Thucydides' Political Views
The Context
To assess Thucydides’ political views presents various problems…
1. it must (mainly) be limited to an analysis of his Histories rather than making assumptions based upon what we know about Thucydides the Historian from various later biographies and scholia (though it does serve us well to look at these sources, as long as we remember the potentially dubious nature of their reliability)- however a look at other sources of the day might help see if his views were typical or not.
2. it should be noted the extent to which his Histories are an objective history, and hence the extent to which the views expressed by the speeches of Thucydides’ various ‘characters’ (e.g. Pericles) are representative of the views of the speaker or the views of the writer (or the writer’s view of the views of the speaker ) and whether the implications made within the narrative are inferred or deliberate- however, there are asides from Thucydides himself from which we can evaluate his political views.
3. there is then the problem of understanding how Thucydides would have understood the concept of ‘political views’, (and how it might be an anachronistic term) with its modern day implications that can be as varied as to which political party your allegiances lie with, to the philosophical politics of the ‘ideal form of government’ (cf. Plato’s Republic).
By taking into account these three factors (the types of political views that might be present, biographies, and the passages in the Histories where Thucydides’ own views are expressed) an assessment of Thucydides’ political views will be made.
1. it must (mainly) be limited to an analysis of his Histories rather than making assumptions based upon what we know about Thucydides the Historian from various later biographies and scholia (though it does serve us well to look at these sources, as long as we remember the potentially dubious nature of their reliability)- however a look at other sources of the day might help see if his views were typical or not.
2. it should be noted the extent to which his Histories are an objective history, and hence the extent to which the views expressed by the speeches of Thucydides’ various ‘characters’ (e.g. Pericles) are representative of the views of the speaker or the views of the writer (or the writer’s view of the views of the speaker ) and whether the implications made within the narrative are inferred or deliberate- however, there are asides from Thucydides himself from which we can evaluate his political views.
3. there is then the problem of understanding how Thucydides would have understood the concept of ‘political views’, (and how it might be an anachronistic term) with its modern day implications that can be as varied as to which political party your allegiances lie with, to the philosophical politics of the ‘ideal form of government’ (cf. Plato’s Republic).
By taking into account these three factors (the types of political views that might be present, biographies, and the passages in the Histories where Thucydides’ own views are expressed) an assessment of Thucydides’ political views will be made.
Typical political views of the 5th C. BC
The types of political views current in 5th C. Greece need to be defined, because not only were they political views, but they were political actualities (in that they were in practise).
These definitions are very clear cut, and in fact it was often more the case that the lines between these political groups became blurred, or started to include elements of other groups, the most famous of which was the ‘Protoandrarchy’ of Pericles (and to a lesser extent, Themistocles).
Other elements to consider:
- The most common and famous was Democracy (‘power to the people’) and its flipside, ‘mob rule’. There was also Oligarchy, literally, the rule of the few, which was implemented on Athens by Sparta after their defeat.
- Tyranny was a form of government by one man, but they were not always tyrannical in the modern sense, but could often be controlled by benevolent dictators (cf. some of the portrayals of tyrants in tragedy).
- Similar to this was Monarchy, whereby a royal family kept lineage, and as such kept power through this lineage.
These definitions are very clear cut, and in fact it was often more the case that the lines between these political groups became blurred, or started to include elements of other groups, the most famous of which was the ‘Protoandrarchy’ of Pericles (and to a lesser extent, Themistocles).
Other elements to consider:
- The way in which political groups implemented and came to decisions with regards to international affairs, or elements of geopolitics (the two together might be termed ‘imperial politics’ a very important theme in the Histories),
- Whether Thucydides believed there to be ‘good’ politics and ‘bad’ politics, or if he thought that politics could even have such a clearly defined differentiation.
- Because of the clearly multi-faceted nature of politics, Thucydides’ views on the matter are also going to be so.
The difficulties that Thucydides’ objectivity presents when assessing his views
Whereas there is a danger in assessing Thucydides’ political views through biographies, there are difficulties in finding Thucydides’ political views in his Histories, due to the objectivity of his writing; Peter J. Fliess admits that“his [Thucydides’] political views are not easily accessible…” (Fliess. 1959. Political Disorder and Constitutional Form: Thucydides' Critique of Contemporary Politics. The Journal of Politics, 21, 4, pp. 594). The speeches and views that are given by his protagonists and antagonists in the actual narrative might not be his views, but textual analysis might show them to be so, or imply them to be so (Cf. works on Thucydides’ speeches).
