按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
massacred the rich； and divided their property。 If the superior union or
military skill of the rich rendered them victorious； they took measures
equally violent； disarmed all in whom they could not confide； often
slaughtered great numbers； and occasionally expelled the whole
commonalty from the city； and remained； with their slaves； the sole
inhabitants。
From such calamities Athens and Lacedaemon alone were almost
completely free。 At Athens the purses of the rich were laid under regular
contribution for the support of the poor； and this； rightly considered； was
as much a favour to the givers as to the receivers； since no other measure
could possibly have saved their houses from pillage and their persons from
violence。 It is singular that Mr Mitford should perpetually reprobate a
policy which was the best that could be pursued in such a state of things；
and which alone saved Athens from the frightful outrages which were
perpetrated at Corcyra。
Lacedaemon； cursed with a system of slavery more odious than has
ever existed in any other country； avoided this evil by almost totally
annihilating private property。 Lycurgus began by an agrarian law。 He
abolished all professions except that of arms； he made the whole of his
community a standing army； every member of which had a common right
149
… Page 150…
THE MISCELLANEOUS WRITINGS AND SPEECHES OF LORD MACAULAY
to the services of a crowd of miserable bondmen； he secured the state from
sedition at the expense of the Helots。 Of all the parts of his system this is
the most creditable to his head； and the most disgraceful to his heart。
These considerations； and many others of equal importance； Mr
Mitford has neglected； but he has yet a heavier charge to answer。 He has
made not only illogical inferences； but false statements。 While he never
states； without qualifications and objections； the charges which the earliest
and best historians have brought against his favourite tyrants； Pisistratus；
Hippias； and Gelon； he transcribes； without any hesitation； the grossest
abuse of the least authoritative writers against every democracy and every
demagogue。 Such an accusation should not be made without being
supported； and I will therefore select one out of many passages which will
fully substantiate the charge； and convict Mr Mitford of wilful
misrepresentation； or of negligence scarcely less culpable。 Mr Mitford is
speaking of one of the greatest men that ever lived； Demosthenes； and
comparing him with his rival； Aeschines。 Let him speak for himself。
〃In earliest youth Demosthenes earned an opprobrious nickname by
the effeminacy of his dress and manner。〃 Does Mr Mitford know that
Demosthenes denied this charge； and explained the nickname in a
perfectly different manner？ （See the speech of Aeschines against
Timarchus。） And； if he knew it； should he not have stated it？ He
proceeds thus： 〃On emerging from minority； by the Athenian law； at
five…and…twenty； he earned another opprobrious nickname by a
prosecution of his guardians； which was considered as a dishonourable
attempt to extort money from them。〃 In the first place Demosthenes was
not five…and…twenty years of age。 Mr Mitford might have learned； from
so common a book as the Archaeologia of Archbishop Potter； that at
twenty Athenian citizens were freed from the control of their guardians；
and began to manage their own property。 The very speech of
Demosthenes against his guardians proves most satisfactorily that he was
under twenty。 In his speech against Midias； he says that when he
undertook that prosecution he was quite a boy。 （Meirakullion on komide。）
His youth might； therefore； excuse the step； even if it had been considered；
as Mr Mitford says； a dishonourable attempt to extort money。 But who
150
… Page 151…
THE MISCELLANEOUS WRITINGS AND SPEECHES OF LORD MACAULAY
considered it as such？ Not the judges who condemned the guardians。
The Athenian courts of justice were not the purest in the world； but their
decisions were at least as likely to be just as the abuse of a deadly enemy。
Mr Mitford refers for confirmation of his statement to Aeschines and
Plutarch。 Aeschines by no means bears him out； and Plutarch directly
contradicts him。 〃Not long after；〃 says Mr Mitford； 〃he took blows
publicly in the theater〃 （I preserve the orthography； if it can be so called；
of this historian） 〃from a petulant youth of rank； named Meidias。〃 Here
are two disgraceful mistakes。 In the first place； it was long after； eight
years at the very least； probably much more。 In the next place the
petulant youth； of whom Mr Mitford speaks； was fifty years old。
（Whoever will read the speech of Demosthenes against Midias will find
the statements in the text confirmed； and will have； moreover； the pleasure
of becoming acquainted with one of the finest compositions in the world。）
Really Mr Mitford has less reason to censure the carelessness of his
predecessors than to reform his own。 After this monstrous inaccuracy；
with regard to facts； we may be able to judge what degree of credit ought
to be given to the vague abuse of such a writer。 〃The cowardice of
Demosthenes in the field afterwards became notorious。〃 Demosthenes
was a civil character； war was not his business。 In his time the division
between military and political offices was beginning to be strongly marked；
yet the recollection of the days when every citizen was a soldier was still
recent。 In such states of society a certain degree of disrepute always
attaches to sedentary men； but that any leader of the Athenian democracy
could have been； as Mr Mitford says of Demosthenes； a few lines before；
remarkable for 〃an