Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

woman who was found guilty of the shocking crime of riding to Eleusis in a carriage, was fined $1000; any person who presumed to bring a foreign dancer upon the stage of the Dionysiac Theatre, was required to pay the State $170 for the insult. Demades, however, did not hesitate to exhibit a hundred such dancers, but even he could not escape the heavy forfeit. As the penalty of his arrogant folly, he was compelled to pay into the public treasury the full sum of $17,000. Heavy fines of some thousands of dollars were at times imposed upon statesmen for proposing unconstitutional laws. Aeschines, in his indictment of Ctesiphon, lays the damages at $50,000. In special cases, indeed, still higher pecuniary penalties were imposed; a fine of no less than $100,000 was assessed upon Timotheus in an action for

treason.

Confiscation of property was by no means uncommon at Athens. This form of punishment, ever indeed most unwise and perilous, became, in the hands of a corrupt and heartless populace, a powerful weapon of injustice and cruelty. The innocent were accused, that their property might become the public spoil. The treasury profited but little by the ill-gotten gain; by far the greater share fell into the grasping hands of the multitude. Indeed the entire wealth of Diphilus, amounting to some $160,000, was no sooner confiscated than it was distributed among the people.

But no branch of the public revenue was more productive than the tributes of the allies; and none contributed more directly to the corruption of the public morals and to the ruin of the state. The famed confederacy of Delos was at length so perverted from its specific purpose as to be made the means of filling the Athenian treasury. Voluntary contributions soon became forced tributes; and Athens found herself in the time of Pericles in the annual receipt of $600,000 from this source alone. But not content even with this, she not long after doubled the assessment, and actually collected the enormous sum of $1,200,000 from those who had voluntarily associated themselves with her for purposes of mutual defence. We here behold one of those remarka

ble paradoxes in human nature which the Athenian character unfortunately too often displays. The very people, we might almost say the very men, who repeatedly put forth the most heroic and self-sacrificing efforts in behalf of the liberties of Greece; who in their dealings alike with friend and foe so often show themselves models of rarest magnanimity, this very people, now recreant to the plainest obligations of right, become guilty of the revolting crime of oppressing and robbing their own allies.

But any view of the Athenian revenue would be exceedingly incomplete if it should fail to take account of those expensive services which the Athenian constitution required the wealthy to perform in the name of the state. These were nominally gratuities; but, like many gratuities with which governments have since honored the people, they were such as must be paid. In theory these gratuitous services were not burdens, but only expensive honors conferred by the state upon such as were able to accept them, and, indeed, in practice they were not unfrequently eagerly sought. In the Athenian code, to serve the gods and the state was the highest privilege of man. The law prescribed the nature and extent of the service to be rendered; but the wealthy in most cases not only far exceeded these requirements, but actually vied with each other in the richness and magnificence which they displayed in the public services. Whatever may be thought of the wisdom of this prodigal expenditure of private treasure, few will be disposed to criticise such an exhibition of rare public spirit. It must be admitted, however, that the system is open to grave censure. It provided, as Prof. Boeckh remarks, no equal distribution of the public burdens; it enabled the poor actually to oppress the rich, while it also tempted the ambitious to excessive expenditure to secure the favor of the people. Still we have but little sympathy with those who would resolve all their noble sacrifices into mere displays of selfish pride, or costly baits thrown out by ambition to appease the rapacity of a mad populace. While we freely admit that the system was liable to shocking abuse, we cannot but deem it

illiberal to deny to acts, in themselves so generous, all share of high and noble motive. As well might we explain the liberal charities of our own time as selfish bids for popular applause. The ancient Athenians were indeed far enough from any true comprehension of a Christian philanthropy; yet, in the service of the state and of their ancestral gods, they have furnished an exhibition of enlarged public spirit which may well command the admiration of the world.

Prof. Boeckh thinks that the various sources of revenue exclusive of gratuities, must have yielded annually in the best days of the Athenian republic some $1,800,000. On the basis of this estimate, it will be seen, that the government in time of peace not only supported itself without any direct tax upon its citizens, but often found itself at the close of the year in possession of a large surplus.

