The absence of romance in my history will, I fear, detract somewhat from its interest; but if it be judged useful by those inquirers who desire an exact knowledge of the past as an aid to the interpretation of the future, which in the course of human things must resemble if it does not reflect it, I shall be content.
Right from the beginning, Thucydides sets forth a mandate and goal for his history. He intends for it be historically accurate and here uses self-deprecating language to suggest that if this purpose makes it less of a “blockbuster” than previous histories which relied upon hearsay and myth, so be it. In fact, his account of the war was one of the most historically accurate histories (according to what knowledge was available at the time) yet written.
The growth of the power of Athens, and the alarm which this inspired in Lacedaemon, made war inevitable.
To the question of what, exactly, caused the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides is surprisingly efficient with his answer. “Lacedaemon” is doubtlessly more familiar to most readers as “Sparta” and what the author is suggesting here is that Sparta was becoming intimidated by the potential of Athens to attain a power so great that it would eventually prove impossible to sustain peace simply by virtue of the psychology of domination and inherent aggression.
“Our love of what is beautiful does not lead to extravagance; our love of the things of the mind does not make us soft.”
Pericles is here making a claim of propaganda for the democratic idealism of Athens. The bravery and the strength of the warrior is not undermined, but given greater depth and meaning by an appreciation of the beauty of the world. Pericles is making the case that in the Athenians, civilization has forged a higher level of greatness with the subtext being that is through the process of democracy that such a fullness of character can be demonstrated.
The leaders in the cities, each provided with the fairest professions, on the one side with the cry of political equality of the people, on the other of a moderate aristocracy, sought prizes for themselves in those public interests which they pretended to cherish, and, recoiling from no means in their struggles for ascendancy engaged in the direst excesses; in their acts of vengeance they went to even greater lengths, not stopping at what justice or the good of the state demanded, but making the party caprice of the moment their only standard, and invoking with equal readiness the condemnation of an unjust verdict or the authority of the strong arm to glut the animosities of the hour.
One of the themes which is explored through writing of the history of a prolonged war is the psychological effect that continuous battle has on the participants. Not only does this passage highlight how psychology changes over the course of battle, it also illuminates the reality that manipulation of language for the sake of propagandizing that psychology was in full effect even among the ancients. Note how the central argument of the civil war is framed in two different ways as a struggle between “political equality” and “a moderate aristocracy” while the simultaneously are accused of engaging in what amounts to war crimes.
