“…and at the same time they [the Corinthians] hated the Corcyraeans because they failed to show to Corinth the respect due from a colony to the mother city.”
Thucydides shows from the opening lines of his history that it was his vocation to records the events, and therefore remained unbiased by events throughout the war, and concentrates rather on recording the events, and including some of his own analysis.
Thucydides later became a general for the Athenians, and was unfortunate to be sent to Amphipolis and was to liberate it from Brasidas (the premier Spartan general), in 424 B.C. Although he captured nearby Eion, he was exiled for his failure, and spent his remaining years abroad. The point in mentioning this is to show the expertise that Thucydides would have had with describing military events, and the inside knowledge that he would have had holding such a high office earlier on in the war. An example of the importance of this can be seen in later historians work, such as Livy, the Roman historian. His knowledge of military matters was poor, and this is reflected in his writing. In Thucydides case it was very important for him to have this kind of knowledge, as he was writing primarily about war.
The first thing I shall examine in looking at Thucydides’ actual writings is his use of speeches. I start with his speeches, as these are one of the main things that Thucydides uses to add entertainment to his work, to look into the pyscological nature of the war and to put forward peoples’ motives for their actions. 25 percent of Thucydides’ entire text is made up of speeches, thus showing the importance attached to them. I have said before that Thucydides does not use drama within his history, and he himself says it in the famous (I 22):
“And it may well be that my history will be less easy to read because of the absence in it of a romantic element. It will be enough for me, however, if these words of mine are judged useful by those who want to understand clearly the events which happened in the past and which (human nature being what it is) will, at some time or other and in much the same ways, be repeated in the future. My work is not a piece of writing designed to meet the taste of an immediate public, but was done to last forever.”
Despite this, I do not think that his work is devoid of dramatic impact. The speeches are a medium through which we can look directly at a primary source, in a literary way. Surprisingly very little official documentation was made during Thucydides’ time, and therefore it would have been even harder for Thucydides to obtain, use and include documented sources within his work, especially as he was in exile from about 424 B.C. and died in 404 B.C probably having never returned to his homeland of Athens. Thucydides opted for the approach to sources, which Herodotus had taken before him, and included speeches given by speakers throughout his period of history. The speeches are given to us in, as I have already mentioned, a literary form, as would have been common in tragic Greek plays at the time, and book 7 has been particularly likened to a Greek tragedy.
He does not however use speeches to the extent that Herodotus used them. Herodotus’ Histories were mainly in a literary form throughout, and he had decided that he was free to use speeches wherever the narrative allowed it. Thucydides maintains from (I. 21):
“I do not think that one will be far wrong in accepting the conclusions which I have reached from the evidence which I have put forward. It is better evidence than that of the poets, who exaggerate the importance of their themes…”
Thucydides is far more calculated in the use of his speeches, not wasting time with short speeches on small matters and small debates, which Herodotus used regularly. He mainly uses them on full addresses on large matters or encouragement for troops before an important battle, moments of historical importance, and the sources prove useful in giving us material to analyse as well as some social and political insight into the history. For example, Thucydides gives us a popular view on the inherent weaknesses of oligarchies, with some personal analysis on (viii 89.4.)
“Most of those involved in the oligarchy were…discontented with it…They maintained that the five thousand should be appointed so that the government should be set up on a wider basis.”
And then we get Thucydides’ personal reaction in the same passage:
“This, in fact, was mere political propaganda: it was for motives of personal ambition that most of them [those involved in the oligarchy] were following the line that is most disastrous to oligarchies when they take over from democracies.”
The speeches are also a method also allowed a balanced and impartial presentation of the case for each of the contending sides, and allowed Thucydides to include a more sophistic method of history, which is also a characteristic of his entire work. This can be seen even as early as (i.22.) when Thucydides mentions human nature. To paraphrase he says that he is recording events, because he believes that “human nature being what it is,” such events will happen again. However, the philosophical element is balanced out by ordinary rhetoric, and so does not intrude overly on the speeches themselves.
