by Rex Warner
12
The Last Opposition
Within a year, as I have said, Pericles was re-elected to the board of generals and continued to be elected year after year for the rest of his life. At first he had to face some opposition. This came principally from the remains of the old party of Kimon, who were now led by a younger relation of his, Thucydides the son of Melesias. This opposition, though it enjoyed some successes, failed to have any real effect on the policies of Pericles, which continued to be carried out logically and consistently to the end and received a more and more overwhelming popular support. It is significant that another and much younger relative of Kimon’s, also called Thucydides, became one of the most fervent admirers of Pericles whom I have ever met. He is a young man of quite remarkable intelligence and will very probably, I think, make a name for himself. Recently he has been kind enough to send me from Athens some notes which he set down of some of the last speeches which Pericles ever made. He has caught the style well, and, more important still, has seen, underlying the style, the fervent passion of the man, a passion to which young Thucydides evidently responds.
I think that his elderly relative, Thucydides the son of Melesias, was an honest and generous man, and his antagonism to Pericles was, like that of Kimon, political rather than personal. He fought, as it were in the last ditch, for that old and discredited policy of friendship with Sparta and, in home politics, a return to the old, simple aristocratic ways which existed before Athens came to depend for her life and her enterprise on the sea. He was, in a way, more reactionary than Kimon, looking back to a past that seemed to him stationary only because he had never known it. Kimon had lived with the fleet, and though he resented what seemed to him the extravagant political demands of those who served with him, he still respected them as men and as comrades. Moreover, he had become, perhaps somewhat thoughtlessly, committed to the course of empire. Ideally, he would have liberated all Greeks except those in subjection to Sparta.
Thucydides was more logical, if less human. He considered that the old prestige and authority of the ancient families and of the landed aristocracy in general were gradually being submerged by people of new and different ideas and ways of life, people whose interests were on the sea, in trade, ill empire and in politics rather than in their farms — “a rabble of sailors and dockworkers,” he used to call them in private conversation. He saw Piraeus as the enemy of Athens and regarded the great new buildings and admirably designed thoroughfares and markets and depots and dockyards, which were now, under the direction of Pericles, making Piraeus the greatest and best organized seaport of the world, as a menace and a challenge to the city itself. It was, in his view, because of the support of this “rabble of sailors” that Ephialtes and Pericles had been able to strip the Areopagus Council of its old powers and bring in a system by which nearly everyone in the state was eligible not only for office and responsibility but for payment or subsidy. The true tradition of Athens, he claimed, was that of Miltiades, Xanthippus, Aristides and Kimon, not that of Themistocles and Pericles.
It must be owned that he accepted many of the logical consequences, however unpopular, of these views. He saw as well as Pericles himself that the structure of the democracy as it now was depended for its expansion, and even for its maintenance, on the resources of the empire, and that to preserve the empire it was necessary for Athens to have naval superiority in all seas. Therefore, since his chief aim was to prevent the expansion of the democracy, he was prepared to abandon the empire. Friendship with Sparta seemed to him worth this price, and of course he was able to make use of some arguments which appeared to have moral force. He was, for instance, never tired of accusing Pericles of dishonesty in diverting the money paid by the allies toward a fund for defense into schemes for the beautification of Athens. But these arguments were seldom effective, partly because the great public works gave employment and interest to so many, partly because Pericles did in fact represent the enterprise and ambition of the time. Both Pericles and Thucydides were skilled debaters, but Pericles had one asset which his opponent lacked. As I have often said, he always, and in a most remarkable way, appealed to reason, but in doing so his manner was as impressive as his argument, with such calm and conviction did he speak. It seemed impossible to believe that he could be wrong. Hence, I suppose, his nickname of “the Olympian.” It was not that he regarded himself as superior to other men; it was rather that he could not help appearing to be so. Thucydides used to say, “He is like a wrestler whom it is impossible to beat. When I give him a fall in argument, he gets to his feet, claims that he was never thrown, and actually convinces the spectators that he is speaking the truth.”
