Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) - Volume 3.djvu/206

194 took the lead at home, is one which might safely have been questioned had it even rested on better authority than that of the gossip-mongers through whom Plutarch became acquainted with it.

It was not improbably about this time that Pericles took some steps towards the realisation of a noble idea which he had fonned, of uniting all the Grecian states in one general confederation. He got a decree passed for inviting all the Hellenic states in Europe and Asia to send deputies to a congress, to be held at Athens, to deliberate in the first place about rebuilding the temples burnt by the Persians, and providing the sacrifices vowed in the time of danger ; but also, and this was the most important part of the scheme, about the means of securing freedom and safety of navigation in every direction, and of establishing a general peace between the different Hellenic states. To bear these proposals to the different states, twenty men were selected of above fifty years of age, who were sent in detachments of five in different directions. But through the jealousy and counter machinations of Sparta, the project came to nothing.

In B. c. 448 the Phocians deprived the Delphians of the oversight of the temple and the guardianship of the treasures in it. In this they seem at least to have relied on the assistance of the Athenians, if the proceeding had not been suggested by them. A Lacedaemonian force proceeded to Phocis, and restored the temple to the Delphians, who granted to Sparta the right of precedence in consulting the oracle. But as soon as the Lacedaemonians had retired, Pericles appeared before the city with an Athenian army, replaced the Phocians in posses- sion of the temple, and had the honour which had been granted to the Lacedaemonians trans- ferred to the Athenians (Thucyd. i. 112). Next year (b. c. 447), when preparations were being made by Tolmides, to aid the democratical party in the towns of Boeotia in repelling the efforts and machinations of the oligarchical exiles, Pericles op- posed the measure as rash and unseasonable. His advice was disregarded at the time ; but when, a few days after, the news arrived of the disaster at Coroneia, he gained great credit for his wise caution and foresight. The ill success which had attended the Athenians on this occasion seems to have aroused the hopes of their enemies ; and when the five years' truce had expired (b. c. 445), a general and concerted attack was made on them. Euboea revolted ; and before Pericles, who had crossed over with an army to reduce it, could effect any- thing decisive, news arrived of a revolution in Me- gara and of the massacre of the greater part of the Athenian garrison, the rest of whom had fled to Nisaea ; and intelligence was also brought of the approach of a Lacedaemonian army under the com- mand of Pleistoanax, acting under the guidance of Cleandridas. Pericles, abandoning Euboea for the present, at once marched back to Athens. The Peloponnesians had already begun to ravage the country ; Pericles, with his usual prudence, declined the risk of a battle ; he found a bribe a simpler and safer way of getting rid of the enemy [Clbax- DRiDAS, Pleistoanax]. When this morcj im- portant enemy had been disposed of, Pericles re- turned to Euboea with an armament of 50 galleys and 5000 heavy-armed soldiers, by which all re- sistance was overpowered. The land-owners of Chalcis (or at least some of them, — see Tliirlwall, vol. iii. p, 57) were stripped of their estates. On the Histiaeans, who had given deeper provocation by murdering the whole crew of an Athenian galley which fell into their hands, a severer ven- geance was inflicted. They were expelled from their territory, on which was settled a colony of 2000 Athenians, in a new town, Oreus, which took the place of Histiaea. These events were fol- lowed by the thirty years' truce, the Athenians consenting to evacuate Troezen, Pegae, Nisaea, and Achaea. The influence of the moderate counsels of Pericles may probably be traced in their consenting to submit to such terms. The conjecture hazarded by Bishop Thirlvvall (vol. iii. p. 44), that the treaty was the work of the party opposed to Pericles, seems improbable. It may at least be assumed that the terms were not opposed by Pericles. The moment when his deeply-rooted and increasing influence had just been strengthened by the brilliant success which had crowned his exertions to rescue Athens from a most perilous position, would hardly have been chosen by his political opponents as one at which to set their policy in opposition to his.

After the death of Cimon the aristocratical party was headed by Thucydides, the son of Melesias. He formed it into a more regular organization, producing a more marked separation between it and the democratical party. Though a better po- litical tactician than Cimon, Thucydides was no match for Pericles, either as a politician or as an orator, which, indeed, he acknowledged, when once, being asked by Archidamus whether he or Pericles was the better wrestler, he replied that when he threw Pericles the latter always managed to per- suade the spectators that he had never been down. The contest between the two parties was brought to an issue in b. c. 444, Thucydides and his party opposed the lavish expenditure of the public treasure on the magnificent and expensive buildings with which Pericles was adorning the city, and on the festivals and other amusements which he instituted for the amusement of the citizens. In reply to the clamour which was raised against him in the as- sembly, Pericles offered to discharge the expense of the works, on condition that the edifices should be inscribed with his name, not with that of the people of Athens. The assembly with acclamation em- powered him to spend as much as he pleased. The contest was soon after decided by ostracism, and Pericles was left without a rival ; nor did anj' one throughout the remainder of his political course