Listed 6 sub titles with search on: Biographies for wider area of: "ALIMOUS Ancient demos ALIMOS" .
ALIMOUS (Ancient demos) ALIMOS
Thucydides (Thoukudides). The great Athenian historian, the
son of Olorus or Orolus and Hegesipyle. He is said to have been connected with
the family of Cimon; and we know that Miltiades, the conqueror of Marathon, married
Hegesipyle, the daughter of a Thracian king called Olorus, by whom she became
the mother of Cimon; and it has been conjectured with much probability that the
mother of Thucydides was a granddaughter of Miltiades and Hegesipyle. According
to a statement of Pamphila, Thucydides was forty years of age at the commencement
of the Peloponnesian War (B.C. 431), and accordingly he was born in 471. There
is a story in Lucian of Herodotus having read his History at the Olympic Games
to the assembled Greeks; and Suidas adds that Thucydides, then a boy, was present,
and shed tears of emulation--a presage of his own future historical distinction.
But this celebrated story ought probably to be rejected as a fable. Thucydides
is said to have been instructed in oratory by Antiphon, and in philosophy by Anaxagoras;
but whether these statements are to be received cannot be determined. It is certain,
however, that, being an Athenian of a good family, and living in a city which
was the centre of Greek civilization, he must have had the best possible education;
that he was a man of great ability and cultivated understanding his work clearly
shows. He informs us that he possessed gold-mines in that part of Thrace which
is opposite to the island of Thasos, and that he was a person of the greatest
influence among those in that part of Thrace. This property, according to some
accounts, he had from his ancestors; according to other accounts, he married a
rich woman of Scaptesyle, and received it as a portion with her. Thucydides left
a son called Timotheus; and a daughter also is mentioned, who is said by some
to have written the eighth book of the History of Thucydides. Thucydides was one
of those who suffered from the great plague of Athens, and one of the few who
recovered. We have no trustworthy evidence of Thucydides having distinguished
himself as an orator, though it is not unlikely that he did, for his oratorical
talent is shown by the speeches that he has inserted in his history. He was, however,
employed in a military capacity, and he was in command of an Athenian squadron
of seven ships, at Thasus, B.C. 424, when Eucles, who commanded in Amphipolis,
sent for his assistance against Brasidas, who was before that town with an army.
Brasidas, fearing the arrival of a superior force, offered favourable terms to
Amphipolis, which were readily accepted, for there were few Athenians in the place,
and the rest did not wish to make resistance. Thucydides arrived at Eion, at the
mouth of the Strymon, on the evening of the same day on which Amphipolis surrendered;
and though he was too late to save Amphipolis, he prevented Eion from falling
into the hands of the enemy. In consequence of this failure, Thucydides became
an exile, probably to avoid a severer punishment; for Cleon, who was at this time
in great favour with the Athenians, appears to have excited popular suspicion
against him. There are various untrustworthy accounts as to his places of residence
during his exile; but we may conclude that he could not safely reside in any place
which was under Athenian dominion, and as he kept his eye on the events of the
war, he must have lived in those parts which belonged to the Spartan alliance.
His own words certainly imply that, during his exile, he spent much of his time
either in the Peloponnesus, or in places which were under Peloponnesian influence;
and his work was the result of his own experience and observations. His minute
description of Syracuse and the neighbourhood leads to the probable conclusion
that he was personally acquainted with the localities; and if he visited Sicily,
it is probable that he also saw some parts of southern Italy. Thucydides says
that he lived twenty years in exile, and as his exile commenced in the beginning
of 423, he may have returned to Athens in the beginning of 403, about the time
when Thrasybulus liberated Athens. Thucydides is said to have been assassinated
at Athens soon after his return; but other accounts place his death in Thrace.
There is a general agreement, however, among the ancient authorities that he came
to a violent end. His death cannot be placed later than 401.
The time when he composed his work has been a matter of dispute.
He informs us himself that he was busy in collecting materials all through the
war from the beginning to the end, and of course he would register them as he
got them. Plutarch says that he wrote the work in Thrace; but the work in the
shape in which we have it was certainly not finished until after the close of
the war, and he was probably engaged upon it at the time of his death. A question
has been raised as to the authorship of the eighth and last book of Thucydides,
which breaks off in the middle of the twenty-first year of the war (411). It differs
from all the other books in containing no speeches, and it has also been supposed
to be inferior to the rest as a piece of composition. Accordingly, several ancient
critics supposed that the eighth book was not by Thucydides: some attributed it
to his daughter, and some to Xenophon or Theopompus, because both of them continued
the history. The words with which Xenophon's Hellenica commence (meta de tauta)
may chiefly have led to the supposition that he was the author, for his work is
made to appear as a continuation of that of Thucydides. But this argument is in
itself of little weight; and, besides, both the style of the eighth book is different
from that of Xenophon, and the manner of treating the subject, for the division
of the year into summers and winters, which Thucydides has observed in his first
seven books, is continued in the eighth, but is not observed by Xenophon. The
rhetorical style of Theopompus, which was the characteristic of his writing, renders
it also improbable that he was the author of the eighth book. It seems the simplest
supposition to consider Thucydides himself as the author of this book, since he
names himself as the author twice; though it is probable that he had not the opportunity
of revising it with the same care as the first seven books. It is stated by an
ancient writer that Xenophon made the work of Thucydides known, which may be true,
as he wrote the first two books of his Hellenica, or the part which now ends with
the second book, for the purpose of completing the history. The work of Thucydides,
from the commencement of the second book, is chronologically divided into winters
and summers, and each summer and winter make a year. His summer comprises the
time from the vernal to the autumnal equinox, and the winter comprises the period
from the autumnal to the vernal equinox. The division into books and chapters
was probably made by the Alexandrian critics. The history of the Peloponnesian
War opens the second book of Thucydides, and the first is introductory to the
history.
He begins his first book by observing that the Peloponnesian
War was the most important event in Grecian history, which he shows by a rapid
review of the history of the Greeks from the earliest period to the commencement
of the war. After his introductory chapters he proceeds to explain the alleged
grounds and causes of the war: the real causes were, he says, the Spartan jealousy
of the Athenian power. His narrative is interrupted, after he has come to the
time when the Lacedaemonians resolved on war, by a digression on the rise and
progress of the power of Athens; a period which had been either omitted by other
writers, or treated imperfectly, and with little regard to chronology, as by Hellanicus
in his Attic history. He resumes his narrative with the negotiations that preceded
the war; but this leads to another digression of some length on the treason of
Pausanias, and the exile of Themistocles. He concludes the book with the speech
of Pericles, who advised the Athenians to refuse the demands of the Peloponnesians;
and his subject, as already observed, begins with the second book.
A history which treats of so many events, which took place
at remote spots, could only be written, in the time of Thucydides, by a man who
took great pains to ascertain facts by personal inquiry. In modern times facts
are made known by printing as soon as they occur; and the printed records of the
time, such as newspapers, are often the only evidence of many facts which become
history. When we know the careless way in which facts are now reported and recorded
by incompetent persons, often upon very indifferent hearsay testimony, and compare
with such records the pains that Thucydides took to ascertain the chief events
of a war with which he was contemporary, in which he took a share as a commander,
the opportunities which his means allowed, his great abilities, and serious, earnest
character, it is a fair conclusion that we have as exact a history of a long eventful
period by Thucydides, as we have of any period in modern times.
The work of Thucydides shows the most scrupulous care and diligence
in ascertaining facts; his strict attention to chronology, and the importance
that he attaches to it, are additional proof of his historical accuracy. His narrative
is brief and concise to a degree which makes the thought, or the crowd of thoughts,
concentrated in a short and involved sentence often hard to understand; it generally
contains bare facts expressed in the fewest possible words, but this stern and
apparently passionless brevity is able to produce a pathos unsurpassed by any
prose-writer. This is seen most notably in his account of the Athenian catastrophe
at Syracuse. Few can read it (and there are other passages almost as moving in
the history) without agreeing with the opinion of Macaulay, that nothing finer
has been written in prose. But it is still more important to notice that Thucydides
is the founder of philosophical history. He first showed that a great historian
should not merely narrate events accurately, should not even content himself with
a critical examination of his authorities, but should also try to trace the causes
of events, and their consequences, their teaching in politics, and the light which
they throw upon character. Many of his speeches are political essays, or materials
for them; they are not mere imaginations of his own for rhetorical effect; they
contain in many cases the general sense of what was actually delivered as nearly
as he could ascertain, and in many instances he had good opportunities of knowing
what was said, for he heard some speeches delivered; but they are employed to
show the motives and sentiments of the speakers and of their partisans or countrymen.
The number of existing manuscripts of Thucydides is about fifty,
the oldest being the Codex Laurentianus (Florence) of the tenth century. Among
the best are the Codex Cassellanus (Cas sel), dated 1252, the Codex Augustanus
(formerly at Augsburg, now in Munich), the Codex Cantabrigiensis (Cambridge),
the Codex Palatinus (Heidelberg) of the eleventh century, and a Codex Vaticanus
of somewhat later date. A manuscript (Codex Italus) collated by Bekker at Paris
in 1812 is now lost.
This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Nov 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Thucidides (Thoukudides), the historian, belonged to the demos Halimus, and Halimus
belonged to the Leontis. He simply calls himself an Athenian (Thuc. i. 1). His
father's name was Olorus (iv. 104). Marcellinus, and some other later writers,
say that the name was Orolus. The two forms are easily confounded, and we assume
the true name to be Olorus. Herodotus (vi. 39) mentions a Thracian king called
Olorus, whose daughter Hegesipyle married Miltiades, the conqueror of Marathon,
by whom she became the mother of Cimon. The ancient authorities speak of consanguinity
between the family of Cimion and that of Thucydides, and the name of the father
of Thucydides is some presumption of a connection with this Thracian king. The
mother of Thucydides was also named Hegesipyle, though Marcellinus is the only
authority for his mother's name. It is conjectured that Hegesipyle may have been
a granddaughter of Miltiades and Hegesipyle, but there is no evidence to show
who the mother of Thucydides was, nor how his father was connected with the family
of Miltiades. It is also said that there was consanguinity between the family
of Thucydides and the Peisistratidae; but this also cannot be satisfactorily explained.
A statement by Pamphilus, which is preserved by Gellius (xv. 23),
makes Thucydides forty years of age at the commencement of the Peloponnesian war
or B. C. 431, and accordingly he was born in B. C. 471. The historian says that
he lived to see the end of the war, and the war ended in B. C. 404. Kuruger attempts
to show, on the authority of Marcellinus, that Thucydides was only about twenty-five
years of age at the commencement of the war; but he relies too much on his own
interpretation of certain words of Thucydides, which are by no means free from
ambiguity (v. 26, aisthanomenos tei helikiai). There is a story in Lucian's Herodotus
or Aetion of Herodotus having read his History at the Olympic games to the assembled
Greeks; and Suidas (s. v. Thoukudides) adds that Thucydides, then a boy, was present,
and shed tears of emulation; a presage of his own future historical distinction.
This story was first doubted by Bredow and has since been critically discussed
by others, and most completely by Dablman who rejects it as a table. The truth
of the story is maintained at great length, and with greater tediousness, by Kruger.
It is of little importance what any man thinks of the story: it is enough to remark
that the direct evidence in surport of it is very weak, and there are many plausible
objections to be urged against it. Kruger has collected in his essay on Thacydides
all that he could say in support of the story.
Antiphon of Rhamnus, the most distinguished orator of the time, is
said to have been the master of Thucydides in the rhetorical art; and as Antiphon
was a contemporary of Thucydides and older, there is no internal improbability
in the statement. But the evidence for it, as Kruger shows, is really nothing
more than this, that Caecilius in his life of Antiphon conjectures that Thucydides
must have been a pupil of Antiphon's, because he praises Antiphon. Cicero, in
his Brutus (c. 12), speaks of the eloquence of Antiphon, and cites Thucydides
as evidence, and it seems very unlikely that, if he knew Thucydides to have been
a pupil of Antiphon, he would not have mentioned it. Anaxagoras also is named
by Marcellinus, on the authority of Antyllus, as one of the teachers of Thucydides,
as to which we may observe that it is possible that he was, for Anaxagoras was
some time at Athens, and Thucydides might have had the advantage of his instruction.
That Thucydides, an Athenian, of a good family, and living in a city which was
the centre of Greek civilisation, must have had the best possible education, may
be assumed; that he was a man of great ability and cultivated understanding his
work clearly shows. He informs us that he possessed gold mines in that part of
Thrace which is opposite to the island of Thasos, and that he was a person of
the greatest influence among those in that part of Thrace (iv. 105). This property,
according to some accounts, he had from his ancestors: according to other accounts
he married a rich woman of Scaptesyle, and received them as a portion with her.
Kruger has a conjecture that Cimon, who took these mines from the Thasians, got
an interest in them, and gave a part to that branch of his family to which Thucydides
belonged.
Suidas says that Thucydides left a son, called Timotheus; and a daughter
also is mentioned, who is said to have written the eighth book of the History
of Thucydides. Thucydides (ii. 48) was one of those who suffered from the great
plague of Athens, and one of the few who recovered.
We have no trustworthy evidence of Thucydides having distinguished
himself as an orator, though it is not unlikely that he did, for his oratorical
talent is shown by the speeches that he has inserted in his history. He was, however,
employed in a military capacity, and he was in command of an Athenian squadron
of seven ships, at Thasus, B. C. 424, when Eucles, who commanded in Amphipolis,
sent for his assistance against Brasidas, who was before that town with an army.
Brasidas, fearing the arrival of a superior force, offered favourable terms to
Amphipolis, which were readily accepted, for there were few Athenians in the place,
and the rest did not wish to make resistance. Thucydides arrived at Eion, at the
mouth of the Strymon, on the evening of the same day on which Amphipolis surrendered;
and though he was too late to save Amphipolis, he prevented Eion from failing
into the hand of the enemy (iv. 102, &c.).
In consequence of this failure, Thucydides became an exile, probably
to avoid a severer punishment, that of death, for such appears to have been the
penalty of such a failure as his, though he may have done the best that he could.
According to Marcellinus, Cleon, who was at this time in great favour with the
Athenians, excited popular suspicion against the unfortunate commander. Thucydides
(v. 26) simply says that he lived in exile twenty years after the affair of Amphipolis,
but he does not say whether it was a voluntary exile or a punishment. If it was
voluntary, we may assume that he did not return to Athens, because he knew what
fate awaited him.
There are various untrustworthy accounts as to his places of residence
during his exile; but we may conclude that he could not safely reside in any place
which was under Athenian dominion, and as he kept his eye on the events of the
war, he must have lived in those parts which belonged to the Spartan alliance.
His own words certainly imply that, during his exile, he spent much of his time
either in the Peloponnesus or in places which were under Peloponnesian influence
(v. 26); and his work was the result of his own experience and observations. His
minute description of Syracuse and the neighbourhood leads to the probable conclusion
that he was personally acquainted with the localities; and if he visited Sicily,
it is probable that he also saw some parts of southern Italy, and an anonymous
biographer speaks of Thucydides having been at Sybaris. But it is rather too bold
a conjecture to make, as some have done, that Olorus and his son Thucydides went
out in the colony to Thurii, B. C. 443, which was joined by Herodotus and the
orator Lysias, then a young man. Timaeus, as quoted by Marcellinus, says that
Thucydides during his exile lived in Italy; but if he means during all the time
of his exile, his statement cannot be accepted, for it would contradict the inference
which may be fairly derived from a passage in Thucydides that has been already
referred to. Timaeus, and other authorities also, affirmed that Thucydides was
buried at Thurii; as to which Kruger ingeniously argues, that if he lived there
for some time, there is nothing strange in a story being invented of his having
been buried there, especially as he might have had a tomb built with the intention
of occupying it.
