腓利二世
2009-6
华中师范大学出版社
徐晓旭
291
254000
无
这《腓利二世：霸权与泛希腊主义》是在作者博士学论文（‘Philip Ⅱ：Hegemony and Panhellenism’，东北师范大学世界古典文明史研究所，2001年）的基础上修改写成的。它研究的问题是马其顿王腓利二世谋求希腊霸权的行动与泛希腊主义之间的互动关系。 我希望这《腓利二世：霸权与泛希腊主义》能够证明：伴随着腓利对希腊事务的介入，作为一种传统的族群政治意识形态的泛希腊主义分裂成了三个“派别”。我尝试性地将它们称为“反腓利的泛希腊主义”、“亲腓利的泛希腊主义”和“腓利自我推动的泛希腊主义”。从本质上说，这三种泛希腊主义是对“希腊人一蛮族人对立”、“希腊人的共同利益”等传统的族群政治话语在新形势下的不同操纵。德摩斯提尼和伊索克拉底都留下了大量含有泛希腊主义观点的演说词；前者可被看作反腓利的泛希腊主义者的代表，后者则是亲腓利的泛希腊主义者的代表。通常，学者们并没有将埃斯奇奈斯视为泛希腊主义者。但我希望我的论证能够让人们相信，埃斯奇奈斯原来是一个反腓利的泛希腊主义者，后来转变成了亲腓利的泛希腊主义者。
这本书是在作者博士学论文（‘Philip Ⅱ：Hegemony and Panhellenism’，东北师范大学世界古典文明史研究所，2001年）的基础上修改写成的。它研究的问题是马其顿王腓利二世谋求希腊霸权的行动与泛希腊主义之间的互动关系。
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
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． ……
无