vity was influenced by his tradition, where even Plato cast his speculations in the dramatic form of dialogue. Consequently speeches are very important in the History, they allow Thucydides a pretext to:"Make the speakers say what, in my opinion, was called for in each situation"Which we can interpret as what was called for to carry the dramatisation of events. This is shown by the artificial nature of many of the speeches. For instance the long range dialogue between Pericles and the Corinthians , whereby Pericles speaking to the Athenian assembly answers point by point the arguments the Corinthians made to the Spartan assembly some time previously. The unsatisfactory nature of his History is also shown in the context of the two-day assembly convened to consider the appeals from Corinth and Corcyra. The assembly originally favoured Corinth but on the second day they changed their minds, but the historian neglects to tell us how many changed, or what was Pericles' position. He is also vague at other points, for instance when the Corinthians condemn the Athenians to the Spartan assembly, there are some Athenians who were permitted to speak in defence of Athens, yet Thucydides doesn't tell us what they are doing in Sparta, or if they are officials with a brief. Indeed he leaves us to guess their motives, just as Thucydides guesses, or superimposes motives, especially with Cleon. This leads us to question his historical judgement.The speeches of Thucydides are problematic for accepting the adequacy of Thucydides as a historian. They are not exact transcripts and unlike reports of events, they could have been presented in word for word transcription. They are one part of his history where the precision he so craves could have been absolute; there should be no need for him: "To make speakers say what was called for on each occasion" The reported speech draws a comparison between his account and an idealised representation of an exact accou...
