This book is an exercise in reception studies. It explores the different ways that six biographies of the twentieth century portrayed the Athenian statesman Pericles. The choice of subject grows out of D.T.'s earlier work on the classical tradition, especially in France, but he was drawn to Pericles because of the varying appraisals of his career offered by his biographers. The works selected are an eclectic mix, written in three different languages. They include two Italian-language works, G. De Sanctis, Pericle (1944), A.-M. Levi, Pericle. Un uomo, un regime, un cultura (1980); two French-language, M. Delcourt, Périclès (1939), L. Homo, Périclès: une expérience de démocratie dirigée (1954); and two in English, D. Kagan, Périclès. La naissance de la démocratie (2008), a translation of Pericles of Athens and the Birth of Democracy (1991) and A.R. Burn, Pericles and Athens (1948). D.T. is struck by the lack of uniformity in interpretations of Pericles' career despite the limited sources available, and that leads him in his introductory chapter to consider the possibility of knowing the real Pericles and whether historical truth in any sense is attainable; hence, the book's subtitle. D.T. expresses doubts, but he addresses these questions only indirectly in subsequent chapters.
Six chapters, each devoted to an individual biography, form the heart of the book. These take the form of running commentaries, and D.T. quotes liberally to illustrate the views of each author. Echoes of contemporary events attract a fair amount of attention. Thus, De Sanctis's 1944 biography refers to Pericles and other Athenian leaders as ‘duce’ and is preoccupied in its discussion of Athenian expansion with the concept of ‘espace vital’ (p. 22), a phrase familiar in the context of pre-war Italian colonialism. Similarly, Burn, writing in 1948, suggested that the purpose of ostracism was to avoid ‘futurs Führers’ (p. 140) and characterised Spartan government as ‘national socialisme’ (p. 141). Other analogies are less charged but no less telling. The Belgian scholar Delcourt suggested that Athens risked becoming a ‘melting pot’ along the lines of an American city in the years before the citizenship law of Pericles; likewise, the Hippodamian plan of the Piraeus gave it the appearance of an American city. In these allusions D.T. detects the preoccupation with America that gripped many Europeans in the 1930s.
D.T. is more interested, however, in teasing out the social, political and nationalist sentiments that underlie each author's assessment of Pericles' life and achievements. In his view, the career of the Athenian general raises a host of issues, the treatment of which reveals an author's inner thoughts. The two Italian biographies are the clearest cases. De Sanctis, for example, took a largely favourable attitude towards Athenian expansion during the fifth century, the provision of pay for public service and public works. Approval of the first, according to D.T., can be understood in light of Italian colonialism in the early twentieth century, while approbation of the latter two policies grew out of De Sanctis's Catholic faith and its teachings on social justice. By contrast, Levi reached negative conclusions about most features of Pericles' career and fifth-century Athenian democracy: jury pay and other policies benefitting the poor came at the expense of Athenian society as a whole, while the empire was motivated by a simple desire for power and domination. These views and an overall contempt for the common people, according to D.T., are the product of Levi's youthful flirtation with fascism.
Personal politics also influence other Periclean biographers, although usually in more subtle ways. D.T. finds in the 1954 biography by Homo traces of contemporary debates about social security and the looming crisis in Algeria. In Homo's characterisation of Athenian democracy as one directed by and requiring strong leadership D.T. sees a conservative's criticism of the instability that characterised the contemporary French Fourth Republic. More pronounced is the influence of national background on the 1991 biography by Kagan, which is characterised by its author's pride in the American inheritance of Athenian democracy. This American perspective has the virtue of allowing Kagan to offer judgements of Athenian democratic practices quite different from his European counterparts. Even so, patriotism can sometimes get in the way. Though cognisant of the excesses of Athenian imperialism, Kagan is willing to allow that the empire brought some benefits to its subjects. D.T. asks whether this view is that of a citizen of an imperial power unable to understand the point of view of its subjects.
D.T.'s doubts of ever knowing the real Pericles do not keep him from judging some studies as more successful and enduring. He describes the biography by Delcourt as ‘one of the most successful biographies of this symbol of classical Greece that was Pericles’ (p. 109). Burn too draws praise not only for a well-written and learned study, but even more for a measured book written with a ‘flegme britannique’ (p. 160) that has allowed it to endure better than most. Like other biographies both exhibit the influence of their times and the biases of their authors. What sets them apart is their authors' restraint in both praise and blame and their sombre final remarks on Pericles' legacy (pp. 108–9, 159–60).
Two chapters, aptly labelled ‘Periclean digressions’, close the book. Chapter 7 summarises a 2008 issue of Le Nouvel Observateur that featured nearly 30 short articles on Pericles and fifth-century Athens by leading French scholars. More than anything, they confirm how contemporary concerns as much as historical analysis continue to shape the image of Pericles. A final chapter examines more closely the life of De Sanctis and the impact of contemporary events on his scholarship. It offers much deeper insights than the chapter devoted to his Periclean biography, but it seems out of place. Its presence only raises questions about the other biographers reviewed by D.T.; their lives, careers and scholarship receive little more than a paragraph or two. One wonders whether a similar examination of their careers and publications would permit better appreciation of their Periclean portraits.
This volume offers a fascinating survey of the image of Pericles offered by six historians of the twentieth century, including some not widely known or frequently cited in the English-speaking world. It succeeds in showing how an author's time, nationality and political leanings can affect the picture he or she paints of an ancient political personality. That said, it is difficult not to feel short changed. Chapters contain occasional cross references to others and compare the views of different biographers, but a larger synthesis, in the form of a concluding chapter, is lacking. D.T. includes an extensive bibliography, but the titles listed receive scant attention in the book itself, which also eschews footnotes. D.T. alludes on occasion to the changing view of Pericles in twentieth-century scholarship, but he offers no overview beyond the biographies examined. The contribution is worthwhile but limited, and a full assessment of Pericles' image in modern times remains to be written.
