Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
1
H-Net Reviews
cludes the chapter by discussing how ucydides’ use In the final chapter Romilly analyzes the ucydidean
of pauses, contrasts, and suggested connections shares account known as the “Archaeology.” In this account
traits with rhetorical traditions found in earlier Greek po- ucydides argued that the Peloponnesian War was more
etry, tragedy, and philosophy. important than events preceding it. She maintains that
In chapter 2 Romilly discusses ucydides’ bale ac- the account is innovative in its focus on civilization, com-
counts. Aer briefly examining bale accounts found merce, lifestyle, and habitat. ucydides used his rea-
in Homer, Herodotus, and the Greek tragedies, she con- son to recreate a past that lacked reliable source ma-
cludes that ucydides’ narrative is located at an in- terial. Romilly shows that he used the same construc-
tersection between Herodotus’ universalized, explained tive rationalism and intellectual methods in this account
bale and the tragedians’ unified, internalized bale. but pressed further in search of the truth. She considers
Like his other episodes, ucydides’ bale accounts ucydides’ arguments directly, in terms of their conclu-
have an inevitable unity where intention governs action. sions, and in light of modern scholarship. She states, “In
Romilly divides the bale accounts into simple forms no other text does the triumph of reasoning in all its as-
(no speeches involved) and complex forms (speeches in- pects appear so absolute” (p. 164). Romilly aributes any
cluded). She argues that ucydides used speeches to inexactness in ucydides’ work to the limitations of rea-
fight the bale intellectually in advance. He then rein- soning. To demonstrate continuity from Homeric Greece
forced these bales of argument with the events of the to his own time, ucydides looked at Greece in general
actual bale. Romilly argues that this methodology does terms with a broad basis. He eliminated variations from
not sacrifice pathos or concrete realism. In fact, it al- his account. is has opened him up to criticism from
lowed ucydides to create profound lessons on the im- modern scholars. Yet Romilly concludes that ucydides’
portance of reason to victory. She demonstrates that reasoning and method in the “Archaeology” remain con-
he subordinated moral qualities to intellectual ones. For sistent with the rest of his work. In fact, she finds it more
ucydides, only “chance” threatened the superiority of original.
intelligence, and it should be minimized through disci-
pline. Romilly concludes that no historian before or aer is book, although well argued and illuminating, is
ucydides demanded so much intelligibility or rational highly specialized. Its nuanced arguments on the intel-
accounting of bale. lectual methodology of ucydides will be mostly lost
Chapter 3 examines ucydides’ antithetical on undergraduates and general readers. e target audi-
speeches. ese speeches sharpen ucydides’ ideas ence is those who have a solid understanding of ucy-
and provide rich analysis. Romilly states, “ese debates dides’ history and the historiographical traditions that
allow ucydides to exhaust every aspect of a situation” surround his work. To appeal to a wider group of read-
(p. 106). She argues that ucydides follows a rhetorical ers, the book would benefit from a concluding section at
tradition founded and expanded by Protagorus. Romilly the end of each chapter. Romilly covers a great deal of
then argues that ucydidean antilogies all share sim- textual analysis and theory. Concluding sections would
ilarities in arrangement, expression, and manner of ar- help clarify her dynamic arguments to those lacking a
gument with the Camarine antilogy and the Tetralogies background in ucydidean studies. Yet with this minor
of Antiphon. She concludes that ucydides used an- suggestion in mind, the study is well organized into sub-
tithetical speeches and antilogies to introduce a more chapters. Romilly’s analysis is thorough and convincing.
concentrated analysis, to the benefit of his narrative’s It is no wonder that her literary approach to the study of
clarity, without abandoning objectivity. ucydides found so many supporters.
If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the list discussion logs at:
hp://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl.
Citation: Nikolaus Overtoom. Review of Romilly, Jacqueline de;, e Mind of ucydides. H-War, H-Net Reviews.
May, 2014.
URL: hp://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=40264