¹ Cf. [Long.] Sublim. 14.1: ‘When we are working on something which needs loftiness of expression and greatness of thought, it is good to imagine how Homer would have said the same thing, or how Plato or Demosthenes or (in history) Thucydides would have invested it with sublimity’ (Russell, tr.). D. Hal. Thuc. 2 notes that he is the ‘greatest of all historians’.

² Although Marcellinus (below, n. 6) says that many found fault with Thucydides’ diction and arrangement (Vit. Thuc. 53), it is clear from Dionysius’ words that it was still considered presumptuous to engage in such activity: see D. Hal. Thuc. 2: ‘the thought has occurred to me that I shall seem like a lone pioneer breaking new and unexpected ground if I take it upon myself to discredit any part of Thucydides’ work’ (Usher, tr.). Cf. Dionysius’ parallel attempt in the Letter to Pompeius to promote Herodotus as superior to Thucydides.

³ Jacoby (1956), 41.

⁴ In the words of a justly famous article by Loraux, N., ‘Thucydide n’est pas un collègue’, QS 12 (1980), 55–81 Google Scholar.

⁵ On the shift in attitude towards Thucydides see Connor, W. R., ‘A Post-Modernist Thucydides?’, CJ 72 (1977), 289-98Google Scholar; as has been realized, the present evaluation of Thucydides is not really new, but revives a strand of Thucydidean studies that goes back to Schwartz (1929), and Cornford, F. M., Thucydides Mythistoricus (London, 1907)Google Scholar.

⁶ On the unreliability of the biographical tradition, see above, Ch. II n. 2. Marcellinus’ life is divided into three parts, a biography proper (1-44), a stylistic analysis (45-53), and then a brief sketch (54-8) with additional biographical data and stylistic comment. Still fundamental is von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U., ‘Die Thukydides Legende’, in Kleine Schriften (Berlin, 1935-42 repr. 1971–2), iv. 1–40 Google Scholar (orig. Hermes 12 (1877), 326–67); see most recently Maitland, J., ‘Marcellinus’ Life of Thucydides: Criticism and Criteria in the Biographical Tradition’, CQ 46 (1996), 538-58Google Scholar.

⁷ Cf., however, Fornara, C., ‘Thucydides’ Birth Date’, in Rosen and Farrell (1993), 71–80 Google Scholar, for the suggestion that he was at least a decade older at the time.

⁸ The biographical passages are collected in Schmid-Stählin i. 5, 6 n. 2; Thucydides’ presentation of his biographical data is not in chronological sequence, but follows strict criteria of relevance for the history itself: see Marincola (1997), 183–4.

⁹ For a chart of the family, see Connor, W. R., ‘Thucydides’, in Luce (1982), i. 268 Google Scholar.

¹⁰ It should be noted, however, that his praise of Pericles’ relationship with the people is given in conservative terms: Szegedy-Maszak, A., ‘Thucydides’ Solonian Reflections’, in Dougherty, C. and Kurke, L., edd., Cultural Poetics in Archaic Greece: Cult, Performance, Politics (New York and Oxford, 1998), 201-14Google Scholar.

¹¹ A recently discovered inscription from Thasos ( Pouilloux, J. and Salviat, F., ‘Lichas, Lacédémonien, archonte à Thasos et le livre viii de Thucydide’, CRAI (1983), 376–403 Google Scholar; id., ‘Thucydide après l’exil et la composition de son histoire’, RPh 59 (1985), 13–20) mentions a certain Lichas as archon for 398/7, and some have sought to identify this figure with the Lichas of Sparta whose death Thucydides records at 7.84.5. This would suggest that Thucydides lived at least until that date, but the identification is problematic: see Cartledge, P., ‘A New Lease on Life for Lichas son of Arkesilas?’, LCM 9 (1984), 98–102 Google Scholar; Hornblower (1987), 151–2. Two recent contributions argue that the ending is of no help in establishing the date of Thucydides’ death: Flory, S., ‘The Death of Thucydides and the Motif of “Land on Sea”’, in Rosen and Farrell (1993), 113-23Google Scholar has suggested that Thucydides abandoned his work on the Peloponnesian War; he argues therefore that the assumption that the author died shortly after the end of the war is unwarranted; Konishi, H., ‘Thucydides’ History as a Finished Piece’, LCM 12 (1987), 5–7 Google Scholar argues that Thucydides never promised a history to the end of the war, but his interpretation of 5.26 is not convincing.

¹² Schepens (1980), 94–8, 143–6. See also Hartog, F., ‘L’oeil de Thucydide et l’histoire “véritable”’, Poétique 49 (1982), 22–30 Google Scholar.

¹³ For the history of Alcibiades as source, see Westlake (1968), 231 n.l; Alcibiades has been most vigorously proposed as a source by Delebecque, E., Thucydide et Alcibiade (Aix-en-Provence, 1965)Google Scholar; cf. HCT v. passim; Westlake, H. D., ‘The Influence of Alcibiades on Thucydides, Book Eight’, in Westlake (1989), 154-65Google Scholar. For Brasidas as source, see Westlake (1968), 148; id., ‘Thucydides, Brasidas and Clearidas’, in Westlake (1989), 78–83 (orig. GRBS 21 (1980), 333–8).

¹⁴ Scholars assume written sources only for selected sections. It is generally agreed that for the early history of Sicily, Thucydides used Antiochus of Syracuse: see Dover, K. J., ‘La colonizzazione della Sicilia’, Maia 6 (1953), 1–20 Google Scholar; some of the same arguments are included in HCT iv. 198–205; cf. Luraghi, N., ‘Fonti e tradizione nell’archaeologia siciliana (per una rilettura di Thuc. 6.2-5)’, in: Hesperia: studi sulla grecità di Occidente, II (Rome, 1991), 41–62 Google Scholar, who suggests that only the information about the Sicels and Greek colonies goes back to Antiochus, and that different sources were used for the other material. Westlake, H. D., ‘Thucydides on Pausanias and Themistocles – A Written Source?’, in Westlake (1989), 1–18 Google Scholar (orig. CQ 27 (1977), 95–110), suggests that a written source lay behind the digression on Pausanias and Themistocles, and Forrest, W. G. thought that Thucydides used a thalassocracy list in the Archaeology: ‘Two Chronographie Notes’, CQ 19 (1969), 95–110 Google Scholar.

¹⁵ See Eur. Suppl. 846–56, with Collard’s commentary ad loc. for what seems a cutting criticism of ‘eyewitness accounts’; for the problematic value of autopsy see Woodman (1988), 15–23. Thucydides himself was aware of these issues, as he reveals before narrating the night battle at Epipolae (7.44.1); note especially the remark, ‘in the day those who take part in an action have a clearer idea of it, though even then they cannot see everything, and in fact no one knows much more than what is going on around himself. Cawkwell (1997), 10 minimizes the difficulty of understanding the relatively simply action of hoplite battles, but the ancient passages seem to indicate otherwise.

¹⁶ For the absence of the story-telling element (тὸ μὴ μυθῶδϵς), see Flory, S., ‘The Meaning of тὸ μὴ μυθῶδϵς (1.22.4) and the Usefulness of Thucydides’ History’, CJ 85 (1990), 193–208 Google Scholar; on the importance of writing in the composition of Thucydides’ history, see Edmunds, L., ‘Thucydides in the Act of Writing’, in: Tradizione e innovazione nella cultura greca da Omero alVetà ellenistica, Scritti . . . B. Gentile, ed. Pretagostini, R. (Rome, 1993), ii. 831-52Google Scholar; Crane, G., The Blinded Eye: Thucydides and the Invention of History (Lanham, Md., 1996)Google Scholar; see also Loraux, N., ‘Thucydide a écrit la guerre du Péloponnèse’, Metis 1 (1986), 139-61Google Scholar.

¹⁷ See above, Ch. II n. 19.

¹⁸ For this suggestion, see Hornblower (1987), 29 with n. 65; on Herodotus, above, p. 23.

