Georg Rechenauer and Vassiliki Pothou

Prologos

Thucydides is the author of the most famous description of the self-destruction of an ancient city (Corcyra) because of a civil war. On a broader scale he argues that war is a violent teacher (b d pkelor baior didsjakor, III 82, 2) because it destroys the culture and the ethos of people. In this way war prevents men from behaving with free will, and subjects their conduct to external conditions of crisis. This negation of human self-determination as set out by Thucydides in the field of the historical process, correlates with a drastic asperity in the area of literary representation by which the historiographer brings his reader into direct confrontation with the events described by him and into emotional distress comparable to the people involved directly in the events. In this way, a historian such as Thucydides becomes a violent teacher to his readers. By taking this phrasing as a signature for the character of Thucydides History as a whole it can be inferred that on the one hand Thucydides himself becomes a violent teacher because of the subject of his narration. The important political topic of the civil war stasis (stsir) and its terrible moral consequences are essential vectors of violence. On the other hand the geopolitics of Thucydides works can be seen as a battlefield where every possible brutality is allowed to take place. The power of violence, that is the authority of the strongest and their ability and intention to violently impose their will on the weak, constitutes the principal idea in the negotiations between Athenians and Melians (V 87 111). The remark on the profit (t nulvqom), which always is preferable to moral standards (t pqpom), belongs to the same atmosphere of political cynism. Thucydides is violent not only externally, but also internally, not only with his material and his audience, but also with his work and even with himself. As a historian he is dynamic and aggressive and he gives the impression that he is constantly sailing against the wind. First of all he criticizes the historiographical models of his forerunners, Herodotus and Hellanicus. Besides, his critical mind confronts and criticizes the credulity of people. Finally the key conception of his history is an heretofore unusual concept, namely, this is the dimension of utility of historiography in case of circularity of historical events.

Georg Rechenauer and Vassiliki Pothou

A historian writing about and against the violence and fighting uncompromisingly against almost everything could not have a conventional style. His style is not less harsh than his subject and his methods. The proud and unbending archaic feature of his language is ideal for the polemical substance of his work. The characteristic abbreviated style1 (obscura brevitas2) together with the element of variatio (letabok) according to Dionysius of Halicarnassus leads to aqstgq "qloma and according to Cicero3 to Thucydidean gravitas. His uniqueness, innovation and self-isolation are signs of an introspective violence. It is for this reason that he became a lonely and unconventional teacher. The work of Thucydides has not only substantially marked our idea of history up to the present day ; but also on account of its complexity it invited especially the philological and historical interpretations. In addition to emphasizing the presentation of political and military aspects, his work, by introducing completely realistic and scientific perspectives in the analysis of historical events and their compelling motive powers, sets standards, which have hardly been surpassed up to the present day. Considering the remarkable austerity with which Thucydides presents the historical reality as a natural zone beyond all theological, ethical or ideological veneers, makes this model of history both the intellectual conditions and the hermeneutical implications equally fascinating. The present book tries to find answers to the question, how in the work of Thucydides the relationship between historical reality and literary style is formed. From different perspectives new understandings pose questions, how the audience the contemporary of the 5th century BC as well as the modern is guided from the author to a violent reader. However, it should be recognized that the participants of the Regensburg conference in July 2008 sponsored generously by the Gerda Henkel Foundation, the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and the Regensburger Universittsstiftung tried to abstain from any violence. On this occasion we would also like to express our gratitude to our colleague Anton Powell who, at our request, helped us by reading and commenting on most of the contributions. As people say, Thucydides is good to think with: he is not just exposing the sad nature of human folly, but thinks that his account of what men did and why will be relevant to men who have to act in similar circumstances. This aspect is discussed in Peter Rhodes chapter. He explores the nature of the Thucydidean good leader who can judge what is likely to happen and plan appropriately for it. Also his history shows that men did in some times learn from past mistakes. Rhodes focuses on the volatility of the people and the impulse of popular
1 Dionysius of Halicarnassus De Thucydide 24. 2 Seneca Epistulae 114, 17. 3 Cicero De oratore II 13, 56.

