this work, about 433 or 432 B.C., the accusation of embezzlement was instituted against him by the political enemies of Periklês.[178] A slave of Pheidias, named Menon, planted himself as a suppliant at the altar, professing to be cognizant of certain facts which proved that his master had committed peculation. Motion was made to receive his depositions, and to insure to his person the protection of the people; upon which he revealed various statements impeaching the pecuniary probity of Pheidias, and the latter was put in prison, awaiting the day for his trial before the dikastery. The gold employed and charged for in the statue, however, was all capable of being taken off and weighed, so as to verify its accuracy, which Periklês dared the accusers to do. Besides the charge of embezzlement, there were other circumstances which rendered Pheidias unpopular: it had been discovered that, in the reliefs on the friese of the Parthenon, he had introduced the portraits both of himself and of Periklês in conspicuous positions. It seems that Pheidias died in prison before the day of trial; and some even said, that he had been poisoned by the enemies of Periklês, in order that the suspicions against the latter, who was the real object of attack, might be aggravated. It is said also that Drakontidês proposed and carried a decree in the public assembly, that Periklês should be called on to give an account of the money which he had expended, and that the dikasts, before whom the account was rendered, should give their suffrage in the most solemn manner from the altar: this latter provision was modified by Agnon, who, while proposing that the dikasts should be fifteen hundred in number, retained the vote by pebbles in the urn according to ordinary custom.[179]

[177] Plutarch, Periklês, c. 31. Φειδίας—ἐργολάβος τοῦ ἀγάλματος.

This tale, about protecting Pheidias under the charge of
embezzlement, was the story most widely in circulation against
Periklês—ἡ χειρίστη μὲν αἰτία πασῶν, ἔχουσα δὲ πλείστους μάρτυρας
(Plutarch, Periklês, c. 31).

[178] See the Dissertation of O. Müller (De Phidiæ Vitâ, c. 17,
p. 35), who lays out the facts in the order in which I have given
them.

[179] Plutarch, Periklês, c. 13-32.

If Periklês was ever tried on such a charge, there can be no doubt that he was honorably acquitted: for the language of Thucydidês respecting his pecuniary probity is such as could never have been employed if a verdict of guilty on a charge of peculation had ever been publicly pronounced. But we cannot be certain that he ever was tried: indeed, another accusation urged by his enemies, and even by Aristophanês, in the sixth year of the Peloponnesian war, implies that no trial took place: for it was alleged that Periklês, in order to escape this danger, “blew up the Peloponnesian war,” and involved his country in such confusion and peril as made his own aid and guidance indispensably necessary to her: especially that he passed the decree against the Megarians by which the war was really brought on.[180] We know enough, however, to be certain that such a supposition is altogether inadmissible. The enemies of Periklês were far too eager, and too expert in Athenian political warfare, to have let him escape by such a stratagem: moreover, we learn from the assurance of Thucydidês, that the war depended upon far deeper causes,—that the Megarian decree was in no way the real cause of it,—that it was not Periklês, but the Peloponnesians, who brought it on, by the blow struck at Potidæa.

[180] Aristophan. Pac. 587-603: compare Acharn. 512; Ephorus,
ap. Diodor. xii, 38-40; and the Scholia on the two passages of
Aristophanês; Plutarch, Periklês, c. 32.

Diodorus (as well as Plutarch, Alkibiad. c. 7) relates another
tale, that Alkibiadês once approached Periklês when he was in
evident low spirits and embarrassment, and asked him the reason:
Periklês told him that the time was near at hand for rendering
his accounts, and that he was considering how this could be done:
upon which Alkibiadês advised him to consider rather how he could
evade doing it. The result of this advice was that Periklês
plunged Athens into the Peloponnesian war: compare Aristophan.
Nub. 855, with the Scholia,—and Ephorus, Fragm. 118, 119, ed.
Marx, with the notes of Marx.

It is probable enough that Ephorus copied the story, which
ascribes the Peloponnesian war to the accusations against
Pheidias and Periklês, from Aristophanês or other comic writers
of the time. But it deserves remark, that even Aristophanês is
not to be considered as certifying it. For if we consult the
passage above referred to in his comedy _Pax_, we shall find
that, first, Hermês tells the story about Pheidias, Periklês, and
the Peloponnesian war; upon which both Trygæus, and the Chorus,
remark that _they never heard a word of it before_: that it is
quite _new_ to them.

Tryg. Ταῦτα τοίνυν, μὰ τὸν Ἀπόλλω, ᾽γὼ ᾽πεπύσμην οὐδενὸς,
Οὐδ᾽ ὅπως αὐτῇ (Εἰρήνῃ) προσήκοι Φειδίας ἠκηκόη.

Chorus. Οὐδ᾽ ἔγωγε πλήν γε νυνί.

If Aristophanês had stated the story ever so plainly, his
authority could only have been taken as proving that it was a
part of the talk of the time: but the lines just cited make him
as much a contradicting as an affirming witness.

