be clearly understood, as well as the ideas of empire which were fermenting in his mind, if we would see how the Greeks had once the chance of anticipating the work of Rome, and how it came about that they lost it.
Even in Philip, as we saw in the last chapter, the desire for empire was combined with the conviction that such empire must be founded on a basis of Greek civilisation. Philip is, as has often been said, one of those men of whose inner history we would fain know more. His respect for Greek culture, combined with his strife for empire, make him one of the most singular figures in history. He dealt gently with Greece; he respected the Greek religion; he called on the Greeks to unite with him in freeing their Asiatic brethren from Persian domination. But in his son, whose character has come down to us as clearly as the features on his coins, we see the Greek influence most unmistakably. It is just this Greek side of Alexander's nature, or at least the result of a thoroughly Greek training on his mind, which gives Plutarch's biography its special value as distinct from other accounts of him; and it may be as well to dwell on this for a moment if we would appreciate the bearing of his brief and wonderful life on the history of the City-State.
Plutarch's portrait of Alexander is that of a man whose power of self-restraint (σωφροσύνη) makes him even more Greek than most Greeks of his day, in spite of an occasional outbreak of passion.[1] It is
- ↑ Plutarch, Alex. 21-23; cf. 40. "τοῦ νικᾶν τοὺς πολεμίους τὸ κρατεῖν ἑαυτοῦ βασιλικώτερον ἡγούμενος."
