A First-Lens analysis starts with the few people in positions of
authority to affect the direction of events. To begin, a First-Lens
analysis must determine who made or shaped the key choices. The First
Lens assumes that individuals are causal variables. Thus, once key
individuals are identified, analysis must focus on the attributes of
those individuals that influenced certain decisions. What were their
motivations and intentions? Did their personal backgrounds shape their
decision making?
In the case of Thucydides, a First-Lens focus raises the issue of
historical accuracy. Thucydides recounts the Peloponnesian War by
presenting key leaders' speeches instead of the standard military
historical narrative that details battles and alliance-making.
Classicists
argue
about the accuracy of
these speeches. Does Thucydides provide verbatim transcripts, or are
the speeches reconstructions of the speaker's general message? Can we
ascribe a particular argument to a particular person, or does each
speech reflect an opinion held by an entire political faction? The
debate over accuracy revolves, in particular, around Thucydides's own
statement that "my method has been, while keeping as closely as
possible to the general sense of the words that were actually used, to
make the speakers say what, in my opinion, was called for by each
situation" (Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War. Translated by Rex
Warner. New York: Penguin Classics, 1985, p. 47). Exactly how much
interpretation and bias might flow from
Thucydides's opinion
is difficult to
determine.
The problem of First-Lens accuracy, however, is not confined to the
study of ancient events. Evaluating speeches in modern case studies is
also a difficult research task. In many speeches, individuals are
attempting to reach several different audiences. This creates the
possibility that the same words might be interpreted very differently
by different audiences. Individuals may also wish to create a false
impression or confuse audiences through disinformation. It is
important, therefore, to examine the context of speecheslooking beyond
the actual wordsto ascertain the speaker's underlying intentions and
interests.
What role did individual leadership play in the outbreak of the
Peloponnesian War? Here, again, Thucydides is a problematic source. As
he recounts the war, he provides detailed descriptions of leaders and
analyses of their decisions. He clearly sees individuals as important
to the course of the war. However, in detailing the prelude to the war
and in addressing why the war began, Thucydides is much less
forthcoming. He offers minimal assessments of the specific role
critical leaders played in the final decisions in favor of war.
Despite this limitation, we have sufficient sources on one important
leader. A First-Lens analysis of why Athens and Sparta went to war must
consider the influence and decisions of the Athenian leader Pericles,
who, despite pursuing policies of moderation, became the deciding voice
in favor of war with Sparta.
First Lens Variable
PROFILE: PERICLES
|