0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)
7 просмотров

Microsoft Blazor: Building Web Applications in .NET - Second Edition Peter Himschoot download

Документ представляет собой описание книги 'Microsoft Blazor: Building Web Applications in .NET - Second Edition' авторства Питера Химшота, которая охватывает создание веб-приложений с использованием технологии Blazor в .NET. В книге рассматриваются основные концепции, такие как установка необходимых инструментов, создание проектов, работа с данными и компоненты Blazor. Также упоминаются другие книги и ресурсы, доступные для скачивания на сайте ebookmeta.com.

Загружено:

manqkomaar
Авторское право
© © All Rights Reserved
Доступные форматы
Скачать в формате PDF, TXT или читать онлайн в Scribd
0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)
7 просмотров

Microsoft Blazor: Building Web Applications in .NET - Second Edition Peter Himschoot download

Документ представляет собой описание книги 'Microsoft Blazor: Building Web Applications in .NET - Second Edition' авторства Питера Химшота, которая охватывает создание веб-приложений с использованием технологии Blazor в .NET. В книге рассматриваются основные концепции, такие как установка необходимых инструментов, создание проектов, работа с данными и компоненты Blazor. Также упоминаются другие книги и ресурсы, доступные для скачивания на сайте ebookmeta.com.

Загружено:

manqkomaar
Авторское право
© © All Rights Reserved
Доступные форматы
Скачать в формате PDF, TXT или читать онлайн в Scribd
Вы находитесь на странице: 1/ 44

Microsoft Blazor: Building Web Applications in

.NET - Second Edition Peter Himschoot pdf


download

https://ebookmeta.com/product/microsoft-blazor-building-web-
applications-in-net-second-edition-peter-himschoot/

Download more ebook from https://ebookmeta.com


We believe these products will be a great fit for you. Click
the link to download now, or visit ebookmeta.com
to discover even more!

Microsoft Blazor: Building Web Applications in .NET 6


and Beyond - Third Edition Peter Himschoot

https://ebookmeta.com/product/microsoft-blazor-building-web-
applications-in-net-6-and-beyond-third-edition-peter-himschoot/

Microsoft Blazor Building Web Applications in NET 6 and


Beyond 3rd Edition Peter Himschoot

https://ebookmeta.com/product/microsoft-blazor-building-web-
applications-in-net-6-and-beyond-3rd-edition-peter-himschoot/

Microsoft Blazor, 2nd Edition Peter Himschoot

https://ebookmeta.com/product/microsoft-blazor-2nd-edition-peter-
himschoot/

Bluetooth 5 0 Modem Design for IoT Devices Khaled Salah


Mohamed

https://ebookmeta.com/product/bluetooth-5-0-modem-design-for-iot-
devices-khaled-salah-mohamed/
Borrowed from Your Grandchildren : The Evolution of
100-Year Family Enterprises 1st Edition Dennis T. Jaffe

https://ebookmeta.com/product/borrowed-from-your-grandchildren-
the-evolution-of-100-year-family-enterprises-1st-edition-dennis-
t-jaffe/

Programming Fundamentals Using JAVA A Game Application


Approach 2nd Edition William Mcallister

https://ebookmeta.com/product/programming-fundamentals-using-
java-a-game-application-approach-2nd-edition-william-mcallister/

Business in Ethical Focus An Anthology 2nd Edition


Fritz Allho

https://ebookmeta.com/product/business-in-ethical-focus-an-
anthology-2nd-edition-fritz-allho/

Anatomy & Physiology: The Unity of Form and Function


Kenneth S. Saladin

https://ebookmeta.com/product/anatomy-physiology-the-unity-of-
form-and-function-kenneth-s-saladin/

Edexcel AS and A level Mathematics Pure Mathematics


Year 1 AS Textbook e book A level Maths and Further
Maths 2017 1st Edition Greg Attwood

https://ebookmeta.com/product/edexcel-as-and-a-level-mathematics-
pure-mathematics-year-1-as-textbook-e-book-a-level-maths-and-
further-maths-2017-1st-edition-greg-attwood/
RedPillDad Blog Writings 1st Edition Redpilldad

https://ebookmeta.com/product/redpilldad-blog-writings-1st-
edition-redpilldad/
Microsof t
Blazor
Building Web Applications in .NET

Second Edition

Peter Himschoot
Microsoft Blazor
Building Web Applications in .NET
Second Edition

Peter Himschoot
Microsoft Blazor: Building Web Applications in .NET

Peter Himschoot
Melle, Belgium

ISBN-13 (pbk): 978-1-4842-5927-6    ISBN-13 (electronic): 978-1-4842-5928-3


https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-5928-3

Copyright © 2020 by Peter Himschoot


This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the
material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
Trademarked names, logos, and images may appear in this book. Rather than use a trademark symbol with
every occurrence of a trademarked name, logo, or image we use the names, logos, and images only in an
editorial fashion and to the benefit of the trademark owner, with no intention of infringement of the
trademark.
The use in this publication of trade names, trademarks, service marks, and similar terms, even if they are not
identified as such, is not to be taken as an expression of opinion as to whether or not they are subject to
proprietary rights.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication,
neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or
omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the
material contained herein.
Managing Director, Apress Media LLC: Welmoed Spahr
Acquisitions Editor: Jonathan Gennick
Development Editor: Laura Berendson
Coordinating Editor: Jill Balzano
Cover image designed by Freepik (www.freepik.com)
Distributed to the book trade worldwide by Springer Science+Business Media New York, 233 Spring Street,
6th Floor, New York, NY 10013. Phone 1-800-SPRINGER, fax (201) 348-4505, e-mail orders-ny@springer-
sbm.com, or visit www.springeronline.com. Apress Media, LLC is a California LLC and the sole member
(owner) is Springer Science + Business Media Finance Inc (SSBM Finance Inc). SSBM Finance Inc is a
Delaware corporation.
For information on translations, please e-mail [email protected], or visit http://www.apress.com/
rights-permissions.
Apress titles may be purchased in bulk for academic, corporate, or promotional use. eBook versions and
licenses are also available for most titles. For more information, reference our Print and eBook Bulk Sales
web page at http://www.apress.com/bulk-sales.
Any source code or other supplementary material referenced by the author in this book is available to
readers on GitHub via the book’s product page, located at www.apress.com/9781484259276. For more
detailed information, please visit http://www.apress.com/source-code.
Printed on acid-free paper
Table of Contents
About the Author����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� xi

About the Technical Reviewer������������������������������������������������������������������������������� xiii


Acknowledgments���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������xv

Introduction�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������xvii

Chapter 1: Your First Blazor Project������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1


Installing Blazor Prerequisites������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 1
.NET Core��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1
Visual Studio 2019������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 2
Visual Studio Code������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 4
Installing the Blazor Templates for VS/Code���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 5
Generating Your Project with Visual Studio����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 6
Creating a Project with Visual Studio�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 7
Generating the Project with dotnet cli������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 8
Running the Project����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 9
Examining the Project’s Parts����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 11
The Solution��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 11
The Server����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 11
The Shared Project���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 13
The Client Blazor Project������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 14
Debugging Client-Side Blazor����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 18
Debugging with Visual Studio������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 18
Debugging in Chrome������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 19

iii
Table of Contents

The Client-Side Blazor Bootstrap Process���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 21


The Server-Side Blazor Bootstrap Process��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 23
Summary������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 24

Chapter 2: Data Binding������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 25


A Quick Look at Razor����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 25
One-Way Data Binding���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 27
One-Way Data Binding Syntax����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 27
Attribute Binding������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 28
Conditional Attributes������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 29
Event Handling and Data Binding������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 30
Event Binding Syntax������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 30
Event Arguments������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 31
Using C# Lambda Functions�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 31
Two-Way Data Binding���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 32
Two-Way Data Binding Syntax����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 32
Binding to Other Events: @bind:{event}�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 34
Preventing Default Actions���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 34
Stopping Event Propagation�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 36
Formatting Dates������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 37
Reporting Changes���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 38
The Pizza Place Single-Page Application������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 41
Create the PizzaPlace Project������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 41
Add Shared Classes to Represent the Data��������������������������������������������������������������������������� 42
Build the UI to Show the Menu���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 46
Enter the Customer���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 55
Validate the Customer Information���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 57
Summary������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 63

iv
Table of Contents

Chapter 3: Components and Structure for Blazor Applications������������������������������ 65


