(being continued from 6/10/13)

4. Finlay’s History of Greece BC 146 – AD 1864

Finlay opened his History with the clearest possible statement of what I have
called his ‘dual perspective’ on Greek history:

“The history of Greece under foreign domination records the degradation  and the calamities of the nation which attained the highest degree of  civilization in the ancient world. [But] Two thousand years of suffering have
not obliterated the national character, not extinguished the national  ambition.”17
We hear the almost apologetic tone for taking an interest in Greece in  her later periods. The shadow of the “civilization” of the classical period always  lingers, against which all other periods represent “degradation”. Nevertheless,
Finlay was determined that even the “calamities” of two millennia had not  destroyed his subject – the Greek ‘nation’, specifically, and its “national  character”.
Finlay’s conception of the classical period, from which his tale of  “degradation” and “calamities” unravels, is clarified by comments made in his  History and in the notebooks now preserved in his archive. It had much in  common with that of other British thinkers in the nineteenth century. He  shared the idealization of classical Athens’ ‘great individuals’,18 and admired the  broad basis of her culture (which he explicitly contrasted with modern  society)19 and the ‘educative’ nature of her public assemblies.20 He also shared the view that ancient Athens had been a society based overwhelmingly on the productive labour of slaves, one in which there was “a constant enmity between  the rich and the poor”.21
‘Decline’ from this idealized classical past set in, he said in the History, after  Plato and Aristotle.22 However, the nature of this decline is more strikingly illuminated by a comment made in some unbound papers in his archive:
[…] We must also remember that the history of Greece is the history of  a declining nation in morals and politics. The decline commenced at  the period when history began to be written. The period of true  greatness of the greek nation precedes history. We know little of the  time when the greeks filled the Mediterranean and the Black Sea with  their colonies. We know nothing of the causes which led to the rapid  increase of the greek race. The light of history falls strongly only on the
causes of Hellenic decline.23

It is important to bear in mind when reading the remorseless tale of ‘decline’ that Finlay unfolds in his History that he in fact envisages not only a general  decline from the classical past but an even more monumental fall from grace,
as shown here.
However, it is crucial that Finlay did not offer a straightforwardly linear  picture of decline. Within the overall framework, periods of rise and fall were  envisaged. For instance, within the ‘Byzantine’ period, which he conceptualized  as 716-1204 AD, Finlay argued that the iconoclast era had offset decline by “the  moral vigour developed in society” and a series of able sovereigns who
attempted to restore national prosperity. This period (716-867 AD) was  followed by the Byzantines’ “highest pitch of external power and internal  prosperity”, 867-1057 AD, after which followed “the true period of the decline  and fall of the Eastern Empire”, 1057-1204 AD.24 The centuries from the fourth  Crusade to the fall of Constantinople were, he thought, utterly abject, with
final collapse apparent in the Ottoman period, its indignity epitomized, for  him, by the janissary system. Finally, the Revolution and the modern period  showed signs of ‘regeneration’ – though all too slow and beset with corruption,
in Finlay’s opinion.
It was Finlay’s admiration for Leo III that led him to attach such  significance to 716 AD. As the first iconoclast emperor, the commissioner of the  Ecloga (a new legal code to replace the Justinianic legal corpus) and the author
of successes in foreign policy against the East, Finlay found him an impressive figure in a number of respects. However, he was emphatic that his legal reforms  made him most worthy of admiration.25 As we shall see, this focus on legal  administration is characteristic.
Why, then, did the Greeks ‘decline’? How was revival possible in 716 and,later, towards the end of the eighteenth century? These questions provide the  backbone to the History. I shall use them as an interpretive structure for looking at the text, before moving on to the lessons that Finlay wanted to draw  from his account.

