if the city of the Lacedaemonians were deserted and the shrines and
foundations of buildings preserved, I think that after the passage of considerable time there would eventually be widespread doubt that their power measured up to their reputation … but if the Athenians were to suffer the same fate their power would be estimated, from the city’s pure appearance, as twice what it is. (Th. 1.10.1–2)
92
ThucydidEs on ThE Ends of PowEr
The complex comparison is aimed at assessing the power of Mycenae by
viewing that of present Sparta against its hypothetical future ruins, present Athens against its future self, and the two states against each other – all serving the purpose of setting up the major powers in the current war and suggesting, by implication, that both are superior to a much earlier
Mycenae. The second half of this section (Th. 1.13–19) discusses sequentially the rise of tyrants and the nature of their rule (Th. 1.13 and 17–18), the origin of trireme navies (Th. 1.14), the Persian navy in Ionia (Th.
1.16), and Sparta versus Athens in alliances conducted either through
oligarchies or through the appropriation of others’ navies (Th. 1.19).
Obviously the digression is sharply honed to discuss the real bases of
military might, which arises from capital resources and the extension of power by navies. It is also a model of sorting oral, literary, and material evidence by probability and human motives.
This leads to a consideration of the difficulty in ascertaining the truth of events in the present as well as in the distant past. Three crucial chapters discuss historical method, an excursus of a kind wholly alien to
Herodotus: “men accept one another’s accounts of the past, even about
their native countries, with a uniform lack of examination” (Th. 1.20).
Thucydides directly questions the accounts of the past as recounted by
poets and prose chroniclers (“logographers,” possibly including speech
writers who allude to the past), especially since their truth claims cannot be verified and are distorted by patriotic fiction (Th. 1.21). The careful analysis of his own method has been discussed above, but we note how
radically innovative it was for him to offer such a self‐conscious evaluation as a paradigm of caution in writing history. The prize for such painstaking research is, he claims, the “plain truth,” which proves useful for analysis of future events (Romilly 2005; Grethlein 2004). The famous chapter on
methodology (Th. 1.22) has been described above, in the discussions of
speeches and the utility of the work for future: “a possession for all time,”
as the historian describes his work.
The coda to the proem is the chapter on the causes of the war
(Th. 1.23), which circles back to the first chapter (Th. 1.1) and pointedly deflates the greatness of the Persian Wars (“a quick resolution in two battles on sea and two on land”), but also underlines the unprecedented greatness of suffering in the present war (cities desolated, men exiled and slaughtered). The chapter ends with a summary of the motives expounded later in Book 1, namely that the war was caused by both sides breaking the Thirty Years Truce, and that the “truest cause [is] the one least openly expressed, that increasing Athenian greatness and the resulting fear among the Lacedaemonians made going to war inevitable”
ThucydidEs on ThE Ends of PowEr
93
(Th. 1.23). The analysis reveals the fundamental human motivations of
acquisitiveness and fear.
The first narrative relates the incidents at Corcyra and Potidaea, where Athenian intervention caused an immediate backlash among the
Peloponnesians (Th. 1.24–65). When pro‐Spartan Corinth fell into
conflict with its former colony Corcyra in northwest Greece, both came
to Athens in 433 bc to ask respectively that the Athenians remain neutral or come to Corcyra’s aid (1.32–43). Corcyra has conceived a “hatred” of Corinth due to envy of the latter’s being wealthier in resources and more powerful in its army and navy, all terms relating exactly to the “archaeology”
and rooted in emotion (Kallet‐Marx 1993: 71–2). Corcyra appeals to
expediency and Corinth more to justice, but one has the sense that justice is less at issue and the “amorality of interstate relations” constitutes the
“background against which Thucydides’ emotional and principled atti-
tudes stand out” (Crane 1998: 108; see also Morrison 2006b: 25–43).
Athens, out of its own interest in keeping open the route to Italy and
Sicily, gave limited assistance to Corcyra (Th. 1.44). An engagement of navies at Sybota is inconclusive – both sides set up trophies (Th.
