The razing of Melos, and the selling of its inhabitants into slavery, was not a ” Strutture e funzione del dialogo in Tucidide e in PseudoSenofonte”, In , La . El diálogo de los melios es un pasaje perteneciente al Libro V () de la Historia de la Guerra del Peloponeso, escrita por el historiador griego Tucídides. Přečtěte si nejlepší citáty od autora Tucídides. Para el político ateniense homónimo, véase Tucídides. Tucídides fue un h.
|Published (Last):||25 November 2005|
|PDF File Size:||20.55 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||15.22 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Robert Walter RobertThucydides, Includes bibliographical references and index. History of the Peloponnesian War. Greece—History—Peloponnesian War, B. For almost half of that time I have been at work on this book. The debts melis accumulates over such a period one cannot accurately calculate or adequately acknowledge.
If I leave nameless the teachers, colleagues, students, readers and listeners, editors, research assistants and typists, all friends and fellow inquirers, it is not from want of gratitude.
To the named and the unnamed my warmest thanks. During the first Cold War it seemed self-evident that the world was dividing into two camps. Thucydides’ work revealed a precedent for our own polarized world, and might, we hoped, provide a guide through the perils of contemporary international affairs. Despite the obscurity of his style and undeniable complexity of thought, he was one of the most lucid of ancient writers. Marshall Research Foundation in Lexington Virginia for assistance in finding the quotation.
Halle, of the policy planning staff of the Department of State. It contained the following section: It seems to me that since World War II Thucydides has come still closer to us so that he now speaks to our idalogo. These sentences are excerpted from pages It was easy to feel that we knew what Thucydides was saying, even if the form of his expression, the origin and development of his thought, and many other issues remained to be resolved. He was a writer who spoke directly to our own condition; to enrich his account by careful study of the epigraphical and other evidence about Athens and her sialogo seemed to me a more pressing task for classical scholarship than further exegesis of his Histories.
Batalla de Melos
First, what scholarship had long designated “the Thucydidean question” seemed, if not dead, at least moribund. Despite occasional essays by separatist critics, it was clear by the s tuciddes this effort had bogged down and was unlikely ever to fulfill its promise.
The most illuminating Thucydidean studies were works such as John Finley’s that emphasized the fundamental unity and coherence of the work. A second confirmation came from the New Criticism then so tucidies in American studies of literature. These critics taught us to look at the “work as work, rather than the processes by which a work came into being—the background, the creative process, or, on the other hand, the way in which one reads or misreads it.
However great our good will, when we read a text we always have at our disposal information that is exterior to the text. This information is absolutely indispensable to the intellection of a work. Scholarship makes strange carrell mates. The antihistorical tendency within the New Criticism was not entirely uncongenial to some of us with strong historical interests.
It liberated us from the effort to construct an intellectual biography of Thucydides, reinforced those interpretations of xialogo text that emphasized its unity and made it possible to get on with the pressing task of synthesizing Thucydides and the other evidence for the period. In the same way the prevalent assumptions about the text made it easy for political philosophers and political scientists to extract from the work a series of propositions about his political views tucisides the empire, democracy, Realpolitik, and the like.
If this sounded suspiciously like the construction of the prose-paraphrases that the New Critics so deplored, it was at least a convenient approach, one that made it possible to treat Thucydides as a thinker and to extract some useful messages from his work: Strange, and wondrous synthesis this—Thucydides simultaneously the prophet of our own age, the quarry for historical constructions, the scientist and the political philosopher! The historian was not far from the scientist, if, like Thucydides, he was willing to detach himself from personal involvement about the events he described.
Thucydides – PDF Free Download
The result would be a cool and objective account, carefully excluding bias and emotion, and leading ultimately to truths of general applicability. Now we all recognize this paradigm was naive and simplistic. It does 6 Introduction not describe what scientists do, still less what historians do, nor does it account for the recurring paradox of the Histories: Thucydidean scholarship in the s and s became intensely aware of this paradox.
We began to confront a Thucydides who profoundly cared about the events of the war and who, it appeared, wanted his readers to share the intensity of tuxidides own reactions.
It was a relationship between reader and author, not one between author and his subject matter. The initial reaction of classical scholars to this suspicion was shock and complaint: But tucidises, without discussing sources, you present everything as auta ta erga 1. We lost a great deal in the s and s, including many of the old certainties and assumptions about Thucydides, objectivity, and the process of writing history. The synthesis that many American classicists of my generation had relied upon in forming an approach to Thucydides now eialogo dubious.
At least that meloa the case for me. The wonderful smugness of our Cold War view of foreign policy disintegrated. The polarization that had 3 This shift in Thucydidean criticism is discussed in greater detail in “A Post Modernist Thucydides? Wallace, tuciides Phoenix 18 But above all it was the shattering experience of the Vietnam War that made me reconsider the Histories.
