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.
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.
ReplyDeleteThucydides’ 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.
ReplyDelete-Jonathon Fargher
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.
ReplyDeleteLindsey Landenberger
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.
ReplyDeleteMitch Buller
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.
ReplyDeleteI 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