Listy filologickÈ CXXXVI, 2013, 1ñ2, pp.

239ñ304

Brillís Companion to Thucydides, (eds.) ANTONIOS RENGAKOS ñ ANTONIS

TSAKMAKIS.
Leiden ñ Boston, Brill 2012 (2006), 947 pp.
ISBN 978-90-04-23648-6, 978-90-04-23649-3.

To publish a review of a book published seven years ago seems to require some pre-
liminary justification. When Brillís Companion to Thucydides appeared for the first
time as a hardcover, it somehow managed to escape attention of a redaction of this
journal; the redactor thus took the opportunity of the bookís appearing as a paperback
in 2012 to ask the publisher for a review copy ñ an entreaty kindly complied with by
the Brill. The lapse of time, it is hoped, could in some aspects benefit the review by
allowing its author to point to other, more recent handlings of the topics treated in the
Companion.
As explained in the introduction, 38 years have already passed from the last vol-
ume aiming at a comprehensive glance in recent Thucydidean scholarship that ap-
peared in the series Wege der Forschung.1 Thus, the Brillís Companion is meant to
focus its attention to new trends in this area of classical studies.
The first part of the book, named ìAuthor, Contexts, Ideasî, begins with L. CAN-
FORAís ìBiographical Obscurities and Problems of Compositionî (pp. 3ñ32), a contri-
bution likely to be the most controversial of the volume. Among other things, the au-
thor argues for his theory of Thucydidesí short-term return to Athens at 413ñ411 and
of Xenophon editing the whole work of Thucydides, adding to it with what we know
as Hellenica IñII.3.10 and Thucydides V.1ñ83.2 The very fact that other contributors
cite the second preface (V.26) as Thucydidean without feeling a need to argue for
their position (e. g., p. 162, 230, 398, 523, 622) suggests that Canforaís position is far
from being the common view.
A. CORCELLAís contribution (pp. 33ñ56) is entitled ìThe New Genre and its Bound-
aries: Poets and Logographersî. It sets Thucydidesí work in context, briefly describ-
ing his predecessors on the field of preservation of past memories: genealogies (first
sung by poets, than written in prose), ktiseis and horoi, Hecataeus and other inquirers,
and finally Herodotus. Then, the author rightly stresses competitive elements in chap-
ters of Thucydides enouncing his programme and method.3

08recenze.pm6 239 2.9.2013, 15:15

 240 LISTY FILOLOGICK… CXXXVI, 2013, 1ñ2

Z. ROGKOTISí ìThucydides and Herodotus: Aspects of their Intertextual Relation-

shipî (pp. 57ñ86) changes point of view to focusing on the affinities between the two
great historians. After some methodological remarks, Rogkotis focuses on the Athe-
nian decision to invade Sicily and finds numerous Herodotean echoes in Thucydidesí
handling of failed rational advices, of illogical decisions pushed forward by irrational
motives and fallacies, of magnificent shows foreshadowing catastrophes and of con-
nections between vision and emotion and erös and tyranny. Rogkotis makes a very
strong case in favour of Thucydidesí conscious creative development of Herodotusí
methods.
A contribution entitled ìThucydidesí Intellectual Milieu and the Plagueî by
R. THOMAS (pp. 87ñ108) has two parts. The first briefly comments on Thucydidesí at-
titude towards techniques and ideas promoted by the sophistic movement, the second
evaluates the influence of Hippocratic writings on Thucydidesí method and vocabu-
lary, emphasising the absence of medical terminology in modern sense in 5th century
Greece. She also points out to several possible Thucydidesí critical references to the
Hippocratics in course of the plague description, which lead her to suggest that Thu-
cydides wished to outrival the doctors on their own field, especially by emphasising
the influence of the disease on psychology of man.
E. J. BAKKERís ìContract and Design: Thucydidesí Writingî (pp. 109ñ129) begins
with the assumption that Thucydides intended his work for reading audiences.4 He
then comments on the meaning of jyggr°wv, engaging in polemics with N. Loraux,
who saw in the first phrase of Thucydides an assertion of identity between the work
and the events it describes;5 Bakker prefers to concentrate on Thucydidesí interaction
with his implied readers, arguing the authorís programme was to enable them correct
critical evaluation of the war and their own present; he also notes that the prefix jyn-
points in the reader-response direction.6 The contribution masterly combines deep
understanding of the minutiae of Greek with modern interest in theory and is one of
the most valuable in the volume.
The contribution ìThucydides and the Invention of Political Scienceî (pp. 131 to
159) was written by J. OBER. There are many profound observations, e. g. on Thucy-
didesí modernity; on increasing complexity and dynamics of Athenian politics of his
days, reflexively connected with other elements in society, encouraging new ways of
thinking about power and making social changes less predictable; on resulting con-
flict of Athenian dynamic modernity with Spartan traditionality; on the Atheniansí
limited understanding of the complexity of their own democratic system; and on Peri-
clesí crucial role in its stabilisation. So much can we detect from Thucydides; but did
he himself see the situation this way, did he wish to make his readers fully understand
the system and its dynamics, making them sort of new Pericleses, as the author sug-
gests? To my eyes, it seems questionable.7
Next comes A. TSAKMAKISí ìLeaders, Crowds, and the Power of the Image: Politi-
cal Communication in Thucycidesî (pp. 161ñ187). The contribution underscores the
importance of influencing masses for politicians of Thucydidesí time, explores Thu-
cydidesí portrayal of politicians doing their business and lists components advancing
their personal authority and means of improving their public image. As one would

