THE OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE REVIEW. JANUARY, 1847. HISTORIC FALLACIES. NO. II. Προστάτης πόλεως οὐδ ̓ ἂν εἷς ποτε αδίκως ἀπόλοιτο ἐπ' αὐτῆς τῆς πόλεως ἧς προστατει. PLATO. THE task which we propose to ourselves during the current month, in furtherance of our Herculean design of sweeping from the historic field the various monsters which to the imminent risk of exploring adventurers at present occupy it, is one far more grateful to our feelings and consonant to our tastes, than that with which we felt it our duty to commence our knighterrantry. It is far more satisfactory to us to vindicate than to vilify, to be the champions of the injured, than the tardy Nemesis overtaking at last those who have long escaped detection. We come now to the rescue of a nation with which we confess to a secret sympathy-of a nation, which, whatever its faults, and great faults it had undoubtedly, yet possessed excellences, moral and intellectual, such as have rarely fallen to the lot of any people. What high-souled gallantry, what noble contempt of danger, what unwearied energy, what gigantic enterprise, what lofty aspirations, what a grasp of mind, characterized this wonderful race! Where was there ever so much varied genius, such fire, such quickness and invention, such a sense of the beautiful, such a keen appreciation of all sorts of excellence? What other nation can boast such an array of noble names?— names of men who have not merely been great in their generation, but have influenced all ages and swayed the destinies of the world. An Eschylus, a Sophocles, an Euripides, an Aristophanes, a Miltiades, a Cimon, a Themistocles, a Pericles, an VOL. IV. B Alcibiades, a Socrates, a Plato, a Thucydides, a Xenophon, a Demosthenes,-what nation's Valhalla could compare with this one's? Sympathizing, therefore, as we must confess we do, with greatness, in whatever form it shows itself, it gives us peculiar pleasure to vindicate from unjust obloquy the Athenian people. To clear them of one of those faults which is most commonly imputed to them as a foul stain upon their national character will be our present task,―would that we could as easily remove from them all other blemishes! The notion which we are about to combat, and which is so engrained into history, as to deserve, we think, the name which we have bestowed upon it, of a regularly established Historic Fallacy,' is this,— THAT THE ATHENIANS WERE UNGRATEFUL. Aristocratic inveighers against the evils of democracy are continually parading before our eyes this fact, as they are pleased to call it, and making use of it as a bugbear to frighten us from venturing on any change, political or social, which they choose to think of a democratical tendency. Democrats also, which seems strange at first sight, are fond of mentioning it, and urging it upon their auditories. Taking the fact as an established one, not knowing enough of history to think of combating it, they hope to make it of service to themselves by using it as a gentle engine of extortion. Be not you like to those men of Athens,' they mean to say; respect, reward, be faithful to your benefactors-never suspect, never desert them, or you will be the byword in history which the Athenians are.' Perhaps, after all, there is something of parallelism in the two cases, and our mob-orators have reason to fear the fate of Themistocles and Alcibiades. But yet there may be no ingratitude in either case. Men are not called upon to feel gratitude unless they have been benefited at a sacrifice, or at least disinterestedly. How the case may stand with regard to our modern democrats, it is not our present purpose to inquire. Whether the rebellion of Young Ireland, and the diminution of the rent, be or be not an act of ingratitude to Daniel O'Connell, M.P.; whether the overthrow of the Whig ministry, in 1841, after they had given the nation parliamentary and corporation reform, did or did not deserve to be so characterized; whether, finally, the probable deficiency in the Bright testimonial will or will not render the English nation of the present day obnoxious to the same charge, we shall leave it to others to determine. Our business is with the Athenians, who seem to us unjustly calumniated, and whose fair fame we desire to vindicate. The ground of the charge against them lies in the remarkable fact that the great statesmen of the democratic era, almost with out an exception, suffered what are thought to be pains and penalties at the hands of the people. Themistocles and Alcibiades died in banishment, Aristides was ostracised, Cimon passed four or five years in exile, Miltiades was fined the enormous sum of fifty talents,-even Pericles incurred the popular displeasure, was accused, brought to trial, condemned, and fined considerably. This, it is thought, by itself, completely establishes the charge. These were the great men of Athens, the men whom she should have delighted