Probably the most effective political tactic that Thucydides devised was to group the members of his party into a body which always sat together at meetings of the Assemhly, applauded together and in general gave a greater impression of unanimity and enthusiasm than was, perhaps, justified. Among the rest of the Assembly there were some, particularly among the small farmers, who, seeing so many of the rich and the distinguished — people whom they had been brought up to respect — all gathered in one group and all apparently united, came to the conclusion that there must be some sense in what they were saying. And Thucydides was a clever enough politician not to say what he really meant. He knew that it would be impossible to find a majority in the Assembly willing to alter the constitution in any evidently reactionary way, or to make any further concessions to Sparta that could possibly be avoided. Indeed, the only reason why, for a short time, people were dissatisfied with Pericles was that he had made any concessions at all. Yet, except in times of quite extraordinary and unprecedented success, people are always apt to contrast the present unfavorably with the past. They soon forget what was bad in the past and it takes time to realize what is good in the present. The Athenians, in particular, scarcely seem to live in the present at all. They live either in the past or in the future. This is a fact which Pericles knew well, and he more than any statesman combined the deepest reverence for the past with an enlightened and dynamic leadership into the future.
Thucydides was, of necessity, somewhat confined to the past, but in Athens it is always possible for anyone with sufficient skill to impress an audience with reflections about “the good old days,” in which it is assumed, particularly by the older men, that people were happier and more virtuous than they are now. One method of discrediting Pericles was to suggest that he was, from a moral or religious point of view, unorthodox and must therefore be unreliable politically. But it was difficult to make such attacks at all convincing if they were made against Pericles himself. Everyone knew well that he was, unlike many of his opponents, abstemious, courteous, honest and patriotic. His great and devoted attachment to Aspasia had surprised most people and shocked some, but no one took seriously, though many found amusement in, stories to the effect that he was a seducer of noble women and that Pheidias, under cover of showing these ladies round the new works of sculpture and architecture, was in fact employed by Pericles as a procurer. It was even said that specimens of that very rare and beautiful bird the peacock, which had recently been brought to Athens for the first time, had been specially imported by Pericles to serve as gifts or bribes for his mistresses.
In cases (and there were not many of them) where the principal opponent was unassailable, it was normal to seek to discredit him by making attacks on his friends. A good man will, as a rule, have good friends; but one can always attack the good so long as it is either unknown or capable of misrepresentation. Many of the friends of Pericles were known to and admired by all — Sophocles, for example. But there were others, including myself, who were known chiefly by reputation and, partly for that reason, were objects of suspicion. It could be said truly that we were unorthodox in some of our views and it could be assumed unjustly that these views were subversive of society. I myself was alarmed when a half-crazed monger of oracles called Diopeithes managed to excite the Assembly into passing a decree in co
ndemnation of those who do not believe in the gods and who teach things about the heavenly bodies. I realized that if I were to be summoned before the courts on a charge of impiety, I should find it hard to explain to a prejudiced jury the arguments which have led me to assert that the sun is made of molten rock and is much larger than it appears to be, and that my views about the gods would only be intelligible to men who have themselves thought deeply on the subject.
However, on this occasion I was spared, partly because Pericles very soon regained his position of ascendancy, partly because his enemies were in pursuit of others more politically important than myself. During the years immediately following the peace there were several attempts to get rid of citizens, by means of ostracism, who were known to be associated with the policies of Pericles; but if Thucydides and his advisers hoped to get rid of Pericles himself in this way they were shown to be mistaken, and it was not long before their own methods were employed against them. Scarcely a single vote was cast against Pericles himself. His friends, however, were not equally fortunate, and one of the oldest of these, Damon, was, by one of these votes, forced to go into exile. This was a bitter blow to Pericles and to many of us. It was also a misuse of the method of ostracism, which in my view is a valuable political expedient only when there are two sharply contrasting policies in the state, one of which, from necessity, has to be adopted; and in which cases it is obviously desirable that the man who should be required to go into exile should be one or the other of the leaders of the two parties. But Thucydides had no positive policy, or rather, he did not venture to disclose it; and Damon, though an intimate friend of Pericles, had taken very little part in active politics. Thus the vote against Damon served no useful political purpose. Most of those who inscribed his name on the fragments of pottery which were used for the voting were actuated by no worthier feelings than mischief and malice. Later many of them became ashamed of these feelings and, to salve their consciences, turned against Thucydides the resentment that they really felt against themselves.
