§ 1. State of parties at Athens. Thucydides. § 2. Opposite political views. 3. Ostracism of Thucydides. Administration of Pericles. He adorns Athens. His foreign policy. § 4. Athenian colonization. Cleruchiæ. Thurii and Amphipolis. § 5. Nature of the Athenian maritime empire. Amount of tribute. Oppressions. § 6. Revolt of Samos. Reduction of the island by Pericles.

§ 1. THE aristocratical party at Athens had been nearly annihilated by the measures of Pericles recorded in the preceding chapter. In order to make a final effort against the policy of that statesman, the remnant of this party had united themselves under Thucydides, the son of Melesias. Thucydideswho must not be confounded with his namesake, the great historian-was a relative of Cimon's, to whose political principles he succeeded. In ability and character he differed considerably from Cimon. He was not much distinguished as a military man; but as a statesman and orator he might even bear some comparison with his great opponent Pericles. Thucydides, however, had not the advantage of being on the popular side; and his manner of leading the opposition soon proved the ruin both of himself and of his party. The high character and great services of Aristides and Cimon, the conciliatory manners of both, and especially the affable and generous

N

temper of Cimon, had, in spite of their unpopular views, secured them considerable influence. Thucydides, on the contrary, does not appear to have been distinguished by any of these qualities; and though the steps which he took to give his party a stronger organization in the assembly at first enabled him to make head against Pericles, yet they ultimately proved the cause of his overthrow. Not only were his adherents urged to a more regular attendance in the assembly, but they were also instructed to take up a separate and distinct position on the benches; and thus, instead of being mixed as before with the general mass of citizens, they became a regularly organized party. This arrangement seemed at first to lend them strength. Their applause or dissent, being more concentrated, produced a greater effect. At any sudden turn in a debate they were in a better position to concert their measures, and could more readily put forwards their best speakers according to emergencies. But these advantages were counterbalanced by still greater drawbacks. A little knot of men, who from a particular corner of the ecclesia were constantly opposing the most popular measures, naturally incurred a great share of odium and suspicion; but what was still worse, the paucity of their numbers-and from their position they could easily be counted-was. soon remarked; and they then began to fall into contempt, and were designated as The Few.

§ 2. The points of dispute between the two parties were much the same as they had been in the time of Cimon. Thucydides and his followers were for maintaining amicable relations with the rest of Greece, and were opposed to the more popular notion of extending the Athenian dominion even at the risk of incurring the hostility of the other Grecian states. They were of opinion that all their efforts should be directed against the common enemy, the Persians; and that the advantages which Athens derived from the Confederacy of Delos should be strictly and honestly applied to the purposes for which that confederacy had been formed. With regard to this subject the administration of Pericles had produced a fresh point of contention. The vast amount of treasure accumulated at Athens from the tribute paid by the allies was more than sufficient for any apprehended necessities of defence, and Pericles applied the surplus to strengthening and beautifying the city. Thucydides complained that, by this misapplication of the common fund, Athens was disgraced in the eyes of Greece. Pericles, on the other hand, contended that so long as he reserved sufficient to guarantee security against the Persians, he was perfectly at liberty to apply the surplus to Athenian purposes. This argument is the argument

of the strongest, and, if valid in this case, might at any time be applied to justify the grossest abuses of power. The best that we can say in favour of the Athenians is that, if they were strong enough to commit this injustice, they were also enlightened enough to apply the proceeds in producing works of art that have excited the wonder and admiration of the world. Other conquerors have often contented themselves with carrying off the works of others the Athenians had genius enough to produce their own. But we can hardly justify the means by point

ing to the result.

§3. From the opposition of Thucydides, Pericles was released by ostracism; though by which party such a step was proposed cannot be determined. Thucydides went into banishment. This event, which probably took place about two years after the conclusion of the Thirty Years' Truce, completely broke up the aristocratical party; and for the remainder of his life Pericles enjoyed the sole direction of affairs. His views were of the most lofty kind. Athens was to become the capital of Greece, the centre of art and refinement, and at the same time of those democratical theories which formed the beau idéal of the Athenian notions of government. In her external appearance the city was to be rendered worthy of the high position to which she aspired by the beauty and splendour of her public buildings, by her works of art in sculpture, architecture, and painting, and by the pomp and magnificence of her religious festivals. All these objects Athens was enabled to attain in an incredibly short space of time, through the genius and energy of her citizens and the vast resources at her command. No state has ever exhibited so much intellectual activity and so great a progress in art as was displayed by Athens in the period which elapsed between the Thirty Years' Truce and the breaking out of the Peloponnesian war. But of the literature of this period, as well as of the great works of art produced in it, an account is given in another place, and it will suffice to mention briefly here the more important structures with which Athens was adorned during the administration of Pericles. On the Acropolis rose the magnificent temple of Athena, called the Parthenon, built from the plans of Ictinus and Callicrates, but under the direction of Phidias, who adorned it with the most beautiful sculptures, and especially with a colossal statue of Athena in ivory, 47 feet in height. At the same time a theatre designed for musical performances, called the Odeum, was erected at the south-eastern foot of the Acropolis. Both these structures appear to have been

