342 fflSTORY OF GREECE. properly, since not only was it concluded after the death of Kimon, but the Athenian victories by which it was immediately brought on were gained after his death. Nay, more, — the probability is, that if Kimon had lived, it would not have been concluded at all ; for his interest as well as his glory led him to prosecute the war against Persia, since he was no match for his rival Perikles, either as a statesman or as an orator, and could only maintain his popularity by the same means whereby he had earned it, — victories and plunder at the cost of the Per- sians. His death insured more complete ascendency to Perikles, whose policy and character were of a cast altogether opposite :^ while even Thucydides, son of Melesias, who succeeded Kimon, his relation, as leader of the anti-Periklean party, was also a man of the senate and public assembly rather than of campaigns and conquests. Averse to distant enterprises and precarious acquisitions, Perikles was only anxious to maintain unimpaired the Hellenic ascendency of Athens, now at its very maximum : he was well aware that the undivided force and vigilance of Athens would not be too much for this object, — nor did they in fact pi-ove sufficient, as we shall presently see. "With such disposi- tions he was naturally glad to conclude a peace, which excluded the Persians from all the coasts of Asia Minor, westward of the Chehdoneans, as well as from all the waters of the ^gean, under the simple condition of renouncing on the part of Athens farther aggressions against Cyprus, Phenicia, Kilikia, and Egypt. The Great King on his side had had sufficient experience of Athenian energy to fear the consequences of such aggressions, if pros- ecuted ; nor did he lose much by relinquishing formally a tribute which at the time he could have little hope of realizing, and which of course he intended to resume on the first favorable opportunity. Weighing all these circumstances, we shall find that the peace, improperly called Emonian, results naturally from the position and feelings of the contracting parties. to evade it and encroach upon its prescriptions, — we are not entitled to deny that it has ever been made (Dahlmann, p. 116). It seems to me that the objections which have been taken by Dahlmann and others against the historical reality of this treaty, tell for the most part only against the exaggerated importance assigned to it by subsequent orator» ' Plutarch, Perikles, c. 21-28.
