Thucydides and Human Nature (Part One)
A lot has been said about chance, power and human nature in Thucydides’ History of Peloponnesian War. Thucydides himself was a part of the war, even though briefly. Leo Strauss in his book, ‘The city and the man’ points out how Thucydides ‘ does not stand above the turmoil but is in the midst of it’, thus he sees war as it is, and then presents us the actual events of that time with its ‘harsh grandeur, ruggedness, and even squalor’.
As soon as you begin the first book, Thucydides tells you exactly what awaits you. The book is full of historical facts and lessons on human nature. And, he sets out writing an account of how to learn from his time and maybe not make the same mistakes. In this way, the book is his legacy which only shows how deeply he thought about the world and how differently he saw the war. He says:
And it may well be that the absence of the fabulous from my narrative will seem less pleasing to the ear ; but whoever shall wish to have a clear view both of the events which have happened and of those which will some day, in all human probability, happen again in the same or a similar way — for these to adjudge my history profit- able will be enough for me. And, indeed, it has been composed, not as a prize-essay to be heard for the moment, but as a possession for all time.
(I-22)
After this, it starts off with the actual war beginnings. The war breaks when the Thirty Year treaty is broken. Thucydides in his narration says how he has given an account of the ‘the grievances and disputes which led to this breach so that nobody in the future will need to look for the immediate cause which brought such a great war on the Greeks.’ (I-23)
However, the real reason according to Thucydides for Sparta to go against Athens is fear. Even though Sparta seems to be motivated at the outset to help its own allies and the injustice done to it, it is like many decisions caused by fear of the growth of another powerful nation. And, in a way, this fear convinces them to launch an attack on Athens. Pericles in his famous speech indicates this: ‘What they want is to redress their grievances by war rather than by discussion/and they are here dictating already and no longer expostulating.’
(1–50)
Apart from the war narrative, the speeches in the book reveal much more than you expect from a historical account of the ‘greatest war’. Each one is carefully written down by him, from the account of what he heard, but in his own words. The most beautiful part of the Peloponnesian War then becomes, how though a narrative about the war, you learn so much about the narrator himself. And, what do his speeches do for us? Well, you have the speeches given to you first, which is followed by the actions of the war. In a way, you get to decide for yourself what you think is right. You are given a lot of contexts to understand the situation and see for yourself, without the narrator stating the causes for you. (However, in a way Thucydides must have had influenced the speeches in a certain way according to his viewpoint, but then, it simply adds another layer to a war narrative.)
With all life thrown into chaos at this time of crisis for the city, human nature triumphed over law: it had always been inclined to criminal breaking of the laws, but now it revelled in showing itself the slave of passion, a stronger force than justice, and the enemy of anything higher. People would not have set revenge above piety or profit above adherence to the law if envy had not worked its corrupting influence on them. And though the commonly accepted laws in such areas underpin everyone’s hope of personal rescue if they meet with trouble, men think they have a prior right to set these laws aside when taking vengeance on others — and not leave them intact against a time when they themselves might be in danger and have need of one of them.
(III-84)
The grim reality which Thucydides describes with the onset of war shows the very dark side of human nature. The above speech then shows how with the onset of war, every decency is forgotten. Through his narrative, he conveys to us how when the veil of society is lifted, we become our amoral self. Then, is it the society that keeps us from keeping us in the check?
In peace and prosperous times both states and individuals observe a higher morality, when there is no forced descent into hardship: but war, which removes the comforts of daily life, runs a violent school and in most men brings out passions that reflect their condition. (II-53)
And not only does an individual becomes passionate, but the entire world around him also changes. In some ways, everything which was previously acceptable now is seen as an act of weakness. The world suddenly becomes upside down.
