Thucydides 1.22.1: Content and Form in the Speeches

The interpretive problem posed by the speeches of Thucydides is one of the oldest chestnuts in classical scholarship. It has long been debated whether the historian claimed and/or attempted to present verbatim accounts of the arguments put forward by the speakers on each occasion as best he could, or whether he felt free to modify or to invent particular arguments or even whole speeches. And the controversy has been fueled by what has been widely regarded as the ambiguity of the second of the two parts of Thucydides’ famous statement of aims and methods in 1.22.1, . I propose here, instead, that the language in which scholars have found confusion is actually a clear statement pertaining both to the content and to the form in which the speeches are presented by Thucydides.

THE ASSUMPTION IN SCHOLARSHIP

The perceived ambiguity of 1.22.1 has baffled generations of scholars, as they have attempted to relate their understanding of Thucydides’ statement concerning the presentation of speeches to what they themselves perceive as the historian’s practice throughout the History. In general, the debate has been characterized by a concerted and ongoing attempt to control the grammar, syntax, and vocabulary in 1.22.1 as a necessary ingredient in the construction of interpretive arguments. This uncompromising insistence on a study based on a close examination of Thucydides’ Greek is most evident in the early German scholarship, conducted primarily from the point of view of the problem of composition.¹ In subsequent research, scholars begin to place less emphasis on the significance of the programmatic statement strictly in relation to the problem of composition, but they remain devoted to the idea that a correct understanding of the historian’s aims and methods derives from a precise understanding of the Greek in 1.22.1.² For all the efforts, however, of such well–known students of Greek, scholars remain sharply divided over the precise meaning of Thucydides’ programmatic statement.

Not all participants in the debate, however, have felt this obligation to deduce the precise meaning of the Greek contained in the historian’s programmatic statement. And it is perhaps a measure of despair over finding a solution to the perceived enigma in 1.22.1 that some scholars have found it possible, especially in more recent times, to construct elaborate theories about the historian’s presentation of speeches without providing a detailed analysis of Thucydides’ own statement of aims and methods. The accepted ambiguity of 1.22.1, moreover, has provided such scholars with what they consider to be primary evidence with which they might successfully call into question the “objectivity” of Thucydides as a “scientific historian,” and with which they might thereby persuasively promote the view of him as either an impassioned (outraged) moralist or a tendentious manipulator of his reader’s sympathies.³

In particular, the traditional view that the dependent participial clause, , is a qualification, or refinement, of the main assertion, ,... , is what has led to the assumption that Thucydides is making two separate statements limited to the aspect of the content of the speeches.⁴ The result of this assumption has been to accept the notion that ambiguity exists in 1.22.1, as no satisfactory analysis has been put forward to explain how Thucydides can at one and the same time be presenting—in terms of content—“what was appropriate” () and “what was really said” (). And some scholars, for whom it is not adequate simply to question the reliability of Thucydides as a historical source, have taken a more extreme step: seizing on the traditional acknowledgment of the difficulties present in 1.22.1, they argue that the dependent participial clause, , is not a qualification at all but rather actually an explicit contradiction of the main assertion, .⁵ Thucydidean scholarship, then, has presented itself with an ironic result: the inherited assumption in scholarship that both parts of 1.22.1 refer only to the content of the speeches, first developed and seemingly permanently entrenched by early readers of Greek—so many of whom were committed to defending...