I would like you to read all of Thucydides' history (and all the dialogues of Plato, all thirty two extant Greek tragedies, all the plays of Aristophanes, and all of Plutarch). For Thursday, November 10, however, I will be satisfied if you skim all of Book I and read the following selections from Book II: Pericles' Funeral Oration (II:34-46), The Plague in Athens (II: 46-57), and Pericles' Justification of His Policies (II:57-65).Comment here on what you think of Thucydides as a historian. Note one specific strength or weakness, and give an example or two of what you liked/didn't like about Thucydides.
Book II Pericles' Funeral Oration
ReplyDeleteI think Thucydides and his writing style. I found it very easy to read and I think of that as a strength for Thucydides. One of the lines that I like the most was "One's sense honour is the only thing that does not grow old, and the last pleasure, when one is worn out with age, is not, as the poet said making money, but having the respect of one's fellow men."
Another example of Thucydides that I like was also in Book 11 Pericles' Funeral Oration 40 "Others are brave out of ignorance; and, when they stop to think, they begin to fear. But the man who can most truly be accounted brave is he who best knows the meaning of what is sweet in life and of what is terrible, and then goes out undeterred to meet what is to come.
Thucydides writing style and how he explains the stories is very good. I enjoyed reading through the material. In Book II section 61 there is a quote I like, "If one has free choice and can live undisturbed, it is sheer folly to go to war." It's a good way of saying if you don't have a reason to fight, why fight? I also liked his desciptions of the traditions when the Greeks were bury the dead brought back from the war.
ReplyDeleteI think one of Thucydides strengths is his ability to show both sides of the story. While he, like Herodotus, obviously loves Athens, he explains in Book I how Athens unwisely intervened on behalf of Corcyra against the Corinthians. Athens had hoped to gain an advantage, but really upset the balance that had been maintained between themselves and the cities of the Peloponnese.
ReplyDeleteI also like his style of writing in Pericles' funeral oration. While the sentiments are undoubtedly Pericles', Thucydides explains early in Book I that he and his sources cannot remember the exact words of such speeches. He asserts that his method was to keep the spirit of the speeches, but to record the words he thought fit. Therefore, one can assume that at least some of the funeral oration was written by Thucydides. The line that particularly caught my attention was "Make up your minds that happiness depends on being free, and freedom depends on being courageous."
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThucydides’ writing has many qualities that I really appreciated. He is precise and to the point, for example, and if his opinion is given he identifies it as his own. He aims to offer the most accurate information about the Peloponnesian War as he could. I also really enjoyed the quotes he included throughout the text. Book II describes a funeral where Xanthippus was asked to make a speech in honor of those who had passed in battle. His speech was emotional yet inspirational for those who had died and for the Athenians as a whole. He promoted the idea of nationality and discussed the strengths of their city states. Page 147 describes these strengths and although obviously the opinion of Xanthippus and other Athenians, this passage is still a favorite. “Our love of what is beautiful does not lead to extravagance; our love of the things of the mind does not make us soft. We regard wealth as something to be properly used, rather than as something to boast about…” I think these admirable qualities are something most countries should strive for; it’s interesting to consider that in this modern day there is a lot to be learned from ancient Greeks. Also noteworthy in Xanthippus’ speech is the comparison on happiness and death. He tries to persuade the audience in believing that the men who passed in battle did so honorably and would be happy for this sacrifice; such sacrifice is the essence to maintaining Athens’ freedom. Such view of veterans and soldiers seems similar to that of that of ours, ironically.
ReplyDeleteThucydides writing style is very descriptive but to the point. He gives a very detailed account of the Plague in Athens. He gives the reader accurate information to let them know how uncertain life was during this time when he says, "people in perfect health suddenly began to have burning feelings in the head; their eyes became red and inflamed; inside their mouths there was bleeding from the throat and tongue, and the breath became unnatural and unpleasant." He goes on to describe in great detail the horror of the plague.
ReplyDelete- Robbi Kannas
Thucydides was good at recounting the facts starting from the beginning and working the way up. An example is when he is giving the history of the plague. First stating where it started from and to where it slowly moved up to until it reached Athens. I also like his word choice and diction. For example this excerpt: "but a pestilence of such extent and mortality was nowhere remembered." The way he writes just sounds good and seems to flow.
ReplyDeleteR. Casey Oberle
Thucydides, much like Herodotus, did everything he could with the resources at his disposal. Both Greek historians wrote on a subject they were familiar with and had occurred during their lifetime.
ReplyDeleteAlong with that, Thucydides included speeches and other long quotations in his work. This is a major problem considering the era in which he wrote. Last time I checked, the Greeks did not have a sound recorder. Thucydides said himself he filled in his recounting of the speech with words and sentences he felt fit. That being said, as a researcher, either he was present for these speeches or found others who were present and could give him a fairly thorough review. As a historian, he was able to interpret the information he acquired and could extrapolate it into a full fledged speech. While he may have changed the meaning of these speeches, Thucydides did a great job of purveying meanings which fit with the rest of his history.
