Show description

I’ll conclude with some remarks on the policy that is the logical consequence of such a portrait. Defining the people In Plutarch’s Lives the “people” is described with objective or pejorative terms. Ο πολλο and τ πλ ος put emphasis on number. 15 Οχλος,16 the “mob” or the “rabble”, is clearly pejorative. 18 As a distinct social class, dêmos includes the “humbles” (ταπεινο ),19 that is the thetes ( ητικ ς χλος20), the wage earners ( μισ αρν ν χλος21), the sailors and the workers ( ναυτικ ς χλος κα β ναυσος22), the “unskilled” workers (τ ν ητικ ν χλον κα δι την23).

68 Per. 4. Cf Thuc. 1 and 3. On ργ as a characteristic of the people in Thucydides see Huart (1968) 159–161. 69 Per. 1. 70 Per. 2. 71 Per. 5. 1). 72 But the wording and, as we shall see, the metaphor that assimilates the statesman to the charioteer of the Phaedrus73 are distinctly Platonic. Similarly, in Fabius, which is significantly paired with Pericles, Plutarch puts emphasis on the masses’ lack of reason, and acknowledges, together with Polybius,74 the steadfastness of a leader who, like Pericles, never departs from a rational behavior.

19 Romul. 5. 2; Per. 6. 21 Cato Min. 4. 5 and Per. 5 β ναυσος. 23 Per. 6; Thes. 2. 24 Per. 4, Alc. 7. 15 10 suzanne saïd ροι25), of property (τ ν πορον κα ν μητον χλον26), and of consideration ( δ λλος χλος πορος κα τιμος27). They have no house, hearth, or place to stay ( ο κων κα νεστ ων,28 οικοι κα ν δρυτοι29). This comes as no surprise: already in Xenophon30 and in Aristotle,31 the δ μος was identified with the poor. As a consequence, the masses are more often than not characterized in a very negative way.