[[569]]
[N.B.: Following the pagination of Grene, Chicago, 1989.]
ON THE LIFE AND HISTORY OF THUCYDIDES
We read of divers men that bear the name of Thucydides. There is
Thucydides a Pharsalian, mentioned in the eighth book of this history; who was
public host of the Athenians in Pharsalus, and chancing to be at Athens at the
time that the government of THE FOUR HUNDRED began to go down, by his
interposition and persuasion kept asunder the factions then arming themselves,
that they fought not in the city to the ruin of the commonwealth. There is
Thucydides the son of Milesias, an Athenian, of the town of Alope, of whom
Plutarch speaketh in the life of Pericles; and the same, in all probability,
that in the first book of this history is said to have had the charge of forty
galleys sent against Samos, about twenty-four years before the beginning of
this war. Another Thucydides the son of Ariston, an Athenian also, of the town
of Acherdus, was a poet; though of his verses there be nothing extant. But
Thucydides the writer of this history, an Athenian, of the town of Halimus, was
the son of Olorus (or Orolus) and Hegesypele. His father's name is commonly
written Olorus, though in the in scription on his tomb it was Orolus. Howsoever
it be written, it is the same that was borne by divers of the kings of Thrace;
and irnposed on him with respect unto his descent from them. So that though our
author (as Cicero saith of him, lib. ii. De Oratore,) had never written an
history, yet had not his name not been extant, in regard of his honour and
nobility. And not only Plutarch, in the life of Cimon, but also almost all
others that have touched this point, affirm directly that he was descended from
the Thracian Kings: adducing this for proof, that he was of the house of
Miltiades, that famous general of the Athenians against the Persians
[[570]]
at Marathon; which they also prove by this, that his tomb was a long
time extant amongst the monuments of that family. For near unto the gates of
Athens, called iffelitides, there was a place named Coela; and in it the
monuments called Cimoniana, belonging to the family of Miltiades, in
which none but such as were of that family might be buried. And amongst those
was the monument of Thucydides; with this inscription, THUCYDIDES OROLI
HALIMUSIUS. Now Miltiades is confessed by all, to have descended from Olorus
king of Thrace; whose daughter another Miltiades, grandfather to this, married
and had children by. And Miltiades, that won the memorable victory at Marathon,
was heir to goodly possessions and cities in the Chersonnesus of Thrace; over
which also he reigned. In Thrace lay also the possessions of Thucydides, and
his wealthy mines of gold: as he himself professeth in his fourth book And
although those riches might come to him by a wife (as is also by some affirmed)
which he married in Scapte-Hyle, a city of Thrace; yet even by that marriage it
appeareth, that his affairs had a relation to chat country, and that his
nobility was not there unknown. But in what degree of kindred Miltiades and he
approached each other, is not anywhere made manifest. Some also have
conjectured that he was of the house of the Peisistratides: the ground of whose
conjecture hath been only this, that he maketh hmaourable mention of the
government of Peisistratus and his sons, and extenuateth the glory of Harmodius
and Aristogeiton; proving that the freeing of the state of Athens from the
tyranny of the Peisistratides was falsely ascribed to their fact, (which
proceeded from private revenge in a quarrel of love), by which the tyranny
ceased not, but grew heavier to the state, till it was at last put down by the
Lacedmonians. But this opinion, as it is not so' well-grounded, so neither is
it so well received as the former.Agreeable to his nobility, was
his institution in the study of eloquence and philosophy. For in philosophy, he
was the scholar (as also was Pericles and Socrates) of Anaxagoras; whose
opinions, being of a strain above the apprehension of the vulgar, procured him
the estimation of an atheist: which name they bestowed upon all men that
thought not as they did of their ridiculous religion,
[[571]]
and in the end cost him his life. And Socrates after him for the like causes
underwent the like fortune. It is not therefore much to be regarded, if this
other disciple of his were by some reputed an atheist too. For though he were
none, yet it is not improbable, but by the light of natural reason he might see
enough in the religion of these heathen, to make him think it vain and
superstitious; which was enough to make him an atheist in the opinion of the
people. In some places of his history be noteth the equivocation of the
oracles; and yet he confirmeth an assertion of his own, touching the time this
war lasted, by the oracle's prediction. He taxeth Nicias for being too punctual
in the observation of the ceremonies of their religion, when he overthrew
himself and his army, and indeed the whole dominion and liberty of his country,
by it. Yet he commendeth him in another place for his worshipping of the gods,
and saith in that respect, he least of all men deserved to come to so great a
degree of calamity as he did. So that in his writings our author appeareth to
be, on the one side not superstitious, on the other side not an atheist.
