David Javidzad, Précis

David Javidzad

Rhetoric 103A; Professor Carrico

GSI: Jerilyn Sambrooke

8 October 2016

Précis:

Corcyra’s Argument to Athens in The History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides

            In the first book of Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War, the Corcyraeans make an argument to Athens in order to convince them to form an alliance with them and give aid to them to fight Corinth, instead of Corinth themselves who desire aid to fight Corcyra. The first sentence, which introduces the argument, plays the role of a subsidiary conclusion: “in the event of your compliance,” say the Corcyraeans, “you will congratulate yourselves in this request having been made to you.” In other words, the Athenians will not regret, rather they will benefit from, having accepted the Corcyraeans’ offer. Here, the Corcyraeans are drawing a conclusion that appeals to Athens’ potentially benefitting from the alliance, and to Athens’ sense of self-interest.

This claim is supported by four premises that follow it, and the claim itself, is, in turn, used as support for the argument’s main conclusion: that Athens ought to accept Corcyra’s proposal, establish an alliance with them instead of Corinth, and form plans against Corinth. The premises and their implications, which support the subsidiary conclusion, and the subsidiary conclusion itself, all employ the appeal to Athens’ benefit in order to make the argument persuasive: the Corcyraeans do not make claims about their own profiting, their own expansion, or their own benefitting from the proposed alliance, and omitting these points is part of the argumentative and rhetorical strategy that makes their argument compelling to the Athenians, who end up complying with their request.

            The first premise proceeds by appealing to the Athenians’ sense of morality. The Corcyraeans assert that if the Athenians’ comply with their request for aid, the Athenians would be assisting the party victimized by their opponent’s injustice. By explaining that Athens would be helping the underdog, the Corcyraeans make a strategic argumentative move, showing that Athenians can be seen as a benevolent power, an important reputation for a powerful nation to have if they are to amass more power and further gain and expand. This premise has appeals to Athenians’ benefit in public image and reputation.

            The second premise follows from the first, in that it also expresses that as a consequence of the alliance with the Corcyraeans the Athenians will gain a reputation, image, and positive feeling of having goodwill. This is a separate premise because it mentions a different way in which the Athenians would achieve this goodwill; namely that they mention the Corcyraeans’ own projected gratitude for the Athenians. This, they say, will be proof of Athenian goodwill, and it is also mentioned with an implication that Corcyra will, in one way or another, be indebted to Athens— another way in which Athens will gain from the alliance.

            The Corcyraeans elaborate on the third premise the most, because its implications appealing to Athens’ benefit are the most quantitatively apparent, explicitly pragmatic, and economical for Athens. The argument in its entirety being based on this appeal, this premise carries the most weight for them, and helps logically lead to the main conclusion— that their request be complied with. They contend that their naval power is greater than any other state in the Hellas, and that by forming an alliance with Corcyra, “without danger and without expense,” Athens would gain a “high character in the eyes of the world” and “a great accession of strength for [Athens].” Clearly, they are conveying that the cost to Athens would be low, and the benefit high. By expressing that their naval power is great, they are implying that as a consequence of the alliance, Athens’ presence on the sea will be strengthened and feared. This projected benefit for Athens is enticing, because it plays on Athens’ desire to lead all the Greeks.

            Finally, the Corcyraeans contend that Corinth’s main purpose in planning to attack Corcyra is to eliminate the unification of Corcyra and Athens and therefore to keep Athens weak enough for Corinth to attack them afterwards. This figures into the argument’s persuasion interestingly: it rhetorically describes the proposed alliance as absolutely necessary. The implication here is that the proposed alliance would be extremely valuable to Athens, so much so, that it is the exact thing that adversaries are hoping they do not do; it would, in the adversaries’ eyes, make Athens too powerful— the ultimate appeal to Athens’ benefit.

            These four premises support the argument’s subsidiary conclusion that Athens will be more than satisfied with the results of establishing an alliance with Corcyra. That intermediate conclusion, in turn, is used as logical support for the main conclusion that Athens ought to establish the alliance. The argument employs a strategic sense of appeal that ultimately gets Corcyra what they want.