1.52–4).
After Corinth encourages a revolt around Potidaea, which results in
a siege of the city by the Athenian navy (Th. 1.56–65), Sparta, in 432
bc, calls an assembly of those who suffered from Athenian aggression
(Th. 1.66–7). Two pairs of speeches (a “tetralogy”) illustrate the key
issues from the perspectives of the Corinthians, the Athenians, the
Spartan king Archidamus, and a Spartan ephor, Sthenelaïdas (Th. 1.66–
87). The Corinthians frame the inevitability of the conflict as a clash of city‐state character, Athenian impulsive aggression and Spartan hesitation (Th. 1.70). They seek to frighten Sparta to wage war, while the
Athenians urge restraint from war as the command of the league is
deserved and humanly justifiable as an opportunity any city would take.
The Athenians’ famous formulation of the “law” of empire, discussed
above, is enunciated here, stealthily conveying their great might in
arguments claiming justification (Th. 1.76). Archidamus advises
restraint, building resources and following the Spartan virtue of moderation, as epitomized by the following:
Through our orderliness we are rendered both warlike and wise; the former, because a sense of respect is the greater part of moderation, and courage is the greatest part of respect; and wise because we are educated with too little learning to despise the laws and too sensibly, though our strictness, to disobey them. (Th. 1.84)
94
ThucydidEs on ThE Ends of PowEr
Sthenilaïdas appeals rather to the bellicose side of the Spartan spirit and its disdain for complex rhetoric; an emotional appeal to avenge the
Spartans’ allies is his primary argument, blindly ignoring the problems of resources and allied support (Th. 1.86). The crucial tetralogy lays out motivations on all sides. Corinth describes the dilemma of a “hot”
aggressor and a “cold” opponent; Athens justifies its claim to power on the basis of just actions in the past (against Persia) and human nature.
And Sparta performs its problematic identity, illustrating how, despite the measured advice of the king, the emotions of the polemical hothead
win out. The vote was taken with public claims that Athens broke the
treaty, but with the truer cause of Spartan fear of Athenian power (Th.
1.88, echoing 1.22) (Crane 1998: 196–236; Immerwahr 1973;
Raubitschek 1973).
This momentous event is marked off by the “ring composition” of
narratives related to the building of empire and interstate tensions,
which begin and end with stories related to Themistocles and Pausanias, namely (1) Themistocles’ stealthy scheme to fortify Athens and the
Spartan Pausanias’ missteps in being overbearing to other Greeks,
which led to the Greeks’ request that Athens lead the Delian League
(87–97); and (2) the dramatic and ironic endings for those two great
leaders (Th. 1.128–38). In between these is positioned a lengthy
digression, the “fifty years” ( pente ̄ tkontaetia), which “flashes back”
to the period between the end of the Persian Wars and the Peloponnesian
War (Th. 1.97–118), an era of tremendous Athenian aggression, sum-
marized at the end:
In this period the Athenians both made control over their empire [ arche ̄]
more secure and made great advances in their power [ dunamis] …
[the Spartans] did not oppose it except in limited ways and remained inactive most of the time, slow as in the past to go to war. (Th. 1.118)
The digression details in rapid succession the events by which the
Athenians secured allies, punished those who tried to withdraw from
the league (punishments in violation of the agreement), fought the
Spartans and their allies, and eventually agreed to a thirty‐year peace in 446 bc (1.115). The unstable “peace” was the background for the tensions at the time when the formal present war was declared.
At a conference in Sparta in 432 bc, the Corinthians urge Sparta and
its allies to go to war against Athens and sketch optimistic plans for
finances and strategies for the campaigns (Th. 1.119–24). The Corinthians offer a specious argument: “The power of the Athenians is more purchased
ThucydidEs on ThE Ends of PowEr
95
than homegrown, but ours would be less vulnerable there because of
being based on manpower instead of money” (Th. 1.121). Yes, Athenian
might relies on the expenses of building and maintaining ships and, where needed, hiring non‐native sailors (Kallet‐Marx 1993: 89–91), but the
Peloponnesians’ claim of being “homegrown” is answered by Pericles’
speech (Th. 1.143).
