[Illustration]
Sequel of the Life of Miltiades—of Aristides—of Themistocles.
We shall hereafter have occasion to describe briefly the total change
of the international relations and politics of the Greek communities,
which ensued in consequence of the Persian war. Athens was rewarded for
her exertions and sufferings by half a century of increasing and almost
uninterrupted splendour, under the successive guidance of Themistocles,
Cimon, and Pericles. Still, as we do not write the history of Greece,
we shall pass in silence over this brilliant period. Seasons of
convulsion present the phenomena on which men dwell, and the eras by
which they date, in the moral as well as in the physical world, where
the silent process by which Nature elaborates her productions, the slow
mouldering of mountains into new plains of inexhaustible fertility pass
almost unobserved and unappreciated: but the attention is roused and
compelled when the destructive powers of the hurricane and earthquake
are let loose. But before we pass entirely from this subject, it will
be well briefly to relate the further fortunes of those men to whom
Athens owed, not only her greatness, but her existence.
The battle of Marathon raised Miltiades to the height of popularity.
He availed himself of it to request an armament of ninety ships, with
troops and money, not stating the object of his expedition to his
countrymen, but merely promising to enrich them, if they would follow
him, for that he would lead them to a land whence they should bring
home gold without end. The Athenians, elated by this hope, consented;
and he immediately sailed to the island of Paros, and laid siege to
its capital, under pretence of exacting satisfaction because a Parian
trireme had served in the Persian fleet. This, Herodotus says, was
the pretence; but the real reason was a grudge against the Parians,
because one of them, Lysagoras, had done him a bad turn with Hydarnes,
the Persian governor of the Ionian coast. He therefore sent a herald
to demand 100 talents (about 25,000_l._), saying, that unless they
complied, he would never lead away his troops till he had taken
the city. But as to giving Miltiades the money, the Parians had no
notion at all of that—they only thought how they might best protect
themselves; and they laboured by night to double the height of the
walls, wherever they seemed open to attack.
“So far,” says Herodotus, “all the Greeks agree.” The Parians had
a little prodigy of their own to account for the failure of the
enterprise. When Miltiades made little progress, and was in perplexity,
a Parian woman, priestess of the infernal deities, came to him and
bade him follow her advice, if it were of importance to him to possess
the city. In obedience to her advice, he went to an eminence in front
of the city, on which there was a temple dedicated to Ceres, and
being unable to open the gates of the sacred enclosure, he leaped
over it, and advanced towards the fence, with what specific purpose
the historian relates not. On approaching the door he was seized
with terror and shuddering, and hastily retreated as he had entered;
but in leaping over the fence, he inflicted a severe injury upon his
leg. Another story is told by Cornelius Nepos, that a forest upon
the continent, which could be seen from the island, by some chance
was set on fire during the night, and that the besiegers and the
besieged alike concluded it a signal of coming help from the Persian
monarch.[68] But all agree that Miltiades lay sick, and that the siege
proceeded unfavourably, and that at last, Herodotus says on the 26th
day, he broke it up, and led home the fleet. The Athenians were very
angry, and shortly after his return, Xanthippus, one of the Alcmæonid
party, brought a capital charge against him, “on account of the deceit
practised on the people.” Miltiades was too ill to defend himself,
for his wound had mortified; but he appeared before the assembly in
a litter, while his friends spoke in his behalf, expatiating on the
services which he had rendered to the state, especially at Marathon.
This being their chief dependence, we may presume that they felt
they had a weak cause to support. The people remitted the capital
punishment, but imposed a fine of fifty talents,[69] (12,500_l._)
Miltiades died soon after, and the fine was discharged by his
celebrated son Cimon.
Such is the story as it is told by Herodotus. It is not theatrical
enough for later writers, who have related how the victor of Marathon,
being unable to discharge the fine imposed upon him, was cast into
prison, and died there; and how his body was refused the rites of
burial, until Cimon redeemed it by the sacrifice of his own liberty.
