Last night I finished reading Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War.
I started reading it for the dumbest of reasons really. After skimming this Bloomberg Opinion article, I saw mention of the Thucydides Trap, a term introduced and popularized by Graham Allison. For some reason this term, and it's seemingly simplistic nature stuck in my craw, and I found myself curious about the primary source. Given the age of the source, I figured there was a reasonable chance I could get a copy off of Project Gutenberg, and sure enough, The History of the Peloponnesian War was there. I popped it into my eBook reader, and started reading. I was in between books, and a bit tired of the fiction series I had been working through, so this was a nice palette cleanser.
After a day or so of reading, I was surprised to find myself reasonably engaged. As someone who didn't study antiquity, and has a weak historical background, I was surprised at the depth and detail of this 2400 year old piece of writing. I learned later that Thucydides is regarded sometimes as one of the fathers of history as an impartial record of events. His self-described approach to his history felt immensely modern to me, and I found myself shocked into paying even more attention when I read this:
The absence of romance in my history will, I fear, detract somewhat from its interest; but if it be judged useful by those inquirers who desire an exact knowledge of the past as an aid to the interpretation of the future, which in the course of human things must resemble if it does not reflect it, I shall be content. In fine, I have written my work, not as an essay which is to win the applause of the moment, but as a possession for all time.
The clarity of purpose, and the firmly held belief, even in his time, that the study of history is often a study of human nature: this impressed me deeply.
Translation
While I enjoyed reading the Gutenberg version, and made reasonable progress into it, I wondered if some of my challenge with it was the translation: it is the Richard Crawley translation from 1874, and so the English at times feels archaic and overly florid, with challenging sentence constructions. I came to the conclusion that if I was going to finish, I would like to try finishing with a newer translation if one was available.
I ended up buying a paperback copy of Martin Hammond's translation from 2009. I rapidly began to appreciate this copy's extensive notes written by P.J. Rhodes, which provided much needed context to the text as well as commentary and discussion. I finished reading the book with the Hammond translation. To compare the two translations, I'll share the first couple of sentences of each, to give a flavour:
Crawley:
Thucydides, an Athenian, wrote the history of the war between the Peloponnesians and the Athenians, beginning at the moment that it broke out, and believing that it would be a great war and more worthy of relation than any that had preceded it. This belief was not without its grounds. The preparations of both the combatants were in every department in the last state of perfection; and he could see the rest of the Hellenic race taking sides in the quarrel; those who delayed doing so at once having it in contemplation.
Hammond:
Thucydides of Athens wrote this history of the war fought against each other by the Peloponnesians and the Athenians.
He began his work right at the outbreak, reckoning that this would be a major war and more momentous than any previous conflict. There were two grounds for this belief: Both sides were at the full height of their power and their resource for war, and he saw the rest of the Greeks allying with one or the other, either immediately or in intent.
Both are totally readable, but you can immediately see a difference in style and shape. I definitely found Hammond's translation to be more modern feeling and fluid, and I think I made easier progress with it. Nevertheless, I think Crawley's translation is totally possible to manage. Similar to reading Shakespeare, you do eventually adapt to the linguistic changes.
Reflections
Why did I read it? I said that I was baited into the book by the term 'the Thucydides Trap'. The important piece of the book related to the Thucydides Trap is dealt with relatively early. Yet still I finished the book. I enjoyed the book overall, but there were definitely places where I felt challenged; I think ultimately I finished, at least partially, to prove to myself that I still could. I, like many, worry that the internet and social media have permanently reordered my attention span, making deep thought and challenging reading impossible. Finishing this book felt like an important affirmation that I am still capable of reading something of this depth and challenge, which is important to me.
One aspect of the book that truly fascinates me is the fact that it was written roughly contemporaneously to events. Thucydides says in his first paragraphs (above) that he started his history as soon as the war began, and ultimately was a general in the Athenian army playing a part. At some point he was ostracized from Athens due to displeasure with his military performance, and in his exile he obviously sought out as much information about the conflict as he could get, from all sides involved wherever he could. I find myself fascinated by the idea of reading other contemporaneous histories; I think it would be fascinating for example to read a Roman history of the fall of the Republic, written by a Roman during that time. I am not sure if such a volume exists!
Echos
The book, in addition to chronicling the Peloponnesian war (though, the book is incomplete, and ends about six years before the end of the 27 year war; yet we know from certain comments within the book that Thucydides did in fact live to see the end of the war. The reason behind the incompleteness of the book seems to be a mystery lost to the ravages of time), also chronicles the fall of Athenian democracy and fall into oligarchy. Living through the white hot heat of history, as it feels we are now, I found a peculiar sense of comfort reading about the failures of Athens. I think we have an ahistorical view of the times we live through; we often feel like what is happening is happening for the first time ever. Yet, I found grounding in seeing story of similar failure of state from 2400 years ago. The parallels are weak, but the forces of human nature nevertheless echo. I found Thucydides emphasis on human nature to be quite calming. While I suspect we would not label him impartial these days, he aspired to it. I found his attempted impartiality calming. As an Athenian, and living in propagandistic times as we do, I had sort of expected a vilification of the Spartans, which never happens. I would even go so far as to say that of all those involved with the war, his criticism lies most heavily on the Athenians.
In places, the Peloponnesian War and notes give insight into Athenian society and its construction. Some of this I found fascinating for the echos of today. For example, in the notes of the Oxford World Classics edition on 6.40:
Successful democracies, such as the Athenian, succeed in persuading rich men not to regard the regime as hostile to them but to cooperate with it and pursue honour through it.
There's something in this insight that feels important to today. In these times of extraordinary inequality, it feels as if the wealthy no longer feel any debt to society, and so are comfortable with the diminishment of society. Somehow, it feels like that cooperation and honour needs to be rebuilt.
Similarly, Cleon, perhaps the first demagogue, as described (perhaps unfairly!) in the book echos populist leaders today.
The Thucydides Trap
The original bait for me to read Thucydides was Graham Allison's Thucydides Trap (twitter link for soft paywall).
Near the beginning Thucydides history he contrasts what he sees as the pretences for war with what he saw as the real reason for the war, which was Spartan fear of the rising power of Athens. For Allison, this fear is common when a new power rises in the world, and almost always leads to war, and so he coined the term the Thucydides Trap, which now is almost exclusively applied to the rise of China, and an 'inevitable' Sino-American war.
Having read Thucydides, I find myself annoyed by the term. While the start of the Archidamian war (the first half of the Peloponnesian war, interrupted by the Peace of Nicias) as chronicled by Thucydides does seem to follow fear, the rest of the war has many causes beyond simply Spartan fear. Without commenting on the other evidence Allison deploys, I find his term the Thucydides Trap to be 'snappy' but not particularly useful -- and certainly not an eponym that Thucydides deserves for a couple of paragraphs of comment.
