dikasteries, or popular courts of justice at Athens, are the occasion of an elaborate and searching inquiry into the history, merits, and defects of trial by jury in England and other countries; and this discussion-one of the most remarkable in the work-is probably the ablest defence of trial by jury in the English language. We have marked a large number of examples of Mr. Grote's use of historical analogies; but we must confine ourselves to a few instances. The position of the Greeks in the army of Alexander the Great, when he invaded Asia, is happily compared to the position of the German contingents, especially those of the Confederation of the Rhine, in the army of Napoleon, when he invaded Russia in 1812. Neither of them had any public interest in the success of the invader, which could only end in making their humiliation more complete. Yet both Alexander and Napoleon thought themselves entitled to reckon upon them as if they had been Macedonians and Frenchmen respectively. Alexander treated all Greek prisoners as traitors to the cause of Hellas, while he regarded Asiatics as fighting for their lawful master; and we find Napoleon drawing the same pointed distinction between Russian and German prisoners. † In speaking of the vehement attack upon Cleon in the Knights of Aristophanes-which play Mr. Grote well describes as the master-piece and glory of libellous comedy,' and as displaying the utmost which wit combined with malice can achieve, in covering an enemy with ridicule, contempt, and odium '—we are told that 'Dean Swift would have desired nothing worse, even for Ditton and Whiston.' In the melancholy picture of the moral and social evils which accompanied the plague at Athens it is remarked that amidst all the prevailing wretchedness 'there in theory is, that the man who has, ought to be ready at all times to give away what he has to him who has not; while the latter is encouraged to expect and require such gratuitous donation.'-Vol. iii. p. 215. *Vol. v. p. 517, seq. The following extract from Segur's account of the campaign in Russia is quoted in illustration by Mr. Grote : 'Toward the end of October 1812, near Moscow, General Winzingerode, a German officer in the Russian service-with his aide-de-camp, a native Russian, Narishkin-became prisoner of the French. He was brought to Napoleon. At the sight of that German general, all the secret resentments of Napoleon took fire. "Who are you?" he exclaimed. A man without country! When I was at war with the Austrians, I found you in their ranks. Austria has become my ally, and you have entered into the Russian service. You have been one of the warmest instigators of the present war. Nevertheless, you are a native of the Confederation of the Rhine: you are my subject. You are not an ordinary enemy you are a rebel: I have a right to bring you to trial. Gens-d'armes, seize this man!" Then, addressing the aide-de-camp of Winzingerode, Napoleon said, “As for you, Count Narishkin, I have nothing to reproach you with; you are a Russian; you are doing your duty."'—Vol, xii. p. 70. are are no human sacrifices, such as those offered up at Carthage during pestilence to appease the anger of the gods-there are no cruel persecutions against imaginary authors of the disease, such as those against the Untori (anointers of doors) in the plague of Milan in 1630.'* When Ismenias, the wealthy and powerful Theban, is described by the Spartans as a great wicked man,' we are reminded that it is the same combination of epithets which Clarendon applies to Oliver Cromwell.+ In describing the stimulus to Athenian democracy imparted by the Persian wars, Mr. Grote observes,-'We see by the active political sentiment of the German people, after the great struggle of 1813 and 1814, how much an energetic and military effort of the people at large, blended with endurance of various hardships, tends to stimulate the sense of political dignity and the demand for developed citizenship.' The manner in which the allied sovereigns treated the German people after the victory had been obtained is employed to illustrate the conduct of the Spartans, in holding out to the Grecian states promises of independence which they never realised when Athens was humbled.§ The refusal of the Athenians to accept the concessions of the Spartan government as a basis of peace in the seventh year of the Peloponnesian war, when the capture of Sphacteria had so greatly humbled the Lacedæmonians, has been usually quoted as a peculiar specimen of democratical folly. But Mr. Grote justly remarks that such exaggeration of the chances arising from success is by no means peculiar to democracy, and that an able despot, like the Emperor Napoleon, and a powerful aristocracy like that of England, have found success to the full as misleading. After relating the defeat and death of Philistus, the ablest and most faithful servant of the Dionysian dynasty at Syracuse, Mr. Grote adds,'He had been an actor in its first day of usurpation, its eighteenth Brumaire: his timely, though miserable death, saved him from sharing in its last day of exile, its St. Helena.'¶ The repugnance with which the elder Dionysius listened to the discourses of Plato finds a parallel in the contempt with which the Emperor Napoleon was accustomed to show towards ideologists.** The position of Dion after the banishment of the younger Dionysius is happily compared to that of the Duke of Orleans (Egalité) at the end of 1792, in the first French revolution :-'He was hated both by the royalists-because, though related to the reigning dynasty, he had taken active part against it-and by sincere democrats, because they suspected him of a design to put himself in its place.' ++ *Vol. vi. p. 218. Vol. vi. p. 449. † Vol. ix. p. 420. Vol. v. p. 369. ** Vol. x. p. 54. § Vol. ix. p. 268. †† Ibid. 178. Another Another cardinal virtue in Mr. Grote is his conscientiousness and love of truth. No one can read his history without being struck with the singular and transparent veracity of the historian. This is the more remarkable because Mr. Grote does not write with the cold and passionless feelings of the judge: on the contrary, he has strong and deeply-cherished convictions on many points in Grecian history, and is anxious to correct what he considers dominant errors, and to enforce what he believes to be the truth. How difficult a thing it is for an historian to preserve his impartiality is shown by the absence of this virtue in almost every modern history. Bossuet, and writers of his school, attempt to make each event illustrate an imaginary march of divine Providence-imaginary because based upon their own narrow and necessarily imperfect views; Hume carefully suppresses or tones down all evidence unfavourable to the party which he chose to espouse; Gibbon indulges in inuendos, sneers, and sarcasms against the religion which he rejected, but dared not openly attack; and Mr. Macaulay employs rhetorical exaggeration and depreciation to extol or degrade the objects