« ZurückWeiter »
armour of Cimon, placed it in his post, and fought with so much valour, that the most part of them lost their lives, leaving the Athenians under the utmost regret for their loss, and severely repenting the unjust accusations they had thrown upon them.
The Athenians, upon the loss of a considerable battle recalled Cimon; and Pericles himself, as we have before observed, was the person who drew up and proposed the decree, by which he was recalled, though he had before contributed more than any other to his banishment. Upon which Plutarch makes a beautiful reflection, that wholly confirms all that I have advanced upon this subject. Pericles, says he, used his whole interest to bring back bis rival, “ so “ much were the quarrels of the citizens moderated “ by the views of the public advantage, and their “ animosities always ready to be laid aside as soon as “ the good of the state required it; and so much did “their ambition, which is the most lively and most “ violent of passions, conform and give way to the " necessities and interests of their country.” Cimon upon his return, without complaining of his former ill usage, or taking much upon him, and without seeking to prolong a war which made bim necessary to his country, readily executed the service expected from him, and immediately procured the peace it wanted.
But nothing more clearly discovers the inward sentiments of Pericles, his good nature and aversion to all hatred and revenge, than an expression which fell from him a little before his death. His friends were sitting round him as he lay sick, and not thinking that he heard them, were talking amongst themselves in commendation of his government, and the nine trophies he had gained, when he interrupted them, and won: dered, he said, they should dwell so much upon matters in which fortune had so great a share, and were common to him with many other generals, and forget the greatest and most beautiful circumstance of his
life, that no Athenian had ever wore mourning on his account.
The several particulars I have here mentioned concerning the four great men, who were the ornaments of the Athenian republic, may in my opinion be very useful, not only to such young persons, as are destined to fill considerable places in the state, but to people of all conditions whatsoever. For they let us see, how low and mean-spirited it is to be envious and jealous of the virtue and reputation of others; and on the other hand, how noble and generous to value, love, and commend the merit of our equals, colleagues, competitors, and even enemies, if we have any. And these passages of history should make the greater impression upon us, as they are not the speculative lessons of philosophers, but duties reduced to practice.
II. OF OSTRACISM. Ostracism was a sentence among the Athenians, by which they condemned any one to a kind of banishment that was to last ten years, unless that term was lessened by the people. The consent of six thousand citizens at least was required for a condemnation of this kind. They gave their vote by writing the name of the person upon a shell, in Greek called őspaxos, from whence came the name of ostracism. This kind of banishment was not inflicted as a punishment for any crime, nor considered as infamous; [l] the most illustrious citizens, and often men of the greatest probity, were exposed to it. I do not here take upon me to plead or apologize in behalf of ostracism, which, as it may be considered under different views, may likewise occasion very different judgments. As this law seemed only designed against virtue, and to be severe upon merit, it is no wonder, that in this view it should appear extremely odious and offensive to every rational man. This induced Valerius Maximus to charge this custom as the folly and extravagance of the public in punishing the greatest virtues as criminal, and repaying the services done to the state with banishment." [m] Quid obest quin publica demnentia sit existimanda, summo consensu marimas virtutes quasi gravissima delicta punire, beneficiaque injuriis rependere?
(9) Miltiades, Cimon, Aristides, Themistocles, &c.
Without attempting therefore absolutely to justify ostracism, I shall enquire a little into the reasons of it, and examine the advantages that may arise from it. For I cannot imagine, that so wise a republic, as that of Athens, would have so long suffered and authorised a custom founded only upon injustice and violence. And what confirms me in this opinion is, that when this law was abrogated at Athens, it was not done because it was unjust; but because having taken place in the case of a citizen despised by all the world (he was named Ilyperbolus, and lived in the time of Nicias and Alcibiades) [n] it was thought that ostracism, degraded by this example, would ever after be a dishonour to a man of probity, and inju. rious to his reputation.
 Thus we see, that Tully does not condemn this law with the same severity as Valerius Maximus; and that pleading against the banishment of Sextius, though it was his interest to decry all banishments, he contents himself with accusing the Athenians of lightness and temerity. Plutarch speaks of it in several places in a very favourable manner, at least without censure or reproach, as we shall see byandby. And this inclines me to believe that Valerius Maxiinus judged very superficially of this law, and was too easily prejudiced by some inconveniences attending it, without considering thoroughly the advantages that might arise from it. We shall therefore now examine what those advantages might be.