¹⁹ D. Hal. Thuc. 9; on Xenophon’s use of this arrangement through Hell. 2.1.10 (which is not consistent) see HCT v.438-44. Even Thucydides’ later imitators Herodian and Dexippus (below, §8) did not follow this arrangement. For the Oxyrhynchus historian see below, p. 65.

²⁰ It is perhaps better to say that Thucydides’ system could be integrated into Greek local calendars: note the ‘fixed’ anchor to the calendars of Athens, Sparta, and Argos at 2.2.1. For the argument that Thucydides’ chronological arrangement by season was established primarily in reaction to the dating by eponymic magistrates practised by Hellanicus, see Smart, J. D., ‘Thucydides and Hellanicus’, in Moxon/Smart/Woodman (1986), 19–35 Google Scholar.

²¹ On the importance of Thucydides’ ‘writing-up’ of the war, see Loraux (above, n. 16).

²² The book divisions are not Thucydides’ own: Hemmerdinger, B., ‘La division en livres de l’oeuvre de Thucydide’, REG 61 (1948), 104–17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²³ For a useful discussion of the ‘strata of composition’ see Dover, HCT v.384-444; I have followed in the main his division of the work as presented on pp. 389–93. A certain subjectivity is, of course, involved in the notions of ‘finished’ and ‘unfinished’.

²⁴ On the question of speeches in direct vs. indirect discourse, Hornblower (1987), 138 makes the important point that indirect speech ‘cannot by itself be regarded as a simpler way’ of expressing opinions, but that it is ‘more suited to summaries of views’ and thus its presence may indicate a lesser degree of development (author’s emphases). It is dangerous, however, to assume a different level of importance in Thucydides’ decision to present a speech directly or indirectly. For a list of the speeches in indirect discourse see Luschnat (1978), 1163–6.

²⁵ See 6.1.1-5.3. Sicily had already been a theatre of action at 3.86-8, 103, 115, 4.24-5; at 4.58- 65, the peace conference at Gela led to Athenian withdrawal from Sicily.

²⁶ Even in antiquity its unusualness was noted: Marcellinus (Vit. Thuc. 43) states that doubts about Thucydidean authorship were prevalent: some thought Xenophon wrote it, some Theo- pompus, some even Thucydides’ daughter; see Henry, W. P., Greek Historical Writing (Chicago, 1967), 54–88 Google Scholar; HCT v.437-44.

²⁷ HCT v.361-83 remains fundamental, but Erbse (1989), 32–49 and Rood (1998), 262–71 express doubts that there are actual doublets.

²⁸ See Macleod (1983), 141 for the difficulty of narrating again after Sicily. Connor (1984), 210 talks also of the difficulty of ‘reopening after apparent closure’, especially after the high point of pathos brought out by the Sicilian expedition.

²⁹ Macleod (1983), 141: ‘[Book VIII’s] more tentative and less dramatic style may indicate not so much that he had not thought through his material, as that he was seeking new ways of presenting it, and felt he had a different kind of material to present.’

³⁰ For the narrative shaping of Book V, see Rood (1998), 83–108.

³¹ Cf. the Corinthians at 1.70.1-9, echoed by the narrator himself at 8.96.5.

³² Rood (1998), 253–4.

³³ On Thucydides’ minimizing of Persia and the consequences for his reliability, see below §7. On the way the narrative of Book VIII manages the changing negotiations with Persia, see Rood (1998), 262–7.

³⁴ Rood (1998), 262. Of course, it is Thucydides himself who is to blame for this expectation, given the superlatives with which he had closed Book VII. But this may, of course, be exactly how the author wished us to feel.

³⁵ Cf. Dover (1973), 30: ‘The excursus on the tyrannicides sounds as if Thucydides could not restrain himself from correcting an inconsistent belief.’

³⁶ See below at n. 49.

³⁷ Connor (1984), 176–80. The Athenians’ longing for Sicily is conceived in terms of desire (ἔρωϛ, 6.24.3); cf. 6.13.1, δυσϵρώτας τῶν ἀπόντων. On the passage see also Vickers, M. J., ‘Thucydides 6.53.3-59: Not a “Digression”’, DHA 21 (1995), 193–200 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who also equates the Peisistratids with Alcibiades.

³⁸ As at 2.65.12 and 5.26.1. But even for these we have only a terminus post quern.

³⁹ For an attempt to separate out ‘early’ and ‘late’ passages see HCT v.405-15.

⁴⁰ De Romilly (1963), 344–54; see, however, Hunter, V. J., ‘The Composition of Thucydides’ History: A New Answer to the Problem’, Historia 26 (1977), 269-94Google Scholar, and the chapter on ‘Development’ in Hornblower (1987), 136–54.

⁴¹ Fundamental in establishing this unity were de Romilly (1963) and Finley, J., ‘The Unity of Thucydides’ History’, in Finley (1967), 118-69Google Scholar.

⁴² For an interesting discussion of some ancient views on the unity of historiographical works see Heath, M., Unity in Greek Poetics (Oxford, 1989), 71–89 Google Scholar.

⁴³ These categories are not meant to be absolute, and it will be clear from the discussion below that many incidents and all of the major narratives employ all of these techniques.

⁴⁴ Parry (1957), 159–75; Flashar, H., Der Epitaphios des Thukydides (Heidelberg, 1969), 34-6Google Scholar; Macleod (1983), 150–1; Woodman (1988), 35, calling attention to the dramatic peripeteia.

⁴⁵ See Finley (1942), 168–87 on the realities of the progressive impact of war; cf. Connor (1984), 79–105; Macleod (1983), 103–22 on the important resonances of the Plataean debate.

⁴⁶ Finley (1942), 241–6; Connor (1984), 200–4; Macleod (1983), 59–60.

⁴⁷ On the importance, thematic and otherwise, of the Archaeology see de Romilly (1956), 240–98; Connor (1984), 20–32; Allison, J., Power and Preparedness in Thucydides (Atlanta, 1989), 11–27 Google Scholar; Ellis, J. R., ‘The Structure and Argument of Thucydides’ Archaeology’, CA 10 (1991), 344-80Google Scholar; Kallett-Marx (1993), 21–36; Crane, G., Thucydides and the Ancient Simplicity: The Limits of Political Realism (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, 1998), 125-71Google Scholar; cf. also below, at nn. 114–15.

⁴⁸ Hunter (1982), 45. It seems to me that the Archaeology accepts the dynamic of imperialism that is evident in Herodotus’ history (above, p. 49), subsuming it and replacing its predominantly ethical cast with new and more far-reaching elements of material progress and the elements of unpredictability and chance.

⁴⁹ There is a very extensive literature on these digressions. Schwartz (1929), 157–64 originally argued for their importance for later history; of more recent work see Rawlings (1981), 93–100 (with earlier literature); Konishi, H., ‘Thucydides’ Method in the Episodes of Pausanias and Themistocles’, AJPh 91 (1970), 52–69 Google Scholar; Rhodes, P.J., ‘Thucydides on Pausanias and Themistocles’, Historia 19 (1970), 387–400 Google Scholar; Hornblower, CT i.211-25. The digression is written in a simpler style (thus the scholiast’s memorable remark, ‘here the lion smiled’) and Westlake (above, n. 14) has suggested that a written source lay behind it; Patterson, C., ‘“Here the Lion Smiled”: A Note on Thucydides 1.127-38’, in Rosen and Farrell (1993), 145-52Google Scholar, suggests that Thucydides imitated Herodotean style specifically to correct his predecessor.

⁵⁰ Rawlings (1981), 58–64; on Archidamus’ importance see Peiling, C.B.R., ‘Herodotus’ Artabanus and Thucydides’ Archidamus’, in Georgica. Greek Studies...G. Cawkwell, edd. Flower, M. and Toher, M. (London, 1991), 120-42Google Scholar.

⁵¹ Thuc. 5.116.4 ~ 7.87.5. Reversals such as this also indicate the influence of tragedy: see n. 58, below.

