[Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review]
This edited volume is rooted in a panel of the same name, “Misinformation, Disinformation, and Propaganda in Greek Historiography,” at the Eleventh Celtic Conference in Classics, University of Coimbra, 2019. The overarching aim of this volume is to consider how Greek historians and a range of cultural critics not only conceived of and identified the prevalence of misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda in their world but also how they may have accelerated the development of these phenomena, either through intellectual autopsy or by their purposeful manipulation.
Carolyn Dewald’s Introduction explores the Greek concept of μῆτις. She suggests that this term, interpreted here as “a power of cunning and deceit, operating through disguise” (p. 1),[1] might function as an imperfect yet reasonable shorthand for the book’s closely interrelated tripartite and titular themes, which represent the “darker and more dangerous sides of μῆτις” (p. 3). Dewald stresses that the ancient Greeks would have little issue in grasping our modern conceptions of misinformation, disinformation, or propaganda, and that deliberative cunning and wily deception were not only deeply embedded in Greek culture but also underpin the literary tradition back to Hesiod and Homer, who both recognized them as advantageous devices exploited by heroes and gods. As Paula Debnar states in her chapter on Thucydides, “treating truth creatively has a distinguished Greek pedigree” (p. 47).
The volume is sub-divided into four parts: Herodotus (two chapters); Thucydides (five chapters); Xenophon and early fourth-century historiography (three chapters); and Hellenistic historiography (one chapter).
In Chapter One, Rosaria Munson examines how Herodotus represents the Persians. She argues that the Persians are often portrayed as individuals obsessed with discussing and debating matters of truth and falsehood, seemingly to distinguish themselves and their identity as purveyors of sincere honesty. They are depicted throughout the Histories as inclined to make gnomic remarks regarding fact and fiction, yet also as characteristically self-aware that dishonesty and misrepresentation was a distinguishing Persian trait. Munson persuasively argues that the “meta-discourse on truthfulness and lying is remarkably pervasive and complex in the various intentional histories that serve the purpose of Greek self-definition” (pp. 18-19). For Munson, the Histories reveal Herodotus’ struggle to produce authentic and sincere historical writing despite the propagandistic framework that was deeply embedded within the consciousness of the Persians concerning their own historical narrative.
In Chapter Two, Denis Correa explores how Herodotus advanced the methodological approach of source criticism within historiographical writing, in particular how a historian can present evidence and statements either from eyewitnesses or from other historical sources without immediately advocating for their truthfulness or erroneousness. The historian can, instead work through the material categorically and distinguish truth from lie from misunderstanding so as to assemble as accurate a historical narrative as the limited evidence allows. Correa, thus, argues that Herodotus was, at least at times, aware of the difference that exists between communication and information, between selective remembrance and elective negligence, and the difference between unmindful reportage of mistruth and purposeful misrepresentation or deception. Herodotus’ frequent expositions of methodology and criticism of earlier sources, largely centered on geographical misinformation, suggest that he attempted to maintain distance from preceding investigators and their conclusions. The Herodotus that emerges from Correa’s investigation sought to safeguard himself from his own sources despite exhibiting little, if any, interest in simply ignoring bad data and information.
In Chapter Three, Paula Debnar explores the variegated approach to misinformation and disinformation in Thucydides. She presents a range of case studies that highlight well the spectrum of liar in the History. On the one end of the scale for Debnar is Themistocles, whom she argues Thucydides does not vilify as a liar acting in bad faith, but likens to Odysseus. This is partly rooted in how Themistocles’ lies, in Thucydides’ depiction, are not only successful, indicating his cunning intelligence (1.138.3), but also aimed at self-preservation (1.137.4). The actions and deceptive behavior of Themistocles reveal his loyalty to the Greek cause in the war with Persia more than they indicate any flaw of his character.
In Chapter Four, Donald Lateiner examines disinformation, which he argues is an unavoidable phenomenon in all war efforts, during the Peloponnesian War. More specifically, he considers how Thucydides recorded and reported contemporary discourses of propaganda and deception. Lateiner argues that Thucydides was adept at recognizing when political actors purposefully employed disinformation strategies, which were often reported through rhetorical antithesis between logos and ergon. Thucydides’ use of prophasis operated as a characteristic signal of one’s misrepresentation of an ulterior motive. He traces this usage through a sampling of Thucydides’ prose, which results in a “record of inconsistencies, falsehoods, and disconnects between facts, policies, and public pronouncements” (p. 69).