Thucydides says that he lived twenty years in exile (v. 26), and as
his exile commenced in the beginning of B. C. 423, he may have returned to Athens
in the beginning of B. C. 403, and therefore at or about the time when Thrasybulus
liberated Athens (Xen. Hellen. ii. 4.22-38). It may accordingly be conjectured
that Thucydides joined Thrasybulus, and in company with him effected his return
to his native country. Pausanias indeed (i. 23.9) states that Thucydides was recalled
by a psephisma proposed by Oenobius, but this account creates some difficulty,
because it appeared from a critical enumeration of the authorities cited by Marcellinus,
that there was a general permission for all the exiles to return after the conclusion
of peace with the Laedaemonians, B. C. 404. Thucydides himself says that he was
twenty years in exile, and therefore he did not return till B. C. 403, unless
we assume that his " twenty years " was merely a round number used to signify
nineteen years and somewhat more; or unless we assure that he did not return as
soon as he might have done, but a few months later, so that the full term of twenty
years was completed.
There is a general agreement among the ancient authorities that Thucydides
came to a violent end; Zopyrus and Didymus, quoted by Marcellinus, affirm this;
and Plutarch (Cimon 4), and Pausanias (i. 23.9) tell the same story. But there
is a great diversity of evidence as to the place where be died; and it is doubtful
whether it was Thrace or Athens. Plutarch says, it is reported that he was killed
in Scaptesyle in Thrace, but that his remains were carried to Athens. and his
tomb is pointed out in the burial-place of Cimon, by the side of the tomb of Elpinice,
the sister of Cimon. Pausanias, who was well acquainted with Athens, says that
his tomb was then not far front the Pylae Melitides; and that he was assassinated
after his return (hos kateei), words which seem to imply that he did not long
survive his restoration. Marcellinus, on the authority of Antyllus, quotes the
inscription on his tomb at Athens:
Thoukudides Olorou (Orolou) Halimousios (enthase
keitai).
We cannot doubt that there was a tomb of Thucydides at Athens, and he probably died there the testimony of Timaeus that he died in Italy, is of little value.
The question as to the time of the return of Thucydides to Athens,
and of the place of his death and interment, is discussed by Kruger with a wearisome
minuteness, and with uncertain results. As to the time of the death of Thucydides,
he concludes that it could not be later than the end or about the middle of the
94th Olympiad, that is, in any event not later than B. C. 401. His own direct
testimony (v. 26) simply shows that he was living after the war was ended (B.
C. 404). Dodwell argues that the third eruption of Aetna, which Thucydides (iii.
116) alludes to was tire eruption of B. C. 399 or the 95th Olympiad; but Thucydides
means to say that the eruption, of which he does not fix the date, was prior to
the two eruptions (B. C. 425 and 475) of which he does fix the dates. There is
no doubt about the true interpretation of this passage.
The time when he composed his work is another matter of critical inquiry.
He was busy in collecting materials all through the war from the beginning to
the end (i. 22); but we do not know from his own evidence whether he wrote any
portion of the work, as we now have it, during the continuance of the war, though
he would certainly have plenty of time during his exile to compose the earlier
part of his history. Plutarch says that he wrote the work in Thrace; and his words
mean the whole work, as he does not qualify them (ton polemon ton Peloponnesion
kai AtheWaion en Thrakei peri ten Skapten hulen, and this is consistent with Plutarch's
statement that he died in Thrace. Marcellinus says that he gave the work its last
polish in Thrace; and that he wrote it under a plane tree: this is very particular,
and it is not improbable that he might write under a shady tree in fine weather,
but such particularities are very suspicious. The most probable opinion is that
he was engaged on the work till the time of his death. In the very beginning of
his history (i. 18) he mentions the end of the war in a passage which must have
been written after B. C. 404. A passage in the first book (i. 93), when rightly
interpreted, shows that it was written after the wall round the Peiraeeus was
pulled down (Xen. Hellen. ii. 2). In the second book (ii. 65) he speaks of the
Sicilian expedition, and the support which Cyrus gave to the Lacedaemonians, and
of the final defeat of the Athenians in this war; all which passages consequently
were written after the events to which they refer. A passage in the fifth book
also (v. 26), mentions the end of the war, the duration of which, he says, was
twenty-seven years. Thucydides undoubtedly was collecting his materials all through
the war, and of course he would register them as he got them; but the work in
the shape in which we have it, was certainly not finished until after the close
of the war.
A question has been raised as to the authorship of the eighth and
last book of Thucydides, which breaks off in the middle of the twenty-first year
of the war (B. C. 411); and with the remark that, " when the winter which follows
this summer shall have ended, the one and twentieth year of the war is completed."
It differs from all the other books in containing no speeches, a cirenmstance
which Dionysius remarked, and it has also been supposed to be inferior to the
rest as a piece of composition. Accordingly several ancient critics supposed that
the eighth book was not by Thucydides: some attributed it to his daughter, and
some to Xenophon or Theopompus, because both of them continued the history. The
words with which Xenophon's Hellenica commence (meta de tauta) may chiefly have
led to the supposition that he was the author, for his work is made to appear
as a continuation of that of Thucydides: but this argument is in itself of little
weight; and besides, both the style of the eighth book is different from that
of Xenophon. and the manner of treating the subject, for the division of the year
into summers and winters, which Thulcydides has observed in his first seven books,
is continued in the eighth, but is not observed by Xenophon. The rhetorical style
of Theopompus, which was the characteristic of his writing, renders it also improbable
that he was the author of the eighth book. It seems the simplest supposition to
consider Thucydides himself as the author of this book, since he names himself
as the author twice (viii. 6, 60). Cratippus, a contemporary of Thucydides, who
also collected what Thucydides had omitted, ascribes this book to Thucydides,
remarking at the same time that he has introduced no speeches in it. Marcellinus
and the anonymous author of the life of Thucydides also attribute the last book
to him. The statement of Cratippus, that Thucydides omitted the speeches in the
last book because they impeded the narrative and were wearisolme to his readers,
is probably merely a conjecture. If Thucydides, after writing speeches in the
first seven books, discovered that this was a bad historical method, we must assume
that if he had lived long enough, he would have struck the speeches out of the
first seven books. But this is very improbable a man of his character and judgment
would hardly begin his work without a settled plan; and if the speeches were struck
out, the work would certainly be defective, and would not present that aspect
of political affairs, and that judgment upon then, which undoubtedly it was the
design of the author to present. Some reasons why there should be no speeches
in the eighth book, in accordance with the general plan of Thucydides, are alleged
by Kruger; and the main reason is that they are not wanted. Whatever may be the
reason, the only conclusion that a sound critic can come to is, that the eighth
book is by Thucydides, but that he may not have had the opportunity of revising
it with the same care as the first seven books.
A saying (legetai) is preserved by Diogenes that Xenophon made the
work of Thucydides known (eis doxan egagen), which may be true, as he wrote the
first two books of his Hellenica, or the part which now ends with the second book.
for the purpose of completing the history. The statement in Diogenes implies that
the work of Thucydides might have been lost or forgotten but for Xenophon's care;
and if the statement is true, we may conclude that the manuscript of Thucydides
in some way came into his possession, and probably the materials which the author
had collected for the completion of his history.
The work of Thucydides, from the commencement of the second book,
is chronologically divided into summers and winters, and each summer and winter
make a year (ii. 1). His summer comprises the time from the vernal to the autumnal
equinox, and the winter comprises the period from the autumnal to the vernal equinox.
The division into books and chapters was probably made by the Alexandrine critics.
In the second book he says at the beginning of the 47th chapter, " such was the
interment during this winter, and after the winter was over, the first year of
the war was ended." He then goes on to say: " now in the commencement of the summer,"
which is evidently the beginning of a new year, and of a new division, if he made
any division in his history. Again, at the end of the eightieth chapter, ie mentions
the end of the second year of the war ; and again in the last chapter of the second
book he mentions the conclusion of the third year of the war. The third book begins
just in the same manner, " In the following summer," as the eighty-first chapter
of the second book. There is, then, nothing in the work itself which gives the
least intimation that the division into books was part of the author's design;
and in fact, the division into books is made in a very arbitrary and clumsy way.
The seventh hook ought to end with the sixth chapter of the eighth book; and the
seventh chapter of the eighth book ought to he the first. We may conclude from
the terms in which Cratippus alludes to the eighth book (ta teleutaia tes historias)
that the division into books was not then made; but it existed in the time of
Dionysius, and when Diodorus wrote (xii. 37, xiii. 42).
There was a division of the work also into nine books (Diod. xii.
37); and a still later division into thirteen books. The title of the work, as
well as the division into books, is also probably the work of the critics or grammarians.
The titles vary in the MSS., but the simple title Sungraphe is that which is most
appropriate to the author's own expression, Thoukudides Athenaios xunegrapse ton
polemon, &c. (i. 1).
The history of the Peloponnesian war opens the second book of Thucydides,
and the first is introductory to the history. He begins his first book by observing
that the Peloponnesian war was the most important event in Grecian history, which
he shows by a rapid review of the history of the Greeks from the earliest period
to the commencement of the war (i. 1--21). His remarks on the remote periods of
Grecian history, such as Hellen and his sons, the naval power of Minos, and the
war of Troy. do not express any doubt as to the historical character of these
events; nor was it necessary for the author to express his scepticism ; he has
simply stated the main facts of early Grecian history in the way in which they
were told and generally received. These early events are utterly unimportant,
when we view history, as the author viewed the object of his history, as matter
for political instruction (i. 22). He designed his work to be "an eternal possession,"
and such it has proved to be. After his introductory chapters (i. 1-23) he proceeds
to exaplain the alleged grounds and causes of the war : the real causes were,
he says, the Spartan jealousy of the Athenian power. His narrative is interrupted
(e. 89-118), after he has come to the time when the Lacedaemonians resolved on
war, by a digression (ekbole) on the rise and progress of the power of Athens;
a period which had been either omitted by other writers, or treated imperfectly,
and with little regard to chronology, as by Hellanicus in his Attic history (c.
97). He resumes his narrative (c. 119) with the negotiations that preceded the
war; but this leads to another digression of some length on the treason of Pausanias
(c. 1281-134), and the exile of Themistocles (c. 135-138). He concludes the book
with the speech of Pericles, who advised the Athenians to refuse the demands of
the Peloponnesians; and his subject, as already observed, begins with the second
book. Mr. Clinton, in his Fasti, has a chapter " On the Summary of Thucydides,"
or that part of his first book which treats of the period between B. C. 478 and
432. The Peloponnesian war began B. C. 431.
A history which treats of so many events, which took place at remote
spots, could only be written, in the time of Thucydides. by a man who took great
pains to ascertain facts by personal inquiry. In modern times facts are made known
by printing as soon as they occur; and the printed records of the time, newspapers
and the like, are often the only evidence of many facts which become history.
When we know the careless way in which facts are now reported and recorded by
very incompetent persons, often upon very indifferent hearsay testimony, and compare
with such records the pains that Thucydides took to ascertain the chief events
of a war, with which he was contemporary, in which he took a share as a commander,
the opportunities which his means allowed, his great abilities, and serious earnest
character, it is a fair conclusion that we have a more exact history of a long
eventful period by Thucydides than we have of any period in modern history, equally
long and equally eventful. We are deceived as to the value of modern historical
evidence, which depends on the eye-sight of witnesses, by the facility with which
it is produced and distributed in print. But when we come to examine the real
authority for that which is printed, we seldom find that the original witness
of an important transaction is a Thucydides; still less seldom do we find a man
like him who has devoted seven and twenty years to the critical (enumeration of
the events of as many years. A large part of the facts in Thucydides were doubtless
derived from the testimony of other eye-wit-nesses, and even in some cases not
directly from eye-witnesses; and that is also true of all modern histories, even
contemporary histories; but again, how seldom have we a Thucydides to weigh the
value of testimony either direct or indirect (i. 22). His whole work shows the
most scrupulous care and diligence in ascertaining facts; his strict attention
to chronology, and the importance that he attaches to it, are additional proof
of his historical accuracy. His narrative is brief and concise : it generally
contains hare facts expressed in the fewest possible words, and When we consider
what plaints it must have cost him to ascertain these facts, we admire the self-denial
of a writer who is satisfied with giving facts in their naked brevity without
ornament, without any parade of his personal importance, and of the trouble that
his matter cost him. A single chapter must sometimes have represented the labour
of many days and weeks. Such a principle of historical composition is the evidence
of a great and elevated mind. The history of Thucydides only makes an octavo volume
of moderate size; many a modern writer would have spun it out to a dozen volumes,
and so have spoiled it. A work that is for all ages must contain much in little
compass.
He seldom makes reflections in the course of his narrative: occasionally
he has a chapter of political and moral observations, animated by the keenest
perception of the motives of action, and the moral character of man. Many of his
speeches are political essays, or materials for them; they are not mere imaginations
of his own for rhetorical effect; they contain the general sense of what was actually
delivered as nearly as he could ascertain, and in many instances he had good opportunities
of knowing what was said, for he heard some speeches delivered (i. 22). His opportunities,
his talents, his character, and his subject all combined to produce a work that
stands alone, and in its kind has neither equal nor rival. his pictures are sometimes
striking and tragic, an effect produced by severe simplicity and minute particularity.
Such is the description of the plague of Athens. Such also is tile incomparable
history of the Athenian expedition to Sicily, and its melancholy termination.
A man who thinks profoundly will have a form of expression which is
stamped with the character of his mind; and the style of Thucydides is accordingly
concise, vigorous, energetic. We feel that all the words were intended to have
a meaning, and have a meaning none of them are idle. Yet he is sometimes harsh
and obscure; and probably he was so, even to his own countrymen. Some of his sentences
are very involved, and the connection and dependence of the parts are often difficult
to seize. Cicero, undoubtedly a good Greek scholar, found him difficult (Orator.
c. 9): he says that the speeches contain so many obscure and impenetrable sentences
as to be scarcely intelligible; and this, he adds, is a very great defect in the
language of political life (in oratione civili).
The first thing that is requisite in reading Thucydides is to have
a good text established on a collation of the MSS., and this we owe to I. Bekker.
Those who were accustomed to read Thucydides in such a text as Duker's, can estimate
their obligations to Bekker. For the understanding of the text, a sound knowledge
of the language and the assistance of the best critics are necessary; and perhaps
nearly all has been done in this department that call be done. But after all,
a careful and repeated study of the original is necessary in order to understand
it. For the illustration of the text a great mass of geographical and historical
knowledge is necessary; and here also the critics have not been idle. To derive
all the advantage from the work that may be derived for political instruction,
we must study it; and here the critics give little help, for Politik is a thing
they seldom meddle with, and not often with success. Here a man must c, his own
commentator; bit a great deal might be done by a competent hand in illustrating
Thucydides as a political writer.
The Greek text was first published by Aldus, Venice, 1502 fol., and
the Scholia were published in the following year. The first Latin translation,
which was by Valla, was printed before 1500, and reprinted at Paris, 1513, fol.,
and frequently after that date. The first edition of the Greek text accompanied
by a Latin version, was that of H. Stephens, 1564, fol. : the Latin version is
that of Valla, revised by Stephens. This well printed edition contains the Scholia,
the Life of Thucydides by Marcellinus, and an anonymous Life of Thucydides. The
edition of 1. Bekker, Berlin, 1821, 3 vols. 8vo. forms an epoch in the editions
of Thucydides, and, as regards the text, renders it unnecessary to consult any
which are of prior date. Among other editions are that of Poppo, Leipzig, 10 vols.
8vo., 1821--1838, of which two volumes are filled with prolegomena; of Haack,
with selections from the Greek Scholia and short notes, Leipzig, 1820, 2 vols.
8vo.; of Goller, 2 vols. 8vo., Leipzig, 1826; and of Arnold, 3 vols. 8vo., Oxford,
1830--1835.
The translations into modern languasres are numerous. It was translated
into French by Claude Seyssel, Paris, 1527, fol. The English version of Thomas
Nicolls, London, 1550, fol. was made from the version of Seyssel. The Biographic
Universelle mentions an anonymous English version, published at London in 1525.