Thucydides is a does have both positive and negative things in his writing skills. The bad thing is that he talks about the very beginning going all the way back to even before the Trojan war. I though at first that this was a mistake until I started to understand why he did it. The Athenian empire was built on the conquest of Ionia and what Thucydides is trying to do is compare the old Hellenistic age to the new Athenian empire. It is the blood of Greeks to become conquerors of others.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the detailed information about the proxy battles before the war between sparta and athens. Thucydides does a very good job with the details behind the causes of events. I do however dislike the speeches in book I, they give nice detail, but were very hard to get through. another aspect I thought was good was the description of how the plague worked. "In the period when the disease was at its height, the body, so far from wasting away, showed surprising powers of resistance to all the agony, so that there was still some strength left on the seventh or eighth day, which was the time when, in most cases, death came from the internal fever. But if people survived this critical period, then the disease descended to the bowels, producing violent ulceration and diarrhea, so that most of them died later as a result of the weakness caused by this.
ReplyDeleteThis description really shows how excruciating it would have been to live during this time would have been.
-Wyatt Loftesness
I enjoyed the readings for Thucydides. I think he was a fine historian, and if I had to pick out one of his better historian attributes, it would be his credibility. The fact that he only relied on his imagination to fill in gaps as a last resort is great in itself, but he was a first-hand source. He lived it! I found such speeches as the Orators during Pericles' funeral, and Pericles' speech when he tries to rebolster Athenian enthusiasm for the war, to be very detailed and almost wonder if Thucydides was present for both. I think that it was smart for him to include these speeches. It gives us a sense of the Athenian identity back then, how they continue to mention how hard their forefathers fought to form the empire and how they now have to fight to uphold it. They felt like the greatest empire in the world at the time, Pericles mentioning they could sail anywhere and would find none greater. The credibility of his stories is even more interesting because he himself had the plague, and can thus tell us a bit more information on the matter.
ReplyDeleteI like Thucydides as a Historian for his credibility (since he is a first hand source) and his ability to make the details interesting to read.
~Aaron Johnston
I like his writing styly because he makes you see the histroy he is writting about in your mind. a good historian, in my opinion, is one that can paint that picture in the mind of his or her readers whiles staying try to facts and i feel that he does this very well. take this "and in the end it was only becuase they had destroyed themselves by their own internal strife that finally they were forced to surrender." pg 164. this really paints in my head how hard it was for them to surrender and how much it was not a common thing for them to do so
ReplyDeletekatelyn pietz
Overall, I was impressed by Thucydides as an historian. I think there are some similarities between Thucydides and Herotodus. Thucydides does a great job of paying attention to detail which is important for a good historain. This was best diplayed when Thucydides is describing the plague in Athens. Thucydides wrote, "The plague originated, so they say, in Ethiopia in upper Egypt, and spread from there into Egypt itself and Libya and much of the territory of the King of Persia." I liked this passage because it incorperated some geography which was something we listed as important to a good historian. Thucydides goes on to describe the religious aspects of the plague. That the gods favored the Spartans because the plague did not seem to be affecting them like it did the Athenians. However, at times it felt like he was almost to meticulous. The one weakness of Thucydies that I had was his sources with the speeches he included. Thucydides even said that he filled in parts of the speeches to the best of his ability. He didn't try to change the context, but one can wonder how accurate the speeches are.
ReplyDeleteI think that Thucydides was a great historian, especially considering the time period in which he was writing. I feel like one of his greatest strength as a writer is the fact that he is extremely detailed. He understands what occurred and he knows how to relate all the elements of different events. Also, he makes good use of quotations to further support his writings. Even in the beginning, Thucydides shows his strengths when talking about the fight between Corinth and Corcyra and the Corcyraeans' lust fight for Epidamnus. The way Thucydides lays out the story allows the reader to imagine what it was like to live during that time and gives the reader a real sense of what was going on at the time.
ReplyDeleteThucydides does a very good job, in my opinion, with his writing style and his use of information. With the very few or plenty resources he had in order to write about this much history, he did really well also. In Book II, I felt that Pericles was doing the right thing by respecting and honoring the dead and with that, Pericles gave his speech rather well in 'Pericles' Funeral Oration'. Respecting and honoring the dead is important for any culture and nobody should say differently.
ReplyDeleteI think Thucydides is a good historian. Although he claims to not have a "romantic element," I think that his style still does carry the story well. His liberal use of oration helps to retain interest in his subject. It presents the facts and arguments but in an encapsulated way that presents the argument logically and succinctly, at least for the subject of each oration. Rather than reading through a laundry list of facts and figures, I can imagine having a seat within these deliberative bodies and listening to these orations for and against the various parties involved in the war.
ReplyDeleteIn Part 15 of Book I, Thucydides points out that navies are "the foundation of empire" which is a point that Pericles will make later as well. I liked how Thucydides started this argument early in our reading assignment because much of the action that followed was naval action - sailing here or there to support allies, sending fleets followed by fleets into battle, the counterattack against the Peloponnese, and Pericles argument later that "there is no power on earth...which can stop you from sailing where you wish."
It is very clear throughout the first two books that Thucydides stresses accuracy while denouncing mythology and the fabrication of legends over time. He tries his hardest to avoid these fabrications while trying to get as many sources on a subject before writing about what actually happened. He also, although writing almost completely on the Peloponnesian war and the causes, also tries to fill the readers in with as much history behind each side and ally of the war as well to give us the richest and most detailed picture we can possibly get. These, in my opinion, are his best strengths. A potential weakness is the huge amount of information that he tries to incorporate into his writings though. There is almost so much that one might loose place on what is currently happening in the Hellas and the whereabouts. If this book is read a couple times however, I'm sure the information would be very useful and resourceful for trying to pinpoint the causes of the war from start to finish. Over all he is a very good historian.
ReplyDelete- Jefferson Gunderson