4.1. Explaining ‘decline’
Certainly, Finlay considered external factors in Greek decline – the kinds of  enemies she encountered, for example, and their characteristic vices, such as  Roman ‘greed’.26 But he was certain that internal factors were always more  important: “The misfortunes of nations are generally the direct consequence of  their own vices, social or political”.27 Through his seven volumes, he charged the  Greeks with being responsible for their own decline, under Roman, Byzantine  and Ottoman rule. His treatment of these internal factors might be discussed  according to the broad categories into which he separates them: governmental
and structural, military, judicial, economic, religious, and social and moral.
For Finlay, decline was overwhelmingly the fault of the system of  government itself. It combined and therefore confounded, as he put it, all the  legislative, executive and administrative powers in the person of the emperor.28
He regarded the Eastern Roman Empire as a virtual despotism; Basil I’s  restriction of the power of both Senate and provinces made it an absolute  despotism,29 cemented by Leo VI and Alexander.30 Under the Comneni, from  1057 onwards, government by ‘imperial placemen’ appointed by the emperor  became the norm, as opposed to government by skilled public servants.31
This despotism split ‘the people’ from ‘the government’.32 For Finlay,however, popular control of public servants, and the robust exercise of public  opinion, were essential for political morality. Further, the despotism involved  the systematic oppression of the provinces. The form of government thus tended towards centralisation, at the expense of municipal institutions.
Local institutions were important essentially because they involved people,
drawing them in to the political process. This made them more likely to turn to political debate, and less likely to revolt, in order to effect change. Further,local institutions stimulated material and commercial benefits for the people,33
and made them more likely to defend themselves against external threats. Their absence was thus a serious loss, which was made emphatically clear when Finlay  accounted for the disaster of 1204 in these terms:
Never was the national imbecility which arises from the want of  municipal institutions and executive activity in local spheres more
apparent. Had the towns, cities, corporations, districts, and provinces,inhabited by a Greek population, possessed magistrates responsible to  the people and accustomed to independent action, there can be no  doubt that thousands of Greek citizens would have rushed forward to  defend their country.34
Here we see aspects of the admiration for the citizen’s readiness to fight  which was a significant part of the republican refrain. This loss of martial  readiness on the part of citizens was set alongside disorder in the army, and the  increasing difficulties with funds to enlist mercenary troops, as explanations for   Byzantine military decline.
In this admiration for civic military readiness, we see something of Finlay the  champion of ‘the people’. He commended them for a kind of ‘common sense’  political wisdom,35 and for their rural virtues.36 They were the nation’s  backbone,37 and in later volumes the Greek Revolution would be portrayed as  emphatically their glory.38 However, Finlay admitted that we in fact have very  little evidence about these ‘people’39 – they were something of a romantic  chimera for him. Here he had much in common with his friend E. A. Freeman.40
It is also relevant that his notebooks show he had been reading Thomas Paine,who was notable for his republican championship of ‘the people’.41
This is not to cast Finlay as radical, however. He placed too much emphasis  on the necessity of a middle class in the development of ‘public opinion’ for this  description to be accurate.42 He subscribed to the dominant liberal conception of public opinion, in which it was a bulwark of liberty overwhelmingly  determined by class and gender.
In contrast, he had venom for the aristocracy. He believed that the ‘great  nobles of Asia’ finally destroyed the “scientific fabric” of the political system  and its systematic procedure between 1057 and 1204, buttressing a despotism  based on personal influence.43 From this point through to the modern period,he frequently portrayed the upper classes as the cause of national suffering.44
Indeed, the slaughter of the aristocracy in 1453 was effectively depicted as a  blessing in disguise, since the aristocracy had, he believed, become an obstacle  to national moral improvement.45
Thus, centralisation and the absence of municipal participation were  harmful to the body politic. Further, they could harm the systematic  administration of the law. Although Roman law, which the Byzantines  developed, did not have the concept that judicial power should be independent  of executive and legislative, Finlay nevertheless admired it. He commented in a  notebook: “Had an independent judicial system been formed the Roman  empire would probably never have fallen.”46 Conversely, the sign of a bad
emperor was failure in the administration of justice: Finlay’s hostility to the  Comnenian dynasty stems from its perceived impoverishment of the judicial  system.47 In this vein, Finlay remained critical of the lawlessness he perceived  in Greece right through to his own day.48
