highest courage. To this, however, the historian adds, that we are not to consider the eloquence of Pericles, extraordinary as it was, as conveying the whole secret of his astonishing influence over the Athenians for nearly half a century. "This alone," he says, "was not sufficient, but the orator was a man of probity and unblemished reputation. Money could not bribe him; he was so much above the desire of it, that though he added greatly to the opulence of the state, which he found not inconsiderable, and though his power exceeded that of many kings and tyrants, some of whom bequeathed to their posterity the sovereignty they had obtained, yet he added not one drachma to his paternal estate." Be it remembered that this is the testimony of one whose whole family was opposed to Pericles. Valerius Maximus regards his wonderful power over the Athenians as something more than human. He tells us that by the force of persuasion he put a yoke on the free necks of the Athenians, which they did not know how, or probably did not wish, to remove. The historian adds, that even when hespoke against their wishes and intentions, such was the force of his eloquence that they accepted his opposition with pleasure; that, in short, so complete was his mastery over all who heard him that they could not help being convinced by him against the evidence of their senses. This will enable us to understand in its true sense what is often quoted from the same historian against Pericles, namely, that there was no other difference between Pisistratus and him than that the former exercised tyranny by force of arms, while the latter did so without arms.‡ Still higher is the estimate of Cicero, than whom no one has discussed the whole subject more fully, or was better competent to do so. Throughout his admirable work on oratory, we find allu sions to Pericles as a model-as an orator scarcely second * Οπότε γᾶν αἴσθοιτό τι αὐτοὺς παρὰ χαιρὸν ὕβρει παροντας λέγων χατέπλεοοην ἐπὶ τὸ φαβεῖοθαι. και σεδιότας, αὖ αλόγως, αντιχθίζη πάπον ἐπὶ τὸ παροεῖν, ἐγίγνετό τε λόγω μεν, δημοκρατία, ἔργῳ δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ πρῶτε ανδρός αρχή.-Thucy. Lib. II. + Pericles felicissimus naturæ incrementis, sub Anaxagora præceptore summo studio perpolitus et instructus, liberis Athenarum cervicibus jugum servitutis imposuit egit enim ille urbem, et versavit arbitrio suo. Cumque adversus voluntatem populi loqueretur, jucunda nibilominus et popularis ejus vox erat. Itaque veteris comœdiæ maledica lingua, quamvis potentiam viri perstringere cupiebat, tamen in labris ejus hominis melle dulciorem leporem fatebatur habitare: inque animis eorum, qui illum audierant, quasi aculeos quosdam relinqui prædicabat.- Valerius Maximus, Lib. VIII., Cap. IX. Quid enim inter Pisistratum et Periclem interfuit, nisi quod ille armatus, hic sine armis tyrannidem gessit ?—1b. § De Oratore. even to Demosthenes. In one place he tells us that he charmed by his sweetness, he excited admiration by his copiousness, and that he inspired terror by his strength. He informs us elsewhere that it was Athens that produced the first orator; "and that orator," he says, "was Pericles. Before his time, and that of his contemporary Thucydides, nothing is to be found which resembles true eloquence. It is believed, however, that a long time previously, old Solon, Pisistratus, and Clisthenes possessed merit for their age. Subsequently, Themistocles seemed superior to the others by his talents and his language, as well as by his enlightened intelligence as a politician. Finally, Pericles, renowned by so many other qualities, was so particularly by that of the great orator." There were some orations extant in the time of Quintilian, which were generally attributed to Pericles, but that judicious critic found, on examination, that they were entirely disproportioned to his reputation. Thucydides, it is true, professes to give us in his history his famous funeral oration over those who fell in the first battles of the Peloponnesian war, but few believe at the present day that this is the genuine address of Pericles; it seems much more probable, from various circumstances, that it is the fabrication of the historian. This was the opinion both of Livy and Sallust, each of whom adopted what they regarded as the plan of Thucydides, namely, that of fabricating speeches for their great men-such as were in accordance with their character, and gave some idea of their style, and might, therefore, be received without any great violence to truth or justice as the genuine efforts of those to whom they were attributed. That the oration referred to was emphatically a great one, is beyond dispute. It is that in which the orator made use of the beautiful and striking comparison of the destruction of youth with the loss of spring to the year. Another famous oration by Pericles is that pronounced in memory of those Athenians who fell in the Samian war. A passage reproduced by Stesimbrotas, and copied by Plutarch, is as fol Hujus suavitate maxime hilarate sunt Athenæ hujus ubertatem et copiam admiratæ, ejusdem vim dicendi terroremque timuerunt.-Cicero in Bruto. +Quintilian quotes Cicero as an authority on the same subject, as follows:Cicero in Bruto negat ante Periclem scriptum quicquam quod ornatum oratorium habeat: ejus aliqua ferri. Equidem non reperio quicquam tanta eloquentiæ fama dignum ideoque minus miror esse qui nihil ab eo scriptum putent hæc autem quæ feruntur, ab aliis esse composita.-Quintil. Instit. Orator, Lab. III., Cap. 1. Lib. ii. 35. lows: "They are become immortal like the gods; for the gods themselves are not visible to us; but from the honors they receive, and the happiness they enjoy, we conclude they are immortal; and such should those brave men be who die for their country." 