Thucydides' History as a Narrative of Cultural Decline

Arta Moeini Georgetown University Thucydides’ History: A Narrative of Collapse Introduction On the face of it, Thu dides’ The Peloponnesian War has long been deemed a lassi , a powerful treatise which offers a wealth of knowledge in history, strategy of war, and even international relations, and so it readily provides different lessons to different groups of readers suitable to their needs. Due to its multi-dimensionality then, conventional readings of Thucydides are of immense value, a d this autho o ea s seeks to dis ou t oth thei i po ta e a d ele a e to Thu dides’ original purposes in writing such a manuscript. Yet, underneath all the commotion and the wealth of historical information that Thucydides bestows upon his readers lies a hidden and perhaps tragic forecast, a dire warning. Whe o e i spe ts Thu dides’ a ou t of the Pelopo esia Wa losel , he is ost st u k the internal contradictions in the Hellenic way of life as a whole which Thucydides seems to clearly recognize and subtly evaluate. The epicenter of this contradiction in the Hellenic weltanschauung is represented by Thucydidian account of Athens and Sparta. Sparta and Athens symbolize the two sides of the coin of the Hellenic life, their inability to coexist, and their head-to-head clash. In fact, upon close inspection, it becomes clear to an avid reader that within the narrative of the actual Peloponnesian War quite accurately described by Thucydides lies a much grander philosophical point—that the Peloponnesian war is but a physical manifestation of a greater intellectual tension being fought in the minds of every individual Greek citizen in their everyday life. Thucydidean account then serves as a cautionary tale to his contemporaries and the readers of posterity as to the frailty and inherent contradictions of the Hellenic way of life and the realization that, absent of altering its practices, the Hellenic form of life is on the brink of a total breakdown. From the opening pages of his History, Thucydides reminds his readers of both the sensitivity of his undertaken project and his strategy. His objective is one of socio-cultural education and commentary and far exceeds mere historical description of the events of the Peloponnesian war. It is in this manner that he hopes to influence both his contemporary notables and future generations of thinkers. He writes of his aste pie e, it is a possessio fo all ti e, ot a o petitio piece to be heard for the moment, that has ee o posed. 1 His methodological strategy is to give voice to his investigation of the 1 1.22 p.14 1 Hellenic way of life through the speeches of the various persons in his narration. As such, even when he does not speak in his own voice, Thucydides lurks in the background throughout the whole enterprise and in guiding the speeches of his characters resembles an astute director. But what about the purpose of his study and his grander point? Thucydides himself tells his eade s out ight i Book o e his hope to have made clear for all time the causes, both immediate and long-term, of the Pelopo esia Wa 2.This paper argues that Thu dides’ Peloponnesian War should be read first and foremost as a tragedy (of a Greek form of life in crisis) and as a forewarning to Greeks both contemporary to Thucydides and in posterity of the underlying tensions that seem to eat away at the foundations of Hellenic civilization from within. Using the speech of different personalities in tandem with his own voice, Thucydides raises various sets of antinomies within his larger unifying theme of overall internal contradiction in Greek form of life and his grand narrative of civilizational breakdown. In so doing, Thucydides inadvertently leaves us not just with a historical account but with a theory of history. There are essentially five antinomies that Thucydides lays out as primary reasons prompting the division of the Hellenic world into two opposing camps culminating in the Peloponnesian war, all of which ultimately signify the different heads of the same beast. One ever-present antinomy is that of necessity versus choice , path-dependency versus agency . On many occasions, Thucydides appears to paint the war as an inevitable necessity, yet his i o atio of the te e essa is i reference to the internal dynamic of Greek life which breeds conflict and not the physical war itself. In fact, Thucydides alludes to the existence of normative fault-lines, contradictory institutions and mores in the Hellenic way of life, which ultimately make socio-cultural turbulence inescapable. A second antinomy involves the relation between old and new, past and future, aged and young, motion and inertia, maturity and recklessness, conservatism and risk-taking, and ultimately tradition and innovation. The third antinomy is rooted in the question of justice and its meaning. While the Peloponnesians remain committed to the traditional conventional Helleni ie of justi e u de stood as o e t o de i g of the os os which constantly corrects itself, the Athenian way seems to reject this ancient view of justice for one more heavily tied to the notion of interest and gain—one according the natural right of the strong over the weak. On the grounds of the first three sets of conflicts evolve the fourth and perhaps the most consequential antinomy—that of individual versus community, private versus public, personal versus social. This antinomy could be point to as the central contradiction of Greek life which developed out of the presence of idiosyncratic individual within the confines of a communal polis where the individual is expected (according to norms) to prioritize the public wellbeing/ common good over his self-interest, a view that gradually begins to unravel and with it shatter the foundations of the Greek form of life as a whole. Finally, the last antinomy which is really the manifestation of the previous antagonisms but in the political sphere is that of status quo versus revisionist powers. In tandem, these antinomies reinforce each other and contribute to the ultimate disintegration of the Greek Civilization u de i i g Helle i peoples’ elief to thei o es, Ideas, a d o ld ie s, thus disrupting and breaking apart the very basis of the normative solidarity and ethical foundation on 2 Lattimore Introduction, p.1 2 which each form of life depends (their Sittlichkeit to use Hegelian language). By exploring these antinomies through the lens of different speeches and actions of various characters in the context of this study, I hope to present a reading of Thucydides in which he consciously narrates the history of the Peloponnesian war as the tragedy of the breakdown of the Greek form of life (Gestalt des Lebens) due to its own internal contradictions. I this eadi g, Thu dides’ p oje t is o e of aisi g a a e ess of the most alarming problem of his time (i.e. the degeneration of his culture), one that he prophetically forecasts to doom and urges his contemporaries as well as future thinkers to contemplate and devote their studies to, so that perhaps they could theorize a way to preserve their cherished civilization from disappearing into the pages of history. This overall theme of contradiction and antagonism and gradual decline in the Greek way of life could be best showcased through exegesis of the speech and action of different sets of archetypical characters, to which I will devote the rest of this paper: 1) Archidamos vis-à-vis Pericles in the first two chapters, 2) Brasidas in the middle sections of the treatise keeping in mind the dynamic between him and Kloen, and finally 3) between the clashing outlooks of two Athenians Nikias and Alcibiades reflecting the mixing array of attitudes among the Athenian elite and the degeneration of (traditional) values and mores in Athens itself.3 Each of these plots, I posit, raise some of the antinomies that I previously raised and together help to paint a