The Purpose and Method of ‘The Pentckontaetia’ in Thucydides, Book I

P.K. Walker

doi:10.1017/S0009838800016554

The Purpose and Method of ‘The Pentckontaetia’ in Thucydides, Book I

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009

P.K. Walker

Show author details

P.K. Walker: Affiliation:
Hemel Hempstead

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

A Principle of fundamental importance, if it is valid, for the interpretation of the Pentekontaetia is laid down by the authors of A. T.L. iii in its most rigorous terms: it is that Thucydides has set events ‘in proper order … without any deviation whatever’. The conclusion appears to the present writer to be founded ultimately on a false assumption about Thucydides' purpose in these chapters (89-118. 2), namely that he set out to write an outline history of the period of fifty years to which he refers in 118.2 and, in effect, in 97. An examination of these passages reveals that it is not the outline of a period as a period that is offered, but rather the account of a particular theme or process falling within the period: his purpose in presenting the theme there defined is to be seen from the setting of the excursus as a unit in Bk. I rather than from the statement in 97.2: the due significance of this last, and of the demarcation of a period in 118. 2, is to be seen only in this wider context.

Type: Articles
Information: The Classical Quarterly , Volume 7 , Issue 1-2 , January 1957 , pp. 27 - 38

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009838800016554 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © The Classical Association 1957

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 27 note 1} Meritt, B.D., Wade-Gery, H.T., McGregor, M.F., The Athenian Tribute Lists, iii (1950), 162Google Scholar. Cf. Gomme, A.W., A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, i (1945), 392 n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 28 note 1} I may perhaps similarly, since much of my article is in disagreement with his conclusions, acknowledge my debt to Prof. Gomme's work, from which my inquiries into Thucydides start. I am also indebted to Prof. Gomme for kindness in criticizing an early draft of part C of this paper.

^{page 28 note 2} For the rendering of the terms Pearson, v.L., T.A.P.A. lxxxiii (1952), 205 f., ‘Prophasis and Aitia’. I do not acknowledge my indebtedness to this article at every point.Google Scholar

^{page 29 note 1} So Forbes, Thucydides I; and Crawley translated: ‘It (intercourse) was carried on widiout heralds, but not without suspicion, as events were occurring which were equivalent to a breach of the treaty and matter for war.’

^{page 29 note 2} It is true that a more finite purpose is given by Thucydides for the precise allegation made in terms of the curse of the goddess, 127. 1–2. The existence of this incidental aim does not affect the contention as to the main purpose, reached from 126. 1 and 140. 2. Cf. Adcock, F.E., C.A.H. v. 188–90Google Scholar with Gomme's comment, op. cit. at 140. 2, and Finley, J.H., Thucydides, 138–9.Google Scholar

^{page 30 note 1} The remark at 66, , seems designed to make this clear. It is true that the dispute just treated is expressed from the Athenian side as an , but it is noticeable that the complement of this volved in action against the Athenians, the Athenians could consider they had an alrta against ‘the Peloponnesians’: but, on the other side, since the Peloponnesians had been invoked by the Corinthians individually ( 60. 1) and not formally as members of the Confederacy, the incident could not be considered as such an action between ‘the Pelopon-nesians’ and the Athenians as could be taken as the beginning of ‘the war’. The first step towards turning this individual grievance and the others into a cause of war between the League and die Adienians, and so touching off the Peloponnesian War, was by Athenian activity (67.1). For an alternative account of , springing from regarding as ‘war‘ rather than ‘the War’ see Gomme, op. cit. ad loc.: the difficulty to which he points is hardly a slight one, and the point of Thucydides′ summing-up is very largely lost.

^{page 32 note 1} So e.g. Gomme, , op. cit. 152–3Google Scholar; De Romilly, J., Thiuydide et l'Imperialism athenien, 25–28Google Scholar; Adcock, , J.H.S. lxxi (1951), 10–11Google Scholar, who draws the conclusion, unwarranted if the above is correct, that in 118.

^{page 32 note 2} The lengthy treatment of the Samian episode is surely an indication of the momentous significance, for Thucydides, of the reduction of one of the last remaining allies with independent fleets: this alarming disturbance of the balance of power as at the time of the Thirty Years Peace and mark of Athenian power must have appeared to Thucydides much more vital to the alarm which led Sparta to consider the Thirty Years Peace no longer acceptable than those earlier marks of Athenian growth, the reductions of Naxos and Thasos. But see Westlake, H.D., ‘Thucydides and the Pentekon-taetia’, C.Q. v, ‘N.S. 1955’, 58.Google Scholar

^{page 33 note 1} Westlake, , op. cit. 54.Google Scholar

^{page 33 note 2} It is (97. 1) that is object of , and not .

^{page 33 note 3} Westlake, op. cit., develops the interesting suggestion that the difference in length between the treatment of 89–96 and 98–118 is explicable mainly by the hypothesis that for the first part he had more trustworthy evidence (largely of a personal character). I 54argely of a personal character). I should prefer to put the main stress on the difference between the nature of the parts as suggested above: the first part, which gives the potential for Athenian aggressive advance, is treated so solidly because of Thucydides' concern that the reader should understand the nature of the Athenian power before he briefly indicates its growth and action.

^{page 33 note 4} A.T.L. iii. 160 f.xGoogle Scholar

^{page 34 note 1} It is beyond the scope of this paper to consider how far in fact the selection of events corresponds to this canon. But it may be permissible to set side by side two brief observations of Mme de Romilly, which together put the point as concisely as may be, if the connexion is remembered that it is with reference to Spartan alarm that Thucy-dides introduces the account of the growdi of Athenian power and in particular that the Spartans felt alarm when they saw this affecting the loyalty of their allies, 86. 5, cf. 71. 4: ‘à l'exception du paragraphs I 99, la Pentékontaétie n'est ainsi qu'un long catalogue d'entreprises militaires’ (op. cit. 79), and ‘(la Pentékontaétie) s'interesse aux guerres parce qu'elles expliquent la formation de la puissance athénienne’ (37 n. 1). It may be suggested that the difficulties caused to commentators by the ‘omissions’ from the excursus (cf. particularly Gomme, op. cit. 365 f.) stem partly from a false demand that Thucydides should be seen as giving an account of a period per se, and partly from a failure to look for indications in Thucydides of his own canons (a) of what contributed to the growth of Athenian power and (b) of what aspects of Athenian growth could cause alarm to Sparta (for (a) see particularly Romilly, de, op. cit. 79–88). It is true that his principle of selection is sometimes not easy to see: e.g. the conclusion of peace with Persia might well have been treated, since it could well have been seen as freeing the Athenians' hands for activity nearer home, but he has done no more than indicate the end of what appears to be the last episode of fighting. But by far the greater number, if not all, of the events held to be omitted may be seen as having no part in an aggressive development of Athenian power . which would be close enough to Spartan interests to alarm Sparta.Google Scholar

^{page 35 note 1} A.T.L. iii. 164 f.Google Scholar

^{page 36 note 1} A.T.L. iii. 168 f.Google Scholar

^{page 36 note 2} As indeed the wording of the Greek seems to demand: for on any account, including A.T.L.'s, the first sentence of 109 must be seen as in the nature of a résumé: and if so, the clauses which follow in sections 2 and 3 are surely both introduced by the at the beginning of 2 as amplification 0f 1 and to be seen as explaining, by their contrasted activity, the statement κai : they describe in greater detail what was given as a résumé and must themselves be taken as résumé. A. T.L.'s interruption of the and connexion, to make the first new fact, is awkward in the extreme.