08recenze.pm6 240 2.9.2013, 15:15

 RECENZE 241

expect, the method of Pericles proves most successful in all these disciplines; a sug-
gestion of the author that it was influenced by Protagoras, especially by his homo
mensura epistemology (pp. 184ñ186), seems objectionable. The intimidation of the
Athenian dëmos in 411, a rather brutal way of communication, is not dealt with.
K. A. RAAFLAUBís contribution, ìThucydides on Democracy and Oligarchyî (pp.
189ñ222) reasonably argues for a need not to concentrate exclusively on the explicit
statements by the author on the constitutional question. Following the text closely
without much theorising, he notes Thucydidesí view on a collective character of de-
mocracy, on a role of the dëmos (destabilising and too emotional, in Thucydidesí
view) and on its leaders and vestiges of contemporary criticism of democracy in Thu-
cydidesí speeches. There follows a brief survey of the short-lived oligarchic putsch in
411 and of Thucydidesí portrayal of Sparta, especially in the speeches in the first
book.8
The next part, ìThe Art of Thucydidesî, opens with ìObjectivity and Authority:
Thucydidesí Historical Methodî by T. ROOD (pp. 225ñ249). Its main concern is with
evaluation of authorial, or rather narratorial interventions in the text: his self-allu-
sions, his methodological statements, and other instances of first-person verbs and
pronouns (and scarcity thereof). The author concentrates on the question whether
Thucydides lets the war speak for itself and on his expressions of uncertainty. He lu-
cidly and penetratingly shows how Thucydides uses all these ways to establish and
strengthen his authority over the reader and to influence him; a conclusion, very
short, but worthy of note, reflects on ways how different narratorial techniques imply
different narratorial personae.
There follows ìInteraction of Speech and Narrative in Thucydidesî by J. V. MOR-
RISON (pp. 251ñ277). Focusing first on types of structural alignments, the author dis-
cerns four levels of interconnections between narrative episodes and speeches. Turn-
ing to nature of the interactions, Morrison notes that the speech may describe the
same events as narrative, but that more often, the speeches influence the readerís atti-
tude to the narrative by introducing to him plans or predictions. Speeches may also
stress the same themes or abstract maxims as the narrative, and they may shed light
on characters of cities. Despite its self-admitted selectivity, the paper is a valuable
contribution to a difficult topic.
A. RENGAKOSí contribution (pp. 279ñ300) bears the title ìThucydidesí Narrative
and the Epic and Herodotean Heritageî. It comments on five epic and Herodotean
literary techniques used by Thucydides: direct speeches and internal focalisations
(concentrating on the fictionality they add in the work), structuring of the work,
time-presentation (stressing flashbacks and flash-forwards in Thucydidesí work and
his way of dealing with synchronic events), epic suspense (narrative retardation aim-
ing at keeping audience interested) and narrative patterning (especially juxtaposi-
tions, cross-references and anticipations). Unlike Morrison, Rengakos prefers to take
the direct links between Thucydides and his predecessors for granted and concen-
trates on evaluating Thucydidesí work per se.
A contribution by H.-P. S TAHL is called ìNarrative Unity and Consistency of
Thought: Composition of Event Sequences in Thucydidesî (pp. 301ñ334). He begins