The Peloponnesian allies vote to declare war, but a year intervenes in
which preparations are made and embassies are sent. There follow the
concluding ring stories of Pausanias and Themistocles, a section highly reminiscent of Herodotean storytelling, not least for its focus on the
personally tragic stories of leaders. The digression is preceded by
describing how each side asks the other to drive out a sacred curse of the past, one involving the death of the Athenian Cylon on the Athenian
acropolis (Th. 1.126), the other about the Spartan Pausanias in a
Spartan sanctuary. The narrative flows to the story of Pausanias and his suspected treachery (Th. 1.128–34), then to the Athenian Themistocles
and his similar ties to Persia, ending with the latter’s refuge at the court of Xerxes (Th. 1.135–8). The greater “ring” involves the ethnicity of
the leaders (Athenian–Spartan–Athenian) and seems deliberately to lead
to the first major appearance of the Athenian general Pericles, whose
intelligence is comparable to that of Themistocles (1.139–45). Pericles’
speech lays out his initial strategy of heavier reliance on naval power, and in essence is a response at a distance to the Corinthian speech just before (Connor 1984: 49–50). He also invokes the martial spirit of the
Persian Wars to underscore his confidence in the present power of
Athens, though this ironically contrasts with the less noble conflict
among fellow Greeks:
Remember that it was our fathers, standing against the Medes … more by
policies than by fortune, with greater daring than might [ dunamis], who drove out the barbarian and advanced our power to its present level
(Th. 1.144).
Book 1 has arguably the most complex structure in the History, and close analysis is required to trace the principles of the author’s method and criteria: prehistory and the growth of resources and power, the care taken in establishing factual content, the proximate conflicts triggering the war, conferences and debates before the decision to act, and lengthy exegesis of the fifty years that bridge the Persian War with this one. In effect this book is equivalent to the “preliminaries” and causal chain presented by Herodotus in his Books 1 to 5.
96
ThucydidEs on ThE Ends of PowEr
Book 2
The famous narrative of the first two years of the war (431–429 bc) in
Book 2 presents the beginning and end of the generalships of Archidamus (Th. 2.10–21, 71–5; 3.1) and Pericles (Th. 2.7–65), ending, in a sense, the acme of both city‐states before the decline presented in later books.
The highpoints of this section, in style and thematic content, are in the center: the funeral oration of Pericles, the Plague at Athens, and Pericles’
third speech. Vivid battle narratives occupy the beginning and the end, with a Theban attack of Plataea (Th. 2.1–6), a series of reports of events in Persia, Argos, the Gulf of Krisa and Potidaia (Th. 2.66–70), a later Peloponnesian siege to take Plataea (Th. 2.71–8), a naval encounter
between Peloponnesian and Athenian forces in Western Greece culmi-
nating in an Athenian victory at Naupactus (Th. 2.80–92, 102–3), an
aborted attempt to take the Piraeus (Th. 2.93–4), and fighting on
the “fringe” between Macedonia and Thrace (Th. 2.95–101). Even the
descriptions of strategy, exhortations, and decisions in battle reveal
aspects of effective and inferior thinking by leaders (Stahl 2003: 75–101; Watts‐Tobin 2000).
The Theban attack offers a set piece on human weaknesses, including
the traitorous ambition of a pro‐oligarchic Plataean who secretly lets the Thebans in the gates for the sake of his own personal power ( dunamis: Th. 2.2) and the intense emotionality of the besieged (fear: Th. 2.3; disorder: Th. 2.4). When 180 Plataeans are executed, we are presented with a situation, repeated often in the work, of discrepancy between plan and execution, chance and strategy, deception and miscalculation. It is a
striking rupture of peace, marked by the brutality and inexperience of
combatants. It also foreshadows a greater episode in the Theban–Plataean conflict (3.52–68).
