腓利二世

前言

　　這《腓利二世：霸權(quán)與泛希臘主義》是在作者博士學(xué)論文（‘Philip Ⅱ：Hegemony and Panhellenism’，東北師范大學(xué)世界古典文明史研究所，2001年）的基礎(chǔ)上修改寫成的。它研究的問題是馬其頓王腓利二世謀求希臘霸權(quán)的行動與泛希臘主義之間的互動關(guān)系?！　∥蚁Ｍ@《腓利二世：霸權(quán)與泛希臘主義》能夠證明：伴隨著腓利對希臘事務(wù)的介入，作為一種傳統(tǒng)的族群政治意識形態(tài)的泛希臘主義分裂成了三個“派別”。我嘗試性地將它們稱為“反腓利的泛希臘主義”、“親腓利的泛希臘主義”和“腓利自我推動的泛希臘主義”。從本質(zhì)上說，這三種泛希臘主義是對“希臘人一蠻族人對立”、“希臘人的共同利益”等傳統(tǒng)的族群政治話語在新形勢下的不同操縱。德摩斯提尼和伊索克拉底都留下了大量含有泛希臘主義觀點的演說詞；前者可被看作反腓利的泛希臘主義者的代表，后者則是親腓利的泛希臘主義者的代表。通常，學(xué)者們并沒有將埃斯奇奈斯視為泛希臘主義者。但我希望我的論證能夠讓人們相信，埃斯奇奈斯原來是一個反腓利的泛希臘主義者，后來轉(zhuǎn)變成了親腓利的泛希臘主義者。

內(nèi)容概要

　　這本書是在作者博士學(xué)論文（‘Philip Ⅱ：Hegemony and Panhellenism’，東北師范大學(xué)世界古典文明史研究所，2001年）的基礎(chǔ)上修改寫成的。它研究的問題是馬其頓王腓利二世謀求希臘霸權(quán)的行動與泛希臘主義之間的互動關(guān)系。

書籍目錄

Preface in ChinesePrefaceAbbreviations, Texts and ConventionsIntroductionChapter 1  Philip's Panhellenic shows in the middle phase of the Third Sacred WarChapter 2  Panhellenism in Demosthenes' earlier speeches against PhilipChapter 3  Philip's gains and Panhellenism, 348-346　1. The two Panhellenic embassies, in 348/7 and in 346　2. The Peace of Philocrates and Panhellenism　3. The end of the Third Sacred War and PanhellenismChapter 4  Panhellenism in Isocrates' PhilippusChapter 5  Philip's Panhellenie policies from late 346 to 342Chapter 6  Panhellenism in Demosthenes' later speeches against Philip　1. Second Philippic　2. On the Chersonese　3. Third Philippic　4. Fourth Philippic　5. On the Crown　6. Did Demosthenes' emphases on Athenian interests contradict his Panhellenism?　7. The result of Demosthenes' Panhellenic resistance to PhilipChapter 7  The Hellenic League and the hegemony of Philip　1. The preliminary settlements　2. The formal establishment of the Hellenic League and Philip's hegemonyConclusionBibliography

章節(jié)摘錄

　　The tripartition was a result of different utilizations of Panhellenism by Philip， Philip's supporters， and Philip's opponents in policy and propaganda. It is not impossible that Panhellenism would have been made use of by different persons in different manners at the same time. One may notice that Isocrates and Philip appeared to stand on the same front to a considerable extent； Demosthenes stood opposite. Accordingly in scholarship there has been a polarity of viewpoints: one extreme is to take Isocrates and Philip as representing truly Panhellenic interests and Demosthenes as not having Panhellenic concerns at all； the other extreme maintains that Demosthenes strove as the champion of Panhellenic liberty， while Philip， supported by Isocrates in propaganda， was destroying it. Obviously， both extreme opinions share a common characteristic， that is to say， they both deny that the two sides—— Isocrates and Philip on one side， and Demosthenes on the other——may have cherished Panhellenism at the same time.　　Since the nineteenth century， scholars' opinions on this question have been influenced by the social and political circumstances of their own countries. The British democratic historian Grote （1869） enthusiastically eulogizes Dernosthenes thus: But what invests the purpose and policy of Demosthenes with peculiar grandeur， is， that they were not simply Athenian， but in an eminent degree Panhellenic also. It was not Athens alone which he sought to defend against Philip， but the whole Hellenic world. In this he towers above the greatest of his predecessors for half a century before his birth——Perikles， Archidamus， Agesilaus， Epaminondas， whose policy was Athenian，Spartan，Theban，rather than Hellenic．　　……

圖書封面

圖書標(biāo)簽Tags

無

評論、評分、閱讀與下載

---

    腓利二世 PDF格式下載

---