99* Nothing is more common at the present day than to allege that superior culture, even when combined with superior natural gifts, has a tendency to render its possessor vain, arrogant, and scornful; but a more modest man never lived than Pericles; never had the common people a truer friend, or one who sympathized more sincerely with them in their afflictions. Cimon, who was altogether a different man, though of respectable talents and attainments, was in favor of the aristocracy, and opposed to the influence of the people. Pericles was illustrious by his birth, illustrious by his learning, illustrious by his genius; he was, besides, one of the wealthiest men in Greece, having inherited a princely fortune from his father; but the humblest magistrate, who had himself belonged to the people, could not listen more attentively to the complaint or appeal of the poor man, or take more pains to do him justice. Great and good as he was, he was not spared by the satirists of his time. We shall see as we proceed that they did not content themselves with assailing his private character, even in those points which are held to be sacred in every civilized society; the female members of his family were attacked with equal virulence and malignity; in short, all, whether male or female, who had any friendly relations with him; but although he was all-powerful in Athens for more than forty years-more powerful than most sovereigns whose governments are despotic, he never deprived any one of his liberty on personal grounds. Even those who abused and threatened him in the streets had no officer of the law sent after them. He reasoned with them as a generous parent would with a froward child; and it is pleasant to add that in doing so he seldom failed to turn their hatred into good will. In illustration of this noble trait, we are told that "when a vile and abandoned fellow loaded him a whole day with reproaches and abuse, he bore it with patience and silence, and continued in public for the despatch of some urgent affairs. In the evening he walked slowly home, this impudent wretch following and insulting him all the way with the most scurri *Plutarch in Vita Per. lous language. And as it was dark when he came to his own door, he ordered one of his servants to take a torch and light the man home."* How differently would one "of the people," suddenly placed in a position for which he was not qualified, have acted! The sublime studies to which he had devoted his life taught him to make allowance for the frailties of human nature, especially in its rude and uncultivated state. He might have consigned the man who treated him as described to a dungeon, and ruined the prospects of his family as well as himself. Instead of this he made his assailant ashamed of his conduct, and what was more, he made him as much attached to him as a friend as he had previously been opposed to him as an enemy. This incident would show by itself that he was a man of superior mind; for how few do we find in the world's history that have given proof of similar greatness of soul. There have been some, however, who treated their assailants after the manner of Pericles. We are told that when Julius Cæsar was lampooned by Catullus, he invited him to supper, and treated him with such generous civility that he made the poet his friend. The only modern example worthy of note we remember at the present moment, is that of Cardinal Mazarine, who gave the kindest treatment to the learned Quillet, who had severely reflected on his eminence in a famous Latin poem. The cardinal sent for him, and after some kind expostulations upon what he had written, assured him of his esteem, and dismissed him with a promise of the next good abbey that should become vacant, which he accordingly conferred on him in a few months. It cannot be alleged that Pericles would not have been as ready to forgive a poet or satirist as he was to forgive the common, illiterate person who attacked him in the manner described; for we have abundant proof to the contrary. We need only mention the poets Cratinus, Teliclides, and Aristophanes, each of whom had satirized Pericles and been kindly treated in return. Thus Cratinus, in his play entitled Chirones, uses the following language: "Faction received old Time to her embraces : Hence came a tyrant-spawn on earth called Pericles, In a similar spirit Teliclides reproaches the Athenians for Plutarch in Vita Per. having given him too much power. It was fortunate for the poet's fame that he did so; for it is only by his attack on so illustrious a statesman and orator, that he has saved himself from oblivion. The following lines, quoted by all the biographers of Pericles, from the time of Plutarch to the present, have immortalized the author; although none believe now-indeed, few, if any, capable of judging, ever believedthat they did any justice either to the Athenians or their favorite chief: "The tributes of the states, the states themselves But Ion It was not alone as a public man that Pericles was modest instead of being arrogant or overbearing. It might be said that policy would induce him to treat even his enemies with forbearance in a republic of which he was himself the chief; but that he despised in private or at heart those whose minds were not cultivated like his own. Indeed, that charge was openly made against him by the poet Ion, who alleged that he was proud and supercilious in conversation.* being a person of but little culture himself and no learning, and at the same time very ambitious of popularity, was desirous at once of reconciling the people to their ignorance, and at the same time of showing that there may be such a thing as a surfeit of knowledge, and that where it exists it is productive of more evil than good. In short, Ion would reverse the precept of Pope, namely, that a little learning is a dangerous thing. Nor can we wonder at this. Are there not similar poets at the present day? Are there not others, too, than poets who think that even statesmen do not require more than a moderate amount of learning, especially in a republic? Are we not told that the man who suits the people is not one who has much learning, or even much talent, but one who understands them; one who knows their wants and is disposed to supply them. But let us see what the Plutarch in Vita. More than once we have heard Mr. Everett objected to on this ground as a candidate for the presidency, while we have heard others commended for their vulgarity and want of culture. What would Plato, Quintilian, Grotius, even Machiavelli, or any other writer on statesmanship, have said to this? As a reply, we quote a sentence or two from the Roman critic. After enumerating the various acquirements and qualifications necessary for a statesman, Quintilian asks: "Will not the orator (statesman) frequently have to treat of such subjects as these? Will he not have to speak of auguries, oracles, and of everything pertaining to religion, on which the most important deliberations in the senate often |