220 B. Pcrrin, 



of his memorable sayings, is there the shghtest suggestion of the 

 scheming demagogue. Phitarch evidently has two entirely different 

 conceptions of Pericles before him, between which he wavers, not 

 only here, but often in the Life. These two different conceptions 

 of Pericles are the Thucydidean and the Platonic, as is clearly seen 

 from the opening of the next chapter (ix). 



Enil ifs Oovxvdidr^g fxcr ciQiatoxQciTixrii' Tivcc zrjy rov HtQixXiovs vnoyQaifei 

 TioAiTEinv, 'Aoyw /xtf oicav dr^fj.oxQccTiai'^ ^QY'l* '^ ^^'^ ^ov tiqwtov ufdQcg «p;ff;V, 

 cc^Aoi (ft no'AJ.oi nQuizov vti ty.sLpov 'fnai rou drjfjoi' tnl xXriQov)(^L('.g xat dtwoixa 

 X((L u/af^My diayo/uag nQocc^&^fai xnxwg iS^iaO^evTH xcd ysfofjii'oi^ no/.iTe'Afj xctl 

 ax6'/.naTor vno tmv toil noXiTEv/udrwy avil awif.qoi'og xat «vtovQyov^ O^aoineiad^M 

 diet T(ot> 7T(jccyiX('cTMy avTMt' r] cdjia i-^g jj.tr a^io'Afig . 



The words of Thucydides which Plutarch has in mind are in the 

 famous eulogy of Pericles, ii, 65, from which they may be cited, 

 with enough besides to complete the Thucydidean estimate of the 

 man. AXtiou J" riv on ixtit'og fxtf (^ufaihg (w no tt cciaouccn xcd rr^ yyoiiur] 

 XQi^fKcKoi/ Tt ()\ci'favo)g ud'wQoiaTog ytvo^svog xcnti^t to nXfjifog t'/itvi^eQcog, xal 

 ovx rjytro fxaX/^ou vn' uvtov rj avtog fjyt, dice to furj xno^tvog t^ oi nQoar^xoi'Tcoy 

 Tr^i' Svuciuiu nqog ridofijf Ti 'Atytif, oA/l' t/My in d^uoati xai nQog oQyr^v tl 

 uvxtLTitlv. onoTS yoiiv uia^oiTo ti ainovg jiccqu xai^oy 'ii^Qti ^aQaovi^Tcg, Xsyw)/ 

 xaTi7iXr\a6ti' ini to (fo/Stfa&cu, xal dediorag av d'/,6ywg uyrixa&iaTrj nd'Uv tnl To 

 x^aQGtJp. iyiyutTo rt '/.oyio uiu dfi/joxQcria, t^yio di vno rov nQonov afdQtg 

 c(Qxfj- Ii^ this striking tribute Thucydides not only assigns to Pericles 

 all those high qualities which even his enemies could not deny him, 

 viz. dignity, probity, and powerful leadership, but also expressly 

 denies that charge which his enemies made against him, and by 

 which even so staunch a friend as Plutarch is often influenced, viz. 

 that he resorted to unworthy means for winning the favor of the 

 people. It is the testimony of the greatest historian of antiquity, 

 whose early manhood was lived during the political supremacy of 

 the man whom he eulogizes, and whose political sympathies were 

 naturally with the party which opposed that man. It w^as written 

 after the imperial democracy of Pericles had discredited itself in 

 the eyes of the Hellenic world and gone down in awful disaster, 

 a time when the bitterness of defeat and loss might well have found 

 some echo in the words of a less candid writer than Thucydides 

 in speaking of him who more than any other man was the creator 

 of the imperial democracy of Athens. It was written not many 

 years before that Platonic testimony was given to which Plutarch 

 immediately refers, and which is practically repeated and emphasized 

 by Aristotle. 



The words of Plato which Plutarch has in mind may be found 

 in the Gorgias (pp. 515 E, 519 A). ^1/A« rodt uoi tine inl rovw, ti 



I 