In rhetoric, he was the disciple of Antiphon; one (by his description in
the eighth book of this history) for power of speech almost a miracle, and
feared by the people for his eloquence. Ins-- much as in his latter days he
lived retired, but so as he gave counsel to, and writ orations for other men
that resorted to him to that purpose. It was he that contrived the deposing of
the people, and the setting up of the government of THE FOUR HUNDRED. For which
also he was put to death, when the people again recovered their authority,
notwithstanding that he pleaded his own cause the best of any man to that
day.
It need not be doubted, but from such a master Thucydides was sufficiently
qualified to have become a great demagogue, and of great authority with the
people. But it seemeth he had no desire at all to meddle in the government:
because in those days it was impossible for any man to give good and profitable
counsel for the commonwealth, and not incur the displeasure of the people. For
their opinion was such of their own power, and of the facility of achieving
whatsoever action they undertook, that such men only swayed the assemblies, and
were esteemed wise and good common-
[[572]]
wealth's men, as did put them upon the most dangerous and desperate
enterpriz:es. Whereas he that gave them temperate and discreet advice, was
thought a coward, or not to understand, or else to malign their power. And no
marvel: for much prosperity (to which they had now for many years been
accustomed) maketh men in love with themselves; and it is hard for any man to
love that counsel which maketh him love himself the less. And it holdeth much
more in a multitude, than in one man. For a man that reasoneth with himself,
will not be ashamed to admit of timorous suggestions in his business, that he
may the stronglier provide; but in public deliberations before a multitude,
fear (which for the most part adviseth well, though it execute not so) seldom
or never sheweth itself or is admitted. By this means it came to pass amongst
the Athenians, who thought they were able to do anything, that wicked men and
flatterers drave them headlong into those actions that were to ruin them; and
the good men either durst not oppose, or if they did, undid themselves.
Thucydides therefore, that he might not be either of them that committed or of
them that suffered the evil, forbore to come into the assemblies; and
propounded to himself a private life, as far as the eminency of so wealthy a
person, and the writing of the history he had undertaken, would
permit.For his opinion touching the government of the state, it
is manifest that he least of all liked the democracy. And upon divers occasions
he noteth the emulation and contention of the demagogues for reputation and
glory of wit; with their crossing of each other's counsels, to the damage of
the public; the inconsistency of resolutions, caused by the diversity of ends
and power of rhetoric in the orators; and the desperate actions undertaken upon
the flattering advice of such as desired to attain, or to hold what they had
attained, of authority and sway amongst the common people. Nor doth it appear
that he magnifieth anywhere the authority of the few: amongst whom, he
saith, every one desireth to be the chief; and they that are undervalued, bear
it with less patience than in a democracy; whereupon sedition followeth, and
dissolution of the government. He praiseth the government of Athens, when it
was mixed of the few and the many; but more he commendeth
it,
[[573]]
both when Peisistratus reigned, (saving that it was an usurped power),
and when in the beginning of this war it was democratical in name, but in
effect monarchical under Pericles. So that it seemeth, that as he was of regal
descent, so he best approved of the regal government. It is therefore no
marvel, if he meddled as little as he could in the business of the
commonwealth; but gave himself rather to the observation and recording of what
was done by those that had the managing thereof. Which also he was no less
prompt, diligent, and faithful by the disposition of his mind, than by his
fortune, dignity, and wisdom able, to accomplish. How he was disposed to a work
of this nature, may be understood by this: that when being a young man he heard
Herodotus the historiographer reciting his history in public, (for such was the
fashion both of that, and many ages after), he felt so great a sting of
emulation, that it drew tears from him: insomuch as Herodotus himself took
notice how violently his mind was set on letters, and told his father Olorus.