I also said that it was rare for things to be written down, and would have been especially difficult for Thucydides to obtain these documents, if indeed they even existed. So how did Thucydides manage to transport, accurately, entire speeches from when they were said, to the time when he wrote them down? It would be naive to believe that Thucydides’ speeches are one hundred percent accurate to the originals, and he admits later on in his history (I 22.1.):
“As for the speeches which politicians made either when the war was imminent or after it had begun, it has been difficult for me to record an accurate account either from my recollection of speeches at which I was present or from the reports of informants on other occasion. The text of my speeches has been determined by my conception of what each speaker in each situation should have said, though I have approximated as nearly as possible to the general purport of what was actually said.”
He also says about his speeches, that he wrote;
“what was necessary, more than anything.”
From this we can deduce a number of things. Firstly we can deduce that Thucydides condensed his speeches a lot, and secondly, according to the writer, that although he could not remember the exact words of the speakers, he stayed true to their original ‘γνωμη’ or the speakers original proposal or opinion. Now, the first deduction is fairly reasonable, as Thucydides could not have possibly written down entire speeches, as it would have taken a very long time, and wasn’t really necessary, as long as he got ‘what was necessary.’ Even so, it still does bring up a question; If Thucydides condensed the speeches how did he decide what to exclude? Could it not be said that he may have concentrated on including certain dramatic parts of speeches, or other issues, which he considered interesting, thus neglecting other issues, and possibly changing the emphasis of the speech? Again we have to look at (i. 22.) Although Thucydides agrees that he cannot guarantee total “verbal fidelity”, he promises that he has not invented anything which does not fit in with what was actually said. The way in which Thucydides recorded his speeches were completely different to the way in which Herodotus recorded his. Thucydides uses his to inform and to prove points, and is a massive step forward in a very short space of time, as Thucydides was a young boy when Herodotus was still writing. This adds weight to the argument that this was original inspiration to Thucydides, and he can therefore lay claim to be the father of political history.
The kind of language used in book 7, coupled with the themes, does add a certain element of drama to the book, and had distinct similarities in terms of language and construction with a tragedy. If we look at the kinds of linguistic techniques used by Thucydides, we can clearly see links with tragedy. Juxtaposition is used not only by Greek tragedians, but also by Thucydides to emphasise a point, for example (vi.6 2):
“ The Segestans, reminding them of the alliance made with Leontini in the time of Laches’ command and the previous war…”
This brings out the fact that Segesta emphasized not her own alliance with Athens but the Athenian alliance with Leontini. Thucydides also uses some very peculiar abstract nouns, which makes him very alike to tragic playwrights. We see an example at (ii.18.3):
“His tarrying at the Ithmus and leisureliness in the subsequent march earned him criticism, and particularly the delay at Oenoe.”
Tarrying is only very seen used once elsewhere in classic literature, and that is from Plato The Republic, and even so, Plato uses the word only once. Thucydides use of these Abstract nouns proves his affinity with Poets such as Sophocles.
As well as having comparisons with tragedy, Thucydides also has similarities with epic, in particular, Homer. There is one passage in particular, which seems to reflect this similarity, (VII. 87. 5-6):
'And this Hellenic event turned out to be the greatest connected with this war and, at least in my opinion, of Hellenic events we have heard of, the most splendid for those who won and the most wretched for those who were ruined. For after having been completely defeated in every respect and suffering no little misery at every point in, as the saying is, total destruction, army and navy, nothing was not lost, and few out of many returned home. This was what happened concerning Sicily.'
“…few out of many returned home,” is a quote that could have been directly plucked from one of Odysseus’ stories to the Phaeacians. Also, the words that Thucydides uses, links his works to the nostos genre of epic.
Thucydides is reputed to have owned gold mines here, and would have helped him to fund his evidence collecting missions. “Ancient Thrace was largely uncultivated and covered with dense forest; mineral deposits, particularly of gold, made the region a coveted possession.”- Encarta 2002
Explained later: Pg2 Line 11.
(I 32) The debate between Corcyra and Corinth, which started over ownership of the colony Epidamnus, and took place in Athens.