outside the cloak,
but this man, not long ago, yes, only the other day, in an assembly of the people,
threw off his cloak and leaped about like a gymnast, half-naked. 20
Quite apart from its nostalgic tone, this passage shows how much oratorical gestures
and techniques had changed since the age of Pericles. But even if he praises the eloquence
of the past, the better to draw attention to the lack of dignity of Timarchus, his
opponent, Aeschines in no way calls for a return to the conventions of the past that—in
any case—would no longer have suited the fourth-century audience.
Pericles thus founded his oratorical successes upon a way of addressing the people
that was somewhat out of date. All the same, the reason he fascinated his listeners
so much was not just because he was the last representative of a form of eloquence
that was on the way out. Far from invariably respecting well-trodden paths, as an
orator he broke away from the customary codes of behavior, in that he never responded
with violence to attacks launched against him. Throughout his career, Pericles manifested
an unrivaled ability to suffer outrageous assaults without striking back. This set
him apart from his contemporaries and lent a particular solemnity to his words.
Periclean Imperturbability: An Ambiguous Solemnity
At the Assembly’s tribune, Pericles was several times confronted by the people’s anger,
but never betrayed the slightest annoyance. This imperturbability was highlighted
in 430 B.C., when the Athenians accused him of beingresponsible for the many disasters that had struck them. As Plutarch, following Thucydides,
points out: “Pericles was moved by no such things, but gently and silently underwent
the ignominy and the hatred [ tēn adoxian kai tēn epekhtheian ].” 21 Far from being dictated by the circumstances, this imperturbability was a deliberate
strategy on the part of the Athenian leader, who observed this line of conduct not
only in the Assembly but also when in the Agora, engaging in the exchanges of daily
life. Plutarch records a particularly striking episode: “Once, at a time when he had
been abused and insulted all day long by a certain lewd fellow of the baser sort,
he endured it all quietly, though it was in the market place, where he had urgent
business to transact, and towards evening went away homewards unruffled, the fellow
following along and heaping all manner of contumely upon him. When he was about to
go indoors, it being now dark, he ordered a servant to take a torch and escort the
fellow in safety back to his own home.” 22 Rather than react as any citizen normally would, Pericles remained unmoved and refused
to lose his temper despite repeated insults. This was, to put it mildly, an unusual
reaction. Faced with such a torrent of insults, the normal reaction would have been
to respond to the affront by giving as good as he got—a form of negative reciprocity—or
else to set the matter before the judges, for to insult serving magistrates was behavior
liable to heavy punishment. 23 Not only did the stratēgos refrain from replying but he chose to respond to the humiliation with a kindness—in
accordance with a positive form of reciprocity: he had the offender escorted back
to his home.
In Plutarch’s account, Pericles thus stands out by reason of his imperturbable behavior,
at the risk of compromising his honor as a citizen and his dignity as a magistrate. 24 It is tempting to link this phlegmatic attitude with his sculpted effigy, which represents
him as impassive, parading a serenity untouched by emotion, as if whoever commissioned
the sculpture (either himself or his relatives) wished to emphasize this particularly
detached way of behaving and appearing. 25
This representation of a Pericles of bronze, draped in all his dignity, was, however,
not devoid of a measure of ambiguity. His opponents suggested that this carefully
but this man, not long ago, yes, only the other day, in an assembly of the people,
threw off his cloak and leaped about like a gymnast, half-naked. 20
Quite apart from its nostalgic tone, this passage shows how much oratorical gestures
and techniques had changed since the age of Pericles. But even if he praises the eloquence
of the past, the better to draw attention to the lack of dignity of Timarchus, his
opponent, Aeschines in no way calls for a return to the conventions of the past that—in
any case—would no longer have suited the fourth-century audience.
Pericles thus founded his oratorical successes upon a way of addressing the people
that was somewhat out of date. All the same, the reason he fascinated his listeners
so much was not just because he was the last representative of a form of eloquence
that was on the way out. Far from invariably respecting well-trodden paths, as an
orator he broke away from the customary codes of behavior, in that he never responded
with violence to attacks launched against him. Throughout his career, Pericles manifested
an unrivaled ability to suffer outrageous assaults without striking back. This set
him apart from his contemporaries and lent a particular solemnity to his words.
Periclean Imperturbability: An Ambiguous Solemnity
At the Assembly’s tribune, Pericles was several times confronted by the people’s anger,
but never betrayed the slightest annoyance. This imperturbability was highlighted
in 430 B.C., when the Athenians accused him of beingresponsible for the many disasters that had struck them. As Plutarch, following Thucydides,
points out: “Pericles was moved by no such things, but gently and silently underwent
the ignominy and the hatred [ tēn adoxian kai tēn epekhtheian ].” 21 Far from being dictated by the circumstances, this imperturbability was a deliberate
strategy on the part of the Athenian leader, who observed this line of conduct not
only in the Assembly but also when in the Agora, engaging in the exchanges of daily
life. Plutarch records a particularly striking episode: “Once, at a time when he had
been abused and insulted all day long by a certain lewd fellow of the baser sort,
he endured it all quietly, though it was in the market place, where he had urgent
business to transact, and towards evening went away homewards unruffled, the fellow
following along and heaping all manner of contumely upon him. When he was about to
go indoors, it being now dark, he ordered a servant to take a torch and escort the
fellow in safety back to his own home.” 22 Rather than react as any citizen normally would, Pericles remained unmoved and refused
to lose his temper despite repeated insults. This was, to put it mildly, an unusual
reaction. Faced with such a torrent of insults, the normal reaction would have been
to respond to the affront by giving as good as he got—a form of negative reciprocity—or
else to set the matter before the judges, for to insult serving magistrates was behavior
liable to heavy punishment. 23 Not only did the stratēgos refrain from replying but he chose to respond to the humiliation with a kindness—in
accordance with a positive form of reciprocity: he had the offender escorted back
to his home.
In Plutarch’s account, Pericles thus stands out by reason of his imperturbable behavior,
at the risk of compromising his honor as a citizen and his dignity as a magistrate. 24 It is tempting to link this phlegmatic attitude with his sculpted effigy, which represents
him as impassive, parading a serenity untouched by emotion, as if whoever commissioned
the sculpture (either himself or his relatives) wished to emphasize this particularly
detached way of behaving and appearing. 25
This representation of a Pericles of bronze, draped in all his dignity, was, however,
not devoid of a measure of ambiguity. His opponents suggested that this carefully
Similar Books
