THUCYDIDES
History, like an individual's life, is a succession of well-defined periods. Herodotus took as his subject a long cycle of events; the shorter period was first treated by Thucydides who introduced methods which entitle him to be regarded as the first modern historian. Born in Attica in 471 he was a victim of the great plague, was exiled for his failure to check Brasidas at Eion in 424 and spent the rest of his life in collecting materials for his great work. His death took place about 402.
His preface is remarkable as outlining his creed. First he states his subject, the Peloponnesian war of 431-404; he then tests by an appeal to reason the statements in old legends and in Homer, arguing from analogy or from historical survivals in his own time to prove that various important movements were caused or checked by economic influence. He uses his imagination to prove that the importance of an event cannot be decided from the extant remains of its place of origin, for if only the ruins of both Sparta and Athens were left, Sparta would be thought to be insignificant and Athens would appear twice as powerful as she really is. Poetical exaggeration is easy and misleading, and ancient history is difficult to determine by absolute proofs.
“Men accept statements about their own national past from one
another without testing them.”
“To most men the search for truth implies no effort; they prefer to
turn to the first accounts available.”
“It was difficult for me to write an exact narrative of the speeches
actually made; I have therefore given the words that might have been
expected of each speaker, adhering to the broad meaning of what was
really uttered. The facts I have not taken from any chance person,
nor have I given my own impressions, but have as accurately as
possible written a detailed account of what I witnessed myself or
heard from others. The discovery of these facts was laborious owing
to conflicting statements and confused memories and party favour.
Perhaps the unromantic nature of my record will make it uninteresting;
but if any person will judge it useful because he desires to consider
a clear account of actual facts and of what is likely to recur at some
future time, I shall be content. As a compilation it is rather an
eternal possession than a prize-essay for a moment.”
The essentially modern idea of history writing is here perfectly evident.
Having pointed out the significance of the war, not only to Greece but to the whole of the world, he gives its causes. To him the real root of the trouble was Sparta's fear of Athenian power: the alleged pretexts were different. The rise of Athens is rapidly described, her building of the walls broken down by the Persians, her control of the island-states in a Delian league which eventually became the nucleus of her Empire, her alliance with Megara, a buffer-state between herself and Corinth. This last saved her from fears of a land invasion; when she built for Megara long walls to the sea she incurred the intense anger of Corinth which smouldered for years and at last caused the Peloponnesian conflagration. The reduction of Aegina in 451 compensated for the loss of Boeotia and Egypt. Eventually the Thirty Years' Peace was concluded in 445; Athens gave up Megara, but retained Euboea; her definite policy for the future was concentration on a maritime empire; she controlled nearly all the islands of the Aegean and was mistress of the Saronic gulf, Aegina, “the eyesore of the Peiraeus", having fallen.