⁵² Thuc. 8.96.1 remarks that the loss of Euboea was even greater than that of Sicily, although he is careful to say that Sicily seemed at the time to be disastrous: Rood (1998), 278 n. 82 identifies this remark as ‘a form of progressive correction’, but it nevertheless undercuts the claim made at 7.87.

⁵³ Cf. Rood (1998), 24–52, 104–5, for the relation of Pylos to later events. He demonstrates that the narrative is directed not only towards an immediate end (the surrender of the Spartans), but also to the later Spartan victory at Mantinea (the recovery of their hoplite ethic), and even beyond this to the final battle at Syracuse: ‘the Spartans’ inability to draw on their experience is parallel to the Athenians’ inability to use their naval skill in the final battle in the harbour at Syracuse’.

⁵⁴ Thuc. 8.96.5, where the Syracusans are όμοιότροποι to the Athenians. Cf. Sordi, M., ‘“Homoiotropoi” in Tucidide’, in ead., ed., Autoscienza e rappresentazione dei popoli (Milan, 1992), 33-8Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ On the Sicilians ‘becoming’ Athenians, see Hunter (1982), 89–90; Connor (1984), 190–1; for defeat ending in flight, cf. Xerxes’ retreat in Herodotus and the Persae; and with Thucydides 7.87.5 (τοις . . . κρατήσασι λαμπρότατον) cf. Hdt. 9.64.1 ОП Pausanias’ victory at Plataea (νίκην . . . καλλίστψ άπασέων τών ήμ€ΐς Гб/xev).

⁵⁶ On Thucydides and Herodotus see the works cited in Ch. II n. 168.

⁵⁷ Rood, T., ‘Thucydides’ Persian Wars’, in Kraus (1999), 141-68Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ On Thucydides and tragedy, see Cornford, F. M., Thucydides Mythistoricus (London, 1907)Google Scholar, an insightful but overly schematic interpretation, that shows many parallels in Thucydides to tragic narration; Macleod (1983), 140–59; Woodman (1988), 27; 60–1 n. 157, citing many parallels from Aeschylus and Euripides.

⁵⁹ On Thucydides and Homer in general see Woodman (1988), ch. 1 passim; for individual passages see Cairns, F., ‘Cleon and Pericles: A Suggestion’, JHS 102 (1982), 203-4Google Scholar; Bowie, A. M., ‘Homer, Herodotus and the “Beginnings” of Thucydides’ History ’, in Tria Lustra. Essays . . . J. Pinsent (Liverpool, 1993), 141-7Google Scholar; Frangoulidis, S. A., ‘A Pattern from Homer’s Odyssey in the Sicilian Narrative of Thucydides’, QUCC 44 (1993), 95–102 Google Scholar; Mackie, C. J., ‘Homer and Thucydides: Corcyra and Sicily’, CQ 46 (1996), 103-13CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Allison, J. W., ‘Homeric Allusions at the Close of Thucydides’ Sicilian Narrative’, AJP 118 (1997), 499–516 Google Scholar; Zadorojnyi, A. V., ‘Thucydides’ Nicias and Homer’s Agamemnon’, CQ 48 (1998), 298–303 Google Scholar; Rood, T., ‘Thucydides and his Predecessors’, Histos 2 (1998)Google Scholar, which has a useful critique of these works and important observations of its own. On Homeric influence on historiography in general, above, Ch. I, n. 3.

⁶⁰ Stahl, H.-P., ‘Speeches and Course of Events in Books Six and Seven of Thucydides’, in Städter (1973), 60–77 Google Scholar, for example notes (70-1) that Thucydides’ catalogue of forces before the Sicilian expedition is ‘a summarizing contribution to the intellectual history of the war’, because Thucydides throughout the catalogue lists not only the forces but also the reasons why the contingents chose to take the Syracusan side.

⁶¹ Cf. Rood’s (above, n. 59) nicely phrased remark that it is ‘the pained sense of unique and unrelenting actuality’ that gives the Sicilian narrative its power and pathos (§3, at fn. 40).

⁶² On the meaning of akribeia here (fidelity to historical accuracy), see Schepens (1980), 138–46; cf. Kurz, D., AKPIBEIA: Das Ideal der Exaktheit bei den Griechen bis Aristoteles (Göppingen, 1970), 40–61 Google Scholar.

⁶³ First-person remarks occur at 1.1.3, 1.9.1, 1.20.1, 1.93.7, 6.54.1; for the use of the phrase 8οκ€Ϊμοι, see Marincola, J., ‘Thucydides 1.22.2’, CP 84 (1989), 216-23Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ On the Archaeology as written to win authority for the narrator, see Connor, W. R., ‘Narrative Discourse in Thucydides’, in: The Greek Historians: Literature and History. Papers...A. E. Raubitschek (Saratoga, Cal., 1985), 1–17 Google Scholar, at pp. 3–7; contra, P. Robinson, ibid., 22–3; cf. Gribble, D., ‘Narrator Interventions in Thucydides’, JHS 118 (1998), 41–67, at p. 43Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ So rightly Gribble (n. 64), 47 against Loraux (n. 16), 156.

⁶⁶ Gribble (n. 64), passim, esp. 54, 56. I agree with Gribble that the use of the narrative voice ‘is not to establish authority to silence critics’ (56), but this seems to me to minimize the controversy that would attend an evaluation such as that of 2.65.

⁶⁷ See below, n. 140.

⁶⁸ A list of such passages is given by Andrewes, HCT v.365-7.

⁶⁹ For other examples, see Hornblower, S., ‘Narratology and Narrative Techniques in Thucy- dides’, in id. (1994), 131-66Google Scholar, at 139–8 (who is mostly concerned with how a historian differs from writers of fiction in the matter of anachrony); Rood (1998), 109–30 analyses how anachrony works in context.

⁷⁰ Thuc. 2.51.1, with Woodman (1988), 37–9. A much briefer notice of its second outbreak is given at 3.87.1-2.

⁷¹ Thuc. 3.81.5, 3.82.2.

⁷² On the iterative presentation here, see Hornblower, CT ii. 230–1; on the role that Megara plays in Thucydides’ explanation of the causes of the war, see now Peiling (2000), 82–111.

⁷³ Plut, de glor. Ath. 347A; cf. Walker, A. D., ‘ Enargeia and the Spectator in Greek Historiography’, TAPA 123 (1993), 353-77Google Scholar, esp. 355–6.

⁷⁴ Thuc. 1.79.2 (Archidamus); 2.34.6 (Pericles); 4.28.5 (Cleon). Hornblower (1994), 135 points out that it sometimes is uncertain whether the judgement given in the narrative is that of the participants or the narrator. When, for example, the first Athenian ship sent to Mytilene is described as not hurrying ‘on their unusual [or unwelcome] task (іш πράγμα άλλόκοτονΥ does the adjective characterize the view of the Athenians or Thucydides? This technique has been termed ‘implicit embedded focalization’ (so de Jong, I. J. F., Narrators and Focalizers: The Presentation of the Story in the Iliad (Amsterdam, 1987), 118-22Google Scholar, and by Fowler, Don ‘deviant focalization’: ‘Deviant Focalisation in Virgil’s Aeneid, ’ in id., Roman Constructions (Oxford, 2000), 40–64 Google Scholar (orig. PCPhS 216 (1990), 42–63).

⁷⁵ On evaluations of character in later historiography, see Fornara (1983), 107–12 and below, pp. 110–11; on narrative impartiality, Marincola (1997), 171–4.

⁷⁶ Rood (1998), passim, but cf. esp. 284–93.