All that we can make out, amidst these uncertified allegations, is, that in the year or two immediately preceding the Peloponnesian war, Periklês was hard pressed by the accusations of political enemies,—perhaps even in his own person, but certainly in the persons of those who were most in his confidence and affection.[181] And it was in this turn of his political position that the Lacedæmonians sent to Athens the above-mentioned requisition, that the ancient Kylonian sacrilege might be at length cleared out; in other words, that Periklês and his family might be banished. Doubtless, his enemies, as well as the partisans of Lacedæmon at Athens, would strenuously support this proposition: and the party of Lacedæmon at Athens was always strong, even during the middle of the war: to act as proxenus to the Lacedæmonians was accounted an honor even by the greatest Athenian families.[182] On this occasion, however, the manœuvre did not succeed, nor did the Athenians listen to the requisition for banishing the sacrilegious Alkmæônids. On the contrary, they replied that the Spartans, too, had an account of sacrilege to clear off; for they had violated the sanctuary of Poseidon, at Cape Tænarus, in dragging from it some helot suppliants to be put to death,—and the sanctuary of Athênê Chalkiœkus at Sparta, in blocking up and starving to death the guilty regent Pausanias. To require that Laconia might be cleared of these two acts of sacrilege, was the only answer which the Athenians made to the demand sent for the banishment of Periklês.[183] Probably, the actual effect of that demand was, to strengthen him in the public esteem:[184] very different from the effect of the same manœuvre when practised before by Kleomenês against Kleisthenês.

[181] It would appear that not only Aspasia and Anaxagoras, but
also the musician and philosopher Damon, the personal friend and
instructor of Periklês, must have been banished at a time when
Periklês was old,—perhaps somewhere near about this time. The
passage in Plato, Alkibiadês, i, c. 30, p. 118, proves that Damon
was in Athens, and intimate with Periklês, when the latter was
of considerable age—καὶ νῦν ἔτι ~τηλικοῦτος~ ὢν Δάμωνι σύνεστιν
αὐτοῦ τούτου ἕνεκα.

Damon is said to have been ostracized,—perhaps he was tried and
condemned to banishment: for the two are sometimes confounded.

[182] See Thucyd. v, 43; vi, 89.

[183] Thucyd. i, 128, 135, 139.

[184] Plutarch, Perikl. c. 33.

Other Spartan envoys shortly afterwards arrived, with fresh demands. The Athenians were now required: 1. To withdraw their troops from Potidæa. 2. To replace Ægina in its autonomy. 3. To repeal the decree of exclusion against the Megarians. It was upon the latter that the greatest stress was laid; an intimation being held out that war might be avoided if such repeal were granted. We see plainly, from this proceeding, that the Lacedæmonians acted in concert with the anti-Periklêan leaders at Athens. To Sparta and her confederacy the decree against the Megarians was of less importance than the rescue of the Corinthian troops now blocked up in Potidæa: but on the other hand, the party opposed to Periklês would have much better chance of getting a vote of the assembly against him on the subject of the Megarians: and this advantage, if gained, would serve to enfeeble his influence generally. No concession was obtained, however, on either of the three points: even in respect to Megara, the decree of exclusion was vindicated and upheld against all the force of opposition. At length the Lacedæmonians—who had already resolved upon war, and had sent these envoys in mere compliance with the exigencies of ordinary practice, not with any idea of bringing about an accommodation—sent a third batch of envoys with a proposition, which at least had the merit of disclosing their real purpose without disguise. Rhamphias and two other Spartans announced to the Athenians the simple injunction: “The Lacedæmonians wish the peace to stand; and it _may_ stand, if you will leave the Greeks autonomous.” Upon this demand, so very different from the preceding, the Athenians resolved to hold a fresh assembly on the subject of war or peace, to open the whole question anew for discussion, and to determine, once for all, on a peremptory answer.[185]

[185] Thucyd. i, 39. It rather appears, from the words of
Thucydidês, that these various demands of the Lacedæmonians
were made by _one_ embassy, joined by new members arriving with
fresh instructions, but remaining during a month or six weeks,
between January and March 431 B.C., installed in the house of the
proxenus of Sparta at Athens: compare Xenophon Hellenic. v, 4, 22.

The last demands presented on the part of Sparta, which went to nothing less than the entire extinction of the Athenian empire,—combined with the character, alike wavering and insincere, of the demands previously made, and with the knowledge that the Spartan confederacy had pronounced peremptorily in favor of war,—seemed likely to produce unanimity at Athens, and to bring together this important assembly under the universal conviction that war was inevitable. Such, however, was not the fact. The reluctance to go to war was sincere amidst the large majority of the assembly; while among a considerable portion of them it was so preponderant, that they even now reverted to the opening which the Lacedæmonians had before held out about the anti-Megarian decree, as if that were the chief cause of war. There was much difference of opinion among the speakers, several of whom insisted upon the repeal of this decree, treating it as a matter far too insignificant to go to war about, and denouncing the obstinacy of Periklês for refusing to concede such a trifle.[186] Against this opinion Periklês entered his protest, in an harangue decisive and encouraging, which Dionysius of Halikarnassus ranks among the best speeches in Thucydidês: the latter historian may probably himself have heard the original speech.