[m] Val. Max. lib. 5. cap. 3. Græcos, longè à nostrorum homi.
[n] Εκ τότε δυσχεράνας και δημος num gravitate disjunctos, non deως καθυβρισμένον το πράγμα και προ- erant qui rempublicam contra poπιπηλακισμένον, άφηκε παντελώς, puli temeritatem defenderent, cum *j *QCTÉRITEV. Plut. in Arist.
omnes, qui ita fecerant, è civitate O] Apud Athenienses, homines expellerentur. Pro Sext. n. 141.
1. It was a very useful barrier against tyranny in a state purely democratical, where liberty, which is the soul and sovereign law of it, cannot subsist, but by equality. It was difficult for the people not to be suspicious of the power of such citizens as had raised themselves above the rest, [p] and whose ambition, so natural to mankind, gave a just alarm to a republic extremely jealous of its independency. It was proper to take measures at a distance for bringing thein back into the sphere, from whence their great abilities or great services seemed to have removed them. 19] They had still in remembrance the tyranny of Pisistratus and his children, who had been only private citizens like the rest. They had Ephesus, Tnebes, Corinth, Syracuse, and almost all the cities of Greece before their eyes, which were all brought under subjection to tyrants at a time, when the citizens were under no apprehensions of losing their liberty. And who could be sure, that Themistocles, Ephialtes, the el. der Demosthenes, Alcibiades, and even Cimon and Pericles, would have refused to reign at Athens, if they had been capable of attempting it, as Pausanias and Lysander did at Lacedæmon, and so many others in their republic, and as Cæsar did at Rome?
2. This sort of banishment had nothing shameful or ignominious in it. It was not, says Plutarch, a punishment for crimes and misdemeanours, but a precaution judged necessary against a pride and power, which hecame formidable ; it was a mild and gentle remedy against that envy, which is apt to form jealousies and suspicions of too great merit; and in a word, a certain means of setting the minds of the people at ease, without carrying them to any violence against the party banished For he preserved the enjoyment and disposal of his e-tate; possesseu all the rights and privileges of a citizen), with the hope of
[o] Tă duráuies Baptīs, ty Topos trati tyrannidem, quæ paucis annis Soótnta Srporgatoxín ású nezgos. antè fuerat, omniuin c viuin suorum Plut. in Vit, Themist.
potentiam ex' mescebant.  Athenienses, propter Pisis- Nepo in Milt. cap. 8.
being restored within a fixed time, which might be abridged by abundance of incidents. So that the engagements which tied the banished man to his country were not broken by the ostracism; he was not driven to despair, nor forced upon extremities. Thus we see by the event, that neither Aristides, Cimon, or even Themistocles, or any of the rest, entered into engagements against their country, but on the contrary always continued faithful and zealous for it. Whereas the Romans, for the want of such a law, extorted imprecations from Camillus against his country, engaged Coriolanus to take up arms against it, as Sertorious did afterwards against his inclination. They came at last to declare a citizen an enemy to the state, as in the case of Cæsar, Mark Anthony, and several others; after which there was no remedy but in despair, nor any assurance of their own preservation but in violence and open war.
3. By this law the Athenians were also preserved from the civil wars, which so much disturbed and shook the commonwealth of Rome. With such a law as this the Gracchi would not have been assassinated. The Romans might perhaps have spared themselves the wars of Marius and Sylla, of Cæsar and Pompey, and the fatal consequences of the triumvirate. But as Rome wanted this mild and humane remedy, [r] as Plutarch phrases it, so proper to calm, soften, and assuage envy; whenever the two factions of the senate and people were a little inflamed, there was nothing left, but to decide the quarrel by arms and violence. And this at last drew upon Řome the loss of her liberty.
Perhaps therefore we may have good reason to differ in our judgment concerning this law from Valerius Naximus and some others, who were offended only at the abuse of it, without fully examining into the real motives of its establishment and its advantages, and without considering that there is no law so good, but it may have its inconveniences in the application. +] Παραμυθία φιλάνθρωπος φθόνο και κουφισμός.