Prologos

opinion, on the fragility of good order of the Greeks, on the nature and morality of Athenian power. According to him, Thucydides world is not in principle a world in which strength is the only important thing, but a world in which there were principles of justice and possibilities of arbitration between states. In some cases states invoke the nomoi or the nomima of the Greeks or of all men, but they were actually not used to resolve problems but rather to score points. He suggests that Thucydides was unable to resolve the dilemma between his patriotism and his pride of Athens fifth-century achievements and the immorality and breaches of law on a larger scale. Hans-Peter Stahl thinks that Thucydides, while himself horrified by the phenomenon of violence, is the one who taught that violence reveals itself as a permanent potentiality of human nature: it is easily activated whenever the smooth veneer that a comfortable life style provides is stripped off. He focuses on the horrors of Corcyra and civil strife, and he checks how features mentioned at III 82 may play out in the historians presentation of ever widening developments. Further he tries to detail more instances of veneer unmasked when violence runs out of control on a wider than merely intramural scale. According to Stahl hardly anywhere else in Thucydides work but in Euphemos speech does the war reveal itself so strikingly as the fabricator of a veneer that hides the truth. The aim of his analysis is to reveal the authors art of unmasking and of letting speakers, even unwittingly, themselves reveal the violent reality underlying the official veneer. He concludes that if war in Thucydides is the remover of veneer, so vice versa also the removal of veneer may be indicative of a state of war and the cases considered in his paper reveal how below any shining veneer there always seems to lurk somewhere the reality of violence. The technique of retardation pertaining to the narrative label of suspense or the gradual disclosure of the course followed by the plot, but also the wideranging narrative patterning, are, if not strongly fictional, at least rhetorical and literary features. That is the subject addressed by Antonios Rengakos, who discusses the Homeric-Herodotean narrative means adopted by Thucydides and the discomfort produced by the irreconcilable discrepancy between the claim to objectivity in the second part of the Redensatz and the reporting of speeches in the work. In addition, he argues that in some aspects of the Thucydidean narrative one can detect a pronounced distancing from Herodotus and a return to the more traditional Homeric practice. He concludes that it is Homeric epic that in the end stands as the definitive narrative model of scientific historical writing as instigated by Thucydides, and not the logographer Herodotus. Suzanne Said focuses on Thucydides intertextual relation to Herodotus and aims to elucidate Thucydides historiographical agenda in the Archaeology by comparing Herodotus and Thucydides, concentrating primarily but not exclusively on their prefaces. She suggests several corrections of the Herodotean

10

Georg Rechenauer and Vassiliki Pothou

narrative proposed by the Archaeology, corrections which always involve some major Thucydidean thesis. A brief review of the formal features shared by the two prefaces makes the contrast in vocabulary all the more stark. By combining four independent myths into two pairs of abductions of women involving the crossing of the Hellespont, Herodotus introduces three major themes of the Histories: kidnapping, women as objects of lust and transgression. Thucydides, on the other hand, replaces in the Archaeology the kidnappings of women with collective violence, robbery and plunder on sea as well as on land. According to Said, the corrections of Herodotus found in the Archaeology further link the two historians, while distinguishing their aims. She concludes that the comparison of the two prefaces allows a better appreciation of the different ways in which the past may reverberate with the present and vice versa and a better awareness of the difference between an epic and a tragic historian. The contribution of Jonathan Price concentrates on the study of Thucydidean influence on Flavius Josephus and on the following two problems: first, the intelligent reading and independent compositional choice of Josephus and second, the analysis of Josephus historical method or literary style. The author proposes to address the problem of Josephus reading of Thucydides by examining the use of a single key word in the Bellum Judaicum stasis. How did Josephus understand the phenomenon of stasis? This is the question Price proposes to ask regarding Josephus. He specifies that the problem with Josephus understanding of stasis in a Thucydidean mode started in a way indicating that the conceptual problem had semantic implications. According to Price, stasis is presented familiarly as internal conflict within the Jewish population, and as such one of the contributing factors to an unnecessary rebellion and later to a straight-out rebellion. In the direct and unmistakable imitations of Thucydides in Bellum Judaicum IV, Josephus departs from the Thucydidean model, but in a way which seems to violate the very principles of Thucydidean historiography. For in those passages, Josephus uses the description of stasis as a tool of partisan polemic, rebuke and incrimination. He concludes that the mimesis of Thucyd ides in BJ was intended merely to add an authoritative shield for Josephus passionate polemic and his historical vision could not have been more different from that of Thucydides. Jeffrey Rustens chapter focuses on the narrative challenge of Thucydides, who selects Corcyra as the jumping-off point of his history. The historian superimposes his story on Homers story of the Phaeacians fatal alliance with Odysseus (Odyssey 6 8, 13) and Herodotus account of the Corcyra-CorinthSamos feud (III 48 53). Rusten concludes that for Thucydides the Phaeacian tradition lives on. In addition Thucydides unique civic characterization consists of a second narrative virtue of this beginning. The Athenian audience is somewhat characterized: although they are nave listeners, as the appeals to their