Economics sat alongside justice as the twin most important branches of  government in civilized society.49 His interest in the economic realm stemmed  from the time he had spent in Scotland in the care of his uncle, the MP Kirkman  Finlay, who was well-read in political economy in particular.50 Finlay’s early  essays attest a knowledge of Smith, Ricardo and Malthus, among others.51 He  identified financial maladministration and fiscal oppression throughout his  work. The taxation of the imperial government was rapacious, making the people  merely the “slaves of the imperial treasury”.52 Its effects were far-reaching: “fiscal  rapacity was the incurable canker of the Byzantine, as it had been of the Roman  government. From it arose all those measures which reduced society to a  stationary condition”.53 Greece was thus drained by successive emperors  –Constantine,54 Justinian,55 Nicephorus I,56 the Comneni57– and by this process  Finlay emphasized that this ‘morality’ could not be infused by literature or  Orthodoxy alone.66 Here he was responding to those who argued that either  Hellenic culture or Christian religion had been the well-springs of Greek  revival. Indeed, for Finlay classical literature had often made the Greeks  unjustifiably vain about their heritage – and as such it had proved as much a  burden as a boon.67
However, neither were any match, in his opinion, for a public-oriented  political morality, which stemmed first and foremost from the individual. If  Greece had sunk to moral degeneration as a nation, it was, he said, “because  they were destitute of virtue as individuals”.68 Finlay’s explanation for this  compared two episodes of British and Greek history. While the Norman Conquest had led to “English liberty”, in his opinion, Greece’s experiences of  conquest had led to “Turkish tyranny”, and the explanation “must be sought in  the family, the parish, the borough and the county; not in parliament and central government”.69
Thus, the family and the local socio-religious context (“the parish”) first and foremost instilled ‘morality’ or ‘virtue’. At the public level, this morality should  be stimulated by activity in local government (“the borough and the county” in  the English context). This helped to create that “energy” and “vigour” which  sustained liberty. However, Greece had had local institutions, but they had not  ultimately proved effective. Finlay had to offer an explanation for this. In part,
he targeted the inadequacy of what he characterized as ‘educative’ support. In  other words, to stimulate participation, a certain kind of ‘education’ was required – one that instilled a respect for the public realm. Too often, Greek  education was “pedantic”, as he put it, private- rather than public-oriented.70
Yet this was not just a Greek issue: “The most important, and in general the  most neglected, part of national education, in all countries, has been the  primary relations of the individual to the commonwealth”.71
However, a further difficulty was the very nature of local institutions  themselves. Instead of being the instruments of a public-oriented civic virtue that  Finlay had in mind, they could be perverted to manipulate the people. Even in  Constantine’s time, for example, he saw the local curia partly as a vehicle for  extorting taxes.72 Likewise, later, he argued that those municipal institutions  which persisted in Greece in the Ottoman period in fact became the instruments  of Turkish oppression and tax-collecting, and hence “this vaunted institution  protected the liberties of the people by accident”.73 Similarly, in the nineteenth
century, he criticized the king and his “oligarchical elective college” for effectively  making local officials an instrument of the central government.74We shall return  to the importance of this in the next Section.
This ‘morality’ was the source of Finlay’s depiction of what he sweepingly  calls “Greek character”. He could be extremely disparaging – frequently the  Greeks are depicted as “selfish”, “vain” and “presumptuous” in terms of  individual and national character. Indeed, his comments about Greek ‘national  character’ are one of the reasons he is little read today. However, some
sensitivity to contemporary uses of the term ‘character’ is essential. Stefan  Collini’s recent work on the nineteenth-century use of the concept character  has argued that it was a new articulation, in a different register, of that ‘civic  virtue’ which was the keystone of eighteenth-century political discourse.75
‘Morality’ and ‘character’, I suggest, were Finlay’s terms for encouraging ‘virtue’  in citizens. Thus his comments on Greek character cannot be read as the  straightforwardly chauvinistic criticism they might appear to us now. Further,
Finlay’s disparaging comments about ‘national character’ were certainly not  confined to the Greeks. His journals and papers contain a number of such remarks about the national characters of others. Indeed, Charles Frazee aptly  captured Finlay’s critical temper when he said that Finlay “did not spare those whom he felt did not measure up to his ideals. Within this group could be
placed the overwhelming majority of mankind”.76