The heavy expenses of war were met by special provision. These were two-fold, a property tax assessed on most equitable principles, and extraordinary services from the rich. But into a discussion of these subjects our limits forbid us to enter.

The financial system of ancient Athens is a strange combination of rarest excellence and of puerile imperfection. We admire the liberal public spirit which marks its provisions; we dwell with delight upon its kindly charities, but we are pained at its exhibitions of demoralizing indulgence and of unblushing corruption. The Athenian character itself was largely made up of contradictions and extremes. The ancient Athenian was enthusiastic in his devotion to country; yet he not unfrequently found his patriotism powerless to resist the temptations of gold; he was liberal to a fault in expending his treasures upon the works of the state; yet not for a moment could he be trusted with the public coffers. It is not strange, therefore, that these contradictions re-appear in the state; republican institutions must ever reflect the character of the people.

A careful study of the Athenian polity furnishes the American student with numerous topics of useful reflection. It is at once interesting and instructive to examine the conVOL. XV. No. 57.

18

stitution of the ancient State, to observe the points of similarity and the points of contrast between this and our American republic. It is folly indeed to idolize antiquity; it is equal folly to disregard it. A nearer view of the inner workings of the Athenian commonwealth prepares us the better to appreciate and admire the purer spirit and the truer freedom of our own favored institutions.

ARTICLE IX.

SMITH'S DICTIONARY OF GEOGRAPHY.-SMYRNA.

BY PROF. GEORGE M. LANE, HARVARD UNIVERSITY.

MR. SMITH is an indefatigable writer of books. His last book for 1857 is a pamphlet of some 1380 pages, on Greek and Roman Geography.

The book contains more than the title implies. Besides the geography it aims at a chorographic and topographic description of countries and cities; with historical accounts of their origin, rise and decline, and sketches of the more important buildings of the cities.

The work abounds in the excellencies and defects which may be noticed in the whole series of Mr. Smith. He has done more than any other English scholar toward popularizing the results of continental scholars, and presenting the material side of antiquity in a convenient and accessible form. In general the due proportion in the length and prominence of the Articles has been preserved. They are written in neat English, printed in neat type, and illustrated by neat cuts and maps. On the other hand, even a casual

1 Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography. Edited by William Smith, LL. D. In two volumes. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. Vol. I. 1854. pp. 1108. Vol. II. 1857. pp. 1383.

glance at the works of this series will detect many incongruities; the compilatory character is too evident. Citations are given which do not always warrant the assertions in the text, and citations are sometimes given which do not warrant anything at all. It is too often apparent that the contributors have not gone to the bottom of their subject; that they have transferred Articles, or fused them together, without going back to a careful study of authorities on which they should be founded. Neither can the effect of these works on the literary community be in all respects good. While they undoubtedly contribute to the culture of many persons who, but for these convenient English manuals, would hardly know where to apply for information on classical matters, it cannot be denied that they may lead young scholars astray. It is easier for them to turn to the Dictionaries, and find the whole story there, than to put in play their own powers of memory, comparison, and combination; and an unchecked use of illustrative books is apt to divert the attention too much to the realia, too much to things, greatly to the prejudice of the main object of classical study, intimacy with the authors themselves, a thorough acquaintance with the ancient idioms, and a genuine and searching appreciation of the unapproachable graces of classical style.

However, to speak of this estimable book in vague generalities is not our purpose. It is proposed in the following to consider with some care the history of one of the towns included in the second volume; one of the smaller towns, but to the biblical and classical scholar not the least interesting. The Article on SMYRNA has been furnished by Mr. Leonhard Schmitz, of Edinburgh, favorably known from his educational works. This Article gives the main and familiar features in the history of Smyrna, with tolerable correctness. But it is very far from complete. The few chronological data given are those commonly adopted, not his

It is thought that a somewhat more satisfactory determination of the principal epochs in the history of the city may be made than has hitherto been done. And to do

« AnteriorContinuar »