History of the Peloponnesian War

The article on the life and style of Thucydides, which goes by the name of Marcellinus, contains the following passage: "[3]Some say that the eighth book is spurious and not the work of Thucydides, while others say that it is his daughter's work, others Xenophon's. To these we say that it is clearly not his daughter's, for it is not in woman's nature to imitate such excellence in art. Besides, if she were so gifted, she would not have taken pains to conceal her identity, nor would she have written the eighth book only, but would have left many other things betraying her own sex. And that it is not Xenophon's work, the style all but cries aloud; for there is a wide interval between the plain and the lofty style. Nor indeed is it the work of Theopompus, as some have maintained; but to some, and especially the more accomplished, it seems to be indeed the work of Thucydides, but unadorned, written in rough outline and full of many matters in summary form, and admitting of embellishment and amplification. Wherefore we say further, that the exposition is rather weak and feeble, inasmuch as he apparently composed it while ailing. And when the body is a little sick, the reasoning power also is wont to be rather languid”[*](λέγουσι δέ τινες τὴν ὀγδόην ἱστορίαν νοθεύεσθαι καὶ μὴ εἶναι θουκιδίδου ἀλλ’ οἱ μέν φασιν εὶ=ναι τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτοῦ, οἱ δὲ ξενοφῶντος. πρὸς οὓς λέγομεν ὃτι τῆς μὲν θυγατρὸς ὡς οὔκ ἐστι δῆλον οὐ γὰρ γυναικείας ἦν φύσεως τοιαύτην ἀρετὴν τε καὶ τέχνην μιμήσασθαι. ἒπειτα, εἰ τοιαύτη τις ἦν, οὐκ ἂν ἐσπούδασε λαθεῖν, οὐδ’ ἂν τὴν ὀγδόην ἔγραψε μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἂλλα πολλὰ κατέλιπεν ἄν, τὴν οἰκείαν ἐκφαίνουσα φύσιν. ὅτι δὲ οὐδὲ ξενοφῶντός ἐστιν, ὁ χαρακτὴρ μόνον οὐχὶ βοᾷ πολὺ γὰρ τὸ μέσον ἰσχνοῦ χαρακτῆρος καὶ ὑψνηοῦ. οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ θεοπόμπου, καθά τινες ἠξίωσαν τισὶ δὲ καὶ μᾶλλον τοῖς χαριεστέροις θουκυδίδου μὲν ἐ=ναι δοκεῖ, ἄλλως δ’ ἀκαλλώπιστος, δῐ ἐκτύπων γεγραμμένη καὶ πολλῶν πλήρης ἐν κεφαλαίῳ πραγμάτων καλλωπισθῆναι καὶ λαβεῖν ἔκτασιν δυναμένων. ἔνθεν καὶ λέγομεν ὡς ἀσθενέστερον πέφρασται καὶ ὀλίγον καθότι ἀρρωστῶν αὐτὴν φαίνεται συντεθεικώς. ἀσθενοῦντος δὲ σώματος βραχύ τι καὶ ὁ λογισμὸς ἀτονώτερος εἶναι φιλεῖ.) The genuineness of Book VIII has been the object of attack in modern as well as in ancient times, but it may now be regarded as an accepted fact. Probably no scholar really doubts it. Ancient writers quote the book just as they do the other seven. The general characteristics are the same as in the other books. “There is,” as Arnold rightly claims, “the same impartiality, the same clear and calm view of political transactions.” And Jowett eloquently says: “The love of truth, the power of thought, the absence of moral approbation or disapprobation, the irony, the perception of character, the moderation of statement, the general excellence ... “cry aloud”” for Thucydides. The vigour and terseness of style are as marked as ever.

[4]There is, it is true, occasional roughness and inaccuracy of expression to a greater extent than in the other books; but one who may have read criticisms before reading the book itself is sure to be astonished to find comparatively so few traces of the unfinished, either in style or content. The argument against the genuineness on the score of alleged “un-Thucydidean” words, phrases, or constructions falls to the ground on close examination. When the number of ἅπαξ λεγόμενα, of unusual adverbs and of new-coined verbal substantives found in Book VIII is compared with similar forms in the other books, as for example Goodhart has done in his Introduction, the conclusion in favour of genuineness is unavoidable. Even the suggestion that the book was edited and revised by Xenophon rests on no better basis than the fact that his Hellenica is a continuation of it. The most striking thing about the book is the omission of direct speeches, so marked a feature of all the preceding books (except V). The statement attributed to Cratippus, a contemporary of Thucydides (Dionysius, de Thuc. Id. p. 847), that speeches were omitted in Book VIII because the author realized that they interfered with the narrative and bored the reader, is so absurd as to be amusing. It has been plausibly argued that the omission does not necessarily imply either a deliberate change of practice on the part of the historian or even lack of revision.

[5] Any view on these points will doubtless always remain a matter of private judgment. My own view is that, if the historian had not been suddenly cut down, either by assassination at the hands of a robber, as one tradition has it, or by disease, the book would have received fuller revision, and the indirect speeches at several important points would have been turned into direct discourse. Professor Goodhart well expresses the feeling of the reader in turning the pages of Book viii.: “The war enters upon a new phase after the defeat of the Sicilian expedition. The scene changes from Greece to Asia. But there is something more than a mere change of scene. Athens herself appears under new conditions, fallen greatly from her high estate, but appealing more than ever to our interest and sympathy. We have seen her before in the full blaze of Periclean splendour. But perhaps our admiration has been qualified by some feeling of aloofness.

[6] The people of Pallas Athene seem to dwell upon sunlit heights too far removed from the darkling ways of humanity. The picture of their life is like the fabric of a vision, and they themselves partake of its unreality. But the feeling vanishes when we see them in the grip of fate. Pity, akin to love, takes the place of admiration, and we follow their fortunes with sympathy as keen and active as that which swayed the spectators of the final battle in the great harbour of Syracuse. So it may be that we get nearer to them in the closing scene than we have ever been before."