In Chapter Five, Cinzia Bearzot explores the disinformation strategies of Alcibiades. Her interests are less in an exposition and analysis of the lies themselves than in an exploration of how Thucydides attempted to extrapolate a reasonably accurate historical narrative from the array of secret conversations and meetings. Bearzot convincingly argues that Thucydides recurrently made use of signposting to his audience to indicate that certain events or conversations occurred either in secret (krupha) or in private (idiai), terms found together no fewer than 52 times in the History. This is a particularly significant problem for Alcibiades, since “everything concerning Alcibiades, whose story was characterized by sudden changes of political perspective, not always easily explainable, was often shrouded, if not in mystery, at least in fog” (p. 103).
In Chapter Six, Thomas Figueira assesses the veracity and the strategies of pre-war posturing in 2.8 and Thucydides’ anticipation of the eventual breakdown of Spartan enthusiasm. Figueira engages with Thucydides’ narrative style, emphasizing the use of metaphors and contrasting sentiments, to reveal layers of meaning concerning Greek political culture and the dynamics of warfare. Figueira uncovers a complex interplay of political psychology, military actions, and public sentiment that shaped the early years of the Peloponnesian War. He presents 2.8 as unusual for Thucydides, insofar as it contains no less than three intertexts. Thus, Thucydides’ concentration of contrived speeches here reveals the sensitivity of the subject matter at hand. Moreover, Thucydides’ employment of the methodological approach to offer commentary on or to color the presentation of divisive issues through the veil of another’s words serves as a classic Ellulian example of the exploit of the illusion of objectivity and pre-propaganda conditioning.[2]
In Chapter Seven, Ryan K. Balot examines Pericles’ funeral oration, underscoring its distinctive position within the epitaphic genre by accentuating its emphases on chief democratic ideals, including particularly freedom, courage, and rationality. For Balot, it juxtaposes the exaltation of Athenian virtue and exceptionalism against the physical and emotional toll inflicted by war, as depicted in Thucydides’ historical narrative. He scrutinizes the speech’s dual nature as both rational appeal and emotional propaganda alongside considerations of its reception and enduring impact on democratic audiences. Balot critiques the disparity between Pericles’ idealism and the concrete realities of war, emphasizing the recurring theme of responsibility regarding the complexities of Athenian imperialism and the dual nature of rhetoric (e.g., whether it serves as a genuine inquiry into democracy or as propaganda masking deeper realities and motivations).
In Chapter Eight, William S. Morison analyzes the character of Kritias as portrayed in Plato’s Timaeus/Critias, focusing on his role as a proponent of oligarchic ideals and critic of Athenian democracy. Morison argues that the historical Kritias likely did, as reported by Plato, promote pro-oligarchic ideology and propaganda through his rhetorical invention of the myth of ur-Athens, a utopian polis purposely presented on a blueprint of Sparta, emphasizing the superiority of oligarchic governance, ethical behavior, and traditional values. Morison’s reflection on Kritias through the lens of oligarchic thought in classical Athens as both a historical figure and as a literary character results in significant insights. Two brief examples will suffice. First, the rise of Kritias during the political upheaval following in the wake of the Peloponnesian War indicates both the relative success of Kritias’ propaganda and the susceptibility and (willing) acceptability of its appeals among Athenians. Second, Kritias emerges as representative of a crucial, if not largely consequential, voice in the opposition to Athenian democratic ideals.
In Chapter Nine, Matthew R. Christ examines Xenophon’s portrayal of Kritias and the Thirty. Christ argues that Xenophon makes (exaggerated) use of Theramenes as means to promote the notion of resistance to the Thirty, presenting him as representing moral opposition to the tyrannical actions of Kritias and his followers. Xenophon’s narrative of the reign of the Thirty is not only a (quasi-)historical account but a means of reconciling past actions within Athenian society. The narrative seems to cleanse Xenophon and his fellow elites of shame for past collaboration during the brutal and oppressive regime. Christ argues that Xenophon sincerely constructed a framework that scapegoats certain individuals and portrays himself and his fellow elites as victims, allowing supporters of the regime to avoid collective guilt. This selective representation invites critical reflection on the nature of historical narratives and their power to shape identity and memory among those who lived through tumultuous periods.