[186] Thucyd. i, 139; Plutarch, Periklês, c. 31.

“I continue, Athenians, to adhere to the same conviction, that we must not yield to the Peloponnesians,—though I know that men are in one mood when they sanction the resolution to go to war, and in another when actually in the contest,—their judgments then depending upon the turn of events. I have only to repeat now what I have said on former occasions,—and I adjure you who follow my views to adhere to what we jointly resolve, though the result should be partially unfavorable: or else, not to take credit for wisdom in the event of success.[187] For it is very possible that the contingencies of events may depart more from all reasonable track than the counsels of man: such are the unexpected turns which we familiarly impute to fortune. The Lacedæmonians have before now manifested their hostile aims against us, but on this last occasion more than ever. While the truce prescribes that we are to give and receive amicable satisfaction for our differences, and each to retain what we possess,—they not only have not asked for such satisfaction, but will not receive it when tendered by us: they choose to settle complaints by war and not by discussion: they have got beyond the tone of complaint, and are here already with that of command. For they enjoin us to withdraw from Potidæa, to leave Ægina free, and to rescind the decree against the Megarians: nay, these last envoys are even come to proclaim to us, that we must leave all the Greeks free. Now let none of you believe, that we shall be going to war about a trifle, if we refuse to rescind the Megarian decree,—which they chiefly put forward, as if its repeal would avert the war,—let none of you take blame to yourselves as if we had gone to war about a small matter. For this small matter contains in itself the whole test and trial of your mettle: if ye yield it, ye will presently have some other greater exaction put upon you, like men who have already truckled on one point from fear: whereas if ye hold out stoutly, ye will make it clear to them that they must deal with you more upon a footing of equality.”[188]

[187] Thucyd. i, 140. ἐνδέχεται γὰρ τὰς ξυμφορὰς τῶν πραγμάτων
οὐχ ἧσσον ἀμαθῶς χωρῆσαι ἢ καὶ τὰς διανοίας τοῦ ἀνθρώπου· διόπερ
καὶ τὴν τύχην ὅσα ἂν παρὰ λόγον ξυμβῇ, εἰώθαμεν αἰτιᾶσθαι. I
could have wished, in the translation, to preserve the play
upon the words ἀμαθῶς χωρῆσαι, which Thucydidês introduces into
this sentence, and which seems to have been agreeable to his
taste. Ἀμαθῶς, when referred to ξυμφορὰς, is used in a passive
sense by no means common,—“in a manner which cannot be learned,
departing from all reasonable calculation.” Ἀμαθῶς, when referred
to διανοίας, bears its usual meaning,—“ignorant, deficient in
learning or in reason.”

[188] Thucyd. i, 140.

Periklês then examined the relative strength of parties and the chances of war. The Peloponnesians were a self-working population, with few slaves, and without wealth, either private or public; they had no means of carrying on distant or long-continued war: they were ready to expose their persons, but not at all ready to contribute from their very narrow means:[189] in a border-war, or a single land battle, they were invincible, but for systematic warfare against a power like Athens, they had neither competent headship, nor habits of concert and punctuality, nor money to profit by opportunities, always rare and accidental, for successful attack. They might, perhaps, establish a fortified post in Attica, but it would do little serious mischief; while at sea, their inferiority and helplessness would be complete, and the irresistible Athenian navy would take care to keep it so. Nor would they be able to reckon on tempting away the able foreign seamen from Athenian ships by means of funds borrowed from Olympia or Delphi:[190] for besides that the mariners of the dependent islands would find themselves losers even by accepting a higher pay, with the certainty of Athenian vengeance afterwards,—Athens herself would suffice to man her fleet in case of need, with her own citizens and metics: she had within her own walls steersmen and mariners better as well as more numerous than all Greece besides. There was but one side on which Athens was vulnerable: Attica unfortunately was not an island,—it was exposed to invasion and ravage. To this the Athenians must submit, without committing the imprudence of engaging a land battle to avert it: they had abundant lands out of Attica, insular as well as continental, to supply their wants, and they could in their turn, by means of their navy, ravage the Peloponnesian territories, whose inhabitants had no subsidiary lands to recur to.[191]

[189] Thucyd. i, 141. αὐτουργοί τε γάρ εἰσι Πελοποννήσιοι, καὶ
οὔτε ἰδίᾳ οὔτε ἐν κοινῷ χρήματά ἐστιν αὐτοῖς· ἔπειτα χρονίων
πολέμων καὶ διαποντίων ἄπειροι, διὰ τὸ βραχέως αὐτοὶ ἐπ᾽ ἀλλήλους
ὑπὸ πενίας ἐπιφέρειν.

