LITERATURE OF ANCIENT GREECE. 433 Thucydidcs has probably introduced into his speech in the second day's debate.* In one passage, Thucydides gives us a dialogue instead of a speech, because the circumstances scarcely admitted of any public harangue : this occurs in the negotiations between the Athenians and the council of Melos, before the Athenian attack upon this Dorian island, after the peace of Nicias : but Thucydides takes this opportunity of stating the point at which the Athenians had arrived in the grasping, selfish, and tyrannical policy, which guided their dealings with the minor states. f § 9. It is unnecessary to mention that we must not look for any mimic representation in the speeches of Thucydides, any attempt to depict the mode of speaking peculiar to different nations and individuals ; if he had done this, his whole work would have lost its unity of tone and its harmony of colouring^ Thucydides goes into the characteristics of the persons whom he introduces as speaking, only so far as the general law of his history permits. In setting forth the views of his speakers, he has regard to their character, not only in the contents and subject of the speeches which he assigns to them, but also in the mode in which he developes and connects their thoughts. To take the first book alone, we have admirable pictures of the Corcyrseans, who only maintain the mutual advantages resulting from their alliance with Athens ; of the Corinthians, who rely in some degree on moral grounds ; of the discre- tion, mature wisdom, and noble simplicity of the excellent Archidamus ; and of the haughty self-confidence of the Ephor Sthenelaidas, a Spartan of the lower order : the tone of the composition agrees entirely with the views and fundamental ideas of their speeches; as, for instance, the searching copiousness of Archidamus and the cutting brevity of Sthene- laidas. The chief concern of Thucydides in the composition of these speeches was to exhibit the principles which guided the conduct of the persons of whom he is writing, and to allow their opinions to exhibit, confirm, and justify or exculpate themselves. This is done with such intrinsic truth and consistency, the historian identifies himself so entirely with the characters which he describes, and gives such support and plausibility to their views and sentiments, that we may be sure that the
- The speeches often stand in a relation to one another which could not have
been justified by existing circumstances. Thus, the speech of the Corinthians in I. 120 seqq., is a direct answer to the speech of Archidamus in the Spartan assembly, and to that of Pericles at Athens, although the Corinthians did not hear either of them. The reason of this relation is, that the speech of the Corinthians expresses the hopes of victory entertained by one portion of the Peloponncsians, while Archidamus and Pericles view the unfavourable position of the Pcloponnese with equal clearness, but from different points of view. Compare also the remarks on the speeches of Pericles in Chap. XXXI. f Dionysius says (de Tkucyd. judic, p. 910), that the principles unfolded in this dialogue are suited to barbarians and not to Athenians, and blames Thucydides most violently for introducing them : but these were really the principles on which the Athenians acted.
