Page:History of Greece Vol VIII.djvu/323

 CONDUCT OK THE PEOPLE. 301 butes of the popular character. If we knew nothing else except the events of these two periods, we should be warranted in dis- missing, on that evidence alone, the string of contemptuous pred- icates, giddy, irascible, jealous, unjust, greedy, etc., one or other of which Mr. Mitford so frequently pronounces, and insin- uates even when he does not pronounce them, respecting the Athenian people. 1 A people, whose habitual temper and moral- ity merited these epithets, could not have acted as the Athenians acted both after the Four Hundred and after the Thirty. Par- ticular acts may be found in their history which justify severe censure ; but as to the permanent elements of character, both moral and intellectual, no population in history has ever afforded stronger evidence than the Athenians on these two memorable occasions. If we follow the acts of the Thirty, we shall see that the horsemen and the privileged three thousand hoplites in the city 1 Wachsmuth who admits into his work, with little or no criticism, everything which lias ever been said against the Athenian people, and indeed against the Greeks generally affirms, contrary to all evidence and probability, that the amnesty was not really observed at Athens. (Wachsm Hellen. Alterth. ch. ix, sect. 71, vol. ii, p. 267.) The simple and distinct words of Xenophon, coming as they do from the mouth of so very hostile a witness, arc sufficient to refute him : dpKovf fj fiTjv IJ.TJ (ivrjaLKaKijaeiv. ITI Kal vvv &fiov ye TroXircvovrai, nal tpfotf I ftpiv e t 6 rf^/iof, Hellen. ii, 4, 43). The passages to which Wachsrmith makes reference, do not in the least e$tabli-.h his point. Even if actions at law or accusations had been brought, in violation of the amnesty, this would not prove that the people violated it ; unless we also knew that the dikastery had affirmed those actions. But he does not refer to any actions or accusations preferred on any such ground. Ho only notices some cases in which, accusation being preferred on grounds subsequent to Eukleides, the accuser makes allusion in his speech to other matters anterior to Eukleides. Now every speaker before the Athenian dikastery thinks himself entitled to call up before the dikasts the whole past life of his opponent, in the way of analogous evidence going to :it test the general character of the latter, good or bad. For example, the accuser of Sokr.it C-s mentions, as a point going to impeach the general character of Rokrutcs, that he had been the teacher of Kritias ; while the philosopher, in his defence, alludes to his own resolution and virtue as pry- tanis in the a.-sembly by which the generals were condemned after the battle of Argi'nuso;. Both these allusiors come out as evidences to general ohar ftctcr.