(to be continued)

Liz Potter


17 1: p. xv.
18 2: p. 236.
19 1: p. 9.
20 2: p. 4.
21 Finlay papers, E.13: “Reflections suggested by reading Aristotle’s Politics”, pp. 31-33.
22 2: p. 4.
23 Finlay papers, E.58: a collection of hand-written essays and notes. [Capitalisation as
given in his note.]

24 1: p. xviiff, 2: p. 9ff.
25 2: pp. 9, 23, 32ff.
26 Vol. 1 passim.

27 5: p. 136.
28 1: p. 184f.
29 1: p. 292, 2: p. 237f.
30 2: pp. 259, 283, 302.
31 3: p. 3.
32 Some examples among many: 1: pp. 104, 295ff, 3: p. 283.
33 See especially Finlay’s “Observations on the Characteristic Features of Byzantine
History”, Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature, 1851.

34 3: p. 282. Cf. 4: p. 264, 5: p. 228f.
35 E.g. 2: p. 62, 6: p. 410.
36 2: p. 215, 5: p. 135, 6: p. 12.
37 5: p. 135.
38 6: p. 231.
39 E.g. 4: pp. 166 and 47.
40 On Freeman, see J. W. Burrow, A Liberal Descent. Victorian Historians and the
English Past, Cambridge 1981.
41 Finlay papers, A.30.
42 See esp. 1: pp. 10, 108, 199, 2: pp. 218f, 457f, 4: pp. 47, 274, 7: p. 2.
43 2: p. 10f.
44 E.g. 4: p. 47f, 5: p. 122, 6: pp. 5, 337.

45 5: p. 121.
46 Finlay papers, D.12.
47 Esp. 3: p. 6.
48 E.g. 7: p. 47.
49 5: p. 18f.
50 1: p. xl.
51 “Some Observations on the Commercial Situation and Policy of Great Britain”, Finlay
papers, A.1.
52 1: p. 195.
53 2: p. 202.
54 1: p. 102ff.
55 1: p. 193ff.
56 2: pp. 93, 97.
57 2: p. 11.

66 5: p. 28f; cf. 5: pp. 245 and 286.
67 E.g. 1: pp. 25f, 70, 417, Vols. 5-7 passim.
68 5: p. 8.
69 4: p. 227f.
70 See 2: p. 4 and 4: p. 43.
71 4: p. 427 (my emphasis).

72 1: p. 109.
73 7: p. 102.
74 7: p. 120f.
75 S. Collini, Public Moralists. Political Thought and Intellectual Life in Britain 1850-
1930, Oxford 1991, esp. Chapter 3.
76 C. A. Frazee, op. cit.

About sooteris kyritsis

Job title: (f)PHELLOW OF SOPHIA Profession: RESEARCHER Company: ANTHROOPISMOS Favorite quote: "ITS TIME FOR KOSMOPOLITANS(=HELLINES) TO FLY IN SPACE." Interested in: Activity Partners, Friends Fashion: Classic Humor: Friendly Places lived: EN THE HIGHLANDS OF KOSMOS THROUGH THE DARKNESS OF AMENTHE
This entry was posted in News and politics and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s