After a statement summarizing Peloponnesian enthusiasm for seeking
the “liberation of Hellas” from Athens, Archidamus gathers allies at the Isthmus and exhorts a strategy of burning fields to provoke anger and
mistakes in Athens: “For everything is uncertain in war and attacks usually come at short notice, out of passion [ orge ̄] … For anger [ orge ̄] comes over me on seeing all of a sudden, before their eyes, that they are suffering something unaccustomed, and those who least employ calculation are
driven into action by passion” (Th. 2.11); later this is called Archidamus’
“plan” ( gno ̄ me ̄) (Th. 2.20). Pericles’ counterplan is for those in the countryside to abandon their homes and crowd inside the city walls, and to remain optimistic in view of the revenue from allies (Th. 2.13).
The people comply, and are first disconsolate, then angry at Pericles
ThucydidEs on ThE Ends of PowEr
97
(Th. 2.16, 21). He is confident in his plan but prudently avoids calling an assembly “lest they make mistakes by coming together in a passionate
[state] [ orge ̄] rather than in reasonable state ( gno ̄ me ̄)” (Th. 2.22, adapted).
Human emotion is a strategic pawn of both leaders. After a series of
Athenian naval raids, the end of the first years of the conflict is marked by burial of the dead and Pericles’ funeral oration (Th. 2.35–46).
This monumental speech, compared by some in its magnificence to the
sculptural frieze of citizens on the Parthenon, serves many functions that resonate with themes of the historian, including the vision of the leader, the strengths of the city, a commentary on the achievement of the fallen, a challenge to the survivors, and a counterpoint to the next section, on the Plague (Parthenon parallel: Hornblower 1991: 295, 312). The oration is prefaced by a remark about the difficulty of giving such addresses and praise of the ancestors, after which a core of pure praise comes in three parts: prais
e of the ethos of the state (ch. 37), appreciation of Athenian lifestyle and culture (chs. 38–9), and description of aspects of character ( tropoi) that gave rise to the Athenians’ power (chs. 40–1).
Finally come the sections praising the dead (ch. 42), exhorting fellow citizens (ch. 43), comforting the parents (ch. 44), and challenging the
brothers and children of the fallen (ch. 45); and a summarizing farewell (ch. 46). We ultimately cannot say whether this speech is typical of the genre of similar addresses, nor the extent to which it reflects actual
Periclean rhetoric or that of Thucydides, though it is likely a blend of both, especially for such a public event, at which many contemporary witnesses were present. In any case, the speech captures the spirit of Athens at its acme, as the historian deemed it worthy of presentation. One motif of the speech is the liberal spirit of the democracy, by which men are not compelled to act: service is given according to merit, military training is done in a more relaxed manner, and beauty is appreciated with economy
in daily life (Th. 2.37–40). All of these qualities are in implicit contrast to Sparta and its more compulsory systems of education, training, and
service, a contrast therefore carrying on the polarity established in Book 1; for example the mention of things “not hidden” ( me ̄ kruphthen) in Athens alludes to the more secretive system of Sparta and its “secret service”
( krupteia). But later events and the present context require readers not to accept the Periclean ideal as the whole truth, again like the Parthenon sculptures, but to see the extended treatment here as one politician’s
image in a stream of grimmer realities.
Continuing the power theme from Book 1, the winning of empire and
the fame of this acme of achievement also resonate through the piece:
“[our fathers] acquired through great effort the whole of the empire we
98
ThucydidEs on ThE Ends of PowEr
now rule and left it to us in the present generation” (Th. 2.36). We noted above the passage in which Athens is called “the education of Hellas” to which the very “power” ( dunamis) of the city attests, a power by which
“we have compelled every sea and land to become open to our daring”
Greek Historiography Page 16