picture of a civilization in crisis. I. Archidamos vs. Pericles: Embodiments of Two Competing Ways of Life From the very first book, Thucydides uses the speeches of the various players to establish and contrast the two opposing ways of life contending for domination of the Greek normative sphere. In attempting to persuade Sparta and Athens over to their side, both Corcyrean and Corinthian speeches function to set the tone for the rest of the Thucydidian account and to cast the two powers and their orientation i opposite lights i the eade ’s i d. The diffe e tiate su sta ti el “pa ta a d Athe s and the worldview they represent from one another. Through the characterization offered by the Corinthians, Thucydides presents an image of Athens as innovative, energetic, dynamic, outwardoriented, and restless which is immediately contrasted with the slow, inward-looking, conventional, traditional, and sluggish disposition of the Spartans. I this a e , Thu dides outli es so e ajo contrasts hi h e ist et ee the “pa ta s a d the Athe ia s to esta lish the atu e of the Athe ia halle ge a d ho g eatl , let us sa totall , the diffe f o the “pa ta s—representing the two faces of the Janus which is the Hellenic life.4The Athenians are thus i t odu ed as defi itel i o ato s a d ui k to fo thei pla s a d a out hate e a tio the esol e… old e e e o d their strength, risk-takers beyond their judgment and hopeful amidst dangers...ready to act, [and] always 3 Athens is not as monolithic as Peloponnesians believe and it has its own struggles over the nature of Athenian identity which suggests Athens, like its Greek neighbors, is in a transitional period. In fact, the leitmotif of Stasis so powerfully presented by Thucydides reflects this. 4 1.70, p.34 3 a oad. 5 Here, the reader also becomes acquainted with what becomes a constant leitmotif of the treatise, that of Athenian over-reaching and restlessness, with the assertion that the Athenians least enjoy what they have on the account of always acquiring and thinking that there is no holiday except in doi g hat the o asio de a ds . Co e sel , the “pa ta s a e po t a ed as o e ed o l to p ese e the status uo , al ulati e to the poi t of i de isio a d i a tio , dela e s , a d the ost home-bound of all, elie i g that aki g a o e ill da age e e p ese t assets .6 And, as if that was not clear enough, Thucydides affirms that the Athenians could be summed up sa i g that they 78 were born to have no peace themselves and allow it to no one else. These contrasts could be placed in better perspective when one is reminded of Thucydides remark in the opening pages of book one calling the expansion of Athenian prominence/influence and the ensuing Lacedaemonian fear as the true cause of war, making it inevitable.9 Yet, there his language suggests a double-meaning. On the one hand, it is true that increased Athenian hard power and might would make their rivals in Peloponnese a e ough to ala e agai st Athe s, ut the i e ita ilit is precisely tied to this image of incompatibility between the worldviews of Athens and Sparta and the disruptive influence of Athenian mores on the traditional Hellenic way of life as a whole (represented by Corinth and Sparta) which looks even more dangerous as the Athenian way permeate across all of Greece by means of both its hard and soft power. Thucydides makes it quite clear that the Spartans adhere to principles among themselves hi h a e i o pati le ith othe people 10 (namely Athenians), while Pericles later acknowledges that the Athenians in their own right subscribe to a worldview quite different from the rest of Hellenic states.11 The Corinthian speeches also help shed light on the importance of the Idea of justice in its classical Hellenic understanding for the Peloponnesian side as a whole, while also disclosing (and in fact protesting) the insularity of Spartan justice—that the Spartans only apply their standards of justice to the sel es ofte ig o i g the plight a d u just t eat e t of the rest of Peloponnese and Hellas in the hands of the Athenians indulging them to become more and more insolent). They cannot be more unequivocal in their statement, Lacedaemonians, your trust in your own constitution and society renders you less trusti g to a d othe s…a d ou de i e ou p ude e alt. t a s. Justice/moderation/temperance) from it but also behave with the greater ignorance regarding things outside your state. We say this who many times announced to you in 5 Ibid. Ibid., p.34 7 Ibid., p.35 8 Note: The use of the term Peace (eirene) here and in many other places implies a double-meaning. It suggests peace in the realm of mind, ideas, and norms—harmony of spirit—in addition to its literal meaning of absence of physical fighting and war. The statement that the Athenians will not allow peace to themselves, I believe, also foreshadows the future state of Athens, its polylithic multi-faction political culture, and its internal divides which become more evident later in the book (see Alcibiades and Nikias) in addition to the overall inherent restlessness of the Athenian psyche. 9 1.15, p.15 10 1.77, p.38 11 2.37, p.92 6 4 advance the injuries we were [all] to suffer at the hands of the Athenians. And you are to la e fo this situatio …fo it is ot the e sla e ut the o e ho has the po e to stop him but looks on who more truly does the deed, even if he bears a reputation for virtue as the liberator of Hellas. 12 Here, interestingly, the Spartan Sophrosyne (just mind/ moderation) reinforcing their inactive character is taken as a contributing factor to the escalation of Athenian hubris. Furthermore, the Corinthian characterization insinuates to the reader upfront the idea that, contrary to the Spartan rhetoric of them ei g the p oud li e ato s of Hellas , the “pa ta s ha e ee o pli it i Athe ia as e t a d isi g audacity for having taken no action to stop it due their own dullness and hyper-conservatism. In the fact that the Corinthians mockingly call the “pa ta s the o l Helle es still at pea e (connoting not just physical peace but also peace of the mind), Thucydidean play with words gives impression of a Spartan self-deception emerging out of their proclivity for procrastination and inactivity rather than genuine imperceptiveness of the real dynamics in play in the Hellenic realm, implying that in their true hearts, Spartans do realize their deep conceptual and normative conflicts with the Athenians in terms of outlook and worldview and its import for the future of Hellas.13 Akin to the Spartans, the Corinthians also prescribe to the traditional Hellenic view of justice as what ought to be by classic Nomos and a view of right or wrong that is rooted in the proper ordering of relations. In their appeal to Athens, they hence raise these very issues of proper respect and right and o g eha io a d de la e, We did ot fou d olonies to be insulted by them but to be recognized as leade s a d e ei e the p ope sig s of espe t… e ould ot e taki g the a o al step of goi g to a ith Co ea s if e had ot also suffe ed e t ao di a o g. 14 They argue their case on the asis of p i iple a d usto a la , hi h the dee suffi ie t Helle i sta da ds a d o s a d it is the violation of these ancient conventions that has made them so aggrieved.15 The Corinthian speech also serves to remind the reader of the youth of the Athenians and the age of the Peloponnesian allies. B e oki g the a o e lai s hi h the ou ge a lea f o the olde , the Co i thia s de a d that the Athe ia s sho the due espe t a o di g the lassi al Helle i a s a d so e uite [them] ith o pa a le usto a eha io a d so u ge the Athe ia s to e p ude t a d ef ai from complicity in Corcyrean wrongdoing.16 On the other hand, the Corcyrean appeal to Athens reveals to the reader that the idea of justice in the Athenian perspective is rather synonymous with interest backed up by power and might (requirement for justice is strength). In attempting to argue in language relatable