When the Peloponnesian war began to break out, he conjectured truly that it
would prove an argument worthy of his labour: and no sooner it began, than he
began his history; pursuing the same not in that perfect manner in which we see
it now, but by way of commentary or plain register of the actions and passages
thereof, as from time to time they fell out and came to his knowledge. But such
a commentary it was, as might perhaps deserve to be preferred before a history
written by another. For it is very probable that the eighth book is left the
same as it was when he first writ it: neither beautified with ora-- tions, nor
so well cemented at the transitions, as the former seven books are. And though
he began to write as soon as ever the war was on foot; yet began he not to
perfect and polish his history, till after he was banished.For
notwithstanding his retired life upon the coast of Thrace, where his own
possessions lay, he could not avoid a service to the state which proved to him
afterwards very unfortunate. For whilst he resided in the isle Thasos, it fell
out that Brasidas, the Lacedmonian besieged Amphipolis; a city belonging to the
Athenians, on the confines of Thrace and Macedonia, distant from Thasos about
half a day's sail. To relieve which, the captain
[[574]]
thereof for the Athenians sent to Thucydides, to levy a power and make
haste unto him: for Thucydides was one of the Strategi, that is, had authority
to raise forces in those parts for the service of the commonwealth. And he did
accordingly; but he came thither one night too late, and found the city already
yielded up. And for this he was afterwards banished; as if he had let slip his
time through negligence, or purposely put it off upon fear of the enemy.
Nevertheless he put himself into the city of Eion, and preserved it to the
Athenians with the repulse of Brasidas; which came down from Amphipolis the
next morning, and assaulted it. The author of his banishment is supposed to
have been Cleon; a most violent sycophant in those times, and thereby also a
most acceptable speaker amongst the people. For where affairs succeed amiss,
though there want neither providence nor courage in the conduction; yet with
those that judge only upon events, the way to calumny is always open and envy,
in the likeness of zeal to the public good, easily findeth credit for an
accusation.After his banishment he lived in Scapte-Hyle, a city
of Thrace before mentioned, as Plutarch writeth; but yet so, as he went abroad,
and was present at the actions of the rest of the war; as appeareth by his own
words in his fifth book, where he saith, that he was present at the actions of
both parts, and no less at those of the Peloponnesians, by reason of his exile,
than those of the Athenians. During this time also he perfected his history, so
far as is now to be seen; nor doth it appear that after his exile he ever again
enjoyed his country. It is not clear in any author, where, or when, or in what
year of his own age he died. Most agree that he died in banishment: yet there
be that have written, that after the defeat in Sicily the Athenians decreed a
general revocation of all banished persons, except those of the family of
Peisistratus; and that he then returned, and was afterwards put to death at
Athens. But this is very unlikely to be true, unless by after the defeat
in Sicily, be meant so long after, that it was also after the end of the
Peloponnesian war; because Thucydides himself maketh no mention of such return,
though he outlived the whole war, as is manifest by his words in the fifth
book. For he saith he lived in banishment twenty years after his charge at
Amphipolis; which happened
[[575]]
in the eighth year of this war: which, in the whole, lasted but
twenty-seven years complete. And in another place he maketh mention of the
razing of the long walls between Peiraeus and the city; which was the last
stroke of this war. They that say he died at Athens, take their conjecture from
his monument which was there. But this is not a sufficient argument; for he
might be buried there secretly, (as some have written he was), though he died
abroad: or his monument might be there, and (as others have affirmed) he not
buried in it. In this variety of conjecture, there is nothing more probable
than that which is written by Pausarias, where he describeth the monuments of
the Athenian city; and saith thus: "The worthy act of Oenobius in the behalf of
Thucydides, is not without honour": meaning that he had a statue. "For Oenobius
obtained to have a decree passed for his return; vho returning was slain by
treachery; and his sepulchre is near the gates called Melitides." He died, as
saith Marcellinus, after the seven and fiftieth year of his age. And if it be
true that is written by A. Gellius, of the ages of Hellanicus, Herodotus, and
Thucydides, then died he not before the sixty-eighth year. For if he were forty
when the war began, and lived (as he did certainly) to see it ended, he might
be more when he died, but not less than sixty-eight years of age. What children
he left, is not manifest. Plato in Menone, maketh mention of Milesias and
Stephanus, sons of a Thucydides of a very noble family; but it is clear they
were of Thucydides the rival of Pericles, both by the name Milesias, and
because this Thucydides also was of the family of Miltiades, as Plutarch
testifieth in the life of Cimon. That he had a son, is affirmed by Marcellinus
out of the authority of Polemon; but of his name there is no mention, save that
a learned man readeth there in the place of yoe.... (which is in the imperfect
copy), Timotheus. Thus much of the person of Thucydides.Now for
his writings, two things are to be considered in them: truth and
elocution. For in truth consisteth the soul, and in
elocution the body of history. The latter without the former, is
but a picture of history; and the former without the latter, unapt to instruct.
