1. Hornblower (1987, 155–190) goes into the problems of isolating Thucydides’ own ideas at length. [BACK]

2. E.g., Pouncey 1980, ix–x; similarly, Connor 1984, 249–250. [BACK]

3. E.g., Cox (1986, 243), who criticizes Morgenthau and Waltz for being “ahistorical” and insensitive to change; Ruggie (1986, 141–152) argues that Waltz’s systemic view is not very successful at explaining a major transformation such as that from the medieval to the modern state; the essays critiquing realism in Wayman and Diehl 1994 do not have much to say about its weakness in accounting for change because these studies concentrate on the modern political arena and make little attempt to deal with different systems. [BACK]

4. On this, see now Johnson 1993, 61–62; a political philosopher, Johnson contrasts Hobbes with Thucydides. Thucydides’ Athenians and Hobbes both argue that interest dominates events, but Thucydides’ narrative contains numerous episodes that reveal the inadequacy of such a universalizing deterministic viewpoint. Nevertheless, Thucydides differs not because he does not believe in a stable human nature but because, as the product of classical Greek culture, he believes that chance is too unpredictable and events too ambiguous to allow humans to behave predictably. There is a rich literature on chance and intelligence in Thucydides: see, for example, Cornford 1907; Stahl 1966; Edmunds 1975a. [BACK]

5. Thus Hall 1989, 54–55; on Herodotus’s view of the Other, the classic study is Hartog 1988. [BACK]

6. This is not to say that Euripides endorsed Greek chauvinism: see, for example, Eur. Med. 534–538, which cannot even win tepid ambivalence from the Chorus (cf. 576–578); the non-Greek appearance of Dionysos is a major theme throughout the Bacchae; the degraded picture of Helen’s Phrygian servants is one of the ugliest elements in an ugly play (Eur. Or. 1369ff.); on the representation of non-Greeks in tragedy, see Hall 1989. [BACK]

7. Ste. Croix 1972, 29. [BACK]

8. See, for example, de Romilly 1990, 61–104; Hammond 1973. [BACK]

9. Besides the passage quoted here, note also the rather surprising intellectualism of the Spartan king Archidamos at Thuc. 1.84; on the relationship between sophistic thought and the remarks attributed to Archidamos, see Hussey 1985. [BACK]

10. Derian 1995b, 382. [BACK]

11. Pouncey 1980, ix–x; similarly, Connor 1984 249–250. [BACK]

12. At the conclusion of his description of the plague, Thucydides reports the rumor that the Peloponnesians shortened their invasion of Attika because of the plague, but he then concedes that, in fact, the Spartans made their longest invasion (forty days) during the first plague year (2.57). Athenian reinforcements to Poteideia prove counterproductive because they brought the plague with them to the Athenian army in northern Greece (2.58), but it is at least surprising that the Athenians managed to send any reinforcements (or even had any functioning foreign policy) after the apocalyptic description of chaos and anarchy at Athens. Perikles’ final speech responds to the plague (2.61.3, 64.1), but the plague then plays very little role in the narrative. Thucydides mentions it again in book 3, explaining that the plague preoccupied the Athenians and prevented them from paying as much attention to Mytilene as they might otherwise have done (3.3), but military operations proceed for the most part as normal. At 3.87, Thucydides focuses again, although briefly, on a resurgence of the plague, citing the loss of 4,000 hoplites and 300 cavalry (a tremendous blow to Athenian labor power), but he does not subsequently integrate the ravages of the plague into his narrative, and, indeed, there does not seem to be a reference to the plague in his account of the following year. [BACK]

13. So Hunter 1989; Morrison 1994. [BACK]

14. Compare Tickner 1995. [BACK]

15. This is one of the major themes of Crane 1996a. For an interesting survey of how this narrowing of perception affects the rise of political thought generally in the fifth and fourth centuries, see Saxonhouse 1992, which treats Thucydides only in passing. [BACK]

16. Saxonhouse (1992, 93–101) locates Euthyphro’s position in the development of progressive political thought. [BACK]

17. On this, see Crane 1989. [BACK]

18. Kleon too is reported to have repudiated his friends to dramatize his devotion to the state: Plut. Mor. 806F; Connor 1992, 91–94. [BACK]

19. Thuc. 1.17; on this, see chapter 6. [BACK]

20. On this, see chapter 2. [BACK]

21. Kurke 1991, 171–177; Forde (1989, 186) suggests that Alkibiades differed from the traditional tyrants only in the single-minded extremism of his pursuit of “honor.” [BACK]

