Book One: Lacedaemonian Conference and the historical commentary

Greek Mythology Who’s Who

……A mark for guessing their name…. and a

bonus mark for guessing if they were a God or

Mortal!

1. Strongest Hero in all of Greece

2. Travelled home for 10 years after Troy

3. Powerful at Sea and dangerous to cross

4. Fast paced messenger, loved music with youthful looks and long golden hair

5. Bad Ankles.

6. Had a box that should be kept shut

8. Searched for a Golden Fleece

9. Had a golden throne on the summit of Mount Olympus

10. In charge of somewhere you didn’t want to go….also has a rather unusal pet

Book One in Summary:

- The Archaeology – a history of Greece up until the start of the Wars. 1.1-1.19. - Explanation of his method and aims 1.20-1.23. - Causes of the war (433-432 BC) 1.24-1.66 including: The Affair of Epidamnus. 1.24-1.55. The Affair of Potidaea. 1.56-1.66 Congress of the Peloponnesian League at Lacedaemon. 1.67-1.88 The Speech of the Corinthians 1.68-1.71 The Speech of the Athenian envoys 1.73-1.78 The Speech of Archidamus 1.80-1.85 The Speech of Sthenelaidas 1.86- From the end of the Persian War to the beginning of the Peloponnesian War, also known as the Pentecontaetia. 1.89-1.117 – shows the progress from supremacy to empire

- Second congress at Lacedaemon and the Corinthian Speech. 1.119-1.125. Diplomatic manoeuvring. 1.126-1.139. Excursus on Cylon 1.126-127Excursus on Pausanias and Themistocles 1.128-139- Pericles' first speech. 1.140-1.145.

Archidamos and Sthenelaidas The two argue about how to confront Athens. Like much else that

takes place in the opening book, their speeches are programmatic, for they illustrate the insoluble problem that Athens poses for the Spartans and thus dramatize the confrontation between old and new that underlies so much of the History.

Both speakers trace part of a dilemma. Sparta could not confront Athens without developing naval power and the regular financial resources that ships required, but to do so would require Sparta to change, to become more like Athens, and in so doing to give up the position upon which its prestige depended. In the end, Sparta succumbed to this dilemma, conquering Athens, but becoming as hated as the Athenians had been and never again quite regaining the status that it had enjoyed in the late 430s. Thucydides’ Archidamos and Sthenelaidas allow us to see the new world through the eyes of the old.

Archidamus The style of the two speeches could hardly be more distinct: the

thoughtful analysis by the old king Archidamus gives way to a fiery harangue by the ephor Sthenelaidas. With only a few exceptions, readers have expressed broad admiration for Archidamus and his speech. “Archidamus’ quiet dignity and old-fashioned poise, his balance of mind and unconcern with any emotional appeal, his blend of valor and sound judgment, make him the paragon of the age-old tradition of the Spartan warrior king.” He is a “wise and experienced statesman,” “the voice of reason,” “credited with statesmanship of almost Periclean quality,” and his speech is “masterful.”

The King was a man “who appeared to be intelligent and possessed of self-control” (Thuc. 1.79.2).

Sthenelaidas By contrast, the short and biting speech of Sthenelaidas

at Thucydides 1.86 has encountered more than its share of criticism: its “shallowness is evident in the jingles and equivocations of the language.” Sthenelaidas’s appeal has struck many as irrational and emotional; at best it is considered a rhetorical tour de force that cozens its audience into action. “On the heels of Archidamos’ speech, Sthenelaidas’ words sound naive and misguided; indeed he seems to miss the point.” In the end, Sthenelaidas, irrational or not, carries the day, and the Spartans vote decisively that the Athenians had broken the treaty (Thuc. 1.87). Most modern critics, however, have rejected the content, much as they have despised the manner, of his speech.

Content of Archidamus’ Speech Archidamus is playing a well-known, traditional role in Greek literature,

that of the “warner,” a wise individual whose advice will be ignored (cf. the following in Herodotus: Solon at 1.29–33). The dense and aphoristic reasoning may reflect sophistic influence, but it belongs to a venerable tradition of authoritative moral speech.

Archidamus thus dismisses out of hand the claim that Sparta’s customs are “old-fashioned” or obsolescent. They should above all hold fast to the practices, meletai, that their fathers have given them, for these habits have been the source of their strength. Archidamus reaffirms with all the force at his disposal the theme that we saw already in Herodotus, that Sparta owed its preeminence less to its raw ability to project force than to the peculiar character that it had developed.

Why then does Archidamos’s speech fail?

Content of Sthenelaidas’ Speech Sthenelaidas’s speech is remarkable for its brevity. This

short, “laconic” performance is, as Gomme observed, “perfectly in character” for the crusty Spartan. In less than a page, Sthenelaidas demolishes, even when he does not answer, Archidamos’s case, and the Spartans enthusiastically affirm the consensus with which they had opened the meeting, that Athens had violated the treaty and that war was inevitable (Thuc. 1.79.2, 87)

Angry as its tone may be, Sthenelaidas’s speech is deceptively subtle. Sthenelaidas, by his brevity and his words alike—by his practice as well as by what he says—not only attacks Archidamos’s arguments but, at least as important, undermines the king’s authority

Content of Sthenelaidas’ Speech They must give the Corinthians concrete help to retain their

loyalty. If not, Sparta risks the loss not only of a major ally, but of that reputation and trustworthiness—that symbolic capital—that holds its allies together. Crushing the Athenian empire might well be attractive to Sthenelaidas, but the goal to which he gives voice, the protection of the allies, is fundamentally defensive. So long as Sparta can maintain its own alliances intact and restrict the growth of Athenian power, then the most urgent needs expressed in Sthenelaidas’s speech will be met.

This view is as close to Thucydides’ own as we are likely to come in the speeches.

Comparing the Rhetoric: Archidamus: The Spartans can view conflict with Athens from a position of ischus,

“strength” (Thuc. 1.85.1). Neither the praise nor the blame, not even the individual troubles, of their allies should distort their judgment. The Spartans will not dismiss their allies (1.82.1) but will take action according to their own best plans and at the time that seems best to them.

Sthenelaidas: Develops a line of reasoning that, not surprisingly, agrees with

Thucydides’ analysis at 1.23.6: the Spartans feel that they must fight to contain Athenian power. The debate at Sparta and the desperate Corinthian speech allow us to see more precisely what Sparta has to fear. At the outset of the war, the Spartans “publicly announced that they were freeing Greece” (Thuc. 2.8.4), and this official policy was a major factor in the widespread goodwill that they enjoyed. The Athenians had inspired rage among their subjects and fear among those not yet under Athenian domination, and these emotions aided Sparta.

Your homework Task: For the end of the week!1. What does Thucydides himself say about the

use of speeches in his work?2. What key differences are there in the speeches

of Archidamus and Sthenelaidas?3. How has he used speeches in this passage to

illustrate the wider themes of his work?

Analysis of the Speeches:

http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft767nb497&chunk.id=ch08&toc.depth=1&toc.id=ch08&brand=eschol