The final defeat of Thucydides followed upon and was partly associated with the important new foundation of Sybaris in southern Italy. This was a project which Pericles himself had supported and for the organization of which he was largely responsible. It deserves, I think, more than a passing mention, since to him it represented not only an extension of Athenian influence into the west, but also an example of how Athens could cooperate with other states in a venture that was Hellenic rather than national. He intended, of course, that here, as in other respects, the attitude of Athens should be contrasted with that of Sparta, for when, a few years before, a deputation had come from Italy to ask both Sparta and Athens for help in making the new foundation, Sparta had declined to have anything to do with it. The deputation was from the descendants of the ancient city of Sybaris, which in its time had become proverbial for its wealth and luxury. Now nearly sixty years had passed since this great city had been destroyed by the forces of the Pythagorean brotherhood who were in control of the neighboring city of Kroton. Here, if I may digress, I should like to state my view that these Pythagoreans, who formed themselves into a political organization with the avowed intention of forcing other men to adopt their strange notions of purity and righteousness, were acting in a manner most unsuitable to philosophers. And I fear that some responsibility must attach to Pythagoras himself, who, while he lived in Samos, appears to have been a sensible man, but after settling in Italy is credited with believing that he was divine. Something of the same sort often happens to Ionians and other Greeks who go west. Empedocles of Sicily, for instance, fancies that he is a god, and Parmenides gives the impression that he holds the same belief about himself. Not that I would belittle the real merits and important discoveries of Pythagoras in mathematics and in the theory of music. But the very success of these discoveries seems to have induced him into extravagance. He believed the whole universe to be mathematical and musical; he neglected observation and made numbers into gods.
Now we Ionians, from the time of Thales onwards, have attempted to explain the universe by means of some general principle; we have, of course, observed that appearance is not the same as reality; but we have never taken the absurd step of denying that appearance exists. As I have expressed myself, “What appears is a vision of the unseen.” But Pythagoras seems to believe that only the unseen exists. Such a way of thought must end in inhumanity. He states that “the body is a tomb,” implying that only the soul has a real and valid existence. This phrase appears to me meaningless, and of course it must lead to all kinds of philosophical contradictions. But here I am rather concerned with the dangerous political and moral implications of this thinking. For if one denies the body, one must turn one’s back not only on the evidence of our senses but on all human life as it is normally lived. And indeed the followers of Pythagoras will declare that nothing is of importance except the purification of the soul. This is a very different doctrine from our normal assumption that a man should aim at excellence, for in our idea of excellence we include beauty, intelligence, strength, justice and many other qualities, social, physical and intellectual. But the Pythagorean, concerned uniquely with the purification of his own soul, will not, if he is consistent, enter the field of action in which virtues grow and are exemplified. He regards such action as a kind of pollution of his own true nature, which is mathematical or musical or both and, in his own view, divine. One would imagine, therefore, that a Pythagorean would take no part in human affairs, or the smallest part possible, since all action that is not musical or mathematical is impure. And this, it seems, was originally the doctrine. A way of life was devised to cut off the believer from ordinary human society. There were strict rules of austerity and a number of peculiar prohibitions concerning meat, beans, bed linen and white cocks.
