Thucydides

David Bolotin contributed the first chapter for Strauss and Cropsey’s History of Political Philosophy with his essay on Thucydides. Admittedly, this is one of the more controversial inclusions in the book as Bolotin readily admits in his introduction, Thucydides is more often seen as a historian than a political philosopher as his only book, History of the Peloponnesian War dealt only with the history of the 5^th century Greek conflict between Athens and its allies and Sparta and its allies without making any specific references to how to govern properly or what kind of order is a just order. Seeing the book as mere history though, according to Bolotin is overly simplistic as Thucydides did not simply talk about a particular historical era, but also attempted to inform people for “all times.” For Thucydides, the universal questions that the Greek philosophers asked must be fixed as improper universal questioning leads to poor particular judgment.   

  

One of the major ways in which Thucydides turns his work into political philosophy is through his careful analysis on the origins of the war, which allows questions of justice concerning the war to arise. While space prevents a detailed analysis of the war itself, what really matters for the purpose of this essay is how Thucydides interpreted the events. Here Thucydides goes against the popular opinion on who was to blame for the war as most of the public held that Athens was the guilty party because they broke their treaties with Sparta. But for Thucydides, this reasoning is overly simplistic as he sees no other real option for the Athenians. He also refuses to see a plague that Athens suffered or its horrible defeat at Sicily as punishment for unjust acts by the Athenians, although he does allow the reader to draw that particular conclusion.

Instead of seeing Athens’ defeat as a part of divine retribution, Thucydides views the defeat as one of great sadness. Furthermore, when discussing the atrocities Athens committed, Thucydides shows himself to have a very grim view of human nature as he points out, the atrocities Athens committed were similar to events that had happened before the war and will be similar to events that take place after the war ended. For Thucydides, as long as human beings exist, atrocities will also exist. This is not to suggest that Thucydides simply casts blame on every party and declares he can take no part in the conflict due to immoral acts made by all, for while he may see human depravity as universal, he does not see it as equal.

Much of Bolotin’s essay focuses on how Thucydides saw the actions of the Athenian leadership. Of particular importance was the argument made that Athens would have to forgo its traditional virtue to win the war. For Thucydides, this was important as it showed that the idea of “the good” in Athens had been shifted away from the universals to what was good for Athens. For the Athenian leadership, the war was a chance to great a “benevolent empire” by which the ideas of truth, beauty, and the just man could be spread. And while Thucydides does not see every action committed by the Athenians as being guided by justice, he still remains sympathetic to the leadership’s claims as he does see justice as the ultimate goal of the Athenians. What’s more, Thucydides also points out that several times during the war, the Athenians had a chance to commit atrocities, but chose not to do so. This is a further example of Thucydides willingness to buck what made up the common knowledge of his day as most people still thought that Athens had committed unprecedented and unspeakable atrocities. A further example of this can be seen in his treatment of the Athenian tyrants. While many saw the defeat Athens suffered as punishment for having tyrannical government, Thucydides rejects this view, noting that the Athenian tyrants still practiced “virtue and intelligence.” Though Thucydides writings, a more balanced view of the war can emerge.

This is not to say that Thucydides is producing mere pro-Athens propaganda, such a reading of him would be grossly unfair as he is willing to criticize the Athenian regime when he feels the facts warrant it. For example, Pericles encouraged the Athenians to try and take Sicily, believing that by doing so the Athenians would create the greatest of Greek empires. He also believed that decline was inevitable, regardless of whether or not the Athenians created an empire, so it was best for the Athenians to go ahead and create such an empire and enjoy a more glorious present as their future decline was already set. The line of thinking displayed here eventually lead to the disastrous campaign in Sicily, an event in which all the Athenians who were sent to Sicily died. Thucydides sees the disaster as a result of unrestrained private ambitions, a situation that had developed as a result of Pericles’ death, which took away the checks on their own ambition many Athenian politicians had.

Another important element in Thucydides thought is that he believes that despite the disadvantages the Athenians suffered, they still had a chance to win the war. While at first glance this may come across as biased thinking on the part of someone who tended to side with Athens, in reality Thucydides made a very important breakthrough in thought as if it is the case than Athens had a chance to win the war, it means that defeat was not due to the inevitable laws of nature or the acts of the gods. Essentially, by refusing to see Athenian defeat as unavoidable, Thucydides manages to avoid falling into fatalism, which had been extremely popular during his day.

In the last part of his essay, Bolotin discusses Thucydides attitudes towards Diodotus, an Athenian politician best known for his opposition to Cleon’s plan to massacre the Mytilenean men and enslave their women and children after they revolted against Athenian rule. Diodotus proposed governing by what he called a “moderated city” in which self-interest and justice were both considered. Diodotus is important as while most of the speakers in Thucydides’ work spoke of the common/ collective good, he stands out by putting great importance on the good of the individual. Eventually though Diodotus was lead to a crisis as without a belief in the greatest things, he is compelled to lie to prevent the massacre. Ultimately though, Diodotus has the same bleak view of humanity Thucydides does, but is also heavily individualistic, particularly for his time period as he places more emphasis on the good of the individual than on the good of the city.

Regardless of how Thucydides is commonly thought of, he ultimately becomes, perhaps without being aware of it, a political philosopher. The major difference between Thucydides and many of the other thinkers outlined in this book is that while they came to political philosophy directly, Thucydides comes to political philosophy by thinking about political life.