of his favour or dislike. But Mr. Grote's love of truth and justice rises superior to every other consideration. He summons into court all the witnesses whose testimony is important to the point under review-examines and cross-examines them with untiring patience—and argues and re-argues the case with an assiduity and conscientiousness which plainly show that his only desire is to arrive at the real facts of the case. Hence the reader always has the opportunity of correcting Mr. Grote's judgment by the evidence which he himself adduces, and can never complain that he has been misled by a false representation of events. This impartiality is accompanied by a just appreciation of the value of historical evidence. Mr. Grote applies to ancient times the same rules respecting the value of testimony which have long since been recognized by historians of modern events; and simple as this principle seems to be, his adoption of it has already introduced a new method in investigating the history of antiquity. It might have been supposed that such a principle would at once commend itself to the judgment of all; but when they come to apply it to the facts of ancient history, especially in remote times, it is tacitly set aside as no longer of value. The majority of persons are so unwilling to give up commonly received stories, especially those which have been familiar to them from childhood, that they are ready to accept them on evidence which they would pronounce to be ridiculous if employed to attest any modern occurrence. But Mr. Grote, whose example has been followed with such acuteness and skill by Sir G. Cornewall Lewis in his recent work on Roman history,* steadily keeps in view the requirements of historical truth, and demands the testimony of credible and competent witnesses, contemporary or nearly contemporary with the events they describe. This is surely the only safe way for an historian of antiquity; for if we once admit the use of historical divination,' which Niebuhr and his disciples claim so largely for themselves, we give the deathblow to all sound criticism. It is always invidious to praise one eminent writer at the expense of another; but we cannot help contrasting the different manner in which Niebuhr and Mr. Grote employ their authorities. The Prussian historian fully convinced of the correctness of his own views, and intolerant of all difference from them, does not hesitate to reject, in the most arbitrary manner, the clearest statements of the best writers when they are in opposition to his opinions, and eagerly to seize upon some fragment of a worthless grammarian, whom at other times he would treat with well-merited contempt, provided it lends support to a favourite theory of his own. The English historian, on the other hand, does not allow his feelings or imagination to warp his judgment, and never attempts to establish his convictions upon the authority of writers of inferior credit, nor discards the testimony of those opposed to him without stating fully his reasons for rejecting them. The style in which an historical work is written, is too important a subject to be passed over in an estimate of its value. It is upon this point, we think, that full justice has not been done to Mr. Grote by many of his critics. We are quite ready to admit that it is not a perfect model of historical composition, and that it would have been improved by more polish and condensation; but we believe at the same time that it possesses many of the chief excellencies of an historical style. In the first place, it is perfectly clear and expresses fully the meaning of the writer. In the next place, it is impressive; the arrow goes straight to the mark; and the reader rarely fails to carry away the exact impression which the writer wished to convey. Hence the attention is kept alive, and one of the most learned histories in our language is also one of the most readable. In a style possessing these essential merits, and which is further distinguished by the rare charm of individuality, we may well pardon a few defects. Mr. Grote's parliamentary career has not been without its influence upon his composition. When he writes, if any man is inclined to call the unknown ante-Hellenic period of Indeed Sir G. Cornewall Lewis carries out the principle more consistently than Mr. Grote, who admits, in early Grecian history, some facts which seem to us to rest on no sufficient evidence. Greece Greece by the name of Pelasgic, it is open to him to do so,' we cannot fail to be reminded of the parliamentary phrase, it is open to any honourable member,' &c. In the celebrated debate in the Athenian assembly respecting the expedition to Sphacteria, the friends of Nicias are said 'to repay the scornful cheer by cheers of sincere encouragement.' † In like manner we read that Nicias had shown his hostile feeling towards Alcibiades' by a parliamentary attack of the most galling character.' Such expressions as the Athenian budget,' 'a leader of opposition,' and many others which might be quoted, may be traced to the influence of the House of Commons. The introduction of Greek, German, and other foreign words has been frequently objected to, nor can their use be always defended; but many of them have been too indiscriminately condemned; and it would be impossible to find the full equivalent in English for such expressions as autonomous' and 'Pan-Hellenic.' It must not be forgotten that Mr. Grote writes for men of education; and though he makes less demand upon the knowledge of his readers than many might suppose, yet he might fairly presume that the persons who were likely to take up his book would have no difficulty in understanding the foreign terms he occasionally employs. The justificationand we think it a sufficient one-for their use is, that they leave upon the mind a more full and exact impression of the author's meaning than any English words would convey. Even phrases, which seem at first sight the most objectionable, may be defended upon this ground: such, for instance, as 'the poor and hardy Landwehr of Macedonia,'§ which is very expressive to a person acquainted with the organization of the Prussian army, and far more appropriate than our word militia. The same remarks apply to such expressions a' Vorort, or presiding city,'|| a' body of Athenian volunteers or corps francs,'¶ a divine Pheme or message flew into the camp,' **&c. Notwithstanding this occasional departure from the vernacular vocabulary, Mr. Grote employs modern phrases and expressions to a much greater extent than any other historian of antiquity has hitherto done. Both these characteristics appear to spring from the same sourcehis intense desire to realize the past, and to present it vividly before the minds of his readers. Almost every page of his history would illustrate our meaning; but one or two examples will be sufficient for those who are not familiar with the work. Thus, Nicias is described as 'a decorous, honest, reli Vol. vii. p. 207. ¶ Vol. x. p. 121. |