Thucydides\' \"Histories\" -- the Making

Thucydides' "Histories" -- the making of ancient history, the making of modern historical objectivity before contemporary eyes

Why read ancient history? Assume, for the duration of a paragraph that it is unquestionably true that people who forget the past are condemned to repeat the mistakes of the past. Even if this were the case, why read the history of the Peloponnesian War? Why not a more recent historical text that Thucydides' the Histories?

The author, without the benefit of foresight stated his work was designed to last forever. But as a historical study of conflict and democratic governance, does it have lasting merit? But long after the particulars of the specifics of the war between Spartan and Athenian colonies, about place names that no longer exist, the ideologies used to defend and define the different sides remain of interest -- even for those who disdain ancient history, Thucydides earns his title as the first historian, for his work shows a concern for the ideological nature of war as well as the recording of events.

This is most apparent in Chapter IV, the Second Book, where the funeral oration of Pericles is recorded and depicted. In the words of the historian, "Pericles, son of Xanthippus, was chosen to pronounce their eulogium," of a fallen warrior Pericles himself says that it is not winning or losing battles that matters most in history, rather "hat part of our [Athenian] history which tells of the military achievements which gave us our several possessions, or of the ready valor with which either we or our fathers stemmed the tide of Hellenic or foreign aggression, is a theme too familiar to my hearers for me to dilate on, and I shall therefore pass it by," rather "what the form of government under which our greatness grew," is of greatest importance. (2.6)

What makes us great as a nation, says Pericles, is the strength of our democratic government in Athens, not our military. Whether one agrees or disagrees if Athens meets the standards of democracy, as we conceive of it today, is irrelevant -- rather what is relevant is that for the first time, history is being cast in terms of morality, ideologically speaking, rather than the triumph of might, a significant achievement in the recording of events -- a historical narrative is shaped by political concerns and political morality, rather than merely attempts to explain away a loss with a myth or an interesting story, or to assert the glory of the winning side. "Our constitution does not copy the laws of neighboring states; we are rather a pattern to others than imitators ourselves. Its administration favors the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy," says Pericles. In other words, said the general, it does not matter whether we win or not, it matters if we "if we look to the laws," and "they afford equal justice to all in their private differences." (2.6)

Even if one cannot rely on Thucydides for an exact transcript of this oration, it is important that these words were well received and regarded by Athens, and thus they say a great deal about what was persuasive and inspiriting to the Athenian populace. Thus, the oration of Pericles provides textual evidence that even in the ancient world, to a losing city, democracy was a persuasive rallying rhetorical device, even in the face of defeat. As a politician, Pericles was faced with a daunting task -- how to rally the minds and spirits of a dispirited and losing city. As an historian and a citizen of that democratic city, Thucydides was faced with a task no less daunting -- how to make the saga of a losing war seem like a triumph, or at least seem interesting and relevant, rather than something Athens wished to forget.

When reading Thucydides, one does not read about an ancient war, rather one is witness to the process of historical story, of a history of narrative being created, even the first citing of 'spin' if you like. Unlike the Spartans, for the Athenians in Pericles' oration, "advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity," and the freedom enjoyed "in our government extends also to our ordinary life. There, far from exercising a jealous surveillance over each other, we do not feel called upon to be angry with our neighbor for doing what he likes, or even to indulge in those injurious looks which cannot fail to be offensive, although they inflict no positive penalty." (2.6)

In recording Pericles, and also in his own ruminations, for the first time in Thucydides, a historian asked not what happened, but also why something happened -- and also, from the perspective of a losing army, he asked if simply because an army like the Spartans won did not mean, automatically that the Spartans were better than the Athenians, morally. Military might and greatness was not synonymous with greater valor and better governance. Instead, of the losing Athenians, "thus choosing to die resisting, rather than to live submitting, they fled only from dishonor, but met danger face-to-face, and after one brief moment, while at the summit of their fortune, escaped, not from their fear, but from their glory." (2.6)