In Chapter Ten, Ellen Millender explores the role of duplicity within Spartan society, critiquing of Xenophon’s portrayal of Klearkhos in the Anabasis. She argues that while Xenophon was a Laconophile, he nonetheless critiques their deceitfulness, especially in his treatment of Klearkhos, whom Xenophon considered to be a master manipulator and disseminator of misinformation—not unlike Brasidas as portrayed by Thucydides. Xenophon is a particularly rich case study for Millender, since he praises the use of deception, lying, and misinforming in some instances (An. 2.1.21-23; Cyr.1.6.26-41; Hipp. 4.10; 4.12; 4.17-20; 5.2-15), while disapproving of them in others (Ages. 1.17; 6.5; Mem. 4.2.13-17). The figure of Klearkhos, who embodied for Xenophon “the very foundations of Spartan society”, offered Xenophon a potent means for assessing Spartan society, which, as Millender concludes, “produced bellicose and untrustworthy leaders who were incapable of fostering true devotion among those under their control and thereby failed to create and maintain a stable political and social order” (p. 190).
In the final contribution, Chapter Eleven, Luke Madson explores the literary and historical significance of the Hellenistic epic Messeniaka, composed by the historicizing poet Rhianus of Bene. This chapter provides fitting closure to the work, since it turns to the third century bc historians and poets in considering the same issue that haunted Herodotus, namely the trustworthiness of sources for the distant past. Madson reveals how the Hellenistic poetic narratives served both as catalysts for mythmaking and also as commentaries on contemporary issues, including medical advancements. His analysis suggests that the variations one encounters in historical accounts of Aristomenes’ death (e.g., that his heart had grown hair) reflect complex cultural dynamics within Messenian society and underscore a range of broader implications of identity, memory, and historical representation in ancient narratives.
This volume presents both a satisfying and sweeping range of chronological coverage and adequate diversity of attention to the three titular thematic motifs of misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda. However, the work is not without some problems. First, while the Introduction is very well done and offers a concise and informative synopsis of the collection of contributions, the book has no conclusion. This is unfortunate, since a cohesive overview of the results of the individual contributions and the work as a whole, the volume’s overall significance, and suggestions for future research directions would have been most welcome. Second, while the editors and many of the contributors deserve praise for using regular internal cross-referencing, consistency between authors is lacking. For instance, the volume does not adhere to a universal approach to how Greek words are reproduced (some authors transliterate into English, others maintain the Greek, and often the same words are treated differently). Third, there is no volume-wide format for Greek names, as some contributors prefer traditional rendering of Greek names into English while others prefer those closer to the original Greek. This is much more than a minor irritation, since this renders the Index deeply flawed: page numbers are only listed for the form of the name that corresponds to the one present in the Index. Typographical errors are very rare.[3]
Altogether, Misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda in Greek historiography achieves its aim in elucidating how Greek historians from the Classical to the Hellenistic Age engaged with misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda in their societies and how they too, directly and indirectly, intentionally and inadvertently may also inspired and furthered the spread of these practices in Greek literature. This volume is a valuable contribution to the scholarship of Greek literature, political history, historiography, and provides a bridge between the fields of Classics and Propaganda Studies.
Authors and Titles
Introduction (Carolyn Dewald, Bard College, USA)
Part I: Herodotus
- A Different Persian ‘Debate’ in Herodotus: On Truth and Falsehood (Rosaria Munson)
- Misinformed Rivals: Agonistic Intertextuality and Hypoleptic Discourse in Herodotus (Denis Correa)
Part II: Thucydides
- Lies and Liars in Thucydides (Paula Debnar)
- Disinformation, Especially Spartan, in Thucydides: Account of the “Ten Years War” (Donald Lateiner)
- Alcibiades: Secrecy, Private Initiative and Manipulation (Cinzia Bearzot)
- Thucydides 2.8.4-5 and the Nature of Ideological Sympathy in Fifth-Century Interstate Politics (Thomas Figueira)
- Propaganda in Periclean Funeral Oration? (Ryan Balot)
Part III: Xenophon and Early Fourth Century Historiography
- Kritias of Athens and Oligarchic Propaganda in Late Fifth-Century Athens (William S. Morison)
- Xenophon’s Partisan Account of the Thirty (Matthew Christ)
- Klearchos the Warmonger or Klearchos the Cheat? Xenophon’s Silence on Spartan Deception in the Anabasis (Ellen Millender)
Part IV: Hellenistic Historiography
- The Herophilos Hypothesis and the Hairy Heart of Aristomenes of Messene (Luke Madson)
Notes
[1] This definition is borrowed from Vernant and Detienne. For more, see Detienne, M. and Vernant, J.-P. 1991. Cunning Intelligence in Greek Culture and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[2] For more, see Ellul, Jacques. 1962. Propagandes, pp. 22-32; 43-46; 64-70.
[3] Only one was noticed by the reviewer in a sentence that reads “…if they decided in consort” rather than what most certainly intended, “…if they decided in concert” (p. 94).