Wednesday, November 6, 2019

Thucydides Discussion I

I would like you to read all of Thucydides' history (and all the dialogues of Plato, all thirty two extant Greek tragedies, all the plays of Aristophanes, and all of Plutarch). For Thursday, November 14,  however, I will be satisfied if you skim all of Book I and read more carefully the following selections from Book II: Pericles' Funeral Oration (II:34-46), The Plague in Athens (II: 46-57), and Pericles' Justification of His Policies (II:57-65).

Comment here on what you think of Thucydides as a historian. Note one specific strength or weakness, and give an example or two of what you liked/didn't like about Thucydides.


13 comments:

  1. The thing I admire most about Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War is how up front Thucydides is about his philosophy of writing history. This makes things more clear than they would otherwise be. The readers knows what to expect from his writing before they get into the actual history. He says that, in his history, he will strictly adhere to the facts and not try to sacrifice truth for making his history more entertaining or interesting. He also believes that this is the most important part of writing a history - as the future is almost always a reflection of the past in some way or another.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think that certainly, in respects to others of his time like Herodotus, is writing in a manner we'd consider more conducive to "history." It's in chronological order, and it covers a rather narrow point through the passage of time - the Peloponnesian League versus the Delian League. He doesn't try to add in myth or wholly unverifiable things to "spice" it up anyway. When he does refer to myth or legend (like the Iliad) he does so with a sort of small caveat to its truthfulness. Though it's still early in the book he History it seems more of a history than did Herodotus, and I'm sure that the trend will continue as it gets passed the background information part of the book, and continues into a more contemporary account of things (such as the great detail of the speeches already made by Pericles.) He also stays on topic which is so important to me because I already have a problem in digressing myself from the ideas of the book - I do not need the book digressing so much itself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I also appreciate his choice of audience - though as an Athenian I'm sure he's got his biases, some that I'm probably not too aware of given my limited contextual knowledge of the time, he's writing for than the limited audience of Athens or Greece or even his century. No one is really devoid of bias, but I'm betting that he's one of the first to make a professional point about writing history in an objective manner. Herodutus might be the first Western historian, but I would say Thucydides should be the first historiographer.

      Delete
  3. Thucydides’ seems to possess the strong ability to report about events without bias. His depiction of the lives a Pausanias and Themistocles also show his control of historical accounts. For example, when writing in Book I, Thucydides talks about Themistocles’ death coming from an “illness”, but then mentions that others have said that “he committed suicide…” (p. 177, section 138). Also, he writes with much detail, which shows his firsthand experience, as he points out, concerning the plague, “I had the disease myself and saw others suffering from it” (p. 152, Section 48). His accuracy of Pericles’ funeral oration is also very impressive. He had to have heard it, or at the very least, talked with may witnesses’ that had been there. Overall, Thucydides seems to stick to facts in comparison with Homer’s Iliad, in which Homer seems to embellish quite a bit. I think Thucydides does a fairer and more objective job telling history.

    -Jonathon Fargher

    ReplyDelete
  4. One thing Thucydides did well as a historian was keeping to a strict chronological structure, and where it can be proved to be true, it fits strictly. I don’t know the most about this war personally but it seems as he keeps a good amount true. Thucydides was an intellectual. His writing is condensed and straight this makes him both a good writer and historian. He doesn’t take sides and writes clearly this also makes Thucydides a good historian. Compared to other writers at this time there is a lot less fiction or “storytelling” in Thucydides than the others.

    Lindsey Landenberger

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think Thucydides was way more coherent and kept on track more than Herodotus and I enjoyed reading him much more. His details of the speeches of Pericles were spot on and he also gives other sides of the story to remain unbiased. His details about the plague were very interesting, albeit disgusting. He is just a great writer that is so upfront about what he writes and although he might not be the storyteller of tall tales like Herodotus he was much more concise and interesting in my opinion.
    Gauer

    ReplyDelete
  6. I find Thucydides as a truly great historian. When reading I felt that I could trust what he was saying since it felt more factual than it was like a poem or story. I find his strength to be his appreciation for wanting to report these events as being as factual as they can be. It makes us the readers or audience, to feel that we deserve this part of history to be as exact as possible. I mean he was there during the Peloponnesian War as a general so we can trust that what he is saying is true because he had first hand experience and access to witnesses even to the events he wrote about.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I agree with Karlie, because from what I read already, he relies on stone cold facts rather than loose stories or poems from places the Greeks had little knowledge about, like Persia for instance. Thucydides uses more fact than fiction in how he describes the Greeks, specifically Athenian society at the time of the Peloponnesian war and how the political mentality of "Might Makes Right" dominates Athens from the golden beginning right to the bitter end. He was living in those times and was as exact as possible, unlike Herodotus who talked on about how Persian leaders were these nasty rulers when he didn't even know or meet them in person.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think Thucydides was a great historian for the time. His documentation on the Plague going on in the siege of Athens was quite interesting. He had personal accounts on what happened in the streets of Athens. It’s also nice having the stories separated so then I will know which is which (Looks at Herodotus on dorm bookshelf in disappointment). Thucydides didn’t have to go off of legends so most of his documentation was accurate.
    Mitch Buller

    ReplyDelete
  9. Something that Thucydides always strove for was an objective history, something of which many historians in contemporary society have deemed impossible. However, Thucydides shows an obvious and valiant attempt in his script, with many of his works relying on testimony and sorted facts as opposed to hearsay and legends. He even made sure to add in possibly contradictory information (making sure to clearly display that the information was indeed contradictory) in order to try and get information from more than just one source. It proves that Thucydides is more interested in getting the right idea down as opposed to looking as if he's got the answer.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I liked Thucydides' writing style a lot. He is very clear and straight forward with his wording and explanations. He structures the way he tells history well as he tells it in chronological order. I like that I get a backstory leading up to the event in question or a note indicating his end point prior to actually being told the event or speech. An example can be found on page 49 section 24, the first paragraph. I also like that he tries to paint a mental picture for the reader as he writes which makes reading his work more interesting. In my opinion, his writing style is better than Herodotus' which seems to talk in circles or take the long, scatterbrained route to get there. The only thing I don't like about Thucydides is that sometimes he can have super long sentences that are packed with a lot of information. These sentences would prove better by splitting them into multiple smaller sentences as they can be difficult to follow. for example, on page 87 in the second paragraph of section 89 his first two sentences are really long and hard to follow.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I really enjoy how Thucydides relays the history done by having long excerpt of speeches and first hand witnesses. He reaches his conclusions on subjects based on evidence that he puts forward. He claims to have better evidence than the great poets, who he thinks exaggerate the importance of their themes and less interested in telling the truth rather than catching the attention of the public with some flashy subject matter. Thucydides does admit on pg 47, paragraph 22 that he does find it hard to get the exact words from the speeches done before, during, and after the war. Trying to keep as close to possible the general sense of words that were actually used. I enjoy the narrative he produces and the actual quotes/speeches done by real men of this era.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think Thucydides is a great historian, he tells the history how it is and gets straight to it. He is very easy to understand. Thucydides want his work to be factual. Thucydides history of the plague is vivid and suspenseful which makes it very interesting. When talking about Pericles he seems unbiased which is important in history.
    Nathan Rodriguez

    ReplyDelete