The English version of Hobbes appears to be mainly founded on the Latin versions,
as a comparison of it with them will show. Hobbes translated it for the political
instruction which it contains. Thucydides was afterwards translated by W. Smith,
1753, whose translation is generally exact; and again by S. T. Bloomefield, London,
1829. The most recent German translation is by H. W. F. Klein, Munich, 1826. 8vo.
Thucydides was translated into French by Levesque, Paris, 1795, 4 vols. 8vo.;
and by Gail, 1807, &c. Gail published the Greek text of Thucydides, the Scholia,
the variations of thirteen manuscripts of the Bibliotheque du Roi, a Latin version
corrected, and the French version already mentioned, with notes historical and
philological. The French version of Gail has been printed separately, 4 vols.
8vo.
The authorities for the Life of Thucydides have been generally referred
to, and they are all mentioned and criticised in the Untersuchungen uber das Leben
des Thucydides, Berlin, 1832, by K.W. Kruger. The " Annales Thucydidei et Xenophontei,"
&c. of Dodwell, Oxford, 1 702, 4to., may also be consulted. The criticism of Dionysius
of Hlalicarnassus on Thucydides has itself been much criticised : most of his
censure will not receive the approbation of just criticism.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited July 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Charles D. Morris, Commentary on Thucydides
Introduction
Though we have several ancient biographies of Thucydides, our trustworthy knowledge
of the circumstances of his life rests almost exclusively on a few notices casually
imparted by himself. Everything else that we are told of him either by his biographers
or in the occasional remarks of other writers has the character of uncertain conjecture
based upon fragmentary tradition. The more we examine these scanty testimonies,
the stronger becomes the impression that Thucydides seldom appeared in person
in public life, and that except in a few instances he withdrew from the gaze of
the world. We may infer, therefore, that the rhetorical exaggerations of the later
biographies have very slight value for us; and only a few definite statements,
which present themselves here and there, appear to be derived from trustworthy
sources. In the following survey of his life, therefore, we must take as the basis
of the narrative only the circumstances reported by himself, and endeavour to
combine them into a whole with a cautious use of material coming from other quarters.
Thucydides belonged by birth to a family which by its wealth secured
him complete independence, and by its foreign possessions early directed his gaze
beyond the borders of Attica to the relations of distant nations. The
Attic deme Halimus, on the coast between Phalerum and Colias, in the tribe of
Leontis, is mentioned as the place of his birth. He tells us himself
(iv.104.15) that his father's name was Olorus; and his grave was undoubtedly in
the family vault of Cimon, near that of Elpinice, Cimon's sister, as Plutarch
evidently saw it himself (Cim. c. 4); and we may accordingly assume it as certain
that Olorus, the father of Thucydides was a near kinsman of the Thracian prince
of that name, whose daughter Hegesipyle was wife of the great Miltiades (Hdt.
vi. 39) and mother of Cimon; but the degree of relationship cannot be more nearly
defined. It is only Marcellinus who gives to his mother the name of the mother
of Cimon, Hegesipyle; while Plutarch makes no such statement where he could hardly
have failed to do so, had he been aware of the fact; and we must, therefore, be
content with the knowledge that Cimon's grandfather Olorus was an ancestor (progonos
in Plutarch)--from the similarity of the name we may perhaps infer the grandfather--of
the younger Olorus, the father of the historian. That this Olorus was in full
possession of Athenian citizenship appears probable from the way in which his
son designates himself (iv.104.15), Thoukudiden ton Olorou, for here, where he
introduces himself as a strategos, it is only as an Athenian citizen that his
father could be mentioned in the official style. Cimon no doubt owed his wealth
to the possessions of his mother's family on the Thracian coast, which may have
been enlarged by the reduction of the neighbouring Thasos (B.C. 463; i. 101. §
3); and so Thucydides by the same relationship came into the possession of his
Thracian property, which consisted in goldmines near Scapte Hyle. The assertion
of Marcellinus, that he married a rich woman of that region and so became possessed
of the gold-mines, can hardly be anything else than an idle guess.
On the whole it seems likely that Thucydides was of near kin to Cimon,
and younger by one generation. We may conjecture that as boy and youth he looked
up with reverence to his noble kinsman, while he was in the full strength of his
manhood and at the height of his renown. If no other information were at hand,
we might assume that when Cimon died (B.C. 449) about sixty years of age--greater
exactness is not attainable--Thucydides was a young man between twenty and thirty.
But as to the time of his birth two statements are made. The one is in Marcellinus
(§ 34), of extreme vagueness: (legetaipausasthai ton bion huper ta pentekonta
ete me plerosanta tes sungraphes ten prothesmian. The other is due to Pamphila,
who in the time of Nero made a great compilation of the results of learning. A
Gellius (N. A. xv. 23) writes as follows: Hellanicus, Herodotus, Thucydides historiae
scriptores in isdem fere temporibus laude ingenti floruerunt, et non nimis longe
distantibus fuerunt aetatibus. nam Hellanicus initio belli Peloponnesiaci fuisse
quinque et sexaginta annos natus videtur, Herodotus tres et quinquaginta, Thucydides
quadraginta. scriptum est hoc in libro undecimo Pamphilae. Marcellinus's remark
is plainly of no use for any certain inference. How much beyond fifty years is
one to go back to reach the birth-year of Thucydides? It is hardly more than the
result of an approximate calculation, that Thucydides, who represents himself
(i. 1. § 1; v.26.24) as of competent judgment at the beginning of the Peloponnesian
war, and who must have died in any case after the end of it in B.C. 404, must
have been born before B.C. 454. One who wrote huper ta pentekonta ete clearly
had himself no accurate knowledge. As to the testimony of Pamphila, Diels indicates
the proper way of looking at it in his Untersuchungen uber Apollodors Chronika
(Rhein. Mus. 31, p. 1-54). The dates given are no doubt taken from Apollodorus,
whose chronological handbook had reached among the Greeks and Romans an almost
canonical acceptance. He adopted the method usual among Alexandrian scholars of
determining the akme or floruit of historical personages by reference to any circumstance
the date of which was known; and as this akme was regularly assumed to be the
40th year, probably on the basis of Pythagorean doctrines, it was easy from it
to deduce the year of birth. The akme of Herodotus was placed by Apollodorus probably
at the time of his settlement at Thurii (B.C. 444), and accordingly his birth
would be in 484, and his age is given as 53 at the beginning of the Peloponnesian
war. The akme of Thucydides may have been fixed by Apollodorus on the ground of
his own assertion (i. 1. § 1; v.26.23) as to the maturity of his judgment at the
beginning of the war. Diels therefore is right in saying that these considerations
forbid us to regard the dates assigned to Herodotus and Thucydides as based on
anything stronger than more or less probable hypothesis. If we cannot, however,
find in the testimony of Pamphila any positive basis for inferring the exact year
of the birth of Thucydides, it is nevertheless not without importance that in
the exposition of his own words we reach the same conclusion as Apollodorus. Thucydides
says of himself (v.26.23) that he lived through the whole war aisthanomenos tei
helikiai kai prosechon ten gnomen hopos akribes ti eisetai, and it is clear that
he did not make this remark at the close of the twenty-seven years' war in order
to set his readers at rest as to his mental power and his capacity for observation
at that time--the whole work, with the completion of which he was then engaged,
was ample evidence of that,--but to insist upon the circumstance which was much
more likely to be called in question, that nearly 30 years before he was possessed
of all the qualities requisite for the undertaking of so great a work with a full
consciousness of its importance; and so was justified in asserting that he had
lived through the whole of it with his power of observation and inquiry at their
best. And it is just this clearness of vision and maturity of judgment that Thucydides
asserts of himself in the opening words of his history: arxamenosxungrapheineuthus
kathistamenou kai elpisas megan te esesthai kai axiologotaton ton progegenemenon,
tekmairomenos kthe. It is plain that an author could not so write of himself unless
he felt that at the time of which he speaks he was able to exercise on important
questions an independent judgment founded on experience of life and a wide-reaching
survey of the relations of things. Of course it cannot be asserted that for this
an age of 40 years is indispensable; but still less can it be denied that such
a maturity is in excellent harmony with expressions of this character.
If we adhere to the testimony of Pamphila, which goes back to Apollodorus,
that Thucydides was born about B.C. 470, the first forty years of his life, about
which we possess no further knowledge, divide themselves into two portions; the
period namely in which, mainly under the guidance of Cimon, Athens created her
Hegemony externally, during the self-effacement of Sparta; and that in which,
under the imperial administration of Pericles, she enjoyed the freest internal
development and at the same time took up and cultivated all the elements of the
noblest intellectual life.How closely Thucydides stood related to public life,
[p. 6] particularly in the second period, during which his self-consciousness
must have been fully awake, is a matter on which we have not the slightest information.
But in his history we find evidence, that, though his family traditions must have
inclined him to a moderate aristocracy, his full love and admiration were given
to the intellectual greatness of Pericles. If, as is probable, he did not discharge
any public duties under Pericles, he must have followed with his liveliest sympathy
the public administration of that great man and have rejoiced in the results accomplished
by his creative spirit; certainly he heard from his own lips those speeches of
which he has given us imperishable records, and in them trustworthy outlines for
forming a true picture of the mind of Pericles. It is, however, a probable conjecture
that Thucydides, not only at a later time during his banishment, but also in his
earlier life, often passed his time on his Thracian estates, which no doubt frequently
required the presence and oversight of the owner for the ergasia ton chruseion
metallon. Only in this way could he gain the high regard among the Thracian dynasts
from which Brasidas feared results injurious to his purposes (iv.105.2). It seems
also very natural that the position of independence, which under these circumstances
Thucydides enjoyed also in Athens, may have exerted an important influence on
the calmness of spirit and the impartiality of judgment with which he surveyed
and described for posterity the relations of the Greek States and the events of
his time.
If we try to form a picture of the early training of Thucydides as
we may conceive it between Ol. 80 and 82, B.C. 460-450, when we examine the scanty
notices which seem at first to promise a fuller knowledge, we find ourselves limited
to what we can gather from our acquaintance with the intellectual life in Athens
at that epoch. The often repeated story that Thucydides as a boy was present at
a recitation by Herodotus at Olympia or elsewhere, and was moved thereby to tears,
plainly is of later origin than the time of Lucian, who in his account of the
powerful effect produced by Herodotus at Olympia would certainly not have failed
to mention this story if he had known it; later too than the better portion of
the biography of Marcellinus, which also does not notice it. The story is found
in Suidas, s.v. organ and Thoukudides, in Photius, Bibl. n. 60, and in the last
part of the biography of Marcellinus, § 54; though only Suidas mentions Olympia
as the scene of it. All are derived from one and the same confused statement,
the chief purpose of which was to retain in remembrance the unusual expression
in the assumed exclamation of Herodotus, o Olore, orgai he phusis tou huiou sou
(or orgosan echei ten psuchen, ten phusinpros mathemata. Even if we pay no regard
to the chronological difficulties, which cannot be surmounted unless we give up
the testimony of Pamphila, it cannot be said that Kruger (Untersuchungen, p. 30
ff.) has succeeded in giving credibility to a story so late and so ill-attested.
The recitation of Herodotus at Olympia with all its embellishments in Lucian Dahlmann
is no doubt right in regarding as a fiction. If Herodotus recited portions of
his work at Athens, the most probable date is that furnished by Eusebius,15 Ol.
83. 3, B.C. 446; and that Thucydides may have been among his listeners--yet not
as a boy of 10 years but as a young man of between 20 and 30 years--is very credible.
He may have then received an abiding impression that an engaging narrative of
entertaining events may be well enough adapted for a single recitation before
an assembled crowd, but not so a strict historical representation, which is based
on painstaking inquiry; and this may explain his somewhat bitter assertion, i.21.4,
hos logographoi xunethesan epi to prosagogoteron tei akroasei e alethesteron,
and gives fuller meaning to the famous contrast of his own history as a ktema
es aei to an agonisma es to parachrema akouein (i.22.19).
Whether the statement of Marcellinus, § 22, that Thucydides studied
philosophy with Anaxagoras and rhetoric with Antiphon, rests upon authentic grounds,
is of little importance for us; these two men are so decidedly representatives
of the new spirit, which in both these departments made its way into Athens in
their time and exercised a powerful influence on all who had any share of culture,
that we should be forced to assume for Thucydides a relation of this sort, even
if there were no testimony for it. Both lived at a time quite compatible with
this assumption. Anaxagoras, who was probably born in Ol. 70, about 500 B.C.,
sojourned permanently in Athens between 470 and 450 B.C., and lived on terms of
intimacy with Pericles: Antiphon, born about 485 B.C., and therefore some 10 years
older than Thucydides, must have stood before his eyes as the pattern of manly
and energetic expression and may have been in nearer personal relations with him;
and accordingly the historian in the terms in which he describes the character
of Antiphon (viii.68.5) has left a testimony to his merits in which personal affection
is unmistakable. An influence on the training of Thucydides of a similar character
may be presumed to have been exercised also by the Sophists Protagoras, Prodicus,
and Gorgias, who from the middle of the fifth century exerted themselves for a
longer or shorter time in Athens to spread abroad, by formal instruction and by
lectures, that adroitness of thought and speech which they had acquired by manifold
study and practice. We are told by Marcellinus, and it is in itself sufficiently
credible, that Thucydides appropriated and employed for his own style many of
the results of the close attention which these men paid to the forms of speech
and their relation to thought. Philostratus too says expressly that he borrowed
to megalognomon kai ten ophrun from Gorgias, who no doubt visited Athens before
the famous embassy of 427 B.C.; and Spengel proves by many particular instances
the influence exerted on the language of Thucydides by the theories of Prodicus
on synonymy. We must remember, besides, that the Athens in which Thucydides passed
his boyhood and youth was full of the noblest efforts and most glorious products
of poetry, sculpture, and architecture; that he must have seen the aged Aeschylus
before his departure to Sicily, have been acquainted with Sophocles and Euripides
in the highest maturity of their artistic activity, and have seen Phidias and
his disciples creating their immortal works before his eyes. When we recollect
these things and consider besides what has been said about his relation to the
great statesmen of that time, we may form a tolerably complete conception of the
influences which worked upon his mental development. There can be no doubt that
he expresses his own love and admiration for these intellectual blessings in the
delineation of Attic culture and Attic genius which is found in the funeral oration
of Pericles, especially in ii. 38 and 40. In the joyous recognition of the pleistai
anapaulai ton ponon to be found in the agosi kai thusiais dietesiois we may perceive
his delight in the splendour and brilliancy of the Attic stage and the panathenaic
processions; and in the charge (ii.43.7) ten tes poleos dunamin kath' hemeran
ergoi theasthai kai erastas gignesthai autes we can recognize his pride not merely
in the well-equipped warlike power of Athens but also in the glorious buildings
of the Acropolis, which daily looked down on the citizens. We may conceive, then,
that all the means of cultivation which the Athens of Pericles offered, as no
other spot in the world has ever offered them within the same limits, and intercourse
with men of eminence in all directions, combined to excite and forward the intellectual
development of Thucydides up to the maturity of his manhood.
But the question still remains whether and to what extent he took
an active part in the public life of his native city in peace or war. As an answer
to it we cannot be satisfied with the statement of Marcellinus, § 23, ouk epoliteusato
ho sungrapheus oude proselthe toi bemati, or with the assertion of Dionysius,
Ep. ad Cn. Pomp., 3. 9, p. 770, en protois egonautonAthenaioi strategion te kai
ton allon timon axiountes. All precise knowledge of his early life is wanting;
but while on the one hand we cannot doubt that, if Thucydides had taken any prominent
part in public affairs, we should have learned the fact either from himself or
from some other source, and while it is not at all improbable that his Thracian
interests often kept him at a distance from Athens; still on the other hand it
is certain that he must have recommended himself to his fellow-citizens by some
manifestation of capacity before B.C. 424, since he was then elected one of the
10 Strategi. The inference of K. F. Hermann (Gottingen Gelehrte Anzeigen, 1847,
p. 1383) from the minuteness of the narrative of the expedition of Myronides against
Megara (i. 105. § 5, 6), that Thucydides may have been personally concerned in
it, is to be rejected on chronological grounds. For he could not then (B.C. 460)
have been more than 11 years old, even assuming the earliest date, B.C. 471, which
is assigned as the year of his birth.
