The First Speech of Pericles (1.140-144)

Περικλῆς, Periklēs; c. 495 – 429 BC

The first paragraph - page 31 in Paul Woodruff's selection - sums up Pericles as a statesman and as a political thinker.  Here we have in a few introductory lines the gist of Thucydides' characterization of Pericles. Here is this passage in Thomas Hobbes' great translation which was first published in 1628:


"Men of Athens, I am still not only of the same opinion (γνώμη) not to give way to the Peloponnesians (notwithstanding I know that men have not the same passions (ὀργή) in the war itself which they have when they are incited to it but change their opinions (γνώμη) with the events (συμφορά)), but also I see that I must now advise the same things or very near to what I have before delivered. And I require of you with whom my counsel shall take place that if we miscarry in aught, you will either make the best of it, as decreed by common consent, or if we prosper, not to attribute it to your own wisdom only. For it falleth out with the events of actions, no less than with the purposes of man, to proceed with uncertainty (ἀμαθῶς χωρῆσαι), which is also the cause that when anything happeneth contrary to our expectation, we use to lay the fault on fortune (τύχη)."

I have inserted key terms in Greek in order to give a sense of the concepts that shape Thucydides' picture. The leitmotiv is unmistakeably γνώμη (gnômê), something made clear in the Greek which makes it the third word of the paragraph and contrasts it in apposition with 'O, Athenians'. We need to have a clear sense of this term. It means the mind or judgement as well as a purpose, intention or resolution. Here it means something like intelligent policy, what in his opinion should be done. It is a matter of intelligent judgement, not an opinion prompted by natural impulses or emotions. But a person's judgements or opinions could of course be subverted by emotion or passion and that is what Pericles is afraid of - the Athenians under the pressures of war will be swayed to opinions and states of mind and then γνώμη (gnômê) can mean everything vacillating and unsteady. Thucydides wants us to show Pericles as the embodiment of steady, intelligent policy based on reason. The intelligence and strategy of Pericles himself contrasts with the changing opinions of the Athenians, which for the most part Pericles was able to control. This ability shows him as very much a master of sophistic rhetoric, as, that is to say, someone who is able to sway the crowd by rousing and quieting emotions. Plato saw this process critically in his analogies of the wild beast - the people - who had to be pacified with ad hoc methods, imagining a more perfect rational solution.

The medieval goddess Fortuna (originally Tyche) turns life's wheel

What follows is an extended quotation from Lowell Edmonds' book Chance and Intelligence in Thucydides, Harvard, 1975. Don't be put off by all the greek. Everything is translated, but we need the original to bring out the conceptual antitheses Thucydides is working with here and throughout the History:

"But Pericles understood gnômê in terms of an antithesis, namely the gnômê-tyche antithesis. The Periclean understanding of this antithesis is implicit in the other speeches of Pericles, too. Now since Thucydides' account of Pericvles' career preserves so carefully the term gnômê, one may suppose that the gnômê-tyche antithesis is also the conceptual framework of Thucydides' understanding of the historical meaning of Pericles' career. Analysis of pertinent sections of other speeches of Pericles will support this view.

"To return to the  gnômê-tyche antithesis in the prooemium to the first speech, it is remarkable, first of all, that Pericles should even mention tyche. The topos of the incerta belli was, according to the rhetorician Anaximenes, to be used in dissuading an audience from war. Archidamus so uses this topos in attempting to dissuade the Lacedaimonians from going to war with Athens (1.84.3). In fact, Pericles prooemium is rhetorically, pessimistic in tone: to look forward to possible reversals of expectations surely does nothing to inspire martial ardour. While the hypothesis of the prooemium, with its rationalism as regards tyche, is optimistic, the rhetorical pessimism persists. In the second sentence of the prooemium Pericles admits the possibility of the Athenians' being 'tripped up'. In the third sentence he explains why he has admitted this possibility.

"Let us first examine the first clause of the third sentence (1.140.1):

ἐνδέχεται γὰρ τὰς ξυμφορὰς τῶν πραγμάτων οὐχ ἧσσονἀ μαθῶς χωρῆσαι ἢ καὶ τὰς διανοίας τοῦ ἀνθρώπου:

The problematic word here is ἀμαθῶς . It is active in sense. Though an English translation of the adverb which fits both subjects of the infinitive is difficult to find, 'blundering' may be ventured: 'It is possible for the circumstances of our affairs to take as blundering a course as men's plans.'

"Events may fail us as much as we are capable of failing ourselves through bad planning. The simile implicit in ἀμαθῶς (namely, events are like plans with respect to ignorance or senselessness) masterfully understates the disparaging view of tyche which then emerges with a climactic sharpness in the last clause of the prooemium. To put the case in this way is to make planning primary: through the use of this simile, Pericles describes adversity in terms of human planning, which thus becomes the criterion. Adverse luck is then understood as that which was unplanned, or contrary to plan. This orientation is epitomized in the phrase ὅσα ἂν παρὰ λόγον in the next clause: that which is contrary to calculation. In this way Pericles trivializes chance, while admitting its existence. Chance is not an objective force impervious to human reason as in Archidamas' view (1.84.3), but, through the implications of Pericles' simile, is reduced to the same status as human error, that is to the subjective. ... 

The self-confidence of Pericles is in marked contrast with the humbler view of Hermocrates (4.61.1), who considers it foolishness to believe τῆς τε οἰκείας γνώμης ὁμοίως εἶναι καὶ ἦς οὐκ ἄρχω τύχης (that I am complete master equally of my own mind and of chance, which I do not rule)." 

Pericles is in other words supremely rational and optimistic but with more than a touch of rhetorical manipulation in the way he presents the dangers that face Athens in deciding to go to war. However sympathetic we might think he and his cause, it is hard not to see in Thucydides' presentation a hint of hubris. You might see parallels with some aspects of the modern world. These kinds of conceptual contrasts are fundamental to Thucydides' understanding and presentation. We need to keep them in mind, which is not easy through the darker medium of English.


Questions:
(1) The later medieval notion of a goddess called Fortuna presents some obvious intellectual difficulties. What objections might one one bring to the idea of such a goddess?
(2) Can everything covered by the Greek term tyche be avoided and overcome by rational forethought and planning?
(3) What major dangers posed by 'fortune' have been decisively overcome today? Which are still with us?
(4) What else is needed apart from good planning if we are to be successful in warfare?

The Acropolis at the time of Pericles, paid for by money from the Empire.