What Is a Blazor Component?����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 65
Examining the SurveyPrompt Component����������������������������������������������������������������������������� 66
Building a Simple Alert Component with Razor��������������������������������������������������������������������� 67
Separating View and View Model������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 71
Understanding Parent-Child Communication������������������������������������������������������������������������ 72
Referring to a Child Component�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 82
Communicating with Cascading Parameters������������������������������������������������������������������������ 83
Using Templated Components����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 87
Create the Grid Templated Component���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 87
Use the Grid Templated Component�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 89
Specify the Type Parameter’s Type Explicitly������������������������������������������������������������������������� 91
Razor Templates�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 91
Building a Component Library����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 94
Create the Component Library Project���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 94
Add Components to the Library��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 96
Refer to the Library from Your Project����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 96
Component Life Cycle Hooks������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 99
OnInitialized and OnInitializedAsync������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 100
OnParametersSet and OnParametersSetAsync������������������������������������������������������������������� 100
SetParametersAsync����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 101
OnAfterRender and OnAfterRenderAsync���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 102
ShouldRender���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 103
IDisposable�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 103
Refactoring PizzaPlace into Components��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 104
Create a Component to Display a List of Pizzas������������������������������������������������������������������ 104
Show the ShoppingBasket Component������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 107
Add the CustomerEntry Component������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 109
Use Cascading Properties���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 112
The Blazor Compilation Model�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 116
Summary���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 119

v
Table of Contents

Chapter 4: Services and Dependency Injection���������������������������������������������������� 121


What Is Dependency Inversion?������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 121
Understanding Dependency Inversion��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 121
Using the Dependency Inversion Principle�������������������������������������������������������������������������� 123
Adding Dependency Injection���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 125
Applying an Inversion-of-Control Container������������������������������������������������������������������������ 126
Configuring Dependency Injection�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 128
Singleton Dependencies������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 130
Transient Dependencies������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 131
Scoped Dependencies��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 131
Disposing Dependencies����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 134
Understanding Blazor Dependency Lifetime����������������������������������������������������������������������������� 135
Client-Side Blazor Experiment��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 136
Server-Side Blazor Experiment������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 139
The Result of the Experiment���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 141
Building Pizza Services������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 142
Adding the MenuService and IMenuService Abstraction����������������������������������������������������� 144
Ordering Pizzas with a Service�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 146
Summary���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 149

Chapter 5: Data Storage and Microservices��������������������������������������������������������� 151


What Is REST?��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 151
Understanding HTTP������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 151
Universal Resource Identifiers and Methods����������������������������������������������������������������������� 152
HTTP Status Codes�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 153
Invoking Server Functionality Using REST�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 153
HTTP Headers���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 153
JavaScript Object Notation�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 154
Some Examples of REST Calls��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 154
Building a Simple Microservice Using ASP.NET Core���������������������������������������������������������������� 156
Services and Single Responsibility������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 156
The Pizza Service���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 157

vi
Table of Contents

What Is Entity Framework Core?����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 161


Using the Code First Approach�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 161
Preparing Your Project for Code First Migrations���������������������������������������������������������������� 165
Creating Your Code First Migration�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 170
Generating the Database����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 172
Enhancing the Pizza Microservice�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 174
Testing Your Microservice Using Postman�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 177
Installing Postman��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 177
Making REST Calls with Postman���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 178
Summary���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 183

Chapter 6: Communication with Microservices��������������������������������������������������� 185


Using the HttpClient Class��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 185
Examining the Server Project���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 185
Why Use a Shared Project?������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 187
Looking at the Client Project����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 188
Understanding the HttpClient Class������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 192
The HttpClientJsonExtensions Methods������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 193
Retrieving Data from the Server����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 196
Storing Changes������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 201
Updating the Database with Orders������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 201
Building the Order Microservice������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 205
Talking to the Order Microservice��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 207
Summary���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 208

Chapter 7: Single-Page Applications and Routing������������������������������������������������ 209


What Is a Single-Page Application?������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 209
Using Layout Components�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 210
Blazor Layout Components�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 210
Selecting a @layout Component����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 213
_Imports.razor��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 214
Nested Layouts�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 215

vii
Table of Contents

Understanding Routing������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 216


Installing the Router������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 216
The NavMenu Component��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 217
The NavLink Component������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 219
Setting the Route Template������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 220
Using Route Parameters������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 220
Filter URIs with Route Constraints��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 221
Redirecting to Other Pages������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 222
Navigating Using an Anchor������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 223
Navigating Using the NavLink Component�������������������������������������������������������������������������� 223
Navigating with Code���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 223
Understanding the Base Tag������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 224
Sharing State Between Components���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 226
Summary���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 235

Chapter 8: JavaScript Interoperability����������������������������������������������������������������� 237


Calling JavaScript from C#�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 237
Providing a Glue Function���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 237
Using IJSRuntime to Call the Glue Function������������������������������������������������������������������������ 238
Storing Data in the Browser with Interop���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 238
Passing a Reference to JavaScript�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 242
Calling .NET Methods from JavaScript�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 244
Adding a Glue Function Taking a .NET Instance������������������������������������������������������������������ 244
Adding a JSInvokable Method to Invoke����������������������������������������������������������������������������� 245
Using Services for Interop��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 246
Building the ILocalStorage Service�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 246
The Counter with the LocalStorage Service������������������������������������������������������������������������ 248
Building a Blazor Chart Component Library������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 250
Creating the Blazor Component Library������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 250
Adding the Component Library to Your Project�������������������������������������������������������������������� 251

viii
Table of Contents

Adding Chart.js to the Component Library�������������������������������������������������������������������������� 254


Adding Chart.js Data and Options Classes�������������������������������������������������������������������������� 258
Registering the JavaScript Glue Function��������������������������������������������������������������������������� 262
Providing the JavaScript Interoperability Service��������������������������������������������������������������� 263
Implementing the LineChart Component����������������������������������������������������������������������������� 266
Using the LineChart Component������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 267
Summary���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 270

Index��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 271

ix
About the Author
Peter Himschoot works as a lead trainer, architect, and
strategist at U2U Training. Peter has a wide interest in
software development, which includes applications for
the Web, Windows, and mobile devices. Peter has trained
thousands of developers, is a regular speaker at international
conferences, and has been involved in many web and
mobile development projects as a software architect.
Peter has been a Microsoft Regional Director from 2003 to
2019, a group of trusted advisors to the developer and
IT professional audiences, and to Microsoft. He can be
reached on Twitter @peterhimschoot.

xi
About the Technical Reviewer
Gerald Versluis (@jfversluis) is a software engineer at
Microsoft from the Netherlands. With years of experience
working with Xamarin, Azure, ASP.NET, and other .NET
technologies, he has been involved in a number of different
projects and has been building several real-world apps and
solutions.
Not only does he like to code, but he is also passionate
about spreading his knowledge, as well as gaining some in
the bargain. Gerald involves himself in speaking, providing
training sessions and writing blogs (https://blog.verslu.is)
or articles, live coding, and contributing to open source projects in his spare time. He can be
reached on Twitter @jfversluis and his website https://gerald.verslu.is.

xiii
Acknowledgments
When Jonathan Gennick from Apress asked me if I would be interested in writing a book
on Blazor, I felt honored and of course I agreed that Blazor deserves a book. Writing a
book is a group effort, so I thank Jonathan Gennick and Jill Balzano for giving me tips on
styling and writing this book, and I thank Gerald Versluis for doing the technical review
and pointing out sections that needed a bit more explaining. I also thank Magda Thielman
and Lieven Iliano from U2U, my employer, for encouraging me to write this book.
I thoroughly enjoyed writing this book, and I hope you will enjoy reading and
learning from it.

