No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
L'impérialisme athénien, by Jacqueline de Romilly, recently published, is an important contribution to Thucydidean studies; and as foreign books usually not only cost more but take longer to read, it may save time and money to give here a summary of the argument.
The authoress intends her discussion of the main theme to throw light on the vexed question of the genesis of the History; but with this part of the work we are less concerned. It will be enough to say that she believes Thucydides to have been aware of the ἀληθ∊στἁτη πρóφασıς right from the start (roughly, because the events narrated at the beginning of Bk. II, obviously pre-415, exactly correspond to the phraseology of the speeches at the end of Bk. I, which imply that πρóφασıς); that the subsequent insertions are the Pentekontaetia, the second part of the Athenian's speech at Sparta, the Funeral Oration, Pericles' last speech and obituary notice, details of Brasidas (clearly post-Lysander) in Bk. IV, the personality of Alcibiades, and the Melian Dialogue; and that these insertions were made after 404, when the disastrous end of the war unloosed attacks on the Periclean régime.
Her main argument, however, is that Thucydides' real subject was the Athenian Empire; because (i) the ‘real cause’ was Athenian imperialism, which alarmed Sparta; (ii) it is the background to every major event described (e.g. Plataea, Mytilene, Pylos, Sicily); (iii) the speeches fall into two classes: attack on or defence of the Empire; (iv) he ignores home-politics, because in fact party-differences were only one of degree between extreme and moderate imperialists; (v) the work is a homogeneous unit, whereas many never came to regard the war as one (e.g. Andocides, Pax 9; Aeschines, de F.L. 176); and (vi) the two factors which Pericles selected as guaranteeing victory—the fleet and the treasury—are the same as those on which her empire rested.
page 27 note 1 The authoress mentions Wilamowitz's theory that the Melian Dialogue was a reply to a pamphlet. We may add that as early as 430 there had been in circulation the work of the oligarch Stesimbrotus of Thasos, , Concerning Themistocles, Thucydides, and PericlesGoogle Scholar , containing all the unflattering stories told of those statesmen. The ‘Old Oligarch’5 is probably a typical example of this pamphlet war.
page 28 note 1 We may add: cf. Dionysius Hal. Ant. Rom. ii. 4. i fin.
page 29 note 1 Cf. Cochrane, , Thucydides and the Science of HistoryGoogle Scholar .
page 29 note 2 Cochrane, op. cit. pp. 14 f.
page 30 note 1 Tod, M. N., A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions.Google Scholar
page 30 note 2 Athenian Tribute Lists, ii. 50.
page 30 note 3 A fragment of stone from Cos has enabled the former date, 420, to be revised; v. Bury-Meiggs, , History of Greece, pp. 366–7Google Scholar, and 879, and A.T.L. ii. 61.
page 31 note 1 Thucydides' language is significant: τoὑς γἀρ Mηλíoνς ὄντας νησıὡτας καıoὑκ ἐθἐλoντας ὑπακoὑ∊ıν.
page 31 note 2 Our authoress points out that Thuc.'s Melian Dialogue is only concerned with the aggression. For him both sides were wrong: the Athenians as arrogant; the Melians as imprudent.
page 31 note 3 Marsh, , Modern Problems in the Ancient World.Google Scholar In one place, however, Thucydide s contradicts this (viii. 48. 5): έφη (Πρὑνıχoς) oὑ … βoνλήσ∊σθαıαὑτoὑς μ∊τ òλıγαρχíας ή δημoκρατíας δoνλ∊ὑ∊ıν μαλλoν ή μ∊θ' óπoτἐρoν ἄν τὑχωσı τoὑτωνἐρoνς ∊íναı.