Classical Greek Political Science in Action: Social Critique in Thucydides’ Mytilenean Debate and Melian Dialogue
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This article brings together two central episodes in Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War. The interpreted episodes are the Mytilenean Debate in Book III and the Melian Dialogue in Book V of the History. In the present study, these episodes are approached as original inquiries into moral and political matters, assuming the shape of subversive social criticism: immanent critique. A particular focus lies on the socio-political ordering principles scrutinized in the Thucydidean episodes. In the Mytilenean Debate, it is the principle of expediency (τὸ ξύμφορον) that is given the upper hand, whereas in the Melian dialogue the dominating social ordering principle is that of safety and survival (σωτηρία). In each episode, a contending point of view aims at undermining the pre-eminence of the stronger principle. However, the critique only succeeds if the subversion is managed from within, and if it pays outward allegiance to the frames determined by the supreme communal will.
Abstract
This article brings together two central episodes in Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War. The interpreted episodes are the Mytilenean Debate in Book III and the Melian Dialogue in Book V of the History. In the present study, these episodes are approached as original inquiries into moral and political matters, assuming the shape of subversive social criticism: immanent critique. A particular focus lies on the socio-political ordering principles scrutinized in the Thucydidean episodes. In the Mytilenean Debate, it is the principle of expediency (τὸ ξύμφορον) that is given the upper hand, whereas in the Melian dialogue the dominating social ordering principle is that of safety and survival (σωτηρία). In each episode, a contending point of view aims at undermining the pre-eminence of the stronger principle. However, the critique only succeeds if the subversion is managed from within, and if it pays outward allegiance to the frames determined by the supreme communal will.
참고문헌 (30)
- Allison, J., "Thucydides Between History and Literature", pp.257~271 (2013), De Gruyter
- Bodin, L., "Diodote contre Cléon. Quelques aperçus sur la dialectique de Thucydide", Revue des Études Anciennes, 42, pp.36~52 (1940)
- Bosworth, A. B., "The Humanitarian Aspect of the Melian Dialogue", The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 113, pp.30~44 (1993)
- Bradeen, D. W., "The Popularity of the Athenian Empire", Historia: Zeitschrift für alte Geschichte, 9(3), pp.257~269 (1960)
- Cancurtaran, B. S., "The Interplay Between Political Theory and Movies:Bridging Two Worlds", pp.217~234 (2019), Springer
- Cartledge, P., "Democracy: A Life" (2016), Oxford University Press
- Cornford, F. M., "Thucydides Mythistoricus" (1907), Edward Arnold
- Euben, J. P., "The Battle of Salamis and the Beginnings of Political Theory", Political Theory, 14(3), pp.359~390 (1986)
- Finley, M. I., "Athenian Demagogues", Past & Present, 21, pp.3~24 (1962)
- Giddens, A., "The Constitution of Society" (1984), Cambridge University Press
- Gillis, D., "The Revolt at Mytilene", The American Journal of Philology, 91(1), pp.38~47 (1971)
- Hawthorn, G., "Thucydides on Politics: Back to the Present" (2014), Cambridge University Press
- Koselleck, R., "Gechichtliche Grundbegriffe: Historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland (Band 2: E-G)" (1972), Klett-Cotta
- Legon, R. P., "Megara and Mytilene", Phoenix, 22(3), pp.200~225 (1968)
- Lloyd, G. E. R., "Ancient Worlds, Modern Reflections: Philosophical Perspectives on Greek and Chinese Science and Culture" (2004), Cambridge University Press
- Low, P., "Interstate Relations in Classical Greece: Morality and Power" (2007), Cambridge University Press
- Ober, J., "Political Dissent in Democratic Athens" (1998), Princeton University Press
- Ober, J., "Brill’s Companion to Thucydides", pp.131~159 (2006), Brill
- Orwin, C., "The Just and the Advantageous in Thucydides: The Case of the Mytilenean Debate", The American Political Science Review, 78(2), pp.485~494 (1984)
- Ostwald, M., "Diodotus, Son of Eucrates", Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 20, pp.5~13 (1979)
- Romilly, J., "Thucydides and Athenian Imperialism" (1963), Barnes and Noble
- 박성우, "Thucydides on the Fate of the Democratic Empire", Journal of International and Area Studies, 15(1), pp.93~109 (2008), 국제학연구소[DOI]
- Raaflaub, K. A., "Brill’s Companion to Thucydides", pp.189~222 (2006), Brill
- Schmitt, C., "Politische Theologie: Vier Kapitel zur Lehre von der Souverenitet" (2005), Duncker & Humblot
- Strauss, L., "The Concept of the Political", pp.97~122 (2007), University of Chicago Press
- Särkelä, A. A., "Immanente Kritik und soziales Leben: Selbsttransformative Praxis nach Hegel und Dewey" (2018), Klostermann
- Treu, M., "Athen und Melos und der Melierdialog des Thukydides", Historia:Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, 1(3), pp.253~273 (1954)
- Wassermann, F. M., "Post-Periclean Democracy in Action: The Mytilenean Debate (Thuc. III 37-48)", Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, 87, pp.27~41 (1956)
- Wet, B. X. de, "Periclean Imperial Policy and the Mytilenean Debate", Acta Classica, 6, pp.106~124 (1963)
- Wohl, V., "The Oxford Handbook of Thucydides", pp.443~458 (2017), Oxford University Press