to the Athenians, the Corcyreans invoke the term justice (in the Athenian sense) to mean what is in Athe s’ advantage and interest—which so happens to coincide with Corcyrean interests as well—and in so doing they present and establish the Athenian view of justi e i te s of ad a tage . Hoping to capitalize on the Athenian understanding of justice, they speak of the advantages, strategic and otherwise, they offer 12 1.68-69, p.32-33 Ibid. 14 1.38, p,21 15 1.41, p.23 16 1.42. p.23 13 5 to the Athenian cause a d lothe it as just , a gui g that afte all the Athe ia s a d the ha e the 17 same enemies [which is] the strongest basis for trust. The Athenian attestation of their own o eptio of justi e ag ees ith the Co ea fo ulatio , he afte p esu i g the naturality and driving force of self-interest in human behavior, they declare the rule has always existed that the eake is held do the st o ge .18 Indeed, it appears that the classical Hellenic notion of justice is simply unfathomable to the Athenians and in any case they reject it entirely as a bogus, contending that justi e never yet, when there was any opportunity to gain something by might, deterred anyone who propounded it from taking advantage, and all are entitled to praise whenever they follow human nature uli g othe s a d e d up eha i g o e e uita l / ode atel tha thei a tual po e di tated. 19 As such, the Corinthian rhetoric seems to implore Sparta to embrace some of the spirit, passion, and moral agency of Athens and apply it in fighting the Athenian aggression to preserve the traditional Hellenic way of life, e e alli g the “pa ta a s o solete agai st thei s the Athe ia s .20 As the reader digs deeper into the portrayals of Athens in Book one however, he is left to ponder from inception the dangerous drawbacks to Athenian vitality, youthfulness, and innovation—namely their lack of prudence and practical wisdom and their reckless and at times irrational kineticism for its own sake—and the threat they pose for the perpetuation of the Hellenic form of life. The Peloponnesian/Dorian view of justice on the whole thus entails the correct ordering of society according to different roles reflective of tradition, kinship, and culture which is easily contrasted ith the Athe ia /Io ia o eptio . The “pa ta s a d the Co i thia s speak a fai lot a out the past and even appear nostalgic about the way things had been (i.e. the old values of piety, giving respect when it is due, reverence for tradition, and belief in justice and the Gods). This goes hand in hand with thei p ese tatio as status- uo po e s sta di g i sha p o t ast f o Athe s a d its e -worldo de e isio ist ambitions. The Peloponnesian time horizon revolves around the past and the old, while the Athenians and their allies (i.e. Corcyra)—given their youthfulness and innovative nature— clearly are more excited about the present and future which promises to further enhance their status than the past. These differences alluded to in the partisan speeches of Corinthians and Corcyreans above find better illustration in the three speeches made by Pericles (including the famed Funeral Oration) and the two of Archidamos to his fellow Spartans all occurring in books 1 and 2.21 In his speeches, Archidamos, the king of the Lacedaemonians who Thucydides describes as intelligent and prudent, provides the first indication that the spirit of discord and strife which is to engulf the whole of Hellas and come animated (physically) in the Peloponnesian War is not fleeting and is here to stay, saying it is fea that e ill pass this o fli t do to ou hild e .22 With the speeches of Archidamos, Thucydides in effect conjures up one particular model of normative life in the Greek 17 1.33, 1.35 (p. 19-20) 1.76, p.37 19 1.76, p.38 20 1.71, p.35 21 Pe i les a d A hida os ep ese t the old gua d of Athe s a d “pa ta a d e e a hite ts of the Thi t Yea s’ Peace (446 B.C.) which broke down in 431 B.C. 22 1.81, p.40 18 6 cultural complex, one grounded in tradition, strict adherence to nomos, prudence, reverence for ancestors and handing down of their legacy, the ideals of virtue, the old classical Hellenic understanding of justice as natural cosmic order, and most important of all, the preeminence of community over the individual. Prioritizing stability, Archidamos communicates the precedency of calculative reason over passion in his system of ethos23 and defends the trademark Spartan hesitation as forethought and deli e atio , i sisti g that ot o l is the e o sha e o e the slo ess att i uted to the “pa ta s, ut athe that it a eful assess e t of situatio s is a a k of i tue a d t ue p ude e , fo hurrying you will delay the end because of starting unprepared .24 As such, he emphasizes the importance of careful planning and preparation to the sustaining of the Spartan way of life and points to thei p o eedi g ith secure provisions as testament to Spartan savvy, fo this is the a to o i e the g eatest ou age… ith the g eatest se u it .25 A hida os’ speech specially highlights the core Spartan values of orderliness and respect for the laws (nomos) and tradition, which Archidamos claims renders the Lacedaemonians oth ou ageous a d ise , where courage is bound to respect, and wisdom and moderation rest in following the customs and laws in the way they are meant to be followed traditionally (using nomos and tradition as standards of behavior). He cites as a reason for strength of the Spartan culture and identity that, We [Spartans] are educated with too little learning to despise the laws and too sensibly, through our strictness, to disobey them. 26 Nowhere is this Spartan ethos of putti g olle ti e eeds o e a d a o e o e’s o o e lea tha i A hida os’ fi al address to the Spartan generals: To a hie e the g eatest glo a e/ho o fo ou a esto s a d ou sel es…follow wherever you are led, giving discipline and watchfulness first importance and obeying the commands quickly, for this is the finest and fullest security that numerous as we are we show ourselves to be (in union) under a single (common) order (discipline/body).27 Thucydides uses A hida os’ spee h to u de s o e the g eat eight of ultu e a d edu atio o the shaping of character of the citizens and preservation of communal mores which are rooted in and at the sa e ti e uphold the a of life of a o u it . Afte all, the e is ot much difference between man a d a othe tha ultu e, a d the st o gest is o e ought up i the ost eti ulous dis ipli e. 28 In emphasizing sophrosyne—moderation and restraint through prudence—and importance of balancing everything according to the natural order of things (justice) mindful of the harmony of the cosmos, Archidamos (and his speech) represents the traditional culture of the Hellenes and its communitarian ethic, one that the Dorians (Sparta and its allies) appear to champion. It is this Archidamian archetype (of the way of life) rooted in the values of classical Hellas which comes increasingly under threat with the rise of Athens (and its dissenting worldview) and for its sake that Peloponnesos resorts to warfare. 23 2.11, p.80 1.84, p.41 25 1.84, 2.11 ; p.41, 80 26 1.84, p.41 27 2.11, p.80 28 Ibid. (translation slightly altered) 24 7 In contrast to this conservative model, Thucydides espouses the Periclean alternative as a competing normative system in the Greek form of life, hi h does ot e ulate the p a ti es of Athe s’ eigh o s setti g a e a ple to so e athe tha i itati g othe s .29 The Periclean Idea of social life is best reflected in the series of his three speeches, where he endorses a way of life constituted on the compatibility of the common good with a i di idual’s aspi atio s shrewdly linked together through the concept of glory. While paying tribute to the sheer import of power and strength over all else, Pericles praises Athenian unity, communal solidarity, and patriotism sustained by a unique (version of) democracy as the reason behind Athenian greatness. The Periclean scheme dispenses with the distinctions between individual and common interest and discounts private property as secondary to well-being of the city and its citizens as a whole. Pericles declares, do ot la e t o e ou houses a d la d, ut o e li es , fo these assets do ot eate a , e eate the . 