the miscellaneous writings and speeches-1-第40章

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！


thens　from　mere　timidity；　and　seems　to　have　hated　democracy　only　because　he　durst　not　look　a　popular　assembly　in　the　face。　　Demosthenes　was　a　man　of　a　feeble　constitution：　　his　nerves　were　weak；　but　his　spirit　was　high；　and　the　energy　and　enthusiasm　of　his　feelings　supported　him　through　life　and　in　death。

So　much　for　Demosthenes。　　Now　for　the　orator　of　aristocracy。　　I　do　not　wish　to　abuse　Aeschines。　　He　may　have　been　an　honest　man。　He　was　certainly　a　great　man；　and　I　feel　a　reverence；　of　which　Mr　Mitford　seems　to　have　no　notion；　for　great　men　of　every　party。　But；　when　Mr　Mitford　says　that　the　private　character　of　Aeschines　was　without　stain；　does　he　remember　what　Aeschines　has　himself　confessed　in　his　speech　against　Timarchus？　　I　can　make　allowances；　as　well　as　Mr　Mitford；　for　persons　who　lived　under　a　different　system　of　laws　and　morals；　but　let　them　be　made　impartially。　　If　Demosthenes　is　to　be　attacked　on　account　of　some　childish　improprieties；　proved　only　by　the　assertion　of　an　antagonist；　what　shall　we　say　of　those　maturer　vices　which　that　antagonist　has　himself　acknowledged？　　〃Against　the　private　character　of　Aeschines；〃　says　Mr　Mitford；　〃Demosthenes　seems　not　to　have　had　an　insinuation　to　oppose。〃　　Has　Mr　Mitford　ever　read　the　speech　of　Demosthenes　on　the　Embassy？　　Or　can　he　have　forgotten；　what　was　never　forgotten　by　anyone　else　who　ever　read　it；　the　story　which　Demosthenes　relates　with　such　terrible　energy　of　language　concerning　the　drunken　brutality　of　his　rival？　　True　or　false；　here　is　something　more　than　an　insinuation；　and　nothing　can　vindicate　the　historian；　who　has　overlooked　it；　from　the　charge　of　negligence　or　of　partiality。　　But　Aeschines　denied　the　story。　　And　did　not　Demosthenes　also　deny　the　story　respecting　his　childish　nickname；　which　Mr　Mitford　has　nevertheless　told　without　any　qualification？　　But　the　judges；　or　some　part　of　them；　showed；　by　their　clamour；　their　disbelief　of　the　relation　of　Demosthenes。　　And　did　not　the　judges；　who　tried　the　cause　between　Demosthenes　and　his　guardians；　indicate；　in　a　much　clearer　manner；　their　approbation　of　the　prosecution？　　But　Demosthenes　was　a　demagogue；　and　is　to　be　slandered。　　Aeschines　was　an　aristocrat；　and　is　to　be　panegyrised。　　Is　this　a　history；　or　a　party…pamphlet？

These　passages；　all　selected　from　a　single　page　of　Mr　Mitford's　work；　may　give　some　notion　to　those　readers；　who　have　not　the　means　of　comparing　his　statements　with　the　original　authorities；　of　his　extreme　partiality　and　carelessness。　　Indeed；　whenever　this　historian　mentions　Demosthenes；　he　violates　all　the　laws　of　candour　and　even　of　decency；　he　weighs　no　authorities；　he　makes　no　allowances；　he　forgets　the　best　authenticated　facts　in　the　history　of　the　times；　and　the　most　generally　recognised　principles　of　human　nature。　　The　opposition　of　the　great　orator　to　the　policy　of　Philip　he　represents　as　neither　more　nor　less　than　deliberate　villany。　　I　hold　almost　the　same　opinion　with　Mr　Mitford　respecting　the　character　and　the　views　of　that　great　and　accomplished　prince。　　But　am　I；　therefore；　to　pronounce　Demosthenes　profligate　and　insincere？　　Surely　not。　　Do　we　not　perpetually　see　men　of　the　greatest　talents　and　the　purest　intentions　misled　by　national　or　factious　prejudices？　　The　most　respectable　people　in　England　were；　little　more　than　forty　years　ago；　in　the　habit　of　uttering　the　bitterest　abuse　against　Washington　and　Franklin。　　It　is　certainly　to　be　regretted　that　men　should　err　so　grossly　in　their　estimate　of　character。　　But　no　person　who　knows　anything　of　human　nature　will　impute　such　errors　to　depravity。

Mr　Mitford　is　not　more　consistent　with　himself　than　with　reason。　Though　he　is　the　advocate　of　all　oligarchies；　he　is　also　a　warm　admirer　of　all　kings；　and　of　all　citizens　who　raised　themselves　to　that　species　of　sovereignty　which　the　Greeks　denominated　tyranny。　　If　monarchy；　as　Mr　Mitford　holds；　be　in　itself　a　blessing；　democracy　must　be　a　better　form　of　government　than　aristocracy；　which　is　always　opposed　to　the　supremacy；　and　even　to　the　eminence；　of　individuals。　　On　the　other　hand；　it　is　but　one　step　that　separates　the　demagogue　and　the　sovereign。

