William Mitford, born in London, Feb. 10, 1744, studied at the University of Oxford, but did not take his degree. In 1761 he succeeded to the family estate, and in 1769 became captain in the South Hampshire Militia, in which corps Gibbon, with whom he became intimate, was a major. His first work, “An Essay upon Harmony in Language, &c.,” was published in 1774; the first volume of his “History of Greece” in 1784; the second in 1790, the third in 1796, the fourth in 1808, and the fifth in 1818. His “Observations on the History and Doctrine of Christianity” appeared in 1823. Mitford died Feb. 8, 1827. A memoir, by Lord Redesdale, is prefixed to the edition of the “History of Greece,” published in 1829.
Personal
Mitford, the historian of Greece, possessed, besides his learning, a wonderful variety of accomplishments. I always felt the highest respect for him. When, not long before his death, I used to meet him in the street, bent almost double, and carrying a long staff in his hand, he reminded me of a venerable pilgrim just come from Jerusalem.
History of Greece, 1784–1818
I am still devouring Mitford with unabated pleasure, and, that it may last the longer, I often consult his authorities, and am led away from him, for hours together, by the narratives of Pausanias and the charming simplicity of Herodotus.
Looked into Mitford’s History of Greece. The Athenian Democracy imparts no sort of relish for that sort of government, and justifies Aristotle in saying, Ἠ Δημοκρατιαη τελενταῖα Τυραννις εςτ—and of the worst sort we may add. The account of the expedition and retreat of the Ten Thousand is above measure interesting. How much more than men do the Greeks appear compared with the effeminate and pusillanimous Persians! One can hardly believe them of the same species.
Considered with respect, not only to the whole series of antient events which it comprises, but also to any very prominent portion to that series, Mr. Mitford’s history is the best that has appeared since the days of Xenophon. By calling it the best, we mean that it is the strongest in that quality, which is the cardinal virtue, or rather the four cardinal virtues in one, of the historic composition,—trustworthiness. Such praise, it will instantly occur to the reader, is seldom bestowed where it is best due, without a credit-account of censure being opened at the same time; and, in fact, it is our purpose to conform to this general practice. The work before us, indeed, is one which will bear to be commended with discrimination; and its excellences, if faithfully displayed, may sustain such a contrast of shadow, as would perfectly extinguish the farthing brightness of those novels founded on fact, commonly called histories…. Upon the whole, though we think it rather unfortunate that the story of the Grecian republics should have been told by one who has so many anti-republican partialities, we think it our duty to testify that it has been more justly told by Mr. Mitford than by any preceding author; and that those who differ from him in his political conclusions, must still acknowledge their obligations to the clearness and fulness of his narrative.
His great pleasure consists in praising tyrants, abusing Plutarch, spelling oddly, and writing quaintly; and, what is strange, after all, his is the best modern history of Greece in any language, and he is perhaps the best of all modern historians whatsoever. Having named his sins, it is but fair to state his virtues—learning, labour, research, wrath and partiality. I call the latter virtues in a writer, because they make him write in earnest.
Sentiments unfavourable to democracy are made with unhesitating confidence, and with the utmost bitterness of language. Every charge brought against a monarch, or an aristocracy, is sifted with the utmost care. If it cannot be denied, some palliating supposition is suggested, or we are at least reminded that some circumstance now unknown may have justified what at present appears unjustifiable. Two events are reported by the same author in the same sentence; their truth rests on the same testimony; but the one supports the darling hypothesis, and the other seems inconsistent with it. The one is taken and the other is left.
History cannot fall within a survey of elegant literature, except so far as relates to its rhetorical execution. In this particular, some writers of the age,—as Mitford and Turner, for example—have been so abominably perverse, that it would seem as if they were willing to try what degree of bad writing the public would tolerate, for the sake of the valuable matter it may contain.
Mr. Mitford is the first who brought to the arduous task of Grecian history the extensive research, accurate inquiry, and profound reflection which characterize the scholars of recent times…. His great work was chiefly composed during, or shortly after, the French Revolution; and it was mainly intended to counteract the visionary ideas, in regard to the blessings of Grecian democracy, which has spread so far in the world from the magic of Athenian genius…. The cause of truth has been essentially aided by his exertions; and the experiences of the working of democracy in our own times have been such as to forbid a doubt as to the accuracy of the facts he has stated, whatever hesitation may be felt as to the wisdom of the expressions in which they are sometimes conveyed…. It may appear strange to say that there is equal truth in the monarchial history of Greece by Mitford, and in the republican by Grote; but, nevertheless, it is so. Both tell the truth, and nothing but the truth, but neither the whole truth.
Mitford’s style is in general verbose, periodic, and heavy. There is, however, a certain animation in his narratives of striking events; and his expression sometimes receives a warm colour from the strength of his feelings as a political partisan. He is included by De Quincey among “orthographic mutineers,” eccentrics in the matter of spelling.
William Mitford, who, at the commencement of the nineteenth century, was the fashionable historian of Greece, in one respect resembled Gibbon. Like Gibbon, he examined for himself the entire range of Greek literature, and founded his history on original authorities. Unlike Gibbon, however, his style is unequal and occasionally bad. At his best he is pure, simple, and clear; at his worst he is involved and unintelligible. He lays himself open to the charge that he is translating Greek, instead of writing English; and his translations are so poor that a schoolboy would be punished for them…. In his own lifetime, indeed, his opinions increased the popularity of his work; but they insured its supercession in a later age. Thirlwall and Grote were educated under circumstances differing from those amidst which Mitford had lived. With equal ability and equal industry they embraced other views. Grote occupies the position which Mitford once filled; and a Liberal age praises and reads the liberal writer, and neglects the industrious Tory who preceded him in his task.
As Grote’s is the greatest Liberal history of Greece, so this is the great Tory history of the same country. Before the appearance of Thirlwall, it was the history most often consulted. In the use of terse and cogent English, Mitford was superior to his successors. He could praise tyrants and abuse liberty in a manner that was sure to interest his readers; and even his constant partialities and frequent exhibitions of anger give flavor to his narration. He hated the popular party of Athens, as he hated the Whigs of England. These characteristics give spirit to a book which, with all its labor and learning, is merely a huge party pamphlet. Though it has had much influence in England, it is no longer of any considerable importance.
Although Mitford’s hatred of democracy, whether well- or ill-founded, makes him sometimes unfair, and though his “History of Greece” contains some blunders, it is on the whole rather a pity that it should have been superseded to the extent to which it actually has been by those of Grote and Thirlwall. For it is not more prejudiced and much better written than Grote’s, while it has greater liveliness and zest than the Bishop’s.
It was at the suggestion of his fellow officer, Gibbon, that he undertook to write the history of Greece, a task for which his qualifications were a lively idiomatic style, a sufficiency of such Greek as Oxford then dispensed, a pronounced antipathy to democratic government, and a total absence of the historical sense.
General
Mr. Mitford was one of the many accomplished scholars that are ill used. Had he possessed the splendid powers of Landor, he would have raised a clatter on the armour of modern society such as Samson threatened to the giant Harapha. For in many respects he resembled Landor: he had much of his learning; he had the same extensive access to books and influential circles in great cities, the same gloomy disdain of popular falsehoods or commonplaces, and the same disposition to run amuck against all nations, languages and spelling-books.
