Characterization and Politics in Thucydides by Drew C. Stimson A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Classical Studies) in The University of Michigan 2018 Doctoral Committee: Professor Sara L. Forsdyke, Chair Associate Professor Ian S. Moyer Professor Arlene W. Saxonhouse Professor Arthur M. F. W. Verhoogt Drew C. Stimson [email protected] ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8532-376X © Drew C. Stimson 2018 For my family ii Acknowledgements I would like to thank my family for their unwavering love and support as I worked on this project, as well my wife Jacqueline for her patience and understanding, as well as her untiring efforts in directly aiding my writing process. Without the support of my family I never would have completed this project, and I owe them my undying gratitude for making it possible for me to reach this step in my career. I would also like to thank the Rackham Graduate School and the Department of Classical Studies at the Unviersity of Michigan, both of which treated me exceptionally well, and in the process made my life easier by removing external worries so that I could focus on research. I would especially like to extend my gratitude to the professors in my department, who in their approach to teaching and mentoring found that perfect balance of support and rigor that consistently challenged to improve, but never make me feel as though I did not belong. Finally, I would like to thank the members of my committee—and especially my chair Prof. Sara Forsdyke—for their tireless efforts in reading and commenting on this work as it was in progress. Their feedback has proven truly invaluable both to the completion of this dissertation, and more generally to my development as a scholar. I stand forever in their debt. iii Table of Contents Dedication ………………………………………………………………….. ii Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………... iii Abstract …………………………………………………………………….. v Introduction ………………………………………………………………… 1 CHAPTER I. Athens and Sparta ………………………………………….. 15 CHAPTER II. Thucydides on Effective Leadership ……………………… 72 CHAPTER III. Thucydides on Ineffective Leadership …………………. 121 CHAPTER IV. Alcibiades: The Form of the Athenian? ………………… 228 CHAPTER V. Conclusions and Political Thought ……………………… 261 Works Cited ………………………………………………………………281 iv Abstract This dissertation focuses on Thucydides’ deployment of characterization (both of cities and of individuals) to problematize the political systems of his time. I argue that Thucydides’ narrative guides readers to the conclusion that both the Athenian and Spartan political systems are flawed (each in its own, particular way), and that each therefore requires the intervention of leaders capable of moderating its weaknesses and excesses. At the same time, however, by presenting the vast majority of Athenian and Spartan leaders as failing to meet these standards, Thucydides makes clear that the emergence of such individuals cannot actually be relied upon. Readers, therefore, are presented with an untenable situation: Athens and Sparta need great leaders, but cannot expect them. This incongruity leaves one looking for a middle way: a system of government that does not require the intervention of exceptional individuals, but is instead capable of self-moderation. Such a system, I argue, he briefly proposes in his praise of the government of the Five Thousand at Athens (8.97.2), which he depicts as a moderate alternative to the bipolar model of democracy or oligarchy. I then conclude by discussing the relationship between Thucydides’ political thought and that of other ancient Greek authors, demonstrating that there are a number of similarities between his conception of governmental moderation and later, more systematic discussions of the “mixed constitution.” v Introduction When I first came to Thucydides’ text, I was, as many other students before me, looking to it primarily as a source of historical information on the Peloponnesian War. Upon reading his work, however, I was immediately struck by its artistry.1 Numerous episodes left me feeling invested in the action of the text, hoping for a particular outcome or dreading the result of a decision that seemed poorly made. I found myself in deep suspense after the Mytilenean debate as one Athenian ship chased another to save the Mytileneans from total destruction,2 alternately horrified and fascinated by the arguments made in the Melian Dialogue, and feeling sorrow at the pitiable fate of the Athenian forces—and of Demosthenes and Nicias in particular—at the end of the Sicilian Expedition. The more I became aware of this artistry, the more interested I became in both the work, and in Thucydides as an author. Indeed, Thucydides’ text offers something for everyone, and the body of scholarship on Thucydides reflects this fact: it has value to both ancient historians and classical philologists, as well as to political scientists and students of international relations theory (where he is often viewed as the father of Realism). The interests of such scholars have, however, not been stagnant. Indeed, recognition of and research into Thucydides’ literary artistry is a relatively recent development in modern scholarship. I thus turn briefly to an examination of the history of Thucydidean scholarship in the modern era, and the trends that have, over time, come to dominate. 