Second Edition
As the first edition of Blazor Revealed was published (using pre-release software), the
Blazor team had made a bunch of changes to the razor syntax, stopping my examples
in Blazor Revealed from working. Now that Blazor has been released and is completely
official (YEAH!!!!), the time has come to publish an updated version of Blazor Revealed.
Should you get stuck with an example, I invite you to consult the accompanying code
samples for comparison purposes.

xv
Introduction
Back in 2018, I was attending the Microsoft Most Valued Professional and Regional
Directors Summit where we were introduced to Blazor for the first time by Steve
Sanderson and Daniel Roth. And I must admit, I was super excited about Blazor! We
learned that Blazor is a framework that allows you to build single-page applications
using C# and allows you to run any standard .NET library in the browser. Before Blazor,
your options for building a SPA were Angular, React, Vue.js, and others using JavaScript
or one of the other higher-level languages like TypeScript (which get compiled into
JavaScript anyway). I was so excited then that I ended up writing the first edition of this
book, and now I have updated it for you.
In this introduction, I will show you how browsers are now capable of running .NET
assemblies in the browser using WebAssembly, Mono, and Blazor.

A Tale of Two Wars


Think about it. The browser is one of the primary applications on your computer. You use it
every day. Companies who build browsers know that very well and are bidding for you to
use their browser. At the beginning of mainstream Internet, everyone was using Netscape,
and Microsoft wanted a share of the market, so in 1995 they built Internet Explorer 1.0,
released as part of Windows 95 Plus! pack. Newer versions were released rapidly, and
browsers started to add new features such as <blink> and <marquee> elements. This was
the beginning of the first browser war, giving people (especially designers) headaches
because some developers were building pages with blinking marquee controls . But
developers were also getting sore heads because of incompatibilities between browsers.
The first browser war was about having more HTML capabilities than the competition.
But all of this is now behind us with the introduction of HTML5 and modern
browsers like Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Firefox, Safari, and Opera. HTML5 not
only defines a series of standard HTML elements but also rules on how these should
render, making it a lot easier to build a website that looks the same in all modern
browsers. Then, in 1995 Brendan Eich wrote a little programming language known
as JavaScript (initially called LiveScript) in 10 days (What!?). It was called JavaScript
because its syntax was very similar to Java.
xvii
Introduction

JavaScript and Java are not related. Java and JavaScript have as much in
common as ham and hamster (I don’t know who formulated this first, but I love
this phrasing).

Little did Mr. Eich know how this language would impact the modern web and
even desktop application development. In 1995 Jesse James Garett wrote a white paper
called Ajax (Asynchronous JavaScript and XML), describing a set of technologies where
JavaScript is used to load data from the server and that data is used to update the
browser’s HTML. This avoids full-page reloads and allows for client-side web applications,
which are written in JavaScript that runs completely in the browser. One of the first
companies to apply Ajax was Microsoft when they built Outlook Web Access (OWA). OWA
is a web application almost identical to the Outlook desktop application proving the
power of Ajax. Soon other Ajax applications started to appear, with Google Maps stuck
in my memory as one of the other keystone applications. Google Maps would download
maps asynchronously and with some simple mouse interactions allowed you to zoom and
pan the map. Before Google Maps, the server would do the map rendering and a browser
displayed the map like any other image by downloading a bitmap from a server.
Building an Ajax website was a major undertaking that only big companies like
Microsoft and Google could afford. This soon changed with the introduction of
JavaScript libraries like jQuery and knockout.js (Knockout was also written by Steve
Sanderson, the author of Blazor!). Today we build rich web apps with Angular, React, and
Vue.js. All of them are using JavaScript or higher-level languages like TypeScript which
get transpiled into JavaScript.

Transpiling will take one language and convert it into another language. This is very
popular with TypeScript which gives you a modern high-level language. You need
JavaScript to run it in a browser, so TypeScript gets “transpiled” into JavaScript.

This brings us back to JavaScript and the second browser war. JavaScript
performance is paramount in modern browsers. Chrome, Edge, Firefox, Safari, and
Opera are all competing with one another, trying to convince users that their browser
is the fastest with cool-sounding names for their JavaScript engine like V8 and Chakra.
These engines use the latest optimization tricks like JIT compilation where JavaScript
gets converted into native code as illustrated in Figure 1.