But let us see how our author hath acquitted himself in both. For the faith of
this history, I shall have the less to say: in
[[576]]
respect that no man hath ever yet called it into question. Nor indeed
could any man justly doubt of the truth of that writer, in whom they had
nothing at all to suspect of those things that could have caused him either
voluntarily to lie, or ignorantly to deliver an untruth. He overtasked not
himself by undertaking an history of things done long before his time, and of
which he was not able to inform himself. He was a man that had as much means,
in regard both of his dignity and wealth, to find the truth of what he
relateth, as was needful for a man to have. He used as much diligence in search
of the truth, (noting every thing whilst it was fresh in memory, and laying out
his wealth upon intelligence), as was possible for a man to use. He affected
least of any man the acclamations of popular auditories, and wrote not his
history to win present applause, as was the use of that age: but for a monument
to instruct the ages to come; which he professeth himself, and entitleth his
book Kthma Es Aei, a possession for everlasting. He was far from the
necessity of servile writers, either to fear or flatter. And whereas he may
peradventure be thought to have been malevolent towards his country, because
they deserved to have him so; yet hath he not written any thing that
discovereth such passion. Nor is there any thing written of them that tendeth
to their dishonour as Athenians, but only as people; and that by the
necessity of the narration. not by any sought digression. So that no word of
his, but their own actions do sometimes reproach them. In sum, if the truth of
a history did ever appear by the manner of relating, it doth so in this
history: so coherent, perspicuous and persuasive is the whole narration, and
every part thereof.In the elocution also, two things are
considerable: disposition or method, and style. Of the
disposition here used by Thucyd ides, it will be sufficient in this
place briefly to observe only this: that in his first book, first he hath, by
way of exordium, derived the state of Greece from the cradle to the vigorous
stature it then was at when he began to write: and next, declared the causes,
both real and pretended, of the war he was to write of. In the rest, in which
he handleth the war itself, he followeth distinctly and purely the order of
time throughout; relating that came to pass from year to year, and subdividing
each year into a summer and
[[577]]
winter. The grounds and motives of every action he setteth down before
the action itself, either narratively, or else contriveth them into the form of
deliberative orations in the persons of such as from time to time bare
sway in the commonwealth. After the actions, when there is just occasion, he
giveth his judgment of them; shewing by what means the success came either to
be furthered or hindered. Digressions for instruction's cause, and other such
open conveyances of precepts, (which is the philosopher's part), he never
useth; as having so clearly set before men's eyes the ways and events of good
and evil counsels, that the narration itself doth secretly instruct the reader,
and more effectually than can possibly be done by precept.For
his style, I refer it to the judgment of divers ancient and competent
judges. Plutarch in his book, De gloria Atheniensium, saith of him thus:
"Thucydides aimeth always at this; to make his auditor a spectator, and to cast
his reader into the same passions that they were in that were beholders. The
manner how Demosthenes arranged the Athenians on the rugged shore before Pylus;
how Brasidas urged the steersman to run his galley aground; how he went to the
ladder or place in the galley for descent; how he was hurt, and swooned, and
fell down on the ledges of the galley; how the Spartans fought after the manner
of a land-fight upon the sea, and the Athenians of a sea-fight upon land:
again, in the Sicilian war, how a battle was fought by sea and land with equal
fortune: these things, I say, are so described and so evidently set before our
eyes, that the mind of the reader is no less affected therewith than if he had
been present in the actions." There is for his perspicuity. Cicero in his book
entitled Orator, speaking of the affection of divers Greek rhetoricians,
saith thus: "And therefore Herodotus and Thucydides are the more admirable. For
though they lived in the same age with those I have before named," (meaning
Thrasymachus, Gorgias, and Theodorus), "yet were they far from this kind of
delicacy, or rather indeed foolery. For the one without rub, gently glideth
like a still river; and the other" (meaning Thucydides) "runs stronglier, and
in matter of war, as it were, bloweth a trumpet of war. And in these two (as
saith Theophrastus) history hath roused herself, and adventured to speak, but
more
[[578]]
copiously, and with more ornament than in those that were before them."