[190] Thucyd. i, 143. εἴτε καὶ κινήσαντες τῶν Ὀλυμπίασιν ἢ
Δελφοῖς χρημάτων μισθῷ μείζονι πειρῷντο ἡμῶν ὑπολαβεῖν τοὺς
ξένους τῶν ναυτῶν, μὴ ὄντων μὲν ἡμῶν ἀντιπάλων, ἐσβάντων αὐτῶν
τε καὶ τῶν μετοίκων, δεινὸν ἂν ἦν· νῦν δὲ τόδε τε ὑπάρχει, καὶ,
ὅπερ κράτιστον, κυβερνήτας ἔχομεν πολίτας καὶ τὴν ἄλλην ὑπηρεσίαν
πλείους καὶ ἀμείνους ἢ πᾶσα ἡ ἄλλη Ἑλλάς.

This is in reply to those hopes which we know to have been
conceived by the Peloponnesian leaders, and upon which the
Corinthian speaker in the Peloponnesian congress had dwelt (i,
121). Doubtless Periklês would be informed of the tenor of all
these public demonstrations at Sparta.

[191] Thucyd. i, 141, 142, 143.

“Mourn not for the loss of land and houses (continued the orator): reserve your mourning for men: houses and land acquire not men, but men acquire them.[192] Nay, if I thought I could prevail upon you, I would exhort you to march out and ravage them yourselves, and thus show to the Peloponnesians that, for them at least, ye will not truckle. And I could exhibit many further grounds for confidently anticipating success, if ye will only be willing not to aim at increased dominion when we are in the midst of war, and not to take upon yourselves new self-imposed risks; for I have ever been more afraid of our own blunders than of the plans of our enemy.[193] But these are matters for future discussion, when we come to actual operations: for the present let us dismiss these envoys with the answer: That we will permit the Megarians to use our markets and harbors, if the Lacedæmonians on their side will discontinue their (xenêlasy or) summary expulsions of ourselves and our allies from their own territory,—for there is nothing in the truce to prevent either one or the other: that we will leave the Grecian cities autonomous, if we _had_ them as autonomous at the time when the truce was made,—and as soon as the Lacedæmonians shall grant to _their_ allied cities autonomy such as each of them shall freely choose, not such as is convenient to Sparta: that while we are ready to give satisfaction according to the truce, we will not begin war, but will repel those who do begin it. Such is the reply at once just and suitable to the dignity of this city. We ought to make up our minds that war is inevitable: the more cheerfully we accept it, the less vehement shall we find our enemies in their attack: and where the danger is greatest, there also is the final honor greatest, both for a state and for a private citizen. Assuredly our fathers, when they bore up against the Persians,—having no such means as we possess to start from, and even compelled to abandon all that they did possess,—both repelled the invader and brought matters forward to our actual pitch, more by advised operation than by good fortune, and by a daring courage greater than their real power. We ought not to fall short of them: we must keep off our enemies in every way, and leave an unimpaired power to our successors.”[194]

[192] Thucyd. i, 143. τήν τε ὀλόφυρσιν μὴ οἰκιῶν καὶ γῆς
ποιεῖσθαι, ἀλλὰ τῶν σωμάτων· οὐ γὰρ τάδε τοὺς ἄνδρας, ἀλλ᾽ οἱ
ἄνδρες ταῦτα κτῶνται.

[193] Thucyd. i, 144. πολλὰ δὲ καὶ ἄλλα ἔχω ἐς ἐλπίδα τοῦ
περιέσεσθαι, ἢν ἐθέλητε ἀρχήν τε μὴ ἐπικτᾶσθαι ἅμα πολεμοῦντες,
καὶ κινδύνους αὐθαιρέτους μὴ προστίθεσθαι· μᾶλλον γὰρ πεφόβημαι
τὰς οἰκείας ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίας ἢ τὰς τῶν ἐναντίων διανοίας.

[194] Thucyd. i, 143, 144.

These animating encouragements of Periklês carried with them the majority of the assembly, so that answer was made to the envoys, such as he recommended, on each of the particular points in debate. It was announced to them, moreover, on the general question of peace or war, that the Athenians were prepared to discuss all the grounds of complaint against them, pursuant to the truce, by equal and amicable arbitration,—but that they would do nothing under authoritative demand.[195] With this answer the envoys returned to Sparta, and an end was put to negotiation.

[195] Thucyd. i, 145. καὶ τοῖς Λακεδαιμονίοις ἀπεκρίναντο τῇ
ἐκείνου γνώμῃ, καθ᾽ ἕκαστά τε ὡς ἔφρασε, καὶ τὸ ξύμπαν οὐδὲν
κελευόμενοι ποιήσειν, δίκῃ δὲ κατὰ τὰς ξυνθήκας ἑτοῖμοι εἶναι
διαλύεσθαι περὶ τῶν ἐγκλημάτων ἐπὶ ἴσῃ καὶ ὁμοίᾳ.

