Thucydides’ Ambiguous Trap

This article shows that Thucydides is deliberately enigmatic about the causal effects of his speeches, and that this enigma is central to understanding his account of the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War. First, it shows that Thucydides was fascinated by the way speeches might not only illuminate events but also contribute to causing them. This ambiguous aspect of the speeches has been underappreciated in recent scholarship, but it is a theme to which the historian frequently returns. Second, the article shows that Thucydides explores this ambiguity in particular detail through the debates in Book 1. Using echoes of the “truest explanation” from 1.23.6 in the speeches, Thucydides suggests that the war might have started through a process of self-fulfilling prophecy, rather than—as some recent scholarship has suggested—self-fulfilling perception. Finally, this article suggests a new reading of 1.23.6, which reflects the ambiguous nature of the speeches in the ambiguous term πρόφασις, again hinting at the possibility of a self-fulfilling prophecy. This article therefore challenges not only the idea of the “Thucydides Trap,” which continues to dominate conceptions of Thucydides among political scientists, but also the way all readers of his work approach both Book 1 and the role of the speeches in general.

Publication Details

Journal
Apollo (University of Cambridge)
Published
2024-11-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.17863/cam.113694
Primary Topic
Classical Antiquity Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Thucydides’ Ambiguous Trap

Apollo (University of Cambridge)
Classical Antiquity Studies
article

Thucydides’ Ambiguous Trap

article en

Abstract

This article shows that Thucydides is deliberately enigmatic about the causal effects of his speeches, and that this enigma is central to understanding his account of the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War. First, it shows that Thucydides was fascinated by the way speeches might not only illuminate events but also contribute to causing them. This ambiguous aspect of the speeches has been underappreciated in recent scholarship, but it is a theme to which the historian frequently returns. Second, the article shows that Thucydides explores this ambiguity in particular detail through the debates in Book 1. Using echoes of the “truest explanation” from 1.23.6 in the speeches, Thucydides suggests that the war might have started through a process of self-fulfilling prophecy, rather than—as some recent scholarship has suggested—self-fulfilling perception. Finally, this article suggests a new reading of 1.23.6, which reflects the ambiguous nature of the speeches in the ambiguous term πρόφασις, again hinting at the possibility of a self-fulfilling prophecy. This article therefore challenges not only the idea of the “Thucydides Trap,” which continues to dominate conceptions of Thucydides among political scientists, but also the way all readers of his work approach both Book 1 and the role of the speeches in general.

Apollo (University of Cambridge)
Openalex Percentile: Top 46%
Classical Antiquity Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.