Prologos

11

emotion by Corcyreans suggest, their final decision reveals a cold diplomatic ruse. The Corcyra affair brings into play the whole range of causal factors for the war hinted at in the Archaeology and developed in Book I. According to Rusten, it is all there at the start, in a very new kind of narrative. Thucydides would still be ranked one of the greatest ancient historians, even if Thucydides I 24 55 were all that survived today. Paula Debnar suggests that the Corcyra debate reveals quite a lot about the Corcyreans character, and she focuses on the rhetoric of the antilogy, that means on the picture that emerges from the Corcyreans explanation of their traditional foreign policy, on their justification of hostility towards Corinth and on their assertion of the shared interests that allegedly unite Athens and Corcyra. According to Debnar, the Corinthians are emotional, and their complaints verge on hyperbole and their attack on the character of their colonists is on target. She remarks that the Corcyrean envoys offer a general precept concerning the relationship between mother-cities and colonies and that the Corinthians also turn on its head the Corcyreans recipe for smooth colony-metropolis relationships. She also notes that the narrative offers evidence to support the claims of Corinthians about the Corcyreans behavior concerning their arrogance, but the Corcyrean envoys speak as if in forming an alliance. She concludes that one of the reasons the Athenians restrict themselves to a defensive alliance is that they want the Corinthian and Corcyrean fleets to engage and wear each other down. June Allison suggests that the battle of Delium, a demonstration of innovative military strategy and weaponry and of religious nomoi violated by both sides is a narrative unit. The five short speeches of the Delium narrative are each different from one another for different reasons: the condensed variatio is itself unique in the History. She argues that land, its occupation and boundaries, is a theme carefully developed in the episode and that the passages taken together cohere by virtue of some legal language and phrases. The focus of her discussion is the dramatic action from the beginning of the episode which involves a mixture of narrative poses and variations on speech acts. The legal-sounding antilektos, surprisingly, is found only here in Classical literature and the insertion of the unique abstract noun paroikesis consists a hallmark of Thucydidean self-con scious style. According to Allison, the Delium episode is thus threated quasimetaphorically with elements from a dispute over territory to suggest that what might have been negotiated or arbitrated by neighboring states is rent apart by war. She concludes that once more in the History war is shown to have corrupted a feature that belongs normally to civilized behavior and in this case the biaios didaskalos has marginalized the politikos didaskalos. The contribution of Thomas Poschenrieder focuses on an aesthetic approach of style; it enquires for inevitable elements in Thucydides representation of historic events and constrains the investigation to one of Thucydides pecu-