The reader will do well to hesitate in receiving such ornamental
passages in Grecian history, when uncorroborated by the earliest
authorities. The silence of Herodotus alone would be sufficient to
discredit this story. It has, however, been acutely inferred from
a passage in Plato, that Miltiades was sentenced to imprisonment,
probably till the fine was paid (a very necessary provision), but that
this part of the sentence was not carried into effect.[70]
The death of Miltiades has been a favourite topic for declamation
against popular ingratitude. If the Athenians were really deceived; if
they supposed, as the promise of unbounded wealth might lead them to
think, that he intended to lead them against the Persians, and their
anger was directed against the misapplication of the national resources
to gratify private animosity, and plunder a kindred state; then was
their conduct just and honourable. No claim to public gratitude ought
to be allowed to screen a public delinquent from detection; when
guilt is proved, past services may fitly be alleged in mitigation or
remission of punishment. But we cannot implicitly believe in this
virtuous indignation; and are inclined to suspect that if Miltiades
had returned with one hundred talents, he would have heard nothing of
prosecution, and that the failure, not the attack upon Paros, was the
true grievance. During a siege of twenty–six days there was abundant
time to recall the fleet, if the enterprise had been disapproved.
Nepos indeed says that he was charged with having received a bribe
from Persia to withdraw; and ascribes the readiness of the Athenians
to convict, to a growing dread of his talents and popularity, and fear
lest he should prove a second Pisistratus. This is not improbable; it
is in perfect keeping with the institution of ostracism, which seems to
have been first levelled against Aristides five or six years later.
The rival statesmen, Aristides and Themistocles, men diametrically
opposite as well in character as in politics, were rising to the
first honours before the battle of Marathon. Aristides was one of the
ten generals appointed on that occasion, and the year after held the
dignity of Archon. Simple, just, and disinterested, neither for his own
nor his country’s advantage would he deviate from the plain rules of
honesty; and he thus earned and merited the appellation of the Just.
Themistocles on the contrary was avowedly actuated by party spirit;
and his desire to raise his country seems to have been secondary
to his desire to raise himself. Crooked as acute in his policy, he
scrupled not as to the character of his means, if they were fitted to
promote his end; and his strenuous exertions in the Persian war were
so skilfully contrived, as to secure for himself a kind reception from
the victor, if his first object, the deliverance of Athens, failed.
Two such men, of whom the former supported the aristocratical, the
latter the democratical party, were not likely to remain at peace; and
two or three years before the invasion of Xerxes, Themistocles had
influence enough to procure a vote of ostracism against his rival. This
was a species of banishment for five, ten, or twenty years, called
ostracism from ostrakon, a shell, or piece of earthenware, because
citizens wrote the name of him whom they wished to exile upon some such
material, and cast it into a balloting box. To obtain a decree of this
nature six thousand votes were required. Ostensibly it was neither a
punishment nor disgrace, but merely intended as a safeguard lest even
the virtues and services of great men should become dangerous to the
liberty of their country. Themistocles, however, had a mind capable of
laying aside private enmity when an emergency required it, and himself
proposed a decree before the battle of Salamis, by which Aristides,
with all other exiles, was recalled. Eminent alike, each upon his own
element, as the one at Salamis, so the other commanded the Athenians
at Platæa. On this occasion, the post of honour, the right wing, being
held according to their constant custom by the Lacedæmonians, a dispute
arose between the Athenians and Tegeatæ which should be placed in the
left. Here Aristides displayed his prudence and moderation.[71] “We
came here,” he said, “to fight, and not to talk. Since however the
Tegeatæ have advanced their deeds of renown, both in old times and of
late, it is necessary that we also should explain to you our claims to
priority among Greeks.” Then briefly enumerating their ancient glories,
and concluding with mention of Marathon, he added, “But this is no
time to wrangle about place. We are ready to obey you, Lacedæmonians,
wherever and against whomsoever you choose to station us; and wherever
we are, will do our best. Command us, therefore, as men who will obey.”
The whole army of the Lacedæmonians shouted out, that the Athenians
were more worthy than the Tegeatæ to lead the left wing.