We shall not be very far from the truth if we conceive the life of
Thucydides, till the occurrence of those events which directed the whole power
of his mind to a new task, to have been passed more in the pursuit of private
interests than of the career of a statesman, whatever may have been the sympathy
with which he observed public events. But the relations in which he was placed
must have been eminently calculated to keep his attention alert in all directions
and to make him susceptible to the influences of a rich and energetic life. In
this way he gained that maturity of mind with which, as he tells us himself, he
recognized from the very beginning the importance of the momentous war and devoted
himself with unintermitting interest and attention to the observation of its course.
Twice in the course of the war events occurred which give him occasion
to mention himself. In ii.48.15 he introduces his precise and vivid description
of the plague at Athens with the words tauta deloso autos te nosesas kai autos
idon allous paschontas. He must therefore have been at Athens during that fearful
visitation, B.C. 430-29, and his account is derived from his own experience and
observation.
In the eighth year of the war, B.C. 424, when he was 48 years old, he was, as
he tells us iv.104.15, charged as strategos with the care of the Thracian coast
(ho heteros strategos ton epi Thraikes), when Brasidas was threatening Amphipolis,
the most important possession of Athens in those parts. In the late autumn of
B.C. 424 he lay with seven triremes in the harbour of Thasos, and at the first
summons of his colleague Eucles, who was in command at Amphipolis, hastened to
his aid. But the town had surrendered before Thucydides could reach it. The town
of Eion, however, at the mouth of the Strymon, which he reached the same evening,
he occupied in good time, and made his preparations so skillfully that the assault
made by Brasidas by land as well as by water was successfully resisted (iv. 107.
§ 2).
The results for himself personally which followed this misfortune
Thucydides reports with the same reserve with which he excludes from his narrative
everything which does not belong to the course of the war; mentioning them not
at this place but only casually in v. 26. § 5, in order to found thereon a remark
important for the character of his history. As in that passage by the words epebion
. . . eisomai he asserts from one point of view his competence as the historian
of the Peloponnesian war, so, in order to show the advantage he possessed in wide
local knowledge and personal observation of the matters in hand, he adds the statement:
kai xunebe moi pheugein ten emautou ete eikosi meta ten es Amphipolin strategian,
kai genomenoi par' amphoterois tois pragmasi, kai ouch hesson tois Peloponnesion
dia ten phugen, kath hesuchian ti mallon aisthesthai. It is certain from this
passage that Thucydides, in consequence of his failure to save Amphipolis, had
to leave his country for 20 years, and that he employed a portion of this time
in visiting the scenes of the war on both sides, particularly in the territory
of the Peloponnesians. Everything else, however, which passes beyond this distinct
testimony of Thucydides, rests on conjecture; it is probable, though it cannot
be proved, that Cleon, who was then at the height of his influence, caused the
adoption of the decree for the banishment of Thucydides; it is possible also that
the charge brought against him may have been prodosia, as is asserted by Marcellinus,
§ 55, and the anonymous [p. 12] biographer, § 2, and is apparently implied by
Aristophanes Vesp. 288; and that he may have withdrawn himself by a voluntary
exile from the penalty of death thereby incurred. His own expression, xunebe moi
pheugein, admits this view; and the precise statement of Pausanias, that Thucydides
was at a later time recalled from banishment on the motion of Oenobius can only
thus be understood. If he had been simply banished by a decree of the people,
the peace of Lysander would of itself have given to him, as to other exiles, permission
to return home. But if he was subject to a severer sentence, there was need of
a special decree; and that such was made under the rule of the Thirty is not incredible
in view of the character of their government. Though we may not with Pliny assume
that it was due to admiration for his merits as a writer, there can be no doubt
that Thucydides, having been persecuted by the extreme democratical party, had
his friends among the ruling faction, to which Oenobius, otherwise unknown, must
have belonged. His own statement that his exile lasted twenty years, since it
must be reckoned from the end of B.C. 424, leads us to the last months of 404
for the time of his recall. This took place, accordingly, before the Thirty, after
the destruction of Theramenes, gave themselves up to insolent and wanton violence,
at a time when the forms of a legal government, and therefore that of recalling
by a psephisma, were still observed.
The most important fact, however, which we learn from Thucydides himself
about his exile, and which he wished his readers specially to note for the appreciation
of his merit as an historian, is this: that, having from the beginning of the
war a clear insight into its importance, in order to attain the most accurate
knowledge, he availed himself of every opportunity of personal observation and
inspection during those twenty years, which brought with them the most important
and decisive actions. His course in this respect, as he himself describes it in
general terms in i. 22. § 2 (ta d' erga ton prachthenton . . . peri hekastou epexelthon),
the combination of careful inquiry from trustworthy witnesses with the results
of his own knowledge, gains a clearer light from the statement in v. 26. § 5.
He used the period of his banishment to inspect in person the scene of events,
and took special pains (ouch esson) to visit the Peloponnesian lands which would
otherwise have been closed to him; and the result of his exertions was, kath'
hesuchian ti auton mallon aisthesthai, that he attained a clearer insight into
the facts by being in repose, i.e. remote not only from the party strifes of Athens,
but also from the excitement which would probably prevail during or immediately
after occurrences on the spot where they took place.
In this way, from the scanty notices Thucydides himself has given
us of his personal relation to the history, we gain a view of his aim and method.
In mature manhood,--so the most probable testimony leads us to believe;--in possession
of external advantages which secured him a position of independence and rendered
easy for him an unprejudiced observation and judgment of public affairs and the
persons engaged in them; penetrated by all the influences of the intellectual
culture which made Athens at that time the paideusis tes Hellados; filled with
the conviction that only by the ascendency of truly great statesmen and by the
moderation and docility of the citizens could his mother-city, to which he was
devoted with love and admiration, be maintained on her eminence; he understood
from the very beginning the task of writing the history of this war, and at once
commenced his preparations for it.
The first seven years of the war, excepting that time which he necessarily
devoted to the management of his Thracian property, the ergasia ton metallon,
he spent beyond doubt in Athens; and there can be no question that he stood in
near connexion with the leading statesmen, and was present at the deliberations
and decisions of the public assemblies. The speeches of Pericles which he has
given us in outline, and the imperishable testimony he has left (ii. 65) of the
activity of that great statesman, reflect the vivid impression made on the mind
of the historian by that mighty personality; and there can be no doubt that at
a later time he was present as an eye-witness at the discussions about Mitylene
(iii. 36-49) and about Pylos (iv. 16 ff.); and in all probability he took part
in one or more of the expeditions which preceded his own strategia, perhaps in
the naval operations of Phormio in the Corinthian Gulf (ii. 80-92), or the movements
of Demosthenes in Aetolia and Acarnania (iii. 94 ff.). The statesmen, too, who
succeeded Pericles, though they failed to replace him, Nicias, Cleon, Demosthenes,
he has succeeded in placing before our eyes in clear outlines. And the young Alcibiades
(born B.C. 451), with the brilliancy and haughtiness of his ambitious character,
must have early attracted his attention, so vividly does he place him before us
in his later speeches and actions. On the other hand, the twenty years which followed
the unfortunate result of his strategia in B.C. 424, were probably passed by Thucydides,
so far as the circumstances of the war allowed, mainly on his Thracian property,
except at such times as travelling was required by his investigations. It is not
likely that the change of control, by which in B.C. 412 (viii. 64) the island
of Thasos and the neighbouring coast also probably passed into the possession
of the Lacedaemonians and was at a later time (Xen. Hell. i.4.9) recovered by
Thrasybulus for the Athenians, interfered at all with his residence there. We
are told by Plutarch, and the compiler of the biography of Marcellinus says in
two places, that Thucydides wrote his work on his estate in Thrace. This may rest
only on conjecture; but it is a conjecture which would be naturally formed by
every reader acquainted with the circumstances. We can hardly doubt that it was
here mainly that he carried out the work so early undertaken and prosecuted so
uninterruptedly; and this not only by the working up of his accumulated materials,
but also by the journeys which he undertook from thence for the purpose of closer
inquiry into the scenes and the events of the war. We may assume with certainty
that he visited not only the various parts of Greece which the war had rendered
notable, but also the islands, as well as Italy and Sicily. Besides his own testimony
couched in general terms (genomenoi par' amphoterois tois pragmasi kai ouch hesson
tois Peloponnesion), we have as evidence the vividness of his delineations of
the most important events; and the surprising notice, adduced by Marcellinus,
§ 25, from Timaeus, that after his banishment he lived in Italy (hos phugon oikesen
en Italiai), which in § 33 goes further and asserts his burial there (en Italiai
auton keisthai), is explained most naturally by the assumption that Thucydides
made a long stay in those parts.
Unfortunately, we cannot gain any clear insight into the gradual growth
and completion of this incomparable work. The reason of this is, in part at least,
the fact that it was not brought to an end by its author. The history suddenly
breaks off in the midst of the most exciting events of the Ionic-Decelean war.
The most natural conjecture as to the reason of this, that the author was called
away from his work by a sudden death, is confirmed by trustworthy evidence. Plutarch
says that it was commonly reported that he died a violent death in Scapte Hyle.
Pausanias tells us that he was treacherously murdered on his journey home from
exile, and that his tomb was to be seen at Athens not far from the Melitid gate.
Marcellinus, however, was aware of two different reports: one, which was plainly
the most general and is referred to Zopyrus and Cratippus, that Thucydides died
in Thrace; the other, for which Didymus is the authority, and which Marcellinus
himself adopts, that after his return from exile he died and was buried in Athens.
The anonymous biographer leaves the place of his death undefined, saying, "after
his death he was buried in Athens, near the Melitid gate, . . . whether it was
that he himself after the expiration of the term of his exile returned to Athens
and there died, or that only his bones were brought from Thrace after his death
there; for both accounts are given." When we examine these statements closely,
we see that the assumption that Thucydides died at Athens rests only on the well-attested
fact of his tomb being found there with an often-quoted inscription. For as his
death in a foreign land would naturally be connected with his continued exile,
so an honorable burial in Athens would seem to imply that he died there. Pausanias,
in order evidently to reconcile the apparent contradiction of his death abroad
with his well-known tomb in Attica, devised the harmonizing story that he perished
on his homeward journey, for only this can be the meaning of hos kateiei. This
solution, however, cannot be accepted; for Thucydides himself speaks so definitely
of the end of his banishment--xunebe moi pheugein ten emautou ete eikosi, which
could have been written only after it was over--and he refers so often, and particularly
in v. 25 and 26, to the conclusion of the whole war, that he must have lived a
considerable time after this, and therefore after his recall, which was subsequent
to it; and accordingly we must seek for some other way of explaining the apparent
contradiction in the accounts we have. The facts may have been as follows: Thucydides
returned in the autumn of B.C. 404 to Athens, six months after the city had surrendered
to Lysander. He himself indicates in i. 93. § 5 that the walls round the Piraeus
lay in ruins, in accordance with the harsh terms of the peace. He can hardly,
however, have remained there long, under the increasing severity of the rule of
the Thirty; and he may probably have sought again the peace and repose of his
Thracian estate, where he had so long been engaged in the preparation of the material
he had collected for the history of the war. Though it is probable that large
portions of his work, particularly such as were prominent and almost independent
parts of the larger whole,--e.g. the war of the first ten years to the peace of
Nicias, and the expedition to Sicily,--were composed and written down before,
still, from the even character and unbroken connexion of the eight books as we
have them, it seems likely that Thucydides gave the whole its present form in
a long period of repose after the end of the war, which a resi dence in enslaved
Athens was little calculated to offer. A sudden death overtook him while thus
engaged.
How long a time was granted him for the final revision cannot be defined
with exactness; but a reasonable inference allows us to fix the year 396 B.C.
as the extreme limit of his life. In iii. 116. § 2, Thucydides tells us, no doubt
after a careful inquiry into the facts, that the eruption of Aetna which took
place in the spring of B.C. 425 was the third on record. Accordingly the one which
occurred in B.C. 396 (Diod. xiv.59.3) could not have been known to him; for as
he had given attention to the subject, it is hardly likely that he could have
remained in ignorance of it. We may, therefore, conceive that his life extended
to about this date, i.e. to his 75th year. We get in this way a period of from
six to seven years during which we may imagine that the old man, with that repose
and clearness which a powerful spirit obtains from many-sided culture in youth
and the experience of good and evil fortune in maturity, was devoted to his great
undertaking and engaged in combining the materials he had collected into one completed
whole, which with reasonable self-consciousness he designates a ktema es aei.
It is very possible that during these last years Thucydides may have undertaken
other journeys and have more than once revisited Athens; but it is most natural
to suppose that he carried on his proper work in the quietness of his Thracian
estate. With this, too, best agrees the statement that he met a violent death
by assassination, which is made by Plutarch, Pausanias, and Marcellinus, in reliance
on early authorities. An event of the kind in Athens is hard to conceive, and
could scarcely have remained without attestation. On the contrary, an attack by
robbers on a lonely and wealthy residence on the Thracian coast is easily credible;
and thus also is explained the variation in the accounts as regards the place;
distance sufficiently accounts for the conflicting opinions of those not immediately
interested. But if Thucydides, as is very probable, was slain in Scapte Hyle by
the hand of a robber, the second alternative of the anonymous biographer is to
be accepted, that his bones were conveyed to Athens and laid in the sepulchre
of Cimon, where Plutarch saw his tomb, whether the inscription he quotes be genuine
or not: Thoukudides Olorou Halimousios enthade keitai. The difficulty raised by
Didymus as to the unauthorized burial of a banished person in his native soil
disappears on the hypothesis above given. On the other hand, the suddenness of
a death by assassination explains fully the condition in which his history remains
to us; the thread of the narrative is broken off before the end of the twenty-first
year of the war, in the midst of an account of a subordinate circumstance. The
way in which the incomplete work was preserved and became known will be discussed
later.
[Classen at this point proceeds to discuss at length the theory of
F. W. Ullrich as to the composition of the history of Thucydides which was put
forth in his Beitrage zur Erklarung des Thukydides, Hamburg, 1845. This theory
may be thus stated nearly in Ullrich's words: Thucydides regarded the first ten
years of continuous war as terminated by the Peace of Nicias; and accordingly
after the conclusion of that peace began to compose the history of this war, which
by itself was sufficiently remarkable: beginning with the preface of the first
book, he wrote this book, the second, the third, and the first half of the fourth
in exile, before he could have had knowledge of the later war: then, towards the
middle of the fourth book, being overtaken by the march of events, when the war
between Athens and Sparta began again before Syracuse, and was afterwards in the
Decelean and Ionian war carried on more actively than before through the participation
of all the Hellenes including even the Argives and the Greeks of Italy and Sicily,
he discontinued his work in order to await the result of this second war: while
these events, however, were taking place, he was constantly making preparations
for the continuation of his work by collecting information about facts and by
prosecuting inquiries; and after a break of from ten to eleven years, i.e. from
the beginning of the Decelean war to his return to Athens, he took up again the
thread of his narrative. With this view is connected the conjecture that, as Thucydides
completed the first three books and half the fourth after his banishment and during
the Peace of Nicias, i.e. in about eight years, so the composition of the second
portion, which he did not begin till after the conclusion of the whole war, may
have required about as much more time. This will accord very well with the assumption
made that B.C. 396 must be regarded as the extreme limit of his life.
