Piety, Justice, and the Necessities of War: Thucydides' Delian Debate

Author(s): Clifford Orwin

Source: The American Political Science Review, Vol. 83, No. 1 (Mar., 1989), pp. 233-239
Published by: American Political Science Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1956442 .
Accessed: 10/09/2013 15:47

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The American Political Science Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 66.194.72.152 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 15:47:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 PIETY,JUSTICE,
AND THE NECESSITIESOF
WAR: THUCYDIDES'
DELIANDEBATE
CLIFFORDORWIN
Universityof Toronto

IPolitical philosophy or sciencefirst emergedin responseto

certain contradictions in political life that thoughtful citizens could not but face.
Nowhereis this processbetterportrayedthan in Thucydides,who of all greatstudentsof
politics remainsclosest to the perspectiveof practice, at the same time showing how
practicepoints us toward a place of criticaldistancefrom politics. The Greekpolitical
world, like all prescientificworlds, acknowledgedcertaingods who, as rulers, made
demandson humankind.But because these were neitherthe only, nor in practicethe
most insistent, demandsmade on humankind,the question necessarilyarose as to the
gods' status in the event of conflict-as to the relativenecessityof thesedivinedemands.
Fromthisfollowed the furtherquestion-crucial for the emergenceof politicalscienceor
philosophy-as to whether the political world was ruled indeed by the gods or by
necessity.

O f all writers 4.76-77 [1963-721.Having occupied,for-

on politics, none stays closer than Thu-
cydidesto the world of citizensand states-
men-a world of urgent particulars,
where every contextis partisanand every
moment decisive, where speeches flow
and blood along with them. He is not a
political scientistand perhapsnot even a
political philosopher.Yet he is of interest
to both, for more than anyone else he
shows how the study of politicsfirst arose
out of its practice or how precisely the
most political perspectivesim6ly, on re-
flection, a critical distance from political
life. I treat an episode quite lacking in
charm,one in fact permeatedby the odor
of death and by meannessin the face of
death;for I wish to view people trying to
come to gripswith an extremesituation.
In the eighth year of the Peloponnesian
War, the Atheniansinvaded neighboring
Boeotia (Thucydides Peloponnesian War
tified, and otherwisedesecratedthe shrine
of Apollo at Delion (Latin,Delium), they
suffereda decisivedefeat in battle, losing
the conquered territory except for the
sliver on which the sanctuary stood (4.
89-96). Seekingto recoverundertrucethe
bodies of theirfallen-a formal supplica-
tion of the utmost solemnity that is re-
buffed nowhere else in Thucydides'-the
Athenianswere advised by the Boeotians
that they need not seek the bodies until
they had evacuatedthe temple. After ex-
changing vituperations the two sides
partedwith neitherhaving gained its ob-
ject (4.97-99). The Boeotians now be-
sieged the Athenian garrison and suc-
ceededin drivingit from the temple.They
then acquiesced in the recovery of the
bodies, fully 17 days after the original
battle (4.100-101).
Seventeen days is a long time for

AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW

VOLUME 83 NO. 1 MARCH 1989

This content downloaded from 66.194.72.152 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 15:47:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 American Political Science Review Vol. 83
corpses in the summer sun, and most
critics have followed the Athenians and
George Grote (1907, 307-09) in blaming
the Boeotians for flouting sacred law in
the hopes of extorting an unearnedvic-
tory. So, for example, Gommefor whom
'Thucydides' insertion of this long dis-
pute, his insistence on this argumentof
words, was due to his feeling that the
Boeotianrefusalto allow the Atheniansto
collect their dead was anotherevil result-
ing from the war . . . , an abandonmentof
one of the recognized, and humane,
usages of Greece"(1956, 571).
What Thucydides'charactersdispute,
however, is not the "inhumanity" of the
refusalbut whetherit and the behaviorof
the Athenians that provoked it are of-
fenses againstthe law of man that forbids
dishonoringthe gods. Can indignationat
the Boeotians'"inhumanity"
reallyexplain
Thucydides'decision to report with such
care this wranglingover points of sacred
law? In the end even Gomme seems to
doubt it. He mutters that "Thucydidesis
curiously interested in this sophistical
stuff" (p. 569; cf. Strauss 1964, 208, n.
70). What I find curious, however, is not
Thucydides'interest in this episode but
the critics'lack of it -so far as I know,
mine is the first schematic treatment in
any language2-for the parties (particu-
larly the Athenians) address two ques-
tions fundamentalnot only for Thucydi-
des but for the emergence of political
philosophy:the relationof justiceto piety
and of both to necessity.
The complaint of the Boeotians-as
with all the speeches on this occasion,
Thucydides reports it in indirect dis-
course-is
that the Athenians had not acted rightly in trans-
gressing the usages of the Hellenes, for it was
established practice for them all, when invading
each other's territories, to refrain from the sanc-
tuaries therein. The Athenians, however, had
fortified Delion and were now making them-
selves at home there, acting in every respect as
men do on unconsecrated ground, even drawing
for ordinary use the water that they themselves
234
This content downloaded from 66.194.72.152 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 15:47:03 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
never touchedexceptfor use in the sacredrites.
Whereforethe Boeotians,on behalf of the god
and themselves,invokingthe local divinitiesand
Apollo, served them notice to take up their
[dead]upon evacuatingthe temple. (4.97)
To this the Atheniansreply by herald
(1) . . . that they had not wrongedthe temple,
nor would they willinglyharmit. That was not
why they had enteredit, but ratherthat from it
they mightdefendthemselvesagainstthose who
were wrongingthem. (2) As for the law of the
Hellenes,it was that to whoeverwieldedpower
over a country, be it more or less extensive, to
them the temples also always belonged, to be
tended, to the best of their ability, in the ways
alreadycustomary.3(3) After all, the Boeotians,
along with most others who had taken over a
countryby forceand expelledthe originalinhab-
itants, had begun by attackingas belongingto
others templesthat they now possessedas their
own. (4) And as for [the Athenians],had they
succeededin establishingtheirpower over more
of the country of the Boeotians, so matters
would have stood for them. Even as it was,
moreover,they held thatpart of it in which they
stood as their own, and would not of theirown
will departfrom it. (5) As for the water, finally,
they had disturbedit underduress[or "compul-
sion," ananke]which they had not wantonlyin-
curred,having been compelledto use the water
in defendingthemselvesagainst those who had
first invadedtheir land. (6) Besideswhich, any-
thingdone understressof war and dangermight
reasonablyclaim some indulgenceeven in the
eyes of the god. Forthe altarswerea refugefrom
the consequencesof involuntaryoffenses,4and
transgressionwas a term reserved for those
under no compulsionto be bad, not for those
whom misfortunedrove to dare. (7) And more
impious by far were those who demandedthat
templesbe exchangedfor bodies than they who
refusedto relinquishtemplesin returnfor what
was properly theirs already. (8) What they
demandedto hearfrom [theBoeotians],loud and
clear, was not "to depart from Boeotian terri-
tory'-for wherethey stood was [the Boeotians']
