533 HISTORY OF GREECE. There is no evidence in the mind of Thucydides of any such undue contempt towards his own age. Though the same terms of contrast are tacitly present to his mind, he seems to treat the great capacity of Themistokles as the more a matter of wonder, since it sprung up without that preliminary cultivation which had gone to the making of Perikles. The general character given of Plutarch, 1 though many of his anecdotes are both trifling and apocryphal, is quite consistent with the brief sketch just cited from Thucydides. Themistokles had an unbounded passion, not merely for glory, insomuch that the laurels of Miltiades acquired at Marathon deprived him of rest, but also for display of every kind. He was eager to vie with men richer than himself in showy exhibition, one great source, though not the only source, of popularity at Athens. nor was he at all scrupulous in procuring the means of doing so. Besides being assiduous in attendance at the ekklesia and the dikastery, he knew most of the citizens by name, and was always ready with advice to them in their private affairs. Moreover, he possessed all the tactics of an expert party-man in conciliat- ing political friends and in defeating political enemies ; and though he was in the early part of his life sincerely bent upon the upholding and aggrandizement of his country, and was on some most critical occasions of unspeakable value to it, yet on the whole his morality was as reckless as his intelligence was eminent. He will be found grossly corrupt in the exercise of power, and employing tortuous means, sometimes indeed for ends in themselves honorable and patriotic, but sometimes also merely for enriching himself. He ended a glorious life by years of deep disgrace, with the forfeiture of all Hellenic esteem and brotherhood, a rich man, an exile, a traitor, and a pensioner of the Great King, pledged to undo his own previous work of liber- ation accomplished at the victory of Salamis. Of Aristeides we possess unfortunately no description fronu the hand of Thucydides ; yet his character is so simple and con Bistent, that we may safely accept the brief but unqualified en- comium of Herodotus and Plato, expanded as it is in the biog 1 Plutarch, Themistokles, c. 3, 4, 5 ; Cornelias Nepos, Themis;, c. 1.