1 It must be noted, however, that Thucydides never calls his work a history (ἱστορία), and thus, as Hornblower argues, “we have no easy clue as to the kind of enterprise he thought he was engaged in” (1987: 7–8). 2 Grant (1974: 86) argues this account likely exaggerates the drama and danger of the situation. 1 History of Scholarship, Position of this Dissertation3 In the 19th and early 20th centuries, two discussions dominated Thucydidean scholarship (with the notable exception of Cornford and his book Thucydides Mythistoricus, to which I will return later). The first went hand in hand with attempts to define the broader field of history as a precise and scientific discipline, along the lines of von Ranke’s call for history to be written “wie es eigentlich gewesen.” In looking back at the origins of their field, many scholars of this school identified Thucydides as the progenitor of such “objective” history (Connor 1977: 289; Forsdyke 2017: 19), and thus often described him as an unbiased historian who was, to the exclusion of literary ornament, recording facts accurately for posterity. The second discussion of this period centered on what is now often referred to as the “Thucydidean Question,” which concerns the stages of composition of the work. Indeed, the incompleteness of several of the books (certainly Book 8, and many argue book 5 as well), as well as the presence of his famous “second introduction” at 5.26, have led multiple scholars to posit that Thucydides wrote and revised various sections of the text at different times (Hunter 1977: 269–70). Based on these observations, a great and lively debate developed between the “Analysts” (or “Separatists,” according to Connor 1984b: 10) such as Ullrich (1846) and Schwartz (1919), who ran with this idea but proposed competing models for the stages of the work’s composition, and “Unitarians” such as Meyer (1899: 269–436), who maintained the overall unity of the work. This debate reached a critical point by the mid-20th century, as an abundance of answers to this “Thucydidean Question” were proposed, but none was accepted as the consensus solution. It was at this time that unitarian scholars such as de Romilly and Finley acquired the upper hand 3 Many previous scholars have undertaken reviews of the scholarship on Thucydides. For more detailed examinations of this topic, see de Ste. Croix (1972: 295–6) and Hunter (1977: 269–74). 2 in this debate.4 In looking at the state of scholarly attempts to determine the stages of composition of the work, these unitarians argued that researchers of Thucydides were faced with a problem with no solution. Indeed, de Romilly stated that, “All that remained of so many efforts was a confused tangle of all kinds of hypotheses, contested opinions and arguments twisted in every conceivable sense” (1963: 6), and went on to argue that this project “does not necessarily admit of an exact answer” (1963: 154). They instead proposed viewing the work as a unity instead, with Finley, for example, writing an essay titled “The Unity of Thucydides’ History,” and arguing that Thucydides worked in one, sustained period of composition (1967, esp. p. 121; see Hunter 1977: 272–4). The strength of these and other unitarian scholars’ arguments effectively ended discussion of the compositional question, save for a few exceptions (Hunter 1977: 274).5 Two related developments followed the resolution of this debate in Thucydidean scholarship: the rejection of the idea of pure Thucydidean historical “objectivity,”6 and a new focus on the literary aspects of Thucydides’ history,7 including, for example, his use of vividness and emotionality to impart not just facts, but experiences to readers (Connor 1977: 289, 1984b: 6; Greenwood 2006: 19–41; Grethlein 2010: 248–52; Forsdyke 2017: 20, 31).8 Observers of the 4 Hunter describes these scholars as follows: “If de Romilly can be described as a cautious and rather embarrassed unitarian, Finley is a bold and assertive one” (1977: 274). 5 Connor also states that “it was clear by the 1950s that this effort had bogged down and was unlikely ever to fulfill its promise,” and that it “seemed, if not dead, at least moribund” (1984b: 4). 6 “Few these days will regard Thucydides as a ‘scientific’ historian, …” (Gribble 1998: 70). See also Grethlein, who states that, “… by and large, in the last decades interest has shifted from Thucydides historicus to Thucydides narrator” (2013: 91). 7 Connor ties this questioning of authority among Anglophone scholars to the Vietnam War (1977: 289). 8 The ancient commentators appear to have been fully aware of many of the literary qualities of Thucydides’ history, and found commenting on them totally unproblematic.