This commends the gravity and the dignity of his language. Again in his second
book, De Oratore, thus: "Thucydides, in the art of speaking, hath in my
opinion far exceeded them all. For he is so full of matter, that the number of
his sentences doth almost reach to the number of his words; and in his words he
is so apt and so close, that it is hard to say whether his words do more
illustrate his sentences, or his sentences his words." There is for the
pithiness and strength of his style. Lastly, for the purity and propriety, I
cite Dionysius Halicarnassius: whose testimony is the stronger in this point,
because he was a Greek rhetorician for his faculty, and for his affection, one
that would no further commend him than of necessity he must. His words are
these: "There is one virtue in eloquence, the chiefest of all the rest, and
without which there is no other goodness in speech. What is that? That the
language be pure, and retain the propriety of the Greek tongue. This they both
observe diligently. For Herodotus is the best rule of the Ionic, and Thucydides
of the Attic dialect." These testimonies are not needful to him that hath read
the history itself; nor at all, but that this same Dionysius hath taken so much
pains, and applied so much of his faculty in rhetoric, to the extenuating of
the worth thereof. Moreover, I have thought it necessary to take out the
principal objections he maketh against him; and without many words of mine own
to leave them to the consideration of the reader. And first, Dionysius saith
thus: "The principal and most necessary office of any man that intendeth to
write a history, is to choose a noble argument, and grateful to such as shall
read it. And this Herodotus, in my opinion, hath done better than Thucydides.
For Herodotus hath written the joint history both of the Greeks and barbarians,
to save from oblivion, &c. But Thucydides writeth one only war, and that
neither honourable nor fortunate; which principally were to be wished never to
have been; and next, never to have been remembered nor known to posterity. And
that he took an evil argument in hand, he maketh it manifest in his proeme,
saying: that many cities were in that war made desolate and utterly
destroyed, partly by barbarians, partly by the Greeks themselves: so many
banishments, and so much slaughter
[[579]]
of men, as never was the like before, &c.: so that the
hearers will abhor it at the first propounding. Now by how much it is better to
write of the wonderful acts both of the barbarians and Grecians, than of the
pitiful and horrible calamities of the Grecians; so much wiser is Herodotus in
the choice of his argument than Thucydides."Now let any man
consider whether it be not more reasonable to say: That the principal and most
necessary office of him that will write a history, is to take such an argument
as is both within his power well to handle, and profitable to posterity that
shall read it, which Thucydides, in the opinion of all men, hath done better
than Herodotus: for Herodotus undertook to write of those things, of which it
was impossible for him to know the truth; and which delight more the ear with
fabulous narrations, than satisfy the mind with truth: but Thucydides writeth
one war; which, how it was carried from the beginning to the end, he was able
certainly to inform himself: and by propounding in his proeme the miseries that
happened in the same, he sheweth that it was a great war, and worthy to be
known; and not to be concealed from posterity, for the calamities that then
fell upon the Grecians; but the rather to be truly delivered unto them, for
that men profit more by looking on adverse events, than on prosperity:
therefore by how much men's miseries do better instruct, than their good
success; by so much was Thucydides more happy in taking his argument, than
Herodotus was wise in choosing his.