* See below, Chap. XXXIV., XXXV.

finished by 437 B.C. Somewhat later were erected the Propylæa, or magnificent entrance to the Acropolis, on the western side. Besides these vast works, others were commenced which were interrupted by the breaking out of the Peloponnesian war, as the reconstruction of the Erechtheum, or ancient temple of Athena Polias; the building of a great temple of Demeter, at Eleusis, for the celebration of the Eleusinian mysteries; another of Athena at Sunium, and one of Nemesis at Rhamnus. Besides these ornamental works, Pericles undertook others of a more useful kind. In order to render the communication between Athens and Piræus still more secure, he constructed a third long wall between the two already built, running parallel to, and at a short distance from, the one which united the city to Piræus. At the same time Piræus itself was improved and beautified, and a new dock and arsenal constructed, said to have cost 1000 talents. The whole cost of these improvements was estimated at 3000 talents, or nearly 700,000l.

In this part of his plans Pericles may be said to have been entirely successful. The beautiful works which arose under his superintendence established the empire of Athenian taste, not only for his own time but for all succeeding ages. But the other and more substantial part of his projects-the establishment of the material empire of Athens, of which these works were to be but the type and ornament-was founded on a miscalculation of the physical strength and resources of his country; and after involving Athens, as will be seen in the sequel, in a long series of suffering and misfortune, ended at last in her degradation and ruin.

§ 4. Colonization, for which the genius and inclination of the Athenians had always been suited, was another and safer method adopted by Pericles for extending the influence and empire of Athens. The settlements made under his auspices were of two kinds, Cleruchies,* and regular colonies. The former mode was exclusively Athenian. It consisted in the allotment of land in conquered or subject countries to certain bodies of Athenians, who continued to retain all their original rights of citizenship. This circumstance, as well as the convenience of entering upon land already in a state of cultivation, instead of having to reclaim it from the rude condition of nature, seems to have rendered such a mode of settlement much preferred by the Athenians. The earliest instance which we find of it is in the year B.C. 506, when four thousand Athenians entered upon the domains of the Chalcidian knights. But it was under Pericles that this system

* Κληρουχίαι.

was most extensively adopted. During his administration 1000 Athenian citizens were settled in the Thracian Chersonese, 500 in Naxos, and 250 in Andros. His expeditions for this purpose even extended into the Euxine. From Sinopé, on the shores of that sea, he expelled the despot Timesilaus and his party, whose estates were confiscated, and assigned for the maintenance of 600 Athenian citizens. The islands of Lemnos, Imbros, and Scyros, as well as a large tract in the north of Euboea, were also completely occupied by Athenian proprietors.

The most important colonies settled by Pericles were those of Thurii and Amphipolis. Since the destruction of Sybaris by the Crotoniates, in B.C. 509, the former inhabitants had lived dispersed in the adjoining territory along the gulf of Tarentum. They had in vain requested Sparta to recolonize them, and now applied to Pericles, who granted their request. In B.C. 443 he sent out a colony to found Thurii, near the site of the ancient Sybaris. But though established under the auspices of Athens, Thurii can hardly be considered an Athenian colony, since it contained settlers from almost all parts of Greece. Among those who joined this colony were the historian Herodotus and the orator Lysias. The colony of Amphipolis was founded some years later (B.c. 437), under the conduct of Agnon. But here also the proportion of Athenian settlers was small. Amphipolis was in fact only a new name for Ennea Hodoi, to colonize which place the Athenians, as before related, had already made some unsuccessful attempts. They now succeeded in maintaining their ground against the Edonians, and Amphipolis became an important Athenian dependency with reference to Thrace and Macedonia.

§ 5. Such were the schemes of Pericles for promoting the empire of Athens. That empire, since the conclusion of the Thirty Years' Truce, had again become exclusively maritime. Yet even among the subjects and allies united with Athens by the Confederacy of Delos, her sway was borne with growing discontent. One of the chief causes of this dissatisfaction was the amount of the tribute exacted by the Athenians, as well as their misapplication of the proceeds. During the administration of Pericles, the rate of contribution was raised upwards of thirty per cent., although the purpose for which the tribute was originally levied had almost entirely ceased. In the time of Aristides and Cimon, when an active war was carrying on against the Persians, the sum annually collected amounted to 460 talents. In the time of Pericles, although that war had been brought to a close by what has been called the peace of Cimon, and though the only armament still maintained for the ostensible purposes of the con