30 And then, as if to distinguish his ideal Athenian citizens—as ones who not being slaves to their personal profit always put their country/polis first—Pericles goes as far proclaiming, If I thought I ould persuade you, I would have told you to go out and lay waste your p ope t ou sel es .31 Elsewhere, he la es those ho i o ste atio at the affli tio s of thei p i ate households neglect the salvation of the community, stressing that the fate of the individuals and the city are always tied together.32 After all, “A city that is overall on the right course benefits individuals more than one that is prospering as far as each citizen is concerned but failing collectively. For if a man is well off in his own situation but his country is destroyed, he is ruined along with it nonetheless, but if he fares badly in one that is faring well, he is much more likely to come through safely… a city, then, is able to bear the misfortunes of individuals but each member is incapable of bearing those of the city.” 33 This vision of communitarianism however, unlike the Archidamian framework, is balanced with a deep reverence for the individuality of citizens. This union of individual and community is best expressed in the Funeral Oration, in which Pe i les/Thu dides sets out to e pou d the p i iples by which [Athens] came to [its elevated] position and the form of government from which its greatness esulted. 34 Championing ideals of agency, excellence, variety, and distinction, he describes Periclean democracy as one where the laws afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if no social standing, advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way, if a man is able to serve the state, he is not hindered by the obscurity of his name. 35 He claims his Athenian model a edu atio fo the Hellas o g ou ds of its inimitable ethos  As a member of the Athenian aristocratic class, Thucydides always uses sympathetic language in referring to the conservative figures (and their political thought) in his narrative such as Archidamos and Nikias. 29 2.37, p.92 30 1.143, p.70 31 Ibid. 32 2.60, p.103 33 2.60, p.103 34 2.36, p.92 35 2.37 8 of disti ti e ess a d i di idualit , fo it is he e that a si gle a ould ep ese t a i di idual selfsufficient for the most varied forms of conduct, and with the most attractive qualities —these characteristics Pericles cites as origin of Athens very power and growth.36 Pericles is unequivocal regarding the unintelligibility of distinguishing private from public, but qualifies his position by stating, It is ithi the apa it of so e of us to a age private right along with public business and of the rest, while concentrating on their own occupations, to have [at least] no less understanding of public affairs: we are unique in considering the man who takes no part in [public domain] to be not apoliti al ut useless. 37 The individual distinctiveness is valuable not for its own sake, but rather as part of benefiting the city and not the other way around (quite unlike modern liberalism). As such, the boundaries of public and private life fade precisely because in his conception excellent man cannot exist without also being the excellent citizen. Meanwhile, Pericles also underscores the importance of confronting challenges and dangers head-on with courage and calculation, for the most formidable in spirit a e those ho e og ize oth da ge s a d pleasu es ith ut ost la it a d a e o neither count deterred from risk-taki g. 38 This (ethos of daring) is tied with the Ideas of legacy, honor, reputation, and enduring glory. He thus urges the individual citizens to “gaze at the city’s (Athens) power and become her lovers, reflecting whenever her fame appears great to you that men who were daring, who realized their duty [to her], and who honored her in their actions acquired this (greatness), men who even when they failed in some attempt did not on that account think it right to deprive the city of their virtue, but to offer it to her as their finest contribution. For in giving their lives in common cause, they individually gained imperishable praise/honor and the most distinctive tomb, not the one in which they are buried but the one (in history) where on every occasion for word and deed their glory is left after them eternally.” 39 The idea of glory is therefore critical to the Periclean scheme and serves as a motivation to encourage a man to work to the benefit of his city and exemplify the best citizen, the vital chain making possible the nexus of community and self. This glory truly transcends our modern dichotomy of private and public, for it is achieved in the public eye for the private person who has advanced the common ause a d glo of the it . Pe i les attests to this, sa i g it is a o g those [states] who establish the greatest prizes for courage that men are the est itize s , for love of honor is the only thing that does not lose its luster with old age, and it is not money and gain as some claim, but honor that brings delight i the pe iod of old age a d e e afte death.40 The ethos of distinctiveness and reputation hence does not work against the public sense of duty; it is the foundation on which glory (both for the city and the individual) is realized. I deed, fo Pe i les, to sho alo agai st e e ies o ehalf of ou t is justl the cloak to cover a man's other imperfections, since the good action has blotted out the bad and his merit as a citizen (public benefactors) more than outweighs his demerits as an individual (private 36 2.41 2.40, p.93 38 2.40, p.94 39 2.43, p.95-96 40 2.46, p.97; 2.44, p.96 37 9 malefactors). 41 It is in this context that political indifference becomes an original sin and agency a d da i g fo the it e o e the ultimate indication of virtue, for only out of the g eatest da ge s e e ge the g eatest ho o s fo oth it a d i di idual. 42 Periclean speeches, in the end, are employed by Thucydides to effectively signify the sort norms and values required to realize this idealistic vision within the framework of a sui generis ethical community, one shaped around the idea of undying legacy and eternal glory as the greatest good. They are perhaps as valuable for what they do say as for what the do ’t: fo thei sile e o the issue of justi e, hi h i plies ag ee e t to the atu al strongover-weak view of justice over the conventional idea of justice reflected in speeches of Athenian rivals. The Periclean and Archidamian speeches taken together intimate the primacy of two opposing worldviews vying for supremacy over one form of life (Greek) simultaneously, inevitably leading to internal incoherence of the Greek form of life; they showcase a form of life in crisis and transition due to its fundamental contradictions. Interestingly, despite the emerging conflicts in the two worldviews, the Idea of communal solidarity appears crucial to both Archidamos and Pericles although perhaps for different reaso s “pa ta is o e ed ith ai tai i g its o t ol o e the Helots, hile Athe s’ p i a i te est i keepi g its allied su je ts i li e a d lo al compels it to project an image of strength and unity); this sets them apart from what develops in their place in the course of the Peloponnesian war. Pericles and his offered vision of Athens in the funeral speech reveal a turn toward individuality, but one that is yet deeply anchored in the values of community and social norms; a picture (of harmony of public and private) which is highly idealistic to say the least and serves as the catalyst to bring the contradiction of Hellenic life to the fore of Hellenic psyche. It is a telling fact that on commencing the Spartan campaign, as if foretelling an