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):||5 March 2018|
|PDF File Size:||1.99 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||3.44 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
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.
See Gomme in HCT on 2. After King Minos cleared the seas of piracy, many coastal meloos lived in greater security 1.
But the change was more than a momentary one, for the Athenians became thereby the leader of one of the two great coalitions in the Greek world, a naval empire ranged against the formidable land power of Sparta and her Peloponnesian League 1. The first trireme had arrived and Paches had time to read the decree and was about to do what had been resolved, when the second ship draws upon the shore, dialogk prevented the destruction.
The episode at Plataea illustrates the warning delivered by Athenian speakers to the first Conference at Sparta reported in book 1: Rather by witnessing and assessing the events and characters described by the author the readers are led to tune their own reactions to those of the text, and eventually to assimilate their attitudes to those of the author. When the theme of the greatness of its subject, announced at the beginning of the work, is reintroduced at the end of chapter 21, the unpretentious prose style slips away and the third person narrator of the opening sentence yields to a new speaker, the war itself: Egermann, “Thukydides iiber die Art seiner Reden und iiber seine Darstellung der Kriegsgeschehnisse,” Histori a 21 Pericles comes into focus only gradually and late.
As in that passage the Athenians are the center of attention. Halle, of the policy planning staff of the Department of State.
Trade, Ethiopia, is again alluded to in 1. What were the attitudes, values, and assumptions of thatreadership? For by distrusting their own insufficiency and the cleverness of their opponents, that is by fearing that they would get the worst of discussions and be taken unprepared by the cleverness of other’s intellects, they moved boldly to action. In the sense of “reason and intelligence” it often contrasts with orge, “passion and anger”; in the sense of “planning and rational control” it contrasts with tyche, “change and indeterminacy.
He was, moreover, confident of Athens’ ability to sustain a war with the Peloponnesians, emphasizing in his analysis the importance of precisely the naval power andfinancialreserve that operated so strongly in the Archaeology. If the Melians lose, which is highly likely, they will come to bitterly regret their foolish optimism. What emerged was called a democracy but was in fact domination by the pre-eminent man. The Peloponnesian War lasted from to BC.
It follows immediately after another Spartan speaker, King Archidamus, has expounded the reasons for caution and delay ch. The critic must also take into consideration the reader’s expectations.
Easier said than done! And although in the short run the Peloponnesian arguments are flawed, over a longer period they can prove correct. For varying views on the structure see F. The tone at this point in the work is confident and optimistic, a corollary to the idea of progress that we encounter in the.
The analysis of events seems to compel the conclusion that Athens has both the power and the qualities that should prevail in a war with Sparta and her allies. For he thinks himself intelligent because you have afforded him the means of showing his intelligence.
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. With a hint of sarcasm Thucydides affirms the sincerity of the Spartan concern about the gods, but goes on to observe that the Spartans knew that Pericles was related to the guilty ones on his mother’s side and thought that if he were removed Athenian affairs might make easier progress.
They argue that the plague is not to be identified with any known disease but is an illness that has since become extinct or dormant.
History was the projection of moral qualities and conflicts. The Peloponnesian War had begun. For a second, just in passing, we detect aflickerof irony—what seemed to them an advantage turns out to be a step toward disaster.
The fleet that transported this army had 38 ships: But we are inferior, and if we practice and make counter preparations it will take time. Pericles has just been fined and removed from the generalship.
Rather retaliation is to be undertaken, swiftly and with all strength. When Thebes sent a larger force against the city, the Plataeans asked for help from their ally, Athens, and prepared for a siege.
Hence it is no longer binding on them and they need not submit to arbitration. The work begins, as we have seen, with an apparent repudiation of the methods of rhetorical composition. This question is reinforced by the outcome of the first of the two “causes of complaint and grievances,” the Athenian alliance with Corcyra. The Athenian rejection of this embassy’s demands leads to a digression on the two most brilliant Greeks of their day, Themistocles of Athens and Pausanias of Sparta.
I could have wished that the reputations of many brave men were not to be imperilled in the mouth of a single individual, to stand or fall according as he spoke well or ill.
One point of translation requires explanation. 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 Melians made a number of sorties, at one point capturing part of the Athenians’ lines, but failed to break the siege. For men can endure to hear others praised only so long as they can severally persuade themselves of their own ability to equal the actions recounted: Although it has been another of the factors omitted or sketchily examined in the first book, only in description of the war itself in book 2 does its full significance emerge.
If we suspect a progression in the reader’s attitudes, then we should be prepared to consider the text itself as a progression, that is the first part of the work may reflect attitudes, assumptions, and ideas that are eventually modified, restated, subverted or totally contravened.
Throughout much of the first book political leadership is a rather peripheral issue.