Ullrich argues that, on the assumption that Thucydides did not begin
the final redaction of his work until the end of the twentyseven-years' war, the
whole of it must have been written with the consciousness of the final result,
and could not therefore contain any statements which are incompatible with this
assumption. Such statements are however, according to Ullrich, discoverable in
the former part of the history (as far as v. 26) and not in the latter; and he
infers, therefore, that the former half must have been written substantially as
we have it between the end of the ten-years' war and the Sicilian expedition.
He admits, indeed, that these earlier books contain certain passages which imply
a knowledge of the whole war, but regards them as later insertions made by Thucydides
himself in the work he had already substantially completed.
The passages which Ullrich cites, as having been penned by a writer
who could not have known the final issue of the war, are the following: i. 10.
§ 2; 23. § 1-3; ii. 1. § 1; 8. 1; 34. 20; 54. § 3; 57. 7; iii. 86. § 2; 87. 5;
iv. 48. § 5. All of these are fully discussed by Classen, and it is shown by him
at the least that they come very far short of supporting the inference which Ullrich
deduces from them. The whole question is discussed with great lucidity and fairness
by A. Schone, in Bursian's Jahresbericht, Vol. III. p. 823-848. He is inclined
on general grounds of probability to adopt Ullrich's opinion as to the actual
mode of composition of the history; but of the passages above referred to he finds
only one (iii.87.5) which favours decidedly, and another (i. 23. § 1-3) which
favours partially the conclusion Ullrich bases upon them. Under these circumstances
it does not seem worth while to reproduce in this edition the lengthy discussion
which Classen devotes to the question. In giving his adhesion in the main to the
view of Ullrich rather than to that of Classen, which will be stated immediately,
Schone is influenced to a great degree by the consideration that it is improbable
that Thucydides, though he might have anticipated with a high degree of assurance
the failure of the Peace of Nicias and a renewal of the war, would have allowed
this six-years' period of comparative quiet to pass without availing himself of
it to work up the materials he had already collected for the history of the ten-years'
or Archidamian war. But Classen nowhere asserts or implies any such neglect of
opportunity on the part of the historian. Though he believes that the work as
it has come down to us took its final form from the hand of the writer after the
conclusion of the whole war, he admits to the fullest extent the probability that
portions of it had been worked up into substantially their present shape at an
earlier period. Such portions may in all likelihood have been those which most
readily admitted of treatment as wholes, e.g. the Archidamian war and the Sicilian
expedition.
In the introduction to the fifth book, where it was necessary to make
clear the connexion and the special character of it, Classen expresses the following
opinion: "Though I am convinced that the whole work was written in the shape
in which we have it after the conclusion of the Peloponnesian war, and that Thucydides
was called away from life when engaged in the last revision and combination of
the portions which he had noted down and sketched in outline from the beginning
of the war, yet I do not believe that all parts of the work received an equally
thorough review. I think that the masterly introduction, which makes our first
book, was first completed with the full knowledge of the disastrous result of
the twenty-seven-years' war; that then the history of the ten-years' war, and
the Sicilian expedition, for which it is likely that the results of laborious
inquiry were already at hand more or less perfectly worked out, received their
final touches; and that after this, before the thread of the narrative was taken
up again with the Ionic-Decelean war, the intervening period of the eirene hupoulos
was described."
This opinion as to the mode of the composition of the work of Thucydides
rests on two simple propositions. (1) Thucydides followed the course of the Peloponnesian
war from its beginning to its close with minute attention, and committed to writing
with more or less completeness notes of all its circumstances, particularly of
the Archidamian war and the Sicilian expedition, which were in themselves relatively
distinct wholes. (2) After the close of the whole war and his recall from banishment,
he took in hand the composition of the whole history of the war with a clear view
of the relation of its several parts; composed the first book as a general introduction
to his work; and combined into an organic whole the material already collected
and partially reduced to formal shape, continuing his narrative to the first year
of the Ionian war, at which point in his labours his life came to an end. Classen's
view as above stated agrees in the main with that of Kruger, Unterss. p. 74, and
Epikrit. Nachtr. p. 37.
It may be worth while to give here a list of the chief publications
on this question which have been issued within the last few years.
The following writers adopt the Ullrichian hypothesis with more or less variation in detail.
L. Cwiklinski: Quaestiones de tempore etc. Diss. inaug. Gnesnae, 1873; also an article in Hermes, 12, p. 23-87.
P. Leske: Ueber die verschiedene Abfassungszeit etc. Liegnitz, 1875.
J. Helmbold: Ueber die successive Entstehung etc. Colmar, 1876.
F. Vollheim: Zur Entstehungsgeschichte etc. Eisleben, 1878.
J. Steup: Quaestiones Thucydideae. Bonnae, 1868.
Muller-Strubing: Aristophanes und die historische Kritik (p. 529 ff.). Leipzig, 1873.
Glogau: Die Entdeckungen des Thukydides. Neumark, 1876.
The following are in substantial agreement with Classen.
A. Kuprianos, Peri tes oikonomias tou Thoukudidou, in Philistor, Athens, 1862, p. 193-210; 1863, p. 1-19.
J. J. Welti, Ueber die Abfassungszeit etc. Winterthur, 1869.
J. M. Stahl: in the preface to the B. Tauchnitz edition of Thucydides, p. v. ff.
H. Steinberg: in the Philologische Anzeiger, 6, p. 20 ff.
L. Herbst: in Philologus, 38, p. 535 ff.
The last-mentioned article examines with great minuteness the use
of ho polemos with and without a demonstrative pronoun; and shows that in all
the passages where ho polemos hode occurs in books ii. to v. 24 inclusive the
ten-years' war is referred to, though in many places a knowledge of the whole
war is evidently implied; whereas in book i. ho polemos hode does not occur at
all; but hode ho polemos (11 times) and ho polemos with houtos (twice) refer to
the war the writer is going to describe in opposition to other wars and without
thought of its duration; and the same is true of the later books where hode ho
polemos occurs. In the later books, vi., vii., viii., ho polemos hode refers to
the then existing war; whereas hode ho polemos occurs only three times and evidently
with the same implication as before. It is also noted that in book v. (39. 19;
51. 11; 56. 20; 81. 11; 83. 22) in the designation of the successive years of
the hupoptos anokoche the demonstrative pronoun is omitted as well as the usual
mention of the writer; whereas in vi.7.25 the full formula occurs again. Herbst,
therefore, agrees so far with Ullrich as to admit that Thucydides regarded the
Archidamian (dekaetes) war as a unit; but argues convincingly that the whole history
took its present form after the conclusion of the whole war.]
The extraordinary significance of the history of Thucydides may be
recognized in its effects. The picture he has drawn for us of a period of history
so important and so rich in consequences, with its incomparable vividness in the
delineation of events and of characters, is secure of its place for all time in
the memory of mankind, and not only surpasses in its life-like truthfulness all
other historical narratives of antiquity, but is outdone by the work of no modern
historian. We become the more sensible of this if we compare our knowledge of
the period Thucydides has described with that we possess of the times immediately
preceding or following, or if we endeavour to leave out of our conception of the
characters he has depicted the traces which are due to him, and to realize Pericles
and Cleon, Nicias and Alcibiades, from the writings of Xenophon, Plutarch, and
Diodorus.
We possess no distinct evidence that the exceeding merit of Thucydides
was adequately recognized in his own time or in that immediately succeeding. Neither
by the orators whose works we have, nor in the writings of Plato and Aristotle,
is any mention made of him. The judgment of Theophrastus, which Cicero has preserved
for us, is only of a general character, and hardly answers to our own high estimate.
But out of this silence of earlier antiquity there comes to us, only the more
welcome and important, the single notice, that the orator Demosthenes copied the
books of Thucydides eight times with his own hand. It was his own kindred spirit
which attracted him above all to the essential truthfulness of the great historian.
The pre-eminent effect of his work, however, is shown by the fact that a series
of successors, Xenophon, Cratippus, Theopompus, essayed to continue it, but no
one ventured to take up again the material handled by him or to throw it into
a different form; until, when a later time called for a general review or instructive
entertainment, men fastened upon Thucydides, though often with deficient judgment
and insight, as the most trustworthy source for the period treated by him. Among
the Romans the masterly character of his work was thoroughly recognized, in spite
of the difficulty caused by his language and style; his statesmanlike insight
attracted them and excited their admiration. Sallust exhibits the clearest proofs
of conscious imitation; Cornelius Nepos follows by preference his testimony; and
Cicero studied him persistently and closely; Quintilian expresses in few words
an excellent judgment about him as regards his style.
The grammarians and critics of the Alexandrian school knew how to
rate his value; especially did they recognize his work as one of the models of
Attic speech; and to their careful treatment we are indebted for the relatively
excellent preservation of it in numerous copies, as well as for the diligent observation
of his style, which is everywhere to be seen in later lexicographical writings.
On the other hand, the scholastic rhetoric of the later age, as it was practised
and brought into currency by learned Greeks particularly at Rome, was ill-adapted
to comprehend and appreciate the most peculiar characteristics of Thucydides,
his complete self-surrender to his subject and the determination of the form only
by the nature of the matter. From the most important representative of this tendency,
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, we possess two treatises (peri tou Thoukudidou charakteros
kai ton loipon tou sungrapheos idiomaton and peri ton Thoukudidou idiomaton, the
second being a more detailed development of a section of the former) in which
he exclusively, and a third (pros Gnaion Pompeion epistole) in which he partially
(3), undertakes a thorough examination of the work of Thucydides as to form and
matter. Interesting and instructive to us as these writings are, as furnishing
us with a living picture of the way in which literary and grammatical criticism
was practised by the rhetoricians of that day, and as containing in detail many
useful remarks, yet the criticisms themselves, whether we regard the choice and
arrangement of the material or the way in which it is handled and discussed, are
wholly without value for us. Dionysius has so little conception of the task of
history, to bring to light the actual course of events as it would disclose itself
to unbiassed inquiry, that he actually makes it a reproach to Thucydides that
he selected as his subject the history of a war which was unsuccessful. He imputes
to a passion for singularity the division of the war-years into summer and winter
which Thucydides adopted. He blames him for arranging particular parts without
having regard to their best rhetorical effect; e.g. that the funeral oration is
placed where it is and not after some important event of the war. He is displeased
that events are not treated at all times on a scale proportionate to their relative
importance. He even attributes it to the arbitrary will of the writer that the
work is broken off before the end of the war. In general he fails to find a skilful
distribution of the material or any proper employment of rhetorical arrangement
and ornament. In fact in the whole criticism the same contrast finds expression
as is to be seen between the historical writing of Thucydides and that of Dionysius
himself; in the latter, a dressing up of facts to suit arbitrary assumptions and
subjective theories; in the former, an absolute subordination of the record to
the facts which are to be narrated.
We have already noticed the circumstances in the life of Thucydides
which specially favoured him as the writer of the history of his time. With these
unusual advantages were united all the qualities of mind which go to make up a
great historian; of these two may be indicated as the most important: the moral
earnestness of his view of the world and of life, and the temperate good sense
of his own nature, by which he maintains at all times his simple and incorruptible
appreciation of the real truth.
Thucydides shares with many profound characters a reluctance to expose
to view and announce in express language his own secret feelings, particularly
as regards the divine administration of things; but any one who enters with true
insight into the character of his narrative will recognize everywhere as its fundamental
tone a sense, that, while man is responsible for his actions, the conduct and
decision of human affairs is subject to the control of the deity. We shall probably
not be mistaken if we attribute to the influence of the philosophical conception
of the order of the world, which Anaxagoras made current among the most prominent
men of Athens, that religious view which apprehends the agency of the gods not
so much in the immediate indications of a personal presence, which was so natural
to Herodotus and the earlier chroniclers, as in a controlling power, which is
indeed withdrawn from human sight, yet is nevertheless to be reverenced with the
feeling of complete dependence. It is true that, in the expression of this, the
customary language of the popular belief and of the traditional forms of worship
is not abandoned. The personal name, theos, theoi, appears most frequently either
as a collective designation of those generally venerated divinities under whose
protection the people feel themselves to be, whose feasts they celebrate and by
whom they swear (i.71.21; 78. 13; ii.15.21; 71. 21; iii.59.10; iv.87.9; v.30.10;
vi.54.29; viii.70.5), or in application to particular deities who are understood
without their being named, as the Delphian Apollo (i.25.3; 118. 20; 123. 8; ii.54.13;
iii.92.19; iv.118.7; v.32.6), Athene (i.126.5; ii.13.36; 15. 17; iv.116.11), or
the Eumenides, hai semnai theai, (i.126.37). Only once, in a Boeotian religious
formula, is daimones used for theoi, (iv.97.17). Yet the belief which rises above
the forms of special worship to the general conception of divine government finds
distinct expression in some places. It is to the writer an infallible symptom
of extreme disturbance in the order of society if awe of the divine is broken
down, whether, as in ii. 53. § 4, this is the result of the fearful plague at
Athens (theon phobos e anthropon nomos oudeis apeirge), or, as in iii. 82. § 6,
of the virulence of party hatred (tas es sphas autous pisteis ou toi theioi nomoi
mallon ekratunonto e toi koinei ti paranomesai). In the remarkable debate between
the Athenian envoys and the council of the Melians (v. 85. ff.), on the one side
the consciousness of a good cause manifests itself by confidence in protection
from above (to theion), and on the other the exaltation of brute strength above
every other consideration shows how the sense of right and wrong had become confused.
In the same sense Nicias in his last speech (vii.77.17) is represented as basing
his hope on this theion. The real sentiment of Thucydides is expressed in the
noble words with which Pericles (ii.64.9) urges his fellow-citizens to meet the
uncertain future: pherein chre ta te daimonia anankaios ta te apo ton polemion
andreios. What in this passage--and only here--probably with some allusion to
the language of the philosophers--is called ta daimonia, i.e. everything which
in the life of man is sent by a higher hand and is withdrawn from the calculation
and control of human prudence, Thucydides usually embraces under the term tuche,
as an operative power, and tuchai as the manifestation of it; the former in i.140.11;
144. 24; ii.42.25; iii.45.22; 97. 6; iv.12.12; 18. 20; 64. 7 (hes ouk archo tuches);
86. 21; v.16.16; 75. 12 (tuchei men hos edokoun kakizomenoi, gnomei de hoi autoi
eti ontes); 111. 17; vi.23.11; 78. 15 (ouch hoion te hama tes te epithumias kai
tes tuches ton auton homoios tamian genesthai); vii.33.29; 67. 23; 68. 1: the
latter in i.69.26; 78. 5; 84. 19 (tas prospiptousas tuchas ou logoi diairetas);
ii.87.11; iv.18.15; v.102.2; vi.11.22: and in the same sense ta tes tuches or
apo tes tuches, ii.87.6; iv.55.16; vii.61.12.59 It is of no importance for a critical
examination of Thucydides's use of language whether these expressions are found
in his own narrative or are placed by him in the mouths of his speaking characters.
Everywhere we are to understand by tuche a power superior to man, which is not
blind chance, but exercises control in accordance with a higher order; on which
man can never calculate, but the operation of which he cannot without damage disregard.
If tuche is opposed to gnome, as in i.144.24; v.75.12, this is from the human
point of view, which finds its calculations at fault; but it is by no means intended
to assert the superiority of the latter. In the remarkable declaration on the
death of Nicias (vii.86.24), hekista de axios on ton ge ep' emou Hellenon es touto
dustuchias aphikesthai dia ten pasan es areten nenomismenen etitedeusin, Thucydides
does not conceal that it will not always be easy for the human understanding to
reconcile itself to the incomprehensible administration of the divine omnipotence.
It is characteristic that nowhere is tuche more distinctly referred to its divine
source than by the Melians in their fruitless struggle against the doctrine of
the right of the strongest. Twice, v.104.4; 112. 7, we find the significant expression
he tuche ek tou theiou.