xviii
Another Random Scribd Document
with Unrelated Content
of Herakleia, half-way between the two,—in the fertile territory
called Siritis.[24]
The most interesting circumstance respecting Thurii is, that the
rhetor Lysias, and the historian Herodotus, were both domiciliated
there as citizens. The city was connected with Athens, yet seemingly
only by a feeble tie; nor was it numbered among the tributary
subject allies.[25] From the circumstance that so large a proportion of
the settlers at Thurii were not native Athenians, we may infer that
there were not many of the latter at that time who were willing to
put themselves so far out of connection with Athens,—even though
tempted by the prospect of lots of land in a fertile and promising
territory. And Periklês was probably anxious that those poor citizens
for whom emigration was desirable should become kleruchs in some
of the islands or ports of the Ægean, where they would serve—like
the colonies of Rome—as a sort of garrison for the insurance of the
Athenian empire.[26]
The fourteen years between the thirty years’ truce and the
breaking out of the Peloponnesian war, are a period of full maritime
empire on the part of Athens,—partially indeed resisted, but never
with success. They are a period of peace with all cities extraneous to
her own empire; and of splendid decorations to the city itself, from
the genius of Pheidias and others, in sculpture as well as in
architecture. Since the death of Kimon, Periklês had become more
and more the first citizen in the commonwealth: his qualities told for
more the longer they were known, and even the disastrous reverses
which preceded the thirty years’ truce had not overthrown him, since
he had protested against that expedition of Tolmidês into Bœotia out
of which they first arose. But if the personal influence of Periklês had
increased, the party opposed to him seems also to have become
stronger and better organized than it had been before; and to have
acquired a leader in many respects more effective than Kimon,—
Thucydidês, son of Melêsias. The new chief was a near relative of
Kimon, but of a character and talents more analogous to that of
Periklês: a statesman and orator rather than a general, though
competent to both functions if occasion demanded, as every leading
man in those days was required to be. Under Thucydidês, the
political and parliamentary opposition against Periklês assumed a
constant character and an organization such as Kimon, with his
exclusively military aptitudes, had never been able to establish. The
aristocratical party in the commonwealth,—the “honorable and
respectable” citizens, as we find them styled, adopting their own
nomenclature,—now imposed upon themselves the obligation of
undeviating regularity in their attendance on the public assembly,
sitting together in a particular section, so as to be conspicuously
parted from the Demos. In this manner, their applause and dissent,
their mutual encouragement to each other, their distribution of parts
to different speakers, was made more conducive to the party
purposes than it had been before, when these distinguished persons
had been intermingled with the mass of citizens.[27] Thucydidês
himself was eminent as a speaker, inferior only to Periklês,—perhaps
hardly inferior even to him. We are told that in reply to a question
put to him by Archidamus, whether Periklês or he were the better
wrestler, Thucydidês replied: “Even when I throw him, he denies that
he has fallen, gains his point, and talks over those who have actually
seen him fall.”[28]
Such an opposition made to Periklês, in all the full license which a
democratical constitution permitted, must have been both efficient
and embarrassing; but the pointed severance of the aristocratical
chiefs, which Thucydidês, son of Melêsias, introduced, contributed
probably at once to rally the democratical majority round Periklês,
and to exasperate the bitterness of party-conflict.[29] As far as we
can make out the grounds of the opposition, it turned partly upon
the pacific policy of Periklês towards the Persians, partly upon his
expenditure for home ornament. Thucydidês contended that Athens
was disgraced in the eyes of the Greeks, by having drawn the
confederate treasure from Delos to her own acropolis, under
pretence of greater security, and then employing it, not in
prosecuting war against the Persians,[30] but in beautifying Athens
by new temples and costly statues. To this Periklês replied, that
Athens had undertaken the obligation, in consideration of the
tribute-money, to protect her allies and keep off from them every
foreign enemy,—that she had accomplished this object completely at
the present, and retained a reserve sufficient to guarantee the like
security for the future;—that, under such circumstances, she owed
no account to her allies of the expenditure of the surplus, but was at
liberty to expend it for purposes useful and honorable to the city. In
this point of view it was an object of great public importance to
render Athens imposing in the eyes both of the allies and of Hellas
generally, by improved fortifications,—by accumulated ornaments,
sculptural and architectural,—and by religious festivals,—frequent,
splendid, musical, and poetical.
Such was the answer made by Periklês in defence of his policy
against the opposition headed by Thucydidês. And as far as we can
make out the ground taken by both parties, the answer was
perfectly satisfactory. For when we look at the very large sum which
Periklês continually kept in reserve in the treasury, no one could
reasonably complain that his expenditure for ornamental purposes
was carried so far as to encroach upon the exigences of defence.
What Thucydidês and his partisans appear to have urged, was, that
this common fund should still continue to be spent in aggressive
warfare against the Persian king, in Egypt and elsewhere,—
conformably to the projects pursued by Kimon during his life.[31] But
Periklês was right in contending that such outlay would have been
simply wasteful; of no use either to Athens or her allies, though
risking all the chances of distant defeat, such as had been
experienced a few years before in Egypt. The Persian force was
already kept away, both from the waters of the Ægean and the coast
of Asia, either by the stipulations of the treaty of Kallias, or—if that
treaty be supposed apocryphal—by a conduct practically the same as
those stipulations would have enforced. The allies, indeed, might
have had some ground of complaint against Periklês, either for not
reducing the amount of tribute required from them, seeing that it
was more than sufficient for the legitimate purposes of the
confederacy, or for not having collected their positive sentiment as to
the disposal of it. But we do not find that this was the argument
adopted by Thucydidês and his party, nor was it calculated to find
favor either with aristocrats or democrats, in the Athenian assembly.
Admitting the injustice of Athens—an injustice common to both
the parties in that city, not less to Kimon than to Periklês—in acting
as despot instead of chief, and in discontinuing all appeal to the
active and hearty concurrence of her numerous allies, we shall find
that the schemes of Periklês were at the same time eminently Pan-
Hellenic. In strengthening and ornamenting Athens, in developing
the full activity of her citizens, in providing temples, religious
offerings, works of art, solemn festivals, all of surpassing attraction,
—he intended to exalt her into something greater than an imperial
city with numerous dependent allies. He wished to make her the
centre of Grecian feeling, the stimulus of Grecian intellect, and the
type of strong democratical patriotism combined with full liberty of
individual taste and aspiration. He wished not merely to retain the
adherence of the subject states, but to attract the admiration and
spontaneous deference of independent neighbors, so as to procure
for Athens a moral ascendency much beyond the range of her direct
power. And he succeeded in elevating the city to a visible grandeur,
[32] which made her appear even much stronger than she really was,
—and which had the farther effect of softening to the minds of the
subjects the humiliating sense of obedience; while it served as a
normal school, open to strangers from all quarters, of energetic
action even under full license of criticism,—of elegant pursuits
economically followed,—and of a love for knowledge without
enervation of character. Such were the views of Periklês in regard to
his country, during the years which preceded the Peloponnesian war,
as we find them recorded in his celebrated Funeral Oration,
pronounced in the first year of that war,—an exposition forever
memorable of the sentiment and purpose of Athenian democracy, as
conceived by its ablest president.
So bitter, however, was the opposition made by Thucydidês and
his party to this projected expenditure,—so violent and pointed did
the scission of aristocrats and democrats become,—that the dispute
came after no long time to that ultimate appeal which the Athenian
constitution provided for the case of two opposite and nearly equal
party-leaders,—a vote of ostracism. Of the particular details which
preceded this ostracism, we are not informed; but we see clearly
that the general position was such as the ostracism was intended to
meet. Probably the vote was proposed by the party of Thucydidês, in
order to procure the banishment of Periklês, the more powerful
person of the two, and the most likely to excite popular jealousy.
The challenge was accepted by Periklês and his friends, and the
result of the voting was such that an adequate legal majority
condemned Thucydidês to ostracism.[33] And it seems that the
majority must have been very decisive, for the party of Thucydidês
was completely broken by it: and we hear of no other single
individual equally formidable as a leader of opposition, throughout
all the remaining life of Periklês.
The ostracism of Thucydidês apparently took place about two
years[34] after the conclusion of the thirty years’ truce,—443-442 B.C.,
—and it is to the period immediately following that the great
Periklêan works belong. The southern wall of the acropolis had been
built out of the spoils brought by Kimon from his Persian
expeditions; but the third of the long walls connecting Athens with
the harbor was the proposition of Periklês, at what precise time we
do not know. The long walls originally completed—not long after the
battle of Tanagra, as has already been stated—were two, one from
Athens to Peiræus, another from Athens to Phalêrum: the space
between them was broad, and if in the hands of an enemy, the
communication with Peiræus would be interrupted. Accordingly,
Periklês now induced the people to construct a third or intermediate
