of himself being tarred by the Alcmaeonids’
sinister reputation. 50 In the lawsuit brought against Cimon, it is therefore hard to determine the respective
parts played by private quarrels and political motivations.
However, the fact is that, after this unsuccessful political debut, Pericles seems
rapidly to have acquired influence by helping to establish “the reforms of Ephialtes”
in the very next year, which marked a decisive step forward in the process of the
city’s democratization. Nevertheless, despite the declarations to be found in the
fourth-century sources, the young man’s collaboration in this important institutional
change is far from certain.
The Reforms of Ephialtes: Overshadowed by Pericles
In 462, Cimon set off, with a large force of hoplites, to help the Spartans, who were
engaged in a struggle against the revolt of their Helots. Making the most of his absence,
the Athenians adopted sweeping political reforms at the instigation of the democratic
leader, Ephialtes. Most of the powers of the Areopagus, the old aristocratic council
of Athens, were redistributed among popular institutions—the Assembly, the Council,
and the law courts—thereby sparking off the effective democratization of the city.
On his return, Cimon was unable to reverse the situation and eventually was even ostracized.
Although the ancient authors do all mention the role played in this episode by Ephialtes,
they tend to treat him as a mere puppet who implemented the intentions of others.
According to the Constitution of the Athenians , Ephialtes was secretly manipulated by Themistocles; but that is chronologically
impossible, for Themistocles had been ostracized almost ten years previously! And
when Plutarch mentions the reform ( Pericles , 9.4), he portrays Ephialtes as a handy screen for the illustrious Pericles, who
could already be glimpsed in Xanthippus’s young son. Relegated to the shadows cast
by two great men—Themistocles upstream and Pericles downstream—Ephialtes was soon
eclipsed in the political memory of Athens. 51
That effacement can certainly be explained by the reformer’s premature disappearance.
Soon after carrying off this great political victory, Ephialtes was killed “by night,
in circumstances that remain obscure.” 52 According to atradition that goes back to Idomeneus of Lampsacus, a close disciple of Epicurus,
Pericles was not uninvolved in this sordid affair. It is suggested that he “cunningly
assassinated [or arranged for the assassination of] Ephialtes, the demagogue, who
had been his friend and companion in political action, simply because he was jealous
and envied Ephialtes’ popularity [ doxa ].” 53 But, as Plutarch suggests, in all probability, those were mere baseless rantings.
This serious allegation, reported one hundred and fifty years after the event, is
certainly intended to blacken the reputation of Pericles, the “demagogue.” But, quite
apart from its doubtful veracity, Idomeneus’s accusation reflects a more general tendency
of the ancient sources: they are prone to credit famous men with all important actions,
whether positive or negative, that occurred in their own lifetimes.
In effect, the Epicurean polemicist simply adopts the line of thinking used by the
ancient authors in their analyses of Ephialtes’ reforms themselves: given that some
of them ascribe to Pericles a secret influence in this episode, why not postulate
his complicity in Ephialtes’ assassination?
From this point of view, Idomeneus’s line of argument is no more well-founded—or ill-founded—than
the suggestions of the Pseudo-Aristotle or those of Plutarch. All these theories about
plots are, by their very nature, impossible to prove. In truth, this entire historiographical
construction centered on Pericles should be considered as doubtful: not only is the
implication that Pericles had a hand in murdering Ephialtes
sinister reputation. 50 In the lawsuit brought against Cimon, it is therefore hard to determine the respective
parts played by private quarrels and political motivations.
However, the fact is that, after this unsuccessful political debut, Pericles seems
rapidly to have acquired influence by helping to establish “the reforms of Ephialtes”
in the very next year, which marked a decisive step forward in the process of the
city’s democratization. Nevertheless, despite the declarations to be found in the
fourth-century sources, the young man’s collaboration in this important institutional
change is far from certain.
The Reforms of Ephialtes: Overshadowed by Pericles
In 462, Cimon set off, with a large force of hoplites, to help the Spartans, who were
engaged in a struggle against the revolt of their Helots. Making the most of his absence,
the Athenians adopted sweeping political reforms at the instigation of the democratic
leader, Ephialtes. Most of the powers of the Areopagus, the old aristocratic council
of Athens, were redistributed among popular institutions—the Assembly, the Council,
and the law courts—thereby sparking off the effective democratization of the city.
On his return, Cimon was unable to reverse the situation and eventually was even ostracized.
Although the ancient authors do all mention the role played in this episode by Ephialtes,
they tend to treat him as a mere puppet who implemented the intentions of others.
According to the Constitution of the Athenians , Ephialtes was secretly manipulated by Themistocles; but that is chronologically
impossible, for Themistocles had been ostracized almost ten years previously! And
when Plutarch mentions the reform ( Pericles , 9.4), he portrays Ephialtes as a handy screen for the illustrious Pericles, who
could already be glimpsed in Xanthippus’s young son. Relegated to the shadows cast
by two great men—Themistocles upstream and Pericles downstream—Ephialtes was soon
eclipsed in the political memory of Athens. 51
That effacement can certainly be explained by the reformer’s premature disappearance.
Soon after carrying off this great political victory, Ephialtes was killed “by night,
in circumstances that remain obscure.” 52 According to atradition that goes back to Idomeneus of Lampsacus, a close disciple of Epicurus,
Pericles was not uninvolved in this sordid affair. It is suggested that he “cunningly
assassinated [or arranged for the assassination of] Ephialtes, the demagogue, who
had been his friend and companion in political action, simply because he was jealous
and envied Ephialtes’ popularity [ doxa ].” 53 But, as Plutarch suggests, in all probability, those were mere baseless rantings.
This serious allegation, reported one hundred and fifty years after the event, is
certainly intended to blacken the reputation of Pericles, the “demagogue.” But, quite
apart from its doubtful veracity, Idomeneus’s accusation reflects a more general tendency
of the ancient sources: they are prone to credit famous men with all important actions,
whether positive or negative, that occurred in their own lifetimes.
In effect, the Epicurean polemicist simply adopts the line of thinking used by the
ancient authors in their analyses of Ephialtes’ reforms themselves: given that some
of them ascribe to Pericles a secret influence in this episode, why not postulate
his complicity in Ephialtes’ assassination?
From this point of view, Idomeneus’s line of argument is no more well-founded—or ill-founded—than
the suggestions of the Pseudo-Aristotle or those of Plutarch. All these theories about
plots are, by their very nature, impossible to prove. In truth, this entire historiographical
construction centered on Pericles should be considered as doubtful: not only is the
implication that Pericles had a hand in murdering Ephialtes
Similar Books
