The Tragedy of the Athenian Ideal in Thucydides and Plato. John T. Hogan

the deeds and speeches for themselves rather than by being told the correct viewpoint, if indeed there is only one, which seems doubtful in a number of cases. He wants us to believe that he has worked diligently to get the facts but his readers all inevitably feel that understanding the meaning of major and minor events and speeches is difficult as he drives us to ponder what he presents.

      To return to Thucydides’ method at a more everyday level, I have made certain assumptions about the speeches in Thucydides. While Thucydides does not knowingly report anything false, he has selected rigorously from what must have been an enormous amount of material in order to further his philosophical and artistic goals. For instance, he apparently thought that it was important to emphasize the destruction of Melos (5.84–5.116) and not the depopulation of Scione (5.32.1). To understand what Thucydides thought about the conduct of the Athenians at Melos, it will be assumed that for him the events there were more important than those at Scione, and that his rhetorical and dramatic emphasis is a sign of this.⁴⁰

      More generally, Thucydides’ well-known statement of his method of presenting the speeches allows him latitude in their actual wording (1.22.1). He says that he stays as close as possible to “the general sense of what was actually said” (τῆς ξυμπάσης γνώμης τῶν ἀληθῶς λεχθέντων), but that he could not record the exact words, and hence made his speakers say what was necessary in the given circumstance (ὡς δ᾽ ἂν ἐδόκουν ἐμοὶ ἕκαστοι περὶ τῶν αἰεὶ παρόντων τὰ δέοντα μάλιστ᾽ εἰπεῖν, “However each speaker seemed to me concerning the circumstances at the time to say doubtless what was required”).

      While Thucydides certainly does not misrepresent speakers, he did choose which speeches to include. He also composed them in such a way that they illuminate his general themes and concepts.⁴¹ It also appears to be the case that what he is saying here is that, as it seemed to him (i.e., Thucydides), each one doubtless said what was required in each circumstance, so he wrote it, keeping as closely as possible to the general sense of what they actually said. While his memory is not perfect, his world was a world of speech and not many books, so his memory was practiced and he tried to pay attention to what he remembered, what others told him, and what was required in each circumstance.

      Part 2. The Development of Stasis at Athens

      Thucydides says that many terrible things happened because of stasis in the cities during the war, things that occur and always will occur, as long as human nature is the same. These experiences will be harsher or milder and will vary in their forms in accordance with the difference in the individual cases (3.82.2). Thucydides’ description of stasis in Corcyra covers a number of phenomena, including the change in the ἀξίωσις or axiosis of words, and he himself indicates that this applies not just to Corcyra but to all states that fall into stasis.⁴² We are justified in thinking he meant this description to include Athens, although some dissent from this. In fact, there is apparently a parallel decline in the level of discourse of the Greek world at large during the war, which finally crushes the ideals that united the Hellenes during the invasion of the Persians,⁴³ though this decline is not the main focus here. Before we turn to the subject proper, however, it will be useful to review the status of political discourse at Athens as Thucydides presents it, and to show in outline how Athens declined into stasis.

      Directly after Pericles’ third speech (2.60–2.65), Thucydides mentions the stasis that engulfed Athens after the Sicilian Expedition (2.65.12), although traces of the disturbance appear at least as early as the first visitation of the plague. Thucydides represents prewar Greece as embodying a respect for logos, and in Athens this respect reached a very high form, as revealed most clearly in the Funeral Oration of Pericles. In a broader sense, this aim at an ideal logos appears in Athens with the birth of tragedy and the growth of philosophy through Parmenides, Anaxagoras, and Socrates. While Thucydides has Pericles use a number of apparently traditional themes to glorify Athens and to praise those who have died for her, the use of these themes should in no way be seen as reducing the impact of his words.⁴⁴ On the most basic level, Thucydides has only praise for Pericles, his plans, his words, and his deeds (e.g., 2.65), although he presents a number of disquieting themes and indications that foreshadow eventual defeat and raise questions about the depth of Pericles’ statesmanship and some of the qualities of his rhetoric. In Pericles’ Athens word and deed are almost equal (2.42.2), and logos is a vital preparation for action (2.40.2). Logos is essential for spiritual prosperity, and freedom is the precondition for the exercise of political speech. Since it is as a political being that man reaches his highest level, and freedom is the basis for the political life, freedom is happiness (2.43.4). Courage guarantees freedom (cf. 2.43.4), and true courage depends on the free exercise of the mind (2.40.2), which reveals itself publicly as responsible political discourse.

      While she does not always reach these high ideals, Athens is an education for Hellas (2.41.1), that is, her very existence both as a force and as an example raises the entire level of Greek culture. This is bold and, as we will see, hubristic, but as Thucydides presents the war, there is truth in the claim. Two sentences later in the Funeral Oration, Pericles says that Athens’ subjects cannot complain that they are ruled by those who are unworthy of rule:

      For Athens alone of her contemporaries is found when tested to be greater than her reputation, and alone gives no occasion to her assailants to blush at the antagonist by whom they have been worsted, or to her subjects to question her title by merit to rule. (2.41.3)

      The hubris here is quite clear. Pericles professes that freedom is the highest value but we wonder, not for everyone, not even for all Greeks? Political freedom that depends on the submission of others is an expression of power. Athens did not gain the leadership of the Greeks by enslaving her subjects but within forty years more some of her Greek subjects were chafing under her rule. Euboea and Megara revolted in 446 (1.114), Samos and Byzantium in 440 (1.117). There is also dramatic irony in Pericles’ statement that Athens’ subjects accepted her worthiness to rule, because Athens’ defeat inevitably raises questions about why Athens lost. Socrates’ serious criticisms of Athens underscore these questions.

      Pericles’ eloquent invocation of the political life in Athens shares a respect for freedom, participatory democracy, and equality at law, unwritten laws, friendliness toward foreigners, free political speech, and open borders among other crucial aspects of a free society that is thoroughly modern.⁴⁵ The ideas of parrhesia, isonomia, isegoria, and koinonia lead to these more complete political ideals. One important flaw, however, in Pericles’ political ideas was obviously that he did not see the danger that an aggressive and even destructive foreign policy that fostered manipulation of the Delian League from an alliance in to an empire would pose for the internal political life of Athens. As Madison (or possibly Hamilton) explains in Federalist #63,

      An attention to the judgment of other nations is important to every government for two reasons: the one is, that, independently of the merits of any particular plan or measure, it is desirable, on various accounts, that it should appear to other nations as the offspring of a wise and honorable policy; the second is, that in doubtful cases, particularly where the national councils may be warped by some strong passion or momentary interest, the presumed or known opinion of the impartial world may be the best guide that can be followed. What has not America lost by her want of character with foreign nations; and how many errors and follies would she not have avoided, if the justice and propriety of her measures had, in every instance, been previously tried by the light in which they would probably appear to the unbiased part of mankind?

      Yet however requisite a sense of national character may be, it is evident that it can never be sufficiently possessed by a numerous and changeable body. It can only be found in a number so small that a sensible degree of the praise and blame of public measures may be the portion of each individual; or in an assembly so durably invested with public trust, that the pride and consequence of its members may be sensibly incorporated with the reputation and prosperity of the community.⁴⁶

      Madison’s argument here is that the proposed new Constitution of the United States would remedy some inherent shortcomings in legislative government by a “numerous