Dionysius again saith thus: "The next office of him that will write a history,
is to know where to begin, and where to end. And in this point Herodotus
seemeth to be far more discreet than Thucydides. For in the first place he
layeth down the cause for which the barbarians began to injure the Grecians;
and going on, maketh an end at the punishment and the revenge taken on the
barbarians. But Thucydides begins at the good estate of the Grecians; which,
being a Grecian and an Athenian, he ought not to have done: nor ought he, being
of that dignity amongst the Athenians, so evidently to have laid the fault of
the war upon his own city, when there were other occasions enough to which he
might have imputed it. Nor ought he to have begun with the
[[580]]
business of the Corcyrans, but at the more noble acts of his country,
which they did immediately after the Persian war: which afierward in convenient
place he mentioneth, but it is but cursorily, and not as he ought. And when he
had declared those with much affection, as a lover of his country, then he
should have brought in, how that the Lacedmonians, through envy and fear, but
pretending other causes, began the war: and so have descended to the Corcyran
business, and the decree against the Megareans, or whatsoever else he had to
put in. Then in the ending of his history, there be many errors committed. For
though he profess he was present in the whole war, and that he would write It
all: yet he ends with the naval battle at Cynos-sema, which was fought in the
twenty-first year of the war. Whereas it had been better to have gone through
with it, and ended his history with that admirable and grateful return of the
banished Athenians from Phile; at which time the city recovered her
liberty."To this I say, that it was the duty of him that had
undertaken to write the history of the Peloponnesian war, to begin his
narration no further off than at the causes of the same, whether the Grecians
were then in good or in evil estate. And if the injury, upon which the war
arose, proceeded from the Athenians; then the writer, though an Athenian and
honoured in his country, ought to declare the same; and not to seek nor take,
though at hand, any other occasion to transfer the fault. And that the acts
done before the time comprehended in the war he writ of, ought to have been
touched but cursorily, and no more than may serve for the enlightening of the
history to follow, how noble soever those acts have been. Which when he had
thus touched, without affection to either side, and not as a lover of his
country but of truth; then to have proceeded to the rest with the like
indifferency. And to have made an end of writing, where the war ended, which he
undertook to write; not producing his history beyond that period, though that
which followed were never so admirable and acceptable. All this Thucydides hath
observed.
These two criminations I have therefore set down at large, translated almost
verbatim, that the judgment of Dionysius Halicarnassius may the better appear
concerning the main and
[[581]]
principal virtues of a history. I think there was never written so much
absurdity in so few lines. He is contrary to the opinion of all men that ever
spake of this subject besides himself, and to common sense. For he makes the
scope of history, not profit by writing truth, but delight of the hearer, as if
it were a song. And the argument of history, he would not by any means have to
contain the calamities and misery of his country; these he could have buried in
silence: but only their glorious and splendid actions. Amongst the virtues of
an historiographer, he reckons affection to his country; study to please the
hearer; to write of more than his argument leads him to; and to conceal all
actions that were not to the honour of his country. Most manifest vices. He was
a rhetorician; and it seemeth he would have nothing written, but that which was
most capable of rhetorical ornament. Yet Lucian, a rhetorician also, in a
treatise entitled, How a history ought to be written, saith thus: "that
a writer of history ought, in his writings, to be a foreigner, without country,
living under his own law only, subject to no king, nor caring what any man will
like or dislike, but laying out the matter as it is.The third
fault he finds is this: that the method of his history is governed by the time,
rather than the periods of several actions: for he declares in order what came
to pass each summer and winter, and is thereby forced sometimes to leave the
narration of a siege, or sedition, or a war, or other action in the niiddest,
and enter into a relation of somewhat else done at the same time, in another
place, and to come to the former again when the time requires it. This, saith
he, causes confusion in the mind of his hearer, so that he cannot comprehend
distinctly the several parts of the history.
Dionysius aimeth still at the delight of the present hearer; though
Thucydides himself profess that his scope is not that, but to leave his work
for a perpetual possession for posterity: and then have men leisure
enough to comprehend him thoroughly. But indeed, whosoever shall read him once
attentively, shall more distinctly conceive of every action this way than the
other. And the method is more natural; forasmuch as his purpose being to write
of one Peloponnesian war, this way he has incorporated all the
[[582]]
parts thereof into one body; so that there is unity in the whole, and
the several narrations are conceived only as parts of that. Whereas the other
way, he had sewed together many little histories, and left the Peloponnesian
war, which he took for his subject, in a manner unwritten: for neither any part
nor the whole could justly have carried such a title.Fourthly,
he accuseth him for the method of his first book: in that he deriveth Greece
from the infancy thereof to his own time: and in that he setteth down the
narration of the quarrels about Corcyra and Potida, before he entreateth of the
true cause of the war; which was the greatness of the Athenian dominion, feared
and envied by the Lacedmonians.