omen, Archida os de la es, This da ill e the beginning of Great misfortunes for the Hellenes ot fo “pa ta o Athe s ut fo Hellas as a hole .43 II. Brasidas: The Empty Promise of Panacea In the Thucydidean account, Brasidas offers one possible salutary way for resolving the emerging contradictions in the Hellenic worldview in which the Greek life could perpetuate, a way to settle the old sets of antinomies and start afresh by blending them into a new concoction. Yet, his death suggests that perhaps the tensions are irreconcilable, foreshadowing the ultimate collapse. It is noteworthy that although Thucydides appears to band Brasidas and Kleon together describing them as e tai l the ai oppo e ts of pea e o ea h side , the easo fo thei obstruction (to peace) could not be more different.44 Du ed a ogue a d a de agogue, Kleon regularly exploits the war for furthering his populist agenda and manipulating the common people. Brasidas, however, looks to be motivated by conviction and an ethic of responsibility (and the chance at public glory they promise), for he understands the high stakes of this o test et ee “pa ta a d Athe s and its implications for the 41 2.42 1.144, p.71 43 2.12, p.80 44 5.16, p.261 42 10 fate of Hellas as a whole.45 They are thus similar and grouped together in that (in theory) they constitute o e a othe ’s e esis a d a tithesis, when in reality (and in worldview) they cannot be more unlike. We a e fi st i t odu ed to B asidas i ook 2 he e i his fi st deed he o its a a t of da i g se u i g Metho e f o Athe ia fo es, thus disti guishi g hi self f o his “pa ta cohort by taking risks like an Athenian.46 Later in book 4, he shows his agency, inventiveness, and resourcefulness (quite the un-Spartan qualities) in saving Megara from the Athenians. His energy, cunning, and just and moderate behavior toward other cities Thucydides accounts for Brasidas being well-received by other cities and inducing them to revolt against the Athenians. In fact, Thucydides conjures an image of Brasidas as the rehabilitator of Sparta/Peloponnesos in the eye of the rest of Hellas, lai i g B asidas’ pe so a i spi ed e thusias fo the La edae o ia s a o g the Athe ia allies, for by being the first to go out and by showing himself a good man in all respects, he left behind the lasting co i tio that the othe s e e of the sa e so t as ell hi h of ou se the were not).47 Throughout the narrative, Thucydides willfully ide tifies B asidas as the li e ato of Hellas . On the fa e of it, B asidas’ o sta t ho age to f eedo is e tai ly part of his theatrics to stir up passion and support, but, upon closer inspection, there is something more to it than just a rhetorical ploy. Rather, by closely connecting Brasidas with the notions of the liberator and savior, Thucydides seems to want to impress upon the reader that perhaps the Brasidas model offers the most conceivable path to physical and ideological liberation and restoration of Hellas, a remedy for the Hellenic woes. In Brasidas, Thucydides combines the language of (public) honor and glory, with courage, initiative, and action in accordance to the conventional (classical) view of justice. This is e ide t i Thu dides’ ha a te izatio of Brasidas attitude toward Skione, where Brasidas attests to the values and qualities he holds dear by p aisi g the “kio ia s fo st idi g to a d f eedo of thei o ill, athe tha a je tl aiti g fo the factor of compulsion concerning their own obvious good, a sign of their courage to endure anything else, ho e e se e e , lai i g that if he B asidas e e to a a ge atte s a o di g to his o thinking, he would consider them in truth to be the most reliable friends of the Lacedaemonians, dese i g of all ho o s. 48 Thucydides informs us that the admiration is mutual and in his description elevates B asidas as the ha pio of G ee e , by means of the Skionians gi i g B asidas a a reception in every respect, publically by setting a gold crown on his head as liberator of Hellas, personally by covering him with wreaths and fillets and approaching him as though he were an athlete. 49 I B asidas’ o eptio , lea l , ealizi g ha ge e ui es taki g action (Athenian value) and having the commitment to see it through (Peloponnesian value). I deed, B asidas’ agenda differs systematically from the Spartan agenda. It is much more aggressive and far more ambitious. While B asidas see s to e ge ui el ode ate a d og iza t of the full scope (both ideological and material) of the Athenian threat from which he wants to free Hellas, “pa ta s e de i u de sta di g of justi e p e e ts the f o empathizing with the i justi e 45 5.9, p.258 2.25, p.87 47 4.81, p.226 48 4.120, p.244 49 4.121, p.244 46 11 suffered by the rest of Hellas in the hands of the Athenians; and so, their invocation of the idea of freedom is only meant to coerce Athens into compromise. The picture Thucydides presents of Brasidas reception in Greece reveals a charismatic leader whose message arouses inspiration. He is well-received by the various Greek poleis, for he “not only behaved moderately in general but was spreading the word everywhere that he was sent out in order to liberate Hellas: when the cities subject to Athens learned about the capture of Amphipolis and [how fair/moderate] the terms were, also about his gentleness, they were strongly motivated toward revolutionary action and secretly sent proposals to him, urging him to make the rounds among them, each wanting to start the first revolt…ready to take any sort of risk.”50 It is a g a e istake to dis iss B asidas’ ole i the te t as that of a de agogue or a manipulator, given his reputation in the minds of the Hellenes—one that he develops by following through on his words with action—and how genuinely he captivates so many different cities with his message. His enthusiastic reception speaks to the prevalent psyche of the Hellas at the time and what sort of vision the Hellenes seem to be longing for. It comes as no surprise that Brasidas’ isio soo egi s to lash ith “pa ta isk-a e se agenda a d ti id dispositio . The “pa ta s did ot suppo t hi oth e ause of the e of the leadi g e a d e ause aki g use of B asidas’ i to ies, they wanted to get [their imprisoned] men a k a d stop fighti g (given the Spartan obsessive preoccupation with the Helots), while Brasidas does not abide by the truce he finds naïve given the magnitude of what is at stake for Hellas (the war for Brasidas must have a clear winner for it is about the way of life).51 Pa t of B asidas’ appeal lies i the fa t that in him both the Athenian and Spartan ways seem to be harmoniously united. Thucydides' characterization of Brasidas suggests that Brasidas integrated in himself the stereotypical Spartan courage with those virtues in which regular Spartans were most signally lacking. In fact, Brasidas appears as the ost Athe ia es ue “pa ta , al a s i g to e first and advance his status, while the rest of Spartans mostly remain content with their given position. Furthermore, the rhetoric in speech of Brasidas to the Akanthians (iv.84-87) is of noticeably higher quality than the other Spartan speeches recorded in History, a fact that leads Thucydides to complement B asidas’ speaking ability calling him ot a u skilled speake fo a La edae o ia . 