⁷⁷ A bibliography can be no more than partial. Some 350 items are covered in William C. West Ill’s bibliography in Stadter (1973), 124–61. Important items (to limit oneself just to English) since that time include: de Ste. Croix, G.E.M., The Origins of the Peloponnesian War (London and Ithaca, 1972), 7–16 Google Scholar; Dover (1973), 21–7; HCTv. 393–9; Rokeah, P. D., ‘Speeches in Thucydides: Factual Reporting or Creative Writing?’, Athenaeum 60 (1982), 386-01Google Scholar; Wilson, J., ‘What Does Thucydides Claim for his Speeches?’, Phoenix 36 (1982), 95–103 Google Scholar; Macleod (1983), chs. 9–11; Woodman (1988), 11–15; Plant, I., ‘A Note on Thucydides 1.22.1: ή ξύμττασα γνώμη = general sense?’, Athenaeum 66 (1988), 201-2Google Scholar; Rusten, J. S., Thucydides: The Peloponnesian War Book II (Cambridge, 1989), 7–17 Google Scholar; Hornblower (1987), 45–72; id., CT ii.81-93; Cole, T., The Origins of Rhetoric in Greece (Baltimore and London, 1991), 104-11Google Scholar; Badian, E., ‘Thucydides on Rendering Speeches’, Athenaeum 80 (1992), 187-90Google Scholar; Moles (1993), 103–7; Laird, A., Powers of Expression, Expressions of Power (Oxford, 1999), 143-52Google Scholar; Peiling (2000), 112–22.

⁷⁸ A list of the speeches can be found in IIIWest, W. C., ‘The Speeches in Thucydides: A Description and Listing’, in Stadter (1973), 3–15 Google Scholar; cf. Luschnat (1978), 1163–6, who tabulates them by type (direct vs. indirect, one or many addressees, etc.).

⁷⁹ It is worthwhile to point out that Thucydides, unlike Herodotus, felt that his use of speeches demanded explanation; his predecessor, by contrast, had said nothing of his attitude: cf. Pelling (2000), 118, ‘The original audience, accustomed as they were to epic, Herodotus, and logographers, might rather be struck by any concern for accuracy, that Thucydides claimed so much as to keep as closely as possible to the real speeches’ (author’s emphases).

⁸⁰ Grosskinsky, A., Das Programm des Thukydides (Berlin, 1936)Google Scholar; Egermann, F., ‘Thukydides über die Art seiner Reden und Darstellung der Kriegsgeschehnisse’, Historia 21 (1972), 575–602 Google Scholar is also important.

⁸¹ See Macleod (1983), 52, making the connection with Gorgias and Isocrates.

⁸² Dover (1973), 22; ‘general purport’ is the translation of Adcock, F. E., Thucydides and His History (Cambridge, 1963), 27 Google Scholar; de Ste. Croix (above, n. 77) 7–16 prefers ‘main thesis’ (p. 10); Moles (1993), 104 translates ‘general drift’, but this too seems to me open to Dover’s objections. Badian (above, n. 77) has recently revived Schwartz’s interpretation of gnômê as ‘intention’; cf., however, Peiling (2000), 274 n. 10 for problems with this.

⁸³ Dover (1973), 22.

⁸⁴ Schneider (1974), 148–9, with nn. 347–8 cites the passages in which Thucydides uses ξνμπας, and notes that both meanings (emphasizing either ‘the sum of individual parts’, or ‘the whole as opposed to its parts’) occur; the former seems more common.

⁸⁵ As Pelling (2000), 117 suggests: ‘One possibility is that he is providing an umbrella description which could cover a range of different procedures and that he composed more freely at some times than at others.’

⁸⁶ For akribeia see above, n. 62.

⁸⁷ For example, speeches by generals who are killed in the subsequent battle. Even though it is possible that surviving soldiers reported on these events, the trauma surrounding the battle itself makes it unlikely that they could have had much detailed memory of what their generals had said. On speeches of generals, see below, n. 102.

⁸⁸ Hornblower (1987), 52–66 provides a good overview of the kinds of arguments that have been used for and against the historicity of the speeches. It may be worth noting that he can find only four points that have been made in favour of the authenticity of the speeches, but nine against. He makes a decidedly odd observation, however, that the ‘formally perfect patterns of argument’ are no evidence against authenticity, since they show ‘that [Thucydides] tidied things up, just as he tidied Kleon out of the way in Book I’ (65); this comes dangerously close to distortion; for a somewhat different interpretation, see below, pp. 81–2.

⁸⁹ Hammond, N.G.L., ‘The Particular and the Universal in the Speeches in Thucydides with Special Reference to that of Hermocrates at Gela’, in Stadter (1973), 49–59 Google Scholar; cf. Cook, A. B., ‘Particular and General in Thucydides’, ICS 10 (1985), 23–51 Google Scholar, and below, nn. 174–5.

⁹⁰ Cf. Aristotle’s example (Rhet. 1402al7ff.) that a weak man will defend himself by arguing that it is improbable that he would attack a strong man; even more to the point is the development of enthymeme and example, which ‘achieved persuasion with the minimum of effort on the part of the orator and had about it two characteristics which appealed to the Greeks, verbal agility and seeming dependence on a law of nature that given certain facts predictable results follow’ ( Kennedy, G., The Art of Persuasion in Greece (Princeton, 1963), 32)Google Scholar. One might object that this systematized rhetoric is a feature of the fourth century, but the use of probability is as old as the first rhetorical handbooks of Corax and Tisias (Plat. Phaedr. 267a6-7). For a possible example of’the probable’ in details, see Woodman (1988), 27–8.

⁹¹ Finley, J. H., ‘The Origins of Thucydides’ Style’, in Finley (1967), 55–117 Google Scholar; Gommel, J., Rhetorisches Argumentieren bei Thukydides (Hildesheim, 1966)Google Scholar; cf. Westalke, H. D., “Ως ΕΙκός in Thucydides’, in Westlake (1969), 153-60Google Scholar. See Schmid-Stählin i.5.199-200 for gnomic utterances in Thucydides, and the more detailed treatment in Meister, C., Die Gnomik im Geschichtswerk des Thukydides (diss. Zurich, 1955)Google Scholar.

⁹² Cf. also Rood (1998), 48–52 on the dangers of inferring sources from narrative manipulation, and likewise the risk of assuming that narrative decisions are the direct consequence of source limitations.

⁹³ For generals’ speeches, see below, p. 83.

⁹⁴ Thuc. 1.140-4; the ‘many and varied’ speeches made at the assembly on both sides of the issue are disposed of in a mere three lines, 139.4.

⁹⁵ Thuc. 4.17-20 for the Spartans’ speech, 21–2 for Cleon’s demands and the Spartan response. Not surprisingly, prejudice against Cleon has been assumed here; while we do not need to discount this possibility, we must not overlook that something much larger is at stake, for the Athenian position at this point is a crucial one: they are at the apex of their fortune, still unharmed in their empire, and their decision here has far-reaching consequences for the future progress of the war. The acceptance of peace would have meant victory in the war, and most likely a great Spartan reluctance in future to challenge Athens. But the Athenians are overcome by their desire for more (τοϋ бе πλέονος ώρέγοντο, 4.21.2, cf. 17.4 where the Spartans warn against just this thing): on the theme seeMacleod (1983), 149–50; Wilson, J. R., ‘ Sophrosyne in Thucydides’, AHB 4 (1990), 51-7Google Scholar; Peiling, C., ‘Conclusion’, in id., ed., Greek Tragedy and the Historian (Oxford, 1997), 233 Google Scholar; Rood (1998), 39–40, with n. 46, and the works cited below, n. 123. The Athenians now begin to move inexorably towards the circumstances that will ultimately undo them. On the individual level, Cleon’s rejection of the peace has disastrous consequences for himself, since his acceptance of the peace would have precluded his death at Amphipolis.

⁹⁶ Macleod (1983), 69.

⁹⁷ On logos and ergon see below, pp. 89–90.

⁹⁸ Although they do not necessarily represent Thucydides’ own opinions: see Hornblower (1987), 163–4; Rood (1998), 40–3 shows nicely how this works in a specific incident.