no longer, themselveshaving acquiredit by the
spear-but [for the Athenians]to take up their
bodies undertrucein accordancewith ancestral
ways. (4.98)
The Athenians do not deny that their
actions were primafacie impieties.5From
the outset their appeal is to the extenuat-
ing circumstances.They begin conven-
tionally enough by discriminating be-
tween wronging and harming, invoking
 Thucydides'Delian Debate
the respectable distinction between just
and unjustwars (98.1). They suggestthat
nothing undertakenin a just cause could
rightly be blamed as impious. They pro-
ceed, however, to a much bolder defense
of their seizureof the temple (98.2-4). In
expoundinga rightallegedlyconferredby
conquest, they no longerbotherto distin-
guish between just and unjust conquest.
Theirpoint is ratherthat conquestas such
(i.e., conquestinsofaras it succeeds)con-
fers on the conqueror legitimateposses-
sion of both lands and shrines-or how
did the Boeotians come to be rightful
masters of Boeotia, to which they enjoy
no claim save that of having driven out
theirpredecessors?That the Boeotiansare
in fact the rightfulmastersof that country
the Athenianscan affordto concede,even
as they try to dislodge them from it, pre-
cisely becausepossessionis nine-tenthsof
the law. Since whoever possesses does so
by right, one need only dispossesshim in
order to possess by right oneself-pend-
ing the appearanceof the next disposses-
sor. The tiny sliverof Boeotiathat Athens
still holds after defeat in the battle, how-
ever recentlysnatchedand however soon
to be retaken, it possesses by the very
same title-force that conveys right-by
which the Boeotianspossess the restof the
region. This means, of course, that right
simply collapses as an alternativeto, or
limit on, force.
As for the gods, these acquiescein con-
quest at least as readily as humans do.
Such, at least, is impliedby Helleniccus-
tom itself.The conquestonce effected,life
goes on, in sacred matters as in others.
The subjection,expulsion, or extirpation
of one people by another-what are these
to the gods? The sacrificialfire is rekin-
dled, the cult of the god resumes. The
honors formerly offered by the van-
quishedare now the responsibilityof the
victors. The Athenians here develop an
unwitting suggestion of the Boeotians
themselves. These presented impiety as
unjust but not the rest of injusticeas im-
235
This content downloaded from 66.194.72.152 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 15:47:03 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
pious: the invasion of Boeotia they no
doubt regardedas unjust, but it was only
the seizure of the temple that they pre-
sented as impious.6 The Athenians then
need only point out that temples-like
oaks and rocks-come with the (con-
quered) territory. If it is not impiety to
occupy the territory,neithercan it be im-
pious to occupy the temples; and if (as
here)a shrinehappensto be the first acre-
age seized, no offense to the gods is either
intendedor taken.
The argumentso far, while addressing
the seizureof the temple,does not address
its desecration. The Athenians therefore
go on to arguethat the gods mightreason-
ably take not only conquest but even
what would normallybe impietyin stride,
accepting here the plea of necessity
(98.5-6). In support of this claim the
Athenians again adduce a fundamental
practice of Hellenic piety, asylum at the
altars of the gods for involuntaryoffend-
ers. (The typical case was the accidental
homicide.)By applyingthis usage to their
own case, however, the Atheniansnota-
bly extend it. I find in Greekliteratureno
case of asylum at an altar for someone
accusedof defilingthat altar.
Nor is it merelythat the gods mightand
should accept the defense of involuntari-
ness in cases of impiety as well as injus-
tice. It is also that the standardsof extenu-
ation that the Athenians would foist on
the gods are amazinglyeasygoing.The in-
voluntary offenses claiming the indul-
gence of the gods in this argumentare not
just those unintentionalin the usualsense.
Nothing could have been more inten-
tional-deliberate and thoroughly delib-
erated-than the Athenian seizure of
Delion, conceivedas partof a masterplan
for taking over Boeotia (4.76). By invol-
untary the Atheniansmean mearly com-
mitted under duress-and even duress
must be taken here in a highly diluted
sense. Anything done under pressureof
war qualifiesas done underduress. If, as
in the case at hand, desecration is just
