Page:History of Greece Vol V.djvu/325

 GRECIAN CONFEDERACY UNDER ATHENS. 301 There were two other causes, besides that which has just been adverted to, for the unpopularity of imperial Athens. First, the existence of the confederacy, imposing permanent obligations, was in conflict with the general instinct of the Greek mind, tend- ing towards separate political autonomy of each city, as well as with the particular turn of the Ionic mind, incapable of that steady personal effort which was requisite for maintaining the syn- od of Delos, on its first large and equal basis. Next, — and this is the great cause of all, — Athens, having defeated the Persians, and thrust them to a distance, began to employ the force and the tribute of her subject-allies in warfare against Greeks, wherein these allies had nothing to gain from success, — everything to apprehend from defeat, — and a banner to fight for, oflfensive to Hellenic sympathies. On this head, the subject-allies had great reason to complain, throughout the prolonged wars of Greek against Greek, for the purpose of sustaining Athenian predomi- nance : but on the point of practical grievances or oppressions, they had little ground for discontent, and little feeling of actual discontent, as I shall show more fully hereafter. Among the general body of citizens in the subject-allied cities, the feeling towards Athens was rather indifference than hatred : the move- ment of revolt against her proceeded from small parties of lead- ing men, acting apart from the citizens, and generally with collateral views of ambition for themselves : and the positive hatred towards her was felt chiefly by those who were not her subjects. It is probable that the same indisposition to personal effort, which prompted the confederates of Delos to tender money-pay- ment as a substitute for military service, also induced them to Kai yap avTTjv rr/vde (ttjv upxrjv) E?.uj3op,Ev ov j3Laau^evoL. . . .t^ avroii 6e Toil kpyov KaTT]vajKua^ri/xev to npiJTov npoayayelv avTrjv cf rodcy fiu2,iaTa fiEv v-b difivc, tTzetTa de Kal rifxrjc, varrpov /cat iixpeleiac. Kal oi'K. ua<pa?iis ETC idoKEi elvai tolq ttoaXoIc uTZTjx'&rjfievovg, Kal tlvuv koI 7j6t] utzootuvtuv Ke;j;ff/iaj/ievaiv, vfiiJv re tjij.Iv ovketi Ofioiuc (pl?MV dZA' vttotvtuv Kai Siacpopuv OVTCJV, uvevTag KivSvveveiv Kal yap uv al imoaraaei^ Trpof v/^uf kyiyvovTO iraai de uv£7zc<^^ovov rd ^vfKpipovTa rCiv fiEyicTuv -irepl Kivdvvuv ev ri^EO^at. The whole speech well merits attentive study : compare also the speech of Perikles at Athens, in the second year of the Peloponnesian war (Thucyd. ii, 63).