We must refer to the history of Greece for the formation of a
confederacy to prosecute the war against Persia, and for the events
which disgusted the members of it with Sparta, and induced them to
place Athens at their head. Aristides at this time commanded her fleet;
and his known probity and moderation probably had much influence in
procuring this distinction, the first step to her future empire. To
him was referred the delicate task of apportioning the sums which each
state should contribute to the general fund: and so justly did he
execute this trust that all parties were satisfied; and in later times
the tributaries to the Athenian treasury referred to the assessment
of Aristides as a sort of golden age. He died, it is said, in the
year 467 B.C., poor, but honoured, insomuch that he was
buried at the public charge, and his children were provided for at the
public expense. This is the best testimony to the honesty of a man
through whose hands four hundred and sixty talents passed yearly.
The career of Themistocles was of a far more varied and eventful
nature. His first recorded appearance in public life was signalised by
a measure pregnant with important results; and doubly meritorious, as
proving that at an early age he clearly distinguished the true policy
of Athens, and because it did not seem likely to advance the fortunes
of an aspiring man who sought to build his greatness upon popular
favour. The revenues accruing from the silver mines of Laureium,
instead of being applied to any public purpose, were distributed among
the citizens, and furnished a gratuity of ten drachmæ (about eight
shillings) to each man. Themistocles saw the importance of being strong
at sea, and had influence or eloquence enough to obtain a decree to
apply this income exclusively to ship–building, until two hundred
triremes were completed with the money. This made the Athenians at once
a great maritime power, whereas before they had but few ships, and
those chiefly of the smaller class. This seems to have taken place the
year before the battle of Marathon. “Now, after this good beginning and
success, he won the citizens by degrees to bend their force to sea,
declaring to them how by land they were scant able to make head against
their equals, whereas by their power at sea they should not only defend
themselves from the barbarous people, but moreover be able to command
all Greece. Hereupon he made them good mariners, and passing seamen, as
Plato saith, where before they were stout and valiant soldiers by land.
This gave his enemies occasion to cast it in his teeth afterwards,
that he had taken away from the Athenians the pike and target, and
had brought them to the galley and the oar, and so he got the upper
hand of Miltiades, who in that inveighed against him. Now after he had
thus his will by bringing the sea service to pass, whether thereby he
did overthrow the justice of the commonweal or not, I leave that to
the philosophers to dispute. But that the preservation of all Greece
stood at that time on the sea, and that the galleys only were the cause
of setting up Athens again, Xerxes himself is a sufficient witness,
besides other proofs that might be brought thereof.”[72]
His brilliant services were duly acknowledged. At the first Olympic
festival celebrated after the defeat of Xerxes, he occupied more
attention than the contending champions; and even the Spartans, while
they gave the prize of valour to their own admiral Eurybiades, awarded
to him that of wisdom, and though generally little gratified by the
visits of strangers, invited him to Lacedæmon, and appointed a guard
of honour of three hundred citizens to attend him. Continuing in
command of the Athenian squadron when the allied fleet began to exact
satisfaction from those islanders who, probably against their will,
had followed the Persian standard, he abused his high character and
station by extorting large sums as the price of his protection from
those islands or persons who were obnoxious to the charge of Medism,
or having favoured the Persian cause. “Let others extol Pausanias,
or Xanthippus, or Leotychides; my praise shall be for Aristides, the
best man of sacred Athens. For Latona detests Themistocles, the false,
the unjust, the traitor; who for paltry pelf deserted the interest
of Timocreon, his friend and host, and refused to restore him to his
native Ialysus. Money guided the destructive course of the fleet;
while the corrupt commander, restoring unjustly, persecuting unjustly,
some into banishment, some to death, as the larger bribe persuaded,
filled his coffers.”[73] Such were the charges brought against him by
Timocreon, a Rhodian, who had been guilty of apostacy from the Grecian
cause, and depended on Themistocles’ friendship to restore him to his
country. In this particular case there seems to have been nothing
to blame, and indeed the accusation is, that Themistocles did not
pervert his power to gratify private ends: but the concurrent testimony
of antiquity leads us to conclude that these charges of unjust and
interested dealing rest upon a solid foundation.