08recenze.pm6 241 2.9.2013, 15:15

 242 LISTY FILOLOGICK… CXXXVI, 2013, 1ñ2

with a detailed analysis of Thucydidesí picture of the way to war from the Epidamnus
episode to the Spartan assembly, showing how Thucydides constantly leads the read-
er to adopt perspectives and emphases he chooses. The next section analyses the in-
terplay of plan and chance concerning three goals of the Athenian campaign of 424
BCE. The author uses the episodes to stress the importance of the unpredictable on
the human nature. There follows a short but persuasive polemic with S. Hornblowerís
narratological argument which amounted to accusation of Thucydides from a pro-
Athenian bias in the Corcyra episode.9
There follows L. KALLETís ìThucydidesí Workshop of History and Utility outside
the Textî (pp. 335ñ368). It offers fresh answer to the question of intended utility of
Thucydidesí work, suggesting Thucydides in I.22.4 expressed a wish to learn future
generations of historians to do their job properly. He does so (we are told) by stress-
ing the difficulty of proper historical method and by teaching them how to distinguish
and advisedly combine the particular and the general and how to use implicit and ex-
plicit comparisons and contrasts and arguments from probability. One can of course
read Thucydides this way and the reading sheds new, interesting light on a number of
passages often commented on, but to suggest this as the reading intended by the au-
thor seems rather bold.
The next contribution, ìTheaters of War: Thucydidean Topographyî (pp. 369ñ
384), was written by P. FUNKE and M. HAAKE. They follow F. Sieveking10 in noting
Thucydides was not prone to insert much topographical data in his work (to illumi-
nate the point, they compare his attitude with Polybius). They differ from Sieveking
in that they do not suggest his topographical remarks have only explanatory function,
but rather use several case-studies to show how topographical data are presented and
how they interplay with the surrounding narrative.
P. HUNTís contribution, ìWarfareî (pp. 385ñ413), helps to balance the tendency,
prominent in the first part of the volume, to read Thucydides mainly as a political and
philosophical thinker. The author stresses Thucydidesí genuine interest in and pro-
found knowledge of military matters, his accuracy and care for details in battle de-
scriptions, which he presents as distillations of numerous witnessesí reports. Hunt
also notes Thucydidesí work often betrays common soldiersí perspective, praises his
analyses of decisions, comprising numerous counterfactuals, and notes his interest in
military innovations of both land and naval warfare of his days. Thucydidesí analysis
of warfare, Hunt persuasively argues, was of much interest to his contemporary read-
ers, but does not carry any practical value today, wherefore scholars tend to underes-
timate this part of Thucydidean heritage.
The contribution ìThucydides and Religionî (pp. 415ñ438) was written by W. D.
FURLEY. The author expressly refrains from any discussion of Thucydidesí religious
beliefs. Instead, he focuses on Thucydidesí attitude to myths and oracles, his interest
in natural phenomena and especially in religious influences on the warring partiesí
psychology. One feels there would be more to say about Thucydidesí withholding of
(perhaps) important information about religious events, influences and motivations.11
D. GRIBBLE wrote the contribution entitled ìIndividuals in Thucydidesî (pp. 439ñ
468). Having set three Thucydidean traits of individual treatment (avoidance of per-