It seems evident, from the account of Thucydidês, that the Athenian public was not brought to this resolution without much reluctance, and great fear of the consequences, especially destruction of property in Attica: and that a considerable minority took opposition on the Megarian decree,—the ground skilfully laid by Sparta for breaking the unanimity of her enemy, and strengthening the party opposed to Periklês. But we may also decidedly infer from the same historian,—especially from the proceedings of Corinth and Sparta, as he sets them forth,—that Athens could not have avoided the war without such an abnegation, both of dignity and power as no nation under any government will ever submit to, and as would have even left her without decent security for her individual rights. To accept the war tendered to her, was a matter not merely of prudence but of necessity: the tone of exaction assumed by the Spartan envoys would have rendered concession a mere evidence of weakness and fear. As the account of Thucydidês bears out the judgment of Periklês on this important point,[196] so it also shows us that Athens was not less in the right upon the received principles of international dealing. It was not Athens, as the Spartans[197] themselves afterwards came to feel, but her enemies, who broke the provisions of the truce, by encouraging the revolt of Potidæa, and by promising invasion of Attica: it was not Athens, but her enemies, who, after thus breaking the truce, made a string of exorbitant demands, in order to get up as good a case as possible for war.[198] The case made out by Periklês, justifying the war on grounds both of right and prudence, is in all its main points borne out by the impartial voice of Thucydidês. And though it is perfectly true, that the ambition of Athens had been great, and the increase of her power marvellous, during the thirty-five years between the repulse of Xerxes and the thirty years’ truce,—it is not less true that by that truce she lost very largely, and that she acquired nothing to compensate such loss during the fourteen years between the truce and the Korkyræan alliance. The policy of Periklês had not been one of foreign aggrandizement, or of increasing vexation and encroachment towards other Grecian powers: even the Korkyræan alliance was noway courted by him, and was in truth accepted with paramount regard to the obligations of the existing truce: while the circumstances out of which that alliance grew, testify a more forward ambition on the part of Corinth than on that of Athens, to appropriate to herself the Korkyræan naval force. It is common to ascribe the Peloponnesian war to the ambition of Athens, but this is a partial view of the case. The aggressive sentiment, partly fear, partly hatred, was on the side of the Peloponnesians, who were not ignorant that Athens desired the continuance of peace, but were resolved not to let her stand as she was at the conclusion of the thirty years’ truce; it was their purpose to attack her and break down her empire, as dangerous, wrongful, and anti-Hellenic. The war was thus partly a contest of principle, involving the popular proclamation of the right of every Grecian state to autonomy, against Athens: partly a contest of power, wherein Spartan and Corinthian ambition was not less conspicuous, and far more aggressive in the beginning, than Athenian.

[196] In spite of the contrary view taken by Plutarch, Periklês,
c. 31: comparison of Perikl. and Fab. Max. c. 3.

[197] Thucyd. iv, 21. Οἱ μὲν οὖν Λακεδαιμόνιοι τοσαῦτα εἶπον,
νομίζοντες τοὺς Ἀθηναίους ἐν τῷ πρὶν χρόνῳ σπονδῶν ἐπιθυμεῖν,
σφῶν δὲ ἐναντιουμένων κωλύεσθαι, διδομένης δὲ εἰρήνης ἀσμένως
δέξεσθαί τε καὶ τοὺς ἄνδρας ἀποδώσειν.

See also an important passage (vii, 18) about the feelings of the
Spartans. The Spartans thought, says Thucydidês, ἐν τῷ προτέρῳ
πολέμῳ (the beginning of the Peloponnesian war) σφέτερον τὸ
παρανόμημα μᾶλλον γενέσθαι, ὅτι τε ἐς Πλάταιαν ἦλθον Θηβαῖοι
ἐν σπονδαῖς, καὶ εἰρημένον ἐν ταῖς πρότερον ξυνθήκαις ὅπλα μὴ
ἐπιφέρειν ἢν δίκας θέλωσι διδόναι, αὐτοὶ οὐχ ὑπήκουον ἐς δίκας
προκαλουμένων τῶν Ἀθηναίων· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο εἰκότως δυστυχεῖν τε
ἐνόμιζον, etc.

[198] Thucyd. i, 126. ὅπως σφίσιν ὅτι μεγίστη πρόφασις εἴη τοῦ
πολεμεῖν.