52 Thucydidean Brasidas is ambitious and a distinctive individual, quick in forming his plans but also carrying them out without delay or hesitation, and yet grounded in Peloponnesian virtues of moderation, culture, discipline, and communal allegiance. Indeed, Brasidas represents a unique cast of mind whose charm precisely lies in its eclectic nature—one encompassing initiative, agency, and daring/self-assurance in tandem with prudence, moderation, and (classical) justice. In his last oration, Brasidas again combines both the Spartan and Athenian ethos in speech he he de la es, fighti g ell i ol es th ee things: willingness/readiness, honor, a d o edie e to leade s , but then proves himself a man of action and not just words: I ill 50 4.108, p.238 Ibid., p.239 (Spartan mentality prevents them from pressing advantage and so here again they stand the extreme opposite to Athenian overreaching 52 4.81, p.227 51 12 show that I am not the man to encourage those around me rather than following through [myself] in a tio a d e a ple.53 And he does just that by making the ultimate sacrifice of life for the victory of his army, cherishing a short life full of glory over a long one marked by inaction and cowardice. His act of valor and agency secures for him the eternal public glory he seeks, ith the A phipolita s sa ifi i g to him as a hero, bestowing upon him the honor of the games and annual offerings, and even attributing the olo to hi as a fou de . 54 He thus harmonizes (the worldview of) Pericles with Archidamos. In process, Brasidas is cast and memorialized as the savior of Hellenes, but a lifeless one at that not able to realize his vision to the end. Therefore, Brasidas and his death—which Thucydides seems to devote so much time to—indicates Thucydidean belief that perhaps the only way forward, the reconciliation of the contradiction, is impossible. B asidas is o fide t that he is oth i the ight fighti g fo li e atio a d restoring the old Hellenic order) and with the necessa ight a d ou age, ut as e a e e i ded by Hermokrates in 4.62, even power and justice together do not guarantee triumph; rather, they can ause o e’s doo e ou agi g i hi overreaching and overconfidence (although a case could be made that Brasidas failure is at least in equal part the result of his abandonment by Sparta than his overreaching). The potentiality of being both Athenian and Spartan, of combining the virtues of both, dies right there and then with Brasidas in Amphipolis. The panacea is revealed to be only a mirage. III. Alcibiades and Nikias: Breakdown Strikes Home The u if i g thesis of reakdown discussed in the previous sections is also reflected in that throughout the Thucydidean account stasis appears to be an omnipresent theme happening everywhere in the Hellenic world. The enduring presence of civil strife in various Hellenic cities acts as a further testament to the normative/intellectual stasis crippling Hellas to show that not only is the whole of Greece divided in war, that even each polis is internally conflicted in its own right (note the relationship between rebellion in polis and the War at large). In fact, Lattimore’s eadi g of ook th ee u de li es the ps holog of i il a a d its de astati g effe ts o o al sta da ds ith ideologi al diffe e es 55 superseding national rivalries as the main culprit for war. Thucydides would agree as he recounts how ith sa age , the disease of i il a p og essed f o Corcyra) until finally it spread like wildfire to the est of Hellas, al ost ithout e eptio lea i g the i tu oil a d o e ts the notion of civil discord with conflict in the realm of Ideas; he ites, as the o ditio of the ities as civil war, [it] pushed to e t e es the e olutio i thi ki g. 56 All this st ife, Thu dides a gues, as aused leadership based on greed and ambition (self-interest) and led in turn to fanaticism once men were o itted to the po e st uggle , he e leadi g e i the ities…t eated as thei p ize the pu li i te est to hi h the paid lip se i e .57 In a conscious exaggeration, Thucydides even blames the civil a s fo e e fo of i ious ess/lawlessness [that] was established in the Hellenic wo ld, fo i its 53 5.9, p.258 5.11, p.260 55 P.130 56 3.82, p.168-169 57 3.82, p.170 54 13 generated climate of normative and ideological clash, ith pu li life o fused to the iti al poi t, human nature, always ready to act unjustly in violation of the laws (nomos), overthrew the laws themselves and gladly showed itself powerless over passion but stronger than justice and hostile to any ki d of autho it a d li itatio .58 In this light, everything everywhere appears to be falling apart, turned upside down, or otherwise going through upheaval in the world as presented in the Thucydidean narration which all works in tandem to symbolize the larger Idea of breakdown; and Athens is not only not immune to the storm but the epicenter of it. The post-Periclean politics of Athens displays various stages of (normative) transformation marked by Kleon, Nikias, and Alcibiades, leading to the ultimate degeneration and abandonment of the Periclean vision. By the end of the treatise, the demise of Kleon and Nikias and the stubborn enduring of Alcibiades leave the Alcibiadean spirit as the only possibility for future Athenian (and thereby Hellenic) model of life. I the afte ath of Pe i les’ death, the th ee e e gi g su esso s Kleo , Nikias, a d Alcibiades) provide three alternative worldviews either in response or emerging out of the Periclean scheme and throughout the rest of History fight one another to assert the rightfulness of their way of life. This is sure to produce internal conflict, and it is remarkable and not without authorial design that the political condition Pericles condemns in book 1 attributing it to the Peloponnesians well becomes a description of post-Periclean Athens: A situation where each “presses for his own concerns—a state of affairs in which it is normal for nothing to get accomplished [with] some wanting maximum redress against their enemies, others the minimum damage to their property; [where] they spend small fraction of [time] considering any public matter and the greater part acting on domestic/private interests, each thinking that his own negligence does no harm and it is someone else’s business to use foresight on his behalf, so that when the same notion is entertained by everyone separately it goes unobserved that common interests are being destroyed collectively.”59 This environment of internal faction and discord undermining the common good is precisely what appears to afflict the Athenians as time goes on causing their downfall. Thucydides clearly forebodes of what is to befall post-Pe i lea Athe s i his eulog of Pe i les i ook 2, iti g those ho came later [to Pericles], in contrast, since they were more on an equal level with one another and each was striving to e o e fi st like Pe i les , e e eso ted to ha dli g o e affai s to the people’s pleasu es; as a esult, a istakes e e ade…especially the expeditio to “i il pa ti ula l effe ti g Alcibiades 60 and Nikias). Pericles clearly envisages this, stating I have come to fear our own mistakes more than the e e ’s pla i g .61 The passing of torch from Pericles to Alcibiades is interrupted in the narrative by Kleon, who first demonstrates the gradual transition in the (dominant) Athenian psyche. Thucydides offers a disparaging picture of Kleon. Never content and always restless, Kleon ceaselessly grasps for more and embodies the 58 3.83-84, p.170-171 1.141, p.69 60 2.65, p.107 61 1.144, p.70 59 14 idea of o e ea hi g. His o sessio ith ei g popula ith the people a d his e talit of g eatest gai fo the g eatest u e leads to populis , e pi e, a d de agogue , for he increasingly relies on rhetorics and manipulation to further his agenda. Kleon represents the pervasion of Periclean thought hi h I ea Pe i les’ e phasis o the ell ei g of the it the o o good as o e e tit is reinterpreted to mean the greatest benefit for the majority. The majority interest has now come to become synon ous ith i te est of the polis. While Pe i les as p epa ed to e u popula fo hat’s right for the future of Athens, Kleon basks in his own popularity and advocates more empire (and war) to be able to sustain it. As such, Kleon represents the worst in Periclean thought, the Periclean Idea gone wrong. With Kleo ’s murder in the war, Thucydides leaves the reader with two distinct characters and two completely antithetical worldviews, one signifying a nostalgic break with Pericles reviving the ideals classical Athens championed by Nikias, and the other emphasizing the individualistic element in Periclean thought