Thus reckless daring was considered bravery for the cause; far-sighted caution was simply a plausible face of cowardice; restraint was a cover for lack of courage; an intelligent view of the general whole was inertia in all specifics; and impulsive haste was enlisted among the manly virtues, while full consideration in the light of possible dangers was a specious excuse for backsliding. (II-53)
And in a way, all is done for the public good or for justice. All the higher morals are cited to slaughter people as well as to invade colonies. Even Gods are supposed to back them up for such indecencies. And, suddenly we see the ghastly aspects of war, but more importantly the appalling side of human nature.
The dominant men on each side in the various cities employed fine-sounding terms, claiming espousal either of democratic rights for all or of a conservative aristocracy, but the public whose interests they professed to serve were in fact their ultimate prize, and in this out-and-out contest for supremacy they committed the most appalling atrocities and took their acts of vengeance yet further, imposing punishments beyond anything required by justice or civic interest, and limited only by their supporters’ appetite at the time: to satisfy immediate party fervour they were equally prepared to suborn convictions in the courts or to use force in their quest for power. So neither side observed any religious constraint, and those who could put a euphemistic gloss on a distasteful action had their reputations enhanced.
And then what happens to people who refused to take sides, and see this as madness that it is?
The citizens who had remained neutral fell victim to both parties: they were destroyed for failing to join the cause, or out of resentment at their survival.
(II-53)
Thus, the good and the bad tend to have a role reversal during these periods. Is it the war then that extracts out such wickedness from within us or are we to be blamed for behaving in such a depraved way?
Thucydides also gives an in-depth account of what is important during the war: passion or judgment? And he very clearly points out, what war does to people with only passion and judgment. According to him, war tears apart the rich and the poor; which further widens the gap between the rational man and a man driven from passions. However, in the end, both fall as extreme passion and calculation leads to irrational decisions and cowardice respectively. Hence, he advocates for moderation, which he thinks is also captured by Pericles. And also, in a way by Athens and Sparta combined. Athens on one had to be ‘revolutionaries, quick with new ideas and quick to put their thoughts into action’ while Sparta on the other being ‘conservatives, keeping things as they are with no initiative and incapable of action even on the bare essentials.’ (I-70)
Thucydides also gives a note of what happens to people during an epidemic. He points out how humans cannot be prepared for every catastrophe possible. But, more importantly, how people witness a change in temperament with a plague too. Not only does it brings about lawlessness again, but now ‘people are less inhibited in the indulgence of pleasures previously concealed when they saw the rapid changes of fortune — the prosperous suddenly dead, and the once indigent now possessing their fortune.’ And this in a way leads to the realization that ‘ neither life nor wealth would last long.’
Suddenly honor doesn’t seem a motive to fight for, as death now lurks around. And so distinct chaos prevails in the world.
Immediate pleasure, and any means profitable to that end, became the new honour and the new value. No fear of god or human law was any constraint. Pious or impious made no difference in their view, when they could see all dying without distinction. As for offences against the law, no one expected to live long enough to be brought to justice and pay the penalty: they thought that a much heavier sentence had already been passed and was hanging over them, so they might as well have some enjoyment of life before it fell.
(II-53)
The main theme, which concerns his book then would be Justice: At least at the outset. Athens and Sparta seemed to be fighting for justice or this is what they believe in. However, by the end of it, you do not have the same view. You seem to think to yourself did the war actually end with giving justice to the winner? Or was it the powerlessness of justice that prevailed.
This is what Thucydides in a way wishes to convey to us. The killing of so many people, destruction of colonies and the atrocities committed isn’t justice. In a way, however, justice can also be thought in the following way then:
You know as well as we do that when we are talking on the human plane questions of justice only arise when there is equal power to compel: in terms of practicality the dominant exact what they can and the weak concede what they must. (V-89)
Whatever it is, much more is needed to analyze these arguments of justice. Thucydides says a lot about human nature. From the merciless killing of people to changes in the temperament of people during adversities, Thucydides covers it all. His acute observations cannot be fit in one article, a lot more is needed to capture the brilliance of his books. And, in the coming week, the latter half of his book shall be analyzed to understand more about both human nature and justice.
You can find the book — here