For answer to this, I say thus. For the mentioning of the ancient state of
Greece, he doth it briefly, insisting no longer upon it than is necessary for
the well understanding of the following history. For without some general
notions of these first times, many places of the history are the less easy to
be understood; as depending upon the knowledge of the original of several
cities and customs, which could not be at all inserted into the history itself,
but must be either supposed to be foreknown by the reader, or else be delivered
to him in the beginning as a necessary preface. And for his putting first the
narration of the public and avowed cause of this war, and after that the true
and inward motive of the same; the reprehension is absurd. For it is plain,
that a cause of war divulged and avowed, how slight soever it be, comes within
the task of the historiographer, no less than the war itself. For without a
pretext, no war follows. This pretext is always an injury received, or
pretended to be received. Whereas the inward motive to hostility is but
conjectural; and not of that evidence, that a historiographer should be always
bound to take notice of it: as envy to the greatness of another state, or fear
of an injury to come. Now let any man judge, whether a good writer of history
ought to handle, as the principal cause of war, proclaimed injury or concealed
envy. In a word, the image of the method used by Thucydides in this point, is
this: "The quarrel about Corcyra passed on this manner; and the quarrel about
Potida on this manner": relating both at large: "and in both the Athenians were
accused to have done the
[[583]]
injury. Nevertheless, the Lacedmonians had not upon this injury entered
into a war against them, but that they envied the greatness of their power, and
feared the consequence of their ambition." I chink a more clear and natural
order cannot possibly be devised.Again he says, that he maketh a
funeral oration (which was solemnly done on all occasions through the war) for
fifteen horsemen only, that were slain at the brooks called Rheiti: and that
for this reason only, chat he might make it in the person of Pericles, who was
then living, but before another the like occasion happened was dead.
The manner of the Athenians was, that they that were slain the first in any
war, should have a solemn funeral in the suburbs of the city. During this war,
they had many occasions to put this custom in practice. Seeing therefore it was
fit to have that custom and the form of it known, and that once for all, the
manner being ever the same; it was the fittest to relate it on the first
occasion, what number soever they were that were then buried: which
nevertheless is not likely to have been so few as Dionysius saith. For the
funeral was not celebrated till the winter after they were slain: so that many
more were slain before this solemnity, and may all be accounted amongst the
first. And that Pericles performed the office of making their funeral oration,
there is no reason alledged by him why it should be doubted.
Another fault he finds, is this: that he introduceth the Athenian generals, in
a dialogue with the inhabitants of the Isle of Melos, pretending openly for the
cause of their invasion of that isle, the power and will of the state of
Athens; and rejecting utterly to enter into any disputation with them
concerning the equity of their cause, which, he saith, was contrary to the
dignity of the state.
To this may be answered, that the proceeding of these generals was not unlike
to divers other actions, that the people of Athens openly took upon them: and
therefore it is very likely they were allowed so to proceed. Howsoever, if the
Athenian people gave in charge to these their captains, to take in the island
by all means whatsoever, without power to report back unto them first the
equity of the islanders' cause; as is most likely to be true; I see
[[584]]
then no reason the generals had to enter into disputation with them,
whether they should perform their charge or not, but only whether they should
do it by fair or foul means; which is the point treated of in this dialogue.
Other cavils he hath touching the matter and order of this history, but not
needful to be answered.Then for his phrase, he carpeth at it in
infinite places, both for obscure and licentious. He that will see the
particular piaces he reprehendeth, let him read Dionysius himself, if he will:
for the matter is too tedious for this place. It is true, that there be some
sentences in him somewhat long: not obscure to one that is attentive: and
besides that, they are but few. Yet is this the most important fault he
findeth. For the rest, the obscurity that is, proceedeth from the profoundness
of the sentences; containing contemplations of those human passions, which
either dissembled or not commonly discoursed of, do yet carry the greatest sway
with men in their public conversation. If then one cannot penetrate into them
without much meditation, we are not to expect a man should understand them at
the first speaking. Marcellinus saith, he was obscure on purpose; that the
common people might not understand him. And not unlikely: for a wise man should
so write, (though in words understood by all men), that wise men only should be
able to commend him. But this obscurity is not to be in the narrations of
things done, nor in the descriptions of places or of battles, in all which
Thucydides is most perspicuous: as Plutarch in the words before cited hath
testified of him. But in the characters of men's humours and manners, and
applying them to affairs of consequence: it is impossible not to be obscure to
ordinary capacities, in what words soever a man deliver his mind. If therefore
Thucydides in his orations, or in the description of a sedition, or other thing
of that kind, be not easily understood; it is of those only that cannot
penetrate into the nature of such things, and proceedeth not from any intricacy
of expression. Dionysius further findeth fault with his using to set word
against word: which the rhetoricians call antitheta. Which, as it is in
some kind of speech a very great vice, so is it not improper in characters: and
of comparative discourses, it is almost the only style.