⁹⁹ The brilliance of this speeech has brought forward innumerable treatments: Flashar (above, n. 44) treats bibliography up to the late 1960s; recent analyses include: Ziokowski, J., Thucydides and the Tradition of Funeral Speeches in Athens (New York, 1981)Google Scholar; Connor (1984), 66–72; Hornblower, CTI 294–316; Bosworth, A. B., ‘The Historical Context of Thucydides’ Funeral Oration’, JHS 120 (2000), 1–16 Google Scholar, arguing for the importance of the speech’s historical context in the second year of the war. On the entire genre of the epitaphios, Loraux, N., The Invention of Athens (Cambridge, Mass., 1986 Google Scholar; tr. by Alan Sheridan of French orig., Paris, 1981) is fundamental.

¹⁰⁰ D. Hal. Thuc. 42 considered these the finest speeches in Thucydides. For analysis see Macleod, C., ‘Thucydides’ Plataean Debate’, in Macleod (1983), 103-22Google Scholar.

¹⁰¹ For the role of speeches in characterization, see below, pp. 97–8; for the interrelation of speech and action, below, pp. 89–90.

¹⁰² On speeches of generals, see Luschnat, O., Die Feldherrnreden im Geschichtswerk des Thukydides (Leipzig, 1942)Google Scholar; Leimbach, R., Militärische Musterrhetorik: Eine Untersuchung zu den Feldherrnreden des Thukydides (Stuttgart, 1985)Google Scholar. Recently, Hansen, M. H., ‘The Battle Exhortation in Ancient Historiography: Fact or Fiction?’, Historia 42 (1993), 161-80Google Scholar, has challenged the idea that generals gave speeches before battles. Leaving aside the issue of whether Thucydides’ speeches are good examples of actual exhortations, it does seem to be the case that in antiquity, at least, speeches of this sort were expected: see Ehrhardt, C., ‘Speeches before Battle’, Historia 44 (1995), 120-1Google Scholar; Hornblower, CT ii. 82, citing Thucydides 5.69.2 as evidence against Hansen. He might also have cited Polybius (below, p. 131).

¹⁰³ Contra, Hornblower, CT ii. 290–1, who sees Pagondas as a representative of ‘old-fashioned speaking, άρχαιολογ€Ϊν’

¹⁰⁴ In this sense it functions like contrary-to-fact conditions in Thucydides: see Drexler, H., Thukydides-Studien (Hildesheim, 1976), 183-8Google Scholar; Flory, S., ‘Thucydides’ Hypotheses about the Peloponnesian War’, TAPhA 118 (1988), 43–56 Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁵ Thucydides 2.12.3; the words allude both to Homer (‘the evil-beginning ships’, Il. 5.62) and to Herodotus, the ships of the Ionian revolt being the ‘beginning of evils’ (5.97.3). For the motif see below, pp. 142, 146 n. 139.

¹⁰⁶ Thucydides 3.113.5. The motif is a recognition (άναγνώρισις) scene borrowed from tragedy: see Lateiner (1977); id., ‘Heralds and Corpses in Thucydides’, CW 71 (1977), 97–106.

¹⁰⁷ Thucydides 4.40.2; Edmunds (1975), 102–9 has a good discussion of this, seeing it as revealing of the differences in Athenian and Spartan character. Yet I wonder whether something more is at stake here, since the scene calls to mind two passages in Herodotus concerning Spartans and arrows: the jaunty remark of Dieneces before Thermopylae (with which Pylos had been explicitly compared by Thucydides, 4.36.3) that the arrows of the Persians would provide relief by their shade (Hdt. 7.226.2); and (more evocatively) the complaint of the Spartan Kallikrates, wounded by an arrow before the battle of Plataea even began, who lamented not that he was dying, but rather that he was dying without having done anything worthy of himself (9.72).

¹⁰⁸ On Thucydides’ attribution of motives see Montgomery (1965), 50–95; Hunter (1973); Schneider (1974); Pearson, L., ‘Thucydides as Reporter and Critic’, in Pearson (1983), 67–90 Google Scholar (orig. TAPhA 78 (1947), 37–60); de Romilly (1956), 107–79; Westlake, H. D., ‘Personal Motives, Aims and Feelings in Thucydides’, in Westlake (1989), 201-23Google Scholar. Also of interest for the topic is Huart, P., Le vocabulaire de l’analyse psychologique dans l’oeuvre de Thucydide (Paris, 1968)Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁹ This is the conclusion of both Hunter (1973) and Schneider (1974), although they arrive at it by different means.

¹¹⁰ Party (1989), 291. It goes without saying that the influence of Homer will have been fundamental on Thucydides’ conception of what counted as a ‘great’ or ‘memorable’ deed: Moles (1993), 111–14.

¹¹¹ See above, p. 41.

¹¹² Cf. Ostwald (1988), 61: ‘“Modernist” and “post-modernist” have the same Thucydides in common, but each chooses to emphasize only one aspect of a complex personality at the expense of another, and each side believes it has captured the essential quality of the whole.’

¹¹³ Paul, G. M., ‘Two Battles in Thucydides’, EMC 31 (1987), 307-12Google Scholar emphasizes Thucydides’ preference for the general in battle descriptions; contrast this with Polybius, who really did have an interest in the technical aspects of battle: see below, p. 123.

¹¹⁴ On the Archaeology see the works cited above, n. 47; on the meaning of the term παρασκ€υή see Allison (above, n. 47), 28–44, who points out that the word occurs in Thucydides’ contemporaries a mere 11 times, but in Thucydides alone 104 times.

¹¹⁵ Kallett-Marx (1993), passim argues that Thucydides’ lack of attention to details of tribute-collection and finance should not be taken as evidence of an indifference to such matters.

¹¹⁶ On dynamic finances see Crane (above, n. 47), 148–71.

¹¹⁷ Thuc. 6.31.1–2, παρασκ€νη . . . πολυτελζστάτη 8η καί €υττρ€π€στάτη τών ¿ς CKCLVOV rov χρόνον

¹¹⁸ Rood (1998), 22 with n. 70 rightly emphasizes this aspect, aptly citing Theog. 329–30, ‘the slow man of good counsel overtakes the swift’.

¹¹⁹ On intelligence in Thucydides see Edmunds (1975), 9–10; Huart (above, n. 108), 346–57; Hornblower, CT ii.124-5.

¹²⁰ On the importance of intelligence, with special reference to Pericles, cf. Edmunds (1975), 7- 88.

¹²¹ At certain points in the history, most notably the narrative of the campaign of Pylos, the element of chance seems almost dominating: Edmunds (1975), 176–9 notes that of seven uses of tyche in the narrator’s own voice, five occur in connection with Pylos; not surprisingly, this has been seen by some as Thucydides’ way of diminishing the actions of Cleon, who could have, in a differently-written narrative, been seen as the hero: see the bibliography cited at Hornblower, CT ii. 149–50. Rood (1998), 24–57 offers an excellent analysis of the Pylos episode.

¹²² Parry (1957), 181–5; id. (1989), 176 remarks that Thucydides leaves it unclear whether foresight and will can overcome chance; but the Athenians do ‘win’ the Archidamian War (as Parry notes, ibid.), and the absence of foresight in Pericles’ successors is precisely what dooms the Athenians in the second part of the war; see below, pp. 95–7.

¹²³ Thucydides 4.18.3-4, with Edmunds (1975), 100–2. Even if the victory was the result of chance, an intelligent use of that chance would have made the Athenians accept the Spartan offer; but here the irrational ‘desire for more’ overcomes, and eventually destroys, all that has been won by intelligence and foresight: see Hornblower (1987), 178–9, 188–90 (relating this pleonexia to the Corcyra episode); cf. below, §6 on the Athenians’ character, and on the importance of Pylos as a turning-point in the war for both Sparta and (less obviously) Athens, see Rood (1998), 55–7.

¹²⁴ As the Spartans say, Thuc. 4.18.3.

¹²⁵ D. Hal. Pomp. 3 (ii. 382–4 Usher); see also Woodman (1988), 28–32.

¹²⁶ Parry, A., ‘Thucydides’ Historical Perspective’, in Parry (1989), 286–300 Google Scholar (orig. YCS 22 (1972), 47–61; Lateiner (1977).