In the view of the world which all these passages imply there is unmistakably
a pious feeling of dependence on the divine power, though any deeper penetration
into the laws and relations of its operation is not granted to man. And while
it is the aim of the writer in the spirit of Anaxagoras to inquire into the causes
of surprising incidents,--as of the eclipse of the sun, ii.28.2; of a flood consequent
upon an earthquake, iii.89.18; of the eclipse of the moon, in contrast with the
superstitious terror (theiasmos) of Nicias, vii.50.27; of violent tempests, in
contrast with the alarm of the dispirited Athenians, vii.79.10;--still he does
not venture to draw the line between the province of positive human knowledge
and that where the obscure operation of the gods makes itself felt in human things.
Accordingly, while he is far from unconditionally ascribing validity to omens
and oracles, and even allows himself to make a critical examination of their true
meaning (ii.17.11; 54. 9), and in v.16.21 plainly admits the assumption that even
the utterances of the Delphian oracles could be corruptly procured, still his
bringing forward instances of omens and oracles actually verified (v.26.20; vi.27.9),
and in general his frequent mention of predictions, portents, and marvellous occurrences
(i.118.21; 134. 18; ii.8.7; 77. 22; 102. 27; iii.88.8; 92. 18; 96. 3; 104. 2;
iv.52.1; v.32.6; 45. 20; vi.70.2), proves that he does not mean to deny the possibility
of supernatural operations. Just as he views tuchai, so he allows to the supersensible
world no influence over the judgment and action of men, and therefore for practical
purposes leaves it out of account. It is very intelligible to him that in times
of excitement men should look about for miraculous instruction (ii.8.7) or help
(ii.47.15); but he himself attaches no importance to such things, and has had
no experience of useful results therefrom; and his real opinion would probably
coincide with that of the Athenian envoys, v.103.7, whose advice to the Melians
is: me homoiothenai tois pollois, hois paron anthropeios eti soizesthai, epeidan
piezomenous autous epiliposin hai phanerai elpides, epi tas aphaneis kathistantai,
mantiken te kai chresmous kai hosa toiauta met' elpidon lumainetai.
Clearness and definiteness were essential to Thucydides; and accordingly
the proper sphere of his observation and inquiry was man, his action and his history.
The less he tried to penetrate into the secret course of the divine government
of the world, so much the more earnest was he to attain the most exact knowledge
of everything which makes up the life of man; the motives of his action as well
as their external manifestation; the efforts and conduct of individuals as well
as the great movements which take place in the life of states. His judgment of
human affairs, however, is controlled by one principle, that it is power of mind
which makes up the value of the individual, just as it conditions the result of
every activity.
With decision and clearness Thucydides recognizes the opposition between
body and spirit, which found its most definite expression in Anaxagoras. He is
fully alive to the weakness of human nature, and often insists upon its limitations
(e.g. iii.45.30; 84. 10; v.68.6); and yet he is penetrated with the conviction
that the spirit of man can attain the mastery over the agitating influences of
the surrounding world and nature, and is competent in large measure to define
and shape its own life as well as the fortunes of states. The views of Thucydides
may thus have been influenced by the doctrines of Anaxagoras; yet his use of language
manifests independence, and deserves a special examination so far as it touches
the phenomena of the mind. The centre of all the mental power of man is for Thucydides
the power of thought and cognition, from which come the energetic will and resolutions
which press to action. This power, however, is not called nous, which word occurs
in Thucydides only in the less pregnant sense of the perceiving and observing
faculty, but rather gnome, which has in our author a very wide range of meaning.
It includes the aggregate of psychical powers, intellectual as well as emotional,
as opposed to the body (cf. especially i.70.19; ii.38.2); sometimes, however,
it denotes on the intellectual side insight and cognition in general (cf. i.70.10;
75. 2; 77. 9; 91. 25; ii.13.21; 34. 17; 43. 21; 62. 30; 65. 32; iii.37.21; 83.
4; etc.); or a view, opinion, judgment, in reference to a particular matter (cf.
i.32.17; 33. 17; 45. 1; 53. 7; 62. 8; 78. 2; 79. 5; 140. 28; ii.20.1; 86. 17;
iii.31.11; 36. 5; 92. 3; 96. 8; iv.18.7; 32. 23; 58. 5; 59. 3; etc.); sometimes
on the moral side it denotes disposition, temper, decision, as a quality (cf.
i.71.4; 90. 10; 130. 10; ii.9.1; 11. 21; 20. 18; 59. 4, 8; 64. 32; 65. 3; 87.
9; 88. 7; iii.9.8; 10. 6; 12. 2; etc.), or a determination in a particular case
(cf. hai gnomai, i.140.4; ii.89.50; iii.82.16; gnomen poieisthai, i.128.27; ii.2.24;
vii.72.8). In the same way the verb gignoskein, and its compounds with dia, epi,
kata, meta, pro, is used sometimes with an intellectual meaning, apprehend, understand
(cf. i.25.1; 36. 3; 86. 2; 91. 5; 102. 15; 126. 21; 134. 5; ii.40.7; 43. 10; 60.
17, 19), sometimes with a moral reference, resolve, determine (cf. i.70.7, 26;
91. 23; ii.61.12; iii.40.18; 57. 3; etc.). By the side of this verb dianoeisthai
often occurs in the same sense (cf. i.1.7; 18. 18; 52. 6; 93. 22; 124. 18; 141.
2; 143. 22; ii.5.16; 93. 16; 100. 20; iii.2.5; 75. 18; 82. 35; iv.13.16; etc.),
and it is notable that while nous remains on the lower plane, dianoia is placed
nearly on a par with gnome, as well in the sense of a perfected intellectual power
and state of mind (cf. ii.43.3; 61. 12; 89. 23; v.111.9; vi.15.15; 21. 3; vii.73.2),
as in that of its employment in a particular case, thought, plan, purpose (cf.
i.84.17; 130. 9; 132. 20; 138. 2; 140. 10; 144. 5; ii.20.19; iii.36.12; 82. 22;
iv.52.10; v.9.19; 105. 21; vi.11.23; 31. 6; 38. 19; 65. 2; 76. 5; vii.60.2, 25).
Other compounds of nous, both substantival and verbal, occur frequently in Thucydides,
always with reference to mental action.61 As to meaning xunesis stands very [p.
33] close to gnome, but only in the intellectual sense of clear insight and circumspection
(cf. i.138.11; 140. 8; ii.62.32; 97. 33; iii.37.23; 82. 50; iv.18.22; 81. 10;
85. 21; vi.72.5). (On the combination gnomes xunesis in i.75.2, see the note on
the passage.) Thucydides uses the verb xunienai only in i.3.20, of acquaintance
with a language; but the adjective xunetos is his usual word to describe a man
of clear insight (cf. i.74.4; 79. 8; 84. 15; 138. 8; iii.37.18; 82. 27; iv.10.2;
vi.39.1; viii.68.25), while from gignoskein or noein no corresponding epithet
is formed; and sophos occurs only in iii.37.19 with the unfavourable sense of
crafty, over-wise; so sophistes, iii.38.31, and sophisma, vi.77.6, have a similar
implication. Thucydides uses phronein absolutely only a few times (v.7.10; vi.89.26;
phronein ti, have insight); elsewhere with defining adverbs (cf. ii.22.2; iii.38.30;
v.89.7; vi.36.2). He does not employ phronesis and phronimos: but phronema occurs
in the sense of self-consciousness, confidence (cf. i.81.14; ii.43.28; 61. 13;
62. 27; iii.45.17; iv.80.15; v.40.16; 43. 7; vi.18.22). logos is in Thucydides
most commonly word or speech in a wide as well as in a restricted sense; and only
as derived from this has it sometimes the meaning of an expressed reason (cf.
i.76.14; ii.101.13; v.18.57; 98. 2; vi.61.5; 92. 20), or of consideration based
upon this (cf. v.37.11; dikaia en toi anthropeioi logoi apo tes ises anankes krinetai,
89. 8; perhaps also i.102.16). This last meaning of a reasonable consideration
or calculation is distinctly prominent in the phrases kata logon (cf. ii.89.25;
iii.39.24; vi.25.13) and para logon (cf. i.65.3; 140. 11; ii.64.8; 91. 15; iv.26.11;
55. 17; 65. 18; vi.33.31; vii.71.42), as well as in the compounds alogos, alogos
(cf. i.32.11; ii.65.39; v.104.9; 105. 20; vi.46.10; 79. 9; 84. 10; 85. 2; viii.27.10)
and eulogos (cf. iii.82.29; iv.61.28; 87. 12; vi.76.8; 79. 10; 84. 6). The verb
logizesthai and its compounds with ana, ek, dia (cf. i.76.13; ii.89.24; iii.82.49;
iv.28.25; 73. 17; v.15.2; 26. 18; 87. 1; vi.18.20; 31. 34; 36. 11; vii.73.19;
77. 21; viii.2.20), and [p. 34] the noun logismos (cf. ii.11.30; 40. 14, 23; iii.20.18;
iv.10.6; 92. 10; 108. 23; 122. 9; v.68.7; vi.34.25; viii.57.11), belong to the
same sphere (they often, however, refer to a literal reckoning with numbers);
while krinein, which is used chiefly of judicial decision (cf. iii.48.5; 57. 3;
67. 20; iv.130.30; v.60.29; vi.29.3; 40. 16), is not seldom transferred to any
judgment based on reason (cf. i.21.11; 22. 19; 138. 15; ii.34.15; 40. 15; 53.
13; iii.65.11; iv.60.3; v.79.12; 89. 9; viii.2.13). To logos in the sense of an
intelligent course of reasoning is related boule, of prudent consideration (cf.
i.138.12; v.101.3; 111. 27; vi.9.5), with the compounds or derivatives aboulos
(i.120.25), aboulia (i.32.17; v.75.11), euboulos (i.84.11), euboulia (i.78.11;
iii.42.4; 44. 4), epiboule (i.93.23; vii.70.36; viii.24.38), bouleuein, bouleuesthai,
diabouleuesthai, epibouleuein, probouleuein, etc. Thucydides uses psuche almost
exclusively of physical life (cf. i.136.19; iii.39.42; viii.50.29); only in ii.40.15
(kratistoi ten psuchen) is it employed in a moral sense, though this is the constant
meaning of the compounds eupsuchos (cf. ii.11.23; 39. 7; 43. 23; iv.126.38; v.9.2)
and eupsuchia (cf. i.84.12; 121. 16; ii.87.19; 89. 11; vi.72.21; vii.64.15). While
thumos is used by him only for passionate excitement (cf. i.49.11; ii.11.31; v.80.7),
and correspondingly thumousthai (cf. vii.68.5), epithumia (cf. ii.52.8; iv.81.12;
v.15.3; vi.13.6; 15. 10; 24. 15; 33. 10; 78. 14; vii.84.8), and epithumein (cf.
i.80.3; 124. 13; iii.84.5; iv.21.3; 108. 22; 117. 8; v.36.17; 41. 19; vi.10.2;
15. 7; 92. 16; vii.77.37), he is fond of enthumeisthai to express clear apprehension
or profound consideration (cf. i.42.1; 120. 27; ii.43.9; iii.40.26; v.32.5; 111.
4, 25; vi.30.14; 78. 3; vii.18.17; 63. 11; 64. 11).
This review of the language employed by Thucydides in the field of
psychology, and especially the perception of the large range of gnome and expressions
connected with it, is calculated to convince us that in his conception of the
basis of morality he must in one important point have approximated closely to
that of his great contemporary Socrates. As he referred all human virtue to knowledge
and therefore regarded it as capable of being taught and learnt, so with Thucydides
the capacity of men on which he sets the highest value rests first of all on clearness
and acuteness of insight, which judges correctly the existing relations of things,
and thus is able to take a sure glance into the future. See especially the description
of Themistocles, i. 138, in whom the oikeia xunesis resulted in his being not
only kratistos gnomon ton parachrema but also aristos eikastes tou genesomenou.
Pericles also is legein kai prassein dunatotatos (i.139.24) because he is gnomei
xunetos (ii.34.17, 22), and because, as being dunatos toi te axiomati kai tei
gnomei (ii.65.31), he had clearly foreseen the importance of the war (ii.65.21,
prognous ten dunamin . . . egnosthe he pronoia autou es ton polemon). Out of a
right understanding flow all the qualities on which efficient action depends,
and chiefly self-control and moderation (he sophrosune: i.32.16; 68. 3; 84. 5,
12; iii.37.16; 84. 3; viii.64.21; to sophron: i.37.7; iii.62.10; 82. 26; sophronein:
i.40.8; 86. 8; iii.44.3; iv.60.2; 61. 1; 64. 16; vi.11.29; 79. 9; 87. 20; viii.24.21);
this forms the basis of all moral order, and is lost if the passions are allowed
to rule. Thucydides gives us in iii. 82, on the occasion of the party warfare
in Corcyra, a grand picture of the utter disturbance of all the relations of life
which takes its rise from confusion of ideas. As long as hai te poleis kai hoi
idiotai ameinous tas gnomas echoisi (iii.82.15), matters of external order are
maintained with stability; but when the orgai ton pollon take the place of gnome,
all discipline and morality are overthrown. Again, it is no doubt the writer's
own conviction which he puts into the mouth of Pericles (ii.40.11), diapherontos
kai tode echomen hoste tolman te hoi autoi malista kai peri hon epicheiresomen
eklogizesthai ho tois allois amathia men thrasos, logismos de oknon pherei. On
the other hand it is an indication of the vulgarity of Cleon's character that
he considers that that state has the surest basis in which the citizens unite
want of knowledge and culture, amathia, with sophrosune, which last in such a
connexion is degraded to a stupid indifference.
It is the natural result of a correct insight to recognize that righteousness,
regard namely for law and contracts and the performance of duty, is the surest
support of civil order and the reciprocal relations of states. The general term
to express this is to dikaion (cf. i.25.11; iii.10.1; 47. 18; 56. 8; 82. 61; iv.61.15;
62. 11; v.86.6; 90. 2; 107. 2; vi.79.1); while the abstract dikaiosune occurs
only in iii.63.21. But since in human affairs it is only seldom that right and
wrong can be estimated with perfect exactness, the recognition and defence of
one's own interest is a necessary condition of self-preservation. Not only Cleon
(iii. 37. ff.) but also Diodotus (iii. 42. ff.) maintains the policy of interest;
and even the Plataeans seek to move the Spartans to mercy (iii. 56. § 7) by the
apprehension of their real advantage. But how little Thucydides sympathized with
the cynical doctrine of the right of the stronger which the Athenians proclaim
in their dialogue with the Melians (v. 85-113) is shown unmistakably by the manner
in which he allows it to be displayed in all its revolting recklessness at that
very point in his narrative where the Athenian empire received its last petty
accession, and the Sicilian expedition was about to be undertaken which was destined
to result in its overthrow. He rather shows with abundant clearness the high regard
he has for that temper which even in political matters gives a hearing not merely
to strict right but also to considerations of humanity and compassion. This magnanimity,
which does not allow the weaker to feel the full weight of superior power, but
rather lays him under obligation by benefit, is called by him chiefly arete (cf.
i.37.8; 69. 8; ii.40.18; 51. 20; 71. 18; iii.10.1; 56. 27; 57. 10; 58. 2; iv.19.12;
81. 10; 86. 19; v.105.16; vi.54.21). Compassion and mercy are in his eyes noble
feelings. It is true that he makes Cleon reject them with unfeeling roughness
(iii.40.6, me trisi tois axumphorotatois tei archei, oiktoi kai hedonei logon
kai epieikeiai, hamartanein); but where they are recklessly outraged, the tone
of his narration allows his condemnatory judgment to be felt, e.g. in the execution
of the Plataeans, iii. 68, and in the mournful fate of the captured Athenians,
vii. 86, 87. Not less clearly does Thucydides represent the motive of honour as
a noble and worthy one in the dealings of men. The feeling itself he calls aidos
in i.84.12; in other places aischune (cf. i.84.12; ii.51.20; iv.19.15; v.104.8;
111. 16); and he sets high value upon it, just as in his finest speeches he gives
a prominent place to a regard for fame among contemporaries and posterity (cf.
ii. 41. § 4; 64. 27; iii. 57. § 2). A noble bearing, which unselfishly keeps in
view the [p. 37] higher aims of human life, is described by Thucydides chiefly
as kalon (cf. i.38.10; ii.35.2; 53. 9; 64. 28; iii.42.12; 55. 11; 94. 16; iv.126.26;
v.46.7; 69. 10; 107. 2; vi.79.8; vii.70.46; 71. 4; viii.2.8; 12. 8), and the opposite
character by aischron (cf. i.38.12; 122. 16; ii.40.4; 64. 29; iii.42.11; 58. 5;
iv.20.6; vi.21.7; vii.48.28); in which we see a preparation for the more strictly
ethical usage of Plato. The combination kalos kagathos, which became so current
at a later time, Thucydides uses once (iv.40.8) in a moral sense, and once (viii.48.37)
as a designation of the aristocratical party.