Conformably to what is here said, the first blow of the war was struck, not by Athens, but against her. After the decisive answer given to the Spartan envoys, taken in conjunction with the previous proceedings, and the preparations actually going on among the Peloponnesian confederacy,—the truce could hardly be said to be still in force, though there was no formal proclamation of rupture. A few weeks passed in restricted and mistrustful intercourse;[199] though individuals who passed the borders did not think it necessary to take a herald with them, as in time of actual war. Had the excess of ambition been on the side of Athens compared with her enemies, this was the time for her to strike the first blow, carrying with it of course great probability of success, before their preparations were completed. But she remained strictly within the limits of the truce, and the disastrous series of mutual aggressions, destined to tear in pieces the entrails of Hellas, was opened by her enemy and her neighbor.

[199] Thucyd. i, 146. ἐπεμίγνυντο δ᾽ ὅμως ἐν αὐταῖς καὶ παρ᾽
ἀλλήλους ἐφοίτων, ἀκηρύκτως μὲν, ἀνυπόπτως δ᾽ οὔ· σπονδῶν γὰρ
ξύγχυσις τὰ γιγνόμενα ἦν, καὶ πρόφασις τοῦ πολεμεῖν.

The little town of Platæa, still hallowed by the memorable victory over the Persians, as well as by the tutelary consecration received from Pausanias, was the scene of this unforeseen enterprise. It stood in Bœotia, immediately north of Kithæron; on the borders of Attica on one side, and of the Theban territory on the other, from which it was separated by the river Asôpus: the distance between Platæa and Thebes being about seventy stadia, or a little more than eight miles. Though Bœotian by descent, the Platæans were completely separated from the Bœotian league, and in hearty alliance, as well as qualified communion of civil rights, with the Athenians, who had protected them against the bitter enmity of Thebes, for a period of time now nearly three generations. But in spite of this long prescription, the Thebans, as chiefs of the Bœotian league, still felt themselves wronged by the separation of Platæa: and an oligarchical faction of wealthy Platæans espoused their cause,[200] with a view of subverting the democratical government of the town, of destroying its leaders, their political rivals, and of establishing an oligarchy with themselves as the chiefs. Naukleidês, and others of this faction, entered into a secret conspiracy with Eurymachus and the oligarchy of Thebes: to both it appeared a tempting prize, since war was close at hand, to take advantage of this ambiguous interval, before watches had been placed, and the precautions of a state of war commenced, and to surprise the town of Platæa in the night: moreover, a period of religious festival was chosen, in order that the population might be most completely off their guard.[201] Accordingly, on a rainy night towards the close of March 431 B.C.,[202] a body of rather more than three hundred Theban hoplites, commanded by two of the Bœotarchs, Pythangelus, and Diemporus, and including Eurymachus in the ranks, presented themselves at the gate of Platæa during the first sleep of the citizens: Naukleidês and his partisans opened the gate and conducted them to the agora, which they reached and occupied in military order without the least resistance. The best part of the Theban military force was intended to arrive at Platæa by break of day, in order to support them.[203]

[200] Thucyd. ii, 2. βουλόμενοι ἰδίας ἕνεκα δυνάμεως ἄνδρας τε
τῶν πολιτῶν τοὺς σφίσιν ὑπεναντίους διαφθεῖραι, καὶ τὴν πόλιν τοῖς
Θηβαίοις προσποιῆσαι: also iii, 65. ἄνδρες οἱ πρῶτοι καὶ χρήμασι
καὶ γένει, etc.

[201] Thucyd. iii, 56.

[202] Thucyd. ii, 2. ἅμα ἦρι ἀρχομένῳ—seems to indicate a period
rather before than after the first of April: we may consider
the bisection of the Thucydidean year into θέρος and χείμων as
marked by the equinoxes. His summer and winter are each a half
of the year (Thucyd. v, 20), though Poppo erroneously treats the
Thucydidean winter as only four months (Poppo, Proleg. i, c. v,
p. 72, and ad Thucyd. ii, 2: see F. W. Ullrich, Beiträge zur
Erklärung des Thukydidês, p. 32, Hamburg, 1846).

[203] Thucyd. ii, 2-5. ~θέμενοι δὲ ἐς τὴν ἀγορὰν τὰ ὅπλα~ ... καὶ
ἀνεῖπεν ὁ κήρυξ, εἴτις βούλεται κατὰ τὰ πάτρια τῶν πάντων Βοιωτῶν
ξυμμαχεῖν, ~τίθεσθαι παρ᾽ αὑτοὺς τὰ ὅπλα~.

Dr. Arnold has a note upon this passage, explaining τίθεσθαι, or
θέσθαι τὰ ὅπλα, to mean, “piling the arms,” or getting rid of
their spears and shields by piling them all in one or more heaps.
He says: “The Thebans, therefore, as usual on a halt, proceeded
to pile their arms, and by inviting the Platæans to come and pile
theirs with them, they meant that they should come in arms from
their several houses to join them, and thus naturally pile their
spears and shields with those of their friends, to be taken up
together with theirs, whenever there should be occasion either to
march or to fight.” The same explanation of the phrase had before
been given by Wesseling and Larcher, ad Herodot. ix, 52; though
Bähr on the passage is more satisfactory.