There are those who see the Melians (in the Melian Dialogue) as showing Thucydides’ own views, whilst others, like Mara, disagree (Mara. Thucydides and political thought. In ed. Salkever. 2009. The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Greek Political Thought. Cambridge University Press, pp. 109; “echoing de Romilly, a number of commentators have read the Athenian position as stating Thucydides’ own.”).
The same can be said of Diodotus’ speech to the assembly (at 3.42ff.) where he persuades the assembly to reverse its harshness towards Mytilene’s democrats.
Nevertheless, Thucydides does pass his own judgements on occasion, quite clearly as his own views, within his narrative
There are those who see the Melians (in the Melian Dialogue) as showing Thucydides’ own views, whilst others, like Mara, disagree (Mara. Thucydides and political thought. In ed. Salkever. 2009. The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Greek Political Thought. Cambridge University Press, pp. 109; “echoing de Romilly, a number of commentators have read the Athenian position as stating Thucydides’ own.”).
The same can be said of Diodotus’ speech to the assembly (at 3.42ff.) where he persuades the assembly to reverse its harshness towards Mytilene’s democrats.
- Diodotus is a character who is mentioned nowhere else at all,
- this has led some (Forde, Palmer, Saxonhouse) to believe that he is part of Thucydides’ literary imagination (which I would disagree with).
- But if he is, that doesn't mean that he represents Thucydides’ political views...
- But if he does, Diodotus invites reconsideration of the empire (Mara. Thucydides and political thought. In ed. Salkever. 2009. The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Greek Political Thought. Cambridge University Press, pp. 119).
Nevertheless, Thucydides does pass his own judgements on occasion, quite clearly as his own views, within his narrative
Thucydides’ Background
There are two (less than adequate) ‘Lives’ of Thucydides (Grant. The Ancient Historians. Herefordshire: Michael Grant Publications, 1970, pp. 72)
From Marcellinus’ work and other sources of the day, we can say with a certain amount of security:
However, whilst this family relationship is dubious (Ibid. McGregor thinks otherwise) it is certain that Thucydides was from an aristocratic family, the logic being that he would then have aristocratic views himself (Thucydides himself shows at 1.17 the self-preserving nature of another form of rule) so whilst Thucydides’ political views might be assessed from this point of view, very little of any great deal of certainty might be gained from it. But the assumptions which can be made would be that Thucydides, from a very early age, would have grown up in a family with anti-Periclean attitudes and one that was not fond of democracy (Ibid, pp. 95).
- The better one is attributed to the 6th C. AD grammarian Marcellinus, but not with any great certainty (Maitland. 1996. Marcellinus’ Life of Thucydides: Criticism and Criteria in the Biographical. The Classical Quarterly, 46, 2, pp. 539).
- Due to textual reasons it has been suggested that one person alone could not have written Marcellinus work, possible other authors include Zosimus, Didymus, Chalcenterus, Caecilius Calactinus, or Proclus
- The second Life is anonymous (Ibid. There is also a third account preserved in the Suidae Lexicon).
From Marcellinus’ work and other sources of the day, we can say with a certain amount of security:
- that Thucydides was partly Thracian, since his father was called Olorus (Grant. The Ancient Historians. Herefordshire: Michael Grant Publications, 1970, pp. 72).
- Thucydides was also perhaps related to Cimon, since Olorus was the name of Cimon’s grandfather too (Ibid. but to suppose that Thucydides’ was Cimon’s uncle on the basis that their [grand]father had a shared name is perhaps rather a loose assumption);
- Cimon was an ‘aristocratic conservative’(Ibid.) and opposed to Pericles’ imperialism (there is also the problem that these sources might confuse Thucydides son of Olorus with Thucydides son of Melesias (McGregor. 1956. The Politics of the Historian Thucydides. Phoenix, 10, 3, pp.93) whom he was also probably related to).
However, whilst this family relationship is dubious (Ibid. McGregor thinks otherwise) it is certain that Thucydides was from an aristocratic family, the logic being that he would then have aristocratic views himself (Thucydides himself shows at 1.17 the self-preserving nature of another form of rule) so whilst Thucydides’ political views might be assessed from this point of view, very little of any great deal of certainty might be gained from it. But the assumptions which can be made would be that Thucydides, from a very early age, would have grown up in a family with anti-Periclean attitudes and one that was not fond of democracy (Ibid, pp. 95).