12

Georg Rechenauer and Vassiliki Pothou

liarities of style, the frequent use of nominalization in the neuter. Poschenrieder asks whether the traditional rhetorical patterns of explanation according the examination of Thucydidean style by Dionysios of Halicarnassos do justice to Thucydides representation. He notices that the neutral formulation possesses a comprehensiveness that covers a lot of things and can also refer to the world of objects combined with human beings. As well the neutral expression shows a specific indecisiveness that allows to deal with objective and human things in the same way. The neutral formulation enables the historian to direct the readers attention to the situations as such and allows him to view human factors and impersonal factors together. In his conclusion the author sums up that the nominalizations enable Thucydides for example to make qualities as such objects of historical consideration, to term them historically effective factors and, with relation to the nominalizations in the neuter, to formulate his historical considerations at the best. The aim of the paper of Roberto Nicolai is to study Thucydides speeches in order to understand the historians choices as far as the selection of the speeches is concerned, their location in the work and the different arrangements they undergo (single speech, antilogy, dialogue, letter). Another focus is on the relations between speeches and narrative. After the second Spartan invasion the historian focuses on a single speech by Pericles, because this choice agrees with Pericles ethos and strategy of communication. The antilogy of speeches in the Mytilene debate is a theatrical device as well as a sophistic way of presenting problems on both sides. The dramatic debate of the Melian dialogue works as a key for evaluating the Athenian defeat. The importance of the Sicilian expedition is underlined by a set of three speeches by Nicias, Alcibiades and Nicias again. The letter of Nicias to the Athenian assembly is again a way of analyzing strategies of communication. He summarizes that Thucydides goal is not to compose complete reports, but to create paradigms of speeches held in paradigmatic situations. The speeches have to be suited to the situation, which has an ethos of its own. The historian pays attention to mass psychology and he analyzes the medium. Finally the author remarks that the overlap between speeches and programmatic passages shows that some speeches can be considered as examples of mise en abme. The intention of the contribution of Antonis Tsakmakis and Yannis Kostopoulos is to better understand Cleons rhetoric by investigating the imposition of Cleon the first prominent Athenian politician after the death of Pericles in Thucydides History on his audience, the Athenian public. According to the authors, the parallels between Pericles and Cleon invite to a comparison which underlines the differences. Adopting the methodology of linguistic pragmatics they focus on the relationship between the speaker and his audience. They examine the way Cleon shapes his speech in order to match it into his relative

Prologos

13

power and they scrutinize the attitude of Cleon towards his hearers. Is Cleon concerned with establishing a common perspective with his audience or does he prefer to detach himself from the crowd, avoiding solidarity with them? That is the subject addressed by Tsakmakis and Kostopoulos, who try to provide an answer to these questions by examining relative linguistic phenomena, as the frequent use of the second plural person, the use of direct references to the hearer and the significant use of offensive characterizations. Their conclusion is that Cleon, a speaker of absolute authority who does not hesitate to exercise his power on his hearers by being imposing, prefers to remain distant and unfamiliar to his audience. The paper of Nino Luraghi aims to offer a contribution to an assessment of Thucydides understanding and interpretation of the historical phenomenon of Spartan hegemony and of its foundations. He develops the observation that the aim of Thucydides was a more precise understanding of Spartan power and its implications in terms of growth and expansion, and complaining that Spartan state-implemented secrecy posed an obstacle to his endeavor, although he may have ended up under the spell of the Spartan mirage, conveying a positive image of the Spartans. He focuses on the role of Spartan power in Thucydides reconstruction of early Greek history and in the high point of the crisis of the Peloponnesian League after the Peace of Nicias and before the Athenian expedition of Sicily. According to Luraghi, for Thucydides constitutional stability turns out to be the secret of Spartan power, or, to make sure that their allies would be ruled by oligarchies in the interest of the Spartans, as the historian puts it in famous passages from the Archaeology. Further the author considers the series of snapshots of Athens and Sparta included in chapters 18 and 19 and he notices a Leitmotif of Book I: the idea that the war finally broke out because the Spartans convinced themselves that this was the last occasion to confront Athens on more or less equal footing. He proposes that in Thucydides view, it is just possible to surmise, that Spartan power was not capable of growing indefinitely, since its goal was stability, not expansion. In addition he clarifies that Thucydides insistence on the magnitude of the campaign of 418/17 seems to be intended to convey, not the acute danger for Sparta, but the power of the Spartan war machine. Luraghi concludes that Thucydides approach to the Peloponnesian League in Book V confirms the observations on the place of Sparta in the Archaeology : the key point being that Athenian power grew by its very nature and Spartan power did not, so that ultimately for Athens the only thing that was necessary was to outlast Sparta. The paper of Darien Shanske addresses the notion of lawfulness in Thucydides: what can be said about when und why lawfulness obtains and when it does not. He argues that Thucydides narrative demonstrates some additional important and surprising aspects of the ethos that preserves the law. Thucydides