 American Political Science Review Vol. 83
good strategyor (as in the case of the use
of the lustral water) a necessary conse-
quenceof good strategy,7this will suffice
for a plea of necessity. The deities are
called upon to recognize that danger,
however incurred,imposes necessitiesof
its own. They mustnot expecteven unjust
warriorsto lie down and die.
'Is nothing sacred?"bellow the Boeo-
tians confrontedwith the Athenian dese-
crationof their sanctuary.'No, nothing,"
the Atheniansreply, "noteven the sacred
is sacred."For it too (if we may assume
the reasonablenessof the gods) admitsof
numerous exceptions. Do the Athenians
innovate in thus dilutingthe demandsof
piety? They claim not. Ratherthey pro-
fess to act on the same time-honoredprin-
ciples as does every other city. Their in-
novation is confinedto the clarityof their
graspof theseprinciplesand the candorof
their presentationof them. They defend
their piety as impeccable, not because
they put piety first, but because no one
else does either, and because they can
argue (however inconsequently)that in
the presentcase the impiety of the Boeo-
tians is worse than theirown.
To anyone readingthis passage within
the context of the work as a whole, the
Athenians'approachto piety here will re-
call their approach to justice elsewhere.
Consider,for instance, their initial state-
ment on the questionof justice,the speech
of theirenvoys to Spartaon the eve of the
war (1.72-78). There too, while adopting
a novel candorin speech,they deniedthat
in practicingempire they in any way in-
novated in deed. There too, without re-
jectingthe authorityof justice,they insist-
ed on the propriety of a much broader
rangeof exceptionsto it than are general-
ly admitted.There too, arguingfrom the
allegedly universal experience of what
humansdo as opposed to what they say,
they alleged necessity as the ground of
these exceptionsand adducednecessityas
a loophole big enough throughwhich to
drive theirwhole empire.
236
This content downloaded from 66.194.72.152 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 15:47:03 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
These argumentsabout justiceAtheni-
ans apply to the present issue of piety.
The transitionfrom justice is by way of
the practice of asylum for involuntary
offenders, with its suggestion that the
gods indulgeinvoluntarytransgressionof
justice. But must they not then also in-
dulge involuntary impieties? The Athe-
nian thesisnaturallyproceedsfromjustice
to piety because while these virtues are
two, the indicated excuse for neglecting
them is one: necessity. Piety no less than
justiceproves unequalto the most power-
ful temptationsto flout it: judgingfrom
what cities do ratherthan from theircriti-
cism of others, these temptations grip
them with irresistibleforce.
It is not hard to see that the Athenian
position is self-contradictory.If they may
invoke the necessities of war to justify
profaningthe temple,why should not the
Boeotiansdo so to justify their refusalto
yield the bodies? The assertion of the
Athenians that the impiety of the Boeo-
tians is graver than their own is insuffi-
cient, for the relevant question is not
whose offense would be graverin the ab-
senceof extenuationbut ratherwhich side
can offer the morepersuasiveextenuation
of its offense. Here the two parties are
roughly equal, it being at least as neces-
sary to the Boeotians to dislodge the
Athenians as it is to the latter to retain
theirfoothold. The Athenians'reasoning,
if pursuedby both sides, could only lead
to the disappearanceof all piety, as bellig-
erentspitched the thresholdfor violating
it ever lower. By focusing our attention
on the exceptionsratherthan the rule, the
Atheniansmirethe rulein so many excep-
tions as to strip it of all power as a rule.
And yet it is clear that for the Atheni-
ans themselvespiety has not lost all au-
thorityas a rule. Heretoo theirposition is
self-contradictory. They remain con-
cernedto recovertheircorpses."Fromthe
point of view of the Athenian ambassa-
dors to Melos -or of Socrates-the fate of
the corpseswould be a matterof utterin-
 Thucydides'Delian Debate
difference"(Strauss 1964, 208, n. 70).
That it is anythingbut that to these Athe-
nians-that they respond with bitter in-
dignationto what they claim is the sacri-
lege of the Boeotians while refusing to
undo their own -points to a problem
with Athenianpiety that will loom larger
as the war proceeds. The Athenians-to
speakvery broadly-can live neitherwith
piety nor without it. Without caring to