22. Hdt. 5.71; Thuc. 1.126.3. [BACK]

23. So Orwin 1994, 125. [BACK]

24. One of the best treatments of Alkibiades’ attitude toward the state remains Pusey 1940. [BACK]

25. So Euben 1990b, 167–169. [BACK]

26. Orwin 1994, 182. [BACK]

27. Connor 1984, 230. [BACK]

28. Pouncey (1980, 39 n. 11; pp. 173–174) relays statistics developed by Kenneth Rothwell about how many more individuals Thucydides names in book 8 than in other books. [BACK]

29. Pouncey 1980, 42–43. [BACK]

30. Cornford 1907, 244. [BACK]

31. Connor 1984, 214. [BACK]

32. By contrast, Plato recognized that personal justice and public corruption were not incompatible: see Rep. 351c-352a. [BACK]

33. See, for example, Herman 1987, which surprised many of us by showing how pervasive the “archaic” system of ritualized friendship remained in the classical period. [BACK]

34. See chapter 2. [BACK]

35. I take this speech to be an attempt to visualize Athenian democracy as it could be. Like all such praise it is prescriptive as well as descriptive, for, to the extent that the speech is specific, it challenges the recipient to live up to those claims made for it. Here, if nowhere else, Thucydides provides us with a vision of that “ancient simplicity” as it might exist in his modern, Athenian world. On the ideology of the funeral oration as an Athenian genre, Loraux 1986a has become the standard work, but Ziolkowski 1981 remains a useful and often more usable starting point. [BACK]

36. See, for example, Edmunds and Martin 1977. [BACK]

37. For examples, see Meiggs and Lewis 1988, nos. 33, 48; no. 35 lists Argives who died fighting alongside the Athenians at Tanagra; Crawford and Whitehead 1983, no. 127, translates the opening of Meiggs and Lewis no. 33. [BACK]

38. For a survey of these archaic funeral monuments in Attika, see Richter 1962; it is not clear how many of these early monuments would have survived the raids and destruction of the Persian Wars. [BACK]

39. For the implications of this, see Morris 1994. [BACK]

40. I take this to be the force of ἐν τῇ μὴ προσηκούσῃ not simply beyond Attika, but in land that is beyond Athenian control. [BACK]

41. On the role of gnômê in the Funeral Oration as a whole, see Edmunds 1975a, 44–70, esp. 68, where Edmunds stresses that it is the fact that these men chose to give their lives that makes their sacrifice a triumph of will and freedom over chance. [BACK]

42. On this phrase, see Hornblower 1991, ad loc. [BACK]

43. On the size of this number and the severity of this punishment, see Connor 1984, 86–87, with nn. 18 and 19. [BACK]

44. Duris of Samos (Plut. Per. 28) went farther and attributed to Perikles a spectacular ferocity: Perikles reportedly led the ship captains and marines into the marketplace of Miletos, crucified them, let them hang exposed for ten days before ordering their heads to be broken, and—worst, perhaps of all, to Greek sensibilities—had their bodies cast out without burial. Even Plutarch expresses his doubts about Duris’s reliability, however, and suggests that he may have added this detail to help slander the Athenians. Such a punishment was, however, standard for traitors, and Duris’s account may be at least partially true: on this, see the note at Stadter 1989, 258–259. [BACK]

45. Cf. the opening section of Xen. Lak. Pol., discussed in chapter 3. [BACK]

46. On this passage and its implications, see now Monoson (1994), who argues that by presenting the city as a lover rather than a nurturer, Perikles stresses the reciprocal nature of citizenship. [BACK]

47. On this passage, see Dover 1978, 146. [BACK]

48. This translation is based on that of David Kovacs, published both in Crane 1996b and in the Loeb edition. [BACK]

49. At 1.124.3, the Corinthians label Athens as turannos polis (cf. 1.122.3); the other three speakers are Athenians: Perikles (2.63.1–2), Kleon (3.37.2), and Euphemos (6.85.1). This phrase has attracted considerable attention: see, for example, Hunter 1973/4; Connor 1977b; Raaflaub 1979; Raaflaub 1987, 226. [BACK]

50. Arendt 1973; Canovan 1992, 17–62. [BACK]

51. Arendt 1958, 175–176. [BACK]

52. Arendt 1958, 197, 205. [BACK]

53. Arendt 1973, 305–326. [BACK]

54. Rawlings (1981, 122–125) compares Alkibiades’ speech at 6.89–92 with that of Perikles at 1.140–144. [BACK]

55. Pusey 1940; note, for example, that when Kimon reportedly sought, during his ostracism, to fight alongside the Athenians at Tanagra, he was rebuffed: the Athenians thought that he was at least as likely to be working for the Spartans, with whom he had close ties (Plut. Kim. 17). [BACK]

56. Edmunds (1975a, 214), who cites 1.22.4, along with 2.41.4, 43.2. [BACK]