to the neglect of its communitarian spirit championed by Alcibiades. Noble Nikias signifies the pre-Periclean age (Periclean worldview after all is what inadvertently a d to Pe i les’ dis a i stigated the a o uptio s that late o e to distu Athe ia life , the old Athens which is much more akin to its Hellenic counterparts and cut from the same cloth of values and norms. He thus reveres age and customary laws, always urges for restraint, caution, and moderation, a d a s of the da ge s of follo i g the e kless , o e ea hi g Al i iades fo the su i al of Athe s, ad isi g the Athe ia s to ot isk hat is at ha d fo hat is u e tai a d off i the futu e .62 I fa t, he is the o l o e ho pe siste tl a ts as the oi e of easo a d elie i g that the it as ot aki g the ight de isio opposes the e peditio to “i il du i g hi h he i o i all is killed.63 Heeding the value of “pa ta slo ess , Nikias o de s haste as i oppo tu e .64 His understanding of ho o a d i tue is e u h i li e ith the A hida ia e ditio . At ti es, Thu dides e e sounds nostalgic about this classical Athens where values of conventional justice and virtue still reigned. In this light, Nikias appears much more Spartan than perhaps any other Athenian character in the entire treatise. Nikias also appears to reject the Periclean fusion of public-private domains and value the private as treasu ed i its o ight, sa i g he ho takes his pe so a d p ope t i to a ou t is just as good a citizen, for it is exactly such a man who would wish for his own sake that the affairs of his city prosper as ell. 65 I his fi al spee h, he e phasizes ultu e , piet , ki ship , a d a est a d lai s to de i e his o fide e f o ha i g spe t his life i a de out a tio s to a d the gods a d a just 66 a d i ep oa ha le o es to a d e . In this sense, he revives the language of conventional justice and piety that faded in the narrative since Archidamos. His sense of honor, ethic of responsibility, and de e is agai sho ased he he asks G lippos to do as he pleased ith hi ut to stop the assa e of the est of his soldie s. 67 It is pe haps fo these easo s that o the o asio of Nikias’ death, Thu dides e e e s hi , of all the Helle es i his ti e, as e tai l the least dese i g to 62 6.9, p.311 6.8, p.310 64 6.9, p.311 65 6.9, p.311 63 66 67 7.77, p.401 7.85, p.405 15 ea h this le el of isfo tu e e ause of a a of life di e ted e ti el to a d i tue. 68 So all in all, the Nikias that emerges in the Thucydidean account is a nostalgic tribute to an age long gone, a decent anachronism reminiscent of a pre-Periclean Hellenic past. Alcibiades and Nikias are cast in oppositional terms stretching back to the Peace of Nikias, where Al i iades’ desi e to al a s o e first and his great sense of envy places him as the main antagonist to the Nikian Peace that he had no part in authoring and by which he feels dishonored. Thucydides himself outright enlightens us that Al i iades’ o petiti e spi it had ee aff o ted because the Lacedaemonians negotiated the treaty through Nikias, overlooking him because of his outh. 69 Alcibiades thus represents Athenian outlook once devoid of its communitarian ethos, a culture of hyper-individualism, where every decision depends on self-interest—in complete betrayal of the Periclean vision. In the picture of the gradual deterioration of Athens from Pericles to Alcibiades, we o ef o ou t fi st to me fi st attitude—from communitarianism (Pericles) to populism (Kleon) to finally arriving at individualism (Alcibiades). Accordingly, Alcibiades detests idleness and delay and champions the values of competition, activity, youthfulness, and motion, asse ti g that a it , like anything else, will cause its own deterioration if left idle, and internally all its skills will age, but when engaged (in competition) it will keep adding to its experience and become further accustomed to defe di g itself, ot o ds ut a tio s. 70 He represents a version of the Athenian worldview that, at its core, is structured on advantage and power relations . Alcibiades is brazen enough to equate his own success with the success of the city: ironically the disti tio et ee pu li a d p i ate a e o e o e lu ed ut i o plete i e sio of Pe i lea views. The polis is now seen from the perspective of the individual rather than individuals being ordered and their roles determined according to the perspective of the polis, thus thwarting Periclean scheme (valuing city over self). In process, the idea of legacy is divorced from its communitarian dimension and turned increasingly private. As such, there is a shift in meaning of the concept of glory. No lo ge glo a d ho o i thei t ue se se—which were inevitably tied to the betterment of the community and championed by Pericles—constitute the ultimate treasure: it is fame and celebrity that is the prize and the measure of success in the declining Athens marked by individualism. Thucydides offers an exceptionally negative verdict on Alcibiades a di g hi a aspi i g t a t ho is a o e all eage to take o a d hopi g to at the sa e ti e add to his pe so al ealth as ell as p estige , lai i g that to a g eat e te t it as this Al i iades dispositio to overindulge his passions) which destroyed the Athe ia it .71 Arguably, the old Nikias directs the most powerful charges against Alcibiades and his egois , a usi g hi of thi ki g o l of hi self a d a i g the Athe ia s to ot allo this person to show off as an individual by endangering the city but understand that such men damage public resources as they waste their own (in a lavish lifestyle), a d also ot lea e i po ta t atte s i the hasty hands of youth.72 Treating the polis as his possession, Alcibiades is quick to disregard even his 68 7.86, p.406 69 5.43, p.275-276 70 6.18, p.317 71 6.15, p.314 72 6.12, p.313 16 own city of Athens, once he is not to be in charge of it. He arrogantly defends his betrayal and portrays himself as a victim, “My patriotism does not apply where I am wronged but where I was secure in exercising my rights; nor do I think of myself as attacking a homeland that is still mine, but as recovering one that is mine no longer; and this is the real patriot, not the one who resigns to his country being taken away from him in injustice (against himself) without attacking it, but the one whose desire brings him to every means of regaining it.”73 By book 8, it becomes clear that Alcibiades has made it his mission to restore himself to power in Athens. It is telling that when his individual position and security is threatened, he does not hesitate to abandon his homeland (Athens) and join the e e ’s a p “pa ta and later Persia). In fact, the renegade Alcibiades is the decisive contributing factor to the defeat of the Athenians both by initially sta di g as the ai p opo e t of Athe s’ “i ilia i asio a d by defecting to the other side and persuading the Spartans to join the war on the side of the Syracusans (and sending Spartan general Gyllipos in aid) and fortify an outpost in Attica (Dekeleia) which proved to be particularly destructive to the Athenians.74 In all this, Alcibiades only considers his self-interest and personal status, prioritizing his private advantage over all else. The heritage and legacy of the Periclean narrative is contested by all who rush to the scene to fill the void in leadership left by absence of Pericles.75 Alcibiades and Nikias in tandem represent two sides of the unraveling of the Athenian project: Nikias is fighting what appears to be a losing struggle to retain the traditional ethos of Athens as a community, upholding the virtues that seem to at best hold a diminished status in the functioning of the G eek s ste . I deed, it ould e a gued that Nikias’ commitment to the ideals of virtue is at once the main source of his strategic failings and ultimate downfall as a general. Thucydides provides his readers with the sense that not only have the virtues lost their old normative standing, but that in fact they emerge as an impediment