08recenze.pm6 242 2.9.2013, 15:15

 RECENZE 243

sonal detail, not developing full life story and absence of moralising), the author of-
fers some fine general observations on the role of individual in the late 5th century
BCE. Weakened as this concept was by the polis ideology, Gribble argues it has its
place in Thucydides. Then, he goes on to prove the importance of the individuals in
Thucydidesí handling of his narrative, first in general terms (benefiting from narrato-
logical concepts), then on examples of several most important Athenian characters
and Brasidas.
The second section closes with L. A. TRITLEís ìThucydides and Power Politicsî
(pp. 469ñ491). Beginning with helpful overview of modern definitions of power poli-
tics, the author examines from the perspective of modern political and military theo-
ries Thucydidesí analyses of power in passages treating the outbreak of the war, the
civil war in Corcyra, the Melian dialogue and the Sicilian expedition, stressing the
actuality of Thucydidesí attitudes. The clarity of the contribution would perhaps ben-
efit from clearer distinguishing between military and political power.
Part Three, called ìWie es eigentlich gewesen?î, begins with B. SMARCZYKís ìThu-
cydides and Epigraphyî (pp. 495ñ522). The author concentrates on Thucydidesí
attitude to the use of inscriptions. Praising the historian for his choice to take the in-
scriptions into consideration at all, Smarczyk nevertheless notes his lack of metho-
dological interest in evaluation of epigraphic sources, his unsystematic use of the
inscriptions, and his preferring of eyewitness testimonies. The final part of the contri-
bution notes how the inscriptions help supplement (and, occasionally, correct) what
Thucydides says. Interesting and resourceful as this contribution is, one cannot help
feeling it would be better placed in the part ìThe Art of Thucydides.î
P. J. RHODESí contribution, ìThucydides and Athenian historyî (pp. 523ñ546), be-
gins with an analysis of three Thucydidesí excursuses on Athenian history: the Cylo-
nian conspiracy, the rule of the Peisistratidae and Themistocles. The author then sum-
marises brief glimpses in Athenian economy and politics during the war Thucydides
gives us and ends by turning to three longer passages concentrating exclusively on
Athens: the war-dead funeral and the ìplagueî, the religious scandals of 415, and the
oligarchic conspiracy of 411. Throughout the contribution, Rhodes usefully points to
non-Thucydidean sources for the topics in question and refrains from smothering the
reader with too many details of the much-debated problems discussed.
J. RUSTENís ìThucydides and Comedyî is among the shorter contribution of the
volume (pp. 546ñ558), as could be expected given Thucydidesí apparent lack of
sense of humour. Having noted the few passages of possible jokes in Thucydides
(somewhat desperately including II.52.4), the author concentrates on comic poetsí
portrayal of politicians and points to purely historical interest which led to survival of
Old Comedies; appended is a useful chronological table of comedies performed from
440 to 405 BCE.
There follows ìSparta and the Spartans in Thucydidesî, written by P. CARTLEDGE
and P. DEBNAR (pp. 559ñ587). After very brief notes on Thucydidesí objectivity in
dealing with the Spartans, especially in the question of the national character, they re-
view what Thucydides tells us about Spartan life and institutions (and what he does
not), and then argue for a considerable degree of historical reliability of Spartan mo-