Yet human nature, when repressed, is apt to assert itself. It is natural for a human being to enter into political and social relationships with others; indeed, it is not only natural but good, and in a democracy such as that in which I have lived at Athens, personal relations are as free and easy as possible. I know that even in Athens inconsistencies are to be found. Damon suffered at this time, I suffered later, and no doubt others will also suffer from a sudden storm of stupidity and intolerance. But in general the Athenians pride themselves chiefly on their freedom and take more precautions to safeguard it than any other people. They do this both instinctively and with reason. They would listen to Pericles as to a friend and an oracle as he explained to them that happiness was impossible without freedom, since only in freedom could a man so develop and strengthen all his manifold capacities as to be a delight and a benefit to himself and others. This it is, finally, that distinguishes the Athenians from the Spartans and indeed from all people. And it is impossible for a person lacking in modesty to understand or to implement this notion of freedom. Pericles, in spite of his superior gifts, would only impose his will on the Athenians by means of persuasion, because he believed each one of them to be important both individually and for the general good. And I have been led to write so much of these Pythagoreans in Italy not because they deserve much attention in themselves, but because they seem apt to illustrate a way of thought wholly different from and greatly inferior to that of Pericles.
To begin with, they were inconsistent, and Pericles was never inconsistent. Instead of retiring from the world and, some seclusion, cultivating their “souls,” which they desired to see separated from their bodies, they took it upon themselves to reform the world without any consideration for any views and desires other than their own. In the Italian cities they formed themselves into narrow aristocracies of piety which dominated the great mass of the citizens in the various states that came under their control. They justified conduct that would normally be called injustice by the theory that it is important to do good to people even against their wills. Pericles, of course, did not believe such a thing to be possible. One cannot be good without freedom. Thus he could use words in the normal se
nse. On the occasions when he employed coercion, he never pretended that coercion was good, only that it was necessary. He was choosing, he considered, a lesser evil, but was aware that it was an evil. The Pythagoreans did evil in the mistaken belief that it was good. So before long they were involved in all the crimes and exaggerations of tyranny, which as it became more hypocritical became more violent. One of their actions was, as I have said, the destruction of the great city of Sybaris, which, pleasure-loving and democratic, seemed to threaten not only their material interests but their way of life. This act of barbarism was one of the last of their achievements. Before long there were revolutions, as might have been expected, in all the states under their control. Many of them were killed, many driven into exile. The survivors did what they should have done in the first place, if they had been logical, and devoted all their attention to philosophy. Since then they have done useful work in mathematics. But I should not be surprised if, at some future date, they should attempt to regain political and autocratic power. This always happens with groups of men who are intolerant of diversity.
Pericles, who in Athens had most to do with welcoming the deputation of the Sybarites and with the foundation of the new city in Italy, showed a wholly different spirit and indeed greatly surprised his political opponents. He had been accused by them of pressing the interests of Athens too far forward at the expense of others, particularly of the allies. Quite recently he had spoken in favor of making alliances with the Sicilian cities of Leontini and Egesta, and Thucydides had claimed that this was another step in the direction of dangerously extending Athenian commitments in the west. But now, with regard to this new settlement, he showed his willingness to conciliate enemies and to exert the influence of Athens by generosity rather than compulsion. The two leaders of the colonists were Athenians, but colonists from all parts of Greece, including the Dorian states of the Peloponnese, were invited to join the expedition. Thucydides himself was to accompany it and to remain until the settlement was firmly established. The Athenians were to have no exclusive rights in the new venture, only the prestige of leadership and planning. There is, of course, no doubt that Pericles hoped that in the end the Athenian methods of government and administration would be accepted voluntarily by the rest and that the new settlement would become an ally of Athens; but what is significant is that he did not attempt to secure this result by any kind of compulsion, nor, when his hopes were disappointed, did he attempt to alter the progress of events. This I consider to be public evidence of what I and many others know privately that where the vital present interests of Athenian security were concerned Pericles was inflexible, but that when he thought of the future he thought in terms of a generous cooperation among Greeks. Certainly he believed that under such conditions the Athenians would become accepted as leaders, but he wished that this leadership should be, like his own in Athens, based rather on skill and persuasion than on the assertion of armed force.