to success in the Peloponnesian War. Alcibiades, on the other hand, embodies the radical individualism and self-interest that has come to dominate and pervert the Athenian model and lead to its overreaching. In view of all this, Periclean Republic emerges as a myth (lodged in contradictions) that disintegrates into obsession with power relations (and accumulation), and hysteria to define favorably the terms of that relationship for the individual participants, a doomed project from the start and on its own terms. It is significant and macabre that while all other characters perish and fall to death (signifying diminishing of their Ideas), Alcibiades (and his egoist mentality) is the only one who is left standing at the end. One cannot help but wonder whether Thucydides desig ates the Al i iadea odel as the fi al cast of mind with which Hellas is inescapably left and now must either contend or fall. 73 6.92, p.353 6.89-93, p.351-354 75 A main question here is what condition allowed the Periclean vision to unravel in the first place? Back in book three, Thucydides provides a general outline of the answer: Because the mechanism that is supposed to sustain it (democracy) appears to not be doing its jo p ope l , ha i g e o e all theate p o e to de agogue u de the power of rhetorics. Book 3 highlights this (by speeches of Kleon/Diodotes/ Agathapolis). Leaders can use rhetoric to become first by means of manipulating the demos by good argument instead of i tue a d hat’s ight. The last th ee ooks of the t eatise illust ate this e e o e lea l ith the dualit of Al i iades and Nikias. 74 17 Conclusion In his historical masterpiece, Thucydides recounts the story of the breakdown of the Hellenic form of life through his presentation of the various personalities around which his narration finds meaning. Each character seems to personify one paradoxical facet of the Hellenic way of life, all within an overall environment of contradiction. Read i this a , Thu dides’ History reflects the collapse of the G eek a of life he e o u it a d i di idualit a e set agai st ea h othe i the narrative of the Peloponnesian War with Athens and Sparta representing the two sides of the Hellenic form of life and its internal contradictions. Far from the rosy picture offered by Pericles of the unity of the private and the public—harmonizing the prima of o u it o ga i is ) with the free spirit of i di idualit eati it by means of a distinctive set of customary o s o ethi s sustai ed the motivating mechanism of glory, the ealis of Thu didean History demonstrates that individuality a d self-i te est ofte fi d the sel es i ollisio ith o u it a d its o o good . As such, contrary to what some scholars argue, not only does Thucydidean narrative not offer an apologia for Periclean Athens, but it does quite the opposite in demonstrating the fantasy behind the Periclean project, proving it an illusion by means of shining light on the internal contradictions in the Periclean worldview itself. In this picture, the Periclean solution for resolving the inconsistencies in the Greek way of life which many hail as the utopian Hellenic model is revealed to be, in actuality and in practice, a Utopia (i.e. not to be in reality) and what caused the Hellenic form of life to crumble. The breakdown in a form of life occurs because of dissolution of normative allegiance on the part of a collectivity to its system of ideals/values. When the Greeks realize that their conception of the world does not hold up in practice, they become disillusioned and gradually abandon their classical way of life.76 What comes to debilitate and destroy the Hellenic form of life is the inversion of the source of (normative) autho it a d the asis of judg e t f o so iet to self . The o u ita ia spi it of Hellenic society is seriously challenged with the Idea of self-consciousness of self-thinking individuals embodied in the Athenian model. The Athenian way of life brought into focus the inherent contradiction between individual interest and common interest, the G eek illusio of ei g at o e o e ith ou self a d o e ith ou o u it —which was at the heart of the Hellenic Idea of harmony and justice. To think for oneself freely and outside the confines of what was required of one socially effectively destroyed the ethical/normative basis on which the Greek Sittlichkeit stood by allowing the ascendency of subjective private reason over the demands of the community. In the absence of common mores and normative standards, everyone scrambles to redefine Hellas (under a new order) and is left compelled to reestablish the former authority on the basis of monopolizing power/force. This 76 Breakdown happens as a result of internal contradictions and disagreements on the tenets around which a normative community/Sittlichkeit is organized, which lead to the disintegration of the Sittlichkeit and with it the collapse of the particular way of life. Over time and with constant challenges to the very ideas that sustain the Sittlichkeit, the members of that ethical community begin to lose faith in the system and doubt its very normative basis and the apparatus on which it functions which steadily but inevitably will result in the degeneration of the Form of life itself. In this sense, the very doubt acts as a degenerative disease that will first corrode the mind (Geist) (of a culture/form of life), leaving it comatose, and ultimately making it perish. 18 is precisely the nature of normative change in Athens (culminating in a way of life organized around power relations). Accordingly, Thucydides does not see Greek life as a totalizing force; rather, he recognizes that there are many contestable cultures/ideological milieus in play in the Greek form of life. As such, the Peloponnesian War becomes as much a war over ideology and way of life as it is about national interest, balance of power, and international relations. In view of that, Thu dides’ ha a te s lea l ope ate i different cultural/intellectual paradigms. Thucydides appears to reject both sides of the Greek worldview a d Ideas A hida ia a d Pe i lea , usi g “ a usea leade He ok ates’s spee h to signal that not only is there no natural arc of justice to the cosmos (contrary to Archidamian view) but also that strength and power are not sufficient factors for success and prosperity as Pericles and Athenians believe. In what echoes Thucydidean convictions perhaps more than any other passage, Hermokrates states, “If there is anything someone feels assured of accomplishing, either because he is right or because he is powerful, let him not be embittered by failing against his hopes, but realize that many men before now have pursued wrongdoers with vindication [for the sake of justice] (Peloponnesians), or in other cases strength has given hopes of aggrandizement (Athenians), and then so totally failed to settle account that they did not survive, or it turned out that instead of making gains they lost even what they had ( Hellas innuendo). For “redress” does not necessarily succeed as a matter of justice for all the wrong that is committed, and might is not security for all that it is accompanied by hope. But the uncertain side of the future holds the widest domain and has proved the most baffling things of all, yet also the most useful [opportunity] as it frightens/threatens us all equally.”77 The tragedy of Thucydidean History hence mirrors the Tragedy of Hellenic way of life and its degeneration, a testament to the illusiveness of both the ethos of Periclean Athens and of ancient Hellas. Thucydides’ issio the is to call attention to the need for Hellas to solve its internal contradictions in the realm of Ideas by formulating an entirely novel worldview (one he himself tries to offer through Brasidas to no avail). That is the task he leaves for future generations, for just by ide tif i g a d theo izi g the dest u ti e patte to G eek life, Thu dides’ jo is o plete. 77 4.62, p.217 19