We must refer to the History of Greece for an account of the bold
and able measures by which he secured time to rebuild the walls of
Athens, and for the improvement of the harbour Piræeus, which under his
superintendence was connected with the city by walls built of squared
blocks of marble, and became the most complete naval arsenal yet known.
How long he continued to enjoy his high popularity and authority is not
known: but he wanted moderation to retain what he had justly acquired.
He offended the people by an unworthy vanity, and disgusted the allies
by rapacity and ostentation, insomuch that reports were circulated of
his holding correspondence with Persia, and aiming at the tyranny of
Athens, if not of all Greece. And he had powerful enemies at home to
take advantage of these errors, not so much in Aristides, whose honest
opposition was untinged by personal or factious animosity, as in the
Alcmæonidæ, and in Cimon, son of Miltiades, who at this time was in
the commencement of his long, and brilliant, and virtuous career. To
them the democratical tenor of his policy and his personal superiority
were alike distasteful; and they had influence enough to procure his
banishment by ostracism for five years. This took place in the year
471 B.C. During this period, Pausanias, king of Sparta, was
convicted of having engaged in a treasonable correspondence with the
Persian monarch, and put to death; and the Lacedæmonians asserted
that they had proof of Themistocles being concerned in the plot, and
required that the same punishment might be inflicted upon him. Plutarch
says that he flatly refused to join in the treason of Pausanias, but
that he preserved the secret. His accusers required that he should
be brought to trial, not in his own country, but before some general
council of the Greek states, probably the council of Amphictyons, and
they had sufficient influence with the party now in power at Athens
to obtain their concurrence. Messengers were sent with authority to
apprehend him, wherever they should find him. He fled first to the
island of Corcyra, to which he had formerly been a benefactor. But the
Corcyræans, alleging that they durst not keep him, conveyed him over
to the continent of Epirus, and there being continually pursued, he
was driven at last, like Coriolanus, to take shelter with an ancient
enemy, Admetus, king of the Molossians. That prince being absent, he
awaited his return seated before the domestic altar, holding in his
arms his infant son: such being esteemed the most sacred and binding
method of supplication among the Molossians. Admetus was touched,
and, while he was able, gave the fugitive a secure retreat; but the
Athenian and Lacedæmonian commissioners tracked his steps, and though
his protector refused to give him up, he was obliged to fly. He now
crossed the continent to Pydna, a seaport of Macedonia, and finding
there a ship bound for Ionia, he embarked, and was carried by stress of
weather among the Athenian fleet then besieging Naxos.[74] Fearing to
be recognised, he called the master aside, told him who he was, and why
he fled, and declared that if he were taken, he would charge him with
having been bribed to favour his escape. To avoid this, it was only
requisite to confine the sailors closely to the ship until the weather
served them to be gone. The master consented, and instead of landing
at night, as was usual with Grecian mariners, they lay a day and
night tempest–tossed at sea; and at length arrived safely at Ephesus.
Themistocles now reaped the benefit of his double–dealing. He kept
himself concealed, however, at first, because the Persians had set a
price of two hundred talents upon his head, until he received an answer
to the following letter, which he wrote to Artaxerxes, son of Xerxes,
who had newly succeeded to his father’s throne: “I, Themistocles,
am coming to thee, who of all the Grecians, as long as I was forced
to resist thy father that invaded me, have done your house the most
damage; yet the benefits I did him were more after once I with safety,
he with danger, was to make retreat. And both a good turn is already
due to me (writing here how he had forewarned him of the Grecians’
departure out of Salamis, and ascribing the not breaking of the bridge
falsely to himself), and I now come prepared to do thee great services,
being persecuted by the Grecians for thy friendship’s sake. But I
desire to have a year’s respite, that I may declare unto thee the cause
of my coming myself.”
