The History of the Peloponnesian War
Thucydides wrote only one book; its modern title is the
History of the Peloponnesian War. All his legacy to history and historiography is contained in this one dense history of the
twenty-seven year war between
Athens and its allies and
Sparta and its allies. The history breaks off near the end of the 21st year.
Thucydides is generally regarded as one of the first true historians. Like his predecessor
Herodotus (often called "the father of history"), Thucydides placed a high value on autopsy, or eye-witness testimony to events, and writes about many episodes in which he himself probably took part. He also assiduously consulted written documents and interviewed participants in the events that he records. Unlike Herodotus, he did not recognize divine interventions in human affairs. Certainly he held unconscious biases — for example, to modern eyes he seems to underestimate the importance of Persian intervention — but Thucydides was the first historian who attempted something like modern historical objectivity.
One major difference between Thucydides' history and modern historical writing is that Thucydides' history includes lengthy speeches which, as he himself states, were as best as could be remembered of what was said (or, perhaps, what he thought ought to have been said). These speeches are composed in a literary manner. For example,
Pericles' funeral oration, which includes an impassioned moral defence of democracy, heaps honour on the dead:
The whole earth is the sepulchre of famous men; they are honoured not only by columns and inscriptions in their own land, but in foreign nations on memorials graven not on stone but in the hearts and minds of men.
Although attributed to Pericles, this passage appears to have been written by Thucydides for deliberate contrast with the account of the plague in
Athens which immediately follows it:
Though many lay unburied, birds and beasts would not touch them, or died after tasting them. … The bodies of dying men lay one upon another, and half-dead creatures reeled about the streets and gathered round all the fountains in their longing for water. The sacred places also in which they had quartered themselves were full of corpses of persons that had died there, just as they were; for as the disaster passed all bounds, men, not knowing what was to become of them, became equally contemptuous of the gods' property and the gods' dues. All the burial rites before in use were entirely upset, and they buried the bodies as best they could. Many from want of the proper appliances, through so many of their friends having died already, had recourse to the most shameless sepultures: sometimes getting the start of those who had raised a pile, they threw their own dead body upon the stranger's pyre and ignited it; sometimes they tossed the corpse which they were carrying on the top of another that was burning, and so went off.
Classical scholar
Jacqueline de Romilly first pointed out, just after the
second world war, that one of Thucydides' central themes was the ethic of Athenian imperialism. Her analysis put his History in the context of Greek thought on the topic of international politics. Since her fundamental study, many scholars have studied the theme of power politics, i.e.
realpolitik, in Thucydides' history.
On the other hand, some authors, including
Richard Ned Lebow, reject the common perception of Thucydides as a historian of naked
real-politik. They argue that actors on the world stage who had read his work would all have been put on notice that someone would be scrutinizing their actions with a reporter's dispassion, rather than the mythmaker's and poet's compassion and thus consciously or unconsciously participating in the writing of it. Thucydides'
Melian dialogue is a lesson to reporters and to those who believe one's leaders are always acting with perfect integrity on the world stage. It can also be interpreted as evidence of the moral decay of Athens from the shining city on the hill Pericles described in the
Funeral Oration to a power-mad tyrant over other cities.
Thucydides does not take the time to discuss the arts, literature or society in which the book is set and in which Thucydides himself grew up. Thucydides was writing about an event and not a period and as such took lengths not to discuss anything which he considered unrelated.
Leo Strauss, in his classic study
The City and Man (see esp. pp. 230–31) argued that Thucydides had a deeply ambivalent understanding of Athenian democracy: on the one hand, "his wisdom was made possible" by the Periclean democracy, on account of its liberation of individual daring and enterprise and questioning; but this same liberation spurred the immoderation of limitless political ambition and thus imperialism, and eventually civic strife. This is the essence of the tragedy of Athens or of democracy — this is the tragic wisdom that Thucydides conveys, which he learned in a sense from Athenian democracy. More conventional scholars view him as recognizing and teaching the lesson that democracies do need leadership — and that leadership can be dangerous to democracy.