Thucydides’ criticisms of political methods
- Thucydides had a negative view of kratos therefore of demokratia, which was contrary to the popular view of the time in Athens… (Ober. 1998. Political dissent in democratic Athens, intellectual critics of popular rule. Princeton University Press, pp.66.)
- Thucydides sees the negative aspects of democracy as being the easiness with which the people can make a wrong decision, as shown by the speech of Diodotus and Mytilene (Thucydides, 3.42-49),
- this was done through being fed the mixed truths, lies and rhetoric of the speakers in the assembly.
- it is also a more general aspect of the Histories that shows human nature characterised as able to turn ideals of political actions into reactions that leave behind a residue of destruction (Mara. Thucydides and political thought. In ed. Salkever. 2009. The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Greek Political Thought. Cambridge University Press, pp. 119), and at times tragedy (Cf. Bks. 6-7 of the Histories & Finley. 1938. Euripides and Thucydides. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology. 49, pp. 23-68 + 1939. The Origins of Thucydides' Style : Harvard Studies in Classical Philology. 50, pp. 35-84).
Therefore, if Thucydides sees faults in democracy, perhaps his favour lies with another form of political government; the problem being that it seems Thucydides finds faults with all forms.
- Thucydides' account of the stasis at Epidamnus shows no really support for a narrow oligarchy, (Ober. 1998. Political dissent in democratic Athens, intellectual critics of popular rule. Princeton University Press, pp. 70) since the Epidamnian oligarchs who were thrown out fought back in what was shown in 1.24 to be a primitive and barbaric way, piracy, which was also shown to be a factor of instability and a lack of strength (Ibid.), and as such implies that Thucydides sees (at least this) Oligarchy as being flawed.
- In more general terms Thucydides also sees the form of politics whereby the rule or dominance of a self-interested person would never result in a great state (Ibid., pp. 64); this principal can be seen when Thucydides discusses Tyranny at 1.17, and shows how it was a limiting growth factor (Ibid.).
For Thucydides oligarchy and tyranny are not the best political ideals.
Thucydides’ potential criticism of Pericles
On a deeper reading, despite the more typical views that Thucydides’ was an admirer of Pericles, it can be shown that Thucydides finds fault with the Periclean aspirations of Athens’ political wellbeing, since they undermine Athens’ political stability. When Pericles inevitably dies, there is a power gap which causes political tension (Montgomery. 1942. Thucydides and Geopolitics. The Classical Journal, 38, 2, pp. 95; “Thucydides was well aware that power balance was a prerogative of the Great Powers” (Thucydides, 1.32)).
What might be seen as originally Thucydides' suggestion that ‘protoandrarchy’ was the best form of political governance, is actually shown to be Thucydides' suggestion that the ‘rule of the first man’ leads to instability after the first man’s death; that the status quo of things was a necessity to power was well known by Thucydides (Thucydides, 2.65.9-10).
One of the clearest judgements that Thucydides himself makes is made at 8.97, he says that the 5,000 were the best form of government that Athens had had in his time. Surely this is then hypocritical if he has already previously shown that the rule of the people is flawed.
The key thing to remember is that Thucydides says ‘at the time’.
What might be seen as originally Thucydides' suggestion that ‘protoandrarchy’ was the best form of political governance, is actually shown to be Thucydides' suggestion that the ‘rule of the first man’ leads to instability after the first man’s death; that the status quo of things was a necessity to power was well known by Thucydides (Thucydides, 2.65.9-10).
One of the clearest judgements that Thucydides himself makes is made at 8.97, he says that the 5,000 were the best form of government that Athens had had in his time. Surely this is then hypocritical if he has already previously shown that the rule of the people is flawed.
The key thing to remember is that Thucydides says ‘at the time’.
Conclusion
As such it would seem that Thucydides can find flaws with all forms of political government, so none is perfect in his eyes, but some are perhaps better than the rest. Nevertheless, what might be the case is that the better form of politics changes between location, tradition and circumstance, or rather, that the most stable form of politics is the best; an observation which Thucydides makes of the Spartans at 1.18 is that the stability of their politeia made them strong (Ober. 1998. Political dissent in democratic Athens, intellectual critics of popular rule. Princeton University Press, pp. 66) and is further supported by the fact that Thucydides’ criticism of Pericles is the political instability that his death causes.