08recenze.pm6 243 2.9.2013, 15:15

 244 LISTY FILOLOGICK… CXXXVI, 2013, 1ñ2

tives and speeches Thucydides chose to write down. The subchapter on speeches also
discusses treaties and letters. There follow some remarks on Thucydidesí portrayal of
Spartan individuals (greatly differing in the amount of details) and on Thucydides at-
titude to the ìmirage spartiateî, again stressing his objectivity.
The following contribution, ìMacedonia and Thrace in Thucydidesî (pp. 589ñ
614), was written by M. ZAHRNT. It lucidly sums up the evidence we have for the rele-
vant era of history of Macedonia, Chalcidice, Amphipolis and inland Thrace. Some
errors and omissions by Thucydides are duly noted, but generally the historianís data
can be supplemented in just a handful of cases. The study thus obliquely shows us
supreme importance of Thucydides for our knowledge of the region. A map, which
could greatly improve usefulness of the article, is, sadly, not included.
S. HORNBLOWERís contribution bears the title ìThucydides and the Argivesî (pp.
615ñ628). After an introductory note on Thucydidesí tendency to narrow the focus on
the two main belligerents of the ìAtheno-Spartan Warî, the author notes Thucydides
is more economical with information on the Argives then on similarly important Cor-
inthians, thereafter discussing two possible motives, ignorance and contempt, persua-
sively arguing for the second option.
There follows a second contribution by M. ZAHRNT, ìSicily and Southern Italy in
Thucydidesî (pp. 628ñ655). Blending Thucydides with other sources, especially Di-
odorus, the author creates a continuous narrative of Sicilian (and, to a lesser degree,
south-Italian) history from the Greek colonisation onwards, focusing firstly on the
period before the Peloponnesian War and then on Athenian involvements in the area.
A comparatively short contribution by J. WIESEH÷FER bears a comparatively long
title ìë...Keeping the Two Sides Equalí: Thucydides, the Persians and the Peloponne-
sian Warî (pp. 657ñ667). It lucidly outlines Thucydidesí references to the Persians,
and then sketches the historianís view of the Persians and his (not) mentioning of Per-
sian institutions. The article is both less detailed and less speculative than a more re-
cent discussion of the topic by R. Vignolo Munson.12
Next comes ìThe Peloponnesian War: Sources Other than Thucydidesî by
M. HOSE (pp. 669ñ690). First, the author lists extant sources covering the epoch of
Thucydidesí interest, from Aristophanes to Justin, and then does the same with frag-
mentary sources, from old comedy to works on local history written in the 3rd century
BCE. His comments are very concise, somewhat less so with the fragmentary sourc-
es. I find it rather curious to cite Platoís Menexenus as a testimony to 4th Century ide-
alisation of Athens (p. 680, n. 63).
The last part of the Companion, ìAfter Thucydidesî, begins with R. NICOLAIís
ìThucydides Continuedî (pp. 693ñ719). Having noted it is tricky to ask whether Thu-
cydides wanted to be continued, the author turns to Xenophonís Hellenica and notes
various differences between the two authorsí concepts of history; embedded therein is
a polemic with L. Canforaís theories (pp. 704ñ706). There follow shorter discussions
of Theopompus, the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia, 4th century works and Hellenistic histo-
riography, registering similarities and differences with Thucydidesí method, which
was not adopted (nor, perhaps, understood) by any of his successors. The author fails
to cite H. Strasburgerís valuable contribution to the topic.13

08recenze.pm6 244 2.9.2013, 15:15

 RECENZE 245

There follows a second contribution by L. CANFORA, ìThucydides in Rome and

Late Antiquityî (pp. 721ñ753). After a few notes on Cato the Elder and Polybius, the
author traces Thucydidesí influence on Roman writers from Coelius Antipater to Cic-
ero and Sallust, always asking what type of edition the Romans had at their disposal;
he then deals with Thucydidean critics Dionysius and Cratippus and Thucydidesí in-
fluence on Josephus. His constant assumption to link rises of Thucydidean traces in
Roman writers with import of books from recently looted libraries is perhaps ques-
tionable, and it is surely sad to see how shallow his treatment of writers after Josephus
is; Dio Cassius, for one, is barely mentioned.
A contribution by D. RODERICH REINSCH, ìByzantine Adaptations of Thucydidesî
(pp. 755ñ778), begins with remarks on Thucydidesí manuscripts and Thucydidean
critics in the Byzantine Empire. Considering thereafter the widespread imitationes of
Thucydides (from Procopius up to Critobulus of Imbros), the author argues that such
imitations are not obstacles to historical reliability and further are by no means slav-
ish, but may serve to add more subtle layers to historical writings.
ìThucydidesí Renaissance Readersî by M. PADE (pp. 779ñ810) draws a picture of
Thucydidesí slow emergence from oblivion in Western Europe from 14th to 16th cen-
tury: from a single and confused note by Petrarch, through 15th century translation by
Lorenzo Valla, to numerous editions, commentaries and adaptations in 16th century.
The contribution is very lucid and highly informative.
The last contribution, ìThucydidean Modernitiesî (pp. 811ñ837), was written by
F. M. PIRES. It sums up the most essential changes in modern perception and herme-
neutics of Thucydides from Niebuhr, Ranke and Meyer (curiously for central Europe-
an eyes cited according to pagination of French translation) to Cornford, de Romilly,
Stahl and Connor.
The book is concluded by a bibliography of 43 pages and by copious indexes.
Typing is generally very good, though one feels some misprints could have been
removed before the republication, as for instance ìat it wereî on p. 99 or ìccouldî on
p. 716.
It is by now evident to the reader that the editors succeeded in collecting quite
a high number of high quality contributions to widely different topics. At the end,
a brief comparison with the Wege der Forschung volume mentioned in the intro-
duction may be illuminative. The Brillís Companion differs from Wege der Forsc-
hung in presenting new studies instead of collecting ones edited previously; the
editors of the Brillís Companion also surpassed their predecessors in inducing to con-
tribution scholars from more countries, who at the same time kept a high level of
scholarly acumen and expertise, despite variations in postmodernity of their method-
ology. For this the editors merit praise. The language of the collection changed from
German to English, which the readers may deem positive or negative as they please.
But there are some omissions in the Brillís Companion, too. They may result from in-
sufficient scholarly interest in some topics, as for instance reading Thucydides in 17th
and 18th century. Few would today miss some contribution to the Thukydideische
Frage. But one may be surprised by an almost total lack of analyses of Thucydidesí