observe its restrictionsexcept where con-
venient, neither have they purged their
souls of the hopes and fears that piety
nurtures.To cite only the most egregious
case, the Athenians in the assembly, if
truly pious, would certainlyhave heeded
the deeply pious Nicias when he urged
them to forgo the Sicilian expedition
(6.9-14); and that project having mis-
carried,the Atheniansoldiers-were they
truly impious-would never have joined
that same Nicias in heedingthe urgingsof
moonstrucksoothsayersto delay theirre-
treat (7.50), which delay sealedtheirutter
destruction.Theirlittlepiety was to prove
a doubly dangerousthing.
The crux of the Athenian argumentis
that even respectfor the sacredmustyield
to the necessitiesof humanlife. Obvious-
ly this implies that such respectdoes not
itself rank among these necessities. It is
worth contrasting this perspective on
piety with the traditionalone (whilekeep-
ing in mindthe Athenians'claimto be true
to tradition).Accordingto worthy gray-
beardsand long-deadpoets, the blessings
of humanlife are the gods'to dispenseand
are thereforecontingent upon our piety.
Piety persuadesthe gods to spare us the
rigors of (what would otherwise be) ne-
cessity (cf., e.g., Hesiod Worksand Days
232-34; Homer Odyssey 19, 109-14; and
among the many Biblical parallels, Dt
11:13-21 and Ps 92). In the absence of
naturalnecessity, piety is the only neces-
sity.
Without having thought the matter
quite through, the Athenians imply the
emancipationof necessityfrom the gods,
237
This content downloaded from 66.194.72.152 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 15:47:03 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
or the emergenceof absolute necessity.
Traditionalpiety is contradictory,for in
recognizingin practicecertainexceptions
to piety, it implies that some things are
more fundamentalfor us than piety. Not
that the Athenians go so far as to deny
that the gods chastiseimpiety,whereverit
is willful (i.e., wherever it is truly
impiety). They do deny, however, that
the gods can reasonablyexpect us to put
the sacredfirst, aheadof the necessitiesto
which we are subject as human beings.
The putativejusticeof the gods consistsin
their acknowledgmentof their stinginess
to us. Our situationin thisworld of which
the gods are nominally rulersis not such
that we can concern ourselves above all
with honoring the gods ratherthan with
coping with the harshexigenciesof which
they have failed to relieve us. Unable to
oppose our subjection to necessity, the
gods shouldhave the decencyto acquiesce
in it. It is worth stressingthat only thus
would our necessitiesbecometruenecessi-
ties, necessitiesin the fullest and harshest
sense, fromwhichnot even a god can save
us -and against which, therefore, piety
avails us nothing. Clearly, such an argu-
ment subverts divine authority. If the
gods are powerlessbefore our necessities,
why doubt that they mustgive way to ne-
cessity generally?The Athenian 'liberali-
zation" of piety threatens piety, for by
suggesting that the gods are subject to
necessityit impliesthat they are less than
gods.
This neglected passage in book 4, in
which the Athenians first extend their
characteristic outlook on international
relations to those between god and
humankind, is crucial for grasping the
logic of their unfoldingpolitical theology
of imperialism.I mean that doctrinethat
achieves its zenith in the most notorious
episode in Thucydides, the so-called
Melian dialogue (5.84-113, esp. 103-5).
Our passage is equally crucial, however,
for graspingthe discoveryof the notion of
political necessity in the strict sense, that
 American Political Science Review Vol. 83
is, of naturalnecessity as opposed to the
radical contingency of a world ruled by
gods-a discovery that is the basis of all
real politicalphilosophyor science.
Notes
I thank the Earhart Foundation, the National En-
dowment for the Humanities, and the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada for their generous support of my work on
Thucydides during 1986-87. I am indebted to Ernest
L. Fortin for helpful comments on the substance of
the argument and to Malcolm B. Wallace and W.
Kendrick Pritchett for their patient advice on points
of Greek sacred law and military practice.
1. Such a supplication is rebuffed only once else-
where in the historical literature of the classical
period, namely, Xenophon Hellenica 3.5.21-24,
where the villains are again the Boeotians (who on
this occasion have no sacrilege to adduce against