wall, running parallel with the first wall to Peiræus, and within a
short distance[35]—seemingly near one furlong—from it: so that the
communication between the city and the port was placed beyond all
possible interruption, even assuming an enemy to have got within
the Phaleric wall. It was seemingly about this time, too, that the
splendid docks and arsenal in Peiræus, alleged by Isokratês to have
cost one thousand talents, were constructed:[36] while the town
itself of Peiræus was laid out anew with straight streets intersecting
at right angles. Apparently, this was something new in Greece,—the
towns generally, and Athens itself in particular, having been built
without any symmetry, or width, or continuity of streets:[37] and
Hippodamus the Milesian, a man of considerable attainments in the
physical philosophy of the age, derived much renown as the earliest
town architect, for having laid out the Peiræus on a regular plan.
The market-place, or one of them at least, permanently bore his
name,—the Hippodamian agora.[38] At a time when so many great
architects were displaying their genius in the construction of
temples, we are not surprised to hear that the structure of towns
began to be regularized also: moreover, we are told that the new
colonial town of Thurii, to which Hippodamus went as a settler, was
also constructed in the same systematic form as to straight and wide
streets.[39]
The new scheme upon which the Peiræus was laid out, was not
without its value as one visible proof of the naval grandeur of
Athens. But the buildings in Athens and on the acropolis formed the
real glory of the Periklêan age. A new theatre, termed the Odeon,
was constructed for musical and poetical representations at the
great Panathenaic solemnity; next, the splendid temple of Athênê,
called the Parthenon, with all its masterpieces of decorative
sculpture and reliefs; lastly, the costly portals erected to adorn the
entrance of the acropolis, on the western side of the hill, through
which the solemn processions on festival days were conducted. It
appears that the Odeon and the Parthenon were both finished
between 445 and 437 B.C.: the Propylæa somewhat later, between
437 and 431 B.C., in which latter year the Peloponnesian war began.
[40] Progress was also made in restoring or reconstructing the
Erechtheion, or ancient temple of Athênê Polias, the patron goddess
of the city,—which had been burnt in the invasion of Xerxes; but the
breaking out of the Peloponnesian war seems to have prevented the
completion of this, as well as of the great temple of Dêmêter, at
Eleusis, for the celebration of the Eleusinian mysteries,—that of
Athênê, at Sunium,—and that of Nemesis, at Rhamnus. Nor was the
sculpture less memorable than the architecture: three statues of
Athênê, all by the hand of Pheidias, decorated the acropolis,—one
colossal, forty-seven feet high, of ivory, in the Parthenon,[41]—a
second of bronze, called the Lemnian Athênê,—a third of colossal
magnitude, also in bronze, called Athênê Promachos, placed
between the Propylæa and the Parthenon, and visible from afar off,
even to the navigator approaching Peiræus by sea.
It is not, of course, to Periklês that the renown of these splendid
productions of art belongs: but the great sculptors and architects by
whom they were conceived and executed, belonged to that same
period of expanding and stimulating Athenian democracy which
called forth a similar creative genius in oratory, in dramatic poetry,
and in philosophical speculation. One man especially, of immortal
name,—Pheidias,—born a little before the battle of Marathon, was
the original mind in whom the sublime ideal conceptions of genuine
art appear to have disengaged themselves from that hardness of
execution and adherence to a consecrated type, which marked the
efforts of his predecessors.[42] He was the great director and
superintendent of all those decorative additions whereby Periklês
imparted to Athens a majesty such as had never before belonged to
any Grecian city: the architects of the Parthenon and the other
buildings—Iktînus, Kallikratês, Korœbus, Mnesiklês, and others—
worked under his superintendence: and he had, besides, a school of
pupils and subordinates to whom the mechanical part of his labors
was confided. With all the great additions which Pheidias made to
the grandeur of Athens, his last and greatest achievement was out
of Athens,—the colossal statue of Zeus, in the great temple of
Olympia, executed in the years immediately preceding the
Peloponnesian war. The effect produced by this stupendous work,
sixty feet high, in ivory and gold, embodying in visible majesty some
of the grandest conceptions of Grecian poetry and religion, upon the
minds of all beholders for many centuries successively,—was such as
never has been, and probably never will be, equalled in the annals of
art, sacred or profane.
Considering these prodigious achievements in the field of art only
as they bear upon Athenian and Grecian history, they are
phenomena of extraordinary importance. When we read the
profound impression which they produced upon Grecian spectators
of a later age, we may judge how immense was the effect upon that
generation which saw them both begun and finished. In the year
480 B.C., Athens had been ruined by the occupation of Xerxes: since
that period, the Greeks had seen, first, the rebuilding and fortifying
of the city on an enlarged scale,—next, the addition of Peiræus with
its docks and magazines,—thirdly, the junction of the two by the
long walls, thus including the most numerous concentrated
population, wealth, arms, ships, etc., in Greece,[43]—lastly, the rapid
creation of so many new miracles of art,—the sculptures of Pheidias
as well as the paintings of the Thasian painter, Polygnôtus, in the
temple of Theseus, and in the portico called Pœkilê. Plutarch
observes[44] that the celerity with which the works were completed
was the most remarkable circumstance connected with them; and so
it probably might be, in respect to the effect upon the contemporary
Greeks. The gigantic strides by which Athens had reached her
maritime empire were now immediately succeeded by a series of
works which stamped her as the imperial city of Greece, gave to her
an appearance of power even greater than the reality, and especially
put to shame the old-fashioned simplicity of Sparta.[45] The cost was
doubtless prodigious, and could only have been borne at a time
when there was a large treasure in the acropolis, as well as a
considerable tribute annually coming in: if we may trust a
computation which seems to rest on plausible grounds, it cannot
have been much less than three thousand talents in the aggregate,
—about six hundred and ninety thousand pounds.[46] The
expenditure of so large a sum was, of course, the source of great
private gain to the contractors, tradesmen, merchants, artisans of
various descriptions, etc., concerned in it: in one way or another, it
distributed itself over a large portion of the whole city. And it
appears that the materials employed for much of the work were
designedly of the most costly description, as being most consistent
with the reverence due to the gods: marble was rejected as too
common for the statue of Athênê, and ivory employed in its place;
[47] while the gold with which it was surrounded weighed not less
than forty talents.[48] A large expenditure for such purposes,
considered as pious towards the gods, was at the same time
imposing in reference to Grecian feeling, which regarded with
admiration every variety of public show and magnificence, and
repaid by grateful deference the rich men who indulged in it. Periklês
knew well that the visible splendor of the city, so new to all his
contemporaries, would cause her great real power to appear even
greater than its reality, and would thus procure for her a real,
though unacknowledged influence—perhaps even an ascendency—
over all cities of the Grecian name. And it is certain that even among
those who most hated and feared her, at the outbreak of the
Peloponnesian war, there prevailed a powerful sentiment of
involuntary deference.
A step taken by Periklês, apparently not long after the
commencement of the thirty years’ truce, evinces how much this
ascendency was in his direct aim, and how much he connected it
with views both of harmony and usefulness for Greece generally. He
prevailed upon the people to send envoys to every city of the Greek
name, great and small, inviting each to appoint deputies for a
congress to be held at Athens. Three points were to be discussed in
this intended congress. 1. The restitution of those temples which
had been burnt by the Persian invaders. 2. The fulfilment of such
vows, as on that occasion had been made to the gods. 3. The safety
of the sea and of maritime commerce for all. Twenty elderly
Athenians were sent round to obtain the convocation of this
congress at Athens,—a Pan-Hellenic congress for Pan-Hellenic
purposes. But those who were sent to Bœotia and Peloponnesus
completely failed in their object, from the jealousy, noway
astonishing, of Sparta and her allies: of the rest we hear nothing, for
this refusal was quite sufficient to frustrate the whole scheme.[49] It
is to be remarked that the dependent allies of Athens appear to have
been summoned just as much as the cities perfectly autonomous; so
that their tributary relation to Athens was not understood to degrade
them. We may sincerely regret that such congress did not take
effect, as it might have opened some new possibilities of converging
tendency and alliance for the dispersed fractions of the Greek name,
—a comprehensive benefit, to which Sparta was at once
incompetent and indifferent, but which might, perhaps, have been
realized under Athens, and seems in this case to have been sincerely
aimed at by Periklês. The events of the Peloponnesian war, however,
extinguished all hopes of any such union.
The interval of fourteen years, between the beginning of the
thirty years’ truce and that of the Peloponnesian war, was by no
means one of undisturbed peace to Athens. In the sixth year of that
period occurred the formidable revolt of Samos.
That island appears to have been the most powerful of all the
allies of Athens,[50]—more powerful even than Chios or Lesbos, and
standing on the same footing as the two latter; that is, paying no
tribute-money,—a privilege when compared with the body of the
allies,—but furnishing ships and men when called upon, and
retaining, subject to this condition, its complete autonomy, its
oligarchical government, its fortifications, and its military force. Like
most of the other islands near the coast, Samos possessed a portion
of territory on the mainland, between which and the territory of
Milêtus, lay the small town of Priênê, one of the twelve original