“The king, as is reported, wondered at his design, and commanded him to
do as he said. In this time of respite he learned as much as he could
of the language and fashions of the place, and a year after, coming
to the court, he was great with the king, more than ever had been any
Grecian before; both for his former estimation, and the hope that he
gave of bringing Greece into subjection, but especially in the proof
that he had given of his wisdom. For Themistocles was a man in whom
most truly was manifested the strength of natural judgment, wherein he
had something worthy of admiration, different from other men. For by
his natural prudence, without the help of instruction either before
or after, he was both best able to form an opinion on the spur of the
moment with least deliberation, and the best diviner of the issue of
matters to come. Of those things he was engaged in, he could give a
good account; and what he was unpractised in, he was not to seek how
to judge of conveniently. Also he foresaw, no man better, what was
best or worse in any case that was doubtful. And to say all in few
words, this man, by the natural goodness of his wit, and quickness of
deliberation, was the ablest of all men to tell what was fit to be
done on a sudden. But falling sick he ended his life: some say he died
voluntarily by poison, because he thought himself unable to perform
what he had promised to the king. His monument is in Magnesia in
Asia, in the marketplace: for he had the government of that country,
the king having bestowed upon him Magnesia, which yielded him fifty
talents yearly for his bread, and Lampsacus for his wine (for this
city was then thought to have store of wine), and Myus for his meat.
His bones are said by his kinsman to have been brought home by his own
appointment, and buried in Attica, unknown to the Athenians: for it was
not lawful to bury one there that had fled for treason. These were the
ends of Pausanias the Lacedæmonian and Themistocles the Athenian, the
most famous men of all the Grecians of their time.”[75]
“Such were the ends of the two most famous men of Greece in their
time.” That of Pausanias moves little compassion: he was a weak and
vicious man, raised to an undeserved celebrity by hereditary rank,
and by the mighty events with which the age was pregnant. He was a
traitor, and he perished as such, worthy of pity only for the lingering
torment of his death. Much more touching is the fate of Themistocles,
driven on an unjust accusation, as we believe, from place to place,
and at last forced to seek shelter from those to whom he had done
the deepest harm, and thus apparently to justify those accusations
which alone had reduced him to so unworthy a step. Melancholy we must
needs call the close of his life, in spite of all the splendour that
surrounded it: for who can believe that to such a man wealth and luxury
could compensate for exile, for the loss of all share and interest in
the greatness which he had himself founded, and was now compelled to
surrender into the guidance of unfriendly hands? The anecdote relating
to his burial furnishes a touching illustration of the nature of his
feelings at the close of life, and is itself almost sufficient to
refute the charge of treason. Men seek not so fondly to be restored
even in death to their native land, when they have deliberately
resolved on subjecting it to the miseries of conquest by a foreign,
in Grecian language, a barbarian race. That he had so far temporised
with Pausanias as to give the Spartans plausible ground for their
accusation is probable, and consistent with the tortuous policy which,
unfortunately for his glory in honest men’s eyes, he always pursued.
But to believe that he seriously laboured to establish that dominion
which it was his boast to have overthrown; to pull down the fabric of
Athenian greatness which his own hand had raised, and with which his
glory was indissolubly connected; this would require the most cogent
proofs, in place of which we have nothing but a bare report. We may
derive a valuable moral from comparing the close of his life with that
of Aristides. The latter, after a life spent in the highest commands,
with unbounded opportunities for amassing wealth, died in poverty.
Themistocles’ property, when he entered on public life, was valued at
three talents; when he fled to Persia his effects were confiscated to
the value of eighty or one hundred talents, and yet it is said that his
friends saved the greater part, and remitted them into Asia to him. Yet
who dare avow that he would choose the wealth and fate of Themistocles
in preference to the honourable poverty of Aristides? who, that is not
entirely devoted to wealth, could even feel such a preference? True
it is that the crooked course of Themistocles procured a brilliant
reception in the Persian court, when all other countries were closed
against him: but it is also true that a more disinterested and open
life would have obviated the necessity of seeking a foreign refuge. The
rancour of party spirit might then have exiled him for a time, as it
exiled Aristides, but it could have done no more. All Greece would have
exclaimed in mingled anger and contempt against him who should have
dared to connect the name of Aristides with a charge of treason: all
Greece was ready to believe Themistocles guilty on the sole evidence of
his selfish and intriguing spirit.
[Illustration]