to honour.' Instead of doing so, she persecuted and punished them. What more is needed to convict her of ingratitude? An examination into the merits of each case is needed. What if each deserved his fate? It may seem strange that so many, that such a succession of public men, should all have merited disgrace or punishment. But still it is plainly possible that such may have been the case. There is nothing even very improbable in the supposition. If all our leading public men for the last two hundred years had had their deserts, how many would have come off scot free? We will, therefore, take each case in its order, and consider whether the conduct of the Athenian nation towards these eminent personages was not in each instance right and proper under the circumstances. And first for the hero of Marathon, the gallant and politic Miltiades. Placed by his great and glorious victory at the head of the Athenian nation, who could not but feel thorough confidence in the man who had shown so much judgment, discretion, and valour at the crisis of the Persian invasion, he proceeded at once to make use of the trust reposed in him to gratify a private grudge against an insignificant individual. Lysagoras, a Parian, had endangered his safety while he was yet under the power of Persia, by giving information to Hydames of his disaffection to the Persian cause. For this mean and paltry reason, it pleased the great Miltiades to resolve on an expedition which should humble and impoverish the Parians. Having determined on this noble enterprise, for which he had no better pretext than that a Parian vessel had accompanied the fleet of Datis and Artaphernes to Marathon, clearly upon compulsion, he there so miscalculated the strength or the resolution of his enemy, that though the Athenians gave him full powers to take whatever number of troops he thought sufficient for his purpose, he utterly and entirely failed in his enterprise. The Parians behind their walls laughed to scorn his feeble efforts to reduce them, whether by force or fraud: and at the expiration of nearly a month, he had to bring back his seventy ships and fourteen thousand menat-arms, a larger number than had fought at Marathon, without either spoil or glory gained. Here was a disgrace for Athens! The conquerors of Marathon, the haughty Mapalovouáɣai, the men who had just triumphed over the whole might of Asia-yea! and of Africa too, for Ethiopian archers fought under the Persian banners on that memorable day*these men, just waking to a consciousness of their own strength, and of the important part which they have to play in the world's history,-are suddenly checked, thrown back, hurled down from that high eminence to which in thought they had raised themselves, by being utterly baffled in a grasping and unjustifiable enterprise by a handful of brave islanders. Victorious over Persia-baffled by Paros-here was a contrast! here was a downfall! Certainly, if ever general deserved to be called to an account for a failure, this Miltiades did; the expedition was his own, not the nation's-the fixing of the number of troops, &c., necessary, was his doing-the whole conduct of the affair from first to last had been with him; if to punish an unsuccess→ ful commander, not an actual traitor, be ever allowable, certainly here was a fitting time and occasion-a time and occasion which could scarcely be passed over, if the notion of the general being responsible (rev@uvos) was to be retained at all. He had covered his country with indelible disgrace, just at the very moment when she had risen, partly certainly by his aid, but as much perhaps by her own fearless spirit and ready gallantry, to the highest pinnacle of renown and glory. ἀκρότατον ἐισαναβάσ· ἀπότομον We moderns punish nothing in a general but cowardice or treachery. Therefore to inflict a heavy fine on a man for simple mismanagement or incapacity seems to us a harsh and tyrannical proceeding. But the ancients had no such notion. And their practice, not our own, is the consistent one. We reward mental excellence. We heap honours on the successful general without any the least regard to his moral character, simply for the benefit that the state derives from his victories. But we punish moral turpitude, correspondence with the enemy, or cowardice, without considering at all whether the state has been injured by it or no. With the ancients the benefit or injury to the state was the one and only thing taken into the account, and these received reward and punishment respectively. Their standard was invariable, ours is a shifting one. There can be no question that Miltiades had deeply injured the state in the matter of the Parian expedition, and therefore was, by the very first principles of the Athenian constitution, deserving of severe punishment. The excuse which Pericles *The Ethiopiau arrows, remains of which are still found at Marathon.'-Thirlwall, Hist. of Greece, vol. ii. p. 242. |