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！
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 extraordinary deficiency of personal courage；〃 is
absolutely impossible。 What mercenary warrior of the time exposed his
life to greater or more constant perils？ Was there a single soldier at
Chaeronea who had more cause to tremble for his safety than the orator；
who； in case of defeat； could scarcely hope for mercy from the people
whom he had misled or the prince whom he had opposed？ Were not the
ordinary fluctuations of popular feeling enough to deter any coward from
engaging in political conflicts？ Isocrates； whom Mr Mitford extols；
because he constantly employed all the flowers of his school…boy rhetoric
151
… Page 152…
THE MISCELLANEOUS WRITINGS AND SPEECHES OF LORD MACAULAY
to decorate oligarchy and tyranny； avoided the judicial and political
meetings of Athens 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？
152
… Page 153…
THE MISCELLANEOUS WRITINGS AND SPEECHES OF LORD MACAULAY
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
153
… Page 154…
THE MISCELLANEOUS WRITINGS AND SPEECHES OF LORD MACAULAY
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 polit