"The Greatest Historian" in New English

Abstract

"The Greatest Historian" in New English STEVEN J. WILLETT ^^.acaulay famously declared Thucydides to be "thegreatest historian thateverlived."This judgment reflects a good deal ofpartisanhyperbole, and quitea numberofotherhistorians ancientand modernmight justify the claim,includingHerodotus,Sima Qian, Ibn Khaldun,and Gibbon,butThucydides is certainly themostdifficult Greek historian to translate. MartinHammond'snewEnglish translation *is thefirst sinceStevenLattimore attempted to capturethe fullnuance and complexity of Thucydides'prose withoutresort to excessivesimplification or paraphrase.1 Indeed , to date Lattimore's versionis the only one thatcan stand comparison with Hobbes' magisterialtranslation, which many othersubsequenttranslators have raided for theirown work. Given the importanceof Thucydidesfor western historiography, whatever hisinternational rank,anothernew Englishversionis a signalevent.BeforeI look morecloselyat theHammond/Rhodes edition,letmesayup front thatI have no intention of comparingit closelywith RobertB. Strassler's LandmarkThucydides , now nearlyfifteenyearsbehindus .Whatever itsvirtues, andthey aremany, he choseto use RichardCrawley'sold 1874 translation with onlylightrevision to avoidthetimeand costofa fresh translation .Crawleytendsto simplify theexceptionalcomplexity of Thucydides'speeches,while Lattimoreconfronts them withEnglishthatcapturesmuchofthedifficulty. Crawleyis * Thucydides, ThePeloponnesian War , translated byMartin Hammond , introduction andnotes byP.J.Rhodes. NewYorkandOxford : Oxford University Press (Oxford World's Classics), 2009.lxiv + 708pages.$19.95,paperback. ARION 19. 1SPRING/SUMMER 20II 174 "THEGREATEST HISTORIAN" INNEWENGLISH more successfulin narrativepassages, especially where Thucydides employsa matter-of-fact stylethatoftenrisesto vivid,energetic descriptions ofaction.In testing Hammond's translation, then,I willfocuson how he handlesa representativenarrative episodeand a sectionfroma majorspeech. First, however, let'ssurvey thecontents. P.J.Rhodes'contribution to theeditionincludesthefortyfour -page introduction (pagesix-liii),theselective bibliography (liv-lvii), the detailed book-by-book summaryand analysis(lviii-lxiv),the appendixof weightsand measures (473-474), the 157-pageexplanatory notes(475-632), and (presumably) thenoteson theGreektext(633-43). The authorstake the OxfordClassical Text of H. StuartJonesas theirstarting-point and thensupplytextualnotesforthose places wherethe texttheytranslatediffers fromthe OCT and forplaces wheretheyaccept OCT readingsthatsome modernscholarsdo not: "Not all ofthesedivergences have a significant effect on thesenseor thedetail,butwherethey do the textual issues are discussed in the Explanatory Notes" (633). Martin Hammond was responsibleforthe translation,most of the "decisions on which reading to adopt in themanyplaces wheretheGreektextis in doubt" (page v), and the comprehensivesixty-four-page index (644-708). I assume that both Hammond and Rhodes workedtogether to assemblethe noteson the Greektext, even if the formermade most of the decisionson which readings to accept,and thatbothcooperatedon selecting the sheaf of ten maps. All but two of the maps are in fact adaptedfrom existing booksbyRhodes,B. W.Henderson, J. F. Lazenby,K. J.Dover and SimonHornblower.2 Whilethe maps are not as richand variedas thosein theLandmark Thucydides , theyare adequate to followthenarrative. Three aspects of this editionare, however,noteworthy. First,Rhodes' introduction is one of thebestI've everread forthegeneralreader.In forty-four crisp,concisepages,he managesto lay out thecontextto thewar,to analyzethe evolving militarystrategyfrom the Archidamian War StevenJ. Willett175 through itsmiddleand finalstages,to providea shortbiographyofThucydidesalongwithan accountofthecomposition of his history,and to detail Thucydides' historical methodsand style.He concludeswitha shortprospectus of laterGreekhistorians who followedThucydides. The sizeof the introduction beliesthe breadthand varietyof complex materialRhodes is able to deployin a lucidexpositionthat stemsfromhis long engagement withThucydides.Second, thenotesbenefit fromall thenew researchthathas developed sincetheLandmarkThucydides , particularly fromthe commentary bySimonHornblower, whichis an essentialaccompaniment to A. W. Gomme'smonumental commentary as completed by AnthonyAndrewes and K. J. Dover.3 Rhodesmakesitclearthat"These notesseekto helpa range of readers,includingreaderswithouta greatdeal of backgroundknowledge ,to understand bothThucydides'subject matterand his treatment of it" (475). Despite thatcaveat, thesynthesis ofmaterialhe offers is sufficiently diverseand varied - especially in the analysis of narrative - that it shouldproveusefulto a broad rangeof readers,fromstudentsto professionalhistorians.Finally,the translationis based on a freshexaminationof thetextualtradition. The tenpages ofdensenoteson theGreektexttestify to theeditors ' determination that this translationshould come as close as possible to what Thucydidesactuallywrote. For thatreasonalone ithas an advantageno othercurrent translation ,in or out ofcopyright, can match. Most generalreadersand teacherswill selectthisedition primarily forthetranslation and secondarily forthesupport material.I will test Hammond's work by examiningtwo passages thatreflect opposingaspectsof Thucydides'style: his treatment of narrative and his treatment of speeches.A closecomparisonoftheEnglishwiththeGreekshouldshow clearlyhow Hammond has trackedThucydides'verycomplex syntax. Bothpassages come fromBook 2. The narrative excerpt describestheTheban attackon Plataea in 431 bce. The lit- 176 "THEGREATEST HISTORIAN" INNEWENGLISH tie city of Plataea, Athens' only ally at the Battle of Marathonin 490 bce, had always been hostileto Thebes, whichconcludedthattheimminence of war gave it an opportunity to seize the citywitha preemptive attackwhile peace stillheld.The Thebanforces...