¹²⁷ So, for example, the civil strife at Corcyra ends with the destruction of the oligarchic party (4.47-8); and cf. Thucydides’ remark (3.82) that stasis was fomented by the various sides calling in the great powers, as they would not have been able to do in peacetime.

¹²⁸ Cf. the famous characterization of war as a ‘violent teacher’ (3.82.2); cf. Edmunds, L., ‘Thucydides’ Ethics as Reflected in the Description of Stasis (3.82-3)’, HSCP 79 (1975), 73–92 Google Scholar.

¹²⁹ As Hermocrates urges them to do at 6.34; in doing so, they imitate the pattern of the Greeks in Herodotus during the Persian Wars: Connor (1984), 175.

¹³⁰ On superlatives see below, nn. 175–6.

¹³¹ On the Ambraciots, see Thuc. 3.113.6; on Sicily see Avery, H. C., ‘Themes in Thucydides’ Account of the Sicilian Expedition’, Hermes 101 (1973), 1–13 Google Scholar; Kirby, J. T., ‘Narrative Structure and Technique in Thucydides VI-VII’, CA 2 (1983), 183–211, at 186–90Google Scholar; on the role of focalization in assisting this psychological presentation, Rood (1998), 168–82.

¹³² Parry (1957), 178–84.

¹³³ Parry (1957), 150–75.

¹³⁴ Logos and ergon also operate at the metahistorical level, in that Thucydides’ logos is the means of preservation, and of understanding, of the ergon that was the Peloponnesian War.

¹³⁵ Stahl (1966); an English translation by the author himself is forthcoming.

¹³⁶ Stahl (1966), 75–81 for Archidamus, 86–95 for Phormio. A similar view of the distance between human calculation and actual result informs Babut, D., ‘L’épisode de Pylos-Sphactérie chez Thucydide: L’agencement du récit et les intentions de l’historien’, RPh 60 (1986), 59–79 Google Scholar.

¹³⁷ Stahl (above, n. 60); the quotation is from p. 63.

¹³⁸ Stahl (above, n. 60), 62: ‘to state it pointedly, elucidation of speeches by the narration of events seems the adequate method of reading Thucydides.’

¹³⁹ On the importance of the ending in interpretation of the text, see above Ch. II, n. 124.

¹⁴⁰ Cf. Connor (1984), 231, notes that the narrative that we possess is so written that it ‘resists encapsulation and demands, in Walt Whitman’s words, that the reader “do something for himself . . ., must himself or herself construct. . . the . . . history”‘ (his ellipses).

¹⁴¹ Above, n. 125.

¹⁴² See above, p. 71.

¹⁴³ There is a vast literature on Pericles; see Chambers, M., ‘Thucydides and Pericles’, HSCP 72 (1957), 79–92 Google Scholar; de Romilly (1963), 110–55; Westlake (1968), 23–42; von Fritz (1967), i. 662–80. On the similarity of roles between Pericles the politician and Thucydides the historian see Farrar, C., The Origins of Democratic Thinking (Cambridge, 1988), 187-9Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁴ Hussey, E., ‘Thucydidean History and Democritean Theory’, in Crux. Essays...G.E.M, de Ste. Croix, edd. Cartledge, P. A. and Harvey, F. D. (London, 1985), 118-38Google Scholar, at p. 120; he brings out well the indebtedness of Thucydides’ political observations to the philosophical speculations of his contemporaries. See also Yunis, H., ‘How do the People Decide? Thucydides on Periclean Rhetoric and Civic Instruction’, AJP 112 (1991), 179–200 Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁵ See Farrar (above, n. 143), 158–77; Bender, G. F., Der Begriff des Staatsmannes bei Thukydides (Würzburg, 1938)Google Scholar. A few leaders, of course, have neither Pericles’ personal nor his public qualities: Cleon and Hyperbolus come to mind.

¹⁴⁶ Thuc. 1.68-71, echoed by the narrator at 8.96.5; on the national characters, Connor (1984), 36–47.

¹⁴⁷ As noted above, however, (n. 118), we must not fail to see that the Spartans too have qualities that might indicate for them a victory in the future. It is intensely frustrating not to know how Thucydides would, at the end, have portrayed Spartan victory, whether it would have been the triumph of Lysander, the new Brasidas, temporarily imposing on his city a new, more aggressive character, or whether it would more have been the Athenians’ loss; the latter is certainly the thought one has from 2.65; and as late as 8.96.5, Thucydides maintains the characterization of Sparta as slow and unwilling to follow up on their advantages.

¹⁴⁸ Note, for example, that the Corinthians have far fewer things to say of the Spartans than Athenians, and that after a brief comparison of the two (1.70.2-4, comprising 11 lines), they then go on to characterize more fully the Athenians (1.70.5-9, 18 lines).

¹⁴⁹ Or, to use our earlier terms (above, p. 82), saw fit to include.

¹⁵⁰ The notion of Thucydides as Athens’ or Pericles’ apologist, however, no longer holds sway. See Strasburger, H., ‘Thukydides und die politische Selbstdarstellung der Athener’, in id., Studien zur Alten Geschichte (Berlin, 1982), ii.676–708 Google Scholar (orig. Hermes 86 (1958), 17–40); crucial for the estimate of Thucydides’ views about Athenian government (which is not the same as his view of Athenian society or culture) is 8.97.2, his remark that under the 5,000, the ‘Athenians were well-governed, at least for the first time in my lifetime’; predictably, controversy swirls around the meaning of those words: see the summary at HCT v.331-40, but the translation there is not acceptable; for brief but good observations see Hornblower (1987), 160–2; cf. Heath, M., ‘Thucydides’ Political Judgement’, LCM 15 (1990), 158-60Google Scholar; and Hussey, cited above, n. 144.

¹⁵¹ Thuc. 2.41.4; cf. 2.65.5, where Athens is said to be at her greatest under Pericles.

¹⁵² Ellis, J. R., ‘Characters in the Sicilian Expedition’, QS 10 (1979), 39–69 Google Scholar; Kirby (above, n. 131), 186–90.

¹⁵³ For the Athenian refusal, 7.72 (where their refusal even to ask for permission to take up the dead recalls the loss of spirit attendant on the plague, 2.51.4, and their failure to observe the customs of burial, 2.52.4); for Pylos as a forerunner of Syracuse, see above, n. 53.

¹⁵⁴ Overschematized, of course: the Athenians display bravery and daring in Book VIII; but the overall movement is towards a greater passive suffering (witness the effects of Euboea, 8.96); and guile had been a part of their character from the time of Themistocles’ ruse about the walls (1.90-1).

¹⁵⁵ Gribble, D., Alcibiades and Athens: A Study in Literary Presentation (Oxford, 1999), 166-9Google Scholar has a brief but useful summary of how Thucydides uses characters to organize the narrative; in some cases, a single character represents the traits of many others of that type.

¹⁵⁶ On Thucydides’ portrayal of Brasidas, see Westlake (1968), 148–65, and the detailed treatment of Hornblower, CT ii. 38–61 (with full bibliography), to which much of this paragraph is indebted. Brasidas is an ‘Athenian’ Spartan, Nicias a ‘Spartan’ Athenian: Edmunds (1975), 109–42.

¹⁵⁷ His speech at Acanthus (4.85-87) skilfully combines both elements.

¹⁵⁸ On his death as that of a hero, and for the argument that Thucydides’ portrait of Brasidas is directly modelled on epic, see Howie’s, J. G. article (in Greek), Parnassos 34 (1992), 425-88Google Scholar, with English summary 447–8; the article is summarized by Hornblower, CT ii.39, n. 99, who also helpfully includes part of Howie’s English summary.

¹⁵⁹ On Nicias in Thucydides, see Westlake (1968), 86–96, 169–211; Connor (1984), 198–207; Marinatos, N., ‘Nicias as a Wise Adviser and Tragic Warner in Thucydides’, Philologus 124 (1980), 305-10Google Scholar. The historian’s opinion of Nicias continues to arouse lively debate.