If　this　article　had　not　extended　itself　to　so　great　a　length；　I　should　offer　a　few　observations　on　some　other　peculiarities　of　this　writer；his　general　preference　of　the　Barbarians　to　the　Greeks；his　predilection　for　Persians；　Carthaginians；　Thracians；　for　all　nations；　in　short；　except　that　great　and　enlightened　nation　of　which　he　is　the　historian。　　But　I　will　confine　myself　to　a　single　topic。

Mr　Mitford　has　remarked；　with　truth　and　spirit；　that　〃any　history　perfectly　written；　but　especially　a　Grecian　history　perfectly　written　should　be　a　political　institute　for　all　nations。〃　　It　has　not　occurred　to　him　that　a　Grecian　history；　perfectly　written；　should　also　be　a　complete　record　of　the　rise　and　progress　of　poetry；　philosophy；　and　the　arts。　　Here　his　work　is　extremely　deficient。　　Indeed；　though　it　may　seem　a　strange　thing　to　say　of　a　gentleman　who　has　published　so　many　quartos；　Mr　Mitford　seems　to　entertain　a　feeling；　bordering　on　contempt；　for　literary　and　speculative　pursuits。　　The　talents　of　action　almost　exclusively　attract　his　notice；　and　he　talks　with　very　complacent　disdain　of　〃the　idle　learned。〃　　Homer；　indeed；　he　admires；　but　principally；　I　am　afraid；　because　he　is　convinced　that　Homer　could　neither　read　nor　write。　　He　could　not　avoid　speaking　of　Socrates；　but　he　has　been　far　more　solicitous　to　trace　his　death　to　political　causes；　and　to　deduce　from　it　consequences　unfavourable　to　Athens；　and　to　popular　governments；　than　to　throw　light　on　the　character　and　doctrines　of　the　wonderful　man；

〃From　whose　mouth　issued　forth　Mellifluous　streams　that　watered　all　the　schools　Of　Academics；　old　and　new；　with　those　Surnamed　Peripatetics；　and　the　sect　Epicurean；　and　the　Stoic　severe。〃

He　does　not　seem　to　be　aware　that　Demosthenes　was　a　great　orator；　he　represents　him　sometimes　as　an　aspirant　demagogue；　sometimes　as　an　adroit　negotiator；　and　always　as　a　great　rogue。　　But　that　in　which　the　Athenian　excelled　all　men　of　all　ages；　that　irresistible　eloquence；　which　at　the　distance　of　more　than　two　thousand　years　stirs　our　blood；　and　brings　tears　into　our　eyes；　he　passes　by　with　a　few　phrases　of　commonplace　commendation。　　The　origin　of　the　drama；　the　doctrines　of　the　sophists；　the　course　of　Athenian　education；　the　state　of　the　arts　and　sciences；　the　whole　domestic　system　of　the　Greeks；　he　has　almost　completely　neglected。　　Yet　these　things　will　appear；　to　a　reflecting　man；　scarcely　less　worthy　of　attention　than　the　taking　of　Sphacteria　or　the　discipline　of　the　targeteers　of　Iphicrates。

This；　indeed；　is　a　deficiency　by　no　means　peculiar　to　Mr　Mitford。　Most　people　seem　to　imagine　that　a　detail　of　public　occurrences　the　operations　of　sieges…the　changes　of　administrationsthe　treatiesthe　conspiraciesthe　rebellionsis　a　complete　history。　　Differences　of　definition　are　logically　unimportant；　but　practically　they　sometimes　produce　the　most　momentous　effects。　　Thus　it　has　been　in　the　present　case。　　Historians　have；　almost　without　exception；　confined　themselves　to　the　public　transactions　of　states；　and　have　left　to　the　negligent　administration　of　writers　of　fiction　a　province　at　least　equally　extensive　and　valuable。

All　wise　statesmen　have　agreed　to　consider　the　prosperity　or　adversity　of　nations　as　made　up　of　the　happiness　or　misery　of　individuals；　and　to　reject　as　chimerical　all　notions　of　a　public　interest　of　the　community；　distinct　from　the　interest　of　the　component　parts。　　It　is　therefore　strange　that　those　whose　office　it　is　to　supply　statesmen　with　examples　and　warnings　should　omit；　as　too　mean　for　the　dignity　of　history；　circumstances　which　exert　the　most　extensive　influence　on　the　state　of　society。　　In　general；　the　under　current　of　human　life　flows　steadily　on；　unruffled　by　the　storms　which　agitate　the　surface。　　The　happiness　of　the　many　commonly　depends　on　causes　independent　of　victories　or　defeats；　of　revolutions　or　restorations；causes　which　can　be　regulated　by　no　laws；　and　which　are　recorded　in　no　archives。　These　causes　are　the　things　which　it　is　of　main　importance　to　us　to　know；　not　how　the　Lacedaemonian　phalanx　was　broken　at　Leuctra；not　whe