their enemies). See Pritchett 1985, 211-12.
2. Brief mentions of the incident are found in
Ciccio 1984, 138-39; Lateiner 1977, 101-2; Pouncey
1980, 94-95; Pritchett 1985, 191-92; Rawlings 1981,
51, n. 46; Schneider 1974, 106, n. 213; and Stras-
burger 1968, 529, n. 82. Strauss (1964, 208, n. 70),
while not discussing the incident at length, clearly
indicates the reasons for doing so, Cf. Palmer 1982,
111, n. 19.
3. Reading, with Stahl and Romilly (Thucydides
1963-72), pro tou eiothosi ("in the ways already
customary") for the pros tois eiothosi ("inways addi-
tional to those customary") of the manuscripts.
4. Reading akousion ("involuntary")with manu-
scripts C, E, and F2 rather than hekousion ("volun-
tary") with A, F, and M.
5. Barton and Chavasse (Thucydides 1890,
122-23) decry "the wanton outrage of which [the
Athenians] were guilty in seizing and fortifying a
holy place and damaging its condition, and the im-
pudent paradoxes by which their act was justified,"
further noting that in refusing to withdraw from the
temple in order to recover the bodies of their fallen,
the Athenians "prefer the retention of a political
prize to the performance of a pious duty." (In the
only other such case on record [see n. 3] the Spartans
prefer the pious duty.) Ducrey (1985, 282), Garlan
(1972, 37), Lonis (1969, 73), and Parker (1983, 190)
agree that the offenses were serious ones, Parker
noting in defense of the Boeotians that temple rob-
bers were commonly punished by refusal of burial.
In Athens itself the violation of a temple was punish-
able by death (Demosthenes 24.120), as was, in prin-
ciple, the uprooting of sacred olive trees (Aristotle,
Ath. Pol. 60.2; cf. Lysias 7). On the cutting of sacred
vines specifically, see Thucydides 3, 70 and Parker
1983 (p. 165, n. 21). For an overview of the whole
238
This content downloaded from 66.194.72.152 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 15:47:03 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
question of sacrilege, see Parker 1983 (pp. 144-90).
On the violation of temples in wartime, see Sordi
1984.
6. Thucydides' Melians, who have led a life far
more sheltered than have the Athenians and Boeo-
tians, imply that piety includes justice (and so that
all injustice is impious) (5.104). It appears, however,
to have been the predominant view at Athens by this
time that only certain human offenses were of con-
cern to the gods, namely the injustices (such as
homicide and temple robbery) that were also im-
pieties or specific affronts to the gods. See, most
recently, Mikalson 1983 (pp. 27-30).
7. Pritchett (1980, 295-97) suggests that in seizing
Delion the Athenians selected what was topograph-
ically the best site in the entire region. As he has
written me, "Itwas this or nothing." The availability
of the lustral water must itself have been a necessary
strategic asset of the place. On the watery bases of
Greek sanctuaries, see Panessa 1983.
References
Ciccio,Michela.1984."Guerre,staseis,e asylianella
Grecia del V secolo A.C." In I Santuarie la
guerra nel mondo classico, ed. Marta Sordo.
Milan:Universitacattolicadel Sacro Cuore.
Ducrey, Pierre. 1985. Guerreet guerriersdans la
Greceantique.Fribourg,Switz.: Officedu livre.
Garlan, Yvon. 1972. La Guerre dans l'antiquite.
Paris:FAC FernandNathan.
Gomme, Arnold W. 1956. A HistoricalCommen-
tary on Thucydides,Vol. 3. Oxford:Clarendon.
Grote, George.1907. A Historyof Greece.Rev. ed.
Vol. 5. London:JohnMurray.
Lateiner,Donald. 1977. "Heraldsand Corpses in
Thucydides."ClassicalWorld71:97-106.
Lonis, Raoul. 1969. Les Usagesde la guerre entre
Grecset Barbares.Paris:Les BellesLettres.
Mikalson,Jon D. 1983. AthenianPopularReligion.
ChapelHill:Universityof North CarolinaPress.
Palmer, Michael. 1982. "Alcibiadesand the Ques-
tion of Tyrannyin Thucydides."CanadianJour-
nal of PoliticalScience15:103-24.
Panessa,Giangiacomo.1983. "Leresorseidrichedei
santuarigreci nei loro aspettigiuridicied econ-
omici."Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore
di Pisa (Classedi Letteree Filosofia),Serie3; 13,
1:359-87.
Parker,Robert.1983.Miasma:Pollutionand Purifi-
cation in EarlyGreekReligion.Oxford:Claren-
don.
Pouncey, Peter. 1980. The Necessitiesof War:A
Study of Thucydides'Pessimism. New York:
ColumbiaUniversityPress.
Pritchett, William Kendrick. 1980. Studies in
Ancient Greek Topography. Pt. 3. Berkeley:
Universityof CaliforniaPress.
Pritchett,WilliamKendrick.1985. The GreekState
 Thucydides'Delian Debate