¹⁶⁰ Thuc. 3.51, 4.27, 129–32.

¹⁶¹ Thuc. 6.9.2, with the discussion of Gribble (above, n. 155), 211–12.

¹⁶² Croesus captures the relationship pointedly when he offers the benefit of his experience to Cyrus, saying simply, ‘my sufferings have become my learnings’ (Hdt. 1.207.1). Connor (1984), 163–4 notes that when Nicias exaggerates his need in requisitioning men and matériel, he abandons the role of wise adviser. This sets in motion the train of events that leads to his own doom.

¹⁶³ Although Thucydides refrains from direct criticism of Nicias’ actions, it is clear that his hesitation contributed to two great errors: he failed to do anything of note at the beginning when a display of power might have been successful (7.42.3, with Dover, K. J., ‘Thucydides’ Historical Judgement: Athens and Sicily’, in Dover (1988), 74–82 Google Scholar (orig. PRIA 81 (1981), 231–8)), and he allowed Gylippus to slip into Syracuse, just when the Athenians were on the verge of victory (6.104.3): Kern, P. B., ‘The Turning Point in the Sicilian Expedition’, CB 65 (1989), 77–82 Google Scholar shows how this event also marks a turning point in Thucydides’ narrative technique.

¹⁶⁴ His fear of punishment at the hands of the Athenians, should the Sicilian venture come to nothing, stands in stark contrast to the Pericles who tells the Athenians what they must hear and is then fined and deposed (2.65.3-4).

¹⁶⁵ For Alcibiades, see Westlake (1968), 212–60; most of the important bibliography is now cited in Gribble (above, n. 155), 159–213, who well brings out the paradoxes of Alcibiades in Thucydides’ portrayal, especially how appearances are of paramount importance to Alcibiades, and how Alcibiades fits in to the overall context of the History.

¹⁶⁶ This is the well-known thesis of Westlake (1968), but see now the arguments of Gribble (above, n. 155), 159–63.

¹⁶⁷ The question of whether Thucydides’ judgement that the Athenian expedition failed because of the political dissension at home (2.65.11) is borne out by the narrative is one that has vexed scholars for a long time; see (inter alia) HCT ii. 195–6; v.423-7; Erbse (1989), 83–92; Rood (1998), 177–82; Cawkwell (1997), 75–82.

¹⁶⁸ Thuc. 8.48.4, where the historian indicates his agreement with Phrynichus’ evaluation by the words оттер каі ην.

¹⁶⁹ Tompkins, D., ‘Stylistic Characterization in Thucydides: Nicias and Alcibiades’, YCS 22 (1972), 181–214 Google Scholar.

¹⁷⁰ Boegehold, A., ‘Thucydides’ Representation of Brasidas before Amphipolis’, CP 74 (1979), 148–52 Google Scholar; cf. Allison, J., ‘Sthenelaidas’ Speech: Thucydides 1.86’, Hermes 112 (1984), 9–16 Google Scholar; Bloedow, E. F., ‘Sthenelaidas the Persuasive Spartan’, Hermes 115 (1987), 60-6Google Scholar; Francis, E., ‘Brachylogia Laconica: Spartan Speeches in Thucydides’, BICS 38 (1991-3), 198–212 Google Scholar; Hornblower, CT ii. 43–6.

¹⁷¹ Tompkins, D., ‘Archidamus and the Question of Characterization in Thucydides’, in Rosen and Farrell (1993), 99–111 Google Scholar. See also his ‘Thucydides Constructs His Speakers: The Case of Diodotus’, Electronic Antiquity 1.1(1993).

¹⁷² On the former, Heath, M., ‘Justice in Thucydides’ Speeches’, Historia 39 (1990), 385–400 Google Scholar; on the latter, Debnar, P., ‘The Unpersuasive Thebans (Thucydides 3.61-7)’, Phoenix 50 (1996), 95–110 Google Scholar argues that Thucydides mimics the well-known view in antiquity of the Thebans as poor speakers.

¹⁷³ Cornford (above, n. 58); Collingwood, R. G., The Idea of History (Oxford, 1946), 29 Google Scholar.

¹⁷⁴ Yet Dover (1973), 4 noted long ago that in the few places where we could compare Thucydides with other sources, there were almost always problems: ‘It is disturbing to find that in those few cases where we can actually consider what Thucydides says in the light of demonstrably independent evidence (including topography) the usual outcome is not renewed confidence but doubt.’ See also Cawkwell (1997), 8–12 for a balanced discussion.

¹⁷⁵ Grant, J. R., ‘Towards Knowing Thucydides’, Phoenix 28 (1974), 81–94 Google Scholar collects the passages of superlatives; cf. the brief list in Woodman (1988), 31–2, who points out that such exaggeration is exactly what Thucydides criticizes in the poets (29). On superlatives in Herodotus, see above, p. 30.

¹⁷⁶ Flory, S., ‘Πάσα ίδέα in Thucydides’, AJP 109 (1988), 12–19 Google Scholar; Woodman (1988), 26–8. One might note as well Thucydides’ occasional use of high numbers, the ‘more than 40,000’ people who left the Athenian camp at Syracuse for the final retreat (7.75.5), or the ‘more than 20,000’ slaves that deserted as a result of the fortification of Decelea (7.27.5). Here a desire to emphasize the magnitude of the tragedy or the effect of Spartan action is paramount; but it must be noted that in general Thucydides is far more conservative with numbers than most ancient historians. See Rubincam, C. R., ‘Qualification of Numerals in Thucydides’, AJAH 4 (1979), 77–95 Google Scholar; ead., ‘Casualty Figures in the Battle Descriptions of Thucydides’, TAPA 121 (1991), 181–98; Hanson, V. D., ‘Thucydides and the Desertion of Slaves during the Decelean War’, CA 11 (1992), 210-28Google Scholar.

¹⁷⁷ Grant (above, n. 175), 86–7.

¹⁷⁸ Thuc. 4.8.6. On the problem of Pylos and Sphacteria, see now Hornblower, CT ii. 149–50, 159–60, who cites the relevant bibliography, and opts for the solution of Bauslaugh, R. A., ‘Thucydides IV 8.6 and the South Channel at Pylos’, JHS 99 (1979), 1–6 Google Scholar, that the word σταδιων has fallen out of the text and that Thucydides meant therefore that the channel was eight or nine stades wide, not that it was wide enough for eight or nine ships (which is far too narrow). One’s confidence in this emendation is undermined, however, by the fact that Thucydides gets the length of the island wrong as well (ibid.), prompting yet another emendation of ‘twenty-five’ for ‘fifteen’. Horblower, CT ii. 160 adds the further complication that μέγβθος, translated as ‘length’, means ‘circumference’ at 6.1.1, which would be an even greater error. For other topographical errors see HCT V.363.

¹⁷⁹ Fundamental is Jacoby, F., ‘Patrios Nomos: State Burial in Athens and the Public Cemetery in the Kerameikos’, in Jacoby (1956), 260–315 Google Scholar (orig. JHS 64 (1944), 37–66), with the additional bibliography at Hornblower, CT i. 292–3.

¹⁸⁰ IG i³. 364 (= ML 61), lines 19–21 names Glaukon, Metagenes, and Drakon(tides?), while Thuc. 1.51.4 gives Glaukon and Andokides; for possible solutions see Meiggs and Lewis ad loc. For the one general for Sicily, see ML 78, fragment (b), line 2. Because of the unresolved nature of the evidence, I have not discussed IG i³. 11 (= ML 37), where the restoration ‘Antiphon’ in place of ‘Hagnon’ for the archon would convict Thucydides of serious error; see Cawkwell (1997), 12–13 for a summary of the issues.