But while Thucydides thus concedes the fullest right to moral worth
and the nobler sentiments of humanity, he yet finds the highest quality of a statesman
in the controlling power of the thinking mind, in gnome or xunesis, which gives
a clear insight into the reality of things. Only by help of this do all the other
qualities appear in their true import. It is in Pericles that this power is seen
most conspicuously. As in his first speech (i. 140-144) he sweeps away all the
self-deception of peace-loving optimists and shows that with the position of parties
in Greece war is inevitable, so his last speech (ii. 60-64) contains incontrovertible
evidence that his estimate of the power of Athens for the attainment of the end
in view was perfectly correct, if only it was employed with composure and steadiness;
and Thucydides himself, in view of the later events, adds his own confirmation
of the words of the orator (ii. 65. § 7 ff.).
This same quality, which he had learnt by his own observation to admire
in the great statesman--the calm consideration of reality and the clear recognition
of its importance in things as well as persons,--it is this which he has himself
striven after as the highest for his own task of writing history. A simple unbeguiled
feeling for the real truth controls his apprehension of things--his judgment of
the actions of men and their results, as well as his delineation itself, both
in its general method and in the details of form and expression. With this intelligent
appreciation of the relation of things he recognized the importance of the impending
war at its very beginning; and devoted the closest attention to the ascertainment
of all its events. He asserts this himself in i.1.3 (arxamenos euthus, sc. xungraphein,
where the verb is to be understood of the collection of material and of every
sort of preparation) and also in i. 22, where he depicts his zealous diligence
and strict conscientiousness in making use of every source of information; and
once more in v. 26. § 4, where he repeats that from the beginning of the war he
found himself in a position to observe its course with judicious scrutiny, that
he kept his eyes open at all times for what was remarkable, and that he used the
period of his twenty years' exile in visiting the scenes of the war, on the Peloponnesian
side as well as the Athenian, and in uninterrupted inquiry. As therefore he had
at his command under the most favourable circumstances all the means for enlarging
and certifying his knowledge of the real relations of things, so in his mental
culture and in his experience and knowledge of affairs he possessed all that was
requisite for applying the standard of a just judgment to the persons engaged.
The necessity he felt to see even things remote in time and space in the light
of their real existtence is shown especially when he seeks to reduce to their
true value the traditional reports of legend and poetry (cf. i. 10, 11; ii. 15;
102; vi. 2); he endeavours by the help of facts (tois ergois, i.11.18) to oppose
the reality of events to pheme and to the dia tous poietas peri auton kateschekos
logos, and if exact proof cannot be brought forward for the true opinion, he does
his best to attain the eikos (cf. i.10.20, 29; ii.48.10), as one of the most important
criteria for the historical inquirer. This unceasing demand of Thucydides for
the real facts is no doubt the reason why he shows himself incredulous and even
unjust to Epic poetry. He handles it only in reference to its historical contents,
and its indispensable epi to meizon kosmein (i.10.20; 21. 3) is to him only a
disfigurement of the truth. He seeks not for any other ground of its value. So
he feels himself in direct opposition to the work of the so-called logographers
which precedes his own, because it aims epi to prosagogoteron tei akroasei e alethesteron,
and with full consciousness that his work will suffer in its entertaining qualities,
he claims for it (i. 22. § 4) the higher merit of setting forth the unadorned
reality, feeling assurance however that it will be a pattern for all time.
This whole mass of historical material he lays before his readers
with the utmost truth of delineation. He is so completely devoted to his subject
that he takes no pains to arrange and mould it according to his own notions of
propriety, but allows it to unfold and develop itself. The living picture which
he sees of the course of events and of the way in which they were influenced by
the persons engaged in them he cannot help embodying in a narrative which by the
simplest means is charged with life and truth. If we examine his most famous delineations,--the
siege of Plataea (ii. 71-78), the escape of the Plataeans (iii. 20-24), the battles
in the Corinthian gulf (ii. 83-92), the Acarnanian expedition of Demosthenes (iii.
105-114), the affair of Pylos (iv. 3-14), the preparations for the Sicilian expedition
and its departure (vi. 26; 30-32), the siege and defensive operations of Syracuse
(vi. 98 ff.), the battles in the harbour of Syracuse (vii. 36-41; 52-54; 70, 71),
the fate of the retreating army of the Athenians (vii. 75-87),--we see that it
is not any artistic disposition of the subject, no rhetorical adornment, which
is presented to our eyes, but the simplest narrative, which accompanies the events
as they advance from day to day and leaves no gap in their natural sequence, so
that we receive the impression of being actual witnesses of them. The course of
the narrative adhering thus closely to the progress of events has, therefore,
little in common with the easy-going manner of Herodotus, who at every turn breaks
off the thread of his story to introduce as an episode some circumstance of which
he has been reminded. The few digressions which we find in Thucydides (i. 126;
128 ff.; 135 ff.; ii. 15; 96 f.; 99 f.; iii. 104; vi. 1 ff.; 54 ff.) have always
a definite occasion and contribute materially to a correct judgment of the circumstances
narrated.
It is with the view of keeping as close as possible in his narrative
to the actual course of events that Thucydides made use of the division of time
that he has employed. This is neither that of the astronomical nor that of the
civil year, but one which corresponds to the actual conditions of the carrying
on of war; the larger part of the year, in which the weather permits freely all
operations and especially maritime ones, is opposed to the shorter portion, in
which all more important undertakings must be suspended. He narrates therefore
kata there kai cheimonas (ii.1.5; v.20.10), because the occurrences of war actually
so divide themselves and are distributed over two unequal periods, which may vary
in length according to the conditions of the seasons. This is the meaning of the
expression in v.20.11, ex hemiseias hekaterou tou eniautou ten dunamin echontos,
i.e. hekaterhoutou te therous kai cheimonosten dunamin echontos ex hemiseias tou
eniautou, "each of the two divisions of the year being reckoned as equal
on an average to half a year;" in other words, the two portions, though unequal
in length, will always together make up a year. The climatic conditions of Greece
and the Grecian seas are such that during four months-- the menes tessares hoi
cheimerinoi of vi.21.14, i.e. Maimakterion to Anthesterion (nearly = November
to February)--little or nothing can be done in the field or at sea; while the
eight remaining months--Elaphebolion to Puanepsion (nearly = March to October),
--which include ear and metoporon (vii.79.10; viii.108.9) or phthinoporon (ii.31.1;
iii.18.15; 100. 6), form the theros or the time for active warfare. To this division
of the year, which rests on natural relations, correspond the particular subdivisions
of the theros which are taken from the progress of vegetation, particularly of
field-crops. Cf. ii.19.5, tou therous kai tou sitou akmazontos. iv.1.1, peri sitou
ekbolen. iv.2.1, prin ton siton en akmei einai. iv. 6. 5, tou sitou eti chlorou
ontos. iii.15.11, en karpou xunkomidei. iv.84.3, oligon pro trugetou. It would
be a mistake to regard these definitions of time as absolutely fixed for every
year; they are in the natural course of things approximately fixed, but they varied
no doubt with the actual phenomena of each particular year.
In his delineation of persons Thucydides shows them to us in their
actions, in the part they take in the promotion of decisive resolutions and in
the carrying out of plans adopted. He is sparing indeed in the expression of any
definite judgments of his own about prominent men;--we have only, among the contemporaries
of the Peloponnesian war, the brief description of Archidamus, i.79.8; of Pericles,
ii. 65. § 5 ff.; of Cleon, iii.36.27; iv.21.9; v.16.5; of Brasidas, ii.25.13;
iv. 81. § 1 ff.; 108. 11; of Nicias, v.16.9; vii.86.24; of Alcibiades, v.43.5;
vi.15.5; of Hermocrates, vi.72.4; of Phrynichus, viii.27.26; of Antiphon, viii.68.5;
and a few more casual notices,--but every susceptible reader will find that the
plain narrative of their actions sets the persons engaged vividly before us. The
transactions themselves are so naturally developed that, as if we were eye-witnesses,
we cannot help forming a judgment about the men we read of as to their skill or
incapacity, their profound insight or their intellectual poverty, the purity of
their characters or the duplicity of their motives, their energetic decisiveness
or their hesitating irresolution. Besides this, however, Thucydides uses with
the greatest effect another means of vivid presentation, which was not indeed
used first by him, but which he employed in the most masterly way, that namely
of introducing speeches supposed to be made by the most important personages,
wherein they give expression to their innermost thoughts and the motives of their
actions.
The employment of direct speech as a means of expressing feelings
and thoughts formed the most effective mode of presentation in the Epic poetry
of Homer, and reached its highest freedom and completeness in the Attic drama.
The same method was resorted to with the happiest results also in the most strict
historical writing to give expression to the inner side of the transactions recorded;
and it may be added that, as this method gives objective utterance to the psychological
side of historical representation, so in philosophical dialogue the clearest statement
of the dialectical development of thought was effected in the same way. Thucydides
sets himself to adhere as exactly as possible to the speeches actually delivered;
of this his own words in i. 22. § 1 leave no doubt. But that this effort is directed
rather to the thoughts than to the form of what was said he states himself distinctly
in the words echomenoi hoti engutata tes xumpases gnomes ton alethos lechthenton.
Indeed at this time a verbally accurate report of the words uttered is not conceivable.
In default, therefore, of an exact account of the language actually used Thucydides
supplied what was lacking, hos an edokoun autoi hekastoi peri ton aei paronton
ta deonta malist' eipein. In the free use of this principle he allows himself
to bring forward a speaker to controvert views and reasons which have been put
forth by a different speaker at another place and time. We find unmistakable examples
of this sort in the speech of the Corinthian ambassadors, i. 120. ff., as compared
with that of Archidamus, i. 80. ff., and in the first speech of Pericles, i. 140.
ff., in reference to the Corinthian speech just mentioned. So there can be little
doubt that to the writer is due the reservation of a part of his material which
Pericles announces in i.144.5 (all' ekeina men en alloi logoi hama tois ergois
delothesetai) and its subsequent introduction in ii. 13. § 2 ff. It is a natural
result, therefore, of this mode of treatment that, while the language of the Thucydidean
speeches, both in the structure of sentences and in particular expressions, has
a uniform character, viz., that of the writer, still in each separate speech the
character and mode of thought of the assumed speaker are clearly manifested. This
is true of all the speeches without exception, and no less so of the debate between
the Athenian envoys and the representatives of the island of Melos (hoi ton Melion
xunedroi), v. 85-111. Grote,69 it is true, has great doubts of the accuracy of
this report, and ascribes the larger part of it to the "dramatic genius and
arrangement" of the writer. But we may very well assume that on this occasion
a report or minute of the discussion was made by the Athenian deputies and generals,
which was kept in the archives of the senate at Athens and of which Thucydides
even in his own absence could have obtained an accurate knowledge, as he did of
other documents which he records and of the letter of Nicias, vii. 11-15. We may
assume also in regard to reports of shorter utterances, that they rest upon authentic
transmission. Cf. iii. 113. § 2 ff.; viii. 53. § 3; ii.12.14. The few statements
of this character, which are introduced in direct or indirect speech, have the
effect of great vividness and present to us an important crisis with high distinctness.
When, however, events develop themselves in rapid succession and the press of
circumstances forbids the employment of set speeches, the brief and condensed
resumes of what was said serve to enliven the narrative. Compare the considerable
extracts from the second speech of Pericles, ii. 13; from Cleon's speeches, iv.
22. and 28. It is probably for this reason that in the eighth book, when the changes
are so rapid and the character of many transactions there recorded is so peculiar
that they did not lend themselves to formal treatment, the thoughts and purposes
of the agents are communi-cated indirectly (cf. viii. 27; 46; 53; 63; 67; 76;
81) and we find no complete speeches.
But more than all by his use of speeches Thucydides has secured to
his narrative the character of the highest impartiality. He does not indeed occupy
the position of an indifferent spectator of events and their results; we are everywhere
conscious how completely he is an Athenian in sentiment, and how deeply he sympathizes
with the fortunes of Athens, though he never gives expression to this feeling;
he belongs indeed by birth and by social position to the aristocratical party,
but looks for welfare only in a well-tempered form of government, and is always
inclined to those statesmen who unite force of character with good sense and moderation.
This sentiment appears in definite expressions as well as by many other indications;
but Thucydides always concedes to those entertaining views opposed to his own
the right of expressing their reasons; and in the conviction that in human affairs
error is always associated with truth, that in political matters absolute right
and truth are never wholly on one side, he presents speech and counter-speech
with equally clear and careful elaboration. At the very beginning the speeches
of the Corcyraeans (i. 32-36) and the Corinthians (i. 37-43) give us an insight
into a conflict which from the irritation of the parties no longer admits a peaceable
settlement; and the opposition appears with yet greater intensity in the speeches
made at Sparta by the Corinthians (i. 68-71) and the Athenians (i. 73-78). At
Sparta too the peace party and the war party find their living utterance in the
speeches of Archidamus (i. 80-85) and Sthenelaidas (i. 86); but it is felt that
passion has now the better of moderation. With excellent effect, therefore, the
pre-eminent position of Pericles is set before us. He proves incontestably (i.
140-144) the necessity of the war from a consideration of the dignity and power
of Athens, and in a short review (ii. 13) sets forth the sufficiency of her means;
and when the beginning of the war does not answer their expectations, he is able
in his incomparable funeral oration (ii. 35-46) to keep his fellow-citizens up
to the fulness of resolve by the stimulation of a noble and justifiable self-respect;
and when undeserved misfortune has bowed their spirit and confidence, in his farewell
speech (ii. 60-64) he raises their courage again by calling to mind all the greatness
of the past and the present. Not less clearly do we become acquainted with the
way in which other leading men thought and acted, from their speeches whether
longer or shorter; e.g. Phormio, ii. 89; Demosthenes, iv. 10; Brasidas, iv. 85-87,
of whom it is said, en de oude adunatos, hos Lakedaimonios, eipein; Hippocrates,
iv. 95; Hermocrates, iv. 59-64; Nicias, vi. 68; vii. 61-64; 77; Gylippus, vii.
66-68; Alcibiades in Sparta, vi. 89-92. But the art of Thucydides in setting forth
with objective clearness the reasons pro and con of controverted questions is
shown most conspicuously in the speeches of Cleon and Diodotus, iii. 37-40; 42-48,
on the Lesbian affair; of the Plataean and Theban deputies, iii. 53-59; 61-67,
on the Plataean question; of Nicias and Alcibiades, vi. 9-14; 16-18; 20-23, on
the Sicilian expedition; of Hermocrates and Athenagoras, vi. 33-34; 36-40, on
the defence of Syracuse; of Hermocrates and the Athenian ambassador Euphemus,
vi. 76-80; 82-87, on the accession of Camarina. Without our own choice we find
ourselves involved in the conflict of interests, and are put in a position to
form judgment for ourselves from the situation of affairs and the feeling of parties.