But I can be quite precise about the moment when I began to think about Thucydides in a new way. In the middle of the Vietnamese War, when it seemed impossible to think of almost anything else, I remember reading an essay in the New Yorker on dia,ogo destruction of Vietnam. The issue was dated March 9,— the very height of the conflict. Five hundred and forty-two American soldiers had been killed in the previous week; the following day the papers reported General Westmoreland’s request fortroops to be added to the existing American force ofThe essay, by Jonathan Schell, began: I shall not discuss the moral ramifications of that presence.
I shall simply try to set down what I saw and heard first hand during several weeks I spent with mrlos armed forces in South Vietnam last summer. I have no wish to pass judgment on the individual Americans fighting in Vietnam. I wish merely to record what I witnessed. The historian selects his material.
The article was tucididees expanded into a book, The Military Half: Tucidodes Athenaios; the modesty of the verb of reporting: Although the historian may, in form, abstain from value judgments of his own, they are eialogo between the lines, and act as such upon the reader.
The effect, then, as in Rankc, for example, is often more profound and moving than if the evaluation were to appear directly in the guise of moralizing, and therefore it is even to be recommended as an artifice.
The historian’s implicit value judgment arouses the reader’s own evaluating activity more strongly dilogo one which is explicit. As I tried to test this new approach to Thucydides, I was no longer troubled by the feeling that there was something wrong in using objectivity as an authorial stance rather than as a principle or goal.
It now became possible to give passages their full emotional force and to recognize the role of suffering in the work. I could read Thucydides with an understanding and a fullness of response that hitherto had seemed impossible.
But at the same time many old questions about the work were re-opened. During the Cold War it had been easy to read Thucydides as the recorder, perhaps even the advocate, of a law of the stronger.
Great Powers naturally imposed their wills; lesser powers accommodated dialofo were crushed. Now, as I began to look at the detachment and irony in the text in a new way, what was I to make of its emphasis on the inexorable operations of power? Various answers to this question were proposed in the scholarship of the s and s. Some represented Thucydides as the spokesman for a very traditional, almost archaic, morality. Others, following Geoffrey de Ste. This seemed to me to account for the intensity of the account of the Corcyrean revolution but not for the tone of episodes such as the punishments of Plataea and Mytilene.
But there was always the nagging fear that misled by the spirit of the times I was imposing my own views and preferences upon Thucydides. The words of Ben Perry troubled me: Franklin in Varieties of History, 2nd ed.
Stem New York Introduction 9 cordial disapproval of imperial ruthlessness, you fail to see that in the Melian Dialogue, for instance, the folly of dialogl Melians rather than the cruelty of the Athenians is the chief subject of contemplation. Thucydides has the strange faculty of seeing and telling the plain truth of a matter without tuicdides in any way to bring it into line with the cherished beliefs of men.
For that reason he has often escaped comprehension. It drove me to look more critically at the role of the reader in the text. A second set of questions, equally if less obviously connected with the climate of the time, concerned the role of reason, its ability to predict and shape the future, and the relative optimism or pessimism of the work.
The most powerful critique was the pessimistic work by Hans-Peter Stahl, Thukydides: Die Stellung des Menschen im geschichtlichen Prozess Municha monograph that has earned a central place among the most important recent discussions of Thucydides. Indeed any serious attempt to resolve the problems that currently 11 B. The old questions about Thucydides, eclipsed to some extent in an earlier period, have come forth again, and, joined by new and even more insistent ones, demand renewed attention.
Yet an inquiry into the nature of the text inevitably shows some resemblances to older movements in scholarship and has much to learn from them. Unitarian critics have inculcated a respect for the text as it is, rather than as it dialoho have been at some earlier stage in tucididrs author’s career.
They have been much less likely than Unitarian critics to smooth over the difficult shifts in tone or divergences in assessment. For the Unitarian there was a single Thucydidean view of each major figure, topic, and undertaking; we had only to be clever enough, or vague enough, to recognize and articulate it. Croix, Origins of the Peloponnesian War London 5. Schadewaldt’s attempt to account for this tension by a hypothesis about the stages of composition is subject to serious objections, as E.
Kapp showed in his review Gnomon 6 Schadewaldt’s monograph is a good example both of the perspicacity of the Separatist school at its best, and of the inadequacy of chronological hypotheses to account for the tensions within the text.
Bonnemphasized that Thucydides was reacting to criticism of Pericles cf.
Plato Gorgias e ; other Separatists have also tended to concentrate on the question of political leadership. Other issues, however, may have been more pressing, above all the debates about the advisability of renewed attempts at empire and, at a more philosophical level, about the relationship between power and morality. Bartoletti [Leipzig ] 6f. Introduction 11 Critics of this school remind us how controversial and radical was Thucydides’ treatment of the war and how willing he was to diallogo widely held attitudes, including those most cherished by his own social class.
Throughout it are to be found startling juxtapositions, contrasts, abrupt transitions, shattered parallelisms.