¹⁸¹ We do, of course, have the substantial comparandum of the account of the revolution of 411 in Book VIII with that of the Aristotelian Athenaion Politela. The value of this, however, is less than might be expected, since differences are only to be expected in so highly charged an event, and (more to the point) there is good evidence that the author of the Aristotelian tract used Thucydides. Nonetheless, we should note that this later account does not contradict Thucydides in any substantial way. For the narrative of the 411 Revolution, see Andrewes, HCT v. 184–251. Rhodes, P.J., A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politela (Oxford, 1981), 364-5Google Scholar has a very useful table of Thucydides’ and A.P.’s accounts. It is worth noting that the one thing missing from the latter is the Thucydidean separation of surface appearance and underlying reality (the logos/ergon distinction): see Rhodes, P.J., ‘The Five Thousand in the Athenian Revolution of 411 B.C.’, JHS 92 (1972), 115-27Google Scholar, esp. 115–6 with n. 4. See also Harris, E., ‘The Constitution of the Five Thousand’, HSCP 93 (1990), 243-88Google Scholar.

¹⁸² Hunter (1973), passim, esp. 177–84.

¹⁸³ Hunter (1973), 184.

¹⁸⁴ On the development of objectivity as a historiographical desideratum, see Novick, P., That Noble Dream. The ‘Objectivity Question’ and the American Historical Profession (Cambridge, 1988), esp. 21–60, 281–319Google Scholar.

¹⁸⁵ Stahl (1966); Pelling (above, n. 50).

¹⁸⁶ See the article of Dover, cited above, n. 163.

¹⁸⁷ Thucydides did manipulate data, if by ‘manipulate’ we mean put into a certain order and interpretation. Every historian must do this, if he is to establish a meaning beyond that of the individual events themselves: see above, Introduction, p. 6.

¹⁸⁹ Unlike Herodotus, Thucydides rarely refers to his own selectivity; a revealing example is the remark on fighting in Sicily in summer 426: ‘The Sicilians were fighting amongst themselves, and the Athenians with their allies also engaged in some expeditions. But I shall make mention of those things that were most worthy of account (а бе λόγου μάλιστα α£ια), either those of the allies with the Athenians or those of their opponents against the Athenians’ (3.90.1).

¹⁹⁰ Thucydides is not unaware of the role of religion in the war, as witnessed by his citation of oracles, but he minimizes religious motivation and the role that this plays in the actions of the war. Passages on religion are collected by Strauss, L., ‘Preliminary Observations on the Gods in Thucydides’ Work’, Interpretation 4-1 (1974), 1–16 Google Scholar; see further Oost, S.I., ‘Thucydides and the Irrational: Sundry Passages’, CP 70 (1975), 186-96Google Scholar; Powell, A., ‘Thucydides and Divination’, BICS 26 (1979), 45–50 Google Scholar; N. Marinatos, ‘Thucydides and Oracles’, JHS 138–40, which is also part of ch. 4 of the same author’s Thucydides and Religion (Königstein, 1981); Jordan, B., ‘Religion in Thucydides,’ TAPhA 116 (1986), 119-47Google Scholar; Dover, K. J., ‘Thucydides on Oracles’, in Dover (1988), 65–73 Google Scholar; Hornblower, S., ‘The Religious Dimension to the Peloponnesian War, or What Thucydides does not Tell Us’, HSCP 94 (1992), 169-97Google Scholar.

¹⁹¹ See Andrewes, A., ‘Thucydides and the Persians’, Historia 10 (1961), 1–18 Google Scholar; Lewis, D., Sparta and Persia (Leiden, 1977), 60–82 Google Scholar; Cawkwell (1997), 15–16.

¹⁹² The other approach is to interpret these ‘silences’ as evidence of Tendenz in the historian, by which he deliberately suppressed information to make his own case as attractive as possible. Such an approach has been especially advanced by Badian, E., ‘Thucydides and the Outbreak of the Peloponnesian War: A Historian’s Brief’, in id., From Plataea to Potidaea. Studies in the History and Historiography of the Pentekontaetia (Baltimore and London, 1993), 125-62Google Scholar, who, like Hunter, uses the term ‘reporter’ for Thucydides’ activity: he argues that ‘Thucydides’ method of presentation is more like that of the journalist than like that of the historian’, since he ‘allows only “edited” material to reach the reader, the facts that he regards as “fit to print” and that will leave the reader no choice but to accept his own conclusions implied in the presentation’ (127). Badian has subjected the Pentekontaetia to a close examination, and he concludes that it was Thucydides’ main purpose in this excursus to demonstrate that it was Sparta that had started the Peloponnesian War, taking advantage of a long-held desire to thwart Athenian power (128-9). Badian assumes that many of the details reported by Thucydides are accurate, relying on the belief that Thucydides cannot have falsified matters that were well-known to contemporaries (‘the journalist has to allow for what his audience actually knows: he is not provided with a tabula rasa on which to compose his interpretation’ (159)). His approach has won few adherents: for replies see Stadter, P., ‘The Form and Content of Thucydides’ Pentekontaetia (1.89-117)’, GRBS 34 (1993), 35–72 Google Scholar; Rood (1998), 215–22; Pritchett, W. K., Thucydides’ Pentekontaetia and other Essays (Amsterdam, 1995), ch. 1Google Scholar (although his fundamentalism, as with his treatment of Herodotus (above, Ch. II, n. 69) ), represents a step backwards; Sertcan, D., ‘War Thukydides ein Lügner? Zu Vorgeschichte des peloponnesischen Krieges’, Hermes 125 (1997), 269-93Google Scholar. Rutherford (1994), 65 with n. 46 finds epic and tragedy more appropriate models than journalism for understanding Thucydides’ efforts. See also Schreiner, J. H., Hellanikos, Thukydides and the Era of Kimon (Aarhus, 1997)Google Scholar, who comes to conclusions similar to those of Badian about the reliability of Thucydides’ account in the Pentekontaetia.

¹⁹³ Rood (1998), 288.

¹⁹⁴ On Thucydides’ later influence see Luschnat (1978), 1266–1311, with Nachträge, 773–80; Strebel, H., Wertung und Wirkung des thukydideischen Geschichtswerkes in der griechisch-römischen Literatur (diss. Munich, 1935)Google Scholar; Hornblower, S., ‘The Fourth Century and Hellenistic Reception of Thucydides’, JHS 115 (1995), 47–68 Google Scholar; Nicolai, R., ‘κτήμα is L•L• Aspetti della fortuna di Tucidide nel mondo antico’, RFIC 123 (1995), 5–26 Google Scholar.

¹⁹⁵ On the continuators, see below, p. 106.

¹⁹⁶ Philistus, FGrHist 556 T 16a = D. Hal. Imit. 3.2 (ii. 208 U-R).

¹⁹⁷ Walbank (1972), 40–2.

¹⁹⁸ Rajak, T., Josephus (London, 1983)Google Scholar, passim; Stein, F. J., Dexippus et Herodianus rerum scriptores quatenus Thucydidem secuti sint (diss. Bonn, 1957)Google Scholar; Cameron, A., Agathias (Oxford, 1970), 60-1Google Scholar; ead., Procopius and the Sixth Century (London and Berkeley, 1985), 37–8, 134–5; Adshead, K., ‘Thucydides and Agathias’, in Croke, B. and Emmett, A. M., edd., History and Historians in Late Antiquity (Sydney, 1983), 82-7Google Scholar; Bornmann, F., ‘Motivi tucididei in Procopio’, A&R 19 (1974), 138-50Google Scholar.

¹⁹⁹ Scanlon, T. F., The Influence of Thucydides upon Sallust (Heidelberg, 1980)Google Scholar; Perrochat, P., Les modèles grecs de Salluste (Paris, 1949)Google Scholar.

²⁰⁰ [Long.] Subi 14.1; see also above, n. 73.

²⁰¹ As can be seen especially from Lucian’s How to Write History: see Avenarius, G., Lukians Schrift zur Geschichtsschreibung (Meisenheim am Gian, 1956)Google Scholar.

²⁰² Vit. Thuc. 35–7.

²⁰³ Rutherford (1994), 68.

²⁰³ Rutherford (1994), 68.