Thucydides and Political Order

Reviews / Votes

Review of Thauer/Wendt (edd.), Thucydides and Political Order Oliver Schelske, Assistant Professor in Ancient History, University of Tubingen This volume consists of various contributions to the reception (and therefore relevance) of Thucydides, arguing from different perspectives, i.e. different academic traditions (mainly political science and historiography). It is thus rather heterogeneous in terms of methodology and intended outcome(s). However, at the same time it represents a very promising attempt to advance studies of the Athenian historiographer, since the editors manage to (re-)assemble those scholars who are of great influence to the current discourse about possible (contemporary) readings of Thucydides. Furthermore, it is highly welcome that the volume in hand - like its predecessor edited by Ned Lebow and Barry Strauss in the early 90s ("Thucydides and the Nuclear War') - has its focus on an aspect of central prominence for contemporary discussions in the field of political science, historiography, and International Relations (IR) as well: that of political order (Intr., p.4f.). Since today international politics and forms of political (or constitutional) regime are developing rather heterogeneously, with former constellations of (international) political cooperation rearranging themselves anew (or developing their respective relationship), the aspect of political order is obviously of great impact not only in terms of practical (or political) relevance, but also concerning the study of Thucydides itself, combining it with contemporary general discussions about 'order' (e.g. in the field of ethnology or anthropology). Even if this is not mentioned explicitly, this could be one of the major (side-)effects of the volume in hand, since it seems to be relevant to non-historians and non-political scientists as well (being a 'common research agenda for future scholarly work on Thukcydides', cf. p. 5). Thus, scholarly as well as private interest of readers into the topic of this volume may well be expected. Since the editors give a rather full account (and abstracts) of the various contributions to the volume in their introduction, it seems to be not necessary to reproduce such an account here. Besides a summary of contributions included in the volume, the introduction offers also something like a framework that holds the whole volume together. The editors (Thauer and Wendt) provide the reader with a sketch of scholarly work done in the field of studies on Thucydides (reviewing both political as well as historiographical works) by evaluating the results reached so far, addressing problematic developments, and specifying new perspectives (p. 2-4). According to the editors the aspect of political order will be some sort of a "new Thucydidean question' that ought to be of great impact onto any future study of Thucydides. Such an estimation is both charming and reasonable. What deserves to be highlighted here is also a certain trend in recent studies on Thucydides (which is obviously also felt as a kind of obligation) towards a new sensitivity for the complex character of an ancient text, which should not be read only partially (ab-)using it for own purposes (p.3). Needless to say in this context that is would be desirable for the Classics (with its specific tradition to regard literary conventions etc. as well) to play a greater role in future studies of the reception of Thucydides (cf. Thauer/Wendt, p. 3; Morley, p. 25.28). The contribution of Neville Morley (which is one of the four chapters under review here) is especially useful, since it provides the reader with a very well written and clearly structured categorization of the vast bulk of former readings of and theoretical attempts to Thucydides. Its position within the volume as the first contribution after the introduction thus seems very helpful. Morley systematizes various approaches and methods in the respective fields of political science, historiography, and IR (from time to time fiercely judging single developments), what is of great use for readers insofar as it helps to fulfil one of the major aims of the book, i.e. to bring together the at least partly disparate discourses of the disciplines mentioned above. For this goal Morley's differentiation between political-philosophical (the use of both terms seems to overlap from time to time) and historicist readings, between readings that regard the History as a 'familiar' and those regarding them as an 'alien' text, is enormously important und helpful. Indeed Morley advocates to avoid regarding some readings as true and others as false; nonetheless, in his opinion, they can be regarded plausible to different degrees. So a certain skepticism towards all too universalizing approaches (mainly in the IR) is always discernible. Of similarly general character is the contribution of Liisi Keedus who offers the reader an essay about the importance of Thucydides for Leo Strauss. Such an approach is not only interesting because of its central proposition (which nobody would ever deny), but because of the material Keedus is using to make her point. She bases herself on the audio-lectures held by Strauss that are made accessible to a broader audience by the Leo Strauss Centre only recently (p. 96). Thus the relevance of issues like justice and necessity (p. 100), the relationship between philosophical and historical content or layers in the text (p. 99-102), and also the typification of Alcibiades and Nicias as respective symbols for different ways of political life, i.e. 'dynamic' and 'rest' (p. 105-107), are better to be accentuated in their relevance within Straussian thought than was possible before. In opposition to the two contributions reviewed above (with their respective focus on the outlines of recent scholarly developments, i.e. focusing on the 'meta-level'), Clifford Orwin and Ryan Balots add to the volume two chapters from an decidedly politico-scientific point of view. Orwin deals with the relevance of 'body' as an important issue (and factor) in political systems, concentrating on Thucydides' description of the plague as well as his famous passage on stasis. According to Orwin Thucydides unmasks 'a certain smugness' of every society (p. 60) stating that any form of virtue is extremely depending on its respective circumstances (and this includes also the body, cf. p. 59). Thus the integrity of the body is an essential factor in terms of stability of political regime. This insight is stressed (and made obvious) by an stark contrast between Pericles' funeral speech and the following description of the plague. Balot for his part engages himself with 'trust' as an essential aspect of political order displaying different forms of it (p. 65). Alcibiades and Pericles are analyzed in terms of their respective ways of gaining trust and dealing with it (p. 70). What makes this contribution especially interesting in the sense formulated by Morley in his chapter as well as in the introduction, is that the literary context of the History (and therefore: its complexity as an ancient text) is taken into consideration, even if at some points more detailed references to the ancient text itself would be even more helpful. Summing up, this volume represents an important step towards the aim formulated in the introduction, i.e. to reconcile and bring together the varying discourses on Thucydides in political science, IR, and historiography. Thus this book will surely find its audience and (hopefully) many readers. Any review of language and of stylistic details is intentionally left to native speakers; yet some findings of obvious errors and/or misprints may help the editors and the publishers: p. 7: interpretation. p. 8: "Our second concern is a methodological one': = p. 6: "The first point of interest concerns methodology'?! p. 13: "in which Thucydides is "used and abused' (to paraphrase...)' p. 18: Lebows adds... p. 19: "that does not try...' p. 33: T^2 ??? p. 36: about about p. 57: 'is a violent teacher' etc.: Since in fn. 48 it is stated that the reading of the Greek text should be 'biou', the term 'violent' (biaios) being some sort of 'diplosis' can hardly be part of the text (cf. also p. 59!)