08recenze.pm6 245 2.9.2013, 15:15

 246 LISTY FILOLOGICK… CXXXVI, 2013, 1ñ2

language and style on a morphological or syntactical level, as contrasted with the

point of view of text linguistics.
Pavel N˝vlt (Prague)

1
HANS HERTER (ed.), Thukydides, Darmstadt 1968 (Wege der Forschung, Band
XCVIII).
2
Some Canforaís points have been refuted by SIMON HORNBLOWER, A Commentary
on Thucydides ñ Volume III: Books 5.25ñ8.109, Oxford 2008, pp. 50ñ53. Further-
more, I differ from Canfora (p. 24) in not being able to find any speech by Peisander
in oratio recta, however short, in the year XX of the war. Perhaps oratio obliqua
(VIII.53.2) is meant? If so, cf. Phrynichusí oratio obliqua in VIII.48.4ñ7.
3
I feel the author tries to read too much into Thucydidesí portrait of Antiphon
(VIII.68.1; p. 55), as I fail to see any trace of the historianís ìself-portraitî there.
4
The assumption is plausible to my eyes, but some would disagree (cf. the con-
spectus given in the same book by J. V. Morrison on p. 253, n. 5), and thus the au-
thorís assumption would perhaps need more justification.
5
NICOLE LORAUX, Thucydide a Ècrit la Guerre du Péloponnèse, in: Mètis 1, 1986,
pp. 139ñ161.
6
I fail to see why jyggr°wv could not actually carry both the meanings suggested.
7
I believe chapters like II.69 strongly suggest that the war, not politics, was Thu-
cydidesí prime concern; furthermore, there are many things about Athenian inner po-
litics he does not tell us, not to speak of other states. After all, it may seem dubious
whether Thucydides thought in terms of ìsystemsî; he does not seem to have used
a word with comparable meaning.
8
There is a problematic statement at the very beginning, denying Thuc. VIII.97.2
is the authorís opinion about a moderate oligarchy, but rather a statement that the
Athenians governed themselves well at the time (pp. 189ñ190). A rather over-subtle
differentiation, further complicated on p. 221 by conceding it would, after all, be lo-
gical if Thucydides did prefer the moderate constitution.
9
Cf. SIMON HORNBLOWER, Narratology and Narrative Techniques in Thucydides,
in: Greek Historiography, (ed.) IDEM, Oxford 1994, pp. 131ñ166, on pp. 140ñ143.
10
Die Funktion geographischer Mitteilungen im Geschichtswerk des Thukydides,
in: Klio 42, 1964, pp. 73ñ179.
11
To the literature cited in note 36 to p. 425 one might add somewhat different
perspective held by CHRISTOPHER PELLING, Literary Texts and the Greek Historian,
Oxford 2000, p. 79.
12
ROSARIO VIGNOLO MUNSON, Persians in Thucydides, in: Thucydides and Herodo-
tus, (eds.) EDITH FOSTER ñ DONALD LATEINER, Oxford 2012, pp. 241ñ277. See Listy fi-
lologickÈ 135, 2012, p. 441.
13
HERMANN STRASBURGER, Die Wesensbestimmung der Geschichte durch die anti-
ke Geschichtsschreibung, Frankfurt am Main 1966, reprinted in his Studien zur Alte
Geschichte, (Hrsg.) WALTER SCHMITTHENER ñ RENATE ZOEPFFEL, Hildesheim ñ New
York 1982, pp. 965ñ1016.

08recenze.pm6 246 2.9.2013, 15:15