members contributing to the Pan-Ionic solemnity. Respecting the
possession of this town of Priênê, a war broke out between the
Samians and Milesians, in the sixth year of the thirty years’ truce
(B.C. 440-439): whether the town had before been independent, we
do not know, but in this war the Milesians were worsted, and it fell
into the hands of the Samians. The defeated Milesians, enrolled as
they were among the tributary allies of Athens, complained to her of
the conduct of the Samians, and their complaint was seconded by a
party in Samos itself opposed to the oligarchy and its proceedings.
The Athenians required the two disputing cities to bring the matter
before discussion and award at Athens, with which the Samians
refused to comply:[51] whereupon an armament of forty ships was
despatched from Athens to the island, and established in it a
democratical government; leaving in it a garrison, and carrying away
to Lemnos fifty men and as many boys from the principal oligarchical
families, to serve as hostages. Of these families, however, a certain
number retired to the mainland, where they entered into
negotiations with Pissuthnês, the satrap of Sardis, to procure aid and
restoration. Obtaining from him seven hundred mercenary troops,
and passing over in the night to the island, by previous concert with
the oligarchical party, they overcame the Samian democracy as well
as the Athenian garrison, who were sent over as prisoners to
Pissuthnês. They were farther lucky enough to succeed in stealing
away from Lemnos their own recently deposited hostages, and they
then proclaimed open revolt against Athens, in which Byzantium also
joined. It seems remarkable, that though, by such a proceeding,
they would of course draw upon themselves the full strength of
Athens, yet their first step was to resume aggressive hostilities
against Milêtus,[52] whither they sailed with a powerful naval force of
seventy ships, twenty of them carrying troops aboard.
Immediately on the receipt of this grave intelligence, a fleet of
sixty triremes—probably all that were in complete readiness—was
despatched to Samos under ten generals, two of whom were
Periklês himself and the poet Sophoklês,[53] both seemingly included
among the ten ordinary stratêgi of the year. But it was necessary to
employ sixteen of these ships, partly in summoning contingents from
Chios and Lesbos, to which islands Sophoklês went in person;[54]
partly in keeping watch off the coast of Karia for the arrival of the
Phenician fleet, which report stated to be approaching; so that
Periklês had only forty-four ships remaining in his squadron. Yet he
did not hesitate to attack the Samian fleet of seventy ships on its
way back from Milêtus, near the island of Tragia, and was victorious
in the action. Presently, he was reinforced by forty ships from
Athens, and by twenty-five from Chios and Lesbos, so as to be able
to disembark at Samos, where he overcame the Samian land-force,
and blocked up the harbor with a portion of his fleet, surrounding
the city on the land-side with a triple wall. Meanwhile, the Samians
had sent Stesagoras with five ships to press the coming of the
Phenician fleet, and the report of their approach became again so
prevalent that Periklês felt obliged to take sixty ships, out of the total
one hundred and twenty-five, to watch for them off the coast of
Kaunus and Karia, where he remained for about fourteen days. The
Phenician fleet[55] never came, though Diodorus affirms that it was
actually on its voyage. Pissuthnês certainly seems to have promised,
and the Samians to have expected it: but I incline to believe that,
though willing to hold out hopes and encourage revolt among the
Athenian allies, the satrap, nevertheless, did not choose openly to
violate the convention of Kallias, whereby the Persians were
forbidden to send a fleet westward of the Chelidonian promontory.
The departure of Periklês, however, so much weakened the Athenian
fleet off Samos, that the Samians, suddenly sailing out of their
harbor in an opportune moment, at the instigation and under the
command of one of their most eminent citizens, the philosopher
Melissus,—surprised and ruined the blockading squadron, and
gained a victory over the remaining fleet, before the ships could be
fairly got out to sea.[56] For fourteen days they remained masters of
the sea, carrying in and out all that they thought proper: nor was it
until the return of Periklês that they were again blocked up.
Reinforcements, however, were now multiplied to the blockading
squadron,—from Athens, forty ships, under Thucydidês,[57] Agnon,
and Phormion, and twenty under Tlepolemus and Antiklês, besides
thirty from Chios and Lesbos,—making altogether near two hundred
sail. Against this overwhelming force, Melissus and the Samians
made an unavailing attempt at resistance, but were presently quite
blocked up, and remained so for nearly nine months, until they could
hold out no longer. They then capitulated, being compelled to raze
their fortifications, to surrender all their ships of war, to give
hostages for future good conduct, and to make good by stated
instalments the whole expense of the enterprise, said to have
reached one thousand talents. The Byzantines, too, made their
submission at the same time.[58]
Two or three circumstances deserve notice respecting this revolt,
as illustrating the existing condition of the Athenian empire. First,
that the whole force of Athens, together with the contingents from
Chios and Lesbos, was necessary in order to crush it, so that even
Byzantium, which joined in the revolt, seems to have been left
unassailed. Now, it is remarkable that none of the dependent allies
near Byzantium, or anywhere else, availed themselves of so
favorable an opportunity to revolt also: a fact which seems plainly to
imply that there was little positive discontent then prevalent among
them. Had the revolt spread to other cities, probably Pissuthnês
might have realized his promise of bringing in the Phenician fleet,
which would have been a serious calamity for the Ægean Greeks,
and was only kept off by the unbroken maintenance of the Athenian
empire.
Next, the revolted Samians applied for aid, not only to
Pissuthnês, but also to Sparta and her allies; among whom, at a
special meeting, the question of compliance or refusal was formally
debated. Notwithstanding the thirty years’ truce then subsisting, of
which only six years had elapsed, and which had been noway
violated by Athens,—many of the allies of Sparta voted for assisting
the Samians: what part Sparta herself took, we do not know,—but
the Corinthians were the main and decided advocates for the
negative. They not only contended that the truce distinctly forbade
compliance with the Samian request, but also recognized the right of
each confederacy to punish its own recusant members, and this was
the decision ultimately adopted, for which the Corinthians afterwards
took credit, in the eyes of Athens, as the chief authors.[59] Certainly,
if the contrary policy had been pursued, the Athenian empire might
have been in great danger, the Phenician fleet would probably have
been brought in also, and the future course of events might have
been greatly altered.
Again, after the reconquest of Samos, we should assume it
almost as a matter of certainty, that the Athenians would renew the
democratical government which they had set up just before the
revolt. Yet, if they did so, it must have been again overthrown,
without any attempt to uphold it on the part of Athens. For we
hardly hear of Samos again, until twenty-seven years afterwards,
towards the latter division of the Peloponnesian war, in 412 B.C., and
it then appears with an established oligarchical government of
geomori, or landed proprietors, against which the people make a
successful rising during the course of that year.[60] As Samos
remained, during the interval between 439 B.C. and 412 B.C.,
unfortified, deprived of its fleet, and enrolled among the tribute-
paying allies of Athens,—and as it, nevertheless, either retained or
acquired its oligarchical government; so we may conclude that
Athens cannot have systematically interfered to democratize by
violence the subject-allies, in cases where the natural tendency of
parties ran towards oligarchy. The condition of Lesbos at the time of
its revolt, hereafter to be related, will be found to confirm this
conclusion.[61]
On returning to Athens after the reconquest of Samos, Periklês
was chosen to pronounce the funeral oration over the citizens slain
in the war, to whom, according to custom, solemn and public
obsequies were celebrated in the suburb called Kerameikus. This
custom appears to have been introduced shortly after the Persian
war,[62] and would doubtless contribute to stimulate the patriotism of
the citizens, especially when the speaker elected to deliver it was of
the personal dignity as well as the oratorical powers of Periklês. He
was twice public funeral orator by the choice of the citizens: once
after the Samian success, and a second time in the first year of the
Peloponnesian war. His discourse on the first occasion has not
reached us,[63] but the second has been fortunately preserved, in
substance at least, by Thucydidês, who also briefly describes the
funeral ceremony,—doubtless the same on all occasions. The bones
of the deceased warriors were exposed in tents three days before
the ceremony, in order that the relatives of each might have the
opportunity of bringing offerings: they were then placed in coffins of
cypress, and carried forth on carts to the public burial-place at the
Kerameikus; one coffin for each of the ten tribes, and one empty
couch, formally laid out, to represent those warriors whose bones
had not been discovered or collected. The female relatives of each
followed the carts, with loud wailings, and after them a numerous
procession both of citizens and strangers. So soon as the bones had
been consigned to the grave, some distinguished citizen, specially
chosen for the purpose, mounted an elevated stage, and addressed
to the multitude an appropriate discourse. Such was the effect
produced by that of Periklês after the Samian expedition, that, when
he had concluded, the audience present testified their emotion in the
liveliest manner, and the women especially crowned him with
garlands, like a victorious athlete.[64] Only Elpinikê, sister of the
deceased Kimon, reminded him that the victories of her brother had
been more felicitous, as gained over Persians and Phenicians, and
not over Greeks and kinsmen. And the contemporary poet Ion, the
friend of Kimon, reported what he thought an unseemly boast of
Periklês,—to the effect that Agamemnon had spent ten years in
taking a foreign city, while he in nine months had reduced the first
