In his chapter on ‘Thucydides and ξυγγένεια (kinship)’, S. Hornblower remarked that ‘kinship is more prominent in Thucydides than is sometimes realized’ (A Commentary on Thucydides, vol. 2. [1996], p. 61). F.'s book, which derives from her 2010 UCL dissertation, pursues Hornblower's approach and offers the first systematic treatment of the topic. The book sheds light on the importance of the phenomenon of kinship in Thucydides and the historian's artistry in handling it. It consists of eight chapters, two appendixes, a rich bibliography and two indexes (an index locorum and a general index).
In the introduction F. sets the theoretical framework of her study. She discerns two categories of kinship: (a) kinship based on descent through colonisation or racial affiliation and (b) ‘created kinship’ (or ‘relatedness’), which does not involve descent; xenia, proxenia, grants of citizenship and shared cults belong to this second category. F.'s study draws inspiration from anthropological approaches, as well as from post-colonialism, network and ethnicity theories. The second chapter analyses the terminology of kinship in Thucydides: terms which are directly related to kinship (ξυγγενής/ξυγγένεια, ἄποικος/ἀποικία, μητρόπολις, οἰκεῖος/οἰκειότης) and terms and expressions which allude to it (the expression ἀπὸ + genitive, ethnic names, the words πάτριος, ἀρχαῖος, ὁμόϕυλος, ἀλλόϕυλος) or appear at first sight as neutral (such as the word καθηγησαμένου, which evokes the act of a founder of a colony). F.'s analyses are subtle and do justice to Thucydides' rich terminology. Especially important is the distinction F. proposes between ξυγγενής and οἰκεῖος, stressing the emotional connotations of the latter (p. 44). This chapter could have been enriched by an analysis of terms related to ϕιλία, since ϕιλία also often occurs in contexts of kinship (see, for instance, Thuc. 1.35.5).
The next two chapters focus on specific episodes of the History, in which the topic of kinship is prominent. Chapter 3 deals with Corinth. F. demonstrates the complexity of colonial interactions, which revolve around Epidamnus: Epidamnus is related to both Corcyra (her mother-city) and Corinth (the mother-city of Corcyra). The speeches of the Corinthians and the Corcyraeans in front of the Athenians in 433 b.c. exemplify the problems posed by kinship relationships: the Corinthians complain that the Corcyraeans do not respect colonial hierarchy, while the Corcyraeans protest, for their part, that their mother-city treats them like slaves. Corinth is also related to Syracuse, since it was founded by Archias, a Heraclid from Corinth. Thucydides' narrative stresses both the connections of Syracuse with Corinth (e.g. he presents Corinthian individuals with key roles) and its distinct Siceliot identity. Chapter 4 explores Aeolian kinship. F. outlines the sources that attest to a connection between Sparta and Aeolia (e.g. Hesiod's Catalogue of Women, in which Aeolus and Dorus are depicted as brothers, and the Homeric Hymn to Heracles, in which the Dorian hero is born in Thebes). Thucydides also labels Corinthians as Aeolians (4.42.2). The Mytilenean and the Plataean debates provide material for these multiple colonial interactions. The Mytileneans are characterised as ξυγγενεῖς Βοιωτῶν and during their first revolt they are assisted by the Thebans. Furthermore, the speech of the Mytileneans takes place in Olympia, a pan-hellenic venue, but with a special Dorian character. It is also intriguing that a Lesbian city, Methymna, is related to Athens through its democratic constitution and bonds of proxenia. The Plataean episode shows how the kinship theme can give rise to divergent theorisations by opposing parties. The Plataeans appeal to the shared memory of the past (the Persian Wars, ‘panhellenic kinship’) in their effort to persuade the Spartans to spare them. They characterise the Thebans as ἐχθίστους, because they sided with the Persians. The Thebans accuse the Plataeans of their attachment to Athens (ἀττικισμόν), which represents a rupture of Αeolian kinship ties (between Plataea and Thebes). F. rightly observes that the special attachment of the Plataeans to the Athenians resembles in many aspects colonial relationships. She offers further explanations for this bond (such as the granting of Athenian citizenship to the Plataeans, interpersonal relationships and shared cults). Overall, however, although kinship figures in the antilogies of these two episodes, it does not seem to play a decisive role for the decisions of either the Athenians to spare the Mytileneans or the Spartans to condemn the Plataeans. This ‘irrelevance’ of kinship factor could suggest, although F. does not reach this conclusion, that Thucydides is also interested in highlighting the limitations of kinship arguments.
The next two chapters deal with Sparta and Athens. Concerning Sparta, F. comments on the foundation of Heraclea Trachinia by the Spartans in 426 b.c., which responded to a call from Doris, their mother-city. Among other places with Spartan ties, Melos has a more prominent position in Thucydides' History due to the famous Melian Dialogue. F. analyses the ethical and emotional language of kinship employed by the Melians: they hope that the Spartans, their mother-city, will assist them. Finally, F. investigates Sparta's ties of relatedness. Particularly interesting is F.'s analysis concerning Amphipolis, a city which renounced its kinship ties with Athens and decided to adopt a Spartan (Brasidas) as a new oikist. Chapter 6 discusses two major themes, Ionianism and autochthony, the two ‘cornerstones of Athenian identity’ (p. 210). F. highlights the importance of these themes in specific episodes of the History, such as the purification of Delos (the Ionian island par excellence) and the synoikismos (Thuc. 2.15). F. could have also commented on the suppression of the Ionian revolt from Thucydides' narrative. Athens' ties of relatedness concern the Achaean Zacynthus, as well as the Thracians and Molossians. The last chapter is devoted to Sicilian communities which side with Athens during the Sicilian expedition, despite their Dorian self and connections (the Etruscans, the Iapygians, the Messapians and the Sicels). The reasons for their pro-Athenian stance were political (the oppression they felt by the Syracusans or other Sicilian pro-Dorian cities). Egesta is significant in Thucydides' narrative, since her appeal to the Athenians was the pretext for the Sicilian expedition.
The appendices are very useful: the first one revisits the issue of cleruchies, by stressing their emotional and religious dimension and by offering nuanced and convincing interpretations of the relevant terminology in Thucydides. The second appendix is a comparative listing of cities and intercommunal relationships in Herodotus and Thucydides. This listing confirms F.'s observation about the complementarity between the two authors on the issue of kinship (e.g. Thucydides provides information about issues on which Herodotus is more reticent and vice versa). Certain parts of the book (such as the sympotic character of the Melian Dialogue, the dating of Thuc. 2.15 and the Hellenistic inscription about Athens) could have been also included in appendixes, since they tend to interrupt the main line of argumentation. I found F.'s close analyses of specific terms very rewarding (e.g. the distinction between παρέδοσαν and παρέλαβον, or κακουργέω, ῶ and δῃόω). Equally interesting are the interpretations of intratextual references in Thucydides and the analysis of narrative devices (delay of information, reticence and suppression, narrative dislocation). The book is well edited and almost free from typos. Given the plethora and complexity of information about kinship ties, a map (or maps) would have been helpful. F.'s book is a thorough and stimulating investigation of the complex phenomenon of kinship in Thucydides. At the same time, it is a continuation of (and a tribute to) the important scholarship of S. Hornblower.