at War. Pt. 4. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Rawlings, Hunter R., III. 1981. The Structure of
Thucydides' History. Princeton: Princeton Uni-
versity Press.
Schneider, Christoph. 1974. Information und
Absicht bei Thukydides. G6ttingen: Vanden-
hoek & Ruprecht.
Sordi, Marta. 1984. 11 santuario di Olimpia e la
guerra d'Elide." In I santuari e la guerra nel
mondo classic, ed. Marta Sordi. Milan: Univer-
sita cattolica del Sacro Cuore.
Strasburger, Hermann. 1968. 'Thukydides und die
politische Selbstdarstellung der Athener." In
Thukydides, ed. Hans Herter. Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Strauss, Leo. [19771. 1964. The City and Man. Re-
print. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Thucydides. 1890. The Fourth Book of Thucydides.
Ed. A. T. Barton and A. S. Chavasse. London:
Longmous, Green.
Thucydides. 1963-72. La Guerre de Pgloponnese.
Ed. Louis Bodin, Jacqueline de Romilly, and
Raymond Weil. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

Clifford Orwin is Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Toronto,

Toronto M5S lAL, Canada.

Forthcomingin June "LandInequalityand Political Violence."

A Controversy.
The following articles, controversy, Brian Pollins. "Does Trade Follow the
and researchnotes have been tentatively Flag?A Model of InternationalDiploma-
scheduledfor publicationin the June1989 cy and Commerce."
issue: Robert Powell. "Nuclear Deterrence
and the Strategyof LimitedRetaliation."
Alberto Alesina and Howard Rosen- JeffreyA. Segal and Albert D. Cover.
thal. "PartisanCycles in Congressional "Ideological Values and the Votes of
Electionsand the Macroeconomy." Supreme Court Justices." A Research
Richard L. Allen, Michael C. Dawson, Note.
and Ronald E. Brown. "A Heuristicand John Strate, CharlesJ. Parrish,Charles
Schema Approach to Modeling an Afri- D. Elder, and Coit Ford III. "Life Span
can-AmericanRacialBelief System." Civic Development and Voting Partici-
Steven L. Burg and Michael L. Ber- pation."
baum. "Community, Integration, and Michael Wallerstein. "Union Growth
Stability in MultinationalYugoslavia." from the Unions' Perspective: Why
Robert A. Erikson. "EconomicCondi- Smaller Countries Are More Highly
tions and the PresidentialVote." A Re- Organized."
searchNote. Kenneth Waltz. APSA Presidential
Milton Lodge, Kathleen M. McGraw, Address.
and PatrickStroh. "Two Models of Can- Michael D. Ward and Alex Mintz.
didate Evaluations." "Electoral Cycles, Corporate Profits,
EdwardN. Muller, Mitchell A. Selig- Security Threats, and Military Expendi-
son, Hung-derFu, and ManusMidlarsky. tures in Israel, 1960-1984.

239

This content downloaded from 66.194.72.152 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 15:47:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions