The History of the Peloponnesian War

I was shocked at how much I loved this from first read. I know that often the view people have towards classics is of something boring, stiff, and stodgy--an absolute slog to get through. Right now, I'm making my way through Tacitus Annals of Imperial Rome. There are some eye-popping gossipy parts, and it certainly gives you a sense of Roman civilization and Roman barbarism, but much of it is a dry slog. Thucydides and his history has some dry, pedantic patches, yes, but overall its shockingly readable and wears its age well. Maybe it helps he was a participant in events. Thucydides himself, an Athenian, was one of the city-state's generals in this war in the 4th century BC that lasted over a quarter of a century with devastating effect on all of Greece. It's as if Colin Powell told the story of the two American-Iraqi Wars or Eisenhower wrote an account of both World Wars and the Cold War. Except Thucydides tells the story, if not in a detached way, than one that comes across as even-handed. It's not as if you don't get his opinion on various figures and events--you definitely do. The character of Alcibiades comes through as fascinating and complex, Pericles as admirable. But there's no evident animus towards Sparta, Athens' adversary in the conflict. Sure Thucydides has his faults by modern standards of scholarship. It's hard to know what he left out or slanted since it's not as if many other versions of the events survived--certainly not in this detail. But Thucydides seemingly makes up speeches and conversations and otherwise acts in ways even our Capote-inspired creative narrative historians such as McCullough and Chernow wouldn't dare. But Thucydides invented history--the study of events, the people and forces that shape them, without attributing them to the acts of Gods. Nor did he write merely history, but literature--the kind of work you can read and reread and come away with new insights each time. ( )

Rated: B
The New Lifetime Reading Plan: Number 9 ( )

Saga Pelópsskagastríðsins sem sem geysaði á milli grísku borgríkjanna árin 431-404 f.Kr., http://visindavefur.hi.is/svar.asp?id=4579, er að mörgu leyti heillandi lesning. Ekki síst er hrífandi að hlýða á yfirvegaða og greinargóða lýsingu Þúkýdídesar sem er höfundur frásagnarinnar og hefur jafnan verði nefndur fyrsti sagnfræðingurinn fyrir það hvernig hann segir frá viðfangsefninu.

Mér veittist hins vegar dálítið erfitt að fylgjast með atburðarásinni því að ritstjórar þessarar hljóðbókar ákváðu að láta hana hljóma án innsetninga og skýringa. Eingungis var boðið upp á formála og eftirmála þar sem helstu atburðir og perónur voru settar í samhengi. Fyrir vikið var oft á tíðum erfitt að átta sig á því hvar borgríkin og staðir voru staðsettir í nútímanum og ef þeir voru þekktari undir öðrum nöfnum. Í raun hefði þurft kort eða lýsingarinnskot lesara. Nokkuð sem mér fannst draga útgáfu sögunnar nokkuð niður. ( )

Edition: // Descr: xvi, 647 p. : maps 19 cm. // Series: Everyman's Library Call No. { 888 T42 7 } Translated by Richard Crawley Contains Index. // //

One thing I definitely noticed is that contrary to all the talk about how dispassionate and objective the thing is supposed to be, Thucydides makes all kinds of really explicit value judgments about people and decisions that they make. It's mostly impartial in the sense of not taking the side of Athens against Sparta, but he heaps praise on his favorite politicians from both sides and scorn on the people on both sides that he thinks made foolish choices.

Probably the most entertaining parts were the intrigues of Alciabades and Tissapharnes near the end where they're both trying to play both sides against each other and against each other too. Oh Alciabades, you scamp. ( )