14

Georg Rechenauer and Vassiliki Pothou

makes the riddle of whence law and in particular lawfulness especially pressing. Shanske focuses on the unusual amount of detail on the abuse of legal process in the run-up to Corcyrean stasis. The phenomenon under discussion relates to events when the ordinary legal order appears to have broken down and it is sometimes related in our texts to epieikeia, sometimes to dike, and sometimes to a special non-created category of nomoi. He underlines first, the distinction between the law itself and the tendency to conform to the law and secondly, the distinction between prescription and description. He discusses some examples of Thucydides partaking in the traditional portrayal of lawfulness and he demonstrates the fragility of lawfulness and the surprising lawfulness of Athens. His conclusion is that Thucydides portrays lawfulness as confoundingly confirming an old-fashioned but murky truth about the mysterious nature of our conformity to law. Emmanuel Golfin analyzes the interpretation of the violence by Thucydides on several levels, the causes of violence and the possible suggestion of remedies for excessive violence. The author intends a diagnosis of the process of violence and he observes that the war seems to encourage the civil war in that violence becomes commonplace and extends both in space and time. Further he tries to gather and to conceptualize the elements of explanation found in certain narrative passages, speeches or comments. According to Golfin the historian no longer considers reason as the main human faculty, when he insists on the excessive violence caused by the war. The next topics of his paper are the possible existence of a theological explanation and the fragility of the moral model offered by the city, substituting for transcendence. Evil is part of human nature because the Thucydidean narrative shows that relationships between human beings as well as between cities are based exclusively on force. The author remarks that one of the causes of evil can be found in Thucydides conception of historical time, suggesting an ever-changing movement between two extremes, war and peace. Golfin then examines the connection between the extension of violence and Thucydides conception of the Athenian empire and of domination. His conclusion is that it seems to be an alternative to evil lying neither in some unthought of reconciliation of the belligerents nor in moral principles ineffective in Thucydides view, but in the ability that prepares action. As Georg Rechenauer emphasizes, the case of the plague is involved in an organic meaningful way in the concept of the overall composition and it constitutes the first important turning point in the interpretation of the Peloponnesian war. He focuses on important connections to the historiographic representation and on the relationship between politics and illness, between polis and the sick body. He notices that Thucydides, using the motif of the destructive violence of the plague, wanted to connect the epidemic disease with his main political theme the war, and the use of a terminology reflecting

Prologos

15

corporeality in the revolt of Mytilene at the beginning of the III. Book shows the close affinity between plague and war. He discusses the political consequences of the plague on the present power of Athens and the inner destruction of the Periclean concept of power. He analyzes the importance of the plague account in the structural context of Book II, its contrast to the logos epitaphios and the analogy between the plague and the process of war and stasis. Finally he examines the manner, by which Thucydides constrains his reader to look on the sick body and to deal with the violent scenario of the plague constructed by Thucydides. His conclusion is that the internal stability and the polis as a community are threatened by destruction from the plague. This is the most radical lesson Thucydides gives to his audience by the case of the plague. According to Vassiliki Pothou irrationality is a stumbling block, with which Thucydides frequently collided. Although the Peloponnesian War in Thucydides seems to be classic and rational, she tries to outline the irrational dimensions of war (length and scale), the irrational dimensions of power (length and breadth of the Athenian mastery), and the irrational politics. Further she focuses on the connection between irrationality and metabole, on the relationship between irrationality and death and on the manipulated irrationality. Her next topics concern the core of irrationality, that means the case of Sicily and of PylosSphakteria, the Melian Dialogue, the case of latent irrationality and of irrational contradiction. Her investigation continues with the self-destructive irrationality, the case of the Athenian Demos and the equivocation of irrationality, the case of Cleon. She concludes that the duel between logos and paralogos reflects on a smaller scale the incompatibility between Thucydides and his contemporaries. As is explicitly shown by the contributors, the topic of violence in Thucydides is a multi-dimensional issue with many interpretations. As Hans Peter Stahl ably formulates, by applying Thucydides characterization of war as a biaios didaskalos to Thucydides himself, the title of the Regensburg conference transplants and foregrounds an essential trait. The topic of civil war of Corcyrachapters and the concept of stasis are inevitably on the centre of the contributions. However, the comparison with Herodotus on the one hand and with Josephus on the other hand, help us to throw light on the different applications and processes of violence in Thucydides. As well linguistic statistical analysis and particular details of technicality prove that the phenomenon of violence functions simultaneously on many levels. Anyway, the fact that the conference about Thucydides a violent teacher? did not end with blood on the floor of Walhalla, but beer, confirms the statement of Peter Rhodes about our historian: as people say, he is good to think -and to trink- with.