Both Poppo and Göller also sanction Dr. Arnold’s explanation: yet
I cannot but think that it is unsuitable to the passage before
us, as well as to several other passages in which τίθεσθαι τὰ
ὅπλα occurs: there may be other passages in which it will suit,
but as a general explanation it appears to me inadmissible. In
most cases, the words mean “_armati consistere_,”—to ground
arms,—to maintain rank, resting the spear and shield (see Xenoph.
Hellen. ii, 4, 12) upon the ground. In the incident now before
us, the Theban hoplites enter Platæa, a strange town, with the
population decidedly hostile, and likely to be provoked more
than ever by this surprise, add to which, that it is pitch dark,
and a rainy night. Is it likely, that the first thing which they
do will be to pile their arms? The darkness alone would render
it a slow and uncertain operation to resume the arms: so that
when the Platæans attacked them, as they did, quite suddenly
and unexpectedly, and while it was yet dark, the Thebans would
have been—upon Dr. Arnold’s supposition—altogether defenceless
and unarmed (see ii, 3. ~προσέβαλόν τε εὐθὺς~—οἱ Πλαταιῆς—καὶ ἐς
χεῖρας ᾔεσαν ~κατὰ τάχος~) which certainly they were not. Dr.
Arnold’s explanation may suit the case of the soldier in camp,
but certainly not that of the soldier in presence of an enemy, or
under circumstances of danger: the difference of the two will be
found illustrated in Xenophon, Hellenic. ii, 4, 5, 6.

Nor do the passages referred to by Dr. Arnold himself bear
out his interpretation of the phrase τίθεσθαι τὰ ὅπλα. That
interpretation is, moreover, not conveniently applicable either
to Thucyd. vii, 3, or viii, 25,—decidedly inapplicable to iv,
68 (θησόμενον τὰ ὅπλα), in the description of the night attack
on Megara, very analogous to this upon Platæa,—and not less
decidedly inapplicable to two passages of Xenophon’s Anabasis, i,
5, 14; iv, 3, 7.

Schneider, in the Lexicon appended to his edition of Xenophon’s
Anabasis, has a long but not very distinct article upon τίθεσθαι
τὰ ὅπλα.

Naukleidês and his friends, following the instincts of political antipathy, were eager to conduct the Thebans to the houses of their opponents, the democratical leaders, in order that the latter might be seized or despatched. But to this the Thebans would not consent: believing themselves now masters of the town, and certain of a large reinforcement at daylight, they thought they could overawe the citizens into an apparently willing acquiescence in their terms, without any actual violence: they wished, moreover, rather to soften and justify, than to aggravate, the gross public wrong already committed. Accordingly their herald was directed to invite, by public proclamation, all Platæans who were willing to return to their ancient sympathies of race, and to the Bœotian confederacy, that they should come forth and take station as brethren in the armed ranks of the Thebans. And the Platæans, suddenly roused from sleep by the astounding news that their great enemy was master of the town, supposed amidst the darkness that the number of assailants was far greater than the reality: so that in spite of their strong attachment to Athens, they thought their case hopeless, and began to open negotiations. But as they soon found out, in spite of the darkness, as the discussion proceeded, that the real numbers of the Thebans were not greater than could be dealt with,—they speedily took courage and determined to attack them; establishing communication with each other by breaking through the walls of their private houses, in order that they might not be detected in moving about in the streets or ways,[204]—and forming barricades with wagons across such of these ways as were suitable. A little before daybreak, when their preparations were fully completed, they sallied forth from their houses to the attack, and immediately came to close quarters with the Thebans. The latter, still fancying themselves masters of the town, and relying upon a satisfactory close to the discussions when daylight should arrive, now found themselves surprised in their turn, and under great disadvantages: for they had been out all night under a heavy rain,—they were in a town which they did not know, with narrow, crooked, and muddy ways, such as they would have had difficulty in finding even by daylight. Nevertheless, on finding themselves suddenly assailed, they got as well as they could into close order, and repelled the Platæans two or three times: but the attack was still repeated, with loud shouts, while the women also screamed, and howled, and threw tiles from the flat-roofed houses, until at length the Thebans became dismayed and broken. But flight was not less difficult than resistance; for they could not find their way out of the city, and even the gate by which they entered, the only one open, had been closed by a Platæan citizen, who thrust into it the point of a javelin in place of the peg whereby the bar was commonly held fast. Dispersed about the city, and pursued by men who knew every inch of the ground, some ran to the top of the wall, and jumped down on the outside, most of them perished in the attempt,—a few others escaped through an unguarded gate, by cutting through the bar with a hatchet which a woman gave to them,—while the greater number of them ran into the open doors of a large barn or building in conjunction with the wall, mistaking these doors for an approach to the town-gate. They were here blocked up without the chance of escape, and the Platæans at first thought of setting fire to the building: but at length a convention was concluded, whereby they, as well as all the other Thebans in the city, agreed to surrender at discretion.[205]

[204] Thucyd. ii, 3. ἐδόκει οὖν ἐπιχειρητέα εἶναι, καὶ
ξυνελέγοντο διορύσσοντες τοὺς κοινοὺς τοίχους παρ᾽ ἀλλήλους, ὅπως
μὴ διὰ τῶν ὁδῶν φανεροὶ ὦσιν ἰόντες, ἁμάξας δὲ ἄνευ τῶν ὑποζυγίων
ἐς τὰς ὁδοὺς καθίστασαν, ἵν᾽ ἀντὶ τείχους ᾖ, καὶ τἄλλα ἐξήρτυον,
etc.

I may be permitted to illustrate this by a short extract from the
letter of M. Marrast, mayor of Paris, to the National Assembly,
written during the formidable insurrection of June 25, 1848, in
that city, and describing the proceedings of the insurgents:
“Dans la plupart des rues longues, étroites et couvertes de
barricades qui vont de l’Hôtel de Ville à la Rue St. Antoine,
la garde nationale mobile, et la troupe de ligne, ont dû faire
le siège de chaque maison; et ce qui rendait l’œuvre plus
périlleuse, c’est que les insurgés avaient établi, de chaque
maison à chaque maison, des communications intérieures qui
reliaient les maisons entre elles, en sorte qu’ils pouvaient se
rendre, comme par une allée couverte, d’un point éloigné jusqu’au
centre d’une suite de barricades qui les protégeaient.” (Lettre
publiée dans le journal, le National, June 26, 1848).

[205] Thucyd. ii, 3, 4.

Had the reinforcements from Thebes arrived at the expected hour, this disaster would have been averted. But the heavy rain and dark night retarded their whole march, while the river Asôpus was so much swollen as to be with difficulty fordable: so that before they reached the gates of Platæa, their comrades within were either slain or captured. Which fate had befallen them, the Thebans without could not tell: but they immediately resolved to seize what they could find, persons as well as property, in the Platæan territory,—no precautions having been taken as yet to guard against the perils of war by keeping within the walls,—in order that they might have something to exchange for such Thebans as were prisoners. Before this step could be executed, however, a herald came forth from the town to remonstrate with them upon their unholy proceeding in having so flagrantly violated the truce, and especially to warn them not to do any wrong without the walls. If they retired without inflicting farther mischief, their prisoners within should be given up to them; if otherwise, these prisoners would be slain immediately. A convention having been concluded and sworn to on this basis, the Thebans retired without any active measures. Such at least was the Theban account of what preceded their retirement: but the Platæans gave a very different statement; denying that they had made any categorical promise or sworn any oath,—and affirming that they had engaged for nothing, except to suspend any decisive step with regard to the prisoners until discussion had been entered into to see if a satisfactory agreement could be concluded.

As Thucydidês records both of these statements, without intimating to which of the two he himself gave the preference, we may presume that both of them found credence with respectable persons. The Theban story is undoubtedly the most probable: but the Platæans appear to have violated the understanding, even upon their own construction of it. For no sooner had the Thebans retired, than they (the Platæans) hastily brought in their citizens and the best of their movable property within the walls, and then slew all their prisoners forthwith; without even entering into the formalities of negotiation. The prisoners thus put to death, among whom was Eurymachus himself, were one hundred and eighty in number.[206]

[206] Thucyd. ii, 5, 6; Herodot. vii, 233. Demosthenês (cont.
Neæram, c. 25, p. 1379) agrees with Thucydidês in the statement
that the Platæans slew their prisoners. From whom Diodorus
borrowed his inadmissible story, that the Platæans gave up their
prisoners to the Thebans, I cannot tell (Diodor. xii, 41, 42).

The passage in this oration against Neæra is also curious,
both as it agrees with Thucydidês on many points, and as it
differs from him on several others: in some sentences, even
the words agree with Thucydidês (ὁ γὰρ Ἀσωπὸς ποταμὸς μέγας
ἐῤῥύη, καὶ διαβῆναι οὐ ῥᾴδιον ἦν, etc.: compare Thucyd. ii,
2); while on other points there is discrepancy. Demosthenês—or
the Pseudo-Demosthenês—states that Archidamus, king of Sparta,
planned the surprise of Platæa,—that the Platæans only
discovered, when morning dawned, the small real number of the
Thebans in the town,—that the larger body of Thebans, when they
at last did arrive near Platæa after the great delay in their
march, were forced to retire by the numerous force arriving from
Athens, and that the Platæans then destroyed their prisoners
in the town. Demosthenês mentions nothing about any convention
between the Platæans and the Thebans without the town, respecting
the Theban prisoners within.

On every point on which the narrative of Thucydidês differs from
that of Demosthenês, that of the former stands out as the most
coherent and credible.