Very seldom does the historian himself add a word of comment. The most remarkable
instance of his doing so is found in the declarations which he makes with regard
to the transactions in which Cleon takes part; in iii. 36. § 6, on the decision
about the Lesbians; and in iv. 21. § 3; 22. § 2; 28. § 3 ff.; 39. § 3, about Pylos
and the consequent proposals of peace made by the Lacedaemonians. The strong aversion
which Thucydides manifests when he describes the person and actions of Cleon has
been attributed in ancient as well as in modern times to the personal reason that
Cleon was probably the cause of the banishment of the historian; and this is regarded
as a violation of historical impartiality. Grote expresses this opinion most decidedly.
But the assumption of any hostile movement on Cleon's part against Thucydides
rests only on conjecture, and appears in fact not necessary to explain the unconcealed
aversion felt by the historian to Cleon. Thucydides a little more than a year
after the death of Pericles, who is the object of his love and admiration, says
of Cleon, iii.36.26, on kai es ta alla biaiotatos ton politon toi te demoi para
polu en toi tote pithanotatos, and in iv.21.9, with nearly the same words, aner
demagogos kat' ekeinon ton chronon on kai toi plethei pithanotatos. We have in
these words only the application to a concrete case of the bitter feeling which
had already (ii. 65. § 7 ff.) found expression in general terms, where the melancholy
contrast is drawn out between the ergoi hupo tou protou andros arche and the ruinous
conduct of those who oregomenoi tou protos hekastos gignesthai etraponto kath'
hedonas toi demoi kai ta pragmata endidonai. Those judgments about Cleon, whose
nature had not a trace of the exalted magnanimity of Pericles, are the legitimate
expression of the historian's profound sorrow at the decline of his country, which
he saw, after being controlled so gloriously by Pericles, surrendered to the selfseeking
ambition of unworthy men. He points thus prominently at Cleon because there can
be no doubt that before the Lesbian affair--he was even then toi demoi pithanotatos--he
had attained great influence with the mob and had probably embittered the last
years of Pericles. If from the speeches in Thucydides the same picture of various
personalities presents itself to us as the historian had formed in his own mind,
the highest aim is reached which any historian can attain. Genuine impartiality
does not exclude judgment and personal conviction in regard either to the wisdom
or the moral value of purposes and actions. But it is necessary that we should
be furnished with the materials for forming our own opinions independently of
the previous judgment of the writer. Thucydides has done this for us to an extent
and in a manner which probably no other historian has equalled; and in this lies
his imperishable value for all time.
In close correspondence with the effort the historian is evidently
always making to get as close as possible to men and things in their real relations,
is his expression in language, which he has, we may say, moulded to suit his great
task. To form a just appreciation of its peculiarities we must consider first
of all that Thucydides was the first to employ the Attic speech for the purposes
of historical narrative. It may be said in general that Attic prose as a written
language was then in the first stage of its development. It cannot, it is true,
be doubted that in the period from Solon to Pericles with its momentous political
changes the Attic speech had in the manifold needs of public and private life
formed itself to that character of simplicity, clearness, and definiteness by
which it is distinguished above all the other Greek dialects. It must have been
employed in the literary efforts of the Pisistratidae for many sorts of records;
and it is still more certain that after the restoration of freedom the living
word of the great statesmen from Clisthenes to Cimon must have exerted the most
potent influence on the cultivation and settlement of the language. But this is
again in its kind a phenomenon without parallel in history, that a people so rarely
dowered as the Greek could live through a long period, crowded with the highest
human interest and calling into play all forms of political and intellectual activity,
without leaving any evidences of its existence except in artistic form. While
the tragedies of Phrynichus and Aeschylus were charming and elevating the Athenian
people by the noblest matter in the noblest form, Attic prose was used for hardly
any other purposes than those of business.
We cannot decide how much of speeches delivered in the assembly or
the courts at an earlier time was either previously or subsequently noted down;
in any case the language retained probably longer than any other its character
of originality and its capacity of receiving new refinements. It still possessed
this union of ripeness and power of fresh development when the first orators,
who paid regard to the theory of their art, and Thucydides made use of it. It
has been stated above, p. 7 ff., that Thucydides had consciously allowed himself
to be influenced by the recent elements of culture, which had been introduced
in his youth by philosophers and rhetoricians, and employed by orators like Antiphon;
and it is interesting to observe here and there indications of this influence;
but it is the chief charm of the language of the his torian that he used it as
a master for the freest expression of his personal judgment. There is no trace
in his style of blind following of worn-out tradition or of phrases made to a
pattern. Whatever his mind at the moment concentrated itself upon, finds a corresponding
expression in his words. Accordingly the fundamental character of the language
of Thucydides is the greatest simplicity and naturalness. Everything in it that
occasions trouble to the understanding of the reader is due to the effort of the
writer to give to the expression the most exact correspondence with the matters
to be represented. The solution of the difficulty, therefore, is to be found by
penetrating into the connexion of fact and thought; the more we are able to do
this, the better shall we succeed in getting at the true sense of the words.
The free position which Thucydides occupies in regard to the still
unsettled language is seen as well in the choice of particular words as in the
order in which they are placed. We find in him a considerable number of expressions
which occur only in later imitators; but we must not attribute to him on this
account a conscious seeking after what is unusual or antiquated. In some cases
our judgment is at fault, because we do not know what was usual in the cultivated
speech of his time at Athens; and herein Dionysius himself also was at a loss.
We have to make allowance for the creative power of a master mind which is not
content to take the inherited material of language as all-sufficient for every
need of expression, but understands how to employ new forms according to the necessities
of his thought. Thucydides may rightly claim the poietikon ton onomaton and the
polueides ton schematon which Dionysius (24. 6) attributes to him; but he is far
from abusing in an arbitrary and capricious way the right of innovation which
a language in the fresh [p. 49] ness of its vigour concedes to a subtle and accurate
thinker, though this is what Dionysius with little insight, charges him with.
A list of all the words which are peculiar to Thucydides or nearly so will show
such forms only as are in accordance with the spirit of the Greek language; and
a close examination will, in all cases, make manifest their fitness for use in
their several places. In proof of this attention may be called to two of the usages
which are of especially frequent occurrence. He uses probably oftener than any
other writer the neuter singular of adjectives and participles as abstract substantives;
e.g. to piston, to bradu, to tolmeron, to epieikes, to xuneton, to dedios, to
boulomenon, to orgizomenon, to epithumoun, to thumoumenon, etc. There is in this
no capricious mannerism; but he is striving to clothe the abstract idea in a dress
which may render it in the particular case more easy of apprehension, while at
the same time the neuter secures the maintenance of that indefiniteness which
pertains to the notion itself. To a similar effort to elevate general conceptions
as far as possible to distinct apprehension is due his tendency to employ verbal
nouns in -tes and -sis. Examples of the former occur in i.70.10; 138. 14; of the
latter, i.141.6; iii.82.20-30. Dionysius ascribes this tendency to mere wilfulness.
Hermogenes shows a better judgment when he attributes the frequent employment
of nominal forms instead of verbal ones to an effort to give to the expression
of the thought greater dignity and elevation than could be secured by the use
of the corresponding verbs.
The position of words is of yet more importance in the style of Thucydides.
It is a law of the Greek language that the order of internal importance shall
as far as possible be manifested in the order of external position; not indeed
that the external arrange ment defines the importance of the words; but the oral
utterance obeys its own special laws, and natural feeling permits these to be
treated with freedom. Here much must be left to the observation of the reader;
but a few observations of far-reaching application may be offered.
(1) Thucydides is fond of placing at the beginning of a sentence the principal
object in the accusative, giving thus as it were in a single word the theme of
the discussion. In these cases the grammatical connexion is often relaxed and
sometimes wholly abandoned. Cf. i.32.18, and the examples there cited. Similarly
portions of the predicate are placed before the conjunction which introduces the
sentence. Cf. i.19.3; 77. 6; ii.65.7.
(2) A general predicate noun is placed first in connexion with a following superlative,
as noted on i.1.8; by this arrangement the noun becomes as it were the text of
the following remark.
(3) Of a different kind are the numerous cases in which a noun without the article
is placed before a qualifying participle or adjective with the article; for this
throws the principal stress on the qualifying word; for examples see on i.1.6.
This order is frequent also in Herodotus, but comparatively rare in other Attic
writers.
(4) Partitive genitives, as representing the principal notion, generally stand
before the governing nouns, particularly in designations of places, when the name
of the country usually precedes that of a portion of it. See on i.100.15. So the
objective genitive stands between a preposition and the noun on which it depends.
See on i.32.8.
(5) Two clauses closely related and connected by a copula --as two objects of
the same verb, two verbs with the same object, two predicates--are often separated
by another word of importance. This is not peculiar to Thucydides but is a favourite
arrangement with him. The effect of it is not to dislocate the structure, but
the interposed obstruction forces into notice the essential connexion of the separated
clauses. Examples of this occur on nearly every page; as in i.69.4 (eleutherias),
17 (tina), 18 (ten auxesin).
(6) Conversely a parallelism in structure occasionally is found where there is
no exact correspondence in thought. Cf. i.33.12; 69. 32; 138. 18; ii.61.19; 74.
16.
(7) Great weight is sometimes laid upon an adverbial expression by its position
at the close of the sentence, an arrangement often used by Demosthenes. Cf. i.28.12;
77. 19; 133. 8; ii.7.18.
Thucydides has made large use of the period with its complete structure
of protasis, apodosis, and subordinate clauses. But in the simple narrative he
prefers to allow the circumstances of an event to follow one another in coordination.
We often find, accordingly, a long series of short sentences, united together
by various connective particles, which everywhere demand attentive consideration,
and none of them to a greater degree than the apparently insignificant te, the
effect of which has often been pointed out in the commentary. By a paratactic
arrangement of sentences he often produces a greater effect than we should have
expected. See on i.26.16,81 and the examples there cited. We may notice also that
it is taken for granted that attention to the course of the narrative when it
is clearly stated will suffice to prevent confusion, when, without special notice,
the subject is changed, as is more frequently done than is usual with us; and
even within the limits of the same sentence the extension of the subject is enlarged
or narrowed, when the circumstances introduced require such a modification, so
that at the end the same term is to be taken in a wider or a more restricted sense
than it was at the beginning. See on i.18.21; 61. 9; 124. 7; ii.54.4; iii.23.1;
53. 17; iv.6.3; etc.
The transition from the paratactic arrangement to the period proper
is found in the annexing of an explanatory member with gar at the beginning of
a long sentence. This is not indeed so frequent as it is in Homer (see Classen,
Beobachtungen uber den homerischen Sprachgebrauch, p. 6 ff.) and in Herodotus,
but is found often enough in Thucydides (see on i.31.7); and the examples noted
on i.72.1; 115. 14 show how closely this arrangement approximated to the actual
period. It is in such passages that we best apprehend the effort of the writer
to give complete expression to his thought by means of a vehicle not yet reduced
to entire flexibility. Thucydides shares with all energetic thinkers the desire
to use no superfluous words. It is not surprising, therefore, that we cannot without
trouble penetrate through the condensed phrase to the full apprehension of his
meaning, especially in those cases where the most hidden processes of thought
and feeling are to be indicated. It cannot be asserted that Thucydides aims at
brevity and finds pleasure in dark expressions. The truth is that in the department
in which he laboured the Greek language had little or nothing previously worked
out, and that he had often to wrestle painfully with a resisting material to find
satisfactory expression for what he desired to say. The evidence of this laborious
effort is to be seen in many inequalities in the work. Still, where the text is
not certainly corrupt, honest and resolute effort will always succeed in grasping
the true sense of the writer even in the most difficult passages. The task of
understanding Thucydides in all his parts and all his peculiarities is, it is
true, no light one, but it well repays the effort. It bestows in preeminent degree
the satisfactory feeling of sharing the labour of thought with a profound and
noble intellect. We can observe how in particular cases the thought of the writer
has even in the very moulding of his sentence taken a direction different from
that he started with, and thus has shifted into inconsistency of expression. See
on i.4.7; 18. 18; 23. 11; 38. 11; 40. 8; 69. 33; 70. 18; 72. 9; etc. It is this
occasional divergence from the customary rule that creates the greatest difficulty
in following the course of the thought of the writer with intelligence and sympathetic
appreciation.
As we could reach no certainty with regard to the end of the life of Thucydides,
so the early history of the work he left must remain in darkness. Modern scholars
are at variance even as to the form in which the eighth book was left. Some regard
the absence of speeches as a proof that its author had not given it its final
form: others find this fact sufficiently explained by the character of the events
recorded in it. The latter view is probably correct: yet there are many points
of style and matter which seem to indicate that the book did not receive the last
revision of the author, particularly the fact that it breaks off in the midst
of a narrative uncompleted. This, combined with the divergent statements as to
the manner and place of the death of the writer, gave occasion even in antiquity
to various conjectures, which are recorded by Marcellinus, § 43, 44; as that a
daughter of Thucydides wrote the book, or Theopompus, or Xenophon. There is no
probability internal or external for any one of these. There may be so much truth
as this: that the daughter of Thucydides, after her father's sudden death by an
attack of robbers, saved his unfinished work from destruction, and gave it for
publication to some person who by his interest or personal position was fitted
for the task. The names of Theopompus and Xenophon are evidently mentioned only
because each of them was known to have continued the history of Thucydides. Theopompus,
indeed, could have been hardly born at the time of the death of Thucydides. As
to Xenophon, we read in Diog. Laert. ii.6.57, legetai hoti kai ta Thoukudidou
biblia lanthanonta huphelesthai dunamenos autos eis doxan egagen. This statement
that Xenophon made known to fame the books of Thucydides when he might have suppressed
them, may suggest that they were intrusted to him by the historian's daughter:
but to treat this as an established fact is to go too far; yet Letronne has done
this when, assuming that Xenophon could have published the history of Thucydides
only before his own expedition to Asia in 400, he fancies that he has thus secured
a fixed limit for the life of Thucydides. Certainty on these points cannot be
attained even by the most acute combination.
The division of the work into eight books is founded upon a just consideration
of the facts. The first book contains the introduction proper and all preliminary
notices; the second, third, and fourth contain the first nine years of the Archidamian
war, three in each; the fifth, the concluding year of the same with the intermediate
period of eirene hupoulos; the sixth and seventh, the Sicilian expedition from
its hopeful beginning to its disastrous close; the eighth, all that follows this
in the Decelean and Ionian wars, so far as the history extends. This division,
however, was probably not made by Thucydides himself; for, if it had been, it
is not likely that any others would have obtained currency, which Marcellinus,
§ 58, asserts to have been the case, one division being into thirteen books. It
was probably introduced, like similar divisions of other works, in Alexandria,
and maintained itself in use from that time on, since Dionysius and other grammarians
commonly make use of it. Dionysius is wont also to define particular portions
of the work by the number of their lines or stichoi. For example, the first chapters
amount to 2000 stichoi (De Thuc. iud. 10. 5); the proem alone, i. 1-23, to 500
(ibid. 19. 1); the reflexions on the Corcyraean sedition, iii. 82, 83, to 100
(ibid. 33. 1). We see that the lines of his Ms. contained a number of letters
less by about a sixth than those of our ordinary editions. The passages named
above contain in Bekker's stereotype edition about 1700, 440, and 85 lines respectively.
This text is cited August 2004 from Perseus Project URL bellow, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Sources for Thucydides:
Thucydides,
The Peloponnesian War, tr. Richard Crawley.
F. M. Cornford,
Thucydides Mythistoricus.
Gregory Crane, The Case of Plataia: Start of a World War and an End of History
John M.
Finley, Three Essays on Thucydides.
Thomas
Hobbes, On the Life and History of Thucydides.
Editor’s Information
The e-texts of the works by Thucydides are found in Greece (ancient country) under the category Ancient Greek Writings .
Receive our daily Newsletter with all the latest updates on the Greek Travel industry.
Subscribe now!