and most powerful of all the Ionic communities.[65] But if we
possessed the actual speech pronounced, we should probably find
that he assigned all the honor of the exploit to Athens and her
citizens generally, placing their achievement in favorable comparison
with that of Agamemnon and his host,—not himself with
Agamemnon.
Whatever may be thought of this boast, there can be no doubt
that the result of the Samian war not only rescued the Athenian
empire from great peril,[66] but rendered it stronger than ever: while
the foundation of Amphipolis, which was effected two years
afterwards, strengthened it still farther. Nor do we hear, during the
ensuing few years, of any farther tendencies to disaffection among
its members, until the period immediately before the Peloponnesian
war. The feeling common among them towards Athens, seems to
have been neither attachment nor hatred, but simple indifference
and acquiescence in her supremacy. Such amount of positive
discontent as really existed among them, arose, not from actual
hardships suffered, but from the general political instinct of the
Greek mind,—desire of separate autonomy for each city; which
manifested itself in each, through the oligarchical party, whose
power was kept down by Athens, and was stimulated by the
sentiment communicated from the Grecian communities without the
Athenian empire. According to that sentiment, the condition of a
subject-ally of Athens was treated as one of degradation and
servitude: and in proportion as fear and hatred of Athens became
more and more predominant among the allies of Sparta, they gave
utterance to the sentiment more and more emphatically, so as to
encourage discontent artificially among the subject-allies of the
Athenian empire. Possessing complete mastery of the sea, and every
sort of superiority requisite for holding empire over islands, Athens
had yet no sentiment to appeal to in her subjects, calculated to
render her empire popular, except that of common democracy, which
seems at first to have acted without any care on her part to
encourage it, until the progress of the Peloponnesian war made such
encouragement a part of her policy. And had she even tried sincerely
to keep up in the allies the feeling of a common interest, and the
attachment to a permanent confederacy, the instinct of political
separation would probably have baffled all her efforts. But she took
no such pains,—with the usual morality that grows up in the minds
of the actual possessors of power, she conceived herself entitled to
exact obedience as her right; and some of the Athenian speakers in
Thucydidês go so far as to disdain all pretence of legitimate power,
even such as might fairly be set up, resting the supremacy of Athens
on the naked plea of superior force.[67] As the allied cities were
mostly under democracies,—through the indirect influence rather
than the systematic dictation of Athens,—yet each having its own
internal aristocracy in a state of opposition; so the movements for
revolt against Athens originated with the aristocracy or with some
few citizens apart: while the people, though sharing more or less in
the desire for autonomy, had yet either a fear of their own
aristocracy or a sympathy with Athens, which made them always
backward in revolting, sometimes decidedly opposed to it. Neither
Periklês nor Kleon, indeed, lay stress on the attachment of the
people as distinguished from that of the Few, in these dependent
cities; but the argument is strongly insisted on by Diodorus,[68] in
the discussion respecting Mitylênê after its surrender: and as the war
advanced, the question of alliance with Athens or Sparta became
more and more identified with the internal preponderance of
democracy or oligarchy in each.[69] We shall find that in most of
those cases of actual revolt where we are informed of the preceding
circumstances, the step is adopted or contrived by a small number
of oligarchical malcontents, without consulting the general voice;
while in those cases where the general assembly is consulted
beforehand, there is manifested indeed a preference for autonomy,
but nothing like a hatred of Athens or decided inclination to break
with her. In the case of Mitylênê,[70] in the fourth year of the war, it
was the aristocratical government which revolted, while the people,
as soon as they obtained arms, actually declared in favor of Athens:
and the secession of Chios, the greatest of all the allies, in the
twentieth year of the Peloponnesian war, even after all the hardships
which the allies had been called upon to bear in that war, and after
the ruinous disasters which Athens had sustained before Syracuse,—
was both prepared beforehand and accomplished by secret
negotiations of the Chian oligarchy, not only without the
concurrence, but against the inclination, of their own people.[71] In
like manner, the revolt of Thasos would not have occurred, had not
the Thasian democracy been previously subverted by the Athenian
Peisander and his oligarchical confederates. So in Akanthus, in
Amphipolis, in Mendê, and those other Athenian dependencies which
were wrested from Athens by Brasidas, we find the latter secretly
introduced by a few conspirators, while the bulk of the citizens do
not hail him at once as a deliverer, like men sick of Athenian
supremacy: they acquiesce, not without debate, when Brasidas is
already in the town, and his demeanor, just as well as conciliating,
soon gains their esteem: but neither in Akanthus nor in Amphipolis
would he have been admitted by the free decision of the citizens, if
they had not been alarmed for the safety of their friends, their
properties, and their harvest, still exposed in the lands without the
walls.[72] These particular examples warrant us in affirming, that
though the oligarchy in the various allied cities desired eagerly to
shake off the supremacy of Athens, the people were always
backward in following them, sometimes even opposed, and hardly
ever willing to make sacrifices for the object. They shared the
universal Grecian desire for separate autonomy,[73] felt the Athenian
empire as an extraneous pressure which they would have been glad
to shake off, whenever the change could be made with safety: but
their condition was not one of positive hardship, nor did they
overlook the hazardous side of such a change,—partly from the
coercive hand of Athens, partly from new enemies against whom
Athens had hitherto protected them, and not least, from their own
oligarchy. Of course, the different allied cities were not all animated
by the same feelings, some being more averse to Athens than
others.
The particular modes in which Athenian supremacy was felt as a
grievance by the allies appear to have been chiefly three. 1. The
annual tribute. 2. The encroachments, exactions, or perhaps plunder,
committed by individual Athenians, who would often take advantage
of their superior position, either as serving in the naval armaments,
as invested with the function of inspectors as placed in garrison, or
as carrying on some private speculation. 3. The obligation under
which the allies were placed, of bringing a large proportion of their
judicial trials to be settled before the dikasteries at Athens.
As to the tribute, I have before remarked that its amount had
been but little raised from its first settlement down to the beginning
of the Peloponnesian war, at which time it was six hundred talents
yearly:[74] it appears to have been reviewed, and the apportionment
corrected, in every fifth year, at which period the collecting officers
may probably have been changed; but we shall afterwards find it
becoming larger and more burdensome. The same gradual increase
may probably be affirmed respecting the second head of
inconvenience,—vexation caused to the allies by individual
Athenians, chiefly officers of armaments, or powerful citizens.[75]
Doubtless this was always more or less a real grievance, from the
moment when the Athenians became despots in place of chiefs, but
it was probably not very serious in extent until after the
commencement of the Peloponnesian war, when revolt on the part
of the allies became more apprehended, and when garrisons,
inspectors, and tribute-gathering ships became more essential in the
working of the Athenian empire.
But the third circumstance above noticed—the subjection of the
allied cities to the Athenian dikasteries—has been more dwelt upon
as a grievance than the second, and seems to have been unduly
exaggerated. We can hardly doubt that the beginning of this
jurisdiction exercised by the Athenian dikasteries dates with the
synod of Delos, at the time of the first formation of the confederacy.
It was an indispensable element of that confederacy, that the
members should forego their right of private war among each other,
and submit their differences to peaceable arbitration,—a covenant
introduced even into alliances much less intimate than this was, and
absolutely essential to the efficient maintenance of any common
action against Persia.[76] Of course, many causes of dispute, public
as well as private, must have arisen among these wide-spread
islands and seaports of the Ægean, connected with each other by
relations of fellow-feeling, of trade, and of common apprehensions.
The synod of Delos, composed of the deputies of all, was the natural
board of arbitration for such disputes, and a habit must thus have
been formed, of recognizing a sort of federal tribunal,—to decide
peaceably how far each ally had faithfully discharged its duties, both
towards the confederacy collectively, and towards other allies with
their individual citizens separately,—as well as to enforce its
decisions and punish refractory members, pursuant to the right
which Sparta and her confederacy claimed and exercised also.[77]
Now from the beginning, the Athenians were the guiding and
enforcing presidents of this synod, and when it gradually died away,
they were found occupying its place as well as clothed with its
functions. It was in this manner that their judicial authority over the
allies appears first to have begun, as the confederacy became
changed into an Athenian empire,—the judicial functions of the
synod being transferred along with the common treasure to Athens,
and doubtless much extended. And on the whole, these functions
must have been productive of more good than evil to the allies
themselves, especially to the weakest and most defenceless among
them.
Among the thousand towns which paid tribute to Athens,—taking
this numerical statement of Aristophanês, not in its exact meaning,
but simply as a great number,—if a small town, or one of its citizens,
had cause of complaint against a larger, there was no channel
except the synod of Delos, or the Athenian tribunal, through which it