And whereas he further taxeth him for licentiousness in turning
[[585]]
nouns into verbs, and verbs into nouns, and altering of genders, cases,
and numbers; as he doth sometimes for the more efficacy of his style, and
without soloecism; I leave him to the answer of Marcellinus: who says, "That
Dionysius findeth fault with this, as being ignorant" (yet he was a professed
rhetorician) "that this was the most excellent and perfect kind of
speaking."Some man may peradventure desire to know, what motive
Dionysius might have to extenuate the worth of him, whom he himself
acknowledgeth to have been esteemed by all men for the best by far of all
historians that ever wrote, and to have been taken by all the ancient orators
and philosophers for the measure and rule of writing history. What motive he
had to it, I know not: but what glory he might expect by it, is easily known.
For having first preferred Herodotus, his countryman, a Halicarnassian, before
Thucydides, who was accounted the best; and then conceiving that his own
history might perhaps be thought not inferior to that of Herodotus: by this
computation he saw the honour of the best historiographer falling on himself.
Wherein, in the opinion of all men, he hath misreckoned. And thus much for the
objections of Denis of Halicarnasse.
It is written of Demosthenes, the famous orator, that he wrote over the history
of Thucydides with his own hand eight times. So much was this work esteemed,
even for the eloquence. But yet was this his eloquence not at all fit for the
bar; but proper for history, and rather to be read than heard. For words that
pass away (as in public orations they must) without pause, ought to be
understood with ease, and are lost else: though words that remain in writing
for the reader to meditate on, ought rather to be pithy and full. Cicero
therefore doth justly set him apart from the rank of pleaders; but withal, he
continually giveth him his due for history, (lib ii. De Oratore): "What great
rhetorician ever borrowed any thing of Thucydides? Yet all men praise him, I
confess it, as a wise, severe, grave relator of things done: not for a pleader
of causes at the bar, but a reporter of war in history. So that he was never
reckoned an orator: nor if he had never written a history, had his name
therefore not been extant, being a man of honour and nobility. Yet none of them
imitate the gravity of his words
[[586]]
and sentences; but when they have uttered a kind of lame and disjointed
stuff, they presently think themselves brothers of Thucydides." Again, in his
book De Optimo Oratore, he saith thus: "But here will stand up
Thucydides: for his eloquence is by some admired; and justly. But this is
nothing to the orator we seek: for it is one thing to unfold a matter by way of
narration; another thing to accuse a man, or clear him by arguments. And in
narrations one thing to stay the hearer, another to stir him." Lucian, in his
book entitled How a history ought to be written, doth continually
exemplify the virtues which he requires in an historiographer by Thucydides.
And if a man consider well that whole discourse of his, he shall plainly
perceive that the image of this present history, preconceived in Lucian's mind,
suggested unto him all the precepts he there delivereth. Lastly, hear the most
true and proper commendation of him from Justus Lipsius, in his notes to his
book De Doctrina Civili in these words: "Thucydides, who hath written
not many nor very great matters, hath perhaps yet won the garland from all that
have written of matters both many and great. Everywhere for elocution grave;
short, and thick with sense; sound in his judgments; everywhere secretly
instructing and directing a man's life and actions. In his orations and
excursions, almost divine. Whom the oftener you read, the more you shall carry
away; yet never be dismissed without appetite. Next to him is Polybius,
&c."And thus much concerning the life and history of
Thucydides.