could have any reasonable assurance of fair trial or justice. It is not
to be supposed that all the private complaints and suits between
citizen and citizen, in each respective subject town, were carried up
for trial to Athens: yet we do not know distinctly how the line was
drawn between matters carried up thither and matters tried at
home. The subject cities appear to have been interdicted from the
power of capital punishment, which could only be inflicted after
previous trial and condemnation at Athens:[78] so that the latter
reserved to herself the cognizance of most of the grave crimes,—or
what may be called “the higher justice” generally. And the political
accusations preferred by citizen against citizen, in any subject city,
for alleged treason, corruption, non-fulfilment of public duty, etc.,
were doubtless carried to Athens for trial,—perhaps the most
important part of her jurisdiction.
But the maintenance of this judicial supremacy was not intended
by Athens for the substantive object of amending the administration
of justice in each separate allied city: it went rather to regulate the
relations between city and city,—between citizens of different cities,
—between Athenian citizens or officers, and any of these allied cities
with which they had relations,—between each city itself, as a
dependent government with contending political parties, and the
imperial head, Athens. All these were problems which imperial
Athens was called on to solve, and the best way of solving them
would have been through some common synod emanating from all
the allies: putting this aside, we shall find that the solution provided
by Athens was perhaps the next best, and we shall be the more
induced to think so, when we compare it with the proceedings
afterwards adopted by Sparta, when she had put down the Athenian
empire. Under Sparta, the general rule was, to place each of the
dependent cities under the government of a dekadarchy or
oligarchical council of ten among its chief citizens, together with a
Spartan harmost, or governor, having a small garrison under his
orders. It will be found, when we come to describe the Spartan
maritime empire, that these arrangements exposed each dependent
city to very great violence and extortion, while, after all, they solved
only a part of the problem: they served only to maintain each
separate city under the dominion of Sparta, without contributing to
regulate the dealings between the citizens of one and those of
another, or to bind together the empire as a whole. Now the
Athenians did not, as a system, place in their dependent cities,
governors analogous to the harmosts, though they did so
occasionally under special need; but their fleets and their officers
were in frequent relation with these cities; and as the principal
officers were noways indisposed to abuse their position, so the
facility of complaint, constantly open to the Athenian popular
dikastery, served both as redress and guarantee against misrule of
this description. It was a guarantee which the allies themselves
sensibly felt and valued, as we know from Thucydidês: the chief
source from whence they had to apprehend evil was the Athenian
officials and principal citizens, who could misemploy the power of
Athens for their own private purposes,—but they looked up to the
“Athenian Demos as a chastener of such evil-doers and as a harbor
of refuge to themselves.”[79] If the popular dikasteries at Athens had
not been thus open, the allied cities would have suffered much more
severely from the captains and officials of Athens in their individual
capacity. And the maintenance of political harmony, between the
imperial city and the subject ally, was insured by Athens through the
jurisdiction of her dikasteries with much less cost of injustice and
violence than by Sparta; for though oligarchical partisans might
sometimes be unjustly condemned at Athens, yet such accidental
wrong was immensely overpassed by the enormities of the Spartan
harmosts and dekadarchies, who put numbers to death without any
trial at all.
So again, it is to be recollected that Athenian private citizens, not
officially employed, were spread over the whole range of the empire
as kleruchs, proprietors, or traders; of course, therefore, disputes
would arise between them and the natives of the subject cities, as
well as among these latter themselves, in cases where both parties
did not belong to the same city. Now in such cases the Spartan
imperial authority was so exercised as to afford little or no remedy,
since the action of the harmost or the dekadarchy was confined to
one separate city; while the Athenian dikasteries, with universal
competence and public trial, afforded the only redress which the
contingency admitted. If a Thasian citizen believed himself aggrieved
by the historian Thucydidês, either as commander of the Athenian
fleet off the station, or as proprietor of gold mines in Thrace, he had
his remedy against the latter by accusation before the Athenian
dikasteries, to which the most powerful Athenian was amenable not
less than the meanest Thasian. To a citizen of any allied city, it might
be an occasional hardship to be sued before the courts at Athens,
but it was also often a valuable privilege to him to be able to sue
before those courts others whom else he could not have reached. He
had his share both of the benefit and of the hardship. Athens, if she
robbed her subject-allies of their independence, at least gave them
in exchange the advantage of a central and common judiciary
authority; thus enabling each of them to enforce claims of justice
against the rest, in a way which would not have been practicable, to
the weaker at least, even in a state of general independence.
Now Sparta seems not even to have attempted anything of the
kind with regard to her subject-allies, being content to keep them
under the rule of a harmost, and a partisan oligarchy; and we read
anecdotes which show that no justice could be obtained at Sparta,
even for the grossest outrages committed by the harmost, or by
private Spartans out of Laconia. The two daughters of a Bœotian
named Skedasus, of Leuktra in Bœotia, had been first violated and
then slain by two Spartan citizens: the son of a citizen of Oreus, in
Eubœa, had been also outraged and killed by the harmost
Aristodêmus:[80] in both cases the fathers went to Sparta to lay the
enormity before the ephors and other authorities, and in both cases
a deaf ear was turned to their complaints. But such crimes, if
committed by Athenian citizens or officers, might have been brought
to a formal exposure before the public sitting of the dikastery, and
there can be no doubt that both would have been severely
punished: we shall see hereafter that an enormity of this description,
committed by the Athenian general Pachês, at Mitylênê, cost him his
life before the Athenian dikasts.[81] Xenophon, in the dark and one-
sided representation which he gives of the Athenian democracy,
remarks, that if the subject-allies had not been made amenable to
justice, at Athens, they would have cared little for the people of
Athens, and would have paid court only to those individual Athenians
—generals, trierarchs, or envoys—who visited the islands on service;
but under the existing system, the subjects were compelled to visit
Athens either as plaintiffs or defendants, and were thus under the
necessity of paying court to the bulk of the people also,—that is, to
those humbler citizens out of whom the dikasteries were formed;
they supplicated the dikasts in court for favor or lenient dealing.[82]
However true this may be, we must remark that it was a lighter lot
to be brought for trial before the dikastery, than to be condemned
without redress by the general on service, or to be forced to buy off
his condemnation by a bribe; and, moreover, that the dikastery was
open not merely to receive accusations against citizens of the allied
cities, but also to entertain the complaints which they preferred
against others.
Assuming the dikasteries at Athens to be ever so defective as
tribunals for administering justice, we must recollect that they were
the same tribunals under which every Athenian citizen held his own
fortune or reputation, and that the native of any subject city was
admitted to the same chance of justice as the native of Athens.
Accordingly, we find the Athenian envoy at Sparta, immediately
before the Peloponnesian war, taking peculiar credit to the imperial
city on this ground for equal dealing with her subject-allies. “If our
power (he says) were to pass into other hands, the comparison
would presently show how moderate we are in the use of it: but as
regards us, our very moderation is unfairly turned to our
disparagement rather than to our praise. For even though we put
ourselves at disadvantage in matters litigated with our allies, and
though we have appointed such matters to be judged among
ourselves and under laws equal to both parties, we are represented
as animated by nothing better than a love of litigation.”[83] “Our
allies (he adds) would complain less if we made open use of our
superior force with regard to them; but we discard such maxims,
and deal with them upon an equal footing: and they are so
accustomed to this, that they think themselves entitled to complain
at every trifling disappointment of their expectations.[84] They
suffered worse hardships under the Persians before our empire
began, and they would suffer worse under you (the Spartans), if you
were to succeed in conquering us and making our empire yours.”
History bears out the boast of the Athenian orator, both as to the
time preceding and following the empire of Athens.[85] And an
Athenian citizen, indeed, might well regard it, not as a hardship, but
as a privilege, that subject-allies should be allowed to sue him before
the dikastery, and to defend themselves before the same tribunal,
either in case of wrong done to him, or in case of alleged treason to
the imperial authority of Athens: they were thereby put upon a level
with himself. Still more would he find reason to eulogize the
universal competence of these dikasteries in providing a common
legal authority for all disputes of the numerous distinct communities
of the empire, one with another, and for the safe navigation and
general commerce of the Ægean. That complaints were raised
against it among the subject-allies, is noway surprising: for the
empire of Athens generally was inconsistent with that separate
autonomy to which every town thought itself entitled,—and this was
one of its prominent and constantly operative institutions, as well as
a striking mark of dependence to the subordinate communities. Yet
we may safely affirm, that if empire was to be maintained at all, no
way of maintaining it could be found at once less oppressive and

Вам также может понравиться